Loading...

​Mathematical Modeling and Optimization for Emission Parameter SO2 of Dual Fuel CI Engine using Mustard Stalk

DOI: 10.18805/ag.D-5373    | Article Id: D-5373 | Page : 284-289
Citation :- ​Mathematical Modeling and Optimization for Emission Parameter SO 2 of Dual Fuel CI Engine using Mustard Stalk.Agricultural Science Digest.2022.(42): 284-289
Lakhwinder Singh rakhra100@gmail.com
Address : Punjabi University Neighbourhood Campus, Rampura-Phul, Bathinda-151 104, Punjab, India.
Submitted Date : 11-05-2021
Accepted Date : 29-07-2021

Abstract

Background: Punjab (India) an agricultural state with twelve major crops sown round the year, produces 14.53 MT as crop residue. This huge quantity of crop residue poses a serious problem of stubble burning in the fields, leading to an alarming level of air pollution across the state, along with a potential loss of fuel usable for power generation. About 1000 MW of electricity can be generated from this crop residue by the proper utilization (Singh et al. 2015). 
Methods: Characteristics of various crop residues were evaluated experimentally and further investigations have been carried out to study the performance of producer gas derived from mustard stalk using a downdraft gasifier in combination with diesel oil in dual fuel diesel engine, where effect of various input parameters such as type of fuel, equivalence ratio and load on engine were studied on emission component SO2. Results were modeled and optimized through central composite design (CCD) of response surface methodology (RSM) using design of experiments technique to determine the most desirable mode of utilization. 
Result: It has been found that  fixed carbon (40.55%), sulphur (0.367%), moisture contents (6.88%) and nitrogen contents (1.314%) in mustard stalk is almost same as in coal, where as hydrogen (6.124%), oxygen (43.965%), volatile matter (68.93%), gross calorific values (3933 kcal/kg) of mustard stalk are more and ash content (6.65%) is less as compared to corresponding values for coal. In all the three modes of operations, SO2 increases with increase in load on the engine. ER has no effect in diesel alone mode but in dual modes with increase in ER further increases SO2 as high temperature producer gas and air along with sulphur enters the engine which further increases the value of SO2.

Keywords

​Central composite design Crop residue Design of experiments Downdraft gasifier Environmental pollution Response surface methodology Stubble burning Producer gas


References

  1. Aggarwal, G.C. (1994). Crop residue management on mechanized farms in India. International Journal of Energy. 19: 957-960.
  2. Akhtar, S.J., Priyam, A., Shaw, D. and Singh, R.K. (2016). Performance study of dual fuel engine using producer gas as secondary fuel. Journal of Carbon-Sci. Tech. 8(2): 63-71.
  3. Alkorta, I., Allica, J.H., Blanco, F., Garbisu, C., Gonzalez, B.A., Jose, Itoiz, C. and Mitre, A.J. (2001). Straw quality for its combustion in a straw fired power plant. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. 21: 249-258.
  4. Baraskar, S.S., Dhole A.E., Lata D.B. and Yarasu R.B. (2015). Mathematical modeling for the performance and emission parameters of dual fuel diesel engine using producer gas as secondary fuel, Journal of Biomass Conversion Biorefinery. 5: 257-270.
  5. Bhoi, P.R., Patel S.R., Singh R.N. and Sharma A.M. (2006). Performance evaluation of open core gasifier on multi fuels. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. 30: 575-579.
  6. Chauhan, S.M., Sharma N.R., Shukla V.K., Sharma R.K. and Kamal (2020). Assessment of biomass in engine emission reduction. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 79(1): 77-80.
  7. Das, D.K., Dash S.P. and Ghosal M.K. (2011). Performance study of a diesel engine by using producer gas from selected agricultural residues on dual-fuel mode of diesel-cum- producer gas. World Renewable Energy Congress (Sweden). 3541-3548.
  8. Jenkins, B.M and Bhatnagar, A.P (1991). On the electric power potential from paddy straw in the Punjab and the optimal size of the power generation station. International Journal of Bioresource Technology. 37: 35-41.  
  9. Johansson, L.S., Leckner B., Sjovall, P. and Tullin C. (2003), Particle emissions from biomass combustion in small combustors. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. 25: 435-446.
  10. Jorapur, R.M. and Rajvanshi, A.K. (1995). Development of a sugarcane leaf gasifier for electricity generation. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. 8(2): 91-98. 
  11. Jorgesen, U. and Sander B. (1997). Biomass requirement for power production: how to optimize the quality by agricultural management. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. 12: 145-147.
  12. Official website of Government of Punjab (India). http://punjabgovt.nic.in.
  13. Pandey P. (2010). Energy and emission analysis of dual fuel CI engines using diesel and biomass derived producer gas. Indian Journal of Air Pollution Control. 10: 49-54.
  14. Polakova, J., Holec, J. and Soukup, J. (2021). Biomass production in farms in less favoured areas: is it feasible to reconcile energy objectives with production and soil protection. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. Vol. 148.
  15. Quadir, G.A., Rifau A., Seetharamu, K.N. and Zainal, Z.A. (2002). Experiment investigation of a downdraft biomass gasifier. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. 23: 283-289.
  16. Senthilkumar, K. and Vivekanandan, S. (2016). Investigating the biogas as secondary fuel for CI engine. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences. 11: 155-163.
  17. Singh, J. and Singh, L. (2015). Assessment of crop residue potential for power generation using geographical information system. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 74: 34-37.
  18. Singh, R.N., Prakash, R. and Murugan, S. (2013). Utilization of biomass based fuel in a naturally aspirated diesel engine. Procedia Engineering. 51: 501-507. 
  19. Singh, K.M., Singh H. and Mohapatra, S.K. (2016). Investigation of performance and emission characterstics of a dual fuel compression ignition engine using sugarcane baggasse and carpentry waste- producer gas as an induced fuel. Journal of Energy Research and Environment Technology. 3: 115-120.

Global Footprints