Sivaraja Et Al PDF

Energy 139 (2017) 118e141
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
Compression ignition engine performance modelling using hybrid

MCDM techniques for the selection of optimum fish oil biodiesel blend
at different injection timings
C.M. Sivaraja, G. Sakthivel*
School of Mechanical and Building Sciences, VIT University Chennai, India
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The increasing demand on energy due to population growth and rise of living standards has led to
Received 13 November 2016 considerable use of fossil fuels which cause environmental pollution and depletion of fossil fuels. Bio-
Received in revised form diesel proves to be a good alternative for fossil fuels. But sustainability of biodiesel is the key factor for
7 June 2017
determining it as a fuel in diesel engines. It needs identification of proper blend of biodiesel and diesel to
Accepted 20 July 2017
meet the efficiency, engine suitability and environmental acceptability. Alternative fuel blend evaluation
Available online 28 July 2017
in IC engine fuel technologies is a very important strategic decision tool involving balancing between a
number of criteria such as performance, emission and combustion parameters and opinions from
Keywords:
Fish oil biodiesel
different decision maker of IC engine experts. Hence, it is a MCDM problem. This paper describes the
Engine application of hybrid Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques for the selection of optimum
Performance biodiesel blend in IC engine. FAHP-TOPSIS, FAHP-VIKOR and FAHP-ELECTRE, are the three methods that
Emission are used to evaluate the best blend. The performances of these MCDM methods are also compared with
Combustion MCDM each other. Here, FAHP is used to determine the relative weights of the criteria, whereas TOPSIS, VIKOR
Blend selection and ELECTRE are used for obtaining the final ranking of alternatives. A single cylinder, constant speed and
direct injection diesel engine with a rated output of 4.4 kW is used for exploratory analysis of evaluation
criteria at different load conditions. Diesel, B20, B40, B60, B80 and B100 fuel blends are prepared by
varying the proportion of biodiesel. Similarly, Brake thermal efficiency (BTE), Exhaust gas temperature
(EGT), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Smoke, Hydrocarbon (HC), Carbon monoxide (CO), Carbon dioxide (CO2),
Ignition Delay, Combustion Duration and Maximum Rate of Pressure Rise are considered as the evalu-
ation criteria. The ranking of alternatives obtained by FAHP-TOPSIS, FAHP-VIKOR and FAHP-ELECTRE are
B20 > Diesel > B40 > B60 > B80 > B100 for 21 bTDC and 24 bTDC and Diesel > B20 > B40 > B60 >
B80 > B100 for 27 bTDC. It shows that B20 is ranked first for 21 bTDC and 24 bTDC and second for
27 bTDC injection timing. Hence, it is concluded that mixing 20% biodiesel with diesel is suggested as a
good replacement for diesel. This paper provides a new insight of applying MCDM techniques to evaluate
the best fuel blend by decision makers such as engine manufactures and R&D engineers to meet the fuel
economy and emission norms to empower green revolution.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction estimated that by 2030, the per-capita energy consumption may

have grown to a rate of 0.7% per year [1]. In meantime, several
The world is currently confronted with the twin crisis of fossil studies have indicated that petroleum reserves will near an end
fuel depletion and environmental degradation. The search for between 2050 and 2075 [2]. In order to address both these prob-
alternative fuels, which possesses a harmonious correlation with lems of energy requirement and energy depletion, the search for a
sustainable development, energy conservation, efficiency and viable alternative fuel is carried out. Biodiesel proves to be a good
environmental preservation, has become highly pronounced. It is alternative by guaranteeing energy security. It also provides
renewable, biodegradable and 100% natural fuel with properties
similar to diesel. It reduces global warming and environmental
* Corresponding author. meltdown occurring due to massive carbon footprints left by the
E-mail address: krishnasakthivel@gmail.com (G. Sakthivel).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.134
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.M. Sivaraja, G. Sakthivel / Energy 139 (2017) 118e141 119
fossil fuels. Considerable research work is going around the globe in 2. Experimental procedure
search of alternative renewable fuels for diesel engines. The
important advantage in using biodiesel as an alternate fuel is that it A single cylinder, four stroke, air cooled and CI engine of con-
can be used in diesel engine without any modification. stant speed is tested at different injection timings 21, 24 , 27
Biodiesel can be produced from renewable resources such as bTDC. The schematic diagram of the engine setup is shown in Fig. 1.
vegetable oil, animal fat and waste cooking oil [3]. The cultivation of The engine was loaded by electric dynamometer to provide the
crops for biodiesel production poses a threat to food security and brake load. Initially the engine was started with diesel and allowed
contributes to decline in soil fertility [4]. At the same time, the to have a warm-up for about 10 min. The AVL 437 smoke meter and
animal fat present in the waste parts of fish serves to be a good AVL 444 di gas analyser were used to measure the smoke and
source of crude oil for biodiesel. Jayasinghe and Hawboldt reviewed exhaust emission of the engine. The exhaust gas analyser was used
the production process physical, chemical and thermal properties to measure the levels of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide
of biofuel from fish waste and suggested that waste fish oil exhibits (CO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and hydrocarbon (HC) and smoke
better engine performance [5]. A few researchers have used fish oil meter is used to measure smoke density. The AVL 615 indimeter
as a biodiesel to study the performance and emission characteris- software, along with the necessary instruments and sensors were
tics of Internal Combustion (IC) engine [6e18]. Here an attempt has used to measure the in-cylinder pressure and crank angle for the
been made to use ethyl ester of fish oil as a biodiesel to study the combustion. The AVL water cooled piezoelectric transducer is used
performance, exhaust emissions and combustion parameters. to measure in-cylinder pressure. The charge output of the trans-
Sustainability of biodiesel is also the key factor for using it as a fuel ducer was amplified into an equivalent voltage signal using a
in diesel engines which requires evaluation of suitable biodiesel- suitable charge amplifier. The piezoelectric transducer produces a
diesel blend. The performance, emission and combustion parame- charge output, which is proportional to the in-cylinder pressure.
ters of the engine are considered at different load conditions for The pressure data was collected over 100 consecutive cycles at each
choosing the optimum blend which is a difficult task. In the existing crank angle and averaged. Specification details of the engine are
work, most of the researchers have discussed their operating fuel given in Table 1. A series of tests were carried out at a constant
with reference of NOx, smoke and BTE performance. Based on the speed of 1500 rpm and variable loads in steps of 25% from no load
reduction of NOx and smoke and increase of BTE, the best blend is to full load. For each load, Brake power is calculated using constant
selected without considering other influencing parameters such as speed and the corresponding torque. Fuel blends of B0, B20, B40,
HC and CO [15e17,19e21]. In this paper, to overcome the short- B60, B80 and B100 were used as engine fuel. Each test was repeated
comings of the existing research, all the performance, emission and three times to ensure the reproducibility of data and shown in
combustion characteristics are considered. Tables 2e4 for different injection timings 21, 24 and 27 bTDC
MCDM provides sophisticated methodological tools that are in
support of the decision makers in facing complex real-world de- 3. Methods
cisions. The application of MCDM in IC engine has been gradually
increasing in the past few decades. Poh and Ang [22] applied an 3.1. FAHP method
AHP technique to identify and evaluate the best alternative fuel for
land transportation in Singapore. Yedla et al. [23] developed a AHP is a method proposed by Saaty (1980) [33]. In AHP, the
multi-criteria decision making model for the selection of environ- decision problem is structured hierarchically at different levels
mentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Winebrake and with each level consisting of a finite number of elements [34]. A
Creswick [24] have predicted the future of hydrogen fuelling sys- fuzzy set is characterized by a membership function which assigns
tems for transportation using multi-criteria decision making a grade of membership ranging between zero and one to each
method with Analytical Hierarchy Process. Tzeng et al. [25] applied object of the class [35]. Laarhoven and Pedrycz [36] have applied
multi-criteria techniques namely TOPSIS and VIKOR to identify the fuzzy logic principles in AHP and proposed it as FAHP. In general,
alternative fuel buses for public transportation. Rassafi, Vaziri and triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are used according to the
Azadani [26] applied MCDM techniques for selecting alternative situation. In common practice, the triangular form of the mem-
fuels for the transportation sector. Tuzkaya [27] implemented FAHP bership function is used most often [37,38]. The reason for using a
for evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes. triangular fuzzy number is that it is intuitively easy for the
Sapuan et al. [28] proposed AHP for selecting the suitable com- decision-makers to use and calculate. In addition, modeling using
posite material for automobile bumper beam. Perimenis et al. [29] triangular fuzzy numbers has proved to be an effective way for
have proposed a decision support model for the assessment of formulating decision problems where the information available is
biofuels [29]. Tsita and Pilavachi [30] performed the evaluation of subjective and imprecise [38e40]. According to the nature of TFN, it
alternative fuels for the Greek road transport sector using the an- can be defined as a triplet. The TFN can be represented as
alytic hierarchy process. Sakthivel et al. [31] applied MCDM for an A ¼ ðL; M; UÞ; where L and U represent the fuzzy probability be-
automobile purchase model. Sakthivel and Ilangkumaran [32] tween the lower and upper boundaries of evaluation. The trian-
proposed a hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate the fuel blend in gular fuzzy number is shown in Fig. 2. In the literature, FAHP has
IC engine. been widely applied in many complicated decision making prob-
From the literature, there is no trace of research that deals with lems. Chou and Liang have applied FAHP for shipping company
selection of suitable fuel blend based on the performance, com- performance evaluation [41]. Chang et al. [42] have used the FAHP
bustion and emission characteristics using MCDM technique. This method to determine the weights of criteria for performance
paper proposed a novel MCDM technique for evaluating optimum evaluation of airports. Similarly, Hsieh et al. [39] proposed fuzzy
blend. In this paper, three MCDM methods, i.e. Fuzzy Analytical MCDM model for choosing the optimum design model for public
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) integrated with (VIKOR), Technique for office building. Hwang and Hwang [43] proposed FAHP method for
Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and food service strategy evaluation process. Ayag and Ozdemir [44]
Elimination and Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) are applied to evaluated machine tool alternatives by applying an intelligent
identify the suitable blend. List of all alternatives and different approach based on FAHP. Huang et al. [45] presented a FAHP
performance criteria are taken into account for these methods. The method for selecting government sponsored development projects.
performance of three methods is also compared with each other. Shyjith et al., [46] Ilangkumaran and Kumanan [47] have proposed
120 C.M. Sivaraja, G. Sakthivel / Energy 139 (2017) 118e141
Literature Identification of Performance, Emission& combustion

Survey Criteria
Structuring decision hierarchy

Stage 1
Approval of
Decision hierarchy
Exploratory
details
Stage 2
Establish Pair-wise comparison matrix

Criteria weight
by FAHP
Direct eigenvector & max eigen value
Derive consistency index(CI) Stage 3
N
CI is acceptable or not
TOPSIS
VIKOR
Stage 4
Determination of final rank
ELECTRE
Selecting the best blend
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the proposed model for blend selection.

Table 1 three levels: overall goal of the problem at the top, multi criteria
Engine specifications. that defines criteria in the middle and decision criteria at the bot-
Items Specification tom [52]. The objective of hierarchy is ultimately to find out the
Make Kirloskar
alternatives.
Cylinder number 1
Type Four-stroke, stationary, constant speed, direct injection, Step 2- Establishment of pair wise comparison matrices:
air cooled, diesel engine
Bore x stroke 80 mm 110 mm
For proper pair wise comparison of matrices, the opinion of
Displacement 661 cc
Compression ratio 17.5: 1 experts has been collected. Pair wise comparison has been carried
Max. power/speed 4.4 kW/1500 rpm out to find out the importance of criteria/elements superior or
Injection timing 21 BTDC inferior to other criteria/elements. The crisp pair-wise comparison
Injection pressure 210 bar
matrix A is fuzzified using the triangular fuzzy number M ¼ (l,m, u),
the l and u represent lower and upper bound range respectively
that might exist in the preferences expressed by the decision
AHP for the optimum maintenance strategy selection in textile
maker. The membership function of the triangular fuzzy numbers
industry. Khorasani and Bafruei [48] developed FAHP for the se-
M1, M3,M5,M7, and M9 are used to represent the assessment from
lection of potential suppliers in the pharmaceutical industry. Cal-
equally preferred (M1), moderately preferred (M3), strongly
abrese et al. [49] applied FAHP to manage intellectual capital assets.
preferred (M5), very strongly preferred (M7), and extremely
Parameshwaran et al. [50] proposed FAHP to select the best robot
preferred (M9). This paper employs a Triangular Fuzzy Number
by considering several criteria. Jakiel and Fabianowski [51] sug-
(TFN) to express the membership functions of the aforementioned
gested FAHP to assess the highway RC bridge structure. The pro-
expression values on five scales which are used for FAHP listed in
cedural steps involved in FAHP method are listed below:
Table 5.
Let c ¼ fcj jj ¼ 1; 2; …::; ng be a set of criteria. The result of the
Step 1- Model construction and problem structuring:
pair-wise comparison on “n” criteria can be summarized in an (n x
n) evaluation matrix A in which every element aij ði$j ¼ 1; 2; …:; nÞ is
A complex decision making problem is structured using a hi-
erarchy. The FAHP initially breaks down a complex MCDM problem the quotient of weights of the criteria, as shown:
into a hierarchy of inter-related decision elements (criteria). The 2 3
problem should be stated clearly and decomposed into a rational
a11 a12 / a1n
6 a21 a22 / a2n 7
system such as a network. With FAHP, the criteria are arranged in a 6
A¼4 7; a ¼ 1; aji ¼ 1 aij ; aij s0: (1)
« « 1 « 5 ii
hierarchical structure similar to a family tree. The structure can be
an1 an2 … ann
obtained from the opinion of decision makers through brain-
storming or other appropriate methods. A hierarchy has at least
Table 2
Experimental performance and emission readings observed from engine for various alternative blends at 21 bTDC.
LOAD CRITERIA
BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

(ppm) (%) (%) (%vol) (%vol) (ppm) ( C) ( CA) ( CA) (bar/ CA)
0% Diesel 233 9 0 1.8 0.07 27 142 18.58 44.68 5.88

B 20 227 15 0 1.5 0.06 26 145 18.4 43.6 5.08
B 40 216 14.9 0 1.6 0.06 25 148 18.12 42.42 4.81
B 60 209 17.6 0 1.7 0.05 24 150 18.08 42.98 4.55
B 80 183 20.5 0 1.8 0.05 23 151 17.58 40.8 4.55
B 100 174 24 0 1.8 0.04 21 154 17.52 39.06 4.01
25% Diesel 501 16.1 17.92 3 0.07 32 196 17.68 47.18 7.95
B 20 505 18.7 18.71 2.6 0.06 29 199 17.25 45.52 7.48
B 40 495 21.9 17.58 2.7 0.06 26 202 17.02 45.04 6.88
B 60 483 19.7 16.61 2.9 0.05 23 205 16.92 44.6 6.35
B 80 476 22.7 16.29 3 0.05 23 208 16.48 42.76 6.08
B 100 475 27.9 15.43 3.1 0.04 22 209 15.64 40.52 5.61
50% Diesel 989 20.4 26.22 4.4 0.06 32 241 16.82 49.82 9.09
B 20 976 23.5 28.14 3.9 0.06 30 244 16.37 48.12 8.15
B 40 957 25.8 26.37 3.9 0.05 30 247 16.02 47.1 7.28
B 60 939 24.2 24.77 4.2 0.05 28 249 15.92 46.06 6.52
B 80 926 29.3 24.14 4.3 0.04 25 252 15.76 44.24 6.15
B 100 909 32 23.15 4.4 0.04 24 255 15.02 43.18 5.48
75% Diesel 1376 28.5 31.45 5.9 0.07 37 296 15.78 51.14 9.09
B 20 1331 28.7 31.94 5.5 0.06 33 301 15.28 49.8 8.29
B 40 1323 29.6 30.14 5.6 0.06 32 307 15.01 49.48 8.02
B 60 1317 34.1 29 5.8 0.05 31 311 14.76 47.82 7.22
B 80 1302 39.4 28.06 6 0.04 29 315 14.24 45.46 6.95
B 100 1289 42.5 27.6 6.1 0.03 26 318 13.16 45.8 6.28
100% Diesel 1686 39.2 33.38 7.9 0.08 38 357 14.86 52.82 9.29
B 20 1651 42 35 7.3 0.07 34 365 14.68 52.68 8.76
B 40 1633 43 32.85 7.4 0.06 33 371 14.46 51 8.29
B 60 1618 45 30.76 7.9 0.05 33 362 14.14 49.18 8.29
B 80 1596 51.5 30.21 8 0.05 32 360 14.06 47.08 7.49
B 100 1584 52.8 29.68 8.1 0.04 30 374 13.42 46.42 7.22
Table 3
LOAD CRITERIA

0% Diesel 239 5 0 2.2 0.07 29 157 16 46.28 4.55

B 20 221 10.1 0 2 0.06 27 164 15.9 45.16 4.01
B 40 219 12.4 0 2 0.06 26 165 15.82 43.08 4.01
B 60 201 14.2 0 2 0.05 25 168 15.44 44.44 3.48
B 80 191 11.8 0 2 0.05 24 166 15.42 42.68 3.48
B 100 178 20.5 0 2 0.04 23 165 15.34 41.135 3.09
25% Diesel 5 19 15.2 17.31 3.2 0.08 35 204 15.16 49.3 5.95
B 20 522 16 18.03 3.2 0.07 31 205 14.64 47.26 5.61
B 40 520 16.3 16.32 3.3 0.07 27 211 14.48 44.78 4.81
B 60 518 19.4 16.3 3.2 0.06 26 212 14.48 45.95 4.08
B 80 508 20.3 15.69 3.3 0.06 26 204 14.28 44.74 4.01
B 100 492 25.7 14.54 3.5 0.05 24 215 14.02 41.44 3.38
50% Diesel 986 18.5 26.17 4.8 0.09 38 266 14.22 52.14 6.42
B 20 987 18 27.05 4.5 0.08 34 266 13.64 50.52 5.61
B 40 964 18.6 24.49 4.5 0.08 29 270 13.52 47.38 4.81
B 60 944 23.6 23.99 4.7 0.07 31 270 13.42 48.46 4.4
B 80 935 23.4 21.73 4.7 0.07 29 262 13.24 45.24 4.28
B 100 904 31.4 22.55 4.9 0.06 28 272 12.84 47.12 3.8
75% Diesel 1357 25.8 30.71 6.2 0.09 37 321 13.72 53.28 6.42
B 20 1358 22.5 30.91 5.8 0.09 35 325 13.52 52.66 5.68
B 40 1351 23.9 30.41 6 0.08 33 330 13.46 48.28 5.35
B 60 1346 29.8 27.68 6.2 0.08 31 327 13.42 49.73 5.08
B 80 1340 28.8 27.16 6.2 0.07 29 332 12.66 51.76 4.55
B 100 1336 37.4 26.71 6.4 0.07 31 340 11.14 50.34 3.7
100% Diesel 1700 32 32.63 8.2 0.11 40 398 13.42 54.81 6.68
B 20 1689 33.3 34.78 7.4 0.09 37 392 13.38 53.42 6.15
B 40 1666 36 33.91 7.7 0.09 35 403 13.3 52.22 5.61
B 60 1642 41.3 31.99 7.7 0.08 32 398 13.04 50.55 5.35
B 80 1642 41.6 30.17 7.7 0.08 33 397 11.68 49.34 4.55
B 100 1606 50.9 29.68 8.2 0.07 32 399 10.92 48.94 3.9
Table 4
LOAD CRITERIA

0% Diesel 250 4 0 1.8 0.08 32 170 15.24 48.22 3.05

B 20 253 8 0 1.5 0.09 31 174 15.02 45.74 2.78
B 40 250 7.9 0 1.6 0.07 27 177 14.96 45.6 2.52
B 60 252 10.6 0 1.7 0.08 27 178 14.58 45.04 2.52
B 80 244 9.5 0 1.8 0.08 24 179 14.38 43.42 1.98
B 100 252 15 0 1.8 0.08 23 187 14.03 43.1 1.98
25% Diesel 538 8.1 16.01 3 0.09 36 210 14.84 53.34 4.69
B 20 532 9.7 17.39 2.6 0.08 34 222 14.34 51.76 4.32
B 40 529 12.9 16.01 2.7 0.08 32 217 14.16 50.28 3.45
B 60 526 10.7 15.39 2.9 0.07 29 226 13.96 48.28 3.55
B 80 523 13.7 15.38 3 0.07 28 223 13.86 45.66 3.05
B 100 515 18.9 15.14 3.1 0.06 27 220 13.22 46.7 2.72
50% Diesel 995 10.4 23.56 4.4 0.11 37 266 14.48 57.12 5.03
B 20 1002 12.5 25.76 3.9 0.1 35 273 14.18 55.24 4.59
B 40 986 14.8 23.86 3.9 0.09 33 277 14.06 54.46 3.92
B 60 975 13.2 23.54 4.2 0.09 30 277 13.56 55.52 3.78
B 80 970 18.3 22.89 4.3 0.08 28 279 13.07 51.38 3.43
B 100 951 23 21.15 4.4 0.08 27 286 12.78 50.14 3.18
75% Diesel 1432 17.5 28.09 5.9 0.11 37 335 13.88 61.44 5.16
B 20 1441 17.7 30.91 5.5 0.11 37 342 13.66 57.26 4.59
B 40 1415 18.6 29.2 5.6 0.09 37 350 13.32 55.76 4.32
B 60 1375 22.1 27.16 5.8 0.09 36 344 13.08 57.3 3.95
B 80 1360 26.4 26.61 6 0.08 33 344 12.16 50.78 3.52
B 100 1327 33.5 25.6 6.1 0.07 32 351 11.08 52.5 3.42
100% Diesel 1718 28.2 31.42 7.9 0.14 45 406 13.42 63.2 5.65
B 20 1701 31 33.49 7.3 0.14 43 416 13.13 59.44 5.39
B 40 1650 32 31.39 7.4 0.13 41 420 13.08 59 5.16
B 60 1643 31 30.17 7.9 0.13 41 420 12.62 58.08 4.59
B 80 1633 38.5 30.76 8 0.12 40 417 11.96 55.16 4.15
B 100 1637 43.8 29.68 8.1 0.11 40 423 10.78 57.28 3.71
Table 6
Random consistency index (RCI).
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RCI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49
3.2. TOPSIS method
Fig. 2. Decision hierarchy. The TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solution) was first developed by Hwang and Yoon [53]. TOPSIS
is relatively simple and fast, with systematic procedures [54]. It has
Step 3- Synthesis of priorities and the measurement of consis- been proved as one of the best methods in addressing the rank
tency index: reversal issue. The basic idea of TOPSIS is that the best decision
should be made to be closest to the ideal and farthest from the non-
The mathematical process is commenced to normalize and find ideal. Such ideal and negative-ideal solutions are computed by
the relative weights of each matrix. The relative weights are given considering the other alternatives [55]. The positive-ideal solution
by the right Eigen vector (W) corresponding to the largest Eigen is a solution that maximizes the benefit criteria and minimizes the
value ðlmax Þ, as cost criteria, whereas the negative ideal solution maximizes the
cost criteria and minimizes the benefit criteria [56,57]. Many re-
searchers have proposed the TOPSIS to solve the Multi Criteria
Aw ¼ lmax w (2)
Decision Making problem. Ho et al. proposed TOPSIS approaches
It should be noted that the quality of output of FAHP is strictly for supplier evaluation and selection [58]. Alemi et al. [59] used
related to the consistence of the pair-wise comparison judgments. TOPSIS for artificial lift method selection during different circum-
The consistency is defined by the relation between the entries of A : stances in oil fields. Etghani et al. [60] integrated NSGA-II and
aij x ajk ¼ aik . The Consistency Index (CI) is TOPSIS to optimize performance and emissions features of a diesel
engine using biodiesel. Tavana et al. [61] used hybrid approach of
CI ¼ ðlmax nÞ=ðn 1Þ (3) ANP and TOPSIS for prioritization of advanced-technology projects
at NASA. Soufil et al. [62] implemented TOPSIS to check feasibility of
Bio lubricants over available lubricants. Wang [63] suggested
TOPSIS to find relative preference relation.
Step 4- Evaluation of consistency ratio: The procedure of TOPSIS method is as follows:
Step 1: Normalization of the evaluation matrix: The process is to
The pair-wise comparison is normalized and priority vector is transform different scales and units among various criteria into
computed to weigh the elements of the matrix. The values in this common measurable units to allow comparisons across the criteria.
vector sum to 1. The consistency of the subjective input in the pair- The determination of normalized values of alternatives fij is the
wise comparison matrix can be determined by calculating a Con- numerical score of alternative j on criterion i. The corresponding
sistency Ratio (CR). In general, a CR having a value less than 0.1 is normalized value rij is defined as follows:
good [33]. The CR for each square matrix is obtained from dividing
CI values by Random Consistency Index (RCI) values.
fij
rij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PJ ffi j ¼ 1; 2; 3; …:; J; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; …:; n: (5)
CR ¼ CI/RCI (4)
j¼1 ij
f2
The RCI which is obtained from a large number of simulations Step 2: Construction of the weighted normalized decision ma-
runs and varies depending upon the order of matrix. Table 6 lists trix: The weighted normalized decision matrix can be calculated by
the values of the RCI for matrices of order 1 to 10 obtained by multiplying the normalized evaluation matrix rij with its associated
approximating random indices using a sample size of 500. The weight wi to obtain the result
acceptable CR range varies according to the size of matrix that is
0.05 for a 3 by 3 matrix, 0.08 for a 4 by 4 matrix and 0.1 for all larger
matrices having n 5. If the value of CR is equal to, or less than that vij ¼ wi *rij j ¼ 1; 2; 3; …:; J; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; …:; n: (6)
value, it implies that the evaluation within the matrix is acceptable
P
or indicates a good level of consistency in the comparative judg- where wi is given by, ni1 wi ¼ 1
ments represented in that matrix. In contrast, if CR is more than the Step 3: Determination of the positive and negative ideal solu-
acceptable value, inconsistency of judgments within that matrix tions: the positive ideal solution A* indicates the most preferable
has occurred and the evaluation process should therefore be alternative and the negative ideal solution A-indicate the least
reviewed, reconsidered and improved. preferable alternative.
Table 5
Nine-point scale of relative importance.
Degree of Preference Definition Explanation
(1 1 1) Equally Preferred (M1) Two activities contribute equally to the objective

(2 3 4) Moderately (M3) Experience & judgment slightly favour one activity over another
(4 5 6) Strongly (M5) Experience & judgment strongly or essentially favour one activity over another
(6 7 8) Very strongly (M7) An activity is strongly favored over another and its dominance demonstrated in practice
(8 9 9) Extremely (M9) The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation
( )1=p
00 n h
X
.
ip
A* ¼ fv1 *; …:; vi *g ¼ max vij ji2I 0 ; min vij i2I (7) Lpj ¼ wi fi* fij fi* fi 1 p ∞; j
j j
i¼1
n o ¼ 1; 2; …:; J:
00
A ¼ v
1 ; …:; vi ¼ min vij ji2I 0 ; max vij i2I (8)
j j In the VIKOR method L1, j (as Sj) and L∞, j (as Rj) are used to
formulate ranking measure. The answer are obtained by minj Sj is
Step 4: Calculation of the separation measure: the separation
with the maximum group utility (“majority” rule), and the answer
from the positive and negative ideal for each alternative can be
obtained by min Rj is with a minimum individual regret of the
measured by the n-criteria Euclidean distance.
“opponent”. The compromise ranking algorithm of VIKOR encom-
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi passes the following steps:
u n
2
uX Step 1: The purpose of normalizing the performance matrix is to
Dj * ¼ t viji v*i ; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; …:J: (9)
unify the unit of matrix entries. The determination of normalized
i¼1
values of alternatives xij is the numerical score of alternative j on
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi criterion i . The corresponding normalized value fij is defined as
u n
2
uX follows.
D
j ¼t viji v ; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; …:J: (10)
i rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
i¼1
rij ¼ xij Xm
i¼1 ij
x2 ; i ¼ 1; 2; …:; m; j ¼ 1; 2; …:; n: (12)
Step 5: Calculation of the relative closeness to the ideal solution:
the relative closeness of the ith alternative with respect to ideal
Step 2: Determine the best fi* and the worst fi values for each
solution Aþ is defined as
criterion functions, i ¼ 1; 2; …; n:
D
CCj* ¼
j
; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; …:J: (11) fi* ¼ maxj fij ; fi ¼ minj fij (13)
D*j þ D
j
Step 3: The utility measure and the regret measure for each
Step 6: Ranking the priority: a set of alternatives then can be maintenance alternative is given as
preference ranked according to the descending order of CC*j .
X
n
.
Sj ¼ wi fi* fij fi* fi (14)

i¼1
3.3. VIKOR method
h
.
i
Rj ¼ maxi wi fi* fij fi* fi (15)
VIKOR method was developed by Opricovic (1998) to solve
MCDM problems with conflicting and non- commensurable criteria
where Si and Ri represent the utility measure and the regret mea-
[64]. The method is focused on selecting and ranking from a set of
alternatives with conflicting criteria and a compromise solution is sure, respectively and wj is the weight of the jth criterion.
obtained with the initial weights of a problem. Assuming that each Step 4: Calculate the VIKOR index
alternative is computed according to each criterion function, the .
.
compromise ranking is performed by comparing the measure of Qj ¼ v Sj S* S S* þ ð1 vÞ Rj R* R R* (16)

closeness to the ideal alternative. Mahmoodzadeh et al. [65] pro-
posed the integration of FAHP and TOPSIS in a project selection where S* ¼ minj Sj , S ¼ maxj Sj ; R* ¼ minj Rj , R ¼ maxj Rj and v is
problem. But the TOPSIS methodology is not considering the rela-
introduced as weight of the strategy of “the majority of criteria” (or
tive distances from the ideal and negative ideal solution. This
“the maximum group utility”), here v ¼ 0:5
limitation can be overcome by VIKOR methodology. Only a few
Step 5: Rank the order of preference
research papers have been found in the literature in connection
The alternative with the smallest VIKOR value is determined to
with VIKOR application for various fields. Opricovic and Tzeng [66]
be the best value. Propose as a compromise solution the alternative
have given a detailed comparison of TOPSIS and VIKOR and said
A0 ; which is ranked the best by the measure Q (Minimum) if the
that the compromise solution gives maximum group utility of the
following two conditions are satisfied:
group majority and a minimum individual regret of the opponent.
C1. Acceptable advantage:
Wu et al. [67] developed a hybrid fuzzy model for the innovative
capital indicator assessment of Taiwanese Universities using FAHP 00
and VIKOR. Sanayei et al. [68] proposed a hierarchical MCDM model Q A Q ðA0 Þ DQ
based on fuzzy set theory and VIKOR method to deal with the
00
supplier selection problems in the supply chain system. Ilangku- where A is the alternative with second position in the ranking list
maran and Kumanan [69] applied VIKOR to select a suitable by Q; DQ ¼ 1/(m - 1); m is the number of alternatives.
maintenance strategy for the textile spinning mill. Liu et al. [70] C2. Acceptable stability in decision making:
suggested VIKOR for induced aggregation of operators and for Alternative A0 must also be the best ranked by S or/and R. This
material selection. Yazdani and Payam [71] have done a compara- compromise solution is stable within a decision making process,
tive study to select best material for micro-electromechanical sys- which could be ‘‘voting by majority rule” (when v > 0.5 is needed),
tem with use of VIKOR. Chang [72] proposed fuzzy VIKOR for or ‘‘by consensus” v z 0.5, or ‘‘with veto” (v < 0.5). Here, v is the
evaluation of hospital service in Taiwan. Liu et al. [73] applied fuzzy weight of the decision making strategy ‘‘the majority of criteria” (or
VIKOR for failure mode effect analysis. ‘‘the maximum group utility”). If one of the conditions is not
The development of VIKOR is started with the following form of satisfied, then a set of compromise solutions is proposed, which
Lp- metric: consists of:
00
Alternatives A0 and A if only condition C2 is not satisfied, or Step 4: Determination of the concordance interval matrix: The
00
Alternatives A0 , A ,…, AðMÞ if condition C1 is not satisfied; AðMÞ is concordance interval index (Cab) is formulated based on preference
determined by the relation Q ðAðmÞ Þ Q ðA0 Þ < DQ for maximum for alternatives, between Aa and Ab using equation (21).
M (the positions of these alternatives are ‘‘in closeness”). X
cab ¼ wj (21)
3.4. ELECTRE method j2Cab
ELECTRE method was proposed by Roy [Roy, 1991], which has The concordance index indicates the preference of the assertion
the capability of handling discrete quantitative and qualitative “A outranks B”. The concordance interval matrix can be formulated
criteria and provides complete ordering of the alternatives. There as follows.
are studies that applied ELECTRE as a MCDM tool in the literature.
cð1; 2Þ / cð1; mÞ
Shanian and Savadogo [74] incorporated ELECTRE method in ma-
cð2; 1Þ / cð2; mÞ
terial selection problem and suggested it as an efficient tool for C ¼ (22)
solving multi criteria problems. Almeida [75] proposed multi « « 1 «
cðm; 1Þ cðm; 2Þ /
criteria evaluation using ELECTRE method in contract selection and
transportation project selection process. Javad et al. [76] suggested
Step 5: Determination of the discordance interval matrix:
ELECTRE method for the selection of strategic plans. Even though
Consider the discordance index of d (a, b), which can be viewed as
the TOPSIS and VIKOR are applied in many fields, it has some
the preference of discontent in alternative ‘a’ rather than alterna-
limitations. Sanayei et al. [77] reported that the TOPSIS method
tive ‘b’. Specifically, we define
introduces two reference points, but it does not consider the rela-
tive importance of the distances from these points. The limitation is

replaced through the definition of concordance and dis- max vaj vbj
j2Dab
concordance index matrix of ELECTRE. Ozcan et al. [78] have re- dða; bÞ ¼ (23)
ported that the ELECTRE and TOPSIS have some similarity in be-
max vmj vnj
j2J;m;n2I
tween the input and operational procedures. Pang et al. [79]
proposed ELECTRE 1 for computer numerical control machine in Here alternative m, n is used to calculate the weighted
reliability design scheme. Serhat and Cengiz [80] suggested ELEC- normalized value among all target attributes. Then, using discor-
TRE for the vehicle selection in public transportation. Domingues dance interval index sets, we can obtain discordance interval ma-
et al. [81] proposed ELECTRE for the life cycle assessment of vehi- trix as follows.
cles. Uctug et al. [82] applied ELECTRE to analyze and compare the
different power sources for the automobiles. The limitation is dð1; 2Þ / dð1; mÞ

replaced through the definition of concordance and dis- dð2; 1Þ / dð2; mÞ
D ¼ (24)
concordance index matrix of ELECTRE. From the literature, it is « « 1 «
found that the ELECTRE method has not used to select optimum dðm; 1Þ dðm; 2Þ /
biodiesel blend. Hence ELECTRE method is proposed to evaluate the
Step 6: Determination of concordance index matrix: The
best fuel blend to meet the fuel economy and stringent emission
concordance index matrix is formulated for satisfaction measure-
norms. The procedure of ELECTRE method is as follows:
ment problem using critical value ðcÞ which can be determined by
Step 1: Normalization of the evaluation matrix: This process is to
average dominance index and the Boolean matrix (E) is given by
transform different scales and units among various criteria into
equations (18) and (19) respectively.
common measurable units to allow comparisons across the criteria.
Pm Pm
xij b¼1 cða; bÞ
rij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm 2ffi ; i ¼ 1; 2…:; n j ¼ 1; 2; …; m (17) c¼ a¼1
(25)
mðm 1Þ
i¼1 xij
Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix: The

eða; bÞ ¼ 1 if cða; bÞ c
weighted normalized decision matrix can be calculated by multi- (26)
eða; bÞ ¼ 0 if cða; bÞ < c
plying the normalized evaluation matrix rij with its associated
weight wi to obtain the result. Step 7: Determination of discordance index matrix: On the other
hand discordance index matrix is formulated for dissatisfaction
r11 $w1 r12 $w2 / r1n :wn
measurement problem using discordance index and the Boolean
r $w r22 $w2 / r2n $wn
Vij ¼ R W ¼ 21 1 (18) discordance index matrix is given by equations (20) and (21)
« « 1 « respectively.
rm1 $w1 rm2 $w2 / rmn $wn
Pm Pm
P b¼1 dða; bÞ
where wi is given by ni1 wi ¼ 1 d¼ a¼1
(27)
Step 3: Determine concordance and discordance interval set: mðm 1Þ
Consider (a, b, c …) are set of alternative the concordance interval
set (Cab) indicates the most preferable alternative and discordance
fða; bÞ ¼ 1 if dða; bÞ d
interval set (Dab) indicates the least preferable alternative. (28)
fða; bÞ ¼ 0 if dða; bÞ > d
n o

Cab ¼ jxaj xbj (19) Step 8: Calculate the net superior and inferior value: Consider Ca
and Da be the net superior and net inferior value respectively. Ca
n o sums together the number of competitive superiority for all alter-

Dab ¼ jxaj < xbj ¼ J Cab (20) natives, and the more and bigger, the better. The Ca is given by
equation (22).
(2) Smoke: The oxygen content in the molecular structure of the

X
n X
n
biodiesel is the main factor that has effect on the smoke
Ca ¼ Cða;bÞ Cðb;aÞ (29)
emission. Smoke emission occurs by the thermal cracking of
b¼1 b¼1
long chain HC molecules in an oxygen deficient combustion
On the contrary, da is used to determine the number of inferi- environment.
ority ranking the alternatives (3) Brake thermal efficiency (BTE): The brake power of an engine
is described as a function of the thermal input from the fuel.
X
n X
n
da ¼ dða;bÞ dðb;aÞ (30) It indicates how efficiently the fuel energy is converted into
b¼1 b¼1
mechanical output.
(4) Carbon dioxide (CO2): The CO2 emissions of diesel engine
Here smaller is considered as preferable alternative because indicate how efficiently the fuel is burnt inside the com-
smaller net inferior value gets better dominant than larger net bustion chamber. If the combustion is good then most of the
inferior value by sequence order. carbon will be converted into carbon dioxide during
combustion.
4. Proposed methodology (5) Carbon monoxide (CO): The carbon monoxide emission de-
pends upon oxygen content, carbon content and combustion
The proposed methodology consists of four basic stages: (1) efficiency of the fuel. The carbon present in the fuel is oxi-
Identification of the performance, emission and combustion dised with oxygen present in air to form CO.
criteria (2) Exploratory observations of the criteria and (3) FAHP (6) Hydrocarbon (HC): Hydrocarbons present in the fuel take
computation (4) TOPSIS, VIKOR and ELECTRE to rank the alterna- part in the combustion reaction in the presence of oxygen
tives. The schematic diagram of the proposed methodology for the and the remaining hydrocarbons come out as unburned
selection of the best blend is shown in Fig. 1. In the first stage, the hydrocarbons.
alternative blends and their evaluation criteria are identified, and (7) Exhaust gas temperature (EGT): EGT represents the exact
then a decision hierarchy is framed. A single cylinder four stroke temperature of the fuel mixture after it is combusted in the
naturally aspirated compression ignition (CI) engine is operated cylinder. It indicates the efficiency of the combustion and is
using different biodiesel blends at a constant speed of 1500 rpm an important parameter in analysing the emission of the
and at variable load for observing the performance, emission and engine.
combustion characteristics. Next ranking is obtained by assigning (8) Ignition Delay (ID): Ignition delay refers to the time differ-
weights to criteria. These weights are evaluated by pair wise ence between the start of injection and start of combustion
comparison matrix as suggested by Satty’s nine point scale. Pair in which each droplet gets ready for combustion by being
wise comparisons are made in terms of, how one criterion is atomised, vaporised, mixed with air, ignited through auto
preferred over the other. Based on the percentage of relative ignition and burned.
weights of each criterion, the impact on the ranking may be (9) Combustion duration (CD): Combustion duration is the
changed. In the last stage of the proposed methodology, TOPSIS, period from the start of the combustion to the end of com-
VIKOR and ELECTRE are used to rank the alternatives with the use bustion and can be determined from the heat release data.
of observed readings and relative weights of the evaluation criteria. (10) Maximum Rate of Pressure Rise (MRPR): In a CI engine, at the
initial stage, pressure rise depends on the combustion rate
4.1. Criteria for selecting a best blend that is influenced by the amount of fuel taking part in the
premixed combustion phase.
In this research work, authors have used the literature survey to
identify the evaluation criteria for selection of best blend 4.2. FAHP computations
[10,15,18,19]. The criteria are arranged in a hierarchical structure as
shown in Fig. 2. The group decision making technique gives an The decision hierarchy diagram is established using identified
opportunity to include the opinions of different IC engine experts evaluation criteria and the alternative blends. The decision model
and the engine manufacturers in the decision making process. The consists of three levels, namely, the objective of the problem,
identified criteria are described below: criteria and the alternatives, which are positioned at the high level,
second level and the bottom level respectively. After the con-
(1) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): The formation of nitrogen oxides struction of the hierarchy diagram for the problem as mentioned,
(NOx) depends on the peak flame temperature, ignition the FAHP methodology requires the pair-wise comparison of the
delay, and the content of nitrogen and oxygen available in the criteria in order to determine their relative weights. In the pair wise
reacting mixture. comparison process, each criterion is compared with others using
Table 7
Pair wise comparison matrix for criteria.
GOAL Nox SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR
Nox 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 5 6 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 8
Smoke ¼ 1/3 1/2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 4 5 6 6 7 8 4 5 6 4 5 6 8 9 9
BTE ¼ 1/3 1/2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 8 6 7 8 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 5 6
CO2 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 ½ 1/4 1/3 ½ 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 4 5 6 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 8
CO 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/6 1/5 ¼ 1/6 1/5 ¼ 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 4 5 6 6 7 8 6 7 8
HC 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 ¼ 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 4 5 6 6 7 8
EGT 1/9 1/9 1/8 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 5 6
ID 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/6 1/5 ¼ 1/4 1/3 ½ 1/4 1/3 0.5 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 4
CD 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/6 1/5 ¼ 1/4 1/3 ½ 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 1 1 4 5 6
MRPR 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/9 1/9 1/8 1/6 1/5 1/8 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/6 1/5 1/4 1 1 1
Table 8 4.3. TOPSIS computations

Results obtained with FAHP.
Criteria Weights Criteria Weights lmax , CI, RCI CR The TOPSIS method is proposed for the selection of the best blend
NOX 0.2748 HC 0.0558 lmax ¼ 11.714 0.034
among the alternatives. The performance and emission character-
SMOKE 0.1933 EGT 0.0351 CI ¼ 0.05 istics of the engine at 25% load at 21 bTDC injection timing are
BTE 0.1698 ID 0.0340 RCI ¼ 1.49 considered to illustrate the computational procedure of the pro-
CO2 0.1132 CD 0.0252 posed TOPSIS method. The first step of the TOPSIS is normalization
CO 0.0851 MRPR 0.0137
of the experimental performance and emission readings at 21, 24 ,
27 bTDC using equation (5) from Tables 2e4. The normalized de-
cision matrix is tabulated in Tables 9e11. The FAHP criteria weights
saaty’s nine point scale. The relative importance of each criterion are considered to compute the weighted normalized decision ma-
with other criteria is determined by IC engine experts through trix using equation (6) and tabulated in Tables 12e14.
questionnaire design. Engine experts prioritize the criteria so as to After a weighted normalized decision matrix is formed, positive
meet the emission norms and engine efficiency. The fuzzy pair wise ideal solution (PIS) and negative ideal solution (NIS) for all the al-
comparison judgments of the ten criteria with respect to the overall ternatives are determined using equations (7) and (8) and tabulated
objective are shown in Table 7. The relative weights and consistency in Tables 15e17.
ratio of the evaluation criteria for the biodiesel blend selection
indicates NOx and smoke being the important emission parameter A* ¼ f0:115; 0:116; 0:113; 0:111; 0:109; 0:109g ¼ f0:109g
and plays a predominant role with a relative weight of 27% and 19%
respectively, whereas BTE is a considerable factor in deciding the
A ¼ f0:115; 0:116; 0:113; 0:111; 0:109; 0:109g ¼ f0:116g
engine performance and hold a relative weight of 17%, CD and
MPPR has obtained the least priority with relative weight of 2.5% Then the distance of each alternative from the positive ideal
and 1.3% respectively as shown in Table 8. solution and the negative ideal solution with respect to each cri-
terion are computed by using equations (9) and (10) and tabulated
in Tables 18e20.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u ð0:115 0:109Þ2 þ ð0:059 0:059Þ2 þ ð0:073 0:076Þ2 þ
u
Dj ¼ u
þ
t ð0:048 0:042Þ þ ð0:044 0:025Þ þ ð0:028 0:019Þ þ ð0:014 0:014Þ þ ¼ 0:023
2 2 2 2
2 2 2
ð0:015 0:013Þ þ ð0:011 0:009Þ þ ð0:007 0:007Þ
Table 9
Normalised decision matrix (rij) for various alternative blends at 21 bTDC.
LOAD CRITERIA
Criteria weights 0.275 0.193 0.170 0.113 0.085 0.056 0.035 0.034 0.025 0.014
0% Diesel 0.457 0.210 0.000 0.431 0.512 0.452 0.391 0.420 0.431 0.495
B 20 0.445 0.350 0.000 0.359 0.439 0.435 0.399 0.416 0.421 0.428
B 40 0.424 0.348 0.000 0.383 0.439 0.418 0.407 0.410 0.409 0.405
B 60 0.410 0.411 0.000 0.407 0.366 0.401 0.413 0.409 0.415 0.383
B 80 0.359 0.479 0.000 0.431 0.366 0.385 0.415 0.398 0.394 0.383
B 100 0.341 0.560 0.000 0.431 0.293 0.351 0.424 0.396 0.377 0.338
25% Diesel 0.418 0.306 0.427 0.424 0.512 0.501 0.394 0.429 0.435 0.479
B 20 0.421 0.355 0.446 0.367 0.439 0.454 0.400 0.418 0.419 0.451
B 40 0.413 0.416 0.419 0.382 0.439 0.407 0.406 0.413 0.415 0.415
B 60 0.403 0.374 0.396 0.410 0.366 0.360 0.412 0.410 0.411 0.383
B 80 0.397 0.431 0.388 0.424 0.366 0.360 0.418 0.399 0.394 0.366
B 100 0.396 0.530 0.368 0.438 0.293 0.344 0.420 0.379 0.373 0.338
50% Diesel 0.425 0.319 0.419 0.429 0.483 0.461 0.397 0.429 0.438 0.514
B 20 0.420 0.367 0.450 0.380 0.483 0.433 0.402 0.418 0.423 0.461
B 40 0.411 0.403 0.422 0.380 0.403 0.433 0.407 0.409 0.414 0.412
B 60 0.404 0.378 0.396 0.409 0.403 0.404 0.410 0.406 0.405 0.369
B 80 0.398 0.457 0.386 0.419 0.322 0.361 0.415 0.402 0.389 0.348
B 100 0.391 0.500 0.370 0.429 0.322 0.346 0.420 0.383 0.379 0.310
75% Diesel 0.425 0.340 0.432 0.414 0.535 0.479 0.392 0.437 0.432 0.482
B 20 0.411 0.342 0.438 0.386 0.459 0.427 0.399 0.424 0.421 0.440
B 40 0.408 0.353 0.414 0.393 0.459 0.415 0.407 0.416 0.418 0.425
B 60 0.406 0.407 0.398 0.407 0.382 0.402 0.412 0.409 0.404 0.383
B 80 0.402 0.470 0.385 0.421 0.306 0.376 0.417 0.395 0.384 0.369
B 100 0.398 0.507 0.379 0.428 0.229 0.337 0.421 0.365 0.387 0.333
100% Diesel 0.423 0.349 0.425 0.415 0.546 0.464 0.399 0.425 0.432 0.460
B 20 0.414 0.374 0.446 0.383 0.477 0.415 0.408 0.420 0.431 0.433
B 40 0.409 0.383 0.419 0.389 0.409 0.403 0.415 0.413 0.417 0.410
B 60 0.406 0.401 0.392 0.415 0.341 0.403 0.405 0.404 0.402 0.410
B 80 0.400 0.459 0.385 0.420 0.341 0.391 0.403 0.402 0.385 0.370
B 100 0.397 0.470 0.378 0.425 0.273 0.366 0.418 0.384 0.380 0.357
Table 10
LOAD CRITERIA
0% Diesel 0.466 0.155 0.000 0.441 0.512 0.460 0.390 0.417 0.431 0.489
B 20 0.431 0.313 0.000 0.401 0.439 0.428 0.408 0.415 0.421 0.431
B 40 0.427 0.384 0.000 0.401 0.439 0.412 0.410 0.413 0.401 0.431
B 60 0.392 0.440 0.000 0.401 0.366 0.396 0.418 0.403 0.414 0.374
B 80 0.373 0.366 0.000 0.401 0.366 0.381 0.413 0.402 0.398 0.374
B 100 0.347 0.635 0.000 0.401 0.293 0.365 0.410 0.400 0.383 0.332
25% Diesel 0.413 0.324 0.431 0.398 0.497 0.503 0.399 0.426 0.441 0.514
B 20 0.415 0.341 0.449 0.398 0.435 0.445 0.401 0.412 0.423 0.484
B 40 0.414 0.347 0.406 0.410 0.435 0.388 0.413 0.407 0.401 0.415
B 60 0.412 0.413 0.406 0.398 0.373 0.374 0.415 0.407 0.411 0.352
B 80 0.404 0.433 0.391 0.410 0.373 0.374 0.399 0.402 0.400 0.346
B 100 0.391 0.548 0.362 0.435 0.311 0.345 0.421 0.394 0.371 0.292
50% Diesel 0.422 0.332 0.438 0.418 0.486 0.489 0.406 0.430 0.439 0.528
B 20 0.422 0.323 0.453 0.392 0.432 0.438 0.406 0.413 0.425 0.461
B 40 0.413 0.334 0.410 0.392 0.432 0.374 0.412 0.409 0.399 0.395
B 60 0.404 0.424 0.401 0.410 0.378 0.399 0.412 0.406 0.408 0.362
B 80 0.400 0.420 0.364 0.410 0.378 0.374 0.400 0.401 0.381 0.352
B 100 0.387 0.564 0.377 0.427 0.324 0.361 0.415 0.389 0.396 0.312
75% Diesel 0.411 0.370 0.433 0.412 0.457 0.461 0.398 0.430 0.426 0.504
B 20 0.411 0.323 0.435 0.386 0.457 0.436 0.403 0.424 0.421 0.446
B 40 0.409 0.343 0.428 0.399 0.406 0.411 0.409 0.422 0.386 0.420
B 60 0.408 0.427 0.390 0.412 0.406 0.386 0.405 0.421 0.398 0.399
B 80 0.406 0.413 0.383 0.412 0.355 0.361 0.412 0.397 0.414 0.357
B 100 0.405 0.537 0.376 0.426 0.355 0.386 0.422 0.349 0.403 0.290
100% Diesel 0.419 0.329 0.413 0.428 0.513 0.467 0.408 0.433 0.434 0.500
B 20 0.416 0.342 0.440 0.386 0.420 0.432 0.402 0.431 0.423 0.460
B 40 0.410 0.370 0.429 0.402 0.420 0.409 0.414 0.429 0.413 0.420
B 60 0.404 0.425 0.405 0.402 0.373 0.374 0.408 0.420 0.400 0.400
B 80 0.404 0.428 0.382 0.402 0.373 0.385 0.407 0.377 0.390 0.341
B 100 0.395 0.523 0.376 0.428 0.326 0.374 0.409 0.352 0.387 0.292
Table 11
LOAD CRITERIA
0% Diesel 0.408 0.168 0.000 0.475 0.407 0.475 0.391 0.423 0.435 0.498
B 20 0.413 0.335 0.000 0.460 0.458 0.460 0.400 0.417 0.413 0.454
B 40 0.408 0.331 0.000 0.400 0.356 0.400 0.407 0.415 0.412 0.411
B 60 0.411 0.444 0.000 0.400 0.407 0.400 0.409 0.405 0.407 0.411
B 80 0.398 0.398 0.000 0.356 0.407 0.356 0.412 0.399 0.392 0.323
B 100 0.411 0.628 0.000 0.341 0.407 0.341 0.430 0.389 0.389 0.323
25% Diesel 0.417 0.258 0.411 0.471 0.486 0.471 0.390 0.431 0.441 0.518
B 20 0.412 0.309 0.446 0.445 0.432 0.445 0.412 0.416 0.428 0.477
B 40 0.410 0.411 0.411 0.419 0.432 0.419 0.403 0.411 0.415 0.381
B 60 0.407 0.341 0.395 0.380 0.378 0.380 0.420 0.405 0.399 0.392
B 80 0.405 0.436 0.395 0.367 0.378 0.367 0.414 0.402 0.377 0.337
B 100 0.399 0.602 0.389 0.354 0.324 0.354 0.409 0.384 0.386 0.301
50% Diesel 0.415 0.267 0.409 0.474 0.487 0.474 0.393 0.431 0.432 0.508
B 20 0.417 0.320 0.448 0.448 0.442 0.448 0.403 0.422 0.417 0.464
B 40 0.411 0.379 0.415 0.423 0.398 0.423 0.409 0.419 0.411 0.396
B 60 0.406 0.338 0.409 0.384 0.398 0.384 0.409 0.404 0.419 0.382
B 80 0.404 0.469 0.398 0.359 0.354 0.359 0.412 0.389 0.388 0.347
B 100 0.396 0.590 0.367 0.346 0.354 0.346 0.422 0.381 0.379 0.321
75% Diesel 0.420 0.306 0.410 0.427 0.484 0.427 0.397 0.439 0.448 0.501
B 20 0.423 0.309 0.451 0.427 0.484 0.427 0.405 0.432 0.418 0.446
B 40 0.415 0.325 0.426 0.427 0.396 0.427 0.415 0.422 0.407 0.420
B 60 0.403 0.386 0.396 0.415 0.396 0.415 0.408 0.414 0.418 0.384
B 80 0.399 0.461 0.388 0.381 0.352 0.381 0.408 0.385 0.371 0.342
B 100 0.389 0.586 0.373 0.369 0.308 0.369 0.416 0.351 0.383 0.332
100% Diesel 0.421 0.334 0.411 0.440 0.444 0.440 0.397 0.437 0.439 0.478
B 20 0.417 0.367 0.439 0.421 0.444 0.421 0.407 0.428 0.413 0.456
B 40 0.405 0.379 0.411 0.401 0.412 0.401 0.411 0.426 0.410 0.437
B 60 0.403 0.367 0.395 0.401 0.412 0.401 0.411 0.411 0.404 0.388
B 80 0.401 0.456 0.403 0.392 0.380 0.392 0.408 0.390 0.383 0.351
B 100 0.402 0.518 0.389 0.392 0.349 0.392 0.414 0.351 0.398 0.314
Table 12
Weighted normalised decision matrix (vij) for various alternative blends at 21 bTDC.
LOAD CRITERIA
0% Diesel 0.126 0.041 0.000 0.049 0.044 0.025 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.122 0.068 0.000 0.041 0.037 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.116 0.067 0.000 0.043 0.037 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.113 0.079 0.000 0.046 0.031 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.099 0.093 0.000 0.049 0.031 0.021 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.094 0.108 0.000 0.049 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.013 0.009 0.005
25% Diesel 0.115 0.059 0.073 0.048 0.044 0.028 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.116 0.069 0.076 0.042 0.037 0.025 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.113 0.080 0.071 0.043 0.037 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.111 0.072 0.067 0.046 0.031 0.020 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.109 0.083 0.066 0.048 0.031 0.020 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.109 0.102 0.062 0.050 0.025 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.009 0.005
50% Diesel 0.117 0.062 0.071 0.049 0.041 0.026 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.115 0.071 0.076 0.043 0.041 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.113 0.078 0.072 0.043 0.034 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.111 0.073 0.067 0.046 0.034 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.109 0.088 0.066 0.047 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.107 0.097 0.063 0.049 0.027 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.004
75% Diesel 0.117 0.066 0.073 0.047 0.046 0.027 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.113 0.066 0.074 0.044 0.039 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.112 0.068 0.070 0.044 0.039 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 60 0.112 0.079 0.068 0.046 0.033 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.110 0.091 0.065 0.048 0.026 0.021 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.109 0.098 0.064 0.048 0.020 0.019 0.015 0.012 0.010 0.005
100% Diesel 0.116 0.067 0.072 0.047 0.046 0.026 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 20 0.114 0.072 0.076 0.043 0.041 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.112 0.074 0.071 0.044 0.035 0.022 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.111 0.077 0.067 0.047 0.029 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 80 0.110 0.089 0.065 0.048 0.029 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.109 0.091 0.064 0.048 0.023 0.020 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.005
Table 13
LOAD CRITERIA
0% Diesel 0.128 0.030 0.000 0.050 0.044 0.026 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.119 0.060 0.000 0.045 0.037 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.117 0.074 0.000 0.045 0.037 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.108 0.085 0.000 0.045 0.031 0.022 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.102 0.071 0.000 0.045 0.031 0.021 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.095 0.123 0.000 0.045 0.025 0.020 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
25% Diesel 0.113 0.063 0.073 0.045 0.042 0.028 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.114 0.066 0.076 0.045 0.037 0.025 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.007
B 40 0.114 0.067 0.069 0.046 0.037 0.022 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.113 0.080 0.069 0.045 0.032 0.021 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.111 0.084 0.066 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.108 0.106 0.061 0.049 0.026 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.009 0.004
50% Diesel 0.116 0.064 0.074 0.047 0.041 0.027 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.116 0.062 0.077 0.044 0.037 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.113 0.065 0.070 0.044 0.037 0.021 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 60 0.111 0.082 0.068 0.046 0.032 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.110 0.081 0.062 0.046 0.032 0.021 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.106 0.109 0.064 0.048 0.028 0.020 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.004
75% Diesel 0.113 0.072 0.073 0.047 0.039 0.026 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.113 0.062 0.074 0.044 0.039 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.112 0.066 0.073 0.045 0.035 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.112 0.083 0.066 0.047 0.035 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.112 0.080 0.065 0.047 0.030 0.020 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.111 0.104 0.064 0.048 0.030 0.022 0.015 0.012 0.010 0.004
100% Diesel 0.115 0.064 0.070 0.048 0.044 0.026 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.114 0.066 0.075 0.044 0.036 0.024 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.113 0.072 0.073 0.045 0.036 0.023 0.015 0.015 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.111 0.082 0.069 0.045 0.032 0.021 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.111 0.083 0.065 0.045 0.032 0.022 0.014 0.013 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.109 0.101 0.064 0.048 0.028 0.021 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.004
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u ð0:115 0:116Þ2 þ ð0:059 0:102Þ2 þ ð0:073 0:062Þ2 þ
u
D ¼ u ð0:048 0:05Þ2 þ ð0:044 0:044Þ2 þ ð0:028 0:028Þ2 þ ð0:014 0:015Þ2 þ ¼ 0:045
j t
ð0:015 0:015Þ2 þ ð0:011 0:011Þ2 þ ð0:007 0:005Þ2
4.4. VIKOR computations

The closeness coefficients of the alternatives with respect to the
ideal solution are calculated using equation (11). Finally, the alter- VIKOR method is also proposed for selecting the optimum fuel
natives are ranked using the relative closeness value. blend among the several blends. The performance and emission
characteristics of the engine at 25% load at 21 bTDC is considered to
illustrate the computational procedure of the proposed VIKOR.
0:045 0:038 Step: 1 The normalized decision matrix is calculated just as in
CC1 ¼ ¼ 0:662; CC2 ¼ ¼ 0:674
0:023 þ 0:045 0:018 þ 0:038 TOPSIS methodology, the resulting normalized decision matrix is
shown in Tables 9e11.
Step: 2 Determination of best value fi* and worst value fi by
0:026 0:034 using equation (13) at 21 bTDC, 24 bTDC and 27 bTDC which is
CC3 ¼ ¼ 0:501; CC4 ¼ ¼ 0:641 given in Tables 24e26 and the obtained results for 25% load at
0:026 þ 0:026 0:019 þ 0:034
21 bTDC is given below
fi* ¼ f0:4272; 0:4460; 0:4191; 0:3960; 0:3883; 0:3678g

0:025 0:022
CC5 ¼ ¼ 0:478; CC6 ¼ ¼ 0: ¼ 0:4460
0:028 þ 0:025 0:046 þ 0:022
A similar computational process is followed for no load, 50%,
75% and 100% load for the other alternatives to select the optimum fi ¼ f0:4272; 0:4460; 0:4191; 0:3960; 0:3883; 0:3678g
blend. The results of closeness coefficients and their ranks are ¼ 0:3678
tabulated in Tables 21e23 respectively.
Table 14
LOAD CRITERIA
0% Diesel 0.112 0.032 0.000 0.054 0.035 0.026 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.113 0.065 0.000 0.052 0.039 0.026 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 40 0.112 0.064 0.000 0.045 0.030 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.113 0.086 0.000 0.045 0.035 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 80 0.109 0.077 0.000 0.040 0.035 0.020 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.004
B 100 0.113 0.121 0.000 0.039 0.035 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.004
25% Diesel 0.114 0.050 0.070 0.053 0.041 0.026 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.113 0.060 0.076 0.050 0.037 0.025 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.007
B 40 0.113 0.079 0.070 0.047 0.037 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 60 0.112 0.066 0.067 0.043 0.032 0.021 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.111 0.084 0.067 0.042 0.032 0.020 0.015 0.014 0.009 0.005
B 100 0.110 0.116 0.066 0.040 0.028 0.020 0.014 0.013 0.010 0.004
50% Diesel 0.114 0.052 0.070 0.054 0.041 0.026 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.115 0.062 0.076 0.051 0.038 0.025 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.113 0.073 0.070 0.048 0.034 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 60 0.112 0.065 0.069 0.043 0.034 0.021 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005
B 80 0.111 0.091 0.068 0.041 0.030 0.020 0.014 0.013 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.109 0.114 0.062 0.039 0.030 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.004
75% Diesel 0.115 0.059 0.070 0.048 0.041 0.024 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.116 0.060 0.077 0.048 0.041 0.024 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.006
B 40 0.114 0.063 0.072 0.048 0.034 0.024 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.111 0.075 0.067 0.047 0.034 0.023 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.005
B 80 0.110 0.089 0.066 0.043 0.030 0.021 0.014 0.013 0.009 0.005
B 100 0.107 0.113 0.063 0.042 0.026 0.021 0.015 0.012 0.010 0.005
100% Diesel 0.116 0.064 0.070 0.050 0.038 0.025 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.007
B 20 0.115 0.071 0.074 0.048 0.038 0.023 0.014 0.015 0.010 0.006
B 40 0.111 0.073 0.070 0.045 0.035 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.006
B 60 0.111 0.071 0.067 0.045 0.035 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005
B 80 0.110 0.088 0.068 0.044 0.032 0.022 0.014 0.013 0.010 0.005
B 100 0.110 0.100 0.066 0.044 0.030 0.022 0.015 0.012 0.010 0.004
Table 15
Ideal solution ðhþ
j
Þ and Negative ideal solution ðh
j Þ at 21 bTDC.
LOAD CRITERIA
Ideal solution hþ
j
Negative ideal solution h
j
NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR
0% 0.094 0.041 0.000 0.041 0.025 0.020 0.014 0.013 0.009 0.007 0.126 0.108 0.000 0.049 0.044 0.025 0.015 0.014 0.011 0.005
25% 0.109 0.059 0.076 0.042 0.025 0.019 0.014 0.013 0.009 0.007 0.116 0.102 0.062 0.050 0.044 0.028 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.005
50% 0.107 0.062 0.076 0.043 0.027 0.019 0.014 0.013 0.010 0.007 0.117 0.097 0.063 0.049 0.041 0.026 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.004
75% 0.109 0.066 0.074 0.044 0.020 0.019 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.007 0.117 0.098 0.064 0.048 0.046 0.027 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.005
100% 0.109 0.067 0.076 0.043 0.023 0.020 0.014 0.013 0.010 0.006 0.116 0.091 0.064 0.048 0.046 0.026 0.015 0.014 0.011 0.005
C.M. Sivaraja, G. Sakthivel / Energy 139 (2017) 118e141

Table 16
j
j Þ at 24 bTDC.
LOAD CRITERIA
Ideal solution hþ
j
j
NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR
0% 0.095 0.03 0 0.045 0.025 0.020 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.007 0.128 0.123 0.000 0.050 0.044 0.026 0.015 0.014 0.011 0.005
25% 0.108 0.063 0.076 0.045 0.026 0.019 0.014 0.013 0.009 0.007 0.114 0.106 0.061 0.049 0.042 0.028 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.004
50% 0.106 0.062 0.077 0.044 0.028 0.020 0.014 0.013 0.010 0.007 0.116 0.109 0.062 0.048 0.041 0.027 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.004
75% 0.111 0.062 0.074 0.044 0.030 0.020 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.007 0.113 0.104 0.064 0.048 0.039 0.026 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.004
100% 0.109 0.064 0.075 0.044 0.028 0.021 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.007 0.115 0.101 0.064 0.048 0.044 0.026 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.004
131
2 3
0:2748 ð0:4213 0:4180 0:1933ð0:5301 0:3059Þ 0:1698ð0:4460 0:4272Þ
þ þ þ
6 ð0:4213 0:3963Þ ð0:5301 0:3059Þ ð0:4460 0:3678Þ 7
6 7
6 7
6 0:1132ð0:4381 0:4240Þ 0:0851ð0:5119 0:5119Þ 0:0558 ð0:5008 0:5008Þ 7
6 þ þ þ 7
6 ð0:4381 0:3674Þ ð0:5119 0:2925Þ ð0:5008 0:3443Þ 7
6 7
Sj ¼ 6 7 ¼ 0:3286
6 0:0351 ð0:4199 0:3937Þ 0:0340 ð0:4285 0:4285Þ 0:0252 ð0:4346 0:4346Þ 7
6 þ þ þ7
6 ð0:4199 0:3937Þ ð0:4285 0:3791Þ ð0:4346 0:8732Þ 7
6 7
6 7
4 0:0137 ð0:4792 0:4792Þ 5
ð0:4792 0:3381Þ
2 3
0:2748 ð0:4213 0:4180 0:1933ð0:5301 0:3059Þ 0:1698ð0:4460 0:4272Þ
; ; ;
6 ð0:4213 0:3963Þ ð0:5301 0:3059Þ ð0:4460 0:3678Þ 7
6 7
6 7
6 0:1132ð0:4381 0:4240Þ 0:0851ð0:5119 0:5119Þ 0:0558 ð0:5008 0:5008Þ 7
6 ; ; ; 7
6 ð0:4381 0:3674Þ ð0:5119 0:2925Þ ð0:5008 0:3443Þ 7
6 7
Rj ¼ Max6 7 ¼ 0:1933
6 0:0351 ð0:4199 0:3937Þ 0:0340 ð0:4285 0:4285Þ 0:0252 ð0:4346 0:4346Þ 7
6 ; ; ; 7
6 ð0:4199 0:3937Þ ð0:4285 0:3791Þ ð0:4346 0:8732Þ 7
6 7
6 7
4 0:0137 ð0:4792 0:4792Þ 5
ð0:4792 0:3381Þ
Step: 3 The values of Si and Ri is calculated using equations (14) calculated using equations (21) and (22) and the concordance (c)
and (15) the obtained results are given in Tables 27e29. and discordance (d) interval matrix is given as

0:5169 0:4119 0:4119 0:5251 0:5251

0:4831 0:6102 0:5251 0:5251 0:5251
Step: 4 The VIKOR Index is calculated using the equation (16).
0:5881 0:4749 0:3318 0:5251 0:5251
The obtained results are shown in Tables 30e32. c ¼
0:5881 0:4749 0:6682 0:6660 0:5251
0:5881
0:5ð0:3296 0:3296Þ 0:4749 0:4749 0:4749 0:5251
Qi ¼ 0:4749 0:4749 0:4749 0:4749 0:4749
0:6584 0:3286

ð1 0:5Þð0:1933 0:0983Þ
þ 1:0000 1:0000 1:0000 1:0000 1:0000
ð0:2748 0:0983Þ
0:6702 1:0000 1:0000 1:0000 1:0000
¼ 0:2691
0:2922 0:2229 0:3318 0:5251 1:0000
d ¼
Step 5: As indicated in step five the smallest VIKOR index is 0:9414 0:7321 1:0000 0:6660 1:0000
0:5135 0:4236 1:0000 0:0388 1:0000
determined as the best value.
0:4308 0:3684 0:5648 0:2066 0:3259
A similar methodology is followed at no load, 50%, 75% and 100%
load for the other alternatives for evaluating the optimum blend.
The concordance index ðcÞ and discordance index ðdÞ is then
The results of VIKOR index and their ranks are tabulated in
calculated using equations (25) and (26). The concordance index
Tables 30e32 respectively.
matrix (E) and disconcordance index matrix (F) is formed using
equations (26) & (28) and given as
4.5. ELECTRE computations

1 0 0 1 1

ELECTRE method is proposed for the selection of the best blend 0 1 1 1 1

among the alternative blends. The performance, emission and 1 0 0 1 1
E ¼
combustion characteristics of the engine at 25% load at 21 bTDC are 1 0 1 1 1
considered to illustrate the computational procedure of the ELEC- 1 0 0 0 1

TRE. The first step of the ELECTRE is normalization of the experi- 0 0 0 0 0
mental readings using equation (17) from Tables 2e4. The

normalized decision matrix is tabulated in Tables 9e11. Then 1 1 1 1 1

weighted normalized decision matrix is computed using equation 0 1 1 1 1

(18) and tabulated in Tables 12e14. After a weighted normalized 0 0 0 1 1
F ¼
decision matrix is formed, the concordance and discordance in-
1 0 1 1 1
terval set for all the alternatives are determined using equations 0 0 1 0 1

(19) and (20). 0 0 0 0 0
The concordance and discordance interval indexes are
Finally, the net superior values for each alternative are obtained
MRPR
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
using equations (29) and (30) and tabulated in Tables 33e35.
A similar computational process is followed for 0%, 50%, 75% and
100% load for same alternatives to evaluate the optimum blend. The
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
obtained net superior and inferior values and their ranks are
CD
tabulated in Tables 36e38 respectively.
0.014
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
5. Results and discussion
ID
The computational results of TOPSIS shows that, B20 alternative
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
is positioned first in ranking at 25% and 75% load, whereas for 50%
EGT
load it is second in ranking while in no load and 100% load it is in

third ranking for 21 bTDC. At 24 bTDC, B20 ranks first at 25%, 50%
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.024
0.025
and 100% load, whereas at no load and 75% load it ranks second. For
HC
27 bTDC, Diesel stands first at no load and 100% load, second at 25%
and 50% load and third at 75% load. Hence the decision maker can
select B20 as the best blend for the injection timings of 21 bTDC
0.039
0.041
0.041
0.041
0.038
CO
and 24 bTDC, while Diesel for 27 bTDC to operate the compression
ignition engine.
0.054
0.053
0.054
0.048
0.050
Using VIKOR, B20 is positioned first at 25% and 75% load,

CO2
whereas at no load, 50% and 100% load it is ranked second for

21 bTDC. At 24 bTDC, B20 ranked first at 25%, 50% and 100% load
and ranked second at no load and 75% load. At 27 bTDC, Diesel
0.000
0.066
0.062
0.063
0.066
BTE
j
ranked first at no load, 75% and 100% load and ranked second at 50%
load and third at 25% load. Hence the decision maker can select B20
as the best blend at the injection timings of 21 bTDC and 24 bTDC,
SMOKE
0.121
0.116
0.114
0.113
0.100
while Diesel at 27 bTDC.

The results of ELECTRE shows that, based on net superior values
the alternative B20 is positioned first in ranking for 0%, 50%, 75%
0.113
0.114
0.115
0.116
0.116
NOx
and 100% load, whereas B60 is graded to top rank in 25% load
condition. On the other hand, net inferior values indicate that B40 is
positioned at first rank in 50% and 100% load conditions. At
MRPR
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
24 bTDC, B20 is first in ranking at 0%, 50%, 75% and 100% load,
whereas inferior values indicate B50 to be positioned at first rank in
50% and 100% load and B60 to be positioned at first rank in 75% load
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.009
0.010
conditions. At 27 bTDC, Diesel stands first in ranking at no load,

CD
50%, 75% and 100% load, whereas inferior values indicate B20 to be
positioned in first rank at 0% and 25% load. In accordance with the
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
theory of ELECTRE, considering ranking of net superior and inferior

ID
values the decision maker can select B20 as the best blend for
21 bTDC, 24 bTDC and Diesel at 27 bTDC for operating the internal
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
combustion engines.
EGT
The results obtained through the proposed methodology FAHP-

TOPSIS, FAHP-VIKOR and FAHP-ELECTRE are tabulated in
0.019
0.020
0.019
0.021
0.022
Tables 39e41. The comparative results of various methodologies for

HC
selecting suitable blend are described below.

j Þ at 27 bTDC.
0.030
0.028
0.030
0.026
0.030
5.1. Comparing VIKOR results with other MCDM methods

CO

The obtained results of VIKOR method are compared with

0.039
0.040
0.039
0.042
0.044
TOPSIS and ELECTRE. The ranking order at 50% load for 21 bTDC is
CO2
considered to illustrate the results.

0.000
0.076
0.076
0.077
0.074
5.1.1. VIKOR with TOPSIS

BTE
The ranking order is in descending order based on VIKOR index

(Diesel ¼ 0.001 > B20 ¼ 0.045 > B40 ¼ 0.217 > B60 ¼ 0.532 >
SMOKE
B80 ¼ 0.689 > B100 ¼ 1.00). The ranking order by TOPSIS is based
Ideal solution hþ
j
0.032
0.050
0.052
0.059
0.064
on closeness coefficient (Diesel ¼ 0.632 < B20 ¼ 0.599

< B60 ¼ 0.590 < B40 ¼ 0.533 < B80 ¼ 0.403 < B100 ¼ 0.337). In
CRITERIA
TOPSIS, the closeness coefficients of alternatives are not always

0.109
0.110
0.109
0.107
0.110
j
NOx
closest to ideal solution. For example, in VIKOR, diesel is obtained at

the first position with aggregate function of 0.999 (1e0.001), which
is very close to ideal value 1. But in TOPSIS, the same diesel is
Table 17
LOAD
100%
positioned at first rank with the closeness coefficient value of 0.632,

25%
50%
75%
0%
which is not closest to ideal value 1 as compared to VIKOR

Table 18
Distance of alternatives from IS and NIS (Dþ
j
, D
j ) at 21 bTDC.
Blends Load
Dþ
j
D
j
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Diesel 0.037 0.023 0.017 0.029 0.025 0.068 0.045 0.036 0.034 0.025
B 20 0.042 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.019 0.042 0.038 0.030 0.035 0.023
B 40 0.038 0.026 0.020 0.021 0.015 0.043 0.026 0.023 0.032 0.023
B 60 0.044 0.019 0.019 0.021 0.016 0.034 0.034 0.026 0.025 0.023
B 80 0.053 0.028 0.029 0.028 0.025 0.034 0.025 0.019 0.023 0.019
B 100 0.068 0.046 0.038 0.034 0.027 0.037 0.022 0.018 0.028 0.025
Table 19
j
, D
j ) at 24 bTDC.
Blends Load
Dþ
j
D
j
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Diesel 0.038 0.019 0.019 0.015 0.019 0.093 0.045 0.047 0.034 0.038
B 20 0.040 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.011 0.064 0.043 0.049 0.043 0.038
B 40 0.051 0.015 0.014 0.007 0.013 0.050 0.040 0.046 0.039 0.032
B 60 0.057 0.021 0.023 0.023 0.020 0.045 0.030 0.030 0.022 0.024
B 80 0.042 0.024 0.025 0.020 0.022 0.060 0.027 0.031 0.026 0.023
B 100 0.093 0.046 0.048 0.043 0.040 0.038 0.019 0.019 0.010 0.018
Table 20
j
, D
j ) at 27 bTDC.
Blends Load
Dþ
j
D
j
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Diesel 0.018 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.012 0.089 0.067 0.063 0.054 0.036
B 20 0.037 0.018 0.019 0.019 0.013 0.057 0.058 0.054 0.055 0.031
B 40 0.033 0.033 0.025 0.014 0.013 0.059 0.038 0.043 0.052 0.028
B 60 0.054 0.019 0.017 0.021 0.012 0.037 0.053 0.051 0.040 0.030
B 80 0.045 0.036 0.040 0.032 0.025 0.047 0.036 0.030 0.028 0.016
B 100 0.089 0.067 0.064 0.056 0.037 0.017 0.021 0.021 0.019 0.012
Table 21
Relative closeness to the ideal solution using TOPSIS at 21 bTDC.
BLENDS Relative closeness to ideal solution and its ranking
0% Load Rank 25% Load Rank 50% Load Rank 75% Load Rank 100% Load Rank
DIESEL 0.639 1 0.662 2 0.649 1 0.541 4 0.494 4

B 20 0.503 3 0.674 1 0.609 2 0.627 1 0.553 3
B 40 0.534 2 0.501 4 0.535 4 0.603 2 0.605 1
B 60 0.437 4 0.641 3 0.599 3 0.548 3 0.596 2
B 80 0.389 5 0.478 5 0.389 5 0.447 6 0.437 6
B 100 0.354 6 0.322 6 0.321 6 0.453 5 0.484 5
Table 22
DIESEL 0.708 1 0.699 3 0.712 3 0.699 3 0.664 3

B 20 0.611 2 0.754 1 0.777 1 0.808 2 0.776 1
B 40 0.496 4 0.726 2 0.767 2 0.841 1 0.718 2
B 60 0.442 5 0.595 4 0.572 4 0.496 5 0.544 4
B 80 0.588 3 0.522 5 0.551 5 0.566 4 0.510 5
B 100 0.292 6 0.297 6 0.277 6 0.192 6 0.314 6
aggregate function. Similar evaluation is carried out with 0%, 25%, hybrid VIKOR is providing valuable assistance for best blend se-
75% and 100% load. Thus, the final ranking based on both tech- lection decision-making problems.
niques is B20 > Diesel > B40 > B60 > B80 > B100. The application of
Table 23
DIESEL 0.835 1 0.753 2 0.745 2 0.729 3 0.735 1

B 20 0.606 3 0.760 1 0.738 3 0.740 2 0.715 3
B 40 0.644 2 0.537 4 0.628 4 0.786 1 0.707 4
B 60 0.406 5 0.731 3 0.751 1 0.655 4 0.724 2
B 80 0.514 4 0.500 5 0.431 5 0.465 5 0.395 5
B 100 0.164 6 0.238 6 0.244 6 0.258 6 0.246 6
Table 24
Best ðfi* Þ and worst value ðfi Þ at 21 bTDC.
Criteria Load
fi* fi
0% Load 25% Load 50% Load 75% Load 100% Load 0% Load 25% Load 50% Load 75% Load 100% Load
NOX 0.4570 0.4213 0.4251 0.4245 0.4227 0.3413 0.3963 0.3907 0.3977 0.3971
SMOKE 0.5604 0.5301 0.4996 0.5068 0.4701 0.2102 0.3059 0.3185 0.3398 0.3490
BTE 0.0000 0.4460 0.4502 0.4384 0.4460 0.0000 0.3678 0.3704 0.3788 0.3782
CO2 0.4313 0.4381 0.4288 0.4279 0.4254 0.3594 0.3674 0.3801 0.3858 0.3834
CO 0.5119 0.5119 0.4835 0.5353 0.5456 0.2925 0.2925 0.3223 0.2294 0.2728
HC 0.4515 0.5008 0.4614 0.4793 0.4642 0.3512 0.3443 0.3461 0.3368 0.3665
EGT 0.4237 0.4199 0.4197 0.4214 0.4184 0.3907 0.3937 0.3967 0.3922 0.3994
ID 0.4202 0.4285 0.4293 0.4374 0.4249 0.3962 0.3791 0.3834 0.3648 0.3837
CD 0.4312 0.4346 0.4376 0.4323 0.4319 0.3770 0.3732 0.3793 0.3843 0.3796
MRPP 0.4952 0.4792 0.5143 0.4821 0.4595 0.3377 0.3381 0.3100 0.3331 0.3571
Table 25
Criteria Load
fi* fi
NOx 0.4665 0.4152 0.4225 0.4113 0.4186 0.3474 0.3913 0.3869 0.4046 0.3955
SMOKE 0.5327 0.4777 0.4997 0.4886 0.4845 0.2811 0.3280 0.3442 0.3710 0.3581
BTE 0.0000 0.4487 0.4526 0.4361 0.4403 0.0000 0.3619 0.3635 0.3768 0.3757
CO2 0.4414 0.4350 0.4269 0.4258 0.4280 0.4013 0.3977 0.3921 0.3859 0.3862
CO 0.5119 0.4971 0.4860 0.4569 0.5129 0.2925 0.3107 0.3240 0.3554 0.3264
HC 0.4599 0.5029 0.4895 0.4608 0.4672 0.3648 0.3449 0.3607 0.3612 0.3737
EGT 0.4177 0.4209 0.4148 0.4216 0.4135 0.3903 0.3994 0.3996 0.3981 0.4022
ID 0.4172 0.4264 0.4305 0.4303 0.4327 0.4000 0.3943 0.3887 0.3494 0.3521
CD 0.4311 0.4410 0.4386 0.4262 0.4337 0.3832 0.3707 0.3806 0.3862 0.3873
MRPP 0.4888 0.5137 0.5278 0.5039 0.5001 0.3320 0.2918 0.3124 0.2904 0.2919
Table 26
Criteria Load
fi* fi
NOx 0.4128 0.4166 0.4174 0.4225 0.4215 0.3982 0.3988 0.3962 0.3891 0.4006
SMOKE 0.6283 0.6021 0.5896 0.5855 0.5183 0.1675 0.2580 0.2666 0.3059 0.3337
BTE 0.0000 0.4464 0.4475 0.4510 0.4386 0.0000 0.3886 0.3674 0.3735 0.3887
CO2 0.4745 0.4715 0.4739 0.4268 0.4405 0.3410 0.3536 0.3458 0.3691 0.3916
CO 0.4581 0.4860 0.4866 0.4838 0.4438 0.3563 0.3240 0.3539 0.3079 0.3487
HC 0.4745 0.4715 0.4739 0.4268 0.4405 0.3410 0.3536 0.3458 0.3691 0.3916
EGT 0.4299 0.4199 0.4224 0.4161 0.4141 0.3908 0.3902 0.3929 0.3971 0.3974
ID 0.4230 0.4305 0.4314 0.4393 0.4372 0.3894 0.3835 0.3808 0.3507 0.3512
CD 0.4353 0.4407 0.4316 0.4483 0.4392 0.3891 0.3773 0.3788 0.3705 0.3833
MRPP 0.4976 0.5184 0.5084 0.5011 0.4781 0.3230 0.3006 0.3214 0.3321 0.3139
5.1.2. VIKOR with ELECTRE utility of the majority, obtained by Concordance that represents the
Ranking results by ELECTRE (B20 > Diesel > B40 > B60 > B80 > utility measure Si (Diesel ¼ 0.2937, B20 ¼ 0.3595, B40 ¼ 0.4955,
B100) are very similar to VIKOR results since they are based on the B60 ¼ 0.5882, B80 ¼ 0.6140, B100 ¼ 0.6584) and a minimum of
similar decision foundation by considering both maximum group of individual regret of the opponent, obtained by Discordance that
utility and minimum individual regret. The compromise solution by represents the regret measure Ri.(Diesel ¼ 0.1933, B20 ¼ 0.1416,
ELECTRE method provides a balance between a maximum group B40 ¼ 0.1132, B60 ¼ 0.1717, B80 ¼ 0.2164, B100 ¼ 0.2748) But in
Table 27
Utility measure Si and regret measure Ri at 21 bTDC.
Blends Si Ri
Diesel 0.2284 0.3286 0.2937 0.2853 0.3084 0.1933 0.1933 0.1933 0.1933 0.1933
B 20 0.3376 0.3522 0.3595 0.5309 0.4371 0.1160 0.1507 0.1416 0.1905 0.1535
B 40 0.3692 0.4451 0.4955 0.5970 0.5566 0.1173 0.0983 0.1132 0.1781 0.1428
B 60 0.3617 0.6394 0.5882 0.5952 0.6191 0.1118 0.2015 0.1717 0.1863 0.1832
B 80 0.4399 0.6561 0.6140 0.6120 0.6160 0.2329 0.2656 0.2164 0.2337 0.2425
B 100 0.4886 0.6584 0.6584 0.6569 0.6584 0.2748 0.2748 0.2748 0.2748 0.2748
Table 28
Blends Si Ri
Diesel 0.2284 0.4041 0.2620 0.2718 0.2809 0.1933 0.1933 0.1813 0.1784 0.1933
B 20 0.4254 0.3741 0.4027 0.3576 0.4292 0.1556 0.1565 0.1933 0.1933 0.1761
B 40 0.3970 0.4228 0.5624 0.4926 0.4407 0.1132 0.1233 0.1626 0.1754 0.1460
B 60 0.4790 0.4477 0.5563 0.6052 0.6072 0.1712 0.1132 0.1424 0.1502 0.1695
B 80 0.6096 0.5376 0.6612 0.7155 0.6786 0.2162 0.1282 0.1722 0.2248 0.1695
B 100 0.6114 0.6584 0.6251 0.6341 0.6712 0.2748 0.2748 0.2748 0.2748 0.2748
Table 29
Blends Si Ri
Diesel 0.3625 0.3325 0.3471 0.3403 0.3206 0.1933 0.1933 0.1933 0.1933 0.1933
B 20 0.1905 0.3293 0.2621 0.2276 0.3129 0.1230 0.1646 0.1611 0.1909 0.1586
B 40 0.4436 0.4752 0.4483 0.3689 0.6504 0.1247 0.1075 0.1258 0.1800 0.2198
B 60 0.3039 0.6722 0.6019 0.5375 0.7526 0.0773 0.1509 0.1503 0.1591 0.2425
B 80 0.6422 0.6947 0.6605 0.6919 0.7548 0.2748 0.1792 0.1724 0.1952 0.2748
B 100 0.3150 0.7814 0.7716 0.7676 0.7520 0.1132 0.2748 0.2748 0.2748 0.2618
Table 30
VIKOR index ðQi Þ at 21 bTDC.
Blends Qi values and its ranking
Diesel 0.223 1 0.269 3 0.178 1 0.419 3 0.355 3

B 20 0.250 2 0.177 1 0.248 2 0.079 1 0.224 2
B 40 0.287 4 0.184 2 0.277 3 0.395 2 0.191 1
B 60 0.256 3 0.764 4 0.585 4 0.460 4 0.597 4
B 80 0.778 5 0.970 5 0.758 5 1.000 6 0.817 5
B 100 1.000 6 1.000 6 1.000 6 0.727 5 1.000 6
Table 31
Diesel 0.220 1 0.129 2 0.369 2 0.350 3 0.201 2

B 20 0.248 2 0.117 1 0.147 1 0.270 2 0.183 1
B 40 0.506 4 0.134 3 0.453 4 0.113 1 0.303 3
B 60 0.388 3 0.301 4 0.369 3 0.376 4 0.502 4
B 80 0.816 5 0.334 5 0.612 5 0.800 5 0.591 5
B 100 1.000 6 1.000 6 0.955 6 0.908 6 0.991 6
Table 32
Diesel 0.116 1 0.260 3 0.183 2 0.137 1 0.000 1

B 20 0.126 2 0.161 1 0.416 4 0.221 2 0.645 3
B 40 0.229 3 0.171 2 0.310 3 0.252 3 0.158 2
B 60 0.400 4 0.509 4 0.118 1 0.287 4 0.858 4
B 80 0.484 5 0.618 5 0.547 5 0.586 5 0.941 5
B 100 1.000 6 1.000 6 1.000 6 1.000 6 1.000 6
Table 33
Net superior and inferior values of alternative at 21 bTDC.
Blend Load
0% Load 25% Load 50% Load 75% Load 100% Load
Net superior Net inferior Net superior Net inferior Net superior Net inferior Net superior Net inferior Net superior Net inferior
values values values values values values values values values values
Diesel 0.459 2.591 0.252 3.103 0.478 3.317 0.192 1.497 0.178 2.624
B 20 0.824 3.506 0.704 1.189 0.574 0.710 0.802 1.340 0.576 0.847
B 40 0.367 0.080 0.178 1.725 0.372 0.293 0.176 0.315 0.176 0.336
B 60 0.287 0.331 0.195 1.923 0.161 0.535 0.768 0.046 0.251 0.115
B 80 0.434 0.630 0.251 1.942 0.223 1.356 0.100 0.622 0.025 1.329
B 100 1.504 0.834 0.331 2.152 1.362 2.489 0.301 2.577 0.655 2.364
Table 34
Blend Load
Diesel 0.192 1.730 3.923 0.251 1.729 0.436 2.009 0.829 2.894 0.872
B 20 0.802 0.562 2.299 0.910 2.992 0.937 3.628 0.558 3.365 0.739
B 40 0.176 0.514 0.044 0.044 0.848 0.038 0.569 0.469 0.474 0.094
B 60 0.768 0.160 0.386 0.749 0.051 0.490 0.373 0.346 0.370 0.041
B 80 0.100 1.4531 1.735 0.389 1.967 0.426 1.880 0.604 2.229 1.623
B 100 0.301 1.513 4.058 0.067 3.654 0.417 3.952 0.906 4.134 0.123
Table 35
Blend Load
Diesel 1.026 4.569 0.535 1.718 0.412 2.114 0.132 3.944 0.438 3.890
B 20 1.871 2.366 0.661 4.147 0.443 4.461 0.500 2.001 0.985 2.340
B 40 0.845 0.666 0.018 1.709 0.161 0.230 0.025 0.412 0.127 0.215
B 60 0.992 0.765 0.072 1.734 0.104 1.474 0.005 0.473 0.074 0.769
B 80 1.239 2.568 0.091 2.699 0.223 2.312 0.301 2.291 0.570 2.184
B 100 1.511 4.267 1.051 3.140 0.897 3.019 0.361 3.592 0.907 3.062
Table 36
Ranking of alternatives at 21 bTDC.
Blend Load
Diesel 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
B 20 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
B 40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
B 60 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
B 80 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5
B 100 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6
Table 37
Blend Load
Diesel 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
B 20 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
B 40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
B 60 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
B 80 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6
B 100 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5
Table 38
Blend Load
Diesel 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1
B 20 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2
B 40 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
B 60 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
B 80 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
B 100 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
Table 39
Ranking of Alternatives with the use of FAHP-TOPSIS, FAHP-VIKOR and FAHP-ELECTRE at 21 bTDC.
Blend Load
FAHP-TOPSIS FAHP-VIKOR FAHP-ELECTRE
0% Load 25% Load 50% Load 75% Load 100% Load 0% Load 25% Load 50% Load 75% Load 100% Load 0% Load 25% Load 50% Load 75% Load 100% Load
Diesel 1 2 1 4 4 1 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 2
B 20 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
B 40 2 4 4 2 1 4 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3
B 60 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
B 80 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 5 6 5
B 100 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 5 6
Table 40
Blend Load
Diesel 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2
B 20 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1
B 40 4 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
B 60 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
B 80 3 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6
B 100 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5
Table 41
Blend Load
Diesel 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
B 20 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 2 2 2
B 40 2 4 4 1 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
B 60 5 3 1 4 2 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
B 80 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
B 100 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
ELECTRE, computations are very complex and consume more time 401e5.
[9] Godiganur S, Murthy CS, Reddy RP. Performance and emission characteristics
as compared to VIKOR.
of a Kirloskar HA394 diesel engine operated on fish oil methyl esters. Renew
Similar analysis is carried out for the injection timing 24 bTDC Energy 2010;35:355e9.
and 27 bTDC and the comparative results show that application of [10] Lin CY, Li RJ. Fuel properties of biodiesel produced from the crude fish oil from
VIKOR providing valuable assistance for the blend selection in IC the soapstock of marine fish. Fuel Process Technol 2009;90:130e6.
[11] Lin CY, Li RJ. Engine performance and emission characteristics of marine fish-
engines. The results of the proposed methodologies are tabulated in oil biodiesel produced from the discarded parts of marine fish. Fuel Process
Tables 39e41. The ranking order of FAHP-TOPSIS, FAHP-VIKOR and Technol 2009;90:883e8.
FAHP-ELECTRE is B20 > Diesel > B40 > B60 > B80 > B100 at [12] Kato S, Kunisawa K, Kojima T, Murakami S. Evaluation of ozone treated fish
waste oil as a fuel for transportation. J Chem Eng Jpn 2004;37:863e70.
21 bTDC, 24 bTDC and Diesel > B20 > B40 > B60 > B80 > B100 at [13] Steigers JA. Demonstrating the use of fish oil as fuel in a large stationary diesel
27 bTDC. The results are obtained based on the experimental engine. Alsk energy Auth 2002:1e14.
analysis of the engine. In this research work, the optimum blend is [14] Cherng YL, Rong JL. Fuel properties of biodiesel produced from the crude fish
oil from the soapstock of marine fish. Fuel Process Technol 2009;90:130e6.
evaluated with the consideration of various conflicting nature of [15] Godiganur S, Murthy CS, Reddy RP. Performance and emission characteristics
the criteria using MCDM technique. The results obtained shows B20 of a Kirloskar HA394 diesel engine operated on fish oil methyl esters. Renew
as the best blend like previous researchers. It is evident that the Energy 2010;35:355e9.
[16] Behcet R. Performance and emission study of waste anchovy fish biodiesel in a
proposed model significantly supports the selection of best diesel engine. Fuel Process Technol 2011;92:1187e94.
biodiesel-diesel blend in IC engines. [17] Sakthivel G, Nagarajan G. Experimental studies on the performance and
emission characteristics of a diesel engine fuelled with ethyl ester of waste
fish oil and its diesel blends. SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 2011:1e6.
6. Conclusion
[18] Sakthivel G, Nagarajan G, Ilangkumaran M, Gaikwad AB. Comparative analysis
of performance, emission and combustion parameters of diesel engine fuelled
To ascertain best blend, number of performance, emission and with ethyl ester of fish oil and its diesel blends. Fuel 2014;132:116e24.
[19] Vedaraman N, Puhan S, Nagarajan G, Velappan KC. Preparation of palm oil
combustion parameters are to be considered, which involves a
biodiesel and effect of various additives on NOx emission reduction in B20: an
multidimensional perspective with major focus on meeting the experimental study. Int J Green Energy 2011;8:383e97.
stringent emission norms. Therefore effective decision-making [20] Shanmugam P, Sivakumar V, Murugesan A, Umarani C. Experimental study on
approach is essential to resolve the problem. This study has pre- diesel engine using hybrid fuel blends. Int J Green Energy 2011;8:655e68.
[21] Sakthivel G. Prediction of CI engine performance, emission and combustion
sented a novel hybrid MCDM methods based on combining FAHP characteristics using fish oil as a biodiesel at different injection timing using
with TOPSIS, VIKOR and ELECTRE to identify the best blend. FAHP is fuzzy logic. Fuel 2016;183:214e29.
used to compute the weights of evaluation criteria. The FAHP [22] Poh KL, Ang BW. Transportation fuels and policy for Singapore: an AHP
planning approach. Comput Ind Eng 1999;37:507e25.
weights are given as the input for TOPSIS, VIKOR, and ELECTRE for [23] Yedla S, Shreshtha RM. Multi criteria approach for selection of alternative
ranking the blend alternatives. B20 is positioned as first and the option for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Transp Res
decision maker can choose B20 as the optimum blend for the Part A Policy Pract 2003;37:717e29.
[24] Winebrake JJ, Creswick BP. The future of hydrogen fuelling systems for
operation of the CI engine with fish oil biodiesel blend, which is also transportation: an application of perspective-based scenario analysis using
in good agreement with that of the experimental results. The the analytic hierarchy process. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2003;70:359e84.
application of MCDM for best blend selection has shaped a fair [25] Tzeng GH, Lin CW, Opricovic S. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative fuel buses
for public transportation. Energy Policy 2005;33:1373e83.
degree of confidence by providing accuracy and simplicity in the
[26] Rassafi AA, Vaziri M, Azadani AN. Strategies for utilizing alternative fuels by
investigation of the compression ignition engine performance us- Iranian passenger cars. Int J Environ Sci Tech 2006;3:59e68.
ing biodiesel. [27] Tuzkaya G, Onut S, Tuzkaya UR, Gulsun B. An analytic network process
approach for locating undesirable facilities: an example from Istanbul, Turkey.
The proposed decision methods can also help the decision
J Environ Manag 2008;88:970e83.
makers such as engine manufacturers and R&D engineers to [28] Sapuan SM, Hambali A, Ismail N, Nukman Y. Material selection of polymeric
analyze and choose the best blend for the IC engines. In addition, composite automotive bumper beam using analytical hierarchy process.
the strength of the proposed decision making approach is to Springer J Cent South Univ Technol 2010;17:244e56.
[29] Perimenis A, Walimwipi H, Zinoviev S, Langer FM, Miertus S. Development of
eliminate the uncertainty and vagueness during the pair wise a decision support tool for the assessment of biofuels. Energy Policy 2011;39:
comparison process using fuzzy set theory. The outranking 1782e93.
methods are used for precise ranking of alternatives. It is evident [30] Tsita KG, Pilavachi PA. Evaluation of alternative fuels for the Greek road
transport sector using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 2012;48:
that the proposed approaches are different from the existing 617e86.
literature for the selection of best blend. For further research, the [31] Sakthivel G, Ilangkumaran M, Nagarajan G, Raja A, Ragunadhan PM, Prakash J.
analysis can be carried out in a multi cylinder engine and variable A hybrid MCDM approach for evaluating an automobile purchase model. Int J
Inf Decis Sci 2013;5:50e85.
compression ratio engine (VCR) to evaluate the optimum blend. [32] Sakthivel G, Ilangkumaran M. A hybrid multi-criteria decision making
Experiments also can be conducted by varying blending concen- approach of ANP and TOPSIS to evaluate the optimum fuel blend in IC engine.
trations in the range of 5% and 10% to get more accurate results. Int J Inf Decis Sci 2015;1:268e93.
[33] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[34] Khajeeh M. Water conservation in Kuwait: a fuzzy analysis approach. Ind Eng
References 2010;6:90e105.
[35] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 1965;8:338e53.
[1] Energy information Administration (EIA). International energy statistics. 2011. [36] Laarhoven PJMV, Pedrycz W. A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory.
[2] Kumar N, Varun, Kumar A. Biodiesel as an alternative fuel for CI engines: Fuzzy Sets Syst 1983;11:199e227.
environmental effect. Indian J Sci Technol 2010;3:602e6. [37] Ding JF, Liang GS. Using fuzzy MCDM to select partners of strategic alliances
[3] Vilela L, Mata TM, Caetano NS. Biodiesel production from fish oil with high for liner shipping. Inf Sci 2005;173:197e225.
acidity, Third international symposium on energy from biomass and waste. [38] Buyukozkan G, Kahraman C, Ruan D. A fuzzy multi criteria decision approach
Italy, 2010: 1e14. for software development strategy selection. Int J General Syst 2004;33:
[4] Boyd M, Murray HA, Schaddelee K. Biodiesel in british columbia-Feasibility 259e80.
study report. Canada: WISE Energy Co-op/Eco-Literacy; 2004. [39] Hsieh TY, Lu ST, Tzeng GH. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design
[5] Jayasinghe P, Hawboldt K. A review of bio-oils from waste biomass: focus on tenders selection in public office buildings. Int J Proj Manag 2004;22:
fish processing waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:798e821. 573e684.
[6] Reyes JF, Sepulveda MA. PM-10 emissions and power of a diesel engine fueled [40] Wang TC, Chang TH. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training
with crude and refined biodiesel from salmon oil. Fuel 2006;85:1714e9. aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 2007;33:870e80.
[7] Preto F, Zhang F, Wang J. Fish oil as an alternative fuel for conventional [41] Chou TY, Liang GS. Application of a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
combustors. Anchorage. Alaska: The Arctic Energy Summit; 2007. p. 1e7. model for shipping company performance evaluation. Marit Policy & Manag
[8] Aryee ANA, Van de Voort FR, Simpson BK. FTIR determination of free fatty 2001;28:375e92.
acids in fish oils intended for biodiesel production. Process Biochem 2009;44: [42] Chang YH, Cheng CH, Wang TC. Performance evaluation of international
airports in the region of East Asia. Proc East Asia Soc Transp Stud 2003: [74] Shanian A, Savadogo O. A material selection model based on the concept of
213e30. multiple attribute decision making. Int J Mater Des 2006;27:329e37.
[43] Hwang HJ, Hwang HS. Computer-aided fuzzy-AHP decision model and its [75] Almeida ATD. Multi criteria decision model for outsourcing contracts selection
application to school food service problem. Inf Control 2006;2:125e37. based on utility function and ELECTRE method. Int J Comput Operat Res
[44] Ayag Z, Ozdemir RG. A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool al- 2007;34:3569e74.
ternatives. J Intel Manuf 2006;17:179e90. [76] Javad D, Majid M, Vahid N. Ranking of strategic plans in balanced scorecard by
[45] Huang CC, Chu PY, Chiang YH. A fuzzy AHP application in government- using EL’ECTRE method. Int J Innov, Manag Technol 2010;1. 2010e0248.
sponsored R&D project selection. Omega 2008;36:1038e52. [77] Sanayei A, Mousavi SF, Yazdankhah A. Group decision making process for
[46] Shyjith K, Ilangkumaran M, Kumanan S. Multi-criteria decision-making supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl
approach to evaluate optimum maintenance strategy in textile industry. 2010;37:24e30.
J Qual Maint Eng 2008;14:375e86. [78] Ozcan T, Celebi N, Esnaf S. Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision
[47] Ilangkumaran M, Kumanan S. Selection of maintenance policy for textile in- making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection
dustry using hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. J Manuf Technol problem. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38:9773e9.
Manag 2009;20:1009e22. [79] Pang J, Zhang G, Chen G. ELECTRE I decision model of reliability design scheme
[48] Khorasani O, Bafruei MK. A Fuzzy AHP approach for evaluating and selecting for computer numerical control machine. J Softw 2011;6:1e6.
supplier in pharmaceutical industry. Int J Acad Res 2011;3:346e52. [80] Serhat A, Cengiz K. Vehicle selection for public transportation using an inte-
[49] Calabrese A, Costa R, Menichini T. Using Fuzzy AHP to manage Intellectual grated multi criteria decision making approach: a case of Ankara. J Intel Fuzzy
Capital assets: an application to the ICT service industry. Expert Syst Appl Syst 2014;26:2467e81.
2013;40:3747e55. [81] Domingues AR, Marques P, Garcia R, Freire F, Dias LC. Applying multi-criteria
[50] Parameshwaran R, Praveen Kumar S, Saravanakumar K. An integrated fuzzy decision analysis to the life-cycle assessment of vehicles. J Clean Prod
MCDM based approach for robot selection considering objective and subjec- 2015;107:749e59.
tive criteria. Appl Soft Comput 2015;26:31e41. [82] Uctug GF, Kabakci NE, Bekdikhan OB, Akyurek B. Multi-Criteria Decision
[51] Jakiel P, Fabianowski D. FAHP model used for assessment of highway RC Making based comparison of power source technologies for utilization in
bridge structural and technological arrangements. Expert Syst Appl 2015;42: automobiles. J Clean Energy Technol 2015;3:1e10.
4054e61.
[52] Albayrak E, Erensal YC. Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve
human performance: an application of multiple criteria decision making
Abbreviations
problem. J Intel Manuf 2004;15:491e503.
[53] Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and appli- B0: Diesel 100%
cations: a State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer- Verlang; 1981. B100: Ethyl ester of fish oil 100%
[54] Shanian A, Savadogo O. TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for B20: Ethyl ester of fish oil 20%: Diesel 80%
material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. B40: Ethyl ester of fish oil 40%: Diesel 60%
J Power Sources 2006;159:1095e104. B60: Ethyl ester of fish oil 60%: Diesel 40%
[55] Irfan E, Nilsen K. Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy B80: Ethyl ester of fish oil 80%: Diesel 20%
analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 2009;36: bTDC: Before Top Dead Centre
702e15. BTE: Brake Thermal Efficiency
[56] Wang YM, Elhag TMS. Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an CC: Closeness Coefficient
application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Syst Appl 2006;3:309e19. CD: Combustion Duration
[57] Wang TC, Chang TH. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training CI: Consistency Index
aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 2007;33:870e80. CO: Carbon monoxide
[58] Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK. Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier CO2: Carbon dioxide
evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Operat Res 2010;202: CR: Consistency Ratio
16e24. EGT: Exhaust Gas Temperature
[59] Alemi M, Jalalifar H, Kamali G, Kalbasi M. A prediction to the best artificial lift EIA: Energy Information Administration
method selection on the basis of TOPSIS model. J Petrol Gas Eng 2010;1:9e15. HC: Hydrocarbon
[60] Etghani MM, Shojaeefard MH, Khalkhali A, Akbari M. A hybrid method of ID: Ignition delay
modified NSGA-II and TOPSIS to optimize performance and emissions of a IEA: International Energy Agency
diesel engine using biodiesel. Appl Therm Eng 2013;59:309e15. IS: Ideal Solution
[61] Tavana M, Damghani KK, Abtahi AR. A hybrid fuzzy group decision support l: Lower
framework for advanced-technology prioritization at NASA. Expert Syst Appl M: Triangular fuzzy number
2013;40:480e91. M: Middle
[62] Soufil MD, Maleki1 MRS, Ghobadian B, Najafi G, Hashjin TT. The feasibility of MCDM: Multi Criteria Decision Making
using bio lubricants instead of the available lubricants with the help of the NIS: Negative Ideal Solution
multi-criteria decision making software “TOPSIS”. Int J Agron Plant Prod NOx: Oxides of Nitrogen
2013;4:2054e60. RCI: Random Consistency Index
[63] Wang YJ. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model by associating tech- RI: Random Index
nique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution with relative pref- TOPSIS: Technique for Order Preferences by Similarity to an Ideal Solution
erence relation. Inf Sci 2014;268:169e84. VIKOR: VIseKriterijumskaOptimizacijaKompromisnoResenje (in Serbian)
[64] Opricovic S. Multi-criteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Belgrade: ELECTRE: Elimination and Choice Translating Reality
Faculty of Civil Engineering; 1998. Ai: Alternatives
[65] Mahmoodzadeh S, Shahrabi J, Pariazar M, Zaeri MS. Project selection by using fi* : Best value
Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique. Int J Humanit Soc Sci 2007;30:333e8. Ci: Criterion
[66] Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a compar- A*: Ideal Solution
ative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Operat Res 2004;156:445e55. A-: Negative Ideal Solution
[67] Wu HY, Chen JK, Chen IS. Innovation capital indicator assessment of Taiwa- ~rij : Normalized fuzzy decision matrix
nese Universities: a hybrid fuzzy model application. Expert Syst Appl
rij: Normalized value
2010;37:1635e42.
aij: Rating of the ith maintenance strategy on deducting changes in the jth criterion
[68] Sanayei A, Mousavi SF, Yazdankhah A. Group decision making process for
using suitable measure
supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl
Ri : Regret measure
2010;37:24e30.
CCi: Relative closeness coefficients
[69] Ilangkumaran M, Kumanan S. Application of Hybrid VIKOR model in selection
Dj*, Dj-: The distance between the performance scores of alternatives with respect to
of maintenance strategy. Int J Inf Syst Supply Chain Manag 2012;5:59e81.
all criteria
[70] Liu HN, Mao LX, Zhang ZY, Li P. Induced aggregation operators in the VIKOR
xij: The numerical score of alternative j on criterion i
method and its application in material selection. Appl Math Model 2013;37:
Vi: Triangular number
6325e38.
Si: Utility measure
[71] Yazdani M, Payam AF. A comparative study on material selection of micro-
Qi : Vikor index
electromechanical systems electrostatic actuators using Ashby, VIKOR and
Wj: Weight
TOPSIS. Mater Des 2015;65:328e34.
~vij : Weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix
[72] Chang TH. Fuzzy VIKOR method: a case study of the hospital service evalua-
tion in Taiwan. Inf Sci 2014;271:196e212. vij: Weighted normalized value
[73] Liu HN, You JX, You XY, Shan MM. A novel approach for failure mode and fi : Worst value
effects analysis using combination weighting and fuzzy VIKOR method. Appl fi *: Best value
Soft Comput 2015;28:579e88.
Sivaraja. CM is Research scholar, School of Mechanical and Building Sciences, VIT G. Sakthivel is an Associate professor, Mechatronics division, School of Mechanical and
University Chennai, India. He completed his B.E and M.Tech in the year 2001 and 2004. Building Sciences, VIT University Chennai, India. He completed his M.Tech (Mecha-
He pursing his Ph.D in analysing the engine emission levels. He has published one tronics) from VIT in 2003. He received his Ph.D in the area of optimisation in engine
paper in international journal and more than three papers in international and na- modelling and design and alternative fuels in the year 2013. He has published twenty
tional conferences. His research interest is engine design by analyzing the emissions three papers in international journals and more than fifteen papers in international
and engine maintenance. and national Conferences He is a life member of ISTE. His research interest is opti-
mization in IC engines, and automotive electronics.

Sivaraja Et Al PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Sivaraja Et Al PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Energy 139 (2017) 118e141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Compression ignition engine performance modelling using hybrid

1. Introduction estimated that by 2030, the per-capita energy consumption may

Literature Identification of Performance, Emission& combustion

Structuring decision hierarchy

Establish Pair-wise comparison matrix

Direct eigenvector & max eigen value

Derive consistency index(CI) Stage 3

Selecting the best blend

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the proposed model for blend selection.

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

0% Diesel 233 9 0 1.8 0.07 27 142 18.58 44.68 5.88

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

0% Diesel 239 5 0 2.2 0.07 29 157 16 46.28 4.55

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

0% Diesel 250 4 0 1.8 0.08 32 170 15.24 48.22 3.05

3.2. TOPSIS method

Degree of Preference Deﬁnition Explanation

(1 1 1) Equally Preferred (M1) Two activities contribute equally to the objective

Sj ¼ wi fi* fij fi* fi (14)

compromise ranking is performed by comparing the measure of Qj ¼ v Sj S* S S* þ ð1 vÞ Rj R* R R* (16)

Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix: The

(2) Smoke: The oxygen content in the molecular structure of the

GOAL Nox SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

Table 8 4.3. TOPSIS computations

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

4.4. VIKOR computations

fi* ¼ f0:4272; 0:4460; 0:4191; 0:3960; 0:3883; 0:3678g

BLENDS NOx SMOKE BTE CO2 CO HC EGT ID CD MRPR

C.M. Sivaraja, G. Sakthivel / Energy 139 (2017) 118e141

load it is second in ranking while in no load and 100% load it is in

Using VIKOR, B20 is positioned ﬁrst at 25% and 75% load,

whereas at no load, 50% and 100% load it is ranked second for

while Diesel at 27 bTDC.

conditions. At 27 bTDC, Diesel stands ﬁrst in ranking at no load,

theory of ELECTRE, considering ranking of net superior and inferior

The results obtained through the proposed methodology FAHP-

Tables 39e41. The comparative results of various methodologies for

selecting suitable blend are described below.

5.1. Comparing VIKOR results with other MCDM methods

The obtained results of VIKOR method are compared with

considered to illustrate the results.

5.1.1. VIKOR with TOPSIS

The ranking order is in descending order based on VIKOR index

on closeness coefﬁcient (Diesel ¼ 0.632 < B20 ¼ 0.599

TOPSIS, the closeness coefﬁcients of alternatives are not always

closest to ideal solution. For example, in VIKOR, diesel is obtained at

positioned at ﬁrst rank with the closeness coefﬁcient value of 0.632,

which is not closest to ideal value 1 as compared to VIKOR

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

BLENDS Relative closeness to ideal solution and its ranking

DIESEL 0.639 1 0.662 2 0.649 1 0.541 4 0.494 4

BLENDS Relative closeness to ideal solution and its ranking

DIESEL 0.708 1 0.699 3 0.712 3 0.699 3 0.664 3

BLENDS Relative closeness to ideal solution and its ranking

DIESEL 0.835 1 0.753 2 0.745 2 0.729 3 0.735 1