Search Results

Biodiesel (i.e., mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils and animal fats) is a renewable diesel fuel providing life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reductions relative to petroleum-derived diesel. With the expectation that there would be widespread use of biodiesel as a substitute for ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), there have been many studies looking into the effects of biodiesel on engine and aftertreatment, particularly its compatibility to the current aftertreatment technologies. The objective of this study was to generate experimental data to measure the effectiveness of a current technology diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC) to oxidize soy-based biodiesel at various blend levels with ULSD. Biodiesel blends from 0 to 100% were evaluated on an engine using a conventional DOC.

Low carbon emissions policies for the transportation sector have recently driven more interest in using low net-carbon fuels, including biodiesel. An internal combustion engine (ICE) can operate effectively using biodiesel while achieving lower engine-out emissions, such as soot, mostly thanks to oxygenate content in biodiesel. This study selected a heavy-duty (HD) single-cylinder engine (SCE) platform to test biodiesel fuel blends with 20% and 100% biodiesel content by volume, referred to as B20, and B100. Test conditions include a parametric study of exhaust gas recirculating (EGR), and the start of injection (SOI) performed at low and high engine load operating points. In-cylinder pressure and engine-out emissions (NOX and soot) measurements were collected to compare diesel and biodiesel fuels.

This project’s objective was to generate experimental data to evaluate the impact of metals doped B20 on diesel particle filter (DPF) ash loading and performance compared to that of conventional petrodiesel. The effect of metals doped B20 vs. conventional diesel on a DPF was quantified in a laboratory controlled accelerated ash loading study. The ash loading was conducted on two DPFs – one using ULSD fuel and the other on B20 containing metals dopants equivalent to 4 ppm B100 total metals. Engine oil consumption and B20 metals levels were accelerated by a factor of 5, with DPFs loaded to 30 g/L of ash. Details of the ash loading experiment and on-engine DPF performance evaluations are presented in the companion paper (Part I). The DPFs were cleaned, and ash samples were taken from the cleaned material. X-ray Fluorescence (XRF), X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) and X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) were conducted on the ash samples.

The project objective was to generate experimental data to evaluate the impact of metals doped B20 on DPF ash loading and performance compared to that of conventional petrodiesel. Accelerated ash loading was conducted on two DPFs – one exposed to regular diesel fuel and the other to B20 containing metal dopants equivalent to 4 ppm B100 total metals (currently total metals are limited to 10 ppm in ASTM D6751, the standard for B100). Periodic performance evaluations were conducted on the DPFs at 10 g/L ash loading intervals. After the evaluations at 30 g/L, the DPF was cleaned with a commercial DPF cleaning machine and another round of DPF evaluations were conducted. A comparison of the effect of ash loading with the two fuels and DPF cleaning is presented. The metals doped B20 fuel resulted in ash that was similar to that deposited when exposed to ULSD (lube oil ash) and exhibited similar ash cleaning removal efficiency.

In a modern diesel engine, a high fuel injection pressure is achieved by a common-rail system. Therefore, it is important to understand the effects of fuel properties on engine performances because a diesel fuel could deteriorate inside an injector at such severe conditions. The test methods so far basically use the fuel with pro-fouling agent to form deposit on injector. In this study, a novel test procedure was developed to evaluate the effect of the use of the fuel with and without zinc contaminant on injector performance. With Zn doped European specification B7 fuel (7% biodiesel) as a reference, the test result showed that an engine torque decreased almost lineally over time, and the overall torque drop was 9% after 300 hours. The investigation of the dismantled injector after the test revealed that the deposit was not formed on the sliding parts of the injector, but on the nozzle hole surface.

A novel oxygenate, 5-methyl furoate ethyl ester (EF), was made by a chemical process from biomass and ethanol. This compound was then used as a renewable diesel additive at concentrations up to 10 percent by volume. This unique ester, which is similar in composition to a know food additive, was studied for engine performance in comparison with two other oxygenated alternatives (i.e. ethanol - EtOH and ethyl levulinate - EL) and with B20 (20 percent biodiesel). Tests were performed with a 2012 6.7 L Ford diesel engine using the heavy-duty Federal Test Procedure. The emission results indicated that a blend of the ester with diesel was comparable to the base fuel. In addition, the results also indicated that EF reduces the formation of particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide. Other properties of EF seem to improve the physical properties of the blended fuel such as lubricity and viscosity when compared to the base fuel.

Dual fuel engines have shown significant potential as high efficiency powerplants. In one example, SwRI® has run a high EGR, dual-fuel engine using gasoline as the main fuel and diesel as the ignition source, achieving high thermal efficiencies with near zero NOx and smoke emissions. However, assuming a tank size that could be reasonably packaged, the diesel fuel tank would need to be refilled often due to the relatively high fraction of diesel required. To reduce the refill interval, SwRI investigated various alternative fluids as potential ignition sources. The fluids included: Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), Biodiesel, NORPAR (a commercially available mixture of normal paraffins: n-pentadecane (normal C15H32), and n-hexadecane (normal C16H34)) and ashless lubrication oil. Lubrication oil was considered due to its high cetane number (CN) and high viscosity, hence high ignitability.

The objective of this project was to assess the effects of various blends of biodiesel on locomotive engine exhaust emissions. Systematic, credible, and carefully designed and executed locomotive fuel effect studies produce statistically significant conclusions are very scarce, and only cover a very limited number of locomotive models. Most locomotive biodiesel work has been limited to cursory demonstration programs. Of primary concern to railroads and regulators is understanding any exhaust emission associated with biodiesel use, especially NOX emissions. In this study, emissions tests were conducted on two locomotive models, a Tier 2 EMD SD70ACe and a Tier 1+ GE Dash9-44CW with two baseline fuels, conventional EPA ASTM No. 2-D S15 (commonly referred to as ultra-low sulfur diesel - ULSD) certification diesel fuel, and commercially available California Air Resource Board (CARB) ULSD fuel.

Conventional diesel fuel has been in the market for decades and used successfully to run diesel engines of all sizes in many applications. In order to reduce emissions and to foster energy source diversity, new fuels such as alternative and renewable, as well as new fuel formulations have entered the market. These include biodiesel, gas-to-liquid, and alternative formulations by states such as California. Performance variations in fuel economy, emissions, and compatibility for these fuels have been evaluated and debated. In some cases contradictory views have surfaced. “Sustainable”, “Renewable”, and “Clean” designations have been interchanged. Adding to the confusion, results from one fuel in one type of engine such as an older heavy-duty engine, is at times compared to that of another fuel in another type such as a modern light-duty engine. This study was an attempt to compare the performance of several fuels in identical environments, using the same engine, for direct comparison.

Conventional diesel fuel has been in the market for decades and used successfully to run diesel engines of all sizes in many applications. In order to reduce emissions and to foster energy source diversity, new fuels such as alternative and renewable, as well as new fuel formulations have entered the market. These include biodiesel, gas-to-liquid, and alternative formulations by states such as California. Performance variations in fuel economy, emissions, and compatibility for these fuels have been evaluated and debated. In some cases contradictory views have surfaced. “Sustainable”, “Renewable”, and “Clean” designations have been interchanged. Adding to the confusion, results from one fuel in one type of engine such as an older heavy-duty engine, is at times compared to that of another type such as a modern light-duty. This study was an attempt to compare the performance of several fuels in an identical environment, using the same engine, for direct comparison.

A prototype 2007 ISL Cummins diesel engine equipped with a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), diesel particle filter (DPF), variable geometry turbocharger (VGT), and cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) was tested at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) under a high-load accelerated durability cycle for 1000 hours with B20 soy-based biodiesel blends and ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel to determine the impact of B20 on engine durability, performance, emissions, and fuel consumption. At the completion of the 1000-hour test, a thorough engine teardown evaluation of the overhead, power transfer, cylinder, cooling, lube, air handling, gaskets, aftertreatment, and fuel system parts was performed. The engine operated successfully with no biodiesel-related failures. Results indicate that engine performance was essentially the same when tested at 125 and 1000 hours of accumulated durability operation.

Limits on the total future potential of biodiesel fuel due to the availability of raw materials mean that ambitious 20% fuel replacement targets will need to be met by the use of both first and next generation biodiesel fuels. The use of higher percentage biodiesel blends requires engine recalibration, as it affects engine performance, combustion patterns and emissions. Previous work has shown that the combustion of 50:50 blends of biodiesel fuels (first generation RME and next generation synthetic fuel) can give diesel fuel-like performance (i.e. in-cylinder pressure, fuel injection and heat release patterns). This means engine recalibration can be avoided, plus a reduction in all the regulated emissions. Using a 30% biodiesel blend (with different first and next generation proportions) mixed with Diesel may be a more realistic future fuel.

Biodiesel produced from soybean oil, canola oil, yellow grease, and beef tallow was tested in two heavy-duty engines. The biodiesels were tested neat and as 20% by volume blends with a 15 ppm sulfur petroleum-derived diesel fuel. The test engines were a 2002 Cummins ISB and 2003 DDC Series 60. Both engines met the 2004 U.S. emission standard of 2.5 g/bhp-h NOx+HC (3.35 g/kW-h) and utilized exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). All emission tests employed the heavy-duty transient procedure as specified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Reduction in PM emissions and increase in NOx emissions were observed for all biodiesels in all engines, confirming observations made in older engines. On average PM was reduced by 25% and NOx increased by 3% for the two engines tested for a variety of B20 blends. These changes are slightly larger in magnitude, but in the same range as observed in older engines.

Alternative fuels made from materials other than petroleum are available for use in alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs) and some conventional vehicles. Liquid fuels such as biodiesel could be used in U.S. Army or other Military/Federal Government compression ignition (CI) engine powered vehicles. The military combat/tactical fleet is exempt from Federal Government mandates to use alternative fueled vehicles and has adopted JP-8/JP-5 jet fuel as the primary military fuel. The Army non-tactical fleet and other Federal nonexempt CI engine powered vehicles are possible candidates for using biodiesel. Inclusion of biodiesel as an alternative fuel qualifying for alternative fueled vehicle credits for fleets required to meet AFV requirements has allowed for its use at 20 (minimum) percent biodiesel in petroleum diesel fuel. Alternative fuels are being considered for the 21st Century Truck (21T) program. [1]

The use of biodiesel fuels derived from vegetable oils or animal fats as a substitute for conventional petroleum fuel in diesel engines has received increased attention. This interest is based on a number of properties of biodiesel including the fact that it is produced from a renewable resource, its biodegradability, and its potential beneficial effects on exhaust emissions. As part of Tier 1 compliance requirements for EPA's Fuel Registration Program, a detailed chemical characterization of the transient exhaust emissions from three modern diesel engines was performed, both with and without an oxidation catalyst. This characterization included several forms of hydrocarbon speciation, as well as measurement of aldehydes, ketones, and alcohols. In addition, both particle-phase and semivolatile-phase PAH and nitro-PAH compounds were measured. Unregulated emissions were characterized with neat biodiesel and with a blend of biodiesel and conventional diesel fuel.

The use of biodiesel fuels derived from vegetable oils or animal fats as a substitute for conventional petroleum fuel in diesel engines has received increased attention. This interest is based on a number of properties of biodiesel including the fact that it is produced from a renewable resource, its biodegradability, and its potential beneficial effects on exhaust emissions. Transient exhaust emissions from three modern diesel engines were measured during this study, both with and without an oxidation catalyst. Emissions were characterized with neat biodiesel and with a blend of biodiesel and conventional diesel fuel. Regulated emissions and performance data are presented in this paper, while the results of a detailed chemical characterization of exhaust emissions are presented in a companion paper. The use of biodiesel resulted in lower emissions of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, with some increase in emissions of oxides of nitrogen on some engines.

A literature evaluation of potential oxidative and thermal stability test methods for biodiesel and biodiesel blends with petrodiesel, as well as the known effects of stability related issues on performance in the field, has been completed. The advantages and disadvantages of the selected potential test methods were compiled to form a basis for further consideration and rating of the test methods. The literature search and rankings were peer reviewed by experts in the oleochemical, petroleum diesel, and diesel engine manufacturing fields. Based on the peer-reviewed rankings, limited bench scale testing was performed on selected test methods and various modifications to determine their applicability to biodiesel and biodiesel blends. For various reasons, none of the methods (as written) appeared to be reliable indicators of performance with biodiesel or its blends.

Alternative fuels are being evaluated in automotive applications in both commercial and government fleets in an effort to reduce emissions and United States dependence on diesel fuel. Vehicles and equipment have been operated using 100 percent biodiesel and various blends of biodiesel and diesel fuel in a variety of applications, including farming equipment and transit buses. This government study investigates the compatibility of four base fuels and six blends with elastomer and metallic components commonly found in fuel systems. The physical properties of the elastomers were measured according to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 471, “Standard Test Method for Rubber Property-Effect of Liquids,” and ASTM D 412, “Standard Test Methods for Rubber Properties in Tension.” These evaluations were performed at 51.7°C for 0, 22, 70, and 694 hours. Tensile strength, hardness, swell, and elongation were determined for all specimens.