Next Article in Journal
A Review of the Various Control Algorithms for Trajectory Control of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles
Next Article in Special Issue
A Numerical Study on the Smoke Dispersion and Temperature Distribution of a Ship Engine Room Fire Based on OpenFOAM
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating a User-Centered Environment-Friendly Mobile Phone App for Tourists and Residents Using Facial-Recognition Software
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Hybrid Approach for Quantitative Analysis of Fire Hazards in Enclosed Vehicle Spaces on Ro-ro Passenger Ships
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/su152014690
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on the Performance Parameters of a Compression-Ignition Engine Fueled by Blends of Diesel Fuel, Rapeseed Methyl Ester and Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil

by
Justas Žaglinskis
* and
Alfredas Rimkus
Department of Automobile Engineering, Faculty of Transport Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Plytinės Str. 25, 10105 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(20), 14690; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014690
Submission received: 17 August 2023 / Revised: 3 October 2023 / Accepted: 5 October 2023 / Published: 10 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Maritime Transportation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research compares the air pollution (CO, CO2, HC, NOx, smoke), energy (brake-specific fuel consumption, thermal efficiency) and noise indicators of a compression ignition engine fueled by first-generation biodiesel (rapeseed methyl ester (RME)) and second-generation biodiesel (hydrogenated vegetable oils (HVO)), or conventional (fossil) diesel fuel blends. The concentration of first- and second-generation biodiesel in two-component blends with diesel fuel was up to 15% and 30% (RME15, RME30, HVO15, and HVO30); for comparison, the three-component blend of diesel fuel, HVO and RME (RME15–HVO15) was considered. The fuels’ physical and chemical properties were tested in a specialized laboratory, and the engine load conditions were ensured by the engine brake stand. Referring to ship power plants with constant-speed engines, detailed research was carried out in one speed mode (n = 2000 rpm). Studies have shown that two-component fuel blends with HVO are superior to conventional diesel fuel and two-component blends with RME in almost all cases. The HVO in fuel blends reduced fuel consumption up to 1.8%, while the thermal efficiency was close to that of fossil diesel fuel. In addition, a reduction in pollutants was observed: CO by ~12.5–25.0%; HC by ~5.0–12.0%; NOx by ~6.5%; smokiness by ~11–18% (two-component blend) and up to ~29% (three-component blend). The CO2 and noise characteristics were close to those of fossil diesel fuel; however, the trend of reduced smoke emission was clearly seen. A fundamental obstacle to the wide use of HVO can be seen, however, which is the price, which is 25–90% (depending on the EU country) higher than the price of conventional (fossil) diesel fuel.

1. Introduction

Pollution and environmental protection, energy saving and independence become more relevant every year [1,2,3]. The transport sector is no exception, and is one of the main players in the balance of air pollution and energy consumption [4,5,6,7]. Internal combustion engine (ICE) manufacturers pay a lot of attention to pollution reduction, because year after year environmental protection requirements become stricter [8,9,10,11]. The obvious dominance of fossil fuels in conventional means of land, water and air transport was still observed in the first two decades of the 21st century. One of the main problems is that slow progress in the evolution of alternative energy resources means a slow reduction in fossil fuel consumption. For several decades, the road transport sector has seen steps towards electrification and attempts to commercialize hydrogen-powered passenger cars, but the adaptation of heavy transport to clean fuels remains a challenge for the automotive industry. A similar task remains in maritime transport and aviation. Another problem is outdated means of transport with outdated pollution reduction technologies. Outdated transport means higher pollution rates could continue for decades. To eliminate these transport means from the transport sector, however, could be expensive and socially irresponsible. Fuels produced from renewable energy sources can play a big role in solving the aforementioned problems. Renewable fuels can reduce air pollution rates in the transport sector and dependence on fossil fuels, while significant changes to engine systems are not required [12,13,14]. Europe has long-term experience with biofuel utilization for spark ignition ICEs and compression ignition ICEs. The consumption of fuels manufactured from renewable sources was planned and described in “White paper 2011” and DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/2001 [15,16]. For decades, blends of fossil fuel with bioethanol have been utilized in spark ignition ICEs and with fatty acid methyl esters in compression ignition ICEs [14,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Despite the fact that the raw material of biofuels (oil from rapeseed, soy, sunflower, palm, etc.) directly competes with the raw material of food products, and the fact that fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) and bioethanol can damage parts of engines not adapted for their operation, biofuels have found a place in the fuel market; together with the legal framework, this has forced engine manufacturers to adapt to the challenges posed by biofuels.
A number of engine producers have prepared their products to run on blends of biofuels and conventional fossil fuels. As an example, marine, railway, industrial and heavy road transport engines are diesel-using engines and their producers declare up to 30% allowance of FAME in fuel blends [23,24,25]. These producers are under legal pressure to reduce their negative impact on the environment, and at the same time to adapt to an increased share of biofuels in fuel. Europe has a number of legal regulations for specified transport means’ groups, such as: cars and light trucks; heavy-duty truck and bus engines; engines used in non-road mobile machinery (NRMM), including non-road spark ignited engines; stationary engines such as those used for power generation; and two- and three-wheel vehicles (motorcycles). Nevertheless, the European transport fleet comes under international legal guidelines such as the Stationary Engines: Gothenburg Protocol; Stationary Engines: World Bank Guidelines; IMO Marine Engine Regulations; and UIC Locomotive Emission Standards [26]. Factors such as strict pollution control, aging vehicle and engine fleets, complex and expensive use of exhaust gas aftertreatment facilities, and the technical challenges of using higher concentrations of traditional biodiesel in fuel blends form the background for searching for alternative fuels that eliminate or greatly reduce the listed problems. A very promising fuel is renewable hydrocarbons, known as Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL), Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA), or Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) [27,28,29,30,31,32,33].
HVO is a renewable and sustainable alternative fuel that can be used in conventional compression ignition ICEs (diesel engines). It is produced by chemically transforming vegetable oil through a process called hydrotreating. This process involves the removal of impurities and the saturation of unsaturated fatty acids, resulting in a fuel with improved properties and performance. One of the primary advantages of using HVO as a fuel is its compatibility with existing diesel engines. Conventional diesel engines can run on HVO without any significant modifications. It can be used as a drop-in replacement for conventional diesel fuel, meaning it can be blended with fossil diesel or used in pure form without requiring changes to the engine or fueling infrastructure [34,35,36,37].
HVO offers several benefits over conventional (fossil) diesel fuel. First and foremost, it is a renewable and sustainable fuel source. It is derived from vegetable oils, such as rapeseed, soybean, palm or waste oils, making it an environmentally friendly option. HVO has more fluent combustion characteristics, resulting in improved engine performance. It has a high cetane number, which leads to smoother engine operation, reduced noise and lower emissions compared with fossil diesel fuel: nitrogen oxides up to 20–46% lower, particulate matter up to 33–60%, carbon monoxide up to 37–40%,unburned hydrocarbons up to 12–40% and carbon dioxide up to 8% [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Furthermore, HVO has practically no sulfur, which helps reduce sulfur dioxide emissions and can considerably reduce greenhouse gas emissions. HVO has a long shelf life and good cold-weather performance [42,46,47,48]. It remains stable for extended periods without degradation, making it suitable for storage and distribution. Its low-temperature properties enable easier starting and smooth operation in colder climates, which can be a challenge with fossil diesel fuel [46,49].
In this context, a comparison of the properties of HVO and RME is also relevant. RME and HVO are both biodiesel fuels derived from vegetable oils. However, they differ in terms of their production processes and properties. RME is produced through a process called transesterification, where vegetable oil (such as rapeseed oil) reacts with methanol in the presence of a catalyst. This process converts the oil into fatty acid methyl esters, which are the main components of RME. HVO is produced through a different process called hydrotreating. It involves hydrogenation of vegetable oils, which removes impurities and saturates unsaturated fatty acids. Rapeseed oil is the primary feedstock for RME production and HVO can be produced from various vegetable oils, such as palm oil, soybean oil, rapeseed oil or used waste cooking oil [50,51,52,53,54]. HVO has a 15.8–17.3% higher energy content than RME and so is closer in composition to fossil diesel fuel [41,42,55]. HVO has better cold flow properties than RME. Its cloud point and pour point (the temperature at which the fuel stops flowing) are typically lower, making it more suitable for cold climates. The cloud point and pour point for HVO are in the ranges of −30 to −36.9 (CP) and −40 to −44 (PP) and for RME −5 to −10 (CP) and −14 to −15 (PP), respectively [39,42,55,56,57,58]. HVO shows an advantage in terms of compatibility (less aggressive effect on the surfaces of the parts, combustion process is similar to fossil diesel fuel, no operational challenges indicated) while RME can be used as a blend with fossil diesel fuel, HVO is considered a drop-in fuel, meaning it can be used as a complete (100%) substitute for conventional diesel fuel without any engine modifications [35,59].
Diesel fuel sold in the Baltic States and many other countries is obtained by blending fossil diesel fuel with rapeseed methyl ester (RME), produced from locally sourced feedstock. The RME content of the blend is up to 7% by volume. A blend of fossil diesel and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) is also commercially available in various proportions. The aim is to use non-food feedstocks for the production of HVO and to increase the share of this biofuel in diesel fuel. Two (D-RME and D-HVO) and three (D-RME-HVO) component fuel blends of component fossil diesel fuel (D100), rapeseed methyl ester (RME100) and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO100) were chosen in order to evaluate the impact of higher-concentration HVO and RME biodiesel in fuel blends on an engine’s operation and pollution rates and compare conventional RME biodiesel (first-generation) with advanced (second-generation) HVO.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Equipment for the Measurement of Fuel Properties

The physical and chemical properties of the tested fuels were analyzed at the fuel chemistry laboratory. The properties of fuels and their blends were measured repeatedly, and the average values were recorded. The equipment, measured properties, accuracy of equipment and detection methods are presented in Table 1.
Manufacturers of measurement equipment: KA-Werke GmbH & Co. KG, Staufen, Germany (IKA C 5000 calorimeter); PCS Instruments Ltd, London, United Kingdom (HFRR); Anton Paar Group AG, Graz, Austria (Anton Paar SVM 3000/G2, FP93 5G2 Pensky–Martens analyzer); Manchester, United Kingdom (Stabinger Viscometer, FPP 5Gs analyzer, CPP 5Gs analyzer); PAC, Houston, USA (PetroSpec analyzer); ECH Scientific Limited, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom (Aquamax KF Coulometric analyzer); Petrotest, Dahlewitz, Germany (PetroOXY analyzer).

2.2. Engine Testing Equipment

A Turbocharged Direct Injection 1.9 TDI engine (Audi–VW, Germany) was used to carry out the tests of pure fossil diesel, HVO and RME fuel mixtures. The engine test equipment was managed by the Laboratory of Transport Engineering and Logistics of Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (Vilnius Tech). The engine was 1Z type, controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU), with a BOSCH VP37 distribution-type rotary fuel pump and turbocharger. The main parameters of the engine are given in Table 2.
The engine brake stand, KI-5543, was used for the brake torque (MB) load and crankshaft speed measurements. The torque measurement error was ±1.23 Nm. The hourly fuel consumption Bf was measured by a SK-5000 electronic scale (A&D, Germany) and a stopwatch, with an accuracy of Bf determination of 0.5%. The exhaust gas compounds were measured by AVL DICOM 4000 gas analyzers (AVL, Austria) (for CO, CO2, HC and NOx) and an AVL DiSmoke (AVL, Austria) for smoke opacity. The CO measuring range was 0–10% (vol.), resolution 0.01%; the CO2 measuring range was 0–20% (vol.), resolution 0.1%; the HC measuring range was 0–20,000 ppm (vol.), resolution 1 ppm; the NOx measuring range was 0–5000 ppm (vol.), resolution 1 ppm; and the Smoke Opacity (SO) measuring range was 0–99.99%, resolution 0.01%. Kit CK: 261S (United Kingdom) was used for noise measurement (measurement range 60–130 dB). The start of injection (SOI) was measured using the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) connector and adjusted using the fuel pump control setting device. The arrangement of the laboratory equipment is presented in Figure 1a,b.

2.3. Fuel Blends and Engine Test Conditions

Experiments were carried out using fossil diesel fuel (D100) and blends of rapeseed methyl ester and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), products of the NESTE company, known as NESTE MY renewable diesel fuel [59]. HVO was purchased from the manufacturer and the raw material is unknown. The blends of fossil diesel fuel and renewable biodiesels were mixed by volume: RME15 blend of two components—fossil diesel fuel and 15% additive of RME, RME30; HVO15; HVO30; RME15–HVO15 blend of three components—fossil diesel fuel and 15% additive of RME and 15% of HVO. The main properties of fossil diesel fuel (D100), RME and pure HVO are given in Table 3. The limits of fuel parameters are common and can be found in various sources [60].
Engine tests were carried out at n = 2000 rpm. The brake torque (MB) was set to 30, 60, 90 and 120 Nm and these values correspond to the values of brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 MPa, respectively. These values are indicated as load points I, II, III and IV. These load points represent ~16.6%, 33.3%, 50.0%, and 66.6% of the engine’s rated MB. At different engine load points (BMEP = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 MPa), the start of injection was set to 2, 3, 4 and 5 Crank Angle Degree before Top Dead Center (CAD bTDC), respectively, for all fuels. This allows for a more accurate evaluation of the ecological and energy indicators of fuels with different cetane numbers, oxygen concentrations and other variations.
The temperature of the coolant and lube oil during tests was 87 ± 2 °C and 100 ± 2 °C, respectively. To better assess the influence of RME and HVO on engine parameters, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system was disabled during the tests.

3. Results and Discussion

The fuel consumption, thermal efficiency, emissions of hazardous compounds in exhaust gas and noise levels were measured and parameters such as fuel consumption, thermal efficiency and pollution rates were calculated from these results and analyzed. The volumetric and mass brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC), brake thermal efficiency (ηBTE), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and smoke opacity (SO) were determined. Taking into account the possible errors in measuring instruments and the accuracy of the measuring scale, we determined the possible error area of the calculated energy parameters BSFC and ηBTE.
It is known that HVO has a lower density rate [30,39,56]. Due to this, both the volumetric and mass BSFC are important and relevant for the analysis and comparison of lower-density fuels and higher-density fuels. Volumetric BSFC is more valuable for economic analysis than mass BSFC, because fuel trades in the fuel retailing market are based on volume. HVO with lower density shows better mass fuel consumption rates compared with diesel fuels, but volumetric fuel consumption rates are the opposite [39].
For the analysis of BSFC parameters, as well as others, two diagrams per parameter were created (Figure 2). The first one, marked with the letter “a”, gives absolute numbers and the second, marked with the letter “b”, gives the relative deviation when the percentage is the analyzed dimension. A “zero line” in diagrams marked with letter “b” represents fossil diesel fuel and the positions of markers show the relative or absolute deviation in all tested load modes (BMEP = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 MPa).
The results of the mass BSFC (Figure 2a) analysis show the regular change for both renewable fuels [31,42,44,55]. The lower heating value (see Table 3) of RME resulted in a ~1.0–3.8% higher mass BSFC for RME blends (Figure 2b). Obviously, an increased share of RME (fuel blend RME30) results in a higher mass BSFC than RME15. The higher heating value (see Table 3) and better burning conditions of HVO drag the mass BSFC curve down close to the D100 level when the 15% of HVO is mixed with RME15. In this case, the RME15–HVO15 blend showed an up to 0.2–1.2% deviation from the D100 level; however, the curve was too close to the D100 level and was covered by the error area. As mentioned, the higher heating value and better burning conditions lead to lower values of mass BSFC; thus, the blends HVO15 and HVO30 have lower values of mass BSFC 0.9–1.8% lower than the D100 level. However, only some of the HVO results are outside of the error level. In conclusion, it can be noted that the more advanced fuel, HVO, has higher values of mass BSFC of RME than D100 when the fuel blend (RME15–HVO15) of three components is used instead of two components (RME15). An increased share of HVO in the two-component blend can reduce the values of mass BSFC compared with the D100 values.
An analysis of the volumetric brake-specific fuel consumption showed very similar results for renewable fuels and D100 (Figure 3a); these results are covered by an error area, except RME30. However, the relative deviation of RME results vary in the range of 0.9–1.8% (Figure 3b), which is covered by the error area. Similar results can be found in other research [61,62]. An analysis of BSFC shows that HVO and fuel blends with it are competitive compared with RME and even with D100.
The other very important parameter that indicates the efficiency of burned fuel in an engine is the brake thermal efficiency (ηBTE). ηBTE is calculated using values of mass BSFC and the LHV of fuels (Table 3); the results are shown in Figure 4a. The data plot shows (Figure 4b) ηBTE rates increased by up to ~1.5% when blends were used; this correlates well with the results of other researchers’ studies [42,44,55,58,61]. However, the relative deviation is so close to the D100 level that it is not appropriate to analyze the differences between the tested fuels. The results of such analyses show that, when using D100 and renewable fuel blends, the conversion of thermal energy into mechanical energy does not reduce an engine’s efficiency.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and toxic gas that is formed as a byproduct of incomplete combustion due to insufficient oxygen supply. In a compression ignition engine (CIE), CO is formed in the cylinder and emitted together with exhaust gas due to the insufficient amount of oxygen in the combustion process. Lack of oxygen is a condition of incomplete combustion (i.e., the fuel is not fully burned). This results in the formation of CO in the cylinder instead of CO2 [63,64]. The character of CO data (Figure 5a) distribution is similar to other research [35,58]. In the BMEP range of 0.2–0.8 MPa, renewable fuels generate ~6.0–25.0% (Figure 5b) lower CO emissions. The emissions of both renewable fuels decrease when the concentration of the biocomponent is increased. Better results are seen when HVO is used. Two-component RME blends can reduce CO emissions by ~6.0–12.0% and HVO blends by ~12.5–24.9%. The three-component blend is between RME and HVO, with a ~11.5–15.1% reduction in CO emissions.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless, and nontoxic gas that is a byproduct of the hydrocarbon oxidation reaction (combustion). It is known as a main component in greenhouse gases and its accumulation in the atmosphere contributes to climate change and global warming. During the combustion process, carbon atoms in the fuel combine with oxygen atoms in the air to form CO2 a compound that is a product of the complete carbon oxidation reaction in CIE [63,64]. CO2 emissions depend on two parameters only: fuel consumption and the carbon amount in the fuel. Therefore, the less carbon in the fuel or the lower the fuel consumption, the lower the CO2 emissions. The results (Figure 6a) had a strong correlation with the characteristic of mass BSFC (Figure 2a). All tested blends with renewable fuels showed results close to D100, except RME30, which was characterized by the highest BSFC and the highest CO2 emissions (range of ~1.3–2.5%). The data for other blends were covered by an error area and varied from –0.5% to 1.5% (Figure 6b).
Unburned hydrocarbons, also referred to as HC emissions, are a type of air pollutant that is produced by CIEs. They are formed when the fuel in the engine combustion chamber does not burn completely and is released into the exhaust system as unburned fuel. Factors such as an improper air–fuel mixture, inadequate fuel atomization, low combustion temperatures or poorly timed injection can lead to incomplete burning of the fuel, resulting in the presence of unburned HC in the exhaust gases. The main causes of a high unburned HC level are the fuel quality, engine technical condition and operating conditions [63,64]. Both two-component blends, HVO15 and HVO30, showed better results (Figure 7a) due to the simpler HVO molecular chain [42,46,55], which reacts more easily than other fuels (D100 and RME) during fuel oxidation reactions. The distribution of two-component HVO data showed an HC reduction in the range of ~5.0–12.0% for all load ranges (Figure 7b). The opposite situation was found when RME data were collected. The two-component blend RME15 was characterized by ~2.5–5.5% higher HC emissions than D100, and RME30 was 4.9–10.1% higher in all ranges of engine load. This can be explained by the long chain alkyl esters produced by the transesterification of vegetable oils [19,27,56,61] and the worse oxidation process. The curve of the three-component RME15–HVO15, as expected, was located between the blends with HVO and RME. The reduction in HC emissions achieved by RME15–HVO15 was up to ~5.0%.
The two primary nitrogen oxides produced were nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a group of highly reactive gases that are formed when nitrogen and oxygen atoms in the air combine during combustion in the cylinder of a CIE due to high combustion temperatures and pressures. Factors that contribute to the formation of NOx in a CIE include high compression ratios, very high engine loads and inefficient combustion. These conditions create a high-temperature and oxygen-rich environment in the cylinder that favors the formation of NOx [63,64]. When released into the atmosphere, NOx contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and smog, which are harmful to human health and the environment. NOx emissions also contribute to acid rain and the depletion of the ozone layer. In summary, NOx emissions are a significant environmental concern due to their contribution to air pollution and adverse health effects. NOx differences between advanced and conventional biodiesel are well known [28,35,41,55,65]. HVO has a higher cetane number, which determines a shorter delay of fuel ignition. This feature makes the high peak of temperature in premixed combustion lower than other tested fuels, and this has a direct influence on NOx emission due to the more intensive heat release in diffusion combustion [34,43,46]. Fuel blends that consist of HVO are characterized by a lower level of NOx emissions (Figure 8a) compared with two-component RME blends and D100. The reduction range of NOx emissions is up to ~6.5% for fuel blends that consist of HVO, and the opposite is seen true for RME—the increase range reached 1.5–6.0% (RME30: 2.1–6.0%, RME15: 1.5–3.5%) (Figure 8b). Such results of RME can be explained by the chemical composition. RME mainly consists of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen; the last one is not a material for combustion but a component to maintain combustion, so the oxygen acts as a ballast in premixed combustion, resulting in extended ignition delay.
Smoke from a CIE is the visible exhaust emissions that are composed of tiny particles suspended in the exhaust gases. These particles, commonly referred to as soot, are a complex mixture of unburned carbon and other organic compounds. In a CIE, smoke is formed due to incomplete combustion of the fuel. When fuel is injected into the combustion chamber, it needs sufficient time and temperature to burn completely, but factors such as poor-quality fuel, combustion chamber design, poor air and fuel mixing in the cylinder influence the engine operation conditions, especially high load and transient modes [63,64]. To evaluate the level of smoke in exhaust gas, the opacity of exhaust gas (SO) was measured and analyzed (Figure 9a).
As expected [28,29,55,58], all blends gave reduced smokiness due to a better combustion process, especially during diffusion combustion, when oxidation is longer and more intensive compared with the premixed phase. The relative deviation is up to ~18% (Figure 9b) for two-component blends and a ~29% reduction was observed when a three-component blend was used. This could be explained by the impact of oxygen from RME composition and the combustion features of HVO. Two-component HVO blends (relative change in the range of ~11–18%) showed significantly better results compared with two-component RME blends (relative change in the range of ~2–15%).
CIE operation generated noise that mainly consisted of these sources: combustion noise (in-cylinder processes), mechanical noise (moving parts), exhaust system noise and air intake noise [63,64,66,67]. Each group has dedicated measures to reduce the noise; however, this research only covers change in fuels, believing the HVO can reduce the combustion noise due to better physical and chemical properties. The range of noise data distribution was ~94.3–95.1 dB for all tested fuels in tested engine load modes (Figure 10a). All data points were covered by an error area; however, two-component HVO blends were characterized by a lower level of noise compared with D100 and two-component RME blends (Figure 10a). The relative deviation of two-component HVO blend data was lower, up to 0.4%, while RME blends showed a noise level that was higher by up to ~0.2% (Figure 10b). This was expected due to the smoother HVO combustion (simpler molecular chain, higher cetane number and lower peaks of energy release in premixed combustion), while the opposite expectation was the case when RME blends were tested. Figure 10 shows that there was reduced combustion noise when HVO was used.

4. Conclusions

The results of this research show the advantage of the HVO additive versus RME in many cases, as well as in comparison with D100. All received data were acceptable and described by the cubic polynomial. These specific advantages of HVO were found after analysis:
  • Mass BSFC was reduced by ~0.9–1.8% when two-component HVO blends were used. This effect was influenced by a higher heating value and better combustion features.
  • Volumetric BSFC, which is more important for the fuel retailing market, remained very close to the D100 data. That means that adding renewable fuel with a lower density did not lead to higher fuel consumption.
  • The thermal efficiency ηBTE remained very close to D100 when HVO and RME fuel blends were tested. That means that an advanced renewable fuel with low density does not reduce the combustion efficiency or amount of energy released due to its higher heating value and chemical composition. This fact is very important when a new fuel is used instead of an existing fuel on the market.
  • Incomplete combustion compounds CO and HC, and smokiness, were reduced by HVO as well. The better combustion features of HVO resulted in ~12.5–25.0% lower emissions of CO in all tested engine load ranges. At the same time, the impact of RME on CO reduction was in the range ~6.0–12.0%. The reduction level of unburned HC reached ~5.0–12.0%, and opposite results were found when RME was used—an increase of 4.9–10.1%. Such contrasting results for both renewable fuels are due to differences in their molecular composition and structure. The smoke opacity measurement values were covered by an error area; however, a trend of reduced smoke emissions was clearly seen in diagrams. The lower values were caused by the HVO composition (contains ~100% alkanes/paraffinic hydrocarbons) and the oxygen in the RME composition leading to more intensive oxidation during diffusion combustion.
  • The level of complete combustion of CO2 was covered by an error area in all cases except RME 30, which was ~1.5–2.5% higher than D100 due to the higher fuel consumption.
  • Due to differences between the HVO and RME molecular composition and structure, there was an extended ignition delay, resulting in contrasting results of NOx formation in premixed combustion. NOx emissions were reduced by up to ~6.5% when HVO was used and increased by 1.5–6.0% when RME was used.
  • A significant reduction in smokiness was observed when blends were used. The relative deviation was up to ~18% for two-component blends and an up to ~29% reduction was observed when a three-component blend was used. The two-component HVO blends (with a relative change of ~11–18%) showed better results compared with two-component RME blends (with a relative change of ~2–15%). Research data on the three-component RME15–HVO15 blend in most cases were distributed between the data of two-component RME and HVO blends; however, the lowest rates of smokiness were found for the three-component blend. This could be explained by the impact of oxygen from the RME composition and the combustion features of HVO.
  • The range of noise data distribution was very narrow (~94.3–95.1 dB) and covered by an error area; however, HVO blends were characterized by a lower level of noise compared with D100 and RME blends due to lower peaks of energy release in premixed combustion. The relative deviation of two-component HVO blends data was lower, up to 0.4%, while RME blends showed a higher noise level, up to ~0.2%.
One disadvantage of HVO must be noted. The price is noncompetitive against that of conventional diesel fuel in the road transport fuel retailing market as well as the RME. As an example, the price per liter (taxes included) of HVO in European gas stations is ~EUR 2.5–2.9, while conventional diesel fuel costs ~EUR 1.55–1.95 per liter. This is one of the main problems with the spread of advanced fuels made from renewable energy sources.
Currently, due to economic considerations, the consumption of HVO advanced biodiesel is not high compared to the consumption of traditional first-generation RME biodiesel. According to statistics, RME currently costs ~1210 USD/ton, while HVO costs ~1500 USD/ton (taxes excluded) [68]. The price of HVO is about 24% higher than that of RME. For this reason, this fuel is not popular, but stricter environmental requirements and dependence on imported fuels could result in this fuel being used more widely. Features such as a low level of CO2 emissions when assessing the life cycle of HVO, the absence of technical challenges in increasing the use of HVO in vehicles and the availability of raw materials increase HVO’s attractiveness, and, in the future, prices may become closer to those of petroleum-based diesel.
This study was carried out on a diesel engine operating at a constant speed, in order to bring the research closer to the operating mode of diesel–electric power plants, which are increasingly popular in ships. The research results show that the first-generation biodiesel RME can be effectively replaced by the advanced HVO biodiesel. Long-term environmental strategy documents such as the “White Paper 2011” [15] define clear requirements for air, sea and land transport. The results of this study showed that HVO fuel, due to its chemical and physical properties, is also relevant in controlling emissions from marine and coastal transport engines and can help reduce not only fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, but also emissions of harmful compounds.
This study is one of the constituent parts of an overall study on the use of HVO in diesel engines. In the first part [31], an in-depth analysis of the influence of HVO on engine parameters was carried out, in which fossil diesel fuel and HVO mixtures (0–100% HVO v/v) were studied. The second part (this study) covers the use of HVO as an advanced biodiesel in place of first-generation RME blends with fossil diesel fuel. The next stage will be of a more practical nature and will be related to the adaptation of HVO to vehicle fleets and a deeper economic analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Ž. and A.R.; methodology, J.Ž. and A.R.; software, A.R. and J.Ž.; formal analysis, A.R. and J.Ž.; validation, A.R. and J.Ž.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Ž.; writing—review and editing, J.Ž. and A.R.; supervision, J.Ž. and A.R.; project administration, J.Ž. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

BfHourly fuel consumption
BMEPBrake mean effective pressure
BSFCBrake-specific fuel consumption
CAD bTDCCrank angle degree before top dead center
CIECompression ignition engine
COCarbon monoxide
CO2Carbon dioxide
EGRExhaust gas recirculation
FAMEFatty acid methyl esters
HCHydrocarbons
HVOHydrogenated vegetable oil
ICEInternal combustion engine
MBBrake torque
nEngine speed
NOxNitrogen oxides
RMERapeseed methyl ester
SMSOSmoke opacity
SOIStart of injection
ηBTEBTEBrake thermal efficiency

References

  1. Díaz-Secades, L.A.; González, R.; Rivera, N. Waste Heat Recovery from Marine Main Medium Speed Engine Block. Energy, Exergy, Economic and Environmental (4E) Assessment—Case Study. Ocean Eng. 2022, 264, 112493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sun, L.; Zhang, T.; Liu, S.; Wang, K.; Rogers, T.; Yao, L.; Zhao, P. Reducing Energy Consumption and Pollution in the Urban Transportation Sector: A Review of Policies and Regulations in Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 125339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fayyazbakhsh, A.; Bell, M.L.; Zhu, X.; Mei, X.; Koutný, M.; Hajinajaf, N.; Zhang, Y. Engine Emissions with Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases and Their Control Technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lion, S.; Vlaskos, I.; Taccani, R. A Review of Emissions Reduction Technologies for Low and Medium Speed Marine Diesel Engines and Their Potential for Waste Heat Recovery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 207, 112553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Galimova, T.; Ram, M.; Breyer, C. Mitigation of Air Pollution and Corresponding Impacts during a Global Energy Transition towards 100% Renewable Energy System by 2050. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 14124–14143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, Z.; Lv, J.; Li, W.; Long, J.; Wang, S.; Tan, D.; Yin, Z. Performance and Emission Evaluation of a Marine Diesel Engine Fueled with Natural Gas Ignited by Biodiesel-Diesel Blended Fuel. Energy 2022, 256, 124662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barreiro, J.; Zaragoza, S.; Diaz-Casas, V. Review of Ship Energy Efficiency. Ocean Eng. 2022, 257, 111594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chou, M.-T.; Hsu, Y.-P.; Hsu, C.-T.; Ding, J.-F. Reconstruction Mechanism and Strategy of Global Maritime Green Supply Chain against the Backdrop of Nuclear Pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 185, 114235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kwon, Y. High-Resolution Spatial Distribution of Marine Vessel Emission and Its Significance in Sustainable Port Air Quality Management: A Case Study of Port of Incheon. Ocean Eng. 2022, 258, 111799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, Y.; Cao, Q.; Liu, L.; Wu, Y.; Liu, H.; Gu, Z.; Zhu, C. A Review of Low and Zero Carbon Fuel Technologies: Achieving Ship Carbon Reduction Targets. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 54, 102762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carvalho, F.; Portugal-Pereira, J.; Junginger, M.; Szklo, A. Biofuels for Maritime Transportation: A Spatial, Techno-Economic, and Logistic Analysis in Brazil, Europe, South Africa, and the USA. Energies 2021, 14, 4980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gülüm, M. Effects of Compression Ratio, Blending Ratio and Engine Speed on Fuel Cost, Performance and Exhaust Emissions of a Diesel Engine Fueled with Bio-Derived Alternative Fuels. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 53, 102464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chuahy, D.F.F.; Finney, C.E.A.; Kaul, B.C.; Kass, M.D. Computational Exploration of Bio-Oil Blend Effects on Large Two-Stroke Marine Engines. Fuel 2022, 322, 123977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sathish, T.; Mohanavel, V.; Arunkumar, M.; Rajan, K.; Soudagar, M.E.M.; Mujtaba, M.A.; Salmen, S.H.; Al Obaid, S.; Fayaz, H.; Sivakumar, S. Utilization of Azadirachta Indica Biodiesel, Ethanol and Diesel Blends for Diesel Engine Applications with Engine Emission Profile. Fuel 2022, 319, 123798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. European Commission. White Paper 2011; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. European Union. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources (Recast) (Text with EEA Relevance); European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; Volume 328. [Google Scholar]
  17. Adrian, V.N.; Catalin, N.D.; Radu, C. On Some Possible Effects of Using Renewable Oxygenated Fuels in a Large Marine Diesel Engine. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 966–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fei, C.; Qian, Z.; Yang, Z.; Ren, J.; Zhu, S.; Yan, Y.; Shu, Z. Combustion and Emission Performance of Isopropanol-Butanol-Ethanol (IBE) Mixed with Diesel Fuel on Marine Diesel Engine with Nano YSZ Thermal Barrier Coating. Energy 2022, 256, 124683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Imran, S.; Emberson, D.R.; Wen, D.S.; Diez, A.; Crookes, R.J.; Korakianitis, T. Performance and Specific Emissions Contours of a Diesel and RME Fueled Compression-Ignition Engine throughout Its Operating Speed and Power Range. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 771–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sayin Kul, B.; Ciniviz, M. Assessment of Waste Bread Bioethanol-Gasoline Blends in Respect to Combustion Analysis, Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions of a SI Engine. Fuel 2020, 277, 118237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hong, B.; Lius, A.; Mahendar, S.K.; Mihaescu, M.; Cronhjort, A. Energy and Exergy Characteristics of an Ethanol-Fueled Heavy-Duty SI Engine at High-Load Operation Using Lean-Burn Combustion. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 224, 120063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abdellatief, T.M.M.; Ershov, M.A.; Kapustin, V.M.; Ali Abdelkareem, M.; Kamil, M.; Olabi, A.G. Recent Trends for Introducing Promising Fuel Components to Enhance the Anti-Knock Quality of Gasoline: A Systematic Review. Fuel 2021, 291, 120112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Duchowny, A.; Engeländer, K.; Blümich, B.; Adams, A. Aging Analysis of Alternative Fuels and Biofuels in a Novel Test Rig. J. Energy Inst. 2023, 107, 101196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alves-Fortunato, M.; Ayoub, E.; Bacha, K.; Mouret, A.; Dalmazzone, C. Fatty Acids Methyl Esters (FAME) Autoxidation: New Insights on Insoluble Deposit Formation Process in Biofuels. Fuel 2020, 268, 117074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Das, A.K.; Sahu, S.K.; Panda, A.K. Current Status and Prospects of Alternate Liquid Transportation Fuels in Compression Ignition Engines: A Critical Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Emission Standards: Europe: Heavy-Duty Truck and Bus Engines. Available online: https://dieselnet.com/standards/eu/hd.php (accessed on 17 July 2023).
  27. Fajri, H.; Rieß, S.; Clemente Mallada, R.; Ruoff, I.; Wensing, M. Optical Measurements of Two Cylindrical and Conical Heavy-Duty Diesel Injector Nozzels—A Comparison of Reference Diesel, HVO, and RME Fuels. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 285, 117018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ovaska, T.; Niemi, S.; Sirviö, K.; Nilsson, O.; Portin, K.; Asplund, T. Effects of Alternative Marine Diesel Fuels on the Exhaust Particle Size Distributions of an Off-Road Diesel Engine. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 150, 1168–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Preuß, J.; Munch, K.; Denbratt, I. Performance and Emissions of Renewable Blends with OME3-5 and HVO in Heavy Duty and Light Duty Compression Ignition Engines. Fuel 2021, 303, 121275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Roque, L.F.A.; da Costa, R.B.R.; de Souza, T.A.Z.; Coronado, C.J.R.; Pinto, G.M.; Cintra, A.J.A.; Raats, O.O.; Oliveira, B.M.; Frez, G.V.; Alves, L.F.R. Experimental Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Green Diesel (HVO) in Dual-Fuel Operation with Bioethanol. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 389, 135989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rimkus, A.; Žaglinskis, J.; Rapalis, P.; Skačkauskas, P. Research on the Combustion, Energy and Emission Parameters of Diesel Fuel and a Biomass-to-Liquid (BTL) Fuel Blend in a Compression-Ignition Engine. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 106, 1109–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dimitriou, I.; Goldingay, H.; Bridgwater, A.V. Techno-Economic and Uncertainty Analysis of Biomass to Liquid (BTL) Systems for Transport Fuel Production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 88, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wilczynski, M.; Schanz, H. The Role of Market Perceptions in Bridging the Innovation Gap of Bio-Based Markets: The Example of Biomass-to-Liquid in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 291, 125926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McCaffery, C.; Zhu, H.; Sabbir Ahmed, C.M.; Canchola, A.; Chen, J.Y.; Li, C.; Johnson, K.C.; Durbin, T.D.; Lin, Y.-H.; Karavalakis, G. Effects of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO) and HVO/Biodiesel Blends on the Physicochemical and Toxicological Properties of Emissions from an off-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine. Fuel 2022, 323, 124283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Suarez-Bertoa, R.; Kousoulidou, M.; Clairotte, M.; Giechaskiel, B.; Nuottimäki, J.; Sarjovaara, T.; Lonza, L. Impact of HVO Blends on Modern Diesel Passenger Cars Emissions during Real World Operation. Fuel 2019, 235, 1427–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ruggiero, A.; D’Amato, R.; Merola, M.; Valašek, P.; Müller, M. Tribological Characterization of Vegetal Lubricants: Comparative Experimental Investigation on Jatropha Curcas L. Oil, Rapeseed Methyl Ester Oil, Hydrotreated Rapeseed Oil. Tribol. Int. 2017, 109, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Türck, J.; Singer, A.; Lichtinger, A.; Almaddad, M.; Türck, R.; Jakob, M.; Garbe, T.; Ruck, W.; Krahl, J. Solketal as a Renewable Fuel Component in Ternary Blends with Biodiesel and Diesel Fuel or HVO and the Impact on Physical and Chemical Properties. Fuel 2022, 310, 122463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hunicz, J.; Mikulski, M.; Shukla, P.C.; Gęca, M.S. Partially Premixed Combustion of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil in a Diesel Engine: Sensitivity to Boost and Exhaust Gas Recirculation. Fuel 2022, 307, 121910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rimkus, A.; Žaglinskis, J.; Stravinskas, S.; Rapalis, P.; Matijošius, J.; Bereczky, Á. Research on the Combustion, Energy and Emission Parameters of Various Concentration Blends of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil Biofuel and Diesel Fuel in a Compression-Ignition Engine. Energies 2019, 12, 2978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. d’Ambrosio, S.; Mancarella, A.; Manelli, A. Utilization of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) in a Euro 6 Dual-Loop EGR Diesel Engine: Behavior as a Drop-In Fuel and Potentialities along Calibration Parameter Sweeps. Energies 2022, 15, 7202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Di Blasio, G.; Ianniello, R.; Beatrice, C. Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil as Enabler for High-Efficient and Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles in the View of 2030 Targets. Fuel 2022, 310, 122206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Szeto, W.; Leung, D.Y.C. Is Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil a Superior Substitute for Fossil Diesel? A Comprehensive Review on Physicochemical Properties, Engine Performance and Emissions. Fuel 2022, 327, 125065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dimitriadis, A.; Seljak, T.; Vihar, R.; Žvar Baškovič, U.; Dimaratos, A.; Bezergianni, S.; Samaras, Z.; Katrašnik, T. Improving PM-NOx Trade-off with Paraffinic Fuels: A Study towards Diesel Engine Optimization with HVO. Fuel 2020, 265, 116921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Omari, A.; Pischinger, S.; Bhardwaj, O.P.; Holderbaum, B.; Nuottimäki, J.; Honkanen, M. Improving Engine Efficiency and Emission Reduction Potential of HVO by Fuel-Specific Engine Calibration in Modern Passenger Car Diesel Applications. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2017, 10, 756–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wu, Y.; Ferns, J.; Li, H.; Andrews, G. Investigation of Combustion and Emission Performance of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO) Diesel. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2017, 10, 895–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mancarella, A.; Marello, O. Effect of Coolant Temperature on Performance and Emissions of a Compression Ignition Engine Running on Conventional Diesel and Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO). Energies 2023, 16, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hernández, J.J.; Rodríguez-Fernández, J.; Calle-Asensio, A. Performance and Regulated Gaseous Emissions of a Euro 6 Diesel Vehicle with Lean NOx Trap at Different Ambient Conditions: Sensitivity to the Type of Fuel. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 219, 113023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brynolf, S.; Grahn, M.; Hansson, J.; Korberg, A.D.; Malmgren, E. Chapter 9—Sustainable fuels for shipping. In Sustainable Energy Systems on Ships; Baldi, F., Coraddu, A., Mondejar, M.E., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 403–428. ISBN 978-0-12-824471-5. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mikkonen, S.; Kiiski, U.; Saikkonen, P.; Sorvari, J. Diesel Vehicle Cold Operability: Design of Fuel System Essential Besides Fuel Properties. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2012, 5, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hor, C.J.; Tan, Y.H.; Mubarak, N.M.; Tan, I.S.; Ibrahim, M.L.; Yek, P.N.Y.; Karri, R.R.; Khalid, M. Techno-Economic Assessment of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil as a Renewable Fuel from Waste Sludge Palm Oil. Environ. Res. 2023, 220, 115169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lorenzi, G.; Mignini, L.; Venezia, B.; Silva, C.; Santarelli, M. Integration of High-Temperature Electrolysis in an HVO Production Process Using Waste Vegetable Oil. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 2005–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. de Souza, T.A.Z.; Pinto, G.M.; Julio, A.A.V.; Coronado, C.J.R.; Perez-Herrera, R.; Siqueira, B.O.P.S.; da Costa, R.B.R.; Roberts, J.J.; Palacio, J.C.E. Biodiesel in South American Countries: A Review on Policies, Stages of Development and Imminent Competition with Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Feng, S.; Xu, S.; Yuan, P.; Xing, Y.; Shen, B.; Li, Z.; Zhang, C.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Ma, J.; et al. The Impact of Alternative Fuels on Ship Engine Emissions and Aftertreatment Systems: A Review. Catalysts 2022, 12, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ershov, M.A.; Savelenko, V.D.; Makhova, U.A.; Makhmudova, A.E.; Zuikov, A.V.; Kapustin, V.M.; Abdellatief, T.M.M.; Burov, N.O.; Geng, T.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; et al. Current Challenge and Innovative Progress for Producing HVO and FAME Biodiesel Fuels and Their Applications. Waste Biomass Valor. 2023, 14, 505–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. No, S.-Y. Application of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil from Triglyceride Based Biomass to CI Engines—A Review. Fuel 2014, 115, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zeman, P.; Hönig, V.; Kotek, M.; Táborský, J.; Obergruber, M.; Mařík, J.; Hartová, V.; Pechout, M. Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil as a Fuel from Waste Materials. Catalysts 2019, 9, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Labeckas, G.; Slavinskas, S.; Kanapkienė, I. The Individual Effects of Cetane Number, Oxygen Content or Fuel Properties on the Ignition Delay, Combustion Characteristics, and Cyclic Variation of a Turbocharged CRDI Diesel Engine—Part 1. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 148, 1003–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bortel, I.; Vávra, J.; Takáts, M. Effect of HVO Fuel Mixtures on Emissions and Performance of a Passenger Car Size Diesel Engine. Renew. Energy 2019, 140, 680–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Neste MY Renewable DieselTM. Available online: https://www.neste.com/products/all-products/renewable-road-transport/neste-my-renewable-diesel (accessed on 10 August 2023).
  60. Guide to Fuel Specifications. Available online: https://www.crownoil.co.uk/guides/fuel-specifications-guide/ (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  61. Kim, D.; Kim, S.; Oh, S.; No, S.-Y. Engine Performance and Emission Characteristics of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil in Light Duty Diesel Engines. Fuel 2014, 125, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Valeika, G.; Matijošius, J.; Rimkus, A. Research of the Impact of EGR Rate on Energy and Environmental Parameters of Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engine Fuelled by Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO) and Biobutanol—Castor Oil Fuel Mixtures. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 270, 116198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Heywood, J.B. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-260-11610-6. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rakopoulos, C.D.; Giakoumis, E.G. Diesel Engine Transient Operation: Principles of Operation and Simulation Analysis; Springer: London, UK, 2009; ISBN 978-1-84882-374-7. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pinto, G.M.; de Souza, T.A.Z.; da Costa, R.B.R.; Roque, L.F.A.; Frez, G.V.; Coronado, C.J.R. Combustion, Performance and Emission Analyses of a CI Engine Operating with Renewable Diesel Fuels (HVO/FARNESANE) under Dual-Fuel Mode through Hydrogen Port Injection. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2023, 48, 19713–19732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Çelebi, K.; Uludamar, E.; Tosun, E.; Yıldızhan, Ş.; Aydın, K.; Özcanlı, M. Experimental and Artificial Neural Network Approach of Noise and Vibration Characteristic of an Unmodified Diesel Engine Fuelled with Conventional Diesel, and Biodiesel Blends with Natural Gas Addition. Fuel 2017, 197, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Giakoumis, E.G.; Rakopoulos, D.C.; Rakopoulos, C.D. Combustion Noise Radiation during Dynamic Diesel Engine Operation Including Effects of Various Biofuel Blends: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1099–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Biodiesel Prices (SME & FAME). Available online: https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/biodiesel-prices-sme-fame (accessed on 21 September 2023).
Sustainability 15 14690 g001
Figure 1. The scheme of the engine testing equipment (a) and the actual layout of the equipment (b).
Figure 1. The scheme of the engine testing equipment (a) and the actual layout of the equipment (b).
Sustainability 15 14690 g001
Sustainability 15 14690 g002
Figure 2. Mass brake-specific fuel consumption (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 2. Mass brake-specific fuel consumption (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g002
Sustainability 15 14690 g003
Figure 3. Volumetric brake-specific fuel consumption: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 3. Volumetric brake-specific fuel consumption: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g003
Sustainability 15 14690 g004
Figure 4. Brake thermal efficiency: (a) absolute characteristic and absolute deviation (b) from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 4. Brake thermal efficiency: (a) absolute characteristic and absolute deviation (b) from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g004
Sustainability 15 14690 g005
Figure 5. Specific emissions of carbon monoxide: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 5. Specific emissions of carbon monoxide: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g005
Sustainability 15 14690 g006
Figure 6. Specific emissions of carbon dioxide: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 6. Specific emissions of carbon dioxide: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g006
Sustainability 15 14690 g007
Figure 7. Specific emissions of hydrocarbons: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 7. Specific emissions of hydrocarbons: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g007
Sustainability 15 14690 g008
Figure 8. Specific emissions of nitrogen oxides: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 8. Specific emissions of nitrogen oxides: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g008
Sustainability 15 14690 g009
Figure 9. Smoke opacity: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 9. Smoke opacity: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g009
Sustainability 15 14690 g010
Figure 10. Noise level: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Figure 10. Noise level: (a) absolute characteristic; (b) relative deviation from fossil diesel fuel.
Sustainability 15 14690 g010
Table 1. Data on fuel property measurement equipment.
Table 1. Data on fuel property measurement equipment.
ParameterDeviceMethodAccuracy
Gross heating value, J/gIKA C 5000 calorimeterDIN 51900-2130 J/g
Lower heating value LHV, J/g
Lubricity, µmHFRRISO 121560.1%
Flash point, °CFP93 5G2 Pensky–Martens analyzerISO 27190.03 °C
Dynamic viscosity, mPa∙sAnton Paar SVM 3000/G2 Stabinger ViscometerASTM D70420.1%
Kinematic viscosity, mm2/s0.1%
Density, g/cm30.0002 g/cm3
Oxidative stability, min.PetroOXY analyzerEN 160910.1%
CFPP, °CFPP 5Gs analyzerEN 1161 °C
Pour point, °CCPP 5Gs analyzerISO 30163 °C
Water content, % massAquamax KF Coulometric analyzerISO 129370.0003%
Cetane numberPetroSpec analyzerASTM D6130.05%
Cetane indexASTM D47370.05%
Sulfur, % massIKA C 5000 calorimeter, muffle furnace, scalesGOST 38770.04%
Table 2. Main parameters of an Audi-VW 1Z 1.9 TDI diesel engine.
Table 2. Main parameters of an Audi-VW 1Z 1.9 TDI diesel engine.
ParameterValue
Displacement (cm3)1896
Number of cylinders4/OHC
Compression ratio19.5
Power (kW)66 (4000 rpm)
Torque (Nm)180 (2000–2500 rpm)
Bore (mm)79.5
Stroke (mm)95.5
Fuel injectionDirect injection (single)
Fuel injection-pump designAxial-piston distributor injection pump
Nozzle typeHole-type
Nozzle and holder assemblyTwo-spring
Nozzle opening pressure (bar)190–200
Table 3. Main parameters of base fuels.
Table 3. Main parameters of base fuels.
PropertiesD100RME100HVO100Limits
EN 590EN 14214EN 15940
Gross heating value, MJ/kg45.8940.1347.19–––
Lower heating value, MJ/kg42.8337.4743.63–––
CFPP, °C−22−14−44≤+5
≤−44 *		≤0
≤−20 *		≤+5
≤−44 *
Pour point, °C−39−33<−50–––
Dynamic viscosity 40 °C, mPa×s2.4123.8302.198–––
Kinematic viscosity at 40 °C, cSt2.94014.4212.8762.0–4.53.5–5.02.0–4.5
Density at 15 °C, g/mL0.8380.8840.7820.800–0.8450.860–0.9000.765–0.800
Dynamic viscosity at 15 °C, mPa×s4.4417.3174.014–––
Kinematic viscosity at 15 °C, cSt5.3028.2745.136–––
Density at 40 °C, g/mL0.8200.8660.764–––
Oxidative stability, min98.027.076.1–––
Water content, % V/V0.00280.02880.0021≤0.02≤0.05≤0.02
Lubricity, µm406166344≤460≤460≤460
Cetane number~5351.774.3≥51.0≥51.0≥70
Flash point, °C74.811065.0>55.0>120.0>55.0
Elemental composition, H %13.3111.8215.62---
Elemental composition, C %86.6977.5284.38---
Elemental composition, S ppmBelow detection limit≤10≤10≤5
*—for winter application.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Žaglinskis, J.; Rimkus, A. Research on the Performance Parameters of a Compression-Ignition Engine Fueled by Blends of Diesel Fuel, Rapeseed Methyl Ester and Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14690. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014690

AMA Style

Žaglinskis J, Rimkus A. Research on the Performance Parameters of a Compression-Ignition Engine Fueled by Blends of Diesel Fuel, Rapeseed Methyl Ester and Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil. Sustainability. 2023; 15(20):14690. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014690

Chicago/Turabian Style

Žaglinskis, Justas, and Alfredas Rimkus. 2023. "Research on the Performance Parameters of a Compression-Ignition Engine Fueled by Blends of Diesel Fuel, Rapeseed Methyl Ester and Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil" Sustainability 15, no. 20: 14690. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014690

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop