The Effects of Fuel Additives on Diesel Engine Emissions during Steady State and Transient Operation

John P. Nuszkowski

Dissertation submitted to the College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Mechanical Engineering

Dr. Gregory J. Thompson, Chair Dr. Nigel N. Clark Dr. Mridul Gautam Dr. Scott Wayne Dr. John Zondlo Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Morgantown, West Virginia 2008

Keywords: Additives, Emissions, Diesel Engines, Heat Release

UMI Number: 3472475

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3472475 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Abstract
The Effects of Fuel Additives on Diesel Engine Emissions during Steady State and Transient Operation John P. Nuszkowski
Internal combustion engines have propelled society’s transportation and power needs for the last century. However, with the regulatory demand to reduce air pollution, internal combustion engines are a major focus to reduce the emissions from these engines. Compression ignition or diesel engines are a major contributor to NOx and PM pollution. However, the life of these engines is much longer than that of their spark-ignited counterparts, causing the fleet of diesel engines to consist of a significant number of old, higher polluting engines. Fuel additives are one method of reducing emissions and/or enhancing performance in these older diesel engines without the need for technology upgrades (new engines/aftertreatment). Although diesel fuel additives’ ability to reduce harmful emissions is well known in the literature, the mechanism as to how these additives work is not well understood. To explore the mechanism, three cetane improvers (2-EHN, DTBP, and ODA) were investigated on a 1992 DDC Series 60 engine and 2004 EGR-equipped Cummins ISM370 engine incorporating sensors for in-cylinder pressure measurement and analysis. The engines were tested on the heavy-duty FTP cycle and the steady state SET test. The cetane improvers, depending on the additive, treat rate, and base fuel (excluding the biodiesel blends), showed significant reduction in NOx (2.2-4.9%) on the 1992 DDC engine and no change or significant increase (1.3-1.4%) on the 2004 Cummins engine when exercised over the transient FTP cycle. In the SET tests, low loads produced a NOx decrease (up to 8%) and high loads a NOx increase (up to 1.8%) with cetane improvers on the 1992 DDC engine. The 2004 Cummins engine showed little NOx decrease (up to 1%) or a NOx increase (up to 6.1%) with cetane improvers compared to the base fuel on the SET test. The biodiesel blends showed a similar trend with the additized neat fuel with decreased NOx at low load and increased NOx at high load on the 1992 DDC engine, suggesting a cetane effect due to the high cetane number of biodiesel. The heat release parameters showed that the change in NOx was due to the change in maximum cylinder pressure, maximum cylinder gas temperature, premix fraction, and pressure at the start of combustion on the 1992 DDC engine. Overall, the fuel additives reduced the premix fraction of the heat release on the 1992 DDC engine at all loads and reduced the premix fraction at low

A phenomenological combustion model was developed to provide local NOx formation characteristics. which resulted in the NOx increase at high load and NOx decrease at low load. . and manifold air temperature. which may have created the low premix fraction. The reduced ignition delay with cetane improvers created an earlier start of combustion that shifted the in-cylinder pressure and temperature. compression ratio. The 2004 Cummins engine had higher boost pressure.load (25-50% load) on the 2004 Cummins engine. The combustion model and heat release correlations showed that reducing the ignition delay with cetane improvers shifted the global heat release rate and produced the NOx change on the 1992 DDC engine.

..........................16 CO............6..................................5 2........................................................6 2....2 Fuel Properties...........................................................................................................................5............ xiii List of Symbols ............................. vii List of Figures.......................................................................................................................5 Specific Gravity or API Gravity .2 2......................................6 Viscosity .........................................1...............................................................3 2........................................................................................1..........................................................................2 2....................................3 2..........1......................6..........1 2........................................................................................ 1 Background ..................................17 Combustion Analysis .............................1 2...............1..........5....................................................................................12 Pollutant Formation ................. ii Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................11 Fuel Certification Programs .... xvi Acknowledgements .........3............................................ xviii 1 2 Introduction.......................................... 5 2.............................................................5...........................................................................................................................................3 2.....................................................................................................................................................1..........................6 Energy Content ..........................................................................................................................................................................................4 2...............5 2....2 2..........................10 Biodiesel ...13 NOx ............................................................3.......................................................17 Heat Release .........................................................................................17 HC.....................................................................8 2...........................7 Summary....................................................................4 2..........................................................................................................................................................7 2..............................8 Diesel Fuel Types ................................................................................2 2.....................5 2..3 2...................................................................................... iv List of Tables .......................3...........6 2...........................................6 Volatility .....................................................................................................................................16 CO2 ....13 PM .........................5.1 2...........................1....................................................................................................................7 Aromatic Content...................................................................................................................................................................................7 Sulfur ....................................................................................................................................................1....................................................................................................Table of Contents Abstract..............................................11 Fischer-Tropsch .................1 2.................................................................................................................1..........................................................................................8 Fuel Additives......................................................17 In-cylinder Pressure .......................................................................................................................................10 Water Emulsion Diesel Fuel ............5.........18 iv ...........................................................................................................................................5 Cetane Number ...4 2......................................................................1 2................................................. ix Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................7 Transient Heat Release ..............................1...............................8......................................................................2 4........................8............................ 22 3...1......................................................8........58 Experimental Heat Release Rate ........................................................................................................................................................................................5 3...1......................................................................................................................22 Test Fuels ........................................................................................................................................................36 Indicated Mean Effective Pressure...........3 3........................................38 Air Flow Rate.................................................35 Needle Lift ........1.......................8.51 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine......................6.................1 4......................8.....................................................................29 In-cylinder Pressure ............................................11 3...........................................60 1992 DDC Engine Heat Release.................................................26 WVU Engines Research Center ..................................................1.........................................................................................8.1 3..................................................1 Introduction ......1.....................9 3......................39 Fuel Conversion Efficiency.......................................................................................25 Test Cycles............................8...........8.....................5 3..1... 51 4......................................................................70 v ...........................................8..............22 Test Engines....1 3........................................2............55 Biodiesel ..................................37 In-Cylinder Gas Temperature...........................................................................3 Emissions......................2 3................6 3................3 2......................61 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine Heat Release................................................................34 In-cylinder Pressure.......2....................8................................2.................................................40 Heat Release Approximation...................................13 3......................................10 Experimental Heat Release Accuracy...............................................................4 3................................................................................39 Ratio of Pressure at Exhaust Valve Opening to Intake Valve Closing................................8..........................34 Heat Release Rate......36 Start of Combustion ................................8.................................14 3.1.................................................................2.....................36 Estimated End of Combustion................................................................41 Combustion Model...40 3.....................20 3 Experimental Setup .............................................................................................................................................................1..................................................................................................................1................................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Test Additives...51 1992 DDC Series 60 Engine ........................................1 4..................................46 4 Results and Discussions ..................................................................1.........................................................12 3............2 4..............................................36 Ignition Delay...........................................10 3.....9 3............................................................................................................................................7 3.........3 4........................................2 4..........................................8........4 3.......................1...............................................38 Premix Fraction .......7 3.....................................2 3..................32 Measured and Calculated Parameters .................28 Test Matrix ............................................................................................1.......................1................................................................................6 3...............................................65 Comparison of Heat Release Between Engines .......................................19 Numerical Modeling ...................8 3.................1...............................3 3..............................................1.........................................1......................................................................................................8.............8....1 4...8 3..........37 Mass Fraction Burned ..............

..........................100 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ....4 Derived Heat Release Parameters.......................................81 Combustion Model Results ..............................................................................................95 Significance ......................3 4...............2........................5 4........................4.................................3.............................102 Recommendations....................104 6 7 References........86 Steady State ..........4 4....................................................................2............................................................................................................................................ 106 Appendices........................................................................................................................................................................................................92 Transient .............. 114 vi ......................................... 102 5.........................................3.....................................................................1 4.......73 Transient Heat Release ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 5.2 4......................2 Conclusions ..........................

................................. 135 vii ......... g/bhp-hr [16] ......... 8 Table 2-3 ASTM-D975-05 Diesel Fuel Specification in the US [44] ................... 116 Table 7-4 The Average Combustion Parameter Correlation Coefficients for NOx and CO from 12 SET Tests on the 1992 DDC Engine ....................................List of Tables Table 2-1 US EPA Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Standards.......................................................... 13 Table 3-1 Engine Specifications ......................................... 30 Table 7-1 Fuel Properties........................................... 118 Table 7-6 The Average Combustion Parameter Correlation Coefficients for NOx and CO from 1 SET Tests on the 2004 Cummins Engine ...................................................................... and Crank Angle (range in deg) ... 124 Table 7-11 July 2007 FTP Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60........................... 120 Table 7-8 Repeatability of Heat Release Parameters from 11 SET Tests: Parameters (range/average)............................................................................................................................................... 117 Table 7-5 Correlation Coefficients for Change in Combustion Parameters and Change in NOx and CO Emissions for Low Cetane Fuel with 8ml/gal 2-EHN Fuel Compared to Low Cetane Fuel....................................................... 114 Table 7-2 Fuel Properties Continued ............... 26 Table 3-3 Test Matrix ...................................... 10 Table 2-4 Reference and Candidate Fuel Specification for CARB [7] ..... 123 Table 7-10 June 2007 FTP Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 ................................................................................................................................................... 125 Table 7-12 February 2007 FTP Results for the 2004 Cummins ISM 370............ 121 Table 7-9 January 2007 FTP Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 .................................................................. 119 Table 7-7 Correlation Coefficients for Change in Combustion Parameters and Change in NOx and CO Emissions for CP Cert Fuel with 12ml/gal 2-EHN Fuel Compared to CP Cert Fuel ........ 127 Table 7-14 June 2007 SET Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 ..................... Ratios (range/average)............................................................ 24 Table 3-2 Fuel Additive Properties [71-73].............. 115 Table 7-3 In-Cylinder Pressure Transducer Specifications ...................................... 5 Table 2-2 Influence of Fuel Properties on Heavy-Duty Diesel NOx and PM Emissions from Studies Mentioned Above.................................................................... 126 Table 7-13 January 2007 SET Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 131 Table 7-15 July 2007 SET Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60................................................... Time (range in ms).....................................................................................................................

..............Table 7-16 February 2007 SET Results for the 2004 Cummins ISM 370......... 139 viii ............

...... 27 Figure 3-5 Supplemental Emissions Test........................................... 6125B and Right.............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3-3 Biodiesel Fuels from Left to Right: Soy..... 25 Figure 3-4 Heavy Duty Diesel FTP Test Cycle on the 1992 Series 60 DDC...................................................... 52 Figure 4-2 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for Low Cetane Fuel with Three Treat Rates of 2-EHN Compared to Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Idle not shown)...........List of Figures Figure 2-1 Emissions from a Typical Fuel Spray [57] ................................................... 49 Figure 4-1 Change in Brake Specific NOx for Grad Ref Fuel Additized with 16ml/gal ODA Compared to Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (No Column indicates no significant difference).................................................................................... 34 Figure 3-8 Influence of Specific Heat Ratio on the Heat Release Curve for Mode 2 (100% Load) on 1992 DDC ..................... 75]............................ NO – From Secondary NO Analyzer............................................................................................................ and Cottonseed Derived ......................................................................... Numbers in the Circles Represent the Test Order .................................... 54 Figure 4-3 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for Low Cetane Fuel with Three Cetane Improvers Compared to Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Idle not shown)..................................... 33 Figure 3-7 In-Cylinder Pressure / Heat Release Analysis Software ............................ 23 Figure 3-2 2004 Cummins ISM 370 ............... 6061B [74...................................................... 28 Figure 3-6 In-Cylinder Pressure Transducers (Not to Scale): Left............................................................................... 44 Figure 3-11 Steady State Combustion Derived Intake Air Flow Compared to Laboratory Intake Air Flow for the 1992 DDC Engine ............................................ Tallow............................................................................................. 42 Figure 3-9 Influence of Specific Heat Ratio on the Heat Release Curve for Mode 2 (100% Load) on 2004 Cummins ISM ............. 47 Figure 3-14 Energy Equation for Fuel Packages and Unburned Zone .................................. 55 ix ..................................... 44 Figure 3-12 Steady State Combustion Derived Fuel Flow Compared to Laboratory Fuel Flow for the 2004 Cummins Engine. 19 Figure 3-1 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Engine ................................................. NOx – Primary NOx Analyzer............................................................................................... 46 Figure 3-13 The Phenomenological Combustion Model with 10 Fuel Packages........ NOx2 – Secondary NOx Analyzer................................................... 43 Figure 3-10 Steady State Combustion Derived Fuel Flow Compared to Laboratory Fuel Flow for the 1992 DDC Engine............................ 15 Figure 2-2 Typical Heat Release Rate Curve ............................................................

..................................................................................... 61 Figure 4-9 Heat Release for Mode 9 (25% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC Engine.................................................................................. 71 x ......................... 64 Figure 4-12 Heat Release for Mode 8 (100% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine .................................................... 60 Figure 4-8 Heat Release for Mode 8 (100% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC Engine................... 67 Figure 4-15 Heat Release for Mode 8 (100% Load) and Mode 9 (25% Load) on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine with and without EGR ...... 69 Figure 4-17 Calculated In-cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 9 (25% Load) on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine with and without EGR ................. Repeat Low Cetane Fuel.......................................................................................................... 63 Figure 4-11 Shifted In-Cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 9 (25% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC Engine .............................................. 70 Figure 4-19 Comparison of Calculated In-cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 9 (25% Load) on the 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engines on CP Cert Fuel................ and Additized B20 Cottonseed Blend Compared to the Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC Engine ..................... 69 Figure 4-18 Comparison of Calculated In-cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 8 (100% Load) on the 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engines on CP Cert Fuel ........................... 68 Figure 4-16 Calculated In-cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 8 (100% Load) on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine with and without EGR ...... 66 Figure 4-13 Heat Release for Mode 9 (25% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine ............Figure 4-4 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for CP Cert Fuel with Two Cetane Improvers and a Repeat Neat Fuel Compared to the Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 (Idle and Mode 2 not shown) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 4-7 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for CP Cert Fuel with B20 Soy Blend and Additized B20 Soy Blend Compared to the Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370.................................. 58 Figure 4-6 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for Low Cetane Fuel with B20 Cottonseed............ 57 Figure 4-5 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for Grad Ref Fuel Additized with 16ml/gal ODA with Enabled and Disabled EGR Compared to the Neat Fuel with Enabled and Disabled EGR for Steady State Modes on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 ....................................................... 66 Figure 4-14 Shifted In-Cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 9 (25% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine............................................................................................. 62 Figure 4-10 Shifted In-Cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 8 (100% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC Engine ...................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................Figure 4-20 Calculated In-cylinder Pressure Curve without Combustion with MAP=302kPa and MAT=300K on the 1992 DDC........ For Error Bars on NOx........................ 80 Figure 4-27 Percent Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Percent Change in the Premix Fraction for the Steady State Modes on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370....... and 1991 DDC Engines ......................................... 88 Figure 4-33 Cylinder Volume Predicted by Combustion Model and Actual ................... 78 Figure 4-25 Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in the Pressure at the Start of Combustion for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel)................................... 86 Figure 4-32 Global Cylinder Gas Temperature Predicted by Combustion Model and Calculated from In-Cylinder Pressure using the Ideal Gas Law ............................................................. 2004 Cummins ISM 370....................... 89 xi ................................. 79 Figure 4-26 Change in CO with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in NOx for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel).................... 76 Figure 4-23 Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in the Peak Gas Temperature for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel).......... 73 Figure 4-22 Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in the Peak Pressure for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel).............. see Figure 4-28)................................................................. 81 Figure 4-28 Change in NOx and Gross Indicated Mean Effective Pressure during Transient Operation for the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show One Standard Deviation from the Mean Based on the Three Hot Start FTPs for Each Fuel) ......... 84 Figure 4-30 Change in NOx from a change in Peak Gas Temperature during Transient Operation for the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show One Standard Deviation from the Mean Based on the Three Hot Start FTPs for Each Fuel.......................................... For Error Bars on NOx.... see Figure 4-28)....... 77 Figure 4-24 Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in the Premix Fraction for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel)...................................................................................................... 72 Figure 4-21 In-cylinder Temperature Curve without Combustion with MAP=302kPa and MAT=300K on the 1992 DDC........................................................................ 83 Figure 4-29 Change in NOx from a change in the Premix Fraction during Transient Operation for the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show One Standard Deviation from the Mean Based on the Three Hot Start FTPs for Each Fuel.................. 2004 Cummins ISM 370... 85 Figure 4-31 Change in NOx from change in Peak Cylinder Pressure over Transient and Steady State Operation for the 1992 DDC ............... and 1991 DDC Engines .........................................

................. Air Flow Rate (Middle)......................................................... 98 Figure 4-43 Cylinder Fuel Flow Rate (Top).............................. 99 Figure 4-44 NOx Reduction from the FTP cycle with 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins.............. 95 Figure 4-40 Mass Emissions of the Experimental CO2 and Combustion Model CO2 for a 45second Section of the FTP .................................................................................. 100 xii ....................... 93 Figure 4-38 NOx Formation Between Low Cetane Fuel (LC) and Additized Low Cetane Fuel (LCA) for Mode 7 (25% Load) ...................................................................................................... 92 Figure 4-37 Percent Reduction in Exhaust NOx with Additized Low Cetane Fuel from Model and Laboratory .................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 4-41 Mass Emissions of the Experimental NOx and Combustion Model NOx for a 45-second Section of the FTP......................................Figure 4-34 Influence of Mixing Constant and Local Equivalence Ratio on NOx ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 4-36 Model NOx and Laboratory Based NOx for Low Cetane Fuel with and without Additive .............................................................. 97 Figure 4-42 NO Formation Rates for a 45-second Section of the FTP (Top: Low Cetane Fuel....................................... 94 Figure 4-39 NOx Formation Between Low Cetane Fuel (LC) and Additized Low Cetane Fuel (LCA) for Mode 4 (75% Load) ..... Bottom: Low Cetane Fuel with 8ml/gal 2-EHN) ......................................................................................................................... and Ratio of Cylinder Pressure at EVO to IVO for a 45-second Section of the FTP .. 90 Figure 4-35 Model CO2 and Laboratory Based CO2 for Low Cetane Fuel with and without Additive ...................................

Abbreviations 2-EHN ACT ATDC BDC BSFC BTDC CAFEE CARB CFD CFR CO CO2 CP CR CVS DDC DMC DME DMM DPF DTBP ECU EGR EOC EPA ER EVO FBP FT 2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate Apparent Combustion Time After Top Dead Center Bottom Dead Center Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption Bottom Dead Center Center for Alternative Fuels. and Emissions California Air Resources Board Computational Fluid Dynamics Code of Federal Regulations Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Chevron Phillips Compression Ratio Constant Volume Sampler Detroit Diesel Corporation Dimethyl Carbonate Dimethyl Ether Dimethoxy Methane Diesel Particulate Filter Di-Tertiary Butyl Peroxide Engine Control Unit Exhaust Gas Recirculation End of Combustion Environmental Protection Agency Equivalence Ratio Exhaust Valve Opening Final Boiling Point Fisher-Tropsch xiii . Engines.

FTP H H2O HC HFID HMN IMEP IMEPg IVC LANF LAFY LC LFE LHV MAP MAT MFB MTBE N2 NDIR NMHC N2O NO NO2 NOx NYNF O O2 ODA OH PAH Federal Test Procedure Hydrogen Water Hydrocarbon Heat Flame Ionization Detector Heptamethylnonane Indicated Mean Effective Pressure Gross Indicated Mean Effective Pressure Intake Valve Closing Los Angeles Non-Freeway Los Angeles Freeway Low Cetane Laminar Flow Element Lower Heating Value Manifold Air Pressure Manifold Air Temperature Mass Fraction Burned Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Diatomic Nitrogen Non-Dispersive Infrared Non-Methane Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxide Nitric Oxide Nitrogen Dioxide Oxides of Nitrogen New York Non-Freeway Molecular Oxygen Diatomic Oxygen Organic Derived Additive Hydroxyl Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons xiv .

PM RME SET SO2 SOC TDC THC TxLED WVU VGT Particulate Matter Rapeseed Methyl Ether Supplemental Emissions Test Sulfur Dioxide Start of Combustion Top Dead Center Total Hydrocarbons Texas Low Emission Diesel West Virginia University Variable Geometry Turbocharger xv .

d ΘSOC.List of Symbols ∆Θd ∆ΘP Θ ΘSOC.P μ ρa a A C hair K(z) md mfuel & fuel m Length of Diffusion Combustion in Crank Angle Degrees Length of Premix Combustion in Crank Angle Degrees Crank Angle Start of Diffusion Combustion Start of Premix Combustion Average Density of Charge Mass in Cylinder Conversion Efficiency Parameter Mixing Factor Constant Enthalpy of Unburned Zone Constant for Package z Diffusion Shape Factor Fuel Injected Fuel Flow Rate Premix Shape Factor Mass Flow of Air into Package Z Polytropic Constant Fuel Conversion Efficiency Engine Speed Volumetric Efficiency Pressure Pressure at Crank Angle Θ Pressure at IVC Standard Pressure Heat Released Heat Released during Diffusion Energy to Evaporate Fuel Gross Heat Released xvi mp &Z m n neff nS nV P PΘ PIVC PSTD Q Qd Qfv QGross .

ub R REst RS R/A T TΘ tcomb Tf/p TIVC tmix TSTD uo Uub UZ V VΘ VD VIVC VS Wz Wub X Y z xvii .& Q Intake Intake Flow Rate Heat Released during Premix Wall Heat Transfer for Package z Wall Heat Transfer for Unburned Zone Gas Canstant Estimated Range Revolutions Per Combustion Event Range over Average Torque Temperature at Crank Angle Θ Combustion Time for Package z Friction and Pumping Torque Temperature at IVC Mixing Time for Package z Standard Temperature Injection Velocity Internal Energy of Unburned Zone Internal Energy of Package z Volume Volume at Crank Angle Θ Displacement Volume Volume at IVC Sweep Volume Work from Package z Work from Unburned Zone Molar Fraction Mode Variable such as BSFC or NOx Fuel Package z Qp Qw.z Qw.

and faith in me throughout my graduate education. xviii . Mridul Gautam. Finally. I also appreciate the expertise and insight provided by my committee members. John Zondlo. Bradley Ralston. I would like to thank my family who never questioned my desire or ability to obtain an advanced degree.Acknowledgements I would like to express gratitude to several key individuals who influenced my professional development and contributed to the completion of this dissertation. Ray Tincher. First. I cannot thank you enough for your guidance. and Dr. support. and Kevin Flaim for all those long hours spent in the engine lab. Wesley Hardin. Nigel Clark. Michael Ursic. I am grateful for the help and support provided by Thomas Spencer. Dr. I would like to thank Dr. This dissertation is dedicated to my wife for standing by me through my long work hours and delaying her own graduation so we could continue living together in Morgantown. Scott Wayne. Gregory Thompson for taking a chance on hiring me as a graduate research assistant. Dr. I would also like to express appreciation to Byron Rapp. Dr.

As a result of these defeat devices. The US air pollution of carbon monoxide (CO). 34. but lower emissions when the engine is being certified on a dynamometer. in 1998. The diesel engine is a widely used power plant due to its durability. have been linked to adverse health effects [2. with NOx and airborne PM of primary concern. 17. respectively.S. With no reliable cost effective alternative method of power production with the same advantages. Results are reported as an integrated value for emissions from a transient set of engine speed and load conditions over a length of time or a set of prescribed speed-load points. about 160 million tons of pollution from all sources is emitted each year in the US alone [1]. load. These pollutants. and high fuel efficiency compared to other types of internal combustion engines. but hydrocarbon-based combustion continues to be a major source of energy in the US. To reduce air pollution. and 98%. 52. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and other regulatory agencies worldwide are tightening diesel emission regulations continuously. high thermal efficiency. Diesel engine manufacturers have also used devices that defeat emission regulations by producing higher NOx and lower fuel consumption during real world operation. Even with these reductions. sulfur dioxide (SO2). the US Federal Government. particular matter (PM).1 Introduction Alternative energy sources to hydrocarbon-based fuels have been at the forefront of the United States and other countries. such as emission inventories are therefore bound by the limitations of these tests. researchers that utilize emission results from engine dynamometer testing to predict “real-world” emissions of all diesel engines. from 1970 to 2002 [1]. An effect of combustion is that some resultant products are hazardous and regarded as pollution by regulatory agencies. required six engine manufacturers 1 . acceleration. oxides of nitrogen (NOx). and others in diesel exhaust. 3]. volatile organic compounds (VOC). Current emission standards rely on laboratory testing using an engine dynamometer with a standard test procedure. and environment [4]. the U. and lead have decreased 48. Pollutants are a major issue of diesel engines. Therefore. However. 51. diesel engines will continue to be used in the near future. on-road heavy-duty diesel engines operate at different conditions and the emissions produced are dependent on the speed.

The fleet of diesel engines typically consists of legacy. a 1998 model year on-road heavy-duty diesel engine emits 20 and 10 times the amount of NOx and PM pollution. However. Reduction of the emissions produced by diesel engines may be achieved by different methods. Consumer based reduction strategies. it is common for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines to last 1.000 miles a year.000. so the overall effect of emissions on the fleet of diesel engines is unknown. Fuel properties can be changed by costly refinery modification or with the addition of fuel additives (higher consumer cost). the engines were not designed to operate with aftertreatment devices and the cost of these devices would be the responsibility of the consumer.000 miles [6]. this requires consumer acceptance because of the increased inspection and repair cost. However. higher polluting engines. respectively. Utilization of aftertreatment devices can reduce emissions from older technology engines. Diesel fuel properties have been shown to effect emissions and by altering these properties. economical incremental emissions reduction strategies. maintenance programs periodically test engines and detect high polluters in need of repair. which require Inspection and acceptance of drivers and truck company owners to optimize engine use (such as minimizing idle times and maximizing the use of cruise control) are being considered.to fund emissions reduction research with a portion of the funding going to in-use emissions testing [5]. however. Most fuel additives are developed and tested on a limited number of engines. the impact of newer technology will be overestimated if new engines from model years 1990-2000 (with defeat devices) are used. Each method of emissions reduction provides an additional element to the current system of diesel engine operation. Compared to a 2008 model year on-road heavy-duty diesel engine. considering the emissions inventory models utilize emissions from certification testing. 2 This highlights the need for . emissions reduction can be achieved. Assuming a modest truck operation of 100. Replacing the current older technology diesel engine fleet with newer engines incorporating emission reduction hardware is one high cost method. Due to the high reliability of diesel engines. a diesel engine may be operational for ten years. thus incurring an additional cost.

combustion improvers. The premix portion is thought to be important to NOx formation [10]. CO. and oxygenates are three types of fuel additives which have been reported to result in emission changes. and a propriety additive were investigated at several concentration levels. In particular. 2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate (2-EHN). Cetane improvers. Cetane improvers reduce the time from the start of fuel injection to the start of combustion.State programs such as TxLED and CARB look to reduce the state inventory emissions beyond the US EPA’s requirements by reducing the sulfur content. and additives. which has the effect of less fuel being injected before the start of combustion and decreases the premix fraction [12-15]. 3 . Di-Tertiary Butyl Peroxide (DTBP). reducing the aromatic content. by adding a cetane improver) of a fuel causes a shorter ignition delay. The premixed fraction is the fraction of the heat released from the fuel injected before the start of combustion to the total heat released. fuels. show no NOx benefit [10]. Researchers have shown strong correlations between the reduction in ignition delay and NOx created by cetane improvers [12-15]. An increase in the cetane number (for example. In combustion studies. By using a fuel additive. fuel suppliers have an unobtrusive method of meeting the required standards set by environmental agencies and without the costly modification to refineries. However. there exists limited understanding on why NOx shows no benefit or a NOx increase for some engines. and increasing the cetane number of the diesel fuel [7]. Mixed engine performance and emission results have been reported with each additive type. Two engines (1992 DDC Series 60 and 2004 Cummins ISM 370) were instrumented with an incylinder pressure transducer during steady state and transient testing. an important parameter is the premix combustion fraction. The objective of this project was to investigate the combustion characteristics of fuel additives as an emission reduction strategy. known as the ignition delay. cetane improver additives have been shown to reduce NOx [8. 9]. TxLED and the CARB certified alternative diesel fuel provide a means for showing emission equivalency to the certification diesel fuel with 10% aromatics and a minimum cetane number of 48. Specifically. and increase NOx [11] by different researchers. The emissions of CO2.

NOx. improvers) affected NOx emissions. Correlation coefficients were used to determine the strength of the relationship between heat release parameters and emission changes. THC. and TPM were collected. the heat release curve and heat release parameters were calculated or measured to investigate the combustion characteristics. A phenomenological combustion model was subsequently developed to explore how the shift in the heat release curve (caused by the cetane 4 . A statistical analysis using a T-test was performed to determine when emission changes due to the additives were statistically significant. From the measured in-cylinder pressure data. The heat release parameters such as maximum in-cylinder pressure. and premix fraction were investigated for emission changes due to the addition of fuel additives. maximum in-cylinder temperature.

and combustion characteristics of diesel engines.1.2 g/bhp-hr and PM from 0. Table 2-1 US EPA Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Standards. As time progressed.5 0. generalities can be made about the influence of a specific fuel property on emissions. fuel additives.3 15. aromatic content. the US EPA put increasingly austere emissions standards into effect.3 15. the Clean Air Act was put into action to establish the US EPA to implement and institute regulations to limit pollution.6 0.3 15.5 n/a NHMC n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.01 NMHC + NOx n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.14 This section discusses the previous research and background into the influence of fuel properties. The US EPA emissions standard of heavy-duty on-road engines has reduced NOx from 10.5 5 1994 1. The current method for determining a fuel’s cetane number is based on the percentage of n-cetane and Heptamethylnonane (HMN) in a reference fuel blend to obtain the equivalent compression ratio 5 . g/bhp-hr [16] Year HC CO NOx 1988 1.1 0. 2. meaning that when one property is changed.3 15.25 0.1 0.1 Cetane Number The cetane number designated for each fuel is based on the ignition quality. volatility.01 g/bhp-hr from 1988 to 2007.7 1990 1.2 Background In 1970. interdependent.3 15. energy content. viscosity.4 2. API gravity. others are affected. For the implementation of the 2007 standards.3 15. difficult to isolate.5 n/a or (2) 1.2 * 2004 standards were in effect in October 2002 PM 0.5 10.5 6 1991 1. fuel types. and vary independently. The fuel types and properties therefore have an impact on emissions and emissions reduction technology.1 Fuel Properties These properties are Each fuel has specific macroscopic properties such as cetane number.5 4 2004* (1) 1.6 0. 2.1 0.5 0. and sulfur content. which amounts to approximately 98% decrease from the 1988 standards (Table 2-1).6 to 0.1 0. Although fuel properties are interdependent.3 15.3 15. pollutant formation.5 5 1998 1.7 to 0. ultra-low sulfur diesel was required to initiate the use of aftertreatment devices.5 n/a 2007 1.

Likewise. which increases combustion pressures and temperatures. The emission effects of cetane number are engine dependent. Although density is a physical effect. 2.6). While a high-density fuel will have greater energy content per unit volume than a low-density fuel. the low-density fuel has greater energy content per unit mass than a high6 . potentially less fuel could be injected. leaking can occur through the seals in the fuel injection system. research has found that a higher density fuel increases PM [18. At the same time. which is an arbitrary scale that is inversely related to the specific gravity. when both are at the same temperature and pressure. a higher cetane fuel advances ignition timing because of the shorter ignition delay. a lower density fuel requires longer injection duration for the same fuel mass to be injected.3 Viscosity The viscosity is a property defining the resistance of the fuel to shearing (flow) and is based on the molecular structure and temperature. thus reducing cylinder pressure rise. spray pattern is also influenced by the viscosity [22].4 Energy Content The energy content of fuel is the amount of energy per unit of mass or volume given when combusted. With a high viscosity fuel. 2. which may result in lower cylinder temperatures. The density of the fuel affects the combustion in a diesel engine physically. which has the effect of less fuel being injected during the premix burn and more during the diffusion burn portion (this will be discussed in Section 2. For example. Density and viscosity are generally interrelated and studies generally use density as the modeled parameter. since an accurate amount of fuel is needed for injection. The viscosity affects the fuel injection system. If the viscosity is too low. An increase in cetane number causes a shorter ignition delay. The specific gravity of petroleum products is usually given as the API gravity. 19. the viscosity of a diesel fuel is lower than the viscosity of the same fuel at a lower temperature. 2.1. At higher temperatures. 20] and NOx [19. 21]. since newer technology optimizes combustion for diffusion burning [10].2 Specific Gravity or API Gravity Specific gravity is the ratio of fuel density to the density of water.1.1. Cetane number has a greater effect on emissions in older engine technology.of the tested fuel in a cetane engine [17].

30] emissions. 25]. For the 2007 and later heavy-duty on-road engines. 2. 7 . respectively. can signify that the fuel is difficult to burn. Most fuel sulfur forms oxides of sulfur (SOx). 90%. Kidoguchi et al. or T95 is the temperature at which 50%. The double bonds may make an aromatic hydrocarbon more difficult to break. 30] and NOx [29.2 g/bhp-hr NOx.5 Volatility The volatility. 24]. Some studies have shown an increase in PM emissions with increasing T90 or Final Boil Point (FBP) [23. which are a component of the PM emissions. 25.1. 29. Some studies show an influence of the fuel volatility for other emissions such as NOx [21. is evaporated and then condensed in a separate container. emissions standards of 0. 26] and HC [21. by volume. Typically. usually given as T50.density fuel. 2. T90. thus requiring greater temperature to initiate combustion.6 Aromatic Content An aromatic hydrocarbon is a hydrocarbon with a conjugated double bond carbon ring with benzene being the most common. Fuels of different energy contents will give different power outputs on the same engine unless the fuel injection is individually optimized for each fuel.7 Sulfur The sulfates The use of a low-sulfur diesel fuel has been shown to reduce PM emissions in diesel engines by reducing the sulfates formed. One ring is a monocyclic aromatic and more than one ring is a PAH compound. [30] suggested that a higher flame temperature is required for a higher aromatic content fuel and high flame temperatures lead to greater NOx formation. 25] and the influence should be attributed to the density.01 g/bhp-hr PM. or 95%.1. while other studies have shown the distillation has no influence on PM emissions [20. and a less than 15ppm sulfur content in fuel have been implemented to enable catalytic DPFs. produced by the sulfur in the fuel are measured as PM in the exhaust and can have a negative effect on aftertreatment devices and engine components. of a fuel sample. only 1-3% of the sulfur in the fuel is converted to sulfates in the PM measurement [31] and this may be greater with an aftertreatment device. Some studies have shown that aromatics have no effect on PM [27].1. A high T95 temperature (low volatility). and 0. 2. while others showed that decreasing aromatics decreases PM [28.

reduced density. shortening the premix combustion. percentage aromatics. increased cetane number. sulfur is not seen as a significant portion of the PM formation. shortening the ignition delay. and sulfur level. Flow improvers and wax antisettling additives provide enhanced fuel properties for cold climates where heavy hydrocarbons can settle out and clog fuel lines. Modern engines (post 2004) have been shown to be less influenced by fuel properties. and limit sulfate PM. The blended fuels must also meet the requirements of cetane number. PM emissions reduce with reduced fuel sulfur. As mentioned above. anti-foam. An ignition improver allows the fuel to ignite earlier during fuel injection. The strength of the effect varies between engines. As the requirements for fuel properties change. combustion. flow. wax anti-settling.8 Summary Table 2-2 shows a summary of the effect of fuel properties on NOx and PM emissions in table form from the studies mentioned above. which can lead to lower NOx emissions. detergents.1.2 Fuel Additives Diesel fuels require certain properties for in-use engines. lubricity. but in general. Typically. At this low sulfur level. a higher cetane number fuel has a shorter ignition delay. 8 Two common ignition . follows these trends. the emission levels. or reduced T95 decreases NOx emissions. and fuel economy over the life of the engine. or reduced T95. and anti-corrosion additives. 2. Table 2-2 Influence of Fuel Properties on Heavy-Duty Diesel NOx and PM Emissions from Studies Mentioned Above NOx Reduced Sulfur Increased Cetane Number Reduced Total Aromatics Reduced Density Reduced T95 * Maybe less significant on modern engines 0 * * * * 0 * * * * PM 2. reduced density. fuel suppliers can use fuel additives to obtain these properties without the high cost of refinery modification. Some types of fuel additives are ignition.NOx adsorbers. reduced total aromatics. reduced total aromatics. oxygenate. Detergents and anti-corrosion additives help to maintain the integrity of the engine fuel system.

Using a blend of DMC with diesel at an oxygen content of 15%. Previous diesel emission studies have shown mixed results of NOx reduction using 2-EHN or DTBP with some having up to 8% reduction in NOx [8. C9H20O2). Some oxygenate additives are Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). and HC emissions with an increase in NOx emissions and Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) on a single cylinder engine operating at 2000 rpm and three different loads. Previous studies [34. 9] while others showing no benefit [10] or an increase in NOx [11]. Esters have been shown to be good lubricity additives [41]. Zannis et al. Butylal (an acetal compound. Dimethyl Carbonate (DMC). With an increase in oxygen content using a biodiesel compound (RME) or glycol ethers. Low lubricity fuels can damage the fuel injection system by high wear on the components. Higgins and colleagues [32] used a constant volume combustion system to show that the primary effect of 2EHN on diesel combustion is an accelerated pre-ignition radical pool with greater effect at low temperatures and low cylinder air densities. and this can be attributed to the lower influence of shortening the ignition delay [10]. Fuel with low aromatics and low sulfur content such as Fischer Tropsch as well as oxygenated fuels tend to have low lubricity [33. CO. [33] effectively blended biodiesel with DTBP and 2-EHN to reduce NOx and maintain the PM emissions reduction from the use of biodiesel. 40]. Lubricity additives are used to enhance the lubricating qualities of fuels.improver additives are a nitrate-based 2-EHN and peroxide-based additive DTBP. Lu and colleagues [38] found that smoke decreased by 75% and NOx emissions decreased by 15-20%. 35. 9 . thus resulting in increased oxygen at locations of fuel burning and providing a greater opportunity for soot oxidation. Oxygenate additives raise the air-to-fuel ratio. and bio-diesel. The oxygenate chemical structure seems to effect the soot reduction with glycol ethers (linear structure) showing greater reduction of soot than with dioxolane (ring structure) [39]. [37] reported a decrease in soot. Dimethoxy Methane (DMM). McCormick et al. 36] have shown a greater than 4% reduction of PM for each 1% wt oxygen addition to the fuel. Fuel injection in modern engines is optimized for shorter premixed combustion. Modern engines have shown lower reductions in NOx from cetane improvers.

called combustion improvers. percent aromatics.) 0. 3 (max) No.3 Diesel Fuel Types The diesel fuel type affects the fuel properties such as cetane number.05 (max) Ramsbottom Carbon on 10% Residue D4530 % (wt. Some properties. These consist of water mixed with diesel fuel. such as lubricity.) 0.3-2. An ultra low dosage (4-8ppm) of a platinum/cerium additive was used by Valentine et al. 3 (max) Lubricity.1. While fuel types and refineries each have different chemical composition and properties.15 (max) 0. The bimetallic additive lowered PM by up to 25% alone. [43].1 Water Emulsion Diesel Fuel Water particles are suspended in the diesel fuel using an One type of fuel emissions reduction technology is water emulsion fuels [45].Metal-based additives.) 0. and up to 95% with an oxidation catalyst and DPF.) 0.) sulfur limit (max) for highway diesel fuel 2.9-4.05 (max)* Flashpoint D93 °C 38 (min) 52 (min) 2 mm /s 1.05 (max) 0. Table 2-3 ASTM-D975-05 Diesel Fuel Specification in the US [44] Fuel Property Test Method Unit Grade 1-D Grade 2-D Cetane Number D613 40 (min) 40 (min) Either (1) Cetane Index D976 / D4737 40 (min) 40 (min) Or (2) Aromatics D5186 % (vol.3. which poses problems since water and diesel have different densities and physical 10 . A minimum of 40 cetane number and either a minimum 40 cetane index or a maximum 35% (by volume) aromatics is required to be considered a grade 1-D or 2-D diesel.1 Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C D445 Water & Sediment D2709 % (vol.) 35 (max) 35 (max) Cloud Point D2500 °C location based location based Distillation 90% (vol. the requirements for grade 1-D and 2-D specific diesel fuels in the US as specified by the ASTMD975-05 are listed in Table 2-3. have shown an up to 9% reduction of BSFC [42] and up to a 25% reduction of PM [43].01 (max) Copper Strip Corrosion D130 No. 2. emulsifier.4 1.05 (max)* 0. up to 50% with an oxidation catalyst. HFRR @60°C D6079 microns 520 max 520 max * Effective mid 2006 15 ppm (wt.01 (max) 0. are for the consideration of engine components and wear.) D86 °C 288 (max) 282-338 Total Sulfur D2622 % (wt.35 (max) Ash D482 % (wt. viscosity. and these then effect the combustion process and emissions as stated in Section 2.

3 Fischer-Tropsch Fischer-Tropsch. which result in higher peak pressures and peak heat release rates than the base diesel fuel. 48] or the lowering the iodine number (degree of unsaturation) [48]. Some main advantages of biodiesel are the higher cetane rating. 10. no aromatics. 2. Recent studies have offset the increase in NOx emissions of biodiesel by the addition of a cetane improver [33.3-55%. is produced from any carbon containing raw material by means of the Fisher-Tropsch process. depending on blending ratio. 8. The use of waste cooking oil is also a potential biodiesel fuel with a high viscosity that requires heating to prevent fuel filter clogging. which decreases NOx. Szybist et al.2%. The most influential trends of NOx production were the location of maximum temperature and heat release as opposed to the values of the maximum temperature and heat release. since it is a renewable energy source.3 crank angle degrees) resulting in a phase shift of the maximum cylinder temperature and maximum heat release.7%.3. [48] showed that the higher bulk modulus (compressibility) of biodiesel increased the start of injection (0. This specific type of fuel has been shown in previous testing to decrease NOx by up to 20% and have conflicting results on PM. 2. benefits in the reduction of life cycle emissions. and PM have been shown to decrease 13. 47]. respectively [46.3. The emulsified fuel requires longer fuel injection duration than typical diesel fuel for the same amount of fuel energy due to the addition of water to the fuel. and low or no sulfur content [46].2 Biodiesel Some research has focused on biodiesel. which is derived from vegetable oil or animal fat. the water in the diesel creates lower temperatures in the cylinder of the engine. Bari and colleagues [49] showed that by reducing the head loss through the fuel filter by raising the fuel tank level.1-42.1-0. The lower NOx is achieved even with the improved mixing obtained. The main advantages of FT fuel are high cetane number. a synthetic diesel. Biodiesel. low aromatic 11 . During combustion. fuel type. The most popular feedstock materials for creating FT fuel are natural gas or coal. CO. the 10% power loss with use of waste cooking oil was reduced to 5%.properties and are usually not miscible. and test cycle. The emulsified fuel has a length of time before the mixture separates. Although suffering from having lower energy content and higher NOx emissions (up to 13%) compared to D2 fuel. the emissions of HC.6-63.

[51] showed reductions on average of 17% for NOx and 40% for smoke emissions using FT fuel compared to conventional diesel fuel.content. low sulfur content. Any fuel that meets the requirements as a certified CARB diesel meets the requirements for the TxLED program. 31%. While FT does suffer from having low lubricity and cold flow properties. The candidate fuel is tested against the reference fuel and the specifications for each of these fuels are shown in Table 2-4. respectively. which is representative of the post 1990-model year engines and tested in accordance with the guidelines given by CARB or Texas. 4.9%. 20%. NOx. The reductions were explained by the lower peak cylinder pressure. 2. and PM. CO2. additives can be used to alleviate these issues. A study on an unmodified single cylinder by Youngcheng et al. for HC. with FT fuel compared to D2 fuel. burn rate. CO. [50] on a Navistar T444E engine showed average reductions of 12%. A study done by Atkinson et al. 21%. The testing is done on a Detroit Diesel Series 60 engine. and the ability to blend with other diesels. 12 .4 Fuel Certification Programs Current programs such as the TxLED and the CARB certified alternative diesel fuel provide means for showing emission equivalency to a certification diesel fuel with 10% aromatics and a minimum cetane number of 48 [7]. and exhaust temperatures.

660 2. Vol. API * 33 .1 Flash point.4. PM. oxides of nitrogen are being reduced to meet regulations. Some common products of combustion for a hydrocarbon fuel are CO2. H2O. The current regulated emissions in the US for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines are NOx. °F ** IBP 340 . CO. With diesel engines. NOx is a difficult emission to control in a diesel engine. 470 . Wt. and carbon particles. HC. Another main concern is that PM regulations are strict for diesel 13 .660 * No more than 3 API difference between fuels ** No more than 45°F difference between fuels 33 .610 EP 580 .) 130 Distillation.0 . % Polycyclic Aromatic 1.5.560 550 . Natural Cetane 48 minimum Number Gravity. Candidate Fuel Specifications 15 ppm max.1 NOx Due to environmental restrictions.610 580 . (min.Table 2-4 Reference and Candidate Fuel Specification for CARB [7] Fuel Property Reference Fuel Specifications 15 ppm max. combustion is primarily operated lean and NOx reducing after-treatment devices are expensive. whereas in a gasoline vehicle the operation occurs in stoichiometric to rich conditions allowing the use of a catalytic converter. 400 .4% max. NOx.5 Pollutant Formation When trying to reduce emissions. Hydrocarbon content. O2. - Sulfur Content Aromatic Hydrocarbon Content. As a result of a chemical reaction. °F.4. products are formed.420 400 .39 2. 550 . understanding the way in which each pollutant is formed is important and helps to understand what combustion characteristics to optimize. since higher combustion temperatures are linked to higher NOx formation and lower fuel consumption.490 50% REC. N2. and total hydrocarbons (and/or NMHC). CO.490 470 .560 90% REC. cSt 2. 2. % Nitrogen Content 10 ppm max.1 130 340 . 10% max.0 .420 10% REC.39 Viscosity at 40°C.

Prompt NOx formation is believed to be less temperature dependent. four formation mechanisms are attributed for NOx: thermal. The nitrous oxide (N2O) mechanism consists of molecular nitrogen and oxygen forming N2O. From atmospheric N2. This mechanism is a simplification of many elementary reactions. nitrogen dioxide (NO2) forms from the NO in the exhaust and constitutes the rest of the total NOx emitted from a diesel engine. prompt NOx. Typically. is the formation of NOx in the earliest stages of combustion by N2 reacting with radicals of the fuel producing molecules that are then oxidized into NOx. but is influenced less by temperature than thermal NOx formation and may be a major contributor in modern engines. Due to the strength of the triple bond in N2. At temperatures 1200K and below. which then reacts with oxygen to form NO. when the nitrogen is oxidized. and prompt [52].engines and usually a reduction in NOx coincides with an increase in PM. N2 and O2 can dissociate into their atomic states and contribute in the thermal NOx formation (Figure 2-1). which is called the NOx-PM trade-off. which represents greater than 7090% of the total NOx. fuel. reaction 1 (Equation 2-1) has high activation energy and thus requires a high temperature for the reaction to begin (>~1800K). Fuel-borne NOx is formed by nitrogen in the fuel. nitrous oxide. O + N 2 ⇔ NO + N N + O2 ⇔ NO + O N + OH ⇔ NO + H (2-1) (2-2) (2-3) 14 . The fourth mechanism. Equation 2-2. and Equation 2-3). typically through the prompt mechanism. This mechanism has previously been a minor contributor to NOx emissions. Understanding how NOx forms in the combustion process provides the basis for NOx control and reduction. At high temperatures. NOx consists primarily of nitric oxide (NO). the thermal NOx formation occurs by the well-known extended Zeldovich mechanism (Equation 2-1.

54]. Dec [53. A major contribution to the understanding of NOx formation was the study of Dec [53. Some accepted explanations for changes in NOx are: • An increase in the heat released during the premix portion corresponds to a rapid increase in the cylinder pressure and temperature compressing the diffusion flame where NOx is formed. which is rich. the formation is linked to the local temperature. 54]. There are many explanations for the change in NOx emissions based on the heat release curve from previous researchers. The temperature in combustion varies spatially and therefore. which is stoichiometric to lean. These studies showed that NOx was formed during the diffusion portion of the heat release. resulting in higher NOx [53.Figure 2-1 Emissions from a Typical Fuel Spray [57] When studying combustion by means of the heat release. theories of NOx formation have been suggested. and not during the premix portion. A lower average cylinder temperature suggests lower local temperatures at locations where NOx forms. where combustion is primarily premix combustion. 15 . 54] studied medium to high load conditions and not low load. NOx formation increases. As the temperature increases. The formation of NOx is a function of temperature.

This occurs at low air-fuel ratios such as high load and during transient events when boost pressure is limited. 54. • A shift in the heat release toward top dead center has higher compression during combustion. emitted by diesel engines have been linked to health effects and are therefore regulated [58]. and sulfates. 2. 2. The SOF is hydrocarbons (mostly heavy hydrocarbons) that have condensed on the carbon particles. PM consists of a solid portion (carbon and ash). The solid carbon portion and soluble organic fraction are formed by incomplete combustion of the fuel. 16 . soluble organic fraction. The combustion will be then be closer to homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI). The US EPA defines particulate matter as the part of exhaust that when diluted below 125˚F is trapped on a sample filter. which decreases NOx due to lean combustion [55].3 CO The formation of CO is attributed to the fuel oxidation from combustion. Since diesel engines run lean.5. CO emissions follow with PM emissions. 54].2 PM Small particles. High cylinder temperatures and the availability of oxygen increase the oxidization of the solid carbon particles and hydrocarbons to carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide (Figure 2-1). High sulfur content in the lube oil will also contribute to sulfates.• A decrease in the heat released during the premix portion of the heat release creates an increased amount of burning during the diffusion flame where NOx is produced. 56]. called particulate matter. since the main contributor to PM. • A long ignition delay leads to a uniform lean equivalence ratio due to better mixing. the levels of CO are relatively low and generally far below current regulations. This typically occurs with high EGR (>30%). The major contributor to CO formation is insufficient time and oxygen for the oxidation of CO to CO2. resulting in higher NOx [53. carbon.5. which causes higher temperatures and pressures that lead to higher NOx formation rates [53. and fuel sulfur levels have been reduced to combat this. The sulfates are formed from reactions with the sulfur in the fuel. is formed during low airto-fuel ratio such as acceleration and high loads.

4 CO2 A direct product of combustion from a hydrocarbon fuel is CO2.6 Combustion Analysis By measuring the in-cylinder pressure.2. 2. an insight into the pollutant formation can be obtained.6. A piezoelectric pressure transducer allows the measurement of dynamic pressure at a fast rate to measure the in-cylinder pressure. By measuring the exhaust emissions and making a comparison with the combustion parameters mentioned above. CO2 emissions are not regulated. Currently in the US.1 In-cylinder Pressure Measuring in-cylinder pressure provides the means to analyze the heat release and determine the characteristics of combustion. Bad nozzle seating can cause a late injection. When fuel is injected. 2. but may be regulated in the future. and mass fraction burned can be calculated.5 HC The hydrocarbons in the exhaust are formed by incomplete combustion. 2. heat release rate. 17 . Global warming has been attributed to CO2. a delay occurs before combustion and then a sudden increase in pressure greater than the motoring curve indicates the pressure created by combustion. Zones that are either too lean or rich for combustion are spots for hydrocarbon formation (Figure 2-1). the in-cylinder pressure increases during the compression stroke.5. which is considered a green house gas [59]. The motoring pressure is the pressure generated by compressing the volume of charge gas without fuel injection. combustion duration. as well as the heavy hydrocarbons from engine oil on the cylinder walls. the combustion characteristics described by start of ignition. Any increase in fuel consumption increases the CO2 emissions. ignition delay.5. Any fuel from injection that contacts the cylinder walls or piston surface can have a quenching effect and become hydrocarbon emissions. During the typical compression and expansion strokes. Another method of hydrocarbon emissions can occur from a late injection of fuel when temperature and pressure are not high enough for combustion.

uniform temperature. 18 . and ideal gas with the substitution of the specific heat ratio (γ) and the substitution of crank angle for time reduces to an expression for the gross heat release rate (Equation 2-4). and late combustion (Figure 2-2). given as Equation 2-5. The premixed burn portion is the characteristic spike at the beginning of combustion and important to NOx formation as mentioned above. ⎛ γ ⎞ dV ⎛ 1 ⎞ dP ⎡ dQ ⎤ ⎡ dQ ⎤ ⎟ ⎟ =⎜ +⎜ * P* *V * + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ dθ ⎝ γ − 1 ⎠ dθ ⎢ ⎣ dθ ⎦ gross ⎝ γ − 1 ⎠ ⎣ dθ ⎥ ⎦ ht ⎛ γ ⎞ dV ⎛ 1 ⎞ dP ⎡ dQ ⎤ ⎟ ⎟ =⎜ +⎜ * P* *V * ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ dθ ⎝ γ − 1 ⎠ dθ ⎣ dθ ⎦ net ⎝ γ − 1 ⎠ (2-4) (2-5) The heat release rate has three regions: premixed. the equation becomes the net heat release rate. The well-known Woshni equation [61] is generally used and was used for this study. For this study. Utilizing the first law of thermodynamics and assuming a uniform pressure. A relationship for the heat transfer to the walls is required when using the gross heat release rate. The diffusion portion and then late combustion follow the premix portion and are usually more gradual. the gross heat release rate will be utilized for the total heat released. multiple (50-300) steady state cycles are normally collected after the engine has reached thermal equilibrium to provide for an average cylinder pressure trace before the heat release analysis is performed.6. By combining the heat transfer to the walls with the gross heat release rate.2. The wall heat transfer may be up to 15% of the gross heat transfer [62].2 Heat Release A well-known and highly utilized method for analyzing combustion characteristics is the heat release rate in the combustion chamber [60]. diffusion (rate-controlled). Because of cycle-to-cycle combustion variation. The diffusion and late combustion regions are combined into solely the diffusion combustion region in this study. which will provide a more accurate mass fraction burned.

and combustion characteristics. 19 .4 Premixed Combustion Heat Release Rate Needle Lift Diffusion or Rate Controlled Combustion Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) 0. Assanis and coworkers [63] performed their analysis on a series 60 Detroit Diesel engine looking at cylinder equivalence ratio. More research using heat release analysis on transient test cycles is needed.0. [64] performed a transient combustion analysis on exhaust opacity and showed that optimizing injection pressure and duration during a transient can reduce opacity. but on-road heavy-duty diesel engines operate in a transient environment. During the load change. Bermudez et al.2 0 -20 0 Ignition Delay Injection Duration Crank Angle (deg ATDC) Figure 2-2 Typical Heat Release Rate Curve 20 40 60 80 -0. cylinder fuel flow.2 2. the turbocharger lag produced more prominent premix combustion from the relatively high equivalence ratio.6. In 2000 [63] and 2001 [64]. It is noted that it is difficult to obtain repeated transient data because of thermal history effects. combustion studies at a constant engine speed during a step-change in load were performed.3 Transient Heat Release The application of heat release analysis in steady state applications has proven to be a useful tool in engine research.

numerical modeling provides details about the fuel evaporation. Typically. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models (multi-dimensional) solve the mass. and local temperature.2. Three combustion submodels were studied with a CFD model by Singh and colleagues [66] with 30 species and 65 reactions. Numerical modeling may provide a quicker and less expensive method than experimental testing when examining a large parametric study. the NOx A greater number of species and reactions increase the formation rate approaches zero [67]. computation time. Some combustion research assumes the chemical reactions to be at equilibrium for each time step. The use of kinetics to model chemical formation in diesel combustion provides greater accuracy since chemical formation typically does not have sufficient time to reach equilibrium and “freeze” below certain temperatures. numerical modeling is separated into three categories based on the detail level with each level requiring greater computation time. Using the Zeldovich mechanism for NOx tends to achieve an accuracy of +/20% [65]. Thermodynamic (zero dimensional) modeling assumes a homogeneous mixture to determine the heat release rate and has no chemical formation details. agreed within 30% of experimental NOx. The level of detail used for the chemical formation submodel varies between studies. 66]. The chemical formation submodel depends on the assumed number of species and reactions. [68].7 Numerical Modeling The understanding of engine combustion from experimental testing is limited due to the multiple processes effecting the resulting engine performance and emissions. chemical formation. The assumption of equilibrium has been shown to inaccurately model NOx formation [67. and momentum equations with detailed physical and chemical submodels. mixing. The accuracy of a model is typically based on a graphical comparison of the numerical and experimental pressure and zero-dimensional heat release rate [65. with NOx approaching zero as the gas temperature reduces after combustion. which included 59 reactions and 27 chemical species. Phenomenological (quasi-dimensional) models have physical and chemical submodels that solve the energy and mass equations. This freezing occurs for NOx with temperatures below 1800K. Although not as accurate as experimental testing. The models agreed within 50% of the experimental NOx. For both the phenomenological combustion model [68] and the CFD model (with three different combustion 20 . 68]. energy. A phenomenological combustion model by Hernandez et al.

Using NOx formation as an example. 21 .submodels) [66]. but does not necessarily mean greater accuracy. a greater number of species and reactions provides more details on chemical formation. the predicted NOx trends agreed with the experiment NOx trends.

22 . A newer 2004 Cummins ISM 370 engine from prior WVU research was used to study the effects of fuel additives on more modern diesel engines (Figure 3-2). fuels. 3.2 Test Engines The alternative diesel fuel programs. The Cummins engine used cooled exhaust gas recirculation and a variable geometry turbocharger to meet the 2004 emissions standards (Table 3-1). Both engines are 4-stroke.1 Introduction The objective of this work was to investigate the combustion characteristics during steady state and transient cycles using fuel additives as an emission reduction strategy. The steady state and transient cycles were tested at the WVU Engine Research Center. The 1992 DDC Series 60 engine was selected as part of the test matrix since this engine is specifically listed by the CARB and TxLED programs. intercooled. such as CARB and TxLED. This section will focus on the experimental setup of the engines. and electronically controlled.3 Experimental Setup 3. specify the use of a engine representative of the post 1990 model year diesel engine fleet for certification testing. turbocharged. The 2004 Cummins engine was selected because of availability and this engine represented a more modern on-road heavy-duty diesel engine. and combustion analysis system. A 1992 DDC Series 60 engine was acquired by WVU in poor condition (actual in-use engine from an over-the-road truck) and required an engine re-build (Figure 3-1). The capabilities of the testing center have been documented extensively elsewhere [69].

Figure 3-1 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Engine Figure 3-2 2004 Cummins ISM 370 23 .

25 deg for the 1992 DDC engine and 0. by volume) were investigated and represented neat biodiesel types available in the marketplace. 3) was fitted with a needle lift sensor to obtain the start and end of fuel injection. & Intake Intercooled EGR The DDC engine was fitted with two in-cylinder pressure transducers (cylinder No. 3 and 5) located in the engine head and fitted by the Detroit Diesel Corporation. The encoder was attached to the drive shaft of the engine through the main shaft front pulley. These fuels were selected since they represent a wide range of fuels that may be found in use.Table 3-1 Engine Specifications Manufacturer Detriot Diesel Cummins Model DDC S60 ISM 370 Year 1992 2004 Cylinders 6 6 Displacement (L) 12. the range of the total aromatics 24 . Low Cetane. tallow (animal fat). and this voltage change triggered the DAQ card to acquire an in-cylinder pressure measurement. CP Cert. Grad Cand.0 16. On the DDC engine.3 218 Compression Ratio 15. The Cummins engine was already fitted with an in-cylinder pressure transducer on cylinder number six from a previous project.8 Power Rating (hp) 360 @1810rpm 370 @ 2100rpm Torque Rating (ft-lbs) 1450 @ 1200rpm 1450 @ 1200rpm Bore (mm) x Stroke (mm) 130 x 160 125 x 147 Connecting Rod Length (mm) 269. which had a cetane number of 50. Turbocharged & Intercooled. The most extensive testing on the 1992 DDC was with the Low Cetane (LC) fuel since a greater change in additized emissions levels and the heat release rate were observed due to the relatively low cetane number (46) compared to the other base fuels (48-61). and Guttman fuel) were studied.3 Test Fuels Five base fuels (Grad Ref. one fuel injector (cylinder No.7 10. was the CP Cert fuel. and cottonseed (Figure 3-3). due to availability. Three biodiesel B20 blends (80% neat fuel and 20% biodiesel. with ranging fuel properties (Table 7-1 and Table 7-2). On the 2004 Cummins engine. 3. The main fuel utilized on the 2004 Cummins.1 deg for the 2004 Cummins engine) of the drive shaft. The three biodiesel fuels were derived from soy.1 Turbocharged. An encoder provided the timing for data acquisition with a low to high voltage at every crank angle (every 0.

in the CP Cert (the neat fuel) and the three B20 blends was 33-33. and Cottonseed Derived 3. The ODA was a proprietary additive and therefore the composition and chemical structure was not reported. On the 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins. for the LC (neat fuel) and the three biodiesel blends had a range of 38. Figure 3-3 Biodiesel Fuels from Left to Right: Soy. Tallow.4.4. the total aromatics measurement for the biodiesel blends was suspect. The oxygen content in the biodiesel blends was calculated by assuming the difference between the combined carbon and hydrogen weight from B20 blends and the neat diesel was the oxygen weight added by the biodiesel fuel. the peroxide-based DTBP. The 2-EHN and DTBP additives provided a link to prior studies and the ODA provided insight into a new additive. on an equal mass basis. a greater amount of DTBP was added to the neat fuel to obtain comparable cetane number improvements as the 2-EHN additive. and a proprietary organic derived additive (ODA). The properties of the fuel additives are shown in Table 3-2.5-40. Therefore. Although cetane improvers are frequently used in diesel fuel.4 Test Additives Three additives of the ignition improver type were investigated: the nitrate-based 2-EHN. respectively. the LC B20 Cottonseed and CP Cert B20 Soy. the reasons for favorable emissions on some engines and unfavorable on others are unknown. as effective at changing the cetane number as 2-EHN [70]. on the 1992 DDC engine. A study showed that DTBP is 85-95%. Therefore. The total aromatics. were additized to investigate the influence of additives on biodiesel blends. Biodiesel typically has near zero aromatics and the total aromatics did not change significantly between the neat fuel and biodiesel blends. 25 .

26 . while the LAFY section models highway driving with heavy traffic. Los Angeles Freeway (LAFY).33 0.96 1. After a test. In between each test was a 20-minute soak period used for zeroing and spanning the analyzers and changing PM filters. The test cycle has four sections: the New York Non-Freeway (NYNF). The NYNF section simulates light city traffic with frequent stops and starts.6 368 2100 130 100 Di-tertiaryButyl Peroxide (DTBP) 206. An engine testing sequence consisted of a warm-start heavy-duty federal test procedure (FTP) test followed by three hot-start FTP tests (see Figure 3-4).5 Test Cycles The test cycles were computer controlled using engine speed and engine load (torque) as input values. The heavy-duty FTP engine dynamometer cycle was developed in the 1970s for engine and fuel certification testing of heavy-duty diesel engines.23 70 -45 100 27 40-53 1. The warm start test was used to bring the engine to normal operating conditions. The LANF models heavy city traffic with infrequent stops.Table 3-2 Fuel Additive Properties [71-73] Organic Physical Property Unit of Measurement °C °C °C Pa Pa kPa g/mL cSt mg/L kJ/kg J/g °C °C 2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate (2-EHN) 175.3 10 -40 111 2600 N/A N/A N/A N/A insoluble N/A N/A 80 111 Derived Additive (ODA) Molecular Weight Flash Point Freezing Point Boiling Point Vapor Pressure @ 20°C Vapor Pressure @ 40°C Vapor Pressure @ 82°C Density @ 20°C Kinematic Viscosity @ 20°C Solubility in Water @ 20°C Heat of Vaporization Heat of Decomposition Auto / Self Ignition Temperature Decomposition Temperature Proprietary Information 3. and a repeat of the New York Non-Freeway (NYNF). Los Angeles Non-Freeway (LANF). The measured engine speed and load points must meet a regression analysis to be considered a valid test.8 12. the measured engine speed and engine load points were compared to the engine speed and load input values.

the SET emissions are reported as an averaged weighted value based on published weighting factors for each mode. These numbers are used as the mode number referenced in this research. The SET consists of idle and four loads at three different engine speeds with the duration of idle lasting four minutes and 12 other modes lasting two minutes (Figure 3-5). 27 Torque (ft-lbs) . a steady state test was started. respectively. The numbers in Figure 3-5 indicate the order in which the steady state points are tested. B. intermediate. For this study. and high speed. The steady state test was the Supplemental Emissions Test (SET). This test is required as part of the engine certification procedure for new on-road heavy-duty diesel engines in the United States. the mass emissions during each mode were more important and were addressed separately. Additionally.4000 Engine Speed Torque 1500 3500 1000 3000 500 2500 0 2000 Engine Speed (rpm) NYNF LANF LAFY NYNF -500 1500 -1000 1000 -1500 500 0 200 400 600 Time (secs) 800 1000 -2000 1200 Figure 3-4 Heavy Duty Diesel FTP Test Cycle on the 1992 Series 60 DDC After the last hot-start FTP data collection. the SET provides a link to prior additive research literature performed at steady state. and C are determined from the engine power curve and represent low. Typically. The engine speeds A.

NO2. and CO2. Horiba FIA 236 HFID. For the July 2007 testing. The ERC included an engine dynamometer capable of absorbing and providing power. THC (June and July 2007 testing). the CAI 600 HCLD-C only measured total NOx. a CAI 600 HCLD-C was substituted for the Eco Physics CLD 844CMh as the secondary NOx analyzer due to availability.6 WVU Engines Research Center The WVU Engines Research Center was used for the engine testing performed in this research. NOx. Unlike the Eco Physics NOx analyzer. The dilute exhaust analyzers consisted of a Rosemount Analytical Model 402 heated flame ionization detector (HFID). An Eco Physics CLD 844CMh was used as a secondary NOx analyzer for QA/QC and it provided the ability to measure NOx and NO and through subtraction. which has a full-scale dilution tunnel. respectively. and Horiba Model AIA-210 Non-Dispersive Infrared (NDIR) to measure THC (January and February 2007 testing). The full scale dilution and constant volume system (CVS) employed in the test cell was designed based on Title 40 CFR Part 86 Subpart N requirements. Rosemount Model 955 Chemiluminescent. CO. A critical flow venturi was used as the method of measuring the diluted exhaust. Horiba Model AIA– 210LE Non-Dispersive Infrared (NDIR). Numbers in the Circles Represent the Test Order 3.100 2 8 10 75 Load (%) 6 4 12 50 5 3 13 25 A 0 25 1 Idle 50 7 B 75 Engine Speed (%) 9 C 11 100 Figure 3-5 Supplemental Emissions Test. 28 The PM was gravimetrically .

7 Test Matrix The investigated base fuels and additive concentrations are shown as Table 3-3. Grad Cand. model. and year) [10-15]. the EGR valve was disabled with and without additive utilizing the Grad Ref fuel. One main difference between the two engines was the 2004 Cummins engine had cooled EGR. 3. The base fuels tested on the 2004 Cummins engine were the Grad Ref. The literature only speculates on reasons for the varied NOx reductions/increases based on engine conditions (load and speed) and type (manufacturer. To determine whether the EGR had an influence on the effectiveness of the cetane improvers. higher concentrations of each additive were evaluated than with the 1992 DDC engine. That is. The multiple base fuels were tested to investigate whether the base fuel properties had any large influence on additive performance.measured in accordance with Title 40 CFR Part 86 Subpart N requirements using proportional sampling of the diluted exhaust through a pair of Pallflex 70mm diameter Model T60A20 fluorocarbon-coated glass microfiber filters in series. Low Cetane. Cetane improvers were chosen as the studied additives due to the need for an improved understanding of their emissions performance. and CP Cert B20 Soy. and Low Cetane B20 Cottonseed. see reference [69]. CP Cert. The 1992 DDC engine was tested with base fuels of Grad Ref. For more detail information on the facility and testing. and fuel type was not tested on both engines. There was also a limited quantity of each base fuel. an ad hoc test plan was used in this program. 29 . where as the 1992 DDC did not have EGR at all. This would also give an indication of the emissions if an EGR failure occurred on a modern engine (model year 2004 or later) with cetane-improved fuel. CP Cert. Grad Cand. The additive concentrations ranged from 3 to 24 ml/gal and every combination of additive. Due to limited change in the NOx emissions with the cetane improvers on the 2004 Cummins engine. concentration. The wide range of additive concentrations was due to testing the engine and base fuel responses to the additive and then later applying this knowledge to other base fuels and additive concentrations.

5 ml/gal DTBP 3 ml/gal 2-EHN 6 ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN 6 ml/gal ODA3 12 ml/gal ODA3 16 ml/gal ODA3 3.88 ml/gal ODANS 7.75 ml/gal ODANS 10.Table 3-3 Test Matrix Engine 1992 DDC Fuel Grad Ref Grad Cand Testing Month of Additive / Blend 2007 January Neat 16 ml/gal ODA January Neat 8 ml/gal 2EHN 16 ml/gal ODA 16 ml/gal ODA 2x Neat 10 ml/gal DTBP 6 ml/gal ODA January Neat 12 ml/gal ODA July Neat 12 ml/gal ODA June Neat 7.33 ml/gal ODANS July Neat 6 ml/gal 2-EHN 12 ml/gal ODA3 B20 Soy B20 Mineral B20 Cottonseed Neat July 6 ml/gal 2-EHN 12 ml/gal ODA3 February Neat 16ml/gal ODA February Neat 16ml/gal ODA February Neat 6ml/gal ODA February Neat 12ml/gal ODA 6ml/gal 2EHN 12ml/gal 2EHN 24ml/gal ODA 15ml/gal DTBP B20 Soy B20 Mineral B20 Cottonseed Neat Neat February 10ml/gal DTBP Number of FTP Tests 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Number of SET Tests 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 CP Cert Low Cetane LC B20 Cottonseed 2004 Cummins Grad Ref Grad Ref w/o EGR Grad Cand CP Cert CP Cert B20 Soy 30 .

This range over average was then used as mentioned above for the 1992 DDC engine to determine a significant difference on the 2004 Cummins engine. each maximum range over average from the Guttman fuel was multiplied by the value from the fuel and additive combination to find an approximate range (Equation 3-2). the difference between the repeat SET tests on the CP Cert fuel over the average of the repeats was utilized. the T-test was used. 4 SETs at ~60%. and 4 SETs at saturated conditions) from another study. Equation 3-1) of the work. For the 2004 Cummins engine. for example. From the range over average (similar to a covariance.05 occurred between the means of the additive and neat fuel tests. BSFC. a T-test could not be performed. The range was used instead of the standard deviation because the range would reduce the number of false positive determinations of statistical significance. fuel and additive combinations with two or more repeats used the T-test.05 (typically used in statistical studies) was used to establish statistical significance between the means with different variances. there was a probability of less than 5% that the difference occurred by chance. A p-value (probability) < 0. and a different approach was used for significance. the maximum range over average was determined for each mode. For each mode. this was deemed a significant difference. The approximate range for each additive and fuel combination was found from 11 SET tests on the Guttman fuel with the 1992 DDC engine at three different dilution air humidity settings (3 SETs at dry. For the SET tests. if the difference between the additized and neat fuel NOx emission. R A= Range ⎛ Max − Min ⎞ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ μ Average ⎜ ⎝ ⎠Guttman (3-1) REst = (R A)Guttman * YFuel (3-2) 31 . was greater than the approximate range of the neat fuel plus the approximate range of the additized fuel. and emissions from the three dilution air humidity settings.To determine whether the change in emissions between the additized and neat fuel over the FTP cycle or for a mode in the SET was significant and not by chance. For fuel and additive combinations with only one SET test. When a p-value < 0. Then for each fuel and additive combination with only one SET test. This also states that differences deemed “statistically significant” had a 5% probability that they occurred by chance and were false positives.

A low-pass filter was applied to the measured in-cylinder pressure to minimize fluctuations caused by the pressure wave. respectively (Figure 3-6). The 2004 Cummins engine had greater combustion noise.1) and emissions of the additized and neat fuel.8 In-cylinder Pressure The pressure transducers were of the piezoelectric type. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the linear relationship between two variables and ranges from -1 to 1. higher correlation coefficients indicate a stronger relationship between variables. which measures dynamic pressure. 32 . 3. This voltage can then be read by a data acquisition system. no outliers were found. It was assumed that since this averaging was applied to all data equally. The low-pass filter is a type of averaging filter. and “+1” being a “perfect” positive linear relationship. The manufacturer specifications for the transducers are provided in the Appendix as Table 7-3. The pressure transducer connects to a charge amplifier. which converts the charge provided by the pressure transducer to an amplified voltage. to reduce the high frequency combustion noise. but not necessarily a cause and effect relationship.To find a relationship between the heat release parameters (see Section 3. the relative differences between fuels should not be impacted significantly. so a lower cut-off frequency was required. The model 6061B pressure transducer utilizes cooling water to minimize any temperature influences such as thermal shock and sensitivity. A low-pass filter with cut-off frequencies of 2500Hz and 1500Hz was applied to the in-cylinder pressure of the 1992 DDC engine and 2004 Cummins engine. Therefore. A static pressure measurement is required to “peg” or provide a reference point. with “-1” being a “perfect” negative linear relation. The 1992 DDC engine and the 2004 Cummins utilized Kistler quartz pressure transducer models 6125B and 6061B. which unfortunately causes a reduction in the premix spike. respectively. It should be noted that plots of the heat release parameters and the emissions were observed to determine if any outlier(s) might have caused a low or high correlation. the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used. and zero having no linear relationship.8.

The calculated combustion characteristics can then be recorded. 75] To acquire the transient in-cylinder pressure measurement.Figure 3-6 In-Cylinder Pressure Transducers (Not to Scale): Left. data acquisition software was developed. 6125B and Right. The combustion acquisition and analysis system used a stand-alone computer from the existing laboratory DAQ system because of computational requirements and easy adaptation to the current laboratory. 33 . 6061B [74. The software currently developed allows real-time processing of the acquired pressure data into the heat release and the derived combustion characteristics with a graphical display of the current heat release (Figure 3-7).

net heat released over the combustion period.Figure 3-7 In-Cylinder Pressure / Heat Release Analysis Software 3. 3. The parameters that were directly measured or calculated are displayed in the Appendix as Table 7-4.1. The engine speed and temperature during the exhaust stroke were measured parameters that were not based on the in-cylinder pressure signal. a Matlab program was written to reanalyze the acquired pressure data. The engine speed was used to align the measured and calculated parameters during a transient test to the laboratory data.8.1 Measured and Calculated Parameters Although the software above provided some measured and calculated parameters. with a higher heat 34 .1 Heat Release Rate From the heat release rate data (Equation 2-4). Most parameters were calculated using the in-cylinder pressure. gross heat release calculated over the combustion period.8. the maximum heat release rate. Researchers [48] have used the maximum heat release rate as an indication of NOx emissions. location of the maximum heat release rate. and fuel flow were calculated.

the pressure signal needed referencing each cycle to give an absolute pressure.release rate correlating to higher NOx. the MAP was obtained from the in-cylinder pressure trace at the location of intake valve closing and compared to the laboratory MAP. This method has been recommended by Brunt et al. an estimation for the total fuel consumption of the engine was obtained. [76] for combustion studies since the measurement of manifold air pressure is not required. Since the laboratory intake manifold air pressure (MAP) was not used in the pressure correction. lower heating value of the fuel (LHV). Higher pressure typically indicates higher loads and incylinder gas temperatures. The corrected pressure was the average of the calculated corrected pressures over a 40 crank angle degree window during the compression stroke between 120 and 60 degrees BTDC. The two most common methods are using the manifold air pressure or assuming a constant polytropic constant [76]. Qnet = EOC SOC ∑ dQ EOC SOC net (3-3) Q gross = ∑ dQ gross (3-4) & fuel = m Q gross LHV * ns * 1 cycle 2 rev (3-5) 3. The net and gross heat released (Equation 3-3 and Equation 3-4) is the summation of the heat released during each crank angle resolution from the start of combustion (SOC) to the end of combustion (EOC). By multiplying the fuel flow in one cylinder by the number of cylinders. and engine speed (rpm). Since the piezoelectric transducer provided dynamic pressure. From the gross heat released. The method used for this study was a constant polytropic constant. assuming all cylinders have the same fuel flow (Equation 3-5). The maximum pressure provides an indication of the engine load and the in-cylinder temperature.8.1. 35 .2 In-cylinder Pressure With the direct measurement of in-cylinder pressure. which can be inaccurate with tuned intake manifolds. the fuel flow in the cylinder with incylinder pressure measurement was calculated. the maximum pressure and the location of maximum pressure were calculated.

Obtaining the MAP from the pressure trace removed the dependency of another sensor and the need for interpolation of the laboratory MAP pressure during transient tests. 3.8.1.3 Needle Lift A needle lift sensor was installed inside a single injector on the 1992 DDC Series 60 engine by Wolff Controls. The sensor was a Hall Effect sensor, which provided a voltage signal proportional to height of the fuel injection needle at a frequency response of 25kHz. From the needle lift, the start and end of the fuel injection was obtained. 3.8.1.4 Start of Combustion The start of combustion is defined here, as the first measurable quantity of combustion in the cylinder (Figure 2-2). When comparing two fuels on the same engine at the same set points of engine speed and load, the start of combustion is an indication of ignition delay if the start of ignition was the same. Other researchers have used the point at which the pressure deviates from the motoring curve [50] or the point at which 10% of the mass fraction has burned [77]. 3.8.1.5 Ignition Delay The time from the start of fuel injection to the start of combustion is the ignition delay. Ignition delay provides an indication of the combustibility of the fuel injected and the mixing of the fuel and air. A longer ignition delay indicates the need for higher pressures and temperatures for the fuel to combust. A higher cetane fuel has a smaller ignition delay and therefore more fuel is injected during the diffusion burn, potentially resulting in lower NOx emissions. 3.8.1.6 Estimated End of Combustion The duration of combustion is from the start of combustion to the end of combustion. With the injection of more fuel, the duration of combustion can be longer. Long combustion duration might indicate that too much fuel is injected as the cylinder cools down during the expansion stroke, potentially causing incomplete combustion. The end of combustion was estimated from the maximum heat released over ten crank angle degrees and adding twenty degrees. After the end of combustion the heat released should maintain the same level for tens of degrees [78], thus over estimation of the end of combustion should be a better assumption than under estimation, especially when the mass fraction burned is of concern. 36

3.8.1.7 Indicated Mean Effective Pressure A useful combustion parameter was the indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP), which is the cylinder work normalized by the cylinder displaced volume. A study done by Brunt and Emtage [79] explored five methods of calculating the IMEP, and the method least effected by experimental error was used here (Equation 3-6). The gross IMEP is the IMEP over the compression and expansion strokes only and gross IMEP was used in this study. The gross engine torque (Equation 3-7) may be calculated from the IMEP, displacement volume of the engine (VD), and the number of revolutions per combustion cycle (RS). The friction and pumping torque (Equation 3-8) was approximated from a polynomial of engine speed and intake air flow [80]. Subtracting friction/pumping torque from the gross torque yielded the brake torque. The polynomial coefficients for the friction/pumping torque relationship were fit using the gross torque from the combustion parameters and the brake torque from the dynamometer during steady state testing. Using the brake torque and engine speed from the combustion program, the engine power may be calculated for each combustion cycle during transient testing.
imep = T=

Δθ
VD

i = BDC i = BDC

P( i )*

dV ( i ) dθ

(3-6)

V D * imep RS

(3-7)

2 T f / p = a o + a1 * n S + a 2 * n S + (a 3 + a 4 * n S )* m a

(3-8)

3.8.1.8 Mass Fraction Burned The mass fraction burned (MFB) gives the percentage of injected fuel that burned at a particular crank angle. Common values of interest are the durations of 10, 50, and 90% MFB [78]. The duration, in crank angle, of start of combustion to 10% or 50% MFB indicates the intensity of premix combustion, while from 50 to 90% MFB indicates the strength of the diffusion burn. The equation for the mass fraction burned used in this research was from the first law of thermodynamics and calculated by normalizing the cumulative gross heat release at each crank angle to the total heat released (Equation 3-9).

37

mfbθ =

i = SOC

∑ dQ

i =θ

i ,gross

Q gross

(3-9)

3.8.1.9 In-Cylinder Gas Temperature The uniform or mean gas temperature in the cylinder can be calculated at each crank angle by making the ideal gas assumption with a known reference location and temperature such as at inlet valve closure. Since pollutant formation, especially NOx, is a function of temperature, the mean cylinder temperature was a useful variable to analyze. Szybist and coworkers [48] showed a relationship between NOx emissions and the location of maximum cylinder temperature that was not dependent on fuel type when testing conventional diesel, biodiesel (B20, B40, and B100), or FT fuels (FT20, FT40, FT100). The method for calculation of the mean cylinder gas temperature was done by rearranging the ideal gas equation for any crank angle with gas temperature on the left side (Equation 3-10). The ideal gas equation at inlet valve closure was rearranged to give Equation 3-11. By assuming that the molecular weight does not vary significantly during combustion, the two equations (Equation 3-10 and Equation 3-11) are combined into Equation 3-12, resulting in the mean cylinder gas temperature being a function of known quantities.
⎛ 1 ⎞ Tθ = Pθ * Vθ * ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ n* R ⎠
(3-10)

TIVC ⎛ 1 ⎞ =⎜ ⎟ PIVC * V IVC ⎝ n * R ⎠

(3-11)

⎛ TIVC Tθ = Pθ * Vθ * ⎜ ⎜ P *V IVC ⎝ IVC

⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠

(3-12)

3.8.1.10 Premix Fraction As mentioned in the Literature review section, the heat release rate may be divided into two parts: the premix and diffusion sections. Particular interest with combustion studies has been the premix section. The end of the premix section has been defined as the dip after the premix spike

38

The summation of the heat released during the premix section to the total heat released was the premix fraction. When the engine transitions from low to high load. From the intake air flow and the fuel flow.8. Large amounts of fuel are injected and the exhaust pressure increases.1. assuming a volumetric efficiency (nv). The boost ratio provided an indication of load change. Tf.8. The revolutions per cycle (RS) is a conversion for the number of revolutions per combustion cycle.1. a fuel-to-air ratio was calculated. and for a 2-stroke engine. The pressure drop across the element was measured and corrected to standard conditions. MAP. The turbocharger provides greater boost as the exhaust pressure increases.11 Air Flow Rate Fuel-to-air ratio strongly influences combustion conditions. nV * nS * VD ⎛ MAP ⎞ ⎛ Tstd ⎞ & Q *⎜ ⎟ int ake = ⎜ P ⎟ ⎟* ⎜ RS ⎝ std ⎠ ⎝ MAT ⎠ ⎛ μ std 2 & ⎜ Q int ake = B * dP + C * dP * ⎜μ ⎝ f (3-13) ( ) ⎞ ⎛ Pf ⎞ ⎛ Tstd ⎞ ⎟* ⎜ ⎟ ⎟* ⎜ ⎟ ⎜P ⎟ ⎜ T ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ std ⎠ ⎝ f ⎠ (3-14) 3. creating higher turbocharger speeds and more boost. and manifold air temperature (MAT) using Equation 3-13. but a time delay. which alters the created power. Pstd. The LFE consisted of a tube bundle creating laminar flow (low Reynolds number). engine displacement (VD).12 Ratio of Pressure at Exhaust Valve Opening to Intake Valve Closing The boost pressure provided by the turbocharger changes the pressure inside the cylinder. Steady state conditions and transient operation at the same engine 39 . with engine speed (CE). and Tstd) and measured fluid conditions (Pf. For a 4-stroke engine. but the engine is commanded to increase the power. The combustion-based intake air flow (Equation 3-13) was compared to the laboratory laminar flow element (LFE) measured (Equation 3-14) intake air flow as a quality check. and μf calculated from Tf).” is created from the sudden engine demand of the turbocharger to the actual boost created. The in-cylinder pressure-based engine intake flow at standard conditions was calculated. the value is one.leading to the diffusion section (Figure 2-2). the exhaust pressure is low. the RS value is two. 3. or turbocharger “lag. The ratio of the exhaust pressure at exhaust valve opening to intake valve closing (or MAP in this study’s case) showed the current boost ratio. The LFE (Equation 3-14) has constants B and C with known standard conditions (μstd.

8. length of combustion (Δθp). The eight fitting parameters are the premix portion heat released (Qp).d ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ mp ⎡ ⎛θ −θ soc .1.p and θsoc. p = aQ p (m p + 1)⎜ ⎜ Δθ c. shape parameter (md). since this function includes combustion parameters studied in this work as shown in Equation 3-16.13 Fuel Conversion Efficiency To investigate whether the cetane improver additives used in this study changed the efficiency of combustion. resulting in six fitting parameters.d) was determined before the least square approximation routine. The fuel conversion efficiency provided how much power was converted from the energy in the fuel for each combustion event. The cylinder boost ratio provided another parameter based on the heat release. and length of combustion (Δθd).p). The start of combustion (θsoc.1. start of combustion (θsoc. p exp ⎢− a⎜ ⎜ ⎢ ⎝ Δθ c .d). start of combustion (θsoc.9% of the fuel energy to heat.p ⎝ ⎛ θ − θ soc .d exp ⎢− a⎜ Δ θ ⎢ ⎜ c .d ⎣ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ m p +1 ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ (3-16) md md + 1 40 . p ⎣ ⎡ ⎛ θ −θ soc . this assumes a conversion efficiency of 99.d + aQ d (m d + 1)⎜ ⎜ Δθ c . diffusion portion heat released (Qd). shape parameter (mp). neff = Power & fuel * LHV m (3-15) The fuel flow and power were from the in-cylinder combustion-based 3. parameters. a continuous curve was reduced to six constants.8.908. The equation includes a premix and a diffusion portion.speed and load condition may have different boost ratios due to the turbocharger lag. With a = 6. 3. This study used the double Weibe function. By fitting the experimental heat release curve to the double Weibe function using a least squares method. ⎡ dQ ⎤ ⎢ dθ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ gross ⎛ θ − θ soc .14 Heat Release Approximation Mathematical representations of the heat release curve include the double Weibe function [81] and the polygon-hyperbola combustion profile [82]. the fuel conversion efficiency was calculated (Equation 3-15).

such as biodiesel. recent research focuses on improving the accuracy [83-86]. The MFB was used to combine the unburned and burned zones into the global specific heat ratio (Equation 3-18). a two-zone model was chosen with unburned and burned zones. The global specific heat ratio depends on the concentrations of the combustion products at each crank angle resolution. O2. Another study has utilized an equilibrium combustion model as the basis for fitting the polynomials based on equivalence ratio [85]. Early researchers have used a constant specific heat ratio.3. For the research presented here. The results of the method give virtually identical results as a more sophisticated method utilizing an equilibrium combustion model. especially in studies considering fuel with oxygen. A variable of concern in the heat release analysis was the specific heat ratio. The “Brunt” method is a polynomial fit of the global specific heat ratio as a function of cylinder gas temperature. which operate lean. More recently. The molar concentrations (CO2. Differences in the global heat release rate and heat released were noticed between 41 . 86]. a reasonable assumption for properly functioning diesel engines. The molar concentrations in the unburned zone were dependent on the EGR ratio (Equation 3-17). γ u = YEGR ∗ γ b + (1 − YEGR ) ∗ γ Air (3-17) (3-18) γ = MFB ∗ γ b + (1 − MFB) ∗ γ u The influence of the chosen method used for the specific heat ratio on the experimental heat released is shown in Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9. a linear model based on the cylinder gas temperature [85] and a polynomial based on the cylinder gas temperature [85.4 to 5 times the stoichiometric air required. models based on the equivalence ratio and/or two-zone model with an unburned and burned zone [83-85] have been implemented. a burned zone specific heat ratio at the cylinder gas temperature was developed. The 1992 DDC and 2004 engines generally operated with 1. and N2) in the burned zone were solved assuming complete combustion. From the molar concentrations.9 Experimental Heat Release Accuracy Some consideration was taken in obtaining accurate experimental heat release measurements to minimize the measurement and calculation errors created. which can be computationally intensive. Predicting the combustion products requires a sophisticated combustion model. H2O. This requires a new curve fit for each fuel tested since fuels may differ.

Combustion HRR .10 Crank Angle (deg ATDC) -20 0 20 40 60 80 HRR .30 Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) 0.10 0.Equilibrium 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 100 1 0 Heat Released (kJ) 10 Figure 3-8 Influence of Specific Heat Ratio on the Heat Release Curve for Mode 2 (100% Load) on 1992 DDC 42 .35 0.20 0.40 HRR . Larger differences would be noticed between the methods shown and a constant specific heat ratio method.25 0.Brunt 0.the “Brunt” method and the two-zone method used for this study.15 0.05 -0.05 0.00 -0. 0.

and ECU fuel flow. for each mode. The combustion derived air flow was 4% higher than the laboratory measured intake air (using a LFE).99 for the fuel and intake flows.10 Crank Angle (deg ATDC) -20 0 20 40 60 80 HRR .30 Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) 0. As a quality assurance check. the combustion-derived fuel flow and intake air flow were compared with the laboratory-measured values. which included a fuel meter. The fuel flow and intake air flow for eleven SET tests using the same Guttman fuel are shown in Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11.Equilibrium Heat .05 -0.Combustion HRR .Brunt HRR .0. The zero-dimensional heat release model was 97-99% of the measured laboratory fuel flows. A linear regression constrained to pass through the origin showed good agreement with a R2 greater than 0. This was determined to be adequate for this study.00 -0.05 0.35 0.Equilibrium 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 100 1 0 Heat Released (kJ) Figure 3-9 Influence of Specific Heat Ratio on the Heat Release Curve for Mode 2 (100% Load) on 2004 Cummins ISM During steady state testing. 43 . For comparison to the laboratory.15 0.Combustion Heat .40 0. CO2 based fuel flow.10 0. the combustion derived fuel flow assumed all six cylinders are equivalent to the measured cylinder. Idle (Mode 1) and Mode 2 were the least repeatable and were disregarded during later analyses due to changes in engine control.20 0. The heat release rate and combustion characteristics were then calculated.Brunt Heat . 200 pressure cycles were averaged to reduce combustion noise.25 0.

9693x R2 = 0.9969 8 10 12 14 16 Laboratory Fuel Flow (g/sec) Figure 3-10 Steady State Combustion Derived Fuel Flow Compared to Laboratory Fuel Flow for the 1992 DDC Engine 25 y = 1.9989 Tunnel ECU Linear (Meter) Linear (Tunnel) Linear (ECU) Combustion Fuel Flow (g/sec) Meter y = 0.9912 ECU y = 0.16 Meter 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 Tunnel y = 0.9987 20 Combustion Intake Flow (N m3/min) 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 Laboratory Intake Flow (N m3/min) 20 25 Figure 3-11 Steady State Combustion Derived Intake Air Flow Compared to Laboratory Intake Air Flow for the 1992 DDC Engine 44 .9743x R2 = 0.9855x R2 = 0.0399x 2 R = 0.

With EGR.7. and 45 . The heat release analysis showed greater variation on the 2004 Cummins than on the 1992 DDC due to high frequency oscillations in the measured in-cylinder pressure. which was the resolution of the encoder. the range provided a better determination of a significant difference than the covariance. The continuous NOx emissions showed an oscillation that followed the oscillation in the EGR fraction due to the stepper motor controlling the EGR flow. in the Appendix.99 (Figure 3-12). provides the resulting repeatability found for each parameter.3%. result in variations in the control algorithm and hence variation in the combustion and the emissions generated.8. the in-cylinder derived combustion parameters were measured and/or calculated. For the 11 SET tests conducted on the Guttman fuel. Since comparisons were made between fuels with only one SET. The 2004 Cummins engine utilized cooled EGR and a variable geometry turbocharger. 2. However. It should be noted that the combustion-derived torque used the laboratory torque to derive the friction and pumping torque as mentioned in Section 3.2%. the data to be presented will illustrate that newer engines (post 2002). maximum cylinder temperature. For the twenty SET tests conducted using the 2004 Cummins engine.The combustion derived engine torque and engine speed measured with the encoder agreed to the laboratory measured torque and engine speed with a slope and R2 of virtually one. Other parameters are shown as the range over the average. the heat release analysis had greater variation in the intake conditions (MAP. The SOC had a maximum range of 0. the use of single cylinder engines with tightly controlled parameters is paramount to obtain repeatable data.25 degrees. Table 7-8. respectively. and premix fraction had maximum range over average values of 1. and EGR fraction). with additional control parameters. The maximum cylinder pressure.1. 7. MAT. These variations highlight the fact that to study fundamental combustion phenomenon. The range (maximum – minimum) of parameters in crank angle degrees or milliseconds was used to signify repeatability. the cycle-to-cycle combustion had greater variation.03 and an R2 greater than 0.3%. the linear regression between the combustion derived fuel flow and the ECU fuel flow had a slope of 1. With more engine components affecting combustion. which affected the combustion characteristics.

The number of fuel packages was based on the length of combustion and the crank angle step length (2 degrees crank angle).9933 3. but the error should be minimal when comparing differences between neat and additized fuels. It should be noted that the needle lift signal was used to derive the fuel injection profile because a constant injection velocity was assumed. the fuel injected into the cylinder was broken into a number of fuel packages (Figure 3-13).0283x R2 = 0. CFD) analysis. a phenomenological combustion model was developed based on the global heat release rate to investigate the formation of NOx emissions. 46 .18 16 Combustion Fuel Flow (g/s) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 ECU Fuel Flow (g/sec) Figure 3-12 Steady State Combustion Derived Fuel Flow Compared to Laboratory Fuel Flow for the 2004 Cummins Engine y = 1.10 Combustion Model For this study. A phenomenological model provides some emission formation information due to mixing without the need for a full spatial (3D. There will be some error with this assumption. For the model developed in this study.

7 0. 88]. the amount of air in the package increases due to mixing with stoichiometric conditions (assumed) occurring at combustion. The constant A was termed the mixing constant. dθ Figure 3-13 The Phenomenological Combustion Model with 10 Fuel Packages An equation for the evolution of the equivalence ratio of fuel package z was developed assuming an inverse relationship with the mixing time.1 0 -20 0 20 40 60 Crank Angle (deg ATDC) 80 100 tcomb for fuel package 8 Mass Fraction Burned Mass Fraction Injected Fuel Package 4 The number of fuel packages was the length of combustion over dθ. A model for the apparent combustion time (ACT) was developed by Arrègle et al.3 0. Substituting the solution for constant C back into Equation 3-19. When a fuel package leaves the fuel injector. Mixing continues after initial combustion until the equivalence ratio of the package equals the global equivalence ratio of the cylinder. C and A. the constant C in Equation 3-19 becomes the combustion time raised to the mixing constant.9 0. ER( z .2 0.t ) A (3-19) Using the boundary condition that the local equivalence ratio at the time of combustion has a value of one.8 Fraction of Fuel Mass 0. since no mixing has occurred yet. Equation 3-19 has two constants.4 0.1 0. The ACT for a packet of fuel was the time from injection to combustion indicated by the 47 . [87.t ) = C t mix ( z . As the fuel package travels in the combustion chamber. the equivalence ratio is infinite.6 0.5 0. results in Equation 3-20. which is indicated by the global heat release rate.

t ) ∗ ρ 0. and oxygen concentration. density of air in the cylinder. Some work was produced (dW) and there was a loss of heat energy to the walls (dQw) at each time step.5 ∗ φ −1 A ] −1 (3-21) ⎛ ⎞ K(z) ⎟ ER( z . A ⎛ t comb ( z ) ⎞ ER( z . The unburned zone (Equation 3-24 and on the right of Figure 3-14) has no chemical energy produced or fuel evaporation and depends on the work. The number of burned zones depended on the time step chosen. The air in the cylinder not yet mixed with a fuel package was considered the unburned zone. An iterative approach was used to solve the package product temperature and chemical composition.5 ( t ) ⎟ a 2 ⎝ mix ⎠ (3-22) The fuel packages were considered burned zones after the time of combustion. heat transfer to the walls. Equation 3-21 was modified assuming constant injector hole diameter and injection velocity. more air enters the fuel package and the associated enthalpy of this additional air was taken into account. At the time of combustion for a fuel package. The derived conservation of energy equation for the fuel packages is shown as Equation 3-23 and on the left side of Figure 3-14. and the local equivalence ratio was assumed unity. The conservation of energy equation was used to solve the temperature for each zone at each time step. The ACT for each fuel package was a function of the mixing time.global heat release (Equation 3-21). which was chosen for this study. A mixing constant of two. the energy equation included the chemical heat energy (dQc) and energy required to evaporate the fuel (dQfv). Substituting the combustion time (Equation 3-21) into the previously developed relationship for the local equivalence ratio (Equation 3-20) results in the relationship used in this study (Equation 3-22).t ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ mix ⎠ (3-20) t comb ( z ) = ACT ( z ) = K ∗ ρ a [ 0. at all other times these are zero. At the time of combustion.t ) = ⎜ ⎜ t ( z .5 ( t ) ∗ O 0.5 ∗ u o ∗ O2 0. The global density of air in the cylinder was solved from the ideal gas law and oxygen concentration from equilibrium relationships. The exhaust was assumed to consist 48 . based on a NOx combustion study by Hernandez et al.t ) = ⎜ ⎜ t ( z . The only constant left to solve for in Equation 3-22 was K(z). the mixing time was equal to the time of combustion. [68] that utilized the same local ER ratio relationship (Equation 3-22). and the enthalpy loss from air mass exiting the unburned zone and entering the burned zones. Due to the changing ER of each package.

Any deviation from zero resulted in changing the product temperature and recalculating the product concentrations. OH. and NO. nitrogen. and six chemical equilibrium equations (Equation 3-25 to Equation 3-30).z Fuel Package. O2.5 K2 = Χ O 0. hydrogen. 67] provide more details on the reaction kinetics and the extended Zeldovich mechanism used.5 2 (3-26) 49 . z − dQw . ub − dWub − (∑ m (3-23) (3-24) dWz dQc. The extended Zeldovich model was used to predict the NOx formation. [90]. CO. which helps to incorporate the pressure effects on NOx that are not included with the assumed equilibrium reactions.z dQw. H.only of CO2. total moles.5 2 dQw. O. References [65. N2. The conservation of energy for a particular zone (Equation 3-23) should result in zero. H2.z dWub Unburned Zone dU & z hair m Χ H P0. High levels of NO were predicted with the extended Zeldovich mechanism. & zhair 0 = −dUz + dQc . z − dQfv − dWz + m & z )hair 0 = − dUub − dQw .ub & )h (∑ m z air Figure 3-14 Energy Equation for Fuel Packages and Unburned Zone 1 H2 ↔ H 2 1 O2 ↔ O 2 K1 = (3-25) Χ O P0. H2O. oxygen. the products were solved [89]. z dUz dQfv. Using the conservation of carbon. An empirical modifier (function of the cylinder pressure) was applied to the forward reaction rate of reaction 1 (Equation 2-1) as used by Miller et al.5 Χ H 0. This iterating continued until the difference in product temperature between two consecutive iterations was less than 1°C.

5 (3-29) K6 = Χ CO Χ CO Χ O 2 2 0.5 P 0.5 Χ O 2 0.1 1 H 2 + O 2 ↔ OH 2 2 K3 = K4 = Χ OH ΧH 0.5 2 (3-28) H2 + CO + 1 O2 ↔ H 2O 2 1 O 2 ↔ CO 2 2 K5 = ΧH ΧH ΧO 2 2O 0.5 2 ΧO 0.5 2 (3-27) 1 1 O 2 + N 2 ↔ NO 2 2 Χ NO Χ N 0.5 2 P 0 .5 (3-30) 50 .

05 was used to establish statistical significance between the means with difference variances. 4.4 Results and Discussions This research examined the combustion characteristics and resulting emissions formation of fuels with additives from heavy-duty diesel engines through in-cylinder pressure analysis and emission measurement. To compare different fuel-additive combinations. Typically. and ODA. which result in lower fuel economy. reducing NOx means lower combustion temperatures. DTBP. a statistical significant NOx reduction (2. so a sample size of one was typical for the steady state testing. The focus was on NOx emissions due to the difficulty of reducing NOx. The 51 . A NOx reduction was achieved on the FTP cycle with the use of additives (Table 7-9). The FTP test typically consisted of a sample size of three hot starts per fuel. The data presentation has been divided between the two different engines and by different test campaigns.23.1 1992 DDC Series 60 Engine For the January 2007 testing on the 1992 DDC engine. These results will be presented in this section.1.1 Emissions The three additives tested were 2-EHN. Some steady state tests had repeats (two tests). Using the heat release calculated from the in-cylinder pressure. 4. although some tests had up to five repeat runs. In-cylinder pressure was collected for each mode during steady state testing and for each combustion cycle during transient testing.6%) was noticed. These tests were used to draw statistical significance criteria. while maintaining the same fuel economy. a combustion model of the emissions formation was developed to aid the understanding of the significance of the change in global heat release due to additizing neat fuels. but without the confidence of a statistical analysis. allowing a statistical significance for each mode. For each additized base fuel. Grad Ref. a T-test with a p-value < 0. Multiple concentrations of the additives were tested with different base fuels. HC. and TPM were significantly reduced as well. Only one base fuel and one additized fuel had three tests. and Grad Cand were the three base fuels tested. The emissions results consisted of modal steady state tests and integrated transient tests. The single steady state tests were used for trends or possible conclusions. Repeat steady state testing was limited due to fuel constraints. The emissions of CO. CP Cert.

and 10).achieved reductions were 5.5.8%. NOx decreased by 4. For the CP Cert fuel additized with 12ml/gal ODA. for CO.9-19. Depending on the mode. 10. and 4.2-5. The percent reductions of emissions from the additized fuel results are then dependent on the test cycle. HC. 3% 2% 1% NOx NOx2 NO Change in NOx from Neat Fuel 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% -6% -7% 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Modes Figure 4-1 Change in Brake Specific NOx for Grad Ref Fuel Additized with 16ml/gal ODA Compared to Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (No Column indicates no significant difference). a 1% increase in TPM was found. NO – From Secondary NO Analyzer The FTP test consists of the engine being exercised over many different speeds and loads.3-1. 9. With the FTP test cycle primarily at low load. three repeat SET tests were conducted allowing a Student’s T-test for statistical significance (Figure 4-1) for NO and NOx. For the Grad Ref fuel additized with 16 ml/gal ODA.6%. At 100% load (modes 2. while at 25% load (modes 7.3–6. with the emissions integrated over the entire cycle.3%. NOx increased by 1.6% with respect to the neat fuel. Mode 0 was the cycle weighted emissions and mode 1* was the mass emissions at idle (grams/hr). as shown in Figure 4-1. NOx decreased or increased. NOx2 – Secondary NOx Analyzer. NOx – Primary NOx Analyzer.8-9. As 52 . 8. and 11). as mentioned in Section 3.6%. respectively. and TPM. NOx would show a greater reduction than for a high load test cycle.

illustrated in Figure 4-1.9%. with one base fuel. For Mode 2. It should be noted that the June 2007 testing only consisted of a single SET test. although the changes were small (less than 0. production due to the additive.7-37% (Table 7-10). which then caused a high percent NOx increases for Mode 1 and the weighted emissions (Mode 0).6% was found (Figure 4-2).9%. 2-EHN showed a NOx decrease at 25% load of approximately 3. ODA3 (ODA version 3). which indicated the lowest cetane number (46. and HC compared to the neat fuel. The primary mechanism of increasing 2-EHN concentrations on NOx reduction was prominent at low load with less influence at high load. while at 100% load a NOx increase of 0. Idle (Mode 1*) was not shown in the figure. and HC decreased 16. BSFC. and CO2 were noticed for some tests. NOx decreased 2.6-4.1%.5%). all treat rates and additives showed a significant difference in CO. Statistically significant differences in work. 53 . indicating that there is no significant NO2 Based on the outcome from the January 2007 tests.2) of the base fuels tested. additional testing was conducted in June 2007. named Low Cetane. The Student’s T-test requires at least two tests. The emissions of CO decreased 5-8. the two NOx analyzers demonstrated similar changes. due to the low accuracy of the sampling system and variability of combustion (no fuel injected into the cylinder) for this mode. and ODANS (ODA with a new formulation) were tested. On the FTP cycle. The NO reduction was comparable to the NOx reduction. A single treat rate of DTBP and three different treat rates of 2-EHN. the Low Cetane fuel had low NOx on the primary NOx analyzer. With increasing treat rates from 3 to 8ml/gal. so a statistical analysis was not performed. NOx.

0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3 ml/gal 2-EHN 6 ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN 54 . the NOx reduction increases (percent difference is going more negative) for the low power modes. 7. with NOx reductions noticed at low load and a NOx increase at high load. It should be noted that Mode 2 for the primary NOx analyzer again had low NOx and resulted in high percent NOx increases for the additives.4% for the FTP cycle. The three additives showed similar behavior.5ml/gal DTBP showed less NOx increase at high load and less NOx decrease at low load than 6ml/gal 2-EHN and 12ml/gal ODA3. The SET results for all studies are provided in the Appendix as Table 7-13 through Table 7-15.5ml/gal DTBP. as the concentration of 2-EHN increases. the exact chemical mechanisms between additives may be different. More testing was done in July 2007 and the results were similar to the January and June 2007 testing (Appendix. and 12ml/gal ODA3 had NOx reductions of 3. and the NOx production increases (the percent difference is going more positive) for the higher power modes. 6ml/gal 2-EHN. Therefore. Table 7-11).6% 4% Change in NOx from Neat Fuel 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% NOx NOx2 NO Figure 4-2 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for Low Cetane Fuel with Three Treat Rates of 2-EHN Compared to Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Idle not shown) As illustrated in the data.8-4. Treat rates of 7. From the steady state testing. but the load effect on NOx was similar.

the NOx and PM emissions were comparable to a 1994 model year onroad heavy-duty diesel engine.3% and 1.5 ml/gal DTBP 6 ml/gal 2-EHN 12 ml/gal ODA3 . the additives showed a CO decrease of 7. while the 1992 DDC 55 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7.3-14.7% and no significant difference in HC and TPM. on the 2004 Cummins engine. The EGR was disabled by disconnecting the wiring at EGR valve. the brake-specific NOx over the FTP cycle was 4. The MAP was lower during the disabled EGR condition than the enabled EGR condition. With the CP Cert fuel. which resulted in the EGR valve being in the closed position. It should be noted that the injection timing was changed by the ECU between EGR enabled and disabled conditions. Without EGR.6% 4% Change in NOx from Neat Fuel 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% NOx NOx2 NO Figure 4-3 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for Low Cetane Fuel with Three Cetane Improvers Compared to Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Idle not shown) 4. without EGR. The higher treat rates of 12ml/gal 2-EHN and 24ml/gal ODA on the CP Cert fuel showed a 1.75 g/bhp-hr.1.2 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine The 2004 Cummins ISM 370 engine showed no significant difference or a NOx increase with the additives. The 2004 Cummins ISM 370 engine was operated with and without EGR to determine the level of influence the EGR had on the NOx emissions. respectively.4% NOx increase. Utilizing Grad Ref fuel.

and 12.9%. compared to no EGR.6%. respectively. and a repeat of the CP Cert fuel during SET testing are shown in Figure 4-4. and TPM decreased 11.5% and 4. With EGR. 54. compared to the condition of no EGR. only a single SET was evaluated for each additive. The columns for modes 1 and 2 were removed due to engine control changing between tests. respectively.8%. The BSFC and emission of CO2 increased 6. The percent changes in NOx from the base fuel for 12ml/gal 2-EHN. The high variability of the results for the 2004 Cummins was noticed by observing the repeat CP Cert SET test with changes up to 6% in NOx observed. 56 . For the steady state testing. such as different EGR mass fractions (mode 2) and turning on and off fuel injection (idle).engine had 4. 2002) on-road heavy-duty diesel engines with VGT and EGR (now aftertreatment) have become complex machines that are not necessarily repeatable.1%. emissions of CO.8%. The data highlights the fact that modern (post Oct. HC. NOx. 15ml/gal DTBP. 3. The addition of EGR significantly lowered NOx due to lower combustion temperatures.70g/bhp-hr NOx. but had a fuel consumption penalty due to reduced fuel efficiency and lower power output.

NOx had no change. 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12ml/gal 2EHN 15ml/gal DTBP Neat 57 . with most modes showing a NOx increase of up to 4%. the EGR valve was enabled and disabled for the neat and additized Grad Ref fuels (Figure 4-5). the NOx increased approximately 1.10% Change in NOx Relative to Neat Fuel 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% NOx NOx2 NO Figure 4-4 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for CP Cert Fuel with Two Cetane Improvers and a Repeat Neat Fuel Compared to the Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 (Idle and Mode 2 not shown) To test the influence of EGR on the additive. With the EGR disabled. but the addition of cetane improver had little influence on emissions. On average. but some modes showed a slight NOx increase (~1%) and others a slight NOx decrease (~1%). the neat fuel produced emissions similar to the 1992 DDC Series 60 engine.7% with the EGR enabled. The 1999 Cummins did not have EGR. It should be noted that other research done at WVU on a 1999 Cummins engine also showed little response to cetane improvers [69]. With disabled EGR.

The B20 blends of tallow and cottonseed had significantly different NOx (2. and cottonseed were investigated on the 1992 DDC engine. the influence of additives on the biodiesel blends was investigated on the 1992 DDC engine and the 2004 Cummins engine.6-34.7-0. HC (23.2%).8-14. With the addition of cetane improvers. Using the Low Cetane fuel as the base fuel. tallow. During steady state testing.1. The additives had no influence on TPM.1-2.2% decrease) than the neat fuel.4-24%).10% Change in NOx Relative to Neat Fuel 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% NOx NOx2 NO Figure 4-5 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for Grad Ref Fuel Additized with 16ml/gal ODA with Enabled and Disabled EGR Compared to the Neat Fuel with Enabled and Disabled EGR for Steady State Modes on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 4. the B20 blends showed similar trends as the additized fuels with an increase in NOx at high 58 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16ml/gal ODA With EGR 16ml/gal ODA Without EGR .3 Biodiesel Due to increases in NOx with biodiesel blends. and TPM (23.4%). the B20 cottonseed fuel significantly reduced NOx (0. The NOx decrease was not typical of biodiesel blends and was attributed to a cetane effect due to the use of low cetane fuel as the base fuel. All biodiesel blends had a significant reduction of the brake-specific emissions of CO (13. cetane improvers have been investigated to offset the NOx penalty [33. B20 blends (80% neat and 20% biodiesel.9%). by volume) of soy. Therefore. since biodiesel has a high cetane number. 48].

NOx showed an increase relative to the neat fuel during each mode. as seen in Figure 4-7. By adding 6ml/gal 2-EHN to the B20 cottonseed fuel.7%) compared to the neat fuel.3%). the NOx increase and decrease for each mode was greater in magnitude. The addition of 10ml/gal DTBP to the B20 soy showed no significant difference in NOx on the FTP cycle compared to the B20 Soy. HC (12-14. For the biodiesel blends.3%) and decreased CO (9. 15% NOx NOx2 Change in NOx Relative to Neat Fuel 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B20 Cottonseed Neat 6 ml/gal 2-EHN Figure 4-6 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for Low Cetane Fuel with B20 Cottonseed. Both the 1992 DDC and the 2004 Cummins had decreased CO. Another difference between the engines was their cetane response. which had a cetane number of 49. and TPM (23.2-34.8-4.7%). the B20 blends significantly increased NOx (2. relative to the unadditized B20 cottonseed fuel. The addition of cetane improvers had little effect on the 2004 Cummins engine. Table 7-12in Appendix. Repeat Low Cetane Fuel. The Low Cetane fuel used as the base fuel on the 1992 DDC engine had a cetane number of 46.8-10. and TPM. The base diesel fuel used on the B20 blends for the 2004 Cummins was the CP Cert fuel.2.9. while NOx decreased for the 1992 DDC and increased for the 2004 Cummins. and Additized B20 Cottonseed Blend Compared to the Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC Engine With the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 engine results. HC. The steady state 59 .loads and a decrease in NOx at low loads (Figure 4-6).

2 Experimental Heat Release Rate The experimental heat release curve and heat release parameters were calculated and/or measured for each combustion cycle during steady state and transient testing. 60 . helped to understand whether the changes in emissions with additives was a global (macroscopic) or local (microscopic) effect. An investigation into the global parameters. 18% Change in NOx Relative to Neat Fuel 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B20 Soy B20 Soy 10ml/gal DTBP Figure 4-7 Change in the Brake Specific NOx for CP Cert Fuel with B20 Soy Blend and Additized B20 Soy Blend Compared to the Neat Fuel for Steady State Modes on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 NOx NOx2 NO 4. It is the author’s belief that fuel differences are more difficult to discern with the 2004 Cummins due to more sophisticated engine control with the addition of EGR and higher-pressure injection than the 1992 DDC engine. but NOx was still greater than with the neat fuel. The heat release rate curve provided a macroscopic (or global) view of combustion in the diesel engines.results of 10ml/gal DTBP showed levels of NOx increasing and decreasing relative to the B20 soy. such as in-cylinder pressure and calculated in-cylinder gas temperature.

although the premix fraction may be similar between the neat and additized fuel. the heat release rate curves were identical between additized and neat fuels for mode 9 and after 25 degrees for mode 8.6 0. Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9 show a high and low load mode. With cetane improvers causing an earlier SOC.Increased Ignition Improver . the ignition improver decreases ignition delay and the premix spike. LC 3ml/gal 2-EHN 0.4 0. At the high loads. The noticeable differences between neat fuel and additized fuels occurred earlier in the heat release rate with the later section of diffusion burning being close to identical. After 15 crank angle degrees from the SOC. the premix spike was reduced.2. respectively.2 0.4. At low load. The reduction of the premix fraction provided by cetane improvers (or natural cetane) has been demonstrated by other researchers [12-15].3 0.5 Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) 0.Decreased Premix Spike 61 . and referring back to the prior NOx emission plots. low load was where NOx reduction was noticed. with increasing levels of 2-EHN.1 Crank Angle (deg ATDC) Figure 4-8 Heat Release for Mode 8 (100% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC Engine 6ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN . either no NOx change or an increase in NOx was observed. The premix spike is related to the amount of fuel injected before the start of combustion. the premix spike was more substantial than at high load.Earlier Combustion .1 0 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -0.1 1992 DDC Engine Heat Release From the experimental heat release rate curve during steady state testing.

the additized fuels had a greater temperature than the neat fuel.1 0 . although the rate of change of temperature was lower with increased 2-EHN.Increased Ignition Improver . respectively. as seen in Figure 4-11.5 6ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) 0. with NOx formation occurring above ~1800K.2 0. It should be noted that the maximum temperature of the additized fuels are approximately the same in a given mode.1 0 -15 -10 -5 -0.Earlier Combustion . Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-11 show the shifted temperature profiles of mode 8 and mode 9. The higher temperature in Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-11 for the additized fuel during the later part of combustion is for the shifted temperature profiles. After 21 degrees ATDC. the temperature between the additized and neat fuel differs less than 3K during the later part of the expansion stroke. The temperature profiles of the additized fuel were shifted to the start of combustion of the neat fuel. A noticeable decrease in temperature compared to the neat fuel was noticed on mode 9 (low load) from SOC to 21 degrees for the additized fuel. but the cylinder was starting to cool down.3 0. a lower temperature was again noticed early (from SOC to 21 degrees).Decreased Premix Spike 5 10 15 20 Crank Angle (deg ATDC) Figure 4-9 Heat Release for Mode 9 (25% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC Engine Thermal NO formation is strongly effected by temperature and molar concentrations as shown in the Zeldovich mechanism. on the 1992 DDC. At high load (mode 8) with the additized fuel.4 0. which was followed by a higher temperature (after 21 degrees ATDC).6 0. When observing the unshifted temperature profiles.LC 3ml/gal 2-EHN 0. This 62 .

Start of Combustion @ 0 deg 50 900 700 Figure 4-10 Shifted In-Cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 8 (100% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC Engine 63 .small change in temperature between the additized fuel and neat fuel was observed in the exhaust (post-turbocharger) and the exhaust manifold. LC 1900 Calculated In-Cylinder Gas Temperature (K) 3ml/gal 2-EHN 6ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN 1700 Additized Fuels have Higher Temperature 1500 1300 1100 Additized Fuels have Lower Temperature 0 10 20 30 40 Crank Angle (deg). which had measured changes of less than 2 K.

LC Calculated In-Cylinder Gas Temperature (K) 1900 3ml/gal 2-EHN 6ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 0 10 20 30 40 50 Crank Angle (deg). For high loads. Start of Combustion @ 0 deg Additized Fuels have Lower Temperature Additized Fuels have Higher Temperature Figure 4-11 Shifted In-Cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 9 (25% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC Engine Although the temperature profiles shown are for the global temperature in the cylinder. for increasing loads. the higher global temperature after 21 degrees (after SOC) with additized fuels becomes more important for NOx formation than the reduced global temperatures before 21 degrees (after SOC). The effect of the NOx emissions due to load from the global heat release rate and temperature was studied in detail with the use of a combustion model (Section 4.3). 64 . since the adiabatic flame temperatures of diesel are typically ~2500K. the author believes insight can be made into the local flame temperature. This might explain the no change or increase in NOx for high loads and the decrease in NOx for low loads. more fuel was injected creating longer combustion durations and therefore local flame temperatures greater than 1800K for longer periods than with low loads. The difficulty with the global temperature is determining when the local flame temperature was above 1800K. which is conducive for NOx formation. The local flame temperatures directly after the SOC should be greater than 1800K. Due to the increasing combustion duration.

The higher heat capacity was due to increased charge air (fresh air mass + EGR mass). Shown in Figure 4-14 is the shifted temperature for the neat and additized diesel fuels for mode 9. 9. Overall. since EGR increased the intake pressure with higher boost pressure. no significant difference was noticed between the heat release rates of the additized and neat fuel. in-cylinder pressure on the 2004 Cummins engine had higher variation than on the 1992 DDC engine due to the mounting location of the in-cylinder pressure transducer (pressure waves from passage) and/or combustion noise.2 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine Heat Release In-cylinder pressure was obtained on a 2004 Cummins engine. The additized and repeat neat fuel temperature curves were shifted to the SOC for the first neat fuel test. 65 . the additized fuels had higher temperatures. At low loads (modes 7. The accuracy of the in-cylinder pressure data becomes an issue when observing the heat release curves. The global cylinder temperature was much lower for the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 compared to the 1992 DDC Series 60 due a greater heat capacity. which slowed the combustion rate.4. The early start of combustion for the additized fuel caused lower temperatures at the beginning of combustion. respectively.2. but after 17 degrees. which occurred five days after the first test. NOx is a strong function of temperature. At high loads (mode 8 and 10). Figure 4-12 and Figure 4-13 show the heat release rate for mode 8 and mode 9. and 11). which caused lower premix spikes. and give an indication of the heat release rate repeatability for the 2004 Cummins engine. there was a difference with increasing concentrations of the additive leading to shorter ignition delays. Figure 4-12 and Figure 4-13 show a repeat of the neat diesel (CP).

Decreased Premix Spike 0.Increased Ignition Improver .2 .3 12ml/gal 2-EHN CP Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) 0.CP 6ml/gal 2-EHN 0.1 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -0.2 0.1 Crank Angle (deg ATDC) Figure 4-12 Heat Release for Mode 8 (100% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine CP 6ml/gal 2-EHN 0.3 12ml/gal 2-EHN CP Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) 0.Earlier Combustion .1 No Change 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -0.1 Crank Angle (deg ATDC) Figure 4-13 Heat Release for Mode 9 (25% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine 66 .

By disabling the EGR valve. the engine control changed between the EGR enabled and disabled conditions (Figure 4-15). For mode 8 (high load). For mode 8. fuel injection was advanced. fuel injection was delayed. The change in fuel injection timing limits the conclusions that may be drawn. Start of Combustion @ 0 deg Additized Fuels have Higher Temperature Figure 4-14 Shifted In-Cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 9 (25% Load) with Varying Amounts of 2-EHN on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine The 2004 Cummins ISM 370 utilized cooled EGR. When 16ml/gal ODA was added to the Grad Ref fuel. the EGR flow into the intake manifold was removed. the ignition delay was reduced creating a smaller spike in the premix portion in the heat release. For mode 9 with the additive. For mode 9 (low load). The premix spike was increased for mode 9 with the EGR disabled compared to the EGR enabled case. 67 . the heat release curve was virtually identical with and without the additive for cases of EGR enabled/disabled.CP Calculated In-Cylinder Gas Temperature (K) 1900 1700 1500 6ml/gal 2-EHN 12ml/gal 2-EHN CP Additized Fuels have Lower Temperature 1300 1100 900 700 0 10 20 30 40 50 Crank Angle (deg). The higher premix spike may be from the higher oxygen concentration or from combustion occurring closer to TDC leading to the increased combustion rate.

but high EGR also created higher intake manifold temperatures decreasing mass flow. The cylinder peak gas temperature was greater with the EGR enabled for modes 8 and 9. The global heat release characteristics are therefore limited and should only be used simultaneously with the knowledge of other engine conditions such as intake conditions and local chemical effects. High EGR flow created higher intake manifold pressure. 68 .EGR Enabled EGR Disabled 0. NOx was half the amount. Although with the EGR enabled.1 Figure 4-15 Heat Release for Mode 8 (100% Load) and Mode 9 (25% Load) on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine with and without EGR The global in-cylinder temperature with EGR was higher compared to having the EGR disabled for modes 8 and 9 (Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17).1 0 -20 0 20 Mode 9 Fuel Injection Advanced without EGR Crank Angle (deg ATDC) 40 -0. the global temperature was greater because of the high temperatures in the intake manifold.16ml/gal ODA Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) Mode 8 Fuel Injection Delayed without EGR 0. which increased the intake flow. local temperatures decreased creating a reduction in NOx. since it was dependent on the intake conditions. however. The higher peak gas temperature with EGR was not the case for all modes.2 0.3 EGR Enabled . The EGR had a significant impact on the emissions.16ml/gal ODA EGR Disabled . although the heat release curve may have behaved similarly without EGR.

16ml/gal ODA Start of Injection 20 40 Crank Angle (deg ATDC) 60 80 Figure 4-16 Calculated In-cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 8 (100% Load) on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine with and without EGR EGR Enabled EGR Disabled 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 -20 0 Start of Injection 20 40 60 80 Start of Injection EGR Enabled .16ml/gal ODA Calculated In-Cylinder Gas Temperature (K) Crank Angle (deg ATDC) Figure 4-17 Calculated In-cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 9 (25% Load) on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engine with and without EGR 69 .Calculated In-Cylinder Gas Temperature (K) EGR Enabled EGR Disabled 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 -20 0 Start of Injection EGR Enabled .16ml/gal ODA EGR Disabled .16ml/gal ODA EGR Disabled .

its peak gas temperature was less than the 1992 DDC engine’s due to the increased charge mass. which absorbed more heat. A lower combustion rate was noted on the 2004 Cummins with the heat release curve and cylinder gas temperature increasing less rapidly than on the 1992 DDC engine. 1900 Calculated In-Cylinder Gas Temperature (K) 1700 Start of Injection 1500 1300 Start of Injection DDC Cummins 1100 900 700 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Crank Angle (degs ATDC) Figure 4-18 Comparison of Calculated In-cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 8 (100% Load) on the 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engines on CP Cert Fuel 70 . respectively. reducing the cylinder gas temperature. which may have led to shorter ignition delay [32. of both engines. The increased charge mass and EGR created a high thermal capacity.4. and higher reaction rates. 91] due to improved evaporation. atomization.2. The peak gas temperature was lower with 2004 Cummins due to the EGR and increased charge mass in the cylinder. The 2004 Cummins engine had greater cylinder temperatures at the start of injection (Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19). A higher temperature of approximately 50K was noted at the SOC for the 2004 Cummins engine. However.3 Comparison of Heat Release Between Engines The two engines showed very different responses to the fuel additives in respect to the heat release curve and NOx emissions. Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19 shows the cylinder gas temperatures for Modes 8 and 9.

The 1992 DDC Series 60 engine and the 2004 Cummins engine had a different bore. displacement.1. connection rod length. NOx reduction with the additives used here [69]. was used in another study at WVU and had very little (2%). while the 2004 Cummins was 16.1L displacement compared to the 12. and compression ratio (CR). Using the polytropic relationship. The 1991 DDC engine had an increase of ~1. shown in Figure 4-20. stroke. P = Pivc*(V/Vivc)n. It should be noted that the MAP of the 2004 Cummins engine 71 . The 1991 DDC had a 11. The 1991 DDC engine.4). if any.5MPa over the 1992 DDC engine at TDC due to the high CR of 16. With higher CRs. and polytropic constant (1. All of these parameters influenced the pressure. with assumed quantities of MAP (pressure at inlet valve closing). A difference of ~1MPa at TDC between the engines was calculated. The 1992 DDC engine had a CR of 15. and heat release profile.7L of the 1992 DDC.5.1900 Calculated In-Cylinder Gas Temperature (K) DDC Cummins 1700 1500 Start of Injection 1300 Start of Injection 1100 900 700 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Crank Angle (degs ATDC) Figure 4-19 Comparison of Calculated In-cylinder Gas Temperature for Mode 9 (25% Load) on the 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Engines on CP Cert Fuel Engines have different designs between engine manufacturers and models. temperature. a pressure curve for each engine was developed when combustion would not be occurring (Figure 4-20). volume at inlet valve closing. a greater pressure is obtained at TDC. The CR is the ratio of cylinder volume at BDC to the cylinder volume at TDC.

and 1991 DDC Engines 72 . Note that the EGR cooler does not reduce the temperature down to that of the fresh intake air before it is introduced into the intake manifold. With the higher CR for the 2004 Cummins engine.1-1. 2004 Cummins ISM 370. 10000 Calculated In-Cylinder Pressure (kPa) 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 -10 0 10 20 Crank Angle (degrees) 30 40 1992 DDC 2004 Cummins 1991 DDC Figure 4-20 Calculated In-cylinder Pressure Curve without Combustion with MAP=302kPa and MAT=300K on the 1992 DDC.4 times greater than the 1992 DDC engine’s. The MAT was typically ~25 to 50 Kelvin higher with the 2004 Cummins engine than with the 1992 DDC engine due to high temperature of the EGR flow. the motoring temperature was ~25K higher than for the 1992 DDC engine (Figure 4-21) at TDC for the assumed conditions.during engine testing was typically 1. which created even larger differences in the cylinder pressure at TDC.

It is plausible that since the 2004 Cummins engine implements higher injection pressures. and 1991 DDC Engines The higher temperatures and pressures in the 2004 Cummins engine due to the CR. The CO measurement was used as a surrogate for PM measurement [94]. the correlation between modal NOx and the combustion measured or calculated parameters from the steady state testing were examined. with “-1” being 73 . and the heat release profile approaches the injection profile [92. such as a shorter ignition delay [32. 2004 Cummins ISM 370. 4. and MAT should create different combustion characteristics. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the linear relationship between two variables and ranges from -1 to 1.1000 Calculated In-Cylinder Temperature (K) 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 -10 0 10 20 Crank Angle (degrees) 1992 DDC 2004 Cummins 1991 DDC 30 40 Figure 4-21 In-cylinder Temperature Curve without Combustion with MAP=302kPa and MAT=300K on the 1992 DDC. and shorter ignition delays were created [91]. mixing was enhanced. 91] and smaller premix spike [92.2. 93]. Studies with high boost pressures create reduced ignition delays. Table 7-4 in the Appendix shows each combustion parameter and the correlation coefficient for NOx and CO on the 1992 DDC engine. MAP.4 Derived Heat Release Parameters To improve understanding of the NOx and PM formation from the heat release curve. 93].

g/g of fuel injected). The brake-specific emissions (g/bhp-hr). the NOx in the dilution tunnel and the calculated exhaust NOx concentration were normalized to an intake humidity of 75gr/lb. the change in the emissions with and without additives were correlated with the change in heat release parameters with and without additives. Lower correlation coefficients with the change in emissions compared to absolute emissions were observed overall.a “perfect” negative linear relation. Therefore. Using the mass based NOx instead of the exhaust concentration for correlations with the heat release parameters showed correlations related to engine load and intake flow such as cumulative heat released and/or cylinder pressure at bottom dead center. The mass flow rate of NOx (from the dilution tunnel) was divided by the density of NO2 (NOx assumed to be all NO2 as in the Code of Federal Regulations) and the exhaust flow rate (assumed to be the intake flow) to obtain an approximate exhaust NOx concentration. pressure at the SOC (-0.72) compared to the correlations between the heat release parameters and the brake-specific NOx. Table 7-5 in the Appendix provides the correlation coefficients for Low Cetane with 8ml/gal 2-EHN.92).82 to -0. mass flow rate of NOx. mass emission normalized by the fuel injected (EI. location of peak gas temperature (-0.80. and location of peak gas temperature [48]. such as peak pressure.65-0. Multiple units were used for NOx and CO.86).0). To understand if any heat release parameters showed correlations with the change in NOx using additives. mass emission rate (g/s).88-0. The change in ignition delay showed a correlation of 0. and EINOx (absolute value ≤1. while the change in start of combustion had a 74 . Some of these correlations have been shown in other research. The modal exhaust concentration was used to understand the NOx formation.97).92-0. Note that the combustion characteristics were probably correlated with one another but these inter-correlations were not studied here. and the exhaust concentration (ppmv) have been used in combustion correlation studies.83 to -0. and zero having no linear relationship. The mass flow rate of NOx from the dilution tunnel had a humidity correction factor applied. maximum heat release rate.99). and “+1” being a “perfect” positive linear relationship. location of 90% MFB (-0.92).81 to -0. peak gas temperature.94-0. This was likewise done for CO. and the premix heat released (0.84). The highest correlations for NOx were with peak pressure (0. premix fraction (0. since studies vary on the method used to represent the emissions. The correlations based on the exhaust concentrations of NOx are relatively low (absolute value ≤ 0.

The error bars for the exhaust constituents are based on four repeat tests with the Guttman fuel.76-0.correlation of 0. The ignition delay is the time difference between the start of injection and the start of combustion. which may change NOx [54]. the error bars shown are an approximate one standard deviation. The error bars for the heat release parameters are based on 11 repeat tests with the Guttman fuel. For more details on calculating the approximate standard deviation. 75 . The change in peak pressure and change in exhaust NOx concentration are shown in Figure 4-22. A high correlation was noticed. Previous researchers have stated that the ignition delay changes the premix fraction [81]. For Figure 4-22 through Figure 4-26. which showed how the approximate range was calculated. Higher pressure typically means higher temperature. with increased pressure causing a NOx increase and reduced pressure causing a NOx reduction. which may then create a higher NOx formation rate. see Section 3.85.7.

but NOx formation depends on the local flame temperature and the residence time of combustion zones at high local temperatures. The peak gas temperature only provides a single characteristic and not the length of combustion time that occurred at high temperatures. The peak gas temperature used in Figure 4-23 was from the calculated cylinder temperature.938 Since higher temperatures create more thermal NOx.31.5.650x .3 addressed the NOx formation dependence on local temperature and the residence time of combustion zones at high local temperatures.116 R2 = 0. the change in peak gas temperature and change in exhaust NOx concentration is shown in Figure 4-23. The combustion model in Section 4.8. which gave an indication of NOx production.938 y = 0. The length of time at high temperatures with and without additives may play a greater role than the peak gas temperature. although the general trend shows an increase in NOx with increased peak gas temperatures and a decrease in NOx with a decrease in the peak gas temperature.656x . 76 .723x .60 3ml/gal 2-EHN 6ml/gal 2-EHN Change in Exhaust NOx (ppmv) 8ml/gal 2-EHN 40 20 0 -200 -150 -100 -50 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 Change in Peak Pressure (kPa) Figure 4-22 Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in the Peak Pressure for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel) 0 50 100 150 y = 0.173 R2 = 0. A lower R2 was noticed with this correlation.947 y = 0.098 R2 = 0.

719 y = 3. This leads the author to believe that the change in premix fraction does not cause the change in NOx.60 40 Change in Exhaust NOx (ppmv) 20 0 -40 -20 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 Change in Peak Gas Temperature (K) 0 20 40 3ml/gal 2-EHN 6ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN 60 y = 3.968 R2 = 0.20.722 y = 2.24.32.433 R2 = 0.832x .097 R2 = 0.796 Figure 4-23 Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in the Peak Gas Temperature for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel) A high correlation was observed between the change in premix fraction and the change in the exhaust NOx concentration (Figure 4-24). 77 . but leads to a change in other parameters such as temperature and pressure.239x . The premix fraction decreased for all modes. although a NOx increase was observed at high loads.487x .

02 A decrease in ignition delay caused by the additives would change the pressure at which combustion occurred.60 3ml/gal 2-EHN 6ml/gal 2-EHN Change in Exhaust NOx (ppmv) 8ml/gal 2-EHN 40 20 0 0. 78 .967 -120 Change in Premix Fraction (-) Figure 4-24 Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in the Premix Fraction for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel) -0.00 -20 -40 -60 y = 2036.726 R2 = 0. a decrease in the ignition delay would make the pressure at the SOC decrease. If combustion occurred on the compression stroke. The greater NOx reduction was observed with lower SOC pressure changes. At high loads compared to low loads.7x + 39.10 -0.900 -80 y = 1952.946 -100 y = 1863. the same percent reduction in pressure at SOC (with and without additive) would have higher-pressure changes due to higher boost creating greater compression pressure.881 R2 = 0.06 -0. a decrease in ignition delay would cause an increase in pressure at SOC.1x + 65. On the expansion stroke. The pressure at SOC typically decreased.4x + 62.880 R2 = 0. which has combustion occurring near TDC (Figure 4-25).08 -0. with greater decreases having a NOx increase.04 -0.

The highest correlation coefficients were with the 10% MFB (-0.84.41. which was when the NOx increase occurred. A high degree of scatter was also noticed with this relationship. which is contrary to the correlation found.743 y = -0.799 R2 = 0.496x .676 R2 = 0. 79 . The increased radical pool caused by the ignition improvers may increase local oxidation of CO and PM.617 y = -0.90). Figure 4-26 illustrated a NOx/CO trade-off like the typical NOx/PM trade-off shown in the literature. An increase in burning time would suggest an increase in the oxidization rate of CO.73 to -0. The additives caused a decrease in CO during all modes with greater reductions occurring at high load.673 R2 = 0.564x .787 Figure 4-25 Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in the Pressure at the Start of Combustion for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel) For CO.60 40 Change in Exhuast NOx (ppmv) 20 0 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 Change in Pressure at the SOC (kPa) 0 3ml/gal 2-EHN 6ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN 50 100 y = -0. which would decrease CO. This relationship would suggest that an increase in the burning time at the beginning of the heat release would decrease CO (and PM).62.739x . This high correlation may be due to an interrelated cause. the correlations were less favorable.

The change in exhaust NOx due to the additives could not be explained with the 2004 Cummins engine.1.6605x .0 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 -20 -40 3ml/gal 2-EHN 6ml/gal 2-EHN 8ml/gal 2-EHN -60 -80 -100 y = -0.0.3% and 1.4% increase in brake-specific NOx 80 .51.8).6323x . lower correlations were observed for heat release parameters with the absolute NOx/CO and change in NOx/CO compared to the 1992 DDC engine (Table 7-6 and Table 7-7. the exhaust NOx increased 0-4.8225x . if any change occurred.0.456 2 0 20 40 60 Change in Exhaust CO (ppmv) -120 -140 -160 -180 -200 Change in Exhaust NOx (ppmv) Figure 4-26 Change in CO with Additized Fuels Compared to a Change in NOx for the Steady State Modes on the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show An Approximate One Standard Deviation Based on Repeat Tests with the Guttman Fuel) For the 2004 Cummins engine. Figure 4-27 shows the percent change in premix fraction and the percent change in exhaust NOx.97) and maximum cylinder gas temperature (0.0112x2 .66 with the change in exhaust NOx (ppmv) at the higher treat rates of 12ml/gal 2-EHN and 15ml/gal DTBP.0042x2 . with changes in premix fraction (except for 15ml/gal DTBP). Although the change in maximum cylinder pressure and maximum cylinder gas temperature due to the cetane improvers showed good correlation on the 1992 DDC engine.15-0. The change in premix fraction had a correlation coefficient of 0. the 2004 Cummins engine did not have high correlations (-0.458 R2 = 0. The absolute NOx emissions did correlate well with the absolute maximum cylinder pressure (0.70.529 R2 = 0. Overall.808 R2 = 0.546 y = -0. This correlation was due to the change in the exhaust NOx levels and not reductions due to the additives.504 y = -0.49.51 to 0.11).2% with the fuel additives.0061x . The FTP tests only showed a 1. in the Appendix).67–0.

or similar hardware).012x + 0. VGT. the combustion parameters were acquired for each combustion cycle. The continuous heat release parameters from the three FTP hot-starts were then averaged and a 9-point moving 81 .015 R2 = 0.037 5% 4% 3% Change in NOx (%) 2% 1% 0% -100% -80% 6ml/gal 2-EHN 12ml/gal 2-EHN 15ml/gal DTBP -3% Change in Premix Fraction (%) Figure 4-27 Percent Change in NOx with Additized Fuels Compared to a Percent Change in the Premix Fraction for the Steady State Modes on the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 -60% -40% -20% -1% -2% 0% 4. The exhaust concentrations of NOx and CO were time aligned to the indicated mean effective pressure from the combustion parameters.160 y = 0.327 y = 0.for the 12ml/gal 2-EHN and 24ml/gal ODA. parameters were time aligned using engine speed.020x + 0. A time delay occurred between the combustion created emissions and the measured emissions.017 R2 = 0.010x + 0.2. The author believes multiple repeat SET tests need to be conducted for each treat rate to determine whether the percent change in NOx at each load is statistically significant or due to fluctuating engine control and accuracy for the 2004 Cummins (or any newer engine with EGR. while the emissions data were acquired at 5Hz on different computers. y = -0. which was collected on both computers and converted to 5Hz.027 R2 = 0.5 Transient Heat Release The combustion For the transient tests. and no significant difference was observed with the lower treat rates or the 15ml/gal DTBP. although the effect of transient EGR and boost on NOx might introduce a bias in this correlation.

average was done to minimize variation when comparing to the laboratory obtained emissions data. In Figure 4-28 through Figure 4-30, the error bars show one standard deviation from the mean based on the three hot start FTPs for each fuel. Figure 4-28 shows the LAFY section of the FTP as an example to describe the transient incylinder data analysis. The IMEPg and difference in exhaust NOx concentration between the LC fuel and the LC fuel with 8ml/gal 2-EHN are shown. During idle sections and the beginning of the idle to load transition, large differences in parameters and exhaust NOx concentration were noticed due to the high combustion variation at idle and misalignments from time aligning the data. For any IMEPg less than 450kPa, the combustion parameters and NOx differences were set equal to zero to minimize this effect. The choice of 450kPa for IMEPg corresponded approximately to 20% load, which was slightly less than the 25% load points (lowest loads) in the SET tests. At IMEPg less than ~1250KPa, a NOx decrease was noticed. No NOx change or a NOx increase occurred at an IMEPg greater than ~1250kPa. This behavior of NOx with load was observed with the SET testing and previously shown in the steady state testing section.

82

100

5000

Difference in Exhaust NOx (ppmv)

0 600 -100

650

700

750

800

850

900 3500

-200

delta NOx

IMEPg-LC

IMEPg-8ml/gal 2-EHN

-300

2000

-400

-500
Time (secs)

500

Figure 4-28 Change in NOx and Gross Indicated Mean Effective Pressure during Transient Operation for the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show One Standard Deviation from the Mean Based on the Three Hot Start FTPs for Each Fuel)

During acceleration from low to high load, the premix fraction increases in the lower loads and then decreases at higher loads. Assanis and coworkers [63] showed that during a load change, the turbocharger lag produced more prominent premix combustion from the relatively high equivalence ratio. A correlation was observed between the change in premix fraction and the change in NOx from the steady state testing. Figure 4-29 shows the continuous premix fraction for the Low Cetane fuel and additized Low Cetane fuel. The change in NOx was again plotted. A predicted change in NOx (labeled “delta NOx model”), using a linear relationship fitted from the change in NOx to the change in premix from the steady state testing, was added to explore whether the steady state correlation translates to the transient tests. At high premix values, the NOx decreased with the additive. At low premix values, the NOx showed either no change or a NOx increase. The predicted change in NOx from the delta NOx model had higher increases and decreases than actual. This may be due to the noticed change in injection timing strategy between the steady state tests and the transient tests. The transient tests had delayed injection timing compared to the steady state tests. The engine utilized a method to pass emission 83

IMEPg (kPa)

regulations on the FTP cycle, but allowed lower fuel consumption (increased NOx) during relatively steady state operation [5].
100 delta NOx Premix-LC delta NOx Model Premix-8ml/gal 2-EHN

1.4 1.2 900 1.0 0.8 0.6
Premix Fraction (-)

Difference in Exhaust NOx (ppmv)

0 600 -100

650

700

750

800

850

-200

-300 0.4 -400 0.2 0.0
Time (secs)

-500

Figure 4-29 Change in NOx from a change in the Premix Fraction during Transient Operation for the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show One Standard Deviation from the Mean Based on the Three Hot Start FTPs for Each Fuel, For Error Bars on NOx, see Figure 4-28)

The continuous change in peak gas temperature showed a relationship with the change in NOx. The continuous peak gas temperature might give an indication of the thermal NOx, which is considered the main contributor to NOx formed in diesel combustion. A linear model was again developed, based on steady state results, to predict the change in NOx during transient testing. The levels of change in NOx agreed well (Figure 4-30), although the predicted NOx values had greater variation. This may be attributed to the sensitive response of this relationship to changes in temperature. The transient peak cylinder gas temperature was calculated cycle by cycle and had larger variation than the steady state peak cylinder gas temperature, which had 200 pressure cycles averaged.

84

This may be due to the delayed injection timing used for transient operation. which had combustion occurring later in the expansion stroke that caused cooling of the combustion contents. which had increased pressure near TDC. For Error Bars on NOx. while during steady state operation. see Figure 4-28) The levels of change in NOx predicted by the change in premix fraction from the linear relationship were off to some degree. although injection timing changed. The effect of the change in peak pressure on the change in exhaust NOx was different between transient and steady state operation (Figure 4-31). The increased cooling of the combustion chamber with delayed injection had the diffusion fraction occurring later in the 85 . Typically. This shows that the effect of the premix fraction on NOx is a function of the injection strategy. while the effect of the peak gas temperature on NOx is not. while the predicted levels of NOx change from the change in peak gas temperature had better agreement. the reduced premix fraction creates an increased diffusion fraction. a decrease in peak pressure was noticed during the transient cycle.100 delta NOx Tmax-LC delta NOx Model Tmax-8ml/gal 2-EHN 3000 Difference in Exhaust NOx (ppmv) 0 600 -100 650 700 750 800 850 2700 900 2400 Peak Temperature (K) -200 2100 -300 1800 -400 1500 -500 Time (secs) 1200 Figure 4-30 Change in NOx from a change in Peak Gas Temperature during Transient Operation for the 1992 DDC (Error Bars show One Standard Deviation from the Mean Based on the Three Hot Start FTPs for Each Fuel. With high loads during steady state and advanced injection timing. four modes had an increase in peak pressure.

The model utilized the global heat release rate. The conceptual combustion model produced by Dec [53. and the extended Zeldovich mechanism to investigate how the change in the global heat release with additive effected the NOx formation. The combustion model shown in Section 3. The fuel additives increased or decreased NOx depending on the mode. Based on this. a change in the global heat release rate was observed with the 1992 DDC engine. allowing less opportunity for NOx reduction.10 was applied to the 1992 DDC engine. A more in depth analysis of the how the global heat release rate curve effects the NOx emissions was needed. a mixing model.combustion cycle. which may reduce the burning rate. 54] from Laser-Sheet Imaging found the premix portion of the heat release to have a high ER (3-4).3 Combustion Model Results For the fuel additives used in this study. the ER for the combusting fuel packages during the premix portion was investigated with a setting of two for 86 . 100 Transient Steady State Change in Exhaust NOx (ppmv) 50 0 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 0 50 100 Change in Peak Pressure (kPa) Figure 4-31 Change in NOx from change in Peak Cylinder Pressure over Transient and Steady State Operation for the 1992 DDC 4.

with Low Cetane fuel.95 for pure water vapor at the measured in-cylinder pressures and calculated temperatures.6-0. Using the high ER during the premix portion produced very low NOx at 25% load.the combustion model. was used extensively to understand the model parameters (mixing constant. the worst-case compressibility factor was 0. and internal EGR) on the predicted emissions. Improved accuracy occurred when solving for ER with the developed mixing relationship (Equation 3-22) without using a high ER for the premix portion. The heat release curves investigated by Dec were visually similar to those of 50% and 75% load on the 1992 DDC engine. the ideal gas law loses accuracy at high pressures. local ER. The predicted cylinder volume and cylinder gas temperature was used as a quality check for the combustion model. The compressibility factor was 1. Mode 8. 87 .0-1. a real gas approaches an ideal gas at high temperatures.02 for the mixtures and this shows the assumption of an ideal gas was acceptable. When checking the real gas effects. The mass-averaged cylinder temperature from the combustion model was compared to the calculated cylinder gas temperature from the ideal gas equation (Figure 4-32).7) and high NOx (1000-1200ppmv). which had a high premix fraction (0. Although.

Combustion duration was typically shorter than 60 degrees ATDC. This was deemed acceptable since the calculated model temperature depended on the properties (enthalpy. and NOx formation was quenched before 90 degrees ATDC. 88 .2000 Model Temperature Ideal Gas Law Mean Cylinder Gas Temperature (K) 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Crank Angle (deg) Figure 4-32 Global Cylinder Gas Temperature Predicted by Combustion Model and Calculated from InCylinder Pressure using the Ideal Gas Law The gas temperature predicted by the combustion model was 30K lower at the peak than the cylinder gas temperature calculated from the in-cylinder pressure. the mixing model. After 90 degrees ATDC. heat transfer model. this may come from the temperature disagreement. and the assumed product species. The model predicted volume was compared to the actual cylinder volume (Figure 4-33). the combustion model predicted a lower cylinder volume than actual. and higher heating value) used for the diesel fuel. The trend from the calculated temperature was followed by the model temperature. internal energy.

A lower mixing constant would result in a richer fuel package for a longer duration. the predicted exhaust NOx generally decreased (Figure 4-34). and internal EGR were varied for mode 8. Three percent internal EGR was assumed since Heywood [60] states the residual gas fraction has an order of a few percent for diesel engines.0005 0. local equivalence ratio at initial combustion.5 to 2.0010 0.5. all CO was converted to CO2. With increasing mixing (a higher mixing constant). since equilibrium was assumed and the global equivalence ratio was lean.0015 Volume (m ) 3 0. but as long as the burned zone reached the global equivalence ratio. 89 .0000 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Crank Angle (deg) Figure 4-33 Cylinder Volume Predicted by Combustion Model and Actual The combustion model parameters of mixing constant.0020 Volume Model Volume 0. The predicted CO2 was insensitive to the mixing constant in the studied range of 1. Higher internal EGR decreased the predicted NOx as expected.0.

the calculated CO2 had better agreement with the experimental CO2 (Figure 4-35). That is.0 ER=1.9.0. The assumptions only changed the predicted NOx concentration levels. the absolute NOx concentration was sensitive to the values selected for internal EGR and local equivalence ratio.5 With 3% internal EGR.5 2 Mixing Constant Figure 4-34 Influence of Mixing Constant and Local Equivalence Ratio on NOx 2. In addition.1 ER=1. 3%EGR ER=1. but the percent difference between a neat fuel and an additized fuel were not influenced by the selection of these values. as stated earlier.1. used a value of two for the mixing constant. A mixing constant of two had better agreement in the predicted cylinder temperature and cylinder volume. 90 . It should be noted that the assumed internal EGR and local equivalence ratio at combustion did not affect the predicted NOx percent increase/reduction with and without additive. having the same mixing relation.3000 Exhaust NO Molar Concentration (ppmv) ER=0. 3%EGR 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 1. The mixing constant changed the predicted NOx increase/decrease due to the increased quenching affect on NOx with greater mixing. 3%EGR ER=1.9 ER=0. another NOx research study [68] with a more detailed kinetic NOx mechanism.

Three-dimensional CFD combustion models utilizing more reactions and kinetic mechanisms have shown NOx agreement with a difference as high as 44% [95]. The agreement in the predicted NOx to the experimental NOx was 17% to 59%.070 0. Figure 4-36 shows the exhaust NOx concentrations from the laboratory and the combustion model. and the range would give a better indication of 91 . the NOx was predicted for the base (Low Cetane) and additized (8ml/gal 2-EHN) fuels.060 0.080 y = 0. The range over average from the Guttman fuel was then multiplied by NOx from the additized and unadditized Low Cetane fuels.040 0. The bars depicted in Figure 4-36 are from a study utilizing the Guttman fuel with four repeat SET tests. the agreement would be ±21%. If the average predicted NOx level was adjusted to the average experimental NOx level using a constant factor.040 0.050 0. The predicted range over the average (similar to a covariance) and the experiment NOx were computed utilizing the four repeat tests.090 Model CO2 Molar Fraction (-) 0.993 0.060 0.090 Lab CO2 Molar Fraction (-) Figure 4-35 Model CO2 and Laboratory Based CO2 for Low Cetane Fuel with and without Additive Utilizing the combustion model for modes 3-13.992x 2 R = 0.080 0. The range was used instead of the standard deviation because the additized and unadditized Low Cetane fuels had no repeats. Better agreement would be shown with fewer modes studied due to easier adjustment of model parameters.070 0.0. where fewer modes are typically analyzed than the 11 modes at different engine load and speeds investigated here.050 0.

68]. H.LCA Model . and OH are a function of pressure and temperature due to the assumed equilibrium reactions.3. additized and unadditized fuel. CO. H2. Good agreement was obtained. A decrease in temperature decreases NOx formation.LC Laboratory . 2100 1800 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 Modes Figure 4-36 Model NOx and Laboratory Based NOx for Low Cetane Fuel with and without Additive Laboratory . As shown in Figure 4-36. O2→2O. N2. but the pressure was slightly higher with the additized fuel. test-to-test variability was only a few percent. at higher At 100% load. 66. H2O.LC Model . Le Chatelier's principle indicates the reaction is forced to the left due to the lower number of moles.LCA Exhaust NOx (ppmv) 9 10 11 12 13 4. At 100% load. particularly between the 25-75% loads. O2. which 92 . the combustion model predicted a NOx decrease. which leads to lower NOx. but an increase in pressure at the same temperature decreases the formation of O and OH. For the equilibrium reaction of dioxygen and oxygen. O.1 Steady State The agreement between experimental and model predicted percent NOx increase/reduction is shown as Figure 4-37. The combustion model was shown to predict NOx trends. Research in the literature with similar agreement to the experimental NOx has also been used to predict NOx trends [65.variability from repeat tests. The model constituents of CO2. the temperature profiles were very similar between the pressures.

the model NOx and experimental NOx showed a NOx reduction of 8. The bars indicate the percent difference ranges from repeat SET tests utilizing the Guttman fuel.2%.therefore reduced NOx.34) of the 25% loads. less fuel was injected before the start of combustion creating lower heat release rates during the premix portion of the heat release and greater heat release rates during the diffusion portion. The high premix fraction (50-70%) of the heat release at 25% load increased the significance of the NOx formed due to the premix portion of the heat release rather than the diffusion portion of the heat release. The diffusion portion occurred later in the expansion stoke with the cylinder volume expanding. compared to high loads. For the other loads (25-75%).30 to 0. With a reduced ignition delay due to the cetane improver. The NOx reduction was due to a lower NOx formation rate (Figure 4-38) caused by a cetane improver. 93 . respectively. the temperature profile changed significantly between fuels and offset the influence of pressure on NOx. 15% 10% 50% Load Change in Model NOx (%) 5% 0% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% -5% -10% 100% Load -15% -20% -25% Change in Lab NOx (%) Figure 4-37 Percent Reduction in Exhaust NOx with Additized Low Cetane Fuel from Model and Laboratory 75% Load 0% 2% 4% 6% 25% Load For Mode 7. provided a greater amount of unburned air for quenching the combustion packages and reducing the cylinder temperature. The low equivalence ratio (~0.8% and 8. which caused lower combustion temperatures and hence lower NOx formation.

receptively. which created higher combustion temperatures for the later burning fuel packages.2700 2400 NOx Formation (ppmv/ms) 2100 1800 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Crank Angle (degs ATDC) 50 60 NOx Rate .LCA 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NOx (ppmv) Figure 4-38 NOx Formation Between Low Cetane Fuel (LC) and Additized Low Cetane Fuel (LCA) for Mode 7 (25% Load) The low premix fraction (6-15%) at 75-100% load increased the significance of the NOx formed during the diffusion portion of the heat release more than during the premix portion.1%.4% and 5.LC NOx Rate .LC NOx . increased the cylinder gas temperature creating greater combustion temperatures for the diffusion portion. Therefore. with 8ml/gal 2-EHN added to the Low Cetane fuel. the contents of the unburned air in the cylinder heated up due to heat transfer.LCA NOx . and the additive generated higher NOx formation rates during the diffusion portion 94 . at high load. During Mode 4 (75% load). the premix portion of the heat release was reduced. The combustion during the premix portion of the heat release. the experimental NOx and combustion model predicted NOx increased 1. As the duration of combustion increased. The large quantity of fuel energy released more than offset the reduced energy created by the expanding cylinder volume. The large amount of fuel energy released during the diffusion section at high load created higher local temperatures and NOx formations than during the premixed section of the heat release.

The mass emissions of CO2 and NOx were calculated from the combustion model using the exhaust constituents and the in-cylinder pressure-based intake flow rate as the exhaust flow rate. Every tenth combustion cycle was solved with the combustion model to minimize computation time. since each combustion cycle takes 20 minutes for a solution.LC NOx Rate . The 95 . Figure 4-40 and Figure 4-41 show the unadditized and additized (8ml/gal 2-EHN) Low Cetane fuels for experimental and model predicted CO2 and NOx during the third hot-start FTP.3.LCA 600 400 200 0 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 NOx (ppmv) Figure 4-39 NOx Formation Between Low Cetane Fuel (LC) and Additized Low Cetane Fuel (LCA) for Mode 4 (75% Load) 4. The experimental heat release for each combustion cycle was fitted to the double Weibe function before use in the combustion model to minimize the variability.2 Transient To understand whether the combustion model NOx from steady state correlated to the transient tests. the last portion of the first NYNF section of the FTP was investigated.LC NOx . 900 800 700 NOx Formation (ppmv/ms) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Crank Angle (degs ATDC) 50 60 NOx Rate .(Figure 4-39) and more than offset the lower NOx formation rates during the premix portion of the heat release.LCA NOx . and this 45-second interval of the FTP had 495 combustion cycles.

Model LCA .Lab LCA . respectively.6% and a 0.Model 220 230 Time (sec) 240 250 260 Figure 4-40 Mass Emissions of the Experimental CO2 and Combustion Model CO2 for a 45-second Section of the FTP 96 . the experimental and model CO2 showed a 0. 45 40 Mass Emissions of CO2 (g/s) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 210 LC .8% increase.Lab LC . between unadditized and additized fuels. Integrating the mass emissions of CO2 over this 45-second interval.0% reduction in NOx between unadditized and additized fuels for the experimental and model predicted NOx.1% and 6. The integrated NOx emissions resulted in an 8.response of the combustion model predicted CO2 and NOx was greater than experimental values due to the dilution tunnel having mass diffusion effects. respectively. although the trend was similar between predicted and experimental values.

8 Mass Emissions of NOx (g/s) 0.Lab LCA . The interval of 220-225 seconds on the FTP demonstrates the increase due to the additive during diffusion burning for the NOx formation at high load. 97 .9 0. The NOx formation rate during the first 10 degrees after the SOC was decreased with the additive.0 210 LC .2 0.6 0.7 0. but the second portion of the NOx formation rate from the diffusion burning (occurred after initial 10 deg after the SOC) tended to increase at higher load.5 0.1 0.Model 220 230 Time (sec) 240 250 260 Figure 4-41 Mass Emissions of the Experimental NOx and Combustion Model NOx for a 45-second Section of the FTP Figure 4-42 shows the NOx formation rate during the 45 crank angle degrees after the SOC for the 45-second section of the FTP.Lab LC .Model LCA .4 0.3 0.0.

From 218-222 seconds.NO Formation Rate (Molar Fraction/deg) x 10 4 2 0 220 -4 230 240 250 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time (secs) NO Formation Rate (Molar Fraction/deg) x 10 4 2 0 220 230 240 -4 Crank Angle (degs) 250 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time (secs) Crank Angle (degs) Figure 4-42 NO Formation Rates for a 45-second Section of the FTP (Top: Low Cetane Fuel. and ratio of cylinder pressure at EVO to IVC. Both load and engine speed change during acceleration. Typical diesel acceleration does not simply have a load change. As the engine accelerates. the turbocharger lag produced more prominent premix combustion due to the relatively high equivalence ratio. air flow rate. the air flow and the fuel flow follow each other. 98 . the pressure ratio stays relatively constant during acceleration. Bottom: Low Cetane Fuel with 8ml/gal 2-EHN) An argument could be made that the transient nature of the turbocharger more strongly influences NOx emissions during transient operation than during steady state operation. The study by Assanis and coworkers [63] showed that during a load change. but the change in NOx goes from a reduction to no NOx change or a NOx increase (Figure 4-41). Figure 4-43 shows the 45-second interval during the FTP for the cylinder fuel flow rate.

Air Flow Rate (Middle). the behavior of the fuel injection timing changed between steady state and transient operation. During steady state. 99 .Fuel Flow (kg/min) 0. With the additive. or occurred for only a short period during the transient combustion modeling and therefore did not greatly influence the integrated NOx emissions. the reduction of the NOx formation rate during the premix combustion and the increase of the NOx formation rate during diffusion combustion were evident. This inaccurate NOx prediction at 100% load was not evident.5. the combustion model inaccurately predicted a NOx decrease with the additive at 100% load. The combustion model was able to predict the reduction of the integrated NOx with 8ml/gal 2-EHN added to the Low Cetane fuel during transient operation. and Ratio of Cylinder Pressure at EVO to IVO for a 45-second Section of the FTP As mentioned in Section 4.2 0.2.1 0 210 4 2 0 210 5 Unadditized Additized 220 Ratio of Pevo to Pivc Air Flow (N m3/min) 230 240 Time (secs) 250 260 220 230 240 Time (secs) 250 260 0 210 220 230 240 Time (secs) 250 260 Figure 4-43 Cylinder Fuel Flow Rate (Top).

because the engine operates primarily at low horsepower (Figure 4-44). a percent reduction in NOx with additive trend was calculated. load.4. The high horsepower operation of an on-road diesel truck engine operating in rural conditions may not have a significant benefit from a cetane improver. but represent the general trend that older engines have a greater NOx reduction using cetane improvers. and additive concentration dependent (Figure 4-44). A 6th order polynomial was fit to the continuous NOx mass rate as a function of power from the FTP test for additized and neat fuel on the 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins. Using these 6th order polynomials. For more details on the percent reduction of NOx versus power for these additives and engines. 10% 1992 DDC with LC 8 ml/gal 2-EHN 2004 Cummins with CP 12 ml/gal 2-EHN 5% dNOx (%) 0% 0 -5% 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 -10% -15% Engine Power (bhp) Figure 4-44 NOx Reduction from the FTP cycle with 2-EHN on the 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins An ideal candidate for cetane improvers would be a legacy on-road heavy-duty diesel engine operating in urban areas. neat fuel. It should be noted that the base fuels and concentrations of 2-EHN shown in Figure 4-44 are different for the two engines shown. 100 .4 Significance The effectiveness of the cetane improvers on NOx were engine. see reference [69]. such as refuse trucks and buses.

Modern engines with higher compression ratios and/or EGR may not benefit from a cetane improver at higher average engine loads. 101 .

the cetane improvers showed a statistically significant NOx decrease of 2. NOx. with in-cylinder pressure collected.4%). 10. the emissions of CO with the cetane improvers either showed no significant difference or reductions of up to 14. Compared to the base fuel (excluding biodiesel blends) during steady state testing. On the 2004 Cummins engine.0% (increase). THC (12-34.9%. the emissions of NOx showed up to a 1.0%. and THC had no change for some modes and reductions (up to 39%) for others when compared to the base fuels (excluding biodiesel blends). and TPM (23. The emissions of CO.7% compared to the base fuels (excluding biodiesel blends). and TPM showed percent reductions of 4.5 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.4% increase of NOx with the 2004 Cummins engine compared to the base fuels (excluding biodiesel blends). while THC and TPM had no significant difference. and TPM were collected.9-37. and 6. The emissions of CO. and cottonseed fuels significantly reduced CO (9.2%).24.8-14. For the 2004 Cummins engine. The engines were exercised over the transient heavy-duty FTP cycle and the steady state SET test. the B20 biodiesel blends of soy. 2-EHN.6 to -1. On the FTP cycle. CO2.1 Conclusions Three cetane improver additives of DTBP.9% with the 1992 DDC engine and a 0-1. A phenomenological combustion model was developed to investigate the influence of the shift in global heat release due to the additives on the NOx emissions. tallow.2-34.6-8. The emissions of CO reduced (up to 26%) for all modes.7%) compared to the 102 . A zero-dimensional heat release model was applied to an averaged pressure trace for the steady state modes and cycle-by-cycle during transient testing. on the 1992 DDC engine. no change in NOx or a 6% NOx increase with additives was noticed during SET tests when compared to the base fuel (excluding biodiesel blends). For both engines on the FTP cycle.8% increase at 100% load and up to an 8% decrease at 25% load on the 1992 DDC engine. THC. respectively. and ODA (proprietary) were investigated with a variety of base fuels on 1992 DDC and 2004 Cummins engines. THC.

9) on the 2004 Cummins engine. During the SET tests. These variations were attributed to changes in the ECU engine control. The phenomenological combustion model showed that the change in global heat release by the cetane improvers on the 1992 DDC engine was the cause of the fuel additives’ changes in NOx.8-4. More control over the 2004 Cummins engine is needed to determine cetane improver effects.2%) on the 1992 DDC engine and significantly increased (2. and intake air flow. although the premix fraction was a function of injection timing.neat fuel.9%) on the 1992 DDC engine. MAT. since large variations in the steady state emissions were noticed for repeat tests. The change in peak cylinder gas temperature and the change in NOx with the cetane improvers showed consistent correlations between steady state and transient testing on the 1992 DDC engine. the NOx decreased then had no change or a NOx increase with the premix fraction being high at low load and low at high load.2) than the neat fuel (49. Disabling the EGR had no effect on the ability of the cetane improvers to reduce NOx on the 2004 Cummins engine. a similar change in heat release was obtained with the use of fuel additives as in the steady state modes.1-2. As the engine accelerated from low load to high load. The fuel additives reduced the premix fraction of the heat release for all loads on the 1992 DDC engine and low load on the 2004 Cummins engine. suggesting a cetane effect created by the biodiesel. The addition of a cetane improver to the biodiesel blends resulted in no significant difference on the 2004 Cummins. The 2004 Cummins engine had higher boost pressure. The neat fuel used for the biodiesel blends on the 1992 DDC engine was of lower cetane (46. the biodiesel blends showed similar trends as the additized neat fuel with reduced NOx at low load and increased NOx at high load on the 1992 DDC engine.7-0. The NOx emissions significantly decreased (2. 103 . which may have reduced the premix fraction. while the NOx emissions were reduced (0.3%) on the 2004 Cummins engine compared to the neat fuel. The reduction of the premix fraction with the cetane improvers on the 1992 DDC engine correlated with NOx change. On the transient heat release cycles.

a shifted cylinder temperature and pressure) from other effects (chemical formation. Correlating the change in heat release parameters to the change in emissions would help determine how much a shifted global heat release effects the emissions.2 Recommendations The heat release analysis and Emissions testing. The application of the heat release analysis and combustion model was able to distinguish differences between steady state and transient operation. The strong correlations between the change in NOx and the change in heat release parameters showed that cetane improvers shift the heat release profile creating reduced NOx at low load and increased NOx at high load. The tools of analyzing the heat release parameters and the phenomenological combustion model provided a technique to separate the influence of a shifted heat release profile (and therefore. With engine control dependent on operating conditions (steady state or 104 . The steady state percent change in NOx trend with the cetane improvers agreed with the experimental values. and a NOx combustion model were used to determine the influence of cetane improvers on emissions.The combustion model was applied to the steady state modes and a 45-second section of the FTP cycle. A change in the fuel may create a chemical formation effect and a shifted heat release rate profile.1% of the experimental NOx over the 45-second section of the FTP. combustion model were applied to steady state and transient testing. The NOx combustion model provides more understanding of how a shifted global heat release rate effects emissions. The phenomenological combustion model related the shifted heat release profile to the change in NOx. or oxygenates. The analysis methods (heat release parameters and combustion model) could be applied to any number of fuel studies including biodiesel. combustion improver additives. 5. The percent reduction of the integrated NOx from the combustion model for the base and additized fuels agreed within 1. thereby solidifying that the reduced ignition delay creates the conditions for both reduced NOx at low load and increased NOx at high load. and increased EGR). These methodologies could be applied in engine control studies to help adjust fuel injection characteristics. lower adiabatic flame temperature. a detailed heat release analysis. except at 100% load.

105 . nitrogen levels in present United States on-road fuels are typically low (< 300 ppmw). literature has looked into fuel-borne NOx for diesel engines.transient). • • A greater number of additives varieties could be investigated. Based on the results of the 1992 DDC engine. a fuel additive that reduces ignition delay at low load. A 100% fuel-borne nitrogen conversion rate from 24ml/gal 2-EHN on the 2004 Cummins engine would be up to 6% of the total NOx mass produced by the engine. Increasing levels of nitrogen in the fuel might be interesting to investigate since very little. Some recommendations for further studying of the effect of fuel additives on diesel engine emissions and performance are: • • • The use of a more complex combustion model. especially on the 2004 Cummins engine or newer engines. but increases the ignition delay at high load may provide the most NOx reduction for the 1992 DDC engine. if any. applying the heat release analysis and combustion model to transient conditions could be used to improve engine tuning. The SET tests. but slows burning (low premix spike and high diffusion) may provide maximum NOx reduction. should have multiple tests for statistical significance. However. the use of a fuel additive that ignites early after injection. may improve the correlation with experimental results. such as metal-based additives (platinum/cerium). with full kinetics. • Due to the nature of how cetane improvers cause increased NOx at high load.

“Air Pollution and Health -. The California Diesel Fuel Regulations.. C. 351. Gadd. 1983. Zurner. California Code of Regulations. Buckingham. 40-48. 2. Pope. 55. 1132-1134. Maitre. “Diesel Fuel Additives to Meet Worldwide Performance and Emissions Requirements. Kullnowski.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. PA.. 5.. R.. 992-1002. J. SAE Paper No. Henly. 3. Vol. 2004.. L. SAE Paper No. 212. H.. and Olikara. “Impact of Urban Atmospheric Pollution on Coronary Disease. III. 11.. K. T. P. 932737. and de Gaudemaris. 2000-01-1853. 6... 2275-2284.” Warrendale. Vol. H. H. Washington. PA. PA. 1993. 53. 27. Cooke.. and Richter. 2003 Special Studies Edition. pgs. Schlogl.C.” Warrendale. Unal. V. Washington.” Warrendale. Rouphall. J. 982491..” Vol. Ryan III. Environmental Protection Agency... 2003...6 References 1. Dodge. Bonneterre. D. Lange..5gm NOx Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine. N. A. Frey... 21. A. pgs. W. 8. pgs.” Machine Design. P.Good News and Bad. “Evaluation of Cetane Improver Effects on Regulated Emissions from a Passenger Car Equipped with a Common Rail Diesel Engine. September 2003 Report: National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.. “Quest for a Million-Mile Vehicle. No. “Influence of Fuel Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Advanced Heavy-Duty Engines Considering the Effect of Natural and Additive Enhanced Cetane Number.. 2006. 2000. 2004. SAE Paper No. in Title 13..” Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. DC. A. “On-Road Measurement of Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Using a Portable Instrument. M. pgs. Huillard. Sabatier. Barbier. L. 9. P.. 106 . 4. “Notice of Filing of Consent Decree under the Clean Air Act. 63. PA. and Growcott. Vol. Seneczko.. “The Effects of Fuel Properties on Emissions from a 2. T. and Colyar.” The New England Journal of Medicine. No. J. 972894. 7. 1998. 1998. Vol. European Heart Journal. 10. C. USEPA #454/R-03005. SAE Paper No.” Warrendale.. 1997. 2003. P.

Chippior. 1984. 13. SAE Paper No. W. C. S. 2008-01-1393.” Warrendale. I. PA.” Warrendale. S.. “Optical Studies of Spray Development and Combustion Characterisation of Oxygenated and Fischer-Tropsch FuelsGTL Fuels. Larsson. “Diesel Fuel Property Effects on Exhaust Emissions from a Heavy Duty Diesel Engine that Meets 1994 Emissions Requirements.. 1988..” Master's Thesis. Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. “Fuel Effects on Combustion and Emissions in a Direct Injection Diesel Engine. Slodowske. McMillan. SAE Paper No.. W. J. 2006. “Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Highway Vehicles and Engines. 912425. 15. 19.” Warrendale..” Warrendale. J. 1992..” Warrendale. SAE Paper No. “The Effect of Fuel Properties on Particulates Emissions in Heavy-Duty Truck Engines Under Transient Operating Conditions. 16. SAE Paper No. E. “Diesel Fuel Aromatic and Cetane Number Effects on Combustion and Emissions From a Prototype 1991 Diesel Engine. 2008. Slodowske. Sien. Wall.” Warrendale. SAE Paper No. Andersson. E. R. PA. 922267. 2005. Ochoterena. “Investigation of the Performance of a Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Engine Operating on Low Cetane Diesel Fuel. Code of Federal Regulations. McCarthy. and Pundir. SAE Paper No. R. 17. 961185. PA. SAE Paper No. 14. V. SAE Paper No.” Warrendale.. West Virginia University. “Evaluation of Current and Early Production Electronically Controlled HeavyDuty Diesel Engine Emissions Based on Fuel Property Differences.0icki. C. 23.. PA. ASTM-D613-05. Reddy. W. 1990. 902172. “Diesel Fuel Quality and Particulate Emissions: An Overview. “Fuel Composition Effects on Heavy-Duty Diesel Particulate Emissions. Washington. West Conshohocken. 1996. S. Sienicki. and Krodel... McCarthy.12. PA. 972968.. PA.” Warrendale. “Standard Test Method for Cetane Number of Diesel Fuel Oil.. 1992. R. and Gilbert. 20. PA.. 2004. B.. Jass. PA. 881650. and Denbratt.. Wong. PA.. M. Lange.. SAE Paper No. X. DC.” CFR Title 40 Part 86.” American Society for Testing and Materials. Ö.... “Effects of Cetane Enhancing Additives and Ignition Quality on Diesel Engine Emissions. 1988. Singal. A. 1991. W. and Hoekman. 18. R. C. 841364. and Jass. 21. Li. 22.” Warrendale. 107 . PA. M.. 881647. and Halsall. and Gϋlder..

“European Programme on Emissions. Tijm. Alvarez. “Effects of Fuel Properties on Combustion and Emission Characteristics of a Direct-Injection Diesel Engine.. SAE Paper No.. T. PA. A. and Prati.. SAE Paper No. 33.” Warrendale. Boehman. Higgins..” Warrendale... Hess. Y. PA. SAE Paper No. SAE Paper No.” Warrendale. F. C.. PA. L. R. Mercogliano.” Warrendale. T. 961074. D. Graboski. 32. Giacomo. R... PA. J.” Warrendale. and Miwa. 108 ..24... Bertoli. PA...” Warrendale. 31. Fuels and Engine Technologies (EPEFE) – Heavy Duty Diesel Study. F. “Fuel Quality Effects on Particulate Matter Emissions from Light-and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines. McCormick. B. SAE Paper No.” Warrendale. and Stein H. J.. and Waller. 35.” Warrendale.. PA. Tyson. 26. Kidoguchi.. 200001-2886.. M. 30. Ignition. “Experimental Studies of the Impact of CETANER on Diesel Combustion and Emissions.. Yang.” Warrendale. C. B.” Twenty-Seventh Symposium (International) on Combustion. and Maillard. 1989. 28.. 1998. Clark.. SAE Paper No... Baranescu. C. C. 1994. 2002-01-1658.. 2000. A. SAE Paper No. 27. Torres..” Warrendale. PA... D. 2000-01-2888.. The Combustion Institute. Mixing.. and Combustion. and Mantalvo. 932734. “Fuel Additive and Blending Approaches to Reducing NOx Emissions from Biodiesel. 2000. Lange. 1989. R. Iorio. Stradling R. 29. K. SAE Paper No. and Graves. Siebers. Liotta. K. Diesel-Spray Evaporation. Mueller. “Effects of an Ignition-Enhancing. “The Influence of Fuel Composition on Particulate Emissions of DI Diesel Engines. and Vertin. K. 932733. 2002. “The Effect of Oxygenated Fuels on Emissions from a Modern Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine. R. N.. and Sarmiento. SAE Paper No. Bello. 34. 892072. PA. pgs. Ullman. Signer. Heinze. 2000. J.. R... C. 2000-01-1851. 881174. P. PA. A. M.. and Aradi. W. Den Ouden. SAE Paper No. C. P. “Investigation of the Effects of Fuel Composition on Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emissions. “Influence of Fuel Sulfur on Diesel Particulate Emissions. 25. H. Flanigan. PA.. 1993.1873-1880. “Effect of the Diesel Properties on the Emissions of Particulate Matter. 892130.” Warrendale. 1996. M.. PA. 1993. Cowley. “The Effect of Aromatics and Cycloparaffins on DI Diesel Emissions.. 1988.. 942022. Litzinger.. SAE Paper No. Herrera J.

F. J..36. 2001-01-0513. 2000-01-2009. Z.. 5. SAE Paper No.” Warrendale. and Oxygenates on 1994 Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Emissions. and Wojtyniak. Kelso. 42. 910229. Vol.. 2000. PA.” American Society for Testing and Materials.. Song.. SAE Paper No. A. pgs. and Mason. 44. N. SAE Paper No. 219. 2000-01-1934. X. 2004-01-0097... 18 No. and Waller. A.. PA. PA... SAE Paper No.. Spreen. 39. V. “Improving Combustion and Emissions of Direct Injection Compression and Emissions of Direct Injection Compression Ignition Engines Using Oxygenated Fuel Additives Combined with a Cetane Improver. “Experimental Investigation to Specify the Effect of Oxygenated Additive Content and Type on DI Diesel Engine Performance and Emissions” Warrendale. D. 2000. and Boulouchos. PA. R.. 941020. 46. 2006. E. 40. K. W. Caton. 2001.. 2004. Zhang. Valentine. Vol. 2005. T. “Effects of Cetane Number. “Comparison of the Impact of Intake Oxygen Enrichment and Fuel Oxygenation on Diesel Combustion and Emissions. D. 2000-01-2885.. Ullman. Peter-Hoblyn. J. and Kouremenos. Petek. 19 No. K. 38. 109 .. “Alternative Fuels and their Application to Combustion Engines. 45. “Emissions Reduction and Improved Fuel Economy Performance from a Bimetallic Paltinum/Cerium Diesel Fuel Additive at UltraLow Dose Rates. pgs. Aromatics. 1879 -1888.. 41. PA. J...” Warrendale. and Huang. Ruemmele. 1991. Zannis. PA. Hountalas. P. Lu. Boehman. SAE Paper No. and Aakko.. A. 43.. W. J. J. 2004. G.. W.. “Performance and Fuel Consumption of a Single-Cylinder. West Conshohocken. D. Langer.. Kowalewicz. Yang.” Journal of Automobile Engineering.” Energy & Fuels. M. N. Cetane Improver. Bertola.” Warrendale. Vol. and Schiferl. “Characterization of New Fuel Qualities. 2000.. 37. Direct-Injection Diesel Engine Using a Platinum Fuel Additive..” Warrendale. PA. and Acres.” Energy & Fuels. D. 1994.” Warrendale. “Maximizing the Effectiveness of Water Blended Fuel in Reducing Emissions by Varying Injection Timing or Using Aftertreatment Device. 5. SAE Paper No.. “Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils. 2005.” Warrendale. T. Zello. Nylund. and Epperly. PA. 103-125. ASTM-D975-06. SAE Paper No. “Oxygenated Fuels for Particulate Emissions Reduction in Heavy-Duty DI-Diesel Engines with Common-Rail Fuel Injection..

. D.. Aceves. 50. S. J. Thompson.” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power.. 4... Smith.. Atkinson... Shangxue.” Health Effects Institute. 2005.." Warrendale. SAE Paper No. Szybist. 52. Martinez-Frias. Dec. Yongcheng. pgs. “Emission Formation in Diesel Engines. 58. 915-922. C. 1999. Yu. 827-835 2006.. Alkidas. 980147. S. A.. 53.” Warrendale. Au. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004. Physical and Chemical Fundamentals. New York City. and Health Effects. and Lim.. Canada. 1998.. 216.. G. and Girard.. “NOx Emissions of Alternative Diesel Fuels: A Comparative Analysis of Biodiesel and FT Diesel... Z. R.” Journal of Automobile Engineering. “Study on the Performance and Emissions of a Compression Ignition Engine Fuelled with Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuel. Modeling and Simulation. J. pgs.” DieselNet. Flowers. 1996. 19 No. DC. 2001-012077. J. Warnatz.S. H. Maas. A. 1484-1492. S.. J. 109.html (accessed June 24. Exposure. 1995. and Boehman. 1987. W. “Performance and Emissions Characteristics of Biodiesel from Soybean Oil. Vol. http://www. M. M.com/tech/diesel_emiform. L. USEPA #430-R-06-002. "HCCI Combustion: Analysis and Experiments.. “Diesel Exhaust: Critical Analysis of Emissions. pgs. U. 55. Combustion. Health Effects Institute. Inventory of U. Cambridge. 59. Canakci. Dec. Longbao.. “In-Cylinder Combustion Pressure Characteristics of Fischer-Tropsch and Conventional Diesel Fuels in a Heavy Duty CI Engine. Environmental Protection Agency. 9931001. NY. PA.. J. 1999-01-1472. PA.dieselnet. Brampton. Dibble. Bari. J. Washington. Kirby.. 49.” Journal of Automobile Engineering. SAE Paper No. and Clark. M. 2006. SAE Paper No.. J. 110 . SAE Paper No. pgs. 1997.. N. 2002. 2008). PA.. “A Conceptual Model of DI Diesel Combustion Based on Laser-Sheet Imaging. T. Traver. 220. and Dibble. Vol.187-192. ON. MA. PA. 2006.” Warrendale.” Energy & Fuels.. Vol. R. 57.. Springer-Verlag.. Vol. 970873. Vol. “Filter Clogging and Power Loss Issues while Running a Diesel Engine with Waste Cooking Oil.” Warrendale. 48. 2001. “On the Premixed Combustion in a Direct Injection Diesel Engine. 2005. and Canaan. C. 54. “PLIF Imaging of NO Formation in a DI Diesel Engine. R.” Journal of Automobile Engineering.47.. and Shenghua. 219. W. 51. 56. pgs.

D. Bermudez. 639-657. pgs. Filipi.” Warrendale. M. 2006. 63. Turns. Hernandez.. Morgantown. M. Second Edition. 2001. Springer. “A Universally Applicable Equation for the Instantaneous Heat Transfer Coefficient in the Internal Combustion Engine. “Cetane Response of Di-tertiary-butyl Peroxide in Different Diesel Fuels.. Galindo. and Direct Integration with Detailed Chemistry Combustion Models against Optical Diagnostic Data for Multi-Mode in a Heavy-Duty DI Diesel Engine. J. R. 200101-3262. SAE Paper No. 71. Singh. SAE Paper No. M.R.. PA. McGraw-Hill. SAE Paper No. “Fuel Additive Packages Containing 2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate (2-EHN) – Best Practices Manual.60. 69. 2004.. M. Reitz. 952368. 1967. PA.. “Comparison of the Characteristic Time (CTC). Stiesch.. An Introduction to Combustion: Concepts and Applications. G. M. and Platts. J. R. S. PA. 68. SAE Paper No. Fiveland. “A Methodology for Cycle-By-Cycle Transient Heat Release Analysis in a Turbocharged Direct Injection Diesel Engine.” Warrendale.. Heywood. PA. 670931. 2006.. 1999. D. NY. Thesis... 2007. Europe. S... 61.” Combustion Theory and Modeling. and Jacobs. and Lopez.. Brunt. New York City.. 67.. 1988. PA. SAE Paper No.S. 111 .” Warrendale. 2006-01-0055. 2003. and Perez-Collado. J.” Warrendale. Modeling Engine Spray and Combustion Processes. Lapuerta. J. S. McGraw-Hill. “Calculation of Heat Release in Direct Injection Diesel Engines. 1999-01-0187. West Virginia University... Nandi.” Warrendale. J. J. “Cycle to Cycle Diesel Combustion Characterization during Engine Transient Operation. NY. 62.” Warrendale. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. K. SAE Paper No. Assanis. WV.. 2000..” M.B. A Combustion Kinetic Model for Estimating Diesel Engine NOx Emissions. V. G. 2000. 70. “Evaluation of Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Regulated Emissions Based on Variation of Fuel Properties by Use of Additives. 64. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals. NY. 10.” Additives Technical Committee. Vol. 2000-01-1185. Serrano.. Representative Interactive Flamelet (RIF). PA. New York City. and Musculus.. Z. Woshni. Tincher. 1995. 65. New York City. 66. and Syrimis.

. 81.” Warrendale.. S.” SAE International. Schreiner. 76. “Evaluation of Burn Rate Routines and Analysis Errors. Chikahisa. Switzerland. PA. M. 80. CAS No... C.” Warrendale. M. “Temperature and air-fuel ratio dependent specific heat ratio functions for lean burned and unburned mixture. and Eriksson. 2004.. Brunt.” Journal of Automobile Engineering. L. İ. SAE Paper No. 77. and Sawyer. Austria. 4. 809-817. 2003. SAE Paper No.. Kistler Instrumentation Corporation. M. 960609. No. 850107. 2006. “ICE Gross Heat Release Strongly Influenced by Specific Heat Ratio Values. “Torque Estimation of Spark Ignition Engines via Cylinder Pressure Measurement. Lanzafame. “6125B Specifications”. 2008. R. 2005.” Technical University Graz. 1997. Brunt. 1997. Miyamoto.” Energy Conversion and Management. 970036. Amherst. pp. 46. 2003.72..” Warrendale. Vol. 1996.” International Journal of Automotive Technology. pgs.. 1968. NY. M. SAE Paper No. and Messina.” Proc 5th Symposium.. A. and Pond. and Valdmanis. E.” Warrendale.. 85. 680102. T. SAE Paper No. Lyn. “The Effects of Physical Factors on Ignition Delay. 217. “Evaluation of IMEP Routines and Analysis Errors. 79. 83. 2387-2404.” International Programme on Chemical Safety.” Warrendale. “Material Safety Data Sheet – NOROX DTBP. 75. PA.” Norac Inc. “Equivalent Combustion Rate with the Polygon-Hyperbola Function: Investigations into the Dependence of the Parameters in the Performance Map. A. and Sunwoo. Klein. CA.. “DI-tert-BUTYL PEROXIDE. pgs. Park. PA. “6061B Specifications”. “A Specific Heat Ratio Model for Single-Zone Heat Release Models. and Emtage. 78. Vol. 84. PA. 112 .. M. “Description and Analysis of Diesel Engine Rate of Combustion and Performance Using Weibe’s Functions. 73. Azusa. 1995. N. NY. 2008. PA. pp. 74. 239-257. Amherst. Kistler Instrumentation Corporation. “The Working Process of the Internal Combustion Engine. W.. 110-05-4. 1251333. and Emtage. 1985. K. “Evaluation of Techniques for Absolute Cylinder Pressure Correction. 3. R. Murayama. Ceviz. 2004-01-1464.. M. Brunt. 970037. T. Warrendale. 1999.. Vol. Kaymaz. SAE Paper No. PA. SAE Paper No. 82. M.

. Mcfarlane. García. Arrègle. PA. “Development and Validation of a Reduced Reaction Mechanism for Biodiesel Fueled Engine Simulations. 88. T. R. Brunt. Hoboken.” SAE International.. 2000. 8. and Atkinson.147-162. T. and Gardner.. “Development of a Zero-Dimensional Diesel Combustion Model. 2006. and Kirkpatrick. Ra.. 23... 48.” Applied Thermal Engineering. M. J. and Aradi. 2008.. John Wiley & Sons. C. Reitz.29-39..” International Journal of Engine Research. J. and Fenollosa. 1. Warrendale.. J. R. SAE Paper No. “Development of a Zero-Dimensional Diesel Combustion Model.. Series B: Fluids and Thermal Engineering. Vol.. and Aoyagi. Aihara. Arrègle. Miller.” SAE International. 87. Y.. Kunishima. 1319-1331.. and Goto. Odaka. G. G. pgs. J.. J. Aoyagi. Y.. 1999-01-0187. pp 1301-1317. Kobori. A. Newman. Wakisaka. 92. Inc. 1999. N. López. 2003. Internal Combustion Engines. 23. Y. “Field Measurements of Particulate Matter Emissions. López.. pgs.. C.. Warrendale. Y. 94. K.” SAE International. 113 . “Diesel Combustion and Emission Using High Boost and High Injection Pressure in a Single Cylinder Engine.. PA.. 91.648-655. García. pgs. S. and Daw... Part 1: Analysis of the Quasi-Steady Diffusion Combustion Phase. “A Study of Ignition Delay of Diesel Fuel Sprays..” Applied Thermal Engineering.. Kim. 49. 2007. Vol. J. Y. T.. S.. Warrendale. and Exhaust Opacity from Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles. Kamimoto. 1999. R. NJ. 2008-01-1378. C. 2003. Davis. “A Super-Extended Zeldovich Mechanism and Engine Calibration. 1998.. 90.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Assoc.. “Calculation of Heat Release in Direct Injection Diesel Engines.. Asaumi. pgs. 89. 2000.86. Vol. Clark.” International Journal of Engine Research. C. C. Ferguson. C. Lavoie. 980781..” JSME International Journal. SAE Paper No. E.. and Fenollosa. Y. 93. Brakora.. PA.. M. Vol. Vol.. Part 2: Analysis of the Transient Initial and Final Diffusion Combustion Phases. J. 95. pgs. “A Numerical Study of the Effects of Boost Pressure and Exhaust Gas Recirculation Ratio on the Combustion Process and Exhaust Emissions in a Diesel Engine. A.. SAE Paper No.76-84. J. Jarrett.. and Platts. Vol. Carbon Monoxide.

01 12.8 2.5 586.4 420.7 443.3 53.7 7.90% Distillation .9 85.40% Distillation .3 521.7 661.3 60.7 274.0 97.68 2.6 48.50% Distillation .1 14.9 501.IBP Distillation .4 52.23 CP Cert B20 Mineral 34.9 406.6 9.8 644.8 509.7 49.2 1.986 33.6 104 -24 42.59 CP Cert 35.3 23.7 516.9 54.95% Distillation .9 647.1 662.3 0.7 Appendices Table 7-1 Fuel Properties CP Cert B20 Soy 33.4 48.6 657.4 565.7 497.1 529.5 167 -12 41.2 512.4 396.3 350.3 0.4 452.25 Test Method D4052s Fuel Property API Gravity @60F Specific Gravity @60F Density @15C Viscosity Total Aromatics Mono Aromatics Poly Aromatics Units g/L cSt mass % mass % mass % wt % wt % wt % ppmw ppmw °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F mL mL mL °F °C MJ/kg Grad Ref 38.0 49.0 96.5 566.4 319.9 398.3 47.7 494.7 50.8 496.7 51.70% Distillation .23 0 1.6 550.0 600.9 349.25 1.3 624.9 441.8 483.2 492.8 0.7 590.9 47.5 164 -10 41.9 85.834 833.1 466.7 427.2 5.5 2.9 464.8 613.66 2.3 468.7 609.9 50.84 0.2 362.2 525.8 3.4 575.1 2.2 519.949 36.10% Distillation .0 447.4 383.2 0.669 7.7 581.94 12.30% Distillation .8553 854.023 69.854 853.7 411.1 21.2 545.5 408.3 630.3 430.96 0.08 1.000 68.8 562.6 1.5 2.4 542.1 1.80% Distillation .05 12.7 609.0 383.5 1 0.000 6.6 154 -15 42.97 0 1.1 359.1 539.15% Distillation .3 49.24 12.7 84.8 168 -9 41.8 48.9 0.9 13.5 0.6 617.019 66.2 479.6 9.3 2.000 13.5 0.5 588.9 275.1 592.77 0.20% Distillation .1 2.0 463.5 49.7 51.4 449.0 629.5 640.3 86.80 0.1 428.4 6.020 66.3 464.2 438.81 Grad Cand 38.5 98.44 2.2 539.1 1.60% Distillation .3 643.8323 831.4 493.9 426.80 0.61 33 25.4 3.6 426.6 339.3 1.7 84.4 633.2 0.02 14 0 1.5 397.6 83.8486 848.6 562.8 2.1 1.24 CP Cert B20 Cottonseed 33.914 33.5% Distillation .6 644.3 1.8 162 -20 42.3 280.0 97.3 360.5 451.6 610.79 0.4 23.8558 855.2 98.FBP Recovered Residue Loss D93 D2500 WVU Flash Point Cloud Point LHV 114 .8 520.1 97.2 1 1.5 475.2 543.45 D445 40c D5186 D5291 Calculated Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen HtoC OtoC a D4629 D5453 D613 D4737A D976 D86 Nitrogen Sulfur Cetane Number Cetane Index Cetane Index Distillation .7 22.471 27.8 52.0 374.

Table 7-2 Fuel Properties Continued LC B20 Soy 31.6 0.8675 867 2.847 38.5 34 4.5 83.77 12.31 1.71 1.75 0.015 27.5 5.1 48.8 42.7 43.8 360.7 410.1 432.1 445.2 457.6 480.7 504.4 526.2 550.9 578.2 604.7 627.7 640.4 655.1 97.9 1.2 0.9 167 -15 41.05

Test Method D4052s

Fuel Property API Gravity @60F Specific Gravity @60F Density @15C Viscosity Total Aromatics Mono Aromatics Poly Aromatics

Units g/L cSt mass % mass % mass % wt % wt % wt % ppmw ppmw °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F mL mL mL °F °C MJ/kg

LC 33.1 0.8598 859.3 2.67 39.3 31.2 8.1 85.23 12.56 0 1.76 0.000 16.5 8 46.2 43.0 43.4 354.1 381.2 414.2 431.5 441.8 463.5 482.8 500.8 520.8 542.0 565.5 595.2 619.3 641.7 96.9 1 2.1 151 -20 42.31

LC B20 Mineral 31.7 0.8668 866.3 2.888 39.4 35 4.4 84.11 12.22 1.46 1.73 0.013 31.4 5.6 48.9 42.7 43.7 370.9 409.6 432.6 446.5 459.3 480.6 502.4 524.0 547.8 574.2 600.0 622.9 636.7 654.1 98.4 1 0.6 173 -10 41.17

LC B20 Cottonseed 31.5 0.8682 867.7 2.848 40.4 34.1 6.3 83.59 12.32 1.88 1.76 0.017 31.7 5.2 47.7 42.3 43.3 366.5 406.6 431.7 445.2 458.0 481.2 501.2 523.3 547.5 573.2 599.4 623.4 636.7 654.4 98.1 0.9 1.0 173 -14 41.11

Guttman 44.7 0.8032 802.8 2.091 9.3 8.8 5.6 85.35 14 0 1.95 0.000 5.6 13.9 58.3 58.7 57.9 321.7 352.1 365.8 374.9 385.9 408.7 434.2 464.5 498.8 536.0 570.7 600.1 616.6 631.8 98.3 1.0 0.7 127 -16 42.81

D445 40c D5186

D5291 Calculated

Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen HtoC OtoC
a

D4629 D5453 D613 D4737A D976 D86

Nitrogen Sulfur Cetane Number Cetane Index Cetane Index Distillation - IBP Distillation - 5% Distillation - 10% Distillation - 15% Distillation - 20% Distillation - 30% Distillation - 40% Distillation - 50% Distillation - 60% Distillation - 70% Distillation - 80% Distillation - 90% Distillation - 95% Distillation – FBP Recovered Residue Loss

D93 D2500 WVU

Flash Point Cloud Point LHV

115

Table 7-3 In-Cylinder Pressure Transducer Specifications Specification Range Overload Sensitivity Natural Frequency Linearity Operating Temperature Range Sensitivity 200 … ± Shift 150°C 200 … ± 50°C 50 ± 150°C 50 to 350°C Thermal ∆p Shock at ∆IMEP 1500 min-1, 9 bar IMEP ∆pmax Units bar bar pC/bar kHz %FSO °C % % % % / °C bar % % 6125B 0 to 250 300 ≈ -16 ≈ 75 ≤ ± 0.5 -50 to 350 ≤±2 ≤±1 ≤ -0.3 < -2 < -1 6061B 0 to 250 300 ≈ -25 ≈ 90 ≤ ± 0.5 -50 to 350 ≤ ± 0.5 ≤ 0.01 < ± 0.2 ≤±1 -

116

Table 7-4 The Average Combustion Parameter Correlation Coefficients for NOx and CO from 12 SET Tests on the 1992 DDC Engine
Parameter Heat Released-Net (kJ) Heat Released-Gross (kJ) Max Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) Location of Max Heat Release Rate (ms) Max Pressure (kPa) Location of Maximum Pressure (deg) Max Pressure Rise (kPa/deg) Location of Max Pressure Rise (ms) Start of Combustion (deg) End of Combustion (deg) Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (kPa) Location of 10% MFB (ms) Location of 50% MFB (ms) Location of 90% MFB (ms) Max Gas Temperature (K) Location of Max Gas Temperature (ms) Average Temperature (K) Engine Speed (rpm) Exhaust Temperature (degC) Location of Premix Fraction (ms) Premix Fraction Flow Rate (m3/min) Pressure at SOC (kPa) Temperature at SOC (K) Fuel Flow (kg/min) Fuel-to-Air Ratio Manifold Air Pressure (kPa) Ratio of EVO to IVC Pressure (-) Ratio of Qw-to-Qg Polytropic Compression Ignition Delay (ms) Injection Duration (deg) Brake Torque (N-m) Fuel Conversion Efficiency (%) Pressure at SOI (kPa) Temperature at SOI (K) Premix Length (deg) Diffusion Length (deg) Premix Heat Released (kJ) Diffusion Heat Released (kJ) Premix Shape Factor (-) Diffusion Shape Factor (-) NOx (g/bhp-hr) -0.96 -0.96 0.88 -0.52 -0.95 -0.99 0.85 0.17 0.91 -0.92 -0.96 -0.83 -0.98 -0.91 -0.96 -0.95 -0.99 -0.02 -1.00 0.86 0.99 -0.76 -0.90 0.65 -0.91 -0.97 -0.89 -0.99 0.77 -0.54 0.95 -0.94 -0.96 -0.96 -0.91 -0.66 0.37 -0.29 0.99 -0.96 -0.52 -0.93 NOx (g/s) 0.91 0.90 -0.93 0.69 0.94 0.86 -0.94 -0.29 -0.99 0.88 0.91 0.84 0.84 0.64 0.72 0.74 0.81 0.41 0.88 -0.89 -0.87 0.97 0.95 -0.60 0.98 0.74 0.96 0.83 -0.94 0.80 -0.96 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.75 0.03 0.43 -0.87 0.90 0.27 0.96 EINOx -0.97 -0.97 0.90 -0.55 -0.96 -0.98 0.88 0.18 0.91 -0.94 -0.97 -0.86 -0.99 -0.91 -0.94 -0.95 -0.97 -0.05 -0.99 0.85 0.96 -0.77 -0.92 0.66 -0.92 -0.95 -0.91 -0.98 0.78 -0.57 0.96 -0.95 -0.97 -0.91 -0.92 -0.69 0.33 -0.35 0.96 -0.97 -0.46 -0.94 NOx (ppmv) 0.37 0.39 -0.22 -0.04 0.35 0.56 -0.13 0.10 -0.27 0.30 0.38 0.18 0.52 0.63 0.69 0.56 0.62 -0.45 0.53 -0.38 -0.63 0.03 0.24 -0.29 0.26 0.67 0.22 0.58 -0.11 -0.16 -0.32 0.30 0.39 0.65 0.25 0.02 -0.70 -0.23 -0.62 0.40 0.72 0.29 CO (g/bhp-hr) 0.79 0.80 -0.55 0.58 0.75 0.70 -0.58 -0.08 -0.58 0.74 0.78 0.84 0.79 0.80 0.71 0.83 0.72 -0.27 0.73 -0.50 -0.63 0.47 0.74 -0.31 0.66 0.73 0.72 0.73 -0.40 0.30 -0.68 0.71 0.79 0.54 0.76 0.66 -0.45 0.52 -0.65 0.79 0.16 0.63 CO (g/s) 0.88 0.88 -0.64 0.75 0.85 0.74 -0.69 -0.13 -0.71 0.82 0.87 0.95 0.83 0.78 0.72 0.84 0.75 -0.12 0.79 -0.62 -0.69 0.64 0.86 -0.34 0.79 0.74 0.85 0.77 -0.55 0.45 -0.78 0.82 0.87 0.63 0.87 0.77 -0.34 0.62 -0.72 0.87 0.14 0.72 EICO 0.81 0.82 -0.56 0.60 0.77 0.72 -0.59 -0.08 -0.60 0.76 0.80 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.73 0.84 0.74 -0.26 0.75 -0.52 -0.65 0.49 0.76 -0.32 0.68 0.75 0.74 0.74 -0.42 0.31 -0.70 0.72 0.81 0.56 0.78 0.67 -0.45 0.53 -0.67 0.81 0.17 0.65 CO (ppmv) 0.81 0.82 -0.57 0.58 0.77 0.73 -0.59 -0.08 -0.61 0.76 0.81 0.85 0.82 0.83 0.75 0.86 0.76 -0.27 0.76 -0.53 -0.67 0.49 0.76 -0.33 0.68 0.77 0.73 0.76 -0.42 0.30 -0.71 0.73 0.81 0.58 0.78 0.66 -0.47 0.50 -0.68 0.81 0.20 0.65

117

54 0.16 0.94 -0.33 -0.49 -0.25 0.56 -0.43 0.16 0.35 0.19 -0.05 -0.02 -0.74 -0.10 -0.12 0.24 0.63 0.96 -0.12 -0.69 0.36 0.44 0.46 0.73 -0.80 0.31 0.96 -0.55 0.25 0.86 0.08 -0.89 -0.36 -0.29 -0.57 -0.09 0.51 -0.Table 7-5 Correlation Coefficients for Change in Combustion Parameters and Change in NOx and CO Emissions for Low Cetane Fuel with 8ml/gal 2-EHN Fuel Compared to Low Cetane Fuel Parameter Heat Released-Net (kJ) Heat Released-Gross (kJ) Max Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) Location of Max Heat Release Rate (ms) Max Pressure (kPa) Location of Maximum Pressure (deg) Max Pressure Rise (kPa/deg) Location of Max Pressure Rise (ms) Start of Combustion (deg) End of Combustion (deg) Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (kPa) Location of 10% MFB (ms) Location of 50% MFB (ms) Location of 90% MFB (ms) Max Gas Temperature (K) Location of Max Gas Temperature (ms) Average Temperature (K) Engine Speed (rpm) Exhaust Temperature (degC) Location of Premix Fraction (ms) Premix Fraction Flow Rate (m3/min) Pressure at SOC (kPa) Temperature at SOC (K) Fuel Flow (kg/min) Fuel-to-Air Ratio Manifold Air Pressure (kPa) Ratio of EVO to IVC Pressure (-) Ratio of Qw-to-Qg Polytropic Compression Ignition Delay (ms) Injection Duration (deg) Brake Torque (N-m) Fuel Conversion Efficiency (%) Pressure at SOI (kPa) Temperature at SOI (K) Premix Length (deg) Diffusion Length (deg) Premix Heat Released (kJ) Diffusion Heat Released (kJ) Premix Shape Factor (-) Diffusion Shape Factor (-) NOx (g/bhp-hr) 0.15 -0.02 CO (g/s) -0.77 0.35 -0.78 -0.29 0.04 -0.03 0.09 0.84 0.20 0.01 0.53 -0.53 0.83 -0.74 -0.86 0.63 0.02 -0.52 0.02 -0.03 0.26 0.49 -0.47 0.34 0.04 -0.63 0.54 0.94 -0.60 -0.29 0.59 -0.08 -0.85 0.62 0.55 0.58 0.92 -0.75 -0.29 CO (g/bhp-hr) -0.22 -0.64 0.33 -0.33 -0.12 0.05 0.24 0.36 0.24 0.76 0.00 -0.82 0.40 0.21 0.42 0.18 0.51 -0.14 0.04 0.14 -0.06 0.79 0.60 0.36 0.39 0.32 0.49 -0.50 -0.10 0.05 0.02 0.34 -0.25 -0.44 0.72 0.66 0.13 0.22 0.50 0.29 -0.09 -0.08 -0.08 -0.21 -0.29 0.59 0.05 -0.97 -0.52 0.09 0.59 -0.28 0.26 -0.43 -0.84 0.12 -0.52 0.75 0.28 -0.73 0.20 0.22 -0.52 0.61 0.15 0.34 0.88 -0.13 -0.80 -0.31 -0.61 -0.23 0.37 0.06 0.15 0.41 -0.93 -0.02 -0.52 0.36 -0.39 0.46 0.30 0.90 0.28 -0.65 0.81 0.71 -0.59 -0.01 -0.27 -0.36 0.09 CO (ppmv) -0.47 0.04 -0.99 -0.02 0.42 -0.56 0.01 0.22 -0.36 -0.67 -0.73 0.23 -0.85 0.39 0.37 EINOx 0.09 -0.31 -0.48 -0.21 -0.75 0.78 0.81 -0.15 -0.62 0.66 -0.15 -0.04 0.46 0.41 0.10 -0.11 -0.00 -0.84 -0.51 0.39 0.18 -0.35 0.15 -0.29 0.50 0.68 -0.59 -0.30 0.55 -0.05 -0.93 -0.13 -0.17 118 .26 0.02 -0.73 0.18 0.72 -0.92 -0.82 0.00 0.54 -0.36 -0.71 -0.82 0.14 -0.63 0.35 -0.27 0.03 -0.53 0.92 -0.51 0.59 -0.69 -0.24 -0.27 -0.44 -0.35 0.42 -0.55 -0.59 0.48 -0.55 -0.49 0.09 0.91 -0.60 0.09 -0.24 EICO -0.27 NOx (g/s) 0.28 -0.48 -0.89 -0.66 -0.78 -0.66 -0.34 0.25 -0.37 0.15 -0.55 0.98 -0.29 -0.68 0.16 -0.20 -0.37 -0.51 0.24 -0.00 -0.36 -0.81 0.60 0.59 0.65 -0.23 0.33 -0.57 0.57 0.21 -0.60 -0.09 0.52 0.49 0.29 -0.07 -0.51 -0.28 0.07 -0.57 0.10 -0.19 0.92 -0.26 NOx (ppmv) 0.36 -0.01 0.04 -0.82 -0.29 -0.54 0.66 0.71 0.25 0.34 0.66 0.37 0.83 0.53 0.23 0.60 0.10 -0.32 -0.50 0.14 -0.08 -0.85 0.44 0.19 0.79 -0.35 -0.40 0.12 -0.65 0.32 -0.32 -0.43 -0.47 0.26 0.

12 0.81 0.13 -0.49 -0.81 0.32 0.88 0.65 0.70 -0.84 -0.23 -0.72 0.07 -0.72 -0.14 EICO -0.12 0.22 0.11 -0.58 0.55 -0.91 0.03 0.61 -0.83 -0.06 -0.68 0.92 0.40 -0.60 -0.86 -0.72 -0.29 0.48 0.60 0.02 -0.86 -0.61 NOx (ppmv) 0.86 -0.68 -0.39 -0.90 -0.92 0.52 -0.59 0.71 0.63 -0.66 -0.28 0.78 0.36 -0.66 0.53 0.87 -0.74 0.82 CO (g/bhp-hr) -0.82 -0.45 0.67 0.78 0.33 0.52 0.85 -0.58 0.54 -0.12 0.26 0.50 0.89 0.03 -0.80 -0.87 -0.86 0.91 0.90 0.08 0.80 -0.10 0.68 -0.84 EINOx 0.71 -0.67 0.82 0.83 -0.76 -0.85 0.67 0.41 0.57 -0.51 0.46 -0.12 -0.31 -0.28 0.14 0.21 -0.37 0.47 -0.58 -0.11 0.58 0.67 -0.81 -0.15 0.79 0.51 -0.81 -0.39 0.48 0.42 -0.86 0.68 0.82 0.73 0.67 0.69 -0.80 0.85 0.41 0.73 -0.62 0.21 0.44 -0.43 -0.81 0.69 0.35 -0.76 -0.61 -0.44 -0.80 0.72 0.20 0.64 -0.45 0.78 0.87 -0.91 0.60 0.73 0.77 0.51 -0.68 -0.68 0.96 0.44 -0.80 0.40 0.31 0.20 -0.75 119 .84 -0.59 0.80 -0.61 0.15 0.65 -0.01 0.38 -0.82 0.01 -0.76 0.57 0.17 0.75 0.79 -0.73 0.04 -0.84 -0.32 -0.60 -0.19 -0.64 -0.30 0.53 0.87 -0.10 -0.17 -0.46 -0.70 -0.70 0.77 -0.65 -0.30 0.47 -0.69 0.83 -0.85 -0.83 -0.24 0.70 -0.87 0.84 0.38 0.84 -0.71 -0.70 -0.52 -0.20 -0.73 -0.19 0.13 -0.78 -0.74 -0.54 0.88 -0.66 -0.66 -0.81 -0.37 NOx (g/s) 0.52 0.27 0.87 -0.43 0.74 0.11 0.74 0.62 0.70 -0.55 -0.72 -0.15 0.20 0.30 -0.Table 7-6 The Average Combustion Parameter Correlation Coefficients for NOx and CO from 1 SET Tests on the 2004 Cummins Engine Parameter Heat Released-Net (kJ) Heat Released-Gross (kJ) Max Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) Location of Max Heat Release Rate (ms) Max Pressure (kPa) Location of Maximum Pressure (deg) Max Pressure Rise (kPa/deg) Location of Max Pressure Rise (ms) Start of Combustion (deg) End of Combustion (deg) Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (kPa) Location of 10% MFB (ms) Location of 50% MFB (ms) Location of 90% MFB (ms) Max Gas Temperature (K) Location of Max Gas Temperature (ms) Average Temperature (K) Engine Speed (rpm) Exhaust Temperature (degC) Location of Premix Fraction (ms) Premix Fraction Flow Rate (m3/min) Pressure at SOC (kPa) Temperature at SOC (K) Fuel Flow (kg/min) Fuel-to-Air Ratio Manifold Air Pressure (kPa) Ratio of EVO to IVC Pressure (-) Ratio of Qw-to-Qg Polytropic Compression Ignition Delay (ms) Injection Duration (deg) Brake Torque (N-m) Fuel Conversion Efficiency (%) Pressure at SOI (kPa) Temperature at SOI (K) Premix Length (deg) Diffusion Length (deg) Premix Heat Released (kJ) Diffusion Heat Released (kJ) Premix Shape Factor (-) Diffusion Shape Factor (-) EGR Mass Fraction (-) NOx (g/bhp-hr) 0.20 0.09 0.43 0.67 0.58 0.88 CO (ppmv) -0.73 0.80 -0.80 0.41 0.46 0.68 0.70 -0.51 0.63 0.67 0.06 0.18 -0.67 0.55 0.88 -0.12 0.60 0.99 0.80 -0.71 0.88 0.65 0.91 0.87 -0.15 0.17 0.81 -0.85 0.83 0.11 0.87 0.81 -0.70 0.12 0.06 0.64 -0.52 0.89 0.69 0.90 0.45 -0.88 0.06 -0.21 0.04 0.67 -0.70 -0.01 0.52 0.69 0.49 0.48 -0.47 -0.07 0.73 -0.57 -0.01 -0.24 0.70 -0.57 0.84 CO (g/s) 0.27 0.57 0.38 -0.80 -0.10 -0.80 0.76 0.46 0.62 -0.83 0.70 0.14 0.36 0.52 0.89 0.06 -0.48 0.33 -0.41 0.60 -0.62 0.62 -0.

58 0.41 -0.30 0.79 -0.10 -0.10 0.65 -0.23 -0.31 0.04 0.18 0.40 -0.05 0.62 CO (ppmv) 0.20 -0.57 0.23 -0.09 0.17 0.10 -0.38 NOx EINOx (g/s) 0.38 -0.63 0.21 0.25 -0.57 0.57 0.47 0.44 -0.95 -0.25 0.07 -0.57 -0.31 0.36 0.23 -0.65 -0.40 -0.55 0.04 0.95 0.67 -0.35 -0.86 -0.62 0.83 -0.06 -0.06 -0.35 -0.51 -0.67 -0.73 -0.06 0.47 -0.80 -0.44 -0.50 -0.53 0.77 0.36 -0.19 -0.08 0.55 0.43 -0.70 -0.65 0.62 0.70 0.06 0.81 -0.69 0.46 -0.61 0.51 0.58 0.77 -0.10 -0.92 -0.29 0.50 -0.58 0.71 0.22 0.23 0.76 0.73 CO (g/bhp-hr) 0.92 -0.75 -0.65 0.68 120 .04 -0.20 -0.46 -0.08 0.24 -0.77 -0.59 0.72 -0.72 0.61 0.13 0.42 0.41 0.28 -0.28 0.58 0.16 0.17 -0.93 -0.28 0.94 0.88 -0.01 0.56 -0.97 -0.65 0.50 0.70 -0.95 -0.57 -0.56 0.63 0.52 0.68 0.62 -0.55 0.67 -0.Table 7-7 Correlation Coefficients for Change in Combustion Parameters and Change in NOx and CO Emissions for CP Cert Fuel with 12ml/gal 2-EHN Fuel Compared to CP Cert Fuel Parameter Heat Released-Net (kJ) Heat Released-Gross (kJ) Max Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) Location of Max Heat Release Rate (ms) Max Pressure (kPa) Location of Maximum Pressure (deg) Max Pressure Rise (kPa/deg) Location of Max Pressure Rise (ms) Start of Combustion (deg) End of Combustion (deg) Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (kPa) Location of 10% MFB (ms) Location of 50% MFB (ms) Location of 90% MFB (ms) Max Gas Temperature (K) Location of Max Gas Temperature (ms) Average Temperature (K) Engine Speed (rpm) Exhaust Temperature (degC) Location of Premix Fraction (ms) Premix Fraction Flow Rate (m3/min) Pressure at SOC (kPa) Temperature at SOC (K) Fuel Flow (kg/min) Fuel-to-Air Ratio Manifold Air Pressure (kPa) Ratio of EVO to IVC Pressure (-) Ratio of Qw-to-Qg Polytropic Compression Ignition Delay (ms) Injection Duration (deg) Brake Torque (N-m) Fuel Conversion Efficiency (%) Pressure at SOI (kPa) Temperature at SOI (K) Premix Length (deg) Diffusion Length (deg) Premix Heat Released (kJ) Diffusion Heat Released (kJ) Premix Shape Factor (-) Diffusion Shape Factor (-) EGR Mass Fraction (-) NOx (g/bhp-hr) 0.32 -0.19 0.25 0.79 -0.06 0.44 -0.58 0.71 -0.49 -0.79 0.53 0.39 0.27 -0.15 0.25 0.42 -0.44 -0.30 -0.19 0.73 0.58 -0.44 0.07 -0.22 -0.28 0.12 0.63 0.49 -0.88 -0.46 0.10 0.20 -0.63 0.83 -0.53 -0.44 -0.15 0.76 -0.77 0.42 -0.11 0.15 0.65 0.72 0.18 -0.47 0.55 -0.01 0.20 0.70 -0.31 -0.44 0.30 -0.38 -0.39 -0.36 -0.23 0.08 -0.43 -0.33 0.44 0.21 -0.41 -0.21 0.11 0.22 -0.06 -0.41 -0.14 0.30 -0.13 0.57 0.08 -0.78 -0.58 0.55 0.63 0.77 0.31 0.20 0.03 0.34 -0.59 -0.49 -0.64 0.83 -0.18 0.62 -0.17 0.07 0.28 0.23 0.64 0.43 -0.05 -0.01 0.32 -0.12 0.46 -0.36 -0.11 0.11 0.43 0.39 0.86 -0.55 -0.43 0.69 0.34 -0.51 -0.35 0.65 -0.10 0.55 0.36 -0.47 -0.42 -0.56 -0.57 -0.57 0.06 0.30 -0.11 -0.25 -0.19 0.84 -0.18 0.36 -0.80 0.21 -0.17 0.30 NOx (ppmv) 0.61 0.25 0.23 0.56 0.73 -0.05 0.02 -0.66 -0.57 CO (g/s) 0.60 -0.65 0.13 -0.10 -0.83 0.59 0.62 0.62 0.54 0.86 -0.58 0.72 -0.01 -0.89 -0.54 -0.34 0.69 -0.08 -0.25 0.03 -0.85 -0.16 0.15 -0.38 -0.31 -0.81 -0.10 0.45 EICO 0.65 0.35 -0.24 0.25 0.43 0.00 0.89 -0.05 0.47 -0.50 0.24 0.38 -0.26 0.37 0.10 -0.04 0.

2% 1.1% 2.9% 14.1% 1.5% 5 1.3% 7.9% 2.2% 2.9% 2.4% 7.3% 1.2% -4922% 235% 188% 4.5% 0.7% 3.8% 18.0% 1.8% 0.9% 1.8% 2.6% 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 2.6% 1.6% 0.6% 1.8% 7.4% 0.7% 0.0% 4.1% 0.1% 1.6% 4.2% 0.4% 13.7% 1.7% 1.7% 9.4% 0.1% 1.5% 0.0% 1.6% 0.7% 1.7% 4.8% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 2.6% 2.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% 1.5% 10 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 9 1.0% 3.3% 11.8% 3.4% 15.3% 0.3% 1.9% 34.2% 5.6% 49.0% 1.3% 0.5% 2.1% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 0.7% 121 .4% 0.5% 1.7% 1.9% 3.3% 0.4% 1.0% 2.0% 0.9% 1.0% 4 0.2% 1.9% 1.1% 0.8% 1.5% 1.2% 1.5% 1.1% 0.5% 1.8% 0.1% 2.1% 0.1% 1.4% 1.1% 2.1% 0.5% 36.6% 1.0% 1.7% 0.7% 1.7% 1.4% 11 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 2.8% 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% 2.7% 1.6% 1.0% 0.1% 2.5% 4.7% 0.0% 1.7% 0.9% 1.8% 3.0% 2.8% 0.6% 1.8% 2.5% 1.1% 1.0% 1.2% 8 0.5% 2.6% 44.2% 1.5% 0.8% 1.7% 1. and Crank Angle (range in deg) Mode Parameters (range/average) Heat Released-Net (kJ) Heat Released-Gross (kJ) Max Heat Release Rate (kJ/deg) Max Pressure (kPa) Max Pressure Rise (kPa/deg) Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (kPa) Max Gas Temperature (K) Average Temperature (K) Engine Speed (rpm) Exhaust Temperature (degC) Flow Rate (m3/min) Pressure at SOC (kPa) Temperature at SOC (K) Fuel Flow (kg/min) Fuel-to-Air Ratio Manifold Air Pressure (kPa) Brake Torque (N-m) Pressure at SOI (kPa) Temperature at SOI (K) Premix Heat Released (kJ) Diffusion Heat Released (kJ) Ratios (range/average) Premix Fraction Ratio of EVO to IVC Pressure (-) Fuel Conversion Efficiency (%) Premix Shape Factor (-) Diffusion Shape Factor (-) 222% 8.9% 0.0% 2 0.9% 0.1% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.9% 3949% 0.6% 0.0% 1.3% 9.9% 0.2% 2.7% 0.7% 1.7% 1.8% 0.3% 7.5% 1.7% 0.7% 3.7% 35.7% 2.7% 11.4% 1.0% 2.5% 12.6% 0.6% 1.0% 1.6% 2.5% 1.0% 2.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.1% 0.4% 197% 67.0% 4.7% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3% 0.9% 1.0% 1.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 1.4% 1.5% 0.6% 1 30.1% 2.2% 11.7% 6 0.8% 4.3% 2.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 1.8% 0.2% 1.4% 1.2% 1.7% 1.7% 0.1% 1.1% 1.9% 1.5% 1.0% 1.8% 13 0.2% 1.8% 3.5% 4.2% 2.1% 11.5% 0.5% 6.5% 8.3% 1.9% 1.1% 1.4% 0.7% 1.9% 1.5% 1.1% 0.4% 0.2% 9.4% 1.7% 1.0% 1.8% 2.2% 1.8% 3.8% 0.2% 1.1% 0.8% 8.5% 2.7% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 5.7% 1.8% 0.4% 1.8% 1.0% 2.3% 4.6% 6.4% 1.9% 5.9% 0.6% 12.0% 0.6% 0.7% 34.7% 48.8% 2.2% 1.9% 2.3% 0.4% 1.Table 7-8 Repeatability of Heat Release Parameters from 11 SET Tests: Parameters (range/average).9% 1.3% 1.8% 2.3% 7 2.7% 0.5% 1.7% 0.7% 1.7% 2.9% 1.4% 7.2% 0.7% 1.3% 0.8% 2. Ratios (range/average).6% 1.2% 1.6% 1.1% 12.9% 0.9% 4.3% 4.3% 5.2% 1.7% 9.4% 0.6% 1.4% 2.5% 1.0% 1.3% 6.9% 1.6% 0.6% 3.6% 0.3% 0.9% 1.6% 1.9% 1.7% 4.9% 1.0% 0.7% 5.1% 0.8% 0.3% 1. Time (range in ms).1% 12 0.5% 1.4% 1.9% 2.4% 5.1% 1.7% 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.7% 0.4% 6.3% 2.0% 2.6% 1.6% 3 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 2.

086 1.068 0.50 0.12 0.19 0.75 6.089 1.000 0.25 0.009 0.25 1.015 0.15 4.25 0.008 0.25 0.007 0.007 9 0.75 0.007 0.00 4.00 0.015 5 0.028 0.23 4.25 0.014 0.001 0.25 0.000 0.17 0.010 0.012 0.009 0.25 0.25 0.Mode Time (ms) Location of Max Gas Temperature (ms) Location of Max Heat Release Rate (ms) Location of Max Pressure Rise (ms) Location of 10% MFB (ms) Location of 50% MFB (ms) Location of 90% MFB (ms) Location of Premix Fraction (ms) Ignition Delay (ms) Crank Angle (deg) Location of Maximum Pressure (deg) Start of Combustion (deg) End of Combustion (deg) Injection Duration (deg) Premix Length (deg) Diffusion Length (deg) 1 1.25 0.00 0.089 1.25 0.25 0.009 0.027 0.023 0.015 0.75 0.015 0.029 0.006 0.007 0.009 6 0.25 0.026 0.000 0.44 122 .028 0.009 0.48 0.50 15.007 0.009 7 0.009 0.33 1.008 0.001 0.193 2 0.25 4.006 0.18 0.50 0.009 0.011 0.024 0.211 0.018 0.008 0.50 0.007 13 0.057 0.000 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.25 0.009 0.040 0.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.029 0.50 0.25 0.018 0.009 0.20 3.042 0.25 0.25 0.006 0.009 0.00 2.007 0.009 0.008 4 0.50 0.126 0.015 0.00 8.009 8 0.009 3 0.23 0.013 0.75 0.089 1.007 0.25 10.012 0.000 12 0.25 3.009 0.018 0.00 12.007 0.25 0.92 0.009 0.019 0.25 0.19 14.007 0.21 6.157 1.06 2.00 0.50 0.80 0.017 0.14 1.50 0.007 11 0.007 0.009 0.00 0.007 0.25 1.040 0.000 0.006 0.75 0.50 0.000 0.016 0.007 0.55 0.26 0.009 0.00 8.010 0.009 0.000 0.006 0.50 0.000 0.000 0.25 0.008 10 0.75 0.000 0.26 0.007 0.027 0.00 5.016 0.13 1.83 0.008 0.25 25.006 0.007 0.97 43.17 0.

6% -2.7 Grad Cand 24.2% 0.73 0.6% NO g/bhphr 4.1% -2.3745 523.2% 0.3721 * 517.040 4.Table 7-9 January 2007 FTP Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 Diff (%) * * * -1.2338 0.618 4.76 0.0 .1137 0.3% -3.70 0.1134 0.3757 * 519.3% 0.925 5.77 0.9% bhpDiff lb/bhp.3749 * 521.578 5.615 4.2% -5.74 0.3723 517.6% -2.702 4.0986 0.2284 0.2301 Diff (%) 1.The Base Fuel Used for Percent Differences * No Significant Difference using a T-Test with alpha = 0.0% -5.3% 0.3741 530.041 4.2318 0.877 4.9% -15.1134 0.0959 Diff (%) -10.2762 0.0984 0.958 Diff (%) -3.2% * -3.3754 * 525.310 4.732 4.5% -6.2445 0.213 5.871 4.0 10 ml/gal Grad DTBP Cand 24.4% NOx g/bhphr 5.9% -7.722 4.0% -1.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr (%) hr Base CP Cert 25.3733 * 520.0% -13.2% -4.193 3.8% -5.9% -3.2383 0.51 0.6% -1.2791 0.1% -2.3% -13.2311 0.7% -2.3% * -3.275 3.0911 0.065 Diff (%) -5.77 0.2% NOx2 g/bhphr 5.0989 0.0 16 ml/gal Grad ODA Cand 24.0 8 ml/gal Grad 2EHN Cand 24.0% -2.5 16 ml/gal Grad ODA 2x Cand 24.3% 0.741 4.593 5.7 12 ml/gal CP ODA Cert 25.7% -2.3% -2.598 4.144 4.7% -2.74 0.977 3.903 4.2% -13.064 4.639 4.914 4.5% -6.904 4.3% -5.010 4.764 4.2% -5.3748 * 516.957 4.76 0.925 5.4% -1.2415 0.1058 0.5% -2.031 2.8% -15.7% -6.6% -2.7 16 ml/gal Grad ODA Ref 24.0961 0.335 3.058 4.8 Grad Ref 24.929 Diff (%) -3.970 2.971 3.138 3.71 0.3747 * 528.2% 0.889 4.1% 0.2% * * * * CO g/bhphr 3.430 4.748 3.1% 0.1010 0.023 3.663 Diff (%) -3.3754 * 523.9% -19.6% TPM g/bhphr 0.887 4.3% * -3.2514 0.9 Grad Cand 24.6% HC g/bhphr 0.0% -2.4% -9.05 123 .5% -7.2 6 ml/gal Grad ODA Cand 24.45 0.3% -9.

6% -3.4 527.3799 .8% -8.4% 0.037 4.9% -32.1016 0.2% 0.2% -3.8% -4.0888 0.7% NOx2 g/bhphr 5.0 526.3342 0.3800 -0.281 5.3796 -0.975 4.240 5.260 5.3% -34.88 ml/gal Low ODANS Cetane 24.The Base Fuel Used for Percent Differences * No Significant Difference using a T-Test with alpha = 0.4% -7.33 ml/gal Low * ODANS Cetane 24.960 4.6% -4.987 4.281 5.323 5.2% -27.Table 7-10 June 2007 FTP Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 g/bhphr 528.41 0.3% 0.3798 -0.3115 0.3% -4.1306 0.3797 -0.979 4.3791 -0.0947 0.276 5.457 5.42 0.369 4.017 3.0862 0.0% -6.190 5.003 4.5% 7.2% 16 ml/gal Low * ODA3 Cetane 24.44 0.3087 0.6% -3.3807 7.230 5.3797 -0.6 527.3% 6 ml/gal 2Low EHN Cetane 24.2% -4.332 5.4% 0.6% -8.6% -0.3049 0.333 5.099 4.41 0.1% -4.315 5.1% NO g/bhphr 5.9% -4.244 5.3 Diff (%) * * * -0.7% -8.1072 0.941 5.019 4.3049 0.249 5.941 5.240 5.0916 0.0% NOx g/bhphr 5.038 4.2% -29.3% 0.200 5.9% -7.040 3.43 0.2% 12 ml/gal Low ODA3 Cetane 24.3035 0.3072 0.068 4.0% TPM g/bhphr 0.219 5.2% -8.0% -27.05 124 .221 Diff (%) -4.3051 0.2% 0.0823 Diff (%) -16.2% 0.941 5.3% 8ml/gal 2Low EHN Cetane 24.75 ml/gal Low ODANS Cetane 24.1% -2.7% -18.3796 -0.0% -37.152 4.3% 10.36 0.0% -5.4% -3.8% -3.4% -4.0% -22.45 0.199 Diff (%) -4.45 0.3% 0.3% -0.6 528.258 5.3019 0.1% -4.4 527.4% CO g/bhphr 4.0950 0.9% -4.3100 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * bhpDiff lb/bhpDiff Base hr (%) hr (%) Low Cetane 24.6% -3.922 Diff (%) -4.6% -3.4% 3 ml/gal 2Low EHN Cetane 24.42 0.1% -1.6 525.3% 0.021 Diff (%) -5.246 5.151 4.502 5.8 526.5% -8.7% -3.4% -0.3% 0.43 0.985 3.3% -4.1% -8.4% * * -0.8 527.4% -4.5% HC g/bhphr 0.6 526.1% -2.7% -4.4% -2.2% 6 ml/gal Low ODA3 Cetane 24.0% -4.9 529.966 4.1088 0.3056 0.1003 0.0% -3.3788 -0.5% -23.5 ml/gal Low DTBP Cetane 24.44 0.3800 3.

1112 Diff (%) TPM g/bhphr 0.9% -4.9% 5.476 Diff (%) -5.388 5.1% BSFC lb/bhphr 0.2020 -23.4% 0.05 125 .9% -4.8% -2.3728 0.5 519.4% NO g/bhphr -----Diff (%) -----HC g/bhphr 0.4% -14.138 Diff (%) * -3.171 5.260 5.245 5.2% .0692 * -8.2655 0.4% -4.3809 * 2.643 3.5% 0.28 * 0.0953 -17.2631 Low Cetane Low Cetane Low Cetane Low Cetane 25.141 3.0988 -14.6% -0.3726 0.1155 0.31 0.3806 0.2% -1.3719 -0.9 519.2499 0.25 25.8% 0.968 5.Table 7-11 July 2007 FTP Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Work Additive / Condition 12 ml/gal ODA 6 ml/gal 2EHN 12 ml/gal ODA3 12 ml/gal ODA3 + 12 ml/gal Ethanol B20 Soy B20 Mineral B20 Cottonseed bhphr 25.192 5.221 5.2% 3.9% 0.119 3.9% 5.3810 * 12 ml/gal B20 ODA3 Cottonseed 25.0898 -22.381 5.2% 520.2% 0.0894 -22.32 25.613 3.8 * * * * * * 0.0794 -31.1% 0.2618 0.5 521.2035 0.6% 0.440 3.214 -3.464 3.374 5.250 3.2033 -23.230 5.4% -2.28 25.8 520.051 3.4% -0.28 * * * 0.243 5.32 Diff (%) * 0.2019 -5.266 5.28 -0.31 25.363 5.8% -14.145 5.2% CO2 g/bhphr 519.3716 0.3% 0.26 25.102 4.3801 0.1% -2.379 5.6% -3.0% 0.2662 0.2% 0.178 5.2% NOx2 g/bhphr 5.120 3.5% -4.2 519.0% 2.2 521.2% 6 ml/gal 2B20 EHN Cottonseed 25.3815 0.5 519.3 521.7% -0.2649 Diff (%) * * * Base CP Cert CP Cert Low Cetane Low Cetane Low Cetane 0.451 3.0858 -22.0760 -34.4 Diff (%) * * * CO g/bhphr 3.4% 0.2% 0.242 -4.151 Diff (%) -2.3% * -2.411 5.The Base Fuel Used for Percent Differences * No Significant Difference using a T-Test with alpha = 0.9% 0.30 25.7% * -2.6% NOx g/bhphr 5.955 5.6 521.9 522.3722 0.1% 0.3% -13.3704 0.214 4.1% 2.29 * 0.059 -5.3720 Diff (%) * * -0.1% Low Cetane Low Cetane 25.0882 -23.2598 * 0.4% * * * -------- -------- 0.6% 0.2018 -24.9% * * 25.0696 0.

17 -0.64 25.4250 CP 25.4258 604.4094 0.0623 - 126 .0719 0.094 2.353 2.0745 0.2165 0.4% * * 4.1% 0.3% 2.4 603.358 2.3 596.1 598.6440 - 2.435 2.2042 * * * 0.3964 563.65 25.161 -54.2060 0.5915 0.6162 0.472 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 590.1854 -12.1806 -14.2057 0.0562 -23.24 0.441 2.9 * * 604.1838 0.4% -7.7% -0.4% * * 4.5575 0.4215 0.9% 0.Table 7-12 February 2007 FTP Results for the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Work Additive / Condition 12ml/gal ODA 6ml/gal 2EHN 12ml/gal 2EHN 24ml/gal ODA 15ml/gal DTBP 6ml/gal ODA B20 Soy B20 Mineral B20 Cottonseed 10ml/gal DTBP Base CP CP CP CP CP CP Grad Cand Grad Cand CP CP CP B20 Soy CP BSFC Diff (%) * * * * * * * * CO2 g/bhphr 601.1913 4.9% 3.5 601.364 2.466 2.2036 1.8% 5.64 25.4223 6.1% -4.2139 0.2 600.360 Diff (%) * * 1.55 25.5 599.0563 0.2033 * * * * * * 0.188 2.350 2.3% 4.5600 0.1812 -14.4229 0.4% 0.2% 0.329 2.9% 0.355 2.1984 0.7 Grad Ref Fuel.367 2.20 25.383 2.6081 -4.346 2.104 2.22 25.3% 1.0543 -12.0721 0.376 g/bhpg/bhpDiff (%) Diff (%) hr hr 0.406 2.5430 -10.332 2.60 -0.5565 -9.070 2.05 0.21 * * * * * * * * * 0.333 2.098 2.23 25.1992 0.2% * * NO g/bhphr 2.0% - 0.5485 * -9.076 2.9 Grad Ref Fuel.5430 -11.5257 -14.4 25.3% 0.9% 0.1999 0.8% * * NOx2 g/bhphr 2.181 -54.094 2.347 2.3% 2.789 4.The Base Fuel Used for Percent Differences * No Significant Difference using a T-Test with alpha = 0.6% 0.0% 0.65 25.8% 0.0691 0.0% 0.4% * 1.4% 0.4% * * * 4.7% 601.8% 3.5% 0.22 25.4268 g/bhpg/bhpDiff (%) hr hr 0.479 2.1% 2. w/o Grad Grad Ref Fuel.2% 1.884 -57.7% * * 0.0550 * * * * * * -0. w EGR Ref EGR 25.0719 0.324 2.4238 0.4376 25.5260 0.418 2.4191 0.361 2.4225 0.4196 0.3 604.5712 * * * 0.041 2.10 0.59 25.0731 0.7% 0.7 602.0 Diff (%) * CO NOx Diff (%) * * 1.5705 -7.2% 0.460 2.3% 0.363 2.364 2. w/o Grad EGR 25.349 2.166 2.4328 1.5450 -10.166 2.075 2.0732 * * - -0.6 600.435 2.4161 0.0744 0.0548 0.3% 0.2106 * * -3.8 Ref .047 2.0532 -27.5675 -11.4214 0.25 * 0.075 Diff (%) * HC TPM Engine bhplb/bhpMAP hr Diff (%) hr CP CP CP CP CP CP Grad Ref Grad Ref Grad Ref Grad Ref Grad Ref Grad Ref CP Grad Ref 25.2% 3.385 2.750 4.8% 0.0478 -34.6% 0.6 601.139 2.9% 1.

Table 7-13 January 2007 SET Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60
Work Additive / bhp- Diff Condition Base Mode hr (%) CP Cert 0 4.084 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12ml/gal ODA CP Cert 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Grad Ref 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.000 6.798 3.794 5.706 3.398 5.083 1.698 7.605 1.900 7.785 1.946 5.831 3.890 4.084 0.000 6.801 3.794 5.706 3.396 5.078 1.697 7.610 1.899 7.786 * * * * * * * * * * * BSFC lb/bhphr 0.3203 2.691 0.2678 0.3226 0.3166 0.3231 0.3257 0.3437 0.3186 0.3515 0.3185 0.3659 0.3194 0.3277 0.3220 3.080 0.2767 0.3186 0.3187 0.3268 0.3247 0.3466 0.3181 0.3489 0.3191 Diff (%) * CO2 g/bhphr 459.6 16350 451.8 458.4 447.3 460.5 455.3 495.9 440.7 505.5 441.4 530.7 448.4 465.6 Diff (%) CO g/bhphr 2.993 171.8 10.27 0.6842 1.745 0.9587 4.067 0.7202 3.430 0.7661 1.583 0.9683 0.8206 0.4945 Diff (%) -3.9% NOx NOx2 HC g/bhphr 0.0442 13.5 0.0222 0.0405 0.0238 0.0388 0.0215 0.124 0.0232 0.124 0.0280 0.191 0.0370 0.0701 0.0399 5.75 0.0230 Diff (%) * -57.4% * * * * * * * * * TPM g/bhphr 0.5589 0.5282 0.4970 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -

g/bhp- Diff g/bhp- Diff hr (%) hr (%) 7.846 380.2 5.857 9.156 7.426 8.756 6.862 11.93 6.615 11.89 6.996 12.20 7.756 9.397 7.783 * 7.852 350.8 5.874 9.190 7.449 8.775 6.869 11.93 6.629 11.91 7.005 12.21 7.766 9.394 7.820 *

455.6 -0.9% 2.877

14.4% 15950 -2.5% 92.50 -46.2% 416.7 9.6% 383.1 9.2% 3.3% * * * * * * * * * * * 448.8 * 10.10 * 5.956 * 5.986 *

454.0 -1.0% 0.6198 -9.4% 442.7 -1.0% 1.624 -6.9%

8.934 -2.4% 8.975 -2.3% 0.0377 7.470 * * * 7.517 8.627 6.942 * * * 0.0228 0.0392 0.0221

455.8 -1.0% 0.8559 -10.7% 8.575 451.0 -0.9% 3.733 -8.2% 6.906

488.7 -1.4% 0.6342 -11.9% 11.06 -7.3% 11.12 -6.9% 0.110 437.8 * 3.432 * 6.705 * 6.752 * 0.0235

499.1 -1.3% 0.6915 -9.7% 438.4 * 1.545 *

10.99 -7.6% 11.05 -7.3% 0.109 7.100 * 7.153 * 0.0290

1.960 0.7% 0.3642 5.829 3.892 4.063 0.000 6.787 3.785 5.672 3.386 5.070 1.694 7.564 1.894 7.717 1.932 5.789 3.860 * * 0.3196 0.3271 0.3216 2.976 0.2829 0.3195 0.3168 0.3212 0.3232 0.3414 0.3177 0.3495 0.3168 0.3665 0.3179 0.3267

523.5 -1.4% 0.8091 -16.4% 11.24 -7.8% 11.30 -7.4% 0.152 -20.2% 445.3 * 0.7657 -6.7% 7.773 * 7.833 * 0.0388 * * -

461.0 -1.0% 0.4503 -8.9% 445.3 16170 435.3 445.2 432.5 447.6 439.2 478.6 427.2 490.2 428.7 515.9 435.0 450.2 2.876 86.53 9.764 0.6629 1.707 0.9232 3.928 0.6476 3.452 0.6761 1.559 0.8225 0.8212 0.4656 -

9.041 -3.8% 9.109 -3.0% 0.0689 7.267 389.4 5.604 8.299 6.982 8.002 6.458 10.27 6.287 10.18 6.614 10.47 7.247 8.449 7.246 361.3 5.592 8.292 6.979 7.996 6.451 10.23 6.276 10.14 6.604 10.43 7.233 8.436 0.0404 7.50 0.0228 0.0374 0.0225 0.0360 0.0206 0.113 0.0236 0.116 0.0278 0.165 0.0374 0.0649

127

Work Additive / bhp- Diff Condition Base Mode hr (%) 16ml/gal Grad ODA Ref 0 4.062 * 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Grad Cand 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8ml/gal 2EHN Grad Cand 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16ml/gal ODA Grad Cand 0 1* 0.000 6.790 3.786 5.673 3.386 5.073 1.697 * * * * * *

BSFC lb/bhphr 0.3207 2.773 0.2810 0.3221 0.3164 0.3210 Diff (%) * * * * * *

CO2 g/bhphr 445.0 16300 436.0 443.7 433.3 445.4 439.4 477.2 426.4 488.6 428.4 516.3 435.1 450.8 449.9 16220 439.9 449.9 437.5 449.4 444.1 483.0 432.4 495.1 433.1 519.1 439.7 455.0 450.0 17130 440.2 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CO g/bhphr 2.793 Diff (%) *

NOx

NOx2

HC g/bhphr 0.0375 9.43 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TPM g/bhphr Diff (%)

g/bhp- Diff g/bhp- Diff hr (%) hr (%) 7.279 * * 7.249 351.4 * *

0.4621 -7.0% 0.4974 0.4489 0.4514 * * -

50.61 -41.5% 381.6 9.585 *

5.679 1.3% 5.661 1.2% 0.0227 8.291 7.075 8.034 6.516 * * * * 8.271 * 0.0349

0.5988 -9.7% 1.637 *

7.056 1.1% 0.0210 8.004 6.494 * * 0.0329 0.0210

0.8379 -9.2% 3.768 *

0.3217 -0.5% 0.3413 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

0.5823 -10.1% 9.841 -4.2% 9.768 -4.6% 0.101 3.436 * 6.368 1.3% 6.354 1.2% 0.0218

7.561 0.0% 0.3167 1.892 7.717 1.914 5.787 * * * * 0.3459 0.3172 0.3630 0.3182

0.5969 -11.7% 9.712 -4.6% 9.666 -4.7% 0.0971 1.543 * 6.720 1.6% 6.708 1.6% 0.0254

0.7253 -11.8% 9.883 -5.6% 9.840 -5.6% 0.142 0.7507 -8.6% 0.4214 -9.5% 2.890 136.5 9.756 0.6659 1.719 0.9355 3.958 0.6967 3.464 0.7012 1.519 0.8876 0.8049 0.4617 2.671 -7.6% 7.332 1.2% 7.316 8.379 -0.8% 8.363 7.657 403.6 5.824 8.800 7.300 8.471 6.724 11.30 6.511 11.22 6.900 11.57 7.569 9.031 7.638 * * * * 7.622 374.8 5.802 8.772 7.268 8.437 6.702 11.25 6.495 11.17 6.876 11.54 7.545 8.999 7.602 378.0 * * * * 0.0329 0.0592 0.0414 13.7 0.0232 0.0379 0.0229 0.0369 0.0213 0.122 0.0218 0.113 0.0256 0.161 0.0337 0.0597 0.0362 9.11

3.857 -0.1% 0.3260 4.059 0.000 6.758 3.778 5.669 3.388 5.082 1.694 7.562 1.902 7.687 1.931 5.787 3.865 4.061 0.000 * 0.3246 2.850 0.2859 0.3247 0.3181 0.3244 0.3257 0.3495 0.3207 0.3504 0.3219 0.3669 0.3212 0.3293 0.3179 3.124

73.32 -46.3% 399.7 9.326 -4.4% * * 5.915 8.695

6.785 0.4% 0.2797 3.779 5.667 3.390 * * * 0.3156 0.3125 0.3184

5.887 1.5% 0.0225 8.670 * 0.0339

448.2 -0.4% 0.5676 436.8 450.4 444.5 481.5 431.8 491.9 433.8 519.1 440.2 456.2 445.3 16560 * * * * * * * * * * * * 1.514

7.367 0.9% 7.348 1.1% 0.0207 * 8.371 -0.8% 0.0344 * 0.0214

0.8017 -14.3% 8.402 3.596 0.5999 3.225 0.5983 1.400 -9.1% * * * -7.8%

5.073 -0.2% 0.3188 1.699 7.554 1.896 7.708 1.924 5.797 3.861 4.063 0.000 * * * * * * * * 0.3355 0.3139 0.3449 0.3141 0.3598 0.3128 0.3220 0.3244 3.444

6.805 1.2% 6.772

10.50 -7.1% 10.46 -7.0% 0.105 6.665 2.4% 6.635 2.2% 0.0212 10.40 -7.3% 10.36 -7.3% 0.0891 7.031 1.9% 7.004 *

0.0234 -8.4%

0.7546 -15.0% 10.67 -7.8% 10.62 -7.9% 0.140 -13.4% 0.7020 -12.8% 7.669 0.3979 -13.8% 8.873 2.581 -10.7% 7.665 70.06 -48.7% 421.7 * * * * 7.635 1.2% 0.0314 8.834 -1.8% 0.0547 7.604 382.7 * * 0.0347 4.74 * * * *

128

Work Additive / bhpCondition Base Mode hr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16ml/gal ODA 2x Grad Cand 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Grad Cand 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10ml/gal DTBP Grad Cand 0 1* 2 3 Diff (%)

BSFC lb/bhphr Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CO2 g/bhphr 435.0 445.0 432.3 446.1 438.4 478.0 426.9 492.2 428.0 517.5 434.8 453.3 451.1 16980 441.2 450.4 438.6 452.4 444.8 483.9 431.9 497.7 433.5 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CO g/bhphr 9.113 0.5399 Diff (%) -6.6% *

NOx

NOx2

HC g/bhphr 0.0205 0.0326 0.0196 0.0338 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * *

TPM g/bhphr 0.4558 0.4930 0.4679 Diff (%) * * * -

g/bhp- Diff g/bhp- Diff hr (%) hr (%) 5.926 1.8% 5.878 8.743 * 8.691 * * * *

6.788 0.4% 0.2847 3.784 5.671 3.387 * * * 0.3224 0.3176 0.3237

1.453 -11.9% 7.397 0.9% 7.360 0.7707 -14.3% 8.468 3.420 0.5936 3.079 -9.1% * * * 8.413

5.071 -0.2% 0.3237 1.698 7.561 1.896 * * * 0.3425 0.3187 0.3528

6.836 1.2% 6.789 1.0% 0.0186 10.53 -7.1% 10.44 -7.0% 0.102 6.668 2.4% 6.626 * 0.0197

0.5956 -14.7% 10.45 -7.3% 10.36 -7.3% 0.0950 1.334 -7.8% 7.039 * 6.998 1.9% 0.0246

7.716 0.3% 0.3205 1.934 * 0.3675

0.7301 -15.0% 10.68 -7.8% 10.60 -7.9% 0.142 -13.4% 0.6749 -12.8% 7.676 * 7.627 * 0.0315 * * * * * * * * * * * *

5.797 0.2% 0.3211 3.861 -0.1% 0.3298 4.064 0.1% 0.3242 0.000 3.501

0.3956 -13.8% 8.888 -1.8% 8.838 -1.8% 0.0616 2.576 -10.9% 7.698 72.91 -46.6% 411.2 9.025 0.5253 -7.5% * * * 7.673 388.5 * * 0.0351 7.75

6.789 0.5% 0.2853 3.787 5.672 3.384 * * * 0.3206 0.3178

5.967 2.5% 5.950 2.6% 0.0208 8.810 * 8.790 * 0.0307

1.469 -11.9% 7.450 0.9% 7.439 1.1% 0.0188 0.7593 -14.3% 8.523 3.371 -9.1% * 8.502 * 0.0334

0.3220 -1.8% * * * * * * * * *

5.071 -0.2% 0.3231 1.699 7.565 1.894 * * * 0.3412 0.3190 0.3532

6.882 1.2% 6.860 1.0% 0.0190

0.6131 -13.9% 10.50 -7.1% 10.48 -7.0% 0.105 3.111 * 6.687 2.4% 6.673 2.2% 0.0203

0.5959 -14.7% 10.47 -7.3% 10.45 -7.3% 0.0906 1.349 -7.8%

7.723 0.3% 0.3201 1.926 5.793 3.863 4.061 0.000 * * * * * 0.3666 0.3200 0.3294 0.3240 3.457

7.063 1.9% 7.045 1.9% 0.0230 -8.4% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

525.0 0.0% 0.7397 -15.0% 10.73 -7.8% 10.70 -7.9% 0.141 441.2 456.6 * * 0.6770 -12.8% 7.731 1.3% 7.712 1.2% 0.0328 0.3937 -13.8% 8.881 -6.3% -5.2% -3.6% 7.716 * * 8.867 -1.8% 0.0602 7.653 * 0.0401 15.4 0.0228 0.0383 0.0211 0.0417 0.0204 0.115 0.0198 0.0979 0.0228 0.152 0.0333 0.0642 0.0335 8.10 0.0213 0.0292

446.0 -0.9% 2.709 * * 129.4 9.405

21.3% 16260 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 436.7

421.2 4.4% 390.1 4.1% 5.850 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5.803 8.871 7.328 8.516 6.767 11.15 6.518 11.14 6.885 11.54 7.585 8.976 7.596 381.1 5.880 8.703 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

6.787 0.4% 0.2794 3.778 5.665 * * 0.3237 0.3179

445.7 -0.9% 0.5943 -10.8% 8.926 432.1 -1.2% 1.548 446.7 * -9.9% 7.374 8.576

3.381 -0.2% 0.3261 5.071 -0.2% 0.3252 1.698 0.2% 0.3447 7.566 * 0.3189

0.8583 -8.3%

439.6 -1.0% 3.555 -10.2% 6.810 478.4 -1.0% 0.6644 -4.6% 426.7 -1.3% 3.190 492.7 430.0 519.9 * * * -7.9% 11.25 6.564 11.24 6.937 11.63

1.895 -0.3% 0.3543 7.716 0.4% 0.3195 1.917 -0.7% 0.3710 5.792 3.866 4.062 0.000 * * * 0.3204 0.3280 0.3263 3.760

0.6473 -7.7% 1.386 -8.8%

0.8502 -4.2%

435.8 -0.9% 0.7220 -10.3% 7.634 452.6 451.5 16740 441.9 452.3 * * * * * 0.4554 2.641 * -8.6% 9.023 7.625

83.60 -38.8% 410.0 9.275 0.5425 * * 5.911 8.629

6.787 0.4% 0.2882 3.778 * 0.3252

129

60 -7.5 382.0195 0.0 434.60 -7.670 3.000 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * - BSFC lb/bhphr 0.7888 -14.6785 -12.980 * 0.076 1.0187 Diff (%) * * * TPM g/bhphr 0.0% 0.165 * 6.4 377.342 8.433 82.963 6.0186 0.0313 0.48 -7.53 -7.3% 10.3193 0.0517 -8.2% 7.744 7.7% 10.974 6.8% 7.3710 0.39 -7.1 455.3240 0.6041 -14.5 431.3196 0.693 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CO2 g/bhphr 440.6 16750 * * * * * * * * * * 3.460 -9.6224 -13.9% 0.563 1.4% 0.3% 0.696 7.1 439.8% 9.3215 0.3692 443.006 * 6.0204 0.58 -7.2 0.3333 -7.376 * * * * 0.1% 10.7% 10.932 5.371 453.617 * 0.65 -7.919 8.The Base Fuel Used for Percent Differences * No Significant Difference Mode 1* is Idle with units of lbs/hr and g/hr 130 .4% 6.8 430.430 394.5 484.063 0.4671 Diff (%) * - g/bhp.6088 -13.889 8.4% 0.0183 0.806 1.3246 0.107 3.3% 10.8% 415.0833 -21.618 8.9 441.772 * * * 1.642 2.360 * * * * 6.0337 0.1 Diff (%) * CO g/bhphr Diff (%) NOx NOx2 HC g/bhphr 0.696 7.8 * * 5.389 6.669 3.2 445.0% 0.3239 0.507 -9.6351 0.4% 0.3202 0.880 8.7 5.1 498.9% 6.508 7.8% 7.711 1.3% 8.3193 0.867 2.34 -7.3461 0.7780 -14.076 1.3183 0.2% 0.0264 0.120 0.793 3.0% 0.3547 0.4% 6.358 8.5864 0.426 3.898 7.59 -7.4% 0.165 453.5952 -14.3 454.1 0.388 5.361 0.3% 0.0857 1.355 0.3261 3.6 484.1% 6.561 1.1% 6.3% 8.621 2.78 0.3445 0.800 0.639 0.3257 0.8 440.9% 10.0497 * * * 5.0 497.3238 0.Diff hr (%) hr (%) * * * 7.0217 -8.3795 -13.800 1.623 * 0.61 -7.0197 0.3 434.8% 10.711 1.435 * * * * * * * * 0.420 444.480 -11.9% 3.8 432.9% 10.507 -11.17 -39.1 523.3529 0.595 -10.385 5.0186 * * * 0.849 7.3283 .3219 0.9% 7.101 -13.2893 3.3207 3.9% 7.Diff g/bhp.5452 1.0% 10.863 * 0.899 7.0358 * * * * * * * * * 6.0 * * * * * * * * * * * 0.781 5.2% 6.798 0.Work Additive / bhpCondition Base Mode hr 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6ml/gal ODA Grad Cand 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5.103 -6.0329 7.2% 0.7188 -15.3254 0.914 8.371 -7.787 0.3% 1.0278 * 0.8% 8.0219 0.938 * * * * * * * * * 0.8% * * * 6.1% 10.128 -13.512 7.861 4.740 * * * * * * * * 7.

717 3.7% 7.3240 0.602 13.814 43.6373 0.7% * * * -4.0236 2.3 448.4% 12.022 -10.977 13.08 2.7453 0.1% 0.0427 0.3169 0.960 13.80 6.897 0.550 * * 0.1 438.444 -8.418 7.113 6.120 -25.2 461.3171 0.825 4.2% 7.181 -2.9 455.3271 3.677 7.3 0.438 0.541 1.3288 0.728 3.5% 12.61 -6.8 454.0176 3 ml/gal 2EHN Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3.1% 5.0192 -12.149 -6.1% 0.2% 0.4 453.872 136.3257 0.4% 7.874 7.0225 0.0194 12.9% * * * 0.6% * -5.4 15250 446.3522 0.5% 0.0198 0.645 12.093 -2.918 5.7% 0.75 -5.304 1.542 1.7% 7.939 Diff (%) * * * HC g/bhphr 0.4% 12.916 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.3505 0.Table 7-14 June 2007 SET Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 CO Diff (%) NOx g/bhphr 7.961 0.729 -0.0 -39.5 ml/gal DTBP Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3.080 5.012 1.3572 0.8% 7.108 7.0 3.647 1.716 3.7% 0.9% 6.359 5.625 Diff (%) 3.7344 * 12.44 -4.9% * * 4.635 1.147 7.2 454.9 0.0204 0.671 0.003 -12.038 0.0 499.771 42.676 7.4% 7.949 154.0417 7.6 436.3329 2.652 1.139 0.975 * 0.923 * * * * * * * * * * * * 3.3708 0.082 6.675 7.0 491.3258 0.0245 0.31 -5.443 1.9 487.6% NOx2 g/bhphr 8.998 -2.31 0.0 526.761 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.3322 0.3274 0.775 5.4 11.5% * -3.7878 2.3235 0.0219 0.0309 * * * * * * * * * * 5.22 4.3% * * * -5.813 4.3282 0.435 -11.3535 0.81 0.046 9.0557 7.484 * 0.6% 8.0239 2.772 5.3316 0.3167 0.545 12.Diff g/bhp(%) hr (%) hr (%) hr Base Mode hr Low Cetane 0 4.2 0.000 6.475 9.7287 * * 5.05 7.357 5.017 325.597 -9.0321 0.8305 -17.001 0.597 * 6.0189 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * TPM g/bhp.9 456.120 0.6683 -15.971 0.2% 9.661 3.3335 455.355 5.3% 7.3309 0.9218 -14.121 * 0.3267 0.132 -12.886 8.5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 223.4 455.3328 3.1% 0.0333 7.924 * 0.6% 9.Diff hr (%) 0.869 7.6% 7.7% 5.3494 0.7% 6.45 -6.121 * 0.7 438.37 1.9707 * 8.0450 26.560 -5.738 9.4841 * 9.9% * -5.41 9.54 -5.161 0.8093 4.3326 131 .5 11.2% 7.222 6.3723 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15080 445.209 -2.6203 * * - bhp.2% 352.395 -8.034 1.15 7.3256 0.5 11.5 14710 446.202 4.4 439.5141 7.306 7.1 524.3243 0.929 9.56 0.815 * 0.827 9.3272 0.7 453.0971 7.43 7.0234 12.798 7.4 462.3278 0.8% * -3.3% 6.Diff lb/bhp.053 6.6921 -14.3318 0.5 442.3265 3.5 502.Diff g/bhp.036 1.31 * * 370.3327 0.6% 5.9% 12.504 9.7337 * 12.0328 0.815 0.656 3.723 -0.516 12.884 7.7 455.3% 0.146 2.859 0.2% * * * * * 12.0591 0.484 0.8 5.0 500.0377 6.028 0.2% 0.0370 0.034 0.2 441.658 3.1 -3926% 340.034 0.3451 0.496 -3.0221 4.8 488.8 442.0402 19.4 446.047 -11.0 449.0561 5.0342 0.0386 14.659 * 4.967 * 0.8368 2.3258 0.6 450.2 442.137 0.979 4.144 0.4% 0.1% 0.0232 0.3265 0.546 1.0207 0.932 9.127 6.686 * 0.930 0.371 12.992 * * * 0.4821 * 9.99 6.64 1.26 6.3725 9.2 446.0 -4121% 358.788 9.3 445.6 440.3266 0.865 12.4 524.034 1.3283 0.000 6.406 9.738 3.8961 -11.014 0.000 6.6 460.706 -5.227 -8.7250 -13.037 13.077 0.768 5.6 10.812 -1.4% 0.

9248 -14.3329 3.723 -0.5 0.4690 * 9.3549 0.939 * 0.0360 -20.819 4.2% 0.3298 0.3136 0.32 -7.843 44.662 * 0.3123 0.44 0.509 -6.7% 5.9786 -14.6600 -18.6697 -15.036 1.3262 3.27 1.8 459.9% 7.Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 CO NOx NOx2 Diff (%) * 8.3% 447.122 -23.4% 0.7 499.182 -2.5% 7.2% 0.5 0.182 * * * * 12.1 453.914 0.0179 -18.000 6.7% 0.515 0.8% 7.765 5.5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.8% 6.0326 -27.3% 7.942 0.562 -5.037 1.043 -8.4594 * 9.0 453.0209 0.3268 0.1% 0.972 -2.008 6.0188 12.6% * -7.968 * * * 0.184 -10.0% 361.0360 6.4 443.3269 0.4% 6.3730 9.0 -4110% 352.643 1.45 6.000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.848 9.0258 -19.9407 -12.88 439.58 -5.1% 6.0271 -15.169 -11.0 -37.9300 -13.7% 0.2 11.3% 7.0331 7.843 -2.0480 * 3.115 -28.037 1.3 523.5% 7.0174 -20.035 0.3225 0.1 440.3% 6.948 4.480 -7.9 -1.3% 495.3568 0.2% 12.1 444.5 485.767 5.8 460.1% HC g/bhphr Diff (%) TPM g/bhp.772 5.3362 0.9 487.718 3.4% 0.8 453.7 447.0181 9.915 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.4 448.2971 6.802 * * * * -4.679 7.922 9.3314 0.957 4.0% 7.7% 0.3554 0.8% 0.8 522.5% 7.450 -8.1% 0.213 -2.15 -8.554 -8.7721 -23.990 4.640 1.4% 7.0 * 3.4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.164 * 0.4% 5.4% 0.5% * * * * * * * * * 5.3676 0.983 * * * 0.0335 -25.3321 0.3% 0.3316 0.6 441.645 1.Diff g/bhp.3330 0.39 -7.663 3.443 -3.3251 0.104 6.9% 8.6% 0.2% 0.9 * * * * * * - 1.7 14740 358.3270 0.0183 12.0271 -15.1% 0.703 9.37 0.359 5.3277 0.475 -7.8 446.82 -4.034 0.5 436.593 9.7% 11.5% 7.3267 0.3334 3.0 520.5 454.948 0.3214 0.610 -7.166 0.6451 15.4 11.100 -8.9 441.1% * -6.5% 9.3276 3.981 * 0.1% 12.822 4.Diff lb/bhp.8% 9.0 448.5 455.0729 -39.3% 12.2% * -5.3 * - 134.6934 * * 5.4382 -14.3% 0.7 5.1% 3.5% * * 4.7 -4031% 348.1 437.3255 0.0328 * 15220 0.0201 -18.700 12.0190 2.8 * * * * * * * 0.2% * * * -3.981 0.2 -4091% 355.672 * 0.0442 7.180 0.0201 -18.933 * 9.00 438.4% 0.0516 7.7372 4.8 452.8% 6.929 0.438 12.6% 7.60 * * 11.08 -7.671 12.6% 0.656 3.0374 16.6% 7.5 486.9 14910 445.935 * * * * 0.3444 0.724 -0.6% 1.405 3.3% 8.034 * 0.677 7.0924 -32.0% * * * -7.9% * -6.3262 0.917 5.714 3.9% 12.4% 12.5% 367.185 -10.035 0.875 7.6215 -25.6% 0.0349 7.176 * * * * -5.5% 7.995 * * * 0.944 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Low 8ml/gal 2EHN Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6ml/gal ODA3 Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12ml/gal ODA3 Low Cetane 0 1* 0.4% 5.732 3.Diff hr (%) * * * * - bhp.494 0.949 170.3268 0.6% * 5.0216 0.931 0.7% * * 4.0 * * * * * * * * 139.3420 0.545 1.3274 0.112 -30.8306 -17.824 4.4% * * 4.677 7.136 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 454.3 11.689 * 0.8809 -12.184 2.562 -8.48 -4.0878 -26.0% 9.547 7.0186 -14.0348 0.9% 6.2 -43.6838 -18.6890 -12.6501 11.69 1.9% 0.35 * 5.9 452.870 7.4 445.495 12.003 -12.6434 - 126.0383 0.5% 0.107 6.515 9.9% 8.5% 496.7% 12.6 -1.8% 7.876 7.066 6.0229 * 12.000 6.967 0.804 43.9% 0.544 1.143 * 0.3264 0.3265 0.36 7.3305 3.9% 12.23 4.0190 8.3331 * 454.659 3.9% 0.3508 0.5% 0.0173 0.445 -3.719 3.581 0.355 5.8% 0.513 0.5% 7.6265 14.358 5.0% 0.8% 369.Diff g/bhp(%) hr (%) hr (%) hr (%) hr (%) hr Base Mode hr Low 6ml/gal 2EHN Cetane 0 4.9% 7.2% 7.503 * 0.5 453.99 -8.105 * 0.124 2.0 -3990% 337.2% 0.50 -6.3279 0.180 0.6293 -22.3278 0.116 9.0318 7.8% 7.3784 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15220 446.946 * 0.241 -1.917 0.467 -7.112 0.534 9.2 -40.077 -9.8% 7.2 460.01 4.1 436.Diff g/bhp.905 4.856 44.9% 12.1 132 .0852 -28.913 * * * * * * * * * * * 3.542 1.Diff g/bhp.7312 2.000 6.1% 0.

149 -6.0% 9.47 -6.1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.9 -4098% 342.04 2.923 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.5% 0.2% 0.8% * -7.6% 12.8% 7.082 0.3260 0.2% 348.9 0.500 12.5 -45.801 43.3% 0.9396 -13.478 -3.0172 8.3% 7.0265 -17.6293 13.844 9.1 449.034 0.676 7.8% * 5.432 0.1% 7.5% 0.8 -3901% 329.035 1.0271 7.859 44.8511 -15.6% 7.0471 7.4 5.6 446.55 -6.767 5.7% 7.844 -1.870 7.98 4.654 * 0.3% 12.7003 -13.8% 5.934 0.0276 7.7 441.3 484.3518 0.9 485.33 -5.0% 11.4471 -13.7% 0.412 -3.4 0.3257 0.2 444.3257 * 451.9% 7.3% 2.4% 7.102 6.001 -2.0 457.8% 11.3% 0.1 -43.959 4.4% * * 3.126 9.6% * -4.6781 -13.7341 * 12.7% 7.501 0.650 1.8 453.8065 -20.932 0.147 -2.5 455.75ml/gal ODANS Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 3.0331 -26.2% * 5.116 -28.038 1.3 455.Diff lb/bhp.0160 0.503 -3.9% 12.3274 0.3% 7.Diff hr (%) * * * - Base Mode 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 bhp.Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 CO Diff (%) * NOx g/bhphr Diff (%) NOx2 g/bhphr Diff (%) HC g/bhphr Diff (%) * * * * * * TPM g/bhp.85 438.0343 6.1% 0.3285 0.6% 12.9 -1.613 38.8% 7.8230 -18.105 * 0.912 * 0.3 452.6% 0.1 367.3348 0.035 0.1% 6.3277 0.26 9.870 7.0157 * * * - * 14700 0.0195 -20.0187 12.5% 12.111 -8.497 -10.21 1.5% 0.6 0.9% 0.951 * 0.4% 7.916 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.7% 0.746 0.5% 12.5 452.3083 0.934 4.907 * 0.7% 5.3339 0.3% 0.3480 0.861 0.63 1.773 5.6750 -14.1% * -3.161 2.8 437.893 * * * 16ml/gal ODA3 Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.4% 5.4% 7.3313 0.6% 0.3263 0.3264 0.1% 9.6663 -15.6625 -20.68 -5.3 438.4% 0.815 4.717 3.767 5.0187 -14.357 5.919 * 0.5% 7.5% 0.6504 11.3301 0.3% 6.Diff g/bhp.41 * * 0.836 -5.780 9.43 1.6% 447.4 0.0165 -24.33 5.4614 * 9.4 440.3255 0.3% 7.9% 0.6769 -14.180 -2.0215 * 12.512 * 0.3277 0.0197 -19.9 127.3567 0.0167 * * * * * * * - 122.719 3.0% * -7.536 1.3272 0.2% 1.514 0.164 -11.660 3.0818 -31.1 11.3% 8.715 0.9% 0.0169 * * * * * * * - * 15380 0.0182 9.382 -9.316 12.88ml/gal ODANS Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3.9758 * 8.817 4.0261 -18.1 436.636 12.121 -13.000 6.5 0.0895 -25.3284 3.4% 0.541 1.4% 12.2% 4.0% 445.6% * * * -4.104 * 0.16 -8.4% 0.810 9.4% 9.2% * -3.3309 0.0% 0.5% 7.0263 -18.678 7.3 435.512 -6.0% 6.0308 -31.002 -12.7% 0.3268 3.3520 0.4% * -7.0 523.0% 8.819 4.129 0.486 -7.3 488.0344 6.41 * 5.621 0.3264 0.3% 6.7 447.0182 4.975 -2.6838 -18.0326 -27.9% * * * 0.037 1.1% 349.957 141.768 * * * * * 0.975 0.659 3.1% 6.3308 3.358 5.3562 0.801 -1.3% 12.0% 8.142 0.0173 12.30 -7.6392 -21.3327 3.976 * 0.2992 5.39 -7.6489 14.3693 9.7% 5.2 497.8 443.719 3.3254 0.4559 * 9.6% * -3.909 -3.19 4.5 14330 445.3% 6.9 452.1 459.586 -8.873 7.7 451.15 -6.100 * 0.027 -10.0 498.4% 0.9% 0.5% * 5.3310 3.7 459.02 -7.0759 -36.000 6.645 1.062 2.6485 -19.2% 0.066 -10.196 -2.680 * 0.4% 495.436 3.9389 -13.544 1.3148 0.022 -10.3334 0.167 9.2% * -5.3687 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 446.036 0.5% * * * -6.0 439.5 523.136 -12.5 443.724 -0.0% 7.3435 0.677 * 0.118 -26.464 -7.50 * 5.0292 7.425 -8.815 43.9% 9.0184 8.716 3.938 * 0.101 6.660 3.3657 * * * * * * * * * * * * 453.3244 0.9% 12.2 444.706 0.0% 0.537 -9.0278 133 .9 -3892% 338.506 -6.490 * 0.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr (%) hr (%) hr 6.0987 6.2980 6.912 * * * * * * * * * * 0.934 * * * 7.3271 3.3 11.3244 0.918 0.359 5.722 -0.6% 0.164 2.1 11.0 520.115 -28.0172 -21.0476 7.000 6.943 * * * 3.9% 0.820 -2.191 -2.3% 0.1% 7.035 0.9% * -5.646 1.884 0.3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11.0490 7.0347 6.469 * 0.3% 7.3308 0.678 7.7% 0.2 451.40 4.

718 3.4 518.65 -10.871 4.9338 -13.163 * 0.4 435.659 3.1% 7.3265 0.0 442.940 0.0170 -22.Diff g/bhp.064 * * * * * * * * * * * 441.3% 11.3% 5.0195 -20.8 484.4% 8.4334 -15.22 -7.5 * * * * 2.3% 364.3% * -7.1% 437.527 Diff (%) * HC g/bhphr 0.0% 0.157 * 0.2% 11.2932 7.000 6.7 115.0167 8.5 436.507 -6.3% 12.3278 0.0306 -32.697 * 0.036 0.4% 7.504 * 0.0% 494.7% 0.2% * -7.6675 -20.634 0.945 * 0.7% 0.0169 12.109 -32.0% 1.970 * 0.7% 0.6% 6.4290 -16.0198 -19.150 -12.4% 11.3672 0.4 -48.Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 CO Diff (%) NOx g/bhphr Diff (%) -2.180 0.9% 0.3697 0.8% * * 0.104 6.23 -8.870 7.2% 7.50 -10.496 -6.589 -8.2% 12.81 0.360 5.3533 0.0% 7.072 -10.738 3.1% 12.1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.2% 0.6747 -14.743 3.436 -3.7% 9.840 44.647 1.950 * 0.938 -3.5% 0.3301 0.871 7.057 3.7% * 9.3324 0.020 -10.3287 0.0171 -22.928 5.9 -1.9% 0.773 5.0% -2.0358 6.40 -7.0448 .2% 11.706 * 0.3355 * * * * * * * * * * * 452.93 4.0% 12.9 -1.3244 0.6 457.9% 7.4% 9.7678 -24.816 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.815 4.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr (%) hr (%) hr 5.87 438.8 452.3330 0.1% 0.5% 494.5% 0.542 1.108 -33.3244 0.2% 6.5% 8.7 452.679 7.4% 7.5 447.83 -10.0272 7.8% NOx2 g/bhphr 7.1 11.3301 3.6512 -22.4% * 9.3269 0.0763 -36.0155 * * * * * * * - * 14890 0.0 441.3271 0.715 9.13 0.98 -8.0262 -18.3329 0.3490 0.464 -3.920 5.679 7.04 -9.3242 0.0% 11.3 457.0347 6.8% 0.447 -8.5% -6.658 3.917 * * * 10.1 446.118 -8.5% 445.358 5.3550 0.141 -2.224 0.672 8.836 -2.898 * 7.3 443.0248 -22.3275 0.6604 -18.037 1.3426 0.392 11.5% 12.0752 -37.05 -7.0171 Diff (%) * * * * TPM g/bhp.6% 7.0171 0.140 -12.2% 0.7894 -22.3% 6.908 -2.3% * * * -8.8 0.6 453.0 484.6609 -18.9462 -12.5% -5.634 -7.9 520.0398 7.971 * 0.6% 9.3264 0.040 1.0% 7.541 4.1 -4056% 345.460 * 6.4% 0.The Base Fuel Used for Percent Differences * No Significant Difference Mode 1* is Idle with units of lbs/hr and g/hr 134 .930 -3.649 1.Diff lb/bhp.2 * * * * * 2.538 1.24 * 5.944 0.33ml/gal ODANS Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.9% 4.4% 6.1% 0.6830 9.0988 4.092 2.496 0.Diff hr (%) * - Base Mode 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 bhp.9997 -12.2% 0.1% 6.3% 7.

8 449.918 11.4893 135 .182 0.6% 0.8 5.065 * 0.57 7.3220 0.0432 0.0208 0.75 7.8% 10.0 445.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr (%) hr (%) hr 4.207 0.874 1.7 435.959 11.0394 13.0 447.3 426.0346 0.7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.678 8.3229 0.0214 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TPM g/bhp.0552 3.3634 0.956 9.9% 8.3185 0.356 5.652 0.997 0.6662 1.079 * 7.796 3.109 6.3478 0.3264 2.825 11.582 9.3217 0.316 7.494 7.Table 7-15 July 2007 SET Results for the 1992 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 CO Diff (%) * NOx NOx2 Diff (%) * * * HC g/bhphr 0.5469 * * Base CP Cert Mode 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 bhp.73 7.Diff lb/bhp.7342 -8.848 -2.743 12.83 -6.113 0.914 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.821 * 6.729 9.71 6.1% 370.3221 0.0312 0.060 6.440 8.8537 3.3245 2.3486 0.4 439.Diff g/bhp.924 * * * * 8.6 5.857 5.2 447.1 446.992 2.3542 0.804 * 0.5% 7.3228 0.7% 427.98 -47.6393 3.7987 0.9 493.3594 0.928 7.0865 7.3485 * * * * * * * * 445.2991 0.0331 6.5 518.757 g/bhp.8124 0.3284 0.0% 5.50 6.934 4.1% 7.609 0.0 494.433 0.712 3.3627 0.783 3.5% 10.721 1.56 6.999 12.3238 0.860 5.4 451.3223 0.6572 3.716 6.5 15410 436.000 6.9 12 ml/gal ODA CP Cert 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 79.699 3.3229 0.130 7.2 442.6% 0.754 * * 7.4 484.0429 0.0353 0.115 0.683 7.8 428.000 6.780 3.73 7.65 6.580 0.116 0.3223 0.3635 -12.935 4.0% 0.969 5.0354 0.2% 0.3267 4.225 0.1 450.0228 0.3221 0.700 11.743 0.6174 1.0226 0.8597 3.021 1.3175 0.677 7.129 0.0235 0.8 14460 438.8080 0.071 7.494 * * * 7.032 7.6958 1.107 0.927 * * * 0.723 1.76 -7.0 433.549 0.58 7.320 7.0434 22.6752 1.0221 0.7873 3.528 9.528 9.3248 0.5 0.899 * * * 0.3217 0.005 12.3546 0.4 429.950 0.2963 0.23 0.7 434.0312 7.8737 3.109 0.3474 0.Diff hr (%) 0.897 7.0211 0.978 304.0277 0.0218 0.941 9.718 1.987 338.0343 -21.398 8.000 12.3175 0.635 6.3274 0.500 0.3 10.57 0.0% 0.69 7.888 7.9 5.7 437.737 12.4175 2.8 448.3193 * * * * * * 490.4% 0.0242 0.987 5.663 11.0297 0.68 -7.104 0.62 6.103 0.3212 0.0235 0.69 6.5 432.0420 0.774 332.9917 0.000 6.590 6.0269 0.4 484.3 440.8 9.8% 10.130 0.865 5.3247 0.122 0.0229 0.027 1.3037 0.9 447.72 -6.7 514.752 0.3276 2.3208 -2.022 12.350 5.009 7.79 -8.731 -6.3 518.927 7.922 274.589 0.2 451.862 1.0273 0.972 5.2 10.6965 -13.0235 10.693 6.466 8.8% 10.681 7.739 9.0551 0.7 446.635 9.944 8.9 10.3249 0.1 16080 441.8301 1.4937 0.874 9.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr 7.612 0.504 * * * * * * * * * 5.717 339.914 0.3297 0.624 0.927 7.3257 - Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6ml/gal Low Cetane 0 2.873 1.065 7.5 430.0205 0.4562 7.855 151.913 3.7 0.708 3.8 0.5 5.750 359.691 0.8 446.6014 1.5327 0.920 2.81 -7.109 * 0.5 432.350 5.18 0.5 434.2 481.367 8.025 1.888 3.852 11.868 9.

1% 6.106 -2.1 447.021 0.0% 6.2% 0.4 452.8% 372.7 452.021 * 10.3516 0.8% 9.6129 * * 6.3210 0.1% 11.111 0.861 1.6 436.3615 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15660 441.0% 12.78 -7.104 0.100 * 0.208 0.710 1.356 5.8 6.150 0.7% 6.0179 -15.3202 0.851 3.936 4.676 7.818 -2.540 0.9 -51.4% 0.4% 7.7% 0.0 450.000 6.3% 9.1 * * * * * * * - 9.3 441.0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 145.905 131.5% 0.7% 7.3% 9.0253 -14.3540 0.1 521.211 -10.9 14610 442.0 3.3284 0.9 447.7% 0.3196 0.859 5.342 5.1% 11.3439 0.0174 * 0.0% 11.4 517.787 3.4913 11.548 -6.6 0.909 0.9 -46.222 4.240 3.079 * 7.4% 437.1% 11.354 5.2% 9.965 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.792 3.3 482.3% 13.866 1.8% 0.524 -7.876 * 0.6605 -18.7% 0.251 3.371 -17.3304 0.6% 0.2 486.100 -4.3331 3.5% 0.7% 9.925 7.826 * 6.9% 7.3317 3.5% 350.3296 0.0202 1.5% 9.933 7.901 332.4% 0.4% 0.Diff g/bhp.3278 0.81 -7.8% 345.777 * 0.9% 5.4% 0.8% 0.7% 1.9 483.8% * 0.0% 0.72 -6.4% 9.106 * 7.692 3.642 8.203 0.84 -7.851 7.0353 0.0425 * 0.3012 * * * * 453.3189 0.9 448.2% 0.9% 7.0361 * 7.953 2.71 -6.9% * * * 0.087 -2.3% 8.7 442.9% 11.7% 7.3206 0.8 0.676 -16.3198 0.3937 7.0% 12.8 429.8 9.4% 7.271 * 9.8517 -14.0340 3.3198 0.9% 7.3252 0.901 0.696 3.2 432.258 0.134 -3.480 -6.0192 0.7299 -15.000 6.3 430.0 436.7654 -11.754 0.0848 -26.265 -19.0223 3.7 3.0259 5.3214 3.516 -13.864 5.6 492.46 3.3508 0.1% 0.8724 -12.042 330.543 -5.8135 * 8.089 -2.0188 1.3% 0.720 -6.9% 7.0189 * 0.4% 7.027 1.6 0.0% 0.3% 7.2% 12.45 * 12.041 146.0492 * * * 7.3190 0.672 7.0206 -14.026 1.3% 7.000 6.700 * * * * 0.0194 0.2 * * * 9.43 * 12.566 * 0.112 3.0% 7.72 -6.2% 9.4% 0.971 0.837 -2.3 449.4 492.2% 11.001 0.142 -3.76 -7.865 1.786 * 0.171 2.8% 7.6% 7.2946 0.3247 0.0329 -24.036 -11.739 2.3% 7.4107 * * 7.967 * * * * * * * * * * * 3.6101 * * 6.766 * 7.7374 -14.8% 0.838 * 0.2 448.0308 * * * 7.0189 -21.3704 0.0 434.6964 -16.3255 0.4% 0.110 3.3225 0.000 * 9.2 437.7 448.5% 0.8 2.022 * * * 0.0202 * * * * * * * * * - * * * - 9.4% 9.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12ml/gal ODA Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B20 Soy Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B20 Mineral Low Cetane 0 1* 2 0.0217 * * * * * * * - 9.053 * 6.76 -6.5% * 0.937 4.3770 -17.7120 -14.540 0.100 -22.3863 -15.3274 0.2% 0.131 -3.3% 8.112 0.9% 8.269 4.9% 0.8 433.2% 11.3476 0.710 1.3581 9.483 1.0778 -32.0311 * 7.Diff hr (%) Base Mode bhp.88 -6.6% 11.9 496.7317 -9.3514 0.0257 2.3307 2.0969 -24.8% 0.3227 3.138 3.0320 -26.135 * 0.3240 3.793 3.547 8.7% 8.023 * 0.109 0.45 3.2% * 2.477 1.3% 0.200 0.3032 0.709 1.0923 1.4084 12.5515 -17.3397 0.3 13.0233 -21.8% 11.83 -7.9% * 5.74 -7.117 3.614 2.019 0.035 * 6.31 4.1 15340 442.Diff lb/bhp.6 443.3% 7.7076 -19.027 1.096 -2.976 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.448 -8.1 9.2846 0.0 434.111 0.6% 11.693 3.7087 -14.0 429.6% * * 8.932 4.113 2.823 0.3% 0.0444 2.2% 11.Work Additive / Condition 2EHN BSFC CO2 CO Diff (%) NOx NOx2 Diff (%) HC g/bhphr Diff (%) TPM g/bhp.138 -16.476 -15.8 -46.3321 0.73 -7.7932 * 8.8 448.4% 11.7% 1.3295 0.9% 361.0297 -31.5 14590 441.9% 7.9 516.3214 0.256 0.0188 -11.848 * 6.7 * 326.0% 9.925 7.172 171.6% 351.5% 6.7365 -9.514 -6.6% 7.868 5.746 0.0198 1.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr (%) hr (%) hr g/bhp.0189 136 .5% 0.810 0.6% 7.2% 0.676 7.2 -37.8 * * - 9.0182 -24.8 432.30 * 12.000 6.1 446.090 * 6.901 0.017 0.1% 0.000 3.8214 -17.

858 5.4052 2.010 3.3246 0.0278 * * * * * * * 5.4 450.143 0.84 7.3283 1.859 1.3484 0.0341 * 5.2 6.285 7.940 7.0318 0.6% 6.4% * 0.1 10.313 7.923 2.9 3.7% 437.5% 7.742 0.952 * 0.3% 0.3166 0.554 -6.9 14900 440.1% 0.6591 -18.982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.3723 * * * * * 484.209 3.04 -5.0165 0.080 332.719 3.3458 0.792 3.083 137.3304 2.103 2.0178 * * * 0.101 * 9.9 434.9 441.720 1.0249 Diff (%) * TPM g/bhp.3316 0.5% 0.2% 443.0364 0.7 3.1% 1.7 482.7940 3.094 2.4 431.70 0.5264 19.000 6.1% 7.1% 0.2977 0.3604 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 451.000 6.922 7.9% 7.3463 -24.1 434.0 * * * - 9.3282 0.3277 1.4134 - 0.4% 0.002 7.2% 0.745 9.1% 0.03 -5.0% 6.663 9.350 5.0183 -24.938 * 6.6% 9.111 0.3419 0.Diff hr (%) * * * - Base Mode 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 bhp.347 5.5% 12.3260 0.7067 -17.3% 7.863 0.8163 -17.0192 * 0.5% 11.7247 -17.6 0.7 447.6647 -19.181 7.664 0.0185 0.330 3.3506 0.086 310.2% 6.679 7.0163 -30.982 3.7% 0.5 14640 441.0708 -38.0716 -38.311 7.675 7.0902 -30.0 -50.696 3.831 9.497 0.2 15770 440.4 517.7% 7.01 -5.026 1.Diff lb/bhp.0% 7.0349 -19.421 7.091 12.779 3.106 -18.3 495.3556 0.4 0.223 * 0.705 3.309 -17.790 3.357 2.0 B20 Cottonseed Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.580 0.9% 7.108 0.013 9.349 * * * * * * * 0.726 -15.5359 -19.903 0.338 0.7% 7.05 -5.145 0.211 3.3204 3.87 -5.6 519.864 5.97 6.8037 -19.0238 1.6390 1.3 6.564 8.1 - Low Cetane 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.549 8.4 433.4% 0.9 429.85 7.0185 0.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr (%) hr (%) hr 3.8% 0.839 12.0283 9.3618 -20.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr * * * * 9.0 447.409 -14.904 0.0428 0.0393 * 5.2% 12.2 6.84 7.905 0.201 -14.9 9.8 432.146 9.3194 0.937 4.2 449.000 6.863 5.187 7.6% 9.8% 0.212 0.6918 -19.139 9.0% 0.8196 1.6 446.3% 0.6 440.0865 -33.6% 0.7 445.7% 11.0209 -29.6% 0.0203 0.0337 * * * 3.0161 -31.3254 0.3313 3.01 -5.3% 0.3% 0.8 521.1% 0.096 12.0 451.417 0.9% 0.782 9.195 * 7.0287 0.097 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9.0291 -33.3558 0.4% 0.4141 12.3232 0.7% 9.5 435.5% 0.3270 0.1% 9.7% 12.3190 0.846 208.Diff g/bhp.642 0.0199 0.7859 0.91 -5.723 1.567 0.0219 -26.3236 0.3222 0.3351 3.7099 -18.8% 12.076 12.9% 7.1% 358.6924 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8.99 -5.0181 -14.249 -13.00 -5.939 7.3348 0.96 6.3% 0.7% 0.0232 -21.5426 1.672 7.3% 0.6% 12.2955 0.712 1.735 2.861 1.089 337.1% 9.8% 11.2942 0.019 1.Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 CO Diff (%) NOx NOx2 Diff (%) * * * * HC g/bhphr 0.8280 3.8 430.7% 1.934 4.372 -16.817 9.8 448.3276 0.3259 0.8 428.3204 0.8% 0.3286 0.148 3.5 492.958 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.3268 0.6591 -18.0% 8.371 2.031 9.240 3.25 0.3277 0.861 1.89 -5.373 8.8% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0 445.788 3.422 7.943 0.7 482.4% 0.7% 6.0% 11.8 448.9874 0.9% 11.299 1.633 9.351 5.6409 -22.3250 0.0% 0.1 432.735 -14.111 * * * * * * * 0.3334 0.4% 0.097 12.549 135.0 437.3273 * * * 447.099 346.3731 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 453.0962 2.123 0.961 * * * * * * * * * 0.0166 -31.294 -18.580 0.5% 435.5 0.88 7.0163 -22.103 0.6% 6.0194 0.120 2.3297 6ml/gal 2EHN B20 Cottonseed 0 1* 2 3 4 5 137 .8 448.0246 0.01 -5.849 12.7% 7.639 9.335 * 9.886 9.0165 -22.997 3.4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * g/bhp.542 -13.4 6.6% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.112 0.7% 12.020 1.079 371.3 * * * 9.5489 -17.0169 -30.3235 2.933 4.0833 -28.397 8.7% 9.4% 7.1% 7.87 -5.9 * * * * 7.258 3.8 491.1% 0.859 5.

64 7.353 5.59 7.3271 0.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr 7.293 0.218 11.676 7.0721 0.113 0.866 0.3578 0.0186 0.3246 * * 7.0585 0.069 11.0880 0.999 9.305 * * * 7.3279 0.175 9.3244 0.031 11.959 9.0405 0.960 5.857 1.0179 0.0 482.The Base Fuel Used for Percent Differences * No Significant Difference Mode 1* is Idle with units of lbs/hr and g/hr 138 .0215 0.64 7.7 446.103 * * * * * * * * * 7.333 .2% 11.287 7.903 3.2 15510 440.059 7.2 432.3296 3.3359 0.5388 1.Diff hr (%) 0.3 447.7175 -10.3280 0.3492 0.0163 0.0 517.225 0.259 11.010 9.8 441.6761 3.3 431.78 7.3344 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 442.0 522.0848 0.0221 0.084 354.8 435.0155 0.727 1.766 9.6% 11.3760 0.0260 10.73 0.147 9.3714 0.325 8.6474 0.9 485.033 11.337 11.3287 0.3522 0.0174 0.0165 0.6 495.861 1.238 11.058 7.0675 0.931 7.3276 0.7429 -7.5 451.022 1.266 0.218 12ml/gal ODA3 B20 Cottonseed 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.6334 0.0 453.988 9.0 0.498 123.0165 0.000 6.7 433.360 0.6026 1.0783 0.72 0.76 7.0326 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TPM g/bhp.768 9.088 378.705 3.64 7.018 1.870 5.Work Additive / Condition BSFC CO2 CO Diff (%) * * * * * NOx NOx2 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HC g/bhphr 0.Diff g/bhp.Diff g/bhphr (%) hr (%) hr (%) hr 5.3 6.356 0.932 7.3559 0.7 447.369 8.1 6.78 7.676 7.0162 0.72 7.9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3.73 8.2 429.900 3.2 437.3533 2.0285 0.724 1.6298 1.051 11.933 4.73 2.274 7.5796 -16.297 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7.7% 11.Diff lb/bhp.3261 0.9 9.934 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.3283 0.6460 2.3304 0.827 0.3311 0.4332 * - Base Mode 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 bhp.792 3.309 11.3242 0.3 429.332 g/bhp.2848 0.970 5.244 0.0169 0.3 494.

000 6.9 601.7592 0.3898 0.263 0.577 5.810 5.2069 0.7717 1.3226 0.844 1.1 511.964 2.3519 0.643 1.815 2.8% * * * CO2 CO NOx Diff (%) * NOx2 g/bhphr 1.3 532.2 501.4310 -6.0 593.625 1.0745 0.5 0.3850 0.294 1.653 -1.953 2.906 2.3% 0.2737 0.964 190.616 7.9 531.5 602.3 0.225 4.236 0.8894 0.850 1.4808 0.750 1.4126 0.9275 1.544 * * * * 0.539 1.775 5.2419 0.3404 0.806 1.2755 -7.3666 0.2 539.121 0.637 1.3387 1.3622 0.4 511.7 552.327 2.746 1.000 5.388 0.3853 1.4 549.490 1.114 0.5% 0.9 523.4536 0.3 -13.977 1.0 15690 514.0877 0.3780 0.167 0.2797 0.588 1.765 7.Diff lb/bhp(%) hr Base Mode hr Grad Ref 0 3.5406 0.068 1.806 0.523 1.671 1.3831 0.989 3.866 1.5 518.5% 0.955 175.3382 0.009 1.8966 1.3746 0.3639 0.385 1.835 1.4 17070 525.7 602.823 2.6 495.225 4.781 1.5020 0.1 546.415 3.805 0.2 480.4630 0.195 0.359 3.619 1.44 0.8% 16.3478 0.9 699.5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.8762 * 0.1% * * * 1.4 487.1% 0.9830 0.3478 0.302 3.153 1.761 135.2967 0.6% 0.0 0.769 156.2189 -9.0% 1.8 17040 524.257 1.4087 0.117 0.9% 0.0693 0.6 495.555 1.3679 0.341 2.0801 0.2026 * 0.5% 151.7848 1.038 1.4639 99.637 1.5% 160.4 524.210 1.108 -3.550 3.7607 0.11 1.Diff g/bhpg/bhphr (%) hr Diff (%) hr 525.3863 0.3312 1.3804 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.901 * * * 0.801 -0.170 2.6 539.0731 0.8 -15.2803 * 1.3499 0.3 487.091 3.Table 7-16 February 2007 SET Results for the 2004 Cummins ISM 370 Work Additive / Condition BSFC Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * 5.156 4.030 1.3 534.614 3.167 0.03 -18.3 0.5238 78.788 1.2615 0.844 1.000 6.303 1.008 1.602 1.8513 0.125 0.3726 0.982 2.985 - CP 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12ml/gal ODA CP 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 81.514 1.3615 0.584 7.117 2.805 2.427 3.388 0.109 Diff (%) * * * TPM g/bhphr 0.1 485.741 0.812 2.388 0.577 1.5 0.983 Diff (%) * HC g/bhphr 0.3893 g/bhp.0412 0.170 1.154 1.252 0.000 0.5544 0.6% 2.610 * * 0.788 7.4158 0.574 5.218 * * * * * * * * * * 0.2866 0.166 0.212 0.5 534.2% 0.108 17.526 * * * * 0.482 1.3832 0.109 19.790 7.2 520.0850 -3.3506 0.535 1.3581 0.675 1.3616 0.3889 0.2651 -7.8858 1.0865 0.648 -1.092 * -8.6 601.0762 0.3810 0.7 0.0735 0.8 592.0399 0.9% 139 .7813 -8.1% 0.164 0.3898 0.279 1.615 7.0702 * * * 2.776 2.270 0.976 2.3% 0.0908 0.789 1.0420 0.530 1.6 531.4 550.3751 0.4249 * 1.2 534.4071 0.2434 0.3227 0.519 5.7 0.573 1.0779 0.383 2.5% 0.364 1.355 0.7% 1.112 0.2889 0.825 1.0979 0.681 1.6389 -16.3833 0.2625 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * bhp.2374 0.9413 1.368 3.061 3.4 699.5029 5.000 0.3849 0.666 1.0811 * * * 0.0953 * * * * * * * * * 0.6 691.824 1.761 1.000 0.172 0.2648 -3.4077 0.518 1.4028 0.4 507.852 1.286 3.861 1.

4835 5.048 -12.5105 5.680 1.418 3.980 Diff (%) * HC g/bhphr 0.385 0.0447 0.226 4.2% 155.359 3.2% 20.574 5.1 -10.567 1.1% 0.043 2.115 Diff (%) * * * 2.0750 * * * * 0.801 -0.68 -43.801 -0.4% 0.4262 0.3847 0.9% 0.5 532.7950 -6.4514 0.2955 0.3874 0.3846 0.2324 -3.8% 21.3 16890 525.2757 -7.2% 0.3% 2.378 0.110 * * 1.0785 * * * * 0.3642 0.4% * 2.2% 0.615 7.880 1.6% 0.371 -4.9 -8.4337 0.1% 0.018 0.4828 5.811 1.543 1.7% 0.112 1.384 2.34 -20.2% 170.6 -10.1940 * 0.4 603.2983 0.9% 0.1950 * * * 0.1% 0.708 * * * * 1.3569 0.684 1.116 0.926 2.008 3.0 534.021 3.2628 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Base Mode CP 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 bhp.2543 5.984 79.3 517.7% 1.577 1.108 10.000 0.8% 1.9% 1.0 -11.9 509.0 605.028 24ml/gal ODA CP 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 56.834 1.613 7.553 1.028 2.3618 0.868 2.Diff g/bhpg/bhphr (%) hr Diff (%) hr 535.264 0.4539 0.590 1.7% 0.552 1.695 1.3437 * 1.613 7.9 509.0734 * * * 0.122 0.679 * * * 3.091 1.5% * * 2.2668 -6.3% 0.578 5.171 0.800 0.612 1.1% 0.Diff lb/bhphr (%) hr 3.3628 0.0% 0.2510 - 60.225 4.795 2.5 601.2666 -2.789 7.2603 * * 3.3625 0.6 703.168 0.809 2.4043 * 1.157 1.215 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.1% 164.3793 0.9426 2.5 552.7 490.837 1.3832 * * * * * * * * * * * * 497.9% 2.0424 0.3996 * 1.8 -6.5 602.089 0.943 2.1% 0.5% * * * 0.3998 0.3887 g/bhp.420 3.934 2.8% * * * * * * * * 0.614 3.113 0.671 -0.6 532.022 2.0% 167.809 1.9% 0.1 705.000 6.5% 61.801 2.9626 2.105 7.5% 0.595 1.9751 2.843 1.3758 0.7 535.114 1.8% 2.414 0.9626 2.3458 0.7 549.3605 0.4 534.4476 * 1.6% 167.2766 0.996 * * * * 0.2% 174.3761 1.859 1.1% 0.5% 0.169 0.2% 0.832 1.175 0.552 0.3747 0.3% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CO2 CO NOx Diff (%) * NOx2 g/bhphr 1.1% 0.5 140 .0904 3.0 0.111 21.6% 0.9358 2.580 2.213 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.000 * * * 0.801 0.837 1.126 0.0793 0.9% 0.3654 0.4337 0.130 0.423 0.4469 0.052 1.2207 -8.2533 0.588 1.269 * * * * * * * * * * 0.031 3.216 * * * * * * * * * * 0.3766 0.3924 0.8 -11.6025 -20.794 7.417 3.000 0.555 1.062 -11.3906 0.2 0.6% 0.000 6.3% 534.619 3.4151 0.003 * 0.3% TPM g/bhphr 0.0786 * 0.103 4.256 0.805 -0.2829 0.906 1.362 3.0903 2.0 17020 524.2798 2.8030 * 0.6578 * * * * * * 0.6110 -19.2 518.165 0.5% 0.516 1.4 534.9 0.2707 -5.2 488.4 536.4309 -6.3451 0.575 5.619 3.7 705.8 0.842 1.2626 -4.2 489.7276 -14.7499 -11.1% 155.6 553.6% * * * 1.9484 2.0414 0.072 1.3 497.1% 2.565 * * * 3.3876 0.912 2.557 1.4254 -8.2% 0.0759 1.7% * * * * 0.6% * * * * * 0.7 517.8 534.361 3.6% * 4.2 602.7 603.800 0.3919 0.829 2.3546 1.019 * * * * 0.0782 6.6% 156.3595 0.000 0.876 1.000 1.368 2.178 0.0 496.860 1.150 1.789 7.1 16790 525.4127 * * 12ml/gal 2EHN CP 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4.823 2.6% 0.0792 * * * * 1.904 1.2930 * 1.3427 * 1.7% 19.2913 * 1.000 6.403 2.6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.3571 0.9% * * * * 0.111 6.616 1.7% 0.2 511.0780 0.010 * * * * * * * * 1.077 2.060 2.590 1.7 0.1% * * * * 0.150 1.09 -38.366 2.5% 1.Work Additive / Condition 6ml/gal 2EHN BSFC Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * 5.2 553.50 -39.103 1.227 4.128 0.8287 0.4 549.1 -12.015 2.5% 0.9195 0.2147 0.0936 6.3 -12.881 0.802 0.4205 0.7 546.1% * * * 15ml/gal DTBP CP 0 1* 16300 -4.3662 0.3731 -8.3% 0.849 0.3686 0.3729 0.502 1.841 1.

0792 54.1% 3.3676 0.418 3.3668 0.576 1.012 2.8 533.8% 2.3314 0.3638 0.1838 18.911 -7.103 Diff (%) * 0.4062 * * 1.562 1.0879 0.9 516.183 0.228 4.2803 0.867 2.371 0.5 541.6505 0.836 2.106 0.3762 0.9896 -40.3839 104.027 3.4204 0.578 1.7% * * * * * * * * * * TPM g/bhphr 0.4% 1.2763 * * * * * * * * * * * * 4.3891 0.000 6.0 602.2865 0.9719 -41.537 1.124 * 0.605 1.7423 -12.3747 0.0967 0.850 2.0806 0.8% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15690 -5.544 1.415 0.7203 0.653 1.418 3.3810 0.994 162.114 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.803 2.801 1.875 1.9474 2.340 2.7748 0.109 0.1 1.131 2.3522 0.364 3.169 0.664 1.046 166.6% 519.065 182.2825 * * * * * 0.3846 0.0547 0.585 5.6 510.4011 0.032 2.802 2.1% 0.7 532.9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.0456 * * - 167.121 0.000 0.8123 0.5000 0.803 1.054 -11.1% 0.9 607.2747 0.147 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9.257 3.9605 2.543 1.2% 0.7 505.044 2.4720 0.3811 0.0771 0.800 2.0785 0.607 3.5814 0.0452 0.777 1.3764 93.3382 1.792 7.0% 2.880 1.Diff g/bhpg/bhphr (%) hr Diff (%) hr 523.8 601.2718 0.9 514.033 1.625 3.4% 7.1% 0.589 1.000 1.9% 0.722 * 9.1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.6% 0.6 488.366 3.4910 0.108 0.4% 0.610 -0.094 1.9 16610 523.2116 -12.119 24.793 1.3504 0.4% 0.2308 0.801 5.575 5.894 1.3826 0.828 1.9 -4.845 0.573 5.3454 1.3817 7.000 5.546 1.2933 0.614 7.545 1.211 * * * 0.2959 493.2% 0.0776 * * * * * 0.5 533.641 1.9 544.781 0.1% * * * * * * * * 4.837 * * * * * 0.058 0.649 1.000 0.0982 -12.8 498.3812 0.131 1.1838 -11.2235 0.140 1.864 1.0781 -11.3603 0.886 1.128 0.9 604.9 530.6132 -19.4185 0.578 1.522 Diff (%) * * * * HC g/bhphr 0.414 3.3928 0.164 0.5 1.7856 0.1% 0.612 7.682 1.551 1.2% 2.3543 4.572 5.1989 0.9% 0.1 544.8 485.1 1.165 1.602 1.3549 0.1911 0.4 707.1 - 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Grad 6ml/gal ODA Cand 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.9 534.113 0.2649 -3.884 2.3% 7.2792 0.787 7.184 0.3909 0.277 0.127 0.5 601.5 0.889 1.3 509.3720 0.0 533.286 0.7 599.4292 0.181 0.3% 1.371 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.556 1.3% 0.0 547.4441 0.0811 0.828 1.822 0.228 4.0814 0.561 1.635 1.3614 g/bhp.839 1.6% * * * * * NOx2 g/bhphr 0.2% 0.5% 0.3731 -4.028 2.8 2.624 1.3737 0.978 3.9 698.010 176.8% 1.900 2.418 3.000 * * * * 0.3522 0.0 703.4361 0.013 2.3845 0.3791 0.0470 -14.Work Additive / Condition BSFC Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CO2 CO NOx Diff (%) * * * * * * 3.225 4.120 23.7 546.7 494.150 1.5 555.0826 0.18 0.3824 0.839 3.8 528.5001 0.126 0.38 5.801 -0.3224 * 1.3% * * * * * * 527.077 1.5% * 5.4815 5.3588 0.8 0.2% * 3.0% 0.795 0.4376 0.601 1.999 1.180 * * * * * * * * * B20 Soy CP 0 1* 2 3 4 0.863 2.810 5.9 -3.669 -0.795 7.366 3.6 518.4309 -6.2% 0.3% 0.3820 0.918 2.328 2.405 0.1754 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * - Base Mode 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Grad Cand bhp.052 1.2% 70.1 * 0.0725 1.847 1.102 -6.095 1.619 3.8 1.4 488.Diff lb/bhphr (%) hr 6.377 0.5% 2.121 186.707 141 .3600 0.2927 0.6% * * 2.5% 0.1 0.599 0.843 2.6838 106.5 492.836 1.0918 -5.9 536.3845 0.014 1.1992 0.3310 0.379 2.4 551.330 2.9 16550 508.070 2.2880 0.4003 0.0789 * 0.388 2.

000 5.4% 6.0756 * 0.3729 0.142 7.198 * * 0.123 1.9% 0.7% * 7.0% 3.2% 17.141 8.136 -18.0 708.8% 161.3570 0.7% 0.0% 0.9% * 1.3% 85.8 537.4334 0.5 517.746 1.4 550.2772 * 1.953 1.2% * * * 0.3% 6.Diff lb/bhphr (%) hr 3.6 0.3803 * B20 Mineral CP 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.810 1.138 1.139 * 0.4% 0.4524 0.400 2.8% 6.915 0.7% 0.230 4.0 496.113 0.584 5.1% * 0.3529 0.7 534.0839 -14.878 1.4% 0.347 -10.9% 8.4266 0.228 4.8% 6.4% 0.1% 1.137 -18.8% 6.729 0.642 1.3853 * 3.03236 0.0% 7.860 1.795 -1.0954 -14.4 16810 526.813 1.8% 173.3 552.000 5.3757 0.3756 0.5506 0.5% 2.785 0.5% * 6.3834 0.9% 533.709 * * * * 1.3632 0.902 9.113 1.0 -6.839 1.3% 0.3834 0.7% 0.2 0.4747 0.8% 0.2609 -4.695 0.996 1.368 3.241 0.844 1.788 * 0.8% 2.4 0.0 550.837 1.030 2.0613 -16.1% 536.2995 -11.750 0.3% 1.1% 519.967 2.2 536.4089 13.1% 516.6160 0.7664 -10.2887 * * 1.0 2.5% 7.6% 1.1847 -23.0752 * 7.4% 16.8 16480 526.672 0.613 * * * g/bhp.7686 -9.0 0.6 -10.790 7.5% * * 0.4230 0.1% 0.106 -12.6% 2.4% 179.762 1.0408 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15830 -7.028 2.1921 -20.931 1.2730 * 1.839 * * * * * * * * 0.681 0.104 -14.0902 -7.9 0.7 8.342 -12.2% 0.9% 0.925 2.1809 * * - 78.0679 -13.9% 0.917 2.2703 * * 1.422 2.8 536.143 1.5469 5.83 -13.3792 5.616 7.1% 165.413 3.6% 2.0717 * * 0.125 -0.3783 -7.1% * * 1.3904 0.606 3.808 -0.4% 2.795 7.8% 0.7 535.4% 8.8% 8.5% 0.3957 7.0874 -10.163 2.1686 * * * 1.471 1.794 0.712 1.7% 182.944 1.4322 0.099 -0.3950 0.0830 -8.784 -1.3741 1.429 2.124 * 0.2526 -12.0 509.164 1.4788 17.4579 0.605 3.74 -36.3% 0.3928 0.9% 6.3817 1.963 1.6538 * 1.569 5.0% 0.945 3.157 * 9.3% * 0.3628 -5.707 0.5% 1.4% 0.0% 1.9 0.1% 0.7 490.4465 -3.567 -0.3998 0.2543 -12.8 604.0959 -12.6% 0.2480 -11.3745 0.1 0.4% 18.364 3.924 2.148 -11.229 8.227 4.0722 * 0.007 2.7 536.5% 0.3566 1.677 * * * * 0.085 Diff (%) HC g/bhphr Diff (%) TPM g/bhphr Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Base Mode 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 bhp.6 606.7% * 1.3% * 8.0814 -16.8% 0.6826 * 0.5 492.7959 -6.692 1.9 -3.Diff g/bhpg/bhphr (%) hr Diff (%) hr * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.4 0.1% 7.0632 -11.371 3.1664 36.2721 0.6 708.4% 7.2891 * * 1.0668 -9.2606 -9.0 552.1% 0.044 2.2 546.712 1.0746 * 9.784 0.150 -10.900 * * * * 0.168 1.7% 1.661 1.6% 0.3703 * * * * 6.0391 0.9% * * * * * * * * 4.8% 0.0% 0.946 2.5738 -15.2% 7.4 * 0.648 1.3957 * * * * * * 511.4% 0.0763 -13.5 -4.108 8.4% * * * 7.000 0.5% 0.6 607.7% 9.4 549.2% 6.3 509.0% 0.636 1.751 1.6% * * NOx2 g/bhphr 1.1% 0.147 -12.781 1.610 -0.479 0.0% * 1.809 -0.7 489.806 0.6% 0.5406 5.349 -10.991 2.391 * 0.3745 * * B20 Cottonseed CP 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 * 0.6% 0.1% 0.Work Additive / Condition BSFC Diff (%) CO2 CO NOx Diff (%) 8.6 535.1% 0.21 -21.5% 1.974 2.925 2.7% * * * * * * * * 497.802 -0.9% 1.7% 0.0925 -17.1811 -12.0702 * 6.6% 8.3039 -10.1 706.035 * 0.5% * 2.0% 1.7% 157.4022 * * 509.4% * 9.3053 -9.912 1.1964 -18.080 1.6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.990 1.3% 0.0938 -8.802 0.7 -6.5 -5.0% 524.3554 0.3584 * 10ml/gal DTBP B20 Soy 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 65.101 -7.0698 -10.956 3.9% 1.5% 0.000 0.853 1.7 519.4% * 7.614 * * * * 0.975 2.5% 9.5750 0.6% 2.9% 0.6 605.753 0.128 2.229 * * 7.477 0.3784 0.423 3.403 3.5% 0.6% 1.3706 0.8% 2.2790 * 1.3% 550.886 2.178 2.3668 0.889 1.000 5.054 * 1.0% 0.9% 6.0382 -16.1% 0.4792 3.196 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.5566 5.791 1.103 * 2.0% 1.1% 0.5% 7.108 -10.6% * 0.2577 -5.3939 5.2437 -6.8 606.228 4.101 9.432 142 .145 -13.3791 -6.6% 0.4% * 7.5% 0.6489 -14.696 0.8% 9.0978 -10.4 9.610 3.161 -0.0723 -17.968 1.9% * * * * 497.114 9.168 10.1850 -10.5% 0.0 0.1% 8.4049 * * * * 606.0% 0.

141 -6.420 -70.3 470.549 1.4458 0.1960 0.2708 0.3537 1.427 4.760 4.2 1.5 514.8615 -79.3% 548.151 1.3288 0.939 0.Work Additive / Condition BSFC Diff (%) 9.101 0.0907 0.0697 0.849 -59.3604 0.2808 54.8% 2.6231 0.586 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.7 539.602 1.197 -74.671 1.3915 1.867 1.9 552.127 0.1336 0.288 0.1% 0.3947 0.6% * * 604.4570 0.3075 0.4 0.1% 9.897 2.408 3.4480 0.618 3.401 -46.0 4.5% 0.1 7.810 5.2 -46.0% 542.569 5.0% 159.808 5.2% 0.Diff g/bhpg/bhphr (%) hr Diff (%) hr 493.000 5.191 1.797 7.835 1.000 0.3541 0.0665 -27.6 8.516 -68.176 -11.8 608.1712 0.3856 0.3419 0.6% 0.0446 0.103 * 0.798 7.0762 -20.101 0.363 5.6% 0.583 5.2 * * * * * * * * * * * 0.0% 2.6% 1.112 25.8 5.146 1.478 4.7089 -10.762 4.585 5.676 1.3% 1.8636 0.1986 59.6% 0.227 4.2 457.4 537.3767 0.799 7.726 4.2789 0.529 295.029 4.5 493.536 1.3086 1.825 -59.2311 0.4% 2.3659 0.368 -43.173 0.2% 0.118 0.0403 -48.3767 0.1926 * 2.3140 51.0868 0.3% * * 9.9 3.535 -67.0825 -18.2 554.908 2.608 1.144 1.5 709.7 708.3 -47.652 4.3480 0.3555 0.3429 0.2379 0.0916 -9.190 1.1242 Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - Base Mode 8 9 10 11 12 13 bhp.6 525.3% 1.8% 1.8 497.4423 0.3283 0.718 4.559 1.2% 0.873 1.832 1.000 6.112 -11.164 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - CP 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - Grad Ref w/o EGR 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - Grad Ref w/ EGR 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 525.Diff lb/bhphr (%) hr 7.875 -2.3068 129.263 4.3% * CO2 CO NOx Diff (%) * * NOx2 g/bhphr 2.0710 0.9119 523.9% 16240 -4.112 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% 507.5 517.0955 0.435 4.360 3.355 3.4403 0.367 3.3787 0.838 0.4545 0.607 3.956 1.1 0.4003 10.7 505.3729 0.3% 7.517 279.422 3.258 4.000 0.0 0.177 1.673 1.6735 52.1629 0.2162 0.6% 0.2253 0.952 2.5349 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - 1.868 1.148 0.970 3.842 1.2141 25.450 3.4 1.089 1.326 -6.4% * 9.8440 -80.701 1.5 * 0.614 7.0 610.3281 0.5 500.851 -58.727 4.4% 480.390 -70.6% 70.4613 64.8 16690 519.787 0.231 4.422 0.225 4.8 624.217 1.8387 0.914 4.540 1.4765 0.3893 0.7 483.785 2.4007 0.877 -57.4 539.219 Diff (%) * * * TPM g/bhphr 0.587 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - 0.0676 2.6% 19.07 0.6% 1.3914 0.700 0.0 554.1 500.784 2.0784 0.877 -1.7% 0.100 0.8% * 7.3589 0.091 -0.608 3.3% 503.4112 0.355 -44.111 0.29 30.108 -15.807 5.385 2.3% 1.5% 0.000 6.4352 0.684 1.3580 0.418 3.126 1.3304 0.198 0.968 2.6% 486.2839 0.163 4.7027 0.4 10.084 187.835 0.475 4.3538 0.3758 0.902 Diff (%) * * HC g/bhphr 0.7 495.2075 0.3219 39.66 0.388 -46.4% 0.426 2.0% 0.6 489.3 17030 478.353 5.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1 8.2% 0.3526 0.190 4.2% 0.963 1.9% 2.312 0.7 0.4% 0.0 555.1702 0.9% 0.0912 0.0746 0.8% 0.4 4.5 468.5464 g/bhp.0% 146.3772 99.5351 0.5 521.9% 1.469 3.000 0.899 4.7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.3852 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.023 0.842 1.248 -73.646 4.3582 143 .702 4.8 608.3604 0.220 4.2559 0.128 22.613 7.614 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.2534 48.5% 0.8% 1.118 -0.5% 0.3529 0.0% 0.4568 0.3563 0.0716 0.230 4.074 173.4366 0.061 4.397 0.172 0.

658 -61.797 -0.000 0.6 542.8882 0.2214 6.688 1.515 * * * * 0.0 499.0385 * * - 59.7917 -4.709 * * * * 4.674 4.1151 * * - 263.8% 0.515 * * * 0.114 -10.753 4.0941 -6.232 2.2% 1.152 -9.2% 0.2312 0.770 1.451 3.6% 0.113 591.0% 1.8% 0.840 1.5 472.368 1.150 0.1 5.834 0.5318 * .8% * * * 1.1% 1.5 629.805 -0.219 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.8758 * * * * * 4.4135 0.244 * * * 7.3813 0.2% 0.633 1.743 1.3 -6.742 -0.617 * * * * * * * 4.202 4.2346 0.414 3.2 469.7% 1.3309 0.3505 1.0728 0.1 -10.000 5.7% 1.9% 0.7% 1.6563 * * * * * * 0.187 0.7% 1.737 -62.9 594.0657 * * * * 0.268 7.685 4.1% 0.156 -10.9 538.2% 0.784 0.0% 1.3912 0.6 525.723 -62.4925 5.367 1.3503 0.7 521.8% 247.520 4.1% 0.289 0.363 3.3593 0.496 4.4163 526.902 2.6% * 9.513 4.140 -1.8% 0.616 * * 0.3914 0.3863 1.919 2.611 3.708 -58.2% 0.4034 0.108 * 0.060 4.8 4.7% 0.8% 136.584 5.7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.8% 0.4% 0.381 1.201 4.125 * * 0.671 4.611 * * * * * * * * * 0.2 490.534 1.8 -7.4% 0.4 10.6 16960 482.271 2.02 0.4789 5.1% * * * * 0.7% 16ml/gal ODA Grad Ref w/o EGR 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.5 501.548 1.913 -63.0% 0.3757 0.3135 0.0739 -18.230 4.6% 0.1751 0.614 7.5% 0.6 483.5218 -2.The Base Fuel Used for Percent Differences * No Significant Difference Mode 1* is Idle with units of lbs/hr and g/hr 144 .1 590.3594 0.767 1.412 3.0690 0.9 525.799 7.688 1.7% 0.7 508.0859 -6.5114 5.0911 0.2643 4.8% 0.6 484.3% 0.0957 -5.500 4.1680 0.8 15650 516.8267 32.3904 0.4226 0.344 5.4224 g/bhp.3128 -31.972 1.787 * 0.3510 0.386 -8.653 -59.2828 49.2245 0.3 12.864 -63.4686 0.0 499.8 486.4231 0.Work Additive / Condition BSFC Diff (%) * 7.3319 0.708 1.940 1.1% 0.3739 1.5% 1.8% 537.4 461.9% 0.3661 0.3195 0.0 -11.0% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CO2 CO NOx Diff (%) NOx2 g/bhphr Diff (%) HC g/bhphr Diff (%) * TPM g/bhphr Diff (%) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Base Mode 9 10 11 12 13 Grad Ref w/ EGR bhp.6% 18.3778 67.3502 0.864 * 1.3593 0.3589 0.715 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.722 -62.3780 0.8999 1.000 0.3% 0.0987 -8.4% 4.744 -62.3% * * * 0.5% 0.5370 525.8 502.377 1.437 1.0912 0.214 4.213 4.1 508.0693 * * * * 1.5% 0.234 4.092 -0.355 3.4533 * * 1.119 -6.6% 0.179 36.0% 3.110 0.0767 -7.48 -15.9% 0.762 4.0% 1.6279 0.159 * * 0.3862 0.3447 0.217 4.4020 0.1707 * -9.947 3.337 5.168 1.0947 -15.9% 0.132 1.2028 16.612 3.4404 -3.045 4.774 4.834 1.2% 0.Diff lb/bhphr (%) hr 1.692 4.3545 0.4 0.1393 4.0 691.381 -9.8867 1.5% 687.2% 1.4 8.0862 * * * * * 0.6% 0.194 4.800 7.4% 0.3093 * * * 1.000 6.815 0.1 559.3057 0.580 5.6 6.851 * * * 16ml/gal ODA 0 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.4% 146.Diff g/bhpg/bhphr (%) hr Diff (%) hr 591.4% 0.670 -61.415 3.460 1.340 -10.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful