Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 886e893

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Evaluating high volume blends of vegetable oil in micro-gas turbine

engines
A. Hoxie a, *, M. Anderson b, c
a
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Minnesota Duluth, 1305 Ordean Ct., Duluth, MN 55812, USA
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, 111 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Milwaukee School of Engineering, 1025 N Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Vegetable oil was examined to determine if high volume blends with No. 2 ultra-low-sulfur diesel could
Received 29 May 2015 be successfully utilized in micro gas turbine engines. Property data, and atomization and micro-gas
Received in revised form turbine engine studies were examined for blends of up to 75% by volume soybean oil with No. 2
12 September 2016
ultra-low-sulfur-diesel (ULSD). Kay's and Grunberg-Nissan mixing rules were found to predict specific
Accepted 23 September 2016
gravity and viscosity, respectively, based on composition to a high level of accuracy. For Kay's mixing rule
the AADs were below 1%, while AADs for the Grunberg-Nissan equation stayed under 4%. Atomization
tests showed an increase in cone angle of 18
for a 30-degree nozzle with a mixture of 50% soybean oil/
Keywords:
Vegetable oil
ULSD over that of pure soybean oil. The pour point for blends of V50 and V75 were found to meet the
Diesel ASTM D2880-13b Fuel Oil Specifications for gas turbine engines. For a V50 blend the spray angle was
Biofuel increased by 50% over that of pure SBO. The micro-gas turbine engine performed well for fuel blends up
Micro-gas turbine engine to 75% vegetable oil, with comparable engine efficiencies to that of ULSD. Engine efficiency and thrust
Atomization increase with increasing RPM. The studies indicate that high volume blends of straight vegetable oil with
ULSD are suitable in micro-gas turbine engines.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Alternative fuel mixtures have focused primarily on biodiesel

As concern continues over the effects of carbon dioxide released
into the atmosphere and the resulting changes to the climate,
research into the efficient use of biomass-based fuels is vital. Micro
gas turbine engines offer a conducive environment for researching
the effective use of bio-oils in combustion applications; they pro-
vide a constant flow-through combustion environment that can
handle higher viscosity, lower volatility fuels needing longer re-
action times. In this study, fuel properties, atomization and com-
bustion characteristics were conducted to evaluate whether
refined, bleached and deodorized (RBD) soybean oil (SBO) could be
used reliably in micro gas turbine engines. Selection of RBD SBO as
the primary bio-oil to be tested was based on its low metal, ash and
carbon residue content. The initial ignition tests and comparison of
properties of RBD SBO to diesel fuel, and to ASTM specifications,
indicated a need to modify the properties of the SBO to allow it to
burn in the gas turbine engine.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahoxie@d.umn.edu (A. Hoxie).
blends with diesel where the biodiesel is made from various
feedstock. Research has focused on identifying fuel blend proper-
ties as well as performance data from compression ignition engine
tests [1e11] One such study by Alptekin et al. focused on biodiesel-
diesel property data of four edible feedstocks for use in compres-
sion ignition engines. They found the properties of blends up to 20%
by volume of biodiesel were close to those of pure diesel [12].
Studies focused on alternative fuel blends for use in gas turbine
engines are more limited in numbers and also primarily focus on
biodiesel/diesel blends [13,14]. Sequera et al. examined the com-
bustion performance of diesel, biodiesel, emulsified bio-oil and
diesel/biodiesel blends on a swirl-stabilized burner similar to those
in a gas turbine combustor [15]. They document low emissions and
blue flames indicative of premixed combustion for all fuels tested.
In a later study Panchasara et al. extended testing in the same fa-
cility to include soybean oil/diesel blends, finding slightly higher
CO levels as compared to pure diesel [16]. A couple of recent studies
have emerged that report gas turbine engine data and fuel prop-
erties of bio-oil mixtures with diesel or alcohols, however none of
these studies are of soybean based vegetable oil or extend testing to
high volumes e above 50% e of vegetable oil [17e20].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.09.054
0960-1481/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Hoxie, M. Anderson / Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 886e893
Fig. 1. Engine cut-away of the SR-30.
Fig. 2. Specific gravity dependence on SBO for multiple temperatures.
Table 1
% AAD values for Kay's Mixing Rule.
Temperature (
C)
20
40
60
80
100
In this study, two methods were explored to augment RBD SBO
fuel properties for successful use in a 30 kW micro gas turbine
engine. The methods chosen were preheating and mixing with a
secondary fuel. Heating reduces fuel viscosity leading to increased
atomization and thus more complete combustion. Blending with a
second fuel was also chosen as a strategy to aid ignition and flame
sustainability. Number 2, ultra-low-sulfur-diesel (ULSD) was cho-
sen as the primary fuel due to its familiarity with gas turbine engine
operators and therefore its ease of use. ULSD exhibits properties
suitable for gas turbine engines such as adequate flash point, vis-
cosity and energy content.
This paper presents pertinent property data for the fuel mix-
tures, atomization characteristics and data from a micro gas turbine
engine. Property tests include specific gravity, viscosity, and higher
heating value along with cloud, cold filter plugging and pour point
data. The pure components were tested as well as blends of 25, 50
and 75% composition by volume of SBO. The mixtures are referred
to as V100, V75, V50, V25, V0 where the number represents the
887
Table 2
Regression coefficients, R2, and AAD values for Kay's Mixing Rule.
Fuel blend A B R2 % AAD
V100 0.0005 0.929 0.994 0.044
V75 0.0005 0.911 0.996 0.108
V50 0.0005 0.891 0.995 0.099
V25 0.0005 0.871 0.996 0.03
V0 0.0005 0.853 0.996 0.227
composition of SBO in the mixture.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Property measurements
All property tests were performed in triplicate for accuracy.
Values are reported as averages with calculated error bars. Tests
were conducted at a barometric pressure of 0.974 atm and at the
following temperatures when applicable: 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80
and 100
Celsius. A Cannon CT-1000 constant temperature water
bath maintained temperatures to within 0.01
C. Specific gravity
and viscosity measurements were carried out in accordance with
ASTM D1298 and ASTM D445, respectively [21,22]. Higher heating
values were determined using an IKA C 200 automated bomb
calorimeter, following ASTM D240 [23]. A certified Cannon AFP-102
in conjunction with a coolant circulator was used to measure the
cold filter plugging point following ASTM D6371 [24]. Pour point
and cloud point were measured according to ASTM D6749 and
D2500 respectively using a Cannon MPC-1021 certified mini-pour/
cloud point tester [25,26]. Flash point of the pure fuels and fuel
blends were determined by the Agriculture Utilization Research
Institute (AURI) using a Stanhope-Seta Mulitflash with a Pensky-
Martens closed cup module model 34100-2.
2.2. Atomization studies
Atomization studies explored spray breakup characteristics of
ULSD, and SBO. A 30-degree Hago nozzle was used to examine the
AAD (%) affects of fuel blend on atomization. Non-reacting flow conditions e
namely characteristics of the fuel sprays e were studied using a
0.011
0.011
pulsed laser formed into a sheet and passing through the center
0.001 plane of the fuel spray. The nanosecond-scale pulse duration of the
0.012 laser allowed for both instantaneous and time-averaged charac-
0.156 teristics of the sprays to be evaluated.
2.3. Engine studies
The SR-30 is shown in Fig. 1. The engine is outfitted with stag-
nation thermocouples and static and stagnation pressure sensors at
each stage of the engine: upon entering the engine (1), down-
stream of the compressor (2), downstream of the combustion can
(3), downstream of the axial turbine (4), and at the engine exhaust
(5), as shown in Fig. 1. The sensors allow for a complete thermal and
performance analysis of the engine. Air enters the engine through a
nozzle, designed to create uniform airflow into the single stage
radial compressor. The air is compressed to two times atmosphere
before entering the reverse flow annular combustion can. A single
stage axial turbine follows the combustion can, and leads to a
thrust-producing nozzle. The fuel delivery system on the SR-30 was
modified to transition between fuels while the engine is running. A
switching station was developed to start the engine on ULSD and
then switch to the fuel blend once the engine had stabilized. The
gas turbine was switched back to ULSD prior to shutdown to flush
the system of SBO thus preventing gumming in the fuel lines. After
888 A. Hoxie, M. Anderson / Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 886e893

Fig. 3. Viscosity dependence on temperature for SBO/ULSD fuel blends. Fig. 4. Viscosity dependence on SBO composition for multiple temperatures.

Table 3 Table 4
Regression coefficients, R2, and AAD for viscosity temperature dependence. Flash point and cold flow properties of SBO/ULSD blends.

Fuel A B C R2 AAD (%) Fuel Flash point
C Pour point
C Cloud point
C Cold filter
plugging point
C
V100 6.742 3197 828.585 0.984 1.075
V75 1.524 80.939 454,800 0.985 0.015 V0 71 43 ± 1 23 ± 0.5 22 ± 0.5
V50 5.641 2469 0.181 0.987 1.018 V25 74 38 ± 2 16 ± 0.5 25 ± 1.5
V25 2.36 2731 780,300 0.972 0.263 V50 79 30 ± 1 12 ± 1 8 ± 3.5
V0 5.218 1939 0.783 0.982 2.755 V75 91 15 ± 0.5 7 ± 0.5 4 ± 1.5
V100 217 10 ± 2 0 ± 1.5 2 ± 0.5

the engine was started and stabilized at an RPM chosen by the

operator, the switching station could be used to either run both the
rM ¼ AðTÞ þ B (2)
primary ULSD and the test fuel together or switch completely to the
where rM is the relative density of the mixture, A and B are
test fuel. The return line was also modified to return to the ULSD or
regression coefficients, and T is the temperature (
C). A line was fit
test fuel supply tank or a mixed return tank.
to the experimental data using linear regression. The correspond-
ing R2 values, % average absolute deviation (AAD) and regression
coefficients are provided in Table 2. The linear trend is validated by
the high R2 values and low AAD percentages.
3. Experimental results

3.1.2. Kinematic viscosity

3.1. Property data
As anticipated, the kinematic viscosity of the pure fuels and fuel
3.1.1. Specific gravity
Specific gravity was measured for the pure fuel as well as fuel
blends over a range of temperatures. A plot of specific gravity
versus composition for four temperatures, 20, 40, 80 and 100
C, is
shown in Fig. 2. The specific gravity is linearly dependent on fuel
blend composition. Kay's mixing rule is the primary predictive
equation used to determine specific gravity as a function of
composition [27]. The rule for binary mixtures and in the form of
arithmetic volume averages is shown in Eq. (1).

4m ¼ VV ,4V þ VD ,4D (1)

where the subscripts, V and D, stand for SBO and ULSD respectively.
The mixture property of interest, in this case specific gravity is
indicated by, 4m . AADs obtained using Kay's mixing rule for esti-
mating specific gravity of SBO-ULSD mixtures are shown in Table 1.
The estimated values fall within the ±0.003 error region.
Specific gravity versus temperature for the pure fuels and RBD
SBO-ULSD mixtures was also found to be linear. The predictive
formula for specific gravity as a function of temperature follow the
form shown in Eq. (2): Fig. 5. HHV of SBO/ULSD blends.
 A. Hoxie, M. Anderson / Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 886e893
Fig. 6. Time integrated laser-sheet images of fuel sprays under comparable delivery conditions: a) diesel; b) soybean oil.
Fig. 7. Oh-Re plot showing different atomization regimes. The atomization of SBO is
shown to improve by increasing fuel temperature, causing it to move down and to the
right on the Oh-Re plot.
blends varied exponentially with temperature. As shown in Fig. 3,
the viscosity dependence on temperature decreases with
decreasing SBO composition. The kinematic viscosity-temperature
relationship is well represented by the Andrade equation as
shown in Eq. (3).


AþTBþ C2
h¼e
T
(3)
where h is the kinematic viscosity (cSt), T is the absolute temper-
ature (K) and A, B, and C are regression coefficients. A, B and C are
given in Table 3 for each mixture using the experimental data. R2
values and AADs are also provided for each fuel blend. Fig. 3 shows
the Andrade equation plotted over the experimental data; the
equation shows a close fit to the experimental data. The high R2
values and low AADs, given in Table 3, confirm the kinematic vis-
cosity is well predicted using Eq. (3) with high accuracy. The
Grunberg-Nissan equation, as shown in Eq. (4), is a predictive
equation for kinematic viscosity based on the pure component's
viscosity relationship with temperature. Successful prediction with
this equation reduces the need for extensive experimental data of
the fuel mixtures. The Grunberg-Nissan equation is appropriate for
use with binary mixtures of non-aqueous liquid mixtures [27]. The
889
equation is:
X
n X
n X
n
ln mm ¼ xi ln mi þ xi xj Gij (4)
i¼1 i¼1 j¼1
where mm is the mean absolute viscosity of the blend, mi the abso-
lute viscosity of the pure ith component, xi and xj the mole fractions
of the ith and jth components, Gij the interaction parameter (Gij ¼ 0,
for i ¼ j), and n the number of components. For these mixtures the
two components have similar chemical structure, are miscible,
additive and highly non-polar, therefore the interaction parameter
Gij can be neglected. Rewriting Eq. (4) in terms of kinematic vis-
cosity, volume fraction and neglecting Gij, the Grunberg-Nissan
equation becomes:
ln hm ¼ VD ln hD þ VS ln hS (5)
where hm is the kinematic viscosity of the mixture, and V is the
volume fraction. The subscript D is for ULSD and S is for RBD SBO.
Kinematic viscosity versus fluid composition is presented at tem-
peratures of 20, 40, 80 and 100
C in Fig. 4 along with the Grunberg-
Nissan approximation curves. The AAD values between the
predictive formula and experimental data obtained were 4.54%,
5.10%, 4.38% and 4.72% corresponding to 20, 40, 80 and 100
C,
respectfully.
3.1.3. Flash point
Flash point of the pure fuels and fuel blends was measured by
AURI using a closed cup method. The results are given in Table 4.
The flash point drops off exponentially as RBD SBO content de-
creases. This suggests that simple mixing with a more volatile fuel
should significantly impact the ignition characteristics of SBO.
3.1.4. Higher heating value
Higher Heating Value (HHV) was measured in triplicate as a
function of composition. The experimental results are given in
Fig. 5. As is expected the HHV decreases linearly with decreasing
SBO content. The average overall uncertainty was found to be
±100 J/g and an AAD of 0.293%.
3.1.5. Cold flow properties
Cold flow properties are important for determining the ability to
utilize the fuel blends throughout the year, including cold winter
months. The pour point, cloud point and cold filter plugging point
890 A. Hoxie, M. Anderson / Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 886e893

Fig. 8. Atomization of SBO with increasing ULSD content.

Fig. 9. Temperature traces of exhaust.

were measured and the results are shown in Table 4. The cold filter
plugging point of the pure SBO is referenced from literature [28].
Each of the cold flow properties varies nearly linearly with percent
SBO content. Fuel blends up to V75 meet the ASTM D2880-13b
Grade No. 2-GT fuel standard for pour point, while blends up to
V50 meet the Grade No. 1-GT standard [29].
3.2. Atomization-flow visualization
3.2.1. Pure fuels
Rapid atomization is a necessary precursor for efficient com-
bustion in a gas turbine engine. The atomization of pure RBD SBO
was investigated; methods for improving atomization, such as
elevating the fuel temperature, increasing fuel pressure, and mix-
ing with a less viscous fuel were examined. The images in Fig. 6
show the atomization behavior of both pure ULSD and RBD SBO
at room temperature. Fuel was supplied to the nozzle at nominally
identical conditions. The images document qualitatively the chal-
lenges of using biomass-derived fuels. ULSD produces a uniform
droplet distribution, as seen in Fig. 6a. This is the type of atomi-
zation needed for efficient combustion. In contrast RBD SBO re-
mains a liquid column under the same conditions; a situation that
is clearly unsatisfactory for efficient fuel-air mixing and combus-
tion. A comparison of fuel properties between ULSD and SBO in-
dicates nearly constant densities (4% higher for SBO) and
comparable surface tensions (23% higher for soy), but considerable
differences in viscosity where the dynamic viscosity of SBO is 25-
times greater than that of ULSD.
The dynamic effect of increased viscosity is to significantly
reduce the Reynolds number, Re, of the SBO jet, leaving the nozzle,

Table 5
SR-30 engine parameters and efficiency for SBO-ULSD blends as compared to pure ULSD.

Fuel type Mass flow rate air (kg/s) Mass flow rate fuel (kg/s) Air/fuel ratio Enthalpy flux (kW) Kinetic power (kW) Engine efficiency (%)

ULSD 0.267 0.00428 62.36 150 9.7 59%

V25 0.257 0.00403 63.73 153 9.3 65%
V50 0.258 0.00393 65.72 152 9.3 67%
 A. Hoxie, M. Anderson / Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 886e893
Fig. 10. Engine efficiency for increasing RPM for V25 as compared to ULSD.
relative to that of ULSD. In general, atomization of a liquid spray is
governed by its fluid properties, density, viscosity and surface
tension as well as the inertial forces created by the delivery setup.
Two non-dimensional numbers describe the development of jet-
breakup. The Ohnesorge number, Oh, is a ratio of the viscous to
surface tension and the Reynolds number is the ratio of inertial to
viscous forces. Fig. 7, provides the different breakup regimes
possible for a liquid jet as described by the governing parameters,
originally from Lefebvre, together with the experimental data from
this study [30]. The ULSD spray shown in Fig. 6a is shown in Fig. 7 as
an inset with the dark circle marking its position on the Oh-Re plot.
The spray pictures in Fig. 7 are at fuel pressures that replicate those
typical in the SR-30 microturbine and combustion test rig, leading
to an Oh z 0.1 and Re z 10,000 for ULSD fuel. At these conditions
the ULSD readily breaks up into small droplets at the nozzle exit,
thus experiencing rapid atomization. In general moving toward the
lower-left, on the Oh-Re plot, inhibits atomization, while moving to
the upper right promotes atomization.
For the more viscous SBO, at room temperature, the Reynolds
number is much smaller, on the order of 10. This prevents breakup
and leads to a smooth column of fuel issuing from the nozzle. As the
SBO is heated the viscosity decreases moving the fuel into a new
atomization regime. At an elevated temperature of 60
C, a 40-
degree increase, the Reynolds number increases by two orders of
magnitude and the Ohnesorge number drops by one order of
magnitude. The result is a shift into a more advantageous breakup
regime. The two light circles, in Fig. 7, represent measurements
made using SBO, where moving to the lower right on the figure was
achieved by preheating the SBO. Preheating effectively reduces the
oil viscosity and increases the Reynolds number. The accompanying
picture shows the liquid column widens and waves form on its
surface, which eventually leads to a break down to droplets.
3.2.2. Blended fuels
Simple mixing was also investigated as a low cost, low energy
method for reducing viscosity. ULSD was chosen for blending due to
its familiarity and mainstream use. Mixing with ULSD fuel should
891
also have the added benefit of enhancing the ignition and combus-
tion characteristics of SBO. Blends ranging from pure SBO to pure
ULSD were examined with Hago precision nozzle similar to that
used in the SR-30 microturbine. Fig. 8 shows instantaneous images
of the spray for pure SBO, V100, along with 75% and 50% by volume
mixtures with ULSD. The fuel flow rate supplied to the nozzles was
kept constant, at 48 ml/min, for each case. The fuel pressure varied
from 380 to 550 kPa, in order to keep the flow rate constant. This
variation in pressure does not have a significant impact on the spray-
spreading angle. However, the fuel blend composition does have a
large impact on atomization. A significant change in atomization
characteristics is clearly seen in Fig. 8. Simple mixing increased the
cone angle by 16
for a 50/50 mixture over pure SBO.
3.3. Engine testing: the SR-30
Pure ULSD along with blends up to 75% SBO by volume were
tested in the SR-30 turbojet at an RPM of 78,000. The engine was
started on ULSD and then transitioned to a SBO/ULSD blend. The
ULSD flowrate was determined via a calibration of the specific
gravity and fuel pressure at the injector. The SBO flow rate was
determined gravimetrically by weighing the fuel tank before and
after the test run. All temperature and pressure measurements
were automated for real time data capture. At each stage of the
engine, temperature and pressure were captured at a rate of 2
samples per second. This allowed for monitoring the transient
start-up process as well as determining the onset of thermody-
namic equilibrium. A thermal analysis of engine performance for
both the straight ULSD and SBO/ULSD test runs was conducted. The
engine was analyzed burning pure ULSD as the baseline condition.
The engine ran smoothly with fuel blends up to 75% SBO by
volume. There was little visual or audible difference in engine
operation. During one of the tests at V75 the engine experienced a
flame out upon transition to a SBO/ULSD blend. This occurred
during the first test of V75, however subsequent transitions to V75
occurred smoothly and without incident.
A thermocouple and pitot probe was traversed across the
892 A. Hoxie, M. Anderson / Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 886e893

Fig. 11. Thrust and EGT versus engine RPM for V25 as compare to ULSD.

exhaust stream to measure thrust, kinetic energy and enthalpy flux
leaving the engine. Fig. 9, shows the temperature traces across the
exhaust stream for pure ULSD, V25, V50 and V75 at an RPM of
78,000. It can be seen in Fig. 9 that the average exhaust stream
temperature is similar for all the fuels tested. However, the SBO/
ULSD blends show more variation across the exhaust compared to
pure ULSD. This may be a result of the decreased atomization that
occurs with higher levels of SBO in the mixture as shown in this
paper. The variation in temperature across all the fuels tested is
partly due to the construction of the engine. The SR-30 was built as
an educational engine and as such was not designed for high effi-
ciency. Three struts exist in the nozzle section for support. These
struts likely interfere with the exhaust stream leading to increased
swirl and turbulence.
As mentioned, the SR-30 is a turbojet engine built for educa-
tional purposes. Its thermal efficiency is extremely low, generally
around only 4 or 5%. This is in large part due to the poor nozzle
design. As a result, the engine efficiencies reported here are based
on a total thermal analysis of the engine. Energy entering the en-
gine via the air and fuel intake was compared to the energy leaving
the engine via kinetic energy and enthalpy flux. The kinetic energy
and enthalpy flux was calculated based on temperature and pres-
sure measurements traversed across the exhaust gasses. As such
the efficiency represents combustion efficiency rather then a
 A. Hoxie, M. Anderson / Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 886e893
measure of the thrust producing capabilities of the turbojet. Table 5
provides the experimental parameters leading to the resulting ef-
ficiency at an RPM of 78,000 for each fuel tested. The efficiency of
the engine is shown to slightly increase with the SBO blends over
the baseline ULSD. However, based on the error estimates, the in-
crease does not appear to be significant.
Engine studies were also conducted for V25 at multiple RPMs
and performance parameters were compared to those of pure
ULSD. A clear trend can be seen in Fig. 10 for ULSD and V25. As the
engine RPM is increased the efficiency also increases. The exhaust
gas temperature (EGT) and Thrust, as shown in Fig. 11 also shows
comparable increases, between V25 and ULSD, with a corre-
sponding increase in RPM. At the lowest RPM tested the EGT for
V25 is somewhat higher than ULSD. This temperature is based on a
single point measurement and is within the variation that can be
seen in the temperature trace of the exhaust gas shown in Fig. 9.
Overall, the SBO/ULSD fuel blends preformed better then ex-
pected. The engine transitioned from running on ULSD to the fuel
blend with ease. The engine exhibited no problems with running
soy oil blends higher than expected based on the ignition studies.
The engine efficiency calculations are encouraging as they show
there was no obvious engine performance degradation with
increasing SBO content. The efficiencies suggest that there may
even be a slight advantage in engine performance with soy oil.
Ignition and atomization challenges are still present with running
pure soy oil in the gas turbine engine, however blending the SBO
with ULSD has been proven in this study to be a practical solution.
4. Conclusion
Soybean based vegetable oil blended with ULSD was studied to
determine if it could safely and successfully be introduced to a
micro gas turbine engine. Fuel properties were determined for
blends of 25, 50 and 75% by volume of refined, bleached and deo-
dorized soybean oil and No. 2 ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. Specific
gravity, viscosity, HHV, flash point and cold flow properties of
blends of SBO/ULSD were determined. Kay's and Grunberg's mixing
rules were fit to the experimental data. It was determined that
prediction of properties, using these mixing rules, can be deter-
mined with high accuracy. The pour point for blends of V50 and
V75 were found to meet the ASTM D2880-13b Fuel Oil Specifica-
tions for gas turbine engines. Methods to improve atomization
were evaluated, such as heating and simple mixing. Simple mixing
was determined to be an energy efficient method that provided the
best results. For a V50 blend the spray angle was increased by 50%
over that of pure SBO. Engine studies in a small micro-gas turbine
engine were carried out for blends of soybean oil/ULSD up to 75%
soybean oil by volume. The engine performed well for all fuel
blends tested with comparable engine efficiencies to that of ULSD.
Engine efficiency, EGT and Thrust all increase accordingly with
increasing RPM. The studies indicate that high volume blends of
straight vegetable oil with ULSD are achievable in micro-gas tur-
bine engines.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Initiative for Renewable Energy
and the Environment at the University of Minnesota's, Institute on
893
the Environment, for the partial financial support received for the
work described herein.
References
[1] P. Benjumea, J. Agudelo, A. Agudelo, Basic properties of palm oil bio-
dieselediesel blends, Fuel 87 (10) (Aug. 2008) 2069e2075.
[2] M.E. Tat, J.H. Van Gerpen, The kinematic viscosity of biodiesel and its blends
with diesel fuel, JAOCS 76 (12) (Jan. 1999) 1511e1513.
[3] M.E. Tat, J.H. Van Gerpen, The specific gravity of biodiesel and its blends with
diesel fuel, JAOCS 77 (Jan. 2000) 115e119.
[4] E. Alptekin, M. Canakci, Determination of the density and the viscosities of
biodieselediesel fuel blends, Renew. Energy 33 (12) (Dec. 2008) 2623e2630.
[5] C.C. Enweremadu, H.L. Rutto, J.T. Oladeji, Investigation of the relationship
between some basic flow properties of shea butter and their blends with
diesel fuel, Int. J. Phys. Sci. 6 (Feb. 2011) 758e767.
[6] K. Pramanik, Properties and use of jatropha curcas oil and diesel fuel blends in
compression ignition engine, Renew. Energy 28 (Sep. 2002) 239e248.
[7] X. Shi, X. Pang, Y. Mu, H. He, S. Shuai, J. Wang, H. Chen, R. Li, Emission
reduction potential of using ethanolebiodieselediesel fuel blend on a heavy-
duty diesel engine, Atmos. Environ. 40 (14) (May 2006) 2567e2574.
[8] M.N. Nabi, M.S. Akhter, M.M. Zaglul Shahadat, Improvement of engine emis-
sions with conventional diesel fuel and dieselebiodiesel blends, Bioresour.
Technol. 97 (3) (Feb. 2006) 372e378.
[9] P. Kwanchareon, A. Luengnaruemitchai, S. Jai-In, Solubility of a diesel-
ebiodieseleethanol blend, its fuel properties, and its emission characteristics
from diesel engine, Fuel 86 (7) (May 2007) 1053e1061.

Bereczky, Basic fuel properties of rapeseed oil-higher alcohols
[10] T. Laza, A.
blends, Fuel 90 (2) (Feb. 2011) 803e810.
[11] D. Altıparmak, A. Keskin, A. Koca, M. Gürü, Alternative fuel properties of tall
oil fatty acid methyl esterediesel fuel blends, Bioresour. Technol. 98 (2) (Jan.
2007) 241e246.
[12] E. Alptekin, M. Canakci, Characterization of the key fuel properties of methyl
esterediesel fuel blends, Fuel 88 (1) (Jan. 2009) 75e80.
[13] A. Rehman, D.R. Phalke, R. Pandey, Alternative fuel for gas turbine: esterified
jatropha oil-diesel blend, Renew. Energy 36 (10) (Oct. 2011) 2635e2640.
[14] M.A.R. Nascimento, E.S. Lora, P.S.P. Corre ^a, R.V. Andrade, M.A. Rendon,
O.J. Venturini, G.A.S. Ramirez, Biodiesel fuel in diesel micro-turbine engines:
modelling and experimental evaluation, Energy 33 (2) (Feb. 2008) 233e240.
[15] D. Sequera, A.K. Agrawal, S.K. Spear, D.T. Daly, Combustion performance of
liquid biofuels in a swirl-stabilized burner, J. Eng. Gas. Turbines Power 130
(May 2008) 1e9.
[16] H.V. Panchasara, B.M. Simmons, A.K. Agrawal, S.K. Spear, D.T. Daly, Combus-
tion performance of biodiesel and diesel-vegetable oil blends in a simulated
gas turbine burner, J. Eng. Gas. Turbines Power 131 (May 2009) 1e11.
[17] D. Chiaramonti, A.M. Rizzo, A. Spadi, M. Prussi, G. Riccio, F. Martelli, Applied
energy, Appl. Energy 101 (Jan. 2013) 349e356 no. C.
[18] M. Prussi, D. Chiaramonti, L. Recchia, F. Martelli, F. Guidotti, L. Pari, Alternative
feedstock for the biodiesel and energy production: the OVEST project, Energy
58 (Sep. 2013) 2e8 no. C.
[19] F. Chiariello, C. Allouis, F. Reale, P. Massoli, Gaseous and particulate emissions
of a micro gas turbine fuelled by straight vegetable oil-kerosene blends, Exp.
Therm. Fluid Sci. 56 (Jul. 2014) 16e22 no. C.

Bereczky, Basic fuel properties of rapeseed oil-higher alcohols
[20] T. Laza, A.
blends, Fuel 90 (2) (Feb. 2011) 803e810.
[21] A. International, ASTM D1298-99, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1900.
[22] A. International, ASTM D445-11a, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1900.
[23] A. International, ASTM D240-09, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
1900.
[24] A. International, ASTM D6371-05, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1900.
[25] A. International, ASTM D6749e02, Sep. 2007.
[26] A. International, ASTM D2500-09, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1900.
[27] B. E. Poling, J. M. Prausnitz, and J. P. O'Connell, The Properties of Gases &
Liquids, fifth ed. New York, New York: McGraw Hill.
[28] R.O. Dunn, Low-temperature flow properties of vegetable oil/cosolvent blend
diesel fuels, JAOCS 79 (7) (Jun. 2002) 709e715.
[29] ASTM, D2880-13b, Nov. 2013. D2880-13b.
[30] A. Lefebvre, Atomization and Sprays, CRC Press, 1988.