Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Improving PM-NOx trade-off with paraffinic fuels: A study towards diesel T

engine optimization with HVO
Athanasios Dimitriadisa, Tine Seljakb, Rok Viharb, Urban Žvar Baškovičb, Athanasios Dimaratosc,
⁎
Stella Bezergiannia, Zissis Samarasc, , Tomaž Katrašnikb
a
Chemical Process & Energy Resources Institute (CPERI), Centre for Research and Technology Hellas CERTH, 6km Charilaou-Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 6, SI 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
c
Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, P.O. Box 458, GR 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current work investigates the impact of a paraffinic fuel on combustion and emissions of a diesel engine,
Renewable diesel examining alternative injection strategies for the full exploitation of the fuel characteristics. The paraffinic fuel
HVO used was the HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil) produced by Neste Oil with the brand name NEXBTL. The study
PM-NOx trade off was conducted on a light-duty turbocharged and aftercooled common-rail diesel engine, with both HVO and a
Main injection timing
conventional diesel fuel. Four steady-state operating points were examined, at low and medium engine speeds
Pilot injection timing
Injection pressure
(1500 and 3000 rpm) and loads (35 and 100 Nm), typical of daily driving of a passenger car. The key con-
tribution of the study is a comprehensive analysis of the phenomena influencing the crank angle resolved in-
cylinder parameters, as well as interlinking the effects of different variations of injection pressure (default and
300 bar higher), pilot injection timing (default and ± 5°CA) and main injection timing (default and ± 2°CA)
on gaseous emissions and particulate matter (PM). The findings have shown that at default engine settings the
use of HVO results in up to 40% reduction of engine-out PM and HC emissions without appreciable changes in
NOx emissions. The significant reduction of engine-out PM levels, facilitates the adoption of measures for NOx
emissions limitation. The latter are reduced by up to 20% when the main injection timing is retarded (by 2° CA in
the present study), while PM emissions are still kept well below the respective diesel fuel levels.

1. Introduction tendency to form internal injector deposits, higher viscosity, higher

Oil depletion and air pollution, caused by the extensive use of
conventional fossil fuels have triggered research into more en-
vironmentally friendly and renewable fuels. First generation biodiesel,
known as FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Ester), is produced via transester-
ification of vegetable or used cooking oils. In general, the use of FAME
biodiesel results in less soot, but higher NOx emissions, while the brake
specific fuel consumption (BSFC) is higher due to its lower energy
content [1,2]. The major disadvantages of FAME compared to con-
ventional diesel fuel are its lower energy content, high price, the
cloud and pour point and higher nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions [3,4].
Further, the oxygen content of FAME raises concerns in terms of
maintaining the fuel quality during long term storage and oxidation
stability [5,6]. Due to the unfavorable properties of FAME, the trans-
formation of triglyceride containing feedstock by other thermal and/or
catalytic processes has been widely explored, especially towards the
production of paraffinic and synthetic hydrocarbons.
One lipid-based alternative paraffinic fuel is Hydrotreated
Vegetable Oil (HVO) [7] that consists mainly of paraffin and is free of
aromatics, oxygen and sulfur. Owing to its paraffinic nature, it has a

Abbreviations: A/F, ratio: Air Fuel ratio;; CAD, Crank Angle Degree;; CD, Combustion Duration;; CI, Compression Ignition (engine);; CLD, ChemiLuminescence
Detector;; CO, Carbon Oxide;; COV, Coefficient of Variance;; CRDI, Common Rail Direct Injection;; DOC, Diesel Oxidation Catalyst;; DOHC, Double Over-Head
Camshaft;; DPF, Diesel Particulate Filter;; EGR, Exhaust gas Recirculation;; FAME, Fatty Acids Methyl Ester;; FID, Flow Indicator Detector;; GFM, Gravimetric Filter
Module;; CFPP, Cold Filter Plugging Point;; H/C ratio, Hydrogen to Carbon ratio;; HC, Hydrocarbons (total);; HVO, Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil;; ID, Ignition Delay;
IE, Injector Energizing;; IMEP, Indicative Mean Effective Pressure;; IMV, Inlet Metering Valve;; IP, Injection Pressure;; MIT, Main Injection Timing;; MSS, Micro Soot
Sensor;; NOX, Nitrogen Oxides;; PIT, Pilot Injection Timing;; PM, Particulate Matter;; pmax, Maximum cylinder pressure;; RoHR, Rate of Heat Release;; SCR, Selective
Catalytic Reduction;; SOC, Start of Combustion;; SOI, Start of Injection;; TDC, Top Dead Center;
⁎
Corresponding author at: Aristotle University, Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, P.O. Box 458, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece. Tel.: +302310 996014.
E-mail address: zisis@auth.gr (Z. Samaras).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116921
Received 21 July 2019; Received in revised form 16 December 2019; Accepted 18 December 2019
Available online 30 December 2019
0016-2361/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

higher cetane number and higher heating value compared to conven- Table 1
tional diesel fuel [8]. It can be produced from many kinds of vegetable Properties of conventional diesel (D2) and renewable HVO fuel.
oils without compromising fuel quality. Existing farm-based feedstock Property Unit D2 (EN 590) HVO Method
such as rapeseed, sunflower, and soybean, as well as palm oil, are most
commonly used. HVO can be used neat (100%) as a petrodiesel sub- FAME content % v/v 7 0 EN 14078:2014
Density at 60 °C kg/m3 832.4 778.7 ASTM 4052
stitute, as a blending agent for petrodiesel, or as a blended fuel with
Kinematic viscosity mm2/s 3.236 2.820 ASTM D445
additives in compression ignition (CI) engines [9]. Flash point °C 59 83 ASTM D0093
Research on the application of HVO to diesel engines is usually Cloud point °C −5.0 −22.2 ASTM D2500
related to fuel spray, combustion and emission characteristics [9,10]. Sulfur content ppm wt 9.1 < 5.0 ASTM 5453
According to the open literature, blends of conventional diesel fuel with Cetane number – 56.5 76.3 ASTM D7170-14
Ash content % m/m 0.002 < 0.001 EN ISO 10370
HVO result in reductions of both regulated and unregulated emissions.
Water content mg/kg < 30 20 Pr EN ISO
The reduction in CO, HC and PM emissions depends on the proportion 12937:1996
of HVO in the fuel blend [11], and it is consistent in both light and Polyaromatic % m/m 2.2 0 IP 391
heavy-duty engines [12,13]. On the other hand, the literature reports a hydrocarbons
CFPP °C −5 −21 ASTM IP309
large spread in NOx emissions results [14–20]. Light-duty engines have
Lower heating value MJ/kg 42.8 44.0 ASTM D4809
shown negligible or even slight increase in NOx emissions [14], while in Lower heating value MJ/l 35.6 34.3 ASTM D4809
heavy-duty engines reductions of NOx levels have been observed Oxidation stability hr >6 > 22 EN 15751
[15,16]. According to Huang et al. [17], due to the shorter ignition Distillation °C 191–357 189–301 ASTM D86
delay caused by the higher cetane number, HVO reduces the energy A/Fs – 14.2 15.2 –
Oxygen content % wt 0.77 0 –
released in the premixed combustion phase, which in turn reduces the
Hydrogen content % wt 12.0 15.4 ASTM 4629
maximum combustion temperature and pressure in the cylinder leading Carbon content % wt 87.2 84.6 ASTM 5291
to suppressed NOx formation. Furthermore, the fuel injection system C/H ratio – 7.26 5.49 –
and engine calibration seem to be the most influential parameters for
the observed spread in NOx emissions results [18]. According to Su-
giyama et al. [19], NOx emissions decreased with HVO in engines with Table 2
a single injection, but remained unchanged once a pilot injection is Engine specifications.
added. This can be explained by the fact that the higher cetane number Number of cylinders 4 (DOHC)
of HVO has no positive effect on shortening the ignition delay of the
main injection when a pilot injection is added, as the internal gas Bore × stroke (mm) 75.0 × 88.3
Cubic capacity 1560
temperature at the start of main injection is already very high due to the
Maximum power (kW) 66.2 @ 4000 rpm
combustion of the pilot injection. This effect explains why passenger Maximum torque (Nm) 215 @ 1750 rpm
vehicles with HVO fuel exhibit less NOx improvement than heavy-duty Compression ratio 18
engines, which most of the time have no pilot injection [20]. The effect
of pilot injection timing for light duty engines running on HVO is likely
a key factor in the observed wide range of NOx emission results. chemical properties. More specifically, the individual effects of main
In general, pure HVO, used as a drop-in fuel, can reduce PM emis- injection timing, pilot injection timing and injection pressure were
sions up to 60% compared to conventional diesel due to the absence of examined for both HVO and commercial diesel fuel. The research is
aromatic compounds, while HC and CO emissions can be also up to 50% focused on engine-out emissions, correlating the results with combus-
lower [9,21,22]. Therefore, a proper re-adjustment of the engine set- tion characteristics of a light-duty engine running on HVO, and cov-
tings can lead to significant benefits in terms of the PM-NOx trade off, ering in that way gaps in the open literature. This approach enables a
when the engine runs with HVO fuel. However, there are only a few solid basis for interpretation of combustion related and in-cylinder
studies in the open literature that have investigated the potential for derived parameters, thus offering an insight into upstream phenomena.
emissions reduction through re-adjustments in engine settings when At the same time, engine-out emissions serve as the most important
using HVO fuel. Happonen et al. [23] have investigated the impact of input data for justifying the use and also development of exhaust
variable intake valve closing in combination with different injection aftertreatment systems. In this way, engine-out emissions feature high
timings, EGR rates and injection pressures on NOx and soot emissions. relevance and may serve several research fields dealing with HVO.
However, in that study the combined effect of the studied parameters Therefore, this study provides insight into the causal relations, thus
was examined. Thus, the quantitative potential of each individual forming a solid basis for future research on engine optimization with
parameter to reduce emissions is missing. Aatola et al. [24] studied the paraffinic fuels. The findings show that by careful re-adjustment of the
effect of injection timing on emissions of a heavy-duty diesel engine main injection timing, simultaneous reduction of PM and NOx emissions
running on HVO. They have noticed that HVO at default engine settings can be achieved with HVO compared to conventional diesel fuel.
led to 6% lower NOx emissions and 35% lower smoke compared with a
sulfur free EN 590 diesel fuel, while, by optimizing injection timing for 2. Methodology
the paraffinic fuel, even higher NOx or PM emission reductions were
achieved, depending on the direction of injection timing alteration. 2.1. Fuel properties
It is observed that most of the studies investigating the effects of
HVO fuel focus on heavy-duty engines, resulting in insufficient data on Two fuels were examined in this study, a commercial market diesel
their light-duty counterparts. In addition to that, most studies con- (D2), as the reference fuel, and a second generation HVO fuel, produced
centrate on the effect of HVO on emissions without analyzing com- via two stage catalytic hydroprocessing of vegetable oil. A first hydro-
bustion characteristics. As HVO produces lower PM emissions, re-ad- treating step followed by a second isomerization process was used to
justment of the injection strategy could lead to NOx emissions transform heavy-chain hydrocarbons of vegetable oil to lighter ones in
reductions, while at the same time keeping PM formation below diesel the diesel range. This fuel is fully paraffinic, and thus, the contents of
levels. However, there is a gap in the literature on the recalibration aromatics, sulfur and oxygen were below the detectable limit. The HVO
potential of a light-duty diesel engine running on HVO. To that purpose, was provided by Neste oil Corporation in Finland, under the brand
the current research aims at investigating the effect of alternative in- name NEXBTL, and it complies with the EN 15940 standard for paraf-
jection strategies in order to gain full advantage of HVO’s physical and finic diesel fuels [25,26]. The reference fuel D2 complies with the

2
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

Table 3 Table 5
Steady-state operating points and default engine settings. IMEP and coefficient of variance % (COV(IMEP)) over 100 consecutive com-
bustion cycles.
Operating Speed Torque bmep PIT (°CA MIT (°CA IP (bar)
points (rpm) (Nm) (bar) aTDC) aTDC) D2 HVO D2 HVO D2 HVO D2 HVO

1 1500 35 2.82 −25 4 650 Speed [rpm]/Torque 1500/35 1500/100 3000/35 3000/100
2 1500 100 8.05 −33 −4 840 [Nm]
3 3000 35 2.82 −46 −19 550 IMEPmin (bar) 3.95 3.98 8.91 8.89 5.00 5.03 10.38 10.18
4 3000 100 8.05 −50 −24 950 IMEPmax (bar) 4.14 4.18 9.04 9.03 5.18 5.24 10.65 10.45
IMEPmean (bar) 4.01 4.04 8.99 8.96 5.07 5.12 10.51 10.31
COV(IMEP) % 0.95 1.04 0.33 0.29 0.89 1.02 0.63 0.67
Table 4
Test protocol (bold values indicate the parameter being varied).
Table 6
Parameters adjustment
Measuring equipment used in experiments.
Case 1 Advance MIT (°CA Default MIT (°CA Retard MIT (°CA Component Measuring device Accuracy Measuring range
aTDC) aTDC) aTDC)
THC Horiba OBS-2200 ± 2.5% FSO 0–1000 ppm to 0–10000 ppm
Speed/Load PIT MIT PIT MIT PIT MIT (C1)
NOX Horiba OBS-2200 ± 2.5% FSO 0–100 ppm to 0–3000 ppm
1500 rpm/35Nm −25 2 −25 4 −25 6 PM AVL PM-PEMS 5̴ μg/m3 Up to 1000 mg/m3
1500 rpm/ −33 −6 −33 −4 −33 −2 494
100Nm
3000 rpm/35Nm −46 −21 −46 −19 −46 −17 *FSO: Full Scale Output.
3000 rpm/ −50 −26 −50 −24 −50 −22
100Nm
specifications of EN-590 standard [27] as a low sulfur market diesel,
Case 2 Advance PIT (°CA Default PIT (°CA Retard PIT (°CA
sourced from a fuel station. The properties of the two examined fuels
aTDC) aTDC) aTDC)
Speed/Load PIT MIT PIT MIT PIT MIT
are shown in Table 1. More detailed information on the characteristics
1500 rpm/35Nm −30 4 −25 4 −20 4 of HVO fuel can be found in [15,28].
1500 rpm/ −38 −4 −33 −4 −28 −4 Due to the paraffinic nature and the low final boiling point, the
100Nm density of HVO is lower than that of D2 fuel, resulting in a decrease in
3000 rpm/35Nm −51 −19 −46 −19 −41 −19
heating value per volume unit. However, HVO has a higher heating
3000 rpm/ −55 −24 −50 −24 −45 −24
100Nm value per mass unit compared to that of D2 fuel, due to its higher H/C
ratio, while its aromatic content is almost zero (< 0.1%wt) [24]. HVO’s
Case 3 Injection pressure (bar)
Speed/Load Default High stability is higher compared to conventional diesel, meaning that there
1500 rpm/35Nm 650 950 is no risk to vehicles or stationary engines if they are not used for ex-
1500 rpm/ 840 1140 tended periods and for longtime storage.
100Nm
3000 rpm/35Nm 550 850
3000 rpm/ 950 1250 2.2. Engine setup and control
100Nm
The tests were conducted in a 4-cylinder, 4-stroke, turbocharged
and after-cooled 1.6 L light-duty diesel engine, coupled to a Zöllner B-
350AC eddy-current dynamometer controlled by a Kristl, Seibt & Co

3
A. Dimitriadis, et al.
Fig. 2. Effect of main injection timing on in-cylinder pressure, heat release rate and in-cylinder temperature at four steady state operating points (1500 rpm/35Nm,
1500 rpm/100Nm, 3000 rpm/35 Nm and 3000 rpm/100Nm).
control system Kristl, Seibt Advanced Data Acquisition and Control
system. The main technical characteristics of the engine are presented
in Table 2. A Kistler CAM UNIT Type 2613B shaft encoder provided an
external trigger and an external clock at 0.1 deg CA for data acquisition
and for an injection control system. In-cylinder pressure was measured
with a calibrated piezo-electric pressure transducer AVL GH12D in
combination with a charge amplifier AVL MICROIFEM, connected to a
16-bit, 4-channel National Instruments data-acquisition system with a
maximum sampling frequency 1 MHz per channel. Top Dead Center
(TDC) was determined by a capacitive sensor COM Type 2653.
Fig. 1 presents a schematic layout of the test installation. The ori-
ginal control unit (ECU) was by-passed and the engine was controlled
externally with real-time hardware. Data acquisition and an injection
control embedded system (“NI cRIO system”) were based on a National
Instruments cRIO 9024 processing unit and 9114 chassis. Along with an
indication of in-cylinder pressure traces, it generated digital output
4
Fuel 265 (2020) 116921
signals to set start and duration of injectors energizing by the driven
system, which can be set in a PC graphic user interface. A driven system
generated inlet metering valve signals (IMV signal) and injector en-
ergizing signals (IE signal) to control the common rail pressure and fuel
injection duration. It was connected to the PC, and the energizing
characteristics for the injectors along with other driven parameters
were set with CalView software.
For the experiments, two separate fuel tanks were used with in-
dividual fuel filters, one for D2 (reference fuel) and the second for HVO
fuel. The fuels were supplied to the common-rail pump by two separate
lines, one for D2 fuel through an AVL Fuel balance Consumption Meter
and one for HVO through Micromotion Coriolis flow meter (model
CMFS015M). In the current engine, the common rail pump was
equipped with a build-in low-pressure pump.
The measurements were conducted at thermally stabilized steady-
state conditions at two different engine speeds and loads for both tested
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 3. Burned mass fraction at various MIT.

Table 7
Effect of main injection timing (MIT) on start of combustion (SOC), ignition delay (ID) and combustion duration (CD).
MIT Advance 2°CA Default Retard 2°CA

Speed[rpm]/ Torque [Nm] SOC (°CA aTDC) ID (°CA) CD (°CA) SOC (°CA aTDC) ID (°CA) CD (°CA) SOC (°CA aTDC) ID (°CA) CD (°CA)

D2
1500/35 −16.5 8.5 43.5 −16.5 8.5 46.1 −16.5 8.5 48.4
1500/100 −23.7 9.3 31.0 −23.7 9.3 32.3 −23.3 9.7 32.9
3000/35 −24.0 22.0 37.5 −23.7 22.3 38.1 −23.8 22.2 38.5
3000/100 −30.7 19.3 42.1 −30.4 19.6 42.4 −31.1 18.9 45.6
HVO
1500/35 −17.5 7.5 48.1 −17.4 7.6 50.3 −17.5 7.5 53.8
1500/100 −25.0 8.0 31.4 −24.9 8.1 32.5 −25.0 8.0 33.6
3000/35 −26.5 19.5 39.8 −26.2 19.8 39.9 −26.5 19.5 40.9
3000/100 −32.4 17.6 44.3 −32.5 17.5 44.8 −32.6 17.4 49.0

Table 8 Table 9
Maximum cylinder pressure. Boost pressure during different main injection timings for both fuels.
MIT Advance 2°CA Default Retard 2°CA Boost pressure [bar]

Speed[rpm]/ pmax °CA aTDC pmax °CA aTDC pmax °CA aTDC MIT Advance 2°CA Default Retard 2°CA
Torque [Nm] (bar) (bar) (bar)
Speed[rpm]/ Torque [Nm] D2 HVO D2 HVO D2 HVO
D2
1500/35 56 0 56 0 56 0 1500/35 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
1500/100 92 9 86 11 78 13 1500/100 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
3000/35 95 4 89 5 87 6 3000/35 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
3000/100 154 3 149 4 144 5 3000/100 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
HVO
1500/35 57 −1 57 −1 57 −1
1500/100 94 9 87 11 80 13
fuels, as shown in Table 3. These points were selected in order to cover
3000/35 96 4 91 5 88 6
3000/100 156 3 151 4 147 5
both low and high engine speeds in low and medium loads. The engine
was initially started with D2 fuel and warmed up for 15 min. In-cylinder
pressure and exhaust emissions were measured when stable engine

5
A. Dimitriadis, et al.
Fig. 4. Effect of main injection timing on emission characteristics and bsfc.
operating point was achieved, indicated by exhaust manifold tem-
perature. After the completion of the measurement, the load was
adapted to change the engine operating point. After the measurements
with conventional diesel (D2), the same procedure was repeated for the
HVO fuel.
6
Fuel 265 (2020) 116921
2.3. Parameter variation
The effects of the Main Injection Timing (MIT) (Case 1), Pilot
Injection Timing (PIT) (Case 2) and Injection Pressure (IP) (Case 3)
were examined for both tested fuels (Table 4). For every operating
point, three main injection timings were investigated, the default one
and ± 2°CA (pilot injection timing was kept constant to default values,
as shown in Table 4). Furthermore, for every operating point, three
A. Dimitriadis, et al.
Fig. 5. Effect of main injection timing, trade-off between PM and NOX emissions.
pilot injection timings (PIT) were tested, the default one and ± 5°CA
(main injection timing was kept constant to default values, as shown in
Table 4). It is noted that the dwell time between the pilot and main
injection varied in each case, accordingly. Finally, for every operating
point two injection pressures were tested, the default one and 300 bars
higher compared to default values. At each operating point, the engine
speed and torque remained constant, independent of the variation of
the injection characteristics, by adjusting accordingly the fuel supply,
while the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve was fully closed (po-
sition set to 0%) in order not to affect the results of the examined
parameters. The variation of engine parameters was selected on the
basis of preliminary screening where it was found that larger variations
lead to unstable combustion.
2.4. Combustion analysis
In-cylinder pressure was recorded over 100 successive cycles at a
sampling rate of 0.1°CA. Very good repeatability of the individual cy-
cles was proven by overlapping pressure oscillations that correspond to
the lowest excitation frequency of the gas in the combustion chamber
over consecutive cycles [29]. Table 5 presents the minimum, the
maximum, and the average value of IMEP over 100 consecutive cycles
at default engine settings for the four tested points and both fuels (D2
and HVO). In addition, the coefficient of variance (COV) is given, which
is defined as the standard deviation of IMEP divided by its mean value,
as follows [30]:
7
Fuel 265 (2020) 116921
σ (IMEP )(100cycles)
COV (IMEP )[%] = ∙100
μ (IMEP )(100cycles)
where “σ” and “μ” are the standard deviation and the mean value of
IMEP, respectively, over 100 consecutive cycles. COV was chosen as the
combustion stability indicator to evaluate cycle to cycle variation. Ac-
cording to Bytnner et al. [30] and Heywood [31], vehicle drivability
issues may occur in cases where the COV (IMEP) exceeds 10%. How-
ever, there is other research that has suggested 3% as a threshold value
for COV [32]. According to Table 5, it is observed that the use of HVO
fuel does not affect the cyclic variability (irregularity) as compared to
the baseline fuel (D2). In any case, the cyclic combustion irregularity of
the tested engine is very low.
The mean in-cylinder pressure trace was calculated by averaging
100 cycles of the individual operating points, as averaging significantly
eliminates point to point variations due to signal noise [33]. In addi-
tion, a low pass FIR filter was applied to the average pressure trace in
order to eliminate pressure oscillations in the combustion chamber. The
pressure trace was further processed via the BURN functionality of the
AVL Boost software [34], and the gross heat release rate (HRR) and
mean gas temperature were calculated via the AVL 2000 model. The
heat transfer during gas exchange strongly influences the volumetric
efficiency of the engine, especially at low speeds. The AVL 2000 model
is a modified Woschni heat transfer equation that takes this into ac-
count.
2.5. Emissions measurements
The exhaust gas analysis was conducted with a Horiba OBS-2200
A. Dimitriadis, et al.
Fig. 6. Effect of main injection timing on thermal efficiency (%).
and an AVL PM-PEMS 494. Two separate sampling fittings were welded
on the exhaust pipe and connected to the measuring devices. A heated
sampling pipe was used to guide wet exhaust gases to a Horiba gas
analyzer that measures total hydrocarbons (THC) in an FID cell and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) in a CLD cell. The PM-PEMS device uses the
photoacoustic method for real-time measurement of soot concentra-
tions (performed by a micro soot sensor MSS) and a gravimetric method
with filter loading (performed with a gravimetric filter module, GFM) to
calibrate the real-time results of soot concentrations. Sampling of par-
ticulate matter (PM) was done with a heated line and diluted with fil-
tered air according to the sensitivity of the micro soot sensor (MSS) and
the desired filter loading rate for the gravimetric filter module (GFM).
The measuring range and the accuracy of the devices are presented in
Table 6. It is noted that the aim of the current investigation is to study
the effect of the HVO fuel on engine-out emissions without after-
treatment devices.
3. Results and discussion
The results are grouped according to the injection characteristics
under examination. Firstly, the results of modified MIT (Main Injection
Timing) are presented followed by the results of varied PIT (Pilot
Injection Timing) and IP (Injection Pressure).
3.1. Effect of main injection timing (MIT)
3.1.1. Effect of MIT on combustion
The two tested fuels (HVO and D2) were compared in terms of in-
cylinder pressure and temperature and gross Heat Release Rate (HRR),
in order to examine the effect of different main injection timings (MIT)
on combustion characteristics. The results are presented in Figs. 2 and 3
and Tables 7–9. Table 7, presents the start of combustion (SOC), the
ignition delay (ID) and the combustion duration (CD) in °CA. The start
8
Fuel 265 (2020) 116921
of combustion (SOC) is defined as the crank angle where the HRR
(Fig. 2) crosses the horizontal axis and transitions to positive values.
The ignition delay was calculated as the time interval between the start
of first injection (SOI), presented in Table 4, and the start of combustion
(SOC) presented in Table 7, while the combustion duration (CD) is
defined as the period from 10% to 90% of the burned mass fraction
(MFB), as presented in Fig. 3, the latter determined by the cumulative
gross heat released.
At default engine settings, HVO shows a shorter ignition delay (ID)
compared to D2 at all the operating points examined, as observed in
Table 7 and Figs. 2 and 3. The shorter ID of HVO emanates from its
higher cetane number compared to D2 fuel. This means that the pilot
injected fuel of HVO is burned earlier compared to D2 case, prolonging
the diffusion combustion part (main injection), leading ultimately to
longer combustion durations (Table 7).
Table 8 summarizes the maximum cylinder pressure (pmax) of both
fuels with the angle where it occurs. As cylinder pressure is directly
translated to torque build-up, a significantly distorted pressure curve
would result in an unfavorable torque profile. For this reason, pmax and
the angle where it appears are important factors when comparing two
different fuels in terms of engine operability. In general, the engine is
optimized by the manufacturer for diesel fuel. From Table 8, it is ob-
served that although HVO shows a higher pmax compared to D2, pmax
occurs at the same angle for both fuels. Table 9 presents the boost
pressure, where it is observed that this remains the same between the
fuels in all the examined operating conditions. This means that the
intake conditions were the same for both fuels.
Fig. 2 presents the cylinder pressure and temperature, as well as the
gross HRR, for all the examined operating conditions with both fuels. At
1500 rpm and 35 Nm, pilot injection starts at −25°CA aTDC where the
temperature is high, while main injection starts after TDC (4°CA aTDC).
This leads to a first pressure and temperature peak that is reduced be-
fore the combustion of main injection. Furthermore, at this operating
A. Dimitriadis, et al.
Fig. 7. Effect of pilot injection timing by 5°CA on in-cylinder pressure, heat release rate and in-cylinder temperature at four steady state operating points (1500 rpm/
35Nm, 1500 rpm/100Nm, 3000 rpm/35Nm and 3000 rpm/100Nm).
point, HVO shows a higher HRR peak during the combustion of the
pilot injection and a lower one during the combustion of the main in-
jection. This can be attributed to the lower CN of conventional diesel
(D2), which might lead to overmixing of some fuel from the pilot in-
jection, going outside of the ignition limits, such that the fuel does not
burn during the pilot injection, but rather subsequently during the
combustion of the main injection. At 1500 rpm and 100 Nm, there are
few differences in the HRR of the combustion during the main injection
between the HVO and the D2. Furthermore, at low engine speed
(1500 rpm), the ID of the main injection is similar between the fuels,
indicating that the combustion of the pilot injected fuel has raised the
gas temperature to a high enough value that the cetane number does
not affect the combustion of the main injection, as was also found by
Bohl et al. [34]. At 3000 rpm and 35 Nm, HVO is characterized by a
higher heat release peak during the combustion of the pilot injection
compared to D2 fuel. Finally, it is observed in Fig. 2 that at 3000 rpm
and 100 Nm a part of the main injection fuel quantity is injected during
9
Fuel 265 (2020) 116921
the already burning fuel of the pilot injection for both fuels.
The burned mass fraction of all examined cases is depicted in Fig. 3.
Advancement of MIT reduces combustion duration for both fuels,
especially at low loads, as shown in Table 7 and Fig. 3, with the HVO
still showing longer durations. Advancing MIT by −2°CA, the SOC of
the main injection starts earlier, resulting in an increase of pmax, which
appears also earlier compared to default MIT (Table 8), while the HRR
of the main injection also moves closer to TDC (Fig. 2). On the other
hand, retardation of MIT results in longer combustion durations for
both fuels (Table 7). This is due to the fact that the main injection fuel is
injected in a later phase of the compression stroke, shifting the com-
plete process later in the expansion and leading also to lower pmax
(Table 8 and Fig. 2). Furthermore, changes on MIT ( ± 2°CA) do not
affect the SOC of pilot injection, as the PIT remains constant (Table 7).
3.1.2. Effect of MIT on emissions and engine performance
The results of emissions at various MIT are presented in Fig. 4. At
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 8. Burned mass fraction at various PIT.

Table 10
Effect of pilot injection timing (PIT) on start of combustion (SOC), ignition delay (ID) and combustion duration (CD).
PIT Advance 5°CA Default Retard 5°CA

Speed[rpm]/ Torque [Nm] SOC (°CA aTDC) ID (°CA) CD (°CA) SOC (°CA aTDC) ID (°CA) CD (°CA) SOC (°CA aTDC) ID (°CA) CD (°CA)

D2
1500/35 −19.8 10.2 35.5 −16.5 8.5 46.1 −12.5 7.5 46.6
1500/100 −25.5 12.5 32.1 −23.7 9.3 32.3 −20.0 8.0 32.6
3000/35 −25.2 25.8 37.1 −23.7 22.3 38.1 −22.0 19.0 38.7
3000/100 −33.5 21.5 43.7 −30.4 19.6 42.4 −29.4 15.6 46.2
HVO
1500/35 −21.4 8.6 52.2 −17.4 7.6 50.3 −13.7 6.3 48.5
1500/100 −27.3 10.7 32.3 −24.9 8.1 32.5 −21.4 6.6 33.5
3000/35 −27.6 23.4 40.3 −26.2 19.8 39.9 −24.7 16.3 42.6
3000/100 −34.7 20.3 46.5 −32.5 17.5 44.8 −30.8 14.2 52.0

Table 11 default engine settings, both fuels show similar NOx emissions, with
Maximum cylinder pressure. only a slight increase observed for HVO, as compared to D2. According
PIT Advance 5°CA Default Retard 5°CA
to Sugiyama et al. [19], NOx emissions are reduced with HVO in en-
gines with a single injection, but remain practically unchanged once a
Speed[rpm]/ pmax °CA aTDC pmax °CA aTDC pmax °CA aTDC pilot injection is added. The reason is that when a pilot injection takes
Torque [Nm] (bar) (bar) (bar) place the higher cetane number of HVO does not make a difference in
D2
ID of the main injection, as the gas temperature at the start of the main
1500/35 55 0 56 0 56 0 injection is already high due to the combustion of pilot injection.
1500/100 83 11 86 11 84 11 PM reduction with HVO fuel, ranging from 10 to 40%, is observed in
3000/35 92 5 89 5 94 4 all operating points that were tested compared to D2, which is in
3000/100 151 3 149 4 149 4
agreement with the results of Rantanen et al. [11] and Murtonen et al.
HVO [12] (Fig. 4). The reduction of PM emissions is due to the shorter mo-
1500/35 56 −1 57 −1 57 −1 lecular chain and lower C/H ratio of HVO, which contains almost ex-
1500/100 84 11 87 11 86 11
3000/35 92 5 91 5 95 4
clusively paraffinic hydrocarbons and not any aromatic components,
3000/100 151 4 151 4 150 4 sulfur and other mineral impurities that enhance PM formation [35].
Furthermore, the lower viscosity, distillation temperature and density

10
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 9. Effect of pilot injection timing on emission characteristics and bsfc.

of HVO compared to conventional diesel (Table 1), reduce fuel spray also limits this source of PM formation. Furthermore, the lighter par-
penetration length. This leads to a faster evaporation rate and most affinic hydrocarbons of HVO and its higher cetane number result in a
likely a more uniform A/F ratio distribution throughout the fuel cloud. shorter ignition delay, which increases the residence time of the com-
At the same time, it reduces the fuel jet wall impingement rate, which bustible mixture at high temperatures and at the same time prolongs

11
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 10. Effect of pilot injection timing, trade-off between PM and NOX emissions.

Fig. 11. Effect of pilot injection timing on thermal efficiency (%).

12
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Table 12
Effect of PIT on injected fuel mass and engine power.
PIT Advance 5°CA Default Retard 5°CA

Speed/Load (rpm/Nm) Injected fuel mass (kg/hr) Power (kW) Injected fuel mass (kg/hr) Power (kW) Injected fuel mass (kg/hr) Power (kW)

Diesel HVO Diesel HVO Diesel HVO

1500/35 1.59 1.56 5.5 1.57 1.55 5.6 1.57 1.52 5.6
1500/100 3.61 3.56 15.7 3.56 3.52 15.8 3.56 3.51 15.8
3000/35 3.54 3.50 11.1 3.52 3.54 10.9 3.53 3.53 10.9
3000/100 7.77 7.73 31.3 7.57 7.48 31.3 7.75 7.60 31.5

Table 13 results in earlier start of combustion of the main injection leading to

Effect of injection pressure (IP) on start of combustion (SOC), ignition delay higher in-cylinder pressures and temperatures, promoting the forma-
(ID) and combustion duration (CD). tion of thermal NOx (Fig. 4) [36]. In comparison to diesel, HVO shows
IP Default 300 bars Higher slightly higher NOx emissions, an effect which is more intense at ad-
vanced MIT, due to the higher temperatures.
Speed[rpm]/ SOC (°CA ID (°CA) CD (°CA) SOC (°CA ID (°CA) CD (°CA) In case of PM emissions, retardation of MIT results in higher PM
Torque [Nm] aTDC) aTDC)
emissions for both fuels, due to the lower in-cylinder temperature,
D2 which inhibits the oxidation of PM particles. On the other hand, ad-
1500/35 −16.5 8.5 46.1 −17.9 7.1 24.6 vancement of MIT causes a reduction in PM emissions due to higher in-
1500/100 −23.7 9.3 32.3 −25.5 7.5 30.1 cylinder pressures and temperatures, as well as due to more time
3000/35 −23.7 22.3 38.1 −24.9 21.1 37.1 available for mixing with air. The same trends were observed for both
3000/100 −30.4 19.6 42.4 −36.3 13.7 51.5
tested fuels, however, absolute concentrations of PM were much lower
HVO (10–40% lower) for HVO in all cases.
1500/35 −17.4 7.6 50.3 −18.2 6.8 34.5
Fig. 5 illustrates the effect of MIT on the PM-NOx trade-off, where
1500/100 −24.9 8.1 32.5 −25.6 7.4 31.1
3000/35 −26.2 19.8 39.9 −27.2 18.8 38.7 the grey color denotes the target area in which both PM and NOx
3000/100 −32.5 17.5 44.8 −34.4 15.6 51.9 emissions are lower compared to default engine settings with D2 fuel.
As HVO produces lower PM emissions, retardation of MIT (by 2° CA)
leads to a reduction of NOx emissions by up to 20%, compared to de-
Table 14 fault settings with diesel, while PM emissions were still kept well below
Maximum cylinder pressure. D2 levels. The findings show that although the engine is designed for
IP Default 300 bars Higher optimum operation with diesel fuel, significant further advancement in
lowering exhaust emissions are possible through utilization of alter-
Speed[rpm]/ Torque [Nm] pmax (bar) °CA aTDC pmax (bar) °CA aTDC native fuels with favorable fuel properties and proper engine control.
D2
Therefore, a proper MIT adjustment with HVO fuel, can lead to sig-
1500/35 56 0 53 0 nificant benefits in terms of PM and NOx emissions.
1500/100 86 11 91 10 Furthermore, when the MIT is retarded, the fuel of main injection is
3000/35 89 5 97 4 injected later in the compression stroke, in an environment of higher
3000/100 149 4 163 3
pressure and temperature leading to shorter ignition delay of MIT. As a
HVO result, the engine operates with slightly richer local air–fuel mixtures,
1500/35 57 −1 56 −1
which leads to a lower degree of premixing and higher HC formation.
1500/100 87 11 92 10
3000/35 91 5 97 3 On the other hand, advanced MIT leads to reductions in HC emissions
3000/100 151 4 161 3 due to the higher in-cylinder temperatures and longer residence times
of the mixture [37]. The effect of MIT is similar for both tested fuels;
however, HVO fuel showed lower HC emissions for all the tested op-
the soot oxidation interval, reducing PM emissions. erating conditions of the engine (Fig. 4).
HC emissions at default engine settings are lower for HVO fuel at all As far as the engine performance is concerned, bsfc (brake specific
operating points (Fig. 4). The reduction ranges from 15 to 45% de- fuel consumption) is presented in Fig. 4 and thermal engine efficiency
pending on the operating point of the engine. One of the main reasons is in Fig. 6. HVO shows slightly lower absolute thermal efficiencies
the higher HRR observed during the combustion of pilot injected fuel. compared to D2 fuel at any given MIT, load and speed due to the lower
This is caused by the higher cetane number of the HVO, and also by fuel density. However, the difference in thermal efficiency between the
presumably increased atomization quality, ensuring fast mixture for- two fuels is very small, and in practice might not be noticeable by the
mation due to differences in density, distillation temperature and end-user. The expected effect of MIT on thermal efficiency is observed,
viscosity of diesel and HVO. The results are in agreement with the re- i.e., efficiency increases at advanced MIT and decreases at retarded
sults of Kousoulidou et al. [14] and Pflaum et al. [21]. Furthermore, MIT. As was already discussed in Section 3.1.1, at advanced MIT the
overleaning of fuel injected during the ignition delay period is a sig- pressure peak and thus the HRR are higher resulting in higher thermal
nificant source of HC emissions, especially when the ignition delay is efficiencies. The opposite trend is observed during retardation of MIT.
long. As a result, the shorter ignition delay of HVO compared to the D2 Further, the absolute value of bsfc of HVO is slightly lower compared to
fuel and the absence of aromatics are two more reasons for its lower HC D2. As HVO is characterized by lower density and higher mass heating
emissions [31]. value compared to D2, the mass-based fuel consumption of HVO is
As far as the effect of MIT is concerned, the trends for NOx emissions lower. Advanced MIT results in bsfc reductions due to higher thermal
are similar for both tested fuels for all examined points. Retardation of efficiencies, while the opposite effect is observed for retarded MIT. The
MIT decreases the peak pressure (Table 8) and reduces the mean tem- trends are similar for both tested fuels. Finally, it should be noted that
perature, thus NOx emissions diminish, while advancement of MIT, most of the diesel fuel vehicles are equipped with DPF’s. As HVO results

13
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 12. Effect of injection pressure on in-cylinder pressure, heat release rate and in-cylinder temperature at four steady state operating points (1500 rpm/35 Nm,
1500 rpm/100 Nm, 3000 rpm/35 Nm and 3000 rpm/100 Nm).

in lower PM emissions, the interval time between DPF regenerations and 100 Nm increases the combustion duration for the pilot injection
increases, which might offset the fuel consumption penalty of HVO fuel. (Fig. 7), resulting in higher temperatures at the SOC for the main in-
However, this effect is beyond the scope of this study. jection, and thus the peak of HRR for the main injection increased
(Fig. 7). At higher engine speeds (3000 rpm), part of the main injection
fuel is injected during the combustion of pilot injected fuel and from
3.2. Effect of pilot injection timing (PIT)
Fig. 7, it is observed that, advancement of PIT results in similar or even
slightly higher pmax for both fuels.
3.2.1. Effect of PIT on combustion
In contrast, for retarded PIT, fuel is injected at higher in-cylinder
This section presents the effect of different Pilot Injection Timings
pressures and temperatures resulting in shorter ignition delay (Table 10
(PIT) on engine combustion. The results are presented in Figs. 7 and 8
and Fig. 8) and a higher HRR peaks during combustion for the pilot
and Tables 10 and 11. When the PIT is advanced, the fuels are injected
injection (Fig. 7). Furthermore, retardation of PIT reduces the dwell
in an environment of lower pressures and temperatures and a lower
time between pilot and main injection. At 3000 rpm, more quantity of
peak of HRR during combustion for the pilot injection is observed. The
pilot injected fuel is burned with the main injected fuel resulting in
lower pressure and temperature at the start of pilot injection result in
more intense combustion (higher HRR peak). Finally, it should be noted
longer ignition delays (ID) (Table 10). In the case of D2 at the 1500 rpm
that changes of PIT by ± 5°CA do not affect the time (angle) where
and 35 Nm point, the peak of HRR for the main injection increased as
pmax occurs (Table 11) showing that changes of PIT also do not influ-
the quantity of unburned pilot injected fuel increased and burned
ence the engine behavior in terms of operability and drivability.
during the combustion of the main injection. However, this did not
happen in the case of the HVO fuel, which is characterized by a higher
cetane number. On the other hand, advancement of PIT at 1500 rpm

14
A. Dimitriadis, et al.
Fig. 13. Burned mass fraction at various IP.
3.2.2. Effect of PIT on emissions and engine performance
The effect of pilot injection timing on emissions of regulated pol-
lutants (NOx, PM and HC) is presented in Fig. 9. At low speed operation
(1500 rpm), NOx emissions are reduced for advanced PIT due to lower
in-cylinder pressures and temperatures that were observed in the pre-
vious Section 3.2.1. However, at retarded PIT, the opposite trend for
NOx is observed for both fuels as the temperature and pressure in-
creased. At 3000 rpm, the fuel for the main injection is injected in the
burning fuel of the pilot injection, as a result retardation of PIT lead to
higher temperatures promoting NOx formation. When the pilot injec-
tion is too close to the start of main injection combustion, the interval
time is shorter for sufficient fuel-air mixing [38]. The higher combus-
tion temperature and over-rich regions are relatively wide, resulting in
relatively high NOx emissions [39]. As far as advanced PIT at 3000 rpm
is concerned, the earlier the pilot injection timing, the lower the heat
release rate (HRR) peak of the pilot injection (Fig. 7), and thus the more
moderate the pilot combustion. This shows that, NOx emissions pro-
duced during pilot combustion, are limited by the advanced PIT. On the
other hand, advanced PIT boosted NOx production during the main
combustion leading to higher total NOx emissions [40].
On the other hand, at retarded PIT, PM decreases (with the excep-
tion of 3000 rpm and 100 Nm point) as the high temperature in the
cylinder during the combustion of pilot injection boosted the combus-
tion of the main injection, enhancing soot oxidation [41]. When the
dwell time between pilot and main injection is very short, the velocity
of the injector needle is higher, during the nozzle opening phase of the
main injection, leading to a better spray atomization [40]. This can
significantly improve the premixing phase of the main injected fuel
with air and thus enable a reduction in the PM emissions [40]. When
the PIT is retarded, HVO fuel produces even less PM emissions com-
pared to D2 at default PIT values. In general, the main factors
15
Fuel 265 (2020) 116921
responsible for an increase in the PM production rate are: the higher
temperature of the gases during the PM growth phase, the presence of
local zones with poor mixing of the fuel with air, and direct interference
between the hot flames of the pilot injection and the main injection. At
advanced PIT and 35 Nm (1500 rpm and 3000 rpm), PM emissions
decrease for both tested fuels. At these points, the fuels blend with the
air in the cylinder and form a more uniform combustible mixture,
smoothing the combustion process. However, at 100 Nm (1500 rpm and
3000 rpm), at advanced PIT, PM emissions increase and this behavior,
according to d’ Ambrosio et al. [40], can be attributed to in-
homogeneity in the combustion chamber, with the presence of spots of
burned gases derived from the pilot combustion event, which interfere
with the main injection fuel spray. Advancing PIT at 1500 rpm and
35 Nm with HVO fuel leads to lower PM and NOx emissions simulta-
neously (Fig. 10). However, at 3000 rpm and 100 Nm, the default PIT is
the optimum in terms of the trade-off between NOx and PM.
The engine-out HC emissions tend to increase as PIT is advanced
and tend to decrease as PIT is retarded. At earlier PIT, the occurrence of
overmixing is more likely, causing an increase in HC emissions [40].
The pilot fuel is injected into a cooler environment, leading to an in-
crease in the ignition delay, which in turn promotes overmixing of the
fuel with air [42]. Besides, the absolute values of HC emissions are
lower for HVO compared to D2 by an almost constant difference of 30
to 40% over the entire operating range of the engine.
As far as the engine performance is concerned, advanced PIT results
in a slightly lower thermal efficiency (Fig. 11) for both fuels increasing
in that way the bsfc (Fig. 9). This is expected as the injected fuel mass
increased (Table 12). On the other hand, when the dwell time between
pilot and main injection is reduced, the pilot and main combustions are
linked more smoothly, or are at least closer, and thus enhancing com-
bustion efficiency, and thus bsfc improvement [40]. A reduced dwell
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 14. Effect of injection pressure on emission characteristics and bsfc.

16
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 15. Effect of injection pressure, trade-off between PM and NOX emissions.

Table 15 change > 2 °CA, which shows that there should not be any drivability
Injected fuel mass and power for D2 and HVO in all examined points at default and operability engine problems. Similar trends were observed for both
and high IP. fuels, with HVO having a shorter ignition delay in all cases compared to
PIT Default 300 bars Higher D2 fuel (Table 13). However, D2 is more sensitive to injection pressure
changes than HVO.
Speed/Load Injected fuel mass Power Injected fuel mass Power More specifically, at medium load conditions (1500 rpm/100 Nm
(rpm/Nm) (kg/hr) (kW) (kg/hr) (kW)
and 3000 rpm/100 Nm) and higher IP, the start of combustion during
Diesel HVO Diesel HVO the main injection, due to faster evaporation of fuels, occurs earlier and
closer to TDC in an environment of higher in-cylinder pressures and
1500/35 1.57 1.55 5.6 1.58 1.54 5.5 temperatures resulting in a higher HRR peak. For all analyzed points, an
1500/100 3.56 3.52 15.8 3.83 3.77 15.7
increase of fuel IP led to a higher and narrower heat release peak [31],
3000/35 3.52 3.54 10.9 3.54 3.52 10.9
3000/100 7.57 7.48 31.3 10.98 9.64 31.8
which results in shorter combustion duration (Table 13 and Fig. 13) and
also higher pmax and temperatures (Table 14 and Fig. 12). An exception
is only noticed at 1500 rpm and 35 Nm for both fuels, where pmax is
time makes the overall combustion occur over a shorter time, and this lower at higher IP. At this operating point, pilot injection occurs later in
determines a decrease in bsfc. All in all, HVO showed lower bsfc in most the compression stroke (at −25°CA aTDC), where the temperature and
cases compared to D2 fuel due to its lower density. pressure are high, as a result pmax, which occurred at 0°CA, is a result of
the combustion for the pilot injection. An increase of IP leads to faster
evaporation and thus faster burning of the pilot injected fuel, reducing
3.3. Effect of injection pressure (IP)
in that way the duration and pmax of combustion during pilot injection.
In contrast, the main injection, at 1500 rpm and 35 Nm, starts after TDC
3.3.1. Effect of IP on combustion
(4°CA aTDC), where in-cylinder pressure and temperature have started
This section investigates the effect of increased Injection Pressure
decreasing (see Table 14 and Fig. 12), however, pmax of the combustion
(IP) on engine combustion. Table 13 presents the effect of IP on ignition
for the main injection increased with the increase of IP due to faster
delay and combustion duration. It is observed that increasing IP leads to
evaporation of fuels, occurs earlier and closer to TDC in an environment
shorter ignition delay and shorter combustion duration. Higher fuel
of higher in-cylinder pressures and temperatures resulting in a higher
injection pressure provides more energy to break up fuels into smaller
HRR peak.
droplets, leading to faster evaporation at the periphery of the fuel
sprays, superior dispersion, finer atomization and faster ignition of the
fuel vapor [1]. Furthermore the shorter ID, results in an increase of pmax 3.3.2. Effect of IP on emissions and engine performance
(Table 14) and the HRR peak, and thus combustion temperature The effect of injection pressure on engine emissions is presented in
(Fig. 12). However, the time (angle) where pmax occurred do not Fig. 14. Increasing IP boosted NOx emissions due to higher pressures,

17
A. Dimitriadis, et al. Fuel 265 (2020) 116921

Fig. 16. Effect of injection pressure on thermal efficiency.

Table 16 As far as HC emissions are concerned, it was observed from Fig. 14

Injection duration (μs) of pilot and main injection. that an increase of IP with HVO results in lower HC emissions in the
IP Default 300 bars Higher case of low load (35 Nm) and higher HC emissions in case of medium
load (100 Nm). At low loads, the injected fuel mass is not affected by
Speed[rpm]/ Torque [Nm] Pilot (μs) Main (μs) Pilot (μs) Main (μs) the variation of IP. As a result, the more uniform A/F ratio with higher
IP aids the reduction of HC as the combustion rate is mostly limited by
D2 (injection duration)
1500/35 230 475 180 385
the mixture formation rate. At 100 Nm, the influence of a lower overall
1500/100 280 710 230 585 air-fuel ratio compared to 35 Nm becomes visible. In this case, the in-
3000/35 250 650 180 455 jected fuel mass increased at higher IP (Table 15), as a result the engine
3000/100 250 690 220 610 operates with slightly richer local air–fuel mixtures, which leads to a
D2 (injection duration) lower degree of premixing and higher HC formation. In contrast,
1500/35 230 480 181 380 combustion of D2 with a lower cetane number is limited by chemical
1500/100 280 720 230 595
kinetics, thus longer premixing, combined with a longer ignition delay
3000/35 250 640 180 450
3000/100 250 690 220 610 lead to entrapment of the mixture to colder parts of combustion
chamber, leading to increased HC emissions at all points with the ex-
ception of 3000 rpm and 35 Nm. HC emissions of D2 are reduced at
and thus higher temperatures that occurred during combustion. The 3000 rpm and 35 Nm due to the merging of the combustion of the pilot
same trends are observed for all tested operating points, with the ex- and main injection. In this case, the ignition delay of the main injection
ception of 1500 rpm and 35 Nm for HVO fuel (Fig. 14), due to the is negligible, preventing escape of the mixture to areas where com-
differences observed at this point, during the combustion between the bustion is not possible.
two fuels, for the reasons that were analysed in Section 3.1.1. At this Finally, Figs. 14 and 16 present the effect of IP on bsfc and thermal
operating point (1500 rpm and 35 Nm), NOx emissions of HVO are efficiency, respectively. As the IP increased, more fuel mass is injected
almost similar for both examined injection pressures as there are no in the cylinder (Table 15). As a result, the engine in order to counter-
strong differences on in-cylinder temperature between the two IP balance this effect reduces the injection duration of both the pilot and
(Fig. 12). main injection (Table 16). However, the injected fuel mass is still higher
At higher IP, the smaller fuel droplets (lower diameter) and faster compared to the default IP for both fuels. As a result, the thermal ef-
fuel evaporation rate lead to improved fuel air mixing [43], higher in- ficiency of the engine reduces.
cylinder pressures and temperatures (Fig. 12), favoring the oxidation
process of soot particles and leading to lower PM emissions of up to
80% for both tested fuels. The trade-off plots between NOx-PM emis- 4. Summary and conclusions
sions for the tested IP are presented in Fig. 15. It is observed that, by
reducing PM emissions, strong penalties in NOx emissions up to 60% are HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) is a very promising renewable fuel
inevitable for both fuels. for the transportation sector due to its favorable properties. However,
there is a gap in the literature on the recalibration potential of light

18
A. Dimitriadis, et al.
duty diesel engines running on HVO. To that purpose the impact of
main injection timing, pilot injection timing and injection pressure was
investigated in a turbocharged diesel engine operating with HVO fuel to
gain full advantage of its properties. HVO was compared with a con-
ventional EN 590 diesel fuel. The aim was to achieve PM and NOx re-
duction with HVO without strong penalties on thermal efficiency and
brake specific fuel consumption. Based on a steady-state analysis and
experimental data, HVO was found to provide lower engine-out PM
emissions up to 40%, lower HC emissions up to 45%, as well as lower
mass-based FC up to 3%, while engine-out NOx emissions were similar
or slightly higher to commercial diesel.
The findings have shown that although the engine is designed for
optimum operation with diesel fuel significant, further advancements in
lowering exhaust emissions are possible through utilization of alter-
native fuels with favorable fuel characteristics and proper engine con-
trol. As HVO produces lower PM emissions compared to diesel fuel at
the same engine control setting, there is a big potential for NOx emis-
sion reductions through a proper engine re-adjustment aiming to sig-
nificantly improve the PM-NOx trade-off. For the examined engine, the
optimum approach was to retard the main injection timing (by 2°CA).
In that case, in addition to the reductions instigated by the simple re-
placement of D2 with HVO, further emission reductions were achieved
leading to 20% lower engine-out NOx emissions, while PM emissions
were still kept well below D2 levels (up to 30% lower).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Athanasios Dimitriadis: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing. Tine Seljak: Investigation,
Validation. Rok Vihar: Investigation, Data curation. Urban Žvar
Baškovič: Investigation, Data curation. Athanasios Dimaratos:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing - review &
editing. Stella Bezergianni: Conceptualization. Zissis Samaras:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing - review &
editing. Tomaž Katrašnik: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Validation, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work has been partially funded by COST Action SMARTCATs
(CM 1404), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and
Technology, www.cost.eu) and by Slovenian Research Agency (research
core funding No. P2-0401). The authors also wish to express their ap-
preciation for the HVO (NEXBTL) fuel provided by Neste Oil
Corporation and the AVL that provided the software for combustion
analysis.
References
[1] Labecki L, Ganippa LC. Effects of injection parameters and EGR on combustion and
emission characteristics of rapeseed oil and its blends in diesel engines. Fuel
2012;98:15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.03.029.
[2] US EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency. Published date 2003. A
comprehensive analysis of biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions.
[3] Demirbas A. New liquid biofuels from vegetable oils via catalytic pyrolysis. Energy
Educ Sci Technol 2008;21:1–59.
[4] Demirbas A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Policy
2007;35:4661–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.04.003.
[5] Basheer D, Abdul AAR, Daud WMAW, Chakrabarti MH. Performance evaluation of
biodiesel from used domestic waste oils: a review. Process Saf Environ Protect
2012;90:164–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.02.005.
[6] Swain PK, Das LM, Naik SN. Biomass to liquid: a prospective challenge to research
and development in 21st century. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4917–33.
19
Fuel 265 (2020) 116921
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.061.
[7] Mustafa B. Potential alternatives to edible oils for biodiesel production—a review of
current work. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:1479–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2010.10.011.
[8] Bezergianni S, Dimitriadis A. Comparison between different types of renewable
diesel. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:110–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2012.12.042.
[9] Soo-Young N. Application of hydrotreated vegetable oil from triglyceride based
biomass to CI engines – A review. Fuel 2014;115:88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2013.07.001.
[10] Duckham K, Seongwan K, Sehumn O, Soo-Young N. Engine performance and
emission characteristics of hydrotreated vegetable oil in light duty diesel engines.
Fuel 2014;125:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.089.
[11] Rantanen L, Linnalia R, Aakko P, Harju T. NExBTL-biodiesel fuel of the second
generation. SAE paper 2005:01–3771. https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-3771.
[12] Murtonen T, Aakko-Saksa P, Kuronen M, Mikkonen S, Lehtoranta K. Emissions with
heavy-duty diesel engines and vehicles using FAME, HVO and GTL fuels with and
without DOC + POC aftertreatment. SAE paper 2009;01-2693. https://doi.org/10.
4271/2009-01-2693.
[13] Suarez-Bertoa R, Kousoulidoua M, Clairotte M, Giechaskiel B, Nuottimäki J,
Sarjovaara T, et al. Impact of HVO blends on modern diesel passenger cars emis-
sions during real world operation. Fuels 2019;1427:1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2018.08.031.
[14] Kousoulidou M, Dimaratos A, Karvountzis-Kontakiotis A, Samaras Z. Combustion
and emissions of a common-rail diesel engine fueled with HWCO. J. Energy Eng.
2013;140. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000154 SPECIAL
ISSUE: Innovative Technologies on Combustion of Biofuels in Engines: Issues and
Challenges.
[15] Murtonen T and Aakko-Saksa P. Alternative fuels with heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. VTT working papers 2009;128.
[16] Happonen M. Particle and NOx emissions from a HVO-fueled diesel engine.
Tampere University of Technology. Doctor degree thesis 26th October 2012. http://
urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-15-2935-1.
[17] Huang Y, Wang S, Zhou L. Effects of Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel on combustion and
emissions of direct injection diesel engine. Front Energy Power Eng Chin
2008;2:261–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-008-0062-x.
[18] Mikkonen S, Honkanen M, Kuronen M. HVO, Hydrotreated vegetable oil – a pre-
mium renewable biofuel for diesel engines. Releasing Green Bioenergy for Human.
Proceedings of BIT’S 3rd Annual World Congress of Bioenergy 2013.
[19] Sugiyama K, Goto I, Kitano K, Mogi K, Honkanen M. Effects of Hydrotreated
Vegetable Oil (HVO) as Renewable Diesel Fuel on Combustion and Exhaust
Emissions in Diesel Engine. SAE Technical Paper, 2011. 2011–01-1954. https://doi.
org/10.4271/2011-01-1954.
[20] Singer A, Schröder O, Pabst C, Munack A, Bünger J, Ruck W, et al. Aging studies of
biodiesel and HVO and their testing as neat fuel and blends for exhaust emissions in
heavy-duty engines and passenger cars. Fuel 2015;153:595–603. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2015.03.050.
[21] Pflaum H, Hofmann P, Geringer B, Weissel W. Potential of hydrogenated vegetable
oil (HVO) in a modern diesel engine. SAE paper 2010;32-0081. https://doi.org/10.
4271/2010-32-0081.
[22] Erkkila K, Nylund NO, Hulkkone T, Tilli A, Mikkonen S, Saikkonen P, Makinen R,
Amberia A. Emission performance of paraffinic HVO diesel fuel in heavy duty ve-
hicles. SAE paper 2011;01-1966. https://doi.org/10.4271/2011-01-1966.
[23] Happonen M, Heikkila J, Murtonen T, Lehto K, Sarjovaara T, Larmi M, et al.
Reductions in particulate and NOx emissions by diesel engine parameter adjust-
ments with HVO fuel. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012;46:6198–204. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es300447t.
[24] Aatola Hannu, Larmi Martti, Sarjovaara Teemu, Mikkonen Seppo. Hydrotreated
vegetable oil (HVO) as a renewable diesel fuel: trade-off between NOx, particulate
emission, and fuel consumption of a heavy duty engine. SAE Int. J. Engines
2009;1(1):1251–62. https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01-2500.
[25] Automotive fuels – Paraffinic diesel fuel from synthesis or hydrotreatment –
Requirements and test methods, NSAI Standard, I.S. EN 15940:2016.
[26] Ilmari Lastikka. Second generation bodiesel and sustainability requirements. Neste
Oil presentation.
[27] “Automotive fuels - diesel - requirements and test methods,” SIST EN 590:2009/
A101.
[28] Seppo Mikkonen, Tuukka Hartikka, Markku Kuronen and Pirjo Saikkonen. HVO,
Hydrotreated vegetable oil – a premium renewable biofuel for diesel engines. Neste
Oil Proprietary publication. December 2012, for public use.
[29] Payri F, Broatch A, Margot X, Monelletta L. Sound quality assessment of diesel
combustion noise using in-cylinder pressure components. Meas Sci Technol
2009;20:015107https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/20/1/015107.
[30] Byttner, S., Rögnvaldsson, T., and Wickström, N. Estimation of Combustion
Variability Using In-cylinder Ionization Measurements. SAE Technical Paper 2001-
01-3485, 2001, https://doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-3485.
[31] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. New York: McGraw Hill;
1998.
[32] Yao Changsheng, Yaodong Hu, Zhou Tianyuan, Yang Fuyuan, Ouyang Minggao,
Huang Haiyan. Combustion stability control of dieseline PPCI based on in-cylinder
pressure signals. IFAC-Papers On Line 2016;49–11:333–9. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ifacol.2016.08.050.
[33] Payri F, Lujan JM, Martin J, Abbad A. Digital signal processing of in-cylinder
pressure for combustion diagnosis of internal combustion engines. Mech Syst Signal
Process 2010;24:1767–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2009.12.011. Users
Guide AVL BOOST VERSION 2001.1. 12 ed.; 2011.
A. Dimitriadis, et al.
[34] Bohl T, Smallbone A, Tian G, Roskilly PA. Particulate number and NOx trade-off
comparisons between HVO and mineral diesel in HD applications. Fuels
2018;215:90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.11.023.
[35] Rimkus A, Zaglinskis J, Rapalis P, Skackauskas P. Research on the combustion,
energy and emission parameters of diesel fuel and a biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuel
blend in a compression-ignition. Energy Convers Manage 2015;106:1109–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.10.047.
[36] Ashrafur Rahman SM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Sanjid A, Abedin MJ. Assessment of
emission and performance of compression ignition engine with varying injection
timing. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;35:221–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.03.049.
[37] Rizwanul Fattah IM, Masjuki HH, Liaquat AM, Ramli R, Kalam MA, Riazuddin VN.
Impact of various biodiesel fuels obtained from edible and non-edible oils on engine
exhaust gas and noise emissions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:552–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.036.
[38] Zunqing Z, Lang Y, Haifeng L, Yuxuan Z, Xiaofan Z, Mingfa Y. Effect of two-stage
injection on combustion and emissions under high EGR rate on a diesel engine by
fueling blends of diesel/gasoline, diesel/n-butanol, diesel/gasoline/n-butanol and
pure diesel. Energy Convers Manage 2015;90:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
20
Fuel 265 (2020) 116921
enconman.2014.11.011.
[39] Okude K, Mori K, Shiino S, Yamada K, Matsumoto Y. Effects of multiple injections
on diesel emission and combustion characteristics. SAE Technical Paper 2007;01-
4178. https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-4178.
[40] d’ Ambrosio S, Ferrari A. Effects of pilot injection parameters on low temperature
combustion diesel engines equipped with solenoid injectors featuring conventional
and rate-shaped main injection. Energy Convers Manage 2016;110:457–68. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.12.014.
[41] Park SH, Yoon SH, Lee CS. Effects of multiple-injection strategies on overall spray
behavior, combustion and emissions reduction characteristics of biodiesel fuel. Appl
Energy 2011;88:88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.07.024.
[42] Liang Q, Xiaobei C, Bei L, Shijun D, Zufeng B. Partially premixed combustion based
on different injection strategies in a light-duty diesel engine. Energy
2016;96:155–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.052.
[43] Park S, Kim HJ, Shim DH, Lee JT. Effects of various split injection strategies on
combustion and emissions characteristics in a single-cylinder diesel engine. Appl
Therm Eng 2018;140:422–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.05.
025.