energies
Article
Utilization of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) in a Euro 6
Dual-Loop EGR Diesel Engine: Behavior as a Drop-In Fuel and
Potentialities along Calibration Parameter Sweeps
Stefano d’Ambrosio * , Alessandro Mancarella
Citation: d’Ambrosio, S.; Mancarella,
A.; Manelli, A. Utilization of
Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) in
a Euro 6 Dual-Loop EGR Diesel
Engine: Behavior as a Drop-In Fuel
and Potentialities along Calibration
Parameter Sweeps. Energies 2022, 15,
7202. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en15197202
Academic Editor: Pavel A. Strizhak
Received: 31 August 2022
Accepted: 23 September 2022
Published: 30 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 7202. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197202
and Andrea Manelli
Energy Department, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy
* Correspondence: stefano.dambrosio@polito.it; Tel.: +39-011-090-4415
Abstract: This study examines the effects on combustion, engine performance and exhaust pollutant
emissions of a modern Euro 6, dual-loop EGR, compression ignition engine running on regular
EN590-compliant diesel and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO). First, the potential of HVO as a “drop-
in” fuel, i.e., without changes to the original, baseline diesel-oriented calibration, was highlighted
and compared to regular diesel results. This showed how the use of HVO can reduce engine-out
emissions of soot (by up to 67%), HC and CO (by up to 40%), while NOx levels remain relatively
unchanged. Fuel consumption was also reduced, by about 3%, and slightly lower combustion noise
levels were detected, too. HVO has a lower viscosity and a higher cetane number than diesel. Since
these parameters have a significant impact on mixture formation and the subsequent combustion
process, an engine pre-calibrated for regular diesel fuel could not fully exploit the potential of another
sustainable fuel. Therefore, the effects of the most influential calibration parameters available on
the tested engine platform, i.e., high-pressure and low-pressure EGR, fuel injection pressure, main
injection timing, pilot quantity and dwell-time, were analyzed along single-parameter sweeps. The
substantial reduction in engine-out soot, HC and CO levels brought about by HVO could give the
possibility to implement additional measures to limit NOx emissions, combustion noise and/or fuel
consumption compared to diesel. For example, higher proportion of LP EGR and/or smaller pilot
quantity could be exploited with HVO, at low load, to reduce NOx emissions to a greater extent
than diesel, without incurring penalties in terms of incomplete combustion species. Conversely, at
higher load, delayed main injection timings and reduced rail pressure could reduce combustion noise
without exceeding soot levels of the baseline diesel case.
Keywords: pollutant emissions; diesel engine; HVO; drop-in fuel; ECU calibration
1. Introduction
Climate change, urban air pollution and energy sustainability have all been identified
as major global concerns, with massive and direct implications for the road transport
sector [1], whose primary power source continues to be the internal combustion engine
(ICE) burning fossil-derived fuels [2]. Compression-ignition (CI) engines powered by
conventional diesel oil account for a significant proportion of these ICEs, in both the
passenger car, particularly in the European Union (EU), and heavy-duty sectors [3]. Because
of their higher thermal efficiencies, they can reduce CO2 emissions by 11 to 40% compared
to gasoline counterparts [4]. However, since diesel engines consistently struggle with
higher nitrogen oxides (NOx ) and particulate matter (PM), exhaust pollutant emission
targets may still be difficult to meet, despite recent efforts to optimize both in-cylinder
combustion [5] and after-treatment systems (ATS) [6]. Biomass-derived, diesel-like fuels
are a promising way to address these issues while also reducing the environmental impact
of CI engines in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [7]. Vegetable oils, animal fats
and waste cooking oils can be used as renewable feedstocks for the production of diesel
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 2 of 17

fuel substitutes via various production processes that yield fuels with varying chemical
compositions and properties [8].
Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME), commonly known as biodiesel fuels [9], are produced
from oil-rich crops such as soy or rapeseed, using transesterification. Despite offering
several advantages over petroleum-derived diesel oil (such as improved ignition, with
associated reductions in CO, unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and PM emissions [10]), FAME
fuel application is limited due to inconveniences associated with oxidation stability and
cold flow properties [11]. Indeed, FAME may cause storage tank corrosion and ageing
effects on the polymeric materials used in vehicle fuel systems [12]. Furthermore, at lower
temperatures, FAME tends to form waxy crystals (which may cause problems during
storage) and degrade the engine cold operability due to higher viscosity, which may
affect injection behavior [13]. Because of these unfavorable properties of FAME, blending
restrictions with conventional petroleum-derived diesel oil are typically set (e.g., EN590, in
all EU member states, maximum 7%-vol) [14]. Nonetheless, one significant advantage of
FAME is its high lubricity, which is beneficial for fuel-lubricated components in the fuel
injection system [15].
A promising alternative to FAME could be hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), a syn-
thetic liquid bio-fuel free of aromatics, oxygen and sulfur, made up of straight-chain
paraffinic hydrocarbons (i.e., Cn H2n+2 alkanes) and produced by hydrotreating catalysis of
triglyceride-based biomass [16] such as vegetable oils, animal fats, and waste materials [17].
Hydrotreating has several advantages over transesterification, including lower processing
costs, greater feedstock flexibility as well as compatibility with conventional CI engines and
fuel standards [18]: in fact, HVO can be used, either pure or blended with petroleum-based
diesel in any proportion, with little to no modifications to existing CI engines [19]. The
benefits of HVO over FAME have been extensively discussed in the literature [20,21], and
include its relatively high heating value and cetane number, lower viscosity, lower cloud
point and better cold flow properties [22]. Thanks to fewer unsaturated compounds in its
chemical composition, HVO also displays better oxidation stability than FAME: aside from
its excellent thermal stability, no deteriorating effects on polymeric parts of the fuel system
have yet been revealed [12]. However, since HVO has poor lubricity in general, lubrication
additives are required [15].
Because straight-chain alkanes have a lower activation energy to form free radicals and
start the oxidation process than aromatic ring-shaped hydrocarbons with stable molecular
structures, the ignition delay (ID) of HVO is generally shorter than that of conventional
diesel oil [23]. As a result, HVO has an earlier start of combustion (SOC) than conventional
diesel, especially at low and medium loads, whereas this effect may be weaker at higher
loads [9]. Shorter ID implies a combustion with milder premixed phase, which can have
an appreciable impact on combustion noise (CN) and exhaust pollutant emissions [24,25].
The majority of the available literature on the subject agrees that using HVO reduces CO,
HC and PM emissions when compared to regular diesel [13,14,16,17,19,26]. The decrease
in CO and HC emissions, especially at low loads (where their production is greater), is
generally ascribed to higher cetane number and better ignition [14,27], whereas the absence
of aromatic compounds, with their benzene rings acting as a precursor to the formation
of soot in oxygen-lacking atmospheres, is widely regarded as the primary reason for PM
reduction with HVO [23,28]. The literature findings on the effect of HVO on NOx emissions,
on the other hand, show no clear trends and are mostly inconsistent [14].
Despite several researchers have already investigated the effects of HVO on engine
emissions and performance in the past, there is a lack of experimental studies that en-
compass the variety of calibration parameters potentially available on latest generation
Euro 6 diesel engine platforms. Research in the vast majority of the literature is carried
out on single-cylinder research engines [9], constant volume vessels [10,20], heavy-duty
engines [28] or Euro 5 or older engines or vehicles [13,17,22,23,26].
The primary objective of this study is to compare the effects of HVO and diesel fuel
on combustion and engine performance, first testing HVO as a “drop-in” fuel (without
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 3 of 17

adjusting any ECU calibration parameter), and then varying some of the most important
combustion-related parameters (start of injection, EGR, pilot injection timing and quantity,
rail pressure). The effects of varying these parameters were studied at five distinct engine
operating points and here illustrated at two (for the sake of conciseness), namely 1250 rpm
at 2 bar of bmep (low load) and 2250 rpm at 15 bar of bmep (high load). The investigation
was conducted on a 2.3-liter diesel engine for light-duty commercial vehicles applications.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Engine and Experimental Setup
The experimental data given below were gathered from a dedicated test campaign
carried out on a fully instrumented 2.3-liter, four-stroke diesel engine prototype, provided
by FPT Industrial (i.e., the OEM) and installed on a dyno test bench at the ICE Advanced
Laboratory in Politecnico di Torino. Table 1 displays geometrical features as well as other
parameters of the engine, whose baseline production version is adopted for modern Euro 6
light-duty commercial vehicles.

Table 1. Main technical specifications of the F1A Euro 6 engine.

Number of Cylinders 4
Displacement 2.3 l
Bore/stroke 88 mm/94 mm
Rod length 146 mm
Compression ratio 16.3:1
Valves per cylinder 4
Max power 102 kW
Max torque 400 Nm
Turbocharger Single-stage VGT
Fuel injection system Common rail injection system
EGR circuit type Dual loop, water-cooled
Exhaust after-treatment system DOC, DPF
Emission standard Euro 6 d final

The engine under test is endowed with a high-pressure Common Rail fuel injection
system with solenoid injectors, a variable geometry turbine (VGT), an intake throttle valve,
an exhaust flap and a dual loop cooled EGR system that combines high-pressure (HP) and
low-pressure (LP) EGR circuits. The HP circuit (also known as the short-route), which is the
most widely adopted solution, collects exhaust gases from the exhaust manifold upstream
of the turbine and recirculates them back into the intake manifold (downstream of the
throttle valve and thus of the compressor) via either an HP EGR cooler or a parallel by-pass
duct, allowing the engine to warm up faster in the latter case. An HP EGR valve can be used
to control the amount of recirculated exhaust gases. The LP circuit (also known as long-
route) is also included on the tested engine to allow experimental investigation of dual-loop
EGR configurations. In the LP EGR circuit, exhaust gases are collected downstream of the
ATS and recirculated back upstream of the turbocompressor through a dedicated LP EGR
cooler. A three-way valve can be used to change the rate of exhaust gases coming from the
LP EGR circuit. The ATS is made up of two components: the Diesel-Oxidation Catalyst
(DOC) and the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF), whereas the Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR), which is present in the commercial application, was not available in the current
project. A passive regeneration of the DPF is periodically required to prevent the system
from clogging.
Low-frequency pressure and temperature measurements were taken at various points
along the air, EGR and exhaust flow paths to provide a complete picture of engine variables.
In addition, Kistler 6058A high-frequency piezoelectric transducers were used to measure
in-cylinder pressure (every 0.1 ◦ CA) in the four cylinders of the engine. An absolute
pressure sensor, namely a Kistler 4007C piezoresistive transducer installed in the intake
manifold, was used to reference these in-cylinder signals.
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 4 of 17

An AVL KMA fuel flowrate system was used to perform continuous measurements
of the engine fuel consumption with 0.1% accuracy, while an AVL AMAi60 exhaust gas
analyzer was used to measure the concentrations of NOx /NO, HC, CO, CO2 , and O2
both upstream and downstream of the ATS as well as the CO2 concentration in the intake
manifold. The engine-out soot emissions were measured under steady-state conditions
using an AVL 415S smokemeter.
All of the above-mentioned measurement equipment was controlled by AVL PUMA
Open 2, while IndiCom and AVL CONCERTO 5 were used for indicating measurements
and data postprocessing, respectively.

2.2. Test Fuels

The fuels used for the experimental campaign were HVO and, as a reference, conven-
tional petroleum-derived diesel B7 (with up to 7% biodiesel, in compliance with EN 590
regulations). ENI provided the main properties of both fuels, which are listed in Table 2.
This table includes information such as the decreased density of HVO compared to diesel,
its relatively high cetane number (which is mostly due to its paraffinic nature) and the
complete absence of aromatics in HVO, which increases its H/C ratio. In addition to this, a
more detailed analysis of the chemical composition of the tested HVO has pointed out that
n-paraffines account for a total of 22.7% in mass, being n-C16, n-C17 and n-C18 the most
relevant shares (9.9%, 1.7% and 9.5%, respectively).

Table 2. Diesel vs. HVO main properties.

Parameter Unit EN590 Diesel HVO

Density at 15 ◦C kg/m3 830.6 777.8
Kinematic viscosity mm2 /s 2.969 2.646
Dynamic viscosity Pa·s 2.47·10−3 2.06·10−3
Cetane number - 54.6 79.6
Monoaromatic %v/v 20.1 0.50
Polyaromatic %v/v 3.00 0
Total aromatic %v/v 23.1 0
Flammability ◦C 74.0 60.5
Lower Heating Value MJ/kg 42.65 44.35
Hydrogen %m/m 13.72 15.00
Carbon %m/m 85.67 85.00
Oxygen %m/m 0.61 0
Sulphur mg/kg 6.50 0.53
FAME %v/v 5.00 0.05
Approx. formula - C13 H24 O0.06 C13 H28

2.3. Exerimental Tests

The experimental test campaign was carried out on five steady-state engine operating
points, four of which were deemed representative of the application of the tested engine
to a light-duty commercial vehicle over a Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Test Cycle
(WLTC), namely 1250 × 2, 1500 × 9, 1750 × 5, 2000 × 9 (expressed in terms of speed
n [rpm] × bmep [bar]). In addition, a fifth operating point, 2250 × 15, was selected to
represent the same vehicle’s highway usage at constant speed (130 km/h). Experimental
tests were conducted on all these five engine working points, but for the sake of conciseness,
only the results pertaining to the engine operating points 1250 × 2 and 2250 × 15 will be
discussed hereinafter.
The engine under test has a preliminary baseline (diesel-oriented) calibration that
only uses high-pressure EGR. This baseline calibration was used as a starting point for
preliminary steady-state experimental tests, which were performed to investigate the
benefit pure HVO can bring as a “drop-in” fuel, i.e., using it as a completely interchangeable
substitute for conventional EN590 B7 diesel oil, with no engine calibration adaptation.
 the results pertaining to the engine operating points 1250 × 2 and 2250 × 15 will be dis-
cussed hereinafter.
The engine under test has a preliminary baseline (diesel-oriented) calibration that
only uses high-pressure EGR. This baseline calibration was used as a starting point for
preliminary steady-state experimental tests, which were performed to investigate the ben-
Energies 2022, 15, 7202
efit pure HVO can bring as a “drop-in” fuel, i.e., using it as a completely interchangeable 5 of 17

substitute for conventional EN590 B7 diesel oil, with no engine calibration adaptation.
In the second part of the investigation, for both fuels under test, some of the main
engine Incalibration
the secondparameters,
part of the i.e., rail pressure
investigation, for(pboth
rail), electric start of
fuels under injection
test, some of of the
the main
main
injection (SOIMain), parameters,
engine calibration pilot 1 injection timing
i.e., rail (DTPiI1
pressure (p)railand quantity
), electric start(qof ), HP and
PiI1injection of LP
the EGR
main
valve positions,
injection were
(SOIMain investigated
), pilot 1 injection bytiming
means (DTof suitable
PiI1 ) and variable
quantitysweeps
(qPiI1 ),obtained
HP andthrough
LP EGR
avalve
“one-factor-at-a-time” approach,by
positions, were investigated i.e., varying
means each ofvariable
of suitable the previously
sweeps obtainedlisted variables
through
throughout meaningful variation ranges, keeping the others fixed. Engine speed and
a “one-factor-at-a-time” approach, i.e., varying each of the previously listed variables
torque were maintained
throughout meaningfulconstant
variation at ranges,
each engine operating
keeping point,fixed.
the others regardless Engine of changes
speed and in
any of the
torque previously
were listed
maintained calibration
constant parameters,
at each by allowing
engine operating the engine
point, regardless testbench con-
of changes
troller
in anytoofadjust the injected
the previously fuelcalibration
listed supply accordingly.
parameters, by allowing the engine testbench
controller to adjust the injected fuel supply accordingly.
3. Results
3. Results
3.1.
3.1.HVO
HVOasasAa “Drop-in”
“Drop-In” Fuel
Fuel
The
The first activity performed on
first activity performed on the
the engine
engine was
was toto experimentally
experimentally compare
compare the
the two
two
fuels
fuels (diesel B7 and HVO) on the selected steady-state operating points, to investigatethe
(diesel B7 and HVO) on the selected steady-state operating points, to investigate the
benefit
benefit that
that pure HVO can
pure HVO can bring
bringas asaa“drop-in”
“drop-in”fuel,
fuel,with
with
nono engine
engine calibration
calibration adapta-
adaptation.
tion. Infollowing,
In the the following, effects
effects on combustion,
on combustion, engine
engine performance
performance and and engine-out
engine-out emis-
emissions
sions are investigated.
are investigated.

3.1.1.
3.1.1.HVO
HVOvs.vs.Conventional
ConventionalDiesel
DieselOil:
Oil:Effects
Effectson onCombustion
Combustion
Figure
Figure 1 depicts two in-cylinder pressure traces(ensemble
1 depicts two in-cylinder pressure traces (ensembleofof50
50consecutive
consecutivecycles,
cycles,
y-axis
y-axison onthe
theright
rightindicated
indicatedbybyananarrow)
arrow)andandthethecorresponding
correspondingheat
heatrelease
releaserate
rate(HRR,
(HRR,
y-axis
y-axis on
onthe
theleft
leftindicated
indicated by
by an
an arrow)
arrow) for
for the
the steady-state
steady-state points
points 1250
1250 ××22(representative
(representative
of
ofaalow-load
low-loadandandlow-speed
low-speed application)
application) and
and 2250
2250 ××1515(representative
(representativeofofaahigh-load
high-loadandand
medium-speed
medium-speedapplication),
application),although
althoughthethestudy
studywaswasperformed
performedforforall
allthe
the five
five selected
selected
part-load
part-load operating
operating points
points previously
previously discussed.
discussed.
90 80 180 110

80 Diesel 70 160
Diesel 100

HVO HVO
70 60 140 90
In-cylinder pressure [bar]

60 50 120 80

In-cylinder pressure [bar]

HRR [kJ/m3deg]
HRR [kJ/m3deg]

50 40 100 70

40 30 80 60

30 20 60 50

20 10 40 40

10 0 20 30

0 0 20

-10 -20 10
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Crank Angle [deg] Crank Angle [deg]

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure1.1.In-cylinder pressureand
In-cylinder pressure andheat
heatrelease
release rate
rate forfor diesel
diesel andand
HVOHVO at 1250
at 1250 × 2 ×(a)2 and
(a) and
22502250
× 15× (b).
15
(b).
Overall, the combustion of the engine running on conventional diesel or HVO is
Overall,
similar, mostthe combustion
notably of the
when the engine running
combustion of theon conventional
main diesel
injection is or HVO is
considered. sim-is
This
ilar, mostwhen
evident notably when thethe
examining combustion
HRR peaks of of
thethe
main
maininjection is considered.
injection depicted in This is evident
Figure 1 (third
when examining
and second mostthe HRRpeaks
visible peaksonof the
the HRR
main plots
injection depicted
in Figure in respectively),
1a,b, Figure 1 (thirdbutandthis
sec-is
ond
truemost visible
for all of thepeaks on theconditions
operating HRR plotsinvestigated.
in Figure 1a,b, Asrespectively), but fuel
a matter of fact, this is true for
properties
appear to have little effect on the combustion of the main injection regardless of the engine
load. The heat produced by the pilot fuel combustion raises the temperature of the in-
cylinder gases prior to the main injection, which, regardless of the specific fuel properties,
ignites with a small ID upon reaching the hot burnt gases of the pilot combustion. As a
result, when one or more pilot injections are used (as is standard for the calibration of
latest generation Euro 6 diesel engines, except at full load), the effect of cetane number
on main injection combustion is significantly reduced, resulting in a smaller difference
in heat release between HVO and conventional diesel oil. Conversely, at lower load, the
cetane number of the fuel shows a greater influence on the ID of the pilot injections (and
 all of the operating conditions investigated. As a matter of fact, fuel properties appear to
have little effect on the combustion of the main injection regardless of the engine load. The
Energies 2022, 15, 7202
heat produced by the pilot fuel combustion raises the temperature of the in-cylinder gases 6 of 17
prior to the main injection, which, regardless of the specific fuel properties, ignites with a
small ID upon reaching the hot burnt gases of the pilot combustion. As a result, when one
or more pilot injections are used (as is standard for the calibration of latest generation
thus on the mixture formation prior to ignition), most notably on the earliest one (namely
Euro 6 diesel engines, except at full load), the effect of cetane number on main injection
pilot 2), due to relatively low in-cylinder temperatures. Indeed, the higher cetane number
combustion is significantly reduced, resulting in a smaller difference in heat release be-
of HVO results in a noticeable advance of the start of combustion (SOC) of pilot 2, at
tween HVO and conventional diesel oil. Conversely, at lower load, the cetane number of
1250 × 2 (cf. Figure 1a). Furthermore, when compared to HVO, conventional diesel has a
the fuel shows a greater influence on the ID of the pilot injections (and thus on the mixture
lower HRR peak during the combustion of this pilot 2 and a higher one during that of the
formation prior to ignition), most notably on the earliest one (namely pilot 2), due to rel-
subsequent pilot injection (namely, pilot 1). Again, this is due to the lower cetane number
atively low in-cylinder temperatures. Indeed, the higher cetane number of HVO results in
of conventional diesels, which may result in overmixing of some fuel from pilot 2 injection,
a noticeable advance of the start of combustion (SOC) of pilot 2, at 1250 × 2 (cf. Figure 1a).
causing it to burn later during the combustion of the following pilot 1 injection rather than
Furthermore, when compared to HVO, conventional diesel has a lower HRR peak during
during the earliest pilot shot.
the combustion of this pilot 2 and a higher one during that of the subsequent pilot injection
(namely, pilot vs.
3.1.2. HVO 1). Conventional
Again, this is Diesel
due toOil:
the Effects
lower cetane number
on Engine of conventional
Performance diesels,
and Emissions
which may result in overmixing of some fuel from pilot 2 injection, causing it to burn later
Figure 2 reports, respectively, a comparison between the fuels at the steady-state
during the combustion of the following pilot 1 injection rather than during the earliest
points 1250 × 2 and 2250 × 15, in terms of engine-out pollutant emissions and engine
pilot shot.
performance. In particular, each figure shows engine-out soot, CO, and HC emissions, as
well as bsfc and CN, on several y-axes stacked in function of engine-out NOx emissions
3.1.2. HVO vs. Conventional Diesel Oil: Effects on Engine Performance and Emissions
(with decreasing EGR values corresponding to increasing NOx values). The results for all
theFigure
tested2points
reports,
are respectively,
reported in Tablea comparison
3. Relative between
changes (inthepercentage)
fuels at thebetween
steady-state
the two
points
fuels1250
were× considered
2 and 2250 for
× 15, in termsand
emissions of engine-out pollutant
fuel consumption, emissions
according and engine
to Equation (1),per-
while
formance.
absoluteInchanges
particular, each
were figure shows
considered engine-out
for brake soot,efficiency
thermal CO, and HC (ηu )emissions, as well
and CN, according
bsfcEquation
as to and CN,(2).
on several y-axes
Significant stackedvalues
reduced in function of engine-out
are highlighted withNO x emissions
green (withthe
color while
decreasing EGR values corresponding
increased ones are reported with red color.to increasing NO x values). The results for all the
tested points are reported in Table 3. Relative changes (in percentage) between the two
fuels were considered for∆emissions and fuel consumption,x HVO −according
xdiesel to Equation (1),(1)
% x (relative change ) = 100·
while absolute changes were considered for brake thermal efficiency x diesel (ηu) and CN, accord-
ing to Equation (2). Significant ∆xreduced
( absolutevalues
changeare
) =highlighted with green color while the(2)
x HVO − xdiesel
increased ones are reported with red color.

1250 x 2 [rpm x bar] Diesel (Baseline original calibration) 2250 x 15 [rpm x bar] Diesel (Baseline original calibration)
HVO (drop-in) HVO (drop-in)

1.25 1.37 + 9.6% NOx 2.32 2.40 – 3.3% NOx

0.20 0.4
[g/kWh]

[g/kWh]

0.15 0.0357 0.3

0.0213
Soot

Soot

0.10 0.2
0.0184
0.0180
0.05
– 48% soot 0.1 – 15% soot
0.00 0.0
6 4
5
[g/kWh]

[g/kWh]

4 3
2.33
CO

CO

3 2 0.378
2
1.48 0.333
1 – 36% CO 1 + 13% CO
0 0
1.2 0.4
[g/kWh]

[g/kWh]

1.0 0.584
0.8 0.3
HC

HC

0.6 0.2 0.0500

0.384 0.0461
0.4
0.2 – 34% HC 0.1 + 8.5% HC
0.0 0.0
290 280 230
211
[g/kWh]

[g/kWh]

280 272 220

bsfc

bsfc

205
270
– 2.9% bsfc 210
– 2.8% bsfc
260 200
84 89
80.5 88 86.1
[dBA]

[dBA]

82 79.8
CN

CN

87
80 85.6
86
78 – 0.7 dBA CN 85 – 0.5 dBA CN
76 84
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
NOx [g/kWh] NOx [g/kWh]

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Emissions,
Figure fuelfuel
2. Emissions, consumption andand
consumption combustion
combustionnoise forfor
noise diesel and
diesel HVO
and at at
HVO 1250 × 2×(a)
1250 andand
2 (a)
2250 × 15 (b). Results with the baseline (diesel-oriented) ECU calibration.
2250 × 15 (b). Results with the baseline (diesel-oriented) ECU calibration.
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 7 of 17

Table 3. Diesel vs. HVO comparison on 5 baseline calibration points (percentage variations).

Speed × bmep ∆% Soot ∆% CO ∆% HC ∆% NOx ∆% bsfc ∆% CO2 ∆% vfc ∆ηu ∆CN

(rpm × bar) [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [dBA]
1250 × 2 −48 −36 −34 +9.6 −2.9 −3.5 +3.7 −1.0 −0.7
1500 × 9 −67 −33 −44 −4.8 −3.3 −4.7 +2.9 −0.2 −1.2
1750 × 5 −56 −18 −30 −6.8 −3.4 −3.1 +3.1 −0.4 −0.9
2000 × 9 −46 −15 −25 −15 −3.2 −4.5 +3.4 −0.7 −0.8
2250 × 15 −15 +13 +8.5 −3.3 −2.8 −3.5 +3.8 −1.0 −0.5

NOx emissions measured from the engine running on HVO are generally lower than
those detected when running on reference diesel fuel (albeit not by as much as for the
other pollutant species, with NOx reductions ranging from −3.3% at 2250 × 15 to −15% at
2000 × 9, as reported in Table 3). The only exception is at low load (1250 × 2), where NOx
emissions for HVO increases (+9.6%, cf. Table 3 and Figure 2a). According to the available
literature on the topic, it is still unclear whether hydrotreated renewable fuels reduce or
increase NOx emissions when compared to diesel. A higher cetane number results in a
shorter ID and faster combustion. However, as the current results suggest, a shorter ID
does not always guarantee NOx reduction [29], and the results may vary depending on the
actual engine load conditions and calibration.
HVO reduces soot emissions for all the examined operating conditions (reductions
range from −15% at 2250 × 15 to −67% at 1500 × 9, see Table 3). Soot formation is a
complex phenomenon that is influenced by a wide variety of parameters such as EGR rate,
ID, and fuel properties (cetane number, density, viscosity and presence of aromatic and
polyaromatic compounds). Since EGR rate is nearly identical (ECU calibration remains
unchanged at each engine operating point), the smoke differences between HVO and
diesel could be entirely attributed to different fuel properties, changes in ID and absence of
aromatic compounds. In particular, the benefits of HVO properties appear to outweigh any
potential detrimental effect on soot caused by milder premixed combustion and shorter
ID, especially at low load, where soot reduction is nearly halved (−48% at 2 bar of bmep),
despite the fact that the amount of soot produced at low load is generally small, so its
reduction is not particularly significant in any case. Soot, on the other hand, becomes a
source of concern as load rises. Rising loads yield higher in-cylinder temperature and fuel
injection pressure, which speed up the air−fuel mixing process for the whole fuel injection
pattern and for both fuels, reducing ID variations in the overall combustion development,
which is witnessed by very similar HRR traces in Figure 1b. Therefore, the reduction in soot
(up to −67% at 1500 × 9, cf. Table 3) can be attributed primarily to virtually no aromatics
in HVO and to its lower density and viscosity. The absence of aromatic compounds in
a fuel generally results in less soot formation because these compounds are more likely
to act as soot precursors. Moreover, HVO has lower density and viscosity compared to
conventional diesel, as well as a narrower distillation temperature range (that describes
the evaporation of the liquid fuel as a function of temperature). This likely enhances a
faster evaporation rate and more uniform air−fuel mixture throughout the fuel cloud [13],
ultimately contributing to soot formation reduction.
The results reported in Table 3 also show that HVO emits less incomplete combustion
species (HC and CO) than the reference diesel fuel, which is consistent with the available
literature data. The only exception is the highest load investigated (2250 × 15), but the
percentage increase in CO (+13%) and HC (+8.5%) is far from being significant, because
their absolute values are quite low due to the high in-cylinder temperatures involved in the
combustion at this load. The most valuable HC reductions are approximately −30% at the
lowest loads (1250 × 2 and 1750 × 5), while relevant CO reductions are −18% at 1750 × 5
and −36% at 1250 × 2. HVO is thought to reduce incomplete combustion emissions
primarily due to its improved ignition behavior, which is attributed to its high cetane
number and narrow distillation range. The distillation curve is an important indicator of
the fuel suitability since fuel injection in diesel engines occur into hot in-cylinder intake
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 8 of 17

charge and evaporation is important, especially at low load and during cold start operation.
Fuels with low distillation curves (such as HVO) exhibit improved evaporation and mixing
with the intake charge, as well as increased reactivity at low combustion temperatures,
resulting in lower CO and HC emissions [30], especially at low-to-medium loads.
In addition to the previously reported reductions in engine-out pollutant emissions,
HVO also reduces brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) when compared to the reference
diesel fuel. This is achieved at each of the operating points investigated (bsfc reductions
range from −2.8% at 2250 × 15 to −3.4% at 1750 × 5, cf. Table 3). However, because
HVO has a lower density than the reference diesel fuel (777.8 vs. 830.6 kg/m3 , a −6.35%
difference), volumetric fuel consumption (vfc), calculated as bsfc divided by the fuel density,
increases by about 3 ÷ 4% on average. Both bsfc and vfc are worthwhile to compare: the
retail fuel market typically sells fuel in volume units (e.g., in €/l), so end-users consider vfc
as an important parameter, whereas the engine’s tank-to-wheel CO2 emission is dependent
on mass-based fuel consumption (i.e., bsfc), although a direct correlation between exhaust
CO2 and bsfc can be obtained only for fuels with the same carbon content, H/C ratio and
not containing oxygen, while HVO is mainly composed of paraffins in the range of n-C15
to n-C18, and diesel consists of hydrocarbons in the range of C9–C30 [17]. In this case, the
reduction in engine-out CO2 measured by the gas analyzer (from −3.1% at 1500 × 9 to
−4.7% at 1750 × 5, as reported in Table 3) is found to be quite well correlated with bsfc
reductions. Nevertheless, well-to-wheel CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are reported to
potentially be up to 10 times lower than those of fossil fuels if HVO is used, since it is made
out of renewable feedstocks that absorb CO2 while growing [31].
As far as brake thermal efficiency is concerned, all of the tested operating points show
only minor to negligible penalties when the engine runs on HVO. There does not appear to
be any dependence on the specific engine load or speed regime, either: penalties in ηu with
HVO range from −1% at 1250 × 2 and 2250 × 15 to −0.2% at 1500 × 9 (cf. Table 3).

3.2. Sweeps of Calibration Parameters

Several single-parameter sweeps were performed at the same steady-state engine
operating points investigated in the previous section, varying EGR valve positions and
fuel injection calibration parameters. The effects of carefully changing these parameters on
several trade-offs (vs. NOx emissions, as previously carried out) are shown, with the goal
of first providing an insight into the benefits on regulated pollutant emissions and engine
performance given by replacing diesel with HVO, and then obtaining some indications on
how to possibly recalibrate the tested engine to fully exploit the peculiar properties of HVO.

3.2.1. HVO vs. Conventional Diesel: Effect of EGR and EGR Split
The previously discussed baseline (diesel-oriented) calibration only includes HP EGR.
In this part, the split between HP and LP EGR supplied by the short-route and the long-
route paths, respectively, is investigated and referred to as “EGR split”. In particular,
various proportions of HP and LP EGR are investigated at several fixed λ values (i.e., the
adimensional ratio between the air mass and the fuel mass, referred to as the stoichiometric
value), to assess the benefits that could be obtained by adjusting the EGR rates and the EGR
split when HVO is used.
Figure 3 shows brake specific soot, CO and HC, along with combustion noise and fuel
consumption, on various y-axes stacked in function of brake specific NOx emissions (with
decreasing EGR values corresponding to increasing NOx values), for the same two engine
operating points already discussed, i.e., 1250 × 2 (Figure 3a) and 2250 × 15 (Figure 3b).
Tests using diesel fuel are represented by red solid lines with triangles, while tests using
HVO are represented by blue dashed lines with circles. Darker shades denote lower λ,
whereas lighter shades higher λ, for both fuels. As a reference, black dashed horizontal and
vertical lines correspond to the values retrieved from the baseline diesel calibration (the
same reported as red triangles in Figure 2a,b).
 (the same reported as red triangles in Figure 2a,b).
Starting from the right end points of each trend (points obtained by allowing only
HP EGR through the short-route path), LP EGR proportion, which indicates the contribu-
tion of LP EGR in the combined EGR loops, was progressively increased while the EGR
through the short-route path was reduced all the way to the left end point of the trend,
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 9 of 17
for which the HP EGR rate is zero (LP EGR only) and the minimum NOx (for each λ value)
is detected.

Diesel (λ=2.1) Diesel (λ=2.25) Diesel (λ=2.35) Diesel (λ=1.30) Diesel (λ=1.40) Diesel (λ=1.50)
HVO (λ=2.1) HVO (λ=2.25) HVO (λ=2.35) HVO (λ=1.30) HVO (λ=1.40) HVO (λ=1.50)
Baseline Diesel (original calibration) Best Diesel Baseline Diesel (original calibration) Best Diesel

1250 x 2 [rpm x bar] 2250 x 15 [rpm x bar]

0.20 0.20

[g/kWh]
[g/kWh]

0.15 0.15 LP proportion

LP proportion

Soot
Soot

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
6 4

[g/kWh]
5
[g/kWh]

3
4

CO
CO

3 2
2 1
1 0
0
1.2 0.4

[g/kWh]
[g/kWh]

1.0 0.3

HC
0.8
HC

0.2
0.6
0.4 0.1
0.2 0.0
0.0
230
290

[g/kWh]
220
[g/kWh]

bsfc
280
bsfc

210
270
200
260 89
84 88

[dBA]
CN
87
[dBA]

82
CN

86
80
85
78 84
76 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
NOx [g/kWh]
NOx [g/kWh]

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Emissions,
Figure fuelfuel
3. Emissions, consumption andand
consumption combustion noise
combustion for for
noise diesel andand
diesel HVO at 1250
HVO × 2×
at 1250 (a)2and
(a) and
2250 × 15 (b). Results along EGR split sweeps at several fixed λ values.
2250 × 15 (b). Results along EGR split sweeps at several fixed λ values.

All Starting
the EGRfrom trade-offs depicted
the right in Figure
end points 3 highlight
of each that HVO
trend (points has by
obtained a better
allowingbehavior
only HP
compared to diesel, relative to all the examined pollutant emissions,
EGR through the short-route path), LP EGR proportion, which indicates the contribution as well as bsfc and of
CN.LP ForEGR each in operating
the combined point,
EGR an loops,
“optimum” diesel calibration
was progressively (labelled
increased while asthe
“bestEGR Diesel”
through
in the
thelegend)
short-route has path
beenwasselected
reducedthrough
all thethe
wayusetoof a left
the proper
end objective function
point of the (meant
trend, for whichto the
deliver
HP EGR the best ratecompromise
is zero (LP EGRin terms
only)ofandexhaust pollutantNO
the minimum emissions,
x (for bsfc
each λand combustion
value) is detected.
noise) and All highlighted
the EGR trade-offswith thick black in
depicted edges.
FigureThis “optimum”
3 highlight thatwill
HVO behas
used in thebehavior
a better next
sub-sections as the reference calibration to explore all of the other
compared to diesel, relative to all the examined pollutant emissions, as well as bsfc and parameter sweeps
(VGT,
CN.pFor rail, SOI
each Main , DTPiI1 and
operating qPiI1).an “optimum” diesel calibration (labelled as “best Diesel”
point,
inIncreasing
the legend) thehasamount of EGR (hence
been selected through decreasing
the use of λavalues)
properisobjective
used primarily
function to reduce
(meant to
engine-out
deliver the NObestx emissions.
compromiseNevertheless,
in terms ofNO x can be
exhaust also reduced
pollutant at constant
emissions, bsfc andλcombustion
varying
the noise)
EGR split and in favor of LP
highlighted withEGR,thickas black
can beedges.
seen in Figure
This 3. This is
“optimum” due
will betoused
the incooling
the next
effects on the LP
sub-sections asshare of recirculated
the reference calibration exhaust gas given
to explore by their
all of the other expansion
parameter across
sweepsthe (VGT,
turbine
p rail and Main
, SOI by the intercooler
, DT PiI1 and q (it is worthwhile noting that tests were carried out keeping
PiI1 ).
the testbench
Increasingintercooler efficiency
the amount of EGR around
(hence85% by a PIDλcontroller
decreasing values) isthat
usedchanges
primarily thetocool-
reduce
ant engine-out
water flowrate NOxin the intercooler
emissions. accordingly).
Nevertheless, NOx canAs aberesult, complete
also reduced atoxidation
constant λofvarying
the
the EGR split in favor of LP EGR, as can be seen in Figure 3. This is due to the cooling
effects on the LP share of recirculated exhaust gas given by their expansion across the
turbine and by the intercooler (it is worthwhile noting that tests were carried out keeping
the testbench intercooler efficiency around 85% by a PID controller that changes the coolant
water flowrate in the intercooler accordingly). As a result, complete oxidation of the fuel
may become more difficult to achieve, as evidenced by increasing CO trends with increasing
LP EGR proportion, particularly at low load and with conventional diesel. Nevertheless,
when the engine is run on HVO, this trend is much less noticeable, if not completely
absent, once again denoting its superior ignition and combustion behavior even at lower
temperatures. Moreover, HVO significantly drops HC-NOx and CO-NOx trade-off lines at
1250 × 2 by up to −60% when compared to diesel, at a NOx level around 0.5 g/kWh, thus
remaining well below the original baseline diesel calibration even at the highest EGR rate
and LP EGR proportion. If the reduction in HC-NOx and CO-NOx trade-offs is especially
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 10 of 17

beneficial at lower loads, the reduction in soot-NOx trade-off (by up to −30%) brought
about by HVO becomes more important at higher loads, as witnessed by Figure 3b.
In general, as LP EGR proportion increases, so does the exhaust backpressure, owing
to higher exhaust gas flowrate through the turbine (and smaller share of exhaust gases
recirculated directly back into the intake manifold via the HP EGR path). The pressure
differential between intake and exhaust manifolds rises as a result, as do pumping losses
and bsfc, whose increasing trend is shown at 1250 × 2 in Figure 3a for both fuels, whereas bsfc
trends are nearly flat at 2250 × 15 (cf. Figure 3b), possibly due to the effect of turbocharger
efficiency, which appears only at higher loads while it is marginal at lower loads. Indeed,
the higher the LP EGR proportion, the more exhaust enthalpy available at the turbine inlet,
the higher the turbocharger efficiency, partially offsetting the negative effect of increased
pumping losses.
Ultimately, the substantial reduction in engine-out soot, HC and CO levels achieved
by HVO could give the possibility to run the engine with higher proportion of LP EGR, to
limit NOx emissions, especially at lower load.

3.2.2. HVO vs. Conventional Diesel: Effect of SOIMain

Combustion phasing (and the associated HRR) has a direct impact on fuel consump-
tion, and it is typically determined to achieve the lowest possible bsfc (for a given brake
power), while adhering to proper constraints on engine-out pollutant emissions or en-
gine performance parameters (for example, constrains on soot at higher loads). In this
subsection, SOIMain was varied (i.e., advanced or retarded) to investigate how adjusting
combustion phasing could result in different outcomes for both examined fuels, taking into
account their specific characteristics.
Figure 4a (referring to high load conditions, i.e., 2250 × 15) shows that, to reduce
fuel consumption, the fuel injection pattern should be advanced. However, combustion
phasing also plays a significant role on the whole in-cylinder combustion development,
and thus has a significant impact on exhaust pollutant emissions and combustion noise,
as well. For example, Figure 4b highlights how advancing SOIMain at 2250 × 15 would,
in turn, worsen engine-out soot emissions for both fuels, and similar trends were found
also for other medium-to-high-load engine operating points (e.g., 1750 × 5 and 2000 × 9),
which are not reported here. This behavior could be attributed to slower soot oxidation
rates when advanced fuel injection patterns are employed (since they lead to lower exhaust
temperatures during the expansion stroke), outweighing the increase of time available for
the air-fuel mixture preparation, which could hinder the creation of fuel-rich local zones
that directly affect the formation process of soot particles. In addition to soot increase,
advancing the fuel injection pattern would generally increase NOx emissions as well, due
to higher in-cylinder peak temperatures, and combustion noise level, too. As a result, if the
goal is to optimize fuel consumption, exhaust pollutant emissions and combustion noise,
SOIMain cannot be located for minimum bsfc, and a suitable compromise should be chosen.
Nevertheless, due to the differences in specific fuel characteristics, this compromise may
differ depending on whether HVO or conventional diesel is used. For example, taking
into account the SOIMain sweeps reported in Figure 4, soot reductions with HVO range
between 38 and 50% when compared to conventional diesel, which is consistent with the
findings discussed in Section 3.1, whereas bsfc reductions are around 2.5%. Therefore, the
lower pollutant emissions provided by HVO could be exploited to reduce fuel consumption
even further through more advanced combustion phasing, without exceeding soot levels of
conventional diesel. Conversely, if the primary goal is to reduce NOx emissions, more delayed
combustion phasing could be employed, without incurring unacceptable penalties in bsfc.
 Therefore,
Therefore,thethe
lower pollutant
lower emissions
pollutant provided
emissions by by
provided HVO HVO could be be
could exploited to reduce
exploited to reduce
fuelfuel
consumption even further through more advanced combustion phasing,
consumption even further through more advanced combustion phasing, without without ex-ex-
ceeding soot levels of conventional diesel. Conversely, if the primary goal is to reduce
ceeding soot levels of conventional diesel. Conversely, if the primary goal is to reduce
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 NONO x emissions, more delayed combustion phasing could be employed, without incurring
x emissions, more delayed combustion phasing could be employed, without incurring 11 of 17
unacceptable penalties in bsfc.
unacceptable penalties in bsfc.
214
214 Diesel (B7) Diesel (B7)
HVO Diesel (B7) 0.020 HVO Diesel (B7)
212 HVO 0.020 HVO
212
2250x15 2250x15
2250x15 2250x15
210
210
0.015

Soot [g/kWh]
0.015
bsfc [g/kWh]

Soot [g/kWh]
208
bsfc [g/kWh]

208

206
206 0.010
0.010
204
204

202
202 0.005
0.005
200
200

198 0.000
198
B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO 0.000
B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO
B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO B7 HVO
1.5 2 2.4 3 3.5 1.5 2 2.4 3 3.5
1.5 2 2.4 3 3.5 1.5 2 2.4 3 3.5
SOIMain [°CA bTDC] SOIMain [°CA bTDC]
SOIMain [°CA bTDC] SOIMain [°CA bTDC]

(a) (a) (b)(b)

Figure 4. Influence Main on bsfc (a) and soot (b) for diesel and HVO at 2250 × 15.
of SOISOI
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Influence
Influence of
of SOIMain on bsfc (a) and soot (b) for diesel and HVO at 2250 × 15.
Main on bsfc (a) and soot (b) for diesel and HVO at 2250 × 15.

3.2.3. HVO
3.2.3.
3.2.3. HVO
HVO vs. vs.
Conventional
vs. Conventional
Conventional Diesel:
Diesel:Effect
Diesel: of pof
Effect
Effect of prail
railp
rail
RailRail
Railpressure
pressure
pressure isisais
a critical
critical calibration
a critical calibration
calibration parameter
parameter
parameter that
that influences
that influences
influences thethe
formation
the formation formation offuel
of air− of
air−fuel mixtures, which has a direct impact on pollutant emissions
air−fuel mixtures, which has a direct impact on pollutant emissions and engine perfor-
mixtures, which has a direct impact on pollutant emissions and and engine
engine perfor-
performance.
mance.
mance.
Figure Figure
5Figure 5 depicts
depicts 5 the
depicts thethe
response
response response
of bothof investigated
both
of bothinvestigated
investigated fuels
fuels to to changes
fuels
changes in fuelininjection
to changes fuel injection
in fuel injection
pressure
pressure
pressure (p ) in terms
(prail) of
rail
(prail ) in terms in HRR, of HRR,
termsatof1250
HRR, at 1250
× 2at(cf. ×
1250 2 (cf.
× 2 (cf.
Figure Figure
Figure
5a) and 5a)
2250 and
5a)×and 22502250
15 (cf. × 15 (cf.
× 155b).
Figure Figure
(cf. Green 5b).
Figure 5b).
solid
Green
Greensolid lines
solid lines
lines represent represent
testsrepresent tests
performed performed
tests performed
with with
the baselinewiththe baseline
thevalues
prail p
baseline values of
prailreference
rail
of the the reference
values ofdiesel-oriented
the reference
diesel-oriented
diesel-oriented
calibration. For calibration.
calibration.
both fuels, Fororange
both
For fuels,
both orange
fuels,
and red linesand
orange redred
and
indicate lines indicate
lines
prail indicate
higher prailpbaseline,
than higher than
rail higherwhile
than
baseline, while blue and purple lines denote p lower
baseline, while blue and purpleraillines denote prail lower than baseline.
blue and purple lines denote p lower thanrailbaseline. than baseline.

(a) (a) (b)(b)

Figure 5. Influence
Figure of pof
5. Influence rail on HRR for diesel and HVO at 1250 × 2 (a) and 2250 × 15 (b).
prail on HRR for diesel and HVO at 1250 × 2 (a) and 2250 × 15 (b).
Figure 5. Influence of prail on HRR for diesel and HVO at 1250 × 2 (a) and 2250 × 15 (b).
WhenWhen prailpis raised above baseline values at 1250 × 2 (i.e., prail > 610 bar), the main
rail is raised above baseline values at 1250 × 2 (i.e., prail > 610 bar), the main
HRR rises
Whenand p begins
HRR rises and begins
rail sooner.
is raised TheThe
above
sooner. increased
baseline
increased fuelfuel
values injection
1250 ×pressure
atinjection (i.e., pcauses
2pressure thebar),
> 610
railcauses fuelfuel
the spray
the main
spray
of the
HRR main
risesinjection
and to
begins reach faster
sooner. the
The pilot-burning
increased fuel zone, resulting
injection pressure in
of the main injection to reach faster the pilot-burning zone, resulting in a shorter ID of the a shorter
causes the ID of
fuel the
spray
main injection
of the
main main (ID
injection Main) and
injection
(ID a faster,
to reach closer-to-TDC
faster the pilot-burningcombustion
zone,process,
resulting
Main) and a faster, closer-to-TDC combustion process, due to hotter in-
due
in to hotter in-
a shorter ID of
cylinder
the main
cylinder conditions.
injection
conditions. However,
(ID )
However,
Main as p
and asrailpvalues
a faster, are raised from 610 to 810 bar, the earliest
closer-to-TDC combustion process,
rail values are raised from 610 to 810 bar, the earliest
due to hotter
HRR of pilot
in-cylinder 2 declines,
conditions. implying
However, that
as
HRR of pilot 2 declines, implying that less fuel less
p rail fuel is burned
values are during
raised
is burned from
duringthis phase,
610this
to 810 whereas
bar,
phase, no no
the earliest
whereas
HRR of pilot 2 declines, implying that less fuel is burned during this phase, whereas no
opposite behavior (i.e., an increase of pilot 2 HRR) occurs when prail is decreased from
610 to 410 bar. This may happen because injecting the fuel earlier and with faster spray
penetration velocities (due to prail greater than 610 bar), combined with the low boost
pressure values usually featured at low load, may cause wall-wetting phenomena, which
do not seem to occur for rail pressures lower than 610 bar as well as for higher loads.
 opposite behavior (i.e., an increase of pilot 2 HRR) occurs when prail is decreased from 610
to 410 bar. This may happen because injecting the fuel earlier and with faster spray pene-
tration velocities (due to prail greater than 610 bar), combined with the low boost pressure
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 values usually featured at low load, may cause wall-wetting phenomena, which do not 12 of 17
seem to occur for rail pressures lower than 610 bar as well as for higher loads. Indeed, at
2250 × 15, the highest pilot 2 HRR belongs to the highest prail case, which provides more
energy and momentum
Indeed, at 2250 × 15, to the
the highest
fuel at the periphery
pilot of the spray
2 HRR belongs to break
to the highest uppinto smaller
rail case, which
droplets,
provides evaporate
more energyfaster andand momentum
ignite. On the to other
the fuelhand, noperiphery
at the significantofdifference
the sprayistode- break
tected
up when the behavior
into smaller droplets, of the main HRR
evaporate fasterprofile is observed
and ignite. On the atother
higher load.no
hand, Since the
significant
startdifference
of the main combustion
is detected when begins after the of
the behavior TDCthein bothHRR
main cases, a higher
profile prail causes
is observed at the
higher
combustion
load. Since to the
occurstart in of
a the
hotter
mainand higher-pressure
combustion beginsenvironment,
after the TDCresulting in steeper
in both cases, a higher
HRR profiles
prail causesand greater HRRtopeaks.
the combustion occur in Ultimately,
a hotter and thehigher-pressure
effects of prail variations
environment, on resulting
HRR
profiles are visible
in steeper HRRfor both tested
profiles fuels and
and greater HRRdopeaks.
not seem to be heavily
Ultimately, affected
the effects of pby
railspecific
variations
fuelonproperties.
HRR profiles are visible for both tested fuels and do not seem to be heavily affected by
Evaluating
specific pollutant emissions and engine performance of both fuels confirms that,
fuel properties.
regardless of fuel injection
Evaluating pollutant pressure, HVO
emissions andhas a better
engine behavior than
performance conventional
of both diesel.that,
fuels confirms
Figure 6 depicts, for example, how HVO roughly halves exhaust soot concentration along
regardless of fuel injection pressure, HVO has a better behavior than conventional diesel.
the whole prail sweep at 2250 × 15, while maintaining slightly lower combustion noise lev-
Figure 6 depicts, for example, how HVO roughly halves exhaust soot concentration along
els compared torail
the whole p conventional diesel. The decreasing soot and rising noise trends with in-
sweep at 2250 × 15, while maintaining slightly lower combustion noise
creasing
levelsrail pressuretovalues
compared are ratherdiesel.
conventional straightforward
The decreasingto explain.
soot Higher
and rising prail improves
noise trends
fuelwith
atomization,
increasing expands the interface
rail pressure valuesbetween
are ratherspray particles and air
straightforward to and reduces
explain. evap-prail
Higher
improves fuel atomization, expands the interface between spray
oration time. Therefore, the air entrainment into the fuel spray and the mixture formation particles and air and
process are greatly enhanced and the fuel distribution is more uniform, thereby increasing the
reduces evaporation time. Therefore, the air entrainment into the fuel spray and
mixture pressure
in-cylinder formationand process are greatly
temperature enhanced
values, whichand the fuel favor
ultimately distribution is more uniform,
soot oxidation pro-
thereby increasing in-cylinder pressure and temperature values,
cess, resulting in up to 50% lower soot emissions for both tested fuels at 2250 × 15 (cf. which ultimately favor
Figure 6a). Conversely, as a result of the previously mentioned steeper HRR profiles pro- at
soot oxidation process, resulting in up to 50% lower soot emissions for both tested fuels
2250
vided by×higher
15 (cf. pFigure 6a). Conversely, as a result of the previously mentioned steeper HRR
rail, combustion noise gradually increases, up to 3 dBA for both tested
profiles provided by higher prail , combustion noise gradually increases, up to 3 dBA for
fuels at 2250 × 15 (cf. Figure 6a), establishing a clear trade-off with soot.
both tested fuels at 2250 × 15 (cf. Figure 6a), establishing a clear trade-off with soot.
0.030 90
B7 B7
HVO HVO
0.025 2250x15 2250x15
Combustion Noise [dbA]

87
0.020
Soot [g/kWh]

0.015 84

0.010
81
0.005

0.000 78

pRail [bar] pRail [bar]

(a) (b)
Figure 6. Influence of prail on soot (a) and combustion noise (b) for diesel and HVO at 2250 × 15.
Figure 6. Influence of prail on soot (a) and combustion noise (b) for diesel and HVO at 2250 × 15.
According to what has been said, the lower soot emissions provided by HVO could
be exploited to improve
According to whatcombustion noise
has been said, theatlower
higher
sootloads through
emissions lower by
provided railHVO
pressure,
could be
without exceeding
exploited soot levels
to improve of conventional
combustion diesel.loads
noise at higher The same trend
through wasrail
lower observed at 1250
pressure, without
× 2,exceeding
but it was soot
not reported
levels of here because soot
conventional emissions
diesel. The same andtrend
combustion noise levels
was observed are× 2,
at 1250
less important at lower loads.
but it was not reported here because soot emissions and combustion noise levels are less
important at lower loads.

3.2.4. HVO vs. Conventional Diesel: Effect of Pilot 1 Strategy (qPil1 and DTPil1 )
Pilot injection strategy is critical in determining in-cylinder pressure and temperature
conditions prior to the main injection event, thus influencing its ID and, consequently, its
proportion of premixed and mixing-controlled combustion phases. Due to its really small
injected quantities, pilot 2 (i.e., the most advanced pilot injection) calibration parameters
were found to have less impact than those of pilot 1 in the tested engine operating points.
For this reason, only pilot 1 injection parameters (i.e., fuel injection quantity, or qPil1 ,
and dwell-time, or DTPil1 ) were investigated performing single-parameter sweeps, while
 Pilot injection strategy is critical in determining in-cylinder pressure and temperature
conditions prior to the main injection event, thus influencing its ID and, consequently, its
proportion of premixed and mixing-controlled combustion phases. Due to its really small
injected quantities, pilot 2 (i.e., the most advanced pilot injection) calibration parameters
were found to have less impact than those of pilot 1 in the tested engine operating points.
Energies 2022, 15, 7202
For this reason, only pilot 1 injection parameters (i.e., fuel injection quantity, or qPil1, and 13 of 17

dwell-time, or DTPil1) were investigated performing single-parameter sweeps, while keep-

ing qPil2 and DTPil2 (respectively, fuel injection quantity and dwell-time of pilot 2) constant
and keeping
equal to q their baseline
Pil2 and DTPil2 calibration values.
(respectively, fuel injection quantity and dwell-time of pilot 2)
The impact
constant andofequal
qPil1 on
to engine-out
their baselineCOcalibration
and NOx emissions
values. at 1250 × 2 is shown in Figure
7. Comparing HVO with
The impact of qconventional
Pil1 on engine-outdiesel,CO
it isand
possible
NOx to see how at
emissions HVO1250significantly
× 2 is shown
reduces incomplete combustion species emissions (similar findings for HC emissions
in Figure 7. Comparing HVO with conventional diesel, it is possible to see how HVO
were found as well), while the difference in NOx is not stark. When it comes to the trends
significantly reduces incomplete combustion species emissions (similar findings for HC
as a function of qPil1, the larger qPil1, the lower CO but the higher xNOx. Larger pilot 1 quan-
emissions were found as well), while the difference in NO is not stark. When it comes
titiestogenerate
the trendsmore as heat during of
a function combustion, whichqultimately
qPil1 , the larger results
Pil1 , the lower COinbuthigher
the in-cylin-
higher NOx .
der gas temperatures
Larger prior togenerate
pilot 1 quantities the mainmore injection. This results
heat during in higherwhich
combustion, peak ultimately
temperatures results
in higher in-cylinder gas temperatures prior to the main injection.
during pilot 1 combustion and in a shorter IDMain, which means that the main combustion This results in higher
develops further in the mixing-controlled phase, but with a lower peak temperature value that
peak temperatures during pilot 1 combustion and in a shorter ID Main , which means
acrosstheitsmain combustion
diffusive flames. develops further
Because pilot in thequantities
injection mixing-controlled phase,to
are comparable but with
main a lower
injec-
tion at low load (and the larger qPil1, the less the fuel in the main injection), the first effect are
peak temperature value across its diffusive flames. Because pilot injection quantities
comparable
apparently causetoNO main injection at low load (and the larger qPil1the
x production during pilot 1 to outmatch
, thesecond
less theeffect,
fuel inwhich
the main
causesinjection), the first
a decrease in NO effect apparently cause NOx production during pilot 1 to outmatch the
x produced during the main combustion due to smaller amount
second effect, which causes a decrease in NOx produced during the main combustion due
of fuel burned in the premixed combustion phase [24,32]. On the other hand, since larger
to smaller amount of fuel burned in the premixed combustion phase [24,32]. On the other
quantities of pilot 1 result in shorter IDMain, combined with a lower fuel quantity in the
hand, since larger quantities of pilot 1 result in shorter IDMain , combined with a lower
main injection, the amount of fuel burned during the late rate-limited combustion phase
fuel quantity in the main injection, the amount of fuel burned during the late rate-limited
is reduced [32], meaning that it is less likely that CO molecules are not properly oxidized
combustion phase is reduced [32], meaning that it is less likely that CO molecules are not
to CO2 (and in general, that incomplete combustion occurs, leading to a contemporary
properly oxidized to CO2 (and in general, that incomplete combustion occurs, leading to a
reduction in HC as well).
contemporary reduction in HC as well).

B7
B7
4 HVO 0.8 HVO

1250x2 1250x2

3 0.6
NOx [g/kWh]
CO [g/kWh]

2 0.4

1 0.2

0 0.0

qPil1 [mg/stk] qPil1 [mg/stk]

(a) (b)
Figure 7. Influence
Figure of qPil1
7. Influence of on CO
qPil1 on(a)
COand
(a)NO
andx (b)
NOfor diesel and HVO at 1250 × 2.
x (b) for diesel and HVO at 1250 × 2.

At 2250 × 15,×the
At 2250 15,only significant
the only patterns
significant detected
patterns werewere
detected a rather abrupt
a rather increase
abrupt in in
increase
CN when
CN when bigger qPil1 qvalues
bigger Pil1 were
values adopted
were and
adopted a
andcorresponding,
a albeit
corresponding, slight,
albeit increase
slight, in in
increase
NOxNO, indicating the need
x , indicating for relatively
the need small
for relatively qPil1 at
small higher
qPil1 loads.loads.
at higher
In order to control
In order to controlpollutant emissions,
pollutant not only
emissions, the quantity
not only the quantityof pilot fuel,fuel,
of pilot but also
but also
the dwell timetime
the dwell betweenbetweenpilotpilot
and and
mainmain
injections needs
injections to betoaccounted
needs be accountedfor. For
for. example,
For example,
the impact
the impactof DT DT(i.e.,
ofPil1 the time
Pil1 (i.e., interval
the time between
interval the end
between the of
endpilot 1 and
of pilot the start
1 and of the
the start of the
following
followingmain injection)
main on on
injection) engine-out
engine-outNONOx and
x andCOCO emissions
emissionsat at
1250
1250× ×
2 is illustrated
2 is illustrated in
Figure 8. By enlarging DTPil1 , the pressure and temperature in the cylinder are reduced
at the instant of pilot 1 injection (since SOIMain is kept at a fixed value and a longer DTPil1
means more advanced pilot 1), resulting in an increase in its ignition delay. This leads to a
more diluted pilot 1 injection region and a decrease in the pressure and temperature rise
generated by its combustion, diminishing the effect of pilot 1 injection on the ignition of the
following main injection. As a consequence, a pilot injection further apart from the main
shot (i.e., with the longest DTPil1 ) increases NOx production, as it is evident from Figure 8.
 means more advanced pilot 1), resulting in an increase in its ignition delay. This leads to
a more diluted pilot 1 injection region and a decrease in the pressure and temperature rise
generated by its combustion, diminishing the effect of pilot 1 injection on the ignition of
the following main injection. As a consequence, a pilot injection further apart from the
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 main shot (i.e., with the longest DTPil1) increases NOx production, as it is evident14from
of 17
Figure 8.

(a) (b)
Figure 8.
8. Influence
Influence of
of DT
DTPil1 on NOx (a) and CO (b) for diesel and HVO at 1250 × 2.
Figure Pil1 on NOx (a) and CO (b) for diesel and HVO at 1250 × 2.

According to
According to what
what has
has been
been said,
said, due
due to
to its
its impact
impact onon in-cylinder
in-cylinder combustion
combustion devel-
devel-
opment, recalibration
opment, recalibration of
ofpilot
pilotinjection
injectionparameters
parameters(q(qPil1 and DT
Pil1 and DTPil1
Pil1)) at
at lower
lower loads
loads could
could
either further
either further reduce
reduce CO
CO (and
(andHC)
HC)emissions
emissionsforforHVO
HVO(if (iflarger
largerpilot
pilotquantities
quantitiesand/or
and/or
shorter dwell
shorter dwell times
times are
areimplemented)
implemented)or orcontribute
contributetotoNO
NOxx reduction.
reduction.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In the
In the current
current study,
study,HVO
HVO(a (aparaffinic
paraffinichydrogenated
hydrogenatedrenewable
renewable fuel)
fuel) was
was analyzed
analyzed
and compared to conventional petroleum-derived diesel in a Euro 6 compression ignition
and compared to conventional petroleum-derived diesel in a Euro 6 compression ignition
enginefor
engine forlight-duty
light-dutycommercial
commercial vehicles
vehicles applications.
applications. TheThe impact
impact of both
of both fuelsfuels on ex-
on exhaust
emissions and engine
haust emissions performance
and engine was investigated
performance during
was investigated steady-state
during operation,
steady-state first
operation,
without making any adjustments to the baseline (diesel-oriented) ECU calibration
first without making any adjustments to the baseline (diesel-oriented) ECU calibration and then
by
andinvestigating sweeps of EGR
then by investigating ratio,
sweeps ofEGR
EGRsplit, rail
ratio, pressure,
EGR mainpressure,
split, rail injection main
timing, pilot 1
injection
injection quantity and dwell-time.
timing, pilot 1 injection quantity and dwell-time.
By
By running
running thethe engine
engineon onHVO
HVOasasa a“drop-in”
“drop-in” fuel,
fuel, without
without anyany
ECUECU calibration
calibration pa-
parameter adjustments, significant reductions in soot (by up to
rameter adjustments, significant reductions in soot (by up to 67%), HC and CO 67%), HC and CO(by(by
upupto
to 40%) were highlighted at the selected engine operating points. However, there was no
40%) were highlighted at the selected engine operating points. However, there was no
noticeable decrease in NOx emissions; in fact, at low load, NOx rose by nearly 10%.
noticeable decrease in NOx emissions; in fact, at low load, NOx rose by nearly 10%.
By adjusting the ECU calibration along single-parameter sweeps, a preliminary evalu-
By adjusting the ECU calibration along single-parameter sweeps, a preliminary eval-
ation of the possibility of achieving even greater improvements in engine performance and
uation of the possibility of achieving even greater improvements in engine performance
emissions with HVO (beyond those measured with the original diesel-oriented calibration)
and emissions with HVO (beyond those measured with the original diesel-oriented cali-
was carried out.
bration) was carried out.
The reduction in engine-out soot, HC, and CO levels brought about by the intrinsic
The reduction in engine-out soot, HC, and CO levels brought about by the intrinsic
fuel characteristics of HVO could allow the engine to operate at higher EGR rates and, if
fuel characteristics of HVO could allow the engine to operate at higher EGR rates and, if
the engine has a dual-loop EGR circuit, at a larger LP EGR proportion. This could result
the engine has a dual-loop EGR circuit, at a larger LP EGR proportion. This could result
in a large decrease in NOx emissions, particularly at lower loads, without incurring any
in a large decrease in NOx emissions, particularly at lower loads, without incurring any
penalties in incomplete combustion species.
penalties in incomplete
At higher combustion
loads, if the primary species.
objective is to reduce NOx emissions, more delayed
At higher
combustion loads,could
phasing if thebeprimary
used when objective is to is
the engine reduce
runningNOonx emissions, more delayed
HVO, without incurring
combustion phasing could be used when the engine
excessive penalty in bsfc. In contrast, more advanced combustion phasingis running oncan
HVO, without
cut fuel con-
sumption without exceeding soot levels of standard diesel. Furthermore, HVO’s decreased
sooting tendency could also be exploited to reduce combustion noise at higher loads, by
reducing rail pressure.
Due to its impact on in-cylinder combustion development, recalibration of pilot in-
jection parameters (injected quantity and dwell time) at lower loads could either further
reduce CO and HC emissions from HVO (if larger pilot quantities and/or shorter dwell
times are implemented) or further contribute to NOx reduction.
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 15 of 17

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.d., A.M. (Alessandro Mancarella) and A.M. (Andrea
Manelli); methodology, S.d., A.M. (Alessandro Mancarella) and A.M. (Andrea Manelli); validation,
S.d., A.M. (Alessandro Mancarella) and A.M. (Andrea Manelli); investigation, A.M. (Alessandro
Mancarella) and A.M. (Andrea Manelli); data curation, A.M. (Alessandro Mancarella) and A.M. (An-
drea Manelli); writing—original draft preparation, A.M. (Alessandro Mancarella) and A.M. (Andrea
Manelli); writing—review and editing, S.d., A.M. (Alessandro Mancarella) and A.M. (Andrea Manelli);
supervision, S.d. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by ENI S.p.A. within the contract “Experimental and Numerical
Characterization of Diesel Combustion with Standard and Innovative Fuels”, number 2500037908.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge AVL for the utilization of CAMEO 4.4
and CONCERTO 5.6 within the University Partnership Program.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

◦ CAaTDC Crank Angle degrees after TDC

◦ CAbTDC Crank Angle degrees before TDC
ATS After-Treatment System
bmep brake mean effective pressure
bsfc brake specific fuel consumption
CI Compression Ignition
CN Combustion Noise
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
DPF Diesel Particulate Filter
DTPil1 injection timing of the first pilot
DTPil2 injection timing of the second pilot
∆x absolute change of the generic x variable
∆%x relative change of the generic x variable
ECU Engine Control Unit
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
ηu brake thermal efficiency
EU European Union
FAME Fatty Acid Methyl Esters
FPT Fiat Powertrain Technologies
GHG GreenHouse Gases
HC unburned hydrocarbons
HP EGR High Pressure EGR
HRR Heat Release Rate
HVO Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
ID Ignition Delay
IDMain Ignition Delay of the main pulse
λ relative air-to-fuel ratio
LP EGR Low Pressure EGR
n engine rotational speed
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PID Proportional-Integrative-Derivative
PM Particulate Matter
prail rail pressure
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 16 of 17

qPil1 injected fuel mass quantity of the first pilot

qPil2 injected fuel mass quantity of the second pilot
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SOC Start Of Combustion
SOIMain electric Start Of Injection of the main pulse
TDC Top Dead Centre
vfc volumetric fuel consumption
VGT Variable Geometry Turbine
WLTC Worldwide harmonized Light-duty Test Cycle
References
1. Guo, Y.; Kelly, J.A.; Clinch, J.P. Road transport electrification—Is timing everything? Implications of emissions analysis’ outcomes
for climate and air policy. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2021, 12, 100478. [CrossRef]
2. Kalghatgi, G. Is it really the end of internal combustion engines and petroleum in transport? Appl. Energy 2018, 225, 965–974.
[CrossRef]
3. Aklilu, A.Z. Gasoline and diesel demand in the EU: Implications for the 2030 emission goal. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020,
118, 109530. [CrossRef]
4. O’Driscoll, R.; Stettler, M.E.J.; Molden, N.; Oxley, T.; ApSimon, H.M. Real world CO2 and NOx emissions from 149 Euro 5 and 6
diesel, gasoline and hybrid passenger cars. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 282–290. [CrossRef]
5. D’Ambrosio, S.; Mancarella, A.; Manelli, A.; Mittica, A.; Hardy, G. Experimental Analysis on the Effects of Multiple Injection
Strategies on Pollutant Emissions, Combustion Noise, and Fuel Consumption in a Premixed Charge Compression Ignition Engine.
SAE Int. J. Engines 2021, 14, 611–630. [CrossRef]
6. Reşitoğlu, I.A.; Altinişik, K.; Keskin, A. The pollutant emissions from diesel-engine vehicles and exhaust aftertreatment systems.
Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2015, 17, 15–27. [CrossRef]
7. Parravicini, M.; Barro, C.; Boulouchos, K. Experimental characterization of GTL, HVO, and OME based alternative fuels for diesel
engines. Fuel 2021, 292, 120177. [CrossRef]
8. Knothe, G. Biodiesel and renewable diesel: A comparison, Progress in Energy and Combustion. Science 2010, 36, 364–373.
9. Bortel, I.; Vávra, J.; Takáts, M. Effect of HVO fuel mixtures on emissions and performance of a passenger car size diesel engine.
Renew. Energy 2019, 140, 680–691. [CrossRef]
10. Krivopolianskii, V.; Bjørgen, K.; Emberson, D.; Ushakov, S.; Æsøy, V.; Løvås, T. Experimental Study of Ignition Delay, Combustion,
and NO Emission Characteristics of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2019, 12, 29–42. [CrossRef]
11. Ohshio, N.; Saito, K.; Kobayashi, S.; Tanaka, S. Storage Stability of FAME Blended Diesel Fuels. SAE Tech. Paper 2008, 2008-01-2505.
12. Wei, X.; Meng, Q.; Kallio, K.J.; Olsson, R.T.; Hedenqvist, M.S. Ageing properties of a polyoxymethylene copolymer exposed
to (bio) diesel and hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) in demanding high temperature conditions. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2021,
185, 109491. [CrossRef]
13. Athanasios, D.; Athanasios, D.; Stylianos, D.; Berzegianni, S.; Samaras, Z. Emissions Optimization Potential of a Diesel Engine
Running on HVO: A Combined Experimental and Simulation Investigation. SAE Tech. Paper 2019, 2019-24-0039.
14. Hartikka, T.; Kuronen, M.; Kiiski, U. Technical Performance of HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil) in Diesel Engines. SAE Tech.
Paper 2012, 2012-01-1585.
15. Mittelbach, M. Fuels from oils and fats: Recent developments and perspectives. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2015, 117, 1832–1846.
[CrossRef]
16. Suarez-Bertoa, R.; Kousoulidou, M.; Clairotte, M.; Giechaskiel, B.; Nuottimäki, J.; Sarjovaara, T.; Lonza, L. Impact of HVO blends
on modern diesel passenger cars emissions during real world operation. Fuel 2019, 235, 1427–1435. [CrossRef]
17. Dimitriadis, A.; Natsios, I.; Dimaratos, A.; Katsaounis, D.; Samaras, Z.; Bezergianni, S.; Lehto, K. Evaluation of a Hydrotreated
Vegetable Oil (HVO) and effects on emissions of a passenger car diesel engine. Front. Mech. Eng. 2018, 4, 7. [CrossRef]
18. Stumborg, M.; Wong, A.; Hogan, E. Hydroprocessed vegetable oils for diesel fuel improvement. Bioresour. Technol. 1996, 56, 13–18.
[CrossRef]
19. No, S.Y. Application of hydrotreated vegetable oil from triglyceride based biomass to CI engines—A review. Fuel 2014, 115, 88–96.
[CrossRef]
20. Bohl, T.; Smallbone, A.; Tian, G.; Roskilly, A.P. Particulate number and NOx trade-off comparisons between HVO and mineral
diesel in HD applications. Fuel 2018, 215, 90–101. [CrossRef]
21. Zeman, P.; Hönig, V.; Kotek, M.; Táborský, J.; Obergruber, M.; Mařík, J.; Hartová, V.; Pechout, M. Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil as a
Fuel from Waste Materials. Catalysts 2019, 9, 337. [CrossRef]
22. Dobrzyńska, E.; Szewczyńska, M.; Pośniak, M.; Szczotka, A.; Puchałka, B.; Woodburn, J. Exhaust emissions from diesel engines
fueled by different blends with the addition of nanomodifiers and hydrotreated vegetable oil HVO. Environ. Pollut. 2020,
259, 113772. [CrossRef]
23. Pflaum, H.; Hofmann, P.; Geringer, B.; Weissel, W. Potential of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO) in a Modern Diesel Engine.
SAE Tech. Pap. 2010, 2010-32-0081.
Energies 2022, 15, 7202 17 of 17

24. D’Ambrosio, S.; Ferrari, A.; Mancarella, A.; Mittica, A. Effects of Rate-Shaped and Multiple Injection Strategies on Pollutant
Emissions, Combustion Noise and Fuel Consumption in a Low Compression Ratio Diesel Engine. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 2020,
21, 197–214. [CrossRef]
25. Botero, M.L.; Mosbach, S.; Kraft, M. Sooting tendency of paraffin components of diesel and gasoline in diffusion flames. Fuel
2014, 126, 8–15. [CrossRef]
26. 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 Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2012, 5, 205–217. [CrossRef]
27. Azetsu, A.; Sato, Y.; Wakisaka, Y. Effects of Aromatic Components in Fuel on Flame Temperature and Soot Formation in
Intermittent Spray Combustion. SAE Tech. Pap. 2003. [CrossRef]
28. Aatola, H.; Larmi, M.; Sarjovaara, T.; Mikkonen, S. Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) as a Renewable Diesel Fuel: Tradeoff
between NOx, Particulate Emission, and Fuel Consumption of a Heavy Duty Engine. SAE Int. J. Engines 2009, 1, 1251–1262.
[CrossRef]
29. Singh, D.; Subramanian, K.A.; Garg, M.O. Comprehensive review of combustion, performance and emissions characteristics of
a compression ignition engine fueled with hydroprocessed renewable diesel. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2947–2954.
[CrossRef]
30. Jaroonjitsathian, S.; Saisirirat, P.; Sivara, K.; Tongroon, M.; Chollacoop, N. Effects of GTL and HVO Blended Fuels on Combustion
and Exhaust Emissions of a Common-Rail DI Diesel Technology. SAE Tech. Pap. 2014. [CrossRef]
31. Rimkus, A.; Žaglinskis, J.; Stravinskas, S.; Rapalis, P.; Matijošius, J.; Bereczky, Á. Research on the Combustion, Energy and
Emission Parameters of Various Concentration Blends of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil Biofuel and Diesel Fuel in a Compression-
Ignition Engine. Energies 2019, 12, 2978. [CrossRef]
32. Musculus, M. On the Correlation between NOx Emissions and the Diesel Premixed Burn. SAE Tech. Pap. 2004. [CrossRef]