Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

The individual effects of cetane number, oxygen content or fuel

properties on performance efficiency, exhaust smoke and emissions of a
turbocharged CRDI diesel engine – Part 2
Gvidonas Labeckas ⇑, Stasys Slavinskas, Irena Kanapkienė
Power and Transport Machinery Engineering Institute at Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Student Str. 15, P.O. Box LT-53361, Kaunas Academy, Lithuania

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

Article history: The paper presents the individual effects made by the variation of cetane number, fuel-oxygen content, or
Received 14 April 2017 widely differing properties of diesel-HRD fuel blends involving ethanol (E) or biodiesel (B) on the perfor-
Received in revised form 9 June 2017 mance efficiency, brake specific fuel consumption, exhaust smoke and NOx, CO, HC emissions of a tur-
Accepted 6 July 2017
bocharged CRDI diesel engine. The dominant factors one after another operated separately to reveal
their contribution to changes in operational parameters. Load characteristics were taken with a straight
diesel and various (18 in total) fuel blends at maximum torque mode of 2000 rpm and additional speeds
Keywords:
of 1500 and 2500 rpm to improve interpretation of the test results. The (bmep) characteristics were plot-
Diesel engine
Diesel-HRD fuels
ted as a function of relative air-fuel ratio (k) to analyse performance and engine out emissions for relative
Ethanol ‘lambda’ values of = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm. Parameters
Biodiesel obtained when using fuel blends of both E and B origins were compared with those measured with ‘base-
Performance efficiency line’ blends possessing normal CN rating or zero content of oxygen and a straight diesel to reveal the
Fuel consumption resulting development trends. The combustion characteristics (Part 1) were used to properly interpret
Smoke the resulting changes in engine performance and emissions.
Exhaust emissions The brake thermal efficiency equally increased by 0.5%, NOx emissions by 15.8% or 2.7%, smoke and CO
decreased 1.7 times or by 34.9% and 7.2 times or increased by 18.8% when running with the most flam-
mable (CN = 67.3) fuel blends E or B at k = 1.20 and the high speed of 2500 rpm. The engine efficiency
increased by 2.9% or 0.5%, NOx emissions by 10.6% (1.81 wt%) or 5.0%, smoke and CO emissions decreased
3.0 times or by 46.7% and by 63.3% (3.61 wt%) or 49.5% when using the most oxygenated (4.52 wt%) fuel
blends series E or B under given test conditions.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction A lot of the research projects have been completed to adapt

The Air Pollution Control Act was the first Clean Air Act enacted
by Congress of the United States to address the national environ-
mental problem of air pollution on July 14, 1955 [1]. This was
the turning point at which the entirely industrial, agricultural,
and transportation infrastructure started to move towards green
energy policy. At a summit in Paris agreement was signed to
reduce the CO2 emissions 40% by year 2035 and limit the global
temperature rise ‘‘well below” 2.0 °C [2]. Negotiations on reduction
of carbon emissions and development of solutions for a gradual
switch to renewable energy systems provides review [3].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gvidonas.labeckas@asu.lt (G. Labeckas), stasys.slavinskas@asu.
lt (S. Slavinskas), irena.kanapkiene@asu.lt (I. Kanapkienė).
using renewable Fisher-Tropsch gas to liquid [4–7] and biomass
to liquid [8–10] fuels as well as hydrotreated renewable diesel
[11,12] and hydrotreated vegetable oil [13–18] or waste-cooking
oil – HWCO [19,20] in diesel engines. Using Fisher-Tropsch diesel
and HRD fuels in a variety of light-duty and heavy-duty engines
and vehicles significantly reduces the net emissions of greenhouse
gases and smoke (soot) that moderates impact on the environ-
ment. Renewable HRD fuel is less hazardous as a fossil diesel fuel,
suggests ash-free combustion and long maintenance-free perfor-
mance for exhaust after-treatment systems.
Effect of cetane number on the combustion process and emissions.
The Finish scientists developed modern, cutting-edge technology
to produce renewable, oxygen-free, low-emission diesel fuel
NExBTL by using vegetable oils such as palm, soybean and rape-
seed oils, as well as waste animal fats [21]. The composition of
HVO is similar with that of GTL and BTL diesel fuels made by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.07.017
0196-8904/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466 443

Nomenclature

Diesel-HRD fuel blends involving ethanol (E) or biodiesel (B) possess- OB4 0.667 (0.768 DF/0.232 HRD)/0.333 B wt%, O = 3.61 wt%
ing the same fuel-oxygen mass content of 4.5 wt%, but still OB5 0.583 (0.733 DF/0.267 HRD)/0.417 B wt%, O = 4.52 wt%
with various cetane (C) number values:
CE1 0.871 (0.770 DF/0.230 HRD)/0.129 E wt%, CN = 51.28 Abbreviations
CB1 0.585 DF/0.415 B wt%, CN = 51.23 DF fossil-origin diesel fuel (class 1)
CE2 0.871 (0.370 DF/0.630 HRD)/0129 E wt%, CN = 60.89 FAME fatty acid methyl ester
CB2 0.585 (0.400 DF/0.600 HRD)/0.415 B wt%, CN = 60.89 GTL gas to liquid technology
CE3 0.871 (0.100 DF/0.900 HRD)/0.129 E wt%, CN = 67.38 FT Fischer-Tropsch technology
CB3 0.585 HRD/0.415 B wt%, CN = 67.32 HVO hydrotreated vegetable oil
HWCO hydrotreated waste cooking oil
Diesel-HRD fuel blends possessing the same cetane number of 55.5, BTL biomass to liquid
but still with various ethanol (E) oxygen (O) mass contents: HRD hydrotreated renewable diesel
OE0 0.850 DF/0.150 HRD wt%, O = 0.00 wt% TDC top dead center
OE1 0.974 (0.804 DF/0.196 HRD)/0.026 E wt%, O = 0.91 wt% ATDC after top dead center
OE2 0.948 (0.755 DF/0.245 HRD)/0.052 E wt%, O = 1.81 wt% BTDC before top dead center
OE3 0.922 (0.704 DF/0.296 HRD)/0.078 E wt%, O = 2.71 wt% CAD crank angle degree
OE4 0.896 (0.650 DF/0.350 HRD)/0.104 E wt%, O = 3.61 wt% bmep brake mean effective pressure, MPa
OE5 0.870 (0.592 DF/0.408 HRD)/0.130 E wt%, O = 4.52 wt% bsfc brake specific fuel consumption, g/(kWh)
bte brake thermal efficiency
Diesel-HRD fuel blends possessing the same cetane number of 55.5, NO nitric oxide, ppm
but still with various biodiesel (B) oxygen (O) mass con- NO2 nitrogen dioxide, ppm
tents: NOx total nitrogen oxides, ppm
OB0 0.850 DF/0.150 HRD wt%, O = 0.00 wt% CO carbon monoxide, ppm
OB1 0.916 (0.835 DF/0.165 HRD)/0.084 B wt%, O = 0.91 wt% CO2 carbon dioxide, vol%
OB2 0.833 (0.817 DF/0.183 HRD)/0.167 B wt%, O = 1.81 wt% THC total unburned hydrocarbons, ppm
OB3 0.750 (0.795 DF/0.205 HRD)/0.250 B wt%, O = 2.71 wt%

Fischer Tropsch synthesis from natural gas and gasified biomass
[22]. Therefore, using HVO (HRD) in a heavy-duty DI diesel engine
reduces CO, THC, NOx emissions, and smoke (soot). In contrast to
ester-type biodiesel fuels, HRD differs as having better storage sta-
bility, excellent cold starting and clean combustion properties due
to high CN rating and low C/H atoms ratio, does not create deposits
in the crankcase, prevents engine oil from rapid aging and, finally,
– production of renewable fuels by using HRD technology con-
tributes to utilisation of biological residues.
Bhardwaj et al. [18] studied utilization of pure HVO, petroleum
diesel, and RME fuel properties in a high efficiency combustion sys-
tem. Researchers noted that the HVO fuelling results in about 50%
reduction in smoke emissions and 43% reduction in gravimetric PM
flow, while the reduction with RME was 78% and 62%, respectively.
Singh et al. [12] conducted dynamometer tests by using 13 modes
European Stationary Cycle on a heavy-duty, DI diesel engine
fuelled with two biofuels HRD and Biodiesel (B100) produced from
Jatrophacurcas oil feedstock. They declared substantial reduction
in PM, CO, and HC emissions due to higher heating value of HRD
and lower brake specific fuel consumption compared to conven-
tional diesel. However, NOx emissions increased by 26% for the
neat HRD and 77% for B100 fuelled engine.
Effect of fuel-oxygen on mixing control combustion and emissions.
The test results of a modern diesel engine showed that using HVO
reduces the NOx-particulate (PM) trade-off up to 50% compared to
conventional diesel [23]. Lighter fuel A, containing 60% LO-BP
(C8H18) fuel, produced a relatively homogeneous liquid phase
distribution because radial dispersion of the liquid particles was
faster than that of multi-component fuels B and C [24]. Whereas
Lee et al. [25] measured higher NOx emissions and low exhaust
smoke in a heavy-duty diesel engine because relatively premixed
combustion was predominated when using a lighter and more
volatile JP-8 fuel.
Experiments with various FAME and diesel fuel blends showed
that even small fractions of low volatile components have effect
on the spray formation and evaporation process under realistic die-
sel engine conditions [26]. The higher boiling point FAME additions
resulted in a higher penetration of the fuel liquid phase and area
occupied by the spray patterns. Whereas the spray cone angle
reached maximum value of 17° at about 50 ms after SOI and
decreased to 10° at 200 ms. Tests with various biodiesel blends also
showed that the higher density and viscosity of the fuel affect the
profile relaxation and lead to the spray cone angle about 10% smaller
than with diesel fuel, which results in an increased thermal zone for
the NOx formation [27]. However, biofuels derived from vegetable
oil [28], animal fat [29], and other sustainable sources [30] provide
excellent lubricity to the fuel injection system that in a long-term
can reduce excessive wear of precision nozzle-needle-valve parts.
Effect of fuel properties on mixing control combustion and emis-
sions. Because density and viscosity of the fuel affect injection char-
acteristics well before the combustion starts in the engine cylinder,
Hulkkonen et al. [31] investigated differences in fuel spray charac-
teristics between HVO and fossil diesel fuel EN 590. Researchers
noted that the maximum velocity of HVO fuel droplets was about
10–50 m/s higher and continued longer in pressurised nitrogen
(N2) gas chamber that assured somewhat better than fossil diesel
fuel penetration of the fuel spray tips for a higher injection pres-
sure range of 1000–1985 bars. Moreover, the HVO fuel spray angle
did not have a conical shape and was in the range of 0.2–2.0° wider
than that of a fossil fuel at ambient density of 36 kg/m3 in the test
chamber.
Ethanol is plenty oxygenated by nature and its kinematic vis-
cosity is nearly 3.2 times lower than that of biodiesel (Table 3). This
gives a chance to provide the qualitative and quantitative study on
the effects made by the differing properties of the fuel on engine
performance efficiency and exhaust emissions when the cetane
444 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
number, fuel-oxygen content in both fuel sets along with engine
test conditions are all as identical as possible. The lower density,
viscosity, and faster evaporation of ethanol added to fuel blends
may reduce penetration of the fuel sprays and negatively affect
the development of liquid-phase sprays. It can be then expected
that the shorter spray length will be compensated by a wider spray
cone angle that may enhance mixing rate of ethanol-fuel vapours
with the in-cylinder air. Nevertheless, the differences in composi-
tion of ethanol-diesel fuel blends in the Chalmers high-pressure/
high-temperature spray chamber did not significantly affect the
liquid phase spray penetration and cone angle under both non-
combusting or combusting conditions [32].
Whereas heavier, viscous, and less volatile Soybean Methyl Ester
(SME) demonstrated a denser liquid core with respect to the refer-
ence diesel and second-generation GTL fuels and a higher average
tips penetration because of the highest density and viscosity [33].
The changes in spray characteristics may reduce the air and fuel
vapours mixing rate and lead to bigger differences in the local air-
fuel ratios in specific combustion chamber ‘zones’ owing to higher
molecular weight, density, viscosity, droplets size, and lower volatil-
ity of biodiesel added to fuel blend. Heterogeneous mixture of the
air and fuel involving biodiesel may retard diffusive burning (angle
MBF 90), increase smoke and CO, THC emissions against those the
combustion of ethanol-oxygenated blends produces under close to
stoichiometric conditions at a high speed.
Studies conducted in a light-duty [8], common-rail Euro 5 [20]
diesel engines, single-cylinder engines [4,10,11,16], heavy-duty
engines [34], powerful vehicles [13], three modern cars [9], diesel-
powered passenger cars [5] and a high efficiency combustion sys-
tem [18] showed that HVO, HWO and HRD fuels reduce NOx, PM
emissions and deposit formation in the cylinder. However, the
majority of studies on the combustion characteristics, engine effi-
ciency and emissions were performed for the effects caused by the
simultaneous variation of cetane number, fuel-oxygen fraction,
air-fuel ratio, engine load, speed, and fuel properties. Because the
effects of many influencing factors interfered with each other, it
was difficult to disclose which of them plays a key role in ‘overshad-
owed’ test conditions.
In the relevant literature, still is a lack of information about how
the individual variation of cetane number, fuel-oxygen content or
dissimilar properties of the fuel affects engine performance, brake
thermal efficiency, specific fuel consumption, smoke, and emis-
sions of the exhaust. This can only be possible to reveal by running
specified tests, where the dominant factors one after another oper-
ate separately in a CRDI turbocharged diesel engine over a wide
range of speeds under identical combustion conditions in the cylin-
der. Development of numerical models apropos to evaluate the
individual effects of cetane number, fuel-oxygen content, or dis-
similar properties of the fuel on engine performance, fuel-
efficiency, smoke and emission characteristics requires reliable
experimental data recorded from a turbocharged CRDI diesel
engine operating under specified test conditions.
The purpose of the research was to reveal the individual effects
of cetane number, fuel-oxygen content or fuel properties on the
performance efficiency, exhaust smoke, and emissions produced
by a turbocharged CRDI diesel engine operating under close to sto-
ichiometric conditions over the three ranges of speed when the
fuel energy input per each engine cycle (‘lambda’) remains the
same. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the develop-
ment trends in the engine efficiency, specific fuel consumption
and exhaust emissions produced by the separate variation of the
most important factors:
(a) the cetane number of oxygenated fuel blends involving etha-
nol or biodiesel, but still possessing the same fuel-bound
oxygen mass content of nearly 4.5 wt%;
(b) the oxygen-mass content in the fuel blends involving etha-
nol or biodiesel, but still possessing the same cetane number
value of about 55.5;
(c) the widely dissimilar properties of fuel blends involving bio-
fuels derived from biomass of various origins, but still pos-
sessing the same fuel-bound oxygen mass content (a),
cetane number (b) or both dominant factors at the same
time.
The fuel-energy inputs per each engine cycle, determined by the
relative air-to-fuel ratios ‘lambda’ also were maintained the same
to have the temperature environment inside the cylinder identical
as much as possible for the planed test conditions. Using of the
fuels identically oxygenated with ethanol (E) or biodiesel (B) will
provide valuable information to find out which of them, – a
single-bound with carbon atoms ethanol-oxygen or double-
bound biodiesel-oxygen plays a greater role in the combustion
reactions and formation of noxious emissions. The answer to this
question is possible to get only when the cetane number, air-fuel
ratio, engine speed, boost pressure (temperature), and other vari-
ables are maintained as close to the same values as possible. This
strategy includes some kind of novelty aiming to reveal the result-
ing development trends in the studied operational parameters and
engine out emissions.
2. Engine test set up and research methodology
A turbocharged CRDI diesel engine FIAT 1.9 JTD 8V with a swept
volume of 1.91 dm3 and compression ratio of 18:1 was used for the
experimental tests. The moving vanes of a garret variable geometry
GT1749V turbocharger were taken under control and the air charge
pressure and temperature sensors were fitted into intake manifold
to know both the density of incoming air and the volumetric effi-
ciency of an engine. The uncooled air entered the capacity chamber
and the cylinders at a boost pressure of 1.60 bar and temperature of
85 °C. An OMEGA-shaped combustion chamber in the piston crown
improved air-fuel mixing and combustion efficiency.
The scavenging of the engine cylinders was reduced to mini-
mum by a very small 2 CADs overlap of the inlet and the exhaust
valves at the end of the exhaust stroke. This worked as an internal
EGR to reduce the NOx production, while the external EGR system
was switched off to eliminate the potential side effects on the
exhaust smoke and emissions. Whereas the electronic control unit
EDC-15C7 CR governed both the timing and the duration of the fuel
injection. The schematic view of the test stand, equipment, and
apparatus used for the experiments shows Fig. 1. The test setup
contained a diesel engine, an engine test bed, the AVL indicating
system, air and fuel mass flow measuring equipment, a gas analy-
ser, and a smoke meter. Specifications of an engine and fuel injec-
tion system are listed in Table 1.
Load characteristics with a normal diesel and diesel-HRD fuel
blends involving ethanol (E) or biodiesel (B) components were
taken at maximum torque speed of 2000 rpm and additional
1500 and 2500 rpms for sound interpretation of the test results.
To select the most common combustion conditions, the perfor-
mance parameters taken with diesel fuel EN590 as a ‘‘baseline” fuel
and various fuel blends as a function of load (bmep) were plotted
as a function of overall air-fuel ratio (k), which decreased with
increasing engine load [35]. Changes in the brake specific fuel con-
sumption, engine efficiency, smoke, and emissions revealed when
using fuel blends CE1-CE3/CB1-CB3 and OE0-OE5/OB0-OB5 were
compared with those measured with the reference fuels CE1/CB1,
OE0/OB0 and a straight diesel for overall air-fuel ratios of
k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20 at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000
and 2500 rpm.
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466 445

Fig. 1. Schematic arrangement of the engine test stand: (1) AVL crank-angle encoder; (2) piezoelectric in-cylinder pressure transducer; (3) fuel high-pressure line transducer
at the injector; (4) air boost pressure sensor in the intake manifold.

Table 1 allows directly observe the eventual changes occurred in the com-
Engine specifications. bustion characteristics, engine efficiency, and exhaust emissions
Engine code 192A1000 due to the separate variation of dominant factors.
Engine brand/model FIAT 1.9JTD 8v 115 HP
Engine type Four-cylinder engine, in line, 2.1. Measurement of in-cylinder gas pressure and engine performance
turbocharged, JTD
data
Turbine code 712766-1
Turbocharger A variable geometry Garret
GT1749V A high-speed multichannel indicating system (AVL List, Graz,
Fuel injection system Common rail (CR), direct Austria) was introduced for the recording, acquisition, and process-
injection (DI)
ing of fast crank-angle gas pressure signals in the first cylinder. The
Cylinder bore x piston stroke 82 mm  90.4 mm
The length of connecting rod 144.5 mm
pressure curve method of the unfired engine was used to derive
Total displacement volume 1910 cc the correct TDC [36]. The single indicator diagrams, which reflected
Compression ratio 18.0 ± 0.45:1 in-cylinder individual pressure signals over 100 engine-cycles ver-
Combustion chamber The OMEGA-shaped in a piston sus crank angle, were in series recorded for each fuel blend at every
head
load-speed setting point. The total heat release rate was calculated
Rated power 85 kW (115 HP) at 4000 rpm
(bmep = 1.335 MPa) by using the AVL BOOST program and summarized over the 100
Maximum torque 255 Nm (EEC) at speed of engine-cycles averaged in-cylinder pressure-data, instantaneous
2000 rpm cylinder volume, and their first order derivative with respect to
Idle speed 850 ± 20 rpm
crank angle. The data post-processing Software AVL CONCERTOTM
SOHC – Intake timing angles Opens before TDC at 0°; closes
after BDC at 32°
advanced version 4.5 was used to increase productivity and
SOHC – Exhaust timing angles Opens before BDC at 40°; closes improve accuracy of the test results.
after TDC at 2° The engine torque was measured with an electric dynamometer
The gas exchange system OHC with the four vertical valves KS-56-4 with a definition rate of ±1 Nm, and speed with the AVL
per cylinder
crank angle encoder 365C. A real-time air mass flow was measured
Fuel injection system Common rail, Bosch
Maximum injection pressure 1400 bar (140 ± 0.5 MPa) with the AVL air mass flow meter and fuel mass consumption was
Codes injection pump/injectors, 0445010007/0445110119, recorded for every load-speed setting point with the AVL dynamic
number  diameter of nozzles 6  £ 0.170 mm fuel balance 733S flex-fuel system. Temperature of the fuel was
maintained at about 25 °C by means of a water-type heat exchan-
ger mounted on the return line downstream from the pump. The
The relative air-fuel ratios were computed by using the mea- fuel system was drained off after every test set, the fuel filters were
sured air-mass and fuel mass consumptions at each load-speed cleaned up and the engine operated for about 15 min intervals
setting point and the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio for each fuel between test-series to consume the fuel remained from the previ-
blend to establish direct relation with real engine performance ous test and reach steady-state coolant temperature of 88–90 °C.
conditions. These conditions are needed for the analysis and com-
parison of the obtained results with findings of other researchers. 2.2. Measurement of engine emissions
Identical air-fuel ratio predicts that the fuel-energy input per each
engine cycle and a common air-born and fuel-bound oxygen avail- Temperature of the exhaust was measured by using a nickel-
ability in the cylinder for each fuel blend involving ethanol or bio- chromium (K type) thermocouple mounted at the entrance of the
diesel components will remain almost the same. This methodology manifold. Emissions of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
446 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466

carbon monoxide (CO), dioxide (CO2, vol%), and total unburned and comparison of the obtained test results. The environment in
hydrocarbons (THC) in parts per million (ppm) were measured the combustion chamber was also maintained identical as much
with electrochemical cells installed into Testo 350 XL flue gas anal- as possible to make the analysis of the obtained test results more
yser (Testo AG, Lenzkirch, Germany). The NOx emissions were manageable. Specified test conditions are essential to find out what
determined as a sum of both NO and NO2 pollutants. Smoke of consequent changes in engine performance, smoke, and exhaust
the exhaust was measured with a ‘‘Bosch” RTT 110/RTT 110 emissions occurred, to disclose what potentially caused them and
opacity-meter (Robert Bosch, Germany), the readings of which to examine the existing trends and relationships between the
are directly provided as Hartridge units (% opacity) in a scale rang- influencing factors.
ing from 0% to 100%. The accuracies of the measured experimental However, the same all, - cetane number, air-born and fuel-
data of engine performance and exhaust emission parameters and bound oxygen needed to burn the fuel completely and fuel-heat
the uncertainties of the calculated test results are listed in Table 2. energy input delivered per each engine cycle does not guarantee
that the production of smoke (soot) and exhaust emissions will
proceed under identical conditions in the cylinder. The matter is
3. Experimental procedures and analysis of basic parameters of
that the density, viscosity, C/H atoms ratio, surface tension, iodine
the tested diesel-HRD fuel blends
number, latent heat of vaporization, amounts of polycyclic aromat-
ics and sulphur along with distillation characteristics, different ini-
3.1. The composition of a fossil diesel and biofuels derived from
tial/final boiling points and adiabatic flame temperatures are all
biomass of various origins and blending methodology of the fuels
fuel-composition-dependent properties. Dissimilar evaporative
cooling of the added ethanol or biodiesel to diesel-HRD fuel blends
Conventional automotive diesel fuel (class 1) was produced at
will cause temperature variations and affect the production of
the oil refinery ‘‘Orlen Lietuva” and its quality satisfied the require-
harmful species in specific combustion chamber ‘zones’.
ments of standard EN-590:2009+A1. Composition of the diesel fuel
Whereas the dissimilar injection, atomisation, and vaporization
consisted of C/H = 0.8608/0.1299 and the remaining 0.0093
characteristics of the fuel blends will intervene into the planed
belonged to water, sulphur, and other impurities as determined
conditions inside the cylinder. The fuel composition-made effects
at the refinery’s laboratory. The NExBTL BTL fuel, which satisfied
will be revealed during investigation of the cetane number or
the diesel fuel EN-590 specifications, was donated by the Finish
fuel-oxygen contribution to changes occurred in the engine effi-
NESTE Oil Ltd., and brought from Finland, Porvoo together with
ciency and exhaust emissions. More in-depth study on the sub-
the certificate of analysis TT-15-000229. The composition of HRD
jects, analysis and comparison of the emissions produced by the
fuel was C/H = 0.8480/0.1520, and biomass source used for HRD
combustion of the fuels oxygenated with ethanol or biodiesel with
production was mainly rapeseed oil. Biodiesel (RME) was brought
those of a straight diesel and findings of other researchers is essen-
from the company ‘‘Rapsoila”, Mažeikiai, its composition of C/H/
tial to reasonably interpret the revealed development trends in
O = 0.7720/0.1190/0.1084 and operational parameters satisfied
engine performance and emissions to withdraw sound conclusions.
the requirements of standard EN 14214:2012. Anhydrous ethanol
(CH3CH2OH – 200 proof) was produced in Germany (Seelze) at
3.2. The engine test strategy, methodology and apparatus used for
Ltd. ‘‘Sigma-Aldrich” and satisfied the requirements of standard
experiments
EN 15376:2015. Properties of diesel fuel, RME, and ethanol were
determined at the respective producers’ laboratories by using the
The experimental tests started with conventional diesel fuel to
EU standards. Whereas the cetane number, cloud point, acid value,
determine the combustion characteristics, engine performance,
and net heating value of HRD fuel were determined in Finland, at
and exhaust emissions constituting the ‘‘baseline” level that was
Neste Oil Ltd. by using ASTM standards. The measured data of a
used for analysis of the development trends revealed when operat-
fossil diesel, HRD fuel, RME, and anhydrous ethanol are listed in
ing with fuel blends involving ethanol (E) or biodiesel (B) under the
Table 3.
same test conditions. At first, diesel and HRD fuels were premixed
The composition of the designed fuel blends is shown in
in the pre-set proportions by mass because this technique was rec-
Fig. 2a, b. Well-balanced binary or ternary fuel blends produced
ommended in Ref. [37]. After that, four fuel sets were prepared by
from a fossil diesel, HRD fuel and biofuels derived from biomass
adding pre-calculated amounts (wt%) of ethanol or biodiesel (RME)
of various origins create proper preconditions for analysis of the
to diesel-HRD fuel blends.
engine efficiency, specific fuel consumption, exhaust emissions
This strategy made it possible to provide the engine tests with
oxygenated fuel blends of various compositions and origins,
whereas extra-quality, high-cetane, oxygen-free, renewable HRD
Table 2 fuel was an excellent tool really needed to start the experimental
The accuracy of the measured experimental data of engine performance and emission tests on the planned topics:
parameters and the uncertainty of the computed experimental results.

Measurements Accuracy (1) to evaluate the individual effects of cetane (C) number on
the brake specific fuel consumption, thermal efficiency,
Engine torque ±1%
Engine speed ±0.1%
smoke, and NOx, NO2, CO, HC emissions when running with
In-cylinder gas pressure ±0.1 MPa fuel blends involving ethanol CE1-CE3 or biodiesel CB1-CB3
Exhaust smoke ±0.1% at relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, and the
NOx ±5 ppm respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm. The cetane
CO ±3 ppm
number has been changed within the wide range of 51.2–
CO2 ±3 vol%
THC ±2 ppm 67.3 by the rotational use of fuel blends series E or B, but
Calculated results Total uncertainty these blends were premixed in such proportions by mass
Engine power output ±1% to maintain the same fuel-oxygen content of nearly 4.5 wt%.
Air mass flow rate ±1% (2) to evaluate the individual effects of fuel-oxygen (O) on the
Fuel mass flow rate ±0.1%
Brake specific fuel consumption ±1.5%
brake specific fuel consumption, thermal efficiency, smoke,
Brake thermal efficiency ±1.5% and NOx, NO2, CO, THC emissions when running with fuel
blends involving ethanol OE0-OE5 or biodiesel OB0-OB5 at
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466 447

Table 3
Properties of diesel fuel, HRD fuel, ethanol, and rapeseed biodiesel (RME).

Property parameters Test methods Diesel fuel NESTE oil NExBTL Anhydrous ethanol Rapeseed biodiesel
(class 1) fuel (HRD) (99.9 vol%) (RME)
Density at 15 °C, kg/m3 (RME and ethanol at 20 °C) EN ISO 12185:1999 832.7 779.8 790.0 883.6
Kinematic viscosity at 40 °C, mm2/s EN ISO 3104 + AC:1994 2.13 2.919 1.40 4.444
Surface tension at 29 °C, mN/m – 30.1 27.9 – 29.6
Lubricity (HFRR), corrected wear scar diameter EN ISO 12156-1 459 260 – 205
(wsd 1.4) at 60 °C, mm
Flash point, open cup °C EN ISO 2719:2003 57.0 79.5 13 168
Initial/final boiling points, °C EN ISO 3405:2011 177.8/345.0 209.9/301.9 78 346/366
Cloud point, °C EN ISO 23015:1999/ 16 36.9  26 10
ASTM D7689
Cold filter plugging point, °C EN ISO 116/AC:2002 31 40.0  38 15
Autoignition temperature °C – 250 210 363 342
Cetane number EN ISO 5165:1999/ 51.4 78.9 8 51.0
ASTM D6890
Iodine number, J2g/100 g EN 14111:2003 6 – – 110
Acid value, mg KOH/g –/ASTM D 3242-11 0.06 0.001 0.01 0.11
Polycyclic aromatics, wt% EN 12916 4.0 0.1 – –
Sulphur total, mg/kg EN ISO 20846:2004 5.6 1.0 – 3.9
Oxygen, max wt% – 0.00 0.00 34.78 10.84
Carbon, max wt% – 86.08 84.80 52.172 77.26
Hydrogen, wt% – 12.99 15.200 13.043 11.90
Carbon-to-hydrogen ratio (C/H) – 6.500 5.579 4.000 6.492
Distillation residue, carbonates, wt% EN ISO 10370:1999 0.04 mass% 0.01 – 0.29 mass%
Stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, kg/kg – 14.499 15.118 9.074 12.616
Net heating value, MJ/kg EN ISO 8217:2012/ 43.00 43.824 26.95 37.23
ASTM D 4809
Total contamination, mg/kg EN ISO 12662 4 3 – 11.6
Ash, 775 °C, wt% EN ISO 6245 0.01 0.001 – 0.005
Water, mg/kg EN ISO 12937 35 17 0.2 vol% 420.0

Fig. 2. (a, b) Composition of diesel-HRD fuel blends involving ethanol (E) or biodiesel (B) components (by mass) designed to have a wide variation range of the blended cetane
(C) number value of 51.2–67.3 or fuel-bound oxygen (O) mass content 0–4.52 wt%, as listed in nomenclature.

relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, and the
respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm. The fuel-
oxygen content was changed from 0 to 4.52 wt% by rota-
tional using of the fuels series E or B, but these blends were
premixed in such proportions by mass to maintain the same
cetane number of about CN = 55.5. The cetane number in
this experimental study was high enough to avoid the
potential danger of the added ethanol on the cyclic variabil-
ity of operational parameters, engine performance, smoke,
and emissions [38].
448 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
(3) to reveal how the widely differing properties of the fuels
contribute to changes in the brake specific fuel consumption,
brake thermal efficiency, smoke, and NOx, NO2, CO, THC
emissions, the fuel-oxygen content or cetane number of
the respective fuel blends CE1-CE3 and CB1-CB3 or OE0-
OE5 and OB0-OB5 were maintained the same. Though, one
important aspect should be always kept in mind, - changes
in the blended diesel and HRD fuel mass ratio occurred that
will affect the composition of fuel blends, as shown in
Fig. 2a, b. This annoying factor intervened into the planned
test-strategy to ‘overshadow’ the effects made by dominant
factors, but its role perhaps was negligible because both die-
sel and HRD are of high-quality, oxygen-free fuels fulfilling
the EU standards for automotive fuels.
HVOs are straight chain paraffinic hydrocarbons and almost free
of aromatics, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulphur and have high cetane
numbers ranging from 75 to 95 because of their nature as a mix-
ture of n- and isoparaffins [22]. The HRD fuel being of the same
nature as HVOs belongs to the group of hydrocarbons, which are
miscible with a hydrocarbon matrix of a fuel blend and diesel fuel
[37]. However, when pouring HVO or biodiesel into a fossil diesel
fuel, it is important to start by mixing diesel fuel and HVO first.
After that, pre-calculated amount of ethanol or biodiesel as oxy-
genator source can be added to the blend. Biodiesel mixes well
with diesel and HRD fuel, whereas anhydrous ethanol was added
to the fuel blends just before starting an engine to avoid humidity
absorption and stratification.
The density and viscosity of the tested fuels were measured
by using the laboratory device Anton Paar density/viscosity
meter SVM 3000 with an accuracy of ±0.0002 g/cm3/0.1%, respec-
tively, at the temperature of 40 ± 0.001 °C. Whereas the surface
tension of biofuel droplets was measured by using mobile bub-
ble pressure tension-meter Krüss BP 2100 with an accuracy
±0.1 mN/m.
To get the reference data of a straight diesel, load characteristics
of a diesel engine running with diesel fuel EN 590 (class 1) were
measured at speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm with constant
air-boost pressure of 1.60 bar to eliminate the effects of in-
coming air temperature. Then, the engine operated with binary
or ternary oxygenated (4.5 wt%) diesel-HRD fuel blends involving
anhydrous (200 proof) ethanol CE1-CE3 or rapeseed biodiesel
CB1-CB3 in such proportions by mass to assure the wide range of
the variation of cetane number 51.2–67.3. To make the study more
educational, both ethanol (E) and biodiesel (B) fuel sets included
the same fuel-oxygen content of 4.5 wt%, even though these blends
were designed by using biofuel components derived from biomass
of various origins. Next, the engine operated with oxygenated fuel
blends involving ethanol OE0-OE5 or rapeseed biodiesel OB0-OB5
premixed in such proportions by mass to assure the wide range
of the variation of fuel-oxygen content 0–4.52 wt%. In this case,
both fuel sets possessed the same cetane number of 55.5 even
though these blends were designed by using ethanol (E) or biodie-
sel (B) components.
HRD a Neste Oil biomass-to-liquid (NExBTL) high-quality, high-
cetane, oxygen-free diesel fuel was just as needed to realise the pur-
pose and intended goals of the study. The brake specific fuel con-
sumption, brake thermal efficiency, smoke, and NOx, NO2, CO, THC
emissions measured with the above blends are compared with the
respective values obtained with ‘base-line’ blends CE1/CB1 or
OE0/OB0 and a straight diesel. The qualitative and quantitative com-
parison of the changes in smoke opacity and exhaust emissions per-
formed for close to stoichiometric conditions specified by relative
air-fuel ratios of k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20 at the respective
1500 rpm, maximum torque 2000 rpm and the high speed of
2500 rpm.
The test methodology aimed to have a wide range of the varia-
tion of chemical and physical properties representing dissimilar
characteristics of the fuels and, at the same time, to keep the dom-
inant factors such as the cetane number or fuel-oxygen content
under control to realise the intended tasks. By using this strategy,
it will be possible to reveal the single role of the cetane number or
fuel-oxygen content on the engine performance, specific fuel con-
sumption, brake thermal efficiency, smoke, and emissions when
the other factors are as identical as possible. The quantitative
and qualitative evaluation of the changes occurred in the engine
performance and emissions within the variation range of the
cetane number or fuel-bound oxygen content in the same fuel
group and between the fuel blends of various origins, chemical
and physical properties and with those measured with a normal
diesel will help to reveal possible reasons leading to the noted
development trends. The dissimilar properties of ethanol or biodie-
sel will provide the individual contribution to changes in the fuel
spray patterns, mixing rate of the air and fuel droplets, engine per-
formance, brake specific fuel consumption, smoke, and exhaust
emissions. More in-depth analysis can be helpful for revealing of
the existing development trends in the cycle-to-cycle irregularity
of the combustion parameters, engine efficiency, smoke and emis-
sions that may get a chance to make a difference.
The cetane number, net heating value, fuel-oxygen content,
carbon-to-hydrogen ratio, stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, and mixing
percentage of diesel and HRD fuels with ethanol or biodiesel were
studied, researched, and evaluated to estimate the respective prop-
erties of oxygenated fuel blends at which the pre-set test condi-
tions are satisfied (Table 4). A very high cetane number (78.9) of
HRD fuel made it possible to prepare fuel blends with specified
characteristics needed to perform this experimental study. Having
experimental cetane number data of each fuel-component, a
blending cetane number for the oxygenated fuel blends was com-
puted by using typical methodology developed at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory [39]. This methodology assumes
that the cetane number of obtained blend is a linear combination
of the cetane numbers of the original components in its composi-
tion. A review of the relevant literature [40] shows that the ‘lever’
low cannot be applied for the vegetable oils and DEE since the
cetane number values of both fuels are under-rated and the
blended CN rating may drop when mixed with diesel fuel. The tests
conducted in Finland verified that the cetane number increases lin-
early with increased blending ratio of HVO fuel [37]. The typical
methodology for developing blending cetane number may be the
only source of information available, which will be sufficient for
the comparative analysis and qualitative evaluation of the changes
occurred in engine performance, brake specific fuel consumption,
smoke, and emissions.
3.3. Chemical and physical properties of a fossil diesel, renewable HRD
fuel, ethanol, biodiesel, and the designed biofuel blends
Density of HRD fuel is 6.4% lower at the temperature of 15 °C
because of paraffinic nature, but its kinematic viscosity is about
37.0% higher than that of a fossil diesel fuel EN 590 at the temper-
ature of 40 °C. HRD fuel provides high energy content ant reason-
able distillation range without high boiling fractions compared to
diesel fuel or biodiesel (Table 3). The high energy content per unit
of mass compensates for the effects of its lower density on volu-
metric fuel delivery scale. This advantages feature of HRD fuel rests
on the paraffinic nature and the fact that oxygen, nitrogen and
much of the sulphur containing species are removed during the
purification process to replace them with more calorific hydrogen
(15.2 wt%) compared to nearly 13.0 wt-% in diesel fuel. This means
that less fuel mass will be needed to provide the same energy input
per each engine cycle.
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466 449

Table 4
Basic properties of the fuel blends designed from a fossil diesel and hydrotreated renewable diesel (HRD) fuel involving ethanol (E) or biodiesel (B) components.

Code Density Kinematic Surface Cetane Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Carbon-to- Stoichiometric Net Heating energy of
of the at 15 °C, viscosity at tension, number max max max, wt% hydrogen air/fuel ratio, heating combustible mixture,
blends kg/m3 40 °C, mm2/s mN/m wt% wt% ratio kg/kg value, MJ/kg MJ/kg for air-fuel ratios
of k = 1.30, 1.25, 1.20
CE1 816.7 1.88 24.37 51.26 4.49 81.45 13.44 6.06 13.92 41.09 2.15, 2.23, 2.32
CE2 798.2 2.13 24.83 60.89 4.49 81.00 14.21 5.70 14.14 41.38 2.14, 2.22, 2.30
CE3 785.7 2.31 25.10 67.36 4.49 80.70 14.73 5.48 14.29 41.58 2.12, 2.21, 2.29
CB1 853.8 2.77 28.70 51.23 4.50 82.41 12.55 6.57 13.72 40.61 2.16, 2.24, 2.32
CB2 835.4 3.16 28.63 60.89 4.50 81.96 13.32 6.15 13.94 40.90 2.14, 2.22, 2.31
CB3 822.9 3.45 28.37 67.32 4.50 81.66 13.84 5.90 14.09 41.09 2.13, 2.21, 2.30
OE0 824.8 2.13 27.70 55.53 0.00 85.89 13.32 6.45 14.59 43.12 2.16, 2.24, 2.33
OE1 821.5 2.04 27.70 55.52 0.91 84.95 13.41 6.33 14.48 42.74 2.16, 2.24, 2.33
OE2 818.2 2.03 26.07 55.53 1.81 84.02 13.51 6.22 14.36 42.36 2.15, 2.24, 2.32
OE3 814.9 1.98 24.87 55.52 2.71 83.09 13.60 6.11 14.25 41.97 2.15, 2.23, 2.32
OE4 811.7 1.97 25.30 55.51 3.61 82.15 13.69 6.00 14.13 41.59 2.15, 2.23, 2.32
OE5 808.4 1.96 25.60 55.52 4.52 81.22 13.78 5.89 14.01 41.21 2.14, 2.23, 2.31
OB0 824.8 2.13 27.70 55.53 0.00 85.89 13.32 6.45 14.59 43.12 2.16, 2.24, 2.33
OB1 829.0 2.27 28.73 55.52 0.91 85.14 13.23 6.43 14.44 42.64 2.16, 2.24, 2.33
OB2 833.1 2.45 29.00 55.53 1.81 84.41 13.15 6.42 14.28 42.16 2.16, 2.24, 2.33
OB3 837.3 2.56 29.30 55.53 2.71 83.67 13.06 6.41 14.13 41.68 2.15, 2.23, 2.32
OB4 841.5 2.75 29.37 55.52 3.61 82.94 12.98 6.39 13,97 41.21 2.15, 2.23, 2.32
OB5 845.7 2.89 29.50 55.51 4.52 82.19 12.89 6.38 13.82 40.72 2.15, 2.23, 2.32

A lighter HRD added to diesel fuel not only improved the cetane
number and net heating value, but also reduced C/H atoms ratio,
polycyclic aromatics, sulphur, water, ash content, acid value and
the autoignition temperature, deepened cloud and cold filter plug-
ging points of the blends. It is important that the lubricating prop-
erties of HRD fuel are 43.4% better than those of a fossil diesel
(459 mm) allowing its intended blending with normal diesel fuel
and in reasonable amounts with ethanol to get the needed CN rat-
ings of the tested fuel blends without a risk to damage the fuelling
system. Though, more air-born oxygen will be needed to complete
combustion of oxygen-free HRD fuel and utilise calorific advan-
tages of this ingenious fuel as shows 4.3% higher stoichiometric
air-fuel ratio for the HRD fuel (Table 3). High CN rating, absence
of polycyclic aromatic compounds, low amount of sulphur, C/H
atoms ratio, iodine number, and acid value represent perfect oper-
ational properties of the fuel.
A review of technical literature [41–46] shows that ethanol as
renewable, sulphur-free, green-energy source is also used to solve
the fuel shortage problems, improve combustion, fuel economy,
reduce smoke (soot) and exhaust emissions due to the low C/H
atoms ratio and high oxygen content. The solubility of ethanol with
a fossil diesel fuel depends on the hydrocarbon composition, tem-
perature, content of water and wax in the blend and ambient
humidity [47]. Anhydrous ethanol normally does not need an
emulsifying agent to form a transparent solution in diesel fuel,
but these solutions can tolerate only up to 0.5% of water [44].
The solubility improving additives have not been used in this study
that excluded modification of biofuel blends and potential influ-
ence of side agents on the combustion process, engine performance
and emissions [48]. Nonetheless, blending of ethanol with diesel or
HRD fuel produces the two controversial side effects.
Ethanol has the lowest C/H atoms ratio and delivers a plenty of
single-bound fuel-oxygen that is essential for clean combustion to
reduce smoke at critical air-fuel ratios of 0.7–1.25 [49]. Thus, there
less air-born oxygen will be needed that may save fresh air and
improve the quality of ambient air in the metropolitan cities. Next,
the formation of NOx depends on the temperature inside the cylin-
der, the availability of oxygen, the residence time for the combus-
tion reaction and air-fuel equivalence ratio [50]. Using oxygenated
fuels for diesel engine powering reduces the temperature in the
cylinder that may contribute to production of less nitric oxide
NO in most common test conditions. Viscosity of ethanol is nearly
34.3% or 52.0% lower than that of a fossil diesel or HRD fuel at the
temperature of 40 °C. This important feature along with low sur-
face tension, high volatility, and saturated vapour pressure
improves injection, atomisation characteristics of the fuel involv-
ing ethanol and enhances the combustion quality of a flammable
mixture. Homogeneous mixture of the air and highly-volatile etha-
nol provides more uniform temperature distribution inside the
combustion chamber that further supported by the ethanol cooling
effect may reduce the NOx production in normal loading
conditions.
Nevertheless, the question still remains whether the added
ethanol is indeed ready to reduce the NOx formation from combus-
tion of oxygenated fuel blends once the temperature beyond the
progressing flame front in the combustion chamber is very high
when running under close to stoichiometric conditions. A low
cetane number of ethanol, high autoignition temperature, about
four times higher specific latent heat-of-vaporisation and a risk
to absorb humidity may aggravate autoignition of small fuel por-
tions injected at light loads and low speeds. To avoid this, the
cetane number of ethanol-oxygenated blends was restored by add-
ing pre-calculated amounts of high-cetane HRD fuel. In addition,
critically low viscosity of ethanol may reduce lubricity and increase
the wear of sensitive plunger-barrel and nozzle-needle-valve units.
It was found that 5 vol%, 10 vol% and 15 vol% of ethanol added to
diesel fuel the wear scar diameter on ball increased by 10.0%,
5.5% and 2.1% at the temperature of 60 °C [48]. In the current study,
the wear of sensitive plunger-barrel parts will be reduced because
lubricity of HRD fuel is much suitable for diesel engine operation
than that of fossil-origin diesel fuel.
Using of RME as oxygenator source in diesel-HRD fuel blends
matches well with the purpose and intended goals of the study
to reduce smoke and carbon dioxide emissions in a global cycle.
This is because the biodiesel as well as ethanol and HRD fuel pro-
vides negligible content of polycyclic aromatics, delivers extra fuel-
bound oxygen that may improve local air-fuel ratios in the fuel-
rich ‘zones’, accelerate mixing controlled combustion and thus
reduce pollutant emissions [51–53]. Moreover, double-bound
biodiesel-oxygen proved itself as more active combustion-
improving agent than that of ethanol having strong single-
bounds with carbon and hydrogen atoms [54]. Researchers [55]
revealed that the lubricity properties of the fuel mostly depend
on ingredients such as ‘‘polycyclic aromatic types with sulphur,
450 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
oxygen, ant nitrogen content”. The added biodiesel fraction com-
pensates for the lower density of HRD fuel providing twice as much
higher viscosity and excellent lubricity that is essential for its
intended mixing with diesel and a lighter HRD fuel [28]. Lubricity
tests for the ULSD and GTL biased blends (both fixed at 70% v/v)
conducted on a HFRR showed that as little as 5% RME improves
the lubricity of ULSD/GTL blends dramatically [56].
However, RME contains heavier compounds and differs as hav-
ing much higher flash- and initial/final boiling points with a nar-
row temperature interval in-between that along with low
volatility of a bigger in diameter fuel droplets and high autoigni-
tion temperature may affect mixing control combustion and
related emissions. The 2.9 times higher total contamination of
RME than that of a fossil diesel and 12-fold more water in its com-
position may stimulate these detrimental properties. The calorific
value of ethanol and RME is also 37.3% and 13.4% lower than,
43.0 MJ/kg, of oxygen-free diesel fuel. Nevertheless, biofuels with
such heating values can be used in internal combustion engines
in practice [57]. To avoid the engine power losses, the injected fuel
portions by mass, and especially by volume, should be increased
correspondingly to compensate for the resulting lower net heating
value of biofuel blends, keep the relative air-fuel ratio at the
acceptable level to maintain the same heat energy input per each
engine cycle. The 6.1% higher density of biodiesel compared to fos-
sil diesel tends to compensate for the resulting lower heating
value, but a lighter ethanol does not contribute to better calorific
rating of oxygenated fuel blends that will increase volumetric fuel
delivery per engine cycle and extend the end of injection.
The cetane number improvement from 51.2 to 67.3 resulted in
C/H atoms ratio and density 9.6% and 3.8% lower for ethanol-
oxygenated blends CE1-CE3 or 10.2% and 3.6% lower for their
respective counterparts CB1-CB3 involving biodiesel. Whereas both
the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio and the net heating value con-
verted to be 2.6% and nearly 1.2% higher for fuel blends of both E
and B origins possessing the same fuel-oxygen content of 4.5 wt%.
In turn, the fuel-oxygen fraction increased to maximum of
4.52 wt% resulted in the C/H atoms ratio, density, and viscosity
8.6%, 2.0%, and 8.0% lower for ethanol-oxygenated blends OE0-
OE5 or 1.1% lower, 2.5%, and 35.6% higher for identically oxy-
genated fuel blends involving biodiesel OB0-OB5, but still possess-
ing the same cetane number of 55.5. The apposite changing trends
in density and viscosity of the tested fuel blends create new issues
to be considered because this may have impact on SOI, fuel injec-
tion, atomisation, evaporation characteristics, and evoke dissimilar
development vectors in the combustion characteristics and exhaust
emissions (Table 4).
Whereas the highly interconnected parameters such as the sto-
ichiometric amount of oxygen (‘lambda’) needed to complete com-
bustion and the net heating value decreased by 4.0–4.4% or 5.3–
5.6% due to fuel-oxygen content increased from zero to 4.52 wt%
in the respective OE0-OE5 or OB0-OB5 fuel blends. Thus, an engine
running with oxygenated fuels needs less atmospheric air-born
oxygen for clean combustion that makes less harm to the environ-
ment. The cetane number of RME is high enough therefore biodie-
sel fraction added to fuel blend does not create any compression
ignition problem in terms of chemical phase of the delay. However,
low volatility of RME compared to diesel and HRD fuel may
increase the physical phase of the ignition delay. On the contrary,
ethanol is highly volatile, but the cetane number of ethanol is
extremely low and the autoignition temperature is about 363 °C
that may lead to incomplete combustion due to a very limited real
time of each engine cycle at a high speed.
The combustible mixtures produced from diesel fuel (DF)
2.232 MJ/kg and fuel blends CE1-CE3 or CB1-CB3 and OE0-OE5 or
OB0-OB5 accumulated the amount of heat energy almost the same
2.233–2.205 or 2.237–2.208 and 2.242–2.226 or 2.242–2.229 MJ/kg
for relative air-fuel ratio of k = 1.25. These heating values of flam-
mable mixtures represent the combustion conditions in the cylin-
der of a fully (100%) loaded engine running at maximum torque
speed of 2000 rpm. Similarly, the amounts of heat energy inputs
did not change greatly for oxygenated fuel blends tested at the rel-
ative air-fuel ratios of 1.30 and 1.20 representing full load operation
at speeds of 1500 and 2500 rpm (Table 4). Specified test conditions
are more time-consuming, but the analysis and comparison of the
obtained results gives a chance to make a difference. This strategy
allows directly monitor the changes occurring in engine perfor-
mance that is essential for the strict analysis to reveal the potential
development trends in operational parameters and find the most
suitable fuel blend the combustion of which develops the highest
break mean effective pressure (bmep) and engine efficiency with
less emissions produced from the same fuel energy input delivered
per each engine cycle.
4. The engine performance and emissions test results and
discussions
4.1. The individual effects of cetane number or oxygen content of the
fuel blends involving biofuels of various origins on engine performance
and fuel efficiency
The cetane number as a dominant factor operating alone does
not directly affect the brake specific fuel consumption and brake
thermal efficiency especially if the comparative analysis of the test
results is provided for identical air-fuel ratio and thus fuel-energy
input per each engine cycle. As can be seen in Fig. 3a, b, the chang-
ing tendencies of the bsfc values for fuel blends involving ethanol
or biodiesel are essentially similar. Nevertheless, the variation in
the ignition delay and maximum in-cylinder pressure caused by
the combustion of fuel blends CE1-CE3 or CB1-CB3 with various
compositions, origins and CN ratings have impact on the fuel mass
consumed per unit of energy developed. The cetane number
increased within the wide range of 51.2–67.3 resulted in the brake
specific fuel consumption 1.3%, 0.4%, 0.9% lower when running
with the most flammable blend CE3 or 1.2%, 0.9%, 1.3% lower with
its biodiesel-counterpart CB3 at relative air-fuel ratios of k = 1.30,
1.25, 1.20 and the respective speeds of 1500, 2000, 2500 rpm
(Fig. 3a).
The lower bsfc values show that the upgraded cetane number of
oxygenated fuels is an effective measure to improve engine effi-
ciency and thus contribute to fuel saving policy that means less
smoke (soot) and CO2 emissions will be exhausted into the atmo-
sphere. The improved CN rating of the fuel with the help of fuel-
bound oxygen of ethanol or biodiesel origin restored the combus-
tion reactions and improved fuel-energy conversion efficiency
when running under close to stoichiometric conditions. It should
be noted that this advantages feature was not realised completely
when the cetane number improving additive 2-ethylhexyl nitrate
was used in oxygen-free JP-8 fuel [58]. In that case, the enhanced
CN rating of the fuel increased smoke and THC emissions.
The brake specific fuel consumption and heating value of each
fuel blend were evaluated to understand, how much the variation
in cetane number of oxygenated (4.5 wt%) fuels may affect the
engine efficiency when running under specified test conditions. It
can be seen in Fig. 4a that the brake thermal efficiency increased
by about 0.3% due to the cetane number of the fuel improved
within the range of 51.2–67.3 for both CE3 and CB3 fuel origins
when running at relative air-fuel ratio of k = 1.30 and the low
speed of 1500 rpm. Several factors affect the performance of the
CN improver, including chain length, unsaturation, and esters gen-
erated by different alcohols that is more evident when the chain of
carbon atoms is longer [59].
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
Fig. 3. (a, b) Brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) as a function of cetane number of oxygenated diesel-HRD fuel blends (a) and ethanol or biodiesel fuel-oxygen mass (wt%)
content (b) for relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
But then again, the high CN rating did not always lead to the
earlier combustion and better energy conversion efficiency as
could be expected, even though the fuel is oxygenated enough
[60]. The brake thermal efficiency converted to be 0.8% (CE3) or
0.5% (CB3) lower than the reference value of 0.388 measured with
blends CE1 or CB1 with normal CN rating when running at air-fuel
ratio of k = 1.25 and maximum torque speed of 2000 rpm. The pos-
itive effects of the enhanced cetane number of oxygenated fuels
emerged again when running with fuel blends involving ethanol
CE2 (CN = 60.9) or biodiesel CB3 (CN = 67.3) at slightly richer com-
bustible mixture of k = 1.20 and the high speed of 2500 rpm when
time needed to perform each engine cycle was extremely limited.
Thus, the effect of cetane number of oxygenated fuel blends was
close to zero or slightly above, but the cetane-made changes
almost always remained below the uncertainty levels of ±1.5%, as
shown in Table 2. Nevertheless, analysis of the test results and
the comparison with those obtained previously revealed new ben-
eficial development trends in the engine performance. Using oxy-
genated fuel blends with reasonably enhanced CN ratings
improved HRRmax and pmax, the respective locations AHRR and
Apmax shifted closer to constant volume combustion and thus
reduced heat losses to the cooling system in both E and B test ser-
ies [60]. Advantages development trends in heat release character-
istics, in-cylinder pressure and the end of combustion, which
occurred a bit earlier in an engine cycle, resulted in the brake ther-
mal efficiency 0.8% (CE2) or 0.5% (CB3) higher when running a tur-
bocharged CRDI diesel engine at a full load, k = 1.20, and the high
speed of 2500 rpm mainly.
The improved cetane number enhanced the combustion reac-
tions and boosted up brake thermal efficiency of a turbocharged
CRDI diesel engine powered with oxygenated fuels. But the
improvement of energy conversion efficiency can be possible only
451
if the fuel is oxygenated and an extra oxygen accelerates mixing
control combustion to burn the fuel earlier in an engine cycle. This
advantages feature makes a major difference compared with the
attempts to improve efficiency and reduce smoke of a naturally
aspirated diesel engine powered with JP-8 fuel [58]. This is because
the cetane number controls mainly the ignition quality, but not
combustion where fuel-bound oxygen accelerates the oxidation
reactions to completion saving the fuel and making less engine
out emissions.
Whereas the effect of fuel-bound oxygen on the combustion
characteristics, engine efficiency, and brake specific fuel consump-
tion is more predictable than that experienced above with the
enhanced cetane number of oxygenated (4.5 wt%) fuels. As
Fig. 3b shows, the brake specific fuel consumption progressively
increased responding to the increasing fuel-oxygen content in fuel
blends of both E and B origins for all air-fuel ratios, and engine
speeds. The bsfc increased by 8.5%, 1.8%, 1.8% due to transition
from oxygen-free blend OE0 to the most ethanol-oxygenated one
OE5 or increased by 9.4%, 5.0%, 5.4% due to replacement of blend
OB0 with biodiesel-oxygenated counterpart OB5 when running at
air-fuel ratios of k = 1.30, 1.25, 1.20 and the respective speeds of
1500, 2000, 2500 rpm.
Specific fuel consumption increased mainly due to the progres-
sive decrease in net heating value made by the added extra oxygen
to diesel-HRD fuel blends of both E and B origins (Table 4). How-
ever, the lower heating value of the fuels was not the only reason
leading to more fuel consumed per unit of energy developed by an
engine. The matter is that the brake thermal efficiency was also
4.5% (OE3) or 3.2% (OB5) lower than, 0.374, the combustion of
oxygen-free blends OE0 or OB0 develops for the relative air-fuel
ratio of k = 1.30 at the low speed of 1500 rpm (Fig. 4b). This
occurred probably because an extra oxygen is not as important
452 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
Fig. 4. (a, b) Brake thermal efficiency (bte) as a function of cetane number of oxygenated diesel-HRD fuel blends (a) and ethanol or biodiesel fuel-oxygen mass (wt%) content
(b) for relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
as it should be when running at low revolutions since there is
enough time for the hydrogen and the carbon atoms to react with
the in-cylinder air-born oxygen.
The oxidation reactions of the hydrogen and the carbon atoms
were more fuel-oxygen governed to complete combustion,
improve performance, and reduce emissions when the engine
operated with fuel blends at overall richer air-fuel mixture and a
high speed. In result, engine efficiency increased with increasing
fuel-oxygen content of both ethanol and biodiesel origins when
running at, k = 1.25 and 1.20, and the high speeds of 2000 and
2500 rpm. Fuel-bound oxygen compensated for the potential air-
fuel mixture quality damage made by too short ignition delay
and, with some exception, reduced burn angles MBF 50 and MBF
90 that is important for extremely limited engine cycle [60]. This
resulted in the brake thermal efficiency 0.390 (2.9%) and 0.387
(2.9%) or 0.383 (1.1%) and 0.378 (0.5%) higher due to cleaner com-
bustion (Fig. 7b) of the most oxygenated (4.52 wt%) fuel blends
involving ethanol OE5 or biodiesel OB5 than those efficiency values
of 0.379 and 0.376 the combustion of oxygen-free blends OE0 or
OB0 develops for the respective ‘lambda’ and speeds (Fig. 4b). To
the development of higher brake thermal efficiency also con-
tributed less CO produced by the combustion of rationally oxy-
genated fuels at the high speeds of 2000 and 2500 rpm, as shown
in Fig. 9b.
The combustion of fuel blends involving ethanol produced the
brake thermal efficiency 1.0% (OE4) lower, then again 1.3% (OE4)
and 0.8% (OE5) higher than, 0.363, 0.381 and 0.384, a straight die-
sel develops running under overall air-fuel ratios of 1.30, 1.25 and
1.20 at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm. Whereas
the combustion of fuel blends involving biodiesel with identical
fuel-oxygen contents developed the brake thermal efficiency 0.8%
(OB3), 0.5% (OB4) higher and again 1.6% (OB5) lower than a
straight diesel produces for given test conditions. This fact indi-
cates that chemical and physical properties of the fuel strongly
affect mixing control combustion, fuel-energy conversion effi-
ciency (Fig. 4b), smoke of the exhaust (Fig. 7b) and CO emissions
(Fig. 9b) of a turbocharged CRDI diesel engine.
The brake thermal efficiency changed with the different manner
and intensity responding to the increased ethanol or biodiesel oxy-
gen content in the fuel blends. Thus, if in-cylinder pressure (tem-
perature) is high enough, strongly bound with the carbon atoms
hydroxyl functional group AOH of ethanol provides higher engine
efficiency and more environment related advantages than weakly
bound ACOOCH3 group of rapeseed methyl ester. This phe-
nomenon can be observed mainly when running a turbocharged
CRDI diesel engine at the relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.25–1.20, over
the high speed range of 2000–2500 rpms with fuel blends involv-
ing various ethanol or biodiesel portions (fuel-oxygen contents),
but still possessing the same cetane number value of 55.5.
Analysis of the test results shows that the cetane number of
oxygenated fuels of both E and B origins can be improved up to
the rational extent against that (51.4) of normal diesel fuel
(Fig. 4a). In such a case, an engine would be more manageable
and fuel-efficient (Fig. 3b) with less smoke (Fig. 7b) and CO
(Fig. 9b) emissions produced from combustion at slightly more
than stoichiometric amounts of oxygen and the high speeds of
2000–2500 rpms. However, advantages created by the enhanced
cetane number can only be utilised, if fuel-bound oxygen is avail-
able in the combustion reactions to compensate for disadvantages
caused by too short ignition delay. Otherwise, the combustion may
start too soon in an engine cycle, before the air and fuel mixture of
acceptable quality is prepared [58]. Whereas the fuel-oxygen con-
tent should be neither too high nor too low, but just enough to
assure complete combustion, maximum performance, and engine
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
efficiency. Thus, it is important to harmonise volatility of the fuel
and its ignition properties, on the one side, and relative air-fuel
ratio (load) and engine speed, on the other side, on which the
proper time of the oxidation reactions depends.
4.2. Changes in smoke opacity and exhaust emissions caused by the
individual variation of cetane number, fuel-oxygen mass content or
differing properties of oxygenated fuel blends
4.2.1. The individual effects of cetane number or fuel-oxygen mass
content on the production of NOx and smoke (soot)
The relevant literature provides a lot of information about the
production of nitrogen oxides NOx during combustion of biofuels
of various compositions and origins. Analysis of biodiesel and bio-
fuels of various origins shows that the NOx emissions have ten-
dency to increase with increasing biodiesel blend level, but the
magnitude of this effect differs for different feedstocks, engines,
and cycles [19]. This point of view is consistent with McCormick
et al. [61], who noted that the NOx emissions from a heavy-duty
truck engine fuelled with a group of seven biodiesels increased
with increasing the number of double bonds (iodine number), fuel
density or decreasing cetane number of the fuel. Whereas the fuels
with larger fractions of unsaturated species have higher density
and lower H/C atoms ratio and, therefore, their combustion may
produce more NO emissions.
A review of the effects of biodiesel on NOx emissions also shows
that the NOx increased with increasing unsaturation, but they
decreased with increasing chain length [53]. Emissions of nitrogen
oxides NOx may increase due to the higher amounts of double
bonds in FAME and differences in injection timing, ignition delay,
and adiabatic flame temperatures [62]. Heterogeneous air-fuel
mixture contributes to uneven temperature distribution in the
cylinder and thus stimulates the formation of NO, which always
dominates in NOx production [35]. The above findings are all cor-
rect, but some hardly controllable variables can intervene to ‘over-
shadow’ the real effect of dominant factors on the emissions
produced in normal loading conditions. It is therefore important
to eliminate potential side effects to find out how big is a single
role of each dominant factor in focus.
Fig. 5a presents changes in NOx emissions caused by the varia-
tion of cetane number of the fuels possessing the same percentage
(4.5 wt%) of ethanol-oxygen or biodiesel-oxygen when running
with relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respec-
tive speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm. The individual contribu-
tion of the cetane number to the production of NOx is not
actually as significant as could be expected, if the amount of
fuel-bound oxygen does not change and the combustion conditions
are identical for fuel blends involving ethanol or biodiesel compo-
nents. The NOx production depends on the ignition delay, maxi-
mum heat release rate and the peak pressure (temperature)
inside the cylinder. Naturally, dissimilarities in compositions and
properties of the fuels, as an autonomous factor, strongly affecting
the ignition quality and following combustion, also contributed to
the variation in NOx emissions. It should be noted that the smatter
combustion of premixed over the ignition delay highly volatile
fuels involving ethanol CE1-CE3 or OE0-OE5 generated NOx emis-
sions almost always more than biodiesel-oxygenated blends with
identical fuel-bound oxygen content CB1-CB3 (Fig. 5a) or cetane
number OB0-OB5 (Fig. 5b) produce under close to stoichiometric
conditions at all engine speeds.
In general, the enhanced cetane number of the fuels the NOx
production did not change or changed a little owing to negligible
ups, and downs in the ignition delay, premixed combustion, max-
imum heat release rate, and the peak combustion pressure in the
cylinder [60]. To be precise, the NOx emissions emanating from
combustion of fuel blend CE3 involving ethanol with the highest
453
CN rating of 67.3 were relatively 13.9% higher. Whereas that,
1505 ppm, formed by the combustion of its biodiesel-oxygenated
counterpart CB3 was 2.6% lower than, 1545 ppm, a straight diesel
(CN = 51.4) produces at the low speed of 1500 rpm.
A small NOx emission decrease from combustion of biodiesel-
oxygenated fuel blends occurred owing to the shorter ignition
delay and thus less fuel premixed for rapid combustion during
which it is mainly formed [52]. Therefore, the fuel oxygen, which
normally affects the combustion rate via the local fuel-air ratios
and formation of the NO emissions, contributed with a minor
degree of improvement [45]. Because of the absence of polycyclic
aromatics in HRD fuel, ethanol, and biodiesel composition, this
stimulating factor also did not contribute to the formation of NOx
in the exhaust products [63].
The next reason, why the production of NOx emissions
increased smoother is that the peak in-cylinder pressure (temper-
ature) did not experience significant changes due to the cetane
number improvement of ethanol-oxygenated blends at 1500 rpm.
Whereas the peak in-cylinder pressure decreased progressively
when running with identical CN ratings possessing their
biodiesel-oxygenated counterparts at the low speed of 1500 rpm.
The other autonomous factors, such as dissimilar initial/final boil-
ing points and the presence of a single- or double-bounds between
the hydroxyl AOH group and C atoms in the fuel molecule, oper-
ated simultaneously with the own contribution to the opposite
NOx development trends experienced at low revolutions. The high
boiling point of biodiesel reduced distillation rate of the fuel (dilu-
tion effect), combustion intensity, maximum heat release rate, and
thus the NOx production from combustion of the most flammable
blend CB3 at the low speed of 1500 rpm. Whereas the chemical
structure of biodiesel, which predicts that some part of fuel-
bound oxygen being in double bounds with radicals, increases oxi-
dation and thus the air-born nitrogen pollutants in the cylinder
[54] contributed with a minor degree of improvement when run-
ning under given test conditions.
The NOx production from combustion of ethanol-oxygenated
blends CE1-CE3 almost did not respond to the cetane number vari-
ation from 51.2 to 67.3, whereas the NOx formation increased by
5.4% when running with the most flammable biodiesel-
oxygenated blend CB3 at air-fuel ratio of k = 1.25 and maximum
torque speed of 2000 rpm. An engine running with fuel blends
involving biodiesel did not experience significant (+2.7%) NOx
emissions growth due to the cetane number variation within a
wide range, whereas the combustion of ethanol-oxygenated blend
CE3 with the highest CN rating the NOx emissions increased by
15.8% for a slightly richer combustible mixture, k = 1.20, at the high
speed of 2500 rpm.
The production of NOx increased despite low density, viscosity
and fast evaporation of ethanol suggest more homogeneous air-
fuel mixture and thus smoother temperature variation in the com-
bustion chamber. Highly likely that the opposite NOx development
trends at the low speed of 1500 rpm and more intensive NOx for-
mation from combustion of ethanol-oxygenated blends at the high
speed of 2500 rpm caused dissimilar properties of the added etha-
nol or biodiesel. This affected the ignition delay, HRRmax and thus
maximum in-cylinder pressure, the detrimental effects of which
were greater when running with fuel blends CB1-CB3 involving
biodiesel than with their counterparts involving ethanol CE1-CE3
due to the high temperature inside the cylinder under close to sto-
ichiometric conditions.
It should be stressed that the NOx production from combustion
of ethanol-oxygenated blend CE3 increased 5.9 times faster than
when using its biodiesel-counterpart CB3 with identical both the
cetane number and the fuel-oxygen content at the high speed of
2500 rpm. This makes a major difference between the suppressing
effects of ethanol-bound oxygen on the NOx production experi-
454 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
Fig. 5. (a, b) The NOx emissions as a function of cetane number of oxygenated diesel-HRD fuel blends (a) and ethanol or biodiesel fuel-oxygen mass (wt%) content (b) for
relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
enced previously in the most common practice [62]. In previous
studies [43–48,50,64], the cetane number along with NOx emis-
sions reasonably decreased responding to every next ethanol-
portion added to fuel blend, with some exception [42]. Whereas
the ascending growth of the NOx production caused by the
enhanced cetane number of ethanol-oxygenated blend CE3
(CN = 67.3) revealed in the current study when running with a
richer air-fuel mixture, k = 1.20, at the high speed of 2500 rpm.
As Fig. 6a shows, nitrogen oxide NO2 emissions were negligible
and compiled only 2–3% of the NOx production. Nevertheless, the
NO2 development trends with increasing cetane number in both
E and B test series are very similar with the respective NOx emis-
sions behaviour. Again, the biggest NO2 emissions increase, by
16.4%, 12.5% and 76.6%, was registered when running with
ethanol-oxygenated fuel blends at air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25
and 1.20, and speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm. In addition, at
the very high temperatures in the combustion chamber some
molecules of atmospheric diatomic nitrogen break down to mono-
tonic nitrogen (N), which is reactive and contributes to the forma-
tion of NOx [65].
On the contrary, the NO2 emissions emanating from combus-
tion of fuel blends involving biodiesel decreased due to the cetane
number increased from 51.2 to 67.3 for identical test conditions.
This tendency is clearly visible when running with the respective
combustible mixtures at both the low speed of 1500 rpm and the
high speed of 2500 rpm. In general, the NOx production varied
ambiguously with increasing cetane number of the fuels of both
origins depending on air-fuel ratio, engine speed and temperature
inside the cylinder, which was very high when running under close
to stoichiometric conditions. Thus, the individual effects of the
cetane number of fuel blends oxygenated with biofuels derived
from biomass of various origins on the NOx and NO2 formation
depend on many circumstances, some of which are not completely
understood.
The higher NOx emissions produced by the combustion of
ethanol-oxygenated fuels are uninspected enough and do not
match with a common knowledge that the combustion of a homo-
geneous mixture creates more-uniform temperature distribution
inside the cylinder and thus produces the NOx emissions less
[48,66,67] than when using fuel blends involving biodiesel
[12,19,29]. Highly likely that the higher both maximum heat
release rate HRRmax and maximum in-cylinder pressure pmax
developed at closer to constant volume combustion stimulated
by ethanol-bound oxygen of the most flammable fuel blend CE3
accelerated the NOx production faster than it was experienced in
the above mentioned studies.
The higher stoichiometric amount of oxygen needed to burn
ethanol-oxygenated blends CE1-CE3 than that the combustion of
identical CN ratings possessing fuel blends oxygenated with bio-
diesel CB1-CB3 requires also contributed to more NOx produced
at high-temperature environment inside the cylinder (Table 4).
This preposition rests on the fact that more atmospheric air-born
oxygen participated in the NO formation from overall identical
combustible mixture, the role of which seems as being more signif-
icant in the NO and NOx production than that of fuel-bound oxygen
[68]. The NOx production also depends on combustion pressure,
temperature, and the reaction time [69], which was longer in units
of time when operating at a lower speed.
Specified test conditions removed the potential side effects and
disclosed the individual contribution to the NOx formation of the
cetane number or fuel-oxygen mass content in the same fuel group
and in-between the widely differing E and B fuel groups. The
experiments revealed that both dominant factors as the cetane
number and the fuel-oxygen content more conclusively affect the
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
Fig. 6. (a, b) The NO2 emissions as a function of cetane number of oxygenated diesel-HRD fuel blends (a) and ethanol or biodiesel fuel-oxygen mass (wt%) content (b) for
relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
NOx production from combustion of the fuels involving ethanol
rather than biodiesel at identical energy input (‘lambda’) per each
engine cycle. This finding changes a ‘game’ and makes a major dif-
ference in terms of the NOx emissions development trends
declared in the research [48]. Thus, the contribution of the
increased ethanol-oxygen content to the NOx formation is much
greater than that of biodiesel-oxygen when both the cetane num-
ber and the temperature inside the cylinder are high enough under
close to stoichiometric conditions.
Whereas the effect of fuel-oxygen content on the NOx produc-
tion is more explicable, though these emissions also depend on
engine speed, the temperature environment in the combustion
chamber, composition and origin of the fuel. For this reason, cer-
tain amount of fuel-oxygen exists at which the highest in-
cylinder pressure (temperature) can be developed and, thus, more
the NOx produced. The NOx emissions decreased progressively,
1755, 1450 and 1270 ppm, for oxygen-free blends OE0 or OB0
when running at air-fuel ratios of k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20 at the
respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm. Nevertheless, the
combustion of oxygenated fuel blends OE0 or OB0 generated NOx
13.5%, 3.9% and 7.5% more than, 1545, 1395 and 1180 ppm, a
straight diesel produces at the latter speeds.
The percentage of fuel-oxygen increased up to the rational
extent depending on the engine speed and origin of biomass from
which the oxygenated agent was derived accelerated mixing con-
trol combustion and produced more in-cylinder pressure [60]. This
converted in the higher brake thermal efficiency (Fig. 4b) and thus
temperature that formed more NOx (Fig. 5b). Again, the biggest rel-
ative increase in NOx emissions, 1915 ppm (9.1%), 1780 ppm
(22.6%) and 1400 ppm (10.6%), appeared when running with
ethanol-oxygenated fuels OE1 (0.91 wt%), OE3 (2.71 wt%) and
OE2 (1.81 wt%) at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and
455
2500 rpm. These emissions were 23.9%, 27.5% and 18.8% higher
than a straight diesel produces for close to stoichiometric condi-
tions at the latter speeds. The latest studies [70] also revealed that
using of biodiesel and oxygenated fuel blends in the engine gener-
ated the NOx emissions higher than with normal diesel fuel.
The NOx emissions increased mainly due to higher pressure
developed inside the cylinder that always produces more nitric
oxides. To more NOx emitted from combustion of the fuels involv-
ing ethanol OE0-OE5 contributed the NO2 components, production
of which also increased by 18.4%, 24.2% and 6.8% owing to more
fuel-oxygen available in the combustion reactions (Fig. 6b). How-
ever, starting from a certain oxygen-enrichment point, it will not
be able to support longer the NO and NOx production because
the peak in-cylinder pressure went down due to too high fuel-
oxygen content in the blends of both E and B origins. It is interest-
ing to remind that in a low-temperature combustion conditions,
the authors observed no difference in NOx emission between tested
fuels with different oxygen fractions [71]. This comparison shows
how important is the dominant role of a high-temperature com-
bustion where the NOx is usually produced.
Whereas the highest NOx emissions, 1780 (1.5%), 1510 (6.8%)
and 1330 ppm (5.0%) emerging from combustion of the fuels
involving biodiesel OB1 (0.91 wt%), OB4 (3.61 wt%) and OB5
(4.52 wt%) were 7.0%, 10.2% lower and a bit 2.4% higher than the
combustion of fuel blends involving identical ethanol-oxygen frac-
tions produces at the respective speeds. The NOx emissions slightly
decreased as soon as the content in fuel-oxygen increased beyond
the critical values depending on deficiency or surplus of the air-
born oxygen and temperature conditions inside the cylinder
[51,63]. These emissions were also 15.2%, 8.1% and 12.8% higher
than, 1545, 1395 and 1180 ppm, a straight diesel emits at the
respective air-fuel ratios and speeds. Again, to having more NOx
456 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
contributed the smatter growth of NO2 emissions those always
were higher from combustion of the fuels involving biodiesel
OB0-OB5 than a straight diesel produces for similar test conditions
(Fig. 6b). The higher NOx emissions are coherent with the results
obtained with neat RME and blends of diesel fuel with vegetable
oils or bio-diesels of various origins [19,55,61].
In all cases, the fuel blends OE0-OE5 involving ethanol proved
themselves as being more active the NOx formation agents than
the combustion of their identical counterparts OB0-OB5 produces
for relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective
speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm. This conclusive issue rests on
the behaviour of smoke – NOx emission trade-off diagrams,
showed in Fig. 2a, b. The higher both maximum heat release rate
HRRmax 3.9 or 3.3% and the peak in-cylinder pressure pmax 5.9 or
1.7% developed by the combustion of oxygenated (3.61 wt%) fuels
OE4 or OB4 generated NOx emissions 20.4% or 8.1% more than,
1395 ppm, a straight diesel produces for air-fuel ratio of k = 1.25
at maximum torque speed of 2000 rpm. The biggest difference of
nearly 250 ppm between the NOx emitted from combustion of
the most oxygenated fuels OE5 and OB5 also took place at
2000 rpm, which decreased with increasing speed, air swirl, and
turbulence intensity in the cylinder to the minimum of 30 ppm.
Neither promising development trends in the ignition delay nor
smoother temperature distribution during combustion of homoge-
neous air-fuel mixture did not reduce the NOx emissions those
were always higher when using ethanol-oxygenated blends than
mixing controlled combustion of fuel blends involving biodiesel
produces for identical cetane number or fuel-oxygen content at
the tested speeds. The increased temperature inside the cylinder
was favourable for the NOx formation. Higher stoichiometric air-
fuel ratio of ethanol-oxygenated blends also contributed to having
more nitrogen oxides in the exhaust. Thus, if gas temperature is
Fig. 7. (a, b) Exhaust smoke as a function of cetane number of oxygenated diesel-HRD fuel blends (a) and ethanol or biodiesel fuel-oxygen mass (wt%) content (b) for relative
air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
high enough, the NOx production largely depends on the excess
or the lack of air-born oxygen in the cylinder [72]. However,
adjustment of engine parameter may help to reduce the particulate
mass and NOx emissions [73].
The phenomenon to increase the NOx formation from combus-
tion of ethanol-oxygenated blends is rare enough [74], neverthe-
less it may have impetus if the cetane number is high and the
combustion of premixed charge proceeds under close to
constant-volume conditions that leads to higher pressure and tem-
perature inside the cylinder. Whereas in the normal (regular) test
conditions [75,76], the NOx emissions rather decreased with
increasing ethanol-oxygen fraction in fuel blends mainly due to
the low cetane number, high latent heat of vaporisation of ethanol
and the temperature drop inside the cylinder. Thus, specified test
conditions provide essential help in revealing real development
trends in the combustion attributes that makes a major difference
in the formation of NOx and other emissions, as shown in Figs. 5–
10.
The measures taken to reduce smoke of the exhaust almost
always lead to the production of more NOx and vice versa. To
reduce the NOx formation, the researchers adapted special tech-
niques such as using fuel-bound oxygen and cooled EGR in a pre-
mixed low-temperature combustion [71]. The other investigators
used some advanced biofuels with injection timing modification
and EGR [77], butanol or DEE blends with either straight vegetable
oil or biodiesel excluding fossil fuel [40] or formation of the pre-
mixed charge conditions by the longer ignition delay [78] to over-
come this disappointing smoke-NOx trade-off problem. Fig. 7a
shows how the exhaust smoke changes due to the variation of
the cetane number of oxygenated (4.5 wt%) fuel blends of various
origins when running with air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30. 1.25 and 1.20,
at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466 457

Fig. 8. (a, b) Smoke-NOx trade-off diagrams of a turbocharged diesel engine running with diesel-HRD fuel blends involving ethanol (white) or biodiesel (black) for relative air-
fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm: (a) various cetane number values, but still the same fuel-oxygen mass content of 4.5
wt%; (b) various fuel-bound oxygen contents, but still the same cetane number value of 55.5.

Fig. 9. (a, b) The effects of cetane number of oxygenated diesel-HRD fuel blends (a) and ethanol or biodiesel fuel-oxygen mass (wt%) content (b) on CO emissions for relative
air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.

Smoke (soot) emerging from combustion of ethanol-
oxygenated blend CE1 was 26.7%, 61.1% and 42.4% lower than that,
3.0%, 12.6% and 23.8%, a straight diesel produces for close to stoi-
chiometric conditions at the latter speeds. Smoke opacity from
combustion of the fuel involving ethanol CE1 was 3.4, 2.1 and 1.4
times lower than the combustion of its biodiesel-counterpart CB1
with identical both CN rating (51.2) and fuel-oxygen mass content
(4.5 wt%) produces for the same fuel-energy inputs per cycle at the
latter speeds. The essential reduction in smoke opacity occurred
due to favourable structural changes in the composition of fuel
blends such as lower density, viscosity, surface tension, C/H atoms
ratio, stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, and faster evaporation of etha-
nol. Whereas the production of smoke (soot) from combustion of
the fuels involving biodiesel stimulated specific structure of RME,
458 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
Fig. 10. (a, b) The effects of cetane number of oxygenated diesel-HRD fuel blends (a) and ethanol or biodiesel fuel-oxygen mass (wt%) content (b) on THC emissions for
relative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
which evaporates slower and at much higher temperatures within
a narrow interval of only 20 °C between the initial and the final
boiling points. These properties of biodiesel together with higher
density, viscosity, C/H atoms ratio, distillation residue, and total
contamination led to the production of more heterogeneous air-
fuel mixture where some part of the fuel droplets does not evapo-
rate completely and remain beyond the combustion limits.
The cetane number increased within the same variation range
of 51.2–67.3 for both fuel sets CE1-CE3 and CB1-CB3, the ignition
quality enhanced (chemical factor), but this almost did not change
the production of smoke for relative air-fuel ratio of k = 1.30 at the
low speed of 1500 rpm. Whereas the cetane number of ethanol-
oxygenated fuels improved up to the rational extent smoke opacity
reduced by 55.1% (CN = 67.3) and 57.7% (CN = 60.9) against, 4.9%
and 13.7%, the combustion of normal blend CE1 (CN = 51.2) pro-
duces for slightly richer air-fuel mixtures, k = 1.25 and 1.20, at
the higher speeds of 2000 and 2500 rpms. Similarly, smoke opacity
decreased by 47.1% and 34.9% when running with the most flam-
mable biodiesel-oxygenated blend CB3 at the latter speeds.
Thus, the cetane number of both E and B fuel origins increased
up to the rational extent resulted in less smoke (soot) produced
when the combustion proceeded at slightly more than stoichio-
metric amounts of air-born and fuel-bound oxygen and the high
2000–2500 rpms. Smoke emerging from combustion of fuel blends
CE3 or CB3 with the highest CN ratings of 67.3 was always lower
than the combustion of a straight diesel (CN = 51.4) produces for
similar burning conditions. The enhanced cetane number
improved the ignition quality to burn the fuel faster (earlier in
an engine cycle) and boosted up pressure (temperature) inside
the cylinder. The beneficial changes improved performance effi-
ciency of an engine (Fig. 4a) owing to cleaner combustion with a
lower smoke (Fig. 7a) and less CO emissions produced (Fig. 9a)
since a real time of each engine cycle was extremely limited at
the high speed of 2500 rpm.
In terms of the cetane number impact on the combustion char-
acteristics, engine performance, smoke, and exhaust emissions, the
only important detail makes a major difference between the smoky
exhaust and clear (transparent) one. The improved CN rating
would be an excellent tool to achieve complete combustion of oxy-
genated fuels, but this measure does not always work in practice as
good as can be expected if the fuel being tested is oxygen-free [58].
Whereas in the current study, the fuel-bound oxygen accelerated
the oxidation reactions over the late phases of the expansion stroke
and repaired sensitive relationship between the enhanced cetane
number and complete combustion where in a diffusion flame the
oxidizer combines with the fuel by diffusion.
The enhanced cetane number did not lead to the production of
more smoke (soot) because CRDI system provided a pilot injection
and injection of the main fuel-portion under much higher averaged
and maximum pressures that improved the ignition quality of
combustible mixture and, thus, reduced the cycle-to-cycle varia-
tion (irregularity) [60]. This factor can be among the dominant
ones assuring lower coefficient of the variation (COV) of opera-
tional parameters when using biofuel blends with low cetane alco-
holic components such as ethanol or DEE that strongly affects the
combustion process and engine out emissions [79]. Whereas the
fuel-conserved oxygen is ready to accelerate combustion and burn
the fuel to the end. This is the answer to the question why the
enhanced cetane number in combination with properly oxy-
genated fuel blends improves performance efficiency owing to
lower smoke and CO emissions of a turbocharged CRDI diesel
engine operating under heavy loads and high speeds.
The possibility to reduce smoke (soot) of the exhaust from tur-
bocharged CRDI diesel engine (Fig. 7a) and thus improve fuel-
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
energy conversion efficiency (Fig. 4a) via adaptation of oxygenated
fuels with the enhanced CN ratings is motivating since it was not
elucidated in the literature before. It is therefore important to
use CRDI fuel system with high injection pressure, at which the
fuel mixes faster with the in-cylinder air, evaporates, and burns
earlier in an engine cycle. The benefits in smoke opacity with fuel
blends involving ethanol can be attributed to lower C/H atoms
ratio and aromatic-free composition of HRD fuel as well as its
(and ethanol) lower distillation range as compared to the petro-
leum diesel or biodiesel. The lower smoke does not always improve
performance efficiency of an engine because diffusion burning over
the late phases of combustion within a bigger cylinder volume in
the expansion stroke increases heat losses to the cooling system.
Nevertheless, using oxygenated fuels with rationally enhanced
CN ratings helps to reduce exhaust smoke and CO emissions mak-
ing less harm to the environment.
Many researchers investigated the effects of biofuels of various
origins and their blends with a fossil diesel on the combustion pro-
cess, engine performance, smoke, and exhaust emissions
[43,66,80]. Because fuel blends incorporated ethanol- or
biodiesel-conserved oxygen, it is worth to compare the engine per-
formance and emission results obtained in this study with those
declared on a common fuel-bound oxygen basis. Experimental
studies [45,46] have reported significant reduction in smoke opac-
ity, with some exception of the vegetable oil case, reduction in NOx
and mixed the CO and HC emissions behaviour compared to a
straight diesel. Whereas the experiments with various gasoline-
diesel pre-blended fuels showed that the soot emission depends
more strongly on the combustion temperature than on the fuel/
air mixing time [81]. This and other studies [43,61,82] investigated
mainly the cumulative effects of combustion temperature, cetane
number and fuel-bound oxygen that made it difficult to disclose
a real role of each contributing factor.
Fig. 7b shows how fuel-oxygen content alone reduces exhaust
smoke when the blended cetane number of both E and B fuel sets
does not change and remains at a constant value of CN = 55.5 for
the respective air-fuel ratios and speeds. To make the study more
educational in revealing how chemical and physical properties of
the fuel contribute to the studied subjects, the composition of fuel
blends involving ethanol OE0-OE5 or biodiesel OB0-OB5 was
designed with a such intention to provide the same fuel-oxygen
contents even though these blends included biofuel components
of various origins. It was then expected that when the engine oper-
ates using the same fuel-oxygen fraction, it further would be able
to provide proximate information useful to study the individual
effects caused by the widely differing properties of the fuel. How-
ever, one important detail still remains to be considered. The
matter is that the ratio of a fossil diesel to HRD fuel (by mass) in
both fuel groups involving biodiesel CB1-CB3 and OB0-OB5 was
always higher than in their respective ethanol-counterparts CE1-
CE3 and OE0-OE5 (Fig. 2a, b). This autonomous factor also con-
tributed to the production of more smoke (soot) when running
with biodiesel-oxygenated fuel blends under specified test
conditions.
The formation of smoke (soot) strongly affect the air and fuel
ratio and combustion temperature [71], whereas the NOx produc-
tion is mainly favoured by high local temperatures at near to sto-
ichiometry local conditions [52]. The effect of fuel-oxygen
content on combustion history, maximum in-cylinder pressure,
makeup of NOx, CO, HC emissions, and smoke strongly depends
on the cetane number rating. If the cetane number does not change
with the added ethanol or biodiesel, the percentage of fuel-mass-
oxygen increased up to the rational extent has potential to enhance
combustion, engine efficiency, and reduce smoke of the exhaust.
How effectively the advantages created by the improved cetane
number of oxygenated fuels will be realised in practice depends
459
on fuel properties, injection characteristics, pressure, temperature,
and air turbulence intensity in the cylinder.
Tests conducted in constant volume combustion chamber
revealed that the increase in alcohol content in diesel or biodiesel
fuels always leads to an increase in the ignition delay time, which
increases with the ethanol additions more prominently than with
n-butanol [82]. Nevertheless, the strongly bound with the carbon
atoms hydroxyl -OH group of a lighter ethanol contributes to the
reduction of soot formation more effectively than the other func-
tional groups possessing similar fuel-bound oxygen contents
[64,83,84]. Thus, the smoke test results obtained in the current
study are coherent with those reported above since smoke of the
exhaust resulting from combustion of fuel blends involving ethanol
OE0-OE5 was always lower than the combustion of their respective
biodiesel-counterparts OB0-OB5 produces under similar test
conditions.
As can be seen in Fig. 7b, smoke opacity decreased with steeper
gradients due to the increased ethanol-oxygen content than the
combustion of fuel blends involving biodiesel managed to cope
with the problem when running under heavy load, k = 1.20, at the
high speed of 2500 rpm. Smoke was 3.1 (OE4), 2.6 (OE5) and nearly
3.0 times (OE5) lower than, 4.3%, 9.2% and 30.0%, the combustion of
oxygen-free blend OE0 produces for relative air-fuel ratios of 1.30,
1.25 and 1.20 at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and
2500 rpm (Fig. 7b). To better transparency of the exhausts con-
tributed lower C/H atoms ratio, stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, den-
sity, viscosity, surface tension, and faster evaporation of ethanol.
But, lower smoke (soot) and more NOx produced from combustion
of oxygenated fuels of both E and B origins do not always are
accompanied by the improved brake thermal efficiency of an
engine.
Opacity of the exhaust from combustion of biodiesel-
oxygenated fuels OB0-OB5 was not as transparent as before when
running with blends OE0-OE5 under the same test conditions. Too
high front-end volatility temperature with a narrow interval
between the initial and the final boiling points may cause a prob-
lem if the added biodiesel evaporates too slowly and does not burn
to the end. Low fuel volatility increases fuel-rich ‘zones’ and thus
soot formation [85]. To the production of less NOx and more smoke
contributed the peak in-cylinder pressure (temperature) inside the
cylinder, which decreased with increasing engine speed because
air boost pressure was fixed at 1.6 bar to maintain air-mass-flow
into the cylinder as identical as possible. Finally, the calorific value
decreased faster due to the added biodiesel to fuel blend than etha-
nol to maintain the same fuel-oxygen content (Table 4) that
extended both the end of injection of a bigger fuel portion and
the end of combustion (burn angle MBF 90), as shown in Ref.
[60]. Nevertheless, when running with the respective fuel blends
OB3, OB4 and OB5 oxygenated with biodiesel the lowest smoke
opacity was 27.9% (2.71 wt%), 31.5% (3.61 wt%) and 46.7%
(4.52 wt%) better than the combustion of oxygen-free blend OB0
produces for the latter speeds.
The reduced smoke (soot) from combustion of fuel blends
involving the rational amounts of biodiesel demonstrates the
essential role of fuel-bound oxygen, whereas the lower volatility
of RME is less important when running under high temperature
conditions inside the cylinder. Smoke opacity was a bit 3.3%
(OB2) higher at the low speed of 1500 rpm, but then it converted
to be 50.0% (OB4) and 32.8% (OB5) lower than a fully loaded
straight diesel produces at the high speeds of 2000 and
2500 rpm. The added biodiesel fraction reduced the amount of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the fuel blends and thus con-
tributed to lower smoke of the exhaust [86]. The low content of
sulphur in fuel composition also stimulated the reduction of
smoke. On the contrary to ethanol-oxygen, the percentage of
biodiesel-oxygen should be progressively increased to maximum
460 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
value of 4.52 wt% (OB5) to support the combustion reactions under
close to stoichiometric conditions and keep smoke at the permissi-
ble level at a high speed. Naturally, the higher engine speed was,
the greater was the need in biodiesel-bound oxygen to accomplish
combustion to the end and reduce smoke over a very limited time.
Despite smoke (soot) emerging from combustion of fuel blends
involving ethanol or biodiesel increased with increasing engine
speed, nevertheless, transparency of the exhaust was almost
always better than a straight diesel produces for identical incom-
ing air-fuel ratios at the tested speeds. This is because the added
ethanol or biodiesel not only reduced C/H atoms ratio, stoichiomet-
ric air-fuel ratio, and thus soot, but also accelerated the subsequent
oxidation of the carbon atoms. Thus, the effect of soot emission
reduction by increasing the oxygen content of the fuel is more sig-
nificant than the effect of increasing atmospheric pressure [87]. To
find the answer to the question why smoke opacity decreased fas-
ter than before [72] one should consider the test conditions. The
reason is that in the current study a turbocharged CRDI engine
was used and the blended cetane number did not change with
increasing ethanol or biodiesel content in the blend that makes a
major difference.
Whereas the cetane number of ethanol, n-butanol or isobutanol
blends with diesel or biodiesel fuels decreased with increasing
fuel-oxygen fraction in the blend that affected the ignition delay,
combustion and emissions in the most common loading conditions
[64]. Thus, an extra fuel-conserved oxygen is important for clean
and efficient combustion of the fuel. Studies with a single-
cylinder, diesel engine revealed the liner correlation between
exhaust emissions and intake-air oxygen fraction, whereas ‘‘non-
linearity” noted between production of soot and oxygen content
in oxygenated fuels [68]. The lower smoke streaming up from com-
bustion of oxygenated fuels matches well with the test results and
findings of other researchers [88].
Fig. 8a presents classical smoke-NOx emissions trade-off dia-
gram for a turbocharged CRDI diesel engine operating alternately
with fuel blends equally oxygenated (4.5 wt%) with ethanol CE1-
CE3 (white symbols) or biodiesel CB1-CB3 (black symbols). These
blends ‘employed’ one after another created the wide range of
the variation of the cetane number 51.2–67.3, the individual effects
of which were investigated on the traditionally-problematic
smoke-NOx trade-off diagram when running an engine under the
most sensitive close to stoichiometric conditions, k = 1.30, 1.25
and 1.20 at the respective speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
As can be seen in Fig. 8a, the upper part of the trade-off diagram
is occupied mainly by the NOx emissions produced within the
speed range of 1500–2000 rpm (blue-green) from combustion of
fuel blends involving ethanol CE1-CE3 with the simultaneous
approach of smoke opacity close to the zero level as a payment
to set-off the NOx related disadvantages. This indicates that the
enhancement of CN rating of oxygenated fuels of both E and B ori-
gins is not enough to reduce both the NOx emissions and the
exhaust smoke (soot) at the same time.
Whereas the combustion of identical CN ratings possessing
blends involving biodiesel CB1-CB3 being premixed in higher than
ethanol quantities (by mass) produced the NOx emissions less at
the respective speeds, but this advantage feature was payed-off
by the reasonably higher smoke (soot) emitted, as shown by the
black symbols situated mainly at the lower part of the trade-off
diagram. Thus, the cetane number enhanced within the same
range, the NOx production increased with a higher increment rate
when using fuel blends involving ethanol than the combustion of
their respective biodiesel-counterparts produces under identical
test conditions. This is a case, when a turbocharged CRDI engine
operates under heavy loads and high speeds owing to rapid tem-
perature rise inside the cylinder. The production of more NOx from
combustion of ethanol-oxygenated blends possessing the highest
CN ratings caused enhanced increment rate of the in-cylinder pres-
sure and thus temperature that normally takes place when running
under close to stoichiometric conditions at a high engine speed.
Fig. 8b presents smoke-NOx emissions trade-off diagram
obtained from combustion of fuel blends involving ethanol OE1-
OE5 (white symbols) or OB1-OB5 biodiesel components (black
symbols) under close to stoichiometric conditions, k = 1.30, 1.25,
1.20, and the respective speeds of 1500, 2000, 2500 rpm. These
blends ‘working’ in turn one after another provided the wide range
of the variation of fuel-bound oxygen content 0–4.52 wt%, but still
possessed the same cetane number value of 55.5 to disclose the
traditionally-problematic smoke-NOx trade-off changing beha-
viour and show how much the fuel-conserved oxygen contributes
to creating this problem.
The obtained classical relationship between smoke and NOx
emissions is not as good as can be expected and noticeably differs
from that shown in Ref. [40]. Thus, the behaviour of smoke-NOx
trade-off diagram strongly depends on the cetane number of the
fuel being tested. This presents a challenge in overcoming the
existing smoke-NOx relationship since trade-off between the most
environmental hazardous species always will be problematic, if the
cetane number of the fuel is intentionally maintained high enough
to enhance engine efficiency. One of the most effective measures to
achieve potential benefits in lower NOx emissions can be traded
against the fuel consumption penalty (bsfc) from injection timing
retard [63].
Smoke opacity decreased with the simultaneous increase in
NOx emissions emanating from combustion of more oxygenated
fuel blends of both E and B origins. Additional fuel-bound oxygen
reduced smoke opacity because of the limited availability of air-
born oxygen in the cylinder, which decreased for slightly richer
air-fuel mixtures with increasing engine speed. As black symbols
in Fig. 8b show, the combustion of fuel blends involving biodiesel
OB0-OB5 produced smoke (soot) more than their ethanol-
oxygenated counterparts OE0-OE5 generate possessing identical
both the cetane number and the fuel-oxygen mass content. The
obtained results indicate that the difference in fuel volatility,
chemistry, and C/H atoms ratio has a major influence on the pro-
duction of smoke in a turbocharged diesel engine. Whereas in pre-
mixed low-temperature combustion conditions, the reduced soot
emission caused mainly higher fuel-bound oxygen fraction, while
the fuel volatility has less impact [89].
Although in practice, soot and NOx formation greatly affect the
local air-fuel equivalence ratio and local combustion temperature.
Low volatility of biodiesel creates fuel-rich areas and thus con-
tributes to having more soot with a lower NOx production. As dia-
gram in Fig. 8b shows, the areas representing the highest NOx
emissions produced from clean combustion of ethanol-
oxygenated fuels (white symbols) at the low speed of 1500 rpm
are located exclusively on the upper-left part of the smoke-NOx
trade-off diagram. Whereas the areas representing the highest
opacity of the exhaust produced by incomplete burning of
biodiesel-oxygenated fuels at the high speed of 2500 rpm when
the combustion reactions proceed at slightly more than stoichio-
metric amounts of oxygen (black symbols) occupied the bottom-
right part of the trade-off diagram.
Less intensive soot formation from combustion of oxygenated
fuel blends caused mainly fuel-oxygen and composition of the fuel,
the potential effects of which were greater when using as oxygena-
tor source more-volatile, less-carbon atoms possessing ethanol
rather than biodiesel. This is especially evident when running at
close to stoichiometric conditions and high speeds, but the air tem-
perature in the cylinder should be high enough to assure complete
evaporation of the fuel over a very limited engine cycle. Because
the added HRD fuel restored the cetane number of diesel-HRD fuel
blends involving biodiesel and, especially ethanol, the contribution
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
of fuel-bound oxygen to the combustion improvement converted
to be more favourable for the reduction of smoke [75].
4.2.2. The individual effects of cetane number or fuel-oxygen mass
content on the production of CO and THC emissions
The greenhouse emissions over entire life cycle is possible to
reduce by 40–60% compared to fossil diesel by using hydrotreated
renewable diesel fuel in agricultural, industrial and traffic sectors
[22]. Gowdagiri et al. [7] noted reduction in the CO emissions for
hydroprocessed diesel fuel. This is because the earlier both the
start of ignition and the end of combustion achieved due to
increased DCN provide higher temperatures and longer time for
CO to burn out in the cylinder. However, the makeup of CO emis-
sions will be different for each fuel blend depending on the original
fuel components. Owing to a lighter nature, fuel blends involving
ethanol produced CO emissions almost always lower than their
biodiesel-counterparts did in reducing CO with the same fuel-
oxygen content and/or identical CN rating (Fig. 9a, b). The fuel
burned cleaner because the added ethanol reduced C/H atoms ratio
and improved homogeneity of air-fuel mixture due to its lower
density, viscosity, and faster evaporation.
It is important to note that the cetane number improvement
within the same range of 51.2–67.3 the CO production affected with
a different increment rate despite the fuel blends involving ethanol
or biodiesel possessed identical fuel-oxygen mass (4.5 wt%) content
and were tested under similar combustion conditions. The CO emis-
sions did not change greatly and remained at almost stable level of
1100, 1085, 1090 ppm without any reaction to the variation of the
cetane number when running with ethanol-oxygenated fuels at
k = 1.30 and the low speed of 1500 rpm. In contrast to ethanol case,
the CO emissions (in a company with THC Fig. 10a) increased with
the increment rate of ascending order 18.3% and 25.2% when run-
ning with more flammable (CN = 60.9 and 67.3) biodiesel-
oxygenated blends against the reference value of 1158 ppm
(CN = 51.2) at the latter speed.
On the contrary, the cetane number of ethanol-oxygenated
blends increased to maximum value of 67.3, the CO emissions
reduced by 48.7% and nearly 7.2 times against, 815 and
1075 ppm, the combustion of blend CE1 with the normal CN rating
produces for close to stoichiometric conditions, k = 1.25 and 1.20,
at higher speeds of 2000 and 2500 rpm (Fig. 9a). The lower CO
emissions match well with less smoke (Fig. 7a) produced from
combustion of homogeneous mixture prepared with participation
of ethanol, which differs from a straight diesel or the added biodie-
sel fraction as having less carbon atoms and no sulphur as HRD
fuel. These advantages features, working all together, slightly
shortened the end of combustion (angle MBF 90) when running a
fully loaded engine with the most flammable blend CE3 involving
ethanol at the high speed of 2500 rpm at least.
Whereas the CO emissions emanating from combustion of
biodiesel-oxygenated blend CB3 with the same CN rating of 67.3
did not change the existing development trends and progressively
increased by 6.4% and 18.8% against, 960 and 890 ppm, the com-
bustion of normal blend CB1 (CN = 51.2) produces for the respec-
tive air-fuel ratios at speeds of 2000 and 2500 rpm. The higher
CO emissions produced from combustion of fuel blend CB3 proba-
bly caused higher density, viscosity, C/H atoms ratio, and more
heterogeneous air-fuel mixture prepared from a bigger in diameter
biodiesel droplets that stimulated the CO production. More
detailed analysis on the pollutants formation mechanism at the
increased fuel-bound oxygen presence in a DI diesel engine was
performed by Rakopoulos et al. [46].
Thus, the effect of the enhanced cetane number on the CO pro-
duction is not the same (rather different) when running with fuel
blends involving ethanol or biodiesel with identical fuel-oxygen
content under considered test conditions. As Fig. 9a, b shows, the
461
CO emissions development trends for fuel blends involving ethanol
or biodiesel strongly depend on the composition of the fuel and,
therefore, these species continue to advance in the opposite direc-
tions. This is because the carbon atoms react with the in-cylinder
air-born oxygen slower than hydrogen ones that makes them more
vulnerable in finding oxygen atoms to react with it at close to stoi-
chiometric conditions. This feature becomes even more vulnerable
if the improved cetane rating of the fuel involving biodiesel shortens
the ignition delay (chemical factor), changes the quality of air-fuel
mixture and the entire combustion process. The engine speed
dependent turbulence intensity fastened evaporation of the fuel
and thus reduced CO emissions emanating from combustion of the
most oxygenated fuel blends of both E and B origins. The biggest bio-
diesel portions added to diesel-HRD fuel blend the CO production
increased for the low speed of 1500 rpm, but an extra fuel-oxygen
significantly reduced CO emitted at the high speed of 2500 rpm.
The fuel-oxygen content increased up to the rational extent has
potentials to reduce the CO formation from combustion of the fuel
involving ethanol or biodiesel components. It was revealed that the
combustion reactions produce the lowest smoke and CO emissions
when the amount of fuel-oxygen is neither too high nor too low,
but just enough to maintain the diffusion burning to the
environment-friendly exhaust (Figs. 7b and 9b). The content of
fuel-oxygen increased up to the extent, which was the most suit-
able to complete combustion when running under close to stoi-
chiometric conditions, the CO production reduced significantly
for both OE1-OE5 and OB1-OB5 fuel-sets. Emissions were 18.2%
(OE2), 60.7% (OE3) and 2.7 times (OE4) lower when using fuel
blends with 1.81, 2.71 and 3.61 wt% of ethanol-oxygen than,
1195, 1500 and 2100 ppm, the combustion of oxygen-free blend
OE0 produces for air-fuel ratios of 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20 at the respec-
tive speeds of 1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
Whereas the role of biodiesel-oxygen was less significant in
reducing smoke (Fig. 7b) and CO emissions (Fig. 9b) than that the
combustion of identical fuel blends involving ethanol provides
for considered test conditions. This occurred, despite the chemical
structure of RME CH3(CH2)nCOOCH3 predicts that some part of
fuel-oxygen is in double bounds with radicals -OH that may lead
to cleaner combustion with less smoke, fewer CO and THC emitted
[54]. The lowest CO emission emerging from combustion of the
fuels oxygenated with biodiesel OB3 (2.71 wt%) was 37.4% higher
than, 1195 ppm, the combustion of oxygen-free blend OB0 pro-
duces at the low speed of 1500 rpm. The CO emissions were higher
despite there was enough time for the carbon atoms to choose the
in-cylinder air or biodiesel-bound oxygen to react with at low rev-
olutions. Emissions increased even more intensively (by 73.5%)
when using the most biodiesel-oxygenated (4.52 wt%) blend OB5,
whereas CO slightly decreased to increase a little when running
with fuel blends involving ethanol at the latter speed.
In contrast to a lighter ethanol, viscous RME added to fuel blend
probably reduced mixing rate of the air and fuel vapours that
delayed combustion of heavy hydrocarbons at the low speed of
1500 rpm, produced more soot (Fig. 7b), and what ends up in the
exhaust (Figs. 9b and 10b). The first reason why CO and THC emis-
sions increased is that biodiesel evaporated slower than ethanol
and, therefore, the time needed to burn the fuel completely, which
involved the biggest portion of RME, was relatively longer at the
latter speed. The second reason is that the fuel blends involving
biodiesel differed as having higher C/H atoms ratio than their
ethanol-oxygenated counterparts that directly stimulated CO2
and CO production. Finally, dissociation of normally stable CO2
molecules to CO may occur owing to high temperature in the cylin-
der [35]. This preposition rests on the fact that both the volumetric
efficiency and the peak in-cylinder pressure were higher at
1500 rpm since air-boost pressure was kept stable to eliminate
the potential side-effects on the studied parameters.
462 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
Both the heat release rate and the peak in-cylinder pressure
increased when running with fuel blends properly oxygenated
with biodiesel OB5 and OB4 at the higher speeds of 2000 and
2500 rpm. In result, the CO emissions from combustion of plenty
biodiesel-oxygenated fuel blends OB5 (4.52 wt%) and OB4
(3.61 wt%) decreased nearly 1.6 and 2.0 times against, 1500 and
2100 ppm, the combustion of oxygen-free fuel OB0 produces for
relative air-fuel ratios of 1.25 and 1.20 at the latter speeds. The
combustion reactions were completed earlier in an engine cycle
due to the enhanced diffusion burning of oxygenated fuel blends
of both origins. A study conducted on a single cylinder diesel
engine showed that the formation of NOx increased, whereas the
CO emissions decreased with increasing amount of biodiesel in
the fuels [90]. The lower coefficient of the variation in imep and
pmax (Part 1) contributed to producing the CO emissions and smoke
(soot) less owing to higher cetane number and better ignition qual-
ity of the fuels oxygenated with ethanol or biodiesel [79].
Production of total unburned hydrocarbons (THC) progressively
increased responding to the cetane number improved within the
range 51.2–67.3 for fuel blends equally oxygenated (4.5 wt%) with
the added ethanol or biodiesel when running at k = 1.30–1.25
within the speed range of 1500–2000 rpm (Fig. 10a). THC emis-
sions were up to 49.3–42.3% higher when running with ethanol-
oxygenated blend CE3 with the highest CN rating of 67.3 or
65.4–33.7% higher with its counterpart CB3 against, 910–
875 ppm or 955–1230 ppm, the combustion of the fuels CE1 or
CB1 with the normal CN rating produces for identical air-fuel ratios
at the latter speeds. The higher THC emissions from combustion of
the fuels with enhanced CN ratings CE1-CE3 or CB1-CB3 emerged
unpredictably. The increase in THC occurred despite C/H atoms
ratio decreased with increasing CN rating of the fuels that normally
should lead to production of less unburned hydrocarbons. The mat-
ter is that the CO and THC formation depends not only on the com-
position of the fuel, but also on the cycle-to-cycle irregularity in
the peak combustion pressure and indicated mean effective pres-
sure developed. The coefficients of the variation (COVs) of engine
operational parameters were greater when running with the same
energy input per cycle with fuel blends OB3 and OB5 properly oxy-
genated with biodiesel than with their respective counterpart
involving ethanol OE3 and OE5 at the low speed namely [60].
Whereas the cetane number of fuel blends of both origins
enhanced within the same range of 51.2–67.3 did not evoke a steep
increment rate in THC emissions after transition to slightly richer
combustible mixture, k = 1.20, since time needed to perform an
engine cycle was extremely limited at the high speed of
2500 rpm. For this reason, the THC emissions increased by 18.5%
(CE2) and 10.8% (CE3) or by 23.8% (CB2) and 21.1% (CB3) with
regard to 975 ppm (CE1) or 1230 ppm (CB1). This means that the
cetane number improvement within the upper range of 60.9–
67.3 changed the hydrocarbon production trends suggesting THC
6.5% (CE3) or 2.2% (CB3) lower owing to relatively earlier the end
of combustion when running with the most flammable fuels at
the high speed of 2500 rpm [60].
The sophisticated THC development trends with increasing CN
rating of oxygenated blends look like a natural event because the
enhanced CN rating of the fuel is more of an ignition conditions
improving feature than to improve air and fuel vapours mixing
and combustion. More heterogeneous, fuel-rich mixture prepared
from fuel blends CB1-CB3 involving biodiesel did not have enough
air-born oxygen in some local combustion chamber ‘zones’ to react
with the carbon and hydrogen. Therefore, CO and THC emissions
increased more intensively due to the ignition quality improve-
ment than those the combustion of the fuels CE1-CE3 involving
ethanol produces under close to stoichiometric conditions. The
biodiesel transition from the liquid phase to gas phase advanced
slowly and there was a lack of the chemical reaction time to burn
the fuel completely (chemical factor). Whereas this was not a case
in terms of the CO production when using fuel blends involving
ethanol because of more homogeneous mixture and helpful contri-
bution of its composition with less carbon atoms in the molecular.
The effect of fuel-conserved oxygen on the formation of THC
emissions is less predictable than that experienced in reducing
the CO production (Fig. 9b). THC emissions were 7.6% (OE1),
29.0% (OE4) and 32.4% (OE1) lower when using fuel blends involv-
ing 0.91, 3.61 and 0.91 wt% of ethanol-oxygen than, 725, 1000 and
1250 ppm, the combustion of oxygen-free fuel OE0 produces for
air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, at the respective speeds of
1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm (Fig. 10b). Whereas the lowest THC
emissions from combustion of fuel blends OB3 involving the
rational amount (2.71 wt%) of biodiesel were 37.4% higher, then
again 1.5% and 16.0% lower than those measured with oxygen-
free blend OB0 under considered test conditions. Thus, no definite
trade-off exists between the carbon monoxide (CO) and the
unburned hydrocarbons (CH) with any change of a parameter at
all engine loads, as noted in Ref. [40].
The lower THC emissions emanating from combustion of the
fuels involving ethanol in both the cetane number (a) and the
fuel-oxygen (b) test series were obtained owing to more hydrogen
atoms in the fuel composition. In such a case, more stoichiometric
amount of oxygen (higher ‘lambda’) was needed to assure com-
plete combustion of the fuel involving ethanol than for their
respective biodiesel-counterparts possessing identical CN rating
or fuel-oxygen mass content. This composition related feature
boosted up maximum heat release rate and the peak pressure
inside the cylinder due to faster combustion of the fuel.
Positive changes in the combustion process reduced smoke
(Fig. 7a, b) and enhanced engine efficiency (Fig. 4a, b) owing to
lower C/H atoms ratio and more homogeneous ethanol-air-fuel
mixture prepared when running under close to stoichiometric con-
ditions, k = 1.20, and the high speed of 2500 rpm. Faster combus-
tion of the fuel OE4 or OB4 reduced burn angles MBF50% and
MBF90% producing 2.0 or 1.3 times lower smoke, 28.0% less or
0.9% more CO emissions and, as unavoidable pay off, 12.2% or
12.0% more NOx and 71.4% or 2.8 times more THC emissions than,
23.8%, 1070 ppm, 1180 ppm and 525 ppm a straight diesel pro-
duces at considered test conditions.
It is important to stress that the amount fuel-oxygen has sense
to be increased only up to the extent, which is need to complete
combustion, since too high fuel-oxygen content may contribute
to the formation of more NOx and THC emissions. Thus, the amount
of fuel-conserved oxygen, which would be equally tolerable within
a wide range of engine speeds, depends on the composition of the
fuel and origin of the components involved to satisfy the combus-
tion conditions. Analysis of the data presented in Figs. 7b–10b
shows that a single-bound ethanol-oxygen provides more benefits
in terms of clean combustion of the fuel than a double-bound
biodiesel-oxygen when the combustion reactions proceed at
slightly more than stoichiometric amounts of oxygen.
In general, the development trends in engine performance effi-
ciency and exhaust emissions with the increasing fuel-oxygen con-
tent are promising in both E and B test series. Production of fuel-
composition-sensitive species such as smoke (soot), CO and THC
is strongly dependent on the differences in density, viscosity, C/H
atoms ratio and other properties of the added components. It is
interesting to note that CO and THC emissions emanating from a
straight diesel (CN = 51.4) traditionally decreased by 46.1% and
39.5% with engine speed increased within the range of 1500–
2500 rpm. On the contrary, the amounts of both harmful species
produced from incomplete combustion of oxygen-free fuel blends
OE0 or OB0 increased by 75.6% and 72.4%, respectively, when run-
ning under close to stoichiometric conditions over the speed range
of 1500–2500 rpms (Figs. 9b and 10b).
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
In terms of smoke, CO and THC production, the content of fuel-
oxygen in fuel blends along with the widely differing properties
of ethanol and biodiesel seems to be major (dominant) factors
strongly affecting the combustion characteristics and exhaust emis-
sions. Combustion of the most ethanol-oxygenated (4.52 wt%) fuel
OE5 produced the brake thermal efficiency 1.8% and 2.4% higher
than its counterpart OB5 produces under close to stoichiometric
conditions, k = 1.25 and 1.20, at maximum torque speed of
2000 rpm and the high speed of 2500 rpm. In addition, combustion
of the most ethanol-oxygenated blend OE5 produced CO (21.1–
16.8%), THC emissions (13.3–4.1%), and smoke (68.4–36.9%) less
than its biodiesel-counterpart OB5 produces under identical test
conditions. To compensate for these advantages, the NOx emissions
from combustion of the fuel OE5 were 17.0% higher at 2000 rpm,
but they remained a bit 2.3% lower at the high 2500 rpm than,
1455 and 1330 ppm, the combustion of its counterpart OB5 pro-
duces at the respective speeds.
The cetane number of oxygenated fuel blends improved up to
the rational extent is an effective measure to enhance engine effi-
ciency and reduce fuel consumption owing to lower smoke and CO
emissions. Whereas the fuel-oxygen content should be neither too
high nor too low, but just enough to assure high performance,
engine efficiency, and environment-friendly emissions. The chem-
ical and physical properties of the fuels involving ethanol or bio-
diesel proved themselves as a dominant factor strongly affecting
the development trends in engine performance and exhaust emis-
sions when the combustion proceeds at slightly more than stoi-
chiometric amounts of oxygen at all engine speeds.
5. Summary and conclusions
A comprehensive experimental study provides the qualitative
and quantitative analysis of the individual effects caused by the
variation of the cetane number (a), fuel-oxygen content (b) or
widely differing chemical and physical properties of diesel-HRD fuel
blends involving ethanol or biodiesel (c) on the brake specific fuel
consumption, engine efficiency, smoke, and exhaust emissions. At
first, diesel EN 590 (class 1) and HRD fuel blends were premixed
with a 200 proof (99.8 vol%) ethanol CE1-CE3 or rapeseed biodiesel
CB1-CB3 in such proportions by mass (wt%) to assure the wide vari-
ation range of the cetane number 51.2–67.3, while maintaining the
same fuel-bound oxygen content of nearly 4.5 wt%.
Then, diesel and HRD fuel blends were premixed with a 200
proof (99.8 vol%) ethanol OE0-OE5 or biodiesel OB0-OB5 in such
proportions by mass (wt%) to assure the wide variation range of
fuel-oxygen mass content 0–4.52 wt%, while maintaining the same
cetane number of about 55.5. The individual effects caused by the
widely differing chemical and physical properties of ethanol or bio-
diesel added to fuel blends, as a third important factor strongly
affecting the combustion conditions and engine out emissions,
were analysed and compared in both E and B test series.
The load characteristics of a turbocharged CRDI diesel engine
FIAT 1.9 JTD 8V running with normal diesel fuel and purposely
designed fuel blends (18) were taken for the three performance
modes: maximum torque speed of 2000 rpm, as the most usual
and recommended one, and additional 1500 and 2500 rpms for
better interpretation of the test results. The air boost pressure
was maintained at the level of 1.6 bar and the EGR system was
switched off to eliminate the side effects of second-rate factors
on smoke and exhaust emissions.
At first, the engine parameters were plotted as a function of the
relative air-fuel ratio for a straight diesel and fuel blends involving
ethanol CE1-CE3 and OE0-OE5 or biodiesel CB1-CB3 and OB0-OB5
components. Then, engine performance and emission parameters
for each of the above fuel blend were defined to account for the rel-
463
ative air-fuel ratios, k = 1.30, 1.25 and 1.20, those provide identical
fuel-energy inputs per each engine cycle at the respective speeds of
1500, 2000 and 2500 rpm.
The individual effects of the cetane number, fuel-oxygen, or
widely differing properties of the fuels on engine efficiency, brake
specific fuel consumption, smoke, and emissions were compared
with those values measured with normal blends CE1 or CB1
(CN = 51.2), oxygen-free OE0 (OB0), and a straight diesel
(CN = 51.4) for close to stoichiometric conditions at the latter
speeds. Changes in the ignition delay, maximum heat release rate,
burn angles MBF 50 and MBF 90 along with the coefficients of the
variation of operational parameters, revealed in the Part 1, were
used to properly interpret the noted development trends in engine
performance and exhaust emissions.
The engine test conditions should always be in focus as the
most important factor strongly affecting both the cetane
number-made and the fuel-oxygen-evoked the development
trends in the combustion characteristics, brake specific fuel con-
sumption, brake thermal efficiency, smoke, and exhaust emissions.
The reasonably enhanced cetane number and fuel-oxygen mass
content improved performance, reduced smoke and CO emissions
of a turbocharged CRDI engine when running at slightly richer
air-fuel mixture of ‘lambda’ 1.20 and the high speeds of
2500 rpm mainly, as follows below:
1. Changes made by the cetane number enhanced within the
range of 51.2–67.3 of diesel-HRD fuel blends, but still possess-
ing the same ethanol or biodiesel fuel-oxygen content of nearly
4.5 wt%:
 The brake specific fuel consumption decreased by 0.9% (CE3)
or 1.3% (CB3), whereas the brake thermal efficiency equally
increased by 0.5% for both E and B fuel types.
 The NOx emissions increased by 15.8% or 2.7% (5.9 times
more intensively with CE3), whereas smoke of the exhaust
decreased 1.7 times or by 34.9%, respectively.
 The CO emissions decreased 7.2 times (CE3) or increased by
18.8% (CB3), i.e. the combustion of fuel blends with identical
CN ratings, but different compositions and origins produced
the opposite CO development trends, whereas the THC emis-
sions increased by 10.8% and 21.1% in both E and B test ser-
ies, respectively.
2. Changes made by the fuel-oxygen content increased from zero
to 4.52 wt%, but still possessing the same cetane number of
about 55.5 for fuel sets involving ethanol (E) or biodiesel (B):
 The brake specific fuel consumption boosted up by 1.8% (OE5)
or 5.4% (OB5), whereas the brake thermal efficiency increased
by 2.9% or 0.5%, i.e. the engine efficiency was better when
using as oxygenator source ethanol rather than biodiesel.
 The NOx emissions increased by 10.6% (OE2) or 5.0% (OB5),
whereas smoke of the exhaust decreased 3.0 times (OE5)
or by 46.7% (OB5) to enhance the engine efficiency.
 The CO emissions decreased 2.7 times (OE4) or nearly 2.0
times (OB5), whereas THC emissions from combustion of
the respective fuel blends decreased by 28.0% or 3.2% only.
3. Changes made by the widely differing properties of diesel-HRD
fuel blends involving ethanol or biodiesel, but still possessing
the same cetane number of 55.5 or fuel-bound oxygen mass
content of 4.52 wt%:
 The brake specific fuel consumption increased more rapidly
with increasing percentage of ethanol in fuel blends at
k = 1.30 and the low 1500 rpm, but the bsfc and, what is
important, the brake thermal efficiency regained a bit better
positions against the fuels involving biodiesel when running
at a richer combustible mixture, k = 1.20, and the high speed
of 2500 rpm. Nevertheless, the enhanced CN rating
improved engine efficiency similarly in both E and B cases.
464 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
 The NOx emissions increased more intensively with increas-
ing CN rating or fuel-oxygen content up to the certain extent
when using fuel blends involving ethanol rather than biodie-
sel. The development trends in smoke opacity were equally
promising, but transparency of the exhaust always was bet-
ter when using ethanol as oxygenator source than biodiesel
in both cetane (C) and oxygen (O) test series.
 The CO emissions decreased with increasing CN rating of the
fuels involving ethanol CE1-CE3, nevertheless the amount of
CO emitted increased (opposite trends) when running with
blends involving biodiesel CB1-CB3 at the high speed of
2500 rpm. The CO emissions changed a little when using
ethanol-oxygenated blends OE0-OE5 at the low speeds of
1500 rpm, but these species progressively increased when
running with blends involving biodiesel OB0-OB5 at the
same test conditions. The CO production rapidly decreased
with increasing fuel-oxygen content in both E and B test ser-
ies at the high speed of 2500 rpm, whereas THC emissions
varied ambiguously with increasing cetane number or fuel-
oxygen content remaining almost always a bit lower when
using ethanol as oxygenator source than biodiesel.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Technical Advisor at Renewable
Products ‘‘NESTE OIL” Corporation Mr. Markku Honkanen, who
kindly donated NExBTL (HRD) fuel for the engine bench tests with
‘‘Neste Oil” Certificate of Analysis TT-15-000229 approved by the
Neste Oil Oyj, Research and Technology, Central Laboratory, P.O.
Box 310, 06101 Porvoo, FINLAND as well as Ltd. ‘‘NESTE Lietuva”.
Thanks also to Administrative Director of Ltd. ‘‘Rapsoila” Mr.
Robertas Einoris (Mažeikiai), who contributed with rapeseed bio-
diesel (RME) and its Quality Certificate Nr. 10/15.
The authors also acknowledge the Company AVL-AST, Graz Aus-
tria for granting to Aleksandras Stulginskis university AVL-BOOST
simulation software to enhance the quality of processing of the
engine test data according University’s partnership program.
Reference
[1] Public Low 159 – July 14, 1955 (p. 322): An ACT to provide research and
technical assistance relating to air pollution control. Chapter 360; July 15,
1955, p. 2.
[2] Paris climate change deal – ministers adopt historic agreement to keep global
warming ‘‘well below” 2 °C at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-
climate-change-conference/12047133/Final-text-of-climate-deal-to-be-
released-imminently.html#update-20151212-1310.
[3] Engels A. Review – anthropogenic climate change: how to understand the
weak links between scientific evidence, public perception, and low-carbon
practices, vol. 4. Energy and Emission Control Technologies, Dove Medical
Press Limited; 25 January 2016. p. 17–26.
[4] Alleman T, McCormick R. Fisher-Tropsch diesel fuels – properties and exhaust
emissions: a literature review, SAE technical Paper 2003–01-0763; 2003.
[5] Kitano K, Sakata I, Clark R. Effects of GTL fuel properties on DI diesel
combustion. SAE Technical Paper 2005–01-3763; 2005. p. 13. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4271/2005-01-3763.
[6] Larsson M, Denbratt I. An experimental investigation of Fischer-Tropsch fuels
in a light-duty diesel engine. SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-0030; 2007. p. 15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-0030.
[7] Gowdagiri S, Cesari XM, Huang M, Oehlschlaeger MA. A diesel engine study of
conventional and alternative diesel and jet fuels: ignition and emissions
characteristics. Fuel 2014;136(11):253–60.
[8] Miers S, Ng H, Ciatti S, Stork K. Emissions, performance, and in-cylinder
combustion analysis in a light-duty diesel engine operating on a Fischer-
Tropsch, biomass-to-liquid fuel. SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-3670; 2005. p. 9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-3671.
[9] Rantanen L, Linnaila R, Aakko P, Harju T. NExBTL – biodiesel fuel of the second
generation. SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-3771; 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.
4271/2005-01-3771. p. 19.
[10] Ogunkoya D, Fang T. Engine performance, combustion, and emissions study of
biomass to liquid fuel in a compression-ignition engine. Energy Convers
Manage 2015;95(5):342–51.
[11] Ogunkoya D, Roberts WL, Fang T, Thapaliya N. Investigation of the effects of
renewable diesel fuels on engine performance, combustion, and emissions.
Fuel 2015;140(1):541–54.
[12] Singh D, Subramanian KA, Singal SK. Emissions and fuel consumption
characteristics of a heavy-duty diesel engine fuelled with hydroprocessed
renewable diesel and biodiesel. Appl Energy 2015;155(10):440–6.
[13] Erkkilä K, Nylund N-O, Hulkkonen T, Tilli A, Mikkonen S, Saikkonen P, Mäkinen
R, Amberla A. Emission performance of paraffinic HVO diesel fuel in heavy
duty vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-1966, JSAE 20119239. p. 12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2011-01-1966.
[14] Lapuerta M, Villajos M, Agudelo JR, Boehman AL. Key properties and blending
strategies of hydrotreated vegetable oil as biofuel for diesel engines. Fuel
Process Technol December 2011;92(12):2406–11.
[15] Hartikka T, Kuronen M, Kiiski U. Technical performance of HVO (hydrotreated
vegetable oil) in diesel engines. SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-1585; 2012. p.
12. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2012-01-1585.
[16] Heikkilä J, Happonen M, Murtonen T, Keskinen J, Virtanen A. Study of Miller
timing on exhaust emissions of a hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO)-fuelled
diesel engine. J Air Waste Manage Assoc, Technical paper, (2012);62
(11):1305–1312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.708383.
[17] Happonen M, Heikkilä J, Aakko-Saksa P, Murtonen T, Lehto K, Rostedt A, et al.
Diesel exhaust emissions and particle hygroscopicity with HVO fuel-
oxygenate blend. Fuel January 2013;103(1):390–6.
[18] Bhardwaj OP, Lüers B, Holderbaum B, Körfer T, Pischinger S, Honkannen M.
Utilization of HVO fuel properties in a high efficiency combustion system SAE
Research Paper 20154062. Int J Automot Eng 2015;6:75–82.
[19] Hajbabaei M, Johnson KC, Okamoto RA, Mitchell A, Pullman M, Durbin TD.
Evaluation of the impacts of biodiesel and second generation biofuels on
NOx emissions for CARB diesel fuels. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46
(16):9163–73.
[20] Kousoulidou M, Dimaratos A, Karvountzis-Kontakiotis A, Samaras Z.
Combustion and emissions of a common-rail diesel engine fuelled with
HWCO. J Energy Eng (2014);140(3):A4013001-1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000154.
[21] Press release 21.08.2015. Neste’s renewable fuel patent portfolio becomes
stronger. Finland. http://www.bing.com/search?q = Neste%27s + renewable
+ fuel + patent + portfolio + becomes + stronger&src = IE-SearchBox&FORM =
IE8SRC, [ONLINE 19.10.2015].[ONLINE 19.10.2015].
[22] Aatola H, Larmi M, Sarjovaara T, Mikkonen S. 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 2008;1:1251–62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2008-01-2500.
[23] Pflaum H, Hofmann P, Geringer B, Weissel W. Potential of hydrogenated
vegetable oil (HVO) in a modern diesel engine. SAE Technical Paper 2010-32-
0081; 2010. p. 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2010-32-0081.
[24] Myong K, Suzuki H, Senda J, Fujimoto H. Spray inner structure of evaporating
multicomponent fuel. Fuel 2007;87(2):202–10.
[25] Lee J, Oh H, Bae C. Combustion process of JP-8 and fossil diesel fuel in a heavy-
duty diesel engine using two-colour thermometry. Fuel 2012;102(12):264–73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.07.029.
[26] Vogel T, Lutz M, Wensing M, Leipertz A. Influence of fuel mixture on spray
formation in diesel processes. In: ILASS – Europe 2010 23rd Annual conference
on liquid atomisation and spray systems, Brno, Czech Republic, September
2010. p. 10.
[27] Gostic I, Senghaas C, Willmann M, Wensing M. How biodiesel/diesel fuel
blends affect spray breakup and emissions. In: ILASS – Europe 2010, 23rd
annual conference on liquid atomisation and spray systems, Brno, Czeck
Republic, September 2010. p. 9.
[28] Graboski MS, McCormic RL. Combustion of fat and vegetable oil derived fuels
in diesel engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1998;24(2):125–64. Elsevier
Science Ltd..
[29] Korres DM, Karonis D, Lois E, Linck MB, Gupta AK. Aviation fuel JP-5 and
biodiesel on a diesel engine. Fuel 2008;87(1):70–8.
[30] Chuck CJ, Donnelly J. The compatibility of potential bioderived fuels with Jet A-
1 aviation kerosene. Appl Energy 2014;118:83–91.
[31] Hulkkonen T, Hillamo H, Sarjovaara T, Larmi M. Experimental study of
spray characteristics between hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) and crude oil
based EN 590 diesel fuel. SAE International Technical Paper 2011–24-0042. p.
9. Published 09 November 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2011-24-0042.
[32] Chengjun Du. (Chalmers University of Technology). Spray and spray
combustion characteristics of diesel-ethanol fuel blends. Technical report at
Department of Applied Mechanics, Göteborg, Sweden; 2015. p. 43.
[33] Allocca L, Mancaruso E, Montanaro A, Sequino L, Vaglieco BM. (Istituto Motori
CNR Via G. Marconi 8 – 80125 Napoli - Italy). Spray properties of alternative
fuels: a comparative analysis of mineral and 1st – 2nd generation biodiesel. In:
DIPSI Workshop 2010 on droplet impact phenomena and spray investigation,
May 28, 2010. Bergamo, Italy. p. 8.
[34] Murtonen T, Aakko-Saksa P, Kuronen M, Lehtoranta K. Emissions with heavy-
duty diesel engines and vehicles using FAME, HVO and GTL fuels with and
without DOC + POC Aftertreatment. SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-2693, SAE
Int, J Fuels Lubr (2009);2:147–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2009-01-2693.
[35] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. –Co – Singapore for
manufacture and export (International edition); 1988. p. 930.
[36] Rogers DR. Engine combustion: pressure measurement and analysis. 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA:SAE International;
2010. p. 322.
 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466
[37] Engman A, Hartikka T, Honkanen M, Kiiski U, Kuronen M, Mikkonen S, et al.
Hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) – premium renewable biofuel for diesel
engines. Espoo: Neste Oil Proprietary Publication; 2014. p. 55.
[38] Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Giakoumis EG, Kyritsis DC. The combustion of
n-butanol/diesel fuel blends and its cyclic variability in a direct injection diesel
engine. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part A: J Power Energy (2011);225:289–308.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041296710394256.
[39] Yanowitz J, Ratcliff MA, McCormick RL, Taylor JD, Murphy MJ. Compendium of
experimental cetane numbers. Technical Report NREL/TP-5400-61693; 2014.
p. 62.
[40] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Kyritsis DC. Butanol or DEE blends with either
straight vegetable oil or biodiesel excluding fossil fuel: comparative effects on
diesel engine combustion attributes, cyclic variability and regulated emissions
trade-off. Energy 2016;115(Part 1):314–25.
[41] Hansen AC, Zhang Q. Engine durability evaluation with E-diesel. Paper
Number: 036033. In: An ASAE meeting presentation, Las Vegas, Nevada,
USA, 27–30 July 2003. p. 13.
}
[42] Can Ozer, Çelikten Ìsmet, Usta Nazim. Effects of ethanol addition on
performance and emissions of a turbocharged indirect injection diesel
engine running at different injection pressures. Energy Convers Manage
2004;45:2429–40.
[43] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Herreros JM. Emissions from a diesel-bioethanol blend
in an automotive diesel engine. Fuel 2008;87(1):25–31.
[44] Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Kakaras EC, Giakoumis EG. Effect of ethanol
diesel fuel blends on the performance and exhaust emissions of heavy duty DI
diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49(11):3155–62.
[45] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC.
Influence of properties of various common bio-fuels on the combustion and
emission characteristics of high-speed DI (direct injection) diesel engine:
vegetable oil, bio-diesel, ethanol, n-butanol, diethyl ether. Energy
(2014);73:354–366.
[46] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG. Impact of properties of
vegetable oil, bio-diesel, ethanol and n-butanol on the combustion and
emissions of turbocharged HDDI diesel engine operating under steady and
transient conditions. Fuel (2015);156:1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
2015.04.021.
[47] Kwanchareon P, Luengnaruemitchai A, Jai-In S. Solubility of a diesel–biodiesel-
ethanol blend, its fuel properties, and its emission characteristics from diesel
engine. Fuel 2007;86(7–8):1053–61.
[48] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S, Mažeika M. The effect of ethanol-diesel-biodiesel
blends on combustion, performance and emissions of a direct injection diesel
engine. Energy Convers Manage 2014;79(3):698–720.
[49] Shatrow MG, Khatchiyan AS, Golubkov LN, Dunin AY. Improvement of
performance processes of automotive diesel engines operating on alternative
fuels (Monography). –Moscow: MADI (Moscow Automobile and Highway
Institute – State Technical University); 2012. p. 220 [in Russian].
[50] Shahir SA, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Imran A, Ashraful AM. Performance and
emission assessment of diesel–biodiesel–ethanol/bioethanol blend as a fuel in
diesel engines: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48(8):62–78.
[51] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC. Development and
application of a multi-zone model for combustion and pollutants formation
in a direct injection diesel engine with vegetable oil or its bio-diesel. Energy
Convers Manage 2007;48(7):1881–901.
[52] Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis EG, Andritsakis EC.
Performance and emissions of bus engine using blends of diesel fuel with bio-
diesel of sunflower or cottonseed oils derived from Greek feedstock. Fuel
2008;87(2):147–57.
[53] Hoekman SK, Robbins C. Review of the effects of biodiesel on NOx emissions.
Fuel Process Technol 2012;96(1):237–49.
[54] Minteer S. (Saint Louis University Missouri). Alcoholic Fuels. LLC, United States
of America, 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300:CRC Press at Taylor &
Francis Group; 2006. p. 270.
[55] Knothe G, Gerpen JV, Krahl J. The biodiesel handbook. Champaign, Illinois,
USA:AOCS Press; 2005. p. 312.
[56] Sukjit E, Dearn KD, Tsolakis A. Interrogating the surface: the effect of blended
diesel fuels on lubricity. JSAE Paper No. 2119346, SAE 2011-01-1940 (2011);5
(1):154–162.
[57] Demirbas A. Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global
biofuel projections. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49(8):2106–16.
[58] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S, Vilutienė V. Effect of the cetane number improving
additive on combustion, performance, and emissions of a DI diesel engine
operating on JP-8 fuel. J Energy Eng (2015); 141(2):C4014005-1-14. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000.222.
[59] Liu H, Jiang S, Wang J, Yang C, Guo H, Wang X, et al. Fatty acid esters: a
potential cetane number improver for diesel from direct coal liquefaction. Fuel
2015;153(8):78–84.
[60] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S, Kanapkienė I. The individual effects of cetane
number, fuel-oxygen or fuel properties on the ignition delay, combustion
characteristics, and cyclic variation of a turbocharged CRDI diesel engine – Part
1. Energy Convers Manage 2017;148(9):1003–27.
[61] McCormick RL, Graboski MS, Alleman TL, Herring AM, Tyson KS. Impact of
biodiesel source material and chemical structure on emissions of criteria
pollutants from a heavy-duty engine. Environ Sci Technol 2001;35(9):1742–7.
[62] Emberger P, Hebecker D, Pickel P, Remmele E, Thuneke K. Emission behaviour
of vegetable oil fuel compatible tractors fuelled with different pure vegetable
oils. Fuel 2016;167(3):257–70.
465
[63] Stradling R, Gadd P, Singer M, Operti C. The influence of fuel properties and
injection timing on the exhaust emissions and fuel consumption of an Iveco
heavy-duty diesel engine. SAE Paper No. 971636; 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.
4271/971635.
[64] Giakoumis EG, Rakopoulos CD, Dimaratos AM, Rakopoulos DC. Exhaust
emissions with ethanol or n-butanol diesel fuel blends during transient
operation: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;17(1):170–90.
[65] Willard W. Pulkrabek (University of Wisconsin –
Platteville). Engineering
fundamentals of the internal combustion engine. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey 07458:Prentice Hall; 2009. p. 411.
[66] Park SH, Youn IM, Lee CS. Influence of ethanol blends on the combustion
performance and exhaust emission characteristics of a four-cylinder
diesel engine at various engine loads and injection timings. Fuel 2011;90
(2):748–55.
[67] Park SH, Youn IM, Lee CS. Influence of two-stage injection and exhaust gas
recirculation on the emissions reduction in an ethanol-blended diesel-fuelled
four-cylinder diesel engine. Fuel Process Technol 2010;91(11):1753–60.
[68] Zannis TC, Pariotis EG, Hountalas DT, Rakopoulos DC, Levendis YA. Theoretical
study of DI diesel engine performance and pollutant emissions using
comparable air-side and fuel-side oxygen addition. Energy Convers Manage
2007;48(11):2962–70.
[69] Sayin C, Canakci M. Effects of injection timing on the engine performance and
exhaust emissions of a dual-fuel diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage
2009;50(1):203–13.
[70] Alptekin E. Emission, injection and combustion characteristics of biodiesel and
oxygenated fuel blends in a common rail diesel engine. Energy 2017;119
(1):42–52.
[71] Zhu H, Bohac SV, Nakashima K, Hagen LM, Huang Z, Assanis DN. Effect of fuel
oxygen on the trade-offs between soot, NOx, and combustion efficiency in
premixed low-temperature diesel engine combustion. Fuel 2013;112
(10):459–65.
[72] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S. Combustion phenomenon, performance, and
emissions of a diesel engine with aviation turbine JP-8 fuel and rapeseed
biodiesel blends. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105(11):216–29.
[73] Happonen M, Heikkilä J, Murtonen T, Lehto K, Sarjovaara T, Larmi M, et al.
Reductions in particulate and NOx emissions by diesel engine parameter
adjustments with HVO fuel. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46(11):6198–204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es300447.
[74] Qi DH, Yang K, Zhang D, Chen B. Combustion and emission characteristics of
diesel-tung oil-ethanol blended fuels used in a CRDI diesel engine with
different injection strategies. Appl Thermal Eng 2017;111(1):927–35.
[75] Ren Y, Huang Z-H, Jiang D-M, Li W, Liu B, Wang X-B. Effects of the addition of
ethanol and cetane number improver on the combustion and emission
characteristics of a compression ignition engine. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part D:
J Automob Eng. 2008;222:1077–1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1243/
09544070JAUTO516.
[76] Nord AJ, Hwang JT, Northrop WF. Emissions from a diesel engine operating in a
dual-fuel mode using port-fuel injection of heated hydrous ethanol. In: ASME
2015, International combustion engine division fall technical conference,
Paper No. ICEF2015-1067. vol. 1; 2015, p. 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
ICEF2015-1067.
[77] Kumar BR, Saravanan S, Rana D, Nagendran A. Use of some advanced biofuels
for overcoming smoke, NOx trade-off in a light-duty DI diesel engine, Part A.
Renew Energy 2016;96(10):687–99.
[78] Jung S, Ishida M, Yamamoto S, Ueki H, Sakaguchi D. Enhancement of NOx-PM
trade-off in a diesel engine adopting bio-ethanol and EGR. Int J Automot
Technol 2010;11(5):611–6.
[79] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Komninos NP, Kosmadakis GM,
Papagiannakis RG. Comparative evaluation of ethanol, n-butanol, and diethyl
ether effects as biofuel supplements on combustion characteristics, cyclic
variations, and emissions balance in light-duty diesel engine. J Energy Eng
(2017);143(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000399. p.
04016044-1-8.
[80] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S. The effect of rapeseed oil methyl ester on direct
injection Diesel engine performance and exhaust emissions. Energy Convers
Manage 2006;47(13–14):1954–67.
[81] Jeon J, Lee JT, Kwon SI, Park S. Combustion performance, flame, and soot
characteristics of gasoline-diesel pre-blended fuel in an optical compression-
ignition engine. Energy Convers Manage 2016;116(5):174–83.
[82] Lapuerta M, Hernandez JJ, Fernandez-Rodriguez D, Cova-Bonillo A.
Autoignition of blends of n-butanol and ethanol with diesel or biodiesel
fuels in constant-volume combustion chamber. Energy 2017;118(1):613–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.090.
[83] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC. Combustion
heat release analysis of ethanol or n-butanol diesel fuel blends in heavy-duty
DI diesel engine. Fuel 2011;90(5):1855–67.
[84] Karabektas M, Hosoz M. Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel
engine using isobutanol-diesel fuel blends. Renew Energy 2009;34(6):1554–9.
[85] Bezaire N, Wadumesthrige K, Ng KYS, Salley SO. Limitations of the use of
cetane index for alternative compression ignition engine fuels. Fuel 2010;89
(12):3807–13.
[86] Krahl J, Munack A, Bahadir M, Schumacher L, Elser N. Review: utilization of
rapeseed oil, rapeseed oil methyl ester or diesel fuel – exhaust gas emissions
and estimation of environmental effects. In: International fall fuels and
lubricant meeting. San Antonio, TX. SAE Paper No. 962096. Topic in Alternative
Fuels and Their Emissions; 1996.
466 G. Labeckas et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 442–466

[87] Liu S, Shen L, Bi Y, Lei J. Effects of altitude and fuel oxygen content on the
performance of a high pressure common rail diesel engine. Fuel 2014;118
(2):243–9.
[88] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis
EG. Comparative performance and emissions study of a direct injection diesel
engine using blends of diesel fuel with vegetable oils or bio-diesel of various
origins. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47(18–19):3272–87.
[89] Cheng AS, Fisher BT, Martin GC, Mueller CJ. Effects of fuel volatility on early
direct-injection, low-temperature combustion in an optical diesel engine.
Energy Fuels 2010;214(3):1538–51.
[90] Uyumaz A, Solmaz H, Yılmaz E, Yamık H, Polat S. Experimental examination of
the effects of military aviation fuel JP-8 and biodiesel fuel blends on the engine
performance, exhaust emissions and combustion in a direct injection engine.
Fuel Process Technol 2014;128:158–65.