1. Jordan Purvis Ryan Saunders Sam Slaten Nicholas Ryan Walker Daniel Yacobucci Advisor: Dr. Dan Olsen John Deere: Curtis Stovall John Deere SVO Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory

2. Outline: Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Constraints and Criteria Why SVO? Fuels Characteristics Fuel System Layout Baseline Testing Performance Emissions Fuel Consumption Fuel Switching Transients Fuel Temperature Effects Consumption Peak Pressure Timing Sweeps Final Data Review Consumption Emissions FTIR Fuel System Layout Summary

3. Outline: Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Constraints and Criteria Why SVO? Fuels Characteristics Variances Fuel System Layout Baseline Testing Performance Emissions Fuel Consumption Fuel Switching Transients Fuel Temperature Effects Consumption Peak Pressure Timing Sweeps Final Data Review Consumption Emissions FTIR Fuel System Layout Summary

4. Problem Statement: “Evaluate the performance and emissions characteristics of a John Deere, common rail, CI engine while operating on straight vegetable oil.” Fuel System Redesign. 8-Mode Emissions & Baseline Performance. Injection Timing Probe. Timing Sweeps. Final 8-Mode Emissions & Performance Testing. Project Tasks:

5. Constraints: 1.Testing conforms to ISO 8178 8-Mode standards. 2.Engine must switch between diesel and SVO operations while preventing cross-contamination. 3.Analysis must be completed before E-days and Waterloo trip. 4.Do not destroy the engine. Criteria: Prioritized by weight from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest). 5.Find max torque of engine while running SVO. 4.Investigate fuel rail pressure effects on engine performance. 3.Investigate timing effects on engine performance. 2.Evaluate possible modifications to combined (diesel & SVO) fuel system. 1.Investigate potential fuel blends/additives for performance enhancement.

6. Why SVO? Renewable fuel source. Users of John Deere equipment are able to produce own SVO to offset diesel fuel consumption. Minimal processing. Minimal energy input. Some varieties can be grown in arid climate requiring minimal irrigation. Lends itself well for combustion in compression ignition engines.

7. Outline: Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Why SVO? Fuels Characteristics Variances Fuel System Layout Baseline Testing Performance Emissions Fuel Consumption Fuel Switching Transients Fuel Temperature Effects Consumption Peak Pressure Timing Sweeps Final Data Review Consumption Emissions FTIR Fuel System Layout Summary

8. Types of fuels used: Red-dyed #2 Diesel Clear Valley 75 Canola Oil - 110 gallons donated by Cargill - 75% Oleic acid with 1500 ppm TBHQ antioxidant

9. Fuel Characteristics: Profile for SVO: Clear Valley 75; Cargill Carbon # : Double bondsCarbon # : Double bonds % Composition Molecular Formula # HydrogenName Molar Mass [g/mol] Density [g/cm 3 ] Melting Point [°C] Boiling Point [°C] C14:01400.0601 C 14 H 28 O 2 28Myristic acid228.370920.862254.4250.5 C16:01603.3809 C 16 H 32 O 2 32Palmitic acid256.420.85362.9351.5 C16:11610.2723 C 16 H 30 O 2 30Palmitoleic acid254.4080.894-0.1 C18:01802.0349 C 18 H 36 O 2 36Stearic acid284.480.84769.6383 C18:118177.6842 C 18 H 34 O 2 34Oleic acid282.46140.89513.5360 C18:21829.5647 C 18 H 32 O 2 32Linoleic acid280.450.9-5229 C18:31833.0469 C 18 H 30 O 2 30α-Linolenic278.43 -11230 C20:02001.2019 C 20 H 40 O 2 40Arachidic acid312.53040.82475.5328 C20:12011.3925 C 20 H 38 O 2 38Eicosenoic acid31.510.88323.5 C20:22020.5494 C 20 H 36 O 2 36Eicosadienoic acid308.5 C22:02200.4086 C 22 H 44 O 2 44Behenic acid340.54 80306 C22:12210.0325 C 22 H 42 O 2 42Erucic acid338.570.8633.8381.5 C24:02400.2333 C 24 H 48 O 2 48Lignoceric acid368.63 84.2 C24:12410.1379 C 24 H 46 O 2 46Nervonic acid366.32 42.5 Total Sats: 7.3197 Sum: 100.0001 *Cargill Confidential Information

10. Fuel Characteristics:

11. FuelDieselSVO (Canola) Density [kg/l] 0.860.92 LHV [kJ/kg]4250037000 FormulaC 12.3 H 22.2 C 57.08 H 109.63 O 2 Fuel Characteristics:

12. SVO vs. Diesel Variance 1: Viscosity:

13. SVO vs. Diesel Variance 2: Heating Value:

14. Research Fuel System Layout:

15. Outline: Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Constraints and criteria Why SVO? Fuels Characteristics Variances Fuel System Layout Baseline Testing Performance Emissions Fuel Consumption Fuel Switching Transients Fuel Temperature Effects Consumption Peak Pressure Timing Sweeps Final Data Review Consumption Emissions FTIR Fuel System Layout Summary

16. Baseline Testing:

17. Performance: 4% difference 3% difference 11% difference 15% Air Density Difference Diesel Performance Curves

18. Performance:

20. Pollutant Emissions:

21. Particulate Emissions:

22. Fuel Consumption:

23. Outline: Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Constraints and criteria Why SVO? Fuels Characteristics Variances Fuel System Layout Baseline Testing Performance Emissions Fuel Consumption Fuel Switching Transients Fuel Temperature Effects Consumption Peak Pressure Timing Sweeps Final Data Review Consumption Emissions FTIR Fuel System Layout Summary

24. Transient Behavior:

26. Power and torque curves followed the expected trends in transitioning between the fuels. The torque and power decreased when transitioning from diesel to SVO, and increased when transitioning from SVO to diesel. This is expected because of a lower LHV for SVO. Both transitions were recorded at 2400RPM, 50% load (Mode 3). Fuel consumption is difficult to measure during transition because of the varying fuel density.

27. Outline: Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Constraints and criteria Why SVO? Fuels Characteristics Variances Fuel System Layout Baseline Testing Performance Emissions Fuel Consumption Fuel Switching Transients Fuel Temperature Effects Consumption Peak Pressure Timing Sweeps Final Data Review Consumption Emissions FTIR Fuel System Layout Summary

28. Fuel Temperature vs. Fuel Consumption: Viscosity vs. Temperature

29. Fuel Temperature vs. Emissions: With the higher temperature SVO there was a slight reduction in NOx and a slight increase with CO.

30. Fuel Temperature vs. Emissions: Again we see a trend at higher temperatures of a slight reduction in NOx and a slight increase in CO. This can be better explained when looking at the peak pressure in cylinder.

31. Fuel Temperature vs. Peak Pressure: The peak pressure was seen earlier in the combustion cycle with the increased temperature SVO. This advance causes higher cylinder temperatures and more complete combustion which explains fluctuation in emissions.

32. Outline: Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Constraints and criteria Why SVO? Fuels Characteristics Variances Fuel System Layout Baseline Testing Performance Emissions Fuel Consumption Fuel Switching Transients Fuel Temperature Effects Consumption Peak Pressure Timing Sweeps Final Data Review Consumption Emissions FTIR Fuel System Layout Summary

33. Timing Adjustment: Engine Speed(RPM) Desired Fuel(mg/stroke) 070080090010001100120013001350145015001600170018001900200021002250 23502450 2500 08888887.77.47.256.956.86.5 127.66 888887.77776.886.56.536.5 247.33 7.5766666666666666 66 6.5 3677765554.5444.24.34.44.54.594.74.85 55 5.5 487764.53.7 3.33222.533.253.433.523.563.594 4.2 4.34 606.59 5.543.3 2.51.50.5 1.51.661.591.71.81.922.09 2.2 2.7 726.2 532.8 2.091001.271.661.71.81.922.092.5 33 3.4 845.8 42.52.32.0921001.1622.272.42.522.753.363.45 3.8 4.3 965.8 31.81.591.51.31001.162.032.7633.253.53.84 4.8 5.2 1084.9 21.591.41.31.21001.132.073.333.383.464.0256 77 7.2 1204421.51.31.2 0.2 1.092.113.3444.454.775.56.2 77 7.2 1324421.51.31.21.09 0.3 1.062.153.3844.45.155.56.33 6.8 7.15 1444421.51.31.21.09 0.3 1.062.153.3844.45.155.56.33 6.8 7.03 1564421.51.31.21.09 0.5 1.062.153.3844.45.155.56.33 6.8 6.91 Timing Sweep tested from 10°bTDC to -5°bTDC Timing Sweep tested at 2400RPM; 10% Load, and 50% Load.

34. Emissions Comparisons, Stock Calibration:

36. Timing vs. Emissions:

38. Timing vs. Fuel Consumption:

39. As shown in plots above a timing shift of 3 degrees advance shows the best balance of fuel consumptions and emissions improvements.

40. Outline: Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Constraints and criteria Why SVO? Fuels Characteristics Variances Fuel System Layout Baseline Testing Performance Emissions Fuel Consumption Fuel Switching Transients Fuel Temperature Effects Consumption Peak Pressure Timing Sweeps Final Data Review Consumption Emissions FTIR Fuel System Layout Summary

41. Final Fuel Consumption: Timing changes contribute to a significant reduction in fuel consumption: 7% decrease for Mode 3 (2400rpm, 50% Torque). 8% decrease for Mode 5 (2400rpm, 10% Torque).

42. Final Emissions Data: Timing changes contribute to a significant reduction in regulated emissions: 24% reduction in CO emissions. 11% reduction in NOx emissions. 18% reduction in THC emissions. 9% reduction in PM emissions. SVO as fuel

43. Final Emissions Data: Timing changes contribute to a significant reduction in regulated emissions: 7% reduction in PM emissions. (reduced from 0.06775 to 0.06286 g/bkWhr)

44. Final Emissions Data:

45. FTIR Data: Above are the emissions (in ppm) of aldehydes across various modes. Currently the EPA does not regulate these emissions for diesel engines (only natural gas engines) yet the trend in Europe may speak of things to come. Mode 2: 2400rpm, 75% Torque Mode 5: 2400rpm, 10% Torque Mode 6: 1700rpm, 100% Torque

46. Practical Fuel System Layout:

47. Summary: Injection Timing: Engine Performance: Maximum engine torque and power are approximately 3-4% lower at 5000 ft above sea level when compared to John Deere provided specifications. Under high load conditions, SVO is an advantageous alternative fuel to diesel, while at lower loads, diesel is the preferred fuel. After timing sweeps, it was found that 3 degrees advanced injection timing improves emissions and fuel consumption on SVO. SVO Temperature: Preheating SVO is advantageous for system performance. At room temperature (23°C), engine is unable to maintain load and surges or stalls at idle. At intermediate temperature (57-60°C) engine performs normally with increased fuel consumption vs high temperature fuel. At high temperature (75-78°C) engine performs normally with decreased fuel consumption and slight reduction in emissions vs intermediate fuel temperature.

48. Acknowledgements: Dr. Daniel Olsen (Project Advisor) Kirk Evans (EECL Lab Manager) Phil Bacon (EECL Research Engineer) Cory Kreutzer (EECL Research Engineer) Syndi Nettles-Anderson (MECH486 TA) Daren Coonrod (Cargill Oils) Chase Crouch (Colorado Equipment)

49. Questions?