Bioresource Techno/ogy$2 (1995) 237-243

0960-8524(95)00033-X

ELSEVIER

Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain
0960-8524/95/$9.50

OPTIMIZATION OF DIESEL, METHYL T A I L O W A T E A N D

ETHANOL BLEND FOR R E D U C I N G EMISSIONS FROM
DIESEL ENGINE*
Y u s u f Ali, a M i l f o r d A. H a n n a a'b & J o s e p h E. Borg"

aDepattment of Biological Systems Engineering Universityof Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0726, USA

~lndustrialAgricultural Products Center, Universityof Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0726, USA
(Received 19 October 1994; revised version received 27 February 1995; accepted 2 March 1995)

the triglycerides. This process leaves alcohol fattyacid esters, which have a viscosity far less than that
of oils and fats.
The esters of oils and fats can be directly blended
with diesel fuel. The advantage of blending esters
with diesel fuel is reduced emissions. As the EPA
imposes limits on exhaust emissions, these esters
should become increasingly attractive as a cleanerburning fuel. Research on blending alcohol esters of
different types of oils and fats in different ratios with
diesel fuel have been reported. Schumacher et al.
(1993) reported a reduction in carbon monoxide
(CO), hydrocarbons (HC) and smoke with an
increase in soydiesel (methyl esters of soybean oil)
concentration in the blend, whereas oxides of nitrogen (NOx) increased. Schlautman et al. (1986)
conducted a 200 h screening test using a 3:1 (v/v)
blend of unrefined, mechanically expelled, soybean
oil and No. 2 diesel fuel in a direct injection engine.
They had to terminate the screening test after 159 h
because the engine could not hold a constant load
and there was a 670% increase in the viscosity of the
lubricating oil. They further observed abnormal carbon deposits on all combustion chamber parts,
including the injectors. Schlick et al. (1988) evaluated the performance of a direct injection engine
with 1:3 (v/v) blends of soybean oil and sunflower
oil with No. 2 diesel fuel. They reported satisfactory
engine performance as far as power output, thermal
efficiency and lubricating oil data from the Engine
Manufacturer Association (EMA, 1982) screening
test was concerned, but when the general condition
of the combustion chamber and the fuel injectors
was investigated, heavy carbon deposits were discovered. Foseen et al. (1993) used methyl soyate
(from 0-40%) and diesel fuel blends in a transient
mode test of a DDC 6V-92 TA engine and found
that the addition of up to 40% methyl soyate did not
affect peak torque, but there was a small drop in
power at the 40% level of substitution. They reported a reduction in CO, HC and particulate matter

Abstract

A Cummins N14-410 engine was operated on different

fuels produced by blending methyl tallowate and ethanol with No. 2 diesel fuel. Four fuel blends, namely:
neat No. 2 diesel fuel; and 80:13:7, 70:19.5:10.5
and 60:26:14 (% v/v) blends of diesel:methyl tallowate:ethanol, were prepared and tested for engine
performance and emission analyses. Engine performance and emission data were used to optimize the
blend of diesel fuel:methyl tallowate:ethanol for
reducing engine emissions. The emissions were found
to be minimum with a 80:13: 7 blend of diesel:methyl
tallowate : ethanol, without a significant drop in engine
power output.
Key words: Methyl tallowate, biodiesel, ethanol,
Cummins engine, power, torque, fuel consumption,
exhaust emissions.
INTRODUCTION
The use of vegetable oils and animal fats as alternate fuel sources or fuel extenders has been studied
extensively. Much research has been done in the
past two decades on the use of oils and fats from
plant and animal sources as alternative diesel fuel.
The major problem associated with the direct use of
oils is their high viscosity, which interferes with fuel
injection and atomization, which contribute to
incomplete combustion, nozzle coking, engine
deposits, lubricating oil dilution and ring sticking
(Knothe, 1992). The problems caused by high oiland fat-viscosity can be reduced to a certain degree
by transesterification. In the process of transesterification, triglycerides are reacted with an alcohol for
1 h at 75-80"C in the presence of NaOH or
NaHCO3 catalyst, which removes the glycerol from
*Journal Series Number 10947 of the University of
Nebraska Agricultural Research Division.
237

238

Y Ali, M. A. Hanna, J. E. Borg

and an increase in NOx emissions. They recommended use of 20% methyl soyate blend with diesel fuel.
The purpose of this investigation was to optimize
the blend of No. 2 diesel fuel, methyl tallowate and
ethanol to reduce emissions without significantly
affecting engine performance.
METHODS
Engine and instrumentation
A Cummins N14-410 diesel engine was used in this
study. Specifications of the engine are presented in
Table 1.
The engine was coupled to an Eaton 522 kW (700
hp) dynamatic, eddy-current, dry gap dynamometer
(EATON Power Transmission Systems, Eaton
Corp., Kenosha, WI) with a DANA 1810 coupler.
Engine torque was measured with a load cell and a
Daytronic system 10 integrator (Daytronic Corp.,
Miamisburg, OH) and speed was measured using a
60-tooth sprocket and magnetic pick-up attached to
the dynamometer. Fuel consumption was measured
with an EM Corp. (Lincoln, NE) custom-built massmeasurement system, in which fuel weight was
measured over an operator-selected time period. Air
flow into the engine was measured with a Badger
BVT-IF venturi flow meter (Badger Meter, Inc.,
Tulsa, OK). The air flow meter was positioned in a
0"15 m diameter, 5.2 m long pipe with a surge tank
between the meter and the engine. A throttle valve
was used at the inlet of the surge tank to control
engine inlet pressure. The exhaust system consisted
of a 2-1 m length of 0.13 m diameter exhaust tubing
leading into a 0.25 m diameter duct to the outside
air. A centrifugal fan provided exhaust ventilation. A
throttle valve was positioned in the exhaust tubing to
control exhaust back pressure.
Temperatures of the exhaust of each cylinder, fuel
and coolant going into and out of the engine, and
crank-case oil, were measured using thermocouples
and a Daytronic System 10 coupled with an AutoNet
data-acquisition system. Pressures were measured
with analog gauges and manometers (H20 and Hg)
calibrated with a dead-weight tester.
Exhaust emission analyses were performed using
different analyzers for each of the exhaust gases.

Table 1. Engine specifications

Specifications

Cummins N14-410 engine

Type of engine
Horsepower (Rated)
Bore x stroke
Displacement
Compression ratio
Valves per cylinder
Aspiration
Turbocharger

6 cylinder, 4-stroke, direct injection

410
140 mm x 152 mm
14 liters
16.3:1
4
Turbocharged & charge air cooler
Holsett type BHT 3B

Oxides of nitrogen (NO/NO2) were measured with a

Beckman model 955 chemiluminescent analyzer
(Beckman Industrial Corp., La Habra, CA). Hydrocarbons were measured with a total HC analyzer,
model JUM VE7 flame-ionization detector (J.U.M.
Engineering, Karlsfeld, Germany), designed to continuously measure the concentration of total organic
HC in gaseous samples. Carbon monoxide and CO2
were measured with two Beckman non-dispersive
infrared analyzers, model 880-A (Rosemount Analytical, Inc., La Habra, CA). Oxygen was measured
with a paramagnetic oxygen analyzer, model 755R
(Rosemount Analytical, Inc., La Habra, CA). The
determination of O2 was based on the measurement
of the magnetic susceptibility of the sample gas.
Oxygen is strongly paramagnetic, while most other
common gases are weakly diamagnetic. Smoke units
were measured with a Bosch EFAW 65-A smoke
probe (Robert Bosch GMBH, Stuttgart, Germany).
Fuels
The following test fuels were used in this study:

1. 100% No. 2 diesel fuel (baseline).

2. 80% No. 2 diesel fuel, 13% methyl tallowate
and 7% ethanol.
3. 70% No. 2 diesel fuel, 19.5% methyl tallowate
and 10-5% ethanol.
4. 60% No. 2 diesel fuel, 26% methyl tallowate
and 14% ethanol.
The above blends were selected on the basis that
Ali et al. (1995) reported that engine performance
was not significantly affected by diesel:methyl soyate
blends up to a ratio of 70:30. Therefore, blends
10% above and 10% below that level were used in
this study. A high sulfur (0.24%) No. 2 diesel fuel
was used. Methyl tallowate was procured from Interchem Environmental, Inc. of Overland Park, KS.
Methyl tallowate was blended with ethanol in a
65:35 (v/v) ratio to reduce its viscosity, as suggested
by Ali and Hanna (1994a). The mixture of methyl
tallowate and ethanol was blended with No. 2 diesel
fuel in ratios as presented above. Physical properties
of methyl tallowate, ethanol and diesel fuel were
determined and reported (Ali & Hanna, 1994b).
Test runs and performance maps
Engine testing on the above fuels was performed at
speeds ranging from 1100 to 1900 rpm; at full load
using standard method SAE J1349 (SALE, 1993a);
and emissions characteristics were determined using
SAE J1312 standard, eight-mode, steady-state,
engine testing code (SAE, 1993b). Table 2 presents
the speeds and loads used for different tests. The
testing was done in the Nebraska Power Laboratory
at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The sequence
of fuels used was completely randomized. Standard
performance and exhaust emission data were recorded and each test run replicated twice.

Fuel blend to reduce diesel engine emissions

239

Table 2. Engine speeds and loads used for each fuel

blend
Engine performance

Exhaust emission analysis

Engine speed,
rpm

Load,%

Engine speed,
rpm

Load,%

1100
1200
1400
1600
1800
1900

100
100
100
100
100
100

1800
1800
1800
1800
1200
1200
1200
Idle

100
75
50
10
100
75
50
0
Fig. 1. Effects of engine speed and fuel blends on corrected power output.

Testing procedure
The engine was warmed-up at low idle long enough
to establish correct oil pressure and was checked for
any fuel, oil, water and air leaks. The speed was
then increased to 1600 rpm and a sufficient load was
applied to raise the coolant temperature to 71C.
After completion of a standard warm-up procedure,
the intake and exhaust restrictions were set at rated
engine speed (1800 rpm) and fall power and from
then on were not adjusted for different speeds or
loads after initial settings were completed.
The engine was run at the specific speeds and
loads for a minimum of 6 min and data were recorded during the last 2 min of operation. The response
variables included power, torque, brake specific fuel
consumption (BSFC), BSHC, BSCO, BSCO2,
BSNOx, BSO2 and brake specific smoke. These data
were recorded at 5 s intervals for 2 min and averaged over that period. After completion of one set
of experiments with four fuels the whole set was
replicated.
Optimization of fuel blends
Engine performance, corrected to SAE conditions,
and emissions analyses were conducted for each fuel
blend as described above. Statistical analyses for the
response of the engine with different fuel blends
were performed to determine the trends of the
response variables. The response variables considered were engine power output, torque, BSFC,
BSCO, BSCO2, BSHC, BSNOx, BSO2 and smoke.
The optimization was based on maximizing power
output and minimizing engine emissions. Response
surfaces for power, torque and BSFC and response
curves for emission characteristics using standard,
eight-mode, steady-state tests were plotted.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A blend of ethanol and methyl tallowate was optimized to reduce the viscosity of methyl tallowate by
Ali and Hanna (1994a). They recommended a blend
of 65:35 methyl tallowate and ethanol, respectively,
to have a viscosity similar to No. 2 diesel fuel at

40C. The same blend of methyl tallowate and ethanol was used in this study. The viscosities of
80:13: 7, 70:19.5:10.5 and 60: 26:14 diesel: methyl
tallowate:ethanol blends were found to be 1"98, 1.97
and 2.01 mPa-s, respectively, at 40C as compared to
2.07 mPa-s for No. 2 diesel fuel at the same temperature. The calculated cetane index of methyl
tallowate was found to be 57"78, which reduced to
around 50 when blended with ethanol and diesel
fuel in different ratios. The calculated cetane index
of No. 2 diesel fuel was also found to be 50. Energy
content per unit mass of the diesel fuel was 45.51 kJ/
g, whereas that of methyl tallowate: ethanol (65 : 35)
blend was 36"16 kJ/g. The energy content of the
blends of diesel: methyl taUowate: ethanol reduced
proportionately as the percentage of methyl tallowate and ethanol increased in the blend.
Engine performance
The engine power outputs corrected to the SAE
standard J1349 (1992) at full load for all four test
fuels and six speeds are shown in Fig. 1. Statistical
analyses performed to find the effects of engine
speeds and fuel blends on power output showed that
the fuel blends had a significant linear effect
( F = 20"68, P r > F = 0.0001), whereas engine speed
had a significant fourth order polynomial effect
(F = 15.21, Pr>F = 0.0004). No interaction between
engine speed and fuel blend was observed. The
regression model for the power output, in the range
of 1100-1900, was
P = - 6505.96 + 18.66S- 0.0196S 2 + 0.91 x 10-6S3
-1"617 x 10-9S4 + 0"3365D

(R 2 = 0"94)

where P = p o w e r output (kW); S = engine speed

(rpm); and D = diesel content in the fuel blend (%).
The engine power output at the rated speed of
1800 rpm was compared for each fuel blend. A linear drop in power output was observed when the
methyl tallowate :ethanol blend was increased. The
rate of reduction in power was 1-1% with every 10%

240

Y Ali, M. A. Hanna, Z E. Borg

increase in methyl tallowate:ethanol blend. The

engine power output with No. 2 diesel fuel was 305.4
kW, which reduced to 298-7 kW with the 80:13:7
blend of diesel:methyl tallowate:ethanol and to
295.3 kW with the 70:19.5:10.5 blend. The reduction in power output with an increase in methyl
tallowate:ethanol was expected as this blend had
20% less energy content than diesel fuel.
The response surface for torque produced by the
engine at full load for four fuel blends and six
engine speeds is shown in Fig. 2. once again statistical analyses performed to find effects of fuel blends
and engine speeds on torque showed that there was
a significant linear effect (F = 19-32, P r > F = 0.0001)
of fuel blends and a significant fourth order polynomial effect (F = 9"29, P r > F = 0-0041) of engine
speed. There was no interaction between engine
speed and fuel blend. This trend was expected as the
engine power output is dependent upon torque produced by the engine at a particular speed. The
regression model for torque was
T --- -33875 + 100.19S- 0.104457S 2
+4"8151

x 1 0 - 5 S 3 -8"3282 x 1 0 - 9 S 4 +

2"1414D

(R 2 = 0"9702)
where T = torque (Nm); S = engine speed (rpm);
and D = diesel content in fuel blend (%).
Maximum torque was produced at an engine
speed of 1200 rpm. At this speed there was a linear
drop in torque with an increase in the methyl talloware:ethanol content in the fuel blend. As in the
case of power output, the torque produced by the
engine also reduced by 1.03% each time, with a 10%
increase in the methyl tallowate:ethanol blend in
the fuel. The maximum torque of 2085 Nm was produced at 1200 rpm with No. 2 diesel fuel, which
dropped by 21.4 Nm each time another 10% of diesel was replaced with the methyl taUowate and
ethanol blend.
The BSFCs at full load for all fuel blends and
speeds are shown in Fig. 3. Statistical analyses

Fig. 2. Effects of engine speed and fuel blends on corrected torque.

showed that there was no interaction between

engine speeds and fuel blends but there was a significant linear effect ( F = 34.45, P r > F = 0-0001) of
fuel blends and significant quadratic effect
(F-'27.21, P r > F = 0 . 0 0 0 1 ) of engine speed on
BSFC. The engine performance curves for power
output, torque and BSFC were the same as recommended by the Cummins Engine Co., Inc. for the
N14-410 diesel engine (Anon, 1991). The regression
model for BSFC was
BSFC = 442.57-0.2941S + 1.09 10-4S2-0.508D
(R 2 = 0"72)
where BSFC = brake specific fuel consumption (g/
kW-h); S = engine speed (rpm); and D = diesel
content in fuel blend (%).
The BSFC at any speed was minimum with No. 2
diesel fuel and it increased linearly with an increase
in the methyl tallowate:ethanol content in the
blend. The rate of increase in fuel consumption was
2-37% for each 10% increase in methyl tallowate:
ethanol content. At rated speed the BSFC with
100% diesel fuel was 215.4 g/kW-h, which increased
to 225.5 g/kW-h with the 80:13:7 blend of diesel:
methyl tallowate:ethanol. When the fuel consumption of the engine was considered on the basis of
energy supplied per kW-h, it was observed that a
total of 9805 kJ/kW-h energy were supplied with No.
2 diesel, whereas only 9536 kJ/kW-h were supplied
with a blend of 80:13: 7 diesel: methyl tallowate:
ethanol. That once again showed that there was a
drop of about 1.3% energy available for each 10%
increase in methyl tallowate:ethanol blend per kWh and thus a drop of power by 1-1% for the
respective blend was justified.
Emission analysis
The brake specific emissions for all test fuels are
shown in Figs 4-6. The BSCO, BSCO2, BSO2,
BSHC, BSNOx and smoke emissions were measured
using the standard, eight-mode, steady-state, engine
testing code SAE J1312.

Fig. 3. Effects of engine speed and fuel blends on brake

specific fuel consumption.

Fuel blend to reduce diesel engine emissions

10

0o5

10

)8

COa

241
1

O.8
0

O.g

"i

o
o

CO

0.75
o

0.7
I
I
I
I
50:32.5:1"L5 (10:28:14 70:19.5:100 80:15:7
00:60:3.5 100:0:0
DlelOI Fuel : Methyl Tallowato : Ethanol Blend

S0:320:17.5

0.7

14
| .......

-e .......

O~
.e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12
10

.!

OO

"9.

o"

"I" O.4
4

0.3
0.2

2
t

79:10.5:10.5 80:13:7

110:8.11:3.5 1000.'0

D l u e l Fuel : Methyl T I I I o w I l ~ : Ethanol Blend

Fig. 4. Effects of diesel fuel: methyl taUowate:ethanol

blends on brake specific CO and C02 emissions.
0.8

00".,28:14

S0:323:170 (10:26:14 "/0:19.S:10.5 80:13:7

90:6.5:3.5 100:0:0
D l e l e l Fuel : Methyl T a l l o w a N : Ethanol Blend

Fig. 5. Effects of diesel fuel:methyl tallowate: ethanol

blend on brake specific O2 and HC emissions.

Variations in BSCO and BSCO2 emissions for different fuel blends and eight-mode tests are shown in
Fig. 4. Regression analyses performed for the effect
of fuel blends on BSCO emissions showed that there
was a significant quadratic trend (F -- 9.86,
Pr>F=0.0184). The regression model for BSCO
emissions as a function of fuel blend was
BSCO = 1.0724-0.011144D + 9.3 x 10-5D2
(R 2 = 0.7977)
where BSCO = brake specific CO emissions (g/kWh) and D = diesel content in the fuel blend (%).
It was observed that BSCO emissions decreased
with an increase in methyl tallowate:ethanol blend
in the fuel. Maximum BSCO emissions of 0.8875 g/
kW-h were observed with No. 2 diesel, which was
well below the upper limit of 11.4 g/kW-h set by the
EPA (Brezonick, 1994).
The BSCO2emissions did not have any significant
trend with the fuel blends used in this study. Statistical analyses performed for BSCO2 emissions
showed that the slope of the regression line was
almost zero. It was concluded that BSCO2 emissions
do not depend on the fuel blend. In such a case the

Fig. 6. Effects of diesel fuel: methyl tallowate: ethanol

blend on NOx and smoke emissions.
mean value of the dependent variable, i.e. BSCO2,
was used to interpret the results. The mean BSCO2
emission was 7-04 g/kW-h.
Variations in BSO: and BSHC emissions with different fuel blends and the eight-mode test are shown
in Fig. 5. Once again, BSO2 emissions with different
fuel blends did not show a statistically significant
trend. Statistical analyses, in this case, also showed
that the slope of the regression line was almost zero
and the mean value of BSO2 emissions was used to
interpret the results. The mean BSO2 emission was
12-42 g/kW-h, within the range of the fuel blends
used.
Regression analyses performed for the effect of
fuel blends on BSHC emissions showed a significant
quadratic effect (F = 207.3, P r > F = 0-0001). The
regression model for variation in BSHC emissions
with fuel blends was
BSHC = 6.288- 0.154D + 9.74 x 10-4D 2
(R E = 0.9881)
where BSHC = brake specific HC emissions (g/kWh) and D = diesel content in the fuel blend (%).
A significant reduction in BSHC emissions was
observed when diesel was blended with methyl tallowate and ethanol in the ratio of 80:13:7 percent,
respectively. The BSHC emission with this blend was
0.28 g/kW-h, as compared to 0.6 g/kW-h with No. 2
diesel fuel and 0.7 g/kW-h with a 60:26:14 blend of
diesel: methyl tallowate: ethanol. The recommended
amount of BSHC emissions by the EPA was 1.3 g/
kW-h (Brezonick, 1994) for 130 kW and larger
engines. All et al. (1995) also observed a decrease in
the BSHC emissions with an increase in the methyl
soyate content, up to 20%, in the fuel blends with a
Cummins NTA-855-C engine. They reported an
increase in BSHC emissions produced by methyl
soyate blends of 20% or more because of the leaning effect coupled with the undermixing of air and
fuel.
The effects of fuel blends on BSNOx emissions
and smoke in the eight-mode test are shown in Fig.

Y Ali, M. A. Hanna, J. E. Borg

242

6. A regression analysis performed on BSNOx emissions data did not show a statistically significant
trend. The mean value of the BSNOx emissions was
used to interpret the results. The mean BSNOx
emission was 6.33 g/kW-h, as compared to the allowable 9.2 g/kW-h set by the EPA (Brezonick, 1994)
for a diesel engine of 130 kW size or more.
Bosch smoke units are an indication of particulate
and soot formation in the exhaust of an engine.
Particulates contain primarily carbon particles and
some unburned HCs. The observed smoke readings,
in Bosch smoke units, were converted into soot concentrations (mg/m3) at 15C and 760 mm Hg using
conversion chart SAE J255a (SAE, 1994) and then
converted to soot and particulates (g/kW-h) for the
eight-mode test. The trend of smoke emissions with
fuel blends is shown in Fig. 6. A regression analysis
performed on smoke emissions data showed a significant linear effect (F = 453.06, P r > F = 0.0001) of
fuel blend. The regression model describing the
trend of smoke with fuel blend was
BSS = 0.605- 0.00365D

(R 2 = 0.9971)

where BSS = brake specific smoke (g/kW-h) and

D = diesel content in the fuel blend (%).
A minimum brake specific smoke emission of 0-24
g/kW-h was observed with No. 2 diesel fuel, which
increased linearly with an increase in the methyl
tallowate:ethanol content of the blend. With the
reductions in BSHC and BSCO emissions with the
80:13: 7 blend of diesel: methyl tallowate: ethanol,
the smoke units should also decrease. From the
experimental data the trend of visible smoke with
different blends increased. It was suggested that a
better method for smoke analysis is needed.
Although more smoke was produced with the
80:13:7 blend, as compared to 100% diesel or
70:19.5:10-5 blends, all values of smoke emissions
were less than the limit of 0.54 g/kW-h set by the
EPA (Brezonick, 1994).

Optimization of fuel blend

The fuel blend was optimized on the basis of engine
performance and emissions characteristics. The
engine performance analyses showed that power
output, torque and fuel consumption were affected
only slightly by the presence of the methyl tallowate:ethanol blend. The engine tested was tuned to
operate on diesel fuel and not on alternative fuels
used. Therefore, for optimization of the fuel blend,
more emphasis was given to emissions characteristics. The most important factors considered in
emissions were BSHC, BSCO, BSNOx and smoke, as
suggested by the EPA.
From a regression model it was observed that
minimum BSHC emissions were observed with an
80:13: 7 diesel: methyl tallowate: ethanol blend. As
the diesel content in the blend was increased or
decreased there was a significant increase in BSHC
emission. From the regression model for BSCO

emission, when the diesel content in the blend was

decreased from 100 to 80% there was a 12.6%
reduction in BSCO emissions. A further reduction in
diesel content reduced BSCO emissions by only
3.17%. Statistically, there was no significant change
in BSNOx emissions when the diesel content in the
blend was decreased from 100 to 60%. The BSNOx
emissions were always less than the EPA's suggested
value of 9.2 g/kW-h. The trend of visible smoke was
inconclusive but smoke produced by the engine was
less than the EPA's regulation of 0.54 g/kW-h.
On the basis of engine emissions characteristics it
can be concluded that a blend of 80:13: 7 minimized
the emissions. At this blend there was a drop in
power output of 2.2% and a drop in torque of 2.1%.
The BSFC increased by 4.74%, which was expected
as the blend of 80:13:7 diesel methyl tallowate:
ethanol had 7% less energy than No. 2 diesel fuel.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Engine performance with a methyl tallowate:
ethanol:diesel fuel blend was not affected to a
great extent from that of diesel-fueled engine
performance. There was a 1.1% power reduction and a 1.03% torque reduction for each
10% replacement of diesel fuel with methyl tallowate: ethanol blend.
2. Brake specific fuel consumption was increased
by 2"37% for each 10% increase in the methyl
tallowate: ethanol blend in the fuel.
3. There was a significant reduction in BSCO
emission with an increase in the methyl
tallowate:ethanol content in the fuel blend.
The BSCO emission was always less than the
limit set by the EPA. There was no change in
BSCO2 emissions.
4. The BSHC emissions had a significant quadratic trend with fuel blend. Minimum BSHC
emissions were observed with the 80:13:7 diesel: methyl tallowate: ethanol blend.
5. The BSO2 emissions did not change with an
increase in methyl tallowate:ethanol content in
the blend.
6. There was no change in BSNOx emissions with
an increasing methyl tallowate:ethanol content
in the blends. The BSNOx emissions remained
statistically the same for all the fuel blends
used in this study and were always less than the
EPA's limit of 9.2 g/kW-h.
7. Smoke emissions increased linearly with an
increase in the methyl tallowate: ethanol content of the blends.
8. A blend of 80:13 : 7 diesel: methyl tallowate:
ethanol should be used to minimize emissions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Kevin G. Johnson, Lab Technician,

Fuel blend to reduce diesel engine emissions

Nebraska
Power
Laboratory,
University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, for engine operation and data
collection and analysis; and Dr Louis Leviticus, Professor of Biological Systems Engineering and
engineer in charge of Test and Development,
Nebraska
Power
Laboratory,
University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, for making the power-testing laboratory available.

REFERENCES

Ali, Y. & Hanna, M. A. (1994a). Physical properties of

tallow ester and diesel fuel blends. Biores. Technol., 47,
131-4.
Ali, Y. & Hanna, M. A. (1994b). Performance and emission characteristics of tallow ester, ethanol and diesel
fuel blends in Cummins N14-410 diesel engine. Bioenergy '94 using biofuels for a better environment. Proc.
6th National Bioenergy Conf., Reno/Sparks, Nevada, 2-6
October 1994, pp. 3-10.
Ali, Y., Hanna, M. A. & Leviticus, L. I. (1995). Emissions
and power characteristics of diesel engine on methyl
soyate and diesel fuel blends. Biores. Technol.,
(accepted).
Anon (1991). Automotive performance curve. Technical
Data Department. Cummins Engine Co., Inc. Columbus, IN.
Brezonick, M. (1994). Harmony! EPA unveils off-road
rules. Diesel Progress Engines and Drives, pp. 10-14.
EMA. (1982). A 200-hour screening test for alternative
fuels. Energy News. Northern Agricultural Energy
Center, Peoria, IL 61064.

243

Foseen, D., Manicom, B., Green, C. & Goetz, W. (1993).

Methyl soyate evaluation of various diesel blends in a
DDC 6V-92 TA engine. Forseen Manufacturing and
Development, Radcliffe, IA. (Report prepared for
National Soydiesel Development Board, Jefferson City,
MO.)
Knothe, G., Bagby, M. O., Ryan, T. W. III, Callahan, T. J.
& Wheeler, H. G. (1992). Vegetable oils as alternative
diesel fuels: degradation of pure triglycerides during the
precombustion phase in a reactor simulating a diesel
engine. SAE Technical Paper Series 920194. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA.
SALE. (1993a). SAE J1349. Engine power test code - spark ignition and compression ignition engines - - net
power rating. In SAE Handbook of Engines, Fuels,
Lubricants, Emissions, and Noise. Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, pp. 24.16-21.
SAE. (1993b). SAE J1312. Procedure for mapping engine
performance - - spark ignition and compression ignition
engines. In SAE Handbook of Engines, Fuels, Lubricants,
Emissions, and Noise. Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., Warrendale, PA, p. 26.22.
SAE. (1994). SAE J255a. Diesel engine smoke measurement. In SAE Handbook of Engines, Fuels, Lubricants,
Emissions, and Noise. Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., Warrendale, PA, pp. 13.56-63.
Schlautman, N. J., Schinstock, J. L. & Hanna, M. A.
(1986). Unrefined expelled soybean oil performance in a
diesel engine. Trans. ASAE, 29, 70-3.
Schlick, M. L., Hanna, M. A. & Schinstock, J. L. (1988).
Soybean and sunflower oil performance in a diesel
engine. Trans. ASAE, 31, 1345-9.
Schumacher, L. G., Borgelt, S. C. & Hires, W. G. (1993).
Soydiesel/petroleum blend research. ASAE Paper
#936523. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St Joseph, MI.