Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Proceedings
of the
Combustion
Institute
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 2949–2956
www.elsevier.com/locate/proci

Emissions optimization of a biodiesel fired gas turbine

C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell *
UCI Combustion Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California,
323 East Peltason Drive, Irvine, CA 92697-3550, USA

Abstract

This study investigates the operation of a 30 kW gas turbine engine operated on biodiesel. Atomiza-
tion, vaporization, combustion, and emissions are compared for operation of the gas turbine on bio-
diesel and, as a reference, diesel fuel distillate #2. The role of liquid properties on fuel preparation and
subsequent engine performance, injector operation on the resulting droplet sizes, and fuel vaporization
characteristics are examined. Results show that while compositionally simple, biodiesel’s fluid properties
result in inferior atomization, longer evaporation times compared to diesel. Theoretical and experimen-
tal findings indicate that optimizing the fuel injection process will improve NOx emissions for biodiesel.
The minimum emission levels achieved for biodiesel still exceed the minimum attained for diesel. It is
apparent that factors in addition to atomization contribute to the generally higher NOx emissions
observed for biodiesel.
Ó 2009 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gas turbine; Biodiesel; Emissions; Atomization; Liquid fuel

1. Introduction load applications. Fuel stability still remains an

This study investigates the use of soybean oil
derivative methyl ester (biodiesel), the primary crop
used for biodiesel production globally and in the
United States [1], in a 30 kW gas turbine engine.
Globally, other major biodiesel feedstocks include
rapeseed, cottonseed, sunflower, jatroptha, and
palm oils as well as beef tallow [1]. Feasibility of
biodiesel as a renewable fossil fuel replacement
for power generation, particularly in California,
must consider emissions of pollutants including
oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate [2]. This
is true for both emergency (backup) power and base
* diesel in petroleum diesel (B20) in automotive
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 949 824 7423.
E-mail address: mcdonell@ucicl.uci.edu (V.G.
McDonell).
issue during storage, a hurdle which must be over-
come in order to maintain fuel quality.
While demonstrated to a limited extent, com-
bustion systems for environmentally preferred
alternative fuels like biodiesel have yet to be
fully optimized for emissions. As a result, the
feasibility of biodiesel as a low emission alterna-
tive fuel option is still being evaluated. Studies
reporting the impact of changing from low sul-
fur diesel distillate #2 (DF2) to biodiesel on
both NOx and CO emissions are inconsistent
[3–9]. For the most part, results have shown
an increase in average NOx emissions for biodie-
sel as operated in diesel engines [8]. Yet recent
results suggest no statistically significant impact
on NOx emissions for a 20 percent blend of bio-
diesel engines [10]. Major differences exist in
flame structure between gas turbines and diesel

1540-7489/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.proci.2008.07.042
2950 C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 2949–2956
engines. A diesel engine presents an intermittent
non-premixed reaction, whereas the gas turbine
considered in this study produce an overall lean,
premixed reaction both from a local and global
view due to increased residence times associated
with the fuel preparation process.
The majority of research efforts evaluating
the emissions performance of biodiesel in recip-
rocating and gas turbine combustion systems
have considered simple ‘‘fuel switching”. The
fuel type entering the combustion system is
changed, but the balance of the fuel preparation
process has remained unchanged. Other research
has identified a need for changes to the system
hardware and control strategies to ensure robust
operation of a biodiesel and biodiesel blended
fuel system [11,12]. Problems have been
observed where biodiesel produces buildup in fil-
ters and engine hardware, accelerated engine
corrosion as well as problems during initial cold
start-up [6,13,14]. Solutions such as heating the
fuel stream or using a pilot fuel to bring a sys-
tem up to operating conditions have been con-
sidered [6,16]. A specific example is in cold
climates where additional energy is required to
initiate reaction. Less prevalent are more funda-
mental studies which attempt to optimize atom-
ization, combustion and system logic in diesel
engines and gas turbines for improved perfor-
mance and emissions [15–18].
The results to date have illustrated promise
for use of renewable liquid fuels. However, a
lack of systematic evaluations of how the renew-
able fuels impact emissions performance has yet
to be carried out and is the subject of this
research. The approach taken in this work
involves the characterization of emission levels
produced by a 30 kW gas turbine engine as
operated on DF#2 and biodiesel. To optimize
the emissions, an external atomizing air circuit
was implemented to allow independent control
of the atomization process during engine
operation.
2. Experiment
2.1. Small scale gas turbine
The engine testing was carried out using a com-
mercial liquid fired 30 kW gas turbine (Capstone
C30), commonly referred to as a Microturbine
Generator (MTG). This gas turbine is primarily
used for backup and remote power generation
and can operate on a variety of liquid fuels. This
engine uses a recuperated cycle to improve effi-
ciency while operating at a relatively low pressure
ratio that facilitates use of a single shaft and radial
compression and expansion. Additional details
regarding this engine are provided elsewhere
[19,20].
Three liquid fuel injectors, each housing a
plain-jet airblast atomizer, four orifices for the
introduction of combustion air, and a helical swir-
ler are used to inject the fuel air mixture in a
staged approach to facilitate engine turndown.
As shown in Fig. 1, the fuel and air interact in a
complex manner for the length of the premixer
(Lpremixer). The fuel spray is injected adjacent to
the combustion air in a confined area (a tube of
diameter 2.67 cm). The presence of the preheated
combustion and swirling air is critical in promot-
ing droplet evaporation and minimizing fuel
impingement on the injector walls. Combustion
occurs a short distance downstream of the exit
of the fuel injectors. Each of the three injectors
is inserted into bellows circumferentially around
the combustor on the same plane of the cross-sec-
tion as shown on the right side of Fig. 1. The
empty bellow on the right houses the igniter.
The circular combustion flow phenomena with
sites of ignition identified is also represented in
the figure.
The engine relies upon lean premixed, preva-
porized combustion to achieve low pollutant emis-
sions. In addition, the design is configured to
introduce the well mixed fuel and air into partially
oxidized combustion products within the combus-
tor. The design is similar to that explained by
Wünning and Wünning [21] and others [22,23].
The balance of plant associated with the engine
(e.g., control logic, auxiliary hardware, and tur-
bine hardware) was left unmodified. Also, engine
start-up and shut down logic and procedure were
maintained. Three tests were conducted at differ-
ent ambient conditions on different days for each
fuel to test variance and repeatability. Each test
point was monitored for 8 min and averaged.
Each test started with the engine ignited from cold
start conditions. Ambient conditions were care-
fully monitored in order to insure like test
conditions.
The engine was equipped with transducers con-
sisting of thermocouples, resistance temperature
detectors (RTDs), pressure transducers. The
transducer outputs were recorded using a
National Instruments data acquisition system to
document engine properties during operation.
A special ‘‘measurement” injector was fabri-
cated to allow the connection of pressure (pres-
sure transducers) and temperature
(thermocouples) measuring devices near the air-
blast nozzle exit of the injector during operation.
Measurement of the flow conditions allowed the
calculation of the mass flows. Data obtained with
this instrumentation, also recorded with data
acquisition system, established the conditions for
laboratory experiments on the fuel injector. The
recorded data were synced with the MTG moni-
toring software to ensure accurate time resolution.
Time recorded data were taken at ten second
intervals.
 C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 2949–2956
Fig. 1. Airblast spray phenomena (left) and planar cross-sectional of injector configuration and combustor flow in
engine (right).
2.2. Emissions console
Exhaust emissions were measured with a Hor-
iba PG250 emissions analyzer via an extractive
sample probe centered at the exit plane of the
exhaust stack. The emissions analyzer was inte-
grated with a refrigerated water dropout sample
conditioning system. The analyzer measures NO,
CO, CO2, and O2 using EPA reference methods.
A vacuum pump pulls the sample gas from the
MTG exhaust stream via a stainless steel probe
and Teflon tube. Sampling systems and testing
protocols based on California Air Resources
Board (CARB) Method 100 were followed. The
accuracy of the NOx and CO measurements is
±0.25 parts per million volume dry (ppmvd) and
±2 ppmvd, respectively. The PG250 was zeroed
and spanned before the start of each test using
EPA certified gases. Analog outputs from the
gas analyzer were connected to a National Instru-
ments data acquisition system.
3. Results
Previous work illustrated that the atomization
and fuel dispersion characteristics of DF2 and
B99 are substantially different due to the variation
in liquid properties [24]. For example, the spray
generated at the DF2 baseline engine injector air
to fuel ratio for both liquids is shown in Fig. 2
and exhibits obvious differences in spray angle
and general appearance.
2951
a B99 b DF2
72-deg 58-deg
Fig. 2. Comparison of B99 and DF2 Sprays at Baseline
Condition.
In this case, an external air feed system was
used to facilitate independent control over the
atomization and resulting preparation of the fuel
air mixture prior to combustion. For the air-blast
atomization used in this system, a strong depen-
dence on drop size was observed as shown in
Fig. 3. Knowledge of the relationship between
the injector air-to-liquid ratio (ALR) and the
resulting droplet sizes was used in the optimiza-
tion process that follows. Details regarding the
developed relationship are provided elsewhere
[24].
The impact of the fuel properties on emissions
was first established by comparing the exhaust
composition generated by both fuels at the same
nominal engine operating condition (i.e., ‘‘simple
fuel switch”). Emissions measurements for B99
and DF2 corrected for 15 percent oxygen are
2952 C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 2949–2956

120 ture, and latent heat of vaporization) and sizes

determined from analysis of the atomization mea-
100 B99 Laser Diffraction SMD surements presented in Fig. 3. In the fuel switch-
80 DF2 Laser Diffraction SMD ing scenario, the initial sizes of the B99 droplets
SMD (μm)

are 20% larger than the DF2 droplets due to the

60
40
20
0 DF2. The compounding effect of larger droplets
0.2 0.3
Fig. 3. Measured SMD vs. ALR for DF2 and B99.
presented versus power output in Fig. 4. Both NO
and CO increase as load is increased from 50 to
100 percent. NO increased by 4–13 ppmvd from
13 to 25 kW. CO increased by 1–3 ppmvd. Note
that CO2 emissions remained invariant between
fuels and ranged from 4.5 to 4.7 percent in volume
corrected at 15 percent oxygen for increasing
power output. Oxygen concentrations in the
exhaust stream remained stable; varying from
18.4 to 18.8 percent from high to low load output.
No visible signature or detectable scent of smoke
was observed during operation at any load test
points for B99. NOx levels were uniformly higher
for B99. Furthermore, upon completion of these
tests, inspection of the fuel injector revealed signs
of liquid impingement for B99.
To explain the reason for the increase in NOx
emissions, the role of the fuel preparation process
was examined in two ways. First, the relative prev-
aporization characteristics of the two fuels were
examined to establish the extent to which a lack
of prevaporization could be responsible for the
emission increase observed. An evaporation
model incorporating convective effects was devel-
oped (described in [25]) and applied using the con-
ditions measured from the engine (pressure,
temperature) as well as initial droplet properties
(including liquid properties, evaporation tempera-
35
B99 NO (1)
differences in liquid properties (50 vs. 40 microns)
at the baseline engine operating condition. Figure
5 shows that B99, a fuel with higher viscosity (a
larger initial droplet size) and relatively low vola-
tility requires 56% more time to evaporate than
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 and lower quantities of volatiles result in a signif-
ALR icantly longer vaporization time for preparing B99
for combustion. The times shown in Fig. 5 can be
compared to the measured average droplet travel
time to reach the flame anchoring zone of 2.5 ms
as determined in a test rig simulating engine con-
ditions [19]. This comparison suggests droplets
may not be fully evaporated exiting the fuel injec-
tor which is consistent with visualization tests
conducted on the fuel injector at full engine condi-
tions [20]. While this simplified analysis does not
account for other effects such as heat transfer
from the reaction, but the comparison of the
trends for B99 vs DF2 is useful and consistent
with the observed emissions behavior.
Secondly, the engine was configured so that the
atomizing air flow could be independently con-
trolled (increasing ALR) in an attempt to achieve
similar premixing levels for B99 as exist for DF2.
The result of the increase in atomization quality
(air assist flowrate or ALR) for both B99 and
DF2 is shown in Fig. 6. Based on the hypothesis
that improved atomization would result in better
mixing and reduced emissions, the air flow for
air-blast atomization was first increased for DF2
in an attempt to further decrease NOx levels.
Interestingly, NOx could not be reduced for
DF2 by increasing ALR and indeed increased
with ALR. However, the NO decreased with
increasing ALR for B99 until it reached a mini-
mum and then began to increase with increasing
60
55 Heat Up B99
50 Steady State B99
Heat Up DF2
45
SMD (microns)

Steady State DF2

NO & CO (ppmvd @ 15 % O2)

B99 CO (1)
B99 NO (2) 40
30 B99 CO (2)
B99 NO (3) 35
B99 CO (3)
25 DF2 NO (1) 30
DF2 CO (1) 25
20 DF2 NO (2)
DF2 CO (2) 20
DF2 NO (3)
15 DF2 CO (3) 15
10
10 5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
5 Time (ms)
0
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 Fig. 5. Droplet evaporation model at engine conditions
Power Output (kW) with inclusion of convective effects for B99 and DF2
using expected drop sizes without modifying injector air
Fig. 4. Emission vs. Load Output for B99 and DF2 [19]. flow.
 C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 2949–2956
Change in Emissions (ppmvd@15%O2)
20
DF2 NO
15 DF2 CO
B99 NO
B99 CO
10
5 The next step taken was to address the ques-
0
-5
-10
0.2 0.4 0.6
ALR
Fig. 6. Increasing air to liquid ratio and its effect on
emissions for DF2 and B99.
ALR, just like with DF2. The minimum NO emis-
sion for B99 was found at an ALR of 0.86 with a
decrease of nearly 7 ppm. The levels of CO were
shown to slightly decrease which is on the enve-
lope of the uncertainty of the test equipment of
±2 ppmvd. The CO emission at an ALR of 0.86
decreased by about 1 ppm compared to the base
ALR of 0.39, while CO2 remained unaffected.
While the CO levels approach the measurement
uncertainty of the emission analyzer used in this
study, a trend in CO emission is apparent which
is clear from Fig. 7. This result illustrates the
importance of optimization of the combustion
system to achieve minimum emissions with B99.
The difference in how the increase in ALR affects
the emissions behavior of B99 compared to DF2
suggests that a simple fuel switch is not likely to
result in similar emissions performance. Because
the engine used was designed for low emissions
performance on DF2, it may not be surprising
that altering the ALR leads to degradation in
NO emissions.
Upon completing this second investigation, the
injectors were again removed and inspected. Note-
worthy is that, after almost 4 hours of operation
on B99 with improved atomization quality, no vis-
Fig. 7. Emissions reduction for B99 by increasing air-
blast atomizer ALR.
2953
ible fuel deposits or greater wear to the walls of the
injector occurred. While 4 h is a small period com-
pared to expected maintenance cycles for this
engine (8000 h recommended service), the lack of
degradation compared to the original operation
is noteworthy.
tion, ‘‘what are the minimum emissions levels
which this gas turbine can produce with B99 with-
out compromising performance?” A series of tests
were conducted to explore the emissions reduction
achieved using optimized atomization for a range
0.8 1.0 1.2
of kW loads. In addition to 25 kW, two lower
load set points of 23 kW and 21 kW were tested
where NO emissions levels are substantial in an
attempt to expand the reduction of NOx emis-
sions. Repeatability of emissions was demon-
strated prior to each test. Figure 7 shows that
minimum NO emissions for B99 were observed
at an ALR of 0.85 (and the same corresponding
ALR change from the baseline condition) for all
three load set points. The significance of a single
ALR value resulting for the lowest achievable
emissions affirms that the changes in emissions
are, in part, a result of the atomization.
At 21 kW, ALR has less effect on emissions
reduction compared to 23 and 25 kW. This result
is explained by the fact that, while atomization
plays an important role, mixing and injector
momentum also affect emissions. Previous work
on atomization quality for DF2 at elevated pres-
sures attempted to establish the relative contribu-
tion of atomization, mixing, and momentum on
emissions [20] and illustrated the complex inter-
play between these different phenomena. Figure
6 highlights this as well where increasing ALR
(and reducing drop size) actually results in higher
NOx emissions for DF2. Similarly, NOx emissions
for B99 eventually increase with ALR for all load
set points tested (shown by the oval region in
Fig. 7). With the increase in ALR, a larger num-
ber of smaller sized drops are produced, but the
overall mixing behavior within the injector
changes such that emissions increase. Since the
fuel mass scales with the cube of drop diameter,
a point is reached during optimization where the
individual droplets on average possess a momen-
tum which does not allow adequate penetration
downstream. At 21 kW, the role of mixing and
momentum apparently becomes more important
than at 23 and 25 kW. This is labeled the ‘‘overly
optimized” region in Fig. 7.
The emissions produced with B99 under origi-
nal and optimized conditions are shown Fig. 8
along with the baseline DF2 results. Despite the
improvement, the optimized NO emissions are
still higher for B99 than they are for DF2. To
achieve minimum emissions levels with B99, the
ALR was increased by 170 percent vs DF2. The
drop size decreases from 32 to 24 microns for
B99 at the optimized ALR, which is significantly
2954 C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 2949–2956
Fig. 8. Emissions improvement via optimization of
atomization for NO and CO for B99 in comparison to
DF2.
smaller than the 40 micron SMD for DF2 at the
baseline ALR. Thus B99, with optimized ALR,
features a significantly shorter droplet evapora-
tion time than DF2 by comparison of potential
evaporation histories. This finding shows that
the atomization quality with B99 at optimized
ALRs should be more than sufficient to achieve
the desired fuel/air preparation, yet emissions lev-
els are still higher than they are for DF2 at the
baseline conditions. However, as discussed above,
atomization alone may not dictate overall emis-
sions performance.
Fig. 9. Entitlement NOx emissions for biodiesel (B99) in comparison to DF2, where S and L represent short and long
residence times of 18 and 25 ms. Adapted from [26].
Nonetheless, the results show the potential for
emissions reduction through ALR optimization.
Figure 8 compares optimized airblast atomization
NOx emissions with emissions for a straight fuel
change. Through ALR modification, a 21 to 25
percent reduction in NOx emissions was achieved
for B99 with CO remaining unchanged. However,
the emissions for DF2 were still lower than those
for B99.
In light of the various factors affecting emis-
sions as described above, it is difficult to assess if
the levels attained are the lowest possible levels.
Experimental well stirred reactor work performed
at the University of Washington has shed light on
this subject for various fuels as illustrated in Fig. 9
[26]. That work has shown that NOx emissions
correlate well with carbon to hydrogen ratio. This
correlation work [26] was performed at tempera-
tures (close to 1790 K), residence times (on the
order of 10 to 25 ms) which are similar those
found in the Capstone C30 for this work. As a
result, it is reasonable to add these results for
B99 and DF2 for comparison (C:H ratios were
determined from mass spectroscopy gas chroma-
tography). Both fuels fall within a trend region
of alkanes, methyl alcohol, and diesel fuels. Soy
methyl ester possesses molecules with portions
which are either alkanes or alkenes, a mix of both
single and double carbon bonds, and a methyl
alcohol molecule bonded on the hydrocarbon
 C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 2949–2956
chain’s end. The influence of the methyl structure
on the emissions is not yet well understood. How-
ever, this fuel possesses 11 percent oxygen by mass
compared to 50% by mass for methanol. Despite
the presence of the methyl groups for methanol
and B99 fuel, both fall in the general vicinity of
the NOx vs C:H ratio trend line shown in
Fig. 9. Due to the similar carbon to hydrogen
ratio between DF2 and B99 fuels studied, the
‘‘minimum” NOx emissions may be expected to
be similar (between 7.35 and 9.25 ppm at 15 per-
cent O2). However, the B99 emissions are higher
than those observed for DF2 in a manner that is
consistent with the relative C:H ratio. Hence, if
C:H can be used as a suitable correlator, it stands
to reason that, for all else equal, B99 NOx emis-
sions may never be as low as those for DF2,
although the role of the methyl group must be
considered relative to this observation.The pres-
ence of significant amounts of aromatic com-
pounds in DF2 presents another distinction
between the two fuels which may also influence
their relative NOx emissions.
4. Conclusions
A commercial gas turbine engine, designed to
operate on DF2, has been successfully operated
on biodiesel (B99) and then optimized to minimize
NOx emissions for both fuels. The work results in
the following conclusions:
 Switching from DF-2 to B99 without any addi-
tional modifications results in a general
increase in NOx emissions.
 Improving atomization quality resulted in a
reduction of NOx and CO emissions, but final
levels achieved for B99 were still above those
found with DF2. From a practical perspective,
relying on varying ALR to minimize emissions
for B99 would result in a substantially higher
pressure drop, which may not be acceptable
from a design perspective. As a result, injector
redesign may be necessary to achieve the
desired ALR and avoids high pressure drops.
 Analysis of the atomization and evaporation
characteristics suggests that improved atomiza-
tion alone cannot reduce the B99 NOx emis-
sions below those of DF2. Though
atomization improvements were shown to
improve emissions performance for B99, it is
apparent that other factors also play an impor-
tant role in the emissions.
 Though atomization improvements were
shown to improve emissions performance for
B99, it is apparent that additional factors also
play an important role in the emissions. Based
on NOx correlations with C:H, it appears sim-
ilar minimum NOx levels should be expected
for both fuels. To further confirm this conclu-
2955
sion, additional developments in chemical
kinetic mechanisms are needed for fuels such
as B99 are needed to help explain observed
NOx emissions behavior.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Professor Scott Samuelsen
for his leadership, input and support. Thanks to
the UCICL staff and students for their contribu-
tions to the Alternative Liquid Fuels Project;
especially Adrian Narvaez for his great aid in
experimentation and data analyses, Peter Therkel-
sen for his contributions to the combustion anal-
ysis of the engine and James Maclay for the
many productive discussions and fruitful input
provided. The support of the California Energy
Commission (Contract 50-00-020) relative to the
development of the engine test facility and test
hardware used for this research. Lastly, the
UCICL acknowledges the support of Capstone
Turbine Corporation for the provision of the
C330 Liquid Fired Gas Turbine Generator used
in this research effort.
References
[1] A. Srivastava, R. Prasad, J. Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 100 (2000) 111–133.
[2] California Air Resources Board (CARB), ‘Final
Regulation Order: Establish a Distributed Genera-
tion Certification Program,’ available at http://
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dg01/finreg, USA, Jan.
2007.
[3] A.K. Agarwal, Prog. Energ. Combust. Sci. 33 (2007)
233–271.
[4] M. Moliere, E. Panarotto, M. Aboujaib et al., Gas
Turbines in Alternative Fuel Applications: Biodiesel
Field Test, ASME Turbo Expo’07, Montreal, Can-
ada, May 15–18, 2007.
[5] A. Monyem, J.H. Van Gerpen, J. Biomass Energ.
20 (2000) 317–325.
[6] V. Lupandin, A. Nikolayev, R. Thamburaj, Test
Results of the OGT2500 Gas Turbine Engine
Running on Alternative Fuels: Biooil, Ethanol,
Biodiesel and Crude Oil, Paper GT2005-68488,
ASME Turbo Expo, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA,
June 2005.
[7] J.H. Van Gerpen, L.A. Johnson, E.J. Hammond,
S.J. Marley, Determining the Optimum Composition
of a Biodiesel Fuel, Prepared for: The Iowa Soybean
Promotion Board, Iowa, USA, August 1995.
[8] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), A Com-
prehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust
Emissions, EPA Draft Technical Report No: 420-P-
02-001, USA October, 2002.
[9] A. Demirbas, Prog. Energ. Combust. Sci. 31 (2005)
466–487.
[10] R.L. McCormick, A. Williams, J. Ireland, M.
Brimhall, R.R. Hays, Effects of Biodiesel Blends on
Vehicle Emissions, Milestone Report NREL/MP-
540-40554, October 2006.
2956 C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 2949–2956
[11] M.E. Tat, J.H. Van Gerpen, Fuel Property Effects
on Biodiesel, Paper 036024, ASAE Meeting, Las
Vegas, Nevada, July 2003.
[12] H.D. Chiang, I.C. Chiang, H. Li, Performance
Testing of Microturbine Generator System Fueled by
Biodiesel, ASME Turbo Expo’07, Montreal, Can-
ada, May 15–18, 2007.
[13] X. Lang, A.K. Dalai, N.N. Bakhshi, M.J. Reaney,
P.B. Hertz, J. Bioresour. Technol. 80 (2001) 53–62.
[14] K.S. Tyson, Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines,
NREL Technical Report No: NREL/TP-580-
30004, USA, September 2001.
[15] D. Sequera, A.K. Agrawal, S.K Spear, D.T. Daly,
Combustion Performance of Liquid Bio-Fuels in a
Swirl-Stabilized Burner, ASME Turbo Expo’07,
Montreal, Canada, May 15–18, 2007.
[16] M.A.R. Do Nascimento, P.C.C. Mendes, Analyzing
the Impact of Using Biodiesel in the Parameters of a
30 kW Micro-Turbine Control Model, Paper
GT2006-91259, Turbo EXPO 2006, Barcelona,
Spain, May 2006.
[17] C.S. Lee, S.W. Park, S.I. Kwon, J. Energ. Fuels 19
(2005) 2201–2208.
[18] A. Monyem, J. H Van Gerpen, M. Canakci, Trans.
ASAE 44 (1) (2001) 35–42.
[19] C.D. Bolszo, J.L. Mauzey, V.G. McDonell, S.
Nakamura, Experimental Investigation of Liquid Fuel
Atomization, Mixing and Pollutant Emissions for a
30 kW Gas Turbine Engine, Proceedings 18th ILASS-
Americas Conference, Irvine, CA, May 2005.
[20] S. Nakamura, V.G. McDonell, G.S. Samuelsen,
J. Engr. Gas Turb. Power 130 (2008) 021506–
021511.
[21] J.A. Wünning, J.A.J.G. Wünning, Prog. Energ.
Combust. Sci. 23 (1997) 81–94.
[22] J.R. Kalb, T. Sattelmayer, Lean Blowout Limit and
NOx Production of a Premixed Sub-ppm NOx
Burner with Periodic Flue Gas Recirculation, Paper
GT2004-53410, ASME Turbo Expo, Vienna, Aus-
tria, June 2004.
[23] J.R. Brückner-Kalb, C. Hirsch, T. Sattelmayer,
Operation Characteristics of a Premixed Sub-ppm
NOx Burner with Periodical Recirculation of Com-
bustion Products, Paper GT2006-90072, Barcelona,
Spain, May 2006.
[24] C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell, Biodiesel Airblast
Atomization Optimization for Reducing Pollutant
Emission in Small Scale Gas Turbine Engines,
ILASS-Americas 2007, Chicago, IL, May 2007
(submitted to Atomization and Sprays).
[25] C.D. Bolszo, V.G. McDonell, G.S. Samuelsen,
Impact of Biodiesel on Fuel Preparation and Emis-
sions for a Liquid Fired Gas Turbine Engine, ASME
Turbo Expo’07, Montreal, Canada, May 15–18,
2007.
[26] J.C.Y. Lee, P.C. Malte, M.A. Benjamin, Low NOx
Combustion for Liquid Fuels, Atmospheric Pres-
sure Experiments Using a Staged Prevaporizer-
Premixer, Paper 2001-GT-0081, ASME Turbo
EXPO, New Orleans, June 2001.