Assessment of Bio-Hydrogenated Diesel and its Blends with

Biodiesel as Alternative Fuels: A Study on Engine Emissions

and Particle Characteristics

Niti Klinkaew1, Anupap Pumpuang2, Atthaphon Maneedaeng3, Ekarong Sukjit1

1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Muang, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
2 Instituteof Research and Development, Suranaree University of Technology, Muang, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
3 School of Chemical Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Muang, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000 Thailand

Abstract: This study examines the influence of diesel, bio-hydrogenated diesel (BHD), and biodiesel fuels on engine performance,
combustion characteristics, and emissions across various engine loads. Fuel properties were evaluated according to American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, with blends of BHD and biodiesel at different ratios analysed. Engine
performance parameters, combustion characteristics, and emissions were measured using specialized instruments, including
pressure sensors and gas analysers, across engine loads from 25% to 90%. Results demonstrate that BHD generally outperforms
diesel and biodiesel in terms of brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and brake thermal efficiency (BTE), particularly at higher
engine loads. Combustion characteristics such as the rate of heat release (RoHR) and in-cylinder pressure (ICP) varied with fuel
type and load, indicating the importance of combustion stability and fuel-air mixing. Emissions analysis reveals trends in NOx, HC,
CO, and smoke emissions, with BHD showing lower emissions compared to diesel and biodiesel under certain conditions.
Additionally, exhaust particle distributions, analysed using an Engine Exhaust Particulate Sizer Spectrometer (EEPS), provided
insights into particulate matter (PM) characteristics. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) reveals that soot from BHD and biodiesel is
more readily oxidized and undergoes decomposition at lower temperatures compared to diesel fuel, contributing to our understanding
of fuel effects on engine performance and emissions for future fuel formulation and combustion optimization strategies.
Keywords: Bio-hydrogenated diesel, green diesel, PM distribution, Biofuels, Diesel particulate matter
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

1. INTRODUCTION

From the awareness of the decreasing problem of fossil fuel, the world has been looking for alternative fuels with properties
similar to conventional fossil fuels. For diesel fuel, there have been efforts to introduce various types of alternative fuels, such as
biodiesel and bio-hydrogenated diesel (BHD).

BHD is a substitute fuel for diesel engines derived from vegetable oils through the hydrogenation process to convert the fatty
acids in vegetable oils into alkanes, which are the sole components of diesel fuel (Hilbers et al., 2015, Boonrod et al., 2017). This
results in reduced viscosity of vegetable oils, increased fuel heating value, and higher cetane index (Bhikuning et al., 2020). When
used in engines, this leads to improved engine performance and helps reduce the emission of certain pollutants. However, a
significant drawback of BHD is its poor lubricity compared to diesel fuel (Fathurrahman et al., 2021). Biodiesel is another popular
alternative fuel for diesel engines. It is derived from animal fats or vegetable oils through a chemical process, typically
Transesterification, to change the functional group of chemical compounds. The advantage of this type of fuel is the presence of
oxygen in the components, which helps reduce pollutants such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons (Mofijur et al., 2016, Kim et
al., 2018, He, 2016). Another advantage of biodiesel is its excellent lubricity, which comes from the ester groups in its composition
(Hazrat et al., 2015). As a result, biodiesel is often blended with traditional diesel fuel to compensate for the lubricity properties lost
during the desulfurization process. However, a major drawback of biodiesel is its relatively high viscosity, leading to poor atomization
and increased smoke emission when used in real engines (Suh and Lee, 2016). Another advantage in the realm of alternative fuels
is the blend of BHD with biodiesel. This blend combines the benefits of both fuels, offering improved lubricity from biodiesel's ester
groups and the reduced viscosity and enhanced performance of BHD (Prokopowicz et al., 2015, Lapuerta et al., 2011). The blend
addresses the drawbacks of each fuel individually, providing a balanced solution for diesel engines.

Furthermore, comprehending the emission characteristics of alternative fuels used in diesel engines, as opposed to conventional
fossil diesel fuel, holds significant importance. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions demonstrated significant reductions with BHD
compared to diesel, whereas the BHD-biodiesel blends exhibited notable increases in NOx emissions (McCaffery et al., 2022).
Utilization of bio-hydrogenated diesel in the passenger car can reduce almost of regulated emissions significantly (except NOx which
is not clear reduction) due to BHD’s higher cetane number, lower viscosity and shorter ignition delay behaviour which promote the
better combustion process and fuel atomization (Dimitriadis et al., 2018). Moreover, understanding the distinct particulate matter
(PM) distribution characteristics of biodiesel and BHD fuels compared to conventional diesel is crucial. BHD typically yields higher
PM concentrations in both nucleation and accumulation modes due to its shorter ignition delay and potential catalytic effects on PM
formation (Karavalakis et al., 2016). Conversely, biodiesel often results in lower PM concentrations due to its oxygen content, which
enhances soot oxidation and reduces volatile organic compounds (Wang et al., 2016). Blending biodiesel with BHD may alter PM
distribution, potentially increasing total PM concentrations compared to neat BHD, possibly due to synergistic effects influencing PM
formation. This understanding is essential for evaluating the environmental impact of alternative fuels on PM emissions.

This study aims to evaluate the performance, combustion characteristics, and emissions of a KAWAMA KWM 155 diesel engine
fueled by bio-hydrogenated diesel (BHD) and BHD blended with biodiesel, using conventional diesel as a benchmark. Engine
operation includes four loads (25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% of maximum torque) with constant speed (1,500 rpm). Fuel consumption,
nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and smoke emissions are measured,
and combustion characteristics are analyzed across 100 cycles. PM size and concentration in exhaust are assessed using an Engine
Exhaust Particulate Sizer Spectrometer (EEPS 3090), with PM decomposition analyzed via Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA).

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Test fuels

The test fuels in this study include of diesel, BHD and biodiesel. The diesel is the Thailand’s commercial diesel which is the
blended fuel of diesel fuel and 7% of biodiesel supplied by standard gas station of Petroleum Authority of Thailand, PTT Public
Company Limited. BHD is sponsored from Veerasuwan Company limited, Thailand. Biodiesel is supplied by Bio-Synergy Company
limited. GC/MS was employed to identified the fuel chemical composition, the detected composition of diesel fuel, BHD and biodiesel
were report in our previous work (Sriprathum et al., 2023). The main composition of BHD is hexadecane (C16), pentadecane (C15),
and tetradecane (C14). While biodiesel’s main composition includes of palmitic acid (C16:0), oleic acid (C18:1) and linoleic acid
(C18:2).

The biodiesel is mixed with BHD in volume ratios of 10%, 20%, and 30% (yielding BHD90, BHD80, and BHD70 respectively),
and their respective fuel properties are evaluated as outlined in Table 1. All properties are assessed following ASTM standards, with
criteria determined by the Department of Energy Business, Thailand. Notably, pure BHD oil failed to meet the specific gravity and
wear scar diameter (lubricity) standards. However, while BHD90 and BHD80 showed specific gravity values exceeding the standard,
their wear scar diameter remained within the specified testing parameters. Conversely, BHD70 exhibited specific gravity and wear
scar diameter values falling within the prescribed testing range for both properties.

AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER

1
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

Table 1. Fuel properties
Fuel Properties Test Method Limit Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70
Kinemetric Viscosity at 40 ℃
ASTM D445 1.8-4.1 3.12 2.58 5.16 2.65 2.80 2.84
(cSt)
Specific Gravity at 15 ℃ ASTM D1298 0.81-0.87 0.830 0.770 0.875 0.788 0.801 0.815
API Gravity at 15 ℃ ASTM D1298 - 39 52 30 48 45 42
Density at 15 ℃ (kg/m3) ASTM D1298 - 829 769 874 787 800 814
Cetane Index ASTM D976 >50 56 78 48 70 65 60
Gross Calorific Value (MJ/kg) ASTM D240 - 43.48 47.02 39.62 46.26 45.21 44.54
Flash Point (℃) ASTM D93 >52 78 87 169 86 86 90
Wear Scar Diameter (µm) ASTM D6079 460 220 570 180 180 180 180
Distillation Temperature ASTM D86
50% Recovered (℃) 280 258 356 262 266 270

2.2. Engine test

In this section a KAWAMA KWM 155 diesel engine was employed, its specification detail is shown in Table 2. The study aimed
to evaluate the performance parameters, combustion characteristics, and emissions of an engine fueled by BHD and BHD blended
with biodiesel, using conventional diesel fuel as the benchmark. Engine speed was maintained at 1,500 rpm while applying four
different engine loads (25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% of maximum torque), facilitated by a dynamometer. Fuel consumption rates were
meticulously monitored using a fuel consumption rate meter. NOx emissions were quantified using a Testo 350 instrument, while HC
and CO were quantified using a Horiba Mexa-441 ME gas analyzer, and smoke emissions were assessed using a Horiba MEXA-
600s. Detailed specifications of the measurement equipment are outlined in Table 3 and Table 4. Fuel consumption and emissions
were measured three times, with resulting average values calculated. Combustion characteristics were evaluated using pressure
sensors (Kistler 6052C) and angular displacement sensors (Kistler 2614C11) positioned on the flywheel, with signals converted using
an Encoder Electronic 2614C21. The data underwent analysis across 100 cycles, with average values determined using Kibox
Cockpit software. A schematic diagram of the test engine is provided in Figure 1.

Table 2. Test engine specification.

Engine Specification
Engine Model KWM 155
Engine type 4 stroke, single cylinder, water cooled
Bore x Stroke 100x98 mm
Cylinder volume 769 cc
Compression ratio 18:01
Maximum horse power 13.5 hp @ 2400 rpm
Maximum torque 5.3 kg-m @ 1600 rpm

Table 3. Exhaust gas analysers specification.

Measurement
Analyzer Model Measuring Techniques Measurement Rang Accuracy
Parameter
± 5 ppm (0-99 ppm)
NO Chemiluminescence 0-4000 ppm ± 5 ppm of reading 100-1,999 ppm
TESTO350 ± 10 ppm of reading (rest of range)
± 5 ppm (0-99 ppm)
NO2 Chemiluminescence 0-500 ppm
± 5 ppm of reading (rest of range)
Opacity: 0.0 to 99.9%
Horiba
Smoke Opacity Light absorption coefficient: ± 0.15 m-1 (for ND filter of 1.7 m-1 ± 0.05 m-1
MEXA-600S
0.000 to 9.999 m-1
± 0.03 % vol or ± 3% of reading
CO 0.00% vol to 10.00 % vol
(whichever is greater)
Horiba non-dispersive infrared ±10 ppm vol or ±4% of reading
CO2 0.00% vol to 20.00 % vol
MEXA-441 ME absorption (whichever is greater)
±0.4 % vol or ±4% of reading
HC 0 ppm vol to 20000 ppm vol
(whichever is greater)

AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER

2
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the test engine.

2.3. Particulate matter analysis

In the assessment of particulate matter (PM) characteristics within engine exhaust, the engine is operated at 90% engine load
with constant engine speed of 1,500 rpm, a portion of the exhaust gas undergoes dilution with pure air at a temperature of 400°C
and a pressure of 4 bars to prevent gas condensation. The dilution ratio is standardized at 64:1. Subsequently, the diluted exhaust
gas is directed into the Engine Exhaust Particulate Sizer Spectrometer 3090 (EEPS 3090) manufactured by TSI, facilitating analysis
of PM size and concentration. Table 5 shows the specification of EEPS 3090. Meanwhile, the remaining exhaust gas is discharged
into the environment through the primary exhaust duct, featuring stainless-steel grids designed to capture PM for subsequent
decomposition analysis. The stainless-steel grid filter was tapped to dislodge the particulate matter (PM) onto a stainless-steel tray.
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was conducted using the METTLER TOLEDO model TGA/dsc1. Approximately 10 mg of PM was
collected, placed in a ceramic crucible, and heated from room temperature to 700°C at a rate of 10°C/min. Analytical-grade oxygen
(99.999% purity) was used as the oxidizer, flowing at a rate of 50 ml/min.

Table 5. Specification of EEPS 3090.

Particle size range 5.6 to 560 nanometers
Particle size resolution 16 channels per decade (32 total)
Electrometer channels 24 total, 22 active
Charger mode of operation Dual unipolar diffusion chargers
Inlet cyclone 50% cutpoint 1 µm
Maximum data rate 10 size distributions per second
Aerosol inlet 10 L/min
Sheath air 40 L/min
Inlet aerosol temperature 10 to 52 ℃
Storage temperature -20 to 50 ℃
Atmospheric pressure
700 to 1034 mbar
correction range

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Engine performance

The engine's brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and brake thermal efficiency (BTE) with various fuels are illustrated in
Figures 2. At engine loads up to 75%, BSFC decreases and BTE increases as load rises due to improved energy conversion from
higher combustion temperatures (An et al., 2012). However, at 90% load, excessive fuel injection leads to incomplete combustion,
raising fuel consumption and lowering thermal efficiency. BHD's higher heating value and cetane index result in lower BSFC and
higher BTE than diesel (Dimitriadis et al., 2020). Conversely, biodiesel's higher viscosity and lower heating value elevate BSFC and
decrease BTE compared to diesel. Increasing biodiesel content lowers BSFC compared to neat biodiesel but remains higher than
AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER
3
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

BHD. The BTE of the blended fuel is lower than BHD at engine loads below 50%, but it becomes higher than BHD's BTE at loads
above 50%.

Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70 Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70

300
a. b.
45
BSFC (g/kW·hr)

BTE (%)
200 30

100 15

0 0

Engine load (%) Engine load (%)

Figure 2. Engine performance at various engine loads.; a. BSFC, b. BTE

3.2. Combustion characteristics

The rate of heat release (RoHR) and in-cylinder pressure (ICP) produced from the engine when operated with difference load
are show in Figure 3. It can be observed that the RoHR tends to decrease while ICP tends to increase when engine load increased
due to enhanced combustion stability and increased diffusion combustion which is the influence of higher amount of fuel was used
during combustion process (Liew et al., 2010). The start of combustion tends to shorter as engine load increased due to higher
temperature inside combustion chamber. BHD and biodiesel exhibit shorter ignition delays compared to diesel fuel. This is due to
BHD's higher cetane index, which facilitates better fuel-air mixing. Additionally, the higher bulk modulus of biodiesel, influenced by
its higher fuel density, results in earlier fuel injection into the combustion chamber, allowing more time for the fuel to absorb heat and
combust. Biodiesel provides slightly higher ICP and similar RoHR than diesel fuel due to its higher density which refer to higher fuel
mass contributes to increased heat release and pressure buildup during combustion. BHD and its blend provide lower RoHR and
ICP may be due to 1) BHD’s chemical composition leads to differences in combustion chemistry compared to diesel fuel and 2)
BHD’s lower density which refer to lower energy concentration (Parravicini et al., 2021).

Diesel Biodiesel BHD BHD90 BHD80 BHD70 Diesel Biodiesel BHD BHD90 BHD80 BHD70
80
80 (b) Load %

Rate of Heat Release (J/ºCA)

(a) Load 25% 70 190
In-Cylinder Pressure (bar)
Rate of Heat Release (J/ºCA)

70 190
In-Cylinder Pressure (bar)

60
60
50 140
50 140
40
40 90
90 30
30
20
20 40
40
10
10
0 -10
0 -10 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Crank angle (ºCA)
Crank angle (ºCA)
Diesel Biodiesel BHD BHD90 BHD80 BHD70 Diesel Biodiesel BHD BHD90 BHD80 BHD70
80 80
(c) Load 75% (d) Load 90% Rate of Heat Release (J/ºCA)
Rate of Heat Release (J/ºCA)

In-Cylinder Pressure (bar)

In-Cylinder Pressure (bar)

70 190 70 190
60 60
140 50 140
50
40 40
90 90
30 30

20 20 40
40
10 10

0 -10 0 -10
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Crank angle (ºCA) Crank angle (ºCA)

Figure 3. In-cylinder pressure and rate of heat release over crank angle at various engine loads.

3.3. Emissions

The emissions from the engine when operate with difference engine loads are shown in Figure 4. It was found that as the load
increased, NOx emissions increased up to the highest point at 50% load for diesel fuel, BHD, and BHD80, and at 75% load for the
remaining fuels. This may be due to the appropriate air-to-fuel ratio at these loads, resulting in reduced NOx formation. It can be
observed that each fuel has a different optimal air-to-fuel ratio at different loads. BHD fuel releases less NOx than diesel fuel at all
loads due to its shorter ignition delay leading to longer periods of controlled combustion and reduced NOx emissions (Parravicini et
al., 2021, Karavalakis et al., 2016, Singer et al., 2015). Biodiesel and BHD-biodiesel blends release higher levels of NOx than diesel
fuel and BHD significantly due to lower turbulence within the combustion chamber which influenced by higher kinematic viscosity
AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER
4
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

property result in localized regions of rich or lean fuel-air mixtures, promoting uneven combustion and NOx formation (Som and
Longman, 2011, Saqr et al., 2010). Unburnt hydrocarbon (HC) emission from diesel fuel and biodiesel tend to decrease as engine
load increased while there is no clear trend from BHD and its blended fuel. Carbon monoxide (CO) emission tend to decrease when
engine load rise from 25% to 50% and then CO emission tend to increase when engine load increase to 75% and 90% may be due
to at 50% engine load closer to its design conditions, resulting in more efficient combustion while at higher engine loads, there is a
greater demand for power, leading to increased fuel injection. However, under these conditions, the combustion process may not be
as efficient, resulting in incomplete combustion of the fuel-air mixture. BHD provides lower CO emission than diesel fuel and biodiesel
due to BHD’s lower kinematic viscosity and shorter ignition delay behavior result in better fuel atomization and longer combustion
duration (Wu et al., 2017). Biodiesel and BHD-biodiesel blends provide higher CO emission than BHD due to its higher kinematic
viscosity refer to worse fuel atomization. Smoke emission tends to increase as engine load increased due to more engine power
required for maintain engine operating speed which contribute to higher amount of fuel was injected to combustion chamber. At 25%
engine load, biodiesel provides higher smoke emission than the other fuels due to its higher kinematic viscosity which refer to worse
fuel atomization behavior. At 50% load, there is minimal disparity in smoke emissions across all fuels, likely attributable to these
conditions being optimal for engine operation. While at 75% and 90% engine load, BHD provides slightly lower smoke emission than
that diesel fuel due to shorter ignition delay and long combustion duration behavior. Biodiesel provides lower smoke emission than
BHD due to oxygen content in biodiesel composition which can promote the soot oxidation (Song et al., 2006). At 25% and 50%
engine loads, the smoke emissions from BHD-biodiesel blend fuels are not significantly different from those of pure BHD, likely due
to optimized fuel injection quantities. However, at 75% and 90% engine loads, smoke emissions from blend fuels tend to be higher
than those from BHD. This is due to the higher kinematic viscosity of biodiesel, which affects the blend fuels' kinematic viscosity,
resulting in poorer fuel atomization and reduced soot oxidation.

Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70

Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70
200
a. 16 b.
150
NOx (ppm)

HC (ppmVol) 12
100
8

50
4

0
0

Engine load (%)

Engine load (%)

Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70 Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70
600 60.0
c. d.
450
40.0
Smoke (%)
CO (ppm)

300

20.0
150

0 0.0

Engine load (%) Engine load (%)

. Figure 4. Exhaust emission from the engine when operated with different engine load; a. NOx, b. HC, c. CO and d. smoke

3.4. Particulate matter

The particle number versus size distributions from the engine, fuelled with various fuels, are depicted in Figure 5. It is evident
that the particle numbers in BHD exhaust exceed those in diesel fuel for both the nucleation (ultrafine particles formed through
nucleation and condensation during combustion) and accumulation modes (larger particles formed through coagulation and surface
growth). This discrepancy may stem from two primary factors: Firstly, BHD's shorter ignition delay behaviour accelerates combustion,
leading to heightened temperatures and more reactive species in the combustion chamber. This environment can foster accumulation
mode PM formation through processes such as coagulation and surface growth (Xu et al., 2013). Secondary, paraffinic hydrocarbons,
found in higher concentrations in BHD, have been associated with increased PM formation due to their lower reactivity during
combustion compared to aromatic hydrocarbons which found in diesel fuel. Consequently, the combustion of BHD may yield more
solid carbonaceous particles, leading to elevated PM emissions, particularly in the accumulation mode. As a result, biodiesel yields
lower particle numbers in both nucleation and accumulation modes compared to BHD and diesel fuel, attributable to its lower aromatic
hydrocarbon content than diesel fuel and higher oxygen content than BHD which can promote the soot oxidation. The presence of
biodiesel in blend fuels tends to further reduce particle numbers in both modes due to biodiesel's oxygen content, which promotes
soot oxidation. Figure 6 illustrates the total concentration of particulate matter across various engine loads, revealing that BHD yields
a higher total PM concentration than diesel fuel, while biodiesel yields lower concentrations than both BHD and diesel fuel. This
suggests that the oxygen content in the fuel reduces the total PM concentration by promoting soot oxidation, resulting in lower PM
concentrations (Su et al., 2013). The utilization of BHD-biodiesel blend fuels might result in higher total PM concentrations than neat
BHD fuel, despite the potential decrease attributed to biodiesel's oxygen content. This could be due to the interaction between
biodiesel and BHD, potentially altering the fuel composition and generating additional PM precursors during combustion. However,
as the biodiesel content increases in the blend fuel, there is a tendency for PM emissions to decrease.
AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER
5
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

To gain deeper insights into the impact of biodiesel on particulate matter (PM) decomposition, thermogravimetric analysis was
conducted, and the results are presented in Figure 7 and the derivative of weight loss was shown in Figure 8. Notably, the
decomposition of PM derived from various fuels occurred in a single step, despite the absence of volatile organic compounds or
water removal steps. This observation suggests that the PM samples may predominantly consist of a single material or a mixture of
materials with similar decomposition temperatures, thus undergoing a unified decomposition process. The decomposition
temperature of PM from BHD was observed to be 4.71 ℃ lower than that of diesel fuel, possibly due to the influence of BHD or its
combustion by-products, which aid in the thermal degradation of PM at lower temperatures compared to diesel fuel. Additionally,
biodiesel exhibited a decomposition temperature 10.22 ℃ lower than diesel fuel, attributed to the oxygen functionalities present in
biodiesel enhancing the reactivity of PM, resulting in earlier decomposition at lower temperatures compared to PM derived from
diesel fuel. Moreover, the inclusion of biodiesel in blend fuel formulations tended to reduce the decomposition temperature of PM
slightly, attributable to the biodiesel's chemical composition promoting the PM oxidation.

Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70

7

6
dN/dlogDp [#x108/scm³]

PM Size (nm)

Figure 5. Particulate matter size distribution from different fuel at 90% engine load.

Diesel BHD biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70

4
Total concentration (#x108/scm3)

Engine load (%)

Figure 6. Total PM concentration from different engine load.

AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER

6
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70

90

70
Weight loss (%)

50

30

10

-10
120 270 420 570
Temperature (℃)

Figure 7. Thermogravimetric analysis curve of PM from different fuel.

Diesel BHD Biodiesel BHD90 BHD80 BHD70

0.01

-0.01
DTG (%/min)

-0.03

-0.05

-0.07
120 240 360 480 600
Temperature (℃)

Figure 8. Derivative of weight loss over temperature from different fuel.

4. CONCLUSION

 Engine performance parameters, such as brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and brake thermal efficiency (BTE),
exhibited varying trends with different fuels and engine loads, with BHD generally outperforming diesel fuel and biodiesel in
terms of BSFC and BTE, except at higher engine loads where blended fuel surpassed BHD in BTE.
 Higher engine loads lead to decreased rate of heat release (RoHR) and increased in-cylinder pressure (ICP), indicating
improved combustion stability and enhanced diffusion combustion. This is attributed to higher fuel consumption during
combustion. Engine load also shortens the start of combustion due to elevated temperatures. BHD and biodiesel exhibit
AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER
7
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

shorter ignition delays than diesel, contributing to better fuel-air mixing. Biodiesel shows slightly higher ICP and similar
RoHR compared to diesel due to its higher density, while BHD and its blend demonstrate lower RoHR and ICP, likely due
to differences in combustion chemistry.
 Increasing engine load led to rising NOx emissions up to 50% load for diesel, BHD, and BHD80, and up to 75% load for
other fuels, driven by optimal air-to-fuel ratios. BHD consistently emitted less NOx than diesel due to its shorter ignition
delay, while biodiesel and blends emitted more due to lower fuel atomization. HC emissions decreased with diesel and
biodiesel but varied for BHD and blends. CO emissions decreased up to 50% load and increased at higher loads, with BHD
emitting less due to its combustion properties. Smoke emissions increase with rising engine load. Biodiesel produces lower
smoke emissions than other test fuels, owing to its oxygenated composition that promotes soot oxidation. BHD-biodiesel
blends exhibit higher smoke emissions than neat BHD due to the higher kinematic viscosity of the blend, resulting in poorer
fuel atomization and reduced soot oxidation.
 Exhaust particle distributions indicate that BHD produces higher particle numbers than diesel fuel in both nucleation and
accumulation modes. This is attributed to BHD's shorter ignition delay and its paraffinic hydrocarbon composition, which
can generate more solid carbonaceous particles, leading to elevated particulate matter emissions. Biodiesel, blended with
diesel, lowers particle numbers due to enhanced soot oxidation. Total PM concentration is higher with BHD than diesel,
while biodiesel lowers concentrations. BHD-biodiesel blends produce higher total PM concentrations than neat BHD, likely
due to the combined effects of their different chemical compositions altering combustion processes and increasing PM
formation.
 Thermogravimetric analysis indicated that PM from biodiesel (BHD) decomposes at a temperature 4.71°C lower than that
from diesel fuel, likely due to the influence of BHD or its combustion by-products facilitating thermal degradation.
Additionally, PM from pure biodiesel exhibited a decomposition temperature 10.22°C lower than diesel, attributed to the
oxygen functionalities in biodiesel enhancing PM reactivity and promoting earlier decomposition. The inclusion of biodiesel
in BHD-blend fuels further lowered the PM decomposition temperature, indicating enhanced PM oxidation.

5. REFERENCES

AN, H., YANG, W., CHOU, S. & CHUA, K. 2012. Combustion and emissions characteristics of diesel engine fueled by biodiesel at
partial load conditions. Applied energy, 99, 363-371.

BHIKUNING, A., SUGAWARA, R., MATSUMURA, E. & SENDA, J. 2020. Investigation of spray characteristics from waste cooking
oil, bio-hydro fined diesel oil (BHD) and n-tridecane in a constant volume chamber. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering,
21, 100661.

BOONROD, B., PRAPAINAINAR, C., NARATARUKSA, P., KANTAMA, A., SAIBAUTRONG, W., SUDSAKORN, K.,
MUNGCHAROEN, T. & PRAPAINAINAR, P. 2017. Evaluating the environmental impacts of bio-hydrogenated diesel
production from palm oil and fatty acid methyl ester through life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142,
1210-1221.

DIMITRIADIS, A., NATSIOS, I., DIMARATOS, A., KATSAOUNIS, D., SAMARAS, Z., BEZERGIANNI, S. & LEHTO, K. 2018.
Evaluation of a hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) and effects on emissions of a passenger car diesel engine. Frontiers in
Mechanical Engineering, 4, 7.

DIMITRIADIS, A , SELJAK, T , BAŠKOVIČ, U Ž , DIMARATOS, A , BEZERGIANNI, S , SAMARAS, Z & KATRAŠNIK, T J F

Improving PM-NOx trade-off with paraffinic fuels: A study towards diesel engine optimization with HVO. Fuel, 265, 116921.

FATHURRAHMAN, N. A., AUZANI, A. S., ZAELANI, R., ANGGARANI, R., AISYAH, L., MAYMUCHAR, M. & WIBOWO, C. S. 2021.
Lubricating Properties of Diesel Fuel and Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil with Palm Oil Biodiesel Blends Using HFRR Method.
Available at SSRN 3978729.

HAZRAT, M., RASUL, M. & KHAN, M. 2015. Lubricity improvement of the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel with the biodiesel. Energy
Procedia, 75, 111-117.

HE, B.-Q. 2016. Advances in emission characteristics of diesel engines using different biodiesel fuels. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 60, 570-586.

HILBERS, T. J., SPRAKEL, L. M., VAN DEN ENK, L. B., ZAALBERG, B., VAN DEN BERG, H., VAN DER HAM, L. G. &
TECHNOLOGY 2015. Green diesel from hydrotreated vegetable oil process design study. Chemical Engineering, 38, 651-
657.

KARAVALAKIS, G., JIANG, Y., YANG, J., DURBIN, T., NUOTTIMäKI, J. & LEHTO, K. 2016. Emissions and fuel economy evaluation
from two current technology heavy-duty trucks operated on HVO and FAME blends. SAE International Journal of Fuels
Lubricants, 9, 177-190.

AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER

8
 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies – SET 2024
21st

12 - 14 of August 2024, Shanghai, China

KIM, D. S., HANIFZADEH, M. & KUMAR, A. 2018. Trend of biodiesel feedstock and its impact on biodiesel emission characteristics.
Environmental Progress Sustainable Energy, 37, 7-19.

LAPUERTA, M., VILLAJOS, M., AGUDELO, J. R. & BOEHMAN, A. L. 2011. Key properties and blending strategies of hydrotreated
vegetable oil as biofuel for diesel engines. Fuel processing technology, 92, 2406-2411.

LIEW, C., LI, H., NUSZKOWSKI, J., LIU, S., GATTS, T., ATKINSON, R. & CLARK, N. 2010. An experimental investigation of the
combustion process of a heavy-duty diesel engine enriched with H2. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35, 11357-
11365.

MCCAFFERY, C., ZHU, H., AHMED, C. S., CANCHOLA, A., CHEN, J. Y., LI, C., JOHNSON, K. C., DURBIN, T. D., LIN, Y.-H. &
KARAVALAKIS, G. 2022. Effects of hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) and HVO/biodiesel blends on the physicochemical
and toxicological properties of emissions from an off-road heavy-duty diesel engine. Fuel, 323, 124283.

MOFIJUR, M., RASUL, M., HYDE, J., AZAD, A., MAMAT, R., BHUIYA, M. J. R. & REVIEWS, S. E. 2016. Role of biofuel and their
binary (diesel–biodiesel) and ternary (ethanol–biodiesel–diesel) blends on internal combustion engines emission reduction.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 265-278.

PARRAVICINI, M., BARRO, C. & BOULOUCHOS, K. 2021. Experimental characterization of GTL, HVO, and OME based alternative
fuels for diesel engines. Fuel, 292, 120177.

PROKOPOWICZ, A., ZACIERA, M., SOBCZAK, A., BIELACZYC, P. & WOODBURN, J. 2015. The effects of neat biodiesel and
biodiesel and HVO blends in diesel fuel on exhaust emissions from a light duty vehicle with a diesel engine. Environmental
science technology, 49, 7473-7482.

SAQR, K. M., ALY, H. S., SIES, M. M. & WAHID, M. A. 2010. Effect of free stream turbulence on NOx and soot formation in turbulent
diffusion CH4-air flames. International Communications in Heat Mass Transfer, 37, 611-617.

SINGER, A., SCHRöDER, O., PABST, C., MUNACK, A., BüNGER, J., RUCK, W. & KRAHL, J. 2015. Aging studies of biodiesel and
HVO and their testing as neat fuel and blends for exhaust emissions in heavy-duty engines and passenger cars. Fuel, 153,
595-603.

SOM, S. & LONGMAN, D. 2011. Numerical study comparing the combustion and emission characteristics of biodiesel to petrodiesel.
Energy Fuels, 25, 1373-1386.

SONG, J., ALAM, M., BOEHMAN, A. L., KIM, U. & FLAME 2006. Examination of the oxidation behavior of biodiesel soot. Combustion
flame, 146, 589-604.

SRIPRATHUM, S., MANEEDAENG, A., KLINKAEW, N. & SUKJIT, E. 2023. Comprehensive analysis of properties of green diesel
enhanced by fatty acid methyl esters. RSC advances, 13, 31460-31469.

SU, J., ZHU, H. & BOHAC, S. V. 2013. Particulate matter emission comparison from conventional and premixed low temperature
combustion with diesel, biodiesel and biodiesel–ethanol fuels. Fuel, 113, 221-227.

SUH, H. K. & LEE, C. S. 2016. A review on atomization and exhaust emissions of a biodiesel-fueled compression ignition engine.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1601-1620.

VEINBLAT, M., BAIBIKOV, V., KATOSHEVSKI, D., WIESMAN, Z. & TARTAKOVSKY, L. 2018. Impact of various blends of linseed
oil-derived biodiesel on combustion and particle emissions of a compression ignition engine–A comparison with diesel and
soybean fuels. Energy conversion management, 178, 178-189.

WANG, Y., LIU, H. & LEE, C.-F. F. 2016. Particulate matter emission characteristics of diesel engines with biodiesel or biodiesel
blending: A review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 64, 569-581.

WU, Y., FERNS, J., LI, H. & ANDREWS, G. 2017. Investigation of combustion and emission performance of hydrogenated vegetable
oil (HVO) diesel. SAE International Journal of Fuels Lubricants, 10, 895-903.

XU, Z., LI, X., GUAN, C. & HUANG, Z. 2013. Characteristics of exhaust diesel particles from different oxygenated fuels. Energy fuels,
27, 7579-7586.

AUTHOR SURNAME_PAPER NUMBER

9