jordan purvis ryan saunders sam slaten nicholas ryan walker daniel yacobucci
DESCRIPTION
John Deere SVO. Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory. Jordan Purvis Ryan Saunders Sam Slaten Nicholas Ryan Walker Daniel Yacobucci. Advisor: Dr. Dan Olsen John Deere: Curtis Stovall. Outline:. Introduction Problem Statement Project Tasks Constraints and Criteria Why SVO? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Jordan Purvis Ryan SaundersSam SlatenNicholas Ryan WalkerDaniel Yacobucci
Advisor: Dr. Dan OlsenJohn Deere: Curtis Stovall
John Deere SVOEngines and Energy Conversion Laboratory
Outline:•Introduction• Problem Statement• Project Tasks• Constraints and Criteria• Why SVO?
•Fuels• Characteristics• Fuel System Layout
•Baseline Testing• Performance• Emissions• Fuel Consumption
•Fuel Switching Transients•Fuel Temperature Effects• Consumption• Peak Pressure
•Timing Sweeps•Final Data Review• Consumption• Emissions• FTIR• Fuel System Layout
•Summary
Outline:•Introduction• Problem Statement• Project Tasks• Constraints and Criteria• Why SVO?
•Fuels• Characteristics• Variances• Fuel System Layout
•Baseline Testing• Performance• Emissions• Fuel Consumption
•Fuel Switching Transients•Fuel Temperature Effects• Consumption• Peak Pressure
•Timing Sweeps•Final Data Review• Consumption• Emissions• FTIR• Fuel System Layout
•Summary
Problem Statement:
“Evaluate the performance and emissions characteristics of a John Deere, common rail, CI engine while operating on straight
vegetable oil.”
• Fuel System Redesign.
• 8-Mode Emissions & Baseline Performance.
• Injection Timing Probe.
• Timing Sweeps.
• Final 8-Mode Emissions & Performance Testing.
Project Tasks:
Constraints:1. Testing conforms to ISO 8178 8-Mode standards.2. Engine must switch between diesel and SVO operations while
preventing cross-contamination.3. Analysis must be completed before E-days and Waterloo trip.4. Do not destroy the engine.
Criteria: Prioritized by weight from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest).5. Find max torque of engine while running SVO.4. Investigate fuel rail pressure effects on engine performance.3. Investigate timing effects on engine performance.2. Evaluate possible modifications to combined (diesel & SVO) fuel
system.1. Investigate potential fuel blends/additives for performance
enhancement.
Why SVO?
•Renewable fuel source.•Users of John Deere equipment are able to produce own SVO to offset diesel fuel consumption.•Minimal processing.•Minimal energy input.•Some varieties can be grown in arid climate requiring minimal irrigation.•Lends itself well for combustion in compression ignition engines.
Outline:•Introduction• Problem Statement• Project Tasks• Why SVO?
•Fuels• Characteristics• Variances• Fuel System Layout
•Baseline Testing• Performance• Emissions• Fuel Consumption
•Fuel Switching Transients•Fuel Temperature Effects• Consumption• Peak Pressure
•Timing Sweeps•Final Data Review• Consumption• Emissions• FTIR• Fuel System Layout
•Summary
Types of fuels used:• Red-dyed #2 Diesel• Clear Valley 75 Canola Oil
- 110 gallons donated by Cargill- 75% Oleic acid with 1500 ppm TBHQ
antioxidant
Fuel Characteristics:
Profile for SVO: Clear Valley 75; CargillCarbon # :
Double bonds
Carbon # :
Double bonds
% Composition
Molecular Formula
# Hydrogen Name
Molar Mass
[g/mol]Density [g/cm3]
Melting Point [°C]
Boiling Point [°C]
C14:0 14 0 0.0601 C14H28O2 28 Myristic acid 228.37092 0.8622 54.4 250.5C16:0 16 0 3.3809 C16H32O2 32 Palmitic acid 256.42 0.853 62.9 351.5C16:1 16 1 0.2723 C16H30O2 30 Palmitoleic acid 254.408 0.894 -0.1 C18:0 18 0 2.0349 C18H36O2 36 Stearic acid 284.48 0.847 69.6 383C18:1 18 1 77.6842 C18H34O2 34 Oleic acid 282.4614 0.895 13.5 360C18:2 18 2 9.5647 C18H32O2 32 Linoleic acid 280.45 0.9 -5 229C18:3 18 3 3.0469 C18H30O2 30 α-Linolenic 278.43 -11 230C20:0 20 0 1.2019 C20H40O2 40 Arachidic acid 312.5304 0.824 75.5 328C20:1 20 1 1.3925 C20H38O2 38 Eicosenoic acid 31.51 0.883 23.5 C20:2 20 2 0.5494 C20H36O2 36 Eicosadienoic acid 308.5 C22:0 22 0 0.4086 C22H44O2 44 Behenic acid 340.54 80 306C22:1 22 1 0.0325 C22H42O2 42 Erucic acid 338.57 0.86 33.8 381.5C24:0 24 0 0.2333 C24H48O2 48 Lignoceric acid 368.63 84.2 C24:1 24 1 0.1379 C24H46O2 46 Nervonic acid 366.32 42.5
Total Sats: 7.3197 Sum: 100.0001 *Cargill Confidential Information
Fuel Characteristics:
C14:0C16:0C16:1C18:0C18:1C18:2C18:3C20:0C20:1C20:2C22:0C22:1C24:0C24:1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Cargill, Clear Valley 75 Canola Oil Profile
% Composition
Carb
on#
: Dou
ble
Bond
s
Fuel Diesel SVO (Canola)Density [kg/l] 0.86 0.92
LHV [kJ/kg] 42500 37000
Formula C12.3H22.2 C57.08H109.63O2
Fuel Characteristics:
SVO vs. Diesel Variance 1: Viscosity:
0 50 100 150 200 2500
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Vegetable Oil Viscosity vs. Temperature
CanolaDiesel
Temperature (deg. C)
Visc
ocity
(Cen
tipoi
se)
SVO vs. Diesel Variance 2: Heating Value:
Lower Heating Value MJ/kg0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
SVO vs. Diesel LHV by Energy
DieselCanolaCanola BDSunflowerCamelinaSoyCamelina BDSunflower BDSoy BD
Research Fuel System Layout:
Outline:•Introduction• Problem Statement• Project Tasks• Constraints and criteria• Why SVO?
•Fuels• Characteristics• Variances• Fuel System Layout
•Baseline Testing• Performance• Emissions• Fuel Consumption
•Fuel Switching Transients•Fuel Temperature Effects• Consumption• Peak Pressure
•Timing Sweeps•Final Data Review• Consumption• Emissions• FTIR• Fuel System Layout
•Summary
Baseline Testing:
Performance:
4% difference
3% difference
11% difference
15% Air Density Difference
Diesel Performance Curves
Performance:
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400400
450
500
550
600
650Torque vs. Engine Speed
DieselSVO
Engine Speed [RPM]
Torq
ue [N
m]
13% Difference
Performance:
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 24000
20
40
60
80
100
120
140Power vs. Engine Speed
DieselSVO
Engine Speed [rpm]
Pow
er [k
W]
13%Difference
Pollutant Emissions:
CO NOx THC01234567
Mode 1: 2400 RPM, 100% Torque
DieselSVO
BSE
[g/b
kWhr
]
CO NOx THC0
0.51
1.52
2.53
3.54
4.55
Mode 2: 2400 RPM, 75% Torque
DieselSVO
BSE
[g/b
kWhr
]
CO NOx THC02468
1012
Mode 3: 2400 RPM, 50% Torque
DieselSVO
BSE
[g/b
kWhr
]
CO NOx THC02468
1012141618
Mode 5: 2400 RPM, 10% Torque
DieselSVO
BSE
[g/b
kWhr
]
Particulate Emissions:
Mode11: 800rpm,
0%Torque
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Particulate Emissions [idle only]
DieselSVO
BSPM
[g/b
kWhr
]Mode 1
: 2400rp
m, 100% Torq
ue
Mode 2: 2
400rpm, 7
5%
Mode 3: 2
400rpm, 5
0% Torque
Mode 5: 2400rp
m, 10% Torq
ue
Mode 6: 1
700rpm, 1
00% Torque
Mode 7: 1700rp
m, 75% Torq
ue
Mode 8: 1
700rpm, 5
0% Torque
Mode 11: 8
00rpm, 0
% Torque
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Particulate Emissions
DieselSVO
BSPM
[g/b
Kw-h
r]
Fuel Consumption:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
10
20
30
40
50
Avg. Fuel Consumption (2400rpm)
Diesel Avg. Fuel ConsumptionPolynomial (Diesel Avg. Fuel Consumption)SVO Avg. Fuel ConsumptionPolynomial (SVO Avg. Fuel Consumption)
% TorqueAvg.
Fue
l Con
sum
ption
[kg/
hr]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10005
101520253035404550
Avg. Fuel Consumption (1700rpm)Diesel Avg. Fuel ConsumptionPolynomial (Diesel Avg. Fuel Consumption)SVO Avg. Fuel ConsumptionPolynomial (SVO Avg. Fuel Consumption)
% Torque
Avg.
Fue
l Con
sum
ption
[kg/
hr]
Outline:•Introduction• Problem Statement• Project Tasks• Constraints and criteria• Why SVO?
•Fuels• Characteristics• Variances• Fuel System Layout
•Baseline Testing• Performance• Emissions• Fuel Consumption
•Fuel Switching Transients•Fuel Temperature Effects• Consumption• Peak Pressure
•Timing Sweeps•Final Data Review• Consumption• Emissions• FTIR• Fuel System Layout
•Summary
Transient Behavior:
0 50 100 150 200 2500
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Diesel-to-SVO Transient Behavior Mode 3: 2400rpm, 50% Torque
TorquePower
Time [sec]
Torq
ue [N
m]
Pow
er [k
W]
Transient Behavior:
0 50 100 150 200 2500
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
SVO-to-Diesel Transient Behavior Mode 3: 2400rpm, 50% Torque
Torque
Time [sec]
Torq
ue [N
m]
Pow
er [k
W]
Transient Behavior:
•Power and torque curves followed the expected trends in transitioning between the fuels.
•The torque and power decreased when transitioning from diesel to SVO, and increased when transitioning from SVO to diesel.
•This is expected because of a lower LHV for SVO.
•Both transitions were recorded at 2400RPM, 50% load (Mode 3).
•Fuel consumption is difficult to measure during transition because of the varying fuel density.
Outline:•Introduction• Problem Statement• Project Tasks• Constraints and criteria• Why SVO?
•Fuels• Characteristics• Variances• Fuel System Layout
•Baseline Testing• Performance• Emissions• Fuel Consumption
•Fuel Switching Transients•Fuel Temperature Effects• Consumption• Peak Pressure
•Timing Sweeps•Final Data Review• Consumption• Emissions• FTIR• Fuel System Layout
•Summary
Fuel Temperature vs. Fuel Consumption:
Mode 3: 2400rpm, 50% Torque 50% reduction
Mode 5: 2400rpm, 10% Torque 59% reduction
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Fuel temperature-Consumption comparisonModes 3&5: 2400rpm, 50% & 10 % Torque
Intermediate Temp. 57-60°CHigh Temp. 75-78°C
Fuel
Con
sum
ption
[kg/
hr]
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 900
5
10
15
20
25Viscosity vs. Temperature
Fuel Temperature vs. Emissions:
THC NOx CO0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Fuel temperature-Emissions comparisonMode 3: 2400rpm, 50% Torque, SVO
Intermediate temp. 57°CHigh temp. 78°C
Emis
sion
s [pp
m]
• With the higher temperature SVO there was a slight reduction in NOx and a slight increase with CO.
Fuel Temperature vs. Emissions:
THC NOx CO0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Fuel temperature-Emissions comparisonMode 5: 2400rpm, 10% Torque, SVO
Intermediate temp. 60°CHigh temp. 75°C
Emis
sion
s [pp
m]
•Again we see a trend at higher temperatures of a slight reduction in NOx and a slight increase in CO. This can be better explained when looking at the peak pressure in cylinder.
Fuel Temperature vs. Peak Pressure:
02468
10
Peak Pressure Location with SVO Temperature Difference
Intermediate (57°C)Hot (78°C)
Peak
Pre
ssur
e Lo
catio
n (°A
TDC)
• The peak pressure was seen earlier in the combustion cycle with the increased temperature SVO.
• This advance causes higher cylinder temperatures and more complete combustion which explains fluctuation in emissions.
Outline:•Introduction• Problem Statement• Project Tasks• Constraints and criteria• Why SVO?
•Fuels• Characteristics• Variances• Fuel System Layout
•Baseline Testing• Performance• Emissions• Fuel Consumption
•Fuel Switching Transients•Fuel Temperature Effects• Consumption• Peak Pressure
•Timing Sweeps•Final Data Review• Consumption• Emissions• FTIR• Fuel System Layout
•Summary
Timing Adjustment:
Engine Speed(RPM)
Desi
red
Fuel
(mg/
stro
ke)
0 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1350 1450 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 225023502450 25000 8 8 8 8 8 8 7.7 7.4 7.25 6.95 6.8 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
12 7.66 7.66 8 8 8 8 8 7.77 7 7 6.88 6.5 6.53 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.524 7.33 7.33 7.5 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6.536 7 7 7 6 5 5 5 4.5 4 4 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.59 4.7 4.8 5 5 5 5.548 7 7 6 4.5 3.7 3.7 3.3 3 2 2 2.5 3 3.25 3.43 3.52 3.56 3.59 4 4.2 4.2 4.3460 6.59 6.59 5.5 4 3.3 3.3 2.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.66 1.59 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.09 2.2 2.2 2.772 6.2 6.2 5 3 2.8 2.8 2.09 1 0 0 1.27 1.66 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.09 2.5 3 3 3.484 5.8 5.8 4 2.5 2.3 2.09 2 1 0 0 1.16 2 2.27 2.4 2.52 2.75 3.36 3.45 3.8 3.8 4.396 5.8 5.8 3 1.8 1.59 1.5 1.3 1 0 0 1.16 2.03 2.76 3 3.25 3.5 3.8 4 4.8 4.8 5.2
108 4.9 4.9 2 1.59 1.4 1.3 1.2 1 0 0 1.13 2.07 3.33 3.38 3.46 4.02 5 6 7 7 7.2120 4 4 2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 1.09 2.11 3.34 4 4.45 4.77 5.5 6.2 7 7 7.2132 4 4 2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.09 1.09 0.3 0.3 1.06 2.15 3.38 4 4.4 5.15 5.5 6.33 6.8 6.8 7.15144 4 4 2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.09 1.09 0.3 0.3 1.06 2.15 3.38 4 4.4 5.15 5.5 6.33 6.8 6.8 7.03156 4 4 2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.09 1.09 0.5 0.5 1.06 2.15 3.38 4 4.4 5.15 5.5 6.33 6.8 6.8 6.91
•Timing Sweep tested from 10°bTDC to -5°bTDC
•Timing Sweep tested at 2400RPM; 10% Load, and 50% Load.
Emissions Comparisons, Stock Calibration:
THC NOx CO0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Mode 1: 2400 RPM, 100% Torque:
DieselSVO
Emissions Species
Raw
Em
issi
ons [
ppm
d]
Emissions Comparisons, Stock Calibration:
THC NOx CO0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Mode 11: 800 RPM, 0% Torque:
DieselSVO
Emissions Species
Raw
Em
issi
ons [
ppm
d]
Timing vs. Emissions:
0 -3 -4 -5 -60
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Mode 3: 2400rpm, 50% Torque: NOx
Timing Adjustment [degrees from stock timing]
Emis
sion
s [pp
md]
Timing vs. Emissions:
0 -3 -4 -5 -60
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Mode 5: 2400rpm, 10% Torque: CO
Timing Adjustment [degrees from stock timing]
Emis
sion
s [pp
md]
Timing vs. Fuel Consumption:
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 00
2
4
6
8
10
12
14Timing Effects on Diesel Fuel Consumption
Mode 3Mode 5
Timing Adjustment [degrees from stock timing]
Fuel
Con
sum
ption
[kg/
hr]
Timing vs. Fuel Consumption:
•As shown in plots above a timing shift of 3 degrees advance shows the best balance of fuel consumptions and emissions improvements.
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 00
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Timing Fuel Effects on SVO Fuel Consumption
Mode 3Mode 5
Timing Adjustment [degrees from stock timing @TDC]
Fuel
Con
sum
ption
[kg/
hr]
Outline:•Introduction• Problem Statement• Project Tasks• Constraints and criteria• Why SVO?
•Fuels• Characteristics• Variances• Fuel System Layout
•Baseline Testing• Performance• Emissions• Fuel Consumption
•Fuel Switching Transients•Fuel Temperature Effects• Consumption• Peak Pressure
•Timing Sweeps•Final Data Review• Consumption• Emissions• FTIR• Fuel System Layout
•Summary
Final Fuel Consumption:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
20
40
Baseline Fuel Consumption (2400rpm)
DieselPolynomial (Diesel)SVOPolynomial (SVO)
% TorqueAvg.
Fue
l Con
sum
ption
[kg/
hr]
0 20 40 60 80 100 1200
20
40
Final Fuel Consumption (2400rpm)
DieselPolynomial (Diesel)SVOPolynomial (SVO)
% TorqueAvg.
Fue
l Con
sum
ption
[kg/
hr]
•Timing changes contribute to a significant reduction in fuel consumption:
• 7% decrease for Mode 3 (2400rpm, 50% Torque).
• 8% decrease for Mode 5 (2400rpm, 10% Torque).
Final Emissions Data:
•Timing changes contribute to a significant reduction in regulated emissions:
• 24% reduction in CO emissions.
• 11% reduction in NOx emissions.
• 18% reduction in THC emissions.
• 9% reduction in PM emissions.
CO NOx + THC0123456789
Final Weighted BSE
DieselSVOEPA Tier 2
WBS
E [g
/bkW
hr]
CO NOx + THC0123456789
Baseline Weighted BSE
WBS
E [g
/bkW
hr]
SVO as fuel
Final Emissions Data:
•Timing changes contribute to a significant reduction in regulated emissions:
• 7% reduction in PM emissions. (reduced from 0.06775 to 0.06286 g/bkWhr)
PM0
0.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
0.35
Baseline Weighted BSE
WBS
E [g
/bkW
hr]
PM0
0.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
0.35
Final Weighted BSE
DieselSVOEPA Tier 2
WBS
E [g
/bkW
hr]
Final Emissions Data:
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Brake Specific Energy Consumption vs. Brake Power
Diesel, 2400rpmDiesel, 1700rpmSVO, 2400rpmSVO, 1700rpm
Brake Power [kW]
BSf [
g/Bk
W-h
r]m̊
FTIR Data:
Formaldehyde Acrolein Acetaldehyde0
5
10
15
20
25
EMIS
SIO
NS
[ppm
]
Form
aldehyde
Acrolei
n
Acetaldehyd
e
Form
aldehyde
Acrolei
n
Acetal
dehyde
DieselSVO
•Above are the emissions (in ppm) of aldehydes across various modes.
•Currently the EPA does not regulate these emissions for diesel engines (only natural gas engines) yet the trend in Europe may speak of things to come.
Mode 2:2400rpm, 75% Torque
Mode 5:2400rpm, 10% Torque
Mode 6:1700rpm, 100% Torque
Practical Fuel System Layout:
Summary:
Injection Timing:
Engine Performance:•Maximum engine torque and power are approximately 3-4% lower at 5000 ft above sea level when compared to John Deere provided specifications.
•Under high load conditions, SVO is an advantageous alternative fuel to diesel, while at lower loads, diesel is the preferred fuel.
•After timing sweeps, it was found that 3 degrees advanced injection timing improves emissions and fuel consumption on SVO.
SVO Temperature:•Preheating SVO is advantageous for system performance.
•At room temperature (23°C), engine is unable to maintain load and surges or stalls at idle.
•At intermediate temperature (57-60°C) engine performs normally with increased fuel consumption vs high temperature fuel.
•At high temperature (75-78°C) engine performs normally with decreased fuel consumption and slight reduction in emissions vs intermediate fuel temperature.
Acknowledgements:
•Dr. Daniel Olsen (Project Advisor)
•Kirk Evans (EECL Lab Manager)•Phil Bacon (EECL Research Engineer)•Cory Kreutzer (EECL Research Engineer)•Syndi Nettles-Anderson (MECH486 TA)
•Daren Coonrod (Cargill Oils)
•Chase Crouch (Colorado Equipment)
Questions?