EMA 200 HOUR TEST

Hydrogenated Soy Ethyl Ester and Diesel Fuel

.. .~.__.__
_-__.
---- ._. _-
!
For the U.S. Department of Energy i
Bonneville Power Administration i
Contract Number 93BI09233 1

University of Idaho
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Submitted in completion of Task 6.3
 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures
Figure 1. 200 hour torque test data . .... ..... .. .. .. 8

Figure 2. Engine power change relative to the engine power at 0 hours . .. 9

Figure 3. Engine oil viscosity vs time . .. .. . ....... .. .. . . 10

Figure 4. Engine oil total base number vs time _. . . . . . . . . . . ... . 10

Figure 5. Engine oil iron concentration vs time . . . . .. . .... . 11

Figure 6. Engine oil aluminum concentration vs time . , . . . . . 12

Figure 7. Engine oil silicon concentration vs time . .... . ... .. ... 12

Figure 8. Injector coking vs time . ....... ... .. .. . .. .. 13

Tables
Table 1. Fuel characterization data .. ..... . ..... .... ...... 7

Table 2. Engine component change in weights relative to 2-D ....... . . 16

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . .._......._..._............................._,.... 1

Materials and Methods ........ . .

Equipment ..............
Fuels .................. ... .... .. ... ... .. . . 3
Load Cycle .............. . . . . .. .. .. ... 3

Procedures . .. . ...................... 4
Fuel Production . . . ...................... 4
EMA 200 Hour Test . . . . ...................... 5

Results and Discussion ....... .. . .. . 6

Fuel Consumption ....... . .. . 6
Engine Performance ...... ... . . .. .. . 8
Oil Analysis ............ . . .. . . 9
Injector Coking ......... . . . . . . . . 13
Engine Inspection ........ . . . . . . .. . . 13
Z-D ................ .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . 13
8OHySEE ............ . . . . . . . . .. .. ,. 14
Hy SEE .............. . . . ... .. . . . . . . 14
20HySEE ............ ... . . .. . . .. . 15
Weights and Measurements .. . .. . , . . 16

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.._................................ 17
 EMA200HOURTEST
using
Hydrogenated Soy Ethyl Esters and Diesel Fuel

INTRODUCTION

The Engine Manufacturer’s Association (EMA) in 1982 adopted a 200 hour preliminary
durability screening test to assessthe potential impact of alternative fuels on diesel engine
durability. The test is intended for research and development purposes and is designed to
initiate durability problems in a reasonable amount of time. Successful completion of the test
is no assurance that the fuel will be acceptable. However, the test will eliminate some
candidate tieIs, and patterns of performance and engine durability will be uniformly evaluated
for all test fuels.

Due to increasing environmental awareness, Biodiesel is gaining recognition in the United

States as a renewable fuel which may be used as an alternative to diesel tie1 without any
modifications to the engine. Biodiesel fiels can be made from ethanol and vegetable oil, both
agriculturally derived products. As such, they provide several advantages: they are renewable,
they are safer, they are biodegradable, they contain little or no sulfLr and they reduce engine
exhaust smoke. Currently, the cost of this fuel is a primary factor that limits its use. One way
to reduce the cost of Biodiesel is to use a less expensive form of vegetable oil such as waste
oil from a potato processing plant.

Idaho produces approximately 120 million cwt of potatoes from over 152,000 ha. Nearly
60% of these are processed, the vast majority being made into French fried potatoes. These
operations use mainly hydrogenated soybean oil, some beef tallow and some canola. It is
estimated that there are several million pounds of waste vegetable oil from these operations
each year. Additional waste frying oil is available from smaller processors, off-grade oil seeds
and restaurants.

One of these processors,produces over two billion pounds of frozen potatoes per year at
plants in Oregon, Idaho and North Dakota. This company built an ethanol plant in the late
1980’s, which uses potato waste as the feedstock. One plant provides an opportunity for a
Biodiesel facility using waste vegetable oil and ethanol to produce hydrogenated soy ethyl
ester (HySEE). The market value of waste frying oil is about $0.11 per liter ($0.40 per
gallon). Ethanol has a plant value of about $0.28 per liter ($1.05 per gallon). It is projected
that this facility could produce Biodiesel at only slightly over $0.25 per liter ($1 .OOper gallon)
making it economically coinparable to diesel fLe1.

Hydrogenated soy ethyl ester (HySEE) also has good possibilities for use as a diesel fuel
substitute because:
0 Biodiesel made from waste french fry oil may be cost competitive with diesel fuel and
other diesel substitutes.
l Ethyl Esters may reduce emissions which may help open markets in urban areas.
l Ethyl Esters are made from ethanol and vegetable oil making it a completely biomass
derived product.
l Ethanol is nontoxic, making it safer to work with than methanol.

This study examines long term engine tests with HySEE and blends with diesel fuel. Three
identical Yanmar 15 kW diesel engines were operated simultaneously for the 200 hour EMA
test with three different fuels. The three fuels used for this study were 100% Hydrogenated
Ethyl Ester (HySEE), 80% HySEE - 20% number one diesel fuel, and 20% HySEE - 80%
number 2 diesel fuel. For comparative purposes 100% number two diesel fire1 data is included
with these three Crels from EMA test 14. Even though the three engines are identical, the
performance is not. Due to the variability in power and fuel consumption from engine to
engine and only one replication for each fuel, one needs to reference the paper by Peterson et
al. (1994) “Processing, Characterization and Performance of Eight Fuels from Lipids” for a
comparison of performance variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Equipment
Three Yanmar 3TN75E-S diesel engines (3-cylinder, 4-stroke, naturally aspirated, direct
injection) were used as the test engines. Each has a bore and stroke equal to 75 mm, a
displacement of 994 cc, a compression ratio of 17.6: 1 and a one-hour power rating of 15 kW
at 3000 RPM. These engines were chosen because their design is typical of most diesel
engines used in agriculture today.

Three test stands, designed and built at the University of Idaho were used to load and monitor
the test engines, Each stand uses a hydraulic dynamometer which consists of a Hydreco gear
pump (cradled for torque measurement) coupled directly to the engine clutch shaft. A Sperry-
Vickers electronically modulated relief valve (EMRV) was used to control the pressure on the
pump and thus the load applied to the engine. A constant volume flowmeter, which measures
the time for a known volume of fuel to be consumed, and a magnetic pickup, which measures
engine speed at the clutch shaft have been incorporated into each stand. Throttle control was
provided by a DC gearhead motor linked to the throttle shaft of each engine’s fuel injection
pump. Each test stand can be controlled either manually from the stand or remotely with a
data acquisition and control system.

The data acquisition and control system consists of a microcomputer and a Hewlett Packard
3497 data acquisition and control unit. The system capabilities include control of engine
speed and load as well as measurement of engine torque, speed, power output, fuel
consumption, and temperatures (exhaust, crankcase oil, fuel, and hydraulic oil).
 3

Diesel exhaust quality is usually expressed in terms of the opacity of the exhaust smoke. A
Telonic Berkiey model 200 portable opacity meter was connected to the data acquisition unit
at the 50 hour torque test intervals. The opacity meter consists of a light source positioned on
one side of the exhaust stream and a photo resistor mounted on the opposite side. The meter
provides an output voltage ranging from 0 to 1.OOvolts. One hundred % opacity (1 .O volt)
corresponds to no light transmission whereas 0% opacity corresponds to complete light
transmission.

The potato processing company supplied a sufficient quantity of waste hydrogenated soybean
oil to produce 250 gallons of HySEE. This was produced at the University of Idaho’s
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Laboratory farm scale processing facility using a
recipe developed by the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department personnel. The
fuels used in this study were 100% Hydrogenated Soybean Ethyl Ester (HySEE), 80%
HySEE - 20%number one diesel fuel (80HySEE), and 20% HySEE - 80% number two diesel
fuel (20HySEE). Number two diesel fuel (2-D) from a previous EMA test was used for a
comparison. The esterification plant has a capacity of 1060 liters. The components of the
system include: a 1150 L conical bottomed, stainless steel reaction tank; a R.S. Corcoran
model 2000D explosion proof centrifugal pump (75-95 L per minute capacity); and a 0.2 kW
mixer with a 3.4: 1 gear reduction unit (1725 motor RPM).

The stainless steel tank and system pump are mounted on a 1200 mm by 2400 mm steel
platform with caster wheels and has forklift capability. PVC pipe and fittings are used for all
system plumbing. All of the reaction, settling, washing, and separating takes place in the
stainless steel tank. The ethanol and KOH (catalyst) are premixed in a 300 L tank prior to
being transferred to the larger system tank. The fuel properties were determined by University
of Idaho technicians and a commercial lab and are displayed in Table 1.

Load Cycle
The standard EMA test (see Appendix D) was designed to initiate durability problems
associated with the use of alternative fuels in a relatively short period of time. Thus the load
cycle is quite severe. The standard test utilizes four engine load cycles (1 set) over a three
hour period. The standard test calls for five consecutive sets (15 hours of continuous
operation) followed by a nine hour (minimum) period during which the engines are shut down
and allowed to reach ambient temperature. In order to accommodate the schedules of the lab
staff, this study used a shortened version of the standard test which consisted of 4 consecutive
sets (12 hours of continuous operation). This was continued until 200 hours were logged on
each engine.

The four conditions are described as follows:

1. Rated condition (60 minute): Operating at full throttle, a load is applied until engine
speed decreases to the manufacturer specified rated speed.
2. Maximum torque (60 minute): Operating at fir11throttle, a load is applied until the engine
speed decreases to the speed of rated torque as described by the manufacturer.
3. High idle (30 minute): the load is set at 25% of maximum torque and the throttle is
varied to achieve an engine speed of 90% of rated speed.
4. Low idle (30 minute): At no load the throttle is varied to achieve the manufacturers
recommended curb idle.

The following data (averaged over the duration of the cycle) were measured and collected for
each load cycle of every set:
Engine speed Crankcase oil temperature
Torque Exhaust gas temperature
Power output Fuel temperature
Fuel consumption Ambient temperature

PROCEDURES

Fuel Production
The HySEE fuel production process utilizes 70% stoichiometric excess ethanol (absolute,
100% pure), or a molar ratio of 5.1: 1 ethanol to oil ratio. The total free fatty acids are
determined and neutralized with the calculated addition of catalyst, Based on the amount of
input oil by weight, 1.3% potassium hydroxide (KOH) is used plus the amount to neutralize
the free ,fatty acids. The following equations were used for the quantities processed:

EtOH = 0.2738 x Oil KOH = Oil/85

Where; Oil = desired amount of oil, in liters

EtOH = amount of ethanol needed, in liters
KOH = amount of potassium hydroxide required, in kg

The waste hydrogenated soybean oil is heated to 49 degrees Celsius. The catalyst is dissolved
into the alcohol by vigorous stirring in a small reactor. The oil is transferred into the Biodiesel
reactor and then the catalyst/alcohol mixture is pumped into the oil and the final mixture
stirred vigorously for two hours. A successtil reaction produces two liquid phases: ester and
crude glycerol. Crude glycerol, the heavier liquid will collect at the bottom tier several hours
of settling.Phaseseparationcanbeobservedwithin 10minutesandcanbecompletewithin
two hours after stirring is stopped. Complete settling can take as long as 20 hours. After
settling is complete, water is added at a rate of 5.5% by volume of the oil and then stirred for
five minutes and the glycerol allowed to settle again. After settling is complete, the glycerol is
drained and the ester layer remains. Washing the ester is a two-step process which is carried
out with extreme care. A water wash solution at the rate of 28% by volume of oil and 1 gram
of tan& acid per liter of water is added to the ester and gently agitated. Air is carefblly
introduced into the aqueous layer while simultaneously stining very gently. This process is
 5

continued until the ester layer becomes clear. After settling, the aqueous solution is drained
and water alone is added at 28% by volume of oil for the final washing.

The HySEE was blended on a volume basis with the diesel fuels as required.

EMA 200 Hour Test

The 200 hour test cycle described above was run to evaluate the engine durability effects of
long term usage of the three fuels described. The test was performed on three identical
engines run simultaneously and controlled by the microcomputer-based data acquisition and
control system as previously described.

Prior to the test, the engines were completely rebuilt. New piston rings and any engine
components not within the manufacturers wear tolerances were installed. The cylinder heads
were glass bead cleaned to remove all carbon build-up in the intake and exhaust ports.
Following the rebuild, the engines were subjected to a short break in period on 100% 2-D as
recommended by the manufacturer before beginning the described test.

At 100 hour intervals the engine oil and filter were changed and oil samples were taken from
each engine’s crankcase and analyzed by a commercial lab for wear metal concentrations and
viscosity changes.

At 50 hour intervals, the test was halted to run the following tests with each engine running on
its respective test fuel:
Constant throttle - variable speed torque tests
Injector performance check
Cylinder compression check
Opacity check

At each 50-hour interval the injectors were removed and the injector coking was measured by
machine vision to provide a quantitative record of injector coking. The results of the injector
coking method are reported as a relative coking number. Each used injector silhouette is
captured at two positions, 90 degrees apart, and then the profiles are scanned with an area of
the injector tip and coking reported. These areas are then subtracted from the area of a clean
injector tip.

All engine service and maintenance was performed as specified in the manufacturers service
manual. No modifications were made to any of the engines for testing the Biofuels.
 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fuel Consumution
The engine fueled on HySEE consumed 747 liters (197 gallons), the 80HySEE fbeled engine
consumed 65 1 liters (172 gallons), the 20HySEE fueled engine consumed 68 1 liters (180
gallons) of fuel, and the 2-D fueled engine consumed 630 liters (166 gallons) of fuel. The
differences in fuel consumption reflects the differences in heat of combustion and density of
the individual fuels and are affected by variations in settings between engines. A complete
listing of fuel properties is given in Table 1.
 7

Table 1. Fuel Characterization Data

ICetane Number I 61 I 1 48.2

Heat ofCombustion, Gross, MJ/kg 1 39.69 1 40.86 1 43.84 I 45.42
(Zonner
1, Corrosion I 1A I 1A I 1A I 1A 1
arl Fischer Water, ppm I 1075 I 815 I 172 I 38 I
Particulate Matter, mgk.
Total 0.99 0.54 0.68 0.9
Non-Combustible 0.06 0.21 0.14 co.1
Elemental Analvsis,
Carbon, % 1 78.56 1 78.28 1 83.75 86.67
1 Hvdroaen.
, % I 13.09 I 13.32 I 13.12 12.98
Oxygen, % (by difference) ! 8.35 8.40 ! 3.10
1Iodine Number I 69.3 I 54.9 I 28.7 I 8.6 I

Ester Specific Properties

Percent Esterified 1 91.65
&ree Glvcerol. %wt
,~- I
I 0.18 I
Total Glycerol, %wt 6.06
Free Fatty Acids, %wt 0.42
Monoglvcerides. %wt 1.97

I Steak (18:O) I 15.0 I

Oleic(l&O) 24.6
Linoleic (18:2) 48.6
 8

Engine Performance
The two hundred hour torque test data is shown in Figure 1 with torque and power plotted
against engine RPM.

60 816

‘14
50

g 40

3
$ 30 a0
8

20
6

lo! : I : I : I : ! : I : I : I : 14
1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200
Engine RPM

- HySEE - 80HySEE + 20HySEE -m- 2-D

Figure 1. 200 Hour Torque Test Data.

The observed performance trend, shown in Figure 2, shows the change in power relative to
output at zero hours for each 50 hour interval. Relative power change is shown instead of
actual power to compensate for the difference in engines. The relative power Corn start to
end for 2-D was 1.03, 1.02 for HySEE, 1.Ol for 20HySEE and 1.007 for 80HySEE. The
maximum power for each of the engines stayed fairly constant throughout the 200 hour test.
 9

0.98

0 50 100 150 200

Engine Hours
-m- HySEE + 80HySEE + 20HySEE + 2-D

Figure 2. Engine Power Change Relative to the Engine Power at 0 Hours.

Cylinder compression varied from 2.65 MPa (385 psi) to 3.00 MPa (420 psi) between
cylinders and engines, but varied only 30 psi for the same cylinder during the test. The fuel
injector valve opening pressure (VOP) varied from 19.65 MPa (2,850 psi) to 21 .OOMPa
(3,050 psi) for all the fuel injectors. Individual injector valve opening pressure varied only
344 kPa (50 psi) for the duration of testing. Engine blow-by was measured at each 50 hour
interval with no difference from beginning to end for each of the three engines. Percent
opacity using the snap idle test was 20.1% for HySEE, 11.5% for 80HySEE, and 30.8% for
20HySEE.

Oil Analvsis
All engines show a decrease in engine oil viscosity compared to new lubricating oil. The
HySEE fueled engine had a viscosity less than the allowable limit at the loo-hour interval but
not at the 200 hour interval. The engine oil viscosity versus time data is shown in Figure 3,
and the total base number (TEN) versus time is shown in Figure 4. The TBN indicates the
potential of the oil to neutralize strong acids as the mineral acids derived from sulfur, chlorine,
and bromine. Decreases in TBN are associated with corrosion of engine parts and increases in
varnish deposits.
 10

16

6
50 100 - 150
Engine Hours

Figure 3. Engine Oil Viscosity vs Time. The Engine Oil was Changed at 100
Hours.

v v

50 . 100 . 150 .
Engine Hours

Figure 4. Engine Oil Total Base Number vs Time. The Engine Oil was
Changed at 100 Hours.
 11

Engine wear was evaluated on the basis of the concentrations of three wear metals in the
lubricating oil. The metals, and their primary source, used as the wear basis are as follows:
1) Iron - cylinder, camshaft, valve train, gear wear
2) Aluminum - piston and bearing wear
3) Silicon - anti-foam additive, ingested dirt

Wear metal concentration results are shown in Figures 5 through 7. All the engine oil analysis
were within the allowable limits with the exception of Z-D at 100 hours. Wear and viscosity
limits were reported by Cleveland Technical Center, Spokane, Washington. Oil analysis
results are in Appendix A.

50

100 150
Engine Hours

Figure 5. Engine Oil Iron Concentration vs Time. The Engine Oil was
Changed at 100 Hours.
 12

Engine Hours

Figure 6. Engine Oil Aluminum Concentration vs Time. The Engine Oil was
Changed at 100 Hours.

100 150 200

Engine Hours

Figure 7. Engine Oil Silicon Concentration vs Time. The Engine Oil was
Changed at 100 Hours.
 13

Iniector Coking
The coking results from the machine vision method are presented in Figure 8. At the
conclusion of the test the injectors were disassembled and inspected for internal deposits. The
lift needles of the injectors operated on these fuels were clean and showed no wear or
discoloration.

3.5E-03

3
2 2.5E-03
.-2
z 2.OE-03

l .OE-03
100 150
Engine Hours

Figure 8. Injector Coking vs Time.

Engine Inspection
Following the 200 hour EMA test, the three engines were disassembled and inspected.

100% 2-D
The oil in the bottom of the oil pan was dark in color but there were no large particles or
foreign material. The engine oil pickup screen was free from debris. The cylinder walls look
good with no visible or measurable wear. All the valve seats in the cylinder head were clean
and shiny. A small amount of carbon build up was present in the exhaust ports, and the intake
ports wereclean.Theintakevalve faceswereclean.Thestemareahada slightamountof
hard carbon deposits. The exhaust valve faces were fairly clean. The piston ring lands were
very clean. The tops of the pistons had minimal amounts of carbon build up grayish in color.
The rod and main bearings had no visible wear with very small scratches on the lower halves.
There was no measurable wear in the engine components that move. The overall condition of
this engine was normal for a 200 hour EMA test.
 14

BO%HySEE - 2O%D1
The remaining oil in the oil pan was black but did not have any foreign material. The oil
pickup screen was free from debris. The visual appearance of the camshaft and lifters was
normal. The main and rod bearings had normal wear without any scratches. The crankshaft
was identical to the bearings. The piston ring wear patterns were uniform for each of the
cylinders. Piston #1 was a new piston with carbon build up from the top of the piston to the
first ring land approximately 3/4 around. The top ring land was clean and free of carbon. The
area between the first and second rings had carbon build up about l/8 the circumference of the
piston. The second ring land had a slight build up of carbon identical to the previously
mentioned area. The oil ring land was clean and free of carbon build up, as was the area
between the second ring and the oil ring. The piston skirt was clean and without scratches.

The piston ring wear patterns were uniform for each of the cylinders. Piston #2 had carbon
build up from the top of the piston to the first ring land about 3/4 around. The top ring land
had carbon build up about % inch around the circumference. The area between the first and
second rings had carbon build up about two inches around the circumference of the piston.
The second ring land had a slight build up of carbon identical to the previously mentioned
area. The oil ring land was clean and free of carbon build up, as was the area between the
second ring and the oil ring. The piston skirt was clean and without scratches.

Piston #3 had slightly more carbon build up from the top of the piston to the first ring land,
about 3/4 around the circumference, than the other two pistons. The top ring land had a small
amount of carbon in one area. The areas between the first and second rings, the second ring
land, the area between the second ring and the oil ring, and the oil ring land was free of carbon
build up. The piston skirt was clean and without scratches.

The carbon deposits on the top of each piston was equal and was black with one area that was
brownish gray in color.

All the valve seats in the cylinder head were clean and shiny as were the intake valve faces.
The exhaust valve faces were shiny black from a small amount of carbon discoloration and the
stem area had a thin layer of carbon. The intake valve stems had a slight build up of carbon -
more than the exhaust stems. The carbon deposits on the intake valve heads were black and
the exhaust valve heads were dark brownish-gray. All the cylinder head intake ports were
clean and the exhaust ports had a slight amount of carbon.

100% HySEE
The remaining oil in the oil pan was black but did not have any foreign material. The oil
pickup screen was free from debris. The visual appearance of the camshaft and lifters was
normal. The main and rod bearings had normal wear without any unusual scratches. The
crankshaft was identical to the bearings. The piston ring wear patterns were uniform for each
of the cylinders. Piston #l was a new piston with carbon build up from the top of the piston
to the first ring land approximately 3/4 around. The top ring land was clean and free of
 15

carbon. The area between the first and second rings had carbon build up about 1 % inch
around the circumference of the piston. The second ring land had a slight build up of carbon
identical to the previously mentioned area. The oil ring land was clean and free of carbon
build up, as was the area between the second ring and the oil ring. The piston skirt was clean
and without scratches.

Piston #2 had carbon build up from the top of the piston to the first ring land about 3/4
around. The top ring land had carbon build up about l/z the circumference. The area between
the first and second rings had carbon build up about three inches around the circumference of
the piston. The second ring land had a slight build up of carbon identical to the previously
mentioned area. The oil ring land was clean and free of carbon build up, as was the area
between the second ring and the oil ring. The piston skirt was clean and without scratches.

Piston #3 had carbon build up from the top of the piston to the first ring land about 314
around the circumference of the piston. The top ring land had a small amount of carbon in
one area. The areas between the first and second rings, the second ring land, the area between
the second ring and the oil ring, and the oil ring land was free of carbon build up. The piston
skirt was clean and without scratches.

The carbon deposits on the top of each piston was equal and was black with one area that was
brownish gray in color.

All the valve seats in the cylinder head were clean and shiny as were the intake valve faces.
The exhaust valve faces were shiny black from a small amount of carbon discoloration. The
stem area had a thin layer of carbon. The intake valve stems had a slight build up of carbon -
more than the exhaust stems. The carbon deposits on the intake valve heads were black and
the exhaust valve heads were dark brownish-gray. All the cylinder head intake ports were
clean and the exhaust ports had a slight amount of carbon. The overall condition of this
engine was normal for a 200 hour EMA test.

ZO%HySEE - 80% 2-D

The remaining oil in the oil pan was black but did not have any foreign material. The oil
pickup screen was free from debris. The visual appearance of the camshaft and lifters was
normal. The main and rod bearings had normal wear without any unusual scratches. The
crankshaft was identical to the bearings. The piston ring wear patterns were uniform for each
of the cylinders. Piston #l was a new piston and appeared to have antifreeze in the cylinder
because the carbon was flaking off, although there was no sodium in the oil analysis. The top
ring land had carbon about r/zthe circumference of the piston. The area between the first and
:xond rings had carbon build up about l/3 the circumference of the piston. The second ring
land had a slight build up of carbon identical to the previously mentioned area. The oil ring
land was clean and free of carbon build up, as was the area between the second ring and the
oil ring. The piston skirt was clean and without scratches.
 16

Piston #2 had carbon build up from the top of the piston to the first ring land about 314
around. The top ring land had carbon build up about Y’zinch around the circumference. The
area between the first and second rings had carbon build up about two inches around the
circumference of the piston. The second ring land had a slight build up of carbon identical to
the previously mentioned area. The oil ring land was clean and free of carbon build up, as was
the area between the second ring and the oil ring. The piston skirt was clean and without
scratches.

Piston #3 had carbon build up from the top of the piston to the first ring land about 314
around the circumference of the piston. The top ring land had a small amount of carbon
almost ‘/z the circumference and l/4 down the width of the ring land. The area between the
first and second rings had carbon about l/3 the circumference. The second ring land had a
slight build up of carbon identical to the previously mentioned area. The area between the
second ring and the oil ring was clean as was the oil ring land. The piston skirt was clean and
without scratches. The carbon deposits on top of each piston were equal and black in color.

All the valve seats in the cylinder head were clean as were the intake valve faces, The exhaust
valve faces were shiny black from a small amount of carbon discoloration and the stem area
had a thin layer of carbon. The intake valve stems had a slight build up of carbon - more than
the exhaust stems. The carbon deposits on the intake valve heads and exhaust valve heads
were black. All the cylinder head intake ports were clean and the exhaust ports had a slight
amount of carbon, The overall condition of this engine was normal for a 200 hour EMA test.

Visually ranking these engines - 1OO%HySEE was the cleanest, 80%HySEE/20%Dl second
cleanest, and 20%HySEE/80%2-D was cleaner than the 100%2-D engine.

Weights and Measurements

Table 2 is the change in weight relative to 2-D for the given engine components.

Table 2. Engine Component Change in Weights Relative to 2-D

* Incr is an increase in weight for piston rings which is theoretically not possible since the
carbon was removed from the rings before weighing.
 17

Ranking the three engines for this 200 hour test using relative weights from table 2 as the
indicator; the engine fueled with HySEE was ranked highest (less wear and carbon build up
than 2-D) with 80HySEE following and 20HySEE as the lowest. This coincides with the
visual ranking reported earlier.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no engine or engine part modifications before or during the tests. The EMA 200
hour test demonstrated that these fuels are suitable alternatives to diesel fuel and further
testing is appropriate. Engine oil analysis for the HySEE fuels were similar to the diesel
fueled engine. There was no cylinder wall to piston scuffing with any of the fuels. All the
piston rings for the three different fuels were clean and free. The crankshaft bearings in each
engine showed normal wear with no measurable difference in the crank journals. The injector
pressures did not vary more than 50 psi during the course of testing. The injector needles
moved freely at the end of the test. Injector coking varied for each fuel throughout the test
series. HySEE and 20HySEE had fewer carbon deposits while SOHySEE had more deposits
than did the diesel fueled engine.

The HySEE, 80HySEE and 20HySEE pistons, three pistons for each engine averaged
together, had a weight increase of 12%, 15% and 6% respectively compared to the average of
the 2-D pistons. The carbon deposits on the intake valves were 44% less for HySEE, 34%
less for 80HySEE and 15% more for 20HySEE compared to 2-D. The exhaust valves for the
HySEE< SOHySEE and 20HySEE fueled engines had a decrease in carbon deposits of 8%,
19% and 16% compared to the 2-D fueled engine.

A complete set of fuel characteristics are presented. Fuel characterization data show some
similarities and differences between HySEE and diesel fuel. a) Specific weight is higher for
Biodiesel, heat of combustion is 8% lower, and viscosities are 2 times that of 2-D. b) Pour
point for HySEE is 17°C higher than diesel. c) Sulfix content is 40% less for HySEE than
2-D.

All the fuels had a performance which surpassed the requirements of the EMA standard.
 APPENDIX A
Engine Oil Analysis
/ 0
I WlllSSVlOd

wfllOVNvh o

0
WnlNVlll

0
; WflN3I33AlOW

SntlOHdSOHd s
cb

WrllHVB o

wrl131v3 6
‘;
wnlS3N3vw s

wnloos -

NOXIS :

3S3NVDNVW 0

ti3AllS 0

13)13lN 0
i

M - e
d 0 d
Chew LubeWatch’” (800) L ;E-808 tevron
Maintenance Management System 11607 EAST TRENT AVENUE, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206, (509) 921-9909, FAX (509) 921-9910 Luhrlcanrs
DESCRIPTION: ENGINE
CUSTOMER NO.: I9562 UNIT NO.: 05499 OIL BRAND: CHEVRON
Condition: NORMAL MAKE: YANMAR MODEL: 3TN75E-S OIL TYPE: DEL0 15W40
Analyst : RGT UNIT SERIAL NO.: #2 FUEL TYPE: DIESEL HO. COPIES: I

26374

26958
10/06/95
10/11/95
10/13/95
50
50
100 23 4 4 3 0 7 0 0 0 16
I 1 28

119
1

1
40

47
2213

1898
0

0
976

754
1167

1000
0

0
0

0
0

0
N/A

N/A
<I

5.0
N/A

N/A
12.56

10.96
0

0
N/A

N/A
NEG

NEG
7

AnhA ..AAAA..
10/17/95 100
27638 10/20/95 50 92 0104 0 0 0 12 154 0 39 2167 0 III3 1261 0 0 0 N/A <l N/A 13.32 0 N/A NEG
10/25/95 150
28493 10/30/95 100 17 3 2 IO 5 0 0 0 9 133 4 40 2195 0 921 1115 0 0 0 N/A ~1 N/A 12.55 0 N/A NEG
11/01/95 200
I

-'-' IF-SOOTITBN ISAE I I I I I I I I I

26374 0.2 6.5 40

26958 0.3 4.9 30

. ..%hAAA

27638 0.3 6.3 40

28493 0.5 5.9 40

26374 RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMEO INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED. 27638 RESULTS OF TEST PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REPUIRED.

26958 NOTE: TEST RESULTS INDICATE PRESENCE OF FUEL DILUTION. 28493 RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED.
RECOMMEND CHECK FUEL AND INJECTION SYSTEMS FOR SOURCE OF FUEL ENTRY.
RECOMMEND CHANGE LUBE OIL AND LUBE OIL FILTER, IF NOT ALREADY DONE.

DARYL REECE
UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
AEL 81
MOSCOW, ID 83844-2040

CTC CV-100 7/18/95

 ch.n
Chevrc LubeWatc hlM (800) L )E-808 .levron
Maintenance Management System 11607 EAST TRENT AVENUE, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99206, (509) 921-9909, FAX (509) 921-9910 Lubrlranb
DESCRIPTION: ENGINE
CUSTOMER NO.: 19562 UNIT NO.: 05472 OIL BRAND: CHEVRON
Condition: NORMAL MA ,KEI: YANMAR MOD EL : 3TN75E-S OIL TYPE: DEL0 15W40

Analyst : RGT UNI T SERIAL NO.: #3 FUEL TYPE: DIESEL NO. COPIES: 1

E=i iz 5
53 Y
5 3iyj
LAB
DATE
TAKEN/
HRSlMl
OIL s 9 3 ;-f 0
2 I:
26376
TESTED

10/06/95 50
UNIT $
20 3 23070
10 z0
ii5 1
3
?-I
11 1 32 0 40 2243 0 962 1133
P F
000
s i
0 N/A cl N/A 13.57 0 N/A NEG
10/11/95 50
26959 10/13/95 100 29 5 23090 0 0 11 121 1 46 2220 0 945 1166 0 0 0 0 N/A ~1 N/A 13.80 0 N/A NEG
10/17/95 100
27636 10/20/95 50 15 2 010 5 0 0 3 12 153 0 38 2186 0 1099 1198 0 0 0 0 N/A <I N/A 13.01 0 N/A NEG
10/25/95 150
28494 10/30/95 100 25 411060 0 0 5136 1 40 2212 0 910 1126 0 0 0 0 N/A <I N/A 13.48 0 N/A NEG
11/01/95 200
-

26959 0.5 6.4 40

27636 0.4 6.6 40

28494 0.6 6.2 40

26376 RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED. ?7636 RESULTS OF TEST PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED. I

26959 RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED. ?8494 RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REOUIRED.
I

DARYL REECE
UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
AEL 81
MOSCOW, ID 83844-2040

CTC CV-100 7/18/95

bnevrm f uOeWatcP (800) : JBE-808
Mainter, Management System -
~-
11607 EAST TRENT AVENUE, SPOKANE, UASHINGTON 99206, (509) 921-9909, FAX (509) 921-9910
(i,/ .I,- i
DESCRIPTION: ENGINE
CUSTOMER NO.: I9562 UNIT NO.: 04633 OIL BRAND: CHEVRON

Condition: NORMAL MAKE: YANMAR MODEL: 3TN75E-S OIL TYPE: DEL0 15

Analyst : RGT UNIT SERIAL NO : #I FUEL TYPE: DIESE :L NO. COPIES: 1

DATE HRSIMI I
LAB# TAKEN/ OIL 2
TESTED UNIT
I :
11743 05/25/95 50 3 5 N/A 12.75 0 N/A NEG

05/31/95 50 -
12718 06/05/95 100 24 4 12 0 8 0 0 0 23 117 0 45 2334 0 958 1158 0 0 0 N/A 13.53 0 N/A NEG
AhA>
06/09/95 100 --
13060 06/12/95 50 II 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6143 0 39 2291 0 922 1156 0 0 0 N/A 12.97 0 N/A NEG

06/14/95 150 -~
I3649 06/19/95 100 17 3 I 1 0 5 0 0 0 7134 0 37 2312 I 990 1145 I 0 0 N/A 12.74 0 N/A NEG

06/21/95 200 -

11743 0.2 6.5 40

12718 0.4 5.9 40

13060 0.2 6.6 40

I1743 RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED. 13060 RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED.

I2718 NOTE: SILICON LEVEL APPEARS TO BE HIGH. 13649 RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMED INDICATE NO CORRECTIVE ACTION REPUIRED.
RECOMMEND CHANGE LUBE OIL AND LUBE OIL FILTER, IF NOT ALREADY DONE.
RECOMMMEND RESAMPLE AT NORMAL INTERVAL. __-~

DARY L REECE
UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
AEL 81
MOSCou, ID 83844-2040

CTC CV-100 3195

 APPENDIX B
Engine Components Measurements Records
. ’

ENGINE COMPONENTS MEASUREMENTS RECORD

--------------
---------l__-----_---------- -------_____----

Test No. -f' --,

/ -_ i .'4
2=-

Engine No. "3

Fuel Type
G?O$?~~V%(-
i 602 $b
Pre-measurement Date
Testing Beginning Date
Testing Ending Date
Total Running Hours
Total Running Hours

NOTE: The components orders in below tables are all counted from
engine front to engine rear.

University of Idaho
Agricultural Engineering Department
Table 1 Crankshaft Journals Measurements
Journals Before Test After test
I
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend. I
bain Journals

bod Journals

NOTE: Measurement Environment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic
Table 2 Crankshaft Bearings Measurements
Before Test After test

i Crankshaft Main Bearings v -.,(,... ,' ,'-,-

i
1 #1 (No--) ,003 1 ,C’I :, I I
1 #2 (No.-) I lm
i #3 (No= - ) m2 I 1
1 #4 (No.-) ,003
j Rod Crank Pin Bushings
#I (No.;=- ) .3OI5 1 I
I I
/ #2 (No.=) Do? I /
I
i #3 (No.%) , DQL I ._ I j
I
Rod Piston Pin Bushings
#l (No. /-; ) I,, --1 i i
.. j
I
i
1 #3 (No. - )
i ,'.' i 1 *. II
,
1 Camshaft Bearings
Front 'I 7iu, "3 I
Rear - ; =.> ,I
c
Schematic:
nZ
,002
Table 3 Cylinder Mearsurements

Cylinder

Bottom

TOP
#3 Middle _ 3 -2 3 2 . ,'

Bottom
I
NOTE : Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 5 Piston Mearsurements
Before Test After test
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.

Top dj y 577 2 9376 ,' 943' d?437 1

#l Bottom ;: y4Qk 2, p+-yc
Weigh 402 75 4-04.5s I
TOP 0I 3:_ 73 _ ;: -y?J
, 1 2 qzp,3 19gF-T

#2 Bottom 3 ;i- 7 2, LilQ$G

Weigh 4wc,lry _1\ - -, ‘- q GJ.7
‘-- _

TOP ifl C7G

i/ / 7 2,s 370 2,902:’ 0: -j$O$

+3 Bottom 2. '7 99 I -2 ysJc>

Weigh 4&! 54 407, 17

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure

Schematic
Table 6 Piston Pin Measurements
T
Before Test After test
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
Side (ave.) , 53-2
#I- .
Middle I- : :.-J
Side (ave.) _- ---id
#2 '
Middle I , <z-:_-;
Side (ave.) .- ,- 62
#3
Middle I r_ ,, .'.,,
,Jd<
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic:
 Table 7 Camshaft Measurement
Before Test After test
piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
Camshaft Journal
1 ,' - --i; ,$ - P I
i i i
\
2 ,I _ .-.
3 , -i_ ?-. ._ , Irr
- w
Camshaft Height
1 ..I ,i4.A'
,I/cc - - --,
- - '-.)
Intake 2 /I --J .-
-_ 1 \

3 I I -,-L//j ',/ -2
1 I -, > r-3
N-77
1 I - i - q
,,'I L. ; 3 _- 7 :*,c-(,l
&haust 2 / >-;jyi ,.' .-A- -,7
. -.-: ! ,'_ ..e- I '
3 ../
I _ -- _) J, Z,'$J i - 4.)
I
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Table 8 Valve Measurment

Before Test After test _

Piston
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust

Top ,3, "5,Jr3 7 72, j 4

#1.
Bottom .TF ld 1 .7%?9 < I- -
i/
Top ,lcLf: 47zg ,-~I-1:p #*d / (
-lpi- .'
'2 ' Bottom ", 277/q ,272 e '/' ,a-", : c
.
Top .2730 ,273:9 c .'. / . .-- -?
#3
Bottom ,1?30 2720 I J i J :‘ I (,
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 ..

._ .. .. . .

- -
table 9 Valp Guides and Wclqkt Measu&ent
Before Test -After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake . Exhaust
b _
Valve Guides
- 1
#l I I

#2 I
#3 I
Valve L.Ic~a_h-'
c-''\ ! fl L_c. ',:o J -q _. --. -.
, Ir -;,<. , ,y '-
-r') ' - I e- _ ',
#2 -A. A . A * .- .' Y\ ' -2
A 1 I, a. 2 > y,K
4
.-.. I LI * . 1
$3 s5.+ .'-- ,. &jY i _' ,'a ! , - I
i
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 10 Rockers Measurements .
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust

I Rocker Arms I I
#1 I
#2

I Rocker Shaft I I
‘_
#l
$2

_ +I3 L
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 11 Valve Sinking Measurements
c
,J Before Test After test
& Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust

#1 .03) ,027 - _ -

#2 ,o::i .053 * I
#3 5x J?q _ _. :"II 'I ;
NOTE,: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Table 12 Valve Tappet Stems Measurements

f Tappet 1 2 3 4 5 6
a‘Before Test ;' 7 2 i 'L .-.
L 1 i_ 2 -_ c :' f 7 _/1.7/q

After Test !, , -i -'I. _. , b' ,,.-. ' :1 . I

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 13 Piston-cylinder Head Top Clearance Measurement
Cylinder Before Test After Test

#l
#2
4
I I
Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure

Table 14 Injector Operator Pressure Measurements

I Injector I Before Test After Test 1

 ENGINE COMPONENTS MEASUREMENTS RECORD
--------- -----------m-----e
----------------_-----------

.--y - - _+- / ‘-F

Test No.
Engine No. _,- ‘. 254 7.7

Fuel Type I/ S&qI

r
Pre-measurement Date
Testing Beginning Date
Testing Ending Date
Total Running Hours
Total Running Hours

NOTE: The components orders in below tables are all counted from
engine front to engine rear.

University of Idaho.
Agricultura 1 Engineering Department
Table 1 Crankshaft Journals Measurements
Journals Before Test After test I
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.

kain Journals
1
2

od Journals
P
! 5
6
/' ? ,- I
7 ! r ci jr ' .' -':.i ..,
NOTE: Measurement Environment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
S&i;?-matic
Table 2 Crankshaft Bearin& Measurements
Before Test After test
i Bearings ,,
Paral. Perpend. Paral. I Perpend.
i Crankshaft Main Bearings i ,' - ,;: / y- I
Ii +#I (No.-) b ._ I
I I I
182 (No.-) -

i
$3 (No.-)
I

Rod Crank Pin Bushings

I
41 (No-x) I ,Gv'z I I I
I
j $2 (No.=) I .mz I
#3 (No.=) ~_^ *,
...- 1 I
I I
Rod Piston Pin Bushings

!
!
j 43 (No.*) *. , F-y I ,
I
Camshaft Bearings
> I
Front -$ fE
Rear
Schematic:

cvrrnar g
Table 3 Cylinder Mearsurements
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.

Top I

#l Middle d-, .,j5 ->

77 ,-,3 ;
Bottom

Top
#2 Middle is; - -' ..
- .iL 7&
Bottom

Top I
Middle _ . .'
#3 &(jL7JJ 1 -.n
Bottom I
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 5 Piston Mearsurements
Before Test After test
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.

TOP 0/ J._-_ 7s 2 ii ; ;j ,’ 2794/o 2 vH-3 1

#l Bottom > -152; 0r Y-;'J2
Weigh 4114 9 7 495, Lib I
Top z 3371, ; Gr'+ 2.cj395 ,’ CjWb
#2 Bottom c. "- ' .?7 awe
Weigh 4J7,J& 4d7032
Top /,i n,d,'
;-,; ;i I-j +T 2. Lj-77 2.3349

$3 Bottom 2 lib? 7 I 2 9455

Weigh qQ:i -j(j) 407.65
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic
Table 6 Piston Pin Measurements
Before Test After test
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
Side (ave.) , 4050 I
#L
Middle I ?J /
Side (ave.) J , .L-7
-y
$2 '
Middle .-'jA.?-;
. ..-1
Side (ave.) . // 3 3 /
#3
Middle ,&I50 I
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic:

LEFT
 Table 7 Camshaft Measurement
Before Test After test
Piston
Paral.
Camshaft Journal
1 - G7 -*. ' I
/bL. ,I
c
I/
2 - 0 P L1 ,
3 /, 7d7 1 ,“‘T
.Camshaft Height
1 I , c- IS& - 'd4 7
i ,'. 1 -:- .: - / *.- L --
Intake I 2 :, /_I - .: 3 2 f$Q - c
3
I 1' -;r _- di- r\.r I :,,ic
_,. - _ -"'
.' . .. /
1 I I. 5r.32 I. 3/g j c :- _ \ .I '.
Zxhaust 2 : 5235 / '// 2 9 .A - ._ _ .,I , I '
.
3 &, ; 7 (/, ?I‘$3 . -. ‘ -1
- I--,~~%
)I ,,a _I
NOTE : Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Table 8 Valve Measurment

Before Test After test _

Piston
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust
__ ,.- ,
TOP .J 199 #>?2fQ t . ’ .- - .
#l
Bottom #>7L5 4 21 F .. :.
TOP . 2 -/ “<T 272 fs/ c - J '# ‘-JF
/- :L
#2
, Bottom .273g $729 ,...'
TOP i?Sc7 2724 - / I I-‘. I >4
#3
Bottom , Z'JD ‘:-,-q*$ . . .'. . _
'f- c, I
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnnent Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 ._. .:I...
.v ....

table 9 ValF Guides and Wclgkt Measu&ment

t
Before Test -After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust
c
Valve Guides
j /' I
!
I I
,' f
I I

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 10 Rockers Measurements ,
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust
Rocker Arms
Bl
#2

#3
i
I Rocker Shaft I I
#1
w2

- TY3 ,- I
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure

- ,.
 Table 11 Valve Sinking Measurements
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust
#l _ -; of? ,- *... :'. .--_;
#2 I .) -2
i a ,-.
:-i z ;' * :
#3 ; --' 4 r-j-d2- 2 : -_
NOTE-: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Table 12 Valve Tappet Stems Measurements

'Tappet 1 2 3 4 5 6
3.
Before Test
,L-;, :5 ._. -.I. c/, -,, -- 42 -. .-- /47/G ,47iI;
After Test ,'/-
I -. ,_. -. _'- I -. . : _. 4 ."'. tLJL;:7 13
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 13 Piston-cylinder Head Top Clearance Measurement
Cylinder Before Test After Test

#1
#2

#3
L
NOTE : Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure

Table 14 Injector Operator Pressure Measurements

Injector Before Test After Test
 ENGINE COMPONENTS MEASUREMENTS RECORD ----
--------------L__----------
------ -_- ---_-___--___-----

Test No.
-.-
- ..-
L -
,--

Engine No. F J4b::

ke-measurement Date
Testing Beginning Date
Testing Ending Date
Total Running Hours
Total Running Hours

NOTE: The components orders in below tables are all counted from
engine front to engine rear.

University of Idaho
Agricultural Engineering Department
 Table 1 Crankshaft Journals Measurements

i Journals I Before Test After test

Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.

yain Journals

4 / L*-
- ',' *s; . j-i,: '; f ‘.L ? I
I I p-7 I
I
Rod Journals I

I’

/,byd; 1
’ ‘. ‘0 ‘i 44 ;
I ’

NOTE: Measurement Environment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic
Table 2 Crankshaft Bearings Measurements
1,
Before Test After test
i Bearings
Paral. Perpend. Paral. I Perpend.
i Crankshaft Main Bearings /I- ;-- --r./:_"-
i
i #l (No._X) _ '_ I I
* (-Jo7 I
/ #2 (No-X\) .oa: .- : I
/ #3 (No.~) * Ob' I
j $4 (No.;(l) i -?bY
! Rod Crank Pin Bushings
I, $1 (N0.L)
1 ,cv~ I i
I#2 (No.. - ) c cc,c -- I .i L I
j #3 (No-:) *-Jo-J ,L.. 1I
1 1
I
Rod Piston Pin Bushings I
I L;.J t : -'.' I
-73PC I ?.Pi:I / “ ? ";'; <
$2 (No.--) 'r!;j: r , yi'::_ r :; .',-f ,'- i :.-
I

/ Camshaft Bearings
i
.-.
Front I - 0 -j7zI, ! /, i w i.- I
Rear : - - - - .F‘, .~ -" -',! /I
, ,' 7
,002
d -302
Table 3 Cylinder Mearsurements
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
Top I
#l Middle _- <,&4--;'
Bottom

Top
#2 Middle r ,' , -.- _
w 5,g.E
-c- ,. ,-'
Bottom

Top
#3 Middle
Bottom
I
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 4 Rings Measurements
Before Test
Items

Gap 82

#3
#l
idth #2

#3
#1
Ring to
groove 82
learance
+3
Schematic:
 Table 5 Piston Mearsurements
7
Before Test After test
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.

Top mc 7 373 ;r.qsqz 2,94i3 d9:3 '

#l Bottom $7 -'l.qJ 3 74oQ
Weigh 414 3 ( 4, /, 32
Top _ .;J ; 3233 I9240 2 .Zid 3 3

#2 Bottom .,. j ;- r "<gJ

Weigh 431,. L 5 4~i~ 93

Top ‘J r, T 9.) 0/ i .,2;,J Gc.q:m 4w3w

#3 Bottom : 15-3 I a'q503

Weigh L' , 3 #/‘ 4/D. 71
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic

c 1
“C
I
I 1
Table 6 Piston Pin Measurements
Before Test After test
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
Side (ave.) ."r?< z I
#l
Middle ?.j', -I
& ; ,-,- ‘I
Side (ave.) , O‘\.--
I Aj
#2
Middle */ !i-3 ., \.-
Side (ave.) ' , ‘.,z-) J ::
#3
Middle . :: ,--- .+ cl.:
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic:

- !zlC-L
 Table 7 Camshaft Measurement
Before Test After test
1 Pkston
I I Paral. I Perpend. 1 Paral. I Perpend. 1
Camshaft Journal I

: ICamshaft Height 1

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 ”

Table 8 Valve Measurment

Before Test After test _

Piston
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust
.-lzp
TOP 2~:cJ z-f3Q ie- ! . J ..- ?-; / Yi
#I
Bottom c”>jfJ . 1_7z(i , ; ..^ -/ 8 ,; .;: -: 5:

TOP ,
. -L 733 ?-yS : - ‘1 .-. _- _-
#2
Bottom ?- 'L -1yJ17 {- r* * -7#- ,'
, SL &- . 'r .- -.-
Top -.
. L"‘ZJ ,il-y.zh ,t 9 ‘7 ! .;7;.,?
#3
Bottom .. ,
' L-73,9 .2-72 . . ,'r-
‘j

I '. /
NOTE:. Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure

‘1
 ... .:
:.

_v ... : _..

table 9 ValF Guides and WclcJQ Meas&ment

Before Test -After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake . Exhaust
Valve Guides I I
,
31 ... I I 1 I
#2
I I I
#3 I I I

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature '

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Table 10 Rockers Measurements
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust
Rocker Arms
#l I
#2

#3
Rocker Shaft
#1
#2

#3
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 11 Valve Sinking Measurements
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust
c

NOTE,: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

re-measure
fter-mesaure

Table 12 Valve Tappet Stems Measurements

-.
\ T
Tappet 1 2 3 4 5 6 I
..
*Before Test I 4719 , q7:y .L‘ 3 C,"7!3 ,,- -J ,4'710
After Test _ - . ') .: -- ,;, c. \ _ r
.-
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 13 Piston-cylinder Head Top Clearance Measurement
Cylinder Before Test After Test
$1
$2

#3
Measurement Envirpnment Tempe rature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure

Table 14 Injector Operator Pressure Measurements

Injector Before Test After Test
 ENGINE COMPONENTS MEASUREMENTS RECORD
----__-------------------------------
------~~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---

Test No. _-

Engine No.
Fuel Type 7 _/

Pre-measurement Date
Testing Beginning Date
Testing Ending Date
Total Running Hours
Total Running Hours

NOTE: The components orders in below tables are all counted from
engine front to engine rear.

University of Idaho c
Agricultural Engineering Department
Table 1 Crankshaft Journals Measurements
Journals Before Test After test
I I
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
?lain Journals

3
4

P od Journals

NOTE: Measurement Envirtznment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic
Table 2 Crankshaft Bearings Measurements

I Before Test I After test

Bearings
I Paral. I Perpend. Paral. Perpend. I
I -4
Crankshaft Main Bearings fi:lc Si/fl~?Pd) I
$1 (No.- \ 1 )eoc:= I I I I
42 (No. ) I
---------- n. .(Il s
:3 (No. ) 1 /].1"35, ----
=4 (No. ) I f fi63
Rod Crank Pin Bushings /~i~s-~fi!rq/r() I

13 (No. )
3 l mQ.5

Rod Piston Pin Bushings

Camshaft Bearings
, Front
v---
Rear
I ---
Schematic:
Table 3 Cylinder Mearsurements
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.

Top &a
7 lqs 5 (?J ,' :: 5 2 ,-. 2 -IL-T-y I
1 #l [Middle
I
I IBottom 1 ! I

/ $3 iMiddle
, I
, t !

I Bottom I II

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 4 Rings Measurements
f ------I
I Before Test After Test I

I j #l

pidth #2 , ,- j /Y-i --/-

#3 ,A0 7 'C D P75w : (? lC=, 7 ,373 i ,577.g I /'>z-
-
#l 7. , 'L J'^I
1 Ring to -----d---E
I groove #2 ',. j L7
clearance--------I-L---
I 1
#3 , .," 1 ,>>L
i----w---
Schematic: NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure

I I
mkkn-’
 Table 5 Piston Mearsurements
I/ Before Test After test
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
I I I

,:3 ,Bottom Y y' i

2347; #4'
j i ,- I
Weigh II L/ 2, ' I
1 414 5
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic
Table 6 Piston Pin Measurements
Before Test After test
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
Side (ave.) qpy. ,+p", 9:Jg-b I
#I
Middle ,?,?LJ I , go 5 (! 1 . 'J5Z
Side (ave.) '
#2
. ?o<;/ # QEf f,: 1=d 1
Middle , . $losz ' , Lpr F / 4.>.;,
Side (ave.)/ '3 53
#3
/p 5 .e -?y :* ,?
Middle :,- I- 1
90 f- .,i I $ .,I_
,? ..T,'j I1
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Schematic: ,,'J7
,3 /L'f bll 5"

f---y
\
I
L. - -4
 Table 7 Camshaft Measurement
I /
Before Test I After test !
Piston
Paral. Perpend. Paral. Perpend.
I
Camshaft Journal

/ 1 r' .;- - I
-. 1. 74 LcL . ra J
-.~ I , 7 1":' -
I
2 /# 7 6 c 3 . '2‘ .;a.- : t i / 7 L <,“l !
3 /~ ./ ';^ (7 F r?
d
,* .y."/ I -
Camshaft Height i i
 Table 8 Valve Measurment
1
Before Test After test
Piston
Intake Exhaust 1 Intake I Exhaust
1
Top I qu 'iI, ,e-7 Jy3q ! --:, ! ,,-;+
$1 I
Bottom 6 27‘53 I2 IAs0 I ,- - _~
, ' Top 1 I; \
I I 274’9 ,272f3 .i/c.- , IL
i #2
I Bottom 27+s .Z 625 -L‘, I ,. ..,’ 1
I I
i Top iz74(0 - 723
j L- .-1 -14r / .
$3 t /; c L~4-~ ,7&,7 1
I I Bottom ; L ;,,p,\;
NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 table 9 ValF Guides and \del+: Measurement
1
i Before Test After test
Cylinder I
Intake j Exhaust Intake Exhaust
,
Valve Guides 1 I
I #l

I $2
! I I
$3 I r t

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
Table 10 Rockers Measurements ,
.
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 11 Valve Sinking Measurements
Before Test After test
Cylinder
Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Table 12 Valve Tappet Stems Measurements

Tappet
i
Before Test
After Test

NOTE: Measurement Envirpnment Temperature

Pre-measure
After-mesaure
 Table 13 Piston-cylinder Head Top Clearance Measurement
Cylinder Before Test After Test
#l
#2

#3
I
Measurement Envirpnment Temperature
Pre-measure
After-mesaure

Table 14 Injector Operator Pressure Measurements

l---t Before Test After Test