European Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-216X Vol.30 No.2 (2009), pp.204-214 EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009 http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.

htm

Experimental Investigation of Performance and Emission of a Sequential Port Injection Natural Gas Engine
How Heoy Geok Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia E-mail: heoygeok@vlsi.eng.ukm.my Tel: +603-8921 6013; Fax: +603-8925 9659 Taib Iskandar Mohamad Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Shahrir Abdullah Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Yusoff Ali Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Azhari Shamsudeen Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Elvis Adril Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Abstract This paper presents the results obtained from running a 1.5 Liter, 4-cylinder spark ignition engine with gasoline and compressed natural gas (CNG). Performance and emissions results were recorded under steady state operating conditions. The engine was converted to computer integrated CNG-gasoline bi-fuel operations by installing a sequential port injection CNG conversion system. An engine control system and portable exhaust gas analyzer were used for controlling engine operations and recording engine performance and emissions data. The engine was run at wide open throttle and constant speed ranging from 1500 to 5000 rpm with 500 rpm increment. On average, CNG yielded 22% less brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and 13% higher fuel conversion efficiency (FCE) compared to gasoline. It showed that CNG in sequential port injection system yielded improved BSFC and better FCE compared to carburettor system of the same engine as reported in earlier work (Aslam et al., 2006). However, the volumetric efficiency was reduced by 4-10% with CNG operation. Due to this, the brake torque, brake

Experimental Investigation of Performance and Emission of a Sequential Port Injection Natural Gas Engine power and brake mean effective pressure of the engine were reduced by 8-16%. In terms of exhaust emissions, the results showed that HC, CO and CO2 were significantly reduced by 40-87%, 20-98% and 8-20% respectively compared to gasoline.

205

Keywords: Natural Gas, Spark Ignition Engine, Performance, Emission, Fuel Economy

1. Introduction
The increasing cost of petroleum-based fuels and the stringent regulations regarding limits for exhaust emissions in recent years have increased interest in alternative fuels for automotive engines. Various alternative fuels suited for spark ignition (SI) engines have been studied extensively and utilized in vehicles. Promising results have been obtained from the fuel economy and exhaust emissions points of view (Bayraktar and Dungun, 1998; Beer et al., 2002; Johnson, 2003). These fuels can be categorized into synthetic gasoline, alcohols and gaseous fuels (Thring, 1983; Durgun, 1988). Among all, natural gas is probably the most widely used alternative fuel due to its availability throughout the world and adaptability to the gasoline and diesel engines. More importantly, natural gas-fuelled engine has the potential for obtaining higher thermal efficiency, less knocking tendency and low CO2 exhaust emissions due to its higher octane value allowing higher compression ratio operation, and lower carbon-to-hydrogen ratio (Shiga et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2003; Cho and He, 2007). Until recently, most natural gas-fuelled engines are converted from gasoline or diesel engine. Only small fractions are developed for dedicated compressed natural gas (CNG) operation. The converted engine uses the intrinsic fuel system (i.e. carburettor or port injection) to deliver fuel to the cylinder. These result in some drawbacks, mainly reduced power and limited upper speed, which are due to lower charge inhaled energy (due to reduced volumetric efficiency) and slower flame speed respectively (Mohamad, 2006). It is reported that power, volume efficiency and brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) were reduced significantly when converting port injection engine from gasoline to natural gas (Ishii et al., 1994; Evans and Blaszczyk, 1997; Aslam et al., 2006). One of the methods to mitigate the problems is by directly injecting natural gas into the combustion chamber. Direct injection (DI) system can increase the absolute heating value of the cylinder charge and enhance turbulence intensity for better mixing prior to ignition (Mohamad et al., 2003). As a result, it can improve the combustion efficiency for better torque and power, reduce pumping and heat losses and control the air fuel ratio of the engine more precisely (Zhao et al., 1999; Mohamad et al., 2006; Zeng et al., 2006). Besides, DI of natural gas can maintain the smoke free operation of SI engines and produce lower NOx emissions compared to the unthrottled diesel engines (Agarwal and Assanis, 2000). However, the development of new direct injection engine is costly and technically difficult to achieve within a short period of time. This is due to the needs for development of new cylinder head to acclimate with direct fuel injector and also involves tedious calibration of the engine control system (How et al., 2008). Sequential port injection (or multi-point injection) of natural gas can offer an immediate solution for the drawbacks of CNG converted engine. NG is injected by individual injector at each cylinder intake manifold just before the opening of intake valve. Better control of mixture formation and response to changing speed can be achieved. Thus, it provides the opportunity to reduce the negative effects on the performance compared to carburettor-type or single injector manifold injection. This paper discusses the results obtained from experimental investigation of the sequential port injection natural gas engine with respect to performance and exhaust emissions.

2. Experimental Setup and Procedures

A 1.5 litre, single overhead camshaft (SOHC) multipoint fuel injection (MPI) gasoline engine (Mitsubishi 4G15) was converted to a CNG-gasoline bi-fuel sequential type port fuel injection and a

206

How Heoy Geok, Taib Iskandar Mohamad, Shahrir Abdullah, Yusoff Ali, Azhari Shamsudeen and Elvis Adril

programmable electronic control unit (ECU) were installed to control the CNG operation. The engine can be operated either with gasoline or CNG by switching between the fuel supplies using an electronically controlled solenoid actuated fuel selector. The specifications of the engine are listed in Table 1 and the schematic diagram of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 1. The detail cross section view of the engine cylinder is shown in Figure 2. An eddy current dynamometer and CP Engineering Cadet V12 engine control software were used to program the engine test as well as recording engine performance data. The engine was run at steady state conditions with wide open throttle (WOT) at constant speed ranging from 1500 to 5000 rpm with 500 rpm increment for both gasoline and CNG. CNG was stored at 200 bar pressure in a tank and its pressure was reduced to 1.5 bar by a pressure regulator and a reducer as it is injected into the intake manifold. A check valve was installed on the fuel system to prevent the backflow of gas. The injection of CNG was controlled by the SIGAS CNG control software for the engine tuning calibration at different speeds. Gasoline consumption was measured using a volume-scaled pipette and time recording. The mass flow rate of CNG was measured with Omega FMA-876A gas flow meter. A pressure sensor (Kistler type 6125B) was installed to the one of engine cylinder and pressure data was sent to Dewetron DEWE5000 combustion analyzer. A hot-film air mass flow meter (model Bosch HFM5) was used to measure the flow rate of air. Exhaust emissions for both fuels were measured by Kane-May gas analyzer. The properties of the gasoline and CNG fuels are listed in Table 2, while the Table 3 shows the typical composition of CNG available in Malaysia.
Table 1: Specification of engine model

Engine Parameters Number of cylinder Number of valve Compression ratio Firing order Displacement volume (cm3) Bore (mm) Stroke (mm) Connecting rod length (mm) Maximum rated power (kW/rpm) Maximum rated torque (Nm/rpm) Intake valve open Intake valve close Exhaust valve open Exhaust valve close

Value 4 12 9.2:1 1-3-4-2 1468 82 75.5 131 66/6000 126/3000 15 BTDC 53 ABDC 57 BBDC 15 ATDC

Experimental Investigation of Performance and Emission of a Sequential Port Injection Natural Gas Engine
Figure 1: Schematic of experiment setup

207

Figure 2: Cross-section view of engine cylinder

208

How Heoy Geok, Taib Iskandar Mohamad, Shahrir Abdullah, Yusoff Ali, Azhari Shamsudeen and Elvis Adril
Properties of gasoline and CNG fuels (Heywood, 1988; Bradley et al., 1996)
Gasoline 0.72-0.78 305 0.43 76.25 47.3 44.0 14.6 92-98 CNG 0.72 509 0.50 83.60 55.5 50.0 17.23 120

Table 2:

Properties Specify gravity (density, kg/m3) Heat of vaporization (kJ/kg) Laminar burning velocity (m/s) Inhaled energy at stoichiometric mixture with air (kJ/mole) Higher heating value (MJ/kg) Lower heating value (MJ/kg) Stoichiometric AFR Research octane number

Table 3:

Typical composition of CNG in Malaysia (Aslam et al., 2006)

Symbol CH4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H10 CO2 N2 H2O+ Volumetric (%) 94.42 2.29 0.03 0.25 0.57 0.44 2.00

Component Methane Ethane Propane Butane Carbon dioxide Nitrogen Others

3. Results and Discussion

The performance of the engine with respect to brake torque, brake power, brake mean effective pressure (BMEP), brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), fuel conversion efficiency and exhaust emissions were investigated for gasoline and CNG fuels under various steady state operations. Figure 3 and 4 show the brake torque and brake power of the engine at WOT from 1500 to 5000 rpm for both gasoline and CNG fuels. The reductions of 8-16% brake torque and brake power with CNG operation are seen throughout the speed range. It can be found that the maximum brake torque obtained were 115 Nm at 3500 rpm for gasoline and 100 Nm at 3000 rpm for CNG. Meanwhile, the maximum brake power obtained by gasoline and CNG were 56 kW and 47 kW respectively both at 5000 rpm. The maximum power and torque is lower than the rated maximum as listed in Table 1. This is expected due to the fact that the engine has been running more than 10 years. On average, CNG produces 13% less brake torque and brake power compared to gasoline. This is mainly due to the displacement of air by CNG in the intake manifold that reduces both the volumetric efficiency and subsequently the charge energy density per injection into the engine cylinder. Greater brake power reduction of CNG was found at higher engine speed due to the inherently slower flame speed of CNG as compared to gasoline.

Experimental Investigation of Performance and Emission of a Sequential Port Injection Natural Gas Engine Figure 3: Engine torque versus engine speeds
140 120

209

Brake Torque (Nm)

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Gasoline
CNG

Engine Speed (rpm)

Figure 4: Engine power versus engine speeds

70 60

Brake Power (kW)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Gasoline CNG

Engine Speed (rpm)

As indicated in Figure 5, the BMEP of CNG is 8-16% less than gasoline. This is due to the reasons of slower flame speed and longer ignition delay of CNG which require further advance in spark timing compared to gasoline operation. As a result, more work is consumed (negative work) during compression stroke and hence reduced the output power. In addition, the displacement of air by CNG in the cylinder reduces the volumetric efficiency and consequently causes the BMEP loss. Figure 6 shows the volumetric efficiency versus engine speeds for both fuels. There is 4-10% volumetric efficiency drop with CNG operation compared to gasoline. Volumetric efficiency is an important factor in internal combustion engine because lower volumetric efficiency reduces the heating value of cylinder charge, thus decreasing the potential of output power. The consequence can be seen in the reduction of power output as shown in Figure 4 above.

210

How Heoy Geok, Taib Iskandar Mohamad, Shahrir Abdullah, Yusoff Ali, Azhari Shamsudeen and Elvis Adril
Figure 5: BMEP versus engine speeds
1400 1200 1000

BMEP (kPa)

800 600 400 200 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Gasoline CNG

Engine Speed (rpm)

Figure 6: Volumetric efficiency versus engine speeds

100

Volumetric Efficiency (%)

80

60

40

20 Gasoline CNG 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Engine Speed (rpm)

In terms of BSFC, CNG results in a remarkably 15-32% lower fuel consumption compared to gasoline. The minimum BSFC of gasoline and CNG are 240 g/kW.h and 198 g/kW.h respectively at 4000 rpm as shown in Figure 7. This can be explained by the facts that heating value of CNG is 12% higher than that of gasoline and it produced a comparable but lower output brake power (BSFC is inversely proportioned to brake power). As a direct result of lower BSFC, CNG achieves 4-30% higher fuel conversion efficiency (FCE) throughout CNG operation as shown in Figure 8. It is mainly due to CNG consumes less energy per unit power produced compared to gasoline under the same engine operations and configurations. The empirically defined engine efficiency has previously been called thermal efficiency or enthalpy. However the term fuel conversion efficiency is preferred because it describes this quantity more precisely, and distinguishes it clearly from other definitions of engine

Experimental Investigation of Performance and Emission of a Sequential Port Injection Natural Gas Engine

211

efficiency (Heywood, 1988). On average, CNG operation yields 22% improvement in BSFC and 13% higher FCE compared to gasoline. It was also found that CNG operation with sequential port injection achieved lower BSFC and better fuel conversion efficiency compared to mixer type of CNG operation in carburettor system of the same engine where 17-18% less BSFC and 2.90% higher FCE as reported by Aslam et al. (2006). This is mainly due to the ECU of port injection system is able to control the airfuel mixture more efficiency based on different engine speeds as compared to carburettor system.
Figure 7: BSFC versus engine speeds

400

300

BSFC (g/kW.h)

200

100 Gasoline CNG 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Engine Speed (rpm)

Figure 8: Fuel conversion efficiency versus engine speeds

50

Fuel Conversion Efficiency (%)

40

30

20

10 Gasoline CNG 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Engine Speed (rpm)

The exhaust emission results of HC, CO and CO2 for both fuels are presented in Figure 9 and 10 respectively. Figure 9 shows that CNG produces steadily lower unburned hydrocarbon emission throughout the speed range as compared to gasoline. The emission of HC is significantly reduced by

212

How Heoy Geok, Taib Iskandar Mohamad, Shahrir Abdullah, Yusoff Ali, Azhari Shamsudeen and Elvis Adril

40-87% with CNG operation due to a more complete combustion of CNG as compared to gasoline. In addition, CNG operation shows significantly lower of CO and CO2 emission as shown in Figure 10. It was found that CNG produced less 20-98% and 8-20% of CO and CO2 respectively. CO is a result of incomplete combustion in engine and is generated when the engine is operated with a rich mixture or when proper air-fuel mixing is not achieved. With high hydrogen-to-carbon ratio and its simpler chemical structure, it is expected CNG (predominantly CH4) produces lower CO and CO2 than gasoline (predominantly C8H18).
Figure 9: Hydrocarbon emission versus engine speeds
1000 Gasoline CNG 800

HC (ppm)

600

400

200

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Engine speed (rpm)

Figure 10: Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions versus engine speeds
20
CO2 (Gasoline) CO2 (CNG) CO (Gasoline) CO (CNG)

15

CO, CO (%)

10

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Engine speed (rpm)

Experimental Investigation of Performance and Emission of a Sequential Port Injection Natural Gas Engine

213

4. Conclusions
This study has demonstrated that sequential type CNG conversion kit in gasoline engine has a potential for improved fuel economy and higher fuel conversion efficiency with significantly lower exhaust emissions. The following remarks can be drawn as the conclusions for this study: 1. On average, CNG operation results in 22% less BSFC and 13% higher FCE compared to gasoline. 2. CNG produces less 8-16% of brake torque, brake power and BMEP compared to gasoline fuel at WOT condition due to reduced volumetric efficiency and lower flame speed of CNG. 3. Under the same engine operations and configurations, sequential port injection CNG operation shows 4-10% volumetric efficiency dropped due to the displacement of air by CNG in cylinder compared to gasoline. 4. The results also show that CNG in sequential port injection system yields improved BSFC and better FCE compared to carburettor system of the same engine as reported in the previous work (Aslam et al., 2006). 5. Emission of pollutant gaseous from automotive engine is significantly reduced by the use of CNG with 40-87% reduction of unburned hydrocarbons. The reduction of CO and CO2 emission are 20-98% and 8-20% respectively by CNG.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge to Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for sponsoring the National Science Fellowship (NSF) scholarship and research work under project UKM-GUP-BTT-07-25-157. The authors would also like to express their appreciation to DRB-HICOM for facilitating this work.

References
[1] Agarwal, A. and D. Assanis, 2000. Multi-Dimensional Modeling of Ignition, Combustion and Nitric Oxide Formation in Direct Injection Natural Gas Engines, SAE Technical Paper 200001-1839. Aslam, M.U., H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, H. Abdesselam, T.M.I. Mahlia, and M.A. Amalina, 2006. An Experimental Investigation of CNG as an Alternative Fuel for a Retrofitted Gasoline Vehicle, Fuel 85, pp. 717-724. Bayraktar, H. and O. Durgun, 1998. The Effects of Using Gaseous Fuels on Engine Combustion and Performance, The Sixth Combustion Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 273285. Beer, T., T. Grant, D. Williams and H. Watson, 2002. Fuel-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative Fuels in Australian Heavy Vehicles, Atmospheric Environment 36, pp. 753763. Bradley, D., M. Lawes, C.G.W. Sheppard, and R. Woolley, 1996. Methane as an Engine Fuel, Proceeding of IMechE. Seminar on Using Natural Gas in Engines, pp. 9-15. Cho, H.M. and B.-Q. He, 2007. Spark Ignition Natural Gas Engines - A Review, Energy Conversion and Management 48, pp. 608618. Durgun, O., 1988. Alternative Engine Fuels, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 336 (29), pp. 2427. Evans, R.L. and J. Blaszczyk, 1997. A Comparative Study of the Performance and Exhaust Emissions of a Spark Ignition Engine Fuelled by Natural Gas and Gasoline, Proceeding of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part D 211, pp. 39- 47. Heywood, J.B., 1988. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, New York.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5] [6] [7] [8]

[9]

214

How Heoy Geok, Taib Iskandar Mohamad, Shahrir Abdullah, Yusoff Ali, Azhari Shamsudeen and Elvis Adril How, H.G., T.I. Mohamad and S. Abdullah, 2008. Development of a Spark Plug Fuel Injector (SPFI) for Compressed Natural Gas Direct Injection in a 4-Cylinder Spark Ignition Engine, Proceeding of the 2nd Regional Conference on Vehicle Engineering and Technology (RiVET 2008), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 253-258. Huang, Z., S. Shiga, T. Ueda, H. Nakamura, T. Ishima, T. Obokata, M. Tsue and M. Kono, 2003. Effect of Fuel Injection Timing Relative to Ignition Timing on Natural-Gas Direct Injection Combustion, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 125, pp 783-790. Ishii, M., S. Ishizawa, E. Inada, R. Idoguchi and T. Sekiba, 1994. Experimental Studies on Natural Gas Vehicles, SAE Technical Paper 942005. Johnson, E., 2003. LPG: A Secure, Cleaner Transport Fuel? A Policy Recommendation for Europe, Energy Policy 31, pp.15731577. Mohamad, T.I., 2006. Development of a Spark Plug Fuel Injector for Direct Injection of Methane in Spark Ignition Engine, PhD Thesis, Cranfield University. Mohamad, T.I., M. Harrison, M. Jermy and S. Abdullah, 2006. Combustion and Performance of a Spark Plug Fuel Injector (SPFI) System for Direct Injection of Methane in Spark Ignition Engine for Low Cost Conversion, Proceeding of FISITA 2006 World Automotive Congress, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1-11. Mohamad, T.I., M. Jermy and M. Harrison, 2003. Direct Injection of Compressed Natural Gas in Spark Ignition Engine, Proceedings of the International Conference of Advanced and Strategies Technologies (ICAST 2003), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 1-7. Shiga, S., S. Ozone, H.T.C. Machacon, T. Karasawa, H. Nakamura, T. Ueda, N. Jingu, Z. Huang, M. Tsue and M. Kono, 2002. A Study of the Combustion and Emission Characteristics of Compressed-Natural-Gas Direct-Injection Stratified Combustion Using a RapidCompression-Machine, Combustion and Flame 129, pp. 1-10. Thring, R.H., 1983. Alternative Fuels for Spark-Ignition Engines, SAE Technical Paper 831685. Zeng, K., Z. Huang, B. Liu, L. Liu, D. Jiang, Y. Ren and J. Wang, 2006. Combustion Characteristics of a Direct-Injection Natural Gas Engine under Various Fuel Injection Timings, Applied Thermal Engineering 26, pp. 806-813. Zhao, F., M.-C. Lai and D.L. Harrington, 1999. Automotive Spark-Ignited Direct-Injection Gasoline Engines, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25, pp. 437-562.

[10]

[11]

[12] [13] [14] [15]

[16]

[17]

[18] [19]

[20]