See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236583458

Why Liquid Phase LPG Port Injection has Superior Power and Efficiency to Gas
Phase Port Injection

Conference Paper · August 2007

DOI: 10.4271/2007-01-3552

CITATIONS READS

11 605

2 authors:

Harry Watson Phuong X. Pham

H & A Watson Consulting The University of Sydney
138 PUBLICATIONS   3,723 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   291 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Characterisation of Electrostatically Charged Sprays of Biodiesels View project

Hydrogen Assisted Jet Ignition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Phuong X. Pham on 25 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Why Liquid Phase LPG Port Injection has Superior Power and
Efficiency to Gas Phase Port Injection
Copyright © 2007 SAE International
ABSTRACT
This paper reports comparative results for liquid phase
versus gaseous phase port injection in a single cylinder
engine. It follows previous research in a multi-cylinder
engine where liquid phase was found to have
advantages over gas phase at most operating
conditions. Significant variations in cylinder to cylinder
mixture distribution were found for both phases and
leading to uncertainty in the findings. The uncertainty
was avoided in this paper as in the engine used, a high
speed Waukesha ASTM CFR, identical manifold
conditions could be assured and MBT spark found for
each fuel supply system over a wide range of mixtures.
These were extended to lean burn conditions where
gaseous fuelling in the multi-cylinder engine had been
reported to be at least an equal performer to liquid
phase.
The experimental data confirm the power and efficiency
advantages of liquid phase injection over gas phase
injection and carburetion in multi-cylinder engine tests.
Analysis shows the charge state at the end of
compression is the major contributor to the performance
difference. Secondary differences such as the mixture
homogeneity also have an important influence. The
lower temperature combustion with liquid phase LPG
also delivers substantial NOx emission reduction.
Suggestions are made for overcoming the deficiency of
gaseous phase injection which may be preferred as its
application avoids the high cost of the high pressure in-
tank LPG pump needed for liquid phase injection.
INTRODUCTION
Recent publications from the ACART (Advanced Centre
for Automotive Research and Testing) group at the
University of Melbourne node, have compared the
performance of alternative LPG fuelling systems at
moderate and high compression ratios in a six cylinder
engine [1,2]. The fuelling systems included gas
carburetion, three designs of throttle body injection, port
liquid and gaseous phase injection. Evidence of the
mixture distribution, deduced from exhaust analysis of
the engine’s six cylinders, showed that all systems,
including the original gasoline system, failed to deliver
2007-01-3552
Harry C. Watson, Pham Xuan Phuong
University of Melbourne
uniform mixture distribution to all cylinders under all load
and speed conditions. Even at light load conditions the
unsigned (modulus) of the difference from the mean
summed across the cylinders was 7% for gasoline and
some LPG supply types. Thus the apparent advantages
of liquid phase injection and gaseous phase throttle
body injection over gaseous phase port injection could
be attributed to non-identical combustion conditions from
cylinder to cylinder. Alternatively it may be attributed to
the physical differences in the two injection processes.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this research was to determine the
difference between liquid phase and gas phase LPG
performance and emissions and to identify the physical
basis of the differences found. From this understanding
to determine if there was an opportunity to align the
performance of the two fuels.
ENGINE TEST FACILITY
ENGINE
A single cylinder Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR)
engine with continuously variable compression ratio
(CR), suitable loading and accessory equipment and
instruments was used for this research. The engine was
initially used for testing fuels but is now used worldwide
for testing the combustion characteristics of research
fuels under one of the five methods: the motor, research,
aviation, supercharge, and cetane methods. The engine
has been operated successfully at The University of
Melbourne with several fuels including isooctane,
methanol, hydrogen, methane, and propane in 1982 [3]
and with HAJI - Gasoline, and HAJI-hydrogen in 2004
[4]. Due to its worldwide acceptance and the availability
of experimental results in the literature, the CFR engine
was chosen to obtain all experimental data points. The
engine’s major specifications are summarized in Table1.
A schematic diagram of the CFR engine including the
specially designed LPG delivery system for this project
is depicted in Figure 1, and a comprehensive manual
written by McReynolds et al. [5] was published by
ASTM.

Table 1 CFR engine specifications [5]
Manufacturer
Bore x Stroke
Swept volume (Capacity)
Connection rod’s length
DYNAMOMETER
The CFR engine is coupled with an AC generator which
Waukesha Engine Co.
absorbs the load at a constant speed of 1500 rev/min.
82.55mm x 114.3mm Engine power corresponds with the weight displayed on
the dynamometer scale in pounds. The dynamometer’s
611.7 mL interchangeable V-belts and pulleys allow for steps in
engine speed, in the range of 600 -1800 rev/min.
41.275mm

Engine Control Unit

(*)
MOTEC M4* AIR INTAKE SYSTEM

Compression Ratio 5 to 20, infinitely variable
Combustion Chamber Plane Cylindrical
Inlet Valve Opened 10° ATDC
Inlet Valve Closed 34° ABDC
Exhaust Valve Opened 40° BBDC
Exhaust Valve Closed 15° ATDC
AC, constant speed (1500rev/min,
±3), belt driven to engine, engine
Dynamometer Type
speed changed by variation of
pulley sizes.
(*) Not original ECU of the CFR engine
The CFR engine was originally designed for
supercharged rating of aviation fuel. The valve overlap,
which is a period when both the IV and the EV are open,
is minimized to avoid mixture bypassing the cylinder.
This is a useful attribute when testing because it avoids
back flow of exhaust into the intake manifold and
residual fractions are limited to the mass trapped in the
clearance volume.
A feature of the engine is its inherently oversized piston-
to-bore clearance and low tension piston rings, a
consequence of the engine’s durability requirement in
boosted mode. However, the level of hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions is higher due to the large mass of crevice
sources HCs from the top ring land.
Furthermore, the CFR engine has a plane cylindrical
combustion chamber and peripherally located spark
plug. The pancake combustion chamber gives the
engine the opportunity to achieve high CR (the highest
CR of the engine is 20:1). However, the shape may
reduce the quality of the combustion resulting from low
turbulence of the air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. The
location of the spark plug increases the traveling
distance of the flame in the combustion chamber,
meaning that the spark timing needs more advance
compared to a central spark plug case. The spark
location may also cause higher HC emissions because
of the longer flame traveling distance and therefore
longer combustion duration, which may increase the
amount of unburned fuel, HC emissions.
The intake air is drawn into the inlet manifold through
two surge tanks connected by a sharp edged orifice
plate with a diameter of 0.5 inches. The purpose of
these tanks is to minimize the unsteady engine flow
effect, particularly significant at low engine operating
speeds. The inlet air flow rate is a function of the
pressure drop across the orifice measured by a water
manometer.
MAP (manifold absolute pressure) or throttle is varied by
using a valve located in the connecting pipe between the
surge tank and intake manifold. MAP is measured by a
Delco 3-bar MAP sensor. The signal is then transferred
to the engine control unit - MOTEC. Air intake mass flow
is measured by the water manometer measured
pressure difference across am orifice plate. The surge
tanks isolate the flow measurement from any flow
pulsations.
ENGINE CONTROL UNIT – MOTEC M4
The fuel supply and ignition system are replacements for
the CFR engine’s original jerk pump injector and
magneto ignition. A MOTEC M4 ECU was used to
control the fuel injection and ignition systems as it allows
for ease of the manipulation of fuel injection pulse width,
via a PC interface. The MOTEC receives information on
the engine working parameters such as the engine
speed and crank and cam positions via an inductive
crank position sensor and a GT101 Hall Effect sensor
fitted to the camshaft, and MAP by a Delco 3-bar MAP
sensor. A Bosch ignition module (0227 100 124) was
connected to a Bosch MEC 718 coil supplying energy to
the spark plug with a transistorized coil ignition system.
CRANK ANGLE MEASUREMENT AND RAMP
GENERATOR
The flywheel is divided into 71 segments by teeth
located every at 5 degree crank angle (DCA). Hence,
the flywheel consists of seventy 5-degree segments
(from 5 to 355 DCA) and one 10-degree segment (from
355 DCA to 5 DCA). The inductive transducer is used to
‘identify’ the teeth and then transfer the signals to IMEP
computer through a ramp generator. The absence of
one tooth at 0 DCA identifies signal of the cylinder at
TDC.
The ramp generator’s characteristics can be found in
Zakis’ research [6].
 Charge Amplifier
Cylinder Pressure Signal
Throttle Valve
IMEP and
Crank Angle Signal CoV Computer Surge tank

Ramp Generator
Air Flow
Measurement
MAP
Controller
MOTEC M4 (spark & Injection
timming)
Inlet Air Water
Ref and Sync

V1 V2
NO Regulator 1
IN
JE
CT
OR

CO
CO2
HC Exhaust
LPG
O2 Analyser
Supply Tank
AFR
N2 Tank
Dial Gauge

Dynamometer Torque
V3

V4
Fuel Filter

To Gaseous Injector Regulator 2 V5

Kitchen urn
Fuel Filter
Motor-Generator CFR Engine To Liquid Injector
Regulator 2

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of experimental equipment
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER AND CHARGE
AMPLIFIER
A Kistler 603B1 acceleration compensated, piezo-
electric pressure transducer located at top of the cylinder
head in the knock meter hole is used to observe the
cylinder pressure signal, which is transferred to the
IMEP computer through a charge amplifier.
A thin layer of high temperature silicon coating on the
transducer’s sensing face and cooling water running
through the transducer’s adaptor is used to minimize
thermal shock sensitivity and thermal drift, respectively.
A Kistler Dual Model 504 Charge Amplifier was used to
amplify the cylinder pressure signals before transferring
them to the IMEP computer.
PC DATA ACQUISITION
To obtain quantitative information on the progress of
combustion, cylinder pressure versus cylinder volume
(p-v) or cylinder pressure versus crank angle or time (p-
t) is needed. In fact, each of the two graphs can be
converted from the other, because cylinder volume is a
function of crank angle (v=f()).
The research group’s standard PC data acquisition
receives cylinder pressure signals from a charge
amplifier and the crank position from the ramp generator
and displays pressure traces (dp/d) and cycle-by-cycle
logp/logv traces. Furthermore, the software displays in
real time values of engine speed, PMEP (kPa), IMEP
(kPa), CoV of IMEP (%), misfire (%), and knock (%).
FIVE GAS ANALYSER
The volumetric concentrations of HC, CO2, CO, NOx
emissions, and O2 in the combustion products were
measured by the NDIR ADS9000 Analyzer. In addition,
the analyzer presents air-fuel ratio based on the balance
of chemical reactions between fuel and air in the
combustion process.
LPG DELIVERY SYSTEM DESIGN

An LPG delivery system was designed based on the

physical characteristics of LPG so that the fuel state can
Supply Tank
be changed by variation of its pressure and temperature.
The design schematic of the systems is given in the
bottom right of Figure 1 and the phase behaviors of L- Connect to N2 tank
Bleed valve
LPG and G-LPG in the system are shown in Figure 2. Excess Flow Valve

In a gaseous phase (G-LPG) fuelled automobile, a

converter has a spiral like internal structure of separate
LPG and water passages and continuously draws hot @80% volume
water from the engine cooling system. A kitchen urn was
used to supply the hot water to convert the gas from
liquid to vapor phase using a copper coil inserted in the
water in the urn. This was the main difference between
the liquid and gaseous systems. The LPG temperature
increases while flowing through the copper coil in the urn
and the liquid LPG is converted to a gas. The
temperature of the supplied gas was controlled by a
thermostatically coupled heating element. Excess Flow Valve

Isolation valve

Connect to LFM tank

Figure 3 Supply tank(2.52 dm3 – 1.06 dm inner

diameter x 2.85 dm inner length)

When the supply tank is empty, it is disconnected and

refueled from the refueling tank located outside the Lab .
The bleed valve creates the difference in pressure
between the supply tank and that in the refueling tank,
which is necessary to have fuel flow from the refueling
tank (higher pressure) to the supply tank (lower
pressure).

Figure 2 Phase diagram of the liquid and gas phase

LPG operating conditions

To ensure that the liquid phase may be maintained, the

gas supply tank shown schematically in Figure 3 is
pressured by nitrogen gas. The tank is connected to the
N2 tank at the top and the liquid fuel measurement (LFM)
tank at the bottom. It also includes an isolation valve,
two excess flow valves, and a bleed valve. The isolation
valve can isolate fuel in the tank before disconnecting
the tank to be refueled. The two excess flow valves are
safety valves which will close in the case the flow rate
increases suddenly.

As seen in figure 1 the LPG pressure in the supply tank

can be adjusted by varying the supply pressure of the
N2. During transport process from the tank to injector,
the fuel pressure reduces due to friction, so the injector
delivery pressure is less than the LPG supply pressure.
Figure 4 Liquid Fuel Measurement (LFM) tank
showing the dial gauge used for monitoring the
delivery piston’s displacement

LIQUID FUEL MEASUREMENT (LFM) TANK

LPG
The tank plays an important role in maintaining fuel Injector
pressure and measuring fuel consumption. Both the top
and the bottom of the tank are connected to the supply
tank when the LFM tank is refueled, but the bottom is
isolated from the supply tank before operating the
engine when the fuel flow is measured. Hence, only the Original
Gasoline
fuel at the bottom can be supplied to the injector. The Injector
constant pressure of the fuel at the top maintains the
pressure of fuel at the bottom and as fuel is consumed,
the piston in the LFM tank moves down the dial gauge
indicates the movement of the piston, which is
proportional to fuel consumption. The force difference
across the piston, resulting from the smaller area on the
top side is compensated for by the weight of the piston Figure 6 Modification of the inlet system to maintain
and shaft. Therefore, the volumetric liquid fuel flow rate close geometric similarity with Ford I-6 engine.
can be determined via the change in dial gauge reading
over a given time interval. This direct measurement can A new injector boss was machined in the inlet pipe
be compared with fuel flows calculated from the injector flange to maintain close geometric similarity with Ford I-
pulse time period and frequency or with that calculated 6 engine. The top injector boss location was used for
from the air fuel ratio. This absolute reference is an this experiment. The bottom injector boss was the
important factor in maintaining accuracy when using location of the engine’s aviation fuel injector.
liquid or gaseous phase fuel injectors.
The gas phase injector used was a Keihin type 3 and a
FUEL DELIVERY Siemens bottom feed injector was used for the liquid
phase application.
The arrangement of the fuel filter, thermocouple,
pressure transducer and injector setup can be seen in TEST CONDITIONS
Figure 5.
A summary of the test conditions is given in table 2:

Table 2 Summary of test conditions

Injector
(gas) liquid and gaseous LPG
Fuel
(HD5-LPG)
CR 10
Thermocouple Speed 1200 rev/min
Liquid phase injection
1.2 MPa
pressure
Gaseous phase injection
0.4 MPa
pressure
Pressure sensor Minimum for Best Torque
Spark Timing
(MBT)
End of fuel injection timing 2800 BTDC

Fuel filter Injection location port

0.9 to lean misfire limit (0.1
Relative air-fuel ratio, 
increments)
60 to 100 kPa (10 kPa
MAP
increments)
Figure 5 G-LPG injector set up showing facility for
measuring fuel state at the injector
COMPARISON OF L-LPG AND G-LPG
INJECTION
VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY
Definition of Volumetric Efficiency
In the induction stroke of a port injected SI engine, the
induction process starts as the inlet valve opens IVO
and finishes as the IVC (closes). The cylinder now
contains fresh charge together with residuals from the
previous cycle. Figure 7 shows a model of air and fuel in
induction stroke in a MPI SI engine.
mf, Tf
ma, Ta
(ma+ mf,
Taf)
(Q1)
(ma+ mf+ mr,
(Q2)
Tivc)
Figure 7 Model of air and fuel induced into the
combustion chamber
In four-stroke engines, volumetric efficiency is used to
evaluate the efficiency of the induction process.
In the literature including Heywood [12], the definition of
volumetric efficiency for a four-stroke SI engine is based
solely on the air consumption. However, other
references including Taylor [63] define the volumetric
efficiency as the volume flow rate of the induced air-fuel
mixture. This discrepancy between Taylor and Heywood
concerning volumetric efficiency is negligible in the
gasoline case because the fuel displaces only a small
volume of air when vaporized.
However, with gaseous fuels such as LPG, the
discrepancy between Taylor and Heywood becomes
more significant as the gaseous fuel displaces a greater
volume of air. Thus here, volumetric efficiency is defined
as in Taylor [7], which accounts for the fuel quantity in
the calculation. Farook [13] reported that for gaseous
LPG fuel, 4.03% (25:1) of the air is displaced for a given
cylinder volume compared to 1.65% (60:1) of fully
vaporized gasoline at stoichiometric mixtures. This
results in a reduction of induced air in the gaseous LPG
case, thus reducing power output.
Thus according to Taylor [7], volumetric efficiency is
defined by Equation 1.
F
ma  m f ma (1  )
v   A (1)
Vd .i Vd .i
Where: ma and mf – Mass of air and fuel inlet per cycle,
respectively
Vd – Swept volume
i – Induced mixture density
F
- Ratio of fuel to air by mass
A
Appendix A describes the thermodynamics in the
induction stroke including the energy exchange
processes amongst the fuel, air, residuals and the phase
change enthalpy due to the liquid fuel evaporation. Also
the relevant heat transfer between the charge and
engine components including the inlet manifold, cylinder,
and piston.
One of the major differences of liquid fuel compared to
gaseous fuel is the liquid evaporation that occurs after
injection into the inlet manifold. A large amount of heat
or energy is required for this phase change to occur. If
the fuel system is adequately designed, the fuel would
absorb heat from the inlet air, thus cooling the charge
resulting in increased density and volumetric efficiency.
Wall wetting becomes a problem with L-LPG since LPG
is very sensitive to changes in temperature [15, 16].
When the liquid is injected directly onto the manifold
wall, the thermal energy for fuel evaporation comes from
both the walls and the inlet air. Consequently, the air is
not cooled as much as when solely injected into the air
stream. Moreover, the liquid is not vaporized entirely in
the manifold, continuing to evaporate during induction
and the compression stroke. In contrast for a G-LPG
system, the saturated LPG also evaporates when it
passes through the pressure regulator and vaporizer
with the heat of vaporization drawn from the coolant
water rather than from the inlet air as for L-LPG
OBSERVATION OF THE VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY
DIFFERENCE
According to Figure 8, volumetric efficiency differences
between L-LPG and G-LPG range from 4%-8%
depending on mixture strength and load. For rich
mixtures, more liquid fuel is induced into the inlet
manifold per cycle, which results in a lower inlet charge
temperature. In addition, this lower temperature further
increases volumetric efficiency, as explained in above.
 At lower loads, the liquid fuel induced per cycle Figure 9 shows a comparison of IMEP for the two
decreases so the differences in volumetric efficiency are injection methods. Higher IMEP values of the L-LPG
reduced. The dependence of mixture strength is much injection compared to the G-LPG injection can be seen.
more significant than the dependence of MAP on Around stoichiometric combustion, the L-LPG produces
volumetric efficiency. from 9% to 11% more power compared to what the G-
LPG produces. Even at =1.3, the difference in power is
Volumetric Efficiency Difference L-LPG and G-LPG [%] still 7%. The main reason why higher power is produced
by the liquid fuel is due to the greater volumetric
60
efficiency of L-LPG. This results in higher pressure
during the combustion stroke and is analyzed in
7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.5 Appendix B. Another reason for the increased power
65 may be due to the faster mixing of the liquid fuel
compared to the gas [2].
70
Around =1.5, as L-LPG reaches its lean misfire limit,
7.5
6.0
the G-LPG’s IMEP starts to exceed that of the L-LPG’s.
7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 5.7 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.5
75 At WOT, the IMEP of L-LPG and G-LPG is around
475kPa. The dotted lines on each graph are for equal
MAP [kPa]

80 IMEP at the same value of MAP and . The IMEP of G-

LPG even exceeds the IMEP of L-LPG at a MAP of 60
kPa and 70 kPa. This is because under colder highly
85 7.5
7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.5 diluted (by residuals) combustion, L-LPG is not burnt
completely at this mixture strength.
90
LEAN MISFIRE LIMIT
7.8
Throttling

95
7.5 4.8
Lean air-fuel mixtures generally improve thermal
7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.1
efficiency, fuel consumption and reduce emissions,
100 especially NOx and CO. However, leaner mixtures
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 cause lower flame and exhaust temperatures resulting in
Lambda higher dilution with residual gases, leading to an
Figure 8 Volumetric efficiency differences between L- increase in misfire tendency. For these reasons, the lean
LPG and G-LPG misfire limit has been studied by researchers such as
Farook [13] and Khan et al. [2].

IMEP G-LPG [kPa] IM EP L-LPG [kPa]

60 300 60
150 350
300 250
250 350
350 200
65 65
300 400
350
350
70 70 400 300
400
350 250 450
400 300 400
75 75 450 350
450 500
MAP [kPa]

500
450 400 450
MAP [kPa]

350 400
80 80 550
500
300 500
550
85 85
450
500 400 450
350 600
550
500
90 90 550
550 600
Throttling

650
600
95 500 95
450
700 650 600
600 400 550
650
550 700 500
100 100 750
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Lambda lambda
Figure 9 IMEP (L-LPG and G-LPG)
IMEP
 MBT Spark Timing G-LPG [Degree BTDC] MBT Spark Timing L-LPG [Degree BTDC]

60 60
36
22 24 30 32 34 36 38
26 28 30 32 34 28
65 38 65 40

70 70

36
20 26 28 30 32 34 36
75 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 75 38
38

MAP [kPa]
MAP [kPa]

80 80

36 24 26 28
85 20 85 30 32
22 24 26 28 30 34 36 38
32 34
Throttling .

90 90

95 18 36 95 24 26
20 28
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 30 32 36 38 40
34

100 100
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Lambda Lambda

Figure 10 MBT Ignition timing and lean flammability limit (L-LPG and G-LPG)

MBT spark timing, CoV of IMEP, misfire, and the stability Somewhat beyond the stability limit (in terms of
boundary (taken as CoV≥10% shaded) are shown in increasing ) misfire occurs when the fuel-air mixture in
Figure 10 and the CoV IMEP taken from Figure 11, the combustion chamber is not burnt completely. This
mainly occurs when ignition is delayed or when the
Engine stability limits are difficult to quantify, but it may flame propagation is too slow to complete combustion
be evaluated through a limit value for CoV of IMEP or before the EVO. Misfire limits depend on design
misfire frequency. For example, Heywood [12] states parameters such as CR, combustion chamber shape,
that the stability limit for SI engines is reached when the turbulence level, and spark plug location, and on
CoV of IMEP value exceeds 10%. operating parameters like air-fuel ratio, spark timing, and
load.
CoV of IMEP G-LPG [%] CoV of IMEP L-LPG [%]

60 60
15 17 15
16 13
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011
4 5 6 7 14
3
65 65
12

70 70
3
15 13
16 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011
75 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 75
MAP [kPa]

MAP [kPa]

12

80 80
3
2
15
85 2 85 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

90 90
Throttling

3
2
95 2 15 95
3 4 4
5 6 7 8 9 1011121314 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

100 100
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Lambda Lambda

Figure 11 CoV of IMEP and stability limits (L-LPG and G-LPG)

Figure 10 shows the higher MBT spark timing values of Figure 11 shows CoV of IMEP and the stability limit
L-LPG compared to G-LPG and the misfire zones of the (CoV ≥10%) as functions of  and MAP.
two injection methods.
Similarly to MBT spark timing, CoV of IMEP values
Stability of combustion has other effects than on IMEP, increase as throttling and or  increases.
(as CoV of IMEP) increasing HC emission levels
reducing NO concentration. Under near stoichiometric conditions, CoV of IMEP
values for both L-LPG and G-LPG are between 1% and
Calculations performed in Appendix A for the 3% depending on load. When  exceeds 1.2, CoV of
temperature at ignition show that G-LPG has higher IMEP values for L-LPG increases more rapidly than
cylinder temperatures than L-LPG (Table A.1), which those for G-LPG. For instance, when 1.4 ≤ ≤1.5 at full
causes shorter delay time and combustion duration than load, CoV of IMEP values for L-LPG are between 7%
L-LPG. Hence, MBT spark timing values of G-LPG are and 11% while those for G-LPG are around 4% to 6%.
lower than that of L-LPG. For example, from Figure 10, The reduction in burning velocity for leaner mixtures
at stoichiometric combustion and WOT, MBT spark results in a longer combustion duration, which impairs
timing values of L-LPG and G-LPG are 19 and 24 efficiency and increases the values of CoV. At =1.5 and
DBTDC respectively. At =1.4 and 60 kPa MAP, the low load, the CoV of L-LPG reaches 15% while G-LPG’s
MBT spark timing values of L-LPG and G-LPG are 30 is only around10%.
and 35 DBTDC respectively.
INDICATED THERMAL EFFICIENCY
MBT spark timing of both injection methods increase as
the engine is throttled. A reduction in load will also cause For both fueling systems, thermal efficiency is a function
not only a reduction in charge density but also a of  and MAP as shown in Figure 12. The slightly higher
reduction in residuals and cylinder temperature, and thermal efficiencies of L-LPG over G-LPG can be seen
therefore, increase MBT spark timing.
for <1.4. When >1.4, however, the efficiency of L-LPG
starts to decrease compared to the efficiency of G-LPG.
The higher charge temperature of G-LPG allows for a Before reaching the lean misfire limit, L-LPG has a 2%-
greater lean misfire limit boundary. Figure 10 illustrates 4% higher thermal efficiency than G-LPG.
that misfire occurs somewhere between =1.4 and
=1.5 with L-LPG. G-LPG, on the other hand, can In general, for L-LPG, it can be deduced that the lower
perform without misfire at =1.6 at full load, and =1.5 at combustion temperature and reduced dissociation for
low load. At the misfire boundary, combustion of L-LPG this fuel delivery, offset the increase in time loss due to
is difficult, especially at low load and significant increase the longer burn duration. The cumulative effect of these
in spark advance is required. factors corresponds to the increase in spark advance
that is required for L-LPG when compared with G-LPG.
Thermal Efficiency G-LPG [%] Themal Efficiency L-LPG [%]

60 60
14 23
22 15 19
20 16 21
19 17 23 21
21 22 21 18
65 23 65 20 22
19
20 24 22
23
23
70 70
22 20 24
24 25
24 23 21 24 23
21
75 21 22 75 22
25 25 26
23 25 25
MAP [kPa]
MAP [kPa]

23
24 24
80 22 80 26
26 27
23 24 26
24 26

85 25 85 27
22 25 25
25
23 24
23 27
90 90 26
26 27 26 28 26
28
Throttling

27 24
25 29 27
24 28
95 95
25
25 28 27
29 28 28 29 30 29 28
27 29 27 30
26 26
26
100 30 100 31
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Lambda Lambda

Figure 12 Indicated thermal efficiency L-LPG and GLPG ------- is equal efficiency
 ISNOx emissions G-LPG [g/kWh] ISNOx emissions L-LPG [g/kWh]

60 60

5
10 15 20 25 25 20 15 10 5 10 15 20 20 15
5
5
65 65
10

70 70
25
25
10 15 20 25 25 20 15 10 5 10 15 20 20 15
75 5 5 75

10
MAP ]kPa]

MAP [kPa]
80 80

25 25
85 30 20 15 10 85 10 15 20 20 15
10 15 20 25 30 25 5

10
Throttling

90 90

95 95 25 25
30 30 20 15 10 10 15 20 20 15
10 15 20 25 25 5

100 100
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Lambda Lambda

Figure 13 Indicated specific NOx emissions (L-LPG and G_LPG)

Calculation of the effects of different ignition
The results demonstrate that NOx production is very
temperatures on the end of combustion temperatures
sensitive to the cycle temperature. Figure 14 shows for
and the amount of dissociation are found in Appendix B.
WOT and the lean region up to misfire, the % difference
in the NOx levels (in ppm) versus the predicted %
EMISSIONS COMPARISONS temperature difference at spark ignition between G-LPG
and L-LPG injection (Table A.1).
INDICATED SPECIFIC NOX EMISSIONS
(NOxG-NOxL)/
Indicated specific NOx emissions of the L-LPG and G- NOxL %
LPG are shown in Figure 13. 50
45 2
Around stoichiometric conditions, a reduction of 40% to 40
R = 0.9767

60% of ISNOx can be seen in L-LPG compared to G-

35
LPG. The gap between the NOx levels of the two
30
injection methods decrease to around 12% at =1.2-1.3
and then increases to reach 70% at =1.5, due to 25

misfires in L-LPG injection. The advantage of L-LPG 20

injection is a result of its lower burned gas temperature. 15

10
The peak laminar burning velocity of propane is shown 5
to occur around the fuel-air equivalence ratio of 1.1 0
(=0.9). The peak burned gas temperature also occurs 5 6 7 8 9 10
around this equivalence ratio. For rich mixtures, (TignG-TignL)/TignL %

however, the O2 concentration is not sufficient to react

with N2 to form NO. As the mixture is leaned out,
Figure 14 NOx level difference vs. predicted
increasing the O2 concentration causes a reduction in temperature difference (Tign- cylinder temperature
the burned gas temperature but an increase in the NO difference (at ignition) between G-LPG and L-LPG;
level. This is the reason the peak NOx emission level of NOx - NOx difference between G-LPG and L-LPG
LPG occurs at around =1.2 as shown in Figure 13. The (WOT))
ISNOx level of G-LPG increases more than 65% from 10
g/kWh at =0.9 to 30 g/kWh at =1.2. For leaner A 45% reduction in NOx level for the L-LPG compared to
mixtures (<1.3), the NOx level of both L-LPG and G- the G-LPG can be seen at the highest spark
LPG reduces by between 20% and 50% as the  value temperature difference (around 9.5%), which
increases by 0.1. corresponds to =0.9. Then, the NOx difference
decreases as  increases. The reduction in NOx is
around 9% when the temperature difference is about 6%
at =1.4.
 ISHC emissions G-LPG [g/kWh] ISHC emissions L-LPG [g/kWh]

60 60
3.6
3.0 6.3 2.50
3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 6.0 2.75 2.50 2.75 3.003.25 3.75
3.3 2.7 3.0 5.7 3.50
65 2.7 65
4.8
5.15.4 2.25

70 2.4 70
2.50
3.0 2.25 2.25
2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.94.24.5 2.50 2.75 3.003.25
75 2.7 75
3.50
2.4 4.8 2.00
M AP [kPa]

M AP [kPa]
2.4 5.1
2.1
80 80 2.00

2.25
2.1 2.25
85 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 85 2.00
3.94.24.5 2.50 2.753.003.25
2.4
4.8
2.4
90 2.1 90 2.00
1.75
2.1
1.8 2.00 2.25
95 1.8 95 1.75
Throttling

2.7 3.0 3.3 2.50

3.63.94.24.5 2.75
3.003.25
2.4 1.75
1.50 1.50
1.5
100 100
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Lambda Lambda

Figure 15 Indicated specific HC emissions L-LPG and G-LPG

INDICATED SPECIFIC HC EMISSIONS INDICATED SPECIFIC CO EMISSIONS

As seen in Figure 15, at around =1.0, the ISHC levels Figure 16 shows CO emission levels of L-LPG and G-
of the L-LPG injection are up to 24% lower than that of LPG are both very low at lean air-fuel mixtures but there
the G-LPG. The difference is between 4% and 12% at is a penalty in rich mixtures. At =0.9, the ISCO
=1.2-1.3, and the HC levels of L-LPG start to exceed emission levels of L-LPG and G-LPG are between 200
that of G-LPG as the mixture is leaned out past =1.4. g/kWh and 350 g/kWh, the levels are reduce by 50% at
From 5% to 20% higher ISHC is shown in the L-LPG near stoichiometric combustion and are lower than 50
injection compared to its counterpart at =1.5. g/kWh at =1.1. When the mixture is leaner than =1.1,
the CO levels fluctuate around 4 g/kWh.

ISCO Emissions (G-LPG) [g/kWh] ISCO Emission

Emissions (L-LPG) [g/kWh]

60 60
300240
180 120
150 9060 180150120 90 60
330 270 210 4.0
30 30 5.04.5
5.5 5.0 5.5
65 330270 6.0 65
210 6.0 300 240
5.0 6.0 5.5 4.0 4.0
70 70
6.0
3.5
4.5
300240 4.5
4.0 3.5
5.0
15012090 60 30
180 5.0 5.5 150120 90 60 30
180
75 5.0 75 270 210
270 5.5
4.0
4.5
6.0 3.5
210
MAP [kPa]

4.0
MAP [kPa]

240
5.5
4.5 3.5
80 5.0 80
3.5

30 3.5 3.5
85 240 4.0 85 30 4.0
4.5
5.0
180
150
12090 60 4.5
5.0 210180150120 90 60
5.5
4.0
4.5
6.0 3.5
210 3.5 3.5
90 4.0 90
Throttling

95 30 3.5 3.0 3.5

3.0 95
3.5 4.0
4.5
5.0
180 12090 60
150 180150120 90 60 30
3.5 3.0
5.04.0
5.5
6.0
4.5 3.0
100 100
0.9 1.0 1.1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.9 .01.0 1.11.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Lambda Lambda

Figure 16 Indicated specific CO emissions L-LPG and G-LPG

 (G) involves gaseous fuel using the concentrations and
temperatures of the G-LPG. The second test (L1) uses
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN L-LPG AND G- the same temperatures of the L-LPG, but the same
LPG - INLET FUEL QUANTITY PER CYCLE concentrations of G-LPG. The third one (L2) uses the
concentrations and temperatures of the L-LPG. The
The cooler L-LPG charge when compared to G-LPG is second test may help to understand the differential
discussed in Appendix A. results in higher volumetric effects of the initial temperatures and the concentrations
efficiencies for L-LPG. Hence, at a given  and MAP, L- on peak pressures and temperatures in the combustion.
LPG consumes more air and more fuel per cycle. Figure Each test was done at =0.9, 1.0, 1.2, and 1.4.
17 shows the predicted temperature difference (Prdt. T.
Difference) presented in Table A.1. The predicted mass
Maximum Pressure
difference of fuel consumed per cycle for L-LPG to G-
LPG corresponds to the predicted temperature 1.050
difference and the measured mass difference at all test
L2
points. 1.000 L2

Pressure Relative
0.950 L1 G
Inlet Fuel Quantity per cycle and Tem p. Diff - L-LPG and G-LPG
MAP100 L1
12 30 L2
0.900
28 G L1
11 MAP90
26 L2
0.850
Temperature Difference [K]

10 G L1
24
(mfL-mfG)/mfG*100%

MAP80
9
22
0.800

8 Predicted 20 MAP70
0.750
18 Lambda0.9 Lambda1 Lambda1.2 Lambda1.4
7 Predicted
MAP60 G 0.942 0.928 0.862 0.816
16
6
14 L1 0.932 0.919 0.854 0.807
5 Prdt. Mass
12 Ratio
L2 1.000 0.983 0.900 0.842
Measured
4 10
Prdt. T
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Difference
Lam bda
Figure 18 Comparison of peak cylinder pressures
(calibrated against measurement) for three mass-
Figure 17 Predicted mass ratios of fuel injected per temperature combinations at WOT.
cycle corresponding to predicted temperature
difference (at WOT), and the measured mass ratios
MaximumTemperature
Maximum Teperature
The trends of the measured mass differences follow
those of the predicted values as they vary significantly 1.050
with the temperature difference and to a small extent G
L1 L2
1.000 G L1 L2
with MAP with  over the MAP range. The measured fuel
mass difference (between L-LPG and G-LPG) varies
Tem perature [K]

0.950 G
from 4% (at MAP 60 kPa) to 8% (at MAP 100 kPa). This L1 L2
is lower than the predicted ratios (from 6% to 9%) which 0.900
can be attributed to incomplete vaporization and some G
L1 L2
heat for evaporation being drawn from the inlet manifold 0.850
wall rather than from the inlet air.
0.800
At lower MAP, there will be a tendency to form a
reduced liquid film and the higher pressure difference 0.750
Lambda0.9 Lambda1 Lambda1.2 Lambda1.4
across the injector may lead to reduced fuel droplet size
G 1.000 0.981 0.923 0.865
and therefore increased evaporation rate. However, the
L1 0.990 0.972 0.914 0.856
MAP range of test points (varied between 60-100 kPa)
might not be large enough to include this effect. L2 0.991 0.973 0.914 0.856

EFFECTS OF INLET CONDITIONS ON PEAK

Figure 18 Comparison of peak cylinder temperatures
CYCLE PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES for three mass-temperature combinations at WOT.
In this section the purpose is to separate the individual
The results show that in spite of the increased charge
influences of the differences in trapped mass and
mass for L-LPG the lower charge temperature at end of
temperature at inlet valve closure following the analysis
compression, coupled with the slower bur rate as
described in Appendix B. All of the points illustrated are
indicated by the increased spark advance needed,
as in Table B.1 for 100 kPa MAP. The first simulation
always leads to lower peak cycle temperatures, even
though the peal pressure is greater. This explains why
the IMAP of L-LPG > G-LPG.
COMPARISON OF SINGLE-CYLINDER & MULTI-
CYLINDER ENGINE OPERATING ON L-LPG & G-
LPG
IMEP
The following section compares IMEP, thermal
efficiency, ISNOX, and ISHC emissions between the
CFR engine and a 6-cylinder Ford Falcon engine [1]. It
should be noted that the Ford I-6 Falcon engine was a
two valve per cylinder configuration (AU-II) delivering
torque (96 Nm/L) and power comparable to the later four
valve per cylinder unit (BA). The engine had special
pistons and a reworked cylinder head that were
modifications of the natural gas engine version enabling
a compression ratio of 11.7 to be used for the injection
system optimization with LPG. The CFR engine used
the same injectors but it was knock limited at a CR of 10.
The CFR and the Ford engines are now referred to the
single-cylinder and the six-cylinder engine, respectively.
The IMEP values of the CFR and the Ford engine at the
same speed of 1200 rev/min are presented in Figure 19
(at =1.0) and 20 (at =1.4).
110
100
90
80
MAP [kPa]
70
60
50
CFR G l1
40
CFR L l1
30 Ford G l1
20
Ford L l1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
IMEP [kPa]
Figure 19 IMEP of the CFR and the Ford at =1.0 (L-
LPG and G-LPG) (CFR G l1 – Data taken by the CFR
engine at =1.0 Ford L l1 – Data taken by the Ford
Falcon engine at =1.0)
L-LPG shows higher IMEP values compared to that of
G-LPG in both of the engines. This is due to the higher
volumetric efficiency of L-LPG resulting from the
increase induced mass at almost equal thermal
efficiencies.
The power difference is more significant in the CFR
engine. The cycle temperature difference between L-
LPG and G-LPG in the CFR may be greater than that of
the Ford due to the lower thermal conductivity of iron
compared to aluminum. It is more probable that the
considerable cylinder to cylinder variations in  in the
six-cylinder engine contributed to the reduced difference
in IMEP [2].
110
100
90
80
MA P [kPa]
70
60
50
40 CFR L l1.4
30
CFR G l1.4
Ford L l1.4
Ford G l1.4
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
IMEP [kPa]
Figure 20 IMEP of the CFR and the Ford at =1.4 (L-
LPG and G-LPG)
L-LPG in the Ford may have a higher lean misfire limit
compared to L-LPG in the CFR. At =1.4, the CFR’s
IMEP in L-LPG mode is nearly similar to that of G-LPG
below 70 kPa MAP. However, in the Ford case the IMEP
difference can still be seen at 50 kPa MAP. The reason
behind this may be due to the squish generated in the
compact chamber centered on the spark plug location of
the Ford, which will increase flame velocity due to
turbulence effects, thus decreasing combustion duration.
Thus as a result of the first author’s piston design for the
Ford, the engine can operate at much lower loads
compared to the CFR.
INDICATED THERMAL EFFICIENCY COMPARISON
Figures 21 and 22 compare the indicated thermal
900 efficiency of L-LPG and G-LPG in the CFR and the Ford
engines.
At full load, L-LPG in both engines has better thermal
efficiencies compared to G-LPG. This is a result of the
higher volumetric efficiency of L-LPG compared to G-
LPG and the lower temperatures leading to less
dissociation as the CFR trends are followed (reinforced
by the lower NOx values found in Figure 23). At low load
conditions, thermal efficiency of G-LPG in the Ford is
much lower than that of L-LPG. Faster mixing of L-LPG
compared to G-LPG and back flow of the G-LPG at low
loads as discussed above may be reasons for the higher
thermal efficiency of the L-LPG compared to that of G-
LPG at the low load conditions.
There is not a large difference between the thermal
efficiency of L-LPG and G-LPG in the CFR. G-LPG may
perform better in the CFR than in the Ford due to
elimination of the cylinder to cylinder variation of the and eliminate most of the temperature or droplet
Ford which is worse with G-LPG than L-LPG [2]. evaporation effects.

45 20

18
40
16
Indicated Therm al Efficiency [% ]

35 14

ISNOx [g/kWh]
12
30 10

8
25
6
CFR G l1
CFR G l 1
CFR L l1 4
20 CFR L l 1
Ford G l1
2 For d G l 1

Ford L l1 For d L l 1
15 0
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
IMEP [kPa]
IMEP [kPa]

Figure 21 Indicated thermal efficiency of the CFR and

Figure 23 ISNOx levels of the CFR and the Ford at
the Ford at =1.0 (L-LPG and G-LPG)
=1.0 (L-LPG and G-LPG)
45
30
CFR G l1.4

40 CFR L l1.4
MPI G l.4
25
MPI L l1.4
In dicated T h em al Efficien cy [% ]

35

20
30
ISNOx [g/kWh]

25 15

20
10
CFR G l1.4
15
CFR L l1.4
5

10 Ford G l1.4

Ford L l1.4
0
5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 IMEP [kPa]
IMEP [kPa]

Figure 24 ISNOx levels of the CFR and the Ford at

Figure 22 Indicated thermal efficiency of the CFR and =1.4 (L-LPG and G-LPG)
the Ford at =1.4 (L-LPG and G-LPG)
INDICATED SPECIFIC HC EMISSION COMPARISON
INDICATED SPECIFIC NOX EMISSION COMPARISON
In the CFR engine, HC emissions from G-LPG are lower
Indicated specific NOx emission levels of the CFR and than those of L-LPG at high loads. However, HC
the Ford are presented in Figure 23 (at =1.0) and 24 (at emissions from G-LPG exceed those of L-LPG at part
=1.4). and low loads. A proposed explanation for the above
results is as follows: at high load conditions, under
A greater ISNOx difference between L-LPG and G-LPG colder combustion of L-LPG, quench and crevice
can be seen in the CFR compared to the Ford, hydrocarbons burn up less. At part load and low load
especially at =1.4. This is due to the greater cycle conditions, however, the evaporation rate of L-LPG at
temperature difference in the CFR. At =1.5, L-LPG the inlet manifold is lower, resulting in more liquid fuel
reaches its lean misfire limit in the CFR which results in continuing to vaporize in the combustion chamber. As a
a significant reduction in NOx emission levels. result, HC emissions from L-LPG are less than those
from G-LPG because of poor distribution of the liquid
As IMEP decrease to less than 300 kPa, ISNOx levels of drops into the crevices.
L-LPG and G-LPG in the Ford are very similar. Larger
residual gas fractions at low load may become dominant In the Ford engine, the HC emissions produced by the
MPI of L-LPG and G-LPG at high loads and part loads
are nearly the same. L-LPG may evaporate better in the
aluminum inlet manifold and therefore generally give a
more uniform L-LPG distribution of fuel into the crevices.
Moreover, L-LPG may draw more evaporative heat from
the aluminum manifold wall resulting in less of a CONCLUSIONS
temperature difference between the fresh charge of L-
LPG and G-LPG in the inlet manifold. There is a significant difference between the behavior of
L-LPG and G-LPG that can be related to the different
6 conditions of mixture quality and temperature which are
consequential on the injection process for identically
CFR G l 1
CFR L l 1

5 For d G l1 located gas and liquid phase injectors. In both the CFR
For d L l 1
and the I-6 Ford, these result in higher volumetric
efficiency for the L-LPG but with longer burn duration,
4 lower peak cycle temperatures and hence less
ISHC [g/kwh]

dissociation, leading to higher IMEP, higher thermal

3 efficiency and lower specific fuel consumption.

2 The lower cycle temperatures of L-LPG result in a

reduction in emissions especially NOx and HC (before
lean misfire limit). The lower temperatures, however,
1
make it more difficult for L-LPG to start burning, which
can be seen by the increased advance of MBT spark
0 timing and the reduced lean misfire limit of L-LPG. This
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 prohibits operation in the ultra low NOx region
IMEP [kPa] (eliminating the need for a NOx catalyst) possible with
G-LPG using throttle body injection [2].
Figure 25 ISHC levels of the CFR and the Ford at =1.0
(L-LPG and G-LPG) The results suggest that there are many factors beyond
injection type that influence the comparison of the
single-cylinder engine and the multi-cylinder engine. The
14 CFR G l1.4
difference between L-LPG and G-LPG behavior is not
CFR L l1.4 only dependent on the cylinder to cylinder variation but
12 Ford G l1.4
also on the combustion chamber shape, the thermal
Ford L l1.4
conductivity of the materials used to produce the
10
engines, the spark plug location and the piston shape.
ISHC [g/kw h]

8
6 mixing of injected gas needs to be improved particularly
4 is superior to port injection because of the increased
2
0
0 100 200 300
IMEP [kPa]
Figure 26 ISHC levels of the CFR and the Ford at =1.4
(L-LPG and G-LPG)
The CFR engine emits more HC compared with the
Ford. The main reasons for this are the differences in
the crevice volumes and in the shape of the piston
crowns. Another reason may relate to the spark plug
positions. The central spark plug in the Ford may help to
reduce burning duration because the flame reaches the
cylinder walls at higher temperatures escaping crevice
gas as the piston moves down the cylinder.
To achieve equal performance of G-LPG and L-LPG the
in a multi-cylinder engine. Throttle body injection (TBI)
mixing length and residence time. There is no
discernable transient response difference between TBI
and port injection because the fuel and air transport
400 500 600 times are the same as the air transport time in the
manifold of an MPI L-LPG. However, there may still not
be the same mixture quality as with L-LPG. Reducing
the charge temperature is still desirable. Since a TBI
manifold should be designed to survive back-firing, an
additional design change for cold water return passages
in it for water from the bottom of the radiator could be an
added feature, as in carbureted engines of the past. A
better solution may be late admission of the charge
through a change in inlet cam phasing. Any of these
solutions will tend to offset the increase in cost of the L-
LPG in-tank pump, which is the major cost incentive for
G-LPG, although with TBI the number of injectors can be
reduced too.

Results for CO, CO2 and other emission related data

can be found in [14].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We acknowledge gratefully the guidance and assistance
in the Kintecus calculations provided by Elisa Toulson.
REFERENCES
1. P A Baker and H C Watson, MPI air-fuel Mixing for
Gaseous and Liquid LPG, SAE paper 2005-01-0246,
2005
2. M A Khan, H C Watson, P A Baker, G Liew, D
Johnston. SI Engine Lean-Limit Extension through
LPG Throttle-Body Injection for Low CO2 and NOx.
SAE paper 2006-01-0459, 2006..
3. H C Watson and E E Milkins, Comparison and
Optimization of Emission Efficiency and Power of
Five Automotive Fuels in one Engine, Int. J. Vehicle
Design Vol 3, 463-476 , 1982
4. Ferenc Hamori, Exploring the Limits of Hydrogen
Assisted Jet Ignition, PhD Thesis, The University of
Melbourne, Australia, 2005
5. America Society for Testing Materials. ASTM
Manual of Engine Testing Methods For Rating
Fuels, ASTM America 1952 .
6. G Zakis Alternative Ignition Systems for CNG in
Diesel Applications, Thesis of Master Engineering
Science, The University of Melbourne, Australia,
2003
7. C F Taylor The Internal Combustion Engine in
Theory and Practice, The MIT Press, Second
Edition, Revised, Volume 1, pp. 184-5, 2005
8. L Ericsson, I Andersson An Analytic Model for
Cylinder Pressure in a Four Stroke Engine, SAE
2002-01-0371, 2002
9. P Mehrani and H C Watson. Joint NOx and
Efficiency Optimization Using a PSO Algorithm. SAE
paper 2006-01-1109, 2006
10. S Beroun, J Blazek, T Hajek, Z Salhab.
Thermodynamics of working cycle of spark ignition
engine with engineering simplifying, Lecture Notes,
Technical University of Liberec, Czech Republic
1999
11. J C. Ianni, Kintecus Manual, 2005
http://www.pcsoftland.com/education/chemistry/kinte
cus.htm
12. J B Heywood. Internal Combustion Engine
Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, 1998
13. Y Farook. Limits of Performance of an SI Engine
Operating on LPG and Petrol, Masters Thesis, The
University of Melbourne, Australia, 1994
14. P X Phuong Comparison of Liquid and Gaseous
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Injection in a Spark
Ignition Engine MEngSci Thesis, Department of
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
University of Melbourne, 2006.
15. H Sim, K Lee, N Chung, M Sunwoo. A study on the
injection characteristics of liquid-phase LPG injector
for air-fuel ratio control, Proceeding of the Institute of
Mechanical Engineers, 2005
16. H Sim and M Sunwoo, Development and Validation
of a Model for a Gaseous-Fuel Engine, Proceeding
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Jun.
2004:218, 7; ProQuest Science Journal p. 697, 2004
CONTACT
Prof Harry C Watson,
Dept. Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
University of Melbourne
Australia, 3010.
harrycw@unimelb.edu.au
APPENDIX A
THERMODYNAMICS IN THE INDUCTION AND
COMPRESSION STROKE
This section describes the energy conservation mixing
process for the fuel and air mixture in the inlet manifold
together with the residual gas in the cylinder. The effect
of compression is also examined.
The energy balance of the fuel and air in the inlet
manifold before and after evaporation is shown in
Equation A.1.
maC p ,aTa  m f C p , f T f  Q1  ma C p ,aTaf  (1  ev ).m f .C p , f .Taf  ev .m f .h fg
(A.1)
Where Taf - Temperature of air-fuel mixture in the inlet
manifold
Ta and Tf - Temperature of air and fuel
individually in the inlet manifold, respectively
ma and mf– Mass of air and fuel induced per
cycle, respectively
Cp– Isobaric specific heat capacity
Q1- Heat added to the fresh charge by the
surfaces past which the charge flows
hfg- Enthalpy of evaporation
ev – Evaporation factor ( 0≤ev≤1 )
If the evaporation of the liquid is assumed to be 100%
complete in the inlet manifold (ev=1), the temperature of
the fuel and air mixture is described in Equation A.2,
however, in practice, complete evaporation seldom
occurs [7].
ma .C p , a .Ta  m f .C p , f .T fL  m f .h fg  Q1
Taf 
maC p , a
(A.2)
As the rate of evaporation is difficult to measure under
engine firing conditions, an assumption is necessary to
estimate the fresh charge temperature. In addition, the
amount of heat added during the induction process is
difficult to evaluate. As a simplification, this additional
heat is ignored or assumed unchanged in several
discussions including this thesis [7, 8].
 The fresh air-fuel mixture with temperature Taf is now
induced into the combustion chamber. As the fresh
charge enters the combustion chamber, it is heated up
by the hot residuals. Energy conservation through the
mixing process up to inlet valve closure is described by
Equation A.3.
(it is assumed that all the liquid fuel evaporates before
IV close; L and G represent Liquid and Gas LPG,
respectively. Ign. represents Ignition)
If the effects of Q2 are ignored, Equation A.4 can be
simplified to Equation 4.6.

maf .C p , af .Taf  mr .C p , r .T  Q2  maf C p , af .TIVC  mr C p , r .TIVC TIVC  Taf (1  xr )  xrTr (A.5)

(A.3)
mr
Where TIVC – Cylinder temperature at inlet valve closure Where: xr  - Residual gas fraction
ma  m f  mr
Q2 – Energy lost due to heat transfer from combustion
chamber gas to engine components and environment. The residual gas fraction is usually determined by
measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)
The temperature, Tivc, now can be calculated through extracted from cylinder during the compression stroke or
Equation A.4. by calculation of exhaust gas conditions in the cylinder.
In SI engines, the fraction varies between 4% and 20%
maf C p , af Taf  mr C p , rTr  Q2 depending on engine load [9].
TIVC  (A.4)
maf C p , af  mr C p , r If the engine cycle from ‘inlet valve close’ to ‘spark
ignition’ is assumed to be an adiabatic compression
If the isobaric specific heat of fresh charge, Cp,af, and process, then the temperature of any point in the
residuals, Cp,r, are assumed to be the same, and the It process can be expressed by Equation A.6.
can be seen from Figure 18 that L-LPG has higher
 1
maximum pressures but lower maximum temperatures V 
(Figure 19) as compared to G-LPG. The maximum T  TIVC *  IVC  (A.6)
temperatures of L2 are just slightly higher than that of L1,  V 
but significant differences can be seen in their maximum
pressures. Hence, the higher volumetric efficiency with Where: VICV – Cylinder volume at inlet valve closed
the liquid fuel leads to a higher maximum pressure or
more energy available after combustion. The maximum V - Cylinder volume at the crank angle
pressure of L2 is 6% higher than that of G at =0.9 and  (before ignition)
the difference decreases to around 3% at =1.4.
T - Temperature in cylinder at the crank
Table A.1 Predicted temperature of the angle 
charge at inlet manifold and cylinder
 - Specific heat ratio
temperature at IVC and at ignition of L-LPG
and G-LPG (WOT). Table A.1 shows the temperature of the fresh charge
predicted through the calculation of L-LPG and G-LPG
(Taf at WOT. Please note that the specific heat ratio of the L-
TafL TafG / TIVCL TIVCG TIgnL TIgnG LPG is assumed to be as that of G-LPG. In fact, the
 Ta Ta) TIV TIg
f C n
specific heat ratio of G-LPG is larger than that of L-LPG
[K] [K] [K] [K] [K] [K] which can be described by the Schulle Equation A.7
% found in [10]. However, Beroun [10] showed that the
effect of the difference in fuel specific heat ratios on the
0.9 267 294 27 9.2 348 375 27 525 573 48
compression stroke is very small.
1 269 293.9 25 8.4 350 375 25 526 564 39
T
1.1 271 293.8 23 7.7 351 374 23 527 561 34   1.41  0.572 (A.7)
10000
1.2 273 293.7 21 7.2 353 374 22 527 560 33

1.3 274 293.7 20 6.7 354 374 20 526 558 32

As can be seen from Table A.1, the fresh charge of the
liquid fuel is 17-27 K cooler than that of the gaseous
1.4 275 293.6 18 6.2 355 374 19 527 558 30 fuel. This difference decreases as the air-fuel ratio
increases. TafL increases significantly from 267 to 276 K
1.5 276 293.6 17 5.9 356 374 18 530 557 27
while a slight decrease of 0.5 K is seen in TafG, as 
increases from 0.9 to 1.5. An increase in  leads to a
reduction in the amount of fuel inducted per cycle. Less
liquid fuel requires less energy for evaporation resulting
in a higher charge temperature. However, the gaseous
fuel charge heats up the air slightly as the fuel
temperature was slightly higher than that of the inlet air
during experimental testing (around 20 C).

There is small difference between Taf and TIVC values

because of the assumption that all liquid fuel vaporizes
in the inlet manifold, with no heat transfer between the
charge and the engine components. The higher value of
Tign as compared to TIVC is the result of adiabatic
compression as shown in Equation A.6.

APPENDIX B

MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE OF

LIQUID AND GASEOUS FUEL DURING
COMBUSTION

The authors used Kintecus [11] to examine combustion

characteristics of the liquid and gaseous fuel. Kintecus is
a software package that can be used as a
thermodynamic model to examine the chemical
reactions during the combustion process of air and fuel
at constant volume amongst a range of prescribed
processes. The initial parameters of the model are the
reaction mechanism, the initial species concentrations
(mol/cm3) and the temperature at the beginning of the
combustion process. The results include the
temperatures, pressures, and concentrations of the
products as functions of combustion time. The aim of
using Kintecus in this thesis is to aid the understanding
of the difference between L-LPG and G-LPG combustion
characteristics due to the higher initial temperatures but
lower concentrations (lower volumetric efficiency) of the
G-LPG injection. As this program calculates non-
equilibrium processes the dissociation of CO2 to CO and
H2O to H2 are exactly computed. The dissociation has
consequential effects on peak pressure in the chamber
and the potential to do work during expression. In
general, lower peak temperatures reduce dissociation
and increase potential energy (pressure).

Some approximations were requires (14) but accurate

relative temperatures and the measured concentration
(or air-fuel ratio) of L-LPG and G-LPG. The test points
are summarized in Table B.1.

Table B.1 Test points to the study of combustion of L-

LPG and G-LPG

MAP
Number Label Concentration Temperature
[kPa]

1 G 100 G-LPG G-LPG

2 L1 100 G-LPG L-LPG

3 L2 100 L-LPG L-LPG

View publication stats