i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Effects study of injection strategies on hydrogen-

air formation and performance of hydrogen direct
injection internal combustion engine

Yong Li, Wenzhi Gao*, Pan Zhang, Yixiang Ye, Zhaoyi Wei
State Key Laboratory of Engines, Tianjin University, 135 Yaguan Road, Tianjin, 300350, China

highlights graphical abstract

It is sufficient to form uniform

mixture for the injection timing of
88 ATDC.

Injection pressure has a minimal
effect on the mixture formation
and combustion.

The second injection mass fraction
impacts on tumble strength.

The second injection timing is
optimized based on the jet-room
coordination effect.

article info abstract

Article history: Based on the dual challenges of the global energy crisis and environmental pollution,
Received 13 May 2019 hydrogen has been recognized as an ideal alternative internal combustion engine (ICE) fuel.
Received in revised form To improve the combustion efficiency of hydrogen direct injection ICE, we numerically
21 July 2019 analyzed the effects of different injection parameters, including injection timing, injection
Accepted 8 August 2019 pressure, and dual injection, on the formation of a hydrogen-air mixture using the
Available online 5 September 2019 CONVERGE software from the perspective of mass transfer and flow state. It was deter-
mined that it is enough to set the injection timing to 88 after top dead center (ATDC) for
Keywords: both uniform mixture and desirable indicated thermal efficiency (ITE). However, when the
Hydrogen internal engine injection timing is set to 43 ATDC, an acceptable ITE and effective combustion can be
Injection strategy achieved by employing the “jet-room coordination” effect of the u chamber. Injection
Mixture formation pressure has a minimal effect on mixture formation and combustion. In contrast, the
Dual injection timing and mass fraction of secondary injection have a significant influence on tumble
strength, which is a key factor for the mixture improvement.
© 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gaowenzhi@tju.edu.cn (W. Gao).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.08.055
0360-3199/© 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1
Nomenclature
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
HDI Hydrogen Direct Injection
PHI Port Hydrogen Injection
ITE Indicated Thermal Efficiency
ATDC After Tope Dead Center
IVC Intake Valve Close
EVO Exhaust Valve Open
SIMF Secondary Injection Mass Fraction
SIT Secondary Injection Timing
AMR Adaptive Mesh Refinement
CA50 Crank Angle when cumulative heat release
reaches 50%
MMF2500 Maximum Mass Fraction of the region where
the temperature exceeds 2500 K
deg Degree
NTP Normal temperature and pressure
LPG Liquid petroleum gas
Introduction
With continued societal development, energy and environ-
mental issues have become increasingly critical; and many
researchers have started to focus on renewable and clean
energy [1e5]. Global car ownership is increasing rapidly and
the sustainability of internal combustion engine (ICE) fuel has
recently attracted significant attention. Based on the dual
challenges of energy shortages and environmental pollution,
it is critical to seek renewable clean energy. As an ideal
renewable energy source, hydrogen has a wide range of
sources and has no CO2, CO, HC, or particulates in its com-
bustion products, producing nearly zero harmful emissions.
The low calorific value of hydrogen is 120 MJ/kg (gasoline:
45 MJ/kg) [6,7]. Compared to other fuels, hydrogen has desir-
able heat and mass transfer characteristics (diffusion coeffi-
cient in NTP air (cm2s1): hydrogen: 0.61; gasoline: 0.005;
methane: 0.16). Additionally, its flame propagation speed is
extremely fast (hydrogen: 2.65e3.25 m/s; gasoline: 0.3e0.5 m/
s; LPG: 0.38 m/s). It also has a very low ignition energy, as low
as 1/10th of the ignition energy of a gasoline-air mixture
(hydrogen: 0.02 mJ; gasoline: 0.24 mJ; LPG: 0.26 mJ), which
guarantees stable combustion and a low misfire rate.
Furthermore, hydrogen has a wide flammability range (flam-
mability volume fraction in air: hydrogen: 4e75%; gasoline:
1.3e7.1%; LPG: 2.15e9.6%), remaining flammable at a volume
fraction of 4%, which provides advantages in terms of lean
combustion [5,8e11].
It is well known that the mixing of fuel and oxidants (air)
directly determines combustion efficiency and final thermal
efficiency. Therefore, research on mixture formation is very
significant. In recent years, researchers worldwide have per-
formed extensive relational research work.
Jiang et al. [12] reported the influence of different fuel in-
jection strategies and fuel properties on the combustion
26001
performance of a turbocharged gasoline direct injection en-
gine. The results demonstrate that injection pressure and in-
jection timing have a clear effect on the combustion and
emissions of surrogate fuels. For greater thermal efficiency of
surrogate fuels, low injection pressure and retarded injection
timing may be required. In contrast, for gasoline, an injection
timing of approximately 300 before top dead center is best.
The effect of different injectors on mixture stratification were
studied in a gasoline compression ignition engine in Ref. [13].
It was found that the physical properties of fuel have a more
significant influence on combustion when using a hollow-
cone injector instead of a multi-hole injector. Zhenkuo et al.
[14] conducted a multi-cycle numerical investigation on
mixture formation in a turbocharged port-injection natural
gas engine. The in-cylinder mixing process was studied under
different operating conditions. The results demonstrate that
injection timing has an insignificant impact on mixture
flammability at spark time. For both liquid and gaseous fuels,
the formation of in-cylinder mixtures has been a significant
research focus. Many of the research methods adopted for
gasoline and natural gas can also be employed for hydrogen
ICEs.
For a Direct-Injection hydrogen engine, Wallner et al.
[15,16] researched the injection angle and different combina-
tions of primary and secondary injection. NOX emissions were
reduced by 85% compared to single injection by employing
multiple injection strategies. They also found that in the case
of multiple injection strategies, the rate of heat release is
influenced by the injection parameters of primary and sec-
ondary injection. The effects of varying the injection timing on
combustion were studied in Ref. [17]. It was found that
hydrogen injection at later stage of compression stroke can
achieve the thermal efficiency higher than 38.9% and late in-
jection of hydrogen offers a great reduction in NOx emission
due to the lean operation. Li et al. [18] studied the effects of
split hydrogen injection proportion and timings on the com-
bustion and emissions of a dualfuel spark ignition engine.
The results demonstrated that unlike single hydrogen direct
injection (HDI), split hydrogen injection can form a stratified
charge for speeding up combustion and increasing brake
thermal efficiency. Additionally, the first injection proportion
and second injection timings have a significant influence on
torque and emissions. Biffiger et al. [19] compared premixed
methane-hydrogen blends to split injections of methane (port
injected) and hydrogen (direct injected). The results demon-
strated that secondary injection toward the spark plug can
increase turbulence and charge stratification. The studies
above analyzed the effects of dual injection on mixture for-
mation and combustion from a macro perspective. However,
macro parameters, such as power and NOx emissions, cannot
accurately reflect the state of flow.
Simulations of a port hydrogen injection (PHI) ICE were
carried out by Wang et al. [20] to investigate the influence of
hydrogen injection timing, nozzle hole position, and nozzle
hole diameter on mixture formation. The results demon-
strated that these parameters have a significant influence on
mixture formation. It is well known that the main obstacle to
PHI engines is poor intake efficiency based on the low density
of hydrogen. To enhance intake efficiency, Yang et al. [21]
26002 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1
proposed two types of injection modes: symmetric dual in-
jection and a spaced arrangement along the axis of the intake
port. Simulation results demonstrated that mixture unifor-
mity and combustion velocity are improved significantly
when using spaced dual injection. HDI can also improve low
intake efficiency, but knocking and lubrication problems
associated with HDI hindered its development.
Wallner et al. [22] performed an experimental investigation
for evaluating the effects of different injector locations and
nozzle designs in a HDI engine. The result showed that
injector position and the start of injection timing had an
important influence on the thermal efficiency and NOx
emission. Hamzehloo et al. [23] simulated numerically the
influence of various injection strategies. The effect of injection
pressure and timing on velocity field was researched. Takagi
et al. [24] improved thermal efficiency and reduced NOx
emissions by optimizing the direction, number and diameter
of the jet and injection timing in a direct-injection hydrogen
engine. However, there is a lack of analysis of the relationship
between these injector parameters and the distribution of the
mixture in the cylinder. Tsujimura et al. [25] reported the in-
fluence of injection timing and inhomogeneity of mixture on
engine performance in a large-sized direct injection hydrogen
engine for a stationary power generator.
In the studies discussed above, the researchers primarily
focused on PHI engines and the split injection of dual fuels.
Though most researches had reported the influence of injec-
tion strategies on mixture formation, the analyses only stay at
the macroscopic level, while those at the microscopic level
can better reveal the flow field rules. There has been little
focus on HDI engines, particularly regarding the formation of
hydrogen-air mixtures. The effect of hydrogen injection
strategy on flow field and combustion in cylinder is not perfect
in HDI engines. Therefore, this paper focuses on the mass
transfer and flow fields in HDI engines to determine how in-
jection strategies influence the formation and combustion of
such mixtures.
Research approach
This study was carried out on the CY6BG332 six-cylinder
diesel engine manufactured by Dongfeng Chaoyang Chao-
chai Power Co., Ltd. The original geometrical model of the
engine was modified slightly for hydrogen ICE (e.g., replacing
the preheat plug with a spark plug). The main parameters of
the engine are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 e Main parameters of the engine.
Parameter
Bore (mm)
Stroke (mm)
Compression Ratio
IVC ( ATDC)
EVO ( ATDC)
Ignition Timing ( ATDC)
To improve calculation efficiency and obtain accurate
initial conditions, simulation was divided into two steps. In
the first step, a complete cycle, including the intake and
exhaust stroke, was simulated to obtain the initial condi-
tions of gas flow in the cylinder. In the second step, the
intake and exhaust port mesh model were deleted and
simulation was conducted from the intake valve closing to
the exhaust valve opening, including hydrogen injection,
compression, and power stroke. In the second simulation,
the initial conditions were mapped based on the results of
the first simulation.
To determine the influence of injection parameters on
the formation of hydrogen-air mixtures, as shown in Table
2, different injection parameters were tested to simulate
the mixture formation process. In these simulations, the
equivalence ratio, compression ratio, etc. were set to be
consistent within each group. Groups 1 and 2 were used to
research the influence of injection timing and pressure on
the formation of mixtures, respectively. Groups 3 and 4
were used to research the influence of the secondary in-
jection mass fraction (SIMF) and secondary injection
timing (SIT) of dual injection on the formation of mixtures,
respectively.
Numerical model
The computational fluid dynamics software CONVERGE
(Convergent Science, Inc.) was used to perform simulations.
CONVERGE can automatically generate a perfectly orthogonal
structured grid at runtime based on user-defined grid control
parameters, saving significant time in terms of pre-
processing. The meshes are automatically encrypted based
on velocity, temperature fields, among others.
Geometrical model
A 3D geometrical model was established using the SolidWorks
software, then converted into STL format for use by
CONVERGE as a surface file. The geometry includes a cylinder,
intake and exhaust ports, and hydrogen injector, as shown in
Fig. 1.
CONVERGE contains powerful fix embedding, adaptive
mesh refinement (AMR), and acceleration algorithms, such as
Multi-Zone, which can ensure calculation accuracy and
shorten calculation time. Calculation in CONVERGE uses a
Cartesian grid with a base mesh size of 4 mm and different
scales of refinement in the computational domain, which are
listed in Table 3.
Governing equations
Value The dynamics of fluid flow are governed by equations that
102
describe the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.
118 Species conservation equations, gas state equations, and
17.5 turbulence model equations can also be solved using
130 CONVERGE for ICE application [26e28]. The equations for
124 mass transport and momentum transport are defined as
12
follows:
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1 26003

Table 2 e Injection parameter settings.

Group No Injection timing ( ATDC) Injection pressure (MPa) Primary/Secondary Secondary injection
injection timing ( ATDC) mass fraction (%)
1 128, 108, 88, 68, 48, 43 20 NA NA
2 128 10, 20, 30 NA NA
3 NA 20 128/30 0, 5, 10, 20, 30
4 NA 20 128/43, 30, 25, 20, 15 20

vr vrui
þ ¼ S; (1)
vt vxi

vrui vrui uj vP vsij

þ ¼ þ þ Si0 ; (2)
vt vxj vxi vxj

where the viscous stress tensor is defined as follow:




vui vuj 2 vuk
sij ¼ mt þ þ m0  mt dij ; (3)
vxi vxi 3 vxk

k2
mt ¼ m þ Cm r : (4)
ε
In the equations above, u is velocity, r is density, S is the
source term, P is pressure, m is viscosity, m0 is dilatational vis-
cosity (set to zero), dij is the Kronecker delta, mt is turbulent
viscosity, Cm is a turbulence model constant, k is the turbu-
lence kinetic energy, and ε is the turbulent dissipation.
The energy equation is written as

 !
vre vuj re vuj vui v vT v X vYm
þ ¼ P þ sij þ Kt þ rD hm
vt vxj vxj vxj vxj vxj vxj m
vxj
þ S;
(5)

mt
Kt ¼ K þ cp ; (6)
Prt

cp mt
Prt ¼ ; (7)
kt
where r is density, Ym is the mass fraction of species m, D is
the mass diffusion coefficient, S is the source term, P is the
pressure, e is the specific internal energy, Kt is the turbulent
conductivity, hm is the species enthalpy, sij is the stress
tensor, T is the temperature, Prt is the turbulent Prandtl
number, mt is the turbulent viscosity and cp is the specific
heat.

Fig. 1 e The 3D geometrical model (a) and CFD Computational method

computational mesh (b).
The renormalization group k  ε model was used to solve the
turbulence transport equation. This model has been verified
Table 3 e Region and scale of fix embedding and AMR. to simulate the hydrogen flow in a Direct-Injection
Refinement region Refine strategy/scale hydrogen engine accurately [29]. The combustion model
SAGE was selected to solve chemical dynamics with detailed
Combustion chamber Fix embedding/2
Spark plug Fix embedding/5 chemical reaction mechanisms. A multi-zone model devel-
Injector exit Fix embedding/3 oped by Babajipoulous et al. [30] inside the SAGE combus-
Nozzles Fix embedding/5 tion model was applied to accelerate calculations. The
Intake/exhaust valve angle Fix embedding/3 extended Zeldovich NOX model was used to calculate NOX
Cylinder AMR/3 emission.
26004 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1

Compared with other gases, such as methane and air,

hydrogen has a high diffusion coefficient. The molecular
diffusion coefficient is calculated by

yt
Dt ¼ ; (8)
Sct
where yt is the turbulent kinematic viscosity, Sct is the turbu-
lent Schmidt number. So increasing the molecular diffusion
coefficient means decreasing the turbulent Schmidt number.
Therefore, in order to accurately predict the hydrogen diffu-
sion process, a low Schmidt number is used to increase
hydrogen dispersion rate. Base on the research in literature
[16], 0.3 is choose as an appropriate Schmidt number in the
numerical model.

Boundary and initial conditions

According to real working conditions, the boundary and initial

conditions were set to the values listed in Tables 4 and 5.

Model validation

Since the experimental rig has not been completed, there is no

experimental data available, so the experiment result in
literature [16] is used to verify the turbulence model of this
paper. The geometry model is established as shown in Fig. 2
and keep the turbulence model in the validation case consis-
tent with that in the research model. The boundary and initial
conditions were set according to the experimental conditions.
The comparison between the experimental result and the
calculation result are shown in Fig. 3.
One can see that from 130 ATDC to 100 ATDC, the
hydrogen concentration obtained by calculation and experi-
ment matches well. And from 85 ATDC to 55 ATDC, two
kind results of the hydrogen spreading progress are similar.
However, from 40 ATDC to 30 ATDC, the hydrogen

Table 4 e Settings for boundary conditions.

Boundary region Boundary Temperature (K) Pressure
type (bar)
Piston Moving wall 570 NA
Fig. 2 e Geometry model of validation case. (a) Overall CFD
Cylinder wall Fixed wall 450 NA computational mesh, (b) nozzle detail mesh.
Cylinder head Fixed wall 550 NA
Air inlet Inflow 306 1.4
Intake port Fixed wall 310 NA
Exhaust outlet Outflow 500 1.0 distribution are different. The hydrogen distribution in
Exhaust port Fixed wall 450 NA experimental result is more uniform than that in the simu-
Hydrogen inlet Inflow 300 100e300 lation result. The hydrogen diffusion rate obtained by simu-
lation is slightly slower than that by experiment. But the
difference on mixture uniformity of hydrogen and air is slight.
Table 5 e Settings for initial conditions. Especially for 40 ATDC and 30 ATDC, compared with the
Initial region Temperature (K) Pressure (bar) experimental results, the maximum error of the hydrogen
mole-fraction in the simulation results is within 0.05. Such
cylinder 600 1.0
errors are within acceptable range for this study. So the nu-
Intake port 306 1.0
Exhaust port 500 1.0 merical model can predict the hydrogen injection and diffu-
Injector volume 300 100e300 sion process as a whole.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1
Fig. 3 e Hydrogen mole-fraction during the compression stroke: comparison between numerical and experimental data.
Simulation results and discussion
Effects of injection timing
Although hydrogen has desirable mass transfer characteris-
tics, injection timing has a significant impact on the formation
of hydrogen-air mixtures. In theory, for direct injection en-
gines, the earlier the injection timing, the more mixing time is
available for hydrogen and air, resulting in a more uniform
mixture. In practice, premature injection may cause certain
negative effects, such as hydrogen jets hitting the cylinder
wall and causing damage to the lubricant film, and an increase
in compression negative work. However, if the injection
timing is appropriate, the hydrogen jet can match well with
the u-pit in the piston. The resulting tumble flow will
Fig. 4 e Schematic diagram of jet-room coordination.
26005
accelerate hydrogen-air mixing and flame propagation. Fig. 4
illustrates the match of hydrogen jet with the u-pit. This
behavior is referred to as “jet-room coordination”. Different
injection timings were tested to research the effects of injec-
tion timing on hydrogen-air mixing. To quantify mixture
uniformity, a dimensionless parameter called the uniformity
coefficient, which is weighted by mass, can be calculated as
follow:
P 
4i  4avg mi
sm ¼ 1  0:5  P ; (9)
4i mi
P
4i mi
4avg ¼ ; (10)
M
where 4i and mi are the equivalence ratio and mass of cell i,
respectively. M and 4avg are the total mass and average
equivalence ratio in the cylinder, respectively.
Equivalence ratio distributions and uniformity coefficients
at spark time for different injection timings are presented in
Fig. 5. One can see that delayed injection, the range of the
equivalence ratio distribution in the cylinder widens gradu-
ally, which is consistent with the trend of the uniformity co-
efficient. However, at a timing of 43 after top dead center
(ATDC), the uniformity coefficient is slightly larger than that
at 48 ATDC based on the tumble acceleration of the
hydrogen-air mixing process. Fig. 6 presents the velocity fields
in a vertical section. One can see that the velocity at the in-
jection timing of 48 ATDC in squish zone and u-pit of
26006 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1
Fig. 5 e Equivalence ratio distributions and uniformity
coefficients at spark time (12 BTDC).
combustion chamber has reached 40 m/s while the velocity is
lower 32 m/s for the injection timing of 48 ATDC. What's
more, velocity of vortex is significantly greater than that at the
injection timing of 48 ATDC, which means a stronger
tumble strength. When the injection timing is earlier than
88 ATDC, the uniformity varies slightly with injection
timing advance. Therefore, for a uniform mixture, it is suffi-
cient to set the injection timing to 88 ATDC.
Fig. 6 e Velocity fields at spark time. (a) Injection at ¡48
ATDC; (b) Injection at ¡43 ATDC. (The vertical section
passes through the centerline of a nozzle).
Fig. 7 e ITE and CA50 values for different injection timings.
Fig. 7 presents the injection timing effects on the com-
bustion phase (CA50) and indicated thermal efficiency (ITE).
When the injection timing varies between 128 and 88
ATDC, the ITE is relatively consistent at approximately 35%,
whereas the CA50 varies between 6 and 12 ATDC. Although
the mixture is relatively uniform when the injection timing is
earlier than 88 ATDC, the CA50 varies between 6 and 12
ATDC based on the different hydrogen concentrations near
the spark plug. However, when the injection timing is delayed
to 48 ATDC, the CA50 advances to the TDC, meaning
compression negative work increases and ITE decreases
significantly. The main reason for this phenomenon is the rich
mixture near the spark plug and at the end of the combustion
chamber, as shown in Fig. 8a. Therefore, the delayed com-
bustion period and combustion duration are shorter. It is
worth noting that the ITE increases to 36.8% and the CA50 is
approximately 5 ATDC when the injection timing is 43
ATDC. This is largely caused by jet-room coordination gener-
ating a stratified mixture, as shown in Fig. 8b. This phenom-
enon increases the tumble strength and flame propagation
speed. The simulation results above demonstrate that it is
sufficient to set the injection timing to 88 ATDC for both
uniform mixing and ITE. However, when the injection timing
is 43 ATDC, acceptable ITE and effective combustion can be
achieved by leveraging the jet-room coordination effect in the
u chamber.
The formation of NOx is closely related to the temperature.
Compared with the highest combustion temperature, the
Maximum Mass Fraction of the region where the temperature
exceeds 2500 K (MMF2500) can better evaluate the mass of
high temperature regions that is closely related to the mass of
NOx. MMF2500 and NOx emissions are presented in Fig. 9 for
different injection timings. One can see that when the injec-
tion timing varies from 128 ATDC to 88 ATDC, the
mixture is sufficiently uniform, so the variations of NOx
emission and MMF2500 are slight. However, when the injec-
tion timing is at 48 ATDC, CA50 reaches to TDC shown in
Fig. 7 due to the decrease of mixture uniformity. So MMF2500
and NOx emission reach the maximum values. When the in-
jection timing is further advanced to 43 ATDC, the increase
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1 26007

Fig. 9 e MMF2500 and NOx values for different injection

timings.

though the injection velocity and turbulent kinetic energy

increase over a short time period when injection pressure
increases, these values will eventually fall to consistent
values at spark time based on the long period from the end of
injection to spark time. Therefore, the flow fields associated
with different injection pressures at spark time are similar,
as shown in Fig. 10. These results confirm that similar ITE
and NOx emission trends appear with injection pressure
variation.
Fig. 8 e Hydrogen concentration fields in vertical and
horizontal sections at spark time. (a) Injection at ¡48
Effects of dual injection
ATDC; (b) Injection at ¡43 ATDC. (The vertical and
horizontal sections pass through the spark plug).
In this section, the effect of dual injection on the mixture
formation and combustion will be discussed. These effects
were analyzed by varying the Secondary Injection Mass
of the mixture uniformity and flame speed due to the effect of Fraction (SIMF) and Secondary Injection Timing (SIT) in the
jet-room coordination makes CA50 after TDC. And then simulations.
MMF2500 and NOx decrease. Both values exhibit similar The velocity fields displayed in Fig. 11 reveal that an in-
trends with changes in injection timing, meaning MMF2500 crease in the SIMF will significantly increase tumble strength
values can indirectly reflect combustion temperature in a based on an increase in the mass inertia of the second injec-
cylinder. tion jet. However, based on the fact that the hydrogen mass
injected second is increased through extension of the injec-
Effects of injection pressure tion duration, the time left for mixing becomes shorter.
Therefore, an excessive increase in the SIMF will lead to the
It is well known that injection pressure is crucial for the at- accumulation of hydrogen in the u-pit of the piston, as shown
omization and evaporation of liquid fuel. However, for in the concentration fields in Fig. 11. Hydrogen in the u-pit
gaseous hydrogen, there is no atomization or evaporation may auto-ignite or burn out rapidly when the flame front ar-
during mixing process. Therefore, in this section, we analyze rives. All concentration fields in the horizontal section are
how injection pressure affects the formation of hydrogen-air stratified. For the SIMF value of 5%, the mixture near the cyl-
mixtures. After a series of numerical simulation analyses inder center is rich and the mixture is lean near the cylinder
with different injection pressures, 10 MPa, 20 MPa and 30 MPa
are chosen as the representative to analyze the effect of in-
jection pressure on the mixture formation and combustion.
The performance and emission parameters for different Table 6 e ITE, uniformity coefficient, MMF2500, and NOx
injection pressures are listed in Table 6. One can see that the emission values for different injection pressure with
ITE and uniformity coefficient vary relatively little with in- early injection (¡128 ATDC).
jection pressure, meaning injection pressure has a minimal Injection ITE Uniformity MMF2500 NOx (g/
effect on mixture formation and combustion. Based on the Pressure (MPa) (%) coefficient (%) kW$h)
discussion in Section Effects of injection timing, we know 10 33.7 0.86 20.8 18.5
that hydrogen has sufficient time to mix adequately with air 20 33.6 0.85 19.8 16.9
when the injection timing is 128 ATDC. Therefore, even 30 33.4 0.85 20.5 17.9
26008 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1

Fig. 10 e Hydrogen concentration and velocity fields in the cylinder with different injection pressures at spark time.
Hydrogen concentration field with injection pressure of (a) 10 MPa; (b) 20 MPa; (c) 30 MPa; Velocity field with injection
pressure of (d) 10 MPa; (e) 20 MPa; (f) 30 MPa (The injection timing is ¡128 ATDC. The vertical section passes through the
centerline of a nozzle and the horizontal section passes through the spark plug. The following are at same position if there
are no additional instructions).

Fig. 11 e Hydrogen concentration and velocity fields in the cylinder for different SIMF values at spark time. Hydrogen
concentration field for the SIMF value of (a) 5%; (b) 20%; (c) 30%; Velocity field for the SIMF value of (d) 5%; (e) 20%; (f) 30%.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1
Fig. 12 e Performance variation with varying SIMF values
(SIT is ¡30 ATDC). (a) Uniformity coefficient, ITE, and
CA50; (b) MMF2500 and NOx emission.
wall. In contrast, the mixture near the cylinder center is leaner
and the mixture is richer near the cylinder wall for the SIMF
values of 20% and 30%. The latter stratifications have a ten-
dency to knock due to rich mixture in the end of combustion
chamber, especially with an SIMF value of 30%. The rich
mixture near the cylinder wall is easily auto-ignition under
the heat radiation of burned gas and compression of the pis-
ton. Therefore, when the SIMF value reaches 30%, the CA50
will arrive prior to the TDC based on auto-ignition at the end of
the combustion chamber, as shown in Fig. 12a. With an in-
crease in the SIMF, the CA50 increases for SIMF values ranging
from 0% to 20%, then decreases for SIMF values ranging from
20% to 30%. The ITE and uniformity coefficient exhibit similar
trends compared to the CA50 with varying SIMF. In Fig. 12b,
one can see that MMF2500 and NOx emission have minimum
values at the SIMF values of 20%. For the SIMF value of 30%,
because most hydrogen burns before TDC, ITE decreases. And
the temperature in the cylinder is so high that NOx emission
increases.
The effects of SIT on engine performance are presented in
Fig. 13. One can see that SIT has a significant influence on
26009
Fig. 13 e Performance variation with varying SIT (SIMF is
20%). (a) Uniformity coefficient, ITE, and CA50; (b) MMF2500
and NOx emission.
uniformity, ITE, and CA50, as shown in Fig. 13a. The ITE rea-
ches a maximum value with an SIT of 20 ATDC. A com-
parison of the variation trends of the ITE, CA50, and
uniformity coefficient confirms that an inhomogeneous (i.e.
stratified) mixture will be formed by an appropriate SIT and
combustion will be accelerated. The velocity fields in Fig. 14
indicate that premature second injection leads to low tum-
ble strength, whereas late injection does not allow the
hydrogen jet to reach the wall of the u-pit at spark time. The
hydrogen concentration field in the horizontal section for an
SIT of 20 ATDC exhibits good stratification. The mixture
inside the cylinder is rich, and the mixture near the cylinder
wall is lean. In terms of emissions, the mass of NOx is rela-
tively low when SIT varies from 30 to 25 ATDC, as shown
in Fig. 13b. MMF2500 shows a similar trend compared to NOx
emission with SIT variation. Considering thermal efficiency
and emissions, the optimal SIT is approximately 25 ATDC.
However, the optimal SIT and SIMF are inseparable and
interact with each other. In summary, a suitable SIMF and SIT
will lead to strong tumble formation, resulting in enhanced
stratification and combustion.
26010 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1
Fig. 14 e Hydrogen concentration and velocity fields in the cylinder with different SITs at spark time. Hydrogen
concentration field for an SIT of (a) ¡43 ATDC; (b) ¡20 ATDC; (c) ¡15 ATDC; Velocity field for an SIT of (d) ¡43 ATDC; (e)
¡20 ATDC; (f) ¡15 ATDC.
Conclusions
(1) For HDI spark ignition engines, the earlier hydrogen is
injected, the more time is left for hydrogen and air to mix,
allowing the mixture to become more homogeneous.
However, when the mixture is sufficiently uniform,
excessively advanced injection timing cannot improve
ITE. Simulation results demonstrated that it is sufficient
to set the injection timing to 88 ATDC for both uniform
mixture and ITE. However, when injection timing is set to
43 ATDC, adequate ITE and effective combustion can be
achieved by employing the jet-room coordination effect
of the u chamber. However, NOx emissions will increase
based on the high combustion temperature. Injection
timing is of significant importance for jet-room coordi-
nation, which is determined by the structure and position
of the injector relative to the piston.
(2) An increase in the uniformity coefficient and tumble
strength can reduce MMF2500. NOx emission and
MMF2500 exhibit consistent variation trends as injec-
tion parameters change.
(3) Unlike liquid fuels, mixing can be enhanced by
increasing injection pressure, since hydrogen has no
atomization process. Differences in flow field caused by
increased injection pressure will gradually disappear
during the compression stroke. Therefore, the ITE and
uniformity coefficient vary little with injection pressure,
meaning injection pressure has a minimal effect on
mixture formation and combustion.
(4) SIMF and SIT have a significant influence on engine
performance as parameters of dual injection. An in-
crease in SIMF increases tumble strength, but an
excessive increase (over 20%) will lead to a low unifor-
mity coefficient and high knock tendency. A compari-
son of variation trend between the ITE, CA50, and
uniformity coefficient confirmed that an inhomoge-
neous (i.e. stratified) mixture will be formed by an
appropriate SIT and combustion will be accelerated. A
suitable SIMF and SIT will lead to strong tumble for-
mation, facilitating further stratification and
combustion.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the financial support given by the Guangzhou
Automobile Research Institute.
references
[1] Wallner T, Lohse-Busch H, Performance, efficiency, and
emissions evaluation of a supercharged, hydrogen-powered,
4-cylinder engine. SAE 2007-01-0016.
[2] Wallner T, Ciatti S, Bihari B, Investigation of injection
parameters in a hydrogen DI engine using an endoscopic
access to the combustion chamber. SAE 2007-01-1464.
[3] Verhelst S, Wallner T. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion
engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2009;35:490e527.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 6 0 0 0 e2 6 0 1 1
[4] Sandalci T, Karagoz Y. Experiment of hydrogen in diesel
engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:18480e9.
[5] Verhelst S. Recent progress in the use of hydrogen as a fuel
for internal combustion engines. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2014;39(2):1071e85.
[6] Aleiferis PG, Rosati MF. Controlled autoignition of hydrogen
in a direct-injection optical engine. Combust Flame
2012;159(7):2500e15.
[7] White CM, Steeper RR, Lutz AE. The hydrogen-fueled internal
combustion engine: a technical review. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2006;31(10):1292e305.
[8] Liu FS, Hao LJ, Heitz PB. Current status and development
prospect of hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine
technology. Automot Eng 2006;28(07):621e5.
[9] Ning S, Fanhua M. Development status and trends of
hydrogen internal combustion engines. Veh Eng
2006;(02):1e5.
[10] Chitragar PR, Shivaprasad KV, Nayak V, et al. An
experimental study on combustion and emission analysis of
four cylinder 4-stroke gasoline engine using pure hydrogen
and LPG at idle condition. Energy Procedia 2016;90:525e34.
[11] Das LM. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines,
compendium of hydrogen energy. Oxford: Woodhead
Publishing; 2016. p. 177e217.
[12] Jiang C, Li Z, Qian Y, et al. Influences of fuel injection
strategies on combustion performance and regular/irregular
emissions in a turbocharged gasoline direct injection engine:
commercial gasoline versus multi-components gasoline
surrogates. Energy 2018;157:173e87.
[13] Atef N, Badra J, Jaasim M, et al. Numerical investigation of
injector geometry effects on fuel stratification in a GCI
engine. Fuel 2018;214:580e9.
[14] Wu Z, Han Z. Numerical investigation on mixture formation
in a turbocharged port-injection natural gas engine using
multiple cycle simulation. J Eng Gas Turbines Power Trans
ASME 2018;140:0517045.
[15] Wallner T, Scarcelli R, Nande AM, et al., Assessment of
multiple injection strategies in a direct-injection hydrogen
research engine. SAE 2009;4:1701e1709.
[16] Scarcelli R, Wallner T, Matthias N, et al., Numerical and
optical evolution of gaseous jets in direct injection hydrogen
engines. SAE 2011-01-0675.
[17] Mohammadi A, Shioji M, Nakai Y, et al. Performance and
combustion characteristics of a direct injection SI hydrogen
engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(2):296e304.
[18] Li G, Yu X, Shi W, et al. Effects of split injection proportion
and the second injection timings on the combustion and
26011
emissions of a dual fuel SI engine with split hydrogen direct
injection. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(21):11194e204.
[19] Biffiger H, Soltic P. Effects of split port/direct injection of
methane and hydrogen in a spark ignition engine. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(4):1994e2003.
[20] Wang L, Yang Z, Huang Y, et al. The effect of hydrogen
injection parameters on the quality of hydrogen-air mixture
formation for a PFI hydrogen internal combustion engine. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(37):23832e45.
[21] Yang Z, Zhang F, Wang L, et al. Effects of injection mode on
the mixture formation and combustion performance of the
hydrogen internal combustion engine. Energy
2018;147:715e28.
[22] Takagi Y, Oikawa M, Sato R, et al. Near-zero emissions with
high thermal efficiency realized by optimizing jet plume
location relative to combustion chamber wall, jet geometry
and injection timing in a direct-injection hydrogen engine.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(18):9456e65.
[23] Tsujimura T, Suzuki Y. Development of a large-sized direct
injection hydrogen engine for a stationary power generator.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(22):11355e69.
[24] Wallner T, Nande AM, Naber J, Evaluation of injector location
and nozzle design in a direct-injection hydrogen research
engine. SAE 2008-01-1785.
[25] Hamzehloo A, Aleiferis P. Numerical modelling of
mixture formation and combustion in DISI hydrogen
engines with various injection strategies. SAE 2014:2014-
01-2577.
[26] Kosmadakis GM, Rakopoulos CD, Demuynck J, et al. CFD
modeling and experimental study of combustion and nitric
oxide emissions in hydrogen-fueled spark-ignition engine
operating in a very wide range of EGR rates. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2012;37(14):10917e34.
[27] Tolias IC, Venetsanos AG, Markatos N, et al. CFD modeling of
hydrogen deflagration in a tunnel. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2014;39(35):20538e46.
[28] Richards KJ, Senecal PK, Pomraning E. CONVERGE (Version
2.3) manual. Middleton, WI: Convergent Science, Inc.;
2016.
[29] Moine JL, Senecal PK, Kaiser SA, et al. A computational study
of the mixture preparation in a directeinjection hydrogen
engine. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2014;137(11):11508.
[30] Babajimopoulos A, Assanis DN, Flowers DL, et al. A fully
coupled computational fluid dynamics and multi-zone
model with detailed chemical kinetics for the simulation of
premixed charge compression ignition engines. Int J Engine
Res 2005;6(5):497e512.