Analyzing Combustion Efficiency of LPG by using

CombustionLaboratory Unit and Theoretical Calculations

By

Hamza Ali Bhatti – BME203017

Course: Internal Combustion Engines

Course Code: ME-4142

Submitted to:

Dr Mahabat Khan

A Project Report submitted to the

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Faculty of Engineering

Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad

January 2024
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

It is certified that the project titled “Fuel (LPG) to Analyzing Combustion Efficiency of LPG by
using Combustion Laboratory Unit and Theoretical Calculations” carried out by Reg No.
BME203017, Hamza Ali Bhatti, under the supervision of Dr Muhammad Mahabat khan, Capital
University of Science & Technology, Islamabad, is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a
seventh semester project for the degree of BS of Mechanical Engineering.

Supervisor: --------------------------
Dr Muhammad Mahabat khan
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad

HOD: ----------------------------
Dr. Muhammad Mahabat Khan
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad

Page | 2
 ABSTRACT
This study looks at Pakistani car emissions and the combustion efficiency of liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG), concentrating on the effects on human health and the environment. By combining
theoretical computations with data analysis from the combustion laboratory unit (CLU),
combustion efficiencies are ascertained. In addition, the analysis includes the air/fuel ratio (A/F
ratio), flame temperature, and pollutant generation. The CLU also determines the temperature
profile, gas concentration, and combustion efficiency. The findings demonstrate that varying
combustion efficiency have various effects on the environment. In addition, the report addresses
public awareness, infrastructure testing, fuel quality, and other difficulties Pakistan faces and
suggests a multidisciplinary strategy to increase combustion efficiencies.

Page | 3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter No 1 ................................................................................................................................ 6
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 6
 COMBUSTION LABORATORY UNIT ........................................................................ 7
 READINGS ..................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter No 2 ................................................................................................................................ 9
 Literature Review................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter No 3 .............................................................................................................................. 10
Calculations: .............................................................................................................................. 10
STOICHIOMETRIC .......................................................................................................... 10
Reading-4 ................................................................................................................................... 13
A/F Ratio ............................................................................................................................ 14
Reading-5 ................................................................................................................................... 15
A/F Ratio ............................................................................................................................ 16
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 18
Adiabatic Temperature............................................................................................................... 19
 Dissociation of Carbon dioxide ......................................................................................... 22
 Dissociation of Water ........................................................................................................ 23
 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 25
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 26

Page | 4
 TABLE OF FIGURES
1- Combustion Laboratory Unit ............................................................................................... 6
2- Flue Gas Analyzer ................................................................................................................ 6

Page | 5
 Chapter No 1
INTRODUCTION
This study looks at Pakistani car emissions and the combustion efficiency of liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG), concentrating on the effects on human health and the environment. By combining
theoretical computations with data analysis from the combustion laboratory unit (CLU),
combustion efficiencies are ascertained. In addition, the analysis includes the air/fuel ratio (A/F
ratio), flame temperature, and pollutant generation. The CLU also determines the temperature
profile, gas concentration, and combustion efficiency. The findings demonstrate that varying
combustion efficiency have various effects on the environment. In addition, the report addresses
public awareness, infrastructure testing, fuel quality, and other difficulties Pakistan faces and
suggests a multidisciplinary strategy to increase combustion efficiencies. This essay is a
component of a wider worldwide discussion.
This study examines the emissions from cars in Pakistan and the effectiveness of burning liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), with a focus on the consequences for both the environment and public
health. Combustion efficiencies are determined by combining theoretical calculations with data
analysis from the combustion laboratory unit (CLU). The examination also looks at flame
temperature, pollutant generation, and the air/fuel ratio (A/F ratio). The temperature profile, gas
concentration, and combustion efficiency are also determined by the CLU. The results show that
different combustion efficiencies have different environmental impacts. A multidisciplinary
approach to improve combustion efficiencies is suggested in the research, which also discusses
Pakistan's challenges with public awareness, infrastructure testing, fuel quality, and other issues.
This essay is part of a larger global conversation.
This study offers a thorough examination that combines theoretical calculations and practical
investigation utilizing a combustion laboratory unit (CLU). The adiabatic flame temperature,
product desiccation rate, experimental and theoretical findings for various air to fuel ratios are
compared, and combustion efficiency is assessed. The necessity of adhering to emission rules and
uniformity is emphasized by including a brief description of pollutant generation. This project
adds to the greater conversation on sustainable development that is consistent with ethical
engineering principles and environmental responsibility by investigating the relationship between
emissions and combustion parameters.

6
  COMBUSTION LABORATORY UNIT
The basis for comprehensive combustion investigations is the combustion laboratory unit (CLU), which
enables researchers to examine the intricate dynamics of fuel and air interactions and their effects on the
environment. Modern equipment at the CLU allows for both theoretical simulations and practical
experimentation.

1- Combustion Laboratory Unit

Researchers can examine factors like the air/fuel ratio and flame temperatures using the CLU;
these variables offer important insights into the generation of pollutants and the efficiency of
combustion. The CLU promotes the creation of creative solutions to problems connected to
pollution and global climate change by offering a controlled setting for trials. An indispensable
instrument that enables engineers to have a major influence on environmental engineering and
sustainable development is the combustion laboratory unit.

 GAS ANALYZER
The combustion laboratory unit is equipped with a cutting-edge gas analyzer that is specifically
made for accurate exhaust gas analysis. Precise measurement of the pollutants generated in
combustion experiments is made possible by real-time monitoring. When assessing combustion
efficiency, environmental performance, and compliance with emission regulations, the
sophisticated analyzer is crucial.

7
 2-Flue Gas Analyzer

 READINGS
A flue gas analyzer must be calibrated and connected to the combustion laboratory unit (CLU) in
order to retrieve data from it. Start the combustion process as soon as the analyzer is attached to
the combustion unit. The analyzer will be able to monitor gas concentrations in real time as a
result. Examine statistics on contaminants and combustion efficiency, and modify as necessary.
After the experiment, carefully shut down both systems.

 Aims & Objectives

Following are the aims of the project;
1. Establish the connection between the air-to-fuel ratio and the thermal efficiency of combustion
of LPG.

2. Explore the impact of varying the air-to-fuel ratio on the combustion process.

3. Contrast experimental findings with theoretical outcomes for analysis.

4. Induce stoichiometric reactions to comprehend ideal scenarios and determine air-to fuel ratio.

5. Examine and calculate the adiabatic flame temperature and dissociation of products.

8
 Chapter No 2
 Literature Review
A combustion laboratory unit's main purpose is to provide a controlled environment for the
methodical investigation of combustion processes. These labs are used by researchers to carry out
experiments that shed light on various aspects of combustion, including the properties of fuel
combustion, the production of pollutants, the investigation of alternative fuels, flame dynamics
analysis, combustion system optimization, model validation, and safety and stability studies.
These studies provide a detailed investigation of the dynamics of flame behavior, combustion
efficiency, and the combustion of different fuels. These labs serve as testing grounds for
determining if sustainable and alternative fuels are viable. In addition, researchers use combustion
laboratory units to investigate the creation of pollutants during combustion, which helps with
attempts to reduce the impact on the environment. Another vital aspect is the optimization of
combustion systems, like engines or burners.
The air-to-fuel ratio, a critical factor affecting the combustion process, is directly related to the
system's combustion efficiency. Corresponding changes in the air to fuel ratio have an impact on
combustion efficiency. Increased combustion efficiency usually follows a shift to a lean mixture,
which has a higher air-to-fuel ratio. This is due to the fact that too much air gives the combustion
process additional oxygen, which encourages a more thorough burning of the fuel. Extremely lean
mixes, however, could provide problems, such as reduced flame temperatures and possibly higher
nitrogen oxide (NOx) generation because of higher combustion temperatures. Conversely,
decreased combustion efficiency may arise from a drop in the air-to-fuel ratio, which would leave
a rich mixture with inadequate air. In a thick concoction,

9
 Chapter No 3

Calculations:
We have provided total 5 group readings. I have done calculations on reading of group 4 & 5.

Parameters Reading-1 Reading-2 Reading-3 Reading-4 Reading-5

∆𝑃 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5

𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (LPM) 22 20 25 22 23
𝑉̇̇𝐿𝑃𝐺 (𝑚3/ℎ𝑟) 4.85 4.2 3.7 1.4 3.4
𝜂𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏 44.2 50.5 54.2 50.7 53.3
% 𝐶𝑂2 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9
𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏 (𝑜𝐶) 12.6 14.8 11.8 12.4 15.2
% 𝑂2 0 0 0 0 0
𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑠 (𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑟 ) 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01
% 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 55.3 48.5 43.2 47.6 41
𝑇𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 (𝑜 𝐶) 834 667 695 560.3 640
𝑇1 (𝑜𝐶) W. I 14.6 16.7 15.9 17.7 21
𝑇2 (𝑜𝐶) W. O 42.5 26.9 34.8 27.5 30.5
𝑇3 (𝑜𝐶) A. I 10.1 11.3 11.8 12.6 12
𝑇4 (𝑜𝐶) A. O 758 667 599.2 560 603

STOICHIOMETRIC
0.3𝑋𝐶3 𝐻8 + 0.7𝑋𝐶4 𝐻10 + (𝑂2 + 3.76𝑁2 ) 12.9𝐶𝑂2 + 5𝑂2 + 𝑍𝐻2 𝑂 + 3.76𝑌𝑁2

In this case 𝑂2 = 5%, 𝐶𝑂 = 0% , 𝐶𝑂2 = 12.9%, 𝐶3𝐻8 = 30% 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶4𝐻10 = 70%

% of 𝑁2 in dry products of combustion:

% 𝑁2 = 100 − (12.9 + 5)

% 𝑁2 = 82.1%

𝑁2 is not reacting:
76𝑌 = 82.1
10
 82.1
𝑌=
3.76

𝑌 = 21.83

Balancing C on both sides

0.3(3) + 0.7(4)𝑋 = 12.9

0.9𝑋 + 2.8𝑋 = 12.9

3.7𝑋 = 12.9

12.9
𝑋=
3.7

𝑋 = 3.486

By 𝑂2 balance:

𝑍
𝑌 = 12.9 + +5
2
𝑍
= 𝑌 − 17.9
2

𝑍 = 2(21.83 − 17.9)

𝑍 = 7.86

0.3(3.486)3𝐻8 + 0.7(3.46)𝐶4𝐻10 + 21.83(𝑂2 + 3.76𝑁2)

12.9𝐶𝑂2 + 5𝑂2 + 7.86 𝐻2𝑂 + 3.76(21.83)2

1.0458𝐶3𝐻8 + 2.4402𝐶4𝐻10 + 21.83𝑂2 + 82𝑁2

12.9𝐶𝑂2 + 5𝑂2 + 7.86 𝐻2𝑂 + 82𝑁2

11
Balancing 𝐻2

(1.0458 × 8) + (2.4402 × 10)

𝐿. 𝐻. 𝑆 𝐻2 =
2

𝐿. 𝐻. 𝑆 𝐻2 = 16.3842

𝑅. 𝐻. 𝑆 𝐻2 = 7.86

So, the moles of 𝐻2 will be

𝐻2 = 16.3842 − 7.86

𝐻2 = 8.5242

Now half of this is added as oxygen in the reactant side to balance out

1.0458𝐶3𝐻8 + 2.4402𝐶4𝐻10 + 21.83𝑂2 + 82𝑁2 + 4.2621𝑂2

12.9𝐶𝑂2 + 5𝑂2 + 16.3842 𝐻2𝑂 + 82𝑁2

Now the Stoichiometric A/F ratio will be

𝐴 21.83(32) + 82(28) + 4.2621(32)

=
𝐹 1.0458(44) + 2.4402(58)

𝐴
= 16.69
𝐹

12
Reading-4

Now we will calculate the efficiency of the CLU by using the enthalpies of water,
combustion and flue gases.

𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑝 Δ𝑇

22
𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 0.86 × 4.19 × (27.5 − 17.7)
60

𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 12.94 𝑘W

𝐻𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏 = 𝑚̇ 𝐿𝑃𝐺 × LHV

1.4
𝐻𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏 = 42.7 × 10 ×
3
× 2.3
3600

𝐻𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏 = 38.19 𝑘𝑘𝑘

𝐻𝑓𝑙𝑢 = [𝐶𝑝𝐶𝑂2 𝑀𝐶𝑜2 + 𝐶𝑝𝑁2 𝑀𝑁2 + 𝐶𝑝𝑂2 𝑀𝑂2 + 𝐶𝑝𝐶 𝑀𝐶𝑜 + 𝐶𝑝𝐻2 𝑂 𝑀𝐻2 𝑂 ]× [Δ𝑇𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 ]

𝐻𝑓𝑙𝑢 = [(48.7 × 0.129) + 0 + (32.62 × 0.05) + 0 + 0] × [560.3 − 12.6]

𝐻𝑓𝑙𝑢 = 4.33 𝑘W

𝐻𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝐻𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 + 𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝐻𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 4.33 + 12.94

13
 𝐻𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 17.27 𝑘W

(𝐻𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑡i𝑜 − 𝐻𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 )
%∆= × 100
𝐻𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑡i𝑜𝑛

38.19 − 17.27
%∆= × 100
38.19

% ∆ = 54.77 %

𝜼combustion = 100 − %𝑑iff𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝜼combustion = 100 − 54.77

𝜼combustion = 45.22%

A/F Ratio
Given parameters
m3
𝑉̇̇𝐿𝑃𝐺 = 1.4
ℎ𝑟

kg
ρair = 1.2
m3

ΔP = 0.5 inches of water

The formula for A/F ratio is

𝐴 𝑚̇ 𝑎
=
𝐹 𝑚̇ 𝑓

To find the mass flow rate of the LPG

𝑚̇ 𝑓 = 𝑉̇̇𝐿𝑃𝐺 × 𝜌𝐿𝑃𝐺

1.4 kg
𝑚̇ 𝑓 = × 2.3
3600 𝑠𝑒𝑐 m3
kg
𝑚𝑓 = 8.94 × 10
−4
second

Now, the mass flow rate of air can be calculated by using following formula

𝑚̇𝑎 = 𝑄̇𝑎 × 𝜌𝑎

14
But first we need to find the volume flow rate of the air using the pressure difference at the air
inlet of the CLU

𝑄̇ = 4.1√0.5 × 249

dm3
𝑄̇ = 45.747
second
m3
𝑄̇ = 45.747 × 10−3
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

𝑚̇𝑎 = 𝑄̇𝑎 × 𝜌𝑎

𝑚̇ 𝑎 = 45.747 × 10−3 × 1.2

𝑚̇ 𝑎 = 0.05489 kg/sec

𝐴 0.05489
=
𝐹 8.94 × 10−4

𝐴
= 61.39
𝐹
Reading-5

Now we will calculate the efficiency of the CLU by using the enthalpies of water,
combustion and flue gases.

𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑝𝑝 Δ𝑇

23
𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × 0.86 × 4.19 × (30.5 − 21)
60

𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 13.12 kW

𝐻𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏 = 𝑚̇ 𝐿𝑃𝐺 × LHV

3.4
𝐻𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏 = 42.7 × 10 ×
3
× 2.3
3600

𝐻𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏 = 92.75 𝑘W

𝐻𝑓𝑙𝑢 = [𝐶𝑝𝐶𝑂2 𝑀𝐶𝑜2 + 𝐶𝑝𝑁2 𝑀𝑁2 + 𝐶𝑝𝑂2 𝑀𝑂2 + 𝐶𝑝𝐶o 𝑀𝐶𝑜 + 𝐶𝑝𝐻2 𝑂 𝑀𝐻2 𝑂 ] × [Δ𝑇𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 ]

𝐻𝑓𝑙𝑢 = [(48.7 × 0.129) + 0 + (32.62 × 0.05) + 0 + 0] × [640 − 12]

15
 𝐻𝑓𝑙𝑢 = 4.969 𝑘W

𝐻𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝐻𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 + 𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝐻𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 4.969 + 13.12

𝐻𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 18.08 𝑘W

(𝐻𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑡i𝑜 − 𝐻𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 )
%∆= × 100
𝐻𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑡i𝑜𝑛

92.75 − 18.08
%∆= × 100
92.75

% ∆ = 80.5 %

𝜼combustion = 100 − %diff𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝜼combustion = 100 − 80.5

𝜼combustion = 19.5%

A/F Ratio
Given parameters
m3
𝑉̇̇𝐿𝑃𝐺 = 3.4
ℎ𝑟

kg
ρair = 1.2
m3

ΔP = 0.5 inches of water

The formula for A/F ratio is

𝐴 𝑚̇ 𝑎
=
𝐹 𝑚̇ 𝑓

To find the mass flow rate of the LPG

𝑚̇ 𝑓 = 𝑉̇̇𝐿𝑃𝐺 × 𝜌𝐿𝑃𝐺

3.4 kg
𝑚̇ 𝑓 = × 2.3
3600 𝑠𝑒𝑐 m3

kg
𝑚𝑓 = 2.17 × 10 second
−3

16
Now, the mass flow rate of air can be calculated by using following formula

𝑚̇𝑎 = 𝑄̇𝑎 × 𝜌𝑎

But first we need to find the volume flow rate of the air using the pressure difference at the air
inlet of the CLU

𝑄̇ = 4.1√0.5 × 249

dm3
𝑄̇ = 45.747
second
m3
𝑄̇ = 45.747 × 10−3
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

𝑚̇𝑎 = 𝑄̇𝑎 × 𝜌𝑎

𝑚̇ 𝑎 = 45.747 × 10−3 × 1.2

𝑚̇ 𝑎 = 0.05489 kg/sec

𝐴 0.05489
=
𝐹 2.17 × 10−3

𝐴
= 25.29
𝐹

17
 RESULTS
Parameters Reading-1 Reading-2 Reading-3 Reading-4 Reading-5
∆𝑃 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5
𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (LPM) 22 20 25 22 23
𝑉̇̇𝐿𝑃𝐺 (𝑚3/ℎ𝑟) 4.85 4.2 3.7 1.4 3.4

𝜂𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 33.84 19.93 33.46 45.22 19.5

𝜂𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦zer 44.2 50.5 54.2 50.7 53.3

𝐴
( 16.69 20.48 25.47 61.39 25.29
𝐹𝑎
𝐴
16.69 16.69 16.69 16.69 16.69
𝐹 𝑠

The table above shows the calculation of combustion efficiency % 𝜂𝑐𝑜𝑚 and % A/F for different
test groups. For Group-1, the A/F ratio is 17.76 and the combustion efficiency is 33.84%. For
Group-2, it is 20.48 with a lower combustion efficiency, 19.93%. For Group-3, it is 25.47 with
a combustion efficiency, 33.46%. For Group-4, it is 61.39 with a higher combustion efficiency,
45.22%. Finally, for Group-5, it is A/F ratio, 25.29 and the combustion efficiencies are 19.5%.
These results highlight the importance of the air/fuel ratio in determining combustion
efficiency and emphasize the importance of optimizing combustion processes to effectively
reduce emissions. The stoichiometric A/F ratio is same because the percentage of Carbon,
Oxygen and Nitrogen were same for all the test groups.

Experiemental combustion efficiency vs theoratical

combustion efficinecy
60

50
𝜂𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦zer

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
𝜂𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐

18
Adiabatic Temperature

𝐻𝑅 = ∑ 𝑛𝑗 [ ℎ̅𝑓° + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298

°
)]
𝑅

𝐻𝑅 = ∑ 𝑛𝑖 ℎ̅𝑓° 𝑖 = 𝑛𝐶3 𝐻8 ℎ̅𝑓° 𝐶 + 𝑛𝐶4 𝐻10 ℎ̅𝑓° 𝐶

3 𝐻8 4 𝐻10
𝑅

𝐻𝑅 = 1.0458 × (−103.85) + 2.4402 × (−126.22)

𝑀𝐽
𝐻𝑅 (𝑀𝑖𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒) = 416.61
𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝐻𝑃 = ∑ 𝑛𝑗 [ ℎ̅𝑓° + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
)]
𝑃

Figure3 Enthalpy of formation of substance

𝐻𝑃 = 𝑛𝐶𝑂2 [ ℎ̅𝑓° + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298

°
)] + 𝑛𝐻2 𝑂 [ ℎ̅𝑓° + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
)] + 𝑛𝑂2 [ ℎ̅𝑓° + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
)]
𝐶𝑂2 𝐻2 𝑂 𝑂2

+ 𝑛𝑁2 [ ℎ̅𝑓° + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298

°
)]
𝑁2

𝐻𝑃 = 12.9[−393.52 + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298

°
)] + 16.3842[−241.82 + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
)]
𝐶𝑂2 𝐻2 𝑂

+ 5[0 + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298

°
)] + 82[0 + (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
)]
𝑂2 𝑁2

𝐻𝑃 = (12.9 × −393.52) + 12.9 × (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298

°
) + (16.3842 × −241.82)
𝐶𝑂2

+ 16.3842 × (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298

°
) + 5(ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
) + 82(ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
)
𝐻2 𝑂 𝑂2 𝑁2

𝐻𝑝 = −9038.43 + 12.9 × (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298

°
) + 16.3842 × (ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
) + 5(ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
)
𝐶𝑂2 𝐻2 𝑂 𝑂2

+ 82(ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
)
𝑁2

19
 𝑀𝐽
𝐻𝑅 = 𝐻𝑃 = −416.6
𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙

= 9038.43 − 416.6
𝑀𝐽
= 8621.83
𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙

Now we have the most moles in nitrogen now comparing:

82(ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
) = 8621.83
𝑁2

8621.83
(ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
) =
𝑁2 82
𝑀𝐽
(ℎ̅𝑓° − ℎ̅298
°
) = 105
𝑁2 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙

20
Now from Table 3.3 from Gupta book:

Figure 4 Enthaply of formation at higher temperature

𝑀𝐽
Now,𝑇@ 2300 𝐾 𝐻𝑝 = −329
𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙

𝑀𝐽
𝑇@ 2200 𝐾 𝐻𝑝 = −811.40 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙

𝑇 − 2200 −416.6 − (−811.4)

=
2300 − 2200 −329 − (−811.4)

𝑇𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 = (0.818) × 100 + 2200

𝑇𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 𝟐𝟑𝟎𝟕 𝑲

21
  Dissociation of Carbon dioxide
Now the dissociation of carbon dioxide is calculated:
12.9
12.9𝐶𝑂2 12.9𝐶𝑂 + 2
𝑂2

12.9𝐶𝑂2 12.9𝐶𝑂 + 6.45 𝑂2

𝛼
𝛼𝐶𝑂2 𝛼𝐶𝑂 + 𝑂2
2

𝛼 2+𝛼
𝛼+ + (1 − 𝛼) =
2 2
12.9
(𝑃𝐶𝑂2 )
𝑘𝑝 = 6.45
(𝑃𝐶𝑂 )12.9 (𝑃𝑂2 )

Now by linear interpolation and from Table 3.5:

Figure5 Kp values for dissociation

𝐾𝑝 − (−5.1260) 2282 − 2200

=
−3.866 − (−5.126) 2400 − 2200

ln𝐾𝑝 = (0.41)(1.26) − 5.126

𝑙𝑛𝐾𝑝 = −4.6094 = 𝑘𝑝 = 100.424

2𝛼
𝑃𝐶𝑂 = 𝑃
2+𝛼

22
 𝛼
𝑃𝑂2 = 𝑃
2+𝛼
2(1 − 𝛼)
𝑃𝐶𝑂2 = 𝑃
2+𝛼

12.9
2(1 − 𝛼)
( 2+𝛼 )
100.424 = 12.9 6.45
𝑃−6.45
2𝛼 𝛼
( ) ( )
2+𝛼 2+𝛼

(2 − 2𝛼)12.9 (2 + 𝛼)6.45 −6.45

100.424 = 𝑃
7643.4𝛼19.35

𝐴𝑡 𝑃 = 1𝑎𝑡𝑚

(2 − 2𝛼)12.9 (2 + 𝛼)6.45
105.242 =
7643.4𝛼19.35
Now by iterations we get the values:
𝛼 = 0.598 𝐾𝑝 = 77.58
𝛼 = 0.591 𝐾𝑝 = 119.64
𝛼 = 0.587 𝐾𝑝 = 100.62
𝛼 = 0.597

Now we have 59.7 % of dissociation of carbon dioxide.

 Dissociation of Water
1
𝐻2 𝑂 → 𝐻2 + 𝑂2
2

𝛼
𝛼𝐻2 + 𝑂 → (1 − 𝛼)𝐻2 𝑂
2 2

𝛼 2+𝛼
𝛼+ + (1 − 𝛼) =
2 2

(𝑃𝐻2 𝑂 )
𝐾𝑝 = 0.5
(𝑃𝐻2 ) (𝑃𝑂2 )

This above function is for single loop but we have 12.9 mole

23
 16.4
(𝑃𝐻2 𝑂 )
𝐾𝑝 = 16.4 8.2
(𝑃𝐻2 ) (𝑃𝑂2 )

𝐾𝑝 𝑎𝑡 2282.1 𝐾 𝑏𝑦 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 3.5 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑔𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑎 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘

𝑙𝑛𝐾𝑝 = −6.303 = 𝑘𝑝 = 546.208

16.4
(𝑃𝐻2 𝑂 )
546.208 = 16.4 8.2
(𝑃𝐻2 ) (𝑃𝑂2 )

2𝛼
𝑃𝐻2 = 𝑃
2+𝛼
2(1 − 𝛼)
𝑃𝐻2 𝑂 = 𝑃
2+𝛼
𝛼
𝑃𝑂2 = 𝑃
2+𝛼

Partial pressure in term of molar fraction

16.4
2(1 − 𝛼)
( 𝑝)
2+𝛼
546.208 = 16.4 8.2
2𝛼 𝛼
(2 + 𝛼 𝑃) (2 + 𝛼 𝑃)

Since p is at atmospheric pressure 𝑝 = 1atm

16.4
2(1 − 𝛼)
( 2+𝛼 )
546.208 =
2𝛼 16.4 𝛼 8.2
( ) ( )
2+𝛼 2+𝛼

𝛼 is 0.589 kp = 512.687
𝛼 is 0.5885 kp =543.21

𝛼 = 0.58824

At 2281 K, 58.824 %. of Water will dissociate

24
  Discussion
An intriguing non-linear pattern that shows variations in calculated efficiency as the LPG flow
rate rises may be seen in the graphical representation of LPG flow rate vs calculated efficiency.
The observed pattern emphasizes the intricacy of the combustion process by indicating that ideal
combustion conditions are reached at intermediate LPG flow rates.
Concurrently, the LPG flow rate vs actual air-to-fuel ratio graph shows that the air-to-fuel ratio
consistently decreases as the LPG flow rate rises. This pattern is expected since combustion
dynamics are affected by a richer mixture, which is generally produced by a higher LPG flow
rate.
Moreover, a significant discrepancy can be seen in the graph that plots LPG flow rate against both
calculated and experimental efficiency. The gas analyzer yields an experimental efficiency that is
consistently higher than the computed efficiency. This disagreement highlights the significance
of empirical observations for a thorough knowledge of combustion processes by indicating that
real-world combustion behavior may be altered by elements not entirely reflected in the computed
model. For accurate forecasts and optimization in real-world applications, it is necessary to take
into account potential inefficiencies or complexities, as indicated by the higher experimental
efficiency values at different LPG flow rates.

25
 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Pakistan's difficulties in addressing excessive vehicle emissions underscore the
need for effective remedies. This essay looks at how automotive emissions regulations are now
implemented and talks about the function of gas analyzers and CLUs. Stakeholder engagement,
testing infrastructure investments, strong policy frameworks, and capacity building are the
main objectives of the initiatives listed below. Pakistan participates in international efforts to
achieve sustainable development (SDG 13 of the United Nations). A future in which emissions
no longer endanger the environment and public health depends on the nation's dedication to
environmental protection, clean air, innovation, and international cooperation.

26
27