Investigating the use of Methane as Diesel Fuel in OffRoad Haul Road Truck Operations

Hal Gurgenci1
Saiied Mostafa Aminossadati 2
CRCMining, School of Engineering
The University of Queensland
QLD 4072, Australia.

Professor, CRCMining, School of Engineering, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel: +61733654414, Fax: +6173365 4799, E-Mail: h.gurgenci@uq.edu.au
2

Lecturer, CRCMining, School of Engineering, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel: +61733653676, Fax: +6172265888, E-Mail: s.aminossadati@uq.edu.au

ABSTRACT
A scope study is conducted to investigate the technical and commercial feasibility of
converting existing mine haul truck engines to a fuel regime of methane and diesel. A dual
fuel engine with two technology options of Homogeneous Gas Charge and High Pressure
Direct Injection are considered. The results of this study show that cost reduction is only
possible when methane is available at a cost saving that compensates for the expense of
building a new fuel infrastructure and a clean combustion is expected. In contrast to diesel
only engines, particulate emissions in dual fuel engines are less. However, unburned
methane in the exhaust gases or significant methane leakage must be seriously taken into
consideration for replacing diesel with methane. This scope study argues that the dual fuel
operation with HGC/CNG technology is expected to be feasible even at a relatively small
truck fleet size.
Keywords: Dual Fuel Technology, Compressed Natural Gas, Liquefied Natural Gas, Mining
Haul Trucks, Diesel Engines, Clean Combustion.
INTRODUCTION
There has been significant interest in methane as replacement for diesel fuel in medium to
large off-highway mining trucks in recent years. Haul truck fuel costs account for about a
fifth of total mining cost in large open pit mines. Concerns on future stability of the supply
and likely price increases motivate the search for alternative fuels. Lesser motivations are
CO2 emission reduction and cleaner air. Methane replacement of diesel fuel clearly reduces
CO2 in the combustion products. Air pollution by unburned hydrocarbons and particulate
matter is better controlled in newer diesel engines but natural gas still offers a much cleaner
combustion.
The complete replacement of diesel fuel is not feasible because loaded trucks climbing ramps
require large torques that cannot be delivered by the existing engines fuelled by pure
methane. One option for using methane as a fuel in existing diesel engines is by operating the
engine as a dual fuel engine. The dual fuel engine operates differently from a normal diesel
engine and can utilise natural gas as a substitute for a large fraction of diesel fuel. Two
technology options are currently utilised in dual fuel engines. Homogeneous Gas Charge
(HGC) where natural gas is introduced into the air intake; and High-Pressure Direct Injection
(HPDI), a technology developed by Westport Innovations where natural gas is introduced
into the combustion chamber through a modified diesel injection valve at high pressure at the
end of the compression stroke. The HGC works with either Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), whereas the HPDI only works with LNG. The mine site
availability of either LNG or CNG would be an important factor in technology selection.
However, the conversion efficiency is lower with the HGC due to increased parasitic losses
and the risk of engine knock as noted by earlier laboratory studies by Kubesh & Brehob
(1992), Zakis & Watson (2004) and Ahmad et al. (2005). The HPDI does not suffer from
such limitations.
Engine knock in dual fuel engines is an undesirable form of combustion which results in
excessively high pressure, heat release rate and noise level. Knock limits the power of dual
fuel engines and when left unchecked results in damaging the internal engine components. It
is formed as a result of rapid combustion of the diesel fuel that has had time to mix with the
air during the ignition delay period. Engine knock can be also due to the spontaneous autoignition of the remaining charge ahead of the desired flame throughout the unburned section
of the chamber (Miao & Milton, 2002). A number of studies have been carried out to develop

a predictive model for knock formation in dual fuel engines (Karim & Zhigan, 1992).
Methane is an appropriate gas to be used in dual fuel engines compared to other
hydrocarbons as it has a long ignition delay which helps the engine to have a good resistance
to knock (Selim, 2004). However, in some conditions, heavy knock still occurs even if pure
methane is used. Saidi et al. (2005) analysed the combustion process in dual fuel engines
using methane and investigated knock formation resources. Shen et al. (2003) reported that
the engine knock limits the increase of CNG ratio in diesel/CNG dual fuel engine. Ogawa et
al. (2001) established ways of controlling knock in a dual fuel engine by means of a uniquely
developed piston cavity divided by a lip in the side wall. In the present study, knock
formation is considered as one of the limiting factors in the selection of the dual fuel strategy.
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Natural Gas Properties
In its natural unrefined composition, natural gas contains only 70-90% methane and in this
state is referred to as wet gas. For pipeline transmission, the higher hydrocarbons need to
be removed so that they will not liquefy out under typical pipeline pressures of 1 4 MPa.
The pipeline gas is therefore predominantly methane. Some coal mining sites in Australia has
access to pipeline-quality surface borehole gas containing 95-96% methane, 1% CO2, 1-2%
N2, and 2% higher hydrocarbons on a dry molar or volumetric basis. The natural gas
properties used in this study are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Fuel Properties
Parameter

Value

Diesel Fuel (No 2)

Density, kg/L
Lower heating value, kJ/kg
Lower heating value, kJ/L
Compressed Natural Gas
Density, kg/L
Lower heating value, kJ/kg
Lower heating value, kJ/L or MJ/m3
Liquefied Natural Gas
Density, kg/L
Lower heating value, kJ/kg
Lower heating value, kJ/L or MJ/m3

0.880
43000
37800
0.129
45000
5800
0.37
45000
20250

at 20 MPa and 25 oC
at 20 MPa and 25 oC
saturated at 0.750 MPag
saturated at 0.750 MPag

The price of natural gas is generally quoted as cents for Mega Joule varying from around
A$0.01/MJ wholesale internationally to around A$0.02/MJ for domestic usage. In this study,
it is assumed that the pipeline or coal-seam gas is available at the mine site at a price of
A$0.01/MJ. This corresponds to about A$0.29/m3 under standard conditions (0.1 MPa and
25oC).
Truck Fuel Consumption
The fuel consumption in general can be expressed as
We
m f =
(1)
i mQL
where, We is the effective mechanical power output in kW, i and m are indicator and
mechanical efficiencies, respectively, and Q L is the lower heating value for the fuel in kJ/kg.
For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that the indicator and mechanical efficiencies
remain constant at 50% and 85%, respectively.

This study is loosely based on large mining trucks with 240-t payload capacity. The values in
Table 2 are representative of such trucks. The engine power varies from about 500 brake-kW
up to 1210 brake-kW.

Travel mode
Up ramp
Down ramp
Flat

Table 2: Fuel consumption (liters/km)

100%
25%
Power,
Speed,
Diesel
Diesel
kW
km/h
l/km
l/km
1210
20
14
3.6
300
30
2
0.59
800
60
3
0.79

75%
CNG
l/km
70
12
15

75%
LNG
l/km
20
3.3
4.4

Mine Site
This study is carried out for a typical coal mining site with a haulage circuit of 5 kms of
ramping up from the pit, 20 horizontal kms for a return trip to the washery and another 5 kms
ramping down. For logistic reasons, it is necessary for the trucks to complete one 8-h shift
without refuelling. Table 3 lists the fuel tank sizes required to last an 8-h shift. The fuel
consumption estimates are based on the values in Table 2.
Table 3: On-board fuel storage requirements for a typical haulage circuit
100%
25%
75%
Parameter
Diesel
Diesel
CNG
Total distance, km
30
30
30
Return trip time, h
0.75
0.75
0.75
Fuel consumed in one return trip, l
147
37
719
No of return trips in eight hours
10
10
10
Fuel tank size to last one 8-h shift, l
1470
370
7190

75%
LNG
30
0.75
206
10
2060

A typical Australian coal mine of this site would have fleet of 25 trucks. Based on the figures
in Table 3, the annual natural gas usage in this scenario would be about 1 PJ (= 1015 J).
ON-BOARD STORAGE OF NATURAL GAS
Without safe and economic on-board storage of natural gas, a dual-fuel operation is not
possible. This requires storage space in addition to what is present for diesel fuel. Natural
gas in its either form has a lower energy density (as MJ/l) compared to diesel. Moreover, the
diesel fuel introduction system and at least part of the existing fuel tank needs to be retained
in a dual-fuel regime.
CNG is stored as compressed gas at pressures of up to 26 MPa. All calculations in this study
have been based on a CNG storage pressure of 20 MPa. At this pressure and at an ambient
temperature of 25oC, the density is 0.129 kg/l.
LNG is stored as a boiling cryogenic liquid. The temperature is kept constant by venting the
tank at a fixed pressure. If the liquid gets warm, some evaporates until the temperature drops
back to the saturation levels. In this study, for the purposes of calculating the required onboard storage tank size, the LNG is assumed to have a storage density of 0.40 kg/l.
On a typical 240-t truck, it is possible to safely store about 7000 litres of CNG using standard
gas bottles as shown in Figure 1. The CNG bottles are of standard size used on Brisbane city
buses, with one bus holding six or seven gas bottles (192 l each).
4

Figure 1. Isometric drawing (to the scale) of CNG storage on a large rear dumper mining truck

LNG is more compact and only one third of the storage volume would be required to hold the
same energy content. One should however add the additional insulation to this amount. LNG
is used in some US transit bus services. These are low-pressure systems operating at 550
kPa(g). The double-walled tank is constructed of stainless steel 304 and has a usable volume
of about 100 gallons (380 l). Two tanks are typically used on a single transit bus and the cost
of installation is reported (TIAX LLC, 2003) to be about US$20,000 (A$27,000). To get
close to the target LNG storage volume of 2000 l for a large mining truck, five tanks would
be required.
PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS
There are three main issues affecting the commercial feasibility of dual fuel engines:

Diesel fuel substitution rate

Additional Component Wear
Brake thermal efficiency

Diesel Fuel Substitution Rate

One of the limits on the diesel fuel substitution rate is set by the risk of detonation.
Detonation is an issue only with the HGC option. In the alternative technology of HPDI
option, the injected gas burns as it enters the chamber and detonation is not possible. With the
HGC, the combustion starts from the diesel fuel injection point against a homogeneous
mixture of gas and air. Even though methane has a higher octane value, detonation is still
possible under such conditions. The risk of detonation is increased at higher levels of diesel
fuel substitution (or the presence of more gas). The substitution rate is assumed to be 50% for
HGC and 90% for HPDI. The 50% for HGC is based on past unreported studies in the
laboratory and in the field by truck manufacturers and third parties. The higher figure for
HPDI is based on literature from Westport Innovations.

Additional Component Wear

This is much harder to estimate. In principle, if the detonation can be held under control,
there should be no extra wear and tear. In fact, one would expect the operation to be smoother
because of the reduction of the diesel ping. There will be extra maintenance tasks
associated with the inspection of repair of the natural gas components but this is not expected
to be substantial. In this study, it is assumed that the dual fuel operation increases the engine
maintenance costs by 10%. For the reasons in the preceding paragraph, this is a conservative
estimate. The baseline engine maintenance cost for the diesel-only operation is assumed to be
$1.20/km. The accuracy of this baseline figure is subject to a high level of uncertainty.
Brake Thermal Efficiency
The brake thermal efficiency in dual fuel operation will be different from diesel only
operation also between the two different dual-fuel technologies options (HGC and HPDI) for
at least two reasons:
Extra parasitic losses associated with the introduction of natural gas
The differences in the combustion processes
The first one is easier to estimate. The main parasitic loss component is the extra energy
associated with compressing the natural gas and the air mixture. By adding the nitrogen
moles into the equal-energy combustion equations derived earlier, full molar equations for
diesel-only and for dual operation are written as follows:
C12 H 26 + 18.5O2 + 69.56 N 2 12CO2 + 13H 2O + 69.56 N 2

(2)

0.25C12 H 26 + 7.6CH 4 + 12.2O2 + 45.87 N 2 10.6CO2 + 18.45 H 2O + 45.87 N 2

(3)

and

The methane term in the dual fuel equation is introduced as liquid in HPDI and as gas in the
HGC. The parasitic losses for the HPDI are expected to be lower because the LNG is
compressed to the injection pressure using a cryogenic pump while it still is a liquid. The
work associated with compressing liquids is relatively small. The Westport literature reports
the resultant efficiency loss at about 0.4%, compared to a diesel-only brake thermal
efficiency of 37.2%.
The compression loss may be slightly higher in the HGC operation. To introduce methane
into the combustion chamber in the HGC option, an additional 7.6 moles need to be
compressed with the intake air. Compared with the diesel operation, this should not introduce
a problem because less oxygen is required in the dual fuel operation and the number of moles
to produce the same energy is lower compared to the diesel-only equation (65.67 versus 88)
even including the methane moles. This means, purely based on compression volume
considerations, higher combustion intensity can be achieved in the dual fuel operation
because more energy can be squeezed into the same volume. However, onset of detonation
prevents this.
It should also be noted that the above analysis is for stoichiometric air/fuel ratios. Diesel
engines always run at lean regimes to reduce the particulate emissions. In a dual fuel regime,
we may not have to run it as lean and there may be an extra benefit because of that.
Nevertheless, as already stated, it would not be possible to exploit this to the full limit
because of detonation concerns.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The diesel fuel will be represented as pure dodecane or Cl2H26. When a hydrocarbon is
burned, both the carbon and the hydrogen are oxidised:
C12 H 26 + 18.5O2 12CO2 + 13H 2O

(4)

Assume a 75% replacement of diesel by methane on energy basis. The relevant properties of
diesel and methane are given in Table 4.
Table 4: Diesel and methane properties
Fuel
C12H26
CH4

Molecular Wt
170
16

LHV, kJ/kg
43000
45000

LHV, MJ/kg-mole
7310
720

Therefore, to replace 75% of the energy by one mole of diesel, we need to provide
(0.757310)/720=7.6 kg-moles of CH4. Therefore, the combined combustion equation
becomes:
0.25C12 H 26 + 7.6CH 4 + 12.2O2 10.6CO2 + 18.45 H 2O

(5)

This reaction produces only 10.6 moles of CO2 as opposed to the 12 moles in diesel-only
combustion, corresponding to 12% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
.
There are two factors however that militate against that reduction:

Under dual fuel operation, the efficiencies are expected to be slightly lower at reduced
loads. This means more fuel needs to be burned at partial loads when compared against
diesel only operation; and

Methane is about 23 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide
(CO2) by weight1. Therefore, any unburned methane in the exhaust gases or significant
methane leakage in any other part of the operation might cancel the beneficiary effect of
greenhouse gas reduction effect of replacing diesel with methane.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The analysis is based on retrofitting an existing truck fleet to dual fuel usage. The capital
expenditure associated with the retrofit, the cost of the gas plant and the subsequent operating
expenses are considered, but not the capital cost of the truck. All basic assumptions of the
analysis are listed in Table 6. Some of the listed parameters may need further explanation as
given below. All costs are in 2006 Australian dollars (1 A$ = 0.83 USD at the time of writing
this report).

This is measured in terms of Global Warming Potentials (GWP), which is a simplified index that can be used
to estimate the potential future impacts of emissions of different gases upon the climate system in a relative
sense. Reference values for GWP of significant greenhouse gases are published by the Intergovernmental Panel
of Climate Change (IPCC). The calculations are based on a 100-year horizon. A GWP value of 23 means that
methane is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere when compared to CO2 over a 100-year
time period.

EMC Maintenance Cost Ratio

The dual fuel engines are expected to have an increased maintenance cost. If EMC is 10%, it
means that the dual-fuel truck maintenance will cost 110% of the baseline maintenance. The
baseline diesel maintenance cost is represented by MCDiesel.
FTIME0, FTIME1 Refuelling time (min)
FTIME0 is the refuelling time in minutes for a reference gas tank size (GTANK0). This is the
total CNG storage on city buses running on natural gases. FTIME1 is the time it takes to
switch from one bus to the other. In calculating the refuelling time for the trucks, we assume
FTIME1 is the same as on the buses but FTIME0 scales up linearly with the tank volume.
Therefore, for a Dual-Fuel engine truck, the gas tank refuelling time, ftime, is calculated
using the following equation.
GTANK
(6)
ftime =
FTIME 0 + FTIME1
GTANK 0
GPC Gas Plant Cost ($)
The following relations are used to estimate the plant cost as a function of the number of
trucks
(7)
CNGPlant = $160, 000 nTrucks
and
(8)
LNGPlant = 900 nTrucks 2 + 540, 000 nTrucks + 15, 000, 000
For a truck fleet size of 25, these equations lead to $4,000,000 for a CNG plant and about
$28,000,000 for an LNG plant.
GPCD Annual cost of Plant Operation (% of capital cost)
The main part of this cost for a CNG plant is the cost of electricity. For example, a
compressor array of 800 kW is expected to fill a truck in 20 minutes or 1/3 hours. Therefore,
the electricity costs for nTrucks being refuelled every TSHIFT hours can be estimated as
24
800 nTrucks 0.33
365 0.05
(9)
TSHIFT
An electricity cost of 5/kWh is assumed in this expression. For 25 trucks and 8-h refuelling
interval, the annual electricity cost amounts to about $360,000. The capital cost for a
compressor plant of this size is $4,000,000. Including other expenses and labour, an
approximate cost of 15% of the capital cost is assumed for the operating & maintenance
expenses of the CNG plant. The operating costs for an LNG plant are harder to estimate but
are expected to be higher than the CNG plant costs at small plant sizes, which use liquid N2
for cooling. In this study, the same ratio of 15% is used for the LNG Plant operating &
maintenance costs at all plant sizes. This underestimates the costs for small LNG plants.
GPJ - Gas Price ($/MJ)
The following provides the conversion between different units:
$0.01 AUD per 1 MJ

= $0.058 AUD per l of compressed gas at 20 MPa, 25 oC

= $0.29 AUD per m3 at 0.1 MPa, 25 oC
= $0.20 AUD per l of LNG

The conversion rates are based on the energy content only. The cost of converting the natural
gas from one form to the other is not included in the above equations.

In comparison, the cost of diesel is assumed to be $0.50AUD/l or $0.0132AUD/MJ. Diesel

energy is more expensive than natural gas for a diesel fuel cost of 50/l.

H, S - Horizontal and ramp segments of the haul route (m)

The distance that every truck travels in each round trip, dist, is represented by
dist = 2 ( H + S )
where, H is the horizontal segment and S is the ramp section in the haulage route.

(10)

MCDiesel Diesel Engine maintenance Cost (/km)

This is the present engine maintenance cost in terms of /km for the diesel-only operation.
The engine maintenance cost for the dual fuel operation is EMC% higher than MCDiesel.
MF0, MFUP0, MFDN0 Reference diesel consumption (l/km)
The reference diesel fuel consumption in terms of l/km on flat road (MF0), travelling up
ramp (MFUP0) and down ramp (MFDN0) are as estimated in Table 2.
X, XDN, XUP Diesel substitution on flat road, down ramp and up ramp
This is the substitution in terms of the energy content. For example, the amount of gas usage,
m NG , over a certain horizontal distance, H (km), is given by
LHVD
(11)
m NG = m D H
X
LHVNG
where, m D is the baseline diesel fuel consumption and LHV is the lower heating value, with
subscripts NG and D denoting natural gas and diesel, respectively. The best estimates depend
on the selected technology option: X=XDN=XUP=50% for HGC and 95% for HPDI.
XE, XEDN, XEUP Substitution efficiencies on flat roads, down and up ramps
Substitution efficiency is an indication of how efficient is methane in replacing diesel. A
value of 100% means that a heating value of 1 kJ is transformed to the same mechanical work
regardless of its source, methane or diesel. The literature reports that, compared to the dieselonly operation, the power output of the dual fuel engine is reduced with increased
substitution levels (Ahmad et al., 2005). This is due to reduced volumetric efficiencies in
associated with combined gas + air intake. Most of the past research has been done with
naturally aspirated engines. The performance is better in a turbocharged configuration as
found in all mining trucks (Shen et al., 2003); however, no hard data exist. In this study, an
average substitution efficiency of 90% is used for the HGC option as seen in Table 5.
Table 5: Substitution Efficiency
Methane introduction

XE

XEDN

XEUP

HGC

90%

90%

90%

HPDI

100%

100%

100%

Combined with a HGC cap on diesel substitution at 50%, the 10% loss of efficiency is
realistic for the HGC technology. Since the loss of efficiency is mainly due to the reduction
in the volumetric efficiency, no efficiency drop is expected for the HPDI method, as long as
the methane is pumped to the pressure in liquid state by a cryogenic pump as in the Westport
technology.

Table 6: The main parameters defined in the economic analysis

Name
DP
DTANK
DTANK0
EMC
FTIME0
FTIME1
MODE
GI
GPJ
GP
LNGPlant
LNGOM
CNGPlant
CNGOM
GPC
GPCD
CNGtank
LNGtank
GTANK
GTANK0
H
i
id
ig
LHVd
LNGLHV
CNGLHV
LHVg
MCDiesel
MF0
MFDN0
MFUP0
nTruck
P0
S
TSHIFT0
TSHIFT
V
VDN
VUP
HPDIxe
HGCxe
XE
XEDN
XEUP
HPDIdsr
HCGdsr
X
XDN
XUP

Description
Diesel Price ($/l)
Diesel volume in the dual fuel configuration (l)
Diesel volume in the original configuration (l)
Maintenance Cost Difference Ratio
Refuelling time for the reference gas tank (mins)
Refuelling switch time between trucks (mins)
1 for HGC and 0 for HPDI
Gas index (1 for CNG, 0 for LNG)
Gas energy price, $/MJ
Gas Price ($/l) - 0.058 for CNG
LNG Plant Cost
LNG Plant Operating & Maintenance
CNG Plant Cost
CNG Plant Operating & Maintenance
Gas Plant Cost ($)
Gas Plant annual maintenance as % of capital
CNG Tank Volume, l
LNG tank volume, l
Gas tank internal volume
Internal volume for the reference gas tank (l)
Horizontal segment of the haulage route (km)
interest rate
Diesel price growth rate
Gas price growth rate
Lower Heating Values for diesel (kj/L)
LNG Lower Heating Value, kJ/L
CNG Lower Heating Value, kJ/L
Lower Heating Values for gas (kj/L)
Diesel Engine Maintenance Cost per km ($/km)
Diesel mass flow rate reference flat (l/km)
Diesel mass flow rate reference down ramp (l/km)
Diesel mass flow rate reference up ramp (l/km)
Number of trucks in the operation
Design payload (t)
Ramp sections in the haulage route (km)
Original shift time
Shift time for dual fuel operation
Speed on flat horizontal road (km/hr)
Speed going down the ramp (km/hr)
Speed going up the ramp (km/hr)
Substitution efficiency for HPDI
Substitution efficiency for HGC
Substitution efficiency on flat horizontal road
Substitution efficiency travelling down ramp
Substitution efficiency travelling up ramp
HPDI diesel substitution rate
HCG diesel substitution rate
Diesel substitution over on flat horizontal road
Diesel substitution travelling down ramp
Diesel substitution travelling up ramp

10

Value
$0.50
1500
3000
0.1
4
2
1
1
$0.010
0.058
$ 27,937,500
15%
$ 4,000,000
15%
$ 4,000,000
15%
7500
2500
7500
1400
10
0.08
0.05
0.02
37800
20250
5800
5800
$1.20
3
2
14
25
240
5
12
8
60
30
20
100%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
50%
50%
50%
50%

RESULTS
Most of the parameters in Table 6 are constrained by technical reasons. For example, a diesel
substitution rate above 50% is not likely achieved by using HGC unless new technology is
introduced in terms of on-line knock sensing. Similarly, the on-board storage is limited by
the availability of truck space. On the other hand, parameters such as the number of trucks in
the site fleet will vary from site to site. A number of different scenarios were generated to see
how the expected savings vary with the number of trucks, the cost of diesel and the cost of
natural gas. Table 7 shows the variation ranges and the nominal values. The nominal value is
the best estimate for the value of that parameter but it is possible for the parameter to vary in
the specified range.
Table 7: The variation space for the iterations
plotted in Figures 3 and 4
Variable

Nominal
value

Range

Number of trucks

25

20-50

0.50

0.50-1.25

0.5-2.0

Diesel price
($/L)
Natural gas price
(/MJ)

Table 8: Various scenarios for HGC and HPDI

Worst
The number of trucks
Diesel price, $/L
Natural gas price, /MJ
HGC savings over 10 y
HPDI savings over 10 y

10
0.50
2
(-$25m)
(-$66m)

Most
Likely
25
0.50
1
$3m
(-$14m)

Best
50
1.25
0.5
$335m
$585m

The results for the worst, the most likely and the best scenarios are presented in Table 8 for
HGC and HPDI options and a refuelling interval of 8 h. For a target fleet size of 25, over a
10-year period, HGC implementation is expected to save $3m in present value dollars. The
HPDI option does not break even before the fleet size reaches 50 trucks. In both cases,
savings increase with more trucks, more expensive diesel fuel and cheaper natural gas. The
major source of uncertainty is future fuel prices. Since the cost of the fuel presently accounts
for over 50% of the truck fleet operating costs, the sensitivity to the fuel prices should not be
surprising.
The HPDI is only available with LNG and requires the construction of a liquefaction plant at
or near the site. This is capital intensive and requires a larger truck fleet size (50+) before it
becomes commercially feasible. This can be seen in Figure 2, where, expected savings for
HGC and HPDI options are plotted as a function of the truck fleet size. The HPDI option
breaks even for a truck fleet size of 45 and becomes the preferred option compared to HGC
for a truck fleet size of 53 or higher.
20

$m savings over 10 years

15
10
HGC

5
0

HPDI
-5
-10
-15
-20
20

25

30

35

40

45
No of Trucks

50

55

60

65

70

Figure 2: Comparison of HPDI and HGC options for different truck fleet sizes

11

HGC/CNG -- 10 YRS

Gas Price, $/L

0.02

0.015

0.01

0
5

0
5

0
5

10

0
5

10

10

20

20

20

30

30

30

50

50

0.005
20

25

30

35

40

45

50

No of trucks

(a)
HGC/CNG -- 10 YRS
1.2

Diesel Price, $/L

1.1

90

1
90

0.9
0.8

50

90
90

50

0.7

50
30
20

0.6
0.5
20

10

25

50

30
20
10

30

35

10

5
40

30
20

45

50

No of trucks

(b)
HGC/CNG -- 10 YRS
1.2

90
50

Diesel Price, $/L

1.1
90

30

50

0.9

90

0.8
0.7

30

50

0.6
0.5
0.005

30

50

30

20

10
5 0

10
5 0

20

10
5 0

20

0.01

0.015

Gas Price, $/L

(c)
Figure 3: Savings in present dollars (A$m) for a HGC/CNG operation

12

0.02

HPDI/LNG -- 10 YRS

Gas Price, $/L

0.015

0.01
0
5
10

0
5

0
5
10
20

0
5
10
20

30

30

20

50

50

30

20

0.005
20

90

50
30

25

35

40

45

50

No of trucks

(a)
HPDI/LNG -- 10 YRS
1

Diesel Price, $/L

9
0.9 0

0.8

90

50

0.7

90
50

0.6

10

0.5
20

90

30
20

50

25

30
20
5

10

30

35

40

50
30
20
5

10

45

50

No of trucks

(b)
HPDI/LNG -- 10 YRS
1
90

30
20

0.9

Diesel Price, $/L

50
90

0.8

30
20
50

10

0.7
90

0.6

0.5
0.005

30
20
50
30

10

10

0.01

0.015

Gas Price, $/L

(c)
Figure 4: Savings in present dollars (A$m) for a HPDI/LNG operation

13

0.02

Figures 3 and 4 show the saving estimates under different scenarios for the HGC and HPDI
options respectively. Each of the charts in these figures plots the variation in the savings over
10 years for two of the three variables of Table 7. For example, Figures 3A and 4A show the
variation of the total savings (in present dollars) corresponding to different combinations of
the number of trucks (varying from 20 to 50) and the gas price while keeping the diesel price
constant at $1/L.

FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
The above analysis is based on presently available technology and realistic assumptions on
expected performance, for example knock-limited power, efficiency of per conversion in dual
fuel regimes, etc. Significant improvement of the HGC performance is possible if a reliable
knock-sensor becomes available for dual fuel diesel engine operation. Caterpillar has knock
sensors on its natural gas-fuelled generator sets, the G3520C series. New detonation sensors
are used in these generators, which are reportedly able to handle a variety of gas with
methane numbers down to 70, without derating. At this stage, it does not look possible to use
these same detonation sensors on a truck engine but the research continues towards more
capable detonation sensors and new products may be possible in the coming years. A reliable
knock sensor may enable the increase of the diesel substitution to higher levels such as 75%.
When supported with site facilities for faster and more frequent refuelling, this may increase
the commercial attraction of the HGC case. The expected savings over 10 years would
increase from $4m to $150m, for example, if the diesel substitution rate is improved to 75%
by using detonation sensors and finer engine controls and a refuelling cycle of 2 hours (110
minutes operation on dual fuel and 10 minutes refuelling).Substantial technology
improvement is not expected for the HPDI as the technology is already mature. However,
faster and more frequent refuelling would increase the commercial attraction as in the HGC
case.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Different scenarios were examined for both HGC (Homogeneous Gas Charge or gas fogging)
and HPDI (High Pressure Direct Injection) options. For the nominal case parameters of 25
trucks, 1/MJ for methane, 50/L for diesel, and refuelling every 8 hours, the expected
savings over a 10-year period in present dollars are $3m for HGC and a loss of $14m for
HPDI options. The HGC option reaches the breakeven cost much earlier but the benefits do
not rise as quickly with more trucks. The financial case when LNG is already available at the
site has not been considered. Much higher benefits are realisable for a different set of
assumptions on future fuel prices. An increased diesel price of $1/L while the other
parameters stay the same would translate to expected savings of $91m for HGC and $145m
for HPDI options in present dollars over the same 10-year period.
The uncertainties in the above analysis need to be acknowledged and recognised by the
reader. The selected values for parameters presented in Tables 7 and 8 are based on
assumptions in the following areas:
Performance parameters for the dual fuel operation these assumptions are based on a
survey of research literature in the case of HGC and Westport Innovations company
literature in the case of HPDI. The assumptions are conservative and are based on present
technology.
Plant costs the CNG plant costs are based on actual costs of similar plants recently built
in Queensland; costs for small LNG plants are harder to estimate and include some
uncertainty.

14

Fuel costs the most likely scenario is based on 1/MJ for natural gas and 50/L for
diesel. The present fuel price and the future escalation rates are obviously of critical
importance.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The predictions on dual fuel operation benefits will be more reliable if present diesel fuel
consumption is accurately known. Since fuel consumption data is already available on most
modern trucks, such a project can be executed at a relatively small amount of effort.
Based on the future cost projections for diesel fuel and natural gas as assumed in this study, a
HGC/CNG project is expected to be feasible even at a relatively small truck fleet size due to
the low level of initial capital investment required; as opposed to the HPDI/LNG option.
HGC/CNG site trials are recommended. Firstly, truck gas storage and refuelling facilities are
to be designed and optimised. Engine tests are then to be carried out in order to identify the
knock-free dual fuel operating regimes under different conditions. Secondly, the site truck
fleet can be converted to dual fuel operation. In the long run, the commercial attractiveness of
the HGC/CNG technology is expected to grow through advances in the development of
reliable diesel engine knock sensors, which will enable diesel substitution rates higher than
the 50% assumed in this study. A research project looking into development of reliable knock
sensors is warranted.
This technology becomes attractive at larger truck fleet sizes, whereby the fuel savings
benefits rapidly offset the initial capital investment and the higher operating and maintenance
costs for an LNG production plant. According to the results of the present analysis, with the
present technology, this starts becoming the preferred option for truck fleets with 40 or more
trucks. It is recommended to undertake a single-truck site trial of the HPDI technology and at
the same time, further investigate options for LNG supply at a cost acceptable for this use.
It is worth noting that the dual fuel technology is already commercially available on smaller
trucks, e.g. trucks using an adapted Caterpillar C15 engine. This engine is capable of
producing a power of 400 kilowatts and suitable for a payload of above 40 tonnes.
Investigation of the economics of using such small trucks on natural gas could be worthwhile.
Obviously, such a study would have to cover the entire mine design and equipment selection.
This may be seen as contrary to the trend over the last half a century towards bigger
equipment but some of that was caused by the motivation to reduce operating costs including
staff costs. A combination of savings due to natural gas replacing diesel and additional
savings on staff and operating costs made possible by the implementation of automation
technologies developed over recent years may make smaller equipment much more attractive.

15

REFERENCES
Ahmad, N., Gajendra Babu, M. K., & Ramesh, A. (2005). Experimental investigations of
different parameters affecting the performance of a CNG-Diesel dual fuel engine. SAE
Technical Paper Series, 2005-01-3767.
Karim G. A., & Zhigang L. (1992). A predictive model for knock in dual fuel engines. SAE
Technical Paper Series, 921550.
Kubesh, J., & Brehob, D. D. (1992). Analysis of knock in a dual-fuel engine. SAE Technical
Paper Series, 922367.
Miao, H. & Milton, B. E. (2002). Modelling of the gas/diesel dual fuel combustion
process for conditions applicable to engines. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A,
41, 725-739.
Ogawa, H., Miyamoto, N., Li, C., Nakazawa, S., & Akao, K. (2001). Low emission and
knock-free combustion with rich and lean biform mixture in a dual-fuel CI engine with
induced LPG as the main fuel. SAE Technical Paper Series, 2001-01-3502.
Saidi, M. H., Eisazadeh Far, K. & Pirouzpanah, V. (2005). Analysis of combustion process in
dual fuel diesel engines: knock phenomenon approach. SAE Technical Paper Series,
2005-01-1132.
Selim, M. Y. E. (2004). Sensitivity of dual fuel engine combustion and knocking limits to
gaseous fuel composition. Energy Covers Manage, 45, 411-425.
Shen, J., Qin, J., & Yao M. (2003). Turbocharged diesel/CNG dual-fuel engines with
intercooler: combustion, emissions and performance. SAE Technical Paper Series, 200301-3082.
TIAX LLC (2003). The transit bus Niche market for alternative fuels: module 4: overview of
liquefied natural gas as a transit bus fuel. Available at
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/apps/toolkit/pdfs/mod04_lng.pdf
Zakis, G., & Watson, H. C. (2004). Lean mixture ignition systems for CNG in diesel
applications. SAE Technical Paper Series, 2004-28-17.

16