Professional Documents
Culture Documents
School of Engineering and Built Environment, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, QLD 4702, Australia
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology, 4349 Chittagong, Bangladesh
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 7 January 2010
Accepted 28 May 2010
Available online 14 June 2010
A comparative analysis is being performed of the engine performance and exhaust emission on a gasoline and compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled retrotted spark ignition car engine. A new 1.6 L, 4cylinder petrol engine was converted to the computer incorporated bi-fuel system which operated with
either gasoline or CNG using an electronically controlled solenoid actuated valve mechanism. The engine
brake power, brake specic fuel consumption, brake thermal efciency, exhaust gas temperature and
exhaust emissions (unburnt hydrocarbon, carbon mono-oxide, oxygen and carbon dioxides) were
measured over a range of speed variations at 50% and 80% throttle positions through a computer based
data acquisition and control system. Comparative analysis of the experimental results showed 19.25%
and 10.86% reduction in brake power and 15.96% and 14.68% reduction in brake specic fuel
consumption (BSFC) at 50% and 80% throttle positions respectively while the engine was fueled with CNG
compared to that with the gasoline. Whereas, the retrotted engine produced 1.6% higher brake thermal
efciency and 24.21% higher exhaust gas temperature at 80% throttle had produced an average of 40.84%
higher NOx emission over the speed range of 1500e5500 rpm at 80% throttle. Other emission contents
(unburnt HC, CO, O2 and CO2) were signicantly lower than those of the gasoline emissions.
Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Retrotted car
CNG
Engine performance
Emission
1. Introduction
1359-4311/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037
2220
Table 1
Combustion related properties of gasoline & CNG [12].
Properties
Gasoline
CNG
86
108
86
12.5
1.4
42.5
2.9
5.2
512
119
17.2
73
14.3
1.7
46.9
2.3
15.6
633
2221
Table 3
Typical composition (vol. %) of CNG (source: PETRONAS).
Engine Type
Gasoline
Component
Symbol
Volumetric %
Displacement, cc
Number of cylinder
Compression ratio
Bore, mm
Stroke, mm
Max. power, kW/rpm
Max. torque, Nm/rpm
Maximum speed, rpm
1594
4
9.5:1
78
83.4
79.43/5700
143.42/4500
6500
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Others
CH4
C2H6
C3H8
C4H10
CO2
N2
(H2O )
94.42
2.29
0.03
0.25
0.57
0.44
2
operated according to SAE J1349 standard and tested for the best
setting for each fuel type as well as at the stoichiometric condition.
The ignition timing was 23 before TDC and 28 btdc for gasoline
and CNG, respectively. The data were saved for analyzing after
averaging each test for three times repeatedly. The engine was
operated in constant throttle positions and variable speed modes
for both the gasoline and the CNG to test the exhaust emission
performance. The relevant data were collected from each engine
test to calculate the performance parameters, such as, brake power
(kW), brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC, kg/kWh), break
thermal efciency (%) and exhaust gas temperature ( C). The test
settings were as follows-
Over the speed range, the load was varied from 25% to 65% of full
load (122 Nm). Engine run at full throttle position with CNG was
avoided due to safety measures. An attempt to run the engine at full
throttle resulted in the burning of the engine exhaust manifold and
the tail pipe insulators with the emission of unusual sound which
might be due to the high exhaust gas temperature being produced
by continuous operation on the CNG.
A computerized data acquisition and control system was used
for controlling all the operations regarding the tests where every
stage was allowed to run around 6e8 min duration providing data
which were captured for every 30 s. All measurements were
repeated at least three times for each test setting while the test
sequences were repeated for four times.
Gasoline consumption was measured on a volumetric basis
using a pipette and the gasoline delivery system was accordingly
congured so that the spillback from the fuel injector was returned
to a downstream position of the measuring pipette. CNG
consumption was measured by means of a high sensitive digital
weighing machine. The CNG cylinder was placed on the platform of
the weighing machine which recorded the weight of the cylinder
with the CNG. While running the engine, CNG was consumed and
this resulted in the reduction of weight of the cylinder which could
be monitored through the weighing machine digital display. After
the completion of each testing stage, the weight reductions of CNG
cylinder and operation time were recorded and used to estimate
the CNG consumption rate thereafter. The stoichiometric airefuel
ratio of the CNG was also calculated from its composition as shown
in Table 3. This composition of CNG was provided by the supplier
company, PETRONAS.
2.3. Retrotting equipments
Retrotting is the modications of the engine to run on a different
fuel type instead of the base fuel. Retrotting was required on the
conventional gasoline fueled engine for running with the CNG
because of different ignition and burning characteristics of the CNG
50% Throttle
(CNG)
50% Throttle
(Petrol)
SFC(kg/kWh)
Engine speed
(rev/min)
Power (kW)
Temperature
HC (ppm)
CO (%)
O2(%)
CO2(%)
NOx(%)
0.0132
0.5131
0.0207
0.6439
0.0064
0.7201
0.0105
0.7669
0.0248
0.0272
0.0156
0.0159
0.0266
0.02483
0.09783
0.0188
0.0775
0.0285
0.0123
0.0593
0.0293
0.0459
0.0680
0.06271
0.06364
0.01127
0.01659
0.01869
0.07231
0.1634
0.0561
0.0892
0.0292
0.08834
0.03174
0.08125
2222
Fig. 2. Brake power vs. engine speed (a) at 50% throttle condition (b) at 80% throttle condition.
Fig. 3. Specic fuel consumption vs. engine speed (a) at 50% throttles condition (b) at 80% throttles condition.
2223
Fig. 4. Exhaust gas temperature vs. engine speed (a) at 50% throttle condition (b) at 80% throttle condition.
between the gasoline and the CNG operations were around 15.96%
and 14.68% at 50% and 80% throttle conditions, respectively.
SFC rapidly dropped in the low speed range and nearly leveled
off at medium speeds and nally spurted in the high speed range
(Fig. 3). At low speeds, the heat lost to the combustion chamber
walls was proportionately greater, resulting in higher fuel
consumption for the power produced. At high speeds, the friction
power was rapidly increasing, resulting in a slower increase in the
brake power than the rate in fuel consumption, with a consequent
increase in the SFC. At 50% constant throttle position the lowest SFC
was found to be at 2000 rpm for both fuels and it was 0.45 kg/kWh
for the gasoline and 0.37 kg/kWh for the CNG, respectively. At 80%
constant throttle position, the lowest SFC was at 4500 rpm for both
fuels and it was 0.32 kg/kWh for the gasoline and 0.29 kg/kWh for
the CNG, respectively.
However, for the 50% throttle position, the average SFC of the
engine for the gasoline and the CNG were found to be 0.448 and
0.376 kg/kWh, respectively, while for the 80% throttle position the
average BSFC of the engine for the gasoline and the CNG were found
to be 0.326 and 0.28 kg/kWh, respectively. The percentage differences of SFC were 16.07 and 14.11 kg/kWh respectively for the 50%
and the 80% throttle positions.
3.3. Exhaust gas temperature
The exhaust gas temperature comparison at the 50% and the 80%
throttle condition with the variable speeds of 1500 rpme5500 rpm
are as shown in Fig. 4. The exhaust gas temperature of the CNG was
always higher than that of the gasoline throughout the speed range.
On the average, the exhaust gas temperature was around
5.91e24.21.6% more than the gasoline for the 50% and the 80%
throttle conditions, respectively, due to the higher heating value
and ignition temperature of the CNG than that of the gasoline.
Slower ame propagation speed of the CNG than that of the
gasoline allowed the combustion to proceed until the end of the
expansion stroke which increased the exhaust gas temperature for
the CNG operation.
The exhaust gas temperature increased with the increase of
engine speed, as shown in Fig. 4. At high speed, the heat remained
trapped as heat transfer took time from the engine cylinder to the
water jacket, coolant while the lube oil was reduced. At 80%
throttle, the average exhaust gas temperature was 602.36 C and
747.05 C for the gasoline and the CNG, respectively. The maximum
exhaust gas temperature was found to be 747.05 C and 893.1 C at
5000 rpm for the gasoline and the CNG, respectively when the
throttle position was at 80%.
At 50% throttle position the average exhaust gas temperature
was 573 C and 607 C while running on the gasoline and the CNG,
respectively. The maximum exhaust gas temperature was 723 C
and 769 C at 4500 and 5000 rpm for the gasoline and the CNG,
respectively for 80% throttle positions.
3.4. Unburnt hydrocarbon (HC) emission
The rate of HC release is inuenced by the molecular weight of
the respective fuel. During expansion, drop in the pressure in
cylinder draws compressed unburnt fuel from crevice volume to
create reverse blowby. At the end of this reverse blowby, ame
reaction quenched and some unreacted fuel particle remains in the
exhaust. Rich airefuel ratio with insufcient oxygen prompts the
incomplete combustion of fuel as a misre produces the unburnt
hydrocarbons. The airefuel ratio of this experiment is presented in
Table 5. The airefuel ratio was calculated based on exhaust emission data using reference. The optimized ignition timing was
23 btdc and 28 btdc for gasoline and CNG respectively.
The molecular weight of gasoline (114) is much higher than NG
(16.04) [12]. Being light weight fuel, NG can form much better
homogeneous airefuel mixture. On the other hand, liquid fuel
requires time for complete atomization and vaporization to
produce a homogeneous mixture. Fig. 5 shows the HC emission
comparison at the 50% and the 80% throttle conditions with the
variable speed from 1500 rpm to 5500 rpm. The HC emission of
CNG was lower than that of the gasoline throughout the speed
Table 5
Air Fuel Ratio.
Engine Speed
(rpm)
Petrol 50%
throttle
CNG 80%
throttle
Petrol 80%
throttle
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
15.04
14.98
15.00
14.99
14.99
14.96
15.02
14.99
14.93
17.88
17.03
15.97
15.24
14.97
14.90
14.83
14.80
14.82
15.85
15.76
15.65
15.34
15.13
15.07
14.99
15.03
14.91
19.77
18.60
16.21
15.29
15.12
14.93
14.91
14.84
14.87
2224
Fig. 5. Hydrocarbon (HC) emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle
condition for gasoline and CNG.
Fig. 7. Oxygen emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle condition for
gasoline and CNG.
Fig. 6. Carbon monoxide (CO) emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle
condition for gasoline and CNG.
Fig. 8. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle
condition for gasoline and CNG.
2225
2000
1800
1600
NOx ( p pm )
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
Engine Speed(rpm)
Petrol _80% throttle
CNG_50% throttle
Fig. 9. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission at 50% and 80% throttle condition for gasoline and CNG.
led to the lower emission of CO2 for the CNG than the gasoline fuel.
The CO2 emission increased with the increase of engine speed for
both the CNG and the gasoline fuels. This was due to the increase of
fuel conversion efciency.
4. Conclusion
A number of conclusions are comprehensible from the results of
this experimental study.
-
[1] P.C. Flynn, Commercializing an alternate vehicle fuel: lessons learned from
natural gas for vehicles. Energy Policy 30 (7) (2002) 613e619.
2226
[2] C.M. White, R.R. Steeper, A.E. Lutz, The hydrogen-fueled internal combustion
engine: a technical review. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (10)
(2006) 1292e1305.
[3] S.G. Chalk, J.F. Miller, Key challenges and recent progress in batteries, fuel
cells, and hydrogen storage for clean energy systems. Journal of Power
Sources 159 (1) (2006) 73e80.
[4] R. Shinnar, The hydrogen economy, fuel cells, and electric cars. Technology in
Society 25 (4) (2003) 455e476.
[5] M.H. Jayed, H.H. Masjuki, R. Saidur, M.A. Kalam, M.I. Jahirul, Environmental
aspects and challenges of oilseed produced biodiesel in Southeast Asia.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (9) (2009) 2452e2462.
[6] J.C. Escobar, E.S. Lora, O.J. Venturini, E.E. Yez, E.F. Castillo, O. Almazan,
Biofuels: environment, technology and food security. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) 1275e1287.
[7] S. Srinivasan, The food v. fuel debate: a nuanced view of incentive structures.
Renewable Energy 34 (4) (2009) 950e954.
[8] R. Saidur, M. Jahirul, T. Moutushi, H. Imtiaz, H. Masjuki, Effect of partial
substitution of diesel fuel by natural gas on performance parameters of a fourcylinder diesel engine. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 221 (1) (2007) 1e10.
[9] Mustafa Balat, Current alternative engine fuels. Energy Sources 27 (6) (2005)
569e577.
[10] C. Sayin, M. Ertunc, M. Hosoz, I. Kilicaslan, M. Canakci, Performance and
exhaust emissions of a gasoline engine using articial neural network.
Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (1) (2007) 46e54.
[11] L.M. Das, R. Gulati, P.K. Gupta, A comparative evaluation of the performance
characteristics of a spark ignition engine using hydrogen and compressed
natural gas as alternative fuels. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 25
(8) (2000) 783e793.
[12] M.U. Aslam, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, H. Abdesselam, T.M.I. Mahlia, M.A. Amalina,
An experimental investigation of CNG as an alternative fuel for a retrotted
gasoline vehicle. Fuel 85 (5e6) (2006) 717e724.
[13] J. Klimstra, Performance of lean-Burn natural-gas-fueled engines e on specic
fuel consumption. Power Capacity and Emissions (1990) SAE Paper No. 901495.
[14] D.M. Heaton, J.V.D. Weide, Natural gas powered vehicles and transport fuels.
In: Proceedings of International Conference on Natural Gas Technologies:
Energy Security, Environment and Economic Development, Kyoto, Japan, 31st
Octobere3rd November 1993.
[15] J.B. Heywood, Internal combustion engine Fundamental, Automotive Technology Series, (1998).