You are on page 1of 8

Applied Thermal Engineering xxx (2010) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering


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

Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline


in a retrofitted car engine
M.I. Jahirul a, *, H.H. Masjuki b, R. Saidur b, M.A. Kalam b, M.H. Jayed b, M.A. Wazed c, d
a
School of Engineering and Built Environment, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, QLD 4702, Australia
b
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

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A comparative analysis is being performed of the engine performance and exhaust emission on a gaso-
Received 7 January 2010 line and compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled retrofitted spark ignition car engine. A new 1.6 L, 4-
Accepted 28 May 2010 cylinder petrol engine was converted to the computer incorporated bi-fuel system which operated with
Published online xxx
either gasoline or CNG using an electronically controlled solenoid actuated valve mechanism. The engine
brake power, brake specific fuel consumption, brake thermal efficiency, exhaust gas temperature and
Keywords:
exhaust emissions (unburnt hydrocarbon, carbon mono-oxide, oxygen and carbon dioxides) were
Retrofitted car
measured over a range of speed variations at 50% and 80% throttle positions through a computer based
CNG
Engine performance
data acquisition and control system. Comparative analysis of the experimental results showed 19.25%
Emission and 10.86% reduction in brake power and 15.96% and 14.68% reduction in brake specific 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 retrofitted engine produced 1.6% higher brake thermal
efficiency 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 significantly lower than those of the gasoline emissions.
Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction - Adequacy of fuel supply,


- Process efficiency,
The scarcity of petroleum fuel resources and turmoil in the oil - Ease of transport and safety of storage,
market along with the acutely growing demand of oil threatens the - Modifications needed in the distribution/refueling network in
security of energy production. The necessity of fuel has gained the the vehicle,
ground for adaptation of suitable energy policy for the trans- - Fuel compatibility with vehicle engine (power, emissions, ease
portation sector in order to balance the demand and supply of oil of use, and durability of engine).
and to contain the overall release of the greenhouse gases with the
eventual undesirable environmental impacts. The drive created by Numerous researches are going on worldwide in alternative
the energy security, climate change and the rapidly growing fuels/sources of energy, such as, biodiesel, bioethanol, hydrogen cell,
demand of transport fuel lead to a quest for clean burning fuel. solar energy and compressed natural gas have so far been most
Energy policy and planning with the related orientation have common approaches in this arena. Solar powered car are still not
become a very important public agendum of most developed and market adaptive as it requires more dedicated design features.
developing countries nowadays, as a result of which, the govern- Hydrogen fuel has low volumetric efficiencies and frequent pre-
ments are encouraging the use of alternative fuels of petroleum oil ignition combustion event because the power densities of premixed
in the automotive engines. When evaluating different alternative or port-fuel-injected hydrogen engines is significantly lower than
fuels one has to take into account many aspects [1]: gasoline [2]. Many academic researchers on the hydrogen economy
have queried the rationale on why hydrogen might not be the best
alternative transport fuel, including safety, cost and overall effi-
* Corresponding author at: School of Engineering and Built Environment, Faculty
ciency [3,4]. On the contrary, biodiesel and bioethanol require no
of sciences, Engineering & Health. Central Queensland University (CQUniversity),
Rockhampton, QLD 4702, Australia. Tel.: þ61 (0)413809227. engine modification for smooth operation, but they create various
E-mail addresses: md_jahirul@yahoo.com, m.j.islam@cqu.edu.au (M.I. Jahirul). problems in the long term operation and in the higher percentage

1359-4311/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037

Please cite this article in press as: M.I. Jahirul, et al., Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline in a retrofitted
car engine, Applied Thermal Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037
2 M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering xxx (2010) 1e8

usage, especially when biofuels are mostly derived from vegetable Table 1
oils and crops-seeds. These alternatives are strongly criticized for its Combustion related properties of gasoline & CNG [12].

environmental impact and phenomenal threat to food security Properties Gasoline CNG
[5e7]. Apart from experimental investigations, several theoretical Motor octane number 86 119
researches are proceeding in the quest for alternative fuels. Saidur Molar mass (kg/mol) 108 17.2
et al. [8] evaluated the effect of partial substitution of diesel fuel by Carbon weight fraction (mass %) 86 73
Stoichiometric air fuel ratio (A/F)s 12.5 14.3
the natural gas on performance parameters of a four-cylinder diesel
Stoichiometric mixture density (kg/m3) 1.4 1.7
engine. Other types of alternative fuels, such as, methyl and ethyl Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 42.5 46.9
alcohol, boron, liquefied petroleum gas, biomass, electricity solar Lower heating value of stoic. mixture (MJ/kg) 2.9 2.3
energy, etc., are also potential alternative sources of energy in the Flammability limits (vol% in air) 5.2 15.6
internal combustion engine [9]. Artificial neural network has been Spontaneous ignition temperature ( C) 512 633

applied to predict the gasoline engines emission and performance


[10]. As the consequence of these studies, researches on CNG fueled operated at constant throttle positions with a variable speed to
engine are also progressing throughout the world due to its potential evaluate the performance and exhaust emission for both the fuels.
as an alternative fuel for the spark ignition (S. I.) engine. The differ-
ence between the operation of the conventional gasoline fueled and 2. Experimental study
the CNG-engine system arises from the physical and chemical
properties of these two fuels. It is a well known fact that petroleum 2.1. Experimental setup
fuels are liquid at room temperature and CNG remains in a gaseous
state at a much lower temperature (161  C). CNG has a lower The layout of experimental setup is as shown in Fig. 1. The test
density but higher octane number then gasoline. It can easily engine was converted into a bi-fuel natural gas engine from an SI
operate in a high compression ratio and higher self/spontaneous engine. The specification of this SI engine is shown in Table 2.
ignition temperature makes it a safer fuel in case of leakage [11]. An electronic control unit (ECU) was used with the CP 128
Table 1 represents the comparison between the physiochemical control and managing system which was compatible with any
properties of CNG and that of the gasoline. computer having a serial interface. This system was designed to
As a gas, CNG requires a different approach of fuel induction perform engine tests either under an automatic or a manual
mechanism at all normal temperatures and pressures. This has control. The ECU system was incorporated with the “CADET10”
resulted in an increased interest in the use of CNG as fuel for the software. The CADET10 system was fed by parameters, such as,
internal combustion engines and hence CNG has now been used to engine speed (rpm), engine torque (kW) and throttle (%) valve
power vehicles of various ranges, starting from light delivery trucks position as input. The set of parameters was programmed according
to full size urban buses and other varieties of applications [13,14]. to the experimental condition and stages required. Each stage
But most of the CNG-engine vehicles used today are retrofitted from required either two settings, such as, engine speed and throttle
the gasoline engine. This type of engines cannot advantageously position. The results recorded in the CADET system was transferred
perform on CNG as an engine fuel. However, the research has some- to a spreadsheet for further analysis. An eddy-current dynamom-
what succeeded to minimize the drawbacks of the CNG in retrofitted eter (Model AG 150, Froude Consine) was used for engine loading.
cars and harvests the maximum obtainable from the CNG the result of Each engine test started with idle running for engine heating up
which concludes that a dedicated CNG engine is a must. In this and stability in power generation.
experimental study, a comparative evaluation of the performance of
gasoline and CNG fueled retrofitted spark ignition car engine had been 2.2. Test plan
performed. The engine was converted to a computer incorporated bi-
fuel system and operated with either gasoline or CNG using an elec- All equipments were calibrated according to the manufacturer’s
tronically controlled solenoid actuated valve system. The engine was recommendations before starting the test. The engine was

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

Please cite this article in press as: M.I. Jahirul, et al., Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline in a retrofitted
car engine, Applied Thermal Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037
M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering xxx (2010) 1e8 3

Table 2 Table 3
Specification of the SI Engine. Typical composition (vol. %) of CNG (source: PETRONAS).

Engine Type Gasoline Component Symbol Volumetric %


Displacement, cc 1594 Methane CH4 94.42
Number of cylinder 4 Ethane C2H6 2.29
Compression ratio 9.5:1 Propane C3H8 0.03
Bore, mm 78 Butane C4H10 0.25
Stroke, mm 83.4 Carbon dioxide CO2 0.57
Max. power, kW/rpm 79.43/5700 Nitrogen N2 0.44
Max. torque, Nm/rpm 143.42/4500 Others (H2O þ) 2
Maximum speed, rpm 6500

operated according to SAE J1349 standard and tested for the best from that of the gasoline. A conversion kit (model “LR OMEGAS e 3rd
setting for each fuel type as well as at the stoichiometric condition. Generation”) was installed on the engine test bed and the CNG was
The ignition timing was 23 before TDC and 28 btdc for gasoline stored in a cylinder at a maximum pressure of 200 bar (approxi-
and CNG, respectively. The data were saved for analyzing after mately). The gas regulator used with the conversion kit was
averaging each test for three times repeatedly. The engine was a compensated, two-stage diaphragm type regulator, together with
operated in constant throttle positions and variable speed modes the wateregas heat exchanger, filter, gas solenoid valve and safety
for both the gasoline and the CNG to test the exhaust emission valve which was duly calibrated for a supply pressure of 2 bar
performance. The relevant data were collected from each engine (200 kPa) above the pressure of the intake manifold. Electronic
test to calculate the performance parameters, such as, brake power switch regulator was used to monitor the current fuel (CNG or,
(kW), brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC, kg/kWh), break gasoline) by using two illuminated LED and the pressure of the CNG
thermal efficiency (%) and exhaust gas temperature ( C). The test in the tank was monitored by 5 illuminated LEDs. The system was
settings were as follows- capable of controlling other functions, such as, fuel gauge, actuator of
the solenoid valve, automatic switch of the solenoid valve, automatic
- 50% throttle position with a speed range from 1500 to switch from the gasoline to the CNG and vice versa. The system
5500 rpm at a constant increment of 500 rpm. performance and diagnosis during the installation and maintenance
- 80% throttle position with a speed range of 1500e5500 rpm at phases could be done by connecting the ECU with a computer. ECU
a constant increment of 500 rpm. could also manage the automatic switch into gasoline mode in case of
failure. The CNG fuel stored in the rail was injected by the CNG
Over the speed range, the load was varied from 25% to 65% of full injectors into the intake manifold while the injectors were driven by
load (122 Nm). Engine run at full throttle position with CNG was the CNG ECU. The rail was installed with 4 injectors which were
avoided due to safety measures. An attempt to run the engine at full driven with a “peak and hold” actuation.
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 2.4. Emission analyzer
by continuous operation on the CNG.
A computerized data acquisition and control system was used A BACHARACH exhaust gas analyzer is used to measure the
for controlling all the operations regarding the tests where every concentration of NOx (ppm) emission and Bosch gas analyzer
stage was allowed to run around 6e8 min duration providing data (model ETT 00.36) is used to measure CO (vol.%), CO2 (vol.%) and
which were captured for every 30 s. All measurements were another O2 (vol.%) concentrations. The technology of this analyzer
repeated at least three times for each test setting while the test consisted of automatic measurements with microprocessor control
sequences were repeated for four times. and self-test, auto calibration before every analysis and a high
Gasoline consumption was measured on a volumetric basis degree of accuracy in the analysis of low concentrations of gases
using a pipette and the gasoline delivery system was accordingly found in the engine. The exhaust gas for the analysis was tapped
configured so that the spillback from the fuel injector was returned from the exhaust pipe, approximately 1 m from the exhaust valve.
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 3. Results and discussions
the weighing machine which recorded the weight of the cylinder
with the CNG. While running the engine, CNG was consumed and Standard errors of this experiment are shown in Table 4 to show
this resulted in the reduction of weight of the cylinder which could repeatability of it.
be monitored through the weighing machine digital display. After
the completion of each testing stage, the weight reductions of CNG Table 4
cylinder and operation time were recorded and used to estimate Standard error in measurements.
the CNG consumption rate thereafter. The stoichiometric airefuel Item 50% Throttle 50% Throttle 80% Throttle 80% Throttle
ratio of the CNG was also calculated from its composition as shown (CNG) (Petrol) CNG) (Petrol)
in Table 3. This composition of CNG was provided by the supplier SFC(kg/kWh) 0.0132 0.0207 0.0064 0.0105
company, PETRONAS. Engine speed 0.5131 0.6439 0.7201 0.7669
(rev/min)
Power (kW) 0.0248 0.0188 0.0680 0.1634
2.3. Retrofitting equipments
Temperature 0.0272 0.0775 0.06271 0.0561
HC (ppm) 0.0156 0.0285 0.06364 0.0892
Retrofitting is the modifications of the engine to run on a different CO (%) 0.0159 0.0123 0.01127 0.0292
fuel type instead of the base fuel. Retrofitting was required on the O2(%) 0.0266 0.0593 0.01659 0.08834
conventional gasoline fueled engine for running with the CNG CO2(%) 0.02483 0.0293 0.01869 0.03174
NOx(%) 0.09783 0.0459 0.07231 0.08125
because of different ignition and burning characteristics of the CNG

Please cite this article in press as: M.I. Jahirul, et al., Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline in a retrofitted
car engine, Applied Thermal Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037
4 M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering xxx (2010) 1e8

Fig. 2. Brake power vs. engine speed (a) at 50% throttle condition (b) at 80% throttle condition.

3.1. Brake power power differences among the throttle positions were attributed to
the variations in the difference of the fueleair equivalent ratio with
The brake power output versus engine speed for both the gaso- the decrease of the throttle opening between the gasoline opera-
line and the CNG fuel was measured. Fig. 2 shows the brake power tion and the CNG operation. As the friction loss was constant, the
output for the 50% and 80% throttle positions respectively. The brake percentage of friction power loss with the increase of the throttle
power of the engine was lower than that of the gasoline throughout opening was less for the CNG fuel. Therefore, the difference in brake
the speed range for the CNG operation. Displacement of air by power through the gasoline and the CNG operations decreased
natural gas and by the slower flame velocity of CNG were the main with the increase of throttle opening.
reasons of the lower brake power as compared to that of the gaso-
line, as a result of which both the air volumetric efficiency and the
charge energy density per injection into the engine cylinder reduced 3.2. Brake specific fuel consumption
the CNG content. In the case of liquid fuels, it was considered that the
fuel did not reduce the amount of air sucked into the cylinder. Hence, Fig. 3 shows the variation of brake specific fuel consumption
a gasoline-fuel-designed engine which was converted to CNG over the speed range of 1500e5500 rpm. Specific fuel consumption
operation would significantly produce the low peak power. (SFC), when the engine was running using the CNG, was always
The peak brake power of 27.7 kW was obtained by the gasoline lower than that for the gasoline throughout the speed range. This
fuel at 50% throttle position and 22.67 kW for the CNG, both at was mainly due to the higher heating value of the CNG (47.669 MJ/
4000 rpm. For 80% throttle position the maximum brake power was kg) as compared to that of the gasoline (44 MJ/kg) and the slow
54.97 kW and 50.44 kW for the gasoline and the CNG used, burning of CNG as compared to that of the gasoline.
respectively. The CNG fuel produced an average (overall the speed At low throttle operation the SFC increased at high rpm because
ranges) of 19.25% and 10.86% less brake power than that of the of the rapid increase of friction power as compared that as dis-
gasoline at 50% and 80% throttle positions, respectively. These played by the indicated power. The average SFC differences

Fig. 3. Specific fuel consumption vs. engine speed (a) at 50% throttles condition (b) at 80% throttles condition.

Please cite this article in press as: M.I. Jahirul, et al., Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline in a retrofitted
car engine, Applied Thermal Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037
M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering xxx (2010) 1e8 5

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% 5000 rpm for the gasoline and the CNG, respectively when the
and 14.68% at 50% and 80% throttle conditions, respectively. throttle position was at 80%.
SFC rapidly dropped in the low speed range and nearly leveled At 50% throttle position the average exhaust gas temperature
off at medium speeds and finally spurted in the high speed range was 573  C and 607  C while running on the gasoline and the CNG,
(Fig. 3). At low speeds, the heat lost to the combustion chamber respectively. The maximum exhaust gas temperature was 723  C
walls was proportionately greater, resulting in higher fuel and 769  C at 4500 and 5000 rpm for the gasoline and the CNG,
consumption for the power produced. At high speeds, the friction respectively for 80% throttle positions.
power was rapidly increasing, resulting in a slower increase in the
brake power than the rate in fuel consumption, with a consequent 3.4. Unburnt hydrocarbon (HC) emission
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 The rate of HC release is influenced by the molecular weight of
for the gasoline and 0.37 kg/kWh for the CNG, respectively. At 80% the respective fuel. During expansion, drop in the pressure in
constant throttle position, the lowest SFC was at 4500 rpm for both cylinder draws compressed unburnt fuel from crevice volume to
fuels and it was 0.32 kg/kWh for the gasoline and 0.29 kg/kWh for create reverse blowby. At the end of this reverse blowby, flame
the CNG, respectively. reaction quenched and some unreacted fuel particle remains in the
However, for the 50% throttle position, the average SFC of the exhaust. Rich airefuel ratio with insufficient oxygen prompts the
engine for the gasoline and the CNG were found to be 0.448 and incomplete combustion of fuel as a misfire produces the unburnt
0.376 kg/kWh, respectively, while for the 80% throttle position the hydrocarbons. The airefuel ratio of this experiment is presented in
average BSFC of the engine for the gasoline and the CNG were found Table 5. The airefuel ratio was calculated based on exhaust emis-
to be 0.326 and 0.28 kg/kWh, respectively. The percentage differ- sion data using reference. The optimized ignition timing was
ences of SFC were 16.07 and 14.11 kg/kWh respectively for the 50% 23 btdc and 28 btdc for gasoline and CNG respectively.
and the 80% throttle positions. The molecular weight of gasoline (114) is much higher than NG
(16.04) [12]. Being light weight fuel, NG can form much better
3.3. Exhaust gas temperature homogeneous airefuel mixture. On the other hand, liquid fuel
requires time for complete atomization and vaporization to
The exhaust gas temperature comparison at the 50% and the 80% produce a homogeneous mixture. Fig. 5 shows the HC emission
throttle condition with the variable speeds of 1500 rpme5500 rpm comparison at the 50% and the 80% throttle conditions with the
are as shown in Fig. 4. The exhaust gas temperature of the CNG was variable speed from 1500 rpm to 5500 rpm. The HC emission of
always higher than that of the gasoline throughout the speed range. CNG was lower than that of the gasoline throughout the speed
On the average, the exhaust gas temperature was around
5.91e24.21.6% more than the gasoline for the 50% and the 80%
Table 5
throttle conditions, respectively, due to the higher heating value
Air Fuel Ratio.
and ignition temperature of the CNG than that of the gasoline.
Slower flame propagation speed of the CNG than that of the Engine Speed Air fuel ratio
(rpm)
gasoline allowed the combustion to proceed until the end of the CNG 50% Petrol 50% CNG 80% Petrol 80%
expansion stroke which increased the exhaust gas temperature for throttle throttle throttle throttle
the CNG operation. 1500 15.04 17.88 15.85 19.77
The exhaust gas temperature increased with the increase of 2000 14.98 17.03 15.76 18.60
2500 15.00 15.97 15.65 16.21
engine speed, as shown in Fig. 4. At high speed, the heat remained
3000 14.99 15.24 15.34 15.29
trapped as heat transfer took time from the engine cylinder to the 3500 14.99 14.97 15.13 15.12
water jacket, coolant while the lube oil was reduced. At 80% 4000 14.96 14.90 15.07 14.93
throttle, the average exhaust gas temperature was 602.36  C and 4500 15.02 14.83 14.99 14.91
747.05  C for the gasoline and the CNG, respectively. The maximum 5000 14.99 14.80 15.03 14.84
5500 14.93 14.82 14.91 14.87
exhaust gas temperature was found to be 747.05  C and 893.1  C at

Please cite this article in press as: M.I. Jahirul, et al., Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline in a retrofitted
car engine, Applied Thermal Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037
6 M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering xxx (2010) 1e8

Fig. 5. Hydrocarbon (HC) emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle Fig. 7. Oxygen emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle condition for
condition for gasoline and CNG. gasoline and CNG.

range, and on an average of 22.14% and 29.71% lower than gasoline Reason for the reduction is due to the complete combustion effect
for the 50% and the 80% throttle conditions, respectively. with increasing speed engine.
The average HC emission found for 80% throttle position was O2 concentration in the CNG emission was lower than that of
355.1 ppm and 249.6 ppm for running the engine on gasoline and gasoline throughout the speed range, and on the average, it was
CNG, respectively, and for the 50% throttle condition those values 73% and 64% less at the 50% and the 80% throttle conditions,
are 484.35 ppm and 377.1 ppm, respectively. respectively. The average O2 concentration for the 80% throttle
position was 2.49% and 0.9% while running on the gasoline and
3.5. Carbon mono-oxide (CO) emission the CNG, respectively. Whereas, at 50% throttle opening those
values were 1.95% and 0.52% for the gasoline and the CNG,
Poor mixing of air and fuel, local rich regions and incomplete respectively, as shown in Fig. 7. The throttle opening increases O2
combustion produces CO. Fig. 6 shows the CO emission at 50% and concentration.
80% throttle conditions with the variable speed from 1500 rpm to
5500 rpm for both the gasoline and the CNG, respectively. The CO 3.7. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission
emission of the CNG was significantly lower than that of the
gasoline throughout the speed range. On the average, 45.5% and Fig. 8 shows that CO2 emission at the 50% and the 80% throttle
29.87% less CO emission occurred for the CNG at the 50% and the conditions over the speed range. The CO2 emission of the CNG was
80% throttle conditions, respectively. Thus, the CNG is more found to be lower than that of the gasoline throughout the speed
combustible than the gasoline fuel. Higher combustion tempera- range, and on the average, it was around 30.88% and 34.97% lower
ture was another reason of the low CO emission of the CNG fueled than that of the gasoline for the 50% and the 80% throttle condition,
engine. At high combustion temperatures, the CO converts to CO2 respectively. The average CO2 concentration for the 50% throttle
during combustion. opening was 10.95% and 7.57% for the engine running on the
gasoline and the CNG, respectively, while for the 80% throttle
3.6. Oxygen (O2) concentration condition these average values were 12.42% and 8.08%, respectively.
The composition of gas showed that the CNG consisted mostly of
At low speed the oxygen concentration is very high in the methane (CH4) whereas the gasoline (C8H18) compound packed
exhaust gas and decreases rapidly with the increase of speed. less hydrogen per carbon (2.5). Thus, the percentage of carbon in
the methane, i.e., the CNG was lower than that of the gasoline. This

Fig. 6. Carbon monoxide (CO) emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle Fig. 8. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle
condition for gasoline and CNG. condition for gasoline and CNG.

Please cite this article in press as: M.I. Jahirul, et al., Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline in a retrofitted
car engine, Applied Thermal Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037
M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering xxx (2010) 1e8 7

2000

1800

1600

1400

NOx (ppm) 1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Engine Speed(rpm)

Petrol _80% throttle CNG _80% throttle Petrol_ 50% 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. 4. Conclusion
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 A number of conclusions are comprehensible from the results of
fuel conversion efficiency. this experimental study.

- The CNG produces lower brake power than the gasoline


3.8. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission throughout the speed range.
- Retrofitted car engine runs on lower BSFC when using CNG
NO is produced more in the post-flame gases than in the flame- than on gasoline.
front. The mixture which burned early in the combustion process - The CNG has an advantage of higher brake thermal efficiency
was being compressed to a higher temperature, thus increasing the on an average of 1.1% and 1.6% than that of gasoline.
NO formation rate, as the combustion proceeded and the cylinder - The engine exhaust gas temperature produced by the CNG
pressure increased. Comparative emission of the oxides of nitrogen burning is always higher as compared with that of the gasoline.
(NOx) by the CNG and the gasoline are shown in Fig. 9. The NOx - CNG fueled retrofitted car engine produced lower HC, CO, O2
emission was strongly related to the lean fuel with the high emission throughout the speed range than gasoline.
cylinder temperature or high peak combustion temperature. A fuel - Higher NOx emission is the main emission concern for CNG as
with high heat release rate at premix or rapid combustion phase automotive fuel. 41% and 38% higher NOx emissions have been
and lower heat release rate at mixing controlled combustion phase recorded at 50% and 80% throttle position respectively,
would produce the NOx [15]. For this reason, the CNG emitted more compared to that of gasoline. Such a huge emission range
NOx than the gasoline both in the 50% and the 80% throttle position, should be a major environmental concern as CNG retrofitted
as shown in the figure. automotives are now mass produced and used.

Based on the performance and the emission test results, the


present study indicates that the CNG is a better choice as auto-
mobile fuel than the gasoline both economically and environ-
mentally. An overall view of the experiment is shown in Fig. 10 by
percentage change in all the engine performance parameters and
the emission components.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Ministry of Science, Technology


and Innovation (MOSTI) for the project (IRPA 33-02-03-3011) for the
financial support and University of Malaya excellent research envi-
ronment. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to
whosoever had contributed to their work either directly or indirectly.

References

Fig. 10. Engine performance and emission change in CNG over gasoline in percentage [1] P.C. Flynn, Commercializing an alternate vehicle fuel: lessons learned from
at 50% and 80% throttle position. natural gas for vehicles. Energy Policy 30 (7) (2002) 613e619.

Please cite this article in press as: M.I. Jahirul, et al., Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline in a retrofitted
car engine, Applied Thermal Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037
8 M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering xxx (2010) 1e8

[2] C.M. White, R.R. Steeper, A.E. Lutz, The hydrogen-fueled internal combustion [9] Mustafa Balat, Current alternative engine fuels. Energy Sources 27 (6) (2005)
engine: a technical review. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (10) 569e577.
(2006) 1292e1305. [10] C. Sayin, M. Ertunc, M. Hosoz, I. Kilicaslan, M. Canakci, Performance and
[3] S.G. Chalk, J.F. Miller, Key challenges and recent progress in batteries, fuel exhaust emissions of a gasoline engine using artificial neural network.
cells, and hydrogen storage for clean energy systems. Journal of Power Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (1) (2007) 46e54.
Sources 159 (1) (2006) 73e80. [11] L.M. Das, R. Gulati, P.K. Gupta, A comparative evaluation of the performance
[4] R. Shinnar, The hydrogen economy, fuel cells, and electric cars. Technology in characteristics of a spark ignition engine using hydrogen and compressed
Society 25 (4) (2003) 455e476. natural gas as alternative fuels. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 25
[5] M.H. Jayed, H.H. Masjuki, R. Saidur, M.A. Kalam, M.I. Jahirul, Environmental (8) (2000) 783e793.
aspects and challenges of oilseed produced biodiesel in Southeast Asia. [12] M.U. Aslam, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, H. Abdesselam, T.M.I. Mahlia, M.A. Amalina,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (9) (2009) 2452e2462. An experimental investigation of CNG as an alternative fuel for a retrofitted
[6] J.C. Escobar, E.S. Lora, O.J. Venturini, E.E. Yáñez, E.F. Castillo, O. Almazan, gasoline vehicle. Fuel 85 (5e6) (2006) 717e724.
Biofuels: environment, technology and food security. Renewable and [13] J. Klimstra, Performance of lean-Burn natural-gas-fueled engines e on specific
Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) 1275e1287. fuel consumption. Power Capacity and Emissions (1990) SAE Paper No. 901495.
[7] S. Srinivasan, The food v. fuel debate: a nuanced view of incentive structures. [14] D.M. Heaton, J.V.D. Weide, Natural gas powered vehicles and transport fuels.
Renewable Energy 34 (4) (2009) 950e954. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Natural Gas Technologies:
[8] R. Saidur, M. Jahirul, T. Moutushi, H. Imtiaz, H. Masjuki, Effect of partial Energy Security, Environment and Economic Development, Kyoto, Japan, 31st
substitution of diesel fuel by natural gas on performance parameters of a four- Octobere3rd November 1993.
cylinder diesel engine. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, [15] J.B. Heywood, Internal combustion engine Fundamental, Automotive Tech-
Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 221 (1) (2007) 1e10. nology Series, (1998).

Please cite this article in press as: M.I. Jahirul, et al., Comparative engine performance and emission analysis of CNG and gasoline in a retrofitted
car engine, Applied Thermal Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.037

You might also like