You are on page 1of 8

Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2219e2226

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 retrotted 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
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

The scarcity of petroleum fuel resources and turmoil in the oil


market along with the acutely growing demand of oil threatens the
security of energy production. The necessity of fuel has gained the
ground for adaptation of suitable energy policy for the transportation sector in order to balance the demand and supply of oil
and to contain the overall release of the greenhouse gases with the
eventual undesirable environmental impacts. The drive created by
the energy security, climate change and the rapidly growing
demand of transport fuel lead to a quest for clean burning fuel.
Energy policy and planning with the related orientation have
become a very important public agendum of most developed and
developing countries nowadays, as a result of which, the governments are encouraging the use of alternative fuels of petroleum oil
in the automotive engines. When evaluating different alternative
fuels one has to take into account many aspects [1]:
* Corresponding author at: School of Engineering and Built Environment, Faculty
of sciences, Engineering & Health. Central Queensland University (CQUniversity),
Rockhampton, QLD 4702, Australia. Tel.: 61 (0)413809227.
E-mail addresses: md_jahirul@yahoo.com, m.j.islam@cqu.edu.au (M.I. Jahirul).

Adequacy of fuel supply,


Process efciency,
Ease of transport and safety of storage,
Modications needed in the distribution/refueling network in
the vehicle,
Fuel compatibility with vehicle engine (power, emissions, ease
of use, and durability of engine).

Numerous researches are going on worldwide in alternative


fuels/sources of energy, such as, biodiesel, bioethanol, hydrogen cell,
solar energy and compressed natural gas have so far been most
common approaches in this arena. Solar powered car are still not
market adaptive as it requires more dedicated design features.
Hydrogen fuel has low volumetric efciencies and frequent preignition combustion event because the power densities of premixed
or port-fuel-injected hydrogen engines is signicantly lower than
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 efciency [3,4]. On the contrary, biodiesel and bioethanol require no
engine modication for smooth operation, but they create various
problems in the long term operation and in the higher percentage

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

M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2219e2226

usage, especially when biofuels are mostly derived from vegetable


oils and crops-seeds. These alternatives are strongly criticized for its
environmental impact and phenomenal threat to food security
[5e7]. Apart from experimental investigations, several theoretical
researches are proceeding in the quest for alternative fuels. Saidur
et al. [8] evaluated the effect of partial substitution of diesel fuel by
the natural gas on performance parameters of a four-cylinder diesel
engine. Other types of alternative fuels, such as, methyl and ethyl
alcohol, boron, liqueed petroleum gas, biomass, electricity solar
energy, etc., are also potential alternative sources of energy in the
internal combustion engine [9]. Articial neural network has been
applied to predict the gasoline engines emission and performance
[10]. As the consequence of these studies, researches on CNG fueled
engine are also progressing throughout the world due to its potential
as an alternative fuel for the spark ignition (S. I.) engine. The difference between the operation of the conventional gasoline fueled and
the CNG-engine system arises from the physical and chemical
properties of these two fuels. It is a well known fact that petroleum
fuels are liquid at room temperature and CNG remains in a gaseous
state at a much lower temperature (161  C). CNG has a lower
density but higher octane number then gasoline. It can easily
operate in a high compression ratio and higher self/spontaneous
ignition temperature makes it a safer fuel in case of leakage [11].
Table 1 represents the comparison between the physiochemical
properties of CNG and that of the gasoline.
As a gas, CNG requires a different approach of fuel induction
mechanism at all normal temperatures and pressures. This has
resulted in an increased interest in the use of CNG as fuel for the
internal combustion engines and hence CNG has now been used to
power vehicles of various ranges, starting from light delivery trucks
to full size urban buses and other varieties of applications [13,14].
But most of the CNG-engine vehicles used today are retrotted from
the gasoline engine. This type of engines cannot advantageously
perform on CNG as an engine fuel. However, the research has somewhat succeeded to minimize the drawbacks of the CNG in retrotted
cars and harvests the maximum obtainable from the CNG the result of
which concludes that a dedicated CNG engine is a must. In this
experimental study, a comparative evaluation of the performance of
gasoline and CNG fueled retrotted spark ignition car engine had been
performed. The engine was converted to a computer incorporated bifuel system and operated with either gasoline or CNG using an electronically controlled solenoid actuated valve system. The engine was

Table 1
Combustion related properties of gasoline & CNG [12].
Properties

Gasoline

CNG

Motor octane number


Molar mass (kg/mol)
Carbon weight fraction (mass %)
Stoichiometric air fuel ratio (A/F)s
Stoichiometric mixture density (kg/m3)
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
Lower heating value of stoic. mixture (MJ/kg)
Flammability limits (vol% in air)
Spontaneous ignition temperature ( C)

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

operated at constant throttle positions with a variable speed to


evaluate the performance and exhaust emission for both the fuels.
2. Experimental study
2.1. Experimental setup
The layout of experimental setup is as shown in Fig. 1. The test
engine was converted into a bi-fuel natural gas engine from an SI
engine. The specication of this SI engine is shown in Table 2.
An electronic control unit (ECU) was used with the CP 128
control and managing system which was compatible with any
computer having a serial interface. This system was designed to
perform engine tests either under an automatic or a manual
control. The ECU system was incorporated with the CADET10
software. The CADET10 system was fed by parameters, such as,
engine speed (rpm), engine torque (kW) and throttle (%) valve
position as input. The set of parameters was programmed according
to the experimental condition and stages required. Each stage
required either two settings, such as, engine speed and throttle
position. The results recorded in the CADET system was transferred
to a spreadsheet for further analysis. An eddy-current dynamometer (Model AG 150, Froude Consine) was used for engine loading.
Each engine test started with idle running for engine heating up
and stability in power generation.
2.2. Test plan
All equipments were calibrated according to the manufacturers
recommendations before starting the test. The engine was

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2219e2226


Table 2
Specication of the SI Engine.

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-

50% throttle position with a speed range from 1500 to


5500 rpm at a constant increment of 500 rpm.
80% throttle position with a speed range of 1500e5500 rpm at
a constant increment of 500 rpm.

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

from that of the gasoline. A conversion kit (model LR OMEGAS e 3rd


Generation) was installed on the engine test bed and the CNG was
stored in a cylinder at a maximum pressure of 200 bar (approximately). The gas regulator used with the conversion kit was
a compensated, two-stage diaphragm type regulator, together with
the wateregas heat exchanger, lter, gas solenoid valve and safety
valve which was duly calibrated for a supply pressure of 2 bar
(200 kPa) above the pressure of the intake manifold. Electronic
switch regulator was used to monitor the current fuel (CNG or,
gasoline) by using two illuminated LED and the pressure of the CNG
in the tank was monitored by 5 illuminated LEDs. The system was
capable of controlling other functions, such as, fuel gauge, actuator of
the solenoid valve, automatic switch of the solenoid valve, automatic
switch from the gasoline to the CNG and vice versa. The system
performance and diagnosis during the installation and maintenance
phases could be done by connecting the ECU with a computer. ECU
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
injectors into the intake manifold while the injectors were driven by
the CNG ECU. The rail was installed with 4 injectors which were
driven with a peak and hold actuation.

2.4. Emission analyzer


A BACHARACH exhaust gas analyzer is used to measure the
concentration of NOx (ppm) emission and Bosch gas analyzer
(model ETT 00.36) is used to measure CO (vol.%), CO2 (vol.%) and
another O2 (vol.%) concentrations. The technology of this analyzer
consisted of automatic measurements with microprocessor control
and self-test, auto calibration before every analysis and a high
degree of accuracy in the analysis of low concentrations of gases
found in the engine. The exhaust gas for the analysis was tapped
from the exhaust pipe, approximately 1 m from the exhaust valve.

3. Results and discussions


Standard errors of this experiment are shown in Table 4 to show
repeatability of it.
Table 4
Standard error in measurements.
Item

50% Throttle
(CNG)

50% Throttle
(Petrol)

80% Throttle 80% Throttle


CNG)
(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

M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2219e2226

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

3.1. Brake power


The brake power output versus engine speed for both the gasoline and the CNG fuel was measured. Fig. 2 shows the brake power
output for the 50% and 80% throttle positions respectively. The brake
power of the engine was lower than that of the gasoline throughout
the speed range for the CNG operation. Displacement of air by
natural gas and by the slower ame velocity of CNG were the main
reasons of the lower brake power as compared to that of the gasoline, as a result of which both the air volumetric efciency and the
charge energy density per injection into the engine cylinder reduced
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,
a gasoline-fuel-designed engine which was converted to CNG
operation would signicantly produce the low peak power.
The peak brake power of 27.7 kW was obtained by the gasoline
fuel at 50% throttle position and 22.67 kW for the CNG, both at
4000 rpm. For 80% throttle position the maximum brake power was
54.97 kW and 50.44 kW for the gasoline and the CNG used,
respectively. The CNG fuel produced an average (overall the speed
ranges) of 19.25% and 10.86% less brake power than that of the
gasoline at 50% and 80% throttle positions, respectively. These

power differences among the throttle positions were attributed to


the variations in the difference of the fueleair equivalent ratio with
the decrease of the throttle opening between the gasoline operation and the CNG operation. As the friction loss was constant, the
percentage of friction power loss with the increase of the throttle
opening was less for the CNG fuel. Therefore, the difference in brake
power through the gasoline and the CNG operations decreased
with the increase of throttle opening.

3.2. Brake specic fuel consumption


Fig. 3 shows the variation of brake specic fuel consumption
over the speed range of 1500e5500 rpm. Specic fuel consumption
(SFC), when the engine was running using the CNG, was always
lower than that for the gasoline throughout the speed range. This
was mainly due to the higher heating value of the CNG (47.669 MJ/
kg) as compared to that of the gasoline (44 MJ/kg) and the slow
burning of CNG as compared to that of the gasoline.
At low throttle operation the SFC increased at high rpm because
of the rapid increase of friction power as compared that as displayed by the indicated power. The average SFC differences

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

M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2219e2226

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)

Air fuel ratio


CNG 50%
throttle

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

M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2219e2226

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.

range, and on an average of 22.14% and 29.71% lower than gasoline


for the 50% and the 80% throttle conditions, respectively.
The average HC emission found for 80% throttle position was
355.1 ppm and 249.6 ppm for running the engine on gasoline and
CNG, respectively, and for the 50% throttle condition those values
are 484.35 ppm and 377.1 ppm, respectively.

Reason for the reduction is due to the complete combustion effect


with increasing speed engine.
O2 concentration in the CNG emission was lower than that of
gasoline throughout the speed range, and on the average, it was
73% and 64% less at the 50% and the 80% throttle conditions,
respectively. The average O2 concentration for the 80% throttle
position was 2.49% and 0.9% while running on the gasoline and
the CNG, respectively. Whereas, at 50% throttle opening those
values were 1.95% and 0.52% for the gasoline and the CNG,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 7. The throttle opening increases O2
concentration.

3.5. Carbon mono-oxide (CO) emission


Poor mixing of air and fuel, local rich regions and incomplete
combustion produces CO. Fig. 6 shows the CO emission at 50% and
80% throttle conditions with the variable speed from 1500 rpm to
5500 rpm for both the gasoline and the CNG, respectively. The CO
emission of the CNG was signicantly lower than that of the
gasoline throughout the speed range. On the average, 45.5% and
29.87% less CO emission occurred for the CNG at the 50% and the
80% throttle conditions, respectively. Thus, the CNG is more
combustible than the gasoline fuel. Higher combustion temperature was another reason of the low CO emission of the CNG fueled
engine. At high combustion temperatures, the CO converts to CO2
during combustion.
3.6. Oxygen (O2) concentration
At low speed the oxygen concentration is very high in the
exhaust gas and decreases rapidly with the increase of speed.

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

3.7. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission


Fig. 8 shows that CO2 emission at the 50% and the 80% throttle
conditions over the speed range. The CO2 emission of the CNG was
found to be lower than that of the gasoline throughout the speed
range, and on the average, it was around 30.88% and 34.97% lower
than that of the gasoline for the 50% and the 80% throttle condition,
respectively. The average CO2 concentration for the 50% throttle
opening was 10.95% and 7.57% for the engine running on the
gasoline and the CNG, respectively, while for the 80% throttle
condition these average values were 12.42% and 8.08%, respectively.
The composition of gas showed that the CNG consisted mostly of
methane (CH4) whereas the gasoline (C8H18) compound packed
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. 8. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission over a speed range at 50% and 80% throttle
condition for gasoline and CNG.

M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2219e2226

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 _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.
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.
-

3.8. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission


NO is produced more in the post-ame gases than in the amefront. The mixture which burned early in the combustion process
was being compressed to a higher temperature, thus increasing the
NO formation rate, as the combustion proceeded and the cylinder
pressure increased. Comparative emission of the oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) by the CNG and the gasoline are shown in Fig. 9. The NOx
emission was strongly related to the lean fuel with the high
cylinder temperature or high peak combustion temperature. A fuel
with high heat release rate at premix or rapid combustion phase
and lower heat release rate at mixing controlled combustion phase
would produce the NOx [15]. For this reason, the CNG emitted more
NOx than the gasoline both in the 50% and the 80% throttle position,
as shown in the gure.

The CNG produces lower brake power than the gasoline


throughout the speed range.
Retrotted car engine runs on lower BSFC when using CNG
than on gasoline.
The CNG has an advantage of higher brake thermal efciency
on an average of 1.1% and 1.6% than that of gasoline.
The engine exhaust gas temperature produced by the CNG
burning is always higher as compared with that of the gasoline.
CNG fueled retrotted car engine produced lower HC, CO, O2
emission throughout the speed range than gasoline.
Higher NOx emission is the main emission concern for CNG as
automotive fuel. 41% and 38% higher NOx emissions have been
recorded at 50% and 80% throttle position respectively,
compared to that of gasoline. Such a huge emission range
should be a major environmental concern as CNG retrotted
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 automobile fuel than the gasoline both economically and environmentally. 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
nancial support and University of Malaya excellent research environment. 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
at 50% and 80% throttle position.

[1] P.C. Flynn, Commercializing an alternate vehicle fuel: lessons learned from
natural gas for vehicles. Energy Policy 30 (7) (2002) 613e619.

2226

M.I. Jahirul et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2219e2226

[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).