2012 International Conference on Future Electrical Power and Energy Systems

Lecture Notes in Information Technology, Vol.9

Experimental Investigations on the Performance of a Dual Fuel Diesel

Engine with Hydrogen and LPG As Secondary Fuels
Devdas B. Lataa, Ashok Misrab
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi, 835215, INDIA
a

devdaslata@yahoo.com,bdr_ashok_misra@rediffmail.com

Keywords: Dual fuel engine; diesel engine; alternative fuels; hydrogen; LPG.

Abstract. This paper presents experimental investigations on dual fuel operation of a 4 cylinder 39
kW diesel engine. To carry out detailed investigations hydrogen, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and
mixture of LPG and hydrogen have been used as secondary fuels. The paper includes details on brake
thermal efficiency and on emissions of un-burnt hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and NOx.
When only hydrogen is used as secondary fuel, maximum enhancement in the brake thermal
efficiency is 14% which is obtained with 30% of secondary fuel. When only LPG is used as
secondary fuel, maximum enhancement in the brake thermal efficiency (of 5%) is obtained with 40%
of secondary fuel. Compared to the pure diesel operation, proportion of un-burnt HC and CO
increases, while, emission of NOx reduces in both Tests. There is significant enhancement in
performances of dual fuel engine when hydrogen-LPG mixture is used as the secondary fuel. The
highlight of this Test is that when 40% of mixture of hydrogen and LPG (30:70) is used as secondary
fuel, enhancement in the brake thermal efficiency becomes 24% and HC emission is reduced by 64%.
1. Introduction
One of the main purposes for improving the combustion process of conventional internal combustion
engine is to find out useful ways to reduce exhaust emissions without making major alteration on
their mechanical configuration [1]. With the increasing need to conserve fossil fuels and minimize
toxic emission, much effort is being focused on the advancement of current combustion technology
[2]. This provoked for developing and testing of several alternative fuels. The main exhaust emissions
from diesel engine are smoke, NOx, particulate matter. The only option to reduce these pollutants is
to use alternative fuels which does not have sulphur dioxide, aldehydes and ketones [3]. Various
solution have been proposed like alcohols, vegetable oils, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG),
compressed natural gas (CNG), hydrogen, biogas, producer gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Among these, the uses of gaseous fuels have a dominant position [4]. Hydrogen and LPG have
auto-ignition temperatures of 858 K and 788 K respectively and require an ignition source to be burnt
in an I.C engine [4]. The diesel fuel which has an auto-ignition temperature of 525 K can be used as a
pilot fuel to ignite hydrogen and LPG. To improve the performance and reduce emission, Saravanan et
al. [3] used hydrogen as an air-enrichment medium while diesel as an ignition source in a stationary
diesel engine system.
Lambe and Watson [5] conducted an experimental study by optimizing C.I. engine for hydrogen
combustion with diesel pilot fuel. The hydrogen contained 65-95% of the fuel energy. It was reported
that smoke was reduced between 20% and 82% with dual fuel combustion depending on load
condition. While nitrogen oxides were reduced up to 70% in some Tests.
The combustion analysis on a direct injection diesel engine by using hydrogen with diesel and
hydrogen with diethyl ether (DEE) as ignition source was done by Saravanan et al. [3]. It increases
978-1-61275-005-7/10/$25.00 2012 IERI

538

ICFEPES2012

brake thermal efficiency by 20% and oxides of nitrogen increased by 13% than diesel operation.
Hydrogen assisted diesel combustion was investigated by Lilik et al. [6] on a DDC/VM Motori 2.5L,
4-cylinder, turbocharged, common rail, direct injection light-duty diesel engine, with a focus on
exhaust emissions. Hydrogen was substituted for diesel fuel on an energy basis of 0%, 2.5%, 5%,
7.5%,10% and 15% by aspiration of hydrogen into the engines intake air.
Due to availability and emission concern, LPG has also been tried as the secondary fuel. Poonia et
al. [7] experimentally investigated the effects of intake charge temperature, pilot fuel quantity,
exhaust gas recirculation and throttling of the intake charge can improve the performance of
LPG-diesel dual fuel engine. Vijayabalan et al. [8] modified single cylinder vertical air-cooled diesel
engine to use LPG in dual fuel mode to study the performance, emission, and combustion
characteristics. The brake thermal efficiency was improved by 3% in the glow plug assisted dual fuel
mode with reduction in hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and smoke emissions by 69%, 50% and 9%
respectively at lower load.
In all above mentioned works, neither hydrogen nor LPG enhances all desired features of a dual
fuel engine and therefore, it becomes sensible to try a mixture of both as a secondary fuel.
The understanding of brake thermal efficiency and emission of unburned hydrocarbon (HC),
carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and smoke is indispensable to determine the
over-all performance of a dual fuel diesel engine. In view of this, the present paper investigates the
performances of a dual fuel diesel engine with hydrogen, LPG and mixture of LPG and hydrogen as
secondary fuels at different load conditions and gaseous fuel substitutions.
2. Experimentation
A diesel engine setup was developed to carry out the study on dual fuel engines. A four stroke,
compression ignition engine, model Mahindra was used for the experimental investigation. The
diesel engine was modified to work on dual fuel mode by attaching hydrogen and LPG gas cylinder in
connection with the intake manifold through flame traps, mass flow meters, followed by a one way
non-return valve and common flame arrestor. The engine was coupled to a hydraulic dynamometer.
The engine was run at constant speed of 1500 RPM. The amount of pilot diesel fuel was
automatically controlled with the help of governor while the flow of gaseous fuels was controlled
manually. The predetermined amount of gaseous fuel as percentage of diesel at each load percentage
was inducted into the intake manifold through the gaseous fuel supply system. High precision optical
crank angle encoder (Kistler make) was used to correlate pressure data on crank angle basis.
For gaseous fuels two separate flame traps and mass flow meters were used. Exhaust gas emissions
namely CO, NOx and unburnt hydrocarbons (UHC) were measured by an AVL 5000 DI Gas-analyzer.
The experiments were performed on the test engine under the following four conditions.
(i)Test I:
Engine runs on diesel only. (ii)Test II: Engine runs on diesel as pilot fuel and
hydrogen as secondary fuel. (iii)Test III: Engine runs on diesel as pilot fuel and LPG as secondary
fuel. (iv)Test IV: Engine runs on diesel as pilot fuel and LPG plus hydrogen as secondary fuel.
3. Results and Discussion
The experimental results at rated speed of 1500 rpm, injection pressure 220 bar and injection timing
180 BTDC are presented for Tests II, III, and IV at different load conditions. The gaseous fuel
substitution with diesel is mainly presented at 10% and 80% of full load condition. The 10% of full
load was selected to represent engine performance at light load condition whereas 80% load
represents high load operation. Full load condition has not been taken into consideration due to
knocking problem and limited to 50% and 70% respectively. The mixture of LPG and hydrogen were
varied in the following proportions in each combination (M) (LPG-90% + H2-10%), (LPG-80% +
H2-20%), (LPG-70% + H2-30%), (LPG-60% + H2-40%).
3.1 Brake Thermal Efficiency
539

The variation of brake thermal efficiency at different load condition for hydrogen (Test II), LPG (Test
III) and mixture of LPG and hydrogen (Test IV) are shown in Figs. 2 (a, b) and 3 respectively. It is
observed that at lower load conditions, the brake thermal efficiencies of the Tests II, III and IV are
lower than pure diesel operation (Test I). At lower load condition, the lesser ignition centre is formed
and it further reduces at higher substitution of gaseous fuel. Hence, poor ignition of gaseous fuel
results in lower brake thermal efficiency. Further, at these conditions the inducted gaseous-air forms
too lean mixture to burn well. This leads to low combustion rate and flame quenching. The brake
thermal efficiencies at 10% load
40

35
30
25

Diesel
Diesel + 10%hydrogen
Diesel + 20%hydrogen
Diesel + 30%hydrogen
Diesel + 40%hydrogen
Diesel + 45%hydrogen
Diesel + 50%hydrogen

20
15
10
5
0

Brake Thermal Efficiency () (%)

Brake Thermal Efficiency () (%)

Brake Thermal Efficiency () vs Diesel + LPG

Brake Thermal Efficiency () vs Diesel + Hydrogen

40

30

Diesel
Diesel + 10%LPG
Diesel + 20%LPG
Diesel + 30%LPG
Diesel + 40%LPG
Diesel + 50%LPG
Diesel + 60%LPG

20

10

0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Load (%)

20

40

60

80

100

Load (%)

Fig. 2 Brake Thermal Efficiency) (%) vs. Load (%) a) for Diesel + Hydrogen. b) f or Diesel + LPG.

conditions for 30% substitution of gaseous fuel (hydrogen and LPG) as in Test II and III are 14.4%
and 16.8% respectively as compared to 19.57% of Test I operation.
The brake thermal efficiency of Test II is less among other Tests due to lower quenching distance
and higher thermal conductivity [5] resulting in higher cooling losses than LPG, while LPG has
higher pre-ignition energy release rate as compared to hydrogen [2]. The lower brake thermal
efficiency of Test III is due to sluggish combustion [7].
The brake thermal efficiency at 40% load conditions with the same gaseous fuels substitution for
the Tests II and III are found to be 24.5% and 23.3% respectively against 26.75% of Test I operation.
At 80% load condition, the brake thermal efficiency with the same gaseous fuels substitution for the
Tests II and III are found to be 35.12% and 31.38% respectively as compared to 30.16% of Test I
operation. This is because of increase in combustion rate due to larger pilot diesel quantities (as an
average 5.44 mg/cycle) which leads to stronger ignition sources and hence, more complete and better
combustion of gaseous fuel. It is worth to be mentioned here that beyond 45% of hydrogen
substitution and 40% of LPG substitution, the thermal efficiency starts decreasing.
Figure 2 (b) shows variations in brake thermal efficiency at 10%, 40% and 80% of load condition
respectively at each mixture combination of LPG and hydrogen (Test IV). The brake thermal
efficiency at 10% load condition by substitution of 30% mixture (LPG and hydrogen) with hydrogen
percentage varying from 10% to 40% are 15.1%, 14.7%, 14.3% and 13.9%, respectively as compared
to 18.57% of diesel operation (Test I). It shows 7.45% drop in brake thermal efficiency when
hydrogen percentage increased from 10% to 40% in the mixture of LPG and hydrogen. Further, 23%
drop in brake thermal efficiency of the Test IV (60:40) was observed as compared to Test I operation.

540

(a)

20

10

10%Load
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

40

30

HC (gm/kWhr) vs. Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

8
8 10% Load
40% Load

20

10

40%Load

6
4
2

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

HC (gm/kWh)

80%Load
10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

(b)

20

40

60

80% Load
hydrogen
LPG
LPG + hydrogen

4
2
0
0

80

Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

0
20
40
60
80
80 0
Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)
Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

0
0

Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

90%LPG+ 10%hydrogen
80%LPG+ 20%hydrogen
70%LPG+ 30%hydrogen
60%LPG+ 40%hydrogen

20

8
30

HC (gm/kWh)

30

HC (gm/kWh)

40

Brake Thermal Efficiency (%)

Brake Thermal Efficiency (%)Brake Thermal Efficiency (%)

Brake Thermal Efficiency (%) vs Gaseous

Fuel Substitution (%)
40

20
40
60
80
Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

Fig.4 a) Brake Thermal Efficiency (%), b) HC emissions vs Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%) for Diesel + Hydrogen + LPG
Substitution.

At 80% load condition Test IV (70:30) shows 25%, 9% and 22% rise in brake thermal efficiency
as compared to Test I, II and III, respectively (Fig. 4-a). This nature is because of opposite diffusion
behavior of propane (LPG) and hydrogen, since diffusivity of hydrogen (0.61 cm2/sec) is more than
LPG (0.12 cm2/sec) in air. Further, it was observed that 40% mixture of LPG and hydrogen (70:30)
gives rise in brake thermal efficiency by 19% and 23% as compared to Test I at 40% and 80% load
conditions respectively. However, 12% drop in efficiency was observed at 10% load condition.
4. Emissions
4.1 Un-burnt Hydrocarbons (UHC) Figure 4 (a) shows variation in unburned hydrocarbon at 10%,
40% and 80% load conditions for the Tests II, III and IV. The over leaning and under mixing is
responsible for HC emission in diesel engine.
At 10% load condition, Test II, III and IV shows HC emissions of 6.86 gm/kWh, 5.9 gm/kWh and
6.94 gm/kWh respectively as compared to 1.72 gm/kWh of Test I. While, at 40% load condition, Test
II, III and IV shows HC emissions of 4.45 gm/kWh, 4.65 gm/kWh and 4.37 gm/kWh respectively as
compared to 2.13 gm/kWh of Test I. At 80% load condition Test II, III and IV shows maximum HC
emission of 5.64 gm/kWh, 4.57 gm/kWh and 1.07 gm/kWh respectively as compared to 1.8 gm/kWh
of Test I operation. At higher load condition Test IV shows lower HC then Test I due to better and fast
combustion rate leading to more complete combustion and hence low HC emissions.

541

0.4
0.2

1.0
0.8

0.8

40%Load

b
1.5

10%Load

1.0

0.6
0.4

NOx vs Gaseous Fuel Substitutions (%)

0.5

NOx (gm/kWh)

0.6

0.0
0

CO (gm/kWh)

10%Load
CO (gm/kWh)

CO (gm/kWh)

0.8

1.0

0.0
20
40
60
80 0
20
40
60
80
Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%) Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

80%Load

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

6
5

40%Load

4
3
2
1

0.2

hydrogen
LPG
LPG + hydrogen

0.0
0

0
20 40 60 80 0
20 40 60 80
Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%) Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

8
NOx (gm/kWh)

1.0

NOx (gm/kWh)

a CO (gm/kWh) vs Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

80%Load
Diesel + H2

Diesel + LPG
Diesel + LPG+ H2

2
0
0

20 40 60 80
Gaseous Fuel Substitution (%)

Fig.5 a) Un-burnt HC (gm/kWh), b) NOx vs Diesel + Gaseous Fuels Substitution (%) as function of Load (%).

4.2 Carbon monoxide

The variation in CO is shown in Fig. 5 (a). At 10% load condition Test II, III and IV shows 89%, 77%
and 75% raise in CO emission respectively as compared to Test I operation. At light load condition
gaseous fuel-air mixture near the pilot is burned [8]. Moreover, inducted mixture becomes rich due to
more displacement of air. This is thought to be reason for the raise in CO emissions. While, at 40%
load condition, Test II, III and IV shows CO emissions of 0.38 gm/kWh, 0.28 gm/kWh and 0.38
gm/kWh respectively as compared to 0.8 gm/kWh of Test I. At 80% load condition maximum raise in
CO emission for the Test II, III and IV are 76%, 84% and 80% respectively as compared to Test I due
to rich mixture.
4.3 NOx
Figure 5 (b) shows variation of NOx for the Test II, III and IV at 10% and 80% load condition. At 10%
load condition 60%, 33% and 93% drop in NOx emission were observed for the Test II, III and IV
respectively as compared to Test I. Similarly, at 80% load condition 20%, 41% and 84% reduction in
NOx for the Test II, III and IV were observed respectively as compared to Test I. This is due to more
uniform temperature distribution obtained with the gaseous fuel-air mixture results in high
temperature region reduces around the diesel flame. While, at 40% load condition, Test II, III and IV
shows NOx emissions of 2.13 gm/kWh, 3.12 gm/kWh and 1.88 gm/kWh respectively as compared to
4.88 gm/kWh of Test I.
5. Conclusions
On the basis of the results and discussions presented above, the following conclusions may be drawn:
1.Substitution of diesel by 30% of hydrogen and 40% of LPG as in Test II and III enhances brake
thermal efficiency by 16% and 5% respectively than Test I operation.
2.A 40% diesel substitution by the mixture of 70% LPG and 30% hydrogen in Test IV increases
brake thermal efficiency by 26% compared to pure diesel operation.
3.At low load conditions for the Tests II to IV, the brake thermal efficiency is always lower than
diesel operation (Test I). However, it has better efficiency at higher load condition.
4.A severe knock was noticed during the dual fuel diesel engine operation with 50% of hydrogen
and 70% of LPG substitution as in Test II and III respectively.

542

5.Test II and III increases unburnt HC by 67% and 60% respectively while Test IV reduces by
67% and similarly carbon monoxide increases by 75%, 83% and 79% respectively.
References
[1] Papagiannakis RG, Hountalas DT, Rakopoulos CD. Theoretical study of the effects of pilot fuel
quantity and its injection timing on the performance and emissions of a dual fuel diesel engine.
Energy Conversion & Management 2007; 48: 2951-61.
[2] Choi GH, Chung JY, Han SB. Performance and emissions characteristics of a hydrogen enriched
LPG internal combustion engine at 1400 rpm. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2005; 30: 77-82.
[3] Saravanan N, Nagarajan G. An experimental investigation of hydrogen-enriched air induction in
a diesel engine system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008; 33: 1769-75.
[4] Mansour C, Abdelhamid B, Abdelkader A, Francoise G. Gas-diesel (dual-fuel) modeling in
diesel engine environment. Int J Therm Sci 2001; 40: 409-24.
[5] Lambe SM and Watson HC. Low polluting, energy efficient C.I. hydrogen engine. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1992; 17: 513-25.
[6] Lilik GK, Zhang H, Herreros JM, Haworth DC. Hydrogen assisted diesel combustion. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2010; 35: 4382-98.
[7] Poonia MP, Ramesh A, Gaur RR. Effect of intake air temperature and pilot fuel quantity on the
combustion characteristics of a LPG diesel dual fuel Engine. SAE paper 982455 (1998) 97-105.
[8] Vijayabalan P, Nagarajan G. Performance, emission and combustion of LPG diesel dual fuel
engine using glow plug. JJMIE 2009; 2: 105-10.

543