See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320978566

CFD study and experimental investigation of piston geometry induced in-

cylinder charge motion on LPG fuelled lean burn spark ignition engine

Article  in  Fuel · February 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.10.047

CITATION READS

1 89

4 authors, including:

Ravi Krishnaiah Pradeep Bhasker

VIT University VIT University
16 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy and Exergy Analysis View project

Design and analysis of truck body for increasing payload capacity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ravi Krishnaiah on 09 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

CFD study and experimental investigation of piston geometry induced in- MARK
cylinder charge motion on LPG fuelled lean burn spark ignition engine
⁎
K. Ravi, J. Pradeep Bhasker, Jim Alexander, E. Porpatham
Automotive Research Centre, School of Mechanical Engineering, VIT University, Vellore, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The performance and emission characteristics of LPG fuelled SI engine is determined by efficient combustion.
Liquefied petroleum gas This depends on the in-cylinder motion of intake homogenous charge generated by combustion chamber geo-
SI engine metry. The inherent, unsteady, turbulent motion of the mixture helps in flame propagation which in turn en-
Combustion chamber geometry hances the combustion rate. Compression ratio, charge squish velocity and turbulent kinetic energy are responsible
Squish area
for stable combustion and laminar flame propagation. The in-cylinder charge motion is generally described by
Combustion
swirl, squish, tumble and turbulence which have a vital role on air-fuel mixing and combustion. The piston geo-
Performance
Emission metry helps in aiding in-cylinder motion for reducing fuel consumption and enhancing the combustion para-
meters. In particular, piston squish area in combustion chamber geometry has a major influence in charge motion
inside the combustion chamber. The effect of piston squish area on charge motion was studied by CFD using
STAR-CD with 25%, 30%, 35% and 40% squish areas to optimize piston crown geometry. Experiments were also
conducted with above squish area pistons at a compression ratio of 10:1 to validate the CFD study. It was found
that 30% piston squish area improved the performance, combustion characteristics and reduced the emission
with LPG fuelled lean burn SI engine.

1. Introduction modification of engines. Use of LPG reduces cyclic variations in In-

Intending to lessen the fossil fuel depletion and emission levels
without losing performance, researchers have been embracing a few
unique innovations and engine combustion control techniques. Gaseous
fuels are receiving a more encouraging response from investigators
compared to the past because of recent unfolding changes in global
environmental regulations. Gaseous fuels emit virtually trivial oxides of
sulphur and comparatively little oxides of nitrogen, the main con-
stituents of acid rain, and significantly less carbon dioxide (CO2), a key
greenhouse constitute, than most oil products and coal [1]. They largely
result in lesser emissions and are cleaner than conventional fuels like
gasoline and diesel due to their superior hydrogen to carbon propor-
tion, wide ignition limit and high auto ignition temperature [2–4]. Li-
quefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), hydrogen and Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG) are encouraging alternatives for Internal Combustion (IC) en-
gines. Out of these LPG will be a game changer in near future after the
discovery of large scale shale gas reserves and non-associated gas based
LPG production [5,6]. LPG is a product of petroleum refining princi-
pally consisting of propane, butane and other light hydrocarbons [7].
The wide spread use of LPG is because of its low price, highly estab-
lished supply infrastructure and reasonably unsophisticated
dicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP) compared to gasoline [8].
Many researchers confirm that the emissions from LPG engines are
lesser compared to conventional equivalents, besides the obvious de-
crease in CO2 emission. LPG fuel usage has an influential effect on
speed, spark timing, compression ratio, intake temperature, intake
pressure (supercharging), and relative humidity of intake air on the
engine operational limits. On the contrary, the use of LPG needs a more
detailed examination of the characteristics and the particularities of
usage [9–11]. The majority of vehicles running on LPG have been de-
signed to run on gasoline hence, minimal engine modifications are re-
quired for LPG operation. With LPG fuel there are certain concerns,
such as power losses, air fuel ratio, ignition, charge motion, alteration
for the composition of emissions, etc. [12–14]. This could be well dealt
by employing efficient combustion techniques. The in-cylinder motion
of the homogenous mixture plays a vital role in efficient combustion of
gaseous fuels like LPG. The piston geometry helps in optimizing in-
cylinder motion of air fuel mixture produced by the combustion
chamber, which in turn is principally dependent on the swirl, squish,
tumble and turbulent kinetic energy for reducing fuel consumption and
enhancing the combustion parameters. Hence, a theoretical simulation
study using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and experimental

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: porpatham.e@vit.ac.in (E. Porpatham).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.10.047
Received 14 July 2017; Received in revised form 6 October 2017; Accepted 10 October 2017
0016-2361/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Ravi et al.
Nomenclature
bBDC before bottom dead center
BMEP brake mean effective pressure
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption
bTDC before top dead center
CA crank angle
CAD crank angle degree
CFD computational fluid dynamics
CI compression ignition
CNG compressed natural gas
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COV coefficient of variation
investigation on the effects of piston crown geometry on in-cylinder
charge motion is necessary.
The wide range of CFD simulation work on in-cylinder charge mo-
tion was carried out by various researchers using different techniques.
Rakopoulos et al. [15] used in-cylinder pressure of a diesel engine
under motoring conditions as a reference to validate CFD model of SI
engine. Falfari et al. [16] evaluated the effects of the tumble variations
on the in-cylinder vortex characteristic length, vorticity and on the
cylinder mean flow structure. Hyun et al. [17] have concluded that
mixture stratification depends on the combustion chamber design and
for better mixture formation the fuel injection should be in the direction
of swirl and also weaker swirl results in better mixture stratification.
Iyer et al. [18] proposed that high tumble intake port design produces a
well-ordered steady motion that effects in higher turbulence intensity
leading to faster burn rates and a more steady combustion. Gunase-
karan et al. [19] studied the effects of tumble and inclined swirl si-
mulated using shrouds on the intake valves and concluded that the high
tumble flow with late injection offers better mixture dispersal and
combustion. Xu et al. [20] predicted the air fuel mixing process under
cold start conditions. Baratta et al. [21] studied the impact of the cy-
linder head design variables on the tumble intensity. Kosmadakis et al.
[22] examined the local gas properties during flame propagation and
pollutant emissions inside the combustion chamber. Chen et al. [23]
observed the effects of the intake port geometry for tumble to conclude
that high tumble converts into turbulent kinetic energy at compression
stroke Top Dead Centre (TDC) to accelerate combustion. Dehong Zhang
et al. [24] investigated effects of swirl, combustion chamber geometry and
spark location to conclude that an offset spark plug results in lower
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) than a central plug for the same
initial swirl ratio.
Also, several researchers have worked on piston geometry using
CFD study to optimize the in-cylinder parameters. The analysis was
carried out to analyse in-cylinder air flows and air-fuel interaction. It
was concluded that flat piston with centre bowl results in higher tumble
ratio, turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent intensity and turbulent length scale
for better charge mixing and motion with higher evaporation rate as
compared to flat piston [25–26]. Kondoh et al. [27] demonstrated with
turbulence generation piston enhanced squish motions with two peaks
and reverse-squish motions near compression TDC. Wohlgemuth et al.
[28] presented a new design approach and development for the piston
bowl using 3D-CFD simulations to overcome poor combustion stability
and high burning durations. Payri et al. [29] confirmed piston geometry
had a slight effect on the in-cylinder flow during the intake and early
compression stroke but significant influence near TDC and in the early
stage of the expansion stroke.
The experimental work was also carried out by various researchers
to optimize intake port geometry, squish area, shrouded intake valve
and piston geometry. Lee et al. [30] used ‘D’ type cavity, with an in-
creased squish area in the vicinity of the intake valve to demonstrate
2
Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11
FDP flame development period
HC hydrocarbon
IC internal combustion
IMEP indicated mean effective pressure
IVC inlet valve closing
IVO inlet valve opening
kW kilo Watt
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
MBT Minimum spark advance for best torque
NOX oxides of nitrogen
PISO pressure implicit with splitting of operator
MARS multi-interfaces advection and reconstruction solver
TKE turbulent kinetic energy
shortest burn duration among different piston cavities. Belaire et al.
[31] established that design variables such as spark plug location, in-
take port configuration and combustion chamber shape have been
shown to influence the burn rate. Huang et al. [32] studied using a
particle image velocimeter to display that the flat piston brings higher
bulk-averaged tumble ratio, turbulence intensity, also develop larger
torque, power and lower hydrocarbon emission than the concave
piston. Jijun et al. [33] compared squish jet turbulence combustion
chamber with bathtub combustion chamber which resulted in com-
bined inlet swirl and squish. Raju et al. [34] determined that intake
swirl as compared to squish at full throttle condition and squish at part
throttle condition influenced combustion for a lean mixture. Porpatham
et al. [35] demonstrated the use of masked valvle to improve intake
swirl to enhance performance. The variations of the in-cylinder turbu-
lence among individual cycles are the most impelling factor accoun-
table for cyclic combustion variability [36–37]. It was observed that the
variations in the burning rates were completely attributed to the dif-
ferences in the in-cylinder turbulence and the initial flame kernel
growth is accountable for up to 50% of the cyclic variations [38–40].
Oh et al. [41] studied the effects of piston geometry to recommend
strong squish flow for faster combustion. Ueda et al. [42] tried slanting
the piston crown to increase the squish area to improve knock limit.
Davis et al. [43] studied the effect of piston squish area to conclude that
squish area above 25% is required for better performance.
The literature reveals that the performance, combustion and emis-
sions principally depend on the in-cylinder flow of charge affected by
combustion chamber geometry, which in turn is mainly dependent on
the swirl, squish, tumble and turbulence. A number of design aspects such
as location of the spark plug, configuration of the intake port, cavity
shape and combustion chamber shape influence the burning rate and
combustion. To promote quick combustion, sufficient large-scale tur-
bulence is needed at the end of the compression stroke. Large scales of
turbulence will result in a better mixing process of air and fuel and it
will also enhance flame development. Optimum compression ratio,
squish velocity and turbulence are accountable for laminar flame pro-
pagation and stable combustion. Hence, a study on the influence of
squish area without the influence of compression ratio and squish ve-
locity is felt essential to design optimum piston geometry for LPG
fuelled lean burn SI engine.
This work aims at investigating the effect of piston crown geometry
on in-cylinder fluid motion theoretically using CFD simulation with
25%, 30%, 35% and 40% squish area pistons. Also, experiments were
conducted on LPG fuelled lean burn SI engine at above mentioned
squish area pistons at 100% throttle condition. The engine was oper-
ated at a constant speed of 1500 rpm with fixed compression ratio of
10:1 by maintaining a constant squish velocity of 4 m/s. The perfor-
mance, combustion and emission characteristics were compared and
discussed.
K. Ravi et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11

Table 1
Combustion chamber geometry for various squish area at a compression ratio of 10:1 and
squish velocity 4 m/s.

Piston squish Squish height Squish width Bowl diameter Bowl depth
area (%) z(mm) (mm) Db(mm) h(mm)

25 0.49 5.87 75.76 26.8

30 0.97 7.15 73.20 26.7
35 1.39 8.48 70.54 26.8
40 1.85 9.9 67.70 27

Fig. 1. Engine geometry used for computing squish velocity.

2. Methodology

2.1. CFD simulation

A simulation study was carried out on four different piston squish Fig. 2. Mesh modeling of piston bowl, liner and dome.
area pistons namely 25%, 30%, 35% and 40% using STAR-CD software
which is widely accepted in IC engine analysis. Modeling was done 2.3. Geometry modeling for piston design
using CATIA V5 software for different squish area profiles. The overall
analysis involves only cold flow study during the compression stroke of To study the impact of in-cylinder charge motion squish velocity
the engine. and compression ratio was maintained constant. The geometry surfaces
were imported to pro-surf package of STAR-CD where the surfaces were
2.2. Estimation of piston dimensions for different squish areas interconnected and the grid sizes were given for fine refinement of
solution during 2D surface meshing. The bowl surface and the clearance
Fig. 1 shows the engine geometry used for calculating the theore- volume region were provided with a finer mesh assignment since most
tical squish velocity. The following equations were used for computing of the turbulent motions happen at the center of the combustion
the theoretical squish velocity for the hemispherical bowl in piston chamber (Fig. 2). The overall analysis was done at 10° before com-
geometry [44]. pression TDC since the theoretical squish velocity was highest at this
crank angle degree.
2
Vsquish Db ⎡ ⎛ D ⎞ Vb CFD analysis was done for compression stroke from start of com-
= ⎜ ⎟−1⎤
Sp 4z ⎢
⎣ ⎝ Db ⎠
⎥ (Ac + Vb)
⎦
pression at inlet valve closure after BDC (215.5°CA) till compression
TDC (360°CA). The flow path of the geometry was extracted using es-ice
package of STAR-CD software. Initially, the surface models were im-
π ⎡ ⎛ cosθ ⎞⎤ ported to STAR-CD Pro-surf for 2D surface meshing and transferred to
Sp = Sp sinθ ⎢1 + ⎜
2 (R2−sin2 θ ) ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ Pro-Star for assigning the cell types for the piston, cylinder liner and
cylinder head shell. For surface meshing and volume meshing multi-
l block polyhedral trimmed cells were used. Once the initial grid gen-
Sp = 2LN and R =
a (1) eration was done, three dimensional volume mesh templates were
created for the compression stroke analysis (closed cycle). Es-ice was
where Vsquish – Squish velocity (m/s); SP – Instantaneous piston speed used for volume meshing and moving mesh generation. The mesh size
(m/s); Db – Bowl diameter (m); D – Cylinder bore diameter (m); z – Gap was varying slightly between the piston configurations which were
between the piston crown and cylinder head (m); VB – Volume of the negligible.
piston bowl (m3); AC – Cross-sectional area of the cylinder (m2); θ –
Crank angle (degrees); L – Stroke length (m); N – Speed in rpm.
In order to bring the effect of constant squish velocity of 4 m/s the 2.4. Solver
combination of bowl depth and clearance height for the required piston
squish area were altered simultaneously at the compression ratio of The nature of the in-cylinder fluid flow is compressible, transient
10:1 which was shown in Table 1. and turbulent fluid stream. In this study, high Reynolds number

3
K. Ravi et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11

3.1 25
0.4 million cells
Simulated Squish area=30%
3 0.8 million cells
1.2 million cells Experimental
20
2.9

Cylinder Pressure (bar)

2.8
Z-Swirl

15

2.7

10
2.6

2.5
5
2.4
210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370
Crank Angle 0
215 240 265 290 315 340 365
Fig. 3. Variation of swirl with crank angle.
Crank Angle (deg)
Fig. 4. Variation of in-cylinder pressure for 30% squish area piston.
k–epsilon model has been used. This model is well established and the
most widely validated turbulence model. The turbulence was initialized
at 5% of the mean flow at the beginning of computation. Pressure im- Table 2
plicit with splitting of operator (PISO) solution algorithm was chosen to Squish velocity magnitude of all piston configurations (10 bTDC).
carry out transient analysis. Multi-interfaces Advection and
Piston squish area (%) Squish velocity (m/s) Change in squish velocity (%)
Reconstruction Solver (MARS) discretization scheme was used for sol-
ving the turbulence and momentum along the computational domain. 25 7.522 0
Upwind scheme solver was used to solve the solution for temperature. 30 7.593 0.9
In order to avail accurate and precise order of solution, a time step of 35 7.584 0.8
40 7.564 0.6
0.1 was chosen for the entire compression stroke from 215.5°CAD to
360°CAD. The initial pressure and temperature of intake air were taken
as 1 bar and 310 K respectively. The turbulence intensity was taken as cylindrical bath tub type and the simulation is done for hemispherical
5%, mixing length scale as 1 mm, pressure inside the cylinder at the type configuration nevertheless the values and occurrence of peak
start of computation as 1 bar. Frictional effects at the walls were not squish velocity for all the variants are almost equal.
taken into account, i.e., the smooth wall option for turbulent flow
boundary condition was used. Temperatures of the cylinder wall, piston
crown and cylinder head were given a constant value of 310 K. 2.8. Experimentation

2.5. Grid independence test A single cylinder, air cooled, four stroke, Compression Ignition (CI)
engine was altered to operate as Spark Ignition (SI) engine at a com-
Grid independence study was carried out for the piston geometry pression ratio of 10:1 for developing 4.4 kW at a constant speed of
considered for simulation as shown in Fig. 3. 1500 rpm with a gas induction system for fuelling LPG. LPG can operate
Swirl variations along the piston movement axis (Z) were con- at a higher compression ratio than a petrol engine, therefore it is re-
sidered for deciding the optimum grid size. Among the grid size con- quired to modify CI engine to withstand high compression ratios and
taining 0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 million cells, the output swirl of 0.8 million knock than SI engine. The engine specification is as given in Table 3 and
cells and above converged well, hence it has been decided to proceed the schematic diagram of the experimental arrangement is shown in
with 1.2 million cells which could manage in terms of computation Fig. 5.
capacity. Airflow was measured with a roots type positive-displacement air
flow meter (Make: Roots type, Dresser, USA), with a surge tank on the
2.6. Validation of the model suction side to avoid fluctuations in the air flow. The LPG flow was
regulated by a metering valve and the gas flow was measured using a
The cylinder pressure provides an overall thought about the com- positive displacement gas flow meter (Make: Rotary piston type, FMG,
pression process happening inside the combustion chamber. Fig. 4 Netherland). The volume flow rate was converted to mass flow
shows the in-cylinder pressure curve obtained by simulation as well as
the pressure obtained from motoring curve of the experimental work at Table 3
30% squish area piston. It is found that the peak pressure of the si- Engine specifications.
mulation result was around 19.6 bar and that of the experimental work
Type Single cylinder, Air cooled, Four stroke, OHV, CI engine
was around 19.8 bar and a fair agreement in the trend was also ob- altered to run in the SI mode
served. This implies that the CFD simulation works well and agrees with Make Kirloskar, TAF1
the experimental. Fuel Diesel (CI Version), LPG (modified SI version)
Bore x Stroke 87.5 mm × 110 mm
Displacement volume 661.5 cubic centimeter
2.7. In-Cylinder velocity fields Compression ratio 17.5:1 (CI), 10:1 (SI)
Connecting rod length 234 mm
It was also observed from the CFD analysis that maximum squish Rated Power 4.4 kW @ 1500 rpm
velocity of 7.5 m/s occurs at 10°bTDC. Table 2 indicates the maximum Valve timing Inlet valve opening (IVO): 4.5°bTDC
Inlet valve closing (IVC): 35.5°aBDC
squish velocity obtained for different piston squish configurations.
Exhaust valve opening (EVO): 35.5°bBDC
Though variations were found between the theoretical and the nu- Exhaust valve closing (EVC): 4.5°aTDC
merical simulation, this could be justified as the formulae are for

4
K. Ravi et al.
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
providing due considerations for pressure and temperature. The
equivalence ratio was determined from the measured fuel flow rate and
air flow rate. The fuel was inducted into the intake manifold by using a
venturi type gas carburettor. Mixture flow was regulated by the throttle
valve. The engine was provided with an electronically controlled igni-
tion system. The spark plug was fitted at the centre of the combustion
chamber. A micro controller based spark timing system with provisions
to vary spark timing by 1°CA was developed in the research laboratory.
The reference signal to the spark system is taken from the optical crank
angle encoder (Make: 365C, AVL, Austria) to initiate the spark at the
definite crank angle. A flush mounted piezoelectric pressure sensor
(Make: 6613CA, Kistler, Switzerland) was fitted on the cylinder head to
measure the in-cylinder pressure. A piezo-resistive pressure transducer
(Make: 4045BA5F, Kistler, Switzerland) was used to measure intake
manifold pressure at each crank angle. An optical type angle encoder
(Make: 365C, AVL, Austria) was mounted on the cam shaft to record the
corresponding pressure values against crank angle degree and to vary
the spark timing based crank angle rather than on the time basis. A
computer based data acquisition system (Gantner Instruments,
Germany) was used to log the cylinder pressure and the manifold
pressure with respect to crank angle. The pressure signals from the
piezoelectric sensor are referenced using cylinder pressure at suction
BDC, which was assumed to be equal to the manifold pressure acquired
from the intake manifold piezo-resistive sensor. At each operating
condition, data for 100 cycles were acquired. A MATLAB code was
developed to process the data and to analyse the combustion para-
meters and its cyclic variations for each test condition. Cylinder pres-
sure against crank angle data was examined based on the first law of
thermodynamics to find the heat release pattern [45–46]. The heat
transfer coefficient was computed based on Hohenberg’s correlation
[47]. The exhaust gas was analysed using a Non Dispersive Infra-Red
(NDIR) type analyzer for measuring HC, CO, CO2 and electrochemical
type sensors for measuring the O2 and NOx (Make: MEXA 554JA,
Horiba, Japan). IMEP, COV of IMEP, average cylinder pressure, flame
development period and heat release rate are calculated from the
measured cylinder pressure data.
5
Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11
2.9. Experimental conditions
Experiments were conducted at different Brake Mean Effective
Pressure (BMEP) at a constant speed of 1500 rpm and 100% throttle
opening at a compression ratio of 10:1. The lowest BMEP was limited
by unstable operation of the engine. At each BMEP, MBT was set.
However, under knocking the spark timing was set for knock free op-
eration rather than MBT setting. Readings were taken after the engine
reaches stability of operation. Torque, speed, MBT timing, intake
manifold pressure, in-cylinder pressure, fuel flow rate, air flow rate,
exhaust and inlet gas temperature, exhaust emission levels of CO, HC and
NOx data’s were logged.
3. Results and discussion
Based on the CFD simulation study at 25%, 30%, 35% and 40%
squish area pistons at 10:1 compression ratio the following results were
discussed in detail.
3.1. In-Cylinder turbulent kinetic energy
The air flow pattern over the top of the bowl created much more
vortices than at the mid-section. A major part of the air flow could be
visualized at the middle of the combustion chamber. This stays to be a
beneficiary in providing turbulence as the compression stroke nears the
TDC position. Also, this helps in quiescent air motion at the vicinity of
spark plug thereby assisting strong flame formation to enhance the
combustion rate. This is due to the bowl shape chamber that influences
the fluid motion with high velocity. This in-cylinder distribution of
motion enhances turbulence generation.
The observation of Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE) plots of all the
four piston configurations at a crank angle position of 10 degrees before
power stroke is shown in Fig. 6. As discussed in the velocity vectors,
turbulence generated is also high at this crank angle position. Even
though it’s not higher than the motion provided by the intake valve or
port geometry, it is much capable of generating suitable turbulence for
K. Ravi et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11

Fig. 6. Turbulent kinetic energy plots of all piston configura-

tions.

Table 4
Turbulent kinetic energy of 25%, 30%, 35% and 40% piston squish configurations.

Piston squish area Turbulent kinetic energy Change in turbulent kinetic

(%) (m2/s2) energy (%)
KE (%)

25 1.308 0
30 2.112 61.5
35 1.746 33.5
40 1.728 32.1

proper mixing of the fuel and air. The turbulence generation at the
piston crown remains more or less similar in all the piston configura-
tions, however, the variations of TKE could be seen at the clearance
volume as the piston approaches TDC position. Also, it can be observed
that the TKE generation was highest for 30% squish area piston as
compared to the remaining piston configurations. Turbulent kinetic
energy of 30% squish area piston is 61.5% higher than 25% squish area
piston whereas for 35% and 40% squish area piston the increase in TKE
compared to 25% squish area piston was 33.5% and 32.1% respectively
(Table 4). This can also be attributed to the bowl geometry that initiates
vortex formation leading to unsteady fluid motion as the piston ap-
proaches the TDC. Moreover, the concentration of TKE was observed at
mid-way between the cylinder axis and the edge of the piston which
shows maximum turbulence generation at the edge of the combustion
chamber bowl. This ensures higher energy release due to the turbulent
motion inside thereby enhancing combustion.
3.2. In-Cylinder turbulence intensity
Turbulence intensity is the ratio of the root-mean-square of the
velocity fluctuations to the mean free stream velocity. In most turbulent
flows, higher levels of turbulence are generated within shear layers
than entry domain at flow boundaries. The fluid motion during the
entire compression stroke is much echoed in the turbulence intensity
plots and this plot is sufficient to compare the mean velocity fluctua-
tions. The turbulence intensity for 30% squish area piston is much
Fig. 7. Turbulence intensity of all piston configurations.
higher than the other configurations which signify turbulence genera-
tion (Fig. 7).
3.3. Turbulence length scale
It is easier to understand turbulence in terms of length scale instead
of viscosity ratio. The turbulence length scale is a physical quantity
which represents the size of the large eddies in turbulent flows. The
empirical relationship between the physical size of the obstruction and
the size of the eddy can be used to get an approximate length scale. The
velocity vector fields with large energy containing eddies present inside
the cylinder of 30% squish piston could be well understood by the
length scale plot (Fig. 8) that defines the eddy formation along the
piston motion during the compression stroke.
It can be seen that the size of largest eddies in the turbulent flow
correspond to major transport of momentum and energy rather than small
eddies which are evident from 40% piston configurations. The smallest
length scale conforms that kinetic energy dissipates to heat along the

6
K. Ravi et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11

Fig. 8. Turbulence length scale of piston configurations.

Fig. 10. Variation of brake thermal efficiency with BMEP.

Fig. 9. Variation of equivalence ratio with BMEP.

turbulent flow. Thus in the above turbulent flow, the energy dissipated by
Fig. 11. Variation of hydrocarbon emission with BMEP.
small scale eddies is more or less equivalent to the energy contained in
large eddies. This is well determined by the kinetic energy developed by
the motion inside which is higher in 30% piston configuration. squish area piston, it requires a much richer mixture with an equiva-
lence ratio of 0.95.
Fig. 10 shows variation of brake thermal efficiency with BMEP. The
3.4. Experimental results
brake thermal efficiency is the result of completeness of combustion
and conversion of heat energy into work. In case of 30% squish area
The performance, emission and combustion parameters of LPG
piston, both combustion and conversion throughout all BMEP range are
fuelled lean burn SI engine with compression ratio of 10:1 at constant
better resulting in higher brake thermal efficiency. The highest brake
engine speed of 1500 rpm at 100% throttle opening condition by
thermal efficiency for 30% squish area piston is 27.5% against that of
varying piston squish area of 25%, 30%, 35%, and 40% of total piston
25% squish area piston with 25.2% a variation of around 9%. The
cross section area were presented and discussed.
variation at higher loads is higher than that of lower loads. Moreover,
the occurrence of peak brake thermal efficiency of 30% squish area
3.4.1. Performance and emission parameters
shifted much towards lower BMEP and flatter for wider range of BMEP.
Fig. 9 depicts a variation of equivalence ratio with BMEP. The
This indicates that 30% squish area piston has an optimum turbulence
lowest BMEP corresponds to leanest mixture requirement for stable
and charge motion for improving combustion and conversion.
operation of the engine below that point COV of IMEP is more than 10%
The variation of hydrocarbon emission with the BMEP is presented
and the highest BMEP corresponds 10% higher BMEP than rated value
in Fig. 11. Due to incomplete combustion, flame quenching effects and
of the Engine. From the plot, it is evident that for a required BMEP, 30%
lower flame speeds HC emission level surges at lower BMEP as the air
squish area piston requires a much leaner mixture throughout entire
fuel mixture turn out to be lean. This can be credited to higher turbu-
BMEP range
lence which led to decrease in flame speed and flame quenching effect
This is because of higher brake thermal efficiency (Fig. 10) resulting
in lean conditions. A reduction in HC emission is observed as the BMEP
in better combustion because of optimum charge motion which was
increases because of higher combustion temperature and flame speed as
discussed in simulation results. The leanest mixture requirement for
the mixture becomes progressively rich. At higher BMEP as equivalence
stable operation for 30% squish area piston is 0.55 against 0.60 for 40%
ratio increases, there is no significant change in HC emission level for
squish area piston. Similarly, the maximum power requirement is
all the squish areas.
achieved at an equivalence ratio of 0.80 for 30% but in the case of 40%

7
K. Ravi et al.
Fig. 12. Variation of nitric oxide emission with BMEP.
Fig. 13. Variation of carbon monoxide emission with BMEP.
The higher flame propagation speed and heating value of LPG and
lack of charge cooling effect due to absence of vaporization of LPG
unlike gasoline lead to the formation of NOx. More over the conditions
are conducive for the formation of NOx (availability of excess oxygen
and high temperature). But at lower BMEP even though the mixture is
leaned further due to lower combustion temperature the NOx levels
reduce drastically, as seen in Fig. 12. At a BMEP of 4.58, NO level with
30% squish area is about 13.5 g/kWh and for 40% squish area at same
BMEP, it was 9.1 g/kWh, on account of lower combustion temperature.
At maximum BMEP the NO levels are almost equal for all piston con-
figurations because of higher combustion temperature resulting from
higher flame speeds at higher equivalence ratio.
The variation of CO with BMEP is shown in Fig. 13. The CO levels
are low as the experiments are conducted in the leaner than the stoi-
chiometric ratio. The CO emission for 30% squish area piston is the
least because higher turbulence enhances combustion. The variation
between 30% squish area piston and other configurations are higher at
lower BMEP than at higher BMEP because of lower combustion tem-
perature effect due to low flame speed and misfires at lower loads. The
CO emission at BMEP of 4.58 bar (Best brake thermal efficiency point)
for 30% is 1.4 g/kWh compared to 4.3 g/kWh for 40% squish area
piston.
The variation of exhaust gas temperature with equivalence ratio is
shown in Fig. 14. This gives an idea of the net energy converted to
useful work out of the total fuel energy. It is obvious from the plot that
the 30% squish area piston achieved better conversion of heat into
8
Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11
Fig. 14. Variation of exhaust gas temperature with BMEP.
Fig. 15. Variation of spark timing with BMEP.
useful work than the other pistons. In 35% and 40% squish area pistons,
the exhaust temperatures were higher which can be because of poor
conversion efficiency as well as post oxidation in exhaust manifold
leading to higher exhaust losses. In case of 25% squish area piston, the
exhaust gas temperature is less because of lower combustion tempera-
ture which is reflected in low in-cylinder pressure.
3.4.2. Combustion parameters
The variation of spark timing with BMEP for various squish areas is
presented in Fig. 15. The ignition advance is set for MBT. At lower
BMEP as the mixture turn out to be lean, the spark timing has to be
advanced to compensate lower flame speed and bigger flame develop-
ment period.
At all BMEP ranges, increase in squish areas advances the MBT
spark timing and for 30% squish area, it requires the least advance
which can be attributed to increase in TKE. There is a good 10°CA
difference between 30% and 40% squish area piston which signifies the
charge motion is conducive for combustion as indicated in brake
thermal efficiency.
The variation of Flame development period (FDP) with BMEP at wide
open throttle condition is shown in Fig. 16. Flame development period is
the time taken for combustion of 5% of the mass fraction of the fuel from
initiation of the spark. The flame development period with 30% squish
area is small at around 26°CA as against with 36° for 40% squish area
piston at a BMEP of 4.58 bar. This specifies that the combustion rate has
K. Ravi et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11

Fig. 18. Variation of average cylinder pressure at BMEP of 4.58 bar.

Fig. 16. Variation of flame development period with BMEP.

Fig. 19. Variation of peak pressure with BMEP.

Fig. 17. Variation of COV of IMEP with BMEP.

piston which has 10% higher in-cylinder pressure than 25% squish area
piston. This is due to quicker combustion, which also results in im-
been improved for 30% squish area. The FDP for 30% squish piston is the
proved thermal efficiency and power output. This is also reflected in
least throughout all ranges of BMEP. There is a distinct increase in FDP
heat release rate curves. At any particular BMEP, the peak cylinder
for other piston configurations, the difference is high at low BMEP and it
pressure of 30% squish area pistons is higher for 30% squish piston. But
is less towards higher BMEP. This endorses that the laminar flame speed
at maximum BMEP the peak pressure for all piston configurations
and the turbulence are most vital features persuading enhanced com-
converge because of faster flame speed due to higher equivalence ratio
bustion, but its influence at higher BMEP is less.
nearing to stoichiometry and almost identical MBT spark timing.
At all the squish areas the COV of IMEP increases sharply at lower
The heat release rate at a BMEP of 4.58 bar for all squish areas is
BMEP as the mixture becomes lean as shown in Fig. 17. The lowest
shown in Fig. 20. The heat release rate values are highest with 38.27 J/
BMEP achievable for 30% squish area piston is 2.43 bar where as for
°CA at 367° CA for 30% squish area piston is also better by 11% than
40% piston it is 2.59 bar below this the COV of IMEP crosses 10%
25% squish area piston with 34.2 J/°CA at 372° CA (Fig. 19). The oc-
signifying unstable combustion because of unusually slow burn, in-
currence of peak pressure as well as maximum heat release rate shifts
complete burn and even misfire. This corresponds to the point where
away from TDC for other pistons and also the values are less compared
there is a sharp increase in HC with an abrupt drop in both power and
to 30%.
brake thermal efficiency. At higher BMEP as the mixture is enriched,
The cumulative heat release rate which gives the total energy from
combustion turns out to be stable due to improved flame speed. This
combustion for 30% squish area piston is 1290.9 J which is also highest
leads to a reduction in Cycle by Cycle variations. Overall on the leaner
among the pistons (Fig. 21). In case of 30% squish area, the heat release
side, the turbulence affects the combustion and towards the richer side
pattern is sharper and closer to TDC. This is because of higher flame
30% piston with the optimum TKE has the least COV of IMEP.
speed resulting from improved turbulence. The requirement for ad-
The variation of average in-cylinder pressure of 100 cycles at best
vanced spark timing for MBT and the delayed completion of combus-
brake thermal efficiency point (BMEP at 4.58 bar) for all piston con-
tion resulted in higher combustion duration for other piston config-
figurations is shown in Fig. 18. The rate of in-cylinder pressure rise,
urations.
maximum in-cylinder pressure (Fig. 19) and occurrence of maximum
pressure rise (42.64 bar @ 372°CA) are favorable for 30% squish area

9
K. Ravi et al.
Fig. 20. Variation of heat release rate at BMEP of 4.58 bar.
Fig. 21. Variation of cumulative heat release at BMEP of 4.58 bar.
4. Conclusion
Based on CFD simulation study the following conclusions were
drawn:
• For a squish velocity of 7.5 m/s occurring at 10°CA bTDC, the tur-
bulence kinetic energy is 61.5% higher for 30% compared to 25%
squish area piston.
•
The turbulence intensity was 10% higher for 30% compared to 25%
squish area piston and the length scale was 13% higher for 30%
compared to 25% squish area piston.
•
Overall 30% squish area piston provides better charge motion and it
favours for short flame travel and enhanced combustion of the fuel.
Based on the experimental investigation the following conclusions
were drawn:
• The lean misfire limit for stable combustion occurs at an equivalence
ratio of 0.55 for 30% compared to 0.60 for 40% squish area piston.
• The highest brake thermal efficiency for 30% squish area piston is
27.5% and for 25% squish area piston the value is 25.2%. The
variation of brake thermal efficiency at higher BMEP is higher than
that of lower BMEP.
• At lower BMEP reduction in HC emission for 30% squish area piston
is 2.5 g/kWh and with 25% squish area piston the value is 4.9 g/
kWh.
10
Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11
• At a BMEP of 4.58 bar (at maximum brake thermal efficiency), the
NO level with 30% squish area is about 13.5 g/kWh and for 40%
squish area it is 9.1 g/kWh and there is a 18% reduction in CO
emission for 30% compared to 25% squish area piston.
On the whole, by considering all the parameters based on theore-
tical and experimental investigations, it can be inferred that 30% squish
area piston is better in terms of performance and emissions for LPG
fuelled lean burn SI engine.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Department of Science and
Technology, India New Delhi (DST-Grant No. SB/FTP/ETA-0128/2013)
and VIT University, Vellore for the financial support extended in car-
rying out this project.
References
[1] Henham A, Makkar MK. Combustion of simulated biogas in a dual-fuel diesel en-
gine. Energy Convers Manage 1998;39:2001–9.
[2] Abd-Alla GH. Using exhaust gas recirculation in internal combustion engines: a
review. Energy Convers Manage 2002;43:1027–42.
[3] Liguang Li, Zhensuo Wang, Huiping Wang. A study of LPG lean burn for a small
engine, SAE Paper No.; 2002-01-2844; 2002.
[4] Kumar BR, Saravanan S. Use of higher alcohol biofuels in diesel engines: a review.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2016;60:84–115.
[5] Erturk M. Economic analysis of unconventional liquid fuel sources. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev 2011;15:2766–71.
[6] Munasib A, Rickman DS. Regional economic impacts of the shale gas and tight oil
boom: a synthetic control analysis. Reg Sci Urban Econ 2015;50:1–7.
[7] Raslavičius L, Keršys A, Mockus S, Keršienė N, Starevičius M. Liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG) as a medium-term option in the transition to sustainable fuels and
transport. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;32:513–25.
[8] Ceviz MA, Yüksel F. Cyclic variations on LPG and gasoline-fuelled lean burn SI
engine. Renewable Energy 2006;31:1950–60.
[9] Badr O, Alsayed N, Manaf M. A parametric study on the lean misfiring and knocking
limits of gas-fueled spark ignition engines. Appl Therm Eng 1998;18:579–94.
[10] MacLean HL, Lave LB. Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2003;29:1–69.
[11] Masi M. Experimental analysis on a spark ignition petrol engine fuelled with LPG
(liquefied petroleum gas). Energy 2012;41:252–60.
[12] Erkuş B, Sürmen A, Karamangil MI. A comparative study of carburation and in-
jection fuel supply methods in an LPG-fuelled SI engine. Fuel 2013;107:511–7.
[13] Bayraktar H, Durgun O. Investigating the effects of LPG on spark ignition engine
combustion and performance. Energy Convers Manage 2005;46:2317–33.
[14] ] Li L, Wang Z, Deng B, Han Y, Wang H. Combustion and emissions characteristics
of a small spark-ignited LPG engine. SAE Paper No; 2002-01-1738; 2002.
[15] Rakopoulos CD, et al. Investigating the effect of crevice flow on internal combustion
engines using a new simple crevice model implemented in a CFD code. Appl Energy
2011;88:111–26.
[16] Falfari S, Brusiani F, Bianchi GM. Assessment of the influence of intake duct geo-
metrical parameters on the tumble motion generation in a small gasoline engine.
SAE Paper No; 2012-32-0095; 2012.
[17] Hyun G, Lee D, Goto S. KIVA simulation for mixture formation processes in an in-
cylinder injected LPG SI engine. SAE Paper No; 2000-01-2805; 2000.
[18] Iyer CO, Yi J. 3D CFD Upfront optimization of the in-cylinder flow of the 3.5 L V6
EcoBoost engine. SAE Paper No; 2009-01-1492; 2009.
[19] Gunasekaran EJ, Ganesan V. Simulation of fuel-air interaction in a four stroke four
valve direct injected spark ignition (DISI) engine. SAE Paper No; 2007-01-0153;
2007.
[20] Xu Z, Yi J, Curtis EW, Wooldridge S. Applications of CFD modeling in GDI engine
piston optimization. SAE Int. J. Engines, Paper No; 2009-01-1936, pp. 1749–63.
[21] Baratta Mirko, et al. Experimental and numerical approaches for the quantification
of tumble intensity in high-performance SI engines. Energy Convers Manage
2017;138:435–51.
[22] Kosmadakis GM, Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD. Methane/hydrogen fueling a
spark-ignition engine for studying NO, CO and HC emissions with a research CFD
code. Fuel 2016;185:903–15.
[23] Chen X, Zhan Z. The effect of intake port shape on gasoline engine combustion in
cylinder. Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 world automotive congress. Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. 921–930.
[24] Zhang Dehong, Frankel Steven H. A numerical study of natural gas combustion in a
lean burn engine. Fuel 1998;77:1339–47.
[25] Harshavardhan B, Mallikarjuna JM. Effect of piston shape on in-cylinder flows and
air–fuel interaction in a direct injection spark ignition engine – a CFD analysis.
Energy 2015;81:361–72.
[26] Raj ARGS, Mallikarjuna JM, Ganesan V. Energy efficient piston configuration for
effective air motion–a CFD study. Appl Energy 2013;102:347–54.
[27] Kondoh T, Fukumoto A, Ohsawa K, Ohkubo Y. An assessment of a multi-
K. Ravi et al. Fuel 213 (2018) 1–11

dimensional numerical method to predict the flow in internal combustion engines. engine using quasi-dimensional combustion model. SAE Paper No; 2007-01-0939,
SAE Paper No; 850500; 1985. 2007.
[28] Wohlgemuth S, Roesler S, Wachtmeister G. Piston design optimization for a two- [38] Mickelsen WR, Ernstein NE. Growth rates of turbulent free flames. IVth symp (int)
cylinder lean-burn natural gas engine-3D-CFD-simulation and test bed measure- on combustion. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1953. 325–33.
ments. SAE Paper No; 2014–01-1326; 2014. [39] Holmström K, Denbratt I. Cyclic variation in an SI engine due to the random motion
[29] Payri F, Benajes J, Margot X, Gil A. CFD modeling of the in-cylinder flow in direct- of flame kernel. SAE Paper No; 961152, 1996.
injection Diesel engines. Comput Fluids 2004;33:995–1021. [40] Stone CR, Brown AG, Beckwith P. Cycle-by-cycle variations in spark ignition engine
[30] Lee D, Shakal J, Goto S, Ishikawa H, Ueno H, Harayama N. Observation of flame combustion – Part II: modeling of flame kernel displacements as a cause of cycle-by-
propagation in an LPG lean burn SI engine. SAE Paper No. 1999-01-0570; 1999. cycle variations. SAE Paper No; 960613; 1996.
[31] Belaire RC, Davis GC, Kent JC, Tabaczynski RJ. Combustion chamber effects on [41] Oh S, Kim S, Bae C, Kim C, Kang K. Flame propagation characteristics in a heavy
burn rates in a high swirl spark ignition engine. SAE Paper No; 830335; 1983. duty LPG engine with liquid phase port injection. SAE Paper No; 2002-01-1736;
[32] Huang RF, Yang HS, Yeh CN. In-cylinder flows of a motored four-stroke engine with 2002.
flat-crown and slightly concave-crown pistons. Exp Therm Fluid Sci [42] Ueda T, Okumura T, Sugiura S, Kojima S. Effects of squish area shape on knocking
2008;32:1156–67. in a four-valve spark ignition engine. SAE Paper No; 1999-01-1494; 1999.
[33] Jijun L, Deyu W, Longbao Z. An Experimental Investigation on a New Squish Jet- [43] Davis GC, Borgnakke C. The effect of in-cylinder flow processes (swirl, squish and
Turbulence Combustion Chamber for SI Engine. SAE Paper No; 1999-01-3664; turbulence intensity) on engine efficiency—model predictions. SAE Paper No;
1999. 820045; 1982.
[34] Raju ASR, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B. Effect of intensified swirl and squish on the [44] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill,
performance of a lean burn engine operated on LPG. SAE Paper No; 2000-01-1951; Inc.; 1988.
2000. [45] Hayes TK, Savage LD, Sorenson SC, Cylinder pressure data acquisition and heat
[35] Porpatham E, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B. Effect of swirl on the performance and release analysis on a personal computer, SAE Paper No; 860029; 1986.
combustion of a biogas fuelled spark ignition engine. Energy Convers Manage [46] Gatowski J, Balles K, Heywood JB. Heat release analysis of engine pressure data,
2013;76:463–71. SAE Paper No; 841359; 1984.
[36] Mehrani P, Watson H. Modeling the effects of mixture composition on cyclic [47] Hohenberg GF. Advanced approaches for heat transfer calculations. SAE Paper No;
variability. SAE Paper No; 2007-01-0672, 2007. 790825; 1979.
[37] Abdi Aghdam E, Barluka A, Hattrell T, Liu K, et al. Study of cyclic variation in an SI

11

View publication stats