International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene

Comparisons of hydrogen and gasoline combustion knock

in a spark ignition engine
S. Szwaja a,b,∗ , K.R. Bhandary a , J.D. Naber a
a Michigan Technological University Houghton, 815 R.L. Smith building, MI 49931, USA
b Czestochowa University of Technology, ul. Dabrowskiego 69, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland

Received 22 April 2007; received in revised form 13 July 2007; accepted 14 July 2007
Available online 19 September 2007

Abstract
Combustion knock is one of the primary constraints limiting the performance of spark-ignition hydrogen fuelled internal combustion engines
(H2-ICE) as it limits the torque output and efficiency, particularly as the equivalence ratio nears stoichiometric operation. Understanding the
characteristic of combustion knock in a H2-ICE will provide better techniques for its detection, prevention and control while enabling operation
at conditions of improved efficiency.
Engine studies examining combustion knock characteristics were conducted with hydrogen and gasoline fuels in a port-injected, spark-
ignited, single cylinder cooperative fuel research (CFR) engine. Characterization of the signals at varying levels of combustion knock from
cylinder pressure and a block mounted piezoelectric accelerometer were conducted including frequency, signal intensity, and statistical attributes.
Further, through the comparisons with gasoline combustion knock, it was found that knock detection techniques used for gasoline engines,
can be applied to a H2-ICE with appropriate modifications. This work provides insight for further development in real time knock detection.
This would help in improving reliability of hydrogen engines while allowing the engine to be operated closer to combustion knock limits to
increase engine performance and reducing possibility of engine damage due to knock.
䉷 2007 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hydrogen fuelled engine; Combustion knock; Internal combustion engine

1. Introduction diesel, and ethanol. These advantages include potential of near

A number of factors are behind the impetus to investigate
alternative energy sources for transportation and stationary en-
ergy production. These include the growing concern of avail-
able worldwide resources of crude oil and fossil fuels, the
fast expanding consumption of crude oil by developing indus-
trial countries as well as the increase in demand within United
States, and the associated increase of atmospheric CO2 levels
and its effect on global warming. With both economical and en-
vironmental concerns, the search for alternate fuels has gained
widespread interest.
Hydrogen’s unique properties as a fuel in IC engines give
it a significant advantage over other fuels including gasoline,
∗ Corresponding author. Michigan Technological University Houghton, 815
R.L. Smith building, MI 49931, USA. Fax: +48 343250555.
E-mail address: sszwaja@mtu.edu (S. Szwaja).
0360-3199/$ - see front matter 䉷 2007 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.07.063
zero emissions of the regulated emissions of CO, NOx , and HC
while simultaneously eliminating CO2 emissions, and greatly
improved cold start capability. Hydrogen’s combustion proper-
ties enable the development of an engine that would meet all
current and future emissions standards at a price comparable
to current engines with less costly aftertreatment devices.
2. Overview
Hydrogen’s low ignition energy, high flame speed, and low
energy density per unit volume presents IC engines with a num-
ber of challenges including well controlled combustion timing,
rate of energy release, and power density. Meanwhile, hydro-
gen’s broad flammability range and high auto-ignition temper-
ature provide a great deal of flexibility to implement spark-
ignited combustion systems using high compression ratios (CR)
and a wide range of equivalence ratios for lean combustion and
 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087
Nomenclature
ABDC, BBDC after/before bottom dead center
AI accelerometer intensity
ATDC, BTDC after/before top dead center
CAD crank angle degrees
CFR cooperative fuel research engine
CO carbon monoxide
COD coefficient of determination
CoMD coefficient of multiple determination
CR compression ratio
CO2 carbon dioxide
EGR exhaust gas recirculation
EVC, IVC exhaust/intake valve closure
EVO, IVO exhaust/intake valve open
emission control [1–3]. It is reported [4,5] that hydrogen
as engine fuel has great potential for improving engine
thermal efficiency due to its rapid combustion, which ap-
proaches the ideal constant-volume heat release combustion
process.
There are several works under development utilizing hydro-
gen for vehicle technologies carried out by automotive manu-
facturers. For example, BMW Group has applied hydrogen to
their passenger vehicle V12 6 L engine with a power of 155 kW
and torque of 340 Nm. Hydrogen is stored in liquid state in
an insolated tank of volume 170 L, which allows driving range
of nearly 300 km [6]. The highly sophisticated engine control
system including variable valve timing makes it possible to
work the engine under heavy load without combustion knock
or pre-ignition. Furthermore, Ford Motor Company has also in-
troduced their H2RV technology concept car. The H2RV tech-
nology combines the hydrogen fuelled, supercharged IC en-
gine with a Ford patented modular hybrid transmission system
(MHTS). The system obtains 110 kW from the H2-ICE hydro-
gen engine and an additional 25 kW based on the MHTS elec-
tric drive. Driving range is 200 km and fuel economy is 72 km
per 1 kg of hydrogen [7–9].
2.1. Combustion knock
Combustion knock results from the spontaneous ignition of
a portion of the end gas mixture in the combustion chamber
ahead of the propagating flame. When this abnormal combus-
tion occurs, there is a rapid release of the chemical energy in the
remaining unburned mixture, causing high local pressures and
generating propagating pressure waves in amplitude of several
bars across the combustion chamber. These pressure waves are
transmitted through the engine structure and to the air result-
ing in the combustion ping heard by observers in close prox-
imity to the engine. The large amplitude pressure waves of the
hot combusted gases in the cylinder are the primary reason for
mechanical engine failure through increased thermal and me-
chanical stress.
5077
FFT fast fourier transform
HC hydrocarbons
H2-ICE hydrogen fuelled internal combustion engine
IC internal combustion
MAF mass air flow
MAP manifold air pressure
NOx nitric oxides
pdf probability density function
PI pressure intensity
PON pump octane number
PP peak pressure
SI spark ignited
UEGO universal exhaust gas oxygen (sensor)
The pressure waves that result from combustion knock oc-
cur at frequencies that are acoustic vibration modes [10] of the
chamber geometry. The amplitude of the oscillations associ-
ated with each resonant mode immediately after the occurrence
of knock depends on the initial boundary conditions. The fre-
quencies of the oscillations depend on the size and shape of the
chamber, location of the auto-ignition, the resonant mode and
the mean speed of sound. The vibration modes can be both cir-
cumferential and radial, and the frequencies are in the range of
6–25 kHz for automotive sized engines. The mode frequencies
can be predicted analytically for simple disk shaped combus-
tion chambers while numerical methods can be used for more
complex shapes [11]. Further, Scholl et al. [12] indicate the in-
fluence of combustion temperature, equivalence ratio, and lev-
els of exhaust gas recirculation leading to shifts in the resonat-
ing frequencies of combustion knock. Because of the non-linear
influence of these parameters and others on the initial com-
bustion rate, 0–10% mass fraction burned, and auto-ignition in
the unburned gas, both the modes amplitude and overall knock
intensity appear stochastic on a cycle-to-cycle basis when the
engine is operating at a steady state condition [13].
There are several research theses concerned with hydrogen
combustion in IC engines. Combustion knock free operation us-
ing stoichiometric mixtures at CR to 11:1 is reported by Berck-
muller [14]. Tang et al. [1] used lean mixtures at CR of 12.5:1
and 14.5:1 as did Smith et al. [15] without occurrence of knock.
However Karim et al. [16] in experimental and theoretical work
indicate wide knocking regions even at CRs as low as 6. It can
be concluded that the operational regions of combustion knock
depends on a number of engine operation parameters includ-
ing intake air temperature and intake pressure and will vary for
different engine design and configuration. The investigation on
hydrogen combustion under higher pressures up to 1 MPa was
conducted by Bradley et al. [17]. In [18] by Naber et al., there
were also presented results of hydrogen auto-ignition and com-
bustion under high pressure at diesel engine conditions.
Combustion knock characterization is most often accom-
plished in the laboratory by measurement of in-cylinder
5078 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087
Fig. 1. Diagram of the CFR engine test bed.
pressure [10–13,19,20,23]. In-cylinder pressure transducers are
specially designed to withstand the dynamic pressures, high
temperatures, and heat fluxes as a result of the combusting
gases in the cylinder. If implemented correctly they can have
frequency responses to 50 kHz and above. These transducers
however are too costly for series manufactured engines. For
these cases most often a piezoelectric accelerometer is mounted
on the engine [19]. One or two sensors are used depending
upon the engine type and cylinder count with each sensor
able to detect knock from multiple cylinders using digital sig-
nal processing [13]. In this method, indication of combustion
knock is determined by evaluating a frequency band of the
accelerometer signal during a specified period of the engine
cycle. For both the in-cylinder pressure and accelerometer sig-
nals, frequency analysis can be used to determine the modes.
Additional analysis details can be performed to determine sig-
nal amplitude, engine timing location of peak pressure, and
location of knocking region in the combustion chamber.
Statistical analysis requires characterization of many com-
bustion events and provides methods to typify the distribution
of the knock level with changes operation parameters to in-
clude ignition timing, equivalence ratio and compression ratio.
Statistical analysis can also be used to develop correlations be-
tween the measurements from in-cylinder pressure transducers
and accelerometers.
3. Experimental setup
The engine used for this research is a single cylinder
CFR (cooperative fuels research) engine manufactured by the
Waukesha Motor Company. The engine was chosen for its
versatility and robustness of construction which is important
because of the intended study of combustion knock. A special-
ized attribute of this engine is the ability to vary the compres-
sion ratio without disassembling the engine. Characteristics
of the test bed and engine are shown in Fig. 1 and listed in
 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087
Table 1
CFR engine characteristics
Compression ratio 4.5–17.5
Bore (cm) 8.26
Stroke (cm) 11.43
Connecting rod length (cm) 25.4
Displacement (cm3 ) 611
IVO 10◦ ATDC
IVC 34◦ ABDC
EVO 40◦ BBDC
EVC 15◦ ATDC
Table 1, respectively. Numerous modifications to the engine
were made to meet the requirements in these studies. This
included changing the compression ratio of the engine by mod-
ifying the piston. The modified piston increased the range of
compression ratio, that could be studied from 4–10 to 4.5–17.5.
A new intake manifold was designed and fabricated to ac-
commodate separate hydrogen and gasoline port fuel injectors,
electronic throttle, thermocouples, and other sensors. The in-
take manifold consists of four sections—the intake runner, flex-
ible tube between the intake runner and plenum, the plenum
and tube connecting to the mass air flow (MAF) sensor, and
air filter. All parts were made of 316 SS steel. The plenum has
25 times the displaced volume and is installed to damp pres-
sure oscillation in the intake. The plenum also houses a band
heater for heating the intake air, a universal exhaust gas oxygen
(UEGO) sensor for determining EGR percentage and a pres-
sure relief valve to prevent large pressure build up in the event
of pre-ignition or backfire.
Engine control and monitoring was performed using a target-
based rapid-prototyping system [21] with the electronic sensors
and actuators installed on the engine. Sensors monitored flow
rate, pressure, and temperature of the working fluid at various
regions of the engine along with engine position determined
from a sensor on the crankshaft. Sensors included MAF, mani-
fold pressure (MAP), UEGO, and crank position sensor. Elec-
tronic actuators included a digital ignition coil, throttle, EGR
valve, and port fuel injectors for both liquid (gasoline) and
gaseous (hydrogen) fuels.
Data from the in-cylinder pressure and engine mounted
piezoelectric accelerometer along with an engine position
sensor were acquired with a National Instruments BN-2111
analog to digital converter. Data for 300 engine cycles at
100 kSamples/second-channel.
4. Results and discussion
The tests were conducted under combustion parameters as
follows:
• fuels applied: industrial compressed hydrogen and gasoline
with a 87 pump octane number (PON),
• equivalence ratio () of 1 for the in-cylinder mixture,
• energy in the single fuel dose delivered to the cylinder Efuel =
750 J,
5079
• spark timing was varying from 5◦ before top-dead-center
(BTDC) to 12◦ after top-dead-center (ATDC),
• compression ratio of CR = 12 : 1.
• engine speed 900 rpm.
4.1. Hydrogen and gasoline combustion knock
Fig. 2 shows a single cycle of the in-cylinder pressure trace
for combustion knock events for a test under hydrogen com-
bustion (a) and gasoline (b). The top traces show the absolute
pressure and the bottom traces show the cylinder pressure with
a high-pass filter of 4 kHz applied. Comparing hydrogen and
gasoline knock for these two individual events, they are seen to
be of similar peak amplitudes (Figs. 2c and d); in addition the
duration and decay of both oscillations are also similar. Spark
timing for these both traces was at TDC (0◦ ATDC).
4.2. Quantifying metrics for combustion knock intensity
To quantify the intensity of combustion knock for different
tests, knock metrics were used. Three different knock metrics
(PI, AI, and PP) are defined here and are used throughout the
discussions [13]. The pressure and accelerometer intensities (PI,
AI) are the integrated values of the rectified band pass filtered
signals within a specified portion (2 − 1 ) of the engine cycle
and are determined as follows
 N
1 t2 =t (2 ) 1 
PI(N ) = |pf (t)| dt = |pf (i)|, (1)
t2 − t 1 t1 =t (1 ) N
i=1
 N
1 t2 =t (2 ) 1 
AI(N ) = |af (t)| dt = |af (i)|, (2)
t2 − t 1 t1 =t (1 ) N
i=1
where pf and af are the band pass filtered (4–15 kHz) pressure
and accelerometer signals, respectively. PI and AI are computed
for every combustion cycle N. These knock intensity metrics
are effectively the average rectified amplitude of the filtered sig-
nals during the crank period 1 –2 . For consistency, the length
of the window was fixed to 35◦ . The three knock metrics PI,
AI and PP (PP is peak pressure of the fluctuation component
of the in-cylinder pressure) for a test are grouped together rep-
resenting each combustion event. In the following discussions,
the cylinder pressure knock intensity PI is used as the reference
metric to which the others are compared.
For a quantitative comparison between the knock indicators,
the data pairs (PI, AI) and (PI, PP) are fit using a linear equa-
tion through a least squares analysis, and the coefficient of de-
termination (COD) is computed. A COD (R 2 ) of 1 indicates an
exact correlation and a value of 0 indicates no correlation. The
top two plots in Figs. 3a and b show the correlation between
the PI and PP for hydrogen and gasoline tests. Each point in
these figures represents a combustion event and data pair (PI,
PP). The COD value for hydrogen is 0.93 and for gasoline is
0.98. These values of COD demonstrate that PP is highly cor-
related to PI. This has also been observed for a larger study in
gasoline fuelled multi-cylinder engines [13].
5080 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087

5000 5000

4000 4000

Pressure (kPa)
Pressure (kPa)

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
CA (deg ATDC) CA (deg ATDC)

300 300

200 200

100 100
Pressure (kPa)

Pressure (kPa)

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
CA (deg ATDC) CA (deg ATDC)

Fig. 2. Absolute (top) and high-passed filtered with 4 kHz cut-off frequency (bottom) cylinder pressure traces of combustion knock for hydrogen and gasoline
combustion. (a and c) Hydrogen, (b and d) Gasoline.

The lower two plots in Figs. 3c and d show the correlation
between AI and PI for hydrogen and gasoline, respectively.
From Ref. [13], a COD greater than 0.6 is used to designate
that the correlation between AI and PI is sufficiently robust
to accurately enable closed loop control of combustion knock
using only accelerometers. In this case the COD between AI
and PI for both hydrogen and gasoline combustion are slightly
above the 0.6 criteria at 0.62 and 0.64, respectively.
Although the (AI, PI) correlation for individual combustion
events is at the satisfied level, the mean values of both the (AI,
PI) and (PP, PI) pairs are significantly better correlated as the
knock level changes. In Fig. 4 the mean values, computed from
300 consecutive combustion events, of the data pairs (AI, PI)
and (PP, PI) for hydrogen combustion with changes in the en-
gine operating condition including the ignition angle are shown.
As this Fig. 4 shows, the mean values of the combustion knock
metrics are linearly correlated for PI in the range from 0 to
50 kPa. The CODs in this range for the PP and AI are 0.992 and
0.959, respectively. This indicates that with the appropriate sig-
nal conditioning to remove signal noise in the AI metric, it can
be used as a control signal for combustion knock for hydrogen
combustion.
4.3. Comparison of hydrogen and gasoline combustion knock
based upon frequency analysis
The frequency components of the pressure waves resulting
from combustion knock are important to understand to en-
able accurate characterization and to quantify the combustion
knock level. The frequencies were determined by first applying
a 4 kHz high pass filter to remove the DC and low frequency
 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087 5081

500 500
COD = 0.93 COD = 0.98
400 400

300 300
PP (kPa)

PP (kPa)
200 200

100 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
PI (kPa) PI (kPa)

8000 8000
COD = 0.62
COD = 0.64
6000 6000
AI (m/s2)

AI (m/s2)

4000 4000

2000 2000

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
PI (kPa) PI (kPa)

Fig. 3. Correlation between data pairs (PP, PI) (top) and (AI, PI) (bottom) based on individual combustion event basis, 300 engine cycles with fixed ignition
timing (0bTDC—hydrogen, 2bTDC—gasoline). (a and c) Hydrogen and (b and d) Gasoline.

8000 1000 A cosine tapered window with a 0.5 ratio of taper to constant
AI AI vs PI: COD = 0.959
AI - Accelerometer Intensity (m/s2)

section was used. The taper at the start and end of the window
PP
ensures that the end points have zero amplitude and derivative,
PP - Peak Pressure (kPa)

Linear (PP) 800

6000 Linear (AI) ensuring minimum leakage in the FFT [22]. The window for
FFT transform was centered on the combustion knock event
600
PP vs PI: COD = 0.992
by the location of PP. The FFT transform window starts 4.2 ms
4000 before PP and ends 5 ms after this (corresponding to 23 and 27
400 CAD at 900 rpm, respectively).
The pressure and accelerometer FFT amplitudes for hydro-
2000
200 gen knock are shown in Figs. 5a and c, respectively. Varia-
tion in the amplitudes of combustion knock exists for each
0 0 combustion test; to classify these events, each is grouped into
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 three ranges of percentile levels of knock: 0–5%, 5–95%, and
PI - Pressure Intensity (kPa) 95–100% based on the knock intensity (PI). Then the FFT’s
for that classification are averaged and plotted. Hence, 0–5%
Fig. 4. Correlation between mean AI and mean PI for hydrogen combustion represents the average value of 5% of 300 combustion events
at spark timing varying at the range from 4◦ BTDC to 12◦ ATDC. of a test with the lowest knock intensity (PI) and 95–100% is
the average value of the combustion events representing the top
components which are the result of the cyclic compression and 5% of the PI for the test.
normal combustion, then windowing and computing the fast In Fig. 5a the peak amplitude of the FFT for the pressure
Fourier transform (FFT) for each combustion event in a test. signal is seen to occur at 6.4 kHz corresponding to the (1, 0)
5082 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087

35 35
mean mean
30 0-5% 30 0-5%
5-95% 5-95%
95-100% 95-100%
25 25
FFT amplitude (kPa)

FFT amplitude (kPa)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency (kHz) Frequency (kHz)

5 5
mean mean
0-5% 0-5%
4 5-95% 4 5-95%
95-100% 95-100%
FFT amplitude

FFT amplitude

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency (kHz) Frequency (kHz)

Fig. 5. FFTs of in-cylinder pressure and accelerometer signals computed from 300 combustion events for hydrogen and gasoline. (a) FFT Pressure (hydrogen);
(b) FFT Pressure (gasoline); (c) FFT accelerometer (hydrogen); (d) FFT accelerometer (gasoline).

first circumferential mode. Smaller peaks are seen at 10 kHz Table 2

corresponding to (2, 0) mode and 12.6–13.2 kHz corresponding Combustion mode frequencies observed for hydrogen and gasoline combustion
knock
to first radial mode (0, 1). The FFT amplitude increases with
knock intensity (increase in knock percentile), however, the In cylinder pressure Accelerometer
location of the peaks remain at the same frequencies. Moder (1,0) (kHz) Mode (2,0) (kHz) Mode (1,0) (kHz)
Figs. 5b and d show the FFT’s for the gasoline test. The in-
cylinder pressure transducer picks up the first (1, 0) and second Hydrogen 6.4 10 5.7
Gasoline 5.7 9.2 5.7
circumferential vibration mode (2, 0) with peaks at 5.7 and
9.2 kHz. The accelerometer signal picks up 4 distinct modes
corresponding (1, 0), (2, 0), (0, 1), and (2, 1) with peaks at frequency can be attributed to differences in combustion tem-
5.7, 9.2, 11.4, and 18.5 kHz, respectively. Table 2 lists the most peratures and gas compositions, which influences the speed of
significant modes of observed in the amplitude spectrum for sound (c). Differences between the FFT peaks mainly comes
both the in-cylinder pressure and engine vibration. from different mean gas temperature and different crank posi-
As can be seen in the FFT’s and Table 2, the frequency of the tion for maximum knock peak pressure during combustion of
peaks in the FFT for hydrogen and gasoline differ. This shift in these fuels.
 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087
Fig. 6. Return maps for PI for hydrogen and gasoline combustion during light (top) and heavy (bottom) combustion knock. (a and c) Hydrogen, (b and d)
Gasoline.
4.4. Statistic analysis and characterization for hydrogen and
gasoline combustion
In this section, the distributions of knock intensity metrics
over 300 combustion events occurring within a steady state test
is examined.
4.4.1. Return maps of knock metrics
A return map is a function examined as f [x(i +1)]=f [x(i)]
and is useful for graphical representation of several stochas-
tic and pseudo-stochastic based quantities. It provides infor-
mation about the character of their distribution. A circularly
shaped map suggests that Gaussian rules for distribution may
be applied; however, non-circular symmetry leads to conclu-
sion about skewness of the data set. In Fig. 6 the PI return maps
for both hydrogen and gasoline combustion are presented. For
heavy knock both of the PI distributions can be estimated by
using Gaussian rules (Fig. 6b). However, combustion knock oc-
curring at the lower levels cannot be considered as pure Gaus-
sian due to an apparent relatively high skewness. It is reported
for hydrogen combustion as well as for gasoline combustion
(Fig. 6). The same can observed for distributions of the engine
body vibration metrics AI, which are presented in the Fig. 7.
Combustion knock for these events was generated under spark
timings as follows: 2◦ before TDC for gasoline and 4◦ before
TDC for hydrogen combustion.
5083
The log-normal distribution model used by Naber et al. [13],
to fit the distribution characteristics of gasoline knock, is used
to fit hydrogen and gasoline combustion knock distributions
here. Fig. 8 shows the probability density functions (pdf) of PI
for the both hydrogen (Figs. 8a and b) and gasoline (Figs. 8c
and d) tests under light and heavy knock. The data is shown as
bars and the log-normal and normal distribution fits are shown
by the solid and dashed line, respectively. In these plots the
x-axis represents the value of the knock metric, PI in kPa and
the y-axis is the probability that a combustion event will pro-
duce a knock metric in the interval in the x-axis. Comparing
the data distribution with the log-normal model, it is seen that
the peak, standard deviation and skewness is well character-
ized for light knock. The quality of the fit can be determined
using coefficient of multiple determination (CoMD) which is
computed similar to COD (R 2 ) used for the linear model [13].
Both have the same interpretation, which is the proportion of
variance in the data that is accounted for by the model (linear,
log-normal, or normal). For both the cases 1 indicates that the
model fits the data perfectly and a decrease in CoMD indicates
that the quality of the model fit is poorer. It is seen that the
data for light combustion knock are not normally distributed
and the distributions have a longer tail (or positive skew). High
correlation for knock metrics distribution, 0.96 and 0.95 for PI
for combustion of hydrogen and gasoline, respectively, shows
that the log-normal distribution model provides a good fit to
5084 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087

Fig. 7. Return maps for AI for hydrogen and gasoline combustion during light (top) and heavy (bottom) combustion knock. (a and c) Hydrogen, (b and d)
Gasoline.

light combustion knock under these test conditions. On the con-
trary, the normal distribution model is more applicable under
heavy combustion knock indicated by the CoMD’s listed in the
Table 3.
In Fig. 9 the mean PI against spark timing is presented both
for hydrogen and gasoline combustion.
In Fig. 10 the skewness of the PI distribution
 combustion knock, a stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio and a com-
(PIi − mean(PI))3
Skewness =  i , (3)
[ i (PIi − mean(PI))2 ]3/2
is calculated from the set of tests where the ignition timing was
adjusted to change the combustion knock level as in Fig. 9.
The skewness is then plotted versus the mean pressure intensity
PI. For gasoline, the skewness decreases as the mean PI knock
intensity increases, as it was shown in the Fig. 10. Thus, we
obtain more symmetric diagram of its statistical distribution.
Such a rule cannot be directly applied for skewness of the
hydrogen PI distribution (Fig. 10). For instance, the R 2 value
for linear regression curve for hydrogen data equals nearly 0.51
and is below a satisfactory level. However, negative correlation
between pressure intensity PI and the skewness can be noticed
for hydrogen combustion.
5. Discussion and summary
Combustion knock is the result of chemical kinetic and com-
bustion processes in SI IC engines and is influenced by pa-
rameters including the engine compression ratio, the type of
fuel, ignition timing, and the fuel–air–dilution mixture. Here,
analysis of hydrogen combustion under knocking conditions is
presented and compared to gasoline. In order to obtain heavy
pression ratio of 12:1 were used. The level of combustion knock
was adjusted by changing the ignition timing as controlled by
the spark. It is worth noting that circumstances for gasoline
and hydrogen combustion knock differ from each other. These
differences include:
• Hydrogen stoichiometric combustion has a significantly
higher flame speed as compared to gasoline.
• Hydrogen has greater flammability limits with respect to both
stoichiometry and dilution.
• Hydrogen has lower ignition energy.
• Hydrogen has a higher autoignition temperature.
• Probable differences in the level of homogeneity of the
combustible mixtures—hydrogen has high diffusivity and
is injected as a gas so it leads to a greater homogeneity
 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087 5085

x 10-4 x 10-4

Hydrogen
Light Knock Gasoline
Light Knock

2 2
Experimental Experimental
pdf

pdf
LogNormal LogNormal
Normal Normal
1 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
PI (kPa) PI (kPa)

x 10-5 x 10-5
3 3

Hydrogen
Heavy Knock Gasoline
Heavy Knock

2 2
Experimental Experimental
pdf
pdf

LogNormal LogNormal
Normal Normal
1 1

0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
PI (kPa) PI (kPa)

Fig. 8. PDFs and log-normal fits to the distributions of PI for hydrogen and gasoline under light (top) and heavy (bottom) combustion knock. (a and c)
Hydrogen, (b and d) Gasoline.

Table 3
CoMD for log normal distribution and normal distribution models of com- 100
bustion knock for gasoline and hydrogen
CR =12
PI - Pressure Intensity (kPa)

CoMD 80
PI - Hydrogen
Log-normal distribution Normal distribution
PI - Gasoline 87ON
60
Hydrogen
Light knock 0.96 0.82
Heavy knock 0.86 0.96 40
Gasoline
Light knock 0.95 0.80
20
Heavy knock 0.85 0.89

0
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
of the hydrogen–air mixture compared to a liquid injected
Spark Timing (dATDC)
gasoline–air mixture.
• As a result of these, hydrogen stoichiometric combustion in Fig. 9. Mean PI for hydrogen and gasoline combustion knock dependence
IC engines has significantly reduced combustion duration on ignition (spark) timing.
5086 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087
2.5
For gasoline: R2 = 0.9082 Gasoline
2.0 Hydrogen
For hydrogen: R2 = 0.5078
Linear (Gasoline)
Linear (Hydrogen)
1.5
Skewness
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pressure Intensity mean PI (kPa)
-0.5
Fig. 10. Absolute skewness of probability distribution of the pressure intensity
P1 (300 cycles) against the mean pressure intensity PI for hydrogen and
gasoline combustion knock.
and reduced combustion variation resulting in less time at
high temperatures for the end gas where the autoignition for
combustion knock occurs.
• The temperature of the in-cylinder gasoline–air charge is
lower than that for hydrogen–air because of the cooling re-
sulting from the gasoline fuel vaporization.
In this work, the cumulative effects of these on combustion
knock for hydrogen are compared to gasoline by determi-
nation of the frequency, level, and statistical characteristics
of the resulting pressure waves that occur in the combustion
cylinder as a result of the rapid release of energy resulting
from the autoignition in the end gas of the unburned fuel–air
mixture. The methods applied here use time-based sampling
of the in-cylinder pressure and an engine mounted piezoelec-
tric accelerometer as input for signal processing. From these
measurements quantitative knock metrics on an individual
combustion cycle basis are determined. Frequency character-
istics of the pressure waves are determined from analysis of
FFTs of multiple combustion events classified by the knock
level. Additionally for the statistical characteristics of the
knock level distribution, analysis tools were applied to tests
with these two fuels under varying levels of knock.
6. Conclusions
Based upon the analysis and observations in this work several
conclusions are made.
• Metrics which have been found useful in the analysis and
determination of gasoline combustion knock have been found
applicable to characterizing and expressing the knock level
for hydrogen combustion-knock.
• Only small differences in hydrogen and gasoline knock
were observed based on the FFT frequency analysis. This
included a shift to slightly higher frequencies of the hydro-
gen modes as compared to the gasoline combustion knock
modes.
• A sufficient linear correlation between the reference PI in-
tensity metric and AI was observed for hydrogen. This is
important if accelerometer-based knock detection methods
commonly used in gasoline production engines are to be im-
plemented for hydrogen engines.
• The knock intensity metric distributions for both fuels show
good fit to the log-normal model for light to moderate knock.
Hence, based on statistical analysis, it is reasonable to say
that hydrogen knock can be treated similar to gasoline knock
for practical engine applications. As a result, gasoline knock
detection and potential engine control techniques can be ex-
tended for use with hydrogen without significant changes.
• The combustion knock level probability distributions for both
hydrogen and gasoline changed as the knock level increased.
The skewness of the distribution reduced as the overall knock
level increased.
• At very high levels of combustion knock for both hydro-
gen and gasoline, the probability distributions developed into
nearly Gaussian distribution.
• Changes required from gasoline combustion knock detection
and control would results primarily from hydrogen’s sensitiv-
ity to engine operating conditions including the engines com-
pression ratio, stoichiometry, dilution levels, ignition timing
and the differences in operating conditions for a hydrogen
engine to obtain optimal performance.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the support of Michigan Tech-
nological University’s Mechanical Engineering–Engineering
Mechanics Department and the Research Office for support of
this work.
References
[1] Tang X, Kabat DM, Natkin RJ, Stockhausen WF, Heffel JW. Ford P2000
hydrogen engine dynamometer development. SAE 2002-01-0242, 2002.
[2] Tang X, Natkin RJ. Hydrogen IC engine boosting performance and NOx
study. SAE 2003-01-0631, 2003.
[3] Jing-Ding L, Ying-Qing L, Tian-Shen D. Improvement on the combustion
of a hydrogen fueled engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1986;11(10):661–8.
[4] White CM, Steeper RR, Lutz AE. The hydrogen-fueled internal com-
bustion engine: a technical review. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2006;
31(10): 1292–305.
[5] Sierens R, Verhelst S. Experimental study of a hydrogen fuelled engine.
J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2001;123(1):211–16.
[6] Gebler B. From research into series production. In: 2002 clean energy
seminar, Sacramento; 2002.
[7] Jaura A, Ortmann W, Stuntz R, Natkin B, Grabowski T. FordS HU2rv: an
industry first hev propelled with a HD2-fueled engine—a fuel efficient
and clean solution for sustainable mobility. SAE 2004-01-0058, 2004.
[8] Natkin RJ, Tang X, Whipple KM, Kabat DM, Stockhausen WF. Ford
hydrogen engine laboratory testing facility. SAE 2002-01-0241, 2002.
[9] Stockhausen WF, Natkin RJ, Kabat DM, Reams L, Tang X, Hashemi S.
Ford P2000 hydrogen engine design and vehicle development program.
SAE 2002-01-0240, 2002.
[10] Brunt M, Pond C, Biundo J. Gasoline engine knock analysis using
cylinder pressure data. SAE 980896, 1998.
[11] Worret R, Bernhardt S, Schwarz F, Spicher U. Application of different
cylinder-pressure-based knock detection methods in spark ignition
engines. SAE 2002-01-1668, 2002.
 S. Szwaja et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 5076 – 5087
[12] Scholl DJ, Stockhausen WF, Russ SG. Detection of spark knock
oscillations: dependence on combustion temperature. SAE 970038, 1997.
[13] Naber JD, Blough JR, Frankowski D, Goble M, Szpytman JE. Analysis
of combustion knock metrics in spark-ignition engines. SAE 2006-01-
0400, 2006.
[14] Berckmüller M. Potentials of a charged SI-hydrogen engine. SAE 2003-
01-3210, 2003.
[15] Smith JR, Aceves S, Blarigan PV. Series hybrid vehicles and optimized
hydrogen engine design. SAE 951955, 1995.
[16] Li H, Karim GA. Hydrogen fueled spark-ignition engines predictive and
experimental performance. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2004;29(8):859–65.
[17] Bradley D, Lawes M, Kexin L, Verhelst S, Wooley R. Laminar burning
velocities of lean hydrogen–air mixtures at pressures up to 1.0 MPa.
Combust Flame 2007;149(1,2):162–72.
5087
[18] Naber JD, Siebers LD. Hydrogen combustion under diesel engine
conditions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998;23(5):363–71.
[19] Scholl DJ. Spectrogram analysis of accelerometer-based spark knock
detection waveforms. SAE 972020, 1997.
[20] Xiaofeng G, Stone R, Hudson C, Bradbury I. The detection and
quantification of knock in spark ignition engines. SAE 932759, 1993.
[21] Naber JD, Szpytman JE, Bradley E. Target based rapid prototyping
control system for engine research. SAE 2006-01-0860, 2006.
[22] Naber JD, Polonowski CJ, Mathur VK, Blough JR. Accelerometer based
sensing of combustion in a high speed HPCR diesel engine. SAE 2007-
01-0972, 2007.
[23] Brunt M, Pond C, Biundo J. Gasoline engine knock analysis using
cylinder pressure data. SAE 980896, 1998.