Accepted Manuscript

Comparisons of the Volumetric Efficiency and Combustion Characteristics be-

tween CNG-DI and CNG-PFI engines

Jingeun Song, Minhu Choi, Sungwook Park

PII: S1359-4311(17)30072-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.110
Reference: ATE 10259

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 5 January 2017

Revised Date: 15 March 2017
Accepted Date: 24 April 2017

Please cite this article as: J. Song, M. Choi, S. Park, Comparisons of the Volumetric Efficiency and Combustion
Characteristics between CNG-DI and CNG-PFI engines, Applied Thermal Engineering (2017), doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.110

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Comparisons of the Volumetric Efficiency and Combustion

Characteristics between CNG-DI and CNG-PFI engines

Jingeun Songa, Minhu Choia, Sungwook Parkb, *

a
Department of Mechanical Convergence Engineering, Hanyang University Graduate School, 17

Haengdang-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

b
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong, Seongdong-gu,

Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

*Corresponding Author

Sungwook Park

Associate Professor

School of Mechanical Engineering

Hanyang University

17 Haengdang-dong, Seongdong-gu,

Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

Tel: +82-2-2220-0430

Fax: +82-2-2220-4588

Email: parks@hanyang.ac.kr

1
ABSTRACT

In the present study, the volumetric efficiency and combustion characteristics of compressed

natural gas (CNG) direct injection (DI) and port fuel injection (PFI) were compared. In a single-

cylinder engine, various fuel injection timings were tested for each fuel injection position, and

the volumetric efficiency of each test condition was calculated from the intake flow rate. The

one-dimensional simulation program AMESim was also used to further investigate the intake

process. Experimental and numerical results showed that the volumetric efficiency was not

influenced by the position of the injector. For the early fuel injection, before the intake valve

close (IVC), the volumetric efficiencies of the DI and PFI were similar to each other; the

averaged volumetric efficiencies were both about 38.62% and the standard deviations of

volumetric efficiency were less than 0.2%. However, as the fuel injection timing was retarded

after the IVC, the volumetric efficiency of DI increased while the volumetric efficiency of PFI

was kept constant or slightly decreased. The increase in the volumetric efficiency was due to the

fact that the fuel volume did not occupy the cylinder volume during the intake stroke.

Combustion was stable for all the test conditions. The coefficient of variation of the indicated

mean effective pressure (COVIMEP) was lower than 1.5%. The highest fuel conversion efficiency

was observed for late fuel direct injection, after the IVC, due to the fastest combustion. Thus, by

applying the late fuel injection timing after IVC, the CNG-DI could have a higher volumetric

efficiency and fuel conversion efficiency than the CNG-PFI.

KEYWORDS : Direct injection, Port fuel injection, Volumetric efficiency, Fuel conversion

efficiency, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), AMESim

2
Nomenclature

ABDC after bottom dead center

ATDC after top dead center

BTDC before top dead center

CNG compressed natural gas

COVIMEP coefficient of variation of the indicated mean effective pressure

DI direct injection

EVC exhaust valve close

GDI gasoline direct injection

HRR heat release rate

IMEP indicated mean effective pressure

IVC intake valve close

IVO intake valve open

MBT minimum advance for best torque

PFI port fuel injection

RON research octane number

SI spark ignition

SOI start of injection

3
1 Introduction

Fuel direct injection (DI) and port fuel injection (PFI) systems have been widely used in spark

ignition (SI) engines. PFI systems generally apply low fuel injection pressure but early fuel

injection timing, before the intake stroke, for better air–fuel mixture quality [1]. PFI engines

show low soot emission [2] because they ensure a longer time for air–fuel mixing. Alternatively,

DI systems apply high fuel injection pressure for better atomization and improved air–fuel

mixture quality [3, 4]. The injected fuel evaporates by absorbing energy from the intake air, and

the cooled down charge increases the volumetric efficiency. The higher volumetric efficiency

induces the higher engine power, because the more air in the cylinder allows the more fuel

injection [5]. In addition, the precise and rapid fuel injection control of DI system allows the fuel

cutoff during deceleration [6-8]. The fuel cutoff improves the fuel economy by reducing

unnecessary fuel use. Thus, the gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines are preferred due to their

high efficiency and power [6, 9].

Compressed natural gas (CNG), as well as gasoline, can also be applied to SI engines. CNG is

one of the cleanest alternative fuels [10-13] and has a high research octane number (RON),

which allows high compression ratios without the risk of knocking [14]. However, despite the

advantages of CNG, this gaseous fuel has a low volumetric efficiency because the fuel occupies

a large fraction of the cylinder volume [15, 16]. Since the lower volumetric efficiency induces

the lower engine power, it is required to increase the volumetric efficiency. Therefore, as in the

case of gasoline, many researchers have attempted to increase the volumetric efficiency by

applying DI systems to CNG. The researchers have argued that applying DI systems would

increase the volumetric efficiency [17-19]. However, a direct comparison of volumetric

efficiencies between the CNG-DI and CNG-PFI has not been conducted, yet. In addition, unlike

4
gasoline, which is a liquid fuel, CNG cannot cool the intake charge down; so it also has not been

identified how the CNG-DI can increase the volumetric efficiency. Therefore, it is necessary to

conduct experiments to compare the difference in volumetric efficiency and combustion

characteristics between CNG-DI and CNG-PFI.

Moreover, some of the DI injectors used in the previous studies had too low gas fuel injection

rate, because the injectors were not designed for gas injection [17, 20, 21]. Although the injectors

were modified to increase the gas injection rate, the injection pressure was too high (8.0 MPa)

and the injection duration was still too long (119° @ 1,200 rpm) [17]. These injection conditions

are not applicable because the fuel injection pressure is limited to the charging pressure of fuel

tank. In addition, short injection duration is preferred for a long air–fuel mixing time and injector

controllability.

The main purpose of the present study was to compare the volumetric efficiencies of CNG-DI

and CNG-PFI by applying various fuel injection conditions, and to find the best fuel injection

condition which shows the maximum engine power and efficiency. This study especially

concentrated on the change of intake air flow rate due to the CNG injection into the intake port

and cylinder. Thus, it was important to understand the intake process in details to analyze how

the CNG-DI can increase the volumetric efficiency.

2 Experimental Apparatus and Test Conditions

Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the experimental setup. The test engine used in the present

study was a single-cylinder CNG-SI engine. The engine was equipped with both a DI injector

and a PFI injector, enabling the engine to inject fuel directly into the cylinder as well as into the

5
intake port. In general, PFI injectors have a lower injection rate and injection pressure than DI

injectors. However, in this study, the same CNG-DI injectors were applied for DI and PFI to

investigate the effect of the fuel injector position on the experimental results (rather than the

effect of the fuel injector performance) [22]. The CNG injection rate was 6.52 mg/ms at an

injection pressure of 1.4 MPa. The injection pressure was controlled by a gas regulator and a

common rail that were sufficient to keep the injection pressure stable.

Mass Flow Meter Common-Rail

CNG
Regulator
PFI
Injector
DI Injector
Fresh Air
Exhaust
Throttle Lambda Sensor
Valve

Fig. 1 Experimental setup of single cylinder engine with DI and PFI injectors

The engine had two intake valves and two exhaust valves. Both the intake and exhaust valve

lift profiles are shown in Fig. 2. The peak valve lifts were 9 and 8.5 mm, respectively. It would

be complicated to define the valve opening and closing timings because the valve lift profiles

have a gentle slope at the opening and closing [23-25]. In this paper, the valve opening and

closing timings were defined as the crank angle where the valve lift is 0.5 mm [26, 27]. Based on

the valve timing definition, the intake valves open (IVO) was before top dead center (BTDC)

350° and the exhaust valves close (EVC) was BTDC 333°; the engine had 17° of valve overlap.

The intake valves close (IVC) was after bottom dead center (ABDC) 75°. Details of the engine

and injector specification are listed in Table 1.

6
 10
Intake Valve
Exhaust Valve
8

Valve Lift [mm]

6

2
IVO
0.5 mm EVC IVC EVO
0

-360 -270 -180 -90 0 90 180 270 360

Crank Angle [BTDC]

Fig. 2 Intake and exhaust valve lift profile

Table 1 Specifications of engine and injector

Item Specification

Bore/Stroke 71 mm / 85.44 mm

Displacement Volume 338.27 ml

Compression Ratio 11.0 : 1

Intake Valve Open ATDC 10° (BTDC 350°)

Intake Valve Close ABDC 75° (BTDC 105°)

Exhaust Valve Open BBDC 52° (ATDC 128°)

Exhaust Valve Close ATDC 27° (BTDC 333°)

Type Outward opening poppet valve

2.53 mg/ms @ 0.5 MPa

Injector Flow rate 3.76 mg/ms @ 0.8 MPa

(Methane) 5.19 mg/ms @ 1.1 MPa

6.52 mg/ms @ 1.4 MPa

7
 The intake air flow rate was measured by a mass flow meter. A constant volume chamber was

placed between the mass flow meter and the throttle valve to alleviate the intake flow fluctuation.

Although the throttle valve angle was fixed for all test conditions, the volumetric efficiency

changed by variations in the test conditions. Therefore, the mass of the injected fuel was also

altered for each test condition to ensure stoichiometric combustion. The injection quantity was

controlled by changing the injection signal duration. The lambda sensor measured the air–fuel

ratio, and the injector control system increased or decreased the injection signal duration based

on the lambda value. This control occurred every 0.1 s (1.4 cycles @ 1,700 rpm).

The engine worked at 1,700 rpm, and the intake pressure was about 60 kPa. This operating

condition was chosen to investigate in detail the effect of fuel injection timing on the volumetric

efficiency and combustion characteristics [28]. The turbulence in the cylinder is lower under

slower engine speed condition. The nominal IMEP at this condition was about 0.49 MPa. Fuel

injection pressure was fixed at 1.4 MPa. Since the CNG does not need to be atomized as liquid

fuels, the injection pressure had little effect upon the combustion characteristics [29]. However,

high injection pressure is not recommended for the gas fuel engines because the injection

pressure was limited to the charging pressure of fuel tank. The injection pressure 1.4 MPa was

reasonable pressure for the CNG-DI engine. In order to compare the volumetric efficiency of DI

and PFI, various fuel injection timings in the range of BTDC 330°–120° for DI and BTDC 400°–

120° for PFI were applied. In the present study, the injection timing was defined as the start of

injection (SOI), and the injection duration was the injection signal duration. The injection

duration varied depending on the injection timings but was about 1.5 ms (15.3° @ 1,700 rpm) on

average. This wide range of injection timings included the late injection timing near the IVC as

well as the early injection timing during the intake stroke [30, 31]. Table 2 lists details about the

experimental conditions.

8
 Table 2 Experimental conditions

Item Specification

Engine Speed 1,700 rpm

Intake Pressure 60 kPa

Injection Pressure 1.4 MPa

DI: BTDC 330°–120°

Injection Timing
PFI: BTDC 400°–120°

Spark Timing BTDC 20°, MBT

Equivalence Ratio 1.0

The in-cylinder pressure and intake flow rate were recorded every 0.1° of the crank angle. The

in-cylinder pressure of 400 consecutive combustion cycles was averaged and used to calculate

the indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) and heat release rate (HRR) [32]. The intake flow

rate was also averaged and used to calculate the volumetric efficiency.

3 AMESim Model Description

A commercial one-dimensional simulation code (AMESim) was used to investigate the intake

process in detail [33]. As shown in Fig. 3, the engine systems, including the intake manifold,

both fuel injectors, engine valve system, and exhaust manifold, were built up with AMESim.

Comparing Figs. 1 and 3 is helpful to understand this simulation code. The intake flow started

from the ambient pressure submodel, which was placed in the intake manifold section. The

9
intake mass flow rate was calculated for every crank angle of 1°, and an averaged value of one

cycle (720°) was used as a representative intake flow rate. Each pipe, chamber, and throttle

submodel took into account friction and inertial effect of the flow, and calculated pressure losses.

Injection
Ambient Pressure Ambient Pressure

Intake Flow Rate DI Injector Lambda

Throttle

Intake Chamber
Exhaust Chamber
PFI Injector

RPM

Injection Pressure

Intake Manifold Engine Cylinder Exhaust Manifold

Fig. 3 AMESim model of the single cylinder engine

The PFI injector was placed between the throttle valve and intake valves, and the DI injector

was mounted on the top of the engine cylinder. The injection duration was adjusted for every test

condition to meet the equivalence ratio of 1.0. Therefore, the higher intake flow rate led to a

longer injection duration and more fuel injection.

The engine cylinder model took into account heat transfer through the cylinder wall, piston,

and engine head. In this model, the mass of the three types of gases (air, fuel, and burned gas) in

the cylinder was calculated, and the piston motion was also calculated based on the input data

(i.e., stroke, compression ratio, and engine speed). All the geometric information of the engine

system was entered into the submodels. This program executed more than 50 consecutive cycles

to stabilize the intake flow and in-cylinder pressure, and only the last cycle was selected as a

10
representative case. Fig. 4 compares the experimental and numerical in-cylinder pressure

histories from BTDC 360° to after top dead center (ATDC) 360°. The simulation results

accurately predicted the peak in-cylinder pressure at TDC, and the pressure histories during the

intake stroke were also similar to each other.

1.4
Experiment
AMESim
In-cylinder Pressure [MPa]

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-360 -270 -180 -90 0 90 180 270 360
Crank Angle [ATDC]

Fig. 4 Comparison of experimental and numerical in-cylinder pressure for motoring condition

4 Results and Discussions

4.1 Volumetric Efficiency Comparison of DI and PFI

Fig. 5(a) shows the experimental results of the volumetric efficiency for the various SOIs of

DI and PFI. The volumetric efficiency was calculated from the intake mass flow rate. The

equivalence ratio was kept constant at 1.0, and the spark timing was fixed at BTDC 20°. The

volumetric efficiency was defined as ‘mass of air induced into the cylinder per cycle / mass of air

in the displacement volume’.

11
 Where ma, ms, ρa, Va, and Vs were the mass of air induced into the cylinder per cycle, the mass

of air in the displacement volume at atmosphere pressure, the density of air in the atmosphere,

the volume of air induced into the cylinder per cycle, and the volume of air in the displacement

volume. The error bars in the Fig. 5(a) correspond to the standard deviation in the measurement.

41.5
Experiment
41.0
DI
40.5 PFI 40.28
Volumetric Efficiency [%]

40.0

39.5

39.0
38.79

38.5

38.0 38.43
37.5 38.01
37.0
400 330 300 270 240 210 180 150 120
Injection Timing [BTDC]

(a)
41.5
AMESim
41.0
DI 40.37
40.5 PFI
Volumetric Efficiency [%]

40.0

39.5
38.87
39.0

38.5

38.0 38.49
38.17
37.5

37.0
420 390 360 330 300 270 240 210 180 150 120 90
Injection Timing [BTDC]

(b)

Fig. 5 Experimental and AMESim results of volumetric efficiency for various injection timings of DI and PFI

12
 As shown in the figure, the volumetric efficiency was not influenced by the fuel injector

position for early fuel injection during the intake stroke. For these injection timings, the averaged

volumetric efficiencies of DI and PFI were both about 38.62%, and the standard deviations were

less than 0.2%. This result indicates that the volumetric efficiency was kept constant for the early

fuel injection conditions. It is interesting to note that DI did not have a higher volumetric

efficiency than PFI for these injection timings. However, as the SOI was retarded to BTDC 120°,

the volumetric efficiency of DI increased while the volumetric efficiency of PFI was kept

constant or slightly decreased.

The AMESim simulation results also showed a similar trend as the experimental results. As

shown in Fig. 5(b), the volumetric efficiencies of DI and PFI were almost identical to each other

for the early fuel injection conditions, and direct fuel injection at BTDC 120° showed a higher

volumetric efficiency than the earlier fuel injection cases. In the simulation, fuel injection timing

BTDC 90° was added. Both DI and PFI kept a constant volumetric efficiency and did not show

an additional increase in the graph.

Fig. 6 shows the mass flow rate through the intake valves for the various SOIs. This graph

includes the mass flow rate of the fuel as well as air. For the motoring condition, the flow rate

graph started to increase as the intake valves open at BTDC 350° and reached peak value at

BTDC 300°. The flow rate decreased again as the pressure difference between the intake port

and in-cylinder decreased. After BTDC 180°, the piston started to rise up and the in-cylinder gas

flowed back (negative flow rate) to the intake port. Upon intake valve closing, the flow rate

converged to zero. However, the fuel injection event influenced the intake flow rate. When fuel

was injected into the cylinder (DI), the intake flow rate decreased because the fuel volume

interfered with the intake flow. In Fig. 6(a), BTDC 330°, 270°, and 210° cases show that the

13
flow rate decreases right after each fuel injection timing. Conversely, the fuel injection into the

intake port (PFI) increased the flow rate [34] because the fuel jet developed toward the intake

valves. In Fig. 6(b), the flow rate increased right after fuel injection, with the exception of the

BTDC 330° case. The slight decrease in the flow rate of BTDC 330° case was caused by the fact

that fuel entered the cylinder instead of air at the maximum flow rate timing. Because the

molecular mass of CNG (16.04 g/mol) is lighter than the molecular mass of air (28.97 g/mol),

the mass flow rate of the fuel was lower than the flow rate of air.

30
Injection Timing
25 Motoring
BTDC 330°
20 BTDC 270°
Flow Rate [mg/ms]

BTDC 210°
15
BTDC 120°
10

-5

-10
-360 -300 -240 -180 -120 -60 0
Crank Angle [ATDC]

(a) DI
30
Injection Timing
25 BTDC 400°
BTDC 330°
20 BTDC 270°
Flow Rate [mg/ms]

BTDC 210°
15
BTDC 120°
10

-5

-10
-360 -300 -240 -180 -120 -60 0
Crank Angle [ATDC]

(b) PFI

Fig. 6 Flow rate through intake valves for various injection timings of DI and PFI. AMESim results.

14
 However, when the fuel was injected at BTDC 120°, the fuel volume did not influence the

intake process, regardless of the injector position (DI and PFI). The flow rate graph of DI

completely overlapped the motoring graph, and the PFI graph was also similar to the motoring

graph. Because the flow rate graph was the same as the motoring graph, the volumetric

efficiency of DI was the same as that of the motoring condition. However, this does not imply

that the volumetric efficiencies of DI and PFI at BTDC 120° were equal to each other. When the

flow rate graphs are the same, PFI introduces less air into the cylinder than DI because the graph

of PFI includes the fuel flow rate.

For more details of the intake process, the mass histories of air and fuel in the cylinder are shown

in Fig. 7. The air mass graph of the motoring case started from 27.65 mg, while the combustion

cases started from zero because no air remained in the cylinder after the combustion stroke. The

mass of air in the cylinder started to increase as the intake valves opened at BTDC 350° and

reached the maximum value at BTDC 180°. After bottom dead center (BDC), the graph

decreased again (backflow) until the intake valves closed. For the fuel injection cases, the fuel

injection influenced the intake process. When the fuel was injected into the cylinder at BTDC

330°, the fuel mass graph started to increase at the injection timing and the air mass graph was

slightly reduced. DI-BTDC 270° and 210° cases also showed a decrease in the air mass graph

after fuel injection. This is a conventional disadvantage of gaseous engines, which is caused by

the fact that the fuel volume occupies a fraction of the intake charge and reduces the flow of

fresh air into the cylinder [10, 35]. After the IVC, the mass of air in the cylinder converged to

158.03 mg. However, direct injection at BTDC 120° did not show a decrease at the fuel injection

timing. In this case, the air mass after the IVC was about 164.07 mg, which was 3.82% higher

than the other cases. For this case, more fuel was injected (relative to the other cases) to ensure

stoichiometric combustion. The increase of the volumetric efficiency at late fuel injection was

15
also shown in the research of Baratta et al. [36]. They explained that the late fuel injection case,

when the injection timing was close to IVC, would increase the volumetric efficiency because

the injected fuel did not occupy a fraction of the intake charge during the intake stroke.

Conversely, PFI cases were not significantly influenced by the fuel injection timing. As shown in

Fig. 7(c), the air mass after IVC was about 157.52 mg, regardless of the fuel injection timings; it

was also similar to the air mass of the early direct fuel injection conditions. Although the direct

injection system is expected to increase the volumetric efficiency [18], Fig. 7 indicates that the

injector position does not influence the volumetric efficiency.

16
 backflow
225 225
IVC
Mass of Air in Cylinder [mg]

Mass of Air in Cylinder [mg]

180 180

135 135

90 Injection Timing 90 Injection Timing

Motoring BTDC 400°
BTDC 330° BTDC 330°
45 BTDC 270° 45 BTDC 270°
BTDC 210° BTDC 210°
BTDC 120° BTDC 120°
0 0
-360 -300 -240 -180 -120 -60 -360 -300 -240 -180 -120 -60
Crank Angle [ATDC] Crank Angle [ATDC]

(a) DI- (c) PFI-

12 12

10 10
Mass of Fuel in Cylinder[mg]

8
Mass of Fuel in Cylinder[mg] 8

6 6

Injection Timing Injection Timing

4 Motoring 4 BTDC 400°
BTDC 330° BTDC 330°
BTDC 270° BTDC 270°
2 2
BTDC 210° BTDC 210°
BTDC 120° BTDC 120°
0 0
-360 -300 -240 -180 -120 -60 -360 -300 -240 -180 -120 -60
Crank Angle [ATDC] Crank Angle [ATDC]

(b) DI-Fuel (d) PFI-Fuel

Fig. 7 Mass of air and fuel in cylinder for the various fuel injection conditions. AMESim results.

During the backflow period, some portion of the fuel in the cylinder also flowed out. Fig. 7(b)

shows the mass of fuel in the cylinder for the DI cases. The motoring case is not shown in the

figure because it did not inject fuel. For the fuel injection cases, the fuel in the cylinder increased

after the injection and decreased with the backflow. About 10% of the fuel was exhaled and

inhaled again in the next cycle for the fuel injection timing BTDC 270° case. The increase of the

fuel mass before fuel injection shown in Fig. 7(b) was the fuel re-entrainment. However, the

BTDC 120° case did not show the initial fuel increase because the injected fuel at the previous

cycle was not exhaled. For PFI cases, as the fuel was injected into the intake port, the air and fuel

17
flowed into the cylinder together. In Fig. 7(d), the mass of fuel in the cylinder increased as the

intake air flowed into the cylinder. Both the BTDC 400° and 120° cases injected fuel while the

intake valves were closed. However, BTDC 400° shows a higher slope than BTDC 120° because

the former case injected the fuel later; thus, the fuel was concentrated near the intake valves.

Alternatively, the latter case injected the fuel so early that the fuel spread and mixed with air.

From Fig. 7, it was explained that the intake valves were closed before BTDC 120°, although

Table 2 indicates that the IVC was BTDC 105°. Actually, the intake valves were not perfectly

closed at BTDC 120°; the valve lift was about 1.58 mm. However, the valve lift of 1.58 mm was

small enough to prevent the in-cylinder gas from leaking. Fig. 8 clearly shows this. Fig. 8 shows

the pressure history of the motoring condition at the ‘before the throttle valve’, ‘intake port’, and

‘in-cylinder’. Before the IVO, the pressure at the intake port was similar to or slightly lower than

the pressure before the throttle valve. As the intake valves opened, the pressure at the intake port

decreased steeply and reached the in-cylinder pressure level. The major pressure decrease during

the intake stroke occurred at the throttle valve. After the IVC, the in-cylinder pressure increased

as the in-cylinder air was compressed, and the pressure at the intake port was recovered to the

pressure before the throttle valve. This process was repeated in every cycle. As shown in the

figure, the in-cylinder pressure started to increase over the intake port pressure at BTDC 135°.

This means that the intake process was finished at BTDC 135° and the compression process

started. Therefore, the fuel injected into the cylinder at BTDC 120° could not reduce the intake

air. To obtain higher volumetric efficiency in a CNG-DI engine, the injection timing should be

close to the IVC [36].

18
 0.12

0.11

0.10
Pressure [MPa]

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06
Before Throttle
0.05 Intake Port
In-cylinder
0.04
-360 -315 -270 -225 -180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Crankg Angle [ATDC]

Fig. 8 Pressure comparison at before throttle, after throttle, and in-cylinder pressure for motoring condition

4.2 Combustion

In the previous section, it was observed that late fuel injection, after the IVC, increased the

volumetric efficiency; this was the case because the intake process was not interrupted by the

fuel volume. However, GDI engines that use homogeneous combustion generally apply early

fuel injection timings (before BTDC 240°) in order to ensure better air–fuel mixture

homogeneity. Therefore, it is required to identify the combustion stability and combustion

efficiency for late fuel injection conditions.

Fig. 9 shows the experimental results of the IMEP and coefficient of variation of the IMEP

(COVIMEP). Spark timing was set at the minimum advance for best torque (MBT). For PFI, the

IMEP was constant for early fuel injections from BTDC 400° to 240°, and a slight fluctuation in

the IMEP was observed for later fuel injections. These trends of the IMEP were similar to those

in the volumetric efficiency graph because the fuel injection quantity was controlled based on the

19
volumetric efficiency to ensure stoichiometric combustion conditions. It is also understandable

that DI at BTDC 120° showed the highest IMEP because the highest volumetric efficiency

allowed the most fuel injection.

0.54

0.53 Experiment
DI 0.518
0.52 PFI
0.51
IMEP [MPa]

0.50
0.487
0.49

0.48

0.47 0.478
0.477
0.46

0.45
400 330 300 270 240 210 180 150 120
Injection Timing [BTDC]

(a) IMEP
5.0

4.5 Experiment
DI
4.0 PFI
3.5

3.0
COVIMEP [%]

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
420 390 360 330 300 270 240 210 180 150 120 90
Injection Timing [BTDC]

(b) COVIMEP

Fig. 9 IMEP and COVIMEP for the various fuel injection conditions. Spark timing MBT. Experimental
results.

However, DI at BTDC 270° did not follow this rule. The volumetric efficiencies of DI and PFI

at BTDC 270° were similar to each other, and the injected fuel mass was also similar.

20
Alternatively, the IMEP of DI was much lower than the IMEP of PFI. This result indicates that

the combustion efficiency of DI was lower than PFI when the fuel was injected at BTDC 270°.

According to the study of Choi et al. [37], the IMEP decrease at BTDC 270° was caused by the

low turbulence intensity of the in-cylinder flow. The authors conducted experimental and

numerical studies on a CNG engine and analyzed the air–fuel mixing process using KIVA

simulation. When the fuel was injected at BTDC 270°, the fuel jet from a central-mounted

injector developed in a downward direction and returned from a piston, causing upward tumble

flow, while the intake air flowed into the cylinder [29, 38]. These flows of opposite directions

reduced the in-cylinder flow speed, and the turbulence energy at the spark timing was lower than

the other cases. The lower turbulence induced slower combustion, and the slower combustion

decreased the IMEP by increasing the IMEP loss [28, 39-41]. Conversely, the fuel jet injected at

the intake port did not interfere with the in-cylinder flow motion, regardless of the fuel injection

timing. Therefore, the IMEP of PFI at BTDC 270° was higher than the IMEP of DI.

Alternatively, when the fuel was injected into the cylinder at BTDC 120°, the fuel jet induced

strong turbulence in the cylinder. This high turbulence made the combustion faster, and the faster

combustion increased the IMEP by reducing the IMEP loss.

Fig. 10 can be used to compare the combustion speeds. This graph shows the in-cylinder

pressure and HRR for the various injection conditions. The in-cylinder pressure of the BTDC

120° case was much higher than the other cases. The peak in-cylinder pressure of this case was

about 3.75 MPa. This high in-cylinder pressure was caused by the fast combustion speed rather

than a large amount of injected fuel. The HRR can be used to compare the combustion speed by

observing the combustion duration. The combustion duration of BTDC 120° was much shorter

than the other cases. The HRR graph started to increase after a short ignition delay from the

spark timing (BTDC 20°). As the flame propagated through the cylinder, the HRR graph

21
increased steeply, reaching a peak HRR at around ATDC 1.5° before decreasing to zero at

around ATDC 20° [29]. The combustion duration from the spark to the end of combustion was

about 40°. Conversely, the BTDC 270° case showed a much slower and longer combustion, as

explained above. The peak in-cylinder pressure was less than 2.44 MPa and the HRR lasted until

ATDC 40°; the combustion duration from the spark to the end of combustion was about 60°.

Alternatively, the combustion processes of DI-BTDC 330° and PFI-BTDC 330° were almost the

same as each other. For these early fuel injection cases, before the strong intake flow timing, the

injector position did not strongly influence the combustion process because the in-cylinder flow

was determined by the intake flow rather than by the fuel jet flow. The abnormal combustion

trend of BTDC 270° case was also shown in the COVIMEP. In Fig. 9(b), DI of BTDC 270° had a

higher COVIMEP than the other cases. Although a COVIMEP of 2.5% still implies stable combustion

[39, 42-45], the combustion of the other cases was much more stable. For most test conditions,

the COVIMEP was lower than 1.5%.

4.0 80
DI Injeciton Timing
3.5 70
PFI BTDC 330°
In-cylinder Pressure [MPa]

3.0 DI BTDC 330° 60

Heat Release Rate [J/deg]

DI BTDC 270°
2.5 DI BTDC 120° 50

2.0 40

1.5 30

1.0 20

0.5 10

0.0 0

-0.5 -10
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Crank Angle [ATDC]

Fig. 10 In-cylinder pressure and heat release rate for the various fuel injection conditions. Spark Timing
BTDC 20°. Experimental results.

Figs. 9 and 10 compared IMEP and combustion speed for the various fuel injection conditions;

and these results showed that the faster combustion speed led the higher IMEP. At BTDC 120°,

22
however, the higher volumetric efficiency was another factor that increased the IMEP, because

the more air in the cylinder allowed the more fuel injection. Thus, the Fig. 9 was suitable for

comparing the engine powers for each fuel injection condition but did not show the engine

efficiency. In order to compare the IMEP when the amounts of fuel injection were equal, the fuel

conversion efficiency was calculated in Fig. 11. The fuel conversion efficiency is defined as the

‘work per energy of injected fuel’, which is proportional to ‘IMEP/fuel’ [39, 46]. It was not easy

to measure the fuel mass of each injection because the fuel flow rate fluctuated with each fuel

injection event. Thus, the fuel injection quantity was calculated from the intake flow rate using

the theoretical air–fuel ratio. As can be seen in the figure, the fuel conversion efficiency of DI

changed significantly as the fuel injection timing changed. For early fuel injection timings before

BTDC 300°, DI and PFI showed similar fuel conversion efficiencies. However, the efficiency of

DI decreased steeply at BTDC 270° due to the poor combustion characteristics, while the

efficiency of PFI remained constant. The fuel conversion efficiency of DI increased gradually

and reached a maximum value at BTDC 120°. The difference between the maximum and

minimum efficiencies was about 1.4%. This result indicates that the DI could increase the IMEP

and fuel conversion efficiency by retarding the injection timing after the IVC. Alternatively, the

PFI case showed a constant fuel conversion efficiency. The difference between the maximum

and minimum was only about 0.4%.

23
 38.5
Experiment
38.0 DI

Fuel Conversion Efficiency [%]

PFI 37.07
37.5

37.0 36.44 36.27

36.5

36.0
36.39 36.30
35.5

35.0
35.71
34.5
400 330 300 270 240 210 180 150 120
Injection Timing [BTDC]

Fig. 11 Fuel conversion efficiency for the various fuel injection conditions. Spark timing MBT. Experimental
results.

5 Conclusions

In the present study, the volumetric efficiencies and combustion characteristics of CNG-DI

and CNG-PFI were compared using the experimental and numerical results. A wide range of fuel

injection timings (from BTDC 330° to 120°) were applied to investigate the best fuel injection

conditions for the high engine power and fuel conversion efficiency. The major conclusions of

this study are summarized as follows:

1. The volumetric efficiencies of DI and PFI were similar to each other for early fuel

injection before the IVC. For the injection timings from BTDC 330° to 180°, the

averaged volumetric efficiencies of DI and PFI were both about 38.62%, and the

standard deviations were less than 0.2%.

2. The AMESim results showed that the intake flow was influenced by the fuel injection,

regardless of the injection position. After fuel injection, DI decreased the intake flow

24
 rate because the fuel volume interfered with the intake flow, and PFI increased the

intake flow rate because the fuel jet developed toward the intake valves. However, the

final air masses remaining in the cylinder were equal to each other.

3. Late direct fuel injection, near the IVC, increased the volumetric efficiency because the

fuel volume did not influence the intake process. Thus, the CNG-DI engine could

increase the volumetric efficiency when the fuel injection timing was close to the IVC.

4. Late fuel direct injection showed the best torque because of the highest volumetric

efficiency and fast combustion. Late fuel direct injection increased the turbulent

intensity in the cylinder, and the high turbulent intensity increased the combustion speed.

5. Almost all the test conditions, including late fuel direct injection near the IVC, showed

stable combustion with a COVIMEP less than 1.5%.

6. The fuel conversion efficiency showed that late fuel direct injection, near the IVC, was

the best fuel injection strategy for the CNG engine. The high volumetric efficiency

induced high engine power, and the fast combustion increased the fuel conversion

efficiency. The fast combustion of the late fuel injection condition is expected to

improve the fuel economy particularly under idle state (i.e. low engine speed and light

load).

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research

Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (NRF-

25
2016R1A1A1A05919795) and “Human Resources Program in Energy Technology” of the Korea

Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP), granted financial resource from

the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea. (No. 20164010200860)

Reference

[1] J. Jeon, S. Lee, S. Park, Effect of the fuelling strategy on the combustion and emission

characteristics of a gasoline–diesel dual-fuel engine, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, (2016).

[2] B. Liang, Y. Ge, J. Tan, X. Han, L. Gao, L. Hao, W. Ye, P. Dai, Comparison of PM

emissions from a gasoline direct injected (GDI) vehicle and a port fuel injected (PFI) vehicle

measured by electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI) with two fuels: Gasoline and M15

methanol gasoline, Journal of Aerosol Science, 57 (2013) 22-31.

[3] S. Lee, S. Park, Experimental study on spray break-up and atomization processes from GDI

injector using high injection pressure up to 30MPa, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow,

45 (2014) 14-22.

[4] S. Lee, S. Park, Spray atomization characteristics of a GDI injector equipped with a group-

hole nozzle, Fuel, 137 (2014) 50-59.

[5] M. Momeni Movahed, H. Basirat Tabrizi, M. Mirsalim, Experimental investigation of the

concomitant injection of gasoline and CNG in a turbocharged spark ignition engine, Energy

Conversion and Management, 80 (2014) 126-136.

26
[6] A.C. Alkidas, S.H. El Tahry, Contributors to the Fuel Economy Advantage of DISI Engines

Over PFI Engines, SAE International 2003-01-3101, 2003.

[7] T.D. Fansler, M.C. Drake, B. Gajdeczko, I. Düwel, W. Koban, F.P. Zimmermann, C. Schulz,

Quantitative liquid and vapor distribution measurements in evaporating fuel sprays using laser-

induced exciplex fluorescence, Measurement Science and Technology, 20 (2009) 13.

[8] F. Zhao, M.C. Lai, D.L. Harrington, Automotive spark-ignited direct-injection gasoline

engines, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 25 (1999) 437-562.

[9] R. Banerjee, S. Kumar, Numerical investigation of stratified air/fuel preparation in a GDI

engine, Applied Thermal Engineering, 104 (2016) 414-428.

[10] M.U. Aslam, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, H. Abdesselam, T.M.I. Mahlia, M.A. Amalina,

An experimental investigation of CNG as an alternative fuel for a retrofitted gasoline vehicle,

Fuel, 85 (2006) 717-724.

[11] Z.A. Mansurov, Soot Formation in Combustion Processes (Review), Combustion,

Explosion and Shock Waves, 41 (2005) 727-744.

[12] C. Oh, G. Cha, Impact of fuel, injection type and after-treatment system on particulate

emissions of light-duty vehicles using different fuels on FTP-75 and HWFET test cycles,

International Journal of Automotive Technology, 16 (2015) 895-901.

[13] P. Stathopoulos, P. Kuhn, J. Wendler, T. Tanneberger, S. Terhaar, C.O. Paschereit, C.

Schmalhofer, P. Griebel, M. Aigner, Emissions of a Wet Premixed Flame of Natural Gas and a

Mixture With Hydrogen at High Pressure, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power,

139 (2016) 041507-041507.

27
[14] A. Shamekhi, N. Khatibzadeh, A.H. Shamekhi, Performance and emissions characteristics

investigation of a bi-fuel SI engine fuelled by CNG and gasoline, in: ASME 2006 Internal

Combustion Engine Division Spring Technical Conference, American Society of Mechanical

Engineers, 2006, pp. 393-400.

[15] S. Maji, P.B. Sharma, M.K.G. Babu, A Comparative Study of Performance and Emission

Characteristics of CNG and Gasoline on a Single Cylinder S. I. Engine, The Automotive

Research Association of India, 2004.

[16] V. Pradeep, S. Bakshi, A. Ramesh, Direct injection of gaseous LPG in a two-stroke SI

engine for improved performance, Applied Thermal Engineering, 89 (2015) 738-747.

[17] Z. Huang, J. Wang, B. Liu, K. Zeng, J. Yu, D. Jiang, Combustion characteristics of a direct-

injection engine fueled with natural gas–hydrogen blends under different ignition timings, Fuel,

86 (2007) 381-387.

[18] S. Di Iorio, P. Sementa, B.M. Vaglieco, Experimental Investigation of a Methane-Gasoline

Dual-Fuel Combustion in a Small Displacement Optical Engine, SAE International 2013-24-

0046, 2013.

[19] C. Hu, S. Hou, Investigations on Combustion Process of Low-pressure CNG Compound

Direct Injection Spark-ignited Engines, SAE International 2010-32-0052, 2010.

[20] B. Yadollahi, M. Boroomand, The effect of combustion chamber geometry on injection and

mixture preparation in a CNG direct injection SI engine, Fuel, 107 (2013) 52-62.

[21] K. Zeng, Z. Huang, B. Liu, L. Liu, D. Jiang, Y. Ren, J. Wang, Combustion characteristics of

a direct-injection natural gas engine under various fuel injection timings, Applied Thermal

Engineering, 26 (2006) 806-813.

28
[22] M. Choi, S. Lee, S. Park, Numerical and experimental study of gaseous fuel injection for

CNG direct injection, Fuel, 140 (2015) 693-700.

[23] V.S. Costanzo, J.B. Heywood, Mixture Preparation Mechanisms in a Port Fuel Injected

Engine, SAE International 2005-01-2080, 2005.

[24] X. Fan, S. Chang, L. Liu, J. Lu, Realization and optimization of high compression ratio

engine with electromagnetic valve train, Applied Thermal Engineering, 112 (2017) 371-377.

[25] X.Y. Fan, L. Liu, S.Q. Chang, J.T. Xu, J.G. Dai, Electromagnetic valve train for gasoline

engine exhaust system, International Journal of Automotive Technology, 17 (2016) 361-367.

[26] M. Noga, B. Sendyka, Determination of the theorethical and total efficiency of the five-

stroke SI engine, International Journal of Automotive Technology, 15 (2014) 1083-1089.

[27] X. Yang, S. Keum, T.-W. Kuo, Effect of Valve Opening/Closing Setup on Computational

Fluid Dynamics Prediction of Engine Flows, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and

Power, 138 (2016) 081503-081503.

[28] B. Breaux, C. Hoops, W. Glewen, The Effect of In-Cylinder Turbulence on Lean, Premixed,

Spark-Ignited Engine Performance, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 138

(2016) 081504-081504.

[29] J. Song, M. Choi, D. Kim, S. Park, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF METHANE

DIRECT INJECTION ENGINE UNDER VARIOUS INJECTION TIMINGS AND INJECTION

PRESSURES, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, (2017).

29
[30] S. Aljamali, S. Abdullah, W.M.F. Wan Mahmood, Y. Ali, Effect of fuel injection timings on

performance and emissions of stratified combustion CNGDI engine, Applied Thermal

Engineering, 109, Part A (2016) 619-629.

[31] G.T. Chala, A.R.A. Aziz, F.Y. Hagos, Combined effect of boost pressure and injection

timing on the performance and combustion of CNG in a DI spark ignition engine, International

Journal of Automotive Technology, 18 (2017) 85-96.

[32] X. Yu, H. Wu, Y. Du, Y. Tang, L. Liu, R. Niu, Research on cycle-by-cycle variations of an

SI engine with hydrogen direct injection under lean burn conditions, Applied Thermal

Engineering, 109, Part A (2016) 569-581.

[33] LMS_Imagine.Lab, AMESim v.14, User's guide, (2015).

[34] Q. Tang, J. Fu, J. Liu, F. Zhou, Z. Yuan, Z. Xu, Performance improvement of liquefied

natural gas (LNG) engine through intake air supply, Applied Thermal Engineering, 103 (2016)

1351-1361.

[35] A.L. Jones, R.L. Evans, Comparison of Burning Rates in a Natural-Gas-Fueled Spark

Ignition Engine, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 107 (1985) 908-913.

[36] M. Baratta, N. Rapetto, E. Spessa, A. Fuerhapter, H. Philipp, Numerical and Experimental

Analysis of Mixture Formation and Performance in a Direct Injection CNG Engine, SAE

International 2012-01-0401, 2012.

[37] M. Choi, J. Song, S. Park, Modeling of the fuel injection and combustion process in a CNG

direct injection engine, Fuel, 179 (2016) 168-178.

30
[38] J. Song, T. Kim, J. Jang, S. Park, Effects of the injection strategy on the mixture formation

and combustion characteristics in a DISI (direct injection spark ignition) optical engine, Energy,

93, Part 2 (2015) 1758-1768.

[39] J.B. Heywood, Internal combustion engine fundamentals, Mcgraw-hill New York, 1988.

[40] F. Catapano, S. Di Iorio, A. Magno, P. Sementa, B.M. Vaglieco, A comprehensive analysis

of the effect of ethanol, methane and methane-hydrogen blend on the combustion process in a

PFI (port fuel injection) engine, Energy, 88 (2015) 101-110.

[41] T. Kim, J. Song, S. Park, Effects of turbulence enhancement on combustion process using a

double injection strategy in direct-injection spark-ignition (DISI) gasoline engines, International

Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 56 (2015) 124-136.

[42] Y. Duchaussoy, A. Lefebvre, R. Bonetto, Dilution Interest on Turbocharged SI Engine

Combustion, SAE International 2003-01-0629, 2003.

[43] T. Alger, B. Mangold, D. Mehta, C. Roberts, The Effect of Sparkplug Design on Initial

Flame Kernel Development and Sparkplug Performance, SAE International 2006-01-0224, 2006.

[44] L. Schmidt, J. Seabrook, J. Stokes, M.F. Ahmad Zuhdi, S. Begg, M. Heikal, J. King,

Multiple Injection Strategies for Improved Combustion Stability under Stratified Part Load

Conditions in a Spray Guided Gasoline Direct Injection (SGDI) Engine, SAE International 2011-

01-1228, 2011.

[45] W.P. Attard, H. Blaxill, A Single Fuel Pre-Chamber Jet Ignition Powertrain Achieving High

Load, High Efficiency and Near Zero NOx Emissions, SAE Int. J. Engines, 5 (2011) 734-746.

31
[46] A. Irimescu, Performance and fuel conversion efficiency of a spark ignition engine fueled

with iso-butanol, Applied Energy, 96 (2012) 477-483.

32
Highlights
 Volumetric efficiencies of DI and PFI were similar for early injection conditions.
 1D simulation code (AMESim) was used to investigate the intake process in detail.
 For various injection timings, the volumetric efficiency of PFI was kept constant.
 Late fuel DI increased volumetric efficiency and fuel conversion efficiency.
 DI after IVC was the best injection strategy for high engine power and efficiency.

33