International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene

Computational combustion and emission analysis of hydrogen–diesel blends

with experimental verification
M. Masood ∗ , M.M. Ishrat, A.S. Reddy
Mechanical Engineering Department, M.J. College of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad 500034, India

Received 19 May 2006; received in revised form 7 November 2006; accepted 7 November 2006
Available online 26 December 2006

Abstract
The paper discusses the effect of blending hydrogen with diesel in different proportions on combustion and emissions. A comparative study
was carried out to analyze the effect of direct injection of hydrogen into the combustion chamber with that of induction through the inlet
manifold for dual fueling. Percentage of hydrogen substitution varied from 20% to 80%, simultaneously reducing the diesel percentages. CFD
analysis of dual fuel combustion and emissions were carried out for both the said methods using the CFD software FLUENT, meshing the
combustion chamber was carried out using GAMBIT. The standard combustion and emission models were used in the analysis. In the second
part of the paper, the effect of angle of injection in both the methods of hydrogen admission, on performance, combustion and emissions were
analyzed. The experimental results were compared with that of simulated values and a good agreement between them was noticed.
䉷 2006 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hydrogen; Diesel; Combustion; Emissions; Heat release rate; Peak pressures

1. Introduction
The drawback of lean operation with hydrocarbon fuels is a
reduced power output. Lean operation of hydrocarbon engines
has additional drawbacks. Lean mixtures are hard to ignite, de-
spite the mixture being above the low fire (point) limit of the
fuel. This result in misfire, which increases un-burned hydrocar-
bon emissions, reduces performance and wastes fuel. Hydrogen
can be used in conjunction with compact liquid fuels such as
gasoline, alcohol or diesel provided each is stored separately.
Mixing hydrogen with other hydrocarbon fuels reduces all
of these drawbacks. Hydrogen’s low ignition energy limit and
high burning speed makes the hydrogen/hydrocarbon mixture
easier to ignite, reducing misfire and thereby improving emis-
sions, performance and fuel economy. Regarding power output,
hydrogen augments the mixture’s energy density at lean mix-
tures by increasing the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, and thereby
improves torque at wide-open throttle conditions.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: masoodtayyab@yahoo.com (M. Masood).
0360-3199/$ - see front matter 䉷 2006 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.11.008
Direct injection and port injection have been studied but
mostly for SI engine. In case of diesel engine, dual fueling of
diesel with LPG [1,2], methane [3,4], natural gas [5–7] and
hydrogen–methane combinations were studied. Most research
in dual fuel engine has concentrated on defining the extent
of dual fueling and its effect on emissions and performance
[8,9]. A hydrogen addition to methane has been reported to be
effective to promote combustion at homogeneous lean operation
(Kido et al., 1994; Shioji et al., 1995).
The power output of a direct injected hydrogen engine was
20% more than for a gasoline engine and 42% more than a hy-
drogen engine using a carburetor. While direct injection solves
the problem of pre-ignition in the intake manifold, it does not
necessarily prevent pre-ignition within the combustion cham-
ber. In addition, due to the reduced mixing time of the air and
fuel in a direct injection engine, the air/fuel mixture can be non-
homogenous. Studies have suggested this can lead to higher
NOx emissions than the non-direct injection systems [10].
Direct injection systems require a higher fuel rail pressure than
the other methods.
The objective of the present work was to analyze the com-
bustion and emissions for Hydrogen–Diesel combination in
dual fuel engine. The study is structured by first laying a
2540 M. Masood et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547
fundamental foundation, through the use of classical conceptual
models, for understanding conventional diesel combustion.
Diesel is used as the primary fuel and combustion is con-
trolled by adding hydrogen as an additive to control combustion
phasing. Hydrogen is added in two ways:
1. By direct injection into the combustion chamber in different
proportions (non-homogeneous mixture formation).
2. By induction method, through the inlet manifold (homoge-
nous mixture formation), while the diesel is injected as
usual into the combustion chamber.
In the first phase of work, CFD analysis was carried out using
FLUENT for both conditions and in the second phase experi-
mental work was carried out to analyze and compare the results.
2. Combustion model
The standard characteristics—time combustion model cal-
culates the equilibrium concentration of each species and the
corresponding laminar and turbulent characteristic times to de-
termine the reaction rates. Seven major combustion species are
considered, fuel, O2 , N2 , CO2 , H2 , H2 O and CO. The time rate
of change of the concentration of species m is given as [9]
∗
dYm /dt = (Ym − Ym )/c , (1)
∗
where Ym is the concentration of species m, Ym is the local and
instantaneous thermodynamic equilibrium concentration and c
is the chemical conversion time to achieve equilibrium. The
chemical conversion time is calculated as the sum of a kinetic
laminar time scale l and a turbulent mixing time scale t as
follows:
c = l + ft . (2)
The variable f is a delay coefficient that simulates the influence
of turbulence on the combustion after ignition has occurred
[11]. f = 0, prior to combustion and f = 1 when combustion is
complete.
One or more turbulent flames that are initiated by the ignition
of diesel fuel consume the hydrogen gas and air mixture. The
main heat release occurs in a thin reaction sheet, i.e., a flame
that separates the burned and unburned gases. The flame front is
tracked by a level set method that was developed for premixed
combustion [12,13].
The turbulent time scale is based on the eddy breakup concept
and modeled as [11]
t= Cm2 k/, (3)
where Cm2 is a model constant for mixing characteristics in
the engine, k is the turbulent kinetic energy and  is its dissi-
pation rate.
In order to apply the above models to simulate dual fuel
combustion, some modifications were needed. In the Hydro-
gen/diesel, dual fuel engine, it is known that the combustion
is initiated by the auto-ignition of the diesel fuel. However,
the combustion characteristics of the diesel fuel and Hydrogen
gas are different and hence the combustion model needs to be
modified.
It is now required that use of a different turbulent mixing
model constant for each fuel based on relative amount of hy-
drogen gas and diesel fuel in each computational cell would be
required.
Thus, the model constant Cm2 was modified as
Cm2 = 1.8(1 − x) + 0.4x, (4)
x = diesel /(diesel+ hydrogen ), (5)
where diesel and hydrogen are local partial densities of diesel
and hydrogen gas, respectively. The model constant in Eq. (4)
was calculated empirically by modeling the present duel fuel
Combustion; however pure hydrogen and pure diesel cases were
calculated separately.
Combustion proceeds whenever turbulence is present
(k/ > 0). In premixed flames, the reactants burn as soon as
they enter the computational domain, upstream of the flame
stabilizer. In our model we are using the eddy dissipation
model.
The eddy dissipation model requires the products to initiate
the reaction i.e.,
  
p Yp
Rm,r = mr Mw,m AB(/k) N  , (6)
j j,r Mw,m
 
YR
Rm,r = m,r Mw,m A(/k)  , (7)
R,r Mw,R
where Rm,r is the net rate of production of species m, due to
reaction r, YP is the mass fraction of any product species, P,
YR is the mass fraction of any particular reactant, R, A is an
empirical constant equal to 4.0, and B is an empirical constant
equal to 0.5.
When we initialize the solution, FLUENT sets the product
mass fractions to 0.01, which is sufficient to start the reaction.
The local mass fraction of each species Ym , is predicted
through the solution of a convection–diffusion equation for the
mth species i.e.,
j(Ym )
+ ∇(Ym ) = −∇Jm + Rm + Sm , (8)
jt
where Rm is the net rate of production of species ‘m’ by chem-
ical reaction.
Sm is the rate of creation by addition from the dispersed
phase.
This equation is solved for N −1 species where N is the total
number of fluid phase chemical species present in the system.
In our model, the diffusion is taken into account by speci-
fying the number of species using the material’s panel [which
is part of preprocessing steps using FLUENT] using the above
equation, and the premixed combustion is defined using the
viscous model, thus both the things occur simultaneously.
 M. Masood et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547
The G-equation that has been utilized satisfies the condition
that the flame front location should be such that the variable
G = 0. The equation is
jG jG
+ uj = SL |∇G|, (9)
jt jxj
where SL is the laminar flame speed. The rate of consump-
tion of the reactants is SL |∇G|, xj is the Cartesian coordinate,
uj is the Cartesian component of the velocity vector v and t is
the time.
The laminar flame speed in our model is correlated to the
pressure, and the variation between our model and the other
model is that we are not considering the PREMIX code. The
variation of flame curvature is not considered in the G-function
of our model but it depends upon the diffusion of the species,
which is taken into account during the preprocessing steps of
the problem analysis.
A full mesh model has been utilized. As we are considering
the full model, a coarse mesh has been utilized and a hybrid
grid has been considered for the meshing.
3. CFD analysis
CFD analysis was carried out for the combustion and emis-
sion analysis of hydrogen–diesel dual fuel mode by varying the
percentage of hydrogen substitution. Diesel was injected at a
pressure of 160 bar, air was inducted at atmospheric tempera-
ture and pressure and hydrogen were:
(a) Injected through the injector at a pressure of 60 bar directly
into the combustion chamber.
(b) It was inducted through the inlet manifold and slightly
above the atmospheric condition.
Diesel is used as the primary fuel and combustion is con-
trolled by adding hydrogen as an additive during the combus-
tion phase. Meshing of the combustion chamber is carried out
using GAMBIT, by a tetrahedral element using cooper tool.
Hydrogen and diesel were predefined in the fuel selection op-
tions along with air. The results obtained were presented for
discussion along with experimental verification.
4. Experimental setup
The engine used in the present study was a Kirloskar AV-1;
single cylinder direct injection diesel engine with the specifi-
cations given in Table 1 and schematic experimental setup is
shown in Fig. 1. Diesel was injected with a nozzle of hole size
of 0.15 mm, hydrogen was injected by a hydrogen injector, the
cross section in Fig. 13 shows the location of injectors. Si-
multaneous provision is also provided for hydrogen induction
through inlet manifold (Fig. 14); this is to compare the effect
of injection versus induction. Airflow rate was measured using
a laminar flow element.
2541
Table 1
Specifications
Type 4-stroke, single cylinder, compression
ignition engine with variable compression ratio
Make Kirloskar AV-1
Rated power 3.7 KW, 1500 RPM
Bore and Stroke 85 mm × 110 mm
Compression ratio 16.5: 1, variable from 14.3 to 24.5
Cylinder capacity 624. cc
Dynamometer Electrical-AC Alternator
Cylinder pressure Piezo sensor, Range: 2000 psi
Orifice dia. 0.15 mm
Fuel Diesel, hydrogen
Hydrogen injection By injector and by induction method
The engine was coupled to a DC dynamometer and all the
experiments were carried out at a constant speed of 1400 rpm.
Electric resistance load is applied on the dynamometer through
an alternator in percentages of full load. As the load was
increased, the rpm decreased, and it was maintained constant
by increasing the hydrogen flow rate by a thermal mass flow
controller.
Crank-angle-resolved in-cylinder pressures and the diesel in-
jection pressures were measured. A computer interfaced piezo-
electric sensor, of range 145 bar was used to note the in-cylinder
pressures. Pressure signals were obtained at one-degree crank
angle intervals using a digital data acquisition system. The av-
erage pressure data from 100 consecutive cycles were used for
calculating combustion parameters. Special software was used
to obtain combustion parameters. It is a software developed
using C and Matlab for collecting the pressure histories from
the piezoelectric transducers and data from the data acquisi-
tion system and for storing in the computer. It is programmed
to calculate the heat release rate from the data collected using
the well-established formulas of heat release rate calculations.
The special software stores the data of pressures and volumes
corresponding to a particular crank angle location for plotting
the P–V and P– curves.
The experiments were carried out first by injecting hydro-
gen at a pressure of 60 bar, and then it was repeated for the
same operating conditions by induction into the manifold at at-
mospheric pressure, while the diesel was directly injected into
the cylinder in both the cases at a pressure of 160 bar. Hydro-
gen flow rate was controlled by a thermal mass flow controller.
The airflow rate was measured using a laminar flow element.
The engine speed was maintained constant by controlling the
hydrogen gas mass flow rate. Engine exhaust emissions were
measured using an advanced AVL gas analyzer, which is a non
dispersive infrared gas analyzer. The sample to be evaluated
is passed through a cold trap to condense the water vapors,
which influences the functioning of the infrared analyzer. The
exhaust gas analyzer is calibrated periodically using standard
calibration gas. The hydrocarbons and NOx are measured in
terms of parts per million (ppm) as hexane equivalent and car-
bon monoxide emissions are measured in terms of percentage
volume. Standard Bosch smoke measuring instrument is used
to measure the exhaust smoke emission from the engine.
2542 M. Masood et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547

4 13
2

10
8

14 5
1
1

9
12
3

7 15
6

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the complete engine test setup with instrumentation. 1. Hydrogren gas cylinder; 2. Flash back arrestor; 3. Fome arrestor; 4. Air
tank; 5. H2 injector; 6. Variable compression ratio engine; 7. Dynamometer; 8. PC interfaced data acqusition system; 9. PC interfaced with VCR; 10. Provision
to change the compression ratio; 11. Pressure sensor to record Cly Pt; 12. Cable connecting the sensor to PC; 13. Diesel tank connected to injector; 14. TDC
pick-up; 15. Exhaust gas analyzer.

5. Results and discussions Brake thermal efficiency Vs % H2

35
5.1. Effect of hydrogen substitution on brake thermal efficiency 30
B.thermal efficiency

25
The experimental analysis carried out to study the effect
of hydrogen induction through inlet manifold versus that of 20
Induction
direct hydrogen injection on brake thermal efficiency is pre- 15
Injection
sented in Fig. 2. The brake thermal efficiency increased with 10
the increase in percentage substitution of hydrogen by both
5
the methods; however, the efficiency was higher by around
19% in induction through inlet manifold when compared to 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
that of direct injection method. This is primarily because of
% Hydrogen substitution
uniform mixing of hydrogen and air (by induction method)
which formed a homogeneous mixture, burnt completely by the Fig. 2. Efficiency comparisons.
flame initiated by the diesel injection and resulted in complete
heat release.
The combustion modeling, that has predicted the velocity
contours for both methods of hydrogen injection, confirms the
experimentally obtained trends. As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the
central core portion, in case of induction method (Fig. 4) rep-
resents a homogeneous charge compression ignition behavior,
whereas in the case of direct injection, it represents the non
turbulent behavior. The flame front travel in case of induction
is more rigorous and uniform when compared to rather slow
and non-uniform flame front in case of direct injection method
especially near the cylinder walls. For induction method, the
predicted combustion velocities are shown in Fig. 5, these were
at least 23% higher than that of direct injection method.
Additionally, as can be seen from the model, the slow rate
of flame travel near the cylinder walls may leave some of the
fuel unburned, set out as excessive unburned hydrocarbons. The
model also highlights very clearly the regions of high and low
Fig. 3. H2 injection method.
turbulence in both the cases.
 M. Masood et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547
Fig. 4. H2 induction method.
Combustion velocity Vs % Hydrogen substitution
Combustion velocity m/s
800
700
600
500
400 Velocity in m/s
300
200
100
0 both direct injection and port injection. However in case of di-
10 30 50 70 90
% Hydrogen substitution
Fig. 5. CFD results analysis of combustion velocity vs % hydrogen
substitution.
Though the simulation and experimented values show a good
agreement, the combustion model fails to predict the transi-
tion between diesel pilot and hydrogen gas combustion. The
model also does not very clearly predict the performance at very
low hydrogen percentage substitutions by both the methods of
injection.
5.2. Effect of hydrogen substitution on combustion
Pressure signals were obtained at one-degree crank angle
intervals using a digital data acquisition system. The average
pressure data from 100 consecutive cycles were used for calcu-
lating combustion parameters. Pressure–crank angle and heat-
release rate with crank angle diagrams were plotted from the
data collected for the combustion analysis as shown in Figs. 10
and 11 for both the methods of hydrogen injection. The com-
bustion analysis from the data collected for dual fuel shows that
there are two main stages of combustion in the dual fuel mode
like in diesel (single fuel) mode. The first stage is mainly the
combustion of diesel, along with the small amount of hydrogen
entrained in the diesel spray, while the second phase of com-
bustion is mainly due to the combustion of remaining amount
of hydrogen by flame propagation from the ignition centers
formed by the diesel spray. The second stage is stronger than
2543
the diesel mode as most of heat release occurs by the combus-
tion of hydrogen by flame propagation.
In the rapid combustion phase, which is around 355◦ in Figs.
10 and 11, it can be seen that combustion becomes more rapid
with the increased percentage of hydrogen than that of lower
hydrogen substitutions. The rate of pressure rise per crank angle
is higher with higher percentages of hydrogen substitutions
because of higher flame velocities of hydrogen. With lower
hydrogen percentages, the peak pressures are getting shifted
more towards the TDC. The rise of pressure per degree of crank
angle is more in the dual mode. This is because of the high
flammability of hydrogen and rapid combustion.
The peak heat release rate, that is, the peak combustion is
considerably low at low outputs in the dual fuel mode as com-
pared to that of single diesel mode. This is the reason for the
reduced brake thermal efficiency and reduced rate of pressure
rise at low outputs in the dual fuel mode when compared to
diesel. The rate of heat release increased with hydrogen sub-
stitution at high outputs. This is because as the hydrogen per-
centage is increased, the mixture becomes rich in hydrogen in
hydrogen-air combination. This sets the rapid combustion rates,
which tends to increase the pressure rapidly in the dual fuel
mode. The rate of heat release is higher in dual fuel because of
combined burning of two fuels. This is one of the reasons for
higher thermal efficiency at high outputs in the dual fuel mode.
Fundamentally the combustion analysis was the same for
rect injection of hydrogen at low loads, the combustion dura-
tion increased. This is due to the reduced combustion rate of
the primary fuel (diesel)–air mixture which in turn was a result
of the reduction in the ignition centers. As the percentage of
hydrogen is increased, the rate of pressure rise per crank angle
is simultaneously increased. At leaner mixtures, however, the
flame velocity decreases significantly.
In case of induction of hydrogen through the inlet manifold,
it forms more ignition centers because of homogeneous mixture
formation which results in faster and complete combustion even
at low outputs. This resulted in higher rate of pressure rise per
crank angle and higher rate of heat release by induction. The
experimental results shows that pressure rise and heat release
rate per crank angle in case of induction is around 17% higher
than that of injection.
5.3. Effect of hydrogen substitution on NOx
The experimental results show an obvious trend of reduc-
tion in NOx with increase in hydrogen percentage. This could
be because increase in hydrogen substitution simultaneously
increases the mole fraction of H2 O, i.e., moisture increases
(Fig. 17), which finally brought down the peak temperatures.
And hence NOx decreases with the increase in hydrogen
substitution.
This experimental trend was in conformity with the simulated
results for both the methods of hydrogen injection, which can
be seen from Fig. 9. Additionally, the CFD analysis carried out
revealed that the NOx formation tendency is slightly higher
2544 M. Masood et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547

B.Thermal Efficiency Vs Injection Angle

35
30
B.thermal efficiency

25
20
15
10 Induction
Injection
5
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 10 0 10 20
injection Angle (Deg. CA)

Fig. 6. Effect of injection angle on efficiency.

Fig. 8. H2 injection.

700
600 CFD
500 Experimental

NOI [pp ]
400
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% hydrogen Substitution

Fig. 9. CFD results analysis of NO vs % hydrogen substitution.

Fig. 7. H2 induction method.

Heat release rate Vs Crank Angle
Heat release rate (deg.\CA)

450
in case of induction than in direct injection. This is probably 400
350
because of the reason that the combustion peak temperatures
300
are higher in induction than in injection. This can be seen from 250
Injection
Figs. 7 and 8. 200 Induction
150
100
5.4. Effect of injection angle on thermal efficiency
50
0
In the second case as shown in Fig. 6, the study was carried 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
out by changing the angle of injection of diesel. In the induction Crank Angle (deg.)
method, hydrogen was inducted through the inlet manifold and
only the diesel injection angle was changed (Figs. 7–10). Fig. 10. Heat release rate comparisons.
Similarly in the direct injection method, the injection angles
of both hydrogen and diesel were changed. As shown in Fig. 6, reduced. Higher rate of turbulence and complete heat release
in both the methods, the brake thermal efficiency increased were the reasons of higher efficiency in induction than in direct
first and then in the very advance injection angles it decreases. injection which will further be discussed in the case of rate of
However, in this case also the induction method had the higher heat release.
efficiency than that of injection.
The flame speed is quite low in non-turbulent mixtures and 5.5. Effect of injection angle on heat release rate
increases with increasing turbulence. This is mainly due to the
additional intermingling of the burning and unburned particles As discussed earlier, injection angles were varied in the fol-
at the flame front which expedites reaction by increasing the lowing ways:
rate of contact. Turbulence increases the heat flow to the cylin-
der walls. It also accelerates the chemical reaction by intimate (1) In case of induction, only the diesel injection angle was
mixing of fuels and oxygen so that injection advance may be varied.
 M. Masood et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547 2545

Pressure-Crank Angle diagram, 80% H2

100
90
Pressure (bar)

80
70
60 Injection
50
Induction
40
30
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800
Crank Angle (deg.)

Fig. 11. Pressure crank angle diagram comparisons.

Fig. 13. Induction of hydrogen through inlet manifold with flame arrestor.

Intake valve 300

Diesel
250

Heat release rate (deg. /CA)

Injector Hydrogen Injector

200

150

20 deg.
100
Pressure transducer 10 deg.
2.5 deg
BTDC
50
3 ATDC
A-A
Exhaust valve
0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50
A Fuel jet A
Injection angle (deg. CA)

Fig. 14. Heat release rate analysis for induction method.

85
Rate of Heat Release (J/deg.)

Fig. 12. Piston and head C/s, with fuel injectors, pressure transducer, intake 300
and exhaust valves.
250

200

150 20 deg.
(2) In case of direct injection, both the hydrogen and diesel 10 deg.
injection angles were varied which were measured in terms 100 2.5 deg
of crank angles. BTDC
50 3 ATDC

For the case 1, the effect of injection angles on heat release rate 0
are shown in Fig. 14. -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
The injection timing resulting in the shortest ignition de- Injection angle (deg.CA)
lay yields the highest level of smoke. A shorter ignition delay
Fig. 15. Heat release rate analysis for injection method.
yields a higher percentage of diffusion burn because less time
is available for mixing prior to ignition. As expected, combus-
tion duration is maximized at the same injection timing that The increased ignition delay increases the time for fuel and
ignition delay is minimized. Since diffusion combustion has air mixing, allowing for attainment of premixed compression
a slower burn rate than premixed combustion, it substantiates ignition combustion.
the claim that combustion duration increases as the diffusion Notice that the rate of heat release shifts by much more
burn portion increases. Therefore, smoke increases as the con- than 10◦ as timing is retarded from 20◦ BTDC to 10◦ BTDC
tribution of diffusion burn to the total heat release increases (Fig. 15). This shift, as well as the decreased rate of heat release,
(Figs. 11–14). results in combustion temperatures low enough to avoid fuel
As the injection timing was earlier, the value of the second pyrolysis, and thus soot formation.
peak of heat release becomes smaller, because the rate of pre- Whereas during induction of hydrogen (Fig. 14), the same
mixed combustion increases. amount of retardation resulted in higher rate of heat release,
2546 M. Masood et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547

900 Mole Fraction of H2O Vs % H2

800
700 0.7

Mole Fraction of H2O

NOx (ppm)

600 0.6
500 Injection 0.5
400 Induction 0.4 Induction
300 0.3 injection
200 0.2
100
0.1
0
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
0 20 40 60 80 100
CAD ATDC
% Hydrogen substitution
Fig. 16. Effect of injection angles on NOx .
Fig. 17. Effect of H2 on H2 O formation.

higher combustion temperatures and soot formation occurred

because of fuel pyrolizes during high temperature combustion.
5.6. Effect of injection timing on NOx
As ignition is advanced by advancing the fuel injection, peak
pressure, rate of pressure and NOx production all increased.
NOx decreases monotonically as timing is retarded in both the
cases. Initially, smoke increased as expected based on classi-
cal diesel combustion behavior (Fig. 18). However, as injection
timing is further retarded, smoke begins to drop. As shown in
Fig. 18, for the induction method the PM level decreased contin-
uously in contrast to the direct injection where it increased first
then decreased. Smoke (or soot) in the exhaust is the difference
between soot formation and soot oxidation [14]. Soot formation
occurs as fuel pyrolizes during high temperature combustion.
Fuel pyrolysis is defined as hydrocarbon chain fragmentation
in the absence of oxygen. These fragmentations then develop
into nucleation sites for hydrocarbons and sulfates to adhere
onto, thus forming the soot particle. Soot oxidation occurs as
high temperature gases promote soot burning.
When the injection angle was retarded from near TDC, NOx
increased and had the maximum value near 23◦ BTDC, which
can be seen from Fig. 16; when the injection angle was further
retarded, NOx value decreased. This is because, there is no
high temperature area due to well mixing of hydrogen, air and
diesel. Diesel, which is around 20% in the present case, as 80%
is hydrogen substitution.
The NOx formation in case of induction method was found
to be 33% higher than that of the direct injection method at
lower percentages of hydrogen substitutions. However, it was
found that as the percentage of hydrogen was increased the
value of NOx decreased (Fig. 9), since mole fraction of H2 O
increased (Figs. 17 and 18).
As discussed above, the induction of hydrogen through the
inlet manifold seems more promising than that of direct injec-
tion. However, the risk of hydrogen leakage and chances of
catching fire in the inlet manifold when mixed with air are some
of the drawbacks of induction, whereas the direct injection of
hydrogen in CI engine avoids the risk of backfire besides be-
ing low specific fuel consumption when compared to induction.
The high delivery pressure of hydrogen in direct injection re-
1.6
Induction
1.4 injection
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
CAD ATDC
Fig. 18. Effect of injection angle on PM.
quires additional handling and operating care. The tendency of
slightly higher NOx formation especially at lower percentages
of hydrogen substitutions in the induction method is one the
limiting factor. Practically storage of two fuels separately on
board causes additional cost and care hence not very feasible.
However for research, it is not a constraint.
6. Conclusions
The CFD analysis along with the experimental investigations
carried out to compare the hydrogen–diesel dual fuel combus-
tion and emissions by induction and direct injection methods
had the following conclusions:
This approach with little modification to the existing model
has given an acceptable range of results. However there exist
many areas which are unaddressed by the model. At low and
high percentages of hydrogen and during transition between
diesel and hydrogen the model predictions are not very clear;
this eventually shows the limitation of the model and opens
the doors for further investigation. The results could have been
more accurate with higher degree of refinement of the com-
putational mesh. Here, however, the KIVA modeling has got a
clear edge both in refinement, flexibility and speed up over the
suggested model for co-fueling.
The hydrogen–diesel co-fueling will solve the drawback of
lean operation of hydrocarbon fuels such as diesel, which are
hard to ignite and results in reduced power output, by reducing
misfires, improving emissions, performance and fuel economy.
 M. Masood et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 2539 – 2547
However handling and storing two fuels separately pose prac-
tical difficulty.
The other conclusions that can be drawn out of the analysis
are:
• Practically the brake thermal efficiency was around 19%
higher in the induction method when compared to that of
the direct injection method.
• CFD analysis of both the methods show that the combus-
tion velocity increased with higher hydrogen substitutions.
• The predicted combustion velocities for the induction
method are at least 23% higher than that of the direct
injection method.
• The CFD analysis carried out revealed that the NOx
formation tendency is higher in case of induction than
in direct injection. This tendency was confirmed by the
practical results obtained. The NOx formation in case
of induction was found to be 33% higher than that of
the injection method at lower percentages of hydrogen
substitutions.
• As ignition is advanced by advancing the fuel injection,
peak pressure, rate of pressure and NOx production all
increased. NOx decreases monotonically as timing is re-
tarded in both the cases.
• The experimental results show that pressure rise and heat
release rate per crank angle in case of induction is around
17% higher than that of direct injection.
References
[1] Poonia PM, Ramesh A, Gaur RR. Experimental investigation of the
factors affecting the performance of a LPG-diesel dual fuel engine. SAE
Paper No. 99-01-1123, SAE transactions. J Fuels Lubricants; 1999.
2547
[2] Poonia PM, Ramesh A, Gaur RR. The effect of air temperature and
pilot fuel quantity on the combustion characteristics of a LPG-diesel
dual fuel engine. SAE Paper No. 982455; 1998.
[3] Fraser RA, Siebers DL, Edwards CF. Auto-ignition of methane and
natural gas in a simulated diesel environment. Presented at SAE. Paper
SAE 2003-01-0755.
[4] Naber JD, Siebers DL, Caton JA, Westbrook CK, Di Jjulio SS. Natural
gas auto ignition under diesel condition: experiments and chemical
kinetics modeling. Presented at SAE. Paper SAE 942034; 1994.
[5] Abd-Alla GH, Soliman HA, Badr OA, Abd-Rabbo MF. Energy
Conversion Manage 2000;41:559–72.
[6] Singh S. The effect of fuel injection timing and pilot quantity on the
pollutant emissions from a pilot ignited natural gas engine. Masters
Thesis, The University of Alabama; 2002.
[7] Daisho Y, et al. Controlling combustion and exhaust emissions in a direct
injection diesel engine dual—fueled with natural gas. SAE Paper No.
952436; 1995.
[8] Karim GA, Liu T, Jones W. Exhaust emissions from dual fuel engines
at light loads. Presented at SAE. Paper SAE 932822; 1993.
[9] Yashuhiro KT, Yuki SN, Ryoji K, Takeshi S. Controlling combustion
and exhaust emissions in a direct—injection diesel engine dual fueled
with natural gas. Presented at SAE. Paper SAE 952436; 1995.
[10] Hermann, Rottengurber, Ulrichwiebike. Hydrogen diesel engine with
direct injection, high power density and low exhaust gas emissions. MTZ
Motortechniscie, Zietschrift, Report, 61; 2001.
[11] Kong SC, Han ZW, Reitz RD. The development and application of
a diesel ignition and combustion model for multidimensional engine
simulations. SAE 950278; 1995.
[12] Peters N. Turbulent combustion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press; 2000.
[13] Tan Z, Reitz RD. Modeling in spark–ignition engines using a level set
method. Presented at SAE. Paper SAE 2003-01-0722.
[14] Khan I, Greeves G, Wang C. Factors affecting smoke and gaseous
emissions from direct injection engines and a method of calculation.
SAE Paper 730169; 1973.