2005-01-0246

MPI Air/Fuel Mixing for Gaseous and Liquid LPG

Paul Baker and Harry Watson
University of Melbourne

Copyright © 2004 SAE International

ABSTRACT In the past two decades, complacency with security of oil

supplies and confidence of meeting emission targets
This paper presents a parametric, experimental study of with gasoline combustion systems has seen a reduction
the performance of gas and liquid propane injection in a in research effort into alternative fuels, with the result
spark ignition, multi-point port injected (MPI) engine. An that it has slipped behind that of gasoline research.
inline, six cylinder engine is used over a wide range of Current world events, rapid fluctuations in crude oil
speeds and torques, and the air/fuel ratio, compression prices, together with an increasing sense of urgency with
ratio and injection timing are all varied. The engine was respect to global warming has thrown the spotlight back
mapped at the standard compression ratio of 9.65:1 with onto alternative practical energy sources. One line of
the original, gasoline MPI system, propane gas MPI, and investigation has seen the development of diesel
single point, throttle body, propane gas injection. Gas engines, which can offer high efficiency and economy.
and liquid propane MPI are then tested at a compression But a major draw back with diesel combustion systems
ratio of 11.7:1. is the emission of particulates. Current research
indicates that the smaller particulates, PM10 and
Contour plots of thermodynamic efficiency and the smaller, pose the greatest risk as carcinogens(Walsh
specific emissions of HC, NOx, CO2 and CO over the 2004).
torque/speed range are presented and compared. The
results show significant differences in performance LPG stands out as a viable alternative with a H/C ratio of
between gas and liquid propane MPI injection, as well as 2.63:1 compared to gasoline and diesel with H/C ratios
the MPI and throttle body gas injection. Previous of around 1.8 to 1.85:1, offering potentially a much lower
research has in part attributed this difference in CO2 specific emission. Also, being a fuel with simple
performance to the increased volumetric efficiency of the molecular structure, primarily being a mixture of propane
liquid propane injection. This paper examines gas and and butanes, the fuel has a low tendency to form
liquid injection of propane and proposes that the aromatics or particulates on combustion. See table 1 for
difference in the method of mixing also significantly a more comprehensive comparison of gasoline, diesel
affects engine performance. Significant improvements in and LPG. The fuels used in this research are: (i) low
emissions and thermal efficiencies were achieved when octane unleaded gasoline and (ii) LPG with
compared with gasoline, eg. specific emissions approximately HD5 composition (approximately 95%
reductions of 88% for HC, 45% for NOx, 40% for CO2, propane).
92% for CO and a rise of 27% in thermal efficiency.
Table 1. Fuel Properties
INTRODUCTION
Res. Lower Lower Rel Stoic Stoic
Octane Heating Heating Density A/F A/F
Over the past few decades, extensive research has No. Value Value Ratio Ratio
Fuel
been undertaken with gasoline, on multi point port Type (RON) (MJ/kg) (MJ/l) (Vol (mass
injection (MPI) injector nozzle design, droplet basis) basis)
distribution, injection timing, fuel pooling and other
factors relating to combustion in S.I. Research has been LPG 98–103 46.33 23.63 0.51 24:1 15.7:1
(HD5)
driven mainly by government legislation requiring ever
lower emission standards and improved fuel economy. Gasoline 91-93 44.2 31.82 0.74 60:1 14.7:1
The science and art of port fuel injection has reached the
stage where first injection first fire can be successfully Diesel _ 43.25 35.9 0.83 _ 14.5:1
accomplished (Honda 2002).
The objective of this paper is to report on a
comprehensive, steady state investigation of the
influence of gas and liquid injection under stoichiometric
and lean burn conditions in LPG-MPI and throttle body
injection (TBI) systems.
Previous studies have indicated that LPG can operate
under lean burn (leaner than gasoline) with
improvements in exhaust emissions.(Watson 1982;
Farook 1994; IMechE 1996; Shinichi G 1999) This paper
includes the effects of lean burn when applied to LPG
injection systems, on the basis that lean NOx catalyst
technology may be applicable to engines in regions of
the world where ultimate emission standards are not yet
in force, but where commitment to greenhouse gas
abatement makes LPG an attractive option.
Table 2. Engine specification
Bore x Stroke 92.26 X 99.31 mm
Number of Cylinders 6
Engine Configuration Vertical inline
Connecting rod length 153.85 mm
Compression Ratios 9.65:1 and 11.7:1
Spark Timing M.B.T.
Air/Fuel ratio range (λ) 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4
Coolant temp. 85 °C
Valve Train Single OHC, 2 valves per
cylinder
In this study, the engine was an Australian Ford Falcon
(2000 model) six cylinder inline, 4.0 litre spark ignition
unleaded gasoline MPI engine. It was used to measure
engine performance and emissions in OEM format on
gasoline with a sequential MPI system, LPG TBI – gas
phase, LPG MPI – gas phase and LPG – MPI liquid
phase systems. Brake thermal efficiency and specific
emissions were calculated from direct measurements for
a wide ranging torque-speed map at steady state
conditions. Parameters systematically varied for each
system include air/fuel ratio, injection timing, and
compression ratio.
TEST APPARATUS
A summary of the test engine specification appears in
table 2.
Figure 1. Engine test cell set-up.
The engine was also equipped with variable cam timing
and a two-state induction runner length (broad band)
system The broad band system was only used when
measuring the maximum torque curve for each system.
While conducting emission trials, it was set to the short
runner path. For the sake of simplicity, the variable cam
timing feature was not used.
The standard Ford EEC V engine control unit (ECU) was
replaced by a MOTEC M48 ECU which allowed ease of
manipulation of fuel injection pulse width and spark
timing via a personal computer (PC) connected to the
ECU via an RS232 link. Figure 1 shows a schematic of
the test cell set-up.
A significant problem when measuring the mass flow
rate of LPG is that the fuel is a low density (only half the
density of water), saturated liquid operating under
pressure. A liquid LPG system requires a circulatory
system where fuel is pumped at a pressure above the
tank pressure to the fuel rail. The unused fuel returns
back to the tank, thus necessitating the need for two
measurements (supply and return) if in-line mass flow
meters are to be used. This would result in a reduction in
resolution as the errors of both instruments would
compound. The problem is further exacerbated by the
fact that the fuel is stored in a heavy pressure vessel, so
any gravimetric change in mass by the low density fuel
would be masked by the large tank mass, limiting the
signal resolution. The method chosen to overcome this
problem was to measure gravimetrically using a beam
balance mechanism where the large tank mass is
cancelled by a counterbalance weight thus allowing
small changes in mass due to net fuel loss, to be
detected and measured. The beam balance was used in
“force balance” mode by using a load cell to transmit the
decreasing fuel mass to the data logging computer
which then computes the time taken for a predetermined
net mass loss, thus determining fuel mass flow rate.
The mass flow rate of air was measured directly with a
Hitachi model AFH80-X21 hot wire anemometer located
at the air intake.
The air/fuel ratio was measured via three different
methods:
• Computed from the mass flow readings of air and
fuel,
• via a Bosch LSU 5-wire wide band heated exhaust
gas oxygen (HEGO) sensor, and
• via an NDIR five-gas exhaust gas analyser.
In this way, the measurements could be crossed
checked for accuracy and an average lambda value
computed. Fuel rail pressure and temperature (liquid and
gas) were also measured and logged to determine the
state of the fuel upstream of injectors. Fuel rail
pressures and injection timing were varied for both gas
and liquid injection systems to find the setting that gave
the optimum operating performance and lowest
emissions, using HC emissions and imep as indicators.
An eddy current type Heenan and Froude Dynamatic II
brake dynamometer was used in 1st quadrant speed
control mode. The relative humidity was calculated by
the data logging computer via wet and dry bulb
temperature signals from a forced draught psychrometer
and barometric pressure was entered via the keyboard,
allowing brake torque and power corrections.
Keihin type 3 gas injectors were used for the MPI-Gas
application, replacing the original gasoline injectors, and
two Keihin type 2 gas injectors were used in the TBI-Gas
application, located just upstream of the throttle plate.
Seimens bottom feed injectors were used for the liquid
phase MPI application. Fuel rail pressure for the MPI
gas system was maintained to give a 375 kPa pressure
drop across the injector . The fuel rail pressure was
modulated by a MAP feedback signal from the manifold.
Fuel rail pressure for the liquid injection system was
achieved by the application of a pressure regulated non-
return valve located in the return section of the fuel rail.
Rail pressure for the liquid injection system did not
appear to be quite as critical with a pressure of 10 bar
maintained upstream of injectors.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The strategy employed was to standardise all settings,
except the variable being tested; i.e. all tests were
carried out at minimum spark advance for maximum
brake torque (MBT), the broad band manifold setting
was set to short runner and the VCT disabled.
The parameters varied were fuel system/fuel type,
lambda and compression ratio. Only one parameter was
varied at any one time while all other parameters were
fixed. At each setting, the engine was tested for mapping
points ranging from 1000 to 4000 rev/min in increments
of 500 rev/min, at torques from no load to wide open
throttle (WOT), in increments of 50 Nm. Fuel
systems/types, tested at the standard compression ratio
of 9.65:1 were:
(i) standard OEM gasoline MPI system with gasoline
(ii) propane (approximately HD5 blend) in gaseous
phase with throttle body injection (TBI), and
(iii) propane in gaseous phase with MPI.
Systems tested at the higher compression ratios of
11.7:1 were propane MPI in gaseous and liquid phase
injection modes. All systems were tested at lambda
values of 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
After installing each fuel injection system, the injection
timing was optimised over the speed and load range, to
minimise HC emissions and coefficient of variation of
indicated mean effective pressure (CoVimep), while
maximising CO2 (as an indicator of combustion
efficiency).
MIXING CHARACTERISTICS
In the mid 90’s, research was beginning to emerge
indicating that the gas mixing processes in CNG and
LPG automotive gas systems may be more of a
challenge than first thought.(Abraham J. 1994; Abraham,
Minnesota et al. 1995; Das 1995) 3-D Modeling carried
out by Abraham comparing the mixing of a methane gas
jet from an injector with a liquid spray injection as used
in direct injection in diesel engines, demonstrated that
the liquid injection gave faster mixing. Das, in his work
with CNG MPI systems on a 6 cylinder SI engine
discovered that the location of the injector in the runner,
had a significant effect on combustion efficiency and
engine out emissions. The closer to the valve, the.
injector was located, the worse the combustion process.
He concluded that this was very likely due to poor
mixing of the gas jet co-flowing with the manifold air.
Inspection of figures 2 and 3 reveals that the overall
values of brake thermal efficiency for the LPG MPI gas
system are slightly lower than for the gasoline MPI
system, and that there is a bias of the brake thermal
efficiency peak to opposite sides of the graph for each
fuel type. i.e.. gasoline liquid spray injection shows a
strong bias to the lower speed / high torque section of
the map, while LPG MPI gas injection shows a bias to
the high speed / high torque side of the graph.
It has been proposed that cylinder-to cylinder variations
in A/F ratio could be different amongst the fuelling
systems and thus contribute to the shift in the shape of
the efficiency maps. This research has indicated
however, that a mal-distribution of A/F ratio across
 350 350
M a x T orque C urve
M a x T orque C urve

32
300 X 300
M a x 3 3 .2 % 31 X
M a x 3 2 .0 %
250 30 250
28

30
Torque (Nm)
Torque (Nm)

200 28 200
32

30 150
150
28 26
28
24
100 24 100
20 22 20

50 18 16
50 16 14
15 12
10 9 10 190 8
8 8 75 6
4 6 7 56 4 0 9
0 3 5 0
1 0 00 20 0 0 3000 4000 1 0 00 20 0 0 3000 4000
E ngine S pe e d (re vs/m in) E ngine S pe e d (re vs/m in)

Figure 2(a). Brake thermal efficiencies of gasoline with standard MPI Figure 3(a). Brake thermal efficiencies of LPG with MPI gas system at
system at compression ratio 9.65:1 for Lambda 1.0. compression ratio 9.65:1, Lambda 1.0

300 300
M ax Torque Curve

32
34

M ax 34.8 % M ax 34.5 %
250 X X 250 M ax Torque Curve 33 X
34
M ax 33.8%
30
200 200
Torque (Nm)
Torque (Nm)

32 32

150 30 28 150
28
30
28 24 26 24
100 26 100
22 22
24 20
22 20
20 18 18
50 16 50 16
16 14 16
14 14
12 12
8 9 10 10
6 7 8 8
7 9
2 4 5 6 6 8
0 3 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 1000 2000 3000 4000
Engine Speed (revs/min) Engine Speed (revs/min)

Figure 2(b). Brake thermal efficiencies of gasoline with standard MPI Figure 3(b). Brake thermal efficiencies of LPG with MPI gas system at
system at compression ratio 9.65:1 for Lambda 1.2. compression ratio 9.65:1, Lambda 1.2

300
300
32
34
33
34

M ax T orque C urve 250 X

250
Max Torque Curve
35

200 X M ax 3 6 .3 % 200
32
Max 34.3%
30
Torque (Nm)
Torque (Nm)

32

150
150 30
28 30 28
26
100 24
100 26
24 24 22
22 20 20
20 18 18
18 50 16
50 14
16 14
14 12
12 10
9 10 8
7 8 9 6
5 6 0
0 3 4 1000 2000 3000 4000
1000 2000 3000 4000 Engine Speed (revs/min)
E ngine S peed (revs/m in)

Figure 2(c). Brake thermal efficiencies of gasoline with standard MPI Figure 3(c). Brake thermal efficiencies of LPG with MPI system at
system at compression ratio 9.65:1 for Lambda 1.4. compression ratio 9.65:1, Lambda 1.3
 300

250

28
M ax Torque C urve
200 X
Torque (Nm)

M ax 3 3 .0 %

150 30
28 26

100 24
22
20
22
50 18 16
14 12
10 14
7 9
8
0 3 5 6
1000 2000 3000 4000
E ngine S peed (revs/min)

Figure 4(a). Brake thermal efficiencies of LPG with TBI system at

compression ratio 9.65:1, Lambda 1.0
Figure 5 Cylinder-to-cylinder variation in A/F amongst the fuelling
systems at 1500 r/min, 80Nm & Lambda 1.0 (nominal)
300

cylinders occurs independently of the type of fuel system

250
used, TBI or MPI. A typical example of A/F distribution is
M ax T orque C urve
shown in figure 5 for three fuelling systems at a
34

200 X 32 moderate speed-load point. The trend for leaner

M ax 3 5 %
Torque (Nm)

mixtures in cylinders 1 and 6 is evidenced across the

150
30
fuels and supply methods (Baker 2004), however,
28
although the variations are slightly more pronounced
100 26
24 with the higher compression ratio variants of the engine.
22
20
Although these variations influence the engine’s
50
16
18 efficiency at high values of lambda when some cylinders
12
14
10
approach the lean limit, these variations are likely to
9 12
0
1000
6
2000 3000
78
4000
have common effects amongst the fuel supply and
E ngine S peed (revs/m in) injector location positions.
Figure 4(b). Brake thermal efficiencies of LPG with TBI system at
compression ratio 9.65:1, Lambda 1.2 It is proposed that the phenomenon of differing efficiency
map shapes is primarily due to the fundamental
difference in mixing characteristics between fluids of the
same phase, compared with that of different phases.

For fluids of the same phase, the mixing process is

300 primarily reliant on turbulence within the media to affect
mixing. As Abraham’s model shows(Abraham J. 1994),
250
turbulence at the periphery of the jet caused by the
34
transfer of momentum of the gas jet to the adjacent air
34

Max Torque Curve creates the shear necessary to promote mixing only at
200 X
Max 34.5 %2 the interface of the gas jet with the surrounding air. This
Torque (Nm)

3
mixing process may be enhanced by additional shear
30

150 caused by bulk turbulence within the air stream. The

30
28 mixing mechanism of fuel sprays is quite different. The
100 26
24
very fine liquid droplets within the liquid spray, have a
24
22 much greater density than the surrounding air, allowing
20
50
18 greater penetration and greater momentum transfer to
20 18 16
14 the air creating local shear in their wake. Vaporization of
12
10
9
7
6 8
the droplets occurs as they travel through the air
0 5
1000 2000 3000 4000 medium, leaving a vapor trail behind them. This
Engine Speed (revs/min)
mechanism greatly assists the bulk distribution of vapor
Figure 4(c). Brake thermal efficiencies of LPG with TBI system at throughout the air. The greater interface surface area
compression ratio 9.65:1, Lambda 1.3 created allows greater diffusion rates and faster mixing.

The shape of the brake thermal efficiency contour plots

in figure 2 are fairly typical for gasoline, where the peak
efficiency is shifted left due to mechanical friction losses.
Friction power is a function of engine speed, so the
lower the speed, the lower, the friction losses. Hence, at
lower speeds, the net useful power output will be
proportionally greater due to lower friction loss. It is
proposed that the peak occurs at the high torque region
of the map not only due to the higher proportional net
useful power output as described above, but also to
higher turbulence within the combustion chamber, and
within the intake runners due to the higher flow rates.
The higher turbulence within the combustion chamber
will promote a faster burning flame, and it will also aid
the final mixing process of the reactants prior to
combustion thus promoting greater combustion
efficiency. In the same way, higher flow rates will
promote higher turbulence within the intake system thus
assisting the mixing process.
The shift of the thermal efficiency peak to the right in
figure 3 may be explained by the higher flow rates and
hence, higher turbulence at the higher rev range,
required to promote adequate mixing of the gas MPI
system. Poor mixing may also explain why the brake
thermal efficiency figures are slightly lower for the LP
gas MPI system. It may also be noted that the maximum
torque curves for all lambda values for the gas MPI fuel
system are lower than those for the gasoline liquid MPI
system. (It must be emphasized here that the engine is
capable of producing much higher toques than those
shown in this study. The primary purpose of this study is
to highlight the mixing processes so the broad band
intake system and VCT were not used.) It has been well
documented that a loss of power can be expected with
gas mixing systems due to a lower volumetric efficiency
caused by the gas displacement of air in the intake
charge and the lack of cooling of the charge due to
enthalpy absorption as a result of vaporization of the
fuel.
It could be argued that the differences between figures 2
& 3 could be attributed to the combustion characteristics
of the two different fuel types, and not to the
fundamental differences in mixing. A study of figures 3
and 4 can shed light on this question. The only
difference between the fueling systems used in figures 3
and 4 is the location of the injectors. All parameters
have been kept constant except for the location of
injection. Both systems use LPG gas injection, but the
system used in figure 4, replaces the six Keihin Type 3
injectors located at each port, (same location as the
conventional gasoline injectors) with two larger flow rate
Keihin Type-2 gas injectors, located just upstream of the
throttle body, that is, the same location as the gas mixer
in a conventional second generation type LP gas mixer
system. Examination of figure 4 shows that the peak of
the thermal efficiency has shifted to the left, into the
lower rev range, similar to the gasoline graphs. It also
shows a slight increase in brake thermal efficiency
above gasoline but drops away at lambda 1.3. Figure 4
also shows that the maximum torque curve is lower for
TBI – gas.
The shift of peak brake thermal efficiency to the left
supports the proposition that gas mixing is a strong
influence on the shape of the brake thermal efficiency
map. A computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) model
developed for the intake system in question by
Liew,(Liew 2004) shows that significant levels of
turbulent mixing occur within the intake system for a TBI
system. The model predicts that even with the additional
turbulent mixing occurring over a longer inlet runner
path, imperfect mixing still results due to the inherent
difficulty of gas mixing. The model also predicts uneven
A/F distribution from cylinder to cylinder. Results from
this investigation, as shown in figure 5, confirm this. The
longer residence time in the inlet system also has some
down side. The larger volume of gas/air mixture in the
inlet system increases the probability of backfire. During
the trials, at certain operating points, backfire occurred
quite frequently, whereas with the MPI system, backfire
did not occur. Figure 4 also shows that maximum torque
deteriorates at higher engine speeds. It is thought that
this could be due to a lower volumetric efficiency
introduced by the TBI system. Again it could be argued
that factors other than fuel mixing, have been dominant
in shaping the thermal efficiency maps for the TBI and
MPI gas systems. Figures 6 and 7 show brake thermal
efficiencies for LPG MPI systems at an engine
compression ratio of 11.7:1.
The only variation between these two sets of figures is
the method of injection. Figure 6 represents LPG MPI
gas injection and figure 7, LPG MPI liquid injection. For
both systems, there appears to be a shift to the left with
the higher compression ratio, but there is still a
significant difference in the bias within the graphs. It is
interesting to note that with the gas injection system,
there is a dominant peak on both sides of the map,
evident at stoichiometric and at lambda 1.4. It is thought
that the higher compression ratio may be assisting the
in-cylinder mixing/combustion processes in the lower rev
range. It is also pointed out that the brake thermal
efficiencies achieved for the higher compression ratio for
LPG, especially liquid phase, are considerably higher
than for gasoline at the standard compression ratio.
Thus the higher knock rating of LPG can be used to
great advantage. This is important as it means that LPG
can compete with gasoline economy. On a mass basis,
LPG wins hands down with fuel efficiency, but on a
volume basis, gasoline is ahead due to the lower density
of LPG. Fuel is currently purchased per unit volume,
thus giving gasoline the edge. With the higher
efficiencies reported in this paper, it is calculated that the
specific fuel consumption, volume basis for LPG,
especially LPG liquid phase, rivals that of gasoline. For
comparison, in figure 8, the brake thermal efficiency of
the standard MPI gasoline system, over the lambda
range of 1.0 to 1.4, have been plotted against those of
all LPG systems tested. The values have been
normalised by dividing each value by the corresponding
value of gasoline at stoichiometric.
 3 50
350 M a x T orque C urve

38
34
M ax Torque C urve 3 00 X
300 M ax 34.8% X M a x 3 8 .3 %3 7
35
2 50
250 X M4ax 34 .4%

36
3
32

Torque (Nm)

34
2 00
Torque (Nm)

200
32 30
1 50
150
30 32
28 26
1 00 28 26
100
24
24 22 22 20
50 18
20 16
50 18 14
16 12
14 10
12 9
8 76
9
8 10 0
0 7 6 100 0 2 000 3 00 0 4 000
1000 2000 3000 4000 E ngine S pe e d (re vs/m in)
E ngine S peed (revs/min)
Figure 7(a) Brake thermal efficiency for LPG MPI Liquid phase at
Figure 6(a) Brake thermal efficiency for LPG MPI Gas phase at lambda lambda 1.0, compression ratio 11.7:1
1.0, compression ratio 11.7:1

350 350

M a x T o rq u e C u rv e
300 X 35 300
M a x T o rq u e C u rv e
M a x 3 5 .8 %
34
250 250

36
M a x 3 8 .9 % 8
Torque (Nm)
Torque (Nm)

3
200 200 X
32 37 35
34 32
150 150
30 28
30

100 24 100
28
26
22 24 22
20 26 20
50 18 50
16 18
14 16
12 14 12
10 9 190
7
6 8 7 8
0 5 0 6
1000 2000 3000 4000 1000 2000 3000 4000
E n g in e S p e e d ( re v s /m in ) E n g in e S p e e d ( re v s /m in )

Figure 6(b) Brake thermal efficiency for LPG MPI Gas phase at lambda Figure 7(b) Brake thermal efficiency for LPG MPI Liquid phase at
1.1, compression ratio 11.7:1 lambda 1.2, compression ratio 11.7:1

350 350

300 300
37

35

M ax Torque C urve
250 Max Torque Curve
250

35 M ax 3 6.3 %
Torque (Nm)

Torque (Nm)

200 X M ax 37 .5% 34
X 200 X
Max 39.9%
39 38 7 34
36 3 36 35
150 150
32 32

100 30 100 30
28 28
26 24 26
22 24
50 20 50 22 20
18 18
16 14 16
12 9 14 12
10 10
8 9
0 68 7 5 2 0 6
5
7
1000 2000 3000 4000 1000 2000 3000 4000
E ngine S peed (revs/min) Engine Speed (revs/min)

Figure 6(c) Brake thermal efficiency for LPG MPI Gas phase at lambda
1.4, compression ratio 11.7:1
Figure 7(c) Brake thermal efficiency for LPG MPI Liquid phase at
lambda 1.4, compression ratio 11.7:1

Figure 8 Normalised brake thermal efficiencies of fuels systems
tested.
The brake thermal efficiency trends in figure 8 show that
there was an improvement in thermal efficiency for all
LPG fuel systems except MPI-gas at the standard
compression ratio. Liquid phase MPI at compression
ratio 11.7:1 returned the best results with a consistent
25% increase over gasoline at stoichiometric, from
lambda 1.2 through to 1.4.
EMISSIONS
The other important part of this investigation is to study
the comparison of emissions from gasoline MPI, and
LPG MPI gas and liquid systems, and their behaviour
under lean burn conditions. For brevity, the results have
been condensed into a series of graphs showing the
comparison of engine out brake specific emissions of
HC, NOx, CO and CO2. For the purpose of comparison,
the results have been normalised by dividing each value
by the corresponding stoichiometric value for gasoline
and averaging them over the entire map range for each
A/F setting. The results are shown in figures 9 through
12.
Figure 9 Normalised brake specific emission for HC.
Figure 9 shows that HC emissions for the LPG fuel
systems, in general, are almost an order of magnitude
below those of gasoline at stoichiometric. They remain
fairly constant out to lambda 1.2 but then begin to rise. It
is noted that both MPI-gas systems, irrespective of
compression ratio, follow the same curve from lambda
1.0 to 1.2 with slightly higher emission figures than TBI
and MPI-Liquid phase. It is also noted that both TBI at
standard compression ratio and MPI-Liquid phase at
11.7:1 compression ratio follow the same curve out as
far as 1.3 before TBI suffers deterioration in
performance. As stated above, both TBI-gas and MPI-
liquid phase display similar thermal efficiency maps
indicating better mixing than MPI-gas phase systems.
The results reinforce the gas mixing hypothesis.
Figure 10 Normalized brake specific emissions for NOx
Given that NOx formation is a function of combustion
temperature, at first glance it would be expected that TBI
should give the highest results, as the initial charge
temperature should be higher than either liquid injection
or even MPI gas injection. Figure 10 shows NOx
production for LPG MPI–gas at standard compression
ratio giving the highest results, peaking at around
Lambda 1.1. A careful inspection of figures 3 and 4 will
show that maximum torque is consistently higher for
MPI-gas than for the TBI system. This would imply
higher combustion temperatures for the MPI-gas case,
thus explaining the higher NOx value for the MPI-gas
system. All LPG systems except for the MPI-gas system
operating at standard compression ratio, show lower
NOx values than for gasoline. In the case of MPI-liquid
phase at 11.7:1 compression ratio, the NOx output is
only 55% that of gasoline at stoichiometric. The torque
curve for the MPI-liquid phase system is actually higher
than that of gasoline, so it could be reasonably expected
that the NOx value should also be higher. In fact, it is
considerably lower. One possible explanation for this is
that at the higher compression ratio, the chamber
surface area to volume ratio is higher, thus promoting
more effective cooling of the in-cylinder combustion
gases. The down side of this effect is that it also means
that the quench layer volume will be a higher proportion
of the clearance volume, thus producing higher HC and
CO emissions. Figure 9 shows that there is little
evidence of high HC for the high compression trials,
either MPI-gas or MPI-liquid. Close inspection of figure
12 shows that at stoichiometric, there is marginally
higher CO emission for the high compression trials
compared to TBI at the standard compression ratio.
Figure 11 shows the normalized specific emissions for
CO2. Again, there is a striking difference between
gasoline and LPG. i.e. Emissions for the high
compression trials producing only 64% of the value to
that of gasoline at stoichiometric.
Figure 11 Normalized brake specific emissions for CO2
The figures for the LPG fuel systems tend to differentiate
more between compression ratio’s than fuel system
types. MPI-gas and MPI-liquid for the high compression
trials producing almost identical curves and MPI-gas
producing slightly higher emissions than TBI at the same
compression ratio reflecting a lower combustion
efficiency. As already mentioned, the curves shown in
figure 12 for CO emissions, show a slight increase at
stoichiometric for the high compression trials compared
to TBI at the standard compression ratio. All LPG trials
with the exception of MPI-gas at standard compression
ratio, produced a CO value of only around 50% that of
gasoline. The striking exception is MPI-gas at standard
compression ratio, which shows a value at stoichiometric
of 300%, dropping down to 40% of stoichiometric at
lambda 1.1. These figures are consistent with our mixing
hypothesis, where it is predicted that MPI-gas at
standard compression ratio should produce higher levels
of CO due to poorer combustion resulting from poor
mixture preparation compared to the liquid injection
systems and TBI.
Figure 12 Normalize brake specific emissions for CO
There is a slight increase in CO emission level at
stoichiometric for MPI-gas high compression compared
to MPI-liquid phase high compression, also consistent
with poorer mixing with the gas system.
SIMULATED DRIVE CYCLE EMISSIONS
Methodology
The foregoing presentation represents a comparison of
the ‘whole-of-engine map’ values. Another alternative is
to focus on frequently used torque and speed points in
urban driving. Such points are often called ‘World-wide
mapping points’. Appendices B and C present results
for thermal efficiency and exhaust emissions at the 200
kPa, 2000 revs/min mapping point.
In the following we focus on the part of the torque speed
map that is used in actual driving rather than the entire
map average values or a single point in the map. In
vehicle emissions and fuel consumption measurements
the car is driven over a prescribed drive cycle. In so
doing the engine follows a trajectory on the engine map.
Such a trajectory for a range of driving cycles can be
seen in figure 13. (Watson 1999)
It is possible to convert these trajectory diagrams into
particular engine frequency map for a given vehicle as
shown in figure 14. As the Euro2/3 drive cycle is made
up essentially of constant speed or constant
acceleration/deceleration maneuvers it is the cycle for
which predictions from engine maps can be expected to
be related to vehicle measurements.
 300 ADR37
250
operation only engine-out emissions. Ignoring the cold
TO200
RQ start effects will result in the relativities between gasoline
150
UE
Nm100
and LP gas, likely to be in favor of gasoline for HC, CO
50
and thermal efficiency since the cold wall fuel wetting
0
issues in the ports and manifold are not so significant for
-50500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 a gaseous fuel.
-100
ENGINE SPEED
rev/min

300 EURO 2
250

TO200
RQ150
UE
Nm100
50
0
-50500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-100
ENGINE SPEED
rev/min

AUST URBAN
300
250

200
TO
RQ150
UE
Nm100

50

0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-50

-100
ENGINE SPEED
rev/min
Figure 13 Torque-speed trajectories for a 1.625 tonne Ford Falcon car
with the engine tested here and an automatic transmission.

EURO 2/3 TIME FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

FOR FORD AU ENGINE
350

300

250
Torque (Nm)

200
0 .4
0.8
150 0 .8
0.4 2. 1.5
5
100
5
1.5

2.
2.5

1.
50 5 0.4
0.8

0 0.4
1000 2000 3000 4000
Engine Speed (revs/min)

Figure 14 Frequency map for the Euro2/3 drive cycle.

Figure 15 Euro 3 drive cycle weighted emissions of HC, CO and NOx

The values at each torque and speed point in the engine
map (converted to grams per second) are multiplied by
the fractional frequencies in figure 14 and summed to
give the drive cycle average value, in this case for the
Euro 3 cycle. Of course these results are for hot start
across the range of LP gas fuel supply technology compared with the
reference gasoline (ULP)
Figure 15 shows the simulated Euro3 drive cycle
emission results. In general the trends are similar to the
whole-of-map values and the explanations for the
differences hold. The effect of cycle weighting
influences the magnitude of the trends.
For HC, all the LPG results are much less than the base
engine gasoline data. At stoichiometric about 15% of
gasoline, and even under lean burn conditions 30% less
than stoichiometric gasoline, with the increased
compression ratio reducing the HC emissions in spite of
the increased combustion chamber surface-area to
volume ratio.
The CO trends are similar to those for HC. Emissions
reductions from LPG use are in the range of 50 to 90%
lower than those for gasoline.
The NOx trends show reductions below those for
gasoline with the higher compression ratio results
generally giving higher NOx as might be expected. At
the high compression ratio the liquid phase shows an
advantage over the gas phase MPI presumably because
of lower mixture temperatures that result from the fuel
evaporation. It is noted that at the leanest mixture the
engine out emissions are about half of the present Euro3
diesel emission standard and reduced by 75% from
stoichiometric gasoline operation.
Figure 16 Simulated Euro 3 Drive Cycle Emissions CO2 and Thermal
Efficiency across the range of LP gas fuel supply technology compared
with the reference gasoline (ULP)
Figure 16 comprises the CO2 and fuel consumption
results. As the CO2 is always the major contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions from transport emissions, the
benefits in this emission reduction is a significant
argument for the application of this fuel. The reduction
in CO2 emission for liquid LP gas injection is 22% at
stoichiometric increasing to 28% for lean burn, with the
gaseous injection a few per cent less. Although this
reduction is a combination of the increased compression
ratio and lean burn effects the benefits are possible
because of the higher octane number of the gaseous
fuel.
The thermal efficiency results in figure 16 exemplify the
real increases in efficiency possible with gas technology
over gasoline. Experience with bi-fuel cars in
comprehensive vehicle tests across a range of LP
gases(Watson 2000) and the 9.65:1 CR results here
demonstrate that ordinarily both fuels deliver fuel
consumption on an energy basis within a few per cent.
With the increase in compression ratio and choice of
liquid fuelled LPG at lambda = 1.4, the improvement in
thermal efficiency is 27% relative to low compression
ratio stoichiometric.
DISCUSSION
The thermal efficiency results above can be summarised
as follows:
The change from gasoline to LPG produced
marginal changes in efficiency except for leaner
mixtures where the slightly faster burning rates of
LPG are likely to show their benefits.
The increase in compression ratio by two numbers
to 11.7 (an increase to 12.9 was also tested but not
comprehensively Baker (Baker 2004)) might expect
to lead to an improvement in thermal efficiency of
about five percent if the efficiency follows the Otto
cycle increase. It can be seen in Appendix A that the
increase in compression ratio was achieved by
significant piston and some cylinder head design
changes to achieve a canted compact hemispherical
chamber with carefully developed squish regions
and squish divergent angles. In an earlier program
a Ford Falcon AU version of the engine converted to
natural gas and 15.7:1 compression ratio achieved a
peak thermal efficiency of nearly 41% (Das 1995).
Production pistons from this engine series were
modified to reduce compression ratio and to fit within
the reduced block height of the BA version of the
Falcon engine used in the present work.. Thus the
increase in efficiency from the increased
compression ratio comes from a substantial and well
proven chamber design. Not only does this
chamber confer efficiency improvements of 5 to 7%
because of the faster burn combustion but it also
results in an increase in peak torque to 370 Nm
from 354Nm for the 4 L I-6 engine (Das 1995; Baker
2004).
The shift to lean mixtures of lambda 1.4 results in
about three times the improvement in efficiency
 greater than that for gasoline. Part of the gain is the
result of the reduced pumping losses with lean
mixture shift (there is no EGR used in this engine).
Again the faster flame speed, enhanced by the
combustion chamber design contributes to the
achievement of around 10% extra efficiency.
Most surprising is the increase from liquid phase
injection. The evaporation and better distribution of
the fuel in the inlet port (spray versus co-flowing
streams) can make some contribution. The lower
mixture temperatures are evidenced by the lower
NOx. The lower combustion temperatures will
contribute to lower peak cycle temperatures (even
though the burn is still fast as the MBT spark
advance requirements differ little) which in turn will
give less dissociation of CO2 and water. There is a
hint of this trend in the reduced CO levels in figure
15 for example. Nonetheless the authors were
surprised at the magnitude of the about 10%
additional benefit over gaseous phase injection
across the mixture range. It should be stressed that
the same direct mass measurement of fuel
consumption was used as the reference in all tests
and cross checks were possible from the air flow
meter/air fuel ratio measurements by both lambda
sensor and exhaust analysers.
Finally we note that the 28% improvement in best
achieved lean-burn LPG efficiency over gasoline
stoichiometric operation is almost enough to
compensate for the density deficiency of LPG. That
is, a so configured LPG car might equal its gasoline
counterparts miles per gallon on a liquid fuel basis.
CONCLUSION
The study looked at the results of A/F mixing
characteristics of co-flowing gases, as applied to LP TBI-
gas and MPI-gas fuel systems, and fuel spray injection
as applied to MPI-liquid systems. The effect that mixing
characteristics had on LPG lean burn regimes was also
studied, along with increasing compression ratio to
observe the effect on A/F mixing and lean burn. A
conventional six cylinder SI gasoline engine was used to
test LP TBI-gas and MPI-gas systems at standard
compression of 9.65:1 and MPI-gas and MPI-liquid
systems were tested at a compression ratio of 11.7:1.
All tests were carried out at steady state conditions. The
findings are summarised:
1. A link has been established between fuelling system
and brake thermal efficiency and emissions for this
engine.
2. The brake thermal efficiency maps and emission
trends results suggest that fuel spray injection
systems are faster and more efficient than gas
phase injection.
3. Engine out emission trends indicate that there is
very little difference in sensitivity to A/F ratio in the
lean burn region between gas and liquid injection
systems. Increasing the compression ratio appears
to have a greater impact on lean burn
characteristics. Increasing the compression ratio to
11.7:1 enhanced the emission outputs, increased
efficiency and tolerated leaner A/F ratios. Figures
achieved include reductions in engine out brake
specific emissions of 88% for HC at lambda 1.0,
45% at lambda 1.0, 40% for CO2 at lambda 1.2 out
to 1.4 and 92% for CO at lambda 1.1 out to 1.4. An
increase in brake thermal efficiency of 26% was also
achieved at lambda 1.4.
4. Going lean of stoichiometric improves emission
outputs and increases brake thermal efficiency. NOx
brake specific emissions was 27% that of gasoline at
stoichiometric.
From a practical stand point, LPG MPI-liquid and gas
systems coupled with increased compression ratio
deliver superior emissions figures, power and
comparable economy (volume basis) to gasoline. In the
future world economic climate, as oil stocks dwindle and
with greater concern on greenhouse gas emissions, LPG
is well suited as an alternative fuel to gasoline, and still
has a great deal of untapped potential. This study has
only looked at steady state engine operation, but it is
anticipated that MPI gas and liquid systems will perform
better under cold start and dynamic conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express thanks to Ford
Australia for the donation of the test engine, to Dockland
Science Park P/L and Nick De Vries for assistance with
equipment when needed.
To the late Eric Milkins, who provided guidance in
several phases of the project, to whom we dedicate this
paper.
REFERENCES
1. Abraham, J., U. o. Minnesota, et al. (1995). "Effects
of combustion on in-cylinder mixing of gaseous
and liquid jets." SAE Paper No. 950467.
2. Abraham J., M. V., Macinnes J., Bracco F.V. (1994).
Gas Versus Spray Injection: Which Mixes
Faster? SAE Paper No. 940895.
3. Baker, P. A. (2004). LPG: A Comparison of
Multipoint Liquid and Gaseous Phase Injection -
Current PhD Thesis. Dept of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering. Melbourne,
University of Melbourne.
4. Das, A. (1995). Optimisation of a natural gas spark
ignition engine - PhD Thesis. Department of
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering.
Melbourne, University of Melbourne.
5. IMechE. (1996). Lean Burn Combustion Engines.
London, IMechE Seminar Publications Ltd.
6. Farook, Y. (1994). Limits of performance of an SI
engine operating on LPG and petrol - M.Eng
Science Thesis. Dept of Mech & Manufacturing
Engineering,, University of Melbourne.
7. Liew, G. C. S. (2004). LPG Mixing in an Engine Inlet
Manifold with Throttle Body Injection - M.Eng
 Science Thesis. Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering. Melbourne Vic., University of
Melbourne.
8. Shinichi Goto. (1999). Performance and Emissions
of an LPG Lean-Burn Engine for Heavy Duty
Vehicles. SAE Paper no. 1999-01-1513.
9. Walsh, M. (2004). Global trends in motor vehicle
pollution control - 2004 Update. FISITA Paper
No. F2004V023
10. Watson, D. H. C., Milkins E.E. (1982). "Comparison
and optimization of emission efficiency and
power of five automotive fuels in one engine."
Int. J. of Vehicle Design, 3(4): 463 - 476.
11. Watson, H. C. (1999). Engine and Environmental
Impacts - Euro 2 Compared with US City FTP.
SAE - A Paper No. 99099.
12. Watson, H. C., Gowdie D.R.R. (2000). "The
systematic evaluation of twelve LP gas fuels for
emissions and fuel consumption." SAE Paper
number 2000-01-1867.

CONTACT

Paul Baker – Currently undertaking a PhD Thesis in the

Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering,
University of Melbourne,
Parkville, Vic. Australia 3010
E-mail: p_a_baker@optusnet.com.au
APPENDIX A

COMBUSTION CHAMBER DETAILS FOR STANDARD

AND HI COMPRESSION ENGINES.

Standard Compression Ratio 9.65:1 Hi Compression Ratio 11.7:1

APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C