Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Parametric investigation of diesel–methanol dual fuel marine engines with

port and direct injection
Panagiotis Karvounis a,* , Gerasimos Theotokatos a , Chaitanya Patil a , La Xiang b, Yu Ding b
a
Maritime Safety Research Centre, Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean, and Marine Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0LZ, United Kingdom
b
College of Power and Energy Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China

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

Keywords: Methanol is identified as a transition fuel to improve the environmental footprint of shipping operations.
Methanol combustion However, high methanol shares cannot be achieved in premixed combustion marine dual-fuel engines. This study
Marine dual fuel engine aims at parametrically investigating the impact of two types of methanol injection, namely port and direct in-
Direct injection
jection, on marine engines by employing CFD modelling. A large medium speed marine engine with nominal
Port injection
power of 10.5 MW at 500 rev/m is considered. CFD models are developed for the engine diesel and dual fuel
CFD modelling
modes with methanol port or direct injections. Several cases with methanol energy fractions ranging up to 50 %
for the port injection and 95 % for the direct injection cases are investigated. The developed CFD models were
validated for the investigated engine operation in the diesel gas modes, as well as for a small engine with
methanol port injection. A parametric study considering the engine settings and methanol energy fraction is
performed to identify the engine settings and limits for the combustion knock-free operation for high methanol
shares. Subsequently, the comparative assessment of the investigated marine engine performance and emissions
parameters is performed for the considered cases. This study results reveal that the methanol direct injection can
use up to 95 % methanol energy fraction retaining knock-free combustion conditions, whilst reducing NOx
emissions by 85 %. The engine indicated thermal efficiency increases at higher methanol energy fractions for
direct injection, whereas opposite trade-offs are exhibited for premixed combustion. Methanol use shortens the
combustion durations compared to the diesel mode, reducing the maximum temperature by 1–3 %. This study
provides valuable insights delineating the impact of the settings to the marine engines performance and emis-
sions trade-offs, hence contributing to developing methanol fuelled marine engines.

laminar flame velocity, renders it unsuitable for compression ignition

combustion within practical compression ratio ranges [7]. Karvounis
1. Introduction
et al. [8] reported that several factors exert significant influence on
engine performance for dual-fuel operation. The methanol increased
The shipping sector seeks to effectively address its decarbonisation.
latent heat of vaporisation, relative to diesel, may have contradictory
Following the Paris Agreement [1], the International Maritime Organi-
effects on the formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and the
sation (IMO) proposed measures, such as Emission Control Areas (ECAs)
engine overall brake thermal efficiency. Several studies [9–11] investi-
[2], Energy Efficiency Design Index [3], and Carbon Intensity Index,
gated both port and direct injection of methanol in heavy duty engines,
whereas net-zero CO2 emissions are targeted by 2050 [4]. The use of
revealing that the methanol use resulted in reduced maximum in-
alternative fuels in marine engines is a pathway to achieve these targets.
cylinder pressure due to the methanol high heat of vaporisation.
Methanol is perceived as a short-term solution in the shipping sector
Furthermore, the ignition delay prolongs for higher methanol energy
transition towards zero-carbon fuels [5]. Notably, methanol, a poten-
fraction [12,13]. Conversely, there exists limited literature addressing
tially renewable fuel [6], exhibits distinct characteristics compared to
the increase of methanol energy fraction in marine engines and the
conventional diesel, which include its high molar expansion, leading to
corresponding variations in engine performance parameters. Li et al.
in-cylinder pressure increase, even in the absence of external heat
[14] investigated different combustion strategies for high methanol
addition. Methanol high octane number, low cetane number, and high

Abbreviations: BL, Baseline Case; BTDC, Before Top Dead Centre; CFD, Computational Fluid Dynamics; DI, Direct Injection; ITE, Indicated Thermal Efficiency;
MEF, Methanol Energy Fraction; PI, Port Injection; RI, Ringing Intensity; TDC, Top Dead Centre.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Karvounis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2024.133441
Received 11 July 2024; Received in revised form 23 September 2024; Accepted 13 October 2024
Available online 22 October 2024
0016-2361/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

provide guidelines on the preferred methanol injection methods (port or

Nomenclature direct), the diesel substitution ratio, and limitations that must be
addressed for new-built and retrofitted engines. Usually, methanol marine
CA50 Crank Angle at which 50 % of the heat from combustion engines are expected to additionally operate at the diesel mode for
is released (oCA) redundancy purposes. The marine dual-fuel engines operating with
CA90 Crank Angle at which 90 % of combustion is released methanol are still understudied in the pertinent literature.
(oCA) Based on the preceding literature review, the following research gaps
CO Carbon Monoxide (ppm) are identified: (a) lack of comprehensive investigations dealing with
Deff Effective Diameter marine engines operating at high methanol energy fractions to identify
HRRpeak Peak Heat Release Rate (J/oCA) trade-offs in engine performance and emissions parameters; (b) lack of
Lb Breakup Length understanding of methanol combustion strategies in marine engines and
Pmax Maximum in-cylinder Pressure (bar) their suitability; (c) lack of marine engines investigations focusing on
Tmax Maximum in-cylinder Temperature (K) conditions leading to unstable combustion phenomena, defining enve-
Tmean Mean in-cylinder Temperature (K) lopes for knock-free combustion conditions.
Y Mass Fraction of Species The aim of this study is to parametrically investigate the impact of two
ηc Combustion Efficiency (–) types of methanol injection, namely port and direct injection, on marine
ρ Density (kg/m3) engines by employing CFD modelling. The limits in parameters, such as
Φ Equivalence Ratio (–) the methanol energy fraction, are identified for both injection types,
Ω Collision Integral whereas settings and conditions that facilitate the knock-free combustion
and engine operation at the highest efficiency are determined.
The novelty of this study stems from: (a) comparative assessment of
both methanol port and direct injection for a large marine four-stroke
energy fractions, concluding that the compound-combustion approach engine, revealing each method advantages and limitations; (b) deriva-
leads to an increase in the maximum heat release rate (HRR) as meth- tion of trade-offs between performance parameters and emissions for
anol energy fraction rises. Premixed combustion is less efficient when varying MEFs; (c) the delves into the understanding of key limitations on
compared to the direct injection method, which accommodates higher methanol energy fraction utilisable under different combustion methods
methanol energy fractions. (port and direct injection). Such information is crucial for the engine
Li et al. [15] conducted a parametric investigation of the methanol optimisation meeting emissions regulations. This study provides
direct injection in a diesel engine, revealing that smaller injector nozzle insightful information to address challenges associated with the adop-
diameter results in higher injection pressure, consequently higher peak tion of methanol-fuelled marine dual-fuel engines, hence supporting the
HRR and maximum cylinder pressure, whereas the nozzle spatial angle maritime industry to achieve lower emissions footprint.
exhibited limited impact on HRR or emissions. Valentino et al. [16]
investigated the performance of a high-speed diesel engine using n- 2. Methodology
butanol mixtures under premixed combustion conditions, concluding
that meticulous control of injection timing, injection pressure, and ox- Fig. 1 illustrates the methodological steps employed in this study.
ygen concentration at intake enables efficient premixed combustion, Step 1 focuses on the characteristics and settings of the considered
leading to reduced smoke and NOx emissions. marine engine. Step 2 deals with the development of a computational
The use of alcohol-based fuels, such as methanol and ethanol, in fluid dynamics (CFD) model for the diesel mode using the CONVERGE
internal combustion engines primarily stemmed from their advanta- software. The engine injection parameters reported in the engine shop
geous properties in mitigating knocking phenomena. However, recent trails were employed to set up the injection sub-model. Step 3 includes
investigations argued that the occurrence of knocking, and the onset of the grid sensitivity study leading to the compromise between error and
roar combustion impose limitations on the methanol energy fraction, computational effort. Step 4 includes the validation of the CFD model
which can reach 45 % for the premixed combustion engines [17]. results against available experimentally acquired parameters corre-
Notably, Liu et al. [18] and Song et al. [19] proposed an upper boundary sponding to the diesel and gas modes, as well as published measure-
ranging from 70 % to 85 % for the methanol mass fraction at medium to ments from a small methanol fuelled engine.
high loads for the premixed combustion engines. The upper methanol Steps 5a and 5b employed the validated CFD model as baseline to
energy fraction limit depends on factors including the compression ratio develop CFD models for the dual fuel operation with methanol (for both
and the boost pressure, which they impact the susceptibility to knock. At methanol direct injection and port injection) changing the reaction
higher loads, particularly in premixed combustion mode, the occurrence mechanism and fuel properties. For the direct injection, both methanol
of roar combustion and, subsequently, knock phenomena represent the and diesel fuels are injected from the same injector nozzle considering
primary constraints on the maximum attainable methanol energy frac- different holes and injection angles.
tion. This limitation arises due to a higher degree of premixed mixture, Step 6 deals with the operating envelope identification and the
combined with the higher compression ratio characteristic of diesel parametric investigation to determine the temperature and pressure at
engines, which can potentially induce end-gas autoignition [20]. Dier- the inlet valve closing as well as the exhaust gas recirculation ratios that
ickx et al. [21] concluded to a maximum methanol energy fraction facilitate knock-free combustion conditions and high combustion effi-
ranging 30–38 % for a high-speed diesel engine operating at high loads. ciency. Step 7 focuses on the comparative assessment for different
Recently, the marine engine manufacturers introduced versions of methanol energy fractions. Step 8 includes the engine settings deter-
methanol fuelled engines. The first marine two-stroke methanol engine mination for each methanol energy fraction (MEF) and combustion
with water injection to meet the IMO Tier III NOx emissions regulations is method to ensure knock-free combustion conditions at high loads.
reported in [22]. The marine four stroke engine with methanol direct Finally, a comparison between the premixed and diffusive combustion
injection is reported in [23]. Marine engines operating with methanol port methods for different MEFs is performed to identify differences in the
injection and premixed combustion are reported in [24]; these engines emissions and performance parameters trade-offs.
employ methanol energy fractions up to 50 %. However, the methanol For ascertaining the knock-free combustion in methanol fuelled en-
energy fraction limit for these engines is affected by the operating point gines, the use of EGR is considered. The study focuses on a nine-cylinder,
(load and speed), whereas high diesel fuel energy fractions are employed four-stroke marine engine, the particulars of which are listed in Table 1.
to assure knock-free combustion conditions. The literature does not Detailed description of the engine is provided in Stoumpos et al. [26].

2
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Fig. 1. Methodology flowchart.

This study considered the following assumptions. Ideal gas state was computational grid. To reduce computational effort, the symmetries of
assumed to represent the in-cylinder working medium thermodynamic both the cylinder and the injector were considered, leading to the se-
behaviour. The power output per cylinder was assumed the same for all lection of a sector corresponding to one sixth of the engine cylinder. The
the engine cylinders A reaction mechanism with 672 reactions and 143 employed sub-models are listed in Table 2. The in-cylinder pressure,
species was selected, which can adequately represent diesel, and alcohol temperature and composition are governed by the conservation equa-
fuels according to [32]. The SAGE combustion model with the default tions including mass, momentum, and energy transport. The boundary
values for its constants was employed for both the diesel and dual-fuel and initial conditions of the CFD model for the diesel mode are presented
modes. A two-dimension adaptive zoning that conserves NOx during in Table 3.
species remapping was used. A preconditioned, constant volume itera- The ringing intensity (RI) is employed to represent in-cylinder
tive solver was employed, with the relative tolerance equal to 0.0001, excessive oscillations (knocking) and the knocking onset for a wide
and the iteration error for each species equal to 10–14 [60]. Trapezoidal range of engine operating conditions [36]. The RI upper limit for four-
pressure pulses were considered for the direct injection of the diesel and stroke medium speed marine engines ranges 4–5 MW/m2; beyond this
methanol fuels [58]. The KH-RT spray break up model (considering the limit, roar combustion intensifies leading to knocking conditions [37].
default values for its constants) was employed for the diesel and meth- RI (in MW/m2) is calculated according to the following equation:
anol direct injection. The RT model breakup time, model size and length ( )
constants were set to 1.0, 0.1, and 9.9 105, respectively. The KH model β dpdθmax
1 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
breakup time constant and model size constant was considered 7 and RI = max
γRTmax (1)
2γ pmax
0.61 respectively, according to Bravo and Kweon [60]. Exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) was considered as the knock mitigation measure, ( )
dpmax
with the EGR ratio being dependant on the methanol energy fraction and where dθ denotes the rate of in-cylinder pressure; γ is the ratio of
injection method. For the premixed combustion mode, the initial in-
the specific heats; R is the gas constant; Tmax is the maximum mass-
cylinder air–fuel mixture was considered homogenous.
averaged in-cylinder temperature; β denotes the tuning parameter that
relates the amplitude of pressure pulsations with the maximum pressure
2.1. CFD model rise rate and is considered 0.05 herein [25]. The operational limitation
in this study comes from RI and is set to 4 MW/m2 according to
The CFD model was set up by following the steps shown in Fig. 2. The literature.
engine cylinder geometric parameters were employed to determine the The injection pressure is determined based on the injector geometry
and the injected fuel mass (which is provided as input), as well as the
fuel physical properties, based on the following equation [56]:
Table 1
Marine engine characteristics. ( )2
mf
Parameter Value ρf CD ρf Anozzle fg
+ 2pcyl,b
Type Wärtsilä 9L46C pinj = (2)
2
Brake Power at MCR point (kW) 10,500
Speed at MCR point (r/min) 500
where ρf is the fuel density, CD is the discharge coefficient, Anozzle is the
Cylinders Number (–) 9
Compression Ratio 14.0:1 geometric area of the injector nozzle, fg is the geometrical characteristics
Bore/Stroke (mm) 460 / 580 factor equals to nnnozzle
holes
. Since this is a factor related to the injector number
Diesel Start of Injection (oCA BTDC) 6
of holes and number of nozzles it can be used either for single-hole or
Diesel Injection Pressure (bar) 1,000
Nozzle angle (deg) 67.5
multi-hole nozzles regardless of the configuration. pcyl is the in-cylinder
Spray Cone Angle (deg) 17.5 back pressure and mf denotes the fuel mass flow rate. Typically, the
Nozzle Diameter (mm) 0.78 injection pressure is input in the spray breakup model. However,
Nozzle Holes Number (–) 6 CONVERGE employs as input the fuel mass flowrate, the injector char-
Simulated cycle period IVC – EVO
acteristics and discharge coefficient to calculate the injection pressure,
135◦ CA BTDC–135◦ CA ATDC
which is subsequently used in the spray model.
MCR: maximum continuous rating.

3
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Fig. 2. Simulated and measured in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate for the investigated marine engine operating in the diesel mode for 30%, 50% and
90% loads.

Table 2
Employed models and mechanisms for the developed marine engine CFD model for the diesel and dual fuel (DF) modes with port injection (PI) and direct injection (DI).
Mechanism/model Diesel Mode DF Methanol PI DF Methanol DI Comment

Reaction Semi-detailed chemical kinetic model consisting of 142 species and ​

Mechanism 672 reactions reported in Andrae and Head [33]
Combustion model SAGE: Two adaptive zones; Solving analytical Jacobian matrix; Detailed chemical kinetics solver. Calculates the reaction rates for each elementary
Absolute tolerance: 10–14 reaction.
NOx Mechanism Extended Zeldovich [31]: Thermal NOx model; Mass scaling factor ​
to convert NO to NOx: 1.533
Turbulence Model RANS k-ε Provides lower accuracy compared to LES, however extensively used in combustion
modelling due to its acceptable accuracy and low computational cost [62]
Droplet breakup KH-RT; size constant: 0.61; velocity constant: 0.188 [27] The Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is based on a liquid jet stability analysis.
model Mass diffusivity constants The mass diffusivity constants pertain to the fuels that are injected directly in-cylinder.
C7H16 C7H16 C7H16 These constants are experimentally determined. The liquid spray breakup model is
D0 = D0 = D0 = 5.9410− 6 n0 = described in reference [63].
5.9410− 6 n0 = 1.6 5.9410− 6 n0 = 1.6 1.6CH3OH
D0 = 7.910− 6 n0 =
1.87
Droplets collision Negative Temperature Coefficient [29] The method uses Monte Carlo calculations and exhibits higher accuracy compared to
model alternatives (O’Rouke model) whereas the computational cost is a linear of the parcels
number.
Wall heat transfer Han & Reitz [30] The Han and Reitz model is employed.
Spray/Wall Han [28]
interaction
model Represents spraywall impingement processes that take place in internalcombustion
engines.

mCH3 OH LHVCH3 OH 2.2. Grid sensitivity studies and experimental validation

MEF = ( ) (3)
(mD LHVD )+ mCH3 OH LHVCH3 OH
Grid sensitivity study is discussed in Appendix A. According to
The diesel fuel substitution with methanol is considered based on the Table 4, the simulation results for Grid-3 and Grid-4 exhibit small dif-
energy fraction. The methanol energy fraction (MEF) is calculated ac- ferences in terms of error on maximum pressure and RMSE on in-
cording to the following equation [56]. cylinder pressure. The results indicate that Grid 3 is an effective
where m and LHV denote the mass and the lower heating value of compromise considering computational effort and accuracy. The
fuel, respectively. average NOx emissions at exhaust valve opening (EVO) almost remain
The EGR ratio is defined according to the following equation is constant for the three grids; however, their spatial in-cylinder distribu-
employed to define the in-cylinder initial conditions: tion varies. As shown in Fig. A1a, Grid–3 leads to the convergence of the
mEG derived results the in-cylinder temperature and NOx emissions, as
EGR = (4)
mEG + mair smaller variations compared to the respective Grid–2 results are
exhibited. For the cases that considered methanol combustion (either

4
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Table 3 [38,39]. Additionally, CFD sub models epistemic uncertainty and cali-
CFD model boundary and initial conditions for the investigated marine engine bration also impact the results accuracy. The engine measurements were
diesel mode. not performed under ideal test-bench conditions, leading to errors. It
Boundary Conditions Value Comment must be noted though the lack of emissions measurements to calibrate
Cylinder head Temperature 530 Values calculated from 1D
the emission sub-model. Additionally, according to ISO 15550:2002
(K) thermodynamic model developed by shop test trials are conducted with 5 % error.
Cylinder liner Temperature 430 Tsitsilonis et al. [34], corresponding to In the absence of experimental data for methanol-fuelled marine
(K) warmed up conditions. engines, and to test the CFD model with a more complex combustion
Piston Temperature (K) 550
process involving two fuels, the closed cycle of the investigated marine
engine is modelled considering the gas mode operation with premixed
Initial Conditions natural gas and direct pilot diesel injection. The same reaction mecha-
Temperature at the IVC (K) 360 Calculated from turbocharger isentropic
nism and computational mesh remains are employed for all modes
Pressure at the IVC (bar) 2.8 expansion ratio under the assumption of
ideal gas law and considering the boost (diesel, gas and methanol). Natural gas is injected in the port manifold
temperature and pressure from the shop and pilot diesel is directly injected in-cylinder to initiate the reactivity-
trials. controlled combustion of the premixed air–natural gas mixture. The
Turbulent kinetic energy 62.02 Default values were used. A parametric
derived simulations results and comparisons with corresponding
(m2/s2) investigation was conducted to
Turbulent dissipation (m2/ 17,183 determine these parameters influence on
measured parameters from the engine shop tests are presented in Ap-
s3 ) the results. pendix E. The estimated errors for the in-cylinder maximum pressure
Liquid diesel spray 340 Within the range of experimental results and NOx emissions predictions were found below 8 %, whereas
temperature at the time of reported in Siebers [35]. consistent trends with the errors estimated for the diesel mode are
injection (K)
observed. This demonstrates the employed CFD model capability to
represent the more complex in-cylinder processes for the engine gas
Table 4 mode (compared to the diesel mode).
Computational grids characteristics. In addition, the developed CFD model was validated using reported
Parameter Grid 1 Grid 2 Grid 3 Grid 4
experimental data for a small-scale high-speed diesel engine operating in
the dual fuel mode employing methanol port injection with 30 % MEF at
Element size (mm) 12 10 8 6
75 % load. Details of the engine and experimental procedure are pro-
Maximum Number of Cells* 10,900 18,838 36,800 87,216
Error on pmax (%) 5.2 2.4 2.3 2.3 vided in Zang et al. [57]. The simulated and experimentally derived
RMSE on in-cylinder pressure (bar) 4.96 4.93 4.91 4.90 variations of the in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate as well as
Adaptive mesh refinement On between 12 oCA BTDC and 135 oCA ATDC NOx and Soot emissions are presented in Fig. 3. NOx and Soot emissions
Velocity Max Embedding Level 3 3 4 4 present errors below 7 % which is within computational model accep-
Temperature Max Embedding Level 3 3 4 4
Number of Cores Used 40 Intel Cores IPM
tance rate. The error on the in-cylinder maximum pressure was found
Simulation run duration (h) 3 4.5 9.5 23 0.5 %, whereas the crank angle at the maximum pressure was predicted
at 9.1 oCA ATDC instead of the measured 7.5 oCA ATDC. The RMSE for
*At TDC not including embedding and mesh refining.
the in-cylinder pressure was found 6 bar, which is comparable to the
respective RMSE values estimated for the diesel mode for the marine
port or direct injection), the results with Grid–3 demonstrated satisfac-
engine. The simulated heat release rate demonstrates a higher value of
tory convergence.
the premixed combustion peak compared to the experimental data.
The CFD model validation is conducted using the in-cylinder pres-
However, the simulation results are in alignment with the trade-offs
sure acquired during shipboard measurements, which was first cor-
presented in Zang et al. [57], where their CFD model slightly over-
rected to remove offsets [34], and then employed to calculate the heat
estimated the premixed part of combustion. Therefore, it is inferred that
release rate. Table 5 lists the error between the CFD model results and
the developed CFD model provides adequate accuracy for the methanol-
respective measured parameters, considering the maximum in-cylinder
fuelled small-bore engine operating in dual fuel mode.
pressure, the power output, and NOx for three loads corresponding to
Based on the preceding discussion and the presented validation
engine healthy operating conditions as retrieved from shop-test trials of
cases, it is deduced that the developed CFD model (and its versions for
the manufacturer. For 50 %, 75 % and 100 % loads, the predicted power
the investigated diesel and dual fuel modes with port (premixed) and
output exhibited deviations of 4 %, 3.4 %, and 1 % (compared to the
direct methanol injection) can be employed with the highest possible
measured values), the peak in-cylinder pressure exhibited errors of 0.3
confidence for the simulation of the considered methanol cases at
%, 2.6 %, and 0.5 %, whereas the NO emissions errors were found 8.9 %,
various MEF and injection methods in this study.
8 % and 3.3 %, respectively.
Fig. 2 showcases the predicted and measured in-cylinder pressure
and heat release rate for 30 %, 50 % and 90 % loads. Median-averaging 2.3. Cases description
was applied to reduce noise for the experimental data. The CFD results
are in satisfactory agreement with the experimental data, both in terms The considered test cases with varying MEFs primarily focused on
of in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate at all examined loads. De- conditions at medium to high engine loads. This is due to the occurrence
viations from the measured values are attributed to engine fouling and of knocking phenomena, which becomes particularly pronounced in
overall degradation, arguments that are supported by previous studies these loads, thus imposing significant constraints for the practicable

Table 5
Simulated and measured (shop tests) maximum in-cylinder pressure, power output and NO emissions for the considered marine engine operation in the diesel mode.
Load Maximum Pressure Indicated Power Output NO emissions
(%)
Measured (bar) CFD (bar) Error Measured CFD Error (%) Measured CFD Error (%)
(%) (kW) (kW) (ppm) (ppm)

50 135 135.4 0.3 4725 4900 4.6 9679 10,500 8.9

70 156 160 2.6 7088 6850 3.4 9296 10,100 8.0
100 205 204 0.5 9450 9440 1.0 9179 9390 3.3

5
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Fig. 3. Simulated and measured (from [57]) a) in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate and b) NOx and Soot emissions for a high-speed light duty engine operating
in the dual fuel mode (diesel-methanol) with methanol port injection (30% MEF) at 75% load.

methanol use, as supported by the findings in Wang et al. [17]. Table 6 including high EGR rate (up to 45 %) [14], increased temperature at IVC
presents the considered cases particulars listing the fuel injection tim- [43], and reduction of charging pressure (the latter can be achieved by
ings, in-cylinder pressure and temperature at the intake valve closing using waste gate valve [44]). However, these measures did not effec-
(IVC), and EGR ratios. These parameters are investigated to identify tively mitigate extensive ringing. Therefore, 50 % MEF was taken as the
settings leading to combustion without knocking or ringing, and upper limit for methanol premixed combustion cases.
acceptable combustion efficiency. The methanol direct injection cases accommodated MEFs up to 95 %
For the baseline (BL) case corresponding to the diesel mode, the without significant modifications to the injection timings and initial
initial conditions were derived considering the engine shop trials, conditions. For cases involving MEFs higher than 50 %, moderate EGR
whereas the 30 % EGR rate is used for benchmarking purposes with the (up to 15 %) is used. The temperature at IVC gradually increases from
other cases. For premixed methanol combustion cases, 50 % MEF was 360 K to 380 K for the 80 % MEF case, and to 400 K for the 90 % and 95
assumed to be the upper limit [40,41] to effectively avoid extensive % MEF cases. This enhances the in-cylinder reactivity, as the methanol
knocking, whereas EGR is employed to supress knocking. The EGR ratio high latent heat of vaporisation cools the in-cylinder mixture inhibiting
values are selected according to Senecal et al. [42], with the highest combustion [45]. MEF increase leads to the ignition delay increase [46],
value being 30 %. For 80 % MEF, several EGR values are tested. The necessitating a slight retardation of the pilot injection timing in these
diesel injection timing and pressure were considered constant for the cases (from 6◦ CA ATDC to 7◦ CA ATDC).
investigated methanol premixed combustion cases.
Each case achieves the same power output with the diesel mode by 3. Results
adjusting the mass of fuels injected. Additionally, the injection parameters
and initial conditions are modified to obtain knock-free combustion This section presents the results and their corresponding analysis.
conditions for the considered MEF for the examined injection methods. Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 present and discuss the derived trade-offs in the
For the premixed combustion cases, a 30 % EGR ratio is found to be in-cylinder parameters, emissions, and engine parameters respectively,
essential in reducing in-cylinder reactivity and thereby preventing for the two methanol injection methods and the considered MEF. This
extensive knocking and ringing. For the 8M2D-PI case, several tech- section presents the results and their corresponding analysis.
niques were explored to mitigate the rapid pressure increase rate,

Table 6
Particulars of the investigated cases with methanol port (PI) and direct injection (DI).
Methanol Injection Case Study MEF Diesel Methanol In-cylinder Pressure at IVC* In-cylinder Temperature at IVC EGR ratio (mass
Method Code (%) Injection Injection (bar) (K) %)

​ BL 0 6◦ CA BTDC* – 2.8 360 30

Port Injection 1M9D-PI 10 6◦ CA BTDC Port 2.8 360 30
2M8D-PI 20 6◦ CA BTDC Port 2.8 360 30
5M5D-PI 50 6◦ CA BTDC Port 2.8 360 30
6M4D-PI 80 6◦ CA BTDC Port 2.8 360 30
8M2D-PI 80 6◦ CA BTDC Port 2–2.8 340–400 10–45
Direct Injection 1M9D-DI 10 6◦ CA BTDC 25◦ CA BTDC 2.8 360 0
2M8D-DI 20 6◦ CA BTDC 25◦ CA BTDC 2.8 360 0
5M5D-DI 50 6◦ CA BTDC 25◦ CA BTDC 2.8 360 5
8M2D-DI 80 7◦ CA BTDC 35◦ CA BTDC 2.8 380 13
9M1D-DI 90 7◦ CA BTDC 44◦ CA BTDC 2.8 400 13
9.5 M0.5D-DI 95 7◦ CA BTDC 44◦ CA BTDC 2.8 400 15

*IVC: Intake Valve Closing; BTDC: Before Top Dead Centre, ratio.

6
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

3.1. Effects on in-cylinder parameters and 90 % cumulative heat release (CA90) along with the maximum
relative pressure rate increase. The results for each case are compared to
Fig. 4 presents the derived mean in-cylinder pressure variations for the diesel mode (BL) to highlight the main differences and provide trade-
the investigated cases at 90 % load. For the port injection (PI) –premixed offs for marine engines.
combustion– cases, the peak in-cylinder pressure varies from 125 bar for As the MEF increases, the combustion shortens and the HRR rate is
the BL case (diesel mode) to 127.5 bar, 135.7 bar, and 162 bar for MEFs higher leading to higher peak HRR for both PI and DI.
of 10 %, 20 %, and 50 %, respectively. This is attributed to the higher For PI cases, as MEF increase the peak HRR increases from 16 kJ/oCA
methanol oxygen content, which renders the combustion faster. It is in the BL case to 51 kJ/oCA for 50 % MEF, while the greatest part of the
worth noting that a more rapid pressure increase (dp/dCA) is observed combustion occurs closer to TDC as CA50 shifts to 7.6◦ CA ATDC from
in the 5M5D-PI case, where methanol begins to dominate as the primary 14.6◦ CA ATDC. The first HRR peak is attributed to the premixed com-
fuel. The rate of pressure increase is associated with the potential bustion of the diesel fuel prepared between diesel start of injection (SOI)
knocking occurrence, which is further discussed below. For premixed and start of combustion (SOC) along with the methanol SOC.
combustion cases with high MEF, the increased in-cylinder pressure For DI cases with low MEF, the combustion duration gradually re-
leads to extensively unstable combustion. duces and the peak HRR advances, varying from 16 kJ/oCA in the BL
For the direct injection (DI) cases, higher MEFs (up to 95 %) can be case to 16.7 kJ/oCA and 18.1 kJ/oCA for 10 % and 20 % MEF,
accommodated without significant unstable effects as methanol exhibits respectively. Cases 8M2D-DI, 9M1D-DI and 9.5 M0.5D-DI require higher
a shorter in-cylinder residence time. The peak in-cylinder pressure was temperature at IVC to facilitate the methanol ignition, leading to higher
found at 133 bar, 138 bar, 163 bar, 193 bar, and 190 bar for MEFs of peak heat release rates and significantly shorter combustion durations.
10 %, 20 %, 50 %, 80 % and 90 % respectively, compared to 125 bar The latter is also attributed to the higher methanol oxygen content
pressure for the BL case. For 95 % MEF, the peak in-cylinder pressure (mixture with higher oxygen content) and richer mixtures considered.
reaches 170 bar, which is lower compared to the other MEF cases. This is Case 9.5 M0.5D-DI (95 % MEF) yields lower peak HRR pertinent to 80 %
due to the use of higher EGR to achieve knock-free combustion. Notably, and 90 % MEF due to the employed higher EGR ratio, and hence the
5 % diesel energy fraction can initiate the combustion process at high reduced in-cylinder reactivity. It also exhibits larger ignition delay due
loads allowing the use of high MEF in dual fuel engines. It is also evident to the reduced methanol cetane number compared to diesel that leads to
that a reduction in the compression work (compared to the BL case) is poor ignitability. In addition, the time interval between CA50 and CA90
exhibited with increasing MEF. This is attributed to the higher methanol is 2.6◦ CA denoting a significantly shorter combustion duration. This
heat of vaporisation, as also supported by [47,48]. Fig. C1 (Appendix C) brings the combustion start closer to 8◦ CA ATDC, leading to higher
illustrates the reduction of compression work by considering the thermal efficiency [49]. For the 5M5D-PI case, the first peak at the HRR
respective in-cylinder pressure variations. is attributed to the premixed methanol combustion along with a small
Benchmarking the two injection methods, direct injection (DI) ex- amount of diesel prepared between the diesel SOI and start of combus-
hibits higher peak pressure for the same MEF (Fig. 4c, d), whereas the tion. The second peak is attributed to the diesel diffusive combustion
rate of pressure rise is higher in DI resulting in faster combustion. and the remaining part of premixed methanol combustion. The second
Fig. 5 illustrates the heat release rate (HRR) variations for the peak appears at 6.5◦ CA ATDC, which is close to the end of diesel in-
considered cases for the PI and DI methods, as well as the BL case (diesel jection. For the 5M5D-DI case, the first peak is attributed to diesel and
mode). Table 7 provides the CA at 50 % cumulative heat release (CA50) methanol fuels that are mixed with intake air from their respective start

Fig. 4. In-cylinder pressure diagrams for the investigated cases at 90% load: (a) Port injection (PI), (b) Direct injection (DI), (c) port and direct injection with 20%
MEF, and; (d) port and direct injection with 50% MEF.

7
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Fig. 5. Heat release rate diagrams for the investigate cases: (a) port injection (PI), (b) direct injection (DI).

Table 7
Rate of pressure increase, CA50 and CA90 for the examined cases.
Case (dp/dθ)max (bar/oCA) CA50 (oCA) CA90 (oCA)

BL 0.55 14.6 30.8

1M9D-PI 5.45 14 31.3
2M8D-PI 9.04 11.8 30.6
5M5D-PI 19.19 7.6 18.1
1M9D-DI 6.37 12.7 27.7
2M8D-DI 7.69 11.7 27.7
5M5D-DI 18.93 7.2 17.4
8M2D-DI 33.75 1 6.2
9M1D-DI 39.17 2.1 4.7
9.5 M0.5D-DI 36.75 7.5 10.1

of injection (6◦ CA BTDC and 25◦ CA BTDC for diesel and methanol). The
second peak represents the diffusive combustion of both diesel and
methanol fuels and is happening at 9◦ CA ATDC where the direct injec-
tion of both fuels is concluded.
In both cases (PI and DI), and due to the higher laminar flame ve-
locity and methanol oxygen content compared to diesel, the combustion
duration shortens, while methanol is consumed rapidly with CA50 and
CA90 shifting from 14.6◦ CA ATDC and 30.8◦ CA ATDC for the BL case, to
11.8◦ CA ATDC and 30.6◦ CA ATDC for 2M8D-PI case, and to 11.7◦ CA
ATDC and 27.7◦ CA ATDC for the 2M8D-DI case. For the port injection
cases, the higher initial combustion rates are justified by the fact that
more methanol is premixed with air prior to entering the combustion
chamber. The increased heat release rate is also the limiting factor on
higher than 50 % MEF uptake for the PI cases. For the DI cases, the
ignition delay (as plotted in Fig. 6b) increases with the increase of MEF.
The only change is at 95 % MEF that ignition delay is reduced slightly
due to high EGR values applied to mitigate knocking tendency as heat
release rate increases significantly with MEF.
Comparing the PI and DI cases, the former exhibits higher peak-HRR
due to homogenous mixture and higher reactivity. Based on the pre-
ceding analysis, higher MEF results in shorter combustion duration and
higher peak heat release rate compared to BL. PI cases exhibit longer
combustion duration and higher peak heat release rates compared to DI.
Fig. 6a presents the ringing intensity (RI) as a function of methanol
energy fraction (MEF). RI is associated with the maximum rate of in-
cylinder pressure rise, which serves as an indicator of knocking in- Fig. 6. Ringing intensity (RI) versus methanol energy fraction (MEF) (a) and
tensity. It is inferred that the methanol use leads to increased knocking ignition delay for the considered cases (b).
intensity, primarily due to its oxygen-rich nature compared to diesel, and
the subsequent increased reactivity of the in-cylinder mixture. The in- time (for PI case), in contrast to the relatively shorter residence time for
cylinder reactivity can be assessed by the oxygen concentration along the DI cases. For the former, the homogenous mixture and the methanol
with temperature and pressure. Results presented in Fig. D1 (Appendix D) high laminar flame speed result in a rapid combustion. Compared to the
indicate higher reactivity for DI with 50 % MEF compared to PI, resulting baseline (BL) case, the RI exhibits an increase of 63 % for the 5M5D-PI
in the HRR peak increase. Additionally, the richness of the mixture con- case and 79 % for the 9.5 M0.5D-DI case. MEF increase beyond 50 %
tributes to the knocking tendency at high loads and high MEFs. However, for the PI cases results in RI values greater than 4 MW/m2. These findings
it is noteworthy that PI cases exhibit higher RI values compared to direct support that the 50 % MEF is the upper limit for marine premixed com-
injection cases. This can be attributed to the longer in-cylinder residence bustion engines. Similar findings were reported in [50]. The preceding

8
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

analysis denotes that the higher MEF leads to higher RI, and hence engine emissions. For the PI cases, the NOx concentration decreases by 22 %,
operation in knocking conditions. The difference in RI compared with BL 25.4 %, and 30.5 % for MEFs of 10 %, 20 %, and 50 %, respectively. For
case, between the PI and DA cases becomes larger at high MEF. Increasing the DI cases, NOx emissions increase by 7 % for the 1M9D-DI case, while
the methanol fraction in the dual fuel engine shifts the combustion to- they decrease by 1.2 %, 8.5 %, 71 %, 50 %, and 85 % for MEFs of 20 %,
wards TDC which is deemed causing increased the thermal stress. How- 50 %, 80 %, 90 %, and 95 %, respectively.
ever, the latter is affected by the temperature increase in-cylinder along For MEF up to 50 %, PI cases exhibit a more pronounced reduction in
with the properties of piston material. In the dual fuel case, the maximum NOx compared to the DI cases. Previous studies [51] demonstrated the
temperature rise for both port and direct injection is lower than in the influence of factors such as fuel stratification and cylinder reactivity on
diesel case. RI is highly influenced by the dpmax/dθ term that is signifi- NOx formation. Since methanol direct injection results in higher fuel
cantly increased on dual fuel cases due to higher burning rate of methanol stratification, the NOx concentration is also higher for the DI cases,
fuel pertinent to diesel one. compared to the PI cases. Overall, the significant reduction in NOx
Fig. 6b demonstrates the ignition delay for the examined cases. For emissions is attributed to the methanol evaporation cooling effect, which
port injection cases as the mixture of methanol and air in the combustion results in quenching the in-cylinder mixture and reducing its temperature.
chamber is deemed homogeneous, increased ignition delay is presented The oxidation of CO to CO2 is an indication of the combustion effi-
compared to the stratified charge formed when both fuels are directly ciency. The DI cases exhibit lower CO emissions compared to PI cases due
injected in-cylinder. For high MEFs at DI cases the ignition delay is to their less effective methanol fuel mixing. For DI cases, CO emissions
increased due to richer mixtures utilised in-cylinder. Also, as the MEF increase with MEF, indicating lower combustion efficiency. 1M9D-DI and
increases, the higher the reactivity requirements in-cylinder to achieve 2M8D-DI cases present lower CO than the respective PI ones, however, CO
the start of combustion, hence ignition is shifted closer to TDC. emissions increase from 1M9D-DI to 5M5D-DI. This can be attributed to
the fact that combustion duration increases deteriorating the fuel uti-
3.2. Effects on emissions lisation for 1M9D-DI and 2M8D-DI. For 5M5D-DI the 5 % EGR used pe-
nalises the combustion efficiency and hence slightly increased CO
Fig. 7 illustrates the mass-based NOx concentration in the exhaust concentration is observed. Nonetheless, for higher MEF the effect is
gas for the examined cases. The behaviour of NOx emissions in the counteracted by the increased charging temperature that increases in-
presence of alcohol fuels, specifically methanol, exhibits contradictory cylinder reactivity promoting fuel utilisation. For the PI cases, the com-
trade-offs. The methanol high latent heat of vaporisation results in bination of high EGR values and leaner mixtures results in reduction of
reduced in-cylinder temperature, while the higher oxygen content leads combustion efficiency and hence higher CO concentration is overall
to faster burning rates promoting in-cylinder temperature increase [59]. observed pertinent to the DI cases. The derived CO concentration results
The latter is true for methanol fuel, as more oxygen is available for the reveal that the combustion efficiency improves with the MEF, compared
combustion process and therefore more energy per unit of fuel is pro- to the baseline (BL) case. In the 5M5D-DI case, complete combustion oc-
duced yielding higher in-cylinder temperatures. Furthermore, the en- curs, resulting in the complete conversion of CO to CO2. Overall, the CO
gine in-cylinder temperature and pressure at IVC affect the NOx concentration varies from 0.82 g/kWh to 0.001 g/kWh from the BL to 95

Fig. 7. Simulation results for the investigated cases at 90% load: (a) NOx emissions, (b) CO emissions and (c) CO and in-cylinder temperature spatial distributions.

9
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

% MEF case. Fig. 7c presents the spatial distribution of CO emissions at Table 8 provides evidence to support the preceding remarks on the
crank angles of 1, 7 and 33◦ CA ATDC, which correspond to the end of NOx emissions visually illustrating the NOx emissions contours for the PI
diesel injection, the CA50 point, and after the combustion end, respec- and DI cases with 50 % MEF. The selected CA slices correspond to the
tively. At the initial stages of combustion, CO is formed at regions of initial combustion stages close to CA10 (1 and 3◦ CA ATDC), the inter-
elevated in-cylinder temperature that are close to the fuel jet. For the PI, as mediate stage close to CA50 and peak HRR (10◦ CA ATDC) and the stage
shown at the plots corresponding to 1◦ CA ATDC, the high temperature towards the combustion end (27◦ CA ATDC). These two cases are
region around the jet tail favours the CO accumulation close to the jet. selected for comparing the PI and DI cases, as 50 % MEF is the upper
Conversely at the same crank angle for the DI case, CO is formed within MEF boundary for the PI.
the jet region. Since the diffusive flame temperature is not high enough, For the PI case, the methanol combustion flame front areas exhibit
the incomplete combustion favours CO formation. At 7◦ CA ATDC as high temperature (above 2600 K), which triggers the NOx formation. As
premixed flame front propagates, the homogeneity of the air-methanol combustion progresses and methanol is consumed in the premixed flame
mixture allows for more uniform temperature distribution allowing uni- front, local maxima of temperature close to 10◦ CA ATDC, lead to ther-
form CO formation compared to the DI, where CO is concentrated at the mal NOx formation. Diesel diffusive combustion starts at around 1◦ CA
low temperature flame front. By 33◦ CA ATDC, the combustion ends, and ATDC. During the expansion phase, methanol is completely consumed
most the CO amount is converted to CO2. For the DI case, the CO is while the temperature gradually decreases, although it remains suffi-
concentrated close to the nozzle region and in the piston wall, where heat ciently high (>1800 K) to facilitate the NOx radicals generation, a
transfer interactions between wall and in-cylinder mixture reduce locally process that ceases after 27◦ CA ATDC.
the temperature inhibiting the CO oxidation. For the DI case, the non-homogenous methanol–air mixture leads to
Fig. 8 illustrates the unregulated emissions of formaldehyde, which is higher temperatures at the diffusion combustion region compared to the
considered a toxic substance even in small concentration. Formaldehyde PI case, resulting in higher NOx emissions. It is inferred from contour
is formed by the post-oxidation of unburned methanol. The derived re- plots for 10◦ CA ATDC and 27◦ CA ATDC that the NOx concentration is
sults demonstrate that the formaldehyde concentration increases for greater for the DI case. For this case, the combustion ends at around
higher MEF [61]. High in-cylinder temperature favours the methanol 10◦ CA ATDC, leading to shorter combustion duration (compared to the
oxidation, and hence the formaldehyde concentration reduction. Cases PI), hence resulting in higher heat release rate, which, in turn, increases
with reduced charge temperature exhibited increased formaldehyde thermal efficiency and NOx emissions.
concentration. For DI cases with MEF above 50 %, high air–fuel ratio
and charge temperature are responsible for the considerable decrease of 3.3. Engine parameters
the formaldehyde concentration. For DI cases with 20 % and 50 % MEF,
high formaldehyde concentration is calculated, which is attributed to Fig. 10 presents the indicated thermal efficiency for the investigated
the heterogeneous mixture formation that inhibits methanol oxidation. PI and DI cases. The former exhibit lower indicated efficiency for the
The formation of thermal NOx is favoured by high in-cylinder tem- same MEF with the difference increasing with MEF. For the PI cases, the
perature, mixture homogeneity and ignition delay. Fig. 9 illustrates the indicated thermal efficiency reduced from 42 % in the BL case, to 41.7
relationship between thermal NOx formation, temperature increase, and %, 41.6 % and 41.4 % for cases with 10 %, 20 % and 50 % MEF
methanol consumption for the 50 % MEF case for both PI (a) and DI (b) respectively. This is attributed to the lower methanol LHV and therefore
cases. Despite the higher mean in-cylinder temperature for PI, the resi- the increased fuel consumption. The DI cases yield higher indicated
dence time above the cut-off temperature is longer for DI, resulting in thermal efficiency to 42.5 %, 42.7 %, 44.1 %, 43.9 %, 43.8 % and 43.7 %
higher NOx concentration compared to PI. This extended residence time for MEF 10 %, 20 %, 50 %, 80 %, 90 % and 95 %. This is attributed to the
allows for more extensive chemical reactions at higher temperatures, reduction in compression work as presented in Fig. C1 (Appendix C),
primarily due to the longer combustion duration observed in the DI that becomes more pronounced at higher MEF. The combustion sub-
cases (as discussed in Section 3.1, Fig. 5). The increased area below the stantially shortens at high MEF, further reducing the heat transfer losses,
NOx curve before the cut-off point denotes higher NOx concentration. as discussed in [52].
Therefore, combustion duration also greatly affects the NOx formation. Table 9 presents the percentage changes in several performance and
emissions parameters for the investigated cases compared to the BL case
(diesel mode). The parameters that considerably increase with MEF are
the peak HRR, and the RI index. Contrary, smaller changes are exhibited
in the peak in-cylinder temperature, which however, greatly affect the
NOx emissions. The peak in-cylinder temperature reduces with MEF,
while the mean temperature at CA90 increases. This generates favour-
able conditions for NOx formation, however, due to significantly lower
combustion duration, the residence time at higher temperatures re-
duces, resulting in lower NOx emissions. The trade-offs presented in
Table 9 are in alignment with the pertinent literature findings [54,55].
For premixed combustion cases, the in-cylinder pressure and peak-
HRR exhibited notable increase with MEF, attributed to the methanol
higher oxygen content that shortens the combustion process. Homoge-
nous methanol-air mixtures lead to increased ringing intensity that in-
dicates knocking. As knocking constrains the use of high MEFs,
methanol-diesel dual fuel engines operations above 50 % MEF are
plausible only for direct injection cases. Direct injection marine engines
exhibit higher indicated thermal efficiency as well as lower NOx and CO
emissions compared to diesel. For considerably reducing NOx and CO
emissions in marine engines, premixed combustion with up to 50 % MEF
is proposed. Such methanol–diesel dual fuel engine is expected to pre-
sent lower indicated thermal efficiency than diesel operation.
This study relies on CFD simulations, which are inherently dependent
Fig. 8. Formaldehyde emissions for the considered cases. on several assumptions pertinent to boundary conditions, whereas

10
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Fig. 9. NOx emissions variation for 50% MEF at 90% load: (a) 5M5D-PI case, and (b) 5M5D-DI case.

Table 8
CFD results for the 5M5D-PI (a) and 5M5D-DI (b) cases at 90% load.

chemical kinetics may introduce uncertainties in the results accuracy. conditions or different engine types may be challenging, requiring future
While CFD simulations provide useful trade-offs of the engine perfor- studies. This comparative assessment led to the identification of signifi-
mance and emissions parameters, the lack of comprehensive experimental cant challenges and advantages associated with the considered methanol
validation in real-world engine conditions is a limitation of this study. The injection methods and MEF, hence contributing to a better understanding
study focusses on a specific range of operating conditions or a particular of the key optimisation requirements for the investigated engine.
engine configuration. Extending the findings to a broader range of

11
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

4. Conclusions

This study conducted a parametric investigation to determine the

impact of methanol energy fraction (MEF) in a dual-fuel marine engine
considering premixed combustion (with methanol port injection) and
methanol direct in-cylinder injection. CFD models were developed for
these modes and the diesel mode. These CFD models were validated
against experimental data for the investigated engine operating in the
diesel mode and gas mode, whereas validation against reported exper-
imental results for a small methanol fuelled engine was also performed.
The study concluded in the following findings:

• For premixed combustion, increased in-cylinder pressure and un-

stable combustion were exhibited with MEF, limiting the upper MEF
to 50 %.
• Port methanol injection at 50 % MEF present significant benefits for
the considered marine engine, reducing NOx emissions by 30.5 %
compared to the diesel mode.
• For premixed combustion, the marine engine exhibited lower ther-
mal efficiency compared to its diesel mode (41.6 % for 50 % MEF
Fig. 10. Effect of MEF on indicated thermal efficiency. compared to 42 % for diesel).
• Premixed combustion method is preferred for retrofitting existing
3.4. Comparison of large and small-bore engines engines as fewer modifications are required in the engine head and
manifolds.
This section qualitatively examines the variations of several param- • Direct methanol injection demonstrates knock-free combustion (RI
eters (maximum in-cylinder pressure and temperature, NOx emissions, within the acceptable limits) up to 95 % MEF, and hence it is
and indicated thermal efficiency) for small-bore engines using meth- preferred when higher decarbonisation levels are required.
anol, based on a previous authors’ study [56] reporting the impact of • For direct methanol injection, the NOx and CO emissions are lower
MEFs on these parameters. For the premixed combustion engines with compared to the diesel mode, whereas thermal efficiency increases
nominal power output between 4 kW and 220 kW, MEF increase leads by 1–4.2 % for MEF 10–95 %. The latter is attributed to faster
to longer ignition delays and higher heat release rate peaks, hence combustion, reduction of compression work and heat losses reduc-
exhibiting similar trade-offs with the investigated marine engine herein. tion for high MEF.
The maximum MEF for these engines for achieving knock-free com- • The use of methanol direct injection with high MEF in dual-fuel
bustion was reported to be 47–50 %, which aligns with the 50 % MEF marine engines proved to be feasible as knock-free combustion
limit identified for the investigated marine engine. conditions can be achieved. However, for low MEF, the use of the
For direct injection methanol engines with nominal power between premixed combustion proved advantageous, as it considerably re-
8 kW and 2.3 MW, MEF ranging 5–40 % results in brake efficiency duces NOx and CO emissions.
reduction by 2–10 %., whereas similar MEF values led to brake effi-
ciency increase by 1–5 % for the investigated marine engine herein. This study provided insights for the marine dual-fuel engines oper-
Most of the studies reported reduction of NOx emissions compared to the ating with methanol, and hence contributes towards the development of
diesel mode, which is in alignment with this study findings. Low MEF sustainable shipping. This study limitations are associated to the
values (5–8 %) resulted in considerable NOx emissions increase, which experimental validation of the dual-fuel diesel-methanol cases. Future
also aligns with the 8 % NOx emissions increase found herein for the studies could consider the optimisation of the engine systems settings,
investigated marine engine operating with 10 % MEF. The studies configurations (injection, turbocharger, EGR, etc.) and injection strate-
considered in Ref [56] considered MEFs between 5 % and 40 % for the gies to achieve knock-free conditions with improved engine perfor-
DI engines, whereas trade-offs for engine operating with higher MEF mance and reduced emissions.
values are not reported in the literature.
It is worth noting that the injection settings and initial conditions may CRediT authorship contribution statement
also influence the engine performance and emissions parameters. Hence,
it is recommended future studies deal with comprehensive scaling analysis Panagiotis Karvounis: Writing – original draft, Methodology,
and validating this study results against experimental data. Conceptualization. Gerasimos Theotokatos: Writing – review & edit-
ing, Supervision, Project administration. Chaitanya Patil: Writing –

Table 9
MEF effect on the derived parameters compared to the baseline case.
Parameter percentage change (%)

Case pmax Tmax Tmean at CA90 HRRpeak CA50 CA90 NOx RI ηc

1M9D-PI +1.6 − 1.3 − 1 +5 − 4.11 +1.62 − 22.03 − 7 − 0.64
2M8D-PI +8.1 − 2 +3 +23 − 19.18 − 0.65 − 25.42 +44 − 0.85
5M5D-PI +33.9 − 3 +5 +318 − 52.05 − 70 − 30.51 +62 − 1.24
1M9D-DI +5.9 − 2 +2 +5 − 13.01 − 10.06 +7.97 +7 1.24
2M8D-DI +9.9 − 2 +1 +13 − 19.86 − 10.06 − 1.19 +21 1.74
5M5D-DI +29.8 − 3 +4 +225 − 50.68 − 43.51 − 8.47 +62 5.14
8M2D-DI +53.7 − 9 +9 +458 − 93.15 − 79.87 − 71.19 +74 4.55
9M1D-DI +51.4 − 3 +13 +437 − 85.62 − 84.74 − 50.85 +78 4.44
9.5 M0.5D-DI +37.8 − 3.5 +13 +293 − 48.63 − 67.21 − 85.17 +79 4.26

12
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

review & editing, Software, Methodology, Data curation. La Xiang: Acknowledgments

Software, Methodology. Yu Ding: Writing – review & editing,
Supervision. Part of this study was carried out in the framework of the project
“Highly Efficient Retrofitted Zero Emissions Coaster (HEROZEC)” (No.
Declaration of competing interest 10098828), which were funded by the Innovate UK. The authors greatly
acknowledge the funding from DNV AS and RCCL for the MSRC estab-
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial lishment and operation. The opinions expressed herein are those of the
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence authors and should not be construed to reflect the views of DNV AS and
the work reported in this paper. RCCL. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authorsand should
not be construed to reflect the views of Innovate UK, DNV AS, RCCL, and
the HEROZEC partners.

Appendix A. : Diesel and methanol grid sensitivity study

The CFD model employs an intrinsic mesh control strategy that includes a base grid size along with adaptive mesh refinement. The performed grid
sensitivity study determines the computational grid impact on the model accuracy, while simultaneously considering the required computational
effort. The employed grids, listed in Table 4, consist of elements with sizes of 12, 10,8 and 6 mm, which are deemed suitable for the investigated
marine engine cylinder size. Fig. A1a presents the spatial distribution of NOx emissions and maximum in-cylinder temperature, whereas Fig. A1(b and
c) presents the mean temperature and pressure in-cylinder variations.
The root mean square error considered the simulated and measured in-cylinder pressure is calculated according to the following equation and
employed for assessing the model results accuracy:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎞̅
√⎛∑
√ n 2
√⎜ (yi − ŷi ) ⎟
√⎜i=1
RMSE = √ ⎟ (5)
√⎝ n ⎠

where, n refers to the number of collected data, yi and ŷi correspond to measured and calculated values of in-cylinder pressure, respectively.

Fig. A1. Grid sensitivity study results for the diesel mode at 50 % load: (a) spatial variations of NOx concentration and in-cylinder temperature for several crank
angles; (b) mean in-cylinder temperature, and; (c) mean in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate.

13
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Fig. A2. Grid sensitivity results – in-cylinder pressure, heat release rate and mean temperature for: (a) 10 % MEF-PI, and; (b) 95 % MEF-DI.

Table A1 includes the grids particulars and the computational time of the developed CFD model. The variation of in-cylinder pressure, heat release
rate and in-cylinder temperature for the cases 1M9D-PI and 9.5 M0.5D-DI are presented in Fig. A2. Grid 3 exhibits a compromise between accuracy
and computational effort, hence it was selected for the simulation runs conducted for the methanol PI/DI cases.

Table A1
Methanol grid characteristics.
Parameter Grid 1 Grid 2 Grid 3 Grid 4

Element size (mm) 12 10 8 6

Maximum Number of Cells* 10,900 18,838 36,800 87,216
Adaptive mesh refinement On On On On
Simulation run duration (h) 4 5.5 11 46

Appendix B:. Injection parameters

Table B1 lists the injection parameters provided as input to the developed CFD models for the investigated cases. Injection pressure is kept constant
for all cases. Additionally, the injector orientation is not considered herein. Methanol and diesel are injected from different nozzles of the same
injector. Methanol nozzles have the same geometrical characteristics with the diesel nozzles.

14
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Table B1
Injection parameters.
Methanol Injection Case Study Diesel Injection Methanol Injection Mass of Diesel Mass of Methanol Methanol/Diesel Injection
Method Code Duration (oCA) Duration (oCA) Injected (mg) Injected (mg) Pressure (bar)

​ BL 22 − 1300 − – / 1000
Port Injection 1M9D-PI 20 port 1200 300 1400/1000
2M8D-PI 18 port 1100 600
5M5D-PI 11 port 700 1400
6MD4-PI 8 Port 555 1760
8M2D-PI 6 port 300 2200
Direct Injection 1M9D-DI 21 11 1200 300
2M8D-DI 20 11 1100 600
5M5D-DI 12 11 700 1400
8M2D-DI 5 30 300 2200
9M1D-DI 5 30 140 2500
9.5 M0.5D- 5 30 70 2800
DI

Appendix C:. Compression work reduction

Fig. C1 illustrates the pressure diagram area corresponding to the compression work reduction comparing the baseline (diesel mode) case and the
DI case with 95 % MEF.

Fig. C1. Pressure diagrams and area denoting the compression work reduction between the baseline case and DI case with 95 % MEF.

Appendix D:. Contour plots for in-cylinder pressure and oxygen concentration

Fig. D1 presents the in-cylinder pressure and the oxygen concentration close to TDC before the start of combustion, which are employed to define
the mixture reactivity (the ability of substances to react under specific in-cylinder conditions) for 50 % MEF PI and DI cases.

15
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

Fig. D1. In-cylinder pressure and oxygen concentration at 5◦ CA BTDC for 50 % MEF PI and DI cases.

Appendix E:. CFD model results for the investigated marine engine operating in the gas mode

The developed CFD model was employed to simulate the closed cycle of the investigated marine engine operation in the gas mode. The engine
operates based on the premixed combustion concept; the natural gas is in injected in the engine cylinders ports, whereas pilot diesel is directly injected
within the engine cylinders to initiate the natural gas combustion. The available experimental data were measured during the engine shop test trials.
Table E1 lists the simulated and measured indicated power, maximum in-cylinder pressure, and NOx emissions for four different loads (25 %, 50 %, 75
% and 100 %).

Table E1
Simulated and measured (shop tests) indicated power, maximum in-cylinder pressure, and NOx emissions for the considered marine engine operation in the gas mode.
Load Indicated power Maximum cylinder pressure NOx emissions
(%)
Measured Simulation Error (%) Measured Simulation Error (%) Measured Simulation Error (%)
(kW) (kW) (bar) (bar) (g/kWh) (g/kWh)

25 1950 1900 3.6 38 38 0 9.15 9.9 8.6

50 3900 3950 2.3 64 66 4.1 9.7 10.1 4
75 5850 5700 3.6 92 90 3.2 9.7 10.4 7.8
100 7800 7890 2.2 126 125 1.8 9.43 10 6.7

Data availability [7] Public Final Report MIIP001-2017..

[8] Karvounis, P., Tsoumpris, C., Boulougouris, E., Theotokatos, G. Recent advances in
sustainable and safe marine engine operation with alternative fuels. Frontiers in
No data was used for the research described in the article. Mechanical Engineering, 8, 994942, doi: 10.3389/fmech.2022.994942.
[9] Datta A, Mandal BK. Impact of alcohol addition to diesel on the performance of
combustion and emissions of a compression ignition engine. Appl Therm Eng 2016;
References 98:670–82.
[10] Chinmaya M, Anuj P, Singh TV, Naveen K. Combustion, Emission and Performance
[1] Falkner R. The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. Characteristics of a Light Duty Diesel Engine Fueled with Methanol Diesel Blends.
Int Aff 2016;92(5):1107–25. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 2013;7(5).
[2] Chen L, Yip TL, Mou J. Provision of Emission Control Area and the impact on [11] Ning L, Duan Q, Chen Z, Kou H, Liu B, Yang B, et al. A comparative study on the
shipping route choice and ship emissions. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 2018; combustion and emissions of a non-road common rail diesel engine fueled with
58(280–291):2018. primary alcohol fuels (methanol, ethanol, and n-butanol)/diesel dual fuel. Fuel
[3] Polakis M, Zachariadis P, Kat JOD. The energy efficiency design index (EEDI). In: 2020;266:117034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121360.
Sustainable shipping. Springer; 2019. p. 93–135. [12] Li Y, Jia M, Liu Y, Xie M. Numerical study on the combustion and emission
[4] Lindstad, E., Dražen, P., Rialland, A., Sandaas, I., & Stokke, T. Reaching IMO 2050 characteristics of a methanol/diesel reactivity controlled compression ignition
GHG Targets Exclusively through Energy efficiency measures. In SNAME Maritime (RCCI) engine. Appl Energy 2013;106:184–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Convention, 2022. apenergy.2013.01.058.
[5] McKinlay CJ, Turnock SR, Hudson DA. Route to zero emission shipping: Hydrogen, [13] Wei L, Yao C, Han G, Pan W. Effects of methanol to diesel ratio and diesel injection
ammonia or methanol? Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(55):28282–97. timing on combustion, performance and emissions of a methanol port premixed
[6] Svanberg M, Ellis J, Lundgren J, Landälv I. Renewable methanol as a fuel for the
shipping industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:1217–28.

16
P. Karvounis et al. Fuel 381 (2025) 133441

diesel engine. Energy 2016;95:223–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [40] Yin X, Xu L, Duan H, Wang Y, Wang X, Zeng K, et al. In-depth comparison of
energy.2015.12.020. methanol port and direct injection strategies in a methanol/diesel dual fuel engine.
[14] Li Z, Wang Y, Yin Z, Gao Z, Wang Y, Zhen X. To achieve high methanol substitution Fuel Process Technol 2023;241:107607.
ratio and clean combustion on a diesel/methanol dual fuel engine: A comparison of [41] Yin X, Li W, Zhang W, Lv X, Yang B, Wang Y, et al. Experimental analysis of the
diesel methanol compound combustion (DMCC) and direct dual fuel stratification EGR rate and temperature impact on combustion and emissions characteristics in a
(DDFS) strategies. Fuel 2021;304:121466. heavy-duty NG engine. Fuel 2022;310:122394.
[15] Li Z, Wang Y, Geng H, Zhen X, Liu M, Xu S, et al. Parametric study of a diesel [42] Senecal P, Pomraning E, Richards K, Briggs T, et al. Multi-Dimensional Modeling of
engine fueled with directly injected methanol and pilot diesel. Fuel 2019;256: Direct-Injection Diesel Spray Liquid Length and Flame Lift-off Length using CFD
115882. and Parallel Detailed Chemistry. SAE Technical Paper 2003–01-1043, 2003,.
[16] Valentino G, Corcione FE, Iannuzzi SE, Serra S. Experimental study on performance https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-01-1043.
and emissions of a high speed diesel engine fuelled with n-butanol diesel blends [43] Duan Q, Yin X, Wang X, Kou H, Zeng K. Experimental study of knock combustion
under premixed low temperature combustion. Fuel 2012;92(1):295–307. and direct injection on knock suppression in a high compression ratio methanol
[17] Wang Q, Wei L, Pan W, Yao C. Investigation of operating range in a methanol engine. Fuel 2022;311:122505.
fumigated diesel engine. Fuel 2015;140:164–70. [44] Lounici MS, Benbellil MA, Loubar K, Niculescu DC, Tazerout M. Knock
[18] Liu J, Li G, Zhu Z, He H, Liu S. Effect of pilot diesel quantity and fuel delivery characterization and development of a new knock indicator for dual-fuel engines.
advanced angle on the performance and emissions characteristics of a methanol Energy 2017;141:2351–61.
fueled diesel engine. Energy Fuel 2010;24:1611–6. [45] Tutak W, Lukács K, Szwaja S, Bereczky Á. Alcohol–diesel fuel combustion in the
[19] Song R, Liu J, Wang L, Liu S. Performance and emissions of a diesel engine fuelled compression ignition engine. Fuel 2015;154:196–206.
with methanol. Energy Fuel 2008;22:3883–8. [46] Dierickx J, Mattheeuws L, Christianen K, Stenzel K, Verhelst S. Evaluation and
[20] Coulier J, Verhelst S. Using Alcohol Fuels in Dual Fuel Operation of Compression extension of ignition delay correlations for dual-fuel operation with hydrogen or
Ignition Engines: A Review. Helsinki: CIMAC Congress; 2016. methanol in a medium speed single cylinder engine. Fuel 2023;345:128254.
[21] Dierickx, J., Sileghem, L., & Verhelst, S. (2019). Efficiency and emissions of a high- [47] Saxena MR, Maurya RK, Mishra P. Assessment of Performance, Combustion and
speed marine diesel engine converted to dual-fuel operation with methanol. In Emissions Characteristics of Methanol-Diesel Dual-Fuel Compression Ignition
CIMAC World Congress on Combustion Engine (pp. 1-14). CIMAC. Engine: A Review. J Traffic Transp Eng 2021;8(5):638–80. https://doi.org/
[22] The methanol fuelled MAN B&W LGIM engine, MAN Energy Solutions, 10.1016/j.jtte.2021.02.003.
Application, service experience and latest development of the ME-LGIM engine. [48] Wang B, Yao A, Yao C, Chen C, Wang H. In-Depth Comparison between Pure Diesel
Available at: https://www.man-es.com/docs/default-source/document-sync/the- and Diesel Methanol Dual Fuel Combustion Mode. Appl Energy 2020;278:115664.
methanol-fuelled-man-b-w-lgim-engine63e54a8470694265bdeb07314c4f0e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115664.
pdf?sfvrsn=148c08f0_0. [49] Y. Cui Z. Zheng M. Wen Q. Tang C., Geng, Q., Wang, Liu, H., Yao, M., Optical
[23] WÄRTSILÄ 32 Methanol, Product Guide, Available at: https://www.wartsila.com/ diagnostics on the effects of reverse reactivity stratification on the flame
marine/products/engines-and-generating-sets/wartsila-32-methanol-engine. development in dual-fuel combustion 2021.
[24] MAN L21/31DF-M methanol GenSet, Product Guide, Available at: https://www. [50] Dierickx J, Verbiest J, Janvier T, Peeters J, Sileghem L, Verhelst S. Retrofitting a
man-es.com/marine/campaigns/man-l21-31df-m. high-speed marine engine to dual-fuel methanol-diesel operation: A comparison of
[25] Bahri B, Shahbakhti M, Kannan K, Aziz AA. Identification of ringing operation for multiple and single point methanol port injection. Fuel Communications 2021;7:
low temperature combustion engines. Appl Energy 2016 Jun;1(171):142–52. 100010.
[26] Stoumpos S, Theotokatos G, Bouloungouris E, Vassalos D, Lazakis I, Livanos G. [51] Saccullo M, Benham T, Denbratt I. Dual fuel methanol and diesel direct injection
Marine dual fuel engine modelling and parametric investigation of engine settings HD single cylinder engine tests. SAE Technical Paper Series 2018.
effect on performance-emissions trade-offs. Ocean Eng 2018;157:376–86. [52] 53. Chinmaya M, Anuj P, Singh TV, Naveen K. Combustion, Emission and
[27] Ricart LM, Reitz RD, Dec JE. Comparisons of diesel spray liquid penetration and Performance Characteristics of a Light Duty Diesel Engine Fueled with Methanol
vapor fuel distributions with in-cylinder optical measurements. J Eng Gas Turb Diesel Blends. Int Scholarly Sci Res Innov 2013;7(5).
Power 2000;122(4):588–95. [54] Zhen X, Wang Y. An overview of methanol as an internal combustion engine fuel.
[28] Han ZY, Xu Z, Trigui N. Spray/wall interaction models for multidimensional engine Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:477–93.
simulation. Int J Eng Res 2000;1(1):127–46. [55] Verhelst S, Turner JWG, Sileghem L, Vancoillie J. Methanol as a fuel for internal
[29] Schmidt DP, Rutland CJ. A New Droplet Collision Algorithm. J Comput Phys 2000; combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2019;70:43–88.
164(1):62–80. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2000.6568. [56] Karvounis P, Theotokatos G, Vlaskos I, Hatziapostolou A. Methanol combustion
[30] Han ZY, Reitz RD. A temperature wall function formulation for variable density characteristics in compression ignition engines: a critical review. Energies 2023
turbulence flows with application to engines convective heat transfer modeling. Int Dec 14;16(24):8069.
J Heat Mass Transfer 1997;40(3):613–25. [57] Zang R, Yao C. Numerical study of combustion and emission characteristics of a
[31] Zeldovich YB. The Oxidation of Nitrogen in Combustion Explosions. Acta diesel/methanol dual fuel (DMDF) engine. Energy Fuel 2015 Jun 18;29(6):
Physicochimica USSR 1946;21:577–628. 3963–71.
[32] Zhang C, Wu H. Combustion characteristics and performance of a methanol fueled [58] Li J, Wang J, Liu T, Dong J, Liu B, Wu C, et al. An investigation of the influence of
homogenous charge compression ignition (HCCI) engine. J Energy Inst 2016 Aug 1; gas injection rate shape on high-pressure direct-injection natural gas marine
89(3):346–53. engines. Energies 2019 Jul 4;12(13):2571.
[33] Andrae JC, Head RA. HCCI experiments with gasoline surrogate fuels modeled by a [59] Xu C, Zhuang Y, Qian Y, Cho H. Effect on the performance and emissions of
semidetailed chemical kinetic model. Combust Flame 2009 Apr 1;156(4):842–51. methanol/diesel dual-fuel engine with different methanol injection positions. Fuel
[34] Tsitsilonis KM, Theotokatos G, Patil C, Coraddu A. Health assessment framework of 2022 Jan;1(307):121868.
marine engines enabled by digital twins. Int J Engine Res 2023;12. [60] Bravo L, Kweon CB. A review on liquid spray models for diesel engine
14680874221146835. computational analysis. Army Research Laboratory Technical Report Series, ARL-
[35] Siebers DL. Liquid-phase fuel penetration in diesel sprays. SAE Trans 1998;1: TR-6932. 2014 May 1.
1205–27. [61] Zhang Y, Mu Z, Wei Y, Zhu Z, Du R, Liu S. Comprehensive study on unregulated
[36] Dernotte J, Dec J, Ji C. Investigation of the sources of combustion noise in HCCI emissions of heavy-duty SI pure methanol engine with EGR. Fuel 2022;320:
engines. SAE Int J Engines 2014;7(2):730–61. 123974.
[37] MAN Diesel & Turbo SE, “Technical paper: Pressure rise rates in medium-speed [62] Shi M, Wu B, Wang J, Jin S, Chen T. Optimization of methanol/diesel dual-fuel
diesel engines,” 2012. engines at low load condition for heavy-duty vehicles to operated at high
[38] Kokkulunk G, Parlak A, Erdem HH. Determination of performance degradation of a substitution ratio by using single-hole injector for direct injection of methanol.
marine diesel engine by using a curve-based approach. Appl Therm Eng 2016;108: Appl Therm Eng 2024 Jun;1(246):122854.
1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.019. [63] Amsden AA, O’Rourke PJ, Butler TD, “kiva-ii,. A Computer Program for Chemically
[39] Wang R, Chen H, Guan C. A Bayesian inference-based approach for performance Reactive Flows with Sprays,“. Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report
prognostics towards uncertainty quantification and its applications on the marine LA-11560-MS 1989.
diesel engine. ISA Trans 2021;118:159–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
isatra.2021.02.024.

17