Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

On Comparative Performance Testing of Prechamber and Open Chamber Laser Ignition

[+] Author and Article Information
Sachin Joshi, Frank Loccisano, Azer P. Yalin

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521

Dave T. Montgomery

Technical Center-F-515,  Caterpillar Inc. P.O. Box 1875, Mossville, IL 61552

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 133(12), 122801 (Aug 26, 2011) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4003972 History: Received October 26, 2010; Revised October 29, 2010; Published August 26, 2011; Online August 26, 2011

Laser ignition is a potential ignition technology to achieve reliable lean burn ignition in high brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) internal combustion engines. The technology has the potential to increase brake thermal efficiency and reduce exhaust emissions. This submission reports on engine testing of a Caterpillar G3516C stationary natural gas fueled engine with three types of ignition approaches: (i) nonfueled electric prechamber plug with electrodes at the base of the prechamber, (ii) nonfueled laser prechamber plug with laser spark in the middle of the prechamber, and (iii) open chamber plug with laser spark in the main chamber. In the second configuration, a stock nonfueled prechamber plug was modified to incorporate a sapphire window and a focusing lens to form a laser prechamber plug. A 1064 nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser was used to create laser sparks. For these tests, a single cylinder of the engine was retrofitted with the laser plug while the remaining cylinders were run with conventional electric ignition system at baseline ignition timing of 24 deg before top dead center (BTDC). The performances of the three plugs were compared in terms of indicated mean effective pressures (IMEP), mass burn fraction duration and coefficient of variation (COV) of IMEP, and COV of peak pressure location. Test data show comparable performance between electric and laser prechamber plugs, albeit with a lower degree of variability in engine’s performance for electric prechamber plug compared to the laser prechamber plug. The open chamber plug exhibited poorer variability in engine performance. All results are discussed in the context of prechamber and engine fluid mechanics.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Cross-sectional views of the different ignition plugs: (a) nonfueled Caterpillar prechamber plug, (b) open chamber laser plug, and (c) nonfueled laser prechamber plug. The red arrow and star indicates the laser beam path and the spark location, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Laser and the laser plug (LOP or LPP) mounting assembly. The red arrow indicates the laser beam path.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison of EPP and LOP performance at 50%, 75%, and 90% load: (a) average IMEP and COV of IMEP and (b) 0%–10% and 10%–90% mass burn duration. Uncertainty bars for average IMEP are also shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison of EPP and LPP performance at 50%, 75%, and 90% load: (a) average IMEP and COV of IMEP, (b) 0%–10% and 10%–90% mass burn duration, and (c) peak pressure location and COV of peak pressure location. Uncertainty bars for average IMEP and peak pressure location are also shown.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In