0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

The Effects of Fuel Injection Pressure and Fuel Type on the Combustion Characteristics of a Diesel Engine

[+] Author and Article Information
Jim Cowart, Dianne Luning Prak, Len Hamilton

U.S. Naval Academy,
Annapolis, MD 21402

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received February 28, 2015; final manuscript received March 1, 2015; published online March 31, 2015. Editor: David Wisler.

This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(10), 101501 (Oct 01, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1064; doi: 10.1115/1.4029949 History: Received February 28, 2015; Revised March 01, 2015; Online March 31, 2015

In an effort to understand the effects of injection system pressure on alternative fuel performance, a single-cylinder diesel engine was outfit with a modern common rail fuel injection system and piezoelectric injector. As future new fuels will likely be used in both older mechanical injected engines as well as newer high pressure common rail engines, the question as to the sensitivity of a new fuel type across a range of engines is of concern. In this study, conventional diesel fuel (Navy NATO F76) was compared with the new Navy hydroprocessed renewable diesel (HRD) fuel from algal sources, as well as the high cetane reference fuel nC16 (n-hexadecane CN = 100). It was seen that, in general, ignition delay (IGD) was shortened for all fuels with increasing fuel injection pressure and was shortened with higher CN fuels. The combustion duration for all fuels was also significantly reduced with increasing fuel injection pressure, however, longer durations were seen for higher CN fuels at the same fuel pressure due to less premixing before the start of combustion. Companion modeling using the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) heavy hydrocarbon and diesel primary reference fuel (PRF) chemical kinetic mechanisms for HRD and nC16 was applied to understand the relative importance of the physical and chemical delay periods of the IGD. It was seen that at low fuel injection pressures, the physical and chemical delay times are of comparable duration. However, as injection pressure increases the importance of the chemical delay times increases significantly (longer), especially with the lower CN fuel.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Diesel fuel IGD results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Low speed in-cylinder pressure and HRR with 200 and 600 nominal injection pressures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Medium rpm in-cylinder pressure and HRR with 200 and 600 nominal injection pressures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

HRD fuel IGD results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Relative IGD of HRD as compared to diesel F76

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

n-hexadecane (nC16) fuel IGD results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Relative IGD of nC16 as compared to diesel F76

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Combustion duration for all three fuels at 1800 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Combustion duration for all three fuels at 2700 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Combustion duration for all three fuels at 3600 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Chemical delay results coupled to the experimental IGD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Chemical delay results applying the 10% Rothamer correction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Chemical delay results using an isentropic temperature estimation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Predicted ratio of chemical to physical delay periods using three estimates of TSOI

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Chemical delay divided by physical delay applying the 10% Rothamer correction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Chemical delay results applying the 5% Rothamer correction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Chemical delay results applying the 10% Rothamer correction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Chemical delay results using isentropic TSOI

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Chemical delay divided by physical delay at 2700 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Chemical delay divided by physical delay using the 10% Rothamer correction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Physical delay and chemical delay modeling as compared to experimental results

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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