0
Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

Influence of Injection Angle and Valve Opening Manner on Mixing Performance in a Large-Bore Port Fuel Injection Compressed Natural Gas-Fueled Engine

[+] Author and Article Information
Tianbo Wang

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Nanjing University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing 210094, China
e-mail: wtbnjust@gmail.com

Siqin Chang

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Nanjing University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing 210094, China
e-mail: changsq@njust.edu.cn

Liang Liu

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Nanjing University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing 210094, China
e-mail: liuliang@njust.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received February 9, 2016; final manuscript received June 28, 2016; published online August 2, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Timothy J. Jacobs.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(12), 122804 (Aug 02, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1064; doi: 10.1115/1.4034067 History: Received February 09, 2016; Revised June 28, 2016

One new kind of gas injection devices (GIDs), with moving-coil electromagnetic linear actuator (MCELA) and mushroom-type poppet valve, was projected to inject sufficient compressed natural gas (CNG) to a large-bore port fuel injection (PFI) engine. It had larger mass flow rate and better controllability than conventional GID. And the transient computational fluid dynamics (CFD) engine model incorporating the GID's motion was established to analyze the effects of the GID injection angle and poppet valve opening manner on the mixing homogeneity in the intake port, and finally, the in-cylinder mixing performance and gas movement intensity were compared. The results indicate that with the increasing of injection angle, the mixing homogeneity in the near-field injection location of intake port will be better, and the time when fuel starts to get into cylinder will be later. At ignition time, the injection angles 60 deg, 90 deg, and 120 deg show better in-cylinder mixing performance, while 150 deg has the worst. The pull-open GID injects more momentum to the intake port than the push-open one, and the mixing degree both in the intake port and cylinder is higher.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Gebre-Mariam, Y. K. , 2011, “ Testing for Unit Roots, Causality, Co-Integration, and Efficiency: The Case of the Northwest U.S. Natural Gas Market,” Energy, 36(5), pp. 3489–3500. [CrossRef]
Li, M. H. , Zhang, Q. , Li, G. X. , and Shao, S. D. , 2015, “ Experimental Investigation on Performance and Heat Release Analysis of a Pilot Ignited Direct Injection Natural Gas Engine,” Energy, 90(2), pp. 1251–1260. [CrossRef]
Soberanis Escalante, M. A. , and Fernandez, A. M. , 2010, “ A Review on the Technical Adaptations for Internal Combustion Engines to Operate With Gas/Hydrogen Mixtures,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 35(21), pp. 12134–12140. [CrossRef]
Bircann, R. , Kazour, Y. , Dauer, K. , Fujita, M. , Wells, A. , Kabasin, D. F. , and Husted, H. , 2013, “ Cold Performance Challenges With CNG PFI Injectors,” SAE Paper No. 2013-01-0863.
Glasmachers, H. , Melbert, J. , and Koch, A. , 2006, “ Sensorless Movement Control of Solenoid Fuel Injectors,” SAE Paper No. 2006-01-0407.
Einewall, P. , Tunestål, P. , and Johansson, B. , 2005, “ Lean Burn Natural Gas Operation vs. Stoichiometric Operation With EGR and a Three Way Catalyst,” SAE Paper No. 2005-01-0250.
Corbo, P. , Gambino, M. , Iannaccone, S. , and Unich, A. , 1995, “ Comparison Between Lean-Burn and Stoichiometric Technologies for CNG Heavy-Duty Engines,” SAE Paper No. 950057.
Yamato, T. , Sekino, H. , Ninomiya, T. , and Hayashida, M. , 2001, “ Stratification of In-Cylinder Mixture Distributions by Tuned Port Injection in a 4-Valve SI Gas Engine,” SAE Paper No. 2001-01-0610.
Berckmüller, M. , Rottengruber, H. , Eder, A. , Brehm, N. , Elsässer, G. , Müller-Alander, G. , and Schwarz, C. , 2003, “ Potentials of a Charged SI-Hydrogen Engine,” SAE Paper No. 2003-01-3210.
Chintala, V. , and Subramanian, K. , 2013, “ A CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) Study for Optimization of Gas Injector Orientation for Performance Improvement of a Dual-Fuel Diesel Engine,” Energy, 57, pp. 709–721. [CrossRef]
Kim, G. H. , Kirkpatrick, A. , and Mitchell, C. , 2004, “ Computational Modeling of Natural Gas Injection in a Large Bore Engine,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 126(3), pp. 656–664. [CrossRef]
Birch, A. D. , Brown, D. R. , Dodson, M. G. , and Swaffield, F. , 1984, “ The Structure and Concentration Decay of High Pressure Jets of Natural Gas,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 36(5–6), pp. 249–261. [CrossRef]
Ewan, B. C. R. , and Moodie, K. , 1986, “ Structure and Velocity Measurements in Under-Expanded Jets,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 45(5–6), pp. 275–288. [CrossRef]
Li, Y. , Kirkpatrick, A. , Mitchell, C. , and Willson, B. , 2004, “ Characteristic and Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of High-Pressure Gas Jet Injection,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 126(1), pp. 192–197. [CrossRef]
Fric, T. , and Roshko, A. , 1994, “ Vortical Structure in the Wake of a Transverse Jet,” J. Fluid Mech., 279, pp. 1–47. [CrossRef]
Wegner, B. , Huai, Y. , and Sadiki, A. , 2004, “ Comparative Study of Turbulent Mixing in Jet in Cross-Flow Configurations Using LES,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 25(5), pp. 767–775. [CrossRef]
Chang, S. Q. , and Liu, L. , 2010, “ A Moving Coil Permanent Magnet Linear Actuator With High Power Density,” China Patent No. CN101127474B.
Liu, L. , and Chang, S. Q. , 2011, “ Motion Control of an Electromagnetic Valve Actuator Based on the Inverse System Method,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part D, 226(1), pp. 85–93. [CrossRef]
Chiodi, M. , Berner, H. , and Bargende, M. , 2004, “ Investigation on Mixture Formation and Combustion Process in a CNG-Engine by Using a Fast Response 3D-CFD-Simulation,” SAE Paper No. 2004-01-3004.
Ali, M. , and Islam, A. S. , 2006, “ Study on Main Flow and Fuel Injector Configurations for Scramjet Applications,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 49(19), pp. 3634–3644. [CrossRef]
Aso, S. , Inoue, K. , Yamaguchi, K. , and Tani, Y. , 2009, “ A Study on Supersonic Mixing by Circular Nozzle With Various Injection Angles for Air Breathing Engine,” Acta Astronaut., 65(5), pp. 687–695. [CrossRef]
Gao, Z. , and Lee, C. , 2011, “ Numerical Research on Mixing Characteristics of Different Injection Schemes for Supersonic Transverse Jet,” Sci. China, Ser. E: Technol. Sci., 54(4), pp. 883–893. [CrossRef]
Lee, S. Y. , Huh, K. Y. , Kim, Y. M. , and Lee, J. H. , 2001, “ Analysis of In-Cylinder Fuel–Air Mixture Distribution in a Heavy Duty CNG Engine,” Int. J. Automot. Technol., 2(3), pp. 93–101.
Yu, X. , Liu, Z. , Wang, Z. , and Dou, H. , 2012, “ Optimize Combustion of Compressed Natural Gas Engine by Improving In-Cylinder Flows,” Int. J. Automot. Technol., 14(4), pp. 539–549. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Structure and prototype of GID

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Computational domain for different angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematics of push- (a) and pull-open (b) GID

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Results of grid independency check

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Testing platform of experimental validation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the results of experiment and CFD simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Computational grids for case 30 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Injection time of GID

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Specification of CFD postprocessing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Mass fraction isosurface in intake port: (a) case 90 and (b) case 150

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Streamlines and mass fraction contour on four isometric cross sections of intake port: (a) case 90 and (b) case 150

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Standard deviation in intake port (a) and cylinder (b) for different injection angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

In-cylinder mass fraction concentration for different injection angles: (a) case 30, (b) case 60, (c) case 90, (d) case 120, and (e) case 150

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

PDF of all mass fraction regions for different injection angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

In-cylinder fuel mass changes with CA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

TKE and KE for different injection angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Flow velocity and mass fraction contour in the intake port for different poppet valves: velocity of push-open (a) and pull-open (b); fraction contour of push-open (c) and pull-open (d)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

In-cylinder fuel mass for different poppet valves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Standard deviation in intake port and cylinder for different poppet valves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

In-cylinder mass fraction concentration for different poppet valves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

PDF of all mass fraction regions for different poppet valves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

TKE and KE for push- and pull-open valve

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