0
Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

Study of Assisted Compression Ignition in a Direct Injected Natural Gas Engine

[+] Author and Article Information
Ivan M. Gogolev

Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering,
University of Toronto,
5 King's College Road,
Toronto, ON M5S 3G8, Canada
e-mail: imgogolev@gmail.com

James S. Wallace

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering,
University of Toronto,
5 King's College Road,
Toronto, ON M5S 3G8, Canada
e-mail: wallace@mie.utoronto.ca

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received April 3, 2017; final manuscript received April 24, 2017; published online August 9, 2017. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(12), 122802 (Aug 09, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1127; doi: 10.1115/1.4036968 History: Received April 03, 2017; Revised April 24, 2017

Natural gas direct injection (DI) and glow plug ignition assist technologies were implemented in a single-cylinder, compression-ignition optical research engine. Initial experiments studied the effects of injector and glow plug shield geometry on ignition quality. Injector and shield geometric effects were found to be significant, with only two of 20 tested geometric combinations resulting in reproducible ignition. Of the two successful combinations, the combination with 0 deg injector angle and 60 deg shield angle was found to result in shorter ignition delay and was selected for further testing. Further experiments explored the effects of the overall equivalence ratio (controlled by injection duration) and intake pressure on ignition delay and combustion performance. Ignition delay was measured to be in the range of 1.6–2.0 ms. Equivalence ratio was found to have little to no effect on the ignition delay. Higher intake pressure was shown to increase ignition delay due to the effect of swirl momentum on fuel jet development, air entrainment, and jet deflection away from optimal contact with the glow plug ignition source. Analysis of combustion was carried out by examination of the rate of heat release (ROHR) profiles. ROHR profiles were consistent with two distinct modes of combustion: premixed mode at all test conditions, and a mixing-controlled mode that only appeared at higher equivalence ratios following premixed combustion.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

DING engine combustion chamber [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Glow plug, shield, and injector general arrangement [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Injector and shield angle illustration [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Ignition delay versus equivalence ratio (all tests)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Ignition delay versus equivalence ratio (test day 3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Ignition delay versus fueling rate (all tests)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Ignition delay versus indicated mean effective pressure IMEPnet (all tests)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

ROHRfired net for ϕa = 0.22, Pintake = 68.9 kPag (10 psig)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

ROHRfired net for ϕa = 0.33, Pintake = 68.9 kPag (10 psig)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

ROHRfired net for ϕa = 0.45, Pintake = 68.9 kPag (10 psig)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

ROHRfired net for ϕa = 0.56, Pintake = 68.9 kPag (10 psig)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

ROHRfired net for ϕa = 0.57, Pintake = 34.5 kPag (5 psig)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

ROHRfired net for ϕa = 0.56, Pintake = 103.4 kPag (15 psig)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Determination of TSOI and TOI [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Raw pressure trace

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Raw pressure trace close-up

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Raw versus Savitzky–Golay filtered pressure signals

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

ROHR based on raw versus SG (k = 3, f = 21) filtered pressure signal

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

ROHR based on raw versus SG (k = 3, f = 51) filtered pressure signal

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

ROHR based on raw versus SG (k = 3, f = 101) filtered pressure signal

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

ROHR based on raw versus SG (k = 3, f = 151) filtered pressure signal

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