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

An Experimental Investigation on the Combustion Process of a Simulated Turbocharged Spark Ignition Natural Gas Engine Operated on Stoichiometric Mixture

[+] Author and Article Information
Hailin Li, Timothy Gatts, Shiyu Liu, Scott Wayne, Nigel Clark

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV 26506

Daniel Mather

Digital-Engines, LLC,
Madison, WI 53705

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received November 26, 2016; final manuscript received October 1, 2017; published online June 15, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Nadir Yilmaz.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 140(9), 091504 (Jun 15, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1548; doi: 10.1115/1.4038692 History: Received November 26, 2016; Revised October 01, 2017

This research investigated the combustion process of an AVL Model LEF/Volvo 5312 single cylinder engine configured to simulate the operation of a heavy-duty spark ignition (SI) natural gas (NG) engine operated on stoichiometric mixture. The factors affecting the combustion process that were examined include intake pressure, spark timing (ST), and the addition of diluents including nitrogen (N2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) to the NG to simulate low British thermal unit (BTU) gases. The mixing of diluents with NG is able to slow down the flame propagation speed, suppress the onset of knock, and allow the engine to operate on higher boost pressure for higher power output. The addition of CO2 was more effective than N2 in suppressing the onset of knock and slowing down the flame propagation speed due to its high heat capacity. Boosting intake pressure significantly increased the heat release rate (HRR) evaluated on J/°CA basis which represents the rate of mass of fuel burning. However, its impact on the normalized HRR evaluated on %/°CA basis, representing the flame propagation rate, was relatively mild. Boosting the intake pressure from 1.0 to 1.8 bar without adding diluents increased the peak HRR to 1.96 times of that observed at 1.0 bar. The increase was due to the burning of more fuel (about 1.8 times), and the 12.9% increase in the normalized HRR. The latter was due to the shortened combustion duration from 23.6 to 18.2 °CA, a 22.9% reduction. The presence of 40% CO2 or N2 in their mixture with NG increased the peak cylinder pressure (PCP) limited brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) from 17.2 to about 20.2 bar. The combustion process of a turbocharged SI NG engine can be approximated by referring to the HRR measured under a naturally aspirated condition. This makes it convenient for researchers to numerically simulate the combustion process and the onset of knock of turbocharged SI NG engines using combustion process data measured under naturally aspirated conditions as a reference.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Vermet, D. , and Ferrone, C. , 1994, “A Review of Natural Gas Engine Development for the Fleet Operator,” SAE Paper No. 942312.
Smith, W. , Timoney, D. , and Lynch, D. , 1997, “Emissions and Efficiency Comparison of Gasoline and LPG Fuels in a 1.4 Litre Passenger Car Engine,” SAE Paper No. 972970.
Lee, K. , and Ryu, J. , 2005, “An Experimental Study of the Flame Propagation and Combustion Characteristics of LPG Fuel,” Fuel, 84(9), pp. 1116–1127. [CrossRef]
Narayanan, G. , and Bade Shrestha, S. O. , 2006, “The Performance of a Spark Ignition Engine Fueled With Landfill Gases,” SAE Paper No. 2006-01-3428.
Boehman, L. , and Le Corre, O. , 2008, “Combustion of Syngas in Internal Combustion Engines,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 180(6), pp. 1193–1206. [CrossRef]
Karim, G. A. , 2003, “Hydrogen as a Spark Ignition Engine Fuel,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 28(5), pp. 569–577. [CrossRef]
White, C. M. , Steeper, R. R. , and Lutz, A. E. , 2006, “The Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engine: A Technical Review,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 31(10), pp. 1292–1305. [CrossRef]
Verhelst, S. , Sierens, R. , and Verstraeten, S. , 2006, “A Critical Review of Experimental Research on Hydrogen Fueled SI Engines,” SAE Paper No. 2006-01-0430.
Weaver, C. , 1989, “Natural Gas Vehicles—A Review of the State of the Art,” SAE Paper No. 892133.
Korakianitis, T. , Namasivayam, A. M. , and Crooks, R. J. , 2011, “Natural-Gas Fueled Spark-Ignition (SI) and Compression-Ignition Engine Performance and Emissions,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 37(1), pp. 89–112. [CrossRef]
Cho, H. M. , and He, B. , 2007, “Spark Ignition Natural Gas Engines—A Review,” Energy Convers. Manage., 48(2), pp. 608–618. [CrossRef]
Hajbabaei, M. , Karavalakis, G. , Johnson, K. C. , Lee, L. , and Durbin, T. , 2013, “Impact of Natural Gas Fuel Composition on Criteria, Toxic, and Particle Emissions From Transit Buses Equipped With Lean Burn and Stoichiometric Engines,” Energy, 62(2), pp. 425–434. [CrossRef]
Gladstein, C. , Couch, P. , Wake, M. , and Medlock, C. , 2014, “The Pathways to Near-Zero-Emission Natural Gas Heavy Duty Vehicles,” Gladstein, Neandross & Associates (GNA), Santa Monica, CA, http://www.gladstein.org/gna_whitepapers/zero-emission-catenary-hybrid-truck-market-study/
Turner, S. H. , and Weaver, C. S. , 1994, “Dual-Fuel Natural Gas/Diesel Engines: Technology, Performance and Emissions,” GRI, Chicago, IL, GRI Report No. 94/0094.
Karim, G. A. , 2003, “Combustion in Gas Fueled Compression Ignition Engines of the Dual Fuel Type,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 125(3), pp. 827–836. [CrossRef]
Papagiannakis, R. G. , Rakopoulos, C. D. , Hountalas, D. T. , and Rakopoulos, D. C. , 2010, “Emission Characteristics of High Speed, Dual Fuel, Compression Ignition Engine Operating in a Wide Range of Natural Gas/Diesel Fuel Proportions,” Fuel, 89(7), pp. 1397–1406. [CrossRef]
May, I. , Pedrozo, V. , Zhao, H. , Cairns, A. , Whelan, S. , Wong, H. , and Bennicke, P. , 2016, “Characterization and Potential of Premixed Dual-Fuel Combustion in a Heavy Duty Natural Gas/Diesel Engine,” SAE Paper No. 2016-01-0790.
Karim, G. A. , Liu, Z. , and Jones, W. , 1993, “Exhaust Emissions From Dual Fuel Engines at Light Load,” SAE Paper No. 932822.
Gatts, T. , Liu, S. , Liew, C. , Ralston, B. , Bell, C. , and Li, H. , 2012, “An Experimental Investigation of Incomplete Combustion of Gaseous Fuels of a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Supplemented With Hydrogen and Natural Gas,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 37(9), pp. 7848–7859. [CrossRef]
Malenshek, M. , and Olsen, D. B. , 2009, “Methane Number Testing of Alternative Gaseous Fuels,” Fuel, 88(4), pp. 650–656. [CrossRef]
Attar, A. A. , and Karim, G. A. , 2003, “Knock Rating of Gaseous Fuels,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 25(2), pp. 500–504. [CrossRef]
Li, H. , and Karim, G. A. , 2006, “Experimental Investigation of the Knock and Combustion Characteristics of CH4, H2, CO, and Some of Their Mixtures,” J. Power Energy, 220(5), pp. 459–471. [CrossRef]
Li, H. , Karim, G. A. , and Sohrabi, A. , 2003, “Knock and Combustion Characteristics of CH4, CO, H2 and Their Binary Mixtures,” SAE Paper No. 2003-01-3088.
Tennant, C. J. , Atkinson, R. J. , Traver, M. L. , Atkinson, C. M. , and Clark, N. N. , 1995, “Turbocharging a Bi-Fuel Engine for Performance Equivalent to Gasoline,” SAE Paper No. 942003.
Wayne, W. S. , Clark, N. , and Atkinson, C. M. , 1998, “A Parametric Study of Knock Control Strategies for a Bi-Fuel Engine,” SAE Paper No. 980895.
Vermiglio, E. , Jenkins, T. , Kieliszewski, M. , Lapetz, J. , Povinger, B. , Willey, R. , Herber, J. , Sahutske, K. , Blue, M. , and Clark, R. , 1997, “Ford's SULEV Dedicated Natural Gas Trucks,” SAE Paper No. 971662.
Catania, A. , Misul, D. , Spessa, E. , and Martorana, G. , 2000, “Conversion of a Multivalve Gasoline Engine to Run on CNG,” SAE Paper No. 2000-01-0673.
Catania, A. , Misul, D. , Spessa, E. , and Vassallo, A. , 2004, “Analysis of Combustion Parameters and Their Relation to Operating Variables and Exhaust Emissions in an Upgraded Multivalve Bi-Fuel CNG SI Engine,” SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0983.
Kato, K. , Igarashi, K. , Masuda, M. , Otsubo, K. , Yasuda, A. , and Takeda, K. , 1999, “Development of Engine for Natural Gas Vehicle,” SAE Paper No. 1999-01-0574.
Prati, M. , Mariani, A. , Torbati, R. , Unich, A. , Costagliola, M. A. , and Morrone, B. , 2011, “Emissions and Combustion Behavior of a Bi-Fuel Gasoline and Natural Gas Spark Ignition Engine,” SAE Paper No. 2011-24-0212.
Manivannan, A. , Porai, P. , Chandrasekaran, S. , and Ramprabhu, R. , 2003, “Lean Burn Natural Gas Spark Ignition Engine—An Overview,” SAE Paper No. 2003-01-0638.
Chiu, J. , Wegrzyn, J. , and Murphy, K. , 2004, “Low Emissions Class 8 Heavy-Duty On-Highway Natural Gas and Gasoline Engine,” SAE Paper No. 2004-01-2982.
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.
Karavalakis, G. , Hajbabaei, M. , Durbin, T. D. , Johnson, K. C. , Zheng, Z. , and Miller, W. J. , 2013, “The Effect of Natural Gas Composition on the Regulated Emissions, Gaseous Toxic Pollutants, and Ultrafine Particle Number Emissions From a Refuse Hauler Vehicle,” Energy, 50, pp. 280–291. [CrossRef]
Bade Shrestha, S. O. , and Rodrigues, R. , 2008, “Effects of Diluents on Knock Rating of Gaseous Fuels,” J. Power Energy, 222(6), pp. 587–597. [CrossRef]
Yoon, S. , Collins, J. , Thiruvengadam, A. , Gautam, M. , Herner, J. , and Ayala, A. , 2013, “Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions From CNG Transit Buses Equipped With Three-Way Catalysts Compared to Lean-Burn Engines and Oxidation Catalyst Technologies,” J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 63(8), pp. 926–933. [CrossRef]
Karavalakis, G. , Hajbabaei, M. , Jiang, Y. , Yang, J. , Johnson, K. C. , Cocker, D. R. , and Durbin, T. D. , 2016, “Regulated, Greenhouse Gas, and Particulate Emissions From Lean-Burn and Stoichiometric Natural Gas Heavy-Duty Vehicles on Different Fuel Compositions,” Fuel, 175, pp. 146–156. [CrossRef]
Cengel, Y. A. , and Boles, M. A. , 2011, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of the test engine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Effect of the addition of N2 and CO2 on combustion stability indicated by the COV in imep; N = 1500 rpm, Pin = 1.5 bar, Pout = 1.65 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Effect of the addition CO2 and ER on KLST; Pin = 2 bar and N = 1500 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Effect of intake pressure and ER on KLST; 30% CO2 and N = 1500 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Knock limited ST; 30% CO2 and Pin = 1.5 bar

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effect of intake pressure on in-cylinder pressure; N = 1500 rpm, Pout = Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, ER = 1.0, and no diluents

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of intake pressure on HRR; N = 1500 rpm, Pout = Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, ER = 1.0, and no diluents

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of intake pressure on normalized HRR; N = 1500 rpm, Pout = Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, ER = 1.0, and no diluents

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of intake pressure on mass fraction burned; N = 1500 rpm, Pout = Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, ER = 1.0, and no diluents

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of intake CO2 on HRR; N = 1500 rpm, Pin = 1.5 bar, Pout = 1.65 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effect of CO2 added to intake fuel on normalized HRR; N = 1500 rpm, Pin = 1.5 bar, Pout = 1.65 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of CO2 added to intake fuel on mass fraction burned; N = 1500 rpm, Pin = 1.5 bar, Pout = 1.65 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of adding 60% CO2 or N2 on normalized HRR; N = 1500 rpm, Pin = 1.5 bar, Pout = 1.65 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of 60% CO2 or N2 on mass fraction burned; N = 1500 rpm, Pin=1.5 bar, Pout = 1.65 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Impact of the addition of diluents and intake pressure on the PCP; N = 1500 rpm, Pout = Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Impact of the addition of diluents and intake pressure on BMEP; N = 1500 rpm, Pout= Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Impact of the addition of diluents and intake pressure on PHRR; N = 1500 rpm, Pout= Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Impact of the addition of diluents and intake pressure on the peak normalized HRR; N = 1500 rpm, Pout= Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Effect of intake pressure and the addition of diluents on ignition delay; N = 1500 rpm, Pout = Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Effect of intake pressure and the addition of diluents on combustion duration; N = 1500 rpm, Pout = Pin + 0.15 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Impact of the addition of diluents on ignition delay; N = 1500 rpm, Pin = 1.5 bar, Pout = 1.65 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Impact of the addition of diluents on combustion duration; N = 1500 rpm, Pin = .5 bar, Pout = 1.65 bar, ST = 15 °CA BTDC, and ER = 1.0

Tables

Errata

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