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

Influence of Charge Motion and Compression Ratio on the Performance of a Combustion Concept Employing In-Cylinder Gasoline and Natural Gas Blending

[+] Author and Article Information
James Sevik

Argonne National Laboratory,
Lemont, IL 60439
e-mail: jmsevik@gmail.com

Michael Pamminger

Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace Engineering,
Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago, IL 60616
e-mail: mpamminger@anl.gov

Thomas Wallner

Argonne National Laboratory,
Lemont, IL 60439
e-mail: twallner@anl.gov

Riccardo Scarcelli

Argonne National Laboratory,
Lemont, IL 60439
e-mail: rscarcelli@anl.gov

Steven Wooldridge

Ford Motor Company,
Dearborn, MI 48124
e-mail: swooldri@ford.com

Brad Boyer

Ford Motor Company,
Dearborn, MI 48124
e-mail: bboyer1@ford.com

Scott Miers

Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics,
Michigan Technological University,
Houghton, MI 49931
e-mail: samiers@mtu.edu

Carrie Hall

Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace Engineering,
Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago, IL 60616
e-mail: chall9@iit.edu

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received February 7, 2018; final manuscript received March 15, 2018; published online August 6, 2018. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 140(12), 121501 (Aug 06, 2018) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1049; doi: 10.1115/1.4040090 History: Received February 07, 2018; Revised March 15, 2018

The present paper represents a small piece of an extensive experimental effort investigating the dual-fuel operation of a light-duty spark ignited engine. Natural gas (NG) was directly injected into the cylinder and gasoline was injected into the intake-port. Direct injection (DI) of NG was used in order to overcome the power density loss usually experienced with NG port-fuel injection (PFI) as it allows an injection after intake valve closing. Having two separate fuel systems allows for a continuum of in-cylinder blend levels from pure gasoline to pure NG operation. The huge benefit of gasoline is its availability and energy density, whereas NG allows efficient operation at high load due to improved combustion phasing enabled by its higher knock resistance. Furthermore, using NG allowed a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions across the entire engine map due to the higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratio. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) was used to (a) increase efficiency at low and part-load operation and (b) reduce the propensity of knock at higher compression ratios (CRs) thereby enabling blend levels with greater amount of gasoline across a wider operating range. Two integral engine parameters, CR and in-cylinder turbulence levels, were varied in order to study their influence on efficiency, emissions, and performance over a specific speed and load range. Increasing the CR from 10.5 to 14.5 allowed an absolute increase in indicated thermal efficiency of more than 3% for 75% NG (25% gasoline) operation at 8 bar net indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) and 2500 rpm. However, as anticipated, the achievable peak load at CR 14.5 with 100% gasoline was greatly reduced due to its lower knock resistance. The in-cylinder turbulence level was varied by means of tumble plates (TPs) as well as an insert for the NG injector that guides the injection “spray” to augment the tumble motion. The usage of TPs showed a significant increase in EGR dilution tolerance for pure gasoline operation, however, no such impact was found for blended operation of gasoline and NG.

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

References

U.S. EIA, 2017, “Annual Energy Outlook 2017 With Projections to 2050,” Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Sevik, J. , Pamminger, M. , Wallner, T. , Scarcelli, R. , Reese, R. , Iqbal, A. , Boyer, B. , Wooldridge, S. , Hall, C. , and Miers, S. , 2016, “Performance, Efficiency and Emissions Assessment of Natural Gas Direct Injection Compared to Gasoline and Natural Gas Port-Fuel Injection in an Automotive Engine,” SAE Int. J. Engines, 9(2), pp. 1130–1142. [CrossRef]
Husted, H. , Karl, G. , Schilling, S. , and Weber, C. , 2014, “Direct Injection of CNG for Driving Performance With Low CO2,” 23rd Aachen Colloquium Automobile and Engine Technology, Aachen, Germany, Oct. 6–8.
AVL, 2017, “Crank Angle Encoder of 365-Series—Combustion Measurement,” AVL LIST GmbH, Graz, Austria, accessed Apr. 28, 2017, http://www.avl.com/combustion-measurement1/-/asset_publisher/gYjUpY19vEA8/content/crank-angle-encoder-of-365-series
Sevik, J. , Pamminger, M. , Wallner, T. , Scarcelli, R. , Boyer, B. , Wooldridge, S. , Hall, C. , and Miers, S. , 2016, “Influence of Injector Location on Part-Load Performance Characteristics of Natural Gas Direct-Injection in a Spark Ignition Engine,” SAE Int. J. Engines, 9(4), pp. 2262–2271. [CrossRef]
Heywood, J. B. , 1988, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, New York. [PubMed] [PubMed]
Pamminger, M. , Wallner, T. , Sevik, J. , Scarcelli, R. , Hall, C. , Wooldridge, S. , and Boyer, B. , 2016, “Performance, Efficiency and Emissions Evaluation of Gasoline Port-Fuel Injection, Natural Gas Direct Injection and Blended Operation,” ASME Paper No. ICEF2016-9370.
Iyer, C. , and Yi, J. , 2009, “3D CFD Upfront Optimization of the In-Cylinder Flow of the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost Engine,” SAE Paper No. 2009-01-1492.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the engine setup (central injector not shown)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Cylinder head rendering

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Natural gas DI in side location versus NG DI in central location with insert, 1500 rpm, 5.6 bar IMEP EGR dilution tolerance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Indicated thermal efficiency and COVIMEP versus EGR dilution tolerance for NG DI in side location, 1500 rpm, 5.6 bar IMEP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Indicated thermal efficiency and COVIMEP versus EGR dilution tolerance for NG DI in central location, 1500 rpm, 5.6 bar IMEP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Natural gas DI in side location versus NG DI in central location with insert both fueling strategies with TP installed, 1500 rpm, 5.6 bar IMEP-EGR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Indicated thermal efficiency and COVIMEP versus EGR, NG DI in side location with TP, 1500 rpm, 5.6 bar IMEP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Indicated thermal efficiency and COVIMEP versus EGR, NG DI in central location with TP, 1500 rpm, 5.6 bar IMEP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Exhaust gas recirculation dilution tolerance and ITE for all three CRs at five fuel blending levels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Indicated thermal efficiency for all three CRs at five fuel blending levels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

AI50% burn location for all three CRs at five fuel blending levels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Indicated mean effective pressure for all three CR at five fuel blending levels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Engine maps for CR 10.5 (a), 12.5 (b), and 14.5 (c) for E10 operation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Engine maps for CRs 10.5 (a), 12.5 (b), and 14.5 (c) for 25% NG operation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Engine maps for CRs 10.5 (a), 12.5 (b), and 14.5 (c) for 50% NG operation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Engine maps for CRs 10.5 (a), 12.5 (b), and 14.5 (c) for 75% NG operation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Engine maps for CRs 10.5 (a), 12.5 (b), and 14.5 (c) for 100% NG operation

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