Small-displacement single-cylinder diesel engines employ mechanically actuated fuel injection systems. These mechanically governed systems, while robust and low cost, lack the ability to fully vary injection parameters, such as timing, pulse duration, and injection pressure. The ability of a particular injection system to vary these injection parameters impacts engine efficiency, power, noise, and emissions. Modern, multicylinder automotive engines employ some form of electronically controlled injection to take advantage of the benefits of fully variable injection, including advanced strategies such as multipulse injections and rate shaping. Modern diesel electronic fuel injection (EFI) systems also operate at considerably higher injection pressures than mechanical fuel systems used in small-bore industrial engines. As the cost of electronic fuel systems continues to decrease and the demand for high-efficiency engines increases, EFI becomes a more viable option for incorporation into small industrial diesel engines. In particular, this technology may be well-suited for demanding and critical applications, such as military power generation. In this study, a small-bore single-cylinder diesel was retrofit with a custom high-pressure EFI system. Compared to the mechanical injector, the electronic, common-rail injector had a 50% smaller orifice diameter and was designed for a fourfold higher injection pressure. The mechanical governor was also replaced with an electronic speed controller. The baseline and modified engines were installed on a dynamometer, and measurements of exhaust emissions, fuel consumption, brake torque, and in-cylinder pressure were made. The electronic injector leads to lower smoke opacity and NOx emissions, while CO and hydrocarbon emissions were observed to increase slightly, likely due to some wall wetting of fuel with the initial prototype injector. Testing with low ignition quality fuels was also performed, and the electronic fuel system enabled the engine to operate with fuel having a cetane number as low as 30.

References

1.
DOD Defense Science Board
,
2001
, “
More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden
.”
2.
Gardener
,
L.
,
2011
, “
The Cost of Convoys
,” CQ Weekly—Vantage Point, Congressional Quarterly, Washington, DC.
3.
Yelvington
,
P. E.
,
Roth
,
R. P.
,
Mayo
,
R. E.
,
Carpenter
,
A. L.
, and
Wagner
,
J. G.
,
2015
, “
Oxygen-Enriched Combustion for Industrial Diesel Engines
,”
ASME
Paper No. ICEF2015-1068.
4.
Yelvington
,
P. E.
,
Roth
,
R. P.
,
Mayo
,
R. E.
,
Wagner
,
J. G.
, and
Carpenter
,
A. L.
,
2011
, “
Final Report: Oxygen-Enriched Combustion for Up to 100-kW Power Units
,” U.S. Army, Contract No. W909MY-09-C-0027.
5.
Yanmar Engine, Co., Ltd.
, “
Service Manual, Industrial Diesel Engine, Model L48EE, L70EE, L100EE, PN: M9961-H11310
.”
6.
Heywood
,
J. B.
,
1988
,
Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
7.
Dent
,
J. C.
,
1971
, “
A Basis for the Comparison of Various Experimental Methods for Studying Spray Penetration
,”
SAE
Technical Paper No. 710571.
8.
Mallamo
,
F.
,
Badami
,
M.
, and
Millo
,
F.
,
2005
, “
Effect of Compression Ratio and Injection Pressure on Emissions and Fuel Consumption of a Small Displacement Common Rail Diesel Engine
,”
SAE
Paper No. 2005-01-0379.
9.
Henein
,
N. A.
,
Bhattacharyya
,
A.
,
Schipper
,
J.
, and
Kastury
,
A.
,
2006
, “
Effect of Injection Pressure and Swirl Motion on Diesel Engine-Out Emissions in Conventional and Advanced Combustions Regimes
,”
SAE
Paper No. 2006-01-0076.
10.
Henein
,
N. A.
,
Lai
,
M.
,
Singh
,
I.
,
Wang
,
D.
, and
Liu
,
L.
,
2001
, “
Emissions Trade-Off and Combustion Characteristics of a High-Speed Direct Injection Diesel Engine
,”
SAE
Paper No 2001-01-0197.
11.
Killingsworth
,
N. J.
,
2007
, “
HCCI Engine Control and Optimization
,”
Ph.D. thesis
, University of California, San Diego, pp.
45
49
.
You do not currently have access to this content.