scholarly journals Infrared borescopic characterization of corona and conventional ignition for lean/dilute combustion in heavy-duty natural-gas engines

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 4993-5001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmet Mazacioglu ◽  
Michael C. Gross ◽  
Justin Kern ◽  
Volker Sick
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Heavy Duty ◽  
Natural Gas Engines

Methane Dedicated Catalysts for Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Engines

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Corbo ◽  
M. Gambino ◽  
S. Iannaccone
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Heavy Duty ◽  
Natural Gas Engines

Performance Characterization of Alternative Ignition Systems Using Optical Tools in Natural Gas Engines

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bipin Bihari ◽  
Munidhar S. Biruduganti ◽  
Roberto Torelli ◽  
Dan Singleton
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Engine Performance ◽  
Lean Burn ◽  
Natural Gas Engines ◽  
Reciprocating Engine ◽  
Optical Tools ◽  
Discharge Ignition ◽  
Performance And Emissions ◽  
Engine Performance And Emissions

Lean-burn combustion dominates the current reciprocating engine R&D efforts due to its inherent benefits of high BTE and low emissions. The ever-increasing push for high power densities necessitates high boost pressures. Therefore, the reliability and durability of ignition systems face greater challenges. In this study, four ignition systems, namely, stock Capacitive discharge ignition (CDI), Laser ignition, Flame jet ignition (FJI), and Nano-pulse delivery (NPD) ignition were tested using a single cylinder natural gas engine. Engine performance and emissions characteristics are presented highlighting the benefits and limitations of respective ignition systems. Optical tools enabled delving into the ignition delay period and assisted with some characterization of the spark and its impact on subsequent processes. It is evident that advanced ignition systems such as Lasers, Flame-jets and Nano-pulse delivery enable extension of the lean ignition limits of fuel/air mixtures compared to base CDI system.

Characterization of erosion and failure processes of spark plugs after field service in natural gas engines

Wear ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 259 (7-12) ◽  
pp. 1063-1067 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.T. Lin ◽  
M.P. Brady ◽  
R.K. Richards ◽  
D.M. Layton
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Natural Gas Engines ◽  
Field Service

Characterization of Methane Number for Producer Gas Blends

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Wise ◽  
Daniel B. Olsen ◽  
Myoungjin Kim
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Carbon Monoxide ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Producer Gas ◽  
Combustion Pressure ◽  
Natural Gas Engines ◽  
Gaseous Fuels ◽  
Combustion Properties ◽  
Methane Number

Producer gas, any of a variety of gases generated from biomass gasification, is a renewable gaseous fuel that can be burned in gas engines for power production. Producer gas consists primarily of methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. These gas blends can be problematic as a fuel for natural gas engines due to widely varying composition and significantly different fuel properties than natural gas. Characterization of combustion properties of different producer gas compositions is critical if the gas engine is to be operated reliably and at the greatest efficiency possible. A sample space of 35 producer gas blends consisting of distinct percentages of combustible gases (methane, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide) and diluent (carbon dioxide and nitrogen) is created to provide a basis for methane number testing. A test cell is established to mix producer gas blends of desired constituent makeup for consumption in a Waukesha F2 Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR) engine to directly measure methane number for each blend. Additional measurements include combustion pressure statistics, fuel consumption, and power output. Methane number is correlated to combustion pressure statistics and producer gas properties. Methane number measurements are compared with predictions using the software AVL Methane, often employed by engine manufacturers to characterize gaseous fuels. Measured methane number shows a strong correlation to 0–10% and 10–90% burn durations. The predicted methane number values from AVL Methane are significantly different than measured methane number in many cases. The error in the prediction is strongly dependent on the amount of carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the producer gas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document