You are on page 1of 7

Precombustion Chamber Design for Emissions Reduction From Large Bore NG Engines

Dean J. Simpson Daniel B. Olsen


Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory, Colorado State University, 430 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80523

Precombustion chambers (PCCs) are an ignition technology for large bore, natural gas engines, which can extend the lean operating limit through improved combustion stability. Previous research indicates that the PCC is responsible for a signicant portion of engine-out emissions, especially near the lean limit of engine operation. In this work, six concept PCC designs are developed with the objective of reducing engine-out emissions, focusing on oxides of nitrogen NOx . The design variables include chamber geometry, chamber volume, fuel delivery, nozzle geometry, and material thermal conductivity. The concepts are tested on a single cylinder of a large bore, two-stroke cycle, lean burn, natural gas compressor engine, and the results are compared with stock PCC performance. The pollutants of interest include NOx, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The results indicate that PCC volume has the largest effect on the overall NOx CO tradeoff. Multiple nozzles and electronic PCC fuel control were found to enhance main chamber combustion stability, particularly at partial load conditions. The PCC inuence on VOCs was insignicant; rather, VOCs were found to be heavily dependent on fuel composition. DOI: 10.1115/1.4001293

Introduction

A common solution for natural gas engine compliance to stringent emissions regulations has been ultralean combustion. With very lean air-fuel ratios AFRs , both carbon monoxide CO and hydrocarbon emissions become unacceptably high with open chamber spark ignition, due to misres and combustion instabilities. In order to combat this, a precombustion chamber PCC or prechamber ignition system is often used to stabilize combustion at very lean AFRs. A PCC is a small chamber, usually 12% of the clearance volume, in which a near stoichiometric mixture of fuel and air is ignited by a standard spark plug. The burning mixture is propelled into the main chamber by increasing pressure in the prechamber. This burning jet can have ignition energy approximately one million times greater than that from a conventional spark plug. Ignition in the main chamber is initiated through a spatially distributed ignition source. There are several advantages to this type of ignition system. Since the ignition volume in the main chamber is larger, ignition is less affected by the main chamber mixture heterogeneity, reducing cycle-to-cycle combustion variations. Because the ignition energy is much higher and spatially distributed, PCCs more consistently ignite an overall leaner mixture. This effectively extends the lean limit of combustion, allowing for cooler in-cylinder temperatures without signicant cycle-to-cycle variations 1 . Consequently, oxides of nitrogen NOx emissions can be reduced to much lower levels than for open chamber spark ignition. Also, due to the size of the PCC burning jet, the main chamber ame front generally has a shorter distance to travel to complete the combustion process. Consequently, the combustion duration is reduced. PCCs are typically operated at stoichiometric to slightly rich equivalence ratios. Previous research shows that the emissions from the prechamber can be a signicant component of exhaust emissions 24 . In the work done by Gingrich et al. 3 gas samples were obtained from a prechamber via a high speed sample valve HSSV . The composition of the prechamber
Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received December 4, 2008; nal manuscript revised December 4, 2008; published online August 30, 2010. Assoc. Editor: James S. Wallace.

sampled gas was compared with the exhaust gas composition. The prechamber contributed about 10% of engine-out NOx at nominal engine conditions, but approximately 85% at the lean limit in a medium speed 1200 rpm Waukesha 3521 four-stroke lean burn natural gas engine. The engine studied in this paper is a slow speed 300 rpm Cooper-Bessemer GMV-4TF two-stroke lean burn natural gas engine. There are important operational differences between the Waukesha 3521 and the Cooper-Bessemer GMV-4TF engine. At the slower GMV engine speed, turbulence levels in the PCC are likely to be lower because of the increased compression stroke duration. PCC operation in the Waukesha engine is characterized by faster combustion and larger pressure rise in the PCC, presumably due to higher turbulence levels. The PCC pressure rise in the Waukesha engine at full load and speed is approximately two times the main chamber rise. Comparatively, the PCC pressure rise in the Cooper-Bessemer engine is roughly 0.3 times the main chamber pressure rise. PCC NOx formation in the Cooper-Bessemer GMV-4TF was investigated by Olsen and Lisowski 4 . This study conrmed that at very lean AFRs, the PCC is responsible for a signicant part of engine-out NOx emissions for the Cooper-Bessemer engine, much like the Waukesha engine. However, contrary to expectations, the NOx levels measured within the PCC were lower than the levels measured at the exhaust. To further explore this phenomenon, Olsen and Lisowski compared single versus dual PCC operations. The indicated mean effective pressure IMEP and location of the peak cylinder pressure were maintained for both test cases via the test cylinder main fuel valve and timing adjustments, respectively. Dual PCC operation for a single cylinder demonstrated approximately 42% higher NOx concentrations when compared with a single PCC operation. The data strongly suggests that the PCC is responsible for the majority of engine-out NOx. In the case of dual PCC ignition, there are two separate fuel-rich PCC jets. Disabling one of the PCCs eliminates one of the rich, high NOx regions, which results in an overall decrease in engine-out NOx emissions. Considering that high levels of NOx were not measured in the PCC via direct sampling, the NOx formation associated with the PCC must occur outside the PCC volume, within the burning jet. A NOx formation mechanism hypothesized that the majority of the DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 122802-1

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power Copyright 2010 by ASME

Downloaded 12 Jan 2011 to 210.212.195.230. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 1 Overview of PCC design attributes Baseline Volume cc Total nozzle ow area cm2 Number of nozzles PCC geometry Dening feature NF MPCC Multiple nozzle PCC Adiabatic PCC 54 0.51 3 Parabolic Nozzle 54 0.51 1 Parabolic Heat transfer Fueled MPCC ePCC NF MPCC HPFI 8.6 0.22 3 Cylindrical Nonfueled

54 8.6 0.51 0.22 1 3 Parabolic Cylindrical Nonfueled

8.6 54 0.22 0.51 3 1 Cylindrical Parabolic Volume and nozzle Fuel delivery

main chamber NOx originates from the mixing process between the fuel-rich PCC burning jet and the lean air-fuel mixture in the main chamber 4 . PCC heat release and imaging studies support the NOx formation mechanism 5,6 . The previous work discussed above shows the dependence of engine-out NOx emissions on the PCC. This provides motivation to improve PCC design. In this research, six concept PCC designs are tested on a single cylinder of the Cooper-Bessemer GMV-4TF. The prechambers are primarily evaluated on the basis of combustion stability and NOx, CO, and THC emissions.

Experimental Setup

2.1 Test Engine. The experimental data was obtained from a four-cylinder Cooper GMV-4TF large bore natural gas two-stroke cycle, lean burn engine. The engine is at slow speed 300 rpm with a 35.6 cm bore and stroke. The rated load is 330 kW, which corresponds to a brake mean effective pressure BMEP of 466 kPa. A single cylinder of the test engine is outtted with a GMV-H style head to house the tested prechambers. The remaining cylinders utilize commercially available PCCs that thread into the sparkplug port. The engine load is supplied by a computer controlled, water brake dynamometer. The engine has a direct fuel injection, utilizing the original cam-driven mechanically actuated fuel valves. The ignition system is an Altronic CPU-2000 and the timing is generally adjusted to maintain a location of the peak pressure of 18 deg ATDC. A turbocharger is simulated by using a computer controlled Rootes blower and exhaust buttery valve that provide variable intake boost. This system is capable of mimicking most turbochargers that would be installed on a GMV-TF engine. The engine is instrumented with sensors monitoring over 100 different parameters automatically recorded at each test point. Cylinder dynamic pressure is measured with Kistler piezoelectric pressure sensors mounted in water cooled xtures with the sensor face ush with the inside of the combustion chamber. The water cooled xtures are mounted in the air-start port in the cylinder head. The engine utilizes a compressed air ring-gear starting system, enabling the air-start ports in the cylinder heads to be used for instrumentation. Dynamic pressure signals are recorded by a Hi-Techniques Win600 high speed data acquisition system. Emissions of criteria pollutants and O2 and CO2, are measured with a ve-gas emissions bench on a dry basis. CO and CO2 are measured with a Siemens Ultramat 6 nondispersive infrared analyzer. NOx is measured with a Siemens NOx MAT 600 chemical luminescence analyzer. Oxygen is measured using a Rosemount NGA 2000 PMD paramagnetic analyzer. Total hydrocarbon THC emissions are measured using a NGA 2000 ame ionization detector. A Nicolet Magna 560 Fourier transform infrared spectrometer is used to measure hazardous air pollutants HAPs , such as formaldehyde, and determining the species composition of the THC emissions. 2.2 Prechamber. All of the tested PCCs mount into the GMV-H style head in the same fashion as the stock PCC. The PCCs are ange mounted with a metal compression gasket to seal against combustion pressure. The coolant from the head ows around the PCC, which improves heat rejection and eliminates separate cooling lines required for PCCs that screw into the spark plug port. The axis of the PCC port in the head is on a 55 deg 122802-2 / Vol. 132, DECEMBER 2010

angle with the cylinder main axis. All tested PCCs have nozzle s at a 20 deg angle with the PCC centerline that directs the ame jet across the cylinder at a 75 deg downward angle from the cylinder axis. Detailed gures of the PCC orientation and cylinder head and piston bowl geometry are presented in a previous work 4 . Although the fueled PCCs tested use different fuel supply methods, all designs direct the fuel toward the PCC spark plug, intending to create a rich fueling condition around the spark plug electrode to promote consistent PCC combustion. Each PCC is tted with a port to incorporate a Kistler piezoelectric pressure transducer. PCC dynamic pressure is measured in the same manner as the cylinder pressure. Some of the tested designs include a port to extract PCC combustion gases using a HSSV. In this technique, extracted PCC combustion gases are measured with a wide ranging oxygen sensor and an ECM AFRecorder. The fuel composition measured by a gas chromatograph is input into the AFRecorder, enabling accurate measurement of the PCC equivalence ratio. A detailed description of this measurement technique is provided in previous studies 3,4,7 . 2.3 PCC Design. PCC designs are developed on the basis of previous research ndings, proven technologies, and intuition. A formal selection process is created by using a selection matrix not shown . The selection matrix consists of potential to improve the main chamber ignition, potential to reduce PCC NOx, engine control requirements, manufacturing complexity, and operation maintenance. From these criteria, the following six concepts are selected. Concept No. 1: Nonfueled micro PCC NF MPCC Concept No. 2: Multiple nozzle PCC Concept No. 3: Adiabatic PCC Concept No. 4: Fueled micro PCC fueled MPCC Concept No. 5: Baseline Cooper PCC with an electronic prechamber checkvalve ePCC Concept No. 6: Nonfueled micro PCC with high pressure fuel injection NF MPCC HPFI

A general design summary of the selected concepts is outlined in Table 1. The design attributes include chamber size and geometry, number of nozzles, fueling strategies, and heat transfer. Multiple nozzle, adiabatic, and ePCC have the same PCC volume and geometry as the stock PCC baseline . NF MPCC, fueled MPCC, and NF MPCC HPFI have a different chamber geometry and signicantly smaller volume than the baseline. Detailed design features are discussed in the following sections. 2.4 Baseline. The stock Cameron PCC baseline is shown in Fig. 1. The PCC utilizes a 54 cc parabolic chamber volume and a single 0.81 cm diameter nozzle. A checkvalve seats inside of the PCC body to meter fuel. During blow-down, the cylinder pressure decreases below the PCC fuel supply pressure, and the checkvalve opens initiating the fueling process. The cylinder pressure then increases during compression, eventually exceeding the PCC fuel supply pressure and closing the checkvalve. The fuel passage enters the chamber volume near the sparkplug. 2.5 Concept No. 1: NF MPCC. The rst concept PCC investigated is a nonfueled micro PCC NF MPCC displayed in Fig. 2. NF MPCCs are a commercial technology for high speed industrial Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 12 Jan 2011 to 210.212.195.230. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

a)

b)
Checkvalve
54

Towards cylinder centerline

HSSV port

54

Chamber Nozzle

Fig. 3 Multiple nozzle PCC


Pressure transducer port

Fig. 1 Stock PCC baseline

engines, but to the authors knowledge have never been designed and/or implemented on large bore, slow speed engines. The basic functionality of a nonfueled prechamber is to create a small region within the main chamber, protected from large scale turbulence, promoting ame kernel development. Also, past work has shown that nonfueled PCCs promote in-cylinder turbulence from the PCC combustion jet, reducing the overall combustion duration when compared with open chamber spark 8,9 . A production Caterpillar 3516C MPCC design is proportionally scaled up for use on the GMV. The scaling process is based on the PCC volume to clearance volume ratio and maintains the cylindrical MPCC geometry. This design is expected to perform better than open chamber spark plugs, but is not expected to ignite mixtures as lean as larger fueled prechambers. The nozzle geometry utilizes a threejet design to create a combustion plume that penetrates across the center of the combustion chamber in a fan formation. MPCC volume is approximately one-sixth that of the stock PCC. 2.6 Concept No. 2: Multiple Nozzle PCC. Most prechambers used for large bore natural gas compressor engines contain a single nozzle between the prechamber volume and the main chamber. High speed 1800 rpm four-stroke industrial natural gas engines typically employ multiple nozzle prechambers. The idea behind the multiple nozzle conguration is to more effectively distribute the burning prechamber gas throughout the main chamber. Concept No. 2 is a multiple nozzle design and is shown in Fig. 3. This concept is an adaptation of the stock prechamber to incorporate multiple nozzles. The centerline of the nozzles is at an angle with the prechamber main axis to direct the jets horizontally across the main chamber. The combined cross-sectional area of the three nozzles is approximately the same as the stock single nozzle. 2.7 Concept No. 3: Adiabatic PCC. Previous research suggests that prechambers have a narrow fueling window close to stoichiometric because of signicant heat loss from a high

surface-to-volume ratio 10 . PCC performance could be improved by insulating the combustion chamber. Concept No. 3 uses the stock PCC design with an insulating chamber liner, as displayed in Fig. 4. The liner material is 960 alumina ceramic and can withstand temperatures of up to 1650 C. Alumina has approximately one-fourth the thermal conductivity of stainless steel, the standard PCC body material. The low thermal conductivity of ceramic is expected to signicantly reduce the heat transfer through the wall, increasing combustion temperatures within the PCC. For this reason, Concept No. 3 is referred to as the adiabatic no heat transfer PCC. Higher PCC combustion temperatures should require a smaller amount of fuel leaner PCC AFR to consistently ignite the chamber charge, thus reducing emissions. The ceramic is approximately 0.25 cm thick, and the outer stainless steel housing is thinner to maintain the stock PCC chamber volume. 2.8 Concept No. 4: Fueled MPCC. Concept No. 4 is a fueled version of the MPCC presented in Fig. 2. There are ve differences between Concept No. 4 and the stock PCC. The modications include: fuel delivery location, checkvalve design, nozzle design, chamber size, and chamber geometry. Due to space limitations, the stock mechanical checkvalve is replaced by a micro ball checkvalve pictured in Fig. 5 lower right . The fuel is metered by a 0.3 mm diameter orice that threads into the checkvalve. A checkvalve port is located perpendicular to the prechamber axis. A threaded plug pushes the checkvalve into a soft 1100 aluminum alloy gasket to create a sealing surface between the combustion chamber and the fuel system. An aluminum gasket at the plug creates a sealing surface between the fuel system and cylinder head coolant. The plug has a radial and an axial hole that permits fuel to ow to the orice. A fuel line spans the length of the PCC to the checkvalve port. The fuel line is welded to the body to prevent the coolant from entering the fuel line. The fuel enters the chamber perpendicular to the PCC axis. 2.9 Concept No. 5: ePCC. The conventional prechamber design utilizes mechanical checkvalves for fuel admission. Fueling from these devices is dependent upon the differential pressure between the cylinder and the prechamber fuel supply. With electronic fuel metering, a higher fuel pressure over a shorter duration can be employed to improve mixing. Injection timing can also be varied to reduce fugitive gases from escaping the PCC prior to ignition. Concept No. 5 uses the stock PCC but replaces the checkvalve with a Hoerbiger electronic prechamber checkvalve

59
Towards cylinder centerline

59
Ceramic

Fig. 2 Nonfueled MPCC

Fig. 4 Adiabatic PCC

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 122802-3

Downloaded 12 Jan 2011 to 210.212.195.230. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

MPCC nozzle and chamber

Fuel line Pressure transducer port

Checkvalve Orifice

Plug

ePCC displayed in Fig. 6. The material is removed from the stock checkvalve port to accommodate the larger ePCC. All other aspects of the stock design are maintained. A clamp secures the ePCC against an 1100 aluminum alloy gasket. The fuel line not pictured is threaded into the side of the ePCC and continues vertically out of the PCC. An Altronic CPU-2000 module controls ePCC injection timing and duration. Injection timing is between the exhaust port closure and intake port closure at 134 deg BTDC. The fuel injection pressure is 862 kPa, more than triple of that used with the stock conguration. Both the injection timing and pressure were optimized in a previous work 7 . 2.10 Concept No. 6: NF MPCC With HPFI. Concept No. 6 consists of operating NF MPCC Concept No. 1 with the main chamber high pressure fuel injection HPFI . The HPFI system replaces the stock cam-actuated direct injection system with electrohydraulic valves, and the engine fuel supply pressure is increased from 280 kPa to 3450 kPa. Main chamber HPFI signicantly improves mixing within the cylinder increasing the probability that an adequate air-fuel mixture will reach the PCC sparkplug during compression, regardless if the PCC is fueled or not. The purpose of this concept is to provide an in-cylinder environment that maximizes NF MPCC performance. 2.11 Test Plan. The test plan, presented in Table 2, is designed for comparative evaluation of different prechamber designs on a single cylinder of the test engine. Test point 1 is a prechamber fuel sweep taken at a constant intake manifold pressure boost of 70 kPa g and constant main chamber IMEP of 690 kPa. PCC equivalence ratio PCC is measured via the HSSV technique previously described. The PCC fueling is optimized during test point 1 by adjusting the PCC fuel delivered until a minimum in the main chamber coefcient of variation in peak pressure COV of PP is established. The lean and rich PCC limits are explored to verify the optimum fueling setpoint. The PCC lean limit is noted at the minimum PCC in which the cylinder COV of PP degrades to 12%. The rich limit is typically difcult to attain because of increased fugitive gases that escape the PCC prior to ignition. The subsequent test points 25 are a lean limit evaluation. A small matrix of test cylinder loads and engine speeds are outlined in Table 2. The load is governed by the test cylinder main fuel valve adjustment while the dynamometer maintains constant engine speed. For a particular engine speed and test cylinder load, boost is adjusted until the main chamber COV of PP reaches 12%. PCC fuel pressure is adjusted with boost pressure to maintain the optimum PCC found in test point 1. Exhaust gases are captured at the test cylinder exhaust port and measured with the ve-gas emissions bench; the HSSV is not used.

Aluminum gaskets

Fig. 5 Fueled MPCC

Clamp ePCC

3
Fig. 6 ePCC solid model and test setup

Results and Discussion

3.1 Problematic PCCs. Issues with two prechamber concepts were discovered during the lean limit testing. NF MPCC demon-

Table 2 Comparative test plan Test point 1 Engine speed rpm IMEP kPa COV of PP PCC equivalence ratio Boost pressure kPa g Comments Measurements Pressure statistics MC and PCC HSSV sampling from PCC Cyl port emissions sampling 300 690 Recorded 0.8 1.2 70 Fuel sweep X X 2 300 690 12% Optimized Adjusted Lean limit X X 3 300 585 12% Optimized Adjusted Lean limit X X 4 290 690 12% Optimized Adjusted Lean limit X X 5 290 585 12% Optimized Adjusted Lean limit X X

122802-4 / Vol. 132, DECEMBER 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 12 Jan 2011 to 210.212.195.230. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Melted/Ablated material

Foreign material

Baseline

Multiple Nozzle

Fueled MPCC

ePCC

NF MPCC HPFI

1400 1200

ppm NOx @ 15% O2

1000 800 600 400 200

Original nozzle location

Fig. 7 Left: adiabatic PCC nozzle failure; right: molten material covering sparkplug

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 ppm CO @ 15% O2

strated poor combustion stability, such that the test cylinder was unable to achieve a COV of PP below 12%, even at low boost levels. For this reason, NF MPCC is excluded from the following data and discussion. During the initial stages of adiabatic PCC testing, the test cylinder began to knock severely. The engine was shutdown and the PCC was removed. Upon inspection, the adiabatic PCC had severe damage around the nozzle region. Figure 7 left shows that the 304 stainless steel prechamber body near the nozzle had melted. It is deduced that the molten steel no longer provided structural support for the ceramic, leading to ceramic liner failure near the nozzle. The ceramic structure inside the prechamber away from the nozzle appeared to be unaffected in its original as-designed form. The sparkplug was also removed for inspection. The sparkplug was covered with a foreign material, as shown in Fig. 7 right , and the material is believed to originate from the stainless steel that melted away from the nozzle. There are two probable reasons for the adiabatic PCC failure. First, the stainless body near the nozzle was made too thin to accompany the ceramic liner and maintain the stock volume. Second, the nozzle was not ceramic lined. The chamber failure prevented adiabatic PCC testing from being completed. The failure modes discovered during inspection could be used for design improvements; however, adiabatic PCC performance during initial stages of testing did not appear to show any signicant advantages over the baseline PCC. Consequently, further investigation was not warranted. 3.2 Fuel Sweep. The entire fueling ranges of the prechambers are explored during fuel sweep testing. Table 3 presents the optimum PCC and the corresponding main chamber COV of PP. NF MPCC HPFI is excluded from the table because it is a nonfueled design. The multiple nozzle shows an optimum PCC near stoichiometric, leaner than the baseline. Perhaps incorporating multiple nozzles on the stock PCC design results in increased fuel lost through the nozzles prior to ignition. The improvement in combustion stability is theorized to be attributed to the increase in spatial distribution of combustion radicals delivered to the main chamber. Although fueled MPCC utilizes multiple nozzles, it has the highest PCC among all concepts tested. Fueled MPCC has the largest length-to-diameter L / D ratio chamber geometry, which is thought to minimize fugitive fuel loss through the nozzles. The most intriguing nding of the fuel sweep is the improvement in combustion stability exhibited by fueled MPCC. The fuel delivered to fueled MPCC is approximately one-third that of the stock chamber volume concepts, and thus one-third of the available enTable 3 Optimized fueling and recorder combustion stability from test point 1 Baseline Optimum PCC COVPPMC % 1.09 10.7 Multiple nozzle 1.01 6.8 Fueled MPCC 1.20 5.4 ePCC 1.16 5.9

Fig. 8 NOx versus CO emissions at 15% O2

ergy to ignite the main chamber charge, yet signicant improvements in combustion stability are shown. Perhaps this improvement is attributed to the minimization of fugitive gas loss coupled with combustion product distribution through multiple nozzles. The PCC exhibited by ePCC is about 6% higher than the baseline. The improvement in combustion stability clearly highlights the advantages of electronic fuel control. The improvement in the main chamber COV of PP is likely due to increased air-fuel mixing from higher injection pressures and minimization of fugitive gas loss through shorter fueling durations, both of which maximize the PCC ignition energy per mass fuel delivered. 3.3 Lean Limit. The NOx versus CO results from test points 25 are displayed in Fig. 8. The measured species are presented in parts per million ppm , normalized to 15% oxygen O2 . This normalization enables a direct comparison of PCC performance by removing dilution effects from the various boost pressures required to reach 12% COV of PP. NF MPCC HPFI displays roughly six times the exhaust port NOx than any other PCC tested. NF MPCC HPFI is a nonfueled PCC, and therefore, combustion stability is directly related to the trapped main chamber equivalence ratio MC and the presence of adequate air-fuel mixture near the PCC sparkplug provided by the main chamber. NF MPCC HPFI average MC was approximately 0.80 compared with an overall average of 0.65 for the fueled PCCs and trends with the increase in NOx. Additionally, past computational uid dynamic modeling conrms that the test engine cylinders contain a lean region in the vicinity of the PCC 11 . NF MPCC HPFI clearly shows the lowest CO levels and is the only nonfueled PCC in Fig. 8. This agrees with a previous work in which signicant levels of CO were found to originate from fueled PCCs 4 . Due to poor combustion stability, NF MPCC HPFI results are withheld from the successive plots. The remaining PCCs for evaluation are the baseline, multiple nozzle, fueled MPCC, and ePCC. Figure 9 displays NOx versus CO emissions with NF MPCC HPFI removed for scaling purposes. The data trend from high NOx upper left to high CO lower right for 690 kPa to 585 kPa loads, respectively. This is a typical trend for lean burn engines, as elevated NOx levels are present at high temperatures full load and CO is not fully oxidized into CO2 during periods of partial combustion partial load . For reference, ensuing NOx regulations on natural gas compressor engines are in the range of 0.7 1.3 g / kW h, which equates to approximately 3570 ppm at 15% O2 for this engine. All three concepts demonstrate a signicant improvement over the baseline at full load, especially fueled MPCC, which reduced NOx by over 50%. The multiple nozzle and fueled MPCC show slight reductions in CO at this same operating condition, likely due to ignition improvements from multiple nozzles. At partial load, multiple nozzle NOx levels are roughly three times that of DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 122802-5

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

Downloaded 12 Jan 2011 to 210.212.195.230. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Baseline

Multiple Nozzle

Fueled MPCC

ePCC

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 ppm CO @ 15% O2

Fig. 9 NOx versus CO emissions at 15% O2 excluding NF MPCC HPFI

the other PCCs. The fuel sweep results indicate that the multiple nozzle design promotes fugitive fuel loss, creating a fuel-rich plume outside of the PCC. This theory is supported by previous work, which found that this fuel-rich plume is a major contributor to engine-out NOx 4 . It is unclear why this effect is amplied selectively at the multiple nozzle partial load testing. Relative to the baseline, it is interesting that the fueled MPCC and ePCC performance improvements shift from NOx reductions at full load to CO reductions at partial load. The fueled MPCC CO reductions at partial load are directly linked to PCC volume reduction. The
90 80

ePCC CO reductions at partial load are thought to be attributed to enhanced mixing from the electronic fueling. Cylinder pressures are lower at partial load, and thus, the inux of main chamber gases into the PCC during compression are less effective at inducing turbulence. The increased fuel pressure of the ePCC fuel system maintains mixing qualities within the PCC, even at partial load, resulting in improved partial load ignition and reduced CO emissions. The lean limit averages for NOx, CO, THC, and volatile organic compounds VOCs are displayed in Figs. 10 a 10 d , respectively. Relative to the baseline, fueled MPCC shows an average of 50% NOx reduction, followed closely by ePCC, but the multiple nozzle shows virtually no reduction. Fueled MPCC is the most effective in improving the overall NOx CO tradeoff. Multiple nozzle displays approximately 40% CO and THC reduction in Figs. 10 b and 10 c , respectively. Thus, the addition of multiple nozzles to the stock PCC improves main chamber combustion at a given NOx level. Multiple nozzles are more effective at entraining surrounding lean mixture into the PCC jets, which are near stoichiometric. The PCC volume effect on emissions is apparent when fueled MPCC, ePCC CO, and THC results are compared. THCs are an indication of combustion stability and typically trend with CO. Fueled MPCC exhibits a 29% reduction in CO, and ePCC CO reduction is marginal, yet both concepts show notable reductions in THC emissions. Therefore, both concepts roughly instill the same improvements in combustion stability. However, the CO levels are more strongly governed by PCC volume than PCC fuel delivery. This assumes that the multiple nozzles of the fueled MPCC were selectively used to maintain combustion stability in compensation of a smaller PCC volume. The VOC results
180 160

ppm NOx @ 15% O2

ppm NOx @ 15% O2

60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Baseline Multiple Nozzle Fueled MPCC ePCC

ppm CO @ 15% O2

70

140 120 100 80 60

40
20 0
Baseline Multiple Nozzle Fueled MPCC ePCC

(a)
1000 900

(b)
45 40

ppm THC @ 15% O2

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

ppm VOC @ 15% O2

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

0
Baseline Multiple Nozzle Fueled MPCC ePCC

Baseline

Multiple Nozzle Fueled MPCC

ePCC

(c)

(d)
Fig. 10 Average a NOX, b CO, c THC, and d VOC emissions from lean limit testing

122802-6 / Vol. 132, DECEMBER 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 12 Jan 2011 to 210.212.195.230. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Baseline

Multiple Nozzle

Fueled MPCC

ePCC

45 40
ppm VOC @ 15% O2

Summary and Conclusions

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

In this work, six prechamber designs are tested on a single cylinder of a slow speed, lean burn, natural gas engine with the objective of reducing exhaust port emissions. The PCC design variables include chamber geometry, chamber volume, nozzle design, fuel delivery, and heat transfer. The prechambers are primarily evaluated on the basis of combustion stability and NOx, CO, and THC emissions reductions. Key observations and conclusions from the test results presented in this paper are summarized as follows. Nonfueled PCCs do not promote combustion stability in the test engine, even with the main chamber HPFI. Applying multiple nozzles to the stock PCC design appears to increase fugitive fuel loss prior to ignition. Increasing the PCC L / D ratio mitigates this effect. Multiple nozzles and electronic PCC fuel control enhance main chamber combustion stability, particularly at partial load conditions. PCC volume reduction is the most effective method in reducing the overall NOx CO tradeoff measured at the cylinder exhaust port. The fuel composition is the dominating variable in the VOC emissions.

Percent C2+

Fig. 11 Average VOCs versus percent C2+ fuel composition

presented in Fig. 10 d are calculated as nonmethane, nonethane hydrocarbons and exclude formaldehyde in accordance to the reciprocating internal combustion engine new source performance standard RICE NSPS regulations 12 . All formaldehyde emissions not shown were below 20 ppm, and no signicant ndings were evident. Note that the VOC levels are much lower than THC levels. This is because unburned fuel is the main contributor to THC emissions, and the majority of natural gas is methane 90% . Consequently, most of THC emissions are methane, which is excluded from the VOC calculation. The PCC role in VOC emissions is unclear in Fig. 10 d . VOC emissions are plotted against fuel composition percentage of C2+ in Fig. 11 in an attempt to better understand the results in Fig. 10 d . The C2+ constituents measured by a gas chromatograph include propane, butane, pentane, and hexane. As the fuel composition percentage of C2+ increases, the VOCs linearly increase. VOC emissions appear to be less dependent on the PCC and more dependent on the gas composition. This claries the independence of the THC and VOC trends presented in Figs. 10 c and 10 d , respectively. The ndings in the VOC data highlight the importance of controlling fuel composition during testing. The experimental setup did not include fuel composition control, yet the inconsistencies in the fuel composition are not projected to alter the qualitative results among PCCs. All three concepts reduced average port NOx, CO, and THC emissions. Average values were calculated from combining the lean limit test points for each concept. The concept average values were then compared with the baseline average values, and the resulting average percentage reduction for each concept is presented in Table 4. Fueled MPCC shows the highest reduction in NOx at 54%, and is closely followed by ePCC at 43%. Multiple nozzle did not show a noteworthy improvement in NOx, but it did show over 40% reductions in both CO and THC emissions. The VOCs are not included as they are not heavily dependent on the PCC.
Table 4 Percent emissions reduction % reduction Multiple nozzle Fueled MPCC ePCC NOx 3.1 54 43.4 CO 40.6 29.9 7.3 THC 43.5 23.5 21.3

Acknowledgment
This work was funded by the Pipeline Research Council International. Kirk Evans, EECL Operations Manager, provided testing oversight. Key student contributors include Morgan Kohls, Josh Schmitt, Laura Rowley, and Lucas Oehlerking.

References
1 Iocco, D. E., 1995, Retrot Precombustion Chamber Helps Cut Engine NOx Emissions, Pipeline and Gas Industry, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX, Vol. 78, Issue 10, pp. 4146. 2 Callahan, T. J., and Kubesh, J. T., 1997, Contribution of Prechamber Combustion to Engine CO and HC Emissions, Proceedings of the Gas Machinery Conference. 3 Gingrich, J. W., Olsen, D. B., Puzinauskas, P., and Willson, B. D., 2006, Precombustion Chamber NOx Emission Contribution to an Industrial HighSpeed, Natural Gas Engine, Int. J. Engine Res., 7, pp. 4149. 4 Olsen, D., and Lisowski, J. M., 2009, Prechamber NOx Formation in Low BMEP 2-Stroke Cycle Natural Gas Engines, Appl. Therm. Eng., 29, pp. 13594311. 5 Olsen, D. B., and Kirkpatrick, A.T., 2007, Experimental Examination of Prechamber Heat Release in a Large Bore Natural Gas Engine, ASME Paper No. JRCICE2007-40133. 6 Lisowski, J. M., Olsen, D. B., and Yalin, A. P., 2006, Visible Flame Imaging of Prechamber Initiated Combustion in a Large Bore Natural Gas Engine, GMRC Gas Machinery Conference, Oklahoma City. 7 Olsen, D. B., Adair, J. L., and Willson, B. D., 2005, Precombustion Chamber Design and Performance Studies for a Large Bore Natural Gas Engine, ASME Paper No. ICE2005-1057. 8 Konishi, M., Nakamura, N., Oono, E., Baika, T., and Sanda, S., 1979, Effects of a Prechamber on NOx Formation Process in the SI Engine, Soc. Automot. Eng. Spec. Publ. , p. 790389. 9 Ryu, H., Chtsu, A., and Asanuma, T., 1987, Effect of Torch Jet Direction on Combustion and Performance of a Prechamber Spark-Ignition Engine, Soc. Automot. Eng. Spec. Publ. , p. 870167. 10 Lisowski, J. M., 2007, Diagnostic Techniques for Precombustion Chambers in Large Bore Lean Burn Natural Gas Engines, MS thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 11 Kim, G.-H., 2004, Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of a Large Bore Two-Stroke Natural Gas Engine, Ph.D. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 12 Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule, Fed. Regist., 73 13 , pp. 35683614.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power

DECEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 122802-7

Downloaded 12 Jan 2011 to 210.212.195.230. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

You might also like