Laser Based Spark Ignition for Reciprocating Engines

Presenter: Mike McMillian

September 16, 2002

Natural Gas Infrastructure Reliability Industry Forums

Introduction: Why Laser Ignition?

Regulations on NOx Emissions Have continue to force Operation of

Natural Gas Engines to Leaner Air/Fuel Ratios

Lean Air/Fuel Ratios Are More Difficult to Ignite, Conventional

Systems Require High Ignition Energies Strong C-H Bond Energy

Natural Gas Is More Difficult to Ignite Than Gasoline due to the

Laser Light Is Monochromatic, So Selective Chemistry Becomes a Possible Option.

Due to Increased Ignition Coil Energy, Spark Plug Service Life Is

Very Low for Natural Gas Engines

Laser ignition offers the potential for extended service life

Rugged lasers are available for numerous industrial processes

Potential for Improved Durability!

2K-2571

Introduction: Why Laser Ignition? cont.

Engine Operation at Lean Air/Fuel Ratios Using Spark Plug Ignition

Is Limited Due to Misfire, Ignition Delay and Unstable Ignition

Again, lean a/f ratio operation pushes spark systems to higher energies, multiple firing or multiple locations are additional options

Ignition Sites of Spark Plug Ignition Are Fixed Within the

Combustion Chamber

For laser ignition, multiple-point ignition is achievable and optimum ignition sites can be selected

Spark Plug Electrodes Interfere With Propagation of the Early

Combustion Flame, Compounding Ignition Problems

Because of the non-intruding nature, laser ignition has minimum heat loss and flame quenching

Potential for Improved Engine Performance!

2K-2571

TECHNOLOGY STATUS
Previous engine work was focused on laser ignition of gasoline

(Dale, et al., 1979) , or propane (Smith, 1979) no work on laser ignition for a natural gas engine has been reported although Ma, et al., 1998, used a motored slider crank mechanism with methane. Past work has demonstrated increased flame speed and combustion pressure over conventional spark systems (Tran and others). Mass production of lasers at significantly reduced size and cost is imminent Understanding fundamental ignition phenomena in the context of laser radiation is required Transfer of laser ignition technology to single cylinder natural gas test engine is next step A commercial embodiment for a multi-cylinder engine laser ignition is the ultimate goal
2K-2571

Research Needs
Fundamental Level Basic science regarding ignition of combustible mixtures Multiple pulse ignition Multiple Point Ignition Practical Level: Research Needs Leading to Commercialization Laser induced optical damage/Beam Delivery Particle deposits Laser System Intelligent Control Laser Distribution

2K-2571

Goals and Objectives

Develop scientific and engineering foundation

for laser spark ignition in reciprocating engines

Single Cylinder Single Point Ignition Laser beam distribution Multipoint ignition Multipulse ignition

2K-2571

NETL Activities
Task 1: Quiescent and Turbulent constant volume, high pressure combustion cell experiments Task 2: NETL-single cylinder engine experiments Task 3: Laser source selection and evaluation Task 4: Fiber Optics Beam delivery study Task 5: Optical window damage and cleaning Task 6: Integrated System Testing

Summary of NETL Laser Ignition Work to-date

Laser ignition tests using a constant volume cell and turbulent jet diffusion flames have been carried out

Investigated effects of optical properties and fuel properties on the ignition probability and the minimum ignition energy Developed theoretical ignition model for laser ignition Considered benefits of laser ignition and its potential applications for gas engines Identified many technical difficulties and potential solutions

2K-2571

Summary of NETL Laser Ignition Work to-date (cont.)

Initial testing of a laser spark in an engine

A comparison of engine emissions and combustion parameters using a Ricardo Proteous, single-cylinder, 4-stroke, spark ignited natural gas engine using both a conventional spark system and a laser spark system was conducted. The engine was operated at a constant speed of 1200 rpm and at moderate load conditions. The emissions and combustion performance data for each ignition system at three equivalence ratios and three timing conditions were compared. Additional testing of the laser spark system at =0.5 was also performed.

2K-2571

Engine Testbed Schematic

P ressurized A ir Intake B ack P ressure Valve P rim ary S urge Tank To Stack O p acity M onitor

Tem p. P ress. Test Fuel S upply

P

Viscous Flow M eter

P um p

S econda ry S urge Tank & A ir Heater (In sulated)

I N S U L A T I O N

S a m p le C o n di tion e r II

Tem p. G ra vim eteric Fu el Flo w M easurem ent

A n alyz e r B a y
P ress.
IN S ULAT IO N

70 m m S am ple Filter

P ress. Tem p.

M ini Dilution Tunnel

Dynam om eter

S ingle Cylin der E ngine

Cylinder Pressure

Fuel Line Pressure Needle Lift

-8 0 -6 0 -4 0 -2 0 0 20 40 60 80

C rank An gle, De gree

Hig h-Sp eed Data Aq uisition 2K -1168 A

2K-2571

Laser Arrangement
10% TRANSMISSIVE MIRROR

POWER METER LASER PLUG

Nd YAG LASER LASER BEAM

NETL ENGINE
70o

OPTICAL WINDOW

PLANO-CONVEX BEAM SHIFT LENS

PISTON

2K-2571

Initial Single Cylinder Engine Testing Results

2K-2571

Coefficient of Variation (COV) of the Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP)

IMEP = (Pnr/VdN)

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 35 25
Timin g ( o b td c )

Plug, Phi=0.6 Laser, Phi=0.6 Plug, Phi=0.55 Laser, Phi=0.55 Plug, Phi=0.525 Laser,
15

2K-2571

Thermal Efficiency
Thermal Efficiency Factors Combustion Efficiency Phasing - (Example: Optimum timing at  = 0.55 differs by 4oCA)

45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 0.600 0.550
E q u iv a le n c e R a t io

P lug , Timing=35 Laser, Timing=35 P lug , Timing=25 Laser, Timing=25 P lug , Timing=15 Laser, Timing=15
0.525

2K-2571

Ignition Delay, 5%-50% Burn Rate and Location of Maximum Heat Release Rate
30

25
25

20

5% -50% Burn Duration ( CA)

"Ignition Delay" (oCA)

15

Plug, Phi=0.6 Laser, Phi=0.6 Plug, Phi=0.55 Laser, Phi=0.55 Plug, Phi=0.525 Laser, Phi=0.525

20

15

10

10

Plug, Phi=0.6 Laser, Phi=0.6 Plug, Phi=0.55 Laser, Phi=0.55 Plug, Phi=0.525 Laser, Phi=0.525

5
5

0
0 35 25 15

35

25

15

Timing (obtdc)

Timing (obtdc)

35

48 42

30

36 30 24

25

Max, HRR Loc (oCA)

20

15

10

Plug, Phi=0.6 Laser, Phi=0.6 Plug, Phi=0.55 Laser, Phi=0.55 Plug, Phi=0.525 Laser, Phi=0.525

HHR [kJ/m3]

18 12 6 0 -6 -12

0 35 -5 25 15

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

CA
2K-2571

Timing (o btdc)

NOx vs Static Timing

Phasing Effect Example: A 4oCA spark retard (corresponding to  in T.E.) for the laser system from 35oCA to 31oCA reduces NOx form 8 to 4 g/hp-hr

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 35 25
T im in g ( o b t d c )

15

P lug, P hi=0.6 Laser, P hi=0.6 P lug, P hi=0.55 Laser, P hi=0.55 P lug, P hi=0.525 Laser, P hi=0.525

2K-2571

THC vs Static Timing

25

20

15

10

0 35 25
T im in g ( o b t d c )

Plug, Phi=0.6 Laser, Phi=0.6 Plug, Phi=0.55 Laser, Phi=0.55 Plug, Phi=0.525 Laser, Phi=0.525
15

2K-2571

CO vs Static Timing
4 .0

3 .5

3 .0

C O (g /b h p -h r

2 .5

2 .0

1 .5

1 .0

P lug , P hi=0 .6 L as er, P hi=0 .6 P lug , P hi=0 .5 5 L as er, P hi=0 .5 5 P lug , P hi=0 .5 2 5 L as er, P hi=0 .5 2 5

0 .5

0 .0 35 25 15
o

T im in g ( b td c )

2K-2571

Conclusions: Engine Testing to Date

Significantly improved combustion performance was obtained at lean equivalence ratio/retarded timing conditions using the 0.5 Laser Equivalence Ratio = laser spark system. o
Timing ( btdc)

35

25

15

Torque products of combustion was Window fouling due to deposition of (nm) 130.44 121.35 67.84 not apparent during approximately 10 hours of laser engine Therm eff. (%) operation. 41.85 39.02 21.73 NOx Rate (g/bhp-hr)

NOx emissions were generally higher with laser spark operation. CO Rate (g/bhp-hr) 2.52 2.82 7.09 However timing optimization was not attempted.
THC Rate (g/bhp-hr) 10.58 14.44 33.92

1.05

0.20

0.13

Hydrocarbon emissions were generally lower with laser operation at Pmax (bar) 39.11 28.69 the lower equivalence ratio and retarded timing settings. 21.08 o
Pmax Loc ( CA) 9.50 12.75 1.95

Emissions of CO were generally IMEP COVwith laser spark. Again, higher 1.31 3.72 18.25 improvement in CO emissions may be possible with timing 5%-50% Burn Duration (oCA) 15.98 18.50 23.75 optimization.
SOC (oCA) -8.48 -1.75 8.23

Laser spark operation provided stable combustion at conditions Ignition Delay (oCA) 23.25 leaner than achievable with the conventional 26.53 spark ignition23.23 system.
HRR Peak (KJ/M3) HRR Peak Loc (oCA) 41.05 5.00 28.90 12.00 16.25 21.00
2K-2571

Future Direction
Single point ignition with comparisons to correct

phasing. Timing optimization (Phasing) vs. Thermal Efficiency Look at NOx Trade off Knock Margin Multipoint laser ignition studies Higher apparent flame speed may provide additional knock margin as well as higher burn rate Multipulse Ignition May provide improved ignition, leaner combustion and lower emissions May provide a way to circumvent beam delivery issue Distributed ignition May provide a way to circumvent beam delivery (energy density) issue
2K-2571

Collaboration Efforts
Laser-spark ignition Working Group Initial meeting on or about October 8-9, 2002 Organized by ANL (David Livengood)

2K-2571

The EndThanks!

2K-2571

Technical Barriers/Solutions
Barriers Laser Technology (Being
Evaluated)

Potential Solutions Distributed System Improved Fiber Optics for beam delivery, quality optics Multi-pulse Mode

Optics Particulate Deposition Focal Length Effects