Search Results

Natural Gas engines are viewed as an alternative to diesel power in the quest to reduce heavy duty vehicle emissions in polluted urban areas. In particular, it is acknowledged that natural gas has the potential to reduce the inventory of particulate matter, and this has encouraged the use of natural gas engines in transit bus applications. Extensive data on natural gas and diesel bus emissions have been gathered using two Transportable Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratories, that employ chassis dynamometers to simulate bus inertia and road load. Most of the natural gas buses tested prior to 1997 were powered by Cummins L-10 engines, which were lean-burn and employed a mechanical mixer for fuel introduction. The Central Business District (CBD) cycle was used as the test schedule.

A research program at West Virginia University sought to identify and quantify the individual hydrocarbon species present in alternative fuel exhaust. Compressed natural gas (CNG) has been one of the most widely researched fuels proposed to replace liquid petroleum fuels. Regulated CNG non-methane hydrocarbon emissions are often lower than hydrocarbon emissions from conventional liquid fuels because of the absence of heavier hydrocarbons in the fuel. Reducing NOx and non-methane organic gas (NMOG) emission levels reduces the ozone forming potential (OFP) of the exhaust gases. A Hercules GTA 3.7 liter medium duty CNG engine was operated at seven load and speed set points using local supply CNG gas. The engine was operated at several rated, intermediate and idle speed set points. The engine was operated while the air/fuel ratio value was varied.

Concern over dwindling oil supplies has led to the adoption of alternate fuels to power fleet vehicles. However, during the interim period when alternate fuel supply stations are few and far between, dual fuel engines prove a necessity. In the light duty arena, these engines are typically gasoline engines modified to accommodate compressed natural gas (CNG) as an alternate fuel, but they are seldom optimized with both fuels in mind. A Saturn 1.9 liter 4 cylinder dual overhead cam engine was selected as a base for developing an optimized gasoline/CNG powerplant. Baseline data on power and steady state emissions (CO2, CO, NOx, HC) were found using the standard Saturn controller. In addition to monitoring standard sensor measurements, real-time pressure traces were taken for up to 256 cycles using a modified head with embedded PCB piezoelectric pressure transducers.

A bi-fuel engine capable of operating either on compressed natural gas (CNG) or gasoline is being developed for the transition to alternative fuel usage. A Saturn 1.9 liter 4-cylinder engine was selected as a base powerplant. A control system that allows closed-loop optimization of both fuel delivery and spark timing was developed. Stock performance and emissions of the engine, as well as performance and emissions with the new controller on gasoline and CNG, have been documented. CNG operation in an engine designed for gasoline results in power loss because of the lower volumetric efficiency with gaseous fuel use, yet such an engine does not take advantage of the higher knock resistance of CNG. It is the goal of this research to use the knock resistance of CNG to recover the associated power loss. The two methods considered for this include turbocharging with a variable boost wastegate and raising the compression ratio while employing variable valve timing.

A bi-fuel engine with the ability to run optimally on both compressed natural gas (CNG) and gasoline is being developed. Such bi-fuel automotive engines are necessary to bridge the gap between gasoline and natural gas as an alternative fuel while natural gas fueling stations are not yet common enough to make a dedicated natural gas vehicle practical. As an example of modern progressive engine design, a Saturn 1.9 liter 4-cylinder dual overhead cam (DOHC) engine has been selected as a base powerplant for this development. Many previous natural gas conversions have made compromises in engine control strategies, including mapped open-loop methods, or resorting to translating the signals to or from the original controller. The engine control system described here, however, employs adaptive closed-loop control, optimizing fuel delivery and spark timing for both fuels.

An alternative fuel that has demonstrated considerable potential in reducing emissions and crude oil dependence is compressed natural gas (CNG). A dedicated CNG vehicle suffers from the lack of an adequate number of fueling stations and the poor range limited by CNG storage technology. A vehicle capable of operating on either gasoline or natural gas allows alternative fuel usage without sacrificing vehicle range and mobility. Although many such bi-fuel vehicles are in existence, historically they have employed older engine designs and made compromises in engine control parameters that can degrade performance relative to gasoline and increase emissions. A modern production engine, a 1992 Saturn 1.9 liter 16 valve powerplant, is being optimized for operation on each fuel to realize the full potential of CNG in a bi-fuel system. CNG operation in an engine designed for gasoline typically suffers from reduced power, due in part to displacement of air by gaseous fuel.

Data has been gathered using the West Virginia University Heavy Duty Transportable Emissions Laboratories from buses operating on diesel and a variety of alternate fuels in the field. Typically, the transportable chassis dynamo meter is set up at a local transit agency and the selected buses are tested using the fuel in the vehicle at the time of the test. The dynamometer may be set up to operate indoors or outdoors depending on the space available at the site. Samples of the fuels being used at the site are collected and sent to the laboratory for analysis and this information is then sent together with emissions data to the Alternate Fuels Data Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Emissions data are acquired from buses using the Central Business District cycle reported in SAE Standard J1376; this cycle has 14 ramps with 20 mph (32.2 km/h) peaks, separated by idle periods.

With the implementation of a closed loop fuel control system, operation of lean-burn natural gas engines can be optimized in terms of reducing emissions while maximizing efficiency. Such a system would compensate for variations in fuel composition, but also would correct for variations in volumetric efficiency due to immediate engine history and long-term engine component wear. Present day engine controllers perform well when they are operated with the same gas composition for which they were calibrated, but because fuel composition varies geographically as well as seasonally, some method of compensation is required. A closed loop control system on a medium-duty lean-burn engine will enhance performance by maintaining the desired air-fuel ratio to eliminate any unwanted rich or lean excursions (relative to the desired air-fuel ratio) that produce excess engine-out emissions. Such a system can also guard against internal engine damage due to overheating and/or engine knock.

Synthetic diesel fuel can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including coal, natural gas and biomass. Synthetic diesel fuels can have very low sulfur and aromatic content, and excellent autoignition characteristics. Moreover, synthetic diesel fuels may also be economically competitive with California diesel fuel if produced in large volumes. Previous engine laboratory and field tests using a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer indicate that synthetic diesel fuel made using the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) catalytic conversion process is a promising alternative fuel because it can be used in unmodified diesel engines, and can reduce exhaust emissions substantially. The objective of this study was a preliminary assessment of the emissions from older model transit operated on Mossgas synthetic diesel fuel. The study compared emissions from transit buses operating on Federal no. 2 Diesel fuel, Mossgas synthetic diesel (MGSD), and a 50/50 blend of the two fuels.

Emissions of six 32 passenger transit buses were characterized using one of the West Virginia University (WVU) Transportable Heavy Duty Emissions Testing Laboratories, and the fixed base chassis dynamometer at the Colorado Institute for Fuels and High Altitude Engine Research (CIFER). Three of the buses were powered with 1997 ISB 5.9 liter Cummins diesel engines, and three were powered with the 1997 5.9 liter Cummins natural gas (NG) counterpart. The NG engines were LEV certified. Objectives were to contrast the emissions performance of the diesel and NG units, and to compare results from the two laboratories. Both laboratories found that oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter (PM) emissions were substantially lower for the natural gas buses than for the diesel buses. It was observed that by varying the rapidity of pedal movement during accelerations in the Central Business District cycle (CBD), CO and PM emissions from the diesel buses could be varied by a factor of three or more.