The advantages of hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines are well known, certainly concerning the ultra-low noxious emissions (only NOx is to be considered). Disadvantages are the backfire phenomenon and the gaseous state of hydrogen at atmospheric conditions. A complete control of the mixture formation is necessary and therefore a test engine with sequential port injection was chosen. The tests are carried out on a single-cylinder CFR engine with the intention to use the results to optimize a 6 and 8-cylinder engine with multipoint injection. Different positions of the injector against the intake air duct are examined (represented as different junctions). A numerical simulation CFD code (FLUENT) is used under “stationary” conditions (continuous injection) for all geometries and under “real” conditions (sequential injection) for one situation. For each of the geometries the influences of the start of injection, the air/fuel equivalence ratio, injection pressure, and ignition timing on the power output and efficiency of the engine are analyzed. A comparison and discussion is given for all results. It is clearly shown that the start of injection for a certain engine speed and inlet geometry influences the volumetric efficiency and thus the power output of the engine due to the interaction between the injected hydrogen and the inlet pressure waves. Furthermore, the small influence of the injection pressure and the contradictory benefits of the different junctions between power output and fuel efficiency are measured. With retarded injection, so that cool air decreases the temperature of the “hot-spots” in the combustion chamber before the fuel is injected, backfire safe operation is possible.

1.
Tebelis, T., and Krepec, T., 1985, “A Concept of Electronically Controlled Hydrogen-Gas Injector for High Speed Compression Ignition Engine,” Proc. Hydrogen from Renewable Energy, Cape Canaveral, FL, pp. 397–405.
2.
Sorusbay, C., and Veziroglu, T. N., 1988, “Mixture Formation Techniques for Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engines,” Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Moscow, 3, pp. 1901–1921.
3.
Green, C. J., and Wallace, J. S., 1989, “Electronically Actuated Injector for Gaseous Fuels,” SAE Paper No. 89147.
4.
Das
,
L. M.
,
1990
, “
Fuel Induction Techniques for a Hydrogen Operated Engine
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
15
, pp.
823
842
.
5.
Furuhama, S., 1995, “Problems of Forecasting the Future of Advanced Engines and Engine Characteristics of the Hydrogen Injection With LH2 Tank and Pump,” Calvin Rice Lecture, Apr. 23.
6.
Lee
,
S. T.
,
Yi
,
H. S.
, and
Kim
,
E. S.
,
1995
, “
Combustion Characteristics of Intake Port Injection Type Hydrogen Fueled Engine
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
20
, pp.
317
322
.
7.
Das
,
L. M.
,
Gulati
,
R.
, and
Gupta
,
P. K.
,
2000
, “
Performance Evaluation of a Hydrogen-Fueled Spark Ignition Engine Using Electronically Controlled Solenoid-Actuated Injection System
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
25
, pp.
569
579
.
8.
Sierens, R., and Verhelst, S., 2000, “Experimental Study of a Hydrogen Fueled Engine,” Paper No. 2000-ICE-285, ICE-Vol. 34-3, ASME, New York.
9.
ASTM, 1964, Manual for Rating Fuels by Motor and Research Methods, Philadelphia, PA.
10.
FLUENT Incorporated, 1998, Fluent 5 User’s Guide, 1, till 4.
11.
FLUENT Incorporated, 1998, Fluent 5 Tutorial Guide, 1, till 3.
12.
FLUENT Incorporated, 1998, Gambit I Tutorial Guide.
13.
Delbarge, B., and D’Haveloose, T., 2000, “Experimentele Studie en Optimalisatie van Waterstofinjectie in een CFR-Motor” (Experimental Study and Optimization of Hydrogen Injection in a CFR Engine—in Dutch), end of year thesis, Ghent University.
14.
MacCarley, C. A., 1981, “A Study of Factors Influencing Thermally Induced Backfiring in Hydrogen Fueled Engines, and Methods for Backfire Control,” Proceedings 16th IECEC, ASME, New York.
You do not currently have access to this content.