Open AccessForecasting of a boosted locomotive gas diesel engine parameters with one- and two-stage charging systems
Author(s) -
V. V. Sinyavski,
Moscow Automobile,
М. Г. Шатров,
V. V. Kremnev,
Pronchenko Grigori
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
reports in mechanical engineering
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2683-5894
DOI - 10.31181/rme200101192s
Subject(s) - turbocharger , automotive engineering , mean effective pressure , gas compressor , stage (stratigraphy) , diesel engine , gas engine , integrated engine pressure ratio , diesel fuel , power (physics) , combustion , engineering , internal combustion engine , mechanical engineering , combustion chamber , engine coolant temperature sensor , chemistry , compression ratio , thermodynamics , physics , paleontology , organic chemistry , biology
Conversion of locomotive engines for operation on natural gas lowers considerably expenses for fuel and reduces exhaust emissions which makes it possible to omit large and expensive aftertreatment systems. The permanent need to raise the engine power requires a considerable increase of the boost pressure. This can be realized by using a high pressure turbocharger or a two-stage charging system. In the research, parameters of a high boosted D200 6-cylinder locomotive engine having D/S=200/280 mm are forecasted using a one-zone model developed in MADI. An analysis was carried out to explain why the 1st stage compressor of the two-stage charging system should be specially profiled to have its map tilted to the right. Calculations were performed for the gas diesel engine having a break mean effective pressure (BMEP) 2.7 MPa with one and two-stage charging systems. In both cases, close fuel efficiency was obtained, though for the two-stage charging system, the boost air pressure was higher. The engine with one turbocharger had no reserves for further power augmentation while the two-stage charging system enabled to increase the boost air pressure further. Therefore, parameters of the engine having a higher BMEP 3.2 MPa were calculated. In that case, not to exceed the peak combustion pressure, a retarded fuel injection was used which resulted in fuel efficiency drop by approximately 1.5%.