To be presented at the ASME International Combustion Engine Division

Spring Technical Conference

to be held on April 27-30, 1997 in Fort Collins, Colorado












THE USE OF H
2
-CONTENT PROCESS GAS
IN GAS ENGINES























F. Gruber, G. R. Herdin

Research and Development Department

Jenbacher Energiesysteme AG
Jenbach, Tirol
Austria


Abstract

Jenbacher Energiesysteme (JES) has a wide knowledge
of the utilization of H
2
content gases for gas engines.
The burning of process gas at KREMS CHEMIE was a
milestone in the utilization of gases with extremely low
calorific value. This gas - a by-product of the production
of formaldehyde from methanol - consists of 16% H
2
,
0.5% CO, 3.5% CO
2
and 80% nitrogen. The LHV is 1.6
MJ/Nm, which is 1/20th of the LHV of natural gas.
With the achievement of suitable thermodynamic
conditions, this normally non-combustible gas can be
burned in a gas engine. In addition, with the use of
suitable turbochargers, 1.0 MPa (or 10 bars) BMEP was
achieved. Of special interest are the NO
x
emissions of
the engine, which, at a value of 2 ppm, are comparable
to the emissions of fuel cells. The 36% efficiency of the
engines burning the H
2
content gas is excellent when
compared to the 23% efficiency of the originally
intended steam turbine. With regard to investment, the
achieved 35% reduction in cost also constitutes an
optimum solution.




Introduction

JES AG (formerly Jenbacher Werke) is one of the
pioneers of gas engine development in Europe. From the
Fifties through the early Seventies, primarily Two-stroke
engines were being produced. The introduction of TA-
Luft standards resulted in the replacement of Two-stroke
engines with Four-stroke engines. Because there was no
supply of natural gas at the Jenbach site up to 1988, the
use of other gases, from propane and butane to wood gas
and pyrolysis gas (from Thermoselect), was the subject
of most of the research and development work.
















Combustion analysis of gas mixtures

In order to check the suitability of the various gases and
gas mixtures for use in gas engines, a calculation
program for the determination of their laminar burning
velocity was designed. At the same time, the results of
these calculations were correlated with the real behavior
of the gas mixtures using a single cylinder research
engine. Figure 1 shows an example of the laminar
burning velocity compared to the A/F ratio [1].

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
A/F Ratio
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Laminar burning velocity [cm/s]
Wood Gas
Natural Gas
Sewage Gas

Figure 1: Comparison of laminar burning velocity of
various gases

In the case of natural gas the laminar burning velocity
falls significantly with increasing A/F ratio. The same
can be observed with sewage gas (i.e. CH
4
and CO
2
mixtures). The laminar burning velocity of this gas is
low as a result of the high CO
2
content with its high
specific heat capacity. Basic information about gases
which reduce the laminar burning velocity are shown in
Figure 2. CO
2
and steam are especially significant since
their specific heat capacities are strongly influenced by
temperature. The nitrogen in air has only half the spe-
cific heat capacity of CO
2
[1,2]. In the flame zone during
lean combustion, the cooling effect of the combustion
mass becomes significant. H
2
content gases, such as
wood gas, show, in comparison to the previously
mentioned gases, a flatter reduction of the laminar
burning velocity with increasing A/F ratio. Moreover,
due to the high ignition characteristic of hydrogen, these
types of gases present the possibility for very lean
combustion. Especially with homogenous mixture
formation - which constitutes constant conditions within
the combustion space - even the lean burn combustion
results in combustion with a low variability. With H
2

rich gases, the ignition limits of Hydrogen guarantee a
very good starting of combustion [1,2,3 and 4]. Figure 3
shows this effect in comparison to other gases.



0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Temperature [C]
1.2
1.7
2.2
2.7
Isobaric Heat Capacity [kJ/mK]
CO2
O2
H2O
N2

Figure 2: Isobaric heat capacity of various gases

H2 CH4 CO C3H8
0.1
1
10
A/F ratio
9.83
1.95
2.94
0.14
0.59
0.14
2.04
0.33

Figure 3: Ignition limits of various gases

Because of the high laminar burning velocity of
hydrogen, inert gases (CO
2
and N
2
) can be mixed and
utilized. In order to obtain satisfactory results, the
parameters of the gas engine have to be adjusted
according to the components of the fuel gas. Special
attention must be paid to the gas mixing device and the
turbocharger. An additional difficulty for the engine
adjustment, as learned from previous experience, is the
process-related variation of the fuel gas composition.
Gas storage tanks which could homogenize the gas
composition are often omitted in pyrolysis plants and in
the chemical process industry. The engine control
system must compensate for the constantly varying gas
composition and must maintain constant exhaust
emissions. These variations not only have a great impact
on the combustion of the gas mixture (e.g. knocking),
but can also directly affect the low heating value (LHV).
Figure 4 shows the time history of the gas composition
during the utilization of pyrolysis gas from household
waste gasification (Thermoselect).


15 45 16 00 16 15 16 30 16 45
Time
0
20
40
60
80
100
Quantity [%]
0
2
4
6
8
10
LHV [MJ/Nm]
CO
H2
CO2
LHV
8.49
6.72

Figure 4: Time history of H
2
, CO and CO
2
content of
pyrolysis gas (Thermoselect)

During the measured time period, the H
2
content shows a
variation between 20 and 38% maximum. The
corresponding heating values are between 6.72 and 8.49
MJ/Nm. The analysis of the long term monitoring
(6 months) showed H
2
content in the range of 18 to 52%.
These values are dependent upon the composition of the
waste (humidity and C-content). In order to obtain
continuous engine operation (regardless of the H
2
-
variations), a continuous correction of the A/F ratio is
required. If this control strategy is not applied, heavy
backfiring at the intake side can occur during full load
operation. Although the variation of the fuel is not as
significant in the case of wood gas (due to its more
consistent quality), the A/F ratio has to be constantly
adjusted. The JES-LEANOX system shown in Fig. 5 [5]
is used to regulate the A/F ratio and provide a fast
response control with a high engine stability.


Gas Mixing
System
M
Turbo-
charger
Intercooler
Throttle
Stack
Generator
LEANOX -
Controller
p
T
P
Engine
Figure 5: LEANOX-System schematic

The principle of this A/F ratio control system is based on
key physical values, such as the condition of the mixture
before the inlet valve (defined by p and T), and the
produced electrical power (P). With the use of an
empirical model in the controller, the A/F ratio can be
adjusted and varied in real time. Compared with other
concepts using O
2
sensors, this concept is stable over a
long period of time even with a fuel gas rich in

contaminants (siloxanes, halogens, etc.). In combination
with the JES gas mixing device (orifice carburetor
concept), the differences of calorific value in the ratio of
1:3 can be compensated over the power range of the
engine. An external gas mixer set point also makes it
possible to adjust the correct A/F ratio even during the
starting phase of the engine.





Optimization of a gas engine with an extremely LHV
gas - example taken from process gas of KREMS
CHEMIE

Using the experience with pyrolysis gases, the
optimization of an engine for an extremely LHV gas was
performed. This gas is a by-product of the production of
formaldehyde from methanol. The composition of this
process gas is shown in Figure 6.


80% N2
16% H2
3.5% CO2
0.5% CO
LHV= 1.78 MJ/Nm

Figure 6: Typical composition of the low calorific
process gas

In this case, the challenge for the engineer is the fact that
this gas is, under atmospheric conditions, practically
noncombustible. However, preliminary investigations
have proven that this gas, with the creation of the correct
thermodynamic conditions, can be burned in a specially
optimized engine even without the additional mixing of
other gases such as natural gas or propane. The lower
calorific value is only 1/20th than of natural gas, which
means it is significantly lower than the former known
minimum calorific value of 3.4 MJ/Nm used in a gas
engine application. After the engine optimization, the
lean gas with a lower calorific value of 1.67 MJ/Nm can
still be well combusted, free of misfiring. The
possibilities for use of process gases are connected with
the content of the individual components hydrogen and
nitrogen.
Figure 7 shows a comparison of the possible low
calorific values of various gas mixtures for the engine
being considered.


1.67
9.63
14.44
16.95
0
4
8
12
16
20
LHV [MJ/Nm]
Mixture
Volume
part [%]
H2/N2 CH4/N2 CH4/CO2 C3H8/CO2
15/85 28/72 40/60 18/82
14.44

Figure 7: Limits of calorific values for gases used in
IC-engines

Thus, the engine can be operated with a mixture of CH
4

and N
2
down to a volumetric mixing ratio of 28 to 72%
(LHV= 9.63 MJ/Nm) as well as a mixture of CH
4
and
CO
2
down to a ratio of 40 to 60% (LHV=14.44
MJ/Nm). As an addition the lowest possible calorific
value of the mixture of propane and CO
2
(volumetric
ratio is 18 to 82%, LHV=16.95 MJ/Nm) is shown in
Figure 7. The loss of efficiency caused by the content of
inert gases will not be addressed in this paper. In the
relevant case of process gas compared to natural gas the
reduction in efficiency is approximately 4 percentage
points (i.e. a reduction from 40 to 36%). Compared to
the originally intended steam process with an efficiency
of approximately 23%, the efficiency achieved by means
of the gas engine system is excellent. Due to the low
LHV, the analysis of all the interacting gas components
in the gas mixture must be performed very carefully.

















Optimization of the turbocharger, the gas mixer and
the gas train


The major difference between process gas and natural
gas can be demonstrated by the requirement of air
needed for combustion (Figure 8). With lean combustion
(A/F ratio 1.62) approximately 16 m of air is needed for
the combustion of 1 m natural gas.
1m
Air 0.4m Air 16m
1m
Process Gas
H2/N2 Mixture
Natural Gas

Figure 8: Air requirement of process gas in
comparison to natural gas

For a process gas with low calorific value, only the
oxygen content from 0.4 m air is needed. This
comparison already shows the necessary cross-section
requirements of the gas and air admission systems. The
necessary gas cross-sections for zero-pressure regulation
require a paralleling of two of the largest possible units
available on the market (2 x 200 DN, approximately 7.87
inches). If used with natural gas, this size pressure
regulation would be large enough for 12.5 MW
electrical. In order to calculate the air flow rate, it is
necessary to determine the possible A/F ratio of the
combustion. The analysis results show a useful working
range of A/F ratio from 1.0 to 1.3. Since the composition
of the process gas varies with the course of time (H
2
fraction from 15 to 21%), the optimal working range of
the A/F ratio to suit the H
2
content of the process gas
was determined by calculation (Figure 9).
A minimum possible laminar burning velocity of
5 cm/sec was set as the lower limit. Additionally,
Figure 9 shows the laminar burning velocity of natural
gas for stoichiometric and for lean combustion.


10 15 20 25 30
0
10
20
30
40
Laminar burning velocity [cm/sec]
H2 Content
(all other N2)
NG A/F Ratio = 1.7
stoichiom.
A/F Ratio = 1.4
NG stoichiom.

Figure 9: Calculation of laminar burning velocity of
process gas in comparison to NG at different
fuel ratios

Thus, with the decrease of the H
2
content to 15%, only a
small working range of A/F ratio 1 to 1.1 will be
utilized. Values above 16% H
2
enable a full operating
range (A/F ratio 1 to 1.4). Below a 14% H
2
content, the
utilization of process gas is impossible due to unstable
combustion. The laminar burning velocity of the used
process gas compared to natural gas shows absolute
values within the same range. In order to bring the
specific power of the engine burning process gas close to
that of the natural gas engine, the boost pressure has to
be as high as possible [6]. This requirement is shown in
Figures 10 and 11.


NG Process Gas
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
BMEP [MPa]


Figure 10: Comparison of naturally aspirated BMEP

If the achievable BMEP for a naturally aspirated engine
is being compared for natural gas and process gas, the
ratio of achievable power is 4:1 (BMEP = 0.8 MPa to
BMEP = 0.2 MPa). This means that the natural gas
engine has four times the power potential at an A/F ratio
of 1 than the engine operated with process gas. To
achieve the highest single-stage pressure ratio possible,
with the required mass flow, an ABB turbocharger from
series RR 151 was used. The operating point of the
compressor is at a charge pressure ratio of 3.85. With
this pressure ratio, a BMEP of 1.0 MPa at 17% H
2
in

the process gas was achieved. In future applications,
higher pressure ratios can be achievable with the ABB-
TPS type. The absolute values of the boost pressures are
180 kPa, at a BMEP of 1.0 MPa for natural gas, and 350
kPa for process gas (Figure 11).


0
100
200
300
400
500
Boost Pressure [abs. kPa]
LEANOX-NG
TA-Luft
1.42g NOx/kWh
LEANOX-Process Gas
0.015g NOx/kWh
350
180

Figure 11: Comparison of boost pressure NG/process
gas

These high boost pressures are necessary in order to
achieve the required power output at a given inert gas
fraction. As a consequence, higher volume flow rates
occur. Compared to the natural gas engine, the process
gas engine at a BMEP of 1.0 MPa has more than 2.1
times higher exhaust volume (5580 Nm wet/h). For the
matching of the turbocharging unit, this means higher
volume flows with a relatively low temperature


480
680
950
2050
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Temperature [C]
Combustion Temp.
(stoichiometric atm. con.)
Exhaust Temp.
before Turbine
Process Gas Natural Gas

Figure 12: Comparison of exhaust- and combustion
temperature

level. In this case the exhaust gas temperature before the
turbine (process gas utilization) is only 480 C, whereas
the natural gas engine shows 680 C (Figure 12). In
order to achieve the required boost pressure, a small
turbine was coupled to a large compressor. This
combination leads to a relatively high exhaust back
pressure (340 kPa abs.), which shows a negative
influence on efficiency.
NO
x
emissions with H
2
rich gases

The high content of N
2
, when combined with H
2
, has the
advantage of a very low combustion temperature. At
stoichiometric combustion (atmospheric conditions) the
combustion temperature with natural gas is 2050 C, but
with process gas, due to the high N
2
content, it is only
950C (Figure 12). This low level of temperature of the
combustion process reduces the production of NO
x
to a
near "ZERO emission standard". Figure 13 shows the
NO
x
emission of process gas combustion with varying
A/F ratio compared to pure hydrogen, and to natural gas
[7]. For a spark ignition gas engine, the lean limit of
hydrogen is at an A/F ratio of 5.5, for natural gas at a
ratio of 1.75 and for the 16% H
2
/84% N
2
mixture at a
ratio of 1.3. For natural gas combustion, the lowest NO
x

emission value (at the misfire limit) is approximately 0.7
g/kWh.


0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
0
10
20
30
40
Lean Rich
H2
Lean limit
1
NOx Emission in [g/kWh]
A/F Ratio
H2/N2 Mixture (16/84 %vol.)
Natural Gas

Figure 13: NO
x
generation
Function versus A/F ratio

With a sufficient quantity of H
2
the engine can be
operated either by means of a high excess air, or with a
high content of inert gases. In both cases, the NO
x
emissions at the lean limits is near zero (measuring value
2 ppm). Low NO
x
emissions are possible due to high
efficient turbocharging provided there is sufficient
BMEP. The actual NO
x
emissions of process gas engines
range between 2 and 5 ppm.


Optimization of the turbocharging system with the
advanced JES BOOST CONTROL System

The required high boost pressures can only be achieved
by using a compressor with a narrow performance field.
In the compressor map, the operating line of the engine
is relatively close to the surge line. Figure 14 shows the
BOOST CONTROL SYSTEM which maintains, during
all operating conditions, the separation of the operating
line and the surge line. This function is based on the
measuring of the pressure drops (p
2
-p
2
') at the throttle.


Engine
Controller
Throttle
Turbine
Com-
pressor
Air
Gas
p2 p2
Muffler

Figure 14: JES BOOST CONTROL SYSTEM

With a very large pressure drop, the controller activates
a bypass-valve and draws back a part of the mass flow
towards the suction side of the compressor.
Consequently, there is a danger of surging when the
minimum inlet temperature remains below its limit (the
left side of the curved operating line in the compressor
map). In this case, the bypass-valve already begins to
function during engine idle, opened according to a fixed
characteristic line. Especially under island conditions
there is a critical point during load shedding. Here, too,
the BOOST CONTROL SYSTEM is efficient. In case of
load shedding, the bypass-valve is opened before surging
can occur.


Power of the optimized engine and amount of the
unburned hydrogen in the exhaust

Figure 15 shows the correlation of power and H
2
emissions in exhaust gas compared to the H
2
content in
process gas. The H
2
content in process gas varies
between 15 and 21%. Values below 15% do not occur in
a regular operational process. From 17% H
2
onwards,
the full mechanical power of 610 kW can be achieved.
With the smallest possible H
2
content in process gas, the
peak load cannot be achieved, and the content of
unburned hydrogen sharply increases in exhaust gas.
With usual gas quality (17 - 18% H
2
), the H
2
content is
1% in the exhaust. Below 14% H
2
in process gas stable
engine operation cannot be guaranteed.
10 15 20 25
H2 Content of Process Gas [vol. %]
0
200
400
600
Power [kW]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H2 Emission [vol. %]
H2 Emission
Power
Range of H 2 Content
of Process Gas
Misfire

Figure 15: Power output and H
2
emission versus
H
2
content of process gas







Summary

The experience of JES with the utilization of H
2
content
fuel gases obtained by the utilization of process gas of
KREMS-CHEMIE lead to an expanded region for the
combustion capability of these gases in gas engines. It
proved that a gas mixture of 15% H
2
with 85% N
2
is
suitable for a gas engine without the addition of natural
gas. The calorific value of this mixture (1.67 MJ/Nm) is
1/20th that of natural gas. Compared to the originally
intended steam process (turbine efficiency 23%) a
significantly higher efficiency with the gas engine
(36%) was achieved. The investment cost of the 2.3
MW gas engine plant was 35% lower than the cost of the
original steam process. Figure 16 shows the
specifications of the optimized engine [8].


Engine Type: JES J 320 GS
Operating Cycle: four stroke
Bore: 135 mm
Stroke: 170 mm
Cylinder: 20
Displacement: 48.7 l
Speed (50 Hz): 1500 rpm
Gas consumption: 3210 Nm/h
Power (mech./el.): 610 / 588 kW
BMEP: 1.0 MPa
Efficiency (mech.): 36%
Power Plant: 4 x J 320 G = 2.35 MWel

Figure 16: Spec. adapted JES-engine for low calorific
process gas


Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank KREMS CHEMIE for
its involvement in this project. The teamwork of the
customer technical staff under the leadership of Mr. E.
Baumann was excellent. The authors would like to thank
their colleagues at Jenbacher for making this study
possible.


References

1. Haywood John B.: Internal Combustion Engine
Fundamentals; McGraw Hill International Edition.

2. NV. Nederlandes Gasunie: Physical Properties of
Natural Gases (Gasunie 1988).

3. Ording P.M.: Review of Hydrogen Accidents and
Incidents in NASA Operations; NASA-Tm-X-
71565 (1974).

4. Hord J.: Is Hydrogen Safe? NBS-Technical Note
690 (1976).

5. Herdin, G. R.: Gemischaufbereitung im Gasmotor;
Vortrag im Haus der Technik (June 1995).

6. Plohberger D.C., Fessl T., Gruber F., Herdin G. R.:
Advanced Gas Engine Cogeneration Technology for
Special Applications; ASME (10/94).

7. Peschka W.: Hydrogen Combustion in Tomorrows
Energy Technology; Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol.
12, No. 7; 481-500 (1987).

8. Folder Krems-Chemie: Innovative Energie-
gewinnung - Das Schwachgaskraftwerk der Krems-
Chemie (The Low Calorific Gas Engine Power
Station of Krems-Chemie Plant).