Characterization of soot from diesel-CNG dual-fuel combustion in a CI engine
Not provided.
Energy & Fuels↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “CNG”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
CNG and Fleets: Building Your Business Case
Two online resources help fleets evaluate the economic soundness of a compressed natural gas program. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Vehicle Infrastructure and Cash-Flow Evaluation (VICE 2.0) model and the accompanying report, Building a Business Case for Compressed Natural Gas in Fleet Applications, are uniquely designed for fleet managers considering an investment in CNG and can help ensure wise investment decisions about CNG vehicles and infrastructure.
03 NATURAL GAS↗
Smart CNG Dispenser Deployment
This final technical report documents the work performed under DOE Award DE‑EE0008799 by GTI Energy over the course of the project period. The project focused on advanced fueling methods for compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles which have historically suffered from underfilling.
03 NATURAL GAS↗
FLUXNET2015 CN-Cng Changling
This is the FLUXNET2015 version of the carbon flux data for the site CN-Cng Changling.
Dong, Gang↗
Determination of Optimal Blend Ratios of CNG and Gasoline for Improved Fuel Economy and Torque in On-Highway Vehicles Award No. DE-SC0010111 Final Report
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
03 NATURAL GAS↗
Direct-Injection CNG Combustion Research in a Heavy-Duty Optical Engine.
Abstract not provided.
Musculus, Mark P.↗
Phase-change material heat exchangers for heat mitigation in Type 3 and Type 4 H2 and CNG pressure vessels during fast refueling
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
08 HYDROGEN↗
Evaluation of Safety Standards for Fuel System and Fuel Container Integrity of Alternative Fuel Vehicles
There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in place that specify requirements for integrity of the fuel system and fuel container on compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel vehicles. These are FMVSS Nos. 303, “Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles,” and FMVSS No. 304, “CNG fuel container integrity.” At this time, no FMVSS are defined for the fuel system and fuel container integrity of propane and liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles or fuel system integrity requirements for heavy-duty CNG vehicles on the road. However, there are voluntary industry design standards and best practices, as well as regulations defined in other countries. FMVSS No. 303 specifies requirements for the integrity of the CNG fuel system of light-duty vehicles and school buses, and FMVSS No. 304 specifies requirements for fuel container integrity on all CNG vehicles. FMVSS No. 304 applies to containers used for vehicle propulsion, whereas containers used to transport CNG and transportation of CNG containers are regulated by the DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304 are performance-based standards to consistently test and validate equipment and are not design restrictive. Despite the increasing number of natural gas and propane medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on the road, there are no FMVSS fuel system integrity requirements beyond light-duty and school buses for CNG vehicles and no FMVSS fuel system integrity requirements for propane vehicles. NHTSA is researching fuel system safety for medium- and heavy-duty natural gas and propane vehicles to update FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304. NHTSA is also researching current best practices and standards for high pressure fuel tanks in motor vehicles as they may apply to FMVSS No. 304.
30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
Low-carbon fuels for spark-ignited engines: A comparative study of compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas on a CFR engine with exhaust gas recirculation
Decades of work on low-carbon fuels have established their potential for substantial emissions reductions; however, their adoption is still limited by infrastructure concerns and engine efficiency deficits. As infrastructures have begun to evolve, research on strategies that maximize engine efficiency through interactions with fuel properties must also now take center place. This paper compares the performance, emissions, and combustion characteristics of two forefront low-carbon fuels: compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in a cooperative fuel research (CFR) engine over a range of compression ratios and engine loads. The effects of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), end-gas auto-ignition, and a novel combustion control tool, the combustion intensity metric (CIM), were also evaluated at different stoichiometric engine operating conditions. In comparison to LPG, CNG operation demonstrated an extended knock-free regime, allowing engine operation at higher engine loads and compression ratios, but LPG operation exhibited enhanced combustion characteristics with higher peak pressures and faster apparent heat release rates (AHRR). LPG operation achieved higher brake thermal efficiencies and lower equivalent CO 2 emissions compared to CNG operation at the tested engine loads and compression ratios. LPG demonstrated significantly higher EGR tolerance limits compared to CNG, with a maximum of 28% EGR rate, compared to 23% for CNG. This improved EGR dilution tolerance was responsible for a 90% reduction in NOx emissions for LPG compared to a maximum of 70% with CNG. EGR dilution also exhibited more effective knock mitigation potential with LPG, suppressing knock intensity values by up to 98% and transitioning the engine operation towards normal combustion from heavy knocking conditions. As a result, the CIM was found to decrease burn durations and improve the quality of combustion by controlling the desired fraction of end-gas auto-ignition.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
I-80 Mid-America Clean Fuels Corridor: Deployment Plan Report
The I-80 Mid-America Clean Fuels Corridor, which spans I-80 from Fort Lee, New Jersey, to Council Bluffs, Iowa, was designated an Alternative Fuels Corridor (AFC) in Round 1 of the Alternative Fuels Corridor program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Originally called the “I-80 Mid-America Alternative Fuels Corridor,” it is now named the “I-80 Mid-America Clean Fuels Corridor.” As of Round 6 AFC designation, parts of the corridor have sufficient direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations to be designated Electric Vehicle (EV)-Ready and sufficient compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling stations to be designated CNG-Ready. However, much of the corridor’s approximately 1,240 miles (mi) are not yet EV- or CNG-Ready. This includes about 1,130 mi that are designated EV-Pending and 700 mi that are designated CNG-Pending. This report presents a plan to develop EV charging and CNG fueling infrastructure sufficient to convert the entire length of the corridor to EV-Ready and CNG-Ready. Specific sites are not identified for future infrastructure. Rather, priority exits are identified, and information, analysis, and additional steps are recommended to support further refinement of these locations, as well as additional outreach and deployment efforts.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Maintenance Facility Modification Handbook
To ensure the safety of personnel and facilities, vehicle maintenance facilities are required by law and by guidelines of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the International Fire Code (IFC) to exhibit certain design features. They are also required to be fitted with certain fire protection equipment and devices because of the potential for fire or explosion in the event of fuel leakage or spills. All fuels have an explosion or fire potential if specific conditions are present. The hazard presented by liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, results from the spillage of these liquids and subsequent ignition of vapors, causing a fire or explosion. Facilities that maintain liquid-fueled vehicles and implement appropriate safety measures are protected with ventilation systems designed to capture liquid fuel vapors at or near floor level. To minimize the potential for ignition in the event of a spill, receptacles, electrical fixtures, and hot-work operations, such as welding, are located outside of these areas. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is composed of methane with slight amounts of heavier simple hydrocarbons. Maintenance facilities that maintain CNG vehicles indoors must be protected against fire and explosion. However, the means of ensuring safety are different from those employed for liquid fuels because of the gaseous nature of methane and the fact that it is lighter than air. Because CNG is lighter than air, a release will rise to the ceiling of the maintenance facility and quickly dissipate rather than remaining at or near floor level like liquid fuel vapors. Although some of the means of protection for CNG vehicle maintenance facilities are similar to those used for liquid-fueled vehicles (ventilation and elimination of ignition sources), the types and placement of the protection equipment are different because of the behavior of the different fuels. The nature of gaseous methane may also require additional safeguards, such as combustible gas detectors and control systems, or specialized space heating, which are not needed in facilities servicing liquid-fuel vehicles. This handbook covers maintenance facilities that service CNG-fueled vehicles. Although similar requirements are mandated for liquefied natural gas (LNG) or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fueled vehicles, LNG and LPG are not covered in this handbook.
30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
Geography of Existing and Potential Alternative Fuel Markets in the United States
When deploying alternative fuels, it is paramount to match the right fuel with the right location, in accordance with local market conditions. We used six market indicators to evaluate the existing and potential regional market health for each of the five most commonly deployed alternative fuels: electricity (used by plug-in electric vehicles), biodiesel (blends of B20 and higher), E85 ethanol, compressed natural gas (CNG), and propane. Each market indicator was mapped, combined, and evaluated by industry experts. This process revealed the weight the market indicators should be given, with the proximity of fueling stations being the most important indicator, followed by alternative fuel vehicle density, gasoline prices, state incentives, nearby resources, and finally, environmental benefit. Though markets vary among states, no state received 'weak' potential for all five fuels, indicating that all states have an opportunity to use at least one alternative fuel. California, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington appear to have the best potential markets for alternative fuels in general, with each sporting strong markets for four of the fuels. Wyoming showed the least potential, with weak markets for all alternative fuels except for CNG, for which it has a patchy market. Of all the fuels, CNG is promising in the greatest number of states--largely because freight traffic provides potential demand for many far-reaching corridor markets and because the sources of CNG are so widespread geographically.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Developing a Natural Gas-Powered Bus Rapid Transit Service. A Case Study
The Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) and its VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program are unique in many ways. For example, VelociRFTA was the first rural BRT system in the United States and the operational environment of the VelociRFTA BRT is one of the most severe in the country, with extreme winter temperatures and altitudes close to 8,000 feet. RFTA viewed high altitude operation as the most challenging characteristic when it began considering the use of natural gas. RFTA is the second-largest public transit system in Colorado behind Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD), and it is one of the largest rural public transit systems in the country. In 2013, RFTA accepted delivery of 22 new compressed natural gas (CNG) buses that went into service after completion of maintenance and refueling facilities earlier that year. This paper examines the lessons learned from RFTA's experience of investigating--and ultimately choosing--CNG for their new BRT program and focuses on the unique environment of RFTA's BRT application; the decision process to include CNG fueling in the project; unforeseen difficulties encountered in the operation of CNG buses; public perception; cost comparison to competing fuels; and considerations for indoor fueling facilities and project funding.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
Certified Natural Gas: Primer, Regulatory Landscape, and Contributions Toward a Low-Carbon Future
This report seeks to provide basic information about CNG, thus preparing PUCs to make sound decisions regarding CNG offerings impacting utility customers. It cites examples from a growing body of state regulatory decisions on utility CNG proposals and aims to help PUCs build familiarity with CNG offerings to assist with their future decision-making.
03 NATURAL GAS↗
Developing a Natural Gas-Powered Bus Rapid Transit Service: A Case Study
The Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) and its VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program are unique in many ways. For example, VelociRFTA was the first rural BRT system in the United States and the operational environment of the VelociRFTA BRT is one of the most severe in the country, with extreme winter temperatures and altitudes close to 8,000 feet. RFTA viewed high altitude operation as the most challenging characteristic when it began considering the use of natural gas. RFTA is the second-largest public transit system in Colorado behind Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD), and it is one of the largest rural public transit systems in the country. In 2013, RFTA accepted delivery of 22 new compressed natural gas (CNG) buses that went into service after completion of maintenance and refueling facilities earlier that year. This paper examines the lessons learned from RFTA's experience of investigating--and ultimately choosing--CNG for their new BRT program and focuses on the unique environment of RFTA's BRT application; the decision process to include CNG fueling in the project; unforeseen difficulties encountered in the operation of CNG buses; public perception; cost comparison to competing fuels; and considerations for indoor fueling facilities and project funding.
alternative fuels↗
End-of-Life Evaluation of Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Tanks
This study evaluated the structural integrity of Type III and Type IV CNG fuel tanks from the Los Angeles (LA) County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to characterize the fuel tank conditions after experiencing a full service life of 15 years in transit bus application. The data produced provide insight about the condition of the CNG fuel tanks at the conclusion of their defined EOL and potential risks of continued operation of the CNG vehicle without replacement of the expired fuel tanks. In addition to physical testing performed on the fuel tanks, a nondestructive evaluation of modal acoustic emission (MAE) was utilized to assess the structural integrity of the tanks. The CNG fuel tanks were evaluated in their received condition and after experiencing artificial damage. The MAE results were then compared to visual inspection results of the procedures defined in the Compressed Gas Association’s (CGA’s) C-6.2 and C-6.4 standards (Compressed Gas Association 2013; 2012) to better understand the effectiveness of the visual inspection and potential safety risks of continued use of the tanks.
03 NATURAL GAS↗
Powertrain Performance and Total Cost of Ownership Analysis for Class 8 Yard Tractors and Refuse Trucks
Advanced powertrain technologies, specifically fuel cell electric powertrains, have gained attention as viable alternatives for medium- and heavy-duty (M/HD) vehicles. However, it is unclear how these alternative powertrain vehicles stack up against their diesel counterparts in terms of performance and total cost of ownership (TCO). Furthermore, there are vehicle segments within the M/HD sector that have remained unstudied for fuel cell electric applications. This analysis aims to provide a comparative scoping-level TCO and performance analysis for two heavy-duty vocation vehicles (Class 8 U.S. port-side yard tractor and Class 8 U.S.-based refuse truck) for both conventional diesel and heavy-duty fuel cell electric (HDFC) powertrains. The refuse truck analysis also considered compressed natural gas powertrains (CNG) for comparison. The analysis includes seven timeframes (2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, and 2050) for comparison. This simplified TCO analysis includes only direct costs (fuel price, glider purchase price, and operating & maintenance costs) and excludes any associated indirect cost (e.g., dwell time costs and other opportunity based costs). Representative drive cycles for each vehicle were based on on-board GPS logged data and chosen by the analysis team to represent average, non-extreme driving conditions. At the time the analysis was performed, the Inflation Reduction Act was not in effect and therefore any potential subsidies and future cost reductions enacted under the Inflation Reduction Act were not included. Based on the operational setpoints used in this analysis, HDFC powertrains for both yard tractors and refuse trucks have the potential to achieve TCO advantages over conventional diesel powertrains (and CNG for refuse truck applications) in the near- to mid-term future while meeting the necessary duty cycle performance requirements. Yard tractors and refuse trucks spend a significant amount of time operating at low speeds, with long durations of idling, and experience numerous start/stop occurrences. These operational characteristics favor fuel cell performance as fuel cells operate with higher efficiencies at lower percentages of total power output. Conversely, conventional diesel and CNG engines are most efficient at higher percentages of total power output. This helps HDFC powered yard tractors and refuse trucks realize improved fuel economy when compared to their diesel counterparts, which helps reduce total fuel costs and therefore, total TCO. The analysis demonstrates that fuel prices play a significant role in determining TCO for each vehicle and should remain an R&D focus area. Overall, under the analysis' specified conditions, HDFC yard tractors have the potential to achieve cost parity with diesel yard tractors as early as 2025. For refuse trucks, HDFC refuse trucks have the potential to achieve cost parity with diesel and CNG refuse trucks in 2030 and 2040, respectively.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗