David Lepley has an electrical engineering degree from

Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio. He is man-

ager of the aftermarket services group at Altronic, where he
is developing and promoting advanced ignition and control
technologies for gas engines. Luigi Tozzi holds a doctorate in
mechanical engineering from the University of Naples, Italy.
His emphasis has been on lean-burn gas engine combus-
tion since the early 1980s. He has worked for Cummins and
Woodward Governor and is now president of Prometheus Ap-
plied Technologies, Fort Collins, Colorado. Emmanuella Soti-
ropoulou received a masters degree in electrical engineer-
ing from Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, in
2005 and later was with Woodward Governor for 10 years.
She is a vice president at Prometheus Applied Technologies
and oversees the development of precombustion chamber
systems for large lean-burn gas engines. Roshan Joseph is pur-
suing a masters degree in mechanical engineering at Colo-
rado State University. He has been involved with prechamber
spark plug durability field testing in landfill gas engines at
Prometheus Applied Technologies.
Designing And Testing
Advanced Passive Prechamber
Spark Plugs >
BY DAVID LEPLEY, LUIGI TOZZI, EMMANUELLA SOTIROPOULOU AND ROSHAN JOSEPH
Editors Note: This article was taken from a paper pre-
sented at the Gas Machinery Conference, Nashville, Ten-
nessee, Oct. 2-5, 2011. For additional information, contact
David Lepley at david.lepley@hoerbiger.com.
T
his article explores the development and field testing
of a system solution designed around an engine-spe-
cific, prechamber spark plug and an optimized retrofit
control solution. The design and test goals are meeting and
maintaining the desired combustion stability and the required
emissions levels. Reported and reviewed field test results
from CAT3516A/B engines indicate a significant improve-
ment in combustion stability at lean conditions, resulting in
a reduction of both NO
x
production and fuel consumption.
While the primary focus of this article is to outline the
functional and operational issues associated with land-
fill gas (LFG) fueled engines, the concepts described are
equally applicable to engines operating on fuels charac-
terized by low-energy content such as digester gas and/
or large variability in methane content such as wellhead
gas. Parallels are readily drawn between the issues faced
in the described LFG-fueled engine operation and engines
of similar break mean effective pressure (bmep) and brake
thermal efficiency (bte). The continued drive for ever-lower
NO
x
emissions and ever-higher bte has resulted in a class
of engines that struggles to reliably and cost-effectively op-
erate on the available fuels.
Landfill gas-to-energy operations
in the United States
A popular option for generating electricity from municipal
solid waste (MSW) landfills is referred to as landll-gas-to-
energy (LFGTE). It involves the collection and combustion
of LFG, generated through the anaerobic decomposition
of landfill MSW, in a reciprocating engine or a turbine. As
MSW decomposes anaerobically, it produces a blend of
several gases, including methane.
If methane (CH
4
), which is a greenhouse gas, is allowed
to escape to the atmosphere, it has a global warming po-
tential that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
estimates to be 23 times greater than that of the same vol-
ume of carbon dioxide. It also poses explosion hazards if
uncontrolled. On the other hand, it is the main component of
natural gas and can be a valuable source of energy. Other
LFG constituents, such as nonmethane organic compounds
(NMOCs), can contribute to smog formation while others
such as hydrogen sulfide (H
2
S) and halides pose health
hazards because of their toxicity. The main constituents of
LFG and their proportions are shown in Table 1.
2013 EDITION WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS
TECH BRIEF
Significant improvements noted in NO
x
emissions,
fuel consumption and spark plug life
2013 EDITION WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS

n Table 1. Variations in LFG composition across the United States
are displayed in this chart.
Table 2 shows that the lower heating value (LHV) of LFG
is approximately 50% that of pipeline-quality gas, which
categorizes it as a low-Btu fuel. Also shown is that the bio-
gases (landfill and digester gas) have the lowest energy
content. Additionally, the high concentration of CO
2
in LFG
results in very poor combustion characteristics because it
tends to behave as an inert gas, reducing the laminar flame
speed and effectively quenching the combustion process.
nTable 2. This is a comparison of energy content (LHV) of pipeline
gas with biogas (landfill/digester) and wellhead gas.
As of April 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agencys (EPA) Landfill Methane Outreach Program lists
551 operational LFGTE projects in the country, with an-
other 510 locations identified as candidate sites. The op-
erational LFGTE sites produce approximately 1.5 GW of
electric power, of which over 1.1 GW is generated by re-
ciprocating engines, 490,000 hp (366 MW) by gas/steam
turbines and the remainder from microturbines, Stirling
cycle and combined-cycle plants.
In landfill applications, gas engines are the power plant
of choice (over gas turbines) owing to their lower equip-
ment and operational costs, higher thermal efficiencies
and the flexibility afforded to landfill developers in building
fine resolution LFGTE site topologies (modular increments
of approximately 1341 hp (1 MW) per engine power plant
compared with 4000 to 6700 hp (3 to 5 MW) per turbine
power plant). Another reason that engines are preferred in
LFGTE applications is because currently available lean-
burn technology allows for engine operation at high power
densities bmep and efficiencies bte, while maintain-
ing low emissions. Therefore, this article details operational
improvements for landfill gas engines, focusing on high-
Constituent Gas Concentration (By Volume)
Range Average
Methane (CH
4
) 35 To 60% 50%
Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
) 35 To 55% 45%
Nitrogen (N
2
) Zero To 20% 5%
Oxygen (O
2
) Zero To 2.5% <1%
Hydrogen Sulfide (H
2
S) 1 To 1700 ppm 21 ppm
Halides NA 132 ppm
Water Vapor (H
2
O) 1 To 10% NA
Nonmethane Organic Compounds
(NMOCs)
237 To 14,294 ppm 2700 ppm
LHV
Pipeline-Quality
Gas
Landfill Gas
Digester
Gas
Wellhead
Gas
MJ/m
3
31 To 40 13 To 20 11 To 22 26 To 60
Btu/SCF 832 To 1075 363 To 545 320 To 591 700 To 1600
performance ignition systems and associated control archi-
tectures that support lean-burn operation.
Landfill engine operations: challenges and solutions
Using landfill gas in the production of energy in-
cludes special operational challenges. The presence
of particulates, water vapor, hydrogen sulfide and
chlorinated hydrocarbons in the LFG stream have ex-
hibited detrimental effects on engine life, by way of
increased wear on engine components and forma-
tion of corrosive acids during the combustion proc-
ess. Siloxanes in the gas stream convert to silicon oxide
during the combustion process, forming hard deposits
of amorphous silica ash on cylinder heads, valves and
pistons, leading to accelerated wear (abrasive nature of
silica), higher thermal loading on engine components
(silica behaves as a thermal insulator) and spark plug
fouling, which is the leading cause of engine downtime
at LFGTE sites.
In conventional spark plugs, silica deposits on elec-
trode surfaces cause flame quenching and, by exten-
sion, improper ignition kernel development. In the case
of prechamber spark plugs, silica buildup in the chamber
orifices is the primary contributing factor toward engine
performance degradation, per the presumed mechanism
depicted in Figure 1.
n Figure 1. This flow chart reveals the mechanism responsible
for engine performance degradation in prechamber spark plugs
caused by silica buildup in chamber orifices.
Another issue faced by LFGTE operators, given the
low energy content and daily variations in LFG composi-
tion, is to balance high-efficiency, low-emissions engine
operation with acceptable spark plug life. The challenge
of achieving this balance with lean-burn engines stems
from a number of factors. To begin with, fast and consis-
tent combustion heat release is imperative to achieving
high thermal efficiencies in reciprocating engines. How-
ever, low NO
x
emissions from these engines require very
lean air-fuel ratios, which, in the case of methane-air mix-
tures, are characterized by slow combustion heat release,
leading to a loss of engine thermal efficiency. Also, spark
plug erosion rates have been shown to be directly propor-
tional to increasing bmep, which in turn is directly propor-
tional to higher bte. Regardless of the type of spark plug
used, current plug life is typically 500 hours, imposing
frequent, costly engine downtime for plug maintenance
or replacement.
TECH BRIEF
TECH BRIEF
2013 EDITION WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS
In summary, the variety of operational challenges faced
by LFGTE operators necessitates development of an in-
novative engineered solution that facilitates stable, con-
tinuous, low-emissions engine operation at these sites.
In particular, advancements in ignition and fuel control
systems will play a pivotal role in LFGTE engine applica-
tions, as a means to overcome the operational hurdles
described earlier.
Proposed system solution
Based on prior work, an effective system solution has
been proposed to overcome several of the aforemen-
tioned impediments experienced by LFGTE engines,
comprising: an air-fuel ratio (AFR) controller, a high-
energy ignition system with tunable spark energy wave-
forms, and optimized prechamber spark plugs.
Here, we report on the performance of these optimized
prechamber plugs, deployed in an LFGTE application.
However, a brief overview of the other two system com-
ponents (comprising the overall system solution) will also
be provided prior to discussing the field test results of the
prechamber plug.
Emissions from lean-burn engines are intimately
tied to the engine AFR adjustment, which also impacts
stable engine operation at the specified load. In order
to meet the emissions level requirements, lean-burn,
carbureted gas engines are typically operated at AFRs
of phi, 0.83 to 0.55. An AFR controller should be de-
ployed in order to accurately control the AFR of these
engines in a closed-loop control strategy, maintainable
through variations in load and fuel Btu. While there are
multiple AFR controllers available in the market, a refer-
ence design selected for the proposed system solution
is the Altronic EPC-150. This model was chosen for its
adaptability to inline or V-type engines, its versatility in
servicing various OEM engine models, as well as the
authors familiarity with its reliability, precision and other
performance characteristics.
The flame initiation in lean-burn engines is a key proc-
ess requiring high-energy sparks to achieve fast and con-
sistent combustion. The Altronic Direct Energy Ignition
Technology represents an evolution of high-energy igni-
tion systems with its feature of providing tunable spark
energy delivery to the flow field conditions present in and
around the electrodes of a spark plug. This capability is
required for maximizing combustion performance and
spark plug life.
Compared with conventional spark ignition, flame jet
ignition, obtained with prechamber spark plugs, initiates
the combustion process using highly turbulent flame
jets. This provides fast and consistent flame propaga-
tion, especially in lean or highly diluted fuel mixtures.
A computer flame development (CFD) simulation of the
flame propagation mechanism is shown in Figure 2.
Also, Figure 3 provides a CFD comparison of the flow
fields around the electrodes in open chamber and pre-
chamber configurations. As shown, gas flow patterns
around the electrode gap are more uniform in the case
of prechamber plugs, resulting in a faster and more con-
sistent flame development.
nFigure 2. Here is the computer flame development (CFD) combus-
tion simulation comparison of flame development between a conven-
tional open spark plug and a prechamber spark plug, with time ref-
erenced in crank angle degrees (CAD) before top dead center (TDC).
nFigure 3. This photo shows a CFD simulation comparison of flow
fields in the electrode gap of a conventional open spark plug and a
prechamber spark plug (time is CAD before TDC).
With prechamber spark plugs, the residual gases from
the previous combustion cycle further dilute the air-fuel
mixture trapped in the prechamber. Moreover, long plug
life targets require the sparking electrodes to have large
surfaces with a small gap. Under these conditions, the
quenching effects can be significant and must be com-
pensated by the electrical energy supplied by the spark.
Hence, ignition systems with tunable spark energy deliv-
ery that can be coupled to the flow fields at the electrodes
become an enabling technology for lean-burn operation
with long plug life.
Shown in Figure 4 is a CFD simulation comparing the
flame kernel development initiated in one case by a com-
mercially available high-energy ignition system and in
TECH BRIEF
TECH BRIEF
2013 EDITION WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS
another case by a tunable spark discharge waveform.
With the standard high-energy spark, the flame kernel
develops very slowly and eventually quenches. On the
other hand, the tunable spark promotes flame kernel
growth and compensates for quenching effects.
nFigure 4. Here is a comparison of ignition kernel development
between a conventional high-energy spark (left) and a tunable
high-energy spark (with time as CAD before TDC).
Prechamber spark plug for landfill applications
A prechamber plug design was developed and tested
for the Altronic L1863DP open spark plug for use on
CAT3500A/B engines fueled with LFG. This plug is pic-
tured in Figure 5. Through laboratory and field tests, the
performance improvements
of this prechamber spark plug
design were demonstrated in
terms of fuel consumption,
emissions, life and safe en-
gine operation.
Laboratory test
A comprehensive engine
performance test was con-
ducted on a fully instrument-
ed CAT3516C at Colorado
State Universitys Engines
and Energy Conversion Lab-
oratory (EECL). The objec-
tive was to showcase per-
formance improvements of
the prechamber plug design over the conventional open
spark plug. Shown in Figure 6 is a picture of the engine
at the EECL.
One of the design goals for the prechamber plug was to
achieve less than 2% coefficient of variation (COV) of indicat-
ed mean effective pressure (IMEP). This improvement in en-
gine stability was easily attained, with the prechamber plug
exhibiting 1.8% COV of IMEP compared with 6.4% by the
open plug. Figure 7 shows the higher peak combustion pres-
sure attained by the prechamber plug over the open plug.
nFigure 7. This chart shows combustion pressure comparison of
the open plug vs. the Altronic prechamber plug in the CAT G3516-C
at the EECL
Comparing the combustion heat release duration for
the two configurations (Figure 8) provides more clarity
on the benefits of the prechamber plug. The combustion
heat release duration, defined as the crank angle degree
(CAD) window within which 10 to 90% of mass fraction
burn (MFB) is obtained, is 11 CAD shorter for the pre-
chamber plug, yielding exhaust port temperatures that
are 106F (41C) lower than the open plug and resulting
in an estimated 3% point increase in fuel efficiency for
the prechamber plug.
The second objective of the test was to determine the
misfire limit of the prechamber plug. The results are sum-
marized in Table 3. The engine was operated with leaner
air-fuel mixtures. Under similar operating conditions of
nFigure 6. A technician examines a CAT3516C at Colorado State
Universitys Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory (EECL).
nFigure 5. Altronic
and Prometheus
jointly developed
this prechamber
spark plug for
LNG engine
applications.
TECH BRIEF
TECH BRIEF
2013 EDITION WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS
phi and targeting the same location of centroid of heat
release (i.e., 50% MFB), the prechamber plug exhibited
no misfires and still maintained a less than 2% COV of
IMEP while the open plug misfire rate was in excess of
30% (per 1000 cycles).
Note that the combustion performance observed with the
open plug is typical of any open plug (j-gap type or other-
wise). These laboratory test results exceeded expectations
so it was decided to proceed with a field test at an opera-
tional LFGTE site.
Performance field test
Engine performance tests were conducted at a landfill
site on a CAT3516A and a CAT3516B, shown in Figure 9.
The objective was to determine the proper spark timing
and air-fuel ratio for reliable starting and stable operation
at full load of 1100 hp (820 kW) nominal rating, with im-
proved fuel consumption and NO
x
emissions.
Shown in Table 4 is the optimum spark timing vs. speed
nFigure 8. This comparison reveals the combustion heat release
of the open plug vs. the Altronic prechamber plug in the CAT
G3516-C at the EECL.
Location Of 50% MFB
(Crank Angle)
% Misfires Per 1000 Cycles
Prechamber Plug 21 0% With <2% COV Of IMEP
Open Plug 21 >30%
nTable 3. This comparison shows the misfire limit of the open plug
vs. the Altronic prechamber plug in the CAT G3516-C at the EECL.
and load for reliable starting with the prechamber plug.
Retarded spark timings at low speed and load were re-
quired to improve the scavenging of the prechamber from
residual gases.
An emissions baseline was established for both en-
gines using an open spark plug. Shown in Table 5 is the
comparison between the NO
x
levels obtained with the
prechamber plug and the open plug for each engine. The
much higher levels of NO
x
were required to maintain sta-
ble combustion with the conventional open plug while the
prechamber plug demonstrated stable engine operation
at much lower NO
x
levels (less than 200 ppm raw NO
x
).
nTable 5. NO
x
levels obtained for each engine with the precham-
ber plug compared with those obtained with the open plug.
Prechamber (Raw NO
x
ppm) Open Plug (Raw NO
x
ppm)
CAT3516A 177 >500
CAT3516B 176 >500
nFigure 9. The CAT3516A and CAT 3516B underwent field tests.
nTable 4. Spark
timing schedule
vs. engine speed
and load, re-
quired for reliable
starting.
TECH BRIEF
TECH BRIEF
2013 EDITION WWW.CTSSNET.NET CTSS
Based on the engine in-cylinder conditions of pres-
sure and temperatures, a plug life of approximately 1000
hours was calculated for a NO
x
emission level below 300
ppm raw. This projection was twice as long as the actual
plug life obtained with the open plug of approximately 450
hours at this site, at NOx levels higher than 500 ppm NO
x
.
The average measured plug seat gasket tempera-
ture was 428F (220C). The initial spark voltage mea-
sured at these conditions was 9 to 13 kV. This voltage
increased to 28 to 30 kV at an average of 900 hours be-
tween the two engines. Therefore, the prechamber plug
increased the plug life by a factor of two while operat-
ing at lower emissions levels and lower fuel consump-
tion than its open plug counterpart. Naturally, plug life
largely depends upon operating in-cylinder conditions
and vary for each application.
Lastly, a close inspection of all the plugs from both en-
gines, after the 900-hour durability test, confirmed that
no significant silica buildup occurred in the orifices. Fig-
ure 13 shows a picture of the prechamber orifices in vari-
ous samples of plugs from both engines.
Conclusions and recommendations
The design and test goals of meeting and maintain-
ing the desired combustion stability at the required emis-
sions levels were achieved, while significantly improving
plug life. The field test results from the CAT3516A and
B engines, equipped with the prechamber spark plug,
indicated a 72% improvement in combustion stability at
lean condition, resulting in a significant reduction of NO
x

The average fuel flow reading for the engines using
open spark plugs was 275 cfm at NO
x
greater than 500
ppm raw, while with the prechamber, it was reduced to
265 cfm at 300 ppm raw NO
x
, which translates to a 3.6%
reduction in fuel consumption accompanied by a reduc-
tion in NO
x
emissions. This measurement was taken at
300 ppm raw NO
x
because that operating condition was
selected for the durability test.
Durability field test
For the plug durability test the engines were set at ap-
proximately 1100 hp (820 kW) output and less than 300
ppm of NO
x
. A spark timing sweep vs. NO
x
and cylinder
pressure at the time of spark is shown in Figures 10 and
11 for both engines. With more retarded timing, lower
NO
x
but higher cylinder pressure at the time of spark
were obtained. The engine controlling parameters moni-
tored throughout the test were the spark timing (ST),
the boost pressure, the after-cooler outlet charge (A/C
out) temperature, engine power output and prechamber
plug seat gasket temperature (Figure 12). Furthermore,
a gas analyzer was used to monitor the fuel quality.
nFigure 10. Here is the cylinder pressure and NO
x
emissions at
the time of spark and vs. crank angle with 3516A.
nFigure 11. Here is the cylinder pressure and NO
x
emissions at
the time of spark and vs. crank angle with 3516B.
nFigure 12. This thermocouple was used for plug seat gasket
temperature measurement.
TECH BRIEF
continued on page 216
TECH BRIEF
prechamber spark plugs, can provide a robust and cost-
effective retrofit solution to operators of lean-burn natural
gas engines, using low-quality fuels.
Additional field tests are recommended with adapt-
able air-fuel ratio control and high-energy ignition, com-
bined with prechamber spark plugs and extended to
gas engine models other than CAT3516A/B. This will
confirm the performance and reliability of the proposed
system solution. CTSS
emissions with 3.6% reduction in fuel consumption, while
doubling the spark plug life. Equal or better gains in spark
plug life are expected in gas compression applications
where the engine load is typically lower than that of pow-
er generation applications.
Furthermore, an overview of the range of enabling tech-
nologies central to the solution was provided. Our conclu-
sion is that adaptable air-fuel ratio controllers and tunable
high-energy ignition systems, together with engine-specific
nFigure 13. These photos show the prechamber plugs after the
durability test.
YOUR FREE
SUBSCRIPTION
ENDS NOW!!
*There is an opt-out option on the site if you no longer want to receive email renewals.
Dear Subscriber,
Your FREE subscription to COMPRESSORtech
2
magazine ends with our next issue. You have very
little time to get reinstated before being removed.
Renew here now or you are out!
Thank you.
Sheila Lizdas
Circulation Mgr.
slizdas@dieselpub.com

20855 Watertown Road, Suite 220
Waukesha, WISCONSIN 53186-1873, U.S.A.
Website: www.compressortech2.com
Fax: 262-754-4175
DANGER!
HIGH MOUNTAIN
LION ACTIVITY
ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK
HEED THE WARNING
You Must Renew Your Subscription Each Year.
www.compressortech2.com
COMPRESSOR
Dedicated To Gas Compression Products & Applications
HeedTheWarning_half.indd 1 2/14/13 11:32 AM