4.7 Article

Multi objective optimization of HCCI combustion fuelled with fusel oil and n-heptane blends

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 182, Issue -, Pages 827-841

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.041

Keywords

Fusel oil; HCCI engine; Response surface method; Optimization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study experimentally and statistically examined the combustion, performance, and emission results of the HCCI engine under different fuel and engine parameters conditions, and optimized the input parameters to achieve high efficiency operation of the engine.
In this study, the combustion, performance, and emission results of the HCCI engine under different fuel and engine parameters conditions were examined experimentally and statistically. Engine speed, excess air ratio, and fuel types with different fusel oil concentrations were used as variable parameters. The engine speed was determined as 1000 and 1200 rpm, excess air ratio 1.7 and 2.1, and fusel oil ratio in fuel was determined as 15% and 30%. When the HCCI engine was operated with these input parameters, the effective torque indicated thermal efficiency, maximum pressure increase rate, COVimep, HC, CO, and NOx values were examined. Experiments were carried out in line with the determined experimental series, and the data obtained were analyzed. Optimization has been made to determine the optimum input parameters by inputting the targeted response parameters from the HCCI engine. After the optimization study, it was concluded that the optimum response parameters, engine speed was 1262.44 rpm, excess air ratio was 1.91631, and was obtained by using F30 fuel. Under optimum input parameters, the effective torque is 5.751 Nm, ITE 34.089%, MPRR 7.257%, COVimep 4.009%, CA50 7 degrees CA, HC 454.185 ppm, CO 0.0727%, and NOx 0.000169486 ppm. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available