3.8 Article

Effect of Piston Bowl Geometry on Dual Fuel Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) in a Light-Duty Engine Operated with Gasoline/Diesel and Methanol/Diesel

Journal

SAE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINES
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 78-100

Publisher

SAE INT
DOI: 10.4271/2013-01-0264

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. United States Department of Energy (DOE)
  2. Direct-injection Engine Research Consortium (DERC)
  3. Princeton Combustion Energy Frontier Research Center (CEFRC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A single-cylinder light-duty diesel engine was used to investigate dual fuel reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) operated with two different fuel combinations: gasoline/diesel fuel and methanol/diesel fuel. The engine was operated over a range of conditions, from 1500 to 2300 rpm and 3.5 to 17 bar gross IMEP. Using the stock re-entrant piston bowl geometry, both fuel combinations were able to achieve low NOx and PM emissions with a peak gross indicated efficiency of 48%. However, at light load conditions both gasoline and methanol yielded poorer combustion efficiencies. Previous studies have shown that the high-levels of piston induced mixing that are created by the stock piston are not required, and in fact are detrimental due to increased heat transfer losses, for premixed combustion. Thus a modified piston featuring a shallow, flat piston bowl with nearly no squish land was also investigated. Using the modified piston, the gross indicated efficiency of RCCI combustion was significantly improved at light loads due to increases in combustion efficiency and decreases in heat transfer losses. At higher loads the modified piston also performed better than the stock piston, but the improvements were not as significant. Over the entire load and speed range, the modified piston yielded low NOx and PM emissions with a peak gross indicated efficiency of nearly 51%.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available