4.7 Article

Laminar Burning Velocities of 2,5-Dimethylfuran Compared with Ethanol and Gasoline

Journal

ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages 3898-3905

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef100452c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/F061692/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/F061692/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F061692/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF) has attracted renewed global interest since its improved production methods were published in Nature and Science in 2007. Its high energy density makes it a promising biofuel and a possible alternative to gasoline. Consequently, a series of studies, led by the University of Birmingham, aims to assess the potential of DMF as an automotive energy carrier. These studies will include an analysis of the spray properties, the laminar flame characteristics, the engine performance, and the subsequent emissions. This paper examines the laminar flame characteristics from a quiescent homogeneous air-fuel mixture. The experiments were conducted using a constant volume vessel and were recorded by high speed schlieren visualization. By measurement of the flame growth following ignition, the laminar flame speed was determined. The calculation of flame stretch yielded the Markstein lengths and the laminar burning velocities. This paper presents the results of DMF combustion for a range of equivalence ratios (0.6-2.0) and initial temperatures (50-100 degrees C). The flame performance when using DMF is compared to EN228 gasoline and to the most commonly used biofuel substitute for gasoline, ethanol. The data shows that ethanol has the highest laminar burning velocity, followed by gasoline, and then DMF. In the 0.9-1.1 equivalence ratio range, the laminar burning velocity of DMF was very similar to gasoline and the difference was within 10%.

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