4.7 Article

Alternative Fuels for Spark-Ignition Engines: Mixing Rules for the Laminar Burning Velocity of Gasoline-Alcohol Blends

Journal

ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 26, Issue 8, Pages 4721-4727

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef300393h

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Vlaanderen) [SB-81139, SB-091221]
  2. Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) [FWO09/ASP/030, FWO11/ASP/056]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Experimental measurements of the laminar burning velocity are mostly limited in pressure and temperature and can be compromised by the effects of flame stretch and instabilities. Computationally, these effects can be avoided by calculating one-dimensional, planar adiabatic flames using chemical oxidation mechanisms. Chemical kinetic models are often large, complex and take a lot of computation time, and few models exist for multi-component fuels. The aim of the present study is to investigate if simple mixing rules are able to predict the laminar burning velocity of fuel blends with a good accuracy. An overview of different mixing rules to predict the laminar burning is given and these mixing rules are tested for blends of hydrocarbons and ethanol. Experimental data of ethanol/n-heptane and ethanol/n-heptane/iso-octane mixtures and modeling data of an ethanol/n-heptane blend and blends of ethanol and a toluene reference fuel are used to test the different mixing rules. Effects of higher temperature and pressure on the performance of the mixing rules are investigated. It was found that simple mixing rules that consider only the change in composition are accurate enough to predict the laminar burning velocity of ethanol/hydrocarbon blends. For the blends used in this study, a Le Chatelier's rule based on energy fractions is preferable because of the similar accuracy in comparison to other mixing rules while being more simple to use.

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