4.8 Article

The competing chemical and physical effects of transient fuel enrichment on heavy knock in an optical spark ignition engine

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 179, 期 -, 页码 687-697

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.038

关键词

Optical; Auto-ignition; Developing detonation; Downsizing; Knock; Super-Knock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The work was concerned with improving understanding of the chemical and physical trade-offs when employing transient over-fuelling to control auto-ignition in gasoline spark ignition engines under knock intensities not usually tolerated in optical engines. The single cylinder engine used included full bore overhead optical access capable of withstanding unusually high in-cylinder pressures. Heavy knock was deliberately induced by adopting inlet air heating and a primary reference fuel blend of reduced octane rating. High-speed chemiluminescence imaging and simultaneous in-cylinder pressure data measurement were used to evaluate the combustion events. Under normal operation the engine was operated under port fuel injection with a stoichiometric air-fuel mixture. Multiple centred auto-ignition events were regularly observed, with knock intensities of up to 30 bar. Additional excess fuel was then introduced directly into the end-gas in short transient bursts. As the mass of excess fuel was progressively increased a trade-off was apparent, with knock intensity first increasing by up to 65% before lower unburned gas temperatures suppressed knock under extremely rich conditions. This trade-off is not usually observed during conventional low intensity knock suppression via over-fuelling and has been associated with the competing effects of reducing auto-ignition delay time and charge cooling/ratio of specific heats. Overall, the results demonstrate the risks in employing excess fuel to suppress knock deep within a heavy knocking combustion regime (potentially including a Super-Knock regime). (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据