4.7 Article

A comparative study on methanol/diesel and methanol/PODE dual fuel RCCI combustion in an automotive diesel engine

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 542-556

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.044

关键词

RCCI; Methanol; PODE; Diesel; Premixed mass percentage; COV

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST) under Clean Energy Research Initiative (CERI), New Delhi, India
  2. M/s Ashok Leyland, Chennai, India
  3. M/s Delphi TVS, Chennai, India
  4. DST
  5. Anna University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present work, an attempt was made to study and compare the effect of Methanol/Diesel and Methanol/PODE RCCI combustion in a 3-cylinder, turbocharged, CRDI, diesel engine. The test engine was suitably modified to use dual fuels by incorporating methanol port fuel injection system and an open electronic control unit. Experiments have been conducted at 3.4 bar BMEP and 1500 rpm by varying methanol premixed mass fraction at a constant CA50 of about 10 degrees CA aTDC. The results show that increasing methanol mass fraction prolonged the ignition delay, decreased the in-cylinder pressure for both Methanol/Diesel and Methanol/PODE RCCI operation. At a premixed mass fraction of 80%, the maximum brake thermal efficiency of both Methanol/Diesel and Methanol/PODE is about 31% which is 3.5% higher than the conventional diesel combustion. Brake specific oxides of nitrogen and soot emissions are significantly reduced for both dual fuel RCCI combustion with increased methanol mass fraction. However, Brake specific hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are slightly increased. At a constant premixed mass fraction, Methanol/PODE dual fuel RCCI combustion resulted in more BSNO emission than Methanol/Diesel RCCI combustion. However, lower BSHC, BSCO and soot emissions are observed with Methanol/PODE dual fuel RCCI combustion compared to Methanol/Diesel RCCI combustion. (C) 2019 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

4.7
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