4.7 Article

Combined effects of fuel reactivity and intake thermodynamic conditions on heat release and emissions of compression ignition combustion

期刊

FUEL
卷 282, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118859

关键词

GCI; Fuel reactivity; Intake conditions; Combustion; Emission

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFE0102800]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51876140]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A numerical simulation is performed to study the effects of fuel reactivity and intake thermodynamic conditions on combustion and emission characteristics of compression ignition combustion and the cooperative optimization strategies. Three fuels with representative octane number, PRF0, PRF70, and PRF92, are studied as the alternatives to diesel, low-octane gasoline-like fuel, and gasoline, respectively. The results show that combustion can be further improved by co-optimizing fuel reactivity, intake temperature and pressure compared to their independent adjustment. Three collaborative optimization strategies are proposed to significantly improve thermal efficiency and HC/CO emissions while maintaining similar PPRR performance and soot emission, indicating the potential to achieve high load extension. In addition, the underlying reasons are revealed by the comparison and analysis of the in-cylinder combustion details. It is found that the increase of intake temperature and pressure results in higher mixing rate and less heat release in high equivalent ratio regions, which is beneficial to the improvement of soot emission. The ignition delay of low reactivity fuel shows higher sensitivity to the variations in intake temperature and pressure, while the overmixing issue of PRF92 at low intake temperature can be significantly improved by applying PRF0 and PRF70. The reasons for the thermal efficiency improvement resulting from low intake temperature and high intake pressure are also presented and discussed from the perspective of energy analysis.

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