4.5 Article

Comparative experimental study on macroscopic spray characteristics of various oxygenated diesel fuels

期刊

ENERGY SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 1579-1588

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ese3.1409

关键词

2; 5-dimethylfuran; n-butanol; oxygenated fuels; pine oil; spray characteristics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A high-speed imaging technique was used to investigate the macroscopic spray characteristics of diesel with different types of blended fuel under high ambient pressure. The results showed that lower viscosity and higher injection pressure improved spray characteristics. The study also demonstrated that blending oxygenated fuels benefits fuel atomization and the air-fuel mixture of conventional diesel fuel.
Under high ambient pressure (5 MPa) and different injection pressures (90, 120, and 150 MPa), a high-speed imaging technique was carried out to comparatively investigate the macroscopic spray characteristics of diesel with three different types of blended fuel in a constant volume chamber. The oxygenated fuels were n-butanol (B), pine oil (P), and 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF). All their blending ratio with diesel were 20%. Results showed that less viscosity could be improved the spray characteristics of the fuel in the range of experimental conditions. Then, the tested fuels had a longer penetration and a greater spray area with increasing the injection pressure from 90 to 150 MPa. On the other hand, the percentage increases in the mean spray cone angle of D100, B20, P20, and DMF20 were 3%, 4.4%, 2.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. At the same experimental condition, the spray penetrations of DMF20 and P20 were larger than that of D100, but the spray penetration of B20 was basically similar to D100. Besides, the performance of the spray cone angle and spray area were D100 < B20 < P20 < DMF20. In addition, the comprehensive influence was that blending oxygenated fuels would be a benefit for developing fuel atomization and the air-fuel mixture of conventional diesel fuel.

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

4.5
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