4.7 Article

Combustion characteristics and operation range of a RCCI combustion engine fueled with direct injection n-heptane and pipe injection n-butanol

期刊

ENERGY
卷 125, 期 -, 页码 439-448

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.148

关键词

Reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI); n-heptane direct injection; n-butanol pipe injection; Combustion characteristics; Operation range

资金

  1. Industry Key Project in Shaanxi Province of China [2016GY-002]
  2. Special Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central Colleges, Chang'an University [2013G1502063, 2014G3223010, 310822151029, 310822151119, 310822163311]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An experimental study of n-butanol pipe injection homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) in combination with n-heptane in-cylinder direct injection (DI) is conducted on a modified engine. Since n-butanol does not have a good ignition property, it is preferable to utilize a better ignition fuel (n-heptane) to avoid HCCI combustion only controlled by chemical kinetics and to improve the ignition stability and combustion process. The effects of DI pressure, quantity, timing and intake temperature on RCCI combustion characteristics, thermal efficiency and emissions are studied. The results show that, the optimum DI pressure is 6 MPa. With the increase of DI quantity, peak in-cylinder pressure, peak pressure rise rate and peak heat release rate all increase and occur in advance, CAIO and CA50 occur earlier and combustion duration is shortened. DI timing has an obvious influence on combustion phase. It is concluded that, by adding n-heptane DI, HCCI combustion of n-butanol is improved, HC and CO emissions are reduced, and NOx emission is kept at a very-low level. A smaller cyclic variation is detected and more stable operation is achieved. To some extent, the combustion phase may be controlled, the indicated thermal efficiency is improved, and the operation range has been extended. (C) 2017 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