4.7 Article

Evaluating the emissions and performance of two dual-mode RCCI combustion strategies under the World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle (WHVC)

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 263-274

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.07.034

关键词

Reactivity controlled compression ignition; Dual-fuel combustion; Dual-mode concept; EURO VI emissions; Engine cycle simulation

资金

  1. VOLVO Group Trucks Technology
  2. Spanish economy and competitiveness ministry [HiReCo TRA2014-58870-R]
  3. Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
  4. CAPES
  5. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
  6. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work compares the emissions and performance of two dual-mode reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion strategies under the World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle (WHVC), a chassis dynamometer version of the World Harmonized Transient Cycle (WHTC) test proposed by the EURO VI emission regulation for heavy-duty engines. The major difference between the two dual-mode combustion strategies investigated is that, while one of them relies on covering with conventional diesel combustion (CDC) the part of the map that cannot be covered by RCCI regime (RCCI/CDC dual-mode), the other does it relying on dual-fuel diffusion combustion (dual-mode dual-fuel). The influence of the gear shifting strategy on the emissions and performance over the WHVC is discussed first. Later, both dual-mode concepts are compared considering the optimal gear shifting strategy. The results suggest that dual-mode dual-fuel concept allows reducing the specific fuel consumption by 7% in average versus RCCI/CDC concept. Moreover, NOx emissions are around 87% lower with dual mode dual-fuel, meeting the EURO VI requirements without the need for an SCR aftertreatment system. In counterpart, HC and CO emissions are near 2 and 10 times greater, respectively, for dual-mode dual fuel than for RCCI/CDC. (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