4.7 Article

Autoignition characteristics of oxygenated gasolines

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 186, 期 -, 页码 114-128

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.07.034

关键词

Oxygenated gasoline; Ignition delay times; Ethanol; Shock tube; Rapid compression machine

资金

  1. Saudi Aramco under the FUELCOM
  2. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gasoline anti-knock quality, defined by the research and motor octane numbers (RON and MON), is important for increasing spark ignition (SI) engine efficiency. Gasoline knock resistance can be increased using a number of blending components. For over two decades, ethanol has become a popular anti-knock blending agent with gasoline fuels due to its production from bio-derived resources. This work explores the oxidation behavior of two oxygenated certification gasoline fuels and the variation of fuel reactivity with molecular composition. Ignition delay times of Haltermann (RON = 91) and Coryton (RON = 97.5) gasolines have been measured in a high-pressure shock tube and in a rapid compression machine at three pressures of 10, 20 and 40 bar, at equivalence ratios of phi = 0.45, 0.9 and 1.8, and in the temperature range of 650-1250 K. The results indicate that the effects of fuel octane number and fuel composition on ignition characteristics are strongest in the intermediate temperature (negative temperature coefficient) region. To simulate the reactivity of these gasolines, three kinds of surrogates, consisting of three, four and eight components, are proposed and compared with the gasoline ignition delay times. It is shown that more complex surrogate mixtures are needed to emulate the reactivity of gasoline with higher octane sensitivity (S = RON-MON). Detailed kinetic analyses are performed to illustrate the dependence of gasoline ignition delay times on fuel composition and, in particular, on ethanol content. (C) 2017 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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