4.7 Article

Performance analysis and comparison of an Atkinson cycle coupled to variable temperature heat reservoirs under maximum power and maximum power density conditions

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 46, 期 15-16, 页码 2637-2655

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2004.11.005

关键词

Atkinson cycle; maximum power density; performance; thermodynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, performance analysis and comparison based on the maximum power and maximum power density conditions have been conducted for an Atkinson cycle coupled to variable temperature heat reservoirs. The Atkinson cycle is internally reversible but externally irreversible, since there is external irreversibility of heat transfer during the processes of constant volume heat addition and constant pressure heat rejection. This study is based purely on classical thermodynamic analysis methodology. It should be especially emphasized that all the results and conclusions are based on classical thermodynamics. The power density, defined as the ratio of power output to maximum specific volume in the cycle, is taken as the optimization objective because it considers the effects of engine size as related to investment cost. The results show that an engine design based on maximum power density with constant effectiveness of the hot and cold side heat exchangers or constant inlet temperature ratio of the heat reservoirs will have smaller size but higher efficiency, compression ratio, expansion ratio and maximum temperature than one based on maximum power. From the view points of engine size and thermal efficiency, an engine design based on maximum power density is better than one based on maximum power conditions. However, due to the higher compression ratio and maximum temperature in the cycle, an engine design based on maximum power density conditions requires tougher materials for engine construction than one based on maximum power conditions. (c) 2004 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