4.7 Article

Characteristics of LPG-diesel dual fuelled engine operated with rapeseed methyl ester and gas-to-liquid diesel fuels

期刊

ENERGY
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 620-629

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.046

关键词

LPG; Dual fuel; RME; GTL; Emissions

资金

  1. Department of National Education of Republic of Indonesia
  2. Engineering and Physical Science Research Council - EPSRC [EP/G038139/1]
  3. Advantage West Midlands
  4. European Regional Development Fund
  5. Government of Castilla La-Mancha (Spain)
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G038139/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. EPSRC [EP/G038139/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)-diesel dual fuelled combustion experimental study was carried out to understand the impact of the properties of the direct injection diesel fuels, such as rapeseed methyl ester (RME) and gas-to-liquid (GTL), on combustion characteristics, engine performance and emissions. The experimental results showed that up to 60% of liquid fuel replacement by LPG was reached while keeping engine combustion variability within the acceptable range and obtaining clear benefits in the soot-NOx trade-off. However, the amount of LPG was limited by adverse effects in engine thermal efficiency, HC and CO emissions. LPG-RME showed a good alternative to LPG-diesel dual fuelling, as better engine combustion variability, HC, CO and soot behaviour was obtained when compared to the other liquid fuels, mainly due to its fuel oxygen content. On the other hand, NOx emissions were the highest, but these can be balanced by the application of EGR. LPG-GTL dual fuelling resulted in the highest NOx emissions benefit over a wide range of engine operating conditions. The high cetane number and the absence of aromatic of GTL, are the main parameters for the more favourable soot-NOx trade-off compared to LPG-ULSD (ultra low sulphur diesel) dual fuelling. (C) 2012 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