4.7 Article

Comparative performance of direct injection diesel engine operating on ethanol, petrol and rapeseed oil blends

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 792-801

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2008.09.029

关键词

Diesel engine; Rapeseed oil; Ethanol; Petrol; Performance; Brake thermal efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents the bench testing results of a four stroke, four cylinder, direct injection, unmodified, diesel engine operating on pure rapeseed oil (RO) and its 2.5 vol%, 5 vol%, 7.5 vol% and 10 vol% blends with ethanol (ERO), petrol (PRO) and both improving agents applied in equal proportions as 50:50 vol% (EPRO). The purpose of the research is to examine the effect of ethanol and petrol addition into RO on the biofuel kinematical viscosity, brake mean effective pressure (bmep), brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) of a diesel engine and its brake thermal efficiency (bte). Addition into RO from 2.5 to 7.5 vol% of ethanol and petrol its viscosity at ambient temperature of 20 degrees C diminishes by 9.2-28.3% and 14.1-31.7%, respectively. Heating up to the temperature of 60 degrees C the viscosity of pure RO, blends ERO2.5-7.5 and PRO2.5-10 further diminishes 4.2, 3.9-3.8 and 3.9-3.6 times. At 1800 min(-1) speed, the maximum brake mean effective pressure (bmep) higher up to 1.6% comparing with that of pure RO (0.77 MPa) ensure three agent blends EPRO5-7.5, whereas at rated 2200 min(-1) speed, the bmep higher by 5.6% can be obtained when fuelling the engine with blend PRO2.5. Brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) at maximum torque (240.2 g/kWh) and rated power (234.0 g/kWh) is correspondingly lower by 3.4% and 5.5% in comparison with pure RO when biofuel blends EPRO5 and PRO2.5 are used. The biggest brake thermal efficiency at maximum torque (0.40-0.41) and rated power (0.42-0.43) relative to that of RO (0.39) suggest blends PRO2.5 and EPRO5-7.5, respectively. (C) 2008 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