Abstract
In this experiment, it was experimentally investigated the combustion and exhaust characteristics, as well as the thermal efficiency, of RCCI combustion using gasoline, ethanol, and propane as low-reactivity fuels under four operating conditions. For each operating condition, gISNOx was limited to 0.15 g/kWh, and gISSmoke was limited to below 15 mg/kWh. The experiment was conducted by determining the operating conditions that satisfied these limitations and resulted in the highest city thermal efficiency. The low-reactivity fuels were supplied by port injection, while diesel was directly injected into the combustion chamber using a diesel injector. As a result, when gasoline is replaced with low-carbon fuels like ethanol and propane, the reduction in CO2 emissions occurred. Under maximum power conditions, using ethanol allowed for a maximum reduction in CO2 emissions of 6.81%. Depending on the driving conditions, ethanol showed a reduction ranging from 3.60 to 6.81%, while propane exhibited a reduction ranging from 3.10 to 5.64%. Additionally, by substituting with ethanol and propane, the GIE could be improved up to 44.73 and 43.56%, respectively.
Abstract
In this experiment, it was experimentally investigated the combustion and exhaust characteristics, as well as the thermal efficiency, of RCCI combustion using gasoline, ethanol, and propane as low-reactivity fuels under four operating conditions. For each operating condition, gISNOx was limited to 0.15 g/kWh, and gISSmoke was limited to below 15 mg/kWh. The experiment was conducted by determining the operating conditions that satisfied these limitations and resulted in the highest city thermal efficiency. The low-reactivity fuels were supplied by port injection, while diesel was directly injected into the combustion chamber using a diesel injector. As a result, when gasoline is replaced with low-carbon fuels like ethanol and propane, the reduction in CO2 emissions occurred. Under maximum power conditions, using ethanol allowed for a maximum reduction in CO2 emissions of 6.81%. Depending on the driving conditions, ethanol showed a reduction ranging from 3.60 to 6.81%, while propane exhibited a reduction ranging from 3.10 to 5.64%. Additionally, by substituting with ethanol and propane, the GIE could be improved up to 44.73 and 43.56%, respectively. Read More
Related posts:
Effects of Varying Equivalence Ratios on the Combustion Efficiency Characteristic of a Dual-Fuel Compression Ignition Engine by Changing Intake Pressures and Exhaust Gas Recirculation Rates
The Effect of Water Injection on a Naturally Aspirated Spark-Ignited Engine
Computational Fluid Dynamics of Four Stroke In-Cylinder Charge Behavior at Distinct Valve Lift Opening Clearance in Spark Ignition Reciprocating Internal Combustion Renault Engine
Managing risk in commodity processing using formula pricing contracts: An application to ethanol
Why is nutrient cycling in food systems so limited? A case study from the North-Netherlands region
A Multichannel Approach and Testbed for Centimeter-Level WiFi Ranging