Combustion Analysis of an Aviation Compression Ignition Engine

Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF TEXAS ARLINGTON

Article

Combustion Analysis of an Aviation Compression Ignition Engine Burning Pentanol-Kerosene Blends under Different Injection Timings Longfei Chen, Mohsin Raza, and Jianhua Xiao Energy Fuels, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00813 • Publication Date (Web): 07 Aug 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on August 13, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Energy & Fuels is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

Combustion Analysis of an Aviation Compression

2

Ignition Engine Burning Pentanol-Kerosene Blends

3

under Different Injection Timings Longfei Chena

4 a

5

School of Energy and Power Engineering, Energy and Environment International Center,

6 7

Beihang University, Beijing, China, 100191 b

State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,

8

9

, Mohsin Razaa, * , Jianhua Xiaob

China

ABSTRACT

10

The resurgence of aviation heavy fuel engines (HFEs) and the single fuel concept policy make it

11

important to investigate the application of kerosene in aviation compression ignition engines.

12

From the experience of automotive engines, biofuels, in particular higher alcohols may offer

13

better combustion and emission characteristics for HFEs. In this study, the combustion

14

performance was analyzed in a commercial aircraft compression ignition engine burning diesel

15

as a baseline fuel and Chinese aviation kerosene fuel (RP-3) blended with pentanol (so-called

16

second generation biofuel) with different blending ratios. The injection timing as the most

17

critical operational parameter was swept from 17 to 23oCA BTDC under constant engine speed

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

18

(1600 rpm) and fixed injection pressure (60 MPa). The indicated thermal efficiency of kerosene-

19

pentanol blend (K60P40) was higher than all other test fuels, and the advancement in injection

20

timing caused increase in combustion temperature which improved the both indicated thermal

21

efficiency and combustion efficiency. The combustion duration was shorter for kerosene-

22

pentanol blends (K60P40 and K80P20) than diesel, however, the combustion duration

23

considerably increased with advancing injection timings for all the test fuels. Kerosene and its

24

pentanol blends showed longer ignition delay compared to baseline diesel due to their lower

25

cetane number. The indicated specific fuel consumption (ISFC) of K80P20 and K60P40 were

26

demonstrated lower than baseline diesel. This work demonstrated the great potential of kerosene-

27

pentanol fuel blends in aircraft diesel engines without significant modifications.

28

1. INTRODUCTION

29

Aircraft diesel engines have existed since the late 1920s and 1930s, but never as widely used

30

as gasoline-fueled or turboprop engines. The ever-rising cost, safety concerns and the scarceness

31

in remote area of aviation gasoline have triggered a resurgence in heavy fuel engine (HFE)

32

production recently. In addition, automotive diesel technologies have improved significantly,

33

enabling high power-to-weight ratios for aviation applications. The North Atlantic Treaty

34

Organization (NATO) nations have established a single fuel concept (SFC) policy that unified all

35

petroleum fuels to a single kerosene (JP-8) for military, and many researchers have applied JP-8

36

to conventional compression ignition engines.1-4 Yet the literature on aviation internal combustion

37

engines are significantly less than that on vehicular internal combustion engines in terms of combustion

38

and emissions characteristics.5-21

39

Compared to diesel, kerosene has lower cetane number which causes a longer ignition delay22,

40

and provides a longer time for air-fuel mixing prior to combustion, and hence could lead to more


Page 2 of 27

Page 3 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

41

complete combustion. The lower heating value (LHV) of kerosene fuel (LHV=43.34 MJ/kg) is

42

greater than those of diesel (LHV=42.68 MJ/kg) and gasoline (LHV=42.7 MJ/kg)23 which leads

43

to lower volumetric specific fuel consumption when using kerosene, and the very low cloud

44

point of kerosene makes it suitable for cold weather conditions.4 Patil and Thipse compared the

45

effects of different kerosene-diesel blends on diesel engine performance and found little change

46

in thermal efficiency with kerosene addition.2 Aydin et al. examined the impact of kerosene and

47

biodiesel blends on combustion and engine performance, and found that BK20 (20% kerosene

48

and 80% biodiesel) blend exhibited an increase in engine power and a lower fuel consumption

49

compared with neat biodiesel.3

50

Alternative biofuels have been recognized as a promising means of reducing the dependence

51

on petroleum-derived fuels and have thus been promoted greatly.1-3 In particular, alcohols have

52

been widely used in internal combustion engines due to their preferable physiochemical

53

properties such as lower viscosity, high evaporative cooling, and high laminar flame propagation

54

speed.24-26 Gasoline engines fueled with alcohols have demonstrated these benefits thanks to

55

their higher octane number and evaporative cooling effects (particularly in GDI engines).27-30

56

However, the application of alcohols in diesel engines have encountered some difficulties due to

57

the lower cetane number, longer ignition delay, and higher latent heat of vaporization of

58

alcohols.31 Ongoing research has focused more on the usage of short-chain alcohols (e.g.

59

methanol and ethanol) as a blending agent in a diesel fuel32-34 and found some drawbacks such as

60

lower heat value and poor miscibility. Among the short-chain alcohols (C1-C3), ethanol is

61

studied the most in both SI35-38 and CI engines.39-43 In contrast, long-chain alcohols such as

62

butanol (C4) and pentanol (C5) fuels have been investigated to a lesser extent so far. Pentanol

63

(C5) is a so-called second generation biofuel which can be manufactured from numerous kinds


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

64

of biomass including non-edible sources and waste matter. It has advantages over butanol (C4)

65

and other short-chain alcohols (C1-C3). In particular, the higher energy density, higher cetane

66

number of pentanol and its better miscibility with diesel fuel make it a more suitable alcohol

67

candidate. A recent investigation has demonstrated that pentanol blends (up to 30% by volume)

68

can be used without having stability or solubility issues.44 Other studies of diesel-pentanol blends

69

have indicated improved combustion characteristics and better engine performance.45-47

70

Although a great number of alcohol-diesel studies (primarily on automotive engines) exist in the

71

literature, few studies focused on alcohol-kerosene blends and the literature on pentanol-

72

kerosene blends was even scarcer. The ever rising importance of single fuel concept (SFC)

73

policy and the significant difference between diesel and kerosene in terms of physiochemical

74

characteristics warrants the investigation of pentanol-kerosene usage on aircraft heavy fuel

75

engines (HFE).

76

For a diesel engine, fuel injection timing is probably the most critical parameter influencing

77

the combustion, engine performance and exhaust emissions.26-32 Varying injection timing

78

changes the in-cylinder air motion, which consequently affects ignition delay (ID). Advancing or

79

retarding injection timing also changes the in-cylinder temperature, cylinder pressure, indicated

80

thermal efficiency, combustion efficiency, and fuel consumption. Therefore, it is desirable to

81

study the effect of injection timing on an aviation diesel engine fueled with diesel, kerosene, and

82

pentanol blends to make up for the gaps in the literature. The objective of this study was to

83

assess the suitability of pentanol-kerosene blends in an aviation compression ignition engine and

84

to explore the effect of injection timing on combustion characteristics for kerosene and higher

85

alcohol blends.

86

2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP


Page 4 of 27

Page 5 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

87

2.1. Test engine and measurement instruments. The experiments were conducted on an in-

88

line four-cylinder aircraft diesel engine with direct fuel injection delivered by a common rail.

89

The injection parameters, such as injection timing and injection pressure were controlled by an

90

electronic control unit (ECU). Detailed engine specifications are shown in Table 1.

91

Table 1. Specifications of the test engine Parameter

Type or value

Injection system

Common rail

Injector

7 holes, 0.136 mm diameter

Injection pressure

40~180 MPa

Compression ratio

16.7

Stroke

92 mm

Number of valves

16

Displacement

1991 cm3

Bore

83 mm

92 93

Figure 1 shows the schematic of the test rig. In this study, an AVL GH14P cylinder pressure

94

transducer recorded the cylinder pressure with a resolution of 0.5oCA. Combustion performance

95

parameters such as combustion duration, ignition delay, and heat release rate were calculated

96

based on ensemble average values of in-cylinder pressure data for 250 consecutive cycles. Fuel

97

consumption was measured using a FCM-D digital fuel meter at the resolution of 0.1 g.


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 6 of 27

98 99

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental rig.

100

Different types of thermocouples were employed to measure the temperatures of engine oil,

101

intake air and exhaust. An air flow meter, inductive proximity speed sensor, and crankshaft angle

102

sensor were utilized to measure the intake flow rate, engine speed, and crankshaft position

103

respectively. The AVL CEB-II exhaust gas analyzer was used to measure the HC and CO

104

emissions. The uncertainties of calculated parameters and accuracies in measurements are

105

presented in Table 2.

106

Table 2. Uncertainties of calculated parameters and accuracies in measurements Measurements

Accuracy

Engine load (MPa)

±0.5

Engine speed (rpm)

±0.5

Intake temperature (K)

±1.0

In-cylinder pressure (kPa)

±0.5

Crank angle (CAD)

±0.1


Page 7 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

Fuel flow meter (m3/h)

±1.0

Air flow meter (m3/h)

±1.0

Intake pressure (kPa)

±0.1

IMEP

±0.6

Gaseous analyzer

±0.5

Calculated parameters

Uncertainties (%)

Combustion efficiency (%)

±0.2

Indicated thermal efficiency (%)

±0.2

ISFC

±1.0

107 108

2.2. Test conditions. Five different injection timings (17, 19, 20, 21, 23oCA BTDC) were

109

tested and fuel injection pressure, engine load, and engine speed remained constant at 60 MPa,

110

0.6 MPa, and 1600 rpm, respectively. Pilot injection strategies were implemented in this study.

111

The dwell of main and pilot injection remained fixed at 16oCA and the main injection duration

112

was varied to achieve the target load. The engine was run fully warm (taken as an oil and coolant

113

temperature of 84oC) to ensure steady state conditions and then the measurements were recorded.

114

The tests were repeated three times for each condition, and ensemble average values were

115

calculated and adopted.

116

2.3. Properties of test fuels and its blends. The test was conducted using diesel, kerosene,

117

and pentanol as base fuels. The properties of all test fuels are listed in Table 3. Neat diesel was

118

used as a baseline fuel. Compared with diesel, kerosene has a lower cetane number, fewer carbon

119

atoms per molecule, lower viscosity and a smaller distillation temperature range.48 Furthermore,

120

its low viscosity promotes atomization upon injection. Two fuel blends were blended at ratios of

121

80% kerosene and 20% pentanol (K80P20), 60% kerosene and 40% pentanol (K60P40) on a


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 8 of 27

122

volumetric basis. It can be clearly observed that higher levels of pentanol increases the viscosity

123

and oxygen content of the kerosene-pentanol blends.

124

Due to the difference in LHVs of kerosene, diesel and oxygenated fuel blends, equation 1 and

125

2 were used to modified the consumption level of kerosene and oxygenate fuel blends to match

126

the LHV of diesel for a fair comparison.

127

m = × LHV /LHV

(1)

128

where m′ is the corrected fuel dosage to reflect the same total energy with diesel,

129

mkerosene is actual fuel dosage, LHVkerosene and LHVdiesel are the lower heat value of kerosene and

130

diesel fuel respectively. m′ = × (V ×

× LHV

(2)

+V$ % × $ % × LHV$ % )/(V ×

+V$ % × $ % )/LHV 131

where m′ is the corrected fuel usage; mmeasure is the measured fuel usage; Vkerosene and Vpentanol are the

132

volume proportions of kerosene and pentanol; ρkerosene and ρpentanol are the densities of kerosene and

133

pentanol; LHVkerosene and LHVpentanol are the LHV of kerosene and pure pentanol. All the indicated

134

specific fuel consumptions (ISFC) of the fuel blends were modified correspondingly.

135

Table 3. Test fuel properties

Test Fuels

Viscosity at 20oC (mm2/s)

Density at 20oC (kg/m3)

Surface tension at 20oC (103 Nm-1)

Latent heating at 25oC (kJ/kg)

Cetane Number

Low heating value (MJ/kg)

Oxygen content (wt.%)

Boiling point (oC)

Diesel

4.127

830

27.50

270

56.50

42.68

0.00

Kerosene (RP3)

1.28

790

23.60

--

42.00

43.43

0.00

IBP=179.8 FBP=359.7 T10=223.4 T50=266.8 T90=321.3 IBP=176.7 FBP=240 T10=172.8 T50=194.9


Page 9 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

T90=224.4

Pentanol

2.89

815

24.7

308

20-25

35.06

18.18

138

K80P20

1.602

803

23.82

--

37.638.6a

41.731

3.636

T10= 358.2b T50= 425.6c T90=456.3d

K60P40

1.924

806

24.04

--

33.235.2a

40.0446

7.272

T10= 333.4e T50= 342.6f T90=381.3g

136

Data are acquired from Reference.47 ; a Estimated by Reference.49, 50;

b-g

137

based evaporation model.51; IBP=Initial boiling point; FBP=Final boiling point

138

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Predicted by UNIFAC

139

3.1. In-cylinder pressure and heat release rate.

140

Heat release rate (HRR) is defined as the rate at which the chemical energy of the fuel is

141

released by the combustion energy. The heat release rate (HRR) and in-cylinder pressure traces

142

for all the test fuels were presented in Figure 2a-d. The curves of all the test fuels show two-

143

phase combustion process at the main combustion period. With increase in pentanol blend, the

144

HRR shifts from two stage heat release (HR) to single stage heat release (HR). Heat release rate

145

(HRR) during the second-stage combustion decreased with advancing injection timings and it

146

was calculated using Eq. 3.

147 148

dQ =

k 1 pdV + Vdp k -1 k -1

(3)


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 10 of 27

149

where k denotes the heat ratio; V represents the in-cylinder volume; and p indicates the cylinder

150

pressure.

151

(a)

(b)

152 153

(c)

(d)

154

Figure 2. Comparisons of HRR and the in-cylinder pressure of the diesel, kerosene, K8020 and

155

K60P40 under five different injection timings at 1600 rpm.

156

The profile of diesel shows a typical spray-diffusion combustion which is primarily affected by

157

the physiochemical properties of the fuel. The quality of vaporization and atomization of fuel is

158

controlled by physical properties such as volatility‚ surface tension and density. However, the

159

chemical reactivity of the fuel mainly subjects to the chemical properties. Compared to diesel,


Page 11 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

160

kerosene-pentanol blends (K80P20 and K60P40) demonstrated lower in-cylinder pressure and

161

higher heat release rate (HHR) on early injection timings. Kerosene displayed longer ignition

162

delay and shorter combustion duration as compared to diesel because of its lower cetane

163

number.48, 52 Bergstrand also reported that the kerosene showed a longer ignition delay due to the

164

lower cetane number which provides longer mixing time for air-fuel mixture prior to the start of

165

combustion.22

166

3.2. Maximum heat release rate. The results of maximum heat release rate (MHRR) can be

167

seen in Figure 3. The baseline diesel exhibited the highest first-stage MHRR, while K60P40

168

showed the lowest first-stage MHRR as injection timing advanced (in line with the fuel cetane

169

number). Furthermore, blending pentanol further reduces the fuel cetane number. Consequently,

170

the kerosene-pentanol blends showed even lower maximum heat release rate (MHRR) and longer

171

ignition delay in the pilot combustion process compared with diesel and kerosene.

172


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

173

Figure 3. Comparison of first-stage (pilot) and second-stage (main) maximum heat release rate

174

(MHRR) for four fuels as injection timing is advanced.

175

Figure 3 also shows the minimal discrepancy of second-stage MHRR with advancing injection

176

timings from 17oCA BTDC to 23oCA BTDC for all the tested fuels. However, K80P20 and

177

K60P40 showed higher second-stage maximum heat release rate (MHRR) in contrast to kerosene

178

and baseline diesel, which is attributed to the larger fraction of premixed combustion of kerosene

179

blended fuels and their longer ignition delay. Besides, kerosene and its pentanol blends had

180

improved atomization due to their lower viscosity and surface tension, which would enhance the

181

pre-mixing of more fuel and led to the higher MHRR.

182 183

Page 12 of 27

3.3. Combustion duration, ignition delay, and CA50. Combustion duration, ignition delay and angle of 50% mass-fraction burned (CA50) are shown in Figure 4.


Page 13 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

184 185

Figure 4. Comparisons of ignition delay, combustion duration, and CA50 between the diesel,

186

kerosene, K80P20 and K60P40 fuel blends at 0.6 MPa IMEP.

187

The combustion duration has been defined as the CA10-CA90 duration. It can clearly be seen

188

that compared to diesel, kerosene shows shorter combustion duration due to its higher volatility

189

of fuel and smaller diffusion combustion phase which caused by the increased burning of premix

190

portion.53 Adding pentanol into kerosene reduces the combustion duration further which can be

191

attributed to the better volatility of these fuel blends. It can be observed that the advancement in


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 14 of 27

192

injection timing increased the combustion duration for all the test fuels which is due to the more

193

consumption amount of fuel at the most advanced injection timing (23oCA BTDC).

194

Ignition delay has been defined as the duration between CA10 and the start of main injection

195

(SOI) (note the pilot-main separation was fixed here). It is well known that the ignition

196

characteristics of the fuel affect the ignition delay. The ignition delay is one of the most

197

influential factors for determining the combustion characteristics.54 The ignition quality of a fuel

198

is defined by its cetane number. It is well established that lower cetane number would lead to

199

shorter combustion duration and longer ignition delay. Diesel showed shorter ignition delay with

200

advancing injection timing which is due to the higher cetane number of diesel. As would be

201

expected, kerosene presented longer ignition delay as a result of its lower cetane number

202

compared with diesel, which caused locally leaner air–fuel mixture formation and burned it with

203

the lower combustion rate.55, 56 Simple surrogate fuels with n-decane being primary component

204

can be used to model the kerosene using validated detailed kinetic reaction mechanisms.57, 58

205

Since diesel has hydrocarbons with higher molecular weights than kerosene, n-hexadecane is

206

used as a primary component for diesel surrogate fuel from the perspective of chemical kinetics

207

and fundamental combustion properties.57, 59 It is well established that longer hydrocarbons tend

208

to have lower activation energy for thermal decomposition reaction, and thus shorter ignition

209

delay. This could explain why kerosene exhibited longer ignition delay than diesel from the

210

perspective of chemical kinetics. In the case of K80P20 and K60P40, pentanol addition extended

211

the ignition delay compared to baseline diesel due to the lower cetane number of pentanol.

212

Mass fraction burned (MFB) of a fuel is also an important constraint to indicate the

213

combustion process in a compression ignition engine. The angle of 50% mass-fraction burned

214

(CA50) is significant because it influences the fuel conversion efficiency of an engine. The


Page 15 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

215

quicker 50% of energy discharge through the power stroke reduces the chances of heat lost

216

during the engine cycle which contribute to a greater thermal efficiency.60 Ignition delay and

217

CA50 reduced in line with the advancing injection timings for all of the test fuels as shown in

218

Figure 4. Fuel properties including cetane number, atomization, and vaporization are considered

219

to have an impact on mass fraction burned.61 Both kerosene-pentanol blended fuels (K80P20 and

220

K60P40) resulted in lower CA50 than diesel and kerosene, which was attributed to the better

221

mixing of fuel blends prior to the combustion.

222

3.4. Indicated thermal efficiency. Figure 5 displays the indicated thermal efficiency (ITE) for

223

all the test fuels on sweeping injection timings. The value of indicated thermal efficiency (ITE)

224

was calculated using Eq. 4.

225

ηi = Wi / (mf × Huf )

226

(4)

227

where Wi is the indicated work, Huf, the LHV of the fuel, and mf the fuel consumed per cycle.

228


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 16 of 27

229 230

Figure 5. Comparison of indicated thermal efficiency between diesel, kerosene, and kerosene-

231

pentanol (K80P20 and K60P40) fuel blends as injection timing is advanced at 1600 rpm, 0.6

232

MPa IMEP.

233

The noise from diesel engines is mainly attributed to the combustion noise, which originates

234

from high pressure rise rates during the initial rapid combustion.62 Higher pressure rise in the

235

cylinder caused oscillation and the amplitude of oscillation varied with the fuel injection rate and

236

injection delay period. The test fuels showed high peak of pressure rise which obviously

237

contribute in the elevated combustion noise (see in Figure 2). Previous studies conducted by

238

Carlucci et al.63 and Bhat et al.64 reported that the advance in injection timing increased the

239

combustion noise which attributed to the increase in combustion pressure level. Compared to

240

baseline diesel, K80P20 and K60P40 blends showed higher heat release rate (HHR) which led to


Page 17 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

241

relatively higher adiabatic temperature in the combustion chamber. During the combustion

242

process, higher HRR increased the noise level, pressure rise rate, and structural vibration as

243

well.65 At the same time, however, a higher thermal efficiency and a lower specific fuel

244

consumption were observed (see in Figure 5 and Figure 7). In other words, there is a trade-off

245

relationship between combustion noise and fuel economy. Previous studies suggest an inverse

246

relationship between combustion noise and fuel consumption, and found that the combustion

247

noise could be controlled by avoiding too much fuel being burnt at the end of the ignition delay

248

period.66

249

Indicated thermal efficiency (ITE) increased with advancing injection timings for diesel,

250

kerosene, and kerosene-pentanol blends then decreased at 23oCA BTDC (the most advanced

251

injection timing) because of longer combustion duration (see Figure 4). Furthermore, 23 BTDC

252

exhibited the least ignition delay and thus the relative poor mixture preparation and protracted

253

combustion result in a slight drop in thermal efficiency. Compared to diesel, K80P20 and

254

K60P40 showed higher thermal efficiency which attributed to the more efficient combustion

255

owing to advance combustion phase and shorter combustion duration.47 The ITE is basically the

256

inverse of the product of ISFC and LHV of the fuel, and the reduction in ISFC implies an

257

increase in overall engine efficiency.48, 67

258

The advance in injection timing increased the combustion temperature which improved the

259

both indicated thermal efficiency and combustion efficiency (see Figure 5 and Figure 6).

260

Kerosene showed higher thermal efficiency than diesel. The primary reason is that the

261

combustion efficiency of kerosene is higher than that of diesel due to its longer combustion

262

duration which can be seen in Figure 6. Overall, K60P40 showed the highest ITEs among all the

263

test fuels, which can be attributed to its longer combustion duration and higher heat release rate.


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 18 of 27

264

These findings are similar with the results of Bayindir, which reported that engine efficiency

265

increased with the kerosene addition.68

266

3.5. Combustion efficiency. Combustion efficiency is the ability of the fuel to burn

267

completely in the combustion process. The combustion efficiency (ηc) was calculated using eq 5.

268

ηc =1− (mco× Huco + mHC × HuHC ) / (mf × Huf )

(5)

269

where mCO and mTHC are the mass of the CO & HC respectively; HuCO & HuHC are the LHVs of

270

CO and HC respectively; mf represents the fuel consumed per cycle and Huf denotes the LHV of

271

the fuel.

272 273

Figure 6. Comparison of combustion efficiency between diesel, kerosene, and kerosene-pentanol

274

(K80P20 and K60P40) fuel blends as injection timing is advanced at 1600 rpm, 0.6 MPa IMEP.


Page 19 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

275

Figure 6 illustrates the comparison of kerosene, kerosene-pentanol fuel blends (K80P20 and

276

K60P40) to a baseline diesel fuel on sweeping injection timings from 17oCA BTDC to 23oCA

277

BTDC. On advancing injection timings, the baseline diesel, kerosene, K80P20, and K60P40

278

show increasing combustion efficiency. However, at 23oCA BTDC a slight decline is observed

279

for all of the test fuels because of protracted combustion duration which reduces the in-cylinder

280

combustion temperature. The combustion efficiency is greatly dependent on the in-cylinder

281

combustion temperature.69 Kerosene showed a higher combustion efficiency compared to neat

282

diesel, in line with its shorter combustion duration. Kerosene has a smaller surface tension, lower

283

viscosity and smaller density compared to diesel which will lead to faster spray breakup and

284

hence an increase in combustion efficiency.47,

285

combustion initiation point, and the variation of combustion phase has a great impact on the

286

work capacity of the test fuels, leading to a great change of combustion efficiency. The

287

difference of burning velocity and constant volume combustion degree between kerosene and

288

diesel might cause the difference of combustion efficiency as well55.

289 290

70, 71

The injection timing determines the

3.6. Indicated specific fuel consumption. Figure 7 shows the indicated specific fuel consumption (ISFC) as injection timing is advanced for diesel, kerosene, K80P20, and K60P40.


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 20 of 27

291 292

Figure 7. Comparison of indicated fuel consumption between diesel, kerosene, and kerosene-

293

pentanol (K80P20 and K60P40) fuel blends as injection timing is advanced at 1600 rpm, 0.6

294

MPa IMEP.

295

As would be expected, diesel, kerosene, K80P20, and K60P40 follow the reverse trends as

296

shown in Figure 5. The lowest ISFC was found at 21oCA BTDC for all the test fuels as

297

compared to the other injection timings. It may be attributed to more complete combustion of all

298

the test fuels at the specific injection timing (Figure 6). In particular, the ISFC was 200, 197.7,

299

198.2 and 193 g/kWh for diesel, kerosene, K80P20 and K60P40, respectively, at 21oCA BTDC.

300

In general, compared to diesel, kerosene-pentanol blends showed a lower ISFC that could be

301

associated to the higher ITE which also increased with advancement in injection timings.61


Page 21 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

302

Kerosene shows a lower ISFC than diesel because of the higher LHV of kerosene. K80P20 leads

303

to a higher ISFC than kerosene, due to the smaller energy content of pentanol and K60P40 had

304

the lowest ISFC amongst all of the test fuels, which shows that the advantage of advanced

305

injection timing dominates compared to the effect of pentanol addition.

306

4. CONCLUSION

307

Kerosene and pentanol fuels are potential alternatives to aircraft compression ignition engines.

308

A four-cylinder aircraft diesel engine was run on diesel, kerosene, and kerosene-pentanol blends

309

prepared on a volume basis with 80% kerosene and 20% pentanol (K80P20) and 60% kerosene

310

and 40% pentanol (K60P40). The combustion characteristics and engine performance of all the

311

test fuel were compared to a baseline diesel under varying injection timings. Overall, kerosene

312

can be considered as a suitable drop-in fuel for a compression-ignition engine without any

313

significant modifications due to its preferable physiochemical properties, such as cetane number,

314

surface tension, and viscosity. Pentanol addition prolonged the ignition delay of kerosene-

315

pentanol fuel blends and reduced the combustion duration compared to the baseline diesel.

316

Kerosene-pentanol fuel blends exhibited better indicated thermal efficiency (ITE) and reduced

317

fuel consumption under all the test injection timings compared with diesel. In general, advancing

318

injection timing reduced the ignition delay, yet increased the total combustion duration.

319

AUTHOR INFORMATION

320

Corresponding Author

321

*E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

322

ORCID

323

Longfei Chen: 0000-0002-0787-6967


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

324

Mohsin Raza: 0000-0001-7384-3015

325

Notes

326

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

327

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

328

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (91641119 and

329

51306011).

330

NOMENCLATURE

331

Abbreviations

332

SOI = start of injection

333

MPRR = maximum pressure rise rate

334

CO = carbon monoxide

335

THC = total hydrocarbon

336

CA BTDC = crank angle before top dead center

337

IMEP = indicated mean effective pressure

338

ITE = indicated thermal efficiency

339

HRR = heat release rate

340

NOx = nitrogen oxides

341

ECU = electronic control unit

342

ISFC = indicated specific fuel consumption


Page 22 of 27

Page 23 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

343

LHV = latent heat of vaporization

344

GDI = gasoline direct injection

345

ICEs = internal combustion engines

346

IBP=Initial boiling point

347

FBP=Final boiling point

348

HR=Heat Release

349

MFB =Mass fraction burned

350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374

References 1.Lee, J.; Bae, C., Application of JP-8 in a heavy duty diesel engine. Fuel 2011, 90, (5), 17621770. 2.Patil, K. R.; Thipse, S. S., Characteristics of Performance and Emissions in a Directinjection Diesel Engine Fuelled with Kerosene/Diesel Blends. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 2014, 10, 2102-2111. 3.Aydin, H.; Bayindir, H.; Đlkiliç, C., Emissions From an Engine Fueled With Biodiesel-kerosene Blends. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 2010, 33, (2), 130-137. 4.Roy, M. M.; Wang, W.; Alawi, M., Performance and emissions of a diesel engine fueled by biodiesel–diesel, biodiesel–diesel-additive and kerosene–biodiesel blends. Energy Conversion and Management 2014, 84, 164-173. 5.Chen, L.; Stone, R.; Richardson, D., A study of mixture preparation and PM emissions using a direct injection engine fuelled with stoichiometric gasoline/ethanol blends. Fuel 2012, 96, 120130. 6.Millo, F.; Vezza, D. S.; Vlachos, T.; De Filippo, A.; Ciaravino, C.; Russo, N.; Fino, D., Particle Number and Size Emissions from a Small Displacement Automotive Diesel Engine: Bioderived vs Conventional Fossil Fuels. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2012, 51, (22), 7565-7572. 7.Chen, L.; Stone, R.; Richardson, D., Effect of the valve timing and the coolant temperature on particulate emissions from a gasoline direct-injection engine fuelled with gasoline and with a gasoline–ethanol blend. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 2012, 226, (10), 1419-1430.


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420

Page 24 of 27

8.Giakoumis, E. G.; Rakopoulos, C. D.; Dimaratos, A. M.; Rakopoulos, D. C., Exhaust emissions with ethanol or n-butanol diesel fuel blends during transient operation: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013, 17, 170-190. 9.Chen, L.; Stone, R., Measurement of Enthalpies of Vaporization of Isooctane and Ethanol Blends and Their Effects on PM Emissions from a GDI Engine. Energy & Fuels 2011, 25, (3), 1254-1259. 10.BeÉR, J. M., Low NOx Burners for Boilers, Furnaces and Gas Turbines; Drive Towards the Lower Bounds of NOx Emissions. Combustion Science and Technology 1996, 121, (1-6), 169191. 11.Chen, L.; Ding, S.; Liang, Z.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, C., Filtration efficiency analysis of fibrous filters: Experimental and theoretical study on the sampling of agglomerate particles emitted from a GDI engine. Aerosol Science and Technology 2017, 1-11. 12.D’Alessandro, F.; Pacchiarotta, G.; Rubino, A.; Sperandio, M.; Villa, P.; Carrera, A. M.; Fakhrai, R.; Marra, G.; Congiu, A., Lean Catalytic Combustion for Ultra-low Emissions at High Temperature in Gas-Turbine Burners. Energy & Fuels 2011, 25, (1), 136-143. 13.Chen, L.; Zhang, Z.; Gong, W.; Liang, Z., Quantifying the effects of fuel compositions on GDI-derived particle emissions using the optimal mixture design of experiments. Fuel 2015, 154, 252-260. 14.Tan, P.-q.; Ruan, S.-s.; Hu, Z.-y.; Lou, D.-m.; Li, H., Particle number emissions from a lightduty diesel engine with biodiesel fuels under transient-state operating conditions. Applied Energy 2014, 113, 22-31. 15.Chen, L.; Liang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Shuai, S., Characterizing particulate matter emissions from GDI and PFI vehicles under transient and cold start conditions. Fuel 2017, 189, 131-140. 16.Murayama, T.; Miyamoto, N.; Chikahisa, T.; Yamane, K.; Konno, M., The Effects of Combustion and Injection Systems on Unburnt HC and Particulate Emissions from a DI Diesel Engine. Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers Series B 1986, 52, (478), 2495-2502. 17.Chen, L.; Liang, Z.; Liu, H.; Ding, S.; Li, Y., Sensitivity analysis of fuel types and operational parameters on the particulate matter emissions from an aviation piston engine burning heavy fuels. Fuel 2017, 202, 520-528. 18.Beatrice, C.; Bertoli, C.; D'Alessio, J.; Del Giacomo, N.; Lazzaro, M.; Massoli, P., Experimental Characterization of Combustion Behaviour of New Diesel Fuels for Low Emission Engines. Combustion Science and Technology 1996, 120, (1-6), 335-355. 19.Chen, L.; Zhang, Z.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, C.; Roskilly, A. P., Experimental study of the gaseous and particulate matter emissions from a gas turbine combustor burning butyl butyrate and ethanol blends. Applied Energy 2017, 195, 693-701. 20.Bertoli, C.; Del Giacomo, N.; Beatrice, C.; Migliaccio, M. n., Evaluation of Combustion Behavior and Pollutants Emission of Advanced Fuel Formulations by Single Cylinder Engine Experiments. SAE Technical Paper I982492 1998. 21.Bertoli, C.; Del Giacomo, N.; Beatrice, C., Diesel Combustion Improvements by the Use of Oxygenated Synthetic Fuels. SAE Technical Paper I972972 1997. 22.Bergstrand, P., Effects on Combustion by Using Kerosene or MK1 Diesel. SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-0002 2007. 23.Yu, W.; Yang, W.; Tay, K.; Mohan, B.; Zhao, F.; Zhang, Y., Macroscopic spray characteristics of kerosene and diesel based on two different piezoelectric and solenoid injectors. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2016, 76, 12-23.


Page 25 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465

Energy & Fuels

24.Adelman, H., Alcohols in Diesel Engines-A Review. SAE Technical Paper 790956 1979. 25.Wagner, T. O.; Gray, D. S.; Zarah, B. Y.; Kozinski, A. A., Practicality of Alcohols as Motor Fuel. SAE Technical Paper 790429 1979. 26.Pal, A.; V, M.; Gupta, S.; Kumar, N., Performance and Emission Characteristics of Isobutanol-Diesel Blend in Water Cooled CI Engine Employing EGR with EGR Intercooler. SAE Technical Paper 2013-24-0151 2013. 27.Wang, C.; Zeraati-Rezaei, S.; Xiang, L.; Xu, H., Ethanol blends in spark ignition engines: RON, octane-added value, cooling effect, compression ratio, and potential engine efficiency gain. Applied Energy 2017, 191, 603-619. 28.Wang, C.; Chahal, J.; Janssen, A.; Cracknell, R.; Xu, H., Investigation of gasoline containing GTL naphtha in a spark ignition engine at full load conditions. Fuel 2017, 194, 436-447. 29.Wang, C.; Janssen, A.; Prakash, A.; Cracknell, R.; Xu, H., Splash blended ethanol in a spark ignition engine – Effect of RON, octane sensitivity and charge cooling. Fuel 2017, 196, 21-31. 30.Wang, C.; Xu, H.; Daniel, R.; Ghafourian, A.; Herreros, J. M.; Shuai, S.; Ma, X., Combustion characteristics and emissions of 2-methylfuran compared to 2,5-dimethylfuran, gasoline and ethanol in a DISI engine. Fuel 2013, 103, 200-211. 31.Pal, A.; V, M.; Gupta, S.; Kumar, N., Performance and Emission Characteristics of Isobutanol-Diesel Blend in Water Cooled CI Engine Employing EGR with EGR Intercooler. SAE 2013-24-0151 2013. 32.Zhu, L.; Cheung, C. S.; Zhang, W. G.; Huang, Z., Combustion, performance and emission characteristics of a DI diesel engine fueled with ethanol–biodiesel blends. Fuel 2011, 90, (5), 1743-1750. 33.Storch, M.; Hinrichsen, F.; Wensing, M.; Will, S.; Zigan, L., The effect of ethanol blending on mixture formation, combustion and soot emission studied in an optical DISI engine. Applied Energy 2015, 156, 783-792. 34.Xingcai, Y., Libin, Linlin, and Zhen, Heat Release Analysis on Combustion and Parametric Study on Emissions of HCCI Engines Fueled with 2-Propanol/n-Heptane Blend Fuels. Energy & Fuels 2006, 20, 1870–1878. 35.He, B.-Q.; Jian-Xin, W.; Hao, J.-M.; Yan, X.-G.; Xiao, J.-H., A study on emission characteristics of an EFI engine with ethanol blended gasoline fuels. Atmospheric Environment 2003, 37, (7), 949-957. 36.Yüksel, F.; Yüksel, B., The use of ethanol–gasoline blend as a fuel in an SI engine. Renewable Energy 2004, 29, (7), 1181-1191. 37.Bayraktar, H., Experimental and theoretical investigation of using gasoline–ethanol blends in spark-ignition engines. Renewable Energy 2005, 30, (11), 1733-1747. 38.Najafi, G.; Ghobadian, B.; Tavakoli, T.; Buttsworth, D. R.; Yusaf, T. F.; Faizollahnejad, M., Performance and exhaust emissions of a gasoline engine with ethanol blended gasoline fuels using artificial neural network. Applied Energy 2009, 86, (5), 630-639. 39.Michael D. Kass, J. F. T., John M. Storey, Norberto Domingo, James Wade, Glenn Kenreck, Emissions From a 5.9 Liter Diesel Engine Fueled With Ethanol Diesel Blends. SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-2018 2001. 40.He, B.-Q.; Shuai, S.-J.; Wang, J.-X.; He, H., The effect of ethanol blended diesel fuels on emissions from a diesel engine. Atmospheric Environment 2003, 37, (35), 4965-4971. 41.Corkwell, K. C.; Jackson, M. M.; Daly, D. T., Review of Exhaust Emissions of Compression Ignition Engines Operating on E Diesel Fuel Blends. SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3283 2003.


Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510

Page 26 of 27

42.Rakopoulos, C. D.; Antonopoulos, K. A.; Rakopoulos, D. C., Experimental heat release analysis and emissions of a HSDI diesel engine fueled with ethanol–diesel fuel blends. Energy 2007, 32, (10), 1791-1808. 43.Sarjovaara, T.; Alantie, J.; Larmi, M., Ethanol dual-fuel combustion concept on heavy duty engine. Energy 2013, 63, 76-85. 44.Campos-Fernandez, J.; Arnal, J. M.; Gomez, J.; Lacalle, N.; Dorado, M. P., Performance tests of a diesel engine fueled with pentanol/diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2013, 107, 866-872. 45.Rajesh kumar, B.; Saravanan, S., Effect of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) on performance and emissions of a constant speed DI diesel engine fueled with pentanol/diesel blends. Fuel 2015, 160, 217-226. 46.Wei, L.; Cheung, C. S.; Huang, Z., Effect of n-pentanol addition on the combustion, performance and emission characteristics of a direct-injection diesel engine. Energy 2014, 70, 172-180. 47.Li, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, J., Combustion and emission characteristics of diesel engine fueled with diesel/biodiesel/pentanol fuel blends. Fuel 2015, 156, 211-218. 48.Patil, K. R.; Thipse, S. S., Experimental investigation of CI engine combustion, performance and emissions in DEE–kerosene–diesel blends of high DEE concentration. Energy Conversion and Management 2015, 89, 396-408. 49.Atmanli, A.; Ileri, E.; Yuksel, B.; Yilmaz, N., Extensive analyses of diesel–vegetable oil–nbutanol ternary blends in a diesel engine. Applied Energy 2015, 145, 155-162. 50.Kalghatgi, G. T., Auto-Ignition Quality of Practical Fuels and Implications for Fuel Requirements of Future SI and HCCI Engines. SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-0239 2005. 51.Leach, F.; Stone, R.; Fennell, D.; Hayden, D.; Richardson, D.; Wicks, N., Predicting the particulate matter emissions from spray-guided gasoline direct-injection spark ignition engines. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 2017, 231, (6), 717-730. 52.Kidoguchi, Y.; Yang, C.; Miwa, K., Effects of Fuel Properties on Combustion and Emission Characteristics of a Direct-Injection Diesel Engine. SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-1851 2000. 53.Youngsoo Park, C. B., Christine Mounaı¨m-Rousselle and Fabrice Foucher, Application of jet propellant-8 to premixed charge ignition combustion in a single-cylinder diesel engine. International Journal of Engine Research 2015, 16(1) 92–103. 54.Miyamoto, N.; Ogawa, H.; Shibuya, M., Distinguishing the Effects of Aromatic Content and Ignitability of Fuels in Diesel Combustion and Emissions. SAE Technical Paper 912355 1991. 55.A M Ickes, S. V. B., and D N Assanis, Effect of fuel cetane number on a premixed diesel combustion mode. International Journal of Engine Research 2009, 10. 56.Mingfa Yao, Z. Z., Haifeng Liu, Progress and recent trends in homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) engines. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2009, 35 398–437. 57.Dagaut, P., On the kinetics of hydrocarbons oxidation from natural gas to kerosene and diesel fuel. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2002, 4, (11), 2079-2094. 58.Yan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Di, D.; Dai, C.; Li, J., Simplified Chemical Reaction Mechanism for Surrogate Fuel of Aviation Kerosene and Its Verification. Energy & Fuels 2016, 30, (12), 1084710857. 59.Mueller, C. J.; Cannella, W. J.; Bays, J. T.; Bruno, T. J.; DeFabio, K.; Dettman, H. D.; Gieleciak, R. M.; Huber, M. L.; Kweon, C.-B.; McConnell, S. S.; Pitz, W. J.; Ratcliff, M. A.,


Page 27 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541

Energy & Fuels

Diesel Surrogate Fuels for Engine Testing and Chemical-Kinetic Modeling: Compositions and Properties. Energy & Fuels 2016, 30, (2), 1445-1461. 60.Labeckas, G.; Slavinskas, S., Combustion phenomenon, performance and emissions of a diesel engine with aviation turbine JP-8 fuel and rapeseed biodiesel blends. Energy Conversion and Management 2015, 105, 216-229. 61.Bayındır, H.; Işık, M. Z.; Argunhan, Z.; Yücel, H. L.; Aydın, H., Combustion, performance and emissions of a diesel power generator fueled with biodiesel-kerosene and biodieselkerosene-diesel blends. Energy 2017, 123, 241-251. 62.Stone, R., Introduction to Internal Combustion Engines. 4th ed.; Palgrave Machmillan: 2012. 63.Carlucci, P.; Ficarella, A.; Laforgia, D., Study of the Influence of the Injection Parameters on Combustion Noise in a Common Rail Diesel Engine Using ANOVA and Neural Networks. SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-2011 2001. 64.Bhat, C. S.; Meckl, P. H.; Bolton, J. S.; Abraham, J., Influence of fuel injection parameters on combustion-induced noise in a small diesel engine. International Journal of Engine Research 2011, 13, (2), 130-146. 65.Patel, C.; Agarwal, A. K.; Tiwari, N.; Lee, S.; Lee, C. S.; Park, S., Combustion, noise, vibrations and spray characterization for Karanja biodiesel fuelled engine. Applied Thermal Engineering 2016, 106, 506-517. 66.Russell, M. F.; Hulot, O., Improvements to Diesel Passenger Car Refinement. SAE Technical Paper 981033 1998. 67.Ferguson, C. R., Internal Combustion Engines. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, 1986. 68.Bayindir, H., The Effects of Cottonseed Oil–Kerosene Blends on a Diesel Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 2010, 32, (10), 901-908. 69.Jun, D.; Iida, N., A Study of High Combustion Efficiency and Low CO Emission in a Natural Gas HCCI Engine. SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-1974 2004. 70.Liotta, F. J.; Montalvo, D. M., The Effect of Oxygenated Fuels on Emissions from a Modern Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine. SAE Technical Paper 932734 1993. 71.Miyamoto, N.; Ogawa, H.; Nurun, N. M.; Obata, K.; Arima, T., Smokeless, Low NOx, High Thermal Efficiency, and Low Noise Diesel Combustion with Oxygenated Agents as Main Fuel. SAE Technical Paper 980506 1998.

542


Combustion Analysis of an Aviation Compression Ignition Engine

Recommend Documents