| Literature DB >> 35785327 |
Zhe Zhao1,2, Xiumin Yu1,2, Yan Huang1,2, Tao Sang1,2, Zezhou Guo1,2, Yaodong Du1,2, Longlong Yu1,2,1,2, Decheng Li1,2.
Abstract
Conventional ethanol spark ignition (SI) engines have poor fuel atomization and mixture formation. The objective of this paper is to improve the combustion and emission performance of ethanol SI engines under lean-burn conditions through the dual-injection mode with ethanol port injection and compressed natural gas (CNG) direct injection (CDI+EPI). This paper studies the engine performance at 1500 rpm under five CNG direct injection ratios (CDIr) and five excess air ratios (λ). The results show that as the CDIr increases under lean-burn conditions, the following occurs: the minimum advance for best torque (MBT), the coefficient of variation (CoVIMEP), and CO and HC emissions decrease; the crankshaft rotation or time with cumulative heat release rate ranging from 10% to 90% (CA 10-90) and NOx emissions first decrease and then increase; and torque, peak in-cylinder pressure (Pmax), and the λ limit first increase and then decrease. The larger the CDIr is, the less influence λ has on the MBT. When CDIr = 15%, the CoVIMEP can be effectively reduced, the engine can still work stably in all lean-burn conditions, and the λ limit will reach the maximum value of 1.73, 19.31% higher than that of the original engine (CDIr = 0). When λ = 1.1, CO emissions decrease the most and HC emissions decrease the least. At this time, CO and HC emissions decrease by 1.56 vol % and 30 ppm, respectively, on average for every 0.1 decrease in λ. For CA 10-90, torque, and Pmax, λ = 1.1, 15% CDI, and 85% EPI is the optimal combination under lean-burn conditions. When CDIr ≥ 15%, NOx emissions are at an ideal level. Under lean-burn conditions, direct-injection CNG can form a good stratified natural gas/ethanol mixture in the cylinder, effectively improving the engine's power and stability and reducing emissions. The λ = 1.1, 15% CDI, 85% EPI combination provides a cutting-edge and outstanding solution for a natural gas/ethanol combined injection SI engine.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35785327 PMCID: PMC9244908 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c02154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Main Technical Parameters of the Engine
| item | characteristics |
|---|---|
| type | spark ignition, in-line, four cylinders, combined injection |
| displacement | 1.984 L |
| bore × stroke | 82.5 × 92.8 mm |
| compression | 9.6:1 |
| maximum torque | 320 N·m (1600–4000 rpm) |
| maximum power | 137 kW (5000 rpm) |
| ignition sequence | 1–3–4–2 |
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
Test Equipment of the Experiment
| parameters | type | precision | range |
|---|---|---|---|
| torque | CW160 | ≤±0.28 N·m | 0–600 N·m |
| speed | CW160 | ≤±1 r/min | 0–6000 r/min |
| cylinder pressure | AVL-GU13Z-24 | ≤±0.5% | 0–20 MPa |
| crank angle | Kistler-2614B | ≤±0.5° | 0–720° |
| excess air rate (λ) | LAMBDA LA4 | ≤±0.1 | 0.700–32.767 |
| carbon monoxide (CO) | AVL-DICOM 4000 | ≤±0.01% | 0–10% vol |
| hydrocarbon (HC) | AVL-DICOM 4000 | ≤±1 ppm | 0–20000 ppm |
| nitrogen oxides (NOx) | AVL-DICOM 4000 | ≤±1 ppm | 0–5000 ppm |
| mass flow meter | DF-2420 | ≤±0.01 g/s | 0.21–82 kg/h |
Total Energy and the Energy Change Rate
| CDIr | 0% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 460.44Qair | 458.87Qair | 458.14Qair | 456.99Qair | 455.84Qair | |
| 0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.55 | 1.05 |
Summary of Operating Conditions
| engine speed (r/min) | 1500 |
| intake manifold pressure (kPa) | 48 |
| λ | 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 |
| ignition timing (°CA BTDC) | maximum brake torque timing (MBT) |
| CNG injection timing (°CA BTDC) | 150 |
| ethanol injection timing (°CA BTDC) | 300 |
| CNG injection pressure (MPa) | 5 |
| ethanol injection pressure (MPa) | 0.5 |
| CNG direct injection ratio (%) | 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 |
| dual-injection mode | CDI+EPI |
Figure 2MBT versus the CDIr at different values of λ.
Figure 3CA 10–90 versus the CDIr at different values of λ.
Figure 4Torque versus the CDIr at different values of λ.
Figure 5Pmax versus the CDIr at different values of λ.
Figure 6CoVIMEP versus the CDIr at different values of λ.
Figure 7λ limit versus the CDIr.
Figure 8CO emissions versus the CDIr at different values of λ.
Figure 9HC emissions versus the CDIr at different values of λ.
Figure 10NOx emission versus CDIr at different values of λ.