3.9 Article

Investigating the performance of acetylated diethyl ether-Camelina sativa biodiesel as fuel in compression ignition engine

期刊

ENERGY ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 281-295

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s40974-021-00230-5

关键词

Acetylene gas; Biodiesel; Camelina sativa oil; Diesel engine; Diethyl ether; Heat ratio

资金

  1. OBA 1 group Limited
  2. Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia [TURSP-2020/109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research demonstrates that a blend of Camelina sativa biodiesel and acetylated diethyl ether performs better in compression ignition engines compared to conventional diesel, with higher fuel efficiency and lower emissions.
This research aims to test the suitability of a blend of Camelina sativa biodiesel and acetylated diethyl ether as fuel for compression ignition (CI) engines in terms of engine emission, performance, and combustion properties. A Kiloskar TV 1 diesel engine was used to test the fuel samples: Camelina sativa biodiesel (71% v/v) and dimethyl ether blend (29% v/v) (CD), Camelina sativa biodiesel (71% v/v), diethyl ether (20% v/v), and acetylene (9% v/v) (CDA), and conventional diesel. Based on the analyses, the CDA and CD gave higher BTEs of 4.8 and 3.7% than the diesel fuels. The heat release rates (HRRs) were higher than those recorded for the conventional diesel with a longer combustion duration for the blends. Moreover, the CDA fuel gave the lowest CO2, HC, CO, smoke, and NOx emissions. The resulting peak emissions for the blends are in the following increasing order: unburnt HC (CDA (97) < CD (105) < Diesel (110) < CB (111 g/kWh), NOx (CDA (176) < CD (208) < CB (392) < Diesel (500) g/kWh), and CO (CDA (284) < CD (301) < CB (520) < Diesel (541) g/kWh. The remarkable performance of the CDA fuel is due to the synergistic effect of the DEE acetylene in the biodiesel, which culminated in improved heat ratios, engine stability, air excess coefficient (lambda (lambda) as well as moderate vibrations and noise.

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

3.9
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