Combustion and Emission Characteristics of Direct ... - ScienceDirect

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 75 (2015) 2379 – 2387

The 7th International Conference on Applied Energy – ICAE2015

Combustion and emission characteristics of direct injection compression ignition engine fueled with wide distillation fuel (WDF) Jianxin Wang, Haoye Liu, Zhi Wang*, Shijin Shuai State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Abstract To overcome the drawback of using diesel in LTC, a new fuel concept called WDF was proposed in recent years. WDF refers to fuels with a wide distillation range from initial boiling point (IBP) of gasoline to final boiling point (FBP) of diesel. In this work, two kinds of WDF (GDBF and FDF) were studied for both short-term and long-term consideration. In the study of GDBF, 50% gasoline proportion is selected as the optimal choice due to the load adaptability; at the same NOx emissions level for Euro VI, G50 and diesel have similar ITE, G50 has the soot emissions around the target value of Euro V, while diesel has one order higher soot emissions at high load. In the long term, it is not necessary to employ different distillation and refinery processes to produce gasoline and diesel fuels. A novel fuel concept named FDF is proposed and an exploration of the feasibility was conducted. The measured physical and chemical properties of FDF indicate that C/H ratio, density and heat value of FDF vary between those of gasoline and diesel fuel and kinematic viscosity is close to the lower limit of diesel, which is benefit to high pressure injection. Cetane number of FDF is in the lower range of diesel fuel. The thermal efficiency, combustion and emission characteristics of a common-rail diesel engine fueled with FDF were experimentally investigated and compared with those burning the conventional diesel fuel and GDBF. The ignition delay, combustion duration changes little compared to diesel fuel while thermal efficiency is higher than diesel and GDBF; the pressure rise rate and heat release rate of FDF are higher than diesel fuel but lower than GDBF, and as the engine load increases, the combustion characteristics of FDF are close to diesel fuel; the soot, NOx and CO emissions of FDF are close to diesel fuel, however, the THC emissions are slightly higher than diesel fuel. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of ICAE Peer-review under responsibility of Applied Energy Innovation Institute Keywords: WDF; FDF; Emission control; Distallition range

1. Introduction

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-10-62772515; fax: +86-10-62772515. E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Wang).

1876-6102 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Applied Energy Innovation Institute doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.174

2380

Jianxin Wang et al. / Energy Procedia 75 (2015) 2379 – 2387

Gasoline and diesel are the two most commonly used fuels in internal combustion engines. There are two major differences in their physical and chemical indicators. One is the number of carbon atoms in their major components, which is 4 to 10 for gasoline and 16 to 23 for diesel. Kerosene, whose main components have carbon atoms from 11 to 19, is heavier than gasoline, but lighter than diesel. The other is the distillation temperature range, which is 40 °C to 180 °C for gasoline and 180 °C to 360 °C for diesel. Due to the differences in the physical and chemical properties between diesel and gasoline, internal combustion engines burning petroleum-based fuels are classified into two categories: gasoline engines and diesel engines. Gasoline engines use spark ignition and reply on flame propagation for fuel burning in premixed mixtures, which have low thermal efficiency and low emissions. Diesel engines use direct injection followed by rapid compression to achieve spontaneous ignition and the combustion takes place in the diffusion mode. Diesel engines have high thermal efficiency but also high emissions. Because gasoline and diesel have to be produced in different processes supplied separately in the supply chain, and different engines have to be designed and manufactured to fit for different fuels, the cost for petroleum-based fuels in transportation remains high. Researchers have attempted to merge the advantages of both gasoline engines and diesel engines, that is to maintain the high thermal efficiency of diesel engines while achieving the low emissions of gasoline engines. The outcome of such attempts is future unified internal combustion engines [1]. The authors have proposed ideas of the integration of gasoline and diesel fuels and the future unified internal combustion engines, and put forward two possible approaches: gasoline-diesel dual fuel and gasoline-diesel blend fuel [1]. A comparative study has shown that both approaches had an obviously higher thermal efficiency than gasoline engines, and reached or even surpassed the thermal efficiency of diesel engines [2]. As the proportion of gasoline increases, soot emission is significantly reduced due to the increase in the proportion of premixed combustion [2]. Based on these studies above, a fuel concept called Wide Distillation Fuel (WDF) was proposed in recent years. WDF refers to fuels with a wide distillation range from initial boiling point (IBP) of gasoline to final boiling point (FBP) of diesel. Gasoline and diesel blend fuel (GDBF) is one kind of WDF which is most convenient to produce at present. Some studies have been carried out using GDBF on some novel combustion modes such as LTC, and Premixed Charge Compression Ignition (PCCI) [3-14]. The results showed that GDBF had a longer ignition delay and higher volatility and soot emissions can be maintained at low level even at low intake oxide concentration conditions. But most researches are made at low to medium load, and the optimal blend ratio is still controversial: high gasoline proportion is necessary for soot reduction, however, there are still some problems when using GDBF with high gasoline proportion, such as the difficulty of cold start, unstable combustion at low loads [6], high pressure rise rate and NOx emissions control at high loads [8], high HC and CO emissions [6,7] etc. Actually, both gasoline and diesel are petroleum products after distillation and refinery and some refinery processes are designed to purposefully increase the octane number of gasoline, leading to some extent to the problems mentioned above. Therefore, it is proposed in this article that there is no need to employ different distillation and refinery processes to produce gasoline and diesel fuels; instead, a single distillation process covering the entire range for gasoline, kerosene, and diesel can be used to produce a novel fuel from petroleum directly. This novel fuel is named the Full Distillation Fuel (FDF). FDF also belongs to WDF. With the adaption of FDF as the transportation fuel, the total fuel consumption is expected to be significantly reduced compared to that consumed in diesel and gasoline engines, especially in the automotive industry. In addition, as a result of the simplifications in the processes of fuel refining, storage and distribution, and engine manufacture, the full life-cycle cost of the end use of petroleum-based fuels will be greatly reduced. The present work includes two parts: first, we tried to choose an optimal gasoline proportion from various gasoline proportions in GDBF and compared the performance of the G50 with diesel fuel from medium (0.6 MPa IMEP) to high (1.4 MPa IMEP) load. Secondly, as an exploration of the feasibility of


FDF, an atmospheric distillation technique was used to produce FDF. The physical and chemical properties of FDF were measured. The combustion characteristics, thermal efficiency, and emissions of a common-rail diesel engine fueled with FDF were experimentally investigated. These characteristics burning FDF were also compared with those burning the conventional diesel and GDBF. 2. Experimental setup and method 2.1 Engine and test system The experiments were performed using a single-cylinder research engine retrofitted from a four-cylinder common-rail compression ignition engine. The compression ratio is 16.7 and the displacement is 0.5 L. The engine was equipped with a Delphi seven-hole injector with cone angle of 156°. Turbocharger was removed from the engine and an external air compressor was used to supply intake air. In-cylinder pressure was measured with a pressure transducer (AVL GH14P) and combustion pressure data were recorded with the resolution of 0.2 °CA. Gaseous emissions including CO, HC and NOx were measured using an AVL CEBII pollutants analyzer, while soot emissions were measured by AVL 439 Opacimeter. The schematic of the engine testing system can be found in [15]. 2.2 Base fuel In this work, FDF was produced from Middle East medium crude oil by atmospheric distillation, and the distillation temperature range was from 41 °C to 328 °C, carbon atom number was from 5 to 23. Gas chromatographic (GC) method was used to measure the mass fraction of each component. The distillation curve and detailed data of components of FDF can be found in [15]. FDF contains both high volatile components and low volatile components, which is similar to GDBF. However, FDF doesn’t go through the process for increasing octane number as the commercial gasoline fuel and improving cetane number as the commercial diesel fuel, the components and properties of FDF are different from blend fuel of commercial gasoline and diesel, WDF. The properties of FDF, gasoline and diesel are shown in Table 1. C/H ratio, density, and heat value of FDF are between those of gasoline and diesel fuel; kinematic viscosity is near to the lower limit of diesel, which is benefit to high pressure injection. Cetane number of FDF is 47.4, lower to tested diesel, but still in the lower range of diesel fuel. Desulfuration hasn’t been used to FDF, so the sulfur content of FDF is much higher than gasoline and diesel fuels. Table 1. Properties of gasoline, diesel and FDF Property/Unit

Gasoline

Diesel

FDF

gC/%

86.56

86.45

85.5

gH/%

13.01

13.49

13.8

gC/gH

6.653

6.408

6.188

Density(20 °C)/(g/L)

0.7525

0.8304

0.7823

Heat value/(kJ/kg)

42840

42680

42860

Cetane number

15.1*

56.5

47.4

Kinematic viscosity(20 °C)/(mm2/s)

0.75

4.127

1.762

Sulphur content/ppm

21.0

4.3

6670.0

*estimated from Eqn.6 in [16]

2381

2382


3. Results and discussion 3.1 Experiments on WDF 3.1.1 Gasoline Proportion Optimization

COV limitation

8

10

12 14 16 18 20 22 Injection timing (CA BTDC)

24

10 8 6 4 2 0 26

NOx limitation for Euro V

0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

50 ITE (%)

40 35 30 25 20 15

G30 G50 G70

45 40 35 8

30

COV limitation

6 4 2

14

16

18 20 CA50 (CAATDC)

22

COV (%)

0.20 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.00

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Soot(1/m)

NOx (g/kW.h)

G30 G50 G70

Soot(1/m)

6 5 4 3 NOx limitation for Euro V 2 1 0

COV (%)

ITE(%)

NOx (g/kW.h)

To find the optimal gasoline proportion of WDF, G30, G50 and G70 were prepared by blending gasoline and diesel with the volume ratio of 30:70, 50:50 and 70:30, respectively. Both low load (1600 rpm, 0.2 MPa IMEP) and high load (1600 rpm, 1.0 MPa IMEP) were tested using the three WDFs. At 1600 rpm, 0.2 MPa IMEP, no EGR was used; while at 1600 rpm, 1.0 MPa IMEP, 25% EGR was used. All the tests were conducted with coolant and lubricant oil temperatures at 80±2 °C and intake air temperature was kept at 30±2 °C. Only single injection are used.

0 24

(a) (b) Fig. 1. Performance of G30, G50 and G70, (a) at 1600 rpm, 0.2 MPa IMEP (b) at 1600 rpm, 1.0 MPa IMEP

Fig. 1 shows the performance of three WDFs at 1600 rpm, 0.2 MPa IMEP. G70 has COV higher than 5, indicating unstable combustion at low load. G50 has the lowest COV and highest ITE. Fig. shows the performance of three WDFs at 1600 rpm, 1.0 MPa IMEP. G30 has much higher soot emissions than G50 and G70. G70 exhibits the lowest soot emissions. From the results, G30 and G70 has the advantage at low load and high load, respectively. However, in the whole operating range for the engine, G50 is the optimal choice. Because G50 has the COV lower than the limitation value at low load, acceptable emission and fuel economy performance at both low load and high load, showing the best load adaptability. 3.1.2 Comparison of G50 and Diesel from medium to high load In this section, G50 are compared with diesel fuel in the single-cylinder engine from medium (0.6 MPa IMEP) to high (1.4 MPa IMEP) load, The engine speed was 1600 rpm. By keeping EGR at around 27% and Ȝ at 1.4-1.5, the NOx emissions are controlled at the value around Euro VI limitation for both G50 and diesel fuel. All the tests were conducted with coolant and lubricant oil temperatures at 80±2 °C and intake air temperature was kept at 35±2 °C. Single injection was used, injection pressure (from 40

2383


0.03 0.02

4.0

Diesel WDF

3.0

PM limitation for Euroč

0.01 0.00

2.5 2.0

0.5

0.6 MPa

1.0 MPa

1.4 MPa

0.0

50

Diesel WDF

40

NOx limitation for Euroč

1.5 1.0

60

Diesel WDF

3.5

NOx limitation for EuroĎ 0.6 MPa

1.0 MPa

1.4 MPa

ITE(%)

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

NOx (g/kW.h)

Soot(g/kW.h)

MPa to 80 MPa) and timing (from misfire to knock) were swept to find the best injection strategy for each load. The max pressure rise rate was controlled below 10 bar/deg during the sweep. At last, the optimal points at each load for both WDF and diesel are selected. Fig. 2 shows the soot, NOx emissions and ITE of the optimal points, respectively. NOx emissions are all around the Euro VI limitation due to the proper EGR and Ȝ value for both WDF and diesel. G50 exhibits the similar ITE to diesel fuel. Significant differences are observed in soot emissions: for G50, soot emissions are slightly higher than the limitation only at 1.4 MPa IMEP; for diesel fuel, soot emissions are one order higher than those of G50 at high load.

30

Maximum ITE for Typical Gasoline Engine

20 10 0

0.6 MPa

1.0 MPa

1.4 MPa

(a) (b) (c) Fig. 2. Comparison of diesel and G50 from medium to high load, (a) Soot emissions (b) NOx emissions (c) ITE

3.2 Experiments on FDF In this section, diesel, GDBF and FDF were compared. Since the mass ratio of low boiling range components (15~180 °C) to high boiling range components (180~350 °C) in FDF was 4:6, GDBF used in this section also had gasoline to diesel ratio of 4:6. The engine speed was 1600 rpm. Four engine loads (0.5 MPa, 0.8 MPa, 1.1 MPa and 1.4 MPa IMEP) were selected and the corresponding intake pressure was 0.10 MPa, 0.16 MPa, 0.20 MPa and 0.22 MPa, respectively. No EGR was used. 3.2.1 Comparison of Combustion Characteristics At 0.8 MPa IMEP, all fuels have a single-stage heat release, the shape and tendency of pressure and heat release for three fuels are similar. The in-cylinder pressure and the heat release rate curves at 0.8 MPa IMEP can be found in [15]. Fig. 3a gives the major combustion parameters of the three fuels. It can be seen that ignition delay of FDF is 11.5 °CA, which is shorter than GDBF but slightly longer than diesel due to different cetane numbers. Combustion durations are about 20 °CA for three fuels and combustion duration of GDBF is the shortest. The maximum pressure rise rate (MPRR) and the maximum heat release rate (MHRR) of FDF are higher than diesel, but lower than GDBF. At 1.4 MPa IMEP, the heat release turns to be obvious two-stage. In-cylinder pressure and heat release rate become similar for FDF and diesel fuel, their peak value of first-stage heat release rise rate is lower than that of GDBF. The in-cylinder pressure and the heat release rate curves at 0.8 MPa IMEP can be found in [15]. Fig. 3b shows the major combustion parameters of the three fuels at 1.4 MPa IMEP. It can be seen that FDF has shorter ignition delay than GDBF but longer than diesel fuel. Combustion duration for diesel fuel is shortest due to its higher cetane number. Both MPRR and MHRR of GDBF are highest in the three fuels, the combustion is fierce. But for FDF, the combustion becomes moderate at high load. This is favorable for suppressing knocking combustion and reducing the requirement on engine mechanical strength.

2384


14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

n=1600r/min IMEP=0.8MPa

22

FDF GDBF Diesel

20

10

n=1600r/min IMEP=1.4MPa

8

18

24 20

4

14

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

12

2

10

0

Combustion duration ˄°CA˅

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 MPRR

˄ MPa/°CA˅

FDF GDBF Diesel

6

16

Ignition delay ˄ °CA˅

28

16 Ignition delay ˄ °CA˅

1.0

12

Combustion duration ˄°CA˅

200

0.8

150

0.6 100 0.4 50

0.2 MHRR 3 ˄kJ/m /°CA˅

0.0

0 MPRR

˄ MPa/°CA˅

MHRR 3 ˄kJ/m /°CA˅

(a) (b) Fig. 3. Major combustion parameters, (a) at 0.8 MPa IMEP, (b) at 1.4 MPa IMEP

3.2.2 Thermal Efficiency, Fuel Consumption and Emission Characteristics Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b show indicated thermal efficiency and fuel economy (ISFC) of FDF, GDBF and diesel fuel plotted against engine load. FDF has higher efficiency than GDBF and diesel fuel. It’s worth noting that distillation temperature range of FDF covers both gasoline and diesel, so its thermal efficiency is the common thermal efficiency obtained by petroleum components of both gasoline boiling range and diesel boiling range. Take point of 0.8 MPa IMEP as an example in Fig. 4a, indicated thermal efficiency of typical gasoline engines is 33% [17], in the case of diesel it is 47%, if gasoline and diesel have similar mass yield in distillation process, the average indicated thermal efficiency for the two fuel separately used in gasoline and diesel engine modes is about 40%. However, the indicated thermal efficiency for FDF is almost 50%.

(a) (b) Fig. 4. (a) Indicated thermal efficiency versus engine load (b) ISFC versus engine load

Fig. 5 compares the emission characteristics of engine fueled with FDF and diesel fuel at different engine loads. Soot emissions are plotted in Fig. 5a, it can be seen that soot emissions of FDF and diesel are similar. There is 6670 ppm sulfur in FDF which cause about 0.1 g/kWh increase in PM emissions.[18] The emission restriction of Euro III and IV for PM are 0.1 g/kWh and 0.02 g/kWh, respectively. Therefore, FDF should have great potential on soot reduction than diesel fuel to reach more restricted emission regulation after desulfuration. NOx emissions of FDF and diesel are similar in the entire load range as shown in Fig. 5b. In the entire load range, CO emissions of FDF and diesel are similar, HC emission for FDF is slightly higher than diesel fuel. CO and HC emissions can be found in [15].

2385


1600

0.06

n=1600r/min

n=1600r/min FDF Diesel GDBF

1200 NOx(ppm)

0.04 soot(1/m)

1400

1000 800 600

FDF Diesel GDBF

0.02

400 200 0.00 0.4

0 0.6

0.8

1.0 1.2 IMEP (MPa)

1.4

1.6

0.5

1.0 IMEP (MPa)

1.5

(a) (b) Fig. 5. Emissions versus engine load (a) soot emissions (b) NOx emissions (c) CO emissions (d) THC emissions

4. Conclusions To overcome the drawback of using diesel in LTC, a new fuel concept called WDF was proposed in recent years. WDF refers to fuels with a wide distillation range from initial boiling point (IBP) of gasoline to final boiling point (FBP) of diesel. In this work, two kinds of WDF (GDBF and FDF) were studied for both short-term and long-term consideration. As a short-term solution, WDF by blending gasoline and diesel (GDBF) has been studied for years. In the first part of the work, we studied GDBF with different gasoline proportion (G30, G50, G70). After that, we compared G50 with diesel from medium and high load. 1. At low load low gasoline proportion is better because it has high combustion stability and thermal efficiency, at high load high gasoline proportion is better because of the low soot emissions, considering the whole operating range, G50 is the optimal choice due to the best load adaptability. 2. At the same NOx emissions level for Euro VI, G50 and diesel have similar ITE, G50 has the soot emissions around the target value of Euro V, while diesel has more than 10 times at high load. In the long term, it is not necessary to employ different distillation and refinery processes to produce gasoline and diesel fuels. A novel fuel named the Full Distillation Fuel (FDF) is proposed which is produced from a single distillation process covering the entire range for gasoline, kerosene, and diesel. The second part of the work is an exploration of the feasibility of FDF: an atmospheric distillation technique was used to produce FDF from Middle East medium crude oil. 1. FDF has the C/H ratio, density, and heat value between those of gasoline and diesel fuel; kinematic viscosity near to the lower limit of diesel; cetane number of 47.4. 2. Common rail diesel engine can work normally with FDF without any modifications for fuel supply system and the combustion, FDF combustion tends to be one-stage heat release at low load, and turns to be two-stage heat release at high load. The ignition delay, combustion duration keep constant compared to conventional diesel. 3. At same load condition, peak pressure rise rate and heat release rate of FDF are lower than those of GDBF but higher than those of diesel. 4. For all of tested loads from 0.5 to 1.4 MPa IMEP, indicated thermal efficiencies of FDF are more than 45%, higher than that of GDBF and diesel fuel. FDF significantly increase energy efficiency compared with the conventional approaches of using gasoline and diesel separately. 5. FDF combustion produces similar soot, NOx and CO emissions compared with that of diesel fuel. HC emissions of FDF are slightly higher than that of diesel, because FDF has long ignition delay and high volatility. FDF has potential on soot reduction than diesel fuel after desulfuration.

2386


Acknowledgements This work was sponsored by the National Key Basic Research Plan (Chinese ‘973’ Plan), under Grant No. 2013CB228404. References [1].

WANG Jianxin, WANG Zhi. Research progress of high efficient and clean combustion of automotive gasoline engines. J

[2].

Yu Chao, Wang Jian-xin, Wang Zhi, Shuai Shi-jin. Comparative study on Gasoline Homogeneous Charge Induced Ignition

[3].

Turner D, Tian GH, Xu HM, et al. An experimental study of dieseline combustion in a direct injection engine. SAE Paper

[4].

Han D, Ickes A M, Assanis D N, et al. Attainment and load extension of high-efficiency premixed low-temperature

[5].

Han D, Andrew M I, Stanislav V B, et al. Premixed low-temperature combustion of blends of diesel and gasoline in a high

[6].

Weall A, Collings N. Investigation into partially premixed combustion in a light-duty multi-cylinder diesel engine fuelled

[7].

ZhangF, Soheil ZR, et al. Combustion and emission characteristics of a PPCI engine fuelled with dieseline. SAE Paper

[8].

Fan Zhang and Soheil Zeraati Rezaei. Combustion and Emission Characteristics of a PPCI Engine fuelled with Dieseline.

[9].

Gerardo Valentino, Felice Corcione and Stefano Iannuzzi . Effects of Premixed Low Temperature Combustion of Fuel Blends

Automotive Safety and Energy.2010,1(3): 167̚178. (HCII) by diesel and Gasoline/Diesel Blend Fuels (GDBF) combustion. Fuel 106 (2013) 470–477 2009-01-1101. combustion with dieseline in a compression ignition engine. Energy & Fuels, 2010, 24(6): 3517-3525. speed compression ignition engine. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2011, 33: 3039̚3046. with a mixture of gasoline and diesel. SAE Paper 2007-01-4058. 2012-01-1138. SAE Paper 2012-01-1138 with High Resistance to Auto-ignition on Performances and Emissions in a High Speed Diesel Engine. SAE Paper 2011-24-0049 [10]. Simona Silvia Merola, Luca Marchitto, Felice Corcione, Gerardo Valentino and Cinzia Tornatore . Optical Investigation of Premixed Low-Temperature Combustion of Lighter Fuel Blends in Compression Ignition Engines. SAE Paper 2011-37-0003 [11]. Won H W, Pitsch H, Tait N, et al. Some effects of gasoline and diesel mixtures on partially premixed combustion and comparison with the practical fuels gasoline and diesel in a compression ignition engine. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 2012, 226(9): 1259-1270. [12]. Yang bin bin. Experimental Study on the Effects of Fuel Component and Injection Pressure on Combustion and Emissions of Wide Distillation Fuel. Journal of engineering thermophysics. Journal of Engineering Thermophysics, 2013.6: 042. [13]. Su Han Park a, In Mo Youn b, Yunsung Lim c, Chang Sik Lee . Influence of the mixture of gasoline and diesel fuels on droplet atomization, combustion, and exhaust emission characteristics in a compression ignition engine. Fuel Processing Technology 2013, 106:392–401. [14]. Jesus Benajes, Alberto Broatch, Antonio Garcia and Luisa Monico Muñoz . An Experimental Investigation of Diesel-Gasoline Blends Effects in a Direct-Injection Compression-Ignition Engine Operating in PCCI Conditions SAE Paper 2013-01-1676 [15]. Wang JX, Wang Z, Liu HY. Combustion and emission characteristics of direct injection compression ignition engine fueled with Full Distillation Fuel (FDF). Fuel, 2015,140:561-7. [16]. Kalghatgi GT. Auto-ignition quality of practical fuels and implications for fuel requirements of future SI and HCCI engines. SAE paper 2005-01-0239. [17]. Shen YT, Shuai SJ, Wang JX, et al. Effects of gasoline fuel properties on engine performance. SAE Paper 2008-01-0628. [18]. Chen WM, Wang JX, Shuai SJ. Effect of sulfur content in Diesel Fuel on Engine Performance. Chinese Internal Combustion Engine Engineering, 2008, 29(4): 41-45.


Biography Dr. Jianxin Wang is a director in the State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, China. He has 40+ years’ fundamental research and development experience on IC engine combustion, emission control and alternative fuels with 100+ technical papers published in journals and international conferences.

2387