Combustion and emissions of RP-3 jet fuel and diesel fuel in a single-cylinder diesel engine

Abstract

The combustion characteristics and emission behaviors of RP-3 jet fuel were studied and compared to commercial diesel fuel in a single-cylinder compression ignition (CI) engine. Engine operational parameters, including engine load (0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 MPa indicating the mean effective pressure (IMEP)), the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) rate (0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%), and the fuel injection timing (−20, −15, −10, and −5 ° crank angle (CA) after top dead center (ATDC)) were adjusted to evaluate the engine performances of RP-3 jet fuel under changed operation conditions. In comparison to diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel shows a retarded heat release and lagged combustion phase, which is more obvious under heavy EGR rate conditions. In addition, the higher premixed combustion fraction of RP-3 jet fuel leads to a higher first-stage heat release peak than diesel fuel under all testing conditions. As a result, RP-3 jet fuel features a longer ignition delay (ID) time, a shorter combustion duration (CD), and an earlier CA50 than diesel fuel. The experimental results manifest that RP-3 jet fuel has a slightly lower indicated thermal efficiency (ITE) compared to diesel fuel, but the ITE difference becomes less noticeable under large EGR rate conditions. Compared with diesel fuel, the nitrogen oxides (NO_x) emissions of RP-3 jet fuel are higher while its soot emissions are lower. The NO_x emissions of RP-3 can be effectively reduced with the increased EGR rate and delayed injection timing.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

RP-3 jet fuel / diesel / engine / combustion / emissions

1 Introduction

Compression ignition (CI) engines burning diesel fuel have such advantages as higher thermal efficiency and higher power output, compared to spark ignition engines that burn gasoline fuels [1–3]. However, CI engines produce more nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and soot emissions, driving people to develop advanced engine operational strategies [4,5], and seek alternative fuels with less tendency to jeopardize environment and human health [6,7]. High-volatility middle-distillation petroleum fuels, e.g., kerosene [8–10], are sometimes used together with advanced engine combustion strategies to control gaseous and particulate emissions. Additionally, these middle-distillation kerosene fuels could also be used for some ground transportation vehicles in the single fuel concept to simplify fuel supply chain [11–14]. These demands of kerosene use for ground transportation engines have led to continuous studies on performance, fuel economy, and emissions features of kerosene in CI engines in the past few decades [15–20].

Some recent works that investigated the combustion characteristics and emissions behaviors of kerosene in modern CI engines are summarized here. These works cover fuel injection and spray performance, engine combustion processes, and emissions characteristics. Duan et al. [21] compared the injection rate histories of an aviation kerosene and a biodiesel fuel on a diesel engine common rail system, and reported that the jet fuel produced a lower mass injection rate due to its lower density. Park et al. [22] reported that the vaporizing sprays of jet propellant-8 (JP-8) at non-reacting conditions are generally similar with diesel fuel, but the spray penetration distance of JP-8 fuel is slightly shorter than diesel at low gas densities. Yu et al. [23] used a piezoelectric injector to study the spray and atomization behaviors of kerosene, and compared the results with diesel. They concluded that the spray penetration of kerosene is shorter than that of diesel. Based on an optical constant volume combustion chamber, Jing et al. [24] experimentally studied the Jet-A fuel combustion characteristics at varied initial temperatures and oxygen concentrations. They compared the results with diesel fuel and found that the flame development of these two fuels is almost the same, while Jet-A fuel is more sensitive to the variation of ambient conditions.

More researchers directly compare the engine performance of kerosene and diesel fuels. Volgin et al. [25] indicated that ignition quality and lubricity are primary control parameters when using kerosene in diesel engines, and necessary additives are required when using kerosene. Based on an optical heavy-duty engine, Lee et al. [12,26] found JP-8 produces a shorter combustion duration (CD), higher NO_x emissions, and a lower soot formation than diesel fuel. They attributed these observations to the higher vaporization of kerosene, as higher volatility could promote fuel and air mixing, which elevates flame temperatures but reduces locally fuel-rich regions favorable for soot formation. Similar observations between kerosene and diesel fuels were also found in an engine with split fuel injection strategies [27]. It is stated that the combination of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and optimized injection strategies could reduce NO_x and particulate matter (PM) by 50% without sacrificing fuel efficiency [28]. Lee and Jeong [29] used diesel, biodiesel, kerosene, and kerosene-based jet propellant fuels (JP-5 and JP-8) as fuels for a single-cylinder diesel engine and compared their combustion characteristics and emission behaviors. They found that the ignition delay (ID) times of kerosene, JP-5, and JP-8 were longer than those of the other fuels. Besides, the in-cylinder pressure peak and the heat release rate (HRR) peak of these three fuels were the highest. Uyumaz et al. [30] used JP-8/biodiesel blends as the test fuels in a single-cylinder CI engine. The engine performance and exhaust emissions were found to be improved with the use of fuel blends. Labeckas et al. [31] systematically studied the engine performance fueled with Jet A-1 with addition of various percentages of cetane improver. Chiatti et al. [32] added Jet-A fuel to diesel/biodiesel blends to evaluate the fuel effects on combustion process improvement and emissions reduction. Yu et al. [20] studied engine combustion and PM emissions when Jet A-1 fuel was used in a diesel engine. It was reported that jet fuel and diesel had similar particle size distribution behaviors at changed engine loads.

As summarized above, many studies focused on the application potential of JP-8 or Jet-A fuels in the CI engines, but the potential of RP-3 kerosene fuels that are widely used in China, has not been systematically evaluated for CI engines [33,34]. Table 1 lists the chemical compositions of four aviation fuels (Jet-A, JP-5, JP-8, and RP-3), and RP-3 jet fuel shows a quite different composition compared to the other three fuels. Considering the differences in the chemical compositions and physicochemical properties of different kerosene fuels, the engine combustion and emission characteristics of Chinese RP-3 jet fuel were studied in a single-cylinder CI engine, and the results were compared to the commercial diesel fuel. Operational parameters, including engine load, EGR rate, and fuel injection timing were adjusted to evaluate the performance of RP-3 jet fuel at varied engine conditions.

2 Experimental methods

2.1 Experimental bench and measurement facilities

A naturally-aspirated single-cylinder CI engine, whose schematic is shown in Fig. 1, was used for the engine tests. The test engine has a compression ratio of 17 and a displacement of 1.933 L, with a ω-type combustion chamber. Equipped with a common-rail fuel injection system, the fuel injection pressure and timing can be flexibly adjusted, and the maximum injection pressure can reach 160 MPa. Table 2 lists more specifications of the experiment engine.

An AVL12QP in-cylinder pressure transducer was used to measure the instantaneous chamber pressure and a charge amplifier (Kistler 5007) was used to amplify the signal. The fuel consumption rate was recorded by the FC2210 fuel consumption meter with a relative uncertainty of ±1%. The NO_x and soot emissions were measured by Uninox24V (Continental AG, measurement uncertainty: ±1%) and PPS-M (Pegasor Ltd., measurement uncertainty: ±0.1%), respectively. More specifications of the measurement facilities are summarized in Table 3.

2.2 Test fuels

Market sale No. 0 diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel were used in the engine test, whose properties are listed and compared in Table 4. It is noted that the two test fuels have comparative lower heat values, but diesel fuel has a higher density, viscosity, and surface tension. In addition, diesel fuel has a cetane number (CN) of 57.5, about 13 points higher than that of RP-3 jet fuel, indicating a higher auto-ignition tendency of diesel fuel.

2.3 Test procedure and data analysis

Engine tests were conducted under steady-state conditions, and the coefficient of variation of indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) and maximum pressure rise rate of the two test fuels were controlled below 5% and 1 MPa/°CA, respectively. Besides, the coolant temperature and oil temperature were set and held at (80±2)°C and (60±2)°C, respectively. A single fuel injection strategy was employed, with the injection pressure maintained at 80 MPa. To achieve the target IMEP, the injection pulse was changed during the experiment. For all the test conditions, the engine speed was fixed at 1100 r/min. To study fuel combustion characteristics under changed engine operational conditions, the engine load was changed from 0.6 to 0.8 MPa IMEP, the EGR rate was varied from 0% to 30%, and fuel injection timing was adjusted from −20 to −5° crank angle (CA) after top dead center (ATDC). Table 5 summarizes the experimental conditions.

The averaged pressure trace of 50 consecutive cycles was used to derive and analyze the in-cylinder combustion indicators, such as HRR traces and combustion phase indicators. To perform the HRR analysis, the crevice flow effects were neglected, and as such the ideal gas hypothesis was applied to the in-cylinder gas. Based on the first law of thermodynamics, the apparent HRR of the combustion process was calculated by using [39]

(1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}Q}{\mathrm{d}t}}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{k-\mathrm{1}}}p{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{1}}{k-\mathrm{1}}}V{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}p}{\mathrm{d}t}},

where Q is the released heat (J), t is the crank angle (°CA), k is the specific heat ratio, p is the cylinder pressure (Pa), and V is the cylinder volume (m³).

The indicated thermal efficiency (ITE) was calculated by using

(2){\eta }_{\mathrm{i}}={\displaystyle \frac{W_{\mathrm{i}}}{m_{\mathrm{f}}\times H_{\mathrm{u}}}},

where W_i is the indicated work (J), m_f represents the mass of injected fuel (kg), and H_u is the calorific value of test fuel (J/kg).

Uncertainties of the measured parameter R were determined by using

(3)R=R(x_{\mathrm{1}},x_{\mathrm{2}},...,x_n),

(4)U_R\mathrm{=}{\left[{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\partial R}{\partial x_{\mathrm{1}}}}{U}_{x_{\mathrm{1}}}\right)}^{\mathrm{2}}+{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\partial R}{\partial x_{\mathrm{2}}}}{U}_{x_{\mathrm{2}}}\right)}^{\mathrm{2}}+\cdots +{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\partial R}{\partial x_n}}{U}_{x_n}\right)}^{\mathrm{2}}\right]}^{\mathrm{1}/\mathrm{2}},

where R is a parameter calculated by the independent variables x_1,x₂, …, x_n, the uncertainties of which are U_{x_{\mathrm{1}}}, U_{x_{\mathrm{2}}},…, U_{x_n}, respectively. Table 6 listed the uncertainties of the instruments and measurements.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Comparison of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel at varied loads

In CI engines, premixed combustion and diffusion combustion are two common combustion modes, which have a significant influence on the engine performance. The measured chamber pressure and derived HRR traces of commercial diesel and RP-3 jet fuel at different engine loads (0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 MPa IMEP) are compared and demonstrated in Fig. 2. The EGR valve remained closed in these experiments, with a constant engine speed of 1100 r/min and a fixed injection timing of −10°CA ATDC. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the pressure traces of the two test fuels are generally similar at different loads, and the peak pressure rises with increased IMEP. However, compared to diesel, RP-3 jet fuel has a slightly later pressure rise phase, indicating its lower auto-ignition tendency. Pressure peaks of these two fuels are generally the same, which may be attributed to their close lower heating values.

As for the HRR traces, RP-3 jet fuel exhibits a slightly retarded heat release process compared with diesel fuel, and a two-stage heat release process is observed for both fuels. These two stages of heat release correspond to the premixed burn and diffusion burn, respectively. After being injected into the cylinder, diesel fuel ignites quickly due to its high CN, resulting in a lower premixed burn and lower first-stage heat release peak. Compared to diesel, RP-3 jet fuel features a lower CN, kinematic viscosity, and surface tension, causing a longer and improved fuel-air mixing process. Therefore, RP-3 jet fuel displays a higher first-stage heat release peak. Additionally, with increased IMEP, the first-stage heat release peak reduces, and more fuel is consumed in the diffusion combustion, caused by the increase of injected fuel amount.

The combustion characteristics can be further revealed by combustion indicators as IDID time, CD, and CA50 timing, all of which are depicted in Fig. 3. CA50 indicates the CA when 50% fuel mass fraction is burned, and CA10 and CA90 represent the crank angles at which 10% and 90% of fuel mass are burned. Further, ID represents the CA interval from fuel injection timing to CA10, and CD is the interval between CA10 and CA90. Figure 3(a) demonstrates that diesel fuel presents a slightly shorter ID than RP-3 jet fuel for all the test conditions. As is generally accepted, the fuel auto-ignition characteristic is reflected by its CN, and a lower CN would result in a longer ID time [40,41]. Due to its lower CN and longer ID, RP-3 jet fuel has a higher premixed combustion fraction and consequently a higher first-stage HRR peak. Figure 3(b) exhibits that RP-3 jet fuel has a shorter CD, indicating its shorter diffusion combustion. Moreover, with increasing IMEP, the CD of the two fuels rises gradually due to the increasing amount of injected fuel. Compared with diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel shows an advanced CA50 in Fig. 3(c), implying its higher burn rate. In spite of its longer ID, the premixed burn fraction of RP-3 jet fuel is higher than that of diesel, leading to a higher combustion rate and thus an earlier CA50.

The ITE of the two fuels is displayed and compared in Fig. 4. The ITE decreases with the increase of IMEP. The reason for this is that the test conditions (0.6–0.8 MPa IMEP) in this study are all at middle to high loads, featuring relatively higher equivalence ratios and longer CDs. With increased IMEP, the heat release duration extends, resulting in a longer combustion process and hence a lower ITE. Moreover, the higher combustion temperature at a high engine loads leads to an increased heat transfer loss, consequently decreasing the ITE [33]. The comparison between these two fuels suggests that RP-3 jet fuel has a slightly lower ITE and the reasons are as follows. RP-3 jet fuel features a higher premixed burn and releases more energy prior to the top dead center (TDC) than diesel, resulting in less contribution to power output and hence lower ITE. With increased IMEP, the premixed combustion of RP-3 jet fuel is reduced and an energy loss before TDC decreases, and as such the ITE of RP-3 jet fuel rises slightly.

The nitrogen oxides and soot emissions of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel at varied IMEPs are plotted in Fig. 5. Figure 5(a) illustrates that NO_x emissions of these two fuels show an increasing trend with increased engine load. It is known that NO_x is prone to form under high temperature conditions. The increased engine load causes a higher combustion temperature and hence increased NO_x emissions. In comparison to diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel has a higher premixed burn. Therefore, the peak combustion temperature of RP-3 jet fuel is higher, contributing to its relatively higher NO_x emissions. The results in the Ref. [42] also support this observation. In Fig. 5(b), it is apparently observed that soot emissions increase with engine load. The reason for this is that higher loads lead to a longer diffusion combustion, and increased fuel injection amount produces more fuel-rich zones, which are beneficial for soot formation. In comparison to diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel produces lower soot emissions due to its higher fraction of premixed combustion. In addition, the longer ID and higher volatility of RP-3 jet fuel lead to an improved fuel/air mixing process, which contributes to the reduced fuel-rich region formation.

3.2 Comparison of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel at varied EGR rates

The measured chamber pressure and derived HRR traces of commercial diesel and RP-3 jet fuel at different EGR rates (0%–30%) are compared and presented in Fig. 6. The IMEP, speed, and injection timing were maintained at 0.7 MPa, 1100 r/min, and −10°CA ATDC, respectively. With the EGR rate increasing, the pressure peaks of these two fuels gradually decrease. The reason for this is that the EGR strategy introduces exhaust gas into the cylinder, which greatly increases the charge specific heat, thus reducing the flame temperature and decreasing the combustion process. Further, RP-3 jet fuel exhibits a significantly lagged pressure rise phase and heat release with increased EGR rate, implying that the auto-ignition characteristic of RP-3 jet fuel is more likely to be influenced by the ambient parameters, such as chamber temperature and oxygen concentration. With increased EGR rate, the two-stage heat release process of both fuels gradually changes to the single-stage process. This is because with the EGR introduction, the fuel-air mixture reactivity is reduced, thus producing a longer ID period and allowing for more fuel and charge mixing. The increased fuel mixing leads to an increased premixed burn in the cylinder. Therefore, the first-stage HRR peak increases, and as such the second-stage HRR peak decreases. Different from diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel has a more obvious single-stage heat release in Figs. 6(c) and 6(d).

Figure 7 shows the ID, CD, and CA50 of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel. The IDs of these two fuels increase with the EGR rate in Fig. 7(a), presumably due to the decreased in-cylinder temperature. In comparison to diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel shows a longer ID due to its lower CN and weaker ignition propensity. Further, the difference in ID between these two fuels becomes more significant with increased EGR rate, again showing that RP-3 jet fuel is more easily to be influenced by the ambient conditions [43]. Figure 7(b) demonstrates that the CDs of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel increase with the EGR rate. In addition, it is noted that with the EGR rate rising from 0% to 30%, the CD difference between these two fuels increases from 4°CA to 7°CA, indicating that the burning rate of diesel fuel is reduced more rapidly. This is supported by the stronger first-stage HRR of RP-3 jet fuel as shown in Fig. 6, where the peak of which increases rapidly with the EGR rate. The comparison of CA50 for the two fuels, as shown in Fig. 7(c), also proves the faster combustion of RP-3 jet fuel, in which RP-3 jet fuel shows an earlier CA50.

Figure 8 illustrates the ITE of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel. An increased EGR rate leads to a decrease in combustion temperature and a decrease of the combustion process, resulting in the decrease of ITE. In addition, RP-3 jet fuel shows a lower ITE than diesel but the difference becomes less significant at large EGR rates. The reason for this is that EGR prolongs the ID of RP-3 jet fuel and enhances the premixed combustion stage, and as a result, RP-3 jet fuel exhibits a more intense heat release process right after TDC, contributing to a higher work output. Therefore, the ITE of RP-3 jet fuel at large EGR rates increases, with the difference between the two fuels being insignificant.

The nitrogen oxides and soot emissions of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel at varied EGR rates are shown in Fig. 9. The NO_x emissions show a decreasing trend with an increasing EGR rate as shown in Fig. 9(a), apparently owing to the decreased chamber temperature. RP-3 jet fuel generates higher NO_x emissions than diesel under all EGR conditions, but the difference becomes less significant with increased EGR rate, implying that the change of temperature and oxygen concentration has more significant effects on NO_x emissions of RP-3 jet fuel. In Fig. 9(b), soot emissions significantly rise with increased EGR rate for both fuels.

In comparison to diesel, RP-3 jet fuel has lower soot emissions due to its less diffusion combustion and improved fuel/air mixing process, and soot emission difference between these two fuels becomes more obvious with increased EGR rate. Figure 10 shows the relationship between NO_x, soot, and thermal efficiency of diesel and RP-3 jet fuel at changed EGR rates. With increased EGR rate, the NO_x emissions and thermal efficiency of the two fuels decrease gradually, while soot emissions increase. Compared to diesel fuel, the NO_x and soot emissions of RP-3 jet fuel are lower under the large EGR rate condition. Experimental results as such reveal that the NO_x and soot trade-off relation for RP-3 jet fuel is less pronounced than those of diesel, and a similar phenomenon is observed for the NO_x-efficiency relationship.

3.3 Comparison of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel at varied fuel injection timings

The measured chamber pressure and derived HRR traces of commercial diesel and RP-3 jet fuel at different injection timings (−20, −15, −10, and −5°CA ATDC) are compared and shown in Fig. 11. The IMEP and engine speed were fixed at 0.7 MPa and 1100 r/min, respectively, and the EGR valve was closed. In Fig. 11(a), the peak cylinder pressure shows a gradually decreasing trend with delayed injection timing. When fuel is injected at −5°CA ATDC, the pressure rise phase of the two test fuels is quite different, and RP-3 jet fuel shows an apparent retarded combustion process. With delaying injection timing in Fig. 11(b), the HRR changes from a single-stage heat-releasing process to a two-stage one, which is more apparent at the −5°CA ATDC injection timing. In contrast to diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel demonstrates a higher first-stage HRR under all the conditions owing to its higher premixed combustion.

Figure 12 compares the ID, CD, and CA50 of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel at different fuel injection timings. The ID of the two fuels decreases with delayed injection timing, owing to the increased initial temperature as the piston moves toward TDC. The high temperature is beneficial for fuel auto-ignition and hence shortens the ID. In Fig. 12(b), RP-3 jet fuel demonstrates a shorter CD than diesel due to its higher premixed burn and shorter diffusion combustion. In contrast to diesel, RP-3 jet fuel features a later but higher first-stage heat release, a higher burning rate, and hence exhibits an earlier CA50 as shown in Fig. 12(c).

In Fig. 13, the ITE when burning the two fuels is shown and compared. As the injection timing delays, the ITE first increases and then decreases. Compared to the earliest injection timing condition (–20°CA ATDC), when the fuel is injected into the cylinder 5°CA later, the heat release lags, and less energy is released before TDC, contributing to the work output and increasing the ITE. In addition, the decreased combustion temperature also leads to a less heat transfer loss in engine combustion. When the fuel is injected at −5°CA ATDC, the longer CD causes more energy to be released during the power stroke, leading to a reduced ITE. In comparison to diesel, RP-3 jet fuel always shows a slightly lower ITE. Additionally, the difference between these two test fuels does not change significantly with changed injection timing.

The NO_x and soot emissions of diesel fuel and RP-3 jet fuel at varied injection timings are shown in Fig. 14. Figure 14(a) illustrates that the delayed fuel injection timing leads to a reduction of NO_x emissions. The delay of fuel injection timing results in a lower premixed burn and thus a lower in-cylinder temperature, which reduces NO_x formation. Soot emissions decrease first and then increase with delayed injection timing. When the fuel injection timing is −15°CA ATDC, the temperature when auto-ignition starts is higher than that under the −20°CA ATDC condition. In spite of the reduced premixed burn at retarded injection timing, the elevated temperature contributes to fuel vaporization and mixing, which decreases the soot emissions [44]. As fuel injection timing continues to delay, the heat release duration extends, and diffusion combustion increases, resulting in increased soot emissions. Besides, soot emissions difference between the two fuels becomes more significant with delayed injection timing. Figure 15 shows the relationship between NO_x, soot, and thermal efficiency, in which RP-3 jet fuel once more exhibits its potential for alleviating the NO_x-soot trade-off relationship.

4 Conclusions

Combustion and emissions features of RP-3 jet fuel on a CI engine was experimentally studied at changed engine loads, EGR rates, and fuel injection timings. The following conclusions can be reached.

RP-3 jet fuel and diesel fuel both feature a two-stage heat release process in engine combustion, and the first-stage HRR peak of RP-3 jet fuel is higher. With increased EGR rate and advanced fuel injection timing, the single-stage heat release process gradually occurs. Compared to diesel fuel, the combustion process of RP-3 jet fuel is more sensitive to changes in operation conditions.

In contrast to diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel features a longer ID time and retarded combustion phase. The higher fraction of premixed burn of RP-3 jet fuel contributes to a higher burning rate, and as such RP-3 jet fuel shows a shorter CD and an earlier CA50 than diesel fuel. The ITE of RP-3 jet fuel is slightly lower than that of diesel fuel, but the difference decreases at large EGR rates.

RP-3 jet fuel produces higher NO_x emissions in comparison to diesel, and this higher NO_x emission could be effectively controlled by the increased EGR rate and delayed fuel injection timing. In contrast, the soot emissions of RP-3 jet fuel are lower, and the difference between these two fuels becomes increasingly apparent with increased EGR rate. Compared to diesel fuel, RP-3 jet fuel demonstrates a less pronounced NO_x-soot trade-off relation.

RP-3 jet fuel can be used in CI engines without any modifications to the engine structure. Engine thermal efficiency when fueled with RP-3 jet fuel is comparable to that of diesel fuel, and engine-out emissions could be controlled to below or close to those when burning diesel fuel.

References

[1] Hoseini S S, Sobati M A. Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine operating on different water in diesel emulsion fuels: optimization using response surface methodology (RSM). Frontiers in Energy, 2019, 13(4): 636–657

[2] Wei H, Yu J, Zhou L. Improvement of engine performance with high compression ratio based on knock suppression using Miller cycle with boost pressure and split injection. Frontiers in Energy, 2019, 13(4): 691–706

[3] Liang X, Zhang J, Li Z, Effects of fuel combination and IVO timing on combustion and emissions of a dual-fuel HCCI combustion engine. Frontiers in Energy, 2020, 14(4): 778–789

[4] Zheng Z, Yue L, Liu H, Effect of two-stage injection on combustion and emissions under high EGR rate on a diesel engine by fueling blends of diesel/gasoline, diesel/n-butanol, diesel/gasoline/n-butanol and pure diesel. Energy Conversion and Management, 2015, 90: 1–11

[5] Liu H, Zhang P, Liu X, Laser diagnostics and chemical kinetic analysis of PAHs and soot in co-flow partially premixed flames using diesel surrogate and oxygenated additives of n-butanol and DMF. Combustion and Flame, 2018, 188: 129–141

[6] Chen H, Xie B, Ma J, NO_x emission of biodiesel compared to diesel: higher or lower. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2018, 137: 584–593

[7] Chen H, Su X, Li J, Zhong X. Effects of gasoline and polyoxymethylene dimethyl ethers blending in diesel on the combustion and emission of a common rail diesel engine. Energy, 2019, 171: 981–999

[8] Dagaut P, Cathonnet M. The ignition, oxidation, and combustion of kerosene: a review of experimental and kinetic modeling. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2006, 32(1): 48–92

[9] Lu Y, Pan J, Fan B, Research on the application of aviation kerosene in a direct injection rotary engine–Part 1: fundamental spray characteristics and optimized injection strategies. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 195: 519–532

[10] Lu Y, Pan J, Fan B, Research on the application of aviation kerosene in a direct injection rotary engine–Part 2: spray combustion characteristics and combustion process under optimized injection strategies. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 203: 112217

[11] Bowden J N, Westbrook S R, LePera M E. Jet kerosene fuels for military diesel application. Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 1989, 4: 810–832

[12] Lee J, Bae C. Application of JP-8 in a heavy duty diesel engine. Fuel, 2011, 90(5): 1762–1770

[13] Shi Z, Lee C F, Wu H, Optical diagnostics of low-temperature ignition and combustion characteristics of diesel/kerosene blends under cold-start conditions. Applied Energy, 2019, 251: 113307

[14] Lin Tay K, Yu W, Zhao F, From fundamental study to practical application of kerosene in compression ignition engines: an experimental and modeling review. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part D, Journal of Automobile Engineering, 2020, 234(2–3): 303–333

[15] 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

[16] Bayındır H, Zerrakki Işık M, Aydın H. Evaluation of combustion, performance and emission indicators of canola oil-kerosene blends in a power generator diesel engine. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017, 114: 234–244

[17] Chen G, Gamble J N, McAndrew D W, Analytical and experimental investigation of medium-speed diesel engine using a kerosene fuel. In: Proceedings of ASME 2006 Internal Combustion Engine Division Spring Technical Conference, Aachen, Germany, 2008

[18] Tay K L, Yang W, Zhao F, A numerical study on the effects of boot injection rate-shapes on the combustion and emissions of a kerosene-diesel fueled direct injection compression ignition engine. Fuel, 2017, 203: 430–444

[19] Tay K L, Yang W, Zhao F, Numerical investigation on the combined effects of varying piston bowl geometries and ramp injection rate-shapes on the combustion characteristics of a kerosene-diesel fueled direct injection compression ignition engine. Energy Conversion and Management, 2017, 136: 1–10

[20] Yu W, Zong Y, Lin Q, Experimental study on engine combustion and particle size distributions fueled with Jet A-1. Fuel, 2020, 263: 116747

[21] Duan Y, Han D, Li P, Experimental study on injection and macroscopic spray characteristics of ethyl oleate, jet fuel, and their blend on a diesel engine common rail system. Atomization and Sprays, 2015, 25(9): 777–793

[22] Park Y, Bae C, Mounaïm-Rousselle C, 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

[23] Yu W, Yang W, Tay K, Macroscopic spray characteristics of kerosene and diesel based on two different piezoelectric and solenoid injectors. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 2016, 76: 12–23

[24] Jing W, Roberts W L, Fang T. Spray combustion of Jet-A and diesel fuels in a constant volume combustion chamber. Energy Conversion and Management, 2015, 89: 525–540

[25] Volgin S N, Belov I V, Likhterova N M, Feasibility study for using jet fuel in diesel engines. Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils, 2019, 55(3): 243–258

[26] Lee J, Oh H, Bae C. Combustion process of JP-8 and fossil diesel fuel in a heavy duty diesel engine using two-color thermometry. Fuel, 2012, 102: 264–273

[27] Lee H. Biodiesel, HSD, and JP-8 combustion process and emission characteristics in a dual-stage fuel injection condition. International Journal of Energy and Power Engineering, 2014, 3(4): 209–216

[28] Lee J, Lee J, Chu S, Emission reduction potential in a light-duty diesel engine fueled by JP-8. Energy, 2015, 89: 92–99

[29] Lee H, Jeong Y. Diesel (ULSD, LSD, and HSD), biodiesel, kerosene, and military jet propellants (JP-5 and JP-8) applications and their combustion visualization in a single cylinder diesel engine. Naval Engineers Journal, 2016, 128(4): 97–106

[30] Uyumaz A, Solmaz H, Yılmaz E, Experimental examination of the effects of military aviation fuel JP-8 and biodiesel fuel blends on the engine performance, exhaust emissions and combustion in a direct injection engine. Fuel Processing Technology, 2014, 128: 158–165

[31] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S, Vilutiene V. Combustion, performance and emission characteristics of diesel engine operating on Jet fuel treated with cetane improver. In: Engineering for Rural Development International Scientific Conference, Jelgava, Latvia, 2013

[32] Chiatti G, Chiavola O, Palmieri F. Impact on combustion and emissions of jet fuel as additive in diesel engine fueled with blends of petrol diesel, renewable diesel and waste cooking oil biodiesel. Energies, 2019, 12(13): 2488

[33] Chen L, Ding S, Liu H, Comparative study of combustion and emissions of kerosene (RP-3), kerosene-pentanol blends and diesel in a compression ignition engine. Applied Energy, 2017, 203: 91–100

[34] Chen L, Raza M, Xiao J. Combustion analysis of an aviation compression ignition engine burning pentanol-kerosene blends under different injection timings. Energy & Fuels, 2017, 31(9): 9429–9437

[35] Kang D, Kim D, Kalaskar V, Experimental characterization of jet fuels under engine relevant conditions–Part 1: effect of chemical composition on autoignition of conventional and alternative jet fuels. Fuel, 2019, 239: 1388–1404

[36] Wu Z, Mao Y, Raza M, Surrogate fuels for RP-3 kerosene formulated by emulating molecular structures, functional groups, physical and chemical properties. Combustion and Flame, 2019, 208: 388–401

[37] ASTM International. ASTM D7668–14 standard test method for determination of derived cetane number (DCN) of diesel fuel oils–ignition delay and combustion delay using a constant volume combustion chamber method. 2014, available at the website of astm.org

[38] Zhao Y, He X, Li M, Ignition, efficiency and emissions of RP-3 kerosene in a three-staged multi-injection combustor. Fuel Processing Technology, 2021, 213: 106635

[39] John B H. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2018

[40] Han D, Zhai J, Huang Z. Autoignition of n-hexane, cyclohexane, and methylcyclohexane in a constant volume combustion chamber. Energy & Fuels, 2019, 33(4): 3576–3583

[41] Duan Y, Liu W, Huang Z, An experimental study on spray auto-ignition of RP-3 jet fuel and its surrogates. Frontiers in Energy, 2021, 15(2): 396–404

[42] Wang J, An M, Yin B, Combustion and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with diesel–rocket propellant-3 wide distillation blended fuels. Journal of Energy Engineering, 2020, 146(4): 04020025

[43] Ren Z, Liu W, Huang Z, Spray auto-ignition behaviors of diesel and jet fuel at reduced oxygen environments. Combustion Science and Technology, 2020

[44] Liu H, Ma S, Zhang Z, Study of the control strategies on soot reduction under early-injection conditions on a diesel engine. Fuel, 2015, 139: 472–481

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press