Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPeng, Zhijun
dc.contributor.authorWang, Tianyou
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Yajun
dc.contributor.authorShu, Gequn
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-13T15:54:08Z
dc.date.available2017-09-13T15:54:08Z
dc.date.issued2014-08-31
dc.identifier.citationPeng , Z , Wang , T , Zhang , Y & Shu , G 2014 , ' Comparisons of system benefits and thermo-economics for exhaust energy recovery applied on a heavy-duty diesel engine and a light-duty vehicle gasoline engine ' , Energy Conversion and Management , vol. 84 , pp. 97-107 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.022
dc.identifier.issn0196-8904
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 9290087
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 174b267d-265e-452c-94cd-99346a793c5f
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84899630046
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/19355
dc.descriptionTianyou Wang, Yajun Zhang, Jie Zhang, Zhijun Peng, and Gequn Shu, 'Comparisons of system benefits and thermo-economics for exhaust energy recovery applied on a heavy-duty diesel engine and a light-duty vehicle gasoline engine', Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 84, pp. 97-107, August 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.022. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
dc.description.abstractExhaust energy recovery system (EERS) based on Rankine cycle (RC) in internal combustion engines have been studied mainly on heavy-duty diesel engines (D) and light-duty vehicle gasoline engines (G), however, little information available on systematical comparisons and evaluations between the two applications, which is a particularly necessary summary for clarifying the differences. In this paper, the two particular systems are compared quantitatively using water, R141b, R123 and R245fa as working fluids. The influences of evaporating pressure, engine type and load on the system performances are analyzed with multi-objectives, including the thermal efficiency improvement, the reduced CO2 emission, the total heat transfer area per net power output (APP), the electricity production cost (EPC) and the payback period (PBP). The results reveal that higher pressure and engine load would be attractive for better performances. R141b shows the best performances in system benefits for the D-EERS, while water exhibits the largest contributions in the G-EERS. Besides, water performs the best thermo-economics, and R245fa serves as the most uneconomical fluid. The D-EERS presents superior to the G-EERS in the economic applicability as well as much more CO2 emission reductions, although with slightly lower thermal efficiency improvement, and only the D-EERS with water under the full load meets the economic demand. Therefore the EERS based on RC serve more applicable on the heavy-duty diesel engine, while it might be feasible for the light-duty vehicle gasoline engine as the state-of-the art technologies are developed in the future.en
dc.format.extent11
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofEnergy Conversion and Management
dc.titleComparisons of system benefits and thermo-economics for exhaust energy recovery applied on a heavy-duty diesel engine and a light-duty vehicle gasoline engineen
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Engineering and Technology
dc.contributor.institutionCentre for Engineering Research
dc.contributor.institutionSustainable Energy Technologies
dc.contributor.institutionScience & Technology Research Institute
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dcterms.dateAccepted2014-08-31
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.022
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record