期刊首页 优先出版 当期阅读 过刊浏览 作者中心 关于期刊 English

《能源前沿(英文)》 >> 2019年 第13卷 第3期 doi: 10.1007/s11708-018-0557-z

Optimization of the power, efficiency and ecological function for an air-standard irreversible Dual-Miller cycle

. Institute of Thermal Science and Power Engineering, Naval University of Engineering, Wuhan 430033, China.. Military Key Laboratory for Naval Ship?Power Engineering, Naval University of Engineering, Wuhan 430033, China.. College of Power Engineering, Naval University of Engineering, Wuhan 430033, China

录用日期: 2018-05-02 发布日期: 2018-05-02

下一篇 上一篇

摘要

This paper establishes an irreversible Dual-Miller cycle (DMC) model with the heat transfer (HT) loss, friction loss (FL) and other internal irreversible losses. To analyze the effects of the cut-off ratio ( ) and Miller cycle ratio ( ) on the power output ( ), thermal efficiency ( ) and ecological function ( ), obtain the optimal and optimal , and compare the performance characteristics of DMC with its simplified cycles and with different optimization objective functions, the , and of irreversible DMC are analyzed and optimized by applying the finite time thermodynamic (FTT) theory. Expressions of , and are derived. The relationships among , , and compression ratio ( ) are obtained by numerical examples. The effects of and on , , , maximum power output ( ), maximum efficiency ( ) and maximum ecological function ( ) are analyzed. Performance differences among the DMC, the Otto cycle (OC), the Dual cycle (DDC), and the Otto-Miller cycle (OMC) are compared for fixed design parameters. Performance characteristics of irreversible DMC with the choice of , and as optimization objective functions are analyzed and compared. The results show that the irreversible DMC engine can reach a twice-maximum power, a twice-maximum efficiency, and a twice-maximum ecological function, respectively. Moreover, when choosing as the optimization objective, there is a 5.2% of improvement in while there is a drop of only 2.7% in compared to choosing as the optimization objective. However, there is a 5.6% of improvement in while there is a drop of only 1.3% in compared to choosing as the optimization objective.

相关研究