Comparing Expanders for Direct Recovery of Exhaust Energy From a Low-Heat-Rejection Diesel

[+] Author and Article Information
C. A. Amann

General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, MI 48090-9057

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 109(4), 396-401 (Oct 01, 1987) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3240054 History: Received December 05, 1986; Online October 15, 2009


Part-load performance of a compound low-heat-rejection (LHR) engine is estimated at constant speed. The engine consists of an LHR diesel reciprocator geared to a supercharging compressor and an exhaust expander. Two classes of expander differing substantially in both flow characteristics and energy-extraction principles are ranked: aerodynamic (reaction turbine) and positive-displacement (internal expansion). To focus the comparison on differences in fundamental expander characteristics rather than differences in efficiency levels among specific samples of each type of expander, each is assigned an efficiency of 100 percent at its best-efficiency point. Although differences in fundamental characteristics between the expanders were sufficient to rank them on a performance basis, these differences were largely overshadowed by the magnitude of the indicated work developed in the reciprocator relative to the work developed by the expander.

Copyright © 1987 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.






Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In