0
Research Papers: Fuel Combustion

Grid-Convergent Spray Models for Internal Combustion Engine Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations

[+] Author and Article Information
P. K. Senecal

Convergent Science, Inc.,
6405 Century Avenue, Suite 102,
Middleton, WI 53562
e-mail: senecal@convergecfd.com

E. Pomraning, K. J. Richards

Convergent Science, Inc.,
6405 Century Avenue, Suite 102,
Middleton, WI 53562

S. Som

Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, IL 60439

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Internal Combustion Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 3, 2013; final manuscript received June 6, 2013; published online September 12, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Timothy J. Jacobs.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(1), 012204 (Sep 12, 2013) (11 pages) Paper No: JERT-13-1108; doi: 10.1115/1.4024861 History: Received April 03, 2013; Revised June 06, 2013

A state-of-the-art spray modeling methodology is presented. Key features of the methodology, such as adaptive mesh refinement (AMR), advanced liquid–gas momentum coupling, and improved distribution of the liquid phase, are described. The ability of this approach to use cell sizes much smaller than the nozzle diameter is demonstrated. Grid convergence of key parameters is verified for nonevaporating, evaporating, and reacting spray cases using cell sizes down to 1/32 mm. Grid settings are recommended that optimize the accuracy/runtime tradeoff for RANS-based spray simulations.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Sprays , Simulation
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Comparison of measured and predicted liquid penetration for the nonevaporating spray case. Seven predicted curves are presented for the cell sizes given in Table 4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of spray centerline (a) velocity, (b) turbulent kinetic energy, and (c) turbulent viscosity for a range of mesh resolutions. The results are given for a time of 0.5 ms.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of maximum (a) velocity, (b) turbulent kinetic energy, and (c) turbulent viscosity for a range of embed scales. Note that an embed scale of 1 gives a cell size of 1.0 mm while an embed scale of 6 gives a cell size of 0.03125 mm. The results are given for a time of 0.5 ms.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of spray centerline turbulent length-scales for a range of mesh resolutions. The results are given for a time of 0.5 ms.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of computational mesh (left), side view of the spray (middle), and axial view of the spray (right) for velocity AMR cell sizes of (a) 1.0 mm, (b) 0.5 mm, (c) 0.25 mm, (d) 0.125 mm, (e) 0.0625 mm, and (f) 0.03125 mm. The results are given for a time of 0.5 ms.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of liquid volume fraction as a function of axial location for a range of mesh resolutions. The results are given for a time of 0.5 ms. Note that the nozzle exit is at an axial location of 1 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of measured and predicted liquid penetration for the spray A evaporating spray case. Seven predicted curves are presented for the cell sizes given in Table 4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of measured and predicted liquid length for the spray A evaporating spray case. The predictions are shown for a range of embed scales.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of measured and predicted vapor penetration for the spray A evaporating spray case. Seven predicted curves are presented for the cell sizes given in Table 4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of spray centerline vapor mass fraction for a range of mesh resolutions. The results are given for a time of 1.5 ms.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Influence of mesh size on ignition delay at different ambient oxygen concentrations, compared with Sandia measurements for an ambient density of 14.8 kg/m3 and a temperature of 1000 K

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Influence of mesh size on flame lift-off length at different ambient oxygen concentrations, compared with Sandia measurements for an ambient density of 14.8 kg/m3 and a temperature of 1000 K

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Influence of mesh size on axial location of ignition at different ambient oxygen concentrations for an ambient density of 14.8 kg/m3 and a temperature of 1000 K

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Influence of mesh size on liquid length at different ambient oxygen concentrations for an ambient density of 14.8 kg/m3 and a temperature of 1000 K

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of temperature (left), OH mass fraction (middle), and equivalence ratio (right) for velocity AMR cell sizes of (a) 1.0 mm, (b) 0.5 mm, (c) 0.25 mm, and (d) 0.125 mm. The results are given for an oxygen concentration of 21% at 1.5 ms after the start of injection.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Wall-clock time as a function of embed scale for the vaporizing and reacting spray cases

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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