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

Som, S., Longman, D. E., Luo, Z., Plomer, M., Lu, T., Senecal, P. K., and Pomraning, E., 2012, “Simulating Flame Lift-Off Characteristics of Diesel and Biodiesel Fuels Using Detailed Chemical-Kinetic Mechanisms and Large Eddy Simulation Turbulence Model,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 134, p. 032204. [CrossRef]
Bousbaa, H., Sary, A., Tazerout, M., and Liazid, A., 2012, “Investigations on a Compression Ignition Engine Using Animal Fats and Vegetable Oil as Fuels,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 134, p. 022202. [CrossRef]
Liu, R., and Zhang, C., 2004, “A Numerical Study of NOx Reduction for a DI Diesel Engine With Complex Geometry,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 126, pp. 13–20. [CrossRef]
Yang, X., Takamoto, Y., and Okajima, A., 2000, “Improvement of Three-Dimensional Diesel Spray Modeling in Near Region With Coarse Mesh,” Paper No. SAE 2000-01-0274.
Yang, X., Takamoto, Y., Okajima, A., Obokata, T., and Long, W., 2000, “Comparison of Computed and Measured High-Pressure Conical Diesel Sprays,” Paper No. SAE 2000-01-0951.
Abani, N., Munnannur, A., and Reitz, R. D., 2008, “Reduction of Numerical Parameter Dependencies in Diesel Spray Models,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 130, p. 032809. [CrossRef]
Lippert, A. M., Chang, S., Are, S., and Schmidt, D. P., 2005, “Mesh Independence and Adaptive Mesh Refinement for Advanced Engine Spray Simulations,” Paper No. SAE 2005-01-0207.
Richards, K. J., Senecal, P. K., and Pomraning, E., 2012, CONVERGE (Version 1.4.1) Manual, Convergent Science, Inc., Middleton, WI.
Senecal, P. K., Richards, K. J., Pomraning, E., Yang, T., Dai, M. Z., McDavid, R. M., Patterson, M. A., Hou, S., and Shethaji, T., 2007, “A New Parallel Cut-Cell Cartesian CFD Code for Rapid Grid Generation Applied to In-Cylinder Diesel Engine Simulations,” Paper No. SAE 2007-01-0159.
Pomraning, E., 2000, “Development of Large Eddy Simulation Turbulence Models,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Leonard, A., 1974, “Energy Cascade in Large-Eddy Simulations of Turbulent Fluid Flows,” Adv. Geophys. A, 18, pp. 237–248. [CrossRef]
Yeo, W. K., 1987, “A Generalized High Pass/Low Pass Averaging Procedure for Deriving and Solving Turbulent Flow Equations,” Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Rhie, C. M., and Chow, W. L., 1983, “Numerical Study of the Turbulent Flow Past an Airfoil With Trailing Edge Separation,” AIAA J., 21, pp. 1525–1532. [CrossRef]
Issa, R. I., 1986, “Solution of the Implicitly Discretised Fluid Flow Equations by Operator-Splitting,” J. Comput. Phys., 62, pp. 40–65. [CrossRef]
Yakhot, V., and Orszag, S. A., 1986, “Renormalization Group Analysis of Turbulence. I. Basic Theory,” J. Sci. Comput., 1, pp. 3–51. [CrossRef]
Reitz, R. D., and Diwakar, R., 1987, “Structure of High-Pressure Fuel Sprays,” Paper No. SAE 870598.
Schmidt, D. P., and Rutland, C. J., 2000, “A New Droplet Collision Algorithm,” J. Comput. Phys., 164, pp. 62–80. [CrossRef]
Post, S. L., and Abraham, J., 2002, “Modeling the Outcome of Drop-Drop Collisions in Diesel Sprays,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 28, pp. 997–1019. [CrossRef]
Liu, A. B., Mather, D. K., and Reitz, R. D., 1993, “Modeling the Effects of Drop Drag and Breakup on Fuel Sprays,” Paper No. SAE 930072.
Amsden, A. A., O'Rourke, P. J., and Butler, T. D., 1989, “KIVA-II: A Computer Program for Chemically Reactive Flows With Sprays,” Los Alamos National Laboratory Report No. LA-11560-MS.
Senecal, P. K., Pomraning, E., Richards, K. J., Briggs, T. E., Choi, C. Y., McDavid, R. M., and Patterson, M. A., 2003, “Multi-Dimensional Modeling of Direct-Injection Diesel Spray Liquid Length and Flame Lift-Off Length Using CFD and Parallel Detailed Chemistry,” Paper No. SAE 2003-01-1043.
Nordin, N., 1998, “Numerical Simulations of Non-Steady Spray Combustion Using a Detailed Chemistry Approach,” Thesis for the Degree of Licentiate of Engineering, Department of Thermo and Fluid Dynamics, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden.
Abraham, J., 1997, “What is Adequate Resolution in the Numerical Computations of Transient Jets?” Paper No. SAE 970051.
Margot, X., Payri, R., Gil, A., Chavez, M., and Pinzello, A., 2008, “Combined CFD-Phenomenological Approach to the Analysis of Diesel sprays Under Non-Evaporative Conditions,” Paper No. SAE 2008-01-0962.
Pickett, L. M., Genzale, C. L., BruneauxG., Malbec, L. M., Hermant, L., Christiansen, C., and Schramm, J., 2010, “Comparison of Diesel Spray Combustion in Different High-Temperature, High-Pressure Facilities,” Paper No. SAE 2010-01-2106.
Pickett, L. M., Manin, J., Genzale, C. L., Siebers, D. L., Musculus, M. P. B., and Idicheria, C. A., 2011, “Relationship Between Diesel Fuel Spray Vapor Penetration/Dispersion and Local Fuel Mixture Fraction,” Paper No. SAE 2011-01-0686.
Williams, F. A., 1958, “Spray Combustion and Atomization,” Phys. Fluids, 1, p. 541. [CrossRef]
Subramaniam, S., 2013, “Lagrangian-Eulerian Methods for Multiphase Flows,” Prog. Energy Combust Sci.39, pp. 215–245. [CrossRef]
Som, S., and Aggarwal, S. K., 2010, “Effects of Primary Breakup Modeling on Spray and Combustion Characteristics of Compression Ignition Engines,” Combust. Flame, 157, pp. 1179–1193. [CrossRef]
Som, S., 2009, “Development and Validation of Spray Models for Investigating Diesel Engine Combustion and Emissions,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Chicago.
Higgins, B. S., and Siebers, D. L., 2001, “Measurement of the Flame Lift-Off Location on DI Diesel Sprays Using OH Chemiluminescence,” Paper No. SAE 2001-01-0918.
Siebers, D. L., and Higgins, B. S., 2001, “Flame Lift-Off on Direct-Injection Diesel Sprays Under Quiescent Conditions,” Paper No. SAE 2001-01-0530.
Raju, M., Wang, M., Dai, M., Piggott, W., and Flowers, D., 2012, “Acceleration of Detailed Chemical Kinetics Using Multi-Zone Modeling for CFD in Internal Combustion Engine Simulations,” Paper No. SAE 2012-01-0135.

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