0
Research Papers: Fuel Combustion

Numerical Simulations of Hollow-Cone Injection and Gasoline Compression Ignition Combustion With Naphtha Fuels

[+] Author and Article Information
Jihad A. Badra

Fuel Technology Division,
R&DC, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran,
Eastern Province 31311, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: jihad.badra@aramco.com

Jaeheon Sim

Clean Combustion Research Center,
King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology,
Thuwal, Makkah Province 23955, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: jaeheon.sim@kaust.edu.sa

Ahmed Elwardany

Clean Combustion Research Center,
King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology,
Thuwal, Makkah Province 23955, Saudi Arabia;
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Alexandria University,
Alexandria 21544, Egypt
e-mail: ahmed.elwardani@kaust.edu.sa

Mohammed Jaasim

Clean Combustion Research Center,
King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology,
Thuwal, Makkah Province 23955, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: mohammedjaasim.mubarakali@kaust.edu.sa

Yoann Viollet

Fuel Technology Division,
R&DC, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran,
Eastern Province 31311, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: yoann.viollet@aramco.com

Junseok Chang

Fuel Technology Division,
R&DC, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran,
Eastern Province 31311, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: junseok.chang@aramco.com

Amer Amer

Fuel Technology Division,
R&DC, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran,
Eastern Province 31311, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: amer.amer.4@aramco.com

Hong G. Im

Clean Combustion Research Center,
King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology,
Thuwal, Makkah Province 23955, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: hong.im@kaust.edu.sa

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Internal Combustion Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 6, 2016; final manuscript received January 12, 2016; published online February 23, 2016. Editor: Hameed Metghalchi.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 138(5), 052202 (Feb 23, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: JERT-16-1011; doi: 10.1115/1.4032622 History: Received January 06, 2016; Revised January 12, 2016

Gasoline compression ignition (GCI), also known as partially premixed compression ignition (PPCI) and gasoline direct injection compression ignition (GDICI), engines have been considered an attractive alternative to traditional spark ignition (SI) engines. Lean-burn combustion with the direct injection of fuel eliminates throttle losses for higher thermodynamic efficiencies, and the precise control of the mixture compositions allows better emission performance such as NOx and particulate matter (PM). Recently, low octane gasoline fuel has been identified as a viable option for the GCI engine applications due to its longer ignition delay characteristics compared to diesel and lighter evaporation compared to gasoline fuel (Chang et al., 2012, “Enabling High Efficiency Direct Injection Engine With Naphtha Fuel Through Partially Premixed Charge Compression Ignition Combustion,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2012-01-0677). The feasibility of such a concept has been demonstrated by experimental investigations at Saudi Aramco (Chang et al., 2012, “Enabling High Efficiency Direct Injection Engine With Naphtha Fuel Through Partially Premixed Charge Compression Ignition Combustion,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2012-01-0677; Chang et al., 2013, “Fuel Economy Potential of Partially Premixed Compression Ignition (PPCI) Combustion With Naphtha Fuel,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2013-01-2701). The present study aims to develop predictive capabilities for low octane gasoline fuel compression ignition (CI) engines with accurate characterization of the spray dynamics and combustion processes. Full three-dimensional simulations were conducted using converge as a basic modeling framework, using Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) turbulent mixing models. An outwardly opening hollow-cone spray injector was characterized and validated against existing and new experimental data. An emphasis was made on the spray penetration characteristics. Various spray breakup and collision models have been tested and compared with the experimental data. An optimum combination has been identified and applied in the combusting GCI simulations. Linear instability sheet atomization (LISA) breakup model and modified Kelvin–Helmholtz and Rayleigh–Taylor (KH-RT) break models proved to work the best for the investigated injector. Comparisons between various existing spray models and a parametric study have been carried out to study the effects of various spray parameters. The fuel effects have been tested by using three different primary reference fuel (PRF) and toluene primary reference fuel (TPRF) surrogates. The effects of fuel temperature and chemical kinetic mechanisms have also been studied. The heating and evaporative characteristics of the low octane gasoline fuel and its PRF and TPRF surrogates were examined.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Base engine combustion chamber shape: pent-roof style four-valve head

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Side view picture of compression ratio 14 piston: incorporating diesel bowl reentry feature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

GCI valve lift profile: 8 mm peak lift, no variable valve timing with minimum valve overlap

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Constant volume chamber simulated domain. The mesh refinement for the spray region is also shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Top and bottom views of the engine geometry used in the simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Outwardly opening injector and mass flow rate profile. (a) Schematic drawing of outwardly opening hollow-cone injector. (b) Injection duration and estimated mass flow rate profile.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of collision models in a modified KH-RT breakup model: (a) liquid spray penetration length and (b) SMD value histories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of liquid penetration length between modified KH-RT and LISA with TAB breakup models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The comparison of spray penetration length between simulations and experiments. The modified KH-RT model is represented by solid lines and LISA with TAB breakup models are plotted using dashed lines.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Experimental and calculated (changing turbulent and heat transfer models) in-cylinder pressure for the CR 14 and 12 motored runs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Experimental and calculated (changing fuel surrogates) in-cylinder pressure for the CR 14 GCI burning case with Tfuel = 363 K

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Experimental and calculated (changing fuel temperature) in-cylinder pressure for the CR 14 GCI burning case with TPRF68

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Calculated (changing chemical mechanism) in-cylinder pressure for the CR 14 GCI burning case with TPRF68 at 353 K

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Plots of predicted droplet surface temperatures and radii versus time for different droplet mixtures

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