0
Research Papers: Fuel Combustion

In Situ Thermophysical Properties of an Evolving Carbon Nanoparticle Based Deposit Layer Utilizing a Novel Infrared and Optical Methodology

[+] Author and Article Information
Ashwin A. Salvi

Advanced Research Projects
Agency – Energy (ARPA-E),
U.S. Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585
e-mail: asalvi@umich.edu

John Hoard

Mem. ASME
1012 Walter E. Lay Automotive Laboratory,
University of Michigan,
1231 Beal Avenue,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: hoardjw@umich.edu

Dan Styles

Ford Motor Company,
2101 Village Road,
Dearborn, MI 48121
e-mail: dstyles@ford.com

Dennis Assanis

Stony Brook University,
407 Administration Building,
Stony Brook, NY 11794
e-mail: dennis.assanis@stonybrook.edu

Contributed by the Internal Combustion Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 7, 2016; final manuscript received March 1, 2016; published online April 5, 2016. Editor: Hameed Metghalchi.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 138(5), 052207 (Apr 05, 2016) (7 pages) Paper No: JERT-16-1013; doi: 10.1115/1.4032942 History: Received January 07, 2016; Revised March 01, 2016

The use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) in internal combustion engines has significant impacts on engine combustion and emissions. EGR can be used to reduce in-cylinder NOx production, reduce fuel consumption, and enable advanced forms of combustion. To maximize the benefits of EGR, the exhaust gases are often cooled with liquid to gas heat exchangers. However, the build up of a fouling deposit layer from exhaust particulates and volatiles results in the decrease of heat exchanger efficiency, increasing the outlet temperature of the exhaust gases and decreasing the advantages of EGR. This paper presents an experimental data from a novel in situ measurement technique in a visualization rig during the development of a 378 μm thick deposit layer. Measurements were performed every 6 hrs for up to 24 hrs. The results show a nonlinear increase in deposit thickness with an increase in layer surface area as deposition continued. Deposit surface temperature and temperature difference across the thickness of the layer was shown to increase with deposit thickness while heat transfer decreased. The provided measurements combine to produce deposit thermal conductivity. A thorough uncertainty analysis of the in situ technique is presented and suggests higher measurement accuracy at thicker deposit layers and with larger temperature differences across the layer. The interface and wall temperature measurements are identified as the strongest contributors to the measurement uncertainty. Due to instrument uncertainty, the influence of deposit thickness and temperature could not be determined. At an average deposit thickness of 378 μm and at a temperature of 100 °C, the deposit thermal conductivity was determined to be 0.044 ± 0.0062 W/m K at a 90% confidence interval based on instrument accuracy.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Instrumentation for particulate deposit layer thermal conductivity measurement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Rate of HR during combustion for the conventional and postinjection engine conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Cumulative HR for the conventional and postinjection engine conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

DMS500 particle profiles upstream and downstream of the EGR cooler visualization rig with an engine post fuel injection of 2 mg/stroke at 30 deg aTDC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Deposit layer growth on heat flux probe with linear extrapolation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Deposit surface area ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Surface features of a deposit layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Infrared surface temperature of the deposit layer as a function of Reynolds number and deposit thickness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Temperature difference across the deposit thickness as a function of Reynolds number and deposit thickness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Heat flux through the deposit layer as a function of Reynolds number and deposit thickness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Deposit thermal conductivity as a function of average deposit temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of average deposit temperature on an 18-hr, 279 μm thick deposit layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Total accuracy uncertainty as a function of Reynolds number at various deposit thicknesses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Thermal conductivity accuracy uncertainty breakdown for a 109 μm thick deposit layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Thermal conductivity accuracy uncertainty breakdown for a 378 μm thick deposit layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Thermal conductivity with maximum instrument uncertainty for 109, 279, and 378 μm thick deposit layers

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