Library Subscription: Guest
Atomization and Sprays

Published 12 issues per year

ISSN Print: 1044-5110

ISSN Online: 1936-2684

The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years. 2017 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018) IF: 1.2 To calculate the five year Impact Factor, citations are counted in 2017 to the previous five years and divided by the source items published in the previous five years. 2017 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018) 5-Year IF: 1.8 The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. Immediacy Index: 0.3 The Eigenfactor score, developed by Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom at the University of Washington, is a rating of the total importance of a scientific journal. Journals are rated according to the number of incoming citations, with citations from highly ranked journals weighted to make a larger contribution to the eigenfactor than those from poorly ranked journals. Eigenfactor: 0.00095 The Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) is a single measurement of the field-normalized citation impact of journals in the Web of Science Core Collection across disciplines. The key words here are that the metric is normalized and cross-disciplinary. JCI: 0.28 SJR: 0.341 SNIP: 0.536 CiteScore™:: 1.9 H-Index: 57

Indexed in

VALIDATION OF A MULTICOMPONENT FUEL SPRAY MODEL FOR GASOLINE DIRECT INJECTION ENGINE CONDITIONS AND STUDY ON INFLUENCE OF RESOLVING THE COUNTERBORE INJECTOR

Volume 32, Issue 6, 2022, pp. 51-75
DOI: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.2022038622
Get accessGet access

ABSTRACT

When simulating fuel sprays in gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines, few studies have investigated resolving the counterbore and how this may influence spray predictions. In this work, we used the stochastic blob and bubble (VSB2) spray model to conduct simulations where fuel was injected into a constant volume combustion vessel. The counterbore was resolved both radially and axially. In addition, the injector orifice was resolved into nine cells. The boundary conditions were the same as the engine combustion network (ECN) noncombusting case for multicomponent Spray G (G1, E00 case in ECN, Spray G). Results obtained using two simulation meshes were compared to experimental data: (1) without resolving the counterbore and (2) with resolved counterbore. Both meshes predicted the experimental liquid and vapor penetration lengths reasonably well and the differences in the penetration lengths between the two meshes were insignificant. However, a clear difference was detected in the fuel-air mixing (quantified by the mixing rate) and maximum values of к and ε. There were also noticeable differences between the two meshes in the peak fuel vapor fractions of the two most volatile components.

Figures

  • Blob and bubble concept
  • Evaporation of blob in a bubble
  • Variables involved in the nonlinear equations representing evaporation
  • Constant volume chamber mesh
  • Top view of the resolved counterbore mesh
  • Vapor pressure of fuel components
  • Liquid and vapor penetration vs. time (zoomed around 0.4 ms in the second subfigure)
  • Evaporation rate vs. time
  • Droplet size distribution at 0.4 ms ASOI
  • Lagrangian spray colored by droplet velocity. Column 1: without counterbore, column 2: with
counterbore, row 1: 0.4 ms ASOI; row 2: 0.6 ms ASOI; row 3: 0.8 ms ASOI.
  • Cut view of the spray at 0.8 ms ASOI
  • Radial profile of axial gas velocity
  • Velocity vector plot
  • Contour plot of mixing rate: (a) without counterbore, (b) with counterbore
  • Max values of k and ǫ vs. time
  • Experimental mass flow rate
  • Lagrangian droplet temperature: (a) without counterbore, (b) with counterbore
  • Component evaporation rates
  • Contour plots of individual vapor fractions predicted by the mesh without the counterbore
  • Contour plot of individual vapor fractions predicted by the mesh with counterbore
  • Differential evaporation in the radial direction at 0.4 ms ASOI, at z = 15 mm. The z-axis is the
injector axis. CB in the legend refers to the counterbore.
  • Differential evaporation along injector axis at 0.4 ms ASOI
REFERENCES
  1. Baumgarten, C., Mixture Formation in Internal Combustion Engines, Berlin: Springer, 2006.

  2. Choi, Y.C., Bower, R., and Reitz, R.D., Effects of Biodiesel Blended Fuels and Multiple Injections on D.I. Diesel Engines, SAE Tech. Paper No. 970218,1997.

  3. Ducowicz, J.K., A Particle-Fluid Numerical Model for Liquid Sprays, J. Comput. Phys, vol. 35, pp. 229-253,1980.

  4. ECN7, Topic 8, accessed September 27,2020, from https://ecn.sandia.gov/ecn-workshop/ecn7-workshop/, 2020.

  5. ECN, Spray G Data, accessed September 16, 2020, from https://ecn.sandia.gov/data/sandia-spray-g-data/, 2020a.

  6. ECN, Spray G Geometry, accessed September 16, 2020, from https://ecn.sandia.gov/gasoline-spray-combustion/computational-method/mesh-and-geometry/, 2020b.

  7. El Wakil, M., Ueyhara, O., and Myers, F., A Theoretical Investigation of Heating-Up Period of Injected Fuel Droplets Vaporizing in Air, NACA ReportNo. TN3179,1954.

  8. Gosman, A.D. and Watkins, A.P., Aspects of Computer Simulation of Liquid-Fueled Combustors, J. Energy, vol. 7, pp. 482-490,1983.

  9. Gosman, A.D. and Watkins, A.P., A Computer Prediction Method for Turbulent Flow and Heat Transfer in Piston/Cylinder Assemblies, in Symp. on Turbulent Shear Flows, State College, PA, 1977.

  10. How, H.G., Masjuki, H.H., Kalam, M.A., and Teoh, Y.H., Influence of Injection Timing and Split Injection Strategies on Performance, Emissions, and Combustion Characteristics of Diesel Engine Fueled with Biodiesel Blended Fuels, Fuel, vol. 213, pp. 106-114,2018.

  11. Husberg, T., Denbratt, I., and Karlsson, A., Analysis of Advanced Multiple Injection Strategies in a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Using Optical Measurements and CFD-Simulations, SAE Tech. Paper No. 2008-01.

  12. Jones, W.P. and Launder, B.E., The Prediction of Laminarization with a Two-Equation Model of Turbulence, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 301-314,1972.

  13. Kazour, J., Befrui, B., Husted, H., Raney, M., and Varble, D., Innovative Sprays and Particulate Reduction with GDI Injectors, SAE Tech. Paper, No. 2014-01-1441,2014.

  14. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, SUNDIALS (Suite of Nonlinear and Differential/Algebraic Equation Solvers), accessed March 30, 2020, from https://computing.llnl.gov/projects/sundials/kinsol, 2020.

  15. NSRDS, accessed December 1, 2020, from https://www.nist.gov/srd/national-standard-reference-data-series, 2020.

  16. OpenFOAM, The OpenFOAMFoundation, accessed June 30, 2020, from https://openfoam.org/, 2020.

  17. Pandian Muthuramalingam, V., Nygren, A., and Karlsson, A., A Comprehensive Study on the Influence of Resolving an Injector Orifice and the Influence of Creating Stripped Off Droplets on Spray Formation Using the VSB2 Spray Model, Atomization Sprays, vol. 31, pp. 15-55,2021.

  18. Payri, R., Morena, J.D.L, Monsalve-Serrano, J., Concetto Pesce, F., and Vassallo, A., Impact of Counter-Bore Nozzle on the Combustion Process and Exhaust Emissions for Light-Duty Diesel Engine Application, Int. J Engine Res, vol. 20, pp. 46-57,2019.

  19. Pilch, M. and Erdman, C.A., Use of Breakup Time Data and Velocity History Data to Predict the Maximum Size of Stable Fragments for Acceleration-Induced Breakup of a Liquid Drop, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, vol. 13, pp. 741-757,1987.

  20. Ra, Y. and Reitz, R.D., A Vaporization Model for Discrete Multi-Component Fuel Sprays, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, vol. 35, pp. 101-117,2009.

  21. Ranz, W.E. and Marshall, W.R., Internal Combustion Engine Modelling, Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing, 1952.

  22. Rodi, W., Turbulence Models and Their Application in Hydraulics-A State of the Art Review, Delft, Netherlands: International Association for Hydraulic Research, 2nd ed., 1984.

  23. Saha, K., Som, S., Battistoni, M., Li, Y., Quan, S., and Senecal, P., Modeling of Internal and Near-Nozzle Flow for a GDI Fuel Injector, in Proc. of the ASME 2015 Internal Combustion Engine Division Fall Technical Conf, Houston, TX, 2015.

  24. Schmehl, R., Maier, G., and Wittig, S., CFD Analysis of Fuel Atomization, Secondary Droplet Breakup and Spray Dispersion in the Premix Duct of a LPP Combustor, in Eighth Int. Conf. on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Pasadena, CA, 2000.

  25. Tamim, J., andHallett, W.L.H., A Continuous Thermodynamic Model for Multicomponent Droplet Vapor-ization, Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 50, no. 18, pp. 2933-2942,1995.

  26. Tongroon, M., Saisirirat, P., Suebwong, A., Jirasak, A., Kananont, M., and Chollacoop, N., Combustion and Emission Characteristics Investigation of Diesel-Ethanol-Biodiesel Blended Fuels in a Compression-Ignition Engine and Benefit Analysis, Fuel, vol. 255, no. 115728,2019.

  27. Tu, P., Xu, H., Srivastava, D.K., Dean, K., Jing, D., Ciao, L., Weall, A., and Venus, J.K., Numerical Investi-gation of GDI Injector Nozzle Geometry on Spray Characteristics, SAE Tech. Paper No. 2015-01-1906, 2015.

  28. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (Association of German Engineers), VDI-Warmeatlas, Berlin: Springer, 2006.

  29. Weller, H.G., Tabor, G., Jasak, H., and Fureby, C., A Tensorial Approach to Computational Continuum Mechanics Using Object-Oriented Techniques, Comput. Phys, vol. 12, pp. 620-631,1998.

  30. Xue, J., Grift, T.E., and Hansen, A.C., Effect of Biodiesel on Engine Performances and Emissions, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 15, pp. 1098-1116,2011.

  31. Yang, S., Ra, Y., Reitz, R.D., Wege, B.V.D., and Yi, J., Development of a Realistic Multicomponent Fuel Evaporation Model, Atomization Sprays, vol. 20, pp. 965-981,2010.

Begell Digital Portal Begell Digital Library eBooks Journals References & Proceedings Research Collections Prices and Subscription Policies Begell House Contact Us Language English 中文 Русский Português German French Spain