0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Internal Combustion Engines

Comparisons of Diesel PCCI Combustion Simulations Using a Representative Interactive Flamelet Model and Direct Integration of CFD With Detailed Chemistry

[+] Author and Article Information
Song-Charng Kong1

Engine Research Center,  University of Wisconsin, 1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706kong@iastate.edu

Hoojoong Kim

Engine Research Center,  University of Wisconsin, 1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706

Rolf D. Reitz2

Engine Research Center,  University of Wisconsin, 1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706

Yongmo Kim

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea

1

Currently at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

2

To whom correspondence should be addressed.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 129(1), 252-260 (Jan 24, 2006) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2181597 History: Received May 16, 2005; Revised January 24, 2006

Diesel engine simulation results using two different combustion models are presented in this study, namely the representative interactive flamelet (RIF) model and the direct integration of computational fluid dynamics and CHEMKIN. Both models have been implemented into an improved version of the KIVA code. The KIVA/RIF model uses a single flamelet approach and also considers the effects of vaporization on turbulence-chemistry interactions. The KIVA/CHEMKIN model uses a direct integration approach that solves for the chemical reactions in each computational cell. The above two models are applied to simulate combustion and emissions in diesel engines with comparable results. Detailed comparisons of predicted heat release data and in-cylinder flows also indicate that both models predict very similar combustion characteristics. This is likely due to the fact that after ignition, combustion rates are mixing controlled rather than chemistry controlled under the diesel conditions studied.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Comparisons of measured (solid line), KIVA/CHEMKIN (thick dotted line), and KIVA/RIF (thin dotted line) cylinder pressure and heat release rate data for 8% EGR cases (SOI=−20, −10, and +5 ATDC)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Comparisons of measured (solid line), KIVA/CHEMKIN (thick dotted line), and KIVA/RIF (thin dotted line) cylinder pressure and heat release rate data for 40% EGR cases (SOI=−20, −10, and +5 ATDC)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Temporal evolution of the flamelet using KIVA/RIF during ignition (40% EGR, SOI=−20 ATDC)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Temporal evolutions of O2 and fuel mass fraction with respect to mixture fraction using KIVA/RIF during ignition (40% EGR, SOI=−20 ATDC)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

History of mean scalar dissipation rate and maximum flamelet temperature predicted by KIVA/RIF for 40% EGR, SOI=−20, and 5 ATDC cases

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Measured and predicted emissions for 8% EGR cases

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Measured and predicted emissions for 27% EGR cases

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Measured and predicted emissions for 40% EGR cases

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Predicted in-cylinder NOx history using two models compared with engine exhaust data (solid squares) for 40% EGR cases with SOI=−20 and +5 ATDC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Predicted in-cylinder average gas temperature for 40% EGR cases with SOI=−20 and +5 ATDC (same conditions as in Fig. 8)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

In-cylinder soot mass histories for 40% EGR cases at two different injection timings

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Distribution of liquid drops and fuel vapor prior to ignition (40% EGR, SOI=+5 ATDC). Arrow indicates the flow pattern generated by the fuel injection and reverse squish flow.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Temperature contours predicted by KIVA/CHEMKIN (40% EGR, SOI=+5 ATDC)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Temperature contours predicted by KIVA/RIF (40% EGR, SOI=+5 ATDC) using the same color scale as in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Soot mass fraction contours predicted by KIVA/CHEMKIN (40% EGR, SOI=+5 ATDC)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Soot contours predicted by KIVA/RIF (40% EGR, SOI=+5 ATDC) using the same color scale as in Fig. 1

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