0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Method for Determining Instantaneous Temperature at the Surface of Combustion Chamber Deposits in an HCCI Engine

[+] Author and Article Information
Orgun Güralp

e-mail: orgun.guralp@gm.com

Paul Najt

e-mail: paul.m.najt@gm.com
General Motors Research & Development,
Warren, MI 40890

Zoran S. Filipi

e-mail: zfilipi@clemson.edu
International Center for Automotive Research,
Clemson University,
Greenville, SC 29607

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received December 19, 2012; final manuscript received February 14, 2013; published online June 24, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 135(8), 081501 (Jun 24, 2013) (14 pages) Paper No: GTP-12-1488; doi: 10.1115/1.4024180 History: Received December 19, 2012; Revised February 14, 2013

Homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) combustion is widely regarded as an attractive option for future high efficiency gasoline engines. HCCI combustion permits operation with a highly dilute, well mixed charge, resulting in high thermal efficiency and extremely low NOx and soot emissions, two qualities essential for future propulsion system solutions. Because HCCI is a thermokinetically dominated process, full understanding of how combustion chamber boundary thermal conditions affect the combustion process are crucial. This includes the dynamics of the effective chamber wall surface temperature, as dictated by the formation of combustion chamber deposits (CCD). It has been demonstrated that, due to the combination of CCD thermal properties and the sensitivity of HCCI to wall temperature, the phasing of autoignition can vary significantly as CCD coverage in the chamber increases. In order to better characterize and quantify the influence of CCDs, a numerical methodology has been developed which permits calculation of the crank-angle resolved local temperature profile at the surface of a layer of combustion chamber deposits. This unique predictor-corrector methodology relies on experimental measurement of instantaneous temperature underneath the layer, i.e., at the metal-CCD interface, and known deposit layer thickness. A numerical method for validation of these calculations has also been devised. The resultant crank-angle resolved CCD surface temperature and heat flux profiles both on top and under the CCD layer provide valuable insight into the near wall phenomena, and shed light on the interplay between the dynamics of the heat transfer process and HCCI burn rates.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Mounting locations in the head and piston for probes containing fast response thermocouples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Instantaneous metal surface temperature measurements in (a) clean and (b) conditioned combustion chamber

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Instantaneous surface heat flux measurements in (a) clean and (b) conditioned combustion chamber

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Illustration of finite-difference scheme and boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Illustration of Lead-Corrector iterative methodology

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Final solution of calculated temperature gradients in deposit layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Highlight of temperature profile located 400 μm from the tip of metal thermocouple probe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Sensitivity of calculated surface temperature and heat flux for assumed deposit layer thermal conductivity value

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Illustrative depiction of intermediate layer temperature profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Calculated temperature profiles in 4 mm tip of metal thermocouple probe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Simulated intermediate-layer (a) temperature and (b) heat flux

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of calculated metal surface temperature profile with actual measured profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Diminishing accuracy of attempting to calculate surface temperature with increasing ‘layer’ thickness; a confidence limit of Fo = 1e-3 was set based on these results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of measured clean surface temperature profile with calculated deposit layer surface temperatures on a probe in the head

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Calculated deposit layer surface temperatures at probe locations in the piston

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of measured clean heat flux with calculated conditioned surface heat flux at three difference locations on piston

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Graphic depiction of finite-difference scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

x-direction reference place

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