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

Large Eddy Simulation of Vaporizing Sprays Considering Multi-Injection Averaging and Grid-Convergent Mesh Resolution

[+] Author and Article Information
P. K. Senecal

Convergent Science, Inc.,
Middleton, WI 53562
e-mail: senecal@convergecfd.com

E. Pomraning

Convergent Science, Inc.,
Middleton, WI 53562
e-mail: pomraning@convergecfd.com

Q. Xue

Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, IL 60439
e-mail: qxue@anl.gov

S. Som

Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, IL 60439
e-mail: ssom@anl.gov

S. Banerjee

Cummins Inc.,
Columbus, IN 47201
e-mail: siddhartha.banerjee@cummins.com

B. Hu

Cummins Inc.,
Columbus, IN 47201
e-mail: bing.hu@cummins.com

K. Liu

Cummins Inc.,
Columbus, IN 47201
e-mail: kai.liu@cummins.com

J. M. Deur

Cummins Inc.,
Columbus, IN 47201
e-mail: john.deur@cummins.com

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received March 4, 2014; final manuscript received April 2, 2014; published online May 16, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 136(11), 111504 (May 16, 2014) (13 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1136; doi: 10.1115/1.4027449 History: Received March 04, 2014; Revised April 02, 2014

A state-of-the-art spray modeling methodology, recently presented by Senecal et al. (2012, “Grid Convergent Spray Models for Internal Combustion Engine CFD Simulations,” Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Internal Combustion Engine Division Fall Technical Conference, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. ICEF2012-92043; 2013 “An Investigation of Grid Convergence for Spray Simulations using an LES Turbulence Model,” Paper No. SAE 2013-01-1083) is applied to large eddy simulations (LES) of vaporizing sprays. Simulations of noncombusting Spray A (n-dodecane fuel) from the engine combustion network are performed. An adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) cell size of 0.0625 mm is utilized based on the accuracy/runtime tradeoff demonstrated by Senecal et al. (2013, “An Investigation of Grid Convergence for Spray Simulations using an LES Turbulence Model,” Paper No. SAE 2013-01-1083). In that work, it was shown that grid convergence of key parameters for nonevaporating and evaporating sprays was achieved for cell sizes between 0.0625 and 0.125 mm using the dynamic structure LES model. The current work presents an extended and more thorough investigation of Spray A using multidimensional spray modeling and the dynamic structure LES model. Twenty different realizations are simulated by changing the random number seed used in the spray submodels. Multirealization (ensemble) averaging is shown to be necessary when comparing to local spray measurements of quantities such as mixture fraction and gas-phase velocity. Through a detailed analysis, recommendations are made regarding the minimum number of LES realizations required for accurate prediction of diesel sprays. Finally, the effect of a spray primary breakup model constant on the results is assessed.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Sprays , Simulation
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Som, S., Longman, D. E., Luo, Z., Plomer, M., Lu, T., Senecal, P. K., and Pomraning, E., 2012, “Simulating Flame Lift-Off Characteristics of Diesel and Biodiesel Fuels Using Detailed Chemical-Kinetic Mechanisms and Large Eddy Simulation Turbulence Model,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 134(3), p. 032204. [CrossRef]
Senecal, P. K., Pomraning, E., Richards, K., and Som, S., 2013, “An Investigation of Grid Convergence for Spray Simulations Using an LES Turbulence Model,” Paper No. SAE 2013-01-1083. [CrossRef]
Senecal, P. K., Pomraning, E., Richards, K., and Som, S., 2012, “Grid Convergent Spray Models for Internal Combustion Engine CFD Simulations,” ASME Paper No. ICEF2012-92043. [CrossRef]
Pomraning, E., and Rutland, C. J., 2002, “Dynamic One-Equation Nonviscosity Large-Eddy Simulation Model,” AIAA J., 40(4), pp. 689–701. [CrossRef]
Pomraning, E., 2000, “Development of Large Eddy Simulation Turbulence Models,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Habchi, C., and Bruneaux, G., 2012, “LES and Experimental Investigation of Diesel Sprays,” 12th Triennial International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, (ICLASS 2012), Heidelberg, Germany, September 2–6.
Richards, K. J., Senecal, P. K., and Pomraning, E., 2012, “CONVERGE (Version 1.4.1) Manual,” Convergent Science, Inc., Middleton, WI.
Senecal, P. K., Richards, K. J., Pomraning, E., Yang, T., Dai, M. Z., McDavid, R. M., Patterson, M. A., Hou, S., and Shethaji, T., 2007, “A New Parallel Cut-Cell Cartesian CFD Code for Rapid Grid Generation Applied to In-Cylinder Diesel Engine Simulations,” Paper No. SAE 2007-01-0159. [CrossRef]
Leonard, A., 1974, “Energy Cascade in Large-Eddy Simulations of Turbulent Fluid Flows,” Adv. Geophys. A, 18(A), pp. 237–248. [CrossRef]
Yeo, W. K., 1987, “A Generalized High Pass/Low Pass Averaging Procedure for Deriving and Solving Turbulent Flow Equations,” Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Rhie, C. M., and Chow, W. L., 1983, “Numerical Study of the Turbulent Flow Past an Airfoil With Trailing Edge Separation,” AIAA J., 21(11), pp. 1525–1532. [CrossRef]
Issa, R. I., 1985, “Solution of the Implicitly Discretised Fluid Flow Equations by Operator-Splitting,” J. Comput. Phys., 62(1), pp. 40–65. [CrossRef]
Reitz, R. D., and Diwakar, R., 1987, “Structure of High-Pressure Fuel Sprays,” SAE Paper No. 870598. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, D. P., and Rutland, C. J., 2000, “A New Droplet Collision Algorithm,” J. Comput. Phys., 164(1), pp. 62–80. [CrossRef]
Post, S. L., and Abraham, J., 2002, “Modeling the Outcome of Drop-Drop Collisions in Diesel Sprays,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 28(6), pp. 997–1019. [CrossRef]
Liu, A. B., Mather, D. K., and Reitz, R. D., 1993, “Modeling the Effects of Drop Drag and Breakup on Fuel Sprays,” SAE Paper No. 930072. [CrossRef]
Amsden, A. A., O'Rourke, P. J., and Butler, T. D., 1989, “KIVA-II: A Computer Program for Chemically Reactive Flows With Sprays,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, Report LA-11560-MS.
Sandia, 2014, “Engine Combustion Network,” Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, http://www.sandia.gov/ecn/
Pickett, L. M., Genzale, C. L., Bruneaux, G., Malbec, L. M., Hermant, L., Christiansen, C., and Schramm, J., 2010, “Comparison of Diesel Spray Combustion in Different High-Temperature, High-Pressure Facilities,” SAE Paper No. 2010-01-2106. [CrossRef]
Pickett, L. M., Manin, J., Genzale, C. L., Siebers, D. L., Musculus, M. P. B., and Idicheria, C. A., 2011, “Relationship Between Diesel Fuel Spray Vapor Penetration/Dispersion and Local Fuel Mixture Fraction,” SAE Paper No. 2011-01-0686. [CrossRef]
ECN1 Proceedings, 2011, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, http://www.sandia.gov/ecn/workshop/ECN1.php
Meijer, M., Malbec, L- M., Bruneaux, G., and Somers, L. M. T., 2012, “Engine Combustion Network: ‘Spray A’ Basic Measurements and Advanced Diagnostics,” 12th Triennial International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (ICLASS 2012), Heidelberg, Germany, September 2–6.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Comparison of measured, filtered, and modeled rate of injection (ROI) for Spray A [18]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of measured and predicted ensemble-average centerline gas-phase velocities at (a) 0.5, (b) 1.0, (c) 1.5 and (d) 1.9 ms after the start of injection. The predicted results shown with the solid lines are averaged over 20 LES realizations. The dashed lines are offset in time 0.2 ms from the solid lines and are averaged over a reduced number (4–11) of LES realizations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of measured and predicted ensemble-average transverse mixture fraction at (a) 25, (b) 35, and (c) 45 mm from the nozzle exit. The predicted results are from 1.5 ms and are averaged over 20 LES realizations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of measured and predicted ensemble-average centerline mixture fraction. The predicted results are from 1.5 ms and are averaged over 20 LES realizations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of measured and predicted standard deviation of mixture fraction at (a) 25, (b) 35, and (c) 45 mm from the nozzle exit. The predicted results are from 1.5 ms.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of measured and predicted centerline standard deviation of mixture fraction. The predicted results are from 1.5 ms.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Number of combinations as a function of sample size for n = 20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Realization analysis plots for transverse velocity profiles at (a) 25 mm, (b) 35 mm, and (c) 45 mm, as well as (d) the centerline velocity profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of measured and predicted ensemble-average transverse gas-phase velocities at (a) 25, (b) 35, and (c) 45 mm from the nozzle exit. The predicted results are from 1.5 ms and are averaged over 20 LES realizations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of measured transverse gas-phase velocity at 25 mm from the nozzle exit with (a) results from all 20 LES realizations and (b) the average of all 20 LES realizations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Definition of (a) transverse and (b) centerline profile locations. The white lines indicate the location and extent of the x-axis in each of the profiles presented in the following figures. Colors in the images represent mixture fraction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Fuel vapor mass fraction contours for 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 ms and five different simulated LES realizations. Also shown are the experimentally measured vapor boundaries, indicated by the white lines [18].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of measured and predicted vapor penetration for the Spray A evaporating spray case. Twenty predicted curves are presented, along with the average over all 20 LES realizations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of measured and predicted liquid penetration for the Spray A evaporating spray case. Twenty predicted curves are presented, along with the average over all 20 LES realizations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Realization analysis plots for transverse mixture fraction profiles at (a) 25 mm, (b) 35 mm, and (c) 45 mm, as well as (d) the centerline mixture fraction profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of experimental error (error bars) and tol values (red lines) corresponding to the third rows in Tables 4 and 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of measured and predicted liquid penetration for the Spray A case. The predicted curves represent an average of 20 realizations with B1 = 7 and an average of five realizations with B1 = 5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of measured and predicted vapor penetration for the Spray A case. The predicted curves represent an average of 20 realizations with B1 = 7 and an average of five realizations with B1 = 5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison of measured and predicted centerline gas-phase velocities. The predicted results are for 1.5 ms and represent an average of 20 realizations with B1 = 7 and an average of five realizations with B1 = 5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison of measured and predicted centerline mixture fraction. The predicted results are for 1.5 ms and represent an average of 20 realizations with B1 = 7 and an average of five realizations with B1 = 5.

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