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

Modeling Investigation of Different Methods to Suppress Engine Knock on a Small Spark Ignition Engine

[+] Author and Article Information
Jiankun Shao

Engine Research Center,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Wisconsin–Madison,
Madison, WI 53705
e-mail: jshao6@wisc.edu

Christopher J. Rutland

Professor
Engine Research Center,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Wisconsin–Madison,
Madison, WI 53705
e-mail: rutland@engr.wisc.edu

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received August 18, 2014; final manuscript received October 15, 2014; published online December 9, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(6), 061506 (Jun 01, 2015) (15 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1492; doi: 10.1115/1.4028870 History: Received August 18, 2014; Revised October 15, 2014; Online December 09, 2014

Knock is the main obstacle toward increasing the compression ratio and using lower octane number fuels. In this paper, a small two-valve aircraft spark ignition engine, Rotax-914, was used as an example to investigate different methods to suppress engine knock. It is generally known that if the octane number is increased and the combustion period is shortened, the occurrence of knock will be suppressed. Thus, in this paper, different methods were introduced for two effects, increasing ignition delay time in end-gas and increasing flame speed. In the context, KIVA-3V code, as an advanced 3D engine combustion simulation code, was used for engine simulations and chemical kinetics investigations were also conducted using chemkin. The results illustrated gas addition, such as hydrogen and natural gas addition, can be used to increase knock resistance of the Rotax-914 engine in some operating conditions. Replacing the traditional port injection method by direct injection strategy was another way investigated in this paper to suppress engine knock. Some traditional methods, such as adding exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and increasing swirl ratio, also worked for this small spark ignition engine.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Heywood, J. B., 1996, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, Vol. 930, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Shao, J., and Rutland, C. J., 2014, “Modeling Investigation of Auto-Ignition and Engine Knock by HO2,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2014-01-1221. [CrossRef]
Popuri, S. S., and Bata, R. M., 1993, “A Performance Study of Iso-Butanol-, Methanol-, and Ethanol-Gasoline Blends Using a Single Cylinder Engine,” SAE Technical Paper No. 932953. [CrossRef]
Attar, A. A., and Karim, G. A., 2003, “Knock Rating of Gaseous Fuels,” ASME J. Eng. Gas. Turbines Power, 125(2), pp. 500–504. [CrossRef]
Topinka, J. A., Gerty, M. D., Heywood, J. B., and Keck, J. C., 2004, “Knock Behavior of a Lean-Burn, H2 and CO Enhanced, SI Gasoline Engine Concept,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2004-01-0975. [CrossRef]
Karim, G. A., 2003, “Combustion in Gas Fueled Compression: Ignition Engines of the Dual Fuel Type,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 125(3), pp. 827–836. [CrossRef]
Wang, Z., Wang, J. X., Shuai, S. J., Tian, G. H., and An, X. L., 2007, “Experimental and Computational Studies on Gasoline HCCI Combustion Control Using Injection Strategies,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 129(3), pp. 870–876. [CrossRef]
Tan, Z., and Reitz, R. D., 2006, “An Ignition and Combustion Model Based on the Level-Set Method for Spark Ignition Engine Multidimensional Modeling,” Combust. Flame, 145(1), pp. 1–15. [CrossRef]
Han, Z., and Reitz, R. D., 1995, “Turbulence Modeling of Internal Combustion Engines Using RNG κ-ε Models,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 106(4–6), pp. 267–295. [CrossRef]
Liang, L., Reitz, R. D., Iyer, C. O., and Yi, J., 2007, “Modeling Knock in Spark-Ignition Engines Using a G-Equation Combustion Model Incorporating Detailed Chemical Kinetics,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2007-01-0165. [CrossRef]
Mehl, M., Pitz, W. J., Westbrook, C. K., and Curran, H. J., 2011, “Kinetic Modeling of Gasoline Surrogate Components and Mixtures Under Engine Conditions,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 33(1), pp. 193–200. [CrossRef]
Ra, Y., and Reitz, R. D., 2008, “A Reduced Chemical Kinetic Model for IC Engine Combustion Simulations With Primary Reference Fuels,” Combust. Flame, 155(4), pp. 713–738. [CrossRef]
Tsuboi, T., and Wagner, H. G., 1975, “Homogeneous Thermal Oxidation of Methane in Reflected Shock Waves,” Symp. (Int.) Combust., 15(1), pp. 883–890. [CrossRef]
Spadaccini, L. J., and Colket, III, M. B., 1994, “Ignition Delay Characteristics of Methane Fuels,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 20(5), pp. 431–460. [CrossRef]
Hidaka, Y., Sato, K., Hoshikawa, H., Nishimori, T., Takahashi, R., Tanaka, H., Inami, K., and Ito, N., 2000, “Shock-Tube and Modeling Study of Ethane Pyrolysis and Oxidation,” Combust. Flame, 120(3), pp. 245–264. [CrossRef]
He, X., Donovan, M. T., Zigler, B. T., Palmer, T. R., Walton, S. M., Wooldridge, M. S., and Atreya, A., 2005, “An Experimental and Modeling Study of Iso-Octane Ignition Delay Times Under Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Conditions,” Combust. Flame, 142(3), pp. 266–275. [CrossRef]
Ciezki, H. K., and Adomeit, G., 1993, “Shock-Tube Investigation of Self-Ignition of n-Heptane-Air Mixtures Under Engine Relevant Conditions,” Combust. Flame, 93(4), pp. 421–433. [CrossRef]
Hughes, K. J., Turanyi, T., Clague, A. R., and Pilling, M. J., 2001, “Development and Testing of a Comprehensive Chemical Mechanism for the Oxidation of Methane,” Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 33(9), pp. 513–538. [CrossRef]
Jomaas, G., Zheng, X. L., Zhu, D. L., and Law, C. K., 2005, “Experimental Determination of Counterflow Ignition Temperatures and Laminar Flame Speeds of C2-C3 Hydrocarbons at Atmospheric and Elevated Pressures,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 30(1), pp. 193–200. [CrossRef]
Huang, Y., Sung, C. J., and Eng, J. A., 2004, “Laminar Flame Speeds of Primary Reference Fuels and Reformer Gas Mixtures,” Combust. Flame, 139(3), pp. 239–251. [CrossRef]
Fan, L., Li, G., Han, Z., and Reitz, R. D., 1999, “Modeling Fuel Preparation and Stratified Combustion in a Gasoline Direct Injection Engine,” SAE Technical Paper No. 1999-01-0175. [CrossRef]
Tan, Z., Fan, L., and Reitz, R. D., 2001, “Modeling Ignition, Multicomponent Fuel Vaporization and Spray Breakup in a DISI Engine,” 14th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (ILASS-01), Dearborn, MI, May 20–23.
Peters, N., 2000, Turbulent Combustion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Yu, G., Law, C. L., and Wu, C. L., 1986, “Laminar Flame Speeds of Hydrocarbon + Air Mixtures With Hydrogen Addition,” Combust. Flame, 63(3), pp. 339–347. [CrossRef]
Tang, C. L., Huang, Z. H., and Law, C. K., 2011, “Determination, Correlation, and Mechanistic Interpretation of Effects of Hydrogen Addition on Laminar Flame Speeds of Hydrocarbon + Air Mixtures,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 33(1), pp. 921–928. [CrossRef]
Eng, J. A., 2002, “Characterization of Pressure Waves in HCCI Combustion,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2002-01-2859. [CrossRef]
Dec, J. E., and Yang, Y., 2010, “Boosted HCCI for High Power Without Engine Knock and With Ultra-Low NOx Emissions-Using Conventional Gasoline,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2010-01-1086. [CrossRef]
Wu, Y., Hanson, R., and Reitz, R. D., 2014, “Investigation of Combustion Phasing Control Strategy During Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) Multicylinder Engine Load Transitions,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 136(9), p. 091511. [CrossRef]
Kokjohn, S. L., Hanson, R. M., Splitter, D. A., and Reitz, R. D., 2011, “Fuel Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI): A Pathway to Controlled High-Efficiency Clean Combustion,” Int. J. Eng. Res., 12(3), pp. 209–226. [CrossRef]
Glassman, I., 1997, Combustion, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Fristrom, R. M., and Westenberg, A. A., 1965, Flame Structure, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Loubar, K., Rahmouni, C., Le Corre, O., and Tazerout, M., 2005, “Combustion Properties Determination of Natural Gas Using Thermal Conductivity and CO2 Content,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2005-01-3774. [CrossRef]
Shao, J., 2014, “Numerical Investigation of Engine Knock,” Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.
Teraji, A., Kakuho, A., Tsuda, T., and Hashizume, Y., 2009, “A Study of the Knocking Mechanism in Terms of Flame Propagation Behavior Based on 3D Numerical Simulations,” SAE Int. J. Eng., 2(1), pp. 666–673. [CrossRef]
Cairns, A., and Blaxill, H., 2005, “The Effects of Combined Internal and External Exhaust Gas Recirculation on Gasoline Controlled Auto-Ignition,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2015-01-0133. [CrossRef]
Hoepke, B., Jannsen, S., Kasseris, E., and Cheng, W. K., 2012, “EGR Effects on Boosted SI Engine Operation and Knock Integral Correlation,” SAE Int. J. Eng., 5(2), pp. 547–559.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic illustration of knocking combustion in spark ignition engines [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Validation of ignition delay times of submechanisms for different hydrocarbons [13-17]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Validation of laminar flame speeds of submechanisms for different hydrocarbons [18-20]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Laminar flame speed, SL, of PRF87-air with hydrogen addition as a function of mole fraction of hydrogen in fuel blends, xH, for different equivalence ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Laminar flame speed, SL, of PRF87-air with natural gas addition as a function of mole fraction of natural gas in fuel blends, xadd, for different equivalence ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Computational mesh of the Rotax-914 engine [2] and model validations in two different operating conditions with the engine mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effects of hydrogen addition on ignition delay time for PRF87 + H2 + air mixture

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Reaction rate of H-abstraction of PRF87 fuel with initial temperature equals to 800 K and initial pressure equals to 50 atm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Reaction rate of OH consumption with hydrogen addition and mole fraction of OH in the WSR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of HO2 distribution among case 1, case 5, and case 6 in weak knock operating condition, see Table 2 (the left column shows case 1, the center column shows case 5, and the right column shows case 6)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of HO2 distribution among case 1 and case 3 in strong knock operating condition, see Table 3 (the left column shows case 1 and the right column shows case 3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of ignition delay time between cases with methane addition (50% PRF87 and 50% methane in mole fraction) and without methane addition (100% PRF87 in mole fraction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of net reaction rates of hydrocarbon H-abstraction between cases with methane addition (50% PRF87 and 50% methane in mole fraction) and without methane addition (100% PRF87 in mole fraction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of ignition delay time between natural gases addition cases (50% PRF87 and 50% natural gas in mole fraction) with pure PRF87 case for natural gas blends 1–6 in Table 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of pressure trace, PRR, and HRR among cases with different natural gas additions, see Table 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of HO2 distribution among case 1 and case 6 for natural gas addition (the left column shows case 1 and the right column shows case 6, see Table 5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of pressure trace, PRR, and HRR between port injection case and direct injection case, see Table 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of swirl flow and tumble flow between the case with port injection and the case with direct injection, see Table 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison of HO2 distribution of the case with port injection (left column) and the case with direct injection (right column), see Table 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

2D contours of flame propagation and knock propensity showed by HO2 of direct injection case, see Table 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

2D contours of flame propagation and knock propensity showed by HO2 of upper left corner of direct injection case, see Table 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Injection strategy of direct injection condition, see direct injection case of Table 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Comparison of pressure traces and HRR of the cases with different dilution gases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Comparison of pressure traces, PRR, and HRR of cases with different swirl ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

2D top-view plots of HO2 distribution of weak knock condition (hydrogen addition). Row 1 is case 1, row 2 is case 2, row 3 is case 3, row 4 is case 4, row 5 is case 5, and row 6 is case 6.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

2D top-view plots of HO2 distribution of strong knock condition (hydrogen addition). Row 1 is case 1, row 2 is case 2, and row 3 is case 3.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

2D top-view plots of HO2 distribution of natural gas addition. Row 1 is case 1, row 2 is case 2, row 3 is case 3, row 4 is case 4, row 5 is case 5, and row 6 is case 6.

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