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

Effect of Valve Opening/Closing Setup on Computational Fluid Dynamics Prediction of Engine Flows

[+] Author and Article Information
Xiaofeng Yang

GM R&D,
30500 Mound Road,
Warren, MI 48090
e-mail: xiaofeng.yang@gm.com

Seunghwan Keum, Tang-Wei Kuo

GM R&D,
30500 Mound Road,
Warren, MI 48090

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received November 17, 2015; final manuscript received November 30, 2015; published online March 1, 2016. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(8), 081503 (Mar 01, 2016) (16 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1529; doi: 10.1115/1.4032342 History: Received November 17, 2015; Revised November 30, 2015

In computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of internal combustion engines, one of the critical modeling parameters is the valve setup. A standard workaround is to keep the valve opens at a certain clearance (minimum valve lift), while imposing a solid boundary to mimic valve closure. This method would yield a step change in valve lift during opening and closing event, and different valve event timing than hardware. Two parametric studies were performed to examine (a) the effect of the minimum valve lift and (b) the effect of grid resolution at the minimum valve lift on predicted in-cylinder flow fields in Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulations. The simulation results were compared with the state-of-the-art particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurement from a two-valve transparent combustion chamber (TCC-3) engine. The comparisons revealed that the accuracy of flow simulation is sensitive to the choice of minimum valve lift and grid resolution in the valve seat region. In particular, the predicted in-cylinder flow field during the intake process was found to be very sensitive to the valve setup. A best practice CFD valve setup strategy is proposed as a result of these parametric studies. The proposed CFD valve setup was applied to large eddy simulation (LES) of TCC-3 engine and preliminary results showed noticeable improvement already. Further evaluation of the valve setup strategy for LES simulations is ongoing and will be reported in a separate report.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Amsden, A. , 1997, “ KIVA-3V: A Block-Structured KIVA Program for Engines With Vertical or Canted Valves,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, Report No. LA-13313-MS. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/505339
Hessel, R. P. , 1993, “ Numerical Simulation of Valved Intake Port and In-Cylinder Flows Using KIVA3,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI.
Hessel, R. P. , and Rutland, C. J. , 1993, “ Intake Flow Modeling in a Four Stroke Diesel Using KIVA3,” AIAA Paper No. 93-2952.
Rutland, C. J. , Pieper, C. M. , and Hessel, R. P. , 1993, “ Intake and Cylinder Flow Modeling With a Dual-Valve Port,” SAE Technical Paper No. 930069.
Richards, K. J. , Senecal, P. K. , and Pomraning, E. , 2014, CONVERGE (v2.2.0), Convergent Science, Inc., Madison, WI.
Cecile, P. , and Angelberger, C. , 2011, “ Large Eddy Simulation of a Motored Single-Cylinder Engine Using System Simulation to Define Boundary Conditions: Methodology and Validation,” SAE Paper No. 2011-01-0834.
Kuo, T.-W. , Yang, X. , Gopalakrishnan, V. , and Chen, Z. , 2014, “ Large Eddy Simulation (LES) for IC Engine Flows,” Oil Gas Sci. Technol.—Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles,, 69(1), pp. 61–68. [CrossRef]
Schiffmann, P. , Gupta, S. , Reuss, D. , Sick, V. , Yang, X. , and Kuo, T.-W. , 2015, “ TCC-III Engine Benchmark for Large Eddy Simulation of IC Engine Flows,” Oil Gas Sci. Technol.—Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles.
Menon, T. S. , Yeung, P. K. , and Kim, W. W. , 1996, “ Effect of Subgrid Models on the Computed Interscale Energy Transfer in Isotropic Turbulence,” Comput. Fluids, 25(2), pp. 165–180. [CrossRef]
Pomraning, E. , and Rutland, C. J. , 2002, “ A Dynamic One-Equation Non-Viscosity LES Model,” AIAA J., 40(4), pp. 689–701. [CrossRef]
Liu, K. , Haworth, D. C. , Yang, X. , and Gopalakrishnan, V. , 2013, “ Large-Eddy Simulation of Motored Flow in a Two-Valve Piston Engine: POD Analysis and Cycle-to-Cycle Variations,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 91(2), pp. 373–403. [CrossRef]
Abraham, P. , Yang, X. , Gupta, S. , Kuo, T.-W. , Reuss, D. , and Sick, V. , 2015, “ Flow-Pattern Switching in a Motored Spark Ignition Engine,” Int. J. Eng. Res., 16(3), pp. 323–339. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Schematics of TCC and (b) cut planes for PIV measurement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

CFD flow area with different valve opening timing at fixed minimum lift. The first number is the minimum valve lift to which CFD lifts the valve at the opening, and the second number represents the lift height at which the valve opens.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Valve lift diagram with manually prescribed valve opening timing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Valve lift diagram with valve opening at minimum lift

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Valve lift profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mesh arrangement for the fine mesh with in-cylinder mesh size of 1 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Flow field comparison against minimum cell size at 50CA aTDCE, 1300 rpm 95 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Flow field comparison against minimum cell size at 100CA aTDCE, 1300 rpm 95 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

CFD valve event against the minimum valve lift

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

CFD flow field at 50CA aTDCE, 1300 rpm 95 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

CFD flow field at 100CA aTDCE, 1300 rpm 95 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Trapped mass against minimum valve lift, 1300 rpm 95 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Motored peak cylinder pressure against minimum valve lift, 1300 rpm 95 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Key flow feature at different crank angles (1300 rpm 40 kPa). (a) 50CA aTDCE and (b) 100CA aTDCE.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Effective CFD valve lift for cell size study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

CFD flow field at 50CA aTDCE, 1300 rpm 40 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

CFD flow field at 100CA aTDCE, 1300 rpm 40 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Trapped mass against minimum valve lift, 1300 rpm 40 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Motored peak pressure against minimum valve lift, 1300 rpm 40 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Comparison of velocity field over Z = −0.03 m plane with best practical valve setup, 1300 rpm 40 kPa. (a) PIV data, 1300 rpm 40 kPa and (b) simulation results, 1300 rpm 40 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Flow field comparison against minimum cell size at 50CA aTDCE, 1300 rpm 40 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Flow field comparison against minimum cell size at 100CA aTDCE, 1300 rpm 40 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Comparison of velocity field over Y = 0 plane with best practical valve setup, 1300 rpm 40 kPa. (a) PIV data, 1300 rpm 40 kPa and (b) simulation results, 1300 rpm 40 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Comparison of RMS velocity field over Y = 0 plane with best practical valve setup, 1300 rpm 95 kPa. (a) PIV data, 1300 rpm 95 kPa and (b) simulation results, 1300 rpm 95 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Comparison of RMS velocity field over Z = −0.03 plane with best practical valve setup, 1300 rpm 95 kPa. (a) PIV data, 1300 rpm 95 kPa and (b) simulation results, 1300 rpm 95 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Comparison of velocity field over Y = 0 plane with best practical valve setup, 800 rpm 95 kPa. (a) PIV data, 800 rpm 95 kPa and (b) simulation results, 800 rpm 95 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Comparison of velocity field over Z = −0.03 m plane with best practical valve setup, 800 rpm 95 kPa. (a) PIV data, 800 rpm 95 kPa and (b) simulation results, 800 rpm 95 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 33

Comparison of RMS velocity field over Y = 0 plane with best practical valve setup, 800 rpm 95 kPa. (a) PIV data, 800 rpm 95 kPa and (b) simulation results, 800 rpm 95 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 34

Comparison of RMS velocity field over Z = −0.03 m plane with best practical valve setup, 800 rpm 95 kPa. (a) PIV data, 800 rpm 95 kPa and (b) simulation results, 800 rpm 95 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Comparison of RMS velocity from PIV, RANS, and LES simulations over Y = 0 plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Comparison of RMS velocity field over Y = 0 plane with best practical valve setup, 1300 rpm 40 kPa. (a) PIV data, 1300 rpm 40 kPa and (b) simulation results, 1300 rpm 40 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Comparison of RMS velocity field over Z = −0.03 m plane with best practical valve setup, 1300 rpm 40 kPa. (a) PIV data, 1300 rpm 40 kPa and (b) simulation results, 1300 rpm 40 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Comparison of velocity field over Y = 0 plane with best practical valve setup, 1300 rpm 95 kPa. (a) PIV data, 1300 rpm 95 kPa and (b) simulation results, 1300 rpm 95 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Comparison of velocity field over Z = −0.03 m plane with best practical valve setup, 1300 rpm 95 kPa. (a) PIV data, 1300 rpm 95 kPa and (b) simulation results, 1300 rpm 95 kPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 35

Comparison of flow fields from PIV, RANS, and LES simulations over Y = 0 plane at 100CA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 36

Comparison of flow fields from PIV, RANS, and LES simulations over Y = 0 plane at 180CA

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