0
Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

Multizone Phenomenological Modeling of Combustion and Emissions for Multiple-Injection Common Rail Direct Injection Diesel Engines

[+] Author and Article Information
S Rajkumar

Internal Combustion Engines Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: rajkumars@ssn.edu.in

Shamit Bakshi

Internal Combustion Engines Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: shamit@iitm.ac.in

Pramod S Mehta

Internal Combustion Engine Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai, India 600036
e-mail: psmehta@iitm.ac.in

1Present address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, SSN College of Engineering, Kalavakkam, Chennai 603110, India.

2Corresponding author.

Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received May 9, 2013; final manuscript received June 30, 2016; published online August 9, 2016. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(12), 122805 (Aug 09, 2016) (13 pages) Paper No: GTP-13-1124; doi: 10.1115/1.4034094 History: Received May 09, 2013; Revised June 30, 2016

Common rail direct injection (CRDI) system is a modern variant of direct injection diesel engine featuring higher fuel injection pressure and flexible injection scheduling which involves two or more pulses. Unlike a conventional diesel engine, the CRDI engine provides simultaneous reduction of oxides of nitrogen and smoke with an injection schedule that has optimized start of injection, fuel quantity in each injection pulse, and dwell periods between them. In this paper, the development of a multizone phenomenological model used for predicting combustion and emission characteristics of multiple injection in CRDI diesel engine is presented. The multizone spray configuration with their temperature and composition histories predicted on phenomenological spray growth and mixing considerations helps accurate prediction of engine combustion and emission (nitric oxide and soot) characteristics. The model predictions of combustion and emissions for multiple injection are validated with measured values over a wide range of speed and load conditions. The multizone and the two-zone model are compared and the reasons for better comparisons for the multizone model with experimental data are also explored.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of spray evolution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of predicted and measured ignition delay

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of engine setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of predicted and measured pressure histories at 2000 rpm: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of predicted and measured HRR histories at 2000 rpm: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of predicted and measured pressure histories at 1600 rpm: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of predicted and measured HRR histories at 1600 rpm: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of predicted and measured pressure histories at 2400 rpm: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of predicted and measured HRR histories at 2400 rpm: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of predicted and measured NO emission: (a) 20% load, (b) 60% load, and (c) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of predicted and measured soot emission: (a) 20% load, (b) 60% load, and (c) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of measured and predicted IMEPs: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of measured and predicted NO emissions by two-zone and multizone models: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of measured and predicted soot emissions by two-zone and multizone models: (a) 20% load, (b) 40% load, (c) 60% load, (d) 80% load, and (e) 100% load

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