0
Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

Three-Dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling and Validation of Ion Current Sensor in a Gen-Set Diesel Engine Using Chemical Kinetic Mechanism

[+] Author and Article Information
Tamer Badawy

Mem. ASME
Mechanical Department,
Wayne State University,
5050 Anthony Wayne Drive, Suite 2100,
Detroit, MI 48202
e-mail: eng.tam@gmail.com

Naeim Henein

Mechanical Department,
Wayne State University,
5050 Anthony Wayne Drive, Suite 2100,
Detroit, MI 48202
e-mail: henein@eng.wayne.edu

Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received November 20, 2016; final manuscript received March 14, 2017; published online May 16, 2017. Assoc. Editor: David L.S. Hung.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(10), 102810 (May 16, 2017) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1541; doi: 10.1115/1.4036494 History: Received November 20, 2016; Revised March 14, 2017

Ion current sensing is a low-cost technology that can provide a real-time feedback for the in-cylinder combustion process. The ion current signal depends on several design parameters of the sensing probe in addition to the operating conditions of the engine. To experimentally determine the effect of each of these parameters on the ion current signal, it requires modifications in the engine which would be costly and time consuming. A 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model, coupled with a chemical kinetic solver, was developed to calculate the mole fraction of the ionized species formed in different zones in the fuel spray. A new approach of defining a number of virtual ion sensing probes was introduced to the model to determine the influence of sensor design and location relative to the spray axis on the signal characteristics. The contribution of the premixed and the mixing-diffusion controlled combustion was investigated. In addition, the crank angle resolved evolution of key ionization species produced during the combustion process was also compared at different engine operating conditions.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Piston surface profile used in the CFD simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Computational sector mesh used in the engine cycle simulation with piston at top dead center

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Virtual probes defined in the CFD model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Normalized ion current signal of different probe diameters in the CFD simulation (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, injection pressure 1200 bar, and indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) 4 bar) (experimental maximum peak of the ion current is 72 μA)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Different probe protrusions in the CFD simulation (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, injection pressure 1200 bar, and IMEP 4 bar) (experimental maximum peak of the ion current is 72 μA)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Different probes location in the CFD simulation (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, injection pressure 1200 bar, and IMEP 4 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Radial axis probes location in the CFD simulation (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, injection pressure 1200 bar, and IMEP 4 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Different probes location in the CFD simulation (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, injection pressure 1200 bar, and IMEP 4 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of simulation and experimental data at IMEP 4 bar (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, and injection pressure 1200 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Simulation results of ionization constituents at IMEP 4 bar at probe 13

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of simulation and experimental data at IMEP 6 bar (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, and injection pressure 1200 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Simulation results of ionization constituents at IMEP 6 bar at probe 13

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of simulation and experimental data at IMEP 8 bar (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, and injection pressure 1200 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Simulation results of ionization constituents at IMEP 8 bar at probe 13

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of simulation and experimental data at IMEP 6 bar (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, and injection pressure 1200 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Simulation results of ionization constituents at IMEP 12 bar at probe 13

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of simulation and experimental data at IMEP 6 bar (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, and injection pressure 600 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Simulation results of ionization constituents at injection pressure 600 bar at probe 13

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison of simulation and experimental data at IMEP 6 bar (JD, 1800 rpm, LPPC 4 deg aTDC, and injection pressure 900 bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Simulation results of ionization constituents at injection pressure 900 bar at probe 13

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