Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L. Vervisch
INSA de Rouen & LMFN – CORIA / CNRS
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.
SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
2000-01-0662
L. Vervisch
INSA de Rouen & LMFN – CORIA / CNRS
1
Some assumptions need to be made to simplify concentrations and thermal properties are calculated for
chemistry and transport. Depending on the conditions, a given mixture composition, pressure and temperature.
several hypotheses can be made: The mixture compositions consist of the mass fractions of
air, unburned fuel, burned air and burned fuel. There are
• infinitely fast chemistry
11 chemical species making up the combustion products:
• finite rate chemistry, where diffusion and reaction are CO , CO 2 , H , H 2 , H 2 O , N 2 , NO , O , O 2 , OH and N .
coupled as in laminar flames (the laminar flamelet These represent the major chemical species in both the
assumption) complete and incomplete combustion products. These
• finite rate chemistry, where diffusion and reaction are chemical species concentrations are then used for the
treated separately, as in probability density function determination of the emissions, which are calculated
(pdf) methods. separately. Their formation reactions have much slower
rates and make a small contribution to the total energy
Modeling combustion in DI diesel engines requires to
balance.
take into account the possibility to burn under different
regimes: premixed, non-premixed and partially premixed,
SPECIES SCHEME – The computational cells are
due to the inhomogeneous mixing of the reactants.
notionally divided by the flame front into two zones: an
Models have to represent those phenomena accurately.
unburned zone and a burned zone. Air, fuel vapor and
This approach is the one of pdf-generator modeling [5].
residual gases are found in the unburned zone and
Other ways can be followed, using a more empirical
combustion products are in the burned zone. The
formulation such as in the mean values and geometrical
unburned region is further divided into two regions: a
description methods.
segregated and a fully mixed region. In the segregated
region, the air and fuel are not mixed at a molecular level
RTZF COMBUSTION MODEL and are therefore not ready to react chemically. In the
other region, the air, fuel and residuals are fully mixed.
A combination of these two methods is the novel Ricardo
Two Zone Flamelet (RTZF) combustion model [7] The segregated region increases in mass from newly
investigated by this study. In this model, a semi-empirical evaporated fuel from a fuel spray or from the flow from an
approach is adopted where the turbulent burning velocity inlet boundary. The fluid flow and molecular diffusion
and the burning rate are estimated based on fractal convert segregated reactants to fully mixed reactants;
geometry and basic dimensional analysis of turbulent combustion then consumes the fully mixed reactants and
flames. In this way, difficulties such as the description of converts them into combustion products. The mixture
the flame front area can be avoided. In addition, there is a components in the unburned zone have effectively three
simple and clear relationship between the turbulence and mass fractions: a segregated, a fully mixed and an overall
burning velocity, which can be easily compared with mass fraction; only two of these are however
measurements. A fractal-based model provides limited independent. The segregated and overall mass fractions
physical insight, but it quickly provides the burning rate, are solved for and the fully mixed mass fraction is
which is a major requirement for combustion modeling. obtained from the other two.
The proper description of the effects of chemistry is an The species concentrations of the combustion products
essential of combustion modeling. A large amount of are determined from the initial air/fuel ratio before
computing resources is required for the simulation of full combustion. Thus the mass fractions of both the burned
chemical reaction schemes; however, as an engineering air and fuel are used rather than the total mass fraction of
tool, this approach is too costly and complex. On the the combustible products in the burned zone. In a similar
other hand, simplified reduced reaction schemes have manner, the separate mass fractions of the residual air
been developed for a few particular fuel types. These are, and fuel are also used.
however, lacking in generality and can be over simplified.
An example of this is the previously mentioned
Magnussen model [1], which uses an over-simplified
scheme, based on a one-step reaction of burning at a
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. Important effects such as the
incomplete combustion of fuel-rich mixture burning are
ignored with this method. Moreover, information
concerning the chemical composition of the combustion
products is also not provided thus emissions formation
cannot be determined.
The current model uses a chemical equilibrium approach
for the chemistry modeling. Since the reactions, which
are responsible for the heat release, are always
performed at fast rates, they can therefore be treated at Figure 1. Schematic of the RTZF Combustion model.
equilibrium conditions. The chemical species
2
MIXING AND FLAME PROPAGATION – The different where c is the regress variable and is defined as the
components in the segregated region are converted to sum of mass fractions of unburned air, unburned fuel and
the fully mixed mass fraction by turbulent mixing. The residuals ( c = Y A + YF + YRA + YRF ). Before the start of
turbulent mixing is based on the large-eddy scale and
combustion, the regress variable for a given cell is equal
has a mixing rate of:
to 1; it has a value of 0 after the completion of
k combustion. The characteristic cell length is evaluated by
ω αmix = c mix ρYαseg
ε (1) the cubic root of the cell volume ( Lc = 3 Vc ) and the
coefficient g has an approximate value of 4.
where c mix is the mixing constant ranging from a value of
2 to 32 (a value of 20 is the recommended default value For the case of non-premixed flames, the ratio of the fully
mixed reactant volume to the total volume ( rvol ) is
for c mix ). estimated for the degree of segregation. The segregated
Reactants, which are fully mixed, are consumed by the air/fuel mixture causes holes in the flame front. Thus the
combustion. Low temperature reactions occur for auto- non-premixed burning rate is slower than a pre-mixed
ignition and high-temperature reactions occur for the rate.
flame propagation. High-temperature reactions always
follow after auto-ignition. Thereafter, the combustibles AUTO-IGNITION MODEL – Since low temperature
can be consumed by either more auto-ignition or by reactions are responsible for auto-ignition and high-
normal flame propagation. For the normal flame temperature reactions for the normal flame, these two
propagation, the burning rate is determined by: reactions are treated separately. Low-temperature
reactions for the auto-ignition are considered as a
AT lumped one-step reaction of a generic intermediate
ω f = ρr SL I Σ rvol
A ignition species Yig , which is inversely proportional to the
(2)
where the effective unstretched laminar burning velocity ignition time ( Yig = 1 / τ ig ). The ignition probability, p ig , is
S L is derived from measured maximum laminar burning determined via the integral:
velocity where the effects of the reference condition, fuel-
dt
air equivalence ratio and residuals are taken into p ig = ∫
account. τ ig
(6)
The effect of strain on flame burning velocity is
represented by the flame stretch factor I . With The ignition delay is a function of temperature and
increasing strain, the propagating flame will be partially pressure given by:
quenched and can even be extinguished. For the
turbulent flame, the ratio of flame surface area to the τ ig = AP − n e (T A / T )
(7)
projected transverse area ( AT / A ) is determined from
fractal geometry: where the coefficients A , n and T A (activation
temperature) are determined from experimental ignition
D −2 delay measurements. A transport equation for the ignition
AT l
= I
probability is solved and auto-ignition occurs when p ig
A lk has reached a value of unity. The contribution of heat
(3)
from the low-temperature reactions is considered
Here l I is the integral length scale and l k is the negligible.
Kolmogorov scale. When considering the transition from
laminar to turbulent regime, the fractal dimension D is COMMENTS – The mixing rate is built in the same way
correlated as a function of the ratio of turbulence intensity as the Eddy Break-Up model [8], using a linear relaxation
to laminar burning velocity: model. Only the effect of turbulence is taken into account.
Reaction takes place in a thin zone between burned and
′
− 0,5 / ln 1+ u unburned gas, assimilated to a set of laminar flames. Its
S
D = 2 + 0,75e L formulation seems to be a mix between the BML model
(4)
modified by Bray et al. [9] and the approach of Gouldin et
The flame projected transverse area per unit volume al. [10]. The BML model supposes that a point of the flow
( Σ = A / V ) is a shape function, and is defined as is either in the burned or in the unburned zones,
separated by the reaction area. The reaction rate is then
gc (1 − c ) proportional to the pass frequency of the flame front.
Σ=
Lc
(5)
3
Those models are formulated in terms of flame density. TDI ENGINE – The experimental engine used was a VW
The first one, with reference of equation (5) for the TDI 1.9l direct injection Diesel engine. The engine
formulation of the flame density, makes the flame density characteristics are found in Table 1 below.
to be proportional to the crossing frequency of the flame
front. In the other one, the flame density is expressed as Table 1. Engine Characteristics.
a fractal surface and gives an expression quite analog to
(3). TDI 1,9 liter
The RTZF model uses the approach of Bray et al. [9] for Type 4 in-line-cylinder
the reaction rate, the fractal formulation being used for Injection Direct
the calculation of the surface area of the flame. The
model enables to simulate both non-premixed and Arrangement Row
premixed combustion. For non-premixed combustion, Timing 1 overhead camshaft (belt)
reactants are first mixed locally, in each cell, and are then
burned. For pre-mixed combustion, only the second step Valves 2 per cylinder
is required. For more RTZF model details see [7]. Capacity 1896cm 3
40°
60°
40°
S our ce S av in g manner, an accurate injection law can be determined for
20° 20°
any type of injector. This methodology provides an
K-EFAM
VOLKSWAGEN
E lect rical
accurate description of the time dependent injected fuel
10° 10°
D at a mass flow rate law.
A quis it ion
Calculat ion
Engine measurements for this study were made for part
O pt rical
S ignal-
con t roller
K am era
D at a
load operating conditions with an engine speed of 1000
A quis it ion
RPM, a Pmep of 1 bar and with 6 mg of injected fuel. The
fuel was injected with a pressure of 400 bar in two
Figure 2. Schematic of pressure chamber.
phases: a pre- and a main-injection. The mass of the
injected fuel equaled 1.6 mg and 4.4 mg, respectively.
The corresponding injection law can be seen in Fig. 3.
4
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
5
Figure 5. Comparison of simulated and pressure chamber spray penetration: Pchamber = 20 bar, Tchamber = 293 K,
Prail=400bar and Trail=303K.
A comparison of the simulated and photographed spray A view of the computational mesh used for the engine
results can be seen in Fig. 5. A total of six pairs of images simulations can be seen in Fig. 6. Note that in the area of
are presented showing the cone angle and penetration the injector, local mesh refinement is used to improve the
for one representative jet of the spray. Both the simulated accuracy of the spray modeling. The cell size in the bowl
and photographic images were directly comparable was 1mm square that resulted in an average mesh size
through the use of a 10-mm square reference grid. A of 100000 internal cells. The calculation time on a single-
spray image is shown every 250 microseconds. The lines processor workstation which included the compression,
at the tip and sides of the sprays had identical spray and combustion simulation equaled about 40
dimensions for both the simulated and photographic hours.
images. One can see that although the slightly non-
symmetric nature of the photographed spray was not
found in simulated spray, general good agreement was
found with regards to both the spray cone angle and
penetration.
6
40 to –5° CA BTDC. The simulations also show two EGR level of 30%, the chemical composition of the
peaks smaller in magnitude, however both beginning very chamber gases would be in effect different compared to
close to the measured start of combustion. the unfired engine.
The simulation results based on the default values of the
combustion model constants already showed an
encouraging correlation compared to the measured
pressure curve. However, in order to further test the
model, a parameter study was conducted by changing
the mixing coefficient (Cmix), the Reaction Scaling Factor
(RSF) and the Ignition Scaling Factor (ISF). The mixing
coefficient is a real constant in the model and directly
controls the rate of mixing of the species, i.e. their
conversion from a segregated to a mixed condition. In
addition, Cmix has a strong influence on the overall
combustion reaction rate. The other two parameters
investigated are used for fine-tuning of the model. The
RSF controls the burning velocity and thus the overall
reaction rate. Finally, the ISF tunes the auto-ignition pdf,
effecting the rate of the low-temperature reactions that
lead to auto ignition. The default values for the
Figure 7. Comparison of simulated and measured in- parameters are Cmix=20, RSF=1, and ISF=1.
cylinder pressure using the default values of
the combustion model constants In order to investigate the effects of varying Cmix, three
(Cmix=20, RSF=1, ISF=1). simulations were performed with Cmix set at 10, 20 and
32; the values of RSF and ISF were left at their default
values of 1. Fig. 9 shows the percentage difference
between the simulated and the measured cylinder
pressure curves as a function of °CA. It can be seen that
combustion begins at about 3° CA ATDC for all the three
Cmix values. For Cmix=10, the pressure is always more
under-predicted than for the case of the other two Cmix
values and has a mean difference of –3.0 %. When
Cmix=32, the mean difference equals –2.2% and has a
higher value of the pressure over the entire 25°CA. The
default value of Cmix=20 is very similar to Cmix=32 with
a mean difference of -2.5%. Thus the higher the value of
Cmix, the smaller was the mean difference between the
simulated and measured pressure.
7
The variation of RSF is shown in Fig. 10. As the RSF In Fig. 12, it is shown that the percent difference in the
value decreased, the percent difference increased from a pressure for the different ISF values becomes relatively
mean difference of –2.5% at RSF=1 to –3.1% at similar with increasing °CA where the mean difference
RSF=0.5. Once again the point of combustion begin at ranges from –2.5 to -2.7%.
5°CA ATDC was not affected. Thus the default value of
RSF=1 showed the better fit to the experimental pressure
curve.
8
In the light of these DNS observations, one possibility to REFERENCES
improve the combustion model, and to mimic these
important features of auto-ignition, would consist of 1. Magnussen B. and Mjertager B., “On mathematical
modifying the calculation of the probability of finding modelling of turbulent combustion”, 16th International
ignition. Following the work of Ravet and Vervisch [5], Symposium on Combustion, pp. 719-727, The
based on an idea first proposed by Borghi [4], a table Combustion Institute, 1976.
look up of ignition time delay could be constructed. The 2. Marble F. and Broadwell J., “The coherent flame
resulting ignition times would be a function of the mean model of non-premixed turbulent combustion”,
temperature, mean species mass fraction and position in Project Squid TRW-9-PU, Project Squid
mixture fraction space. Introducing the probability density Headquarters, Chaffee Hall, Purdue University, 1977.
distribution of micro-mixing time, the probability of finding 3. Bilger R.W., “The structure of diffusion flames”,
ignition for each possible instantaneous value of the Combustion Science Technology, Vol. 13, pp. 155-
mixture fraction is then measured from the probability of 170, 1976.
having micro-mixing times greater than the ignition time. 4. Borghi R., “Turbulent combustion modelling”, Prog.
A presumed beta-pdf for the mixture fraction could be Energy Combust. Sci., Vol. 14, pp. 245-292, 1988.
used to average over the range of variation of mixture 5. Ravet F. and Vervisch L., “Modelling non-premixed
fraction. The existence of characteristic mixing times turbulent combustion in aeronautical engines using
smaller than ignition delay would prevent auto-ignition pdf-generator”, 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and then combustion. However, when ignition prevails and Exhibit AIAA, paper 98-1027, Reno, Nevada,
over micro-mixing, combustion would occur. This USA, 1998.
modification of the model would lead to a more accurate 6. Pope, S.B., “Pdf method for turbulent reacting flows”,
description of the first stage of combustion in the engine. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., Vol. 11, pp. 119-195,
Finally, the ignition table look-up could be implemented 1985.
using a detailed chemical mechanism; this would allow 7. VECTIS Theory Manual, Version 3.4, Ricardo
for better accuracy in the determination of the burning Consulting Engineers Ltd, December, 1999.
rate. 8. Spalding, D., “Mixing and chemical reaction in steady
confined turbulent flames”, 13th Symposium
CONCLUSION (International) on Combustion, Pittsburgh, pp. 649-
657, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1971.
A numerical and experimental study was conducted 9. Bray, K., Champion, M. and Libby P., “The interaction
investigating the combustion process in a 1.9L TDI Diesel between turbulence and chemistry in premixed
engine. Simulations and measurements were conducted turbulence flames”, Turbulent Reacting Flows,
in both for the case of a pressure chamber and the Volume 40 of Lecture Notes in Engineering, R.
engine. A graphical methodology was used which Borghi and S. Murphy (Eds.), pp. 541-563, Springer,
matched the simulated spray well with the spray images 1989.
taken in the pressure chamber. The novel RTZF flamelet 10. Gouldin, F., Bray, K. and Chen, J., “Chemical closure
model was used for the combustion simulations. A model for fractal flamelets”, Combust. Flame, Vol. 77,
comparison of the calculated and measured in-cylinder pp. 241-259, 1989.
pressure indicated good agreement at partial load 11. VECTIS Users Guide, Computational Fluid
operating conditions with a mean difference between the Dynamics, Release 3.3, Ricardo Consulting
simulation and measurement pressure equalling 3%. Engineers Ltd, January, 1999.
Furthermore, suggestions based on Direct Numerical 12. Launder, B. E. and Spalding D.B, Mathematical
Simulations from the literature have been proposed how Models of Turbulence, Academic Press, New York,
to improve the auto-ignition model utilized. In conclusion, 1972.
this study has shown that the RTZF flamelet model tested 13. Patterson, M.A. and Reitz, R.D, “Modeling the effects
shows encouraging results and thus merits further of fuel spray charactreristics on Diesel eingine
development and investigation at other engine operating combustion and emission”, SAE 980131, 1998.
conditions. 14. Reitz, R.D. and Bracco, F.V., “Mechanisms of
atomization of a liquid jet”, Phys. Fluids, Vol. 25,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pp.1730-1742, 1982.
15. Arcoumanis, C., Whitelaw, J.H., Hentschel, W. and
The authors would like to thank Arno Homburg and Schindler, K.P., “Flow and combustion in a
Reinhard Schulz for their help concerning the pressure transparent 1.9 liter direct injection diesel engine”,
chamber measurements and diagrams. Finally, thanks Proce. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 208, pp.191-205,
are given to Dr. H.-J. Oberg for his useful discussions 1994.
during the course of this study. 16. Vervisch, L. and Poinsot, T., “Direct numerical
simulation of non-premixed turbulent flame”, Annu.
Rev. Fluid Mech., Vol. 30, pp. 655-692, 1998.
9
17. Domingo, P. and Vervisch, L., “Triple flames and
partially premixed combustion in autoignition of non-
premixed turbulent mixtures”, 26th International
Symposium on Combustion, Naples, pp. 233-240,
The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1996.
18. Mastorakos, E., Baritaud, T. and Poinsot, T.J.,
“Numerical simulations of autoignition in turbulent
mixing flows”, Direct numerical simulation for
turbulent reacting flows, T. Baritaud, T. Poinsot, and
M. Baum (Eds), pp. 242-276, Editions Technip, 1996.
19. Peters, N., “Laminar flamelet concepts in turbulent
combustion”, 21st International Symposium on
Combustion, Irvine, pp. 1231-1250, The Combustion
Institute, Pittsburgh, 1986.
20. Linán, A., “The asymptotic structure of counter flow
diffusion flames for large activation energies”, Acta
Astronautica 1007 (1), 1974.
10