3-D CFD Analysis of the Combustion Process in a DI Diesel Engine using a Flamelet Model
H. Bensler, F. Bühren and E. Samson
Volkswagen AG

L. Vervisch

Reprinted From: Multi-Dimensional Engine Modeling (SP–1512)

SAE 2000 World Congress Detroit, Michigan March 6–9, 2000
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 Sections 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.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database

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


3-D CFD Analysis of the Combustion Process in a DI Diesel Engine using a Flamelet Model
H. Bensler, F. Bühren and E. Samson
Volkswagen AG

L. Vervisch
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

A 3-dimensional numerical study has been conducted investigating the combustion process in a VW 1.9l TDI Diesel engine. Simulations were performed modeling the spray injection of a 5-hole Diesel injector in a pressure chamber. A graphical methodology was utilized to match the spray resulting from the widely used Discrete Droplet Spray model to pressure chamber spray images. Satisfactory agreement has been obtained regarding the simulated and experimental spray penetration and cone angles. Thereafter, the combustion process in the engine was simulated. Using engine measurements to initialize the combustion chamber conditions, the compression stroke, the spray injection and the combustion simulation was performed. The novel RTZF two-zone flamelet combustion model was used for the combustion simulation and was tested for partial load operating conditions. An objective analysis of the model is presented including the results of a numerical parameter study. A comparison of numerical and experimental engine results was found to be encouraging and show potential for the further development and implementation of the combustion model.

combustion process itself. In direct-injection (DI) Diesel engines the complexity of the CFD simulation is even higher through the presence of partially mixed combustion. In this study, the Diesel combustion process was investigated both numerically and experimentally in a VW 1,9l TDI engine. The following sections will describe the experimental and numerical setups utilized. A brief review of turbulent combustion modeling will be presented along with the theory behind the new RTZF combustion model used for the simulations. Finally, the results will be discussed and improvements to the combustion model will be proposed.

Although non-premixed combustion is not the most efficient way to burn, it is the most common regime found in internal combustion engines. The modeling of nonpremixed (and partially premixed) turbulent combustion requires expressing the mean reaction rate, as a function of chemistry and flow. As it is impossible to directly average the reaction rate due to its highly non-linearity, it is necessary to propose other approaches to express the & mean reaction rate ω . The different tools used to model turbulent combustion can be listed as follows: • the mean values method, where the mean reaction rate is calculated using the mean values of different properties [1] • the geometric description method, where the flame is described as a geometrical entity [2] • the scalar dissipation method, where the reaction rate is calculated using the dissipation rate of a scalar field [3] • the statistical description method, which uses a & stochastic approach to determine ω [4,5,6].

Due to increasing market demands, there is a great need to design and develop cleaner and optimized Diesel engines in ever shorter time periods. Through the use of 3-dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, the design process can be greatly speeded up with minimal costs. The amount of manufacturing and testing of prototypes can be reduced through the preoptimization of engine processes via numerical simulations. Of these engine processes, the 3-D simulation of the combustion process has one of the highest levels of complexity. Here all the various aspects and parameters of the combustion process need to be modeled including the proper flow field (main flow and it’s associated turbulence), the spray injection and the 1

Some assumptions need to be made to simplify chemistry and transport. Depending on the conditions, several hypotheses can be made: • infinitely fast chemistry • finite rate chemistry, where diffusion and reaction are coupled as in laminar flames (the laminar flamelet assumption) • finite rate chemistry, where diffusion and reaction are treated separately, as in probability density function (pdf) methods. Modeling combustion in DI diesel engines requires to take into account the possibility to burn under different regimes: premixed, non-premixed and partially premixed, due to the inhomogeneous mixing of the reactants. Models have to represent those phenomena accurately. This approach is the one of pdf-generator modeling [5]. Other ways can be followed, using a more empirical formulation such as in the mean values and geometrical description methods.

concentrations and thermal properties are calculated for a given mixture composition, pressure and temperature. The mixture compositions consist of the mass fractions of air, unburned fuel, burned air and burned fuel. There are 11 chemical species making up the combustion products: CO , CO 2 , H , H 2 , H 2 O , N 2 , NO , O , O 2 , OH and N . These represent the major chemical species in both the complete and incomplete combustion products. These chemical species concentrations are then used for the determination of the emissions, which are calculated separately. Their formation reactions have much slower rates and make a small contribution to the total energy balance. SPECIES SCHEME – The computational cells are notionally divided by the flame front into two zones: an unburned zone and a burned zone. Air, fuel vapor and residual gases are found in the unburned zone and combustion products are in the burned zone. The unburned region is further divided into two regions: a segregated and a fully mixed region. In the segregated region, the air and fuel are not mixed at a molecular level and are therefore not ready to react chemically. In the other region, the air, fuel and residuals are fully mixed. The segregated region increases in mass from newly evaporated fuel from a fuel spray or from the flow from an inlet boundary. The fluid flow and molecular diffusion convert segregated reactants to fully mixed reactants; combustion then consumes the fully mixed reactants and converts them into combustion products. The mixture components in the unburned zone have effectively three mass fractions: a segregated, a fully mixed and an overall mass fraction; only two of these are however independent. The segregated and overall mass fractions are solved for and the fully mixed mass fraction is obtained from the other two. The species concentrations of the combustion products are determined from the initial air/fuel ratio before combustion. Thus the mass fractions of both the burned air and fuel are used rather than the total mass fraction of the combustible products in the burned zone. In a similar manner, the separate mass fractions of the residual air and fuel are also used.

A combination of these two methods is the novel Ricardo Two Zone Flamelet (RTZF) combustion model [7] investigated by this study. In this model, a semi-empirical approach is adopted where the turbulent burning velocity and the burning rate are estimated based on fractal geometry and basic dimensional analysis of turbulent flames. In this way, difficulties such as the description of the flame front area can be avoided. In addition, there is a simple and clear relationship between the turbulence and burning velocity, which can be easily compared with measurements. A fractal-based model provides limited physical insight, but it quickly provides the burning rate, which is a major requirement for combustion modeling. The proper description of the effects of chemistry is an essential of combustion modeling. A large amount of computing resources is required for the simulation of full chemical reaction schemes; however, as an engineering tool, this approach is too costly and complex. On the other hand, simplified reduced reaction schemes have been developed for a few particular fuel types. These are, 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 equilibrium conditions. The chemical species 2

Figure 1.

Schematic of the RTZF Combustion model.

MIXING AND FLAME PROPAGATION – The different components in the segregated region are converted to the fully mixed mass fraction by turbulent mixing. The turbulent mixing is based on the large-eddy scale and has a mixing rate of:
mix ω α = c mix

k seg ρYα ε

where c is the regress variable and is defined as the sum of mass fractions of unburned air, unburned fuel and residuals ( c = Y A + YF + YRA + YRF ). Before the start of combustion, the regress variable for a given cell is equal to 1; it has a value of 0 after the completion of combustion. The characteristic cell length is evaluated by the cubic root of the cell volume ( Lc = 3 Vc ) and the coefficient g has an approximate value of 4. For the case of non-premixed flames, the ratio of the fully mixed reactant volume to the total volume ( rvol ) is estimated for the degree of segregation. The segregated air/fuel mixture causes holes in the flame front. Thus the non-premixed burning rate is slower than a pre-mixed rate. AUTO-IGNITION MODEL – Since low temperature reactions are responsible for auto-ignition and hightemperature reactions for the normal flame, these two reactions are treated separately. Low-temperature reactions for the auto-ignition are considered as a lumped one-step reaction of a generic intermediate ignition species Yig , which is inversely proportional to the ignition time ( Yig = 1 / τ ig ). The ignition probability, p ig , is determined via the integral: p ig = ∫ dt τ ig


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 c mix ). Reactants, which are fully mixed, are consumed by the combustion. Low temperature reactions occur for autoignition and high-temperature reactions occur for the flame propagation. High-temperature reactions always follow after auto-ignition. Thereafter, the combustibles can be consumed by either more auto-ignition or by normal flame propagation. For the normal flame propagation, the burning rate is determined by:
ω f = ρr SL I
AT A Σ rvol


where the effective unstretched laminar burning velocity S L is derived from measured maximum laminar burning velocity where the effects of the reference condition, fuelair equivalence ratio and residuals are taken into account. The effect of strain on flame burning velocity is represented by the flame stretch factor I . With increasing strain, the propagating flame will be partially quenched and can even be extinguished. For the turbulent flame, the ratio of flame surface area to the projected transverse area ( AT / A ) is determined from fractal geometry: AT l = I A  lk     
D −2


The ignition delay is a function of temperature and pressure given by:
τ ig = AP − n e (T A / T )



Here l I is the integral length scale and l k is the Kolmogorov scale. When considering the transition from laminar to turbulent regime, the fractal dimension D is correlated as a function of the ratio of turbulence intensity to laminar burning velocity:
  ′  − 0,5 / ln  1+ u  S   L     

where the coefficients A , n and T A (activation temperature) are determined from experimental ignition delay measurements. A transport equation for the ignition probability is solved and auto-ignition occurs when p ig has reached a value of unity. The contribution of heat from the low-temperature reactions is considered negligible. COMMENTS – The mixing rate is built in the same way as the Eddy Break-Up model [8], using a linear relaxation model. Only the effect of turbulence is taken into account. Reaction takes place in a thin zone between burned and unburned gas, assimilated to a set of laminar flames. Its formulation seems to be a mix between the BML model modified by Bray et al. [9] and the approach of Gouldin et al. [10]. The BML model supposes that a point of the flow is either in the burned or in the unburned zones, separated by the reaction area. The reaction rate is then proportional to the pass frequency of the flame front.

D = 2 + 0,75e


The flame projected transverse area per unit volume ( Σ = A / V ) is a shape function, and is defined as
Σ= gc (1 − c ) Lc



Those models are formulated in terms of flame density. The first one, with reference of equation (5) for the formulation of the flame density, makes the flame density to be proportional to the crossing frequency of the flame front. In the other one, the flame density is expressed as a fractal surface and gives an expression quite analog to (3). The RTZF model uses the approach of Bray et al. [9] for the reaction rate, the fractal formulation being used for the calculation of the surface area of the flame. The model enables to simulate both non-premixed and premixed combustion. For non-premixed combustion, reactants are first mixed locally, in each cell, and are then burned. For pre-mixed combustion, only the second step is required. For more RTZF model details see [7].

TDI ENGINE – The experimental engine used was a VW TDI 1.9l direct injection Diesel engine. The engine characteristics are found in Table 1 below. Table 1. Engine Characteristics. TDI 1,9 liter Type Injection Arrangement Timing Valves Capacity Bore x stroke Compression ratio Connecting Rod Turbocharger Engine speed 4 in-line-cylinder Direct Row 1 overhead camshaft (belt) 2 per cylinder 1896cm 3
79 ,5 mm × 95 ,5 mm

There were two experiments involved for the validation of the numerical results: a pressure chamber for the spray modeling and a TDI Diesel engine. Their respective setups will be discussed in the sections below. PRESSURE CHAMBER – The pressure chamber is a cylindrical chamber equipped with small windows, which enable to take pictures of the inside-phenomena. Fig. 2 shows a schematic of the pressure chamber. A light source is used to illuminate the spray and a digital video camera then records the images. A high-pressure compressor and a heat exchanger allow the pressure and temperature in the chamber to be adjusted. In this study, the chamber pressure was set to 20 bar with a constant temperature of 293K. The Diesel fuel was injected with a 5-hole injector and had a temperature of 303K and an injection pressure of 400 bar. Pictures were taken through the bottom window of the chamber each 50 µs for a duration of 2 ms.
F uelpres s ure H eat ex chan ger H igh-P r es s urecom pres s or

144 mm

Garrett VNT15
1000 rpm

The engine was mounted on a standard VW test bed. Important engine parameters were measured including the injected mass of the fuel, the cylinder pressure, and emissions such as NOx, Soot, Hydrocarbons, CO , CO 2 and O 2 . Air and exhaust temperatures were measured using thermal resistance sensors at 8 different locations ranging from the air filter to the exhaust pipe. For the numerical simulations conducted in this study, the measured intake manifold temperature was of prime importance. In order to determine the time-dependent fuel injection rate for a given injector, measurements were made separately on a hydraulic injector test bed. Here the fuel is injected into a tube filled with the same fuel. Time dependent pressure waves are measured, whose integral is proportional to the injected mass of fuel. In this manner, an accurate injection law can be determined for any type of injector. This methodology provides an accurate description of the time dependent injected fuel mass flow rate law. Engine measurements for this study were made for part load operating conditions with an engine speed of 1000 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 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.

P ow er U nit L ight S our ce

60° 60°

L ight S our ce

D at a S av in g






E lect rical


D at a A quis it ion Calculat ion

S ignalcon t roller

O pt rical K am era D at a A quis it ion

Figure 2.

Schematic of pressure chamber.


PRESSURE CHAMBER – The two main parameters considered for the correlation of the simulated and photographed spray images were the spray cone angle and the penetration. Several calculations were needed to get an acceptable match with the pressure chamber images. The procedure was to begin with an estimated value of the cone angle of 8 degrees resulting from correlations existing in the literature [14]. The simulation was conducted and the width of the spray angle and the penetration were visually compared to the experimental images. If a poor correlation was obtained, an iterative process was used either increasing or decreasing the old value of the cone angle. Once a suitable cone angle was obtained, the other parameters such as droplet size distribution and droplet interaction models were tested. Results showed that a cone angle of 10 degrees corresponded well with the experimental images. An example of the computational mesh and the corresponding spray are seen in Fig. 4. Each of the 5 holes was modeled identically which resulted in 5 very similar jets. Note that the mesh in the area near the injector is twice as fine as in the area of the spray jets. This was done to increase the numerical accuracy of the spray modeling. The mesh density used for the pressure chamber simulations was also used later for modeling the spray and combustion in the TDI engine. It should be further noted that the only the main injection described in Fig. 3 was modeled in the pressure chamber since no photographs were available for the pre-injection.

Figure 3.

Measured injection rate.

The 3-dimensional simulations were performed using the finite-volume CFD code VECTIS [11]. The CFD solver provides 3-D time-dependent, compressible or incompressible solution of the continuity, Navier-Stokes, and energy equations. The turbulence model used is the standard k − ε model [12] based on the assumption of local isotropic turbulence at high Reynolds numbers. Equations are solved fully-implicitly with coupling between variables and non-linear effects using iterative or predictor-corrector methods. An orthogonal structured Cartesian mesh is used with wall cell volume and face area adaptation. The computational meshes are generated using a fully automatic mesh generator. Local mesh refinement is utilized for the resolution of smallscale flow structures near boundaries and in regions of high gradients. The standard logarithmic “law of the wall” is used for the evaluation of the wall boundary layer. SPRAY MODELLING – The fuel injection simulation is done using a Lagrangian stochastic spray model of discrete droplets [7]. The spray is modelled as a dispersed liquid phase which interacts and penetrates the surrounding continuous gas phase. The spray is described by an ensemble of discrete droplets parcels, where each parcel contains a quantity of droplets with the identical velocity, temperature and size. Both the droplet parcels and the gas phase interact with each other through drag forces and heat and mass transfer. Differential equations for the droplet mass, momentum and temperature are solved. In addition, other spray phenomena such as droplet-coalescence, -turbulence interaction, -wall interaction and –breakup are also modelled. The droplet-breakup model used for this study is that of Patterson and Reitz [13].

Figure 4.

Pressure chamber computational mesh and spray simulation.


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 results can be seen in Fig. 5. A total of six pairs of images are presented showing the cone angle and penetration for one representative jet of the spray. Both the simulated and photographic images were directly comparable through the use of a 10-mm square reference grid. A spray image is shown every 250 microseconds. The lines at the tip and sides of the sprays had identical dimensions for both the simulated and photographic images. One can see that although the slightly nonsymmetric 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. TDI ENGINE – The engine numerical simulations were done from –40° CA BTDC until 40° ATDC. The calculations were initialized with measured swirl ratio of 2.2 from another study done on a transparent VW TDI engine [15]. The initial conditions in the combustion were taken from engine measurements where the pressure and temperature equaled 9.2 bar and 735K, respectively. The species in the chamber were initialized to take into account the 30% EGR set up on the experimental engine. The injection parameters used for the simulations were the same as those for the engine measurements mentioned in the Experimentation section. 6 A view of the computational mesh used for the engine simulations can be seen in Fig. 6. Note that in the area of the injector, local mesh refinement is used to improve the accuracy of the spray modeling. The cell size in the bowl was 1mm square that resulted in an average mesh size of 100000 internal cells. The calculation time on a singleprocessor workstation which included the compression, spray and combustion simulation equaled about 40 hours.

Figure 6.

Cross-sectional view of the computational mesh at 10°CA ATDC.

A comparison of the simulated and measured in-cylinder pressure can be seen in Fig. 7 based on the default values of the combustion model constants. The measured pressure curve has a maximum value of about 43 bar. Thereafter, two pressure peaks are found at 5 and 17° ATDC, which indicate combustion occurring after the pre- and main injections. When considering the simulated pressure curve, very good agreement is observed from –

40 to –5° CA BTDC. The simulations also show two peaks smaller in magnitude, however both beginning very close to the measured start of combustion.

EGR level of 30%, the chemical composition of the chamber gases would be in effect different compared to 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 parameters are Cmix=20, RSF=1, and ISF=1. In order to investigate the effects of varying Cmix, three 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.

Figure 7.

Comparison of simulated and measured incylinder pressure using the default values of the combustion model constants (Cmix=20, RSF=1, ISF=1).

Figure 8.

Measured and simulated in-cylinder pressure with and without combustion with default values of the combustion model constants (zoom of Fig.7).

The area of combustion in Fig. 7 from 0 to 20 °CA is shown in more detail in Fig. 8. Here it can be seen that there is a general under-prediction of the calculated pressure curve except in a region between 10° and 12° CA ATDC. Moreover, one can see that there is a difference of about 0.4 bar (approximately 1%) between the measured pressure curves with and without combustion where the unfired pressure curve is lower in magnitude. An explanation for this discrepancy is that the combustion chamber gas temperature and pressure could be influenced by wall heating effects since a unfired engine would have lower wall temperatures than a fired engine. In addition, since the fired engine was run with an 7

Figure 9.

Percent difference between simulated and measured combustion chamber pressure for varying mixing coefficient as a function of crank angle (RSF=1, ISF=1).

The variation of RSF is shown in Fig. 10. As the RSF value decreased, the percent difference increased from a mean difference of –2.5% at RSF=1 to –3.1% at RSF=0.5. Once again the point of combustion begin at 5°CA ATDC was not affected. Thus the default value of RSF=1 showed the better fit to the experimental pressure curve.

In Fig. 12, it is shown that the percent difference in the pressure for the different ISF values becomes relatively similar with increasing °CA where the mean difference ranges from –2.5 to -2.7%.

Figure 10. Percent difference between simulated and measured combustion chamber pressure for varying reaction scaling factor as a function of crank angle (CMIX=20, ISF=1). As expected, by changing the ISF, the point of ignition begin was influenced. The ISF was simulated at three different values: 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0. In Fig. 11, it can be clearly seen that the time of ignition begin occurs progressively later as ISF is decreased; moreover, the magnitude of the initial pressure peak also becomes progressively smaller. After the initial point of preinjection combustion, the effect of changing ISF becomes smaller with increasing °CA.

Figure 12. Percent difference between simulated and measured combustion chamber pressure for varying ignition scaling factor as a function of crank angle (CMIX=20, RSF=1). In order to better understand the RTZF model and to provide ways in which the model could be improved, data from the literature were analyzed. Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) studies [16,17,18] have reported that the time evolution of the mixture during auto-ignition strongly depends on the time evolution of the mixture fraction dissipation rate itself. The mixture fraction dissipation rate is one of the key quantities of nonpremixed turbulent combustion, where the extent of mixing between evaporated fuel and oxidiser is usually measured using a mixture fraction [19]. The control parameters of a reaction-diffusion layer are: a diffusive time measured from the diffusive flux of mixture fraction, used to define the inverse of the scalar dissipation rate, and a chemical time. Both are retained to build a Damkohler number useful for characterising various combustion regimes [20]. DNS results suggest that one important point to reproduce auto-ignition is to capture the time history of the mean mixture fraction dissipation rate evaluated under stoichiometric conditions. Practically speaking, when all the local characteristic micro-mixing times (inverse of the scalar dissipation rate) are much smaller than the local ignition times of the stoichiometric mixture (or of the most reactive mixture), ignition is more or less uniformly distributed. Accordingly, when local turbulent micro-mixing leads to possibilities of non-uniform ignition, edge-flame combustion involving partially premixed flames will control the development of the heat release rate.

Figure 11. Measured and simulated in-cylinder pressure with and without combustion as a function of crank angle for varying ISF values (CMIX=20, RSF=1). 8

In the light of these DNS observations, one possibility to improve the combustion model, and to mimic these important features of auto-ignition, would consist of modifying the calculation of the probability of finding ignition. Following the work of Ravet and Vervisch [5], based on an idea first proposed by Borghi [4], a table look up of ignition time delay could be constructed. The resulting ignition times would be a function of the mean temperature, mean species mass fraction and position in mixture fraction space. Introducing the probability density distribution of micro-mixing time, the probability of finding ignition for each possible instantaneous value of the mixture fraction is then measured from the probability of having micro-mixing times greater than the ignition time. A presumed beta-pdf for the mixture fraction could be used to average over the range of variation of mixture fraction. The existence of characteristic mixing times smaller than ignition delay would prevent auto-ignition and then combustion. However, when ignition prevails over micro-mixing, combustion would occur. This modification of the model would lead to a more accurate description of the first stage of combustion in the engine. Finally, the ignition table look-up could be implemented using a detailed chemical mechanism; this would allow for better accuracy in the determination of the burning rate.

1. Magnussen B. and Mjertager B., “On mathematical modelling of turbulent combustion”, 16th International Symposium on Combustion, pp. 719-727, The Combustion Institute, 1976. 2. Marble F. and Broadwell J., “The coherent flame model of non-premixed turbulent combustion”, Project Squid TRW-9-PU, Project Squid Headquarters, Chaffee Hall, Purdue University, 1977. 3. Bilger R.W., “The structure of diffusion flames”, Combustion Science Technology, Vol. 13, pp. 155170, 1976. 4. Borghi R., “Turbulent combustion modelling”, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., Vol. 14, pp. 245-292, 1988. 5. Ravet F. and Vervisch L., “Modelling non-premixed turbulent combustion in aeronautical engines using pdf-generator”, 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA, paper 98-1027, Reno, Nevada, USA, 1998. 6. Pope, S.B., “Pdf method for turbulent reacting flows”, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., Vol. 11, pp. 119-195, 1985. 7. VECTIS Theory Manual, Version 3.4, Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd, December, 1999. 8. Spalding, D., “Mixing and chemical reaction in steady confined turbulent flames”, 13th Symposium (International) on Combustion, Pittsburgh, pp. 649657, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1971. 9. Bray, K., Champion, M. and Libby P., “The interaction between turbulence and chemistry in premixed turbulence flames”, Turbulent Reacting Flows, Volume 40 of Lecture Notes in Engineering, R. Borghi and S. Murphy (Eds.), pp. 541-563, Springer, 1989. 10. Gouldin, F., Bray, K. and Chen, J., “Chemical closure model for fractal flamelets”, Combust. Flame, Vol. 77, pp. 241-259, 1989. 11. VECTIS Users Guide, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Release 3.3, Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd, January, 1999. 12. Launder, B. E. and Spalding D.B, Mathematical Models of Turbulence, Academic Press, New York, 1972. 13. Patterson, M.A. and Reitz, R.D, “Modeling the effects of fuel spray charactreristics on Diesel eingine combustion and emission”, SAE 980131, 1998. 14. Reitz, R.D. and Bracco, F.V., “Mechanisms of atomization of a liquid jet”, Phys. Fluids, Vol. 25, pp.1730-1742, 1982. 15. Arcoumanis, C., Whitelaw, J.H., Hentschel, W. and Schindler, K.P “Flow and combustion in a ., transparent 1.9 liter direct injection diesel engine”, Proce. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 208, pp.191-205, 1994. 16. Vervisch, L. and Poinsot, T., “Direct numerical simulation of non-premixed turbulent flame”, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., Vol. 30, pp. 655-692, 1998.

A numerical and experimental study was conducted investigating the combustion process in a 1.9L TDI Diesel engine. Simulations and measurements were conducted in both for the case of a pressure chamber and the engine. A graphical methodology was used which matched the simulated spray well with the spray images taken in the pressure chamber. The novel RTZF flamelet model was used for the combustion simulations. A comparison of the calculated and measured in-cylinder pressure indicated good agreement at partial load operating conditions with a mean difference between the simulation and measurement pressure equalling 3%. Furthermore, suggestions based on Direct Numerical Simulations from the literature have been proposed how to improve the auto-ignition model utilized. In conclusion, this study has shown that the RTZF flamelet model tested shows encouraging results and thus merits further development and investigation at other engine operating conditions.

The authors would like to thank Arno Homburg and Reinhard Schulz for their help concerning the pressure chamber measurements and diagrams. Finally, thanks are given to Dr. H.-J. Oberg for his useful discussions during the course of this study.


17. Domingo, P. and Vervisch, L., “Triple flames and partially premixed combustion in autoignition of nonpremixed 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.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.