Large-eddy simulation on the influence of injection pressure in reacting Spray A

Large-eddy simulation on the influence of injection pressure in reacting Spray A

The Engine Combustion Network (ECN) Spray A target case corresponds to high-pressure liquid fuel injection in conditions relevant to diesel engines. Following the procedure by Wehrfritz et al. (2016), we utilize large-eddy simulation (LES) and flamelet generated manifold (FGM) methods to carry out a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Combustion and flame Vol. 191; pp. 142 - 159
Main Authors: Kahila, Heikki, Wehrfritz, Armin, Kaario, Ossi, Ghaderi Masouleh, Mahdi, Maes, Noud, Somers, Bart, Vuorinen, Ville
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: New York Elsevier Inc 01-05-2018
Elsevier BV
Subjects:
Chemistry
Combustion
Computer simulation
Diesel engines
FGM
Fuel injection
Ignition
Ignition kernels
Kinetics
Large eddy simulation
LES
Liquid fuels
Manifolds
Navier-Stokes equations
Organic chemistry
Oxygen
Spray A
Turbulence
Vortices
Ignition kernels
Combustion
LES
FGM
Spray A
Ignition
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Engine Combustion Network (ECN) Spray A target case corresponds to high-pressure liquid fuel injection in conditions relevant to diesel engines. Following the procedure by Wehrfritz et al. (2016), we utilize large-eddy simulation (LES) and flamelet generated manifold (FGM) methods to carry out an injection pressure sensitivity study for Spray A at 50, 100 and 150 MPa. Comparison with experiments is shown for both non-reacting and reacting conditions. Validation results in non-reacting conditions indicate relatively good agreement between the present LES and experimental data, with some deviation in mixture fraction radial profiles. In reacting conditions, the simulated flame lift-off length (FLOL) increases with injection pressure, deviating from the experiments by 4–14%. Respectively, the ignition delay time (IDT) decreases with increasing injection pressure and it is underpredicted in the simulations by 10–20%. Analysis of the underlying chemistry manifold implies that the observed discrepancies can be explained by the differences between experimental and computational mixing processes.
ISSN:0010-2180
1556-2921
DOI:10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.01.004