Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11
Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhff

Flow journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhff Analysis the effect of advanced injection strategies on

Analysis the effect of advanced injection strategies on engine performance and pollutant emissions in a heavy duty DI-diesel engine by CFD modeling

Raouf Mobasheri a , , Zhijun Peng a , Seyed Mostafa Mirsalim b

a School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QT, United Kingdom b Engine Research Center (IPCO), Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

article info

Article history:

Received 15 June 2011 Received in revised form 5 October 2011 Accepted 7 October 2011 Available online 8 November 2011

Keywords:

Multiple injections CFD simulation DI diesel engine EGR Pollutant emissions

abstract

An Advanced CFD simulation has been carried out in order to explore the combined effects of pilot-, post- and multiple-fuel injection strategies and EGR on engine performance and emission formation in a heavy duty DI-diesel engine. An improved version of the ECFM-3Z combustion model has been applied coupled with advanced models for NOx and soot formation. The model was validated with experimental data achieved from a Caterpillar 3401 DI diesel engine and good agreement between predicted and measured in-cylinder pressure, heat release rate, NOx and soot emissions was obtained. The optimizations were conducted separately for different split injection cases without pilot injection and then, for various multi- ple injection cases. Totally, three factors were considered for the injection optimization, which included EGR rate, the separation between main injection and post-injection and the amount of injected fuel in each pulse. For the multiple injection cases, two more factors (including double and triple injections during main injection) were also added. Results show that using pilot injection accompanied with an optimized main injection has a significant beneficial effect on combustion process so that it could form a separate 2nd stage of heat release which could reduce the maximum combustion temperature, which leads to the reduction of the NOx formation. In addition, it has found that injecting adequate fuel in post- injection at an appropriate EGR allows significant soot reduction without a NOx penalty rate. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The improvement of DI diesel engines to comply with the strin- gent exhaust emissions standards is closely linked to continued development of the injection systems. Traditional injector design is often suitable for injection timings close to TDC and cannot sat- isfactorily meet the requirements for very early or late injection timings. A growing trend in the diesel engine industry is towards wider use of electronically controlled high pressure injection sys- tems which can inject fuel at any point in the cycle without the injection rate changing owing to injection timing or engine speed. Multiple injections have shown to be an effective means for reduction of pollutants emissions in diesel engines ( Li et al.,

Abbreviations: ATDC, after top dead center; BTDC, before top dead center; BSFC, brake specific fuel consumption; CFD, Computational Fluid Dynamics; DI, direct injection; EGR, exhaust gas recirculation; EVC, exhaust valve closing; EVO, Exhaust Valve Opening; HRR, heat release rate; IMAP, intake manifold air pressure; IMAT, intake manifold air temperature; IVO, inlet valve opening; IVC, inlet valve closing; NOx, oxides of nitrogen; RPM, revolutions per minute; SOI, start of injection. Corresponding author. Address: Shawcross 2B12, School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QT, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 (0) 1273 872562. E-mail addresses: R.Mobasheri@sussex.ac.uk (R. Mobasheri), Z.Peng@sussex. ac.uk (Z. Peng), Mo_Mirsalim@aut.ac.ir (S.M. Mirsalim).

0142-727X/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2011.10.004

2004; Mendez et al., 2008; Husberg et al., 2008; Badami et al., 2002; Mobasheri et al., 2011; Shundoh et al., 1992 ). Multiple injec- tions divide the total quantity of fuel into two or more injections per combustion event. A pilot injection is also usually defined as an injection where 15% or less of the total mass of fuel is injected in the first injection. Many researchers are now investigating pilot and split injection as an effective means to simultaneously reduce NOx and soot emissions. The benefits of multiple injections have been found to be highly dependent on the specification of the quantity of fuel in each injec- tion and the dwell between injections. Shundoh et al. (1992) reported that NOx could be reduced by 35%, and smoke by 60 to 80%, without a penalty in fuel economy if pilot injection was uses in conjunction with high pressure injection. Nehmer et al. (1994) studied the effect of split injection in a heavy-duty diesel engine by varying the amount of fuel in the first injection from 10% to 75% of the total amount of fuel. They found that split injection better utilized the air charge and allowed combustion to continue later into the power stroke than for a single injection case, without increased levels of soot production. Tow et al. (1994) found that using a double injection with a relatively long dwell on a heavy duty engine resulted in a reduction of particulate emissions by a factor of three with no increase in NOx and only a slight increase

60

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

in BSFC compared to a single injection. Zhang (1999) used a single cylinder HSDI diesel engine to investigate the effect of pilot injec- tion with EGR on soot, NOx and combustion noise, and found that pilot injection increased soot emissions. The author also showed that reducing the amount of fuel in the pilot injection and increas- ing the interval between pilot and main injections could reduce the pilot flame area when the main injection starts, resulting in lower soot emissions. It is well known that exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is effective for the reduction of NOx emissions ( Ladommatos et al., 1997; Hentschel and Richter, 1995; Ladommatos et al., 1998; Arcoumanis et al., 1983 ). The application of EGR in diesel engines helps to replace part of oxygen and nitrogen in the inlet air with carbon dioxide and water vapor from the exhaust that have higher specific heat capacities. Ladommatos et al. (1997) conducted a detailed study of the ef- fects of EGR in a 2.5 L, four-cylinder DI diesel engine. Their results showed that the reduction in NOx emissions and the increase in particulate emissions due to EGR could mainly be attributed to the dilution function of residual gas to inlet charge oxygen. Hent- schel and Richter (1995) investigated the formation of soot in a 1.9 L DI diesel engine and found that with increasing EGR rates, the amount of soot formed was increase only slightly, but the amount of soot oxidized during combustion decreased signifi- cantly. Ladommatos et al. (1998) also observed that use of EGR caused an increase in the ignition delay and shift in the location of the whole combustion process further towards the expansion stroke. This resulted in the combustion gases spending shorter periods at high temperature, leading to lower thermal NOx forma- tion as well as a reduced rate of soot oxidation. Arcoumanis et al. (1983) reported that cold EGR resulted in low- er NOx emissions at EGR rates below 30%, but at higher EGR rates cold EGR seemed to offer marginally higher NOx emissions in com- parison to hot EGR. As its influence is so complicated, normally the application of EGR must be considered to combine with other optimizations, such as fuel injection strategy. As mentioned earlier, multiple injections are considered as an effective means to improve particulate emissions. Thus, it is of interest to explore the possibility of simultaneous reduction in par- ticulate and NOx emissions with the combined use of EGR and multiple injections. Mikulic et al. (1993) investigated the effects of pilot injection with EGR on engine emissions and fuel consump- tion and found that the lowest NOx emissions could only be reached using a combination of EGR and pilot injection. They also found that pilot injection in combination with EGR provided no deterioration of fuel consumption and HC emissions. Uchida et al. (1998) found that the combined use of pilot injection with EGR results in little advantages for the NOx-BSFC trade-off since smoke increased, especially under low load conditions. They ar- gued that the smoke deterioration might be caused by the interfer- ence of the main injection sprays in a hot and higher equivalence ratio zone near the injector nozzle. Pierpont et al. (1995) examined the combined effects of EGR and multiple injections and achieved significant reductions in both NOx and soot emissions with only a slight increase in BSFC when EGR was used in combination with optimized double and triple injections. Advanced injection strategies offer possible ways to improve the mixing process which could lead to reduce both NOx and soot emissions. In the current study, it was of interest to determine the emission reduction capability of the combined effect of advanced injection strategies and EGR in a DI diesel engine through Compu- tational Fluid Dynamics (CFDs) simulation. For this purpose, three factors have been considered for the injection optimization, which included EGR rate, the separation between main injection and post-injection and the amount of injected fuel in each pulse. Based on those simulations, the optimum operating points for obtaining

the minimum amount of NOx and soot emissions have been demonstrated.

2. Numerical procedure

2.1. CFD code and calculating meshes

The computational mesh was created using AVL ESE Diesel Tool ( ICE Physics and Chemistry, 2009 ). Because of the symmetrical location of the injector at the center of the combustion chamber, the CFD calculations are performed on 60 sector meshes. Exhaust and intake ports are not included in the computational mesh by concentrating this simulation on in-cylinder flow and combustion processes. Calculations begin at Intake Valve Closure (IVC) and end at Exhaust Valve Opening (EVO). The same initial and boundary conditions are used for all the computations. The time step used for calculation is 0.2 deg of crank angle. The final mesh consists of a hexahedral dominated mesh. Exact number of cells in the mesh was 34725 and 79311 at TDC and BDC, respectively. The present resolution was found to give adequately grid independent results.

2.2. The Spray Model

The standard WAVE model, described in Liu et al. (1993) was used for the primary and secondary atomization modeling of the resulting droplets. In this model the growth of an initial perturba- tion on a liquid surface is linked to its wave length and to other physical and dynamic parameters of the injected fuel and the do- main fluid. Drop parcels are injected with characteristic size equal to the nozzle exit diameter (blob injection). The Dukowicz model was applied for treating the heat-up and evaporation of the drop- lets, which is described in Dukowicz (1979) . This model assumes a uniform droplet temperature. In addition, the rate of droplet tem- perature change is determined by the heat balance, which states that the heat convection from the gas to the droplet either heats up the droplet or supplies heat for vaporization. The spray wall interaction model used in the simulations was based on the spray-wall impingement model described in Naber et al. (1988). This model assumes that a droplet, which hits the wall is affected by rebound or reflection based on the Weber number. The Shell auto-ignition model was used for modeling of the auto-ignition ( Halstead et al., 1977 ). In this generic mechanism, 6 generic species for hydrocarbon fuel, oxidizer, total radical pool, branching agent, intermediate species and products were involved. In addition the important stages of auto-ignition such as initiation, propagation, branching and termination were presented by generalized reac- tions, described in Halstead et al. (1977) .

2.3. The Turbulent Mixing Model

The k- e approach has been used to take account of turbulent effects, while the complex oxidation process of diesel fuel has been summarized by a single step irreversible reaction ( ICE Physics and Chemistry, 2009; Liu et al., 1993 ). The mean reaction rate has been evaluated by means of the Coherent Flamelet Model (CFM) Colin and Benkenida, 2004 . For a diesel spray, the fuel droplets are very close to each other and are located in a region essentially made of fuel. After the evaporation of the fuel, an adequate time is needed for the mixing from the nearly pure fuel region with the ambient air. In this case, the mixing of fuel with air is modeled by initially placing the fuel into the ‘pure fuel’ zone of the ECFM-3Z model ( Co- lin and Benkenida, 2004 ). A transport equation for the ‘unmixed fuel’ is solved where the source term for the transfer of fuel from the unmixed to the mixed state can be described as follows:

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

61

S Fu F !M ¼ 1

_

s

m

~

y

F

Fu

~

qM

M

~

q

u

M Fu

ð 1Þ

Where Fu is the mass fraction of unmixed fuel, M M is the mean mo-

lar mass of the gases in the mixed zone, M Fu is the molar mass of

Fuel, q is mean density, q u is the density of the unburned gases

(the density of fresh gases that would be obtained if combustion had not occurred), and s m is the mixing time.

~

~

y

F

~

2.4. The Combustion Model

The combustion model is based on the Coherent Flame Model originally. The ECFM-3Z model ( Colin and Benkenida, 2004; Hélie and Trouvé, 2000 ) distinguishes between all three main regimes relevant in diesel combustion, namely auto-ignition, premixed flame and non-premixed, i.e. diffusion combustion. The auto-igni- tion pre-reactions are calculated within the premixed charge of fuel and air, with the ignition delay governed by the local temper- ature, pressure, fuel/air equivalence ratio and the amount of resid- ual gas. Local auto-ignition is followed by premixed combustion in the fuel/air/residual gas mixture formed during the time period between start of injection and auto-ignition onset within the ECFM-3Z modeled according to a flame propagation process. The third regime is the one of diffusion combustion where the reaction takes place in a thin zone which separates fuel and oxidizer. In the ECFM-3Z it is assumed that the chemical time in the reaction zone is much smaller than the time needed for the diffusion process. Therefore the rate of reaction during diffusion combustion is deter- mined entirely by the intermixing of fuel and oxidizer. This distinct separation of the different ignition/combustion regimes makes the ECFM-3Z model specifically applicable to conventional as well as alternative diesel combustion modes. In the conventional case most part of the combustion can be assumed as diffusion type, in the case of recently introduced alternative concepts a large amount of fuel is consumed within premixed combustion.

2.5. The Pollutant Models

It is well known that the formation of NO depends mainly on three different processes, the thermal NO, the prompt NO and the fuel NO mechanism ( ICE Physics and Chemistry, 2009 ). Usually in automotive diesel engine applications the third one can be ne- glected, because there is no significant amount of nitrogen in the fuel. The two other mechanisms can contribute to the NO forma- tion in engines, where mainly thermal NO is formed, but also some amount of prompt NO can appear. The model used for this work, covers these two contributions ( ICE Physics and Chemistry, 2009 ). The Hiroyasu model ( ICE Physics and Chemistry, 2009; Hioyasu et al., 1989 ) was also used to anticipate the soot formation. Gener- ally, it is well accepted that the production of soot occurs in two main phases, soot formation and soot oxidization. These processes depend on the fuel composition, in-cylinder gas pressure, in-cylin- der gas temperature, and local fuel and oxygen concentrations. The soot formation model which has implemented in the current study is based upon a combination of suitably extended and adapted joint chemical/physical rate expressions for the representation of the processes of particle nucleation, surface growth and oxidation.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Model validation

The diesel engine used for the model validation is a single-cyl- inder version of a Caterpillar 3401 heavy-duty truck engine. The

engine specifications are given in Table 1 ( Wiedenhoefer and Reitz,

2000 ).

Table 1

Engine specifications.

Engine type

Caterpillar 3401

Bore stroke Compression Ratio Displacement Connecting rod length Squish clearance IVO/IVC EVO/EVC IMAP IMAT Engine speed Piston shape

13.719 cm 16.51 cm

15.1:1

2.44 l 26.162 cm 4.14 mm 32 ATDC/ 147 ATDC 134 ATDC/29 ATDC 184 kPa 310 K 1600 rpm Mexican hat style

Table 2 – Injector fuel system specifications.

Injector type

Common rail

Injection pressure Number of nozzle holes Nozzle hole diameter Start of injection Injection duration Fuel injected

Variable (up to 120 MPa)

6

0.26 mm 9 ATDC 21.5 CA 0.1622 g/cycle

12 80 In-cylinder Pressure (CFD Simulation) 70 10 In-cylinder Pressure (Experiment) 60 8 Heat Release
12
80
In-cylinder Pressure
(CFD Simulation)
70
10
In-cylinder Pressure
(Experiment)
60
8
Heat Release Rate
(CFD Simulation)
50
Heat Release Rate
6
40
(Experiment)
30
4
20
2
10
0
0
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
In-cylindet Pressure (MPa)
Heat Release Rate (J/deg)

Crank Angle (degree)

Fig. 1. Comparison of calculated and measured in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate.

The fuel delivery system was an electronically controlled, com- mon rail fuel injection system ( Wiedenhoefer and Reitz, 2000 ). In all the injection cases studied, the same amount of fuel is injected in each engine cycle. The main characteristics of the injection system are listed in Table 2 . Fig. 1 shows comparisons between the predicted and measured in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate. The result is based on the assumption of uniform wall temperature 425 K for the cylinder wall, 525 K for the cylinder head and 525 K for the piston top. The trend predicted by the model is reasonably close to exper- imental results, although there are still some differences as can be seen in Fig. 1 . These discrepancies could be related to experimental uncertainties in input parameters to the computations such as the precise injection duration, start of injection timing and gas temper- ature at IVC. Figs. 2 and 3 present comparisons between the predicted and measured engine-out soot and NOx values for EGR levels of 0% and 10%.

62

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

45 Single injection,SOI=-9 ATDC 40 35 30 25 20 Experiment (EGR=0%) 15 Experiment (EGR=10%) 10
45
Single injection,SOI=-9 ATDC
40
35
30
25
20
Experiment (EGR=0%)
15
Experiment (EGR=10%)
10
CFD Simulation (EGR=0%)
5
CFD Simulation (EGR=10%)
0
351
371
391
411
431
451
471
491
Crank Angle (degree)
NOx (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 2. Predicated NOx in comparison with measured data ( Wiedenhoefer et al.,

2000 ).

45 1.8 Single injection, EGR=0 % 40 1.6 35 1.4 30 1.2 25 1 20
45
1.8
Single
injection, EGR=0 %
40
1.6
35
1.4
30
1.2
25
1
20
0.8
15
0.6
NOx (CFD Simulation)
10
NOx (Experiments)
0.4
Soot (CFD Simulation)
5
0.2
Soot (Experiments)
0
0
NOx (g/kg-fuel)
Soot (g/kg-fuel)

0123456789

SOI (CA, BTDC)

Fig. 4. The effect of injection timing on NOx and soot, single injection, EGR = 0%.

16 14 Single injection,SOI=-9 ATDC 12 Experiment (EGR=0%) 10 Experiment (EGR=10%) CFD Simulation (EGR=0%) 8
16
14
Single injection,SOI=-9 ATDC
12
Experiment
(EGR=0%)
10
Experiment (EGR=10%)
CFD Simulation (EGR=0%)
8
CFD Simulation (EGR=10%)
6
4
2
0
340
355
370
385
400
415
430
445
460
475
490
Crank Angle (degree)
Soot (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 3. Predicated soot in comparison with measured data ( Wiedenhoefer et al.,

2000 ).

As illustrated in Fig. 2 , increasing EGR, which causes dilution of intake charge, and insufficient oxygen in intake charge, leads to lower combustion temperature and therefore decreases NOx emis- sion. In contrast, as it can be seen in Fig. 3 , this variation has a reverse effect on soot formation. While NOx and soot formation processes can be predicted but there is only one measured value for these two components. For further assessment of predication capability of the model, the trade-off between NOx and soot was simulated with several differ- ent injection timing. Results shown in Fig. 4 suggested that the models used in this study can provide enough confidence to the following simulation results with regard to the combustion process and emissions. It is evident from Fig. 4 that the predicted trends are fairly sim- ilar to the experimental values. In particular, they capture the trend of reduced NOx and increasing soot with fuel injection retard.

3.2. Modeling methodology

As mentioned earlier, careful optimization of engine operating conditions is required to get the full benefit of combined effects of multiple injection parameters. Based the above success of validations with a single injection, simulation results for different

Table 3 Computational conditions for studied cases.

Total fuel

Pilot (SOI)

Pilot duration

Separation a

Main (SOI)

Main duration

0.1622 g/cycle 30.075 ATDC 1.075 CA 30 CA 9 ATDC 21.5 CA

a The period between end of pilot injection and start of main injection.

multiple injection cases have presented and discussed in the fol- lowing sections. Totally, 24 different injection arrangements for which split and multiple injection cases with variable fuel amount for each pulse (up to 30% for the second pulse) and variable sepa- ration/dwell between pulses (up to 30 CA) have considered. The optimization were conducted separately for split injection cases without pilot injection and then for different multiple injection strategies accompanied with an early pilot injection. In addition, for multiple injection cases, two more cases (including double and triple injections during main injection) were also evaluated which will be discussed in next section. Table 3 shows the parameters which were fixed for all injection cases. The injection schemes used in this study are shown schemati- cally in Figs. 5 and 6 . The same amount of fuel is injected in all the cases considered. Based on previous research which was done by Mobasheri et al. (2011) at this operating points, the optimum separation for simultaneous reduction of soot with low NOx emis- sions was obtained by using 20 CA dwell delay between the injec- tion pulses for split injection cases without pilot injection.

3.2.1. Influence of split injection strategies on fuel consumption and exhaust emissions In this section, the results obtained for different split injection schemes based on strategies presented in Fig. 5 are considered. Figs. 7 and 8 show the amount of soot and NOx emission for differ- ent split injection cases with 0% and 10% EGR rate. The labeling scheme for the split injection cases gives the percent of the fuel injected in the first and last pulses, and the dwell between two injections. For instance, 70(10)30 represents 70% fuel injected in the first pulse, 10 crank angle degree dwell between the two injec- tion pulses and 30% fuel in the second pulse.

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69
R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69
Injection Duration= 21.5 ° CA
100%
Single Injection
SOI
15.05° CA
6.45 ° CA
10-20-25-30 °CA
70%
30%
17.20° CA
4.30° CA
10-20-25-30 °CA
80%
20%
19.35° CA
2.15° CA
10-20-25-30 °CA
90%
10%
9 ° CA BTDC
Crank Angle (degree)

63

Fig. 5. Injection profiles for different split injection cases without pilot injection. Injection Duration= 21.5
Fig. 5. Injection profiles for different split injection cases without pilot injection.
Injection Duration= 21.5 ° CA
100%
Single Injection
SOI
SOI
Pilot Injection
Main Injection
15.05° CA
5.37 ° CA
10-20-25-30 °CA
70%
25%
5%
17.20° CA
3.22° CA
10-20-25-30 °CA
80%
15%
5%
18.27° CA
2.15° CA
10-20-25-30 °CA
85%
10%
5%
30.075° CA BTDC
9° CA BTDC
Crank Angle (degree)

Fig. 6. Injection profiles for different multiple injection cases.

As illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 , some split injection schemes can reduce NOx emissions significantly, while some can increase NOx emissions. It can be seen in Figs. 7 and 8 that the emission produc- tion histories of the split injections are changed significantly from the original single injection cases and the majority of split injection schemes can simultaneously reduce soot and NOx emissions compared to traditional single injection scheme, though some cases have increased emissions. If considering all data in Figs. 7 and 8 , it can be seen that the split injection strategy under 10% EGR conditions can be more beneficial for the substantial reduction of NOx formation. As shown in Fig. 7 , the minimum amount of NOx formation was achieved with the case of 70(25)30, though it is just a little lower than other several operating points. It may be due to the fact that premixed combustion which is the main source of the NOx formation is relatively low in comparison with other cases. Higher amounts of the second injection pulse into the lean and

hot combustion zones cause the newly injected fuel to burn rapidly and effectively at high temperature, resulting in high soot oxida- tion rates. The optimum engine performance for reduction of soot and NOx emissions can be obtained with 20 CA delay between injection pulses in the 80(20)20 and 90(20)10 cases, though the lowest total soot is seen with the split injection ratio 90(25)10. As can be seen in Figs. 7 and 8 , the delay dwell does not affect soot formation significantly. The combustion of 30% fuel in the sec- ond injection pulse only causes a small effect of soot variations compared to the other cases in this injection category i.e. 70(x )30. It is clearly seen in Fig. 9 that the 90(20)10 case shifts the soot-NOx trade-off to the optimum level. Figs. 9 and 10 show BSFC vs. NOx curves at 0% and 10% of EGR. As shown in Figs. 9 and 10 , for the 90( x )10 case the differences between BSFC vs. NOx emission is lower than other cases. It can be concluded that the split injection shows minimal effects on BSFC

64

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

0.6 70 (x) 30 0.55 (10) 80 (x) 20 0.5 90 (x) 10 (20) Single
0.6
70
(x) 30
0.55
(10)
80
(x) 20
0.5
90
(x) 10
(20)
Single Injection
0.45
(25)
(30)
Single inj.
(25)
0.4
0.35
(30)
(10)
0.3
(20)
(10)
0.25
(20)
(30)
0.2
(25)
EGR= 0 %
0.15
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
NOx (g/kg-fuel)
Soot (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 7. Soot-NOx trade-off, split injection, EGR = 0%.

0.3 70 (x) 30 0.29 (30) 80 (x) 20 0.28 (25) 90 (x) 10 0.27
0.3
70
(x) 30
0.29
(30)
80
(x) 20
0.28
(25)
90
(x) 10
0.27
(30)
Single Injection
0.26
(25)
(20)
(20)
0.25
(30)
(25)
(10)
0.24
(20)
(10)
(10)
0.23
Single
Injection
EGR= 0 %
0.22
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
NOx (g/kg-fuel)
BSFC (kg/kW-hr)

Fig. 9. BSFC vs. NOx trade-off, split injection, EGR = 0%.

1.5 1.3 (10) (25) (30) Single Injection 1.1 (25) (20) (10) 0.9 (30) Single Inj.
1.5
1.3
(10)
(25)
(30)
Single
Injection
1.1
(25)
(20)
(10)
0.9
(30)
Single Inj.
(20)
(10)
0.7
70
(x) 30
(30)
0.5
(20)
80
(x)
20
(25)
EGR= 10 %
90
(x) 10
0.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Soot (g/kg-fuel)

NOx (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 8. Soot-NOx trade-off, split injection, EGR = 10%.

when the secondary injection were relatively small compared to the main injection. In addition, as can be seen the trade-off charac- teristics for the 90( x )10 case is relatively different for two level of EGR rates.

3.2.2. Influence of multiple injection strategies on fuel consumption and exhaust emissions Benefits of split injection for emission reduction were discussed in previous section. In order to fully investigate the potential of multiple injection strategies, the effects of pilot injection followed by various main and post-injection schemes based on strategies presented in Fig. 6 are considered in this section. Figs. 11 and 12 show the amount of soot and NOx emissions for different multiple injection cases for EGR levels of 0% and 10%, respectively. As illustrated in Figs. 11 , for multiple injection schemes both NOx and soot emissions decreased compared to split injection schemes in majority of cases. The pilot injection, which was set at about 30.075 CA BTDC, reduces the ignition delay and therefore the amount of premixed combustion, leading to lower tempera- tures and NOx emissions. The results of Fig. 12 confirm EGR’s effectiveness at reducing NOx. In addition, Fig. 12 shows the

0.32 0.31 70 (x) 30 (30) 0.3 80 (x) 20 (25) 0.29 90 (x) 10
0.32
0.31
70
(x)
30
(30)
0.3
80
(x)
20
(25)
0.29
90 (x) 10
(20)
(30)
0.28
(25)
Single Injection
0.27
(20)
0.26
(20)
(10)
(30)
(25)
(10)
(10)
0.25
0.24
Single
Injection
0.23
EGR=
10
%
0.22
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
BSFC (kg/kW-hr)

NOx (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 10. BSFC vs. NOx trade-off, split injection, EGR = 10%.

0.55 0.5 Single Injection 0.45 (10) 0.4 (30) 0.35 (25) Single inj. (20) (30) 0.3
0.55
0.5
Single
Injection
0.45
(10)
0.4
(30)
0.35
(25)
Single inj.
(20)
(30)
0.3
(10)
(20)
5
(20) 65 (x) 30
(10)
(20)
(25)
0.25
(30)
5
(20) 75 (x) 20
(25)
0.2
5
(20)
80
(x)
15
0.15
EGR= 0 %
0.1
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
Soot (g/kg-fuel)

NOx (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 11. Soot-NOx trade-off, multiple injection, EGR = 0%.

effectiveness of multiple injections at controlling soot emission un- der EGR conditions. It can be concluded that by using multiple injections the soot formation is accrued in the multiple regions in

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

65

1.3 1.2 (30) 1.1 Single Injection (25) (10) 1 (20) (10) 0.9 (30) 0.8 Single
1.3
1.2
(30)
1.1
Single Injection
(25)
(10)
1
(20)
(10)
0.9
(30)
0.8
Single Inj.
(25)
(10)
0.7
(20)
5
(20) 65 (x) 30
0.6
(20)
5
(20) 75 (x) 20
0.5
(30)
(25)
0.4
5
(20)
80
(x) 15
EGR= 10 %
0.3
12 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Soot (g/kg-fuel)

NOx (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 12. Soot-NOx trade-off, multiple injection, EGR = 10%.

0.28 5 (20) 65 (x) 30 (30) 0.27 (30) 5 (20) 75 (x) 20 0.26
0.28
5
(20) 65 (x) 30
(30)
0.27
(30)
5
(20) 75 (x) 20
0.26
(20)
(25)
(10)
5
(20) 80 (x) 15
0.25
(25)
(20)
(30)
(10)
0.24
(25)
(10)
0.23
(20)
EGR= 0 %
0.22
29 31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
BSFC (gr/kW-hr)

NOx (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 13. BSFC vs. NOx trade-off, multiple injection, EGR = 0%.

the combustion chamber and thus has more area for oxidation. Finally, the fuel that is pulsed into the combustion chamber after main injection ignites rapidly and thus will not contribute signifi- cantly to soot formation in high temperature rich regions. Even though the EGR reduces some of the intake oxygen content, the heat added to the intake air enhances the soot oxidation to some extent which leads to reduction of soot emission. When the percentage of the second pulse injected fuel is larger than 75% of the total fuel, the NOx formation history of the multiple injection has a more impact to simultaneous reduction of Soot and Nox emissions. This trend has also observed when 10% EGR is used. It can be also concluded that the NOx chemistry is sensitive to the early combustion details because these combustion products stay at a high temperature for the longest time, and the combustion region is not cooled by the vaporization of the continuously injected fuel that occurs in the sin- gle injection case. Figs. 13 and 14 show BSFC vs. NOx curves at 0% and 10% of EGR for different multiple injection cases. Approximately the same trend of overall reduction of NOx emission and increase of BSFC could be observed in different cases, as illustrated in Fig. 13 and 14 , although this trend is different for 20 CA dwell in 5(20)85(x )10 cases. From these results, it can be summarized that the optimum engine performance for reduction of soot and NOx emissions can be obtained with 25 CA and 30 CA delay between main and post-injection pulses in the 5(20)75(25) and 5(20)80(30)15 cases, respectively.

0.3 0.29 5 (20) 65 (x) 30 0.28 5 (20) 75 (x) 20 (30) (30)
0.3
0.29
5
(20)
65
(x)
30
0.28
5
(20) 75 (x) 20
(30)
(30)
(20)
0.27
(10)
(25)
5
(20) 80 (x) 15
0.26
(10)
0.25
(25)
(20)
(25)
(30)
0.24
(10)
0.23
(20)
EGR= 10 %
0.22
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
BSFC (gr/kW-hr)

NOx (g/kg-fuel)

Fig. 14. BSFC vs. NOx trade-off, multiple injection, EGR = 10%.

60 EGR= 0 % 90 (20) 10 50 80 (20) 20 5 (20) 75 (25)
60
EGR= 0 %
90
(20) 10
50
80
(20) 20
5
(20)
75
(25) 20
40
5
(20)
80
(30) 15
30
20
10
0
340 360
380
400
420
440
Rate of Heat Release (J/deg)

Crank Angle (degree)

Fig. 15. The HRR curve, optimum injection cases, EGR = 0%.

60 EGR= 10 % 90 (20) 10 50 80 (20) 20 5 (20) 75 (25)
60
EGR= 10 %
90
(20) 10
50
80
(20) 20
5
(20)
75
(25) 20
40
5
(20)
80
(30) 15
30
20
10
0
340 360
380
400
420
440
Rate of Heat Release (J/deg)

Crank Angle (degree)

Fig. 16. The HRR curve, optimum injection cases, EGR = 10%.

Figs. 15 and 16 illustrate the heat release rates for optimum split and multiple injection cases for EGR levels of 0% and 10%, respectively.

66

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

1800 EGR= 0 % 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 90 (20) 10 1100 80
1800
EGR= 0 %
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
90
(20) 10
1100
80
(20) 20
1000
900
5
(20) 75 (25) 20
800
5
(20) 80 (30) 15
700
600
330 340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
Temperature (k)

Crank Angle (degree)

Fig. 17. In-cylinder temperature, optimum injection cases, EGR = 0%.

1800 EGR= 10 % 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 90 (20) 10 1100 80
1800
EGR= 10 %
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
90
(20) 10
1100
80
(20) 20
1000
900
5
(20)
75
(25)
20
800
5
(20) 80 (30) 15
700
600
330 340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
Temperature (k)

Crank Angle (degree)

Fig. 18. In-cylinder temperature, optimum injection cases, EGR = 10%.

As shown in Figs. 15 and 16 , the second fuel injection, occurred at the late combustion stage, affects the in-cylinder pressure and temperature that causes second peak in HRR diagram. In addition, the amount of injected fuel in each pulse and the delay between injections strongly affect the timing and magnitude of the second peak. As illustrated in Figs. 15 and 16 , the main combustion event usually has a short auto-ignition delay for multiple injection cases

due to the high in-cylinder temperature produced by pre-combus- tion resulted of pilot injection. It can be seen that the second peak

is significantly moved toward the expansion stroke for the

5(20)80(30)15 case. On the other hand, multiple injections is found

to reduce NOx emission significantly since it reduces the magni-

tude of the combustion peak. Figs. 17 and 18 show the cylinder temperature for optimum split and multiple injection cases for EGR levels of 0% and 10%, respectively. As can be seen in Figs. 17 and 18 , for the 5(20)80(30)15 case, the second peaks are lower than the other cases for both EGR rates. Moreover, for the 70(20)30 case, the first peak are lower than the other cases. In addition, after the second peak, the cylinder temper- ature tends to increase more in comparison with the other cases. Fig. 19 shows the velocity field contours for single injection case in comparison with the three optimum injection cases at 360 , 385 and 410 CA. As can be seen in Fig. 19 , the velocity field within the cylinder increases dramatically for the three optimum injection cases in comparison with the single injection case at 410 CA especially

for 5(20)80(30)15 case. It can be concluded that multiple injection

had a significant effect on flow filed and causes the subsequent ef-

fects on soot oxidization and NOx formation. The NOx distribution for the three optimum injection cases

compared to single injection case are shown in Fig. 20 at 370 ,

385 and 400 CA. Fig. 21 shows the comparison of in-cylinder soot formations at same operating points. As can be seen in Figs. 20 and 21 , the local soot-NOx trade-off is evident in these contour plots, as the NOx formation and soot for- mation occur on opposite sides of the high temperature region. It is widely reported that the combustion of single injection caused the rapid premixed combustion phases, because most fuel is injected

Single Injection (80) 20 (20) 5 (20) 80 (30) 15 5 (20) 75 (25) 20

Single Injection

(80) 20 (20)

5 (20) 80 (30) 15

5 (20) 75 (25) 20

Fig. 19. The velocity fields contours, Single injection case in comparison with three optimum injection cases at 360 , 385 and 410 CA.

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

67

Single (80) 20 (20) 5 (20) 80 (30) 15 5 (20) 75 (25) 20

Single

(80) 20 (20)

5 (20) 80 (30) 15

5 (20) 75 (25) 20

Fig. 20. NOx mass fraction contours, Single injection case in comparison with three optimum injection cases at 370 , 385 and 400 CA.

Single (80) 20 (20) 5 (20) 80 (30) 15 5 (20) 75 (25) 20

Single

(80) 20 (20)

5 (20) 80 (30) 15

5 (20) 75 (25) 20

Fig. 21. Soot mass fraction contours, Single injection case in comparison with three optimum injection cases at 370 , 385 and 400 CA.

during the ignition delay period under high ambient pressure and temperature conditions and, thus, is combusted immediately. For this reason, undiluted air–fuel mixtures and fuel-rich region exist locally in the combustion chamber, which usually causes the for- mation of harmful exhaust emissions and combustion noises. In the single injection case, the soot formed in the later combustion phase is difficult to oxidize for two reasons. First, it is close to the end of the combustion period, and second, the temperature decreases rapidly in expansion stroke. In the same manner, the soot produced during the main combustion phase will not be oxi- dized easily for the lower temperature in-cylinder. It can be seen that for optimum injection cases, NOx and soot mass fractions are lower in comparison with the single injection case. It can be concluded that, for the split injection case, the second pulse injected fuel enters into a relatively lean and high temperature re- gion which is remained from the combustion of the first pulse. Soot

formation is therefore significantly reduced because the injected fuel is rapidly consumed by combustion before a rich soot region can accumulate. The temperature distributions at two crank angle degrees for three optimum injection cases compared to single injection case are shown in Fig. 22 . As can be seen in Fig. 22 , at 410 CA the maximum temperature in optimum cases has a higher amount than single injection case. It can be concluded that injecting adequate fuel in post-injection leads to the increase of temperature in late stage of combustion process that allows soot reduction without a NOx penalty rate.

3.2.3. Using double and triple injections for main injection The previous section has shown the potential of different multi- ple injection cases to reduce NOx and soot emissions. In this sec- tion, the main injection has divided in two and three pulses to

68

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

Single (80) 20 (20) 5 (20) 80 (30) 15 5 (20) 75 (25) 20

Single

(80) 20 (20)

5 (20) 80 (30) 15

5 (20) 75 (25) 20

Fig. 22. Temperature contours, Single injection case in comparison with three optimum injection cases at
Fig. 22. Temperature contours, Single injection case in comparison with three optimum injection cases at 385, 400.
SOI
SOI
Pilot Injection
Main Injection
4° CA
8.6° CA
8.6° CA
3.225° CA
25 ° CA
40%
40%
15%
5%
4° CA
4° CA
5.375° CA
5.375° CA
5.375° CA
4.3° CA
20° CA
25%
25%
25%
20%
5%
30.075° CA BTDC
9° CA BTDC
CrankAngle (degree)

Fig. 23. Injection profiles for two multiple injection cases with double and triple main injections.

50 1600 EGR= 0 % 5 (20) 25 (4) 25 (4) 25 (20) 20 45
50
1600
EGR= 0 %
5
(20) 25
(4) 25 (4)
25 (20) 20
45
1500
5
(20) 40
(4) 40 (25) 15
40
1400
35
1300
30
1200
25
1100
20
1000
15
900
10
800
5
700
0
600
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
Rate of Heat Release (J/deg)
Temperature (k)

Crank Angle (degree)

Fig. 24. Heat release rate and temperature for two multiple main injection cases.

Table 4 Soot, NOx and BSFC for two multiple main injection cases.

Case

Soot (g/kg-fuel) NOx (g/kg-fuel) BSFC (g/kw h)

5(20)25(4)25(4)25(20)20 0.242

28.43

0.2574

5(20)40(4)40(25)15

0.2311

30.21

0.2751

explore its effects for more reduction of pollutant emissions. For this purpose, two more injection schemes, as shown in Fig. 23 , has been proposed and considered based on optimum cases which were obtained in last section. Figs. 24 shows the heat release rate and temperature curves based on strategies illustrated in Fig. 23 . It can be seen that due to double and triple injection during main injection, the peak of HRR and temperature diagram is lower than multiple injection schemes which were previously considered. The amount of BSFC, NOx and Soot emission for these cases are summarized in Table 4 .

R. Mobasheri et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 33 (2012) 59–69

69

0.03 70 (20) 30 EGR= 0 % 80 (20) 20 0.025 5 (20) 75 (25)
0.03
70
(20) 30
EGR= 0 %
80
(20) 20
0.025
5
(20) 75 (25) 20
5
(20) 80 (30) 15
5
(20) 25 (4) (25) (4) (25) 20 (20)
0.02
5
(20) 40 (4) 40 (25) 15
Single Injection
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
Crank Angle (degree)
CO (Mass Fraction)

Fig. 25. Effects of different injection strategies on CO emissions, EGR = 0%.

It can be concluded from Table 4 that two proposed injection cases can be more beneficial for the substantial reduction of NOx and Soot emissions, however the amount of BSFC in these cases should be considered as a main disadvantage. The effects of optimum injection strategies on CO emissions are shown in Fig. 25 . It can be seen that the concentration of CO emissions for two optimum injection case including 5(20)80(30)15 and 5(20)75(25)20 are generally lower than other cases. The reason for lower CO emissions can be considered to be that spray has rel- atively better fuel atomization and air–fuel mixing, as well as a more complete combustion characteristic, which can be explained by the faster evaporation and vaporization of fuel spray droplets.

4. Conclusions

The effect of different multiple injection strategies on the improvement of fuel atomization and the reduction of exhaust emission characteristics was analyzed on a DI diesel engine. These results were compared with those obtained from the single injec- tion case at same operating points. The conclusions are summa- rized as follows:

The study confirms the benefit of combining EGR and multiple injections as a beneficial tool to control both NOx and soot emissions simultaneously. Although EGR is effective at reducing NOx by lowering peak in- cylinder temperatures, there is a substantial trade-off in increased soot emissions due to increased high temperature rich regions. By using multiple injections, the amount of soot formed in these regions is reduced considerably. Multiple injec- tion schemes improve fuel–air mixing and lean out the in-cylin- der mixture, thus reducing the high soot forming regions. Compared to the single injection, split injection was very effec- tive for reducing NOx and Soot emissions. However, the split injection must be optimized for best emission reducing effects by varying the fuel distribution in each pulse and the separation between pulses for each operating condition. Investigation on multiple injection strategies showed the soot level can be dramatically reduced if an early pilot injection is combined with a main injection.

Employing a post-injection combined with a pilot injection

results in reduced soot formation from diffusion combustion

and enhances the soot oxidation process during the expansion

stroke, resulting in decreased soot emissions, while the NOx

concentration is maintained in low levels.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the AVL Company to pro-

vide computational resources for this research.

References

Arcoumanis, C., Bicen, A.F., Whitelaw, J.H., 1983. Squish and Swril-Squish interaction in motored model engines. ASME J. Fluids Eng. 105, 105. Badami, M., Millo, F., Mallamo, F., Rossi, E.E., 2002. Influence of Multiple Injection Strategies on Emissions, Combustion Noise and BSFC of a DI Common Rail Diesel Engine. SAE paper 2002-01-0503. Colin, O., Benkenida, A., 2004. The 3-zones extended coherent flame model (ECFM3Z) for computing premixed/diffusion combustion. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. – Rev. IFP 59 (6), 593–609. Dukowicz, J.K., 1979. Quasi-Steady Droplet Change in the Presence Of Convection. Informal Report Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, LA7997-MS. Halstead, M., Kirsch, L., Quinn, C., 1977. The auto ignition of hydrocarbon fueled at high temperatures and pressures-fitting of a mathematical model. Combust. Flame 30, 45–60. Hélie, J., Trouvé, A., 2000. A modified coherent flame model to describe turbulent flame propagation in mixtures with variable composition. Proc. Combust. Inst. 28, 193–201. Hentschel, W., Ritcher, J., 1995. Time-Resolved Analysis of Soot Formation and Oxidation in a Directed-Injection Diesel Engine for Different EGR-Rates by an Extinction Method. SAE Paper 952517. Hioyasu, H., Nishida, K., 1989. Simplified Three Dimensional Modeling of Mixture Formation and Combustion in a DI Diesel Engine. SAE Paper 890269. Husberg, T., Denbratt, I., Karlsson, A., Analysis of Advanced Multiple Injection Strategies in a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine using Optical Measurements and CFD- Simulations. SAE Paper 2008-01-1328. ICE Physics & Chemistry, 2009. AVL FIRE user Manual v.2009. 1, 2009. Ladommatos, N., Abdelhalim, S.M., Zhao, Hu, Z., 1997. The Dilution, Chamical, and Thermal Effects of Exhaust Gas Recirculation on Diesel Engine Emission – Part4:Effects of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour. SAE Paper 971660. Ladommatos, N., Abdelhamin, S.M., Zhao, H., Hu, Z., 1998. Effects of EGR on Heat Release in Diesel Combustion. SAE Paper 980184.

Li, T., Nishida, K., Zhang, Y., Yamakawa, M., Hiroyasu, H., 2004. An Insight into Effect of Split Injection on Mixture Formation and Combustion of DI Gasoline Engines. SAE Paper 2004-01-1949. Liu, A.B., Reitz, R.D., 1993. Modeling the Effects of Drop Drag and Break-up on Fuel Sprays. SAE Paper 930072. Mendez, S., Thirouard, B., 2008. Using Multiple Injection Strategies in Diesel Combustion: Potential to Improve Emissions, Noise and Fuel Economy Trade- Off in Low CR Engines. SAE Paper 2008-01-1329. Mikulic, L., Kuhn, M., Schommers, J., Willing, E., 1993. Exhaust Emission Optimization of DI Diesel Passenger Car Engine with High-Pressure Fuel Injection and EGR. SAE Paper, 931035. Mobasheri, R., Peng, Z., Mirsalim, S.M., 2011. CFD Evaluation of Effects of Split Injection on Combustion and Emissions in a DI Diesel Engine. SAE Paper 2011-

01-0822.

Naber, J.D., Reitz, R.D., 1988. Modeling Engine Spray/Wall Impingement. SAE Paper

880107.

Nehmer, D.A., Reitz, R.D., 1994. Measurement of the Effect of Injection Rate and Split

Injections on Diesel Engine Soot and NOx Emissions. SAE Paper 940668. Pierpont, D.A., Reitz, R.D., 1995. Effects of Injection Pressure and Nozzle Geometry on D.I. Diesel Emissions and Performance. SAE Paper 950604. Shundoh, S., Komori, M., Tsujimura, K., Kobayashi, S., 1992. Nox Reduction from Diesel Combustion Using Pilot Injection with High Pressure Fuel Injection. SAE paper 920461. Tow, T.C., Pierpont, A., Reitz, R.D., 1994. Reducing Particulate and NOx emissions by Using Multiple Injections in a Heavy Duty D.I. Diesel Engine. SAE Paper 940897. Uchida, N., Shimokawa, K., Kudo, Y., Shimoda, M., 1998. Combustion Optimization by Means of Common Rail Injection System for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines. SAE Paper 982679. Wiedenhoefer, J.F., Reitz, R.D., 2000. Modelling the effect of EGR and multiple injection schemes on I.C. engine component temperatures. Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A: Appl. 37 (7), 673–694. Zhang, Long, 1999. A Study of Pilot Injection in a DI Diesel Engine. SAE paper 1999-

01-3493.