Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The focus of this study was to investigate the spray characteristics and atomization performance of gas-
Received 10 February 2009 oline fuel (G100), bioethanol fuel (E100), and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel (E85) in a direct injection
Received in revised form 11 June 2009 gasoline injector in a gasoline engine. The overall spray and atomization characteristics such as an axial
Accepted 21 July 2009
spray tip penetration, spray width, and overall SMD were measured experimentally and predicted by
Available online xxxx
using KIVA-3V code.
The development process and the appearance timing of the vortices in the test fuels were very similar.
Keywords:
In addition, the numerical results accurately described the experimentally observed spray development
Atomization
Bioethanol
pattern and shape, the beginning position of the vortex, and the spray breakup on the spray surface.
E85 Moreover, the increased injection pressure induced the occurrence of a clear circular shape in the down-
Linearized instability sheet atomization stream spray and a uniform mixture between the injected spray droplets and ambient air. The axial spray
(LISA) model tip penetrations of the test fuels were similar, while the spray width and spray cone angle of E100 were
Spray tip penetration slightly larger than the other fuels. In terms of atomization performance, the E100 fuel among the tested
Sauter mean diameter (SMD) fuels had the largest droplet size because E100 has a high kinematic viscosity and surface tension.
2009 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx
Nomenclature
issues with the exhaust gas of traditional gasoline. Ethanol fuel can The aim of this work was to study the macroscopic and micro-
be produced by bio-technology processes utilizing plant material scopic atomization characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol
such as corn, sweet potatoes, and tree trunks. Gao et al. (2007) blended gasoline fuel by investigating the spray evolution process,
studied the spray characteristics using ethanolgasoline blended overall spray characteristics, and mean droplet size in a direct
fuels. They reported that the main spray tip penetration decreases injection gasoline injector of a gasoline engine. In addition, the
and the spray cone angle increases with the increase of the ethanol spray and atomization characteristics were compared with the
fraction in the low ambient pressure. However, in the case of the numerical results obtained from using the KIVA-3V code.
elevated ambient pressure conditions, the difference of spray pen-
etration among the blends shows inconspicuous, while the spray 2. Experimental setup and procedure
cone angle of all test fuels keeps almost constant in the fully devel-
oped stage except that the spray of pure gasoline shows a larger 2.1. Experimental setup
spray cone angle in the beginning of injection period. Aleiferis
et al. (2008) studied the spray development and combustion of The schematic of the high pressure swirl injector used in this
blends of gasoline, iso-octane and ethanol under part-load engine work is illustrated in Fig. 1a. This injector has a nozzle exit orice
operation with port fuel injection and direct injection in an optical diameter of 1.0 mm and is operated by varying electric voltages.
spark-ignition engine. An outstanding conclusion in their research The high pressure swirl injector has a conical type air core at the
is as following. The spray images indicated that a small portion of a center axis in the nozzle and it is possible to atomize at a lower
low boiling point component in blended fuel may be the catalyst to injection pressure compared to a conventional port fuel injector.
spray collapse, even if the majority constituent of the fuel is not in The injection timing and energizing duration of the test injector
the region of ash boiling in terms of temperature. Ethanol fuel were controlled by an injector driver (TEMS, TDA-3200H) and a
containing oxygen molecules has a high combustion efciency digital delay/pulse generator (Berkeley Nucleonics Corp., Model
and low pollutant emissions. Despite the advantages of ethanol 555).
fuel, the studies of the application of ethanol fuel in GDI engines In order to investigate the overall spray characteristics of the
are insufcient compared to port injection gasoline engines. test fuels including the axial spray tip penetration, spray width,
Digital delay
O-Ring generator Injector driver
Regulator
Filter
High pressure
Single (ext)
pump
Terminal
Core Injector
Spring
Coil Image
Filter
Housing Stopper
grabber High speed camera
HVC -
Armature SL
Body
Sleeve
Fuel
Adapter tank
Needle
Valve
seat Receiver Transmitter
AEROMETRICS
AEROMETRICS
AEROMETRICS
AEROMETRICS
Ar-ion laser
AEROMETRICS
AEROMETRICS
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx 3
Table 1 maintained at 10,000 fps (frames per second). The droplet analysis
Specications of the droplet analysis system and high speed camera. system using an Arion laser as a light source consists of a receiver,
Visualization Frame rate 10,000 fps a transmitter, and a data processing system. The 2-dimensional
system Shutter speed 1/20,000 s traverse allows measurements at various measuring points. The
Resolution 512 512 detailed specications of the high speed camera and the droplet
PDPA system Light source Arion laser analysis system are shown in Table 1.
Wave length 514.5 nm, 488 nm
Focal length 500 mm for transmitter and receiver
Collection angle 30
Burst threshold 0.5 mV
2.2. Experimental procedure
Mixer frequency 36 MHz
Filter frequency 40 MHz In this work, the spray and atomization characteristics of a
PMT voltage 500 V 99.9% pure bioethanol fuel, gasoline fuel, and E85 fuel blend (85%
Signal-to-noise 65
bioethanol + 15% gasoline) were studied. Experimental results of
ratio
Diameter sub-range 1.575 lm the test fuels were compared with the numerical results obtained
from using the KIVA-3V code. The macroscopic spray characteris-
tics including axial spray tip penetration, spray width, and spray
spray cone angle, and droplet size, the visualization and droplet cone angle are shown in Fig. 2a. The axial spray tip penetration
analysis system (phase Doppler particle analyzer, PDPA) was in- and spray width were dened as the maximum distance from
stalled as shown in Fig. 1b. Spray evolution images were obtained the nozzle tip of the side view spray image and the maximum ra-
using a high speed camera (Photron, Fastcam-APX RS) with two dial distance of the bottom view, respectively. Also, the spray cone
metal halide lamps. Moreover, the high speed camera was syn- angle is dened as the interval angle which is formed by the nozzle
chronized with the injector driver by using the digital delay/pulse tip and two straight lines wrapped with the maximum outer side
generator and the obtained images were stored in a computer with of the spray. Fig. 2b shows the measuring points for analyzing
an image grabber. The frame rate of the high speed camera was the atomization characteristics of the G100, E100, and E85 fuels.
(a) Definition of the spray characteristics (spray tip penetration, spray cone angle, spray width)
Nozzle tip
5mm
10mm 2mm
Spray and axial direction
2mm
2mm
20mm
100mm
30mm
40mm
50mm
2 4 6 8 10121416 18
100mm
100mm 100mm
Radial direction
(b) Measuring points for analyzing the atomization characteristics and the calculation meshes
Fig. 2. Denition of spray characteristics, measuring points for the analysis of fuel droplets and the calculation meshes in the KIVA code.
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx
The injection pressure for analyzing the macroscopic spray charac- Table 3
teristics was varied among 4.0 MPa, 6.0 MPa, and 8.0 MPa, and the Experimental conditions.
injection pressure for analyzing the atomization performance was Visualization Injection pressure (Pinj, MPa) 4, 6, 8
set at 7.0 MPa. The comparison of fuel properties and detailed Ambient pressure (Pamb, MPa) 0.1
experimental conditions are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Energizing duration (teng, ms) 2
PDPA Injection pressure (Pinj, MPa) 7
Ambient pressure (Pamb, MPa) 0.1
3. Numerical model formulation for gasoline direct injection Energizing duration (teng, ms) 2.0
Table 2
Comparison of fuel properties.b
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx 5
30 the outer region in the lower part of the spray 1.1 1.2 ms after
teng= 1.0ms 2.0ms
the energizing start due to the difference of pressure by the relative
G100
velocity between the injected spray and ambient gas. The upward
E100
25 E85 ring shaped vortex became enhanced as time elapsed. The spray
Injection quantity (mg/cycle)
evolution patterns of the G100, E100, and E85 fuels at the side
and bottom views were very similar. At the bottom view of the
20 spray, the spray width and area increased as the elapsed time in-
creased and the concentration of the inner spray region increased
by the effect of the upward ring shaped vortex. The upward ring
shaped vortex moved the fuel droplets from the outer region to
15
the inner region. Therefore, the spray vortex affects the formation
of a uniform distribution of fuel droplets.
Fig. 5 shows the comparison of experimental and numerical re-
10
sults of the spray development process for the test fuels under var-
ious injection pressures. The numerical results accurately
predicted the experimentally observed spray development pattern,
5
4 6 8 shape, the beginning position of the vortex, and spray breakup on
Injection pressure (MPa) the spray surface. As illustrated in Fig. 5, the downstream spray be-
came circular with an increase of the injection pressure. The in-
Fig. 3. Injection quantities of test fuels for the injection pressure and energizing crease of the injection pressure induced an increase of the
duration (Pinj = 4.0 MPa, 6.0 MPa, 8.0 MPa, Pamb = 0.1 MPa, teng = 1.0 ms, 2.0 ms). relative velocity between the injected spray and ambient gas.
Simultaneously, the momentum exchange between the air inside
the hollow cone and the injected spray droplets actively pro-
concluded that the spray momentum at the nozzle exit was not af-
gressed. As the velocity of air increases, the static pressure inside
fected much by the increase of the injection pressure, because the
the hollow cone of the spray decreases according to the Bernoulli
injector needle is not fully opened. In addition, the injection quan-
equation. For these phenomena, the droplets of the injected spray
tities at an energizing duration of 2.0 ms increased with the in-
moved to the inside of the hollow cone. This results in the circular
crease of the injection pressure. Therefore, an energizing duration
shape of the spray downstream and the uniform mixture distribu-
greater than 1.0 ms is needed to fully open the injector needle.
tion. Therefore, it can be said that the increase of the injection pres-
Hence, the energizing duration for the visualization and droplet
sure produces a uniform mixture of the injected spray and ambient
analysis was set at 2.0 ms in this work. The injection quantities
air.
of G100, E100, and E85 showed similar increasing patterns and val-
Fig. 6 shows the overall spray characteristics including the axial
ues as the injection pressure and energizing duration increased.
spray tip penetration, spray width, and spray cone angle. As shown
in Fig. 6, the test fuels have almost the same injection delay of
4.2. Spray evolution progress of bioethanol blended gasoline fuel about 0.4 ms, dened as the time interval between the start of
the energizing and the initial injected spray. The pre-spray (spray
Fig. 4 shows the spray evolution progresses at the side and bot- slug) of E100 is longer than G100 and E85 because the E100 fuel
tom views at various elapsed times. As shown in Fig. 4, the initial has a lower vapor pressure than the G100 and E85 fuels. The
spray slug which is the remnant fuel of the early injection cycle pre-spray and main spray curves of the test fuels were nearly iden-
in the slots between the needle and tangential gap was observed tical, as illustrated in Fig. 6a. It can be conrmed that the difference
at the early injection stage. This is the reason why the injected of the fuel properties did not affect the axial spray tip penetration.
spray in the early injection stage has a small tangential velocity The spray width and spray cone angle were measured from the
and the overall spray velocity is very low. Therefore, the injected start of the main spray. The spray width and spray cone angle of
fuel droplets in this stage move downstream and consist of large E100 were slightly larger than those of the other fuels, despite
droplets with poor atomization. On the other hand, as shown in the fact that the G100 fuel has a higher vapor pressure. Because
Fig. 4, the three test fuels have an upward ring shaped vortex in gasoline fuel is a mixture of many components with various carbon
0.6ms 0.6ms
1.4ms
1.4ms
2.2ms 2.2ms
3.0ms 3.0ms
Fig. 4. Spray evolution progress of side view and bottom view (Pinj = 6.0 MPa, Pamb = 0.1 MPa, teng = 2.0 ms).
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx
tasoe=
1.5ms
Pinj =
4.0MPa
tasoe=
3.0ms
(a) Pinj=4.0MPa
tasoe=
1.5ms
Pinj =
8.0MPa
tasoe=
3.0ms
(b) Pinj=8.0MPa
SMD (m)
Fig. 5. Comparison between experimental and numerical spray images as a side and bottom view.
atoms and structures, its vapor pressure is largely affected by com- fuel is an important factor which affects the spray evolution pro-
ponents with relatively low boiling points which evaporate easier cess involving the axial spray tip penetration, spray width, spray
and faster, while the components with higher boiling points will cone angle, and the mixing of fuel droplets and ambient air. The
evaporate more slowly. In addition, the spray cone angle was al- axial spray tip penetration increased with an increase of the
most uniform during the injection period, while it decreased after injection pressure. The axial spray tip penetration and spray
the end of the main spray. This is the reason why the transferred cone angle of the three fuels were very similar trends. The spray
spray momentum from the injector stopped and the injected spray cone angle decreased after the end of the injection as shown in
evaporated. Fig. 6c. After the end of the injection, the spray cone angle of the
Figs. 7 and 8 show the effects of the injection pressure on the injected spray showed a large rate of reduction because of rap-
axial spray tip penetration and spray cone angle, respectively, idly ceasing of injection momentum of liquid spray. Fig. 8 shows
with respect to the elapsed time. The injection pressure of the the effect of injection pressure on the spray cone angle of three
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx 7
120
Pinj=8.0MPa, Pamb=0.1MPa, teng=2.0ms Pamb=0.1MPa, teng =2.0ms
120
Pre- Main- spray Pre- Main- spray
G100 100 Pinj=4.0MPa
E100 Pinj=6.0MPa
100
E85 Pinj=8.0MPa
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
Injection
20 delay
0
0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
Time after the start of energizing (ms)
Time after the start of energizing (ms)
(a) G100 (100% gasoline fuel)
(a) Axial spray tip penetration
120
Pamb=0.1MPa, teng=2.0ms
110
P =8.0MPa, P =0.1MPa, t =2.0ms Pre- Main- spray
inj amb eng
100 100 Pinj=4.0MPa
G100
90 E100 Pinj=6.0MPa
Axial spray tip penetration (mm) Pinj=8.0MPa
E85
80 80
70
Spray width (mm)
60 60
50
40
40
30
20
20
Start of
the main spray
10 0
0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 Time after the start of energizing (ms)
Time after the start of energizing (ms) (b) E100 (100% bioethanol fuel)
(b) Spray width
120
Pamb=0.1MPa, teng =2.0ms
90
P =8.0MPa, P =0.1MPa, t =2.0ms Pre- Main- spray
inj amb eng
100 Pinj=4.0MPa
G100
80 Pinj=6.0MPa
E100
Axial spray tip penetration (mm)
Pinj=8.0MPa
E85
80
70
Spray cone angle (deg)
60 60
50 Start of 40
the main spray End of spray
40 20
30
0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
20
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 Time after the start of energizing (ms)
Time after the start of energizing (ms) (c) E85 (15% gasoline fuel + 85% bioethanol fuel)
(c) Spray cone angle
Fig. 7. Effect of the injection pressure on the axial spray tip penetration of test fuels
Fig. 6. Overall spray characteristics of G100, E100, and E85 (Pinj = 8.0 MPa, (Pinj = 4.0 MPa, 6.0 MPa, 8.0 MPa, Pamb = 0.1 MPa, teng = 2.0 ms).
Pamb = 0.1 MPa, teng = 2.0 ms).
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx
form droplet sizes beyond 20 mm from the nozzle tip. The droplet
60
size of E100 was the largest among the test fuels. This is the reason
why the E100 fuel has a high kinematic viscosity, as shown in Table
50 2. In addition,
E100 has the smallest Reynolds number
Re qlVD VD
m assuming that the injected velocity and nozzle
40 diameter (D) are nearly the same. A low Reynolds number indi-
cates a small turbulent intensity affecting the breakup of fuel drop-
30
lets.
In addition,
bioethanol fuel has a low Weber number
2
We qVr D determined by the high surface tension and fuel den-
sity, which leads to a slow breakup process. The larger SMD values
20
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 of bioethanol fuels compared to gasoline fuel can be explained
Time after the start of energizing (ms) realizing that the calculated breakup lengths of bioethanol fuels
are longer than that of gasoline fuel (gasoline: 2.3 2.5 mm, bio-
(b) E100 (100% bioethanol fuel)
ethanol: 5.8 6.0 mm). In addition, the evaporation of gasoline
90 fuel actively occurs due to its higher vapor pressure compared to
E85, teng=2.0ms bioethanol fuel. On the other hand, the E85 fuel had a similar drop-
Pinj=4.0MPa let size as G100. Therefore, bioethanol blended gasoline fuel should
80 Pinj=6.0MPa
be used in a direct injection gasoline engine instead of pure bioeth-
Pinj=8.0MPa
anol fuel. In the local SMD evolution along the radial direction,
70
Spray cone angle (deg)
50
Pinj =7.0MPa, teng=2.0ms
60
45 Exp. Cal.
G100
50 E100
40
E85
Overall SMD m
40 35
30 30
20 25
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
Time after the start of energizing (ms) 20
velocity caused the injected spray droplets to move into the Fig. 9. Comparison of the overall SMD distribution between experimental and
hollow cone. calculation results (Pinj = 7.0 MPa, Pamb = 0.1 MPa, teng = 2.0 ms).
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx 9
Pinj=7.0MPa, t eng=2.0ms, G100 axis, while the SMD of E100 slightly increased after a radial dis-
40
Experimental results tance of 9 mm because of collisions and coalescence due to its high
Local SMD m
Calculation results
kinematic viscosity. The numerical results of the local SMD along
30
the axial distance agree well with the experimental results. How-
ever, the predictions in the radial direction were overestimated.
20
10 5. Conclusions
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Axial distance from the nozzle tip (mm)
In this paper, the spray behavior and atomization performance
40 of gasoline, bioethanol, and bioethanol blended gasoline fuels were
Local SMD ( m)
Calculation results
30 test fuels were very similar. The vortex moved the spray drop-
lets to the inside of the hollow cone. This characteristics of the
20 upward ring shaped vortex produced uniform mixture forma-
tion and homogeneous distribution of the injected spray.
10
3. The numerical results well predicted the experimentally
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 observed spray development pattern and shape, the beginning
Axial distance from the nozzle tip (mm)
position of the vortex, and spray breakup on the spray surface.
35
In addition, the increase of the injection pressure caused a cir-
30 cular shape of the downstream spray and a uniform mixture
Local SMD ( m)
20
Acknowledgement
10
This work was supported by the Second Brain Korea 21 Project
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 in 2008 and a Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Kor-
Axial distance from the nozzle tip (mm)
ean Government (MOEHRD, KRF-2008-314-D00056).
40
Local SMD ( m)
30 References
20 Aleiferis, P.G., Malcolm, J.S., Todd, A.R., Cairns, A., Hoffmann, H., 2008. An optical
study of spray development and combustion of ethanol, iso-octane and gasoline
10 blends in a DISI engine. SAE Technical Paper. 2008-01-0073.
Amsden, A.A., 1993. KIVA-3: a KIVA program with block-structured mesh for
0
complex geometries. LA-12503-MS, pp. 3338.
0 3 6 9 12 15 Chang, W., Kim, Y., Kong, J., 2007. Design and development of a spray-guided
gasoline DI engine. SAE Technical Paper. 2007-01-3531.
Radial distance from the nozzle axis (mm)
Dombrowski, N., Johns, W.R., 1963. The aerodynamic instability and disintegration
(c) E85 of viscous liquid sheets. Chemical Engineering Science 18, 203214.
Gao, J., Jiang, D., Huang, Z., 2007. Spray properties of alternative fuels: a comparative
Fig. 10. Comparison of atomization characteristics between experimental and analysis of ethanolgasoline blends and gasoline. Fuel 86, 16451650.
calculation results at the axial and radial direction (Pinj = 7.0 MPa, Pamb = 0.1 MPa, Kawahara, N., Tomita, E., Kasahara, D., Nakayama, T., Sumida, M., 2004. Fuel
teng = 2.0 ms). breakup near nozzle exit of high-pressure swirl injector for gasoline direct
injection engine. SAE Technical Paper. 2004-01-0542.
Kim, S., Kim, Y., Lee, J., 2008. Analysis of the in-cylinder ow, mixture formation and
E100 showed the largest SMD. In addition, the G100 and E85 fuels combustion processes in a spray-guided GDI engine. SAE Technical Paper. 2008-
had almost uniform SMD along the radial distance from the nozzle 01-0142.
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 S.H. Park et al. / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow xxx (2009) xxxxxx
Lee, C.S., Chon, M.S., Park, Y.C., 2001a. Spray structure of high pressure gasoline Schmidt, D.P., Nouar, I., Senecal, P.K., Rutland, C.J., Martin, J.K., Reitz, R.D., Hoffman,
injector in a gasoline direct injection engine. International Journal of J.A., 1999. Pressure-swirl atomization in the near eld. SAE Technical Paper.
Automotive Technology 24, 165170. 1999-01-0496.
Lee, C.S., Kim, H.J., Park, S.W., 2004. Atomization characteristics and prediction Senecal, P.K., Schmidt, D.P., Nouar, I., Rutland, C.J., Reitz, R.D., Corradini, M.L., 1999.
accuracies of hybrid break-up models for a gasoline direct injection spray. Modeling high-speed viscous liquid sheet atomization. International Journal of
Proceedings of IMechE Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 218, 1041 Multiphase Flow 25, 10731097.
1053. Vita, A.D., Allocca, L., 2003. Experimental analysis and CFD simulation of GDI sprays.
Lee, C.S., Lee, K.H., Chon, M.S., Kim, D.S., 2001b. Spray structure and characteristics SAE Technical Paper. 2003-01-0004.
of high pressure gasoline injectors for direct injection engine application. Wang, X., Gao, J., Jiang, D., Huang, Z., Chen, W., 2005. Spray characteristics of high-
Atomization and Sprays 11, 3548. pressure swirl injector fueled with methanol and ethanol. Energy and Fuels 19,
Lucchini, T., DErrico, G., Nordin, N., 2005. CFD modeling of gasoline sprays. SAE 23942401.
Technical Paper. 2005-24-086. Zhao, F., Lai, M.C., Harrington, D.L., 1999. Automotive-spark ignited direct-
ORourke, P.J., Amsden, A.A., 1987. The tab method for numerical calculation of injection gasoline engines. Progressed in Energy and Combustion Science 25,
spray droplet break-up. SAE Technical Paper. 872089. 427532.
Powell, J.W., Lee, C.F., 2007. An investigation of multiple scattering in a hollow-cone
spray. SAE Technical Paper. 2007-01-0648.
Please cite this article in press as: Park, S.H., et al. Atomization and spray characteristics of bioethanol and bioethanol blended gasoline fuel injected
through a direct injection gasoline injector. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatuidow.2009.07.002