Evaluation AC2-10: Difference between revisions
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===In-cylinder Flow Field=== | ===In-cylinder Flow Field=== | ||
Particular attention needs to be paid to the intake phase, because the flow distribution over the intake valves determines the formation of the in-cylinder tumble flow. Therefore a comparison of the flow field in the valve middle plane (z\,=\,19\,mm) during intake at 270\degree bTDC is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:MidValvePlane}, where the piston is positioned at y\,=\,-51.98\,mm. The 3D flow field was used to calculate the phase-averaged velocity magnitude $|V|$. From the experimental side no PIV data are available for this plane. Therefore magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) data from a flow bench experiment are used for comparison instead. The flow bench is a 1:1 scale model of the TU Darmstadt engine, produced from polyamide for MRV measurements at a fixed valve position corresponding to 270\degree bTDC and uses water as fluid. A direct comparison of the PIV and appropriate scaled MRV measurements within the central tumble plane revealed a very good agreement between both measurements above y\,=\,-20\,mm. MRV measurements are disregarded below y\,=\,-20\,mm due to the absence of the piston. Hence, the data can be used for comparison of the motored engine flow as long as no compressibility effects need to be considered. Further information regarding the configuration and measuring technique can be found in Freudenhammer et al. \cite{Freudenhammer2014}. | Particular attention needs to be paid to the intake phase, because the flow distribution over the intake valves determines the formation of the in-cylinder tumble flow. Therefore a comparison of the flow field in the valve middle plane (z\,=\,19\,mm) during intake at 270\degree bTDC is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:MidValvePlane}, where the piston is positioned at y\,=\,-51.98\,mm. The 3D flow field was used to calculate the phase-averaged velocity magnitude $|V|$. From the experimental side no PIV data are available for this plane. Therefore magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) data from a flow bench experiment are used for comparison instead. The flow bench is a 1:1 scale model of the TU Darmstadt engine, produced from polyamide for MRV measurements at a fixed valve position corresponding to 270\degree bTDC and uses water as fluid. A direct comparison of the PIV and appropriate scaled MRV measurements within the central tumble plane revealed a very good agreement between both measurements above y\,=\,-20\,mm. MRV measurements are disregarded below y\,=\,-20\,mm due to the absence of the piston. Hence, the data can be used for comparison of the motored engine flow as long as no compressibility effects need to be considered. Further information regarding the configuration and measuring technique can be found in Freudenhammer et al. \cite{Freudenhammer2014}. | ||
<div id="figure19"></div> | |||
{|align="center" width="600" | |||
|[[Image:AC2-10_velo_field-Freiburg.png|300px]] | |||
|[[Image:AC2-10_vwelo_field-Duisberg.png|300px]] | |||
|- | |||
|[[Image:AC2-10_velo_field-TUD.png|300px]] | |||
|[[Image:AC2-10_veolo_field-Experiment.png|300px]] | |||
|- | |||
|align="left" colspan="2"|'''Figure 19:''' | |||
|} | |||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 14:16, 16 October 2018
Internal combustion engine flows for motored operation
Application Challenge AC2-10 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2024
Evaluation
Comparison of CFD Results with Experimental Data
In-Cylinder Pressure
The in-cylinder pressure curves are shown in Figure 18. All groups match the experimental data well. Only for the peak pressure one can observe deviations due to its sensitivity in respect to the boundary conditions. The peak pressure was typically overestimated by the simulations. The influence of the piston top-land crevice is shown considering the data obtained using Ansys CFX, where simulations were carried out with and without the crevice volume. The specific treatment of the crevice volume considering the different computational codes can be found in chapter \ref{sec:BC}. It was found, that the lower temperature inside the crevice is decreasing the overall in-cylinder temperature and hence the in-cylinder pressure. A detailed discussion about this deviation can be found in \cite{Janas2017,JanasDiss2017}.
|
| Figure 18: In-Cylinder pressure curve with enlargement at 0\,CAD |
Further, the trapped mass inside the cylinder after the intake valves are closed was calculated by all groups, see Table \ref{tab:trappedmass}. Unfortunately, the trapped mass was not determined experimentally wherefore no comparison can be performed here.
In-cylinder Flow Field
Particular attention needs to be paid to the intake phase, because the flow distribution over the intake valves determines the formation of the in-cylinder tumble flow. Therefore a comparison of the flow field in the valve middle plane (z\,=\,19\,mm) during intake at 270\degree bTDC is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:MidValvePlane}, where the piston is positioned at y\,=\,-51.98\,mm. The 3D flow field was used to calculate the phase-averaged velocity magnitude $|V|$. From the experimental side no PIV data are available for this plane. Therefore magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) data from a flow bench experiment are used for comparison instead. The flow bench is a 1:1 scale model of the TU Darmstadt engine, produced from polyamide for MRV measurements at a fixed valve position corresponding to 270\degree bTDC and uses water as fluid. A direct comparison of the PIV and appropriate scaled MRV measurements within the central tumble plane revealed a very good agreement between both measurements above y\,=\,-20\,mm. MRV measurements are disregarded below y\,=\,-20\,mm due to the absence of the piston. Hence, the data can be used for comparison of the motored engine flow as long as no compressibility effects need to be considered. Further information regarding the configuration and measuring technique can be found in Freudenhammer et al. \cite{Freudenhammer2014}.
| File:AC2-10 velo field-Freiburg.png | File:AC2-10 vwelo field-Duisberg.png |
|
File:AC2-10 veolo field-Experiment.png |
| Figure 19: | |
Contributed by: Carl Philip Ding,Rene Honza, Elias Baum, Andreas Dreizler — Fachgebiet Reaktive Strömungen und Messtechnik (RSM),Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany
Contributed by: Brian Peterson — School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Scotland UK
Contributed by: Chao He , Wibke Leudesdorff, Guido Kuenne, Benjamin Böhm, Amsini Sadiki, Johannes Janicka — Fachgebiet Energie und Kraftwerkstechnik (EKT), Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany
Contributed by: Peter Janas, Andreas Kempf — Institut für Verbrennung und Gasdynamik (IVG), Lehrstuhl für Fluiddynamik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Contributed by: Stefan Buhl, Christian Hasse — Fachgebiet Simulation reaktiver Thermo-Fluid Systeme (STFS), Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany; former: Professur Numerische Thermofluiddynamik (NTFD), Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2018