0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

The Influence of Cylindrical Spray Chamber Geometry on the Evolution of High Pressure Diesel Sprays

[+] Author and Article Information
Dung Nguyen

Laboratory for Turbulence
Research in Aerospace and Combustion,
Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Monash University,
Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia
e-mail: dungt.nguyen@monash.edu

Damon Honnery

Laboratory for Turbulence
Research in Aerospace and Combustion,
Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Monash University,
Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia
e-mail: damon.honnery@monash.edu

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 8, 2018; final manuscript received March 13, 2019; published online April 15, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Wayne Strasser.

J. Fluids Eng 141(10), 101102 (Apr 15, 2019) (11 pages) Paper No: FE-18-1753; doi: 10.1115/1.4043234 History: Received November 08, 2018; Revised March 13, 2019

While much is known on the effect of combustion chamber geometry on spray evolution in engines, less is known about its role in laboratory combustion chambers. This paper reports on a study, which investigates the effect of internal chamber geometry on the penetration and spreading angle of common rail nonreacting diesel sprays at room temperature conditions in a cylindrical constant volume chamber. This chamber has dimensions similar to those used in the literature. Spray chamber geometry was modified to yield three different chamber height-to-diameter ratios and two different nozzle stand-off distances. Sprays from three nozzles, two single-hole nozzles with different diameter and one twin-hole nozzle (THN), were examined for two injection pressures of 100 MPa and 150 MPa into two chamber pressures of 0.1 MPa and 5 MPa. To characterize the spray structure, a volume illumination method was used to study the spray tip penetration/speed and spread angle. For both injection pressures used with chamber pressure of 5 MPa, little sensitivity to vessel geometry was found in penetration distance and tip speed for variation in height to diameter ratio from 0.6 to 2.6 and variation in nozzle stand-off distance from 2 mm to 54 mm. For atmospheric chamber pressure, sensitivity to chamber geometry was evident and found to vary with nozzle type. Spread angle was found more largely affected by the calculation method and very sensitive to the image intensity threshold value for the cases investigated.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Abdelghaffar, W. A. , Karimi, K. , and Heikal, M. R. , 2007, “ Fuel Spray Penetration in High Pressure Diesel Engines,” SAE Paper No. 2007-01-0066.
Kostas, J. , Honnery, D. , and Soria, J. , 2009, “ Time Resolved Measurements of the Initial Stages of Fuel Spray Penetration,” Fuel, 88(11), pp. 2225–2237. [CrossRef]
Kostas, J. , Honnery, D. , and Soria, J. , 2011, “ A Correlation Image Velocimetry-Based Study of High-Pressure Fuel Spray Tip Evolution,” Exp. Fluid, 51(3), pp. 667–678. [CrossRef]
Payri, F. , Payri, R. , Bardi, M. , and Carreres, M. , 2014, “ Engine Combustion Network: Influence of the Gas Properties on the Spray Penetration and Spreading Angle,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 53, pp. 236–243. [CrossRef]
Meijer, M. , Somers, B. , Johnson, J. , Naber, J. , Lee, S. Y. , Malbec, L. M. , Bruneaux, G. , Pickett, L. M. , Bardi, M. , Payri, R. , and Bazyn, T. , 2012, “ Engine Combustion Network (ECN): Characterization and Comparison of Boundary Conditions for Different Combustion Vessels,” Atomization Sprays, 22(9), pp. 777–806. [CrossRef]
Du, C. , Andersson, M. , and Andersson, S. , 2016, “ Effect of Nozzle Geometry on the Characteristics of an Evaporating Diesel Spray,” SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr., 9(3), pp. 493–513. [CrossRef]
Postrioti, L. , Grimaldi, C. N. , Ceccobello, M. , and Di Gioia, R. , 2004, “ Diesel Common rail Injection System Behavior With Different Fuels,” SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0029.
Kastengren, A. L. , Tilocco, F. Z. , Powell, C. F. , Manin, J. , Pickett, L. M. , Payri, R. , and Bazyn, T. , 2012, “ Engine Combustion Network (ECN): Measurements of Nozzle Geometry and Hydraulic Behavior,” Atomization Sprays, 22(12), pp. 1011–1052. [CrossRef]
Payri, F. , Bermudez, V. , Payri, R. , and Salvador, F. J. , 2004, “ The Influence of Cavitation on the Internal Flow and the Spray Characteristics in Diesel Injection Nozzles,” Fuel, 83(4–5), pp. 419–431. [CrossRef]
Bermudez, V. , Payri, R. , Salvador, F. J. , and Plazas, A. H. , 2005, “ Study of the Influence of Nozzle Seat Type on Injection Rate and Spray Behavior,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part D, 219, pp. 677–689. [CrossRef]
Kastengren, A. L. , Powell, C. F. , Riedel, T. , Cheong, S. K. , Im, K. S. , Liu, X. , Wang, Y. J. , and Wang, J. , 2008, “ Nozzle Geometry and Injection Duration Effects on Diesel Sprays Measured by X-Ray Radiography,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 130(4), p. 041301. [CrossRef]
Benajes, J. , Pastor, J. V. , Payri, R. , and Plazas, A. H. , 2004, “ Analysis of the Influence of Diesel Nozzle Geometry in the Injection Rate Characteristic,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 126(1), pp. 63–71. [CrossRef]
de Risi, A. , Donateo, T. , and Laforgia, D. , 2003, “ Optimization of the Combustion Chamber of Direct Injection Diesel Engines,” SAE Paper No. 2003-01-1064.
Montajir, R. M. , Tsunemoto, H. , Ishitani, H. , and Minami, T. , 2000, “ Fuel Spray Behaviors in a Small DI Diesel Engine: Effect of Combustion Chamber Geometry,” SAE Paper No. 2000-01-0946.
Jaichandar, S. , Kumar, P. S. , and Annamalai, K. , 2012, “ Combined Effect of Injection Timing and Combustion Chamber Geometry on the Performance of a Biodiesel Fueled Diesel Engine,” Energy, 47(1), pp. 388–394. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, D. , and Honnery, D. , 2018, “ Chamber Geometry Effect on Non-Evaporating Diesel Spray Evolution,” 21st Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Adelaide, Australia, Dec. 10–13, Paper No. 519. https://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/imarusic/proceedings/21/Contribution_519_final.pdf
Pei, Y. , Davis, M. J. , Pickett, L. M. , and Som, S. , 2015, “ Engine Combustion Network (ECN): Global Sensitivity Analysis of Spray a for Different Combustion Vessels,” Combust. Flame, 162(6), pp. 2337–2347. [CrossRef]
Pickett, L. M. , Genzale, C. L. , Bruneaux, G. , Malbec, L.-M. , Hermant, L. , Christiansen, C. , and Schramm, J. , 2010, “ Comparison of Diesel Spray Combustion in Different High-Temperature, High-Pressure Facilities,” SAE Int. J. Engines, 3(2), pp. 156–181. [CrossRef]
Maes, N. , Meijer, M. , Dam, N. , Somers, B. , Toda, H. B. , Bruneaux, G. , Skeen, S. A. , Pickett, L. M. , and Manin, J. , 2016, “ Characterization of Spray a Flame Structure for Parametric Variations in ECN Constant-Volume Vessels Using Chemiluminescence and Laser-Induced Fluorescence,” Combust. Flame, 174, pp. 138–151. [CrossRef]
Bardi, M. , Payri, R. , Malbec, L. M. , Bruneaux, G. , Pickett, L. M. , Manin, J. , Bazyn, T. , and Genzale, C. , 2012, “ Engine Combustion Network (ECN): Comparison of Spray Development, Vaporization, and Combustion in Different Combustion Vessels,” Atomization Spray, 22(10), pp. 807–842. [CrossRef]
Yao, C. , Hu, J. , Geng, P. , Shi, J. , Zhang, D. , and Ju, Y. , 2017, “ Effects of Injection Pressure on Ignition and Combustion Characteristics of Diesel in a Premixed Methanol/Air Mixture Atmosphere in a Constant Volume Combustion Chamber,” Fuel, 206, pp. 593–602. [CrossRef]
Xuan, T. , Cao, J. , He, Z. , Wang, Q. , Zhong, W. , Leng, X. , Li, D. , and Shang, W. , 2018, “ A Study of Soot Quantification in Diesel Flame With Hydrogenated Catalytic Biodiesel in a Constant Volume Combustion Chamber,” Energy, 145, pp. 691–699. [CrossRef]
Goldsworthy, L. , Tajima, H. , and Bong, C. , 2006, “ Modelling and Measurement of High Pressure Sprays, Ignition and Combustion of Heavy Fuel Oil and Marine Diesel Engine Oil,” Kyoto, Japan, Aug. 27, Paper No. ICLASS06-089.
Parrish, S. E. , 2004, “ Method and Apparatus for Regulating Gas Entrainment in a Fuel Injection Spray of an Internal Combustion Engine,” U.S. Patent No. US6830028B1.
Nguyen, D. , Duke, D. , Kastengren, A. , Matusik, K. , Swantek, A. , Powell, C. F. , and Honnery, D. , 2017, “ Spray Flow Structure From Twin-Hole Diesel Injector Nozzles,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 86, pp. 235–247. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, D. , Duke, D. , Kastengren, A. , Powell, C. , and Honnery, D. , 2015, “ Common Rail Diesel Sprays From Twin-Hole Nozzle,” Australian Combustion Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, Dec. 7–9, Paper No. 80.
Hiroyasu, H. , and Arai, M. , 1990, “ Structure of Fuel Sprays in Diesel Engines,” Trans. SAE, 99(3), pp. 1050–1061.
Desantes, J. M. , Payri, R. , Pastor, J. M. , and Gimeno, J. , 2005, “ Experimental Characterization of Internal Nozzle Flow and Diesel Spray Behavior—Part 1: Non-Evaporating Conditions,” Atomization Sprays, 15(5), pp. 489–516. [CrossRef]
Nurick, W. H. , 1976, “ Orifice Cavitation and Its Effect on Spray Mixing,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 98(4), pp. 681–687. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, D. P. , and Corradini, M. L. , 2001, “ The Internal Flow of Diesel Fuel Injector Nozzles: A Review,” Int. J. Engine Res., 2(1), pp. 1–22. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Sketch of system arrangement and (b) definition of angle θ of THN. Also shown is tip penetration distance S(t) and spray width W(x,t), used to define spray angle α, see text.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The three chamber geometries examined: (a) case A is the unaltered chamber with H/D =2.6 and Nsd = 54 mm, (b) case B with H/D =0.6 and Nsd = 2 mm, and (c) case C with H/D =2.06 and Nsd = 2 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Mean penetration distance against time at different T2 threshold values; and (b) penetration and sample standard deviation at maximum penetration distance against T2 values. Data shown for S200 sprays (case C, pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mean spread angle against time at different threshold values for S200 sprays (case C, pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa): (a) angle calculation method M1 and (b) angle calculation method M2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Mean spread angle and sample standard deviation at maximum penetration distance against threshold values for S200 sprays (case C, pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa): (a) spray spread calculation method M1 and (b) spray spread calculation method M2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Instantaneous spray images taken from single events for the S200 nozzle (pi = 100 MPa into pc = 0.1 MPa) at t =17, 81 and 129 μs (left to right) for: (a) case A, (b) case B, and (c) case C. Indicative image scale shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Cases A, B, and C for S200 nozzle (pi = 100 MPa into pc = 0.1 MPa): (a) Spray tip penetration distance and speed and (b) spread angle. Error bars indicate measurement standard deviation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Examples of spray images taken from single events for the S200 nozzle (pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa) at t =28, 156 and 452 μs (left to right) for: (a) case A, (b) case B, and (c) case C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Cases A, B, and C for the S200 nozzle (pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa): (a) Penetration distance and tip speed and (b) spray spread angle (M1). Error bars indicate measurement standard deviation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Penetration distance and tip speed against time for cases A, B, and C for the S200 nozzle (pi = 150 MPa into pc = 5 MPa). Error bars indicate measurement standard deviation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Spray tip penetration distance and speed cases A and B for the S150 nozzle for: (a) pi = 100 MPa into pc = 0.1 MPa, (b) pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa, and (c) pi = 150 MPa into pc = 5 MPa. Error bars indicate measurement standard deviation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Examples of spray images taken from single events of the T200 nozzle. For pi = 100 MPa into pc = 0.1 MPa at t =25, 99 and 179 μs (left to right): (a) case A and (b) case B. For pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa at t =37, 197 and 361 μs (left to right): (c) case A and (d) caseB.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Spray tip penetration distance and speed cases A and B for the T200 nozzle for: (a) pi = 100 MPa into pc = 0.1 MPa and (c) pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa. Right penetration and variation for cases A and B for: (b) pi = 100 MPa into pc = 0.1 MPa and (d) pi = 100 MPa into pc = 5 MPa. Error bars indicate measurement standard deviation.

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In