Search Results

Large-eddy simulation (LES) is a useful approach for the simulation of turbulent flow and combustion processes in internal combustion engines. This study employs the ANSYS Forte CFD package and explores several key and fundamental components of LES, namely, the subgrid-scale (SGS) turbulence models, the numerical schemes used to discretize the transport equations, and the computational mesh. The SGS turbulence models considered include the classic Smagorinsky model and a dynamic structure model. Two numerical schemes for momentum convection, quasi-second-order upwind (QSOU) and central difference (CD), were evaluated. The effects of different computational mesh sizes controlled by both fixed mesh refinement and a solution-adaptive mesh-refinement approach were studied and compared. The LES models are evaluated and validated against several flow configurations that are critical to engine flows, in particular, to fuel injection processes.

Three time integration schemes and four finite volume interpolation schemes for the convection term in momentum equation were tested under turbulent planar gas jet and Sandia non-reacting vaporizing Spray-H cases. The three time integration schemes are the first-order Euler implicit scheme, the second-order backward scheme, and the second-order Crank-Nicolson scheme. The four spatial interpolation schemes are cubic central, linear central, upwind, and vanLeer schemes. Velocity magnitude contour, centerline and radial mean velocity and Reynolds stress profiles for the planar turbulent gas jet case, and fuel vapor contour and liquid and vapor penetrations for the Diesel spray case predicted by the different numerical schemes were compared. The sensitivity of the numerical schemes to mesh resolution was also investigated. The non-viscosity based dynamic structure subgrid model was used. The numerical tool used in this study was OpenFOAM.

In this work non-reacting spray simulations are performed using two Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) codes, KIVA and OpenFoam. The metric used is the liquid tip penetration which is compared with experimental data from the Engine Combustion Network at Sandia National Laboratories. Some important spray sub-models, available in KIVA, are implemented in OpenFOAM so that the two codes have more common models. In addition, model coefficients and computations cells used in the simulations are the same in both codes. The differences in spray source terms formulations and other spray sub models between the codes and their effect on liquid penetration are discussed.