31

CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Numerical simulation of the DI turbocharged diesel engine has been
performed to investigate the effects of re-entrant bowl geometry of piston on engine
performance and emissions. The simulation process is done in two steps. In the first
step, the initial in-cylinder conditions required for combustion simulation are assessed,
by simulating the motoring case. In the next step the combustion is initiated by
defining the required fuel injection parameters.

Two types of results are generated from the simulation as below.

(i)

X-Y plots of pressure, temperature, NOX, soot, swirl ratio and

TKE versus CA.

(ii) Graphical representations of velocity magnitude, temperature field and
fields of species concentration (fuel, air, products) within the cylinder.

The X-Y plots are for direct quantitative comparison with the experimental data for
this engine. The graphical results are useful for visualising the local details of the flow,
temperature field, etc. at various points within the cylinder. All the numerical cases
were performed with the same tuning of the various model coefficients and constants.
A convention of treating the TDC of compression as 360 CA is followed in figures
and discussion.

6.1 SIMULATION OF MOTORING CASE

The simulation was carried out with initial pressure of 1.7 bar and temperature
of 323 K. The piston movement was carried out without fuel injection.

32
6.2 MOTORING CASE RESULTS
The pollutant formation process in diesel engines are intrinsically local
phenomena, most experimental and computational investigations of combustion and
emission production depends upon comparison of cylinder averaged and global
quantities. In order to develop realistic three-dimensional initial condition set for
combustion simulations, the in-cylinder flow in the DI turbocharged diesel engine is
computed using STAR-CD. All the computational results are plotted for baseline bowl
at full load condition at 2400 rpm.

6.2.1 Cylinder Pressure and Temperature

From the motored case results, it was observed that the maximum average
cylinder pressure and temperature is attained at TDC position and the corresponding
values are given in Table 6.1. Figure 6.1 and 6.2 shows the pressure distribution across
the cylinder before the start of injection (SOI) at 10 CA bTDC and at TDC position
respectively. Figure 6.3 and 6.4 shows the temperature distribution across the cylinder
before the start of injection at 10 CA bTDC and at TDC position respectively. The
peak motoring pressure and temperature values are obtained near by the cylinder walls.
This is because of the fact that, the air is confined to smaller area near the cylinder
walls, resulting in a highly compressed state.
The magnitude of peak pressure for the motoring case was found to be 90 bar
and the pressure distribution at TDC position as shown in Figure 6.2. The magnitude
of peak temperature for the motoring case is 1054 K and the temperature distribution
at TDC position as shown in Figure 6.4.

Fig. 6.1 Pressure distribution at

10o CA bTDC position

Fig. 6.2 Pressure distribution at

TDC position

33

Fig. 6.3 Temperature distribution at

Fig. 6.4 Temperature distribution 10o
CA bTDC position
at TDC position

6.2.2 Velocity Magnitude

3D velocity field results, around TDC of compression for the motored case
simulation, at 10o CA bTDC and at TDC position are shown in Figure 6.5 and 6.6
respectively. As the piston approaches TDC, the squish affects fluid movement into the
bowl. The re-entrant bowl produces higher tangential velocity close to the wall and
moves the high velocity zones towards the bottom of the bowl. The local velocities are
as high as 39.19 m/s around the edge of the bowl at TDC position.

Fig. 6.5 Velocity distribution in

swirling flow direction at
10o CA bTDC position

Fig. 6.6 Velocity distribution in

swirling flow direction at TDC
position

6.2.3 Turbulent Kinetic Energy

The turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) distribution at 10o CA bTDC and at TDC
position are shown in Figure 6.7 and 6.8 respectively. High TKE values are observed
near the bowl lip due to swirl amplification and strong squish flows.

34

Fig. 6.7 TKE distribution at

10o CA bTDC position

Fig. 6.8 TKE distribution at

TDC position

The nozzle which injects the fuel into the regions of higher turbulent kinetic
energy lowers the smoke emission levels.
The simulation of motored case was carried out under adiabatic wall boundary
condition. Therefore, the results are compared with the analytical results, which were
calculated according to the basic adiabatic relations given in equation 6.1 and 6.2.
P2 V1

P1 V2

(6.1)
P
T2
2
T1
P1

(6.2)
where = 1.4,
The calculated and simulated results for the motoring cases are given in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Comparison of simulated and calculated pressure and temperature

values
Variable

Simulated

Calculated

Error (%)

Pressure (bar)

90

88

2.2

Temperature (K)

1054

1022

3.1

35
It is inferred that there is a good agreement between the simulated and calculated
values. Hence, the same model was used to carry out the combustion simulation.

6.3 VALIDATION OF MOTORING CASE SIMULATION RESULTS

The numerical simulation values obtained in the present study are compared
with the available experimental results of DI turbocharged diesel engine. Figure 6.9
shows the predicted cylinder pressure variation in the fluid domain with respect to the
crank angle during compression and expansion stroke for the motoring case. It is
inferred that there is a good agreement between the simulated and experimental values
upto the point of start of injection.

Fig. 6.9 Pressure vs crank angle diagram for motoring analysis

6.4 SIMULATION OF COMBUSTION CASES

The main objective of this study is to investigate the influence of re-entrant
bowl geometry on the performance and emissions of a DI turbocharged diesel engine
at full load condition at rated speed.
The baseline bowl with other two different re-entrant bowl
geometry was modelled for the reacting flow analysis. Table 4.4 of

36
chapter 4 provides the details of operating condition for the CFD
simulation.

The fuel taken for this analysis is n-dodecane (C12H26), which is

considered

as

an

equivalent

hydrocarbon

computational research. Properties of

to

diesel

fuel

for

n-dodecane are incorporated

in CFD code. Air-fuel ratio (A/F) 30:1 was kept constant at rated power.

For simulating combustion, first a chemical reaction scheme is defined, which

is a single step global reaction. A proper reaction rate mechanism based on eddy breakup model is also specified. Based on the shell auto ignition model, the combustion is
initiated and it proceeds according to the eddy brake up model. The details of eddy
break up model are explained in chapter 5.
The combustion and emission related parameters presented in this section are

Pressure and temperature variations inside the cylinder

Equivalence ratio, NOx and soot distribution inside the cylinder

Swirl ratio and TKE variation inside the cylinder

The various models used for combustion simulation are reported in Table 6.2
Table 6.2 Various models used for combustion simulation
S. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Parameter
Turbulence Model
Combustion Model
Ignition Model
Nozzle Flow Model
Droplet Break-up Model
Atomization Model
Collision Model
NOx Model
Soot Model

Model used
RNG k - Model
EBU-LATCT Model
Shell Auto-ignition Model
Effective Nozzle Model
Reitz Diwakar Break-up Model
Huh Atomization Model
ORourke Collision Model
Extended Zeldovich Mechanism
Mauss Soot Model

37

6.5 CFD MODEL VALIDATION FOR COMBUSTION SIMULATION

In this section, a comparison between experiments and simulation is presented,
in order to assess the accuracy of the subsequent predictions. Comparison was made
for baseline bowl. As stated earlier, calculations were carried out at maximum power
mode, i.e. 2400 rpm, full load operation. Furthermore, the concentration of engine-out
NOX and soot is highest at this condition. Thus, this condition can be considered as
most important for the trade-off between performance and engine-out emissions.

Figure 6.10 and 6.11 presents the comparison of in-cylinder pressure and
X

engine-out emission (NO ) respectively. A convention of treating the TDC of

compression as 360 CA is followed in figures and discussion.

Fig. 6.10 In-cylinder pressure at 2400 rpm, full load

38
In a running engine, there are slight differences in the initial and boundary
conditions in each cylinder. These differences arise mainly due to gas dynamics during
the gas exchange process and as a result, the maximum cylinder pressure may differ
substantially between the cylinders. In the simulations presented here, however, only
one cylinder is considered and the initial conditions are specified from measured
average values. As visible, computational in-cylinder pressure agrees fairly well with
the experimental trace. The computed and experimental in-cylinder peak pressures are
104.2 bar and 101 bar respectively. The peak pressure discrepancies between
experiment and computation are about less than 3 %.

Figure 6.11 shows the total in-cylinder NOX variation with respect to crank
angle. It is seen that most of the NOX is predicted to be produced after peak cylinder
pressure. NOX is seen to be highest in the region where ignition occurred and the gas
has been exposed to high temperatures for the longest time.

Fig. 6.11 Predicted total in-cylinder and measured engine out

NOX emission at 2400 rpm, full load

It can be observed from Figure 6.11 that the predicted NO X emissions are lower
than experimental value although the gas temperatures are higher. This phenomenon

39
can be explained by the fact that the RNG turbulence model predicts more oxygen
deficient mixture during the combustion phase which results in lower NOX formation
rates [Ossi Kaario et al. (2002)].

In particular, experimental emission concentrations are average quantities,

measured at the tail pipe, while the calculated counterparts are in-cylinder
concentrations at the exhaust valve opening. It is quite remarkable that no tuning is
required for the model parameters, i.e. the results shown in Figure 6.11 are the one
obtained by using the default set-up.

6.6 EFFECT OF RE-ENTRANT BOWL GEOMETRY

MAXIMUM POWER

ON

ENGINE PERFORMANCE

AT

The bowl shape influence on the engine behaviour is investigated for the
operating conditions reported in Table 4.4, i.e. full load, rated speed. Bowl
performance is evaluated by means of a set of parameters. First, ISFC, gross-IMEP and
soot have been used to compare the engine performance, since the maximum power
output of the diesel engine is limited by the exhaust smoke level. Each gross-IMEP
value is then referred to the baseline bowl, in order to directly estimate benefits and
drawbacks of the geometrical variations.

Second, as far as in-cylinder flow field, swirl motion intensity is investigated

by means of the instantaneous swirl ratio, with swirl-ratio (SR) defined as :
n

SR

.V .
i

i 1

ti

.ri

(6.3)

e . i .Vi .ri 2
i 1

where i,Vi,ri are the in-cylinder density, volume and radial distance from the
mass centre respectively. ti is the cell tangential velocity component and e is the
engine speed. As far as pollutant emissions are concerned, in-cylinder NO X and soot

40
instantaneous masses are analysed throughout the combustion process. The values at
EVO are assumed as indexes of engine-out emissions.

6.6.1 Pressure and Temperature Variations Inside the Cylinder

Figure 6.12 shows the pressure variation inside the cylinder under firing
condition at 2400 rpm. The analyses were conducted with rated power output
conditions. Fuel flow / cycle was kept constant in all cases (5.89*10 -5 kg / cycle).
Figure 6.12 shows that Bowl 3 has the highest peak pressure of all the three bowls and
hence, the lowest SFC. The difference between the peak pressure values of Bowl 3 and
baseline bowl is 9.5 bar and is approximately 9 %. Strong air motion induced in
Bowl 3 increases the rate of combustion. Better combustion in turn results in higher
level of pressure and temperature in Bowl 3.

Fig. 6.12 Pressure traces for the three bowls at 2400 rpm, full load
Time histories of in-cylinder temperature, NOX and soot for the three bowls are
shown in Figure 6.13. Figure 6.13a shows that the maximum temperature takes place
at CA = 380 - 385 (20 - 25 aTDC). Bowl 3 shows the highest temperature and Bowl

41
2 shows the lowest temperature. The difference between the maximum temperature
values is 80 K.

6.6.2 NOx and Soot Emissions

The in-cylinder NOx and soot mass are plotted in Figure 6.13.

42

Fig. 6.13 Temperature, NOX and soot traces for the three bowls at 2400
rpm, full load
Bowl 3 with its high swirl ratio (observed in Figure 6.14) exhibits superior soot
oxidation (Figure 6.13c). In this case, two different mechanisms draw responsible,
namely a promoted fuel-air mixing process in the early phase of combustion and hence
reduced soot production and a higher turbulent mixing intensity leading to higher local
oxidation rates in the late combustion phase. It is observed that there is a 46 %
reduction of soot emission at EVO in Bowl 3 than baseline bowl.

Thermal NOx formation at the beginning of injection is rapid for the all the
three cases. This is due to the high temperature rise during combustion of fuel. The
effect of turbulence increases the rate of mixing of fuel and air resulting in better
combustion and higher temperature. This higher temperature tends to increase NOx
production and soot oxidation as shown in Figure 6.13. As a result, the NOX emission
of Bowl 3 at EVO is 15 % more than baseline bowl as shown in Figure 6.13b.

Figure 6.13c illustrates that the maximum soot formation occurs at about CA =
382 - 385 (22 - 25 aTDC) for all three bowls. Bowl 3 is characterized by the lowest
peak soot formation. As a result, the soot emission of Bowl 3 at EVO is 46 % less than
baseline bowl. Soot emission of Bowl 2 at EVO is more than other two bowls due to
its lower soot oxidation rate. Lower level of swirl and turbulence in Bowl 2 during the
diffusion combustion period are the reasons for lower rate of soot oxidation.

In order to understand the details of the effect of re-entrant bowl geometry, the
in-cylinder temperature, NOX, equivalence ratio and soot distributions in cross-section
of the three bowls at CA = 20 and 25 aTDC are plotted in Figures 6.18 to 6.21. It is
noted from Figure 6.18b that there are greater areas of high-temperature regions in
Bowl 3 than Bowl 2 and baseline bowl, and hence the highest peak temperature in

43
Bowl 3 as shown in Figure 6.13a. In Bowl 3, there are greater areas of high - TKE
regions than other two bowls as shown in Figure 6.22. This fluid dynamic behaviour of
Bowl 3 promotes a more rapid air-fuel mixing as indicated by equivalence ratio
distribution. This is well confirmed by the greater areas of high-temperature regions in
Bowl 3. In addition, Figure 6.18a shows that Bowl 3 has less rich fuel areas in the
cylinder head than Bowl 2 and baseline bowl. So the lack of fuel-rich regions is
responsible for the lower soot formation in the Bowl 3, as shown in Figure 6.19a.
6.6.3 Swirl and TKE
In order to find additional explanations to the previous statements, the
combustion chamber flow-field has also investigated in terms of organised motions,
evaluating the swirling macro vortex intensity by means of the swirl ratio as shown in
Figure 6.14.

Fig. 6.14 Intensity of swirl vs crank angle

It can be observed from Figure 6.14 that the maximum values of intensity of
swirl and their variations after the peak values are different in great deal because of the
differences in the bowl geometry. The intensity of swirl in Bowl 2 attains its peak
value at 2 CA bTDC, then declines swiftly. The intensity of swirl in Bowl 3 reaches
its peak value at TDC, and maintains high level afterwards. The peak value of swirl in

44
Bowl 3 is about 25 % higher than that of the baseline bowl. When compared to
baseline bowl, in Bowl 3, velocities and TKE values are much higher. Squish flow is
also penetrating much deeper towards the axis of the cylinder which is the main reason
for higher swirl intensification. The history of velocity distribution at various crank
angles is shown in Figure 6.24. The variation tendency of the intensity of swirl in
baseline bowl is between Bowl 3 and Bowl 2.
Since the high intensity of swirl in Bowl 3 could maintain for a long period, it
could maintain active airflow in the later combustion period. This is beneficial to
accelerate the diffusion combustion and refraining from the formation of smoke.
Figure 6.15 presents the mass average TKE variation with respect to crank angle in the
three bowls without combustion.

Fig. 6.15 TKE vs crank angle

With Bowl 3, the values of TKE are consistently higher than baseline bowl. It
can be observed from Figure 6.15 that around TDC, TKE intensification is as high as
35 % more than baseline bowl. For Bowl 3, it can be observed that reverse-squish is
also much stronger which has led to a peak in TKE after TDC. Distribution of TKE for
the three bowls in a plane passing through the axis of cylinder is shown in Figures 6.22
and 6.23.

45
As it may be seen from Figure 6.22 that the total TKE distributions in Bowl 3
is realised within a broader area, which illustrates that the geometry of Bowl 3 is more
beneficial for fuel air mixing and combustion. Bowl 3 has higher TKE due to swirl
amplification and strong squish flows. On the contrary, the areas of high turbulence
energy intensity in Bowl 2 are less than baseline bowl and Bowl 3. Therefore, Bowl 2
is unfavourable for the fuel air mixing and combustion.

The effect of re-entrant bowl geometry on engine performance and emissions

are reported in Table 6.3. The influence of bowl shape on ISFC, gross-IMEP, NO X and
soot emissions are depicted in Figure 6.16 and 6.17. From Figure 6.16, it can be
observed that Bowl 3 has the lowest ISFC and the highest computed gross-IMEP
value. The difference between the gross-IMEP values of Bowl 3 and baseline bowl is
approximately 6 %.

Table 6.3 Comparison of engine performance and emissions for the three bowls at
2400 rpm, full load

Case name

IMEP (bar)

Baseline
Bowl 2
Bowl 3

10.2
10.08
10.8

ISFC

NOX @ EVO

Soot @ EVO

(g/kWh)
188.5
191
178.2

(g/kg-fuel)
21.94
21.3
25.8

(g/kg-fuel)
0.13
0.165
0.07

46

Fig. 6.16 Bowl shape influence on ISFC and gross-IMEP

47
Fig. 6.17 Bowl shape influence on NOX and soot mass @ EVO

(a) Equivalence ratio

(b) Temperature distribution

Baseline bowl

Baseline bowl

(a) Equivalence ratio

(b) Temperature distribution

Bowl 2

Bowl 2

(a) Equivalence ratio

(b) Temperature distribution

Bowl 3

Bowl 3

Fig. 6.18 Comparison of equivalence ratio and in-cylinder temperature distribution in the
o

three bowls at 2400 rpm and 20 CA aTDC

48

(a) Soot distribution

Baseline bowl

(a) Soot distribution

Bowl 2

(a) Soot distribution

Bowl 3

(b) NOX distribution

Baseline bowl

(b) NOX distribution

Bowl 2

(b) NOX distribution

Bowl 3

Fig. 6.19 Comparison of soot, and NOX distribution in the three bowls at 2400 rpm and 20
CA aTDC

49

(a) Equivalence ratio

(b) Temperature distribution

Baseline bowl

Baseline bowl

(a) Equivalence ratio

(b) Temperature distribution

Bowl 2

Bowl 2

(a) Equivalence ratio

(b) Temperature distribution

Bowl 3

Bowl 3

Fig. 6.20 Comparison of equivalence ratio and in-cylinder temperature distribution in the
o

three bowls at 2400 rpm and 25 CA aTDC

50

(a) Soot distribution

Baseline bowl

(a) Soot distribution

Bowl 2

(a) Soot distribution

Bowl 3

(b) NOX distribution

Baseline bowl

(b) NOX distribution

Bowl 2

(b) NOX distribution

Bowl 3

Fig. 6.21 Comparison of soot, and NOX distribution in the three bowls at 2400 rpm and 25
CA aTDC

51

TDC

Baseline bowl

TDC

Bowl 2

TDC

Bowl 3

10 CA aTDC

Baseline bowl

10 CA aTDC

Bowl 2

10 CA aTDC

Bowl 3

Fig. 6.22 TKE distribution in the three bowls at TDC and 10 CA aTDC

52

20 CA aTDC

30 CA aTDC

Baseline bowl

Baseline bowl

20 CA aTDC

30 CA aTDC

Bowl 2

Bowl 2

20 CA aTDC

30 CA aTDC

Bowl 3

Bowl 3

Fig. 6.23 TKE distribution in the three bowls at 20 CA aTDC and 30 CA aTDC

53
TDC

Baseline bowl

TDC

Bowl 2

TDC

Bowl 3
10 CA aTDC

Baseline bowl
10 CA aTDC

Bowl 2

20 CA aTDC

Baseline bowl

20 CA aTDC

Bowl 2

20 CA aTDC

Bowl 3
30 CA aTDC

Baseline bowl
30 CA aTDC

Bowl 2
30 CA aTDC

10 CA aTDC

Bowl 3

Bowl 3

Fig. 6.24 The history of velocity distribution in swirling flow direction for
the three bowls at various crank angles

54
6.7 SUMMARY
In summary, simulation results demonstrate that the Bowl 3 enhance the
turbulence and hence results in faster break-up of fuel droplets and mixing of the fuel
with air among all three bowls in a DI diesel engine. As a result, the ISFC and soot
emission are reduced, although the NOX emission is increased owing to better mixing
and a faster combustion process.