Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11
A Comparison of Three Turbulence Models in Engine-Like Geometries ABSTRACT Three turbulence sodels, aazely the Reynolds stress sodel (RSW), the k-e model, anda constant diffusiviey godel (CDV), Used in a comparative study to assess their accuracy in calevlating in-eylinder fluid potions in axisyanetric engine gecaetries To reduce nugerical errors to a sinisua, the skew upwind differencing scheme and’ the quadratic upstreas interpolation for convection kinematics schene were tested, and the aost accurate of the two was used in the comparison between the turbulence models The aodels were tested by considering a flow field generated in an axisymmetric pisten- cylinder assembly. “Both swirling and non- swirling flows were exaained. The compar! sons suggests that the RSW results are gener~ better agreenent with the experi- mental data than the k-e sodel results. By proper tuning of the diffusivity, the CDM, which predicts only the ean flom, could be Sade to yield good agreasent with the ness urements. However, this could be achieved at only one of the tro crank angles where com parisons with seasurenents ware sade INTRODUCTION With the great advances occurring in the area of electronic computers, there is a Continuing trend towards using’ computational techniques for aiding in the design of engineering equipsest. This trend has diver- sified into many areas and currently computa- tional techniques are starting to be used for exploring transport and combustion processes ing in internal combustion’ engines The izpact of such explorations on lopaent of ICE's depends on, anong other things, the adequate representation of turbulence (via a turbulence sodel in aule: dimensional methods) in the computational procedure of turbulence godels are currently being used in engine applications The commonly used ones are the constant diffusivity aodel and the txo-equation turby Tence aodel [1]. More recently = Reynolds Several types S.HELTahey Fluid Mechanies Department General Motors Research Labs 12m $ Mound Roads Warren, Michigan 48090 stress model was also employed (2). With several such models now available, an inmediate question that arises is, which of these sodels is aost appropriate for ICE applications? No sinple answer is available as several factors need to” be considered Exanples of such factors are complexity of the model, computer facility, cost of developseat, and accuracy of the solution In deciding’on the aost appropriate gode to use, each of the aentioned factors has a different "weight" that depends on the nesds } and constraints on, the user. The present work addresses the relative accuracy of three different acdels. Previously, quantitative assessment of a two-equation (one for the turbulence kinetic energy (k), and the other for the dissipation rate of k (e)) turbulence model was made by Gossan et al. (3), Diwakar and El Tahry [4], Absadi-Befrui et’ al and fasos et al [6]. In the foraer ‘two works, the aodel results were cospared. to the measurenents of Worse et al. [7]. The measurements used in the comparisons were made for non-swirling flow generated in an axisymmetric, oncom pressing piston cylinder assembly. Anmadi- Befrui et al. (S) and Ranos et al. [6) com pared their sode? results to seasurenents also asde ine non-swirling axisyanetric flow, but in this case, compression was con sidered. Recently, El! Tahry [2] calculated the sane flow field as in (3) and [4] while using a Reynolds stress aodel (RSM). These csleulations yielded better agreement with the measurezents than either of the two ca culations sade with the k-e turbulence model. However, because the calculations of (2) were conducted with a different nuserical differ fencing scheue than used in earlier works,” it vas suspected that part of the inprovenent, could be a consequence of the sunerical schene and not just the turbulence model Therefore, in order that between the turbulence a valid cosparison models is achieved, 1 None of these works had ensured grid independent solution punerical inaccuracies should be reduced to sinigus, and the ease migerical procedure should be used in the calculations exploying the different turbulence nodels Reduction of nuserieal errors can be achieved by grid refinenents. However, due the rapid increase in compvtation tine which occurs when a grid is refined, there are obviously lisits to this procedure. The alternative is to. use more accurate differ- fencing schemes. Tro. such schezes have been proposed ~ one by Raithby [8], which is the skew-uprind differencing schene’ (SUDS). The other schese is the quadratic upstream inter- polation for convective kineaatics (QUICK) schene proposed by Leonard [0]. These two aifferencing schenes were previously employed by several authors [10-19], and results ob- tained with thes clearly indicated that they were more accurate than the commonly used upwind differencing schene (UDS) ‘The work presented herein is mainly 2 comparative study between the perforsance of the k-e model and the Reynolds stress node) in engine-type floms. A constant diffusivity sodel’ (CDM) is alee included in the compars- son, but it is included in only one of the tro flow cases considered. Initially, both SUDS and QUICK were used to determine which of then was ost appropriate for the present application. It was found that SUDS gives results in better agreezent with the searured data and; therefore, it was used in the com parative study between the turbulence aodele In spite of using SUDS, it wae still necessary, in order to approach grid inde- pendent solution, to utilize fine computa tional eshes in the solution procedure. Consequently, the cosputer tines required were substantial, and it was necessary to find means of reducing these computational tines. Because of the specific solution procedure employed [13], it was possible to Seduce compstational tises by appropriate Variations in the computational engine motor- ing speed. The validity of this approach reste on the assuzption of dynasic similarity which was found to be valid in the present How situation The weasurenents used to compare wit the acdel results are those sade by Morse eval. (7). Unlike earlier works which used these measurenents in their comparisons, in the present study the comparison with meas~ urevents is extended to include. one of the swirling flow cases reported in [7) ANALYSIS Governing Equations and Numerical Aspects Sovernis ions. The flow consié- ered Sete dE RT UEIT” prartical purposes, incompressible and isothersal. The governing transport equstions required for calculating the ean flow are the conservation equations of mass and sosentus. For brevity and gener= ality, these are expressed in general curvi- Linear coordinates as follows: Be v=o a 204 aw we) eps Ld ees (2) vel). = (ubud ore toy there C° and u® are, respectively, the Sp LIE. Tass Ee) fer eine af ret er re Uy eH) = Fae) (a) dg ig the turbulent diffusivity. Ip the cath of the ice aodel, 2, is calculated free 32 1, = 0.08 AE © where k and € are obtained from the solution of their transport equations. The modeled foras of these equations, which were used in lost all the aforesentioned engine applica tion studies, are, respectively, as follows R 6 opi Beye 6 where the node] constants have been igple- Bented directly into the equations With the constant diffusivity podel (CDM), 4, has to be prescribed. Guided by the reslts from the k-e model, several Valuer of p vere tried: Althovgh 2 Single Une invarilnt value of 4 could be found that gave resulte ia. good afresnent with the Seasuresents at particular crank angle, the ane value did) not give comparable sgreeaent Suother crank gles’ It is conceivable, Roecver, that a Thee variant, spatisily con feiss Sefunidey ould bra doe appropriate wey of using this typeof aodels At any Tiley the sresults “that “will” be presented Sing che CDW were. obtained with a” consvane Eiftanivity valve of 0,005 bg/an. This valve Gave the best overal] agreement with the ‘The BS is based on the solution of transport equation for the Reynolds stresses. ‘The version of the sodel used in the present work was suggested by Launder et al. (14) and was used previously in [2]. According to [2], the odeled ;tgenspor equation of the tensor component wu® reads ous a oy me cous EGE. Ett Pe SPR tou 5 distance to the Together with the where x, is the norsal nearest Bolid bound: equations of the Reynolds a further tranport equation for ¢ is required close the sex of equations. This equation for € is identical vo Equation (6) except for the diffusion tera (second vera on the right hand side) which, within a RSW, would have a bittasics coetticien: of 0.15 Ee The coupter code Disferencing Scheoe used in the present study is a version of the code CINGHAS {13'- This code is based on a variant of the isplicit-continuous-fluid- Bulerian technique developed. by” Harlow and Aden [a8] land ig “eawipred heh ag ach trary-Lageangian-Bulerian es ever solifications wore enie to the cole to include, asong other things, the diff scheaes SUDS and QUICK. Details on schenes can be found in [8 and [9], respec= tively Fron a Fourier series type of analysis, iz is possible to. show that the QUICK is tovally free of numerical diffusion can be shown fros. a sivilar type of analysis (Gee Lai [12]) that SUDS reduces dranatically errors arising fros the skemess of the flow Streamlines relative to’ the grid. lines These errors ‘are the ‘sain. contributors to aunerical diffusion in aulti-digensiona Flows. Une anjor probles, however, with both differencing scheats iz ‘that. they are not uncondftionsily bounded (in the sense given by [18]). This arises because the fluxes of f leaving any control voluae aay be based on } values other than the value associated ith the control. volune unter consideration With QUICK there “i a further reason for unboundedness, sazely, that the scheze does fot possess the transportive property (for & definition, see (16)) 205 The unboundedness problezs associated vith both QUICK and SUDS were found to cause no serious probless with the mosencua calcu lations. ‘Serious probleas, however, did arise mhen solutions ‘of the turbulence equa. tions (i.e., the k-e and Reynolds stress equations) were attempted. These problens were signaled by the appearance of sharp decline in the values of the turbulence quan tities at scattered locations in the flow field. Such locations always coincided with Fegions having large gradients of the turbu- lence quantities. In some extreme cages, the "sharp declines" eventually led to negative values for strictly positive quantities, To renedy this probles, the procedure used pre-~ viously by [2], in’ conjunction with solving the Reynolds stress equations using SUDS, was adapted to QUICK. Briefly, the procedure entails using the ore accurate differencing chene (i.e., QUICK or SUDS) whenev. solution is’ bounded while revertin bounded schese whenever indications unbounded solution appear (for ore details, see [2]) ine Speed Seal Tt was noticed fran Poartoae SaTcaPStTOOy ciac Copreeseioael times necessary to complete an engine cycle increased almost linearly with reductions in engine speeds. Since in’ the problen eon. sidered, the engine speed” was low (200 r/oin), the computational tines were excessively large. It was, therefore, neces sary to find ways of reducing these tines The reason for the Large computation tines encountered at low engine speeds can be attributed to the point iteration schene isplied in the solution procedure and to the low Mach nusber resulting at these engine speeds. Hence, to reduce conputational tines without changing the solution procedure, it would be necessary to increase the Mach nugber. This can be achieved by either reduciag the speed of sound and/or increasing he engine speed. Due co its siapliciey, the latter alternative war selected. Needless to say, for the procedure to be successful, the flow pattern gust be independent of specd, 3 satter which is discussed next The possibility of altering piston speeds without changing the flow pattern rests on the validity of the assuaption of dynamic similarity of the flows at the vari ous speeds. In the current application, the flow is expected to be dynamically sinilar if it is either independent of Mach and Reynolds nusbers or when these numbers are soachow retained constant. Because the Mach nuaber was maintained at fairly low ¥ it had fo significant effect on the flow pattern As for the Reynolds nuaber general, turbsleat flows in condition, in the vicinity of solid boundaries are influenced to. sose extent by the Reynolds number. flowever, by suserical testing in the present range of operation, it vas found that the Reynolds number plays only a ainor role. Hence, the assumption of dynamic similarity is then valid. Operating, Initial and Boundar Conditions The testing of the procedure was achieved by. couparing the nunerical results with the laser” Doppler anegoseter meas- resents made by Morse et al. [7). The seas- ere carried ovt in the axisyanetric Sten eylindey assently shorn schenseically EnFigere In The anseably consisea of a flat Sfownes pistons tranaparent. cylinder with GE ts bore, a flat transparent cylinder bead, Eng an atioyanetric intake/enbaugt pore. The Yaive seat annulus angle, rae 200 relative to Ue'tylinder acie direction. Further details Gn'the geosetey of the assembly are shown in Figure i. The piston was driven in sizpie hafsonie sotien 11 200 revolutions per sinute the with a atrcke of 80s, the average piston speed (V) was Ovd s/s. at this speed, or nas slained to be fully corbulere letsurenegts, were reported. by lorse et al. fora flow ‘case with zero swirl and Bor'bho sther cases with different levels of seis]. Tn the swirling flor cases, svirl wae generated by swirl vanes placed upstream o the inlet port. The degree of swirl was cxpreceed thrcugh a swirl nuaber defined a She’ Satlo of the angular eovente flux to the Suiel souentus flux at entry to the cylinder, Rorualised by the width of the jet.” In the Present comparisons, oply the ero swirl flow RIE the flow with the higher swirl level we Sheidered,” In the. latver flow, the sei Guster Feported by [7] sae 1.2 (010%) Morse, et al. presented all three cos: ponents of mean and turbulent velocity for the sxirling flow. For the non-swirling flow, only the axial mean and turbulent vele~ cities were given. In. all cases, velocity profiles were presented at several Jogations in the cylindgr at crank angles of 36°, 90°, 344°," and 270° Toc. Except for tro cases, all the calcu lations reported in the present work were conducted with a 45x45 computation grid This sesh size was found to be sufficient to yield vhat appears to be a grid independent solutign at crank angles of 36° and 90° ATDC. At 144°, sizilar calculations made in a pre~ vious study [2] revealed some sensitivity to grid size. Hence, comparisons betwgen the godels will not be conducted beyond 90° ATDC Two computational runs were carried out with 206 a 32x32 grid. These were used for comparing the accuracies of SUDS and QUICK. Although calculations with SUDS and QUICK were made both with the RSW and the k-e sodel, only the results of the conparison using ke will be shown since both turbslence models yielded results leading to the sane conclusions about the differencing schenes The computations were all carried out at fan engine speed of 1200 r/zin. However, because the results are. presented in normalized form and dynasic sinilarity holds, the results are expected to be identical to computations aade at 200 r/ain. This was confirmed to be the case by sone prelizinary calculations. The saving in computer tine by going to the faster speed was about a factor of 6. Boundary Conditions. At solid boundar- ies, the following constraints were applied bi =o, bea wy, Dw ) where 2 and Bare unit. vectors in the Girection tangert and norsa) to the boundary, Dis the mean velocity ve. Up is the velocity of the boundary, and D(') stgnifies diffusion of the enclosed variables At intake, the flow is assumed to enter with a unifore’ velocity profile tangential to the valve-seat annulus at a velunetric rate equivalent to the rate displaced by the piston. In the presence of swirl, the swirl Velocity profile is also sssuned unifors With this assuaption, and with 2 swirl number of 1.2, we obtain’ a swirl velocity. at entrance of about 0.25 the average inlet axial velocity. The turbulence kinetic energy at inlet vas assuned equal to 2% of the Kinetic energy based on sean inlet ve- locity. When the RSM is used, double the turbulent Kinetic energy is distributed Detween the radial, azimuthal, and axial stress, respectively, as 0-5k, 0.7 k, and 0.8 k,' The dissipation rate was set to 0.5 k/(annulus width) A the axis of symmetry, the radial velocity component is set to zero and fluxes of all other variables involved in transport equations are also set to zero. In the cosputation carried out using the different turbulence zodels, sl] conpute- tional aspects were identical except fer one difference. This difference is in the use of the logarithaic "lav" of the wall. With the kee and CDM, the logaritheic’ law was used, while for reasons noted in [2], this law wat pot used with the RSM. It should be stated ‘hough thet use of the logarithaic lar made no apparent difference in (the results ob- tained with the BSW up to 36° ATDC, The main difference, which is (not very significant, was apparent beyond 70° ATDC. Initial Conditions. In all the cases considered, cosputations ere initiated from top dead center where the following condi tons were assused: the radial velocity and the axial velocity components were set equa! to zero. In the presence of swirl, the pro- files of swirl velocity noraslized by sean piston speed (U,) were assuned independent of Exial totation fea!’ to “satisfy the following Hee . [= wins cose Gy | <1 when oss cr cOeR <27 (ne rroeR where ris the (variable) radius, and & is half the bore, The shape of the swirl pro! Te is an approximation to the ayerage swirl profile aeasured by (7) at 270° ATDC. The turbulence is assuned isotropic and has a Kinetic. energy approximately equal to 18% (see [2]) of the kinetic energy based on mean piston speed. The dissipation rate was cal culated froa: 620.4 2 x RESULTS AND DISCUSSION jobal Flow Features Before discussing the influence of the nunerical schese and turbulence on the results, a brief idea on the flow pattern generated in the two flow cases considered will firee be gives. (sore details may be found in [7]) at 90° ATDC for the non-swirl- ing and swirling floxs, respectively ‘The flow in the non-swirling case (Fig- ure 2a) is coaposed of a jet emanating froz the intake port, surrounded by three vortices. A large vortex is evident residing onthe center-line side of the jet which rotates clockwise, There is also a signifi- cantly saaller vortex occurring in the corner between the cylinder wall and cylinder head. seen to impinge on the cylinder ‘and then to spread out in the direction Of the piston. Close to the cylinder wall the flow separates and gives rise to a third vortex rotating anti-clockwise In the presence of swirl (Pigure 26), several variations to the flow field occur Three of these differences are significant First, the larger vortex, which is adjacent to the center line, is sean to stretch in the presence of swirl in the direction of the ton. Second, a new recirculating zone is established below the valve. Finally, the vortex residing close to the piston’ and i Fas toni Gee ahem 207 Linder wall corner alaost disappears. Al) these effects accompanied by swirl can be explained by the action of centrifugal for- Figures 3a and 3b show,the calculated velocity vector plots, as 00° AIDC forthe non-seirling and swirling flows, respec tively. The plots, which were obtained by the RSM, are seen to reproduce the trends in the measured data fairly well Comparison Batween QUICK and SS With the intent of comparing the p. formance of SUDS versus that of QUICK, cospu- tations were carried out with these schenes using both the k-e model and the RSW for the non-svirling flow case. The conclusions reached from these computations, using either turbulence model at all crank angles, werg sinilar and, hence, only the results at 90 using the k-c mode! are presented Figure 4 shows seasured and calculated sean axial velocity profiles at various loca- Lions in the flow field. following figures, the normalized by the gean pistog speed (V) and are plotted relative to datuzs” (Gashed lines perpendicular to the cylinder axis) at vari cus distances from the cylinder head. It is clear from the figure that SUDS yields results in better agreement with the measured data than the results produced by qUICK This is particularly the case at location 3 This finding was surprising since, based on Taylor series analysis, SUDS is formally a first-order accurate scheme, hile QUICK is second order. Furthersore, the experience of In this and al] velocities are [10) and [11] suggests that the two differ- fencing schenes are expected to yield similar results. There is, horever, the following possible explanation for this anomaly In the present flow situation, the flow enters skewed at an angle of 30° relative to the vertical grid lines. This angle is further increased due to the entrainzent by the jet of fluid with radially outward mo- zentia (see Pigure 2a). Now, it is plausible that as the skewness angle increases, the infringement on the transportive property by QUICK increases, thus compromising its accur~ acy. In the meantine, the accuracy of SUDS, as shown by [12], actually increase at the larger skemess In fairness to the QUICK scheme, it should be renarked that the present flow case Ss unsuitable for an assessment of the dif- ferencing schene. This is because of uncer- tainties in the physical acdel and boundary conditions. However, since no other guidance is available, SUDS was considered gore accur~ ate than QUICK and was used in all the calcu- lations to be presented. We next review the coaparative “study between the turbulence Comparison Between Turbulence Models Non-Swirling Flow. Figures 5 and § show veasured and geiculeted, mean axial velocity profiles at 36° and” 00° AIDC, respectively In these figures, two sets of calculations are presented - one ade by the keg nodel and the other with the RSM. At 36° ATDC, the axial velocities predicted by the tro models 2 The locations of the datuas shorn will be referred to as location 1, 2, 3, etc., with location 1 being closest te'the cylinder head and 2 the second closest, etc. at locations 1 and 3 are seen to be in excel- Tent agreenent with the measurements, At location 2, the velocities calculated by the RSW are in fair agreement with the neas- Uurenents, but the k-e godel tends to be quite diffusive with a consequence of under= estivating,the peak velocity by 50% ‘Az 90° ATDC the velocity profiles pre- dicted by the two models reproduce gost of the measured trends. Quantitatively, except at location 2, the peak velocities calculated by the RM are in excellent agreement with the neasurenents. At location 3, however, the peak velocity is overestinated by about 35%. Although the k-e sodel underestimates tthe peak velocities at locstions 1 and 2 by about 25%, unexplainably it is in very good agreenent’ with the seasurenents at loca tion 3 Pgofiles of the axial turbulence velo- cities” nornalised by mean piston spged are showa jn Figures 7 and 8 at 36° and 80° ATDC. At 36°) “the agreement between trends and values Of peak velocities seasured and those predicted by the RSM is very good. Howeve in soue regions, specifically those coincié= ing with the side edges of the jet, the pre- dictions of the RSM somewhat underestimate ‘the turbulence levels. With the k-e aodel, 3 With the ice sodel, the axial turbulence velocity is’ taken equal vo 2/3k predictions at locations 1 and 3 are conpara~ ble to the predictions obtained with the RSM. but at location 2 the turbulence predicted by this odel is grossly underestinated. In Figure 8 (i.e, at 90° ATDC) at loca- tion 1 it is seen that the Reynolds stress nodel predicts the peak velocity to within 18%, but unlike the eeasuresents, the calcu Iated turbulent velocity falls sharply with increasing radii beyond the location of peak velocity. With the. k-e model, the peak ve-~ locity is within 30% from the measured peak. but the profile beyond the peak doss not fall as rapidly as with the RSV, At the other Jocation, the RSM perforas better than the ie godel, although it is not entirely satis~ factory at location 2 Figures 9, 10, and 11 izieuthal (i.¢., swirl), and velocity profiles ‘at 36° ATDC. In these and all following figures for mean velocities, results obtained fron the constant diffusivity model are included in the comparison, The main features of the axial velocity profiles (Pigure 9) are seen to have changed very little from the non-swirling flow case ‘The aain differences are a slight reduction in peak velocities at locations 1 and 2, the radial sean shortening (in the axial direction) of the recirculating region present in the corner between the cylinder bead and wall, and a reduction in the velocities near the center line, “The level of agreeaent between experi- pental values, and values obtained with the ke and RSW aodels, is similar to that obser- ved in the non-swirling case. As for the CDM, it is apparent that the nodel saears che jet region substantially. This is canse- quence of the large diffusivity used which was necessary to yield good agreenent with the measurenents at G0° ATDC. etter agree pent between the CDM results and the aeas- urements was obtained hen a lover diffusi- wity was sed, but this was at the expense of worse agreement at 90° ATDC. With the ariauthal velocity (Figure 10) all the predictions have the sane trends as the eeasurenents, but they underestimate the srirl velocity in aluost the entire cylinder This suggests that the total angular sosentus present in the calcclations is less than that 209 ® which was inferred iron the seasu Since the anount,of decay in angular from TDC to 36° ATC is seal (2% reason for the under evaluation velocity can be attributed to boundary and/or initia Iatter is nore likely since the amount of mass present in the clearance voluze is sub stantially larger jthan the mass inducted during the first 36° of induction Tn a sinilar manner to the sir] veloci- prediction, the k-c aodel and the RSW are (Figure 1) to be in agreezent in their prediction of the mean radial velocity Although the trends in these predictions are in agreement with those in the measurenents, quantitatively, at certain locations in the Flow field there are deviations. Thus, the predictions overestizate the velocity around d-radius at location 2. Also, the radius peak velocity occurs at location I underestimated. The deviations sost probably are connected to the under-evalua- tion of the swirl velociey, With che CDM the radial velocities calculated at locations 1 and 2 are quite different fron those calcu lated with either the kee model or the RSW. This vas to be expected because of the signi- Hcantly different axial velocities cal: lated by CDW and the other models: The axial velocity profiles at 90° ATDC are shows in Figure 12, The influence of the stirling motion on the flow pattern is now quite evident, particularly in regions ne te the center line. Except for an overesti sation of the size and strength of the vartex in Swirl conditions. The neighboring the cylinder head and center ine, the RSW is in good agreenent with the peasurenents. The kee. model and, surprie ingly, the CDN are also found to be'in acco with the measurements: Figure 12 depicts the sean asiauthal velocity at 90° ATDC. The shape of the pro- files have changed from the rather flat shape occurring st 26° ATDC. flere, the profiles at Tocations 3 and 4, and to some extent at location 2, exhibit bulges near the center line. These are caused by the radially inward (J.e., tonards the center line) motion of the flow at the forser two locations. In an effort to conserve its angular monentuz, the fluid, in moving towards the center line, increases its stirling velocity. At location 2, the flow is radially outwards and it seens that the slight bulge there is caused by transport effects, Both the k-e sodel and CDM are seen to exaggerate the bulges with the peak velocities in the bulges eccurring ats larger radius than suggested by the Beasurenents. With the RSM the swirl veloci- ty in the bulges confores sore with the meas- uresents. Away froa_ the center line region and also at location 1, in agreement with the Beasurenents, all the’ acdels predict rela- tively flat profiles. The mean radial velocity profiles are shown in Figure 14. The level of agreement between the different aodels and the sens- urements vary depending on location. In general, the different models perfors equally well with possibly the RSM and CDM showing closer agreesent with the measuresents. The turbulence velocities are shorn in Figures 15-17 consecutively for the axial, radial, and azinuthal components. In all these figures the turbulence velocity compon- ents calculated by the k-e mode] are the sane ‘and equal to 2/3 k, The level of agreenent between the axial velocities calculated by the RSM and the measurenents is sinilar to the case for the non-swirling flow. Bence, the peak velocities are well predicted and away fro the jet region the agreenent is Good. But, in the region flanking the peak velocity in the is underestinaved jet, the turbulence velocity With the k-e aodel, again sinilar to what was observed for the non- swirling flow, the agresnent with the neas- urement and the RSY is good at location 1 and 3, but the turbulence is significantly under- estimated at location 2 in Figure 16, both the k-e RSU can be used to caleuiate 2 and 2, azimuthal turbulence good agreezent with the aeas Tecation 1, only the RSW has with the geasurenents, while predicts larger velocities. AS for the radisl turbulence component shown in Figure 17, it ean be seen thst the overall trends predicted by the RSW and k-e nodel agree with the neasurenents. Quantitatively, with the exception of location 1, again the to godel results agree reasonably well with the seasurenents. At location 1, the neas- red peak component is auch higher’ than those predicted. It is suspected, however, as Giscussed later, that this high value of peak velocity is due to an experizental error. To give an idea con the degree of iso- tropy of turbulence in the flow field, the three turbulence components are superinposed in Figure 18. As expected, in the jet region the turbulence is anisotropic. “The axial component in alaost. all of this region is significantly larger than either the radial or azisuthal components. At only a single location are the peasured radial components seen to be larger than the seasured axial copponent. This is at location 1 at a radius equal to about 0.34 tises the bore. The occurrence of this high value of the radial component is difficult to explain, and it ‘seens that this peak aight be an error in the neasurenents. Apart fron the occurrence of tthe one high value of the aeasured radial conponent, the calculations nade with the BSW reproduce the degree of anisotropy of the turbulence fairly well The three turbulence velocity cosponents at 90° ATDC are shows in Pigures 19-21 These components are overlaid in Figure 22 It is clear fron these figures that, in general, the RSU is nore accurate than’ the Kee agdel in predicting the turbulence field at 90° ATDC. The only instance where the k-e node is found to be in better agreement with the measurenents is at the otter radii location 1. There, the energy levels dicted by the k-é sodel are” highe: hence, in. bei uresents than This. obse varying de and, er agreezent with the meas” jose” predicted by the RSW. jation was’ found vo occur with Jes in the two flows investigated at all crank angles. Because of the cos- plexity of the flow and the limited azount of data available, ic is difficult to identify with certainty’ the cause(s) as to why the turbulence calculated at location 1 with the RSW falls off rapidly in disagreenent with the eeasureuents beyond the location of maxi- us turbulence SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION To sunmarize the results obtained, bo the k-€ nodal and the RSV ware found +2 pro- duce mean velocities in fairly good agreezent with the measured velocities. The ODM, which was tested only for the swirling flow situa- Hon, could be sade to yield good agreenent with the measurements during only a specific range of crank angles during the induction stroke. Better agreement during the whole stroke could have possibly been obtained if the diffusivity were sade to change with crank angle. It should be added though that the CDM is act entirely a prediction tool but has to be used in conjunction with either measured data or a gore predictive nodel such fas the k-e nodel. This is because the dif- fusivity aust be input to the aodel. au see As for the turbulence field overall, the RSW predicted the energy levels in better sceord with the measurenent than the k-e godel. Furthernore, the RSM was capable of predicting realistic levels of the anisotropy of the normal turbulence compo The oe node], on the other hand, in its present format, is incapable of such calculations This capability may be seen as an acadenic fone, particularly when the norgsl stresses play a minor role in driving the sean flow or in generating turbulence. However, it is a feature that way be isportant when consider ing scalar diffusion. ‘Although, as mentioned, the RSM has the advantage over the k-e model of being a more comprehensive, and in some instances, more ate representation of turbulence, it has its shortcomings. First, there is the prob- len of handling 2 such’ nore cosplex set of equations. Second, there is the additional cost of storage and cosputer tine jnvolved in the solution of such equations.’ There are also sone problers that arise in the solution of the nonentup equations using the RSW. These problems are associated with velocity vector oscillations which are inherent in the 212 solutions obtained by CONCEAS (see (2]); with the RSM, these oscillations are exacerbated REFERENCES. 1. Wattavi, J... and Amann, C. A. (Bés.), Combustion Vodeling in’ Reciprocating Engines, Plenun Press, New York, 1980. 2, El Tahry, S. i. "Application of a Rey- nolds Stress Model to Engine Flow Cale lations," GM Research Report PM-2/EN- 295, June 18, 1983 3. Gosman, A. b., Johns, R. J. R., and Watkins, P. “A, "Developnent of Pre- sition Methods fer In-Cylinder Processes Reciprocating Engines," Combustion Modeling in Reciprocating Engines, Ed JON. Nattavi and CAs Amann, Plenua Press, New York, 1980, p, 69 4. Divakar R. and ‘El Tabry, $8. B., "Cos parison of Computed Plow-Field and Wall Heat Fluxes with Weasurenents froa Votored Reciprocating Engine-Like Geo- setries," presented at ASME Third Inter- national Coxputer Engineering Confer~ ence, August 1983 5. Ahmadi-Befrui, B., Arcousnis, C., Bicen, A. P.y Gossan, A. “D. Jahanbakhsh, A and Whitelaw, "J. BL, #ealculations and Measurenents'of the "Flow in a Yotored Model Engine and Implications £ Chanber " Direct-Injection Engines," Inperial College, Mechanical Engineering Department Report FS/81/34, October 1981 8. aos, J. 1, Gany, A, and Sirignano, ¥., "Study of Turbulence in a Motored Four-Stroke Internal Combustion Engine," AIAA, Vol. 19, p. 595, 108) 7. Morse,’ A. P.; Whitelaw, J. Hand Yianneskis, M!, *Turbulent Flow Meas urements by Laser-Doppler Anezosetry in = Motored Reciprocating Engine," Inperial College Mechanical Engineering Departaent Report FS/78/24, 1978 8. Raithby, 6. D., "Skew Upstream Differ- fencing” Schenes’ for Probleas Involving Fluid Flow," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. ®, p 153, 1075, Leonard, B. P., "A Stable and Accurate Convective Modeling Procedure Based on Quadratic Upstrear Interpolation,” Com puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 19, p. 59, 1979. 10. Leschziner, W. “A.,’ *Peactical Evalva- ons of Three Finite Difference Schenes for the Conputation of Steady-Stave Recirculating Flows," Computer Methods in Applied Wechanics and Engineering, Vol. 23, p. 283, 1980 M1. Leschziner, M. A. and Rodi, W., "Calew- lation of Annular and Trin Parallel Jets Using Various Discretization Schenes and Turbulence-Model Variations," J. of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 103, p. 352, i981 12, Lai, KY. ML, Numerical Analysis of Fluld "Transport Phenomena," Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, 1982. 13. “i 16 Butler, 1. D., Cloutaan, L. D. Dukowice, J. K.;' and Raashaw, J. D. *CONCHAS! " An' Arbitrary Lagrangian” Eulerian Cosputer Code for Multi-Coapon— ent Chenically Reactive Fluid Flor av All Speeds," Los Alanos Scientific Lab- oratories Report LA-8192-US, 1979) Launder, BL E., Reece, G. J., and Rodi W., "Progress "in the Developaent of Reynolds-Stress Turbulence Closure,* J Fluid Meck., Vol. 88, p. 537, 1075. Harlow, P./H. and Amsden, AL, "A Nuperi¢al Fluid Dynamics Calculation Method for All Flow Speeds," J. of Comput. Phys., Vol. 8, p. 197, 1971 Roache, Pe J. wutatignal Plus Dnanics, heroosa julishers, Albuquerque, 1972. 213

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi