Crevice volume

Crevice volume sensitivity

The pressure profiles obtained by using the crevice volume are shown in the following figures:

Figure 6.42: Pressure in cylinder 1; crevice volume addition; SAGE: USC+USCD mechanisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

Figure 6.43: Zoom: Pressure in cylinder 1; crevice volume addition; SAGE:

USC+USCD mechanisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

The best cycle is the model cycle number 3, with a peak pressure of 2,27 MPa against 2,25 MPa of the experimental closest cycle; in addition the compression phase is still acceptable and there is just a little overestimation of the pressure in the expansion phase, between 760 CAD and 780 CAD. Overall, the model cycle number 3 is acceptable.

The HRR values obtained (Figure 6.47) are very good: the energy peak in fact is now very close to the experimental one and the profile follows very well the combustion phase of the pink line. Unfortunately, there is still an overestimation of the energy between 740 CAD and 780 CAD but as overall an improvement of the heat release rate is achieved. Furthermore, the peak of the integrated heat release in Figure 6.48 is closer to the experimental closest cycle than the previous case.

Figure 6.44: Heat release rate; crevice volume addition; SAGE: USC+USCD mecha-nisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

In order to see the influence of the crevice volume, a comparison with the pre-vious case (without crevices) could be useful. The Figure 6.46 shows that there are not great differences in terms of pressure, which are acceptable in both cases.

Concerning the HRR and AIHR, Figure 6.47 and 6.48 highlight the improve-ments achieved, mentioned before.

Figure 6.46: Pressure in cylinder 1; SAGE: USC+USCD mechanisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

Figure 6.47: Heat release rate; SAGE: USC+USCD mechanisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

Finally, the table 19 shows a comparison between the emission results ob-tained by considering the model with and without crevices. It is clear that the biggest difference of the results concerns the unburned hydrocarbons: there is in fact a great increase of ˜x_HC but obviously the error is extremely high (+790%).

Hence, it is possible to affirm that ˜x_HC is very sensitive to the crevice volume and a compromise solution must be adopted. For that reason, the volume of the crevices has been reduced two times and a crevice volume sensitivity has been ran.

Exp. value Model without crevices Model with crevices

˜

x_CO 5572 ppm 5731 ppm 5921 ppm

error +2,9% +6,3%

˜

x_{N Ox} 1880 ppm 2013 ppm 1842 ppm

error +7% -2%

˜

x_CO2 103857 ppm 96262 ppm 92075 ppm

error -7,3% -11,3%

˜

xHC 327 ppm 62 ppm 2932 ppm

error -81% +790%

Table 19: Pollutant emissions results; SAGE-USC+USCD merged ; LHV sensitivity;

coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

As Figure 6.49 shows, the height of the crevices has been reduced from 6,1 mm to 3,6 mm (Medium crevice volume) and 2,1 mm (Small crevice volume)

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 6.49: (a) High crevice volume; (b) Medium crevice volume; (c) Small crevice volume

Medium crevice volume

As we can see from Figure 6.50 the best cycle is the model cycle number 3, even if also the model cycle number 2 is acceptable. Thus, in terms of pressure there are no worsening.

Figure 6.50: Pressure in cylinder 1; Medium crevice volume; SAGE: USC+USCD mechanisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

Furthermore, there is a small improvement for the HRR in fact the curve is closer to the experimental during the combustion phase in comparison with the previous case (Figure 6.51). The AIHR in Figure 6.52 is quite similar to the previous case and presents still a higher energy peak and a long burn rate.

Figure 6.51: Heat release rate; Medium crevice volume; SAGE: USC+USCD mecha-nisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

Figure 6.52: Integrated heat release; Medium crevice volume; SAGE: USC+USCD mechanisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

The great improvement is obtained for the pollutant emission (table 20)and in particular for ˜x_HC; reducing the height of the volume by few millimeters in fact the unburned hydrocarbons produced decrease from +790% to 372%, which means that the HC formation is very sensitive to the crevices dimension.

Experimental value [ppm] Simulation result [ppm] Error

˜

xCO 5572 6137 +10,1%

˜

x_{N Ox} 1880 2009 +6,8%

˜

x_CO2 103857 93625 -9,9%

˜

xHC 327 1549 372%

Table 20: Pollutant emissions results; Medium crevice volume; SAGE-USC+USCD merged ; Schmidt Number = 0,75; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

Small crevice volume

The best cycle obtained by using the smallest crevice volume is the model cycle number 2, which peak pressure is 2,23 MPa (0,9% less than the experimental peak).

Figure 6.54: Heat release rate; Small crevice volume; SAGE: USC+USCD mechanisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

Figure 6.55: Integrated heat release; Small crevice volume; SAGE: USC+USCD mech-anisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

As expected, from tabel 21 we can say that, while there are no great differ-ences for the other species (which concentration are still close to the measure-ments), ˜xHC is smaller than the previous case and is only 15,5% bigger than the experimental value, which is acceptable.

Experimental value [ppm] Simulation result [ppm] Error

˜

x_CO 5572 5975 +7,2%

˜

xN Ox 1880 2016 +7,2%

˜

x_CO2 103857 95482 -8,1%

˜

x_HC 327 378 15,5%

Table 21: Pollutant emissions results; Small crevice volume; SAGE-USC+USCD merged ; Schmidt Number = 0,75; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

In order to highlight the sensitivity of the model to the crevices, a final com-parison among High, Medium and Small crevice volume has been carried out.

Comparison

In Figure 6.56 the comparison between the pressure profiles is shown.

ume are 1,2%, 0,2% and -0,9% respectively, which are all acceptable.

The HRR (Figure 6.57 ) is also similar in the three cases, even if the Small crevice has a lower peak in comparison with the other two cases.

Figure 6.57: Heat release rate; Crevice volume comparison; SAGE: USC+USCD mech-anisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

Furthermore, also the AIHR in figure 6.58 does not change by using different dimension of the crevices.

Figure 6.58: Integrated heat release; Crevice volume comparison; SAGE: USC+USCD mechanisms merged ; coarse mesh settings, HCNG 15

The table 22 shows clearly how ˜xHC decreases with the reduction of the crevices, from 2932 ppm to 378 ppm (error of 15,5%). Since ˜xCO, ˜xN Ox and

˜

x_CO2 are also acceptable, the model with the smallest crevice volume represents the best simulation for the operating point 2000[rpm] x 3,6 [bar] x lambda = 1 with HCNG-15 as fuel.

Exp. value High volume Medium volume Small volume

˜

x_CO 5572 ppm 5921 ppm 6137 ppm 5975

error +6,3% +10,1% +7,2%

˜

xN Ox 1880 ppm 1842 ppm 2009 ppm 2016 ppm

error -2% +6,8% +7,2%

˜

xCO2 103857 ppm 92075 ppm 93625 ppm 95482 ppm

error -11,3% -9,9% -8,1%

˜

x_HC 327 ppm 2932 ppm 1549 ppm 378 ppm

error +790% +372% +15,5%