Ignition Modeling for Controlling Cyclic-Variability
Transcript of Ignition Modeling for Controlling Cyclic-Variability
Ignition Modeling
for Controlling Cyclic-Variability
Guangfei Zhu and Chris Rutland
Engine Research Center
University of Wisconsin – Madison
LES4ICE
11-12 December 2018
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Introduction
• Can we control CCV using the ignition system?
• CCV Causes
– Flow (velocities, equivalence ratio, residuals, temperature, etc)
– Ignition conditions (spark energy, plasma characteristics, surface heat transfer, etc.)
• Stoichiometric combustion
– Primary cause: Velocity field (turbulence)
• Possible control
– Spark kernel transport by fluid
• Feedback through spark voltage
– Adjust spark energy during ignition event when needed
2
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
CFD Model
• OpenFOAM
• Turbulence modeling
– Dynamic structure model
• Dynamic procedure for tensor coefficient
– Transport for subgrid kinetic energy: 𝑘𝑠𝑔𝑠
• Combustion
– G-Equation model
– Improved swept volume calculations
– Improved re-initialization procedure
• Ignition modeling
– ATKIM based circuit model
– Lagrangian and Eulerian kernel growth model
3
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
G-Equation Model
• G-Equation
• Eulerian phase of ignition kernel
• Fully developed flame
– 𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒 from Pitsch (2002)
• Improvements
– Swept volume approach
– Re-initialization scheme
4
𝜕𝐺
𝜕𝑡+ 𝑢 ∙ ∇𝐺 =
𝜌𝑢𝜌 ∙ 𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒 ∇𝐺
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Reaction Rate: Swept Volume Approach
• Common approach:
– Velocity * area
• Swept Volume Approach
– Evaluate ‘burnt’ volume
change: 𝑉𝑆 = 𝑉𝑏𝑛+1 − 𝑉𝑏
𝑛
5
𝜔𝑖 =𝜌 𝑌𝑖
𝑢 − 𝑌𝑖𝑏
∆𝑡
𝑉𝑆𝑉𝑢
𝜔𝑖 = 𝜌 𝑌𝑖𝑢 − 𝑌𝑖
𝑏 𝑠𝑇𝐴𝐹𝑉𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙
n
n+1 𝐺 = 0
n
n+1
𝐺 = 0
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Swept Volume Calculation
𝑉 = 𝑑𝑉𝛺
=1
3 ∇ ∙ 𝑓 𝑑𝑉𝛺
=1
3 𝐴𝑖𝑓 ∙ 𝑛
𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖
𝑖=1
• Methodology: Perini, et. al. (2016) • Find intersection points of 𝐺 = 0
surface with CFD cell edges • Triangulate the 𝐺 surface • Triangulate enclosing cell surfaces • Find centroid, 𝑓, and normal, 𝑛, of
triangulated volume surfaces • Use divergence theorem to find
volume:
6
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Swept Volume Tests
• Constant volume combustion
– Fairweather et al. (2009)
– Methane, 𝜙 = 0.9
– 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 = 360𝐾, 𝑢′ = 2𝑚/𝑠
• TCC3 Engine at U. Michigan
– Volker Sick’s group
– Propane , 𝜙 = 1.0
– 1300 rpm
– Ign. Timing: -18 CA
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
rad
ius (
mm
)
Time (ms)
Experiment
Swept-vol model
GM model
transition point
GM model:
uses 𝑠𝑇𝐴𝐹
Flame Radius
7
End of ignition
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 600.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
pre
ssu
re (
MP
a)
CA (deg.)
Experiment
swept-vol
non-swept-vol
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
HR
R (
J/d
eg
)
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Re-Initialization of G-field
• Common approach
– Iterate: 𝜕𝐺𝜕𝑡′
= 𝑠𝑔𝑛 𝐺0 1 − ∇𝐺
– Difficulties
• Poorly behaved near 𝐺 = 0
• Need to ‘upwind’
• Arbitrary cell shapes: ∇𝐺
• New scheme (Ngo & Choi, 2018)
– Triangulate 𝐺 = 0 surface
– Center: 𝑥𝑐 , mesh point: 𝑥𝑛
– Normal component projection
– Distance 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 ∗ (𝑥𝑛 − 𝑥𝑐)
– Check all triangulated surfaces for minimum distance
8
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Ignition Model
9
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Ignition Model: Major Components
• Electric circuit model (AKTIM based, Colin et al., 2001, 2011 )
• Initial kernel radius and temperature (Refael & Sher, 1985)
• Lagrangian kernel growth: spherical 𝑑𝑟𝑘
𝑑𝑡= 𝑆𝑃 +
𝜌𝑢
𝜌𝑏 𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒
– Plasma channel model for 𝑆𝑃
– While 𝑟𝑘 < 1𝑚𝑚
• Use wrinkling factor (Colin et al., 2007): 𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒 = Ξ 𝑆𝐿
• Eulerian kernel growth: switch to G-equation
– 𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒 = 𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒,𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛 + 𝛼 𝑠𝑇 + 𝑠𝐿 − 𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒,𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛
– 𝛼 hyperbolic tangent transition function (Colin and Truffin, 2000)
10
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Ignition Validation
• Propane air, constant volume chambers (Nwagwe, 2000)
11
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.00
5
10
15
20
25
Ra
diu
s (
mm
)
Time (ms)
Exp 1
Exp 2
Exp 3
sim_Cbd300
sim_Cbd150
sim_Cbd120
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
En
erg
y d
ep
osit (
W)
Time (ms)
sim_Cbd300
sim_Cbd150
sim_Cbd120
u'=2.36 m/s
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.00
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Rad
ius (
mm
)
Time (ms)
Exp 1
Exp 2
sim_Cbd300
sim_Cbd120
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
En
erg
y d
ep
osit (
W)
Time (ms)
sim_Cbd300
sim_Cbd120
u'=4.72 m/s
Calibration: 𝐶𝑏𝑑
𝐸𝑏𝑑 =𝑉𝑏𝑑2
𝐶𝑏𝑑2 𝑑𝑔
Coefficient for initial
energy deposition
Used only to determine
initial kernel radius and
temperature
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Engine Test Cases: TCC3 Engine
• General Motors TCC3 Engine
• Volker Sick’s group at the U. of Michigan
• 30 stoichiometric cases
• Initial conditions: mapped from CONVERGE to OpenFOAM at IVC
– Proved by Seunghwan Keum at GM
– Consecutive cycles with combustion
12
Bore × Stroke 92 × 86 mm
Compression Ratio 10:1
IVC, EVO (°ATDC) -110, 130
Fuel Propane (phi =1.0)
Ignition Timing -18 deg. ATDC
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Pressure and Heat Release Rates
• Multiple cycles – well bounded but less variation than data
– 300 cycles in experiments
• Average cycle matches well
• Data from TCC-III CFD Input Dataset online
13
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Pre
ssu
re (
kP
a)
CA (deg)
Sim_Ave
Exp_Ave
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
HR
R (
J/d
eg
)
30 Cycles Average Cycle
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Ignition Model: 30 Cycles
14
Spark Current
Gap Voltage
Experiments Model
Experiments Model
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Example Flow Fields
15
Sim_01
Sim_14
Sim_18
velocity
4 CAD after ignition Flame marked by G=0 surface
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Burnt Probability and Velocity Fields
Experiments
• From Volker Sick’s group
– Zheng et al. 2018
• Silicon oil marks flame
• Velocity for only 1.1 m/s to 65 m/s
• 80 cycle average
Simulation
• 8 cycle averages
16
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Isolate 3 Cycles for More Analysis
17
Peak Pressure CA 10
CA 50
“high”
“medium”
“low”
“high”
“medium” “low”
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Impact of 𝑈, 𝜙, 𝑘𝑠𝑔𝑠, 𝑇
• Replace “medium” fields with “high” and “low” fields
• Largest impact: 𝑈 next largest impact: 𝑘𝑠𝑔𝑠
18
CA 10 CA 50
𝑇
𝑘𝑠𝑔𝑠
𝑈
𝜙
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Spark Kernel: Plasma Channel Length
• Spark kernel radius increases by 𝑆𝑃 and Ξ𝑆𝐿
• Location moves with local gas velocity
– Changes spark plasma channel length, 𝐿𝑠
19
𝐿𝑠 Gas Velocity
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.52
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ve
locity M
ag
(m
/s)
Distance from Cathode (mm)
sim_01
sim_14
sim_18
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Plasma Channel Feedback
20
𝑆𝑃
𝑖𝑠
𝑉𝑖𝑒
𝐸𝑆(𝑡)
𝜔 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦
𝑉𝑖𝑒 = 𝑉𝑐𝑓 + 𝑉𝑎𝑓
+ 40.46 𝐿𝑠 𝑖𝑠−0.32𝑝0.51
Energy supplied 𝐸𝑆 decreases in time: 𝑓 𝑖𝑆, 𝑉𝑖𝑒 , 𝑅
Plasma channel: current 𝑖𝑆, voltage 𝑉𝑖𝑒
Spark channel length: 𝐿𝑠
Spark channel length
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Plasma Channel Feedback
21
𝑆𝑃
𝐿𝑠
𝑖𝑠
𝑉𝑖𝑒
𝐸𝑆(𝑡)
𝜔 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦
𝑉𝑖𝑒 = 𝑉𝑐𝑓 + 𝑉𝑎𝑓
+ 40.46 𝐿𝑠 𝑖𝑠−0.32𝑝0.51
Concept motivated by comments from Ron Grover at GM Research
Energy supplied 𝐸𝑆 decreases in time: 𝑓 𝑖𝑆, 𝑉𝑖𝑒 , 𝑅
Plasma channel: current 𝑖𝑆, voltage 𝑉𝑖𝑒
Spark channel length: 𝐿𝑠
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -20
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Vo
lta
ge
(V
)
CA (deg.)
High
Low
Medium
-18 -16 -14 -12 -100
1
2
3
4
Spark
Le
ng
th (
mm
)
CA (deg.)
High
Low
Median
Ignition Characteristics: 3 Cases
22
Spark Length Voltage
-18 -16 -14 -12 -100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Rad
us (
mm
)
CA(deg.)
High
Low
Median
Spark Radius
‘Low’ Cycle: Add 30 mJ at -17CA
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
‘Low’ Cycle: Add 30 mJ at -17CA
• Increases current
• Decreases voltage
• Potential impacts - increase:
– Plasma velocity, 𝑆𝑃
– Energy deposition
23
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 00.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Cu
rre
nt
(A)
CA (deg.)
add30
orig
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 00
500
1000
1500
2000
Vo
lta
ge
(V
)
CA (deg.)
add30
orig
-18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -90
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Eff
ective
Sp
ark
Po
we
r (J
/de
g.)
CA (deg.)
add30
orig
Spark Power
Current
Voltage
𝑉𝑖𝑒 ~𝑖𝑠−0.32
original
add 30 mJ
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Sp
(m
/s)
CA (deg.)
add30
orig
Impact on Plasma Velocity: Minor
• Plasma velocity, 𝑆𝑃 , is much lower than 𝑆𝑇
• 𝑆𝑃 increases
– But impact is insignificant
24
-18 -16 -14 -12 -100
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sp
alpha starts
to work
Sp a
nd S
T (
m/s
)
CA(deg.)
High
Low
Median
ST
Original
𝑆𝑃
𝑆𝑃
𝑆𝑇
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
𝑆𝑇 Decreased: Overall Impact is Negative
• Impact on energy addition:
– Insignificant
• Eventual decrease in 𝑆𝑇
– Expansion and lower Ksgs
• Overall impact:
– Negative - misfire
25
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 600
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Pre
ssu
re (
kP
a)
CA (deg)
orig
add30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
HR
R (
J/d
eg
.)
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 00
1
2
3
4
5
6
St
(m/s
)
CA (deg.)
add30
orig
𝑆𝑇
original
add 30 mJ
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Summary • Combustion model
– G-equation based
– Swept volume approach
– Re-initialization method
• Ignition model AKTIM based
– Simple electric circuit
– Kernel growth; merges with G-equation
• Testing
– Constant volume ignition/flame propagation
– TCC3 engine; 30 cycles
• Possible CCV control
– Fluid moves flame kernel; changes plasma channel length; affects voltage
– Feedback: low voltage -> increase spark energy
– Current results: misfire
– But demonstrate that on-the-fly impact of ignition is possible
26
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Acknowledgements
• Work supported financially and technically by General Motors Research through the GM-UW Cooperative Research Laboratory
– GM Director: Paul Najt
– GM Technical Contacts: Ronald Grover, Seunghwan Keum
• Engine experimental results provided by Professor Volker Sick, University of Michigan through the GM LES Working Group.
27
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center 28
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
References
H. Pitsch, “A G-equation formulation for large-eddy simulation of premixed turbulent combustion,” Cent. Turbul. Res. Annu. Res. Briefs, vol. 4, 2002. Heinz Pitsch, H.,Steiner, H., Scalar Mixing and Dissipation Rate in Large-eddy Simulations of Non-premixed Turbulent Combustion, Proceedings of the Combustion
Institute, 28, 41-49, 2000. Perini, Federico, Youngchul Ra, Kenji Hiraoka, Kazutoshi Nomura, Akihiro Yuuki, Yuji Oda, Christopher Rutland, and Rolf Reitz. "An efficient level-set flame propagation
model for hybrid unstructured grids using the G-equation." SAE International Journal of Engines 9, no. 3 (2016): 1409-1424. Fairweather, M., M. P. Ormsby, C. G. W. Sheppard, and R. Woolley. "Turbulent burning rates of methane and methane–hydrogen mixtures." Combustion and Flame
156, no. 4 (2009): 780-790. Ngo, Long Cu, and Hyoung Gwon Choi. "Efficient direct re-initialization approach of a level set method for unstructured meshes." Computers & Fluids 154 (2017): 167-
183. O. Colin and K. Truffin, “A spark ignition model for large eddy simulation based on an FSD transport equation (ISSIM-LES),” Proc. Combust. Inst., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 3097–
3104, 2011 Colin, O., F. Ducros, D. Veynante, and Thierry Poinsot. "A thickened flame model for large eddy simulations of turbulent premixed combustion." Physics of fluids 12, no.
7 (2000): 1843-1863. J. M. Duclos and O. Colin, “Arc and Kernel Tracking Ignition Model for 3D Spark Ignition Engine Calculations, 5th Int,” in Symp. on Diagnostics and Modeling of
Combustion in Internal Combustion Engines, COMODIA, 2001 Refael, S., and E. Sher. "A theoretical study of the ignition of a reactive medium by means of an electrical discharge." Combustion and flame 59, no. 1 (1985): 17-30. Nwagwe, I. K., H. G. Weller, G. R. Tabor, A. D. Gosman, M. Lawes, C. G. W. Sheppard, and R. Wooley. "Measurements and large eddy simulations of turbulent premixed
flame kernel growth." Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 28, no. 1 (2000): 59-65. T. Lucchini et al., “A comprehensive model to predict the initial stage of combustion in SI engines,” 2013. L. Fan and R. D. Reitz, “Development of an ignition and combustion model for spark-ignition engines,” SAE Trans., pp. 1977–1989, 2000 W. Zeng, S. Keum, T.-W. Kuo, and V. Sick, “Role of large scale flow features on cycle-to-cycle variations of spark-ignited flame-initiation and its transition to turbulent
combustion,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 2018. TCC-III CFD Input Dataset, for dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468087417720558 Pope S., B., CEQ: A Fortran Libray to Compute Equilibrium Compositions Using Gibbs Function Continuation, http://eccentric.mae.cornell.edu/~pope/CEQ, 2003.
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Appendix-1
• Plasma channel equations
30
𝑑𝐸𝑠(𝑡)
𝑑𝑡= −𝑅𝑠𝑖𝑠
2 𝑡 − 𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑖𝑠 𝑡
𝑖𝑠 =2𝐸𝑠𝐿𝑆
Three Cases
Global Averaged High (sim05) Medium (sim29) Low (sim09)
ksgs (𝑚2/𝑠2) 4.027 4.279 3.159
T (K) 715.637 712.304 711.117
𝜙 0.99747 0.99739 0.99739
𝑠𝑝 =𝜂𝑉𝑖𝑒 𝑡 𝑖𝑠(𝑡)
4𝜋𝑟𝑘2𝜌𝑢 ℎ𝑏 − ℎ𝑢𝑏
1 +𝐿𝐻𝑉
𝑐𝑝𝑇𝑎𝑑
3
𝑉𝑖𝑒 = 𝑉𝑐𝑓 + 𝑉𝑎𝑓
+ 40.46 𝐿𝑠 𝑖𝑠−0.32𝑝0.51
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
Appendix-2
• Combustion model equations
31
𝜕𝐺
𝜕𝑡+ 𝑢 ∙ ∇𝐺 =
𝜌𝑢𝜌 ∙ 𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒 ∇𝐺
Gu lder 𝑠𝐿 = 𝑠𝑢𝑜 𝜙𝑇𝑢𝑇0
𝛼𝑝
𝑝0
𝛽
1.0 − 𝑓 ∙ 𝐹
𝑠𝑇𝑠𝐿
= 1 + −𝑎4𝑏3
2
2𝑏1𝐷𝑎 +
𝑎4𝑏32
2𝑏1𝐷𝑎
2
+ 𝑎4𝑏32𝐷𝑎
1 2 𝑢′
𝑠𝐿
Peters, N., Turbulent Combustion. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
RANS
𝑠𝑇 − 𝑠𝐿𝑠𝐿
= −𝑏32𝐶𝑣
2𝑏1𝑆𝑐𝑡,𝐺
∆
𝑙𝐹+
𝑏32𝐶𝑣
2𝑏1𝑆𝑐𝑡,𝐺
∆
𝑙𝐹
2
+𝑏32𝐷𝑡𝑠𝐿𝑙𝐹
12
Pitsch, H. "A G-equation formulation for large-eddy simulation of premixed turbulent
combustion." Center for Turbulence Research Annual Research Briefs 4 (2002).
LES
UW-Madison, Engine Research Center
• Energy source term
• Sub-grid kinetic energy transport
𝜔𝑖 = 𝑑𝜌𝑖𝑑𝑡
= 𝜌 𝑌𝑖𝑢 − 𝑌𝑖
𝑏 𝑠𝑇𝐴𝐹𝑉𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙
𝑑𝜌𝑖𝑑𝑡
=𝜌 𝑌𝑖,𝑏 − 𝑌𝑖
∆𝑡
𝑉𝑆𝑉𝑢
𝜕𝜌 𝑘𝑠𝑔𝑠
𝜕𝑡+
𝜕𝜌 𝑢𝑗 𝑘𝑠𝑔𝑠
𝜕𝑥𝑗= −𝜌 𝛤𝑖𝑗𝑆𝑖𝑗 − 𝐶𝑒
𝑘𝑠𝑔𝑠
𝛥+
𝜕
𝜕𝑥𝑗𝜌 𝜈𝑠𝑔𝑠
𝜕𝑘𝑠𝑔𝑠
𝜕𝑥𝑗
Appendix-3