CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > CONVERGE

Over predicted combustion from RANS+SAGE

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   April 26, 2022, 03:00
Default Over predicted combustion from RANS+SAGE
  #1
New Member
 
shanghua chen
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 6
s.chen8 is on a distinguished road
Hi all,

How are you doing?

I met some issues or similar problem again while using RANS + SAGE. Please check out the attached photos. I plotted the output results with Matlab.

Engine running conditions:
5000 rpm, WOT, no EGR, lambda=1
SA=1.8 CA ATDC (this is coincident with the experimental data)


Simulation setup:
SA=1.8 CA ATDC
RANS + SAGE (Prof. Ming Jia 48 species & 152 reactions)
AMR level 3 on temperature
Base grid 2mm
Fixed Embedding on both flame kernels and intake/exhaust valves (refered to Converge examples)
Fixed embedding level 2 on entire cylinder permenantly (refered to Converge examples)
Combustion modeling started 1 degree before Source/Sink Modeling kicked in
Reaction multiplier=1



As observed from the figures, pressure and temperature aligned well with the 1D data (since this 1D data has been calibrated based on experimental data already) before the combustion. However, the combustion rate from 3D started to go off and over-predict the combustion. I have tried retarded SA timing but the over-predicted still existed.


My questions are summarized as below:
1. Has anyone else meet some similar situation like this? Please share your thought as much as you could. This could be very useful.

2. Does it relate to the mechanism itself? obviously the ignition delay was shorten through 3D CFD and that is not how the experimental (or 1D data) looks like.

3. Does it relate to the turbulence modeling? RANS, LES, etc,....

4. Is that the case that if I want to match the pressure/temperature curve, the only way I can do is to manually shift SA?



I have been successfully simulating a 3000rpm case (SA= -18.8 CA ATDC) with 23.77% external EGR before, and I followed the same philosophy to go through this 5000rpm case. Obviously it is not showing the same trend.

Thank you and Auf Wiedersehen
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1.jpg (195.8 KB, 23 views)
File Type: jpg 2.jpg (174.8 KB, 13 views)
s.chen8 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 27, 2022, 12:46
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Tobias
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Germany
Posts: 238
Rep Power: 9
MFGT is on a distinguished road
The SI Wiebe is 1D matching the EXP?


thats a strange 5000 WOT pressure profile, altough its CR16.
How does it look like if you adjust your spark timing to lets say 10 aTDC?


I usually dont take the EXP and simulated IGN timings too seriously, a couple of degrees difference is not uncommon. Btw, is that the 1D IGN timing or EXP ignition timing or are these two the same?
MFGT is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 27, 2022, 22:28
Default
  #3
New Member
 
shanghua chen
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 6
s.chen8 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFGT View Post
The SI Wiebe is 1D matching the EXP?


thats a strange 5000 WOT pressure profile, altough its CR16.
How does it look like if you adjust your spark timing to lets say 10 aTDC?


I usually dont take the EXP and simulated IGN timings too seriously, a couple of degrees difference is not uncommon. Btw, is that the 1D IGN timing or EXP ignition timing or are these two the same?

Hallo Tobias

My friend, it is good to see you again. Wie geht's?

Yes, that is a strange 5000rpm WOT profile, since it comes to knocking limit.
Check out the attached figure. This one is the SA retard to 6.8 CA ATDC (the experimental SA is 1.8 CA ATDC, as same as 1D simulation), and everything is starting to line up with experiment.


About the 1D simulation: Since 1D simulation is usually based on Wiebe function or SI-turbulence model, it can manually adjust to match up with experiment pretty well. So yes, the SA in 1D is the same as experiment.


The reason why I am really diving into these questions is that, it is not the first time for me to see papers or dissertations talking about RANS+SAGE over-predicted combustion rate. In fact, folks only discuss this kind of issue in their thesis or dissertation BUT NEVER IN THEIR PUBLICATION. In order to do some deeeply precise calculation before any experimental data available, firstly we must figure out how much bias does the simulation generate.


Unfortunately, the last time I got reply from Converge application engineer (and it is pretty much the same question, Over-predict combustion by RANS+SAGE), Converge staff only said that there are many publications over there and that's it.



Danke, mein Freund
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 3.jpg (180.4 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg 4.jpg (184.2 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg 5.jpg (187.0 KB, 6 views)
s.chen8 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
combustion, converge, over-predict, rans, sage

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gas Turbine Combustion using SAGE Touqeer CONVERGE 1 September 13, 2018 13:53
How to detect knock by using SAGE combustion model ankitraut27 CONVERGE 1 November 8, 2017 12:14
Combustion simulation and SAGE settings Owain_Parry CONVERGE 6 January 21, 2017 10:56
Why RNGkepsilon model gives floating error shipman OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 September 7, 2013 09:00
Modelling Premiixed combustion using RANS tejengineer FLUENT 0 November 22, 2009 17:57


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:52.