Numerical Numerical Numerical Numerical modeling modeling modeling modeling of of of of soot soot soot soot and and and

and NOx NOx NOx NOx emissions emissions emissions emissions of of of of aaaa diesel/methanol diesel/methanol diesel/methanol diesel/methanol dual dual dual dual fuel fuel fuel fuel engine engine engine engine
Peiyong Ni, Xiangli Wang, Zhong Wang, Gongping Mao, Shengli Wei
School oI Automotive and TraIIic Engineering
Jiangsu University
Zhenjiang, China
yu6746456sohu.com
$EVWUDFW $EVWUDFW $EVWUDFW $EVWUDFW----In In In In this this this this work, work, work, work, aaaa modeling modeling modeling modeling study study study study was was was was carried carried carried carried out out out out using using using using
the the the the KIVA-3V KIVA-3V KIVA-3V KIVA-3V code code code code with with with with the the the the Zeldovich Zeldovich Zeldovich Zeldovich thermal thermal thermal thermal NOx NOx NOx NOx model model model model,,,, the the the the
improved improved improved improved soot soot soot soot formation formation formation formation model model model model and and and and the the the the combustion combustion combustion combustion model model model model for for for for
aaaa diesel/methanol diesel/methanol diesel/methanol diesel/methanol dual dual dual dual fuel fuel fuel fuel engine. engine. engine. engine. TTTThe he he he effects effects effects effects of of of of ratios ratios ratios ratios ( (((10 10 10 10, , , ,
22220 0 0 0 and and and and 30 30 30 30) ) ) ) of of of of methanol methanol methanol methanol substitutio substitutio substitutio substitution nnn for for for for diesel diesel diesel diesel fuel fuel fuel fuel on on on on soot soot soot soot
and and and and NOx NOx NOx NOx emission emission emission emission characteristics characteristics characteristics characteristics were were were were investigated investigated investigated investigated.... Good Good Good Good
agreements agreements agreements agreements between between between between predictions predictions predictions predictions and and and and measurements measurements measurements measurements of of of of engine- engine- engine- engine-
out out out out NOx NOx NOx NOx and and and and soot soot soot soot emissions emissions emissions emissions were were were were achieved. achieved. achieved. achieved. The The The The present present present present
computations computations computations computations confirm confirm confirm confirm that that that that methanol methanol methanol methanol allows allows allows allows soot soot soot soot reduction reduction reduction reduction
with with with with aaaa little little little little NOx NOx NOx NOx penalty penalty penalty penalty except except except except heavy heavy heavy heavy and and and and full full full full load. load. load. load. With With With With
increasing increasing increasing increasing methanol methanol methanol methanol ratio, ratio, ratio, ratio, soot soot soot soot emission emission emission emission decrease decrease decrease decrease markedly markedly markedly markedly
while while while while NOx NOx NOx NOx emissions emissions emissions emissions have have have have some some some some increase. increase. increase. increase. At At At At 75 75 75 75 load, load, load, load, the the the the
engine-out engine-out engine-out engine-out soot soot soot soot emissions emissions emissions emissions decrease decrease decrease decrease by by by by 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 while while while while the the the the engine- engine- engine- engine-
out out out out NOx NOx NOx NOx emissions emissions emissions emissions increase increase increase increase by by by by 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 for for for for 30 30 30 30 methanol, methanol, methanol, methanol, when when when when
compared compared compared compared to to to to diesel diesel diesel diesel fuel. fuel. fuel. fuel.
.H\ZRUGV .H\ZRUGV .H\ZRUGV .H\ZRUGVGLHVHO GLHVHO GLHVHO GLHVHO HQJLQH HQJLQH HQJLQH HQJLQH PHWKDQRO PHWKDQRO PHWKDQRO PHWKDQRO VRRW VRRW VRRW VRRW 12[ 12[ 12[ 12[ FRPEXVWLRQ FRPEXVWLRQ FRPEXVWLRQ FRPEXVWLRQ
I. INTRODUCTION
Diesel engines are widely used due mainly to their high
thermal eIIiciency, good Iuel economy and durability.
Compared with spark ignition engine, they emit lower
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions and higher
oxides oI nitrogen (NOx) and soot emissions. It is well-
known that it is very diIIicult to reduce both NOx and soot
production at the same time during the combustion process.
Part or total replacement oI the diesel with methanol is a way
to decrease these two pollutants |1-4|. Thus, methanol is a
very promising Iuel Ior diesel engines |5-7|.
For soot Iormation oI diesel engines, three methods are
used to describe the kinetic mechanisms. One oI the simplest
and most widely used soot models Ior diesel combustion
uses one global rate expression Ior soot Iormation and one
rate expression Ior soot oxidation. Corresponding models are
those oI Hiroyasu and Nagle and Strickland Constable,
respectively. A more complex model oI soot Iormation is a
phenomenological model using one or two equations. The
most complex type oI soot modeling Ior compression
ignition combustion is the detailed kinetic mechanisms Ior
hydrocarbon oxidation. Numerical modeling showed that
methanol addition reduces soot precursor production because
oI an increased concentration oI O, OH and HCO, which
promotes oxidation to CO and CO2 |2|. Additionally,
increased concentrations oI OH in the post-premixed Ilame
region also suppress soot particle inception by oxidizing
aromatics and limiting PAH growth. However, this method
is in course oI development.
In a word, in the sight oI simplicity and availability,
Hiroyasu soot Iormation model and Nagle and Strickland
Constable soot oxidation are most widely adopted Ior soot
modeling oI diesel engines. It should be noted however that
these models only work with a single Iuel. ThereIore, they
need to be modiIied Ior dual Iuels or more.
In addition, some combustion model oI diesel engines |8|,
such as the eddy break up model (EBU), the eddy dissipation
concept model (EDC) and characteristic time model, do not
involve dual Iuels or more, either. When this Iaced, it will
need to be solved.
The current paper has two objectives. The Iirst is to
develop the combustion model and the soot models Ior a
diesel engine with in-port methanol injection. In this paper,
the developed models were mainly base on existing related
models. The second objective is to carry out numerical
simulations oI eIIect oI the ratios oI methanol substitution
Ior diesel on emissions oI diesel engines. These eIIorts were
conducted using KIVA soItware. This also gives more
insight about combustion and emissions oI a dual Iuel
engine.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL
$ *HQHUDO 'HVFULSWLRQ
The present model deals with a bowl in piston
combustion chamber oI a direct diesel engine. The
speciIications and operating conditions are shown in Table 1.
The model mainly calculates those processes when all valves
are closed. Due to the Iact that every piston bowl has a Iive-
hole injector, the sector symmetry is assumed to save
computer time. Thus, the computation uses a 72 degree
sector mesh with a single nozzle, given in Fig. 1. The Iuels
were S0, S10, S20 and S30, indicating the ratios oI methanol
substitution Ior diesel Iuel.
TABLE I. ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATION CONDITIONS
Engine type 4-Stroke; DI
Cylinder bore stroke(mm) 102118
Connecting rod length (mm) 192
Combustion chamber Re-entrant
Piston crown
Compression ratio 17.5
Number oI nozzle holes diameter (mm) 5 0.25
Inlet air pressure (kPa) 95
Inlet air temperature (K) 340
Intake valve closure (deg. ATDC) 150
2011 International Conference on Computer Distributed Control and Intelligent Environmental Monitoring
978-0-7695-4350-5/11 $26.00 2011 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/CDCIEM.2011.164
483
Engine speed(rpm) 3200
Figure 1. Computational mesh at TDC
% 6SUD\ PRGHO
The spray characteristics depend on Iluid properties,
ambient conditions, the Iuel injector nozzle design
speciIications and operating conditions. In this work, the
KH-RT model is used to simulation the process oI the
droplets |9|. The KH breakup model is governed by
Irequency oI the Iastest growing wave KH and
corresponding wavelength KH. During the breakup, the drop
size oI the newly Iormed droplet,
QHZ
U , is
0 QHZ +
U % = A (1)
where
0
% is taken as 0.61.
The rate oI change oI the droplet radius and the breakup
time tKH are expressed by
KH
QHZ
U U GU
GW

=
t
(2)
1
KH
KH KH
3.788B

U
A O
t
(3)
with
1
%
as arbitrary constant.
In the RT model, the droplets were divided by the drag
Iorces by the mass oI the droplets. The breakup time
57
t and
the droplet radius r are given as
1/
57 57
t O (4)
/ 2
57 57
U & = A (5)
where
57
& is an arbitrary constant.
& &RPEXVWLRQ PRGHO
Laminar combustion is generally controlled by the
chemical kinetics. Considering a simple irreversible
reaction between Iuel (F) and oxidizer (O):
FsO (1s)P
where s is stoichiometric coeIIicient and the Iuel averaged
reaction rate
/
5 is expressed Irom Arrhenius law as
j j
( )
0.25 0.25
exp /
/ ) 2
5 $< < ( 57 = (6)
where A is the pre-exponential constant, E is the activation
energy, and
j
)
< and
j
2
< are the mean mass Iractions oI Iuel
and oxidizer, respectively. For diesel, A and E are taken as
5
4.25 10 and
4
1.509 10 J/mol. As Ior methanol, A and E
are taken as
10
4.6 10 and
4
1.507 10 J/mol, respectively.
For diesel engines, interactions between turbulence and
chemical reactions have to be considered. The eddy
dissipation concept model (EDC) is a direct extension to
non-premixed Ilame oI the eddy break up closure. The Iuel
burning rate is calculated according to |8|
j
j j
min , ,
1
2 3
7 )
< <
5 <
N V V
c
o |
| |
= |
|
+
\ .
(7)
where o and | are adjustable parameters oI the closure,
where values oI N and c are taken Irom the RNG k-
c turbulence model used in KIVA and
j
3
< is the mean
production mass Iraction.
In principle, the EDC model is suitable Ior the case oI
turbulence dominating. For these reasons, a mixing-
controlled model, also called a characteristic time model, is
describing as
( )
max ,
/ 7
5 5 5 =
(8)
' 12[ PRGHO
The current approach to modeling NOx emissions Irom
diesel engines is to use the extended Zeldovich thermal NO
mechanism and neglect other sources oI NOx Iormation
|10|. The extended Zeldovich mechanism consists oI the
Iollowing mechanisms, as described by Bowman |11|. This
mechanism can be written as an explicit expression Ior the
rate oI change oI the concentration oI NO |12|:
| |
| || | | || | | || |
| || | | || | | || |
1 2 1 2 2
2 3 3
G 12
N 1 2 N 12 1 N 1 2
GW
N 12 2 N 1 2+ N 12 +
-
- -
-
- -
(9)
The reaction rate constants are given by Borman and
Ragland |13|.
( 6RRW PRGHO
In the present study, the Hiroyasu soot Iormation
model |10| is applied to predict the soot mass production
rate. The soot mass Iormation rate is given by
6I
I IY
G0
. 0
GW

(10)
The Iormation coeIIicient is deIined as:
( )
0.5
exp /
I I I IY
. $ 3 ( 57 0 -
(11)
The soot oxidation model consists oI two sub-models:
the Nagle and Strickland-Constable oxidation model by
oxygen attack |14|. The soot mass oxidation rate is given by
6
2 ZF
6 7RWDO
V V
G0 0
0 5
GW '

r
(12)
where
V
0
is the soot mass,
ZF
0
is the carbon molecular
weight,
7RWDO
5 is the net reaction rate,
V
r and
V
' are the
soot density and soot diameter, respectively. The details oI
the net reaction rate
7RWDO
5
are given by Patterson et al. |15|.
It is well-known that methanol can eIIectively suppress
soot production, resulting Irom diesel combustion.
ThereIore, the reconstructed soot model in the
484
diesel/methanol dual Iuel engine preserves the original soot
oxidation model and rearranges the Hiroyasu soot Iormation
model by subtracting the amount due to suppression eIIects
oI methanol on soot. The net soot mass Iormation rate is
6I 6 P 2
G0
G0 G0 G0
GW GW GW GW
- -
(13)
( ) exp /
P
P 6 P P
G0
$ 0 3 ( 57 [
GW
-
(14)
where
P
[ is methanol mole Iraction,
P
$ and
P
( are taken
as
5
3 10 and
4
1.4 10 J/mol.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
$ &RPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ VLPXODWLRQ DQG H[SHULPHQW
In order to validate the model, the comparison between
experimental and calculated in-cylinder pressure and
emissions at Iull load is presented in Fig. 2. The measured
engine-out NOx and soot emissions are compared with the
calculated at 150 degrees ATDC. As shown in Fig. 2a, the
experimental is slightly larger than the simulated at Iull load,
but the general agreement is considered acceptable Ior the
purpose oI this work. From Fig. 2b, calculated NOx and
soot emissions are somewhat diIIerent Irom the
experimental at Iull load. However, the relative error
between them is no more than 5. It can be seen that the
present model predicts NOx and soot Iormation very well.
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
2
4
6
8
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a
)
Crank angle(degree)
Experiment
Simulation
Fuel: S10
(a) Pressure
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
30
35
40
45
50
55
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
S
o
o
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
g
/
k
g
I
u
e
l
)
N
O
x

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
g
/
k
g
I
u
e
l
)
Methanol ratio()
NOx, simulation
NOx, experiment

Soot, simulation
Soot, experiment
(b) NOx and soot emissions
Figure 2. Comparison between simulation and experimental
% (IIHFWV RI PHWKDQRO DGGLWLRQ RQ 12[ DQG VRRW HPLVVLRQV
The variation in the soot emissions oI the engine is
shown in Fig.3. As seen in the Iigure, the soot Iormation
dominates in the beginning, which leads to a quick buildup
oI total soot mass; in the second period, the soot oxidation
gains strength and the soot yield declines to the engine-out
level within a period oI about 40~80 crank angle degree.
With the increase oI methanol ratio, soot emissions decrease
at diIIerent loads.
Lower methanol ratios have a little eIIect on soot
emissions at light and middle loads. As shown in Fig.5a, the
engine-out soot emissions decrease by 6.8, 15.7 and
38.5 Ior S10, S20 and S30, respectively, when compared
to diesel Iuel. For lower methanol ratio, the eIIect oI
combustion improvement is not obvious because oI
relatively redundant air at light and middle loads. However,
methanol ratios have signiIicant eIIect on soot emissions at
heavy load. As shown in Fig. 3c, the engine-out soot
emissions decrease by 15.1, 32.7 and 66.4 Ior S10,
S20 and S30, respectively, when compared to diesel Iuel.
The addition oI methanol can make up the air or oxygen
deIiciency at large load. Thus, the air-Iuel ratio increases,
resulting in the reduction in soot amount.
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
S
o
o
t(
g
/
k
g
I
u
e
l)
Crank angle(degree)
S0
S10
S20
S30
(a) 25 load
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
S
o
o
t
(
g
/
k
g
I
u
e
l)
Crank angle(degree)
S0
S10
S20
S30
(b) 50 load
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
S
o
o
t(
g
/
k
g
I
u
e
l
)
Crank angle(degree)
S0
S10
S20
S30
(c) 75 load
Figure 3. Soot emissions as Iunction oI crank degree
Fig. 4 depicts the predicted instantaneous in-cylinder
NOx Iormation history with crank degree. As can be seen,
the NOx increases aIter ignition, reaching high-level
plateaus shortly at 20 ATDC CA and lasting until EVO.
The trends oI the results agree with expectations: more NOx
485
emissions are Iound with increasing engine load.
As seen in Figs. 4a-b, the middle and low methanol
ratio increase NOx emissions at middle and light loads. For
example, NOx emission boosts by 4 Ior S20 at 50 load.
With methanol ratio increasing, NOx emissions decrease.
Because latent heat oI vaporization oI methanol is about
Iour times greater than diesel Iuel, the intake temperature
decreases, resulting in in-cylinder temperature decrease.
However, with increasing methanol ratio, the NOx
emissions increase at heavy load, resulting Irom the peak
temperature increasing. As shown in Fig. 4c, the engine-out
NOx emissions increase by 10.5, 17.1 and 21.5 Ior
S10, S20 and S30, respectively, when compared with diesel
Iuel. ThereIore, oxygen content is more eIIective than latent
heat oI vaporization with regard to increasing NOx
emissions.
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
N
O
[
(
g
/
k
g
I
u
e
l)
Crank angle(degree)
S0
S10
S20
S30
(a) 25 load
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
N
O
[
(
g
/
k
g
I
u
e
l)
Crank angle(degree)
S0
S10
S20
S30
(b) 50 load
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
N
O
[
(
g
/
k
g
I
u
e
l
)
Crank angle(degree)
S0
S10
S20
S30
(c) 75 load
Figure 4. NOx emissions as Iunction oI crank degree
IV. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the combustion model and the soot
Iormation model Ior a diesel engine with in-port methanol
injection was developed and computations were made oI
diesel engine NOx and soot emissions with diIIerent
methanol ratios. The calculated soot and NOx emissions are
good agreement with the measured.
The computations show that lower methanol ratios have a
little eIIect on soot emissions at light and middle loads and a
large eIIect on soot emissions at heavy load. At 75 load,
the engine-out soot emissions decrease by 15.1, 32.7 and
66.4 Ior S10, S20 and S30, respectively.
The middle and low methanol ratios increase NOx
emissions at middle and light loads. With increasing
methanol ratio, the NOx emissions increase at heavy load.
Consequently, it can be concluded that the better results
would be obtained iI aqueous methanol is used in the engine.
REFERENCES
|1| M. G. Popa, N. Negurescu, C. Pana, and A. Racovitza, 'Results
Obtained by Methanol Fuelling Diesel Engine, SAE Paper, 2001-01-
3748.
|2| A. S. Cheng, R. W. Dibble, and B. A. Buchholz, ' The EIIect oI
Oxygenates on Diesel Engine Particulate Matter, SAE Paper, 2002-
01-1705.
|3| C. Sayin , A. N. Ozsezen, and M. Canakci, 'The inIluence oI
operating parameters on the perIormance and emissions oI a DI diesel
engine using methanol-blended-diesel Iuel, Fuel, vol. 89, 2010, pp.
1407-1414.
|4| C.S. Cheung, L. Zhu, Z. Huang,'Regulated and unregulated
emissions Irom a diesel engine Iueled with biodiesel and biodiesel
blended with methanol, Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, 2009, pp.
4865-4872.
|5| C. Sayin, M. Ilhan, M. Canakci, M. Gumus, 'EIIect oI injection
timing on the exhaust emissions oI a diesel engine using diesel
methanol blends, Renewable Energy, vol. 34, 2009, pp.1261-
1269.Hakan Bayraktar,'An experimental study on the perIormance
parameters oI an experimental CI engine Iueled with diesel
methanoldodecanol blends, vol. 87, 2008, pp.158-164.
|6| C. D. Yao, C. S. Cheung, C. H. Cheng, Y. S. Wang, T. L. Chan, S. C.
Lee, 'EIIect oI Diesel/methanol compound combustion on Diesel
engine combustion and emissions, Energy Conversion and
Management, vol. 49, 2008, pp.1696-1704.
|7| D. Veynante, L. Vervisch, 'Turbulent combustion modeling,
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, vol. 28, 2002, pp. 193-
266.
|8| M. A. Patterson, R. D. Reitz, 'Modeling the eIIects oI spray
characteristics on diesel engine combustion and emission, SAE
Paper, 980131, 1998.
|9| M. A. Patterson, S. C Kong., G. J. Hampson, et al, 'Modeling the
eIIects oI Iuel injection characteristics on diesel engine soot and NOx
emissions, SAE Paper 940523, 1994.
|10| C. T. Bowman, 'Kinetics oI pollutant Iormation and destruction in
combustion, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, vol. 1,
1975, pp. 33-45.
|11| J. B. Heywood, Internal combustion engine Iundamentals. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1988.
|12| G. L. Bowman, K. W. Ragland, Combustion Engineering. Boston:
WCB-McGraw-Hill, 1998.
|13| D. K. Mather, R. D. Reitz, 'Modeling the inIluence oI Iuel injection
parameters on diesel engine emissions, SAE Paper, 980789, 1998.
|14| M. A. Patterson, S. C. Kong, G. J. Hampson, et al. 'Modeling the
eIIects oI Iuel injection characteristics on diesel engine soot and NOx
emissions, SAE Paper 940523, 1994.
486