651

Combustion modelling for direct injection diesel

engines

G J Micklow* and W Gong

Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Abstract: Successful modelling of combustion systems depends on an adequate as well as a compu-

tationally eYcient description of the reaction mechanisms. For a typical medium speed compression
ignition direct injection (CIDI ) engine under normal operating conditions, from 70 to 95 per cent of
the injected fuel is in the vapour phase at the start of combustion and 10–35 per cent of the vaporized
fuel has mixed to within
ammability limits. This indicates that both a premixed combustion mechan-
ism and a diVusion combustion mechanism are important to model CIDI engines. In the early stages
of combustion, a premixed combustion mechanism should be utilized while, late in the combustion
process, a diVusion-based mechanism will be dominant. The former is chemically based, while the
latter is physically based. In this article, the two combustion mechanisms mentioned above and
various combinations of the two mechanisms for the intermediate stages of combustion are investi-
gated. The study was done on a Caterpillar 3401 diesel engine. It was found that by utilizing a hybrid
scheme whereby the premixed combustion mechanism is employed up to a user-specied crank angle,
beyond which point a diVusion combustion method is utilized, reasonable agreement for both
in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate with experimental data could be obtained.

Keywords: internal combustion engine, direct injection, chemical kinetics, combustion, compression
ignition, diesel, engine modelling, computational
uid dynamics

NOTATION 1 INTRODUCTION

A pre-exponential factor Compression ignition direct injection (CIDI ) engines,

c̄ time-mean concentration of fuel because of their superior thermal eYciency, are being
f
c̄ time-mean concentration of O considered seriously as the primary power plant for the
O2 2
c̄ time-mean concentration of products next generation of high eYciency vehicles. With their
p
C ,C model constants non-homogeneous combustion, direct injection diesel
A B
E activation energy engines allow overall leaner combustion, resulting in
a
k turbulence kinetic energy higher baseline eYciency, better fuel economy, lower
n stoichiometric coeYcient CO emissions, near-zero evaporative emissions and low
2
r stoichiometric oxygen requirement to burn cold-start emissions. The diesel engine represents one of
f
1 kg fuel the most complex combustion systems used today;
R gas constant consequently, understanding the physics and chemistry
RR reaction rate involved in diesel combustion is quite challenging.
T temperature Specically, the major complexity of diesel engines arises
from transient eVects and the inhomogeneity of spray
å dissipation rate of k combustion. An overall description of diesel combustion
[] species concentration requires an understanding of three major processes:
spray dynamics and the interaction with the combustion
chamber walls, ignition kinetics and post-ignition
combustion. Because of recent advances in computer-
controlled fuel injection systems, which are capable of
The MS was received on 27 July 2000 and was accepted after revision producing a well-controlled spray with ne droplets,
for publication on 23 November 2000.
* Corresponding author: Mechanical Engineering Department, direct injection engines now show great promise for
University of Alabama, PO Box 870276, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. reducing fuel consumption. However, a major challenge
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
D08000 © IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
652 G J MICKLOW AND W GONG
for a conventionally fuelled CIDI engine is the reduction
of NO and particulate emissions to meet current
x
Federal Tier II standards and California ultralow emis-
sion vehicle ( ULEV ) standards, as well as the proposed
low emissions vehicle (LEV ) II standards. However,
more signicant diesel emissions reductions can only be
achieved if the fundamental theories of combustion are
explored in detail. Investigation of the liquid spray has
been the focus of many researchers. Curtis et al. [1 ]
developed a high-pressure droplet vaporization model
for compression ignition engines. Ayoub and Reitz [2]
investigated the numerical simulation of multicompon-
ent spray vaporization and combustion. Taskinen et al.
[3] investigated the penetration and break-up of the
liquid spray and proposed modications to existing
spray models to improve the predictive capability.
Studies by Uludogen et al. [4] computationally studied
the eVect of engine speed on engine performance and
emissions for a direct injection diesel engine. Rutland
et al. [5] present a good overview of the ongoing diesel
combustion modelling eVort at their institution.
It is clearly apparent that success in understanding a
signicant portion of present combustion problems
depends on a detailed and correct understanding of
hydrocarbon chemistry. The general mathematical for-
mulations of the problem of combustion in an internal
combustion engine consist of equations for conservation
of mass, momentum, energy, concentration of each
chemical species, etc. In general, the computer time and
storage constraints place severe restrictions on the com-
plexity of the reaction mechanisms that can be accom-
modated in numerical simulations of combustion
systems. Further, detailed mechanisms and rate
coeYcients for chemical reactions of practical interest
are often highly uncertain, so multidimensional reactive

ow calculations ordinarily use simplied ‘global’ chemi-
cal kinetics schemes, in which the reaction of interest is
represented by a manageably small number of reaction
steps involving a small number of chemical species [6 ].
2 COMBUSTION MODELLING
Since both premixed combustion and mixing-controlled
combustion mechanisms occur in typical diesel engine
operation, neither of them works well alone in a numeri-
cal simulation. Therefore it is necessary to combine these
mechanisms in a logical scheme for diesel engine simu-
lation. The combination should have the following
characteristics:
1. It should be simple.
2. Reasonable agreement with experimental measured
quantities should be obtained.
3. Parameters used in the model should be able to be
changed, and such a change should be easy to handle.
Overall kinetic schemes attempt to simplify the chemistry
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
to predict important physical quantities while main-
taining computational eYciency. These quantities are
rate of heat release, in-cylinder pressure and tempera-
ture, and the concentration of important principal
species, fuel, CO, CO , H and H O. The simplest over-
2 2 2
all reaction representing the oxidation of a typical hydro-
carbon fuel is a one-step scheme:
Fuel +n O
n CO +n H O (1)
1 2 2 2 3 2
where the fuel determines the stoichiometric coeYcients
n . This global reaction is often a convenient way of
i
approximating the eVects of the many elementary reac-
tions which actually occur. Its rate must therefore rep-
resent an appropriate average of all the individual
reaction rates involved. The single-rate expression is
usually expressed as
A B
E
RR =AT n exp Õ a [fuel ]a[O ]b (2)
1 RT 2
Comparisons between computed and experimental com-
bustion rates are required to evaluate the constants in
the above equation, including the pre-exponential factor,
A, the activation energy, E , n, a and b. Note that, in
a
general, a and b are not related to the stoichiometric
coeYcients in the global reaction but are empirical con-
stants determined either from experiment or from a
detailed kinetics calculation [7].
Equation (2) is based on chemical reaction rate, which
may work well for premixed combustion. However, at
the start of combustion only 10–35 per cent of the vapor-
ized fuel has mixed to within
ammability limits in a
typical medium speed direct injection diesel engine [8];
thus combustion is largely mixing limited, especially
in the late combustion stage. Such a non-premixed
combustion may often be viewed as a mixing problem.
Magnussen and Hjertager [9 ] proposed a model that
relates the rate of combustion to the rate of dissipation
of turbulent eddies and expressed the rate of reaction by
the mean concentration of a reacting species, the turbu-
lent kinetic energy and the rate of dissipation of this
energy. In this model, the chemical reaction is assumed
to be very fast and the rate of combustion will be deter-
mined by the rate of intermixing on a molecular scale of
fuel and oxygen eddies. When excess oxidizer is present,
the reaction rate is given by
å
AB
RR =C c̄ (3)
2 A f k
When the fuel is in excess, the reaction rate is assumed
to be
å
A BA B
c̄
RR =C O2 (4)
3 A r k
f
Accounting for the burning rate in premixed turbulent
D08000 © IMechE 2001
 COMBUSTION MODELLING FOR DIRECT INJECTION DIESEL ENGINES 653

ames, the reaction rate is equation (2), the lower burning rate can be con-
sidered to represent the delay time. Thus, the pre-
å
A BA B
c̄
RR =C C p (5) exponential factor A and the activation energy E
4 A B 1 +r k a
f eVectively control the delay period. When A is
increased and E is reduced, the ignition delay is
where C , C are constants. C will depend on the struc-
A B A a
ture of the
ame and the rate of reaction between fuel reduced. In the calculation, it can be assumed that
and oxygen, and C is usually set empirically at 0.5. c , ignition occurs when the temperature of one or
B f several cells reaches a value T (e.g. 2000 K ). The
c and c are time-mean concentrations of fuel, oxygen
O2 p limit
and products respectively. å is the rate of dissipation of crank angle (CA) when the highest temperature
reaches T is stored as õ . During the ignition
turbulent kinetic energy and k is the turbulent kinetic limit limit
energy. r is the stoichiometric oxygen requirement to delay stage, the chemical reaction rate determined by
f equation (2) is low owing to low temperature and is
burn 1 kg fuel.
The equation that gives the lowest reaction rate in less than the mixing rate; thus premixed fuel is
equations (3) to (5) is the one that determines the local accumulated.
rate of combustion. Thus, an expression for the reaction 2. Following the ignition delay is the premixed combus-
rate is given by tion stage. During this period the premixed fuel and
air formed in the ignition delay stage are burned at
RR =min (RR , RR , RR ) (6) the rate given by equation (2). Miyamoto et al. [10]
5 2 3 4
In the mixing-controlled combustion model, the chemi- found that the premixed combustion stage remained
cal reaction rate is assumed to be very fast, which is not almost constant in direct injection diesel engines,
reasonable at the ignition delay stage of the combustion with a duration of approximately 7ß of crankshaft
rotation. Thus from the start of fuel injection õ to
process owing to low temperature. Although equation inj
crank premix, where crank premix =õ +õ + 7ß
(5) can account for this condition to some extent, the inj limit
independence from chemistry of the mixing controlled CA, equation (2) is used.
model is one of its deciencies. To overcome this short- 3. After most of the premixed fuel is consumed, the
coming, equation (2) is also considered when mixing- burning rate is then controlled by the mixing rate.
controlled model is employed in some applications. The burning rate in this period is assumed to be con-
Further, numerous schemes can be generated in an trolled by
attempt to model the physical phenomena. Several are RR =min( RR , RR ) ( 10)
9 2 3
as follows:
This combination is denoted as the chem-mixing model,
RR =min (RR , RR , RR , RR ) (7) and the combustion rate is determined by
6 1 2 3 4
RR =max (RR , RR ) (8) RR = RR , when crank ¢crank premix ( 11)
7 1 5 10 1
RR =min (RR , RR , RR ) (9) RR = RR , when crank > crank premix ( 12)
8 1 2 3 10 9
Equation (7) is typically not used as it is likely to under- where crank is the crankshaft angle and crank premix is
predict the combustion rate, especially during the determined by experience and input as a parameter for
premixed combustion period. Equation ( 8) is more typical engine congurations and operating conditions.
reasonable in the premixed combustion period but may This type of combination has several advantages, e.g. it
over-predict the burning rate in the late stages of com- is simple, and it agrees with the major aspects of the
bustion. As RR [equation (2)] is able to account for diesel combustion phenomenon. The shortcoming is that
1 it is diYcult to determine the parameter crank premix
the premixed combustion, RR [equation (5)] can be
4 exactly. The sensitivity of the results to crank premix
deleted in the right-hand side of equation (7), which
results in equation (9). In contrast to equation ( 8), equa- will be studied in this article.
tion (9) is more applicable for both the ignition delay
and the mixing-controlled combustion stages; however, 3 COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUE
it may under-predict the burning rate at the premixed
combustion stage.
The program to be used in the current study is the KIVA-
In this article, another combination of the chemical
III code [11] developed by Los Alamos National
reaction mechanism and mixing mechanism for a typical
Laboratory which has been modied with improved
medium speed diesel engine is proposed. This model is
physical models to include the eVects of spray wall
based on the following assumptions:
impingement, improved heat transfer and turbulence
1. The period from start of injection (SOI ) to ignition models and a mixing-controlled turbulent combustion
is regarded as the ignition delay stage. During this model. The code has its primary application for investi-
period, the reaction rate is determined by equation gation of the complex combustion processes in internal
(2). Although no ignition delay time is considered in combustion engines. KIVA and KIVA-II have been
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
D08000 © IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
654 G J MICKLOW AND W GONG

widely used by the automobile industry for a number of Table 1 Engine specications and some input data
years and have been thoroughly tested under a wide
Bore 6stroke 137.6 cm6165.1 cm
range of operating conditions. Squish 0.458 cm
The KIVA-III computer code solves compressible, tur- Rotational speed 1600 r/min
bulent, three-dimensional transient equations of reacting Connect rod 261.62 cm
Low limit for kinetic reaction calculation 800 K
multicomponent gas mixtures with the
ow dynamics of Low limit for equilibrium chemistry calculation 1200 K
an evaporating liquid spray. The conservation laws for Compression ratio 15.1
vapour–gas mass, momentum and energy are solved by Number of nozzle orices 6
Inlet air pressure 184 kPa
a Lagrangian–Eulerian nite volume approach, when the Injection pressure 90 MPa
initial and boundary conditions are specied, by using Fuel C H
14 30
an explicit time marching technique. The spatial diVer- Initial swirl ratio 1.0
Cylinder wall temperature 400 K
encing is made conservative. Coupled implicit diVerenc- Cylinder head temperature 525 K
ing is used for the diVusion terms and terms associated Piston face temperature 525 K
with pressure wave propagation. The coupled implicit CA after top dead centre to inject fuel 349ß
Duration of injection pulse 21.5
equations are solved by a method similar to the SIMPLE Number of valves 2
algorithm [12], with individual equations being solved Displacement volume 2.44 l
by the conjugate residual method. KIVA-III uses an Spray angle (from cylinder head) 27.5ß
Inlet air temperature 310 K
explicit quasi-second-order upwind (QSOV ) scheme for Fuel injected 0.1622 g /cycle
convection. This scheme is monotonic and approaches
second-order accuracy when convecting smooth proles.
Turbulence is modelled using a k–å model. The Monte
Carlo based particle
uid spray model allows the predic-
tion of droplet sizes, lifetimes, velocities and trajectories
of fuel droplets emanating from fuel injectors. For com-
bustion, the number of species and chemical reactions
that can be included is arbitrary. The code distinguishes
between slow reactions, which proceed kinetically, and
fast reactions, which are assumed to be in equilibrium.
Chemical rate expressions, which are Arrhenius in
form, are evaluated by a partially implicit procedure. A
fast implicit algebraic solver is used to compute chem-
ical equilibria. The prediction of NO formation is
x
accomplished through an extended Zeldovich mechan-
ism. This is the most predominant NO mechanism at
x
high temperatures.
Fig. 1 Computational mesh for the Caterpillar engine

Fuel +n O
n CO +n H O
1 2 2 2 3 2
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION O + 2N
2N + 2NO
2 2
2O + N
2O + 2NO
The two combustion schemes and the various combi- 2 2
nations discussed above were investigated. The engine 2OH + N
2H + 2NO
chosen for the study was a CAT 3401 single-cylinder 2
direct injection diesel test engine. The engine specica- The equilibrium reactions are

2=
tions and input parameters are listed in Table 1. For H 2H
computational eYciency, because of engine symmetry
2=
O 2O
with six fuel nozzles, the domain considered is only a
60ß sector of the combustion chamber. Figure 1 shows N = 2N
2
the computational domain for the Caterpillar 3401 diesel
O + H = 2OH
engine. There are 20 cells in the radial direction, 18 cells 2 2
in the circumferential direction and 56 cells in the O + 2H O = 4OH
2 2
axial direction along the engine centre-line. This mesh
O + 2CO = 2CO
resolution has been shown to give adequately grid- 2 2
independent results [13]. The in-cylinder pressure obtained by KIVA3V with
Four kinetic reactions and six equilibrium reactions the kinetically controlled combustion model given by
were considered. The kinetic reactions are equation (2), RR , is compared with experimental data
1
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D D08000 © IMechE 2001
 COMBUSTION MODELLING FOR DIRECT INJECTION DIESEL ENGINES
[1] in Fig. 2. The pre-exponential factor A, the activation
energy E and a, b used were the values found in the
a
KIVA3 manual [11]. From Fig. 2, it can be seen that
the calculated maximum pressure is higher than the mea-
sured value. The calculated rate of increase in pressure
at the initial combustion stage was lower than the meas-
ured value. This may be caused by the activation energy
E being too high or the pre-exponential factor A being
a
too low. As the calculation proceeds beyond this point,
the calculated pressure becomes much higher than the
measured value. This diVerence results from the fact that
the reaction rate given by equation (2) is higher than
the actual reaction rate, which is largely mixing limited
in the late stages of combustion.
Next, the ‘pure’ mixing-controlled combustion model,
in which equation ( 6), RR , determines the burn rate,
5
was investigated. Since the value of å/k plays an import-
ant role in the reaction rate in the mixing-controlled
combustion model, the in
uence of diVerent turbulence
models must be investigated rst. Figure 3 shows a com-
Fig. 2 In-cylinder pressure predicted by KIVA3V with normal
combustion model (RR ) and by experiment
1 rate between 360ß and 370ß CA determined from equa-
Fig. 3 Value of å/k versus crank angle predicted with RNG
k–å model and standard k–å model (RR is used,
5 5
C = 7)
A
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
D08000 © IMechE 2001
655
parison for å/k versus CA obtained with the renormaliz-
ation group (RNG ) theory k–å turbulence model [14]
and standard k–å turbulence model. For the RNG
model, all model constants can be evaluated by the
theory explicitly on the basis of certain assumptions and
mathematical development. In the latest version of the
RNG k–å turbulence model, an additional term has been
added to the å equation. This term dynamically changes
with the rate of strain of turbulence, providing more
accurate predictions for
ows with rapid distortion and
anisotropic large-scale eddies. A marked diVerence can
be seen between the two turbulence models. The value
of å/k obtained by RNG k–å model between 350ß and
372ß CA was much larger than that obtained by the
standard k–å model. After 372ß CA, the value of å/k
obtained with the RNG k–å model was slightly larger
than that obtained with the standard k–å model. From
Fig. 3, it seems that a higher burn rate was obtained with
the standard k–å model. However, from Fig. 4, it is seen
that the maximum pressure obtained with the RNG k–å
model is higher than that obtained with the standard k–å
model. The diVerence in swirl ratio may account for this
eVect. A higher swirl ratio was obtained with the RNG
k–å model between 290ß and 360ß CA, as shown in Fig. 5,
which enhances the mixing rate of fuel and air. Figure 6
shows the fuel mass whose equivalence ratio is between
0.5 and 1.5. It is clear that more fuel is mixed to
amm-
ability limits shortly after injection with the RNG k–å
model.
The mechanisms to determine the burn rate in the
kinetically controlled combustion model, i.e. equation
(2), and mixing controlled combustion, equation ( 6),
are totally diVerent. The former is based on a chemical
mechanism, while the latter is based on a physical
mechanism. Figures 7 to 11 show the pressure, average
temperature, NO mass, CO mass and CO mass in the
2
cylinder obtained with equations (2) and (6). The burn
tion (2) was slightly higher than that determined from
Fig. 4 In-cylinder pressure predicted with mixing-controlled
combustion model (RR is used, C =7) and diVerent
A
turbulence models
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
656 G J MICKLOW AND W GONG

Fig. 5 Swirl ratio predicted with diVerent turbulence models Fig. 8 Average temperature predicted by KIVA3V with
(RR is used, C = 7) mixing-controlled combustion model (RR is used,
5 A 5
C =7) and normal combustion model (RR )
A 1

Fig. 6 Fuel mass at ER = {0.5, 1.5} predicted with mixing- Fig. 9 NO formation predicted by KIVA3V with mixing-
controlled combustion model (RR is used, C = 7) controlled combustion model (RR is used, C =7)
5 A 5 A
and diVerent turbulence models and normal combustion model (RR )
1

Fig. 7 In-cylinder pressure predicted by KIVA3V with

mixing-controlled combustion model (RR is used, Fig. 10 CO formation predicted by KIVA3V with mixing-
5
C = 7, RNG k–å) and normal combustion model controlled combustion model (RR is used, C =7)
A 5 A
(RR ) and normal combustion model (RR )
1 1
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D D08000 © IMechE 2001
 COMBUSTION MODELLING FOR DIRECT INJECTION DIESEL ENGINES
Fig. 11 CO formation predicted by KIVA3V with mixing-
2
controlled combustion model (RR is used, C = 7)
5 A
and normal combustion model (RR )
1
equation ( 6); thus the pressure, temperature and CO
2
mass fraction obtained with equation (2) were also
higher than those obtained with equation (6). Because
of the temperature diVerence between 360ß and 370ß CA,
the forming rate of NO with equation (2) was also higher
than with equation (6), as shown in Fig. 9. While these
diVerences exist they are not marked. However, the
diVerence in the rate of formation of the CO mass frac-
tion was substantial and it was studied in detail. As a
one-step scheme is employed in this article, CO comes
from the equilibrium reaction between CO and CO.
2
Since there is no marked diVerence in CO mass as
2 8
shown in Fig. 11, a possible reason for the diVerence in
CO is the in-cylinder distribution of CO, CO , O and
2 2
temperature. The temperature plays a very important
role in the chemically controlled combustion model of
equation (2), but the temperature is not present in the
diVusion-controlled model of equation (6). Therefore,
the ‘burn acceleration eVect’ and ignition delay eVect are
apparent when equation (2) is employed. These eVects
result in a smaller reaction zone owing to rapid local
oxygen depletion but higher CO concentration with
2
equation (2 ) as compared with equation (6), as seen in
Fig. 12. In the cells where fuel has existed for enough
time to initiate a burn, e.g. the plane z=17.9 cm with
respect to the piston bottom dead centre (BDC ) pos-
ition, the reaction rate is increased exponentially with
equation (2) as temperature increases. Thus, more CO
2
is produced, and from the equilibrium reaction, if the
temperature remains high, more CO is converted from
CO . Thus, the CO concentration obtained with equa-
2
tion ( 2) in these cells is much higher than that obtained
with equation (6). For the cells that fuel has recently
reached, e.g. the plane z=17 cm, the temperature and
the reaction rate with equation (2) are lower than with
equation (6). However, such a diVerence is important
when pollutant emissions are considered.
Figure 13 shows the average in-cylinder pressure pre-
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
D08000 © IMechE 2001
657
dicted with equation (7), which is a simple combination
of the kinetically controlled and mixing-controlled com-
bustion models. Equation ( 7) simply takes the minimum
reaction rate of equations ( 2) and (6). It is apparent
that this simple modication under-predicts the combus-
tion rate. Although it may be possible to improve the
result by changing certain parameters, good correlation
against experimental data for in-cylinder pressure and
heat release rate is diYcult to obtain using this model.
Figure 14 to 16 show the in-cylinder pressure, heat
release rate and volume of equivalence ratio between 0.5
and 1.5 obtained with equation (8) for several diVerent
values of the mixing controlled reaction rate constant,
C . Equation (8) uses the maximum reaction rate of the
A
kinetically controlled mechanism, equation (2), and the
mixing-controlled mechanism, equation (6). This combi-
nation is used in the current commercial version of the
KIVA3V code. From Fig. 14, it can be seen that equation
(8) over-predicts the combustion rate. Decreasing C
A
will decrease the reaction rate and lower the combustion
rate. This will occur to the point where equation (2),
RR , will be chosen as the reaction rate and further
1
changes in C will have no eVect. From Figs 15 and 16,
A
it can also be seen that changing C strongly in
uences
A
the heat release rate and the fuel evaporation and distri-
bution, especially when equation (2) is chosen because
of small C . Thus, the eVect of varying the constant C
A A
is very complicated and diYcult to utilize.
From Fig. 17, it can be seen that the average
in-cylinder pressure predicted with the reaction rate
given by equation (9), RR , is in good agreement with
the measured value. However, the initial reaction rate
appears to be low owing to the slow rise in pressure
when compared with the experimental data. This is
equivalent to the ignition delay being too long. Two
schemes were investigated to solve this problem. One is
to increase the pre-exponential factor A, while the second
is to reduce the activation energy E for the kinetically
a
controlled scheme. From the results shown in Fig. 18, it
is apparent that the calculated pressure obtained with
reduced activation energy agrees well with the meas-
ured value.
Next, a new combination of the kinetically controlled
combustion model and the mixing-controlled combus-
tion model given by equations ( 11) and (12), RR , was
10
studied. Here, the kinetically controlled reaction rate is
used up to a user-specied CA. This was to accommo-
date the combustion process of the premixed air and
fuel. Beyond the specied CA the mixing-controlled
reaction rate presented in equation (10) is used. This
was to accommodate the dominant physics of the
combustion process in the later stages of combustion.
Figure 19 shows the pressure obtained with diVerent
mixing-controlled reaction rate constants, C . It can be
A
seen that the calculated pressure with both values of C
A
is the same before 360ß CA. This is because the kin-
etically controlled reaction rate of equation (2) is
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
658 G J MICKLOW AND W GONG

Fig. 12 Iso-surfaces of CO , CO, fuel and temperature at 358ß CA predicted with mixing-controlled
2
combustion model (RR is used, C =7) and normal combustion model (RR )
5 A 1

employed. It is also clear that either the activation energy
is too high or the pre-exponential factor is too low, since
the calculated pressure at the initial combustion period
is lower than the experimental value. Figure 20 shows
the calculated pressure obtained with reduced activation
energy and increased pre-exponential factor. The results
are improved. Changing the user-specied parameter,
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
crank premix, changes the point which separates the
reaction rate that dominates the combustion process.
Figure 21 shows the pressure obtained with crank premix
equal to 358ß CA. Since premixed combustion and
mixing-controlled combustion are used before and after
crank premix respectively, it is simple to handle various
parameters, such as the pre-exponential factor, C , etc.
A
D08000 © IMechE 2001
 COMBUSTION MODELLING FOR DIRECT INJECTION DIESEL ENGINES 659

Fig. 13 In-cylinder pressure predicted by KIVA3V with

mixing-controlled combustion model (RR is used, Fig. 16 Volume of ER ={0.5, 1.5} predicted by KIVA3V
6 with RR with diVerent C
C =18) and experiment 7 A
A

Fig. 14 In-cylinder pressure predicted by KIVA3V with RR Fig. 17 In-cylinder pressure predicted by KIVA3V with RR
7 8
with diVerent C and experiment (capa= 6) and experiment
A

Fig. 18 In-cylinder pressure predicted with RR (increased

Fig. 15 Heat release rate predicted by KIVA3V with RR 8
7 pre-exponential factor A or reduced activation
with diVerent C
A energy) and experiment

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015

D08000 © IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
660 G J MICKLOW AND W GONG

Changing activation energy and pre-exponential factor

can in
uence the rate of the pressure rise at the initial
combustion stage. Changing the constant C can control
A
the burn rate in the later stages of combustion. Since
equation (2) is employed before crank premix, the value
of å/k at the early combustion stage (before crank
premix) should not greatly in
uence the results as in
the mixing-controlled combustion stage [equation (6)].
Figures 22 to 26 show the value of å/k, heat release rate,
average temperature, NO mass and CO mass obtained
with the RNG and standard k–å turbulence models. The
result of the value of å/k obtained with both turbulence
models is similar to that in Fig. 3. Higher heat release
rate is obtained with standard k–å model at the initial
combustion stage as seen in Fig. 23. The lower heat
Fig. 19 In-cylinder pressure predicted with RR (crank release rate obtained with standard k–å model between
10
premix= 360ß CA) and experiment 360ß and 375ß CA could be a result of diVerent in-
cylinder fuel concentrations. From Fig. 23, it is easy to
explain the diVerence in average temperature shown in
Fig. 24. The diVerence in temperature also causes the

Fig. 20 In-cylinder pressure predicted with RR

10
(crank Fig. 22 Value of å/k predicted with RR (crank premix=
10
premix= 360ß CA) and experiment 358ß CA, A6 1.5; RNG k–å, C =2; standard k–å,
A
C = 1)
A

Fig. 21 In-cylinder pressure predicted with RR (crank Fig. 23 Heat release rate obtained with RR (crank premix=
10 10
premix= 358ß CA, A61.5; RNG k–å, C =2; 358ß CA, A6 1.5; RNG k–å, C =2; standard k–å,
A A
standard k–å, C =1) and experiment C = 1)
A A
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D D08000 © IMechE 2001
 COMBUSTION MODELLING FOR DIRECT INJECTION DIESEL ENGINES 661

marked diVerence in NO mass, as seen in Fig. 25, since

NO formation increases exponentially with temperature.
As previously discussed, the diVerent combustion mech-
anisms have an important eVect on CO formation, which
can account for the rst peak for CO mass at around
crank premix in Fig. 26. Since, in a one-step scheme, CO
is formed from an equilibrium reaction, which is greatly
in
uenced by temperature, the rst peak of CO obtained
with the standard k–å model was higher than that
obtained with RNG k–å model, as seen in Figs 24 and 26.

5 CONCLUSION

Fig. 24 Average temperature predicted by KIVA3V with Since both premixed combustion and mixing-controlled
RR (crank premix= 358ß CA, A6 1.5; RNG k–å, combustion mechanisms occur in typical diesel engine
10
C =2; standard k–å, C =1) operation, neither of them works well alone in a numeri-
A A
cal model. Therefore, it is necessary to combine these
mechanisms in a logical scheme for diesel engine simu-
lation. The combination should be simple for compu-
tational eYciency, give a reasonable match with
experimental data and have parameters in the model that
can be easily changed to improve the accuracy of the
calculation.
Two combustion schemes, one kinetically controlled
(premixed ) and one mixing controlled (diVusion),
together with various combinations of these two models,
were investigated in this article. The in-cylinder pressure
predicted by the kinetically controlled combustion model
given by equation (2) was compared with the experimen-
tal data. It was found that the calculated maximum
pressure was higher than the measured value. The calcu-
lated rate of increase in pressure at the initial combustion
stage was lower than the measured value. This is believed
Fig. 25 NO formation predicted by KIVA3V with RR to be caused by the activation energy E being too high
10 a
(crank premix=358ß CA, A6 1.5; RNG k–å, or the pre-exponential factor A being too low. As the
C =2; standard k–å, C =1)
A A calculation proceeds beyond this point, the calculated
pressure is much higher than the measured value. This
diVerence results from the fact that the reaction rate
given by equation (2) is higher than the actual reaction
rate, which is largely mixing limited in the late stages of
combustion. Therefore, it was concluded that the kin-
etically controlled combustion model alone would
be inadequate to predict the in-cylinder pressure
distribution.
The mixing-controlled combustion model was then
evaluated alone. A strong dependence on the turbulence
modelling was found and the in-cylinder pressure distri-
bution was under-predicted with the RNG turbulence
k–å model and over-predicted with the standard k–å
model. These results were related to the fact that the
standard k–å model has a much higher value of å/k
during the fuel injection period and a slightly lower value
after the injection period in comparison with the RNG
Fig. 26 CO formation predicted by KIVA3V with RR k–å model. It is thus concluded that turbulence model-
10
(crank premix= 358ß CA, A6 1.5; RNG k–å, ling has an important eVect on the computed results.
C =2; standard k–å, C =1) The RNG k–å is recommended, however, because of the
A A
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
D08000 © IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
662 G J MICKLOW AND W GONG
incorporation of improved physics. The importance and
accuracy of diVerent turbulence models for modelling
in-cylinder
ows are currently under investigation
and those results will be published when completely
obtained. Further, it was concluded that the mixing-
controlled combustion model alone would be inadequate
to predict accurately even the in-cylinder pressure
distribution.
Simple combinations of the kinetically controlled
combustion model and the mixing-controlled combus-
tion model were investigated. When the reaction rate
was set by taking the minimum of these two models, it
was apparent that the combustion rate was under-pre-
dicted. Although it may be possible to improve the result
by changing certain model parameters, good correlation
against experimental data for in-cylinder pressure and
heat release rate is diYcult to obtain using this type of
modication. The combination in the most recent release
of the KIVA3V code is to simply take the maximum of
the reaction rate predicted by the kinetically controlled
and the mixing-controlled models. For this combination,
it was concluded that the combustion rate was over-
predicted. Reducing C , the mixing-controlled model
A
constant, could not solve the problem, since the kin-
etically controlled model will set the reaction rate when
C is reduced too far. This had a marked eVect on the
A paper 952431, 1995.
heat release rate and the fuel evaporation and in-cylinder
fuel distribution. Therefore, since the eVect of varying
the constant C is complicated and diYcult to utilize,
A tion. SAE paper 950285, 1995.
this combination is not recommended as an appropriate
combustion model.
Next, a new combination of the kinetically controlled
combustion model and the mixing-controlled combus-
tion model was proposed. Here, the kinetically con-
trolled reaction rate is used up to a user specied CA.
This was to accommodate the combustion process of the
premixed air and fuel. Beyond the specied CA, the
mixing-controlled reaction rate is used. This was to
accommodate the dominant physics of the combustion
process in the later stages of combustion. It was found
that by slight changes in the pre-exponential factor and
activation energy, which are important during the initial
phase of the combustion process dominated by the
chemical kinetics, the initial burn rate could be con-
trolled. Changing the constant, C , could control the
A
burn rate in the later stages of combustion. With the
appropriate selection of the user-specied CA to denote
which reaction mechanism is used, reasonable agreement
for in-cylinder pressure distribution and heat release rate
is obtained. The scheme’s sensitivity to user-specied CA
is one of its shortcomings, but it is simple to handle the
various model parameters and it is concluded that this
method of combustion modelling can be used with suc-
cess to model a specic engine type. Ongoing research
in this area has been in the use of empirical correlations
for direct injection diesel engines to determine the CA
at which the scheme switches from the kinetically con-
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D
trolled scheme to the diVusion-controlled scheme with-
out a user-specied value. Further, the model has been
divided into three phases, ignition, premixed combustion
and diVusion combustion. This work will be published
when completed.
Finally, since two diVerent reaction mechanisms are
employed in these two models, one that is chemically
determined, the other being physically determined, their
reaction zones are diVerent. Such a diVerence has an
important eVect on the products’ composition. Although
both models can obtain a reasonable match against
experimental data for global thermodynamic quantities
such as average in-cylinder pressure and average tem-
perature, other detailed information, such as CO mass
history, can be very diVerent. Therefore, it is recom-
mended that a more detailed reaction scheme, e.g. a
multistep scheme, is required to predict pollutant emis-
sion formation. Several levels of multistep combustion
modelling schemes are currently under investigation and
the results will be published when the study is completed.
REFERENCES
1 Curtis, E. W., Uludogan, A. and Reitz, R. D. A high pressure
droplet vaporization model for diesel engine modeling. SAE
2 Ayoub, N. S. and Reitz, R. D. Multidimensional compu-
tation of multi-component spray vaporization and combus-
3 Taskinen, P., Karvinen, R., Liljenfeldt, G. and Salminen,
H. J. Simulation of heavy fuel spray and combustion in a
medium speed diesel engine. SAE paper 962053, 1996.
4 Uludogan, A., Foster, D. E. and Reitz, R. D. Modeling the
eVect of engine speed on the combustion process and emis-
sions in a DI diesel engine. SAE paper 962056, 1996.
5 Rutland, C.J., Ayoub, N., Han, Z., Hampson, G., Kong, S.,
Mather, D., Musculus, M., Patterson, M., Ricart, L.,
Stephenson, P. and Reitz, R. D. Progress towards diesel
combustion modeling. SAE paper 952429, 1995.
6 Butler, T. D., et al. Multidimensional numerical simulation
of reactive
ow in internal combustion engines. Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci., 1981, 7, 293–315.
7 Westbrook, C. K., et al. Chemical kinetic modeling of
hydrocarbon combustion. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.,
1984, 10, 1–57.
8 Heywood, J. B. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals,
1988 (McGraw-Hill, New York).
9 Magnussen, B. F. and Hjertager, B. H. On mathematical
modeling of turbulent combustion with special empha-
sis on soot formation and combustion. In Sixteenth
Symposium on Combustion, 1976, pp. 719–729
(Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).
10 Miyamoto, N., Chikahisa, T., Murayama, T. and Sawyer, R.
Description and analysis of diesel engine rate of combustion
and performance using Wiebe’s functions. SAE paper
850107, 1985.
11 Amsden, A. A. KIVA-3: a KIVA program with block-struc-
tured mesh for complex geometries. Los Alamos National
Laboratory Report LA-12503-MS, March 1993.
D08000 © IMechE 2001
 COMBUSTION MODELLING FOR DIRECT INJECTION DIESEL ENGINES 663

12 Patankar, S. V. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow,
1980 (Hemisphere, Washington, DC ).
13 Uludogan, A., Xin, J. and Reitz, R. D. Exploring the use
of multiple injectors and split injection to reduce DI diesel
engine emissions. SAE paper 962058, 1996.
14 Han, Z. and Reitz, R. D. Turbulence modeling of internal
combustion engines using RNG k–å models. Combust. Sci.
Technol., 1995, 106, 267–295.

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Purdue University on May 30, 2015

D08000 © IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part D