Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
189206 (2007)
diesel spray-combustion simulation, emission reduction, in-cylinder water and Urea injection
1. INTRODUCTION
To reduce the NOx level by up to 90%, the SCR
(Selective Catalytic Reduction) technique has been
proposed and realized (Rota et al., 2002). With this
method, the exhaust gas is mixed with ammonia
NH3 or Urea (NH2) 2CO (as NH3 source) before
passing through a special catalyst at a temperature
between 300 C and 400 C, whereby NOx is
converted into N2 and H2O. The method is used
currently in stationary power-plants, and successful
applications to motor vehicles have been published
in the work of Lepperhof, Huthwohl and Pischinger
(1992). Reducing NOx by means of Urea SCR can
only take place in the narrow temperature window,
because if the temperature is too high, NH3 will
burn rather than react forming NO/NO2. At low
temperatures and loads, the conversion rate
becomes too low as illustrated in Fig. 1 by
predictions made by Dr. Kusaka (2006). The
amount of Urea injected into the exhaust gas is
controlled by the process in proportion to the
volume of NOx produced by combustion depending
on the engine load.
Another possible technique that can be referenced is
the so-called HAM (Humid Air Motors), where
Received: 7 Dec. 2006; Revised: 1 Apr. 2007; Accepted: 25 Apr. 2007
189
20% Load
60% Load
40% Load
80% Load
NO conversion rate
mole fraction / sec
2.510-2
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Time sec
Fig. 1
The NO conversion rate in the catalytic converter as a function of the engine load (courtesy of Dr. Kusaka).
(a)
Fig. 2
(b)
Emissions Soot-NO parametric map for (a) pure air oxidizing atmosphere in the cylinder, (b) oxidizing atmosphere
containing 10% (volumetric) steam.
190
NOx/NOx0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Water
Urea
0.2
0
-30
30
60
90
120
Fig. 3
Normalized (by NOx produced without Urea or water injection) NOx concentration in the cylinder as a function of
injection timing.
Fig. 4
Double fuel injector for the LDWI (Later Direct Water Injection) test.
Soot
C(s)
(1)
Fig. 5
(2)
2.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
C(S)
C(S)
C(S)
C(S)
N
N
N
N
N2O
N2O
N2O
N2O
NO
NO
NO2
NO2
NO2
NO2
(NH2)2CO
NH3
NH3
NH3
NH3
NH2
NH2
NH2
NH2
NH2
NH2
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
N2O
+ O2
+ H2 O
+ OH
+ N2 O
+ NO
+ O2
+ OH
+ CO2
+O
+O
+H
+ OH
+ HO2
+O
+O
+H
+ CO
+ HCO
+ H2 O
+M
+H
+O
+ OH
+N
+ NO
+H
+O
+ OH
+ HO2
+ O2
+ NH
+N
+ NO
+ NO
+M
+M
=O
= CO
= CO
= CO
= N2
= NO
= NO
= NO
= N2
= NO
= N2
= N2
= NO2
= NO2
= NO
= NO
= CO2
=H
= NH3
= NH2
= NH2
= NH2
= NH2
= N2
= N2
= NH
= NH
= NH
= NH3
= NO
= N2
= N2
= N2
= N2 O
= N2
+ CO
+ H2
+H
+ N2
+O
+O
+H
+ CO
+ O2
+ NO
+ OH
+ HO2
+ OH
+M
+ O2
+ OH
+ NO
+ CO2
+ NH3
+H
+ H2
+ OH
+ H2O
+H
+ H2O
+ H2
+ OH
+ H2 O
+ O2
+ OH
+H
+H
+ OH
+H
+O
+ NO
+ CO2
+M
+H
+H
+M
Ea
3.00E+11
3.00E+11
1.00E+12
3.00E+11
3.50E+13
2.65E+12
7.33E+13
1.90E+11
1.40E+12
2.90E+13
4.40E+14
2.00E+12
2.11E+12
1.06E+20
3.90E+12
1.32E+14
9.00E+13
8.40E+15
6.13E+10
2.20E+16
6.36E+05
9.40E+06
2.00E+06
7.20E+13
1.26E+16
4.00E+13
6.80E+12
4.00E+06
1.00E+13
1.30E+06
2.50E+13
3.00E+13
2.16E+13
2.90E+14
1.30E+11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1.41
0
0
0
-0.75
0
0
2.39
1.94
2.04
0
-1.25
0
0
2
0
1.5
0
0
-0.23
-0.4
0
12800
42800
36800
16800
330
6400
1120
3400
10810
23150
18880
21060
-480
0
-240
360
33800
1930
20980
93470
10171
6460
566
0
0
3650
0
1000
0
100
0
0
0
0
59620
Notes: Reaction rates are in cm3, mole, sec; activation energies, Ea , are in cal units.
193
(3)
(5)
Other details of the mechanisms can be found in the
work of Rota et al. (2002).
2.4
90
80
Pressure [bar]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
CAD
20
40
60
80
Fig. 6
The schematic of the dynamic parametric map construction; maps 13 correspond to different CADs.
194
Fig. 7
The Soot-NOx map and time histories of the cell parameters corresponding to 3 different CADs, i.e., -3, 0 and 10,
for the conventional Diesel injection.
Fig. 8
The CO map and time histories of the cell parameters corresponding to 3 different CADs, i.e., -3, 0 and 10, for the
conventional Diesel injection.
Fig. 9
The C2H2 map and time histories of the cell parameters corresponding to 3 different CADs, i.e., -3, 0 and 10, for
the conventional Diesel injection.
195
dc < c > c
=
+ f r (c, T ) ; c(t = 0) = c0
dt
mix
(6)
1
0
c p (c ) dc
(7)
(8)
< c >=
c(t ) (t ) dt
0
(9)
(10)
Above, the chemical source term is calculated using
the reactor virtual concentrations, is the time
integration step; the averaging symbol is omitted
hereafter.
The model distinguishes among the concentration
(in molar density) at the reactor exit, c1, the
concentrations in the reaction zone, c, and in the
feed, c0. As time proceeds, c1 trades place for c0.
See Fig. 10 for details.
In the case of c c1 , the system (10) can be solved
by conventional numerical methods, e.g., by the
kinetics program of the Chemkin package.
Otherwise, these equations are unclosed, since
two sets of unknowns, c1 and c, must be found. To
close the system (10), a steady-state form of
equation (6) can be taken leading to the equations:
c1 c 0
c1 c
mix
= f r (c , T
c1 c 0
where
time.
c c1 ;
c c1
mix
mix
(13)
(11)
c 1s c s0
c1
1 c 1 c1
= = H ,
2 c mix
c
= f r (c 1 ) =
c s0 f r0
c s0 + term r + term r mix
(14)
(12)
"
'
(15)
respectively.
Equation (14) can be deduced, if the chemical
reaction times c are formally defined as
characteristic times of the species destruction rates,
the species chemical production terms are presented
as in equation (15). Micro-mixing time is described
in terms of Kolmogorovs time definition
(Golovitchev et al., 2003).
The references species formally defined as the
species with a smallest concentration among those
defining the depletion rate in the linear form (15).
In this sense, they are similar to the limiting
(deficient) species of the Magnussen-Hjertager,
EDC model (Magnussen and Hjertager, 1976). The
introduction of such a reference species for each
reaction helps to approximate the nonlinear rate
expression termr- by the linear one, cs/c.
Substituting the expression (15) into the formula
(14), one can get
f r (c) = (termr+ cs / c )
c
c
cs
= termr+
c + mix
c + mix c + mix
mix
(16)
c 0
c seq c s
1 / 2
(1 )
1
k
= (c / Re t ) 2
(18)
3(D 3)
where = 1 + D
, k and are the
turbulent kinetic energy and energy dissipation rate,
respectively. From experiments reported in
Sreenivasan and Meneveau (1986), it follows that
the fractal dimension for turbulent dissipation is
about D = 2.7, i.e.,
k
=
(17)
mix = (c / Re t )0.621
k
mix
(19)
time k = (v/)1/2 - to D = 3.
2.7
Spray models
(a)
(b)
Engine specifications
Table 2
Bore [mm]
130
Stroke [mm]
126
Compression ratio
15.4
Injection system
CR Direct Injection
92.0
0.30
Table 3
Case #
Speed [rpm]
Inj. Diesel fuel
mass & timing
Injection strategies
1
1000
1000
1000
124.5@-6
124.5@-6
124.5@-6
72.5@+15
[mg/st@CAD]
Inj. water mass
& timing
72.5@+30
[mg/st@CAD]
Inj. water /
Urea solution
mass & timing
72.5@+45
0
[mg/st@CAD]
72.5@+15
72.5@+30
72.5@+45
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 12 Calculated (a) in-cylinder pressure and rate of heat release, (b) Soot and (c) NO formation vs. CAD corresponding
to the injection strategies: Diesel oil only, Diesel oil plus water and Diesel oil plus pure Urea (water and Urea are
injected at +30 CAD ATDC).
200
(a)
(b)
(c)
31 CAD
35 CAD
37 CAD
40 CAD
60 CAD
80 CAD
100 CAD
Fig. 13 Galleries of numerical results representing temperature distribution at different CADs for (a) Diesel injection, (b)
Diesel and water injection and (c) Diesel and pure Urea injection cases (water and Urea are injected at +30 CAD
ATDC).
201
(a)
(b)
(c)
31 CAD
35 CAD
37 CAD
40 CAD
60 CAD
80 CAD
100 CAD
Fig. 14 Galleries of numerical results representing NO distribution at different CADs for (a) Diesel injection, (b) Diesel
and water injection and (c) Diesel and pure Urea injection cases (water and Urea are injected at +30 CAD ATDC).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 15 In-cylinder pressure and rate of heat release for water / Urea solution injection at different SOIs and for different
Urea mass percentages in the solution.
(b)
(a)
(c)
Fig. 16 NO formation for water / Urea solution injection at different SOIs and for different Urea mass percentages in the
solution.
350
300
250
200
Urea 80%
383
302
Urea 50%
Urea 20%
Water 100%
168
150
100
32
50
0
-6
-50
-6
-44 -48-52-52
-73 -70
-100
NO
CO
(a)
-59
-43
Soot
-29
400
Urea 100%
350
Urea 80%
300
250
200
Urea 50%
Urea 20%
238
191
Water 100%
150
100
81
50
1
0
-4
-14
-50
-100
-77
-36 -33
-23
-14
-73-69 -75
NO
CO
(b)
Soot
-22
Urea 100%
400
Urea 100%
350
Urea 80%
300
250
200
Urea 50%
Urea 20%
Water 100%
150
100
50
31
16
0
-4
-50
-100
-76 -79-80
-13 -16-14
-68
NO
CO
Soot
(c)
Fig. 17 Final NO, CO and Soot reduction/increase with respect to the Diesel only case: comparison for water / Urea
solution injection at different SOIs and for different Urea mass percentages in the solution.
203
Fig. 18 The Soot-NO map and time histories of the cell parameters corresponding to 3 different CADs, i.e., 17.5, 25 and
70, for the conventional Diesel injection.
Fig. 19 The Soot-NO map and time histories of the cell parameters corresponding to 3 different CADs, i.e., 18, 25 and 70,
for the Diesel+water injection case (water injection timing: +15 CAD).
Fig. 20 The Soot-NO map and time histories of the cell parameters corresponding to 3 different CADs, i.e., 18, 25 and 70,
for the Diesel+Urea injection case (Urea injection timing: +15 CAD).
204
Fig. 21 The Soot-NO map and time histories of the cell parameters corresponding to 3 different CADs, i.e., 47.5, 55 and
70, for the Diesel+Urea injection case (Urea injection timing: +45 CAD).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS