Direct injection asymmetric

nozzle flow investigation

Adams Moro
Topics
• Direct injection nozzles
Types and categories
• Objective
Objectives of the research paper “Comparative study of flow
characteristics within asymmetric multi hole VCO and SAC nozzles”
• Methodology
Approach adopted in the research paper
• Results
Results obtained in the study
Nozzles
In direct injection systems, two types of orifice nozzles are used. These
are
• VCO nozzle (seat hole nozzle)

• SAC nozzle (blind hole nozzle)

The nozzle can be further categorize into

Symmetric
• All orifices in the nozzle have the same inclination angle (with
reference to the needle axis)
Asymmetric
• All orifice in the nozzle have different inclination angle (also with
reference to the needle axis)
Case study : Comparative analysis paper
• In this paper comparative analysis was conducted between two 5
orifice asymmetric nozzles used in two valve direct injection engines
• The only difference between the two nozzle is the design of their
pressure chamber. That is one is a VCO while the other is SAC
VCO SAC
Objective of research paper
To investigate and compare flow characteristics within VCO and SAC
asymmetric multi orifice nozzles (5 orifice)
To study the behavior of flow characteristics under
• Non-cavitating and
• Cavitating conditions
To analyze and compare flow behavior at orifice exit and with the
nozzle orifices
Cavitation number
• As a function of injection pressure (𝑃𝑖𝑛 ), the backpressure (𝑃𝑏 ), and
the vaporization pressure (𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 ), the cavitation number (k) can be use
to determine the proneness of a nozzle to cavitate
𝑃𝑖𝑛 −𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝
•𝑘=
𝑃𝑖𝑛 −𝑃𝑏
• For a constant 𝑃𝑖𝑛 , reducing 𝑃𝑏 increases the magnitude of the
denominator thereby reducing k. With continual reduction, a stage is
reached where cavitation begins to form in the nozzle. At this stage
the value of k is referred to as the critical cavitation number 𝑘𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 .
Determination of critical cavitation point for different nozzles with 𝑃𝑖𝑛
of 30 Mpa is shown in the figure below

• For every orifice nozzle, the corresponding 𝑘𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 value gives the
boundary between cavitating and non-cavitating condition.
• The 𝑘𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 value for VCO was determine in the studies conducted by
Salvador et. al to be around 1.44 to 1.46. This implies that, for a
particular 𝑃𝑖𝑛 and 𝑃𝑏 , if the computed k value is less than 1.44, the
nozzle is in the cavitating condition. However if the value is more than
1.46, the nozzle is considered to be in the non-cavitating condition
To note
The cavitation number for nozzles with regards to the inlet and outlets
pressures are
120
𝑘= = 1.04 (cavitating condition)
120−5

120
𝑘= = 2 (non-cavitating condition)
120−60

Simulation performed for the non-cavitating case, shows no cavitation

in the nozzle orifices throughout the injection process.
Methodology adopted for the study
The approach adopted to achieve the underlined objectives involves
• Experiment
Spray momentum flux
• Numerical
CFD
Experiment
What is Spray momentum flux?
• The spray momentum theorem states that, the spray impact force
measured by a sensor perpendicular to the axial spray direction is
equal to the momentum at the exit of the orifice as long as the target
sensor surface area is larger than the spray impact area.
• From the momentum flux experiment, the mass flowrate at the
orifice outlets could be computed with their corresponding spray
impact forces measured by the piezoelectric sensor.
𝑚ሶ = 𝜌𝑙 𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑜 𝑈𝑡ℎ = 𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑜 2𝜌𝑙 ∆𝑃

2
uth (t )   P(t )


𝐹(𝑡 + 𝜏ሻ
𝐶𝑑 =
2∆𝑃𝐴𝑜

𝐹 𝑡 + 𝜏 = 𝑀ሶ 𝑡 + 𝑀(𝜏
ሶ ൯
• Test rig

Note: results obtained from experiment were used for validating the
authenticity of simulation data from the fluid domain model developed
Numerics
The numerical approach involves
• Model development,
• model meshing and
• Simulation
The SAC and VCO fluid domain models are developed
Model development
As the first stage, the model to be simulated is develop with
measurements from the actual object (in this case injection nozzle).
This can be achieved with softwares such as ProE, AutoCAD, UG etc.
• For the comparative analysis, the fluid domain models developed for
both SAC and VCO with ProE are
Model meshing
• Meshing is the back bone of CFD calculation and has a direct impact on the
solution reliability
• The fluid domains are divided into many smaller regions. The division
process is what is called meshing or discretization
• For each and every simulation, a certain number of elements are required
to adequately capture the flow and thermal characteristics.
• It should be noted that, as the element count increases, so does the solver
run time and hardware requirements (i.e., RAM and hard drive space.
• Therefore for mesh independence, just enough cells (i.e., the mesh quality
is sufficient so that it does not adversely impact the results) are required
for a reliable solution
Mesh sensitivity analysis (mesh
independence) and meshed model
1.004

1.002

1.000
Mass flow rate (g/s)

0.998

0.996

0.994

0.992
100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Cell numbers of mesh (-)
Needle movement

• Needle movement is normaly simulated using moving mesh

technique.
Simulation

• CFD simulation of injection process is achieved with software such as

AVL Fire, Fluent, Openfoam, Kiva etc.
To simulate the dynamics of fluid flow in a nozzle using the CFD
software
• Boundary conditions
• Flow propagation and
• Interaction phenomenon of the fluid domain has to be define.
In AVL Fire, the propagation and interactions of fluid domain can be
define by the selection of appropriate sub model embedded in the
software
Boundary Conditions
• The thermodynamic properties of the fluid (pressure, temperature etc) are
define at the inlet and outlets of the nozzle. These help to define the
interaction between the simulation model and its environment (i.e. how
they are managed and introduced into the environment)
• Valid boundary conditions are critical for good and useful simulations.
For validation purposes
• Conditions under which experiment was carried out are replicated as the in
the CFD domain. After which the results obtain from simulation could be
compared to that of experiment
• In this study, measured pressures at the nozzle inlet were set as the inlet
boundary condition whereas atmospheric pressure was set at the outlets.
Pressure boundary conditions adopted
Inlet pressure (Mpa) Outlet pressure (Mpa)
Validation Measured pressure 0.1
Cavitating condition 120 5
Non-cavitating Condition 120 60

80

70
Nozzle Inlet Pressure / MPa

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Cam Angle / Degree

Flow models
• Fluid flow are generally considered as multiphase flow. That is the flow is
characterize as consisting of more than one phase.
What is multiphase flow?
• A definition by Wallis (1969) states: “A phase is simply one of the states of matter
and can be a gas, a liquid or a solid. Multiphase flow is the simultaneous flow of
several phases.
Two approaches can be used in simulating multiphase flow
• Euler-Euler Approach
The FIRE Eulerian Multiphase Module is based on this approach. In-nozzle flow are
generally simulated with this approach as two phase flow
• Euler-Lagrangian Approach
This approach and is often used for highly dispersed flows (it is implemented in the
FIRE Lagrangian Multiphase (Spray) Module
Eulerian Multiphase Module
• The following models based on the Euler-Euler approach could be
selected in Fire
• Homogeneous (Equilibrium) Model
only a single momentum or enthalpy equation is computed for the
phases in momentum equilibrium. Least accurate model
• Multifluid Model
which by default requires the computation of the complete set of
conservation equations represents the basis for the Euler-Euler scheme
• Volume-of-Fluid (VOF) Free-Surface Model
Conservation equations (multifluid model)
• Mass conservation equation
2
𝜕𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘
+ 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑣𝑘 = ෍ 𝛤𝑘𝑙
𝜕𝑡
𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘
• Momentum conservation equation equals
2 2
𝜕𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑣𝑘
+ 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑣𝑘 𝑣𝑘 = −𝛼𝑘 𝛻𝑝 + 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜏𝑘 + 𝑇𝑘𝑡 + 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑓 + ෍ 𝑀𝑘𝑙 + 𝑉𝑘 ෍ 𝛤𝑘𝑙
𝜕𝑡
𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘 𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘
• Total enthalpy conservation equation equals
𝜕𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑣𝑘
+ 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑣𝑘 ℎ𝑘
𝜕𝑡 2 2
𝜕𝑝
= 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝑞𝑘 + 𝑞𝑘𝑡 + 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑞𝑘′′′ + 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑓 ∙ 𝑣𝑘 + 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜏𝑘 + 𝜏𝑘𝑡 ∙ 𝑣𝑘 + 𝛼𝑘 + ෍ 𝐻𝑘𝑙 + ℎ𝑘 ෍ 𝛤𝑘𝑙
𝜕𝑡
𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘 𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘
• Turbulence kinetic energy equation
𝜕𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑘𝑘
+ 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑣𝑘 𝑘𝑘
𝜕𝑡 2 2
𝑡
𝜇𝑘
= 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜇𝑘 + 𝛻𝑘𝑘 + 𝛼𝑘 P𝑘 − 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝜀𝑘 + ෍ 𝐾𝑘𝑙 + 𝑘𝑘 ෍ 𝛤𝑘𝑙
𝜎𝑘
𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘 𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘
• Turbulence dissipation equation is
𝜕𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝜀𝑘
+ 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜌𝑘 𝑣𝑘 𝜀𝑘
𝜕𝑡 2 2
𝑡
𝜇𝑘 𝜀𝑘 𝜀𝑘2
= 𝛻 ∙ 𝛼𝑘 𝜇𝑘 + 𝛻𝜀𝑘 + ෍ 𝐷𝑘𝑙 + 𝜀𝑘 ෍ 𝛤𝑘𝑙 + 𝛼𝑘 𝐶1 P𝑘 − 𝛼𝑘 𝐶2 𝜌𝑘
𝜎𝑘 𝑘𝑘 𝑘𝑘
𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘 𝑙=1,𝑙≠𝑘
+ 𝛼𝑘 𝐶4 ρ𝑘 𝜀𝑘 𝛻 ∙ 𝑣𝑘
To note
The default turbulence model is the K epsilon two equation model. This
model even though widely used, has be shown in other studies to be
less accurate as compared models especially the Large eddy simulation
(LES) model, the one equation spalart allmaras model in some cases,
etc. Hence other models such as LES, the four equation kzeta_f model,
sparlart allmaras, etc. could be chosen to replicate turbulence within
the fluid domain in AVL Fire.
Turbulence Interaction
The turbulent interaction between the phases define in the multiphase
flow could be modelled by selecting one of this submodels
• Homogenous (General or Bosch methods)
• Two fluid method
These models are used to define how turbulence present in each
phases interacts with one another
Results
• Validation
For the comparative study, validation of the model was performed by
comparing simulated data with experimentally measured data from the
VCO nozzles
1.8 1.8
1.8

Injection rate/(mm CaA )

-1
Injection rate/(mm CaA )

1.6 1.6
-1

1.6

Injection rate/(mm CaA )

-1
Orifice 1 Orifice 2 1.4
1.4 1.4 Orifice 3

3o
3

1.2 3o 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0

Experiment value Experiment value 0.8

0.8 0.8 Experiment value
Simulation value
Simulation value Simulation value
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
o o o
Cam angle/ CaA Cam angle/ CaA Cam angle/ CaA
Error

14.5

3
1.8

Cycle fuel injection quantity/mm

1.8
14.0
Injection rate/(mm CaA )
-1

Injection rate/(mm CaA )

1.6 1.6

-1
Orifice 4 Orifice 5

Relative error/ %
1.4 2
1.4
3o

3o
13.5
1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0
0
Experiment value 13.0
Experiment value 0.8
0.8 Simulation value
Simulation value
0.6 0.6

0.4 12.5 Experiment value -2

0.4
Simulation value
0.2 0.2 relative error
0.0 0.0 12.0 -4
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 1 2 3 4 5
o o
Cam angle/ CaA Cam angle/ CaA Orifice number
3D results
• Surface and orifice exit cavitation phenomenon (cavitating condition) at full needle lift

1 1

5 5

2 2

4 4
VCO 3 SAC
3

The effect of the inclination angle on the VCO is higher than the SAC. This is clearly shown
in their surface cavitation development. Orifice 1 with the least inclination, has the highest
cavitation development while orifices 3 and 4 (with the highest inclination angle) have the
least develop cavitation
The effect of orifice inclination on the SAC surface cavitation is less obvious as
compared to those in the VCO
Hole 1 Hole 2 Hole 3 Hole 4 Hole 5

VCO

SAC

1
While the cavitation formation in the SAC are mainly at the top regions of the
nozzle orifice, those in the VCO are normally in the mid regions of the orifice.
• In-orifice flow velocity
Hole 1 Hole 2 Hole 3 Hole 4 Hole 5

VCO

SAC

Even though high flow velocities are recorded in the VCO than the SAC, the
flow velocities are much more uniform (less gradient) in the SAC than the
VCO
• Similarly, the least inclined orifices have the highest velocities while
the most inclined, have the least.

• Under cavitating condition, in-orifice flow velocity in the VCO is higher

comparatively, which is as a result of the rapid reduction in effective
flow area caused by cavitation formation.
• Under non-cavitating condition, in-orifice flow velocity in the SAC
were higher comparatively
2D results
Effective injection velocity
• Effective injection velocity is the flow velocity at the orifice outlets
computed with the effective flow area. Under cavitating condition,
the effective flow area at the outlet is the non-cavitating area (i.e. the
orifice area – cavitation area)
• Under non-cavitating condition, the effective flow velocity is the
outlet velocity
Cavitating condition
Effective Injection Velocity / ms-1

Effective Injection Velocity / ms-1

400 400

350 350
orifice 1 orifice 1
300 orifice 2 300 orifice 2
orifice 3 orifice 3
250 orifice 4 250 orifice 4
orifice 5 orifice 5
200 200

150 150

100 100
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Cam Angle / oCaA Cam Angle / oCaA

VCO SAC
Non-cavitating condition

300 300

Effective Injection Velocity / ms-1

Effective Injection Velocity / ms-1

250 250

orifice 1
orifice 1 orifice 2
200 orifice 2 200 orifice 3
orifice 3 orifice 4
orifice 4 orifice 5
150 orifice 5 150

100 100
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
o o
Cam Angle / CaA Cam Angle / CaA
VCO SAC
Injection rate
2.5 2.5
Injection rate / (mm3/oCaA)

Injection rate / (mm / CaA)

2.0 2.0

3 o
1.5 1.5 orifice 1
orifice 1 orifice 2
orifice 2 orifice 3
1.0 orifice 3 1.0 orifice 4
orifice 4 orifice 5
orifice 5
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
o
Cam Angle /oCaA Cam Angle / CaA
VCO SAC
Conclusion
• The differences in the rate of cavitation formation and developments are
lesser in the SAC nozzle comparatively and also orifice-to-orifice cavitation
phenomenon within the same nozzle increases with increasing orifice
inclination angle.
• Under cavitating condition, in-orifice flow velocities are higher in VCO
nozzles comparatively however this phenomenon is reversed under non-
cavitating condition
• With relatively less orifice cavitation developments and more uniform flow
velocity distributions through its relatively higher effective flow area, the
SAC has the higher injection rate relatively.
• Orifice inclination angle has an inverse relation with the injection rate,
which is the higher the orifice inclination angle, the lesser the injection rate
Thank you