The use of Large-eddy Simulations (LES) has increased due to their ability to resolve the turbulent fluctuations of engine flows and capture the resulting cycle-to-cycle variability. One drawback of LES, however, is the requirement to run multiple engine cycles to obtain the necessary cycle statistics for full validation. The standard method to obtain the cycles by running a single simulation through many engine cycles sequentially can take a long time to complete. Recently, a new strategy has been proposed by our research group to reduce the amount of time necessary to simulate the many engine cycles by running individual engine cycle simulations in parallel. With modern large computing systems this has the potential to reduce the amount of time necessary for a full set of simulated engine cycles to finish by up to an order of magnitude. In this paper, the Parallel Perturbation Methodology (PPM) is used to simulate up to 35 engine cycles of an optically accessible, pent-roof Direct-injection Spark-ignition (DISI) engine at two different motored engine operating conditions, one throttled and one un-throttled. Comparisons are made against corresponding sequential-cycle simulations to verify the similarity of results using either methodology. Mean results from the PPM approach are very similar to sequential-cycle results with less than 0.5% difference in pressure and a magnitude structure index (MSI) of 0.95. Differences in cycle-to-cycle variability (CCV) predictions are larger, but close to the statistical uncertainty in the measurement for the number of cycles simulated. PPM LES results were also compared against experimental data. Mean quantities such as pressure or mean velocities were typically matched to within 5–10%. Pressure CCVs were under-predicted, mostly due to the lack of any perturbations in the pressure boundary conditions between cycles. Velocity CCVs for the simulations had the same average magnitude as experiments, but the experimental data showed greater spatial variation in the root-mean-square (RMS). Conversely, circular standard deviation results showed greater repeatability of the flow directionality and swirl vortex positioning than the simulations.

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.