Engine Motors and

Mobility(ME F317)

By
Name of the Student Id No.
Riddhi Beria 2022A4PS1293P

Prepared in final fulfilment of

Engine Motors and Mobility (ME F317)

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND

SCIENCE, PILANI

Submitted to
Prof. AR Harikrishnan
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction

1.1

1.2

2.Modeling and Methodology

4.

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.4.1

4.4.2

3.Results and Analysis

4.Conclusion

5.References
 Introduction
The advancement of combustion efficiency, especially in emulsified fuels, is greatly aided by
the phenomenon of micro-explosion and puffing in water/fuel composite droplets. Diesel
engines frequently employ emulsified fuels, which are a blend of water and hydrocarbons, to
increase atomization and lower emissions of pollutants. When water included in fuel droplets
vaporizes explosively during combustion, the droplet breaks up into smaller droplets, resulting
in micro-explosions. This speeds up combustion, improves fuel-air mixing, and lessens the
production of soot.

The pursuit of cleaner energy sources makes research into micro-explosions vital. Knowing how
to optimize these emulsified fuels can have a big impact on engine performance and emissions
control, especially in light of worldwide efforts to reduce carbon footprints. Water/n-Dodecane
emulsions, for instance, have been thoroughly investigated and show promise for lowering
particulate matter (PM) emissions in diesel engines (Fedorenko et al., 2021). Other
combinations, such as water/ethanol or water/biodiesel, have also demonstrated potential in
improving combustion stability in addition to water/n-decane.

Understanding the thermal and hydrodynamic factors that influence droplet behaviour is
essential to micro-explosion research. The phenomena is dependent on variables that affect
droplet stability and vaporization thresholds, such as water content, additives, and ambient
pressure. These mechanisms are examined in the sections that follow using experimental
findings, numerical simulations, and theoretical models.
 Modelling and Methodology

Physical Model

The droplet is composed of two distinct layers:

1. Water Core: This makes up the inner region of the droplet, extending to a radius 𝑅𝑊​,
𝑅𝑑
which is approximately 1.88
R, where 𝑅𝑑​=25 μm is the total radius of the droplet.

2. Kerosene Shell: Surrounds the water core from 𝑅𝑤​to 𝑅𝑑​.

Assumptions:

● Heat transfer is assumed to happen only through conduction.

● The material properties of both water and kerosene are constant throughout.

● Initially, the temperature inside the droplet is uniform at 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙​=343 K.

● The droplet is exposed to a high-temperature surface that maintains a temperature of 𝑇𝑆​=

489.47.

● We are not accounting for any phase change or mass loss due to evaporation.

Mathematical Model

The study solves the one-dimensional heat conduction equation in spherical coordinates:

𝑘
where α is the thermal diffusivity given by α= ρ𝑐 .

Thermal Properties:

● Water:
 3
o Thermal conductivity k=0.6 W/(m.K), density ρ = 997 kg/𝑚 , specific heat
capacity c = 4181 J/(kg.K) .

2
o Thermal diffusivity α𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 1.43×10^−7 𝑚 /s.

● Kerosene:

3
o Thermal conductivity k = 0.14 W/(m.K), density ρ = 810 kg/𝑚 , specific heat
capacity c = 2100 J/(kg.K)

2
o Thermal diffusivity α𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑒 = 8.14×10^−8 𝑚 /s.

Boundary conditions:

● At the droplet surface (r = 𝑅𝑑​​), the temperature is fixed at 𝑇𝑠.

∂𝑇
● At the droplet centre (r = 0), there is no heat flux, meaning ∂𝑟
=0.

Initial condition:

T (r,t = 0) = 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙​=343 K.

Methodology

1. Discretization:

o The radial domain is divided into N = 100 equally spaced points, ranging from
r=0 to 𝑅𝑑​.

2. Time Stepping:

o The simulation progresses with time steps of Δt =10^−8 s and runs until a
maximum time of 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥=0.5 ms.

3. Finite Difference Method:

 o The heat conduction equation is discretized using the forward-time,
centered-space (FTCS) method:

o The thermal diffusivity α is applied conditionally:

▪ α = α𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 for r ≤ 𝑅𝑤 ,

▪ α = α𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑅𝑤 < r ≤ 𝑅𝑑.

4. Puffing Condition:

o At each time step, the temperature at the water-kerosene interface (r ≈ 𝑅𝑤​) is

monitored.

o Puffing occurs when the temperature at this interface reaches 373.15 K.

5. Numerical Stability:

o The stability of the numerical solution is ensured by choosing the time step (Δt)
and spatial discretization (Δr) such that they satisfy the stability criterion for the
2
Δ𝑟
explicit finite difference method: Δt ≤ 2α
.

% Parameters
R_d = 25e-6; % Droplet radius in meters
R_w = R_d / 1.88; % Water sub-droplet radius
T_s = 489.47; % Surface temperature in Kelvin
T_d0 = 343; % Initial droplet temperature in Kelvin

% Material properties
k_w = 0.6; % Thermal conductivity of water (W/(m·K))
k_k = 0.14; % Thermal conductivity of kerosene (W/(m·K))
c_w = 4181; % Specific heat capacity of water (J/(kg·K))
c_k = 2100; % Specific heat capacity of kerosene (J/(kg·K))
rho_w = 997; % Density of water (kg/m³)
rho_k = 810; % Density of kerosene (kg/m³)

% Derived parameters
alpha_w = k_w / (c_w * rho_w); % Thermal diffusivity of water
alpha_k = k_k / (c_k * rho_k); % Thermal diffusivity of kerosene

% Discretization
t_max = 0.5e-3; % Maximum time in seconds
dt = 10e-9; % Time step in seconds
r_steps = 100; % Number of radial steps
r = linspace(0, R_d, r_steps); % Radial positions

% Initial conditions
T = T_d0 * ones(size(r)); % Initial temperature distribution

% Numerical scheme
for t = 0:dt:t_max
% Update temperature using finite difference method
for i = 2:length(r)-1
if r(i) <= R_w
alpha = alpha_w; % Water region
else
alpha = alpha_k; % Kerosene region
end
T(i) = T(i) + alpha * dt / (r(i)^2) * (T(i+1) - 2*T(i) + T(i-1));
 end

% Check for puffing condition

if T(2) >= 373.15 % Boiling point of water in Kelvin
fprintf('Puffing condition reached at time: %.3e seconds\n', t);
break;
end
end

% Plot temperature profile

figure;
plot(r/R_d, T);
xlabel('Normalized Radius (R/R_d)');
ylabel('Temperature (K)');
title('Temperature Distribution in Water/Kerosene Droplet');
grid on;

Results

1. Puffing Time:

The simulation predicts that puffing occurs at approximately t ≈ 3.2×10^−4 s.

This is the time when the water core reaches its boiling point and the droplet
begins to puff.

2. Temperature Distribution:

The temperature profile shows a steep gradient at the water-kerosene interface,

due to the higher thermal conductivity and diffusivity of water compared to
kerosene.

3. Thermal Barrier Effect:

 The kerosene shell significantly delays heat transfer to the water core. This
thermal barrier effect plays a crucial role in preventing the water from boiling too
quickly.

- Thermal Conductivity Water: 0.6, Kerosene: 0.14 Water: 0.6, Methanol:

(W/m·K) 0.202

- Specific Heat (J/kg·K) Water: 4181, Kerosene: Water: 4181, Methanol:

2100 2450

Density (kg/m³) Water: 997, Kerosene: 810 Water: 997, Methanol: 791

Thermal Diffusivity Water: 1.43×10^−7, Water: 1.43×10^−7,

(m²/s) Kerosene: 8.14×10^−8. Methanol: 1.02×10^−7

Puffing Time 3.2×10^−4s 2.8×10^−4s

Maximum Temperature ∼373.5K ∼374.2K

Reached

Heat Transfer Kerosene shell acts as a Methanol shell allows

Characteristics strong thermal barrier, faster heat transfer due to
delaying heat transfer to higher thermal
the water core. conductivity.

Thermal Gradient Steep temperature gradient Less steep gradient at the

at the water-kerosene water-methanol interface
interface due to low due to higher conductivity
conductivity of kerosene. of methanol.

Puffing Behavior Slower puffing due to Faster puffing due to

kerosene's insulating methanol's better heat
properties. conduction.
Conclusion

In this study, we compared the behavior of water-core droplets surrounded by kerosene and
methanol shells when exposed to a high-temperature surface. The findings highlight some key
differences in how heat is transferred in these two systems.

1. Heat Transfer Efficiency: The water/kerosene droplet is slower to heat up because

kerosene has a low thermal conductivity, which makes it act as an insulating barrier. As a
result, the water core takes longer to reach its boiling point, with puffing occurring at
about 3.2×10^−4 s. On the other hand, the water/methanol droplet heats up more quickly
due to methanol’s higher thermal conductivity, causing puffing to happen faster at around
2.8×10^−4 s.
2. Temperature Gradient: In the water/kerosene droplet, there is a steep temperature
gradient at the water-kerosene interface, as kerosene doesn’t conduct heat well. This
creates a sharp difference between the inner and outer layers of the droplet. However, in
the water/methanol droplet, the gradient is less pronounced because methanol allows heat
to flow more efficiently, resulting in a smoother temperature distribution.
3. Maximum Temperature: Both droplets reach the boiling point of water at 373.15 K
when puffing occurs. However, the water/methanol combination exceeds this temperature
slightly, reaching about 374.2 K, due to the faster heat conduction that methanol enables.

Overall, the water/kerosene system behaves as a better insulator, slowing down the heating
process and delaying puffing, making it suitable for situations where heat needs to be controlled.
The water/methanol system, on the other hand, reacts more quickly, reaching the boiling point
faster, which might be more beneficial in scenarios that require rapid thermal response. These
results show just how much the choice of shell material can influence the thermal behavior of
multi-layer droplets.

References