Nozzle flow cfd simulations

© All Rights Reserved

3 views

Nozzle flow cfd simulations

© All Rights Reserved

- Heat Exchanger
- Flow Regulation in Penstock
- SUNTOYO-Characteristics of turbulent boundary layers over a rough bed under saw-tooth waves and its application to sediment transport
- Non-Newtonian Fluid Flow Through Concentric Annuli
- USE OF VIRTUAL INSTRUMENTATION AND COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS IN AN UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PROJECT
- wind engineering
- Turb
- 10.0 Innovative Turbulence Modeling_ SST Model in ANSYS CFX
- Gas Natural Transmision
- 15017030
- 2011 Hydrodynamics of an FCC Riser Using Energy Minimization Multiscale Drag Model
- Fem
- Turbulence Nutshell Slides
- 2011_Liao_a
- lmecn200601_rev4
- Week 3_Chapter_ Fluid Dynamics
- AGARD445 Workshop
- 10. Advanced Turbulence Modelling
- Muy Bueno Este Este 012
- OTC-27417-MS

You are on page 1of 9

IMECE2013

November 15-21, 2013, San Diego, California, USA

IMECE2013-65627

SWIRL ATOMIZER USING DIFFERENT TURBULENT MODELS AND TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE

INLET WEBER NUMBER

Florida International University Florida International University

Applied Research Center Applied Research Center

Miami, Florida, 33174, USA Miami, Florida, 33174, USA

aabba003@fiu.edu gokaltun@fiu.edu

Shahla Eshraghi

Payame Noor University of Tehran

Dept. of Biological Science

Tehran, Iran

Sh.eshraghi@gmail.com

VOF Multiphase model is used to simulate the flow inside a f Drag force

pressure-swirl-atomizer. The capability of the Reynolds Stress H Heavy side function

Model and variants of the K- and K- models in modeling of h Width of the computational cell

turbulence has been investigated in the commercial K Turbulent kinetic energy

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software FLUENT 6.3. L Film thickness

The Implicit scheme available in the volume-of-fluid (VOF) m1 First component of normal vector

model is used to calculate the interface representation between m2 Second component of normal vector

phases. The atomization characteristics have been investigated m& Mass flow rate

as well as the influence of the inlet swirl strength of the internal Dynamic molecular viscosity

flow. The numerical results have been successfully validated eff Effective viscosity

against experimental data available for the computed m Mean viscosity

parameters. The performance of the RNG K- model was found n interface normal vector

to be satisfactory in reducing the computational cost and Density

introducing an effective Weber number for the flow simulated P Pressure

in this study. Q Volumetric flow rate

r or R Radius

Surface tension

t Inlet slot thickness/ Film thickness/Time

NOMENCLATURE tf Film thickness (at orifice exit)

A Cross-section area VOF integral time increment

Scalar Volume Fraction spray angle u' Fluctuating velocity component

b Line constant in Geo-Reconstruction Scheme u /V Mean Velocity -Volume of computational cell

C1

C2

Constant in equation of the RNG K- model

Constant in equation of the RNG K- model

v Fluctuating velocity component

' Ratio of viscosities used in RNG K- model

Dc Discharge coefficient

Cv Coefficient in RNG K- model = Mean rate of rotation tensor [s-1]

d diameter = Specific dissipation rate [s-1]

x Special dimension Inlet Inlet

(a)

swirler section

SUBSCRIPTS A A dp

Air Core

Vortex

A Acceptor

Ls Ds

D Donor ,U

l liquid swirl

chamber

orr orifice x,Ux section r,Ur

p Inlet port- Primary phase

a Air

r Radial direction Lo

exit

do orifice Lp

sw Swirl Chamber section View A-A

t Tangential Direction - turbulent

Tangential Direction

z Axial Direction Thin, hollow, conical liquid sheet

1 Original condition (3-D)

2 Equivalent condition (2-D) (b)

INTRODUCTION

Pressure swirl atomizers are widely in use because of their ability

to produce fine sprays in a process commenced by liquid sheet

break up. Formation of the very hollow cone sheet of liquid is a

result of swirling motion of fluid inside the swirl chamber and the

orifice of the atomizer which is referred to as the internal nozzle

flow [1,2]. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the swirling motion will Figure 1: Internal Nozzle Flow shown in a 2-D Schematic (a)

account for the formation of an air core inside the atomizer in a and Image of the Flow by Ma [2] (b).

central negative pressure region. The boundary between the liquid

turbulence model instead of laminar flow stipulation

and the surrounding gas (interface) has been studied by many

Some researchers made useful comparisons between

researchers such as Rizk and Lefevbre [3], Ashraf and Miliand [4]

laminar and turbulent flow modeling to get deeper

and Nonnenmacher and Piesche [5].

understanding of the nature of the flow they were dealing with

Location of this interface at the tip of the nozzle orifice and in and investigated the performance of existing models. Hansen et

the ambient gas is an indicator of the liquid film thickness and al [10] used Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and laminar model

primary spray cone angle respectively. Another indicator or spray in conjunction with the VOF and the Eulerian multiphase

parameter related to the performance of atomizers is the discharge models for a three-dimensional simulation and concluded that

coefficient, which is a measure of the resistance to flow due to laminar-VOF was the best combination in terms of

existence of air core and frictional losses along the nozzle. Simplex computational time and accuracy. History and detailed

atomizers are expected to possess low discharge coefficients due to description of VOF model and different tracking schemes could

the presence of the air core within the nozzle [6]. be found in publications of Hirt & Nichols[11], Rider and

To date, valuable numerical works have relied on various Kothe [12], Gueyffier et al. [13] and Gorokhovski and

models and techniques to successfully capture a sharp and accurate Herrmann [14].

interface and evaluate the dependency of spray parameters on Numerous discussions could be found in the literature about

boundary conditions such as inlet pressure and swirl strength. In methods and algorithms of capturing the interface between fluids

fact, existence of features like turbulence and interface between in different phases. Simpler schemes such as the Implicit or the

phases complicate the modeling of this type of flow to a great Euler-Explicit method available with the VOF model received

extent. Nonnenmacher and Piesche [5] and Chu et al. [7] used a attention from researchers such as Yeh [15] who presented closely

sophisticated analytical-numerical approach for laminar flow to matching results for a set of turbulent models. Simplicity stems

solve for the film thickness, velocity profile and some other from the fact that such schemes rely fundamentally on an

parameters. Mandal et al [8] used the laminar flow assumption in averaging process and hence fail to represent sudden jumps for

their numerical study to extend their simulation from Newtonian to variables like density and viscosity. An unfortunate consequence

Non-Newtonian fluids. A similar study was conducted by Xue [9] of this approach is smearing of the interface according to Hirt &

who improved the modeling through the use of a sophisticated Nichols [11]. Besides this, such simple schemes allow for

turbulence model instead of laminar flow stipulation. unbounded diffusion of the scalar volume fraction (). Thus, a

sensitive study of flow variables in a region surrounding the First three equations are conservation of mass, kinetic

interface and specifically capturing the sharpness of the interface energy, and angular momentum respectively and Eqs. 4 and 5

requires significantly high grid resolution near the predicted are used to find the radial components of velocity and thickness

interface compared to other regions in the domain. In contrast, of annular inlet respectively. In these equations, m 1 ,Vin , Vr, Vt

other available schemes such as the Geometric-Reconstruction and Rsw, Rp, t and l represent the mass flow rate, inlet velocity and

Donor-Acceptor methods perform additional steps in order to limit its radial, and tangential components, radius of the swirl

diffusion of the scalar and thus enhance sharpness of the interface chamber, radius and thickness of the equivalent 2-D inlet port,

appreciably, Madsen et al. [16]. and density of the liquid respectively. Data from experiment of

However, despite this ability, prevention of diffusion in some Ma [2] and Eqs.1-5 have been used in construction of mass

regions away from the interface may result in creation of void flow rate and velocity boundary conditions in parts I and II of

regions with zero volume fraction of one of phases- called Flotsam the present study respectively. Table 1 illustrates results of the

,Noh and Woodward [17]. The situation is more sensitive in above calculations based on which a 2-D computational domain

locations where high vorticity is present or sharp gradients of the has been constructed and displayed by Fig. 2.

volume fraction variable exist [17]. Ashraf and Miliand [4],

Hansen et al. [10] and Medsen et. al. [16] are amongst the 16.5

Inlet port (width=3.2 mm)

researchers who used the Geometric-Reconstruction scheme in 23.6

their modeling. Mandal et al.[8] and Madsen et al. [16] used

adaptive mesh refinement technique in their numerical modeling

38

while this technique was absent in the work of researchers such as 16.9

Hansen et al.[10] and Yeh [15]. Ambient

38 Swirl chamber Convergence Chamber

Review of the literature reveals that still a serious attempt Section

38

towards introduction of a stable, accurate and cost effective

turbulence model and determination of influence of surface tension 14.4 Exit Orifice

on numerical study of this particular type of the flow is needed. As

a solution, in the present study, performances of six models

including some variants of K- and K- and RSM models in 95

representing the flow properties, interface quality (sharpness) and

computational effort have been compared. Further, the nominated Figure 2: Equivalent 2-D Computational Domain Used In

Simulation (Units In Millimeters)

turbulence model has been used to investigate the influence of

surface tension in using the Constant Surface Tension Force model

for various inlet velocities. Finally, a threshold Weber number

corresponding to a threshold inlet velocity has been introduced. Table 1: Boundary Conditions Used In Simulation Of The

Original Flow

m V1=V2 Vt2 Vr2 t Inlet area Orifice area

METHODOLOGY Kg/sec m/sec m/sec m/sec mm mm2 mm2

The computational domain in this study is simplified to a 2-D 0.95 2.34 2.01 1.21 3.2 406 651

axisymmetric domain to reduce the computational effort (Figs.

2,3). This simplification is in accord with the work of Ashraf and

Miliand [4] and Nonnenmacher and Piesche [5]. In order to In the present study, implicit scheme is used for verification of

maintain similarity between the real flow and the simplified case simulation results in the first step. For this scheme, two grids with

(annular inlet), the following set of equations has to be considered: 7641 and 24087 quadrilateral elements are used (Fig. 3) to ensure

about grid-independence of results. Finer grid size in this

simulation was wisely selected to a size close to the grid size

m 1 = m 2 , (1) used by [8] who concluded that 26682 grid cells was

sufficiently fine to obtain valid numerical results for the same

Vin1 2 = Vin2 2 ,

1 1 flow geometry. Though, the grid was constructed in such a way

(2)

2 2 to avoid heavy and unnecessary computational load based on the

Vin1 Rsw -Rp =Vt2 .Rsw ,

fact that grid was refined in one step and only in zones where

(3)

interface between phases was expected to happen in the domain.

0.5

(4) Next, adaptive grid refinement technique has been used to attain a

Vr2 = (V2 2 -Vt2 2 ) ,

sharp interface between phases along the nozzle. Comparison with

m 2

t = ,

experimental data is performed in each step during refinement and

Rsw 2 l Vr2 (5) numerical results are carefully observed for verification of

numerical modeling. Later, the capability of Adaptive Mesh

Refinement Technique in generation of a sharp interface between

Pressure outlets

Inlet

Wall

Orifice wall

Axis of symmetry

Figure 3: Computational Domain With (a) 7641 Cells And (b) 24087 Cells

Vz Vr Vr

Addition of surface tension force to the numerical modeling in + + =0 (6)

the second part of the paper will constitute the strategy of the z r r

authors towards achieving the second objective of the present

paper. In short, comparison between results obtained from set of Vz V 2V V V (rVz) P Vz

t z

simulations with boundary conditions used in the first part (original +Vz z + r z + r =- +2 ( )

r r r z z eff z

flow) and lower inlet velocities in presence and absence of the CSF

r

model has be performed in the second part of the present paper. Vr Vz

Noteworthy, the inlet static pressure has been the fundamental rr z r (7)

criteria for our comparisons as an indication of resistance to flow

Vr Vr V 2 Vr rVr P

due to existence of volumetric force introduced by the CSF model.

Vz -

t z r r r r

Assumptions of incompressibility for both phases and

isothermal flow are applied to all simulations presented in the

present study. At the inlet, a uniform velocity profile is assumed 1 Vr Vr Vr Vz

and turbulence parameters of K=0.03(Uin2) and =K1.5/(0.005Dsw) + eff ( (r )- )+ (eff ( + )) (8)

r r r r z z r

are applied [15]. The chamber attached to the orifice is initially

filled with air at atmospheric pressure. Implementation of RNG K-

V V (rV Vr V 1 (rV V

= - !"

turbulence model and PRESTO! pressure interpolation scheme

r

are to commensurate with highly swirling nature of the present ( +Vz +V + (9)

t z rr r r r

flow [19]. The SIMPLE algorithm is chosen for pressure-velocity

coupling while momentum, volume fraction, and all other flow

variables are discretized using the second order accurate scheme Equations 6 to 9 are conservation of mass and momentum

for attaining higher accuracy in modeling. (in axial, radial, and tangential directions respectively) for a

turbulent swirling flow. Here z, r, and represent axial, radial,

and tangential directions respectively. In the turbulent part,

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION closure is obtained through the RNG K- model represented by

transport of K and as [19]

Conservation of Mass, Momentum, and Turbulence

Modeling

[# ]+(-ui uj)

(K) K uj

For an axisymmetric flow, gradient of variables with respect

xj $ eff. xj

+ (K Vi) = - (10)

to circumferential direction is zero, Therefore, equations of t xj xj

fluid motion will simplify to [18] :

flux of scalar displayed by Eq. 14 [19]

]+

()

+ ( Vi ) = [ eff.

t xj xj xj

2

&-u iuj ( -C2 *

Vj p n+1 -p n

C1

K xi K (11) + - p,f n+1 Vf n+1 = 0 (14)

t

Where +++++

)* )* is the Reynolds stress term and k and p are Here, p represents volume fraction at cell centroid of the

inverse effective Prandtle numbers for k and respectively. computational cell while variables p,f and Vf are calculated at face

Default values of the k and p (k=p=1.393) has been used in centroids surrounding the very computational cell respectively.

the present work [19].

The model finds the effective viscosity ( eff. tur lam. )

through the following expression for quantity which is the Continuum Surface Tension Force (CSF) and Weber

ratio between effective turbulent viscosity and molecular Number

dynamic viscosity [19] In the CSF model, surface tension is represented by a

volumetric force calculated from the curvature of interface at

any instant of time and divergence of scalar volume fraction

2 k

d( )=1.72 (12)

3 -1+Cv

0.5 0.5

ki i

( )

Fv = ij (15)

0.5(i +j )

Here , , , K are density, dissipation rate, viscosity, and the

kinetic energy of turbulence respectively. Default value of 100

has been chosen for Cv as the model constant in the present Where k is curvature of the interface (=. n/ ), and n/ is the

paper [19]. normalized normal vector ( n=q ). Finally Weber number for

film defined based on the film thickness and average velocity

of the film at the orifice is introduced. This number is defined

as the ratio of inertia to surface tension for a droplet and

Multiphase Flow Modeling smaller ranges of Weber number indicate higher level of

In the VOF multiphase model, presence of phases is influence of surface tension on flow properties and interface

recognized through the scalar phase volume fraction (). This shape evolution. This number is defined as [ 21]

scalar varies from zero (full of the secondary phase) to one (full of

the primary phase) in each computational cell. Through this l U1234 L (16)

scalar, variables density and viscosity are averaged in the model Wfilm =

(avg = + g (1-) and avg = + g (1-) ). The model is

primarily concerned with continuity equation of scalar volume

fraction [19,20] Where , Ufilm, L and are the density of liquid, average

velocity and thickness of the liquid film at the exit of orifice ,

and surface tension between air and water respectively.

(p p ) (p p Vi )

+ =0 (13)

t xj Discharge Coefficient

Finally discharge coefficient is introduced as a flow

parameter used to compare the actual flow rate to the

Here, p , p , and V represent density, volume fraction, and

theoretical ideal flow rate. In our study, pressure difference is

velocity of the liquid phase in the computational domain. computed by the software and calculation of this parameter is

based on Eq. 22 introduced by Heywood [22]

Interface Calculation 5678.

Cd =

(Ao :2P/)

(17)

Implicit Schemes

Interface in the VOF model is represented by means of the

scalar volume fraction. Available schemes in the VOF model Here Qact, Ao, P, and are actual flow rate from the

control derivation of Eq. 13. The simple Implicit scheme experiment, cross section of orifice, pressure drop along the

discretize the Eq. 13 without setting any limitation on diffusion nozzle computed by Fluent and density of the liquid phase.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The same problem was observed with the STD K- model

as despite the modifications imposed by the model on the low

modification

Part I : In this onsimulation

viscosity as needed for moderate-to-

was expected, the Standard highly

and Reynolds regions, the high rate of shear on the interface

swirling flowsK-

Realizable in Standard

models and wereRealizable

initially models.

able to capture the became finally source of instability in numerical simulation.

The same

interface problem

between was and

phases observed with the

ultimately STD K-

diverged. model

The result However, the difference with the formerly failed models is that

.Even though the model imposes some modifications

was similar to report of Hansen et al., 2002 [10] and failure on theof divergence of modeling happened once the interface was

low

the Reynolds

models was regions, the high rate

commenced onceofthe shear on the interface

turbulent viscosity established inside the domain and static pressure at inlet was

became

started finally source

to escalate of instability

unboundedly in ain region

numerical

insidesimulation

the swirl. acceptably close to experimental values. For this reason,

However

chamber. the difference

Basically with vorticity

excessive the earlier models

on the outerwasedgethat

of modeling was not repeated for the fine grid.

divergence of modeling happened once

interface inside swirl chamber deformed the film inwardlythe interface wasas Simulation results for successful turbulence models on two

established

illustrated inside the domain

by Figure 4 andand static pressure

destructive at inlet was

destabilization of grid sizes 7641 and 24807 (Figure 3) are summarized in Tab. 2

acceptably close to caused

numerical solution experimental

divergence values.

in ourFor this reason,

simulation. The of this report. Table 2 shows maximum deviation of 10 percent

modeling was not before

event occurred repeated for the secondofgrid.

establishment the interface in the between simulation results for both course and fine grids from

Simulation

domain as the results

pressure foratsuccessful turbulence models

inlet was approaching to targetonvalue

two the available experimental data. Surprisingly, the obtained

grid sizes 7641 and 24807 (Figure 3) are summarized

from the experiment. The problem with modeling was absence Tab. 2 of results do not highlight performance of any of the models

this report. Table 2 shows maximum deviation

of modification on viscosity needed for moderate-to-highly of 10 percent included in the table. Hence, history of recorded results i.e inlet

between

swirlingsimulation results and

flows in standard for both coursemodels.

Realizable and fine grids from static pressure has been used to compare the performance of the

available experimental data. Surprisingly the obtained results

do not highlight performance of any of the models included in

the table. Hence history of recorded results i.e inlet static

pressure has been used to compare performance of the models

in terms of computational preferability. As Fig. 5 illustrates,

The RNG K- model converges to steady state solution within

the smallest number of computational iterations and

experiencing a robust and stable course of computation. In

comparison, the STD K- model experiences few oscillations

but the model experiences divergence before converging to an

steady stare solution.

In the case of the RSM model, there has been a trade -off

between appreciable stability of the solution and comparably

heavier computational burden needed to reach a steady state

Figure 4: Contour of Volume Fraction for Air, Failure of the standard K-; model

solution.

Inlet Static Pressure (Psi)

Inlet Static Pressure (Psi)

(1) (2)

Inlet Static Pressure (Psi)

(3) (4)

Figure 5: History of Inlet Static Pressure, (1) RNG K-, (2) STD K-, (3) SST K-, (4) RSM Models

Table 2: Simulation Results with Different Tracking Schemes- RNG K- Model, Experimental Data from Ma [2]

Milind [4] Ma [2]

model RNG K- RSM STD K- SST K- RNG K- RSM SST K- RSM -

Pin (Pas) 22651 21085 22134 21180 22440 21100 20765 20368 24199

Dc 0.206 0.215 0.209 0.214 0.208 0.215 0.215 0.218 0.2

< 76o 76o 74o 73o 76o 77o 73o 75.75o 76.9

tf (mm) 3.4 3.26 3.4 3.54 3.3 3.2 3.47 3.02 3.06

models in terms of computational preferability. Tablel 3 illustrates sligthly higher pressure in presence of

As Fig. 5 illustrates, The RNG K- model converges to this force in steady-state simulation results. To our surprise, no

steady state solution within the smallest number of remarkable difference has been observed between other

computational iterations (almost 30,000 iterations) and properties of the flow listed in Tab. 3. This result has

experiences a robust and stable course of computation. In encouraged the authors to investigate the influence of surface

comparison, the STD K- model in diagram (2) experiences tension under lower inlet velocities towards an effective Weber

few oscillations but the model experiences divergence before number further on this study. In this regard, the inlet velocity

converging to a steady state solution. has been reduced successively from 2.34 m/sec to 1.5, 1, 0.5

Similarly, growing instability in computation using SST K- and 0.25 m/sec. The results of the simulation for the first 200

is discernible from the diagram (3) in fig. 5. Divergence of time steps are available in Fig. 8.

the numerical modeling despite early obtained and appreciably

maintained stability in simulation for large number of time

steps was a result of unbounded increase of turbulent viscosity Itr. No. = 30,000 Itr. No. = 72,340 Itr. No. = 79,000

growing on the interface in the regions of the domain where

continuously refined grid cells were located.

Finally, in the case of the RSM model, there has been a

trade -off between appreciable stability of the simulation and

comparably heavier computational burden needed to reach a steady

state solution.

Qualitative representation of simulation results with the (a) 3.4 mm (b) 3.3 mm (c)

nominated model, RNG K-, is illustrated in figure 6 of this

paper. In this figure, contour of volume fraction of air displays

the regions of the domain completely filled by air in red and 0 1

degree of sharpness of color gradient from red to blue Figure 6: Contours of volume fraction with RNG k- model

(emptiness of air) manifests quality of interface representation (a) 7641 (b) 24807 and (c) 18653 grids cell

along the interface. Thereby significant improvement in quality

of interface has been resulted through both approaches of

refinement. Surprisingly, substantially better quality

improvement has been observed through the more efficient SIMULATION OF ORIGINAL FLOW,

PRESSURE-ITERATION

adaptive refinement of the mesh in diagram (c). However 25000

though, despite the fact that remarkably less number of grid

cells are participating in representing the sharper interface 20000

compared to diagram (b), this quality improvement is offset by

Pressure (Pa)

15000

dramatic increase of computational burden up to almost 79,000

no CSF

number of iterations illustrated in Fig. 6. 10000 with CSF

tension in modeling, time dependent simulation was repeated

with the same boundary conditions mentioned in Table 1 and 0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

this time with inclusion of surface tension force. Figure 7

Iteration

displays very close simulation results for both moldings

reaching the steady-state solution. Analysis of the results in Fig. Figure 7: (a) History Of Inlet Static Pressure, simulation

7 and Tab. 3 shows maximum deviation of 0.7 percent between with and without CSF models, RNG k- model, steady state

pressure curves for the entire length of simulation. solution after 30000 iterations, inlet velocity =2.34m/s

Table 3: Steady-State Simulation Results For The Original Static Pressure At Inlet For Vin=1.5 m/sec

Flow (Inlet Velocity=2.34 m/sec) 1000

CSF inclusion No Yes Experiment 0 40 Time step 80 120 160 200

800

Inlet static pressure 22486 22653 22374 (a)

Pressure (Pa)

Discharge coefficient 0.2184 0.2167 0.218 600

Spray angle 76o 76o 77o Weber No= 444

400

Film Thickness (mm) 3.2 3.2 3.06 no CSF (I) no CSF (T)

200 with CSF (I) with CSF (T)

Iteration

The immediate observation from Fig. 8 is that inclusion of 0

CSF model becomes influential within the first few time steps 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

of simulation in plots (a) to (d). In fact, interaction of the

surface tension force with high curvature of the interface in

Static Pressure At Inlet For Vin=1 m/sec

circulation region in vicinity of the inlet port has led to 250

significantly higher inlet static pressure reported in each plot. 0 40 80 120 160 200

Besides, ascending difference between curves in successive plots Time step

200

at the same flow time (labeled as with/no CSF (T)) indicates a (b)

Pressure(Pa)

growing influence of the surface tension by reduction of the inlet 150

Weber No= 204

velocity in simulation. Indeed, higher curvature of interface under

lower inlet velocities has led to existence of stronger surface 100

tension force in this circulation region (Eq. 15). As a consequence no CSF (I) no CSF (T)

of this higher resistance to the flow, higher static pressure in the 50 with CSF (I) with CSF (T)

inlet port has been reported compared to situations without Iteration

presence of surface tension during the simulation. 0

Further comparison between plots a, b, c and d reveals a 0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000

trend of ascending difference between final iteration numbers

of the curves labeled with/no CSF (I) in successive plots. Static Pressure At Inlet For Vin=0.5 m/sec

This difference grows from 200 iterations in plot b to 900 75

0 40 80 120 160 200

iterations in plot c and 1800 in plot d. In fact, this growing 60 Time step

difference is not only indicative of higher convergence rate in (c)

each time step with presence of surface tension in modeling but 45

Pressure (Pa)

also increase of the convergence rates with reduction of inlet Weber No= 52.2

velocity. Again similar to the trend observed in previous 30

discussion, onset of the later trend has occurred with the inlet no CFS (I) no CSF (T)

15 with CSF (I) with CSF (T)

velocity of 1 m/sec which could be introduced as a threshold

inlet velocity for recognition of an influential surface tension 0 Iteration

force in our simulation. 0 900 1800 2700 3600 4500

Constant value of 0.072 N/m represents surface tension of

water in calculation of Weber number for each case in equation

16. This number is 1240 for the original flow and 444, 204, Static Pressure At Inlet For Vin=0.25 m/sec

40

52.2 and 12.2 for inlet velocities of 1.5, 1, 0.5 and 0.25 m/sec 0 40 80 120 160 200

respectively. Data for calculation of Weber numbers is (d) Time step Pressure (Pa)

illustrated on each corresponding plot in Fig. 8. Observation of 30

Weber No= 12.2

these trends reveal that inclusion of CSF model is important for

inlet velocities less than 1 m/s which leads to introduction of a 20

threshold Weber number of 204 associated with this inlet

velocity. 10

no CFS (I) no CSF(T)

with CFS (I) with CSF (T)

0

CONCLUSION REMARKS 0 1100 2200 3300 4400 5500

The VOF model has been introduced to 6 turbulence models Iteration

through the implicit scheme and performance of each model

Figure 8: History Of Inlet Static Pressure For Different Inlet

was successfully investigated in this study. Two out of six velocity Magnitudes: (a) Full Simulation (I) Refers To

models- Standard and Realizable K- - failed to capture a well- Iteration and (T) Refers To Time Step

established liquid film inside and outside the atomizer and [10] Hansen, K. G., Madsen, J., Trinh, C. M., Ibsen, C. H., Solberg, T.,

ended up in divergence. Surprisingly, while the STD K- was and Hjertager, B. H., (2002), "A Computational and Experimental

Study of the Internal Flow in a Scaled Pressure-Swirl Atomizer,"

initially successful to represent a well-established interface

ILASS-Europe, Zaragoza 9-11 September 2002.

inside and outside the orifice, the model eventually faced [11] Hirt, C. W., and Nichols, B. D., (1981), "Volume of Fluid (VOF)

divergence. The RNG K-, SST K- and RSM models could Method for the Dynamics of Free Boundaries" Journal of

successfully predict the interface between phases and produce Computational Physics, DOI: 0021.9991/81/010201-25302.00/O.

admissibly close-to-experiment results for large number of time (39), 201-225.

steps. In this study the RNG K- model outperforms other [12] Rider, W.J., and Kothe, D.B., (1998), "Reconstructing Volume

models in terms of stability, lower computational effort and, Tracking," Journal of Computational Physics, 141, 112152.

Article NO. CP985906.

admissible accuracy.

[13] Gueyffier, D., Li, J., Nadim, A., Scardovelli, R.., and Zaleski, S.,

Furthermore, it is concluded that in modeling of the present (1999), "Volume-of-Fluid Interface Tracking with Smoothed

flow, surface tension force plays important role for Weber Surface Stress Methods for Three-Dimensional Flows," Journal of

numbers smaller than 204. This force is responsible for Computational Physics, ID: jcph.1998.6168, 152, 423456.

acceleration of convergence and increase of the inlet static [14] Gorokhovski, M., and Herrmann, M., (2008), "Modeling Primary

pressure. Atomization , Annual Review Fluid Mechanics," 2008, 40:343-

366. DOI : 10.1146/annurev.fluid.40.111406.102200.

[15] Yeh, C., (2007), "Turbulent Flow Simulation of Liquid Jet

Emanating from Pressure-Swirl Atomizer," Journal of Heat and

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Mass Transfer, Springer-Verlag 2007, DOI: 10.1007/s00231-007-

This work was possible through invaluable help and support 0237-8.

from the Applied Research Center of the Florida International [16] Madsen , J., Hjertager, B. H., Solberg, T., (2004), "Numerical

University, Professor George Dulikravich from the FIU Simulation of Internal Flow in a Large-Scale Pressure-Swirl

MAIDROC laboratory, the Automotive Development Center Atomizer," Aalborg University Esbjerg, ILASS-Europe 2004,

Nottingham, UK, 6th 8th September.

and Aeronautic Laboratory of the Technological University of

[17] Noh, W. F., and Woodward, P. R., (1976), "SLIC (Simple Line

Malaysia. Authors also appreciate the support from the Interface Method)," A. I. van de Vooren and P. J. Zandbergen

Professors Amer Nordin Darus and Azhar bin Dato Abdul Editors of Lecture Notes in Phys.(Vol. 59, p. 330), Berlin/New

Aziz from Technological University of Malaysia. York, Springer-Verlag

[18] Sonin, A. A., 2001, Advanced Fluid Dynamics, 8th edition,

REFERENCES Chap. 2.

[1] Mas, F., (2007), "Development of a Direct Fuel Injector For a [19] FLUENT 6.3 User's Guide, Fluent Inc. 2006

Two-Stroke Gasoline Engine," M.S. thesis, Technological [20] Gidaspow, D., (1994), "Multiphase Flow and Fluidization-

University of Malaysia Continuum and Kinetic Theory Description," Academic Press

[2] Ma, Z., (2002), "Investigation on The Internal Flow Characteristics New York.

Of Pressure Swirl Atomizers," Ph.D. dissertation, University of [21] Tsao, J. C., Kreeger, R. E., Feo, A., (2009), "Evaluation of the

Cincinnati, Water Film Weber Number in Glaze Icing Scaling," NASA/TM

[3] Rizk, N. K., and Lefebvre, A. H., (1984), "Internal Flow 2010-216101AIAA20094129.

Characteristics of Simplex Swirl Atomizers," AIAA. 22nd [22] Heywood, J. B., (1988), " Internal Combustion Engine

Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 9-12, Reno, Nevada, ID: 84- Fundamentals," New York: McGraw Hill, Inc

0124.

[4] Ashraf, A. I., and Milind A. J., (2007), "Non-Linear Break-Up

Model For a Liquid Sheet Emanating From a Simplex Atomizer.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power," DOI:

10.1115/1.2747263

[5] Nonnenmacher, S., Piesche, M., (2000), "Design of Hollow Cone

Pressure Swirl Nozzles to Atomize Newtonian Fluids," Journal of

Chemical Engineering Science, Pii : S00 09-2509(00)000439,

55,4339-4348

[6] Cousin, J., Ren, W. M., and Nally, S. (1998). Transient Flows in

High Pressure Swirl Injectors. SAE Technical Paper, No. 980499

[7] Chu, C., Chou, S., and Lin, H., (2007), "Theoretical Analysis of

Heat and Mass Transfer in Swirl Atomizers," Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer, DOI: 10.1007/S00231-006-0206-7,43:12131224.

[8] Mandal, A., Jog, M.A., Xue, J., and Ibrahim, A.A., (2008), " Flow

of Power-Law Fluids in Simplex Atomizers," International Journal

of Heat and Fluid Flow, Elsevier, DOI:10.1016/j.ijhe, 29 1494

1503.

[9] Xue, J., (2004), "Computational Simulation of Flow Inside

Pressure-Swirl Atomizers," Ph.D. thesis, University of Cincinnati.

- Heat ExchangerUploaded bykhai199393
- Flow Regulation in PenstockUploaded bysunilghaju
- SUNTOYO-Characteristics of turbulent boundary layers over a rough bed under saw-tooth waves and its application to sediment transportUploaded byshade_rahmawati
- Non-Newtonian Fluid Flow Through Concentric AnnuliUploaded byDr. Engr. Md Mamunur Rashid
- USE OF VIRTUAL INSTRUMENTATION AND COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS IN AN UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PROJECTUploaded byAndronikos Filios
- wind engineeringUploaded byMohammed Gamal
- TurbUploaded byMd. Shahjada Tarafder
- 10.0 Innovative Turbulence Modeling_ SST Model in ANSYS CFXUploaded byกี้ บางพระ
- Gas Natural TransmisionUploaded byangel3reyes
- 15017030Uploaded byAli Alkassem
- 2011 Hydrodynamics of an FCC Riser Using Energy Minimization Multiscale Drag ModelUploaded byNguyen Dang Binh Thanh
- FemUploaded byramkumar121
- Turbulence Nutshell SlidesUploaded bySelva Kumaran
- 2011_Liao_aUploaded bySuhas Jain
- lmecn200601_rev4Uploaded bywjawich
- Week 3_Chapter_ Fluid DynamicsUploaded byAhmad Zaharin
- AGARD445 WorkshopUploaded byZeeshan Khan
- 10. Advanced Turbulence ModellingUploaded bytadesse1
- Muy Bueno Este Este 012Uploaded byfrankkqqzz
- OTC-27417-MSUploaded bynuvan
- hhahahUploaded byDanang Joyoe
- A.D. Sneyd and H.K. Moffatt- Fluid dynamical aspects of the levitation-melting processUploaded byOsdfm
- 26 BerlinUploaded byumcad
- 510570Uploaded byKumar Singarapu
- Mathematics 03 01255Uploaded byvictoria
- 02 TurbulenceUploaded byA
- fld.1650191103Uploaded byMohmmed Mahmoud
- [CROATIA] Complete Francis Turbine Simulation for Whole Range of Discharge.pdfUploaded byclaudehacker
- 171Uploaded by27061988
- Nays2D SolverManual EnUploaded byPiere Christofer Salas Herrera

- QUESTION PAPER UPSEE-2017 HELD IN 16 APRIL -2017Uploaded byAnonymous FLeMJZW
- Buckling of Stiffened Thin Walled Cylindrical TanksUploaded byvalstav
- Vacuum DesignUploaded byHùng Mạnh Nguyễn
- 106769120-General-Connection-in-Steel-Structures.pptUploaded byNguyen Duc Cuong
- 3. Hydrostatic Forces on SurfacesUploaded byKarla Buenaflor
- Design of Wind TunnelUploaded byVijayraj Singh Rathore
- A Numerical Simulation of Particle Deposition in Turbulent Boundary Layers - Kallio and ReeksUploaded bypdfsingh
- PhysicsUploaded byLiam Haslam
- Ws39c Truss Xbar Part3Uploaded bySameera Srivathsa
- General RelativityUploaded bySumbitchaliha
- Computation of Planetary Positions in EinUploaded byVaraha Mihira
- Chapter8 Column DesignUploaded byDerick Urrea
- Chapter_5a.doc_S.U.G_and_Girls.pdfUploaded byKanagaraj Arumugam
- The_Tip_Region_of_a_Fluid-Driven_Fractur (2).pdfUploaded byVishal Awari
- Machine2 ShaftsUploaded byseldonq
- Surcharge Lateral Earth Pressure.pdfUploaded byGkou Dojku
- Using Cfd Hydrodynamic CoefficentsUploaded byJuan Santiago Latigo Colli
- Thermodynamics TestBank Chap 2Uploaded byJay Desai
- Ece3414magnetic CircuitsUploaded byvasuki1964
- 4U softwareUploaded byathinaiki
- Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, Ilya PrigogineUploaded byaltemio
- Application of STATICSUploaded byChristian Sumanguid
- LEC 31 CH-18 Shafts and AxlesUploaded byJoe Hosny
- Ada 073702Uploaded byAmirul Asyraf
- 15ETN051 - Structural Design of Offshore Structures With Answers-1-1Uploaded byPrabakaran Mgk
- Heat ReportUploaded byandrew munyiva
- CFX-Intro 14.5 WS07 Centrifugal-PumpUploaded byShaheen S. Ratnani
- Zicks AnalysisUploaded byprashanth
- Impact of WaterUploaded byHafiezul Hassan
- Drag of Spheroid-Cone Shape AirshipUploaded byDouglas Souza da Silva