9 views

Uploaded by 박훈채

Effects of liquid droplet

- Fluent-Intro 14.5 WS07b Vortex Shedding
- Simulation of Laminar and Turbulent Flow inside a Pipe Using Ansys Fluent
- CFD 101 Plus Opt
- The Low Reynolds Number Turbulent Flow and Mixing in a Confined Impinging Jet Reactor
- Mechanics of Real Fluids (2011) by M. Rahman
- Fluid Flow Through Packed Bed
- Fluid Flow Problems.xls
- API PUB1585_01 Guidance in the Cleaning of Airport Hydrant Systems
- 1991 Small Particles in Air
- Single Nozzle Air-jet Loom
- Fluid Engineering - Flow in Pipes
- Simulation of Whistle Noise Using Computational Fluid Dynamics An
- Fundamentals of Turbulent Flow
- Types of Flow in Open Channel
- Pressure Loss Calculation
- Comsol Project REport
- Pressure Drop
- SWGSTAINReferenceListbyGroupApril2009
- waterspray-mistextinguishingsystem
- Convection

You are on page 1of 41

in a Pressure Swirl Spray

December 8, 2015

A BSTRACT

Pressure swirl sprays are commonly used for propulsion and a number of

industrial applications. However, the dynamics between individual droplets

and the means to implement models for millions of them, remains poorly un-

derstood. This paper details the results from a finite volume method (FVM)

Euler-Lagrange simulation of a pressure swirl spray and compares them with

measurements taken experimentally. A comprehensive survey of the simplify-

ing assumptions and computational models utilized to simulate a liquid spray

passing through a stationary gas continuum is presented. The macroscopic ef-

fects of the spray on the continuous phase and the addition of fine droplets to

the overall flow physics is investigated. Recommendations are made for future

Euler-Lagrange simulations, including changes to droplet distortion models

and reconciling competing requirements of the droplet and turbulence mod-

els.

C ONTENTS

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Multiphase Flow Physics of Pressure Swirl Sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2.1 Secondary Atomization of Droplets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2.2 Droplet-Droplet Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Methodology 5

2.1 Euler-Lagrange Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1.1 Physical Domain and Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1.2 Eulerian Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.1.3 Lagrangian Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Continuous Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Lagrangian Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 Conclusion 31

4.1 Evaluation of Project Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2 Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5 Appendix 33

5.1 MATLAB Codes for Post-Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.1.1 Data Extraction Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.1.2 Data Filtering Function - Z Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1.3 Movie Maker Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References 38

N OMENCLATURE

B Impact distance

b Impact parameter

Cb Critical distortion coefficient

Cd Drag Coefficient Coefficient

Ck Stiffness Coefficient

C Damping Coefficient Coefficient

dp Particle diameter

Re Reynolds number

r Residual

vs Slip velocity

Q Volumetric flow rate

We Weber number

y Normalized droplet diameter

Viscosity

Density

Surface tension

Injector swirl angle

1 I NTRODUCTION

1.1 B ACKGROUND AND M OTIVATION

Liquid sprays that originate from a pressure swirl injector. The size distributions that re-

sult along with droplet-droplet interactions; lastly the coupled physics between the liquid

phase and the surrounding continuous gas phase. Some of these effects are rather impor-

tant; in particular, the effects of shear layers in the formation of instabilities that eventually

lead to turbulence. These sprays have a number of different purposes; whether in fluidized

beds, atomization of fuels for propulsion or energy production, or industrial applications.

The liquid spray created by pressure swirl injector will be the subject of this paper. Pressure

swirl injectors rely on a pressure gradient forcing the formation of a liquid film that, as a re-

sult of instabilities in that layer, degenerates into droplets of various diameters, velocities,

and directions.

Once the spray has left the injector, the cloud of droplets evolves as a result of the size

distribution, relative velocity between the individual droplets, the slip velocity on individ-

ual droplets, the density of particles in a given location, as well as the laminar or turbulent

nature of the surrounding airflow. Consequently, a number of different outcomes may oc-

cur when droplets collide, including coalescence into a single droplet, the breaking up of a

droplet due to collisions, or breaking down of the droplets into even smaller droplets due

to drag forces and distortion of the droplet shapes.

While the study of droplets moving through air has been studied for over a century, a full

understanding of this type of flow remains elusive. Therefore, ongoing research has relied

heavily on experimental observations and piecemeal models rather than a unified, com-

prehensive theory. The purpose of this work was to reproduce the results detailed of an

experimental study of an oil spray using phase Doppler Anemometry (PDA) by Santolaya et

al[13]. Using a published numerical study of a similar spray by Pawar et al[9] as a reference,

the authors of this paper evaluated the models and simplifying assumptions necessary to

formulate an Euler-Lagrangian simulation of this type of multiphase flow. Once the results

were validated, the simulations could then be used to make observations regarding the flow

phenomena itself, and the efficacy of the models used to reproduce them. In particular, the

primary goal was to show how droplet interactions with other droplets, as well as the con-

tinuous medium, can affect the macroscopic aspects of a liquid spray in air. This study

also aspired to determine what the effects of the addition of fine particles would be on the

continuous medium, and if it would result in more effective entrainment of that contin-

uous medium into the spray. Lastly, recommendations were made for improvements to

the models that have been used along with suggestions for novel approaches to simulating

liquid sprays.

Pressure swirl nozzles are commonly used to generate a spray of droplets by means of a

high pressure gradient between the injector inlet and the ambient pressure at the outlet.

This forces the liquid phase through a thin cylindrical opening, forming a film that extends

1

Figure 1.1: Diagram of a pressure swirl injector cross-

section[1]

outward from the injector at an angle in the shape of a hollow cone. This thin film then

begins to break up, due to Reynolds instabilities within the film, causing larger and larger

perturbations, and producing a wide distribution of differently sized droplets. Due to the

highly nonlinear and chaotic nature of this breakup, the individual droplets are cast off

randomly with various velocity directions and magnitudes. This, along with a swirl angle,

which imparts a tangential velocity to the film itself (usually at an angle of roughly forty-

five degrees), the spray is then bounded by an outer and inner cone angle, with the highest

density of particles begin located in the center of this conical shell. Depending on the speed

of the droplets as they move relative to the continuous medium, their surface tension and

the drag coefficient of the droplet itself, secondary breakup may occur, resulting in further

atomization.

l v s2 d p

We = , (1.1)

resulting in varying regimes of droplet breakup. This is unique to liquid droplets (or gas

bubbles) traveling through a continuous medium, since they do not have a rigid shape. In-

stead, their shape is defined by the pressure distribution and shear stress on the surface

of the droplet, along with viscous damping forces within the droplet itself, resulting in a

shape that minimizes the potential energy contained within the droplet surface. The We-

ber number is the most commonly used parameter to describe the behavior of droplets

2

Figure 1.2: Different types of secondary breakup with cor-

responding Weber numbers[2]

subject to drag forces or collisions. The Weber number may be considered as the ratio be-

tween the inertial forces of the continuous medium on the droplets surface with respect

to the surface tension. Considering a droplet as a damped spring mass system, it is easy

to imagine the air pushing against the surface of a droplet, causing it to flatten out into a

rounded disk, while the surface tensions resists such deformation and the viscosity damps

the deformation rate.

A number of different models describe what takes place due to this phenomena, includ-

ing some that consider additional phenomena based on experimental observations. One

model is the Taylor Analogy Breakup (TAB) model, which predicts that at Weber numbers

approaching We 12, the middle of this disk will narrow and eventually pinch off, resulting

in the creation of a number of equally-sized, smaller droplets. At higher Weber numbers

(We 20), models predict that the center of the disk will begin to stretch along the axial

direction by the drag forces, creating a bag shape which may then break up. At higher still

Weber numbers (We 50), additional effects begin to take place that are not predicted by

the simple spring-mass damper system; including the shearing off of tiny droplets from

the surface of the droplet, as well as the possibility of a catastrophic breakup (We 100), in

which the droplet is annihilated into a cloud of incredibly fine droplets. For the purposes

of this study, the average Weber number was assumed to be relatively low and secondary

atomization was expected to be dominated by TAB breakup, if it even occurred at all.

Droplet-droplet interactions dominate sprays for which there is a high density of parti-

cles within the spray, as well as a wide variation of velocity vectors within the spray. For

any collision that takes place, there will be one of three major outcomes: (1) no droplets are

created or subsumed, (2) additional droplets are created, or (3) one of the droplets is sub-

sumed into the other in a phenomenon known as coalescence. In particular, the potential

3

Figure 1.3: Collision between two droplets, and the defini-

tion of impact distance, B[9]

outcomes of droplet-droplet collisions are coalescence, bouncing (in which the droplets

merely exchange momentum, but not mass), as well as reflexive and stretching collisions

(in which the surface tension of the two droplets is broken and one of the droplets is then

deformed in such a way as smaller droplets are then able to pinch off and form).

These behaviors can be predicted directly as a function of the Weber number and a vari-

able called the impact parameter, b,

2B

b= , (1.2)

dl + d s

where B is the impact distance, shown in Figure 1.3. In Figure 2.1, one can easily see that

for lower impact parameters, coalescent and reflexive collisions are most likely, whereas for

moderate impact parameters, stretching collisions are most likely. And lastly for very large

impact parameters, bouncing collisions become the most likely to occur.

(a) (b)

collision[9]

4

2 M ETHODOLOGY

2.1 E ULER-L AGRANGE S IMULATION

There are a number of ways to simulate a multiphase flow, including Euler-Euler mod-

els, which treat both phases as continuous media, and models droplet interactions and

breakup as a function of the weight fraction and statistics. An alternative method is the

Euler-Lagrange method, which includes the discrete element method, which treats the

physics of each droplet individually and the Lagrangian parcel volume method, which takes

a mesoscopic and statistically view of droplet behavior. One major weakness of the Euler-

Euler method is that it relies most heavily on models rather than the governing equations

of fluid motion. This makes such a model the least "physical" compared to the others. The

discrete element method is the model that is most faithful to the flow physics, but at an

incredible cost in computational expense. In contrast to the others, the Lagrangian parcel

volume method makes compromises that balance accuracy and computational efficiency

by taking a statistical approach to the individual particle dynamics but still treats groups

of particles contained in parcels as discrete elements. For that reason, the Lagrangian par-

cel volume method was chosen to run alongside a finite volume method (FVM) simulation

of the continuous phase for this project. The individual models that were used to predict

specific droplet behaviors is expanded upon later in this chapter. In total, the simulation

contained approximately 30,000 parcels or just under 1,000,000 droplets.

As mentioned before, the continuous phase was modeled from an Eulerian perspective

using an FVM simulation in STAR-CCM+[2], a commercially available code. The physical

geometry of the domain was obtained from Santoyola et al and describes a cubic volume

(a) (b)

ditions (b) Representation of the volume parcels

5

(a) Front View (b) Side View

6

Table 2.1: Simulation Parameters

Dimensions [mm] 75 x 75 x 75

Number of Elements [-] 800,000

t [s] 105

Inlet velocity [m/s] 3

Turbulence model LES

with the injector located near the inlet and pointed downstream. The physical domain and

the location of the injector, along with the respective boundary conditions, is shown in Fig-

ure 2.2. The boundaries that contain the physical domain are a velocity inlet, which allowed

a low-velocity airflow to enter, and opposite from that boundary was a pressure outlet, al-

lowing the gas phase and droplets to exit. On the sides were defined symmetry boundary

conditions, which for the Lagrangian phase, was also treated as an outlet. Additionally, the

physical and computational parameters for this simulation are given in Table 2.1.

A fully structured mesh was created using a proprietary meshing software called Cubit

[12], with the individual element size being dictated by the maximum droplet size. The el-

ements characteristic length fell between five and ten times the Sauter mean diameter at

the injector. This was necessary so as to accurately resolve the Lagrangian phase and the

coupled physics between the two media. As a result, grid convergence became difficult to

verify, since further refinement would likely result in elements with too high a volume frac-

tion for the Lagrangian phase, which would then lead to numerical instability. A coarser

mesh was not feasible due to accuracy concerns. Additional issues, resulting from this nec-

essary requirement, is expanded upon later when discussing the turbulence model.

space Semi-Implicit Pressure Linked Equations (SIMPLE) algorithm. The time step was

prescribed by the turbulence model to be t = 105 seconds in order to keep the maximum

convective-Courrant number within a value of one. The simulation was run for a total time

of roughly 0.1 seconds. While this may seem to be short, it was many times the time scale

for the simulation,

L domain

T = . (2.1)

v spray

In fact, by observing the change of the mean Sauter diameter for the entire domain, total

number of droplets contained within the domain, and the total number of collisions taking

place with respect to time, the spray appeared to reach steady-state within a single time

scale of T = 0.001 seconds. Throughout the simulations run time, the residuals for the

continuity and momentum equations were resolved below r = 104 . The turbulence model

chosen was a Large Eddy Simulation (LES); specifically, the dynamically-scaled Smagorin-

sky model[4]. This turbulence model was chosen both out of concern for accuracy and

computational expense, since it was anticipated by the authors that turbulent dispersion

7

would be an important factor in the flow physics[15]. An alternative three-dimensional

Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) model was also considered, which would have al-

lowed for a turbulent dispersion model to be applied. However, the RANS model required

was the seven-equation Reynolds Stress Transport (RST) model[3], which carries signifi-

cant computational overhead compared to other RANS models. In practice this model was

found to increase simulation run time, even with respect to the LES model. Because of this

fact, and due to the wish of the authors to reproduce the turbulent dispersion directly from

the governing equations, the LES model was chosen for this simulation.

INJECTOR MODEL

The injector served to introduce the liquid phase parcels into the simulation. The injec-

tor itself endowed the particles with a velocity and size distribution. It did so using the Lin-

earized Instability Sheet Atomization (LISA) model that served to add randomness to the

created parcels. The size distribution at the injector point was defined in two ways; (1) us-

ing Rosin-Rammler[11] size distribution parameters and (2) by directly defining the weight

fractions of various size ranges. The injector parameters and size distribution weight frac-

tions can be found in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. The injector itself was modeled to be D injector =

0.5mm, with an outer cone angle of o = 80 , and an inner cone angle of i = 60 , obtained

from data given by Santolaya et al. The Santolaya paper did not explicitly give the swirl an-

gle, so for the purposes of the simulation, a swirl angle of = 45 was chosen after a review

of various sources. The liquid-gas volumetric flow ratio was set to be Q l /Q g = 4 104 . The

injector size distribution was taken from Santoyalas results at a distance of z = 9mm from

the injector. This decision was validated by later results showing little difference in size ra-

tio between the injector and that point. However, the Rosin-Rammler model proved to be

unreliable for ensuring the proper size distribution even though the minimum and maxi-

mum sizes were provided along with the average. This necessitated the use of an explicit

definition of the weight fractions in order to get reliable results.

D injector [mm] 0.5

d max [microns] 110

d min [microns] 10

d ref [microns] 48.5

Rosin-Rammler Exponent [-] 3.5

P [bar] 12

o [deg] 80

i [deg] 60

[deg] 45

8

Table 2.3: Injector Droplet Size Distribution

i d p,i [microns] x i [-]

1 10-20 0.015

2 20-30 0.055

3 30-40 0.150

4 40-50 0.220

5 50-60 0.220

6 70-80 0.140

7 80-90 0.090

8 90-100 0.050

9 100-110 0.005

In order to effectively couple the physics between the liquid and gas phases, an accu-

rate drag model was required. Little evidence has suggested that any other forces (other

than drag) are responsible for momentum exchange between the Eulerian and Lagrangian

media. The Taylor Analogy[8] models a deforming droplet as a damped spring-mass sys-

tem, as can be shown in Figure 2.3. Modeling this system into a second-order differential

equation,

l d p2 C k We

y = 2y C l y, (2.2)

4 d p Wecrit

solves for the effective radius of the now disc-shaped droplet, where,

2x

y= . (2.3)

Cb dp

mass system[10]

9

The Liu et al. drag model[5],

(

24

Rep 1 + 16 Re2/3

p Rep 1000

C d , sphere = (2.4a)

0.44 Rep > 1000

takes into account TAB distortion of the droplets by first calculating the drag coefficient

as a sphere, and then multiplying by a correction factor, based on the normalized particle

diameter, y. Due to the relatively low Weber numbers seen in the later results section, and in

the various references used, secondary atomization was proven to be very unlikely within

the type of liquid spray undergoing simulation. The reasonable conclusion would then be

that the mean Sauter diameter should increase with respect to distance from the injector

due to coalescence. As will be shown later in the results section, this has been proven to be

true.

COLLISION MODELS

Within STAR-CCM+, collisions were modeled statistically using either the no time counter

(NTC) collision detection algorithm[14], or the ORourke[7] algorithm, depending on which

algorithm is fast in a particular element. The NTC algorithm begins by calculating the num-

ber of parcels in any given Eulerian cell, and then takes into account the number of droplets

within each parcel using the following equation,

N N

t Xp Xp

M coll = (q i q j v i , j i , j ), (2.5)

2V i =1 j =1

where M coll is the probability of all possible collisions, v i , j is the relative velocity between

two colliding parcels, V is the cell volume, N p is the number of parcels in a cell, and q i is

the number of droplets in parcel i. i , j is defined to be the collision cross-section of the

two droplets,

(d i + d j )2

i , j = . (2.6)

4

The ORourke algorithm is a direct technique, since it considers all possible collision

partners. The probability of any given droplet colliding with any other droplet is,

v i , j i , j t

pi , j = . (2.7)

V

The mean expected number of collisions between a droplet in parcel i and the droplets in

parcel j is calculated to be,

v i , j i , j t

= q j . (2.8)

V

The number of collisions is determined by sampling from a Poisson distribution with the a

mean equal to the expected number of collisions.

10

Figure 2.4: Flow chart of the STAR-CCM+ collision-

outcome algorithm[2]

Collisions may result in simple bouncing, coalescence, or breaking up of the droplets, de-

pending on certain criteria derived from the average Weber number and impact factor be-

tween two parcels. Figure 2.4 shows the algorithm used to predict the likelihood of various

outcomes, where Yr,2 is a random number selected between one and zero. The collision-

outcome criteria are defined as,

h 2.4 f () i

E coal = min 1.0, , (2.9a)

We

and,

h We 1/3 i

E boun = min 1.0, , (2.9b)

2.4 f ()

where,

f () = 3 2.42 + 2.7, (2.10a)

and,

d

= d i , di > d j . (2.10b)

j

Naturally, this collision model is likely to be heavily dependent on the number of parcels

contained within the simulation, as well as the size of the mesh used to discretize the phys-

ical domain. From Equation 2.5, there seems to be two ways to increase the accuracy of the

NTC collision model. The first way is to simply increase the number of parcels available,

but at great computational expense. The alternative method would be to coarsen the grid,

but at the cost of accuracy of reproducing the Eulerian flow, and therefore, the drag effects

on the droplets themselves. This issue is discussed in the conclusion of this paper.

2.2 VALIDATION

The STAR-CCM+ simulation was validated by using two different methods of comparing

the size distributions and mean Sauter diameters between the results from this study and

Santoyala et al. Figure 2.5 contains two data sets; one from the experiment, and one from

the simulation, showing the growth of the weight factor of various droplet sizes. This figure

11

Figure 2.5: Growth of weight fraction with respect to parti-

cle diameter.

shows good qualitative agreement between the two curves; however, but with a significant

offset upwards. The experiment showed that the extrema for the growth in weight fraction

was found to be roughly x i ,min = 0.85 and x i ,max = 0.70, whereas the extrema for the

simulation were found to be x i ,min = 0.07 and x i ,max = 0.11. However, the simulation

and the experiment show very good agreement in predicting which size droplets would see

the greatest change in weight fraction. Figure 2.6 shows the size distributions at two dif-

ferent distances from the injector for both the experiment and the simulation. While the

experiment and simulation show good qualitative agreement, demonstrating that coales-

cence is taking place throughout the entire range of particle diameters, there are differences

in their distribution shapes. In particular, the simulation predicts a significantly wider size

distribution at z=36 mm. This could be partly attributed to Santolaya et al simply not mea-

suring the number of droplets. However, there seems to be a significant overestimation

of the weight fractions near the higher end of the diameter range. Alternatively, the mean

Sauter diameter at two different locations from the injector, and for the domain as a whole,

were also compared, as can be seen in Table 2.4. However, the good agreement between

the results from the experiment and the simulation with respect to the mean Sauter diam-

eter suggests that the flaws within the simulation that resulted in quantitative and minor

qualitative differences are not insurmountable.

z [mm] d exp [microns] d sim [microns]

9 48.5 48.3

36 57.8 56.7

Total 58.4 58.1

12

(a) Experimental (b) Simulation

13

While the two phase nature of the flow requires models that make grid convergence stud-

ies difficult to perform, the flow for the Eulerian phase is partially validated by agreement of

results for the Lagrangian phase, since the physics between the two media are coupled. Ad-

ditional comparisons, including the time-averaged velocity with respect to distance from

the injector, would be very helpful in accomplishing this. However, due to a dearth of in-

formation about the behavior of the entrained gas in these types of flows within this field

that is not possible at the moment. As such, it would be a valuable topic of study for future

research.

Data was collected in the form of tables for both the gas and liquid droplets at a time

interval equal to two simulation time steps. Data points were averaged among the droplets

within each parcel, and a 200 by 200 grid, bisecting the physical domain along the stream-

wise direction, was used to extract data points from the gas. Velocity and vorticity magni-

tude data was interpolated across the grid and plotted for each time step using a MATLAB[6]

code (see Appendix 5.1.1) written by the authors. These plots were then used to produce

movies (see Appendix 5.1.3) so that the data could be visualized easily with respect to time 1 .

The particle data instead was averaged over the time scale for the flow equal to 0.001 sec-

onds. This data was then separated (see Appendix 5.1.2) into three regions so that it could

be interpolated at several cross-sections, including the y=0 mm, z=9 mm, and z=36 mm

planes. Droplet data of interest included velocity components, droplet size, collisions, and

position coordinates. The total data collected amounted to roughly 750 MB.

1

Flow visualization movies for the continuous phase may be viewed at:

Axial Velocity

Radial Velocity

Vorticity Magnitude

14

3 R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION

3.1 C ONTINUOUS P HASE

As mentioned in the previous section, variable data for the continuous phase was col-

lected from 40,000 locations for each time step. The data, including the axial velocity, ra-

dial velocity, and vorticity magnitude, were interpolated using MATLAB in order to produce

plots. This was then done for every other time step over a period of time equaling 0.001 sec-

onds. From this, flow visualization movies were rendered so that the flow physics could be

more easily understood. The main flow phenomena of interest here is entrainment of the

continuous phase by the particles, dispersion of velocity gradients, and the transition from

laminar to turbulent flow.

In Figure 3.1, the axial and radial velocity, as well as the vorticity magnitude, can be seen

at a single point in time. Full movies showing these plots changing in time can be found in

footnotes from Section 2.3. From looking at the axial velocity, one can see the evolution of

the flow as it passes from the injector to the outflow boundary. Directly in front of the injec-

tor is what can be described as a laminar jet, which transitions to a laminar instability just

before degenerating into a fully turbulent regime. This behavior is far more easily observed

in the movie, particularly the onset of laminar instability. From the radial velocity, as well

as the vorticity magnitude, plots one will find a great deal of mixing taking place within the

turbulent region. Evidence for this can be found in coherent structures with velocities of

opposite sign to the predominant flow near the injector. In the vorticity magnitude plot,

regions of high shear stress are located from the injector to the outflow boundary condi-

tion; however, this shear begins to diffuse quickly once it is convected downstream into

the turbulent region. From the vorticity plot, one can also see evidence of coherent vortex

structures throughout the transition in turbulent flows. All of these things demonstrate the

effects of momentum transfer from the droplets to the gas phase, resulting in significant

entrainment. This results in a negative feedback response because this diminishes the av-

erage slip velocity on the particle near the x-axis, and eventually reduces the drag forces

on the particles, as well as further transfer of momentum into the flow. A full understand-

ing of the behavior of the continuous phase has not yet been explored comprehensively.

However, this aspect of the flow physics is important since the turbulent mixing will play

an important role in the behavior of the droplets themselves, as one will see later in this

section.

Just as the continuous phase was visualized from flow variables using selected data points,

the Lagrangian phase was similarly plotted using data averaged from each parcel. This data,

instead of being plotted for a single plane, was instead plotted for three different planes.

The first plane was the data with respect to "r" and "z", averaged onto the y-plane. The

other two planes were cross-sections of the flow at different locations downstream and

along "z". Among the various quantities for which data was collected included axial and

radial velocities, location of collision, particle diameter, particle density, and particle

15

(a) Continuous Phase: Axial Velocity (b) Continuous Phase: Radial Velocity

16

17

(a) z = 9mm

(b) z = 36mm

18

19

(a) z = 9mm

(b) z = 36mm

20

21

(a) z = 9mm

(b) z = 36mm

22

23

(a) z = 9mm

(b) z = 36mm

24

25

(a) z = 9mm

(b) z = 36mm

26

27

(a) z = 9mm

(b) z = 36mm

28

Reynolds number.

Figures 3.2 & 3.3 show the axial (or downstream) velocity of the droplets. From the first

figure, there are two main features that should be given attention. The first is located near

the origin, which corresponds to the injector, where the velocity steeply drops along the

inner edge of the spray cone. This is evidence that the majority of fine droplets located near

the center of the spray transfer their momentum quickly to the entrained gas. This is due to

the fact that while the drag force is proportional to the square of the diameter, the droplet

mass is proportional to the cube of the diameter. As a result, the mass of the finer droplets

is far less when compared to the average droplet. The other feature found in Figure 3.2 is

the behavior of the larger droplets which have clustered near the outer edge of the cone

due to centripetal forces. One can easily see that the larger droplets are able to maintain a

significantly higher velocity in contrast to the smaller droplets. However, another aspect of

the larger droplets behavior is that the velocity gradient diminishes as the droplets continue

downstream. This is a consequence of several different flow phenomena. The first is due

to turbulent mixing of the continuous phase, which acts to blend together particles with

different velocities. This helps to enhance the effects of the second phenomenon, which

is the collision of the droplets with one another. The rate of collisions is proportional to

the relative velocities between the respective particles. The outcome of these two effects is

a well dispersed stream droplets with a wide variation of velocities. These effects are also

evident in Figure 3.3, in which the axial velocity of the particles is shown at distances of

z=9 mm and z=36 mm downstream from the injector. Close to the injector outlet, one can

see a distribution of particles with relatively little differences in velocity, and yet there is a

defined gradient with the higher velocity particles tending toward the center. In contrast,

at z=36 mm, there is a wide variation of different velocities, but they are well mixed and

distributed evenly throughout. These same flow features may be found in Figure 3.4 & 3.5,

which display the radial velocity of the particles in each of the planes of interest.

The majority of the collisions between droplets in the spray take place immediately in

front of the injector outlet, as can be seen in Figures 3.6 & 3.7. This is due to the droplets

exiting the injector outlet and colliding with the fine droplets that have lost their momen-

tum to the continuous phase and stagnated. It is easy to infer from this that the collision

Weber number

l |v i , j |2 (d i + d j )

We = (3.1)

for the majority of the interactions will be very small, and most of the collisions are ex-

pected to have a high impact parameter. This will result in bouncing as the most likely

collision outcome. Instead, the majority of collisions where coalescence is the outcome

takes place further downstream in a thin region that begins near the outer surface of the

spray cone and eventually diffuses toward the center (see Figure 3.6). Figure 3.7 plots the

collisions at the downstream point where the collisions have already begun to diffuse. But

one can see that the number of collisions, while more spread out, diminish in frequency.

Plots of the droplet diameter are contained in Figure 3.8 & 3.9. The first figure shows

two effects worth noting. The first is the tendency of the largest droplets to cluster near the

outside surface of the spray cone. This is due to the centripetal forces imparted on the spray

by the injectors swirl angle. One can also find evidence of turbulent mixing near the outflow

29

boundary where the particle sizes become less stratified. Additionally, one can find a small

region immediately in front of the injector outlet, where the size noticeably increases. It

is at this point where the majority of collisions are occurring, demonstrating that some

coalescence is taking place. Just downstream of this location, the average particle diameter

drops, as the larger droplets resulting from coalescence diffuse into the surrounding flow.

Furthermore, one will find in Figure 3.9 that these observations are confirmed regarding

stratification and mixing. Most prominently, this figure clearly demonstrates that the mean

Sauter diameter increases significantly between z=9 mm and z=36 mm, which is evidence

that coalescence is dominate.

The particle density, which is shown plotted in Figures 3.10 & 3.11 is not, in fact, the

density of the liquid within the droplets. Instead, it serves to show where the majority of

droplets reside within the flow. Both figures show that the number of particles is concen-

trated near the center of the spray. This is the one quantity of the Lagrangian phase that

seems to be effected completely differently from the others, in that the particle density be-

comes even more stratified as the spray passes through the turbulent region. This is a result

of the coalescence and turbulent mixing which takes place. Particle density is directly de-

pendent on the narrowness or wideness of the size distribution. From Figure 2.6 in the

previous section shows that as the spray passes downstream, the size distribution has be-

come larger due to coalescence. Furthermore, the mixing that takes place as a result of

turbulence is necessary for smaller droplets to fill the gaps between the larger ones. Be-

cause the mixing is most pronounced near the center of the spray, this is what facilitates a

more stratified particle density within a cross-section of the flow.

The Reynolds number is shown in Figure 3.12 & 3.13. This quantity is important, since it

has an inverse relationship with respect to the drag coefficient on the droplets. The highest

Reynolds number particles may be found on the outer surface of the spray cone, but di-

minishes both upstream and downstream from roughly z=25 mm. The fact that the highest

Reynolds number would be found in the same region as the largest droplets is unsurpris-

ing. However, the drop of the Reynolds number in both z-directions is noteworthy. The

reason for the lower mean Reynolds number is due to the lack of large droplets, since they

have not yet formed due to coalescence. Further downstream, the mean Reynolds number

drops due to the increased mixing, which facilitates additional momentum transfer be-

tween the droplets and the gas. This has the effect of slowing the droplets and accelerating

the gas, resulting in a lower slip velocity, and thus a lower Reynolds number.

30

4 C ONCLUSION

4.1 E VALUATION OF P ROJECT G OALS

The purpose of this project was to accurately reproduce the results published by Santo-

laya et al and to comprehensively survey the simplifying assumptions and computational

models used to simulate a liquid spray passing through a stationary gas continuum. Results

from the Santolaya paper were reproduced using an Euler-Lagrange FVM simulation, com-

puted on STAR-CCM+, a commercial CFD code. The continuum phase was modeled using

the Navier-Stokes equations coupled with a dynamically scaled LES turbulence model. The

Lagrangian phase was modeled statistically using the parcel volume method and imple-

mented the Liu drag model, TAB distortion model, and the NTC/ORourke collision prob-

ability model. The physics between the two phases was coupled by applying an added

momentum source to the Navier-Stokes equations based on the mean drag force exerted

on the droplets within a grid element. When the results of the simulation were compared

with those of the experiment, good qualitative agreement was found between the two, in-

cluding accurate prediction of the mean Sauter diameter at various locations and within

the physical domain as a whole. One significant difference was the difference in change of

the weight fractions at the extrema. Recommendations for improvements to the simulation

will be discussed in the following section.

The other goal of this work was to explain the macroscopic effects of the spray on the

continuous phase, as well as to investigate how the addition of fine droplets would alter

the overall flow physics. Macroscopic effects of the spray on the continuous phase include

shear layers forming instabilities which then degenerate into turbulence. This has feedback

effects, which result in changes to drag forces, probability of collisions, and size distribu-

tions. These can have either stratifying or mixing effects, depending on the flow physics

that dominate. The main link between the Eulerian and Lagrangian phases are the added

momentum term in the Navier-Stokes equations and the drag forces on the droplets by

the gas, respectively. In looking at how fine particles influence the behavior of the spray,

small droplets were found to exchange momentum with the continuous phase more read-

ily, and thus bringing the two media into equilibrium more quickly. From the results ob-

tained during this research, one can conclude that if fine droplets were added to the spray

at the expense of larger droplets while all other variables are kept constant, this would re-

sult in a higher gas velocity and a lower droplet velocity, due to their higher projected area

to volume ratio. On the other hand, if fine droplets were added to the spray in addition to

the previous size distribution, this would result in a higher velocity for both the continu-

ous phase and the largest droplets. This is because more momentum would be transferred

to the gas (the fine particles can be treated as an additional density to the entrained gas

due to collisions with larger droplets) decreasing the slip velocity, and therefore drag forces

experienced by the largest size droplets.

31

4.2 R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR F UTURE R ESEARCH

Recommendations for future research include examining the statistical models used in

computing Euler-Lagrange simulations in STAR-CCM+. While the parcel volume method

helps to keep the computational expense of running these types of simulations, their re-

quirements for accurate modeling of the droplets often conflicts with the best practices

of simulating a turbulent continuum flow. This becomes apparent when the parcel vol-

ume method requires coarsening of the mesh in order to accurately model the collision

probability, but additional refinement will serve to increase the accuracy of the turbulence

model. Investigation should be made into finding a happy medium which optimizes the

accuracy and efficiency of both models. An additional recommendation would include in-

creasing the number of parcels within a simulation, and examining the effects (if any) on

its accuracy. Lastly, while the TAB distortion model has been used for years to simulate the

effects of aerodynamics on droplet shape, it seems unlikely that assuming a droplets shape

alone excluding its orientation or an angular velocity will suffice while demands for accu-

racy continue to grow. The authors of this paper suggest that correlation curves may be

developed using calculus of variations to evaluate a droplets shape that will improve upon

the older models. Of course, a discrete element based, rather than a parcel volume based

method, will always be more accurate for the foreseeable future if implemented correctly.

It seems that, for fundamental research into liquid sprays and droplet interactions, a DEM

based model may be necessary, rather than preferable. If faithfulness to the flow physics

and droplet interactions are paramount, statistically based methods simply will not do.

32

5 A PPENDIX

5.1 MATLAB C ODES FOR P OST-P ROCESSING

% introduction

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% the purpose of this code is to extract data from .csv files and create an

% interpolant using MATLAB's scattered data interpolation function. once the

% interpolant has been created, the data may be plotted. the data from the

% different files may be used to calculate flow distributions.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% extracting data

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

tic

% initializing

i = 1;

files = dir('*.csv');

for file = files'

x = -A(:,5);

z = A(:,7); % position data

v = A(:,2); % scalar data

xmin = min(x);

xmax = max(x); % limits of the probe-grid

zmin = min(z);

zmax = max(z);

F = scatteredInterpolant(z,x,v); % creating interpolant

[Z,X] = meshgrid(linspace(zmin,zmax,1000),linspace(xmin,xmax,1000));

33

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% creating the figure

% creating axes

axes1 = axes('Parent',figure1,'XTick',-3:1:13,'CLim',[10 500000]);

set(gca,'xlim',[0 0.05])

set(gca,'ylim',[-0.025 0.025])

view(2);

grid(axes1,'on');

hold(axes1,'all');

% set(gcf,'PaperUnits','inches','PaperPosition',[0 0 19 6])

set(gcf,'Renderer','Zbuffer')

%set(gcf,'Visible','off')

str2 = ['w_test_',num2str(i)];

surf(Z,X,V,'Parent',axes1,'LineStyle','none');

h = colorbar('NorthOutside');

xlabel(h,'Axial Velocity [m/s]')

print(str2,'-dpng')

i = i + 1; % iterating

end

toc

34

5.1.2 D ATA F ILTERING F UNCTION - Z P LANE

% introduction

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% the purpose of this code is to extract and combine data from .csv files,

% then seperate out the desired data at an approximate streamwise location.

%Z

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% extracting data

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

tic

i = 1; % initializing

files = dir('*.csv');

[nfiles, ndata] = size(files);

for file = files'

if i == 1

else

A = [A; A_temp]; % adding to the matrix

end

35

str = num2str(i/nfiles*100);

disp(str); disp(' %'); % displaying progress

i = i + 1; % iterating

end

csvwrite('particle_data_average.csv',A);

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% seperating data

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

[nrows, ncolumns] = size(A);

% initializing

B = []; % temporary storage of data points

j = 1; % setting counter

z_0 =9;

eps = 0.001;

for i = 1:nrows

B(j,:) = A(i,:); % true: save value

j = j+1; % true: advancing counter

else

% false: do nothing

end

disp(str); disp(' %');

end

csvwrite('particle_data_z_9mm.csv',B)

toc

36

5.1.3 M OVIE M AKER C ODE

% introduction

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% the purpose of this code is to render an .avi movie from a set of .png

% plots of flow quantities.

% the operation of this code depends on a set of image files with the name:

% "w_test_<i>.png"

% defining the object writerObj, which will compile the movie, and defining

% the name of the output file

writerObj = VideoWriter('w_continuous_test.avi');

open(writerObj); % opening video editor

tic

i = 1; % initializing

files = dir('*.png');

for file = files'

thisimage = imread(filename); % reading the file

writeVideo(writerObj, thisimage); % appending it to the movie

i = i + 1; % iterating

end

close(writerObj);

toc

37

R EFERENCES

[1] Ansys Inc. (2009). Fluent 12.0 UserAZs Guide.

[3] Daly, B. J., & Harlow, F. H. (1970). Transport equations in turbulence. Physics of Fluids

(1958-1988), 13(11), 2634-2649.

[4] Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P., & Cabot, W. H. (1991). A dynamic subgridARs-

cale eddy viscosity model. Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics (1989-1993), 3(7),

1760-1765.

[5] Liu, A. B., Mather, D., & Reitz, R. D. (1993). Modeling the effects of drop drag and

breakup on fuel sprays (No. TP-930072).

http://www. mathworks.com

[7] ORourke, P. J. (1981). Collective drop effects on vaporizing liquid sprays (No. LA-

9069-T). Los Alamos National Lab., NM (USA).

[8] ORourke, P. J., & Amsden, A. A. (1987). The TAB method for numerical calculation of

spray droplet breakup (No. 872089). SAE Technical Paper.

[9] Pawar, S., Padding, J., Deen, N., Jongsma, A., Innings, F., & Kuipers, J. H. (2015). Nu-

merical and experimental investigation of induced flow and dropletASdroplet in-

teractions in a liquid spray. Chemical Engineering Science, 138, 17-30.

[10] Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd. VECTIS Version 3.3 UserAZs Manual.

des Zementes. Zement, 31, 427-433.

[13] Santolaya, J. L., Garcia, J. A., Calvo, E., & Cerecedo, L. M. (2013). Effects of droplet col-

lision phenomena on the development of pressure swirl sprays. International Journal

of Multiphase Flow, 56, 160-171.

[14] Schmidt, D. P., & Rutland, C. J. (2000). A new droplet collision algorithm. Journal of

Computational Physics, 164(1), 62-80.

38

- Fluent-Intro 14.5 WS07b Vortex SheddingUploaded byTrolldaddy
- Simulation of Laminar and Turbulent Flow inside a Pipe Using Ansys FluentUploaded byandifs27
- CFD 101 Plus OptUploaded byMohamed Elshahat Ouda
- The Low Reynolds Number Turbulent Flow and Mixing in a Confined Impinging Jet ReactorUploaded bylimin zhang
- Mechanics of Real Fluids (2011) by M. RahmanUploaded byEmad Hamdy
- Fluid Flow Through Packed BedUploaded byAmartya Mitra
- Fluid Flow Problems.xlsUploaded byAnonymous oVRvsdWzfB
- API PUB1585_01 Guidance in the Cleaning of Airport Hydrant SystemsUploaded byjhon
- 1991 Small Particles in AirUploaded byAnonymous U0iF9po
- Single Nozzle Air-jet LoomUploaded byRakeahkumarDabkeya
- Fluid Engineering - Flow in PipesUploaded bySherif Abdel Hamid Fakhry
- Simulation of Whistle Noise Using Computational Fluid Dynamics AnUploaded bySethuraman Boopathy
- Fundamentals of Turbulent FlowUploaded byVarun Vinod
- Types of Flow in Open ChannelUploaded byFarhana Jani
- Pressure Loss CalculationUploaded byThao Nguyen
- Comsol Project REportUploaded byRishabh Jain
- Pressure DropUploaded byAbu Abdullah Alkaff
- SWGSTAINReferenceListbyGroupApril2009Uploaded byAmicus Curiae
- waterspray-mistextinguishingsystemUploaded bySalley Bukhari
- ConvectionUploaded byLaVish VaiDya
- Flow Development through a Duct and a Diffuser Using CFDUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Alves, Maia, Vasconcelos - 2002 - Experimental and Modelling Study of Gas Dispersion in a Double Turbine Stirred TankUploaded byKita de Azevedo
- 1007Uploaded byChaitanya Kapila
- FORNBERG.pdfUploaded byahmad
- Osborne Reynold (result only)Uploaded byjuaxxo
- 104BLAUploaded byKislay Choudhary
- SA NegativeUploaded byShenren Xu
- customchip flow simulationUploaded byapi-247397746
- Cfdb TurbulenceUploaded bycristi01068468
- 143903013-Exp-4-Fuid-MixingUploaded byArif Iskandar

- Analysis to Intensify the Energy Utilization in Incineration PlantUploaded by박훈채
- ETD-2017-7975Uploaded by박훈채
- Spray Atomization of Bio-oil-ethanol Blends With Externally Mixed NozzlesUploaded by박훈채
- Effects of liquid dropletUploaded by박훈채
- Development of Basic Engineering Modules for Prospective Estimations of the Material Flow and Energy RequirementsUploaded by박훈채
- Waste Incineration Bref 0806Uploaded byStullie
- Mass and Energy BalanceUploaded by박훈채

- NeurodharmaUploaded bycellochiquini
- Share Point Designer Workflow Bonus Issue 2Uploaded byXil Micro
- 2012 Edexcel Higher B Paper 1 Mark SchemeUploaded byBrenda Walters
- Assessing WritingUploaded byAnita Rizkyatmadja
- Decision Making in Waste Water Management in IndiaUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- IXesotericaUploaded byJavier Ugaz
- ULTIMATE PIT DESIGN USING SURPAC.docxUploaded byBishalTiwari
- Chapter 3 Srs TemplateUploaded byFidelis Yu Ri
- supplier_auditUploaded byAmilaLakmal
- 4041 - Pulau Sebarok to ChangiUploaded bydivxalex
- CSC Operator - Laboratory - VeladeroUploaded byYesi Ceballos
- S2.pdfUploaded bydaniel
- Griseri & Seppala CHAPTER 06Uploaded byArmenia Miclat
- Continuous Time Review CochraneUploaded bySophie Béreau
- Digital Khulna DIGITAL BANGLADESH S A AHSAN RAJONUploaded byS. A. AHSAN RAJON
- 09_chapter 4.pdfUploaded bySAM
- Apollo Operations Handbook Block II Spacecraft Volume 1Uploaded byBob Andrepont
- Rubric in writing.pdfUploaded byTri Murwanto
- 2017 Moser ForestcityMalaysiaandChineseexpansionismUploaded byRosita Septiyani
- D3689-90-Standard Test Method for Individual Piles Under Static Axial Tensile LoadUploaded byYazmin Lugo J
- Demographic Profile of Online Shoppers: An OverviewUploaded byPrateek Kalia
- Cataract Case StudyUploaded byibheng_ling
- poweredge-rc-h310_User's Guide_en-us.pdfUploaded byMenganoFulano
- SP-152Uploaded bydeviationz
- The Relevance of Garbage- Can ModelUploaded byPersephona13
- 1C03 Assignment 03 AcidficationUploaded byclblackangel
- Call for Pen Ipsf Nl 107Uploaded byInternational Pharmaceutical Students' Federation (IPSF)
- _Lesson 4_123Uploaded byMuhammad Umar
- hal_2011Uploaded byNaveen Kumar Ramachandrappa
- readers theatre math lesson planUploaded byapi-288686080