TwoPhaseTutorial PDF

Two-Phase Flow
2006 CTR Summer Program

Tutorial
Marcus Herrmann
Center for Turbulence Research
Stanford University
Overview
• Introduction
• Modeling two-phase flow
– Schemes assuming the phase interface geometry
– Schemes tracking the phase interface geometry
• Tracking the interface
• Coupling the interface to the flow solver
• Sub-grid scale modeling
– Coupling
• Summary
August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 2

What is Two-Phase Flow?
• Matter commonly occurs in one of three phases:
– solid
– liquid
– gas
• Any flow involving two of the three phases is a two-phase flow

Examples:
– dust storms
– sediment transport in rivers
– flash floods
– clouds
• The focus in this tutorial will be on liquid/gas flows

Liquid/Gas Flows
Liquid/gas interfaces occur in a wide variety of
natural phenomena and technical processes:
• Ocean waves
• Geysers
• Inkjets
• Deposition and coating
wave breaking
• Firefighting
• Pest control
• Tire splash
• Combustion devices
– SCRAM jets
– Direct injection IC-engines
– Gas turbines
truck tire splash
– Cryogenic rocket engines
LOX+GH2 cold jet (Mayer et al. 01)

Challenges of Modeling Liquid/Gas Flows
• Phase interface separating the liquid from the gas is extremely thin
discontinuity
• Density change across the phase interface is large

air/water: 816
air/magma: 4000
air/liquid steel: 10000
• Phase interface exerts a localized surface tension

force on the liquid
• Phase transition
• Topology changes
• Vast range of time and length scales are common
• Example: Atomization of a liquid jet in a turbulent environment

atomization in combustion devices
Atomization in Combustion Devices
coaxial atomization
• Fuel is typically injected as a liquid
• Combustion occurs only in the
gaseous phase
Atomize liquid to enhance evaporation
• Challenges:
– phase interface is a discontinuity
– density contrast is high: O(100)
– surface tension forces Marmottant & Villermaux 2002
– frequent topology changes
– range of scales: from cm to μm
– large phase interface surface area
– phase transition
– interaction with turbulence
• How can one model/simulate this?
Lasheras et al. 1998

Atomization in Combustion Devices
coaxial atomization
• Fuel is typically injected as a liquid
• Combustion occurs only in the
gaseous phase
Atomize liquid to enhance evaporation
• Challenges:
– phase interface is a discontinuity
– density contrast is high: O(100)
– surface tension forces Marmottant & Villermaux 2002
– frequent topology changes
– range of scales: from cm to μm
– large phase interface surface area
– phase transition
– interaction with turbulence
• How can one model/simulate this?

divide and conquer

Modeling the Atomization Process
• Split atomization into primary & secondary
atomization:
• Primary atomization:
– Initial breakup of liquid jets or sheets into large and
small structures (ligaments/drops) close to the
injection nozzle
– Complex interface topology of mostly large scale
coherent liquid structures
– Total phase interface surface area is small
• Secondary atomization:
– Subsequent breakup into ever smaller drops
forming a spray
– Simple geometry of small scale liquid drops
– Total phase interface surface area is large
– Volume loading is small

atomization:
injection nozzle
– Subsequent breakup into ever smaller drops forming
a spray

atomization:
track the phase interface
injection nozzle
– Subsequent breakup into ever smaller drops forming
a spray
assume the drop geometry

Modeling Secondary Atomization
• If one can assume that:
– liquid has simple geometry: drops = solid spheres
– liquid density >> gas density
– volume loading is small, i.e. inter-drop distance is large
– drop size is smaller than grid size
– effect of shear on droplet motion can be neglected
Point-particle approach:
particle position
particle velocity
gas velocity
liquid density
gas density
gravitational accel.
with particle diameter

• Consider more realistic physics by relaxing some of the assumptions,
for example:
– allow drops to be ellipsoidal [Helenbrook & Edwards 02]
– take drop’s internal circulation into account [Helenbrook & Edwards 02]
• Phase transition models:

particle mass
particle temperature
liquid specific heat

effective heat transfer
coefficient
latent heat of evaporation
– use Spalding mass and heat transfer numbers and Clausius-Clapeyron’s

vapor-pressure equilibrium relation for
– apply convective correction factors for high Reynolds numbers

Coupling to gas phase:
• Source term in continuity and mixture fraction
equation
• Source term in momentum equations
• Interpolation operator from particle position to cv-centroids
: local grid size

Example
• Glass particles injection into swirling flow in coaxial geometry
– Experiment [Sommerfeld & Qiu 91]
– Simulation [Apte et al. 03]
• 1.6 million hexas, 1.1 million particles
• D10 = 45 μm, log-normal size distribution
• Re = 26200

Example
LES, Apte et al. IJMF 2003 Experiments, Sommerfeld & Qiu 1991
Mean Axial Velocity RMS of Axial Velocity
Mean Radial Velocity RMS of Radial Velocity
Mean Swirl Velocity RMS of Swirl Velocity
Gas phase
Example
Mean Axial Velocity RMS of Axial Velocity
Mean Radial Velocity RMS of Radial Velocity
Mean Swirl Velocity RMS of Swirl Velocity
Mean Particle Diameter RMS of Particle Diameter
Particle phase
Evaporation Example
• Isopropyl alcohol into non-swirling flow in coaxial geometry
– Experiment [Sommerfeld & Qiu 98]
– Simulation [Moin & Apte 06]
• 1.5 million hexas, 0.75 million particles
• droplet size distribution from experiment
• Re = 21164
Fuel Mass
Fraction
Axial
Velocity

Evaporation Example
••• Experiments
—— LES
Axial Velocity
Particle Mass
Flux
Diameter

Breakup Modeling
• TAB (Taylor Analogy Breakup) Model [Taylor 63]:
– analyze droplet distortion by spring-mass system:
• external force = droplet drag force
• spring force = surface tension force
• damping force = droplet viscous force
– initiate breakup when distortion x/R > 0.5
– determine children drop size from energy conservation
– applicability: low Weber numbers
• Wave Breakup Model [Reitz 87]:
– assume drops breakup due to Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
– applicability: high Weber numbers
• Stochastic Breakup Model [Apte et al. 03]:
– use Fokker-Planck equation for drop radius
– obtain breakup frequency and critical radius from balance of aerodynamic
and surface tension forces
– children drop sizes from Fokker-Planck equation
– applicable to turbulent flows
Simulating Secondary Atomization
• Lagrangian point particle tracking
– Number of drops can be huge, order tens of millions
large computational cost
– Drops are typically confined to a relatively small region of the whole
computational domain
load balancing difficult
• Alternative strategies:
– Hybrid particle parcel technique
• group drops of similar size, location and properties into a single parcel
• solve Lagrangian equations for averaged properties of the parcel
– Solve for PDFs of particle properties instead of individual drops
• pdf transport equations
• solve for moments of the pdf and presume the pdf shape
• DQMOM

Breakup Example
• Liquid jet injected into chamber
– Experiment [Hiroyasu & Kudota 74]
• 0.4 million uniform cells
• initial droplet size = jet diameter
• stochastic breakup and hybrid particle/parcel technique
P = 1.1 MPa

Breakup Example
• Liquid jet injected into chamber
– Experiment [Hiroyasu & Kudota 74]
• 0.4 million uniform cells
• initial droplet size = jet diameter
• stochastic breakup and hybrid particle/parcel technique
Penetration Depth

Problems of Spray Models
• Results are sensitive to the initial drop size distribution
– need to have experimental data of initial drop size distribution
– tune initial drop size distribution to give experimental data down-stream
– guess initial distribution
– assume initial drop size = injector (violates assumptions in model derivation)
• Represent coherent liquid core by collection of particles of equal mass
• Need predictive capability of initial drop size distribution

primary atomization modeling

Modeling Primary Atomization in LES
• Phase interface geometry is partially resolved by LES grid:

track large scale interface geometry + model sub-grid physics
Large Surface Structure (LSS) model
• Couple LSS model to secondary atomization spray model
• Track the phase interface

• Couple to flow solver
• Model sub-grid scale physics
• Couple to spray model

Tracking Interfaces
Common numerical methods:
• Moving grids
+ very accurate for small – very complex
deformations – topology changes & normal movement difficult
• Marker particles
+ accurate – very complex in 3D
– topology changes by manual intervention:
challenging in 3D
– normal interface movement not handled
automatically
• Volume-of-Fluid (VoF)
+ good volume conservation – interface geometry reconstruction challenging
– normal interface movement not straightforward
• Level sets
+ simple interface geometry – not inherently volume conserving
reconstruction
+ normal interface movement
handled automatically

Moving Grids
• Represent phase interface by grid
nodes on the interface
• Move interface grid nodes by Lagrangian

transport
[Scardovelli & Zaleski 1999
from J. Magnaudet and coworkers]
can result in large grid deformations
re-griding necessary
• Successful for small interface deformations
• Topology changes difficult
• Normal interface movement (phase change)

difficult [Scardovelli & Zaleski 1999
from McHyman 1984]

Tracking Interfaces
• Moving grids
challenging in 3D
automatically
• Level sets
reconstruction

Marker Particles
• Track phase interface by Lagrangian
marker particles in a fixed grid
• Phase interface can be reconstructed by

polynomials through neighboring marker
particles
phase interface geometry is very accurate
(normal, curvature)
need to keep connectivity information of [Scardovelli & Zaleski 1999]
markers
topology changes are difficult
• Normal interface movement (phase change) difficult
• Does provide sub-grid phase interface resolution

Tracking Interfaces
• Moving grids
challenging in 3D
automatically
• Level sets
reconstruction

Volume of Fluid
• Represent phase interface by liquid volume fraction in each cell

Volume of Fluid

Volume of Fluid

Volume of Fluid
• Move phase interface by solving PDE
How?
– standard advection schemes have too much dispersion
use artificial compression to preserve jump in
– reconstruct interface geometry and perform geometric flux calculation

Volume of Fluid
PLIC
• Represent phaseinterface by liquid volume fraction in each cell
m
How?
• calculate normal direction to interface

Volume of Fluid
PLIC
• Represent phaseinterface by liquid volume fraction in each cell
m
How?
• assume interface in each cell is planar

• find plane normal to m that has liquid cell volume

Volume of Fluid
How?
• assume interface in each cell is planar

• find plane normal to m that has liquid cell volume
PLIC
Volume of Fluid
• Geometric flux calculation
– Eulerian:
F : wetted cell face area
n : cell face normal
– Lagrangian:
• perform directional operator splitting
• advect planar interface by linearly
interpolated velocities in each cell
• calculate change in liquid volume in F
cell and neighbors
• CFL number 0.5
[Gueyffier et al. 1999]

Volume of Fluid
• Problems in practical applications:
– Volume of Fluid method is not exactly volume preserving
– > 1 or < 0 possible
– is not = 1 in liquid or = 0 in gas ( = or = 1-) wisps
– lower order geometric interface reconstruction yields flotsam
– interface curvature not easily calculated

height function approach, PROST (quadratic interface reconstruction)
– combining geometric flux calculation and normal interface movement

(phase change) difficult

Tracking Interfaces
• Moving grids
challenging in 3D
automatically
• Level sets
reconstruction

Tracking Interfaces with Level Sets
• Define
• Level set equation

: velocity
: phase change vel.
• G for G G0 is arbitrary
– usually chosen to be signed distance function with
G0 = 0:
– but also smeared Heaviside function with G0 = 0.5:

[Olsson & Kreiss 05]
level set scalar for a 2D circle

Solving the Level Set Equation
• Level set transport equation is a Hamilton-Jacobi PDE
• Front can develop corners in finite time
weak solution
Example: front with phase
change
[Sethian 96]
need the weak solution to the PDE
• Use upwind-biased WENO schemes for Hamilton-Jacobi equations
with appropriate flux functions
– 5th-order WENO with Roe/LLF flux function
• Use higher order TVD Runge-Kutta schemes for time advancement
– 3rd-order TVD Runge-Kutta

Level Set Toolbox
• Interface geometric properties:
• Liquid volume and phase interface surface area:
• For numerical purposes use smeared out versions, usually:
with and
but: no convergence under grid refinement! [Engquist et al. 05]
Instead use [Engquist et al. 05] :
with

Level Set Toolbox
• How to keep G a distance function (reinitialization), i.e. :
[Sussman et al. 94]
with and [Peng et al. 99]
• How to extend a quantity defined on to the whole domain (redistribution),

i.e. :
[Peng et al. 99]
with
• Pros and cons of PDE based reinitialization and redistribution:

+ easy to implement and parallelize for domain decomposition
- costly due to pseudo-time iteration
- tend to move the interface and smooth

Level Set Toolbox
• Alternatives to PDE based reinitialization and redistribution:
– Fast Marching Method (FMM)
• discretize and
• solve resulting quadratic equations moving along characteristics
• characteristics = normal vectors pointing away from the interface
• use values on the interface as Dirichlet boundary conditions
Pros and Cons of FMM:

+ low operation count: O(N log N)
- domain decomposition parallelization complicated and parallel efficiency
dependent on surface geometry [Herrmann 03]
– Fast Sweeping Method (FSM)
• similar to FMM, but instead of following characteristics, perform directional back
and forth sweeps along the coordinate axis
Pros and Cons of FSM:

+ higher operation count than FMM
- easier domain decomposition parallelization, but efficiency dependent on interface
geometry
Tracking Interfaces
• Moving grids
challenging in 3D
automatically
• Level sets
reconstruction

Volume Conservation & Level Sets
• Numerically, the volume of each fluid is not inherently preserved:
– Couple level set to volume preserving scheme, for example VoF or marker
particles (Enright et al. 02):
• Use secondary scheme to identify and correct local errors in level set
• Problem: local correction can introduce large errors in higher derivatives of G
curvature
• Example: 2D regularized vortex sheet rollup

Vortex Sheet Rollup
target solution
particles:
initial conditions
curvature
t=3
• Example: 2D regularized vortex sheet rollup:
target solution standard level set particle corrected

level set

Vortex Sheet Rollup
target solution
particles:
initial conditions
curvature
• Example: 2D de-singularized vortex sheett rollup:
=3
curvature distribution
target solution particle corrected

level set

curvature
• Delocalization techniques only partially successful [Coyajee et al. 04]
– Increase fidelity of level set solution:

• Volume error ~ grid resolution
refine level set grid independent of flow solver grid:
Refined Level Set Grid Method

Vortex Sheet Rollup
target solution
particles [Enright et al 02]:
initial conditions
curvature
• Delocalization techniques only partially tsuccessful
=3 [Coyajee et al. 04]

• Volume error ~ grid resolution refine level set grid independent
of flow solver grid:
• Example: 2D regularized vortex sheet rollup:
target solution standard level set RLSG

Vortex Sheet Rollup
target solution
particles [Enright et al 02]:
initial conditions
curvature
• Delocalization techniques only partially tsuccessful
=3 [Coyajee et al. 04]

• Volume error ~ grid curvature
resolution distribution
refine level set grid independent
of flow solver grid:

target solution RLSG

curvature
• Delocalization techniques only partially successful [Coyajee et al. 04]

• Volume error ~ grid resolution
refine level set grid independent of flow solver grid:
• Efficiency? two-layer narrow band approach

• Front on a flow solver grid

• Introduce equidistant Cartesian
super-grid (blocks)

super-grid (blocks)
• Activate (store) only narrow
band of blocks

super-grid (blocks)
band of blocks
• Active blocks consist of an equi-
distant Cartesian fine G-grid

super-grid (blocks)
band of blocks
• Activate (store) only
narrow band of fine G-grid

super-grid (blocks)
band of blocks
• Activate (store) only
narrow band of fine G-grid
Solve and store all level set equations only on active cells of G-grid:
cost is only O(N2), not O(N3) high resolution: xG«xfs
Efficient domain decomposition parallelization straightforward
Fast and accurate Cartesian solution techniques for HJ-PDEs can be used
(5th order WENO, FMM)
RLSG Results: Vortex in a Box
1
0.8
0.6
Y
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X
initial conditions
Flow solver:
• 64 x 64 cells
RLSG:
• 512 x 512 cells max
Flow solver
volume fraction
0t3
512x512
t=3
Flow solver:
• 64 x 64 cells
RLSG:
Flow solver
volume fraction
0t3
512x512
Total Volume
t=3
128x128
t=3

512x512
Total Volume
t=3
128x128
t=3

Sphere in a Deformation Field
initial conditions
Flow solver:
• 643 cells
RLSG:
• 2563 cells max
RLSG
G = G0 iso-surface
0 t 1.5

2563
RLSG 2563
RLSG 1283
t = 1.5
1283
RLSG 643
t = 1.5
Flow solver: 643 cells

2563
RLSG 2563
RLSG 1283
t = 1.5
1283
RLSG 643
t = 1.5


Coupling to Flow Solver
• Approaches:
– Interface conforming grids
• Deform grid such that cell faces conform to phase interface, then use
jump conditions across the interface as boundary conditions
– One fluid approach on non-conforming grids

• Ghost fluid method [Fedkiw et al. 99]
• In-cell reconstruction technique [Smiljanovski 96]
• Assume gas and liquid are one fluid with change in density and
composition at the phase interface

• Approaches


Jump conditions at the phase interface
• In most applications the phase interface can be treated as a
discontinuity
• Jump conditions at the phase interface:
• Alternatives: resolve change of quantities through the interface

– Navier-Stokes-Korteweg equations
– Cahn-Hilliard equations

• Approaches


Ghost Fluid Method
• Applicable to finite difference methods
• Define a ghost fluid: ghost air in
liquid, ghost liquid in air
• For ghost fluid state:
– extrapolate all quantities that jump
across the interface
– keep all quantities that have zero
jump
• For all gradients near/across the interface use only air/ghost air or
liquid/ghost liquid states
controls dispersion errors for quantities that have non-zero jump
• For higher order: perform Taylor expansion within one fluid and apply
jump conditions at the interface

In-Cell Reconstruction
• Applicable to finite volume methods
• All cells with part of the interface
reconstruct in-cell gas and liquid
state from
• All single phase cells close to

interface apply jump conditions to define ghost state
• For all gradients near/across the interface use only the same phase
(true, reconstructed, or jumped)
eliminates dispersion errors for quantities that have non-zero jump

• Approaches


One Fluid Approach
• Navier-Stokes equations for two-phase, incompressible flows in non-conservative form:
: surface tension force
• Marker particles:
– interpolate gradient of density to grid:
– solve Poisson system for
• For finite volume Navier-Stokes solver:

: liquid density, viscosity
: gas density, viscosity
• Flow solver liquid volume fraction :

– VoF: tracks directly
– Level set:
or [van der Pijl et al. 2004]

One Fluid Approach
• Surface tension force : : surface element
: surface tension coeff.
: surface mean curvature
: surface normal
: delta function at surface
– Marker Particles:
: surface element edge
: surface edge tangent
– Continuum Surface Force (CSF): [Brackbill et al. 92]
: marker function
VoF level set
– Continuum Surface Stress (CSS): [Zaleski et al. 94]
VoF
Spurious Currents: Inviscid Static Drop
• Test case:
– 8 x 8 box, circle radius R = 2
– inviscid, = 73
– time step t = 10-6
• Inviscid stationary drop (circle) with surface tension should remain motionless for
all time
• But: numerical errors introduce spurious currents:
– discrete imbalance between surface tension forces and pressure gradients
single time step t = 10-3:
|umax| = 0.146
[Francois et al. 06]

• Test case:
– inviscid, = 73
all time
– remedy: introduce viscosity to control errors:
: VoF and level set methods [Lafaurrie et al. 94]
: marker methods [Tryggvason]

• Test case:
– inviscid, = 73
all time
– remedy: introduce viscosity to control errors
– better: balanced force algorithm [Young et al. 02, Francois et al. 06]
after 1 time step, exact curvature

• Test case:
– inviscid, = 73
all time
balanced force algorithm: errors reduced to machine accuracy zero
– errors in surface tension force evaluation = errors in curvature evaluation

make curvature calculation as accurate as possible
• Marker Particles: polynomial reconstruction of the surface
• VoF: height function approach or PROST
• Level Set: higher order gradient approximation or RLSG
August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Level Set Curvature Calculation
• Level set methods calculate curvature at nodes:
introduces O(x) error for interface curvature
• Interface projected curvature:

1. Calculate curvature at nodes
2. Locate closest point on interface for each node xj :

– approximate G in each cell by tricubic polynomial
– apply two-step Newton algorithm to find closest point j (Chopp 01)
3. Calculate curvature at interface j by trilinear interpolation
4. Assign interface curvature to node
2nd order converging curvatures

• use as Dirichlet bc for reinitialization

• 40x40 fs-grid, single time step, 1/2 = 1
Convergence under grid refinement

-2
10
nd
-3
Loo 2 order
10 L2
L(| - ex|)
-4
10 L1
-5
10
-6
10
1 2 3
10 10 10
n
Error in curvature evaluation
• 40x40 fs-grid, single time step, 1/2 = 1
RLSG: Convergence under G-grid refinement

-6 -1
10 10
ptot
-7
Loo nd 10
-2
10 2 order
L2
Loo(|p-pex|)
-3
pmax nd
10 2 order
L(|u|)
-8
10 L1 -4 ppart
10
-9
10 -5
10
-10 -6
10 10
1 2 3 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10
n n
Spurious current magnitude Error in pressure jump
Convergence under
• 20x20 fs-grid, 2000 time step, 1/2 = 1000
G-grid refinement
-3
10
20x20 -4
max L (u)
-2 10
10
2
20x40
nd
10
-5 2 order
-4
10
kin
20x80
E
-6
10
-6 10
1
10
2
10 n
20x160
-8
10
0 5 10 15 20
t
Spurious current kinetic energy
Spurious current magnitude

Damped Surface Wave
• Compare to initial value linear theory (Prosperetti 81)
– box size: 2 x 2
– wave length = 2, initial amplitude A0 = 0.01
– no gravity
– surface oscillations caused by surface tension forces
– theory for contrasting densities, but equal
• Use level set interface tracking and one fluid approach

Damped Surface Wave
• 1/2 = 1, 1=2 = 0.06472, grid refinement
-3
10
0.01
nd
theory -4
10 2 order
16x16
32x32
error
0.005 -5
10
64x64
th
-6 4 order
10
A/
0
-7
10 1 2
10 10
-0.005
n
-0.01
0 5 10 15 20
tn
oscillation amplitude vs. time convergence

Damped Surface Wave
• 1/2 = 1, 1=2 = 0.06472, fs-grid 16x16, RLSG, refine G-grid only
-3
10
0.01 st
1 order
theory -4
10
16x16
16x32
error
0.005 16x64 10
-5 nd
2 order
16x128
-6
10
A/
0
-7
10 1 2
10 10
-0.005
n
-0.01
0 5 10 15 20
tn

Damped Surface Wave
• 1/2 = 1000, 1=2 = 0, grid refinement
-2
10
0.015
st
theory 1 order
0.01 16x16
32x32
error
-3
64x64 10
0.005 128x128
A/
nd
2 order
0
-4
10
-0.005 10
1
10
2
n
-0.01
-0.015
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
tt


Consistent Surface Filters for LES
• Introduce spatial (volume) filters into the Navier-Stokes equations:
– additional surface tension force term:
• Standard volume filters not applicable to level set equation (Oberlack et al. 01)
phase interface based filters are required:
– Mean position (Pitsch 05):
– Sub-filter length scale :

surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
• Volume filter based on surface parameterization
introduces new small scales
• Alternative: Heaviside based filtering
– Apply standard LES volume filter

Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
• Problem: How to define for Heaviside filter?
– If based on
for planar surface
– If based on
for planar surface, but measures volume, not length scale
• Alternative: Use first and second moment of sub-filter

PDF of surface coordinates

Modeling Sub-Grid Scale Physics
• Large Surface Structure model:
: spray transfer velocity
production,
: dissipation,
turbulent trans.
+ filtered Navier-Stokes equations with
• How to close these terms?

– perform DNS and gain insight
use consistent filters to analyze DNS results
– use Refined Level Set Grid approach!

The RLSG Approach for Sub-Grid Modeling
• Solve Navier-Stokes equations on (implicit) filter scale
• Solve level set equations on RLSG with DNS resolution

– feasible on massively parallel machines, since O(N2)
• Close all phase interface related unclosed terms in Navier-Stokes

equations by explicit filtering of the RLSG solution
• Caveat: must ensure that DNS phase interface behaves correctly:
need to reconstruct structured on RLSG grid from LES information

on filter scale


RLSG Coupling to Spray Models
• Prerequisite for most spray models:
– RLSG provides sub-flow solver resolution
identify & transfer all separated liquid structures with


• When does breakup occur in level set methods (VoF)?
– inherent breakup length scale

– inherent breakup length scale

– inherent breakup length scale mass is lost
v
lost mass

– RLSG: with and
identify & transfer all RLSG liquid structures thinner than

– RLSG: with and

– RLSG: with and

– RLSG: with and
– but is this physical?
not really, but this is how spray models represent coherent liquid structures
• RLSG data yield drop center, mass, and momentum
⇒ input conditions for Lagrangian spray model

Vortex in a Box with Spray Coupling
1
0.8
0.6
Y
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X
initial condition
Flow solver:
• 64 x 64 cells
RLSG:
• drop transfer, = 4
Flow solver
volume fraction
0t3
Vortex in a Box with Spray Coupling
128x128
128x128 without & with drops
=4, total V
=4, LS V no drops
t=3
drops 128x128
=4, drop V
t=3

Sphere in a Deformation Field with Spray
initial condition
Flow solver:
• 643 cells
RLSG:
• 1283 cells max
• =4
RLSG
G = G0 iso-surface
0 t 1.5
Sphere in a Deformation Field with Spray
1283, =4, total V
=4 1283
1283, no drops
1283, =4, LS V
t = 1.5
1283, =4, drop V

Acknowledgments
• S. Apte
• F. Ham
• V. Moureau
• E. v.d. Weide
• D. Kim
• O. Desjardins
• E. Knudsen

TwoPhaseTutorial PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TwoPhaseTutorial PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two-Phase Flow

2006 CTR Summer Program

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 2

• Any flow involving two of the three phases is a two-phase flow

• The focus in this tutorial will be on liquid/gas flows

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 3

LOX+GH2 cold jet (Mayer et al. 01)

• Density change across the phase interface is large

• Phase interface exerts a localized surface tension

• Vast range of time and length scales are common

• Example: Atomization of a liquid jet in a turbulent environment

• How can one model/simulate this?

Lasheras et al. 1998

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 1

• How can one model/simulate this?

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 2

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 3

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 4

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 5

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 1

• Phase transition models:

liquid specific heat

– use Spalding mass and heat transfer numbers and Clausius-Clapeyron’s

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 2

• Source term in momentum equations

• Interpolation operator from particle position to cv-centroids

: local grid size

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 3

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 4

Mean Axial Velocity RMS of Axial Velocity

Mean Radial Velocity RMS of Radial Velocity

Mean Swirl Velocity RMS of Swirl Velocity

Mean Radial Velocity RMS of Radial Velocity

Mean Swirl Velocity RMS of Swirl Velocity

Mean Particle Diameter RMS of Particle Diameter

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 7

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 8

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 10

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 1

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 2

• Represent coherent liquid core by collection of particles of equal mass

• Need predictive capability of initial drop size distribution

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 3

• Phase interface geometry is partially resolved by LES grid:

• Track the phase interface

• Track the phase interface

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 7

• Move interface grid nodes by Lagrangian

• Successful for small interface deformations

• Topology changes difficult

• Normal interface movement (phase change)

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 8

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 9

• Phase interface can be reconstructed by

• Normal interface movement (phase change) difficult

• Does provide sub-grid phase interface resolution

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 10

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 11

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 12

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 13

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 14

• Move phase interface by solving PDE

August 2nd, 2006 Two-Phase Flow Tutorial 15