Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK
Engineering Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YR, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 17 April 2009
Accepted 1 September 2009
Available online 21 October 2009
This review attempts to summarize the physical models and advanced methods used in computational
studies of gasliquid two-phase jet ows encountered in atomization and spray processes. In traditional
computational uid dynamics (CFD) based on Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes (RANS) approach,
physical modelling of atomization and sprays is an essential part of the two-phase ow computation. In
more advanced CFD such as direct numerical simulation (DNS) and large-eddy simulation (LES), physical
modelling of atomization and sprays is still inevitable. For multiphase ows, there is no model-free DNS
since the interactions between different phases need to be modelled. DNS of multiphase ows based on
the one-uid formalism coupled with interface tracking algorithms seems to be a promising way
forward, due to the advantageous lower costs compared with a multi-uid approach. In LES of gasliquid
two-phase jet ows, subgrid-scale (SGS) models for complex multiphase ows are very immature. There
is a lack of well-established SGS models to account for the interactions between the different phases. In
this paper, physical modelling of atomization and sprays in the context of CFD is reviewed with
modelling assumptions and limitations discussed. In addition, numerical methods used in advanced CFD
of atomization and sprays are discussed, including high-order numerical schemes. Other relevant issues
of modelling and simulation of atomization and sprays such as nozzle internal ow, dense spray, and
multiscale modelling are also briey reviewed.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Modelling
Simulation
Atomization
Spray
Liquid Jet
Two phase
Direct numerical simulation
Large-eddy simulation
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
Physical modelling of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
2.1.
The spray equation in the Lagrangian approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
2.2.
Liquid atomization modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2.3.
Droplet kinematics, droplet/droplet and spray/wall interactions, and liquid-fuel evaporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
LES of spray flow and combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
3.1.
Scale range separation, space filtering and mathematical formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3.2.
Subgrid-scale models and linear eddy mixing model for combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.3.
Numerical issues for LES of spray flow and combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
DNS-like simulations of gasliquid two-phase flows for atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
4.1.
Overview of multiphase flow modelling for a DNS-like simulation of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.2.
Interface tracking and reconstruction techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.2.1.
VOF-type methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.2.2.
Level-set methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
4.3.
Modelling surface tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
4.4.
High-order numerical schemes for DNS of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Other relevant issues of modelling and simulation of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
* Corresponding author. Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK. Tel.: 44 1895 266685; fax: 44 1895
256392.
E-mail address: xi.jiang@brunel.ac.uk (X. Jiang).
0360-1285/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.09.002
132
6.
5.1.
Modelling nozzle internal flow, hollow-cone sprays, dense sprays, and electrohydrodynamic (EHD) atomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.2.
Multiscale modelling of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Nomenclature
a
A
Af ,Ap
AR
b
bR
B0 , B1
BM
c
C
CD
C p , Cv
Cs
Cn , C3
d
D
D
e
E
f
f
F
F
g
G
h
hv;s
H
I
k
kR
l
L
Lv
m
m, n
n, N
Nu
O
p
P
Pr
q
Q
Q_
r
R
Rc ; Rv
Re
S
Sc
Sh
t
T
TA
Td
T_ d
u
U
v
v
V
Vol
w
w
W
_ s
W
We
x
X
xp
Xi
y
Y
y_
y
Z
Sherwood number
time
Taylor parameter; gas temperature
activation temperature
droplet temperature
time rate of change of temperature
gas-phase velocity vector
gas velocity at the liquid surface
particle velocity
droplet velocity vector
droplet volume; domain; diffusion velocity
volume of the cell
weighting
local relative velocity between the droplet and the
surrounding gas (v u)
molecular weight
subgrid turbulence effects due to spray
Weber number
droplet position vector
mole fraction; random number
particle centroid
droplet transient location
droplet distortion from sphericity
mass fraction
time rate of change of the droplet distortion
(oscillation velocity)
time rate of change of oscillation velocity
Ohnesorge number
Greek
a
b
c
d
d3
D
V
3
g
G
hK
k
q
l
L
m
n
n12
r
s
P
Q
s
f
F
J
u_
u
U
U
Superscripts
0
beginning of time step
previous cell
next cell
c
combustion
s
source terms due to spray effects
sgs
subgrid scale
x
x-direction
Subscripts
@
at point
atm
atmospheric
body
body
bu
breakup
c
carrier gas
chem
chemical
coll
collision
crit
critical
d
droplets
1. Introduction
Gasliquid two-phase ows broadly occur in nature and environment, such as the falling of raindrops and various spray
processes. In practical applications, an important type of gasliquid
two-phase ows is a jet ow with an initial momentum driving the
breakup of the liquid into small drops. The transformation of bulk
liquid into sprays containing these small drops in a gaseous
atmosphere is of importance to a broad range of practical processes.
Sprays are encountered in many engineering, environmental,
medical and biomedical applications. Atomization, referring to the
conversion of bulk liquid into a collection of drops (i.e. a spray),
often occurs after the liquid passes through a nozzle. Numerous
devices to generate spray ows have been developed and they are
generally designated as atomizers or nozzles. Although atomization
does not usually imply that the liquid particles are reduced to
atomic sizes, the spray drops from atomization can be very small. In
many industrial applications such as aircraft engines, diesel and
gasoline internal combustion engines, and spray painting of automobiles, as well as in medical applications, atomization and spray
process is an integral part of a much larger practical ow system.
For example, a gas-turbine system for aircraft propulsion is a rotary
engine that extracts energy from a ow of combustion gas generated from a combustor, which has an upstream compressor and
a downstream turbine. Combustion provides power to the system
in the form of shaft power and thrust. A gas-turbine combustor is
a complex combustion device within which there are a broad range
of coupled, interacting physical and chemical phenomena, with
atomization and spray being one of the most important processes.
In the combustor, energy is added to the gas stream through
combustion between the air and the liquid fuel, which is atomized
rst, forming a spray, before the gas-phase combustion occurs.
Spray characteristics are of great importance to gas-turbine
combustors. The liquid fuel, used as the energy source, must be
atomized into smaller droplets in order to increase the surface area
of fuel exposed to the hot gases and to facilitate rapid evaporation
diff
f
F
g
i
j
k
kin
l
m
mix
o
O
p
P
R
rel
s
S
sat
stir
surf
t
v
vol
133
diffusion
uid
fuel
gas
incoming; index
index
index
kinetically controlled
liquid
index
mixing controlled
outgoing
oxidizer
particle
product
resolved subgrid scale
relative
spray; surface
unresolved subgrid scale
saturation
stirring
surface
turbulent
vapor
volume
and mixing with the oxidant ambience, where the mixing always
dominates the combustion process.
Atomization and spray process is a typical gasliquid two-phase
ow of great practical relevance in applications such as the fuel
injection in gas-turbine combustors of aircraft engines and in
internal combustion engines. The combustion performance and
emissions are mainly inuenced by the atomization of the liquid
fuel, the motion and evaporation of the fuel droplets and mixing of
fuel with air. The dynamics of spray and its combustion characteristics are extremely important in determining, for instance, the
ame stability behaviour at widely varying loads, the safe and
efcient utilization of energy, as well as the mechanisms of
pollutants formation and destruction. Understanding and controlling atomization and spray combustion is becoming an essential
part of the industrial applications, which have been driven by
increasingly urgent demands to improve fuel and energy efciencies, and to drastically reduce the emission of pollutants.
The spray combustion process may be divided into several
elements, such as atomization, liquid transport, vaporisation, and
combustion. In general, liquid fuel is injected through a nozzle system
into the combustor chamber and is atomized to form a spray of
droplets before gas-phase combustion takes place in the vaporized
fuel. Fig.1 shows a schematic of a simple liquid spray plume structure.
In the atomization region, the liquid dominates the ow and the
liquid fuel disintegrates into ligaments and droplets. Large liquid
blobs which are bulks of continuous liquids present in the atomization region. The dense spray region has lower but still signicant
liquid volume fraction and includes secondary breakup of drops and
ligaments as well as dropdrop interactions, such as collisions and
coalescence. Liquid ligaments normally present in the atomization
and dense spray regions, which are non-spherical liquid sheets,
sheared off the liquid jet column. In the dilute spray region, spherical
droplets are well formed and have a strong interaction with the
turbulent airow. In general, the spray structure depends on the
injection pressure difference, injector size, fuel viscosity and fuel
density. With the initial injection velocity, liquid-fuel droplets
134
droplets, preventing collisions between them. Air-assisted atomization is used in many of the same elds as pressure-swirl atomization, where ne atomization is especially required. The merits of
the air-blast atomizer have led to its installation in a wide variety of
aircraft, marine, and industrial gas turbines. Similar to the pressureswirl atomizer, there is also a type of atomizer referred to as the
at-fan atomizer which makes a at sheet and does not use swirl. In
addition to the commonly used atomizers, effervescent atomization
is the injection of liquid infused with a super-heated (with respect
to downstream conditions) liquid or propellant. As the volatile
liquid exits the nozzle, it rapidly changes phase. This phase change
quickly breaks up the stream into small droplets with a wide
dispersion angle. It also applies to cases where a very hot liquid is
discharged. Effervescent atomization involves bubbling a small
amount of gas into the liquid and the physics of effervescence
atomization has not been fully understood.
As a means to achieve improved combustion efciency and
reduced pollutant emissions, atomization and spray combustion
remain a very important process in the current and future energy
systems. There has been a substantial amount of experimental,
computational and theoretical studies on fuel injection and spray
combustion, which have been reviewed from different perspectives
in the past, e.g. [127], mainly from theoretical and experimental
points of view. Over the last few decades, the continuous evolution
in the research area of atomization and sprays has been predominantly driven by the readily available laser optical instruments and
enormously enhanced computer powers. To achieve the ever
stringent goals of low emission and to further improve the fuel
economy, a much greater degree of control of atomization and
spray processes is required in the atomizer design and the spray
systems. An in-depth understanding is essential to the effective
control of atomization and spray processes. However, such an
understanding is still not available due to the complex nature of the
multiphase reacting ows. There are also new spray systems
emerging in different applications. For instance, electrosprays and
ultrasonic sprays provide the means to generate more steady and
controlled spray ows [24], but these processes have been poorly
understood.
The rapid and steady improvements in the speed of computers
and the available memory size since the 1950s have led to the
emergence of computational uid dynamics (CFD) in the 1960s and
the development of advanced CFD approaches such as direct
numerical simulation (DNS) and large-eddy simulation (LES) in
a later stage. Numerical simulation based on modern CFD represents a useful tool to obtain ow characteristics that can be effectively utilized to understand the ow physics, to interpret available
experimental data and to guide experimental work, as well as to
execute pre-calculations for altered operating conditions.
The basis of CFD is that the physical aspects of any uid ow are
governed by three fundamental principles: mass is conserved;
135
1000 mm for sprinklers. The velocity of sprays can range from a few
centimeters to several hundred meters per second, involving both
incompressible and compressible ows and covering both laminar
and turbulent ow regimes. The physics of gasliquid two-phase
ows in atomization and spray processes have not been well
understood due to the multiple time and length scales involved and
the coupling between the two phases, which is always difcult to
investigate using simple experimental and/or computational
approaches.
There are two different ways in which the two-phase spray
ows are commonly represented in CFD. These two approaches are:
the Eulerian method, where the spray is considered as
a continuum across the whole ow domain, and the Lagrangian
method, where the paths taken by droplets or clusters of droplets
are tracked through the domain. In the Lagrangian particle tracking
approach, the gas phase is still represented using the Eulerian
approach but the liquid spray is represented by a number of
discrete computational particles. Individual particles are tracked
through the ow domain from their injection point until
they escape the domain or until some integration limit criterion is
met. Each uid particle typically represents a large number of
droplets with a given size distribution and transport properties. The
larger number of particles or trajectories gives a reasonable
representation of the liquid behaviour. One of the advantages of
the Lagrangian approach is that an accurate representation of the
droplet distribution can be obtained at a lower cost than the
Eulerian approach of the liquid phase, where tracking the interface
between all the droplets and the gas phase can be a prohibitive task
in terms of computing costs. Consequently, the Lagrangian method
for the liquid phase has been predominantly used in RANS and LES.
Lagrangian approach is a reduced modelling strategy where the
internal dynamics of the droplets or liquid parcels is ignored. Due to
this reason and the prohibitively large number of droplets that
need to be traced and the extensive models involved for the
descriptions of the liquid phase especially for the initial breakup
and atomization stage, it is not normally preferable in DNS.
In the following sections of this review, the physical modelling
of atomization and sprays is discussed rst in Section 2, in the
context of RANS modelling approach of spray ows. Since RANS
modelling approach will remain to be the dominant method in
industrial applications in the foreseeable future, physical submodels of atomization and spray processes are an important part of
CFD applications to spray ows. In Section 3, the more advanced
LES of spray ow and combustion is briey reviewed, where the
SGS modelling issues are highlighted. In Section 4, DNS-like
simulations of gasliquid two-phase ows for atomization and
sprays are described, including relevant numerical methods.
Finally, in Section 5, other relevant issues of modelling and simulation of atomization and sprays are discussed, including modelling
of internal ow and hollow-cone sprays, dense sprays, electrohydrodynamic (EHD) atomization, and multiscale modelling of
atomization and sprays. The review has been focussed on the uid
dynamic aspects of spray ows, rather than the detailed combustion modelling of the reacting aspects of the ows.
2. Physical modelling of atomization and sprays
The development of computers with large memory and highspeed processors enables theoreticians to formulate and numerically solve comprehensive mathematical models with detailed
consideration of physical and chemical processes involved in
liquid-fuel atomization and spray combustion. Due to the
complexity involved in atomization and spray processes such as the
broad range of time and length scales involved, modelling or
approximation is inevitable in CFD of such multiphase ow
136
vf
v
v _
v
v
f Td
Vx ,f v Vv ,f F f R
f y_
fy
vt
vr
vTd
vy
vy_
f_
1
f_
coll
bu
r_ s
s
F_
s
Q_
_ s
W
f rd
4 3 0
pr F 4pr2 Rv dv dr dTd dy dy_
3
1
4
f rd 4pr 2 R Il v u2 pr 3 cl T_ d
2
3
0
0
F $v u u dv dr dTd dy dy_
(2)
(3)
4
f rd pr 3 F0 $u0 dv dr dTd dy dy_
3
(4)
(5)
the turbulent uctuation of the gas velocity, Il and cl are the internal
energy and specic heat of liquid droplets, respectively.
In CFD codes, the spray equation is normally solved using
a Monte-Carlo based solution technique in the Lagrangian formulation [29], based on the so-called discrete droplet model proposed
by Dukowicz [33]. The trajectories of spray droplets are traced in
the eleven dimensional phase space once they are injected. The
method describes the spray droplets by stochastic particles that are
usually referred to as parcels [34]. The spray models consider the
droplet interactions with turbulence and walls, and calculate
droplet momentum changes due to drag, droplet breakup, collision
and evaporation. These processes control the droplet locations,
sizes, velocities, temperatures and distortions. The status of droplets, i.e. the function f , is updated by the solution of Eq. (1) and the
contribution of fuel spray to the gas phase is then obtained since
mass, momentum and energy are transferred between the phases.
Additional consideration is needed in the spray equation to
describe the injection, atomization, distortion, breakup, collision
and coalescence of spray droplets. An efcient injection modelling
approach is to introduce the liquid into the combustion chamber as
computational parcels containing large numbers of identical
droplets. The number and velocity of the injected droplet parcels
can be determined from the fuel ow rate and knowledge of the
nozzle discharge coefcient [35].
For spray simulations in the traditional RANS CFD modelling
approach, it should be understood that due to the probabilistic
approach of the spray equation and the nite grid size of the
calculations, many limitations are present. In a practical simulation,
many droplets are contained within a given grid volume element
due to the nite grid size (currently of the order of 12 mm). The
modelling assumptions, which determine behaviour within each
grid element, are thus very important. The limitations on grid size
also affect the modelling of heat transfer, momentum exchange,
and droplet phenomena at solid surfaces, etc., therefore numerical
resolution is important in reproducing the structure of sprays [36].
The closure of the spray equation requires expressions to
approximate relevant terms in Eq. (1), which necessitates modelling
approximations for the sub-processes of atomization and sprays. A
variety of sub-models on atomization and sprays are involved in
numerical simulation of sprays. These sub-models are based on
many theoretical assumptions and empirical correlations. In
a numerical simulation, the assumptions inevitably affect the results
and which of the many empirically based assumptions is most
important depends strongly on the application. In the following
subsections, physical modelling of atomization and sprays is discussed in terms of liquid atomization, droplet kinematics, droplet/
droplet and spray/wall interactions, and fuel evaporation.
2.2. Liquid atomization modelling
Atomization is the process leading to the formation of sprays,
which refers to the conversion of bulk liquid into a collection of
droplets, often by passing the liquid through a nozzle or an atomizer. Atomization can be considered as a disruption of the consolidating inuence of surface tension by the action of internal and
external forces. The atomization model supplies the initial conditions for spray computations, i.e. the drop sizes, velocities,
temperatures, etc., at the injector nozzle exit. In spite of the
importance of atomization and the extensive efforts devoted to its
study, the fundamental mechanisms of breakup and atomization
are still not well understood. Modelling liquid atomization represents a particularly difcult challenge since there is still much
uncertainty about the fundamental mechanisms of atomization.
Models have been proposed which ascribe atomization to the
turbulent and/or cavitation ow processes within the nozzle
137
2 rg w2
8s
5m
3 y 2l y_
3 rl r 2
rl r
rl r
(6)
0:5
0:34 0:38We1:5
g
;
1 Z 1 1:4T 0:6
1 0:45Z 0:5
1 0:4T 0:7
L
9:02
0:6
a
1 0:87We1:67
g
rl a3
s
(7)
138
Fig. 2. Schematic of blobs from a liquid jet formed during fuel injection.
r B0 L where B0 L a; or
1=3
1=3 i
h
; 3a2 L=4
r min 3pa2 U=2U
where B0 L > a; one time only
da
ar
with r a;
s
dt
a
3:726B1
d
x v
dt
LU
(9)
In Eq. (9), B1 is the breakup time constant that depends on the
injector characteristics.
Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of the surface waves and
breakup of a blob in the wave breakup model. The wave
breakup model considers the growth of initial perturbations of the
liquid surface and includes the effects of liquid inertia, surface
tension, viscous and aerodynamic forces on liquid jets and sheets.
The theory is found to offer a reasonably complete description of
the breakup mechanisms of low-speed liquid jets. For high-speed
jets and sheets, however, the initial state of the jet at the nozzle exit
appears to be more important and less understood and the linear
stability analysis involved in the wave model may not be
sufcient.
The TAB model and the wave breakup model discussed are
widely used to describe both the primary breakup of the intact
liquid phase into rst ligaments and droplets and the secondary
breakup of liquid-fuel droplets into even smaller droplets. The rst
attempt to include secondary droplet breakup in a CFD spray
calculation was made by Reitz and Diwakar [40]. In many recent
applications, the wave or KelvinHelmholtz (KH) breakup model
(10)
d
v F
dt
(11)
rl VF
1
r C A $ju vj$u v
2 g D f
(12)
where V and Af are the droplet volume and frontal area, respectively. To calculate the droplet drag, the droplet can be taken to be
a sphere with drag coefcient [29] given by
CD
2=3
1 16Red
0:424
24
Red
Red 1000
Red > 1000
(13)
CD CD;sphere 1 2:632y
(14)
b2 qr1 r2 2
and b2crit
g3 2:4g2 2:7g
r1 r2 2 min 1:0; 2:4
Wel
(16)
(17)
(15)
139
rg DB Sh
dr
2rl r
dt
(18)
aT Td Nu
2r
(19)
140
~f rf
(20)
f ~f f 0
(21)
~f x; t
G x x0i f x0i ; t dx0i
(22)
Gxi zi dzi 1
(23)
b
f u
141
f xi eiux dx
(24)
b u u
b u G
b u
u
(25)
Gx; y
3=2
pD2
"
exp
6y x2
#
(26)
D2
3
Dx$Dy$Dz
(27)
where Dx, Dy and Dz are the sizes of a typical grid cell in x, y and z
directions respectively. This is one of the many possible lters.
Finally, a box lter is the same as the grid lter whereby the lter
cuts off the values of the function beyond a half lter width away.
The box lter has a unique feature in that the ltered quantity at the
lter centre represents the spatial average of the ltered function
within the lter domain. This makes it attractive for application in
nite-volume method based codes.
Applying the ltering to the fundamental governing equations
of uid ows leads to a set of ltered equations to be solved in LES,
consisting of the mass conservation equation, NavierStokes
momentum equations for the three velocity components, and the
energy equation and species conservation equations for each of the
species present in the system for reacting ows. For a spray ow
with the liquid phase described in the Lagrangian reference frame,
the ltered governing equations for LES of the compressible,
multiphase ow can be given as follows [60,61].
~j
vr vru
r_s
vt
vxj
(28)
vp
~i
vru
v
ru~ i u~ j ~sij ssgs
Fis
ij
vt
vxj
vxi
(29)
~j
~
vu
e
vr~
v
vu
ru~ j ~e qj hsgs
p
~sij i
j
vt
vxj
vxj
vxj
c
s
sgs
Psgs Q
Q_ Q_
~
~m
vrY
v
vY
sgs
ru~ j Y~ m rDm m Fsgs
qj;m
j;m
vxj
vt
vxj
(30)
!
r_ cm r_ sm
(31)
In the above equations, the subgrid related terms are unclosed and
,
have to be modelled, including the subgrid-scale stress tensor ssgs
ij
, velocitypressure gradient correlation Psgs , viscous
heat ux hsgs
j
sgs
sgs
work Q , species mass ux Fj;m , and species diffusive mass ux
qsgs
.
Also,
all
the
terms
on
the
right-hand side of Eqs. (28)(31)
j;m
which are due to liquid spray and combustion need to be modelled,
which may include contributions from both the resolved and subgrid scales. The diffusion terms in Eq. (31) is expressed in terms of
Fickian diffusion that is a commonly used approximation.
The modelling of the unclosed terms in the ltered equations
and appropriate treatment of the chemical (combustion) and spray
source terms in the governing equations represent the most
142
1
2
ssgs
Sij ~
2rnt ~
Skk dij rksgs dij
ij
3
(32)
In Eq. (32), ~
Sij is the resolved strain rate tensor, dened as
~j
~ i vu
1 vu
~
Sij
2 vxj vxi
!
(33)
p
The eddy viscosity is given by nt Cn r ksgs D using the subgrid
turbulent kinetic energy ksgs, which is provided by solving the
following equation
!
~ j ksgs
~i
vrksgs vru
v rnt vksgs
sgs vu
sgs
_ s
W
sij
D
vt
vxj
vxj
vxj Prt vxj
(34)
sgs
In the above equation,
p the subgrid energy dissipation rate term D
3=2
is closed by C3 r ksgs =D. The values of Cn and C3 are chosen to be
_ s is the sub0.067 and 0.916 [60,61], respectively. The last term W
grid turbulence effects due to spray, which follows the original
modelling approach used in RANS CFD. The subgrid heat ux,
viscous work, and species mass ux may be modelled by the eddyviscosity concept [63]:
sgs
hj
rnt Cp vT~
Prt vxj
sgs
; Q
Dsgs
C3 r
p
rnt vY~ m
ksgs
sgs
; Fj;m
Sct vxj
D
3=2
(35)
More details of the closure of the unknown terms in the ltered
equations are presented in the following subsections.
In LES of reacting ows, an assumption is often made that in
a turbulent reacting ow the scales of the chemical processes are
separated from those of turbulence, based on the observation that
chemical reactions often occur at much smaller timescales than
those of turbulence itself. A separate, uncoupled treatment of both
turbulent and chemical processes is then possible. This is also
a scale separation, which forms the basis of many physical models
for turbulent combustion. There are however situations, where this
scale separation fails completely. For example, it has been shown
[64,65] that lean premixed ames are highly unstable and can be
quenched locally or extinguished by turbulence effects. Recent
experimental work, using high sensitivity planar laser induced
uorescence (PLIF) imaging methods, conrmed interactions of
ame and ow eld in highly turbulent regions lead to local ame
extinctions [66,67]. This phenomenon is especially important in the
context of gas-turbine combustors. Since the design of a modern
gas-turbine combustor focuses on lean combustion for lower
emission and increased fuel efciency, the risk of ame quenching
and local extinction is increased. The so-called lean blow out (LBO)
can occur in both premixed and non-premixed ames and
substantial amount of research is devoted to this problem [68,69].
The LBO effect is also crucial for liquid sprays and atomization. LBO
may be affected by vaporization timescales and droplet residence
times. This coupling between turbulence and combustion chemistry calls for very sophisticated combustion models effective at all
ow scales and this is where the scale separation theory has serious
limitations. The coupling between combustion instability and
acoustics is another area where the combustion chemistry cannot
be decoupled from the ow eld. In addition, heat release due to
the reaction causes density and velocity uctuations which couple
the behaviour of small scales back to the large, energy containing
nt Cs D2 ~S C D2 ~S
(36)
q
In Eq. (36), ~
S
2Sij Sij and the Smagorinsky constant Cs usually
has the value of 0.10.2. The Smagorinsky model is a very popular
subgrid model that originated from the research in meteorological
eld. It represents the most basic family of models known as zeroequation models. This means that representation of the subgrid
stresses relies on empirical formulas and constants and no additional equation is being solved to close the system. Obvious
advantages of this treatment are simplicity and computational
efciency, but accuracy and universality of the model are doubtful
and limited. The Smagorinsky model states that the subgrid stress
tensor is a scalar multiple of the resolved rate of strain tensor,
which has not been proved beyond doubt. This is only true in the
dissipation range or very high Reynolds numbers and requires LES
to be performed on a very ne grid in order not to severely violate
it. Another drawback is the inability of the model to account for the
so-called backscatter. Backscatter is a process of reverse energy
transport i.e. from the unresolved scales back to the resolved ones.
Further assumption that is often questionable is the one of energy
transfer rate from large scales to the inertial subrange and its
~i u
~j u
~i u
~j
sSGS
Csim u
ij
143
(37)
~i u
~j u
~i u
~ j 2CS D~
sSGS
Csim u
S~
Sij
ij
(38)
144
_ W k r2 Y Y
u
P
P R
F O
(39)
TA
T
kR AR T bR exp
(40)
_ ; u
_ W min u
u
P
P
kin _ mix
(41)
_
u
mix
YF YO
min
;
smix
WF WO
(42)
(43)
C D
smix pmix
(44)
ksgs
_
u
P
Z
/
u_ K P sgs JdJ
(45)
where P sgs is the subgrid joint PDF, J is the space vector of random
dependent variables of interest (temperature, mass, species fraction, density, etc). The subgrid joint PDF contains all the singlepoint statistical information about the ow. There are two most
popular approaches for description of the joint PDF. The rst one is
the assumed PDF method, in which the function is not calculated
directly during the simulation. Instead a given shape is used in the
simulation, usually taken from a lookup table which is prepared on
the basis of observation of mixing and chemical reaction in
experiments. This allows Eq. (45) to be calculated by either
numerical or analytical integration. The relative compactness and
efciency of this method is offset by somewhat vague specication
of the pre-constructed PDF. This issue is magnied when one
accounts for changes in density and temperature dependence of the
reaction rate constant. This deciency has led to creation of a more
sophisticated treatment of the joint PDF in transported PDF models.
Here, an extra equation is solved in the system. Its role is to describe
the behaviour of the joint PDF in both time and space. This makes
the model more computationally expensive, but it does not rely on
a prescribed, often generic shape of the function. Another gain is
the fact that the reaction rate term does appear in a closed form and
does not require modelling. This however comes at a cost. There are
two terms that require closure and both are extremely important in
subgrid combustion simulations. They represent the inuence of
subgrid turbulent transport and small scale molecular mixing.
While solutions have been proposed to provide a closure [92], they
are scarce at this point. Moreover, the computational cost of
a transported PDF does increase signicantly as already noted.
The problematic closure of subgrid-scale stirring and molecular
diffusion is the bottleneck of the transported PDF method. Nonetheless, much research has been devoted to this method applied to
LES [93].
In recent years, another method for simulating reacting ows
has emerged. It is based on conditional moments. The main
concept of the conditional moment closure (CMC) method is then
to nd how the reactive scalars depend on the mixture fraction or
reaction progress variable. The CMC method can be applied to
both non-premixed and premixed ames. There are two main
mathematical procedures to derive the CMC model: the decomposition method and the joint PDF one [94]. CMC methods predict
the conditional averages and higher moments of quantities such as
species mass fractions and enthalpy, conditional on the mixture
fraction or reaction progress variable having a particular value. The
CMC model calculates conditional moments at a specied location
in the space by means of transport equations for the conditional
moments of the reactive scalars. No assumptions regarding
chemical timescales or small scale structures of the reaction zones
are made. The drawback of the model is that the mixture fraction
carries all information about temperature and the state of reactive
species only when running under low Mach numbers and without
signicant differential molecular diffusion. This limits somehow
the ability of the model since many combustion engineering
problems deal with relatively high Mach numbers. The molecular
diffusion can also be signicant and thus violate the underlying
assumption.
A promising model used in LES of reacting ows is the already
briey mentioned LEM (linear eddy model) approach. It was
initially developed by Kerstein [83] as a stand alone approach for
simulating transport and mixing of diffusive scalars. It was later
recognized as a promising method for calculation of the subgrid
terms [95]. The fundamental trait of LEM is the separate treatment
of molecular diffusion and turbulent convective stirring. This is
what makes this formulation unique. All previously described
approaches aim to model molecular mixing and small scale
turbulence effects as a single process, which is often too much of
145
~ i u0i R u0i S
ui u
(46)
146
h
ivYm
vYm
v
~ i u0i R u0i S
rYm Vi;m u_ m S_ s;m
r u
vt
vxi
vxi
(47)
In Eq. (47), u_ m and S_ s;m represent the reaction and spray source
terms of m species respectively, while the diffusion velocity is
obtained using Ficks law Vi;m Dm =Ym vYm =vxi . It is noted
that the equation is not ltered and hence no terms appear that
would need additional closure. Eq. (47) can be split in two to better
describe the coupling of large scales with LEM (convection of the
scalar eld) and subgrid processes that occur exclusively on the
subgrid domain
h
* Yn
n
R ivYm
Ym
m
ui u0i
DtLES
vxi
n1
Ym
*
Ym
t
ZDtLES
t
(48)
n
1 S vYm
v
r u0i
rYm Vi n u_ nm
r
vxi
vxi
n
S_ s;m dt
(49)
ReD
u0 D
(52)
r
2ksgs
u
3
0
(53)
vY k
v k k
k
k
r m
rYm Vs;m u_ m S_ s;m
F
s
vt s
vs
(50)
Vi;m
1
vYm
Dm
Ym
vs
hK DRe3=4
(51)
where Ym and Dm are the mth species mass fraction and diffusivity
respectively. In Eq. (50), the u_ m term represents the reaction and
can be modelled using many available chemical mechanisms
k
varying in accuracy and computational cost. The S_ s;m is a source
term arising from the droplet evaporation at the subgrid level.
While present here for explanation purposes, the models for subgrid droplet evaporation are scarce and its contribution is very
often neglected in the simulations, that is the evaporation and the
subsequent energy and mass transfer are accounted for only at the
resolved scales.
(54)
hK l LLEM
(55)
f l
5=3l8=3
h5=3
K
D5=3
(56)
h
i
5=3
54 nReD D=hK 1
i
h
l
5 Cl D3 1 h =D4=3
K
(57)
147
148
has been broadly used in spray simulations, e.g. [68]. Although the
parcel concept is not ideally suited for LES due to the averaging
introduced into the liquid phase, it has nevertheless been used by
researchers. Besides computational efciency, another drawback of
using the Lagrangian method for droplet tracking is the time step
limitation for the liquid phase and its governing equation integration. Due to its dominant use in spray simulations, the remainder of
this subsection is devoted to the Lagrangian approach. Extensive
review on the subject was conducted by Sirignano [111]. It is
however necessary to point out that Eulerian treatment of liquid
phase is also possible, e.g. de Villiers et al. [112] presented an
Eulerian liquid-phase treatment by means of utilizing the volume of
uid modelling procedure. However, the Eulerian approach has
been mainly used for atomization process near the nozzle exit rather
than the downstream dilute spray regions.
The governing equations for droplet motion in LES of spray ows
is given below, in a form slightly different from those given in
Section 2 for droplet kinematics. The formulation follows Menon
and Patel [68], under the assumption that the Kolmogorov scale is
of the same order or larger than the largest droplet in the spray
eld. For such a situation, the interaction between gas and liquid
phases is dominated by laminar uid dynamics. The equations then
read
dxi;d
ui;d
dt
(58)
dmd
_d
m
dt
(59)
dui;d
3 CD mRed
ui ui;d
dt
16 rd rd
(60)
md cd
dTd
_ d Lv
hd pd2d T~ Td m
dt
(61)
0
0
B
B
B
B
@
r_ s
s
F_ i
s
Q_
_S
s;k
1
C
C
C
C
A
dmd
B dmdt u
B d i
B
B dt
B dmd ed
@ dt
dmd Ym
dt
dVd
dr
Vd d
B rd
dt
dt
B
C
C
C
B
du
dm
C
B
i;d
d C
C
C
B md
ui;d
C
B
dt
dt C
C B
C
C
B
de
dmd C
A
C
B md d ed
B
dt
dt C
C
B
@
dYk;d
dmd A
Yk;d
md
dt
dt
1
(62)
In Eq. (62), ed is the total energy of fuel droplet and Vd is the volume
of the droplet. The volume-averaged source terms for all of the
1
0 P
dmd
dt
e
C
B n
r_ s
B P dmd ui C
B e_ s C
C
B
B Fi C
B n dt C
B s C B P
C
B e_ C
B
dmd ed C
@Q A
B
dt C
C
B
n
e_
@P
dmd Ym A
S
0
s;k
(63)
dt
~i X
ui u
q
2ksgs =3
(64)
many applications, the sprays are very dense and subgrid processes
associated with liquid phase should not be neglected. Unfortunately, subgrid two-phase models are scarce and much more
research is necessary before they will become acceptable. The
modelling of combustion, especially important in LES because of its
occurrence in the subgrid space has received a great deal of interest
and still many issues remain, like the limitations of eddy-viscosity
and gradient diffusion assumptions. Models now exist that are not
based on those, but computational cost may be prohibitive for
complex geometries. In addition, many uid ows with high
industrial importance are wall bounded. Near-wall regions are
a bottleneck of LES. RANS-derived law-of-the wall modelling
cannot be directly used, and if near-wall structures are to be
directly captured by LES, the mesh sizes increase rapidly beyond
computing capabilities. Models for liquid lms on the walls, so
important for internal engines applications, are non-existent in
current LES of spray ows. In addition to issues of the wall treatment, other boundary condition specication in LES is also much
more complicated than in RANS methods. The main reason for this
is that the ow unsteadiness at the domain inlet must be accounted
for. The uctuating velocity at the ow boundaries can in some
applications signicantly inuence the results. Therefore, comparison of rst and second velocity moments of the velocity eld with
experimental data is often desirable [119,120]. In addition,
boundary conditions for the liquid phase at the domain inlet (such
as the droplet distributions) and at the walls are also very important in two-phase ow simulations. Nevertheless, these issues do
not prohibit LES from being applied to complex two-phase reacting
ows. Constant research and improvement of models in the last
two decades has established LES as a viable and often superior
alternative to classic RANS approach and will continuously to do so
in the foreseeable future. One of the major bottlenecks for industrial applications of LES is still the high computational cost
compared to RANS, mainly due to the need for signicant ner
mesh and higher order numerical schemes. A comparative RANS/
LES study of diesel fuel injection and mixing using the same
numerical methods [121] showed that the mesh resolution needed
for LES could be 20 times higher than that for RANS, meaning that
the computational time could increase about one hundred times on
a serial machine since the time step becomes smaller when the
mesh is rened. Fortunately, as computer power increases
constantly, LES will become more affordable and more attractive.
149
150
(65)
ordinary differential equation along the particle path line. The lefthand-side of Eq. (65) represents the particle mass times the
acceleration of particle along the path line. On the right-hand side,
Fbody represents body forces which are proportional to the particle
mass (e.g. gravitational acceleration), Fsurf are the uid dynamic
surface forces and Fcoll are the collision forces (e.g. particleparticle
or particlewall collisions). Neglecting electromagnetic and other
body forces, Fbody for a spherical particle, that takes into account
gravity effects, can be given as Fbody gmp g rp Vp . The specication of the surface forces Fsurf can be distinguished in the
resolved-surface and the point-force approaches. In the resolvedsurface approach the surface force is computed by integrating the
pressure and shear stress as given below
Fsurf
Z h
i
p m vui =vxj vuj =vxi nj dAp
(66)
where Ap is the particle surface area and nj the j-projection of the unit
normal vector outward from the surface. Eq. (66) incorporates all
surface forces (lift, drag, etc) and thus no assumptions of particle
shape, particle Reynolds number, and ow acceleration/gradients are
required in this formulation. The resolved-surface approach for the
specication of surface forces is the most accurate methodology as it
allows the capturing of physically realistic surface topology and
surface force. On the other hand, it is the most computationally
intensive methodology per particle. The resolved-surface technique
is thus only reasonably applicable in cases where there is a single
particle or modest number of particles in the computational domain.
If the number of particles is too high then the point-force
approach can be used in the computation of the surface forces. The
point force is a single equation approach and the force on the particle
is described without resolving the surrounding particle surface. A
surface-averaged force is employed in the point-force treatment
which is based on analytical expressions of a linear combination of
specic forces. The major assumption of the point-force treatment is
that the surface forces are related to the continuous-uid properties
extrapolated to the particle centroid xp . For example the pointforce velocity and vorticity at the particle centroid can be dened as
u@p and u@p . Based on this assumption the continuous-uid velocity
is dened everywhere and thus u@p zuxp . If the ow in the particle
region is non-linear then the employment of a single-point velocity
may not be sufcient to characterize the surrounding conditions.
Thus a relative particle velocity is dened which allows specication
of the direction of hydrodynamic forces (e.g. drag which opposes
velocity w)
w v u@p
(67)
1
2
Urel Up u@p
(68)
Rep 1;
rf djwj
where Rep
mf
(69)
151
70
while rp rf and Rep 1. In the right-hand side of Eq. (70), the D
term represents the drag force, the S term represents the stress
force, while the H term represents the history force term
assuming negligible relative acceleration at t 0.
Following the same principle, for very heavy particles, the terms
associated with rf can be neglected and thus the point-force
expression in turn becomes
71
Other point-force expressions have been reported in the literature by various researchers in order to take into account interface
conditions, non-spherical particles, rotation, deformability and
mass transport. Different ow aspects have also been studied such
as compressibility, turbulence, shear and strain. All these efforts are
mainly empirical or semi-empirical and are limited to specic ow
regimes and consequently are subjected to uncertainties and bias.
The non-uniqueness of multiphase ow equations because of
different modelling approaches indicate that there is not a standardized procedure (in a manner similar to single-phase ows) and
thus extra care must be taken since every ow needs its specic
equations and models to describe all the associated physics as
realistically as possible.
DNS studies of evaporating and non-evaporating droplet/particle
dispersion have been performed by various researchers in the past,
e.g. [114,133136]. Here, the EulerianLagrangian formulation for
evaporating droplet dispersion, as given by Miller and Bellan [136] is
presented. The gas phase is treated in an Eulerian manner while the
particle/droplet phase is treated in the Lagrangian manner, similar to
formulations found in Refs. [114,133,135]. The compressible gas
phase (carrier plus mixture) governing equations include the mass,
momentum and energy transfer between the gas and the dispersed
evaporating phase and are given as
vr
v
ruj SI
vt vxj
(72)
v
v
rui uj pdij sij SII;i
rui
vt
vxj
(73)
"
#
v
v
vT
re puj l
ui sij SIII
re
vt
vxj
vxj
(74)
"
#
v
v
vYv
rYv uj rG
SI
rYv
vxj
vt
vxj
(75)
p rYv Rv 1 Yv Rc T
(76)
152
dXi
vi
dt
dvi
F
i;
dt
md
where Fi md
f1
sd
ui vi
SIII
Resolved-surface
One continuity
equation
may be
solved
A single set of
momentum
equations is
needed
which
accompany
mixture
properties
One energy
Two energy equations
equation
are essential with gas
is solved
and liquid properties
respectively
where patm is the atmospheric pressure and TB;l is the liquid saturation temperature. The Lagrangian reference frame for the droplet
conservation Eqs. (72)(76), leads to the following coupling terms
(
)
X wa
_d a
m
Dx3
a
"
#
X wa
_ d vi a
Fi m
Dx3
a
(
"
# )
X wa
v2i
_
vi Fi Q md hv;s
2
Dx3
a
a
(84)
Table 1
Major characteristics and properties of Eulerian/Lagrangian approaches [122,123].
Point-force
(82)
SII;i
Separated-uid
!#
"
patm
Lv 1
1
exp
p
Rv TB;l Td
(78)
(80)
cS
(83)
dmd
1
Sh
_ d md
ln1 BM
m
sd
3Scg
dt
Mixed-uid
(81)
(77)
(79)
Lagrangian approaches
cs
cs 1 cs Wc =Wv
SI
_ d Lv
Nucp;g
dTd Q m
f
T Td
; with Q md 2
sd
dt
md cl
3Prg
Eulerian approaches
Ys
LES
Drawbacks
Coarse grid
Allows geometrical simplication such as 2D ows
and symmetry
Lower computational cost
compared to LES and DNS
Unsteady ow features
Reduced modelling impact
compared to RANS
DNS
Models for drag,
lift, etc. are
required
(85)
Lagrangian
point-force
approach
Lagrangian
resolved-surface
approach
Relatively small
increase in
computational
costs compared
with singlephase
simulations
Typically the
computational cost
is doubled
compared to the
mixed-uid
treatment
Computational
cost depends on
the number of
particles
considered
Requires higher
computing power
per particle in
respect to pointforce approach
8
< 1;
F 0 < F < 1;
:
0;
pure liquid
gas-liquid interface
pure gas
153
(86)
0
vt
vx
vy
vz
(87)
r Frl 1 Frg
(88)
m Fml 1 Fmg
(89)
Eqs. (88) and (89) are utilized in conjunction with the VOF method,
to account for the contributions of the two individual phases to the
mixture properties. The mixture properties are accompanied in the
momentum equations, in a mixed-uid treatment.
To allow for the gas compressibility to be considered, the
transport equation for liquid mass fraction Y is utilized [127130],
rather than the transport equation of volume fraction F, which is
applicable to incompressible ows only. The concept of
compressible gas-phase formulation involves transportation of
liquid mass fraction and follows the transportation of a passive
scalar. In 3D Cartesian coordinates the transport equation for liquid
mass fraction can be given as
vrY
vruY vrvY vrwY
1
v
vY
m
vt
vx
vy
vz
Re Sc vx vx
v
vY
v
vY
m
m
vy vy
vz vz
(90)
where Re and Sc are the Reynolds and Schmidt numbers respectively. Since the compressible VOF formulation requires the transportation of liquid mass fraction rather than the liquid volume
fraction, a relation between the two can be given as [127]
rg Y
(91)
rl rl rg Y
154
mh Vh F
(92)
hF
2
Em 4
1
X
~
F
ik;jl m
Fik;jl
31=2
5
(93)
k;l 1
mx x my y a
(94)
95
In cases where the points C and G lie within the square, then this is
the desired area. Due to geometrical similarity between triangles
BCD and ACG the ratio of their individual areas is equal to the
square of the ratio of their sides and thus
ABCD
AACG
2
a mx h
a
Fig. 7. Volume fraction distributions from VOF and VOF/PLIC algorithms: (a) VOF; (b) VOF/PLIC.
(96)
155
Fx
f
ij fij fij
ij
(97)
xliquid
(98)
xgas
(99)
V$ug 0
2ml D 2mg D $n pl pg sk n and ul ug ; xG;
(100)
where n is the unit normal on the interface, k V$n in the curvature of the interface, and s the surface tension coefcient. The
velocity, density and viscosity are dened as follows
156
ul
; r
ug
rl
rg
and
ml ; xliquid
mg ; xgas
(101)
rDu
Dt Vp V$2mD skddn rg; xU;
V$u 0
(102)
Vp f
(103)
1
V$ Vp V$f ;
where
vp
f $n on vU
vn
(104)
rf rg rl rg Hf
(105)
mf mg ml mg Hf
where Hf is the Heaviside function dened as
8
< 0
Hf
1=2
:
1
if f < 0
if f 0
if f > 0
gas
interface
liquid
(106)
Since the interface moves with the uid particles, the evolution
of f follows a typical advection equation (like in the VOF method)
given by
H3 f
(107)
1
2
f 1
sinpf=3
3 p
1
if f < 3
if jfj 3
if f > 3
(108)
dH3
df
d3 f
(109)
Du
1
(110)
Ix; y
vf
u$Vf 0
vt
8
< h
1 r$n
#
grds
2p r 2
(111)
Gx
X
D x xl nl Dsl
(112)
V2 I V$G
(113)
h
i
a Qa
p x xl
1 cos 2h
4h
l
i
i
1
i
D xx
0
D
l
if xi xi 2h; i 1; a
otherwise
(114)
ul
D xi xl ui
(115)
where the summation is over the grid points on the stationary grid
in the vicinity of the interface point. The advection of the interface
is then achieved by integrating the following
dxl
ul
dt
(116)
sk0 n0 dx x0 dS
(117)
St
F skVF
(118)
k V$
VF
jVFj
(119)
sk
VF
157
(120)
We
v ruv sxy
vru v ru2 p sxx
vt
vx
vy
sk vF
vruw sxz
0
We vx
vz
|{z}
(121)
(122)
where the constants a1 ; a2 are chosen to be 2=3; 1=4 for substep 1, 5=12; 3=20 for sub-step 2 and 3=5; 3=5 for sub-step 3. At
the beginning of each full time step, Q1 and Q2 are equal. The data in
Q1 is used to compute the vU=vt terms in the governing equations.
The computed vU=vt terms are stored in Q1 to save storage by
overwriting the old Q1 . Eq. (122) is then used to update Q1 and Q2 .
In Eq. (122), Dt is the time step and is limited by the
158
0
0
fj1
afj0 fj1
b
fj1 fj1
fj2 fj2
c
2h
4h
(123)
(124)
0
0
00
00
a1 fj1
a0 fj0 a2 fj1
h b1 fj1
b0 fj00 b2 fj1
1
c1 fj2 c2 fj1 c0 fj c3 fj1 c4 fj2
h
(125)
159
160
161
the liquid itself, by the interaction of the liquid sheet or jet with
a (high-velocity) gas, or by means of mechanical energy delivered
externally, e.g. by rotating devices. Although liquid breakup and
atomization process is an essential stage in the development of spray
ows, it is not fully understood particularly for high-speed jets. For
the multiscale gasliquid two-phase ow problem investigated by
Desjardins et al. [193], the modelling issues include the representation of the surface tension term as well as the density and viscosity
jumps on the interface, while the challenging numerical issues
including the accurate capturing of the gasliquid interface.
Desjardins et al. [193] presented a method for simulating
incompressible two-phase ows by improving the conservative
level-set technique introduced by Olsson and Kreiss [194]. The
method was then applied to simulate turbulent atomization of
a liquid diesel jet at Re 3000. The turbulent atomization problem
investigated is physically very complex, involving momentum
transfer between the two phases where the ne liquid droplets can
be smaller than the grid size and the large scales include the liquid
jet penetration and spreading. In the gasliquid two-phase ow,
surface instabilities, ligament formation, ligament stretching and
fragmentation, and droplet coalescence, all interact with turbulence to transform large-scale coherent liquid structures into small
scale droplets. There are several severe difculties to numerically
investigate such a complex physics problem.
The rst difculty is the large change in the material properties
of the two phases, such as the density and viscosity are signicantly
different in the two phases. In a diesel fuel injection, the liquid-togas density ratio can be as high as 40 while the viscosity ratio can be
of the order of 30, which can move up to several hundreds for
aircraft engines. This large change in uid properties corresponds
to sharp gradients in the ow eld, leading to severe numerical
difculties. In addition, the surface tension force on the gasliquid
interface needs to be mathematically and numerically represented,
which also requires accurate localisation and transport of the
interface. Moreover, in the case of incompressible ows, the
interface transport and localisation should ensure that the volume
of each phase is exactly conserved. As a multiscale problem, there is
also a challenge coming from the small scales that the atomization
process produces. In a numerical simulation, the solver normally
generates liquid structures at the limit of numerical resolution. The
formation of small liquid structures requires high numerical resolution to tackle.
For the modelling of gasliquid two-phase ows, the VOF
method has been broadly used, but the gasliquid interface needs
to be reconstructed from the VOF results and the exact location of
the interface is unknown without this reconstruction [138]. The
front-tracking approach was introduced by Unverdi and Tryggvason
[161], which consists of discretizing the interface using an
unstructured moving mesh that is transported in a Lagrangian
fashion. However, the method requires frequent mesh rearrangements that affect the conservation of the liquid volume. The main
limitation of this approach is the lack of automatic topology modication. Moreover, the parallelization of such a method for
massively parallel computation is very challenging. Over the last
several years, the level-set method aiming at representing the
interface implicitly by an iso-level of a smooth function, as described
by Osher and Fedkiw [156], has drawn many attentions in the eld
of interface modelling. Simple Eulerian scalar transport schemes
can be used to transport this smooth function, and therefore highly
accurate methods are available. Furthermore, the smoothness of the
level-set function makes the interface normals and curvature
readily available for the surface tension calculation, while parallelization is straightforward and highly efcient. However, level-set
methods are typically plagued by mass conservation issues since no
inherent conservation property of the level-set function exists.
162
Fig. 11. Turbulent atomization of a liquid diesel jet, from Desjardins et al. [193].
163
using any other means, but the computational costs are extremely
high. Various CFD methodologies can assist the advancement of the
science and technology of atomization and sprays, which in turn
will benet the practical applications.
For the gasliquid two-phase jet ows in spray processes,
modelling and simulations can be performed at different level. In
DNS of gasliquid two-phase jet ows, the multiphase ow
system may be modelled based on a volume of uid method with
front-tracking approach to model interface movements. DNS of
multiphase ows based on the one-uid formalism coupled with
interface tracking algorithms seems to be a promising way
forward, due to the advantageous lower costs compared with
a multi-uid approach. Front-tracking methods may be used to
track the gasliquid interface. In the homogenous two-phase ow
model (or Eulerian approach with mixed-uid treatment), the
two phases are assumed to be a single-phase mixture with
averaged physical properties. However, DNS is not a practical tool
due to its high computational costs. As things stand, RANS and
LES can be useful tools for industrial applications. For practical
applications using RANS or LES, the choice of the model is not
only an obvious problem but it is also numerics and mesh size
dependent. LES and RANS heavily depend on the sub-models used
for the multiphase phenomena and turbulent combustion when
the ow is reacting.
The computation of spray dynamics in terms of the equations of
uid mechanics and droplet ballistics is now possible by use of CFD
codes incorporating spray modelling. The modelling of sprays in
simple ow congurations has made signicant progresses, but it
also has many unknown and unevaluated factors. Among these
factors, the most signicant ones are those associated with the
atomization process, which are mostly in an empirical state.
Detailed knowledge of the droplet size and velocity is missing,
particularly for thick sprays. The application of CFD codes to
intermittent, thick sprays still presents many unsolved problems,
including questions concerning appropriate drag coefcient
correlations and turbulent mixing models. For combustion applications, the mechanism of spray vaporization and mixing is of
primary importance. Application of heat and mass transfer theory
allows models to predict vaporization histories for single, undeformed droplets of pure fuels. For many applications the
unsteady heating of the droplet must be taken into account.
Vaporization modelling for real fuels, which are complex liquid
mixtures, is not yet possible. These are areas in spray modelling
that need further investigation. Modelling spray combustion is
a challenging subject due to the complexity of the problem. There
are several issues that need particular attention.
The rst issue is related to the choice of appropriate sub-models.
The state-of-the-art spray combustion modelling relies heavily on
theoretical assumptions and empiricism, particularly for the atomization process and thick sprays. A variety of sub-models are available. In a numerical simulation, using appropriate sub-models is of
crucial importance. The choice of appropriate model is, however,
problem dependent and one has to make the judgment based on the
understanding of the physical problem and modelling assumptions.
In many applications, it could involve the combination of different
models. For instance, one can combine the KelvinHelmholtz
breakup model together with the RayleighTaylor breakup model
for atomization. For high-pressure fuel injection, the effects of cavitation of the nozzle internal ow on the atomization may be taken
into account in the wave breakup model. The recently developed
Eulerian approach to model atomization can also be considered for
dense spray modelling.
Secondly, close attention should be paid to the empiricism
involved in spray modelling. In some cases, it might be necessary to
adjust the empirical constants in the model to match
164
[13] Gelfand BE. Droplet breakup phenomena in ows with velocity lag. Progress
in Energy and Combustion Science 1996;22:20165.
[14] Orme M. Experiments on droplet collisions, bounce, coalescence and
disruption. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1997;23:6579.
[15] Aggarwal SK. A review of spray ignition phenomena: present status and future
research. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1998;24:565600.
[16] Lin SP, Reitz RD. Drop and spray formation from a liquid jet. Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics 1998;30:85105.
[17] Bellan J. Supercritical (and subcritical) uid behavior and modeling: drops,
streams, shear and mixing layers, jets and sprays. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 1999;26:32966.
[18] Chiu HH. Advances and challenges in droplet and spray combustion. I.
Toward a unied theory of droplet aerothermochemistry. Progress in Energy
and Combustion Science 2000;26:381416.
[19] Sirignano WA, Mehring C. Review of theory of distortion and disintegration
of liquid streams. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2000;26:
60955.
[20] Lasheras JC, Hopnger EJ. Liquid jet instability and atomization in a coaxial
gas stream. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 2000;32:275308.
[21] Sovani SD, Sojka PE, Lefebvre AH. Effervescent atomization. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science 2001;27:483521.
[22] Babinsky E, Sojka PE. Modeling drop size distribution. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 2002;28:30329.
[23] Birouk M, Gokalp I. Current status of droplet evaporation in turbulent ows.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2006;32:40823.
[24] Chigier N. Challenges for future research in atomization and spray technology:
Arthur Lefebvre memorial lecture. Atomization and Sprays 2006;16:72736.
[25] Villermaux E. Fragmentation. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
2007;39:41946.
[26] Sher E, Bar-Kohany T, Rashkovan A. Flash-boiling atomization. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science 2008;34:41739.
[27] Gorokhovski M, Herrmann M. Modeling primary atomization. Annual Review
of Fluid Mechanics 2008;40:34366.
[28] Anderson JD. Computational uid dynamics: the basics with applications.
New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
[29] Amsden AA, ORourke PJ, Butler TD. KIVA-II: a computer program for
chemically reactive ows with sprays. DE89-012805. Los Alamos, NM: Los
Alamos National Laboratory; 1989.
[30] Torres DJ, Trujillo MF. KIVA-4: an unstructured ALE code for compressible gas
ow with sprays. Journal of Computational Physics 2006;219:94375.
[31] Williams FA. Combustion theory. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley; 1985.
[32] Reitz RD. In: Challen B, Baranescu R, editors. Diesel engine reference book.
Boston: Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann; 1999. p. 15372.
[33] Dukowicz JK. A particle-uid numerical model for liquid sprays. Journal of
Computational Physics 1980;35:22953.
[34] Bracco FV. Modeling of engine sprays. SAE Transactions 1985;94:14467.
[35] Arcoumanis C, Gavaises M. Linking nozzle ow with spray characteristics in
a diesel fuel injection system. Atomization and Sprays 1998;8:30747.
[36] Abraham J. What is adequate resolution in the numerical computations of
transient jets? SAE Transactions 1997;106:14155.
[37] Stiesch G. Modelling engine spray and combustion processes. Berlin:
Springer; 2003.
[38] ORourke PJ, Amsden AA. The TAB method for numerical calculation of spray
droplet breakup. SAE paper 872089; 1987.
[39] Reitz RD. Modeling atomization processes in high-pressure vaporizing
sprays. Atomization and Spray Technology 1987;3:30937.
[40] Reitz RD, Diwakar R. Effect of drop breakup on fuel sprays. SAE paper
860469; 1986.
[41] Ashgriz N, Poo JY. Coalescence and separation in binary collisions of liquid
drops. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1990;221:183204.
[42] Georjon TL, Reitz RD. A drop-shattering collision model for multi-dimensional spray computations. Atomization and Sprays 1999;9:23154.
[43] Post SL, Abraham J. Modelling the outcome of dropdrop collisions in diesel
sprays. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 2002;28:9971019.
[44] ORourke PJ, Bracco FV. Modelling drop interactions in thick sprays and
a comparison with experiments. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers 1980;9:10116.
[45] Senda J, Kobayashi M, Iwashita S, Fujimoto H. Modelling of diesel spray
impingement on a at wall. SAE paper 941894; 1994.
[46] Bai CX, Gosman AD. Development of methodology for spray impingement
simulation. SAE paper 950283; 1995.
[47] Naber JD, Reitz RD. Modelling engine spray/wall impingement. SAE paper
880107; 1988.
[48] Amsden AA. KIVA-3: a KIVA program with block structured mesh for
complex geometries. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-12503-MS,
Los Alamos, NM; 1993.
[49] Eckhause JE, Reitz RD. Modelling heat transfer to impinging fuel sprays in
direct injection engines. Atomization and Sprays 1995;5:21342.
[50] Stanton D, Rutland C. Modelling fuel lm formation and wall interaction in
diesel engines. SAE paper 960628; 1996.
[51] Gao J, Jiang DM, Huang ZH. Spray properties of alternative fuels: a comparative
analysis of ethanol-gasoline blends and gasoline. Fuel 2007;86:164550.
[52] Lippert AM, Reitz RD. Modelling of multi-component fuels using continuous
distributions with application to droplet evaporation and sprays. SAE paper
972882; 1997.
165
166
[155] Osher SJ, Sethian JA. Fronts propagating with curvature dependent speed:
algorithms based on HamiltonJacobi formulations. Journal of Computational Physics 1988;79:1249.
[156] Osher SJ, Fedkiw RP. Level set methods: an overview and some recent results.
Journal of Computational Physics 2001;169:463502.
[157] Sethian JA. Level set methods and fast marching methods: evolving interfaces in computational geometry, uid mechanics, computer vision and
material sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
[158] Sethian JA. Evolution, implementation and application of level set and fast
marching methods for advancing fronts. Journal of Computational Physics
2001;169:50355.
[159] Sethian JA, Smereka P. Level set methods for uid interfaces. Annual Review
of Fluid Mechanics 2003;35:34172.
[160] Sussman M, Puckett EG. A coupled level set and volume-of-uid method for
computing 3D and axisymmetric incompressible two-phase ows. Journal of
Computational Physics 2000;162:30137.
[161] Unverdi SO, Tryggvason G. A front-tracking method for viscous, incompressible, multi-uid ows. Journal of Computational Physics 1992;100:2537.
[162] Brackbill JU, Kothe DB, Zemach C. A continuum method for modeling surface
tension. Journal of Computational Physics 1992;100:33554.
[163] Siamas GA. Direct computations of gasliquid two-phase jets/sheets. PhD
thesis. Uxbridge, London: Brunel University; 2008.
[164] Harvie DJE, Davidson MR, Rudman M. An analysis of the parasitic current
generation in volume of uid simulations. Applied Mathematical Modelling
2006;30:105666.
[165] Williamson JH. Low-storage RungeKutta schemes. Journal of Computational
Physics 1980;35:124.
[166] Wray AA. Very low storage time-advancement schemes. Internal report.
Moffett Field, California: NASA-Ames Research Center; 1986.
[167] Drikakis D, Rider W. High-resolution methods for incompressible and lowspeed ows. Berlin: SpringerVerlag; 2005.
[168] Kim J, Moin P. Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible
NavierStokes equations. Journal of Computational Physics 1985;59:
30823.
[169] Ekaterinaris JA. High-order accurate, low numerical diffusion methods for
aerodynamics. Progress in Aerospace Science 2005;41:192300.
[170] Lele SK. Compact nite-difference schemes with spectral-like resolution.
Journal of Computational Physics 1992;103:1642.
[171] Mahesh K. A family of high-order nite difference schemes with good
spectral resolution. Journal of Computational Physics 1998;145:33258.
[172] Morinishi Y, Lund TS, Vasilyev OV, Moin P. Fully conservative higher order
nite difference schemes for incompressible ow. Journal of Computational
Physics 1998;143:90124.
[173] Morinishi Y, Vasilyev OV, Ogi T. Fully conservative nite difference scheme in
cylindrical coordinates for incompressible ow simulations. Journal of
Computational Physics 2004;197:686710.
[174] Nicoud F. Conservative high-order nite-difference schemes for low-Mach
number ows. Journal of Computational Physics 2000;158:7197.
[175] Desjardins O, Blanquart G, Balarac G, Pitsch H. High order conservative finite
difference scheme for variable density low Mach number turbulent ows.
Journal of Computational Physics 2008;227:712559.
[176] Wang ZJ. Spectral (nite) volume method for conservation laws on
unstructured grids basic formulation. Journal of Computational Physics
2002;178:21051.
[177] Patera AT. A spectral element method for uid dynamics laminar ow in
a channel expansion. Journal of Computational Physics 1984;54:46888.
[178] Helenbrook BT. A two-uid spectral-element method. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2001;191:27394.
[179] Arcoumanis C, Badami M, Flora H, Gavaises M. Cavitation in real-size multihole diesel injector nozzles. SAE paper 2000-01-1249; 2000.
[180] Meyer J, Weihs D. Capillary instability of an annular liquid jet. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics 1987;179:53145.
[181] Cousin J, Nuglisch HJ. Modelling of internal ow in high pressure swirl
injectors. SAE paper 2001-01-0963; 2001.
[182] Senecal PJ, Schmidt DP, Nouar I, Rutland CJ, Reitz RD, Corradini ML. Modeling
high-speed viscous liquid sheet atomization. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 1999;25:107397.
[183] Schmidt DP, Rutland CJ. A new droplet collision algorithm. Journal of
Computational Physics 2000;164:6280.
[184] Wan Y, Peters N. Scaling of spray penetration with evaporation. Atomization
and Sprays 1999;9:11132.
[185] Blokkeel G, Barbeau B, Borghi R. A 3D Eulerian model to improve the primary
breakup of atomizing jet. SAE paper 2003-01-0005; 2003.
[186] Yi Y, Reitz RD. Modelling the primary breakup of high-speed jets. Atomization and Sprays 2004;14:5379.
[187] Saville DA. Electrohydrodynamics: the Taylor-Melcher leaky dielectric model.
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 1997;29:2764.
[188] de la Mora JF. The uid dynamics of Taylor cones. Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 2007;39:21743.
[189] Karayiannis TG, Xu Y. Electric eld effect in boiling heat transfer. Part A:
Simulation of the electric eld and electric forces. Journal of Enhanced Heat
Transfer 1998;5:21729.
[190] Weinan E, Engquist B, Huang ZY. Heterogeneous multiscale method:
a general methodology for multiscale modeling. Physics Review B 2003;67.
Article Number 092101.
167