International Conference

Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005

Bled, Slovenia, September 5-8, 2005

CFD Simulation of Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability

Luka Štrubelj, Iztok Tiselj
Jožef Stefan Institute
Jamova 39, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
luka.strubelj@ijs.si, iztok.tiselj@ijs.si

ABSTRACT

Kelvin-Helmholtz instability appears in stratified two-fluid flow at surface. When the

relative velocity is higher than the critical relative velocity, the growth of waves occurs. The
experiment of Thorpe [1] used as a benchmark in the present paper, is made in a rectangular
glass tube filled with two immiscible fluids of various densities. We simulated the growth of
instability with CFX-5.7 code and compared simulation with analytical solution. It was found
that surface tension force, which stabilizes growth of waves, actually has a destabilizing effect
in simulation, unless very small timestep and residual is used. In CFX code system of
nonlinear Navier-Stokes equations is linearised and solved iterative in each timestep, until
prescribed residual is achieved. On the other hand, simulation without surface tension force is
more stable than analytical result predicts.

1 INTRODUCTION

Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is one of the basic instabilities of two-fluid systems,

which affects an interface. In engineering, Kelvin-Helmholtz instability plays an essential role
in transition from stratified to slug flow in horizontal pipes explored by Simmons [2]. Lord
Kelvin first examined Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in 1910. An inviscid linear analysis of the
phenomenon, which is applicable in case of two liquids with similar densities, can be found in
various textbooks, for example in Chandrasekhar [3], and Drazin & Reid [4]. The problem
becomes much more complicated for large density differences, which appears in case of
liquid and gas. For example the instability of sea surface appears at wind speeds significantly
lower than the critical wind speed given by linear inviscid analysis Gondret & Rabaud [5].
This phenomenon called “subcritical” Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (with high density
difference) was analyzed by Meignin [6] and was found to be result of nonlinear analysis.
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability appears in stratified two-fluid flows, in the presence of a
small disturbance and relative velocity that is larger than critical. The disturbance causes
change of the velocity field. Because of the continuity equation, the velocity of one fluid
increases and of the other one decreases. The change in velocity field changes pressure
(Bernoulli’s equation). Pressure force is increasing the disturbance; surface tension force and
gravity force are decreasing the disturbance. If the pressure force is larger than the sum of
surface tension and gravity forces, the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability occurs.

002.1
 002.2

2 ANALITICAL PREDICTION AND EXPERIMENT

Analytical prediction of KH instability can be found for simple 2D geometry, small

density difference, and inviscid flow with step initial velocity profile (Chandrasekhar [3]).
When relative velocity exceeds critical relative velocity ∆U cr , instability occurs.

ρ1 + ρ 2
2
∆U cr ≥ 2 (ρ1 − ρ 2 )gσ (1)
ρ1 ρ 2

The wave number of the instability at critical relative velocity ∆U cr i.e., critical wave
number k cr is.

k cr = ∆ρg / σ
2
(2)

In equation (2), ∆ρ denotes density difference, g gravity, and σ surface tension

coefficient.
The experiment used as a benchmark in the present paper is one of Thorpe [1], made in
a rectangular glass tube filled with two immiscible fluids of various densities. Half of the tube
was filled with water; other half was filled with mixture of carbon tetrachloride and
commercial paraffin (see figure 1). The horizontal tube was suddenly tilted through a small
angle and the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability was observed when the relative velocity exceeded
the critical relative velocity. Thorpe's experiment is particularly useful for numerical
simulation with interface tracking numerical methods due to its 2D nature.
Wall, u=v=0

ρ2=780 kg/m3
h2=15 mm µ2=0.0015 Pa·s
σ=0.04 N/m
H=30 mm
ρ1=1000 kg/m3
µ1=0.001 Pa·s
h1=15 mm

Wall, u=v=0
L=1830 (200) mm

U2 z
z=0 x

U1 g
γ=4.13 °

Figure 1: Thorpe’s experiment.

One can deduce how velocity field is changing during experiment with uniform
velocity field prediction, until instability occurs.
Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”
 002.3

U1 =
(ρ1 − ρ 2 )gh2 sin γ t
(3)
ρ1h2 + ρ 2 h1
(ρ − ρ 2 )gh1 sin γ
U2 = − 1 t (4)
ρ1 h2 + ρ 2 h1

The onset of instability in experiment [1] is around 1.88 s. The most unstable wavelength
λcr = 2π / k cr estimated from photographs is from 25 mm to 45 mm.
Analytical prediction for onset of instability calculated from equation (3), (4) and (1),
with correction for time needed to tilt the channel is 1.5 s, when relative velocity exceeds
0.207 m/s. The most unstable wavelength, when surface tension is present is λ = 27 mm. If
surface tension is not present the smallest wavelength is most unstable. Analytical prediction
is true when amplitude is small.

3 SIMULATION

We simulated the growth of instability with the CFX-5.7.2 code. Simulation was done
for one of Thorpe’s experiment (Tiselj et al. [7], Štrubelj et al. [8]). Two types of simulations
were performed: with and without surface tension force. It is well known from analytically
predictions that surface tension stabilizes Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. In CFX simulations
performed with surface tension, instability occurred at relative velocities much lower than the
critical, unless very small timestep was used. Further studies pointed to the deficiencies of the
surface tension model coded in the present version of the CFX code, unless extremely small
timestep is used.
Homogeneous model was used with surface tension force modelled as Brackbill [9]
suggested. Two continuity equations (10), (11) were solved and one momentum equation (5).
Additional force was used as generator of the flow (see [7] for details).

∂
∂t
( )
r
( r r
ρU + ∇ ρU ⊗ U − µ ∇ U + ∇ U ( r
( )
rT
) r r
= −∇p − FSTF + FAD (5)
r r r
FSTF = σ (∇n )n ∇α (6)
r ⎛ ρ − ρ2 ⎞ ρ
FAD = ⎜ ρ − 1 ⎟ g sin γ (7)
⎝ 2 ⎠ (ρ 1 − ρ 2 ) / 2
ρ = αρ1 + (1 − α )ρ 2 (8)
µ = αµ1 + (1 − α )µ 2 (9)
( )
∂ r
(αρ 1 ) + ∇ αρ 1U = 0 (10)
∂t
( )
∂ r
((1 − α )ρ 2 ) + ∇ (1 − α )ρ 2U = 0 (11)
∂t
r r
In equations (5)-(11) ρ - density, U - velocity field, p - pressure, FSTF - surface tension
r r
force, FAD - additional force, σ - surface tension coefficient, n - normal to the surface, with
direction from fluid with higher to lower density, α - volume fraction of fluid 1, µ -
viscosity.
Discretization of equations in CFX code is done by control volume method. Space
derivates are discredized with high resolution scheme (combination of first and second order),
Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”
 002.4

which does not have problems with dispersion and reduces diffusion. Equations are linearised
and solved with implicit second order accurate time scheme (first order scheme was analyzed
too). Linear system of equations is solved with multigrid accelerated incomplete lower upper
factorization technique. The solver iterates to n-th iteration until prescribed residual is
achieved as shown in equation (12). More about CFX code can be found in CFX manual [10].
r r r
r n = b − Aφ n (12)

Quasi-2D simulation (symmetrical boundary conditions on two faces) was done on

structured grid, since we were not able to prescribe initial smooth surface on the unstructured
grid. Simulation is done with reduced model (200 mm), with periodical boundary condition
on boundary perpendicular to the main flow.

3.1 Simulation without surface tension force

Results of simulation without surface tension are similar to experimental data. The
simulated onset of instability is 0.6 s later than the experimental onset of instability. The most
unstable wavelength, which appears in instability, is 30 mm and is close to the experimentally
observed one (25-45 mm), although the analytical prediction of the most unstable wavelength
tends to zero when surface tension is absent.
Several simulations were preformed with different grids and time steps. As seen from
figure 2 instability in coarser grid occurs later, but for grid finer than ~29x196 one can say
that that result is grid independent. Also, slope of the instability growth is smaller when
coarser grid is used. The prescribed residual is 10-4. Simulations were done with single
precision. Growth of instability does not depend on timestep as seen from figure 3. In figures
below ε denotes residual.
-1
1x10 9x60, dt=0.04 s
-2 19x127, dt=0.02 s
1x10 29x196, dt=0.02 s
-3 39x260, dt=0.02 s
1x10 80x512, dt=0.01 s
-4
1x10
Amplitude [m]

-5
1x10
-6
1x10
-7
1x10
-8
1x10
-9
1x10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time [s]

Figure 2: Grid refinement study, ε = 10-4, single precision.

Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”
 002.5
-1
1x10 dt=0.0025 s
dt=0.005 s
-2
1x10 dt=0.01 s
dt=0.02 s
-3
1x10 dt=0.04 s
Amplitude [m]

-4
1x10

-5
1x10

-6
1x10

-7
1x10

-8
1x10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time [s]
Figure 3: Timestep analysis, on mesh 29x196, ε = 10-4, single precision.

Difference between simulation with single precision and double precision is seen, if
figures 3 and 4 are compared. In case of single precision the onset is earlier and the rate of
instability growth is smaller. We have also analyzed influence of prescribed residual on onset
and growth of instability. The residual does not have influence on the rate of instability
growth, but does have influence on the onset of instability as seen from figure 4. The onset
appears later if smaller residual is used. When using double precision, timestep 10-2 s must be
used to get reasonable result as seen from figure 5. If applied timestep is decreased, the slope
is not changing, but the onset appears later.
-1
1x10 ε=1e-4
ε=1e-5
-2
1x10 ε=1e-6

-3
1x10
Amplitude [m]

-4
1x10

-5
1x10

-6
1x10

-7
1x10

-8
1x10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time [s]

Figure 4: Growth of instability on mesh with 29x196 volumes and dt = 0.01 s, double
precision.

Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”
 002.6
-1
1x10 analitical prediction
dt=1e-1
-2
1x10 dt=1e-2
dt=1e-3
1x10
-3 dt=1e-4
Amplitude [m]

-4
1x10

-5
1x10

-6
1x10

-7
1x10

-8
1x10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time [s]

Figure 5: Comparison between analytical prediction and simulations with different

timesteps, with ε = 10-5, double precision.

3.2 Simulation with surface tension force

For simulation with surface tension force we used double precision option. Unless
timestep shorter than 10-4 s is used, the surface becomes wavy and instability occurs. Also
important is that maximum residual achieved at the end of each timestep must be smaller than
10-5. Since CFX uses implicit time scheme, convergence should not be influenced by
timestep. This is not true in this case, since very small timestep must be used to achieve
convergence during each timestep. The timestep is even two decades smaller than prescribed
by Courant condition:

∆t < min (∆x / u max , ∆y / v max ) , (13)

that was used in simulation without surface tension.

The slope of growth of instability is almost the same as analytically predicted, when
proper timestep and residuals are used, however the onset is 1 s later, but only 0.6 s later than
in experiment.

Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”
 002.7
-1
1x10 analitical prediction
ε=1e-4, dt=1e-4
-2
1x10 ε=1e-5, dt=1e-4
ε=1e-6, dt=1e-4
-3
1x10 ε=1e-5, dt=1e-3
Amplitude [m]

-4
1x10

-5
1x10

-6
1x10

-7
1x10

-8
1x10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time [s]

Figure 6: Comparison between analytical prediction and small timestep with different
prescribed maximum residuals and grid with 29x196 volumes.
The growth of instability for simulation without surface tension is slower and the onset is
earlier. From figure 7, one can see that onset in simulation with surface tension is not as
smooth as in case without surface tension force.
-1
1x10 without surface tension
with surface tension
-2
1x10

-3
1x10
Amplitude [m]

-4
1x10

-5
1x10

-6
1x10

-7
1x10

-8
1x10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time [s]

Figure 7: Comparison between simulation without surface tension and simulation with
surface tension, with same parameters (dt = 10-4, ε = 10-4, 29x196 volumes).
Most obvious difference between simulations is formation of “swirls”. In the case of
surface tension “swirls” break up and collapse and are not as swirled as in the case without
surface tension.

Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”
 002.8

Figure 8: Simulation with surface tension force (left), simulation without surface
tension force (right).

4 CONCLUSION

Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is one of the basic mechanisms, which influence the two-
phase flow. When relative velocity is larger than the critical velocity, the instability occurs.
With instability, flow regime is changed, and also interface surface is significant enlarged,
which influence the heat and mass transfer. With linearised Navier-Stokes equations we can
analytically predict onset of instability and wavelength for inviscid flow.
For observation of instability we selected the experiment preformed by Thorpe in 1969
[1]. We reduced the whole experiment in 2D and avoided time restriction of simulation.
Problem was solved with CFX-5.7 code, solving non-linear Navier-Stokes equations.
Small disturbance in numerical simulation is numerical fluctuation, which is large enough to
evolve into Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. The reason for numerical fluctuation is iterative
solution of linearised system of equations with prescribed residual, which is always finite.
Simulation without surface tension force is acting like simulation with surface tension
force, because of “numerical surface tension”. For simulation with surface tension force, the
timestep must be very small in comparison to simulation without STF to achieve convergence
in each timestep and also proper growth of instability. Also, small residual must be used. The
onset of instability in simulations appears later than in experiment.

Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”
 002.9

NOMENCLATURE

A matrix of coefficients
αr volume fraction of fluid 1
b right side of system of equations with known variables in previous timestep
(u,v, α )
γ inclination of tube [º]
∆t time step [s]
∆U cr critical relative velocity [m/s]
∆x grid spacing in x direction [m]
∆y grid spacing in y direction [m]
r
FAD additional force [N]
r
FSTF surface tension force [N]
r
φn unknown variables in current timestep (u,v, α )
g gravity [m/s2]
H height of tube [m]
h1, h2 height of fluid 1, fluid 2 [m]
k cr critical wave number [1/m]
L length of tube [m]
λ cr critical wavelength [m]
µ viscosity [Pa·s]
µ1, µ2 viscosity of fluid 1, fluid 2 [Pa·s]
r
n normal to the surface, with direction from fluid with higher to lower density
p pressure [Pa]
π number pi
r
r ,ε residual
ρ density [kg/m3]
ρ1 , ρ 2 density of fluid 1, fluid 2 [kg/m3]
σ surface tension [N/m]
r
U velocity field [m/s]
u velocity in x direction [m/s]
u max maximum velocity in x direction [m/s]
v velocity in y direction [m/s]
v max maximum velocity in y direction [m/s]

REFERENCES

[1] S. A. Thorpe, Experiments on the Instability of Stratified Shear Flows: Immiscible Fluids,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol 39, 1969, pp. 25-48.

[2] M. J. H. Simmons, T. J. Hanratty, Transition from stratified intermittent flows in small

angle upflows, International Journal of Multiphase Flows, vol 27, 2001, pp. 599-616.

[3] S. Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, Oxford the Clarendon

press, Oxford, 1961, pp. 481-514.

Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”
 002.10

[4] P. G. Drazin, W. H. Reid, Hydrodynamic stability, Cambridge University perss,

Cambridge, 1982, pp. 14-22.

[5] P. Gondret, M. Rabaud, Shear instability of two-fluid parallel flow in a Hele-Shaw cell,
Physics of Fluids, vol 9, 1997, pp. 3267-3274.

[6] L. Meignin, P., Gondret, C. Ruyer-Quil, M. Rabaud, Subcritical Kelvin-Helmholtz

instability in a Hele-Shaw cell, Physical Review Letters, vol 90, pp 234502-1 – 234502-4.

[7] I. Tiselj, L. Štrubelj, I. Bajsić, Test-case no 36 : Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (PA).

Multiph. sci. technol., vol. 16, 2004, pp. 273-280

[8] L. Štrubelj, I. Bajsić, I. Tiselj, CFX Simulations of Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability, FZR &
ANSYS, Multiphase flow workshop, Dresden, Germany, June 28-30, 2004

[9] J. U. Brackbill, D. B. Kothe, C. Zemach, A Continuum Method for Modeling Surface

Tension, Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 100, 1992, pp. 335-354.

[10] CFX Solver Theory, version 5.7.1, Ansys Inc., 2005

Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”