0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Assessment of Cavitation Models for Flows in Diesel Injectors With Single- and Two-Fluid Approaches

[+] Author and Article Information
Kaushik Saha

Department of Mechanical and
Mechatronics Engineering,
University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
e-mail: kaushik.sahaju@gmail.com

Xianguo Li

Department of Mechanical and
Mechatronics Engineering,
University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
e-mail: xianguo.li@uwaterloo.ca

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 7, 2015; final manuscript received July 31, 2015; published online August 25, 2015. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(1), 011504 (Aug 25, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1239; doi: 10.1115/1.4031224 History: Received July 07, 2015; Revised July 31, 2015

Several recent cavitation models for the analysis of two-phase flows in diesel injectors with single- and two-fluid modeling approaches have been evaluated, including the Saha–Abu-Ramandan–Li (SAL), Schnerr–Sauer (SS), and Zwart–Gerber–Belamri (ZGB) models. The SAL model is a single-fluid model, while the other two models have been implemented with both single- and two-fluid approaches. Numerical predictions are compared with experimental results available in literature, qualitatively with experimental images of two-phase flow in an optically accessible nozzle, and quantitatively with measured mass flow rates and velocity profiles. It is found that at low injection pressure differentials there can be considerable discrepancy in the predictions of the vapor distribution from the three models considered. This discrepancy is reduced as the injection pressure differential is increased. Implementation of the SS and ZGB models with single- and two- fluid approaches yields noticeable differences in the results because of the relative velocity between the two phases, with two-fluid approach providing better agreement with experimental results. The performance of the SS and ZGB models implemented with the two-fluid approach is comparable with the SAL single-fluid model, but with significantly more computational time. Overall, the SAL single-fluid model performs comparatively better with respect to the other two models.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Schmidt, D. , and Corradini, M. , 2001, “The Internal Flow of Diesel Fuel Injector Nozzles: A Review,” Int. J. Engine Res., 2(1), pp. 1–22. [CrossRef]
Brennen, C. E. , 1995, Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Jospeh, D. D. , 1998, “Cavitation and the State of Stress in a Flowing Liquid,” J. Fluid Mech., 366, pp. 367–378. [CrossRef]
Giannadakis, E. , Gavaises, M. , and Arcoumanis, C. , 2008, “Modelling of Cavitation in Diesel Injector Nozzles,” J. Fluid Mech., 616, pp. 153–193. [CrossRef]
Nurick, W. , 1976, “Orifice Cavitation and Its Effect on Spray Mixing,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 98(4), pp. 681–687. [CrossRef]
Chaves, H. , Knapp, M. , Kubitzek, A. , Obermeier, F. , and Schneider, T. , 1995, “Experimental Study of Cavitation in the Nozzle Hole of Diesel Injectors Using Transparent Nozzles,” SAE Paper No. 950290.
Winklhofer, E. , Kull, E. , Kelz, E. , and Morozov, A. , 2001, “Comprehensive Hydraulic and Flow Field Documentation in Model Throttle Experiments Under Cavitation Conditions,” 17th International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (ILASS) Europe, Zurich, Sept. 2–6.
Chahine, G. , Hsiao, C. , Choi, J. , and Wu, X. , 2008, “Bubble Augmented Waterjet Propulsion: Two-Phase Model Development and Experimental Validation,” 27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, Oct. 5–10, pp. 1127–1143.
von Berg, E. , Edelbauer, W. , Alajbegovic, A. , Tatschi, R. , Volmajer, M. , Kegl, B. , and Ganippa, L. C. , 2005, “Coupled Simulations of Nozzle Flow, Primary Fuel Jet Breakup, and Spray Formation,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 127(4), pp. 897–908. [CrossRef]
Battistoni, M. , and Grimaldi, C. , 2010, “Analysis of Transient Cavitating Flows in Diesel Injectors Using Diesel and Biodiesel Fuels,” SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr., 3(2), pp. 879–900. [CrossRef]
Yuan, W. , and Schnerr, G. H. , 2003, “Numerical Simulation of Two-Phase Flow in Injection Nozzles: Interaction of Cavitation and External Jet Formation,” ASME J. Eng. Fluids Eng., 125(6), pp. 963–969. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, D. , Rutland, C. J. , and Corradini, M. L. , 1999, “A Fully Compressible Two-Dimensional Model of High Speed Cavitating Nozzles,” Atomization Sprays, 9(3), pp. 255–276. [CrossRef]
Neroorkar, K. , Shields, B. , Grover, R. O. , Torres, A. P. , and Schmidt, D. , 2012, “Application of the Homogeneous Relaxation Model to Simulating Cavitating Flow of a Diesel Fuel,” SAE Paper No. 2012-01-1269.
Singhal, A. K. , Athavale, M. M. , Li, H. , and Jiang, Y. , 2002, “Mathematical Basis and Validation of the Full Cavitation Model,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 124(3), pp. 617–624. [CrossRef]
Saha, K. , Abu-Ramadan, E. , and Li, X. , 2013, “Modified Single-Fluid Cavitation Model for Pure Diesel and Biodiesel Fuels in Direct Injection Fuel Injectors,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 135(6), p. 062801. [CrossRef]
Som, S. , Aggarwal, S. K. , El-Hannouny, E. , and Longman, D. , 2010, “Investigation of Nozzle Flow and Cavitation Characteristics in a Diesel Injector,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power, 132(4), p. 042802. [CrossRef]
Som, S. , Longman, D. , Ramirez, A. , and Aggarwal, S. K. , 2010, “A Comparison of Injector Flow and Spray Characteristics of Biodiesel With Petrodiesel,” Fuel, 89(12), pp. 4014–4024. [CrossRef]
Li, H. , Kelecy, F. , and Egelja-Maruszewski, A. , 2008, “Advanced Computational Modeling of Steady and Unsteady Cavitating Flows,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2008-67450.
Schnerr, G. , and Sauer, J. , 2001, “Physical and Numerical Modeling of Unsteady Cavitation Dynamics,” Fourth International Conference on Multiphase Flow (ICMF-2001), New Orleans, LA, May 27–June 1.
Zwart, P. , Gerber, A. , and Belamri, T. , 2004, “A Two-Phase Flow Model for Predicting Cavitation Dynamics,” Fifth International Conference on Multiphase Flow (ICMF 2004), Yokohama, May 30–June 3, Paper No. 152.
Ansys, Inc., 2009, ANSYS Fluent 12 Documentation, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Hinze, J. O. , 1975, Turbulence, McGraw-Hill , New York.
Ra, Y. , Rolf, D. R. , McFarlane, J. , and Daw, C. S. , 2008, “Effects of Fuel Physical Properties on Diesel Engine Combustion Using Diesel and Bio-Diesel Fuels,” SAE Paper No. 2008-01-1379.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Computational domain consisting of a section before the nozzle, the nozzle itself, and a section after the nozzle. For rectangular cross section, d is the width of the nozzle and for circular cross section d is the diameter of the nozzle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Nozzle section of the mesh used in comparison with the experiment [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Experimental images for three different cases: Pin = 10.0 MPa and Pout = 4.0 MPa, 2.5 MPa and 2.0 MPa [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the vapor volume fraction contours from the three different cavitation models with the single-fluid approach, for three different pressure differentials (ΔP = Pin − Pout): Pin = 10.0 MPa and Pout = 4.0 MPa, 2.5 MPa, and 2.0 MPa at the steady state. (The maximum vapor volume fraction is abbreviated as Max VVF. The same color scheme is used as in the experimental images.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the predicted mass flow rates from the three cavitation models using the single- and two-fluid approaches at different pressure differentials (ΔP = Pin − Pout) with the experimental values [7] (the curves for the SS model two-fluid approach and ZGB single-fluid approach overlap in the figure). Comparison of the predicted mass flow rates from the three cavitation models using the single- and two-fluid approaches at different pressure differentials (ΔP = Pin − Pout) with the experimental values [7]. (The curves for the SS model two-fluid approach and the ZGB single-fluid approach overlap in the figure).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the predicted velocity profiles from the three cavitation models using the single- and two-fluid approaches, at the pressure differential of ΔP ( = Pin − Pout) = 8.5 MPa with the experimental values measured at a location, 53 μm from the nozzle inlet section [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the vapor volume fraction contours using the single- and two-fluid approaches for the ZGB model [20], at the injection pressure differential of 8.0 MPa. (The maximum vapor volume fraction is abbreviated as Max VVF. All the two-fluid results are at 0.5 ms.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the residuals for the PC-SIMPLE and multiphase coupled solution methods when used with the two-fluid approach coupled with the ZGB model [20], at the injection pressure differential of 8.0 MPa for Winklhofer nozzle [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The mesh used for the present cavitation analysis for the axisymmetric nozzle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the vapor volume fraction contours at the steady state for the axisymmetric nozzle for the three different cavitation models with the single-fluid approach, at the inlet pressures of 15 and 50 MPa and fixed outlet pressure of 5 MPa. (The maximum vapor volume fraction is abbreviated as Max VVF.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of the vapor volume fraction contours for the axisymmetric nozzle for the ZGB model coupled with the single- and two-fluid approaches at the inlet pressure of 100 MPa and fixed outlet pressure of 5 MPa. (The maximum vapor volume fraction is abbreviated as Max VVF. All the two-fluid results are at 0.5 ms.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of the liquid volume fraction profiles at the nozzle exit of the axisymmetric nozzle for the three cavitation models coupled with the single-fluid approach at the inlet pressure of 50 MPa and fixed outlet pressure of 5 MPa

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In