Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

Modified Single-Fluid Cavitation Model for Pure Diesel and Biodiesel Fuels in Direct Injection Fuel Injectors

[+] Author and Article Information
Kaushik Saha

e-mail: kaushik.sahaju@gmail.com

Ehab Abu-Ramadan

e-mail: ehabar@gmail.com

Xianguo Li

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

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received November 27, 2012; final manuscript received January 15, 2013; published online May 22, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 135(6), 062801 (May 22, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: GTP-12-1455; doi: 10.1115/1.4023464 History: Received November 27, 2012; Revised January 15, 2013

A cavitation model has been developed for the internal two-phase flow of diesel and biodiesel fuels in fuel injectors under high injection pressure conditions. The model is based on the single-fluid mixture approach with newly derived expressions for the phase change rate and local mean effective pressure—the two key components of the model. The effects of the turbulence, compressibility, and wall roughness are accounted for in the present model and model validation is carried out by comparing the model predictions of probable cavitation regions, velocity distribution, and fuel mass flow rate with the experimental measurement available in literature. It is found that cavitation inception for biodiesel occurs at a higher injection pressure, compared to diesel, due to its higher viscosity. However, supercavitation occurs for both diesel and biodiesel at high injection pressures. The renormalization group (RNG) k-ɛ model for turbulence modeling is reasonable by comparing its performance with the realizable k-ɛ and the shear stress transport (SST) k-ω models. The effect of liquid phase compressibility becomes considerable for high injection pressures. Wall roughness is not an important factor for cavitation in fuel injectors.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Schmidt, D., and Corradini, M., 2001, “The Internal Flow of Diesel Fuel Injector Nozzles: A Review,” Int. J. Engine Res., 2, pp. 1–22. [CrossRef]
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,” Society of Automobile Engineering Conference, SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr.1(1), pp. 703–718. [CrossRef]
Brennen, C. E., 1995, Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
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.
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, 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,” Society of Automobile Engineering Conference, SAE Paper No. 950290. [CrossRef]
Winklhofer, E., Kull, E., Kelz, E., and Morozov, A., 2001, “Comprehensive Hydraulic and Flow Field Documentation in Model Throttle Experiments Under Cavitation Conditions,” ILASS Europe: 17th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization & Spray Systems, Zurich, Switzerland, September 2–6.
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. Fluids Eng., 125, pp. 963–969. [CrossRef]
Edelbauer, E. B. W., Alajbegovic, A., Tatschi, R., Volmajer, M., Kegl, B., and Ganippa, L., 2005, “Coupled Simulations of Nozzle Flow, Primary Fuel Jet Breakup, and Spray Formation,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 127, pp. 1–22. [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]
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, Korea, October 5–10.
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, pp. 617–624. [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 Turbines Power, 132, pp. 1–12. [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, pp. 4014–4024. [CrossRef]
Echouchene, F., Belmabrouk, H., Penven, L. L., and Buffat, M., 2011, “Numerical Simulation of Wall Roughness Effects in Cavitating Flow,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 32, pp. 1068–1075. [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,” Society of Automobile Engineering Conference, SAE Paper No. 2012-01-1269. [CrossRef]
Ansys FLUENT, 2006, Fluent 6.3 documentation.
Hinze, J. O., 1975, Turbulence, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Szybist, J., Morris, D., and Boehman, A., 2003, “Diesel Fuel Formulation Effects on Injection Timing and Emissions,” Argonne National Laboratory, Fuel Chemistry Division, Technical Report.
Suh, H., Park, S., and Lee, C., 2008, “Experimental Investigation of Nozzle Cavitating Flow Characteristics for Diesel and Biodiesel Fuels,” Int. J. Automot. Technol., 9, pp. 217–224. [CrossRef]
Peiner, E., Balke, M., and Doering, L., 2009, “Form Measurement Inside Fuel Injector Nozzle Spray Holes,” Microelectron. Eng., 86, pp. 984–986. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Qualitative comparison of the present model predictions with the experimental images from the work of Winklhofer et al. [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

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

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of the mass flow rate predictions from the present study and Som et al. [15] with the experimental data [9] as a function of the injection pressure differential (Δp)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the velocity profiles between the present model prediction and the experimental results by Winklhofer et al. [9] at a location 53 μm from the nozzle inlet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of vapor contours of diesel and biodiesel for the inlet pressure of 25 MPa and outlet pressure of 5 MPa: (a) diesel, (b) diesel with biodiesel saturation pressure, (c) diesel with biodiesel viscosity, and (d) biodiesel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the discharge coefficient (CD) and Reynolds number (Re) for diesel and biodiesel for different cavitating conditions at different injection pressure differentials (between the inlet and outlet, Δp) with the outlet pressure being 5 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the velocity and liquid volume fraction profiles at the exit of the nozzle section for the inlet pressure of 150 MPa and outlet pressure of 5 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Vapor volume fraction contours for (a) a smooth wall, and (b) a wall roughness height of 5 μm for diesel at the inlet pressure of 15 MPa and outlet pressure of 5 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the vapor volume fraction contours for diesel obtained from different turbulence models: (a) RNG k-ɛ, (b) realizable k-ɛ, and (c) SST k-ω model, with the inlet pressure of 50 MPa and outlet pressure of 5 MPa



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