WALL FILM MODEL

Wall film model - Introduction

To comply with the requirement of the industry a constant improvement of
the accuracy of the physical model used in CFD is necessary.
To p
predict the correct mixture formation and pollutant
p
evolution a model
for the wall film is required.
The basic physics of the wall film formation and evolution
is widely treated in literature.
Our model is based on the one proposed by Foucart et al
al. (SAE Paper
980133) with the evaporation sub-model based on the work of ORourke
et al. (SAE Paper 961961)
We have chosen to focus our work on the accuracy of the implementation of
the model and on the resolution of the numerical issue that could arise.

WALL FILM THE PHYSICAL ISSUE

WALL
INTERACTION
C O

SPRAY
GAS

Two-dimensional flux over three-dimensional surfaces

9I i i S
9Impinging
Spray
9Heat transfer with wall and gas
9Fuel evaporation
9Gravity and other body forces
9Shear forces at the interface with gas and wall

WALL FILM NUMERICAL MODEL

HYPOTHESIS
Boundary-layer approximation
Laminar Flow
Incompressible Flow
Newtonian Fluid

The equations
q
of mass, momentum and energy
gy are written and integrated
g
following a finite volume approach.
Because of the variation of mass inside a control volume these equations
resemble a virtual compressibility.

INTEGRAL CONTINUITY EQUATION

1
+
t Aw

r
Sd
V f n i li =
i
Aw

Nside
i

IIn order
d to
t underline
d li
th variable
the
i bl film
fil height
h i ht used
d in
i the
th numerical
i l solution,
l ti
th
the
equation is divided by Aw
The time derivative of film height in a control volume is related to the convective
fluxes and to the interaction with gas and spray through the source terms Sd

s
d

Spray-film interaction

Sd
t
d

Film evaporation
p

SPRAY--WALL INTERACTION
SPRAY
The impingement regime is a function of the Weber number
((According
g to Stanton et. al SAE 960628))

d dU
We =

2
nd
d

5<We 10

We 5

1
2

10 <We 18.0 dd f

2

1
4

3
4

1
2

18.0 dd 4 f 4 <We

2

The wall film model does not distinguish between different impact regimes.
The droplets are supposed to adhere to the wall.

INTEGRAL MOMENTUM EQUATION

r
Vf

( )+ 1
t

r r
1 Nside
1 Nedge r
r 1 r
Vf Vf n ili =
pn )ili + g +
Mtan +
(
(i Ai )

i
Aw i
Aw i
Aw
Aw i
Nside

Imposed the condition of film adhesion to the

wall
Different influences of the normal component of
th impinging
the
i i i
droplet
d
l t velocity
l it from
f
the
th tangential
t
ti l
one

z
y

A relative system of
coordinates has been
created
t d

FILM PRESSURE DEFINITION

r
Vf

( )+ 1
t

g
r r
1 Nside
1 Nedge
r 1 r
r

Vf Vf n ili =
( pn)ili + g + Mtan +
(i Ai )

i
Aw i
Aw i
Aw
Aw i
Nside

p = pg + pd

Pressure of the surrounding gas

Dynamic pressure due the impinging
droplets

3U
r
4
ini
=
1
pd
3 Aw i=1 ti

The time-step used in calculations could be

longer or shorter than the duration of the
droplet impingement
impingement.
We choose to consider that the duration of
the impact is equal to the computational
timestep t

PRESSURE GRADIENT TERM

r
Vf

( )+ 1
t

r r
1 Nside
1 Nedge r
r 1 r
Vf Vf n ili =
( pn )ili + g + Mtan +
(i Ai )

i
Aw i
Aw i
Aw
Aw i
Nside

pg

p
The pressure gradient contribution to momentum of the j-th cell involves the
valuation of pressure at the boundary faces. The different film heights between
neighbour cells must be taken into account by appling the film pressure only over
the common contact area, while the gas pressure is applied over the remaining
boundary area

INTEGRAL ENERGY EQUATION

Jg
(T ) 1 Nside i r
Jw
SH
+ T Vf n ili =

+
t
Aw i
cp Aw cp Aw cp Aw
i

The film exchange:

Convective heat transfer with the gas (Jg)
Conductive heat transfer with the wall (Jw)
Energy with the spray (Sh)
Fuel vaporization alters the structure of the turbulent boundary layer
above the film because of the gas velocity normal to the wall induced by
the vaporization.
The wall film energy equation is integrated over the control volume with the
hypothesis of parabolic temperature profile across the film height
Modified
M
difi d wallll functions
f
ti
are use in
i order
d to
t calculate
l l t the
th wallll fil
film vaporization
i ti rate
t
(Stanton et al. SAE 980132)

INTEGRATION METHOD - ALE

The discretized equations are solved with an Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE)
methodology with a fully explicit approach
The diffusive terms in direction tangential to the wall are neglegible compared to
convective terms. The high Peclet number justifies the use a first order upwind
differencing scheme
LAGRANGIAN PHASE

L L = n n + SL t

During the Lagrangian phase the computational cell moves with fluid and source
terms are accounted for

EULERIAN PHASE

n +1 n +1

Nside

= + t
L

i =1

L
i

uur
L
V f n i li

In the Eulerian phase the flow is frozen and remapped onto the computational
grid

FILM--GAS INTERFACE AT BOUNDARY EDGE

FILM
The main limits of a continuous finite volume approach of the film models
are at the boundary edges of the liquid phase: the approximation of
constant film height over the control volume does not permit to reconstruct
the characteristics of the interface.

Real gas-film
gas film interface of
boundary edge

Computed gas-film
interface of boundary
edge
This scattering of liquid film causes high numerical diffusion and an
overextimation of evaporation, which is proportional to the area of contact
with gas.

FILM--GAS INTERFACE AT BOUNDARY EDGE

FILM
In order to reproduce
p
the effect of surface tension a fitting
g minimum threshold
value is used to impose a minimum film height into a control volume

Real interface

Yes

Computed
p
with threshold

No

Min Height

The convective fluxes are

inhibited according to a
double control on the
minimum film height of two
neighbour cells

The area at the interface with gas is calculated by supposing that all the fluid
inside the control volume has the minimum film height, avoiding the
overextimation of wall film evaporation
evaporation.

KIVA3
The wall film model has been implemented
p
in our customized version of the
KIVA3 code.

The code has been updated regarding the combustion sub-models:

Shell ignition model (Kong et al.)
Characteristic-time combustion model (Abraham et al.), modified with the
correction proposed by Bianchi et al.
And the spray break-up and evaporation sub-models:
Liquid jet and atomization model Hybrid model (Bianchi et al.)
CLE coupling
p g between g
gas and liquid
q
p
phase ((Beard et al.))

VALIDATION
The wall film model has been tested against two cases
that are representative of different wall film formation
and dynamics :
Diesel Engine (Single injection DI Engine)
Pipe with pulsed injection (PFI-like condition)
Both cases are choosen because the impact regime is
prevalently sticky

VALIDATION DIESEL ENGINE SIMULATION

Stanton et al. (SAE 980132)
Bore

150 mm

Stroke

225 mm

Number of cylinders
Engine speed
Compression ratio

Two-Stroke DI Diesel Engine

14
Diesel

Wall temperature

673 K

Inlet air pressure

2.94 bar

Injected mass

12.3 mg/cycle
-19 ATDC

Duration of injection

19 C.A.

Injection pressure

174 bar

Injection and Combustion simulation

Small angle between spray direction and bowl wall
Prevalent impinging regime is Stick

750 rpm

Fuel

Start of injection

Simulation between IVC and EVO

VALIDATION DIESEL ENGINE SIMULATION

Sensors position

Sensor 1

Sensor 5

Sensor 3

VALIDATION PFI GASOLINE ENGINE

Le Coz et al. (7th Int. Symp. on Application of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics)
Sauter Mean Diameter

90m

Droplet Velocity

16m/s

Spray Cone Angle

30

Injection Duration

6.7ms

Angle injector/tube

45

Injection
j
frequency
q
y

40Hz

Injected quantity per shot

Air flow rate

21.5mm3
0.42m3/min

Reproduces injection and liquid-film conditions similar to those occuring

in PFI gasoline engines
Pulsed injection with 8 injection events
Characterized by low Weber number

Prevalent impinging regime is Stick

The experimental
Th
i
t l data
d t has
h been
b
compared
d with
ith the
th result
lt obtained
bt i d by
b
Foucart et al. (SAE 980133) and by our model

VALIDATION PFI GASOLINE ENGINE

Sensor 1

View

Sensor 2

Wall film model comparison

Evaluation of wall film models of other commercial CFD codes
FLUENT v6.2
Lagrangian model with discrete particles transportation
Model of interaction between particles and wall
Equation
Equation of Mass,
Mass Momentum and Energy solved

FIRE v8.4
Semi-implicit eulerian model
Dynamic Mass and Energy equation
Momentum equation with quasi stationary hupothesis

Comparision of wall film models of different

commercial
i l cfd
fd code
d
The wall film model in FLUENT intensifies the
dynamic effect of spray impact on the momentum
of wall film
The evolution of the film far away from the
impact zone is good
The quasi stationary model of FIRE
underextimate the dynamics of the film. The
analysis of the equation of the model allows us
identifying the cause in th elack of source terms
of the momentum equation
q
and to the quasi
q
stationary HP of the velocity profiles imposed.
The fullyy explicit model implemented in KIVA is
accurate in the prediction of film heigth and also
well predicts the dynamics of the film

KIVA

FIRE

Momentum equation in FIRE

Quasi stationaty profiles

Momentum equation

Wall Film - Conclusion

A wall film model that also accounts for the spray-wall interaction has been
implemented on our version of the KIVA3 code
Particular attention has been given to the physics of the phenomenon and
to the numerical and implementation issue that arise from its modelling
The model resolves the film dynamic using an explicit integration method
The model
Th
d l has
h been
b
validated
lid t d against
i t a PFI-like
PFI lik an Diesel
Di
l engine
i case,
giving good result both for the predicted film height and evaporation rate
The model has been implemeted in FIRE (beta version)

www.unibo.it