1

Multiphase Flow Modeling

Pepi Maksimovic
May 20, 2005
St. Johns Conference Center, Plymouth, MI
2
Welcome
Fluent Inc.s LunchNLearn Seminar Series
Topical seminars on leading edge CFD applications
Held frequently
Aeroacoustics Modeling March 18, 2005
FloWizard April 22, 2005
Unsteady Flow Modeling April 29, 2005
Multiphase Modeling May 20, 2005
Purpose
Inform the FLUENT community about the subject
fDiscuss basics, physics, theory, modeling techniques
fTools available in FLUENT to model the subject
fExamples
3
Agenda
Overview of Multiphase Flow Modeling
Boiling
Cavitation
Defogging
VOF
Evaporation
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Summary
Physics, Numerics and Case Studies
4
Agenda
Overview of Multiphase Flow Modeling
Boiling
Cavitation
Defogging
VOF
Evaporation
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Summary
5
Why Model Multiphase Flows?
There are numerous examples of Multiphase Flow problems relevant to
Automotive Industry:
Powertrain
Engine Piston Cooling
Boiling in Cooling Jacket
Cavitation in Water Pump
Fuel Injector
Lubrication
HVAC System
Two-Phase Heat Exchangers
Oil Separation
Cabin Flows
Window Deicing
Window Defogging
Fuel System
Tank Filling
Fuel Sloshing
Fuel Vapor Emissions
Transmission System
Clutch Performance
External Flows
Tire Splashing / Hydroplaning
Rain Water Management
Windshield Wiper Performance
Manufacturing Process
Spray Painting
Casting
6
Multiphase Flow Modeling Objectives
Typical modeling objectives:
Evaluate component / system performance
Understand the dynamics of flow behavior
free surface
location of phase change
contact and interaction between phases
Compute velocity and pressure fields
Compute heat-transfer-related values of interest
7
Definitions
A phase is a class of matter with a definable boundary and a particular
dynamic response to the surrounding flow/potential field. Phases are
generally identified by solid, liquid or gaseous states of matter but can
also refer to other forms e.g. particles of different size.
Species are substances of different chemical composition.
Multiphase flow is simultaneous flow of:
Materials with different states or phases (i.e. gas, liquid or solid).
Materials with different chemical properties but in the same state or phase
(i.e. liquid-liquid, such as, oil-water)
In contrast, multicomponent/multi-species flow refers to a mixture
formulation where components are mixed at molecular level and
velocity and temperature are the same for all components
gas phase = air + fuel vapors (two species)
liquid phase (one species)
8
Phase Change
Phase change can be defined as departure from an equilibrium
state, moving into another equilibrium state, across the two-phase
equilibrium curves
Different paths may represent different phase change phenomena
vaporization of a liquid by isobaric heating is boiling
vaporization of a liquid by adiabatic expansion is cavitation
T [K]
p [Pa]
S
V
L
9
Multiphase Flow Regimes
Bubbly flow/ Droplet flow/
Particle-laden flow = Discrete
secondary phase structures
(bubbles, droplets, solid
particles) in a continuous
primary phase
Slug flow = Large bubbles in a
continuous liquid
Annular flow = Continuous
liquid along walls, gas in core
Stratified / Free-surface flow
= Immiscible fluids separated
by a clearly-defined interface
Jet flow = thin liquid core
surrounded by bulk gas phase
Film flow = thin liquid layer
flowing along wall boundaries
Bubbly flow / Droplet flow /
Particle-laden flow
Slug flow
Free-surface flow Annular flow
Jet flow
Film flow
10
Flow Regimes Example
Vertical gas-liquid flow
11
CFD Modeling Requirements
User must know a priori the characteristics of the flow:
Flow regime, e.g., bubbly flow , slug flow, annular flow, etc.
Only model one flow regime at a time
Predicting the transition from one regime to another possible only if the
flow regimes can be predicted by the same model
f Slug and annular flow predicted by the VOF model
Laminar or turbulent
Dilute or dense
Secondary phase diameter for drag considerations
12
Modeling Approaches
There are two approaches for the numerical calculation of multiphase flows:
Euler-Lagrange approach
Fluid phase, treated as a continuum, is
solved via Navier-Stokes equations
while dispersed phase solved by
tracking particles/ bubbles/ droplets
through calculated flow field.
A fundamental assumption: the
dispersed second phase occupies a
low volume fraction. (High mass
loading acceptable).
In FLUENT, Lagrangian Discrete
Phase Model.
Practical for 10%
Euler-Euler approach
Phases treated mathematically as
interpenetrating continua.
Since the volume of a phase cannot be
occupied by other phases, the concept of
phasic volume fraction, is introduced:
assumed to be continuous functions of
space and time with their sum equal to 1.
Solve set of conservation equations for
each phase.
In FLUENT, three different Euler-Euler
models available:
Volume of Fluid (VOF) model
Mixture model
Eulerian model
V
V
i
V
i

0
lim

) (
) (
) (
cell V
cell V
cell
i

1 =

i
i

V
2
V
V
1
13
FLUENT Modeling Approaches
The discrete phase model is used for modeling particles/bubbles/droplets
dispersed in continuous phase
Solve transport equations for the continuous phase + discrete second phase in a
Lagrangian frame of reference
Computes the trajectories of the discrete phase at specified intervals during the fluid
phase calculation, as well as heat and mass transfer to/from them (spray, combustion).
Can include coupling between the phases (i.e. impact on both the discrete phase
trajectories and the continuous phase flow).
Applications: bubbly, droplet, particle-laden flows with 10%
The mixture model is designed for two or more phases (fluid or particulate)
The phases are treated as interpenetrating continua.
Solves for the mixture momentum equation and prescribes relative velocities to describe
the dispersed phases.
Applications: bubbly, droplet, particle-laden flows with 10%
The Eulerian model is the most complex of the multiphase models in FLUENT.
Solves a set of momentum and continuity equations for each phase.
Coupling is achieved through the pressure and interphase exchange coefficients.
Applications: particle suspension.
The VOF model is surface-tracking technique designed for two or more immiscible
fluids where the position of the interface between the fluids is of interest
Solves single set of momentum equations shared by the fluids + volume fraction of each
fluid in each computational cell
Applications: free-surface / stratified flows, filling, sloshing.
14
References
FLUENT 6.2 Documentation
Chapter 22: Introduction to Modeling Multiphase Flows
Chapter 23: Discrete Phase Models
Chapter 24: General Multiphase Models
24.2 Volume of Fluid (VOF) Model
24.3 Mixture Model
24.4 Eulerian Model
24.6.4 Mass Transfer through Cavitation
15
Agenda
Overview of Multiphase Flow Modeling
Boiling
Physics
Numerics
Case Studies
Cavitation
Defogging
VOF
Evaporation
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Summary
16
Boiling
Process of substance transformation from liquid
into vapor by heat addition
Heat added through a solid boundary
Temperature is maintained higher than saturation
Controlled Heat Flux is supplied
On this solid surface
Nuclei (vapor bubbles) develop in surface cavities
Vapor bubbles grow through micro-evaporation
Upon growing above certain size, bubbles detach
and migrate in the bulk flow
Eventually, a film of vapor covers the solid surface
superheat = Twall-Tsat
T [K]
p [Pa]
S
V
L
17
Classes of Boiling Problems
For heated surfaces submerged in a liquid where there is no
motion except that induced by the boiling itself, the process is
called pool boiling.
Flow driven by buoyancy forces acting on the bubbles
When liquid is forced over a heated surface and it boils, the
process is called forced convection boiling.
Flow dominated by convection
Saturation boiling occurs on surfaces immersed in a liquid
which is at the saturation temperature.
Subcooled boiling occurs when the average liquid temperature
stays below the saturation value, producing local boiling at the
wall with subsequent condensation of the vapor as it departs the
wall and moves into the colder bulk of the fluid.
18
Pool Boiling
Pool boiling Curve and Heat transfer Regimes:
Single Phase Natural Convection regime
Onset of Boiling regime
Nucleate Boiling regime
Unstable Film regime
Stable Film regime
Nat. Conv.

w

s
q
Nucleate
Transition
Film
Critical Heat Flux
Minimum Heat Flux
19
Convective Boiling
Two-phase flow regimes and
associated boiling regimes:
Single-Phase Liquid Forced
Convection
Bubbly Flow - Subcooled
Nucleate Boiling
Plug / Slug / Churn Flow
Saturated Nucleate Boiling
Annular Flow Film evaporation
Mist Flow Droplet evaporation
Single-Phase Vapor Dryout
20
Subcooled Boiling UDF
In FLUENT 6.2, boiling is implemented through a UDF
The UDF is based on RPI subcooled boiling model
RPI Model:
Model scope
Basic equations
Setup example
Validation examples
21
RPI Model
The model was developed at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
and is commonly called RPI model of subcooled boiling
The model itself is a framework within Euler model
The model has an open architecture it allows arbitrary correlations
for key boiling physical quantities to be inserted. That is why it may
be called a framework rather than model
It includes at least two phases: liquid (primary or continuous phase)
and vapor bubbles (secondary or discrete phase)
It prescribes rate of mass and heat transfer between liquid and
vapor bubbles
22
RPI Model Scope
Physics
Subcooled boiling occurs when wall and thin liquid boundary layer
have temperature higher than saturation temperature at local
pressure, i.e., are superheated
T
w
T
bulk
T
sat
bw
d
Thin superheated layer
Bubble nucleating site
Departing bubble
Heated wall
23
RPI Model Scope
The model
This model is not plug and play like - model of turbulence,
for example. In many cases it may fail and requires certain
customization. However, key elements of the model are
universal.
The following is the scope of the model
Developed and validated for forced convection subcooled
nucleate boiling, i.e., below Critical Heat Flux (CHF or Boiling
crisis). This means that this model cannot adequately describe
CHF itself.
24
RPI Model Scope
The model
Boiling curve example wall heat flux vs wall superheat Tw-Tsat
FLUENT
CHF & Film
boiling
Wall superheat, T
wall
-T
sat
Model valid
Model not valid
25
RPI Model Scope
The model
The model framework can be extended to include:
Pool boiling (as long as bulk liquid is not superheated)
Laminar regime
Different turbulence models (-, -, RSM) as long as
turbulent kinetic energy is part of the model
However, these boiling regimes have not been validated to
our knowledge
Validation was done mainly for boiling in turbulent upward
flows in vertical channels (pipe, annulus) with heated walls
26
Basic Equations
Conservation equations for phase q (Euler model)
Mass:
Momentum:
( ) ( )

=
= +

n
p
pq q q q q q
m v
t
1
&
r

Evaporation/condensation rate
( ) ( ) (
( )
q vm q lift q q q
n
p
pq pq pq q q q
q
q q q q q q q q
F F F
v m R g p v v v
t
, ,
1
r r r
r
&
r
r r r r
+ + +
+ + + + = +

=


Turb. Diffusion force and modified Lift force
)
Terms prescribed by RPI model
27
Basic Equations
Conservation equations for phase q (Euler model)
Energy
Mixture k-e model with bubble induced terms
( ) ( ) ( )

=
+ + + +

= +

n
p
pq pq pq q q q
q
q q q q q q q q
h m Q S q v
t
p
h v h
t
1
: &
r r r

( ) ( )
k m m k
k
m t
m m m
S G k k v k
t
+ +
|
|
.
|

\
|
= +

,
,
Pr
r
( ) ( ) ( )

S C G C
k
v
t
m m k
m t
m m m
+ +
|
|
.
|

\
|
= +

2 , 1
,
Pr
r
Energy exchange + Latent heat
optional
Terms prescribed by RPI model
28
Basic Equations
Rate of mass exchange from liquid to vapor per unit of
volume is given by
First term on RHS describes evaporation (condensation)
occurring at bubble surface after it departed wall
Second term is vapor generation rate at superheated wall
( ) ( ) ( ) 0 , max / /
1
l s pl w E i s l lv lv
n
p
qp
T T C L A q L A T T h m m +

+ = =

=
& &
29
Basic Equations
d V
A
V
V N
V
V
V
A N
p
p p p
p
p p p


6
= =
(

=
d
Volume
Interface area
p p
A N
V
Area density
Swarm of rising vapor
bubbles. Vapor inside is at
saturation temperature
Surrounding liquid at
temperatures T
l
( ) | |
i s l lv
A L T T h = / rate n Evaporatio
Rate of mass exchange between phases is given as
product of mass flux per unit of interfacial area and
interface area per unit of volume (interfacial area density)
30
Basic Equations
Rate of vapor generation at superheated wall comes from heat
flux partition model which is a cornerstone of the model
Total wall heat flux is split into three components:
Single phase convective heat flux is applied to wall area not
covered by nucleation site
Quenching heat flux is applied to wall area covered by nucleation
sites. It is due to transient refilling at bubble departure site
Evaporation heat flux which is a source of bubbles
E Q l w
q q q q

+

+

=

31
Basic Equations
The wall surface is subdivided into portion covered by
nucleating bubbles and portion covered by fluid
Convective heat flux is expressed as
single phase heat transfer coefficient is derived from either
log law if flow is logarithmic or Fourier law if flow is laminar
(hence formal compatibility with laminar flow)
is calculated from nucleation site density and bubble
departure diameter

1
( ) =

1 T T h q
cell
l w lw l
) (
lw
h

|
|
.
|

\
|
= 0 . 1 ,
4
min
2
n
d
wv

n
wv
d
32
Basic Equations
Quenching heat flux is given by
Notice that it has the same form as single phase flux heat
transfer coefficient multiplied by temperature difference
Bubble departure frequency is given by
( ) ( )
cell
l w pl l l Q
T T C f q =


5 . 0
5 . 0
2
quenching heat transfer coeff
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
l bw
d
g
f

3
4
33
Basic Equations
Bubble departure diameter is given by correlation
Bubble departure diameter is most important model variable
because evaporation heat flux is
( )
5 . 0
709 . 0 5
10 42 . 2

= b a p d
vw
( )

s ps s
v
s w
C
T T
a
2

=
( )
( )
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
l pl l
w
l s
l v
U C .
q
T T MAX b
0065 0
,
/ 1 2
1

( ) 0 . 1 , 61 . 0 / max
l
U =
L fn d q
v vw E

3
6
=

5 . 2
vw E
d q

34
Setup Example
Example of upward flow of water in pipe with heated wall
1 =
TD
C
D=15.4 mm
2
/ 570 m kW q
w
=

2 m
Water, 900
kg/(m
2
sec)
T
in
=T
sat
-60K
P=45 atm
gravity
35
Setup Example
Start 2ddp version, compile UDF and read in the mesh
Set Euler model with 2 phases and define materials. Pay
attention to standard enthalpy because it defines all
important latent heat.
Notice that standard enthalpy is given in J/kmole while in
UDF it is J/kg.
36
Setup Example
In definition of phases assign bubble diameter to UDF
In all inlet/outlet BC temperature of vapor must be set
to saturation
In all fluid zones vapor T
v
must be set to T
sat
this is
assumption of the model
In all inlet BCL:
T
l
must be below T
sat
In all outlet BC:
back flow T
l
must be
set to T
sat
37
Setup Example
In all fluid zones sources for all
momentum equations of all phases
must be set for turbulent diffusion force
User-Defined Functions Hooks
ADJUST gradient of VOF
HEAT_FLUX wall heat balance
38
Validation Examples
The model had been validated for 5 published experiments:
exp-1 exp-2 exp-3 exp-4 exp-5
Boiling liquid water water R-113 R-113 R-113
Geometry Vertical pipe
with heated
walls, 2D
BRW core
channel
geometry with
vertical heated
rods, 3D
Vertical
annulus with
internal wall
heated, 2D
Vertical
annulus with
internal wall
heated, 2D
Vertical
annulus with
internal wall
heated, 2D
System pressure, bar 45 50 2.69 2.69 2.69
Inner wall heat flux,
MW/m
2
0.57 0.522 0.094 0.116 0.126
Fluid mass
velocity/Re,
kg/m
2
/sec
900/104,210 1163/294,500 785/34,300 785/34,300 785/34,300
Mean liquid
subcooling at test
section inlet,
0
C
60 4.5 30.3 30.3 30.3
Wall material Stainless steel Stainless steel Stainless steel Stainless steel Stainless steel
39
Validation Examples
Wall super heat T
w
-T
sat
for exp-1. Notice how single phase calculation
overpredicts superheat.
40
Validation Examples
Axial vapor content development vs axial distance for exp-1. Onset of
significant boiling is well predicted.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Position, m
V
o
i
d

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
exp-1
cal
41
Validation Examples
Axial bulk liquid temperature development for exp-1. Notice how boiling model
improves comparison with experiment vs single flow solution.
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Position, m
B
u
l
k

s
u
b
c
o
o
l
i
n
g
cal s.p.
cal
exp-1
42
Validation Examples
Grid and vapor VOF prediction for exp-2
Central rod rod
Side rods
Subcooled water
Water-vapor mixture
43
Validation Examples
Comparison for vapor content from X-ray attenuation measurement (very
inaccurate) for exp-2.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Axial distance, m
V
o
i
d

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
44
Validation Examples
Comparison for vapor radial profiles for exp-3,4,5. Experiments differ in heat
flux, lowest for exp-3 and highest for exp-5
Vapor
VOF
Heated wall
Radial position
45
Validation Examples
Comparison for liquid temperature radial profile for exp-3,4,5. Experiments
differ in heat flux, lowest for exp-3 and highest for exp-5
Liquid T
Heated wall
Radial position
46
Validation Examples
Automotive cooling jackets with applied heat flux
Subcooled water
47
Validation examples
Automotive cooling jackets with applied heat flux
Subcooled water, T
sub
=4
0
C
Outlet
Heat flux
gravity
48
Validation examples
Wall superheat T
w
-T
sat
for two cases: nominal and 10 times larger heat fluxes
T
w
-T
sat
, nominal T
w
-T
sat
, 10*nominal
49
Validation examples
Vapor volume fraction for two cases: nominal and 10 times larger heat fluxes
VOF, nominal
VOF, 10*nominal
Hot spots with high vapor content
50
Conclusions
RPI turbulence model can mechanistically predict all aspects of
nucleate subcooled boiling
It is validated for turbulent forced convection
It is formally expandable for
Laminar convection (flow is small channels)
Pool boiling
One must not overestimate its power
Cannot predict superheated boiling
Cannot describe CHF, but can point out where CHF may happen
Work is underway to marry RPI model with Population Balance
model
51
Agenda
Overview of Multiphase Flow Modeling
Boiling
Cavitation
Physics
Numerics
Case Studies
Fuel Injector
Fuel Pump
Gerotor Pump
Bearing
Propeller
Defogging
VOF
Evaporation
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Summary
52
What is Cavitation?
Cavitation is the process of generation of vapor bubbles in a liquid due to a
local reduction in pressure below the vapor pressure of the liquid at a given
temperature.
Cavitation = nucleation which occurs for P < P
vapor
Boiling = nucleation which occurs for T > T
saturated
From a basic physical point of view, cavitation and boiling are similar
processes.
Types of cavitation:
Bubble
Sheet
Cloud
Vortex
Shear flow
53
Relevance
Cavitating flows occur in many engineering fluid devices. Auto industry:
pumps (water, oil, fuel), fuel injectors, valves (butterfly, spool, power
steering), orifices (gasket holes), pipe bends, shock absorbers,
clutches, bearings
Presence of cavitating vapor bubbles can cause:
Reduced performance due to alteration of flow passages when significant
amount of vapor is generated (thrust breakdown, surging instabilities)
Structural damages (~ wall erosion) due to collapse of vapor bubbles
Vibration and Noise due to pressure pulsations
54
Characteristics of Cavitating Flows
Two-way phase change (bubble generation & collapse)
Large density ratio of liquid to vapor
e.g. for water at room temperature, the ratio is ~ 10
4
In cavitating zones, static pressure remains constant (~ Psat)
Turbulence effects
Thermal effects
Air releasing from liquid / gas injection
Strong dependence on geometry and flow conditions
55
Modeling Challenges
Numerical simulation of cavitating flows poses unique challenges,
both in modeling of the physics and in developing a robust
numerical methodology:
Physical Model: ideally, must be able to capture all the
characteristics of cavitating flows
Numerical Algorithm: must be able to
handle large density ratios
prevent the static pressure from a large negative value in
the cavitating region, which a single-phase solution
usually gives
56
Cavitation Model in Fluent 6.2
Based on so-called full cavitation model developed by Singhal et al (2001).
Implemented under Fluent Mixture model.
The Basic Cavitation Model, accounts for all first-order effects:
Phase change
Bubble dynamics (formation and collapse)
Turbulent pressure fluctuations
Non-condensable gases (dissolved gases, aeration)
Slip velocities between phases
Thermal effects (Psat, Surf. tension)
Compressibility of both liquid and gas phases
In addition, the model can be Extended for multiphase (N-phase) flows, or
flows with multiphase species transport
57
New to Fluent 6.2:
Can specify vapor pressure as function of temperature!
Can model mixture of liquid and vapor entering the domain
boundaries!
Improved robustness of numerical model:
Allows for more aggressive URFs
Solution process less sensitive to initial conditions
Extended Cavitation Model for multiphase (N-phase) or multiphase
species flows.
58
Assumptions and Limitations of
the 6.2 Cavitation Model
The basic model can be used for flows that involve two phases only
(liquid and its vapor), and a certain fraction of separately modeled non-
condensable gases.
Can be solved for flows that involve two phases only.
Mass fraction of non-condensable gases is constant value, known a
priori.
Cannot account for non-condensable gas release or injection.
The primary phase must be liquid, the secondary phase must be vapor.
Assumes interpenetrating continuum between the phases.
Cannot be used with VOF model.
59
Cavitation Model in Fluent 6.2
The fluid assumed to consist of liquid, vapor and non-condensable gases.
Solve:
Continuity, momentum, turbulence (and energy, if necessary) equations for the
mixture
Transport equation for mass fraction of vapor, f
v
:
where mixture density,
velocity of the vapor phase,
turbulent diffusion coefficient,
R
e
rate of vapor generation (evaporation),
R
c
rate of condensation.
Slip velocities between liquid and gaseous phases (optional).
c e v v v
v
R R f f V
t
f
+ = +

) ( ) (
) (

r
v
V
r
60
Cavitation Model in Fluent 6.2 (cont)
The phase change rates derived from the simplified Rayleigh-Plesset
equation:
where - bubble radius, surface tension
and assumptions that p
b
=p
sat
and bubble size limited by :
for p < p
sat
for p > p
sat
where V
ch
characteristic velocity ~ k
1/2
, Ce and Cc empirical constants.
b l
b
b
l
l
b b b
b
p p
Dt
D
Dt
D

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
|
.
|

\
|

+

2 4
2
3
2
2
2
&
b

0 0 0
2
~
V
b

) 1 (
3
2
f
p p V
C R
l
sat
v l
ch
e e

f
p p
v
V
C R
l
sat
l
ch
c c

=
3
2
61
Cavitation Model in Fluent 6.2 (cont)
Turbulence-induced pressure fluctuations accounted for via
Effects of Non-condensable gases accounted for via
where is volume fraction
The final phase rate expressions are:
for p < p
v
for p > p
v
( ) k p p p p
turb turb sat v
39 . 0 ,
2
1
= + =
g g l l v v
+ + =
1 , = + + =
g v l
i
i
f

) 1 (
3
2
g v
l
v
v l e e
f f
p p k
C R

v
l
v
v l c c
f
p p k
C R

=
3
2
62
Fluent 6.2 Cavitation Model GUI
Define > Models > Multiphase
Define > Phases
9
9
9
Vaporization Pressure:
Property of the liquid at given temperature.
Default value is for water at ambient temp.
Absolute pressure (not gauge value)!
Liquid Surface Tension:
Property of the liquid at given temperature
Non Condensable Gas:
Mass fraction of dissolved gases; input value
depends on the liquid purity
63
Tips for Using the Cavitation Model
Preferable to solve without slip velocity.
Slip velocities can be turned on if the problem suggests that there is significant
slip between phases
Non-Condensable Gases:
Avoid zero values for mass fraction of non-condensable gases
Limits for Dependent Variables:
Set the upper limit for pressure to a reasonable value
Fluent defaults to 5*10
6
Pa (~ 50 atm)
Recommended Pressure discretization schemes:
PRESTO
Body Force Weighted
Double Precission Solver:
Due to large density ratio between phases
64
Case Study: Fuel Injector
Cavitating fuel injector modeled
in FLUENT 6.2
Inlet pressure: 2400 bar
Outlet pressure: 0 bar
operating pressure: 1 bar
Transient flow simulation
Movement of the plunger
modeled with Dynamic Mesh
Pure layering (without non-
conformal interface)
Cavitation model
Turbulent flow:
Reliazable k-epsilon with std.
wall function
Discretization schemes:
second order in space
first order in time
Mesh motion
65
Case Study: Fuel Injector
Contours of volume fraction of cavitation zones
66
Case Study: Fuel Injector
Contours of pressure
67
Case Study: Fuel Injector
Contours of pressure (auto range)
68
Case Study: Fuel Injector
Contours of velocity magnitude
69
Case Study: Gerotor Pump
Cavitating gerotor pump
analyzed in FLUENT 6.2
Working fluid: oil
10 outer, 9 inner gears
3000 rpm for inner rotor
Hybrid mesh of ~730k
cells:
Hexes in the rotor
Tets elsewhere
Dynamic Mesh model
Turbulent flow
Standard k-epsilon
Cavitation enabled
70
Case Study: Gerotor Pump
Vapor volume fraction contours:
71
Case Study: Fuel Pump
Fluent 6.2 used for analyzing performance of the cavitating fuel pump over
a range of operating conditions:
Pressure rise across the pump fixed
Inlet and outlet pressures vary
Compared pump flow rates computed in Fluent with lab data
Pressure Inlet
Purge
(pressure outlet)
Pressure Outlet
Rotor
Geometry:
72
Case Study: Fuel Pump
Pure tetrahedral mesh of 680,000 cells
Non-conformal interface between rotating and stationary fluid
Mesh:
73
Case Study: Fuel Pump
Physical Models, Solver Settings
FLUENT 6.2, Double precision, Segregated solver
MRF (Multiple reference Frame) Model
Steady state solution
Flow: incompressible, isothermal
RNG k-e turbulence model, standard wall function
Cavitation model
Primary phase = liquid fuel
Secondary phase = fuel vapor
Vapor pressure ~ 50 kPa
74
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
-60.0 -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0
Inlet Pressure [kPa]
O
u
t
l
e
t

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e

[
%
]
exp.
Fluent 6.2
Case Study: Fuel Pump
Results: Formation of cavitation bubbles
75
Case Study: Journal Bearing
Problem Description:
Journal bearings are used for high radial loads, low to high speeds
Engine cranks
Milling systems
Compressors
Gear boxes, etc
Fluent used to study cavitation inside a journal bearing
Force information can also be obtained easily.
76
Case Study: Journal Bearing
Setup:
Operating conditions simulated:
Oil enters at the top and exits at two
side pipes and also at the bearing
gaps
Bearing rotates at 3000 rpm
Minimum gap thickness of 10 microns
Models used:
Multiphase
Cavitation
Sliding mesh
Porous media for downstream
resistances
77
Case Study: Journal Bearing
Mesh:
Gap meshed with hex cells of high
aspect ratio (up to 50)
Four layers of cells across the gap
Total number of cells: 190k
Solution:
It took five complete cycles before
achieving periodic solution
78
Case Study: Journal Bearing
Results:
Low pressure is predicted at the
correct location:
Cavitation is predicted at the
expected location:
79
Case Study: Journal Bearing
Results:
Contours of Absolute Pressure:
Force can be obtained from
pressure integration
Contours of Vapor Volume Fraction:
Cavitation occurs downstream of the
lowest thickness
80
Case Study: Propeller Cavitation
Cavitation of marine propellers is
highly undesirable
degrades propeller performance
(thrust breakdown), erodes blades,
causes noise and ship hull
vibrations
but, for heavily-loaded modern
propellers unavoidable.
Study of cavitating flow around a
four-bladed marine propeller MP
017 in open water conditions
FLUENT results benchmarked
against experimentally measured
values for thrust (K
T
) and torque
(K
Q
) coeffs. over a range of
advance ratios (J):
5 2
4 2
/
D n
Thrust
K
D n
Thrust
K
nD V J
l
Q
l
T
a

=
=
=
81
Case Study: Propeller Cavitation
FLUENT pressure contours overlaid with cavity shape
for J = 0.2, = 2.0
Experiment (Univ. of Tokyo): J = 0.2, = 2.0
Thrust breakdown:

K
T
a
n
d
1
0

K
Q
1 2 3 4
0.2
0.3
0.4
K
T
(Present)
10K
Q
(Present)
K
T
(Data)
10K
Q
(Data)
2
5 . 0 v
p p
l
v

=
Cavitation number:
J=0.2
82
Case Study: Propeller Cavitation
The results of benchmark study are in good agreement with experiment for
inception location and cavity shape
global quantities such as thrust and torque
thrust breakdown trend
83
Agenda
Motivation and Goals
Boiling
Cavitation
Defogging
Physics
Numerics
Case Study
VOF
Evaporation
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Summary
84
Definitions
Defogging = Removing the fog layer through evaporation
Fog = Condensed water forming a film on a wall boundary
Dry Air = Air without any Water Vapor
Moist Air = Gaseous mixture of Dry Air and Water Vapor
Absolute Humidity = Density of Water Vapor = Mass of Water
Vapor per unit volume
Specific Humidity = Water Vapor mass fraction = Mass of
Water Vapor per unit mass of Moist Air
Relative Humidity = Ratio of partial pressure of Water Vapor to
saturation pressure at local temperature
Water saturation curve = pressure as a function of temperature at
saturation conditions
85
Defogging Example
Initial Fog Layer = 10 m
20 seconds of simulation
86
Defogging Implementation
Defogging Module (DFM) for
FLUENT 6.2 is a combination
of User Defined Function
(UDF) and Scheme Function
which add to the standard
functionalities of FLUENT
Evaporation of water film
from specified walls
Condensation of water
vapors on specified walls
87
Ease of Use
DFM has Graphical User Interface (GUI)
There is a version for batch mode runs
DFM can be used in parallel simulations
DFM comes with a Step-by-Step user procedure
88
Special Requirements
FLUENT Case using DFM must be setup in an interactive GUI session
It can be run in batch mode afterwards
Defogging UDF can run only as Compiled UDF
DFM UDF cannot be Interpreted
Batch mode scripts need to port files to the scratch directory
Scheme file for batch mode run
89
Model Assumptions
1. Evaporation / condensation of water is happening only on user specified
walls between a fluid zone and a solid zone
2. Fog film is fully contained by the first layer of cells adjacent to the
specified walls
3. Water Vapor, Dry Air, and Moist Air are gases obeying Daltons Law
4. Evaporation / condensation mass transfer rates are determined only by
the gradient of Water Vapor mass fraction in the cells containing the fog
film
5. Water Vapor is at saturation conditions at the interface between the fog
film and moist air
6. Inflow / outflow mass flow rates of Moist Air are much larger than the
mass transfer through evaporation / condensation
90
Model Assumptions (cont)
7. Thermal resistance and thermal inertia of the fog film are neglected
8. Radiation heat transfer effects of the fog film are neglected
9. Surface tension effects on the fog film are neglected
10. Gravity effects on the fog film are neglected
11. The fog film is stationary
12. The fog film has no effect on the Moist Air flow
13. The inlet relative humidity is constant in time
1
14. Diffusion coefficient of water vapor in moist air is known as a
function of local pressure and temperature
2
1
Can be modified if UDF source code is modified additional work and desired
transient profile / law for relative humidity of the air entering the cabin is needed
2
A different relation can be used if UDF source code is modified additional
work and desired diffusion coefficient expression / tabled values are needed
91
Meshing Requirements
Must have solid cell zones adjacent
to the defogging walls
Defogging walls must have shadows
Y+ < 5 on the walls defogging walls
Height of the cells adjacent to
defogging walls greater than twice
the fog layer thickness at any time
Conformal mesh (no hanging node
adaptions or non-conformal
interfaces) on the defogging walls
Non-conformal interfaces in other
parts of the mesh are OK, but the
grid can be partitioned only in serial
solver
Hexcore meshing of the cabin is OK
Strictly observe the maximum cell
skewness guideline: less than 0.95
Smooth variation of cell sizes and
prism heights
At least one layer of Hexahedral or
Prisms in the fluid adjacent to the
specified walls
92
Model Validity for Cabin Flows
Fog layer range
Speed along the windshield
Reynolds number (L ~ 0.5 - 1.5 m)
Turbulent Boundary Layer thickness
m m
FOG
200 5 . 0 < <
m/s 5 4K U
000 , 170 Re =

UL
L
m m L
L TBL
000 , 17 017 . 0 Re 37 . 0 =
93
Model Validity for Cabin Flows
Y+ requirement sets an upper bound on y
1
(first cell height)
Stationary fog layer model sets a lower bound on y
1
Substitute the lower limiting value into y+ requirement, a
maximum value for the speed will be obtained
Examples verifying model validity:
5 Re 19 . 0
9 . 0
1 1
<
+
L
L
y y u
y

FOG
y 2
1

m/s 42
20 1
<
= =

U
m m L
FOG
4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 1

111 . 1
6 . 17 Re
|
|
.
|

\
|
<
FOG
L
L

m/s 15
50 1
<
= =

U
m m L
FOG
4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 1

m/s 5
150 1
<
= =

U
m m L
FOG
4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 1

94
Fluent Models Needed
Solve for Energy
Solve for Two Non-Reacting Species
Dry Air
Water Vapor
Viscous Model
Laminar
Turbulent
k- models (Realizable / RNG preferred for accurate solution)
f Use only Enhanced Wall Treatment for the near-wall modeling
k- Standard model with Transitional Flows option ON preferred
95
Defogging Example
96
Agenda
Motivation and Goals
Boiling
Defogging
Cavitation
VOF + DM
FLUENT 6.2 Update
Case Studies
Piston Cooling
Crank Case
Fuel Tank
Evaporation
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Summary
97
VOF Model
The VOF model is surface-tracking technique designed for solving flow
of two or more immiscible fluids where the position of the interface
between the fluids is of interest
Solves single set of momentum equations shared by the fluids + volume
fraction of each fluid in each computational cell
For numerics, check out FLUENT 6.2 Documentation
Chapter 24.2: Volume of Fluid (VOF) Model
VOF update for FLUENT 6.2
Lets look at few examples where VOF was combined
with Dynamic Mesh (DM) for advanced multiphase
flow modeling
98
FLUENT 6.2 Enhancements
VOF model enhancements VOF model enhancements:
Modified High Resolution Interface Capture (HRIC) scheme
More efficient (i.e. faster) front tracking
Very efficient for Steady-State and Transient problems where getting faster to
final interface shape is more important than accurate interface shape history
Speed Increase by a factor of 100 versus Geo-Reconstruct!
Fuel Injector
Hydroplaning
Sealing Problems
Better resolution than QUICK or Second Order, but more diffuse than Geo-
Reconstruct
Enable Implicit or Euler Explicit
9
99
HRIC Case Study: Swirl Fuel Injector
First Order Second Order
HRIC QUICK
Interface Capture Using Implicit VOF
Velocity Vectors Colored by Volume Fraction
100
FLUENT 6.2 Enhancements
VOF model enhancements VOF model enhancements:
Modified High Resolution Interface Capture (HRIC) scheme
More efficient (i.e. faster) front tracking
Very efficient for Steady-State and Transient problems where getting
faster to final interface shape is more important than accurate interface
shape history
Speed Increase by a factor of 100 versus Geo-Reconstruct
Fuel Injector
Hydroplaning
Sealing Problems
Better resolution than QUICK or Second Order, but more diffuse than
Geo-Reconstruct
Transient 6.2 solver efficiency Transient 6.2 solver efficiency improvements:
Non-Iterative Time-Advancement (NITA) schemes
Fractional-step method
PISO
101
NITA Case Study: VOF Tank Sloshing
Automotive fuel tank with baffles
Tank full
Horizontal acceleration of 9.81 m/s
2
applied for 1 second
Hybrid mesh: hex elements in the
pipes, tets elsewhere
Geo-reconstruct scheme
t=2.5 ms for most of the simulation
(400 time steps for 1s real time)
How do run time and accuracy
stack up in FLUENT 6.2?
102
NITA Case Study: VOF Tank Sloshing (2)
NITA vs. ITA: Run Time
FLUENT 6.1
ITERATIVE PISO
CPU=29,591
FLUENT 6.2
ITERATIVE PISO
CPU=15,794
FLUENT 6.2
NITA
Fractional Step
CPU=4,043
FLUENT 6.2
NITA PISO
CPU=3,450
103
Case Study: VOF Tank Sloshing (3)
NITA vs. ITA: Accuracy
104
Recommendations for FLUENT 6.2
VOF with NITA
9 Body Force Weighted scheme for Pressure (not PRESTO! )
9 NITA-PISO (not Fractional Step Method, because it may require
a smaller time time-step for stability)
9 Pressure under-relaxation factor of 0.7
(Solve>Controls>Solution NITA panel)
105
Case Study: Piston Cooling
Oil jet impinging on the engine piston underside
VOF model + DM model
106
Case Study: Piston Gallery Cooling
Heat transfer in diesel engine piston
gallery of interest:
Increase in diesel engine power
requirements demands effective
thermal management of the engine
piston
Piston temperature controlled by
injecting oil into piston gallery
FLUENT 6.2
VOF model + DM model + conj. HT
Animation of oil motion within piston
gallery for different CA:
Air-oil interface colored by local
surface temperature of gallery walls
Courtesy of Federal Mogul
107
Case Study: Crank Case
Simplified automotive crank case geometry
Rotating assembly sweeps through oil causing windage
FLUENT 6.2
VOF model + DM model
108
Modeling Fuel Tank Sloshing
Show an alternative to traditional tank sloshing modeling approach
In general, the need with this class of problem is to resolve the
dynamics of fuel free surface for given fuel tank geometry under various
vehicle driving conditions
The fuel pickup tube should not be exposed to air
without baffles with baffles
109
Traditional Modeling Method
Use of relative reference frame
attached to the tank
As the reference frame is not
an inertial frame, need to add
body force term to the
momentum equation.
Body force is modeled by
changing gravitational force
through a Scheme file.
Disadvantages:
Need to specify tank
acceleration as opposed to
tank motion.
Post-processing in relative
reference frame less intuitive.
A sample Scheme file for tank sloshing:
;; The tank motion is : v = max_vel*sin(omega*t)
;; The acceleration of the tank is : a =
max_vel*omega*cos(omega*t)
;; The gravity acceleration is : gx = -
max_vel*omega*cos(omega*t)
;;
;; How to use the scheme;
;; 1) Set up tank sloshing problem
;; 2) Turn on gravity (Define>Operating Conditions)
;; 3) Load the scheme (File>Read>Scheme)
;; 4) Specify in Solve>Execute a command with
(accelerate)
;; so that the gx will be updated every time step
;;
;; User input part of the scheme
;;
(define omega 5)
(define max_vel 0.25)
;;
;; Do not change the following part without
consulting with your support

110
Alternative Modeling Method
A sample udf used for tank
sloshing with DM method:
# include "udf.h"
# include "dynamesh_tools.h"
static real omega=5;
static real max_vel=0.25;
DEFINE_CG_MOTION(tank, dt, cg_vel,
cg_omega, time, dtime)
{
NV_S(cg_vel, =, 0);
cg_vel[0] = max_vel*sin(omega*time);
}
Dynamic Mesh (DM) can be
employed to study tank sloshing
The tank is moving in an
absolute reference frame. (No
need for addition of body force
term.)
Solid body motion is assigned to
all cells and boundary faces. (No
special requirement on mesh
type).
Specify tank velocity via UDF, as
opposed to tank acceleration.
Both methods yield same
solution.
111
Case Study: Tank Sloshing
Test case
Box (20cm x 10cm x 10cm) half filled with water
2,000 hex cells used for both runs
Tank has a sinusoidal motion
Traditional method

DM method

( ) t V g
x
= cos
( ) t V v = sin
Traditional method DM method
112
Case Study: Tank Sloshing
Both modeling approaches yield qualitatively and quantitatively the
same solution.
The run time for both cases are similar (no extra cost for DM method).
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time Step
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
a
)
DM method
Traditional method
Averaged pressure on a line in x direction passing point (0, 0, -4cm)
113
Agenda
Motivation and Goals
Boiling
Defogging
Cavitation
VOF
Evaporation
Physics
Numerics
Case Study: Filler pipe
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Summary
114
Evaporation
Evaporation is a process of substance transformation from
liquid into vapor at continuous liquid-vapor interface
Vapors diffuse and convect within another gas
Classes of Evaporation Problems:
Film Evaporation
Adjacent to a solid surface
Shape of the liquid-vapor interface doesnt change
Flow in the liquid layer is neglected
9 Evaporation at free surfaces
Shape of the interface changes significantly, affecting the mass
transfer rates
115
Evaporation equations
Temperature condition at interface
Heat Flux balance at the interface
Mass Flux balance at the interface
Transport equations in the bulk liquid and gas-vapor phases
Closure for the model
Saturation condition at the interface
) (
interf , v sat liq
p T T
interface
q L m
lv lv

=
&
interface
v g v v diffusion
Y D m =


&
convection diffusion lv
m m m

+

=
& & & T [K]
triple point
p [Pa]
S
V
L
) (
interface l, interface v,
T p p
sat
=
116
Free Surface Evaporation UDF
Free Surface Evaporation in
FLUENT 6.2 implemented through
User-Defined Function
UDF used in conjunction with VOF
and multi-species model
The evaporation process is
modeled as mass transfer across
the interfacial surface between
liquid fuel and a fuel vapor/air
mixture.
Mass transfer rate across the
interface assumed to scale with the
difference between the mass
fraction of vapor at the surface and
its equilibrium value at saturation.
The equilibrium mass fraction is
computed from the saturation
pressure of the fuel mixture.
The saturation pressure is fluid
property and a function of
temperature.
Mass fraction of gasoline vapors in the flow
field around nozzle
117
Evaporation
Filling, fuel liquid only: Filling, with evaporation:
Animations courtesy of TI Automotive Group
118
Agenda
Motivation and Goals
Boiling
Defogging
Cavitation
VOF
Evaporation
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Summary
119
BMW Z4 Air Intake
Standard shielded air
intake replaced with a
ram air scoop.
The upgrade provides
the engine with a
greater volume of air at
higher velocity, enabling
the engine to produce
additional power for
faster acceleration.
The air scoop, mounted
behind the front grill and
in front of the radiator, is
designed with groves to
collect rainwater before
the air enters the air box.
Courtesy of Dinan Engineering
120
Problem Description
Original Geometry
When the scoop was originally
designed, it was noticed that
during heavy rain the water
was entering the air-mass
meters and damaging the
sensors.
Performed a series of CFD
analyses of the scoop to
determine the ability of the
groves to remove rainwater
from the incoming air.
Courtesy of Dinan Engineering
121
Modeling Approach
The following FLUENT models were used:
Volume of Fluid (VOF) model in FLUENT
tracks the motion of two or more fluids (in this case, air and water), as
well as the interface between them.
Transient, 3D simulations
Turbulent
Isothermal
User-Defined Function (UDF) for the inlet boundary condition to
account for the raindrops entering the system.
The raindrops are simulated as spheres entering the system at equally
spaced points. The time interval between drops entering the system
was chosen to give the required water inflow.
122
Contours of volume fraction of liquid
Original Design Results
The simulation showed a problem:
A significant amount of water enters the
air box when the car moves at high
speed, through heavy rain
The inertial forces in the curved air
scoop large; the scoop quickly fills with
air/water mixture
but, the gravitational force not strong
enough to divert the water down and out
of the scoop
In addition, the opening on the bottom
too small, water collects faster than it
drains out
Courtesy of Dinan Engineering
123
New Design
Instead of inlet with
grooves and a water outlet
at the bottom, the new
design has water exit on
the outer sidewall of the
scoop.
Courtesy of Dinan Engineering
124
New Design Results
The new design with the side exit
has been found to perform much
better than the original one.
For large inertial forces, most of the
water hits the back wall of the
scoop and exits, leaving less water
to pass into the air box.
In addition, the new design is much
simpler and less expensive to
manufacture.
Courtesy of Dinan Engineering
125
Agenda
Motivation and Goals
Boiling
Defogging
Cavitation
VOF
Evaporation
Water Ingestion
Sprays
Wall-Film
Wall-Jet
Summary
126
Spray Models in FLUENT
Implemented under Discrete Phase Model (part of standard FLUENT software)
Atomizer models
Plain-orifice atomizer
Pressure-swirl atomizer
Flat-fan atomizer
Air/blast atomizer
Effervescent atomizer
Predict initial spray characteristics
based on global atomizer
parameters such as nozzle type,
orifice diameter, liquid flow rate
Droplet (spray) breakup
TAB
Wave
Droplet collision
ORourke
Drag laws
Spherical
Non-spherical
Stokes-Cunningham
High Mach number
Dynamic-Drag
Detailed information available in FLUENT 6.2 Documentation
Chapter 23: Discrete Phase Models
127
Spray Model GUI in FLUENT 6.2
Define > Models > Discrete Phase
9
9
128
Wall-Film Model
New to FLUENT 6.2
Improvement to spray modeling capabilities: allows modeling of
the build-up of thin liquid film on walls.
important for in-cylinder combustion simulations, for example
Particles impinge on a surface and form a thin film:
Impinging Fuel Droplet
Splashing
Fuel Film
Wall
Conduction
Convective
Heat Transfer
Evaporation
Shear Force
Film Thickness
Flow separation
and
Sheet Breakup
Ref. Stanton
Int. J. of Heat & Mass Transfer (1998)
129
Wall-Film Model (cont)
Impingement regimes are based on the impact energy and wall
temperature :
E
Stick
Spread
Splash
Rebound
T
w
Stick Particles join the film
Impinging
Fuel Droplet

Impinging
Fuel Droplet

Spread Particles join the film

and move outwards from the
point of impingement
Impinging
Fuel Droplet

Rebound Particles bounce off

of the wall
Impinging
Fuel Droplet
Splash more complex physics

130
Wall-Film Model Applicability
Useful for:
SI engines
port fuel injected
GDI engines
Diesel engines
Example:
port fuel injected
gasoline engine
Spray Colored by Particle Velocity
Wall Film Height (mm)
131
Wall-Film Model Assumptions
The film layer is thin
less than 500 microns
The simulation is transient
Available with unsteady particle tracking only
Heat transfer from the wall to the film takes place by conduction
Film particles in direct contact with the wall surface
Film temperature never exceeds boiling temperature
,To model a spray impacting a very hot wall, the wall-jet model may be
more appropriate:
Assumption in the wall-jet impingement model is that there is a vapor layer
underneath the drops which keeps them from making direct contact with the
boundary surface.
This may be a more accurate assumption for in-cylinder diesel
computations at typical operating conditions
132
Wall-Film GUI in FLUENT 6.2
wall-jet
wall-film
133
Example: KIVA SI engine
Fuel droplets injected to the ports at 35m/s using solid cone injector.
Droplet break-up process simulated with TAB break-up model.
Formation of a thin fuel film on the valve simulated with wall film
model. Evaporation occurs at the droplet surface and wall film. The
fuel vapor mixes with turbulent air.
Models used:
Solid-cone injector
TAB break-up model
Wall film
DM for piston and valve motion
Standard k-e turbulence model
Mesh size: 150K
134
Wall-Film Example: KIVA SI Engine
135
Wall-Jet Model
3-D in-cylinder test case 2000 rpm, solid cone spray,
6 hole diesel injector, Wave breakup, ORourke collision
Contours of temperature on an iso-surface of F=4.0
136
Summary
CFD analysis of multiphase flows, including phase change, are
becoming more mainstream
FLUENT 6.2 able to address a wide range of multiphase
problems exhibiting complex physics, such as boiling, cavitation,
defogging, filling and evaporation, sprays, etc.
New algorithms in Fluent 6.2 allow for more efficient multiphase
flow simulations
Thank you for your attention!