CFX Multiphase 14.5 L06 Advanced Lagrangian Particle Tracking

Advanced Lagrangian Particle
Tracking
14. 5 Release
Multiphase Flow Modeling

in ANSYS CFX
© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-1 Release 14.5
Overview
• Other particle forces
• Transient particle tracking
• Particle breakup models
• Particle mass transfer
• Particle erosion
• Particle-wall interactions and wall films

Other Particle Forces
• Electrostatic • Van der Waals adhesion

– Electric charge of particles – Adhesion between particles and walls
– Precipitation, – Nano particles
powder painting • Near-wall lift and drag
– Electrostatic particle forces can be – Non-homogeneous flow
modeled as a beta feature with the
– Drag and lift increase at small wall
add-on MHD module
distances y < 5dP
• Magnetic
• A desired particle force that is not
– Metal separation implemented in CFX can likely be set using
• Thermophoretic a particle user fortran routine - see the CFX
– Temperature gradients in plasma documentation and the User Fortran
flows folder in the Examples directory in the
installation folder
– MHD generators

Steady State vs. Transient Particles
• Steady State Particles • Transient Particles
– Particles are always tracked from “birth” – Particles are tracked from start to
to “death” end of each time step
– Particles must not be restarted – Particles must be restarted
– All particles are injected at once – A time step step specific
number of particles is injected
– One-way coupled particles are solved – One-way coupled particles are
at the end of the simulation solved at the end of each time
step
– Fully coupled particles are solved
– Fully coupled particles are solved at a
at a user specified coefficient loop
user specified iteration interval interval within each time step
– Particle traveling time and particle
– Particle traveling time and particle time are different
time are the same – Post processing of time-integrated
particle information

Transient Particles: Particle Integration
• Integration of particles over actual time step:

t F  t F  t P  t F
• Piecewise linear forward Euler integration:
 P ,t  t  f ( P ,t ,  F ,t )
p
t P t P t P
Time
t F t F
t F  2t F t F  t F tF

Transient Particles: Particle Integration
• Time/space interpolation of the fluid variables to the actual particle time and
position:
 F ,t  f ( F ,t ,  F ,t  t ,  F ,t  2 t )Vertex
F F
• Time interpolation can be controlled with an expert parameter:

– pt time interpolation (Default: 1)
– 0: use newest time level tF
– 1: linear interpolation (using time levels tF and tF -tF)
– 2: quadratic interpolation (using time levels tF, tF -tF and tF -2tF)
 requires second order transient scheme
t P t P t P
Time
t F t F
t F  2t F t F  t F tF
Integration Controls for Transient Particles
• Solver controls applied for coefficient loops
within each time step
• Optional controls for fully coupled particles:
– First Iteration for Particle Calculation (1)
– Iteration Frequency (1)
– Particle Source Target (0.01)
• Based on the rate of change of sources
– Under Relaxation Factors (1.0)
• Velocity Under Relaxation Factor
• Energy Under Relaxation Factor
• Mass Under Relaxation Factor
• Velocity Under Relaxation Factor for First Particle
Integration
• Energy Under Relaxation Factor for First Particle
Integration
• Mass Under Relaxation Factor for First Particle Integration
• Velocity Under Relaxation Factor at Time Step Start
• Energy Under Relaxation Factor at Time Step Start
• Mass Under Relaxation Factor at Time Step Start
Transient Particle Injection
• Transient particles can be injected on
boundary patches and particle injection
regions
• Same CCL syntax as used for steady-state
particles, except …
• Number of Positions:
– Direct Specifications
 Number per Unit Time, [s^-1]
– Proportional to Mass Flow Rate
 Number per Unit Time and
Mass Flow Rate, [kg^-1]

Transient Particle Injection
• Particles are injected at start of time step or are distributed over
the time step
• Logical expert parameter:

– pt distribute trans particles (Default=t)
1. Time step 2. Time step

Particles are
distributed over
the time step Time
Particles are
injected at start
of the time step

Transient Injection Example
• Spray injection
– Given particle mass flow distribution:
Mass flow
Injected particle
mass flow
1
0 1 2 3
CEL:
Time
FUNCTION: MFPART
Argument Units = [s] PARTICLE INJECTION REGION: PIR1
Option = Interpolation FLUID: Aluminium
Result Units = [kg s^-1] INJECTION CONDITIONS:
INTERPOLATION DATA: INJECTION METHOD:
Data Pairs = 0,0.0, 0.5,0, 1,1, 1.5,1, 2,0, 4,0 Option = Cone
Extend Max = No …
Extend Min = No NUMBER OF POSITIONS:
Option = One Dimensional Number per Unit Time and Mass Flow Rate = NPART
END Option = Proportional to Mass Flow Rate
END END
EXPRESSIONS: END
DT = 0.05 [s] …
MFPARTMAX = 1 [kg s^-1] PARTICLE MASS FLOW RATE:
NPART = 100/DT/MFPARTMAX Mass Flow Rate = MFPART(t)
… END
END END
END END

Transient Injection Example
Mass flow
• Simple injection into a straight duct
1
0 1 2 3
Time

New Particle Fates for Transient Flows
• New particle fates for transient particles (INTEGER counters:)
– Entered domain +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Particle Fate Diagnostics |
– Left domain +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Particle type | Fate type Particles |
– Collected on walls +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Water | Entered domain : 100 |
– Integration error | | Continue from last time step : 1436 |
| | Collected on walls : 104 |
– Exceeded distance | | Waiting for next time step : 1432 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
– Exceeded maximum number
of integration steps
– Reached minimum mass
– Exceeded time integration
– Absorbed by Porous Media
– Continue from last time step
– Waiting for next time step

Transient Boundary Vertex Arrays
• Instantaneous particle vertex arrays (for each time step):
– <Particle Material>.Wall Mass Flow Density
– <Particle Material>.Erosion Rate Density
– …
• New for transient particles:
 Time integrated particle vertex arrays:
– <Particle Material>.Time Integrated Wall Mass Flow Density
– <Particle Material>.Time Integrated Erosion Rate Density
– …
• Add particle boundary information to trn-files:

– Expert parameter: pt bnd arrays in trn files = t

Boundary Vertex Arrays Example
Instantaneous Time Integrated

Wall Mass Flow Density Wall Mass Flow Density

Particle Break-up Mechanisms
Primary Break-up Secondary Break-up
Dense Spray Dilute Spray

Injection Nozzle
Liquid
Liquid Core Dispersed Flow
• Primary Break-up
– In-nozzle effects (cavitation, turbulence induced disturbances)
– Instabilities on liquid-gas interface lead to primary break-up
• Secondary Break-up
– Droplets become unstable under the action of forces induced by their
motion relative to the continuous phase
Primary Break-up Models
• Task:
– Determine starting conditions of droplets that leave injection nozzle
• i.e.: initial radius, velocity components, spray angle
• mainly influenced by nozzle flow
• Various approaches of different complexity exist in literature
• Models available in CFX
– Blob method
– Enhanced blob-method
– LISA
– Turbulence induced atomization

Turbulence Induced Atomization (TIA)
• First introduced with the 12.0 release
– Based on model proposed by Huh [1] with modification of [2]
– [1] Kang Y. Huh et al. Diesel spray atomization model considering nozzle exit
turbulence conditions. Atomization and Sprays, vol.8, pp.453-469, 1998.
– [2] C.A. Chryssakis et al. Development and Validation of a Comprehensive CFD
Models of Diesel Spray Atomization Accounting for High Weber Numbers. SAE
paper 2006-01-1546, 2006.
• Main Features
– Turbulence effects inside the nozzle determine
– initial droplet size
– droplet velocity after primary breakup
– Allows to predicts initial spray angle
• Most appropriate in combination with Reitz & Diwakar or TAB secondary breakup
models which are discussed later

Turbulence Induced Atomization (TIA)
• The turbulence generated in the
nozzle hole produces initial
perturbations on the jet surface when Detached droplet
it exits the hole
LA
• Perturbations grow exponentially due

to aerodynamic forces and form new
droplets
Lw  2 LA
Turbulence
in the nozzle flow
Wave growth
due to relative velocity

Turbulence Induced Atomization: Setup
• Atomization model is selected from Domain 
Particle Injection Regions Tab
• Select “Cone with Primary Breakup” option and

select the primary breakup model
• Main Input parameters

– Injection Pressure Difference across Injector
– Density Probe Normal Distance
– Injector Nozzle Length over Diameter Ratio
– Model Constants
– Nozzle Discharge Coefficient, CD
(Model is very sensitive to this parameter!)
– Discharge Coefficient (constant value)
Vp
CD   f (m P , p)
– Automatic 2p  P

Turbulence Induced Atomization: Validation
Bosch case 1
Hiroyasu&Kadota, case 1
0.1
0.1
Penetration Depth [m]
We = 170 We = 1800
0.08 0.08

0.06
0.06
0.04
Experiment
Blob + Reitz&Diwakar 0.04
Huh + Reitz&Diwakar
0.02 Blob + TAB Experiment
Huh + TAB Huh
0.02 Blob + Reitz&Diwakar
0 Huh + Reitz&Diwakar
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Time [s]
0
Bosch case 2 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Time [s]
Experiment
0.1 Blob + Reitz&Diwakar
Huh + Reitz&Diwakar
Blob + Reitz&Diwakar
Blob + TAB
Huh + TAB
0.08
0.06
0.04
Huh + Reitz&Diwakar
0.02
0
0 0.0005 0.001 We = 900
0.0015 0.002
Time [s]
Modeling Secondary Breakup
• “Statistical” approach
– Apply break-up process to “representative” particle “”
 Break-up process is applied to all “N” physical particles that are
represented by the “computational” particle
– If a particle (droplet) breaks-up then
• Adjust particle diameter and mass
• Adjust the number rate N
 mass of computational particle is conserved!
– Track single “representative” particle only
Break-up occurs
D1= 1, m1, N1 D2= 0.5  m2 = 1/8*m1, N2 = 8*N1

mt = m1*N1 mt = m2*N2= m1*N1

Secondary Breakup Models in CFX
• In ANSYS CFX, the following secondary break-up models are available:
– Hard coded models:
• Reitz & Diwakar (1987) Primary Break-up Secondary Break-up
• Schmehl Model (Schmehl, 2000) Dense Spray Dilute Spray
• TAB Model (O’Rourke, 1987)

• ETAB & CAB Model (Tanner, 1997&2003) Dispersed Flow
Liquid Core
– All model constants are accessible through CCL
– Alternative break-up models can be implemented with
Particle User Fortran
• The user implemented break-up models can depend on
– Particle and fluid variables
– Track information (e.g.: traveling time or distance)
– Randomness if required

Secondary Breakup Models GUI
• Domain/Fluid Pair Models
– Select particle breakup

model from GUI
– Access to model specific

constants

Model of Reitz & Diwakar
• Reitz and Diwakar

– Droplet break-up due to aerodynamic forces occurs in two modes:
• “Bag break-up”
– Non-uniform pressure field around droplet causes it to expand and
eventually disintegrate when surface tension forces are overcome
• “Stripping break-up”
– Liquid is sheared (stripped) from the droplet surface
– Droplet diameter change is described by:
dD p D p  D p , stable

dt b

Model of Reitz & Diwakar
Bag Stripping
Break-up Break-up
Vs2 D p We
 Cs1
Criterion We   2Cbl
p Re p
Characteristic  p D 3p Dp p
 b  Cb 2  b  Cs 2
Breakup-up time 2 p 2Vs 
Product 12 p  p2
D p , stable  D p , stable 
Droplet radius
V s
2
 2Vs3

Break-up Model of Schmehl
• Schmehl, 2003
– Two-step break-up process:
• Particle is deformed from sphere shape (‘0’) into disc shape
t:’0’ti
• Further distortion of droplet until final destruction
t:titi+tb

Break-up Model of Schmehl (cont.)
• Characteristic time:
D0 p
t 
*
Vslip g
ti
• Initial deformation of droplet into disc shape: *
 1.6
t
• Characteristic break-up time:
 6(We  12) 0.25 12  We  18

tb 
*
  2.45(We  12) 0.25
18  We  45
t 14.1(We  12) 0.25
 45  We  351
• Mass mean diameter is calculated from
0.25
D0.5  1.2 * D0 * (1.5  Oh 0.2  Wecorr )
We m
Wecorr  Oh = Ohnesorge Number =
1  1.077Oh1.6 P  D P
• Product droplet velocity

2.5  D0
Vnorm 
2(tb  ti )
– D0 : Droplet diameter at beginning of deformation

• Modified drag coefficient is used to account for droplet deformation due to
aerodynamic forces
21 6
cD  0.28  
Re P Re P
 We(0.2319  0.1579 log Re P  0.0471 log 2 Re P
 0.0042 log 3 Re P )
– Valid in the range of: 5 < ReP < 2000

Taylor Analogy Break-up Model
• TAB (Taylor Analogy Break-up)
– Drop deformation is described by forced, damped, harmonic oscillator
mx  F  bx  cx
Air flow
– F: force term (aerodynamic drag)
-x x
. force (surface tension)
– cx: restoring
– bx: damping term (viscosity)
Distorted
particle
Undistorted
particle
Distorted
particle

• Modeling the break-up process:
• Solve equation (1) for oscillating droplet
.
– Deformation x and deformation velocity x known
– Droplet distortion x > xCrit? No

Yes• Determine child droplet size, rChild
• Determine droplet normal velocity component, VN
• Determine droplet deflection,  .
• Assume undistorted child droplet (x=x=0)

• O’Rourke, 1987
• Break-up criterion:
– Break-up occurs when x > a/2
– a is the droplet radius at Wecrit = 6
• Child droplet size determined from:

rParent
rChild  2
 P rParent 3
 x   6K  5 
1  0.4 K     
  Cbr rParent   120 

• Child droplets inherit a normal velocity component
VN  CV x
.
– x : Velocity of the equator of the parent droplet at the time of breakup
• Spray angle predicted from known particle velocity VP and normal velocity
component VN
• Shortcomings:
– Product droplet size often underestimated and therefore spray penetration too
short

Enhanced TAB
• ETAB (Enhanced Taylor Analogy Break-up)
• Tanner, 1997
• Extension of standard TAB model
. x0
– Initial deformation rate
• Break-up criterion same as for TAB model
• Product droplet size determined from:
rChild
 e  K br t
rParent
– with:  k1 We  Wet and  (frequency)
K br  
k 2 We We  Wet
40  Wet  100

Enhanced Taylor Analogy Breakup
• Child droplets inherit a normal velocity component:
VN  Ax
– A is determined from energy balance consideration

– x Velocity of the equator of the parent droplet at the time of
breakup
• Spray angle predicted from know particle velocity VP and

normal velocity component VN

CAB Break-up Model
• CAB (Cascade Atomization and Drop Break-up)
• Tanner, 2003
• Extension of standard ETAB model
• Break-up criterion same as for TAB model
• Product droplet size determined from:
rChild
 e  K bu t
rParent
k1 if 5  We  80

K bu  k 2 We if 80  We  350

k
 3  We 3/ 4
if 350  We
Secondary Droplet Breakup
0.1
• CAB model shows good agreement for

0.08
“medium” range injection Weber number (Weinj

~103) 0.06
• Fails to predict spray formation at conditions 0.04

corresponding to “low” (~10) and “high” (~104) Experiment
injection Weber numbers. 0.02 We = 900
We = 2000
We = 3100
• “Bag Breakup Factor” was found to be major 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
constant that influences spray behavior Time [s]
• Contrary to the standard CAB model it is 0.08
Experiment
suggested that this constant should depend on We = 20000

the injection Weber number 0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Time [s]
Extension of CAB Droplet Breakup Model
0
Experiment
CAB
MCAB
0.004
Z [m]
High Pressure Diesel Injection

Weinj = 20000
0.08
0.008
Experiment
CAB
MCAB

0.06
0 0.004 0.008 0.012
X [m]
0.04
Droplet in Crossflow
Weinj = 58
0.02
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Time [s]
Droplet diameters Droplet velocities
CAB 25 15
E xperiment
Experimental
D istribution function [% ]
Distribution function [%]
20 C AB
CAB
10
15
10
5
0 0
0 1E-05 2E-05 3E-05 4E-05 0 20 40 60 80
25 Diameter [m] V elocity [m/s]
MCAB Experimental
15
Distribution function [%]
20 E xperiment
MCAB
Distribution function [% ]
M C AB
15 10
10
5
0
0 0 20 40 60 80
0 1E-05 2E-05 3E-05 4E-05 V elocity [m/s]
Diameter [m]
• Model extension can be turned on/off via the following Expert Parameter
pt cab breakup improved = T/F
• For more details see:

– “Extension and validation of the
CAB droplet breakup model to a
wide Weber number range”.
In proceeding of ILASS Conference,
Como Lake, Italy, 2008,
Paper ID ILASS08-4-5.

Secondary Droplet Break-up Validation
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Gas parameters
Gas type N2
Temperature [K] 300
Pressure [MPa] 1.1 3.0 5.0
Fuel Properties
Fuel type C12H26
Density [kg/m3] 840
Surface tension [kg/s2] 0.0205
Spray parameters
Initial Temperature [K] 300
Injection Velocity [m/s] 102 90 86
Droplet diameter [mm] 0.3
Injection rates Single t=2.5 ms

pulse,
Initial Spray angle 7.5
[deg]
Validation: Spray Penetration – Case 1
t = 0.2 ms
t = 0.4 ms
t = 0.6 ms
t = 0.8 ms
t = 1.2 ms

Penetration Diagnostics
• Used to characterize the penetration SR
characteristics of a spray

• Available methods:
– Radial penetration depth (SR)
SN
– Penetration depth along a specified direction
(SP)
– Penetration depth normal to a specified
SP
direction (SN) PARTICLE PENETRATION: Origin 99
Option = Distance to Penetration Origin
– (Half) spray angle  Penetration Origin = 0.01 [m], 0.5 [m], 0.01 [m]
Mass Fraction Within Penetration Depth = 0.99
Particles List = Water
– Always calculated for a specified END
PARTICLE PENETRATION: Along Penetration Direction 99
mass fraction in the spray Option = Distance Along Penetration Direction
Penetration Origin = 0.01 [m], 0.5 [m], 0.01 [m]
(typically 99%) Penetration Direction X Component = 1.0
Penetration Direction Y Component = 0.0
Penetration Direction Z Component = 1.0
– Transient only! Mass Fraction Within Penetration Depth = 0.99
END
• In solver monitor and out-file PARTICLE PENETRATION: Normal to Penetration Direction 99
Option = Distance Normal to Penetration Direction
Penetration Origin = 0.01 [m], 0.5 [m], 0.01 [m]
• Beta-feature (CCL only)

Penetration Direction X Component = 1.0
Penetration Direction Y Component = 0.0
Penetration Direction Z Component = 1.0
Mass Fraction Within Penetration Depth = 0.99
END

Validation: Spray Penetration Case 1 & 3
Case 1
Case 3

Particle Mass Transfer
• Mass transfer from liquid particles to the continuous phase are
modeled in the spray drier and oil combustion models
• Mass transfer of volatile species from solid particles to the
continuous phase are modeled in the spray drier model
• Droplets or particles can consist of a single material or they
may contain multiple species

Multicomponent Particles
• Particles can consist of n different components
• Components can
– Be inert (Default)
– Evaporate into fluid phase

• Simple mass transfer model
– Diffusion & Convection
• Liquid evaporation model
– Diffusion & Convection & Boiling
– React (e.g.: Coal combustion)
– Condense on particle (User Fortran)

Multicomponent Particles
• Restrictions for particle component materials:
– Density must be constant
– Heat capacity must be constant or specified using NASA polynomials
• Track file contains:

– Total particle mass
– Mass fractions of all particle components

Particle Heat Transfer
• Particles exchange energy with the surrounding fluid

• Energy exchange can happen due to:
– Convection
– Radiation (particularly important in oil and coal combustion)
– Mass transfer

Particle Heat Transfer - Options
Available Options:
• Ranz Marshall
– Convection
• Radiation
• None
• User Defined

Particle Heat Transfer Terms
• Particle heat transfer terms are
selected from within the
Fluid Pairs section of the
Domain panel
• Convective heat transfer

(can be switched off with
Option = None)
• User defined
(Particle User Routine)

Convective Heat Transfer
• Convective heat transfer
QC  d P Nu (TF  TP )
• Nusselt Number, Nu
Nu  2  0.6 Re1/ 2 ( c p /  )1/ 3 (Sphere)

diffusion convection

Radiative Heat Transfer
• Radiative heat transfer
1
QR   Pd P2 ( I   n 2TP4 )
4
• Particles receive radiation
I
• Particles emit radiation
 TP4
• Particle contributions to radiation can

be fed back into radiation field Note: No
radiation within particles.
Energy Transfer via Mass Transfer
• Energy transfer associated with mass transfer

and associated enthalpy
dmC
QM   VC
dt
• Particle components evaporate at a rate

of dmC dt
T
• Latent heat of evaporation, V:

heat necessary to evaporate a substance
Liquid+
without temperature change (but phase Liquid Gas
Gas
change!)
Heat
V
Latent Heat of Evaporation
• Latent heat of evaporation V
– Specified in Component Pairs section of
CFX-5 Pre
•Option = Automatic
– Thermodynamic properties are consistent
(i.e. in the same ‘Material Group’ or use
consistent reference enthalpies)
•Option = Latent Heat

– Reference temperature and latent heat at
reference temperature must be specified
– Use if thermodynamic properties for the gas
and liquid phase components are not consistent

Particle Mass Transfer
• Particle components can exchange mass with the surrounding fluid
• Mass exchange can happen due to

– Diffusion
– Convection
– Boiling
– Reaction

Particle Mass Transfer Options
Available options:
• Ranz Marshall
– Diffusion/Convection
(Simple Mass Transfer Model)
• Liquid Evaporation Model

– Diffusion/Convection and Boiling
(Spray Drier Model)
• None
– No mass transfer
– Allows the usage of user defined
mass transfer terms done with
particle user fortran routines

Simple Particle Mass Transfer Model
• Mass transfer of a component due to molecular diffusion and

forced convection
dmC
 (C P ,C  C F ,C )  d P D Sh( R  YP ,C  YF ,C )
dt
with: D: Dynamic diffusivity
Y: Component mass fractions in particle and fluid
R: Mass fraction equilibrium ratio
• Sherwood number correlation:

Sh  2  0.6 Re1/ 2 ( / D)1/ 3
molecular forced
diffusion convection

Interfacial Equilibrium Model
• Control the value of the Mass

Fraction Equilibrium Ratio
• Mass fractions are discontinuous
at particle surfaces, and the mass
fraction in the continuous phase at
the particle surface is this ratio
multiplied by the mass fraction in
the particle
• If not defined, then YP,C is
computed from:
YP,C = component mass/particle mass

Liquid Evaporation Model
• Synonym: “Spray drier model”

• Main difference to simple mass transfer model:
– Particle can boil
• Mass transfers rates change, if
– TP<Tboil
dmC
 Diffusion and/or Convection
dt
– TP  Tboil
dmC
 Heat transfer limited
dt

• Particle is below boiling point
dmC WP ,C  1  X P ,C 
 dDSh log 

dt WF ,C  1  X F , C 
• Particle above boiling point
dmC  QC  QR 

dt V

Liquid Evaporation Model - Boiling
• Boiling point TP,boil = f(p,Material)
• TP,boil is determined by evaluating an Antoine equation
 B 
pvap  exp A  
 TP  C 
• The Antoine equation is a parameter fit to experimental vapor pressures
– A, B, and C are "Antoine coefficients"
– Antoine coefficients are specified in ANSYS CFX via a “Homogeneous
Binary Mixture” (see next slide)
• Particle boils if pvap > pambient

Homogeneous Binary Mixture
• Homogenous Binary Mixture
– Define link between particle material and
corresponding fluid material
– Define Antoine coefficients for evaporation
process on the Saturation
Properties tab under the Pressure option

Light Oil Modification
• Extension of standard
– Evaluation of Re, Nu and Sh
numbers in heat/mass transfer
correlations is based on ‘average’
properties within boundary layer of the
particle
Particle Fluid
  0.0 if pVap  pambient
  0.5 if pVap  pambient
Vol   Fl (1   )  Vol  Fl
pVap
  0.5
Boundary Layer pambient

Fates for Evaporating Particles
• Particles are tracked until they fall below a minimum diameter:
– REAL expert parameter: PT MINIMUM DIAMETER
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Particle Fate Diagnostics |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Particle type | Fate type Particles |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| JetA Liquid | Entered domain : 4 |
| | Fell below minimum diameter : 4 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
• Source term diagnostics:
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Particle Equation | Total source and source change rates |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Equation Source Rate |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Domain: Domain 1 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| JetA Liquid | Mass-JetA 1.192E-04 0.0014 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| JetA Liquid | x-Mom 1.189E-04 0.0014 |
| | y-Mom 0.000E+00 0.0000 |
| | z-Mom 0.000E+00 0.0000 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| JetA Liquid | Energy 2.162E+02 0.0012 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Under Relaxation Factors
• Under relax particles sources onto fluid phase
Srcn  1    Srco   Srcn
– Momentum
• Velocity Under Relaxation Factor (Default=0.75)
– Energy
• Energy Under Relaxation Factor (Default=0.75)
– Mass Transfer
• Mass Under Relaxation Factor (Default=0.75)

Erosion Modeling
Erosion is
The group of natural processes by which material is worn away from a

surface
VP

• Erosion rate, E, is a function of

– impact angle and velocity, material combination, temperature, particle
shape, …
– Dimension: [mass removed/mass impacted]
• Erosion models
– are ‘curve fits’ to experimentally obtained erosion rates
– differ in number of variables taken into account to determine erosion rate, E

Erosion Modeling Overview
Finnie Tabakoff & Grant

E  f (VP ,  ) E  f (VP ,  ) and material combination
n 2
V  V 
E   P  f ( ) E  f ( ) P  cos 2  [1  RT2 ]  f (VPN )
 V0   V1 
1   90 
f ( )  sin 2    71.5 f ( )  1  k 2 k12   
  0 
3

f ( )  sin( 2 )  3 cos 2  71.5    90
V
RT  1  P sin 
V3
4
V 
f (VPN )   P sin  
 V2 
Constants: V0 ,n Constants: V1 , V2 ,V3 , k12 ,  0

Erosion Modeling – Setup
• Access via the Domain Fluid Values tab
• Available erosion models:
– Finnie
– Tabakoff & Grant
– User Defined (User FORTRAN)
• Model handling
– Domain or patch-by-patch basis
• Each surface patch can have a
different erosion model
• Possible to limit erosion prediction to
user specified surfaces
– User access to all erosion model constants via
CCL
– Erosion rate density is written to res file for post-processing
– Tabakoff & Grant: Material combinations
• Quartz/Aluminium (default), Quartz/Steel, Coal/Steel

Wall Interaction and Wall Films
• Particle-Wall Interaction Model
– This model describes how particles interact with film covered walls and under
which conditions a wall film is formed
 Prerequisite for wall film model
• Droplet-wall interaction is complex and not all aspects are well understood.
– Dimensional analysis shows that droplet-wall interaction depends on:
– Particle quantities (Weber Number), existence of a wall film, wall roughness,
wall temperature (and much more)

Particle Wall Interaction
• BC Panel  Fluid Values

• Set “Wall Interaction” option to ‘Wall
Film”
– This activates existance of wall film on that
patch
• Select Wall Interaction Model
– Elsaesser
– Input: Wall Material
– User Defined
– Input: User Routine and Argument list
to User Fortran code
– Stick to Wall (CCL only)
– No further input required

Wall Interaction for the Elsaesser Model
Cold-Wetting Hot-Wetting Hot-Nonwetting
WeP
Splashing Splashing-
Boiling- Breakup
Wall-Breakup
Boiling- Rebound
Spreading Wall-Breakup with Breakup
Boiling-
Rebound
Breakup
Bouncing
TPa TPr
Twall
Tpa and Tra are the so called ‘pure adhesion’ and ‘pure rebound’ temperatures;
both depend on combination of wall/particle material
Elsaesser Model Wall Roughness
• Wall roughness is idealized:

Rt: Roughness height
Rt : Roughness angle,
  = f()
• Particle reflection depends on relative size of particle wrt. wall

roughness height (=Rt/dp)
 < 0.25  = 0.5 >1

Notes on the Wall Interaction Models
• Elsässer Model
– Accounts for wall temperature effects, wall roughness and particle-wall material
combination, …
– Targeted towards IC-E applications (~ Gasoline injection)
• Stick to Wall
– Simplest possible model: all particles that hit a wall become part of the wall film
• User Fortran Interface

– Option for user supplied FORTRAN routine

Spin-off of Wall Interaction Extension
• Child droplet generation model
– Parent droplet can create more than one
child
• Generic access to “wall only” variables in
UF
– Wall temperature, wall roughness, wall
velocity, etc…

Particle Wall Film
• Major physical phenomena
Splashing
Evaporation Convection
External Forces Separation
Impinging
Conduction
• Film movement due to external forces is neglected in

ANSYS CFX
– Film can still move if on a moving wall

Wall Film Modeling
• Modeling Approach
– Wall film is modeled using a Lagrangian approach
– i.e.: Wall film made of a special type of particles
 “Wall particles”
• Assumptions
– Thin film approach (no displacement effect)
– Neglect influence of film on fluid drag
– No film movement due to external forces
 Quasi Static Wall Film

Wall Film Example: Evaporating Droplets
Water droplets (Tp = 293 K) hit a heated

wall
Assumptions:
Twall = 350 [K]
Qconvective • Droplets stick to wall, i.e. no relative
movement between particles and wall
• Energy is transferred from
wall/surrounding to film
Qconduct
• Film evaporates into ambient






Wall Film Output and Restrictions
• Output Variables:
– Wall film thickness
– Averaged wall film temperature
– Total wall film mass (via TPD)
– New particle fate (‘Wall particles”)
• Restrictions:
– Wall films of different particle types do not mix.
– Wall films of different particle types cannot coexist on the same boundary patch
– Wall film model only available for transient and turbulent simulations


CFX Multiphase 14.5 L06 Advanced Lagrangian Particle Tracking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CFX Multiphase 14.5 L06 Advanced Lagrangian Particle Tracking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Lagrangian Particle

Multiphase Flow Modeling

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-2 Release 14.5

• Electrostatic • Van der Waals adhesion

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-3 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-4 Release 14.5

• Integration of particles over actual time step:

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-5 Release 14.5

• Time interpolation can be controlled with an expert parameter:

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-8 Release 14.5

• Logical expert parameter:

1. Time step 2. Time step

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-9 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-10 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-11 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-12 Release 14.5

• Add particle boundary information to trn-files:

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-13 Release 14.5

Instantaneous Time Integrated

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-14 Release 14.5

Dense Spray Dilute Spray

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-16 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-17 Release 14.5

• Perturbations grow exponentially due

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-18 Release 14.5

• Select “Cone with Primary Breakup” option and

• Main Input parameters

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-19 Release 14.5

Penetration Depth [m]

D1= 1, m1, N1 D2= 0.5  m2 = 1/8*m1, N2 = 8*N1

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-21 Release 14.5

• Schmehl Model (Schmehl, 2000) Dense Spray Dilute Spray

• TAB Model (O’Rourke, 1987)

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-22 Release 14.5

• Domain/Fluid Pair Models

– Select particle breakup

– Access to model specific

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-23 Release 14.5

• Reitz and Diwakar

– Droplet diameter change is described by:

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-24 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-25 Release 14.5

• Further distortion of droplet until final destruction

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-26 Release 14.5

• Characteristic break-up time:

 6(We  12) 0.25 12  We  18

• Product droplet velocity

– D0 : Droplet diameter at beginning of deformation

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-28 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-29 Release 14.5

• TAB (Taylor Analogy Break-up)

– Drop deformation is described by forced, damped, harmonic oscillator

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-30 Release 14.5

– Droplet distortion x > xCrit? No

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-31 Release 14.5

• Child droplet size determined from:

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-32 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-33 Release 14.5

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-34 Release 14.5

– A is determined from energy balance consideration

• Spray angle predicted from know particle velocity VP and

© 2013 ANSYS, Inc. 8-35 Release 14.5

• CAB model shows good agreement for

Penetration Depth [m]

D1= 1, m1, N1 D2= 0.5  m2 = 1/8m1, N2 = 8N1