CFD Nozzle Analysis

CFD analysis of nozzle effect on jet formation
Analysis of mixing performance, turbulence and flow instability
MUSTAFA GUDUCU
Master’s Thesis in Aeronautical Engineering

Supervisor: Mireia Altimira
Examiner: Mihai Mihaescu
Abstract
This project is concerned with CFD simulations of jets is-
sued from elliptical nozzles. The investigated jet flow in this
project is turbulent flow emanating from microscopic noz-
zles into a combustion chamber. Jet flows are very common
in engineering, medical and environmental applications and
are for instance used in fuel injection systems, spray paint-
ing and drying. Jet flow devices are also very common in
applications such as cutting, hydraulic drilling, cooling and
heating. A better understanding of the flow phenomenons
in jet flows are required in order to make these devices
function and perform in a more efficient way.
The performance of diesel engines is strongly affected
by the fuel spray, atomization and in turn the mixing pro-
cess. This depends ultimately on the dimensions and geom-
etry of the nozzle. The purpose of this project was therefore
to investigate different elliptical nozzle geometries which
also was compared to a conventional circular nozzle.
Three dimensional simulations have been performed to
investigate flow quantities in the turbulent Reynold’s Aver-
aged Navier Stokes and Large Eddy Simulation models in a
single phase flow. Simulation of a two-phase flow with the
Large Eddy Simulation model was also performed to inves-
tigate the inception and development of cavitation. The
Volume of Fluid approach was used to describe the two-
phase flow and Rayleigh-Plesset equation to solve bubble
dynamics.
The mathematical models regarding those in single phase
flow have been solved in the CFD software ANSYS FLU-
ENT, while those in two-phase flow have been solved in the
open source C++ toolbox OpenFOAM 2.0.0.
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my su-
pervisor Mireia Altimira for given me the chance to work
with this project. She believed in me though I did not have
any earlier experience in applied Computational Fluid Dy-
namics. I also want to thank her for all her encouragement
and support during the time I was working on my master’s
thesis. She has been an outstanding mentor and I have
learned lots from her.
I also want to thank my examinator Mihai Mihaescu

for arranging everything so I could get started with this
master’s thesis.
I have also Alexander Nygård to thank, he spent a lot

of time helping me when I was facing very difficult prob-
lems and I also want to thank him for all his advice, which
improved my work with this master’s thesis.
Finally, I want to thank Johan Malmberg for all the

interesting discussions we had in the working place, which
was very rewarding.
Contents
1 Introduction & Background 1

1.1 Cavitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Atomization of fuel jets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Secondary flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Mathematical modeling 9
2.1 Governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Turbulence modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 RANS turbulence models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.2 LES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Multiphase flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.1 Volume of fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Cavitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 Models & Setup 19

3.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 Discretization of the computational domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5 Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.6 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.7 Comparison of turbulence models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4 Results 33
4.1 RANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 LES - Single phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3 LES - Two phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5 Conclusion 59
Bibliography 61
Chapter 1
Introduction & Background
A jet is a stream of fluid that is emanating from a nozzle or orifice into a surrounding
medium containing fluid with lower velocity than the jet stream itself. Jet flows are
very common in engineering, medical and environmental applications and are for
instance used in fuel injection systems, spray painting and drying. Jet flow devices
are also very common in applications such as cutting, hydraulic drilling, cooling
and heating.
(a) Fuel injector (b) Cutting
(c) Painting (d) Cooling
Figure 1.1: Example of Jet application in industry. Pictures from [17]-[20]
Very small droplets are wanted in cooling applications to optimize heat transfer
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
and evaporation. Regarding painting applications, a uniform distribution of droplets

is wanted. If the cooling layer is to thick then the costs increases. However if its to
thin then it doesn’t fulfill its purpose.
One application of liquid jets that is particularly challenging is the injection of
fuel in internal combustion engines. Some of these challenges are:
• The most important challenge of fuel injection in internal combustion engines

is to decrease emissions while maintaining high engine efficiency. This depends
essentially on the air-fuel mixture and in turn on the atomization of the fuel
jets, cavitation, turbulence and flow inside the nozzle.
• The injection duration in a injection system is very short. The desired amount
of fuel has to be delivered during this short time period from the fuel injection
system at a correct time and rate [13]. Further, to ensure that all the fuel
vaporizes which than burns from the compression in the combustion engines.
The droplets that does not evaporate have less chance to burn and this reduces
the engine performance and increases emissions. This requires essentially a
high level of atomization in a short period of time in order to obtain a very
well mix of air-fuel mixture.
• Further, high injection pressure is required to obtain a high level of atom-

ization. However, this can induce cavitation which may increase flow losses
and lead to surface fatigue. Cavitation may also produce noise and vibration,
which today is not a property that is desired. On the other hand, cavitation
increases turbulence intensity which intensify the spray disintegration [13]. It
also increases the spray cone angle which enhances the air-fuel mixture [2].
Modern diesel engines operate at very high pressures and uses injectors with very
small diameters and length’s, of about 180 µm and 1 mm respectively [13]. The high
pressure and small geometry give rise to very high jet velocities. With high pressure
and velocity, the spray formation becomes highly influenced by the flow inside the
jet nozzle, cavitation and turbulence[36]. The injection of fuel in combustion engines
is a very delicate process. It requires a high level of atomization in order to obtain
a very good mixture in a short time period. This depends ultimately on injector
geometry, formation of spray and in turn of break-up of the liquid. The injection
of fuel in combustion engines is therefore very interesting.
The investigated jet in this project is turbulent flow of diesel injection that issues
from elliptical microscopic nozzles into the combustion chamber in diesel engines.
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce different flow properties that is relevant
for this project, with some fundamental theory. Some previously conducted research
on the topic that are treated in this master thesis will be discussed and this chapter
ends with the objectives of this master’s thesis.
2
The regime in which an injector works determines the break-up mechanisms.
There are four different regimes according to [26];
1. Rayleigh regime. At very low velocities, the flow is dripping and there is no
jet, just like the dripping of a faucet. A jet is formed with increase in velocity
and the jet break-up is caused by the growth of axisymmetric oscillations of
the jet surface and induced by surface tension. The average droplets are larger
than the nozzle diameter in this regime.
2. The first wind-induced regime. With further increase in velocity, the surface
tension between the jet and ambient fluid is amplified and the break-up process
is accelerated, leading to a decrease of the break-up length. The average
droplet size decreases in this regime being in the size of the nozzle diameter
approximately.
3. The second wind-induced regime. The break-up mechanism in this regime is

caused by unstable growth of short wavelength surface waves due to turbu-
lence. The average droplets are now much smaller than the nozzle diameter.
4. Atomization regime. In this regime, the jet is completely disrupted at nozzle

discharge forming a conical spray. The average droplets are much finer now.
a) b) c) d)
Figure 1.2: Break-up regimes. a) Rayleigh regime, b) first wind-induced regime, c)
second wind-induced regime, d) atomization regime [14]
.
3
1.1 Cavitation
The combination of high injection pressures and the geometry of the injectors can
induce cavitation. Cavitation occurs when the local liquid pressure is below the
saturated vapour pressure, illustrated in Figure 1.3. At this point, the liquid will
vaporize and give rise to the formation of bubbles of vapour. These bubbles will
then collapse when entering a region of higher pressure and lead to the break-up of
the liquid [24].
Figure 1.3: Cavitation [21]

.
This can have very devastating effects in a short time period to the injector
walls due to shock waves generated by the implosion. This flow phenomena will
create rougher surface on the injector walls which will increase the flow losses and
may also lead to surface fatigue. It can also produce vibration and noise due to
the implosions. But cavitation may not necessarily be negative, it can be very
useful in many applications if it can be controlled. Some examples are high power
ultrasonics used as alternatives to surgeries or destruction of kidney stones with
shock waves due to the collapse of the cavitation bubbles. Cavitation has also a
positive effect on the fuel spray quality, it was for instance explained by [13] that
the collapse of cavitation bubbles inside the injector will increase the turbulence
level and thereby intensify spray disintegration. It was also explained that the
transition from turbulent to cavitating flow will increase the spray cone angle and
a decrease in penetration length. It was also shown from numerical analysis made
by [27] and [28] that cavitation leads to an increase of spray cone angle and shorter
break-up lengths. Another numerical analysis regarding fuel injectors was made [21]
where they showed that the mean liquid velocity and r.m.s velocity increases due to
turbulence and unsteadiness induced by cavitation. A numerical analysis regarding
the influence of nozzle geometry on the flow inside the nozzle and cavitation was
made by [4]. They concluded that elliptical nozzle with a vertically oriented major
axis will have lower discharge coefficient and is less prone to cavitate.
However, it is uncertain if cavitation bubbles leads to jet break-up by increase
of turbulence kinetic energy of the jet or by causing a direct local break-up of the
jet. Either way, cavitation enhances the air-fuel mixture.
4
1.2. ATOMIZATION OF FUEL JETS
1.2 Atomization of fuel jets

In a diesel engine, air is allowed in to the cylinder through the intake valve which
then closes at the end of the intake stroke. The piston will then start to compress
the air and this will give rise to a very high temperature and pressure. Fuel is
then added by the injection system which undergoes atomization and the air-fuel
mixture is then ignited by the heat generated from the compression. Atomization
is the process in which a maximum surface to volume ratio is achieved through
transformation of a liquid stream into a spray of fine particles in a gaseous medium
[14]. The atomization process is divided into two stages, namely the primary break-
up and secondary break-up, illustrated in Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4: Break-up of a full-cone diesel spray [13]

.
Primary break-up is the first disintegration of coherent liquid stream into drops
and discrete structures. Possible break-up mechanisms are turbulence, cavitation,
growth of surface waves due to aerodynamic forces and relaxation of the velocity
profile [13]. With the latter meant that the velocity may change when entering the
combustion chamber. With no wall boundary conditions, the viscous forces gives
rise to acceleration of the outer jet region, causing instabilities and break-up of the
other jet region. A further disintegration of these particles due to aerodynamic
forces caused by the relative velocity between droplets and surrounding gas is the
secondary break-up as explained by [13]. Further, as the jet moves downstream, it
becomes more diluted due to entrainment. The velocities of the droplets are highest
in the axial direction and decreases in the radial direction due to interaction with
the entrained gas. It is in this dilute spray that evaporation occur and this regime is
very important in the combustion process because finer particles gives better mixing
as explained before. The droplets can also collide and change droplet properties.
Droplets can also bond and form larger droplets, this is called droplet coalescence.
5
1.3 Secondary flow

Turbulent flow through bent nozzles are very common in industry in e.g. combustion
engines, chemical reactors and heat- and mass transfer systems. Secondary flow in
bent nozzles are very common because it forces the flow to change the flow direction
due to centrifugal forces, which generates an adverse pressure gradient. The pressure
increases in the outer wall of the bend which also implies an decrease in velocity
(Bernoullis theorem). The pressure on the inner wall of the bend however will show
the opposite behaviour. This unbalanced condition giving rise to secondary flow is
illustrated in Figure 1.5a showing a pair of two counter-rotating vortices. This was
first discovered by Dean [16] and these vortices are therefore called Dean vortices.
Upper left side of bend. Upper right side of bend.
Low pressure region Low pressure region
(b) recirculation region [13]

Lower left side of bend. Lower right side of bend.
High pressure region High pressure region
(a) Counter-rotating vor-

tices [16]
Dean proposed a parameter that defines the secondary flow in curved nozzles,
this is called the Dean number;
s
R
De = Re (1.1)
Rc
where Re is the Reynolds number, R the nozzle radius and Rc is the curvature
radius. The secondary flow is strongly dependent on the Reynolds number and bend
curvature since it is proportional to Reynolds number and inversely proportional to
bend curvature. Further, this equation is also the ratio between the centrifugal and
viscous forces. The bent nozzle would be a simplification of the actual injector and
we want to reproduce the effects on the jet of this sudden direction change, keeping
a rather simple configuration.
In the early 70’s, experimental analysis was made regarding mean quantities on
the flow by [31]. It was concluded that the secondary motion is maximal at 30◦
from bend inlet and decreases until it reaches 90◦ , where it reaches a steady value.
Later on, experimental analysis was made regarding flow in a 90◦ bend by [32]
6
1.3. SECONDARY FLOW
where turbulence intensity and velocity field was investigated with Laser-Droplet-
Velocimetry (LDV). It was shown that these flow properties was strongly dependent
on the Reynolds number. Another numerical and experimental study was made by
[10] regarding secondary flow in a 90◦ turbulent nozzle elbow. They showed that
the bend curvature has an utmost effect on the swirl intensity generated after the
elbow. They showed that the swirl intensity increases exponentially after the elbow
but dissipates quicker with a larger curvature radius. Further, a numerical analysis
was made regarding flow in a U-bend where turbulence properties was investigated
by [33]. It was shown that the r.m.s. values increases when the flow passes by the
bend due to additional mean strain, which was related to the turning of the primary
flow, which also lead to creation of secondary flow.
The lowest pressure are reached in the recirculation region due to reduction of
cross-sectional area of the jet at the inlet edges, which also is called vena contracta,
illustrated in Figure 1.5b. If the pressure in this region reaches the vapour pres-
sure of the liquid, then the liquid is transformed into vapour. Further cavitation
is enhanced by shear flow, which is caused due to large velocity gradients. The
shear flow generates vortices and the static pressure in the center of these vortices
is lower than in the surrounding liquid due to centrifugal forces. This may give rise
to additional cavitation bubbles, as it was described by [13].
The axisymmetrical jet1 is the most common configuration in industry but some
research has been made on non-axisymmetrical jets, such as the elliptical jet. It was
shown from experiments (discussed below in this section) that the use of elliptical
jets enhances mass entrainment, mixing and spray characteristics [7],[3], [5] and [8].
However elliptical jets have a tendency to create instability in the flow [3],[5],[34]
and few research has been made on this subject.
It is worth to study the behaviour of the elliptical jets on the flow to gain a
better understanding on the mechanisms driving mixing and entrainment to further
improve an already beneficial configuration. Another study on single phase flow
was made by [3] and they showed from experimental analysis that small aspect
ratio elliptical jets increase the mass entrainment and that there is a significant
difference compared to axisymmetric jets. They concluded that the difference in flow
properties between the major- and minor axis was very large due to axis switching,
e.g. a difference of 26% of initial momentum thickness. A similar experimental
study was made by [8] and they showed that the axis-switching behaviour of the
elliptical jets results in an unstable jet and shorter breakup lengths compared to
the circular jet. But this depends also on the viscosity of the liquid, they showed
that increasing the aspect ratio of the elliptical nozzle results in a instable flow if
the viscosity is low.
A experimental analysis regarding a two-phase flow was made by [5] where they
investigated the efficiency of mixing performance and mass entrainment for non-
1
Symmetry around an axis, circular nozzles is typically axisymmetric while elliptical nozzles
are non-axisymmetrical
7
circular jets. The simulations they made compared elliptical, rectangular, triangular
and circular jets, all with the same equivalent diameters. They concluded that the
non-axisymmetrical jet gives better mass entrainment as well as mixing performance
than the circular jet due to axis-switching induced by mean streamwise vortices.
1.4 Objectives
The performance of diesel engines is strongly affected by the fuel spray, atomization
and in turn the mixing process as mentioned earlier. These depends ultimately on
the dimensions and geometry of the nozzle. The purpose of this project was there-
fore to investigate different elliptical nozzle geometries which also was compared to
the conventional circular nozzle. Several different configurations have been simu-
lated under conditions found in diesel injectors for these models regarding spray
characteristics, cavitation and mixing performance. A whole load of research have
been made on diesel injectors but only few on elliptical jets. The research found
concerning the elliptical jets was either experimental investigations or simulations
made in RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes). The turbulence RANS model
gives the ensemble averaged flow fields and do not resolve the large unsteady flow
structures. The simulations in this master thesis are made in RANS but also in
LES (Large Eddy Simulation) in order to capture large unsteady flow structures
that are responsible for jet mixing. The LES model is based on low-pass filtering
of the Navier-Stokes equation and resolves the large scales of the turbulence flow
and models the small scale. It is more expensive than RANS and is for most cases
not practical to use because it requires a very fine grid and fine discretization both
in time and space. The main purpose of this master thesis is thus to capture more
information of the flow properties using LES with different nozzle geometries. The
main objectives are listed below.
• The first objective was to investigate the influence of nozzle cross-section and
curvature. This was done by modelling different geometries of straight and
bent nozzles using RANS in a single phase flow. Further, the two configura-
tions with higher TI was also simulated using LES in a single phase flow to
study the large unsteady flow structures that are responsible for jet mixing.
• Then the simulations of single phase flow are compared with simulations of
two phase flow, in which liquid is injected into vapour gas to investigate the
effect of cavitation.
• Finally the impact of simplifications in the injector geometry and mathemat-

ical model was assessed in the final flow characteristics.
8
Chapter 2
Mathematical modeling
This chapter describes the mathematical model of the flow inside the injectors.
It begins with an overview of the governing equations and turbulence. Further,
mathematical models of single phase flow is described for both RANS and LES.
Finally, mathematical models of multiphase flow and cavitation are described.
2.1 Governing equations

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a tool to analyse fluid dynamics and provide
numerical simulations by computational methods. The range of physical phenomena
that can be solved with CFD is very broad. The governing equations of fluid
dynamics and the basis for CFD are the Navier-Stokes equations. These equations
are derived from the conservation of continuity and momentum equations. These
equations are for incompressible flow expressed as:
" !#
∂ui ∂ ∂p ∂ ∂ui ∂uj
ρ +ρ (ui uj ) = − + µ + + Fi (2.1)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xi
∂ui
=0 (2.2)
∂xi
where ρ is the density, µ the fluid viscosity and Fi is an additional source term of
surface tension which implies a pressure jump across the interface. These differential
equations are discretized in finite volume method in order to perform numerical
simulations. The Navier-Stokes equations are used throughout the entire project
but with some modifications depending on which model that is applied.
2.2 Turbulence modeling

The most accurate simulation available is the Direct numerical Simulation (DNS)
because it solves the unsteady Navier-Stokes equation in the entire domain without
any turbulence models, meaning that the whole domain of scales must be resolved
9
CHAPTER 2. MATHEMATICAL MODELING
which is computationally very expensive. This model has therefore only been used
for very simple cases. It is not practical to use this model for complex cases which
requires large grids and short time steps in order to capture the flow properties, not
even with high parallel computers. The LES model lies between RANS and DNS
regarding computational cost. This method is less expensive than the DNS method
but is still not practical for many applications since it requires a very fine grid near
the walls in order to resolve the large scales of turbulence. This model is based on
low-pass filtering of the Navier-Stokes equation and resolves the large scales of the
turbulence flow and models the small scales.
Turbulence is the state where the flow becomes unstable, leading to random
vorticity fluctuations and chaotic flow [15]. The structure of the rotational flow in
turbulence are called eddies which varies from large scales to smallest Kolmogorov
microscales. These are the smallest scales in which eddies are entirely dominated
by viscosity. The largest eddies are inviscid because the turbulent scale, i.e. char-
acteristic properties of the vortices are of the same order as the scales for the mean
flow. This implies that the largest eddies are dominated by inertia effects. The
energy from the mean flow will be extracted when transporting these eddies due
to vortex stretching. Vortex stretching is the changes on vorticity by production
of velocity gradients due to conservation of angular momentum. This will create
smaller eddies which will be transported by the largest eddies due to the effect of
vortex stretching and this process will continue until the eddies are entirely domi-
nated by viscous effects. If the flow is laminar or turbulent is depending on what
the Reynolds number is. The Reynolds number is defined as
ρU L
Re = (2.3)
µ
where U and L are characteristic velocity and length respectively. The char-
acteristic length is the hydraulic diameter which is Dh = 4A/P in which P is the
perimeter of the jet nozzle. The turbulent flow in the jet will be simulated using
the steady turbulent RANS model and LES. These are explained in the subsections
below.
2.2.1 RANS turbulence models

The turbulent RANS model solves the ensemble or time-averaged Navier-Stokes
equations and is thus based on averaged quantities. This model is most widely used
because it is fast and computationally cheap but it is not the optimal model since
it uses time-averaging quantities. This means that it can not capture all the flow
properties, thus some information is lost. The RANS equations model are given as
follows
" ! #
∂ ūi ∂ ∂ p̄ ∂ ∂ ūi ∂ u¯j
ρ +ρ (ūi u¯j ) = − + µ + + ρτij (2.4)
10
2.2. TURBULENCE MODELING
∂ ūi
=0 (2.5)
∂xi
where the last term in equation 2.4 is the Reynolds stress tensor, which is the
internal stress acting on the mean turbulent flow. Further, τij is the kinematic
Reynolds stress tensor, defined as
τij = −u0i u0j (2.6)

The Reynolds stress tensor is related to the mean velocity gradients through the
Boussinesq hypothesis, defined as
!
∂ ūi ∂ u¯j 2
−ρui uj = µt + − ρkδij (2.7)
∂xj ∂xi 3
here δij is the Kronecker delta, k the turbulence kinetic energy and µt is the
turbulent eddy viscosity.
Two-equation models
Further two-equation models is used, which calculates the turbulent viscosity and
describes the turbulent properties. The turbulent k − and k − ω models are used
in this project. These are described below.
• k − model
RANS simulations were made in FLUENT which provides three different k −

models: Standard, RNG and Realizable. The latter was chosen since the flow
phenomenons that occur near the wall is important to consider and this model
is suitable for resolving flows in the near-wall region. The two-equation model
describes the turbulent flow with two differential transport equations for the kinetic
energy k and dissipation rate .;
" #
∂k ∂k ∂ νt ∂k

+ u¯j = ν+ + Pk − ρ (2.8)
∂t ∂xj ∂xj σk ∂xj
" #
∂ ∂ ∂ νt ∂ 2

+ u¯j = ν+ + C1 S − C2 √ (2.9)
∂t ∂xj ∂xj σ ∂xj k + ν
where Pk describes the production of the turbulent kinetic energy due to mean
velocity gradients;
∂ ūi
Pk = τij (2.10)
∂xj
and
11
η k

C1 = max 0.43, ; η=S (2.11)
η+5
!
1/2 1 ∂ u¯j ∂ ūi
S = (2Sij Sij ) = + (2.12)
2 ∂xi ∂xj
The terms σk , σ , Ci are empirical constants and ν is the kinematic viscosity.
The dissipation rate in the realizable model is derived from the mean-square velocity
fluctuation and the reason for this model to be realizable is due to the conditions
that are enforced for the Reynold’s stresses. These conditions make the model more
consistent with turbulent flow than the Standard- and RNG models. The turbulent
eddy viscosity for k − turbulence models is defined as
k2
µt = ρCµ (2.13)

where is the dissipation of the turbulence kinetic energy and Cµ is the empirical
constant, defined as a function of the mean rotation tensor and the mean strain-rate
tensor;
1
Cµ = ∗ (2.14)
A0 + As kU
q
U∗ ≡ Sij Sij + Ω̃ij Ω̃ij , Ω̃ij = Ω̄ij − ijk ωk − 2ijk ωk (2.15)
√
A0 = 4.04 , As = 6cosφ (2.16)
√
1 Sij Sjk Ski
q
φ = cos−1 6 , S̃ = Sij Sij (2.17)
3 S̃ 3
• k − ω model
This model is much better than the k − model regarding boundary layer flows
and the difference is that the k − ω model uses a transport equation where the
turbulent dissipation rate is replaced with the specific dissipation rate ω. There
are two different k − ω models in FLUENT, Standard [22] and SST (Shear Stress
Transport model) [23]. The latter model was chosen since it predicts separation
very accurately and it also uses a combination of both k − and k − ω models. The
transport equations for this model are
" #
∂k ∂k ∂ ∂k
+ uj = Pk − β ∗ kω + (ν + σk νt ) (2.18)
∂t ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
12
2.2. TURBULENCE MODELING
" #
∂ω ∂ω ∂ ∂ω
+ uj = αS 2 − βω 2 + (ν + σω νt )
∂t ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
1 ∂k ∂ω
+2(1 − F1 )σω2 (2.19)
ω ∂xi ∂xi
The turbulent stress tensor and kinematic viscosity for this model is defined as
2 ∂uk 2 ρa1 k

τij = µt 2Sij − − ρkδij , µt = (2.20)
3 ∂xk 3 max(a1 ω, ΩF2 )
in which
( " √ ! #)4 
k 500ν 4ρσω2 k
F1 = tanh  min max , ,  (2.21)
∂β ∗ ωd d2 ω CDkω d2
" √ !#2 
k 500ν
F2 = tanh  max 2 ∗ , 2  (2.22)
∂β ωd d ω

ω
The term CDkω = max 2ρσω2 ω1 ∂xk j ∂x j
, 10−20 and the closure constants are
given in table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Closure constants
σω σk β a1
k− 0.856 1.00 0.0828
k−ω 0.65 0.85 0.075
SST 0.09 0.31
Near wall treatment

The turbulence in the nozzle is affected by the presence of the wall, where the flow
has great velocity gradients and the mesh should be very fine in order to satisfy
the physics. Further, the Boussinesq assumption that the Reynolds stress tensor is
proportional to the strain rate tensor is not valid in flows with strong curvature.
The two-equation models have therefore problems to predict the flow that is affected
by strong curvature and needs wall treatments. There are three region in the near
wall layer; viscous sublayer, buffer layer and logarithmic layer as can be seen in
Figure 2.1 The inner part of the near wall layer is the viscous sublayer and this
region is dominated by viscous effects. The logarithmic layer is the region where
the flow is fully turbulent and the buffer layer is the transition between these two.
The dimensionless viscous wall distance y + should be less than 5 in the viscous
13
sublayer, between 5 and 60 in the buffer layer and greater than 60 in the logarithmic
layer. The k − ω models applies throughout the boundary layer, however it needs
a sufficient near wall resolution. The k − models on the other hand needs wall
functions to solve the viscous sublayer.
Figure 2.1: Law of the wall

.
The Enhanced Wall Treatment (EWT) in FLUENT was used as the near wall
modeling method for the k − realizable model. This method combines a two-
layer model with wall-functions. It resolves the viscous sublayer [12] when y + ≤ 5
and uses wall functions when y + ≥ 30 [12]. This requires a fine near-wall mesh in
order to resolve the viscous sublayer and satisfy the physics. The dimensionless wall
distance was calculated from
yuτ
y+ = (2.23)
ν
where the wall friction velocity uτ is a function of the friction coefficient, which
in turn is dependent on the Reynold’s number.
2.2.2 LES
The purpose of LES is to capture the large scales of turbulence and model the small
scales. If the eddies are smaller than the grid sizes, then it is re-modeled by a
subgrid scale (SGS). The filtering operation is defined as
Z∞ Z∞
Φ̄ = Φ(x~0 )G(~x − x~0 )dx and G(~x − x~0 )dx = 1 (2.24)
−∞ −∞
where G is the spatial filter and the filtered Navier-Stokes equations is as follows
! !
∂ ūi ∂(ūi u¯j ) ∂ p̄ ∂ ∂ ūi ∂τij
ρ + =− + ν − (2.25)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
14
2.3. MULTIPHASE FLOW
where the turbulence stress tensor is defined as τij = ρ(ui uj − ūi u¯j ). The purpose
of the SGS model is to transport energy from resolved grid scales to un-resolved
grid scales. The most widely used SGS model in channel- and internal flows is the
Smagorinsky model which is defined as
1
τij − τij δij = −2µt S̄ij where µt = 2(Cs ∆)2 |S̄|Sij (2.26)
3
where the filter width is ∆ = (∆x∆y∆z)1/3 and Cs is the Smagorinsky constant
which usually have values between 0.1 and 0.2.
2.3 Multiphase flow

Multiphase flows are flows in which there is a mixture of phases. The flow pattern of
multiphase flow regimes are characterized by a dispersed flow or separated flow. In
the case of dispersed flow, one phase is consisting of infinitesimal particles, bubbles
or drops that are distributed in the other continuous phase. A separated flow on
the other hand consists of two or more phases that are separated by interfaces.
Multiphase flows are widely encounted in industrial processes, some examples are
anti-icing of aircrafts, food processing and fuel injection in combustion engines,
the latter being one of the key issues in this project. The prediction of the fluid
behaviour in a mixing process is a key issue to enhance the efficiency of these
processes. The prediction of spray characteristics in combustion engines for example
is utmost important for the mixing process in order for the engine to work efficiently
but also reduce pollutants.
One approach regarding mathematical modeling flows is the "one-fluid" ap-
proach, which is used for two-phase flow simulations in this project. This approach
describes the entire flow field with one set of governing equations, which are solved
on regular fixed grid. This approach can either be used whit a Front-Tracking
method or Front-Capturing method. The properties of each phase are generally
different and tracking methods are used to locate the interface and jump condi-
tions are modeled for interface exchanges. Front-Tracking methods use Lagrangian
markers to identify the interface while Front-capturing methods use marker func-
tions to locate the interface. The second method is applied in this project through
the Volume of Fluid method (VOF), described in the next section.
2.3.1 Volume of fluid

The VOF method is a free surface technique used to capture phase interfaces. This
model solves the fluid of the mixture by a single set of mass and momentum equa-
tions given below.
∂ρ ∂
+ (ρui ) = Si (2.27)
∂t ∂xi
15
" !#
∂(ρui ) ∂ ∂p ∂ ∂(ui ) ∂(uj )
+ (ρui uj ) = − + µ + + Fi (2.28)
However, the pressure jump conditions due to surface tension and interface cur-
vature are modelled through an additional source term in the momentum equation.
Further, due to the mass transfer between phases, the continuity equation is no
longer divergence free and a source term is included in the volume fraction equa-
tion.
The dynamics of the different phases are solved by a transport equation, in
which a indicator function α is used to represent the volume fraction of one phase.
This transport equation is given as
∂α ∂
+ (αui ) = Si (2.29)
∂t ∂xi
Mixture properties ρ and µ are averaged, using the volume fraction as
ρ = αρl + (1 − α)ρg (2.30)
µ = αµl + (1 − α)µg (2.31)

where l and g denotes liquid phase and gas phase respectively.
2.4 Cavitation
The simulations of cavitation in this project are based on the Rayleigh-Plesset [24]
equation for dynamics of bubble growth and collapse. This equation describes the
growth of a single vapour bubble in liquid and is defined as
2
d2 RB 3 dRB pB − p∞ 4vl dRB 2σ

RB 2
+ = − − (2.32)
dt 2 dt pl RB dt ρl RB
where RB is the bubble radius and σ is the liquid surface tension coefficient. The
variables pB is the bubble pressure, which is equal to the saturated vapour pressure
pv when the bubble only contains vapour. The parameter p∞ is the local far-field
pressure. By neglecting viscous and surface tension terms, the above equation can
be integrated in time yielding the Rayleigh equation (2.33), which describes the
growth of the bubble.
s
2 |pvap − p∞ |
ṘB = sign(pv − p∞ ) (2.33)
3 ρl
Further the volume fraction of vapour can be connected to the bubble radius
through number of bubbles per volume of liquid [Schnaerr and Sauer]
16
2.4. CAVITATION
4π 3
3 nB RB
α= (2.34)
1 + 4π 3
3 nB RB
and the mass flow rate is expressed as
ρv ρl 3ṘB
ṁ = C (1 − α)α (2.35)
ρ RB
where C is a fitting coefficient.
17
Chapter 3
Models & Setup
The purpose of this section is to introduce the geometry of the different models,
discretization of the computational domain, boundary conditions, verification and
validation of the simulations. This section ends with a comparison of flow quantities
between different turbulent models.
3.1 Geometry
CFD simulations were carried out on microscopic nozzles of two different geom-
etry configurations, these are straight- and bent nozzles. Simulations were made
on three different cross-sections, circular and two different elliptical cross-sections.
Regarding the bent nozzles, two different orientations of the ellipses with respect to
the bend axes has been considered. The geometry parameters of these are shown in
Table 3.1. The cross-sections of these nozzles are taken from [4] and they correspond
to actual diesel injectors. The ellipses H1 and H2 have horizontally oriented major
axis while the ellipses V1 and V2 have vertically oriented major axis. The major axis
is denoted as a and minor axis as b. The cross sectional areas are approximately
the same for all nozzle types.
Dh Nozzle type a(µm) b(µm) Area(m2 ) Dh (µm)

Circular 85 85 2.270e−8 85
a
H1 103 70 2.265e−8 82.6
b H2 120 60 2.262e−8 77.8
V1 103 70 2.265e−8 82.6
V2 120 60 2.262e−8 77.8
Figure 3.1: Nozzle Table 3.1: Nozzle types
Simulations have been made on quarter parts of the straight nozzles. This have
been made to save computational time. However, the flow conditions are still valid
since all normal gradients are zero at the symmetry planes and there is no flow
19
CHAPTER 3. MODELS & SETUP
variations normal to the boundary planes. The simulations have been made on
half parts of the bent nozzles since these models are only symmetric on one plane.
However, entire models have been used for the LES cases.
• Straight nozzles
Simulations of straight nozzles have been made for the three cross-sections; cir-
cle, H1 and H2. The geometry of these are shown in Figure 3.2. All the dimension-
less magnitudes presented from now on are calculated using the Dh as characteristic
length scale. The dimensions for the quarter parts as shown in the figure are; nozzle
length has a size of 9.4D, chamber length are 17.6D and chamber width and height
are both 7.6D.
Figure 3.2: Computational domain for RANS simulations of straight nozzles

.
• Bent nozzles
Simulations of bent nozzles have been made for all the nozzle types, presented
in Table 3.1. These models are illustrated in Figure 3.3.
The nozzle length before the bend is 3.5D and the nozzle length after the bend
is of equal size as the nozzle length for the straight models. The length of the
bend is 3.5D with a outer curvature radius of 2.4D. The geometry of the chamber
is equal of that of the straight models. The numbers in Figure 3.3 (1-9) shown
at different cross sections is used from now on to present results but with index S
before. Different planes in the bend is also depicted with angles (0 − 60◦ ) from bend
inlet. These positions also apply to the straight nozzles starting from position 2.
3.2 Discretization of the computational domain

The element shapes in discretization of three-dimensional geometries are tetrahe-
drons, hexahedrons, prism and pyramids. Further, the grids are characterized as
either structured or unstructured mesh. Structured grids consist of regular connec-
tivity, where all the vertices are topologically alike. Unstructured grids on the other
20
3.2. DISCRETIZATION OF THE COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN
2.4D
3.5D
o
0 12 3 4 5 6 0
o
30
o
60
3.5D
Ln=9.4D
7 8 9
L=17.6D
V2 V1 Cirkel H1 H2
Figure 3.3: Submerged jet of straight pipes

.
hand consist of irregular connectivity, where the vertices have arbitrarily varying
neighboring cells. Unstructured grids may therefore be computationally more ex-
pensive, however it provides more freedom and better fits to complicated domains.
The mesh for all the geometry configurations was constructed in Ansys work-
bench meshing with pure hexahedral elements, in order to obtain structured mesh.
The mesh for all straight models have been constructed in the same way and the
same goes for the bent models, this is necessary to make a good comparison. There-
fore, only one mesh for each configuration is shown here. The mesh domain was
divided into different volumes, this was necessary to obtain a pure structured hex-
ahedral mesh.
The mesh for the straight model is illustrated in Figure 3.4, corresponding to the
circular nozzle. The mesh on the nozzle inlet starts with a coarser mesh in the core
and it becomes finer as it approaches the near wall region. The mesh on the nozzle
wall is quite uniform until it approaches the nozzle inlet- and outlet. The mesh
is much finer at these locations in order to obtain a smoother transition between
the neighboring cells. The mesh on the chamber is finer at the core and becomes
coarser as it goes further away. This results in a mesh of 1.2 million elements.
21
Figure 3.4: Mesh for case 1.1

.
• Bent nozzles
The mesh for the bent model is illustrated in Figure 3.5. The mesh for the bent
model have been constructed in the same manner as for the straight model. Only
difference is on the nozzle wall, where the mesh is finer at the bend. This mesh
corresponds to H2 nozzle, which results in a mesh of 2.8 million elements.
3.3 Cases
Simulations have been made on different nozzle geometries with different modeling
techniques. All cases that have been simulated are listed in Table 3.2 to simplify
the reading.
In case 1, simulations have been made in FLUENT using RANS with both tur-
bulence models. The grid sensitivity analysis was only made for case 1.1, discussed
in section 3.5. In case 2, similar simulations have been made but now with the bent
22
3.3. CASES
Figure 3.5: Mesh for case 2.4

.
Table 3.2: Cases
1. RANS straight nozzles k kω Grid sen. Software

1.1 Circular X X X FLUENT
1.2 H1 X X FLUENT
1.3 H2 X X FLUENT
2. RANS bent nozzles
2.1 Circular X FLUENT
2.2 H1 X FLUENT
2.3 V1 X FLUENT
2.4 H2 X X X FLUENT
2.5 V2 X FLUENT
nozzles instead. The nozzles with vertically oriented major axis are simulated for
this case as well. This is because the orientation of the jet have an major influence
on the flow properties, as discussed earlier. One simulation have been made for the
k − model in this case to compare the prediction of flow separation from each
model.
23
3.4 Boundary conditions

The boundary conditions are illustrated in Figure 3.6. A total gauge pressure of
30 MPa and a initial gauge pressure of 10 MPa have been set as inlet condition. A
gauge pressure of 6 MPa was imposed as an outlet condition. The no-slip condition
is imposed at the walls and the normal velocity and normal gradients of all variables
are zero at the symmetry planes. It should be noted that, in simulations of the bent
nozzle, there is only one symmetry plane and that, in LES simulations, the entire
geometry is considered. The diesel fuel that was used have viscosity of 0.0024 kg/m-s
and density of 730 kg/m3 .
Figure 3.6: Boundary conditions for straight pipe

.
Simulations have been solved using the pressure-velocity coupling algorithm,

SIMPLE [35]. Further a second order scheme is used for pressure, second order
upwind scheme for momentum, turbulence kinetic energy and specific dissipation
rate/turbulent dissipation rate for the RANS cases. Regarding LES, a bounded
central differencing scheme is applied for the momentum equations. In the VOF
method, a VanLeer scheme is used for volume fraction flux.
Regarding the simulation of two-phase flow, both liquid and vapour fuel has been
considered incompressible. The vapour fuel have density and kinematic viscosity of
9.4 kg/m3 and 7.45e-07 m2 /s respectively. The surface tension between the phases
has been set as 0.029 kg/s2 and the pressure of vapour fuel as 1329Pa. Further,
parameters of the cavitation model has been set as Cc =1, Cv =1, n0 =1.6e13 m−3
and R0 =2µm.
3.5 Verification
Numerical modeling provides solutions which are only approximations of real phys-
ical properties. The formulation of mathematical models and simplifications of the
models results in errors in numerical modeling, which has to be considered. One
error is called round-off error, which exists due to limited number of computer digits
available for storage, but this type of error is not major compared to other errors.
24
3.5. VERIFICATION
Another error is the iterative convergence error which exists because the simulations
have to be stopped eventually. This error is minimized by letting the residuals go
down to at least 10−6 except the continuity residual, because it depends on the
initial solution. If the initial guess is good, the residual for continuity will not go
down as much as the other residuals. Another error that is considered in this project
is called discretization error, which arises when converting a continuous model to
discrete form. The solution should become less sensitive and reach a continuum so-
lution when the mesh is refined. Simulations were therefore made for two additional
mesh resolutions, a coarser and finer mesh. The mesh resolution for the original
mesh lies between these two. A sizing factor (s) of 1.25 was applied to the original
mesh resolution, which resulted in a coarser mesh of 500k elements and a finer mesh
of 2.3 million elements for the straight model. Regarding the bent model, a sizing
factor of 1.25 was only applied at the most relevant regions, due to computational
cost and time limitations. This resulted in a coarser mesh of 1.9 million elements
and a finer mesh with 3.7 million elements.
The solution of the different mesh resolutions was compared by looking at the
velocity profiles at mid chamber. Further a Grid Convergence Index (GCI) by [25]
was applied to compute the discretization error. The GCI is defined as
FS ||
GCIf ine = (3.1)
sg − 1
This is the GCI for the finer mesh in which FS is a safety factor and a value of
1.25 was used which correspond to a comparison between three or more grids. The
parameter g is the order of convergence, which is second order in this case i.e. 2
and is the relative error which is defined as
ff ine − forig
= (3.2)
forig
where the quantity f is the massflow rate for the original- and finer mesh. The
GCI for the coarser mesh can then be extrapolated through
GCIcourse = sg · GCIf ine (3.3)

This grid sensitivity study was made only for the circular and ellipse H2 cross-
section of straight and bent models, respectively due to resemblances.
The velocity profiles for all three mesh resolutions regarding the straight model
are shown in Figure 3.7. It is very clear from this figure that there are almost no
differences at all between the velocity profiles, indicating that the solution is grid
independent.
From the GCI calculations, values for the mesh index of 0.035% and 0.055% were
obtained for the fine- and course mesh respectively. This gives a discretization error
25
Figure 3.7: Grid sensitivity analysis for cases 1.1 at mid chamber x/L = 0.5, where
L is the chamber length.
which is below 2%. However since there are almost no differences, the intermediate
mesh was chosen in order to save computational cost and time.
• Bent nozzles
The velocity profiles for all three mesh resolutions regarding the bent model are
shown in Figure 3.8. The solution is also grid independent.
Figure 3.8: Grid sensitivity analysis for cases 2.1-2.3
From the GCI calculations, values for the mesh index of 0.015% and 0.023% were
obtained for the fine- and coarse mesh respectively. This gives a discretization error
26
3.6. VALIDATION
which also is below 2%. The intermediate mesh, i.e. original mesh will therefore be
chosen as the baseline model.
3.6 Validation
Simulations have been compared to experimental analysis and the validation of the
simulations are discussed in this section. Further, the impact of simplifications
in injector geometry and mathematical model will be assessed for the final flow
characteristics.
Simulations were compared to experimental analysis [39] regarding discharge
coefficient. They reported values betwen 0.77-0.79 for the same reynolds number
around 10000. The experimental analysis were made on cylindrical nozzles with
circular cross-sections. The discharge coefficient is defined as the actual mass flow
divided by the theoretical mass flow:
ṁ
Cd = √ (3.4)
A 2ρl ∆P
where A is the cross-sectional area of the nozzle and ∆P is difference in pressure
between inlet and outlet cross-sections. These parameters are given in Tabel 3.3:
Table 3.3: Flow properties for injection pressure of 30 MPa and backpressure of 6
MPa
∆P (MPa) ṁ(g/s) CD (−)

Circular 23.8 3.27 0.773
H1 23.8 3.34 0.792
H2 23.8 3.35 0.795
V1 23.8 3.11 0.737
V2 23.8 2.93 0.694
V2 (Two-phase) 24 2.83 0.64
We can see in this table that ∆P is the same for all cases, except being slightly
higher in the two-phase flow. All the cases in this table, except the last row are
simulations in single phase flow in the bent cases. Further, the discharge coefficient
decreases with decrease in mass flow rate, which is expected since the mass flow
rate is directly proportional to the discharge coefficient. We can also see that the
H2 nozzle gives highest value meaning that it has higher transformation of pressue
energy into kinetic energy. The V2 nozzle shows lowest values because of higher
flow losses. The discharge coefficient in the two-phase flow is also lower than in
single phase flow due to cavitation that further weakens the flow capacity.
The discharge values being fearly close to the experimental values gives a reason
to not simulate the entire injection domain with tens of millions elements. It would
be enough to simulate a small part of the injection domain as in the bent cases,
which would save a great deal of computational cost and time.
27
The second term in the equation of Rayleigh-plesset (2.33) is the contribution of

liquid viscosity. It is seen that this term is proportional to bubble deformation rate
and inversely proportional to bubbles radius. This term is therefore only significant
for bubbles with small radii. The last term in the equation is the contribution of
surface tension. This term is only significant for bubbles with small radii as well
since the bubble radius appear in the denominator. These terms have therefore been
neglected. According to [37] various characteristic time scales can be compared to
assess the impact of the neglected terms on the dynamics of a cavitation bubble.
These time scales are as follows:
a2
τν = (3.5)
4νl
r
ρl a
τS = a (3.6)
2σ
s
ρl
τp = a (3.7)
pref − pν
where a is the characteristic length scale for the bubble radius, pref has been
set as 1 bar and the indexes in the time scales correspond to viscosity, surface
tension and pressure. The characteristic time scales are plotted as a function of the
characteristic length scale in Figure 3.9
Figure 3.9: Characteristic time scales versus length scale.
It is seen in this figure that the dynamics of cavitation bubbles are controlled
by pressure in a wide range of radii. Pressure is dominating already at 1.5 µm.
Viscosity becomes dominating for cavitation bubbles smaller than this value and
surface tension is never dominating. The viscous and surface tension terms can
therefore be neglected considering that the initial bubble radius is 2 µm. The
28
3.7. COMPARISON OF TURBULENCE MODELS
simplified Rayleigh-Plesset equation is therefore enough for solving the dynamics of

cavitation bubbles.
3.7 Comparison of turbulence models

The two-equation turbulence models; SST k − ω and realizable k − were compared
in this project, in order to choose a suitable model that fits best to the investigated
cases. The comparison of these models for both straight nozzle and bent nozzle is
described below. This study was only done for cases 1.3 and 2.4 from table 3.2.
The former is also compared to the LES model of case 3.1.
• Straight nozzle
The comparison of the two-equation models for the straight nozzles is shown
in Figure 3.10. These comparisons are regarding mean velocity magnitude and
turbulence intensity.
Mean Velocity magnitude Turbulence Intensity
k-
SST
k-
Realizable
LES
Figure 3.10: Contours of mean velocity magnitude and turbulence intensity for three
different turbulent models for straight pipe cases.
In Figure 3.10, both turbulent two-equation models shows similar behaviour,

however the realizable k − model shows higher turbulence levels at the corner of
the nozzle discharge. Further, the velocity in the nozzle are quite similar for both
models. However, the velocity in the core of the jet becomes lower for the k −
realizable model as it develops with increasing axial distance in the chamber.
Compared to the LES model, none of the turbulent two-equation models shows
resemblances of the turbulence intensity. It is seen that the two-equation models
shows high turbulence levels at the nozzle discharge while the LES model shows
much lower value. However, the LES model shows much higher turbulence levels at
mid chamber.
29
• Bent nozzle
The comparison of the two-equation models for the bent nozzles is shown in
Figure 3.10.
Velocity Turbulence Intensity
k-
SST
k-
Realizable
LES
Figure 3.11: Contours of mean velocity magnitude and turbulence intensity for three
different turbulent models for bent pipe cases.
The velocity contours in Figure 3.11 shows that the k − ω model is capable of
capturing separation at the bend more accurately than the k − model. This is
quite clear when comparing these two-equation models to the LES model.
However, the k − model shows higher resemblance to LES regarding the ve-
locity at the lowerside of the nozzle. Regarding the turbulence intensity, all three
models shows high turbulence levels at the bend which develops downwards to the
lower corner at the nozzle discharge. However, the k − model shows much higher
turbulence level at the bend.
The realizable k − model gives the most realizable solution since it uses a eddy
viscosity formulation that is not constant, which prevents the normal stresses to
become non-negative and the Schwarzs inequality for shear stresses are satisfied.
The SST k − ω model is a combination of the standard k − ω and k − models, the
former used near the boundary while the latter is used in the free stream. Since µt
is limited in equation (2.20), the production of shear stress and turbulent kinetic
energy are not over-predicted for SST k − ω model. As soon as the jet enters the
chamber, a shear layer is created between the jet and surrounding fluid. With
increase in shear layer, an increase in turbulence is expected.
When comparing to LES, it seems that the SST k-omega model predicts sep-
aration better than the realizable model and since a great deal of separation will
30
3.7. COMPARISON OF TURBULENCE MODELS
be analysed in this project, the SST k − ω model have chosen to be the primary
turbulence model.
31
Chapter 4
Results
4.1 RANS
One of the objectives is to analyse the influence of cross-section and curvature
in the flow. It is not feasible to investigate this in the LES framework, due to
the time limitations. Therefore, this analysis has been carried out with RANS
approach. Later on in the chapter, the effect of modelling assumptions such as the
use of RANS is assessed. This analysis is made on the velocity, pressure, turbulence
intensity and vorticity fields. This is made firstly for the straight nozzles and then
the bent nozzles.
The flow fields of interest for the straight nozzle are compared in cases 1.1-1.3.
Contours of these magnitudes in the XY and XZ symmetry planes are depicted in
Figure 4.1.
Velocity Magnitude Static Pressure Turbulence Intensity
Circle
H1 XY -
symmetry plane
H2 XY -
symmetry plane
H1 XZ -
symmetry plane
H2 XZ -
symmetry plane
Figure 4.1: Contour of velocity magnitude (m/s), static pressure (Pa) and turbu-
lence intensity (-)
The contours of these flow properties in the XZ symmetry plane was only illus-
trated for the ellipses since they have different diameters in the major- and minor
33
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
axis. The contours for the circular model in the XZ symmetry plane showed equal
results as for in the XY symmetry plane, as expected.
The turbulence level is highest at the shear located at the walls and decreases
towards the centerline of the jet as expected. This is seen in Figure 4.1, showing
that the turbulence is almost dissipated in the entrance region where the shear
production is zero. When the jet is discharged into the chamber with the stationary
liquid, it carries the surrounding liquid with it. The jet is further slowed down
leading to even higher turbulence levels. The contours of velocity magnitude show
that velocity is decelerated at the walls and increasing in the core with increasing
distance of the entrance length. This is due to viscous effects near the wall region
imposing a "no-slip" condition, which slows down the velocity adjacent to the wall
and increasing velocity in the core. The contours of pressure shows the effect of
Bernoullis equation i.e. increasing velocity leads to decreasing pressure. It is seen
from Figure 4.1 that the different models show high levels of similarities in the same
scale of magnitude. There are however differences in the vorticity field depicted in
Figure 4.2, which shows isocontours of mean streamwise vorticity at different cross-
sections.
Circle
H1
H2
Figure 4.2: Contour of mean streamwise vorticity (1/s) at cross-sections S2 and

S4-S9.
34
4.1. RANS
It can be seen in the mean streamwise vorticity field that vorticity is produced
at the nozzle wall for H1 and H2 nozzles at all viewed cross-sections, being slightly
higher for H2 nozzle. The circular jet shows only wall produced vorticity in the inlet
cross-section in this range. Further, it can be seen in the chamber that vorticity
grows stronger for H1 and H2 nozzles, once again being slightly higher for H2 nozzle.
This is because the velocity gradients in the elliptical nozzles are much higher which
increases vorticity. This is seen in Figure 4.3, which shows velocity vectors at one
cross-section in the nozzle and another in the chamber. The velocity gradients are
much higher in the elliptical nozzles at the near wall region in cross-section S6 and
around the jet surface and near the core of the jet at cross-section S8.
S6 S8
Circle
H1
H2
Figure 4.3: Velocity vectors at cross-sections S4 and S8.
• Bent nozzle
The flow fields of interest for the bent nozzles are compared in cases 2.1-2.5. The
contours of velocity magnitude, static pressure and turbulence intensities for these
cases are depicted in Figure 4.4. It is seen in the velocity contours that the strong
curvature of the flow caused flow separation. Then, there is a recirculation region
with low velocity and a high velocity stream that travels from the inner wall of
35
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
the bend to the lowerside of the nozzle. The contours of pressure shows an increase
where the velocity is decreased at the outer wall of the bend and opposite behaviour
at the inner wall of the bend, this is explained by bernoullis equation. In the
turbulence intensity contours, the shear production is increased in the recirculation
region which gives a higher turbulence level. Further, it is seen that the turbulence
intensity develops towards the lower side of the jet. Turbulence intensity levels not
being uniform around the jet implies a less distributed sheet which means poorer
mixing in the region of lower turbulence intensity levels.
Velocity Static pressure TI
Circle
H1
V1
H2
V2
Figure 4.4: Contours of velocity magnitude (m/s), static pressure (Pa) and turbu-
lence intensity (-)
The circular, V1 and V2 nozzles show values of flow fields that are favourable
for jet mixing, these cases are analysed further. The flow is firstly analysed in the
bend in 30, 60 and 90◦ planes (Figures 4.5-4.8). It should be mentioned that the
latter is also cross-section S2. The center of the bend is at the left with respect to
the figures. It is seen in Figure 4.5 at the 30◦ plane that the maximum velocity in
the core has been displaced towards the inside of the bend due to centrifugal forces.
In the 60◦ plane, the distortion of the contours implies secondary flow in the inner
wall region. This secondary flow grows with increasing distance in the bend and it
is maximal in the 90◦ plane. It is also seen that the elliptical nozzles, especially the
V2 nozzle show stronger secondary flow than the circular nozzle.
36
4.1. RANS
Figure 4.5: Velocity magnitude (m/s) at different cross-sections in the bend
The contours of turbulence intensity in Figure 4.6 show consistency with the
velocity field, high velocity fluctuations are expected in steep velocity gradients and
distortion of the flow. The turbulence levels in the elliptical nozzles are therefore
more amplified and all three cases show highest turbulence intensity levels at the
90◦ plane.
Figure 4.6: Turbulence intensity at different cross-sections in the bend
The vorticity field show the same rotational motion as the secondary flow and it
is highest in the 90◦ plane. The vortical structures in this plane has grown stronger
for the elliptical nozzles, especially the V2 nozzle. Further, it can be seen in the
pressure field that the pressure is lowest in a small region on top of jet axis(dark
blue) at the inner wall of the bend, seen from this point of view. The pressure in
this region increases in the elliptical nozzles and decrease in the circular nozzle as it
can be seen in the 90◦ plane. The reason for the pressure to be lower in the elliptical
nozzles is due to the stronger secondary flow, which appears as Dean vortices, seen
37
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
in Figure 4.7. Similar behaviour of the flow fields in the bend has been observed
experimentally by [31]-[33].
Figure 4.7: Vorticity magnitude (1/s) at different cross-sections in the bend
o o o
30 60 90
Circle
V1
V2
Figure 4.8: Static pressure (Pa) at different cross-sections in the bend
Further, flow quantities are analysed at cross-sections in the nozzle after the
bend and in the chamber, depicted in Figures 4.9-4.15. It can be seen in these
figures that the flow through the bend completely changes the flow in the nozzle,
having the straight nozzles in mind. It is seen in the velocity field that the V2 nozzle
show lower velocity in the upperside of the nozzle (at the left w.r.t. the figure) at
cross-section S2 and the flow near the wall accelerates also faster. Further, the
velocity field in the chamber shows that the circular jet is much more uniform than
the elliptical jets in cross-section S7. The flow in the chamber is affected by the
flow in the nozzle, this is seen in this cross-section. However, the flow in the core
in all cases becomes quite uniform as the distance increases in the axial direction.
38
4.1. RANS
S2 S4 S5 S6
Circle
V1
V2
Figure 4.9: Streamwise velocity (m/s) at different cross-sections in the nozzle

S7 S8 S9
Circle
V1
V2
Figure 4.10: Streamwise velocity (m/s) at different cross-sections in the chamber
The secondary flow moves in a counter-clockwise motion and is illustrated as a

Dean vortex, shown in Figure 4.11. Further, it is seen that vorticity is developed
from the shear layer as mentioned before and moves towards the inner wall of the
nozzle, where separation is strongest. Further downstream, vorticity is decreasing
with increase in axial distance. It is also seen that the vorticity is higher for the
V2 nozzle in cross-section S4 and both elliptical nozzles shows slightly higher values
than the circular nozzle in cross-section S5. Regarding vorticity in the chamber,
it can first of all be seen that the circular jet show more uniform structures than
the elliptical jets. Further, it can be seen in cross-section S9, that the elliptical jets
shows smaller structures unlike the circular jet in the core with opposite strengths.
39
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
S2 S4 S5 S6
Circle
V1
V2
Figure 4.11: Streamwise vorticity (1/s) at different cross-sections in the nozzle

S7 S8 S9
Circle
V1
V2
Figure 4.12: Streamwise vorticity (1/s) at different cross-sections in the chamber
Regarding the turbulence intensity, it is seen that the turbulence level greatly
increased in cross-section S4. This is due to the fact that the effective cross-section
area is smallest near S4. Further downstream in the nozzle, the turbulence levels
decreases and the higher turbulence levels becomes more narrow. However, when
the flow enters the chamber, the turbulence levels increases, especially on the right
half region on the minor axis around the core of the jet. Flow separation leads to
higher velocities in the lower part of the nozzle, which, in contact with the still flow
of the chamber, generate more turbulence at the shear layer.
40
4.1. RANS
S2 S4 S5 S6
Circle
V1
V2
Figure 4.13: Turbulence intensity at different cross-sections in the nozzle
S7 S8 S9
Circle
V1
V2
Figure 4.14: Turbulence intensity at different cross-sections in the chamber
In the pressure field shown in Figure 4.15, it can firstly be seen that the pressure
increases in the upperside (at the left w.r.t. the figure) and decreases in the lowerside
(at the right w.r.t. the figure) of the nozzle in cross-section S2 in all cases. Then
in cross-section S5, the pressure increases but is lower for the V2 nozzle and also
the circular nozzle in the upperside. Further, the pressure is higher for the circular
nozzle in cross-section S6 at the upperside of the nozzle.
S2 S4 S5 S6
Circle
V1
V2
Figure 4.15: Static pressure (Pa) at different cross-sections in the nozzle
41
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Velocity and turbulence intensity plots are also depicted in Figure 4.16-4.17.
Figure 4.16: Velocity profiles at different nozzle cross-sections
It is seen in the upperside of the nozzles that the recirculating flow lead to the
appearance of several inflection points in the velocity field, which indicate a higher
degree of instability. The flow in the lowerside of the nozzles show small inflections
in cross-section S2 but becomes quite uniform further downstream. It is also seen
that the V2 jet shows lower velocity in the upperside of the nozzle while all cases
show quite similar profiles in the lowerside. When the flow enters the chamber,
it becomes much more uniform. However, inflection points are still present in the
chamber, seen in cross-section S7, where the circular jet shows higher inflection
point than the elliptical jets. The elliptical jets shows also higher velocities than
the circular jet in the chamber.
It is seen in the turbulent intensity field that the turbulence levels greatly in-
crease in the recirculation region, especially for the V2 nozzle. Then, in the chamber,
42
4.1. RANS
the turbulence level on the lowerside of the jets greatly increase and is higher than
those on the upperside of the jet. It is also seen cross-section S9 that the turbulence
level becomes much more uniform and the V1 jet shows slightly higher values than
the other cases.
Figure 4.17: Turbulence intensity at different nozzle cross-sections
The V2 jet showed higher turbulence intensity than the other configurations,
except far back in the chamber. With higher turbulence levels, the separation
was stronger as could be seen in the recirculation region. This configuration will
therefore also be analysed in LES. Regarding the straight nozzles, there were no
significant differences in turbulence magnitudes. However, one of the phenomenons
that can occur in elliptical nozzles is the axis-switching of the jet. It was shown
from experimental analysis [34] that an elliptical nozzle with aspect ratio of 2 led
to axis-switching of the jet. But this phenomena will not occur without large-scale
vortical structures and the H2 nozzle with the larger aspect ratio(=2) will therefore
43
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
also be analysed in LES. Further the negative pressure values might indicate the
development of cavitation in the V2 nozzle, which will therefore also be investigated
including a cavitation model. This is described later on.
4.2 LES - Single phase

The purpose of this section is to analyse the turbulent flow in implicit LES model
for H2- and V2 jets. A brief discussion was already done earlier regarding the
comparison of RANS and LES simulations based on mean velocity magnitude and
turbulence intensity. LES simulations are described in more detail in this chapter.
The comparison between RANS and LES is also described in more detail. Just as
before, the analysis is firstly shown for the straight nozzle and then the bent nozzle.
• Straight nozzle
The mean streamwise velocities for the straight nozzles are shown for both RANS
and LES in Figure 4.18.
S2 S4 S5 S6
RANS
LES
S7 S8 S9
RANS
LES
Figure 4.18: Mean streamwise velocity (m/s) at different cross-sections.
44
4.2. LES - SINGLE PHASE
The velocity is quite the same for both turbulence models in the nozzle. However
there are significant differences in the chamber. In the RANS model, the jet keeps
the elliptical shape, expanding equally in all directions. In the LES model on
the other hand, the jet enters the chamber with an elliptical shape but turns into
a lemon shaped form in S8 and then turning into a star shaped form in S9. It
can also be seen that the LES jet is more expanded in the major axis in S8 and
then in S9 it expands more in the minor axis instead. This is known as axis-
switching and was observed experimentally in [3], [5] and [34]. It was also shown
from these experimental analyses that axis-switching plays an important role in the
entrainment characteristics, increasing the entrainment and the mixing process.
Further, the mean static pressure is depicted in Figure 4.19.
S2 S4 S5 S6
RANS
LES
S7 S8 S9
RANS
LES
Figure 4.19: Mean static pressure (Pa) at different cross-sections.
The mean static pressure in the nozzle is quite the same, except that LES shows
slightly higher values in cross-section S2 and S4. However there are significant
differences in the chamber. Firstly, it can be seen that the pressure in the core of
the jet is slightly higher in RANS at cross-section S7, LES shows on the other hand
much lower values around the jet. Then, in cross-section S8, the pressure around
the core of the jet has decreases greatly in LES and is much lower than the pressure
45
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
in RANS. In cross-section S9, the pressure in LES decreases more in the core and
at the minor axis side.
Turbulence intensities are depicted in Figure 4.20.
S2 S4 S6 S7
RANS
LES
S7 S8 S9
RANS
LES
Figure 4.20: Turbulence intensity at different cross-sections.
The turbulence levels in the nozzle is much lower in LES, this is because the
turbulent boundary conditions in LES was different which led to this differences.
However, the comparison is still valid since the amount of turbulence generated
at the shear layer is much higher in LES. Further, it is once again seen that the
differences are major in the chamber. Regarding the RANS model, it seems that
the turbulence level greatly increases in a circular manner (yellow region) around
the core of the jet. Regarding LES, it can be seen that the turbulence levels are
highest at the major axis of the jet. The LES model shows much higher turbulence
levels, i.e. it shows much higher fluctuations in velocity than the RANS model.
The pressure and turbulence intensity in the chamber regarding the LES model
show high consistency with axis-switching. To understand this behaviour, one needs
to know how axis-switching develops. According to Biot Savarts law, the self induced
velocity of a vortex filament is inversely proportional to the radius of curvature.
What happens is that the azimuthal vorticity rolls up into a elliptical vortex ring,
then the major axis moves ahead of the minor axis side because it has lower radius
of curvature and therefore higher induced velocity (velocity vectors showing this
motion is depicted in Figure 4.18). At the same time it curls up and moves towards
the core of the jet, which increases the turbulence levels and decreases the pressure
due to the strong curvature of the streamlines. Then this inclination increases the
46
curvature of the minor axis side, which then moves away from jet axis leading to
axis-switching. The advantage with axis switching is that when the major axis
shrinks it brings in surrounding fluid towards the jet axis and at the same time the
jet liquid is ejected outward on the minor axis side, which enhances entrainment
and mixing.
In short, the major differences between these two models in the simulation of
straight nozzles is shown to be in the chamber. Overall, the LES model showed
quite different behaviour unlike RANS, of these flow quantities, having much higher
turbulence levels and lower pressure. The LES model is able to captures the axis-
switching behaviour; which is very common for elliptical jets. The RANS model do
not predict a realistic flow because it do not account for anisotropic effects.
• Bent nozzles
The mean streamwise velocities for both RANS and LES models regarding the
bent nozzles are shown in Figures 4.21.
S2 S4 S5 S6
RANS
LES
S7 S8 S9
RANS
LES
Figure 4.21: Mean streamwise velocity (m/s) at different cross-sections.
It is seen in the nozzles that both cases show high similarities, except that the
RANS model shows lower velocity in the upperside of the nozzle (at right w.r.t. the
figure) in cross-section S2 and S4. It can also be seen that the flow near the wall
accelerates and this behaviour is stronger in the RANS case, this changes however
in S6. It is also shown in the chamber that the streamwise velocity in the core at
cross-section S7 are quite similar for both cases. However, the RANS model shows
higher velocity in the core as the jet moves downstream in the axial direction, while
in the LES model, the transfer of momentum seems faster in LES than RANS.
47
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
But what is most interesting is that the axis switching phenomenon has disap-
peared when including the bend. The reason for this is that axis-switching will not
occur without large-scale vortical structures. The vortical structures in the chamber
are depicted for both cases in Figure 4.22.
S7 S8
H2
V2
Figure 4.22: Mean streamwise vorticity (1/s) at different cross-sections.
There are two mechanisms that governs axis switching, the first one was already
mentioned, it is the difference in induced velocities of a rolled up azimuthal vortical
structure. The other is due to induced velocities of streamwise vortex pairs in the
flow. The straight model show pair of large vortical structures at the major axis
side. These vortices have equal and opposite strengths and they move with the same
induced velocity and the fluid between them have even higher speed, according to
Biot Savarts law. Overall, it can be seen that there are large scale vortical structures
in RANS while LES shows much smaller structures due to much higher turbulence
levels in the nozzle. The turbulence levels in the bent nozzle is also much higher
on the lower half of the jet, while it is much more uniform in the straight nozzle
around the jet in the chamber.
Further, the mean static pressure is depicted in Figure 4.23. It can be seen that
the pressure in cross-section S2 is highest at the lowerside of the nozzle (at left w.r.t.
the figure) as expected. However, it can be seen that the pressure is lowest in the
recirculation region (blue contour) at the sides of jet axis due to the secondary flow.
Further in S4, the RANS model shows quite uniform mean static pressure except at
the upperside of the nozzle (at right w.r.t. the figure) while LES shows high pressure
48
in the lowerside of the nozzle and low pressure in the upperside of the nozzle, which
means that the flow reattaches in RANS. Then in cross-sections S5-S6, the pressure
on the upper half of the nozzle is slightly lower in LES. In the chamber, the LES
model shows much lower pressure than RANS due to higher shear.
S2 S4 S5 S6
RANS
LES
S7 S8 S9
RANS
LES
Figure 4.23: Mean static pressure (Pa) at different cross-sections
The turbulent intensity for the bent nozzles is depicted in Figure 4.24.
S2 S4 S5 S6
RANS
LES
RANS
LES
Figure 4.24: Turbulence intensity (-) at different cross-sections
It is seen in the nozzle that the turbulence levels are quite different. The tur-
bulence levels increase greatly in cross-section S4 and LES shows higher turbulence
levels at the shear layer. Then in cross-sections S5 and S6, the turbulence levels
have decreased greatly. In the RANS model, the turbulence level becomes higher
towards the core of the jet as the flow travels downstream in the axial direction. In
49
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
the LES model on the other hand, the turbulence level becomes quite uniform from
the core of the jet to the upperside of the nozzle (at right w.r.t. the figure). Further,
it can be seen in the chamber that the turbulence level is higher in the LES model
and the surface it covers is also thicker. The RANS model shows on the other hand
high turbulence levels on the left region on the minor axis side. The turbulence
level in LES being more uniform around the jet implies better distribution of the
sheet.
Further, the velocity field and turbulence intensity are plotted at different cross-
sections in the nozzle and chamber, depicted in Figures 4.25 and 4.26.
Figure 4.25: Mean streamwise velocity profiles at different nozzle cross-sections
Firstly, it can be seen in the upperside of the nozzle (at top w.r.t. to the figure)
at cross-section S2 that the recirculating flow lead to the appearance of inflection
points in the velocity field for both cases, which indicate a higher degree of instability
as explained before. These inflection points are still present in the chamber for these
50
cases, seen in cross-section S7. Further, it can be seen in cross-section S5 that the
velocity in the upperside of the nozzle already starts to re-attach in LES, unlike the
velocity in RANS. In the chamber, the velocity profile in LES is much lower than
that of RANS and it decelerates rapidly with increase in axial distance.
The major difference in the turbulence intensity field is that the jet becomes
much more uniform in LES when entering the chamber, seen in cross-section S0.
This implies a better distributed sheet since turbulence in the nozzle is one of the
main break-up mechanism regarding the primary break-up of the jet. In the RANS
case on the other hand, the turbulence levels are much lower around the core of the
jet, but becomes more uniform further downstream in the nozzle (S9).
Figure 4.26: Turbulence intensity at different nozzle cross-sections
Further, a comparison between the LES models of straight and bent nozzle are
made of instantaneous contours of normalized Q-criterion and pressure for a vapour
pressure of 1329 Pa, depicted in Figure 4.27. The latter is included to further inves-
51
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
tigate the possibilities of cavitation. This figure shows the normalized Q-criterion
(red) for a value of 0.4 and the blue contours corrspond to vapour pressure. The vor-
tices for the bent nozzle initiate at the bend with a pair of elongated axial vortices
that further disintegrate downstream due to vortex stretching, which is enhanced by
centrifugal forces and pressure drop. On the other hand, the straight nozzle doesn’t
show any vortices at all in the nozzle but few just after the nozzle discharge. There
is a great deal of vortices at the bend corresponding to the vapour pressure. It
can also be seen that the pressure in the core of the elongated axial vortices at the
bend have reached the vapour pressure. This implies that the local pressure in the
core of the vortices are lower than the surrounding liquid pressure, which enhances
cavitation. The pressure contours in Figure 4.23 showed also very low values at
the upperside of the nozzle, also implying signs of cavitation. A cavitation model
has therefore been applied to the V2 nozzle to better understand this phenomenon.
The cavitation analysis is presented in detail in the next section.
Ellipse V2
Ellipse H2
Figure 4.27: Instantaneous isosurface of Q-criterion magnitude (red) and pressure

(blue) for p = 1329 Pa.
4.3 LES - Two phase

In this section we analyse the flow through V2 including a mathematical model
for cavitation within the LES framework. With the large scales of turbulence,
anisotropic effects are taken into account, which can lead to a better understand-
52
4.3. LES - TWO PHASE
ing of the relation between cavitation and turbulence, including the dynamics of
formation and spreading of the bubbles [36].
Before continuing with the present investigation, the pressure and volume frac-
tion are depicted in Figure 4.28 to understand the inception of cavitation and how
it develops in the nozzle.
a) b)
c)
Figure 4.28: a) Instantaneous static pressure (Pa), b) Instantaneous vapour volume

fraction (-), c) Instantaneous vorticity magnitude (1/s)
Firstly, it can be seen that the onset of cavitation is located approximately at

the beginning of the inner bend where red is pure vapour while blue is pure liquid.
Further we can see evidence of vortices in the pressure field. The black lines here
denotes the local pressure below saturated vapour pressure. We can see here that
secondary cavities are generated by the high vorticity downstream of the bend.
Further, the pressure starts to increase towards nozzle discharge and all the vapour
condenses approximately after the dark blue region in Figure 4.28 a).
The development of cavitation structures inside the nozzle is generated by the
decrease of local liquid pressure due to the curvature of the streamlines. Contours
of instantaneous λ2 -criterion and vapour volume fraction is therefore depicted in
Figure 4.29. The contours of λ2 -criterion in single phase flow are also depicted in
this figure. This comparison is important in order to determine the influence of
cavitation in vorticites and vice versa. The onset of cavitation is determined by
a vapor volume fraction of 20%. A larger value gives a smeared interface and a
53
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
smaller value withholds important parts of the result.
Single-
phase
Two- Dean Vortices

phase
Axial
vortices
a) Side View b) Top View
Side View zoom c) Back View d) Front View
Figure 4.29: Instantaneous isosurface of λ2 -criterion (red) and vapour volume frac-
tion (blue).
It is seen in Figure 4.29 a) in the single phase flow that Dean vortices have been
created and the vortical structures in single phase flow are generated by vortex
stretching, which changes the vorticity by production of velocity gradients due to
conservation of momentum. Further, it can be seen in the two-phase flow that the
vortical structures are amplified and greatly changed. For instance, it can be seen in
Figure 4.29 b) that the Dean vortices in single phase flow have changed form in the
two-phase flow. One can see how these vortical structures are turned into elongated
vortices within the vapour, which extends in both radial and streamwise directions.
Another change that is observed in the two-phase flow is the elongated axial vortices
in Figure 4.29 a). The centrifugal forces within these vortices decreases the pressure
below the saturated vapour pressure, enhancing cavitation. The vortical structures
in the two-phase flow are not only generated by vortex stretching as in the case
of single phase flow, but also through the baroclinic and compressibility terms.
The baroclinic term changes the vorticity by nonaligned gradients of pressure and
density. The compressibility term is the changes in density on vorticity. It is
54
clear from this comparison that the vortical structures of the flow are changed by
cavitation and that there is a strong relation between these two. Vorticity generates
cavitation through vortex stretching and at the same time, cavitation generates
vorticity through the baroclinic and compressibility term and vortex stretching by
the reduction of nozzle cross-section.
Further, the vapour liquid fraction is depicted in Figure 4.30, to give a clear
evaluation of cavitation within the nozzle. It is seen from this figure that the in-
ception of cavitation occurs just at the beginning of the inner bend in S1. Further,
vapour cavities grow inside the recirculation region. The cavitation structures de-
velops downstream in the recirculation region corresponding to the sheet-cavitation
regime with high content of vapour, more than 80%. The region within the white
lines correspond to vapour volume fraction of 20% which also is the cavitating vor-
tices, i.e. the region of concentrated vorticity where the pressure in the core of the
vortices are lower than the surrounding liquid pressure. What is also observed is
that the sheet cavity is separated in cross-section S3 due to re-entrant jet caused
by the curvature of the flow. Then in cross-section S4, the cavity region in the
upperside of the nozzle (at far right w.r.t. the figure) has separated from the wall
and split in half, which is due to the re-entrant jet and counter-rotating vortices.
S1 S2
S3 S4
Figure 4.30: Instantaneous vapour volume fraction field at different cross-section,

where red is pure vapour and blue is pure liquid.
The mean streamwise velocity, vorticity and static pressure are analysed to
better understand the behaviour of the flow at the region of vapour and how it
develops further downstream. These are depicted in Figures 4.31-4.33.
Cavitation develops as mentioned earlier due to decrease of static pressure and
strong curvature of the flow. This is seen in these figures, the static pressure is
very low due to the strong curvature of the flow, leading to the growth of vortical
structures in which the velocity is highly decelerated. The pressure is at the same
time very low in the axial vortices. Further downstream, where all the vapour
55
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
S2 S3 S4
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
S5 S6 0
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
S7 S8 S9
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
Figure 4.31: Mean streamwise velocity (m/s) at different nozzle cross-sections

S2 S3 S4
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
S5 S6 0
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
S7 S8 S9
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
Figure 4.32: Mean static pressure (Pa) at different nozzle cross-sections
condensates, the velocity increases at the upperside of the nozzle (at right w.r.t.
the figure) and the secondary flow is weakened. Comparing to single phase flow, it
can be seen that the mean streamwise velocity in the two-phase flow shows much
stronger curvature, especially in cross-section S4 and S5. Further, it can be seen
in the chamber that the velocity is more mixed in two-phase flow at cross-section
S9. It is also seen that the pressure is initially lower in the single phase flow in the
56
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6 0
S7 S8 S9
Figure 4.33: Mean streamwise vorticity (1/s) at different nozzle cross-sections
recirculation region. However, at cross-section S4, the pressure in the two-phase

flow rapidly decrease in the cavity region at the upperside of the nozzle (at right
w.r.t. to the figure) while the pressure in single phase flow rapidly increases. The
reason for this is that the pressure recovers in single phase flow while it doesn’t
in two phase flow due to cavitation. Further, it can be seen in the chamber that
the pressure is lower in single phase. It was seen earlier that the low pressure and
strong secondary flow was coupled with vorticity, where the pressure was lowest
in the core of the vortices. This is expected since the vorticity is mathematically
defined as the curl of the velocity vector. This confirms the relationship between
vorticity, turbulence and cavitation.
It was shown from experimental results that cavitation enhances turbulence in-
tensity, which leads to enhanced disintegration of the spray and leads in turn to bet-
ter mixing, as mentioned before. An analysis has therefore been made to investigate
whether cavitation increases the velocity fluctuations since the turbulence intensity
is directly proportional to the r.m.s of the velocity fluctuations. The streamwise
velocity fluctuations are depicted in Figure 4.34 in the nozzles. The streamwise ve-
locity fluctuations show higher values at cross-section S2 while showing lower values
further downstream in the cavity regions. It seems that the occurence of cavitation
increases velocity fluctuations in the beginning of cavitation, seen in cross-section
S2. Further downstream on the other hand, it seems to suppress the velocity fluctu-
ations. However, it is not entirely clear whether the occurence of cavitation increases
the velocity fluctuations. A comparison with the results in single phase flow have
therefore been analysed to better understand the relation between cavitation and
velocity fluctuations. It is seen in this comparison that cavitation suppress velocity
57
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
fluctuations in cross-section S3, but otherwise, it seems that it actually increases the
velocity fluctuations. It can also be seen in cross-section S4 that velocity fluctua-
tions are increased through compressibility and baroclinic terms due to high change
in density gradient at the interphase. Then in the chamber, the two phase flow
shows very high velocity fluctuations, unlike single phase flow.
S2 S3 S4
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
S5 S6 0
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
S7 S8 S9
2-PHASE
1-PHASE
Figure 4.34: Values of u02

x at different nozzle cross-sections
58
Chapter 5
Conclusion
Three dimensional simulations have been performed to investigate flow fields of in-
terest in the turbulent RANS and LES models in a single phase flow. The objective
was to analyse the influence of nozzle cross-section and curvature in the flow. Anal-
ysis of the flow have also been made including a mathematical model for cavitation
within the LES framework. The main objective was to investigate the influence of
cavitation in the flow. The main conclutions are listed below:
• Nozzle curvature is necessary to resolve the effect of flow separation and cavi-
tation in jet formation and mixing. Simulations can’t be simplified to injection
through nozzle hole. The discharge coefficient was fairly accurate with exper-
iments, there is therefore no need for simulations of entire injection systems
of tens of millions elements.
• The resolution of large turbulent scales is necessary to capture axis switching

in elliptical nozzles, which is responsible for large amount of mixing. This
phenomena dissaperad however in the bent nozzles and the question is whether
one should prefer enhanced mixing through the effects of the curvature or axis
switching. Since mixing is enhanced through cavitation and turbulence in the
nozzle, and the fact that cavitation leads to damage to the injector walls,
then it seems that axis switching is more preferable. The RANS model is not
enough to describe a realistic flow in the injector, because RANS is unable to
solve large unsteady flow structures and dont account for anisotropic effects.
Cavitation has a strong impact on the flow fields and should therefore be
included in the mathematical model.
• Strong relation between cavitation and vorticity. Vorticity generates cavita-

tion through vortex streching and cavitation generates vorticity through baro-
clinic and compressibility terms and vortex streching by reduction of nozzle
cross-section.
59
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION
• Even though velocity fluctuations are suppressed inside vapour cavities, the
occurrence of cavitation increases velocity fluctuations inside the nozzle, which
has a beneficial impact in jet breakup.
• Elliptical nozzles with vertically oriented major axis are more prone to develop
cavitation. The fact that it also shows higher turbulence levels indicates that
elliptical nozzles will provide better atomization and enhanced mixing.
60
Bibliography
[1] Wang. X & Li. K & Su. W "Experimental and numerical investigations on
internal flow characteristiscs of diesel nozzle under real fuel injection con-
ditions". Tianjin, China. in Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 42
204-211. 2012
[2] Payri. F & Bermudes. R & Salvador. F.J & Payri. R "The influence of cav-
itation on the internal flow and the spray characteristics in diesel injection
nozzles". Valencia, Spain. in Fuel 83 419-431. 2004
[3] Ming Ho. C & Gutmark. E. "Vortex induction and mass entrainment in a
small-aspect-ratio elliptic jet". Los Angeles, USA. in J. Fluid Mech. vol. 179.
pp. 383-405. 1987
[4] Molina. S & Salvador. F.J. & Carreres. D & Jaramillo. D "A computational
investigation on the influence of the use of elliptical orifices on the inner nozzle
flow and cavitation development in diesel injector nozzles". Valencia, Spain.
in Energy Conversion and Management 79, 114-127. 2014
[5] Miller. R.S & Madnia. C.K & Carreres. D & Givi. P "Numerical simulation
of non-circular jets". NY, USA. in Computers and Fluids. vol. 24, No. 1, pp,
1-25. 1995
[6] Martines Lopez. J & Salvador. F.J. & Caballer. M & De Alfonso. C "Study of
the influence of the needle lift on the internal flow and cavitation phenomenon
in diesel injector nozzles by CFD using RANS methods". Valencia, Spain. in
Energy Conversion and Management 66, 246-256. 2013
[7] Mi. J & Nathan. G.J "Statistical properties of turbulent free jets issuing from
nine differently-shaped nozzles". in Flow Turbulence Combust 84, 583-606.
2010
[8] Kasyap. T.V & Sivakumar. D & Raghunandan. B.N "Flow and breakup char-
acteristics of elliptical liquid jets". in International Journal of Multiphase
Flow 35, 8-9. 2009
[9] Qumrul H. Mazumder "CFD Analysis of Single and Multiphase Flow Char-
acteristics in Elbow". in Engineering 210-214 2012
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[10] Jongtae. K & Mohan. Y & Seungjin. K "Characteristics of Secondary Flow

Induced by 90-degree Elbow in Turbulent Pipe Flow". in Engineering Applica-
tions of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 229-239 2014
[11] Zuo-Yu. S & Guo-Xiu. L & Chuan. C & Yu-Song. Y & Guo-Xi. G "Numerical
investigation on effects of nozzle’s geometric parameters on the flow and the
cavitation characteristics within injector’s nozzle for a high-pressure common-
rail DI diesel engine". in Energy Conversion and Management 89, 843-861
2015
[12] ANSYS, Inc "Ansys Fluent Theory Guide". http://orange.engr.ucdavis.

edu/Documentation12.0/120/FLUENT/flth.pdf 2009
[13] Baumgarten. C "Mixture Formation in Internal Combustion Engine". in Heat

and Mass Transfer pp 5-46. 2006
[14] Altimira. M "Analysis of Atomization Systems through Mathematical Mod-

eling and Experimentation: Application to Industrial Fan-Spray Atomizers".
December 2010
[15] Yeoh. G. H & Yuen. K. K "Computational Fluid Dynamics in Fire Engineering

- Theory, Modelling and Practice". December 2009
[16] Dean. W.R "Note on the motion of fluid in a curved pipe". in Philosophical
Magazine, vol. 14, p. 208 1927
[17] Wikimedia Commons "A waterjet cutting aluminum". https://commons.

wikimedia.org/wiki/File\%3AWaterjet-cutting-close-up.jpg 2007
[18] DELPHI "Delphi diesel fuel injector". http://delphi.com/manufacturers/

auto/powertrain/diesel/inject/diesel-fuel-injectors 2014
[19] The Official Ferrari Magazine "Painting in Industrial Automa-

tion". http://magazine.ferrari.com/blog/2011/08/458-italia-let’
s-discover-paint-shop/ 2014
[20] Kool Mist "Kool Mist Automatic Cooling System". http://www.koolmist.

com 2015
[21] Giannadakis. E, Gavaises. M "Modelling of cavitation in diesel injector noz-

zles". in Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 616, pp. 153-193 2008
[22] Wilcox. D.C "Re-assessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced

turbulence models" in AIAA Journal, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1299-1310. 1988
[23] Menter. R "Zonal Two Equation k − ω Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic

Flows." in 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference 1993
[24] Brennen. C.E "Cavitation and bubble dynamics" ISBN 0521848040 2005
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[25] Roache. P.J "Verification and Validation in Computational Science and En-
gineering" 1998.
[26] Reitz. R.D, Bracco, F.V "Mechanismsof Breakup of Round Liquid Jets" in
Enzyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics, NJ, 3, pp 233-249 1986
[27] Payri. F, Payri. R, BermÃºdez. V, Salvador. F.J "The influence of cavitation

on the internal flow and the spray characteristics in diesel injection nozzles"
in Fuel 83, 419-431 2004
[28] Mohammad. T.S, Tabara. SP, Morteza. G "Numerical Study on the Effect of
the Cavitation Phenomenon on the Characteristics of Fuel Spray" in Mathe-
matical and Computer Modelling 56, 105-117 2012
[29] Soteriou. C, Andrews. R, Smith. M "Direct Injection Diesel Sprays and the
Effect of Cavitation and Hydraulic Flip on Atomization" in SAER paper
950080 1995
[30] Soteriou. C, Andrews. R, Smith. M "Diesel Injection - Laser Light Sheet

Illumination of the Development of Cavitation in orifices" in IMechE
C529/018/98 1998
[31] Rowe. M "Measurments and Computations of Flow in Pipe Bends" in J. Fluid

Mech. vol. 43, part 4, pp 771-783 1970
[32] Enayet. M.M, Gibson. M.M, Taylor. A.M.K.P, Yianneskis. M "Laser-Doppler

measurements of laminar and turbulent flow in a pipe bend" in IMechE
C529/018/98 1998
[33] Azzola. J, Humphrey. J.A.C, Lacovides. H, Launder. B.E "Developing Turbu-

lent Flow in a U-Bend of Circular Cross-Section: Measurement and Compu-
tation" in Int. J. Heat & Fluid Flow 1982
[34] Hussain. F, Husain. S.H "Elliptic jets. Part 1. Characteristics of unexcited

and excited jets" in J. Fluid Mech. vol. 208, pp. 257-320 1989
[35] Patankar. S.V "Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow" ISBN 978-0-89116-
522-4. 1980
[36] Altimira. M, Fuchs. L "Numerical investigation of throttle flow under cavitat-

ing conditions" in International Journal of Multiphase Flow. Volume 75, pp
124-136. 2015
[37] Franc. J.P "The Rayleigh-Plesset equation: a simple and powerful tool to
understand various aspects of cavitation" in CISM International Cente of
Mechanical sciences. Volume 496, pp 1-41 2007
63
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[38] Javier Lopes. J, Salvador. F.J, Oscar A. de la Garza, Arregle. J "A compre-
hensive study on the effect of cavitation on injection velocity in diesel nozzles"
in energy Conversion and Management 64, 415-423 2012
[39] Payri. R, Garcia. J.M, Salvador, F.J, Gimeno. J "Using spray momentum flux
measurements to understand the influence of diesel nozzle geometry on spray
characteristics" in Computers and Fluids 58, 88-101 2012
64

CFD Nozzle Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CFD Nozzle Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

CFD Nozzle Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CFD analysis of nozzle effect on jet formation

Analysis of mixing performance, turbulence and flow instability

Master’s Thesis in Aeronautical Engineering

I also want to thank my examinator Mihai Mihaescu

I have also Alexander Nygård to thank, he spent a lot

Finally, I want to thank Johan Malmberg for all the

1 Introduction & Background 1

3 Models & Setup 19

Introduction & Background

(a) Fuel injector (b) Cutting

(c) Painting (d) Cooling

Figure 1.1: Example of Jet application in industry. Pictures from [17]-[20]

and evaporation. Regarding painting applications, a uniform distribution of droplets

• The most important challenge of fuel injection in internal combustion engines

• Further, high injection pressure is required to obtain a high level of atom-

3. The second wind-induced regime. The break-up mechanism in this regime is

4. Atomization regime. In this regime, the jet is completely disrupted at nozzle

Figure 1.3: Cavitation [21]

1.2 Atomization of fuel jets

Figure 1.4: Break-up of a full-cone diesel spray [13]

1.3 Secondary flow

(b) recirculation region [13]

(a) Counter-rotating vor-

• Finally the impact of simplifications in the injector geometry and mathemat-

2.1 Governing equations

2.2 Turbulence modeling

2.2.1 RANS turbulence models

τij = −u0i u0j (2.6)

RANS simulations were made in FLUENT which provides three different k − 

Table 2.1: Closure constants

Near wall treatment

Figure 2.1: Law of the wall

2.3 Multiphase flow

2.3.1 Volume of fluid

ρ = αρl + (1 − α)ρg (2.30)

µ = αµl + (1 − α)µg (2.31)

Models & Setup

Dh Nozzle type a(µm) b(µm) Area(m2 ) Dh (µm)

Figure 3.1: Nozzle Table 3.1: Nozzle types

Figure 3.2: Computational domain for RANS simulations of straight nozzles

3.2 Discretization of the computational domain

Figure 3.3: Submerged jet of straight pipes

Figure 3.4: Mesh for case 1.1

Figure 3.5: Mesh for case 2.4

1. RANS straight nozzles k kω Grid sen. Software

3.4 Boundary conditions

Figure 3.6: Boundary conditions for straight pipe

Simulations have been solved using the pressure-velocity coupling algorithm,

GCIcourse = sg · GCIf ine (3.3)

Figure 3.8: Grid sensitivity analysis for cases 2.1-2.3

∆P (MPa) ṁ(g/s) CD (−)

The second term in the equation of Rayleigh-plesset (2.33) is the contribution of

Figure 3.9: Characteristic time scales versus length scale.

simplified Rayleigh-Plesset equation is therefore enough for solving the dynamics of

3.7 Comparison of turbulence models

Mean Velocity magnitude Turbulence Intensity

In Figure 3.10, both turbulent two-equation models shows similar behaviour,

Velocity Turbulence Intensity

RANS simulations were made in FLUENT which provides three different k −

1. RANS straight nozzles k kω Grid sen. Software