Доступ предоставлен для: Guest
Портал Begell Электронная Бибилиотека e-Книги Журналы Справочники и Сборники статей Коллекции
Atomization and Sprays
Импакт фактор: 1.262 5-летний Импакт фактор: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 1.6

ISSN Печать: 1044-5110
ISSN Онлайн: 1936-2684

Выпуски:
Том 29, 2019 Том 28, 2018 Том 27, 2017 Том 26, 2016 Том 25, 2015 Том 24, 2014 Том 23, 2013 Том 22, 2012 Том 21, 2011 Том 20, 2010 Том 19, 2009 Том 18, 2008 Том 17, 2007 Том 16, 2006 Том 15, 2005 Том 14, 2004 Том 13, 2003 Том 12, 2002 Том 11, 2001 Том 10, 2000 Том 9, 1999 Том 8, 1998 Том 7, 1997 Том 6, 1996 Том 5, 1995 Том 4, 1994 Том 3, 1993 Том 2, 1992 Том 1, 1991

Atomization and Sprays

DOI: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.2015011556
pages 1063-1080

NUMERICAL MODELS FOR SIMULATION OF CAVITATION IN DIESEL INJECTOR NOZZLES

Baris Bicer
Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, 5-1-1, Fukaeminami, Higashinada, 658-0022 Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Akira Sou
Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, Japan

Краткое описание

This paper examines the applicability of the following three different combinations of cavitation models to simulate cavitating flows in a nozzle of liquid fuel injector for diesel engines. The first model in a house code consists of the Lagrangian bubble tracking method (BTM), the Rayleigh-Plesset (RP) equation, and large eddy simulation (LES). The second model is the combination of the homogeneous equilibrium model (HEM), a barotropic (Baro) equation, and the RANS turbulence model (k-ω SST). The last one utilizes HEM, RANS (k-ε, k-ω SST), and the mass transfer model (MTM), in which bubble dynamics is calculated by the simplified RP equation. OpenFOAM is used for the simulations with the second and third models. Unsteady cavitation in a rectangular injector nozzle is captured by a high-speed camera and the turbulent velocity in the nozzle is measured by laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV); they are compared with the numerical results. As a result, the following conclusions are obtained. The BTM/RP/LES model gives a good prediction for the cavitation length and thickness, as well as cavitation cloud shedding. However, it requires a fine grid and a long CPU time, and is applicable only to incipient cavitation. The HEM/Baro/RANS approach results in a wrong prediction for cavitation length and thickness, and underestimation of the turbulence velocity. It cannot reproduce unsteady cavitation behavior. The combination of HEM/MTM/RANS gives good prediction for the cavitation length and thickness with a relatively coarse grid, and therefore with a short CPU time.


Articles with similar content:

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF LIQUID JET DEFORMATION BASED ON HYBRID COMBINATION OF INTERFACE TRACKING AND BUBBLE TRACKING METHODS
Multiphase Science and Technology, Vol.17, 2005, issue 1-2
Akio Tomiyama, Akira Sou
CFD SIMULATION OF TWO PHASE ANNULAR FLOW IN NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
4th Thermal and Fluids Engineering Conference, Vol.28, 2019, issue
Ekhwaiter Abobaker, Mohammad Azizur Rahman, John Shirokoff
LARGE EDDY SIMULATION OF FUEL-SPRAY UNDER NON-REACTING IC ENGINE CONDITIONS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.23, 2013, issue 10
E. Pomraning, Qingluan Xue, Sibendu Som, Peter K. Senecal
Analysis of the turbulent flow through a turn-around duct by contrasting different modelling approaches
ICHMT DIGITAL LIBRARY ONLINE, Vol.0, 2012, issue
Branislav Basara
AN ADAPTIVE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD WITH DYNAMIC LES FOR TURBULENT REACTIVE FLOWS
Computational Thermal Sciences: An International Journal, Vol.8, 2016, issue 1
David Carrington, Jiajia Waters, Darrell W. Pepper