Two Phase Tutorial

Two-Phase Flow
2006 CTR Summer Program

Tutorial
Marcus Herrmann
Center for Turbulence Research
Stanford University
Overview
Introduction
Modeling two-phase flow
Schemes assuming the phase interface geometry
Schemes tracking the phase interface geometry
Tracking the interface
Coupling the interface to the flow solver
Sub-grid scale modeling
Coupling
Summary
August 2nd, 2006
Two-Phase Flow Tutorial
What is Two-Phase Flow?

Matter commonly occurs in one of three phases:
solid
liquid
gas
Any flow involving two of the three phases is a two-phase flow

Examples:
dust storms
sediment transport in rivers
flash floods
clouds
The focus in this tutorial will be on liquid/gas flows
August 2nd, 2006
Liquid/Gas Flows
Liquid/gas interfaces occur in a wide variety of
natural phenomena and technical processes:
Ocean waves
Geysers
Inkjets
Deposition and coating
wave breaking
Firefighting
Pest control
Tire splash
Combustion devices
SCRAM jets
Direct injection IC-engines
Gas turbines
truck tire splash
Cryogenic rocket engines
LOX+GH2 cold jet (Mayer et al. 01)

August 2nd, 2006
Challenges of Modeling Liquid/Gas Flows

Phase interface separating the liquid from the gas is extremely thin
discontinuity
Density change across the phase interface is large
air/water: 816
air/magma: 4000
air/liquid steel: 10000
Phase interface exerts a localized surface tension

force on the liquid
Phase transition
Topology changes
Vast range of time and length scales are common
Example: Atomization of a liquid jet in a turbulent environment
atomization in combustion devices
August 2nd, 2006
Atomization in Combustion Devices

coaxial atomization
Fuel is typically injected as a liquid

Combustion occurs only in the
gaseous phase
Atomize liquid to enhance evaporation
Challenges:
phase interface is a discontinuity

density contrast is high: O(100)
surface tension forces
frequent topology changes
range of scales: from cm to m
large phase interface surface area
phase transition
interaction with turbulence
Marmottant & Villermaux 2002
How can one model/simulate this?

Lasheras et al. 1998
August 2nd, 2006
Atomization in Combustion Devices

coaxial atomization
Fuel is typically injected as a liquid

Combustion occurs only in the
gaseous phase
Atomize liquid to enhance evaporation
Challenges:
phase interface is a discontinuity

density contrast is high: O(100)
surface tension forces
frequent topology changes
range of scales: from cm to m
large phase interface surface area
phase transition
interaction with turbulence
How can one model/simulate this?

divide and conquer
August 2nd, 2006
Marmottant & Villermaux 2002
Modeling the Atomization Process

Split atomization into primary & secondary
atomization:
Primary atomization:
Initial breakup of liquid jets or sheets into large and
small structures (ligaments/drops) close to the
injection nozzle
Complex interface topology of mostly large scale

coherent liquid structures
Total phase interface surface area is small
Secondary atomization:
Subsequent breakup into ever smaller drops
forming a spray
Simple geometry of small scale liquid drops
Total phase interface surface area is large
Volume loading is small
August 2nd, 2006

atomization:
injection nozzle
Subsequent breakup into ever smaller drops forming
a spray
August 2nd, 2006

atomization:
injection nozzle
track the phase interface

Subsequent breakup into ever smaller drops forming
a spray
assume the drop geometry

August 2nd, 2006
Modeling Secondary Atomization

If one can assume that:
liquid has simple geometry: drops = solid spheres
liquid density >> gas density
volume loading is small, i.e. inter-drop distance is large
drop size is smaller than grid size
effect of shear on droplet motion can be neglected
Point-particle approach:
particle position
particle velocity
gas velocity
liquid density
gas density
gravitational accel.
particle diameter
with
August 2nd, 2006

Consider more realistic physics by relaxing some of the assumptions,
for example:
allow drops to be ellipsoidal [Helenbrook & Edwards 02]
take drops internal circulation into account [Helenbrook & Edwards 02]
Phase transition models:

particle mass
particle temperature
liquid specific heat
effective heat transfer
coefficient
latent heat of evaporation
use Spalding mass and heat transfer numbers and Clausius-Clapeyrons

vapor-pressure equilibrium relation for
apply convective correction factors for high Reynolds numbers
August 2nd, 2006

Coupling to gas phase:
Source term in continuity and mixture fraction
equation
Source term in momentum equations
Interpolation operator from particle position to cv-centroids

: local grid size
August 2nd, 2006
Example
Glass particles injection into swirling flow in coaxial geometry
Experiment [Sommerfeld & Qiu 91]
Simulation [Apte et al. 03]
1.6 million hexas, 1.1 million particles
D10 = 45 m, log-normal size distribution
Re = 26200
August 2nd, 2006
Example
LES, Apte et al. IJMF 2003
Experiments, Sommerfeld & Qiu 1991
Mean Axial Velocity
RMS of Axial Velocity
Mean Radial Velocity
RMS of Radial Velocity
Mean Swirl Velocity
RMS of Swirl Velocity
Gas phase
August 2nd, 2006
Example
Mean Axial Velocity
RMS of Axial Velocity
Mean Radial Velocity
RMS of Radial Velocity
Mean Swirl Velocity
RMS of Swirl Velocity
Mean Particle Diameter
RMS of Particle Diameter
Particle phase
August 2nd, 2006
Evaporation Example
Isopropyl alcohol into non-swirling flow in coaxial geometry
Experiment [Sommerfeld & Qiu 98]
Simulation [Moin & Apte 06]
1.5 million hexas, 0.75 million particles
droplet size distribution from experiment
Re = 21164
Fuel Mass
Fraction
Axial
Velocity
August 2nd, 2006
Evaporation Example
Experiments
LES
Axial Velocity
Particle Mass
Flux
Diameter
August 2nd, 2006
Breakup Modeling
TAB (Taylor Analogy Breakup) Model [Taylor 63]:
analyze droplet distortion by spring-mass system:
external force = droplet drag force
spring force = surface tension force
damping force = droplet viscous force
initiate breakup when distortion x/R > 0.5

determine children drop size from energy conservation
applicability: low Weber numbers
Wave Breakup Model [Reitz 87]:

assume drops breakup due to Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
applicability: high Weber numbers
Stochastic Breakup Model [Apte et al. 03]:

use Fokker-Planck equation for drop radius
obtain breakup frequency and critical radius from balance of aerodynamic
and surface tension forces
children drop sizes from Fokker-Planck equation
applicable to turbulent flows
August 2nd, 2006
Simulating Secondary Atomization

Lagrangian point particle tracking
Number of drops can be huge, order tens of millions
large computational cost
Drops are typically confined to a relatively small region of the whole
computational domain
load balancing difficult
Alternative strategies:
Hybrid particle parcel technique
group drops of similar size, location and properties into a single parcel
solve Lagrangian equations for averaged properties of the parcel
Solve for PDFs of particle properties instead of individual drops

pdf transport equations
solve for moments of the pdf and presume the pdf shape
DQMOM
August 2nd, 2006
10
Breakup Example
Liquid jet injected into chamber
Experiment [Hiroyasu & Kudota 74]
0.4 million uniform cells
initial droplet size = jet diameter
stochastic breakup and hybrid particle/parcel technique
P = 1.1 MPa
August 2nd, 2006
Breakup Example
Liquid jet injected into chamber
Experiment [Hiroyasu & Kudota 74]
0.4 million uniform cells
initial droplet size = jet diameter
stochastic breakup and hybrid particle/parcel technique
Penetration Depth
August 2nd, 2006
Problems of Spray Models

Results are sensitive to the initial drop size distribution
need to have experimental data of initial drop size distribution
tune initial drop size distribution to give experimental data down-stream
guess initial distribution
assume initial drop size = injector (violates assumptions in model derivation)
Represent coherent liquid core by collection of particles of equal mass
Need predictive capability of initial drop size distribution
primary atomization modeling

August 2nd, 2006
Modeling Primary Atomization in LES
Phase interface geometry is partially resolved by LES grid:

track large scale interface geometry + model sub-grid physics
Large Surface Structure (LSS) model
Couple LSS model to secondary atomization spray model
August 2nd, 2006
Track the phase interface

Couple to flow solver
Model sub-grid scale physics
Couple to spray model
August 2nd, 2006

August 2nd, 2006
Tracking Interfaces
Common numerical methods:
Moving grids
+ very accurate for small
deformations
very complex
topology changes & normal movement difficult
Marker particles
+ accurate
very complex in 3D
topology changes by manual intervention:
challenging in 3D
normal interface movement not handled
automatically
Volume-of-Fluid (VoF)
+ good volume conservation
interface geometry reconstruction challenging

normal interface movement not straightforward
Level sets
+ simple interface geometry
reconstruction
+ normal interface movement
handled automatically
August 2nd, 2006
not inherently volume conserving
Moving Grids
Represent phase interface by grid
nodes on the interface
Move interface grid nodes by Lagrangian
transport
can result in large grid deformations
[Scardovelli & Zaleski 1999

from J. Magnaudet and coworkers]
re-griding necessary
Successful for small interface deformations

Topology changes difficult
Normal interface movement (phase change)
difficult
August 2nd, 2006
[Scardovelli & Zaleski 1999

from McHyman 1984]
Tracking Interfaces
Moving grids
deformations
very complex
Marker particles
+ accurate
very complex in 3D
challenging in 3D
automatically

Level sets
reconstruction
August 2nd, 2006
Marker Particles
Track phase interface by Lagrangian
marker particles in a fixed grid
Phase interface can be reconstructed by
polynomials through neighboring marker
particles
phase interface geometry is very accurate
(normal, curvature)
need to keep connectivity information of
markers
topology changes are difficult
[Scardovelli & Zaleski 1999]
Normal interface movement (phase change) difficult

Does provide sub-grid phase interface resolution
August 2nd, 2006
10
Tracking Interfaces
Moving grids
deformations
very complex
Marker particles
+ accurate
very complex in 3D
challenging in 3D
automatically

Level sets
reconstruction
August 2nd, 2006
11
Volume of Fluid
Represent phase interface by liquid volume fraction in each cell
August 2nd, 2006
12
Volume of Fluid
August 2nd, 2006
13
Volume of Fluid
August 2nd, 2006
14
Volume of Fluid
Move phase interface by solving PDE
How?
standard advection schemes have too much dispersion
use artificial compression to preserve jump in
reconstruct interface geometry and perform geometric flux calculation
August 2nd, 2006
15
Volume of Fluid
Represent phaseinterface by liquid volume fraction
in each cell
PLIC
m
How?
calculate normal direction to interface
August 2nd, 2006
16
Volume of Fluid
Represent phaseinterface by liquid volume fraction
in each cell
PLIC
m
How?
assume interface in each cell is planar

find plane normal to m that has liquid cell volume
August 2nd, 2006
17
Volume of Fluid
How?
assume interface in each cell is planar

find plane normal to m that has liquid cell volume
PLIC
August 2nd, 2006
18
Volume of Fluid
Geometric flux calculation
Eulerian:
F : wetted cell face area
n : cell face normal
Lagrangian:
perform directional operator splitting
advect planar interface by linearly
interpolated velocities in each cell
calculate change in liquid volume in
cell and neighbors
CFL number 0.5

[Gueyffier et al. 1999]
August 2nd, 2006
19
Volume of Fluid
Problems in practical applications:
Volume of Fluid method is not exactly volume preserving
> 1 or < 0 possible
is not = 1 in liquid or = 0 in gas ( = or = 1-) wisps
lower order geometric interface reconstruction yields flotsam
interface curvature not easily calculated
height function approach, PROST (quadratic interface reconstruction)
combining geometric flux calculation and normal interface movement
(phase change) difficult
August 2nd, 2006
20
Tracking Interfaces
Moving grids
deformations
very complex
Marker particles
+ accurate
very complex in 3D
challenging in 3D
automatically

Level sets
reconstruction
August 2nd, 2006
Tracking Interfaces with Level Sets

Define
Level set equation
: velocity
: phase change vel.
G for G G0 is arbitrary
usually chosen to be signed distance function with
G0 = 0:
but also smeared Heaviside function with G0 = 0.5:

[Olsson & Kreiss 05]
level set scalar for a 2D circle

August 2nd, 2006
Solving the Level Set Equation

Level set transport equation is a Hamilton-Jacobi PDE
Front can develop corners in finite time
weak solution
Example: front with phase

change
[Sethian 96]
need the weak solution to the PDE

Use upwind-biased WENO schemes for Hamilton-Jacobi equations
with appropriate flux functions
5th-order WENO with Roe/LLF flux function
Use higher order TVD Runge-Kutta schemes for time advancement

3rd-order TVD Runge-Kutta
August 2nd, 2006
Level Set Toolbox

Interface geometric properties:
Liquid volume and phase interface surface area:
For numerical purposes use smeared out versions, usually:
with
and
but: no convergence under grid refinement! [Engquist et al. 05]
Instead use [Engquist et al. 05] :
with
August 2nd, 2006
Level Set Toolbox

How to keep G a distance function (reinitialization), i.e.
:
[Sussman et al. 94]
with
and
[Peng et al. 99]
How to extend a quantity defined on to the whole domain (redistribution),

i.e.
:
[Peng et al. 99]
with
Pros and cons of PDE based reinitialization and redistribution:
+ easy to implement and parallelize for domain decomposition
- costly due to pseudo-time iteration
- tend to move the interface and smooth
August 2nd, 2006
Level Set Toolbox

Alternatives to PDE based reinitialization and redistribution:
Fast Marching Method (FMM)
discretize
and
solve resulting quadratic equations moving along characteristics

characteristics = normal vectors pointing away from the interface
use values on the interface as Dirichlet boundary conditions
Pros and Cons of FMM:
+ low operation count: O(N log N)
- domain decomposition parallelization complicated and parallel efficiency
dependent on surface geometry [Herrmann 03]
Fast Sweeping Method (FSM)

similar to FMM, but instead of following characteristics, perform directional back
and forth sweeps along the coordinate axis
Pros and Cons of FSM:
+ higher operation count than FMM
- easier domain decomposition parallelization, but efficiency dependent on interface
geometry
August 2nd, 2006
Tracking Interfaces
Moving grids
deformations
very complex
Marker particles
+ accurate
very complex in 3D
challenging in 3D
automatically

Level sets
reconstruction
August 2nd, 2006
Volume Conservation & Level Sets

Numerically, the volume of each fluid is not inherently preserved:
Couple level set to volume preserving scheme, for example VoF or marker
particles (Enright et al. 02):
Use secondary scheme to identify and correct local errors in level set
Problem: local correction can introduce large errors in higher derivatives of G
curvature
Example: 2D regularized vortex sheet rollup
August 2nd, 2006
Vortex Sheet Rollup

target solution

particles:
initial conditions
curvature
t=3
Example: 2D regularized vortex sheet rollup:
target solution
August 2nd, 2006
standard level set
particle corrected
level set
9
Vortex Sheet Rollup

target solution

particles:
initial conditions
curvature
=3
Example: 2D de-singularized vortex sheett rollup:
curvature distribution
particle corrected
level set
target solution
August 2nd, 2006
10

curvature
Delocalization techniques only partially successful [Coyajee et al. 04]
Increase fidelity of level set solution:

Volume error ~ grid resolution
refine level set grid independent of flow solver grid:
Refined Level Set Grid Method

August 2nd, 2006
11
Vortex Sheet Rollup

target solution

particles [Enright et al 02]:
initial conditions
curvature
=3
[Coyajee et al. 04]
Delocalization techniques only partially tsuccessful

Volume error ~ grid resolution refine level set grid independent
of flow solver grid:

Example: 2D regularized vortex sheet rollup:
target solution
August 2nd, 2006
standard level set

RLSG
12
Vortex Sheet Rollup

target solution

particles [Enright et al 02]:
initial conditions
curvature
=3
[Coyajee et al. 04]
Delocalization techniques only partially tsuccessful

Volume error ~ grid curvature
resolution distribution
refine level set grid independent
of flow solver grid:

target solution
August 2nd, 2006
RLSG
13

curvature
Delocalization techniques only partially successful [Coyajee et al. 04]

Volume error ~ grid resolution
refine level set grid independent of flow solver grid:

Efficiency? two-layer narrow band approach
August 2nd, 2006
14

Front on a flow solver grid
August 2nd, 2006
15

Introduce equidistant Cartesian
super-grid (blocks)
August 2nd, 2006
16

super-grid (blocks)
Activate (store) only narrow
band of blocks
August 2nd, 2006
17

super-grid (blocks)
band of blocks
Active blocks consist of an equidistant Cartesian fine G-grid
August 2nd, 2006
18

super-grid (blocks)
band of blocks
Activate (store) only
narrow band of fine G-grid
August 2nd, 2006
19

super-grid (blocks)
band of blocks
Activate (store) only
narrow band of fine G-grid
Solve and store all level set equations only on active cells of G-grid:
cost is only O(N2), not O(N3) high resolution: xGxfs
Efficient domain decomposition parallelization straightforward
Fast and accurate Cartesian solution techniques for HJ-PDEs can be used
(5th order WENO, FMM)
August 2nd, 2006
20
RLSG Results: Vortex in a Box

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
initial conditions
Flow solver:
64 x 64 cells
RLSG:
512 x 512 cells max
Flow solver
volume fraction
0t3
August 2nd, 2006
21

512x512
t=3
Flow solver:
64 x 64 cells
RLSG:
128 x 128 cells max
Flow solver
volume fraction
0t3
August 2nd, 2006
22

512x512
Total Volume
t=3
128x128
t=3
August 2nd, 2006
23

512x512
Total Volume
t=3
128x128
t=3
August 2nd, 2006
24
Sphere in a Deformation Field
initial conditions
Flow solver:
643 cells
RLSG:
2563 cells max
RLSG
G = G0 iso-surface
0 t 1.5
August 2nd, 2006
25

2563
RLSG 2563
RLSG 1283
t = 1.5
RLSG
1283
643
t = 1.5
Flow solver: 643 cells

August 2nd, 2006
26

2563
RLSG 2563
RLSG 1283
t = 1.5
RLSG
1283
643
t = 1.5

August 2nd, 2006
27

August 2nd, 2006
28
Coupling to Flow Solver

Approaches:
Interface conforming grids
Deform grid such that cell faces conform to phase interface, then use
jump conditions across the interface as boundary conditions
One fluid approach on non-conforming grids

Ghost fluid method [Fedkiw et al. 99]
In-cell reconstruction technique [Smiljanovski 96]
Assume gas and liquid are one fluid with change in density and
composition at the phase interface
August 2nd, 2006
29

Approaches

August 2nd, 2006
30
Jump conditions at the phase interface

In most applications the phase interface can be treated as a
discontinuity
Jump conditions at the phase interface:
Alternatives: resolve change of quantities through the interface

Navier-Stokes-Korteweg equations
Cahn-Hilliard equations
August 2nd, 2006
31

Approaches

August 2nd, 2006
32
Ghost Fluid Method

Applicable to finite difference methods
Define a ghost fluid: ghost air in
liquid, ghost liquid in air
For ghost fluid state:
extrapolate all quantities that jump
across the interface
keep all quantities that have zero
jump
For all gradients near/across the interface use only air/ghost air or
liquid/ghost liquid states
controls dispersion errors for quantities that have non-zero jump
For higher order: perform Taylor expansion within one fluid and apply
jump conditions at the interface
August 2nd, 2006
33
In-Cell Reconstruction
Applicable to finite volume methods
All cells with part of the interface
reconstruct in-cell gas and liquid
state from
All single phase cells close to

interface apply jump conditions to define ghost state
For all gradients near/across the interface use only the same phase
(true, reconstructed, or jumped)
eliminates dispersion errors for quantities that have non-zero jump
August 2nd, 2006
34

Approaches

August 2nd, 2006
35
One Fluid Approach

Navier-Stokes equations for two-phase, incompressible flows in non-conservative form:
: surface tension force
Marker particles:
interpolate gradient of density to grid:
solve Poisson system for
For finite volume Navier-Stokes solver:
: liquid density, viscosity
: gas density, viscosity
Flow solver liquid volume fraction

VoF: tracks
directly
Level set:
or
August 2nd, 2006
[van der Pijl et al. 2004]
36
One Fluid Approach

Surface tension force
: surface element
: surface tension coeff.
: surface mean curvature
: surface normal
: delta function at surface
Marker Particles:
: surface element edge
: surface edge tangent
Continuum Surface Force (CSF): [Brackbill et al. 92]

: marker function
VoF
level set
Continuum Surface Stress (CSS): [Zaleski et al. 94]
VoF
August 2nd, 2006
37
Spurious Currents: Inviscid Static Drop

Test case:
8 x 8 box, circle radius R = 2
inviscid, = 73
time step t = 10-6
Inviscid stationary drop (circle) with surface tension should remain motionless for
all time
But: numerical errors introduce spurious currents:
discrete imbalance between surface tension forces and pressure gradients
single time step t = 10-3:
|umax| = 0.146
[Francois et al. 06]

August 2nd, 2006
38

Test case:
inviscid, = 73
time step t = 10-6
all time
remedy: introduce viscosity to control errors:
: VoF and level set methods [Lafaurrie et al. 94]
: marker methods [Tryggvason]
August 2nd, 2006
39

Test case:
inviscid, = 73
time step t = 10-6
all time
remedy: introduce viscosity to control errors
better: balanced force algorithm [Young et al. 02, Francois et al. 06]
after 1 time step, exact curvature

August 2nd, 2006
40

Test case:
inviscid, = 73
time step t = 10-6
all time
balanced force algorithm: errors reduced to machine accuracy zero
errors in surface tension force evaluation = errors in curvature evaluation
make curvature calculation as accurate as possible
Marker Particles: polynomial reconstruction of the surface
VoF: height function approach or PROST
Level Set: higher order gradient approximation or RLSG
August 2nd, 2006
Level Set Curvature Calculation

Level set methods calculate curvature at nodes:
introduces O(x) error for interface curvature
Interface projected curvature:
1. Calculate curvature at nodes
2. Locate closest point on interface for each node xj :
approximate G in each cell by tricubic polynomial
apply two-step Newton algorithm to find closest point j (Chopp 01)
3. Calculate curvature at interface j by trilinear interpolation

4. Assign interface curvature to node
2nd order converging curvatures

use
August 2nd, 2006
as Dirichlet bc for reinitialization

40x40 fs-grid, single time step, 1/2 = 1
Convergence under grid refinement

-2
10
-3
L(| - ex|)
nd
Loo
L2
10
-4
10
2 order
L1
-5
10
-6
10
10
10
10
Error in curvature evaluation

August 2nd, 2006

40x40 fs-grid, single time step, 1/2 = 1
RLSG: Convergence under G-grid refinement
L(|u|)
10
10
10
-6
-1
10
Loo
-7
-8
ptot
-3
pmax
10
nd
2 order
L2
-2
Loo(|p-pex|)
10
10
L1
-4
ppart
10
-9
nd
2 order
-5
10
-10
-6
10
10
10
10
10
Spurious current magnitude

August 2nd, 2006
10
10
Error in pressure jump
10

Convergence under
G-grid refinement
20x20 fs-grid, 2000 time step, 1/2 = 1000

-3
20x40
-4
kin
10
20x80
10
-4
10
10
20x20
-2
max L (u)
10
-6
nd
2 order
-5
10
-6
10
10
10
20x160
10
-8
10
15
20
Spurious current kinetic energy
August 2nd, 2006
Spurious current magnitude
Damped Surface Wave

Compare to initial value linear theory (Prosperetti 81)
box size: 2 x 2
wave length = 2, initial amplitude A0 = 0.01
no gravity
surface oscillations caused by surface tension forces
theory for contrasting densities, but equal
Use level set interface tracking and one fluid approach
August 2nd, 2006
Damped Surface Wave

1/2 = 1, 1=2 = 0.06472, grid refinement
-3
10
0.01
0.005
nd
2 order
-4
10
error
theory
16x16
32x32
64x64
-5
10
A/
th
4 order
-6
10
-7
10
-0.005
10
10
-0.01
0
10
15
20
tn
oscillation amplitude vs. time
August 2nd, 2006
convergence
Damped Surface Wave

1/2 = 1, 1=2 = 0.06472, fs-grid 16x16, RLSG, refine G-grid only
-3
10
0.01
st
A/
0.005
-4
10
error
theory
16x16
16x32
16x64
16x128
1 order
nd
-5
2 order
10
-6
10
-7
10
-0.005
10
10
-0.01
0
10
15
20
tn
August 2nd, 2006
convergence
Damped Surface Wave

1/2 = 1000, 1=2 = 0, grid refinement
-2
10
0.015
0.005
error
0.01
A/
st
1 order
theory
16x16
32x32
64x64
128x128
-3
10
nd
2 order
0
-4
10
-0.005
10
10
-0.01
-0.015
50 100 150 200 250 300
tt
August 2nd, 2006
convergence

August 2nd, 2006
Consistent Surface Filters for LES

Introduce spatial (volume) filters into the Navier-Stokes equations:
additional surface tension force term:
Standard volume filters not applicable to level set equation (Oberlack et al. 01)
phase interface based filters are required:
Mean position (Pitsch 05):
Sub-filter length scale
August 2nd, 2006

surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

surface filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

Volume filter based on surface parameterization
introduces new small scales
Alternative: Heaviside based filtering
Apply standard LES volume filter
August 2nd, 2006

Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

Heaviside filter
box size:
L x L periodic
August 2nd, 2006

Problem: How to define
for Heaviside filter?
If based on
for planar surface
If based on
Alternative:
August 2nd, 2006
for planar surface, but measures volume, not length scale
Use first and second moment of sub-filter

PDF of surface coordinates
Modeling Sub-Grid Scale Physics

Large Surface Structure model:
: spray transfer velocity
production,
: dissipation,
turbulent trans.
+ filtered Navier-Stokes equations with

How to close these terms?
perform DNS and gain insight
use consistent filters to analyze DNS results
use Refined Level Set Grid approach!
August 2nd, 2006
The RLSG Approach for Sub-Grid Modeling

Solve Navier-Stokes equations on (implicit) filter scale
Solve level set equations on RLSG with DNS resolution
feasible on massively parallel machines, since O(N2)
Close all phase interface related unclosed terms in Navier-Stokes

equations by explicit filtering of the RLSG solution
Caveat: must ensure that DNS phase interface behaves correctly:
need to reconstruct structured

on filter scale
August 2nd, 2006
on RLSG grid from LES information

August 2nd, 2006
RLSG Coupling to Spray Models

Prerequisite for most spray models:
RLSG provides sub-flow solver resolution
identify & transfer all separated liquid structures with
August 2nd, 2006

August 2nd, 2006

When does breakup occur in level set methods (VoF)?

inherent breakup length scale
August 2nd, 2006


August 2nd, 2006


mass is lost
v
lost mass
August 2nd, 2006


mass is lost
RLSG:
with
and
identify & transfer all RLSG liquid structures thinner than
August 2nd, 2006


mass is lost
RLSG:
with
and
August 2nd, 2006


mass is lost
RLSG:
with
and
August 2nd, 2006


mass is lost
RLSG:
with
and
but is this physical?
not really, but this is how spray models represent coherent liquid structures
RLSG data yield drop center, mass, and momentum
input conditions for Lagrangian spray model
August 2nd, 2006
Vortex in a Box with Spray Coupling

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
initial condition
Flow solver:
64 x 64 cells
RLSG:
128 x 128 cells max
drop transfer, = 4
Flow solver
volume fraction
0t3
August 2nd, 2006
Vortex in a Box with Spray Coupling

128x128
128x128 without & with drops

=4, total V
=4, LS V
no drops
t=3
drops
128x128
=4, drop V
t=3
August 2nd, 2006
Sphere in a Deformation Field with Spray
initial condition
Flow solver:
643 cells
RLSG:
1283 cells max
=4
RLSG
G = G0 iso-surface
0 t 1.5
August 2nd, 2006
Sphere in a Deformation Field with Spray

1283, =4, total V
=4
1283
1283, no drops
1283, =4, LS V
1283, =4, drop V
t = 1.5
August 2nd, 2006
Acknowledgments
S. Apte
F. Ham
V. Moureau
E. v.d. Weide
D. Kim
O. Desjardins
E. Knudsen
August 2nd, 2006

Two Phase Tutorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Phase Tutorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two-Phase Flow

2006 CTR Summer Program

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

What is Two-Phase Flow?

Any flow involving two of the three phases is a two-phase flow

The focus in this tutorial will be on liquid/gas flows

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

truck tire splash

Cryogenic rocket engines

LOX+GH2 cold jet (Mayer et al. 01)

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Challenges of Modeling Liquid/Gas Flows

Phase interface exerts a localized surface tension

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Atomization in Combustion Devices

Fuel is typically injected as a liquid

phase interface is a discontinuity

Marmottant & Villermaux 2002

How can one model/simulate this?

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Atomization in Combustion Devices

Fuel is typically injected as a liquid

phase interface is a discontinuity

How can one model/simulate this?

August 2nd, 2006

Marmottant & Villermaux 2002

Lasheras et al. 1998

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Modeling the Atomization Process

Complex interface topology of mostly large scale

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Modeling the Atomization Process

Lasheras et al. 1998

Total phase interface surface area is small

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Modeling the Atomization Process

track the phase interface

Complex interface topology of mostly large scale

Lasheras et al. 1998

Total phase interface surface area is small

assume the drop geometry

Simple geometry of small scale liquid drops

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Modeling Secondary Atomization

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Modeling Secondary Atomization

Phase transition models:

use Spalding mass and heat transfer numbers and Clausius-Clapeyrons

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Modeling Secondary Atomization

Source term in momentum equations

Interpolation operator from particle position to cv-centroids

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

August 2nd, 2006

Two-Phase Flow Tutorial

Experiments, Sommerfeld & Qiu 1991