Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition

IMECE2013
November 15-21, 2013, San Diego, California, USA

IMECE2013-65627

A NUMERICAL APPROACH FOR THE SIMULATION OF INTERNAL NOZZLE FLOW IN A PRESSURE

SWIRL ATOMIZER USING DIFFERENT TURBULENT MODELS AND TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE
INLET WEBER NUMBER

Ahmadreza Abbasi Baharanchi Seckin Gokaltun

Florida International University Florida International University
Applied Research Center Applied Research Center
Miami, Florida, 33174, USA Miami, Florida, 33174, USA
aabba003@fiu.edu gokaltun@fiu.edu

Shahla Eshraghi
Payame Noor University of Tehran
Dept. of Biological Science
Tehran, Iran
Sh.eshraghi@gmail.com

ABSTRACT Turbulent dissipation rate

VOF Multiphase model is used to simulate the flow inside a f Drag force
pressure-swirl-atomizer. The capability of the Reynolds Stress H Heavy side function
Model and variants of the K- and K- models in modeling of h Width of the computational cell
turbulence has been investigated in the commercial K Turbulent kinetic energy
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software FLUENT 6.3. L Film thickness
The Implicit scheme available in the volume-of-fluid (VOF) m1 First component of normal vector
model is used to calculate the interface representation between m2 Second component of normal vector
phases. The atomization characteristics have been investigated m& Mass flow rate
as well as the influence of the inlet swirl strength of the internal Dynamic molecular viscosity
flow. The numerical results have been successfully validated eff Effective viscosity
against experimental data available for the computed m Mean viscosity
parameters. The performance of the RNG K- model was found n interface normal vector
to be satisfactory in reducing the computational cost and Density
introducing an effective Weber number for the flow simulated P Pressure
in this study. Q Volumetric flow rate
r or R Radius
Surface tension
t Inlet slot thickness/ Film thickness/Time
NOMENCLATURE tf Film thickness (at orifice exit)
A Cross-section area VOF integral time increment
Scalar Volume Fraction spray angle u' Fluctuating velocity component
b Line constant in Geo-Reconstruction Scheme u /V Mean Velocity -Volume of computational cell
C1
C2
Constant in equation of the RNG K- model
Constant in equation of the RNG K- model
v Fluctuating velocity component
' Ratio of viscosities used in RNG K- model
Dc Discharge coefficient
Cv Coefficient in RNG K- model = Mean rate of rotation tensor [s-1]
d diameter = Specific dissipation rate [s-1]

1 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 x Special dimension
SUBSCRIPTS
A Acceptor
D Donor
l liquid
orr orifice
p Inlet port- Primary phase
a Air
r Radial direction
sw Swirl Chamber
t Tangential Direction - turbulent
Tangential Direction
z Axial Direction
1 Original condition (3-D)
2 Equivalent condition (2-D)
INTRODUCTION
Pressure swirl atomizers are widely in use because of their ability
to produce fine sprays in a process commenced by liquid sheet
break up. Formation of the very hollow cone sheet of liquid is a
result of swirling motion of fluid inside the swirl chamber and the
orifice of the atomizer which is referred to as the internal nozzle
flow [1,2]. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the swirling motion will
account for the formation of an air core inside the atomizer in a
central negative pressure region. The boundary between the liquid
and the surrounding gas (interface) has been studied by many
researchers such as Rizk and Lefevbre [3], Ashraf and Miliand [4]
and Nonnenmacher and Piesche [5].
Location of this interface at the tip of the nozzle orifice and in
the ambient gas is an indicator of the liquid film thickness and
primary spray cone angle respectively. Another indicator or spray
parameter related to the performance of atomizers is the discharge
coefficient, which is a measure of the resistance to flow due to
existence of air core and frictional losses along the nozzle. Simplex
atomizers are expected to possess low discharge coefficients due to
the presence of the air core within the nozzle [6].
To date, valuable numerical works have relied on various
models and techniques to successfully capture a sharp and accurate
interface and evaluate the dependency of spray parameters on
boundary conditions such as inlet pressure and swirl strength. In
fact, existence of features like turbulence and interface between
phases complicate the modeling of this type of flow to a great
extent. Nonnenmacher and Piesche [5] and Chu et al. [7] used a
sophisticated analytical-numerical approach for laminar flow to
solve for the film thickness, velocity profile and some other
parameters. Mandal et al [8] used the laminar flow assumption in
their numerical study to extend their simulation from Newtonian to
Non-Newtonian fluids. A similar study was conducted by Xue [9]
who improved the modeling through the use of a sophisticated
turbulence model instead of laminar flow stipulation.
2 Copyright 2013 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Inlet Inlet
(a)
swirler section
A A dp
Air Core
Vortex
Ls Ds
,U
swirl
chamber
x,Ux section r,Ur
Lo
exit
do orifice Lp
section View A-A
Thin, hollow, conical liquid sheet
(b)
Figure 1: Internal Nozzle Flow shown in a 2-D Schematic (a)
and Image of the Flow by Ma [2] (b).
turbulence model instead of laminar flow stipulation
Some researchers made useful comparisons between
laminar and turbulent flow modeling to get deeper
understanding of the nature of the flow they were dealing with
and investigated the performance of existing models. Hansen et
al [10] used Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and laminar model
in conjunction with the VOF and the Eulerian multiphase
models for a three-dimensional simulation and concluded that
laminar-VOF was the best combination in terms of
computational time and accuracy. History and detailed
description of VOF model and different tracking schemes could
be found in publications of Hirt & Nichols[11], Rider and
Kothe [12], Gueyffier et al. [13] and Gorokhovski and
Herrmann [14].
Numerous discussions could be found in the literature about
methods and algorithms of capturing the interface between fluids
in different phases. Simpler schemes such as the Implicit or the
Euler-Explicit method available with the VOF model received
attention from researchers such as Yeh [15] who presented closely
matching results for a set of turbulent models. Simplicity stems
from the fact that such schemes rely fundamentally on an
averaging process and hence fail to represent sudden jumps for
variables like density and viscosity. An unfortunate consequence
of this approach is smearing of the interface according to Hirt &
Nichols [11]. Besides this, such simple schemes allow for
unbounded diffusion of the scalar volume fraction (). Thus, a
 sensitive study of flow variables in a region surrounding the First three equations are conservation of mass, kinetic
interface and specifically capturing the sharpness of the interface energy, and angular momentum respectively and Eqs. 4 and 5
requires significantly high grid resolution near the predicted are used to find the radial components of velocity and thickness
interface compared to other regions in the domain. In contrast, of annular inlet respectively. In these equations, m 1 ,Vin , Vr, Vt
other available schemes such as the Geometric-Reconstruction and Rsw, Rp, t and l represent the mass flow rate, inlet velocity and
Donor-Acceptor methods perform additional steps in order to limit its radial, and tangential components, radius of the swirl
diffusion of the scalar and thus enhance sharpness of the interface chamber, radius and thickness of the equivalent 2-D inlet port,
appreciably, Madsen et al. [16]. and density of the liquid respectively. Data from experiment of
However, despite this ability, prevention of diffusion in some Ma [2] and Eqs.1-5 have been used in construction of mass
regions away from the interface may result in creation of void flow rate and velocity boundary conditions in parts I and II of
regions with zero volume fraction of one of phases- called Flotsam the present study respectively. Table 1 illustrates results of the
,Noh and Woodward [17]. The situation is more sensitive in above calculations based on which a 2-D computational domain
locations where high vorticity is present or sharp gradients of the has been constructed and displayed by Fig. 2.
volume fraction variable exist [17]. Ashraf and Miliand [4],
Hansen et al. [10] and Medsen et. al. [16] are amongst the 16.5
Inlet port (width=3.2 mm)
researchers who used the Geometric-Reconstruction scheme in 23.6
their modeling. Mandal et al.[8] and Madsen et al. [16] used
adaptive mesh refinement technique in their numerical modeling
38
while this technique was absent in the work of researchers such as 16.9
Hansen et al.[10] and Yeh [15]. Ambient
38 Swirl chamber Convergence Chamber
Review of the literature reveals that still a serious attempt Section
38
towards introduction of a stable, accurate and cost effective
turbulence model and determination of influence of surface tension 14.4 Exit Orifice
on numerical study of this particular type of the flow is needed. As
a solution, in the present study, performances of six models
including some variants of K-
and K- and RSM models in 95
representing the flow properties, interface quality (sharpness) and
computational effort have been compared. Further, the nominated Figure 2: Equivalent 2-D Computational Domain Used In
Simulation (Units In Millimeters)
turbulence model has been used to investigate the influence of
surface tension in using the Constant Surface Tension Force model
for various inlet velocities. Finally, a threshold Weber number
corresponding to a threshold inlet velocity has been introduced. Table 1: Boundary Conditions Used In Simulation Of The
Original Flow
m V1=V2 Vt2 Vr2 t Inlet area Orifice area
METHODOLOGY Kg/sec m/sec m/sec m/sec mm mm2 mm2

The computational domain in this study is simplified to a 2-D 0.95 2.34 2.01 1.21 3.2 406 651
axisymmetric domain to reduce the computational effort (Figs.
2,3). This simplification is in accord with the work of Ashraf and
Miliand [4] and Nonnenmacher and Piesche [5]. In order to In the present study, implicit scheme is used for verification of
maintain similarity between the real flow and the simplified case simulation results in the first step. For this scheme, two grids with
(annular inlet), the following set of equations has to be considered: 7641 and 24087 quadrilateral elements are used (Fig. 3) to ensure
about grid-independence of results. Finer grid size in this
simulation was wisely selected to a size close to the grid size
m 1 = m 2 , (1) used by [8] who concluded that 26682 grid cells was
sufficiently fine to obtain valid numerical results for the same
Vin1 2 = Vin2 2 ,
1 1 flow geometry. Though, the grid was constructed in such a way
(2)
2 2 to avoid heavy and unnecessary computational load based on the
Vin1 Rsw -Rp =Vt2 .Rsw ,
fact that grid was refined in one step and only in zones where
(3)
interface between phases was expected to happen in the domain.
0.5
(4) Next, adaptive grid refinement technique has been used to attain a
Vr2 = (V2 2 -Vt2 2 ) ,
sharp interface between phases along the nozzle. Comparison with
m 2
t = ,
experimental data is performed in each step during refinement and
 Rsw 2 l Vr2  (5) numerical results are carefully observed for verification of
numerical modeling. Later, the capability of Adaptive Mesh
Refinement Technique in generation of a sharp interface between

3 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Pressure outlets
Inlet

Swirl chamber wall

Grid Transition Region

Wall
Orifice wall

Axis of symmetry

Figure 3: Computational Domain With (a) 7641 Cells And (b) 24087 Cells

fluids starting from the course gird has been evaluated.

Vz Vr Vr
Addition of surface tension force to the numerical modeling in + + =0 (6)
the second part of the paper will constitute the strategy of the z r r
authors towards achieving the second objective of the present
paper. In short, comparison between results obtained from set of Vz V 2V V V (rVz) P Vz
t z
simulations with boundary conditions used in the first part (original +Vz z + r z + r =- +2 ( )
r r r z z eff z
flow) and lower inlet velocities in presence and absence of the CSF
 r   
model has be performed in the second part of the present paper. Vr Vz
Noteworthy, the inlet static pressure has been the fundamental rr z r (7)
criteria for our comparisons as an indication of resistance to flow
Vr Vr V 2 Vr rVr  P
due to existence of volumetric force introduced by the CSF model.
Vz    -
t z r r r r
Assumptions of incompressibility for both phases and
isothermal flow are applied to all simulations presented in the
present study. At the inlet, a uniform velocity profile is assumed 1 Vr Vr Vr Vz
and turbulence parameters of K=0.03(Uin2) and =K1.5/(0.005Dsw) + eff ( (r )- )+ (eff ( + )) (8)
r r r r z z r
are applied [15]. The chamber attached to the orifice is initially
filled with air at atmospheric pressure. Implementation of RNG K-
V V (rV  Vr V 1 (rV  V
=  - !"
turbulence model and PRESTO! pressure interpolation scheme
r
are to commensurate with highly swirling nature of the present ( +Vz +V + (9)
t z rr r r r
flow [19]. The SIMPLE algorithm is chosen for pressure-velocity
coupling while momentum, volume fraction, and all other flow
variables are discretized using the second order accurate scheme Equations 6 to 9 are conservation of mass and momentum
for attaining higher accuracy in modeling. (in axial, radial, and tangential directions respectively) for a
turbulent swirling flow. Here z, r, and represent axial, radial,
and tangential directions respectively. In the turbulent part,
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION closure is obtained through the RNG K- model represented by
transport of K and as [19]
Conservation of Mass, Momentum, and Turbulence
Modeling
[# ]+(-ui uj)
(K) K uj
For an axisymmetric flow, gradient of variables with respect
xj $ eff. xj
+ (K Vi) = - (10)
to circumferential direction is zero, Therefore, equations of t xj xj
fluid motion will simplify to [18] :

4 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 flux of scalar displayed by Eq. 14 [19]
]+
() 
+ ( Vi ) = [ eff.
t xj xj xj
2
&-u iuj  ( -C2 *
Vj p n+1 -p n
C1
K xi K (11) + - p,f n+1 Vf n+1 = 0 (14)
t

Where +++++
)* )* is the Reynolds stress term and k and p are
inverse effective Prandtle numbers for k and respectively.
Default values of the k and p (k=p=1.393) has been used in
the present work [19].
The model finds the effective viscosity ( eff.  tur  lam. )
through the following expression for quantity which is the
ratio between effective turbulent viscosity and molecular
dynamic viscosity [19]
2 k
d( )=1.72
 3 -1+Cv 
0.5 0.5
( )
Here , , , K are density, dissipation rate, viscosity, and the
kinetic energy of turbulence respectively. Default value of 100
has been chosen for Cv as the model constant in the present
paper [19].
Multiphase Flow Modeling
In the VOF multiphase model, presence of phases is
recognized through the scalar phase volume fraction (). This
scalar varies from zero (full of the secondary phase) to one (full of
the primary phase) in each computational cell. Through this
scalar, variables density and viscosity are averaged in the model
(avg = + g (1-) and avg = + g (1-) ). The model is
primarily concerned with continuity equation of scalar volume
fraction [19,20]
(p p ) (p p Vi )
+ =0
t xj
Here, p , p , and V represent density, volume fraction, and
velocity of the liquid phase in the computational domain.
Interface Calculation
Implicit Schemes
Interface in the VOF model is represented by means of the
scalar volume fraction. Available schemes in the VOF model
control derivation of Eq. 13. The simple Implicit scheme
discretize the Eq. 13 without setting any limitation on diffusion
Here, p represents volume fraction at cell centroid of the
computational cell while variables p,f and Vf are calculated at face
centroids surrounding the very computational cell respectively.
Continuum Surface Tension Force (CSF) and Weber
Number
In the CSF model, surface tension is represented by a
volumetric force calculated from the curvature of interface at
any instant of time and divergence of scalar volume fraction
(12)
ki i
Fv = ij (15)
0.5(i +j )
Where k is curvature of the interface (=. n/ ), and n/ is the
normalized normal vector ( n=q ). Finally Weber number for
film defined based on the film thickness and average velocity
of the film at the orifice is introduced. This number is defined
as the ratio of inertia to surface tension for a droplet and
smaller ranges of Weber number indicate higher level of
influence of surface tension on flow properties and interface
shape evolution. This number is defined as [ 21]
l U1234  L (16)
Wfilm =
Where , Ufilm, L and are the density of liquid, average
velocity and thickness of the liquid film at the exit of orifice ,
and surface tension between air and water respectively.
(13)
Discharge Coefficient
Finally discharge coefficient is introduced as a flow
parameter used to compare the actual flow rate to the
theoretical ideal flow rate. In our study, pressure difference is
computed by the software and calculation of this parameter is
based on Eq. 22 introduced by Heywood [22]
5678.
Cd =
(Ao :2P/)
(17)
Here Qact, Ao, P, and are actual flow rate from the
experiment, cross section of orifice, pressure drop along the
nozzle computed by Fluent and density of the liquid phase.

5 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The same problem was observed with the STD K- model
as despite the modifications imposed by the model on the low
modification
Part I : In this onsimulation
viscosity as needed for moderate-to-
was expected, the Standard highly
and Reynolds regions, the high rate of shear on the interface
swirling flowsK-
Realizable in Standard
models and wereRealizable
initially models.
able to capture the became finally source of instability in numerical simulation.
The same
interface problem
between was and
phases observed with the
ultimately STD K-
diverged. model
The result However, the difference with the formerly failed models is that
.Even though the model imposes some modifications
was similar to report of Hansen et al., 2002 [10] and failure on theof divergence of modeling happened once the interface was
low
the Reynolds
models was regions, the high rate
commenced onceofthe shear on the interface
turbulent viscosity established inside the domain and static pressure at inlet was
became
started finally source
to escalate of instability
unboundedly in ain region
numerical
insidesimulation
the swirl. acceptably close to experimental values. For this reason,
However
chamber. the difference
Basically with vorticity
excessive the earlier models
on the outerwasedgethat
of modeling was not repeated for the fine grid.
divergence of modeling happened once
interface inside swirl chamber deformed the film inwardlythe interface wasas Simulation results for successful turbulence models on two
established
illustrated inside the domain
by Figure 4 andand static pressure
destructive at inlet was
destabilization of grid sizes 7641 and 24807 (Figure 3) are summarized in Tab. 2
acceptably close to caused
numerical solution experimental
divergence values.
in ourFor this reason,
simulation. The of this report. Table 2 shows maximum deviation of 10 percent
modeling was not before
event occurred repeated for the secondofgrid.
establishment the interface in the between simulation results for both course and fine grids from
Simulation
domain as the results
pressure foratsuccessful turbulence models
inlet was approaching to targetonvalue
two the available experimental data. Surprisingly, the obtained
grid sizes 7641 and 24807 (Figure 3) are summarized
from the experiment. The problem with modeling was absence Tab. 2 of results do not highlight performance of any of the models
this report. Table 2 shows maximum deviation
of modification on viscosity needed for moderate-to-highly of 10 percent included in the table. Hence, history of recorded results i.e inlet
between
swirlingsimulation results and
flows in standard for both coursemodels.
Realizable and fine grids from static pressure has been used to compare the performance of the
available experimental data. Surprisingly the obtained results
do not highlight performance of any of the models included in
the table. Hence history of recorded results i.e inlet static
pressure has been used to compare performance of the models
in terms of computational preferability. As Fig. 5 illustrates,
The RNG K- model converges to steady state solution within
the smallest number of computational iterations and
experiencing a robust and stable course of computation. In
comparison, the STD K- model experiences few oscillations
but the model experiences divergence before converging to an
steady stare solution.
In the case of the RSM model, there has been a trade -off
between appreciable stability of the solution and comparably
heavier computational burden needed to reach a steady state

Figure 4: Contour of Volume Fraction for Air, Failure of the standard K-; model
solution.
Inlet Static Pressure (Psi)
Inlet Static Pressure (Psi)

(1) (2)
Inlet Static Pressure (Psi)

Inlet Static Pressure (Psi)

(3) (4)

Figure 5: History of Inlet Static Pressure, (1) RNG K-, (2) STD K-, (3) SST K-, (4) RSM Models

6 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Table 2: Simulation Results with Different Tracking Schemes- RNG K- Model, Experimental Data from Ma [2]

Grid size 7641(cells) 24807(cells) Ashraf and Exp.

Milind [4] Ma [2]
model RNG K- RSM STD K- SST K- RNG K- RSM SST K- RSM -
Pin (Pas) 22651 21085 22134 21180 22440 21100 20765 20368 24199
Dc 0.206 0.215 0.209 0.214 0.208 0.215 0.215 0.218 0.2
< 76o 76o 74o 73o 76o 77o 73o 75.75o 76.9
tf (mm) 3.4 3.26 3.4 3.54 3.3 3.2 3.47 3.02 3.06

models in terms of computational preferability. Tablel 3 illustrates sligthly higher pressure in presence of
As Fig. 5 illustrates, The RNG K- model converges to this force in steady-state simulation results. To our surprise, no
steady state solution within the smallest number of remarkable difference has been observed between other
computational iterations (almost 30,000 iterations) and properties of the flow listed in Tab. 3. This result has
experiences a robust and stable course of computation. In encouraged the authors to investigate the influence of surface
comparison, the STD K- model in diagram (2) experiences tension under lower inlet velocities towards an effective Weber
few oscillations but the model experiences divergence before number further on this study. In this regard, the inlet velocity
converging to a steady state solution. has been reduced successively from 2.34 m/sec to 1.5, 1, 0.5
Similarly, growing instability in computation using SST K- and 0.25 m/sec. The results of the simulation for the first 200
is discernible from the diagram (3) in fig. 5. Divergence of time steps are available in Fig. 8.
the numerical modeling despite early obtained and appreciably
maintained stability in simulation for large number of time
steps was a result of unbounded increase of turbulent viscosity Itr. No. = 30,000 Itr. No. = 72,340 Itr. No. = 79,000
growing on the interface in the regions of the domain where
continuously refined grid cells were located.
Finally, in the case of the RSM model, there has been a
trade -off between appreciable stability of the simulation and
comparably heavier computational burden needed to reach a steady
state solution.
Qualitative representation of simulation results with the (a) 3.4 mm (b) 3.3 mm (c)
nominated model, RNG K-, is illustrated in figure 6 of this
paper. In this figure, contour of volume fraction of air displays
the regions of the domain completely filled by air in red and 0 1
degree of sharpness of color gradient from red to blue Figure 6: Contours of volume fraction with RNG k- model
(emptiness of air) manifests quality of interface representation (a) 7641 (b) 24807 and (c) 18653 grids cell
along the interface. Thereby significant improvement in quality
of interface has been resulted through both approaches of
refinement. Surprisingly, substantially better quality
improvement has been observed through the more efficient SIMULATION OF ORIGINAL FLOW,
PRESSURE-ITERATION
adaptive refinement of the mesh in diagram (c). However 25000
though, despite the fact that remarkably less number of grid
cells are participating in representing the sharper interface 20000
compared to diagram (b), this quality improvement is offset by
Pressure (Pa)

15000
dramatic increase of computational burden up to almost 79,000
no CSF
number of iterations illustrated in Fig. 6. 10000 with CSF

Part II: In order to investigate the influence of the surface 5000

tension in modeling, time dependent simulation was repeated
with the same boundary conditions mentioned in Table 1 and 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
this time with inclusion of surface tension force. Figure 7
Iteration
displays very close simulation results for both moldings
reaching the steady-state solution. Analysis of the results in Fig. Figure 7: (a) History Of Inlet Static Pressure, simulation
7 and Tab. 3 shows maximum deviation of 0.7 percent between with and without CSF models, RNG k- model, steady state
pressure curves for the entire length of simulation. solution after 30000 iterations, inlet velocity =2.34m/s

7 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Table 3: Steady-State Simulation Results For The Original Static Pressure At Inlet For Vin=1.5 m/sec
Flow (Inlet Velocity=2.34 m/sec) 1000
CSF inclusion No Yes Experiment 0 40 Time step 80 120 160 200
800
Inlet static pressure 22486 22653 22374 (a)

Pressure (Pa)
Discharge coefficient 0.2184 0.2167 0.218 600
Spray angle 76o 76o 77o Weber No= 444
400
Film Thickness (mm) 3.2 3.2 3.06 no CSF (I) no CSF (T)
200 with CSF (I) with CSF (T)
Iteration
The immediate observation from Fig. 8 is that inclusion of 0
CSF model becomes influential within the first few time steps 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
of simulation in plots (a) to (d). In fact, interaction of the
surface tension force with high curvature of the interface in
Static Pressure At Inlet For Vin=1 m/sec
circulation region in vicinity of the inlet port has led to 250
significantly higher inlet static pressure reported in each plot. 0 40 80 120 160 200
Besides, ascending difference between curves in successive plots Time step
200
at the same flow time (labeled as with/no CSF (T)) indicates a (b)

Pressure(Pa)
growing influence of the surface tension by reduction of the inlet 150
Weber No= 204
velocity in simulation. Indeed, higher curvature of interface under
lower inlet velocities has led to existence of stronger surface 100
tension force in this circulation region (Eq. 15). As a consequence no CSF (I) no CSF (T)
of this higher resistance to the flow, higher static pressure in the 50 with CSF (I) with CSF (T)
inlet port has been reported compared to situations without Iteration
presence of surface tension during the simulation. 0
Further comparison between plots a, b, c and d reveals a 0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000
trend of ascending difference between final iteration numbers
of the curves labeled with/no CSF (I) in successive plots. Static Pressure At Inlet For Vin=0.5 m/sec
This difference grows from 200 iterations in plot b to 900 75
0 40 80 120 160 200
iterations in plot c and 1800 in plot d. In fact, this growing 60 Time step
difference is not only indicative of higher convergence rate in (c)
each time step with presence of surface tension in modeling but 45

Pressure (Pa)
also increase of the convergence rates with reduction of inlet Weber No= 52.2
velocity. Again similar to the trend observed in previous 30
discussion, onset of the later trend has occurred with the inlet no CFS (I) no CSF (T)
15 with CSF (I) with CSF (T)
velocity of 1 m/sec which could be introduced as a threshold
inlet velocity for recognition of an influential surface tension 0 Iteration
force in our simulation. 0 900 1800 2700 3600 4500
Constant value of 0.072 N/m represents surface tension of
water in calculation of Weber number for each case in equation
16. This number is 1240 for the original flow and 444, 204, Static Pressure At Inlet For Vin=0.25 m/sec
40
52.2 and 12.2 for inlet velocities of 1.5, 1, 0.5 and 0.25 m/sec 0 40 80 120 160 200
respectively. Data for calculation of Weber numbers is (d) Time step Pressure (Pa)
illustrated on each corresponding plot in Fig. 8. Observation of 30
Weber No= 12.2
these trends reveal that inclusion of CSF model is important for
inlet velocities less than 1 m/s which leads to introduction of a 20
threshold Weber number of 204 associated with this inlet
velocity. 10
no CFS (I) no CSF(T)
with CFS (I) with CSF (T)
0
CONCLUSION REMARKS 0 1100 2200 3300 4400 5500
The VOF model has been introduced to 6 turbulence models Iteration
through the implicit scheme and performance of each model
Figure 8: History Of Inlet Static Pressure For Different Inlet
was successfully investigated in this study. Two out of six velocity Magnitudes: (a) Full Simulation (I) Refers To
models- Standard and Realizable K- - failed to capture a well- Iteration and (T) Refers To Time Step

8 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 established liquid film inside and outside the atomizer and
ended up in divergence. Surprisingly, while the STD K- was
initially successful to represent a well-established interface
inside and outside the orifice, the model eventually faced
divergence. The RNG K-, SST K- and RSM models could
successfully predict the interface between phases and produce
admissibly close-to-experiment results for large number of time
steps. In this study the RNG K- model outperforms other
models in terms of stability, lower computational effort and,
admissible accuracy.
Furthermore, it is concluded that in modeling of the present
flow, surface tension force plays important role for Weber
numbers smaller than 204. This force is responsible for
acceleration of convergence and increase of the inlet static
pressure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was possible through invaluable help and support
from the Applied Research Center of the Florida International
University, Professor George Dulikravich from the FIU
MAIDROC laboratory, the Automotive Development Center
and Aeronautic Laboratory of the Technological University of
Malaysia. Authors also appreciate the support from the
Professors Amer Nordin Darus and Azhar bin Dato Abdul
Aziz from Technological University of Malaysia.
REFERENCES
[1] Mas, F., (2007), "Development of a Direct Fuel Injector For a
Two-Stroke Gasoline Engine," M.S. thesis, Technological
University of Malaysia
[2] Ma, Z., (2002), "Investigation on The Internal Flow Characteristics
Of Pressure Swirl Atomizers," Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Cincinnati,
[3] Rizk, N. K., and Lefebvre, A. H., (1984), "Internal Flow
Characteristics of Simplex Swirl Atomizers," AIAA. 22nd
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 9-12, Reno, Nevada, ID: 84-
0124.
[4] Ashraf, A. I., and Milind A. J., (2007), "Non-Linear Break-Up
Model For a Liquid Sheet Emanating From a Simplex Atomizer.
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power," DOI:
10.1115/1.2747263
[5] Nonnenmacher, S., Piesche, M., (2000), "Design of Hollow Cone
Pressure Swirl Nozzles to Atomize Newtonian Fluids," Journal of
Chemical Engineering Science, Pii : S00 09-2509(00)000439,
55,4339-4348
[6] Cousin, J., Ren, W. M., and Nally, S. (1998). Transient Flows in
High Pressure Swirl Injectors. SAE Technical Paper, No. 980499
[7] Chu, C., Chou, S., and Lin, H., (2007), "Theoretical Analysis of
Heat and Mass Transfer in Swirl Atomizers," Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, DOI: 10.1007/S00231-006-0206-7,43:12131224.
[8] Mandal, A., Jog, M.A., Xue, J., and Ibrahim, A.A., (2008), " Flow
of Power-Law Fluids in Simplex Atomizers," International Journal
of Heat and Fluid Flow, Elsevier, DOI:10.1016/j.ijhe, 29 1494
1503.
[9] Xue, J., (2004), "Computational Simulation of Flow Inside
Pressure-Swirl Atomizers," Ph.D. thesis, University of Cincinnati.
9 Copyright 2013 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/79156/ on 02/14/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
[10] Hansen, K. G., Madsen, J., Trinh, C. M., Ibsen, C. H., Solberg, T.,
and Hjertager, B. H., (2002), "A Computational and Experimental
Study of the Internal Flow in a Scaled Pressure-Swirl Atomizer,"
ILASS-Europe, Zaragoza 9-11 September 2002.
[11] Hirt, C. W., and Nichols, B. D., (1981), "Volume of Fluid (VOF)
Method for the Dynamics of Free Boundaries" Journal of
Computational Physics, DOI: 0021.9991/81/010201-25302.00/O.
(39), 201-225.
[12] Rider, W.J., and Kothe, D.B., (1998), "Reconstructing Volume
Tracking," Journal of Computational Physics, 141, 112152.
Article NO. CP985906.
[13] Gueyffier, D., Li, J., Nadim, A., Scardovelli, R.., and Zaleski, S.,
(1999), "Volume-of-Fluid Interface Tracking with Smoothed
Surface Stress Methods for Three-Dimensional Flows," Journal of
Computational Physics, ID: jcph.1998.6168, 152, 423456.
[14] Gorokhovski, M., and Herrmann, M., (2008), "Modeling Primary
Atomization , Annual Review Fluid Mechanics," 2008, 40:343-
366. DOI : 10.1146/annurev.fluid.40.111406.102200.
[15] Yeh, C., (2007), "Turbulent Flow Simulation of Liquid Jet
Emanating from Pressure-Swirl Atomizer," Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, Springer-Verlag 2007, DOI: 10.1007/s00231-007-
0237-8.
[16] Madsen , J., Hjertager, B. H., Solberg, T., (2004), "Numerical
Simulation of Internal Flow in a Large-Scale Pressure-Swirl
Atomizer," Aalborg University Esbjerg, ILASS-Europe 2004,
Nottingham, UK, 6th 8th September.
[17] Noh, W. F., and Woodward, P. R., (1976), "SLIC (Simple Line
Interface Method)," A. I. van de Vooren and P. J. Zandbergen
Editors of Lecture Notes in Phys.(Vol. 59, p. 330), Berlin/New
York, Springer-Verlag
[18] Sonin, A. A., 2001, Advanced Fluid Dynamics, 8th edition,
Chap. 2.
[19] FLUENT 6.3 User's Guide, Fluent Inc. 2006
[20] Gidaspow, D., (1994), "Multiphase Flow and Fluidization-
Continuum and Kinetic Theory Description," Academic Press
New York.
[21] Tsao, J. C., Kreeger, R. E., Feo, A., (2009), "Evaluation of the
Water Film Weber Number in Glaze Icing Scaling," NASA/TM
2010-216101AIAA20094129.
[22] Heywood, J. B., (1988), " Internal Combustion Engine
Fundamentals," New York: McGraw Hill, Inc