1

Introduction
1.1 Two Fluid Flows
A flow situation wherein two immiscible, non reacting fluids flow together is known as two-fluid flow. Some instances where they occur in engineering systems are flow of molten metal during casting, flow in pipe carrying steam and water, liquid sloshing in tankers, liquid jet issuing into gaseous environments, bubble formation, breakup and propagation in the surrounding fluid. Analysis of such flows occurring in engineering systems is required to be done. One thing that separates the analysis of two-fluid flows from single fluid flow is existence of interface (boundary which separates the two fluids) across which step change in properties exists. At the interface the surface tension comes into effect and in some flow situations phase change process at interface also occurs.

1.2 Numerical Methods for Two-Fluid Flows

Physical experiments in two-fluid flow situations are difficult and expensive to perform, numerical simulation methodologies on the other hand can be used for variety of problems and prove as a relative cheaper tool for analysis. Numerical solution of single fluid problem results in velocity, pressure and temperature (if it is non-isothermal flow) at discrete points in the flow/computational domain. In addition to that, in two-fluid flow simulation methodology, representation of interface in the computational domain, its advancement with respect to time and application of the boundary conditions at the interface are main issues. There exist many two-fluid flow simulation methodologies such as Marker and Cell (MAC) method [Hyman (1984)], Volume of Fluid method [Hirt and Nichols (1981)] and Level set method [Sussman et al. (1994)]. In all the methods a flag or some maker particles are used to represent region of a fluid or the interface. Governing equation of that flag or any marker particle is derived from physical principles and is a pure convection equation. In Marker and Cell (MAC) method, mass-less lagrangian particles are spread in one of the fluid. Navier-Stokes equations are solved in the region occupied by that fluid. Once the velocities in the respective cells are known their values are interpolated to marker particles and then those marker particles are moved in the grid with interpolated velocities. Interface is defined 1

as the boundary between regions with and without marker particles. This method has no applicability restriction but it requires careful implementation and also the overall cost of simulation is enormous. In Volume of Fluid method, interface motion is not followed but volume fraction of the cell (ratio of volume of one fluid to volume of the cell) is used to store information of a region of a fluid. Volume of Fluid governing equations is derived naturally from the mass conservation law and its solution provides updated information of the region occupied by that fluid. Interface information is derived from the volume of fluid function field based on the approximation of the interface shape. Mass conservation characteristic of volume of fluid methods are good but because of discontinuous nature of volume of fluid function, surface tension force is calculation is inaccurate. Level set methods find a very large range of applications like two-fluid flows, flame propagation, crystal growth, image processing and many more. In level set method used fro twofluid flows the interface is modeled as the zero level set of a smooth function known as level set function, defined over whole computational domain. The level set function is advected with the background flow field. As the level set function is a continuous function calculation of interface normal and curvature are easy and accurate but level set methods are known to violate mass conservation.

1.3 Literature Survey

In this section topic based literature survey for Volume of Fluid (VOF), Level Set Method (LSM) and Combined Level Set-Volume of Fluid (CLSVOF) method is presented. One of the earliest and most referred works on Volume of Fluid (VOF) and Level Set (LS) methods are discussed in detail in subsection 1.3.1 and 1.3.3, respectively. Further developments in these methods are reviewed briefly in subsection 1.3.2 for VOF method and 1.3.4 for LS method. Thereafter, work on Combined Level Set Volume of Fluid (CLSVOF) method is mentioned in subsection 1.3.5. Finally, the literature review is summarized in subsection 1.3.6.

1.3.1 VOF Method proposed by Hirt and Nichols (1981)

It was mentioned in last section that the main issues in any two-fluid simulation methodology are, (a) Representation of interface in the computational domain. (b) Evolution of interface in space and time. (c) Application of the boundary conditions at the interface. 2

In this section, solutions to the above mentioned issues by VOF method of Hirt and Nichols (1981) are presented, which ultimately sum up to VOF two-fluid solution methodology.

1.3.1.1 Representation of Interface in VOF method

In VOF method the interface data is converted into discrete volume data (volume occupied by a particular fluid in a cell). The volume data is retained in from of fractional volume of the cell (C) (ratio of volume of one fluid in a cell to volume of the cell). Fig. 1.1(a) shows the actual interface position in a computational domain and Fig. 1.1(b) shows the values of volume fractions or VOF function (C) in all computational cells. Such representation of interface avoids the logical problems involved in explicit interface tracking; also one variable per cell is required to store the information of the cell.

(a) (b) Figure 1.1: Two-fluid flow situation: (a) Actual Interface Position (b) Discretized domain with VOF function values. When the interface information is required out of the volume fraction field, it is done so geometrically. In a discrete space the interface has to be represented by a curve in a cell. The collection of curves in domain represents the interface. Hirt and Nichols (1981) approximated the interface is as a line segment in the cell which can be aligned to any of the co-ordinate axis i.e. either horizontal or vertical in Cartesian co-ordinates. This type of interface reconstruction is known as Simple Line Interface Calculation (SLIC). The SLIC interface reconstruction method involves (a) determination of the alignment of the interface, (b) determination of the position of one fluid relative to other across the interface and (c) locating the interface in cell. Choice of the alignment of the interface is made by calculating the gradient of VOF function along x and y direction. The interface lies normal to the direction in which the absolute value of gradient is more i.e. if value of C changes more along x-direction than along y-direction, then the interface is vertical and vice versa.

Hirt and Nichols (1981) presented expressions of gradient of C for non-uniform Cartesian grids; the simplified expressions for 2D square Cartesian grids shown in Fig. 1.3(b) are derived as
* * * * C CE CW C CN CS = = , x y 2 x 2 y Where, * CW = C * +C +C y , C E = C +C +C y NW W SW NE E SE * * CS = C +C +C x , C N = C +C +C x SW S SE NW N NE

( (

) )

(1.1)

It is seen from Eq. 1.1 that the expressions of the gradient are merely a measure of change in value of C in x and y direction. The relative position of the fluids across the interface is determined by examining the sign the gradient of C along the normal direction to the interface. Consider a case when the interface is found to be vertical and the sign of gradient of C along x is
* * negative, this means that the value of CW is more than CE and so the fluid (on which the VOF

function is defined) lies on the west side to the interface. The possible cases of interface orientation and relative position of fluid is shown in Fig. 1.2(a).

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1.2: Simple Line Interface Calculation (SLIC) (a) Possible cases of interface orientation and relative position of fluid (b) Circular Fluid Body (c) SLIC reconstruction of circular fluid body. After determining the orientation of interface and position of fluid, co-ordinates of a line are determined such that the reconstructed interface divides the cell in to two parts with correct amount of fluid volume lying on the fluid side. The SLIC reconstruction of a circular fluid body (Fig. 1.2(b)) is shown in Fig. 1.2(c), it is seen that SLIC is very inaccurate but it is the simplest method of interface reconstruction.

1.3.1.2 Evolution of VOF function in Space and Time

The VOF method of Hirt and Nichols (1981) is used for free surface flows, the dynamics of lighter fluid in comparison to heavier fluid is neglected. Navier-Stokes equations are solved 4

only in the region occupied by heavier fluid; the interface is treated as computational boundary. The governing equations are, Continuity Equation:
u = 0

(1.2)

Momentum Equation:

u + ( uu ) = p + 2u gj t

(1.3)

For accurate calculation of interface position with time and space the volume fraction field must be evolved accurately. The governing equation of VOF function as given by Hirt and Nichols (1981) is,

C + u C = 0 t

(1.4)

The reasoning given by Hirt and Nichols (1981) for the use of Eq. 1.4 is, the VOF function C simply moves with the fluid and in a lagrangian mesh the value of VOF function will remain constant with time. This statement seems to be inspired by the MAC method, wherein the marker particles are simply convected with the flow. Conservative form of VOF governing equation (Eq. 1.4) is obtained by using continuity equation (Eq. 1.2) as

C + ( Cu ) = 0 t

(1.5)

Eq. 1.5 is solved explicitly after Eq. 1.2 and Eq. 1.3 are solved in domain. Eq. 1.5 is a pure convection equation and volume conservation equation. When Eq. 1.5 is integrated over a cell, flux of C at the cell face is needs to be evaluated. A convection scheme is used to interpolate the value of the C at the cell face, but use of a convection scheme in case of VOF method will smear the VOF function in partially filled cells because of interpolation. Due to smearing, the interface will loose its definition. To overcome this problem, Hirt and Nichols (1981) used the donor-acceptor method. Donor-acceptor method is combination of upwind and downwind difference schemes to find the flux of fluid at cell faces in partially filled cells. The time advanced value of VOF function (C) is found as
C n +1 = C n 1 VP

f = e , w, n , s

(Volume of

Fluid Fluxed Out ) f

(1.6)

The expression for the amount of fluid fluxed out of a cell face in one time step is

(Volume of

Fluid Fluxed Out ) f = sign ( u f

) ( MIN {C AD u f t + AF , CD xD }) S f

(1.7)

Where, Additional Fluid, AF = MAX (1 C AD ) u f t (1 CD ) xD , 0.0 ,

5

Sign of velocity at face, sign ( u f ) = u f abs ( u f

In Eq. 1.7, S f is the cell face area vector. Subscript A means acceptor/downwind cell, D means donor/upwind cell and AD means either donor or acceptor cell, the choice of the donor or acceptor cell is made in following way,
C , if interface moves normal to itself C AD = A CD , Otherwise
(1.8)

However, if the acceptor cell is empty or the cell upstream of the donor cell is empty, then CAD = CA regardless of the orientation of the interface, this is done to ensure that a donor cell must fill before any fluid can enter a downstream empty cell. For the cells which are completely filled or empty, donor cell approximation (CAD = CD) is used. Even if the acceptor cell is used (CAD = CA) to calculate amount of fluid fluxed, the amount of fluid fluxed is always subtracted from or added to the donor cell fluid. The MIN feature in Eq. 1.7 prevents fluxing more fluid than a cell can donate. Additional fluid, AF is the amount of fluid in the donor cell that is needed to be fluxed in case the acceptor cell (CAD = CA) is used to calculate flux to avoid incorrect flux calculation. Donor-Acceptor method is basically a 1D method and it is extended in 2D by operator splitting i.e. intermediate values of volume fractions are calculated by solving 1D form of Eq. 1.5 in one of the directions and then based on those intermediate values, final volume fractions are obtained by solving the other 1D form of Eq. 1.5 in the remaining direction.

1.3.1.3 Application of Boundary Condition at Interface

As already mentioned, Hirt and Nichols (1981) treated the interface as computational boundary. Surface tension on the interface is neglected and pressure is assumed to be constant on the interface. To implement this boundary condition, pressure in the partially filled cell is set equal to pressure obtained by linear interpolation (or extrapolation) between the desired interface pressure and pressure of a fully filled nearest neighbor cell. Navier-Stokes equations are not solved in the partially filled cells.

1.3.1.4 VOF algorithm of Hirt and Nichols (1981)

Hirt and Nichols (1981) used a MAC type numerical algorithm to solve Navier-Stokes equations (Eq. 1.2 and Eq. 1.3). Their VOF algorithm can be summarized as (1) Initialize velocities, pressure and volume fractions in all cells. (2) All the partially filled cells are marked as boundary cells. (3) Using old time level pressure, velocities are predicted.
6

(4) Predicted velocities in general do not satisfy the continuity equation. Pressure in the interior cells is changed and the velocity change due to the pressure change is added to predicted velocities. Pressure in the partially filled cells is calculated as explained in sect. 1.3.1.3. Iterations are done till the continuity equation is satisfied. (5) The VOF equation is solved explicitly using the newly calculated velocity field. (6) Go to Step 2 until the end time or steady state. Many times the values of volume fractions calculated using donor acceptor method exceed 1 or become negative, in such case the volume fractions are simply reset to 1 or 0 respectively. This resetting introduces mass error.

1.3.2 Developments in VOF method

There has been a considerable work in VOF method since the original algorithm. There have been developments in nearly all aspects of VOF method like representation of interface, evolution of interface with time, application of boundary conditions and overall VOF algorithm. Major developments in all the aspects of VOF method are reviewed and presented in this section.

1.3.2.1 Development in Representation of Interface

The SLIC method of Hirt and Nichols (1981) is not able to reconstruct a curved interface accurately. There have been many different approximations about the shape of the interface inside a cell.

nx

ny d

(b) Figure 1.3: Piecewise Linear Interface Calculation (PLIC) Method (a) Interface representation (b) Stencil required for determination of normal in Youngs method. One step ahead of SLIC is to assume that the interface inside a cell can be variably aligned, as shown in Fig. 1.3 (a). Interface inside a cell is represented by,

(a)

nx x + n y y = d
7

(1.9)

nx , ny are components of normal vector (pointing in to the fluid) of interface and d is the
line constant in Eq. 1.9. Analogous to SLIC the main steps in PLIC method are (a) determination of interface normal, (b) determination of fluid position relative to interface and (c) locating the interface in the cell. Different PLIC methods are characterized by different interface normal finding techniques. Youngs (1982) gave simplest of all normal finding methods. In Youngs (1982) method the gradients of the VOF function are taken as the components of normal vector. Generally the Youngs method is used for square cartesian grids but extension of Youngs method to nonuniform cartesian grids is presented by Rider and Kothe (1998). A stencil of 3x3 cells is used to determine the interface normal as seen from Fig. 1.3(b). Components of normal vector,

nx and ny for square cartesian grids are given as nx =

( Ce Cw )

x Cn C s ny = y

(1.10) (1.11)

With Cne = 0.25 ( CP + CE + C NE + C N ) , Cse = 0.25 ( CP + CE + CSE + CS )

Cnw = 0.25 ( CP + CW + CNW + CN ) , Csw = 0.25 ( CP + CW + CSW + CS ) Cw = 0.5 ( Cnw + Csw ) , Cs = 0.5 ( Csw + Cse ) , Ce = 0.5 ( Cse + Cne ) , Cn = 0.5 ( Cne + Cnw )

Owing to the PLIC assumption, the interface segment can be inclined in the cell arbitrarily leading to existence of various cases of interface inclinations and relative fluid positions. The relative position of fluid with the interface by a procedure similar to SLIC method, as an example if both nx and ny are negative then the fluid is likely to be located in the south-west corner of cell as shown in Fig. 1.3(a).

Max Iter 1 Fluid Polygon

Min

Iter 2

(a) (b) Figure 1.4: Locating interface in a cell in PLIC method (a) Iterations performed by positioning interface without changing alignment between maximum and minimum possible limits. (b) Reconstructed fluid polygon at the end of the iterations.

Locating the interface segment in the cell is equivalent of finding the line constant, d . As such there is no fixed working method to perform this task, Rider and Kothe (1998) used an iterative procedure. In their method the interface segment of known alignment and fluid position is placed in a cell corresponding to maximum and minimum volume fractions possible for that configuration of interface. Then the interface is moved iteratively in the cell while keeping its alignment constant till the volume enclosed by the reconstructed interface segment represents the actual fluid volume in that cell as shown in Fig. 1.4(a). The fluid region representing the volume fraction in a cell is known as fluid polygon, shown in Fig. 1.4(b). Rudman (1997) has given implementation of Youngs method wherein algebraic expressions are used and geometrical reconstruction is completely avoided. Expressions given by Rudman (1997) are derived from the same geometrical principles of Youngs (1982) and provide very easy implementation of Youngs method.

(a) (b) Figure 1.5: Least Squares Volume-of-fluid Interface Reconstruction Algorithm (LVIRA) (a) Calculation of volume fractions in neighboring cells by extending interface. (b) Changing the orientation of interface to minimize error in neighboring cells, the volume fraction in the center cell has to be same as actual volume at all times. Pilliod and Puckett (2004) gave a criterion to determine order of any PLIC scheme; any method is of second order if it is able to exactly reconstruct a line that is not horizontal or vertical. Youngs method [ Youngs (1981)] according to Pilliod and Puckett (2004) is having order between 1 and 2. Pilliod and Puckett (2004) proposed a second order interface normal calculation procedure named as Least Squares Volume-of-fluid Interface Reconstruction Algorithm (LVIRA). In LVIRA, firstly interface is reconstructed in a cell by Youngs method. The reconstructed interface is extended to its neighboring cells in a 3x3 stencil. Volume fractions are determined in the all the neighboring cells due to intersection by extending the reconstructed interface as seen from Fig. 1.5(a). The difference of actual volume fractions of the cells and the calculated volume fractions in the neighboring cells is defined as error. The purpose of LVIRA is to minimize root mean squared value of error (rms error) for all neighboring cells. The error is
9

minimized by changing the orientation of interface under the constraint that this reconstructed interface segment exactly reproduces the volume fraction in the center cell as shown in Fig. 1.5(b) i.e. volume fraction calculated in center cell is always same as actual volume fraction. In summary, LVIRA minimizes the error due to PLIC approximation in neighborhood of 3x3 cells. The discontinuity between successive interface segments in LVIRA is found to be less than for Youngs method. Improvement over LVIRA is also given by Pilliod and Puckett (2004), namely the Efficient Least squares VOF Interface Reconstruction Algorithm (ELVIRA). In ELVIRA the basic methodology is same but the error norm used for minimization is different.

old n new n

Figure 1.6: Illustration of Circle Fit technique: A circle is fitted through midpoints of interface segments of two selected neighbors. New direction of interface normal is the along the line joining the midpoint of interface segment of center cell and center of circle. Circle fit technique proposed by Mosso et al. (1996) was successfully implemented by Garrioch and Baliga (2006). In this technique, initially the interface segments are constructed using Youngs method. With reference to an interface segment in cell, a circle is drawn through its midpoint and the midpoints of two its neighbors as shown in Fig. 1.6. The new interface normal is taken to be in the direction joining the midpoint of reference line segment and midpoint of circle. As the change of normal in one cell affects the circle calculation of neighboring cell, iterations are needed to be performed. Iterations are stopped when the interface normal calculated during successive iterations is same. Generally, the interface is approximated to be located inside a cell but in Flux Linesegment model for Advection and Interface Reconstruction (FLAIR) of Ashgriz and Poo (1991), the interface segments are fitted at the boundary of every two neighboring cells. In Parabolic Reconstruction of Surface Tension Force (PROST) method of Renardy and Renardy (2002) the shape of the interface in a cell is approximated as a parabola. The parameters of the curve are found such that the difference between the known volume fractions and those based on the parabolic reconstruction is minimized in the 3x3 stencil of cells.

10

Many researchers [Rudman (1997), Ubbink and Issa (1999)] have represented the interface by volume fraction contour of level 0.5 while plotting the interface. By representing the interface by a contour plot, smooth interface is obtained which is otherwise difficult to get from a PLIC method.

1.3.2.2 Development in Volume Fraction Advection

The donor-acceptor method used for volume advection preserves the step discontinuity of volume fraction field and generally maintains global mass conservation. But it is found in different studies [ Rudman (1997), Rider at al. (1995)] that donor-acceptor method gives inaccurate results in vortical flows as it introduces fluid breakup due to over all 1D nature of algorithm. To overcome the limitations of donor-acceptor method, various methods are used for solution of VOF advection equation such as the geometric advection method, flux corrected transport method and high resolution convection schemes are discussed in this section. Rider and Kothe (1998) presented the geometrical interpretation of donor-acceptor method. Consider a case as shown in Fig. 1.7(a), flux calculation across a face can be calculated by donor-acceptor method in following way. In donor-acceptor method (Eq. 1.7) the quantity u f t s f represents the net fluid fluxed across a cell face. If the volume fraction of the donor/upwind cell is multiplied to the net fluid flux then the resulting quantity CD u f t s f the amount of fluid of interest fluxed across east face of donor cell.
f4 Donor Cell ue e4 CAD = CD e1 f1, c1 Acceptor Cell c4 ue e3, c3 f3

) is

se = yi

f2, e2, c2

ue t
Figure 1.7: Geometric interpretation of advection (a) Advection using donor-acceptor method. (b) Geometric advection. The same information can be obtained geometrically as shown in Fig. 1.7(b). It is seen that the area of polygon f1f2f3f4 represents the quantity u f t s f , polygon f1f2f3f4 is known as the flux polygon. Polygon e1e2e3e4 represents the fluid of interest inside the cell; polygon e1e2e3e4 (fluid polygon) is constructed by interface reconstruction algorithms. The common area to both the polygons, represented by polygon c1c2c3c4 is the amount of fluid of interest is fluxed across
11

a cell. Area of the polygon has the value of CU u f t s f in this case. The advantage of this geometric interpretation is that better interface reconstruction algorithm can be used in the advection procedure i.e. PLIC methods combined with geometric advection method to solve VOF advection equation. After the fluid polygon is constructed using interface reconstruction procedure, flux polygons at all faces are geometrically constructed. In Fig. 1.7(b) flux polygon (f1f2f3f4) is constructed at the east face of a cell, vertices 2 and 3 of the flux polygon are at cell vertex se and ne respectively, so for
f 2 ( x, y )2,east flux polygon = ( xse , yse ) f3 ( x, y )3,east flux polygon = ( xne , yne )

(1.12)

As the area enclosed by the flux polygon should be equal to u f t s f , the co-ordinates of remaining two vertices of the flux polygon are,
f1 ( x, y )1,east flux polygon = ( xse ue t , yse ) f 4 ( x, y )4,east flux polygon = ( xne ue t , yne )

The area of intersection of fluid polygon and flux polygon represents the amount of fluid of interest fluxed across the cell face. As only the normal velocity at the cell face was considered, the fluxes are calculated in operator split way, which means the advection algorithm is first order. In fact, SLIC method coupled with operator split geometric advection gives exact result as donor-acceptor method.
f3 f4
u t

* vne t

* vse t

f1

f2

Figure 1.8: Determination of co-ordinates of multi dimensional flux polygon. Rider and Kothe (1998) in their geometric advection method incorporated the effect of transverse velocity at a face to avoid the operator splitting and enable solution of VOF equation in single step. They constructed multi-dimensional flux polygon. Calculation of co-ordinates of the vertices of multi-dimensional flux polygon is demonstrated using Fig. 1.8. In Fig. 1.8 the two vertices of the east flux polygon, 2 and 3 are same as that for operator split fluid polygon (Eq. 1.12). Since the flux polygon represents multi-dimensional flux passing across a face, the co12

ordinates of other two vertices of the multidimensional flux use transverse velocity at cell vertices, the other two co-ordinates of multi-dimensional flux polygon are determined as
* f1 ( x, y )1,east flux polygon = ( xse ue t , yse vse t )
* f 4 ( x, y )4,east flux polygon = ( xne ue t , yne vne t )

Different multi-dimensional geometric methods are characterized by different procedures to get vertex velocities. Rider and Kothe (1998) used upwinding to get vertex velocity, for east face in case of v velocity,

(v ) (v )

* ne i , j * ne i , j

* = ( vn )i , j and ( vse )

i, j

= ( vs )i , j

if

( ue )i,j

0 < 0

= ( vn )i +1, j and

(v )

* se i , j

= ( vs )i +1, j if

( ue )i,j
( ue )i,j ( ue )i,j

Garrioch and Baliga (2006) calculated a common velocity for both vertices as
* * vne = vse = 0.5 ( vn + vs )i

if

0 < 0

* * vne = vse = 0.5 ( vn + vs )i +1 if

(1.13)

Similarly, co-ordinates of vertices of flux polygons for other faces are determined. Once fluid polygon and all the flux polygons are in order, the common area to both fluid polygon and each of flux polygons is determined. The common area shown in Fig. 1.9, represents amount of a particular fluid passing across east cell face in one time step. The total common area for all the faces is the total amount of a particular fluid fluxed out of the cell. The new volume fraction is determined by solving Eq. 1.6. The geometric advection procedure is only applied in the cells which have interface, for all other cells first order upwind gives accurate results.

Figure 1.9: Common area of Fluid polygon and Flux polygon at east face: Shaded area is the common to Fluid polygon and Flux polygon, representing the amount of fluid fluxed out from east face in one time step.

13

Donor-acceptor method used by Hirt and Nichols (1981), discussed in subsection 1.3.1.2 is a variation of Flux Corrected Transport (FCT) method but it is 1D algorithm. Zalesak (1979) had presented multidimensional algorithm of flux corrected transport method but did not use it to solve VOF governing equation. The basic methodology of FCT method as given by Zalesak (1979) is, (a) Fluid flux across a cell face is calculated using a lower order scheme (e.g. FOU). Use of lower order flux introduces the numerical diffusion in the solution but does not produce overshoot (C > 1) or undershoot (C < 0). (b) Secondly, fluid flux across that cell face is calculated using any higher order scheme, Use of lower order flux introduces minimum numerical diffusion in the solution but may produce overshoot or undershoot. (c) The difference of the higher order flux and lower order flux is known as antidiffusive flux. (d) The maximum possible flux from the anti-diffusive flux is added to the lower order flux without producing overshoots or undershoots. The maximum possible anti-diffusive flux is calculated by procedure called flux limiting. (e) The end result is that a flux across a face is obtained having minimum numerical diffusion without producing overshoots and undershoots. Although Rudman (1997) used FCT method of Zalesak (1979) to solve VOF governing equations, the results were not comparable to geometric advection method. On the other hand, implementation of geometric advection method takes lot of effort and it is not easily extendible to unstructured grids and 3D whereas FCT method is easy to implement and extend. Alternative to geometric method and FCT is use of high resolution convection schemes. When the VOF governing equation is discretized, value of the volume fraction is required to be calculated at cell face center. As values of volume fractions are available only at cell centers, a method is used to interpolate or extrapolate the value of volume fraction using the neighboring cell center values. The volume fractions distribution exhibits a step discontinuity and simple interpolation in zone of discontinuity is an inaccurate approximation. Due to higher order interpolation like in central difference scheme and QUICK, undershoots and overshoots known as spurious oscillations occur at zone on discontinuity [Wang and Hutter (2001)]. High-resolution methods are nonlinear methods that use a limiting mechanism to control the spurious oscillations at zone on discontinuity. In the limiting mechanism, the coefficients of interpolating polynomial are modified by multiplying them with a slope limiter. A slope limiter is a function of local slopes of the volume fraction. Many different interpolation schemes and

14

slope limiter functions exist [Wang and Hutter (2001)] and can be used in any combination giving rise to many different schemes. Rider et al. (1995) used a Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) [Colella and Woodward (1984)] and Ubbink and Issa (1999) presented the Compressive Interface Capturing Scheme for Arbitrary Meshes (CICSAM). CICSAM can be easily implemented on 2D and 3D unstructured grids; it has also been implemented in latest version of one of the commercial software.

1.3.2.3 Development in Application of Boundary Condition at Interface

Hirt and Nichols (1981) neglected lighter fluid of the two fluids and treated the interface as a computational boundary. Application of pressure boundary condition in PLIC method is more difficult. In PLIC method the interface may be inclined in a cell and interpolation of pressure across an inclined interface will require extra effort during implementation. Also, in some important problems like rise of gas bubble in a liquid, the gas phase (lighter fluid) dynamics cannot be neglected. To overcome the problem of implementation of boundary conditions and solution of Navier-Stokes equations in complete domain, a single fluid model with mean properties is used in modern VOF method [Rider et al. (1995), Rudman (1998), Welch and Wilson (2000) Ginzburg and Wittum (2001), Garrioch and Baliga (2006)]. The mean properties are calculated in all the cells by simple volume weighed average,

m = 2 + C ( 1 2 ) m = 2 + C ( 1 2 )

(1.14) (1.15)

Here, 1 and 2 are densities of fluid 1 and fluid 2 respectively, 1 and 2 are dynamic viscosities of fluid 1 and fluid 2 respectively and C is the volume fraction of the cell, defined as ratio volume of fluid 1 to volume of cell. For a case of incompressible, isothermal, immiscible two-fluid flow situation the governing equations are: Continuity Equation: m + ( mu ) = 0 t Conservation of Momentum: ( mu ) T + ( muu ) = p + m u + ( u ) t (1.16)

( (

)) gj + F
m

ST

(1.17)

The expression for average density (Eq. 1.14) can be obtained from equation of conservation of mass but the justification of using average viscosity (Eq. 1.15) is not explicitly

15

explained in literature. Ginzburg and Wittum (2001) have mentioned that, for immiscible phases, density and viscosity are constant along a particle path and so the following relation holds, m + u m = 0 t m + u m = 0 t (1.18) (1.19)

Using Eq. 1.14 and Eq. 1.15 in Eq. 1.18 and Eq. 1.19 respectively, VOF governing equation (Eq. 1.4) is obtained. Rider et al. (1995) have given a similar justification. Validity of averaging viscosity based on some physical principle and its effect on solution accuracy is not mentioned in the literature. However, Welch and Wilson (2000) have simulated film boiling using average properties and presented accurate results. It is concluded that averaging viscosity is a pragmatically made numerical approximation to keep the model simple. Because of the averaging of properties, the interface no longer remains sharp as it is diffused within one cell width.
1.3.2.3.1 Surface Tension Model

Surface tension is modeled by most of the researchers using the Continuum Surface Force (CSF) method of Brackbill et al. (1992). In CSF approach, surface tension is modeled as a body force applied in a thin transition region near the interface. The body force approaches the true surface force when the transition region becomes very small i.e. on very fine grid. In CSF method there is no need of interface reconstruction, only the volume fraction field must be known. The surface tension per unit volume by CSF model is, FST = n s (1.20)

In Eq. 1.20, is the surface tension coefficient, and n are curvature and the unit

normal vector of the interface, s is the Dirac delta function, which is zero everywhere except at the interface. In VOF methods, interface normal is calculated as
n = C and n = C C

(1.21)

Curvature of the interface is calculated from the interface normal as

= n =

C C

(1.22)

Eq. 1.21 and Eq. 1.22 are discretized using central difference scheme. The Dirac delta function in case of VOF method is given by Brackbill et al. (1992) as

s = C = n
16

(1.23)

In VOF method, calculating interface normal and curvature using Eq. 1.21 and Eq. 1.22 involves calculating first order and second order derivatives of volume fractions. As the volume fraction field has step discontinuity, use of central difference scheme is invalid and leads to incorrect normal and curvature calculation. Brackbill et al. (1992) suggested smoothing of volume fractions by convolving volume fraction field by a radially symmetric kernel function. The smoothened volume fraction ( C ) field can be used to calculate interface normal and curvature. The smoothened volume fraction from the raw volume fraction field is obtained as

r r K i , j k ,l xy h C = k ,l n r r K i, j h k ,l xy k ,l

k ,l

(1.24)

In Eq. 1.24, r 2 = x 2 + y 2 , h = 2x is the smoothing length or the width of diffuse interface. A kernel function used must be twice continuously differentiable. One of the most widely used kernel function is K8 kernel function

(1 v 2 )4 if v < 1 K (v) = Otherwise 0

(1.25)

Interface curvature can also be calculated by interface reconstruction algorithms such as circle fit technique and PROST without the smoothing of volume fraction field. Curvature calculation is a major advantage of circle fit technique and is simply the inverse of radius of the circle fitted in the cell. In PROST, as the equation of the interface (parabola) is twice differentiable, the interface normal and curvature are calculated by differentiating the equation of interface [Renardy and Renardy (2002)].

1.3.2.4 Modern VOF algorithm and some Results

Most of the researchers use Projection method [ Peyret and Taylor (1983), Bell and Marcus (1992) ] to solve Navier-Stokes equations, a modern VOF method algorithm based on single fluid model can be summarized as (1) Initialize velocities, pressure and volume fractions in all cells. (2) Calculate Properties in all cells using Eq. 1.14 and Eq. 1.15 (3) Navier-Stokes equations are solved in the complete domain. (4) VOF equation is solved explicitly using the newly calculated velocity field. (5) Go to Step 2 until the end time or steady state.

17

It is possible to get undershoots (C < 0) or overshoots (C > 1) in volume fraction field, in that case the volume fractions in the cell are reset to 0 or 1 respectively.

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 1.10: Some Results of 2D VOF method (a) Bubble bursting through the interface in a partially filled cavity by Martinez et al.(2006). (b) Melting of ASME logo nu Kothe et al. (1999) (c) Simulation of horizontal film boiling by Welch and Wilson (2000)]. Since introduction, tremendous progress has been made in implementing the VOF based methods. Martinez et al. (2006) solved the problem of bubble bursting through the interface in a partially filled cavity, shown in Fig. 1.10 (a). Fig. 1.10(b) shows the melting simulation of ASME logo done by Kothe et al. (1999). Horizontal film boiling is simulated by Welch and Wilson (2000), shown in Fig. 1.10(c).
18

Bonito et al. (2003) have developed a 3D VOF code for simulating motion of viscoelastic fluid, shown in Fig. 1.11 (a). Chen and Li (1998) simulated the rise and coalescence of bubbles in 3D shown in Fig. 1.11(b). Barkhudarov (2006) simulated the 3D break up of liquid jet, shown in Fig. 1.11 (c).

(b)

(a) (c) Figure 1.11: Some Results of 3D VOF method (a) Formation of thin filaments by pulling top and bottom faces apart of a viscoelastic fluid (non-Newtonian) fluid body by Bonito et al. (2003) (b) Coalescence of bubbles in same axial position while rising Chen and Li (1998) (c) 3D simulation of breakup of liquid jet by Barkhudarov (2006).

1.3.3 Level Set Method

Level Set method has been successfully used in problems like kinetic crystal growth, dendritic solidification, computer vision and image processing, medical imaging and many others. Sussman et al. (1994) presented a methodology to use level set methods for incompressible two-fluid flows. In this section, representation of interface, advection of interface, application of boundary conditions in level set methods and level set solution methodology proposed by Sussman et al. (1994) is presented.

1.3.3.1 Representation of Interface in LSM

19

Interface representation in LSM is based upon concept of implicit surfaces, wherein a function is defined in a domain having a fixed value at the interface. In level set method the interface is modeled by defining a level set function, in the complete domain i.e. for both the fluids. The level set function is chosen in such a way that it assumes negative values in one fluid and positive values in other fluid and thus the interface is defined where the value of level set function is zero. Level set function is taken as a signed normal distance function measured from the interface as it satisfies requirements of level set interface representation. Fig. 1.12 (a) shows a two fluid flow situation with actual interface, the value of the level set function in the domain, shown in Fig. 1.12 (b).

0.0620 3

71

0.1

04 4

45

0.0620 3

0.01962

Fluid 2
89 25 9

71

0.1

04 4

14 0. 5 68 2

14 0.

45

0.1

0.1 89

5 68 2

97

0.01962

25

97

-0.0227

777
51

Fluid 2 >0 Interface

0.104445

-0.0227

777
51

Fluid 2 >0 Interface =0

0.0620371

-0.06518

-0.06518

-0.107593

-0.107593

0.104445

0.0620371

Fluid 1 <0 Fluid 1

0.146852

Fluid 1 <0

0.146852

(a) (b) Figure 1.12: Interface representation in LS method (a) Actual Interface Position (b) Value of Level set function in the domain with contours of the normal distance function.

1.3.3.2 Advection of Interface in LSM

In level set methods, the single fluid model followed in VOF method is used [Sussman et al. (1994), Chang et al. (1996), Osher and Fedkiw (2001)]. For a case of incompressible, isothermal, immiscible two-fluid flow situation the governing equations of flow in level set method are: Continuity Equation:
u = 0

(1.26)

Conservation of Momentum:

u 1 T + ( uu ) = p + m u + ( u ) m t

( (

)) + F

ST

gj

(1.27)

In a flow field that satisfies continuity and momentum equations, the interface simply moves with the flow. Thus, the level set function is simply convected with flow and its temporal evolution is modeled as
20

 + u = 0 t

(1.28)

This is a pure convection equation of a smooth scalar function, . Use of a lower order convection scheme will introduce numerical diffusion which will cause direct mass error. Sussman et al. (1994) used a second order Essentially Non Oscillatory scheme (ENO) for spatial discretization of Eq. 1.28.

1.3.3.3 Reinitialization of Level Set Function LSM

Level set function is initialized as signed normal distance function and once the level set function is advected, it no longer remains a normal distance function and become irregular. In a fluid flow problem it is necessary to maintain constant width of band i.e. the distance across which the properties vary near the interface. If the width of band is not same along the interface then the Heaviside function (Eq. 1.33) will be calculated inaccurately and hence the properties are calculated inaccurately (Eq. 1.32). Also Sussman et al. (1994) mentioned that if level set function is not maintained as normal distance function then steep gradients of level set function will appear and incorrect flux can be calculated while solving Eq. 1.28. To maintain the constant width of the band, level set function must be repaired to be signed normal distance function every time after the level set advection equation is solved but the position of the interface ( = 0 ) obtained by solution of Eq. 1.28 should not be changed. The interface normal is calculated in level set method as

n =
The unit normal of the interface is given as n=

(1.29)

(1.30)

If magnitude of the normal i.e. is made equal to one in Eq. 1.32 then the unit normal
vector of the interface will be equal to interface normal ( n = n ), under that case the level set

function will be normal distance function. Sussman et al. (1994) presented a procedure to reinitialize a function ( o ) to signed normal distance function ( ) by obtaining steady state solution of,

+ S (o ) ( 1) = 0 s
In Eq. 1.33, s is pseudo-time, S (o ) is the smoothened sign function,

(1.31)

21

S (o ) =

o o 2 + 2

, Generally, = x

The steady state solution of Eq. 1.33 has the property that the value of level set function at the interface remains unchanged i.e. the location of = 0 will remain unchanged but away from the interface will converge to = 1 , i.e. level set function will be reinitialized to normal
distance function. Moreover, the sign function, S ( ) also ensures that the normal distance function remains as signed normal distance function. Sussman et al. (1994) showed Eq. 1.32 to be a hyperbolic equation and they discretized it using second order ENO scheme.

1.3.3.4 Application of Boundary Condition at Interface

In LSM, the single fluid model is used to solve Navier-Stokes equations and thus there is no need to explicitly implement the boundary conditions on interface. Sussman et al. (1994) used smoothened fluid properties across the interface. Properties were smoothened in order to avoid numerical instabilities in the solution. The smoothened/mean density and viscosity are defined as

m = 2 + ( 1 2 ) H ( ) m = 2 + ( 1 2 ) H ( )

(1.32)

Here, 1 and 2 are densities of fluid 1 and fluid 2 respectively, 1 and 2 are dynamic viscosities of fluid 1 and fluid 2 respectively, H ( ) is the smeared out Heaviside function, Sussman et al. (1994) used the expression of heaviside function as 0, 1 + H ( ) = sin , + 2 2 1,
if < - if if >

(1.33)

is a small parameter usually taken as 1.5x , which means the interface is smeared
across 3 cells when is normal distance function, the smeared interface is known as the band with width 3 cells. Surface tension in LSM is modeled using the Continuum Surface Force (CSF) method of Brackbill et al.(1992) as explained in section 1.1.3.1; Eq. 1.20 is gives the expression of surface tension per unit volume by CSF model. The validity of use of CSF model in level set framework is given by Chang et al. (1996).

22

The unit normal vector and curvature of the interface and the Dirac delta function required to evaluate surface tension force in Eq. 1.20 are calculated in a different way in LSM than VOF method.
The unit normal vector of the interface ( n ) is calculated using Eq. 1.32 and Interface

curvature ( ) is given as = n =

(1.34)

Level set function is a smooth function, so Eq. 1.32 and Eq. 1.34 are discretized using central difference scheme. The Dirac delta function [Sussman et al. (1994)] in case of LSM is given as
1 1 + cos if s = 2 0 Otherwise

<

(1.35)

1.3.3.5 Level Set Solution Methodology

Sussman et al. (1994) used a projection method to solve Navier-Stokes equations in the domain, their level set solution methodology can be summarized as (1) Initialize velocities, pressure and level set function values in all cells. (2) Calculate Heaviside Function in all cells using Eq. 1.30 (3) Calculate Properties in all cells using Eq. 1.29. (4) Navier-Stokes equations are solved in the complete domain. (5) Level Set governing equation is solved in the domain explicitly for the next time step using the newly calculated velocity field. (6) Level Set function is reinitialized to normal distance function by solving Eq. 1.34 till steady state (of pseudo time) in complete domain. (7) Go to Step 2 until the end time or steady state.

1.3.4 Developments in LS method

LSM method has not undergone drastic change as far as interface representation and advection and solution of governing equations is concerned but it is reported [ Chang et al. (1996)] that level set method in its original form is unable to conserve mass in two-fluid flow simulation. Major work has been done to identify and rectify the source of mass error in the solution procedure.

23

Although not mentioned explicitly anywhere, one can see the difference of formulation in LSM and VOF method. In VOF method, mean density is calculated using Eq. 1.14 and volume fraction field is conserved by solving VOF governing equation (Eq. 1.5)). Using Eq. 1.14 in Eq. 1.5, continuity equation used in VOF method (Eq. 1.16) is obtained. Thus by solution of VOF governing equation the mass conservation is ensured. In level set method, the form of continuity equation (Eq. 1.26) is incorrect for describing a two-phase flow situation; the correct form of continuity equation should be Eq. 1.16. Moreover, in level set method, the mean density is calculated by Eq. 1.29 but conservation of Heaviside function field is not enforced, hence the continuity equation used in VOF method (Eq. 1.16) is not satisfied. Mass conservation in LSM will be ensured when advection of level set function and its reinitialization will ensure conservation of Heaviside function field. As in level set method of Sussman et al. (1994) there is no such constraint, mass conservation is violated.

1.3.4.1 Developments to reduce Mass Error

Chang et al. (1996) observed that the formulation of level set method as given by Sussman
et al. (1996) was correct but the reinitialization procedure needed modification. They mentioned

that theoretically Eq. 1.33 will reinitialize the level set function to signed normal distance function but due to numerical errors the interface position ( = 0 ) changes during reinitialization, the error induced accumulates and results in mass loss/gain. Chang et al. (1996) presented an area-preserving reinitialization equation,
+ ( mo m ( t ) ) ( 1) = 0 s

(1.36)

In Eq. 1.36, mo is the total mass at initial condition, m (t) is the mass at time instant t. Ni et
al. (2006) presented a variable time-step method for reinitialization, in their method the value of

pseudo time-step is changed improve mass conservation. The time-step chosen is calculated by that constraint given by Eq. 1.37.
t
domain

H ( ) = 0

(1.37)

1.3.4.2 Developments in solution of LS advection equation

Jiang and Peng (2000) have presented higher order ENO scheme and the Weighted Essentially Non Oscillatory scheme (WENO). When Eq. 1.28 is discretized, gradient of level set function needs to be calculated at cell center. In ENO scheme, gradient of the level set function in the discretized equation is selected from a two or more candidate gradients calculated on different stencils. Gradient of the level set
24

function is calculated by approximating a higher order polynomial in each of the stencil. The gradient of the smoothest stencil is selected out of all candidate gradients, by doing so the unphysical oscillations introduced due to use of higher order scheme are eliminated. In WENO schemes, gradient of the level set function in the discretized equation is calculated by taking weighted average of all the gradients calculated on different stencils. The weights are calculated so that maximum weight is given to smoothest stencil. In WENO scheme the logical statements involved in ENO while selecting the smoothest stencil are avoided.

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 1.13: Some results of 2D LS method (a) Rayleigh-Taylor instability with multiple perturbations at interface by Naourgaliev and Theofanous (2006) (b) Free falling liquid droplet in a channel near a wall by Ni et al.(2006) (c) Rise and merging of two bubbles in a channel filled with liquid by Chang et al. (1995).

1.3.4.3 Some Results of LS method

As compared to VOF method, few results using level set method are available on literature. Most of the results available are for hypothetical test problems. Fig. 1.13 (a) shows result of
25

Rayleigh-Taylor instability with multiple perturbations at interface by Naourgaliev and Theofanous (2006). Ni et al. (2006) studied the effect of wall on falling droplet; one of their results of near wall bubble drop is shown in Fig. 1.13(b). Chang et al. (1995) solved the problem of rise and merging of two bubbles in a channel filled with liquid as shown in Fig. 1.13(c). Osher and Fedkiw (2000) have presented a 3D simulation result of an invisible solid object splashing in water pool, shown in Fig. 1.14.

Figure 1.13: Result of 3D LS method: simulation of invisible object splashing into water pool by Osher and Fedkiw (2000).

1.3.5 Combined Level Set VOF (CLSVOF) method

As the name suggests, Combined Level Set Volume of Fluid (CLSVOF) method proposed by Sussman and Puckett (2000) is combination of level set and volume of fluid method intended to combine advantages of LSM and VOF method. In CLSVOF method the volume fractions (Heaviside function) are used to reconstruct the interface and solve VOF advection equation, ensuring mass conservation. The level set function is calculated from the reconstructed interface. The interface normal required to reconstruct interface in cell (PLIC) and curvature are calculated from the level set function field. CLSVOF method has advantages of VOF and level set method but it has a big disadvantage of VOF method i.e. Interface reconstruction.

26

1.3.6 Summary of Literature Review

Extensive literature is available on VOF method indicating that extensive work has been done on VOF method. There are many methods to construct the interface by knowing the volume fraction field in domain but none reproduces the actual surface because of PLIC approximation and existence of finite number of cells. In VOF, generally discontinuous interface will be reconstructed, however efforts have been made by researchers to get continuous interface. Fairly accurate interface can be reconstructed on a fine grid using LVIRA [ Pilliod and Puckett (2004)], circle Fit technique [ Mosso et al. (1996), Garrioch and Baliga (2006)] or PROST [ Renardy and Renardy (2002)] but the computational effort will increase such methods involve iterations to locate interface in cell, a trade-off limit will have to be found. To obtain the accurate solution of VOF governing equation, most of the researchers prefer the geometric advection method. VOF method has been extended to 3D [Lrstad and Fuchs (2004)]. Use of single fluid model has simplified the solution procedure of the two-phase problems. Use of CSF model has been reported to give fairly accurate results. Use of level set method is not wide as compared to VOF, yet some great problems have been solved using level set method. There are various approaches available to tackle the problem of mass loss but it was found that all the methods try to conserve the Heaviside function field. CLSVOF methods are used to explicitly conserve to Heaviside function whereas Chang et al. (1996) and Ni et al. (2006) have tried to indirectly conserve Heaviside function by applying constraint in reinitialization procedure.

1.4 Objective and Motivation of Present Work

It is seen from literature survey, considerable work has been done in fluid flow algorithms using VOF and LS methods in 2D and 3D. Simulating boiling is a challenging task, some work is available in 2D but simulation of 3D boiling is seldom attempted. The objective of present work is development of a 3D two-phase flow code capable of simulating boiling; the code will be used to simulate two-phase flow over nuclear rod bundles in a cylindrical shell. To achieve the objective in systematic way, (a) 2D two-fluid flow codes based on VOF and LS methods will be developed for making detailed comparisons and understanding the numerical strengths and limitations of both methods. A method that suits the requirements of present objective will be selected for further development.
27

(b) It is intended to rectify the shortcomings of simulation methodology selected after comparative study by proposing a new formulation in 2D. (c) Boiling heat transfer at interface will be modeled in the proposed/improved method in 2D. (d) 3D extension of the two-phase flow code will be done.

1.5 Outline of Report

In chapter 2, the mathematical formulation of two-fluid solution methodology is presented. Numerical methodology and implementation details for development of two-fluid flow codes developed in the present work is explained in Chapter 3. A new CLSVOF method is explained in Chapter 4. All numerical tests, their results and discussions are presented in Chapter 5. Conclusions drawn from present work and future work proposal are presented in Chapter 6.

28

2
Mathematical Formulation
In this chapter the mathematical formulation of two-fluid solution methodology is presented. In computational multi-fluid/interfacial dynamics, two sets of transient equations are solved: Navier-Stokes and interface evolution equations, discussed in section 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. The first set of equations are used to obtain flow properties (velocity and pressure) and the second set is used to obtain the location of interface. Physically, both flow property and interface change simultaneously with respect to time but here, numerically the two sets of equations are solved in a sequence. For example, if Navier-Stokes equations are solved first, then the interface location needed is lagged by one time step. Thereafter, the updated velocity field of new time step is used to solve equations governing evolution of interface to obtain interface location of new time step.

2.1 Navier-Stokes equation

In the present work single fluid assumption model is used i.e. NS equations are solved in the complete domain using volume weighted properties. Single fluid flow solution procedures can be easily used in case of level set method (Eq. 1.26 and Eq. 1.27) but not in case of VOF method as the mean density term is present in Eq. 1.16. To keep things simple, it is desired to use same numerical methods of single fluid flow in case VOF method. Eq. 1.16 is expanded as,
m + u ( m ) + m ( u ) = 0 t

(2.1)

Eq. 2.1 is split as,

m ( u ) = 0
and
m + u ( m ) = 0 t

(2.2)

(2.3)

Substituting Eq. 1.14 in Eq. 2.3 and applying the fact that in incompressible flow the individual fluid density does not change with time or space, VOF governing equation (Eq. 2.4) is obtained. Similarly the momentum equation used in LS method (Eq. 1.27) is obtained from Eq. 1.17 using Eq. 2.1. The continuity equation (Eq. 1.26) is obtained from Eq. 2.2. Hence, the form of Navier-Stokes equation used in VOF method is same as that for LS method. It is seen from this transformation that solving the continuity equation (Eq. 1.26) and the
29

VOF governing equation (Eq. 1.4) is same as solving Eq. 1.16. It is observed that VOF method has a built-in mass conservation property whereas in case of LSM, mass will be conserved only if solving Eq. 1.28 ensures solution of Eq. 1.4.

2.1.1 Non-Dimensional form of Navier-Stokes equation

Governing equations are written in non-dimensional form to generalize a large array of problems and perform the parametric study easily. In the present work non-dimensional form of governing equation are solved. The Continuity (Eq. 1.26) and Momentum equations (Eq. 1.27) are written in non-dimensional form as,
U = 0

(2.4) 1 P + Re U + U

U 1 + UU =

( )

1 1 ) + We n Fr
s

(2.5)

Here U , , P are non-dimensional velocity, time and pressure respectively. The length scale ( L* ) , time scale ( t * ) and the velocity scale (U * ) are defined based on the problem at hand; and are non-dimensional density and viscosity defined as,

= + C (1 ) , = + C (1 )
with = 2 1 , = 2 1 and 1 > 2

(2.6)

Re is Reynolds number defined as, Re = Fr is Froude number defined as,

Fr = U* gL*

1U * L* 1

We is Weber number defined as,

(U * ) L* We = 1
2

As seen here, the non-dimensional governing parameters are Reynolds number, Froude number and Weber number. Re and We are based on properties of heavier fluid.

2.2 Mathematical Representation of Evolution of Interface

This representation depends on the numerical method used and is discussed in subsection 2.2.1 for VOF method and 2.2.2 for LS method.
30

2.2.1 Volume of Fluid Governing Equation

As mentioned earlier, in VOF method, interface motion is not followed but volume of fluid function (C) (ratio of volume of one fluid to volume of the cell) is used to store information of a region of a fluid. Eq. 1.5 is the governing equation of VOF function. VOF function is a step function and there is doubt over existence of its derivatives and thus existence of VOF governing equation itself. Use of finite difference or finite volume technique to discretize the VOF governing equation (Eq. 1.5) is also inappropriate. However, the volume conservation has to be satisfied and instead of writing Eq. 1.5, VOF governing equation can be written as Eq. 1.6. There is no advantage in converting a conservation statement into a differential equation and then using discretization procedures to convert the differential equation back to conservation statement.

2.2.2 Level Set equations

In case of LS method the evolution of interface is defined by two equations: Convection equation and a Reinitialization equation.

2.2.2.1 Convection Equation

The level set convection equation also known a level set governing equation, governs the temporal evolution of level set function. Level set function is advected with the background flow field, so the convection equation of interface is Eq. 1.28.

2.2.2.2 Reinitialization Equation

Level set function is defined as a normal distance function. Once a time advanced level set function field is calculated by solving Eq. 1.28, the level set function field no longer remains a normal distance function field, properties and curvature calculation procedures require level set function to be a normal distance function. Sussman et al. (1994) mentioned that solution of Eq. 1.31 after every time step reinitializes the level set function to signed normal distance function. To solve Eq. 1.31, it is converted to a hyperbolic equation. The gradient of level set function is, = x i + y and thus ( ) ( ) = x2 + x2 = ( j
S (o ) ( + s

)( ) . Using this Eq. 1.31 is written as,

)( ) = S

(o )

31

 S (o ) + = S (o ) s

(2.7)

Eq. 2.7 is a hyperbolic equation with characteristic S (o ) , it is known as the reinitialization equation.

32

3
Numerical Methodology
In this chapter, finite volume/difference discretization of the governing equations shown in previous chapter and its solution methodology is discussed. The numerical methodology of solution of solution of Navier-Stokes equations using projection method on a staggered grid is discussed in section 3.1. Thereafter, implementation details of VOF and LS methodologies are discussed in section 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.

3.1 Finite Volume Discretization: Navier-Stokes equation

A numerical method adopted to approximate the governing equations along with the relevant boundary conditions by a system of linear algebraic equations is known as discretization method. An algorithm, known as solution methodology is devised to obtain solutions to the algebraic equations obtained by discretization. The domain on which the governing equations are solved is also discretized in to finite number of control volumes, and governing equations are solved for those cells.

3.1.1 Domain Discretization: Staggered Grid

The governing equations are discretized on a square staggered grid arrangement as shown in Fig. 3.1. The pressure is located at cell center and velocity components are staggered and thus located at the cell face centers.

Figure 3.1: Staggered Grid used for two-fluid flow simulation.

33

3.1.2 Discretization of Governing Equations

The Navier stokes equations (Eq. 2.4 and Eq. 2.5) are discretized by performing volume integral over a cell (Fig. 3.2). The finite volume discretized form of the momentum equation is for kth velocity component is

VP (U kn,+1 U kn, P ) P
Where, Convective Flux, FkCP = , Diffusion Flux, FkDP = ,

= FkDP FkCP , ,

f = w, s ,e , n

Pf S f + FST + Fg

(3.1)

f = w, s ,e , n

U k , f (U S ) f

1 Re , P

f = w, s ,e , n

( ( U

+ ( U k )

) S )

VP V n S , Gravitational force, Fg = 2 Surface Tension force, FST = j Fr We P

Sn Sw

V
x
Ss

Se

S w = yi , Se = yi S s = xj , Sn = xj

V = xy

Figure 3.2: A finite volume cell / control volume with geometrical parameters In Eq. 3.1, U k , f in the convective flux term is calculated using a convection scheme. In the present work, Three convection schemes, first order upwind (FOU), Second Order Upwind (SOU) and Quadratic Upwind Interpolation for Interface Kinematics (QUICK) scheme is implemented, either one can be used based on the problem at hand. The gradient of velocity across a cell face in diffusion term of Eq. 3.1 is calculated using central difference scheme.

3.1.3 Solution Methodology: Projection algorithm

In projection method, continuity equation (Eq. 2.4) is solved implicitly whereas the convective and diffusive terms of momentum equation (Eq. 2.5) are considered explicitly. The proposed time levels are,
U n +1 = 0

(3.2)

34

n +1

n n = U U +

1 n +1 1 n P + n Re

( (

+ U

n T

))

1 We

( n s )

1 Fr 2

(3.3)

In The solution algorithm in projection method is, 1. Intermediate velocity is calculated by doing explicit time integration from time level n of Eq. 3.3 without pressure terms,

U * U n 1 = U nU n + n n U n + U n Re

)+

1 We

( n s )

1 2 j Fr

(3.4)

2. To determine the pressure field that satisfies the continuity equation, Eq. 3.4 is subtracted from Eq. 3.3,

U n +1 U * P n +1 = n
equation is obtained as,
P n +1 1 U * = n

(3.5)

3. Taking divergence on both sides of Eq. 3.5 and using Eq. 3.2, the pressure Poisson

(3.6)

4. Eq. 3.6 is solved for P n +1 subjected to homogeneous Neumann boundary condition,

P n +1 =0. n
5. Once the pressure of new time level is obtained from Eq. 3.6, Velocities at new time level are calculated using Eq. 3.5. In the present work, the pressure poisson equation (Eq. 3.6) is solved using Alternating Direction Integration (ADI) method.

3.1.4 Calculation of Time Step

The projection method implemented in this work is of semi-explicit nature as the convective and diffusive terms are treated explicitly. The VOF and level set governing equations are also solved explicitly. Thus there is a problem of numerical instability if higher time step is taken. Time step calculated must obey the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) condition, the restriction due to gravity and surface tension and the restriction due to viscous terms. The non-

dimensional time step is calculated as,

= R min ( CFL , ST , VIS )

(3.7)

Where,

35

R is the reduction factor; its value is problem dependent.

X CFL is restriction on time step due to CFL criterion. CFL = min domain . 2 U
(1 + ) We 3 X 2 . ST is restriction on time step due to surface tension. ST = min domain 8

X 2 Y 2 Re VIS is restriction on time step due to viscous force. VIS = min domain . 2 2 4 ( X + Y )

3.2 Implementation of VOF method

In present work, VOF algorithm explained in Section 1.3.2.4 is followed. The VOF function is located at the cell center with pressure. Implementation details of methodologies adopted to solve VOF governing equation is explained in subsection 3.2.1, application of boundary condition of volume fraction is discussed in subsection 3.2.2, modeling of surface tension and procedure to calculate properties at required locations is presented section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 respectively.

3.2.1 Solution of VOF governing equation

From literature review it is seen that many approaches are present to solve VOF equation However, results of detailed comparisons between different VOF solution methodologies on wide variety of problems are not available. Rudman (1997) had performed comparative study of flux corrected transport method and Youngs method without geometric reconstruction on Rayleigh Taylor instability with low property ratio and without surface tension. In this work, all three solution approaches of VOF governing equation discussed in 1.3.2.2 are implemented. Donor-acceptor method, a type of flux corrected transport method is implemented. High resolution convection schemes in form of Piecewise Linear Method (PLM) and Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) are used in finite volume discretized VOF equation. The most popular solution approach in form of multidimensional geometric advection method using Youngs PLIC method is implemented. As all the different approaches are implemented, relative advantages and shortcomings can be determined on same set of conditions. Implementation details of each method are explained here. A test problem is considered to explain working of donor-acceptor and geometric advection method.

36

3.2.1.1 Implementation of Donor-Acceptor method

Donor-acceptor (DA) method of Hirt and Nichols (1981) used to solve VOF governing equation is simplest and earliest of VOF solution approach. It is a form of flux corrected transport method, wherein the numerical diffusion in solution is reduced without inducing undershoots or overshoots. The basic algorithm is explained in section 1.3.1.2. Implementation of DA method can be understood with the help of a test problem. Values of volume fractions in a square domain (5x5) are shown in Table 3.1. Consider the central stencil of 3x3 cells, the central cell has volume fraction 0.5. It is intended to calculate the value of volume fraction in center cell at new time level. Geometrical details, velocity field and time step is given in Table 3.2. Table 3.1: Values of volume fractions in domain. Central Stencil of 3x3 cells is considered for calculation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1667 0 0 0 0 1 0.1667 0.5 0.8334 0.8334 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3.2: Geometry, velocity field and time step for test problem Grid spacing X = Y = 1 Cell Face Area Vectors S w = S s = 1 and Se = S n = 1

Velocity Field Time Step

U = 0.6 and V = 1 everywhere in domain = 0.6

Time advanced value of volume fraction in central cell can be found by following steps, for other cells same steps need to be performed. As already mentioned, the DA method is implemented using operator splitting and the final value of volume fraction is calculated by executing x-sweep and y-sweep. The steps required to execute x-sweep for this case are,
Step 1: The gradient of volume fractions are calculated using Eq. 1.1 as,

Cx = 0.33 and C y = 1.5

Step 2: In DA method only the information of orientation of interface is required, a variable for

orientation is defined as, 0 if abs ( Cx ) < abs ( C y ) [ Horizontal Interface] ORT = 1 else [Vertical Interface] In this case for the central cell, ORT = 0.
37

Step 3: To solve VOF equation (Eq. 1.6), the amount of fluid fluxed across a cell face is

calculated using Eq. 1.7. The donor and acceptor cells across east and west cell faces are determined based on the direction of velocity field, for the present test problem values of CD and CA are, Face East West Volume Fractions Upstream to donor cell (CDD) Donor Cell (CD) 0.1667 0.5 0 0.1667 Acceptor cell (CA) 0.8334 0.5

Step 4: The choice of CAD in Eq. 1.7 is made on basis of orientation of interface and flow

direction as, C AD = ORT C A + (1 ORT ) CD For the east face, CADe = CDe = 0.5 but in case of west face, the cell upstream to donor cell is empty so, CADw = CAw = 0.5.
Step 5: For the east face as the value of CAD is equal to CD, AFe = 0 and for west face,
AFw = max {0.6533, 0} = 0

Step 6: Sign of face velocity at east and west face is calculated to be 1. Step 7: Putting everything together in Eq. 2.7 the fluid fluxed out of east and west face is,

( Fluid Fluxed Out )e = MIN {0.18, 0.5} Se = 0.18 ( Fluid Fluxed Out )w = MIN {0.18, 0.1667} Sw = 0.1667
It is seen that the MIN feature prevented more fluid flux than the donor cell can give across the west face.
Step 8: Intermediate value of volume fraction ( C * ) in central cell is determined using Eq. 1.6 as,

C * = 0.5 ( 0.18 0.1667 ) 1 = 0.4867 . Intermediate value of volume fractions in all cells as
shown in Table 3.3 are found by following Step 1 to Step 8 for all cells. Table 3.3: Values of intermediate volume fractions after x-sweep in domain. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 0 0.486667 0.713333 0.713333 1 0.94 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Once the intermediate volume fraction values are calculated the y-sweep is executed by following steps,
Step 9: The orientation of the interface based on intermediate volume fractions may change so

the gradient of intermediate volume fractions are calculated again using Eq. 1.1,
38

* C x = 0.3867 and C * = 1.47 y

Step 10: In this case for the central cell, the orientation has not changed so, ORT = 0. Step 11: The donor and acceptor cells across north and south cell faces are determined as,

Face North South

Upstream to donor cell (CDD) 1 1

Volume Fractions Donor Cell (CD) 0.4867 1

Acceptor cell (CA) 0 0.4867

Step 12: For the north face as the interface (horizontal) is moving normal to itself (in vertical

direction), CADn = CAn = 0. Similarly for south face CADs = CAs = 0.4867.
Step 13: For north face,

AFn = max {( 0.6 0.5133) , 0} = 0.0867 and for south face,

AFs = max {0.308, 0} = 0.308 . It is seen that in case of north and south face the value of

additional fluid is not zero, the geometrical interpretation for the calculation of additional fluid in case in north face is shown in Fig. 3.3, it is seen that although the volume fraction value of acceptor cell is used to calculate the fluid flux, there is still some fluid that can be fluxed across the north face represented by the overlapping area on the fluid polygon and flux polygon. Similar interpretation can be made for the south face. Acceptor Cell Geometrically, Additional Fluid: AFn = ( v n t (1 C D ) y ) x

(1 C D ) y

vn
Additional Fluid

vnt

Donor cell

Figure 3.3: Geometrical interpretation of calculation of additional fluid for the case of north face of the present test problem.
Step 14: Sign of face velocity at east and west face is calculated to be 1. Step 15: Putting everything together in Eq. 1.7 the fluid fluxed out of north and south face is,

( Fluid Fluxed Out )n = MIN {0 + 0.0867, 0.4867} Sn = 0.0867 ( Fluid Fluxed Out )s = MIN {0.292 + 0.308,1} Ss = 0.6
Step 16: Time advanced value of volume fraction ( C n +1 ) in central cell is determined using Eq.

2.6 as, C n +1 = 0.4867 ( 0.0867 0.6 ) 1 = 1 .

39

It is noted that if the donor cell approximation was used for all the faces (first order upwind method) then the value of volume fraction in central cell would have been equal to 0.68, signifying numerical diffusion. Also the MIN and MAX feature provided the optimum combination of donor and acceptor flux so that the value of volume fraction did not go out of bounds (C > 1 or C < 0). The time advanced values of volume fractions in all cells are found by following Step 9 to Step 16 for all cells. Table 3.4 shows the time advanced values of volume fractions in all cells, it is seen that the step change in values of volume fraction still exists. Table 3.4: Time advanced values of volume fractions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.086667 0.313333 0.313333 0.54 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.54 1 1 1

3.2.1.2 Implementation of Geometric Advection Method

Geometric advection method is the most popular method to solve the VOF governing equation. In the present work multidimensional geometric advection method of Garrioch and Baliga (2006) coupled with Youngs PLIC method is implemented to solve VOF governing equation. The basic methodology of geometric method is explained in section 1.3.2.2 but there exists no fixed/standard implementation procedure. Implementation procedure of geometric method developed in this work is explained in this section with the help of a test problem. Values of volume fractions in a square domain (5x5) are shown in Table 3.1. Consider the central stencil of 3x3 cells, the central cell has volume fraction 0.5. It is intended to calculate the value of volume fraction in center cell at new time level. Geometrical details, velocity field and time step is given is Table 3.2. Time advanced value of volume fraction in central cell is found by a two step process in which Eq. 2.6 is solved by series of geometric tasks. Firstly, interface is located inside the cell based on the approximation of the shape of the interface. Then amount of a particular fluid fluxed across a cell faces is determined geometrically.
3.2.1.2.1 Interface Reconstruction by Youngs PLIC method

Interface reconstruction is the first step in geometric advection where interface coordinates are determined in cell. Interface is approximated as a line segment in a cell (Eq. 1.9) as shown in Fig. 1.3 (a). Steps required to locate the interface in a cell are as follows,

40

Step 1: Interface normal calculation

In Youngs method the interface normal is calculated using Eq. 1.10 and Eq. 1.11. For the present test problem the components of interface normal are,

nx = 0.1667, n y = 0.5 n The absolute value of slope of the interface is calculated as, abs x = 0.3334 ny

Figure 3.4 : Possible cases of Interface orientation and fluid location

Step 2: Determination of fluid position relative to interface

Fig. 3.4 shows all the possibilities of the shape of the interface and the relative location of fluid in the cell. It is found that out of all the possibilities one can reduce to 3 possibilities (for interfaces not aligned to axis) by just knowing the values of nx , ny , this idea was borrowed from the donor-acceptor method [Hirt and Nichols (1981)], wherein the position of fluid relative to interface is determined by checking the sign of the nx , ny . Table 3.5 is used to determine the existing case from Fig. 3.4, for the present test problem as nx > 0, ny < 0 and abs existing case is A2.

nx

< 1 the fluid lies in south west side of the interface and the ny

41

Table 3.5: Determination of fluid position relative to interface Possible Case of Value of ny nx interface and fluid in abs ( nx n y ) cell from Fig. 3.4 >0 <0 >1 A1 >0 <0 <= 1 A2 >0 0 -NAV1 >0 >0 >1 B1 >0 >0 <= 1 B2 0 >0 -NAH2 <0 >0 >1 C1 <0 >0 <= 1 C2 <0 0 -NAV2 <0 <0 >1 D1 <0 <0 <= 1 D2 0 <0 -NAH1
Step 3: Determination of fluid shape from 3 possible shapes

From step 2 it is found that the existing case for the test problem is A2 but still the shape of the fluid polygon can be triangle or a trapezoid or a pentagon as shown in Fig. 3.5.

(a) (b) (c) Figure 3.5: Three possible shapes of fluid polygon (a) Triangle (b) Trapezoid (c) Pentagon It is seen that no matter what the shape of the fluid polygon is, there would always be one vertex of cell in fluid, named as fixed corner. In the present test problem, the south-east corner is the fixed corner.

(a) (b) Figure 3.6: Determination of Fluid Shape (a) Largest triangular fluid polygon for present test problem (b) Largest trapezoidal fluid polygon for present test problem

42

It is seen from Fig. 3.6 (a) that for present test problem when the interface is located at south-west vertex for the given normal and extend till the east face, the fluid polygon formed so is the largest possible triangular fluid polygon. South-west vertex in this case is known as the triangle forming vertex. Triangle forming vertex for other cases can be determined in similar fashion. Similarly, for the present test problem north-east vertex is the trapezoid forming vertex as shown in Fig. 3.6 (b). Once the fixed vertex, triangle forming vertex and trapezoid forming vertex are known, the steps to determine the shape of fluid polygon out of three possible shapes are,
(1)

Using data of normal of interface, biggest possible fluid triangle is constructed and its area

is determined. The volume fraction of the largest possible triangular fluid polygon is calculated and compared with the actual value of volume fraction. For the present test problem the co-ordinates of fixed vertex are (x, y) fxd = (3, 2) and of triangle forming vertex are (x, y) trg = (2, 2). The subscript fxd stands for fixed vertex and subscript trg stands for triangle forming vertex. The line with normal, (nx, ny) = (0.16667, 0.5) is located at the triangle forming vertex and extended to east face, the third co-ordinate of biggest possible triangular fluid polygon as shown in Fig. 3.6(a) is found to be, (x, y) 2.3333). The subscript trg2 stands for second triangle forming vertex. The area enclosed by an n-sided polygon in Cartesian geometry from vertices (xv, yv) collected in anti-clockwise direction is calculated using [Rider and Kothe (1998)], 1 n Area polygon = abs ( xv yv +1 xv +1 yv ) 2 v =1 (3.8)
trg2

= (3,

For the present case the area of the largest possible triangle is found to be,

AreaMaxTri = 0.16667 and the volume fraction of largest possible triangle is found to be, CMaxTri = 0.16667 1 = 0.16667 . The volume fraction in the central cell is 0.5 thus, CMaxTri < Cactual .
As the volume fraction of biggest possible triangle is less than the actual volume fraction the fluid shape is not triangular.
(2)

If the volume fraction of the biggest possible triangle is found to be less than the actual

volume fraction then the fluid polygon shape will be confirmed as triangle. The volume fraction of the biggest possible trapezoid is calculated in a similar way and it is found to be, CMaxTrp = 0.83333 1 = 0.83333 . The actual volume fraction in the central cell is 0.5 and as CMaxTrp > Cactual > CMaxTri . The fluid shape is confirmed to be trapezoidal.

43

(3)

If the volume fraction of the biggest possible trapezoid is found to be less than the actual

volume fraction then the fluid polygon shape will be confirmed as pentagon.
Step 4: Locating interface in cell

Once the fluid shape is determined from step 3, the interface location in the cell is determined using an iterative procedure. Determining location of the interface segment in the cell is equivalent of finding the line constant (d). Interface segment should be positioned in the cell in such a way that the volume fraction of fluid polygon is same as the actual volume fraction.

Figure 3.7: Locating the interface between known limits of interface position. In the present test problem, from step 3 it was confirmed that the fluid polygon is a trapezoid. It is seen from Fig. 3.7 that out of co-ordinates of four vertices (vertex 1, 2, 3 and 4) of fluid polygon, co-ordinates of two vertices (vertex 1 and 2) are known completely and x coordinate of other two vertices (vertex 3 and 4) are known. It is seen from Fig. 3.7, the y co-ordinate of vertex 3 of fluid polygon should be between y co-ordinate of trapezoid forming vertex of cell (ytrp) and y co-ordinate of other triangle forming point (ytrg2). The subscript trp stands for trapezoid forming vertex. For the present test problem following information is known, (x, y)1 ,fdp = (x, y)trg = (x, y)sw = (2, 2) (x, y)2, fdp = (x, y)fxd = (x, y)se = (3, 2) (x, y)3, fdp = (xse, ? ) = (3, ?) (x, y)4, fdp = (xsw, ? ) = (2, ?) Value of y3, fluid poly is between 3 (ymax = ytrp) and 2.3333 (ymin = ytrg2). Steps to determine y3,
fdp and

y4, fdp are as follows,

1.

Initially value of y3, fdp is guessed from the maximum and minimum values, for the present test problem y3, fdp, guess1 = 0.5(ymax + ymin) = 0.5(3+2.3333) = 2.6667. The interface of given normal is extended to west face and y4, fdp, guess is calculated, for present test problem y4, , fdp,
guess

is calculated to be 2.3333.

44

2.

The volume fraction of the fluid polygon using the guessed co-ordinates of vertices is calculated to be, CGuess1 = 0.5 1 = 0.5 = Cactual . In the present test case the result is obtained in single iteration. However, if the volume fraction of fluid polygon with guessed coordinates is not equal to actual volume fraction then iteration is required.

3.

The guess of y3, fdp is improved as,

if CGuess1 > Cactual then y3, fdp , new = 0.5 ( y3, fdp ,old + ymin ) if CGuess1 < Cactual then y3, fdp , new = 0.5 ( y3, fdp ,old + ymax )
4. Steps 1 to 3 are repeated in a general case till the condition, abs ( CGuess1 Cactual ) < 1e 12 is satisfied. 5. Once the final values of y3,
fdp

and y4,

fdp

are obtained the line constant of interface is

obtained from Eq. 2.9. The equation of the interface for the present test case is found to be,

0.16667 x 0.5 y = 0.83333 0.3333x 1y = 1.66667

The co-ordinates of the fluid polygon are found to be, (x, y)1,fdp = (2, 2), (x, y)2,fdp = (3, 2), (x, y)3,fdp = (3, 2.6667) , (x, y)4,fdp = (2, 2.3333). Interface in all partially filled cells is determined in the same way. Once the fluid polygons in all the partially filled cells are constructed, next task is geometric advection.
3.2.1.2.2 Multidimensional geometric advection

Determination of the amount of fluid fluxed across cell faces geometrically by constructing flux polygons at cell faces is known as geometric advection. Geometric advection is executed by following steps,

Figure 3.8: Dividing flux polygon in to two for better implementation.

45

Step 1: Construction of flux polygons at cell faces

Multidimensional flux polygon constructed about east face is shown in Fig. 1.9. For implementation purpose the multidimensional flux polygon is represented as combination of two polygons as shown in Fig. 3.8, the flux polygon constructed in the upwind cell is named as normal flux polygon and the flux polygon constructed in the transverse upwind cell is named as transverse flux polygon, the notations used for vertices of both the flux polygons is also shown. Firstly normal and transverse velocities at cell faces are determined. For the present test problem the normal velocity at east cell face is U e = 0.6 and the transverse velocity is found
* * using method of Garrioch and Baliga (2006) (Eq. 1.13) and is Vne = Vse = 1 . As shown in Fig. 3.8,

the co-ordinates of the normal flux polygon at east face are obtained as,

( x, y )1,nfp ,e = ( xse U e t , yse )

( x, y )2,nfp ,e = ( xse , yse )

( x, y )3,nfp ,e = ( xne , yne )
* ( x, y )4,nfp ,e = ( xne U e t , yne Vne t )

The subscript nfp stands for normal flux polygon and e for east face. As shown in Fig. 3.8, the co-ordinates of the transverse flux polygon at east face are obtained to as,
* ( x, y )1,tfp ,e = ( xse U e t , yse Vse t )

( x, y )2,tfp ,e = ( xse , yse )

( x, y )3,tfp ,e = ( xse U e t , yse )
The subscript tfp stands for transverse flux polygon For the present test problem the coordinates of normal and transverse flux polygons are, ( x, y )1, nfp ,e = ( 2.64, 2 ) , ( x, y )2,nfp ,e = ( 3, 2 ) ,

( x, y )3,nfp ,e = ( 3,3) , ( x, y )4,nfp ,e = ( 2.64, 2.4 )

and

( x, y )1,tfp,e = ( 2.64,1.4 ) , ( x, y )2,tfp ,e = ( 3, 2 ) ,

( x, y )3,tfp ,e = ( 2.64, 2 ) . Similarly co-ordinates of vertices of normal and transverse flux polygons
for other faces are determined. Once fluid polygon and all the flux polygons are in order, the common area to both fluid polygon and each of flux polygons is determined.
Step 2: Determination of the common area between fluid polygon and flux polygon

Determination of common area requires finding the points of intersection between fluid and all flux polygons. The points of intersection must be found in a specific order (clockwise or anticlockwise) to calculate the area properly.
46

As a first step, normal and line constant of the sides of fluid and flux polygons are determined using Eq. 1.9. The notation used for denoting the sides of fluid polygon and flux polygons about east face is shown in Fig. 3.9.

Figure 3.9: Notation used to represent polygons (a) Fluid Polygon (b) Normal Flux Polygon at east face (c) Transverse Flux Polygon at east face. For the present test case the values of normal and line constant for fluid and flux polygons is given in Table 3.6. Table 3.6: Values of components of normal and line constant for sides of fluid and east face flux polygons. d nx nx Side 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Fluid Polygon 0 1 2 1 0 3 -0.3333 1 1.6667 1 0 2 Normal Flux Polygon at East face 0 1 2 1 0 3 -1.6667 1 -2 1 0 2.64 Transverse Flux Polygon at East face -1.6667 1 -3 0 1 2 1 0 2.64

Once the normal and line constant for all sides of fluid and flux polygons are calculated, the next step is determination of points of intersection in clockwise/anti-clockwise sequence. Firstly, each vertex of flux polygon is checked if it lies in the fluid by using the using the fact that, A vertex (xv, yv) lies in the fluid polygon bounded by interface nx ,i x + n y ,i y = di if nx ,i xv + n y ,i yv di < 0 . Once the test has been applied to all vertices of flux polygon, points of intersection of fluid and each flux polygon is found sequentially.
47

Considering the present test problem, vertices 1, 2 and 4 of normal flux polygon (nfp) at east face are found to be in the fluid polygon as seen from Fig. 3.9(b). The points of intersection of fluid and normal flux polygon at east face in anti-clockwise sequence are found as, 1. Set counter for number of vertices of common polygon as zero. 2. Start at vertex 1 of normal flux polygon at east face. As vertex 1 is inside the fluid polygon, add 1 to counter and record the co-ordinates first vertex of the common polygon as, ( x, y )1,cmn ,n ,e = ( x, y )1, nfp ,e . The subscript cmn stands for common and n is for contribution from normal flux polygon. 3. Go to vertex 2 of normal flux polygon at east face. As vertex 2 is also inside the fluid polygon, add 1 to counter and record the co-ordinates of the second vertex of the common polygon as, ( x, y )2,cmn ,n ,e = ( x, y )2,nfp ,e . 4. Go to vertex 3 of normal flux polygon at east face. Now vertex 3 is outside the fluid polygon, hence there exists a point lying on interface between vertex 2 and 3 on the line joining them. The intersection of interface and the side 2 of normal flux polygon at east face is found using Eq. 1.9 to give the third vertex of common polygon as as

( x, y )3,cmn,n,e = ( 3, 2.6667 ) . Add 1 to counter.

5. Go to vertex 4 of normal flux polygon at east face. Now vertex 4 is inside the fluid polygon, hence there exists a point lying on interface between vertex 3 and 4 on the line joining them. The intersection of interface and the side 3 of normal flux polygon at east face is found using Eq. 1.9 to give the fourth vertex of common polygon as

( x, y )4,cmn,n,e = ( 2.75, 2.58333) . Add 1 to counter.

6. Since vertex 4 of normal flux polygon at east face is also in the fluid, add 1 to counter and record the co-ordinates of fifth vertex of the common polygon as,

( x, y )5,cmn,n,e = ( x, y )4,nfp ,e .
7. At the end, vertex 1 is again visited to check if there is interface intersection between the line joining vertex 4 and 1, in the present test problem this is not the case. 8. After the normal flux polygon is traversed in anti-clockwise direction, five points are collected which are vertices of the common area as shown in Fig. 3.10. The area of the common polygon, denoted by Anf,e is found using Eq. 3.8. The subscript nf stands for normal flux. For present case Anf,e = 0.210333.

48

Figure 3.10: The common polygon formed by collecting points in anti-clockwise direction, representing normal fluid flux. The next step is determining the area of common polygon in the transverse flux polygon. In case of transverse flux polygon, similar traversing is followed but the fluid polygon is taken of transverse donor cell i.e. south cell in the present problem. But in the present problem the south cell is completely filled and there exists no fluid polygon. In cases when the cell is completely filled or empty the common area is equal to the fluxed area times the donor cell volume fraction i.e for present test problem, Atf,e = CS (area of transverse flux polygon at east face) = 0.108. The fluid fluxed across east face is calculated as Ae = Anf,e + Atf,e = 0.318333. Similarly the fluid fluxed across west, south and north face is -0.203061, -0.6 and 0.040333. Using the value of fluid fluxed across each face, value of volume fraction in the central cell is found using Eq. 2.6 to be 0.944394. Time advanced value of volume fraction in all cell is shown in Table 3.7 Table 3.7: Time advanced values of volume fractions using Geometric advection method. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.646667 0 0.032267 0.316672 0.316672 1 0.646667 0.944394 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 It summary, geometric advection method is different from convectional methods in a way that VOF function is not interpolated from cell center values to get face center values but VOF function distribution is used to estimate the location of one of the fluids in a cell. Thereafter, based on velocity at the cell faces, amount of that fluid fluxed across cell faces is determined.

3.2.1.3 Implementation of High Resolution Convection Schemes

VOF governing equation (Eq. 1.5) is a scalar convection equation. Solution of the VOF governing equation using a finite volume method is difficult as the VOF function is a step
49

function. Finite volume discretization of the VOF governing equation for a cell centered at P having volume V with face surface area vectors S f is,
n n CP +1 = CP

VP

f = w , s ,e , n

( CU S )

(3.9)

Out of all terms on right hand side of Eq. 3.9, Velocity at cell face center, Uf is obtained from the solution of Navier-Stokes equations; Cf is cell face center value of volume fraction. As the volume fractions are located at cell centers, an interpolation scheme is required to determine value of volume fraction at cell face center from neighboring cell center values, which is known as convection scheme. First order upwind, second order upwind, QUICK etc are known as linear convection schemes as they use a same expression at all locations in domain. If lower order convection scheme like first order upwind is used then unacceptable numerical diffusion is introduced and interface appears to be smeared. Normal linear convection schemes use same differencing stencil everywhere in the solution domain. If there is a discontinuity in solution domain then higher order methods like second order upwind and QUICK exhibit spurious oscillations near the zone of discontinuity. High-resolution convection schemes on the other hand are nonlinear methods that use some kind of mechanism to control the oscillations in domain. Some high-resolution methods attempt to totally eliminate oscillations while others simply minimize them. A methodology is said to be high-resolution if it has following properties, (1) (2) (3) The method provides at least second order accuracy in smooth areas of flow. The numerical solution produced by the method must be free from spurious oscillations. The smearing of the zone of discontinuity must be small than smearing due to use of first There exist many High Resolution schemes; prominent high resolution schemes are Monotonic Upwind Schemes for Conservation Laws (MUSCL) of Van leer, Piecewise Linear Method (PLM) and Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) [Colella and Woodward (1984)]. They maintain high accuracy in smooth regions of the solution by approximating a higher order polynomial to interpolate volume fractions but in regions of step change or steep gradients, the higher order scheme is modified to give result equivalent to lower order scheme. By switching between higher order and lower order schemes, high accuracy is maintained in smooth regions and unphysical oscillations are avoided at discontinuities.

order methods.

50

3.2.1.3.1 The MUSCL scheme

In MUSCL scheme, the profile of volume fraction is taken as a line in a cell. For square cells the, expression of C in one dimensional form is
C ( x ) = Cin, j + ( X X i , j )

( Ci +1, j Ci , j )
X

(3.10)

Equation 3.10, for convenience is written as Where,

C ( ) = Cin, j + i , j

(3.11)

X X i, j X

[ 0.5, 0.5] and slope, i , j = ( Ci +1, j Ci , j )

(3.12)

When Eq. 3.12 is used to determine value of volume fraction at a cell face, there exist two values of volume fractions at that cell face, one each from neighboring cell. Consider a case of east face as shown in Fig. 3.11, value of volume fraction supplied by cell i,j denoted by the subscript L (for left) and value from i+1,j denoted by the subscript R (for right) at east face of cell i,j are found as, C
1 i+ , j ,L 2

= Cin, j + 0.5i , j and C

1 i+ , j,R 2

= Cin+1, j 0.5i +1, j

(3.13)

C i+ 1

C i+ 1
2 , j,L

, j,R

Ci , j

Ci+1, j

i , j = 0.5 i +1, j = 0.5

Figure 3.11: Two values of volume fractions at east cell face due to use of MUSCL scheme The final value at cell face out of two values is determined by upwinding and it is denoted by no additional subscript. In the zone of discontinuity, the slope calculated using Eq. 3.12 may lead to calculation of cell face value of volume fraction which may be unbounded from neighboring cell center values as shown Fig. 3.12 (a). The unbounded solution is nothing but the existence of spurious oscillation. To keep the cell face value in limits of neighboring cell center values a mechanism known as slope limiting is used.

51

C i+ 1

, j,L

C
Ci+1, j

C i+ 1

C i+ 1
2 , j,L

, j,R

Ci+1, j Ci , j

Ci , j
C i+ 1 C i+ 1
2 , j,R

2 , j,R

< C i , j u n b o u n d e d s o lu tio n

Ci , j <Ci + 1 Ci , j <Ci + 1

2 2

, j,R , j,L

< Ci +1, j < Ci +1, j

(b) (a) Figure 3.12: Slope Limiting in MUSCL scheme (a) Without slope limiting unbounded solution may be produced (b) With slope limiting bounded solution is produced. In slope limiting, the slope of the line is modified by multiplying it with a slope limiter function such that the value at cell face is bounded by the neighbouring cell centre values; this treatment removes oscillations from the solution. To apply the slope limiters, the slope ( i , j ) instead of Eq. 3.12 is taken as,

i , j = ( v ) iRj ,
Where,

(3.14)

( v ) = slope limiter function

v=

iL j ,

iRj ,

, iL j = ( Cin, j Cin1, j ) and iRj = ( Cin+1, j Cin, j ) , ,

There are many slope limiter functions. The choice of the best slope limiter function depends upon the problem at hand. Some prominent slope limiter functions are,

van Leer , vL ( v ) =

v+ v 1+ v

superbee , SB ( v ) = max 0, min ( 2, v ) , min (1, 2v )

The value of velocity at cell face ( ue = ui +1 2, j ) is available from the solution of NS equations and the Riemann problem for volume fraction at a cell face is solved as,
Cin+1 2, j , L if U i +1 2, j > 0 = 0.5 ( Cin+1 2, j , L + Cin+1 2, j , R ) if U i +1 2, j = 0 n Ci +1 2, j , R if U i +1 2, j < 0

Cin+1 2, j

(3.15)

Most of the high resolution schemes are derived in one dimension, the 2D extension is implemented by operator splitting i.e. series of x and y sweeps. Algorithm to solve VOF governing equation using MUSCL scheme is summarised as,

52

(1) Based on the choice of the slope limiter function calculate the slope, i , j in all cells using Eq. 3.14. (2) Calculate L and R values of volume fractions at east and west face using Eq. 3.13. (3) Calculate the single value of volume fractions at east and west cell face using Eq. 3.15. (4) Solve the 1D form of discretized equation (Eq. 3.9) of VOF governing equation in xdirection to get intermediate values of volume fractions. (5) Repeat steps 1 to 4 with intermediate volume fraction field for north and south faces to get time advanced values of volume fractions.
3.2.1.3.2 Piecewise Linear Method (PLM)

In Piecewise Linear Method (PLM), the profile of volume fraction in a cell is taken same as in case of MUSCL i.e. Eq. 3.11. PLM scheme is different from MUSCL scheme with regard to the expressions used to calculate volume fraction at cell face. To understand the difference between MUSCL and PLM consider Fig. 3.13. It is seen from Fig. 3.13 (a) that in case of MUSCL scheme the value of volume fraction at cell faces is always an extreme value i.e. maximum or minimum in the cell.
v a r i a t io n a vera g e

C i+ 1

C i+ 1
2 , j,L

, j,R

C
Ci+1, j Ci , j
Uf

C i+ 1

C i+ 1
2 , j,L

, j,R

Ci+1, j Ci , j

Ci+1, j Ci , j

(a)

U f

U f

(b) (c) Figure 3.13: Averaging C in PLM method (a) Calculation of extreme value at cell face in case of MUSCL scheme (b) Variation of volume fractions in a small zone near cell face. (c) The averaged value equivalent of the variation in the small zone near cell face. In PLM the value at the cell face is averaged in a small zone near the cell face. In one time step as the total flux across a cell face is U f , the volume fraction is averaged in the region of width U f near the cell face. Fig. 3.13 (b) shows the linear fit of volume fraction in the region representing U f , it is seen that taking the extreme value of volume fraction at a cell face will be inappropriate as the value of volume fraction is continuously varying. Fig. 3.13 (c) shows the averaged value of volume fraction in vicinity of cell face. As the distance from the cell center is normalized by divided it by cell width U is also normalized as,
53

U in, j

X For a case of east face, shown in Fig. 3.13 (c), the average value of volume fraction at the cell face can be obtained from the two cells sharing the east face as
Ci +1 2, j , L =
Ci +1 2, j , R =

= N ix, j ( Local Courant Number )

1 N ix, j

0.5 Ni , j

0.5

Ci , j ( ) d
Ci +1, j ( ) d

(3.16) (3.17)

1 N ix+1, j

0.5 Ni +1, j

0.5

The expression of average value of volume fraction at cell face is obtained by using Eq. 3.11 in Eq. 3.16 and 3.17 as Ci +1 2, j , L = Cin, j + 0.5 (1 N i , j ) i , j and Ci +1 2, j , R = Cin+1, j 0.5 (1 + N i +1, j ) i +1, j (3.18) The solution algorithm of PLM is same as MUSCL but Eq. 3.13 is replaced with Eq. 3.18.
3.2.1.3.3 Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM)

In this method, a parabola is the interpolating function. It is defined by a polynomial built from the cell centre value of a variable and cell face values. The polynomial has the form,
C ( ) = Cin, j + ( i , j , L + i , j , R ) + 3 ( i , j , R i , j , L ) 2 1 12

(3.19)

Where, i , j , L = 0.5 ( Cin, j Cin1, j ) + i, j ,R 1 n (i, j in1, j ) , 6 1 = 0.5 ( Cin+1, j Cin, j ) (in+1, j in, j ) 6

(3.20)

Slope, i , j is obtained from Eq. 3.12. The solution is made oscillations free by modifying i , j , L , i , j , R as, iMj , L = S max 0, min i , j , L , 2S i , j , R , iMj , R = S max 0, min 2 i , j , L , S i , j , R ,

( (

) , )

(3.21)

Where, S = sign ( i , j , L ) . The expressions of average value of volume fraction at cell face in PPM are obtained by using Eq. 3.19 in Eq. 3.16 and 3.17 as
Ci +1 2, j , L Ni2, j N i , j 1 = C + 0.5 (1 Ni , j ) ( + ) + 3( ) + 3 2 6 Ni2+1, j Ni +1, j 1 = Cin+1, j 0.5 (1 + Ni +1, j ) ( iM1, j , L + iM1, j , R ) + 3 ( iM1, j , R iM1, j , L ) + + + + + + 3 2 6
n i, j M i, j ,L M i, j ,R M i, j ,R M i, j ,L

(3.22) (3.23)

Ci +1 2, j , R

The solution algorithm of PPM is same as the MUSCL except that Eq. 3.13 is replaced by Eq. 3.22 and Eq. 3.23.
54

3.2.2 Application of Boundary Condition for Volume Fraction

As VOF equation is a hyperbolic equation, theoretically there is no need to implement boundary condition but in numerical implementation boundary values of volume fractions are required in all the methods to calculate gradients of volume fractions for near boundary cells. In case of donor-acceptor and high resolution convection schemes the Neumann boundary condition, C = 0 is used. n

In case of PPM as three cells are required to calculate the value of volume fraction at a cell, there is a problem of availability of cells for near border cells. For easy calculation of gradients, in addition to the boundary cell, one fictitious cell outside the boundary is taken. The values of boundary cell and the fictitious cell are taken to be same. In case of geometric method, the volume fraction value at boundary is required for proper calculation of interface normal. In the completely filled or empty cells Neumann boundary condition is used, the implementation of the boundary condition in cells having interface is explained with an example. For a case of west boundary as shown in Fig. 3.14, the interface intersects the west cell face at a distance yi from the south west corner of the cell. The volume fraction at the boundary cell is set as, Cboundary = Yi Y .

Figure 3.14: Implementation of boundary condition in geometric method, example of west boundary. In some problems, periodic boundary condition is to be implemented. The boundary condition for east and west boundary is satisfied as, C0, j = CNI 1, j and CNI = C1 , Where, NI is the total number of cell centers in x-direction. The value of fictitious cell in case of PPM is set as, C1, j = CNI 2, j , boundary condition is satisfied in a similar way for other boundaries. The periodic boundary needs careful implementation in case of geometric advection, for instance the flux polygon for a west face for a west boundary cell has to be constructed at east face of east boundary cell having same j.

55

3.2.3 Surface Tension Force Modeling in VOF method

In present work the CSF method is used for modeling surface tension. The volume fractions are smoothened using K8 kernel. Volume fraction field is smoothened by using Eq. 1.24 and Eq. 1.25 in the domain. Interface normal and curvature are calculated based on smoothened volume fraction field using Eq. 1.22 and 1.21 respectively. Although straight forward, the smoothing to volume fractions is computationally very expensive process. The reason for this is that to calculate smoothened volume fraction in one cell, complete domain is traversed. So for N number of cells, N2 number of cells will have to be traversed per time step while smoothing. Interface normal and curvature are discretized as, C Cy 2 2 n= x , with C = Cx + C y C C C 2C 2Cx C y Cxy + Cx2C yy = y xx 3 2 Cx2 + C y 2

The derivatives of smoothened volume of fluid function are calculated using second order central difference scheme.

3.2.4 Calculation of Properties in VOF method

The properties at the pressure cell centers are calculated using Eq. 1.14 and Eq. 1.15. Density is required at cell centers of u-velocity and v-velocity cell and cell face centers of pressure cell. Viscosity is required at face centers of u-velocity and v-velocity cell. Properties at all required locations are calculated using simple averaging.

3.3 Implementation of LS method

In present work level set algorithm explained in Section 1.3.3.5 is followed. The level set function is located at the north east vertex of the cell; such staggering of level set function is done to be able to use a uniform stencil everywhere in the domain. Implementation details of methodologies adopted to solve level set convection equation is discussed in subsection 3.3.1, solution procedure of reinitialization equation is discussed in subsection 3.3.2, application of boundary condition of level set function, modeling of surface tension and procedure to calculate properties at required locations are presented in subsections 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 respectively.

56

3.3.1 Solution of Level Set Convection Equation

Many researchers have used higher order convection schemes like Essentially Non Oscillatory (ENO) and Weighted ENO (WENO) to discretize level set equation (Eq. 1.28), as it is a convection equation of a smooth function. WENO and ENO schemes are based on first order Godunov scheme. In present work Godunov scheme and 5th order WENO scheme have been implemented. Numerical schemes have been implemented using a finite difference method. Finite difference discretization of level set equation and implementation of Godunov and WENO schemes are presented in this section.

3.3.1.1 Temporal Discretization of Level Set Convection Equation

The level set equation can be written as, = L ( ) Where, L ( ) = u +v t x y (TVD) Runge-Kutta scheme as [Jiang and Peng (2000)], (3.24)

The time derivative term is discretized using a third order Total Variation Diminishing

1 = n + tL ( n )

2 = 1 +

t ( 3 L ( n ) + L ( 1 ) ) 4 t ( L ( n ) L ( 1 ) + 8 L ( 2 ) ) 12 (3.25)

n +1 = 2 +

3.3.1.2 Spatial Discretization of Level Set equation

The gradient of level set function , , denoted by (x , y ) is calculated by first order x y

forward difference or backward difference discretization. Finite difference discretization of the spatial term in Eq. 3.24 is given as,
Li , j ( ) = ui , jx ,i , j + vi , j y ,i , j

(3.26)

Where,

x ,i , j

if ui , j > 0 x+,i , j = x ,i , j if ui , j < 0 + 0.5 (x ,i , j + x ,i , j ) if

and y ,i , j ui , j = 0

if vi , j > 0 y+,i , j = y ,i , j if vi , j < 0 + 0.5 ( y ,i , j + y ,i , j ) if

vi , j = 0

In Godunov scheme, the forward difference and backward difference discretization of level set function is,
57

x+ =

i +1, j i , j
x

and x =

i , j i 1, j
x

(3.27)

Similarly for y-direction, the forward difference and backward difference discretization of level set function is,

y+ =

i , j +1 i , j
y

and y =

i , j i , j 1
y

(3.28)

Godunov scheme is first order and induces numerical diffusion in the solution. In case of level set methods ENO and WENO schemes are popular with researchers. In the present work 5th Order WENO scheme of Jiang and Peng (2000) is implemented. Expressions of forward difference and backward difference discretization in case of 5th order WENO scheme of Jiang and Peng (2000) are modified in this work for simplifying the implementation. The modified expressions of forward and backward difference in 5th WENO for x-direction are, 1 (i 2, j 8i 1, j + 8i+1, j i+ 2, j ) WENO ( A , B , C , D ) 12x
A = (i 1, j 2i 2, j + i 3, j ) x B = (i , j 2i 1, j + i 2, j ) x C = (i 1, j 2i , j + i 1, j ) x D = (i 2, j 2i 1, j + i , j ) x A, B, C and D are different gradients of level set functions on local stencils near cell i,j used to determine weights in WENO scheme. The WENO weights are calculated as function of gradient of level set function on local stencils such as to give more weight to the smoothest stencil. Similarly, the modified expressions of forward and backward difference in 5th WENO for y-direction are, 1 (i, j 2 8i , j 1 + 8i, j +1 i , j + 2 ) WENO ( A , B , C , D ) 12y A = (i , j 1 2i , j 2 + i , j 3 ) y B = (i , j 2i , j 1 + i , j 2 ) y C = (i , j 1 2i , j + i , j 1 ) y D = (i , j 2 2i , j 1 + i , j ) y

x =
Where,

(3.29)

y =
Where,

(3.30)

WENO in Eq. 3.29 and Eq. 3.30 is given as,

58

 WENO ( A, B, C , D ) = w0 ( A 2 B + C ) + w2 ( B 2C + D )
The WENO weights w0 and w2 are calculated as,
w0 =

1 3

1 6

1 2

0 2 , w2 = ; 0 + 1 + 2 0 + 1 + 2
1

0 =

( + ISo )

, 1 =
2

( + IS1 )
2 2

and 2 =

( + IS2 )

ISo = 13 ( A B ) + 3 ( A 3B ) , IS1 = 13 ( B C ) + 3 ( B + C ) ,
2

ISo = 13 ( C D ) + 3 ( 3C D ) .
2 2

Implementation of Godunov scheme for advection is straight forward, 1. The forward and backward differences of in x and y-directions form the old time level values of level set function ( n ) are calculated using Eq. 3.27 and Eq. 3.28. 2. The value of L ( ) is calculated using Eq. 3.26. 3. First intermediate value of level set function ( 1 ) is calculated using Eq. 3.25. 4. Steps 1 to 3 are followed to get the second intermediate value ( 2 ) of level set function using Eq. 3.25, the values of L ( 1 ) and L ( n ) are used. 5. Steps 1 to 3 are followed to get the time advanced value ( n ) of level set function using Eq. 3.25, the values of L ( 2 ) , L ( 1 ) and L ( n ) are used. Godunov scheme is First order upwind equivalent in finite volume method. The difference between Godunov and WENO scheme is difference in the method to calculate the gradient i.e. Eq. 3.29 and Eq. 3.30 are used instead of Eq. 3.27 and Eq. 3.28. The rest of algorithm is same.

3.3.2 Solution Procedure of Reinitialization Equation

Importance of reinitialization is already mentioned in section 1.3.3.3. Solution of Eq. 1.31 will ensure reinitialization of a function o to signed normal distance function. The function

o need not be a normal distance function initially.

Eq. 1.31 is shown to be a hyperbolic equation (Eq. 2.7) in section 2.2.2.2. In the present work, spatial discretization of Eq. 2.7 is done using 5th order WENO scheme and temporal discretization using first order explicit Euler scheme. Eq. 2.7 can be written as, S (o ) x S (o ) y

+
s

x2 + y2

x +

x2 + y2

y = S (o )
59

(3.31)

Discretized form of Eq. 3.31 is

il,+j1 = il, j + s S ,i , j (o )

S ,i , j (o ) x ,i , j

x2,i , j + y2,i , j

x ,i , j +

S ,i , j (o ) y ,i , j

x2,i , j + y2,i , j

y ,i , j

(3.32)

In Eq. 3.32 superscript l stands for iteration number, s is the pseudo time step. The mollified sign function is taken as [Salih and Ghosh Moulic (2005)], S (o ) =

o
2 o 2 + o ( 2x )

Eq. 3.32 is solved in the complete domain till steady state in the band of designated width around the interface is achieved. As proposed by Sussman et al. (1994), the pseudo time step is taken as, s = 0.1X . The convergence criteria of steady state is taken as 0.1X 3 and the error norm to check convergence is, EREINIT =

i, j <

l +1 i, j

il, j (3.33)

M is the total number of grid points located in the band. Eq. 3.33 is defined in such a way that convergence will be checked only in the band of width 2 near to the interface. As the interface normal and curvature are calculated in the band only and the Heaviside function is varied smoothly in band as a function of level set function, the convergence of reinitialization equation is measured only in the band. Outside the band the sign of level set function is enough to calculate Heaviside function. The steps required to perform single iteration of Eq. 3.32 are, 1. 2. Mollified sign function ( S (o ) ) is calculated in all cells. The forward and backward difference of gradient of initial function or old iteration function (x , y ) is calculated using 5th order WENO scheme. 3. The term x ,i , j is determined as, a. If S ,i , j (o ) x,i , j 0 and S ,i , j (o ) x+,i , j 0 then x ,i , j = x+,i , j b. If S ,i , j (o ) x,i , j 0 and S ,i , j (o ) x+,i , j 0 then x ,i , j = x,i , j c. If S ,i , j (o ) x,i , j 0 and S ,i , j (o ) x+,i , j 0 then x ,i , j = 0 d. If S ,i , j (o ) x,i , j 0 and S ,i , j (o ) x+,i , j 0 i. If S ,i , j (o ) x+,i , j S ,i , j (o ) x,i , j then x ,i , j = x+,i , j

60

ii. If S ,i , j (o ) x+,i , j S ,i , j (o ) x,i , j then x ,i , j = x,i , j 4. 5. Similarly the term y ,i , j is also obtained. Values of S ,i , j (o ) , x ,i , j and y ,i , j are plugged in Eq. 3.32 to get a new value of level set function. 6. The error is calculated using Eq. 3.32 and convergence is checked using the condition EREINIT 0.1X 3 . If the convergence criterion is not met, iterations are performed by

following steps 2 to 6.

3.3.3 Application of Boundary Condition for Level Set Function

As in case of VOF equation, level set governing equation is a hyperbolic equation so there is no need to implement boundary condition but in numerical simulation, boundary values of level set functions are required to calculate gradients of level set functions for near boundary cells. When the Godunov scheme is used, Neumann boundary condition on all boundaries is used,
= 0 . In case of WENO scheme, for first cell inside the cell there is need of two cells in n

addition to the boundary cell to calculate the gradient and WENO weights properly. In the present work, two fictitious cells in addition to the boundary cell are defined outside the domain. The approach to set the boundary values is explained with the example of west boundary as shown in Fig. 3.15; similarly for other boundaries the expressions can be derived.

Figure 3.15: Stencil required for implementing boundary condition at west boundary of domain for WENO scheme. The values of fictitious cells and boundary cell can be taken same as the first real cell inside that boundary, for west boundary the expression is, 2, j = 1, j = 0, j = 1, j . Another way is to calculate the values of fictitious cells and boundary cell from interior cells by performing quadratic extrapolation. The expressions for west boundary are,

0, j = 31, j 32, j + 3, j , 1, j = 30, j 31, j + 2, j and 2, j = 31, j 30, j + 1, j .

In some problems periodic boundary condition is to be implemented in that case the boundary condition is satisfied as, 0, j = NI 1, j and NI , j = 1, j , Where NI is the total number of
61

level set nodes in x-direction. The values of fictitious cells is set as,

1, j = NI 2, j and

2, j = NI 3, j , similarly for other boundaries.

Unlike geometric advection method, no special treatment other than specifying boundary condition and setting values of fictitious cells is required in WENO scheme to implement periodic boundary condition.

3.3.4 Surface Tension Force Modeling in LS method

As in case of VOF code, the CSF method is used for modeling surface tension in level set code also. Interface normal and curvature are calculated using Eq. 1.30 and 1.34 respectively. The Dirac delta function is calculated using Eq. 1.35. The smoothing length, in Eq. 1.35 is taken as1.5X . Interface normal and curvature are discretized as

y 2 2 n= x , with = x + y y2xx 2x yxy + x2 yy = 3 (x2 + y2 ) 2

The derivatives of level set function are calculated using second order central difference scheme [Chang et al. (1996)].

3.3.5 Calculation of Properties in LS method

Heaviside function is calculated at the cell centers of level set CV. i.e the vertex of the cell. The properties at the level set cell centers are calculated using Eq. 1.32. Density is required at cell centers of u-velocity and v-velocity cell and cell face centers of pressure cell. Viscosity is required at face centers of u-velocity and v-velocity cell. Properties at all required locations are calculated using simple averaging.

62

4
A New Combined Level Set-Volume of Fluid Method
Combined Level Set-Volume Of Fluid (CLSVOF) method was proposed by Sussman and Puckett (2000) to rectify the mass loss problem in LS method and inaccurate calculation of surface tension force in VOF method. In CLSVOF method the conservation equation of Heaviside function field is solved using a geometric advection method, conservation of Heaviside function will mean conservation of mean density as properties are calculated using Eq. 1.32 and thus mass will be conserved. The conservation equation of Heaviside function is,
H + u H = 0 t

(4.1)

Once the new Heaviside function field is obtained from solution of Eq. 4.1, the level set function is calculated from the Heaviside function field with the help of interface reconstruction. The interface curvature for surface tension force and normal used for PLIC interface reconstruction are calculated from level set function field. CLSVOF method of Sussman and Puckett (2000) has been found to give good results for surface tension dominant flows with like bubble formation and boiling. In CLSVOF method the mass is conserved as in VOF method and the surface tension force is calculated as accurately as in LS methods.

4.1 Motivation to Develop New Method

The CLSVOF method of Sussman and Puckett (2000) has inherited a big disadvantage of VOF method i.e. PLIC interface reconstruction and geometric advection method. Due to requirement of PLIC interface reconstruction and geometric advection, a new formulation and implementation procedures need to be developed to extend CLSVOF method to complex geometry. Motivation to develop a new CLSVOF method comes from the need to have a method in which mass conservation is obeyed, surface tension force is calculated accurately and extension to complex geometries and 3D is easy with no requirement of interface reconstruction and geometric advection method.

63

The geometric advection method is preferred over other methods to solve VOF governing equation as it maintains step discontinuity in volume fraction field without inducing mass loss. It is found from results on many problems; PPM method does not introduce mass loss in the initial times of solution but at later time lot of mass loss is incurred. The continuous smearing of volume fraction field is thought to be the reason for mass loss at later times. If the smearing of volume fractions is limited within a fixed distance across the interface at all times, the mass loss will also be limited. Level set method provides solution to have limited smearing of volume fractions/Heaviside function inside the band.

4.2 Working Principle of New CLSVOF method

Consider this, the Heaviside function field is advected using a high resolution convection scheme and the level set function is calculated from the advected Heaviside function field. If the advected Heaviside function field is used to solve Eq. 4.1 then over a period of time there will lot of numerical diffusion introduced in the solution and the advantage of using CLSVOF formulation will be lost. In the new approach, the Heaviside function field is advected using a high resolution convection scheme and the level set function is calculated from the advected Heaviside function field. To solve Eq. 4.1, a new Heaviside function field is calculated using Eq. 1.33 from the newly calculated level set function. By following this approach the numerical diffusion in not allowed to increase over the period of time. In the new approach as the interface reconstruction is avoided, problem of extracting values of level set function from the Heaviside function field arises. Outside the band of width
2 level set function is set as

= if H = 0 and = if H = 1

(4.2)

The level set function is to be calculated inside the band. Two different approaches have been tried to calculate value of level set function from Heaviside function; both the approaches are based on use of Eq. 1.33,
Approach A: Inverse Curve fit to calculate level set function in the band:

The value of Heaviside function as a function of level set function using Eq. 1.33 is plotted in Fig. 4.1(a). The inverse relation of level set function as a function of Heaviside function is obtained as a 6th order polynomial fit using Microsoft Excel. The relation of level set function as a function o Heaviside function obtained as,

( H ) = ( aH 6 + bH 5 + cH 4 + dH 3 + eH 2 + fH 1 + g )
64

(4.3)

The coefficients of the polynomial fit are obtained as, a = -4e-7, b = 31.725 c = -79.312, d = 73.244, e = -30.554, f = 6.673 and g =-0.8878. The result of the curve fit and the actual inverse relation are plotted in Fig. 4.1(b). It is seen that although the curve fit does not give exact result, the result are good enough. The approach of dividing the band width in to small intervals and fitting many polynomials instead of a single polynomial has not been tried yet.

-1 1.1 1 0.9

-0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 Relation of H as function of

0.5

0.75

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

1 0.75 0.5

0.5 Actual relation of as funtion of H Curve fit of as function of H

1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 -0.25 -0.5 -0.75 -1

Heaviside Function, H

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Level Set Function

0.25 0

-0.25 -0.5 -0.75 -1

-0.1 -1

-0.75

-0.5

Level Set Function,

-0.25

0.25

=1

0.5

0.75

-0.1

Heaviside Function, H

0.5

Figure 4.1: The relation between Heaviside function and level set function (a) Direct relation given by Eq. 1.33 (b) Inverse relation and curve fit relation (Eq. 4.3).
Approach B: Solution of Eq. 1.33 using iterative method in band:

One other approach to determine value of level set function in band is to solve Eq. 1.33 directly in the band. In the band the equation to be solved is,
f ( ) =

+ 1 sin H = 0 + 2 2

(4.4)

The limits of level set function are known i.e. to . Bisection method is used to solve Eq. 4.4.

4.3 Complete Algorithm of New CLSVOF Method

The new CLSVOF is combination of procedures that are already implemented for LS and VOF method. Complete algorithm of new CLSVOF is as follows, 1. Initialize velocities, pressure and level set function in the domain. 2. Calculate Heaviside function at level set cells using Eq. 1.33; calculate properties at level set cell using Eq. 1.32. Use simple averaging to get properties at required locations. 3. Calculate interface normal and curvature using level set function field. Solve the NS equations in the domain using projection method.
65

4. Using the newly calculated velocity field, solve the Heaviside advection equation explicitly using PPM method. 5. Calculate new level set function in the band using Eq. 4.3 or solving Eq. 4.4, set values of level set function outside the band using Eq. 4.2 6. Reinitialize the newly calculated level set function field to signed normal distance function. 7. Go to step 2 till the end time is arrived at or steady state has reached.

4.4 Conservative Redistribution

It has been found that the sum of Heaviside function calculated from the newly calculated level set function does not remain same as the sum of advected Heaviside function calculated by PPM method. In short, the mass error was found in the New CLSVOF method and it was because of incorrect way of determining level set function from Heaviside function field i.e. Eq. 4.3 or use of Eq. 4.4. The constraint that the sum of advected Heaviside function and sum of Heaviside function calculated as a function of newly calculated level set function should be same has not been devised and implemented. In this work, mass conservation is enforced by equally distributing or taking away the amount of mass difference incurred due to use of Eq. 4.3 or use of Eq. 4.4. The validity and effectiveness of conservative mass distribution is been studied.

66

5
Numerical Tests and Results
In the present work two-phase flow codes based on VOF, LS and a new CLSVOF method have been developed. A two-phase flow code consists of three modules, a Navier-Stokes (NS) solver to solve single fluid model, an interface representation and advection module i.e. solution method of VOF and level set governing equation and surface tension module. To develop a code in systematic way, each of the modules is implemented and tested separately. Finally all the modules are combined to solve a two-phase flow problem. In this chapter, the results of the benchmark tests and two-phase flow problems are presented. NS solver is benchmarked on a single phase problem of lid driven cavity flow. The solution methodologies implemented for solution of VOF, level set and new CLSVOF governing equation are tested individually on four standard interface advection test problems i.e. translation, solid body rotation, fluid body subjected to single vortex and fluid body subjected to multiple vortices in form of deformation field. The surface tension model is benchmarked using standard test problem of Young-Laplace Law test. VOF, level set and new CLSVOF codes are developed by combining all the abovementioned modules. The two-phase flow codes are benchmarked on the standard broken dam problem. The two-phase flow codes are then tested on rather difficult, Rayleigh-Taylor instability, Splash of water drop in water pool and rise of two gaseous bubbles surrounded by fluid in a channel.

5.1 NS Solver Benchmark: Lid Driven Cavity Flow

This is a classic single phase problem to test the NS solver and relative performance of different convection schemes for various Reynolds number. The problem setup is a square cavity completely filled with fluid; the fluid in the cavity is given motion by lid of the cavity moving at a constant velocity shown in Fig. 5.1. Ghia et al. (1982) solved the same problem using stream function vorticity formulation, their results are considered as benchmark results. The steady state values of u velocity along the vertical mid-plane and v velocity along the horizontal mid-plane using QUICK convection scheme for various Re are compared with results of Ghia et al. (1982) in Fig. 5.2, an excellent agreement of present results with benchmark results is seen in figure. Furthermore, the streamlines are also compared in Fig. 5.3 with a good agreement.

67

u = u o , v = 0,

p =0 y

Lid moving with constant u-velocity

u =0 v =0 p =0 x

u =0 v =0 p =0 x

Cavity filled With Fluid

p =0 y

u = 0, v = 0,

Figure 5.1: Domain and boundary conditions for lid driven cavity flow problem

Ghia et al. QUICK

0.5

0.75

Ghia et al. QUICK

0.5

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.75

0.5

0.5

0 v

0.5

0 v

0.25

-0.5

0.25

-0.5

-1

-0.5

0 u

0.5

-1 1

-1

-0.5

0 u

0.5

-1 1

Re 100 [60x60] (c) Re 1000 [60x60] (d) Figure 5.2: Comparison of present results on a grid size of 60x60 for variation of u-velocity along vertical centerline and v-velocity along horizontal center line with benchmark results of Ghia et al. (1982) on 129x129 grid (a) Re = 100 (b) Re = 1000

5.2 VOF, LS and new CLSVOF module benchmark

VOF, LS and new CLSVOF modules are implemented individually and must be tested independent of Navier-stokes solver. Mass conserving property of a two-phase solution methodology largely depends on the accuracy of solution of interface advection methodology. In the present work, VOF governing equation is solved by three different solution methodologies: 1. Donor-acceptor (DA) method of Hirt and Nichols (1981). 2. High resolution convection scheme PPM. 3. Multidimensional geometric advection method coupled with Youngs PLIC method (YPLIC).
68

Re 100 (a)

Re 100 (b)

Re 1000 (c) Re 1000 (d) Figure 5.3: Streamlines for Re = 100 and Re = 1000 on fine grid (60x60) (a) & (c) Present results on 60x60 grid (b) & (d) Benchmark result of Ghia et al. (1982) on 129x129 grid. 3rd order TVD scheme is used to discretize the temporal terms and 5th order WENO scheme is used to discretize the spatial terms of level set convection equation (WENO). The spatial terms of reinitialization equation are discretized using 5th order WENO scheme. In case of new CLSVOF method, high resolution PPM method is used to solve the heaviside convection equation and the spatial terms of reinitialization equation are discretized using 5th order WENO scheme. Interface reconstruction module in case of Y-PLIC method and the reinitialization algorithm based on WENO are tested before the complete solution methodologies are tested.

5.2.1 Interface Reconstruction Test

Accuracy of Interface reconstruction has direct relation with the mass error induced in VOF method as it is important part of geometric advection method. Interface reconstruction based on Youngs PLIC method is tested by reconstructing a circle (R = 0.15) centered at (0.5, 0.75) in a square domain of size 1. Fig. 5.4 shows the results of reconstruction of circle on 8x8, 16x16 and 32x32 grid. It is seen from Fig. 5.4 (a), on a very coarse grid the interface is
69

reconstructed to be collection of disconnected line segments; this is shortcoming of any PLIC method. However, the reconstructed interface looks more like a circle on grid refinement as seen in Fig. 5.4(b) and Fig. 5.4(c).

(b) (c) (a) Figure 5.4: Interface reconstruction of a circle using Youngs PLIC method (a) 8x8 grid (b) 16x16 grid (c) 32x32 grid.

5.2.2 Reinitialization module test

Reinitialization of level set function is done after every time step to repair the level set function to signed normal distance function. Level set function should be signed normal distance function in the band near the interface to enable accurate calculation of properties and curvature in the band. The position of interface i.e. = 0 line should not change during reinitialization.
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

(a) (b) Figure 5.5: Effect of boundary conditions on reinitialization of a square interface on 32x32 grid (a) Neumann boundary condition (b) Periodic boundary condition The reinitialization module developed in the present work is tested to reinitialize a square of size 0.3 centered at (0.5, 0.75) in a square domain of size 1. Value of level set function is set as 1 outside the square and -1 inside the square. The reinitialization is carried out on 32x32, 64x64 and 128x128 grid. The reinitialization is carried out for Neumann and periodic boundary condition to examine the effect of boundary condition on reinitialization. Fig. 5.5 shows the contours of reinitialized level set function on 32x32 grid for Neumann and periodic boundary
70

condition. It is seen from Fig. 5.5, as the contours of level set function are parallel, the level set function has been reinitialized to normal distance function for both boundary conditions. Fig. 5.5(a), shows that the level set contour near all the walls becomes normal to wall, which signifies implementation of Neumann boundary condition and near wall level set function does not remain a normal distance function.
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Before Reinit. After Reinit.

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

Before Reinit. After Reinit.

0.3 0.2 0.1

Before Reinit. After Reinit.

0.3 0.2 0.1

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

(a)
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Before Reinit. After Reinit.

(b)
0.75 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Before Reinit. After Reinit.

(c)
0.75 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Before Reinit. After Reinit.

0.25

0.5

0.25

0.5

0.25

0.5

0.75

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

(d) (e) (f) Figure 5.6: Effect of different grid size and boundary condition on accuracy of reinitialization procedure (a) 32x32 Neumann b.c. (b) 64x64 Neumann b.c. (c) 128x128 Neumann b.c. (d) 32x32 Periodic b.c. (e) 64x64 Periodic b.c. (f) 128x128 Periodic b.c. Periodic boundary condition, shown in Fig. 5.5(b), near the north boundary the variation of level set function is smooth near wall, and the same level set is introduced inside the domain through the south boundary. Use of periodic boundary condition ensures that the level set function remains normal distance function everywhere in the domain, even near boundaries. Fig. 5.6 shows the interface position before and after reinitialization for different grid sizes and boundary condition. It is seen from Fig. 5.6(a) and Fig. 5.6(d) for the case of 32x32 grid, the effect of different boundary condition is found to be negligible on a same grid size. For other grid sizes also the effect of boundary condition is negligible. Grid refinement improves the solution as seen from Fig. 5.6(a), (b) and (c) for the case of Neumann boundary condition.

71

The error in case of 32x32 grid is maximum, in a flow problem the error due to reinitialization accumulates to result in mass loss/gain. Similar trend for periodic boundary conditions is seen from Fig. 5.6(d), (e) and (f).

5.2.3 VOF, LS and CLSVOF Module Tests

Advection algorithms used in VOF, LSM and new CLSVOF method are tested on four hypothetical pure advection test problems proposed by Rider and Kothe (1998). The advection test problems are designed to measure the accuracy of only the interface advection methodology of VOF, LSM and CLSVOF. In advection test problems, Navier-Stokes equations are not solved but a fluid body is placed in a domain, subjected to a predetermined velocity field, inducing a desired movement and deformation of fluid body in the domain. During the movement and deformation of the fluid body its volume (area in this case) must remain constant at all times.

5.2.3.1 Advection Tests: Physical Description

The computational domain and initial conditions are identical for all four test problems. The computational domain is a square of size 1x1 and in this domain a circular fluid body of radius 0.15 is placed having center at (0.50, 0.75) as shown in Fig. 5.7.
1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.5

0.75

Figure 5.7: Domain and Initial condition for advection test problem.

5.2.3.2 Advection Tests: Velocity Fields

The different tests are characterized by different velocity fields. All the velocity fields are solenoidal and thus continuity equation is satisfied for all test cases.

72

For different test problems, the velocity field is expressed as the stream function. The velocity in terms of stream function is defined as u = y and v = x . The four different stream functions corresponding to different advection tests:
1. Translation test: The stream function for translation test is = x y . Under this velocity field

the circular body translates at 45o angle across the mesh. In one time unit the fluid body comes back to initial position.
2. Solid body rotation test: A constant-vorticity velocity field is imposed at the center of the

domain represented by the stream function =

(( x 0.5)2 + ( y 0.5)2 ) . The fluid body rotates

around the center of domain but does not undergo any topology changes. The body undergoes one complete rotation in time units.
3. Single vortex test: A single vortex with center at the center of domain is given by the stream

function, = sin 2 ( x ) sin 2 ( 4 y ) . The single vortex stretches out the fluid body and pulls it towards the center of domain, inducing a severe topology change.
4. Deformation field test: Deformation field is a series of 16 vortices which distorts the fluid

severely, the stream function is = sin ( 4 ( x + 0.5 ) ) cos ( 4 ( y + 0.5 ) ) 4 . The velocity vectors for all test problems considered are plotted in Fig. 5.8.
1 0

Translation 0.5

Solid Body Rotation 0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Single0.5 Vortex

Deformation Field 0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Figure 5.8: Velocity field for advection test problems.

73

5. time-reversed flow field

In case of translation and solid body rotation, the fluid body returns to its initial state after a fixed time-period. In case of single vortex test and deformation field test, Rider and Kothe (1998) mentioned that multiplying the velocity field by cos ( t T ) gives the time-reversed velocity field, meaning that the fluid body will undergo deformations until time, t = T/2, at t = T/2 flow direction reverses and fluid body returns to its initial state at t = T. By using time reversed flow fields, initial and final interface shape can be compared, ideally they should be same.

5.2.3.3 Advection Tests: Error Measurement

Each method is assessed quantitatively and qualitatively on all the four test problems. Results are compared with benchmark results wherever possible. Qualitative comparisons between the initial and final interface plots are made to observe the inconsistency between final and initial fluid shape in case of translation, solid body rotation and time reversed vortex fields. In case of VOF method, volume fraction contour level of 0.5 is considered as interface. In case of LSM and CLSVOF, interface is represented by level set function contour level of 0. Mass error incurred during the advection is a quantitative parameter for comparison, in case of VOF method mass error is quantified as,
mVOF =

C
i, j

t i, j

Cio, j
i, j o i, j

C
i, j

100%

(5.1)

Superscript o stands for initial value of volume fraction; mass error is calculated at every time step to know about the trend of mass loss. In case of level set method the sum of Heaviside function represents the area of the fluid, hence for LSM and CLSVOF the mass error is quantified as,
mLSM ,CLSVOF =

H ( ) H ( )
t o i, j i, j i, j

H ( )
o i, j i, j

i, j

100%

(5.2)

5.2.3.4 Advection Tests: Computational Details

In case of VOF method, the volume fraction field is initialized in the domain equal to one and zero inside and outside the circle, respectively. For those cells containing the circular interface, the volume fraction value is set to a value between zero and one, in proportion to the

74

cell volume truncated by the circle. Periodic boundary conditions are applied at all boundaries in case of VOF method for all problems. In case of LSM and CLSVOF, The level set function is initialized as signed normal distance function using equation of circle. Periodic boundary condition is used for translation test and deformation field test, Neumann boundary condition is used for solid body rotation and single vortex test. Table 5.1: Solution methodologies used for VOF,LSM and CLSVOF method and their short form used in present work Method Solution methodology adopted in present work VOF Donor-Acceptor (DA), high resolution convection scheme, Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) with superbee slope limiter and geometric advection method with Youngs PLIC method (Y-PLIC). LSM 5th order WENO for advection and reinitialization (WENO) New CLSVOF PPM for advection of heaviside function and WENO for reinitialization (CLSVOF) The solution methodologies used in this work are as shown in Table 5.1. Four problems are solved from the available velocity fields and availability of exact result. All the test problems are solved on 32x32, 64x64 and 128x128 grid with CFL number 0.5 for translation and solid body rotation tests and CFL number 1 for single vortex and deformation field test. The problem conditions used to solve advection problems are shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Different advection problems solved in present work No. Problem Max Time Exact result at end time time Reversal 1 Translation 1 No Fluid body returns to initial position 2 Solid Body Rotation No Fluid body returns to initial position 3 Single Vortex 3 No Available of Rider and Kothe (1998) 4 Deformation field 2 Yes (at t = Available of Rider and Kothe (1998) at t 1) = 1 and Same as initial condition at t = 2.

5.2.3.5 Advection Tests: Results and Discussion

Interface plots at time, t = 1 for simple translation test for all methods on 322, 642 and 1282 are shown in Fig. 5.9. Ideally the fluid body should come to the initial position without undergoing any shape change. It is seen in Fig. 5.9(a), in case of VOF-DA method the shape of fluid body changes drastically on coarser gird, the shape improves on fine grid but still it is not to circle. The final position of interface on coarse grid is also not near the exact interface position. The circular fluid body starts to develop corners in VOF-DA method because of its SLIC approximation and
75

1D advection algorithm. For the case of VOF-PPM as seen in Fig. 5.9(b), the interface shape remains circular but the final position of interface is away from initial location. On fine grid the final position and shape tend to match with exact result. The results of VOF-Y-PLIC as seen in Fig. 5.9(c), match well with the exact result on coarse grid with further improvement on grid refinement. Interface shape has not changed much in case of LSM-WENO as seen from Fig. 5.9(d) but the interface position does not match with the exact result. The results improve on grid refinement.
0.25 1 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 1 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 1 0.5 0.75 1

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.75

0.25

0.75

0.25

0.75

(a)
0.25 1 0.5 0.75 1

(b)
0.25 1 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 1

(c)
0.5 0.75 1

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.75

0.25

0.75

0.25

0.75

(d) (f) (e) Figure 5.9: Final (t = 1) interface plots for translation test on 32x32, 64x64 and 128x128 grid using different methods (a) VOF-DA (b) VOF-PPM (c) VOF-Y-PLIC (d) LSMWENO (e) CLSVOF-Without conservative redistribution (f) CLSVOF-With conservative redistribution In case of new CLSVOF method as seen from Fig. 5.9(e), the interface shape changed drastically and apparently lot of mass loss occurred for all grid sizes. When the method was closely examined, it was found that the sum of advected heaviside function and sum of heaviside function calculated from the level set function were not same. A step known as conservative redistribution has been developed to overcome this problem wherein the difference in sum of advected heaviside function and sum of heaviside function calculated from level set function is
76

distributed equally among the partially filled cells. Fig. 5.9 (f) shows the result of CLSVOF method with conservative redistribution, it is seen that though the mass loss has been avoided the interface shape has not improved. The reason for shape change in CLSVOF method is not known yet. Without conservative redistribution the new CLSVOF method will incur mass loss, so for all the problems CLSVOF is used with conservative redistribution. Table 5.3: Mass error (%) at time, t = 1 for translation test for all solution methodologies on different grid sizes VOF LSM New CLSVOF Without With Grid DA PPM Y-PLIC WENO Conservative Conservative size Redistribution Redistribution 32x32 7.20 4.46 1.93E-10 2.00E-02 40.81 0 64x64 1.06 2.13 1.18E-06 2.95E-04 45.20 9.77E-14 128x128 0.59 1.09 1.41E-07 1.90E-04 40.64 5.88E-14 Final mass loss incurred by all the methods on all grid sizes for translation test is shown in Table 5.3, VOF-Y-PLIC method performs best followed by LSM-WENO. VOF-DA and VOFPPM incur considerable mass loss on coarse grid; reason for mass loss in VOF-DA method is occurrence of undershoots and overshoots. In case of VOF-PPM, mass loss is incurred as the slope limiting does not ensure that the sum of volume fractions remain constant in domain. Mass loss for VOF-DA, VOF-PPM and LSM-WENO improve with grid refinement. Mass error in case of VOF-Y-PLIC seems to increase with grid refinement, one possible reason could be: as the grid is refined the dimensions of cell become very small and the convergence criteria in bisection method used to locate interface may be met before the actual interface position is achieved. Mass loss incurred in CLSVOF method without conservative redistribution is for reasons other that advection algorithm. CLSVOF method with conservative redistribution produces practically zero mass loss, which validates the implementation of conservative redistribution algorithm but it cannot be considered a good result as mass conservation is enforced by a technique whose validity is yet to be proved. Interface plots at time, t = for solid body rotation test for all methods on 322, 642 and 1282 are shown in Fig. 5.10, in solid body rotation test also the fluid body should come to the initial position without undergoing any shape change. It is seen from Fig. 5.10; the interface shape in case of VOF-DA and CLSVOF has changed. Interface shape in case of VOF-PPM and VOF-Y-PLIC are circular but the position of interface does not match with position of exact interface. LSM-WENO performs best among all methods even on coarse grid. Results of all methods improve on grid refinement.
77

0.25 1

0.5

0.75 1

0.25 1

0.5

0.75 1

0.25 1

0.5

0.75 1

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.75

0.25

0.75

0.25

0.75

(a)
0.25 1 0.5 0.75 1

(b)
0.25 1 0.5

(c)
0.75 1

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.5

Exact 32x32 64x64 128x128

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.75

0.25

0.75

(d) (e) Figure 5.10: Final (t = ) interface plots for solid body rotation test on 32x32, 64x64 and 128x128 grid using different methods (a) VOF-DA (b) VOF-PPM (c) VOF-YPLIC (d) LSM-WENO (e) CLSVOF-With conservative redistribution Final mass loss incurred by all the methods on all grid sizes for solid body rotation test is shown in Table 5.4, it is seen that the mass loss for VOF-Y-PLIC is higher than for VOF-PPM or VOF-DA. High mass loss in VOF-Y-PLIC is due to use of geometric advection, when the velocity in the domain is not same, adjacent flux polygons may overlap or leave some fluid untouched resulting in mass loss. In case of translation test the velocity is same everywhere in domain so mass error in VOF-Y-PLIC is negligible. It is further seen from Table 5.4 that mass loss for LSM-WENO is very less even on coarse grid and it reduces on grid refinement. Mass loss for CLSVOF was forced to be zero; same is reflected in the results. Table 5.4: Mass error (%) at time, t = for solid body rotation test for all solution methodologies on different grid sizes VOF LSM New CLSVOF Grid DA PPM Y-PLIC WENO 32x32 0.77 2.21E-03 0.26 0.02 3.18E-14 64x64 0.68 1.92E-03 0.12 1.20E-03 3.90E-14 128x128 0.04 1.90E-03 0.06 1.70E-04 1.38E-13
78

0.25

0.5
VOF-DA-128x128

0.75

0.25

0.5
VOF-PPM-128x128

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

(a)
1 0 0.25 0.5
VOF-Y-PLIC-128x128

(b)
0.75 1 1 1 0 0.25 0.5
LSM-Periodic Bc-128x128

(c)
0.75 1 1 1 0 0.25 0.5
LSM-Neumann Bc-128x128

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

(d)
1 0 0.25

(e)
0.5 0.75 1 1
CLSVOF-Neuman Bc-128x128

(f)

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.5

0.75

(g) Figure 5.11: Final (t =3) interface plots for single vortex test without time reversal on 128 x128 grid using different methods (a) Exact solution using Mac method by Rider and Kothe (1998) (b) VOF-DA (c) VOF-PPM (d) VOF-Y-PLIC (e) LSM-WENO using periodic Bc (f) LSM-WENO using Neumann Bc (g) CLSVOF-With conservative redistribution Interface plots for single vortex test without time reversal at time, t = 3 for all methods on 1282 grid are shown in Fig. 5.11. The interface plots are compared with exact result of Rider and Kothe (1998) as shown in Fig. 5.11(a). It is seen from Fig. 5.11 that all methods produce a crude shape similar to the exact solution however in case of VOF-DA as seen from Fig. 5.11(b), small fluid bodies detach from the main body, especially the tail. The detachment of the fluid body is not acceptable as it will lead to incorrect property calculation in domain. It is also observed from Fig. 5.11(a) that near the center of domain, the fluid body has developed corner and the interface appears wavy at all places; in such case the interface curvature calculation will be inaccurate.
79

In case of VOF-PPM as shown in Fig. 5.11(c), no detachment of fluid particles take place near the tail and the interface is smooth everywhere but due to smearing the tail is shortened. VOF-Y-PLIC exhibits best result among VOF methods when compared to exact result as shown in Fig. 5.11(d), as it produces smooth interface than VOF-DA and has no smearing like in VOF-PPM. Only concern in VOF-Y-PLIC is the detachment of some fluid at the tail. It is observed that when the fluid body becomes very thin, of the order of the cell size then incorrect value of interface normal is calculated and the piecewise linear approximation of the interface fails in that region leading to incorrect flux calculation. False void region is generated there which leads to breakup of fluid. The phenomenon of breakup of fluid in the thin fluid regions in PLIC methods has been termed as numerical surface tension by Rider and Kothe (1998) and is observed in all PLIC methods irrespective of the method of the normal calculation. In case of LSM-WENO, two different simulations are done to study the effect of different boundary condition of level set function while keeping all other parameters constant. Fig. 5.11(e) shows the result of using periodic boundary condition for level set function and Fig. 5.11(f) shows the result of using Neumann boundary condition for level set function. Clearly, the interface obtained by using Neumann boundary condition is better for this problem, which contradicts an earlier test wherein the effect of using different boundary conditions was found negligible when level set function of stationary square fluid body was reinitialized (Fig. 5.6). It is seen from Fig. 5.11(e) and Fig. 5.11(f), in a fluid flow problem the choice of boundary condition of level set function plays major role in mass conservation. The results of LSM using either of the boundary condition do not match with the exact result. The interface plot of CLSVOF method as shown in Fig. 5.11(g) is best among level set methods. The fluid body appears to have incurred less mass error than LSM-WENO but still does not appear to match with the exact result. Mass loss in case of CLSVOF method is zero, due to conservative redistribution the tail thickness is never allowed to decrease and thus the fluid body appears to be uniformly wide all along the spiral, from head to tail. In the exact result (Fig. 5.11(a)) the fluid body appears to be thin in tail region and thick near the head of the spiral. The final mass error (t = 3) for the single vortex test is given in Table 5.5, the mass loss in case of VOF-DA is very high in presence of vortical velocity field for all grid sizes due to the 1D algorithm. Mass error for VOF-PPM is very high on coarse grid, it reduces on grid refinement but the mass error using VOF-PPM method is comparable to mass error on coarse grid using VOF-Y-PLIC. In case of VOF-PPM, due to presence of vortical velocity field the 1D slope calculation turn out be inaccurate and due to slope limiting mass error is incurred. The reason for mass loss in VOF-Y-PLIC is same as for solid body rotation i.e. overlapping of flux polygons or missing some fluid during advection.
80

Table 5.5: Mass error (%) at time, t = 3 for single vortex test without time reversal for all solution methodologies on different grid sizes VOF LSM New CLSVOF With Conservative DA PPM Y-PLIC WENO Redistribution Neumann Bc 32x32 14.14 18.97 4.92 92.11 0 64x64 10.00 7.93 0.46 87.34 0 128x128 14.37 4.73 0.08 48.59 0 In case of LSM the mass error is tremendous in presence of vortical flow field; mass loss reduces on grid refinement but still is very high in comparison to VOF methods. Interface plots for time reversed deformation field with time period, T = 2 for all methods on 1282 grid are shown in Fig. 5.12. The interface plots are compared with exact result of Rider and Kothe (1998) as shown in Fig. 5.12(a). To get a measure of numerical diffusion in VOF methods, volume fraction contours of 0.05, 0.5 and 0.95 are plotted for VOF-DA, VOF-PPM and VOF-Y-PLIC.
1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1

0.05 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75

0.05 0.5 0.95 0.95 0.75

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

(a)
1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

(b)
1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1 1 0 0.25

(c)
0.5 0.75 1 1

0.75 0.05 0.5

0.95

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.5 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0

(d) (e) (f) Figure 5.12: Interface plots at t = 1 for time reversed deformation field with time period (T = 2) on 128 x128 grid using different methods (a) Exact solution using Mac method by Rider and Kothe (1998) (b) VOF-DA (c) VOF-PPM (d) VOF-Y-PLIC (e) LSMWENO using periodic Bc (f) CLSVOF-With conservative redistribution It is seen from Fig. 5.12, in case of VOF-DA (Fig. 5.12(b)) and VOF-Y-PLIC (Fig. 5.12(d)) very less numerical diffusion is introduced as the volume fraction contours of level 0.05,
81

0.5 and 0.95 are very close to each other. VOF-PPM (Fig. 5.12(c)) exhibits maximum smearing, which can affect proper property calculation in real flow problems. VOF-Y-PLIC exhibits better result among VOF method as it introduces minimum diffusion, the break up of fluid near south wall is less and the interface is smoother than given by VOF-DA method. Symmetry of fluid body is maintained in all the VOF methods. Result of LSM-WENO as shown in Fig. 5.12(e) is not up to the mark, mass loss is apparent and the fluid body is not symmetric. Result shown in Fig. 5.12(e) suggests that level set function diffuses/smears heavily in presence of multiple vortices as compared to presence of single vortex. Results of CLSVOF as shown in Fig. 5.12(f) are better than LSM-WENO results, the fluid body remains fairly symmetric but still do not match with the exact result.
1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1

0.05 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.95

0.5 0.75

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

(a)
1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1 1 0 0.25

(b)
0.5 0.75 1 1 1 0 0.25

(c)
0.5 0.75 1 1

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

(d) (e) (f) Figure 5.13: Final interface plots at t = 2 for time reversed deformation field with time period (T = 2) on 128 x128 grid using different methods (a) Exact solution (b) VOF-DA (c) VOF-PPM (d) VOF-Y-PLIC (e) LSM-WENO using periodic Bc (f) CLSVOF-With conservative redistribution Final interface plots ( t =2) for time reversed deformation field with time period, T = 2 for all methods on 1282 grid are shown in Fig. 5.13. The fluid shape and position are expected to be same as at initial condition. It is seen from Fig. 5.13; out of all the methods VOF-DA (Fig. 5.13(a)) and VOF-Y-PLIC (Fig. 5.13(c)) are able to get back original fluid shape better than any other method, further result of VOF-Y-PLIC is better than of VOF-DA because of multidimensional advection algorithm.

82

Numerical diffusion in case of VOF-PPM is very high, signified by the gap between volume fraction contours of level 0.05, 0.5 and 0.95. Interface shape in case of LSM-WENO (Fig. 5.13(d)) and CLSVOF (Fig. 5.13(e)) are unacceptable.

5.3 Dam break simulation

Two-dimensional dam break simulation is a well known benchmark problem for two-fluid flow simulation wherein a liquid column confined to a corner in a rectangular cavity is suddenly let off. The results of simulation are compared with experimental results of Martin and Moyce (1952). Dam break problem is a good test problem because it has simple domain. Initial and Boundary conditions are simple and experimental results are available. Surface tension effects are neglected to test performance of interface advection methodologies coupled with NavierStokes solver.

5.3.1 Dam Break Simulation: Physical Description

The computational domain is a rectangular cavity filled with air of size 4.5lx1.5l as shown in Fig. 5.14. Water column of size lxl is confined to bottom left corner of the cavity. All the boundaries of the cavity are solid walls, so no slip boundary condition is applied on each boundary. The water column is suddenly let off; the motion is induced due to gravity only.
No Slip / Wall 4.5l No Slip / Wall l l Water No Slip / Wall Distance of Leading edge No Slip / Wall 1.5l

Air

Figure 5.14: Computational domain, initial condition and boundary conditions for Dam Break simulation.

5.3.2 Dam Break simulation: Non-dimensionalization

For the purpose of non-dimensionalization, length is scaled using the width of the liquid column, L* = l Velocity is scaled by defining velocity scale, U * = gl and thus Froude number,

83

Fr = 1, Time is scaled by defining the time scale, t * = L* U * . Properties of air and water are taken at 20 oC as, Density of Water, 1 = 998.1 kg Density of air, 2 = 1.21 kg m3 m3 , Dynamic Viscosity of water, 1 = 1.00 E 03 N s
m2 m2

, Dynamic Viscosity of water, 2 = 1.81E 05 N s

Reynolds number is defined based on the properties of water. Martin and Moyce (1952) used the column width of 2.25 inch (l = 0.05715 m). Corresponding to properties, length scale and velocity scale the Reynolds number for Dam break problem turns out to be of order of 42710.

5.3.3 Dam Break simulation: Computational Details

In the present work, simulations are carried with VOF-PPM, VOF-Y-PLIC, LSM-WENO and CLSVOF method on 60x20 and 180x60 uniform grid till two non-dimensional time units. Initially velocities and pressure are set as zero. The time step is calculated using Eq. 3.7 with reduction factor as 0.48. During each time step the residual of pressure poisson equation has been brought down to the order of 10E-8. QUICK convection scheme has been used to discretize convective terms in momentum equation.
3 Leading Edge Position 0
Martin and Moyce VOF-PPM VOF-Y-PLIC LSM CLSVOF

0.5

1.5

Figure 5.15: Present result of distance of the Leading edge of water with respect to non dimensional time for all methods on 180x60 grid in comparison with experimental result of Martin and Moyce (1952). Evolution of interface at different time levels at both the grid sizes is plotted for methods for comparison. The distance of the leading edge of the water column with respect to time is plotted and matched with experimental results of Martin and Moyce (1952). The trend of mass loss in all methods on both the grids is also plotted.

0.5 1 1.5 Non Dimensional Time

5.3.4 Dam Break simulation: Results and Discussion

84

In Fig. 5.15, present results are compared with the experimental results by plotting the distance of the leading edge of water (position of interface along south wall) with respect to non dimensional time. It is seen from Fig. 5.15, the trend of result matches with the benchmark result fro all methods but exact match is not achieved. The inconsistency in present results and the experimental results may be due to properties selected in this work or velocity boundary condition selected at south boundary.
1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0

VOF-PPM-60x20

VOF-PPM-180x60

(a)
1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

(b)
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0

VOF-Y-PLIC-60x20

VOF-Y-PLIC-180x60

(c)
1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

(d)
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0

LSM-60x20

LSM-180x60

(e)
1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

(f)
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0

CLSVOF-60x20

CLSVOF-180x60

(g) (h) Figure 5.16: Interface plot at non dimensional time interval of 0.5 for all methods on 60x20 and 180x60 grid. Results of VOF-Y-PLIC and LSM are in better agreement than the results of VOF-PPM and CLSVOF. In case of VOF-PPM a stair shaped profile is seen suggesting, the changes in the value of volume fraction in cells near south wall are not continuous but periodic i.e. the fluid would not have entered a cell due to slope limiting for some time steps and for the next change to occur it would have taken some more time steps. Of all the methods, LSM exhibits best results as its profile matches with experimental results at later time. VOF-Y-PLIC and CLSVOF have parallel profile to experimental results.

85

Interface plots at non dimensional time interval of 0.5 for all methods on 60x20 and 180x60 grid are plotted in Fig. 5.16. Effect of grid refinement for the case of VOF-PPM is shown in Fig. 5.16, the interface becomes smooth on the fine grid but at later times interface becomes wavy near the wall. Results of VOF-Y-PLIC are interesting as shown in Fig. 5.16; the no slip boundary condition at south wall impedes free movement of interface at the wall and leads to fluid breakup on fine grid. Interface in case of LSM and CLSVOF is smoother than in case VOF methods as seen in Fig. 5.16. In case of the coarse grid in LSM, interface data at non dimensional time 1.5 is not available as mass error is very high. Results on case of LSM improve on grid refinement moreover the effect of using no slip boundary condition for velocity at south wall is not adverse. Interface shape in case of CLSVOF is inaccurate, because of the procedure used to calculate level set function from heaviside function using bisection method. The variation of mass loss with non dimensional time for all the methods on 60x20 and 180x60 grid is plotted in Fig. 5.17, very less mass loss is incurred in case of VOF-PPM and VOF-Y-PLIC on both coarse and fine grid. Mass loss in case of level set method on coarse grid increases with time and reaches a very high value at nearly 1.5 non dimensional time units. On grid refinement the mass loss incurred in LSM method decreases but its value is found to be more than mass loss incurred by VOF methods on coarse grid. Mass loss in CLSVOF method was forced to zero; the same is reflected in the result. It is observed from the interface plots (Fig. 5.16) and the trend of mass loss (Fig. 5.17), VOF-PLM is better method of the two VOF methods. Though LSM seems to give a better result the mass loss even on fine grid is very high. CLSVOF does give a smooth interface and maintains mass conservation but the interface shape is unacceptable.
10 8 6 4 Mass Error (%) 2 0+ 0
+ + + + + + +

PPM-60x20 Y-PLIC-60x20 LSM-60x20 CLSVOF-60x20 PPM-180x60 Y-PLIC-180x60 LSM-180x60 CLSVOF-180x60

0.5

1.5

10 8 6 4 2 0

-2

Figure 5.17: Variation of mass error with non dimensional time for all methods on 60x20 and 180x60 grid for dam break simulation.

0.5 1 1.5 Non Dimensional Time

-2

86

5.4 Surface Tension Module Test: Young-Laplace law

2D Young-Laplace law test, also known as equilibrium rod test is a standard test problem proposed by Brackbill et al. (1992) to benchmark surface tension modeling using CSF model. In this problem an infinite cylindrical rod having radius, R is placed in a quiescent surrounding fluid. Gravity and viscous forces are neglected, so surface tension force is balanced by pressure force only. This results in pressure jump at the interface given by the Laplace equation, p = = R (5.3)

The objective of the test is to determine the pressure inside the fluid rod by solving NS stokes equations in presence of surface tension force but without gravity and viscous terms.

5.4.1 Young-Laplace law: Physical Description

The square computational domain is considered of size 3R, shown in Fig. 5.18. Fluid rod, represented as a circle of radius, R is placed at a (1.5R, 1.5R) in the domain filled with another fluid. Free slip boundary condition for velocity in used and pressure is set to zero on all boundaries. Gravity and viscous forces are neglected.
Free Slip Bc, P = 0
Gravity and Viscous forces are neglected

Surrounding Fluid

Free Slip Bc, P = 0

Free Slip Bc, P = 0

Fluid Rod
Radius = R Centered at (1.5R, 1.5R) 3R

3R

Free Slip Bc, P = 0

Figure 5.18: Computational domain, initial condition and boundary conditions for YoungLaplace law test.

5.4.2 Young-Laplace law: Governing Parameters

The present test problem is solved in dimensional form by Brackbill et al. (1992), diameter of the liquid rod is taken as , R = 0.02m , Density of the liquid of rod is taken

87

as 1 = 1000 kg

m3

and density of the background fluid is taken as 2 = 500 kg m .

m3

. The co-

efficient of surface tension is taken as = 0.02361 N

5.4.3 Young-Laplace law: Computational Details

The interface curvature is calculated from volume fraction field in case of VOF based methods and it is calculated from level set function in case of LSM and CLSVOF. In the present work, VOF-Y-PLIC and LSM are used to solve present problem to determine the difference in results due to different interface curvature calculation techniques. In case of VOF-Y-PLIC two cases for curvature calculation are considered, first is using the raw volume fraction field i.e. without smoothing and second using the smoothened volume fraction field. Calculations are carried out on 15x15 and 30x30 uniform grids. Time step is taken as 10E05 and computations are performed till 50 time steps. Pressure in the background fluid is zero so the actual pressure in the rod using Eq. 5.3 should be, PROD = 1.1085 N pressure inside the rod is determined as P = 1 NR
m2

. The computed

P
i, j

NR

i, j

m2

(5.4)

Where, NR in equation Eq. 5.4 is the number of cells having a density, 0.99 1 . Error in the computed and actual value of pressure in quantified by defining L2 error norm as NR 2 ( Pi , j PROD ) L2 = i , j 2 N R PROD
0.5

(5.5)

Computed L2 error is compared with results of Brackbill et al. (1992) to validate the implementation of CSF model. Pressure variation across the interface must be smooth. Surface plot of pressure is plotted for both the methods to check this and finally, velocity vectors are plotted to check existence of any generation of currents. Ideally there should be no movement in the domain.

5.4.4 Young-Laplace law: Results and Discussion

Ratio of calculated average pressure to actual pressure in rod and L2 error for all methods is shown in Table 5.5. Present results are compared with the benchmark results of Brackbill et al.

88

(1992) on 152 and 302 grid. Brackbill et al. (1992) used a VOF method and smoothened volume fraction field was used to calculate curvature. It is seen from Table 5.6, for the present result of VOF method without smoothing, L2 error is very high on coarse grid, which does not improve too much on grid refinement. The value of average calculated pressure is way off from the actual value of pressure for coarse grids but improves on grid refinement. In case of VOF method, smoothing of volume fraction field is more effective on fine grid than on coarse grid as seen from Table. 5.5. Even with smoothing, the L2 error on both the grids is higher than benchmark result. LSM produces better results compared to VOF methods and even the benchmark results, and on 30x30 grid LSM produces nearly exact solution. Level set method is a very accurate method involving surface tension as the calculation of interface curvature is accurate in LSM than VOF methods. Table 5.6: Comparison of present results with benchmark result of Brackbill et al. (1992) on 15x15 and 30x30 grid. P Method L2 error PROD 15x15 grid Brackbill et al. (1992) 1.034 5.56E-02 VOF-Without smoothing 0.865 1.93E-01 0.936 1.32E-01 VOF-Smoothing using K8 LSM 0.988 2.63E-02 30x30 grid Brackbill et al. (1992) 1.016 2.82E-02 VOF-Without smoothing 0.930 1.38E-01 0.967 5.09E-02 VOF-Smoothing using K8 LSM 1.004 8.96E-03 The pressure variation in the domain is shown in Fig. 5.19 with help of 3D surface plot. X and Y axis in the plot represent the co-ordinate directions and the calculated pressure in the domain is rescaled 10 Pi , j N

m2

) and plotted along Z-axis.

Fig. 5.19 shows that on coarse grid, the pressure across the interface changes abruptly when VOF method without smoothing of volume fraction field is used, negative pressure is observed near the interface. When the volume fraction is smoothened, large changes in pressure are suppressed but still some irregularity is seen. In case of LSM the transition is very smooth. On fine grid the result of VOF method without smoothing deteriorates as seen in Fig. 5.19, even though the pressure change is sharp, the extent of negative pressure has increased. On smoothing the volume fraction field, variation of pressure is suppressed but not eliminated, just
89

like on coarse grid. On grid refinement the result of LSM seems improved as the transition region becomes thin and a sharper change in pressure is seen.
VOF-without smoothing 15x15
Z

VOF-with smoothing 15x15

Y X

LSM-15x15
Y X

Y X

15
P ress ure

15
P ress ure

15 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 0 6 -5 5 10
Cacu lated
Z Y X

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 0 6 -5 5

10
Cacu lated

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 0 6 -5 5

10
Cacu lated

VOF-without smoothing 30x30

VOF-with smoothing 30x30

Y X

LSM-30x30
Y X

15
P ress ure

15
P ress ure

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 0 6 -5 5

10
Cacu lated

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 0 6 -5 5

10
Cacu lated

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 0 6 -5 5

10
Cacu lated
6 6 4 2 6 0

Figure 5.19: Surface plot of pressure variation in domain for all methods on 15x15 and 30x30 grid. Fig. 5.20 shows the interface position and velocity vectors at end of the simulation on 30x30 grid. In ideal conditions there should be no velocity in the domain as pressure force balances surface tension force.
6 0

VOF-without smoothing VOF-with smoothing 2 4 15x15 30x30

VOF-with smoothing 2 4 30x30

VOF-with smoothing LSM 4 2 15x15 30x30

Figure 5.20: Final interface position and velocity vectors for Young-Laplace test on 30x30 grid In case of VOF method without smoothing, the velocity vectors are more prominent than for other methods, on careful examination it is seen from Fig. 5.20 that velocity vectors are pointing in opposite directions near the interface. Existence of negative pressure near the
90

P ress ure

P ress ure

15

interface is the reason for this. The final interface shape is not smooth, suggesting that some movement of interface has taken place. For the case of VOF method with smoothened volume fraction field as seen from Fig. 5.20, velocity vectors have not been eliminated but they point in same direction, which means the existence of negative pressure has been eliminated. The final interface shape in this case also has undergone some movement. LSM produces the ideal result as there are no major velocity vectors and the interface has not undergone any movement.

5.5 Rayleigh-Taylor Instability

Consider a system of two immiscible stratified fluids under the effect of gravity with heavier fluid being on top. If the interface is horizontal the system will remain stable as there is no way for movement to occur. If a small perturbation is given along the interface, due to density difference the heavier fluid will try to fall down displacing the lighter fluid, the lighter fluid will thus try to rise in the cavity forming bubbles, this phenomenon is known as Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) Instability. This problem is stringent than the dam break simulation in regard that there is vortex formation near the interface which stretches the interface severely, testing the robustness of interface advection algorithm coupled with Navier-Stokes solver. The simulation time is much longer than that for broken dam problem, so trend of mass error for long time can be checked.
No Slip Free Slip Heavier Fluid Initial interface position

3l

1.86l
Lighter Fluid

Free Slip

l
No Slip

Figure 5.21: Computational domain, initial condition and boundary conditions for RayleighTaylor instability.

91

5.5.1 RT Instability: Physical Description of Problem

The computational domain is a rectangular cavity with width, l = 1 and height, 3l as shown in Fig. 5.21. Unperturbed height of the interface is 1.86l from the base with heavier fluid being on top. A cosinusoidal, single wave perturbation with amplitude 0.03l is introduced at the interface. No slip boundary condition is applied at top and bottom boundary and free slip boundary condition is applied at side boundaries. Uniform gravity acts everywhere in the domain, there is no other source of motion in the domain.

5.5.2 RT Instability: Non Dimensional Governing Parameters

For the purpose of non-dimensionalization, length is scaled using the width of the domain,

L* = l . Velocity is scaled by defining velocity scale, U * = gl and thus Froude number, Fr = 1,

Time is scaled by defining the time scale, t * = L* U * . Properties of heavier and lighter fluid are taken as, Density of heavier fluid, 1 = 5 kg Density of lighter fluid, 2 = 1 kg m3 , Dynamic of heavier fluid, 1 = 0.1 N s
m2 m2

m3

, Dynamic Viscosity of water, 2 = 0.01 N s

Reynolds number is defined based on the properties of heavier fluid, the length of the column is taken as l = 1 m. Corresponding to properties, length scale and velocity scale the Reynolds number for RT instability turns out to be 155.605. The density ratio ( ) and the Atwood number, A = (1 ) (1 + ) for the given densities turn out to be 0.2 and 0.6667 respectively. Weber number is defined on the properties of heavier fluid; parametric study is performed for different Weber number.

5.5.3 RT Instability: Computational Details

In the present work, simulations are carried with VOF-PPM, VOF-Y-PLIC, LSM-WENO and CLSVOF method on 16x48, 32x96 and 64x192 uniform grid till four non-dimensional time units. Initially velocities and pressure are set as zero. The time step is calculated using Eq. 3.7 with reduction factor as 0.48. During each time step the residual of Pressure Poisson equation has been brought down to the order of 10E-8. QUICK convection scheme has been used to discretize convective terms in momentum equation. First set of computations are carried out without surface tension to study the effect of grid refinement on 16x48, 32x96 and 64x192 grid. In the second set of computations, the effect of surface tension is included. Computations are carried out for different Weber number to
92

determine if the VOF, LSM and CLSVOF solution methodologies can provide the critical Weber number as predicted by the linear analysis. When the Weber number is equal to critical Weber number no instability occurs. From the linear analysis, the critical Weber number is given by,
k 2 Fr We = m cr 1

where k
VOF-PPM 16x48

( = 2 l )

is the wave number of perturbation.

VOF-PPM 64x192

VOF-PPM 32x96

VOF-Y-PLIC 16x48

VOF-Y-PLIC 32x96

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x192

LSM 16x48

LSM 32x96

LSM 64x192

CLSVOF 16x48

CLSVOF 32x96

CLSVOF 64x192

Figure 5.22:Effect of grid refinement on interface shape at non dimensional time, = 4 for all the methods without surface tension

5.5.4 RT Instability: Results and Discussion

Interface shape for all methods without surface tension at non dimensional time, = 4 on 16x48, 32x96 and 64x192 grid is shown in Fig. 5.22. Volume fraction contours of level 0.5 are used to represent interface in VOF methods, whereas level set contour level 0 is defined as interface in case of LSM and CLSVOF.
93

Fig. 5.22 shows that with the exception of CLSVOF, the interface shape predicted is fairly accurate on coarse grid. Interface shape in case of CLSVOF seems to be excessively developed and it is asymmetrical. In case of VOF-PPM, fluid body is symmetrical for grid sizes, fluid break up seems to be happening on finer grids but actually due to numerical diffusion the fluid body in thin fluid regions is highly smeared. The smeared interface in case of VOF-PPM is shown in Fig. 5.23, the interface shape obtained using VOF-PPM is close to exact result. In case of VOF-Y-PLIC as seen in Fig. 5.22, the fluid breakup seen on coarse grid reduces on grid refinement but it is never eliminated. Unlike VOF-PPM, in the case of VOF-Y-PLIC no numerical diffusion is introduced in the volume fraction field and thus fluid break up occurs. To resolve thin fluid body even finer grid will have to be taken as Y-PLIC method cannot resolve fluid particles smaller than the grid size.

Figure 5.23: Final fluid shape using VOF-PPM, fluid shape represented by 10 contour levels between 0 and 1. This result is closest to exact result. In case of LSM, it is seen from Fig. 5.22 that the interface shape is symmetrical for all grid sizes, the results improve tremendously on grid refinement giving extremely smooth interface in finest grid. The thin fluid regions are not captured in case of LSM, even on a very fine grid. In case of LSM, the thin fluid regions get smeared. Fig. 5.22 shows that CLSVOF produces good result on fine grid, symmetry is maintained and interface is developed to larger extent as compared to other methods. The variation of mass loss with non dimensional time for all the methods on 32x96 grid is plotted in Fig. 5.24. It is seen from Fig. 5.24, VOF-PPM incurs very less error till non dimensional time, = 2 , after which the error monotonously increases and reaches maximum value its maximum value i.e. 0.64 % at end time. Mass error in case of VOF-PPM starts to appear at later time because of numerical diffusion and vortex field set up in the domain by that time.
94

1 VOF-PPM VOF-Y-PLIC LSM CLSVOF

Mass Error (%)

0.5

0.5

0 0 1 2 3 Non Dimensional Time

Figure 5.24: Variation of mass error with non dimensional time for all methods on 32x96grid for RT instability with surface tension. Fig. 5.24 shows that VOF-Y-PLIC incurs negligible mass loss at all times and mass loss in case of LSM increases till non dimensional time, = 3 after which it decreases to zero, the mass error seems to increase after touching zero error because absolute mass error values are plotted. Trend of mass error in case of CLSVOF is random, reason for which is not still known. It is noted from Fig. 5.24 that the mass loss for all methods is less than 1 %, low property ratios can be a reason for good result of LSM.
VOF-PPM 64x192 We 144 VOF-Y-PLIC 64x192 We 144 LSM 64x192 We 144 CLSVOF 32x96 We 144 VOF-PPM 64x192 We 80 VOF-Y-PLIC 64x192 We 80 LSM 64x192 We 80 CLSVOF 32x96 We 80

VOF-PPM 64x192 We 50

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x192 We 50

LSM 64x192 We 50

CLSVOF 32x96 We 50

VOF-PPM 64x192 We 40

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x192 We 40

LSM 64x192 We 40

CLSVOF 32x96 We 40

Figure 5.25:Effect of different Weber number of on interface shape at non dimensional time, = 4 for VOF-PPM, Y-PLIC , LSM on 64x192 grid and CLSVOF on 32x96 grid.
95

Fig. 5.25 shows the interface shape for all methods except CLSVOF with surface tension included for Weber number equal to 144, 80, 50 and 40 on 64x192 grid at non dimensional time, = 4 , results of CLSVOF are obtained on 32x96 grid. As a general observation, it is seen from Fig. 5.25 for all methods that with decreasing Weber number, development of interface is restricted. In case of VOF methods and CLSVOF method the spike formation for We = 144 and the bulb formation for We = 80 are more prominent as compared to LSM.
2.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
16x48 32x96 64x192

VOF-PPM We 50

2.5

2.5

0.25

0.5

0.75
16x48 32x96 64x192

VOF-Y-PLIC We 50

2.5

1.5

0 0

0.25

0.5 0.5

0.75

1 1

1.5

1.5

0 0

0.25

0.5 0.5

0.75

1 1

1.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

LSM We 50 16x48 32x96 64x192

CSLVOF We 50 16x48 32x96

1.5

0.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

Figure 5.26: Effect of grid refinement on interface shape at non dimensional time, = 4 for all the methods with surface tension at We = 50. At We = 50 it is seen from Fig. 5.25, there is very little change in the final interface position from the initial condition of the interface for all the methods. The value of critical Weber number in the present problem, calculated theoretically is 49.35, thus it is seen that all the methods predict the critical Weber number fairly accurately.

96

It is seen from Fig. 5.25, at We = 40 the interface is exhibits negative movement and is seen above the initial perturbed position at the final time instant, the interface actually starts to oscillate signifying that the Weber number chosen is less than the critical Weber number. The results on fine grid are inconclusive of exposing weakness of any method in presence of surface tension, so the effect of grid refinement for all methods with We = 50 is plotted in Fig. 5.26. In case of VOF-PPM and VPF-Y-PLIC, it is seen from Fig. 5.26 that the interface undergoes considerable movement on coarse grids. Ideally the interface should move very little as the value of Weber number used for computation is near to the critical Weber number value (49.35). In case of VOF methods, interface movement is seen because of presence of spurious currents near the interface. Spurious currents appear due to inaccurate calculation of interface curvature. It is seen from Fig. 5.26 that the results of VOF-PPM are better than for VOF-Y-PLIC on a coarse grid. In VOF-PPM, the volume fraction field is smeared to some extent due to solution algorithm of VOF equation using PPM method, the smeared volume fraction field aids in calculating smooth curvature. In case of VOF-Y-PLIC the volume fraction field is maintained as step function, even smoothing using K8 kernel leads to inaccurate curvature calculation. The interface movement for both VOF methods is restricted on grid refinement. It is seen in Fig. 5.26 that in case of LSM and CLSVOF the interface movement is negligible for all grid sizes; this confirms the fact that interface curvature calculated using level set method is very accurate. For surface tension dominant flows, VOF methods will require very fine grid in comparison to LSM or level set based methods to capture same phenomenon.
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

VOF-PPM 32x96 We 50

VOF-Y-PLIC 32x96 We 50

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.6

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.6

1.6

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.6

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

LSM 32x96 We 50

CLSVOF 32x96 We 50

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.6

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.6

1.6

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.6

Figure 5.27: Interface position and velocity vectors for all methods at non dimensional time, for We = 50 on 32x96 grid.

97

Based on the assumption of single fluid model used to solve Navier-Stokes equations, a continuous velocity field is expected in domain, even across the interface. To check this, final interface position and velocity vectors for We = 50 on 32x96 grid are plotted n Fig. 5.27. Fig. 5.27 shows velocity field in case of VOF-PPM, LSM and CLSVOF is smooth across the interface but in case of VOF-Y-PLIC method there are abrupt changes in the velocity across the interface. These abrupt changes in velocity, known as spurious currents [Brackbill et al. (1992)] impart motion to interface even if all the forces are balanced. The spurious currents arise due to inaccurate calculation of surface tension force and are inherent shortcoming of VOF-YPLIC method. To get a measure of the computational time, average iterations per time step is defined as ratio of summation of number of iteration of pressure poisson equation per time step to total number of time steps required. Values of average iterations per time step for all methods on 32x96 grid for all cases of Weber number are shown in Table 5.7. Table 5.7: Average iterations of pressure poisson equation required per time step at nondimensional time, = 4 on 32x96 grid. Method Weber Number 144 80 50 40 VOF-PPM 1977.81 1895.01 1408.59 230.515 83.53 VOF-Y-PLIC 1984.28 1887.82 1437.12 305.65 151.28 LSM 1591.47 1582.11 1088.50 55.83 61.41 CLSVOF 1938.98 1928.02 1659.85 92.60 209.00 It is seen from Table 5.7 that number of iterations of pressure poisson equation per time step required in VOF methods are more than for LSM. More number of iterations are required for solution of pressure poisson equation in case of VOF method as the properties have a step change whereas in LSM properties are smeared across the band. For the flows involving high surface tension (flows involving bubbles), VOF-Y-PLIC may prove to be computationally too expensive as on an average, it takes double or more than double iterations of pressure poisson equation per time step to converge as compared to LSM for high surface tension flow, and on top of that finer grid will be required for accurate calculation of surface tension force in VOF-Y-PLIC. When the computational time required by the K8 kernel smoothing step is considered, VOF-Y-PLIC method comes out be at least four times slower than LSM method. In CLSVOF method, reinitialization of a step function to signed normal distance function is done at each time step and thus CLSVOF method is to be computationally most expensive method out of all, followed by VOF-Y-PLIC and VOF-PPM. LSM is fastest of all the methods.
98

5.6 Splash of Water drop in water pool

Splash of a water drop in water pool is a good test problem as it involves fluids with high property ratio, the simulation time is longer than any of the other methods and most importantly ability of the solution methodology to maintain the symmetry in the solution is tested. In this problem a water drop placed above a water pool in the domain, is suddenly let off to splash in to the water pool under the effect of gravity inducing motion in the pool which gradually dampens. Surface tension effects in this problem are neglected. The objective of this test is to determine interface position at different times and the variation of interface position at west wall with respect to time.

5.6.1 Splash of Water Drop: Physical Description

The computational domain as shown in Fig. 5.28 is a square cavity of size 8R filled with air, water pool having depth 2R is also there in this cavity. A water drop of radius R is initially centered at (4R, 6R). Top and Bottom boundaries are solid walls, so no slip boundary condition is applied on them. Free slip boundary condition is applied on side boundaries. The water drop is suddenly let off, triggering a splash into the water pool below.
No Slip / Wall Water Drop
Radius = R Centered at (4R, 6R)

Free Slip

8R
Air

Free Slip

8R

2R

Water No Slip / Wall

Figure 5.28: Computational domain, initial condition and boundary conditions for splash of water drop in water pool.

5.6.2 Splash of water drop: Non-dimensionalization

For the purpose of non-dimensionalization, length is scaled using the radius of the water drop, L* = R Velocity is scaled by defining velocity scale, U * = gR and thus Froude number,

99

Fr = 1, Time is scaled by defining the time scale, t * = L* U * . Properties of air and water are taken as same in the dam break simulation problem. The radius of the drop in present work is taken as 1.25E-03 m. Reynolds number is defined based on the properties of water. Corresponding to properties, length scale and velocity scale the Reynolds number for the present problem comes out to be, 138.57.

5.6.3 Splash of water drop: Computational Details

Simulation is carried using all the methods on 64x64 uniform grid till 50 non-dimensional time units. Initially velocities and pressure are set as zero; the time step is calculated using Eq. 3.7 with reduction factor as 0.48. The convergence criterion of pressure poisson equation and other computational details are same as for dam break simulation.

5.6.4 Splash of water drop: Results and Discussion

The propagation of the drop splash for all method at various instants of non dimensional time is shown in Fig. 5.29, time instants during which water droplet touches the water pool and induces movement are considered here. Overall it is seen that VOF-PPM, VOF-Y-PLIC and LSM capture similar fluid position at same non dimensional time. CLSVOF fails to treat merging of two different fluid bodies and so its simulation was cut short. It is seen from Fig. 5.29 that LSM maintains symmetry of the fluid body at all times. In case of VOF-Y-PLIC, asymmetry of fluid body begins to appear by non dimensional time,

= 3.0 on the other hand VOF-PPM maintains symmetry till a bit longer time but eventually
asymmetries in fluid body is seen at = 6.0 . In VOF-Y-PLIC at = 9.0 , fluid breakup is seen but the fluid reaches maximum height as compared to other methods. Fig. 5.30 shows the variation of interface position at west wall with time for VOF-Y-PLIC and LSM. The interface exhibits sinusoidal behavior, with large amplitudes at initial times and due to viscosity the amplitude decreases over a period of time and interface movement stops at steady state.

100

VOF-PPM 64x64

= 2.0

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x64

=2

LSM 64x64 = 2.0

CLSVOF 64x64 = 2.0

VOF-PPM 64x64

= 2.6

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x64

= 2.6

LSM 64x64 = 2.6

CLSVOF 64x64 = 2.6

VOF-PPM 64x64

= 3.0

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x64

= 3.0

LSM 64x64 = 3.0

CLSVOF 64x64 = 3.0

VOF-PPM 64x64

= 3.4

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x64

= 3.4

LSM 64x64 = 3.4

VOF-PPM 64x64

= 6.0

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x64

= 6.0

LSM 64x64 = 6.0

VOF-PPM 64x64

= 9.6

VOF-Y-PLIC 64x64

= 9.6

LSM 64x64 = 9.6

Figure 5.29: Fluid shapes at different time instants for all methods on 64x64 grid for water drop splash problem

101

It is seen from Fig. 5.30, the trend of movement of interface for VOF and LSM is similar but the amplitude of movement in case of VOF method is much higher, and does not reduce as easily as in case of LSM.
10 9 Height of Interface at West wall 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 Non Dimensional Time 40 0
LSM VOF-Y-PLIC

10

20

30

40

50 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 50

Figure 5.30: Variation of interface height at west wall with respect to non dimensional time for LSM and VOF-Y-PLIC. Variation of percentage mass error with time for all methods is plotted in Fig. 5.31, it is seen that mass error for VOF-PPM reaches a value after the splash has taken place an then becomes constant. Mass error in VOF-Y-PLIC is negligible at all times as expected In case of LSM method, the variation of mass error is interesting. The mass error in LSM method does not increase monotonously but it exhibits a periodic behavior, similar to the interface movement.
15 12 Mass Error (%) 9 6 3 0 0 10 20 30 40 Non Dimensional Time 0
VOF-PPM 10 VOF-Y-PLIC LSM CLSVOF

20

30

40

50 15 12 9 6 3 0 50

Figure 5.31: Variation of mass error with non dimensional time for all methods.

102

6
Conclusions and Future Work Proposal
In the present work, Literature survey of Volume of Fluid (VOF) method and Level Set (LS) method is performed and summarized. A Navier-Stokes solver based on projection is method developed and tested on lid driven cavity flow problem. Module to solve VOF governing equation using donor-acceptor method, multi dimensional geometric advection method combined with Youngs PLIC method and a high resolution convection scheme (PPM) is developed and tested individually on four pure advection test problems. Module to solve LS governing equation and reinitialization equation using 5th order WENO scheme is developed and tested individually on four pure advection test problems. Two-fluid VOF code is developed by combining Navier-Stokes solver with VOF solution modules based on geometric advection and PPM method. Similarly, Two-fluid level set code is developed by combining Navier-Stokes solver with level set solution modules. VOF and LS twofluid codes are tested on standard dam break simulation test problem. Module to include surface tension force in VOF and LS method is developed and combined with both the two-fluid codes. Module of surface tension force for VOF and LS is tested on Young-Laplace law test. A new Combined Level Set Volume of Fluid Method (CLSVOF) is devised, implemented and tested. The new CLSVOF method is intended to reduce mass error in LS methods while avoiding interface reconstruction. Two-fluid code based on new CLSVOF method has also been developed with surface tension effect included and is used to solve dam break simulation problem. All the two-fluid codes with surface tension effects are used to solve Rayleigh-Taylor instability problem and splash of water drop in water pool. Comparison based on qualitative and quantitative results is made between different methodologies to solve VOF governing equation in case of VOF method and LS method. It is concluded from the comparative study that: It was seen from the advection tests; among the VOF methods the donor-acceptor method preserved sharpness of volume fraction field but induced considerable change in shape of the fluid. Moreover in DA method, break up of fluid particles took place from various locations of fluid body. PPM method was able to maintain the shape of the fluid body without fluid breakup but the volume fraction field got smeared due to numerical diffusion. Geometric advection method performed best among all methods as it maintained sharpness in volume fraction field without distorting the fluid shape. However, fluid break up in thin fluid regions was seen in case of geometric advection method, the PLIC approximation is reason for fluid
103

breakup. Mass error for geometric advection was negligible for all test problems and that for PPM method was under acceptable limits. However, high mass error in case of DA method was seen on vortical flow field. In case of advection tests of LS method, the mass error reduced the importance of otherwise exceptional results. It was seen from results of single vortex test, use of different boundary conditions affected the final results considerably. In CLSVOF method, the numerical diffusion of volume fractions/heaviside functions was limited in a thin region near the interface but the procedure adopted to calculate level set function from heaviside function was inaccurate and more mass error was incurred in raw CLSVOF, mass conservation was enforced by conservative redistribution. Validity of conservative redistribution is not established but the results of CLSVOF, as in case of single vortex test give a taste of the result that can be obtained using LS method when mass conservation will be obeyed. In hindsight, it is seen that CLSVOF method was devised to reduce mass error but, the same reinitialization procedure responsible for mass loss in LS method is used in CLSVOF. It was seen from the solution of two-fluid flows that, 1. Mass conservation was obeyed better in VOF based methods as compared to LS method. In LS method, presently there is no constraint in formulation that prevents mass loss. During reinitialization procedure the interface position is changed, the error induced in this manner is accumulated to result in mass loss. 2. Surface tension force was calculated accurately in LS method and CLSVOF method. In case of VOF methods, even the smoothing of volume fraction field is insufficient to calculate accurate surface tension force. 3. VOF method based on PPM showed good mass conservation without fluid break up. However the surface tension force calculation procedure is same as in VOF method based on geometric advection. In PPM based VOF method, even though the geometric advection and fluid breakup is avoided, calculation of surface tension force is inaccurate. 4. Although mass conservation was best in VOF based methods, there is a severe problem of fluid breakup on coarse grids and break up of symmetry of fluid body in case of geometric advection and introduction of numerical diffusion for high density flows in case of PPM. In case of LS method, symmetry in fluid body is maintained without fluid breakup. 5. Fluid breakup and inaccurate interface curvature calculation in VOF method based of geometric advection and numerical diffusion in case of PPM can be avoided by using a
104

fine grid but the computational time increases tremendously, as smoothing volume fraction is computationally expensive. 6. In its present form, the new CLSVOF method cannot treat merging of two different fluid bodies and its results are not acceptable. Overall its difficult of choose a better method from the VOF and LS method, the answers to important issues regarding the two-fluid flow simulation methodologies presented by VOF and LS methods after implementing them are summarized as, Issue VOF method Is the interface represented No, Information of region in the domain using a occupied by a particular function ? fluid is stored in form of volume fraction field. Interface is reconstructed from the volume fraction field, interface reconstruction is not accurate. What is the storage It was intended to be one requirement of the variable per cell but due to function representing use of geometric advection, interface ? the storage requirement per cell is very high. (It takes 64 variables per cell in present implementation of geometric method in 2D) Is mass conservation Yes, but only when obeyed ? geometric advection method is used. Use of convection schemes induces mass error. How easy it is to calculate Not so easy, Interface interface curvature curvature needs double required in surface tension derivatives of volume model ? fractions but volume fraction field has sharp discontinuity. Smoothing of volume fraction field is done but it is computationally expensive and it is not exact. LS method Yes, Level set function of value 0 defines the interface directly and its contour gives the exact interface.

Only one variable per cell is required, even in 3D.

No, not in the present form due to lack of constraint in formulation. Very easy, exact curvature is calculated without any special treatment.

What is implementation effort required ?

Implementation effort required for geometric advection is tremendous but that for convection schemes is relatively very less.

Very less implementation effort required as compared to VOF method

105

Issue What about extendibility to 2D complex geometry and 3D ?

VOF method Difficult, Unless the 2D implementation on simple geometry is generalized. Extension to 2D complex will require a new procedure to be devised and a new code to be written, as the shapes of fluid polygons, flux polygons and their combinations will be different on complex grids from those seen on simple grid.

LS method Easy, as only convection schemes are needed to be extended.

3D extension is most difficult but it exists Where does the method go In every aspect of numerical wrong ? implementation, special treatment is required. The method defines the region of fluid using a step function so convection schemes cannot be used easily to solve its governing equation. Many researches have tried to improve the solution procedure of VOF method by giving more and more complex interface reconstruction and advection algorithms. To calculate the interface curvature, smoothing of volume fraction field is used by many researchers but it is inaccurate. In VOF method, use of a step function to represent a region of fluid makes the implementation of the method very difficult.

The formulation has no constraint of mass conservation.

106

Issue What is the best way to overcome present short comings ?

VOF method The definition of VOF method cannot be changed and also there is no point in devising more complex interface advection algorithms which do not improve the results to large extent. Important thing learnt from VOF method is that for mass conservation to be obeyed the volume fraction field must be conserved.

LS method Best way forward is to include the constraint of mass conservation i.e. conservation of volume fraction/heaviside function field in the formulation. CLSVOF is a direct way of conserving heaviside function field.

Is a CLSVOF method feasible ?

An improvement in reinitialization procedure is indirect way of satisfying this constraint. If the original CLSVOF method, with interface reconstruction is to be used then the disadvantage of interface reconstruction is inherited. If the CLSVOF method devised in the present work is improved, it may still not give good results as the reinitialization procedure is flawed. A CLSVOF method may not be needed if the reinitialization procedure is improved.

Overall it is found that Level set method a better candidate method for further developments. In future it is intended to, Improve the mass conservation in level set method from present state by the CLSVOF proposed in this work or improving reinitialization procedure by applying the constraint of mass conservation. Model boiling heat transfer at interface.

107

Bibliography
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Ashgriz, N., Poo, J. Y., (1991), FLAIR-Flux Line-segment model for advection and interface reconstruction, J. Comp. Phy., 93, 449-468. Barkhudarov, M.R., (2003), Semi-Lagrangian VOF Advection Method for FLOW-3D, Report FSI-03-TN63, Flow Science, Inc. Brackbill, J. U., Kothe, D. B., Zemach, C., (1992), A continuum method for modelling surface tension, J. Comp. Phy., 100, 335-354. Bell, J.B., Marcus, D.L., (1992), A Second-Order Projection Method for Variable- Density Flows, J. Comp. Phy.101,334-348. Bonito, A., Picasso, M., Laso, M., (2006), Numerical simulation of 3D viscoelastic flows with free surfaces, J. Comp. Phy., 215, 691-716. Chang, Y. C., Hou, T. Y., Merriman, B., Osher, S., (1996), A Level Set Formulation of Eulerian Interface Capturing Methods for Incompressible Fluid Flows, J. Comp. Phy., 124,449-464. [7] Chen, L., Li, Y., (1998), A numerical method for two-phase flows with an interface, Env. Model. Soft., 13, 247-255. [8] [9] Colella, P., Woodward, P.R., (1984), The Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) for GasDynamical Simulations, J. Comp. Phy., 54, 174-201. Garrioch, S. H., Baliga, B. R.,(2006) A PLIC volume tracking method for the simulation of two-fluid flows, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids, in press. [10] Ghia, U., Ghia, K. N., Shin, C.T.,(1982), High Re-Solutions for Incompressible flow using the Navier-Stokes Equations and a Multi grid method, J. Comp. Phy., 48, 387-411. [11] Ginzburg , I., Wittum, G., (2001), Two-Phase Flows on Interface Refined Grids Modeled with VOF, Staggered Finite Volumes, and Spline Interpolants, J. Comp. Phy., 166, 302335. [12] Hirt, C.W., Nichols, B. D., (1981), Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries, J. Comp. Phy., 39, 201-225. [13] Hyman, J. M., (1984), Numerical methods for tracking interfaces, Physica D, 12, 396-407. [14] Jiang, G. S., Peng, D., (2000), Weighted ENO schemes for Hamilton Jacobi Equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comp., 21, 2126-2143. [15] Kothe, D.B., Williams, M.W., Lam, K.L., Korzekwa, D.R., Tubesing, P. K., Puckett, E. G., (1999),A Second-Order Accurate, Linearity-Preserving Volume Tracking Algorithm for
108

Free Surface Flows on 3-D Unstructured Meshes, Proceedings of the 3rd ASME/JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, San Francisco, California, USA [16] Lrstad, D., Fuchs L., (2004), High-order surface tension VOF-model for 3D bubble flows with high density ratio, J. Comp. Phy., 200, 153-176. [17] Martin, J.C., Moyce, W.J., (1952), Part IV. An Expreimntal Study of the Collapse of Liquid Columns on a Rigid Horizontal Plane, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 244, 312-324. [18] Martinez, J. M., Chesneau, X., Zeghmati, B, (2006), A new curvature technique calculation contribution in PLIC-VOF method, Comput. Mech., 37, 182193. [19] Mosso, S. J., Swartz, B. K., Kothe, D.B., Clancy, S.P., (1996), Recent enhancements of volume tracking algorithms for irregular grids, LANL Report LA-CP-96-227, Los Alamos National Laboratory. [20] Ni, M.J., Komori, S., Morley, N.B., (2005), Direct simulation of falling droplet in a closed channel, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 49, 366-376. [21] Nourgaliev, R.R., Theofanous, T.G., (2007), High-fidelity interface tracking in compressible flows: Unlimited anchored adaptive level set, J. Comp. Phy., 224, 836866. [22] Osher, S., Fedkiw, R., (2001), Level Set Methods: An Overview and Some Recent Results, J. Comp. Phy., 169, 463-502. [23] Peyret, R, Taylor, T. D., (1983), Computational Methods for Fluid Flow, Springer-Verlag, New York. [24] Pilliod, J.E., Puckett, E.G., (2004), Second-order accurate volume-of-fluid algorithms for material interfaces, J. Comp. Phy., 199,465-502. [25] Renardy, Y., Renardy, M., (2002), PROST: A Parabolic Reconstruction of Surface Tension for the Volume of Fluid Method, J. Comp. Phy., 183, 400-421. [26] Rider, W.J., Kothe, D.B. , Mosso, S.J., Cerutti, J.H., Hochstein, J.I. (1995), Accurate solution algorithms for incompressible multiphase flows, AIAA Paper No. 95-0699,33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV. [27] Rider, W. J., Kothe, D. B., (1998), Reconstructing volume tracking, J. Comp. Phy., 141,112-152. [28] Rudman, M., (1997), Volume-tracking methods for interfacial flow calculations, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 24, 671-691. [29] Rudman, M., (1998) , A Volume-Tracking Method for Incompressible Multifluid flows with Large Density Variations, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids, 28, 357-378.

109

[30] Salih, A., Ghosh Moulic, S., (2005) A Level Set Method for Simulation of Coalescence of Droplets, Proceesings of IMECE2005, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Florida, USA, November 5-11. [31] Sharma, A., Eswaran, V., (2003) A Finite Volume Method, in Computational fluid flow and heat transfer, edited by K.Murlidhar and T.Sundararajan, Narosa Publishing house, India. [32] Sussman, M., Smereka, P., Osher, S., (1994), A Level Set Approach for Computing Solutions to Incompressible Two-Phase Flow, J. Comp. Phy., 114,146-159. [33] Sussman, M., Puckett, E.G., (2000) A Coupled Level Set and Volume-of-Fluid Method for Computing 3D and Axisymmetric Incompressible Two-Phase Flows, J. Comp. Phy.,162,301-337. [34] Ubbink, O., and Issa, R., (1999), A Method for Capturing Sharp Fluid Interfaces on Arbitrary Meshes, J. Comp. Phy., 153, 26-50. [35] Wang, Y., Hutter, K., (2001), Comparisons of numerical methods with respect to convectively dominated problems, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids, 27,721-745. [36] Welch, S. W. J., Wilson, J., (2000), A Volume of fluid based method for fluid flows with phase change, J. Comp. Phy., 160, 662-682. [37] Youngs, D. L., (1982), Numerical methods for fluid dynamics, edited by K.W. Morton and M.J. Baines, Academic Press, London.

110