Chapter 1

Spray Modeling Fundamentals

1.1 Introduction
Sprays belong to a specific type of two-phase flows which are characterized by a dominating direction of motion and involve liquid phase in a discrete form of droplets and ligaments
and the gas phase as the continuum. Regardless of applications, sprays are the results of high
pressure-driven liquid jets injected through one or several injector nozzle orifices into a combustion chamber. The jet atomizes into different liquid fragments, and, finally, into droplets,
which evaporate producing vapor which mixes with oxidizer (air) forming a combustible mixture which ignites due to the presence of the additional energy supply or due to increased
pressure and temperature in the piston compression ignited engines, and, thus, initiates the
combustion process. Combustion process proceeds in a form of a diffusion flame, but two phase
effects significantly influence the spray flame structure, even in the case of relatively thin
sprays when the volume fraction occupied by the liquid is small compared with that of the gas.
From one side for systems of practical interest, even if experimental measurements are possible, they are not representing well controlled data from which all effects on the individual
variables could be extracted. From the other side, numerous results of the classical studies of
isolated droplets are available and still waiting to be used.
In this book, we have attempted (in the way which is different from that paved in [1]) to provide scientific foundation for deliberate use and modification of spray combustion sub-models
implemented in advanced CFD codes. This is why the computational aspects of the problem
are only briefly reviewed, but theoretical issues are described in details addressed to the major
physical models, tracing their genesis, discussing key assumptions and modifications making
them applicable to describe the droplet cluster evolution - formation, transport, evaporation
and combustion.

1.2 Previous and Related Studies

Most of the spray models based on what can be called the kinetic approach in the form
of Boltzmann type spray equation for probability droplet number density function [3]. At this
level, the connection between Lagrangian particle methods based on the ensemble average and
the Eulerian spray equation based on the space or time average is straightforward [4]. Since the
spacial resolution on a scale comparable to a droplet size and spacing is impossible, there is no
way to know exact droplet locations at each moment of time and only a probabilistic approach
is relevant to the problem. In term of this approach, the spray constituted of spherical droplets
characterized by e.g., one geometry parameter, = aR , one velocity, ul , and one temperature,
Tl , can be described by a distribution function, f (t, x, , ul , Tl ), so that f dxddul dTl is the
4

probable number of droplets at time t in the phase elementary volume dV = dxddu l dTl around
the point (x, .ul , Tl ). By definition can be the droplet radius (a=1, =1), the droplet surface
(a=4, =2), ot the droplet volume (a=4/3, =3). The distribution function satisfies the kinetic
type transport equation
t f + x (ui f ) + ul (Fl,i f ) + (R f ) + Tl (Tl f ) = + Q

(1.1)

where F (t, x, , ul , Tl ) is the drag force applied by gas on the droplet, R (t, x, , ul , Tl ) is the rate
of change of the droplet size caused by evaporation, T (t, x, , ul , Tl ) is the heat exchange rate
between two phases, (t, x, , ul , Tl , f ) and Q(t, x, , ul , Tl , f ) stand for unary (breakup) and
binary (collision) processes.
The characteristics of the partial differential equation of hyperbolic type, Eq. (1.1), defining
particle paths in the phase space are given by
()

dxi
= ul,i
dt
()
dul,i
= Fl,i
dt
dr ()
= R
dt
()
dTl
= Tl
dt

(1.2)

(1.3)

The gas and liquid phases are coupled through the dependence of F l,i , R , and Tl on the local
gas velocity, composition and temperature. These variables are the time rates of change attributed to the individual droplet, to its velocity, radius, etc. Expressions for them will be given
below. Several authors (see e.g., [1], [4]) extended the dimension of the phase space accounting
for the other factors affecting spray evolution. This kind of method is currently implemented
in many advanced CFD codes.
An attempt was made in deriving a fully Eulerian model for polydisperse evaporating sprays
(see [6]) with the so-called sectional approach. This method classifies droplet according to their
size. As the individual droplet changes its size due to evaporation or condensation, it moves
from one section to another. A system of partial (hyperbolic) differential equations is formulated
for each section. There are source terms in the equations representing the coupling between
sections. However, the complete derivation of the sectional multi-fluid conservation equations
from the Boltzmann-type spray equation was not provided, neither was the set of underlying
assumptions nor the comparison with the classical Lagrangian model: the sampling method.
In [7], it is clarified the set of assumptions necessary in order to derive the multi-fluid sectional
model from the spray equation at the kinetic level and provide the derivation of the whole set
of conservation equations describing the dispersed liquid phase. Whereas the derivation is conducted in any space dimension, the practical consideration was restrict to one-dimensional stationary flows and a Eulerian sampling model derived is equivalent in this context to the usual
Lagrangian particle approach. The situations are identified, where the sectional approach fails
to reproduce the coupling of the vaporization and dynamics of the spray. In the domain of the
method applicability, the two methods are then compared numerically in the configuration of
counterflow spray diffusion flames. The two methods, if refined enough, give quite similar results. It is proved that the sampling method is more precise even if it generates oscillations
due to the intrinsic representation of a continuous function by Dirac delta functions.
5

1.3 Constituent Processes of Spray Combustion

In order to understand spray combustion, let us, at first make, an overview of the problem
and then to go to a detailed study of the different constituents of the spray combustion phenomenon. Each of the is modeled in different way by many researchers, but we shall try to
select among the models developed only those which, sometimes due to their simplicity, can
be presented in a closed form of the analytical solution. Such models not always are mostly
accurate, but the accuracy can be improved by modification of the model parameters and by
introduction of new factors affecting the particular process.

1.4 Characterization of sprays

The principal classification of possible regimes of spray combustion has been given by Faeth
[13]. Consideration was made to both dilute sprays consisting of spherical droplets and having
relatively small liquid fractions, and dense prays which comprise near injector conditions with
irregularly shaped liquid elements and high liquid loads. Two main approaches to the treatment of the different phases in multiphase flow modeling can be distinguished. The first one is
the locally homogeneous formulation, LHF, in which the multiphase flow is treated as a singlephase flow with density varying with the phase concentration. In this case, interface transport
rated are assumed to be infinitely fast. The second category of the modeling of two-phase flows
is the separated flow, SF, approach, which treats each phase separately taking into account finite transfer rates between the phases. In terms of this general approach, there is deterministic
separated flow, DSF, analysis in which the dispersed phase/turbulence interaction is ignored.
Contrary to this approach, the stochastic separated flow, SSF, analysis incorporates both finite
interface transport rates and effects of dispersed phase interactions with turbulence. According
to Faeth, the major unresolved issues for dilute sprays involve modification of continuous phase
turbulent properties by droplets, and the effects of turbulence on interface transport rates.
Combustion in liquid sprays is inherently governed by mass and heat transfer mechanisms
between the droplets and the gas phase. In dilute sprays, the combustion takes place in the gas
phase consisting of fuel vapor and oxidizer formed around individual droplets. Both premixed
and diffusion flame approaches [13] have been applied for practical analysis.
At first, let us establish dimensionless criteria of the liquid jet atomization process by applying the dimensional analysis based on the -theorem (see [4]). The results of such an analysis
depend on the selection of governing parameters. Following to [5], the atomization process
is governed by following parameters:
characterized by the average droplet diameter, d,
L-characteristic dimension of the atomizer, e.g., diameter of injector orifice
V -initial relative velocity of injected liquid and ambient gas
-surface mention
l ,g -liquid and ambient gas density, respectively
l , g - dynamic viscosity of liquid and gas, respectively
The number of governing parameters is eight, n=8, while the number of independent dimensions is three, m=3, i.e., L length), M (mass), and T (time).
The quantities L, V, are assumed to be basic parameters because they are dimensionally
independent and can be expressed in terms of the independent dimensions. The dimensional
6

analysis leads to the equation depending on n m=5 dimensionless criteria or similarity parameters
(1.4)

K1 = f (K2 , K3 , K4 .K5 ),
where
a1 V b 1 c 1 ,
K1 = dL
g

(1.5)

K2 = La2 V b2 cg2 ,
K3 =
K4 =
K5 =

a3

l L V b3 cg3 ,
g La4 V b4 cg4 ,
l La5 V b5 cg5 ,

The conditions that criteria, K, in Eqs (1.5) are dimensionless are used to determine quantities,
a, b, c in the power monomials
1 + a 1 + b1 + c1 = 0
c1 = 0
b1 = 0,
1 . The analysis for the rest of Eq. (1.5) gives the complete set of similarity
i.e., K1 = dL
parameters:
d
L

K1 =

g V 2 L
l
g V L
g
g V L
l
g

K2 =
K3 =
K4 =
K5 =
Criterion K3 can be replaced by K30 =
giving a new form of Eq. (1.4):

K32
K2 K5

2l
l L ,

and criterion K4 by K40 =

d
= f (W e, Lp, M, N ),
L

K3
K4

l
g ,

thus,

(1.6)

V 2L

where K21 = W e = g is the Weber number, the ratio of dynamic forces on gas to the surface
tension; K30 1 = Lp = lL
is the Laplace number, the ratio of surface tension force to liquid
2
l

viscosity force; K40 1 = M = gl , and K51 = N = gl are characteristic number, density and
viscosity ratios for gas and liquid, respectively.
The important element of the analysis is a proper definition of the set of governing parameters. Finding of this set is simple if there is a mathematical formulation of the problem- it is
the set of independent variables and problem parameters appearing in the equations and initial and boundary conditions, etc., that determine the problem solution in a unique way. This is
why the analysis above gave the same set of criteria as that derived from the stability analysis
based on the Navier-Stokes equations.
7

1.4.1

Thick sprays

By first glance, dense sprays look like a closed-packed collection of approximately spherical
droplets, but upon closer look, the dispersed phase elements having complex irregular shapes
(ligaments) with significant effects of collision and breakups leading to droplet formation. The
presence of such elements pose serious conceptual difficulties in analysis of dense sprays.

1.4.2

Thin sprays

If the breakup and collisional processes in Eq. (1.1) are neglected, the model describes
so-called thin sprays.

1.5 Advanced CFD codes for spray combustion modeling

Nowadays, several CFD codes for spray combustion modeling are available. The KIVA code
is widely used for fundamental research in academia due to the access to the code source.
However, the capabilites of even the latest version of this code, KIVA3V, for application to
complex geometries are limited. On the other hand, other commercial CFD codes, such as FIRE,
STAR CD, FLUENT, VECTIS are mainly for industrial applications due to superior geometry
capabilities and available users support. Each CFD code possesses its own advantages and
disadvantages.

1.5.1

Summary of the KIVA3V combustion code models

Since the general methodology of spray combustion modeling is already well established, we
shall follow this general line outlined in advanced CFD codes. The KIVA3V code is a computer
program which solves numerically equations for time-dependent, three-dimensional, turbulent,
chemically reactive flows with fuel sprays. In particular, the gas phase is described by the mass
averaged conservation equations for total mass, species, momentum and energy coupled with
the equations for the model of turbulence. The effect of sprays and chemical reactions are
accounted for via appropriate source terms in the gas phase equations. The turbulence model
is based on the phenomenology of the k  model in three different formulations: the standard,
RNG, and SGS (sub-grid scale) constrained versions, modified to include the effects of sprayturbulence interaction. The spray computations are based on a stochastic model and consider,
besides the gas-droplet interactions, the effect of droplet collisions, breakup, and evaporation.
The spray source terms are obtained by integrating the rates of change of mass, momentum
and energy over all droplets at a given position and time. The evolution of spray is governed
by the probability density function f (~x, v~d , r, Td , y, y,
t) which describes the volumetric droplet
density in a particular space with the coordinates:
~x is the droplet coordinate vector,
v~d is the droplet velocity vector,
r is the droplet radius,
Td is the droplet temperature,
y is the droplet distortion from a spherical shape,
y is the rate of droplet distortion,
t is the time.
The spray evolution is the result of the change of the distribution function over a fixed volume. This leads to a first order, quasi-liner partial differential equation whose coefficients and
source terms are determined by sub-models accounting for droplet collisions, deformations and
breakups, droplet turbulent dispersions and evaporation. The droplet number density changes
8

due to collisions and breakups enter the spray equation as source terms. Droplet collisions have
two possible outcomes depending on whether the randomly chosen collision impact parameters
lies above or below the critical value. The value of critical impact parameter depends on the
droplet radii and the surface tension. Since the letter reduces with increasing temperature,
which in turn increases the probability of coalescence in the case of collisions. The droplet
breakup due to aerodynamic forces is governed droplet distortion parameter y, and its rate of
change y which obey the extended version of the Taylor analogy breakup model, TAB,
The gas-droplet interaction terms account for the aerodynamic drag for laminar and turbulent flows. The turbulent velocity component ~u follows a Gaussian distribution (with zero
mean and variance 2 = 23 k, where k is the kinetic energy of turbulence), and is specified each
time after the turbulence correlation time. The change of the droplet radius due to vaporization is teated in terms of the quasi d 2 -law. This assumes a uniform droplet temperature and
the equilibrium fuel vapor pressure on the droplet surface. The rate of the droplet temperature
change is determined from the energy balance equation.

1.5.2

Spray combustion options of the FLUENT code

Over the past years, developments in the commercial Fluent code have expanded the capability for modeling in-cylinder flows with moving and deforming meshes (MDM), spray and
spray wall interaction as well as chemical reactions treatment. In particular, the dynamic
mesh capability became fully compatible with ERC (Engine Research Center of Wisconsin University) suite of spray and combustion models. Primary atomization models are used to calculate initial droplet parameters in terms of appropriate injector nozzle specifications (nozzle
diameter and length, etc.) to mimic the spray behaviour issuing from the nozzle. Fluent 6.0
provides primary atomization models for plain orifice injector, pressure-swirl, air-blast, flat-fan
and effervescent (cavitating) atomizers. Secondary atomization models represent the effects of
droplet breakup, collision/coalescence and drag dynamics downstream of the nozzle. It includes
the Taylor Analogy Breakup (TAB) model [8], the Wave break-up model [10], and the hybrid
linearized instability sheet atomization (LISA) model [11]. Droplet collision and coalescence is
handled by ORourkes model [4] and dynamic drag effects are incorporated through the model
described in [10]. The dynamic drag model predicts the effect of droplet deformation on the
drag. The deformation results from aerodynamic forces, and becomes increasingly significant
as the droplet Weber number increases. In the extreme of very large We, the droplet shape
approaches that of a disk and the model accounts for the effect of drop distortion, calculated
from the TAB model, on the drag force by varying the drag linearly between that of a sphere (no
distortion) and that of a disk (maximum distortion on the verge of break-up). It is compatible
with both TAB and Wave models.
Fluent provides models for various regimes of combustion. These include laminar finite-rate
chemistry, eddy breakup model, EBU, mixture fraction PDF for non-premixed combustion, and
progress variable approach for premixed combustion. Fluent 6.0 includes upon existing models,
the non-adiabatic flamelet approach applicable to the mixture fraction model, and a partially
premixed combustion. Flamelet libraries can be generated by the code preprocessor or may
be imported from from othe sources like Flamemaker and and RUN-1DL [8] codes. Fluent 6.0
incorporates also the new Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC) model [13] accounting for the effects
of detailed chemical mechanisms assuming chemical reactions occur at the finest (Kolmogorov)
scales. The EDC model is, in principle, applicable to treat detailed chemical mechanisms. Since
the usage of detailed chemistry assumes more complex fuel model cosisting of, at least, few
constituent components representing a real fuel blend, multicomponent vaporization capability
for the discrete phase model is planned for implementation to allow a more accurate assessment
of vapor distribution and composition for DI engine, Diesel, GDI, and HCCI geometries. An
9

adaptive tabulation scheme, In-Situ Adaptive Tabulation (ISAT) [14], has been successfully
implemented in Fluent 6.1 substantially decreasing the cost of integrating stiff chemical kinetic
systems in multidimensional simulations. Other advanced combustion capabilities are also
planned stage, including unsteady flamelet approaches.
A wall-film model is also being improved. This model is necessary for direct-injection and
port-fuel injected gasoline engines, and some small-bore diesel and diesel HCCI engine applications. Fluent 6.1 can couple the one dimensional gas dynamics (full engine cycle) codes that
can be used, for example, to calculate effectively flows in intake or exhaust manifolds. When
combined with the flexibility of the Fluent dynamic mesh model, these options will allow for
the most comprehensive suite of internal combustion modeling tools available in commercial
software today.

1.5.3

AVL FIRE combustion code: description and applications

In the field of spray combustion modeling, the AVL FIRE combustion code provides validated and field tested models for
Cavitating flows in injection nozzles
Spray atomization
Spray evolution - formation and penetration
Air/Fuel mixture preparation
Wallfilm behavior
Ignition of different practical fuels
Combustion development and flame propagation
Pollutant emissions

1.5.4

Advanced spray combustion modeling using STAR-CD code

In STAR-CD code, similar to others, the large number of droplets released by the fuel injector are represented by grouping them into a (relatively) small number of droplet parcels.
Each parcel is assumed to contain a number of drops, all with the same properties (the RNDP
parameter for the parcel). These droplet parcels (referred to in STAR as droplets) are then
solved in a Lagrangian frame on the background Eulerian gas flow solution. What this means
is that at each time step, the droplet position, temperature and mass are advanced by integrating the appropriate conservation equation. Contributions of momentum, energy and mass,
respectively, to the continuous phase are accumulated as source terms, to be added in during
the normal solution of the transport equations for the modeling quantities.

10

Bibliography
[1] Sirignano, W.A., Fluid Dynamics and Transport of Droplet and Sprays, Cambridge University Press (2000)
[2] Kuo, K.K., ed., Recent Advances in Spray Combustion: Spray Combustion Measurements
and Model Simulations, Vol.II, in Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 171
(1996)
[3] Williams, F.A., Combustion Theory, 2nd ed., Addison-Wisley Publishing Co., Inc, London
(1985)
[4] Barenblatt, G.I., Similarity, Self-Similarity, and Intermediate Asymptotics, Consultants
Buro, New York and London (1979)
[5] Baywel, L., and Orzechowski, Z., Liquid Atomization, Taylor & Frencis (1993)
[6] Tambour, Y., A Lagrangian Sectional Approach for Simulating Droplet Size Distribution
of Vaporizing Fuel Sprays in a Turbulent Jet, Combustion and Flame, 60:15-28 (1985)
[7] Laurent, F., Massot, M., Multi-fluid Modelling of Laminar Polydisperse Spray Flames: Origin, Assumptions and Comparison of Sectional and Sampling Methods, Combust. Theory
and Modeling, 5:537-572 (2001)
[8] Rogg, B., and Wang, W., RUN-1DL: The Laminar Flame and Flamelet Code, Users Man Bochum (1978-1995)
ual, Ruhr-Universitat
[9] ORourke, P.J., and Amsden, A.A.,The TAB method for Numerical Calculation of Spray
Droplet Breakup, SAE Paper 872089 (1987)
[10] Liu, A.B., Mather, D., and Reitz, R.D. Modeling the Effects of Drop Drag and Breakup on
Fuel Sprays, SAE Technical Paper 930072 (1993)
[11] Senecal P. K., Schmidt D. P., Nouar I., Rutland C. J., and Reitz R. D., Modeling High Speed
Viscous Liquid Sheet Atomization, in preparation, (1999)
[12] ORourke, P.J., Collective Drop Effect on Vaporizing Liquid Sprays, Ph.D thesis, University
of Princeton (1981)
[13] Gran, I.A., and Magnussen, B.F., A Numerical Study of a Bluff-Body Stabilized Diffusion
Flame. Part2, Influence of Combustion Modeling and Finite-Rate Chemistry, Combustion
Science and Technology, 119:191 (1996)
[14] Pope, S.B. Computationally Efficient Imple mentation of Combustion Chemistry using In
Situ Adaptive Tabulation , Combustion Theory and Modeling, Vol. 1, pp 41-63 (1997)

11