25 vues

Transféré par fivos_rg

Large Eddy simulation of cavitating flow of Gasoline-Ethanole blends with a Homogenous Relaxation model (HRMFoam).

- Equation Cubic
- Sewage Engineering 2005
- L1.2 1.pdf
- Hahaah Haha
- Intech AP Polymersolution v2
- Oscillated Baffle Column (OBC) application in enhancement the separation of underflow crude palm oil from Non Oily Solids(NOS ) in palm oil mill process. (Multiphase System)
- Fonseca Et Al
- Bardina 1997 (Turbulence Modeling Validation and Development)
- Termodinamica Continua Revisao Bibliografica Scribd
- Reversible Pump Turbine Flow Stability Aspects Within Pumped Storage Hydropower Plants: A Review
- Chemicalengineeringthermodynamics-II Jntu Model com
- Experiment 3 Lab Report
- 1. Feasibility Study Conclusions and Summary Report - 15 Oct
- che221 iitk
- The Propeller
- MT4 DRAFT
- Performance Parameters of Single Cylinder 4-Stroke Spark Ignition Engine Using Gasoline - Ethanol Blends
- cc09-equipos
- Analysis and Design of Extractive Fermentation Processes Using a Novel Short-cut Method
- 1kimia Fisik (Geo)

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

of cavitating gasolineethanol blends

14(6) 578589

IMechE 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1468087413501824

jer.sagepub.com

Alan L Kastengren4 and Christopher F Powell1

Abstract

Cavitation plays an important role in the formation of sprays in fuel injection systems. With the increasing use of

gasolineethanol blends, there is a need to understand how changes in fluid properties due to the use of these fuels can

alter cavitation behavior. Gasolineethanol blends are azeotropic mixtures whose properties are difficult to model. We

have tabulated the thermodynamic properties of gasolineethanol blends using a method developed for flash-boiling

simulations. The properties of neat gasoline and ethanol were obtained from National Institute of Standards and

Technology REFPROP data, and blends from 0% to 85% ethanol by mass have been tabulated. We have undertaken highresolution three-dimensional numerical simulations of cavitating flow in a 500-mm-diameter submerged nozzle using the

in-house HRMFoam homogeneous relaxation model constructed from the OpenFOAM toolkit. The simulations are conducted at 1 MPa inlet pressure and atmospheric outlet pressure, corresponding to a cavitation number range of

1.0661.084 and a Reynolds number range of 15,00040,000. For the pure gasoline case, the numerical simulations are

compared with synchrotron X-ray radiography measurements. Despite significant variation in the fluid properties, the

distribution of cavitation vapor in the nozzle is relatively unaffected by the gasolineethanol ratio. The vapor remains

attached to the nozzle wall, resulting in an unstable annular two-phase jet in the outlet. Including turbulence at the conditions studied does not significantly change mixing behavior, because the thermal nonequilibrium at the vaporliquid interfaces acts to low-pass filter the turbulent fluctuations in both the nozzle boundary layer and jet mixing layer.

Keywords

OpenFOAM, HRMFoam, gasoline, ethanol, X-ray radiography

Introduction

Cavitating channel flow is a complex fluid mechanical

phenomenon which has many applications and has

been studied in detail for some time.1 In particular,

cavitation is a problem in fuel injection for internal

combustion engines, where the fuel travels through a

small nozzle under a large pressure gradient to produce

a spray. Cavitation leads to component wear and can

markedly change the structure of the resulting liquid

spray.2,3 These changes in spray structure can lead to

changes in engine performance, emissions, and efficiency.46

Gasolineethanol blends are becoming an important

factor in injector design as their use increases and the

ethanol ratios also increase. A significant number of

studies have been undertaken on the effects of ethanol

blends on emissions.710 Experimental analysis of the

effects of gasolineethanol blend ratio on the spray

structure from simplified two-dimensional (2D) model

not strongly affected by the quantity of ethanol.11

However, little work has been done on the effects of

gasolineethanol blend ratio on the internal flow of

cavitating nozzles. Gasolineethanol blends are azeotropic mixtures whose properties are difficult to model.

1

USA

2

Laboratory for Turbulence Research in Aerospace & Combustion,

Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Monash University,

Melbourne, VIC, Australia

3

Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

4

X-Ray Science Division, Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National

Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA

Corresponding author:

Daniel J Duke, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory,

9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439, USA.

Email: dduke@anl.gov

Duke et al.

579

using visible light are often limited to the analysis of

2D nozzles and can only measure the outer structure of

cavitating regions.12,13 Recently, X-ray-based techniques have enabled measurements of the vapor fraction in three-dimensional (3D) cavitating flows.14

Synchrotron X-ray radiography methods which have

been proven useful for measuring the mass distribution

of fuel sprays15 are also being extended to measuring

cavitation in model nozzles. However, X-ray propagation techniques are only capable of measuring mass distribution by attenuation (not velocity, pressure or

temperature). Numerical simulations are still essential

to understanding the fluid dynamics of cavitating nozzles, and how they may be affected by variations in

fluid properties.

A range of approaches have been used to model

cavitating flow. Many cavitation models simplify the

two-fluid problem by assuming that the two-phase mixture can be approximated as a single fluid with varying

sound speed and density, with either compressible or

incompressible mass conservation.1618 In a 3D simulation, interface velocity slip does not need to be modeled

as long as the discretization is fine enough.19 Singlefluid models are often preferred over a full compressible

two-phase calculation, since the time and length scales

become so small in the full compressible approach that

computational cost can become prohibitive, especially

if a transient solution is desired over a reasonable timespan in a large domain. The use of a single-fluid model

often leads to the assumption that the vapor and liquid

phases are in instantaneous local equilibrium. In some

models, a constant empirical time scale for homogenization to local equilibrium has been used, with the continued assumption of thermal equilibrium.20 However,

such assumptions are not valid in cavitating flashboiling flows which experience significant nonequilibrium in both phase change rate and temperature. The

homogeneous relaxation model (HRM) used in this

study allows a variable relaxation time for both phase

change rate and temperature, which depends on the

local pressure and void fraction.21

The modeling of fluid properties is also an important

factor in considering how ethanol blending may affect a

cavitating nozzle flow. Many cavitation models handle

fluid properties via an equation of state. A barotropic

model is often used so that the density field can be calculated from the pressure field using predefined empirical constants. However, when considering the effects of

fluid properties, a more accurate model of the fluid

properties may be desired. An alternative approach is

to precompute a lookup table of fluid properties over

the desired pressure and temperature range.19 Since

lookup tables more accurately capture slight variations

in fluid properties, this approach is ideally suited to an

investigation of the effects of various fuel blends.

Previous experiments on the effect of fuel viscosity and

density on nozzle discharge coefficient suggest a

significant sensitivity to viscosity at megapascal pressures, but little sensitivity to density variation.22

Neroorkar and Schmidt23 have used the HRM to

model the cavitating and flash-boiling of fuel in a 3D

multihole fuel injector nozzle with a range of fluids,

including n-hexane, n-octane, and E60 and E85 ethanol

blends. The fluid properties were obtained from lookup

tables.24 They found that the E60 blend generated more

vapor and a wider spray cone angle. These calculations

assumed a laminar flow, so the question remains as to

how the inclusion of turbulence may affect the mixing

of vapor and liquid. Other questions which need investigation are how the flow may be affected by a wider

range of ethanol blends, and how well the simulation

results might compare with experimental data in a

canonical geometry.

Although previous studies have often neglected turbulence, it is known that it can have a significant effect

on a cavitating flow.25 Where turbulence modeling is

implemented, the most popular approach is k2e, which

performs well for free shear flows at modest pressure

gradients, is computationally efficient, and permits simple analysis of grid convergence.17,18,20,26 Som et al.27

investigated fluid properties by simulating the effects of

diesel and biodiesel fuels, where the effects of turbulence were included using realizable k2e in both a

channel flow and an axisymmetric injector geometry.

They found that the local strain rate due to turbulent

mixing was an important factor in cavitation inception.

The largest turbulent features in nozzle flow are therefore likely to strongly interact with cavitation features.

This behavior can be more accurately captured using

large eddy simulation (LES), which is not as frequently

implemented.

In this article, we have undertaken high-resolution,

3D LESs of cavitating flow in a canonical nozzle geometry at fixed pressure boundary conditions using the

single-fluid HRM.21 The fluid properties have been

modeled using precalculated lookup tables.24,28

Variations in cavitation behavior between a range of

gasolineethanol blends from E0 to E85 have been

investigated. For the pure gasoline case, the numerical

simulations are compared against synchrotron X-ray

radiography measurements of the local void fraction.

Method

The canonical nozzle geometry used in the following

simulations is a submerged nozzle with a throat diameter of D = 0.5 mm, and an expansioncontraction

ratio of 5. The nozzle length is 5D (2.5 mm), and the

contraction and expansion have hemispherical profiles.

The inlet boundary condition is a fixed pressure of

1.034 MPa and a temperature of 300 K, with zero velocity gradient. The outlet boundary condition is a fixed

pressure of 0.1 MPa, with zero velocity gradient. The

geometry and boundary conditions were chosen to

match those used in the X-ray experiments.

580

The application of appropriate wall boundary conditions in LES remains an open research question. In this

study, we have applied the standard set of wall boundary conditions used in the OpenFOAM solver. Velocity

is assumed zero at the wall, and density gradient is

assumed to be zero. The flow is assumed isenthalpic, so

no boundary conditions for the energy terms (such as

thermal diffusivity) are required. For the LES model

terms, the subgrid scale viscosity uses the Spalding wall

function for mSGS and k has zero gradient.

be seen that, consistent with the observations of Kar

et al.,31 the REFPROP code predicts that the gasoline

ethanol blends show azeotropic behavior and the vapor

pressure trend is nonlinear. The sound speed and viscosity are at a minimum around 20% ethanol by volume. The change in properties is relatively large over

the range of blends considered; the saturated liquid

pressure decreases by around 50% and the liquid density by 13% from E0 to E85.

HRMFoam solver

In order to obtain the properties of gasoline, a fuel surrogate was employed consisting of four components:

15% isopentane, 20% hexane, 45% isooctane, and

20% decane by mass. This surrogate was used by

Styron et al.29 and was designed to match the distillation curve of a California Phase II gasoline. The fluid

property lookup tables required by the HRMFoam

flow solver were generated by creating mixtures of the

above-mentioned surrogate with ethanol using the

REFPROP fluid property program.28 The REFPROP

program uses equations of states to calculate the thermodynamic and transport properties of fluids and

mixtures.

To confirm that the modeling procedure is accurate,

experimental data from Takeshita et al.30 were used to

compare the distillation curves for the different ethanol

blends in Figure 1. To predict the distillation curves

using the REFPROP code, a subroutine was obtained

from EW Lemmon (April 2012, personal communication). This subroutine solves the vaporliquid equilibrium for the surrogate to calculate the number of

moles lost in the form of vapor during the distillation

process, and consequently the volume of liquid

obtained from the condensation of the vapor. The ratio

of volume condensed to the original liquid volume

gives the evaporated volume fraction.

The saturation pressure, density, viscosity, and

sound speed of the gasolineethanol blend models at

(HRMFoam) for cavitating and flash-boiling flows,

which is an in-house code running on the OpenFOAM

toolkit.32 A complete description of the solver is given

by Neroorkar et al.;21 a brief summary of which is given

here. The HRM relates the substantial derivative of the

vapor mass fraction (x) to the nonequilibrium time

scale u

dx

xx

=

dt

u

time u. The value of x is calculated based on a flashing

process, as implemented in REFPROP.33

The physical concept behind equation (1) is that the

vapor fraction will return to an equilibrium value over

a time u according to a complicated function which can

be linearized.34 The instantaneous mass fraction is calculated from the vapor volume fraction, density, and

vapor density as x = arv =r, where the vapor volume

fraction is defined as

a=

E10

E20

E40

E60

E10

E20

E40

E60

460

Temperature, K

440

420

400

380

u = u0 a0:54 c1:76

Psat P

Psat Pcrit

3

4

generalize their expression to multicomponent mixtures, we use the bubble point pressure in place of Psat .

In practice, the mass fraction of vapor in any given cell

is almost always small; consequently, the bubble point

is a good representation of the pressure during phase

change. The mass, momentum, and energy conservation equations are expressed in terms of mass flux

f = ru

360

340

320

300

0

rl r

r l rv

The time scale u is calculated via an empirical relation proposed by Downar-Zapolski et al.35

c=

480

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

blends calculated using the REFPROP model (lines), as compared

to the experimental data of Takeshita et al.30 (markers).

r

+r f=0

t

ru

+ r fu = rP + rt

t

5

6

581

Inlet conditions

Outlet conditions

1080

1040

1000

960

1120

Current Study

Kar et al

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

1x10

-3

8x10

-4

6x10

-4

0.2

Ethanol fraction

780

Inlet conditions

Outlet conditions

4x10-4

2x10

Density, kg/m3

Duke et al.

-4

0.2

0.4

0.6

Ethanol fraction

0.8

Inlet conditions

Outlet conditions

760

740

720

700

680

660

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Ethanol fraction

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Ethanol fraction

Figure 2. Calculated properties of gasolineethanol blends at the boundary conditions (inlet pressure 1 MPa, outlet pressure 0.1

MPa). Vapor pressure reference data are from Kar et al.31

rh

P

+ r fh =

+ u rP

t

t

flow, equations (5) and (6) can be closed to form a

pressure equation. However, due to phase change,

equations (5)(7) are not closed, so equations (1)(4)

are implemented to deal with the additional terms. The

off-diagonal terms are represented by H(u) and the

diagonal terms by a, such that aj uj = Hu rP.34

The derivation is described in full by Neroorkar and

Schmidt23 The implicit solution for the pressure equation is expressed in its final form as

1 r

rP

H(u)

+ rrPfv + r

r Px, h t

aj

8

1

P dx

=0

rr rP +

aj

x P, h dt

The first two terms concern the transmission of pressure waves and are neglected since they result in an

asymmetric linear system for pressure. Such systems

cost more to solve and produce less robust solutions.

Past tests19 found that these compressibility terms had

negligible impact on the predicted flowfield. The incompressible liquid assumption has previously been shown

to yield reasonable results.21,23,25 The pressure equation

is solved using a pressure-implicit split-operator (PISO)

predictor-corrector algorithm with 10 iterations.36

Turbulence is modeled in this study using LES, with a

single-equation subgrid scale model.32,37 This allows us

to investigate the instantaneous interactions between

turbulent mixing and cavitation at large scales. The discretization schemes are second order, using gamma differencing for the r, P, h, and u divergence terms and

divergences. The Laplacian terms are discretized using

second-order central differencing. The pressure field is

solved using the fast simplified diagonal-based incomplete Cholesky preconditioner and a generalized

geometric-algebraic multigrid solver for the final step,

with under-relaxation. The r, h, k, e, and u fields are

solved using a simplified diagonal-based incomplete

LU preconditioner and a preconditioned biconjugate

gradient method for the final step, with under-relaxation. The solution is calculated on a cluster computer at

Argonne National Laboratory, with OpenFOAMs

implementation of Message Passing Interface (MPI)

parallelization over 96 CPUs. The time-stepping

scheme is Courant number limited such that the local

Courant number does not exceed 0.8 at any cell.

The mesh used in the following simulations is a 3D

unstructured hex mesh with 8.4 million cells, as shown

in Figure 3. The mesh is successively refined in the

throat region; the mean cell size relative to the throat

diameter is D=d50.

In order to determine the rate of convergence of the

solution with increasing mesh resolution, three successively refined meshes with cell sizes of D=d = 25,

D=d = 34, and D=d = 50 have been solved out to a

simulation time of 2 ms with neat gasoline as the working fluid. Profiles of the steady-state, time-averaged

vapor volume fraction, velocity, turbulent energy, and

pressure are shown in Figure 4, along a streamwise vector which passes near the throat wall where the flow is

strongly cavitating (at a radial position of r=R = 0:96).

582

Figure 3. Mesh of cavitating nozzle: (a) centerline slice, cropped around the nozzle throat and (b) oblique view.

Figure 4. Convergence of time-averaged vapor volume fraction, velocity magnitude, turbulent energy, and pressure with increasing

grid resolution, plotted along a streamwise vector near the nozzle wall, at a radial position of r=R = 0:96.

perform a Richardson extrapolation to determine how

close the D=d = 50 mesh is to a converged solution.

The sum square error in the centerline pressure is

0.04% with respect to the converged solution since it is

pinned by the boundary conditions. The velocity magnitude is within 0.12%, and the density is within 0.66%.

1.2% of convergence. Given that the Richardson extrapolate of three successively refined meshes may not represent the true converged solution, a series expansion

error contribution of order O(dkn + 1 ) is included in the

above error values, where kn is the convergence rate of

the extrapolation.

Duke et al.

583

1.4

1.2

0.8

Density, kg/m3

|U|max / UB

1

E0

E10

E20

E40

E60

E85

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

-100

E0

E10

E20

E40

E60

E85

0.2

Time, ms

0.4

0.6

Time, ms

0.8

Figure 5. Evolution of density extremes and maximum velocity (normalized by the Bernoulli velocity) in transient solution.

The solution is run until the net momentum and mass

flux reach a steady state, which occurs after approximately 0.8 ms. The solution is then run out to at least 1

ms. Figure 5 shows the evolution of the minimum and

maximum density and the maximum velocity with

respect to simulation time. The minimum density is a

good marker of cavitation inception; phase change

begins about 0.4 ms after start of injection at the given

pressure gradient and reaches a steady state after 0.5

ms. The maximum velocity magnitude reaches apsteady

as expected.16 The selected boundary conditions

and fluid properties result in a Reynolds number

range of ReD =UD=nl 2 (1:53104 ,4:03104) and a cavitation number range of K= P1 Pvap =P1 P2 2

(1:066,1:084). Both Re and K vary due to the change in

density, viscosity, and vapor pressure of the varying

blends, while the pressure and geometry remain constant (see Figure 2). The bulk velocity U is the mean

centerline pressure in the nozzle throat, which is close

to the Bernoulli velocity.

Most cavitation vapor is generated at the sharp inlet

to the nozzle. The vapor in the computations sticks to

the wall through the nozzle since nearly all the pressure

drop happens in the inlet region and the pressure gradient along the nozzle throat is flat. Centerline slices of

vapor volume fraction in the nozzle for each of the

blends studied are shown in Figure 6. An annular jet of

vapor is generated at the nozzle outlet. This unstable

configuration rapidly breaks down and the vapor

jet mixes with the surrounding liquid, as shown in

Figure 7. A reasonable fraction of the vapor does not

condense but is convected through the outlet. Very little change in the vapor distribution is observed across

the different blends investigated; this is a surprising

result given the significant change in fluid properties.

In the application of cavitating nozzles to fuel injection systems, the main location of interest is the nozzle

exit plane, where the mass flow rate, velocity profile,

and vapor distribution will have an impact on spray

formation.3 The time-averaged steady-state velocity

after start of injection. The nozzle outlet is submerged. (a) E0

(neat gasoline), (b) E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline), (c) E20

(20% ethanol, 80% gasoline), (d) E40 (40% ethanol, 60%

gasoline), (e) E60 (60% ethanol, 40% gasoline), and (f) E85 (85%

ethanol, 15% gasoline).

averaged to generate a mean radial profile, as shown in

Figure 8. The velocity magnitude (Figure 8(a)) has a

well-developed profile which does not vary significantly

with ethanol blend. The spanwise velocity components

584

blend, 1 ms after start of injection.

near the wall as the ethanol ratio increases. The total

mass flux in the outlet plane is shown in Figure 9(a),

normalized as a discharge coefficient

s

m_ 1 b4

CD =

9

A 2rDP

60

50

40

E0

E10

E20

E40

E60

E85

30

20

10

0

-1

-0.5

In order to provide experimental comparison of the

simulation results, X-ray radiography measurements of

a cavitating flow in a nozzle of the same nominal

where b =

ratio

0:2 is the nozzle diameter contraction

1

and m_ = rUdA. For a round nozzle,

Nurick

predicts

p

a discharge coefficient of CD = CC K, where the coefficient CC 0:61 for a sharp-edged nozzle with b ! 0.16

Figure 9(a) indicates that Nuricks relation tracks

CC = 0:61, Nuricks relation underpredicts the mass

flux by about 5%. In addition to the effect of the nonzero b, the hemispherical inlet profile to the nozzle will

cause an increase in CC similar in effect to an obtuse

inlet angle, which would explain the underprediction.

However, the effect

of b is known to be very small; CD

p

varies with b as 1 b4 0:9992 in this geometry.38

The best fit value for the results is CC 0:63, which

agrees reasonably well with previous simulations of the

effects inlet angle.16

The vapor mass flux weighted

by the total mass

Figure 9(b). The vapor flux decreases by a factor of 3

from E0 to E85 blends, peaking for the E40 blend. An

increase in vapor flux corresponds to a reduction in

CD . Given that the vapor volume fraction and its spatial extent do not significantly change (Figure 6), this

suggests that the discharge coefficient is not varying

due to area occlusion, but rather due to changes in density caused by variation in fluid properties.

0

r/R

0.5

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

E0

E10

E20

E40

E60

E85

-1

-0.5

(a)

0

r/R

0.5

(b)

Figure 8. Time-averaged and azimuthally averaged radial velocity profiles in the nozzle outlet plane, for (a) the streamwise

component of velocity and (b) the total spanwise component for the different blends considered.

0.7

3.5

Simulations

Nurick, CC =0.61

Nurick, CC =0.63

0.68

3

2.5

0.64

0.62

1.5

CD

0.66

0.6

Simulations

X-ray Experiment

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Ethanol Fraction

(a)

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Ethanol Fraction

(b)

Figure 9. Time-averaged fluxes at the nozzle outlet plane, for (a) total mass flux as a discharge coefficient and (b) weighted vapor

mass flux versus blend ratio.

Duke et al.

585

(a)

PiN

Diode

Nozzle Wall

Vapor

Liquid

monochromatic

x-ray source

(b)

Figure 10. X-ray radiography experiment. (a) Monochromatic radiography microprobe setup at Sector 7-BM of the Advanced

Photon Source. The diagram is not to scale; the distance from the source to the experiment is 35.5 m. The beam is focused to a 5 3

6 mm spot where it passes through the nozzle. (b) Example cross-section of submerged nozzle, showing the typical interaction of

the X-ray beam with the flow.

undertaken using a commercial gasoline surrogate whose

properties are close to the E0 model. Measurements were

performed at the 7-BM beamline of the Advanced

Photon Source (APS) at Argonne National

Laboratory.39 A schematic of the experiment is given in

Figure 10(a). The X-ray beam is monochromatic, with a

mean energy of 8 keV, a bandwidth of 1.4% full width

at half maximum (FWHM), and a flux of approximately

2:531011 ph=s. The beam is focused to a spot size of

536 mm FWHM with a pair of KirkpatrickBaez mirrors. The focused beam acts as a microprobe, allowing

the cavitation vapor fraction over a small area to be

probed along a line of sight. The incoming X-ray intensity is normalized and the transmitted X-rays are collected by a 300-mm-thick PIN diode. The experiment is

placed 36.5 m downstream from the source; the PIN

diode is approximately 5 cm downstream of the experiment. The normalized PIN diode reading is sampled for

dt = 0:5 s at each sample point.

The quantity of cavitation vapor is measured along

a line of sight dz at some point of interest. The experiment is then repeated at a noncavitating condition

where the nozzle is filled with liquid at the same inlet

pressure, but over a very small pressure gradient where

there is no cavitation (denoted by prime). The presence

of vapor results in a relative increase in transmission

due to a reduction in the absorbing mass in the beam

path. The X-ray attenuation through the sample can be

described by the LambertBeer Law. The known density of the liquid phase is used to convert mass per unit

area measurements from radiography to a path length

dzv , which represents the projected depth of vapor in

the path of the beam

!

I1

1

I0

dzv =

loge I91

10

ml rl

I9

0

length of vapor dzv in the beam, rather than an average

vapor fraction since the vapor is not evenly distributed

along the line of sight. An example of a typical measurement is given in Figure 10(b); the X-ray beam interacts with both the vapor near the wall and the liquid in

the core of the flow, and the resulting measurement is

integrated along the beam path.

The attenuation coefficient ml is measured by filling

capillary tubes with the working fluid, water, and air,

and measuring the X-ray transmission through the

tubes. It was found that ml rl 0:3124mm1 . We have

neglected the vapor phase attenuation coefficient since

rv rl . The uncertainty in the time-averaged projected

vapor quantity is determined by error propagation calculations to be edzv 63:5mm of vapor (0.007 D), which

is 2% of the maximum path length of vapor in a typical

measurement.

In earlier X-ray experiments, a significant quantity

of vapor was observed along the nozzle centerline that

586

(a)

(b)

Figure 11. Projected vapor quantity dzv =R from X-ray measurements at two streamwise locations along the nozzle. The X-ray data

are compared against simulated projections from the numerical data, at 1 ms after start of injection: (a) x=L = 0:1 and (b) x=L = 0:7.

observed in the X-ray tomography experiments of

Bauer et al.14 and were proposed to be related to cavitation phenomena; either migration of vapor away

from the wall or perhaps a string type along the nozzle

centerline. A recent numerical modeling study considered the modeling of dissolved gas and cavitation in

pure gasoline in the same submerged geometry40 and

proposed that this centerline vapor may be due to dissolved gas in the fuel coming out of solution, rather

than cavitation. Since the X-ray radiography experiment is unable to distinguish between the two phenomena clearly, the experiment was repeated with the fuel

degassed, and the results of this improved experiment

are those shown in Figure 11. Once dissolved gas is

controlled for, the experiment and model agree reasonably well, although some asymmetry remains. The nozzle wall was smoothed in the experiment to remove

machining defects which may cause asymmetry. The

asymmetry that remains in Figure 11(b) is indicative of

the fact that cavitation inception depends on local

nucleation at the wall, and small machining defects can

lead to large deviations of the vapor distribution further downstream, even in a very smooth nozzle.

In order to directly compare the X-ray data against

the LES, simulated X-ray experiments are performed

on the mesh by projecting several thousand rays

through the domain and computing the projected

vapor distributions. The resulting measurements are a

volume integral of the local vapor fraction normalized

over the X-ray beam cross-section, normalized to units

of micrometers. The results are shown in Figure 11.

Just downstream of the nozzle inlet in Figure 11(a),

both experimental and simulated profiles take the form

of an annular vapor distribution. The differences

between the experiment and the simulation for the pure

gasoline case are significantly larger than the variations

between the different gasolineethanol blends.

The variations between experiment and simulation

are much more significant than the variations between

blend does not strongly affect the distribution of vapor

in the nozzle. Furthermore, the distribution of vapor

can be integrated in a plane to determine the total area

ratio occluded by vapor, and by combining this with

the known mass flow rate of fuel (using a turbine flowmeter), the weighted vapor mass flux in the outlet plane

_ v =A)(rv =r), assuming that

can be estimated as m_ v m(A

the slip velocity is not significant. The resulting vapor

flux is shown in Figure 9(b) and agrees well with the

simulation results.

The effect of using LES for turbulence has also been

investigated. In addition to the HRMFoam cavitating

LES, the pure gasoline case has been simulated with a

laminar assumption (phase change, but no turbulence

model) and a single-phase incompressible LES using a

PISO solver (turbulence modeled, but no phase

change). A comparison of the predicted velocity fields

in centerline slices through the nozzle at 1.2 ms after

start of injection is given in Figure 12. The single-phase

solution (Figure 12(a)) has a wide range of turbulent

length scales and a developing boundary layer in the

throat as expected of a turbulent liquid jet. Here, there

is no phase change nonequilibrium to impede turbulent

mixing in the outlet.

The regions of high vapor fraction are also the

regions of greatest shear (i.e. the nozzle throat boundary layer and jet mixing layer). As such, the nonequilibrium between vapor and liquid acts to eliminate most

of the boundary layer momentum deficit in the nozzle

throat and also acts to low-pass filter the smaller scales

of turbulence in the jet mixing layer. Thus, the singlephase model (Figure 12(a)) shows a higher turbulence

intensity than the cavitating cases (Figure 12(b)

and (c)).

It is interesting to note that turbulence in the jet

wake takes longer to develop in the LES case

Duke et al.

587

gasoline) at 1.2 ms after start of injection. Contour units are m/

s. (a) Single-phase PISO LES (no phase change); (b) HRM

cavitation model with laminar, unsteady flow; and (c) HRM

cavitation model with LES.

Initially, this seems counterintuitive because the LES

model should show a more unsteady flow, as the effects

of subgrid scale turbulence are now being considered.

However, when the damping effects of cavitation phase

change are considered, it becomes apparent that cavitation will deter turbulent mixing at the subgrid scale

equally effectively as at the cell scale. The result is a

relative decrease in turbulence intensity as compared to

the noncavitating case, which results in an increased

numerical viscosity applied at the cell level when LES is

implemented. The effects of cavitation dominate turbulent effects near the wall where most turbulence is produced, resulting in a slightly steadier flow. Conversely,

a laminar simulation overpredicts the instability of the

flow because the damping effects of phase change are

only applied at a cell level (i.e. at low wavenumbers),

making the flow artificially more unstable. The implementation of LES does not significantly alter the vapor

production prediction, only the turbulent development

length of the jet wake.

Conclusion

A submerged nozzle of 500 mm diameter has been modeled using high-resolution LES and the HRMFoam

cavitation and flash-boiling solver of Neroorkar et

al.,21 using tabulated fluid properties. The purpose of

gasolineethanol blends on the vapor distribution in a

canonical geometry. The simulations were also compared to an X-ray radiography measurement of fluid

density.

Despite a significant variation in the fluid properties,

the distribution of vapor does not vary much at all from

pure gasoline up to 85% ethanol, with respect to volume fraction and spatial extent. The vapor mass flux in

the nozzle exit plane varies by a factor of 3 from E0 to

E85, peaking at E40. This occurs due to the variation in

fluid density with ethanol ratio since the profile of the

vena contracta does not vary between cases. Given that

K does not change much as the inlet pressure increases

and the nozzle is effectively choked, it is likely that the

effects of fluid properties such as vapor pressure are

saturated at lower cavitation numbers. Furthermore,

laminar and single-phase solutions in the pure gasoline

case indicate that turbulence modeling with LES does

not significantly alter the vapor fraction or velocity

fields with respect to a laminar flow assumption; however, it does act to damp instability in the jet wake. The

Reynolds numbers achieved in the simulations are in

the range of 15,00040,000 depending on the viscosity

and density of the fluids. In a fuel injector, the cavitation number is likely to be much higher due to the

larger pressure gradient, and the Reynolds number will

be similar. Therefore, it may be hypothesized that similar sensitivity to the blend ratio would be observed in a

cavitating axial single-hole injector.

The X-ray cavitation measurement was found to be

highly sensitive to the quantity of dissolved gas in the

fuel, necessitating that the fuel be degassed prior to the

experiment. As such, prediction of the location of

vapor in the nozzle depends on the level of degassing. It

remains to be seen as to how factors not included in the

HRM model such as transmission of pressure waves in

the liquid phase may affect the solution. The separation

of vapor from the wall in the experiment which does

not occur in the simulations is also a matter for further

investigation. The simulations presented here suggest

that the cavitation vapor distribution in a nozzle of sufficiently large cavitation number will not be affected by

gasolineethanol blend ratio.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Dr Eric Lemmon of

the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) for his support in the fluid property modeling

process described in section gasolineethanol blend

modeling. They also acknowledge the use of Dr

Lemmons program code to generate the distillation

curves in Figure 1. They gratefully acknowledge the

computing resources provided on Fusion, a 320-node

computing cluster operated by the Laboratory

Computing Resource Center at Argonne National

Laboratory. The authors also acknowledge General

Motors Research Center, NASA, and the National

588

Science Foundation for their support of the development of HRMFoam. The X-ray experiments presented

in this research were performed at the 7-BM beamline

of the APS at Argonne National Laboratory. The

authors wish to thank Team Leader Gurpreet Singh

for his support on this work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

Use of the APS is supported by the US Department of

Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC0206CH11357. The fuel spray research is sponsored by

the DOE Vehicle Technologies Program. D.J.D. was

supported by an ANSTO Fulbright Scholarship in

Nuclear Science & Technology during the research.

References

1. Nurick WH. Orifice cavitation and its effect on spray

mixing. J Fluid Eng: T ASME 1976; 98: 681687.

2. Tamaki N, Shimizu M and Nishida K. Effects of cavitation and internal flow on atomization of a liquid jet. Atomization Spray 1998; 8: 179197.

3. Schmidt DP and Corradini ML. The internal flow of diesel fuel injector nozzles: a review. Int J Engine Res 2001;

2(1): 122.

4. Pierpont DA and Reitz RD. Effects of injection pressure

and nozzle geometry on DI diesel emissions and performance. SAE paper 950604, 1995.

5. Shoji T. Effect of cycle-to-cycle variations in spray characteristics on hydrocarbon emission in DI diesel engines.

JSME Int J B: Fluid T 1997; 40(2): 312319.

6. Blessing M, Konig G, Kruger C, Michels U and Schwarz

V. Analysis of flow and cavitation phenomena in diesel

injection nozzles and its effects on spray and mixture formation. SAE technical paper 2003-01-1358, 2003.

7. Assad MS, Kucharchuk IK, Penyazkov OG, Rusetskii

AM and Chornyi AD. Influence of ethanol on the operating parameters of an internal-combustion engine.

J Eng Phys Thermophys 2011; 84(6): 13111317.

8. Jia L-W, Shen M-Q, Wang J and Lin M-Q. Influence of

ethanolgasoline blended fuel on emission characteristics

from a four-stroke motorcycle engine. J Hazard Mater

2005; 123(13): 2934.

9. He B-Q, Wang J-X, Hao J-M, Yan X-G and Xiao J-H.

A study on emission characteristics of an EFI engine

with ethanol blended gasoline fuels. Atmos Environ 2003;

37(7): 949957.

10. Hsieh WD, Chen RH, Wu TL and Lin TH. Engine performance and pollutant emission of an SI engine using

ethanolgasoline blended fuels. Atmos Environ 2001;

36(3): 403410.

11. Gao J, Jiang D and Huang Z. Spray properties of alternative fuels: a comparative analysis of ethanolgasoline

blends and gasoline. Fuel 2007; 86(1011): 16451650.

12. Suh HK and Lee CS. Effect of cavitation in nozzle orifice

on the diesel fuel atomization characteristics. Int J Heat

Fluid Fl 2008; 29: 10011009.

Study of cavitation phenomena based on a technique for

visualizing bubbles in a liquid pressurized chamber. Int J

Heat Fluid Fl 2009; 30: 768777.

14. Bauer D, Chaves H and Arcoumanis C. Measurements of

void fraction distribution in cavitating pipe flow using xray CT. Meas Sci Technol 2012; 23(5): 055302.

15. Kastengren A, Powell CF, Liu Z and Wang J. Time

resolved, three dimensional mass distribution of diesel

sprays measured with X-ray radiography. SAE paper

2009-01-0840, 2009.

16. Schmidt D, Rutland C and Corradini M. A numerical

study of cavitating flow through various nozzle shapes.

SAE paper 971597, 1997.

17. Jia M, Xie M, Liu H, Lam WH and Wang T. Numerical

simulation of cavitation in the conical-spray nozzle for

diesel premixed charge compression ignition engines. Fuel

2011; 90(8): 26522661.

18. Singhal AK, Athavale MM, Li H and Jiang Y. Mathematical basis and validation of the full cavitation model.

J Fluids Eng 2002; 124: 617623.

19. Schmidt DP, Gopalakrishnan S and Jasak H. Multidimensional simulation of thermal non-equilibrium channel flow. Int J Multiphas Flow 2010; 36(4): 284292.

20. Weische S. Numerical simulation of cavitation effects

behind obstacles and in an automotive fuel jet pump.

Heat Mass Transfer 2005; 41: 615624.

21. Neroorkar K, Shields B, Grover R Jr, Plazas Torres A

and Schmidt DP. Application of the homogeneous

relaxation model to simulating cavitating flow of a diesel

fuel. SAE Paper 2012-01-1269, 2011.

22. Dernotte J, Hespel C, Foucher F, Houille S and Mounaim-Rousselle C. Influence of physical fuel properties

on the injection rate in a Diesel injector. Fuel 2012; 96:

153160.

23. Neroorkar K and Schmidt D. A computational investigation of flash-boiling multi-hole injectors with gasolineethanol blends. SAE paper 2011-01-0384, 2011.

24. Neroorkar K and Schmidt D. Modeling of vapor-liquid

equilibrium of gasolineethanol blended fuels for flash

boiling simulations. Fuel 2010; 90(2): 665673.

25. Roth H, Gavaises M and Arcoumanis C. Cavitation

initiation, its development and link with flow turbulence

in diesel injector nozzles. SAE paper 2002-01-0124, 2002.

26. Andriotis A, Gavaises M and Arcoumanis C. Vortex flow

and cavitation in diesel injector nozzles. J Fluid Mech

2008; 610: 195215.

27. Som S, Longman DE, Ramirez AI and Aggarwal S.

Influence of nozzle orifice geometry and fuel properties

on flow and cavitation characteristics of a diesel injector.

In: Lejda K (ed.) Fuel injection in automotive engineering.

New York: InTech, 2012, pp.111126.

28. Lemmon EW, Huber ML and McLinden MO. NIST

standard reference database 23: reference fluid thermodynamic and transport propertiesREFPROP. Version 8.0,

April 2007. Boulder, CO: National Institute of Standards

and Technology.

29. Styron JP, Kelly-Zion PL, Lee CF, Peters JE and White

RA. Multicomponent liquid and vapor fuel distribution

measurements in the cylinder of a port-injected, sparkignition engine. SAE paper 2000-01-0243, 2000.

30. Takeshita E, Rezende R, Guelli U, de Souza S and Ulson

de Souza A. Influence of solvent addition on the

Duke et al.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

589

2008; 87(1011): 21682177.

Kar K, Last T, Haywood C and Raine RR. Measurement

of vapor pressures and enthalpies of vaporization of gasoline and ethanol blends and their effects on mixture preparation in an SI engine. SAE paper 2008-01-0317, 2008.

Weller HG, Tabor G, Jasak H and Fureby C. A tensorial

approach to computational continuum mechanics using

object-oriented techniques. Comput Phys 1998; 12(6):

620631.

Lemmon EW, Huber ML and McLinden MO. NIST

standard reference database 23: reference fluid thermodynamic and transport propertiesREFPROP. Version

9.0.1. Boulder, CO: National Institute of Standards and

Technology, June 2012.

Gopalakrishnan S and Schmidt DP. A computational

study of flashing flow in fuel injector nozzles. SAE paper

2008-01-0141, 2008.

Downar-Zapolski P, Bilicki Z, Bolle L and Franco J. The

non-equilibrium relaxation model for one-dimensional

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

473483.

Issa RI. Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow

equations by operator-splitting. J Comput Phys 1986;

62(1): 4065.

Dejoan A and Schiestel R. LES of unsteady turbulence

via a one-equation subgrid-scale transport model. Int J

Heat Fluid Fl 2002; 23: 398412.

Hewitt GF. Measurements of two phase flow parameters.

London and New York: Academic Press, 1978.

Kastengren AL, Powell CF, Arms D, Dufresne EM, Gibson H and Wang J. The 7BM beamline at the APS: a

facility for time-resolved fluid dynamics measurements. J

Synchrotron Radiat 2012; 19: 654657.

Battistoni M, Som S and Longman DE. Comparison of

mixture and multi-fluid models for in-nozzle cavitation

prediction (ICEF2013-19093). In: Proceedings of the

ASME 2013 internal combustion engine division fall technical conference (ICEF2013), Dearborn, MI, USA, 13

October 2013. American Society of Mechanical

Engineers.

- Equation CubicTransféré parmiguel008
- Sewage Engineering 2005Transféré parSilviu Alexandru
- L1.2 1.pdfTransféré parNishanthini Suppiah
- Hahaah HahaTransféré parHưng Nguyễn Thế
- Intech AP Polymersolution v2Transféré parCoper Legend
- Oscillated Baffle Column (OBC) application in enhancement the separation of underflow crude palm oil from Non Oily Solids(NOS ) in palm oil mill process. (Multiphase System)Transféré parAzrin Rahman
- Fonseca Et AlTransféré parÁdina Santana
- Bardina 1997 (Turbulence Modeling Validation and Development)Transféré parAdemar Bender
- Termodinamica Continua Revisao Bibliografica ScribdTransféré parsonsdoeden
- Reversible Pump Turbine Flow Stability Aspects Within Pumped Storage Hydropower Plants: A ReviewTransféré parBINAMA Maxime
- Chemicalengineeringthermodynamics-II Jntu Model comTransféré parsapabaplive
- Experiment 3 Lab ReportTransféré parVanessa Denise Aguilar
- 1. Feasibility Study Conclusions and Summary Report - 15 OctTransféré pardedi sanatra
- che221 iitkTransféré parVikramSingh
- The PropellerTransféré parIams Muhammad
- MT4 DRAFTTransféré parEmily Pancham
- Performance Parameters of Single Cylinder 4-Stroke Spark Ignition Engine Using Gasoline - Ethanol BlendsTransféré paralya khan
- cc09-equiposTransféré paryanyan
- Analysis and Design of Extractive Fermentation Processes Using a Novel Short-cut MethodTransféré parjudamoro
- 1kimia Fisik (Geo)Transféré parHari Darrmawan
- Art 2Transféré parFerley Pardo
- fapc108Transféré parClarence AG Yue
- Lab Report 3 Extraction.docxTransféré parMyeeka Hammond
- Fluid Proerty Data SummeryTransféré parMuhammad Arsalan Tariq
- 08-ethanol6Transféré parjdrjdr222
- Slug FlowTransféré parHmd Mokhtari
- Articulo MasaTransféré parDianaMoreno
- troskoTransféré parhflobatong
- Screen Grab of Engineers edge containing pressure loss equationsTransféré parhanhha2000
- Specification SheetTransféré parvivekrj09

- Trevena Cavitation and TensionTransféré parfivos_rg
- Kawai_et_al-2011-International_Journal_for_Numerical_Methods_in_Fluids.pdfTransféré parfivos_rg
- Cavitation in Diesel injectorsTransféré parfivos_rg
- Turbulence Models and Their Application to Complex FlowsTransféré parMason925
- A simple manual for OpenFoamTransféré parfivos_rg
- Solve Cavitating Flow Around a 2D Hydrofoil Using a User Modified Version of Inter Phase Change FoamTransféré parAghajani
- CFD CourseTransféré parnoeldiechter
- N2 Solubility in WaterTransféré parQiuping Lv
- Lemmon.huber.2004.960Transféré parfivos_rg
- Tester J.W. Modell M., Thermodynamics and Its Applications_3rd Ed_1997_medium_clippedTransféré parHarvey D'Arévalo
- Numerical study of bubble dynamics with the Boundary Element MethodTransféré parfivos_rg
- The Lattice Boltzmann EquationTransféré parVitor Hama

- Poettmann CarpenterTransféré parChristian Prada
- Physics Question 11 NewTransféré parGhadendra Bhandari
- روغن کاری j79.pdfTransféré paremad
- ies_2011_me_1Transféré parHimanshu Vashishtha
- Chen and Meiburg 1998aTransféré parram_contreras_2
- Rheology of Supersaturated Sucrose SolutionsTransféré parAtmira Nurandarini Utomo
- High Vacuum Techniques for Chemical Syntheses and MeasurementsTransféré parNavvab Salehi
- Plantilla Para La Presentacion Examen de GradoTransféré parvictoria
- The Effect of Fumed Silica in RTV-1 Silicone Rubber Sealants - CabotTransféré pardancercel
- 2.Separator ManualTransféré paridigiti
- Isoelectric_Homework_4-Subrata.docxTransféré parFahim Bin Abdur Rahman
- Water - Dynamic and Kinematic ViscosityTransféré parjpkedah
- Lubrication BasicsTransféré parVenkatesh Rj
- Daniel PortfolioTransféré parOscar Yazit Salah García
- Transport Phenomena in Food EngineeringTransféré parVane Ánady Mosqueda
- C.) 300-024-05Transféré parAlessandra Floresfar
- Computational Hydraulics and Hydrology - An Illustrated Dictionary.pdfTransféré parEdwin Astete
- college-physics-9.33.pdfTransféré parJackal
- +Accelerated Lattice Boltzmann Model for Colloidal Suspensions_Rheology and Interface MorphologyTransféré parmedelaid
- 8.Pressure Drop in Piping.pdfTransféré parDavid Apolo
- Makalah TurbinTransféré parSujatmiko
- Prof.jung July22 APSS2010Transféré parjojomarbun
- NASA TN D-2502Transféré pardanishmoin1991
- Dynamic numerical simulation of gas-liquid two-phase flows Euler/Euler versus Euler/LagrangeTransféré paramin_zargaran
- CI3906Ferraris.pdfTransféré parManu K Mohan
- Rankine Panel MethodTransféré parLev Dun
- PUMP classesTransféré parAnonymous WqVYDiXLkR
- Viscosity & Rheological Properties of Mineral Lubricating Oils Containing Dispersive Polymethacrylate AdditivesTransféré parhilman_hilmawan
- Blt 2705 BiostabTransféré parrn_svnit
- Re Refining Used Oil of 1000 Klpa CapacityTransféré parbmedsam