Articles Video Library

Best Practices for an Evaporating Spray

by Megan Karalus
on 1/7/2015
1720 views
Categories: Lagrangian   •  Products: STAR-CCM+   •  Version Applicable: N/A   •  Article Number: 21291

The following article identifies strategies for improving the convergence and accuracy of simulations with an evaporating Lagrangian
spray.

Many Lagrangian models are built around the "diffuse spray" assumption where the particle volume is, usually, assumed to be
negligibly small compared to the cell volume. The most common convergence problems with evaporating spray models are due to
high mass and/or energy loading in a volume cell of the continuous phase, which violates the "diffuse spray" assumption.

Here "loading" refers to the amount of mass that is represented by the liquid, compared to the amount of mass that is represented
by the volume cell, or the energy source of a vaporizing particle that is compared to the energy in the volume cell. The strategies for
improving convergence all center around reducing the mass and energy loadings, or alternatively, imposing stricter solver settings to
try to improve numerical stability. If you are seeing symptoms of high mass and energy loadings, the following is both general best
practices and specific troubleshooting strategies. Those sections that are specific to troubleshooting are marked with two asterisks
**.

Define the Domain

Geometry Considerations
N/A

Mesh
Mesh Considerations

Be mindful of small volume cells that are created through mesh refinement and prism layer thickness. At atmospheric pressures
where the density of the gas phase is relatively low, the mass loading can be high in relatively small cells because the density of the
liquid is 1000 times larger (if you consider the liquid water). In engine calculations, the gas density is much higher, yet high loadings
can still be problematic numerically. The cell temperature is assumed constant during vaporization which can over predict mass
transfer and cause the temperature spikes in the gas phase. Often the only cure is to take a much smaller time-step, but for small
cells the required time-step can become prohibitively small. 
 
Even though the flow solution accuracy is compromised, if a coarser mesh is used in the region where the mass loading from the
Lagrangian phase is high, the overall solution (including Lagrangian) can be improved. High mass loadings can occur near the
injector and high energy loadings near a wall.

Set the Physics

Physical Properties

Physics Models
An example physics setup is shown below for both the continuous phase and the lagrangian phase.

Page 1 of 10
The scenario that is described is a steady state, turbulent flow and not concerned with wall impingement. The key model choices for
an evaporating case are the following:

Segregated Fluid Enthalpy

Quasi Steady Evaporation
Two-Way Coupling

Material Properties
Saturation Pressure is a function of temperature and can be set using a polynomial in T, or use the Antoine Equation.
(Note if using water from the default material database there is no polynomial in T provided. Choosing Polynomial in T as the
method for this property gives you a default polynomial with no physical meaning. Enter your own relationship. )

Page 2 of 10
  
Specific Heat is also polynomial in T. Again polynomial in T is not provided in the default material database.

Page 3 of 10
 
**Depletion Criterion
Only set the depletion criterion if you are experiencing convergence issues or long run times. Because evaporation is activated,
particles can potentially become small, and require smaller lagrangian time-steps. Removing small particles from the system can
decrease computation time and improve numerical stability. Choose a depletion criterion such that only a small amount of the total
injected mass is removed in this way. (Also note that the mass is removed from the system, it is not evaporated.) In STAR-CCM+
versions 10.02 and earlier, you can be find the setting under the Quasi-Steady Evaporation model as shown below. From version
10.04, in order to manually remove parcels from the system you must activate the Parcel Depletion Model.
 

Page 4 of 10
  
 
**Double Precision Solver
One of the characteristics of Lagrangian simulations is that you are dealing with small particles and accumulating sources in cells
(with two-way coupling). The solver is constantly adding small numbers to large numbers due to the separation in physical scales,
and can possibly result in roundoff error. STAR-CCM+ holds key variables as double precision so mixed precision is fine, however
there are simulations where double precision is worth the extra expense. Round off errors can occur if the simulation has many
small (mass) parcels and a large variation in cell size, though it is not possible to tell at the outset.

A good practice is to begin with the standard, mixed precision solver, then move to double precision if convergence issues arise or
you receive a message in the output window suggesting to try the double precision solver.

**Under Relaxation Factors

You can try reducing the under relaxation factors for the species and energy equations. If reduced, reduce them together and keep
them equal. Reducing under relaxation factors can help stabilizing a simulation but results in increased computation time. You can
also try reducing the under relaxation factor, and the maximum volume fraction for the Lagrangian Two-Way Coupling Solver.
 

Page 5 of 10
  
Domain and Boundary Conditions
Injectors

Parcel Streams
In general, it is important to be statistically independent of the number of parcels so that you do not see the effect of isolated events.
Increasing the number of parcels improves the statistical accuracy of the simulation is analogous to increasing the number of grid
points representing a continuum. And if you are using a diameter distribution at your injector, more parcels ensures that the
distribution is resolved more accurately. Also, the Lagrangian Source terms for the continuous phase are directly proportional to the
particle count per parcel (particle flow rate in a steady state simulation). Thus affecting numerical stability in the following way:

(1) When you increase the number of parcels you are decreasing the particle count per parcel,
(2) by decreasing the particle count you are decreasing the Lagrangian source term from any one parcel in any one volume cell of
the continuous phase,
(3) by decreasing the lagrangian source terms you are smoothing the interaction of the lagrangian phase with the continuous phase.

For a steady state simulation, using 20–50 parcels per injector would be a reasonable place to start. If you are experiencing
numerical instability try increasing this number keeping in mind that by tracking more parcels you increase the required computation
time.

**Location
It is sometimes advisable to inject parcels further downstream from a physical injection point, especially when using a fine mesh
near the nozzle where the volume fraction is of order 1. Though a point injector is an appropriate approximation in a coarse mesh, a
set of point or cone injectors that are located slightly downstream of the dense spray region when using a fine mesh can provide
reasonable accuracy yet not overwhelm the solver.

Run
Initial Conditions
Before beginning injection of the lagrangian phase, establish the flow field.

Page 6 of 10
Steady
Use the "First Iteration" option for the Lagrangian Multiphase Solver -> Steady. Thus setting the first iteration at which the
Lagrangian solver begins.

 
Transient
For a transient simulation you generally want to establish a steady state flow field before injecting particles. There are several ways
to accomplish this. One common method is to use field functions to control when the lagrangian injector begins injecting mass. An
example of an inline field function is shown below. The example asks for the mass flow rate of the injector to be 0 kg/s if $Time is
less than 1 second. You can then step in time towards a steady state solution of the flow field before injecting particles. You can use
a slightly larger time-step for the unsteady solver while you are running just the flow solution. You can use a similar field function
changing the time-step before and after the 1 second mark in the example. It is up to the user to decide the time at which the flow
field is established and Lagrangian injection can begin.
 

 
Analysis Controls

Page 7 of 10
Judging Convergence: Reports, Monitors & Plots
In a steady state solution you want to ensure that mass and energy are conserved and the engineering quantities of interest have
leveled off. To monitor the impact of the lagrangian phase introducing additional mass and removing energy from the continuous
phase, activate "Temporary Storage" for the Lagrangian Multiphase Solver and follow the steps below.

Mass Balance

Create a Mass Flow Report and add all inlets and outlets
Create a Sum Report on ${Lagrangian Mass Source} for the entire domain

If all of the lagrangian phase has evaporated, then the mass flow report equals the amount of lagrangian mass injected. To check
mass conservation, subtract the two reports that are created above. An Expression report can be used, defined thus:
 

$LagrangianMassSourceReport - $MassFlow1Report

Energy Balance

Create a Heat Transfer Report on all region boundaries

Create a Sum report on ${Lagrangian Energy Source}

To check energy conservation, subtract the two energy reports that are created above. Again using an Expression report;

$LagrangianEnergySourceReport - $HeatTransfer1Report

Create a monitor and plot for each of the sum reports to track convergence as the solution iterates.

Analyze
Post-Processing
Refer to Knowledge Base articles:
How to create particle tracks
How do I post-process Lagrangian particles?
How to filter particle tracks

and Knowledge Base videos:

Working with Lagrangian Solver Trackfiles
How to display and animate particles in a steady state lagrangian simulation

Performance
Performance Considerations
Several of the strategies that are outlined above for stabilizing a simulation with an evaporating spray can increase computation
time. The suggestions to increase the number of parcels, decrease URFs, and use the double precision solver all can add to the

Page 8 of 10
time required to reach a converged solution. Keep in mind the computational time when changing these settings.

One strategy for reducing the computational time that is required by a Lagrangian simulation is to alter the update frequency of the
Lagrangian solver.

Steady State
For a steady state case it is implied that the Lagrangian solver is not solved every time that the continuous phase is solved. Instead
STAR-CCM+ carries the Lagrangian source terms during the iterations where only the continuous phase is solved and updates the
Lagrangian solver, with its respective source terms, only at particular intervals. A common practice is to set the update frequency to
5. If you experience convergence issues however, reduce it back to 1.
 

Transient
Our Recommended options for the update frequency of a transient case are, Once per Time-Step, and Every Iteration. The effect is
similar to a steady state case. If you leave the default update frequency of Recommended, the Lagrangian solver runs and its
source terms updated every iteration. If you change the frequency to Once per Time-Step, the Lagrangian solver is run in the first
inner iteration of the time-step and the lagrangian source terms are carried through the rest of the inner iterations of that time-step. If
the implicit unsteady time-step is "small" then it is advised to change the update frequency to Once per Time-Step. If you
experience convergence issues however, and have tried the other troubleshooting options, change the update frequency back to
Recommended.

Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10