You are on page 1of 39

Lecture 9: Liquid Spray

Combustion
15. 0 Release

CFX Combustion and Radiation


Training

1 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Outline

Liquid evaporation model


Multi-component evaporation
Oil combustion modelling
Droplet break-up models

2 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Mass Transfer – Liquid Evaporation Model

Synonym: “Spray drier model”


Main difference to simple mass transfer model:
• Particle can boil

Mass transfers rates change, if

dmC
• TP<Tboil  Diffusion and/or Convection
dt

dmC
• TP  Tboil  Heat transfer limited
dt

3 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Mass Transfer – Liquid Evaporation Model

Particle is below boiling point

dmC W P ,C  1  X P ,C 
 dDSh log  

dt W F ,C  1  X F ,C 

Particle above boiling point


dmC  QC  Q R 

dt V
4 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Mass Transfer – Liquid Evaporation Model
Boiling point TP,boil = f(p,Material)
TP,boil is determined by evaluating an Antoine equation

 B 
pvap  exp  A  
 TP  C 

The Antoine equation is a parameter fit to experimental vapor


pressures
• A, B, and C are "Antoine coefficients"
• Antoine coefficients are specified via “Homogeneous Binary
Mixture” (see next slide)

Particle boils if pvap > pambient

5 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Mass Transfer – Liquid Evaporation Model

Homogenous Binary Mixture


• Define link between particle
material and corresponding
fluid material
• Define Antoine coefficients for
evaporation process

6 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Oil Combustion Template

The CCL for a typical oil combustion case, based on Jet A


fuel properties can be found in the CFX install folder
at etc/model-templates/oil_combustion.ccl
This can be imported into Pre using File > Import and
will save time when creating a first case

7 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Mass Transfer – Light Oil Modification

Extension of standard
Liquid Evaporation Model
• Evaluation of Re, Nu and Sh
numbers in heat/mass transfer
correlations is based on ‘average’
properties within boundary layer
of the particle

Particle Fluid
  0.0 if pVap  pambient
  0.5 if pVap  pambient
Vol    Fl (1   )   Vol Fl
pVap
  0 .5
Boundary Layer pambient

8 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Validation: Droplet Temperature

n-Heptane, TG=350 – 1000 K, D0=1 mm, ReD0 = 0

Yuen & Chen (1976)

9 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Validation: Droplet Diameter
n-Pentane, D0= 91, 102 μm, TG=296.2 K, ReD0 = 0

Wills (2005)

10 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Multi-Component Droplet Evaporation:
Diffusion/Convection Regime

If the particle is below the boiling point: ptotal < pambient


• Total evaporation rate:
dm dmi  1  X V

WP ,i
   dDSh ln  
vap,i

dt i dt i WF  1  X is 
V

• Assumption of Raoult’s law:


– XisV – vapor molar concentration of component i on the particle surface in the gas phase
– XiL – molar concentration of component i in a liquid phase

pure
pvap,i pvap
,i   X iL
V ,i
X vap
pambient pambient
11 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Multi-Component Droplet Evaporation:
Boiling Regime ptotal < pambient
• Evaporation rate of component i is proportional to the vapor
pressure of the component :
dmi / dt pvap,i

 dmi / dt ptotal
i

pvap,i X iL pvap
pure

  X vap
,i V
– with: ,i
ptotal ptotal

• This leads to the following equation for the mass transfer of


component i:
V
X vap
dmi
 QC  QR  ,i

dt  X vap, j V j
V

j
12 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Validation: Binary Mixture
n-Heptane + n-Hexadecane
Z0(n-Heptane) = 47%, 73%, 94%

Wills (2005)

13 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Droplet Break-up Models in CFX
In CFX the following break-up models are available:
• Hard coded models:
– Reitz & Diwakar
– TAB Model (O’Rourke, 1987)
– ETAB & CAB Model (Tanner, 1997 & 2003)
– Schmehl Model (Schmehl, 2000)
• All model constant are accessible through CCL

• Alternative break-up models can be implemented with


Particle User Fortran
– The user implemented break-up models can depend on
• Particle variables
• Fluid variables
• Track information (e.g.: traveling time or distance)
• Randomness if required

14 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Droplet Break-up Mechanisms
Primary Break-up Secondary Break-up

Dense Spray Dilute Spray


Injection Nozzle

Liquid
Liquid Core Dispersed Flow

Primary Break-up
• In-nozzle effects (cavitation, turbulence induced disturbances)
• Instabilities on liquid-gas interface lead to primary break-up

Secondary Break-up
• Droplets become unstable under the action of forces induced by their motion
relative to the continuous phase
15 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Primary Break-up Models
Task:
• Determine starting conditions of droplets that leave injection nozzle
– I.e.: initial radius, velocity components, spray angle
– Mainly influenced by nozzle flow

Models available in CFX:


• Blob method (for pressure jet atomizers)
• Enhanced Blob method (includes ‘vena contracta’ effect at orifice)
• Turbulence Induced Atomization
• LISA (for Pressure Swirl Atomisers)

16 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Primary Breakup: Pressure Jet Atomiser

Enhanced Blob Model (Kuensberg et al, 1999):


• Liquid blobs formed with size of nozzle diameter
• Injection velocity determined from mass balance = m nozzle  p Anozzlecav
• Droplets may dynamically change size and have different injection
velocity due to nozzle cavitation
• Requires injection total pressure.
– Cavitates if Pvena < Psat.
Cavitation

1: Nozzle Inlet Deff


2: Nozzle Outlet (1) Uvena (2)
Ueff
Vena: Throat
Break-up

17 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Primary Breakup: Pressure Swirl Atomiser

Linearized Instability Sheet Atomization


(Schmidt et al, 1999)
• Pressure Swirl Atomizers a
Hollow Cone Sprays
• Centrifugal forces lead to
formation of thin liquid film
along injector walls
• Air core in centre of injector
• Instabilities cause breakup of
liquid sheet into ligaments

18 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Turbulence Induced Atomization (Huh)
•The turbulence generated in the
nozzle hole produces initial
perturbations on the jet surface when it Detached droplet
exits the hole
LA

•This perturbations grow exponentially


due to aerodynamic forces and form
new droplets
Lw  2LA
•Child droplet size and velocity (spray
angle) predicted by model
Turbulence
•Huh and Gosman (1998) with in the nozzle flow
modifications for high We number by
Wave growth
Chryssakis et al. (2006) due to relative velocity

19 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Turbulence Induced Atomization: Setup
Input parameters
• Injection Pressure Difference
• Injector Nozzle Length over
Diameter Ratio
• Density Probe Normal Distance
• Nozzle Discharge Coefficient
(Model is very sensitive to this
parameter!)
– Discharge Coefficient CD  0.6..1
– ´Automatic Vp
CD 
2p 

Model constants
Defaults are recommended
20 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Secondary Droplet Break-up Models
Reitz & Diwakar Model (1987)
– Wave instability on the surface of the drop leads to its breakup – “wave” breakup
model
– Bag and stripping regimes are taken into account

Schmehl Model (2000)


– Two stages of deformation are considered: first droplet undergoes deformation to a
disc shape; later on the final destruction takes place

TAB Model (O’Rourke, 1987)


– Droplet is considered as a spring-mass system
– Solve deformation equation for droplet
– Droplet breaks up after maximum deformation

ETAB & CAB Model (Tanner, 1997 & 2003)


– Both models are based on the TAB model
– Modification of the predicted child droplet sizes

Note: Formulation of Reitz & Diwakar and TAB models are most appropriate in
combination with Huh primary breakup model.
21 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Turbulence Induced Atomization:
Model Validation for Single-Hole Injector
0.14

0.12
Penetration Depth [m]

0.1

0.08

0.06
We = 900
0.04
Experiment 0.14
Huh + Reitz
0.02 Huh + TAB
0.12
Experiment
0 Huh + Reitz

Penetration Depth [m]


0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.1 Huh + TAB
Time [s]
0.08
We = 170
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
22 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Time [s]
Turbulence Induced Atomization:
Influence of Mass Flow Rate
• Typically only the total injected mass 70

Mass Flow Rate [mm3/ms]


per cycle is known from the experiment 60

50
Minj=35 mg
40
• Mass flow rate has to be determined 30
Mass Flow Rate 1
20
Mass Flow Rate 2
• Turbulence Induced Atomization is 10 Mass Flow Rate 3

sensitive to this parameter! 0


0 0.0002 0.0004
Time [s]
0.0006 0.0008 0.001

0.06 0.06

Experiment, liquid penetration Experiment, liquid penetration


Huh, Mass Flow Rate 1 CAB, Mass Flow Rate 1
Huh, Mass Flow Rate 2 CAB, Mass Flow Rate 2

Penetration Depth [m]


Penetration Depth [m]

Huh, Mass Flow Rate 3 CAB, Mass Flow Rate 3


0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
Time [s] Time [s]

Turbulence
23 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. Induced
June 10, 2014Atomization Blob method
Secondary Break-Up Mechanisms

Bag break-up

Multimode break-up

Shear break-up
• most important for injection in swirler slot

24 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Validation: Spray Rig and Nozzle Detail
Pressure
[PSI] Air flow supply
Rig mount location

Traverse Motor Plenum Chamber


with wire gause to
smooth flow

Honeycomb section
to act as flow
straightener

30mm x 30mm Close up of back wall with nozzle


cross section size detail
Fuel Nozzle
Fuel Nozzle

10mm gap to allow


unobstructed optical
access
Traversible back
wall to allow Trough to avoid fuel
adjustment of splashing
distance of nozzle
from measurement
area. Flow outlet

N. Wilbraham et al. (ILASS 2004)


25 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Effect of Droplet Break-up

No Secondary With Secondary Experiment LSI


Break-Up Break-Up

26 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


D30 - 15mm below Nozzle
66 m/s 53 m/s 40 m/s

CFD

Expt.

27 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Air Velocity - 15mm below Nozzle
66 m/s 53 m/s 40 m/s

CFD

Expt.

28 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


GT Combustor Example: Droplet Diameter

Steady-state combustion

Without break-up With break-up


29 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Particle Ignition

Ignition of particles:
• Inlet temperature may be too low
to start devolatilization or char
oxidation
• Need to ignite flame

Ignition temperature:
• Replaces fluid temperature
• Applied first iteration particle solver
entered
• On second iteration uses actual fluid
temperature

30 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Particle Control -Under Relaxation Factors

Under relax particles sources onto fluid phase

Src n  1    Src o   Src n

• Momentum
– Velocity Under Relaxation Factor (Default=0.75)
• Energy
– Energy Under Relaxation Factor (Default=0.75)
• Mass Transfer
– Mass Under Relaxation Factor (Default=0.75)

31 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Mass Transfer – Control and Diagnostics

Particles are tracked until they fall below a minimum diameter:


• REAL expert parameter: PT MINIMUM DIAMETER
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Particle Fate Diagnostics |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Particle type | Fate type Particles |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| JetA Liquid | Entered domain : 4 |
| | Fell below minimum diameter : 4 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Source term diagnostics:


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Particle Equation | Total source and source change rates |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Equation Source Rate |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Domain: Domain 1 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| JetA Liquid | Mass-JetA 1.192E-04 0.0014 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| JetA Liquid | x-Mom 1.189E-04 0.0014 |
| | y-Mom 0.000E+00 0.0000 |
| | z-Mom 0.000E+00 0.0000 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| JetA Liquid | Energy 2.162E+02 0.0012 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
32 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Droplet Wall Breakup Modelling
• Empirical model for droplet behaviour on walls
• Can get sticking, rebound, spread or splashing according to
droplet size, speed and properties
• Choice of ‘Stick to Wall’, Elsaesser or Bai & Gosman (beta feature)
 DVd 2 Dd
We 

T
•Only available in transient mode
–Workaround: For steady state, need to use
a large time step and increase number of
coefficient loops
Bai C. and A.D. Gosman, Mathematical Modelling of Wall Films
Formed by Impinging Sprays, SAE 960626, 1996
33 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Validation: Impinging Spray

Spray
Height

Spray Radius
34 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014
Oil Combustion Example

• Kerosene/air flame in gas


turbine combustor can
• Lagrangian particles with
heat and mass transfer
• Eddy dissipation
model for gaseous
combustion of
kerosene vapour

35 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Convergence History

Converged to 10-4 RMS residuals in 55 iterations

36 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Spray Combustion Spray Validation
• EU AFTUR Project (Bio-fuels in GT combustors)

20 Unconfined bio-diesel spray flame


24 Pressure-swirl solid cone
60 mm injector
37 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014 Pierce, Rochaya, Jasuya and Moss, 2007
Combusting Spray Validation
Axial Vel. Radial Vel. Temp.
Experiment Experiment 2000.0
12.0 6.0 Experiment
CFX - SST CFX - SST
CFX - SST
CFX - SST, part 1800.0
CFX - SST, part 5.0
10.0
1600.0

50 mm 8.0
4.0

3.0
1400.0

6.0 1200.0

T [C]
w [m/s]
2.0

u [m/s]
1000.0
4.0
1.0 800.0
2.0
0.0 600.0

0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 400.0


-1.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
200.0
-2.0
-2.0
0.0
-4.0 -3.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
x [mm] x [mm] x [mm]

Experiment Experiment
14.0 12.0 1800.0 Experiment
CFX - SST
30 mm 12.0

10.0
CFX - SST, part
10.0
CFX - SST
CFX - SST, part 1600.0
CFX - SST

1400.0
8.0
8.0
1200.0
6.0 6.0

w [m/s]
1000.0

T [C]
u [m/s]
4.0
4.0 800.0
2.0
2.0 600.0
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 400.0
-2.0 0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 200.0
-4.0 -2.0
0.0
-6.0
-4.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
x [mm]
x [mm] x [mm]

Experiment
20.0 Experiment 1800.0 Experiment
CFX - SST 16.0
CFX - SST CFX - SST
CFX - SST, part 1600.0
10 mm 14.0 CFX - SST, part
15.0
12.0 1400.0

10.0 1200.0
10.0
1000.0
w [m/s]

T [C]
8.0

u [m/s]
5.0
800.0
6.0

0.0 600.0
4.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
400.0
2.0
-5.0
200.0
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 0.0
-10.0
-2.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
x [mm]
x [mm] x [mm]

Experiment Experiment

5 mm 25.0

20.0
CFX - SST
CFX - SST, part.
18.0

16.0
CFX - SST
CFX - SST, part
1800.0

1600.0
Experiment
CFX - SST

14.0
1400.0
15.0 12.0
1200.0
10.0
10.0 1000.0
w [m/s]

T [C]
8.0
u [m/s]

6.0 800.0
5.0
4.0 600.0
0.0
2.0 400.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
-5.0 0.0 200.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
-2.0
0.0
-10.0 -4.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
x [mm] x [mm] x [mm]

38 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014


Summary
Euler-Lagrangian particle transport model is generally used to model oil
spray combustion
An oil combustion template can be imported to speed up the model
setup in CFX-Pre/Setup
Oil combustion is a two-step process involving liquid evaporation
followed by vapour combustion in the gas phase
Spray break-up can be represented by the built-in primary atomization
and secondary break-up models

39 © 2012 ANSYS, Inc. June 10, 2014

You might also like