D

r u

COMPUTATIONAL COMBUSTION

FLUID ANALYSIS

DYNAMICS EVALUATION

Final Contract Report No:

Report D.O.116

NAS8-36955

Number

CCFD-92-02

By

Y.M. University

Kim,

H.M.

Shang,

C.P.

Chen,

and

J.P. Ziebarth AL 35899

of Alabama

in Huntsville,

Huntsville,

April,
(NASA-CR-IG4326) FLUIO OYi_AHICS EVALUATION Univ.) 94 Fin,_1 p

1992
N93-12688 --TH_U-N93-12689 Unclas

COMPUTATIONAL CGM6USTION ANALYSIS Report (AIJb_ma

G3/_4

0120220

For

CFD George National Marshall

Branch(ED32) Space and Space Flight Center

C. Marshall

Aeronautics Space Flight

Administration Alabama 35812

Center,

\ \

f v

ABSTRACT This spray ciency physical dense solved study involves We the development discuss particle several tracking of numerical issues modelling the in dilute and dense effiof and are the

combustion. in the

concerning

computational improvement effects, coordinate based on

stochastic

method

as well as the vaporization,

submodels spray by effects.

of turbulence, The governing multiple The

combustion, gas-phase pressure droplet-phase droplet

swirling

equations correction

in Eulerian procedure

a time-marching technique. by a stochastic the time and and

operator-splitting nate are solved

equations technique.

in Lagrangian The k - e model

coordiis used

discrete length

to characterize dispersions ficiency transport tional senting

v

scales

of the gas phase To improve we implement dispersion

turbulence

for droplet efwidth

droplet/turbulence stochastic which tracking can account of this

interactions. calculations, for turbulent model confirm and

the computational a dispersion within

in the model parcel.

each computarepre-

The

testings

the capability

of accuratly turbulent

dispersion efficiency

in nearJ_y-homogeneous over the spray and delta function

in.homogeneous separated

flows with model. collision models

improved To account and

stochastic employed

flow(SSF) drop These

for the dense model

effects,

we have analogy

an existing model. transient

coalescence

a Taylor

breakup(TAB) all-speed

were incorporated procedure. burning, the

into a state-of-the-art of validation spray cases

multiphase cases involving

flow solution evaporating,

A se_luence dilute and

non-evaporating, The research tasks

dense

are included. group particle

concerning and particle

development

of multidimensional condition are separately

tracking

method E.

wall-boundary

documented

in Appendix

/? .:

TABLES

OF

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General 1.2 Turbulent 1.3 Dilute 1.4 Dense Particle Models Models MODELLING Equations Equations Models Models Equations Mass & Heat Interaction and Collision Transfer Model Model Model CONDITIONS Equations OF THE MULTI-PHASE FLOWS Dispersion

Spray Spray

2. MATHEMATICAL 2.1 Basic 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 Mean Eulerian Flow

Turbulence Combustion

2.2 Basic 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

Lagrangian

Droplet-Phase Turbulence/Droplet Drop Breakup

Droplet/Wall

Impingement AND

3. NUMERICAL 4. RESULTS AND

MODEL

BOUNDRAY

DISCUSSIONS Particle Dispersion Turbulent Turbulent Combusting Kerosene with Dispersion

4.1 Turbulent 4.1.1 4.1.2

Nearly-Homogeneous lnhomogeneous Spray

Dispersion Flows

4.2 Dilute 4.2.1 4.2.2

Hollow-Cone Spray Flame Sprays

Spray

Flames Atomizer

a Rotating-Cup

4.3 Dense

ii

...d

4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3

Non-Evaporating Non-Evaporating Evaporating and

Solid-Cone HoUow-Cone Burning

Spray Spray

Sprays

5. CONCLUSIONS 6. RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A. Two-Phase B. Numerics Interaction of Beta Source Terms Density Function Fuels

Probability

C. Stoichiometric D. Droplet

Relations

For Hydrocarbon

Distribution

Models Group Model Particle Tracking and

E. Adaptation Particle (Contract

of Multidimensional Condition Inc.)

Wall-Boundary Report

To The FDNS

Code

from SECA,

III

"x

J i o

NOMENCLATURE

Bm Bt :

"

mass heat heat heat drag

transfer transfer capacity capacity coefficent

number number of air of droplet

Cp : Cp,_ : CD :

dp : D: E: Ep :

droplet diffusion mean specific mixture : particle gravity enthalpy

diameter coefficient internal energy in Fick's energy of particle law

specific internal

f:
Fpi g: h: hI : K: k: L:

fraction drag force

of gas phase enthalpy correction energy factor

fuel vapor

undersampling turbulentkinetic latent number heat

Nt:
Np :

of droplets

for each p particles

computational number probability mean

t :

particle

of computational

P: p:
Pr

pressure Prandtl Reynold's radius velocity velocity for gases for droplets number number

turbulent particle droplet

I_ep : rp : U i :

instantaneous instantaneos

S: _..j
SC t :

source turbulent

terms Schmidt number

T:

gas temperature

iv

time Td:
2:

droplet

temperature in the streamwise direction

coordinate mass fraction

Y: Y:

coordinate direction

normal

to the streamwise

Greek # : #! : Pd " # : #t : : r : a a2 : Subscripts

.

Symbol density of gases density

fuel vapor droplet viscosity eddy

density

viscosity scalar energy for gases rate

instantaneous turbulent instantaneous particle standard variance

dissipation fraction

mixture time

relaxation deviation of pdf

of pdf

fuel gas phase time eddy liquid particle step index phase or parcel square index in an eddy

9: i: k: l:
.p: TTn8

root

mean

t: Supercripts -: '

turbulent

density-averaged fluctuating

f ....

NASA

Report Document Page

2. Government Accession NO. 3. HeQpient's Catalog No. 11

I. Report No.

_,.Titile and Subtitle COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS COMBUSTION ANALYSIS EVALUATION

5. Report Duo April 10, 1992 6. Performing Organization Code University of Alabama in Huntsville

7. Aurthor(s) Y. M. Kim H. M. Shang C. P. Chen J. P. Ziebarth }. Performing Organization Name and Address

8. Performing Organization Report No.

10. Work Unit No. D.O. 116 5-32638

11. Contract or Grant No. University of Alabama in Huntsville Huntsville, Alabama 35899 1":2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Addre_ss"L National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546-001 Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812 r5. Supplementary Notes NAS8-36955, D.O. 116

3. Type of report and Period covered FINAL 04/11/91 - 04/10/g2

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

16.Abstract

This study involves the development of numerical modelling in spray combustion. These modelling efforts are mainly motivated to improve the computational efficiency in the stochastic particle tracking method as well as to incorporate the physical subrnodels of turbulence, combustion, vaporization, and dense spray effects. The present mathematical formulation and numerical methodologies can be casted in any time-marching pressure correction methodologies (PCM) such as FDNS code and MAST code. A sequence of validation cases involving steady burning sprays and transient evaporating sprays will be included.

17. Key Words (Suggested Spray Combustion, Droplet Dispersion,

by Author(s)) Swirling Effects Flows,

18. Distribution Statement Unclassified - Unlimited

Fuel Evaporation, and Dense Spray

r!

Ig. Security Class. (of trois report) Unclassified NASA FORM 1626 OCT 86

20. Security Class. (of this page) Unclassified

21. No. of pages

22. Price

_s

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

There numerical ing fuel

have and

been physical

a number models

of research for spray

efforts[I-6]

towards Many nature on aspects of

the

development of sprays [2], includ-

of

combustion.

properties [3] have have for as the

of droplets been also studied been given

[1], multicomponent and excellent in Refs. reviews [4,5,6].

fuel and

evaporation

models of sprays the need

analysis studies

measurements motivated processes control engines, in and by

These turbulent stability, as gas

are

better demand

understanding for improving and propulsive

of multi-phase performance, systems such

combustion and emission ramjet

as well industrial space

furnaces shuttle main

turbine,

engines. of the local flow and continuous interphase properties accounts of spray for complex flows. flames requires the between approaches The as the continuum soluthe have

The tions

prediction

of multi-phase droplets

dynamics, and to model the the

interactions Various

dispersed been for the

gas-phase transport are and largely the are has

suggested spray the

phenomena. classified

methodologies discrete model. droplet ComAmong

combustion statistical

computations droplet for three model,

model, parative three

two-fluid well

performances models, the discrete the

approaches model

summarized wide acceptance

in Ref.[6]. due the With

droplet flexibility the

gained

to its comconvenient Eulerianflow(SSF) to acstochastic and gas two comphase phases terms coorbased

putaional interphase Lagrangian approach[5] count separated bustion and the for

efficiency, coupling, formulations categorized the flow processes Lagrangian

in handling

poly-disperse

spray, diffusion.

and

elimination

of numerical flows, droplet the

in multi-phase in the discrete on

s_ochastic

separated employed present flow for between the

model transport.

is usually In the

turbulence model, the

effects

interphase

mathematical the Eulerian for the

formulation conservation fuel droplets.

of the

two-phase

comprises equations expressed equations. by

equation The link

is mathematically in the gas-phase are solved

in terms The

of liquid/gas-phase gas-phase pressure

interaction equations correction equations

source in Eulerian procedure in

governing multiple The

dinate on the

a time-marching technique.

operator-splitting

droplet-phase

Lagrangian

_-VJ

coordinate is used droplet model number

are solved to characterize dispersions

by a stochastic the time and

discrete length

droplet scales

technique.

The

k - e model for

of the

gas phase The present

turbulence vaporization

and

droplet/turbulence of variable

interactions.

includes

the effects

thermophysical flow effect,

properties,

non-unitary of internal

Lewis

in the gas-film, liquid

the $tefan

and the effect

circulation

and transient This to enhance and study

heating. motivated capabilitiy In the to improve over following the physical range submodels of fuel spray as well as conditions issues method va-

is mainly prediction geometries.

the

a wider

combustor

subsections,

we adress particle

several

concerning

the computational improvement effects,

efficiency of physical and dense Dispersion

in the stochastic submodels spray effects.

tracking

as well as the porization, 1.2

of turbulence,

combustion,

swirling

Turbulent In the

Particle stochastic

separated of liquid technique

flow(SSF) droplets

approach, having the

each same

computat]onal droplet

parcel

represents and based

a collection sampling

characteristics

a random

is entailed and

for instantaneous

gas fiow properties are used in the This stochastic satisfactory

on a specified

turbulence

model

the resulting for the droplet

fluctuations tracking.

droplet-phase process dispersion Litchford requires

Lagrangian a large

computations number even

of computational dilute sprays.

particles

to produce

distributions

for rather

To circumvent approach with

this deficiency, in which each

and Jeng[7] proposed parcel represents This within

the dispersion a group

width(group)

computational density droplet lent

of physical model

particles can account grows travels

a probability turbulent turbu-

distribution. dispersion

dispersion each when group.

width Each

for the

group(width) parcel determined

due to the

dispersion

of droplets The mean

the computational of each is taken group,

in the Lagrangian or

coordinates. stochastic ing

position tracking,

from a deterministic of its correspondPDF eddy is represented interactions.

Lagrangian density

to represent The which variance depends

the mean of each

probability

function(PDF). dispersion

by a statistical Potential ticles

mean-squared

on prior

advantages represent

of this method the spray

is to reduce and

the number to obtain

of computational

par-

which

dynamics

grid-independent

solutions

for two-phase flows regardless

calculations. oration in this Other advantages combustion

of grid-refinement may include models. The better

in the underlying representations group model and

Eulerian of "group"

gas-flow evap-

or "group" report

dispersion

to be presented Jeng. However, by Litchneeds is easy disper-

is basically procedure

similar

to the approach different from

of Litchford the method

the present ford and

is somewhat

proposed parameters procedure the present

Jeng[T],

in which

the calculation history. computer and

of dispersion-related the present To evaluate

summation to program sion width

of the entire and requires

time less

Furthermore, memory.

transport interactions,

model

to calibrate

the stochastic

simulation for the particle

of particledispersion

turbulence

the computations turbulence dispersion of accuratly turbulent and

were performed a particle transport laden

in nearly-homogeneous turbulence. strated the The present

round

jet in inhomogeneous demon-

width

model dispersion efficiency

has successfully

capability

representing improved

in nearly-homogeneous over the delta function

and inhomogeneous SSF model.

flows with

1.3

Dilute

Spray

Models

In the dilute employed by the reaction introduced terms phase

spray

combustion

models, droplet

the stochastic dispersion, involves

separated turbulence

flow model is represented one-step

is

to account k - e model, at an infinite

for the turbulent and rate. the combustion The turbulent density effects

processes fluctuations

an irreversible

on the mixture approach. The

properties centrifugal

are force

by the probability with

function(pdf) are

associated equations.

the swirl

also included the solution vaporization, model

in the

gas-phase/dropletand effects, the physiand initial

In the study, of turbulence, The

we evaluate combustion,

procedure swirling

cal submodels spray reacting

distributions.

present

numerical

for the

multi-phase

turbulent in probwith initial a

flows has been

tested

by applying swirling

it to predict

the local flows[36,37].

flow properties Example spray and

two axisymmetric, lems include

confined,

spray-combusting flows with

the liquid-fuel

combusting emphasis strength swirl

a hollow

cone

rotating conditions and the

cup atomizer. and turbulent the

Special inlet swirl

is given to the influence which numbers characterize are the

of the spray spray to

vaporization investigate the

mixing.

Two

considered

influence

of swirl

on the droplet interactions have been

evaporation

and

trajectories, The

and

the effects capabilities

of of

droplet/turbulence the present procedure The present

in flow properties. demonstrated procedure yields

predictive

by comparisons correctly predicts agreement

with

experimenfeatures

tal data.

numerical flows and

the general with

of spray-combustion data. However, regions,

the qualitative exist especially chamber

experimental locations, at

quantitative and along are

differences

at near-burner centerline.

near-wall observed size and single-step

the combustion attributed and mainly

The discrepancies in the initial interaction, and spray the

in the results velocity fast

to uncertainties impingement model, streamline

distributions chemistry

the droplet/wall by the combustion with the strong

employed model dealing

the deficiencies

of the k - e turbulence

curvature.

1.4

Dense

Spray

Models aspects in spray process, occurs grid on combustion drop time sizes breakup, and and modeling droplet scale is the dense collision too short spray co-

One of the important effects which include Atomization with practical

atomization process computation

and

alescence. resolved should fects, Taylor

length time

to be

steps.

Thus,

atomization spray and efthe

be modeled the present analogy

as a sub-grid-scale study employs

process.

To account

for the dense model[8]

the drop model[9].

collision

& coalescence collision

breakup(TAB) governing randomly model

In the drop and outcomes with the

model,

the probabilbetween two

ity distributions drops method. ing the able droplet reasonable processes are sampled The

the number

of the collisions stochastic

in consistency utilizes an analogy The

particle and

tracking distorton

TAB

between present and drop

an oscillating breakup breakup model

and

a spring-mass assumption that

system.

is based

atomization near have

are indistinguishatomiztion to the nozzle advanof liquid on the

within

a dense drops

spray which

the nozzle

exit.

Accordingly, size equal model

is prescribed exit tages

t j.

by injecting Compared of no need

a characteristic the TAB angle,

diameter. in terms effects,

to Reitz's to input

model[34], the spray

has several

an easy

introduction

viscosity interphase evaporating,

and explicit rates

informations of mass,

of distortion and

and oscillation ener_'.

effects

exchange

momentum, cases, 4

For non-evaporating, show a reasonably good

and burning

dense

spray

the predictions

agreement

with

available

experimental

results

in terms

of spray

penetration, and burning properties

drop spray.

size distributions, Future studies

and overall include

characteristics comparison

of the evaporating with the local

the detailed

available formulation

in the experiment for resolving

and the implementation displacement

of a volume-of effects.

fluid (VOF)

the liquid volume

2.

MATHEMATICAL

MODELLING

OF

THE

MULTI-PHASE

FLOWS

All the gas-phase steady,

and

liquid-phase

processes equations. the

are modeled The gas-phase

by a system equation

of unis writ-

two-dimensional(axi-symmetric) coordinate two-way terms whereas coupling which

ten in an Eulerian coordinates. interaction transfer. 2.1 Basic The source These

liquid-phase the rates two

is presented phases

in Lagrangian by and the heat

between the

is described mass

represent below.

of momentum,

equations

are given

Eulerian

Equations

2.1.1

Mean The

Flow

Equations conservation coordinate can equation be written of mass, momentum, and scalar

density-weighted in an Eulerian

variables

as follows: (2.1)

(pu ) =

(puiuj)

azi

azj

[pu_u_] + S,,, + S,,,,t

(2.2)

+ where p is the time-mean mean

(pu,) density

= -_-_-x [purz'] + S_, + S_,,t mixture, part fluctuating u, and u_ are the i component of the instantaneous part velocity,

(2.3) of

of the

the density-weighted Ct are quantities pressure, source

and fluctuating mean and

and scalar

the density-weighted including Sv terms and due

of an instantaneous energy, and

the species S_,,t represents to the fuel

concentrations the spray, gas-phase respectively.

and the total source terms

p is the mean the interaction for these

Detailed

expressions

... r

source need 2.1.2

terms to model

can

be found

in Refs. [10,11]. correlations,

To close

the

system

of equations,

we

the unknown Models

uiu_"':77-' and

ui..'727.

Turbulence The two-equation

effective

diffusivity

model the

is used

to represent fluxes,

the turbulent uiu _' ' and u_' eddy

characteristics. are related viscosity

In the eddy to the mean

diffusivity

models, through

turbulent

flow gradients turbulent

the assumption number:

of an isotropic

and

a constant

Prandtl

or Schmidt

pu_,; = -#,( _

au,

+ 0_ + 56'_(p + #' b-_ ) ,-_ _

Oui)

au,

(2.4) (2.5)

The characteristic is given

eddy

viscosity(pt) turbulence

appearing length

in (2.4)

and

(2.5)

is defined scale

in terms so that

of a #t

scale(k3/2/e)

and

a velocity

(kl/2),

by k2 #t = C_,p_ e (2.6) rate, e, can be modeled from

The the

turbulent turbulent

kinetic transport

energy,

k, and

its dissipation

equations:

#, Op Op
Opk _j 0 #t Ok ..-TST.j Oui p20Xj OX j

pe

(2.7)

0
Here, density tion terms

"

0
involving These

'

,,)a,a,;
0"{ '

(2.8) (2.8) are inserted from to account for variablecorrelaaccount

_ 8z,i

in (2.7) terms

and

effects[12].

originally

come

the pressure-velocity these terms release should

in the Reynolds

stress

equation. effect

For reacting

flows,

partially tion.

for the expansion

on the flow field due to heat

from combus-

2.1.3

Combustion

Model

It is assumed that liquid fuel droplets

evaporate flames for this controlled istry the taken fuel to form a cloud of vapour. This gaseous in Refs. can be treated assumption diffusion as turbulent can be found flames fast and

act as distributed implies diffusion that

sources

of fuel which in spray evidence

combustion

process

flames.

Experimental approach

13. An idealized

for physicallywhich the chemrole. In is that most

is to invoke intermediate

a fast-chemistry species the influence

assumption play

is sufficiently turbulent into and

do not

a significant

diffusion account

flame model,

of turbulence fractions.

on combustion This time. implies The

by relating can coexist

the fluctuations in the same place

of mass but

oxidizer way

at a different

convenient

to include

the effect

of turbulent

eddies density and

on thermochemical function(pdf), P(_,

properxi). This

ties is via the introduction function mixture equations. convoluting contains fraction. The information These

of the probability of both mean(f)

variance

of (g = (f - 7) 2) of the by solving the transport by

variables

f and mean with

g can be obtained values(C)

density-weighted functions

of any property density

axe evaluated P(_, xi):

the property

a probability

fuction,

= f Numerous study detailed delta pdf probability the/3 density pdf which pdf functions

(_)P(_,xi)d_ axe available in the literatures. applicable one

(2.9) The present [11,12]. double The -

adopts

is known

as the widely

numerics procedures

of the/3

axe well described

in Appendix

B. The

are also implemented breakup model[14]

in the program. is optionally rate incorporated is determined in the present as follows: reaction In an is

A modified computer irreversible given by code.

eddy Using

this model, chemical

the reaction the

sigle-step

reaction,

mixing-controlled

rate[14]

Rmi_ where A is a model mass the constant;

= Ap kmin(Yi,

_- ) oxidant/fuel To account The ratio; for the

(2.10) Y! and

s is the

stoichiometric the oxidizer.

Yo axe the delay reaction time,

fraction chemical

of the fuel and kinetics need

ignition

to be considered. Arrhenius 7

chemically

controlled

rate,

Rch_, is given by the usual

formula[15].

pYf a PYo)be(-,fi,)
Rch, The reaction rate, Rfu = A( Wf ) ( from either slower. of the mixing rates is determined rate,

(2.11)
of the reactants

or the chemical

reaction

whichever

R D, = rnin(R,,,iz, For simple one-step reaction of the hydrocarbon-air composition. the remaining Once species

Rc^_ ) mixtures, fractions there

(2.12) axe five species

participating have been

the mixture determined, relations Lagrangian

the mass can C.

of fuel and oxdizer determined from the

be easily

stoichiometric 2.2 2.2.1 Basic

described Equations Equations

in Appendix

Droplet-Phase In this study,

the spray frame. large This

is described is essentially

by a discrete a statistical

particle approach

method

formulated track-

on a Lagrangian ing a sufficiently represents

and requires Each

number

of computational having for these dxi dt

particles. equal are : location,

computational size, and

particle

a number

of droplets equations

velocity,

temperature,

The governing

- vi
t_i ! -- Vi

(2.13)

dpdvi

ui

dt

ri
m

+ Fbi

(2.14)

drp dt and
dTd

m,u
4_rrp2 pd

(2.15)

QL

-'_ In equation and (2.14), Fbi force. represents the

= mpCp,d body force terms time such as the gravity as:

(2.16) force

the centrifugal

The particle
r '-1 ' =

relaxation
+ tti'

ri can expresses

3P--_-CDtlli 8 rp

-- Vi I

(2.17)

Cv

is the drag

coefficient

given 24

by 1 + _Repl); 0.424; for for Rep Rep > 1000 < 1000 (2.18)

Cz) = _ep(1 and In which

Re v = lu, + u/ # In equation [16,17] m, In equation the droplet, (2.16), is found = 27rdp(pD)(1 + 0.3Re_ (2.15), the droplet evaporation

- v, lpdp is given by the Frossling

(2.19) correlation

rate

Scd _ )/n(1

+ B,,,) to be constant

(2.20) within

the droplet by using

temperature, the heat

which QL

is assumed :

energy

QL - 47rrp2Qc
j

- mevL and Qc is the heat conduction

(2.21)
rate to

where

L is the latent surface

heat

of vaporization, area. Qc is given 1

+

the droplet

per unit

by the _,,
_ z'rd

Ranz-MarshaU l,/n(l+B,,)
) B-m

correlation

Qc =
The Schmidt as number,

2K(T-Td)(
dp

,.,,,,
u.o.,t.ep

(2.22)

Prandtl

number

and

mass

transfer

number

are defined

re-

spectively

Scd -and B,, The highly values

la pD'

Prd

= pCp K

= Y' - Y_ l-Y,' properties

1_

= P_.L p of gas such as K,

(2.23) Cp, D etc. at which equal they are are

of thermodynamical on the temperature rule" [18] that

dependent

and fuel vapor utilizes

mass

fraction

evaluated. droplet gas and reference

A "one-third surface droplet value temperature surface

a reference

temperature between procedure

to the

plus one-third temperature

of the difference The same in which

the surrounding is applied from (2.24) to the

is used. mass

for the fuel vapor

fraction,

Y, is obtained

P W_ -l Y, = [1 + ("x- - 1),--;7-,1 1% 9

Here

Y, and Pr are and Wf

the mass

fraction

and the fuel vapor weights

pressure

at the droplet respectively. The two-phase in Ap-

surface,

and IV. axe the molecular from

of fuel and mixture, data bank [19].

For a given interaction pendix

Td, P,, is estimated source terms

the JANAF governing

in the gas-phase distribution models

equations

are described

A. The C.

droplet

for the dilute

sprays

are also described

in Appendix In case with same

of the

droplet

passage

through

the

plane

of symmetry, but

the

droplet image

instantaneous is injected

properties

and physical

dimensions,

the mirror

velocity

vector,

into the flowfield. back with

On impingement momentum[10].

on a wall,

the droplets

are assumed 2.2.2

to bounce

the reduced

Turbulence/Droplet In this study, the spray frame.

Interactions is described by a discrete particle method we follow formulated the concept computais calcufor each

on a Lagrangian of [7] of combining

".,,_/

To account

for turbulence probability of each scheme.

dispersion, distribution

a normal

(Gaussian)

for each paiticle equation

tional lated

particle.

The instantaneous Lagrangian is

dPk

location tracking

computational The governing

by a stochastic particle

computational

uk

Vk

dt dxk -dt with 3 I.k-1 =8pp p The location particle's calculated by the above

rk
_-Pk

+ F6k

(2.25)
(2.26)

CDIuk-

dv

Vk[

(2.27) the mean parcel of each pdf has

equations The

only represents variance the

corresponding and

probability the combined dispersion particle

function. pdfs then

of each statistical

to be calculated of particles pdf due and k.../ with to the

represent To estimate the

distribution of the parcel displacement

turbulent turbulent

effects. dispersion,

the variance

turbulence-induced and (2.26):

velocity

can be splitted

from equations
dvtk

(2.25)
u'k -- Vtk

-dt

rk 10

(2.2S)

dz'_ dt With chosen the isotropic a Gaussian turbulence distribution assumption, with each component deviation within (2.28)

(2.29) of u'k is randomly u'kr,,,, = _/]k. which to update We is

from

standard

first choose/Ntki smaller particle than

as the time

step of the ita interaction and integrate and velocities. equations

the k th eddy, and (2.29)

the eddy

lifetime,

fluctuating

locations

(2.30)
Vtki = Utkrrns + (Vtk(i_l) _ Utkrms)e'_(i-t)

(2.31) with the k th eddy,

We then

sum

up the m steps

for which
Irtl

the particle

fully interact

E
i=!

Atti = Ark

(2.32)

The

change

of variance

of a computational mean squared

particle dispersion
rn 2

pdf

within

the

k th eddy

is

represented

by a characteristic

in the form:

ak 2 = ak-i

2 + (_
i=1

z'ki)

(2.33)

In equation the interaction is fixed, domain, in [24].

(2.33),ak-1 within

is the existing the k th eddy. of interaction

variance

of the particle step within m, varies issues

pdf at the begining each turbluent across

of

Since the time within and this the eddy,

eddy

the number the choice Figure procedure

the calculation in detail The For

of time

step/_tki

the related interaction requires to store

are discussed the

2.1 well describes is easy particle, implemented from particle In their errors the pdf recent

eddy and

with

particles. memory.

present each

to program we just in the method

less x'ki,

computer u'k,._s,v'ki,

computational when different of each

need

and aj, 2. This method is

procedure somewhat variance time and

current

time-marching

numerical

of [7] in which over the

the calculation entire history

of the current of the effective

is summed study,

constants. the associated

truncation

of unnecessary

time

history efflcency

terms was

was discussed

and additional

computational

obtained[35]. 11

When convoluting pdf for a group

of eq.(2.33) normalized must particle be normalized variance according

of computational to the as auk total

particles, number

the

variances The

of particles.

can be written

ayk = K_ Here, the a correction

(2.34)

represents factor

the statistical to account When

uncertainty for undersampling,

in the mean and reflective Nt

particle

position, number

K is of exist

is the total

computational in the calculation

particles. domain, from

symmetry

and

boundary at any point

condition

a cumulative the particle

pdf distribution to the

in coordinate may be

y, y is the distance defined as:

axis or the reflective

boundary,

P(y) Here, the yp is the instantaneous symmetric cumulative P(v)

= location

y v/_byke of computational function takes

dy particles. the form, y + yp )]

(2.35) After integration,

distribution = 0.5[err(

y - yp ) + err(

(2.36)

where

erf( ) =
In accordance sitions with the approach particles

fo z and Jeng[7], when the mean tracking(uk poin

of Litchford

of computational

is calculated this

by the deterrainistic approach For is described tracking

Eqs.(2.25)-(2.27) ministic Sampling instantaneous width dispersion

is the mean width

gas velocity),

as the deterstochastic is the

transport(DDWT) velocity the approach

model. fluctuations(uk is described

using

of gas-phase gas

turbulent

in Eqs.(2.25)-(2.27)

velocity),

as a stochasticdispersion

transport(SDWT) In the point delta

model. function by SSF model, Carlo of u'k the method turbulence effects that on droplet dis-

persion velocity tribution

are u'k,

simulated where

a Monte

in the sense chosen

a fluctuating disThus

each component deviation

is randomly

from a Gaussian gas velocity.

with

standard

, is added 12

to the mean

the turbulence
dispersion cally

is assumed

to be isotropic. extensively flows. turbulence of a particle

This

type

of simulation

for the turbulent for statisti-

of droplets turbulent used

has been

used Main

previously differences properties

[20,21,22]

stationary

dispersed to specify

in the implementations and the methods The details for of

axe the methods choosing simulation times the time

eddy

of interaction and in Ref.

with a particular associated

eddy. within

procedures

also of various [11,38].

aspects

the interaction

can be found

2.2.3

Drop The

Breakup study

and

Collision the TAB This and (Taylor model Analog" Breakup) model between force proan of

present

employs

posed

by O'Rourke

and Amsden[9]. droplet

is based

on an analogy The

oscillating the spring is analogous

and distorting is analogous

a spring-mass tension force. forces.

system. The

restoring

to the suface

external forces

force on the mass due to liquid the TAB an easy viscosmodel introand

to the gas aerodynamic to this analogy. in terms

The damping to Reitz's to input

ity axe introduced has several duction oscillation The major

Compared of no need and

model[34], angle,

advantages

the spray informations of mass,

of liquid effects

viscosity

effects,

the explicit rates is that

of distortion

on the interphase of the TAB in reality good there

exchange method exist

momentum,

and energy. mode can be De-

limitation

only

one oscillation in the Taylor results The

tracked. spite

However,

many between

such modes numerical reported.

analogy.

this limitation, bag/stripping calculations which

agreement times

and experimentally droplet oscillation &

observed breakup lation) distortion and

breakup require

has been

two normalized

particle

arrays(deformation

and oscilof the droplet radius(SMR), and from a drop

can be determined Occurance for the radius with

by the equation of droplet product

for the acceleration the Sauter on these mean

parameter. velocity The

breakup, depend drops

oscillation number.

drop

two parameters randomly the product

Weber

of the product calculated the parent

is then

chosen breakup,

chi-squared has the same parameters The collision

distribution temperature

$MR. drop,

Following

with

and its deformation

and oscillating

are set to zero. drop collision model among suggested by O'Rourke[8] liquid phase. is employed The collision to calculate routine is

and coalescence

the dispersed 13

operatinging forthe pairof particles if, and only if,they are in the same computationalcell.For the collision calculation, the drops associated with each computation parcel axe considered to be uniformly distributedthroughout the computational cell where they are located. For allparcelsin each computational cell, a collision frequency between drops between the parcel(parcell ) of largerdrop radius(rl ) and the parcel(parcel2)of smallerdrop radius(r2)isobtained from the relationship in terms of the number ofdrops in parcel2,the relative velocitybetween parcell and parcel2,

the area based on rl + r2,and the volume of computational cell.The probability with n collisions is assumed to follow a Poisson distributionbased on a collision frequency and the computational time step. Using the probabilityinformations, the collision impact parameters are stochastically calculated.Ifthe collision impact parameter is lessthan a critical impact parameter, the outcome of every collision

is coalescence. In opposite case, each collision is a grazing collision. The critical impact parameter depends on the drop radii,the relativevelocitybetween drops, and the liquidsurfacetension coefficient.

3.

NUMERICAL

MODEL

AND

BOUNDARY

CONDITIONS

The present method isbased on the operator splitting technique[23]attempting to reach accurate transientsolutionafter prescribed predictor- correctorsteps for each time-marching step. The previous multiple pressure-correction method[t1.27] isextended to to handle the strong nonlinear couplings arisingin the multi-phase, fast-transient, and reacting flows. This method is non-iterativeand applicableto

all-speedflows. The additionalscalarconservation equations such as species, and enery are incorporated intothe same predictor-corrector sequence. Discretization of the gas phase governing equation uses the finite volume approach. To enhance the numerical stability, the implicit Euler scheme isemployed in differencing the temporaldomain. Allthe dependent and independent variablesare stored at thesame grid location and the variablesat the finite controlvolume boundaries are interpolated between adjacent grid points.The discretizations have been performed on a general non-orthogonal curvilinearcoordinatesystem with a second order upwind scheme for convection resulting terms and the central differencing scheme for diffusion gadient terms. solver. The In

discretized

equations

were solved 14

by a conjugate

(CGS)

the present algorithm, each time step is divided

sequence. same time The strong splitting coupling technique. to avoid is somewhat in which terms Implicit the small different global between

into particle

a one-predictor/two-corrector and gas are evaluated are used solution PSIC(particle The method to treat by the mo-

coupling times_eps. from the

procedures The unsteady

mentum described

exchanges above

procedure source used here

conventional are required.

in cell) procedure[25] is non-iterative To improve spray-combusting expressed

iterations

and time-accurate. the convergence and the numerical equations stability for the fast transient are

flows, all transport form.

except

the continuity

equation

in the advective

pn+l

- p,_

. u,),_+l

(3.1)

pn

-SiC
By using corrector operator-splitting method, the transport as follows: equations with procedure step can be discretized

(3.2) the predictor-

In) Predictor Momentum(u'):

(3.3)
Scalar('):
pA (-_-Bo)C*=J'_(*)+Sq, Here, the operators scheme terms. ,_ . +S_,,t+ p. ,, A--"_ from the third-order scheme reacting (3.4) upwind

Ao, Bo, H, and J are constructed terms and the central stability resulting

for the convection To improve

differencing

for the diffusion flows, Ao and Bo

the numerical matrix

in multi-phase from reaction

may include nonlinear multi-phase

the coefficient source terms

the implicit rates,

treatment

of the strong terms and

such as chemical source terms.

turbulence S_,,

source

interaction

The 15

quantities

S",,,.t, Son , and

S_,.'_ t are

determined from the existing flow fields. The general scalar dependent variables, may represent the enery, the mass fraction, and the turbulent transport quantities. In this stage, the velocity field(u_) does not satisfy the continuity equation. The temperature T is calculated
predictor step. step ): , p, p) are sought to satisfy the continuity equation: from the flowfield(energy, species,momentum) at the

(b) FirstCorrector Momentum(u* A new

flowfleld(u

_(p" - p") + zx_(p'u_')= S_,,l

and the discretized 1 (At Continuity
1 ,

(3.5)

momentum

equations

axe: _ + p"u'_ At (3.6)

A_", ,_ .. -._)p u i = n"(uT) (3.5) can be rewritten

- Aip as:

+ S"_' + S.,,t ,,

equation

_--_.(p - p") + A,[p"(u_" Subtracting Eq.(3.3) from

- u_')] + Ai[(p" Eq.(3.6) gives

- p")u;']

= -,...ki(p"u;) correction

+ S_,t

(3.7)

the velocity

equation.

p"(,,," - ,,_ ) = -p"ou "[,_,(p"- p")]

Here, Du" Equations Thus, (3.7) and (3.8) p" = (-_ - A:) to derive
-1

(3.s)

axe now used of Eq.(3.8)

the pressure into

correction Eq.(3.7)

equation. yields

taking

the divergence

and substituting

1
[ AtRT -A,(p"u:) Equation culated (3.9) from + S_,t + Ai(_)

47
- A,(p"Du"A,)](p - p") = (3.9) 1 1 pn 1 + ( RT------Z - RT-----:).-_ + A,[( RT" for the corrected 1 )p"u'] RT

can be solved

the equation

of state.

pressure, p'. The density(p*) is cal. The _elocltms(u, ) are computed from Eq.(3.8).
I10

16

Scalar("):
These update new the flowfield(u_*,#') B coefficient. satisfying the continuity equation (3.5) are used to

([
The temperature T*"

- B;)'" = j'(') + s; + s_,t+ -STis calculated from the corrected

(3.10) flowfield(eneKy',

species,momentum). (c) Second Corrector step

Momentum(u*'*): A new flowfield(u**', p'*, p")

. O.

axe sought

to satisfy

the continuity

equation:

_(p
Subtracting Eq.(3.5) from

- p") +/k;(p"u,") = s:,t

yields

(3.11)

Eq.(3.11)

,....z

(,,,** - ,o*) + _,[p*(u'** - ,.,;")]+/k,[(p'* - f)u;'*'] = o

The discretized p,, ( -_ Subtracting
I1 $111

(3.12)

momentum

equations

are: (3.13)

- AO)u,'" from

= g*(u;*) Eq.(3.13)

-/kip" yields

+ S_, + S'_,,, + p"u__....._ At

Eq.(3.6)

Ui

- u_" = Du'[(A**

- A'_)u_"

+ H'(u_')-

H"(uT)

] - Du'[A,(p'"

-p')]

(3.14)

Here,
pn 1

Du" By obtained: substituting Eq.(3.14) into

=(_--_

- A:)the corrected pressure equation is

Eq.(3.12),

1 u_ [AtRT "'' + A_( RT"" A,[p'Du'[(A"

--Ai(p'Du'A')](P'-P')= + H'(u_ ) - H'(u_)]]

o - A'_)u_" 17

1 +( RT"
Using of state. the corrected The

1 )_ v" + A,[( RT" 1 RT'"

the density(p") from

1 )p'u'] RT'"
is obtained from the

(3.15)
equation

pressure(p"), ')

velocities(u_

are computed

Eq.(3.15).

Scalar('"):
These update new flowfield(u_",p") the B coefficient. p'= . p_" satisb'ing the continuity equation (3.11) are used to

(_
The temperature

- ,;')""
T"" The is updated

= j"(")
calculated

+ s;" + s_.t + ,z----T

from the p",u,", step(n+l). updated T'", This and

(3.16)

flowfield(energy, *") are taken the se-

species,momentum). to represent quence

_.,.Y

flowfield(p", next time

the field

values

at the

completes

in the solution

of the equation

over the time-step. the left hand involve nature side of the corrected a convection term flows, PISO treatment preswhich and en-

In the present sure can ables does equations properly capturing not include

pressure-based in Eq.(3.9) account waves. convective

method, and

written takes into

Eq.(3.15)

the hyperbolic A recently term Compare consistent

of supersonic

shock this

developed

non-iterative

method[39] of density method[27],

due to the inconsistent to our previous discretization reacting

in the momentum this new method suitable

equations. allows for the the

pressure-based of continuity

equation For the

and steady

is more state

fast-transient procedure

flow at all speeds. by freezing

calculations, Bo).

the present

can be simplified

the coefficient

matrix(Ao, For ified. vertical

the subsonic axial

inlet

boundary, components

the entropy are obtained

and

the

total

pressure

are specand to vanish the at

The

velocity components

by the the

extrapolation vorticity

velocity

are determined At symmetry,

by enforcing

the upstream and the radial

boundary. velocity

the normal

grdients

of all scalar outlet,

variables

component from

are zero. the interior.

At the supersonic The

all dependent to be adiabatic.

variables

are extrapolated

wall was assumed

4.

RESULTS

AND 18

DISCUSSIONS

To evaluate
the stochastic performed particle dense 4.1

the

present

dispersion

width

transport interactions,

model

and

to calibrate were and a

simulation

of particle-turbulence dispersion

the computations turbulence cases

for the solid particle laden round models

in nearly-homogeneous turbulence. evaporating, The

jet in inhomogeneous include non-evaporating, Dispersion

validation and burning

for the

spray Turbulent

sprays.

Particle

4.1.1

Nearly-Homogeneous The particle dispersion turbulent Particle lifetime time

Turbulent experimental

Dispersion setup of Snyder and Lumley [28] in a PDF

grid-generated transport in which grass)

flow was used densities controls and

for evaluating sizes are chosen times times from

the present to examine (46.5 #m

dispersion

model. the eddy

the phenomena diameter pollen), to eddy hollowor the life time

interaction interaction transition fluid

, the transit

controls

(87.0

prn corn time

controlling-interaction (87.0 scale #rn solid glass).

times

undergo

transit

In this

experiment, The

turbulence calculations

intensities were started

and length at the exmesh). The For

information particle velocity function

were measured. injection was assumed point

particle

perimental particle the delta to calculate DDWT

of x/m

= 20 (m is a 2.54-cm-square fluid velocity

equal

to the mean 5,000

of 6.55 m/sec.

SSF computations, mean squared parcel the mean the related

computational with

particles respect trajectory

were sampled For the

the resulting

dispersion

to time.

computations,

a single

in a deterministic squared dispersion

along the centerthe variance

line was sampled of the parcel Figure with respect PDF

to evaluate by using

representing

parameters

for each eddy and measured agreement

interaction. particle dispersion

4.1 shows to time.

comparison The DDWT

of the predicted results show good Both models numerical parcel

with the SSF results agreement the DDWT

for light, with model the

medium,

and heavy data.

particles. These

also show favourable indicate the that

experimental a single

results

with

computational

following and

deterministic prediction

trajectory capability for

demonstrates this 4.1.2

the efficiency,

the accuracy, flow.

the overall

nearly-homogeneous Inhomogeneous

turbulent Turbulent

Dispersion 19

The next example problem is a particle laden round jet[29] in which the turbulence is inherently inhomogeneous. The turbulent gas-phasetransport properties are provided by using the k-e
tration profiles of the delta parcels, 10,000 the 200 computational axial tions. locations. Using model. function at various ate Figures SSF 4.2 and 4.3 show the particle and the SDWT model and SSF concen-

model

for 50 and at several computaof slight here as a

levels sampled SSF

of the

correction delta there

factor, function

particles

for the model,

10,000 particles However

in the

is still evidence and is taken

undersampling. good shown approximation in Figure

the distribution

is relatively profile. The

smooth 50 parcel

to the theoretical 4.2 is very sensitive

case of SDWT factor

model

to the level of the correction By increasing increase

especially factor, K the

for upstream in eq.(13), profile

regions

due to undersampling. level in the mean

the correction

the uncertainty

the dispersion factor case(K=0)

and smooth

considerably. function

In Figure

4.3, the zero correction 200 computational samples of SDWT there

corresponds The computed oscilla-

to the delta profile tory

SSF case using

particles. irregular shown and

of the SSF distribution.

case for 200 particle The 200 parcel factor In Figure with results case since

is very model

shows

in Figure in the mean 200 parcels 10,000

4.3 is less because and K=4

sensitive

to the correction sampling.

is less uncertainty results with

of increased shows

4.4, the the delta clearly

SDWT function indicated

favourable These

agreement numerical

SSF with that

computational model turbulent has the flows

particles. capability with 4.2

the SDWT

of accuratly efficiency Spray present

representing

dispersion function

in inhomogeneous SSF model.

improved Dilute The

over the delta Flows

Combusting numerical model

for the multi-phase the local flows[36,37]. Spray Flames

turbulent

reacting

flows has

been

tested

by applying

it to predict

flow properties

in two axisymmetric,

confined, 4.2.1

swirling

spray-combusting Kerosene geometry axial et.

Hollow-Cone The combustor

of the first test and tangential The 2O

case is shown velocity inlet

in Fig.

4.5.

Experimenobtained droplet

tal from

data

for temperature,

components

were

measurement

of Khalil

a1.[36].

conditions

and the initial

size distribution air/fuel mass ratio

are given

in Table

1.

Liquid

kerosene

was

used

as fuel arid the

was fixed at 20.17. study, influence show vectors, two swirling of swirl numbers(S=0.72 and evaporation such 1.98) were considered characdroplet In the recircu-

In the present to investigate teristics. trajectories, lower lation swirl swirl zone Fig. the

on the droplet flow pattern

& burning

4.6-4.8 velocity

the general and

as the predicted of two swirl cases.

temperature

contours

case(S=0.72), and continue

large

portion

of droplets

survive

in the

central

to evaporate droplets

in the far downstream are trapped and high

region.

In the high zone and region.

case(S=l.98), there,

most of small producing swirl,

in the recirculation temperature

evaporate With

intensive

burning

in this

increasing

the droplet centrifugal

spreading

increases

due to the droplet the larger

dispersion central re-

and the increased circulation more inlet zone

particle

force term. inlet

In addition, swirl

corresponding

to the higher

is contributed

to recirculate at near

hot combustion regions. The predicted

gas from downstream

and to increase

the temperature

and measured 4.10. The

temperature

profiles

for two swirl in near-wall process.

cases are shown regions mainly the and

in Fig. result

4.9 and from the

siginificant

discrepancies

uncertainties locations

of droplet/wall are associated

impingement with

However,

deviations combustion

in other models, and

the deficiencies of the inlet swirl profiles

of turbulence

the unreliable the potential that

informations errors the in inlet

droplet and of the

size & velocinlet high turbulence swirl case

ity distribution, length scale.

It is observed than those

temperature

profiles Radial

are more velocity ical

uniform for S=0.72

of the low swirl case. in Fig. of the model is partly The

profiles 4.12. flow the The

of axial present

velocity numerThe poor recirof k - e

and 1.98 are shown the magnitude

4.11 and reverse

model

underpredicts of the present and

velocities.

performance culation model

_,..j

numerical velocity

in predicting attributed predicted

size of central

zone based

the reverse

to the deficiency and measured 4.14. The

on the isotropic swirl cases

assumption. are presented is likely study, caused

tangential significant of inlet from the

velocities deviation swirl

for two close

in Fig. by the

4.13 and incorrect velocities

to the inlet In the present

distribution areobtained

velocities.

the inlet swirl 21

estimated to the

axial solid

angular

momentum close velocities.

flux. to the

The rapid decay centerline could

of the tangential be tied with the

velocity errors in

body

rotation

the prediction 4.2.2 Spray Fig. izer[37] monosized conditions The

of reverse Flame 4.15 shows

with the

a Rotatlng-Cup liquid-fueled

Atomizer combustor with a rotating spray. This cup small atomnearinitial process.

which

is capable

of producing

a near-monodisperse accurate representation

spray

allows the relatively

of the

droplet

and eliminates inlet

the uncertainties conditions were estimated was used

in the droplet/wall and the droplet

impingement intial

gas-phase

boundary

conditions(droplet of E1-Banhawy mass ratio and was

size & velocity Whitelaw[37]. fixed tion

i

distributions) Liquid

from as fuel

measurement and were the

kerosene

fuel/air out

at 0.0228. with

In present

study,

computaions and the are the

carried diameter(rk

for a test = 47/am). inlet with

condiSince and

the swirl

number(S=1.2) data provided there

droplet

X,.J

the

experimental injector profiles,

limited some

informations potential errors

for gas-phase associated size and

droplet let test swirl

conditions,

the inIn this

and the initial droplet between might

distributions

for droplet change location in the

velocity.

case with

small distance

size, considerable the injection

in droplet and

velocity

can occur station; specificaspecified

in the short therefore, tions. with

the measurement initial velocity were and

some error

be introduced data, 47pro,

droplet

Based

on the experimental droplets(

the droplet

size distributions flow rate)

the near-monosized droplets (24/_rn, droplet

70 % fuel mass flow rate). vectors, that zone, two and and

the smaller

satellite The shown

30 % fuel mass trajectories,

predicted in Figure

velocity

temperature

conturs regions region

are exist

4.16-4.18. around

It is observed the recirculation zone

high-temperature the main flame

in the shear the central indicate smaller ical that

layer

around results of

recirculation these

and downstream regions rate, show

of the fuel spray. are characterized turbulent and (C02)

Numerical by the mixing

high-temperature

trapping and

droplets,

high evaporation Figure mass The 4.19-4.21 fractions numerical

and intensive the predicted dioxide shows 22 the

chemprofiles at four

reaction.

measured and

radial

of temperature, axial locations.

of carbon results

oxygen(O2) agreement

qualitative

with

the

--,_j

experimental perature close fication and

data.

However,

quantitative chemical

differences

exist The

in the sigificant

profiles

of tem-

corresponding

concentrations. are mainly

discrepancies speciby the and In

to the

inlet(X/D=0.254,0.510) velocity model, profile, and the

attributed turbulent

to the incorrect mixing species fast predicted such

of swirl

the insuitlcient neglect with C02

k - e turbulence carbon these

of intermediate the single-step fractions 10%) of C02,

as soot model.

monoxide(CO) regions,

associated

chemistry

the overpredicted high high the CO heat mass

mass

can be partly observed the

explained

by the Due are

existence to the

of the relatively

fractions(" rate

in measurement. temperatures regions(X/D=2.9)

release

calculated

much

higher

than flame,

measured

values. between

At the far downstream the calculated

of the spray values

the differences to around 100 K.

and measured

temperature

decreases

4.3

Dense

Spray

4.3.1

Non-Evaporating The solid-cone the present spray

Solid-Cone measurements dense

Spray of Hiroyasu spray above. model Liquid and which Kadato[30] includes were coUison, through Spray tip used to

validate cence, hole tion test

numerical models

coalesa single penetraThe

and breakup nozzle

described pressure,

fuel is injected nitrogen.

into constant

room-temperature from 2 (SMD The photographs is the average diameter fuel(the

and drop conditions

sizes were measured are given in Table of the nozzle). tetradecane

of the backUghted over the spray

spray.

cross-section

65 mm downstream computations oil with used

nozzle

was 0.3 mm and the present experiments used a diesel fuel

for the liquid close

physical

properties domain and

to tetradecane). in radius and 120 mm in length was diswith

A computational cretized refinement radially grid ",,,..j and by a 25 radial

of 20 mm 45 axial and grid.

The mesh

spacing The

was nonuniform smallest

on the centerline 1.5 mm axially.

close this

to the injector. dense to obtain spray

cell is 0.5 mm to the The

Since

calculation

is sensitive solution.

resolution,

the fine grid was parcels was varied

used

a grid-independent conditions pressure.

number 1500,

of computational and the number

at steady-state with the 23 back

was between The present

1000 and numerical

resultsdid not change appreciably when turbulent quantitieswere assumed

thisparcel number

was varied. The initial

as the small values(k = I x I0-3rn2/82,_ = 4 x

10-4rn2/s3). The numerical resultswere insensitive to these initial values. The spray parcel distributionfor three sprays is shown in Figure 4.22. This

plot indicatesthat the spray tip penetration and the core length decrease with the increase of the gas density.Figure 4.23 shows the predicted and measured spray tip penetration versus time. It can be seen that there is reasonably good agreement between the predictionand the measurement . In the present computations, the

spray tip was defined to be the location of the leading spray drop parcel. It is necessary to note that a far-field spray penetration is not a sensitiveindicatorof model performance. Previous studies[26,31] indicated that a far-field spray penetration is mostly influencedby the turbulence difr-usivity. However, a near-field spray penetration could be more sensitive to the physicalsubmodels such as breakup and collision.Figure 4.24 shows the variationof SMD injector. The three soliddata at 65 mm computed with axial distance from the The

correspond to the measurements.

drop sizeisa time average over the spray cross-section at each axiallo-

cation. At the nozzle exit,the drop diameter is equal to the nozzle diameter, 0.3 ram. Generally these curves can be broken into two sections.Close to the injector, the drop sizedecreasesrapidlydue to drop breakup. Further downstream, the drop size increasesgradually due to drop coalescence. In the low gas pressure case(1. I MPa), the drop sizeremains relatively uniform afterinitial breakup region and then

increasesslightly in the far-downstream region.For the high pressure cases(3.0and 5.0 MPa), the drop sizeincreaseslargelyin far-downstream region,because higher gas densitiespromote collisions and coalescence.This trend is alsoobserved in the measuments. The predicted drop sizesat 65 mm axe qualitatively agreed with the

experimental data for all three cases. The discrepancy could be associated to the fact that the experimental sprays were pulsed while the computations assumed a constant pressure injectionforthe entirecomputational time period.

4.3.2 Non-Evaporating k_j

Hollow-Cone

Spray

The hollow-cone spray tippenetration data of Shearer and Groff[32] have been used forthe model validation. In the experiment, the liquidisinjectedintoquiescent 24

room-temperature 2.Sps spray pulses, and about cone each angle

nitrogen 2000 spray

at P = parcels

550kPa.

The

numerical

timestep

is used

as

are used in the computation. the ms. flow The rate 0.0165 computational measured condition

The experimental with velocity four are

is 60 degrees, about

and 0.58

mL/injection injection

of duration

set to the experimental in the early stage Figure the predicted indicate spray indicate tip toward

spray tip velocity(60m/8) The parcel test

from the movie in Table 3.

pictures

of the injection. the spray spray

is listed

2.25 shows

distribution

and the velcocity versus time.

vectors,

and

and measured

tip penetration small

The numerical

results

that turbulence because radial

has a relatively

effect on penetration is dominant.

in a hollow-cone vectors

spreading

due to inertia near

The gas velocity which

the presence the outside

of a vortex of spray.

the head

of the spray, region

curls the spray flow in the and spray In Figure

A substantial

of strong These

inward

center shapes 2.26,

of the cone near the injector compared the predictions quite favorably

was also observed. with agree the experimental with

flow patterns

observations[32]. spray

reasonably

the experimental

tip penetration.

4.3.3

Evaporating The evaporating

and

Burning

Solid-Cone spray

Spray measurement dense nozzle into of Yokoda spray model. et. al. [33] Liquid highsprays domain and 44 and conditurbulent as

and buring validate the

solid-cone present a sigle

have

been

used

to

numerical hole

fuel(tridecaue) temperature are given of 20 mm axial close tions grid.

is injected nitrogen

through

high-pressure, and burning

or air. The test nozzle 100 mm

conditions

for evaporating

in Table in radius

4. The and

diameter in length

was 0.16 mm. was discretized with

A computational by a 21 radial

The mesh

spacing The

was nonuniform

refinement parcels reasons,

on the centerline at steady-state the initial

to the injector. was between

number

of computational Due to the numerical values.

500 and 700.

quantities a solid

were assumed wall, and other 2.27 shows

as the small boundary the spray

The upstream

boundary

is treated

are treated parcel

as open boundaries. and the contours the spray however of the fuel

Figure mass tion tration fraction increase

distribution These results period

for evaporating with respect

sprays. to time

show that of injection,

penetrathe penethough

at early

become

nearly

constant

after

t = 0.2ms 25

due to evaporation.

Even

the

liquid

drop with

does respect

not penetrate to time.

more,

the evaporated

fuel vapor and

continuously experimental spray penetra-

penetrate spray

Comparisons

of the computed 2.28.

penetration agrees

versus time are shown well with

in Figure

The present Figure

tion distance the spray and oxygen

the measured the contours

results[33]. of the

2.29 and 2.30 shows temperature, sprays. The with

parcel mass

distribution, fraction

fuel mass

fraction,

at different of a burning

times spray study,

of injection flame has the

for burning overall

computed the measure served is high near due

configuration ones.

agreement

In the experimental tip where

a considerable ratio

level of soot was obthe temperature should dense local

the spray

the equivalence mixing.

is low and

to the progressed to improve Future studies

turbulent the prediction may include

Therefore,

the soot model burning with the

be incorporated spray model.

capability the detailed

of the present comparison

properties

available

in the experiment. 5. CONCLUSIONS

The numerical spray-combusting sions are drawn

models flows. in general:

have From

been

developed

for the analysis studies,

of dilute

and dense conclu-

the present

numerical

the following

1. Present fully

implementation

of the dispersion of accuratly turbulent

width

transport

model dispersion

has successin nearlyover

demonstrated

the capability

representing flows with

homogeneous the delta

and in.homogeneous SSF for model. the

improved

ettlciency

function model

2. A numerical combusting data. The

prediction

of the

statistically with the predicts

stationary

spray-

flows is evaluated present numerical flows

by comparison procedure

available

experimental features experi-

correctly the

the general with

of spray-combustion mental locations, data. However,

and

yields

qualitative exist

agreement especially

quantitative regions, and

differences along the

at near-burner centerline.

at near-wall

combustion

chamber mainly

The discrepancies in the initial

k .

observed

in the results

are attributed

to uncertainties impingecombustion the strong

spray

size and velocity the single-step

distributions fast chemistry turbulence 26

and the droplet/wall employed model by the with

ment model,

interaction,

and the deficiencies

of the k-e

dealing

streamline numerical

curvature. procedure,

To improve the future

the works

prediction must include

capabilities the

of the present studies of

consistent

non-evaporating, turbulence closures,

.

evaporating, such

and burning

sprays stress

by utilizing

the non-isotropic

model

as the algebraic

model model. dense available

and the second-moment

and the multi-step

finite chemistry and

For non-evaporating, tions terms spray merical dispersion ing dense corporation models. show a reasonably of spray flame.

evaporating, good

burning with

spray

cases,

the predicresults in

agreement drop sizes,

experimental

penetration, To improve

and overall capabilities

configuration

of a burningof the nuof the burnthe in-

the prediction future model

and efficiencies

and physical width sprays,

models,

works

must

include

the extensions evaporating, and model,

transport

to non-evaporating, of supercritical refinement

the incorporation

vaporization of atomization

of soot model

and further

and breakup

6.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The and

following

recommendations spray

are intended combustion for the following efficient combusting coupling Volume

as suggestions modelling. tasks. PDF

for improvements The numerical and

extensions

of the present studies

physical

modelling

are need

Implementation phase, turbulent,

of computationally evaporating, of strong and

parcel flows. procedure

approach

for multi-

Development pressure

interphase and and

by combining method. packages

multiple

correction

procedure of equilibrium

of Fluid(VOF)

Implementation cient transient

non-equilibrium

chemitry

for effi-

reacting

flow calculations. of breakup conjunction and with coalescence multistep procedure. pressure correction

Optimization Atomization methodology. Incorporation Incorporation

and adaptation modeling in

of turbulence of wall/droplet

modulation impingement 27

effects

by droplets.

process:

Incorporation

of supercritical

vaporization

model.

The

validations

and

the applications

of the proposed cases:

spray

combustion

models

will

be consistently Benchmark sprays. Unsteady vaporization. Numerical Application Numerical

studied solution

for the following for

non-evaporating,

evaporating,

and

burning

dense

flame

propagation

in a two-dimensional

spray

with

transient

droplet

analysis

of SSME

injector spray

atomization

and combustion

process.

to bipropellant simulation

combustion. flows with supersonic droplet injection.

of combusting

Acknowledgements

The
x.._./

authors

would

like

to express

their

appreciation comments.

to Dr.

T.S.

Wang

of is

NASA/MSFC extended eUing. Alabama

for active to Mr. R.J.

participation Litchford

and critical

Acknowledgement PDF

for valuable

discussions

on the parcel

modby the

The authors

also wish to acknowledge Network through

the C/LAY CPU UAH.

time supplied

Supercomputer

28

REFERENCES

1.

Asheim,

J.P.

and

Peters,

J.E.(1989), 391-398.

"Alternative

Fuel

Spray

Behavior",

J.

Proz_ul,_ion 2. Aggarwal, ponent Nevada, 3. Sirignano, Prog. 4. Fuel

ancl Power, S.K.(1988), Spray",

5, pp. "Ignition

Behavior 26th

of a Dilute Aerospace

Vaporizing Sciences

MulticomReno,

AIAA-88-0635,

Meeting,

Jan. W.A.(1983), Comb. "Fuel Sci., Droplet Vaporization and Spray Combustion" ,

Energy

9, pp. Advances 8, pp.

291-322. in Droplet 171-201. and Combustion in Spray", Prog. EnVaporization and Combustion",

Law, C.K.(1982), Prog. Energy

"Recent Comb. Sci.,

5.

Faeth, ergy

G.M.(1987), Comb. Sci.,

"Mixing, 13, pp.

Transport

293-345. "The Formulation ASME of Combustion of Heat Models: Traa_,fer, 108, resolution pp. 633-

6.

Sirignano, compared 639.

W.A.(1986), to droplet

spacing,"

Journal

7.

Litchford, Turbulent

R.J.

and Jeng, S.M.(1991), Dispersion "Collective

"Efficient AIAA

Statistical J., 29,

Transport no. 9, pp. Liquid

Model

for

Particle P.J.(1981) National

in Sprays", Drop

1443-1451. Sprays", Los

8.

O'Rourke, Alamos

Effects

on Vaporing

Laboratory "The SAE

report

LA-9069-T. for Numerical 872089. "Calculation AIAA J., 18, of the Flow ProperCalculation of Spray

9.

O'Rourke, Droplet

P.J.(1987), Breakup",

TAB Method Paper J.M.(1980), Flames", Chen, AIAA

Technical

10.

E1 Banhawy, ties

Y., and Whitelaw, Kerosene-Spray H.M., and

of a Confined Y.M., Shang,

pp. 1503-1510. Turbulence Propulsion

11.

Kim, Effects

C.P.(1991), Paper

"l_'on-Isotropic 27th Joint

on Spray

Combustion",

91-2i96,

Conference, 12. Jones,

Sacramento,

CA, June

24-26. Flows with Variable Density and

W.P.(1980),

"Models

for Turbulent (ed.), pp. 29

Combustion", Hemisphere

in W. Kollman Publishing, London,

Prediction 379-422.

Method

for Turbulent

Flows,

13. Tuttle,
Fueled pp. 14.

J.H.,

Shishr,

R.A.,

and

Mellor,

A.M.(1976),

"Investigation Science and

of Liquid 14,

Turbulent

Diffusion

Flames",

Comb_fion

Technology,

229-241. B.F. and Hjertager, With B.H.(1977), Emphasis "On Mathematical Formation Modeling of

Magnussen, Turbulent buation",

Combustion

Special

on Soot

arid Com-

16 th Symposium C.K. and Dryer,

on Combustion, F.L.(1984), Energy

p. 719. "Chemical Kinetic Vol.10, Modelling pp. 1-57. Gerlands BeIof Hy-

15.

Westbrook, drocarbon

Combustion," N.(1938), Geophysik, "On

Prog. the

Comb,

Sci.,

16.

Frossing, trage Zur

Evaporation 170-216. "Droplet 88-0636,

of Falling

Droplets",

52, pp.

17.

Abrasnzon, bustion Reno,

B. and Sirignano(1988), calculations," AIAA Paper

vaporization 26th

model

for spray

com-

Aerospace

Science

Meeting,

Nevada. G.L. et al.(1975), InL "Droplet J. Heat and Vaporization Mass Transfer, : Effects 18, pp. of Transient 1003Table", 1008. 2nd ediand

18.

Hubbard, Vaxiable

Properties", and Prophet

19.

Stull tion,

D.tL N.W.

H.(1974),

"JANAF Chem. Ref.

Thermochemical Data, 3, 311. of Computer

Chase A.D. and

et al., J. Phys. Ioannides,

20.

Gosman, Liquid

E.(1981), AIAA

"Aspects

Simulation

of

Fueled

Combustors', Chen, Using 33, pp.

81-0323. "Modeling Lagrangian of Confined Schemes", Turbulent Int. J. FluidHea_ and

21.

Fashola, Particle Mass

A. and Flows Transfer, J.S.

C.P.(1990), Eulerian 691-700. "Structure and

22.

Shuen,

et al(1985). AIAA

of Particle-Laden 396-404. Discretized 62, pp. and

Jets

: Measurements

and

Predictions", 23. Issa, R.I.(1985),

J., 23, pp.

"Solutions J.

of the Implicitly Comp. Physics, Properties

Fluid

Flow

Equations

by Operator 24. O'Rourke, of a Model pp. 345-360.

Splitting", P.J.(1989), for Droplet

40-65. Numerical Implementation Physics, 83,

"Statistical Dispersion

M.M

in a Turbulent

Gas",

J. Comp.

3O

...........

25.

Crowe,

C.T.,

Sharma,

M.P.

and

Stock,

D.E.(1977), Eng.

"The 99, pp.

Particle 325-332.

Source

in

Cell Method 26. Chen, Method Group Numer. 27. Chen, Phase NASA 28. Snyder,

for Gas-Droplet H.M.

Flows",

J. Fluid Y.(1990),

C.P., Shang, for Spray Meeting, Meth. C.P.,

and Jiang,

"A Novel Gas-Droplet Rocket Engine CFD

Numerical Working J.

Combustion",

Eigth April

Liquid

NASA-MSFC, FIuid_, 1992.

17-19,

1990, to be appeared

in the Int.

Jiang,

Y., Kim, Transient

Y.M.,

and

Shang, Code

H.M.(1991)

"MAST

- A Multi-

All-Speed Contract W.H.

Navier-Stokes NAG8 -092, Dec.,

in Generalized

Coordinates",

Report, and Lumley,

1991 Measurements Flow", of Particle Mech., Veloc48, pp.

J.L.(1971),

"Some

ity Autocorrelation 41-71. 29. Yuu, S., Yasukouchi, Diffusion

Functions

in a Turbulent

J. Fluid

N.,

Hirosawa, Laden

Yasuo, Round

and Jet",

Jotaki, AIChE

T.(1978), Journal,

"Particle 24, No. 3,

Turbulent pp. 30.

in a Dust

509-519. H. and Kadato, T.(1974), SAE Paper "Fuel 740715. Numerical Model for Liquid Sprays", Droplet Size Distribution in Diesel

Hiroyasu, Combustion

Chamber," J.K.(1980), physics, A.J. and

31.

Du.kowicz, J. Comp.

"A Particle-Fluid 229-253.

35, pp. Groff, Sprays,"

32.

Shearer,

E.G.(1984), Proceedings

"Injection of the 1984,

System ASME pp. 33-42.

Effects Diesel

on Oscillatingand Gas Engine

Poppet-Injector Power 33. Yokota, Division

Conference,

New York,

H., Kamimoto, by an Image and Diwaker,

T., and Kobayashi, Processing R.(1987),

H.(1988), Bulletin

"A Study

of Diesel

Spray

and Flame 34. Reitz, SAE 35. R.D. Paper

Technique, "Structure

of JSME, Pressure

54, p. 741. Fuel Sprays,"

of High

870598, R.J.

1987 S.,M.(1992), Particle "On the Efficiency of a Statistical TransJ.,

Litchford, port 1992 Model

and Jeng,

for Turbulent

Dispersion,"

to be appeared

in AIAA

"x...i

36. Khalil,

K.H.,

E1-Mahallawy, Flow Pattern

F.M.,

and

Moneib,

H.A.,

"Effect

of Combustion Sixteenth

Air Swirl

on the

in a Cylindrical 31

Oil Fired

Furnace",

Symposium 135-143, 37.

on Combustion, 1977 Y. and Whitelaw, Spray and

The

Combustion

Institute,

Pittsburgh,

PA,

pp.

E1-Banhawy, Between Flame,

J.H.,

"Experimental Combustion

Stud), Air,"

of the Interaction Combustion and

a Fuel

Surrounding 1981 C.P.,

42, No. 3, pp. Y.M., Sh_ag, on Dilute

253-275, Chen,

38.

Kim,

H.M.,

Ziebarth, AIAA

J.P., Paper

and

Wang,

T.S.,

"Numer-

ical Studies Science 39. Issa, tions R.I.

and Dense Nevada.

Sprays,"

92-0223,

30th Aerospace

Meeting, et.

Reno,

a/., "Solution

of the

Implicitly Phi.

Discretized 93, pp.

Reacting 388-410,

Flow

Equa-

by Operator-Splitting,"

,7. Comp.

1991.

32

Table

1.

Gas-phase

B.C.

and

droplet-phase

I.C.

Air Mass Flow Rate Air/Fuel Ratio

355 kg/hr 20.17 310 K Rosin-Rammler 127 _m

Inlet Air Temperature Droplet Sauter Droplet Number Dlatrlbution Mean Diameter Size Range of Size Range Velocity

10 -. 290 15 11 m/s 6.1 m/s

x_../

Axial Droplet Tangential Velocity

Droplet

Radial Droplet Droplet

Velocity

0.5 ~ 2.5 m/s 310 K

Temperature

33

Table 2.

Test Conditions for the Measurement of Hiroyasu and Kadota

300 pm In}ection Pressure: 9.9 MPa

Nozzle diameter:

Case

Pgas (MPa)

Pgas (kg/m3)

Vinj (m/s)

Mini (kg/s)

SMD (_m)

1 2 3

1.1 3.0 5.0

12.36 33.70 56.17

115.80 102.54 86.41

0.00688 0.00609 0.00513

42.4 49.0 58.8

Table 3.

Test Conditions for the Measurements

of Shearer and Groff.

Pgas (kPa)

Pgas (kg/m3)

Vinj (m/s)

VOUnj (ml/inj)

Cone Angle (deg)

550

6.36

60

0.0165

60

Table 4.

Test Conditions for the Measurement

of Yokota et. al.

Case

Pinj (MPa)

Pgas (UPa)

"lamb (K)

Minj (kg/s)

Atmosphere

Evaporating Spray Burning Spray

30

3.0

900

0.00326

N2

30

3.0

900

0.00326

Air

34

J oil

Jl

J J

owmn

_J c_
Omll

r_ q_
om

lml

S.

qwml

35

_-

_ _ .._
I. @@

_m

17

[_-._ID]NOISU3dSICI

86

_ ,_lll

'_I_

tirol

L..

oj
M'O 180 I1_ _ 0OO

o_

O .'-

,.u

1_

01
ZTO

!
IOtO MO WC _lC 18 0BeL

,_m

Tm

o!

;.":

__ff

.. .'S_

!
ooc

37

// Lo

i
cl im In

o7
itgo ml_

r_ ulu

ow.i _

_'li

/
0
m olm

!
_a _0 NO _ WQ mO in

_wmml

c_

_a

"i

L.

_Dm

38

0
I.

ellUl

i MI m Iml _ m oral

03,3

9m

r.

Q m

A qP

o111 m m

I.
elm

*m-I
OC;;;Z: I_C ;|: 01: _" 00_,

_%..jJ

39

40

__v._

I'll

,f.

mu

,too io atom

m m

*m

_M

e...,

' '.,__.._ """ :.: *_ ".',_'._r%k.L

.. ',.';_ ....,....,;_..._.'_...
q,m

41

aC_ _111t111 111ttttlttt 11ttttllf _1111111 _1111111 ltt_tTtlftl 1111tttlttl !11_ttllttl _1111111 Itflftltttl fl
t111tt tttftt!

II
tt_ltt fttltt! _

Itlltt

tlflttt

ttlltt

tlttt!

11111!

IIttt_

Tttltt

Ittttt

_11111_111ttttllttl _111111111111ttlttS _It111111tltttttttt _111111111tlttttltt_ _1111|1111ttttltlttS

ttlttt

tttttt

tttttt

tttttt

ttlttt

tt

ttt

ttlltf

l!

ttt

tllfft

tt

ttt

II

tl$1tt

It

tit

_t

_1|11111111ttttlttt _11?111111ttt_tttt _111flttlltttttt_tt _1|t|tttttttftttlft _11111111ttttttttttt _|||11ttttttlttt_rt _1|11|ttftftllttttt _tlttttttftrtttft_t,,,...,.. 111_tttffffftt_t_t,.,,...

Iltttt

||

ttl

_t

|||if|

|I

ill

_l

||tilt

II

If!

tt

tttftl

IF

III

_t

_m

Fe_tffet_tele_e.,

I. ......... ..........

_J >

0
_1_ff_ttl_tr_,,,,, .................

_flfl_ll_*,

.........................

r_ftH/N,, _l////_ _/ll//.

........................... ........................... ......................

,.... ,

....;,,'"
_m

,,

"'[

Trrrz,,,

42

ao

c_ C

r,1

_L

kl

eml

/
/
/
/

kl

q_

q_ fu

_u
pm

emm

43

X " O.II

m
"1

'( "

'3.24

'_

X " 0.52

o i
/0 _ -_

/O

el"

o
f_
w

L.J _J Z

q,, O 0" 0"

0
(Ec_

0 0
O O / 0

,0
150O 2000

SOil

I000

, O, , soo _o_ is_ 2o_ TEMPERFITURE ( K }

s0o _ooo

(_ _s0o

20oo

Figure

4.9

Radial

profiles

of

mean

temperature(S=0.72)

o ..2-

X -

O.1l

o
.L-

X - 0.24

o
.L-

X "

0.52

f
o o

uO

c;-

o r_ r_

0 0 =;-

o
0

coo Z CE
crl o

3
O"

o 0

..J

0
e-t r,.- _.

0 o

o-

=;-

0 0 0 ,
20OO

50O

I{_

1500

2OO0

_OO

I0_1

150O

20OO

500

!000

50O

'EMPERATURE { K }

Figure

4.10

Radial

profiles

of

mean

temperature(S=1.98)

44

X-Oil

X "0.24

(_

X - 0.52 1
\ 0

0 0
O n."

_-

CDO Z

0
tn N o J C m O 0"

0 0 0 0

O
O" O

O
O 0

0 -I0.0

0.0

;_.o _.o -io.o o.o 20.0 2_.o -2o.o o.o

AXIAL VELOCITY{m/s)

:5

C_ [o.o

O7
1

20.0

Figure

4.11 Radial

profiles

of mean

axial

velocity(S=0.72)

X " 0. Ii m

X - 0.24 m

X " 0.52 m

,.20
q@

0
tf_ m

r._q"
J (I:

0 0

O"

0 0

t
O O O

_ 0
I

-lO.O

I0.0

30.0

-10.0

AXIAL

, o i 20.0 30.0 -zo.o VELOCITY(m/s)

:I
0 I0.0 30.0

Figure

4.12 Radial

profiles

of mean

axial

velocity(S--1.98)

45

j"

X - 0.ii

X " 0.24

- 0.52

_,

x-,,t O O

r_
w

c, _
C._o Z rr FU_
i

(_ r'_ n_ .

_
_-

//

/
i

/
10.0 211.11 0.0 10.0 20.0

/: _t/o
0.0 I0.0 20.0

0.0

TBNGENTIRL

VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure

4.13

Radial

profiles

of

mean

tangential

velocity(S--0.?2)

X - 0.II

X - 0.24

X " 0.52 \ 0

0
qD

_-

_0
lID

0 c5"

0 t I

0.0

15.0

30.0

0.0

15.0

30.0

0.0

15.0

30.0

TRNGENTIRL

VELOClT?(m/s)

Figure

4.14

Radial

profiles

of

mean

tangential

velocity(S=l.98)

46

C_ q_

47

Figure

4.16

Droplet

trajectories

in kerosene

spray

flame

fields

Figure

4.17

Velocity

vectors

in kerosene

spray

flame

fields

X--fl.23m

Figure

4.18

Temperature

contours

in kerosene

spray

flame

fields

48

II
X

O" I

8"'0

9"0

i,'O

C'O

I 0"0
r_

m m

qo

v
L_
X

O'I

8"0

9"0

_'0

_'0

0"0 c_

n_ cJ Q_

_..

_@
u

@
0"! U_
CN

8"0

9"0

_"0

C"O

0"0

,
!

OI

0 8"0 9"0 9"0 _'O ='0

!
cxl

O'I

(o_I_]T_ONWL_iO

7_IOWU

49

'!

8"0

g'O

_'0

_'0

O"

0
! I t

o
I

o _'0

( 0"0
ql I

0"!
C_ u')

8"0

9"0

_,'0

f._
P41

6..

-c_

c_
-c_
X

m_
e_

c_pJ
O'T 8'0 9"0 _'0 _'0 0"0

6
I

o
_m

n,,,
X 0

o
0'! 8'_0 9"0 _,'0 _'0 0'0

( _/_

) ]3NYLS I(] 7Y I OY_I

5O

r_

'_
ii

C_
X

0 O'I _ 8"0 9 "'0 _'0t _'0

( 0"{ @

llm

IJ
!

C_

@@ @@

x
I I

o'I
CD

9"0

0 9"0
i

aQ _'o

_'0

o'0
,r

CD

6=,

>u

@
9@

r_

=0 o'I
Ln

8"0 0

9"0

"'0

0"0
ql"

r_
X

O'I

8"0

9'0

_'0

_'0

0'0

[o_I_ )]3NUI_ I0 7W IOU;_

_J

51

0 .. ; . _-.,_aq_. .-". ".y,'.-.._ _-,:_'; ,..s: ...'_e,

" "", "F " e -o"

.._.:.v,.,;-." .,.-..;+:._,_, :+
Q

?
5.0
I I I I I

MPa

""

'

.+Q 'L

+. "lep

"

.:.."

-.,; ,-:-_o.'-

_-. " :";"_" ":"-'""i .: :.+"_r_dr_

V
.: . ,. +,"

."_" _.. I:_::': v: ,:_',., _i'l::_'l I:. l_D

_+. :-+ _. ?. .. :.'.:." .'_. _'.',lt,,_'_:'f_.. ": t',,.,;,IP1 -_ . ,...',, .... .:. _, _...._:,,.: _.,

.
.. .

; ".:'...." : .... S :.'.;_'_._r"

_ . - .., ....._ , ;; .." .,'" +_" _, .

+
I

3.0
I I I I

MPa

+..

,,

.. '
.- .

--_
. _ _

%
;._

_ ....... '.-:.... _:'J'.-.:

_" ,, + %+ ,...,...,,;..,.._.-. '. . :.,o.,

:+.'_ f.+_m.
.'."._'_li".i_

D::: ?:f.i ;-:._; "'"_ " ::;_" " '_'""#"'" -" :-'_._'_,_.'_l,.,t_'._"._,_._. ""_"_ " :":_ .'_"'"_',-. _'" ,'."_: _._".,:P"'_-.". _..-. _._._._._._._._._._w_.'t_
,-, +. +;* q,,+o'o+,'" , o, ,

1.1 MPa
I I I I T T" I .... ' ....

000

0.0_

004

008

0.08

0.10

012

Figure

4.22

Spray

parcel

distribution

in a solid-cone

spray(_

= 3.0ms)

52

ii |1

\0

8 .a

<i-.

'

/o

!i
,_,..

,=.

[. "o\ _"-... ko

Oo\
o\

,_', \o _'--, -,,o

\o

I.,

o_

f,.

"_.\.o

,,.} ,I

11 , I , _, ,, ., I , I , _" -_'_"

bO 0

OOt

Og

09

0'I,

O_

53

om

OOg

Og_

00_

0_I

00I

Og

(_ 9-3)

(]:MS

64

#"

/X
B, e..

::

::: :1 111111"1"'1

....

,,, '::1, ,,,,,...... 1.1 ....

......... .-.ii :! ii :_i" "11 "i_ii!"!"i':""

0.44
L , I , I

""

ms
,

........ o
,lee_eeeg_99e_leegv_

,," :: ::

....

:::::::::::::::
, -o

"::::::::::::::

/ X
0.88 ms
i i i I , ", ,

:::::::::::::::::::::::

............ _-7_!_l_, _...........

:::::::::2 :::::::::

::::::::
_IlllUI! II_lll

::::::",,
l_plllll Illltlll IlllIIIU lUll. Ill II II

:::::::::::::::::::: ,,:111 11,,,,":1::::: 11"11,, ,,"11,,.. .........

::::: ...... :::::::::::

_lllll

::,,1:,,

::

.....

Ii

.........

X,
........ :,.',_-III _ _-_,., ......... ......... _J_tl_.! "i_.k_ .........
........ :_-_,_J_ :: _',_ 1: .........

....... _".:.
.......

:.!!!.,.

_,, .........
__ .:. .....

"_9/I .................

...........=..._

s.

loll

I.Ss

s.,_...,

::i::::::i::ii! i....... _i ...............

1.32
Z ;

ms

::::::::'

'::::1
!

......................
i ! i ! _ i ! !

Figure

4.25

Spray

parcel

distribution

and

velocity

vectors

in

a hollow-cone

spray

i!
0

,,,
O_

O_

_I

OI

(_)

NOIVU_.__ad

56

i
--......#

57

0
O_

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,i

Om

Ion o
N_

em

o
sm

o_

L.

4
0
I I , I 0
om

tw

Og

O_

OC

O_

OI

(_) _oIv_za_aa

58

_o

"-'

eL 0 k r,_
0

t
_'0 ' IO'O ' ' (30'0 ' ' IO'O--_0"080"0 'IO_O

i
00:0 IO0- _00-

_o _o!o ooo_00-_00-

..

8o

59

.i

!!I :
[00 00'0 I0'0-80"080'0 I0'0 00'0 I0"0-80'0-800 [0:0 000 I0"_-800--

6O

APPENDIX The pressed two-phase as

A. interaction

Two-Phase source terms

NP

Interaction in the

Source governing

Terms equations can be ex-

Sm,t

= _
p=l

Npmev,p/dV

(A.1)

NP

s.,., =
p-'l NP p=l

7;

(A.2)

s,,, = F_,{x,,_,_,,(h,L+ _) Z
_37rpdrp3 where Np[( Cp,d dTp

dvi . + (-_-l,,iu_)_)l}/m/

(A.4)

(-_-)p
Here, enthaipy To action dV denotes and improve source the the latent the term, volume heat

dvi

= u'_ +1 + u_ -

v_ t+l

+ Fbi

(A.4)

of the of the and

computational droplet, the

cell

and

hp and

L are

the

droplet

respectively. numerical stability, the momentum inter-

covergence S.i,t can

be treated

implicitly.

S"+_ ni,l
Here, S,, and R. are obtained

-S.u_ +1 + R,
(A.4) into (A.2):

(A.5)

by substituting
NP

S. = -_ _
p NP

N,m,/(

At + rp)

(A.6)

R_

1 = d'--V _
p

Npmp/(At

+ rp)(v'_

-- u i + Fbirp)

(A.7)

and

mp=

47rr3ppd volume

is the

particle

mass. on

The

parameters particle

S_

and

Ru

are

momentum at previous

control timestep.

quantities

depending

available

information

61

APPENDIX

B.

Numerics

of

Beta

Probability

Density

Function

The

density-weighted the property

mean

mixture

properties with

(era)

at any density

location function,

evaluated P(_, xi):

by

convoluting

functions

a probability

Cm(xi) where

_0 1

Cm(_)P(_,xi)d_

(B1)

P(_,xi) The denomenator from in Eq.(B2) the Gamma is the

--

fl Beta

_.,,-x (1 _ _.)b-x _a_l( 1 _ _)b_ld function, F with the B(a, aid

(B2) _ b). Note that B(a, b) can be

calculated

function,

of the

following

relationship:

r(a)r(b)

B(a,b) - r(a + b)
Substituting Eq.(B2) into Eq.(B1) yields

(B3)

Cm(Xi)--" The numerator of However, chosen of the when the to be Beta mean pdf Eq.(B5) the quite when

B(a,b) can significant small. the be

Cm(_')(a-'(1--()b-]d( integrated errors These variance can by a trapzoidal unless axe due rule the to or

(B4) Gaussian increments the spikey and

quadrature. in ( nature also ,_(_) are

be produced errors mixture

numerical (g) of the

fraction avoid To two keep

is small this the

mixture

fraction(f) of the (0

is close conserved

to 0 or 1. To scalax(_). into

problem, function 0 to _s as

is expressed the

as polynomials integration _) is the domain

monotonic, and _

< _ <

1) is split The

sections:

to 1, where

stoichiometric

value.

property

,,_ is expressed

when 0 < _ <_G era(() = _

where m = l, ..., M (M = index for the property)

(B5) (B6)

dm.C

( <__ when ,', _<

62

n = 1,...,N

(N = degree

of

the

polynomial)

Substituting

Eqs.(B5)

and

(B6)

into

Eq.(B4)

results

in

1 fo"
+
where equations a and b varying
f_[ E
n

,-R._ , ,4 _rt_a-I

(1-- _)b-'d_]
from the solutions of the

(BT)
transport

with

zi axe evaluated numerator

for f and g. The

of Eq.(BT)

is simplified

as follows:

T = _'_(cm,,
n

- dR,,)

1 --

d_

+ X: dR. fo
n

I _'"+"-I(1

_)b-'d_
as the convenient expression:

(BS)

For using

IMSL

routines,

(BS)

can be transformed

T=

_[dm,,

,,

+(c_.--dR.)

f_ ,_"+_-'(I--_)b-_d_]

f_,_"+-'(1 - _)b-ld_

f01

_'_+"-_(1--_)b-'d_

= _'_[d,_.+(c,nn-d,nn)BETAI(s,a+n,b)]BETA(a+n,b)

(Bg)

In present mixture

study, property,

the degree era(x,)

of the polynomial as

is used

as N = 6. Finally,

the mean

can be calculated

era(x,)

T BETA(a,b)

(B10)

63

APPENDIX

C.

Stoichlometrie

Relations

For

Hydrocarbon

Fuels

For

the

hydrocarbon-air

mixtures,

the

irreversible

single-step

reaction

is expressed

as follows:

C, tt, + (x +
Here, H20) and the n is 3.76. are oxidizer mass In the

)(02 + nY2) -_ zC02 + _ v H 20 + (z + -_ v )aY_

given the reaction mixture process, composition. from species the can five species Once solutions the of the (fuel,O2, mass N2, fraction C02,

(Cl)
and of fuel

participating have been of the

determined remaining

transport the

equations, following sto-

fraction relations.

be obtained

from

ichimetric

YH,O = K2(1 - KIYO2 - Yf,_) YCO, = K3Ymo = 1 -(Ymo

where K1 =l+n_

(C2)

(c3)
+ Yco, + Yo= + Yf.)

(c4)

K2

"--

[_Wmo + {(x+ _,)nw.=+ zWco_}]

xWco2 _WH_o

K3m

64

APPENDIX The tion present chamber dilute spray model

D.

Droplet

Distribution that which

Models into the combusThe of size are

assumes spray

the fuel is injected consists

as a fiilly distribution

atomized with

of spherical by a finite

droplets. number distribution

droplet-size ranges.

the spray distribution code. These

is represented and

A Nukiyama-Tana.sawa in the computer

a Rosin-Rammler have

implemented

distributions

the following

forms:

Nukiyama-Tanasawa

Distribution

Ot

dN --_ where dN and and

D = A( SMO)

e_B(D/SMD)a

dD SMO parcels parcels,

(D.1) in the size range from D

N axe the number the total number diameter; and

of computational of computational

to D +dD Sauter

respectively;

SMD

is the

mean

a,/3, A, and

B are experimental/determined

constants.

Rosin-Rammler

Distribution

dQ qDq-l -(D/X)' d-'D = X---'-'7 e X SMD where D, and Q is the fraction X and of the total
1

(O.2)

- r(1 - -)
q contained in drops of diameter

(D.3)
less than

volume

q axe constants.

65

SECA-TR-g2-06

'
ADAPTION OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL AND PARTICLE WALL-BOUNDARY CONDITION MODEL TO THE FDNS CODE GROUP PARTICLE TRACKING /

Subcontract 91-177 Contract No. NAS8-36955 Final Report

Prepared

by:

Y. S. Chen R. C. Farmer

Prepared

for: in Huntsville 35899

University of Alabama Huntsville, AL

March,

1992

3313

SECA, Inc. Bob Wallace AverJu: Suite 202 AL 358C- _

Hunt._vi_le,

SECA-TR-92-06

Table

of

Contents

Introduction Governing Finite Rate

.................................................... Equation .............................................. Model ..................................... ..................... Method ................

1 1 3 4 7 10 10 15 16 17 19 20

Chemistry

Particulate-Phase Details Test of the

Equations Particle

Solution

.........................

Cases The The

..................................................... Tomahawk Tomahawk Nozzle Plume Flowfield Flowfield .......................... ........................... .............................

Liquid

Injector

Flowfields

Closure

........................................................ .................................................... .....................................................

Conclusions References

SECA-TR-92-06

Introduction

A particulate on the FDNS code

two-phase (Refs. 1,2,3)

flow

CFD

model is

was

developed based solver. (Ref.4) submodels. for

based

which

a pressure flow

predictor Turbulence wall

plus

multi-corrector with

Navier-Stokes

models

compressibility (Ref. model 5) were

correction employed 6,7) was as used flow an

and A

the

function

models chemistry For

finite-rate flow

(Refs.

reacting a

simulation.

particulate method

two-phase using was

simulations, implicit in this

Eulerian-Lagrangian particle study. to trajectory Effects of or

solution integration particle-gas

efficient

scheme reaction were

developed particle

and not

size in

change

agglomeration

fragmentation

considered

this

investigation.

At
V

the which

onset had

of been

the

present

study, to treat been was

a two-dimensional Lagrangian written slow a and for form

version of

of

FDNS

modified had already code been nor

tracking was practical amenable to

particles operational. mainly

(FDNS-2DEL) The

FDNS-2DEL not Cray, The

too in

use,

because

it had on the

written was the

vectorlzation form to of FDNS

full

three-dimensional of arrays the full this for study was

utilized.

specific into long

objective single

reorder

the

calculations on the Cray of was it.

automatic

vectorization dimensional the had to the FDNS-2DEL been number run of

and to

to

implement the

threecode. of to as test Since cases

version code with cases

FDNS slow, This

produce

FDNS-3DEL number intended improve, FDNS.

a very study to

limited also and in

was verify coded

increase necessary,

simulated

particle

tracking

methodology

Governinq

_quation

The

gas-phase

governing

equations

of

the

FDNS

module

are

the

k_/
1

SECA-TR-92-06

Reynolds-averaged particle and large the drag energy

Navier-Stokes forces and heat

equations fluxes in

with the Due

the

addition equations effect the the The of

of

momentum to the and to be

equation, differences

respectively. between force was the

density

particles

surrounding contribution governing

gas, to

the the

drag

considered

primary gas-phase

inter-phase are written

momentum as:

exchange.

equations

j.1(apq/at)

a[-pUig

_effGij(aq/a_j)

]/a_ i +

Sq

where

1,

u,

v,

w,

h,

k,

and model

ei

for

the

continuity, species parameters transport and

momentum, equations effective

energy,

turbulence And, pelf, are

and

chemical

respectively. viscosity,

the given

transformation as:

j ut
Gij /Ueff

= a(_,n,_)/a(x,y,z) =
=

(u/J)

(a_i/ax

j)

(a_i/ax k) (a_/axk)/J
+ pt)/Oq

=: (p

The

source

terms

in

the

governing

equations,

Sq,

are

given

as:

0
--Px + V[/_eff(Uj)x] --

(2/3)(peffVU) (2/3)(_effVU)y (2/3)(_effVU)= Up Dx Vp Dy

x + +
+

Dx Dy DZ Wp Dz

-py
--Pz

+
+

V[_eff(uj)y
V[g'.ff(Uj)z]

--

Sq

j-1

Dp/Dt

hv +

Hp

P(Prp(e/k)
_n

')
[(CI+C3Pr/_) Pr Cze]

where

Dx,

Dy

and

Dz

represent

the

drag

forces

and

takes

on

SECA-TR-92-06

values

between

1 and Dip is _ the

N.

up, rate

vp and of heat the

wp

are

the

particle per unit of

velocity volume the to gas

components. the gas phase.

transfer heat

stands for the

for

viscous

flux energy

phase. rate and

Pr stands is written

turbulence

kinetic

production

as:

P: =

(_t/p) [ (Suj/Sx!

+ aui/Sxj)2/2

2(SUk/SXk)Z/3]

An

equation of

of

state,

p = p/(RT/_), Turbulent

is

used and

to

close

the

above aq,

system for are the

equations.

Schmidt other 7.

Prandtl

numbers,

governing taken

equations from Refs.

and 4,

turbulence

model

constants

given

6 and

Finite

Rate

Chemistry

Model

For of

gas-phase reactions

chemical is

reaction in

modeling, terms of

a general the

system

chemical

written the

stoichiometric species name (Mi)

coefficients of the j-th

(vii and reaction

vij' ) and as

i-th

chemical

Z v|j M! = Z vlj' M!' l !

The i due to

net

rate

of j

change

in

the

molar as:

concentration

of

species

reactions

, Xij, is

written

Xi j == (vij,_vij)

[Kfjii(pai/Mwi

) _,ij _ Kbjii(Pai/Mui)=,ij']

and is

the

species by

production summing

rate, over all

_i,

(in

terms

of

mass

fraction)

calculated

reactions.

wi

= 1_!

ZXij J

SECA-TR-92-06

where _i " molecular weight of of species i i

a! - mass p fluid

fraction density rate rate

species

K_| = _j

forward

of of

reaction reaction

j j = Kfj/K,j

= backward

K,j = equilibrium -

constant fivij)} i

(I/RT) zc_j''vl])exp(Z(f_'v|j' free energy of species

f! = Gibbs Kf =

A T a exp{-E/RT}

Finally,

the

species

continuity

equations

are

written

as:

p D,=! - V[(#ef_/o,)V_

i] = wi

where

o,

(assumed

to

be

0.9)

represents function constraints a crucial of

the is

Schmidt employed at the

number to of

for

turbulent the time basic

diffusion. element step.

A penalty conservation This and is

ensure every

end for

marching

requirement combustion changes of the the

the This

numerical is

stability by

accuracy the the step

a CFD

model. in species

accomplished

limiting are time bounded adjusted A were

allowable

concentrations, equations, fractions limited species turbulence for are changes source

which each well are terms.

solutions such that

species

continuity

species limits.

mass The resulting to the

within so

physical that they

are

proportional and 8).

similar reported

chemistry previously

approach (Ref.

detailed

submodels

PartiGulate-Ph_se

Equations

A in FDNS

Eulerian-Lagrangian to the provide gas effects and

particle of the

tracking and

method energy The

was

employed

momentum particle

exchanges particle

between

phase

phase.

SECA-TR-92-06

trajectories integration the phase drag

are method forces

calculated for

using

an

efficient of then particle coupled the

implicit sizes with particle as:

time by the which gas

several fluxes

groups are

and

heat

equations. and

The

equations

constitute are

trajectory

temperature

history

written

DVI/Dt Dh_Dt

(U! - V i)/t d (T,, - Tp)/t, 6 a_f Tp4/(pp dp)

= C_

where

U! Vi td

= = =

Gas

Velocity Velocity Dynamic Relaxation Time

Particle Particle

- 4 pp dJ(3 cd Pc :u,- v,I)

= C_ Tp T_ t, = = Particle Particle Particle Enthalpy Heat Capacity

Temperature Temperature Time

= Gas =

Recovery

Particle

Thermal-Equilibrium

=
G

(pp Up)/[12

Nu _/(Pr

dp)]

= Stefan-Boltzmann 4.76E-13 Particle Radiation Particle Particle

Constant

BTU/FT2-S-R Emissivity Interchange Diameter Density 0.20 Factor -0.31

= = =

Pp

C d and heat Mach transfer number. and

Nu

stand which Typical

for are

drag

coefficient of

and

Nusselt number in Refs.

number and

for

functions

Reynolds given 9)

relative I0.

correlations correlation

are (Ref.

9 and as:

Carlson

Hoglund's

is written

SECA-TR-92-06

Cd "

(24/Re)

(I [I

+ +

0.15 M

Re '_7) +

(1 1.28

e")/

(3.82

e'1"_"'m)/Re]

Nu

(I

0.2295 [I +

Re'S5)/ 3.42 M (2 + 0.459 Re'55)/Re]

where

0.427/_

"_

3.0/Re for

0"M. the

more

accurate is

but

more by

complicated Henderson

correlation (Ref. 10).

drag for

coefficient Mach a 1,

provided

That

is,

Ca -

24

[Re

{4.33 /(I

+ +

exp(-0.247 0.353 TJT)}]" 2 + + 0.2_ S

Re/S)

(3.65

1.53

TJT)

exp(-0.5*M/Re /(i

I/2) [0.1M + a)]

+ [i

(4.5 -

0.38a)

0.6

exp(-M/Re)]

where 0.48

M(7/2) For

1"2 is Mach _

the

molecular

speed

ratio.

=0.03

Re+

Re I/2.

1.75,

Cd =

[0.9

+ +

0.34/M 1.058

2 +

1.86(M/Re) I/2/S -

1/2

{2

+ /

2/S [i

2 + 1.86 (M/Re)'/2]

(TJT)

I/S 4}]

And,

for

<

Mach

<

1.75,

Cd

"

Cd

N*1 +

(4/3)

(M

I)

(Cd.=1.75

Cd .--1 )

which

assumes

linear

variation

between

and

1.75.

It motor

has

been

shown

that

the

Henderson compared with of

drag test the

law

givesbetter The number (Ref. 11).

performance and is

predictions possible

data.

applicability correlation

improvement being actively

Nusselt

currently

researched

SECA-TR-92-06

Details

of

the

Particle

Solution

Method

In was flux

the

present for the

two-phase calculation the and gas

flow of flow

model, particle field.

an

independent drag forces

module and for are heat and in the heat

employed

contributions the for are are

to

Subroutines trajectories forces

locating called fluxes fluxes gas-phase two total forms

particles particle saved used

integrating group. grid the In

their The point. particle present static It has drag

each then then

size for every

and

These source FDNS

forces terms flow

to

evaluate

governing of the

equations. energy can of equation be

the

solver, form that or

(i.e.

enthalpy been found

enthalpy either the of

form) form static the

selected. equation equation plume SSME.

although solutions, definition extensive k.j" form motor the

energy

usually provides shear

gives better as

similar

enthalpy rocket for best been

liquid made

layers,

shown of

by which

solutions energy has

the

A determination solid (two-phase)

equation not yet

simulates made.

rocket

plumes

Particle specified wall. velocity Therefore, with turned be wall must due the

wall-boundary of which to the part the the

conditions colliding result for size that

are particles in

treated which

by

using to

a the

fraction Particles normal for wall,

stick particle

stick wall

a decreased size

particle which and

fraction. collides part is to

particle of to the the

fraction stick Energy stick. but to do new so.

locally the other is

particles wall. which

more only

parallel to the

exchange This

assumed of

particles be in

model

particle data

interaction become

can

improved, order

experimental

test

available

In

the

2-D

version was

of

the

FDNS to test

flow

solver, the

a fourth-order particle routine,

Runge-Kutta trajectories. \ i

method After

employed

integrate of the

a thorough

integration

SECA-TR-92-06

it

was

found

that

the when

explicit the

scheme

can

sometimes become was the

give

diverged

particle Therefore, present particle

solutions an model.

source

terms scheme

large. employed in the of the

implicit For

integration

convenience, of motion.

consider That is,

X-component

equation

dX_dt dUp/dt

= Up = A (U Up)

where

A -

1/t d veloclty velocity location

U = gas

Up = particle Xp = particle

In

finite

difference

form

the

above

equations

can

be

written

as:

Xp(_I)
Up(n_l)

Xp(") Up(n) I

(_t/2)
_tA [U

[Up (_1)
Up

+ Up (")]
(n+l)]

or Xp(ml) = Xp (") + _t/2 Up (_I) [Up (n) + atA [Up(_I) + Up (") ] U]/(I+_tA)

These magnitude resolutlon, particle cell.

two of

equations source

are terms. time least

unGonditionally To provide is steps

stable better chosen to go so

despite time that a a grid

the

the

a variable would take at

step

size

4 time

across

The needed hurdle give

recognition calculating developing

that the

an

improved

integration trajectories explicit

scheme was

was

for in

particle The

a major appeared to previous were to

FDNS-3DEL. but that

scheme

acceptable

solutions, showed

detailed

comparisons pressure

FDNS-2DEL

analyses

unacceptable

losses

SECA-TR-92-06

predicted.
causing the form this of

Several
solution the

other

factors

were Namely, and

initially the

suspected

of

behavior. equation, and lengthy not to were

turbulence drag made

model, law were

energy

the

particle were of

Initially these Since field codes expected problem been used

suspected, were

calculations be the cause to give and

before

effects the

found

poor good

results. pressure flowfield was not this have

FDNS-2DEL to

results

found nozzle the

comparisons (RAMP, to SPP, perform

conventional SPF-II), in the

plume

and

Runge-Kutta FDNS-EL code.

method

poorly of

the

Resolving would

consumed to run

much

resources of

which test

otherwise

a wider

variety

cases.

k.j 9

SECA-TR-92-06

Test

C_s_$

The rocket and cases of

major

test nozzle

case

which

was

studied

was of was

the

Tomahawk

solid

motor an are

analysis.

Consideration injector

a plume also made.

flowfield These

oxygen-hydrogen described in the

coaxial following

paragraphs.

The

Tomahawk

Nozzle

Flowfield

The and is

Tomahawk in

nozzle Figs.

flowfield This the these Figures water

was test

calculated case was and

with chosen

FDNS-3DEL because had available Mach

shown

1-4. with and 12). and

comparable already for

predictions been performed, (Ref.

FDNS-2DEL other 1-4

RAMP

codes were

solutions show the

comparison

velocity,

number,

temperature, for was with the

concentration nozzle, to be and

profiles, near so plume. that be plane (2400 The

respectively, chamber flow

chamber,

approximated the previous

uniform could exit

direct The FDNSgas

comparisons 2DEL solutlon

solutions lower RAMP

made.

predicted (2250

somewhat the

centerline K). The the in

temperatures FDNS-3DEL exit plane

_K) than and RAMP gas near

solution show The in

(2470

K)

solutions

essentially raggedness nozzle

same the to

centerline profile a weak

temperatures. the centerllne An in This flowfield includes centerline case) shape. and

temperature be due to

the

appears

oblique at is the

shock. centerline

apparent the is

non-zero

temperature of the

normal nozzle effect complete

gradient flowfield of the SRM

subsonic due to

portion

indicated. particle which down the flow change and

a very

strong In more (as a

inlet

boundary the

condition. grain, chamber

simulation flow

burning the

particles compared contour velocity, approximate

would to would Mach the

from this The

uniform

subsonic breaks locate laded

temperature in the flow with the

probably number,

sharp

temperature of the

contours particle

limiting

streamline

10

.......

.........

,-4

.,.-_

11

I-i t_ .,-t

12

t_ -,-4

13

Ilt_t !!! I :::::::::::::::::::::: _ll_t_ltlt_l_l_l__ ii17 7ii _ll_l!.

"

,.

_J

.--

..

14

SECA-TR-92-06

respect and total

to

gas

only

flow forms Letting

which of the the well

fills energy

the

nozzle.

Both give hit

the

static

enthalpy

equation which

the the

same stick

nozzle or

solutlons.

particles behaved particle section. centerline crossing particles region in the

wall only wall

elastically where start

reflect there of is

give

solutions. impact The to on

The the

place at the

significant converging the for plume

is

the hit

analysis spectrally

allows reflect, centerline. to such the that

particles in order

which to

account

particles moves the

the very

plume

However, gas such

particle in

drag the

parallel nozzle,

streamlines reflection

transonic occur

of case

the being

does

not

considered.

The

Tomahawk

Plume

Flowfield

The The water and form

near

plume free

appears shear

to

be is

well

predicted defined

with and

FDNS-3DEL. indicates static The spike of at the total the

predicted production total of form the of flow

layer

sharply

from of the

afterburning energy

reactions. were

Both considered.

the

equation indicates layer. of the

energy the on

equation free shear

a temperature Better nozzle form definition would of the

inception induced elimlnate does k-_ not

the

outside The effect. was used

probably energy equation to the

such exhibit

a spike. this model

static A Mach for

number

correction

turbulence

this

simulation.

When down stream

the of

Tomahawk the exit

plume plane is

is

calculated FDNS-2DEL, This disc

for

a long

distance rapid to and the when remedy the k-_ using in near be

with

excessively was in belleved the plume with

plume/atmosphere due to the effect

mixing of too being

predicted. the Mach

crossing much

thereby turbulence the the

creating model

turbulent A plume

kinetic

energy

used.

similar code

problem (Ref. 13).

exists The

SPF/II SPF/II

standard code is

JANNAF to switch

turbulence

models

between

15

SECA-TR-92-06

and run

far with

plumes. FDNS-3DEL model is better

An

insufficient to determine indeed fix than

number if the

of Mach

test

cases

have

been

number

modified the turbulence for far-

turbulence solution model field code is

will

this when

problem, the extended

although k-_ problem The

behaved

used.

This must

potential be left any rate for

plume future

prediction resolution. than

analysis should not to noted

FDNS-3DEL model It at

require the the like

change of

other

turbulence mixing. FDNS-2DEL,

parameters should first rates mixed be

adjust that look slow. plume

plume/atmosphere results with

computed the

glance, are with too the

afterburning so much of

combustion the cold

reaction atmosphere was had not

Actually, that the

existence

of

afterburning

apparent.

Liquid

Injector

Flowfields

The transport phase. such that

current from Also, the at

version the

of

FDNS-3DEL phase phase to is

does the

not

treat (or

mass

particle particle

gas

continuous) a lumped model the the before the be

the

treated is

with

particle instant

temperature of time

constant the flow

throughout through be removed

particle computation the code of

any

during

field. is useful a droplet with the

These for

restrictions spray

should

describing of

combustion. fuel if or

However, LOX is could

spread described with that region

cloud code local

supercritical modification, ratio a

without mixture

one i.e.

content assumes in for manner the

not the of

describing supercritlcal the flow

changes, lump (or

one

lump

remains

particle) transfer in to this be

being

analyzed. could be

The easily does on

energy treated

supercritical because In heat fact, of the

injection heat of which

vaporization are (Ref. based 14),

not

have

considered. such

models

arbitrarily not

supplying

vaporization spray

do The

realistically reason that

describe such models

supercritical
J

phenomena.

only

16

SECA-TR-92-06

work

at

all

is of

that the

the oxygen

heat lump

of

vaporization crudely at

evaluated the

at

the heat An be of this a very a

temperature capacity oxygen described constant nature strong was were not of spray

approximates supercritical coaxial the oxygen

high

the

llquid-like from by

lump a

pressures. injector lump could to be of such

eminating FDNS-3DEL and

single

with size was

assuming A the lump

density. but the If mean

demonstration lump density

calculation would that equation would the engine more heat be the of

considered, of

function performed. the

temperature real-gas

calculation state models

accurate oxygen SECA

used,

stated

spray is

simulation

be general transfer constant two-phase, enough in 3this

meaningful. property analysis property dimensional study.

Currently, evaluation (Ref. analysis 15). was for

developing

hydrogen-oxygen the currently a

However, not code made, was

feasible reliable early

because not

FDNS-3DEL

completed

Closure

The slow more

calculation Several

of

two-phase strategies ideal and

reacting were gas tried flow the was of

flows to was

at make

best this

is

process. efficient. were

process then the

Initially, turned The on,

computed,

reactions were these been This

finally flowfield all the

particle calculated

trajectories for each have analysis. in of

calculated. flow treated procedure

entire

conditions. simultaneously works time. plumes, well For it is

Recently, from and

these

conditions of the

beginning in an motors the order the

results rocket

overall and

reduction their should the optimum Such For a

computation attendant broken step restart the motor into size

analyzing recommended for

that in within in

flowfield to use

be

subregions for the has nozzle Mach been

analysis, range

number

region.

option and

incorporated be analyzed

FDNS-3DEL. first. The

example,

should

computed

17

SECA-TR-92-06

nozzle plume. the

exit The and

conditions far far of plume plume the

should should should complex jet, of

be then be near

used be

to

calculate The

the

near between the and far to the

computed somewhere shock mixing version and

break

near

chosen field

between

establishment essentially field. initially flowfields The

structure dominated FDNS-3DEL large

balanced development

predominately a parabolized structures

predict is also

large

plume

other

recommended.

".

18

SECA-TR-92-06

i.

two-phase, vectorized. solution

finite-rate The accurately

CFD

code

(FDNS-3DEL) test case

was

developed the

and CFD

Tomahawk

nozzle

indicates

simulates

this

flow.

Particle the

mass

transfer code. The

effects inclusion

are of

not

currently effects

included would be

in

current

these

relatively

simple.

More

test

cases of the

should

be

run

to

establish The be in

the

range

of of the

validity

calculation calculation effects,

procedure. appear such as to

mechanics good working

Euler-Lagrange order structure cases. Secondary

turbulent-mixing/shockstudy with more test

interaction However, data are do is it

require should be

further noted many of that

suitable complex best SPF-II one flow can

experimental interactions currently analyses.

to not

verify now

these The to

available. CFD solutions

Compare

type

Analyzing finite-rate utillzation analyses with

large, CFD of should

complex code all be is

flowfields a time which

with

any

two-phase, therefore such flowfields

consuming would Analyzing and codes be

process, expedite the

methods

considered. subregions the CFD

carefully

selected versions aids of which

developing are two such

parabolized computational

should

employed.

19

SECA-TR-92-06

Re ferences:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Y.S. Y.S. T.S. M.D. B.E. _.,

Chen, Chen, Wang

AIAA AIAA and

Paper Paper Y.S. AIAA

88-0417, 89-0286, AIAA

Jan. Jan. Paper

1988. 1989. 90-2494, June 1991. Meth. ApDli. July 1990.

Chen, Paper D.B. 3,

Sanford, Launder

91-1789,

and Vol.

Spalding, pp. 269-289, AIAA 4th

omp. 1974. Paper Intl.

6. 7.

.S. Y.S. 1991.

Chen Chen

and and

R.C. R.C.

Farmer, Farmer,

91-1967, svmmD. CFD,

June

1991.

Vol.l,

8.

Wang, T.S., Y.S. Chen, and R.C. Investigation of Transient SSME with a Pressure Based Reactive Working Group Carlson Henderson, & Meeting, R.F. AIAA and P. Rates MSFC, Hoglund, J., Vol.

Farmer, "Numerical Fuel Preburner Flowfield CFD Method," 7th SSME CFD 1989. J., p. Vol. 707, 2, June of Nov. 1976. Gas/Particle to be presented 1964.

April AIAA 14,

9,

D.J. C.B.

i0. II.

Moylan, B., Heat Transfer AIAA Nashville

Sulyma, in Solid June

"Investigation Rocket Motors," 1992.

Meeting,

12.

Smith, S.D., Y.S. Chen, and B.L. Myruski:, "Model Development for Exhaust Plume Effects on Launch Stand Design," March 1991 Progress Report on NAS8-38472, SECA, Inc., Huntsville, AL, April 8, 1991. Dash, S.M., Version II 4, Science Shuen, J.S., et al, "The JANNAF (SPF-II), Volume I" Applications, Inc., and V. Yang, AIAA Standard Technical Princeton, Plume Flowfield Code Report CR-RD-SS-90NJ, July, 1990. January 1991.

13.

14. 15.

Paper-91-0078,

Freeman, J.A., R.C. Farmer in Rocket Engine Combustion Cooled Nozzles," November, Report on NAS8-38961, SECA, 1992.

and P.G. Anderson, "Heat Transfer Chambers and Regeneratively 1991 - February, 1992 Progress Inc., Huntsville, AL, February,

2O