0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Cavitation Analogy to Gasdynamic Shocks: Model Conservativeness Effects on the Simulation of Transient Flows in High-Pressure Pipelines

[+] Author and Article Information
Alessandro Ferrari, Michele Manno, Antonio Mittica

 IC Engines Advanced Laboratory, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, Torino 10129, Italy

J. Fluids Eng 130(3), 031304 (Mar 12, 2008) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2842226 History: Received April 03, 2006; Revised October 12, 2007; Published March 12, 2008

A comparison between conservative and nonconservative models has been carried out for evaluating the influence of conservativeness on the prediction of transient flows in high-pressure pipelines. For the numerical tests, a pump-line-nozzle Diesel injection system was considered because the pipe flow presented interesting cases of cavitation. The validity of a conservative model in the simulation of cavitating transient flows was substantiated by the comparison between computed pressure time histories and experimental results at two pipeline locations in the injection system. Although nonconservative models can assure satisfactory accuracy in the evaluation of the wave propagation phenomena, they introduce fictitious source terms in the discretized equations. Such terms are usually negligible, but can play a significant role in the presence of acoustic cavitation, i.e., pressure-wave-induced cavitation, producing errors in the pressure-wave speed prediction. A theoretical analysis based on unsteady characteristic lines was carried out, showing that the cavitation desinence is a shock gas-dynamic-like event, whereas cavitation inception is a supersonic expansion. The Rankine–Hugoniot jump conditions were applied to evaluate the shock wave speed in the presence of cavitation. Analytical relations to calculate the flow property variations across the cavitation-induced discontinuities were also derived. A previously published analytical expression of the sound speed in a homogeneous two-phase flow model was also derived from the eigenvalues of the Euler flow equations for the two distinct phases and a comparison was made with Wallis’ formula, which is commonly applied to cavitating flow simulation in transmission lines. Finally, a novel algorithm for calculating the shock speed, as is predicted by nonconservative models, was presented and applied to Burgers’ equation, pointing out the contribution of internal fictitious fluxes in the shock-speed wrong estimation.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Shock traveling scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Forward traveling shock: exact solution and nonconservative numerical solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Backward traveling shock: exact solution and nonconservative numerical solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Convergence studies for the nonconservative scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Injection-system layout and measured quantities

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Convergence studies for the ICOST scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

ISO4113 vapor tension versus temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison between Eq. 28 and Wallis’ formula

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison between pressures and void fractions (a) and comparison between flow rates (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison between pressures and void fractions (a) and comparison between flow rates (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison between pressures and void fractions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Pipe pressure at the delivery outlet (3)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Pipe pressure at the injector inlet (3)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Cavitation inception: pressure and void fraction distributions at the boundary of the liquid zone

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Cavitation inception: characteristics of the PDE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Cavitation desinence: pressure and void fraction distributions at the boundary of the liquid zone

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Cavitation desinence: characteristics of the PDE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Numerical distributions by the conservative model

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In