0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Study of Available Turbulence and Cavitation Models to Reproduce Flow Patterns in Confined Flows

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Coussirat

LAMA,
Departamento de Ingeniería Electromecánica,
Universidad Tecnológica Nacional,
C/Rodriguez 273,
Mendoza 5500, Argentina
e-mail: miguel.coussirat@frm.utn.edu.ar

F. Moll, F. Cappa

LAMA,
Departamento de Ingeniería Electromecánica,
Universidad Tecnológica Nacional,
C/Rodriguez 273,
Mendoza 5500, Argentina

A. Fontanals

Departamento de Mecánica de Fluidos,
Escola Universitaria d'Enginyeria Tècnica
Industrial de Barcelona,
c/Compte d'Urgell, 187,
Barcelona 08036, Spain

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 3, 2015; final manuscript received April 4, 2016; published online June 8, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Kwang-Yong Kim.

J. Fluids Eng 138(9), 091304 (Jun 08, 2016) (13 pages) Paper No: FE-15-1798; doi: 10.1115/1.4033372 History: Received November 03, 2015; Revised April 04, 2016

Cavitating flow in nozzles is a complex flow which implies a highly turbulent two-phase one. An accurate simulation which improves some numerical results found in the literature was achieved by means of an extensive analysis of the capabilities of several numerical models for turbulence and cavitation. The analysis performed involves calibration/optimization tasks based on the physics of this kind of flow. This work aims to provide a quantitative criterion for the judgment of internal flow state, because it was demonstrated that the numerical results obtained with noncalibrated models could be enhanced by means of a careful calibration and thus saving computational costs.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Experiment from Nurick [14]. (a) Cavity pressure measurements (PC1 and Δ PC2). (b) Cavity evolution when inlet pressure P1 was changed. The plateau in the curve (25.8 PSIA (1.77 × 105 Pa) < P1 < 28.5 PSIA (1.96 × 105 Pa)) is correlated with the fuzzy region that appears near the inlet in the pictures (this is a not clear fact for the authors, see discussion in Peterson [15]). (c) Nozzle geometry: PC1 and PC2 are the static taps pressure, placed at ¼ d and ½ d downstream of the orifice, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experiments from Nurick [14]: Cd measurements for L/d = 6 ratio. The pressure encircled in the figure is the outlet pressure PB, used for CFD simulations in this work. Note the flipping phenomena at σ ∼ 1.75. Nomenclature: ○ PB = 13.8 PSIA (9.5 × 104 Pa), ◻ PB = 50.0 PSIA (3.4 × 105 Pa), and Δ PB = 100.0 PSIA (6.9 × 105 Pa).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Case (D/d = 2.88 and L/d = 5): CFD cavity pressures obtained, mesh M01. Left: PC1, ¼ d and right: PC2, ½ d. P1, variable inlet pressure, PB = 95,000 Pa. Notation: Exp. [14] ♦ PC1 and ▪ PC2. CFD results: ◻ RSM, × Std k–ε, + SA, o Rlz k–ε, − RNG k–ε, ⋄ SST k–ω, and Δ Std k–ω. All the pressure values are in Pascal.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Case (D/d = 2.88 and L/d = 5): CFD discharge coefficient, Cd obtained. Notation:theoretical correlation [14] and ▪ exp. data [14]. CFD results: left—M01 and right—M04. Notation: ◻ RSM, × Std k–ε, + SA, o Rlz k–ε, − RNG k–ε, ⋄ SST k–ω, and Δ Std k–ω. The drop in the Cd experimental values (▪) for σ ∼ 1.75 shows the flipping onset.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Case (D/d = 2.88 and L/d = 5): mesh sensitivity study, SA model (PC1, PC2, and P1 [Pa]). Left: PC1d) and right: PCd). Notation: P1: inlet pressure; ▪ Exp. [14] PC1 and PC2; and CFD: + M01, × M02, ⋄ M03, and Δ M04.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Case (D/d = 2.88 and L/d = 5): mesh sensitivity study, RSM model (PC1, PC2, and P1 [Pa]). Left: PC1d) and right: PC2d). Notation: P1: inlet pressure; ▪ Exp. [14] PC1 and PC2; and CFD: + M01; × M02, ⋄ M03, and Δ M04.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

CFD results (SA model, onset of flipping P1 = 2.20 × 105 Pa). Fields of: Up, total pressure (static + dynamic). Middle, mean velocity. Bottom, vapor fraction (compare also with pictures from Fig. 1). Left, mesh M04; center, with adapted mesh M02; and right, initial mesh M02 with calibration for Cb1. The L/d ratio is not in scale in order to see better the flow patterns.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Mesh adaptations: (1) and (2) are the mesh optimizations obtained into the zone marked by a black box. The points marked inside the black boxed are the places where probes Pc1 and Pc2 were set. The L/d ratio in the initial (i.e., no adapted) mesh M02 is in scale in order to see better the geometry aspect.

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.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
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