19

© All Rights Reserved

11 visualizações

19

© All Rights Reserved

- Cfx Simulation for Predicting Drag
- 2014FaghihiradSPhD-MODELLING OF FLOWS-hidraulic structure .pdf
- ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE OUTLET BLADE ANGLE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A RADIAL PUMP IMPELLER
- Combustion Instabilities in Gas Turbine Engines PDF
- Bimo _ Witteveen J a S Uncertainty Quantification (Aerodynamics)
- Grid resolution study
- Gas Turbine Fuel Considerations
- Encapsulation Technologies for Herbal Products
- CFD Automatic Optimisation using OpenFOAM in Grid
- Advanced Topics in Stepped Hull Design - Robert Kaidy - IBEX Session104_1
- 1-s2.0-S0029801816000627-main
- cfd flow
- A Cfd Approach via Les to the Flow Field With Complex Geometrical Configuratios
- Introduction DFC
- Aerosol Therapy in ICU
- 1998_Effect of Coal Particle Size
- analysis of the tablet coating process
- AIAA-2010-215
- ANITSCFDMECH
- Final Report Format 20142

Você está na página 1de 37

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pecs

jet ows in atomization and sprays

X. Jiang a, b, *, G.A. Siamas a, b, K. Jagus a, T.G. Karayiannis a

a

b

Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK

Engineering Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YR, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 17 April 2009

Accepted 1 September 2009

Available online 21 October 2009

This review attempts to summarize the physical models and advanced methods used in computational

studies of gasliquid two-phase jet ows encountered in atomization and spray processes. In traditional

computational uid dynamics (CFD) based on Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes (RANS) approach,

physical modelling of atomization and sprays is an essential part of the two-phase ow computation. In

more advanced CFD such as direct numerical simulation (DNS) and large-eddy simulation (LES), physical

modelling of atomization and sprays is still inevitable. For multiphase ows, there is no model-free DNS

since the interactions between different phases need to be modelled. DNS of multiphase ows based on

the one-uid formalism coupled with interface tracking algorithms seems to be a promising way

forward, due to the advantageous lower costs compared with a multi-uid approach. In LES of gasliquid

two-phase jet ows, subgrid-scale (SGS) models for complex multiphase ows are very immature. There

is a lack of well-established SGS models to account for the interactions between the different phases. In

this paper, physical modelling of atomization and sprays in the context of CFD is reviewed with

modelling assumptions and limitations discussed. In addition, numerical methods used in advanced CFD

of atomization and sprays are discussed, including high-order numerical schemes. Other relevant issues

of modelling and simulation of atomization and sprays such as nozzle internal ow, dense spray, and

multiscale modelling are also briey reviewed.

2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Modelling

Simulation

Atomization

Spray

Liquid Jet

Two phase

Direct numerical simulation

Large-eddy simulation

Contents

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

Physical modelling of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

2.1.

The spray equation in the Lagrangian approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

2.2.

Liquid atomization modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

2.3.

Droplet kinematics, droplet/droplet and spray/wall interactions, and liquid-fuel evaporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

LES of spray flow and combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

3.1.

Scale range separation, space filtering and mathematical formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

3.2.

Subgrid-scale models and linear eddy mixing model for combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

3.3.

Numerical issues for LES of spray flow and combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

DNS-like simulations of gasliquid two-phase flows for atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

4.1.

Overview of multiphase flow modelling for a DNS-like simulation of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

4.2.

Interface tracking and reconstruction techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

4.2.1.

VOF-type methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

4.2.2.

Level-set methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

4.3.

Modelling surface tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

4.4.

High-order numerical schemes for DNS of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Other relevant issues of modelling and simulation of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159

* Corresponding author. Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK. Tel.: 44 1895 266685; fax: 44 1895

256392.

E-mail address: xi.jiang@brunel.ac.uk (X. Jiang).

0360-1285/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.09.002

132

6.

5.1.

Modelling nozzle internal flow, hollow-cone sprays, dense sprays, and electrohydrodynamic (EHD) atomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

5.2.

Multiscale modelling of atomization and sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Nomenclature

a

A

Af ,Ap

AR

b

bR

B0 , B1

BM

c

C

CD

C p , Cv

Cs

Cn , C3

d

D

D

e

E

f

f

F

F

g

G

h

hv;s

H

I

k

kR

l

L

Lv

m

m, n

n, N

Nu

O

p

P

Pr

q

Q

Q_

r

R

Rc ; Rv

Re

S

Sc

surface area

droplet/particle frontal area

Arrhenius kinetics constant

collision impact parameter

Arrhenius kinetics constant

wave breakup model constants

mass transfer number

specic heat

constant

drag coefcient

specic heats at constant pressure and volume

Smagorinsky constant

constants in the subgrid turbulent kinetic energy

equation

particle cloud diameter

diffusion coefcient; energy dissipation rate; droplet

diameter; distribution function

rate of deformation tensor

specic total energy

error

function; ow variable

arbitrary vector eld

fuel; force

force

specic body force (gravitational acceleration)

scalar in the level-set method

heat ux; heat transfer coefcient; grid size

evaporated enthalpy at droplet surface

heaviside function

specic internal energy; indicator function

turbulent kinetic energy

reaction rate

eddy size

large (integral) length scale

latent heat for vaporization

mass

unit normal vector

number

Nusselt number

oxidizer

probability

product; probability density function; weighted

projection

Prandtl number

random number between (0, 1); random scalar

heat transfer rate; storage locations

heat release source term

droplet radius

time rate of change of droplet radius; gas constant

carrier gas and vapor gas constants

Reynolds number

strain rate tensor; source term; surface area

Schmidt number

Sh

t

T

TA

Td

T_ d

u

U

v

v

V

Vol

w

w

W

_ s

W

We

x

X

xp

Xi

y

Y

y_

y

Z

Sherwood number

time

Taylor parameter; gas temperature

activation temperature

droplet temperature

time rate of change of temperature

gas-phase velocity vector

gas velocity at the liquid surface

particle velocity

droplet velocity vector

droplet volume; domain; diffusion velocity

volume of the cell

weighting

local relative velocity between the droplet and the

surrounding gas (v u)

molecular weight

subgrid turbulence effects due to spray

Weber number

droplet position vector

mole fraction; random number

particle centroid

droplet transient location

droplet distortion from sphericity

mass fraction

time rate of change of the droplet distortion

(oscillation velocity)

time rate of change of oscillation velocity

Ohnesorge number

Greek

a

b

c

d

d3

D

V

3

g

G

hK

k

q

l

L

m

n

n12

r

s

P

Q

s

f

F

droplet variable

heat transfer correction coefcient

molar fraction

Kronecker delta function

smoothed delta function

incremental amount

gradient operator

dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy

drop radius ratio r1 =r2 ; ratio of specic heats

Fickian diffusion coefcient; interface

Kolmogorov scale

von Karman constant; curvature

diffusive mass ux

frequency of subgrid stirring; thermal conductivity

wavelength

dynamic viscosity

kinematic viscosity

collision frequency

density

surface tension

velocitypressure gradient correlation

viscous work

breakup time; wall shear stress; time scale

area ux

species mass ux; volume fraction

J

u_

u

U

U

reaction rate

vorticity

growth rate of unstable surface wave; domain

particle rotation

Superscripts

0

beginning of time step

previous cell

next cell

c

combustion

s

source terms due to spray effects

sgs

subgrid scale

x

x-direction

Subscripts

@

at point

atm

atmospheric

body

body

bu

breakup

c

carrier gas

chem

chemical

coll

collision

crit

critical

d

droplets

1. Introduction

Gasliquid two-phase ows broadly occur in nature and environment, such as the falling of raindrops and various spray

processes. In practical applications, an important type of gasliquid

two-phase ows is a jet ow with an initial momentum driving the

breakup of the liquid into small drops. The transformation of bulk

liquid into sprays containing these small drops in a gaseous

atmosphere is of importance to a broad range of practical processes.

Sprays are encountered in many engineering, environmental,

medical and biomedical applications. Atomization, referring to the

conversion of bulk liquid into a collection of drops (i.e. a spray),

often occurs after the liquid passes through a nozzle. Numerous

devices to generate spray ows have been developed and they are

generally designated as atomizers or nozzles. Although atomization

does not usually imply that the liquid particles are reduced to

atomic sizes, the spray drops from atomization can be very small. In

many industrial applications such as aircraft engines, diesel and

gasoline internal combustion engines, and spray painting of automobiles, as well as in medical applications, atomization and spray

process is an integral part of a much larger practical ow system.

For example, a gas-turbine system for aircraft propulsion is a rotary

engine that extracts energy from a ow of combustion gas generated from a combustor, which has an upstream compressor and

a downstream turbine. Combustion provides power to the system

in the form of shaft power and thrust. A gas-turbine combustor is

a complex combustion device within which there are a broad range

of coupled, interacting physical and chemical phenomena, with

atomization and spray being one of the most important processes.

In the combustor, energy is added to the gas stream through

combustion between the air and the liquid fuel, which is atomized

rst, forming a spray, before the gas-phase combustion occurs.

Spray characteristics are of great importance to gas-turbine

combustors. The liquid fuel, used as the energy source, must be

atomized into smaller droplets in order to increase the surface area

of fuel exposed to the hot gases and to facilitate rapid evaporation

diff

f

F

g

i

j

k

kin

l

m

mix

o

O

p

P

R

rel

s

S

sat

stir

surf

t

v

vol

133

diffusion

uid

fuel

gas

incoming; index

index

index

kinetically controlled

liquid

index

mixing controlled

outgoing

oxidizer

particle

product

resolved subgrid scale

relative

spray; surface

unresolved subgrid scale

saturation

stirring

surface

turbulent

vapor

volume

and mixing with the oxidant ambience, where the mixing always

dominates the combustion process.

Atomization and spray process is a typical gasliquid two-phase

ow of great practical relevance in applications such as the fuel

injection in gas-turbine combustors of aircraft engines and in

internal combustion engines. The combustion performance and

emissions are mainly inuenced by the atomization of the liquid

fuel, the motion and evaporation of the fuel droplets and mixing of

fuel with air. The dynamics of spray and its combustion characteristics are extremely important in determining, for instance, the

ame stability behaviour at widely varying loads, the safe and

efcient utilization of energy, as well as the mechanisms of

pollutants formation and destruction. Understanding and controlling atomization and spray combustion is becoming an essential

part of the industrial applications, which have been driven by

increasingly urgent demands to improve fuel and energy efciencies, and to drastically reduce the emission of pollutants.

The spray combustion process may be divided into several

elements, such as atomization, liquid transport, vaporisation, and

combustion. In general, liquid fuel is injected through a nozzle system

into the combustor chamber and is atomized to form a spray of

droplets before gas-phase combustion takes place in the vaporized

fuel. Fig.1 shows a schematic of a simple liquid spray plume structure.

In the atomization region, the liquid dominates the ow and the

liquid fuel disintegrates into ligaments and droplets. Large liquid

blobs which are bulks of continuous liquids present in the atomization region. The dense spray region has lower but still signicant

liquid volume fraction and includes secondary breakup of drops and

ligaments as well as dropdrop interactions, such as collisions and

coalescence. Liquid ligaments normally present in the atomization

and dense spray regions, which are non-spherical liquid sheets,

sheared off the liquid jet column. In the dilute spray region, spherical

droplets are well formed and have a strong interaction with the

turbulent airow. In general, the spray structure depends on the

injection pressure difference, injector size, fuel viscosity and fuel

density. With the initial injection velocity, liquid-fuel droplets

134

or more often mixture of air and hot combustion gas. The fuel spray

advances with time until droplets are vaporized by the hot

combustion gas.

There are different technical methods of achieving atomization.

Carburetors, airbrushes, and spray bottles are only a few examples

of atomizers used ubiquitously. Essentially, all that is needed is

a force such as a high pressure or a large shear force from the high

relative velocity between the liquid to be atomized and the

surrounding air or gas to overcome the surface tension of the liquid.

Most practical atomizers are of the pressure, rotary or twin-uid

type. In a pressure type of atomizer used frequently in fuel injection

in combustion engines, the pressure force overcomes the liquid

surface tension. In a rotary or twin-uid type atomizer (all nozzle

types in which atomization is achieved using high-velocity air, gas

or steam), the shear force or the centrifugal force overcomes the

liquid surface tension. Many other forms of atomizers have also

been developed that are useful in special applications, including

electrostatic atomizer where electrical force is used to overcome

surface tension forces and achieve atomization, impinging jet

atomizer where liquid jets collide outside the nozzle to achieve

atomization, ultrasonic atomizer in which high frequency

(2050 kHz) vibration is utilized to produce narrow drop size

distribution and low velocity spray from a liquid, whistle atomizer

in which sound waves are used to shatter a liquid jet into droplets,

and windmill atomizer which is a rotary atomizer used for aerial

application of pesticides with a unique feature of using wind forces

to provide rotary motion.

Most commonly used atomizers for spray combustion applications include mainly plain-orice atomizers for fuel injection in

combustion engines and gas-turbine combustors, pressure-swirl

and air-blast atomizers and effervescent ow atomizers for

combustors, engines and propulsion applications. The plain orice

is the most common type of atomizer and the most simply made.

However, there is nothing simple about the physics of the internal

nozzle ow and the external atomization. In the plain-orice

atomizer, the liquid is accelerated through a nozzle due to high

injection pressure, forms a liquid jet, and then forms droplets. This

apparently simple process is impressively complex in physics. The

plain orice may operate in single-phase or cavitating ow regime.

The transition between regimes is abrupt, producing dramatically

different sprays. The internal regime determines the velocity at the

orice exit, as well as the initial droplet size and the angle of droplet

dispersion. Combustion applications for plain-orice atomizers

include diesel engines, turbojet afterburners, ramjets, and rocket

engines. Another important type of atomizer is the pressure-swirl

atomizer, sometimes referred to by the gas-turbine community as

a simplex atomizer. This type of atomizer accelerates the liquid

through nozzles known as swirl ports into a central swirl chamber.

The swirling liquid pushes against the walls of the swirl chamber

and develops a hollow air core. It then emerges from the orice as

a thinning sheet, which is unstable, breaking up into ligaments and

droplets. The pressure-swirl atomizer is very widely used for

liquid-fuel combustion in gas turbines, oil furnaces, and directinjection spark-ignited automobile engines as well. In order to

accelerate the breakup of liquid sheets from an atomizer, an additional air stream is often directed through the atomizer. The liquid

is formed into a sheet by a nozzle, and the air is then directed

against the sheet to promote atomization. This technique is called

air-assisted atomization or air-blast atomization, depending on the

quantity of air and its velocity. The addition of the external air

stream past the sheet produces smaller droplets than without the

air. The exact mechanism for this enhanced performance is not

completely understood. It is thought that the assisting air may

enhance the sheet instability. The air may also help disperse the

droplets, preventing collisions between them. Air-assisted atomization is used in many of the same elds as pressure-swirl atomization, where ne atomization is especially required. The merits of

the air-blast atomizer have led to its installation in a wide variety of

aircraft, marine, and industrial gas turbines. Similar to the pressureswirl atomizer, there is also a type of atomizer referred to as the

at-fan atomizer which makes a at sheet and does not use swirl. In

addition to the commonly used atomizers, effervescent atomization

is the injection of liquid infused with a super-heated (with respect

to downstream conditions) liquid or propellant. As the volatile

liquid exits the nozzle, it rapidly changes phase. This phase change

quickly breaks up the stream into small droplets with a wide

dispersion angle. It also applies to cases where a very hot liquid is

discharged. Effervescent atomization involves bubbling a small

amount of gas into the liquid and the physics of effervescence

atomization has not been fully understood.

As a means to achieve improved combustion efciency and

reduced pollutant emissions, atomization and spray combustion

remain a very important process in the current and future energy

systems. There has been a substantial amount of experimental,

computational and theoretical studies on fuel injection and spray

combustion, which have been reviewed from different perspectives

in the past, e.g. [127], mainly from theoretical and experimental

points of view. Over the last few decades, the continuous evolution

in the research area of atomization and sprays has been predominantly driven by the readily available laser optical instruments and

enormously enhanced computer powers. To achieve the ever

stringent goals of low emission and to further improve the fuel

economy, a much greater degree of control of atomization and

spray processes is required in the atomizer design and the spray

systems. An in-depth understanding is essential to the effective

control of atomization and spray processes. However, such an

understanding is still not available due to the complex nature of the

multiphase reacting ows. There are also new spray systems

emerging in different applications. For instance, electrosprays and

ultrasonic sprays provide the means to generate more steady and

controlled spray ows [24], but these processes have been poorly

understood.

The rapid and steady improvements in the speed of computers

and the available memory size since the 1950s have led to the

emergence of computational uid dynamics (CFD) in the 1960s and

the development of advanced CFD approaches such as direct

numerical simulation (DNS) and large-eddy simulation (LES) in

a later stage. Numerical simulation based on modern CFD represents a useful tool to obtain ow characteristics that can be effectively utilized to understand the ow physics, to interpret available

experimental data and to guide experimental work, as well as to

execute pre-calculations for altered operating conditions.

The basis of CFD is that the physical aspects of any uid ow are

governed by three fundamental principles: mass is conserved;

principles are expressed in terms of mathematical equations, which

in their general form can be given as partial differential equations,

namely the NavierStokes equations for uid ow. For combustion

applications, chemical reactions and the associated heat releases

lead to signicant complexities in the uid ow such as changes in

concentrations of chemical species and in uid transport properties

(diffusivity, thermal conductivity, uid viscosity, etc.). Consequently, additional governing equations to account for these

changes need to be included for CFD of chemically reacting ows.

As a computational tool, CFD is the science of determining

a numerical solution to the governing equations of uid ow whilst

advancing or iterating to obtain the solution through space and/or

time to acquire a numerical description of the complete ow eld

of interest. CFD deals with numerical methods and algorithms to

solve and analyze problems that involve uid ows. CFD codes are

structured around the numerical algorithms that can tackle uid

ow problems while computers are used to perform the signicant

amount of calculations needed. As it stands, CFD complements

experimental and theoretical uid dynamics by providing an

alternative cost effective means of simulating real ows including

gasliquid multiphase ows in the atomization and sprays

processes. As such high delity CFD also offers a means of testing

theoretical advances for conditions unavailable or extremely difcult to obtain based on an experimental basis, such as the physical

models for atomization and sprays. The role of CFD in engineering

applications has become so strong that it is now viewed as a new

third dimension of uid dynamics, the other two dimensions being

the experimental and theoretical approaches, as stated by Anderson [28]. From the 1970s and onwards CFD techniques have been

integrated into the design, research and development of aircraft

and jet engines, internal combustion engines and furnaces. CFD is

playing an increasingly important role as a design tool in industry.

Simultaneously, the newly emerging and the recent development

of advanced CFD such as LES and DNS open new opportunities to

simulate uid ows with much higher delity and to explore the

physical insights of many complex uid ow systems.

As an emerged science over the last half-century, CFD has

developed signicantly mainly due to the enormous advancements

in computer technology. In the traditional Reynolds-averaged

NavierStokes (RANS) modelling framework of CFD, the time- or

ensemble-averaged equations for uid mechanics are solved. Due

to the intrinsic time- or ensemble-averaging, RANS approach does

not provide enough information on the dynamic or unsteady

features of the ow such as the vortical structures in the ow eld.

For fuel injection and spray combustion processes, unsteadiness is

a dominate feature of the uid dynamics, which can be often poorly

predicted by RANS. However, advanced simulation and modelling

techniques like DNS and LES can provide insight into such complex

unsteady dynamics of the ow. The recent developments in DNS

and LES offer an opportunity to investigate transient processes by

providing temporally and spatially resolved (as in DNS) or better

modelled (as in LES) solutions. Despite the signicant amount of

reviews available for atomization and sprays from different aspects,

e.g. [127], there is a lack of review of the current applications of

CFD to atomization and spray combustion, especially the applications of advanced CFD such as DNS and LES.

Atomization and spray process remains a signicant challenge

to CFD practitioners. In most of the atomization and spray

processes, the breakup of liquid jets and sheets results in chaotic

generation of drop sizes and velocities. In current spray systems,

the variation in drop size and speed can be vastly different. In the

medical sprays, aerosol particles in the range of a few microns have

been used [24]. For various industrial sprays, the drop size covers

a broad range, from 10 mm typically for aerosols and diesel sprays to

135

1000 mm for sprinklers. The velocity of sprays can range from a few

centimeters to several hundred meters per second, involving both

incompressible and compressible ows and covering both laminar

and turbulent ow regimes. The physics of gasliquid two-phase

ows in atomization and spray processes have not been well

understood due to the multiple time and length scales involved and

the coupling between the two phases, which is always difcult to

investigate using simple experimental and/or computational

approaches.

There are two different ways in which the two-phase spray

ows are commonly represented in CFD. These two approaches are:

the Eulerian method, where the spray is considered as

a continuum across the whole ow domain, and the Lagrangian

method, where the paths taken by droplets or clusters of droplets

are tracked through the domain. In the Lagrangian particle tracking

approach, the gas phase is still represented using the Eulerian

approach but the liquid spray is represented by a number of

discrete computational particles. Individual particles are tracked

through the ow domain from their injection point until

they escape the domain or until some integration limit criterion is

met. Each uid particle typically represents a large number of

droplets with a given size distribution and transport properties. The

larger number of particles or trajectories gives a reasonable

representation of the liquid behaviour. One of the advantages of

the Lagrangian approach is that an accurate representation of the

droplet distribution can be obtained at a lower cost than the

Eulerian approach of the liquid phase, where tracking the interface

between all the droplets and the gas phase can be a prohibitive task

in terms of computing costs. Consequently, the Lagrangian method

for the liquid phase has been predominantly used in RANS and LES.

Lagrangian approach is a reduced modelling strategy where the

internal dynamics of the droplets or liquid parcels is ignored. Due to

this reason and the prohibitively large number of droplets that

need to be traced and the extensive models involved for the

descriptions of the liquid phase especially for the initial breakup

and atomization stage, it is not normally preferable in DNS.

In the following sections of this review, the physical modelling

of atomization and sprays is discussed rst in Section 2, in the

context of RANS modelling approach of spray ows. Since RANS

modelling approach will remain to be the dominant method in

industrial applications in the foreseeable future, physical submodels of atomization and spray processes are an important part of

CFD applications to spray ows. In Section 3, the more advanced

LES of spray ow and combustion is briey reviewed, where the

SGS modelling issues are highlighted. In Section 4, DNS-like

simulations of gasliquid two-phase ows for atomization and

sprays are described, including relevant numerical methods.

Finally, in Section 5, other relevant issues of modelling and simulation of atomization and sprays are discussed, including modelling

of internal ow and hollow-cone sprays, dense sprays, electrohydrodynamic (EHD) atomization, and multiscale modelling of

atomization and sprays. The review has been focussed on the uid

dynamic aspects of spray ows, rather than the detailed combustion modelling of the reacting aspects of the ows.

2. Physical modelling of atomization and sprays

The development of computers with large memory and highspeed processors enables theoreticians to formulate and numerically solve comprehensive mathematical models with detailed

consideration of physical and chemical processes involved in

liquid-fuel atomization and spray combustion. Due to the

complexity involved in atomization and spray processes such as the

broad range of time and length scales involved, modelling or

approximation is inevitable in CFD of such multiphase ow

136

sprays such as those in combustion engines and gas-turbine

combustors, the phenomena are remarkably complex and challenging, which often occur in a three-dimensional, time-dependent

system with partly understood multiphase turbulent ow and

chemical reactions. Consequently, CFD analysis of atomization and

sprays is more difcult than CFD analysis in many other areas. A key

component for successful CFD of internal combustion and gasturbine combustion is accurate characterization of the liquid

sprays. CFD of spray ows involving both gas and liquid phases is an

area with enormous efforts, where the gas phase can always be

represented (not modelled) by the NavierStokes equations in the

Eulerian reference frame but the tracking of the liquid phase can be

different. The liquid phase including the ligaments and droplets can

be tracked either in an Eulerian reference frame similar to the gas

phase, or in the Lagrangian reference frame by tracing the trajectories of the liquid particles. The Lagrangian reference frame is

a way of looking at uid motion where the observer follows

individual uid particles as they move through space and time,

while the Eulerian reference frame is a way of looking at uid

motion that focuses on specic locations in space through which

the uid ows.

For the atomization and spray processes, there have been

physical models developed for the fuel injection and atomization

processes in combustion engines, also for atomization processes

in atomizers in gas-turbine combustors such as pressure-swirl

atomizers, air-blast atomizers, plain orice, and effervescent

atomizer. Although the practical fuel injectors and atomizers in

different applications can be very different, the underlying physics

for atomization is similar in these applications. As an example, the

following discussion on physical modelling of atomization and

sprays is directed towards combustion engine applications, but the

modelling issues and approaches for gas-turbine combustors are

very similar. In the following subsections, the spray equation in the

Lagrangian approach, atomizers and liquid atomization modelling,

droplet kinematics, droplet/droplet and droplet/wall interactions,

and liquid (fuel) evaporation are discussed in the context of traditional CFD of engine ow and combustion.

2.1. The spray equation in the Lagrangian approach

The application of CFD to spray combustion allows the fundamentals of single-droplet behaviour to be combined with uid

mechanics to predict fuel preparation effects in practical spray

combustors. Many of the CFD codes available have incorporated

spray modelling, which has been largely based on the Lagrangian

approach to the liquid phase, e.g. [29,30]. For spray ows described

in the Lagrangian approach, the basic conservation equations of

mass, momentum, and energy for the uid must be modied to

include additional terms, which account for two-phase effects. The

continuity equation for gas-phase species includes a source term

due to vaporization of droplets. The momentum equation includes

a term for the rate of momentum gain per unit volume due to the

spray. The energy conservation equation includes a source term for

the energy exchange involved in droplet vaporization. In practical

CFD codes, the current status of turbulence modelling uses

ensemble-averaged equations in which turbulence transport

properties are computed from a turbulence model such as the k 3

model. For sprays, the turbulent kinetic energy k and dissipation

rate 3 equations each contain an additional term due to spray

interactions.

The spray itself could in theory be modelled by following the

behaviour of each droplet, but the complexity of this approach for

practical computations is prohibitive given current computer

capabilities. Thus, the spray is often described in terms of a droplet

variables: three droplet position components x, three droplet

velocity components v, droplet radius r, droplet temperature

(assumed uniform within the droplet) Td , droplet distortion from

sphericity y, the time rate of change of the droplet distortion

_ and time t. From f one can compute the probable

parameter y,

number of droplets per unit volume at a given position and time

that lie within a given incremental interval around each of the other

seven independent variables. The time evolution of f is computed

from the so-called spray equation, which accounts for changes in

f due to each of the eleven independent variables plus changes due

to droplet collisions and breakup. The spray model considers the

droplet interactions with turbulence and walls, and calculates the

changes of the independent variables (size, velocity, temperature,

etc.) due to momentum change, evaporation, etc. A complete

Lagrangian description of particles also needs to account for the

orientation and rate of rotation of non-spherical particles. Solution

of the spray equation for f then allows calculation of the source

terms in the gas-phase equations, to account for change of mass,

momentum and energy in the gas phase due to sprays, and the

spray terms in the turbulence model equations.

The spray equation states conservation of probability in the state

space of the random variables [31], which can be written as [32]:

vf

v

v _

v

v

f Td

Vx ,f v Vv ,f F f R

f y_

fy

vt

vr

vTd

vy

vy_

f_

1

f_

coll

bu

In Eq. (1), f x; v; r; Td ; y; y;

of droplets per unit volume at position x and time t with velocities

in the interval v; v dv, radii in the interval r; r dr, temperature in the interval Td ; Td dTd , and displacement parameters in

_ y_ dy.

_ In the spray equation,

the intervals y; y dy and y;

F dv=dt denotes the acceleration of an individual droplet, R, T_ d ,

are the time rates of changes of droplet radius, temperature,

and y

and oscillation velocity y_ respectively. The terms f_ coll and f_ bu are the

sources due to droplet collisions and breakup. By solving the spray

equation, the so-called source or exchange terms can be obtained,

which describe the interactions between the liquid and gas phases.

In order to assure conservation of mass, momentum and energy of

the total (two phase) system, these terms need to be included in the

gas-phase conservation equations. Following Reitz [32], the source

terms in the gas-phase mass conservation equation r_ s , momentum

s

s

equation F_ , energy equation Q_ , and turbulent kinetic energy

s

_ can be given as:

equation W

r_ s

s

F_

s

Q_

_ s

W

f rd

4 3 0

pr F 4pr2 Rv dv dr dTd dy dy_

3

1

4

f rd 4pr 2 R Il v u2 pr 3 cl T_ d

2

3

0

0

F $v u u dv dr dTd dy dy_

(2)

(3)

4

f rd pr 3 F0 $u0 dv dr dTd dy dy_

3

(4)

(5)

are due to spray effects and the subscript d represents droplets,

F0 F g is the difference between the droplet and the gravitational accelerations, v u is the droplet-gas relative velocity, u0 is

the turbulent uctuation of the gas velocity, Il and cl are the internal

energy and specic heat of liquid droplets, respectively.

In CFD codes, the spray equation is normally solved using

a Monte-Carlo based solution technique in the Lagrangian formulation [29], based on the so-called discrete droplet model proposed

by Dukowicz [33]. The trajectories of spray droplets are traced in

the eleven dimensional phase space once they are injected. The

method describes the spray droplets by stochastic particles that are

usually referred to as parcels [34]. The spray models consider the

droplet interactions with turbulence and walls, and calculate

droplet momentum changes due to drag, droplet breakup, collision

and evaporation. These processes control the droplet locations,

sizes, velocities, temperatures and distortions. The status of droplets, i.e. the function f , is updated by the solution of Eq. (1) and the

contribution of fuel spray to the gas phase is then obtained since

mass, momentum and energy are transferred between the phases.

Additional consideration is needed in the spray equation to

describe the injection, atomization, distortion, breakup, collision

and coalescence of spray droplets. An efcient injection modelling

approach is to introduce the liquid into the combustion chamber as

computational parcels containing large numbers of identical

droplets. The number and velocity of the injected droplet parcels

can be determined from the fuel ow rate and knowledge of the

nozzle discharge coefcient [35].

For spray simulations in the traditional RANS CFD modelling

approach, it should be understood that due to the probabilistic

approach of the spray equation and the nite grid size of the

calculations, many limitations are present. In a practical simulation,

many droplets are contained within a given grid volume element

due to the nite grid size (currently of the order of 12 mm). The

modelling assumptions, which determine behaviour within each

grid element, are thus very important. The limitations on grid size

also affect the modelling of heat transfer, momentum exchange,

and droplet phenomena at solid surfaces, etc., therefore numerical

resolution is important in reproducing the structure of sprays [36].

The closure of the spray equation requires expressions to

approximate relevant terms in Eq. (1), which necessitates modelling

approximations for the sub-processes of atomization and sprays. A

variety of sub-models on atomization and sprays are involved in

numerical simulation of sprays. These sub-models are based on

many theoretical assumptions and empirical correlations. In

a numerical simulation, the assumptions inevitably affect the results

and which of the many empirically based assumptions is most

important depends strongly on the application. In the following

subsections, physical modelling of atomization and sprays is discussed in terms of liquid atomization, droplet kinematics, droplet/

droplet and spray/wall interactions, and fuel evaporation.

2.2. Liquid atomization modelling

Atomization is the process leading to the formation of sprays,

which refers to the conversion of bulk liquid into a collection of

droplets, often by passing the liquid through a nozzle or an atomizer. Atomization can be considered as a disruption of the consolidating inuence of surface tension by the action of internal and

external forces. The atomization model supplies the initial conditions for spray computations, i.e. the drop sizes, velocities,

temperatures, etc., at the injector nozzle exit. In spite of the

importance of atomization and the extensive efforts devoted to its

study, the fundamental mechanisms of breakup and atomization

are still not well understood. Modelling liquid atomization represents a particularly difcult challenge since there is still much

uncertainty about the fundamental mechanisms of atomization.

Models have been proposed which ascribe atomization to the

turbulent and/or cavitation ow processes within the nozzle

137

other mechanisms [37]. In CFD computations of spray ows, an

approximate method has to be used to represent the complex

physics of atomization, where the initial atomization of the injected

blobs, as well as the subsequent breakup of the droplets produced

from the atomization process can be modelled using droplet

breakup models. This procedure removes the requirement of

having to specify droplet sizes at the nozzle exit, and it is based on

the reasonable assumption that the atomization of the injected

liquid and the fragmentation of droplets or liquid blobs are

indistinguishable processes within the dense liquid core region

near the injector nozzle exit. Two droplet breakup models have

been widely used: the Taylor analogy breakup (TAB) model [38] and

the wave breakup model [39].

The TAB model [38] compares an oscillating-distorting droplet

to a spring-mass system where the aerodynamic force on the

droplet, the liquid surface tension force, and the liquid viscosity

force are analogous, respectively, to the external force acting on

a mass, the restoring force of a spring, and the damping force. The

distortion parameter y is calculated by solving a spring-mass

equation of the form

2 rg w2

8s

5m

3 y 2l y_

3 rl r 2

rl r

rl r

(6)

surface tension, and viscosity, respectively; and w v u is the

local relative velocity between the droplet and the surrounding gas.

If the value of y exceeds unity, the droplet breaks up into smaller

droplets with radius specied in given distributions [38].

The wave breakup model for atomization was developed by

Reitz [39], who applied the wave stability theory to diesel fuel

atomization. By injecting parcels of liquid in the form of blobs

that have a characteristic size equal to the nozzle hole diameter, the

basis of this model is the concept that the atomization of the

injected liquid and the subsequent breakup of drops are indistinguishable processes within a dense spray. As depicted in Fig. 2,

a core region is assumed to exist near the nozzle as blobs and the

injected liquid breaks up due to its interaction with the

surrounding gas as it penetrates into the gas. There is a region of

large discrete liquid particles near the nozzle, which is conceptually

equivalent to a core of churning liquid ligaments. Considering

a liquid jet issuing from an orice into a stationary, incompressible

gas, the stability of the liquid surface to linear perturbations is

examined by the wave breakup theory, which ultimately leads to

a dispersion equation. The relationship includes the physical and

dynamical parameters of the liquid jet and the surrounding gas.

The wave breakup model [39] considers the unstable growth

of KelvinHelmholtz waves at a liquidgas interface due to the socalled KelvinHelmholtz instabilities, which occur when there is

a shear motion of two uids owing alongside each other. A

stability analysis leads to a dispersion equation relating the growth

rate, U, of an initial perturbation on a liquid surface of innitesimal

amplitude to its wavelength, L, and to other physical and dynamic

parameters of both the liquid and the ambient gas. Curve ts of the

numerical solutions for the maximum growth rate and its wavelength are

0:5

0:34 0:38We1:5

g

;

1 Z 1 1:4T 0:6

1 0:45Z 0:5

1 0:4T 0:7

L

9:02

0:6

a

1 0:87We1:67

g

rl a3

s

(7)

138

Fig. 2. Schematic of blobs from a liquid jet formed during fuel injection.

numbers for the gas and liquid phases are Weg rg U 2 a=s and

Wel rl U 2 a=s respectively, U is the gas velocity at the liquid

=Rel with

surface, Ohnesorge number of the liquid is Z We0:5

l

Reynolds number Rel rl Ua=ml, T ZWe0:5

g is the Taylor parameter. The liquid breakup is modelled by postulating that new

droplets are formed (with droplet radius r) from a parent droplet or

blob (with radius a) with

r B0 L where B0 L a; or

1=3

1=3 i

h

; 3a2 L=4

r min 3pa2 U=2U

where B0 L > a; one time only

formed with droplet sizes proportional to the wavelength of the

fastest-growing or most probable unstable surface wave; it is also

assumed that the jet disturbance has frequency U=2p (a droplet is

formed each period) or that the droplet size is determined from the

volume of liquid contained under one surface wave for droplets

larger than the jet (low-speed breakup). The mass of new droplets

due to breakup is subtracted from the parent droplets. The change

of the radius of a parent droplet is assumed to follow the rate

equation

da

ar

with r a;

s

dt

a

3:726B1

breakup model based on the recognition of RayleighTaylor

instabilities that occur when a low density uid is supporting

a higher density uid against a force, in order to estimate the

disintegration of the blobs into secondary droplets. RT-instabilities

can develop if the uid acceleration has an opposite direction to the

density gradient. For a liquid blob decelerated by drag forces in

a gas phase, this means that instabilities may grow unstable at the

trailing edge of the droplet. When the RT- and KH-models are used

together, they are implemented in a competing manner, i.e. the

droplet breaks up by the mechanism that predicts a shorter

breakup time. Close to the injector nozzle where the droplet

velocities are highest, the KH-breakup is usually the governing

mechanism, whereas the RT-breakup becomes more dominant or

both mechanisms are important further downstream.

2.3. Droplet kinematics, droplet/droplet and spray/wall

interactions, and liquid-fuel evaporation

Droplet kinematics is an integral part of spray dynamics. In the

Lagrangian formulation of the discrete droplet model, the position

of a droplet or actually the position of a parcel containing a group of

identical droplets is characterized by the vector x. The momentum

of the droplet during one computational time step dt is derived

from

d

x v

dt

LU

(9)

In Eq. (9), B1 is the breakup time constant that depends on the

injector characteristics.

Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of the surface waves and

breakup of a blob in the wave breakup model. The wave

breakup model considers the growth of initial perturbations of the

liquid surface and includes the effects of liquid inertia, surface

tension, viscous and aerodynamic forces on liquid jets and sheets.

The theory is found to offer a reasonably complete description of

the breakup mechanisms of low-speed liquid jets. For high-speed

jets and sheets, however, the initial state of the jet at the nozzle exit

appears to be more important and less understood and the linear

stability analysis involved in the wave model may not be

sufcient.

The TAB model and the wave breakup model discussed are

widely used to describe both the primary breakup of the intact

liquid phase into rst ligaments and droplets and the secondary

breakup of liquid-fuel droplets into even smaller droplets. The rst

attempt to include secondary droplet breakup in a CFD spray

calculation was made by Reitz and Diwakar [40]. In many recent

applications, the wave or KelvinHelmholtz (KH) breakup model

(10)

d

v F

dt

(11)

the equation of motion of a droplet moving at a relative velocity,

v u, in the gas, i.e.

rl VF

1

r C A $ju vj$u v

2 g D f

(12)

where V and Af are the droplet volume and frontal area, respectively. To calculate the droplet drag, the droplet can be taken to be

a sphere with drag coefcient [29] given by

CD

2=3

1 16Red

0:424

24

Red

Red 1000

Red > 1000

(13)

However, the droplets undergo high distortion in many applications such as in diesel sprays due to the high injection velocity

and the drag coefcient changes as a droplet departs from the

spherical shape. To account for this, the distortion of a droplet can

be calculated from the TAB model, i.e. Eq. (6). The distortion

parameter lies between the limits of a sphere y 0 and a attened

droplet or disk y 1 that has a drag coefcient CD 1:54. A

simple expression for drag coefcient has been formulated to

recover those limits for high-speed droplets [29], given as follows

CD CD;sphere 1 2:632y

(14)

described in spray modelling based on the Lagrangian approach.

Drop collisions occur in almost all spray applications and these

collisions are particularly important in dense sprays. The collisions

have a strong inuence on the mean droplet size and its spatial

distribution and can therefore affect other sub-processes of spray

combustion. While fairly detailed theories have been proposed to

describe the various collision mechanisms, e.g. [4143], up to now

their application in numerical simulation of sprays has been mostly

limited to fundamental studies. In most engine spray simulations,

the collision model by ORourke and Bracco [44] has been used.

In the ORourke and Bracco model [44], two spray regimes of

coalescence and stretching separation are distinguished. The

droplet/droplet collision process is modelled by computing the

collision frequency n12 between droplets in parcel 1 (containing

larger droplets) and parcel 2 in each computational cell,

b2 qr1 r2 2

and b2crit

g3 2:4g2 2:7g

r1 r2 2 min 1:0; 2:4

Wel

systems, spray wall impingement is an inherent sub-process of

mixture formation. The impact of a droplet on a heated surface may

lead to its instantaneous breakup, sudden vaporization, or to the

development of a thin liquid lm on the surface [45]. The liquid

droplet can stick, bounce, spread, breakup, or splash during the

spray/wall interaction [46]. It has been shown that the droplet

Weber number is an important parameter in spray impingement.

For We 80 the droplet rebounds from the wall while for We > 80

the droplet may disintegrate into small droplets that move away

from the impingement site parallel to the surface, depending on the

surface conditions and temperature. In the model of Naber and Reitz

[47], at high Weber numbers (We > 80) the impinging droplet is

assumed to slide along the wall surface. This model has also been

extended to include the rebounding droplet case for We < 80. In this

case, the tangential velocity component of the rebounding droplet is

assumed not to change during the collision and the normal velocity

component is evaluated using a correlation between the arrival and

departure Weber numbers in the form of [48]

(16)

g r1 =r2 . If b exceeds bcrit , coalescence does not occur and the

droplets maintain their sizes and temperatures but undergo

velocity changes. If coalescence is predicted, n droplets are

removed from parcel 2 and the size, velocity, and temperature of

droplets in parcel 1 are modied appropriately.

Spray/wall interaction is also an important sub-process in spray

combustion. Especially in modern passenger car diesel engines with

(17)

rebounding droplets, respectively. The subsequent disintegration

or breakup of the droplet depends on the relative velocity between

the droplet and the gas. Spray wall impingement represents

a sudden disturbance acting on a droplet. In modelling the breakup

of droplets near the wall due to impingement, the droplet breakup

time constant in Eq. (9) has been assigned a different value [48]. In

the modelling of spray/wall interaction [49,50], the effects of liquid

lms and wall heat transfer have also been considered.

The droplet breakup and collisions associated with droplet/

droplet and spray/wall interactions affect the droplet kinematics.

They can lead to the change in the number of droplets in a specic

size class and even to the appearance or disappearance of droplet

classes from the computation. In the spray equation, their effects

are embodied in the two source terms f_ coll and f_ bu , given in the

right-hand side of Eq. (1).

Liquid-fuel evaporation also needs to be included in spray

modelling. In the spray equation, one term that must be modelled is

the rate of droplet radius change, R, due to vaporization. The

Frossling correlation [48] may be used:

(15)

velocity vector and Vol is the volume of the cell. The probable

number of collisions, n, within the computational time step Dt is

then equal to n12 Dt. The probability of no collisions is pn en12 Dt

so that 0 < pn < 1. A collision event is assumed if pn is less than

a random number generated in the interval (0, 1). Coalescence of

colliding droplets results if the collision impact parameter b is less

than a critical value bcrit , where

139

rg DB Sh

dr

2rl r

dt

(18)

mass transfer number, and Sh is the Sherwood number. The fuel

mass fraction at the droplet surface (which appears in B) is obtained

by assuming that the partial pressure of fuel vapor equals to the

equilibrium vapor pressure at droplet temperature.

The liquid-fuel evaporation also affects the droplet temperature.

For the spray equation, the rate of change in droplet temperature is

calculated from an energy balance involving the latent heat of

vaporization and the heat conduction from the gas. The rate of heat

conduction from the gas to the droplet is

aT Td Nu

2r

(19)

and droplet temperatures, respectively, and Nu is the Nusselt

number.

Another important issue in fuel evaporation is the modelling of

multi-component fuels [37]. For alternative fuels, the spray properties can be very different [51]. In many practical applications, the

140

calculated in order to reasonably determine the source terms

originating from the spray. In the recent past, it has become more

and more popular to model more realistic fuels by means of

continuous thermodynamics [52,53]. However, the use of the

continuous thermodynamics is only possible if the important fuel

properties such as boiling and critical temperatures, density,

surface tension, viscosity, etc., can be explicitly expressed in terms

of the molecular weight. This condition is typically satised for

a particular family of hydrocarbons, e.g. for n-alkenes, but not for

components belonging to different categories. Much work still

needs to be done in this area.

modelling in LES directly follows the same approach as that used in

RANS CFD described in the previous section, where the SGS models

only account for the subgrid scales in the reacting gas phase. In the

following subsections, focus has been given to the fundamentals of

LES such as the scale separation theory and space ltering, SGS

model for combustion, and some numerical issues for LES of

atomization and sprays.

concept originally introduced by Richardson [54]. To give a brief

explanation of this, Richardson [54] assumed that the turbulent

ow comprises of multiple eddy sizes (akin to turbulent scales)

which go smaller in size from the so-called integral length scales

(known also as the energy containing structures) to the Kolmogorov scales. Across this spectra, an energy transfer known as

energy cascade is occurring. At small scales, viscosity effects begin

to have inuence and the energy of the smallest eddies is dissipated

exclusively by the viscosity forces.

Turbulent spray combustion is an extremely complex

phenomenon, involving multiple time and length scales. The

largest ones are of the order of the size of the system (for instance

dimensions of the gas-turbine combustion chamber), while

smallest, dissipative Kolmogorov scales are much smaller [55].

Combustion and multiphase phenomena add to the diversity and

complexity of the system. While reaction always occurs at the

molecular level and at the smallest timescales, there are many

situations where large-scale ow inuences the structure of the

ame. Each of the species involved has its own characteristic length

scale, diffusivity, etc. Moreover, combustion in the system can be

mixing or reaction rate controlled, depending on many factors such

as turbulence levels, chemical species involved, pressure and

temperature, etc. This diversity of a turbulent reacting ow makes

it a very complex modelling task. If this type of physical problem is

attempted to be solved by numerical methods, limitations in both

mathematical description and the available computer resources

immediately arise. Therefore necessity exists to introduce

assumptions and simplications to describe the system in an

abridged, reliable way, making the problem feasible for numerical

treatment.

Scale range separation is the basis of LES. Fig. 4 depicts the

Kolmogorov theory and associated turbulent ow scales. Those can

be divided into two main ranges: energy containing range and

universal equilibrium range. The energy containing range contains

the largest eddies which LES should be able to directly capture.

Universal equilibrium range is split into two subranges: inertial

range and dissipation range. The dissipation range contains the

smallest scales of turbulence (associated with Kolmogorov length

scale). Viscosity effects play a key role in dissipation of the ow

insight into reacting ow processes for improved combustion

performance and reduced emissions while not compromising fuel

economy. LES technique is a relatively new approach to deal with

simulations of turbulent ows emerged in the 1960s, with signicant advancements in the last two decades due to the major

advances in computing power. LES is beginning to emerge as

a viable RANS alternative for industrial ows. In the traditional

RANS approach, focus was given to the turbulent mean ow, in

which the Reynolds-averaged (time-averaged) or ensemble-averaged governing equations were solved. Accordingly, unsteady ow

dynamics may not be fully captured. LES may overcome this

problem by using spatial ltering instead of time- or ensembleaveraging. In LES, explicit account is taken of ow structures larger

than the lter width, while the inuence of unresolved scales is

modelled using a subgrid-scale model. The justication for LES is

that the larger eddies contain most of the energy, do most of the

transporting of conserved properties, and vary most from ow to

ow; the smaller eddies are believed to be more universal and less

important and should be easier to model. It is hoped that universality is more readily achieved at this level than in RANS modelling

but this assertion remains to be proven. In LES, there is a distinction

between resolved and unresolved scales. The spectrum of resolved

scales is directly dependent on the grid resolution used. Normally

one can only directly resolve eddies larger than the grid size. The

subgrid ow (structures smaller in size than the grid) and its effects

on the resolved part are then left to model.

The averaging in RANS and ltering in LES both lead to unknown

terms in the averaged and ltered equations, which are Reynolds

stresses in RANS and the SGS Reynolds stresses in LES. Similar to the

Reynolds stresses in RANS, the SGS term in LES needs to be

modelled to form a closed set of the uid ow governing equations.

However, they have different physical meanings. The SGS Reynolds

stresses in LES are due to a local average of the complete eld, while

the Reynolds stresses in RANS are due to a time- or ensembleaverage. The SGS energy can be a much smaller part of the total

ow than the RANS turbulent energy and thus modelling accuracy

may be less crucial in a LES than in RANS computation. SGS

modelling is the most distinctive feature of LES. Unfortunately, SGS

models of turbulent ows so far have been mainly developed for

single-phase non-reacting ows. SGS modelling for reacting and/or

multiphase ows such as that encountered in LES of liquid-fuel

injection and spray combustion is extremely scarce. In LES of

gasliquid two-phase jet ows, SGS models for the complex

multiphase ows are very immature. There is a lack of wellestablished SGS models, especially for the interactions between the

different phases. There is no SGS model available to date that could

take into account the subgrid inuence of one phase that is locally

smaller than the grid size (for instance ne liquid droplets

dispersed in a gas medium) on the resolved scales. In the state-of-

formulation

and energy containing ranges and this is where the transfer of

energy to successively smaller scales is taking place. An operation

of ltering can be applied to the governing equations for uid ows,

which subsequently leads to a set of ltered governing equations,

forming the basis of the numerical solution in LES. It needs noting

that ltering can in theory be applied at any scales and does not

need to follow the distinction between energy containing range

and universal equilibrium range. It is however most benecial in

terms of accuracy/computational cost ratio to adjust the ltering in

such a manner that most of the energy containing range is directly

resolved.

Equations describing reacting ows need to account for changes

in density and sometimes compressibility to be able to predict

phenomena like pressure uctuations, dilatation, and thermal

expansion. This is a more complicated approach than strictly

incompressible ows. Low Mach number combustion ows are

similar to incompressible ows, but the density can change due to

heat release in low Mach number ows. In internal combustion

engines and gas-turbine combustors, the ow can be modelled

using low Mach number approximation, except in ows near the

intake valves of piston engines. In the context of LES of compressible ows, simplication of the ltered, compressible equation set

can be accomplished by introducing the density-weighted ltering,

known commonly as Favre ltering (also known as mass-weighted

ltering), so as to avoid appearance of additional SGS terms when

the compressible ow governing equations are ltered. Massweighted ltering is used for all parameters of the uid ow

besides the pressure (and body forces in gravitational, electrical

and magnetic elds when relevant). The ltering is designated by

two symbols, namely, the overbar designates ordinary ltering,

while the tilde species mass-weighted ltering [56].

~f rf

(20)

parts:

f ~f f 0

(21)

component. While at rst glance this is similar to the way variables

are decomposed in RANS, it is important to note that this is not

decomposition into mean and uctuating parts but distinction

between resolved and unresolved scales in LES.

The ltered quantity is obtained by applying a ltering function

given by

~f x; t

G x x0i f x0i ; t dx0i

(22)

must satisfy

Gxi zi dzi 1

(23)

true with the ltered variables. While in theory any ltering

function satisfying the above equation can be used, three types of

lters have been commonly used, including Fourier space lter,

Gaussian lter and box lter. The Fourier space lter requires

transformation of Eq. (22) into the Fourier space using the Fourier

transformation:

b

f u

141

f xi eiux dx

(24)

b u u

b u G

b u

u

(25)

[57,58]. Therefore the Gaussian and box lters are often used. The

Gaussian lter [59] is commonly specied as:

Gx; y

3=2

pD2

"

exp

6y x2

#

(26)

D2

to correlate the lter width directly with the grid size. Hence it is

convenient to specify it as

3

Dx$Dy$Dz

(27)

where Dx, Dy and Dz are the sizes of a typical grid cell in x, y and z

directions respectively. This is one of the many possible lters.

Finally, a box lter is the same as the grid lter whereby the lter

cuts off the values of the function beyond a half lter width away.

The box lter has a unique feature in that the ltered quantity at the

lter centre represents the spatial average of the ltered function

within the lter domain. This makes it attractive for application in

nite-volume method based codes.

Applying the ltering to the fundamental governing equations

of uid ows leads to a set of ltered equations to be solved in LES,

consisting of the mass conservation equation, NavierStokes

momentum equations for the three velocity components, and the

energy equation and species conservation equations for each of the

species present in the system for reacting ows. For a spray ow

with the liquid phase described in the Lagrangian reference frame,

the ltered governing equations for LES of the compressible,

multiphase ow can be given as follows [60,61].

~j

vr vru

r_s

vt

vxj

(28)

vp

~i

vru

v

ru~ i u~ j ~sij ssgs

Fis

ij

vt

vxj

vxi

(29)

~j

~

vu

e

vr~

v

vu

ru~ j ~e qj hsgs

p

~sij i

j

vt

vxj

vxj

vxj

c

s

sgs

Psgs Q

Q_ Q_

~

~m

vrY

v

vY

sgs

ru~ j Y~ m rDm m Fsgs

qj;m

j;m

vxj

vt

vxj

(30)

!

r_ cm r_ sm

(31)

In the above equations, the subgrid related terms are unclosed and

,

have to be modelled, including the subgrid-scale stress tensor ssgs

ij

, velocitypressure gradient correlation Psgs , viscous

heat ux hsgs

j

sgs

sgs

work Q , species mass ux Fj;m , and species diffusive mass ux

qsgs

.

Also,

all

the

terms

on

the

right-hand side of Eqs. (28)(31)

j;m

which are due to liquid spray and combustion need to be modelled,

which may include contributions from both the resolved and subgrid scales. The diffusion terms in Eq. (31) is expressed in terms of

Fickian diffusion that is a commonly used approximation.

The modelling of the unclosed terms in the ltered equations

and appropriate treatment of the chemical (combustion) and spray

source terms in the governing equations represent the most

142

There have been considerable efforts in modelling all these terms.

For instance, using the k equation model [62], the subgrid stress

tensor is given as

1

2

ssgs

Sij ~

2rnt ~

Skk dij rksgs dij

ij

3

(32)

In Eq. (32), ~

Sij is the resolved strain rate tensor, dened as

~j

~ i vu

1 vu

~

Sij

2 vxj vxi

!

(33)

p

The eddy viscosity is given by nt Cn r ksgs D using the subgrid

turbulent kinetic energy ksgs, which is provided by solving the

following equation

!

~ j ksgs

~i

vrksgs vru

v rnt vksgs

sgs vu

sgs

_ s

W

sij

D

vt

vxj

vxj

vxj Prt vxj

(34)

sgs

In the above equation,

p the subgrid energy dissipation rate term D

3=2

is closed by C3 r ksgs =D. The values of Cn and C3 are chosen to be

_ s is the sub0.067 and 0.916 [60,61], respectively. The last term W

grid turbulence effects due to spray, which follows the original

modelling approach used in RANS CFD. The subgrid heat ux,

viscous work, and species mass ux may be modelled by the eddyviscosity concept [63]:

sgs

hj

rnt Cp vT~

Prt vxj

sgs

; Q

Dsgs

C3 r

p

rnt vY~ m

ksgs

sgs

; Fj;m

Sct vxj

D

3=2

(35)

More details of the closure of the unknown terms in the ltered

equations are presented in the following subsections.

In LES of reacting ows, an assumption is often made that in

a turbulent reacting ow the scales of the chemical processes are

separated from those of turbulence, based on the observation that

chemical reactions often occur at much smaller timescales than

those of turbulence itself. A separate, uncoupled treatment of both

turbulent and chemical processes is then possible. This is also

a scale separation, which forms the basis of many physical models

for turbulent combustion. There are however situations, where this

scale separation fails completely. For example, it has been shown

[64,65] that lean premixed ames are highly unstable and can be

quenched locally or extinguished by turbulence effects. Recent

experimental work, using high sensitivity planar laser induced

uorescence (PLIF) imaging methods, conrmed interactions of

ame and ow eld in highly turbulent regions lead to local ame

extinctions [66,67]. This phenomenon is especially important in the

context of gas-turbine combustors. Since the design of a modern

gas-turbine combustor focuses on lean combustion for lower

emission and increased fuel efciency, the risk of ame quenching

and local extinction is increased. The so-called lean blow out (LBO)

can occur in both premixed and non-premixed ames and

substantial amount of research is devoted to this problem [68,69].

The LBO effect is also crucial for liquid sprays and atomization. LBO

may be affected by vaporization timescales and droplet residence

times. This coupling between turbulence and combustion chemistry calls for very sophisticated combustion models effective at all

ow scales and this is where the scale separation theory has serious

limitations. The coupling between combustion instability and

acoustics is another area where the combustion chemistry cannot

be decoupled from the ow eld. In addition, heat release due to

the reaction causes density and velocity uctuations which couple

the behaviour of small scales back to the large, energy containing

might be appropriate if it is not based on scale separation theory.

One of such a model for reacting ow is presented next, together

with a general discussion on SGS models for LES.

combustion

In LES, ltering of the governing equations produced unknown

terms. Employment of modelling is therefore necessary in order to

close the equation set and make the system numerically solvable.

So far, the SGS closure in LES has been mainly developed for nonreacting, incompressible ows. In this case only subgrid stress

tensor needs to be modelled. An overview of models for the subgrid

stress of non-reacting, incompressible ows will be briey presented in the owing, along with modelling benets and drawbacks. It is worth mentioning that for very dense meshes LES is

expected to approach DNS accuracy. For coarser meshes, some

argue that the numerical diffusion can reasonably reproduce the

effect of small scales on the ow but this assumption clearly

depends on the numerical algorithm used, mesh resolution and the

type of the ow. There is no theoretical foundation for this

assumption. Choosing the numerical scheme when no SGS model is

used proves to be a challenging task as we have no direct measure

of the accuracy and representation of turbulent physics [70]. It must

be noted that the stress modelling in LES is not as crucial as it is in

RANS methods. This is because modelling only represents a relatively small portion of the whole energy spectrum. In addition to

this, as LES mesh is rened, contribution of subgrid terms decreases

up to a point where theoretically the simulation would approach

DNS accuracy. Research by Fureby and Grinstein [71] showed that

SGS may not be needed for some numerical schemes. Wang et al.

[72] investigated swirling ows using LES and found that the SGS

model does not have a great inuence on the results that were

compared with experimental data.

A successful SGS stress model should excel in two main aspects

sgs

[62]: (1) systematic representation of subgrid stress tensor sij by

~

utilizing the resolved ow eld ui x; t; (2) accounting for energy

ux to the unresolved scales. By far the most commonly used

subgrid-scale model is the one proposed by Smagorinsky [73],

which marked the beginning of LES. In the Smagorinsky model, the

subgrid eddy viscosity is specied as

nt Cs D2 ~S C D2 ~S

(36)

q

In Eq. (36), ~

S

2Sij Sij and the Smagorinsky constant Cs usually

has the value of 0.10.2. The Smagorinsky model is a very popular

subgrid model that originated from the research in meteorological

eld. It represents the most basic family of models known as zeroequation models. This means that representation of the subgrid

stresses relies on empirical formulas and constants and no additional equation is being solved to close the system. Obvious

advantages of this treatment are simplicity and computational

efciency, but accuracy and universality of the model are doubtful

and limited. The Smagorinsky model states that the subgrid stress

tensor is a scalar multiple of the resolved rate of strain tensor,

which has not been proved beyond doubt. This is only true in the

dissipation range or very high Reynolds numbers and requires LES

to be performed on a very ne grid in order not to severely violate

it. Another drawback is the inability of the model to account for the

so-called backscatter. Backscatter is a process of reverse energy

transport i.e. from the unresolved scales back to the resolved ones.

Further assumption that is often questionable is the one of energy

transfer rate from large scales to the inertial subrange and its

most shear ows they do not balance, but remain within the same

magnitude [74]. Next step in the SGS stress modelling is the

dynamic approach to coefcient representation [75] where the

coefcient C is being determined as a part of the simulation and can

vary in both time and space. This is possible by employing the

scaling law between resolved and subgrid scales and the resulting

mathematical identity. For scaling to be possible, a new additional

lter level has to be dened. It is referred to as a test lter. This

should be of larger size than the subgrid lter and it is common to

scale it by a factor of two. The dynamic Smagorinsky model is an

improvement over the standard formulation. However, good

results haven been reported from both standard and dynamical

procedures rising doubt to the necessity of dynamic formulation of

algebraic models [76], which may be explained by the effect of high

mesh resolution. This necessitates the need to decrease the level of

empiricism in the subgrid modelling.

To reduce the empiricism in the SGS stress modelling, the socalled one-equation SGS models are next in the hierarchy of

sophistication and are proved to produce more realistic results.

They also potentially allow coarser grids to be used than it is the

case for zero-equation models without excessively compromising

accuracy. This is mainly due to the information about subgrid

kinetic energy budget that is available. Consequently, formulation

of the transport equation can be specically tailored, reducing the

amount of assumptions in modelling. A popular one-equation

model is the k-equation model [62], as given in Eq. (34). It is also

based on the eddy-viscosity concept but contains an additional

transport equation for the subgrid kinetic energy. In this model, no

assumption of local balance between the subgrid-scale energy

production and dissipation was made. The model has been used in

spray simulations, with the equation for ksgs given in Eq. (33).

However, with the presence of a priori set empirical coefcients,

the formulation still does not account for the backscatter of

energy. In order to gain this ability, a formulation for dynamic

determination of the constants both in time and space is necessary, which can be achieved similar to the dynamic procedure of

the zero-equation model. The dynamic formulation is a logical

extension of an existing model towards more reliable and accurate

modelling results. Ghosal [70] proposed a dynamic formulation of

the one-equation model specically to address the problem of

backscatter.

The zero-equation and one-equation SGS modelling procedures

both rely on a eddy-viscosity hypothesis where additional viscosity

is introduced at the modelling level to account for unresolved stress

effects. This is also universally used in RANS modelling based on the

eddy-viscosity concept. Within the LES framework, there are also

SGS models that have abandoned the eddy-viscosity concept, such

as the one-equation non-viscosity dynamic model known also as

the dynamic structure model [76], where the subgrid stress tensor

is estimated directly. This model also includes dynamic coefcient

determination procedure which means the test lter level is again

introduced. The equation for subgrid kinetic energy is solved for

scaling purposes and estimation of energy ow between resolved

and unresolved scales.

Another model that does not belong to the eddy-viscosity family

of models is the so-called scale similarity model [77]. The foundation of the model lies in the logic that the subgrid scales are similar

to the smallest resolved scales. If this is true, then a conclusion may

be drawn that the subgrid stress can be approximated from the

resolved quantities only. Yeo [78] attempted to prove this mathematically while Liu et al. [79] tried to assess this empirically by

performing particle image velocimetry measurements. On this

basis it was assumed that the subgrid stress tensor should be the

same as the stress tensor from the resolved scale of the ow:

~i u

~j u

~i u

~j

sSGS

Csim u

ij

143

(37)

denotes second ltering performed at the scale gD where g 1

[79]. The values for g may differ but in general are between 1 and 2

does not guarantee sufcient

[77,79,80]. The formula for sSGS

ij

energy dissipation when used in calculations, therefore Bardina

et al. [77] added an additional term taken from the Smagorinsky

model. The updated formula reads [77]:

~i u

~j u

~i u

~ j 2CS D~

sSGS

Csim u

S~

Sij

ij

(38)

[56]. For the constant Csim , it was shown by Speziale [59] that the

model is Galilean invariant only if Csim is equal to 1.

Numerical methods also play a role in SGS stress modelling. In

a discussion of SGS turbulence models, spectral methods have to be

mentioned. Unlike nite-difference and nite-volume methods

commonly used in practical CFD, spectral methods rely on

a somewhat different approach and describe the ow in terms of

frequencies and wave numbers. In order to do that, a transformation of NavierStokes equations into a Fourier space has to be

performed. Details of this approach will not be given here, as the

popularity of spectral methodology is somewhat limited to

academic and research applications. Details of this approach and

methodology behind it can be found in the work of Domaradzki

et al. [81].

The subgrid modelling procedures for LES go beyond the

problem of modelling the stress tensor for non-reacting, incompressible ows. For compressible ows, the application of the

density-weighted ltering, or Favre ltering, leads to similar SGS

stress tensor as that for incompressible ows. Consequently, the

closure issues are similar. However, the additional heat and mass

transfer in reacting ows leads to closure of additional SGS terms,

sgs

such as the heat ux hj , velocitypressure gradient correlation

sgs

sgs

P , viscous work Q , species mass ux Fsgs

, and species diffusive

j;m

sgs

mass ux qj;m in Eqs. (30) and (31). The subgrid heat ux, viscous

work, and species mass ux may be modelled using the gradient

diffusion assumption [60,61], as given in Eq. (35). However,

modelling the velocitypressure gradient correlation and species

diffusive mass ux is rather difcult and often they are neglected.

There are two reasons for which those two terms are generally

neglected in the simulations. One of them is lack of reliable closure

and second is a generally small contribution to the large-scale ow.

This logic is justiable for non-reacting ows where variations in

temperature, pressure and species concentrations are small, and

where most of the energy is contained within the resolved scales.

Care must be however taken for ows with strong density changes,

local variations in temperature and presence of chemical reactions.

In such cases, the small contribution of those terms is not easily

justiable anymore. Unfortunately research of closure for those

terms is currently very limited. It is also worth noting that the

subgrid viscous work can be modelled as in Eq. (35) when the kequation turbulence model is used, which may not be the same if

another SGS closure model is used. However, the modelling deciency is somewhat lessened for very high Reynolds number ows

where the inuence of subgrid diffusive processes should have

small impact. Flows in combustion engines and gas-turbine

combustors ows are mostly in the high Reynolds number regime

and neglecting viscous work term and species diffusive mass ux is

now a common approach although not an ideal one.

The eddy-viscosity concept used in gradient diffusion closure

has been successfully employed for predicting the heat ux and

stress tensor. However, it has been shown that this approach is

144

reacting ows [82]. Alternative closure procedure exists which does

not use eddy-viscosity and gradient diffusion assumptions. It is

known as the linear eddy modelling (LEM) [83] and will be

explained subsequently. Different approach is utilized in the LEM

where direct simulation of the inuence of those terms without

actually specifying them and introducing modelling is possible. The

LEM approach promises simulations of small scale turbulent uctuations, and as such, is potentially well suited for accounting of

subgrid processes at the smallest length scales.

An extension of LES to reacting ows has gained much interest in

the last decade. The modelling of the additional terms arising from

the production and destruction of chemical species are challenging

tasks even for a traditional RANS approach. LES adds to the

complexity because of the presence of subgrid quantities and

unsteadiness. Since combustion occurs at the molecular scales,

nest scales of turbulence have profound inuence on the reaction

rate. However, turbulent effects of larger scales often inuence the

ame signicantly, leading to ame quenching or affecting ame

stabilization, etc. The interaction of molecular diffusion, reaction

rate and turbulent stirring occurs somewhere in the inertial range of

turbulent ow and even in the viscosity inuenced dissipative

range. For automotive engines, those scales can be as small as

103 mm [84]. Those interactions are highly non-linear and development of reliable models is an extremely challenging task.

Phenomena like ame-generated turbulence, ame instability and

counter-gradient diffusion should all be taken into consideration. As

noted by Pope [85], molecular and viscous dissipation ranges are not

resolved by traditional LES, hence information about interaction of

turbulence and chemical rates is contained within the subgrid

scales. Naturally, the energy containing eddies also inuence the

ame, and in certain cases quench the premixed, non-premixed and

partially premixed ames [86], through the manifestation of

turbulence eddy, ame stretch rate and scalar dissipation rate.

Turbulent structures are also often used to stabilize and anchor

the ame in the burner. As a result, chemical and turbulent interactions are present throughout the turbulent spectrum [87]. Many

subgrid models for reacting LES have been developed over time

with varying degree of success. In the following, a short summary of

the approaches most commonly used in engineering applications is

presented rst, followed by a brief description of the LEM which

models turbulent stirring, diffusion and chemical reaction in

a different and promising way.

The main difculties in modelling the reaction rate term is the

highly non-linear character of the expression used to describe it.

This is clear when we look at a simplest reaction where fuel and

oxidizer create a product: F O/P. The production rate is specied by the following equation

_ W k r2 Y Y

u

P

P R

F O

(39)

rate is given as

TA

T

kR AR T bR exp

(40)

of the nite-rate chemical kinetics, where AR and bR are constants

_

and TA is the activation temperature of the specic reaction. The u

P

c

_

term in Eq. (39) is closely related to heat release source term Q in

Eq. (30).

Expanding this expression into a Taylor power series shows that

_ is dependent not only on resolved variables like

the reaction rate u

P

density, concentration of fuel and oxidizer but also on higher order

uctuations. It has been proved that those higher order correlations

extremely complex and computationally not feasible. Therefore the

most accurate approximation of this term is a fundamental trait of

a quality model. The zero-th order approach for dealing with the

ltered reaction term is its estimation on the basis of the resolved

quantities only. Subgrid contribution is neglected and the higher

order correlation terms just mentioned are not accounted for. In

this crude assumption, lack of information from the subgrid scales

leads to an assumption of perfect subgrid mixing. When a mesh is

sufciently ne this is to some extent justiable. Unfortunately

a sufciently ne mesh is rarely possible in ows of engineering

interest. Overall, while the model can serve to provide mean

statistics under the above assumptions, most of them are too crude

and simply fail in most engineering applications. Poor performance

of this model was discussed by Givi [88]. One point that has to be

noted is that some researchers argue that neglecting subgrid

contributions can be compensated by the dissipative nature of

numerical procedure. This may be reasonable for low order

numerical schemes, but for the state-of-the-art high-order

schemes the justication does not seem to hold well.

Further up the hierarchy of LES combustion models is an eddydissipation based approach. A fundament condition that needs to

be fullled is that the combustion process is either kinetic

controlled or turbulent mixing controlled. The basis of this model

was presented by Magnussen and Hjertager [89]. The feasibility of

the approach is justied by the fact that the uctuations of the

reactants are related to the mean values and therefore the mixing

controlled rate can be expressed by the mean reactant species.

Fureby [90] then extended their model for LES framework by

modifying the expression for reaction rate. This was expressed as

_ ; u

_ W min u

u

P

P

kin _ mix

(41)

controlled parts which are specied as follows

2

_

u

kin kR r YF YO

_

u

mix

YF YO

min

;

smix

WF WO

(42)

(43)

C D

smix pmix

(44)

ksgs

The presence of subgrid kinetic energy in the formula makes the

model particularly suitable in simulations where the k-equation

model [62] is used for subgrid stress tensor closure. Inability to

predict slow chemistry effects aside, the biggest drawback of eddydissipation based models is the presence of constants which in

theory require ne tuning for specic cases. In practice experimental data is usually unavailable and therefore a priori analysis is

impossible. This makes another approach more attractive. It is

based on the concept of probability density function and is

commonly known as a family of PDF methods [91].

The underlying assumption for PDF methods is that the chemical state of a reacting uid can be fully described by the PDF of

species. It is then the task of the model to predict the form and

shape of the PDF function. Once the function is described, a quantity of interest (mass fraction of species for example) can be

computed from the following formula

_

u

P

Z

/

u_ K P sgs JdJ

(45)

where P sgs is the subgrid joint PDF, J is the space vector of random

dependent variables of interest (temperature, mass, species fraction, density, etc). The subgrid joint PDF contains all the singlepoint statistical information about the ow. There are two most

popular approaches for description of the joint PDF. The rst one is

the assumed PDF method, in which the function is not calculated

directly during the simulation. Instead a given shape is used in the

simulation, usually taken from a lookup table which is prepared on

the basis of observation of mixing and chemical reaction in

experiments. This allows Eq. (45) to be calculated by either

numerical or analytical integration. The relative compactness and

efciency of this method is offset by somewhat vague specication

of the pre-constructed PDF. This issue is magnied when one

accounts for changes in density and temperature dependence of the

reaction rate constant. This deciency has led to creation of a more

sophisticated treatment of the joint PDF in transported PDF models.

Here, an extra equation is solved in the system. Its role is to describe

the behaviour of the joint PDF in both time and space. This makes

the model more computationally expensive, but it does not rely on

a prescribed, often generic shape of the function. Another gain is

the fact that the reaction rate term does appear in a closed form and

does not require modelling. This however comes at a cost. There are

two terms that require closure and both are extremely important in

subgrid combustion simulations. They represent the inuence of

subgrid turbulent transport and small scale molecular mixing.

While solutions have been proposed to provide a closure [92], they

are scarce at this point. Moreover, the computational cost of

a transported PDF does increase signicantly as already noted.

The problematic closure of subgrid-scale stirring and molecular

diffusion is the bottleneck of the transported PDF method. Nonetheless, much research has been devoted to this method applied to

LES [93].

In recent years, another method for simulating reacting ows

has emerged. It is based on conditional moments. The main

concept of the conditional moment closure (CMC) method is then

to nd how the reactive scalars depend on the mixture fraction or

reaction progress variable. The CMC method can be applied to

both non-premixed and premixed ames. There are two main

mathematical procedures to derive the CMC model: the decomposition method and the joint PDF one [94]. CMC methods predict

the conditional averages and higher moments of quantities such as

species mass fractions and enthalpy, conditional on the mixture

fraction or reaction progress variable having a particular value. The

CMC model calculates conditional moments at a specied location

in the space by means of transport equations for the conditional

moments of the reactive scalars. No assumptions regarding

chemical timescales or small scale structures of the reaction zones

are made. The drawback of the model is that the mixture fraction

carries all information about temperature and the state of reactive

species only when running under low Mach numbers and without

signicant differential molecular diffusion. This limits somehow

the ability of the model since many combustion engineering

problems deal with relatively high Mach numbers. The molecular

diffusion can also be signicant and thus violate the underlying

assumption.

A promising model used in LES of reacting ows is the already

briey mentioned LEM (linear eddy model) approach. It was

initially developed by Kerstein [83] as a stand alone approach for

simulating transport and mixing of diffusive scalars. It was later

recognized as a promising method for calculation of the subgrid

terms [95]. The fundamental trait of LEM is the separate treatment

of molecular diffusion and turbulent convective stirring. This is

what makes this formulation unique. All previously described

approaches aim to model molecular mixing and small scale

turbulence effects as a single process, which is often too much of

145

theory is avoided in LEM. The model can be applied to both premixed and non-premixed applications because no specic

assumptions are made with regard to the state of reactants and

oxidizers and ame behaviour. The idea of LEM is to directly

resolve chemical process and molecular diffusion at appropriate

length and timescales within each LES cell. If so, then subgrid

terms such as subgrid species mass ux as given in Eq. (35), are

not modelled anymore using an often dubious gradient diffusion

assumption but are directly resolved instead. This also removes

the modelling of the species diffusive mass ux as this term does

not exist in LEM. The subgrid heat release and reaction rate which

are difcult to model are also not estimated anymore but directly

resolved. In a LEM approach, combustion modelling occurs directly

at the subgrid level, on its exclusive time and length scales. The

obtained species concentrations are then subjected to threedimensional (3D) turbulent uctuations. Again, those are not

modelled in a sense of eddy viscosity but rather directly resolved.

The key to the computational feasibility of this DNS-like approach

is that the subgrid space is conned on a one-dimensional (1D)

domain instead of full 3D DNS.

Although the LEM is a 1D approach, the effects of 3D turbulent

eddies on the scalar eld can still be accounted for by means of

triplet mapping process [96] which reverses and compresses

randomly chosen segments from the 1D scalar eld. This is akin to

an action of randomly sized, 3D turbulent eddy acting on the scalar

distribution. It has to be noted that in LES with subgrid LEM

procedure, two simulations are carried out simultaneously. One is

a classic, resolved scale LES aiming to capture the energy containing

range of eddies, and the other is a subgrid 1D simulation of the

molecular processes, chemical reaction and diffusion and turbulence effects that cannot be resolved by the large-scale grid. Those

two simulations must be coupled with each other. The exact

procedure of passing information from the unresolved to the

resolved scales is described later on. It is now sufcient to note that

the conservation of mass, momentum and energy at the large-scale

LES level is fully coupled with conservation of mass, energy and

species at the subgrid LEM level. The LEM procedure is based on the

following assumptions:

Subgrid-scale turbulence is homogeneous and isotropic.

The pressure in the subgrid scales is assumed constant (a direct

consequence is that thermal expansion effects need to be taken

into account whenever reacting ows are dealt with).

The contribution from the subgrid viscous work is not

accounted for.

The 1D domain is not arbitrarily aligned in space.

The mathematical description of the LEM comprises the

description of the 1D equation and its terms, the specication of the

domain length, triplet mapping process and nally coupling with

the large scales by means of splicing algorithm. The direct subgrid

treatment of the scalar evolution makes the species conservation,

Eq. (31), redundant. Consequently, all the ltered species subgrid

terms that needed closure do not exist anymore. The decomposition of velocity in terms of LEM [68] can be given as

~ i u0i R u0i S

ui u

(46)

In Eq. (46), the u

subgrid velocity uctuation (obtained from the equation for subgrid turbulent kinetic energy) and nally, u0i S is the unresolved

subgrid uctuation. Then the exact species equation (i.e. without

any explicit LES ltering) can now be rewritten in terms of those

velocity components

146

h

ivYm

vYm

v

~ i u0i R u0i S

rYm Vi;m u_ m S_ s;m

r u

vt

vxi

vxi

(47)

In Eq. (47), u_ m and S_ s;m represent the reaction and spray source

terms of m species respectively, while the diffusion velocity is

obtained using Ficks law Vi;m Dm =Ym vYm =vxi . It is noted

that the equation is not ltered and hence no terms appear that

would need additional closure. Eq. (47) can be split in two to better

describe the coupling of large scales with LEM (convection of the

scalar eld) and subgrid processes that occur exclusively on the

subgrid domain

h

* Yn

n

R ivYm

Ym

m

ui u0i

DtLES

vxi

n1

Ym

*

Ym

t

ZDtLES

t

(48)

n

1 S vYm

v

r u0i

rYm Vi n u_ nm

r

vxi

vxi

n

S_ s;m dt

(49)

scalar eld, while Eq. (49) is a description of the evolving subgrid

eld. The four terms under the integrand on the right-hand side of

Eq. (49) represent subgrid stirring, molecular diffusion, reaction

kinetics and phase change of the liquid fuel respectively. Those

processes occur at a substantially smaller time scale than the LES

time step.

In subgrid linear eddy modelling, each grid cell on which the

ow is resolved by large-scale algorithm contains a 1D domain

along which a basic reaction diffusion equation is solved. This is the

domain s. It is equal in length to the lter width and consequently,

directly related to the grid size. Eq. (49) can now be rewritten as

discretized not unlike large-scale governing equations. This means

that s domain must be split into cells, or rather, 1D elements. The

amount of subgrid LEM cells in a simulation is a compromise

between accuracy and computational cost of the subgrid 1D

simulation. Ideally, the number of cells is estimated by the criteria

that the eddies from a dissipative Kolmogorov range must be

resolved. Unfortunately, for a very large number of LES cells, this

may turn out to be prohibitive in terms of memory requirements

and number of LEM cells must be reduced. Typically, six subgrid

cells should be sufcient to resolve the small turbulent scales [97].

This is also the minimum number to perform the triplet mapping

on the scalar eld. For chemical scales, the number of cells may

need to be increased, depending on the details of the chemistry

modelling. Multistep mechanisms are likely to need more LEM cells

in order to capture effects at the molecular level. The mathematical

background does not prohibit employing a variable number of LEM

cells for each LES cell. This is a potential to reduce the memory

impact as laminar and low Reynolds number region of the ow do

not need very high resolution. Moreover, highly turbulent regions

would likely benet from increased number of cells. This gain is

however offset by the more complicated coding procedure of

parallel algorithms. Consequently, the number of cells is mostly

specied as a constant number which means that some regions

have unnecessarily ne resolution. The proper procedure for

determining the correct amount of cells is based again on the

concept of Kolmogorov scales and the local subgrid Reynolds

number dened as

ReD

u0 D

(52)

r

2ksgs

u

3

0

(53)

vY k

v k k

k

k

r m

rYm Vs;m u_ m S_ s;m

F

s

vt s

vs

(50)

smaller than the resolved ow timescale. This is because the limits

on the subgrid time step size are determined by the diffusion and

reaction processes which are typically couple of orders smaller than

the timescales of large, energy containing eddies. It is noted that the

equation does not contain convection term due to the turbulent

motion. This is modelled stochastically by means of triplet

mapping. The rst term Fsk on the right-hand side expresses the

turbulent convection of the species. The second term is the subgrid

molecular diffusion with the diffusion velocity usually specied in

accordance with Ficks Law

Vi;m

1

vYm

Dm

Ym

vs

hK DRe3=4

(51)

where Ym and Dm are the mth species mass fraction and diffusivity

respectively. In Eq. (50), the u_ m term represents the reaction and

can be modelled using many available chemical mechanisms

k

varying in accuracy and computational cost. The S_ s;m is a source

term arising from the droplet evaporation at the subgrid level.

While present here for explanation purposes, the models for subgrid droplet evaporation are scarce and its contribution is very

often neglected in the simulations, that is the evaporation and the

subsequent energy and mass transfer are accounted for only at the

resolved scales.

(54)

width and the above size of the Kolmogorov length scale. The

length of the LEM domain is equal to that of the local LES lter

width D, and the number of LEM cells is chosen so that all of the

relevant scales are resolved. Typically, the smallest eddy (e.g. the

Kolmogorov scale hK ) is resolved using six LEM cells [68].

The idea of directly resolving Kolmogorov scale structures,

chemical reactions and molecular diffusion puts severe limitations

on the numerical time step. Each of those processes has its own

respective timescale. All of them are signicantly smaller than the

value used for large-scale ow. This means that the 1D equation has

to be solved with different time stepping than LES. Within the

subgrid LEM domain, four distinctive timescales can be distinguished as: molecular diffusion timescale Dtdiff based on stability of

the numerical scheme employed, chemical timescale Dtchem

depending on the reaction rate and the numerical scheme, turbulent stirring timescale Dtstir mimics the frequency of subgrid eddies,

and thermal or volumetric expansion timescale Dtvol . From those

scales, one must be chosen which will then be used throughout the

subgrid simulation. The diffusion time is appropriate because it is

the process that governs both the chemical and thermal expansion

timescales.

An important procedure in the LES-LEM is the triplet mapping

[96], which is a method of simulating the inuence of threedimensional turbulent eddies on a scalar eld. In order to

rst. Local eddy size, frequency with which stirring event occurs

and the location of the event within the s domain complete the

needed data. The triplet mapping mimics the effect of turbulent

eddy on a scalar eld by dividing part of the LEM domain into three

parts, then compressing them by a factor of three and reversing the

middle one. The details can be found in Ref. [96]. The local eddy size

is a part of the s domain that will undergo the mapping process.

This size is picked up randomly from an eddy size probability

function f l. It has to be contained within the range bounded by

Kolmogorov length scale on one end and size of the LEM domain on

the other, therefore

hK l LLEM

(55)

f l

5=3l8=3

h5=3

K

D5=3

(56)

to the turbulence intensity and indeed is dependent on the subgrid

Reynolds number

h

i

5=3

54 nReD D=hK 1

i

h

l

5 Cl D3 1 h =D4=3

K

(57)

with the large scales by means of the splicing algorithm [63,68].

While not explicitly part of the LEM simulation, splicing is nevertheless essential in an LES with subgrid LEM treatment, with details

found in Refs. [63,98]. For reacting ows, a re-gridding process

should also be employed. This is because combustion introduces

volumetric expansion of the LEM elements. In a standard RANS or

any other large-scale resolved combustion simulation, the heat

release caused by chemical processes is reected in a pressure and

temperature increase. One of the main LEM assumptions listed

before however states that the pressure within LEM cell is assumed

constant. If so, the elements must expand in order to satisfy the gas

equation of state. The expanded or contracted cells (this depends

on the temperature change) must be then re-gridded to maintain

equal size of the LEM domain. Details of re-gridding can be found in

Refs. [63,98].

The uniqueness and attractiveness of the linear eddy modelling

lie in the separate treatment of molecular diffusion and turbulent

effects. All scales of the ow are being resolved on a subgrid, onedimensional domain. Gradient diffusion approach, eddy-viscosity

assumptions and associated limitations are avoided. Closure of

subgrid terms arising from LES space ltering is not necessary as

those terms are accounted for differently in LEM. The drawbacks of

the model are computational cost which can be very high for high

Reynolds numbers and reacting ows, possible slight mass

conservation errors (this would depend on the renement of the

splicing algorithm) and nally, discontinuities in the 1D scalar eld

introduced after the triplet mapping.

There are other LES modelling methodologies for turbulent

reacting ows. One possible approach proposed by Williams [99] in

the context of RANS is the use of a level-set approach to describe

the turbulent ame front. In this methodology, the ame front is

represented by an arbitrary iso-surface G0 of a scalar eld G whose

evolution is described by the so-called G-equation. This equation is

only valid at G G0 and is hence decoupled from other G levels.

There have been various attempts to use this approach in LES of

turbulent combustion, e.g. [100102]. One modelling challenge

that is unique to the G-equation is that the ame is only

147

LES, the accuracy of numerical schemes used for advection and the

so-called re-initialization process, are particularly important [103].

In the modelling of combustion effects on the reacting ows, an

attractive approach is the recently developed amelet-generated

manifolds (FGM) approach, e.g. [103108], where the combustion

chemistry can be described by a amelet library. The numerical

modelling of realistic combustors with realistic representation of

the combustion chemistry puts a very high demand on computational resources. The computational cost of combustion simulations

can be reduced by techniques that simplify the chemical kinetics

such as the FGM. The most signicant merit of FGM is that it can

reasonably represent the chemistry without incur much additional

computational costs for reacting ow simulations, which is

particularly appealing for advanced CFD approaches such as DNS

and LES that are computationally very costly.

3.3. Numerical issues for LES of spray ow and combustion

Modelling and simulation of fuel injection and spray combustion is a very difcult subject, involving not only combustion

phenomena but also multiphase ow phenomena. It can be seen

from the previous subsection that LES of combustion is already

a very complex subject, which can only be more complicated with

the involvement of multiple phases. In engineering applications,

most of the reacting ows are inherently related to two-phase

modelling because the fuel is a liquid while the combustion always

takes place in the gas phase after the fuel vaporization. Gas-turbine

combustors and internal combustion engines all predominantly use

liquid fuels. LES has been proven to be superior to RANS approach

in terms of the prediction of transient fuel injection, e.g. [109],

mainly due to the fact that LES avoids the time- or ensembleaveraging employed in RANS approach that can possibly lead to

failures in predicting the ow unsteadiness such as vortical structures. It was demonstrated [109] that LES can predict the vortical

structures in transient fuel jets including the experimentally wellobserved head vortex [110], using the same liquid-phase modelling

and numerical resolution as in RANS approach, where these

vortical structures cannot be predicted. Due to the complexities

involved, many existing LES of spray ow and combustion employs

the same liquid-phase models as those used in RANS approach,

with a SGS model used for the gas-phase turbulence. Although

useful results can be obtained, there is no guarantee that the liquidphase models such as those discussed in Section 2 are most

appropriate. This subsection briey presents the liquid-phase

modelling together with discussion on some issues and challenges

encountered in LES of spray ow and combustion.

In LES and RANS studies of spray ows using the Lagrangian

frame of reference for droplet tracking, the computation can provide

detailed information of liquidgas interaction with relatively small

diffusion error. It can also account for various droplet sizes which are

very important as droplet sizes inuence the vaporization rate and

the effectiveness of atomization and breakup rate. All of those have

an either direct or indirect effect on heat release and reaction rates,

especially in lean combustion applications which are increasingly

popular in order to reduce pollutant emissions. However, the

approach is inefcient when tracking a very large number of droplets, which becomes computationally infeasible for dense sprays

with a huge number of droplets and the atomization region near the

nozzle where large bulks of liquids present. In order to partially

overcome this, a concept of computational parcel was introduced.

This is basically a sampling technique where instead of tracking an

individual droplet, a number of droplets (parcel) are tracked

together. All droplets within a single computational parcel have

identical parameters (temperature, size, velocity, etc.) This approach

148

has been broadly used in spray simulations, e.g. [68]. Although the

parcel concept is not ideally suited for LES due to the averaging

introduced into the liquid phase, it has nevertheless been used by

researchers. Besides computational efciency, another drawback of

using the Lagrangian method for droplet tracking is the time step

limitation for the liquid phase and its governing equation integration. Due to its dominant use in spray simulations, the remainder of

this subsection is devoted to the Lagrangian approach. Extensive

review on the subject was conducted by Sirignano [111]. It is

however necessary to point out that Eulerian treatment of liquid

phase is also possible, e.g. de Villiers et al. [112] presented an

Eulerian liquid-phase treatment by means of utilizing the volume of

uid modelling procedure. However, the Eulerian approach has

been mainly used for atomization process near the nozzle exit rather

than the downstream dilute spray regions.

The governing equations for droplet motion in LES of spray ows

is given below, in a form slightly different from those given in

Section 2 for droplet kinematics. The formulation follows Menon

and Patel [68], under the assumption that the Kolmogorov scale is

of the same order or larger than the largest droplet in the spray

eld. For such a situation, the interaction between gas and liquid

phases is dominated by laminar uid dynamics. The equations then

read

dxi;d

ui;d

dt

(58)

dmd

_d

m

dt

(59)

dui;d

3 CD mRed

ui ui;d

dt

16 rd rd

(60)

md cd

dTd

_ d Lv

hd pd2d T~ Td m

dt

(61)

while dd is the droplet diameter, hd is the heat transfer coefcient

calculated by the formula proposed by Faeth and Lazar [113], L v is

the latent heat of vaporization usually given by the correlation of

Miller and Bellan [114], and md is a mass of particle given by

md 4=3p rd3 rd .

The inuence of the particles on the gas-phase ow is reected

in the spray source terms, such as the Fis and rsm appearing in the

momentum equation and species conservation equation for the gas

phase respectively. It can be clearly seen that the coupling between

phases is of two-way nature. The droplets are inuenced by the

resolved scale velocity and temperature and the resolved ow

receives contributions from evaporated liquid as well as drag of the

droplets (momentum change). The procedure for the computation

of the liquidgas-phase exchange terms in equations is described

in detail in Ref. [68]. Here only the brief outline is presented. The

four coupling terms are calculated as follows

0

0

B

B

B

B

@

r_ s

s

F_ i

s

Q_

_S

s;k

1

C

C

C

C

A

dmd

B dmdt u

B d i

B

B dt

B dmd ed

@ dt

dmd Ym

dt

dVd

dr

Vd d

B rd

dt

dt

B

C

C

C

B

du

dm

C

B

i;d

d C

C

C

B md

ui;d

C

B

dt

dt C

C B

C

C

B

de

dmd C

A

C

B md d ed

B

dt

dt C

C

B

@

dYk;d

dmd A

Yk;d

md

dt

dt

1

(62)

In Eq. (62), ed is the total energy of fuel droplet and Vd is the volume

of the droplet. The volume-averaged source terms for all of the

computed by summing the contribution from every droplet group

for n number of droplets as follows

1

0 P

dmd

dt

e

C

B n

r_ s

B P dmd ui C

B e_ s C

C

B

B Fi C

B n dt C

B s C B P

C

B e_ C

B

dmd ed C

@Q A

B

dt C

C

B

n

e_

@P

dmd Ym A

S

0

s;k

(63)

dt

subgrid turbulent motion and its effect on turbulence. In Menon

and Patel [68], the stochastic dispersion of droplets caused by

turbulent motion is incorporated by representing the gas-phase

velocity at particle location as

~i X

ui u

q

2ksgs =3

(64)

a uniform distribution with zero mean. The uctuating subgrid part

of the velocity can be also modelled using different expressions and

stochastic methods [115]. Because droplet dispersion and evaporation rates are estimated based on resolved gas-phase quantities, it

may be necessary to obtain this data in locations where droplet

does not lie on the grid point. When the mesh is sufciently ne,

values from a nearest grid point or cell centre can be used. If

however the mesh is relatively coarse, averaging based on neighboring cell points must be used to give a correct estimation.

In LES of spray ows, droplet breakup modelling has to be

introduced. Although many models have been used in the past like

the TAB model [38] or the wave model [39] with success in RANS

simulations, LES has introduced more challenges into the droplet

breakup modelling with which existing models are not always able

to cope. However, there is still a lack of well-established liquid

breakup models that are highly suitable for LES. The turbulent ow

eld in fuel injection leads to complex breakup processes that

produce droplets of varying sizes. The liquid breakup can be a very

complex phenomenon, calling for sophisticated breakup models.

There have been some recent attempts in the led, for instance, the

model of Gorokhovski [116] that is able to account for highly

varying droplet breakup sizes. This model was coupled with LES of

an atomizing spray ow [117], where the results included a broad

spectrum of droplet diameters. They also developed an algorithm

for simultaneous treatment of computational parcels and individual droplets in the ow which is very benecial for unsteady,

highly turbulent LES. A review of multiphase modelling was performed by van Wachem and Almstedt [118], where more detailed

information can be found.

Finally, there are some typical issues that need attention when

performing LES of atomization and spray ows. The need to use ne

grids is of paramount importance. While LES can be performed on

RANS mesh with useful results obtained, the accuracy will be very

limited due to the fact that not all the energy containing range

eddies are solved directly and subgrid models would have to

account for the levels of energy they were not designed for. Subgrid

closure of the stress tensor has already received great attention

among researchers and various models have been proposed in the

last two decades, in an effort to continuously improve modelling

accuracy. Most of them rely on the well-known eddy-viscosity

concept but there are some where this assumption is avoided. Most

engineering applications of reacting LES deal inseparably with

liquid fuels. This calls for sophisticated models for droplet tracking,

dispersion and atomization modelling and droplet breakup. In

many applications, the sprays are very dense and subgrid processes

associated with liquid phase should not be neglected. Unfortunately, subgrid two-phase models are scarce and much more

research is necessary before they will become acceptable. The

modelling of combustion, especially important in LES because of its

occurrence in the subgrid space has received a great deal of interest

and still many issues remain, like the limitations of eddy-viscosity

and gradient diffusion assumptions. Models now exist that are not

based on those, but computational cost may be prohibitive for

complex geometries. In addition, many uid ows with high

industrial importance are wall bounded. Near-wall regions are

a bottleneck of LES. RANS-derived law-of-the wall modelling

cannot be directly used, and if near-wall structures are to be

directly captured by LES, the mesh sizes increase rapidly beyond

computing capabilities. Models for liquid lms on the walls, so

important for internal engines applications, are non-existent in

current LES of spray ows. In addition to issues of the wall treatment, other boundary condition specication in LES is also much

more complicated than in RANS methods. The main reason for this

is that the ow unsteadiness at the domain inlet must be accounted

for. The uctuating velocity at the ow boundaries can in some

applications signicantly inuence the results. Therefore, comparison of rst and second velocity moments of the velocity eld with

experimental data is often desirable [119,120]. In addition,

boundary conditions for the liquid phase at the domain inlet (such

as the droplet distributions) and at the walls are also very important in two-phase ow simulations. Nevertheless, these issues do

not prohibit LES from being applied to complex two-phase reacting

ows. Constant research and improvement of models in the last

two decades has established LES as a viable and often superior

alternative to classic RANS approach and will continuously to do so

in the foreseeable future. One of the major bottlenecks for industrial applications of LES is still the high computational cost

compared to RANS, mainly due to the need for signicant ner

mesh and higher order numerical schemes. A comparative RANS/

LES study of diesel fuel injection and mixing using the same

numerical methods [121] showed that the mesh resolution needed

for LES could be 20 times higher than that for RANS, meaning that

the computational time could increase about one hundred times on

a serial machine since the time step becomes smaller when the

mesh is rened. Fortunately, as computer power increases

constantly, LES will become more affordable and more attractive.

atomization and sprays

Numerical studies of uid ows based on the traditional RANS

modelling approach could lead to poor predictions of highly

unsteady and complex ow phenomena involving vortical structures due to the intrinsic time- or ensemble-averaging of the governing equations. LES can partly overcome this problem, but only

the major part of the turbulent motion can be resolved. The most

accurate and straightforward numerical approach to uid ow

problems in the continuum limit is to solve the NavierStokes

equations without averaging or approximation other than numerical discretizations whose errors can be estimated and controlled.

Thus, all the relevant time and length scales are resolved. This

approach is the so-called DNS. The computed ow eld obtained is

equivalent to a single realization of a ow or a short-duration

laboratory experiment. The major disadvantage of DNS is that it is

computationally too expensive, even for solving very simple ow

congurations. For instance, in homogeneous isotropic turbulence,

the number of grid points required in each direction must be of the

order of Re3=4 and hence, the cost scales are of order of Re9=4 [85].

149

the use of some kind of models to accommodate the multiphase

formulation and interaction are always needed for multiphase ow

systems. Thus, multiphase simulations can be regarded to be DNSlike and not pure DNS, as stated by Sirignano [111] The DNS

methods as applied to two-phase ows have not been truly without

any modelling in a fashion analogous to single-phase ows.

Applications have been conned to situations in which the smallest

scale of turbulence is considerably larger than the droplet or the

particle size. Since the velocity gradients on the scales of the

droplet diameter and boundary-layer thickness are not resolved,

the vorticity generated by means of the droplet-gas interaction are

not determined.

DNS of fuel injection and spray combustion represents an

extremely challenging problem, involving multiphase and

combustion modelling. The multiphase and combustion modelling

issues are somehow different from that in LES (arguably simpler),

since all the ow scales are resolved in DNS in principle. However,

the paramount requirement for a DNS-like simulation would be

keeping the usually prohibitively high computational costs relatively low so that it can be feasible. Therefore, cheaper but still

accurate multiphase and combustion modelling is always

preferred. For combustion modelling, the amelet-generated

manifolds approach [104108] can be a useful way forward, which

can be combined with the uid ow solver without incurring

signicant amount of additional costs. Different from LES, both

Lagrangian approach and Eulerian approach can be used for the

liquid phase in DNS. For liquid breakup and atomization or dense

sprays, Lagrangian approach is normally not preferred in DNS, due

to a lack of model for the particle dynamics, multi-way interactions,

and the blobs. The available models are not able to describe

correctly the blob/droplet behaviour. On the contrary, Eulerian

approach may be used in DNS, focusing on the liquid breakup

region or dense spray region near the nozzle, in an effort of

obtaining understanding that are not possible using other numerical means or experimental means. In this context DNS can be

a very powerful tool that not only leads to a better understanding of

the uid mechanics involved, but also provides useful databases for

the potential development of physical models for liquid breakup

and atomization. Since combustion can be treated more or less

separately in this case, the following subsections will be focused on

non-reacting ow simulations.

4.1. Overview of multiphase ow modelling for a DNS-like

simulation of atomization and sprays

One of the key divisions between the various multiphase

numerical methods is that of the reference frame for treating the

dispersed phase. Continuous-ow CFD simulations are generally

considered in an Eulerian reference frame while the dispersed

phase characteristics are commonly treated with either the Eulerian or the Lagrangian representations. The continuous-ow simulations are typically carried out in an Eulerian reference frame since

it provides the most computationally efcient description for

solution. Different spatial discretizations for the uid characteristics (velocity, temperature and pressure) can be considered while

these discretizations can be used with nite-difference, nitevolume and nite-element treatments. In cases where the particles

are small in size compared to the grid resolution of the continuous

phase, a natural approach is to use particle trajectories, i.e. the

Lagrangian representation for the dispersed phase and thus the

ow system is called EulerianLagrangian. In this case the particle

characteristics (velocity, position, etc.) are declared and updated

along the particle path lines, as described in the previous section. In

contrast, the Eulerian representation for the dispersed phase

150

with those of the continuous phase grid. In return, the ow eld is

called EulerianEulerian or, quite frequently, for the sake of

convenience, just Eulerian.

The Eulerian treatment may describe the particle concentration

through a volume fraction Fp which is the fraction of the computational volume composed of particles, and where the volume

fraction taken up by the continuous-uid phase is Ff such that

Fp Ff 1. The dispersed phase can be further classied into the

following categories: mixed-uid vs. separated-uid approaches (if

the reference frame is Eulerian) and point-force vs. resolvedsurface treatments (if the reference frame is Lagrangian) [122,123].

The Eulerian description applied to the dispersed phase generally assumes that the characteristics of the particles can be

described as a continuum. This assumption allows the dispersed

phase to be treated with the same discretization and similar

numerical techniques as those used for the continuous phase.

Furthermore, the Eulerian approach gives an overall picture of the

ow eld compared to the Lagrangian approach where essentially

particles are followed in the solution. Eulerian techniques can be

subdivided into mixed- and separated-uid approaches. The

mixed-uid approach assumes that the continuous and the

dispersed phases are in local kinetic and thermal equilibrium, i.e.

the relative velocities and temperatures between the two phases

are small in comparison to predicted variations in the overall ow

eld [122,124]. The mixed-uid treatment distinguishes only the

volume/mass fractions of the dispersed and continuous phases in

a mixed volume. Since the velocities and temperatures of both

phases are now assumed to be represented by single values, the

mixed-uid treatment has also been named locally homogeneous

ow [7], single-uid scalar transport approach and modieddensity approach [123]. The use of mixed-uid approximation

results in a single set of momentum equations for the ow mixture.

The mixed-uid set of equations is inherently a two-way coupled

system since all phases act in concert (thus the gas-phase physics

depend on the liquid-phase physics and vice versa). The separateduid approach assumes that both the continuous and dispersed

phases comprise two separate, but intermixed, continua. Therefore,

two sets of momentum equations are needed: one for the continuous phase and one for the dispersed phase. This approach is also

known as the two-uid method since two sets of partial differential equations are required. The same principle applies to the

energy equation as well. Thus, the relative velocities and temperatures of the two phases are not necessarily zero, compared to the

mixed-uid treatment. It is worth mentioning that the solution of

two sets of governing equations in a separated-uid approach

signicantly increases the overall computational cost.

An appealing multiphase DNS approach is based on the oneuid formalism [124], similar to the concept of mixed-uid treatment, in which the methods are based on solving a single set of

transport equations (NavierStokes equations) for the whole

computational domain and the different phases are treated as

a single uid with variable material properties. Changes in these

properties are accounted for by advecting a phase indicator function and the heat and mass transfer between different phases can

be accounted for. In the context of this approach, advanced interface tracking algorithms [125] can be employed and the interfacial

exchange terms can be incorporated by adding the appropriate

sources as delta functions or smoothed gradients of the composition eld at or across the interface [124].

In simulations of multiphase ow problems, gas compressibility

is also a relevant issue. The liquid phase is by nature incompressible

while in atomization processes the gas phase is usually of high

speed with compressibility not negligible. The use of a compressible code in a mixed-uid treatment is possible but the

the liquid transportation advection equation [126]. Efforts have

been made recently on how the mixed-uid treatment can be used

in gasliquid two-phase ows with the gas phase treated as

compressible [127130], where gas-phase pressure can be calculated from an equation of state. In incompressible ows the pressure is calculated from the Poisson equation, which can be derived

from continuity and momentum equations. Richards et al. [126]

described a method in which the pressure iteration procedure can

handle no-slip problems without the need for explicitly specifying

the boundary conditions.

In terms of the Lagrangian reference frame, the dispersed

phase can be classied into point-force and resolved-surface

treatments. For the point-force approach, the particle is commonly

described at a single point that moves at its own (independent)

velocity. Each particle is treated individually but with a point-wise

representation. If a point-force approximation is used, individual

particle trajectories are computed in the Lagrangian-sense, while

the continuous phase is typically treated throughout in an Eulerian-sense. For a large number of particles, computational parcels

can be used where each parcel represents a cloud of many particles with the same characteristics as described in Section 3. The

size of the parcel cloud must be less than the continuous phase

local grid resolution, d < Dx, where d is the effective particle/cloud

diameter and Dx the effective cell resolution. It is worth

mentioning that the point-force approach requires the use of

models to describe drag, lift and other mechanisms. If a resolvedsurface approach is used, the detailed ow around each particle

must be solved to a high resolution. Then the ow solution can be

numerically integrated over the surface to obtain the net

momentum interaction of the uid on the particle. Thus, the

Lagrangian approach updates the particle position based on its

integrated interaction [111,122,123]. The resolved-surface treatment requires that the computational resolution is sufcient to

describe the detailed stress distribution over the particle surface

and thus, d[Dx. This yields a major drawback which is that the

computational requirements for many continuous-uid grid

points around each particle are quite high, and thus simulation of

many particles is generally impractical on even the most advanced

computer systems [122]. Both the point-force and the resolvedsurface approaches are graphically represented in Fig. 5. The full

mathematical formulation of the Lagrangian methodology can be

found in the review of Loth [131].

For a better understanding on the differences between the

point-force and resolved-surface treatments, one can consider

a dynamic equation for the particle given as [122]

(65)

of the particle. In Eq. (65) the particle equation of motion is an

ordinary differential equation along the particle path line. The lefthand-side of Eq. (65) represents the particle mass times the

acceleration of particle along the path line. On the right-hand side,

Fbody represents body forces which are proportional to the particle

mass (e.g. gravitational acceleration), Fsurf are the uid dynamic

surface forces and Fcoll are the collision forces (e.g. particleparticle

or particlewall collisions). Neglecting electromagnetic and other

body forces, Fbody for a spherical particle, that takes into account

gravity effects, can be given as Fbody gmp g rp Vp . The specication of the surface forces Fsurf can be distinguished in the

resolved-surface and the point-force approaches. In the resolvedsurface approach the surface force is computed by integrating the

pressure and shear stress as given below

Fsurf

Z h

i

p m vui =vxj vuj =vxi nj dAp

(66)

where Ap is the particle surface area and nj the j-projection of the unit

normal vector outward from the surface. Eq. (66) incorporates all

surface forces (lift, drag, etc) and thus no assumptions of particle

shape, particle Reynolds number, and ow acceleration/gradients are

required in this formulation. The resolved-surface approach for the

specication of surface forces is the most accurate methodology as it

allows the capturing of physically realistic surface topology and

surface force. On the other hand, it is the most computationally

intensive methodology per particle. The resolved-surface technique

is thus only reasonably applicable in cases where there is a single

particle or modest number of particles in the computational domain.

If the number of particles is too high then the point-force

approach can be used in the computation of the surface forces. The

point force is a single equation approach and the force on the particle

is described without resolving the surrounding particle surface. A

surface-averaged force is employed in the point-force treatment

which is based on analytical expressions of a linear combination of

specic forces. The major assumption of the point-force treatment is

that the surface forces are related to the continuous-uid properties

extrapolated to the particle centroid xp . For example the pointforce velocity and vorticity at the particle centroid can be dened as

u@p and u@p . Based on this assumption the continuous-uid velocity

is dened everywhere and thus u@p zuxp . If the ow in the particle

region is non-linear then the employment of a single-point velocity

may not be sufcient to characterize the surrounding conditions.

Thus a relative particle velocity is dened which allows specication

of the direction of hydrodynamic forces (e.g. drag which opposes

velocity w)

w v u@p

(67)

perpendicular to w and the relative particle rotation Urel in

respect to the uid. The relative particle rotation can be given as

1

2

Urel Up u@p

(68)

particle centroid. Maxey and Riley [132] proposed an equation of

point-force description for linear momentum particle dynamics,

known as the MaxeyRiley equation which is derived analytically

for the case of incompressible creeping ow around a single

spherical particle far away from other particles. The creeping ow

can be dened as

Rep 1;

rf djwj

where Rep

mf

(69)

151

associated with rp (e.g. Fbody and dv=dt) can be neglected and thus

the point-force expression for very light particles becomes

70

while rp rf and Rep 1. In the right-hand side of Eq. (70), the D

term represents the drag force, the S term represents the stress

force, while the H term represents the history force term

assuming negligible relative acceleration at t 0.

Following the same principle, for very heavy particles, the terms

associated with rf can be neglected and thus the point-force

expression in turn becomes

71

Other point-force expressions have been reported in the literature by various researchers in order to take into account interface

conditions, non-spherical particles, rotation, deformability and

mass transport. Different ow aspects have also been studied such

as compressibility, turbulence, shear and strain. All these efforts are

mainly empirical or semi-empirical and are limited to specic ow

regimes and consequently are subjected to uncertainties and bias.

The non-uniqueness of multiphase ow equations because of

different modelling approaches indicate that there is not a standardized procedure (in a manner similar to single-phase ows) and

thus extra care must be taken since every ow needs its specic

equations and models to describe all the associated physics as

realistically as possible.

DNS studies of evaporating and non-evaporating droplet/particle

dispersion have been performed by various researchers in the past,

e.g. [114,133136]. Here, the EulerianLagrangian formulation for

evaporating droplet dispersion, as given by Miller and Bellan [136] is

presented. The gas phase is treated in an Eulerian manner while the

particle/droplet phase is treated in the Lagrangian manner, similar to

formulations found in Refs. [114,133,135]. The compressible gas

phase (carrier plus mixture) governing equations include the mass,

momentum and energy transfer between the gas and the dispersed

evaporating phase and are given as

vr

v

ruj SI

vt vxj

(72)

v

v

rui uj pdij sij SII;i

rui

vt

vxj

(73)

"

#

v

v

vT

re puj l

ui sij SIII

re

vt

vxj

vxj

(74)

"

#

v

v

vYv

rYv uj rG

SI

rYv

vxj

vt

vxj

(75)

p rYv Rv 1 Yv Rc T

(76)

respectively. The other symbols in Eqs. (72)(76) are: ui gas-phase

152

fraction of evaporated vapor; Rc , Rv the carrier gas and vapor gas

constants; sij viscous stresses; m, l gas-phase viscosity and thermal

conductivity and G the Fickian diffusion coefcient. The terms SI ,

SII;i and SIII represent the coupling of mass, momentum and energy

respectively. The coupling mechanisms are an integral part of all

EulerianLagrangian formulations.

The Lagrangian governing equations which describe the droplet

transient position Xi , the velocity vi, the temperature Td and mass

md are given as

dXi

vi

dt

dvi

F

i;

dt

md

where Fi md

f1

sd

ui vi

SIII

Resolved-surface

applied in situations where the ow

has insignicant liquid volume

fraction or the number of particles is

less (than those concerned in Eulerian

approaches). The methods are also

applied in cases where particlewall

and particleparticle interactions are

important

Two continuity

Particle surface

Particle volume

equations are solved for effect on the

interface is taken

the gas and liquid

continuous-uid

into account

respectively

ow is neglected

Two sets of momentum Suitable for ows Suitable for ows

equations are needed

with many

involving

with gas and liquid

particles

complex particle

properties respectively

topologies

One continuity

equation

may be

solved

A single set of

momentum

equations is

needed

which

accompany

mixture

properties

One energy

Two energy equations

equation

are essential with gas

is solved

and liquid properties

respectively

where patm is the atmospheric pressure and TB;l is the liquid saturation temperature. The Lagrangian reference frame for the droplet

conservation Eqs. (72)(76), leads to the following coupling terms

(

)

X wa

_d a

m

Dx3

a

"

#

X wa

_ d vi a

Fi m

Dx3

a

(

"

# )

X wa

v2i

_

vi Fi Q md hv;s

2

Dx3

a

a

(84)

Table 1

Major characteristics and properties of Eulerian/Lagrangian approaches [122,123].

Point-force

(82)

SII;i

constant sd for Stokes ow is sd rl D2 =18mg where D is the

droplet diameter. cl is the liquid heat capacity and Lv the latent

heat of evaporation. The gas mixture heat capacity is

cp;g 1 Yv cp;c Yv cp;v with cp;c and cp;v the constant pressure

heat capacities of the carrier gas and vapor respectively. The gasphase Prandtl and Schmidt numbers are dened as Prg mcp;g =l

and Scg m=rG. A mass transfer number is utilized to drive the

evaporation rate and is dened as BM Ys Yv =1 Ys with

the subscript s denoting droplet surface conditions. Nu and Sh are

the Nusselt and Sherwood numbers and f1 an empirical correction

to Stokes drag. The function f2 b=eb 1 is an analytical heat

_ d =md . The vapor surface

transfer correction with b 1:5Prg sd m

mass fraction Ys is calculated from the surface molar fraction

(cS p psat ) while the saturation pressure is calculated through

the ClausiusClapeyron relation and thus

Separated-uid

!#

"

patm

Lv 1

1

exp

p

Rv TB;l Td

(78)

(80)

when continuous liquid phase

presents in the ow eld or the

number of liquid particles Np is much

larger than the number of

continuous-phase grid cells Nf

such that Np [Nf . This condition

guarantees computational efciency

cS

(83)

dmd

1

Sh

_ d md

ln1 BM

m

sd

3Scg

dt

Mixed-uid

(81)

(77)

(79)

Lagrangian approaches

cs

cs 1 cs Wc =Wv

SI

_ d Lv

Nucp;g

dTd Q m

f

T Td

; with Q md 2

sd

dt

md cl

3Prg

Eulerian approaches

Ys

_ d the droplet evaporation rate, Fi the drag force, Q the heat

m

transfer and hv;s the evaporated enthalpy at the droplet surface

dened as hv;s cp;v Td h0v . Greek a represents individual droplet

variables and Dx3 represents a local discretization volume. The

weighting factor wa is used to distribute the individual droplet

contributions to the eight nearest neighbor surrounding points.

Further details on the mathematical formulation and smoothing

parameters can be found in Ref. [136].

DNS-like simulations of atomization and spray processes are not

model-free. Different modelling approaches approximate the ow

physics in different manners. Table 1 summarizes the major characteristics and properties of Eulerian/Lagrangian approaches, in the

context of DNS. In RANS and LES approaches, the Eulerian/

Lagrangian issues are similar, but the grid points used are normally

too coarse to resolve the gasliquid interfaces. Apart from the

different degrees of modelling approximations used in RANS, LES

and DNS, their computational costs are vastly different. For general

computational combustion, Poinsot and Veynante [137] summarized the advantages and drawbacks of the three methodologies

and indicated the computational costs, as shown in Table 2. In

a practical simulation, computational costs depend on many factors

such as the complexity of the algorithm and the accuracy required.

It is often very difcult to directly compare the costs of the three

methodologies, mainly due to the different numerical methods

Table 2

Comparison between RANS, LES and DNS approaches for numerical combustion

[137].

Approach Advantages

RANS

LES

Drawbacks

Coarse grid

Allows geometrical simplication such as 2D ows

and symmetry

Lower computational cost

compared to LES and DNS

Unsteady ow features

Reduced modelling impact

compared to RANS

DNS

Models for drag,

lift, etc. are

required

(85)

turbulence

Powerful tool to study

models

is resolved

Models are required

needed

3D simulations are required

Precise numerical codes are

needed

Computational costs are high

The numerical costs are

prohibitive (ne grids, very

precise codes)

Limited

to

academic

problems

Table 3

The increase in computational costs when RANS/LES/DNS is applied to gasliquid

two-phase ows.

RANS/LES/DNS computational costs

Eulerian mixeduid approach

Lagrangian

point-force

approach

Lagrangian

resolved-surface

approach

Relatively small

increase in

computational

costs compared

with singlephase

simulations

Typically the

computational cost

is doubled

compared to the

mixed-uid

treatment

Computational

cost depends on

the number of

particles

considered

Requires higher

computing power

per particle in

respect to pointforce approach

comparison between RANS and LES [121] based on the same

numerical methods, it cannot be regarded as a generalization

because the cost is dependent on multiple parameters. Table 3

shows the expected changes in computational costs when

gasliquid two-phase ows are concerned.

The gasliquid interface needs to be tracked in order to identify

the location of the liquid phase when the Eulerian approach is used

for the liquid phase. This is a necessity when the multiphase DNS

approach is based on the one-uid formalism [124] or the mixeduid treatment. In the context of this approach, advanced interface

tracking algorithms [125] can be employed, as mentioned in the

previous subsection. The various methods for interface calculation

can be divided into two great classes, depending on the nature,

xed or moving, of the grid used in the bulk of the phases. In xedgrid methods, there is a predened grid that does not move with

the interface (contrary to moving-grid methods) [138]. The xedgrid methods are the most commonly used due to their relatively

simple description and greater ease of programming. The earliest

xed-grid numerical technique designed to simulate complicated

free surface problems is the well-known marker-and-cell (MAC)

method [139]. The MAC method assumed a free surface so there

was only one uid involved. This required boundary conditions to

be applied at this surface and the uid in the rest of the domain to

be completely passive. Extensions to two-uid problems were

performed at Los Alamos laboratory [140,141]. The next generation

of multi-uid tracking methods evolved gradually from the MAC

method. Several volume advection techniques for nite-volume

and nite-difference methods have been developed with the aim of

maintaining very sharp interfaces [142]. The well-known ones also

include the simplied line interface calculation (SLIC) [143], the

volume of uid (VOF) method [144] and the Youngs method [145].

4.2.1. VOF-type methods

The most commonly used surface tracking is perhaps the VOF

method. The major characteristic of the VOF method is the utilization of the volume fraction F (also known as the color function)

[138,142,146]. This requires computation of the uid volume at each

cell which is then retained through the volume fraction. Mixed cells

will have a volume fraction F between zero and one and cells

without interfaces (pure cells) will have a volume fraction equal to

zero or unity. Fig. 6 shows a typical volume fraction distribution for

a random curve over a square grid. It is worth mentioning that the

VOF method was developed for incompressible ow. Adaptation of

the VOF method to accompany compressibility effects has been

carried out [127]. The volume fraction F is specied as

8

< 1;

F 0 < F < 1;

:

0;

pure liquid

gas-liquid interface

pure gas

153

(86)

associated uid is achieved through the VOF advection equation

which is specied as

0

vt

vx

vy

vz

(87)

considered as functions of the liquid volume fraction, and densities

and viscosities of both phases [112,147,148], given by

r Frl 1 Frg

(88)

m Fml 1 Fmg

(89)

Eqs. (88) and (89) are utilized in conjunction with the VOF method,

to account for the contributions of the two individual phases to the

mixture properties. The mixture properties are accompanied in the

momentum equations, in a mixed-uid treatment.

To allow for the gas compressibility to be considered, the

transport equation for liquid mass fraction Y is utilized [127130],

rather than the transport equation of volume fraction F, which is

applicable to incompressible ows only. The concept of

compressible gas-phase formulation involves transportation of

liquid mass fraction and follows the transportation of a passive

scalar. In 3D Cartesian coordinates the transport equation for liquid

mass fraction can be given as

vrY

vruY vrvY vrwY

1

v

vY

m

vt

vx

vy

vz

Re Sc vx vx

v

vY

v

vY

m

m

vy vy

vz vz

(90)

where Re and Sc are the Reynolds and Schmidt numbers respectively. Since the compressible VOF formulation requires the transportation of liquid mass fraction rather than the liquid volume

fraction, a relation between the two can be given as [127]

rg Y

(91)

rl rl rg Y

reasons. Their simple implementation enables application to

154

which a single particle is examined. The reasons which make VOFtype methods attractive are [138]

They preserve mass in a natural way as a direct consequence of

the development of an advection equation

The change of topology is implicit and thus no special provision

is necessary for interface reconnection or breakup

Simple extension from two-dimensional to three-dimensional

congurations

The VOF schemes are local in the sense that only the F values of

the neighboring cells are needed to update the F value in the

next cell

Although the SLIC, the VOF and the Youngs method have been

commonly used, other volume tracking algorithms have been

developed throughout the years, e.g. Chorin [149], Ashgriz and Poo

[150] and Pilliod and Puckett [151]. While the basic mechanism for

all VOF-type methods is the same (the use of an advection equation

to transport volume fraction), their major difference lies in how the

interface is reconstructed and consequently in the treatment of the

curvature and unit normal on the interface. The two major categories

of reconstruction are the piecewise-constant and the piecewiselinear methodologies. The piecewise-constant methodologies (e.g.

SLIC and VOF) assume that the interfaces within each cell are lines

(or planes in three dimensions) aligned with one of the logical mesh

coordinates. This simple interface geometry allows application of

the piecewise-constant methodologies to multi-material problems

[146]. The utilization of a multidimensional operator to calculate the

unit normal in the VOF method [144], compared to the use of an

operator split in the SLIC method [143], makes it the most attractive

interface tracking method to use. Further details regarding these

operators can be found in Ref. [146].

More accurate VOF methods have been developed through the

years which accurately reconstruct the interface and they fall into

the category of piecewise-linear methodologies, commonly known

as the VOF/PLIC (PLIC stands for piecewise-linear interface

construction/calculation) methods [138]. A VOF/PLIC method

consists of two major parts: (a) reconstruction step and (b) propagation step. A typical reconstruction is shown in Fig. 7 which

shows the volume fraction distribution from both VOF and VOF/

PLIC algorithms. The key part of the reconstruction step is the

determination of the line segment and thus the determination of

the unit normal n and volume fraction F which consequently dene

the uniqueness of the line. A unit normal vector m can be calculated

from the nite-difference formula

mh Vh F

(92)

hF

is constructed from the volume fraction values of a 3 3 block of cells

centered at i; j. Another approach is the least-square method

where now the interface is approximated by a straight line in the

whole block with the constraint that the volume fraction of the

~ is

central cell is always a true value F. The error between F and F

minimized by changing the slope of the line. For instance, the error

E at cell i; j can be found by

2

Em 4

1

X

~

F

ik;jl m

Fik;jl

31=2

5

(93)

k;l 1

interface that cuts computational cell into two parts which contain

the proper area of each uid. This is achieved by derivation of an

expression which relates the cut area to a parameter a (where the

straight line is fully dened) [147]. Considering for simplicity two

dimensions, and assuming a square cell of side h in the x; y plane

and a straight line CG (Fig. 8), the area below the line within the cell

must be calculated (area ABDFH in Fig. 8). The denition of

a straight line in Cartesian two-dimensional coordinates having

a normal m is given by

mx x my y a

(94)

the square cell i; j can be given as

95

In cases where the points C and G lie within the square, then this is

the desired area. Due to geometrical similarity between triangles

BCD and ACG the ratio of their individual areas is equal to the

square of the ratio of their sides and thus

ABCD

AACG

2

a mx h

a

Fig. 7. Volume fraction distributions from VOF and VOF/PLIC algorithms: (a) VOF; (b) VOF/PLIC.

(96)

155

compression of the interface during each fractional step. The

procedure can be made second-order accurate by changing the

advection directions at each time step. First-order and secondorder algorithms have been developed by several researchers

[146,152154]. The major advantage of VOF/PLIC methods,

compared to the standard VOF method, is the elimination of the socalled otsam and jetsam, which are small bodies separated from

the main material body because of errors induced by the VOF and

generally from all piecewise-constant methods [138,143].

third term in the square brackets subtracts the area of the triangle

HFG when a > my h and point G lies above point H. The area is

a continuous function of a and it ranges from zero, when a 0, to

h2 , when a reaches its maximum value of mx my h.

In practical CFD one needs to utilize Eq. (95) while the VOF/

PLIC method also requires an inverse calculation which will

determine a that corresponds to a given cut area and normal

direction in a computational cell. There are a number of ways to

achieve this. One can use a standard root-nding method to nd

the particular value of a at which the cut area has the desired

value. An alternative method is to use an iterative method as

described in Ref. [146]. Another option is to identify the two

critical values of a at which the interface passes through one of

the corners of the square. In between these two critical values the

function of the right-hand side of Eq. (95) is a known polynomial

in a whose roots can be analytically found [138]. There is no

standard inverse procedure in determining a and thus the

choice of method in doing so greatly depends on the specic

application.

The second step in the VOF/PLIC methodology is propagation.

After the interface has been reconstructed, its motion by the

underlying ow must be modelled by an advection algorithm,

which is a typical feature of VOF. One way to calculate the uxes

along the x-direction is shown in Fig. 9, where the uid to the right

of the dashed line crosses the right boundary at time s. The whole

block of fractional volume in a band of width us is transferred from

the upwind cell to the downwind cell. Using this method no

account is taken for the interface topology changes during the time

step [138]. Another method for propagation is to use the Lagrangian

approach where the interface segments are directly computed (as

shown in Fig. 10) [147]. In the Lagrangian propagation approach

three contributions are calculated: the area uxes f and f

entering the cell i; j, from cells i 1; j and i 1; j, respectively,

and the area f0 of the uid contained at the beginning of the time

step in the control cell that remains there. The volume fraction

along the x direction (and similarly for the other directions) can

be calculated by

Fx

f

ij fij fij

ij

(97)

Apart from the volume-of-uid methods for tracking the interface dynamics, another major category of computing moving

surfaces in uid problems are the level-set methods. These

methods were introduced by Osher and Sethian [155] and they are

based on implicit representation of the interface whose equation of

motion is numerically approximated using schemes built from

those for hyperbolic conservation laws. Level-set methods are very

useful for problems where the topology of the interface is in

multiple dimensions and with sharp corners and cusps. There are

many review articles and text on level-set methods and the reader

is referred to the work of Osher and Fedkiw [156] and Sethian

[157,158]. Herein the analysis on level-set methods is restricted to

two-phase incompressible ow problems. Other applications

include high-speed compressible ow and material science problems [159]. Here, the work of Sethian and Smereka [159] is closely

followed since it provides an explanation of level-set method for

applications closely related to atomization and spray processes.

For two immiscible uids (gas and liquid phases respectively) at

low Mach numbers the equations of motion for each uid can be

written as

l

rl Du

Dt Vpl 2ml V$Dl rl g;

V$ul 0

g

rg Du

Dt Vpg 2mg V$Dg rg g;

xliquid

(98)

xgas

(99)

V$ug 0

viscosity. Subscripts l and g denote the liquid and gas phases

respectively, D is the rate of deformation tensor and g gravitational

acceleration. The boundary conditions at the interface G are

2ml D 2mg D $n pl pg sk n and ul ug ; xG;

(100)

where n is the unit normal on the interface, k V$n in the curvature of the interface, and s the surface tension coefcient. The

velocity, density and viscosity are dened as follows

156

ul

; r

ug

rl

rg

and

ml ; xliquid

mg ; xgas

(101)

rDu

Dt Vp V$2mD skddn rg; xU;

V$u 0

(102)

function that is zero everywhere except at the interface. At a point x

in the liquid, d is the distance closest to the point on the interface. In

the gas, d is the negative of this quantity.

Density-weighted divergence-free projection is essential in the

level-set formulation to enforce the incompressibility condition.

This is achieved by letting rx be a density function and f x be an

arbitrary vector eld dened in domain U. Then the weighted

divergence-free projection of f (denoted as u here) is given as

Vp f

(103)

following elliptic equation

1

V$ Vp V$f ;

where

vp

f $n on vU

vn

(104)

Pr 1=r Vq 0, where q is any scalar eld, pressure can be eliminated

from Eq. (102) by applying the divergence-free projection operator.

The level-set formulation requires the specication of a level-set

function (similar to color function in VOF methods). The level-set

function f is specied as zero at the gasliquid interface. Similar to

the VOF method the density and viscosity are constant in each uid

and take two different values depending on the sign of the level-set

function f and hence one may write

rf rg rl rg Hf

(105)

mf mg ml mg Hf

where Hf is the Heaviside function dened as

8

< 0

Hf

1=2

:

1

if f < 0

if f 0

if f > 0

gas

interface

liquid

(106)

Since the interface moves with the uid particles, the evolution

of f follows a typical advection equation (like in the VOF method)

given by

thickness allows replacement of rf with a smoothed density

r3 f, as dened in Eq. (105), but now the Heaviside function is

dened as

H3 f

(107)

proportional to the mesh size since the sharp changes in

1

2

f 1

sinpf=3

3 p

1

if f < 3

if jfj 3

if f > 3

(108)

Delta function is given by

dH3

df

d3 f

(109)

becomes

Du

1

r3 f

Dt

(110)

associated with the solution of the governing equations. In the

level-set method, there are three main numerical issues when

computing the equations and these are: projection step, spatial

discretization and time discretization. The review paper of Sethian

and Smereka [159] can be a good starting point for further explanations on the numerical issues. Recently, Sussman and Puckett

[160] developed a coupled level-set/VOF method. This coupled

method seems to conserve mass almost as well as the VOF methods

without the presence of otsam and jetsam. Also, the surface

tension effects are easier to incorporate and overall the coupled

level-set/VOF method appears to be very promising.

Immersed boundary (IB) methods fall into the third major

category of interface tracking. The term immersed boundary was

initially introduced to simulate cardiac mechanics and associated

blood ow. The characteristic of this method was that the simulation was based on Cartesian grid which did not conform the

geometry of the heart. Methods need to be formulated to impose

the effect of the immersed boundary on the ow. Unverdi and

Tryggvason [161] successfully implemented the IB method to

simulate multi-uid ows. The mathematical formulation in

Ref. [161] consists of the incompressible, unsteady, and viscous

NavierStokes equations while the density and viscosity are

updated using Eq. (105). For the interface calculation an indicator

function is specied in two dimensions as

Ix; y

vf

u$Vf 0

vt

8

< h

1 r$n

#

grds

2p r 2

(111)

interacting interfaces are accounted for. Assuming that Gx is the

gradient of the indicator function evaluated at grid point x and D is

a distribution function that determines what fraction of the interface quantity should go to each grid point, then

Gx

X

D x xl nl Dsl

(112)

Dsl whose centroid is at xl . The indicator function is calculated

using a fast Poisson solver which solves

V2 I V$G

(113)

uid but has a nite thickness transition zone around the interface

distribution function as specied in Eq. (112) is dened as

h

i

a Qa

p x xl

1 cos 2h

4h

l

i

i

1

i

D xx

0

D

l

if xi xi 2h; i 1; a

otherwise

(114)

dimensions respectively. The velocities of the interface points are

interpolated from the grid velocities using the same grid points that

the gradient was distributed to, with the same weight functions,

and therefore the velocity at the interface point l is given by

ul

D xi xl ui

(115)

where the summation is over the grid points on the stationary grid

in the vicinity of the interface point. The advection of the interface

is then achieved by integrating the following

dxl

ul

dt

(116)

formed by connecting the discrete points by straight lines in two

dimensions and by triangular elements in three dimensions.

4.3. Modelling surface tension

In a gasliquid two-phase ow there is a source of momentum

due to the presence of surface tension. This requires the addition of

a source term in the NavierStokes momentum equations

[112,138]. An integral as shown in the following describes this extra

momentum source term, but it cannot be solved directly since it

requires the exact shape and location of the interface

sk0 n0 dx x0 dS

(117)

St

the liquid surface, n is the unit vector normal to the liquid surface,

dx is the Dirac delta function and S is the liquid surface. The

problem of directly solving the momentum integral due to surface

tension can be alleviated by the use of a continuum surface force

(CSF) model developed by Brackbill et al. [162]. The CSF model

represents surface tension as a continuous volumetric force acting

in the region where the two phases coexist. This volumetric force is

given by

F skVF

(118)

k V$

VF

jVFj

(119)

may be employed and thus the non-dimensional form of the

surface tension in the CSF model may be needed. Non-dimensional

analysis of the CSF model yields a term which can be directly used

in the NavierStokes momentum equations and accounts for the

contribution of surface tension [163], given by

sk

VF

157

(120)

We

time-dependent, non-dimensional NavierStokes momentum

equation in the x-direction, with the surface tension contribution

accounted for, can be given as (gravity terms are neglected for

simplicity)

v ruv sxy

vru v ru2 p sxx

vt

vx

vy

sk vF

vruw sxz

0

We vx

vz

|{z}

(121)

a three-dimensional Cartesian conguration, while adjustment is

needed for idealized axisymmetric (cylindrical) and two-dimensional planar congurations, by performing the necessary coordinate transformations.

The utilization of the CSF technique to model surface tension

forces in multiphase CFD problems creates currents which are

unphysical, the so-called parasitic currents [164], especially in

cases where the ow is dominated by surface tension effects. These

currents are generated in uid regions adjacent to an interface by

local variations in the CSF body force. Their magnitude increases

with increasing capillary strength, and may become so large, as to

affect correct prediction of the ow eld velocities and in extreme

cases may cause complete breakup of the interface. Harvie et al.

[164] performed an analysis of the parasitic currents generation

and found that the parasitic currents can be limited by the inertial

and viscous terms in the NavierStokes equations.

and sprays

DNS has to be a time-dependent simulation due to the unsteady

nature of turbulence. Unsteady simulations have a fourth dimension

(time) which needs to be discretized. RungeKutta (RK) methods

are the most widely used integration procedures in DNS. Timeintegration methods that are second order are generally considered

as inadequate for DNS computations. Details of the RungeKutta

scheme can be found in the literature [165]. Generally speaking, the

number of stages in the RungeKutta scheme is larger than the

order of accuracy if the order of accuracy is higher than four and

thus the computation becomes very intensive. Williamson [165]

developed low-storage RungeKutta schemes which require only

two storage locations. A third-order three-step compact-storage

RungeKutta scheme derived by Wray [166] is shown here, in

which two storage locations are employed for each time-dependent

variable at each sub-step at the locations Q1 and Q2 with Q representing the solution variables. The solution variables are updated

simultaneously as follows

old

Q1new a1 RQ old

1 Dt Q2

old

new

Q2

a2 RQ 1 Dt Q2old

(122)

where the constants a1 ; a2 are chosen to be 2=3; 1=4 for substep 1, 5=12; 3=20 for sub-step 2 and 3=5; 3=5 for sub-step 3. At

the beginning of each full time step, Q1 and Q2 are equal. The data in

Q1 is used to compute the vU=vt terms in the governing equations.

The computed vU=vt terms are stored in Q1 to save storage by

overwriting the old Q1 . Eq. (122) is then used to update Q1 and Q2 .

In Eq. (122), Dt is the time step and is limited by the

158

time-integration schemes are usually third- or fourth-order accurate while RungeKutta schemes with fth-order accuracy or

above are rarely used since their formulation is very complex. A

good compromise is the use of fourth-order RK schemes since they

provide good accuracy, stability and computational efciency [167].

Implicit RK methods are not preferred in DNS due to their complex

implementation. For incompressible ows, RK schemes are not

preferred, since the governing equations involve solution of an

elliptical Poisson equation at each time step and this increases the

overall computational cost. In those cases, the Adams-Moulton and

Adams-Bashforth methods are frequently used [167].

The Adams-Moulton methods are similar to the Adams-Bashforth

methods but they are based on implicit formulations. First-, secondand third-order schemes are available but the stability region

continues to shrink as the order of accuracy increases. In practical

CFD, predictor-corrector methods are used instead of pure implicit

methods (Adams-Moulton). The predictor-corrector methods

explicitly predict the time advanced solution which is substituted

into the implicit difference formula in the corrector step. This

results in an improved stability region over the purely implicit

Adams-Moulton scheme. The Adams-Moulton scheme can be used in

tandem with the Adams-Bashforth scheme as a predictor-corrector

pair. Details on the mathematical formulation on both the AdamsBashforth, Adams-Moulton methods can be found in Ref. [167].

Incompressible spray modelling, as mentioned before, lacks an

independent equation for the calculation of pressure and thus the

continuity equation cannot be used directly. The fractional step

method solves the governing equations for incompressible ows

very effectively. An intermediate velocity eld is found which does

not satisfy continuity and then by using this velocity eld an

equation for a virtual scalar quantity is found which is related to the

pressure. From this scalar the nal velocity eld and pressure can

be calculated. Details on the fractional step method can be found in

Ref. [168]. The fractional step method belongs to the general category of projection methods.

For DNS applications, like in cases of atomization and spray

modelling, high-order schemes are needed for spatial discretization. Most of the existing DNS codes employ high-order nitedifference schemes due to the fact that their computing costs are

generally lower than high-order nite-volume methods [169]. The

most common nite-difference schemes are the non-dissipative

central differencing ones, where the fourth-order scheme has been

broadly adopted as the numerical scheme with the lowest

acceptable accuracy for DNS computations. Unlike the upwind

schemes, the central-difference schemes do not introduce any

articial dissipation. The articial smoothing/dissipation makes the

upwind schemes inappropriate for long time integration such as

that encountered in DNS. Lele [170] perhaps made the rst attempt

in utilizing high-order, narrow stencil, central nite-difference

schemes (Pade`) in uid ow problems involving a broad range of

scales. Atomization and spray processes intrinsically involve

a broad range of scales. The Pade` scheme allows simplicity in the

boundary conditions treatment while the computing costs are

relatively low. Many variations of the Pade` scheme, with different

degrees of accuracy, were presented by Lele [170]. Sixth-order and

fourth-order compact Pade` schemes have been considered as good

compromises between accuracy and computational speeds for DNS

applications and they are briey summarized as follows. The rstorder derivatives can be calculated using a ve-point stencil of the

form

0

0

fj1

afj0 fj1

b

fj1 fj1

fj2 fj2

c

2h

4h

(123)

b 2 4a=3 and c 4 a=3 with a 4 leading to a fourthorder scheme and a 3 leading to a sixth-order scheme. Similarly,

the second-order derivatives can be calculated from

00

00

fj1

afj00 fj1

b

h2

4h2

(124)

a fourth-order scheme and a 5:5 leading to a sixth-order scheme.

A more general family of high-order nite-difference schemes

with good spectral resolution was presented by Mahesh [171]. The

schemes proposed by Mahesh [171] differ from the standard compact

schemes in that the rst and second derivatives are calculated

simultaneously. In addition, for the same stencil width, the schemes

by Mahesh [171] are two orders higher in accuracy with signicantly

better spectral representation. The computational cost is in essence

the same as the standard compact schemes. The schemes that

compute simultaneously the rst and second derivatives of a function f for a uniform mesh with grid spacing h are given by

0

0

00

00

a1 fj1

a0 fj0 a2 fj1

h b1 fj1

b0 fj00 b2 fj1

1

c1 fj2 c2 fj1 c0 fj c3 fj1 c4 fj2

h

(125)

can be accomplished for the evaluation of rst and second-order

derivatives. The rst and second derivatives are computed in

a coupled fashion using a narrower stencil compared to the scheme

of Lele [170].

Many nite-difference schemes are considered to be nonconservative. Fully conservative nite-difference schemes have

been proposed, but are limited in applications. They were initially

developed for incompressible, inviscid ows [172,173]. For incompressible ows, it is crucial that the kinetic energy is conserved, if

a stable and dissipation-free numerical method is sought. The

kinetic energy conservation yields to stability and minimizes the

articial damping in LES/DNS computations [174]. Very recently,

Desjardins et al. [175] developed high-order conservative nitedifference schemes for variable density low Mach number ows,

based on the initial work of Morinishi et al. [173], which was

extended to simulate variable density ows in complex geometries

with cylindrical or Cartesian non-uniform meshes. Although these

conservative methods have not been widely applied to atomization/

spray two-phase ow simulations, they appear to be promising.

A drawback of the conservative nite-difference methods is the high

computational cost associated with their implementation [175].

Spectral methods offer an alternative way of calculating the

spatial derivatives in the governing equations with simple

boundary conditions such as periodic boundaries. Although there is

generally a lack of exibility in spectral methods, compared to the

nite-difference schemes, they are numerically accurate with low

computational costs. Spectral methods are not easy to apply for

practical boundaries and compressible ows with discontinuities.

The utilization of spectral methods in DNS of atomization and spray

processes is a difcult task and thus the use of a central nitedifference scheme appears to be the option for spatial discretization. Finite-volume methods can be used in cases of complex

unstructured meshes and they are advantageous over the nitedifference methods since they are based on the integral form of the

conservation laws. This enables enforcement of the ux conservation even on arbitrary meshes since the uxes collapse telescopically by construction. The main disadvantage of nite-volume

methods is their relatively high computing cost compared to nite-

accuracy. The work of Ekaterinaris [169] gives a procedure for the

solution of multidimensional problems with the nite-volume

method. Spectral-volume method [176] can be considered as

a combination of the nite-volume and spectral methods. It is

a high-order, conservative and computationally efcient scheme

which enables accuracy similar to spectral method while it retains

the benets of nite-volume method, enabling treatment of

irregular meshes and complex geometries. The spectral-volume

method is based on reconstruction of a high-order approximation

which yields from cell-averaged data from triangular of tetrahedral

nite-volumes, while Riemann solvers are utilized to compute the

uxes at the volume boundaries. The spectral-volume method

could improve the accuracy of DNS signicantly since many

atomization applications consist of ows inside combustors which

are usually very complex in geometry. A systematic comparison of

the method, at different orders of accuracy, with compact nitedifference schemes, would give better insights on the computational efciency and accuracy of the method.

A combination of the generality of the nite-element method

with the accuracy of spectral techniques was proposed by Patera

[177], which is the commonly known, spectral-element method. In

the spectral-element method, the computational domain is divided

into a series of elements, and the velocity in each element is represented as Lagrangian interpolant through Chebyshev collocation

points. It is worth to point out that the spectral-element method is

not conservative compared to the spectral-volume method [176].

A two-uid spectral-element method for two-phase ows, which

uses arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian mesh, was presented by

Helenbrook [178]. The two-uid method can be applied to problems with complex geometries like in combustors and atomizers.

The difculty/limitation of the method is that although it can be

applied to an unstructured mesh, as the interface evolves, the mesh

will eventually have to be restructured to avoid extremely high

aspect ratio elements.

5. Other relevant issues of modelling and simulation of

atomization and sprays

Physical modelling and simulation of spray ow and

combustion is a complex subject that involves many interacting

sub-processes. In principle, sprays can be modelled and simulated statistically in the Lagrangian treatment of the liquid phase,

while liquid breakup and atomization can be best modelled and

simulated using the Eulerian approach. However, modelling of

liquid-fuel atomization and spray combustion involves heavily

empiricism due to the complexity of the problem. The modelling

of sprays in simple ow congurations has been generally

successful, but it is difcult in complex spray congurations that

are mostly encountered in practical applications. Among the

various sub-processes, modelling the liquid atomization is mainly

based on simplied theoretical assumptions and empirical data.

Effective modelling of dense sprays has been very difcult due to

the complex droplet/liquid and liquid/liquid interactions.

Recently, progresses have been made on modelling sprays in

complex systems and dense sprays. Other interesting topics that

are related to atomization and spray processes include modelling

nozzle internal ows, hollow-cone sprays and EHD atomization.

So far, the discussions on liquid-fuel atomization and spray ow

and combustion have been limited to CFD approaches, including

the RANS approach and more advanced LES and DNS. However,

the modelling and simulation techniques for atomization and

sprays can go beyond the traditional concept of CFD. Multiscale

modelling provides such an addition. All these topics are briey

reviewed in the following subsections.

159

sprays, and electrohydrodynamic (EHD) atomization

It has been understood that the inuence of nozzle internal ow

effects on liquid atomization and spray combustion is signicant

[16]. However, in the wave breakup model [39], the inuence of

the inner nozzle ow on atomization of high-speed jets cannot be

predicted. The entire breakup analysis is based on aerodynamic

interactions between the liquid and gas phases, and modied initial

conditions that may be caused by different nozzle designs can only

be included by adjusting empirical constants to experimentally

obtained data. However, comprehensive studies on this subject

show that effects of the inner nozzle ow such as liquid-phase

turbulence and cavitation do have an inuence on primary spray

breakup for modern high-pressure diesel injectors [179].

Recently, the inuence of nozzle internal ow effects has been

included empirically in current wave stability theories [37]. Liquid

breakup models have been proposed in the literature that account

for various effects of the inner nozzle ow on primary spray

disintegration [37], where the turbulence and cavitation based

primary breakup model has been combined with the KelvinHelmholtz model for the secondary breakup. The turbulence

and cavitation based primary breakup model starts out from the

observation that during the quasi-steady injection phase with full

needle lift there is an almost stationary distribution of cavitation

and liquid regions. Thus, the ow at the nozzle orice is divided

into two zones: the liquid core of the jet that is characterized by

a high momentum, and a zone of mixture of liquid ligaments and

cavitation bubbles with a signicantly lower momentum. This

primary breakup model also incorporates the effects of inner nozzle

ow turbulence based on turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation. The detailed formulation of the model can be found in the

literature [37]. In numerical simulations of high-pressure fuel

injection and spray formation, the model incorporating cavitation

effects should give more accurate predictions than using the standard wave breakup model alone.

Another example of modelling sprays in complex systems is the

sheet-atomization model for hollow-core sprays [37]. In directinjection spark ignition engines, pressure-swirl atomizers are often

utilized to establish hollow-cone sprays. These sprays are typically

characterized by high atomization efciencies, i.e. by small droplet

diameters and effective fuelair mixing that can be realized with

only moderate injection pressures. Due to tangentially arranged

inow ports, the fuel is set into a rotational motion within the

injector to establish hollow-core sprays. The resulting centrifugal

forces lead to the formation of a liquid lm near the injector walls,

surrounding an air core at the centre of the injector. Outside the

injector nozzle the tangential velocity component of the fuel is

transformed into a mostly radial component such that a cone

shaped sheet results. This sheet thins as it departs further from the

nozzle and moreover, it is subject to aerodynamic instabilities that

cause breakup into ligaments that can quickly breakup further into

droplets. This process is driven by aerodynamically induced instabilities on the ligament surfaces, such that hollow-core spray

atomization can be described by a wave-like atomization model.

Meyer and Weihs [180] conducted a study on the effect of the

inner to outer radius ratio of annular sheets, i.e. the relative sheet

thickness compared to the curvature of the annulus, on the governing breakup mechanisms of such annular liquid sheets. They

concluded that there is a critical sheet thickness, dened in terms of

the surface tension, the gas density and the injection velocity as

tcrit s=rg U 2 . For a thickness greater than tcrit , the jet behaves

like a solid cone diesel type jet. For a smaller thickness the annular

jet may be treated as a thin planar (two-dimensional) sheet. In

many numerical studies on gasoline direct-injection engines

160

breakup is modelled with the so-called linearized instability sheetatomization model, which follows the above considerations and

was presented in detail by Senecal et al. [182]. The mathematical

formulation of the primary breakup, i.e. the disintegration of the

liquid sheet into ligaments and the rst generation of droplets, can

be found in the literature [37,180182].

Dense sprays are difcult to model due to several reasons.

Firstly, particle interactions such as droplet collisions are most

likely in the dense spray regime close to the injector nozzle,

therefore the requirement on accuracy of the empirically based

physical modelling in this regime is high. Secondly, the statistical

convergence in the Lagrangian treatment of the liquid phase is

difcult to achieve [37], therefore the simulation results could

depend strongly on the grid distribution in this regime. The issue of

statistical convergence is associated with the stochastic particle

technique of the liquid phase. In order to achieve such statistical

convergence, it is not even sufcient to increase the number of grid

cells resolving the region near the nozzle orice, but in addition the

ratio of stochastic particles (i.e. spray parcels) to grid cells needs to

be increased dramatically as well. This implicates an enormous

number of particles and in typical engine spray simulations one is

far from meeting such conditions. Furthermore, to have at least

a chance of coming close to statistical convergence, the various submodels included in the spray calculations need to be formulated in

a numerically favorable manner. As an example, sub-models that

are based on interactions of two different particles, e.g. droplet

collision models, are generally critical for statistical convergence,

even if they are formulated in a physically correct way [183].

There are recent progresses on modelling of dense sprays near

the jet nozzle within the RANS modelling framework, using the

Eulerian approach for the liquid phase [184186]. In this approach,

the stochastic Lagrangian simulation of the liquid droplets that

employs classical atomization models is only used for the dilute

regime of the spray rather than the dense spray regime near the

nozzle. This approach signicantly reduces the modelling uncertainty in the dense spray regime and the prohibitively grid- and

particle-requirements to achieve statistical convergence. Especially,

one-dimensional Eulerian approach has been adopted to simulate

the dense spray regime [184186], which can further reduce the

computational cost. In a recent modelling of the primary breakup of

high-speed jets, Yi and Reitz [186] calculate the jet breakup characteristics by tracking the wave growth on the surface of each liquid

blob using a one-dimensional Eulerian approach. The breakup

model has been used to predict drop size, jet breakup length, and

spray liquid penetration length. Comparisons with experimental

data indicate that the new breakup model signicantly improves

spray predictions over standard atomization models that are based

on linear jet stability theories. In an earlier effort by Wan and Peters

[184], a so-called interactive cross-sectional averaged spray model

for high-pressure diesel injectors was proposed, where an Eulerian

description for both the gas and the liquid phases was adopted in

the dense spray region near the jet nozzle. In this Eulerian

approach, a secondary numerical grid is superimposed on the

regular grid downstream of the nozzle orice. On the secondary

grid, the liquid and gas-phase conservation equations are solved in

a cross-sectionally integrated and averaged manner. Thus, the spray

model becomes essentially one-dimensional within this domain,

and numerically very efcient. This advantage along with the

Eulerian formulation allows for a sufciently high grid resolution

while still maintaining acceptable calculation times. Numerical

instabilities are avoided and statistical convergence is per denition not an issue in this Eulerian approach.

The 1D description of the spray region has a disadvantage, in

that the effect of multidimensional ow patterns such as swirl or

Therefore, the method is applied only in the direct vicinity of the

injector, where the jet itself is the dominant force for mixture

formation rather than the ambient gas eld. Downstream of the

injector, the 1D Eulerian model for dense spray is switched off and

the calculation is continued with the conventional Eulerian/

Lagrangian discrete droplet model. The 1D Eulerian approach to

dense spray can be useful for dense spray simulations, but cautions

must be taken in assuming the primary spray structure that is an

unknown a priori in numerical simulations of sprays. For the

simulation and modelling of liquid breakup and dense sprays, high

delity DNS would be the most appropriate method that could lead

to better understanding of the complex physical phenomena.

Different from the applications of atomization and sprays in gasturbine or engine combustion, EHD atomization has important

applications in bio- and nano-technology, which is a relatively lowspeed spray jet ow driven by electromagnetic forces. Numerical

modelling and simulation provide a unique capability to describe

the liquid cone formation and EHD atomization [187,188]. The

coupled EHD and electrostatic equations can be solved simultaneously. From the electrostatic eld, the electric body forces [189]

can be determined and included in the NavierStokes equations.

The details of the multiphase ow can then be obtained by solving

the ow eld governing equations.

5.2. Multiscale modelling of atomization and sprays

It is not an exaggeration to say that almost all practical problems

have multiple scales. Even though multiscale problems have long

been studied in mathematics, the current rapid development and the

formation of a special research eld of multiscale modelling and

simulation are driven primarily by the use of mathematical models in

engineering and physical sciences, particularly in material science

such as polymers, chemistry, uid dynamics, and biology. Problems

in these areas are often multiphysics in nature; namely, the processes

at different scales are governed by physical laws of different characters. For example, quantum mechanics at one scale and classical

mechanics at another. Multiscale modelling and computation is

a rapidly evolving research eld that has a fundamental impact on

computational science and applied mathematics and inuences the

relation between mathematics and engineering and physical

sciences. Emerging from this research eld is a need for new mathematics and new ways of interacting with mathematics for engineering and physical sciences. Fields such as mathematical physics

and stochastic processes, which have so far remained in the background as far as modelling and computation is concerned, are moving

to the frontier. There are several reasons for the rapid development of

this research eld. Firstly, modelling at the level of a single scale, such

as molecular dynamics or continuum theory, is becoming relatively

mature. Secondly, the available computational capability has reached

the stage where serious multiscale problems can be contemplated.

Thirdly, there is an urgent need from many other subjects of science

and technology. For instance, nanoscience is a good example for the

application of multiscale modelling techniques. In a multiscale

problem, different physical laws may be required to describe the

system at different scales. Take the example of uids. At the macroscale such as meters or millimetres, uids are accurately described by

the density, velocity, and temperature elds, which obey the

continuum NavierStokes equations. On the scale of the mean free

path, it is necessary to use kinetic theory based on Boltzmanns

equation. At the nanometre scale, molecular dynamics in the form of

Newtons law has to be used to give the actual position and velocity of

each individual atom that makes up the uid. Multiscale modelling

and simulation has its own special methods, such as the heterogeneous multiscale method was presented as a general methodology

scales by Weinan et al. [190]. For a uid, moving from atomic level to

macroscopic level, the theories for modelling and computation

change from quantum mechanics described by Schrodinger equation,

the molecular dynamics described by Newtons equation, then the

kinetic theory described by Boltzmanns equation, followed by the

continuum theory describe by NavierStokes equations, which are

the equations RANS, LES and DNS are based upon.

Traditional approaches have proven to be inadequate for many

problems, even with the largest supercomputers, because of the

range of scales and the prohibitively large number of variables

involved. Thus, there is a growing need to develop systematic

modelling and simulation approaches for multiscale problems. For

multiscale problems, modelling and analysis across scales and

multiscale algorithms are the key elements. In a multiscale problem,

the boundaries between different levels of theories may vary,

depending on the system being studied, but the overall trend is that

a more detailed theory has to be used at each ner scale, giving rise

to more detailed information on the system. There is a long history

in mathematics for the study of multiscale problems. Fourier analysis has long been used as a way of representing functions according

to their components at different scales. More recently, this multiscale multi-resolution representation has been made much more

efcient through wavelets. Another example of multiscale methods

is the proper orthogonal decomposition technique, as described in

Ref. [191]. On the computational side, several important classes of

numerical methods have been developed which address explicitly

the multiscale nature of the solutions. As Weinan and Engquist [192]

summarized, these include multigrid methods, domain decomposition methods, fast multi-pole methods, adaptive mesh renement

techniques, and multi-resolution methods using wavelets. All these

methods can be used in CFD. From a modern perspective, the

computational techniques described above are aimed at efcient

representation or solution of the ne-scale problem. For many

practical problems, full representation or solution of the ne-scale

problem is simply impossible for the foreseeable future because of

the overwhelming costs. Therefore alternative approaches that are

more efcient need to be adopted. A classical approach is to derive

effective models at the scale of interest. An example of such

a technique is RANS and LES modelling approaches. Certainly the

concept of multiscale modelling and simulation is relevant to CFD,

including RANS, LES and DNS.

The modelling elements in RANS and LES are obvious. Although

DNS is intended as model-free, it is not possible to achieve such

state in complex physics ows such as reacting ows and multiphase ows. In reacting ows, the chemistry of the combustion

needs to be modelled so that it can be incorporated into the solver

of the uid ow at an affordable cost. For multiphase ows, the

interaction between the different phases needs to be modelled and

mathematical models are also needed to track the interface

between different phases. Atomization and spray ows are a typical

multiscale phenomenon needing modelling efforts. An example of

turbulent atomization is presented next to illustrate the application

of multiscale modelling to uid ow problems.

In most practical spray applications, the liquid jet ow originated

from an atomizer rapidly disintegrates into ligaments and further

into droplets downstream. The recent work by Desjardins et al. [193]

represents an example of complex atomization ow modelling and

simulation, where a gasliquid two-phase ow system is investigated focusing on the liquid atomization in a turbulent ow environment. This process of liquid jet breakup and atomization normally

occurs near the nozzle orice, and the ow develops into sprays at

further downstream locations. The liquid disintegration is caused

either by intrinsic (e.g. potential) or extrinsic (e.g. kinetic) energy and

the liquid is atomized either due to the kinetic energy contained in

161

the liquid itself, by the interaction of the liquid sheet or jet with

a (high-velocity) gas, or by means of mechanical energy delivered

externally, e.g. by rotating devices. Although liquid breakup and

atomization process is an essential stage in the development of spray

ows, it is not fully understood particularly for high-speed jets. For

the multiscale gasliquid two-phase ow problem investigated by

Desjardins et al. [193], the modelling issues include the representation of the surface tension term as well as the density and viscosity

jumps on the interface, while the challenging numerical issues

including the accurate capturing of the gasliquid interface.

Desjardins et al. [193] presented a method for simulating

incompressible two-phase ows by improving the conservative

level-set technique introduced by Olsson and Kreiss [194]. The

method was then applied to simulate turbulent atomization of

a liquid diesel jet at Re 3000. The turbulent atomization problem

investigated is physically very complex, involving momentum

transfer between the two phases where the ne liquid droplets can

be smaller than the grid size and the large scales include the liquid

jet penetration and spreading. In the gasliquid two-phase ow,

surface instabilities, ligament formation, ligament stretching and

fragmentation, and droplet coalescence, all interact with turbulence to transform large-scale coherent liquid structures into small

scale droplets. There are several severe difculties to numerically

investigate such a complex physics problem.

The rst difculty is the large change in the material properties

of the two phases, such as the density and viscosity are signicantly

different in the two phases. In a diesel fuel injection, the liquid-togas density ratio can be as high as 40 while the viscosity ratio can be

of the order of 30, which can move up to several hundreds for

aircraft engines. This large change in uid properties corresponds

to sharp gradients in the ow eld, leading to severe numerical

difculties. In addition, the surface tension force on the gasliquid

interface needs to be mathematically and numerically represented,

which also requires accurate localisation and transport of the

interface. Moreover, in the case of incompressible ows, the

interface transport and localisation should ensure that the volume

of each phase is exactly conserved. As a multiscale problem, there is

also a challenge coming from the small scales that the atomization

process produces. In a numerical simulation, the solver normally

generates liquid structures at the limit of numerical resolution. The

formation of small liquid structures requires high numerical resolution to tackle.

For the modelling of gasliquid two-phase ows, the VOF

method has been broadly used, but the gasliquid interface needs

to be reconstructed from the VOF results and the exact location of

the interface is unknown without this reconstruction [138]. The

front-tracking approach was introduced by Unverdi and Tryggvason

[161], which consists of discretizing the interface using an

unstructured moving mesh that is transported in a Lagrangian

fashion. However, the method requires frequent mesh rearrangements that affect the conservation of the liquid volume. The main

limitation of this approach is the lack of automatic topology modication. Moreover, the parallelization of such a method for

massively parallel computation is very challenging. Over the last

several years, the level-set method aiming at representing the

interface implicitly by an iso-level of a smooth function, as described

by Osher and Fedkiw [156], has drawn many attentions in the eld

of interface modelling. Simple Eulerian scalar transport schemes

can be used to transport this smooth function, and therefore highly

accurate methods are available. Furthermore, the smoothness of the

level-set function makes the interface normals and curvature

readily available for the surface tension calculation, while parallelization is straightforward and highly efcient. However, level-set

methods are typically plagued by mass conservation issues since no

inherent conservation property of the level-set function exists.

162

the simplicity of the original method, Olsson and Kreiss [194] and

Olsson et al. [165] proposed a simple modication to the level-set

method. By replacing the usual signed distance function of the

classical level-set approach by a hyperbolic tangent prole that is

transported and re-initialized using conservative equations, Olsson

and Kreiss [194] showed that the mass conservation errors could be

reduced by an order of magnitude in comparison with the results

obtained with a signed distance function. Based on the work by

Olsson and Kreiss [194] and Olsson et al. [195], Desjardins et al.

[193] made a few modications to the level-set method and presented the accurate conservative level-set (ACLS) method, resulting

in both improved accuracy and robustness.

Numerical simulations of liquid jet/sheet breakup and atomization in a gaseous atmosphere is very scarce so far, mainly due to the

complex spatially developing nature of the ow and the fact that

often high density ratios and capillary forces lead to serious

numerical problems [196]. The surface tension force in the

gasliquid two-phase ow system needs to be modelled accurately.

A commonly used approach is the continuum surface force model

developed by Brackbill et al. [162]. However, the CSF model spreads

out both the density jump and the surface tension force over a few

cells surrounding the interface in order to facilitate the numerical

discretization. Consequently, this approach tends to misrepresent

the smallest front structures. For the handling of the large density

ratio and the surface tension force in a multiphase ow solver, the

ghost uid method (GFM) as described by Fedkiw et al. [197]

provides a very attractive way in the context of nite differences, by

using generalized Taylor series expansions that directly include these

discontinuities. Since GFM explicitly deals with the density jump, the

resulting discretization is not affected. Similarly, the surface tension

force can be included directly in the form of a pressure jump,

providing an adequate sharp numerical treatment of this singular

term. Accordingly Desjardins et al. [193] used GFM for the surface

tension term as well as for the density jump. However, the CSF model

was still used for the discretization of the viscous terms due to the

complexity involved in using GFM for the viscous term. Their argument was that the viscous contribution is small in comparison with

the convective terms in a turbulent ow, which is valid for highspeed ows involved in liquid atomization.

The level-set approach is at the centre of the gasliquid interface

modelling by Desjardins et al. [193]. In the simulations of the

turbulent atomization performed, the ACLS method provides the

details of the gasliquid interface, where the material properties

including density and viscosity are subject to a jump, while the

velocity is continuous across the interface. The important change

across the interface occurs due to the variable pressure, which

includes the surface tension term. In the solver, the ACLS procedure

is coupled with the incompressible NavierStokes equations for the

two-phase uid ow. Their numerical results showed that the

interface displays a complex, turbulent behaviour, as the liquid jet

undergoes turbulent atomization. Fig. 11 shows the instantaneous

snapshots of the gasliquid interface at different times. In the

atomization, many complex phenomena interact, leading to a fast

breakup of the liquid core into ligaments and sheets, then droplets.

In the results reported [193], the liquid core has fully disintegrated

by the end of the computational domain. The fully developed nature

of the turbulent atomization appeared clearly in the results, along

with the chaotic nature of the interface. The ow appeared to be

vortical with complex ne scales. The results indicated that the

numerical algorithm is robust for such a complex, turbulent, threedimensional, multiphase and multiscale ow problem.

There are also many other recent efforts on modelling atomization and sprays. Massot [198] proposed an Eulerian multi-uid

model for polydisperse evaporating sprays. The purpose of such

Fig. 11. Turbulent atomization of a liquid diesel jet, from Desjardins et al. [193].

criteria: to take into account accurately the polydispersity of the

spray as well as size-conditioned dynamics and evaporation; to keep

a rigorous link with the spray equation, Eq. (1), at the kinetic, also

called mesoscopic, level of description, where elementary

phenomena such as coalescence can be described properly; to have

an extension to take into account non-resolved but modelled uctuating quantities in turbulent ows. Models as such are potentially

suitable for multiscale ow problems. There has been a variety of

spray models. For example, Beck and Watkins [199] developed

a model able to capture the full polydisperse nature of the spray

ow without using dropletsize classes. Instead, the moments of

the droplet-size distribution function were used to describe the

distribution of droplet sizes. Transport equations were written for

four moments: the liquid mass and surface area, and the total radius

and droplet number. All the equations were solved in an Eulerian

framework using the nite-volume approach. The inter-phase heat

and mass transfers were captured through the use of source terms.

The model was successfully applied to a wide variety of different

sprays, including high-pressure diesel sprays, wide-angle solid cone

water sprays, hollow-cone sprays and evaporating sprays.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that boundary conditions are

important ingredients of the physical modelling and especially

important for CFD. Boundary conditions for LES and DNS are

signicantly more complex than those for RANS. Detailed

information on boundary conditions can be found in Ref. [191].

For atomization and spray simulations, the atomizer nozzle ow

conditions such as the potential cavitations can be very important and near-wall ow/spray conditions are difcult to deal

with.

6. Concluding remarks

In this report, physical modelling of spray combustion has been

briey reviewed with focus on applications in combustion engines

and gas-turbine combustors. The currently available methodologies

for numerical simulations of sprays in CFD codes are presented, and

the physical modelling of atomization and sprays is subsequently

discussed. The applications of LES and DNS to atomization and

spray processes are then discussed. The recent progress in physical

modelling of spray combustion has also been discussed.

applications mainly in spray combustion, which is widely used

because it provides a method of rapidly vaporizing and mixing

liquid fuels with oxidizer and thus increases the combustion rate

signicantly. Upon injection of the liquid fuel into a combustion

chamber, the liquid undergoes atomization, which causes the liquid

to break up into a large number of droplets of various sizes and

velocities. Depending on the spray properties and ambient conditions, some of the droplets may continue to shatter and some may

recombine in droplet collisions. During the process, vaporization

takes place and the fuel vapor produced by vaporization mixes with

the surrounding oxidizer. Consequently combustion of the vaporair mixture may occur due to the high temperature of the ambient

oxidizer, or an existing ame front or other ignition sources.

Spray plays an important role in liquid-fuel combustion and it is

one of the most effective measures to control the combustion

process. The spray affects the ignition behaviour, heat release and

pollutant formation of the liquid fuel. The kinetic energy of the spray

represents the main source for turbulence generation within the

combustion chamber, and therefore controls the microscale air-fuel

mixing and combustion rate. In a combustion engine, spray significantly affects the fuel consumption and exhaust emission of the

engine. The design of modern combustion engines is characterized

by more exible fuel injections and atomizers come in a large

variety of designs and ow rates. Due to the multi-way interactions

between the droplets and the turbulent gas phase including the

ame and those among the droplets themselves, the spray

phenomena are very complex in nature. To obtain spray characteristics, engineers typically depend on empirical formulations.

Advances in the science and technology of atomization and sprays

will enhance the understanding of the complex physics, and more

importantly, to guide the practical applications of sprays.

During the past several decades there has been a tremendous

expansion of interest in the science and technology of atomization

and sprays, which has now developed into a major interdisciplinary

eld of search. This growth of interest has been accompanied by

large strides in the areas of laser diagnostics for spray analysis

experimentally, and in a proliferation of mathematical models for

spray ow and combustion processes for theoretical and computational approaches. In practical applications, it is becoming

increasingly important for engineers to acquire a better understanding of the basic atomization process and to be fully conversant

with the capabilities and limitations of all the relevant atomization

devices. In particular, it is important to know which type of

atomizer is best suited for any given application and how the

performance of any given atomizer is affected by variations in liquid

properties and operating conditions. CFD can provide answers to

these questions, at a relatively low cost for RANS approach and at

a reasonable cost for LES. Numerical simulation represents a useful

tool to obtain spray characteristics. Signicant advancement has

been made in numerical simulation and modelling of sprays and

the depth of analysis possible with spray models has increased

signicantly over the past decades. Advanced CFD such as DNS

allows access to any process or state variable at any position at any

given point in time. As a powerful tool, CFD can provide valuable

insight into spray processes and the complex interacting subprocesses involved.

Among the different CFD approaches, the traditional RANS CFD

is best placed for industrial applications due to its low costs, but

atomization and spray modelling needs validation and further

development. As an advanced CFD methodology, LES provides

much improved predictions of ow unsteadiness over RANS, but

the modelling issues for atomization and spray remain to be solved.

As the most accurate methodology, DNS can be used to gain

fundamental understanding of the process which is not possible by

163

using any other means, but the computational costs are extremely

high. Various CFD methodologies can assist the advancement of the

science and technology of atomization and sprays, which in turn

will benet the practical applications.

For the gasliquid two-phase jet ows in spray processes,

modelling and simulations can be performed at different level. In

DNS of gasliquid two-phase jet ows, the multiphase ow

system may be modelled based on a volume of uid method with

front-tracking approach to model interface movements. DNS of

multiphase ows based on the one-uid formalism coupled with

interface tracking algorithms seems to be a promising way

forward, due to the advantageous lower costs compared with

a multi-uid approach. Front-tracking methods may be used to

track the gasliquid interface. In the homogenous two-phase ow

model (or Eulerian approach with mixed-uid treatment), the

two phases are assumed to be a single-phase mixture with

averaged physical properties. However, DNS is not a practical tool

due to its high computational costs. As things stand, RANS and

LES can be useful tools for industrial applications. For practical

applications using RANS or LES, the choice of the model is not

only an obvious problem but it is also numerics and mesh size

dependent. LES and RANS heavily depend on the sub-models used

for the multiphase phenomena and turbulent combustion when

the ow is reacting.

The computation of spray dynamics in terms of the equations of

uid mechanics and droplet ballistics is now possible by use of CFD

codes incorporating spray modelling. The modelling of sprays in

simple ow congurations has made signicant progresses, but it

also has many unknown and unevaluated factors. Among these

factors, the most signicant ones are those associated with the

atomization process, which are mostly in an empirical state.

Detailed knowledge of the droplet size and velocity is missing,

particularly for thick sprays. The application of CFD codes to

intermittent, thick sprays still presents many unsolved problems,

including questions concerning appropriate drag coefcient

correlations and turbulent mixing models. For combustion applications, the mechanism of spray vaporization and mixing is of

primary importance. Application of heat and mass transfer theory

allows models to predict vaporization histories for single, undeformed droplets of pure fuels. For many applications the

unsteady heating of the droplet must be taken into account.

Vaporization modelling for real fuels, which are complex liquid

mixtures, is not yet possible. These are areas in spray modelling

that need further investigation. Modelling spray combustion is

a challenging subject due to the complexity of the problem. There

are several issues that need particular attention.

The rst issue is related to the choice of appropriate sub-models.

The state-of-the-art spray combustion modelling relies heavily on

theoretical assumptions and empiricism, particularly for the atomization process and thick sprays. A variety of sub-models are available. In a numerical simulation, using appropriate sub-models is of

crucial importance. The choice of appropriate model is, however,

problem dependent and one has to make the judgment based on the

understanding of the physical problem and modelling assumptions.

In many applications, it could involve the combination of different

models. For instance, one can combine the KelvinHelmholtz

breakup model together with the RayleighTaylor breakup model

for atomization. For high-pressure fuel injection, the effects of cavitation of the nozzle internal ow on the atomization may be taken

into account in the wave breakup model. The recently developed

Eulerian approach to model atomization can also be considered for

dense spray modelling.

Secondly, close attention should be paid to the empiricism

involved in spray modelling. In some cases, it might be necessary to

adjust the empirical constants in the model to match

164

combustion, the vaporization modelling of practical fuels is

important to the overall accuracy of the numerical prediction, but

appropriate modelling technique for the vaporization of complex

liquid mixtures is not yet possible. In this case, the properties of the

fuel mixture need to be adjusted according to empiricism and/or

experimental data in numerical modelling of spray combustion. In

spray combustion simulation, it is a common practice to tune

model parameters in order to adjust a calculation to experimentally obtained data. However, the adjustment should be justiable

and the sub-models should not be trimmed to an unphysical

behaviour.

Thirdly, numerical issues are also of crucial importance in simulations of spray combustion. The most signicant numerical issue

associated with simulations of spray combustion is the grid dependency. Grid dependency describes the phenomenon that calculations executed under identical physical conditions often yield

considerably different results when performed on different numerical grids, which are not only observed for different grid sizes but also

for varying grid arrangements. This problem is inherently linked

with EulerianLagrangian spray simulations and it is due to the lack

of spatial resolution in simulations of atomization and sprays in

practical systems such as a combustion engine and the lack of

statistical convergence in the Lagrangian treatment of the liquid

phase. In a practical simulation, the grid dependency should be

minimised as much as possible.

Finally, the advancement on physical modelling of spray

combustion depends on a better understanding of the physical

sub-processes. For the atomization process, the effect of liquidgas viscous shear layers on the onset of instabilities, which leads

to various regimes of the jet breakup, remains to be rigorously

analysed and tested. A complete delineation of the liquid jet

breakup regimes in the entire parameter space has not yet

appeared. However, the fundamental understanding on the

atomization process that involves jet breakup will eventually be

achieved with the progress in fundamental studies of liquid jets.

Consequently the fundamental knowledge on the atomization

process can be used to validate/develop liquid jet breakup models

that can signicantly reduce the empiricism in the current atomization models. With the better understanding on the subprocesses involved, physical modelling of spray combustion will be

greatly enhanced.

References

[1] Chigier N. Atomization and burning of liquid fuel sprays. Progress in Energy

and Combustion Science 1976;2:97114.

[2] Jones AR. Review of drop size measurement application of techniques to

dense fuel sprays. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1977;3:22534.

[3] Lefebvre AV. Airblast atomization. Progress in Energy and Combustion

Science 1980;6:23361.

[4] Elkotb MM. Fuel atomization for spray modeling. Progress in Energy and

Combustion Science 1982;8:6191.

[5] Faeth GM. Evaporation and combustion of sprays. Progress in Energy and

Combustion Science 1983;9:176.

[6] Sirignano WA, Mehring C. Fuel droplet vaporization and spray combustion

theory. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1983;9:291322.

[7] Faeth GM. Mixing, transport and combustion in sprays. Progress in Energy

and Combustion Science 1987;13:293345.

[8] Kamimoto T, Kobayashi H. Combustion processes in diesel engines. Progress

in Energy and Combustion Science 1991;17:16389.

[9] Chigier N. Optical imaging of sprays. Progress in Energy and Combustion

Science 1991;17:21162.

[10] Annamalai K, Ryan W. Interactive processes in gasication and combustion. 1.

Liquid-drop arrays and clouds. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science

1992;18:22195.

[11] Umemura A. Interactive droplet vaporization and combustion approach

from asymptotics. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1994;20:

32572.

[12] Reitz RD, Rutland CJ. Development and testing of diesel-engine CFD models.

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1995;21:17396.

[13] Gelfand BE. Droplet breakup phenomena in ows with velocity lag. Progress

in Energy and Combustion Science 1996;22:20165.

[14] Orme M. Experiments on droplet collisions, bounce, coalescence and

disruption. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1997;23:6579.

[15] Aggarwal SK. A review of spray ignition phenomena: present status and future

research. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1998;24:565600.

[16] Lin SP, Reitz RD. Drop and spray formation from a liquid jet. Annual Review of

Fluid Mechanics 1998;30:85105.

[17] Bellan J. Supercritical (and subcritical) uid behavior and modeling: drops,

streams, shear and mixing layers, jets and sprays. Progress in Energy and

Combustion Science 1999;26:32966.

[18] Chiu HH. Advances and challenges in droplet and spray combustion. I.

Toward a unied theory of droplet aerothermochemistry. Progress in Energy

and Combustion Science 2000;26:381416.

[19] Sirignano WA, Mehring C. Review of theory of distortion and disintegration

of liquid streams. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2000;26:

60955.

[20] Lasheras JC, Hopnger EJ. Liquid jet instability and atomization in a coaxial

gas stream. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 2000;32:275308.

[21] Sovani SD, Sojka PE, Lefebvre AH. Effervescent atomization. Progress in

Energy and Combustion Science 2001;27:483521.

[22] Babinsky E, Sojka PE. Modeling drop size distribution. Progress in Energy and

Combustion Science 2002;28:30329.

[23] Birouk M, Gokalp I. Current status of droplet evaporation in turbulent ows.

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2006;32:40823.

[24] Chigier N. Challenges for future research in atomization and spray technology:

Arthur Lefebvre memorial lecture. Atomization and Sprays 2006;16:72736.

[25] Villermaux E. Fragmentation. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics

2007;39:41946.

[26] Sher E, Bar-Kohany T, Rashkovan A. Flash-boiling atomization. Progress in

Energy and Combustion Science 2008;34:41739.

[27] Gorokhovski M, Herrmann M. Modeling primary atomization. Annual Review

of Fluid Mechanics 2008;40:34366.

[28] Anderson JD. Computational uid dynamics: the basics with applications.

New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.

[29] Amsden AA, ORourke PJ, Butler TD. KIVA-II: a computer program for

chemically reactive ows with sprays. DE89-012805. Los Alamos, NM: Los

Alamos National Laboratory; 1989.

[30] Torres DJ, Trujillo MF. KIVA-4: an unstructured ALE code for compressible gas

ow with sprays. Journal of Computational Physics 2006;219:94375.

[31] Williams FA. Combustion theory. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley; 1985.

[32] Reitz RD. In: Challen B, Baranescu R, editors. Diesel engine reference book.

Boston: Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann; 1999. p. 15372.

[33] Dukowicz JK. A particle-uid numerical model for liquid sprays. Journal of

Computational Physics 1980;35:22953.

[34] Bracco FV. Modeling of engine sprays. SAE Transactions 1985;94:14467.

[35] Arcoumanis C, Gavaises M. Linking nozzle ow with spray characteristics in

a diesel fuel injection system. Atomization and Sprays 1998;8:30747.

[36] Abraham J. What is adequate resolution in the numerical computations of

transient jets? SAE Transactions 1997;106:14155.

[37] Stiesch G. Modelling engine spray and combustion processes. Berlin:

Springer; 2003.

[38] ORourke PJ, Amsden AA. The TAB method for numerical calculation of spray

droplet breakup. SAE paper 872089; 1987.

[39] Reitz RD. Modeling atomization processes in high-pressure vaporizing

sprays. Atomization and Spray Technology 1987;3:30937.

[40] Reitz RD, Diwakar R. Effect of drop breakup on fuel sprays. SAE paper

860469; 1986.

[41] Ashgriz N, Poo JY. Coalescence and separation in binary collisions of liquid

drops. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1990;221:183204.

[42] Georjon TL, Reitz RD. A drop-shattering collision model for multi-dimensional spray computations. Atomization and Sprays 1999;9:23154.

[43] Post SL, Abraham J. Modelling the outcome of dropdrop collisions in diesel

sprays. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 2002;28:9971019.

[44] ORourke PJ, Bracco FV. Modelling drop interactions in thick sprays and

a comparison with experiments. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers 1980;9:10116.

[45] Senda J, Kobayashi M, Iwashita S, Fujimoto H. Modelling of diesel spray

impingement on a at wall. SAE paper 941894; 1994.

[46] Bai CX, Gosman AD. Development of methodology for spray impingement

simulation. SAE paper 950283; 1995.

[47] Naber JD, Reitz RD. Modelling engine spray/wall impingement. SAE paper

880107; 1988.

[48] Amsden AA. KIVA-3: a KIVA program with block structured mesh for

complex geometries. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-12503-MS,

Los Alamos, NM; 1993.

[49] Eckhause JE, Reitz RD. Modelling heat transfer to impinging fuel sprays in

direct injection engines. Atomization and Sprays 1995;5:21342.

[50] Stanton D, Rutland C. Modelling fuel lm formation and wall interaction in

diesel engines. SAE paper 960628; 1996.

[51] Gao J, Jiang DM, Huang ZH. Spray properties of alternative fuels: a comparative

analysis of ethanol-gasoline blends and gasoline. Fuel 2007;86:164550.

[52] Lippert AM, Reitz RD. Modelling of multi-component fuels using continuous

distributions with application to droplet evaporation and sprays. SAE paper

972882; 1997.

[53] Zhu GS, Reitz RD, Xin J, Takabayashi T. Characteristics of vaporizing continuous multi-component fuel sprays in a port fuel injection gasoline engines.

SAE paper 2001-01-1231; 2001.

[54] Richardson LF. Weather prediction by numerical process. London: Cambridge

University Press; 1922.

[55] Kolmogorov AN. The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous

uid for very large Reynolds numbers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of

London, Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 1991;434:913.

[56] Erlebacher G, Hussaini MY, Speziale CG, Zang TA. Toward the large-eddy

simulation of compressible turbulent ows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics

1992;238:15585.

[57] Frochlich J, Rodi W. In: Launder BE, Sandham ND, editors. Closure strategies

for turbulent and transitional ows. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;

2002. p. 26798.

[58] Lesieur M, Metais O, Compte P. Large-eddy simulations of turbulence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

[59] Speziale CG. Galilean invariance of subgrid-scale stress models in the largeeddy simulation of turbulence. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1985;156:5562.

[60] Sone K, Patel N, Menon S. Large-eddy simulation of fuelair mixing in an

internal combustion engine. AIAA paper 2001-0635; 2001.

[61] Sone K, Menon S. Effect of subgrid modeling on the in-cylinder unsteady

mixing process in a direct injection engine. ASME Journal of Engineering for

Gas Turbines and Power 2003;125:43543.

[62] Menon S, Yeung PK, Kim WW. Effect of subgrid models on the computed

interscale energy transfer in isotropic turbulence. Computers and Fluids

1996;25:16580.

[63] Calhoon WH. On subgrid combustion modeling for large-eddy simulations.

PhD thesis. Georgia, USA: Georgia Institute of Technology; 1996.

[64] Dinkelacker F, Soika A, Most D, Hofmann D, Leipertz A, Polifke W, et al.

Structure of locally quenched highly turbulent lean premixed ames.

Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 1998;27:85765.

[65] Buschmann A, Dinkelacker F, Schaefer T, Schaefer M, Wolfrum J. Measurement of the instantaneous detailed ame structure in turbulent premixed

combustion. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 1996;26:43745.

[66] Kiefer J, Li ZS, Zetterberg J, Bai XS, Alden M. Investigation of local ame

structures and statistics in partially premixed turbulent jet ames using

simultaneous single-shot CH and OH planar laser-induced uorescence

imaging. Combustion and Flame 2008;154:80218.

[67] Li ZS, Kiefer J, Zetterberg J, Linvin M, Leipertz A, Bai XS, et al. Development of

improved PLIF CH detection using an Alexandrite laser for single-shot

investigation of turbulent and lean ames. Proceedings of the Combustion

Institute 2007;31:72735.

[68] Menon S, Patel N. Subgrid modeling for simulation of spray combustion in

large-scale combustors. AIAA Journal 2006;44:70923.

[69] Candel S. Combustion dynamics and control: progress and challenges.

Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 2002;29:128.

[70] Ghosal S. Mathematical and physical constraints on LES. AIAA paper 982803; 1998.

[71] Fureby C, Grinstein FF. Monotonically integrated large eddy simulation of free

shear ows. AIAA Journal 1999;37:54456.

[72] Wang P, Bai XS, Wessman N, Klingmann J. Large eddy simulation and

experimental studies of a conned turbulent swirling ow. Physics of Fluids

2004;16:330624.

[73] Smagorinsky J. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations.

Monthly Weather Review 1963;91:99164.

[74] Tennekes H, Lumley JL. A rst course in turbulence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press; 1972.

[75] Germano M, Piomelli U, Moin P, Cabot WH. A dynamic sub-grid scale eddy

viscosity model. Physics of Fluids A 1991;3:17605.

[76] Pomraning E, Rutland CJ. A dynamic one-equation non-viscosity large-eddy

simulation model. AIAA Journal 2002;40:689701.

[77] Bardina J, Ferziger JH, Reynolds WC. Improved subgrid scale models for largeeddy simulation. AIAA paper 80-1357; 1980.

[78] Yeo WK. A generalized high pass/low pass averaging procedure for deriving

and solving turbulent ow equations. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State

University, Columbus, OH; 1987.

[79] Liu S, Meneveau C, Katz J. On the properties of similarity subgrid-scale

models as deduced from measurements in a turbulent jet. Journal of Fluid

Mechanics 1994;275:83119.

[80] Akhavan R, Ansari A, Kang S, Mangiavacchi N. Subgrid-scale interactions in

a numerically simulated planar turbulent jet and implications for modelling.

Journal of Fluid Mechanics 2000;408:83120.

[81] Domaradzki JA, Liu W, Brachet ME. An analysis of subgrid-scale interactions in

numerically simulated isotropic turbulence. Physics of Fluids A 1993;5:

174759.

[82] Dimotakis PE. Turbulent mixing. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics

2005;37:32956.

[83] Kerstein AR. A linear-eddy model of turbulent scalar transport and mixing.

Combustion Science and Technology 1988;60:391421.

[84] Lumley JL. Engines: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;

1999.

[85] Pope SB. Turbulent ows. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

[86] Seshadri K, Bai XS. Rate-ratio asymptotic analysis of the structure and

extinction of partially premixed ames. Proceedings of the Combustion

Institute 2007;31:11818.

165

Combustion Institute 1996;26:126.

[88] Givi P. Model free simulation of turbulent reactive ows. Progress in Energy

and Combustion Science 1989;15:1107.

[89] Magnussen BF, Hjertager BH. On mathematical modeling of turbulent

combustion with special emphasis on soot formation and combustion.

Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 1976;16:71929.

[90] Fureby C. On subgrid scale modelling in large eddy simulations of

compressible uid ow. Physics of Fluids 1996;8:130111.

[91] Pope SB. PDF methods for turbulent reacting ows. Progress in Energy and

Combustion Science 1985;11:11992.

[92] Gao F, OBrien EE. A large eddy simulation scheme for turbulent reactive

ows. Physics of Fluids A 1993;5:12824.

[93] Drozda TG, Sheikhi MRH, Madnia CK, Givi P. Developments in formulation

and application of the ltered density function. Flow, Turbulence and

Combustion 2007;78:3567.

[94] Klimenko AY, Bilger RW. Conditional moment closure for turbulent

combustion. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1999;25:595687.

[95] Menon S, McMurtry PA, Kerstein AR. In: Galperin B, Orszag S, editors. LES of

complex engineering and geophysical ows. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press; 1993. p. 287314.

[96] Kerstein AR. Linear-eddy model of turbulent transport 4. structure of diffusion-ames. Combustion Science and Technology 1992;81:7596.

[97] Menon S, Calhoon W. Subgrid mixing and molecular transport modelling for

large-eddy simulations of turbulent reacting ows. Proceedings of the

Combustion Institute 1996;26:5966.

[98] Sankaran V. Subgrid combustion modeling for compressible two-phase reacting

ows. PhD thesis. Georgia, USA: Georgia Institute of Technology; 2003.

[99] Williams FA. In: Buckmaster J, editor. The mathematics of combustion.

Philadelphia: SIAM; 1985. p. 97131 [chapter 3].

[100] Wang P, Bai XS. Large eddy simulation of turbulent premixed ames using

level-set G-equation. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 2005;30:

58391.

[101] Nogenmyr KJ, Fureby C, Bai XS, Petersson R, Collin R, Linne M. Large eddy

simulation and laser diagnostic studies on a low swirl stratied premixed

ame. Combustion and Flame 2009;156:2536.

[102] Nilsson P, Bai XS. Level-set amelet library approach for premixed turbulent

combustion. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2000;21:8798.

[103] Pitsch H. Large-eddy simulation of turbulent combustion. Annual Review of

Fluid Mechanics 2006;38:45382.

[104] van Oijen JA, de Goey LPH. Modelling of premixed laminar ames using

amelet-generated manifolds. Combustion Science and Technology

2000;161:11337.

[105] van Oijen JA, Bastiaans RJM, Groot GRA, de Goey LPH. Direct numerical

simulations of premixed turbulent ames with reduced chemistry: validation

and amelet analysis. Flow Turbulence and Combustion 2005;75:6784.

[106] Vreman AW, Albrecht BA, van Oijen JA, de Goey LPH, Bastiaans RJM. Premixed and nonpremixed generated manifolds in large-eddy simulation of

Sandia ame D and F. Combustion and Flame 2008;153:394416.

[107] Delhaye S, Somers LMT, van Oijen JA, de Goey LPH. Incorporating unsteady

ow-effects in amelet generated manifolds. Combustion and Flame

2008;155:13344.

[108] Bastiaans RJM, van Oijen JA, de Goey LPH. Analysis of a strong mass-based

ame stretch model for turbulent premixed combustion. Physics of Fluids

2009;21:015105.

[109] Valentino M, Jiang X, Zhao H. A comparative RANS/LES study of transient gas

jets and sprays under diesel conditions. Atomization and Sprays

2007;17:45172.

[110] Gao J, Jiang DM, Huang ZH, Wei Q. Characteristics of nonevaporating free

sprays of a high-pressure swirl injector under various ambient and injection

pressures. Energy & Fuel 2005;19:190610.

[111] Sirignano WA. Fluid dynamics and transport of droplets and sprays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.

[112] de Villers E, Gosman AD, Weller HG. Large eddy simulation of primary diesel

spray atomization. SAE technical paper 2004-01-0100; 2004.

[113] Faeth GM, Lazar RS. Fuel droplet burning rates in a combustion gas environment. AIAA Journal 1971;9:1593612.

[114] Miller RS, Bellan J. Direct numerical simulation of a conned three-dimensional gas mixing layer with one evaporating hydrocarbon-droplet-laden

stream. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1999;384:293338.

[115] Vinkovic I, Aguirre C, Simoens S, Gorkhovski M. Large eddy simulation of

droplet dispersion for inhomogeneous turbulent wall ow. International

Journal of Multiphase Flow 2006;32:34464.

[116] Gorokhovski MA. The stochastic Lagrangian model of drops breakup in the

computation of liquid sprays. Atomization Sprays 2001;11:50520.

[117] Apte SV, Gorokhovski M, Moin P. LES of atomizing spray with stochastic

modeling of secondary breakup. International Journal of Multiphase Flow

2003;29:150322.

[118] van Wachem BGM, Almstedt AE. Methods for multiphase computational uid

dynamics. Chemical Engineering Journal 2003;96:8198.

[119] Schluter JU. Consistent boundary conditions for integrated RANS/LES simulations: LES inow conditions. AIAA paper 2003-3971; 2003.

[120] Klein M, Sadiki A, Janicka J. A digital lter based generation of inow data for

spatially developing direct numerical or large eddy simulations. Journal of

Computational Physics 2003;186:65265.

166

feasibility in modelling the unsteady diesel fuel injection and mixing in

a HSDI engine. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part

D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 2009;223:103348.

[122] Crowe CT. Multiphase ow handbook. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2006.

[123] Loth E. Computational uid dynamics of bubbles, drops and particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

[124] Lakehal D, Meier M, Fulgosi M. Interface tracking towards the direct simulation of heat and mass transfer in multiphase ows. International Journal of

Heat and Fluid Flow 2002;23:24257.

[125] Liovic P, Lakehal D. Multi-physics treatment in the vicinity of arbitrarily

deformable gasliquid interfaces. Journal of Computational Physics

2007;222:50435.

[126] Richards JR, Beris AN, Lenhoff AM. Drop formation in liquidliquid systems

before and after jetting. Physics of Fluids 1995;7:261730.

[127] Jiang X, Siamas GA. Direct computation of an annular liquid jet. Journal of

Algorithms & Computational Technology 2007;1:10325.

[128] Siamas GA, Jiang X. Direct numerical simulation of a liquid sheet in

a compressible gas stream in axisymmetric and planar congurations.

Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics 2007;21:44771.

[129] Siamas GA, Jiang X, Wrobel LC. A numerical study of an annular liquid jet in

a compressible gas medium. International Journal of Multiphase Flow

2008;34:393407.

[130] Siamas GA, Jiang X, Wrobel LC. Dynamics of annular gasliquid two-phase swirling jets. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 2009;35:

45067.

[131] Loth E. Numerical approaches for motion of dispersed particles, droplets and

bubbles. Progress in Energy and Combust Science 2000;26:161223.

[132] Maxey MR, Riley JJ. Equation of motion for a small rigid sphere in

a nonuniform ow. Physics of Fluids 1983;26:8839.

[133] Mashayek F, Jaberi FA, Miller RS, Givi P. Dispersion and polydispersity of

droplets in stationary isotropic turbulence. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 1997;23:33755.

[134] Mashayek F. Direct numerical simulations of evaporating droplet dispersion

in forced low Mach number turbulence. International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer 1998;41:260117.

[135] Ling W, Chung JN, Troutt TR, Crowe CT. Direct numerical simulation of a three

dimensional temporal mixing layer with particle dispersion. Journal of Fluid

Mechanics 1998;358:6185.

[136] Miller RS, Bellan J. Direct numerical simulation and subgrid analysis of

a transitional droplet laden mixing layer. Physics of Fluids 2000;12:65071.

[137] Poinsot T, Veynante D. Theoretical and numerical combustion. Philadelphia:

Edwards; 2005.

[138] Scardovelli R, Zaleski S. Direct numerical simulation of free-surface and

interfacial ow. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 1999;31:567603.

[139] Harlow FH, Welch JE. Numerical calculation of time-dependent viscous

incompressible ow of uid with a free surface. Physics of Fluids

1965;8:21829.

[140] Daly BJ, Pracht WE. Numerical study of density-current surges. Physics of

Fluids 1968;11:1530.

[141] Daly BJ. Numerical study of the effect of surface tension on interface instability. Physics of Fluids 1969;12:134054.

[142] Rudman M. Volume-tracking methods for interfacial ow calculations.

International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids 1997;24:67191.

[143] Noh WF, Woodward P. SLIC (simple line interface calculation). In: van de

Vooren AI, Zandbergen PJ, editors. Proceedings of the fth international

conference on numerical methods in uid dynamics. Berlin: Springer; 1976.

p. 33040.

[144] Hirt CW, Nichols BD. Volume of uid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free

boundaries. Journal of Computational Physics 1981;39:20125.

[145] Young DL. Time-dependent multi-material ow with large uid distortion.

In: Morton KW, Baines MJ, editors. Numerical methods for uid dynamics.

New York: Academic Press; 1982. p. 27385.

[146] Rider WJ, Kothe DB. Reconstructing volume tracking. Journal of Computational Physics 1998;141:11252.

[147] Gueyfer D, Li J, Nadim A, Scardovelli R, Zaleski S. Volume-of-uid interface

tracking with smoothed surface stress methods for three-dimensional ows.

Journal of Computational Physics 1999;152:42356.

[148] Gao D, Morley NB, Dhir V. Numerical simulation of wavy falling lm ow

using VOF method. Journal of Computational Physics 2003;192:62442.

[149] Chorin AJ. Flame advection and propagation algorithms. Journal of Computational Physics 1980;35:111.

[150] Ashgriz N, Poo JY. FLAIR: ux line-segment model for advection and interface

reconstruction. Journal of Computational Physics 1991;93:44968.

[151] Pilliod Jr JE, Puckett EG. Second-order accurate volume-of-uid algorithms

for tracking material interfaces. Journal of Computational Physics

2004;199:465502.

[152] Bell J, Dawson C, Shubin G. An unsplit, higher order Godunov method for

scalar conservation laws in multiple dimensions. Journal of Computational

Physics 1988;74:124.

[153] Collela P. Multidimensional upwind methods for hyperbolic conservation

laws. Journal of Computational Physics 1990;87:171200.

[154] Puckett EG, Almgren AS, Bell JB, Marcus DL, Rider WJ. A high-order projection

method for tracking uid interfaces in variable density incompressible ows.

Journal of Computational Physics 1997;130:26982.

[155] Osher SJ, Sethian JA. Fronts propagating with curvature dependent speed:

algorithms based on HamiltonJacobi formulations. Journal of Computational Physics 1988;79:1249.

[156] Osher SJ, Fedkiw RP. Level set methods: an overview and some recent results.

Journal of Computational Physics 2001;169:463502.

[157] Sethian JA. Level set methods and fast marching methods: evolving interfaces in computational geometry, uid mechanics, computer vision and

material sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.

[158] Sethian JA. Evolution, implementation and application of level set and fast

marching methods for advancing fronts. Journal of Computational Physics

2001;169:50355.

[159] Sethian JA, Smereka P. Level set methods for uid interfaces. Annual Review

of Fluid Mechanics 2003;35:34172.

[160] Sussman M, Puckett EG. A coupled level set and volume-of-uid method for

computing 3D and axisymmetric incompressible two-phase ows. Journal of

Computational Physics 2000;162:30137.

[161] Unverdi SO, Tryggvason G. A front-tracking method for viscous, incompressible, multi-uid ows. Journal of Computational Physics 1992;100:2537.

[162] Brackbill JU, Kothe DB, Zemach C. A continuum method for modeling surface

tension. Journal of Computational Physics 1992;100:33554.

[163] Siamas GA. Direct computations of gasliquid two-phase jets/sheets. PhD

thesis. Uxbridge, London: Brunel University; 2008.

[164] Harvie DJE, Davidson MR, Rudman M. An analysis of the parasitic current

generation in volume of uid simulations. Applied Mathematical Modelling

2006;30:105666.

[165] Williamson JH. Low-storage RungeKutta schemes. Journal of Computational

Physics 1980;35:124.

[166] Wray AA. Very low storage time-advancement schemes. Internal report.

Moffett Field, California: NASA-Ames Research Center; 1986.

[167] Drikakis D, Rider W. High-resolution methods for incompressible and lowspeed ows. Berlin: SpringerVerlag; 2005.

[168] Kim J, Moin P. Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible

NavierStokes equations. Journal of Computational Physics 1985;59:

30823.

[169] Ekaterinaris JA. High-order accurate, low numerical diffusion methods for

aerodynamics. Progress in Aerospace Science 2005;41:192300.

[170] Lele SK. Compact nite-difference schemes with spectral-like resolution.

Journal of Computational Physics 1992;103:1642.

[171] Mahesh K. A family of high-order nite difference schemes with good

spectral resolution. Journal of Computational Physics 1998;145:33258.

[172] Morinishi Y, Lund TS, Vasilyev OV, Moin P. Fully conservative higher order

nite difference schemes for incompressible ow. Journal of Computational

Physics 1998;143:90124.

[173] Morinishi Y, Vasilyev OV, Ogi T. Fully conservative nite difference scheme in

cylindrical coordinates for incompressible ow simulations. Journal of

Computational Physics 2004;197:686710.

[174] Nicoud F. Conservative high-order nite-difference schemes for low-Mach

number ows. Journal of Computational Physics 2000;158:7197.

[175] Desjardins O, Blanquart G, Balarac G, Pitsch H. High order conservative finite

difference scheme for variable density low Mach number turbulent ows.

Journal of Computational Physics 2008;227:712559.

[176] Wang ZJ. Spectral (nite) volume method for conservation laws on

unstructured grids basic formulation. Journal of Computational Physics

2002;178:21051.

[177] Patera AT. A spectral element method for uid dynamics laminar ow in

a channel expansion. Journal of Computational Physics 1984;54:46888.

[178] Helenbrook BT. A two-uid spectral-element method. Computer Methods in

Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2001;191:27394.

[179] Arcoumanis C, Badami M, Flora H, Gavaises M. Cavitation in real-size multihole diesel injector nozzles. SAE paper 2000-01-1249; 2000.

[180] Meyer J, Weihs D. Capillary instability of an annular liquid jet. Journal of Fluid

Mechanics 1987;179:53145.

[181] Cousin J, Nuglisch HJ. Modelling of internal ow in high pressure swirl

injectors. SAE paper 2001-01-0963; 2001.

[182] Senecal PJ, Schmidt DP, Nouar I, Rutland CJ, Reitz RD, Corradini ML. Modeling

high-speed viscous liquid sheet atomization. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 1999;25:107397.

[183] Schmidt DP, Rutland CJ. A new droplet collision algorithm. Journal of

Computational Physics 2000;164:6280.

[184] Wan Y, Peters N. Scaling of spray penetration with evaporation. Atomization

and Sprays 1999;9:11132.

[185] Blokkeel G, Barbeau B, Borghi R. A 3D Eulerian model to improve the primary

breakup of atomizing jet. SAE paper 2003-01-0005; 2003.

[186] Yi Y, Reitz RD. Modelling the primary breakup of high-speed jets. Atomization and Sprays 2004;14:5379.

[187] Saville DA. Electrohydrodynamics: the Taylor-Melcher leaky dielectric model.

Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 1997;29:2764.

[188] de la Mora JF. The uid dynamics of Taylor cones. Annual Review of Fluid

Mechanics 2007;39:21743.

[189] Karayiannis TG, Xu Y. Electric eld effect in boiling heat transfer. Part A:

Simulation of the electric eld and electric forces. Journal of Enhanced Heat

Transfer 1998;5:21729.

[190] Weinan E, Engquist B, Huang ZY. Heterogeneous multiscale method:

a general methodology for multiscale modeling. Physics Review B 2003;67.

Article Number 092101.

[191] Jiang X, Lai CH. Numerical techniques for direct and large-eddy simulations.

New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis; 2009.

[192] Weinan E, Engquist B. Multiscale modeling and simulation. Notices of the

American Mathematical Society 2003;50:106270.

[193] Desjardins O, Moureau V, Pitsch H. An accurate conservative level set/ghost

uid method for simulating turbulent atomization. Journal of Computational

Physics 2008;227:8395416.

[194] Olsson E, Kreiss G. A conservative level set method for two phase ow.

Journal of Computational Physics 2005;210:22546.

[195] Olsson E, Kreiss G, Zahedi S. A conservative level set method for two phase

ow II. Journal of Computational Physics 2007;225:785807.

167

moderate Reynolds number. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow

2005;26:72231.

[197] Fedkiw R, Aslam T, Merriman B, Osher S. A non-oscillatory Eulerian approach

to interfaces in multimaterial ows (the ghost uid method). Journal of

Computational Physics 1999;152:45792.

[198] Massot M. Eulerian multi-uid models for polydisperse evaporating sprays.

In: Marchisio DL, Fox RO, editors. Multiphase reacting ows: modelling and

simulation. Vienna: Springer; 2007. p. 79123.

[199] Beck JC, Watkins AP. On the development of spray submodels based on droplet

size moments. Journal of Computational Physics 2002;182:136.

- Cfx Simulation for Predicting DragEnviado porLarryLevon88
- 2014FaghihiradSPhD-MODELLING OF FLOWS-hidraulic structure .pdfEnviado porrelu
- ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE OUTLET BLADE ANGLE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A RADIAL PUMP IMPELLEREnviado porAndronikos Filios
- Combustion Instabilities in Gas Turbine Engines PDFEnviado porPatrick
- Bimo _ Witteveen J a S Uncertainty Quantification (Aerodynamics)Enviado porRidwanFadlika
- Grid resolution studyEnviado porRamyaa Lakshmi
- Gas Turbine Fuel ConsiderationsEnviado porioan1946
- Encapsulation Technologies for Herbal ProductsEnviado porWanderley Oliveira
- CFD Automatic Optimisation using OpenFOAM in GridEnviado porAbdelhamid Hmama
- Advanced Topics in Stepped Hull Design - Robert Kaidy - IBEX Session104_1Enviado porMichael McDonald
- 1-s2.0-S0029801816000627-mainEnviado porSaurab Devanandan
- cfd flowEnviado porKaleeswaran Einstein
- A Cfd Approach via Les to the Flow Field With Complex Geometrical ConfiguratiosEnviado porvolo87
- Introduction DFCEnviado porlufabao
- Aerosol Therapy in ICUEnviado porEdgard Eduardo Azañero Estrada
- 1998_Effect of Coal Particle SizeEnviado porErzad Iskandar Putra
- analysis of the tablet coating processEnviado porشروق سعد الدين
- AIAA-2010-215Enviado porKuan Tek Seang
- ANITSCFDMECHEnviado porpadmajasiva
- Final Report Format 20142Enviado porVicous Nurin
- Use of Bacteria as Model Non Spherical Aerosol ParticlesEnviado porJeremy Stark
- LiteratureResearchProjects_10Enviado porcnikolaou
- The Application of Systems CFD to the Design and Optimization of High-temperature Gas-cooled Nuclear Power PlantsEnviado porSrashmi
- [doi 10.1016%2Fs1566-1369%2802%2980091-7] Müller, U. -- [European Structural Integrity Society] Temperature-fatigue Interaction, International Conference on Temperature-Fatigue InteracEnviado porawarialocks
- JP_FS_JP_DM_2010Enviado porAnonymous SlyvspdB
- Sequential Combustion ModelingEnviado porAnu Partha
- Combustion-Chambers.pdfEnviado porkosmc123
- Aplicabilidad de URANS y DES Simulaciones de flujo pasado Cilindros Rectangulares y Secciones PuenteEnviado porDaniel SC
- Houston Course Offshore en CFD for Offshore ApplicationsEnviado porThales
- pre2000-02Enviado pormaalmeida85

- Dry Low NOx Combustion for Gas TurbinesEnviado porneo2712
- Water Waves [1992]Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- External Approximations by FE 2Enviado poradigradu
- A Flux Conserving Meshfree Method for Conservation Laws - ArticleEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- Lattice Boltzmann MethodsEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- Learning With Kernels [2002]Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- New Algorithms for Large Scale SVM - ThesisEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- Learning With SVMEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- WHITEPAPER_Solving-the-Geometry-Problem.pdfEnviado poradigradu
- IELTSEnviado porSohaib Omer Salih
- Least Squares Shadowing sensitivity analysis of chaotic limit cycle oscillationsEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- Thesis - Simulation of 3-d Blood FlowEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- Cardiovascular Fluid Mechanics [1998].pdfEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- Biology and Mechanics of Blood FlowEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- Lattice Boltzmann method in fluid simulation [2001].pdfEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- Short Course 7Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- TR_CFD_06_25Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 19Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 46738Enviado porBalaji Mohan
- 31Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 28Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 1Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 2Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 5Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 30.pdfEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 27.pdfEnviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 36Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662
- 26Enviado pordr_s_m_afzali8662

- Mining Science and Technology 1991 Vol.12 p.253 263Enviado porDicki Setiawan
- chemical reactionEnviado porG M Ali Kawsar
- Pyroclave Medical Waste SolutionEnviado porhgciso
- ISA-TR84.00.04-2005 Part 2Enviado porballasreedhar
- Boiler AnnexEnviado porrenjithv_4
- 283424 Physical Chemistry Mcq Topic Quiz Lesson ElementEnviado porRazawu Joseph
- qudos_28sEnviado porLaurentiu Scraba
- FSA Technical Guidance Rev (ADCO)Enviado poroarriesgado
- El GUACAL Operating instruction.pdfEnviado porHelp Poligran
- Saacke Hgg BrochureEnviado porkalaiselvan0707
- GPA 2145Enviado porSergio David Ruiz
- 1st Year Curriculum FSEnviado porSarang
- Indirect Fired Heater Training ModuleEnviado porEdith
- FMDS0776Enviado porBharat Vaaj
- FN Flare Tips DatasheetEnviado porccjayesh
- DEG.pdfEnviado porAhmed Mujaddadi
- Comb Us Turbine Nsp s Finale i AEnviado porRaden Mas
- MA2007 Summary Cycles Processes Part 2 FormulasEnviado porYap Gee Shiuan
- Combustion and Explosion Characteristics of Dusts GESTIS-DUST-EX_Edition 2-2001Enviado pormicaziv4786
- Types of Central Heating BoilersEnviado porYashwanth Kumar
- TFE 731 Chap 75 (1)Enviado porEgor85
- Aerosols, Their Direct and Indirect EffectsEnviado porRafael Zini Ouriques
- Thermal Conversion Technologies for Solid WastesEnviado porraowaleedahmad
- 8 Chapter s22Enviado porIrfan Basheer
- Chen 1998Enviado porArijit Bhattacharya
- Sikafloor Duochem 6001 (a B) EEnviado porYesi Saputri
- Bitumen Impregnated FibreboardEnviado poraidilza
- Carbon CompoundsEnviado porAlfred Thom
- Chapter3 HVOF TheoryEnviado porkhin_aungshwe
- dual_fuelEnviado porSoumyadeep Bhattacharyya