Cavitation and flash boiling in injector nozzles

I. Karathanassis

School of Mathematics, Computer Science and Engineering

City University London, UK
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks

Presentation Layout
o Problem Statement
-Effect of flashing on injector operation
-Experimental studies available in the literature
-Research objectives
-Non-equilibrium (metastable) conditions/Superheated liquid
o Modelling approach
-Employed cavitation models
-Modelling the thermal bubble-growth term
-Modified Rayleigh-Plesset equation
o Benchmark case
-Formulation of the numerical model
-Pure cavitation/Benchmark injector case
o Effect of flashing
-Implementation of the thermal-growth term
-Upper limit of thermal-growth rate
-Variable growth rate/effect of jet cooling
o Concluding remarks
-Main findings
-Open questions
-Modelling approaches
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
Statement approach case flashing remarks
Effect of flashing on injector operation

o Flash boiling or flashing: Intense nucleation occurring throughout the entire liquid volume
and usually caused by a rapid depressurization process that leads to liquid superheat.
o Jet atomization: Disintegration of the liquid bulk into small droplets-formation of fine spray
(Sher et al., Progr. Energy Comb. Sci. 34, 2008).

o Flashing occurring within an injector nozzle leads to:

-Reduced penetration of the jet exiting the injector
-Enhanced atomization efficiency
-Increased spray angle and dispersion
-Overall improved engine performance
(Pereira et al., Fuel 89, 2010, Oza, J. Fluids Eng., 106, 1984, Reitz, Aerosol Sci. Tech. 12, 1990)

o Operation of the injector with a liquid temperature too close to the saturation temperature
could lead to intermittent injection cycles and rapid decrease of the flow rate (Reitz, Aerosol
Sci. Tech. 12, 1990).
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
Statement approach case flashing remarks
Available experimental studies

Oza, 1984: Fully atomized jet

with a large spay-cone angle

Reitz, 1990: Intact jet with a

liquid core at the injector outlet

Pereira et al., 2010: Nozzle filled with vapour, jet

atomization within the nozzle
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Research Objectives

o Clarify the conditions necessary for the onset of flash boiling in an injector
nozzle.

o Elucidatethe factors responsible for the discrepancies observed among

experimental investigations.

o Propose and evaluate mass-transfer mechanisms, which could characterize

flashing flows.

o Verify the connection between velocity and phase fields emerging in a

nozzle flow.
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Liquid Superheat
o Flashing of initially subcooled liquid can be obtained through either isobaric heating or
isothermal pressure drop.
o Rapid processes (i.e high pressure drop rate) lead to higher degree of superheat (sh) and
thus more severe vaporization (flashing).
o Metastable condition-Perturbation required for transition to stable (saturated) state.
o Spinodal curve: Thermodynamic limit of metastable region.

o Liquid at B:
-Tl>Tsat
-sh=Tl-Tsat

o Jakob number:

=

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
Statement approach case flashing remarks
Employed cavitation models
o Simplified asymptotic solution of the Rayleigh-Plesset equation
2 generalized mass-transfer rate
= ( ) = 0 42
3
n0:bubble number density
4
= 0 3
3

o Zwart-Gerber-Belamri model o Schnerr-Sauer model

3 1 2 3 2
= ( ) = 1 ( )
3

3

o Singhal et al. model

2
= 1 ( )
3
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
Statement approach case flashing remarks
Approximation of the thermal term (I)
o The bubble-growth rate due to the thermal effects is considered constant and added to the
pressure-driven term:

Contribution added to the effect of cavitation: R=Rcav+Rtherm

o Scriven (1959) approximation for thermal growth rate Rth :

2
=
2
1
2 1
= ( )()2 ()1/2 Ja<2
1+
where = ( )
2 1
= 3()(1+) ()1/2 Ja>2

o Simulations considering negligible jet cooling, i.e. Tsh=Tl,in- Tsat(p)

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
Statement approach case flashing remarks
Approximation of the thermal term (II)

o The bubble growth rate due to the additional effect of superheat is designated by
the heat-transfer rate at the bubble interface:

= , ()

o h is the heat transfer coefficient defined on the basis of a Nusselt number value
(h=Nuk/2Rb):

12 6 1/3
= 2 + + Chang & Lee, 2002

o Simulations considering negligible jet cooling, i.e. Tsh=Tl,in- Tsat(p)

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
Statement approach case flashing remarks
Approximation of the thermal term (III)

o Modified formulation of the Rayleigh-Plesset equation: Bubble-growth rate is determined

as the weighted average between two limiting growth rates, i.e. inertial forces and non-
equilibrium effects:

3 2
= , ] + 1 ,
2

Effect of thermal non-equilibrium

o The weighting factor S(Ja) is defined as:

= (1, 12)

o Solution of the energy equation, i.e. Tsh=Tl,local- Tsat(p)

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
Statement approach case flashing remarks
Benchmark injector case (Reitz, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 1990)

o Axisymmetric nozzle with an abrupt contraction

-Water as working fluid
-Steady-state tests
-Inlet liquid temperature Tin=360-427K
-Water saturation temperature Tsat=432K
-Pin-Pout =697 kPa
-Air co-flow to enable better visualization of the jets

o Full jet atomization is not detected within the nozzle, whereas the jet liquid core appears to
break up at the nozzle exit.
o It is reported that for TinTsat a rapid decrease of the inlet liquid flow rate occurs.
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
Statement approach case flashing remarks
Formulation of the numerical model
o 2D, unsteady, turbulent flow
-Mixture two-phase model (water liquid, vapour)
-Coupled solver
-Modified cavitation models (ZGB, Schnerr-Sauer and Singhal et al) implemented as UDFs

o Operating and boundary conditions

-Constant liquid & vapour properties evaluated
at Tin
-air treated as vapour with the same mass
flow rate
-Extended domain to ensure negligible effect
on nozzle flow
-Pin=798325 Pa, Pout=101325 Pa

Domain discretization: 87781 nodes- telescopic grid refinement

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Phase field-Pure cavitation models
o ZGB & Schnerr-Sauer models: Significant effect of tuning parameters (Rb or n0) on the
calculated phase field.
o Singhal et al.: Highly diffusive behavior Cavitation occupies the entire nozzle cross section.
o T=430K: Flashing detected at the injector outlet for large number n0 of nucleation sites.

T=370K T=430K
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Validation-Inlet mass flow rate
o Significant effect of the tuning parameters of the ZGB and Schnerr-Sauer models on the
predicted inlet mass flow rate.
o Best approximation offered by the ZGB model, considering a tuning bubble radius of
100m, which in reality corresponds to a low bubble-density number n0=107.
o Abrupt decrease of the inlet mass flow rate predicted for TinTsat.

o Abrupt decrease at T=443, in agreement with

the study of Gopalakhrishnan et al. (ILASS
Conf., 2008) employing Homog. Relax. Model
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Validation-Comparison to HRM
o Comparison of the (pure cavitation) ZGB model for Rb=100m to HRM at Tin=430K
-Slightly increased vapour production in the present case.
-Satisfactory agreement in the predictions of the velocity field.

HRM
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Pressure field-Pure cavitation models
-T=370K: Rapid depressurization of the in-nozzle flow.
-T=430K: High pressure maintained throughout the nozzle length. Rapid pressure loss in the
vicinity of the outlet
- Flow expansion associated with the formation of a shockwave downstream of the outlet.

T=370K T=430K
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Velocity field-Pure cavitation models
o Axial velocity at nozzle outlet
-T=370K: Agreement of all models in regard to outlet velocity Small discrepancies in predicted
profiles.
-T=430K: Flow acceleration to values up to 70 m/s predicted by models employing a large
number of nucleation sites.

T=370K T=430K
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Mach number-Pure cavitation models
o T=430K: Chocked flow regime
-Flow reaches sonic velocity at nozzle outlet and expands further downstream.
-ZGB model predicts a slightly more rapid flow acceleration in the vicinity of the nozzle outlet.
-Predictions for high n0 are in agreement with conclusions of Oza (J. Fluids Eng., 1984) stating
that chocked flow conditions occur for flashing jets.

Zwart-Gerber-Belamri, Rb=1m Schnerr-Sauer, n0=1013

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Phase field - Flashing cases
o Zwart-Gerber-Belamri, Rb=1m, T=430
-Liquid evaporation commences from the throttle vertex and gradually expands from the nozzle
wall to the orifice main axis. (see Pereira, Fuel 89, 2010).
-Moderate mass transfer in the core region due to the low degree of superheat.
- Higher average mass-transfer rate within the nozzle predicted by Model III.

Model I Model II Model III

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Phase field- Effect of superheat
-The mass-transfer rate in the channel-core region is controlled by the degree of superheat.
- Liquid penetration within the injector nozzle decreases as the degree of superheat increases-
Liquid core vanishes upstream of the outlet (see inset).

Model I Model II
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Velocity field-Flashing cases
-Chocked-flow conditions within the nozzle.
-Increased mass transfer rate induces higher flow acceleration downstream, as the speed of
sound within the nozzle is adjusted by the vapour fraction distribution.
-Increased spray-cone angle (for comparison, the jet in the pure cavitation, low-temperature,
cases has a pencil-shaped plume).

T=435 K, Model I T=435 K, Model II

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Modified R-P with solution of the energy eq.
-Cooling of the flashing jet commences within the injector nozzle
-Significant cooling at the boundary-layer region, where mass-transfer rate obtains high values.
-Minor cooling of approximately 6K in the bulk fluid region.
- Varying temperature has a negligible effect on the predicted phase field.

T=435 K
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Effect of thermophysical properties
o Model I
-Value of the saturation temperature designates the degree of superheat and eventually mass
transfer rate.
-Inaccurate properties can have a significant influence on the predicted phase and velocity fields.

T=430 K, IAPWS T=430 K, Antoines law

 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Conclusions
o In the Reitz benchmark case, the mass flow rate data indicate small number of nucleation sites
within the nozzle with a bubbly mixture occurring at the outlet for high inlet liquid temperatures.

o The ZGB and Schnerr-Sauer models, when properly tuned, are able to adequately predict the inlet
flow rate reported by Reitz. Present numerical results are in agreement with experimental data
and simulations using the HRM. Thus, information of nucleation-site number is vital for accurate
predictions.

o For high liquid temperature, depending on the mass transfer rate (i.e. available nucleation sites),
liquid atomization could commence either within or at the nozzle outlet.

o The conclusion stated in recent experimental studies that cavitation provides the nucleation sites
required for the onset of flashing is confirmed by present simulations.

o Flashing within the nozzle is accompanied with chocked flow and increased spray cone angle of the
expanding jet.

o Solving the temperature equation does not indicate significant liquid cooling.
o Knowledge of the prevailing conditions at the injector exit would provide insight on the validity of
the flashing models.
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Open Questions
o Applicability of RANS models.
o Clear identification of the process rate that leads to metastable conditions - rapid
process (Sher et al., Progr. Energy & Combustion Sci., 2008).

o Characterization of the inception-point distribution in the liquid bulk- Methods to

avoid model tuning.

o Straightforward determination of the mass-transfer rate - elucidation of the actual

bubble-growth mechanism.

o Connection between the expanding-jet characteristics and the phase-change rate

within the nozzle.

o Experimental studies providing the jet-outlet velocity and spray cone angle could be
used for further validation of the numerical models.
 Problem Modelling Benchmark Effect of Concluding
statement approach case flashing remarks
Modelling approaches

-Two-phase models: Finite mass-transfer rates associated with empirical quantities

-Homogeneous Equilibrium Models: Infinite mass-transfer rate Use of EOS

o Moby Dick nozzle

Linear mass-transfer rate =

Hertz-Knudsen Eq. =
2

Homogen. Relaxation Model =