{"title":"湍流多分散喷雾流的大涡流模拟:亚网格尺度模型与液滴喷射模型的比较研究","authors":"Teng Zhang, Jinghua Li, Yingwen Yan, Yuxin Fan","doi":"10.1115/1.4064760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study performs an investigation of the effects of the subgrid-scale and droplet injection models in the large eddy simulation (LES) of turbulent two-phase spray flows. Three LES subgrid-scale (SGS) models (Smagorinsky, wall-adapting local eddy viscosity, and dynamic Smagorinsky) and two droplet injection models (cone nozzle injection and conditional droplet injection) are validated to the experimental measurements. For both gaseous and liquid phases, all SGS models provide comparable results, indicating that the current two-phase flow field does not exhibit a pronounced sensitivity to the LES SGS model. As for different droplet injection models and spray dispersion angles, minimal differences are observed in the prediction of the gaseous mean and RMS velocity profiles. However, for the result of liquid phase, CDIM (conditional droplet injection model) predictions of the droplet mean diameter and velocity are in better agreement with experiments, and less sensitive to spray dispersion angle settings. While the CNIM (cone nozzle injection model) prediction of droplet diameter is less accurate when increasing the dispersion angle. The study suggests that turbulent two-phase spray flows are more influenced by the spray boundary conditions rather than the LES SGS models.","PeriodicalId":504378,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fluids Engineering","volume":"32 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Large Eddy Simulation of a Turbulent Polydisperse Spray Flow: a Comparative Study of Subgrid Scale Models and Droplet Injection Models\",\"authors\":\"Teng Zhang, Jinghua Li, Yingwen Yan, Yuxin Fan\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/1.4064760\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This study performs an investigation of the effects of the subgrid-scale and droplet injection models in the large eddy simulation (LES) of turbulent two-phase spray flows. Three LES subgrid-scale (SGS) models (Smagorinsky, wall-adapting local eddy viscosity, and dynamic Smagorinsky) and two droplet injection models (cone nozzle injection and conditional droplet injection) are validated to the experimental measurements. For both gaseous and liquid phases, all SGS models provide comparable results, indicating that the current two-phase flow field does not exhibit a pronounced sensitivity to the LES SGS model. As for different droplet injection models and spray dispersion angles, minimal differences are observed in the prediction of the gaseous mean and RMS velocity profiles. However, for the result of liquid phase, CDIM (conditional droplet injection model) predictions of the droplet mean diameter and velocity are in better agreement with experiments, and less sensitive to spray dispersion angle settings. While the CNIM (cone nozzle injection model) prediction of droplet diameter is less accurate when increasing the dispersion angle. The study suggests that turbulent two-phase spray flows are more influenced by the spray boundary conditions rather than the LES SGS models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Fluids Engineering\",\"volume\":\"32 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Fluids Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4064760\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fluids Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4064760","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究调查了子网格尺度模型和液滴喷射模型在湍流两相喷雾流大涡模拟(LES)中的影响。三种 LES 子网格尺度(SGS)模型(斯马戈林斯基模型、壁面适应局部涡流粘度模型和动态斯马戈林斯基模型)和两种液滴喷射模型(锥形喷嘴喷射模型和条件液滴喷射模型)根据实验测量结果进行了验证。对于气相和液相,所有 SGS 模型都提供了可比较的结果,表明当前的两相流场对 LES SGS 模型并不表现出明显的敏感性。对于不同的液滴喷射模型和喷射分散角,气相平均速度和均方根速度曲线的预测结果差异很小。然而,对于液相的结果,CDIM(条件液滴喷射模型)对液滴平均直径和速度的预测与实验的吻合度较高,对喷雾分散角设置的敏感度较低。而 CNIM(锥形喷嘴喷射模型)对液滴直径的预测在增大分散角时准确性较低。研究表明,湍流两相喷雾流受喷雾边界条件的影响比 LES SGS 模型更大。
Large Eddy Simulation of a Turbulent Polydisperse Spray Flow: a Comparative Study of Subgrid Scale Models and Droplet Injection Models
This study performs an investigation of the effects of the subgrid-scale and droplet injection models in the large eddy simulation (LES) of turbulent two-phase spray flows. Three LES subgrid-scale (SGS) models (Smagorinsky, wall-adapting local eddy viscosity, and dynamic Smagorinsky) and two droplet injection models (cone nozzle injection and conditional droplet injection) are validated to the experimental measurements. For both gaseous and liquid phases, all SGS models provide comparable results, indicating that the current two-phase flow field does not exhibit a pronounced sensitivity to the LES SGS model. As for different droplet injection models and spray dispersion angles, minimal differences are observed in the prediction of the gaseous mean and RMS velocity profiles. However, for the result of liquid phase, CDIM (conditional droplet injection model) predictions of the droplet mean diameter and velocity are in better agreement with experiments, and less sensitive to spray dispersion angle settings. While the CNIM (cone nozzle injection model) prediction of droplet diameter is less accurate when increasing the dispersion angle. The study suggests that turbulent two-phase spray flows are more influenced by the spray boundary conditions rather than the LES SGS models.