CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

AVL FIRE; Problem in modeling gas spray

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By harishg

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   October 1, 2009, 09:14
Unhappy AVL FIRE; Problem in modeling gas spray
  #1
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 8
doki is on a distinguished road
I am Using AVL FIRE v8 to model the methane gas injection into cylinder. the Injection pressure varies from 70 to 200 bars. cylinder pressure varies also in the range of 20 bars.
due to the small diameter of injector nozzle (say 0.2mm), small mesh cells should be generated in the nozzle hole periphery; and because of high injection speeds (typically 400m/s), a numerically unstable case arises.
So I was wondering if anybody have faced such a problem, and how to solve it.
I mean is there any ways other than generation of such a fine mesh at the injector nozzle area?
I would be grateful to help me.
doki is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 1, 2009, 15:00
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
N/A
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 186
Rep Power: 8
harishg is on a distinguished road
What numerical method do you employ? How do you apply your boundary conditions?
harishg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 3, 2009, 04:47
Default
  #3
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 8
doki is on a distinguished road
I have used Different numerical schemes and they have shown the same results as above, but the main scheme is SIMPLE.
the Boundary conditions for the injector has been set as Mass flow inlet, currently a constant value.
doki is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 3, 2009, 09:29
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
N/A
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 186
Rep Power: 8
harishg is on a distinguished road
SIMPLE is not a scheme but a numerical algorithm for pressure velocity coupling. I meant the numerical method employed for the discretization of the convection term in the Navier-Stokes equations. When you have high gradients in the flow, use of central differencing schemes can lead to numerical instability.
harishg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 3, 2009, 10:41
Default
  #5
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 8
doki is on a distinguished road
well I just got your question. Yes, I have used the central differencing schemes as well.
the Numerical instability encountered is sth related to CFL number; i.e. the mesh size should be so that regarding other parameters, this number should be sth. about 0.8
But this size of mesh (and also time step) is somehow impossible to work with. the total required time for calculations grows substantially also.
any hints would be appreciated.
doki is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 3, 2009, 14:09
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
N/A
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 186
Rep Power: 8
harishg is on a distinguished road
People have used finer meshes for high speed flows and I do not think this may be a big issue. Here are a few things to try.

1. Use upwinded/MUSCL scheme instead of central difference for convection terms. This may result result in numerical dissipation but we need to find an optimum way for simulating.
2. Do you use pressure based or density based solver? For many pressure based solvers, the Courant number requirment is usually co<=0.5. So you would want to perform your computations with smaller courant numbers.
3. Do you use implicit (crank-nicholson, backward) or explicit time stepping? Try to use implicit if possible.
4. Check that the boundary conditions at all the domain boundaries are consistent with the physical problem.

good luck
Meysam110 likes this.
harishg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 4, 2009, 10:22
Default
  #7
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 8
doki is on a distinguished road
first of all I should thank you for your response
I will try your suggestions in the case setup. as the velocities are so high, effects of compressibility are important and so I have to use density based methods.
regarding time step, I will use the implicit method as well. here is a problem of time step order, which should be increased with better quality coarse meshes; while gaining enough resolution for the problem; which is a challenging task!
anyway, thanks so much for your contribution
doki is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 8, 2010, 09:01
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Jaivee T Joseph
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: hyderabad, mavelikara, munich
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
Jaivee is on a distinguished road
hi,
Im a beginner and am working on validation of cryogenic injection into ic engine. this same case was done in ansys cfx and i have to do it in fire but am facing problems
i hav take multi material with species transport
hav activated constant mass flow in inlet
as helium is injected into air in fluid prop i hav chosen air
but i dont know how to select injected gas as helium

also i want to use gaillard model but i dont know how define d constants value..

plz help me out..
Jaivee is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
avl fire, high pressure injection, methane

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AVL Fire transonic simulation Ainil Main CFD Forum 1 August 24, 2010 15:53
Sod shock tube problem with real gas effects ganesh Main CFD Forum 0 October 17, 2006 01:22
Dense gas dispersion modeling Alberto CD-adapco 1 October 3, 2006 16:03
Modeling Flow/Saturation/Absorption in Fibers Gene Dougherty Main CFD Forum 0 June 6, 2003 14:49
FIRE 7.2 AVL Simone Lazzara Main CFD Forum 0 July 11, 2002 05:30


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47.