|June 10, 2015, 03:46||
Oil-spray atomization, secondary break-up, and combustion - solver choice
Joakim M. Johansen
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 17Rep Power: 5
I realize that the following may be considered somewhat of a broad question, but I would appreciate your input.
We are starting up new activities within oil spray combustion of everything from light diesel to bunker fuels in utility boilers (.05-8 MW). One of my concerns is the specification of the spray. You would either have to:
1) Specify the spray as based on empirical characterization. This would limit the parameter space into which the simulations can safely be extrapolated in. You also run the risk of simplifying potential important physical phenomena such as gradual primary break up from a solid liquid core, secondary break ups, etc.
2) Model the nozzle, the primary and secondary break-up. I guess this is related to sub-model uncertainties and lack of empirical evaluation data ( ? ).
Inconnection with our new activities, we started a collaboration with a new partner. Now; one is running FLUENT and the other CFX. We are ofcourse interested in one of us changing, so that we can exchange files and experiences directly.
I would appreciate your input on:
- Your oppinion (based on arguments) on which solver (FLUENT or CFX) would do the job best (also including the post-atomization combustion)
- general strategies on spray atomization modeling
Thank you very much
|atomization, cfx or fluent, oil spray|