Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T13:05:46.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative predictions of cavitation presence and erosion-prone locations in a high-pressure cavitation test rig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2017

Phoevos Koukouvinis Open the ORCID record for Phoevos Koukouvinis [Opens in a new window] ,
Nicholas Mitroglou ,
Manolis Gavaises ,
Massimo Lorenzi Open the ORCID record for Massimo Lorenzi [Opens in a new window]  and
Maurizio Santini Open the ORCID record for Maurizio Santini [Opens in a new window]
Phoevos Koukouvinis*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics Computer Science and Engineering, City University London, London EC1V 0HB, UK
Nicholas Mitroglou
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics Computer Science and Engineering, City University London, London EC1V 0HB, UK
Manolis Gavaises
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics Computer Science and Engineering, City University London, London EC1V 0HB, UK
Massimo Lorenzi
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics Computer Science and Engineering, City University London, London EC1V 0HB, UK
Maurizio Santini
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, 24129, Italy
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments and numerical simulations of cavitating flow inside a single-orifice nozzle are presented. The orifice is part of a closed flow circuit, with diesel fuel as the working fluid, designed to replicate the main flow pattern observed in high-pressure diesel injector nozzles. The focus of the present investigation is on cavitation structures appearing inside the orifice, their interaction with turbulence and the induced material erosion. Experimental investigations include high-speed shadowgraphy visualization, X-ray micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) of time-averaged volumetric cavitation distribution inside the orifice as well as pressure and flow rate measurements. The highly transient flow features that are taking place, such as cavity shedding, collapse and vortex cavitation (also known as ‘string cavitation’), have become evident from high-speed images. Additionally, micro-CT enabled the reconstruction of the orifice surface, which provided locations of cavitation erosion sites developed after sufficient operation time. The measurements are used to validate the presented numerical model, which is based on the numerical solution of the Navier–Stokes equation, taking into account compressibility of both the liquid and liquid–vapour mixture. Phase change is accounted for with a newly developed mass transfer rate model, capable of accurately predicting the collapse of vaporous structures. Turbulence is modelled using detached eddy simulation and unsteady features such as cavitating vortices and cavity shedding are observed and discussed. The numerical results show agreement within validation uncertainty with the obtained measurements.

JFM classification

Drops and Bubbles: Cavitation Multiphase and Particle-laden Flows: Multiphase flow Vortex Flows: Vortex interactions
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 819 , 25 May 2017 , pp. 21 - 57
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2017 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andriotis, A., Gavaises, M. & Arcoumanis, C. 2008 Vortex flow and cavitation in diesel injector nozzles. J. Fluid Mech. 610, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, R. E. A., Arakeri, V. H. & Higuchi, H. 1991 Some observations of tip-vortex cavitation. J. Fluid Mech. 229, 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakir, F., Rey, R., Gerber, A. G., Belamri, T. & Hutchinson, B. 2004 Numerical and Experimental Investigations of the Cavitating Behavior of an Inducer. Intl J. Rotat. Mach. 10, 15–25.Google Scholar
Batchelor, G. K. 2000 An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battistoni, M., Duke, D. J., Swantek, A. B., Tilocco, Z. F., Powell, C. F. & Som, S. 2015 Effects of noncondensable gas on cavitating nozzles. Atomiz. Sprays 25 (6), 453–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, D., Chaves, H. & Acroumanis, C. 2012 Measurements of void fraction distribution in cavitating pipe flow using x-ray CT. Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (5), 055302.Google Scholar
Bevington, P. R. & Robinson, K. D. 2003 Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, 3rd edn. p. 336. McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Brennen, C. 1995 Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Budynas, R. & Nisbett, K. 2011 Mechanical Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Carlton, J. 2012 Marine Propellers and Propulsion. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. J. & Przekwas, A. J. 2010 A coupled pressure-based computational method for incompressible/compressible flows. J. Comput. Phys. 229, 9150–9165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cignoni, P., Callieri, M., Corsini, M., Dellepiane, M., Ganovelli, F. & Ranzuglia, G. 2008 MeshLab: an Open-Source Mesh Processing Tool, Sixth Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference, pp. 129–136.Google Scholar
Coleman, H. W. & Steele, W. G. 2009 Experimentation, Validation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers. Wiley.Google Scholar
Coutier-Delgosha, O., Reboud, J. L. & Delannoy, Y. 2003 Numerical simulation of the unsteady behaviour of cavitating flows. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 42, 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decaix, J., Balarac, G., Dreyer, M., Farhat, M. & Münch, C. 2015 RANS and LES computations of the tip-leakage vortex for different gap widths. J. Turbul. 16 (4), 309–341.Google Scholar
Duke, D. J., Kastengren, A. L., Swantek, A. B., Sovis, N., Fezzaa, K., Neroorkar, K., Moulai, M., Powell, C. F. & Schmidt, D. P. 2014 Comparing simulations and x-ray measurements of a cavitating nozzle. In ILASS-Americas 26th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Portland, Oregon, USA. ILASS.Google Scholar
Duplaa, S., Coutier-Delgosha, O., Dazin, A. & Bois, G. 2013 X-ray measurements in a cavitating centrifugal pump during fast start-ups. J. Fluids Engng 135 (4), 041204.Google Scholar
Duttweiler, M. E. & Brennen, C. E. 2002 Surge instability on a cavitating propeller. J. Fluid Mech. 458, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelbauer, W., Strucl, J. & Morozov, A. 2016 Large Eddy Simulation of Cavitating Throttle Flow: SIMHYDRO 2014 (ed. Gourbesville, P., Cunge, J. A. & Caignaert, G.), Advances in Hydroinformatics, Part III, pp. 501–517. Springer.Google Scholar
Egler, W., Giersch, J. R., Boecking, F., Hammer, J., Hlousek, J., Mattes, P., Projahn, U., Urner, W. & Janetzky, B. 2010 Fuel Injection Systems (ed. Mollenhauer, K. & Tschöke, H.), Handbook of Diesel Engines, pp. 127–174. Springer.Google Scholar
Feldkamp, L. A., Davis, L. C. & Kress, J. W. 1984 Practical cone-beam algorithm. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1 (6), 612–619.Google Scholar
Ferziger, J. H. & Peric, M. 2002 Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Springer.Google Scholar
Franc, J.-P. & Michel, J.-M. 2005 Fundamentals of Cavitation. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Ganesh, H., Mäkiharju, S. A. & Ceccio, S. 2016 Bubbly shock propagation as a mechanism for sheet-to-cloud transition of partial cavities. J. Fluid Mech. 802, 37–78.Google Scholar
Giannadakis, E., Gavaises, M. & Arcoumanis, C. 2008 Modelling of cavitation in diesel injector nozzles. J. Fluid Mech. 616, 153–193.Google Scholar
Gnanaskandan, A. s. & Krishnan, M. 2016 Numerical investigation of near-wake characteristics of cavitating flow over a circular cylinder. J. Fluid Mech. 790, 453–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. A., Rowley, C. W. & Haller, G. 2007 Detection of Lagrangian coherent structures in 3D turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 572, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, G. 2005 An objective definition of a vortex. J. Fluid Mech. 525, 1–26.Google Scholar
Hult, J., Simmank, P., Matlok, S., Mayer, S., Falgout, Z. & Linne, M. 2016 Interior flow and near-nozzle spray development in a marine-engine diesel fuel injector. Exp. Fluids 57 (4), 1–19.Google Scholar
IAEA2008 Neutron imaging: a non-destructive tool for materials testing. Nuclear analytical techniques. Austria, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-TECDOC-1604.Google Scholar
Kini, V., Bachmann, C., Fontaine, A., Deutsch, S. & Tarbell, J. M. 2000 Flow visualization in mechanical heart valves: occluder rebound and cavitation potential. Ann. Biomed. Engng 28, 431–441.Google Scholar
Kolev, N. 2007 Multiphase Flow Dynamics 3. Springer.Google Scholar
Koukouvinis, P. & Gavaises, M. 2015 Simulation of throttle flow with two phase and single phase homogenous equilibrium model. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 656 (1), 012086.Google Scholar
Koukouvinis, P., Gavaises, M., Li, J. & Wang, L. 2016 Large eddy simulation of diesel injector including cavitation effects and correlation to erosion damage. Fuel 175, 26–39.Google Scholar
Koukouvinis, P., Naseri, H. & Gavaises, M. 2016 Performance of turbulence and cavitation models in prediction of incipient and developed cavitation. Intl J. Engine Res. 18 (4), 333–350.Google Scholar
Li, S. 2000 Cavitation of Hydraulic Machinery. Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
Lindau, O. & Lauterborn, W. 2003 Cinematographic observation of the collapse and rebound of a laser-produced cavitation bubble near a wall. J. Fluid Mech. 479, 327–348.Google Scholar
Lockett, R. D. & Jeshani, M. 2013 An experimental investigation into the effect of hydrodynamic cavitation on diesel. Intl J. Engine Res. 14 (6), 606–621.Google Scholar
Mauger, C., Méès, L., Michard, M., Azouzi, A. & Valette, S. 2012 Shadowgraph, schlieren and interferometry in a 2D cavitating channel flow. Exp. Fluids 53 (6), 1895–1913.Google Scholar
Mihatsch, M. S., Schmidt, S. J. & Adams, N. A. 2015 Cavitation erosion prediction based on analysis of flow dynamics and impact load spectra. Phys. Fluids 27, 103302.Google Scholar
Mitroglou, N., Lorenzi, M., Santini, M., Gavaises, M. & Assanis, D. 2015 Application of cone-beam micro-CT on high-speed diesel flows and quantitative cavitation measurements. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 656 (1), 012094.Google Scholar
Mitroglou, N., McLorn, M., Gavaises, M., Soteriou, C. & Winterbourne, M. 2014 Instantaneous and ensemble average cavitation structures in diesel micro-channel flow orifices. Fuel 116, 736–742.Google Scholar
Mockett, C.2007 A comprehensive study of detached-eddy simulation. Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
Moon, S., Liu, Z., Gao, J., Dufresne, E., Fezzaa, K. & Wang, J. 2010 Ultrafast X-ray phase-contrast imaging of high-speed fuel sprays from a two-hole diesel nozzle. In ILASS Americas, 22nd Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. ILASS.Google Scholar
Örley, F., Hickel, S., Schmidt, S. J. & Adams, N. A. 2016 Large-eddy simulation of turbulent, cavitating fuel flow inside a 9-hole diesel injector including needle movement. Intl J. Engine Res. 18 (3), 195–211.Google Scholar
Pennings, P. C., Bosschers, J., Weserweel, J. & van Terwisga, T. J. C. 2015 Dynamics of isolated vortex cavitation. J. Fluid Mech. 778, 288–313.Google Scholar
Reid, B. A., Hargrave, G. K., Garner, C. P. & Wigley, G. 2010 An investigation of string cavitation in a true-scale fuel injector flow geometry at high pressure. Phys. Fluids 22, 031703.Google Scholar
Roache, P. J. 1997 Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 29, 123–160.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. J., Mihatsch, M. S., Thalhamer, M. & Adams, N. A. 2014 Assessment of erosion sensitive areas via compressible simulation of unsteady cavitating flows. In Advanced Experimental and Numerical Techniques for Cavitation Erosion Prediction (ed. Kim, K.-H., Chahine, G., Franc, J.-P. & Karimi, A.), pp. 329–344. Springer.Google Scholar
Schnerr, G. H. & Sauer, J. 2001 Physical and numerical modeling of unsteady cavitation dynamics. In Fourth International Conference on Multiphase Flow, New Orleans, USA. ICMF.Google Scholar
Shur, M. L., Spalart, P. R., Strelets, M. K. & Travin, A. K. 2008 A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled LES capabilities. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 29, 1638–1649.Google Scholar
Sou, A., Hosokawa, S. & Tomiyama, A. 2007 Effects of cavitation in a nozzle on liquid jet atomization. Intl J. Heat Mass 50, 3575–3582.Google Scholar
Stampouli, M. & Pappas, M.2014 CAE process workflow management of an automotive simulation scenario, SAE Tech. Paper 2014-01-0297:11. SAE International.Google Scholar
Sun, T., Ganesh, H. & Ceccio, S. 2015 X-ray densitometry based void fraction flow field measurements of cavitating flow in the wake of a circular cylinder. In 68th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Fluid Dynamics, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. American Physical Society.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. F., Soni, B. K. & Weatherill, N. P. 1998 Handbook of Grid Generation. CRC.Google Scholar
Tunstall, M. J. & Harvey, J. K. 1968 On the effect of a sharp bend in a fully developed turbulent pipe-flow. J. Fluid Mech. 34 (3), 595–608.Google Scholar
Washio, S. 2014 Recent Developments in Cavitation Mechanisms: Cavitation Inception in Separating Water Flows. A Guide for Scientists and Engineers, pp. 133–157. Elsevier.Google Scholar
White, F. M. 2011 Fluid Mechanics, Avenue of the Americas. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Zigan, L., Schmitz, I., Wensing, M. & Leipertz, A. 2012 Reynolds number effects on atomization and cyclic spray fluctuations under gasoline direct injection conditions. In Fuel Systems for IC Engines, pp. 253–263. Woodhead Publishing.Google Scholar
Žnidarčič, A., Mettin, R. & Dular, M. 2015 Modeling cavitation in a rapidly changing pressure field – application to a small ultrasonic horn. Ultrason. Sonochem. 22, 482–492.Google Scholar
Zwart, P. J., Gerber, A. G. & Belamri, T. 2004 A two-phase flow model for predicting cavitation dynamics. In 5th International Conference on Multiphase Flow, Yokohama, Japan. ICMF.Google Scholar

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Cavity shedding at low cavitation number (Cn= 1.5).

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 783.7 KB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Cavity shedding at high cavitation number (Cn = 2.18).

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 3.3 MB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Density distribution at the midplane of the geometry, at high cavitation number (Cn= 2.18).

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 1.2 MB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Animation of the 3D cavitation isosurface (95% liquid), showing the formation of cavitating vortices, starting from the needle.

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 2.2 MB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Animation of the 3D coherent vortical structures, Cn = 2.18 (q= 109 s-2)

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 9 MB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Instantanteous velocity magnitude at the midplane of the geometry (Cn = 2.18).

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 3.2 MB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Instantaneous pressure field on the throttle wall (Cn = 2.18). Note the rapid changes due to cavitation collapses.

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 3.8 MB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Pressure peaks on the wall of the orifice (Cn = 1.5).

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 3.8 MB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Pressure peaks on the wall of the orifice (Cn= 2.18).

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 3.7 MB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Collapse mechanism at the first erosion site (1 to 3.5 mm downstream the channel entrance). Cn = 2.18.

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 889.5 KB

Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie

Collapse mechanism at the second erosion site (5.5 to 8.5 mm downstream the channel entrance). Cn = 2.18.

Download Koukouvinis et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 1.1 MB