ANSYS Forte Theory Manual 18.2

Forte Theory Manual
ANSYS, Inc. Release 18.2

Southpointe August 2017
2600 ANSYS Drive
Canonsburg, PA 15317 ANSYS, Inc. and
[email protected] ANSYS Europe,
Ltd. are UL
http://www.ansys.com registered ISO
(T) 724-746-3304 9001: 2008
(F) 724-514-9494 companies.
Copyright and Trademark Information
© 2017 ANSYS, Inc. Unauthorized use, distribution or duplication is prohibited.
ANSYS, ANSYS Workbench, AUTODYN, CFX, FLUENT and any and all ANSYS, Inc. brand, product, service and feature
names, logos and slogans are registered trademarks or trademarks of ANSYS, Inc. or its subsidiaries located in the
United States or other countries. ICEM CFD is a trademark used by ANSYS, Inc. under license. CFX is a trademark
of Sony Corporation in Japan. All other brand, product, service and feature names or trademarks are the property
of their respective owners. FLEXlm and FLEXnet are trademarks of Flexera Software LLC.
Disclaimer Notice
THIS ANSYS SOFTWARE PRODUCT AND PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION INCLUDE TRADE SECRETS AND ARE CONFID-
ENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS OF ANSYS, INC., ITS SUBSIDIARIES, OR LICENSORS. The software products
and documentation are furnished by ANSYS, Inc., its subsidiaries, or affiliates under a software license agreement
that contains provisions concerning non-disclosure, copying, length and nature of use, compliance with exporting
laws, warranties, disclaimers, limitations of liability, and remedies, and other provisions. The software products
and documentation may be used, disclosed, transferred, or copied only in accordance with the terms and conditions
of that software license agreement.
ANSYS, Inc. and ANSYS Europe, Ltd. are UL registered ISO 9001: 2008 companies.
U.S. Government Rights
For U.S. Government users, except as specifically granted by the ANSYS, Inc. software license agreement, the use,
duplication, or disclosure by the United States Government is subject to restrictions stated in the ANSYS, Inc.
software license agreement and FAR 12.212 (for non-DOD licenses).
Third-Party Software
See the legal information in the product help files for the complete Legal Notice for ANSYS proprietary software
and third-party software. If you are unable to access the Legal Notice, contact ANSYS, Inc.
Published in the U.S.A.

Table of Contents
1. Forte Theory Manual Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
2. Basic Governing Equations ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Conservation Equations for Turbulent Reacting Flow ......................................................................... 3
2.1.1. Species Conservation Equation ................................................................................................. 4
2.1.2. Fluid Continuity Equation ......................................................................................................... 4
2.1.3. Momentum Conservation Equation .......................................................................................... 4
2.1.4. Energy Conservation Equation ................................................................................................. 4
2.1.5. Gas-phase Mixture Equation of State ........................................................................................ 5
2.2. Turbulence Models ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1. Reynolds-Averaged-Navier-Stokes (RANS) Approach ................................................................. 5
2.2.2. Large-Eddy Simulation Approach ............................................................................................. 7
2.3. Chemical Kinetics Formulation .......................................................................................................... 9
2.3.1. Optional Semi-empirical Soot Model ...................................................................................... 10
2.4. Turbulence-Kinetics Interaction Model ............................................................................................ 10
3. Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 13
3.1. Wall Boundaries .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.1. Wall Conditions for the Gas-phase Species and Fluid Continuity Equations .............................. 13
3.1.2. Wall Conditions for the Momentum Equation .......................................................................... 13
3.1.3. Wall Conditions for the Energy Equation ................................................................................. 14
3.1.4. Turbulence Model Wall Conditions .......................................................................................... 15
3.2. Inflow and Outflow Boundaries ....................................................................................................... 16
3.2.1. Velocity Inflow Boundaries ..................................................................................................... 16
3.2.2. Outflow Boundaries ............................................................................................................... 16
3.2.3. Pressure Inflow Boundaries ..................................................................................................... 16
3.2.4. Pressure Outflow Boundaries .................................................................................................. 16
3.3. Periodic Boundaries ........................................................................................................................ 17
3.4. Axis-of-Symmetry Boundaries ......................................................................................................... 17
4. Initial Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 19
4.1. Initialization of the Fluid Properties ................................................................................................. 19
4.2. Swirl Profiles ................................................................................................................................... 19
5. Discretization and Solution Methods ................................................................................................... 21
5.1. Discretization of the Governing Equations ....................................................................................... 21
5.1.1. Temporal Differencing Method ............................................................................................... 21
5.1.2. Spatial Differencing Method ................................................................................................... 21
5.2. SIMPLE Method .............................................................................................................................. 23
5.2.1. Convective Flux Discretization ................................................................................................ 24
5.3. Chemistry Solver Options ................................................................................................................ 25
5.3.1. Operator Splitting Method and Parallel Implementation ......................................................... 25
5.3.2. Dynamic Adaptive Chemistry ................................................................................................. 26
5.3.3. Dynamic Cell Clustering ......................................................................................................... 28
6. Spray Models ......................................................................................................................................... 29
6.1. Solid-Cone Spray Models ................................................................................................................ 29
6.1.1. Nozzle Flow Model ................................................................................................................. 29
6.1.1.1. Discharge coefficient ..................................................................................................... 30
6.1.1.2. Effective Injection Velocity and Effective Flow Exit Area .................................................. 31
6.1.1.3. Spray Angle ................................................................................................................... 32
6.1.1.4. Empirical Nozzle Discharge Coefficient and Spray Angle ................................................. 32
6.1.2. Kelvin-Helmholtz / Rayleigh-Taylor Breakup Model ................................................................. 32
6.1.2.1. Kelvin-Helmholtz Breakup ............................................................................................. 33
6.1.2.2. Rayleigh-Taylor Breakup ................................................................................................ 35
Release 18.2 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. iii
Theory Manual
6.1.3. Unsteady Gas-Jet Model ......................................................................................................... 36

6.2. Hollow-Cone Spray Models ............................................................................................................. 38
6.2.1. Linearized Instability Sheet Atomization (LISA) Model ............................................................. 39
6.2.1.1. Film Formation .............................................................................................................. 39
6.2.1.2. Sheet Breakup ............................................................................................................... 40
6.2.1.3. Atomization .................................................................................................................. 41
6.2.2. Taylor-Analog-Breakup Model ................................................................................................ 41
6.3. Droplet Collision and Coalescence Model ........................................................................................ 42
6.3.1. Radius of Influence (ROI) Collision Model ................................................................................ 42
6.3.2. Collision Mesh Model ............................................................................................................. 43
6.4. Multi-Component Droplet Vaporization Model ................................................................................ 43
6.4.1. Liquid Phase Balance Equation ............................................................................................... 44
6.4.2. Governing Equations for Gas Phase ........................................................................................ 44
6.4.3. Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium ........................................................................................................ 45
6.4.4. Determination of Surface Temperature ................................................................................... 45
6.4.5. Modeling Boiling, Including Flash Boiling ................................................................................ 46
6.5. Wall Impingement Model ................................................................................................................ 46
6.5.1. Mass Fraction of Secondary Droplets ...................................................................................... 47
6.5.2. Size of Secondary Droplets ..................................................................................................... 47
6.5.3. Velocity of Secondary Droplets ............................................................................................... 48
6.6. Wall Film Model .............................................................................................................................. 49
6.6.1. Wall Film Governing Equations ............................................................................................... 49
6.6.2. Wall Separation Criterion ........................................................................................................ 50
7. Turbulent Flame Propagation Model .................................................................................................... 51
7.1. Discrete Particle Ignition Kernel Flame Model .................................................................................. 51
7.2. Autoignition-Induced Flame Propagation Model ............................................................................. 52
7.3. G-equation Model ........................................................................................................................... 52
7.3.1. General Formulation .............................................................................................................. 52
7.3.2. Laminar and Turbulent Flame Speed Correlations ................................................................... 53
7.3.2.1. Laminar Flame Speeds ................................................................................................... 53
7.3.2.1.1. Power-law Formulation ......................................................................................... 53
7.3.2.1.2. Laminar Flame Speed at Reference State ............................................................... 54
7.3.2.1.3. Temperature and Pressure Dependencies .............................................................. 54
7.3.2.1.4. Diluent Effect ........................................................................................................ 55
7.3.2.1.5. Laminar Flame Speed Through Table Look-up ........................................................ 55
7.3.2.2. Turbulent Flame Speeds ................................................................................................ 55
7.3.2.3. Turbulent Flame Brush Thickness ................................................................................... 56
7.3.3. Flame-front Heat Release Calculation ...................................................................................... 56
7.3.4. Post-flame and End Gas Kinetics ............................................................................................. 57
7.3.5. Flame Quench Model ............................................................................................................. 58
8. Method of Moments .............................................................................................................................. 59
8.1. Description and Properties of a Particle Population .......................................................................... 59
8.1.1. Moments of Particle-Size Distribution Functions ..................................................................... 59
8.1.2. Total Particle Number of a Particle Population ......................................................................... 60
8.1.3. Total and Average Particle Mass .............................................................................................. 60
8.1.4. Total and Average Geometric Properties of a Particle Population ............................................. 61
9. Engine Crevice Model ............................................................................................................................ 63
9.1. Diagram and Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 63
9.1.1. Isentropic ............................................................................................................................... 64
9.1.2. Isothermal ............................................................................................................................. 64
9.2. Input Parameters ............................................................................................................................ 65
10. References ........................................................................................................................................... 67
iv of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Chapter 1: Forte Theory Manual Introduction
The ANSYS Forte CFD Package is designed for internal combustion engine design applications. The
modeling approach described in this Theory manual is therefore tailored to provide the most accurate
solutions possible for these applications, using computing resources that are practical for every-day
design activities. ANSYS Forte takes advantage of well-established theoretical representations of 3-D
fluid flow, spray dynamics and combustion behavior.
The dynamics of spray combustion in diesel engines are controlled by both turbulent mixing dynamics
and fuel combustion kinetics. Spray dynamics and fuel vaporization are typically the dominant contrib-
utors to the creation of stratified fuel/air mixtures. Subsequently, the ignition and combustion chemical
kinetics are controlled by a complex network of reactions between fuel and air species under these
stratified conditions. Both spray dynamics and chemical kinetics contribute to source terms in the react-
ing-flow transport equations. For flame propagation in spark-ignition engine, combustion kinetics in
the end-gas also controls important phenomena, such as engine knocking and emissions production.
For advanced-concept engines that are based on compression-ignition strategies or dual-fuel combustion,
chemical kinetics becomes even more important.
The ANSYS Forte CFD Package introduces important breakthroughs in chemistry-solution techniques
that greatly enhance the accuracy achievable by engine simulation within commercial design time lines.
These techniques reduce simulation time by as much as two orders of magnitude when compared to
conventional CFD. Chemistry models that were previously thought of as only practical for 0-D simulations
now become practical for full 3-D engine simulations with moving pistons and valves. Better handling
of chemistry with multi-component fuel representation makes predictive simulation possible within the
schedule constraints of the concept phase of design.
For direct-injection engines, ANSYS Forte also sets a new standard for accuracy in the representation
of fuel-spray droplet breakup and vaporization. For example, true multi-component fuel vaporization
models can now work hand-in-hand with multi-component chemistry models. In addition, new ap-
proaches to representing the gas-transport part of the spray reduce the sensitivity of the spray model
to the grid. These advances together with better chemistry allow more accurate simulations at reduced
computational cost, and without the intervention of expert calibration.
ANSYS Forte builds on models and sub-models that have been well validated against experimental data
over a broad range of conditions and over many years by engine-simulation experts. This manual de-
scribes the model assumptions and solution techniques employed. The ANSYS Forte User's Guide
provides end-user instructions for model inputs and for the mechanics of using the ANSYS Forte Simulate
and Visualizer interfaces.
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 1
2 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Chapter 2: Basic Governing Equations
2.1. Conservation Equations for Turbulent Reacting Flow
In internal combustion engines, the fuel-air mixture before combustion and the burned products after
combustion are the working fluids. In the turbulent reacting flow representation of ANSYS Forte, the
basic fluid dynamics are governed by the Navier-Stokes equations. Model transport equations of mass,
momentum, and energy conservation laws are formulated for the compressible, gas-phase flows, and
represent the turbulent nature of the flow. When liquid sprays are injected into the flow, exchange
functions are used to account for the interaction between the gas phase and the liquid droplets. Beyond
these models, the main assumptions made in the derivation of the governing equations are the use of
the ideal gas law for the gas-phase equation of state, the use of Fick’s law for mass diffusion, the as-
sumption of Newtonian fluid, and the use of Fourier’s law for thermal diffusion. In this chapter, we
present the governing equations for the gas phase of the working fluids in the engine. The model
equations for the liquid sprays are presented in Spray Models (p. 29).
Turbulent flow is characterized by a wide range of flow length scales as well as significant and irregular
variations of the flow field. Forte offers two options of turbulence modeling. The first option is the
Reynolds-Averaged-Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach, which aims at capturing the ensemble average of
the flow field from many realizations of flows under equivalently set conditions. Since an important
effect of turbulence is more effective transport and mixing of fluid compared to a laminar flow, the
ensemble average of the turbulent transport and mixing is analogous to a large-scale diffusion. The
RANS approach removes the necessity of resolving small-scale structures and fluctuations seen in indi-
vidual flow realizations, while retaining the main effects of turbulence on the averaged flow and com-
bustion characteristics.
To accomplish this, the Favre average is employed to represent an instantaneous quantity, such as the
flow velocity vector , into an ensemble average and a fluctuating part , as . In this approach,
the average part is defined as a conventional density-weighted average by , while the fluc-
tuation is defined to satisfy , where the over-bar represents an averaging operator.
The second option is the Large-eddy Simulation (LES) approach, which simulates individual flow realiz-
ations instead of the ensemble average of the flows. LES is expected to capture a substantial degree
of unsteadiness and smaller flow length scales, which are omitted in the ensemble average. Due to the
restriction on the computational cost, only the larger three-dimensional unsteady turbulent motions
are directly resolved by the mesh resolution, whereas the effects of the smaller-scale motions are
modelled as “sub-grid scale" (SGS) effects. In this approach, the resolved flow field is regarded as a
result of filtering the actual flow field, with the filter size being the mesh size. The filtering eliminates
the need to resolve the flow scales smaller than the filter size, which is accounted for by the SGS
models. In general, the smaller the filter (mesh) size is, the better the scale-resolution of the turbulent
flow field that is expected.
In the LES approach, the instantaneous quatity of the flow field (e.g., ), is decomposed into a filtered
component and a resicual (or SGS) component, also denoted by and , as . In this approach,
Again, the filtered part is defined by the Favre averaging , where is the filtered density field.
while the fluctuation is defined to satisfy , where is the filtered density field.
Basic Governing Equations
The governing equations in ANSYS Forte are formulated to solve the ensemble-averaged flow field in
the RANS approach and to solve the filtered flow field in the LES approach. The basic form of the
equations for the flow field is presented in a unified way as follows, while the turbulence models
themselves are described in Turbulence Models .
2.1.1. Species Conservation Equation

The gas-phase working fluids in the combustion engine are modeled as a mixture of individual gas
components, or species, and this composition changes during the engine cycle due to flow convection,
molecular diffusion, turbulent transport, interactions with fuel sprays, and combustion. The conservation
equation for the mass of species is:
(2.1)
where is the density, subscript is the species index, is the total number of species, is the flow
velocity vector. Application of Fick’s Law of diffusion results in a mixture-averaged molecular diffusion
coefficient . The Φ term accounts for the effects of ensemble-averaging or filtering of the convection
term, that is, , which has to be modeled. and are source terms due to chemical reac-
tions and spray evaporation, respectively.
2.1.2. Fluid Continuity Equation

The summation of Equation 2.1 over all species gives the continuity equation for the total gas-phase
fluid:
(2.2)
2.1.3. Momentum Conservation Equation

The momentum equation for the fluid considers the effects of convection, pressure force, viscous stress,
and turbulent transport, as well as the impact from liquid sprays and body force:
(2.3)
where p is the pressure, is the rate of momentum gain per unit volume due to the spray, g is the
specific body force, is the viscous shear stress given by
(2.4)
in which is the laminar kinematic viscosity, I is the identity tensor, and superscript T means transpose
of a tensor. The stress accounts for the effects of ensemble-averaging or filtering of the nonlinear
convection term, that is, . In the RANS approach, it is called the Reynolds stress; in the
LES approach, it is called the SGS stress. In both cases, turbulence models are needed to provide closure.
2.1.4. Energy Conservation Equation

Based on the First Law of Thermodynamics, the change of internal energy has to be balanced by the
pressure work and heat transfer. For the flow problems relevant to internal combustion engines, the
effects of convection, turbulent transport, turbulent dissipation, sprays, chemical reactions, and enthalpy
diffusion of a multi-component flow should also be considered. The internal energy transport equation
is:
Turbulence Models
(2.5)
where I is the specific internal energy, J is the heat flux vector accounting for contributions due to heat
conduction and enthalpy diffusion:
(2.6)
λ is the thermal conductivity, which is related to the thermal diffusivity α and heat capacity by
, T is the fluid temperature, and h k is the specific enthalpy of species k. is the dissipation
rate of the turbulent kinetic energy, which will be defined in Turbulence Models . and are source
terms due to chemical heat release and spray interactions, respectively. The term accounts for the
effects of ensemble-averaging or filtering of the convection term, that is, . Again, it needs
to be properly modeled from the turbulence approach.
2.1.5. Gas-phase Mixture Equation of State

The thermodynamic state relations for the gas-phase mixture are assumed to obey the ideal gas law.
The mixing of gas components is assumed to follow the Dalton model, that is, each component behaves
as an ideal gas as if it were alone at the temperature and the volume of the mixture,
(2.7)
where R u is the universal gas constant, and W k is the molecular weight of species k.
2.2. Turbulence Models

We now describe the turbulence models needed to provide closure to the undetermined terms, , ,
and H, in Equation 2.1, Equation 2.3, and Equation 2.5 , respectively.
2.2.1. Reynolds-Averaged-Navier-Stokes (RANS) Approach

As introduced at the beginning of this chapter, the RANS approach aims aims to simulate the ensemble-
averaged flow field. The most widely used approach is to model the turbulent transport processes with
gradient-diffusion assumptions. For the momentum equation, the deviatoric components of the Reynolds
stress are assumed to be proportional to the mean deviatoric rate of strain. The Reynolds stress tensor
, is defined as
(2.8)
in which is the turbulent kinematic viscosity, and is the turbulent kinetic energy, defined by:
(2.9)
The turbulent viscosity is related to the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate by:
(2.10)
where is a model constant that varies in different turbulence model formulations, shown in
Table 2.1: Constants in the standard and RNG k - ε models .
The turbulent flux term in the species transport Equation 2.1 is modeled as:
(2.11)
in which is the turbulent diffusivity. Similarly, the turbulent flux term H in the energy Equation 2.5
is modeled as:
(2.12)
in which is the turbulent thermal conductivity and is related to the turbulent thermal diffusivity
and heat capacity by . The turbulent mass and thermal diffusivity are related to the turbulent
viscosity by:
(2.13)
(2.14)
where and are the turbulent Schmidt and Prandtl numbers, respectively. As seen in Equation 2.10
, the calculation of turbulent viscosity requires that the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation
rate to be modeled. In ANSYS Forte, both the standard and the advanced (based on Re-Normalized
Group Theory) k-ε model formulations are available. These consider velocity dilatation in the ε- equation
and spray-induced source terms for both k and ε equations.
The standard Favre-averaged equations for k and E are given in Equation 2.15 and Equation 2.16 :
(2.15)
(2.16)
In these equations, , , , , are model constants, which are listed and described in
Table 2.1: Constants in the standard and RNG k - ε models .
The source terms involving are calculated based on the droplet probability distribution function
(cf. Ref.Amsden 1997 5 ). Physically, is the negative of the rate at which the turbulent eddies are
doing work in dispersing the spray droplets. was suggested by Amsden 5 based on the postulate
of length scale conservation in spray/turbulence interactions.
The advanced (and recommended) version of the k - ε model is derived from Re-Normalized Group
(RNG) theory, as first proposed by Yakhot and Orszag 78 . The k equation in the RNG version of the
model is the same as the standard version, but the ε equation is based on rigorous mathematical de-
rivation rather than on empirically derived constants. The RNG ε equation is written as
(2.17)
where the in the last term of the right-hand side of the equation is defined as
Turbulence Models
(2.18)
with
(2.19)
(2.20)
and is the mean strain rate tensor,

(2.21)
Compared to the standard ε equation, the RNG model has one extra term, which accounts for non-
isotropic turbulence, as described by Yakhot and Orszag 78 .
Values of the model constants , , , and used in the RNG version are also listed in
Table 2.1: Constants in the standard and RNG k - ε models . In the ANSYS Forte implementation, the
RNG value for the variable is based on the work of Han and Reitz 21 , who modified the constant
to take the compressibility effect into account. According to Han and Reitz 21 ,
(2.22)
where m =0.5, n =1.4 for an ideal gas, and
(2.23)
with
(2.24)
Using this approach, the value of varies in the range of -0.9 to 1.726 21 , and in ANSYS Forte is de-
termined automatically, based on the flow conditions and specification of other model constants, η 0
and β . Han and Reitz 21 applied their version of the RNG k- ε model to engine simulations and observed
improvements in the results compared to the standard k- ε model. For this reason, the RNG k- ε
model is the default and recommended turbulence model in ANSYS Forte.
Table 2.1: Constants in the standard and RNG k - ε models68
Standard 0.09 1.44 1.92 -1.0 1.0 0.769
RNG 0.0845 1.42 1.68 Equation 2.22

1.39 1.39 4.38 0.012
2.2.2. Large-Eddy Simulation Approach

In the LES approach, the filtered flow quantities are solved by the transport equations on the CFD mesh.
For example, now refers to the filtered flow velocity. The undetermined stress term in Equation 2.3
is called the sub-grid-scale (SGS) stress tensor, which is essential in LES modeling. ANSYS Forte offers
two types of LES models, the Smagorinsky model and the dynamic structure model.
The Smagorinsky model 65 is based on a viscosity assumption and accounts for the dissipative nature
of turbulent flows, i.e., kinetic energy is dissipated from the large-scale to the small-scale motions. It
relates the SGS stress to the strain rate of the filtered flow field:
(2.25)
The SGS viscosity, , is modeled as:

(2.26)
in which is the local CFD mesh size, is the magnitude of the filtered strain rate tensor (see Equa-
tion 2.20 , but note that the overbar now means filtering), and is a model constant, 0.17. The sub-
grid kinetic energy, , is modeled as:
(2.27)
where is a model constant, 0.101. It is noted that both and depend on the CFD mesh size,
.
The sub-grid flux term in the species transport Equation 2.1 is modeled as:
(2.28)
in which is the SGS turbulent diffusivity. Similarly, the sub-grid flux term H in the energy equation
(Equation 2.5 ) is modeled as:
(2.29)
in which is the SGS thermal conductivity and is related to the SGS thermal diffusivity and heat
capacity by . The SGS mass and thermal diffusivity are related to the SGS viscosity by:
(2.30)
(2.31)
where and are the turbulent Schmidt and Prandtl numbers, respectively. The viscosity-based
assumption makes Smagorinsky model effective in dissipating the kinetic energy from large-scale to
small-scale motions. However, such dissipation can be excessive, and energy-containing flow structures
may not be adequately resolved unless a very fine mesh is used. Although, its numerical stability in
complex flows is an advantage.
The dynamic structure model 52 is a non-viscosity and similarity-based model, relating the SGS stress
to the “Leonard stress” derived from a larger filter:
(2.32)
Chemical Kinetics Formulation
where L is the Leonard stress tensor, , and . An explicit filtering operation (denoted
as ) needs to be performed to compute the Leonard stress tensor, and the explicit filter size is chosen
as twice of the local CFD mesh size. Essentially, the first term on the right-hand-side of Equation 2.32
can be viewed as a similarity model relating the SGS stress to the Leonard stress, with a dynamic scaling
factor of representing the ratio of sub-grid kinetic energy to sub-filter kinetic energy. The second
term is an optional added viscosity-based model 71 . It is suggested to be activated for fuel injection
and spray simulations for numerical stability purposes. The viscosity is modeled as
(2.33)
where and . The symbols and are injection velocity and nozzle diameter in
sprays.
To use the dynamic structure model, the sub-grid flux terms and can still adopt the viscosity-based
models shown in Equation 2.28 and Equation 2.29 . The SGS viscosity is calculated as:
(2.34)
where . A transport equation for the sub-grid kinetic energy, , needs to be solved to provide
closure
(2.35)
where . The dissipation rate of the sub-grid kinetic energy has been modeled as .
The dynamic structure model offers good prediction of the sub-grid stresses 59 , and has been validated
in a number of benchmark flow problems 71 , 72 . It is recommended as the default option for the LES
approach in ANSYS Forte.
2.3. Chemical Kinetics Formulation

The chemical reactions that occur in combustion simulations can be described by chemical kinetic
mechanisms that define the reaction pathways and the associated reaction rates leading to the change
in species concentrations. In detailed chemical kinetic mechanisms, the reversible (or irreversible) reactions
involving K chemical species can be represented in the general form 11
(2.36)
The production rate of the k th species in the i th reaction can be written as

(2.37)
where q i is the rate of progress of reaction i.
ANSYS Forte uses the Chemkin-Pro chemistry solver. Details of the various types of reactions available
in Chemkin-Pro can be found in the Chemkin-Pro Theory Manual , in these chapters:
• Chapter 3: Gas-phase Chemical Rate Expressions:
• Chapter 4: Surface Chemical Rate Expressions:
The summation of over all the reactions gives the chemical source term in the species continuity
equation (Equation 2.1 ) as
(2.38)
Correspondingly, the chemical heat release term in the energy equation is given by
(2.39)
where Q i is the heat of reaction of reaction i at absolute zero,
(2.40)
and is the heat of formation of species at absolute zero.
2.3.1. Optional Semi-empirical Soot Model

The soot model used in ANSYS Forte is the two-step soot model consisting of competing formation
and oxidation steps. The Hiroyasu soot formation 26 and Nagle and Strickland-Constable oxidation 44
models were used. The governing equations for the soot model are as follows:
(2.41)
(2.42)
(2.43)
(2.44)
where p is pressure, n is a constant, M s is soot mass, with an additional subscript f for “formation”
or o for “oxidation”. M pre is the mass of the soot precursor, K f is the soot formation rate, A sf is
the pre-exponential factor for the global soot-formation reaction, E f is the activation energy for soot
formation, MW c is the molecular weight of carbon, ρ s is soot density, D s is the assumed soot
particle diameter, and R total is the Nagle and Strickland-Constable oxidation rate. More details about
the soot model are given by Vishwanathan and Reitz 73 . The default values of model constants used
in FORTÉ are: n=0.5, Asf = 40 cm3/mol-s, Ef =12,500 cal/mol, ρ s=2 g/cm3, and Ds=25 nm.
2.4. Turbulence-Kinetics Interaction Model

ANSYS Forte includes a generalized turbulence-chemistry interaction model that is adapted from the
work of Kong et al. [30 , 31 ], which was previously applied to simulations of Diesel engines. This model
is included in ANSYS Forte as an option and is intended for simulating turbulence effects on combustion
kinetics.
This mixing time-scale model considers that the combustion chemistry should be partly controlled by
the breakup of turbulent eddies due to the imperfect mixing of fuel and oxidizer in an actual engine
Turbulence-Kinetics Interaction Model
process. The model assumes every species moves towards its local equilibrium values with a time scale
of τ eff and thus the effective (or actual) production rate of species k are expressed as
(2.45)
where the effective time scale is related to the chemical time scale τ chem and the turbulent scalar
mixing time scale τ mix as
(2.46)
The local chemical time scale is defined as the time it would take the mixture to reach equilibrium under
the conditions within the computational cell. The turbulent scalar mixing time scale is obtained from
the local turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation rate:
(2.47)
A relationship between the effective species production rate and the kinetic-only species produc-
tion rate is derived from Equation 2.49 as
(2.48)
The effective species production rates that are directly used in kinetics integration are then
(2.49)
In this way the gas composition and temperature remain consistent.
The model constant C tki is one of the turbulence model constants and is provided as the Mixing
Time Coefficient user input parameter in ANSYS Forte when the Turbulence Kinetics Interaction option
is turned on. A value of 1.5 is found to be appropriate, based on engine simulation studies.
To ensure that the effective species production rates do not go to zero when the turbulent mixing time
scale is very large, the Turbulence Kinetics Interaction model is turned OFF when the τ mix value is
above 1 millisecond.
Chapter 3: Boundary Conditions
There are several types of boundary conditions that can be specified in ANSYS Forte. These include inflow,
outflow, rigid (moving or stationary) walls, periodic, and symmetry boundaries. There are several types
of rigid-wall conditions for momentum and energy equations. Wall boundary conditions for the mo-
mentum equation include free-slip velocity, no-slip velocity, and turbulent law-of-the-wall conditions.
Wall boundary condition options for the energy equation include adiabatic walls and fixed-temperature
walls. For in-cylinder engine simulations, the turbulent law-of-the-wall velocity condition and fixed-
temperature walls are usually employed. The following sections describe in more detail each of the
boundary-condition options available.
3.1. Wall Boundaries

Heat transfer between the working fluid and the cylinder wall in an engine can significantly affect engine
performance, efficiency and emissions. The heat flux through the chamber walls is mainly due to gas-
phase convection, fuel-film conduction and radiation. Under typical engine operating conditions, gas-
phase convective heat transfer is the dominant factor 23 . At rigid walls, boundary conditions must be
specified or assumed for each of the gas-phase governing equations. Typically, the boundary layer of
an engine in-cylinder flow is thin relative to the practical computational grid size. For this reason, velocity
and temperature wall functions are often employed to solve for the near-wall shear stress and heat
transfer.
3.1.1.Wall Conditions for the Gas-phase Species and Fluid Continuity Equations
A flux balance at the surface is required for each gas-phase species in the system. The surface boundary
condition for the gas-phase species equation is:
(3.1)
Where K g is the number of gas-phase species in the system, u is the convective velocity normal to
the surface, V k is the diffusive velocity of the species and is the sum of any net external flux imposed
at the boundary. ANSYS Forte does not currently allow for the possibility of mass deposition onto or
surface chemistry at wall boundaries, so such net flux would be related to specified flow velocities only.
For a no-slip velocity condition, then, the net flux (including diffusive and convective flux) of each
species to the wall must be zero, and the sum of all species fluxes (or the net mass flux of gas) to the
surface is also zero.
3.1.2. Wall Conditions for the Momentum Equation

Fluid momentum boundary conditions on rigid walls are introduced by imposing a value of the velocity
at the wall. On no-slip walls, the gas velocity is set equal to the wall velocity:
(3.2)
The wall stress is then determined implicitly through Equation 2.3 . On free-slip and turbulent law-of-
the-wall boundaries the normal gas velocity is set equal to the normal wall velocity,
(3.3)
Boundary Conditions
and the two tangential components of the wall stress are explicitly specified. For free-slip walls the
tangential components of the wall stress are zero. For turbulent law-of-the-wall conditions the tangential
components are determined by matching to a logarithmic profile:
(3.4)
where is the Reynolds number based on the gas velocity relative to the wall, , which
*
is evaluated a distance y from the wall, and u is the shear speed, which is related to the wall shear
stress by
(3.5)
In Equation 3.4 and Equation 3.5 it is assumed that y is small enough to be in the logarithmic region
or the laminar sublayer region of the turbulent boundary layer. The Reynolds number R c defines the
boundary between these two regions. The constants κ , c lw , R c , and B in Equation 3.4 are related
to the k- ε model constants. Commonly used values are found in the KIVA-II documentation 4 .
3.1.3. Wall Conditions for the Energy Equation

In ANSYS Forte, the wall heat transfer model of Han and Reitz 22 is used to calculate the gas-phase wall
heat transfer. In the near wall region of wall-confined in-cylinder engine flows, the following assumptions
hold:
1. Gradients normal to the wall are much greater than those parallel to the wall;
2. The flow velocity is directed parallel to the flat wall;
3. Pressure gradients are neglected;
4. Viscous dissipation and enthalpy diffusion effects on energy flux are neglected;
5. Radiation heat transfer is neglected.
With these assumptions, a one-dimensional energy conservation equation in the near wall region can
be written as
(3.6)
with
(3.7)
where J is heat flux, y is distance to the wall, ρ is the gas density, c p is the specific heat of the gas
mixture, p is pressure, and is volumetric heat release, and k and k t are laminar and turbulent
thermal conductivity, respectively.
Integration of Equation 3.6 over the distance y from the wall ( y =0) with consideration of the gas-
density variation and the increase of the turbulent Prandtl number in the boundary layer, the temper-
ature profile equation (wall function) is formulated as
(3.8)
Wall Boundaries
+ +
where , y and G are defined as
(3.9)
and
(3.10)
Here, u* is the friction velocity defined in terms of the turbulence kinetic energy, k , as , y is
the normal distance to the wall, J w is the heat flux through the wall, is the average volumetric
chemical heat release, and ν is the laminar kinematic viscosity. The corresponding formulation for the
wall heat flux is given as
(3.11)
where T and T w are the gas temperature and wall temperature, respectively. Following the implement-
ation of Han and Reitz 22 , we neglect the source term , such that Equation 3.11 becomes
(3.12)
Equation 3.12 states that due to the density variation, the wall heat flux is proportional to the logarithm
of the ratio of the gas temperature to the wall temperature.
Other energy-equation boundary conditions on rigid walls are introduced by directly specifying either
the wall temperature or the wall heat flux . For adiabatic walls, we set J w equal to zero.
For fixed-temperature walls that are also either free slip or no slip; the wall temperature is prescribed
and J w is determined implicitly from Equation 2.5 .
When turbulent law-of-the-wall velocity conditions are used, frictional heating serves as a source to the
internal energy and it has the form
(3.13)
where f w is the heating per unit area of wall, and v is the tangential gas velocity relative to the wall.
3.1.4. Turbulence Model Wall Conditions

In calculations of turbulent flow, boundary conditions are also needed for the turbulent kinetic energy
k and its dissipation rate ε . These are taken to be
and
(3.14)
where k and ε are evaluated a distance y from the wall and
Boundary Conditions
(3.15)
3.2. Inflow and Outflow Boundaries

The varieties of inflow and outflow boundaries in ANSYS Forte are:
• Velocity inflow
• Continuative outflow
• Pressure inflow
• Pressure outflow
The usage and input requirements for each of these are described below.
3.2.1. Velocity Inflow Boundaries

To specify a velocity inflow boundary requires a non-zero value for the normal velocity. The actual u,
v, and w velocity components to be applied will be computed based on the boundary orientation. The
information required at an inflow boundary includes the specific turbulent kinetic energy and turbulence
length scale and species densities. The turbulence parameters are assumed to be constant; these values
can either be specified or borrowed from the initial values of the neighboring region. The initial species
densities outside the boundary are assumed to be at the reference ambient pressure, which is equal to
the initial pressure in the neighboring region. Alternatively, an inlet mass flow rate can be specified in-
stead of inlet velocity. The mass flow rate will be converted to inlet velocity based on the flow density
and the inlet boundary area.
3.2.2. Outflow Boundaries

For a continuative outflow boundary, the u, v, and w velocity components at the boundary vertex are
set equal to those of the logical inside neighbor vertex. If reverse flow is allowed at such outflow
boundaries, the species composition outside the boundary must also be specified. In ANSYS Forte, the
initial species composition in the neighboring region is used for the reverse flow, and the initial pressure
of the neighboring region is used as the reference pressure.
3.2.3. Pressure Inflow Boundaries

For pressure inflow boundaries, a pressure vs. crank angle profile can be specified at the boundary. The
ambient turbulence parameters and mixture composition are specified in a similar way as for the velocity
inflow boundaries (Velocity Inflow Boundaries ).
3.2.4. Pressure Outflow Boundaries

At a pressure outflow boundary, the pressure is imposed either at the boundary or at some distance
beyond the boundary. Using a distance beyond the boundary enables the boundary to absorb acoustic
waves, and reduce any tendency they may have to be reflected back into the system. The turbulence
parameters and mixture composition for reverse flow are specified in a similar way as for continuative
outflow boundaries (Outflow Boundaries ).
Axis-of-Symmetry Boundaries
3.3. Periodic Boundaries

Periodic boundaries are only used when the flow field is assumed to have an N -fold periodicity about
the z-axis. This is the common case, for example, when the in-cylinder geometry of a diesel engine is
represented by a sector mesh. For example, a 45-degree sector mesh would correspond to an eight-
fold ( N =8) periodicity.
When periodic boundaries are used, the computational region is composed of points in a pie-shaped
sector , where θ satisfies and . The periodic
boundaries are those for which θ = 0 and θ = 2 π / N . The conditions imposed on these boundaries
can be inferred from the assumed N -fold periodicity. For a scalar quantity q a constraint sets q(r, θ
,z) = q(r, θ + 2 π /N, z) , where r = g . For a vector v the constraint is that v (r, θ +2 π /N, z) =
R ⋅ v (r, θ , z) , where R is the rotation matrix corresponding to the angle 2 π /N.
3.4. Axis-of-Symmetry Boundaries

Also for periodic geometries (sectors), there will be an axis of symmetry, at which conditions must be
specified. For sectors, an axis-of-symmetry boundary is handled as a degenerate cell face with zero area
that lies on an axis.
Chapter 4: Initial Conditions
Most Forte simulations are of transient engine conditions. For transient simulations, initial conditions
for all variables and fluid properties are required. This section describes the initial conditions applied
to the governing equations as well as the user input required to establish the initial conditions.
4.1. Initialization of the Fluid Properties

Fluid properties are used to determine the initial values of the state variables and to initialize other
terms in the governing equations. The fluid therefore must be initialized for any transient simulation.
Determination of initial fluid properties requires:
• Initial pressure for each computational region.
• Initial temperature for each computational region.
• Initial species composition for each computational region, in terms of mole or mass fractions. For in-cylinder
regions, this may be the composition of pure air (e.g., 79% nitrogen, 21% oxygen), a mixture of exhaust gas
(for exhaust-gas recirculation) and air, or a pre-mixed charge of pre-vaporized fuel, air, and/or exhaust gas.
• Initial turbulence kinetic-energy density for each computational region. In an internal combustion engine,
the initial turbulence kinetic-energy density (TKEI) is specified as a fraction of the total kinetic energy that
is turbulent kinetic energy, where the total kinetic energy is determined based on the mean piston speed.
In non-engine applications TKEI is the actual turbulent kinetic energy with a value typically about 10% of
the mean flow kinetic energy 0.5* u 2.
• Initial turbulence length scale (TLS) for each computation region. If TLS > 0.0, its value is used to determine
an initial (uniform) value of ε , which will be proportional to the TLS value. If TLS = 0.0, the initial ε value
will instead be proportional to the distance from the cell center to the nearest solid wall.
4.2. Swirl Profiles

In addition to the fluid properties described in Initialization of the Fluid Properties, initial momentum
resulting from swirl flow may be important for some types of simulations. Internal combustion engines
in particular are designed to impart a significant amount of swirl motion into the incoming air. This aids
in turbulent mixing and enhances combustion efficiency. From experimental observation, modelers
have determined that a Bessel function profile for the swirl component of the flow more accurately
represents the flow under IC engine conditions.
Figure 4.1: Bessel-function swirl velocity profile illustrates the Bessel function velocity profile provided
in ANSYS Forte and compares it with a simpler “wheel flow” model that is commonly used in other CFD
representations. The comparison is shown for the same swirl number. The quantity α is a dimensionless
constant that defines the initial azimuthal velocity profile and lies between 0.0 (the wheel flow limit)
and 3.83 (zero velocity at the wall). In Figure 4.1: Bessel-function swirl velocity profile, the Bessel profile
is illustrated for different values of α . The Bessel function profile is defined to give the same angular
momentum as wheel flow with the same swirl number. Thus, higher values of α correspond to the
higher initial slope of the Bessel curve. A value suggested by Wahiduzzaman and Ferguson 74 for typ-
Initial Conditions
ical engine applications is about 3.11. The Bessel function profile in ANSYS Forte is defined such that
it gives the same angular momentum as a wheel-flow profile that has the same swirl number. Thus the
initial slope of the α = 3.11 curve is necessarily higher than the corresponding slope for wheel flow.
A second input quantity is the initial swirl ratio of the air rotation rate to crankshaft rotation rate (i.e.,
rpm). When viewed from the positive z direction (the top of the engine cylinder), the swirl is clockwise
if SWIRL < 0 and counterclockwise if SWIRL > 0.
Figure 4.1: Bessel-function swirl velocity profile
Chapter 5: Discretization and Solution Methods
5.1. Discretization of the Governing Equations
The governing equations are discretized with respect to the spatial coordinates of the system, on a
computational grid based on a control volume approach. In addition, to provide time-accurate solutions,
the equations are further discretized with respect to time following the operator-splitting method.
5.1.1. Temporal Differencing Method

To integrate the equations in time, a temporal differencing of the equations is performed. For a sequence
n n n+ 1
of discrete times t ( n =0, 1, 2,...), the time interval for the next step is given as Δ t = t - t
n
is the time step, and the integer n is referred to as the time “cycle” number. Throughout this docu-
n
mentation, we use a superscript n on a variable to represent “the value at time t ”. Additionally,
n
when we use the abbreviated “ Δ t ” without a superscript, we mean Δ t . Using this notation, the
n+ 1 n
difference approximation to the derivative δ Q/ δ t is the first-order expression: (Q -Q )/ Δ
t.
During time integration, ANSYS Forte employs three stages of solution for each time step. The time
stepping employs the operator-splitting method to separate the chemistry and spray source terms and
the flow transport. The flow transport solution is based on the Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE)
method 4 . The hydrodynamic time step is adaptively controlled to maximize the solution efficiency,
accuracy and stability. The three stages considered are:
1. Stage 1: This stage solves the chemistry and spray source terms in the species and energy transport equa-
tions. The calculation is based on the Lagrangian coordinate in which cells move with the fluid and spray
droplets are followed through collision, oscillation, and break-up processes, along with mass and energy
terms due to the chemistry, gas and spray interactions.
2. Stage 2: A coupled, implicit solution of the acoustic-mode terms, the spray momentum source term, and
the terms due to diffusion of mass, momentum, and energy. This stage of calculation also includes the re-
maining source terms in the turbulence equations. The acoustic-mode terms include the pressure gradient
in the momentum equation and velocity dilation terms in the mass and energy equations.
3. Stage 3: The third stage is a rezone stage, in which the flow field is frozen and then remapped onto a revised
computational mesh after wall motion is accounted for. The convective transport is calculated by moving
the Lagrangian mesh result from stage 2 to the revised mesh relative to the fluid.
5.1.2. Spatial Differencing Method

ANSYS Forte uses the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Euler (ALE) method [27 , 51 ] for spatial differencing of the
governing equations. For 3-D geometries, this considers a mesh consisting of arbitrary hexahedrons. A
control-volume or integral-balance approach 27 is employed, which preserves the local conservation
properties of the differential equations. The computational mesh consists of spatial regions, which are
composed of cells, the corners of which are the vertices. The vertices are allowed to move in an arbit-
rarily prescribed manner, enabling piston and valve motion, for example. In addition, when differencing
Discretization and Solution Methods
the momentum equations, a different control volume, called a momentum cell, is used. The momentum
cells center about the vertices of regular computational cells.
An important advantage of locating the velocities at cell vertices in the ALE method is that this requires
no interpolation when determining vertex motion in the Lagrangian stage of the calculation. However,
classical ALE method solutions are susceptible to parasitic modes in the velocity field. This problem has
been alleviated in FORTÉ by the centering of velocities on cell faces, using the method described by
Amsden 3 . Vertex velocities are retained, and momentum associated with the vertices is conserved,
but normal velocity components on cell faces are used to compute cell volume changes in Stage 2 and
the volume of fluid transported across a cell face in Stage 3. Accelerations of the cell-face velocities due
to pressure gradients are calculated by constructing momentum control volumes centered about the
cell faces. The volume of any momentum control volume are calculated once the volumes of the main
computational cells are determined.
In the finite-difference approximations of ANSYS Forte, primary velocities are located at the vertices,
such that
(5.1)
Thermodynamic quantities, on the other hand, are primarily located at cell centers:
(5.2)
where Q = p, ρ , T, I, or ρ k , as well as k and ε . Quantities needed at points where they are not
primarily located are obtained by averaging neighboring values.
The discretized equations are formed by integrating the differential term in question over the volume
of each cell (or momentum cell). Volume integrals of gradient or divergence terms are usually converted
into surface area integrals using the divergence theorem. The volume integral of a time derivative is
related to the derivative of the integral using Reynolds’ transport theorem 70 . Volume and surface area
integrals are performed under the assumption that the integrands are uniform within cells or on cell
faces. In this way, area integrals over surfaces of cells are represented as summations over cell faces (or
sub-faces):
(5.3)
When differencing diffusion terms for a cell-centered quantity Q , it is necessary to evaluate (∇ Q ) α ⋅

A α . Explanation of this calculation requires reference to Figure 5.1: The six points used to define the
gradient of cell-centered quantity Q on cell face α . , where the points x l and x r refer to the centers
of the cells on either side of face α , and x t , x b , x f and x d are the centers of the four edges
bounding face α . We first solve for coefficients a l r , a tb , and a fd such that
(5.4)
Note that since the mesh may be non-orthogonal, the vector x l - x r is not necessarily parallel to A
α , and thus a tb and a fd may be nonzero. The finite-difference approximation to (∇ Q ) α ⋅ A α is
obtained by applying a dot product with (∇ Q ) α on both sides of both sides of Equation 5.4 with (∇
Q ) α and neglecting terms that are second- and higher-order in the cell dimensions:
(5.5)
In Equation 5.5 Q t is a simple average of the values of Q in the four cells surrounding cell edge “ t, ”
and Q b , Q f , and Q d are defined analogously, relative to edge “b”, “f”, and “d”.
SIMPLE Method
Area integrals over momentum cell faces are ordinarily converted into area integrals over regular cell
faces. This procedure is explained by considering a quantity Q that is uniform within the regular cells,
and then consider the volume of overlap between a regular cell ( i, j, k ) and the momentum cell asso-
ciated with one of its vertices. Three faces of this overlap volume (for example, a,b,c ) are faces of the
momentum cell in question, with outward area vectors A ’ α , while the other three (e.g., d,e,f ) are
surfaces of the regular cell ( i, j, k ), with outward area vectors ¼ A α . The divergence theorem shows
that the integral over the entire surface of this overlap volume is zero, such that:
(5.6)
In this way, the integral over the three momentum cell faces in question is represented by
(5.7)
and the area vectors A ’ a do not need to be explicitly evaluated. A similar procedure is used to
express the outward normal areas A ” a of faces of the cell-face control volumes in terms of the
regular cell face areas A a .
Figure 5.1: The six points used to define the gradient of cell-centered quantity Q on cell face α
.
5.2. SIMPLE Method

ANSYS Forte employs implicit methods in solving the algebraic finite-volume equations that result from
the differencing methods described in Discretization of the Governing Equations . The advantages of
implicit methods are:
1. In transient (unsteady) flow calculations, the time-step size is limited by the temporal accuracy desired,
not by stability constraints that are typical of explicit methods.
2. When temporal accuracy is not desired, steady states can be achieved much more quickly by using large
time steps.
Specifically, ANSYS Forte uses a modified version of the SIMPLE method 49 , which is a two-step iterative
procedure used to solve for the flow field variables. Velocities at each time step in the numerical simu-
lation need to be computed from time-advanced pressure gradients. This requires an iterative solution
procedure, because the time-advanced pressures depend on accelerations and the velocities computed
from the pressures. The SIMPLE method extrapolates the pressure, iteratively solves for velocities, then
temperature, and finally the pressure.
Within the ANSYS Forte 3-stage time-step advance procedure, Stage 2 involves selecting a predicted
value of the pressure p b . The pressure field is then frozen during solution of other flow quantities
where diffusion terms are handled fully implicitly. Then the resulting values of the diffusion terms are
frozen and we solve for the corrected pressure field using equations that difference the pressure terms
implicitly. In the second step of this iteration ANSYS Forte simultaneously solves the cell-face velocity
equations, the volume change equations, and a linearized form of the equation of state. By algebraically
eliminating the volumes and cell-face velocities from these equations in favor of the pressures, we are
essentially solving a Poisson equation for the pressure in this step. Next, the predicted and corrected
pressures are compared. If they agree to within a specified convergence tolerance, the equations have
been solved, and we proceed to Stage 3. If the difference between the pressure fields exceeds the
convergence tolerance, the corrected pressure field becomes the new predicted pressure field, and we
return to the first step of the iteration and repeat the process. Each pass through the two steps is referred
to as an outer iteration.
The mass fractions are used in the calculation of the Stage 2 pressure, but the values of the Stage 2
pressures and velocities do not influence the solution of the mass fractions. Thus the species diffusion
terms are solved to update the species mass fractions before beginning the outer iteration This results
in a considerable computational time savings over other schemes, such as those that calculate implicit
convection during the SIMPLE iteration and which include the mass fraction equations in the outer iter-
ation. We often have many chemical species (10s to 100s) in our combustion applications, such that
solving species and mass equations in the outer iteration would greatly increase computational times.
For the Stage 2 calculation of k and ε , the flow field influences their values through the turbulence
production terms after completion of the outer iteration. The finite-difference equations have been
derived in such a way as to assure this one-way coupling. Mathematically, the values of k and ε influence
the flow through the turbulent diffusivity and the turbulent pressure . This coupling could be ac-
counted for by using Stage 2 values of k and ε to evaluate the turbulent diffusivity and but this
would greatly increase computational times and is not necessary for stability. Furthermore, it is usually
not necessary for accuracy when time steps are used that satisfy the stability constraints. For the ANSYS
Forte implementation of the SIMPLE method, then, the only equations in the outer iteration are the
momentum equation, internal energy equation, and the pressure equation.
5.2.1. Convective Flux Discretization

Convection terms are solved using the quasi-second-order upwind (QSOU) method, as described by
Amsden, et al. 4 .
In ANSYS Forte, convection is calculated in Stage 3 in a sub-cycled explicit fashion that offers some
significant advantages over implicit methods. Furthermore, because the equations for the species mass
fractions, k and ε are weakly coupled to the flow-field solution, these equations are not included in
the outer iteration.
Chemistry Solver Options
5.3. Chemistry Solver Options

One of the major strengths of ANSYS Forte is its ability to handle realistic fuel-combustion mechanisms
that include large numbers of species and reactions, within simulation times that are practical for design.
This is accomplished through a number of unique and proprietary solver components within the Forte
chemistry solver.
The use of large detailed chemical kinetics to model fuel combustion gives rise to a large system of
stiff nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODEs). In traditional CFD solution approaches, this can
result in very long CPU times. To overcome this CPU time barrier, ANSYS Forte employs several advanced
solution strategies that drastically improve the chemistry solution efficiency by two to three orders of
magnitude without compromise of accuracy. The solution techniques include a dynamic adaptive
chemistry (DAC) method [33 , 34 ], a dynamic cell clustering (DCC) method 35 and an advanced propri-
etary sparse-matrix solution methodology developed at Reaction Design. The DAC and DCC methods
are enabled by the use of an operator splitting approach to solving the species-conservation and energy
equations, which is described in Operator Splitting Method and Parallel Implementation . The DAC and
DCC methods are then described in Dynamic Adaptive Chemistry and Dynamic Cell Clustering , respect-
ively.
5.3.1. Operator Splitting Method and Parallel Implementation

ANSYS Forte employs an advanced operator-splitting method to solve the species-conservation and
energy-conservation equations for time-accurate transient simulations. This method splits the transport
equation into two sub-equations and solves the sub-equations with overlapping time-steps; the first
step handles the kinetics and the second step handles the transport (e.g., diffusion or convection). The
chemistry solver described in this section handles the first step. For this step, the calculation is performed
on a cell-by-cell basis, allowing coupling of all of the species and energy together, since the transport
terms are handled only in the second step. The transport of the species (i.e., the second step) is then
handled using the methods described in SIMPLE Method . With the source term being handled by an
advanced chemistry solver, the CFD step is well behaved and can proceed using reasonable time-step
values that are limited only by the desired transport accuracy.
To illustrate the method using equations, we first define the full species equation that we want to solve
in each cell in the computational domain as:
(5.8)
where is the net production rate of species k due to all chemical reactions that occur in that cell,
V cell is the volume of the cell, ρ is the mass density of the fluid, Y k is the species mass fraction, C j
represents the convective mass flow of the species into a cell from neighboring cell j , and D j is the
diffusive mass flow of the species into a cell from the j th neighboring cell. Note that this equation is
simplified just to illustrate the operator-splitting methodology.
We can approximate the time derivative on the left-hand-side of Equation 5.8 , for a discrete time step,
t , so that the equation becomes:
(5.9)
where the superscript “ n ” represents evaluation of the terms at the new time and “ o ” represents
evaluation at the old time. With the convective terms and the production terms all evaluated at the
new time, the equation is fully implicit and fully coupled within the cell. Equation 5.9 can be rearranged
to solve for the new value of the species mass fraction as:
(5.10)
Now, since it is extremely difficult to solve this equation exactly, we choose to split the equation by
letting:
(5.11)
(5.12)
In this way, we lose some implicitness in the chemistry production term, but we gain the fact that
Equation 5.11 is now solved for each cell independently with no influence of the neighboring cells. This
allows efficient solution of all of the species simultaneously instead of equation by equation. With op-
erator splitting, the first step balances production and destruction of chemical kinetics against the time-
rate-of-change of the species in a cell, neglecting transport into or out of the cell. In this step the
solution algorithm couples all species calculations together within each cell. In this calculation, there
is no transport into or out of the cell, such that each cell can be considered independently of the others.
As a result of this “half” step, the chemistry solver returns a new map of species concentrations over
all cells, before transport occurs. The second step allows species to transport into/out of the cell, solving
each species one at a time, but over all cells simultaneously. In this “half” step there is no further pro-
duction or destruction of the species (i.e., there are no chemical source terms in this sub-step); only
transport terms are considered.
The key advantage to the operator splitting is that in the first “half-step”, the solution of the net species
production rates due to chemical reaction is achieved on a cell-by-cell basis. On this basis, we solve for
all of the species simultaneously with temperature, which means that the equations are fully coupled.
The second advantage is that we can apply a state-of-the-art ordinary-differential equation (ODE) solver
to the task of integrating the stiff simultaneous equations within each cell. The operator-splitting approach
allows each algorithm to do what it does best. The transport algorithm is applied to transport in time;
the stiff kinetic solver is applied to net production/destruction due to kinetics and resulting change of
species in a “closed” system with time. The “sub-cycling” or integration of the species equation over
the specified transport time-step is done very efficiently using ANSYS Forte's advanced, proprietary ODE
solver that performs adaptive time-stepping with strict error control to assure a highly accurate solution
in the most efficient time. The adaptive (sub) time steps are adjusted based on the largest rate of change
for any species or temperature. The key advantage of this method is the adaptive selection of time step
and sophistication in resolving both the trace and major species in the chemistry step. Furthermore the
proprietary ODE solution strategy takes advantage of the sparsity of the species-to-species reaction
matrix in a typical combustion mechanism to further gain major efficiency benefits.
ANSYS Forte also takes advantage of the operator-splitting method through implementation of parallel
solution for the cell-by cell calculations on a parallel platform. In such cases, the chemistry calculation
is easily load balanced over any number of processors.
5.3.2. Dynamic Adaptive Chemistry

The Dynamic Adaptive Chemistry method also takes advantage of the operator-splitting method described
above in Operator Splitting Method and Parallel Implementation , by focusing on the local conditions
of each cell. This method performs on-the-fly mechanism reduction for each local condition prior to
solving the chemistry terms in the transient chemistry integration step of the operator-splitting method.
Chemistry Solver Options
The reduction is dynamically applied cell-by-cell (or cluster-by-cluster if the Dynamic Cell Clustering
method is used) at each time step. In this way the dynamic chemistry solution often uses locally valid,
smaller mechanisms instead of the full mechanism, causing significant time savings for the overall
transient integration.
To ensure validity over a wide range of thermochemical conditions, comprehensive kinetic mechanisms
for the combustion of realistic fuels typically include hundreds of species and thousands of elementary
reactions. However, much smaller subsets of species and reactions often are adequate to capture the
dominant reaction pathways for specific, local conditions over a short time span (typically taken to be
the hydrodynamic time step in CFD calculations). To make use of this fact, the dynamic adaptive
chemistry (DAC) method reduces the comprehensive detailed mechanism to locally valid smaller
mechanisms. This operation is performed on the fly (i.e., during the dynamic simulation, at every time
step). It is based on a skeletal mechanism-reduction method called Directed-Relation-Graph with Error
Propagation (DRGEP) 38 method, which offers very efficient and very accurate reduction.
Given a detailed kinetic mechanism and a specific thermochemical state X( T, p, yk ), where k is the
species index ( k =1, , K ) and yk is the mass fraction of species k , the directed relation graphs in the
DRGEP method are constructed such that one vertex (species) is connected to all others by directed
edges. These edges are weighted by the immediate dependence of one species on another. This de-
pendence is quantified by the normalized contribution of species B to A , defined by
(5.13)
where i is the reaction index ( i =1, …, I ), υ Ai is the stoichiometric coefficient of species A in the i th
reaction, and ω i is the progress variable of reaction i . r AB is a measure of the error introduced to the
production rate of A due to elimination of all the reactions that contain B . Certain species deemed of
primary importance are selected as initial species in the reduced mechanism. Then starting from each
of these pre-selected initial species, a breadth-first search (BFS) is performed to identify the species on
which the initial species depends to form a subsidiary set. Consequently, the union of the subsidiary
sets of all the initial species forms the active species set of the reduced mechanism. Thus the mechanism
reduction is equivalent to identifying vertices to which there exist “strong” paths that connect them to
a vertex in the initial set.
The strength of the connection between the species being visited and the initial species diminishes as
we proceed along a path. This diminution can be used to control the search depth. To quantify the
decreasing dependence, an “ R -value” is defined at each vertex V with reference to the initial vertex
V 0:
(5.14)
where Ω is the set of all possible paths leading from V 0 to V , and Π r ij is the chain product of the
weights of the edges along the given path. Based on this definition, vertex V will be marked as
“reachable” if R V 0(V) is larger than a user-defined threshold value ε R . Thus, all the reachable vertices
starting from V 0 constitute the subsidiary set of V 0 , and the union of such sets gives the species
that are active in the reduced mechanism. This method has been tested on both diesel and gasoline
surrogate fuels in Liang et al. [33 , 34 ]. The studies proved that {fuel, CO and HO2} is an effective choice
for the search-initiating species set, and suggested that ε R be set in the range of 10 -5 to 10 -4 . Both
the search-initiating species set and the search threshold are provided as user inputs in ANSYS Forte
(Initial Species and Search Tolerance, respectively).
The DRGEP method extracts a group of active species for the existing local thermochemical conditions.
Consequently, a reaction is included in the reduced mechanism only if all the reactants and products
are active species (third bodies are not counted as participants). Species not in the active set are treated
as inactive, with their mass fractions kept fixed. Given a system that involves m active and n inactive
species , where the superscripts “ a ” and “ i ” denote active and inactive
species, respectively, the formulation can be expressed as
(5.15)
In Equation 5.15 Equation 5-15 , ordinary differential equations are formulated with respect to only
active species. When the rate functions are evaluated, however, all the species are considered, thus
eliminating the need to include the third-body species in the reduced mechanisms.
5.3.3. Dynamic Cell Clustering

In the operator-splitting method for transient simulation, the chemistry-solution portion of the species
equations are solved on a cell-by-cell basis. As a result, the equations solved are independent of the
mass and volume of a specific cell. In this way, cells that have the same temperature, pressure, and
initial species mass fractions will yield the same result. To take advantage of this fact, ANSYS Forte uses
a Dynamic Cell Clustering (DCC) method to group computational cells of high similarity into clusters
using an efficient data-clustering method and that requires solution of the kinetic equations only once
for each cluster. The optimal number of clusters is dynamically determined for each CFD time step. The
clustering algorithm is solely based on the cells' thermochemical states and is independent of their
locations in the CFD mesh. In addition, the clustering algorithm is highly automated and requires min-
imal user-provided inputs. For typical hydrocarbon combustion computation, cell temperature and
equivalence ratio are employed as the clustering indices. The only user-provided control parameters
are the maximum dispersions of temperature and equivalence ratio allowable in each cluster. Smaller
values will result in a larger number of clusters.
The DCC method includes three major steps: (1) grouping cells into clusters using an evolutionary data-
clustering algorithm; (2) solving chemical kinetic equations based on cluster averaged state variables;
and (3) mapping the cluster averaged solution back to the individual cells while preserving the initial
temperature and species stratification.
In ANSYS Forte, if only one clustering feature is selected, temperature will be the feature. If two features
are selected, both temperature and equivalence ratio will be used by default.
Chapter 6: Spray Models
ANSYS Forte includes advanced models to simulate multi-component fuel-spray dynamics and spray
interactions with flowing multi-component gases. The modeled sub-processes include: nozzle flow,
spray atomization, droplet breakup, droplet collision and coalescence, droplet vaporization, and wall
impingement. Different sub-models are applied to represent the spray atomization and droplet breakup
processes of solid-cone sprays and hollow-cone sprays, respectively. For solid-cone sprays, the initial
spray conditions at a nozzle exit are determined through either a discharge coefficient or a nozzle-flow
model, and the Kelvin-Helmholtz / Rayleigh-Taylor (KH/RT) model 9 is used for droplet breakup. For
hollow-cone sprays, both the spray initialization and breakup processes are represented by the Linearized
Instability Sheet Atomization (LISA) model 60 . Other spray sub-models are shared by both solid-cone
and hollow-cone spray simulations.
The spray-atomization, droplet-breakup and droplet-collision models in ANSYS Forte employ several
advanced techniques that minimize the dependency of results on mesh size and time-step size. For
solid-cone sprays, an unsteady gas-jet breakup model is used by default. For both solid-cone and hollow-
cone models, additional options include a radius-of-influence (ROI) collision model and a collision mesh
method. Reducing the mesh-size and time-step dependency enables accurate solutions with less com-
putational time compared to conventional spray models, by allowing a coarser mesh near the nozzle
and larger time steps during spray injection.
This chapter is organized to provide information on the main sub-models used by the various spray
options. Solid-Cone Spray Models describes the solid-cone spray model, which is most often used for
diesel-spray injection, while Hollow-Cone Spray Models describes the hollow-cone spray model. Sub-
models specific to these types of sprays are included within these sections. Droplet Collision and Coales-
cence Model provides information regarding additional options that are available for both types of
sprays. Multi-Component Droplet Vaporization Model describes the multi-component vaporization
model and Wall Impingement Model the wall-impingement model.
6.1. Solid-Cone Spray Models

To initialize the spray for solid-cone injections, there are two options: use of an empirical nozzle discharge
coefficient and use of a nozzle-flow model to determine nozzle discharge characteristics. These options
are described in Nozzle Flow Model . Following this discussion are details on the Kelvin-Helmholtz /
Rayleigh-Taylor droplet-breakup models in Kelvin-Helmholtz / Rayleigh-Taylor Breakup Model , and the
unsteady gas-jet model in Unsteady Gas-Jet Model .
6.1.1. Nozzle Flow Model

The nozzle-flow model describes the instantaneous flow conditions inside the nozzle. The purpose of
the nozzle-flow model is to provide initial conditions for the spray model. The input parameters to the
nozzle-flow model are:
1. mass flow rate
2. ambient gas pressure
Spray Models
3. physical properties of the liquid fuel
4. geometrical hole diameter
5. L/D ratio (see Figure 6.1: Flow through nozzle passage )
6. R/D ratio, where R is the radius of curvature of the injector entrance region (see Figure 6.1: Flow through
nozzle passage )
Using these inputs, the nozzle-flow model determines the instantaneous discharge coefficient (Cd),
spray angle, effective injection velocity and effective flow exit area. The flow exit area is then used to
determine the initial injected liquid droplet size.
Figure 6.1: Flow through nozzle passage
6.1.1.1. Discharge coefficient

The volumetric mean flow velocity of the liquid fuel at the inlet of the nozzle passage, , can be
calculated as
(6.1)
where is fuel mass flow rate, is liquid fuel density, A is nozzle cross-sectional area, and D is nozzle
diameter.
The mean mass flow through the nozzle exit is always lower than that predicted by the Bernoulli
equation, because of flow losses. The losses are caused by the acceleration and formation of the velocity
profile at the inlet, the expansion after the vena contracta, and the wall friction. To quantify this difference,
the discharge coefficient, , is defined as:
(6.2)
where p 1 and p 2 are pressures at location 1 and 2, respectively, in Figure 6.1: Flow through nozzle
passage .
Solid-Cone Spray Models
By using tabulated inlet loss coefficients ( K inlet) and the Blasius or the laminar equation for wall friction,
the discharge coefficient is given by:
(6.3)
with f defined as
(6.4)
and Re D is the Reynolds number based on nozzle diameter.
A first estimation of the inlet pressure, p 1 , for a turbulent flow yields:
(6.5)
Next ANSYS Forte checks whether the flow under this condition is already cavitating. Assuming a flat
velocity profile, and using Nurick’s expression for the size of the contraction (Figure 6.1: Flow through
nozzle passage ), continuity gives the velocity at the smallest flow area:
(6.6)
(6.7)
In the case of cavitation the potential flow theory allows the application of the Bernoulli equation from
point 1 to c without any losses:
(6.8)
If p vena is lower than vapor pressure p vapor, it is assumed that the flow must be fully cavitating and a
new inlet pressure and discharge coefficient are calculated by:
(6.9)
(6.10)
6.1.1.2. Effective Injection Velocity and Effective Flow Exit Area

In the cases of non-cavitating turbulent flows, the exit velocity of the droplets is set equal to the mean
velocity, U mean, and the diameter of the jet at the nozzle exit is equal to the nozzle diameter.
When the nozzle is cavitating, those values are calculated as:
(6.11)
(6.12)
(6.13)
Spray Models
6.1.1.3. Spray Angle

The spray angle in the nozzle flow model is estimated using an aerodynamic model. This approach is
based on Taylor’s analysis of high-speed liquid breakup due to the unstable growth of surface waves
and the resulting mass shedding. In this approach, the spray angle, , is expressed as:
(6.14)
Where A is 3+0.28( L/D) and L/D is the length-to-diameter ratio of the nozzle. The function f(T) is
approximated by
(6.15)
6.1.1.4. Empirical Nozzle Discharge Coefficient and Spray Angle

Instead of applying the nozzle-flow model, the user can also specify empirical constant values for dis-
charge coefficient and spray angle. The empirical discharge coefficient is then used to calculate the ef-
fective injection velocity and initial drop size at the nozzle exit.
6.1.2. Kelvin-Helmholtz / Rayleigh-Taylor Breakup Model

The spray atomization and droplet breakup of solid-cone sprays are modeled by the Kelvin-Helmholtz
/ Rayleigh-Taylor (KH /RT) hybrid breakup model [9 , 66 ]. Figure 6.2: KH/RT breakup model for solid-
cone sprays delineates the way the KH/RT breakup models are applied. The KH breakup model is applied
within a specified Breakup Length, L , from the nozzle exit (region A). It strips small droplets off the jet
(represented by parent parcels, or “blobs”), but the jet still maintains itself as a dense liquid core. Beyond
the Breakup Length (region B), the RT model is used in conjunction with the KH model to predict sec-
ondary break-up [75 , 9 ].
Figure 6.2: KH/RT breakup model for solid-cone sprays
6.1.2.1. Kelvin-Helmholtz Breakup

The Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) model is based on linear stability analysis of a liquid jet 32 and is used to
model the jet’s primary breakup 56 region. From the linear stability analysis any perturbation applied
to a liquid-gas interface can be expanded as a Fourier series, with its fastest growing mode contributing
to the eventual breakup and generation of new droplets. The growth rate and wave length of the
fastest growing mode was found numerically 56 to be:
(6.16)
(6.17)
Here is the wave length of the fastest growing wave, is its growth rate, r p is the jet radius,
is surface tension, the dimensionless gas Weber number We g is defined as:
(6.18)
with U rel being the magnitude of the liquid-gas relative velocity:

(6.19)
Here is the CFD gas-phase velocity. Similarly, the liquid Weber number is defined as:
Spray Models
(6.20)
and the dimensionless Ohnesorge number is:
(6.21)
The Reynolds number is defined as:
(6.22)
where is the dynamic viscosity of the liquid. The last dimensionless number is the Taylor number:
(6.23)
The radius of new droplets (denoted as r c ), which are created during the primary breakup process,
is related to the wave length as follows:
(6.24)
where is the Size Constant of the KH breakup model.
ANSYS Forte employs the concept of “ blob injection” 57 , in which the liquid-jet injection is represented
with parcels of blobs that have their initial characteristic sizes equal to the effective nozzle diameter.
Using this concept, primary breakup is modeled as a process where new droplets (with radius r c ) are
formed from parent droplets (with radius r p ). The radius change of the parent droplet due to mass
lost to its “child” droplets is described by the rate equation 57 :
(6.25)
where r c is less than or equal to r p . Here, the breakup time scale is calculated as:
(6.26)
In Equation 6.26 , is the Time Constant of KH breakup. This is a user-controlled input for which a
general-purpose default value is provided in ANSYS Forte.
In general it is impractical to track each droplet formed from the parent droplet. Using the “droplets in
parcel” concept, new droplets cannot leave their parent parcel until their mass reaches or exceeds 3%
of the average injected parcel mass. The new droplets are then grouped into a “shed parcel” (or child
parcel) that is separated from its parent. This parcel-shedding process helps to predict a realistic droplet
size distribution in the primary breakup region. Also, as the number of parcels is increased, the local
statistical resolution is improved. The value 3% is provided as a default model constant in ANSYS Forte,
which may be adjusted to change the size-distribution resolution.
In summary, the KH breakup model involves two steps: the first step gradually reduces the parent
droplet size by the rate equation (Equation 6.25 ); the second step creates a new parcel from the parent.
During the second breakup step, two different options can be used to determine the droplet sizes and
the number of droplets in the parent-child parcels.
• In the first option, the number of droplets in the parent parcel will remain the same before and after the
breakup. The size of the droplets in the parent parcel will simply be adjusted based on the mass taken away
by the child parcel. This is the default option used in ANSYS Forte.
• In the second option, it is argued that the second breakup step involves a numerical regrouping of droplets
and is not an actual breakup event. Therefore, in addition to mass conservation of parent-child parcels, the
original Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) is also conserved. Imposing this SMD conservation constraint typically
leads to a slower breakup rate.
6.1.2.2. Rayleigh-Taylor Breakup

Beyond the Breakup Length from the nozzle exit, the Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) model is used together with
the KH model to predict secondary breakup of spray droplets [66 , 9 ]. The “ breakup length ” is predicted
by Levich's theory 32 as:
(6.27)
in which C b is called the RT Distance constant in ANSYS Forte. The RT model is applied beyond the
RT Distance constant times the Breakup Length from the nozzle exit.
The RT model considers the instability generated when two fluids with different densities accelerate in
a direction that is perpendicular to their interface. The frequency and wavelength of the fastest-growing
wave are given by Bellman 10 as:
(6.28)
(6.29)
In the case of a high-speed droplet moving in air, a is the deceleration due to drag. As in the KH
model, this fastest growing wave is assumed to lead to the breakup of droplets. The radius of the newly-
formed droplet and the time of breakup are predicted as:
(6.30)
(6.31)
in which B RT , C RT are two constants. B RT is the Size Constant of RT Breakup. C RT is the Time
Constant of RT Breakup. Unlike the KH model, the standard implementation of the RT model does not
strip small child droplets off from their parent; instead, a catastrophic breakup of the parent droplet
into small droplets is assumed, and the liquid column is eventually disintegrated and dispersed into
the ambient gas.
To reduce the time step dependency of the RT model, the RT breakup process is modeled by a rate
equation similar to that of the KH model, Equation 6.25 :
(6.32)
in which r c is predicted by Equation 6.30 . The parent droplet breaks up continuously at each time
step, and the time-step dependency is avoided. Assuming r c and does not change with time,
Equation 6.32 can be solved analytically as:
Spray Models
(6.33)
Here r p,0 is the radius of parent droplet at the start of break-up. Thus, is the characteristic time
required to break the parent droplet.
In practice, neither rate equation (Equation 6.25 ) nor (Equation 6.32 ) can be solved analytically, since
both r c and and (or ) change with time, r p and U rel can change significantly. Therefore, a
sub-cycle approach is used to solve these rate equations to eliminate time-step dependency.
6.1.3. Unsteady Gas-Jet Model

Any mesh-dependency of the KH-RT breakup model is mainly due to the calculation of the liquid-gas
relative velocity U rel in Equation 6.19 , in which is taken to be the CFD cell gas velocity. In ANSYS
Forte, the unsteady gas jet model [2 , 56 , 79 ] is used to remove this mesh-size dependency for the liquid
droplet-ambient gas coupling. The gas-jet model is based on unsteady gas-jet theory 1 , in which the
axial droplet-gas relative velocity is modeled without use of discretization on the CFD mesh (Figure 6.3: Un-
steady gas-jet model ).
Figure 6.3: Unsteady gas-jet model
In the gas-jet model, the jet tip develops with respect to time according to:
(6.34)
where x is jet tip penetration, y is the local spray-axial location of the particle, K is an entrainment
constant, U inf,eff is the " effective injection velocity", d eq is the equivalent diameter which is related
to nozzle diameter d noz and liquid-gas density ratio by:
(6.35)
The downstream spray-axial location x 0 marks the start of jet-velocity decay and is calculated as:
(6.36)
The effective injection velocity is determined as an integral of the response to changes of the injection
speed from the start of injection t 0 to the current time t :
(6.37)
The response function R takes the form:
(6.38)
where is a response time scale, which is related to the local flow time scale by a Stokes number:
(6.39)
This assumption is justified by the fact that a fluid particle responds to a change in the surrounding
gas velocity exponentially 14 . The time scale of the response is determined by how long the local fluid
particle has resided in the flow and by the local spray-axial location of the particle (denoted as y ).
The local gas-jet speed along the spray-axis direction is correspondingly calculated as:
(6.40)
Assuming axis symmetry, the gas-jet velocity at any radial location r within the jet cross-section can
be calculated as 2 :
(6.41)
Using the gas-jet velocity in Equation 6.41 , the droplet-gas relative motion is modeled
as:
where is the droplet velocity vector, C D is the drag coefficient, is the local gas-phase turbulent
fluctuating velocity vector, and is acceleration due to gravity. is the gas-phase mean flow velocity
with the axial component corrected by Equation 6.41 . The radial and azimuthal components are retained,
so that other flow velocity components are not influenced.
The gas-jet-corrected relative velocity U rel :

(6.42)
only applies beyond a distance x 0 from the nozzle. In the near-nozzle region ( y < x 0 ), where the
droplet velocity is very close to the injection velocity, a parabolic profile is used, which merges with
Spray Models
the profile for y > x 0 (see Figure 6.4: Effective injection velocity in the unsteady gas-jet model. ), such
that the jet velocity is:
(6.43)
in which is a constant with a fixed value of 0.6. Applying the parabolic entrained gas-jet velocity
profile along the spray axis is very effective in reducing the mesh-size dependency of the breakup
models.
In ANSYS Forte, the Gas Entrainment Constant K in Equation 6.34 is a user-defined input. A larger value
of K promotes gas entrainment and thus reduces spray penetration length. In addition, the Effective
Distance Factor is a non-dimensional distance factor used to control the effective range of the gas jet
model. The actual effective distance is this factor times the breakup length and is measured from nozzle
exit to the spray droplets.
Figure 6.4: Effective injection velocity in the unsteady gas-jet model.
6.2. Hollow-Cone Spray Models

Hollow-cone sprays are typically created by pressure-swirl injectors. The injector contains internal swirl
vanes that produce rotational motion in the liquid. The liquid forms a film along the inside walls of the
injector with an air core in the center. The liquid film becomes a free sheet when exiting the injector,
and the tangential velocity of the liquid becomes radial. As the radial distance from the centerline to
the sheet increases, the rotation decreases due to conservation of angular momentum. Additionally,
because of the conservation of mass, the sheet thins as it progresses, and subsequently disintegrates
into droplets, forming a hollow cone spray. Once droplets are formed, their behavior is governed by
secondary breakup, drag, collision, coalescence and vaporization.
Hollow-Cone Spray Models
The modeled processes in ANSYS Forte are sketched in Figure 6.5: Modeled processes in a hollow-cone
spray. . Both inwardly-opening (with an air core but no pintle) and outwardly opening (with a pintle
but no air core) are considered. These two sub-models governing the behavior of these sprays are de-
scribed in the following sub-sections.
Figure 6.5: Modeled processes in a hollow-cone spray.
6.2.1. Linearized Instability Sheet Atomization (LISA) Model

The transition from internal injector flow to a fully developed hollow-cone spray is modeled using the
linearized instability sheet atomization (LISA) model 60 . In the LISA model, the process is divided into
three stages:
1. Film formation
2. Sheet breakup
3. Atomization
The modeling of each of these stages is described in the following sub-sections.
6.2.1.1. Film Formation

The centrifugal motion of the liquid within the injector creates a liquid film surrounding an air core.
The thickness of the film, t f , is related to the mass flow rate, , by
(6.44)
where is the liquid density, u the axial component of velocity at the injector exit, d 0 the injector
hole diameter. u is related to the total velocity U by
(6.45)
where the cone half-angle is a user-specified input parameter for a specific injector. The total velocity
U is related to the pressure drop across the injector exit by
Spray Models
(6.46)
Based on similarity considerations between swirl ports and nozzles, the discharge coefficient k v is set
to a fixed value, 0.7, but to guarantee that the size of the air core is non-negative, the following expres-
sion is used for k v ,
(6.47)
6.2.1.2. Sheet Breakup

The sheet-breakup model assumes that a two-dimensional, viscous, incompressible liquid sheet of
thickness 2h moves with velocity U through a quiescent, invisid, incompressible gas medium. A spectrum
of infinitesimal disturbances of the form
(6.48)
is imposed on the initially steady motion and produces fluctuating velocities and pressures for both
the liquid and the gas, where is the initial wave amplitude, is the wave number, and
is the complex growth rate of the surface disturbances. The most unstable disturbance has the largest
value of , denoted by , and is assumed to be responsible for sheet breakup. Thus, it is desired to
obtain a dispersion relation from which the most unstable disturbance can be deduced.
Two solutions that satisfy the liquid governing equations subject to the boundary conditions at the
upper and lower interfaces 62 . For the first solution, called the sinuous mode, the waves at both surfaces
are exactly in phase. For the second solution, the so-called varicose mode, the waves are radians out
of phase. Typically the sinuous mode is sufficient for representing engine conditions, and thus a simplified
form of the dispersion relation for pressure-swirl atomizers is used:
(6.49)
Here is the liquid kinematic viscosity, Q is the gas/liquid density ratio , and is the surface
tension.
Once the unstable waves on the sheet surface grow to a critical amplitude, ligaments are formed due
to the sheet breakup. The breakup time for this process is formulated based on an analogy with the
breakup length of cylindrical liquid jets, i.e.,
(6.50)
where is the critical amplitude at breakup, Ω is found by numerically maximizing Equation 6.49 as a
function of k . The corresponding breakup length L is estimated by
(6.51)
where the quantity is given a constant value 12. Based on a mass balance, the resulting
ligament diameter at the point of breakup is derived as
(6.52)
Hollow-Cone Spray Models
where K s is the wave number corresponding to the maximum growth rate, Ω. Based on the assumption
that the sheet is in the form of a cone with its vertex at a point behind the injector orifice, the sheet
half-thickness h at the breakup position L , is approximately
(6.53)
where
(6.54)
Assuming that breakup occurs when the amplitude of the most unstable wave is equal to the radius
of the ligament d L , then a mass balance gives the drop size d D
(6.55)
where the most unstable wavelength K L is given by
(6.56)
based on an analogy to Weber’s result for growing waves on cylindrical, viscous liquid columns.
6.2.1.3. Atomization
As a consequence of the sheet breakup process described above, fuel droplets are introduced into the
computational domain with certain initial conditions. Subsequently, the droplets are subject to secondary
breakup (modeled using the Taylor-Analog-Breakup model), collision and coalescence, aerodynamic
drag, vaporization, and wall impingement. The models used to describe the atomization physics are
described in the following sections.
6.2.2. Taylor-Analog-Breakup Model

The Taylor-Analog-Breakup (TAB) model 48 is used to model the secondary breakup of the droplets in
hollow-cone sprays. The TAB model exploits an analogy between a distorted droplet and an oscillating
spring-mass-system. The external forces acting on the mass, the restoring force of the spring, and the
damping force are analogous to the gas aerodynamic force, the liquid surface tension force, and the
liquid viscosity force, respectively. The force balance on the droplet gives
(6.57)
where t is time, y is the normalized (by the drop radius) drop distortion parameter, σ is the surface
tension coefficient, and the subscripts g and l denote the gas and liquid phase, respectively. It is assumed
that breakup occurs if and only if y > 1 48 . When this condition is satisfied, the droplet breaks up into
smaller children droplets with sizes determined by an energy balance taken before (subscript 1) and
after (subscript 2) the breakup as
(6.58)
Spray Models
In ANSYS Forte’s TAB model used in the present study, the droplet size after breakup, r 2 , is assumed
to follow a Rosin-Rammler distribution 4 .
6.3. Droplet Collision and Coalescence Model

Droplet collision and coalescence are important physical phenomena in dense sprays. The model of
O’Rourke 48 identified three primary collision outcomes:
1. Permanent coalescence
2. “Grazing” (drops separate after collision, possibly forming satellite droplets)
3. Shattering
Munnannur and Reitz 41 suggested several additional collision outcomes:
1. Bounce
2. Stretching
3. Reflexive separation
Which outcome occurs depends on forces acting on the coalesced pair of droplets. At low Weber
numbers, surface forces dominate over liquid inertia forces, and the droplets coalesce permanently. At
higher Weber numbers, the liquid inertia forces become more important and the grazing collisions occur.
With further increase of Weber number, the dominant liquid inertia forces cause shattering of the col-
liding droplets, forming a group of small droplets.
All of the outcomes listed above are in ANSYS Forte to provide accurate predictions of the results of a
successful collision.
The probable number of collisions of the two colliding droplet parcels can be written as:
(6.59)
in which N 1and N 2 are the numbers of droplets within the two parcels, r 1 and r 2 are the droplets
radii, and V col is the control volume in which the parcels are allowed to collide.
6.3.1. Radius of Influence (ROI) Collision Model

In the collision model of O’Rourke, 48 spray particles are allowed to collide only if they reside in the
same computational cell. In a cylindrical mesh, the cell size around the spray axis can be very small,
preventing collisions from occurring.
The Radius-of-Influence (ROI) collision model 41 is used in ANSYS Forte to remove both mesh-size de-
pendency and time-step dependency for the droplet collision process. In the ROI method, one particle
is allowed to collide with another only if this particle resides within in the radius of influence of the
other. Collision partners of a certain parcel are searched for within a “sphere of influence” centered at
the parcel's location. All parcels within this sphere are possible collision partners for collide with the
centered parcel. This approach removes the dependency on the CFD mesh size (as seen in O'Rourke's
model 48 ), and the dependency on collision mesh size if a separate collision mesh is used 63 .
The issue of time-step dependency was also investigated in Munnannur 2007 42 in light of the obser-
vation that the time step must be properly chosen such that the average distance traveled by a particle
Multi-Component Droplet Vaporization Model
within the time step is a fraction of the average cell length. Using the ROI approach, the “ mean collision
time” (MCT) for each cell is estimated as:
(6.60)
in which u d,max, cell is the maximum droplet velocity magnitude in the cell, R inf is the Radius of In-
fluence, N cell is number of parcels in the cell, and C col is a constant. The global MCT is then the
minimum of the cell MCTs. In ANSYS Forte, the MCT is calculated for each parcel based on the ROI
concept:
(6.61)
in which u d is the average droplet velocity magnitude, and N ROI is number of parcels in the sphere
of influence. The global MCT is taken as the minimum of all parcels' MCTs. The time step is dynamically
controlled, such that if Δ t col is smaller than the computational time step, Δ t col is chosen as the
computational time step; if Δ t col is greater than the time step, collisions occur only when the accu-
mulated time of Δ t col is reached.
To avoid imposing a small collision time step Δ t col on the entire engine simulation, the collision
calculations are sub-cycled within the CFD time step Δ t if Δ t col < Δ t . After each sub-cycle, all
the droplet properties except their spatial locations are updated to reflect the collision outcomes, and
these updated properties are used to predict the collision process in the next sub-cycle.
In the ROI model, the radius-of-influence is an input parameter in ANSYS Forte that assumes the sug-
gested value of Munnannur 2007 42 by default.
6.3.2. Collision Mesh Model

In addition to the ROI model, ANSYS Forte includes an alternative approach to mitigating the mesh
dependency of the collision model 67 . This is the collision mesh model, which employs a pseudo cyl-
indrical collision mesh separate from the CFD computational mesh. The collision mesh is based on a
cylindrical coordinate system that is coaxial with the spray. To further reduce non-axisymmetry of the
predicted spray structure, the collision mesh is rotated at a random angle around the spray axis at every
time step. In this method, only parcels in the same collision mesh cell, instead of a CFD cell, are allowed
to collide.
Use of the collision mesh model requires specification of the diameter, height, and number of grids
along the azimuthal direction of the collision mesh.
6.4. Multi-Component Droplet Vaporization Model

ANSYS Forte uses a discrete multi-component (DMC) fuel-vaporization model 54 model to represent
the vaporization of spray droplets. The DMC vaporization model tracks the individual components
(molecules) of an actual surrogate fuel during the evaporation process and allows coupling with the
reaction kinetics of the individual fuel components. In the DMC model, an explicit form of the equation
that determines the heat flux from the surrounding gas mixture to the droplet-gas interface is obtained
from an approximate solution of the quasi-steady energy equation. The model is formulated to track
each component of the fuel regardless of the direction of the process, i.e., whether evaporation from
the droplet surface or condensation into the droplet is occurring.
Spray Models
The DMC vaporization model considers a spherical liquid droplet that consists of a finite number of
components vaporizing without chemical reactions in a gaseous environment. Radiation and second-
order effects such as the Soret and Dufour effects are assumed to be negligible.
6.4.1. Liquid Phase Balance Equation

With no absorption of ambient gas into the spherical liquid droplet, a general form of the governing
equation for the change in the liquid fuel distribution is
(6.62)
where y i is the mass fraction of component i in the liquid droplet, ρ i is the mass density of the liquid
fuel, R is the droplet radius, and is the vaporization rate per unit area of species i.
The change of liquid droplet energy is obtained from the conservation equation of energy for the two
phase system consisting of the droplet and the surrounding gas mixture as
(6.63)
where c v,l is the specific heat of the liquid fuel, q i is the heat transfer rate from the droplet surface
to the interior per unit area, and T d and T s are the average droplet temperature and surface temper-
ature, respectively.
6.4.2. Governing Equations for Gas Phase

The transport portion of the conservation equation of species in the gas phase is
(6.64)
where v and ρ are the velocity and density of the gas mixture, respectively, yi and Di are the mass
fraction and diffusion coefficient of species i, and s g,i is the source term from vaporization.
Summation of Equation 6.64 gives the species conservation equation for the two-species system (fuel
and air) as
(6.65)
where y F is the total mass fraction of fuel species, D is the average diffusion coefficient of the fuel
species, and Sg is the total vaporization source term.
The energy conservation equation for the gas phase is

(6.66)
where T is the temperature, k is the thermal conductivity, is the mixture specific heat, C PA is the
specific heat of air, and is the average value of the product of specific heat and the diffusion
coefficient of the fuel species. The last term in Equation 6.66 represents energy transport due to inter-
diffusion of species.
Multi-Component Droplet Vaporization Model
6.4.3. Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium

The equilibrium at the interface between the liquid droplet and the surrounding gas is based on the
assumption that the chemical potentialfor the liquid phase, l , and the vapor phase, v , are equal for
each species, i . Assuming an ideal solution, the surface mass fraction of fuel vapor can be determined
using Raoult’s law. For a mixture of discrete components, Raoult’s law is
(6.67)
where p i is the partial pressure of species i in the vapor phase at the droplet surface, Psat,i(T) is the
vapor pressure of species i at temperature T, x is the mole fraction and the subscripts v and l denote
the vapor phase and liquid phases, respectively. The species vapor pressure is given by the Clausius-
Clapeyron equation.
6.4.4. Determination of Surface Temperature

The surface temperature of the droplet is determined from a heat and mass transfer balance at the in-
terface between the droplet and the surrounding gas. There are two regimes of heat transfer, i.e., heat
transfer occurring from the inside of the droplet to the surface, qi , and heat transfer occurring from
the outer gas to the surface, qo . The rate of heat transfer balances the required heat for vaporization
at the surface
(6.68)
where L(Ts) is the latent heat of the fuel at the surface temperature, Ts, and is the mass vaporization
rate.
The heat transfer from inside the droplet is modeled as a convective heat-transfer process with internal
circulation taken into account. The effective heat transfer coefficient for the outer flux is determined
from an approximate solution of the energy equation for the vapor phase with the effects of inter-dif-
fusion and Stefan flow considered. An explicit equation that relates the vaporization rate, , to the
temperatures of the droplet and the surrounding gas mixture can be derived as 54
(6.69)
where h i,eff is the heat transfer coefficient inside the droplet, which is determined from the thermal
conductivity, λ , and the unsteady equivalent thickness of the thermal boundary layer, r 0 is the droplet
radius, Sh is the Sherwood number, Nu is the Nusselt number, C p is the average specific heat of the
gas mixture including fuel vapor, K is a correlation factor defined by Ra and Reitz 2003 53 , [ CA ] is the
inter-diffusional difference of energy flux between fuel and air, , is the average
diffusion coefficient of fuel species, y F0 and y Fsur are the mass fractions of fuel at the interface and
far away, respectively, and T sur is the surrounding gas temperature.
The rate of mass transport at the droplet surface is calculated using the high mass transfer rate equation
with Spalding’s transfer number 64
(6.70)
where g m is the mass transfer coefficient determined from , and B M is Spalding’s
transfer number, .
Spray Models
6.4.5. Modeling Boiling, Including Flash Boiling

Assuming that 1) the droplet surface distortion can be neglected so that the droplet maintains its
spherical shape, 2) there is no sudden break-up of the droplet due to internal phenomena such as micro-
explosions, and 3) the droplet surface temperature remains at the boiling temperature as long as the
assumption of equilibrium is valid, a similar formulation to Equation 6.69 is obtained for the boiling
process by setting the surface temperature equal to the boiling temperature, T b , and the surface
mass fraction to unity. The boiling formulation is written as
(6.71)
where h i,eff is the coefficient for the contribution of heat transfer by internal circulation at the saturation
temperature, α sh is the heat transfer enhancement through the effect of nucleation. The vaporization
rate calculated based on Spalding’s mass transfer number (Equation 6.70 ) is no longer valid under these
conditions.
6.5. Wall Impingement Model

When an airborne spray droplet hits a wall surface, the wall impingement model in ANSYS Forte determ-
ines the outcome of the collision between the droplet and the wall, depending on the Reynolds number
and Weber number of the incident droplet and the surface condition. Four impingement regimes are
considered, including stick, rebound, spread and splash (Figure 6.6: Wall impingement regimes. ). For a
wetted surface, the stick regime occurs as the impact energy carried by the incident droplet is very low
and the droplet adheres to the film in nearly spherical form. As the impact energy increases, the air
layer trapped between the droplet and the surface causes low energy loss and the droplet rebounds.
When the impact energy is further increased to a certain level, the impinging droplet spreads and
merges with the film. Finally, splash occurs at very high impact energy, where the incident droplet flies
away from the impinging site and breaks up into many smaller secondary droplets.
Figure 6.6: Wall impingement regimes.
The regime transition criteria for a wetted wall as used in 8 are employed in ANSYS Forte:
1. Stick:
Wall Impingement Model
2. Rebound:
3. Spread: and
4. Splash:
Re n and We n are the Reynolds number and Weber number of the incident droplet, respectively. They
are defined as:
(6.72)
(6.73)
where ρ i is the liquid density, w0 is the droplet’s velocity normal to the impact surface, D is the
droplet diameter, μ is the liquid viscosity, σ is the surface tension.
Among these impingement regimes, splash is the most important and complex one. It is commonly
observed in engineering applications, such as port fuel injection engines. The splash threshold H cr is
proposed by Han et al. 20 in the form of:
(6.74)
where β is non-dimensional surface roughness (roughness height/incident droplet diameter), δ is non-

dimensional film thickness (film thickness/incident droplet diameter). The absolute value of surface
roughness is exposed as a user input in ANSYS Forte. Typical roughness values range from 0.1 micron
(for very smooth surfaces, such as glass surfaces) to 5 micron (for rough surfaces, such as metal surfaces).
Splash results in the rebounding of many smaller secondary droplets from the impinging location. The
properties of the secondary droplets are modeled statistically, following the formulations derived by
Han et al. 20 . These properties are described below.
6.5.1. Mass Fraction of Secondary Droplets

Experiments show that a fraction of the incident droplet will remain on the surface after splash. Based
on experimental observation, the ratio of the total mass of the secondary droplets m and the incident
droplet mass M increases rapidly from zero to a value around 0.75, and then remains constant. The
correlation for the mass fraction is given as
(6.75)
where
6.5.2. Size of Secondary Droplets

The size of the secondary droplets d is modeled using a Nukiyama-Tanasawa distribution:
(6.76)
The mean size d m is derived as
(6.77)
Spray Models
where D is the incident droplet diameter, ρ l is the liquid density, ρ g is the ambient gas density.
6.5.3. Velocity of Secondary Droplets

The velocity of a secondary droplet is modeled statistically based on experimental observations. The
velocity is given as
(6.78)
where w and v are the normal and tangential velocity components of the secondary droplet, is the
unit normal vector to the impinged wall surface, is the unit vector tangent to the impinged surface
and in the plane made by and the incident droplet velocity, and is defined as . The normal
velocity component w is modeled using a Nukiyama-Tanasawa distribution
(6.79)
where the mean of the distribution w m is defined as a function of the incident angle α (the angle
between the surface normal and the incident droplet velocity) and azimuthal angle ϕ as
(6.80)
The azimuthal angle is defined as the angle made by the tangential velocity of the secondary droplet
and the vector , and it lies in the interval [- π, π ]. It is statistically chosen according to the distribution
proposed by Naber and Reitz 43
(6.81)
Where P is a random number in the interval [0, 1] and γ is a parameter related to the incident angle
α by
(6.82)
The tangential velocity of the secondary droplet is described by a Gaussian distribution as
(6.83)
Where the mean and variance δ of the distribution are given as
(6.84)
According to Han et al. 20 , the constants are set to be A = 0.7 , B = 0.03, c 1 = 0.1, c 2 = 0.02306.
The term ζ in Equation 6.78 is used to describe the radial distance from the edge of the film to the
point of impact at any azimuthal angle ϕ . It is assumed to be proportional to the radial velocity
(6.85)
Wall Film Model
6.6. Wall Film Model

Liquid film may form on a wall as a consequence of sticking, splashing or spreading impingement. Wall
film dynamics is influenced by the impinging sprays, the wall conditions, and the gas flow near the
wall. The impinging spray affects the film through mass, tangential momentum, and energy addition.
The wall affects the film through the no-slip boundary condition and heat transfer. The gas flow affects
the film dynamics through tangential shear stresses and the mass and energy exchange between the
film and the gas.
The wall film model by O’Rourke and Amsden [46 , 47 ] is employed in ANSYS Forte. This model uses
a particle numerical method to represent the wall film. In the particle method, each spray particle is
tracked as a spherical particle while it moves on the wall surface. In calculating the mass and energy
exchange between the wall film and the ambient gas through vaporization, the wall film particles
within the same computational cell are converted to a thin film based on the total volume of the liquid
and the boundary surface area associated with the corresponding cell.
6.6.1. Wall Film Governing Equations

The wall film mass equation is
(6.86)
where ρ l is the liquid density, h is the film thickness, is the surface gradient operator, is the
mean velocity of the film, is the wall velocity. is the mass source per unit area due to impingement,
re-entrainment, or vaporization.
The motion of the wall film particles on the wall is governed by the momentum equation
(6.87)
where p f is the pressure due to impingement, δ p f is the pressure difference across the film, τ w
is the shear stress on the gas side of the wall film, μ l is the film viscosity evaluated at the mean film
temperature T f , and are the momentum and liquid mass source terms (per unit area), re-
spectively, due to impingement, is the unit vector normal to the wall, is the unit vector in the direction
of , is acceleration due to gravity.
Based on Han et al. 20 , the incident droplet velocity of a sticking or spreading particle is treated as
(6.88)
where w p,0 and v p,0 are the normal and tangential velocity of the incident droplet. , ϕ , , are
defined in the wall impingement model section.
The wall film energy equation is
(6.89)
Spray Models
where C vl is the liquid specific heat, T l is the mean film temperature, T s is the gas temperature at
the film surface, T w is the wall temperature, λ is the heat conductivity of the liquid film, and
are the energy and mass source terms due to impingement. Note that is computed based
on the internal energy of the incident droplets.
6.6.2. Wall Separation Criterion

When the wall film approaches an expanding corner, the effect of its momentum may drive the film to
separate from the wall surface. The separation criterion proposed by Wegener et al. 76 is employed in
ANSYS Forte. This criterion is based on a force balance analysis that considers the surface tension forces
at the top and the bottom of the film, and the gravitational force. A critical force ratio is derived by
solving the momentum equation of the film. For an expanding angle θ shown in Figure 6.7: Film separ-
ation from wall at an expanding corner. , the critical force ratio is given as
(6.90)
where ρ l is the liquid density, uf is the velocity magnitude of the film, h is film thickness, σ is surface
tension, g is gravitational acceleration, and L b is a characteristic breakup length for the thin film
breakup, which takes the form of
(6.91)
For this correlation, the Reynolds number of the film is defined as
(6.92)
And the Weber number is based on the relative velocity between the gas and liquid film
(6.93)
where ρ g is the gas density and ug is the gas velocity magnitude. When the critical force ratio becomes
greater than one, the inertial force is considered to be great enough to trigger the onset of film separ-
ation.
Figure 6.7: Film separation from wall at an expanding corner.
Chapter 7: Turbulent Flame Propagation Model
Spark-ignition engines are characterized by flame initiation near the spark location followed by flame
propagation into the engine cylinder. ANSYS Forte employs the G-equation model to track the
propagation of fully developed, premixed or partially premixed, turbulent flames for this application.
When the flame is initiated by the spark, the ignition-kernel flame has a structure that is typically
smaller than the average grid size in the computational mesh. During this time, then, the kernel flame
front is first tracked by a group of discrete “particles”. The calculation switches from this kernel flame
model to the G-equation model after the flame structure grows bigger than a characteristic flow length
scale. The Kernel Flame model and the G-Equation model are described in this chapter.
7.1. Discrete Particle Ignition Kernel Flame Model

ANSYS Forte tracks the growth of the ignition kernel by using the Discrete Particle Ignition Kernel Flame
(DPIK) model by Fan, Tan, and Reitz [16 , 69 ]. By assuming a spherical-shaped kernel, the flame front
position is marked by Lagrangian particles, and the flame surface density is obtained from the number
density of these particles in each computational cell. Assuming the temperature inside the kernel to be
uniform, the kernel growth rate is:
(7.1)
where r k is the kernel radius, ρ u is the local unburnt gas density, and ρ k is the gas density inside
the kernel region.
The plasma velocity S plasma is given as:
(7.2)
where ρ u and h u are the density and enthalpy of the unburned mixture. ρ k and u k are the
density and internal energy of the mixture inside the kernel. is the electrical energy discharge rate,
η eff is the electrical energy transfer efficiency due to heat loss to the spark plug. and η eff are
user-specified inputs (Energy Release Rate and Energy Transfer Efficiency, respectively) in ANSYS Forte.
A typical value of η eff is 0.3, as suggested by Heywood 25 .
The laminar flame speed in Equation 7.8 was multiplied by a stretch factor, I 0 , which accounts
for strain and curvature effects, and the modified correlation is used as the turbulent flame speed, S
T , in the kernel stage. C ms is the stretch factor input present in the user interface describing the
stretching effect of turbulence on flame speed. A larger value will increase the flame strain cause by
turbulence and reduce flame speed. Its effect can be large when flame propagation is weak, for example,
under high EGR or lean burn conditions. A typical range is 0.5-1.0. I 0 follows the suggested expression
of Herweg et al. 24 :
Turbulent Flame Propagation Model
(7.3)
Note that curvature effects are also considered in the combustion model by the last term of Equation 7.5
.
The chemistry processes in the kernel-growth stage are treated in the same way as in the G-equation
combustion model (described in G-equation Model ). Although the transport equation of is not solved
here, the field is constructed based on the positions of the kernel particles, thus providing the necessary
information for the chemical heat release calculations.
The transition from the kernel model to the turbulent G-equation model is controlled by a comparison
of the kernel radius with a critical size that is proportional to the locally averaged turbulence integral
length scale, viz.,
(7.4)
where Cm 1 is a model constant. Cm 1 is provided as a user input ( Kernel Flame to G-equation Switch
Constant) in ANSYS Forte with typical value 2.0.
7.2. Autoignition-Induced Flame Propagation Model

Detailed autoignition kinetics is used for ignition. Here we briefly describe the autoignition transition
criteria 61 from ignition kernel to G-equation. ANSYS Forte checks two criteria: critical temperature and
size of the ignition kernel.
After the ignition kernel is formed, the flame propagation model is activated. Computational cells with
temperatures greater than the critical temperature become ignition sites. For each of these cells, if the
ignition kernel radius is greater than the TLS (turbulent length scale), a G ( x , t ) = 0 surface is initialized.
This surface divides the areas where the gas temperature is lower or higher than the critical temperature.
The area inside the surface is the area of ignition.
7.3. G-equation Model

7.3.1. General Formulation
The G-equation combustion model is based on the turbulent premixed combustion flamelet theory of
Peters (2000) 50 . This theory addresses two regimes of practical interest:
1. The corrugated flamelet regime where the entire reactive-diffusive flame structure is assumed to be em-
bedded within eddies of the size of the Kolmogorov length scale η; and
2. The thin reaction zone regime where the Kolmogorov eddies can penetrate into the chemically inert preheat
zone of the reactive-diffusive flame structure, but cannot enter the inner layer where the chemical reactions
occur.
For application of the G-equation model to IC engine applications, this theory was further developed
by Tan et al. 69 and by Liang et al. [36 , 37 ].
The G-equation model consists of a set of Favre-averaged level-set equations. This includes the equations
for the Favre mean, , and its variance, , as well as a model equation for the turbulent/laminar flame
G-equation Model
surface area ratio σ T . Application of the equation for the turbulent/laminar flame surface area ratio
results in an explicit expression for the turbulent flame speed . Together with the Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes equations and the turbulence modeling equations, these provide a complete set of
equations to describe premixed turbulent flame-front propagation. The equation set used in ANSYS
Forte is:
(7.5)
(7.6)
where ∇ || denotes the tangential gradient operator; is the fluid velocity; is the velocity of the
moving vertex; ρ u and ρ b are the average densities of the unburned and burned mixtures, respect-
ively; D T is the turbulent diffusivity; is the Favre mean flame front curvature; c s , a 4 , b 1 ,
and b 3 are modeling constants (cf. ref. 50 ] ); and are the Favre mean turbulent kinetic energy
and its dissipation rate from the RNG k - ε model; u ′ is the turbulence intensity.
7.3.2. Laminar and Turbulent Flame Speed Correlations

The prediction of the turbulent burning velocity plays a crucial role in the modeling of SI engine com-
bustion. The laminar flame speed is one of the most important scaling factors in most of the published
correlations for the turbulent flame speed.
7.3.2.1. Laminar Flame Speeds

Laminar flame speed is an intrinsic property of a premixed fuel/air mixture for given unburned temper-
ature, pressure, and composition (species mass fractions). The composition can be characterized using
two derived parameters: equivalence ratio and diluent fraction. Equivalence ratio can be defined using
the concentrations of C, H, and O atoms as:
(7.7)
Diluent fraction can be estimated by assuming the inert diluent mixture as complete combustion
products. The diluent may consist of CO 2 , H 2 O, N 2 , as well as excess O 2 for lean mixtures. It is a
function of equivalence ratio, mass fractions of CO 2 , H 2 O, and the C/H/O ratio in the fuel species.
In ANSYS Forte, two options are available to specify laminar flame speeds. One is using the power-law
correlations, the other is through table look-up. For details on using table look-up, see Laminar Flame
Speed Through Table Look-up , Laminar Flame Speed Through Table Look-up , on Laminar Flame Speed
Through Table Look-up .
7.3.2.1.1. Power-law Formulation

The “power law” formula 40 can be written as:
(7.8)
where the subscript ref means the reference condition (typically at 298 K and 1 atm) and the superscript
0 means the flame is planar and unstretched. F dil is a factor accounting for the diluent’s effect.
7.3.2.1.2. Laminar Flame Speed at Reference State

The reference flame speed can be specified using two different formulas.
The first formula is:

(7.9)
Values for , and for selected fuels are listed inTable 7.1: Values for B m , B φ , and φ m in
the Metghalchi formula according to Metghalchi et al. 21 .
Table 7.1: Values for B m , B φ , and φ m in the Metghalchi formula
Fuel (cm/sec) (cm/sec)

methanol 36.9 -140.5 1.11
propane 34.2 -138.7 1.08
iso-octane 26.3 -84.7 1.13
gasoline 30.5 -54.9 1.21
Unfortunately, Equation 7.9 gives negative flame speeds for very lean or very rich mixtures. One practical
solution to this problem is to follow the expression proposed by Gülder 14 in which the flame speed
will never be driven negative, viz.,
(7.10)
where , , , and are data-fitting coefficients. For iso-octane, a group of values for the coefficients
in Equation 7.10 can be obtained by correlating the data of Metghalchi et al. within the range 0.65 < f
< 1.6. For example, then, coefficients obtained for iso-octane's reference flame speed are:
=26.9; = -0.134; =3.86; =1.146
7.3.2.1.3. Temperature and Pressure Dependencies
The exponents and in Equation 7.8 describe the temperature and pressure dependencies. These
exponents were treated as generic for all fuel types in Metghalchi et al. 21 and correlated as functions
of equivalence ratio as:
(7.11)
(7.12)
Values obtained using least-squares fits are given as
= 2.98; = -0.8; =1
= -0.38; = 0.22; =1
An additional set of parameters for gasoline were reported by Rhodes et al. 35 :
= 2.4; = -0.271; = 3.51
= -0.357; = 0.14; = 2.77
G-equation Model
7.3.2.1.4. Diluent Effect

This effect by the diluent is usually accounted for by a term such as F dil in Equation 7.8 . The expres-
sions for this factor take the form:
(7.13)
or
(7.14)
depending on whether mole fraction or mass fraction is selected, where is the mole fraction of
diluent; is the mass fraction of diluent; are empirical constants. Fitted values from
the literature are:
(7.15)
(7.16)
7.3.2.1.5. Laminar Flame Speed Through Table Look-up

The laminar flame speed value returned by table look-up is the unstretched flame speed, which is
comparable to the value calculated using Equation 7.8 . It does not contain the stretch factor I 0 de-
scribed in Equation 7.3 . The details of working with flame speed table lookup is described in Flame-
Speed Table Editor , Flame-Speed Table Editor , in the ANSYS Forte User's Guide .
7.3.2.2. Turbulent Flame Speeds

The ratio between turbulent flame speed and laminar flame speed is given as
(7.17)
in which the term , called a progress variable, takes the form
is the laminar flame speed; l I and l F are the turbulence integral length scale and the laminar
flame thickness, respectively. The term I P in Equation 7.17 is a progress variable, which takes the
form
(7.18)
in Equation 7.18 is the Flame Development Coefficient, a model constant relevant to spark ignition.
Physically, the progress variable models the increasingly disturbing effect of the surrounding eddies
on the flame front surface as the ignition kernel grows from the laminar flame stage into the fully de-
veloped turbulent stage. is needed only when a spark exists. The model constant is available
in the User Interface under Models > Spark Ignition. It is provided with an appropriate default value
that is applicable in most cases. Increasing the value of this variable will expedite the transition from
the laminar kernel flame to the fully developed turbulent flame. See Spark Ignition in the ANSYS Forte
User's Guide .
The other model constants, b 1, b 3 and a 4 are generic for any turbulent flame (both kernel flame
or fully-developed flame). They need to be provided as long as the G-equation model is used. Suggested
values were provided by Peters 2000 28 , and options for user definition are available in the User Interface.
Here we present brief explanations of these constants:
: Coefficient in equation , where is fully-developed turbulent flame speed , is turbulence

velocity, defined as sqrt(2/3*k) with k being turbulent kinetic energy. The suggested value is 1.5, which
was obtained by fitting experimental data.
: Coefficient in equation , where and are turbulent diffusivity and laminar

diffusivity, respectively. Suggested value is 1.0, which is based on Damkohler's publication in 1940 8 .
A subsequent DNS study by Wenzel 77 suggested a similar value, 1.07.
: Coefficient in equation , where is turbulent diffusivity , is turbulence velocity, is tur-

bulence integral length scale. Suggested value is 0.78.
7.3.2.3. Turbulent Flame Brush Thickness

The turbulent flame brush thickness is defined as the square root of the Favre variance of G:
(7.19)
For fully developed flames, the turbulent flame brush thickness is correlated with turbulence integral
length scale as [39],
(7.20)
where b 2 = 1.78.
In the context of spark ignition, the progress variable I P defined in Equation 7.18 is used to describe
the growth of flame brush thickness from the laminar stage to the fully developed stage. Thus, the
flame brush thickness in spark ignition engine is modeled as
(7.21)
7.3.3. Flame-front Heat Release Calculation

For turbulent premixed or partially premixed flames in SI engines, the heat release due to turbulent
flame-front propagation constitutes a major portion of the total in-cylinder heat release. For this reason,
we refer to this as the “ primary heat release.”
The ANSYS Forte G-equation model assumes a flame structure shown schematically in Figure 7.1: Nu-
merical description of the turbulent flame structure . For the heat-release calculation, the ANSYS Forte
model builds on this assumption using the method described by Liang et al. 37 . This method uses the
sub-grid scale unburnt/burned volumes of the flame-containing cells and assumes that the mean flame-
front surface cuts every flame-containing cell into two parts, an unburned volume V u and a burned
volume V b , as shown in Figure 7.1: Numerical description of the turbulent flame structure . As the
mean flame front sweeps forward, the mixture within the sweeping volume tends to reach a local in-
stantaneous thermodynamic equilibrium, following a constant pressure, constant enthalpy process. The
pressure is assumed to be homogeneous across the flame within the cell, consistent with deflagration
wave theory. The sub-grid scale volumes are tracked for every time step based on the coordinate in-
formation of the cell vertices and the flame surface piercing points.
G-equation Model
Figure 7.1: Numerical description of the turbulent flame structure
The species conversion rate and the associated primary heat release rate are calculated by first determ-
ining the equilibrium concentration and adiabatic flame temperature under constant pressure and
constant-enthalpy constraints. Then for a flame-containing cell, we assume the mean flame front sweeps
throughout the unburned volume V u within time step dt . Taking into account the portion of the
mixture within the swept volume V s that reaches the equilibrium state, the species conversion rate
of species k for time step dt reads:
(7.22)
where ρ and ρ k are cell-averaged densities of the total mixture and species k and where the swept
volume is approximated by
(7.23)
where A f is the mean flame-front area within the cell, and S T the turbulent flame speed.
Finally the conversion rate of species k can be written as
(7.24)
Numerical integration of Equation 7.24 using an explicit Euler method gives the updated species density
.
7.3.4. Post-flame and End Gas Kinetics

In ANSYS Forte, the species conversion and heat release in the regions outside the turbulent flame
brush are modeled as chemical-kinetics-controlled processes. Specifically, the computational cells in
the post-flame zone and the end-gas zone are simulated in the same manner as described in Chemistry
Solver Options . In these zones, the chemical processes are assumed to be primarily controlled by the
reaction pathways defined by the chemical kinetic mechanisms. The turbulence-kinetics interaction
model can also be included for this portion in these regions.
7.3.5. Flame Quench Model

For partially premixed turbulent flames, the unburned mixture at certain locations can be leaned out
with excess air and therefore the flame may stop propagating due to charge stratification. This section
briefly describes how the method in ANSYS Forte for modeling such local flame-quenching phenomena.
For laminar flames, the flammability property of an unburned mixture is mainly governed by a balance
between the heat transfer to the preheat zone due to chemical heat release and the heat loss from the
preheat zone to the unburned mixture, while for turbulent flames, disturbances from turbulence have
significant additional influence on the heat transfer balance. In the present combustion model, local
flame quenching is modeled by examining whether the local flame condition crosses the border between
the thin reaction-zone regime and the broken reaction-zone regime. Local laminar flame thickness will
increase with a decrease of laminar flame speed , thus resulting in a proportional increase of the inner
layer thickness. If the local laminar flame inner layer thickness is large enough so that the inner layer
can be disturbed by the Kolmogorov eddies, the chemical reactions in the inner layer will cease due to
excess heat and active species losses to the preheat zone, resulting in local flame quenching. Therefore,
a comparison between the inner layer thickness and the Kolmogorov length scale is used as the
criterion for local flame quenching, i.e., flame quenching occurs when the relation
(7.25)
is satisfied, where is determined based on the turbulence model, and is a model constant with
a typical value of 1.0.
Chapter 8: Method of Moments
The Particle Tracking option allows inclusion of dispersed, condensed-phase material in the form of
particles. The Particle Tracking feature accounts for particle formation and destruction, and can be used
to determine properties about the amount of particulates in the system.
To describe some of the theory behind the Particle Tracking feature, we first need to define particles
in this context. Like gaseous species, each type of particle corresponds to a symbolic representation in
the chemistry set and has properties associated with it. To form particles from the gas phase, one or
more nucleation events need to be defined to identify the particle properties at inception. Chemical
composition and thermodynamic properties of the particle are defined in this way. The definition of
the particle and its properties are described in Chapter 6 in the Chemkin-Pro Input Manual
The nucleation “reaction” is used to define how the particle (or nucleus) is created from gas-phase
species. The nucleation reaction is an irreversible reaction that provides the particle inception rate and
defines the size and the surface coverage of the nucleus. After the nuclei are formed, they start to interact
with each other as well as with the gas mixture around them. While particle-particle interactions such
as coagulation are non-chemical processes, interactions between particles and the surrounding gas
mixture can result in chemical processes taking place on the particle surface. These surface processes
might result in mass growth or reduction of the particle or might just simply recondition the particle
surface. To include the effects from all these surface processes, a surface mechanism is needed to describe
all surface reactions and associated surface species on the particle. The Particle Tracking feature then
determines the impact of individual surface reactions on the particle sizes from the expression of the
surface reactions
The sections below describe the concept and theory behind the Particle Tracking computations along
with implementation and numerical solution considerations.
8.1. Description and Properties of a Particle Population

8.1.1. Moments of Particle-Size Distribution Functions
The application of the method of moments to soot-particle formation was first reported by Frenklach
and coworkers [17 , 6 , 18 ]. This method describes the average properties of a particle population. The
method of moments tracks the evolution of an aerosol system by moments of its particle-size distribution
function. The use of moments rather than the actual form of the particle-size distribution function
overlooks variations among individual particles in the aerosol system. Also, the actual particle-size dis-
tribution function cannot be derived from its moments unless an assumption is made regarding the
form of the distribution function. Since in many practical applications only the average properties of
the aerosol system are sought, the history and properties of individual particles may not be important
such that this approximation can still be quite useful. The loss in details of the particle-size distribution
function due to the use of method of moments is compensated by computational speed with which
the moments are calculated, which reduces the demand for computing resources. Detailed descriptions
of the method of moments are reported elsewhere by Frenklach et al. [17 , 6 , 18 ].
Without making any assumptions about the form of the particle-size distribution function, the method
of moments can provide overall properties of a particle system such as number density, total particle
Method of Moments
volume fraction, total particle surface area density, and average particle size. To express these overall
properties in terms of particle-size moments, we first define the particle-size moments.
Given a particle-size distribution function , where represents a measure of particle size,

e.g., particle mass or particle diameter, the r -th moment of this particle-size distribution function is
defined in Equation 8.1 .
(8.1)
The Particle Tracking module uses particle class, which is defined as the number of bulk species molecules
in a particle core, as the measure of particle size. Both particle mass, and particle volume, are propor-
tional to particle class. Because particle classes are discrete numbers, the number of class particles
can be represented by a discrete function and Equation 8.1 is equivalent to Equation 8.2 .
(8.2)
In the following sections, the summation notation of Equation 8.2 will be used in formulation expressions
and derivations.
8.1.2. Total Particle Number of a Particle Population

From Equation 8.1 we see that the zero-th moment is the total particle number of the particle population,
as shown in Equation 8.3 .
(8.3)
8.1.3. Total and Average Particle Mass

Since the mass of a particle is proportional to its class, the total mass of a particle population can be
calculated as :
(8.4)
Note that is the mass of a bulk species molecule comprising the particle core and is constant. The
total mass of a particle population can be expressed in a simple form as Equation 8.5 .
(8.5)
Here,
is the first moment of the discrete particle-size distribution function . The average particle mass of
the population can be obtained by dividing the total particle mass by the number of particles and is
given in Equation 8.6 ,
(8.6)
Description and Properties of a Particle Population
where is the average particle class of the population.
8.1.4. Total and Average Geometric Properties of a Particle Population

Similarly, the total particle volume is found to be
(8.7)
where [g/cm 3 ] is the bulk density of the particle core. By assuming that the particles are spherical,
an average particle diameter can be obtained as
(8.8)
The total sphere-equivalent surface area of a particle population is given as
(8.9)
With these equations, all basic properties of a particle population are defined for the moment method.
Several sections in the Chemkin-Pro Theory Manual, Method of Moments chapter, discuss the kinetics
models used by the Particle Tracking feature to describe formation, growth, reduction, and interaction
of the particles.
Chapter 9: Engine Crevice Model
This model can be used to capture crevice effects when the crevice region around the piston is not
explicitly represented in the computational mesh.
9.1. Diagram and Assumptions

The schematic for the crevice model is given in Figure 9.1: Schematic diagram of the crevice volumes
and planes used in the model , which reproduces Figure 15 of Namazian and Heywood 45 .
The flow between regions 1 through 5 is pressure driven. In the model the pressure in region 1 is
defined to be equal to the cylinder pressure, and zone 5 is at atmospheric pressure. The continuity
equations, which give expressions for the pressure in zones 2, 3, and 4, are given in equation (6) of
Namazian and Heywood 45 , and are reproduced here for completeness.
Figure 9.1: Schematic diagram of the crevice volumes and planes used in the model
(9.1)
(9.2)
(9.3)
where the subscript ‘o’ refers to a reference condition such as the one at intake valve closing, m is
mass, p is pressure, t is time, and the double subscript means the flow from the first to the second
Engine Crevice Model
number. For example, in Equation 9.1 , the 12 subscript refers to mass flow from region 1 above the
top ring to region 2 behind the first ring.
To determine the mass flow rates in equations, two types of flow conditions are used in the theory:
isothermal and isentropic. They are used in the following situations:
9.1.1. Isentropic
Isentropic flow is assumed when the flow is at high velocity through a small orifice. This holds for the
flow through the two ring gaps at all times. It is also true for the flow over the rings when the ring lifts
off of the seat. For example, if the top ring were “airborne”, there would be a small opening connecting
zones 1 and 2 and another small opening between zones 2 and 3. The flow in this case will move quickly
because of the lower restriction between zones 1 and 3, so it is assumed to be isentropic.
The governing equations for this flow are as follows:

(9.4)
for the mass flow rate where C d is the discharge coefficient, A g is the cross-sectional area available
to the flow, ρ is the local gas density, c is the local speed of sound and η is defined as
(9.5)
where γ is the ratio of specific heats (usually 1.4) and the subscript, ‘i’, on the pressure terms denotes
the region where the properties are calculated, with acceptable values running from 1 to 4.
Equation 9.4 is equation (8) and Equation 9.5 is equation (2) in Namazian and Heywood 45 .
9.1.2. Isothermal
This is the case when the flow is relatively slow. This occurs when the flow is into or out of regions 2
and 4, with the ring sealing one of the upper or lower surfaces of the groove in the piston. In essence,
these two zones have one inlet unless the ring is not touching a surface, and therefore offer higher
resistance to the flow.
In ANSYS Forte, the isothermal flow is also considered to be laminar due to the small gaps in the rings.
The governing equation in this case reduces to
(9.6)
where A is the area perpendicular to the mass flow, h is the distance between the ring and the ring
groove, the subscripts u and d represent upstream and downstream pressure, W r is the width of
the ring (the distance from the wall to where the ring touches zone 2), μ is the gas viscosity, R is the
ideal gas constant, and T is the temperature of the gas.
Equation 9.6 is reproduced from (9b) in Namazian and Heywood 45 .
Input Parameters
9.2. Input Parameters

Table 9.1: Crevice model input parameter labels in user interface.
Label in Interface Description

Crevice Height Top-to-Land Height of the crevice region between the top of the
crevice and the first compression ring.
Crevice Thickness Distance between the Piston edge and the Cylinder Liner,
or thickness of the crevice region.
Top Ring Gap Area Cross-sectional flow area for crevice flow between the
cylinder and the region beyond the first compression ring.
Second Ring Gap Area Cross-sectional flow area for crevice flow between the
first o-ring and the region beyond the second compression
ring.
Volume Behind Top Ring Volume behind the top compression ring.
Volume Between Ring 1 and Volume of the region between the first (top) compression
2 ring and the second compression ring.
Volume Behind Second Ring Volume behind the second compression ring.
First Ring Thickness Thickness of the first (top) compression ring.
Second Ring Thickness Thickness of the second compression ring.
First Ring Width Width (lateral) of the first compression ring.
Second Ring Width Width (lateral) of the second compression ring.
Mass of the First Ring Mass of the first (top) compression ring.
Mass of the Second Ring Mass of the second compression ring.
Bottom Clearance - First Clearance distance on the bottom side of the first
Ring compression ring.
Bottom Clearance - Second Clearance distance on the bottom side of the second
Top Clearance - First Ring Clearance distance on the top side of the first compression
ring.
Top Clearance - Second Clearance distance on the top side of the second
Chapter 10: References
1. Abani, N. and Reitz, R. D.,“Unsteady Turbulent Round Jets and Vortex Motion,” Physics of Fluids, 19(1):
125102, 2007, doi:10.1063/1.2821910.
2. Abani, N., Kokjohn, S., Park, S. W., Bergin, M., Munnannur, A., Ning, W., Sun, Y., and Reitz, R. D.,“An Improved
Spray Model for Reducing Numerical Parameter Dependencies in Diesel Engine CFD Simulations, SAE
Technical Paper 2008-01-0970,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 2008.
3. Amsden, A. A., J. D. Ramshaw, L. D. Cloutman, and P. J. O'Rourke,“Extensions to the KIVA Computer Program,”
Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-10534-MS, 1985.
4. Amsden, A. A., P. J. O'Rourke, and T. D. Butler,“KIVA-II: A Computer Program for Chemically Reactive Flows
with Sprays,” Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-11560-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1989.
5. Amsden, A. A.,“KIVA-3V: A Block-structured KIVA Program for Engines with Vertical or Canted Valves,” Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-13313-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1997.
6. Appel, J., H. Bockhorn, and M. Frenklach, Combustion and Flame, 121:122-136, 2000.
7. Artelt, C., H.-J. Schmid, and W. Peukert, "On the relevance of accounting for the evolution of the fractal di-
mension in aerosol process simulations," Journal of Aerosol Science, 34: 511-534, 2003.
8. Bai, C. and A. Gosman,“Mathematical Modeling of Wall Films Formed by Impinging Sprays, SAE Technical
Paper 960626,” SAE Technical Paper Series 1996.
9. Beale, J.C., R.D. Reitz, Modeling spray atomization with the Kelvin-Helmholtz / Rayleigh-Taylor hybrid
model. Atomization and Sprays, 9, 623-650, 1999.
10. Bellman R. and Pennington R. H.,“Effects of Surface Tension and Viscosity on Taylor Instability”, Quarterly
of Applied Mathematics, 12(2): 151-162, 1954.
11. CHEMKIN-PRO, Reaction Design: San Diego, 2008.
12. CHEMKIN Theory Manual, Reaction Design, San Diego, CA, USA, 2009.
13. Chou, C.-P., P. Ho, and E. Meeks, 30th International Symposium on Combustion, Work-In-Progress Poster
Section, 2F1-22, July 25-30, 2004.
14. Crowe C., Sommerfeld M., and Tsuji Y., Multiphase Flows with Droplets and Particles, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
ISBN-10: 0849394694, 1998.
15. Damkohler, G., Z.,“Development of Ignition and Combustion Model for Spark-Ignition Engines, SAE Tech-
nical Paper 2000-01-2809,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 2000.
16. Fan, L., and Reitz, R. D., Elektrochem. Angew. Phys. Chem., 46: 601, 1940.
17. Frenklach, M. and Wang, H., in Soot Formation in Combustion: Mechanisms and Models, H. Bockhorn (Ed.),
Springer-Verlag, pp. 165-192, 1994.
References
18. Frenklach, M., and S.J. Harris, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 118:252-261, 1987.
19. Gulder, O. L.,“Correlations of Laminar Combustion Data for Alternative S.I. Engine Fuels, SAE Technical
Paper 841000,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 1984.
20. Han, Z., Z. Xu, and N. Trigui,“Spray/Wall Interaction Models for Multidimensional Engine Simulation,” Inter-
national Journal of Engine Research, 2000. 1:1.
21. Han, Z., and R. D. Reitz,“Turbulence Modeling of Internal Combustion Engines Using RNG k - ε Models,”
Combustion Science and Technology, 106, pp. 267-295, 1995.
22. Han, Z., and R. D. Reitz,“A Temperature Wall Function Formulation for Variable-density Turbulence Flows
with Application to Engine Convective Heat Transfer Modeling,” International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer,
40, 3, pp. 613-625, 1997.
23. Haworth, D. C.,“A Review of Turbulent Combustion Modeling for Multidimensional In-Cylinder CFD, SAE
24. Herweg, R. and Maly, R. R.,“A Fundamental Model for Flame Kernel Formation in S.I. Engines, SAE Technical
Paper 922243,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 1992.
25. Heywood, J. B., Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, 1988.
26. Hiroyasu, H. and Kadota, T.,“Models for Combustion and Formation of Nitric Oxide and Soot in DI Diesel
Engines, SAE Technical Paper 760129,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 1976.
27. Hirt, C. W., A. A. Amsden, and J. L. Cook,“An arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian computing method for all flow
speeds,” Journal of Computational Physics, 14, 227-253, 1974.
28. Kazakov, A., and Frenklach, M.,“Dynamic Modeling of Soot Particle Coagulation and Aggregation: Imple-
mentation with the Method of Moments and Application to High-Pressure Laminar Premixed Flames”,
Combustion and Flame, 114:484-501, 1998.
29. Koch, W., and Friedlander, S.K.,“The Effect of Particle Coalescence on the Surface Area of a Coagulating
Aerosol”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 140(2):419-427, 1990.
30. Kong, D., R.K. Eckhoff, and F. Alfert,“Auto-ignition of CH4/air, C3H8/air, CH4/C3H8/air and CH4/CO2/air
using a 1 l ignition bomb,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, 40, pp. 69 - 84, 1995.
31. Kong, S.-C. and R. D. Reitz,“Use of Detailed Chemical Kinetics to Study HCCI Engine Combustion With
Consideration of Turbulent Mixing Effects,” Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
124, pp. 702-707, 2002.
32. Levich, V. G., Physicochemical Hydrodynamics, ed. N.R. Amundson, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1962
33. Liang, L., Stevens, J.G., Farrell, J.T.“A Dynamic Adaptive Chemistry Scheme for Reactive Flow Computations.”
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 32, pp. 527-534, 2009.
34. Liang, L., Stevens, J.G., Ram an, S., Farrell, J.T.,“The Use of Dynamic Adaptive Chemistry in Combustion
Simulation of Gasoline Surrogate Fuels.” Combustion and Flame, 156:7, 1493-1502, 2009.
35. Liang, L., Stevens, J.G., Farrell, J.T.“A dynamic multi-zone partitioning scheme for solving detailed chemical
kinetics in reactive flow computations,” Combustion Science and Technology, 181:11, 1345-1371, 2009.
36. Liang, L. and R. D. Reitz.“Spark Ignition Engine Combustion Modeling Using a Level Set Method with Detailed
Chemistry, SAE TEchnical Paper 2006-01-0243,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 2006.
37. Liang, L., Reitz, R.D., Iyer, C.O. and Yi, J.,“Modeling Knock in Spark-Ignition Engines Using a G-equation
Combustion Model Incorporating Detailed Chemical Kinetics, SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-0165,” SAE
Technical Paper Series, 2007.
38. Lu, T. and C.K. Law,“A directed relation graph method for mechanism reduction,” Proceedings of the
Combustion Institute, 30: 1333-1341, 2005.
39. Marr, J.A., PhD. Thesis, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, MIT, 1993.
40. Metghalchi, M., and Keck, J. C.,“Burning Velocities of Methanol, Ethanol and iso-Octane-Air Mixtures”, 19th
Symposium (International) on Combustion/ The Combustion Institute, p. 275, 1983.
41. Munnannur, A. and Reitz, R.D.,“A Comprehensive Collision Model for Multi-Dimensional Engine Spray
Computations,” Atomization and Sprays, 19:7 597-619, doi:10.1615/AtomizSpr.v19.i7, 2009.
42. Munnannur, A.,“Droplet Collision Modeling in Multi-Dimensional Engine Spray Computations,” Ph.D.
Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2007.
43. Naber, J., and R. D. Reitz,“Modeling Engine Spray/Wall Impingement, SAE Technical Paper 880107,” SAE
44. Nagle, J., and Strickland-Constable, R. F.,“Oxidation of Carbon Between 1000-2000 °C,” Proceedings of the
Fifth Carbon Conference, Vol. 1, Pergamon, New York, pp. 154-164, 1962.
45. Namazian, M., and J. B. Heywood,“Flow in the Piston-Cylinder-Ring Crevices of a Spark-Ignition Engine:
Effect on Hydrocarbon Emissions, Efficiency and Power, SAE Technical Paper 820088,” SAE Technical Paper
Series, 1982.
46. O'Rourke, P.J. and A.A. Amsden,“A Particle Numerical Model For Wall Film Dynamics in Port-Injected Engines,
SAE Technical Paper 961961,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 1996.
47. O'Rourke, P.J. and A.A. Amsden, A Spray/Wall Interaction Submodel for the KIVA-3 Wall Film Model, SAE
48. O'Rourke, P. J., and A. A. Amsden,“The TAB Method for Numerical Simulations of Spray Droplet Breakup,
SAE Technical Paper 872089,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 1987.
49. Patankar, S.V., Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: Washington
D. C., 1980.
50. Peters, N., Turbulent Combustion, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
51. Pracht, W. E.,“Calculating three-dimensional fluid flows at all speeds with an Eulerian-Lagrangian computing
mesh,” Journal of Computational Physics, 17:2 132-159, 1975.
52. Promraning, E., Rutland, C. J.“Dynamic One-equation Nonviscosity Large-eddy Simulation Model,” AIAA
J., 40:4 689-701, 2002.
53. Ra, Y., Reitz, R.D.,“The application of a multi-component vaporization model to gasoline direct injection
engines,” International Journal of Engine Research, 4, 193-218, 2003.
References
54. Ra, Y., Reitz, R. D.,“A vaporization model for discrete multi-component fuel sprays, International Journal
of Multiphase Flow,” 35, 101-117, doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2008.10.006, 2009.
55. Reid, R.C., J.M. Prausnitz, and B.E. Poling, The Properties of Gases and Liquids, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1987.
56. Reitz, R. D.,“Modeling Atomization Processes in High-Pressure Vaporizing Sprays”, Atomization and Sprays,
3: 309-337, 1987.
57. Reitz, R. D. and Diwakar, R.,“Effect of Drop Breakup on Fuel Sprays, SAE Technical Paper 860469,” SAE
58. Rhodes, D. B., and Keck, J.,“Laminar Burning Speed Measurements of Indolene-Air-Diluent Mixtures at High
Pressures and Temperatures,” SAE Technical Paper 950047, SAE Tehcnical Paper Series, 1985.
59. Rutland, C. J.,“Large-eddy Simulations for Internal Combustion Engines – A Review,” International Journal
of Engine Research, 12, pp. 1-31, 2011.
60. Schmidt, D. P., I. Nouar, P. K. Senecal, C. J. Rutland, J. K. Martin, R. D. Reitz, and J. A. Hoffman,“Pressure-Swirl
Atomization in the Near Field, SAE Technical Paper 1999-01-0496,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 1999.
61. Singh, S., Liang, L., and Reitz, R. D.,“Development of a flame propagation model for dual-fuel partially
premixed compression ignition engines,” Journal of Engine Research, 7, pp. 65-75, 2006.
62. Squire, H. B.,“Investigation of the Instability of a Moving Liquid Film,” British Journal of Applied Physics, 4,
p. 167, 1953.
63. Schmidt, D. P. and Rutland, C. J.,“A New Droplet Collision Algorithm,” Journal of Computational Physics,
164:62-80, doi:10.1006/jcph.2000.6568, 2000.
64. Sirignano, W. A.,“Fuel droplet vaporization and spray combustion,” Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science, 9, 291-322, 1983.
65. Smagorinsky, J.,“General Circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations,” Mon. Weather Rev., vol. 99,
no. 3, pp. 99-164, 1963.
66. Su, T. F., Patterson, M. A., Reitz, R. D., and Farrell P. V.,“Experimental and Numerical Studies of High Pressure
Multiple Injection Sprays, SAE Technical Paper 960861,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 1996.
67. Sun, Y., Reitz, R. D.,“Modeling Low-Pressure Injections in Diesel HCCI Engines,” ILASS Americas, 20th Annual
Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Chicago, 2007.
68. Tan, Z.,“Multi-Dimensional Modeling of Ignition and Combustion in Premixed and DIS/CI (Direct Injection
Spark/Compression Ignition) Engines.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2003.
69. Tan, Z.; Reitz, R.D.,“An Ignition and Combustion Model for Spark Ignition Engine Multi-dimensional Model-
ing,” Combustion and Flame, 145, pp. 1-15, 2006.
70. Thompson, P. A., Compressible-fluid Dynamics, McGraw-Hill: New York, 1972.
71. Tsang, C.-W., Trujillo, M.F., Rutland, C. J.,“Large-eddy Simulation of Shear Flows and High-speed Vaporizing
Liquid Fuel Sprays,” Computational Fluids, 105, pp. 262-279, 2014.
72. Tsang, C.-W., Wang, Y., Wang, C., Shelburn, A., Liang, L., Puduppakkam, K., Modak, A., Naik, C., Meek, E.,
Rutland, C.,“Evaluation and Validation of Large-Eddy-Simulation (LES) for Gas Jet and Sprays, SAE Technical
Paper 2018-01-0844,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 2017.
73. Vishwanathan, G., and Reitz, R. D.,“Numerical Predictions of Diesel Flame Lift-Off Length and Soot Distribu-
tions Under Low Temperature Combustion Conditions, SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-1331,” SAE Technical
Paper Series, 2008.
74. Wahiduzzaman, S., and C. R. Ferguson,“Convective Heat Transfer from a Decaying Swirling Flow within a
Cylinder,” 8th International Heat Transfer Conference, paper #86-IHTC-253, August 1986.
75. Wang, Y., Ge, H.-W., and Reitz, R.D.,“Validation of Mesh- and Timestep-Independent Spray Models for Multi-
Dimensional Engine CFD Simulation, SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-0626,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 2010.
76. Wegener, J.L., et al.,“A Criterion for Predicting Shear-driven Film Separation at an Expanding Corner with
Experimental Validation,” 21st Institute for Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems Annual Conference, 2008.
77. Wenzel, H., "Turbulent premixed combustion in the laminar flamelet and the thin reaction zones regime,"
Annual Research Briefs, Center for Turbulence Research, 1997: 237-252, 1997.
78. Yakhot, V., and S. A. Orszag,“Renormalization Group Analysis of Turbulence: I. Basic Theory,” Journal of
Scientific Computing, 1:3, 1986.
79. Yang, X., Takamoto, Y., Okajima, A., Obokata, T. and Long, W.,“Comparison of Computed and Measured
High-Pressure Conical Diesel Sprays, SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-0951,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 2000.

ANSYS Forte Theory Manual 18.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANSYS Forte Theory Manual 18.2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANSYS Forte Theory Manual 18.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forte Theory Manual

ANSYS, Inc. Release 18.2

© 2017 ANSYS, Inc. Unauthorized use, distribution or duplication is prohibited.

U.S. Government Rights

Published in the U.S.A.

6.1.3. Unsteady Gas-Jet Model ......................................................................................................... 36

2.1.1. Species Conservation Equation

2.1.2. Fluid Continuity Equation

2.1.3. Momentum Conservation Equation

2.1.4. Energy Conservation Equation

2.1.5. Gas-phase Mixture Equation of State

2.2. Turbulence Models

2.2.1. Reynolds-Averaged-Navier-Stokes (RANS) Approach

and is the mean strain rate tensor,

where m =0.5, n =1.4 for an ideal gas, and

Table 2.1: Constants in the standard and RNG k - ε models68

Standard 0.09 1.44 1.92 -1.0 1.0 0.769

RNG 0.0845 1.42 1.68 Equation 2.22

2.2.2. Large-Eddy Simulation Approach

The SGS viscosity, , is modeled as:

2.3. Chemical Kinetics Formulation

The production rate of the k th species in the i th reaction can be written as

where q i is the rate of progress of reaction i.

• Chapter 3: Gas-phase Chemical Rate Expressions:

• Chapter 4: Surface Chemical Rate Expressions:

where Q i is the heat of reaction of reaction i at absolute zero,

and is the heat of formation of species at absolute zero.

2.3.1. Optional Semi-empirical Soot Model

2.4. Turbulence-Kinetics Interaction Model

In this way the gas composition and temperature remain consistent.

3.1. Wall Boundaries

3.1.2. Wall Conditions for the Momentum Equation

3.1.3. Wall Conditions for the Energy Equation

2. The flow velocity is directed parallel to the flat wall;

3. Pressure gradients are neglected;

5. Radiation heat transfer is neglected.

3.1.4. Turbulence Model Wall Conditions

where k and ε are evaluated a distance y from the wall and

3.2. Inflow and Outflow Boundaries

3.2.1. Velocity Inflow Boundaries

3.2.2. Outflow Boundaries

3.2.3. Pressure Inflow Boundaries

3.2.4. Pressure Outflow Boundaries

3.3. Periodic Boundaries

3.4. Axis-of-Symmetry Boundaries

4.1. Initialization of the Fluid Properties

• Initial pressure for each computational region.

• Initial temperature for each computational region.

4.2. Swirl Profiles

Figure 4.1: Bessel-function swirl velocity profile

5.1.1. Temporal Differencing Method

5.1.2. Spatial Differencing Method

When differencing diffusion terms for a cell-centered quantity Q , it is necessary to evaluate (∇ Q ) α ⋅

5.2. SIMPLE Method

5.2.1. Convective Flux Discretization

5.3. Chemistry Solver Options

5.3.1. Operator Splitting Method and Parallel Implementation

5.3.2. Dynamic Adaptive Chemistry

5.3.3. Dynamic Cell Clustering

6.1. Solid-Cone Spray Models