Finite volume Ghost Fluid Method implementation of interfacial forces in PISO loop

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS

卷:376

Article

Haghshenas, Majid¹  Wilson, James A.¹  Kumar, Ranganathan¹ 

[1] Univ Cent Florida, Dept Mech & Aerosp Engn, Orlando, FL 32816 USA

关键词: Two phase flow;    Ghost fluid model (GFM);    Capillary force;    Finite volume method (FVM);    PISO loop;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.jcp.2018.09.025

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

In this work, we implement interfacial forces (surface tension, hydrostatic and viscous forces) by enlisting the finite volume discretization of GFM (Ghost Fluid Method) using A-CLSVOF (Algebraic Coupled Level-Set/Volume-of-Fluid) method for the mass conservative, and smooth interface description. The widely used PISO momentum solution to resolve the pressure-velocity coupling is presented along with the present GFM discretization and its placement within the PISO loop. The pressure jump at the interface due to the interfacial forces is made sharp via direct calculation of the modified pressure matrix coefficients corresponding to targeted interfacial cells, and as a source term for the jump value itself. The Level-Set field is enlisted for curvature computation in A-CLSVOF and for the interpolation and weighting of the relative contribution of the capillary force in adjacent for the matrix coefficients in the FV framework. To assess the A-CLSVOF/GFM performance, four canonical cases were studied. In the case of a static droplet in suspension, A-CLSVOF/GFM produces a sharp and accurate pressure jump compared to the traditional CSF implementation of A-CLSVOF. The interaction of viscous and capillary forces is proven to be accurate and consistent with theoretical results for the classical capillary wave. For the linear two-layer shear flow, GFM sharp treatment of the viscosity captured the velocity gradient across the interface and removed the diffusion of the viscous stresses caused by the discontinuous material properties. Finally, the combination of all GFM improvements proposed in this study are compared to experimental findings of terminal velocity for a gaseous bubble rising in a viscous fluid. GFM outperforms CSF with errors of 4.6% and 14.0% respectively. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

【 授权许可】

Free