multiphase flow in ale3d presented by: david stevens lawrence livermore national laboratory...
TRANSCRIPT
Multiphase Flow in ALE3DMultiphase Flow in ALE3D
Presented by:
David Stevens
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
UCRL-PRES-214865
Introduction to multiphase flowIntroduction to multiphase flow
Figure 3 from Fan Zhang et. Al., “Explosive Dispersal of Solid Particles”, Shock Waves, 11, 431-443, 2001. High speed photographs
of a 10.6 cm radius charge Frames separated 0.25-
0.50 ms
The goal is to develop a numerical method capable of accurately capturing such shock/turbulence interactions.
Spherical Charge
The Multiphase Equations (2-Phase)The Multiphase Equations (2-Phase)
High particle number concentrations often preclude the use of stochastic particle techniques.
The continuum two-phase model of Baer and Nunziato (SNL) with modifications form the basis of the implementation.
Each phase is described by evolution equations for mass, momentum, internal energy and volume fraction.
compactiondragchemistryicshydrodynam
PPPuuVEmVPPuEuE
uuVmPPuuu
mu
PPm
V
lgglv
llggggggggtggg
giliv
llixgxgggigggtgigg
gggtgg
lgg
ggt
ii
)(
)(
intintintintint
int,int
int
fraction volumegas
)(
)(
0
0
0
0
intintint
int,
intint
int
int
lgglv
lltggg
giliv
llitgigg
tgg
lgg
gt
ggggggggtggg
xgxgggigggtgigg
gggtgg
ggt
PPPuuVEmE
uuVmu
m
PPm
phasecompactiondragchemistry
VPPuEuE
PPuuu
u
V
phaseichydrodynam
ii
The Treatment of the Multiphase InteractionsThe Treatment of the Multiphase Interactions
The model equations are time-split into a pure hydrodynamic phase and a multiphase relaxation phase.
The Hydrodynamic phase is composed of a nodal ALE phase and a species Riemann update.
The zonal Riemann update for species quantitiesThe zonal Riemann update for species quantities
A Riemann solver is used to evaluate the species quantities.
The Riemann solve is just a new “edge state” formalism that replace the original upwind “edge state” formalism of the Van Leer based advection for zonal scalars remap.
Edge states from the advection are cached and converted into fluxes. The combination of a Van Leer predictor followed by a Riemann solve corrector is a standard second-order formalism.
0
0
0
int,int
int
jgxxjxgjgg
jjxggjggtggg
xgxggj
xgigjggtgigg
jxgjggtgg
jjj
iij
j
VPuPEuE
PPuuu
u
imeshgjgj uuu ,
V&V for multiphase modelV&V for multiphase model
One Dimensional test cases Andrianov’s analytic solutions
Rogue et al’s shock tube. Water/air shock tube.
Multi-dimensional test cases Zhang particle dispersion experiments (DRDC).
Applied Problems Particle dispersion. Particle Jets. DDT. Deflagration modes in HE and propellants.
Method Comparison on the Water-Air Shock Tube
Method Comparison on the Water-Air Shock Tube
High pressure liquid expanding into low pressure air.
Challenging problem due to the wide range in densities and sound speeds.
Several Riemann Solvers have been compared. Rusanov is a single wave
solver. ASW and AUFS are seven
wave Riemann solvers. The presence of a predictor
appears to outweigh the full amount of terms in the predictor.
Water Air
Under the hood:The Lagrangian system of primitive variables
Under the hood:The Lagrangian system of primitive variables
x
lllill
lil
llll
il
llill
l
gggigg
gig
gggg
ig
ggigg
g
i
tl
l
l
g
g
g
g
t W
ucVuc
upp
uVu
ucVuc
upp
uVu
V
p
u
p
u
W
22
22
0000
/10000
0000
0000
000/10
0000
000000
lllllgggggii ucucuucucuV ,,
Rogue Shock TubeRogue Shock Tube
At left is Figure 11 from Rogue, Rodriguez, Haas, and Saurel’s: “Experimental and numerical investigation of the shock-induced fluidization of a particle bed, Shock Waves, 8, 29-45, 1998.
This is a series of shadowgraphs of a 2 mm bed of nylon beads being accelerated by a Ma 1.3 shock. Each panel represents a different time in the experiment..
The Rogue Shock TubeThe Rogue Shock Tube
Above is Figure 15 from Rogue, et al.
Top left is the particle cloud density at 100 us.
Bottom right is the gas pressure.
Initial Rogue Shock Tube ComparisonInitial Rogue Shock Tube Comparison
Numerical results agree well with the experimental data.
The simulated fluidized bed is slightly ahead of the experimental observations.
Deflagration to Detonation TransitionDeflagration to Detonation Transition
The multiphase model has replicated the experimental and simulation results from Baer et al., Combustion and Flame, 65, 15.
Detonation Front speeds agree with observations and Mel’s original simulations in both the convective, compressive and detonation regions of the flow.
5.35.3
0.50.51.11.1
Improved Numerics and Mesh Resolution (AMR)Improved Numerics and Mesh Resolution (AMR)
Following are simple examples from prototype 1D and 3D shock physics simulations using a combined ALE3D/SAMRAI model.
Mathew Dawson (DHS Summer Intern, 2005) examined the role of: Numerical method Number of elements Refinement levels Refinement factor Mesh efficiency
Adaptive mesh refinement is one method for achieving high resolution without imposing O(n4) growth in computational requirements.
Improved Numerical MethodsImproved Numerical Methods
Traditional methods efficiently track shocks
Improved methods required for accurate modeling Actual fluid motion Contact discontinuities
HLL, typical numerical method used in production models Carbuncle instability and spurious sollutions HLL/C efficient and robust but adds excessive diffusion around
contact discontinuities
Artificially upstream flux vector splitting (AUFS) Robust, feasible, reliable Provides resolution on discontinuities and clean solutions Avoids carbuncle instability and kinked mach stems
The following 3D results focus on the second-order predictor-corrector AUFS model
Numerical Method ComparisonShock Tube Analysis
Numerical Method ComparisonShock Tube Analysis
With increasing resolution, AUSF exhibits dramatically better convergence for contact discontinuities
Density comparison for 200 zones.
Contact discontinuity at 200 zones.
AUSF HLL Rusanov
AUSF HLL Rusanov
Local versus Global Mesh RefinementLocal versus Global Mesh Refinement
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level4
NX 50 NX 100 NX 200 NX 400
Local mesh refinement is able to preserve the gains observed with AUSF when compared with global mesh refinement.
Preferred Numerical DirectionsPreferred Numerical Directions
Rectangular meshes tend to imprint directional character on spherical problems
This problem is influenced by both the numerical method and the accuracy used
Cross-section of density field
Lineouts at 30, 45, and 60 degrees
Higher refinement reduces this problem
Further evaluation is required when SAMRAI multiblock capacities are brought online
Gradient ResolutionGradient Resolution
Gradients in 3D are prone to smearing
Mitigation of gradient diffusion achieved through increasing refinement Density gradient larger for a tangent
lineout as radial resolution increases.
Density lineout tangent to shockwave
Density 2D slice using HLL Solver (NX =100)
Density 2D slice using HLL Solver (NX =50)
NX 50 NX 100
High performance ComputingHigh performance Computing
Simulations on 3600 processors were completed successfully Demonstrating robustness of code Optimal refinement parameters in 3D
Based on computational efficiency
Overall interface and operation capability
3D Display of zones and corresponding levels with density slice
3D Display magnified with enhanced zones on the left
Conclusions And Future DevelopmentsConclusions And Future Developments
Transition to turbulence studies: Rayleigh-Taylor, Richtmyer-
Meshkov instabilities
Multilevel, multiphase V&V.Deflagration to Detonation
studies (DDT)Dynamically fluidized beds.
Multi-wave Riemann solvers exhibit more accurate results on many Multiphase problems.
This performance is reduced by a lack of robustness on more complex problems.