Ansys CFX-Solver Theory Guide

CFD EXPERTS
Simulate the Future
WWW.CFDEXPERTS.NET
Ansys CFX-Solver Theory Guide
ANSYS, Inc. Release 2021 R2

Southpointe July 2021
2600 Ansys Drive
Canonsburg, PA 15317 ANSYS, Inc. and
ansysinfo@ansys.com Ansys Europe,
Ltd. are UL
http://www.ansys.com registered ISO
(T) 724-746-3304 9001: 2015
(F) 724-514-9494 companies.
Copyright and Trademark Information
© 2021 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: 2015 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. Basic Solver Capability Theory .............................................................................................................. 21
1.1. Documentation Conventions .......................................................................................................... 22
1.1.1. Dimensions ............................................................................................................................ 22
1.1.2. List of Symbols ....................................................................................................................... 22
1.1.2.1. Subscripts ..................................................................................................................... 27
1.1.3. Variable Definitions ................................................................................................................ 27
1.1.3.1. Isothermal Compressibility ............................................................................................ 27
1.1.3.2. Isentropic Compressibility .............................................................................................. 27
1.1.3.3. Reference Pressure ........................................................................................................ 27
1.1.3.4. Static Pressure ............................................................................................................... 28
1.1.3.5. Modified Pressure .......................................................................................................... 28
1.1.3.6. Static Enthalpy .............................................................................................................. 28
1.1.3.6.1. Material with Variable Density and Specific Heat .................................................... 28
1.1.3.7. Total Enthalpy ................................................................................................................ 30
1.1.3.8. Domain Temperature ..................................................................................................... 30
1.1.3.9. Static Temperature ........................................................................................................ 30
1.1.3.9.1. Material with Constant Density and Specific Heat .................................................. 30
1.1.3.9.2. Ideal Gas or Solid with cp=f(T) ............................................................................... 30
1.1.3.9.3. Material with Variable Density and Specific Heat .................................................... 31
1.1.3.10. Total Temperature ........................................................................................................ 31
1.1.3.10.1. Material with Constant Density and Specific Heat ................................................ 31
1.1.3.10.2. Ideal Gas with constant cp .................................................................................. 31
1.1.3.10.3. Ideal Gas with cp = f(T) ........................................................................................ 32
1.1.3.10.4. Material with Variable Density and Specific Heat .................................................. 32
1.1.3.11. Entropy ....................................................................................................................... 32
1.1.3.11.1. Material with Constant Density and Specific Heat ................................................ 32
1.1.3.11.2. Ideal Gas with constant cp or cp = f(T) .................................................................. 33
1.1.3.12. Total Pressure .............................................................................................................. 34
1.1.3.12.1. Incompressible Fluids .......................................................................................... 35
1.1.3.12.2. Ideal Gases .......................................................................................................... 35
1.1.3.13. Shear Strain Rate ......................................................................................................... 36
1.1.3.14. Rotating Frame Quantities ........................................................................................... 36
1.1.3.14.1. Incompressible Fluids .......................................................................................... 37
1.1.3.14.2. Ideal Gases .......................................................................................................... 37
1.1.3.15. Courant Number .......................................................................................................... 39
1.1.4. Mathematical Notation ........................................................................................................... 40
1.1.4.1. The Vector Operators ..................................................................................................... 40
1.1.4.1.1. Gradient Operator ................................................................................................. 40
1.1.4.1.2. Divergence Operator ............................................................................................ 40
1.1.4.1.3. Dyadic Operator ................................................................................................... 40
1.1.4.2. Matrix Transposition ...................................................................................................... 41
1.1.4.3. The Identity Matrix (Kronecker Delta function) ............................................................... 41
1.1.4.4. Index Notation .............................................................................................................. 41
1.2. Governing Equations ...................................................................................................................... 42
1.2.1. Transport Equations ............................................................................................................... 42
1.2.1.1. The Continuity Equation ................................................................................................ 42
Release 2021 R2 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. iii
Theory Guide
1.2.1.2. The Momentum Equations ............................................................................................. 42

1.2.1.3. The Total Energy Equation .............................................................................................. 42
1.2.1.4. The Thermal Energy Equation ........................................................................................ 43
1.2.1.5. Turbulent Flux Closure for Heat Transfer ......................................................................... 44
1.2.2. Equations of State .................................................................................................................. 44
1.2.2.1. Incompressible Equation of State ................................................................................... 45
1.2.2.2. Ideal Gas Equation of State ............................................................................................ 45
1.2.2.3. Real Gas and Liquid Equations of State ........................................................................... 45
1.2.2.3.1. Real Gas Properties ............................................................................................... 45
1.2.2.3.1.1. Redlich Kwong Models ................................................................................. 46
1.2.2.3.1.1.1. The Standard Redlich Kwong Model ..................................................... 46
1.2.2.3.1.1.2. The Aungier Redlich Kwong Model ....................................................... 46
1.2.2.3.1.1.3. The Soave Redlich Kwong Model .......................................................... 47
1.2.2.3.1.2. Peng Robinson Model .................................................................................. 47
1.2.2.3.1.3. Real Gas Constitutive Relations ..................................................................... 48
1.2.2.3.2. Real Gas Saturated Vapor Properties ...................................................................... 49
1.2.2.3.3. Real Gas Liquid Properties ..................................................................................... 50
1.2.2.3.4. IAPWS Equation of State ........................................................................................ 51
1.2.2.3.5. Metastable Superheated Liquid/Supercooled Vapor States .................................... 52
1.2.2.3.6. Numerical Testing to Delineate Metastable Regions ............................................... 52
1.2.2.3.7. The Acentric Factor ............................................................................................... 53
1.2.2.4. General Equation of State .............................................................................................. 53
1.2.3. Conjugate Heat Transfer ......................................................................................................... 54
1.3. Buoyancy ....................................................................................................................................... 56
1.3.1. Full Buoyancy Model .............................................................................................................. 56
1.3.2. Boussinesq Model .................................................................................................................. 56
1.4. Immersed Solids ............................................................................................................................. 57
1.4.1. Momentum Sources ............................................................................................................... 57
1.4.2. Near-Wall Treatment for Immersed Solid Boundary ................................................................. 58
1.4.2.1. Notation ........................................................................................................................ 58
1.4.2.2. Laminar Flow Treatment ................................................................................................ 59
1.4.2.3. Turbulent Flow Treatment .............................................................................................. 60
1.4.2.3.1. Wall Distance ........................................................................................................ 60
1.4.2.3.2. SST Model ............................................................................................................. 60
1.4.2.3.3. Scalable Wall Function .......................................................................................... 60
1.5. Multicomponent Flow ..................................................................................................................... 61
1.5.1. Multicomponent Notation ...................................................................................................... 61
1.5.2. Scalar Transport Equation ....................................................................................................... 61
1.5.3. Algebraic Equation for Components ....................................................................................... 63
1.5.4. Constraint Equation for Components ...................................................................................... 63
1.5.5. Multicomponent Fluid Properties ........................................................................................... 63
1.5.6. Energy Equation ..................................................................................................................... 64
1.5.7. Multicomponent Energy Diffusion .......................................................................................... 65
1.6. Additional Variables ........................................................................................................................ 66
1.6.1. Transport Equations for Additional Variables ........................................................................... 66
1.6.2. Diffusive Transport Equations for Additional Variables ............................................................. 67
1.6.3. Poisson Equations for Additional Variables .............................................................................. 67
1.6.4. Algebraic Equations for Additional Variables ........................................................................... 68
1.7. Rotational Forces ............................................................................................................................ 68
1.7.1. Alternate Rotation Model ....................................................................................................... 69
1.8. Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 69
iv of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Theory Guide
1.8.1. Momentum Sources ............................................................................................................... 69

1.8.1.1. Isotropic Loss Model ...................................................................................................... 69
1.8.1.2. Directional Loss Model .................................................................................................. 70
1.8.1.3. General Momentum Sources .......................................................................................... 71
1.8.1.4. Immersed Solid Sources ................................................................................................. 71
1.8.2. General Sources ..................................................................................................................... 71
1.8.3. Mass (Continuity) Sources ...................................................................................................... 71
1.8.4. Bulk Sources .......................................................................................................................... 72
1.8.5. Radiation Sources .................................................................................................................. 72
1.8.6. Boundary Sources .................................................................................................................. 72
1.9. Boundary Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 72
1.9.1. Inlet (Subsonic) ...................................................................................................................... 72
1.9.1.1. Mass and Momentum .................................................................................................... 72
1.9.1.1.1. Normal Speed in ................................................................................................... 72
1.9.1.1.2. Cartesian Velocity Components ............................................................................. 72
1.9.1.1.3. Cylindrical Velocity Components ........................................................................... 73
1.9.1.1.4. Total Pressure ........................................................................................................ 73
1.9.1.1.5. Mass Flow Rate ..................................................................................................... 73
1.9.1.2. Turbulence .................................................................................................................... 73
1.9.1.2.1. Default Intensity and Autocompute Length Scale .................................................. 74
1.9.1.2.2. Intensity and Autocompute Length Scale .............................................................. 74
1.9.1.2.3. Intensity and Length Scale .................................................................................... 74
1.9.1.2.4. k and Epsilon ........................................................................................................ 75
1.9.1.3. Heat Transfer ................................................................................................................. 75
1.9.1.3.1. Static Temperature ................................................................................................ 75
1.9.1.3.2. Total Temperature ................................................................................................. 75
1.9.1.4. Additional Variables ....................................................................................................... 76
1.9.2. Inlet (Supersonic) ................................................................................................................... 76
1.9.2.1. Heat Transfer ................................................................................................................. 76
1.9.2.1.2. Total Temperature ................................................................................................. 76
1.9.3. Outlet (Subsonic) ................................................................................................................... 76
1.9.3.1.1. Static Pressure (Uniform) ....................................................................................... 76
1.9.3.1.2. Normal Speed ....................................................................................................... 76
1.9.3.1.5. Average Static Pressure: Over Whole Outlet ............................................................ 77
1.9.3.1.6. Average Static Pressure: Above or Below Specified Radius ...................................... 77
1.9.3.1.7. Average Static Pressure: Circumferential ................................................................ 77
1.9.3.1.8. Mass Flow Rate: Scale Mass Flows .......................................................................... 77
1.9.3.1.9. Mass Flow Rate: Shift Pressure with or without Pressure Profile ............................... 78
1.9.3.1.10. Mass Flow Rate: Shift Pressure with Circumferential Pressure Averaging ................ 78
1.9.3.1.11. Exit Corrected Mass Flow Rate ............................................................................. 79
1.9.3.1.12. Radial Equilibrium ............................................................................................... 80
1.9.3.2. Turbulence, Heat Transfer, Convected Additional Variables, and Other Scalars .................. 81
1.9.4. Outlet (Supersonic) ................................................................................................................ 81
1.9.5. Opening ................................................................................................................................ 81
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. v
Theory Guide
1.9.5.1.3. Pressure and Direction .......................................................................................... 82

1.9.5.1.3.1. Loss Coefficient ............................................................................................ 82
1.9.5.2. Heat Transfer ................................................................................................................. 82
1.9.6. Wall ....................................................................................................................................... 83
1.9.6.1.1. No Slip (Not Moving, No Wall Velocity) ................................................................... 83
1.9.6.1.2. Free Slip ................................................................................................................ 83
1.9.6.1.3. Finite Slip .............................................................................................................. 83
1.9.6.1.4. Specified Shear ..................................................................................................... 83
1.9.6.1.5. No Slip (Moving, with Wall Velocity) ....................................................................... 83
1.9.6.2. Turbulence .................................................................................................................... 84
1.9.6.3. Heat Transfer ................................................................................................................. 84
1.9.6.3.1. Adiabatic .............................................................................................................. 84
1.9.6.3.2. Fixed Temperature ................................................................................................ 84
1.9.6.3.3. Heat Flux .............................................................................................................. 84
1.9.6.3.4. Heat Transfer Coefficient ....................................................................................... 84
1.9.7. Symmetry Plane ..................................................................................................................... 84
1.10. Automatic Time Scale Calculation .................................................................................................. 85
1.10.1. Fluid Time Scale Estimate ..................................................................................................... 85
1.10.2. Solid Time Scale Estimate ..................................................................................................... 86
1.11. Mesh Adaption ............................................................................................................................. 87
1.11.1. Adaption Criteria .................................................................................................................. 87
1.11.2. Mesh Refinement Implementation in Ansys CFX ................................................................... 88
1.11.2.1. Adaption in Inflated Regions of the Mesh ..................................................................... 88
1.11.2.2. Adaption to the Original Geometry .............................................................................. 89
1.11.3. Mesh Adaption Limitations ................................................................................................... 90
1.11.3.1. Mesh Adaption Tips ..................................................................................................... 90
1.12. Flow in Porous Media .................................................................................................................... 91
1.12.1. Full Porous Model ................................................................................................................. 91
1.12.1.1. Heat Transfer Through the Fluid Only ........................................................................... 92
1.12.1.2. Additional Variable Transfer Through the Fluid Only ...................................................... 92
1.12.1.3. Heat Transfer Through the Fluid and Solid .................................................................... 92
1.12.1.4. Additional Variable Transfer Through the Fluid and Solid ............................................... 93
1.12.1.5. Time-varying Porosity .................................................................................................. 93
1.12.2. Porous Momentum Loss Models ........................................................................................... 94
1.13. Wall and Boundary Distance Formulation ...................................................................................... 94
1.13.1. 1D Illustration of Concept ..................................................................................................... 94
1.13.2. Concept Generalized to 3D ................................................................................................... 95
1.14. Wall Condensation Theory ............................................................................................................. 95
1.14.1. Wall Condensation Model ..................................................................................................... 96
1.14.1.1. Laminar Boundary Layer Model .................................................................................... 96
1.14.1.2. Turbulent Boundary Layer Model ................................................................................. 97
1.14.2. Condensation Heat Transfer (CHT) ........................................................................................ 98
1.14.3. Specification of Secondary Fluxes ......................................................................................... 98
2. Turbulence and Wall Function Theory ................................................................................................... 99
2.1. Turbulence Models ......................................................................................................................... 99
2.1.1. Statistical Turbulence Models and the Closure Problem ........................................................... 99
2.1.1.1. Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) Equations ..................................................... 100
vi of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Theory Guide
2.2. Eddy Viscosity Turbulence Models ................................................................................................. 101

2.2.1. The Zero Equation Model in Ansys CFX ................................................................................. 103
2.2.2. Two Equation Turbulence Models ......................................................................................... 104
2.2.2.1. The k-epsilon Model in Ansys CFX ................................................................................ 104
2.2.2.2. Buoyancy Turbulence ................................................................................................... 105
2.2.2.3. The RNG k-epsilon Model in Ansys CFX ......................................................................... 106
2.2.2.4. The k-omega Models in Ansys CFX ............................................................................... 106
2.2.2.4.1. The Wilcox k-omega Model ................................................................................. 107
2.2.2.4.2. The Baseline (BSL) k-omega Model ...................................................................... 108
2.2.2.4.3.The Shear Stress Transport (SST) Model ................................................................ 109
2.2.2.4.3.1. Blending Functions .................................................................................... 110
2.2.2.4.3.2. The Wall Scale Equation .............................................................................. 110
2.2.2.4.3.3. Modifications to SST for High Lift Devices .................................................... 110
2.2.2.4.4. The Reattachment Modification (RM) Model ........................................................ 111
2.2.2.4.5. The GEKO Model ................................................................................................. 112
2.2.2.5. Production Limiters ..................................................................................................... 114
2.2.2.6. Curvature Correction for Two-Equation Models ............................................................ 115
2.2.3. The Eddy Viscosity Transport Model ...................................................................................... 116
2.2.3.1. Low Reynolds Number Formulation ............................................................................. 117
2.3. Reynolds Stress Turbulence Models ............................................................................................... 117
2.3.1. The Reynolds Stress Model ................................................................................................... 118
2.3.1.1. Pressure-Strain Terms ................................................................................................... 119
2.3.2. Omega-Based Reynolds Stress Models .................................................................................. 121
2.3.2.1. The Omega Reynolds Stress Model ............................................................................... 121
2.3.2.2. The BSL Reynolds Stress Model .................................................................................... 122
2.3.2.3. Pressure-Strain Correlation ........................................................................................... 123
2.3.2.4. Wall Boundary Condition ............................................................................................. 123
2.3.3. Rotating Frame of Reference for Reynolds Stress Models ....................................................... 124
2.3.4. Explicit Algebraic Reynolds Stress Model ............................................................................... 124
2.3.4.1. Streamline Curvature and System Rotation ................................................................... 127
2.4. Ansys CFX Laminar-Turbulent Transition Models ............................................................................ 128
2.4.1. Two Equation Gamma Theta Transition Model ....................................................................... 128
2.4.1.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 128
2.4.1.2.Transport Equations for the Gamma Theta Transition Model .......................................... 130
2.4.1.3. Separation-induced Transition Correction .................................................................... 132
2.4.1.4. Coupling to the SST Model ........................................................................................... 133
2.4.1.5. Gamma Theta Transition Model and Rough Walls .......................................................... 133
2.4.2. One Equation Intermittency Transition Model ....................................................................... 133
2.4.2.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 133
2.4.2.2.Transport Equation for the Intermittency Transition Model ............................................ 134
2.4.2.3. Coupling to SST Model ................................................................................................. 138
2.4.2.4. Intermittency Transition Model and Rough Walls .......................................................... 139
2.5. Large Eddy Simulation Theory ....................................................................................................... 139
2.5.1. Subgrid-Scale Models ........................................................................................................... 140
2.5.1.1. Smagorinsky Model ..................................................................................................... 140
2.5.1.1.1. Wall Damping ..................................................................................................... 141
2.5.1.2. WALE Model ................................................................................................................ 142
2.5.1.3. Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly Model ............................................................................... 142
2.6. Detached Eddy Simulation Theory ................................................................................................. 144
2.6.1. SST-DES Formulation Strelets et al. ........................................................................................ 144
2.6.2. Delayed and Shielded DES-SST Model Formulation ............................................................... 145
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. vii
Theory Guide
2.6.3. Stress-Blended Eddy Simulation (SBES) ................................................................................. 146

2.6.3.1. General Concept .......................................................................................................... 146
2.6.3.2. Example ...................................................................................................................... 147
2.6.4. Discretization of the Advection Terms ................................................................................... 148
2.6.5. Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................ 150
2.7. Scale-Adaptive Simulation Theory ................................................................................................. 150
2.7.1. Discretization of the Advection Terms ................................................................................... 153
2.8. Modeling Flow Near the Wall ......................................................................................................... 153
2.8.1. Mathematical Formulation ................................................................................................... 153
2.8.1.1. Scalable Wall Functions ................................................................................................ 154
2.8.1.2. Solver Yplus and Yplus ................................................................................................. 155
2.8.1.3. Automatic Near-Wall Treatment for Omega-Based Models ............................................ 156
2.8.1.4. Treatment of Rough Walls ............................................................................................ 157
2.8.1.4.1. Rough Wall Treatment for Turbulence Models Based on the Dissipation Equa-
tion .................................................................................................................................. 159
2.8.1.4.2. Automatic Rough Wall Treatment for Turbulence Models Based on the Omega
Equation ........................................................................................................................... 159
2.8.1.4.3. Transition and Rough Walls .................................................................................. 159
2.8.1.4.4. Wall Function Approach for Omega-Based Turbulence Models ............................. 160
2.8.1.4.5.Treatment of the SST Model for Icing Simulations ................................................. 161
2.8.1.5. Heat Flux in the Near-Wall Region ................................................................................ 161
2.8.1.5.1. Scalable Wall Functions ....................................................................................... 162
2.8.1.5.2. Automatic Wall Treatment ................................................................................... 162
2.8.1.5.3. Effect of Rough Walls ........................................................................................... 162
2.8.1.5.4. Treatment of Compressibility Effects .................................................................... 163
2.8.1.6. Additional Variables in the Near Wall Region ................................................................. 166
3. GGI and MFR Theory ............................................................................................................................ 167
3.1. Interface Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 167
3.2. Numerics ...................................................................................................................................... 168
4. Transient Blade Row Modeling Theory ............................................................................................... 171
4.1. Profile Transformation ................................................................................................................... 173
4.2. Time Transformation ..................................................................................................................... 173
4.3. Fourier Transformation .................................................................................................................. 175
4.4. Harmonic Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 177
5. Multiphase Flow Theory ...................................................................................................................... 179
5.1. Multiphase Notation ..................................................................................................................... 179
5.1.1. Multiphase Total Pressure ..................................................................................................... 180
5.2. The Homogeneous and Inhomogeneous Models ........................................................................... 180
5.2.1. The Inhomogeneous Model .................................................................................................. 180
5.2.1.1. Interfacial Area Density ................................................................................................ 180
5.2.1.1.1. The Particle Model .............................................................................................. 180
5.2.1.1.2. The Mixture Model .............................................................................................. 182
5.2.1.1.3. The Free Surface Model ....................................................................................... 182
5.2.2. The Homogeneous Model .................................................................................................... 183
5.3. Hydrodynamic Equations .............................................................................................................. 183
5.3.1. Inhomogeneous Hydrodynamic Equations ........................................................................... 184
5.3.1.1. Momentum Equations ................................................................................................. 184
5.3.1.2. Continuity Equations ................................................................................................... 185
5.3.1.3. Volume Conservation Equation .................................................................................... 185
5.3.1.4. Pressure Constraint ...................................................................................................... 185
5.3.2. Homogeneous Hydrodynamic Equations .............................................................................. 186
viii of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Theory Guide
5.3.2.1. Momentum Equations ................................................................................................. 186

5.3.2.2. Continuity Equations ................................................................................................... 186
5.3.2.3. Volume Conservation Equations ................................................................................... 186
5.3.2.4. Pressure Constraint ...................................................................................................... 186
5.4. Multicomponent Multiphase Flow ................................................................................................. 186
5.5. Interphase Momentum Transfer Models ........................................................................................ 187
5.5.1. Interphase Drag ................................................................................................................... 187
5.5.2. Interphase Drag for the Particle Model .................................................................................. 188
5.5.2.1. Sparsely Distributed Solid Particles ............................................................................... 189
5.5.2.1.1. Schiller Naumann Drag Model ............................................................................. 189
5.5.2.2. Densely Distributed Solid Particles ............................................................................... 189
5.5.2.2.1. Densely Distributed Solid Particles: Wen Yu Drag Model ....................................... 189
5.5.2.2.2. Densely Distributed Solid Particles: Gidaspow Drag Model ................................... 190
5.5.2.3. Sparsely Distributed Fluid Particles (Drops and Bubbles) ............................................... 190
5.5.2.3.1. Sparsely Distributed Fluid Particles: Ishii-Zuber Drag Model .................................. 190
5.5.2.3.2. Sparsely Distributed Fluid Particles: Grace Drag Model ......................................... 191
5.5.2.4. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles ............................................................................... 191
5.5.2.4.1. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Ishii-Zuber Drag Model .................................. 191
5.5.2.4.2. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Dense Spherical Particle Regime
(Ishii Zuber) ...................................................................................................................... 192
5.5.2.4.3. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Dense Distorted Particle Regime (Ishii
Zuber) .............................................................................................................................. 192
5.5.2.4.4. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Dense Spherical Cap Regime (Ishii Zuber) ....... 192
5.5.2.4.5. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Automatic Regime Selection (Ishii Zuber) ....... 192
5.5.2.4.6. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Grace Drag Model .......................................... 192
5.5.3. Interphase Drag for the Mixture Model ................................................................................. 193
5.5.4. Interphase Drag for the Free Surface Model .......................................................................... 193
5.5.5. Lift Force .............................................................................................................................. 193
5.5.5.1. The Saffman Mei Lift Force Model ................................................................................. 194
5.5.5.2. The Legendre and Magnaudet Lift Force Model ............................................................ 194
5.5.5.3. The Tomiyama Lift Force Model .................................................................................... 195
5.5.6. Virtual Mass Force ................................................................................................................ 196
5.5.7. Wall Lubrication Force .......................................................................................................... 196
5.5.7.1. The Antal Wall Lubrication Force Model ........................................................................ 196
5.5.7.2. The Tomiyama Wall Lubrication Force Model ................................................................ 197
5.5.7.3. The Frank Wall Lubrication Force Model ........................................................................ 197
5.5.8. Interphase Turbulent Dispersion Force .................................................................................. 198
5.5.8.1. Favre Averaged Drag Model ......................................................................................... 198
5.5.8.2. Lopez de Bertodano Model .......................................................................................... 199
5.6. Solid Particle Collision Models ....................................................................................................... 199
5.6.1. Solids Stress Tensor .............................................................................................................. 199
5.6.1.1. Empirical Constitutive Equations .................................................................................. 199
5.6.1.2. Kinetic Theory Models for the Solids Stress Tensor ........................................................ 200
5.6.2. Solids Pressure ..................................................................................................................... 200
5.6.2.1. Empirical Constitutive Equations .................................................................................. 200
5.6.2.2. Kinetic Theory Models for Solids Pressure ..................................................................... 200
5.6.3. Solids Shear Viscosity ........................................................................................................... 201
5.6.3.1. Constitutive Equation Models ...................................................................................... 201
5.6.3.2. Kinetic Theory Models for Solids Shear Viscosity ........................................................... 201
5.6.4. Solids Bulk Viscosity ............................................................................................................. 202
5.6.4.1. Constitutive Equation Models ...................................................................................... 202
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. ix
Theory Guide
5.6.4.2. Kinetic Theory Models for Solids Bulk Viscosity ............................................................. 202
5.6.5. Granular Temperature .......................................................................................................... 202
5.6.5.1. Algebraic Equilibrium Model ........................................................................................ 202
5.6.5.2. Zero Equation Model ................................................................................................... 204
5.7. Interphase Heat Transfer ............................................................................................................... 204
5.7.1. Phasic Equations .................................................................................................................. 204
5.7.2. Inhomogeneous Interphase Heat Transfer Models ................................................................. 205
5.7.2.1. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients ................................................................................. 205
5.7.2.2. Particle Model Correlations .......................................................................................... 205
5.7.2.3. Mixture Model Correlations .......................................................................................... 206
5.7.2.4. The Two Resistance Model ........................................................................................... 207
5.7.3. Homogeneous Heat Transfer in Multiphase Flow ................................................................... 207
5.8. Multiple Size Group (MUSIG) Model ............................................................................................... 208
5.8.1. Model Derivation ................................................................................................................. 209
5.8.1.1. Population Balance Equation ....................................................................................... 209
5.8.1.2. Size Fraction Equations ................................................................................................ 209
5.8.1.3. Source Terms ............................................................................................................... 210
5.8.2. Size Group Discretization ...................................................................................................... 212
5.8.2.1. Equal Mass Discretization ............................................................................................. 212
5.8.2.2. Equal Diameter Discretization ...................................................................................... 212
5.8.2.3. Geometric Mass Discretization ..................................................................................... 212
5.8.2.4. Comparison ................................................................................................................. 213
5.8.2.5. Size Group Boundaries ................................................................................................. 213
5.8.3. Breakup Models ................................................................................................................... 214
5.8.3.1. Luo and Svendsen Model ............................................................................................. 214
5.8.3.2. User-Defined Models ................................................................................................... 215
5.8.4. Coalescence Models ............................................................................................................. 215
5.8.4.1. Prince and Blanch Model .............................................................................................. 215
5.8.4.2. User-Defined Models ................................................................................................... 216
5.9. The Algebraic Slip Model ............................................................................................................... 216
5.9.1. Phasic Equations .................................................................................................................. 216
5.9.2. Bulk Equations ..................................................................................................................... 216
5.9.3. Drift and Slip Relations ......................................................................................................... 217
5.9.4. Derivation of the Algebraic Slip Equation .............................................................................. 217
5.9.5. Turbulence Effects ................................................................................................................ 218
5.9.6. Energy Equation ................................................................................................................... 219
5.9.7. Wall Deposition .................................................................................................................... 219
5.10.Turbulence Modeling in Multiphase Flow ..................................................................................... 219
5.10.1. Phase-Dependent Turbulence Models ................................................................................. 219
5.10.1.1. The Eddy Viscosity Hypothesis .................................................................................... 219
5.10.1.2. Algebraic Models ....................................................................................................... 219
5.10.1.2.1. Zero Equation Model ......................................................................................... 219
5.10.1.2.2. Dispersed Phase Zero Equation Model ............................................................... 220
5.10.1.3. Two-Equation Models ................................................................................................ 220
5.10.1.4. Reynolds Stress Models .............................................................................................. 220
5.10.2. Turbulence Enhancement ................................................................................................... 221
5.10.3. Homogeneous Turbulence for Multiphase Flow ................................................................... 221
5.11. Additional Variables in Multiphase Flow ....................................................................................... 221
5.11.1. Additional Variable Interphase Transfer Models ................................................................... 222
5.11.1.1. Particle Model Correlations ........................................................................................ 223
5.11.1.2. Mixture Model Correlations ........................................................................................ 223
x of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Theory Guide
5.11.2. Homogeneous Additional Variables in Multiphase Flow ....................................................... 224

5.12. Sources in Multiphase Flow ......................................................................................................... 224
5.12.1. Fluid-specific Sources ......................................................................................................... 224
5.12.2. Bulk Sources ....................................................................................................................... 224
5.13. Interphase Mass Transfer ............................................................................................................. 224
5.13.1. Secondary Fluxes ................................................................................................................ 225
5.13.2. User Defined Interphase Mass Transfer ................................................................................ 226
5.13.3. General Species Mass Transfer ............................................................................................. 226
5.13.3.1. Equilibrium Models .................................................................................................... 227
5.13.3.1.1. Raoult’s Law ...................................................................................................... 227
5.13.3.1.2. Henry’s Law ...................................................................................................... 227
5.13.3.2.Two Resistance Model with Negligible Mass Transfer ................................................... 228
5.13.4. The Thermal Phase Change Model ...................................................................................... 229
5.13.4.1. Wall Boiling Model ..................................................................................................... 231
5.13.4.1.1. Partitioning of the Wall Heat Flux ....................................................................... 231
5.13.4.1.2. Sub-models for the Wall Boiling Model .............................................................. 233
5.13.4.1.2.1. Wall Nucleation Site Density ..................................................................... 234
5.13.4.1.2.2. Bubble Departure Diameter ...................................................................... 234
5.13.4.1.2.3. Bubble Detachment Frequency ................................................................ 235
5.13.4.1.2.4. Bubble Waiting Time ................................................................................. 235
5.13.4.1.2.5. Area Influence Factors .............................................................................. 235
5.13.4.1.2.6. Convective Heat Transfer .......................................................................... 236
5.13.4.1.2.7. Quenching Heat Transfer .......................................................................... 236
5.13.4.1.2.8. Evaporation Rate ...................................................................................... 236
5.13.4.1.3. Determination of the Wall Heat Flux Partition ..................................................... 237
5.13.5. Cavitation Model ................................................................................................................ 237
5.13.5.1. The Rayleigh Plesset Model ........................................................................................ 238
5.13.5.2. User Defined Cavitation Models ................................................................................. 239
5.13.6. The Droplet Condensation Model ....................................................................................... 239
5.14. Free Surface Flow ........................................................................................................................ 243
5.14.1. Implementation ................................................................................................................. 243
5.14.2. Surface Tension .................................................................................................................. 243
6. Particle Transport Theory .................................................................................................................... 245
6.1. Lagrangian Tracking Implementation ............................................................................................ 245
6.1.1. Calculation of Particle Variables ............................................................................................ 245
6.1.2. Interphase Transfer Through Source Terms ............................................................................ 246
6.2. Momentum Transfer ...................................................................................................................... 247
6.2.1. Drag Force on Particles ......................................................................................................... 248
6.2.2. Buoyancy Force on Particles ................................................................................................. 249
6.2.3. Rotation Force ...................................................................................................................... 249
6.2.4. Virtual or Added Mass Force ................................................................................................. 250
6.2.5. Pressure Gradient Force ........................................................................................................ 250
6.2.6. Turbulence in Particle Tracking ............................................................................................. 251
6.2.7. Turbulent Dispersion ............................................................................................................ 252
6.3. Heat and Mass Transfer ................................................................................................................. 252
6.3.1. Heat Transfer ........................................................................................................................ 252
6.3.2. Simple Mass Transfer ............................................................................................................ 253
6.3.3. Liquid Evaporation Model ..................................................................................................... 254
6.3.3.1. Extension of the Liquid Evaporation Model .................................................................. 255
6.3.3.1.1. Examples of ideal mixtures .................................................................................. 255
6.3.3.2. Determination of the Total Vapor Pressure of an Ideal Mixture ....................................... 255
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. xi
Theory Guide
6.3.3.3. Diffusion Regime (Non-Boiling Particles) ...................................................................... 256

6.3.3.4. Boiling Particles ........................................................................................................... 256
6.3.4. Oil Evaporation/Combustion ................................................................................................ 257
6.3.4.1. Light Oil Modification .................................................................................................. 258
6.3.5. Reactions ............................................................................................................................. 258
6.3.5.1. Arrhenius Reactions ..................................................................................................... 258
6.3.5.2. Heat Release ................................................................................................................ 258
6.3.5.3. Char Oxidation ............................................................................................................ 259
6.3.5.3.1. Field ................................................................................................................... 259
6.3.5.3.2. Gibb ................................................................................................................... 260
6.3.5.4. Radiative Preheating .................................................................................................... 261
6.3.5.5. Coal Combustion ......................................................................................................... 261
6.3.5.5.1. Coal Combustion - Gas Phase .............................................................................. 261
6.3.5.5.2. Coal Decomposition ............................................................................................ 261
6.3.5.5.3. Devolatilization ................................................................................................... 262
6.3.6. Hydrocarbon Fuel Analysis Model ......................................................................................... 263
6.4. Basic Erosion Models ..................................................................................................................... 265
6.4.1. Model of Finnie .................................................................................................................... 265
6.4.1.1. Implementation in CFX ................................................................................................ 266
6.4.2. Model of Tabakoff and Grant ................................................................................................. 266
6.4.2.1. Implementation in CFX ................................................................................................ 267
6.4.2.1.1. Mapping of CFX to Original Tabakoff Constants ................................................... 267
6.4.2.1.2. Constants ........................................................................................................... 267
6.4.3. Overall Erosion Rate and Erosion Output ............................................................................... 268
6.5. Spray Breakup Models ................................................................................................................... 268
6.5.1. Primary Breakup/Atomization Models ................................................................................... 268
6.5.1.1. Blob Method ............................................................................................................... 269
6.5.1.2. Enhanced Blob Method ............................................................................................... 269
6.5.1.2.1. Input Parameters for the Enhanced Blob Method ................................................. 270
6.5.1.3. LISA Model .................................................................................................................. 271
6.5.1.3.1. Film Formation .................................................................................................... 272
6.5.1.3.2. Sheet Breakup and Atomization .......................................................................... 272
6.5.1.3.3. User Input Data for the LISA Model ...................................................................... 274
6.5.1.4. Turbulence Induced Atomization ................................................................................. 274
6.5.1.4.1. User Input Data for Turbulence Induced Atomization ........................................... 275
6.5.1.5. Usage and Restrictions for Primary Breakup Models ...................................................... 275
6.5.2. Secondary Breakup Models .................................................................................................. 275
6.5.2.1. Breakup Regimes ......................................................................................................... 275
6.5.2.2. Numerical Approach to Breakup Modeling ................................................................... 276
6.5.2.3. Reitz and Diwakar Breakup Model ................................................................................ 276
6.5.2.3.1. Bag Breakup ....................................................................................................... 277
6.5.2.3.2. Stripping Breakup ............................................................................................... 277
6.5.2.4. Schmehl Breakup Model [] ........................................................................................... 277
6.5.2.4.1. Breakup Process for Schmehl Breakup Model ....................................................... 278
6.5.2.5. Taylor Analogy Breakup (TAB) Model [] ......................................................................... 279
6.5.2.6. ETAB [] ......................................................................................................................... 281
6.5.2.7. Cascade Atomization and Breakup Model (CAB) ........................................................... 283
6.5.3. Dynamic Drag Models .......................................................................................................... 283
6.5.3.1. Liu [] ............................................................................................................................ 284
6.5.3.2. Schmehl [] ................................................................................................................... 284
6.6. Particle Collision Model ................................................................................................................. 284
xii of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Theory Guide
6.6.1. Introduction to the Particle Collision Model .......................................................................... 285

6.6.1.1. Background Information .............................................................................................. 285
6.6.2. Implementation of a Stochastic Particle-Particle Collision Model in Ansys CFX ....................... 285
6.6.2.1. Implementation Theory ............................................................................................... 286
6.6.2.1.1. Particle Collision Coefficients Used for Particle-Particle Collision Model ................ 287
6.6.2.1.2. Particle Variables Used for Particle-Particle Collision Model ................................... 288
6.6.2.1.2.1. Particle Number Density ............................................................................. 288
6.6.2.1.2.2. Turbulent Stokes Number ........................................................................... 288
6.6.2.1.2.3. Standard Deviation of Particle Quantities .................................................... 289
6.6.2.1.2.4. Integration Time Step Size (User Fortran Only) ............................................. 289
6.6.3. Range of Applicability of Particle-Particle Collision Model ...................................................... 290
6.6.4. Limitations of Particle-Particle Collision Model in Ansys CFX .................................................. 290
6.7. Particle-Wall Interaction ................................................................................................................ 291
6.7.1. Introduction to Particle-Wall Interaction ................................................................................ 291
6.7.1.1. Background Information .............................................................................................. 291
6.7.2. The Elsaesser Particle-Wall Interaction Model ........................................................................ 292
6.7.2.1. Classification of Impact Regimes .................................................................................. 292
6.7.2.1.1. Cold Wall with Wall Film (TWall < TPA) .................................................................... 293
6.7.2.1.2. Hot Wall with Wall Film (TPA < TWall < TRA) ............................................................. 294
6.7.2.1.3. Hot Wall Without Wall Film (TWall > TRa) ................................................................ 295
6.7.2.2. Wall Roughness ........................................................................................................... 296
6.7.2.3. Range of Applicability, Input Data and Restrictions ....................................................... 297
6.7.3. Stick-to-Wall Model .............................................................................................................. 297
6.7.4. The Sommerfeld-Frank Rough Wall Model (Particle Rough Wall Model) .................................. 297
6.8. Quasi Static Wall Film Model .......................................................................................................... 298
6.8.1. Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 299
6.8.2. Determination of Flooded Regime ........................................................................................ 299
6.8.3. Energy Transfer to and from the Wall Film .............................................................................. 299
6.8.3.1. Conductive Heat Transfer ............................................................................................. 299
6.8.3.1.1. Non-flooded Regime ........................................................................................... 299
6.8.3.1.2. Flooded Regime .................................................................................................. 300
6.8.3.2. Convective Heat Transfer .............................................................................................. 300
6.8.3.2.1. Non-flooded Regime ........................................................................................... 300
6.8.3.2.2. Flooded Regime .................................................................................................. 300
6.8.3.3. Calculation of the Average Wall Film Temperature ......................................................... 300
6.8.3.4. Evaporation from Film ................................................................................................. 300
6.8.3.4.1. Non-flooded Regime (Non-boiling) ..................................................................... 301
6.8.3.4.2. Flooded Regime (Non-boiling) ............................................................................ 301
6.8.3.4.3. Flooded and Non-flooded Regime (Boiling Particles) ............................................ 301
6.8.4. Mass Transfer to and from the Wall Film ................................................................................. 302
6.8.5. Wall Film Thickness ............................................................................................................... 302
6.8.6. Wall Film in Moving Mesh Applications ................................................................................. 302
6.8.6.1. Wall Film Moving with Mesh ......................................................................................... 302
6.8.6.2. Wall Film Moving Relative to Underlying Mesh .............................................................. 302
6.8.7. User Control for Heat and Mass Transfer Terms of Wall Particles .............................................. 303
7. Combustion Theory ............................................................................................................................. 305
7.1. Transport Equations ...................................................................................................................... 306
7.2. Chemical Reaction Rate ................................................................................................................. 306
7.3. Fluid Time Scale for Extinction Model ............................................................................................ 306
7.4. The Eddy Dissipation Model .......................................................................................................... 307
7.4.1. Reactants Limiter ................................................................................................................. 307
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. xiii
Theory Guide
7.4.2. Products Limiter ................................................................................................................... 307

7.4.3. Maximum Flame Temperature Limiter ................................................................................... 307
7.5. The Finite Rate Chemistry Model ................................................................................................... 308
7.5.1. Third Body Terms .................................................................................................................. 308
7.6. The Combined Eddy Dissipation/Finite Rate Chemistry Model ........................................................ 309
7.7. Combustion Source Term Linearization .......................................................................................... 309
7.8.The Flamelet Model ....................................................................................................................... 310
7.8.1. Laminar Flamelet Model for Non Premixed Combustion ........................................................ 311
7.8.2. Coupling of Laminar Flamelet with the Turbulent Flow Field .................................................. 313
7.8.3. Flamelet Libraries ................................................................................................................. 314
7.9. Burning Velocity Model (Premixed or Partially Premixed) ................................................................ 315
7.9.1. Reaction Progress ................................................................................................................. 315
7.9.2. Weighted Reaction Progress ................................................................................................. 316
7.10. Burning Velocity Model (BVM) ..................................................................................................... 317
7.10.1. Equivalence Ratio, Stoichiometric Mixture Fraction .............................................................. 318
7.11. Laminar Burning Velocity ............................................................................................................ 319
7.11.1. Value .................................................................................................................................. 319
7.11.2. Equivalence Ratio Correlation ............................................................................................. 320
7.11.2.1. Fifth Order Polynomial ............................................................................................... 320
7.11.2.2. Quadratic Decay ........................................................................................................ 320
7.11.2.3. Beta Function ............................................................................................................ 321
7.11.2.4. Residual Material Dependency ................................................................................... 321
7.11.2.5. Metghalchi and Keck ................................................................................................. 321
7.12. Turbulent Burning Velocity .......................................................................................................... 322
7.12.1. Value .................................................................................................................................. 322
7.12.2. Zimont Correlation ............................................................................................................. 322
7.12.3. Peters Correlation ............................................................................................................... 323
7.12.4. Mueller Correlation ............................................................................................................. 324
7.13. Extended Coherent Flame Model (ECFM) ..................................................................................... 325
7.13.1.Turbulent Flame Stretch ...................................................................................................... 326
7.13.2. Laminar Flame Thickness .................................................................................................... 326
7.13.3. Wall Quenching Model ....................................................................................................... 327
7.14. Residual Material Model .............................................................................................................. 327
7.14.1. Exhaust Gas Recirculation ................................................................................................... 328
7.14.2. Principal Variables and Transport Equation .......................................................................... 328
7.14.3. Mixture Composition .......................................................................................................... 329
7.14.4. Reinitialization for Subsequent Engine Cycles ...................................................................... 329
7.14.5. Equivalence Ratio and Conditional Fresh/Residual Mixtures ................................................. 330
7.15. Spark Ignition Model ................................................................................................................... 331
7.16. Autoignition Model ..................................................................................................................... 332
7.16.1. Ignition Delay Model .......................................................................................................... 333
7.16.2. Knock Model ...................................................................................................................... 333
7.16.3. Ignition Delay Time ............................................................................................................ 334
7.16.3.1. Douaud and Eyzat ...................................................................................................... 334
7.16.3.2. Hardenberg and Hase ................................................................................................ 334
7.17. Phasic Combustion ..................................................................................................................... 334
7.18. NO Formation Model ................................................................................................................... 335
7.18.1. Formation Mechanisms ...................................................................................................... 335
7.18.1.1. Thermal NO ............................................................................................................... 335
7.18.1.2. Prompt NO ................................................................................................................ 336
7.18.1.3. Fuel Nitrogen ............................................................................................................. 337
xiv of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Theory Guide
7.18.1.4. NO Reburn ................................................................................................................ 337

7.18.1.5. Turbulence Effects ..................................................................................................... 338
7.18.1.6. Temperature Variance Equation .................................................................................. 339
7.18.1.7. Model Control ........................................................................................................... 339
7.18.1.7.1. Adjusting Model Coefficients ............................................................................. 339
7.18.1.7.2. User Defined NO Formation Mechanisms ........................................................... 340
7.19. Chemistry Postprocessing ........................................................................................................... 340
7.20. Soot Model ................................................................................................................................. 340
7.20.1. Soot Formation .................................................................................................................. 341
7.20.2. Soot Combustion ............................................................................................................... 342
7.20.3. Turbulence Effects .............................................................................................................. 343
8. Radiation Theory ................................................................................................................................. 345
8.1. Radiation Transport ....................................................................................................................... 345
8.1.1. Blackbody Emission .............................................................................................................. 347
8.1.2. Particulate Effects to Radiation Transport .............................................................................. 347
8.1.3. Quantities of Interest ............................................................................................................ 348
8.1.3.1. Optical Thickness ......................................................................................................... 348
8.1.4. Radiation Through Domain Interfaces ................................................................................... 349
8.2. Rosseland Model ........................................................................................................................... 350
8.2.1. Wall Treatment ..................................................................................................................... 350
8.3. The P1 Model ................................................................................................................................ 351
8.3.1. Wall Treatment ..................................................................................................................... 351
8.4. Discrete Transfer Model ................................................................................................................. 351
8.5. Monte Carlo Model ....................................................................................................................... 352
8.5.1. Monte Carlo Statistics ........................................................................................................... 352
8.6. Spectral Models ............................................................................................................................ 353
8.6.1. Gray ..................................................................................................................................... 353
8.6.2. Multiband Model ................................................................................................................. 353
8.6.3. Weighted Sum of Gray Gases ................................................................................................ 354
8.6.3.1. Weighted Sum of Gray Gases Model Parameters ........................................................... 354
9. Electromagnetic Hydrodynamic Theory ............................................................................................. 357
9.1. Electromagnetic Models ............................................................................................................... 357
9.1.1. Constitutive Relationships .................................................................................................... 358
9.1.2. Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) ............................................................................................ 358
9.1.3. Electrohydrodynamics (EHD) ................................................................................................ 359
9.1.4. Ferrohydrodynamics (FHD) ................................................................................................... 359
9.1.5. Electromagnetic Basics: Potential Formulation in Ansys CFX .................................................. 359
9.1.6. Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................ 359
9.1.7. Transformed Equations ......................................................................................................... 360
9.1.8. Conductive Media Approximation ........................................................................................ 360
9.2. Fluid Dynamics Model ................................................................................................................... 361
10. Rigid Body Theory ............................................................................................................................. 363
10.1. Equations of Motion of Rigid Body ............................................................................................... 363
10.2. Rigid Body Solution Algorithms ................................................................................................... 363
10.2.1. Translational Equations of Motion ....................................................................................... 363
10.2.1.1. Newmark Integration ................................................................................................. 364
10.2.2. Rotational Equations of Motion ........................................................................................... 364
10.2.2.1. First Order Backward Euler ......................................................................................... 365
10.2.2.2. Simo Wong Algorithm ................................................................................................ 366
11. Discretization and Solution Theory .................................................................................................. 367
11.1. Numerical Discretization ............................................................................................................. 367
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. xv
Theory Guide
11.1.1. Discretization of the Governing Equations .......................................................................... 367

11.1.1.1. Order Accuracy .......................................................................................................... 370
11.1.1.2. Shape Functions ........................................................................................................ 370
11.1.1.2.1. Hexahedral Element .......................................................................................... 371
11.1.1.2.2. Tetrahedral Element .......................................................................................... 372
11.1.1.2.3. Wedge Element ................................................................................................. 373
11.1.1.2.4. Pyramid Element ............................................................................................... 374
11.1.1.3. Control Volume Gradients .......................................................................................... 374
11.1.1.4. Advection Term ......................................................................................................... 374
11.1.1.4.1. 1st Order Upwind Differencing Scheme ............................................................. 375
11.1.1.4.2. Specified Blend Factor ....................................................................................... 375
11.1.1.4.3. Central Difference Scheme ................................................................................ 375
11.1.1.4.4. Bounded Central Difference Scheme ................................................................. 376
11.1.1.4.5. High Resolution Scheme ................................................................................... 376
11.1.1.5. Diffusion Terms .......................................................................................................... 376
11.1.1.6. Pressure Gradient Term .............................................................................................. 377
11.1.1.7. Mass Flows ................................................................................................................ 377
11.1.1.7.1. Pressure-Velocity Coupling ................................................................................ 377
11.1.1.7.2. Compressibility ................................................................................................. 378
11.1.1.8. Transient Term ........................................................................................................... 379
11.1.1.9. Mesh Deformation ..................................................................................................... 380
11.1.2. The Coupled System of Equations ....................................................................................... 380
11.2. Solution Strategy - The Coupled Solver ........................................................................................ 381
11.2.1. General Solution ................................................................................................................ 381
11.2.2. Linear Equation Solution .................................................................................................... 383
11.2.2.1. Algebraic Multigrid .................................................................................................... 383
11.2.3. Residual Normalization Procedure ...................................................................................... 384
11.3. Discretization Errors .................................................................................................................... 385
11.3.1. Controlling Error Sources .................................................................................................... 385
11.3.2. Controlling Error Propagation ............................................................................................. 386
xvi of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
List of Figures
1.1. Regions and Equations of IAPWS-IF97 ................................................................................................... 51
1.2. Spinodal Limits Built into Tables ............................................................................................................ 53
1.3. Notation for Nodes Near the Immersed Solid Boundary ......................................................................... 58
2.1. Example showing effect of high-lift modification on results ................................................................. 111
2.2. Eddy viscosity profiles for DDES and SDES models under mesh refinement ........................................... 146
2.3. The Computational Domain and Mesh for the Subsonic Jet Flow .......................................................... 147
2.4. Iso-Surfaces of the Q-Criterion Colored with the Velocity Magnitude .................................................... 148
2.5. Distribution of the Mean (Left) and RMS (Right) Velocity along the Jet Centerline ................................. 148
2.6. Downward Shift of the Logarithmic Velocity Profile .............................................................................. 158
2.7. Equivalent Sand-Grain Roughness ....................................................................................................... 158
4.1. One passage periodicity cannot be applied ......................................................................................... 171
4.2. Workaround using standard periodicity ............................................................................................... 172
4.3. Phase Shifted Periodic Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................ 172
4.4. Rotor and stator periodic boundaries in space-time ............................................................................. 175
4.5. Double Passage Method ..................................................................................................................... 176
4.6. Inlet Disturbance Configuration .......................................................................................................... 177
5.1. Free Surface Interface ......................................................................................................................... 244
6.1. Blob Method ....................................................................................................................................... 269
6.2. Enhanced-blob Method ...................................................................................................................... 270
6.3. Pressure Swirl Atomizer ....................................................................................................................... 271
6.4. Particle distortion for the TAB model .................................................................................................... 281
6.5. Position of the Virtual Collision Partner ................................................................................................ 286
6.6. Particle-wall interaction as a function of the incoming particle Weber number (We) and the wall temper-
ature (TWall) ............................................................................................................................................... 293
6.7. Particle-wall interactions for cold-wet walls ......................................................................................... 294
6.8. Particle-wall interactions for hot wall with wall film .............................................................................. 295
6.9. Particle-wall interaction for hot walls without wall film ......................................................................... 295
6.10. Treatment of rough walls ................................................................................................................... 296
6.11. Particle-Wall Interaction at a rough wall. Definition of Δγ and characteristic roughness element length
scales ....................................................................................................................................................... 298
7.1. Oxygen Mass Fraction Over Mixture Fraction ....................................................................................... 319
11.1. Control Volume Definition ................................................................................................................. 368
11.2. Mesh Element ................................................................................................................................... 369
11.3. Hexahedral Element .......................................................................................................................... 371
11.4. Tetrahedral Element .......................................................................................................................... 372
11.5. Wedge Element ................................................................................................................................. 373
11.6. Pyramid Element ............................................................................................................................... 374
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. xvii
xviii of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
List of Tables
1.1. Variable naming: Total Enthalpies, Temperatures, and Pressures .............................................................. 38
5.1. Representative Particle Diameters in each Size Group .......................................................................... 213
6.1. Reitz and Diwakar breakup model constants and their default values ................................................... 277
6.2. TAB Breakup Model Constants and their Default Values ........................................................................ 281
6.3. ETAB Breakup Model Constants and Their Default Values ..................................................................... 282
6.4. CAB Breakup Model Constants and Their Default Values ....................................................................... 283
7.1. Flamelet libraries included with CFX .................................................................................................... 315
7.2. Fuel Dependent Coefficients for Metghalchi and Keck Laminar Burning Velocity Correlation ................. 321
7.3. Common Coefficients for Metghalchi and Keck Laminar Burning Velocity Correlation ........................... 322
7.4. Default Model Coefficients for the Zimont Turbulent Burning Velocity Correlation ................................ 323
7.5. Default Model Coefficients for Peters Turbulent Burning Velocity Correlation ........................................ 324
7.6. Default Model Coefficients for Mueller Turbulent Burning Velocity Correlation ...................................... 324
8.1. Gray gas emissivity parameters for a carbon dioxide / water vapor / hydrocarbon mixture. ................... 355
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. xix
xx of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Chapter 1: Basic Solver Capability Theory
This chapter describes the mathematical equations used to model fluid flow, heat, and mass transfer
in Ansys CFX for single-phase, single and multi-component flow without combustion or radiation. It is
designed to be a reference for those users who desire a more detailed understanding of the mathem-
atics underpinning the CFX-Solver, and is therefore not essential reading. It is not an exhaustive text
on CFD mathematics; a reference section is provided should you want to follow up this chapter in more
detail.
This chapter describes:

1.1. Documentation Conventions
1.2. Governing Equations
1.3. Buoyancy
1.4. Immersed Solids
1.5. Multicomponent Flow
1.6. Additional Variables
1.7. Rotational Forces
1.8. Sources
1.9. Boundary Conditions
1.10. Automatic Time Scale Calculation
1.11. Mesh Adaption
1.12. Flow in Porous Media
1.13. Wall and Boundary Distance Formulation
1.14. Wall Condensation Theory
For information on dealing with multiphase flow:
• Multiphase Flow Theory (p. 179)
• Particle Transport Theory (p. 245)
For information on combustion and radiation theory:
• Combustion Theory (p. 305)
• Radiation Theory (p. 345)
Descriptions of the theory for other physical models are provided in:
• Turbulence and Wall Function Theory (p. 99)
• GGI and MFR Theory (p. 167)
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 21
Basic Solver Capability Theory
• Transient Blade Row Modeling Theory (p. 171)
• Electromagnetic Hydrodynamic Theory (p. 357)
• Rigid Body Theory (p. 363)
• Discretization and Solution Theory (p. 367)
Recommended books for further reading on CFD and related subjects:
• Further Background Reading in the CFX Introduction
1.1. Documentation Conventions

The topics in this section are:
• Dimensions (p. 22)
• List of Symbols (p. 22)
• Variable Definitions (p. 27)
• Mathematical Notation (p. 40)
1.1.1. Dimensions
Throughout this manual, dimensions are given in terms of the fundamental magnitudes of length
( ), mass ( ), time ( ), temperature ( ) and chemical amount ( ).
1.1.2. List of Symbols

This section lists symbols used in this chapter, together with their meanings, dimensions and where
applicable, values. Dimensionless quantities are denoted by 1. The values of physical constants (or
their default values) are also given.
More information on the notation used in the multiphase and multicomponent chapters is available:
• Multiphase Notation (p. 179)
• Multicomponent Notation (p. 61).
Symbol Description Dimensions Value

linear energy source
coefficient
linear resistance coefficient
quadratic resistance
coefficient
- turbulence model
constant
22 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Documentation Conventions

RNG - turbulence model
coefficient
- turbulence model
constant
constant
- turbulence model
constant
Reynolds Stress model
constant
constant
fluid speed of sound
concentration of components
A and B (that is, mass per
unit volume of components
A and B (single-phase flow))
constant
specific heat capacity at
constant pressure
specific heat capacity at
constant volume
constant
constant
binary diffusivity of
component A in component
B
kinematic diffusivity of an
Additional Variable,
distance or length
constant used for near-wall
modeling
Zero Equation turbulence
model constant
RNG- - turbulence model
coefficient
gravity vector

specific static For details,
(thermodynamic) enthalpy see Static
Enthalpy (p. 28).
Hartmann Number: the ratio
of the Lorentz forces to the
viscous forces.
heat transfer coefficient

specific total enthalpy For details,
see Total
Enthalpy (p. 30).
turbulence kinetic energy per
unit mass
local Mach number,
mass flow rate
shear production of
turbulence
static (thermodynamic) For details,
pressure see Static
Pressure (p. 28).
reference pressure For details,
see Reference
Pressure (p. 27).
total pressure For details,
see Total
Pressure (p. 34).
modified pressure For details,
see Modified
Pressure (p. 28).
universal gas constant
Reynolds number,
Magnetic Reynolds Number:
the ratio between the
magnetic advection and
magnetic diffusion.
location vector
volume fraction of phase
energy source

momentum source
mass source
turbulent Schmidt number,
Stanton number
mass flow rate from phase
to phase .
static (thermodynamic) For details,
temperature see Static
Temperature (p. 30).
domain temperature For details,
see Domain
buoyancy reference
temperature used in the
Boussinesq approximation
saturation temperature
total temperature For details,
see Total
vector of velocity
velocity magnitude
fluctuating velocity
component in turbulent flow
fluid viscous and body force
work term
molecular weight (Ideal Gas
fluid model)
mass fraction of component
A in the fluid
used as a subscript to
indicate that the quantity
applies to phase
used as a subscript to
indicate that the quantity
applies to phase
coefficient of thermal
expansion (for the Boussinesq
approximation)
constant

diffusivity
molecular diffusion
coefficient of component
dynamic diffusivity of an
Additional Variable
turbulent diffusivity
identity matrix or Kronecker
Delta function
turbulence dissipation rate
bulk viscosity
Von Karman constant
thermal conductivity
molecular (dynamic) viscosity
magnetic permeability
turbulent viscosity
effective viscosity,
density
laminar Prandtl number,
turbulent Prandtl number,
electrical conductivity
turbulence model constant
for the equation
- turbulence model
constant
- turbulence model
constant
constant
constant
constant
shear stress or sub-grid scale
stress
molecular stress tensor

specific volume
Additional Variable
(non-reacting scalar)
general scalar variable
angular velocity
1.1.2.1. Subscripts
Quantities that appear with subscripts , , refer to that quantity for component , , in a
multicomponent fluid.
Quantities that appear with subscripts , , refer to that quantity for phase , , in a multiphase
flow.
Such quantities are used only in the chapters describing multicomponent and multiphase flows.
• Multicomponent Flow (p. 61)
• Multiphase Flow Theory (p. 179)
1.1.3. Variable Definitions
1.1.3.1. Isothermal Compressibility

The isothermal compressibility defines the rate of change of the system volume with pressure. For
details, see Variables Relevant for Compressible Flow in the CFX Reference Guide.
(1.1)
1.1.3.2. Isentropic Compressibility

Isentropic compressibility is the extent to which a material reduces its volume when it is subjected
to compressive stresses at a constant value of entropy. For details, see Variables Relevant for
Compressible Flow in the CFX Reference Guide.
(1.2)
1.1.3.3. Reference Pressure

The Reference Pressure Equation 1.3 (p. 27) is the absolute pressure datum from which all
other pressure values are taken. All relative pressure specifications in Ansys CFX are relative to the
Reference Pressure. For details, see Setting a Reference Pressure in the CFX-Solver Modeling
Guide.
(1.3)
1.1.3.4. Static Pressure

CFX solves for the relative Static Pressure (thermodynamic pressure) Equation 1.4 (p. 28) in
the flow field, and is related to Absolute Pressure Equation 1.5 (p. 28).
(1.4)
(1.5)
1.1.3.5. Modified Pressure

A modified pressure is used in the following circumstances:
• When certain turbulence models are used, (for example - , - , and Reynolds Stress), the
modified pressure includes an additional term due to the turbulent normal stress. For details,
see Equation 2.14 (p. 102).
• When buoyancy is activated, the modified pressure excludes the hydrostatic pressure field. For
details, see Buoyancy and Pressure.
1.1.3.6. Static Enthalpy

Specific static enthalpy Equation 1.6 (p. 28) is a measure of the energy contained in a fluid per unit
mass. Static enthalpy is defined in terms of the internal energy of a fluid and the fluid state:
(1.6)
When you use the thermal energy model, the CFX-Solver directly computes the static enthalpy.
General changes in enthalpy are also used by the solver to calculate thermodynamic properties
such as temperature. To compute these quantities, you need to know how enthalpy varies with
changes in both temperature and pressure. These changes are given by the general differential
relationship Equation 1.7 (p. 28):
(1.7)
which can be rewritten as Equation 1.8 (p. 28)
(1.8)
where is specific heat at constant pressure and is density. For most materials the first term always
has an effect on enthalpy, and, in some cases, the second term drops out or is not included. For
example, the second term is zero for materials that use the Ideal Gas equation of state or materials
in a solid thermodynamic state. In addition, the second term is also dropped for liquids or gases
with constant specific heat when you run the thermal energy equation model.
1.1.3.6.1. Material with Variable Density and Specific Heat

In order to support general properties, which are a function of both temperature and pressure,
a table for is generated by integrating Equation 1.8 (p. 28) using the functions supplied
for and . The enthalpy table is constructed between the upper and lower bounds of temper-
ature and pressure (using flow solver internal defaults or those supplied by the user). For any
general change in conditions from to , the change in enthalpy, , is calculated

in two steps: first at constant pressure, and then at constant temperature using Equation 1.9 (p. 29).
(1.9)
To successfully integrate Equation 1.9 (p. 29), the CFX-Solver must be provided thermodynamically
consistent values of the equation of state, , and specific heat capacity, . "Thermodynamically
consistent" means that the coefficients of the differential terms of Equation 1.7 (p. 28) must sat-
isfy the exact differential property that:
(1.10)
or, in terms of the expressions given in Equation 1.8 (p. 28):
(1.11)
To satisfy in Equation 1.11 (p. 29), variables of the form '<Material Name>.Property Residual'
are computed and should resolve to zero.
The equation of state derivative within the second integral of Equation 1.9 (p. 29) is numerically
evaluated from the using a two point central difference formula. In addition, the CFX-Solver uses
an adaptive number of interpolation points to construct the property table, and bases the number
of points on an absolute error tolerance estimated using the enthalpy and entropy derivatives.
1.1.3.7. Total Enthalpy

Total enthalpy is expressed in terms of a static enthalpy and the flow kinetic energy:
(1.12)
where is the flow velocity. When you use the total energy model, the CFX-Solver directly computes
total enthalpy, and static enthalpy is derived from this expression. In rotating frames of reference,
the total enthalpy includes the relative frame kinetic energy. For details, see Rotating Frame
Quantities (p. 36).
1.1.3.8. Domain Temperature

The domain temperature, , is the absolute temperature at which an isothermal simulation is
performed. For details, see Isothermal in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.1.3.9. Static Temperature

The static temperature, , is the thermodynamic temperature, and depends on the internal energy
of the fluid. In Ansys CFX, depending on the heat transfer model you select, the flow solver calculates
either total or static enthalpy (corresponding to the total or thermal energy equations).
The static temperature is calculated using static enthalpy and the constitutive relationship for the
material under consideration. The constitutive relation simply tells us how enthalpy varies with
changes in both temperature and pressure.
1.1.3.9.1. Material with Constant Density and Specific Heat

In the simplified case where a material has constant and , temperatures can be calculated
by integrating a simplified form of the general differential relationship for enthalpy:
(1.13)
which is derived from the full differential form for changes in static enthalpy. The default reference
state in the CFX-Solver is and .
1.1.3.9.2. Ideal Gas or Solid with cp=f(T)

The enthalpy change for an ideal gas or CHT solid with specific heat as a function of temperature
is defined by:
(1.14)
When the solver calculates static enthalpy, either directly or from total enthalpy, you can back
static temperature out of this relationship. When varies with temperature, the CFX-Solver builds
an enthalpy table and static temperature is backed out by inverting the table.

To properly handle materials with an equation of state and specific heat that vary as functions
of temperature and pressure, the CFX-Solver needs to know enthalpy as a function of temperature
and pressure, .
can be provided as a table using, for example, an .rgp file. If a table is not pre-supplied,
and the equation of state and specific heat are given by CEL expressions or CEL user functions,
the CFX-Solver will calculate by integrating the full differential definition of enthalpy
change.
Given the knowledge of and that the CFX-Solver calculates both static enthalpy and
static pressure from the flow solution, you can calculate static temperature by inverting the en-
thalpy table:
(1.15)
In this case, you know , from solving the flow and you calculate by table inversion.
1.1.3.10. Total Temperature

The total temperature is derived from the concept of total enthalpy and is computed exactly the
same way as static temperature, except that total enthalpy is used in the property relationships.

If and are constant, then the total temperature and static temperature are equal because
incompressible fluids undergo no temperature change due to addition of kinetic energy. This
can be illustrated by starting with the total enthalpy form of the constitutive relation:
(1.16)
and substituting expressions for Static Enthalpy (p. 28) and Total Pressure (p. 34) for an incom-
pressible fluid:
(1.17)
(1.18)
some rearrangement gives the result that:

(1.19)
for this case.
1.1.3.10.2. Ideal Gas with constant cp

For this case, enthalpy is only a function of temperature and the constitutive relation is:
(1.20)
which, if one substitutes the relation between static and total enthalpy, yields:
(1.21)
1.1.3.10.3. Ideal Gas with cp = f(T)

The total temperature is evaluated with:
(1.22)
using table inversion to back out the total temperature.

In this case, total temperature is calculated in the exact same way as static temperature except
that total enthalpy and total pressure are used as inputs into the enthalpy table:
(1.23)
In this case you know , and you want to calculate , but you do not know . So, before
calculating the total temperature, you need to compute total pressure. For details, see Total
Pressure (p. 34).
For details, see Rotating Frame Quantities (p. 36).
1.1.3.11. Entropy
The concept of entropy arises from the second law of thermodynamics:
(1.24)
which can be rearranged to give:

(1.25)
Depending on the equation of state and the constitutive relationship for the material, you can arrive
at various forms for calculating the changes in entropy as a function of temperature and pressure.

In this case, changes in enthalpy as a function of temperature and pressure are given by:
(1.26)
and when this is substituted into the second law gives the following expression for changes in
entropy as a function of temperature only:
(1.27)
which, when integrated, gives an analytic formula for changes in entropy:
(1.28)
1.1.3.11.2. Ideal Gas with constant cp or cp = f(T)

For ideal gases changes in entropy are given by the following equation:
(1.29)
which for general functions for the solver computes an entropy table as a function of both
temperature and pressure. In the simplified case when is a constant, then an analytic formula
is used:
(1.30)
This is the most general case handled by the CFX-Solver. The entropy function, , is calculated
by integrating the full differential form for entropy as a function of temperature and pressure.
Instead of repetitively performing this integration the CFX-Solver computes a table of values at
a number of temperature and pressure points. The points are chosen such that the approximation
error for the entropy function is minimized.
The error is estimated using derivatives of entropy with respect to temperature and pressure.
Expressions for the derivatives are found by substituting the formula for general enthalpy changes
into the second law to get the following expression for changes in entropy with temperature
and pressure:
(1.31)
which when compared with the following differential form for changes in entropy:
(1.32)
gives that:
(1.33)
(1.34)
The derivative of entropy with respect to temperature is exactly evaluated, while the derivative
with respect to pressure must be computed by numerically differentiating the equation of state.
Note that when properties are specified as a function of temperature and pressure using CEL
expressions the differential terms in Equation 1.31 (p. 33) must also satisfy the exact differential
relationship:
(1.35)
or,
(1.36)
Also, see the previous section on Static Enthalpy (p. 28) for more details.
Unless an externally provided table is supplied, an entropy table is built by using the and
functions supplied by you and integrating the general differential form:
(1.37)
To calculate total pressure, you also need to evaluate entropy as a function of enthalpy and
pressure, rather than temperature and pressure. For details, see Total Pressure (p. 34).
The recipe to do this is essentially the same as for the temperature and pressure recipe. First, you
start with differential form for :
(1.38)
and comparing this with a slightly rearranged form of the second law:
(1.39)
you get that:

(1.40)
(1.41)
In this case, the entropy derivatives with respect to and can be evaluated from the constitutive
relationship (getting from and by table inversion) and the equation of state .
Points in the table are evaluated by performing the following integration:
(1.42)
over a range of and , which are determined to minimize the integration error.
1.1.3.12. Total Pressure

The total pressure, , is defined as the pressure that would exist at a point if the fluid was brought
instantaneously to rest such that the dynamic energy of the flow converted to pressure without
losses. The following three sections describe how total pressure is computed for a pure component
material with constant density, ideal gas equation of state and a general equation of state (CEL
expression or RGP table). For details, see Multiphase Total Pressure (p. 180).
The terms Pressure and Total Pressure are absolute quantities and must be used to derive the Total
Pressure when using an equation of state (compressible) formulation (particularly for Equa-
tion 1.47 (p. 35)).
The setting of the Total Pressure Option, described in Compressibility Control in the CFX-Pre User's
Guide, determines which equation is used to derive the total pressure.
1.1.3.12.1. Incompressible Fluids

For incompressible flows, such as those of liquids and low speed gas flows, the total pressure is
given by Bernoulli’s equation:
(1.43)
which is the sum of the static and dynamic pressures.
1.1.3.12.2. Ideal Gases

When the flow is compressible, total pressure is computed by starting with the second law of
thermodynamics assuming that fluid state variations are locally isentropic so that you get:
(1.44)
The left hand side of this expression is determined by the constitutive relation and the right hand
side by the equation of state. For an ideal gas, the constitutive relation and equation of state are:
(1.45)
(1.46)
which, when substituted into the second law and assuming no entropy variations, gives:
(1.47)
where and are the static and total temperatures respectively (calculation of these
quantities was described in two previous sections, Static Temperature (p. 30) and Total Temper-
ature (p. 31)). If is a constant, then the integral can be exactly evaluated, but if varies with
temperature, then the integral is numerically evaluated using quadrature. For details, see:
• Entropy (p. 32)
• Ideal Gas Equation of State (p. 45).

Total pressure calculations in this case are somewhat more involved. You need to calculate total
pressure given the static enthalpy and static pressure, which the CFX-Solver solves for. You also
want to assume that the local state variations, within a control volume or on a boundary condition,
are isentropic.
Given that you know (from integrating the differential form for enthalpy) and ,
you can compute two entropy functions and . There are two options for generating
these functions:
• If and are provided by a .rgp file then is evaluated by interpolation

from and tables.
• If CEL expressions have been given for and only, then , and are all
evaluated by integrating their differential forms.
Once you have the table, calculated as described in Entropy (p. 32), computing total
pressure for a single pure component is a relatively trivial procedure:
1. The CFX-Solver solves for and
2. Calculate from
3. Calculate entropy
4. Using the isentropic assumption set
5. Calculate total pressure by inverting
For details, see Rotating Frame Quantities (p. 36).
1.1.3.13. Shear Strain Rate

The strain rate tensor is defined by:
(1.48)
This tensor has three scalar invariants, one of which is often simply called the shear strain rate:
(1.49)
with velocity components , , , this expands to:
(1.50)
The viscosity of non-Newtonian fluids is often expressed as a function of this scalar shear strain
rate.
1.1.3.14. Rotating Frame Quantities

The velocity in the rotating frame of reference is defined as:
(1.51)
where is the angular velocity, is the local radius vector, and is velocity in the stationary
frame of reference.
1.1.3.14.1. Incompressible Fluids

For incompressible flows, the total pressure is defined as:
(1.52)
where is static pressure. The stationary frame total pressure is defined as:
(1.53)
1.1.3.14.2. Ideal Gases

For compressible flows relative total pressure, rotating frame total pressure and stationary frame
total pressure are computed in the same manner as in Total Pressure (p. 34). First you start with
the relative total enthalpy, rothalpy and stationary frame total enthalpy:
(1.54)
(1.55)
(1.56)
where is the static enthalpy. In a rotating frame of reference, the CFX-Solver solves for the
total enthalpy, , which includes the relative kinetic energy.
Important:
Rothalpy is not a positive definite quantity. If the rotation velocity is large, then
the last term can be significantly larger than the static enthalpy plus the rotating frame
kinetic energy. In this case, it is possible that total temperature and rotating total
pressure are undefined and will be clipped at internal table limits or built in lower
bounds. However, this is only a problem for high angular velocity rotating systems.
If you again assume an ideal gas equation of state with variable specific heat capacity you can
compute relative total temperature, total temperature and stationary frame total temperature
using:
(1.57)
and:
(1.58)
and:
(1.59)
where all the total temperature quantities are obtained by inverting the enthalpy table. If is
constant, then these values are obtained directly from these definitions:
(1.60)
(1.61)
(1.62)
At this point, given , , , and you can compute relative total pressure,
total pressure or stationary frame total pressure using the relationship given in the section de-
scribing total pressure. For details, see Total Pressure (p. 34).
The names of the various total enthalpies, temperatures, and pressures when visualizing results
in CFD-Post or for use in CEL expressions is as follows.
Table 1.1: Variable naming: Total Enthalpies, Temperatures, and Pressures
Variable Long Variable Short Variable

Name Name
Total Enthalpy htot
Rothalpy rothalpy
Total Enthalpy in htotstn
Stn Frame
Total Ttotrel
Temperature in
Rel Frame
Total Ttot
Temperature
Total Ttotstn
Temperature in
Stn Frame
Total Pressure in ptotrel
Rel Frame
Total Pressure ptot
Total Pressure in ptotstn
Stn Frame
The Mach Number and stationary frame Mach numbers are defined as:
(1.63)
(1.64)
where is the local speed of sound.

Rotating and stationary frame total temperature and pressure are calculated the same way as
described in Total Temperature (p. 31) and Total Pressure (p. 34). The only changes in the recipes
are that rotating frame total pressure and temperature require rothalpy, , as the starting point
and stationary frame total pressure and temperature require stationary frame total enthalpy,
.
1.1.3.15. Courant Number

The Courant number is of fundamental importance for transient flows. For a one-dimensional grid,
it is defined by:
(1.65)
where is the fluid speed, is the timestep and is the mesh size. The Courant number calculated
in Ansys CFX is a multidimensional generalization of this expression where the velocity and length
scale are based on the mass flow into the control volume and the dimension of the control volume.
For explicit CFD methods, the timestep must be chosen such that the Courant number is sufficiently
small. The details depend on the particular scheme, but it is usually of order unity. As an implicit
code, Ansys CFX does not require the Courant number to be small for stability. However, for some
transient calculations (for example, LES), one may need the Courant number to be small in order
to accurately resolve transient details.
For certain compressible flow calculations, the acoustic Courant number is also calculated. For a
one-dimensional grid, the acoustic Courant number is defined as:
(1.66)
(1.67)
(1.68)
where is the local speed of sound.
CFX uses the Courant number in a number of ways:
1. The timestep may be chosen adaptively based on a Courant number condition (for example,
to reach RMS or Courant number of 5). The acoustic Courant number is used for compressible
flow calculations having the expert parameter setting ‘compressible timestepping = t’.
2. For transient runs using the Automatic timestep initialization option, the Courant number is
used to calculate the blend between the previous timestep and extrapolation options. The
acoustic Courant number is used for compressible flow calculations.
3. For transient runs, the maximum and RMS Courant numbers are written to the CFX-Solver
Output file for every timestep.
4. The Courant number field is written to the results file.
1.1.4. Mathematical Notation

This section describes the basic notation that is used throughout the CFX-Solver documentation.
1.1.4.1. The Vector Operators

Assume a Cartesian coordinate system in which , and are unit vectors in the three coordinate
directions. is defined such that:
(1.69)
1.1.4.1.1. Gradient Operator
For a general scalar function , the gradient of is defined by:
(1.70)
1.1.4.1.2. Divergence Operator
For a vector function where:
(1.71)
the divergence of is defined by:
(1.72)
1.1.4.1.3. Dyadic Operator

The dyadic operator (or tensor product) of two vectors, and , is defined as:
(1.73)
By using specific tensor notation, the equations relating to each dimension can be combined
into a single equation. Thus, in the specific tensor notation:
(1.74)
1.1.4.2. Matrix Transposition

The transpose of a matrix is defined by the operator . For example, if the matrix is defined by:
(1.75)
then:
(1.76)
1.1.4.3. The Identity Matrix (Kronecker Delta function)

The Identity matrix is defined by:
(1.77)
1.1.4.4. Index Notation

Although index notation is not generally used in this documentation, the following may help you
if you are used to index notation.
In index notation, the divergence operator can be written:
(1.78)
where the summation convention is followed; that is, the index is summed over the three com-
ponents.
The quantity can be represented by (when and are vectors), or by (when

is a vector and is a matrix), and so on.
Hence, the quantity can be represented by:

(1.79)
Note the convention that the derivatives arising from the divergence operator are derivatives with
respect to the same coordinate as the first listed vector. That is, the quantity is rep-
resented by:
(1.80)
and not:
(1.81)
The quantity (when and are matrices) can be written by .
1.2. Governing Equations

The set of equations solved by Ansys CFX are the unsteady Navier-Stokes equations in their conservation
form.
If you are new to CFD, review Computational Fluid Dynamics in the CFX Introduction.
A list of recommended books on CFD and related subjects is available in Further Background Reading
in the CFX Introduction.
For all the following equations, static (thermodynamic) quantities are given unless otherwise stated.
1.2.1. Transport Equations

In this section, the instantaneous equation of mass, momentum, and energy conservation are
presented. For turbulent flows, the instantaneous equations are averaged leading to additional terms.
These terms, together with models for them, are discussed in Turbulence and Wall Function The-
ory (p. 99).
The instantaneous equations of mass, momentum and energy conservation can be written as follows
in a stationary frame:
1.2.1.1. The Continuity Equation

(1.82)
1.2.1.2. The Momentum Equations
(1.83)
where the stress tensor, , is related to the strain rate by

(1.84)
1.2.1.3. The Total Energy Equation
(1.85)
where is the total enthalpy, related to the static enthalpy by:

(1.86)
The term represents the work due to viscous stresses and is called the viscous work term.
This models the internal heating by viscosity in the fluid, and is negligible in most flows.
Governing Equations
The term represents the work due to external momentum sources and is currently neglected.
Note:
A case that involves MFR (multiple frames of reference) and the Total Energy equation
should have the Incl. Viscous Work Term option selected. If the option is not selected,
the setup is inconsistent with the MFR interface implementation, and CFX-Pre and CFX-
Solver issue a warning.
1.2.1.4. The Thermal Energy Equation

An alternative form of the energy equation, which is suitable for low-speed flows, is also available.
To derive it, an equation is required for the mechanical energy .
(1.87)
The mechanical energy equation is derived by taking the dot product of with the momentum
equation (Equation 1.83 (p. 42)):
(1.88)
Subtracting this equation from the total energy equation (Equation 1.85 (p. 42)) yields the thermal
energy equation:
(1.89)
The term is always positive and is called the viscous dissipation. This models the internal
heating by viscosity in the fluid, and is negligible in most flows.
With further assumptions discussed in a moment, we obtain the thermal energy equation:
(1.90)
This equation can be derived from Equation 1.89 (p. 43) with two different sets of assumptions:
• If is actually interpreted as internal energy,

(1.91)
then Equation 1.89 (p. 43) can be written as
(1.92)
which is equivalent to Equation 1.90 (p. 43) if we neglect and interpret as . This inter-
pretation is appropriate for liquids, where variable-density effects are negligible. Note that the
principal variable is still called 'Static Enthalpy' in CFD-Post, although it actually represents internal
energy. Note also that, for liquids that have variable specific heats (for example, set as a CEL ex-
pression or using an RGP table or Redlich Kwong equation of state) the solver includes the
contribution in the enthalpy tables. This is inconsistent, because the variable is actually internal
energy. For this reason, the thermal energy equation should not be used in this situation, partic-
ularly for subcooled liquids.
• On the other hand if and are neglected in Equation 1.89 (p. 43) then Equa-
tion 1.90 (p. 43) follows directly. This interpretation is appropriate for low Mach number flows
of compressible gases.
The thermal energy equation, despite being a simplification, can be useful for both liquids and
gases in avoiding potential stability issues with the total energy formulation. For example, the
thermal energy equation is often preferred for transient liquid simulations. On the other hand, if
proper acoustic behavior is required (for example, predicting sound speed), or for high speed flow,
then the total energy equation is required.
1.2.1.5. Turbulent Flux Closure for Heat Transfer

For turbulent cases, the diffusion term in the energy transport equation has a contribution from
turbulent mixing as well as conduction. For the Eddy Diffusivity option, the diffusion term
becomes
(1.93)
where is the conductivity, is the turbulent diffusivity (related to Eddy Viscosity), and is the
specified Prandtl number.
For the Anisotropic Diffusion option, the diffusion term now contains a tensor for the ef-
fective diffusivity:
(1.94)
with tensor
(1.95)
where is the anisotropic diffusion coefficient (Ani. Diffusion Coeff.), is the density, and
are turbulence kinetic energy and dissipation, is the Reynolds Stress tensor, and is the cross
derivative weighting (Cross Deriv. Coeff.) when and when .
1.2.2. Equations of State

The transport equations described above must be augmented with constitutive equations of state
for density and for enthalpy in order to form a closed system. In the most general case, these state
equations have the form:
Governing Equations
Various special cases for particular material types are described below.
1.2.2.1. Incompressible Equation of State

This is the simplest case: density is constant and can be (at most) a function of temperature.
1.2.2.2. Ideal Gas Equation of State

For an ideal gas, density is calculated from the Ideal Gas law and can be (at most) a function of
temperature:
where is the molecular weight, is the absolute pressure, and is the universal gas constant.
1.2.2.3. Real Gas and Liquid Equations of State

In the current version of Ansys CFX, the Redlich Kwong equation of state is available as a built-in
option for simulating real gases. It is also available through several pre-supplied CFX-TASCflow RGP
files. The Vukalovich Virial equation of state is also available but currently only by using CFX-
TASCflow RGP tables.
Note:
It is not possible to couple particles with gases that use the 'real gas' equations of state.
This limitation is caused by the way the particle tracker stores and accesses material
properties for coupled gas components and particle components. For performance
reasons, the particle tracker uses its own material database--which is limited to either
constant properties or temperature-dependent properties (specific heats, enthalpy). The
property database of the particle tracker does not support pressure-dependent properties.
1.2.2.3.1. Real Gas Properties

Cubic equations of state are a convenient means for predicting real fluid behavior. They are highly
useful from an engineering standpoint because they generally only require that you know the
fluid critical point properties, and for some versions, the acentric factor. These properties are well
known for many pure substances or can be estimated if not available. They are called cubic
equations of state because, when rearranged as a function volume they are cubic in volume. This
means that cubic state equations can be used to predict both liquid and vapor volumes at a
given pressure and temperature. Generally the lowest root is the liquid volume and the higher
root is the vapor volume.
Four versions of cubic state equations are available: Standard Redlich Kwong, Aungier Redlich
Kwong, Soave Redlich Kwong, and Peng Robinson. The Redlich-Kwong equation of state was first
published in 1949 [85] and is considered one of the most accurate two-parameter corresponding
states equations of state. More recently, Aungier (1995) [96] has modified the Redlich-Kwong
equation of state so that it provides much better accuracy near the critical point. The Aungier
form of this equation of state is the default cubic equation used by Ansys CFX. The Peng Robinson
[157]] and Soave Redlich Kwong equation of state were developed to overcome the shortcomings
of the Redlich Kwong equations to accurately predict liquid properties and vapor-liquid equilibrium.
1.2.2.3.1.1. Redlich Kwong Models
The Redlich Kwong variants of the cubic equations of state are written as:
(1.96)
where is the specific volume .
1.2.2.3.1.1.1. The Standard Redlich Kwong Model
The Standard Redlich Kwong model sets the parameter to zero, and the function to:
(1.97)
where is and
(1.98)
(1.99)
1.2.2.3.1.1.2. The Aungier Redlich Kwong Model
The Aungier form differs from the original by a non-zero parameter that is added to improve
the behavior of isotherms near the critical point, as well as setting the exponent differently.
The parameter in Equation 1.96 (p. 46) is given by:
(1.100)
and the standard Redlich Kwong exponent of is replaced by a general exponent . Op-
timum values of depend on the pure substance. Aungier (1995) [96] presented values for
twelve experimental data sets to which he provided a best fit polynomial for the temperature
exponent in terms of the acentric factor, :
(1.101)
Governing Equations
1.2.2.3.1.1.3. The Soave Redlich Kwong Model
The Soave Redlich Kwong real gas model was originally published by Soave (1972). The model
applies to non-polar compounds and improves on the original Redlich Kwong model by gener-
alizing the attraction term to depend on the acentric factor, which accounts for molecules being
non-spherical, and accounting for a range of vapor pressure data in the development of the
temperature dependency of this parameter.
The Soave Redlich Kwong equation is explicit in pressure, and given by:
(1.102)
where:
(1.103)
as in the original Redlich Kwong equation, and
(1.104)
where:
(1.105)
and the parameter n is computed as a function of the acentric factor, ω:

(1.106)
1.2.2.3.1.2. Peng Robinson Model
The Peng Robinson model also gives pressure as a function of temperature and volume:
(1.107)
where:
(1.108)
as in the original Redlich Kwong equation, and
(1.109)
where:
(1.110)
and the parameter n is computed as a function of the acentric factor, ω:

(1.111)
1.2.2.3.1.3. Real Gas Constitutive Relations
In order to provide a full description of the gas properties, the flow solver must also calculate
enthalpy and entropy. These are evaluated using slight variations on the general relationships
for enthalpy and entropy that were presented in the previous section on variable definitions.
The variations depend on the zero pressure, ideal gas, specific heat capacity and derivatives
of the equation of state. The zero pressure specific heat capacity must be supplied to Ansys
CFX while the derivatives are analytically evaluated from Equation 1.96 (p. 46) and Equa-
tion 1.107 (p. 47).
Internal energy is calculated as a function of temperature and volume ( , ) by integrating

from the reference state ( , ) along path 'amnc' (see diagram below) to the required state
( , ) using the following differential relationship:
(1.112)
First the energy change is calculated at constant temperature from the reference volume to
infinite volume (ideal gas state), then the energy change is evaluated at constant volume using
the ideal gas . The final integration, also at constant temperature, subtracts the energy change
from infinite volume to the required volume. In integral form, the energy change along this
path is:
(1.113)
Once the internal energy is known, then enthalpy is evaluated from internal energy:
Governing Equations
The entropy change is similarly evaluated:
(1.114)
where is the zero pressure ideal gas specific heat capacity. By default, Ansys CFX uses a 4th
order polynomial for this and requires that coefficients of that polynomial are available. These
coefficients are tabulated in various references including Poling et al. [84].
In addition, a suitable reference state must be selected to carry out the integrations. The selection
of this state is arbitrary, and can be set by the user, but by default, Ansys CFX uses the normal
boiling temperature (which is provided) as the reference temperature and the reference pressure
is set to the value of the vapor pressure evaluated using Equation 1.120 (p. 50) at the normal
boiling point. The reference enthalpy and entropy are set to zero at this point by default, but
can also be overridden if desired.
Other properties, such as the specific heat capacity at constant volume, can be evaluated from
the internal energy. For example, the Redlich Kwong model uses:
(1.115)
where is the ideal gas portion of the internal energy:
(1.116)
specific heat capacity at constant pressure, , is calculated from using:

(1.117)
where and are the volume expansivity and isothermal compressibility, respectively. These
two values are functions of derivatives of the equation of state and are given by:
(1.118)
(1.119)
1.2.2.3.2. Real Gas Saturated Vapor Properties

When running calculations with liquid condensing out of the vapor (equilibrium phase change
or Eulerian thermal phase change model) or dry calculations, the flow solver needs to know the
form of the vapor pressure curve. Pressure and temperature are not independent in the saturation
dome, so vapor saturation properties are evaluated by first assuming an equation that gives the
dependence of vapor pressure on temperature, and then substituting that into the equation of
state.
For materials that use the cubic equations of state Ansys CFX approximates the vapor pressure
curve using a form given by Poling et al. [84]:
(1.120)
Vapor saturation properties are calculated by evaluating the equation of state and constitutive
relations along the saturation curve.
1.2.2.3.3. Real Gas Liquid Properties

As previously mentioned, it is possible to derive liquid densities directly from the cubic state
equations, however, this is not always desirable. For example, the Redlich Kwong models are very
inaccurate, and sometimes completely wrong, in the compressed liquid regime.
Instead, when you select to use one of the Redlich Kwong variants for a liquid, the properties
are assumed to vary along the vapor pressure curve as a function of saturation temperature.
These properties are approximate and should only be used when the amount of liquid in your
calculation will be small. For example, they work well with the equilibrium condensation model
or non-equilibrium small droplet phase change model.
To derive the liquid enthalpy and entropy, such that they are completely consistent with the gas
phase, requires all the same data as is provided for the gas phase: the critical point data, the
acentric factor and the zero pressure specific heat coefficients.
To calculate saturated liquid densities, an alternative equation of state originally published by

Yamada and Gunn (1973), is used by CFX that gives liquid specific volume as a function of tem-
perature:
(1.121)
This equation is convenient because it only requires knowledge of the critical volume and tem-
perature as well as the acentric factor. The valid temperature range for the liquid equation of
state is 0.4 < < 0.99 . The solver will clip the temperature used in this equation to that
range.
Saturated liquid enthalpy is calculated using knowledge of the gas saturation enthalpy and the
following equation:
(1.122)
where the enthalpy of vaporization, , is given by the following expression taken from Poling
et al. [84]:
(1.123)
Saturated liquid entropy can easily be derived using the second law and the gas saturation entropy:
(1.124)
Prediction of liquid specific heat capacity with the Redlich Kwong equation has a similar problem
to the liquid density, so Ansys CFX uses an alternative form presented by Aungier (2000):
Governing Equations
(1.125)
which requires knowledge of the zero pressure heat capacity coefficients, as well as the acentric
factor. For the saturated liquid it is assumed that .
Note that the use of either of the Redlich Kwong models for flows of almost entirely pure liquid
is highly discouraged. If you want to use one of the cubic equations of state for this type of
problem, then use the Peng Robinson or Soave Redlich Kwong state equations and set the expert
parameter realeos liquid prop to 2. This forces the liquid properties to be dependent on
temperature and pressure, fully consistently with the equation of state. Saturation properties are
also evaluated as described for gases in Real Gas Saturated Vapor Properties (p. 49).
1.2.2.3.4. IAPWS Equation of State

The IAPWS-IF97 database represents an accurate equation of state for water and steam properties.
The database is fully described elsewhere [125], but a summary will be provided in this section.
The IAPWS database uses formulations for five distinct thermodynamic regions for water and
steam, namely:
• subcooled water (1)
• supercritical water/steam (2)
• superheated steam (3)
• saturation data (4)
• high temperature steam (5)
Figure 1.1: Regions and Equations of IAPWS-IF97
Region 5 has not been implemented in Ansys CFX because it represents a thermodynamic space
at very high temperatures (1073.15 - 2273.15 K) and reasonably low pressures (0-10 MPa) that
can be adequately described using other property databases already in Ansys CFX (that is, Ideal
Gas EOS with NASA specific heat and enthalpy). Furthermore, because this region is not defined
for pressures up to 100 MPa, as is the case for regions 1, 2 and 3, problems arise in filling out the
pressure-temperature space in the tables when temperatures exceed 1073.15 K and pressures
exceed 10 MPa. The database implemented in CFX therefore covers temperatures ranging from
273.15 to 1073.15 K and pressures ranging from 611 Pa to 100 MPa.
The reference state for the IAPWS library is the triple point of water. Internal energy, entropy and
enthalpy are all set to zero at this point.
Tref = 273.16 K, Pref = 611.657 Pa, uliquid = 0 J/kg, sliquid = 0 J/kg/K, hliquid = 0 J/kg
In Ansys CFX, the analytical equation of state is used to transfer properties into tabular form,
which can be evaluated efficiently in a CFD calculation. These IAPWS tables are defined in terms
of pressure and temperature, which are then inverted to evaluate states in terms of other property
combinations (such as pressure/enthalpy or entropy/enthalpy). When developing the IAPWS
database for Ansys CFX, therefore, properties must be evaluated as functions of pressure and
temperature. For the most part, this involves a straightforward implementation of the equations
described in the IAPWS theory [125]. Region 4 involves saturation data that uses only pressure
or temperature information.
However, some difficulties are encountered when evaluating the properties around Region 3
(near the critical point), where the EOS is defined explicitly in terms of density and temperature.
In this region, the density must be evaluated using Newton-Raphson iteration. This algorithm is
further complicated in that the EOS is applicable on both the subcooled liquid and superheated
vapor side leading up to critical conditions. Therefore, depending on the pressure-temperature
state, one may be evaluating a subcooled liquid or a superheated vapor with the same EOS. To
apply the Newton-Raphson scheme in a reliable way, one must detect on which side of the sat-
uration dome the pressure-temperature state applies, and apply an appropriate initial guess. Such
an iteration scheme, including logic for an initial guess, has been implemented in Ansys CFX so
that table generation around the critical region is possible.
1.2.2.3.5. Metastable Superheated Liquid/Supercooled Vapor States

The IAPWS library also extends to metastable states, so that this equation of state is available for
non-equilibrium phase change models such as the Droplet Condensation Model. The EOS for re-
gions 1 and 3 in Figure 1.1: Regions and Equations of IAPWS-IF97 (p. 51) are stated to have
reasonable accuracy for metastable states close to the saturation line d liquid states [125]. However,
the term "reasonable" is not quantified, and therefore the degree to which the extrapolation of
the EOS can be applied is unknown.
In region 2, an additional set of equations have been developed for supercooled vapor conditions
under 10 MPa. These equations have been tuned to match the saturation data. Above 10 MPa,
the EOS for the superheated region can safely be extrapolated into supercooled conditions, but
it does not match smoothly with the specialized supercooled equations below 10 MPa.
1.2.2.3.6. Numerical Testing to Delineate Metastable Regions

In order to make the IAPWS database as robust as possible, numerical testing has been done to
determine approximate metastable vapor/liquid spinodal lines. Figure 1.2: Spinodal Limits Built
Governing Equations
into Tables (p. 53) is given to demonstrate these spinodal lines that are essentially boundaries
up to which metastable conditions can exist. These would be defined similar to saturation curves
as functions of either temperature or pressure. The IAPWS database tables are always generated
up to these limits regardless of what flow models are specified (equilibrium or non-equilibrium)
and therefore allow non-equilibrium phase change models to be applied.
Figure 1.2: Spinodal Limits Built into Tables
1.2.2.3.7. The Acentric Factor

The acentric factor must be supplied when running the real gas models and is tabulated for many
common fluids in Poling et al. [84]. If you do not know the acentric factor, or it is not printed in
a common reference, it can be estimated using knowledge of the critical point and the vapor
pressure curve with this formula:
(1.126)
where the vapor pressure, , is calculated at . In addition to the critical point pressure,
this formula requires knowledge of the vapor pressure as a function of temperature.
1.2.2.4. General Equation of State

User-defined equations of state are also supported:
Noting that:
where ,
the equation of state for enthalpy therefore follows as:
(1.127)
Note, however, that user-defined expressions for and must be thermodynamically consistent.
Consistency requires that mathematical properties for exact differentials be satisfied. For example,
suppose is an exact differential defined as:
Consistency then requires that:
Applying this concept to Equation 1.127 (p. 54), it therefore follows that general equations of state
must obey:
Note that it is valid to specify a general equation of state where density is a function of only.
Under these circumstances, it is impossible to heat the fluid at a constant volume, because the
thermal expansion cannot be compensated by a change in pressure. This corresponds to an infinite
value for , which the solver represents as a large constant number. Consequently, such an equation
of state requires the specification of (not ) as either a constant or a function of .
1.2.3. Conjugate Heat Transfer

CFX enables you to create solid regions in which the equations for heat transfer are solved. This is
known as conjugate heat transfer, and the solid regions are known as solid domains.
Within solid domains, the conservation of energy equation can account for heat transport due to
solid motion, conduction, and volumetric heat sources:
(1.128)
where , , and are the enthalpy, density, and thermal conductivity of the solid, respectively, and
is an optional volumetric heat source.
The reference frame for a solid domain is determined by the Domain Motion setting in CFX-Pre, and
can be either Stationary or Rotating. In equation Equation 1.128 (p. 54), none of the terms
depend on the reference frame. As a consequence, the Domain Motion setting has no effect on the
solution field in a solid domain. However, this setting is still required in some situations, as shown in
the examples presented below.
Governing Equations
The term that has the solid velocity is an optional term that accounts for motion of the solid with
respect to the reference frame, and corresponds to the Solid Motion setting in CFX-Pre. For details,
see Solid Motion in the CFX-Pre User's Guide. This is an advection term applied to the temperature
field. The solid domain mesh does not actually move, but because the temperature field is moved,
this setting can be used to model solid motion that is tangential to the solid boundaries (you cannot
advect the temperature field through a solid boundary and outside the solid domain). Examples of
when solid motion can be used include:
• A continuous sheet of material moving along a conveyor belt
• A material being continuously extruded
• A solid that rotates about its symmetry axis
In each of these examples, the solid domain must have the form of a simple extruded or revolved
volume to satisfy the tangential motion condition.
A rotating solid that is adjacent to a fluid domain can be modeled in different ways:
• If the rotating solid is connected to a rotating fluid domain, and both have the same rotational
speed (such as for a turbine blade case), then the Domain Motion setting for both domains should
be set to Rotating. Solid motion should not be used in this case. In addition, if a periodic sector
is used for the fluid and solid domain, and the periodic boundaries do not line up circumferentially,
a Frozen Rotor interface should be used.
Note that, in this case, you can also set the solid Domain Motion setting to Stationary because
Equation 1.128 (p. 54) continues to apply even when the solid Domain Motion setting is changed.
Although this is a valid setup, it can be confusing, and CFX-Pre will issue a warning. You can ignore
the warning message for this specific case, but for clarity it is recommended that you set the solid
Domain Motion setting to Rotating and specify the same rotational velocity as for the adjacent
fluid domain.
• If the rotating solid is a body of revolution (that is, the fluid solid interface is a surface of revolution),
such as a solid disk spinning in a fluid, and the fluid domain is stationary, then there are two valid
approaches:
– For the solid domain, you can set the Domain Motion setting to Rotating. As was stated
above, this setting does not change the equation solved in the solid domain, but it makes it
clear that a frame change model is required to account for the reference frame change. If the
Frozen Rotor model is used, then the solution will be the same as for a stationary solid. If there
is non-axisymmetric flow in the fluid domain, such as a hot jet impinging on the disk surface
(not at the axis of rotation) then a transient simulation with a transient rotor stator interface
should be used, which is equivalent to rotating the solid domain mesh as the solution proceeds.
The hot jet will effectively "see" a different part of the solid disk as the simulation progresses.
– For the solid domain, you can set the Domain Motion setting to Stationary, then select the
Solid Motion option and specify a velocity to account for the rotation of the solid. This can be
done with a steady-state solution because it will activate the term involving as mentioned
above. In this case, the hot jet will always "see" the same part of the solid disk, but the temper-
ature field will be advected around the solid disk to account for the solid motion. When a rotating
solid has a stationary heat source applied, such as a brake disk where the brake pad is modeled
as a heat source, it is best to use this approach because it is computationally less expensive than
a Transient Rotor Stator approach. A hot jet impinging on the disk can also be considered a
stationary heat source.
Note that applying a Domain Motion setting of Rotating to a solid domain, or adding solid motion,
will not have any effect on the fluid momentum equations, and therefore it is necessary to specify a
rotational wall velocity on the fluid side of a domain interface whenever a solid is rotating in a sta-
tionary fluid domain (that is, whenever there is a frame change across the fluid-solid interface).
Additional information on plotting variables at a solid-fluid interface is available in Solid-Fluid Interface

Variable Values in the CFX Reference Guide.
1.3. Buoyancy
For buoyancy calculations, a source term is added to the momentum equations as follows:
(1.129)
The density difference is evaluated using either the Full Buoyancy model or the Boussinesq
model, depending on the physics.
When buoyancy is activated, the pressure in the momentum equation excludes the hydrostatic gradient
due to . This pressure is related to the absolute pressure as follows:
(1.130)
where is a reference location. The buoyancy reference location option is set under the Ref.
Location option in CFX-Pre and can be set to a particular location. For details, see Buoyancy and
Pressure.
Absolute pressure is used to evaluate fluid properties that are functions of pressure; it can be visualized
in CFD-Post.
1.3.1. Full Buoyancy Model

For buoyancy calculations involving variable density, is evaluated directly. This option is set
automatically when the simulation involves multicomponent flow, multiphase flow, or a fluid having
density set as a function of pressure, temperature, or other field variables.
1.3.2. Boussinesq Model

For buoyant flows where the density variation is driven only by small temperature variations, the
Boussinesq model is used. In this model, a constant reference density is used for all terms other
than the buoyancy source term. The buoyancy source term is approximated as:
(1.131)
where is the thermal expansivity:
(1.132)
Immersed Solids
and is the buoyancy reference temperature.
1.4. Immersed Solids

The Immersed Solids capability of CFX enables you to model steady-state or transient simulations in-
volving rigid solid objects that can move through fluid domains. The model involves the use of an im-
mersed solid domain that is placed inside a fluid domain to represent the rigid solid object, including
its shape, position, orientation, and velocity. As a simulation proceeds, CFX-Solver calculates which parts
of the fluid domain are overlapped by the immersed solid (that is, are within the immersed solid domain),
and applies a source of momentum to the fluid inside the immersed solid domain in order to force the
flow to move with the solid. This has the effect of making the flow outside of the immersed solid domain
behave as if it were flowing around a rigid solid object. Additional forcing terms are applied at the
boundary in order to improve the near-wall behavior of the flow near the immersed solid boundary.
The following topics are discussed:

1.4.1. Momentum Sources
1.4.2. Near-Wall Treatment for Immersed Solid Boundary

An immersed solid is a rigid solid object that moves within a fluid domain. The immersed solid object
occupies the same volume of space as part of the fluid domain that contains the immersed solid. In
order to model the effect of the immersed solid on the surrounding fluid, the fluid volume, which is
contained within the immersed solid volume, is forced to move with the solid by applying a source
term to the momentum equation Equation 1.83 (p. 42).
(1.133)
(1.134)
(1.135)
, , and are the three components of fluid velocity and , , and are the components
of forcing velocity due to the immersed solid. The momentum source coefficient is a large number,
and is evaluated as the average of the three diagonal coefficients in the momentum equation. Further,
is the Momentum Force Scaling Factor, which is set to the default value of 10.0. The appropriate
setting of the Momentum Source Scaling Factor is a balance between accuracy and robustness. A
higher value leads to a more accurate solution but is less robust and can give convergence difficulties.
The presence of an immersed solid in the flow field is modeled through a special forcing function.
If no near-wall treatment is used near the immersed solid boundary, the function is set to be zero
for fluid nodes lying outside the immersed solid domain, and one for fluid nodes inside the immersed
solid. If near-wall treatment is activated, the function is set to be volume-averaged inside function
so that the values and the corresponding forcing terms near the immersed boundary will be non-
zero. The volume-averaged inside function averages the inside function, weighted by the nodal
volume.
The solver automatically updates the mesh positions of the immersed solid at the beginning of each
time step, and then sets up a list of fluid nodes that lie inside the given immersed solid. The solver
applies the immersed solid sources to the fluid nodes that lie inside the immersed solid in order to
drive the fluid velocity towards the immersed solid velocity.
1.4.2. Near-Wall Treatment for Immersed Solid Boundary

The momentum source terms added to the fluid momentum equation can model the bulk behavior
of the fluid flow around the rigid solid object. However, they do not track the immersed solid
boundary accurately, or provide any sort of wall treatment near the immersed solid boundary to ac-
count for the boundary layer, or other effects on the flow. In order to better resolve these boundary
effects, CFX-Solver imposes a modified forcing term near the immersed boundary
1.4.2.1. Notation
This section describes notation used in the following sections pertaining to immersed solids.
Figure 1.3: Notation for Nodes Near the Immersed Solid Boundary
Figure 1.3: Notation for Nodes Near the Immersed Solid Boundary (p. 58) shows a schematic diagram
of an immersed solid boundary (shown as a red line). The nodes and points near the boundary are
labeled for reference in the following sections. The meaning of each label is tabulated below.
Label Meaning
IW in-wall node
IW′ in-wall point
NW near-wall node
IB point on the immersed solid boundary
FL fluid node
FL′ fluid point
Immersed Solids
In the figure, the orange arrow represents the wall normal direction corresponding to the given
NW node. For each NW node, the solver searches through the surrounding fluid nodes, and determ-
ines the corresponding FL node using a procedure that takes into account the normal distance
from the immersed boundary and the deviation from the normal direction.
Other notes about notation:
• "NIBG" elements are elements between corresponding NW and IW nodes. These are elements
that the immersed solid surface cuts through, and are colored blue in the figure above.
• "NIBF" elements are elements between corresponding FL and NW nodes. These are elements that
are immediately adjacent to the "NIBG" elements and are colored white in the figure above.
• is the wall distance between the NW node and the IB point along the wall normal direction.
• is the wall distance between the NW node and the IW′ point.
• is the wall distance between the FL′ point and the NW node.
1.4.2.2. Laminar Flow Treatment

For laminar flows, no wall scale equation is solved. Instead, the velocity near the immersed
boundary is computed based on the wall distance, assuming constant wall shear in the boundary
profile region.
The tangential forcing velocity at the near-wall fluid nodes is governed by:
(1.136)
where is the tangential forcing velocity at the NW node, is the dynamic viscosity
at the NW node, and are, respectively, the fluid velocity and dynamic viscosity at the FL
node, and is the distance between the corresponding FL′ point and NW node. Note that
is essentially the normal distance between this node and the immersed boundary.
The normal forcing velocity at the NW node is computed as the normal component of the velocity
at the IB point on the immersed boundary:
(1.137)
The fluid velocity at the near-wall nodes is forced to be:

(1.138)
In this way, the velocity field is forced to flow around the immersed boundary to avoid (or alleviate)
the problem of streamlines penetrating the immersed solid.
1.4.2.3. Turbulent Flow Treatment

For moving immersed solids or high Reynolds number turbulence cases, it is usually not possible
to generate a fine mesh that resolves the laminar sub-layer. Hence, wall functions are used for fluid
elements near the immersed boundary. The implementation of wall functions for immersed solids
is more complicated than for wall functions near regular walls because of the non-uniform wall
distance for elements next to the immersed boundary.
1.4.2.3.1. Wall Distance

For fluid nodes that are inside the immersed solid, the wall distance is set to zero. For fluid nodes
near the immersed solid, the wall distance is computed as a function of the wall scales. The wall
scales are set algebraically to zero for fluid nodes inside the immersed solid, but the shape of
the immersed boundary is not properly taken into account for the wall scale equation.
For the near-immersed-boundary nodes, the physical distance from the immersed boundary
tracking method is used to implement the turbulent wall functions.
1.4.2.3.2. SST Model

The wall distance from the modified wall scale equation is used to compute the two blending
factors. The production and dissipation terms inside the immersed solid are reset to zero for both
the turbulent kinetic energy equation and turbulent frequency equation. This way, the turbulent
kinetic energy and turbulent frequency will be solved without any source terms and solutions
will serve as a natural condition for the fluid turbulence equations.
In the SST turbulence model, the turbulent eddy viscosity is computed from the turbulent kinetic
energy and turbulent frequency:
(1.139)
1.4.2.3.3. Scalable Wall Function

In general, it is impractical (if not impossible) to have a mesh which resolves the sublayer, and
therefore, it is necessary to specify taking account of the logarithmic region.
(1.140)
(1.141)
(1.142)
(1.143)
(1.144)
Here, is the fluid tangential velocity relative to the immersed boundary, and is computed
as the distance from the near-immersed-solid nodes to the immersed boundary. In the scalable
wall function, the lower value of is limited to 11.06 at the intersection between the logarithmic
and the linear near wall profile.
Further, the velocity at the NW nodes is forced according to the wall function:
Multicomponent Flow
(1.145)
Similar to the case of laminar flow, the tangential velocity on the NW nodes is enforced according
to equation Equation 1.145 (p. 61) and the momentum source term is computed taking into ac-
count both the wall normal velocity and tangential forcing velocity:
(1.146)
In this way, the velocity field will be forced to flow around the immersed boundary to avoid (or
alleviate) the problem of streamlines penetrating the immersed solid.
1.5. Multicomponent Flow

The following topics will be discussed:
• Multicomponent Notation (p. 61)
• Scalar Transport Equation (p. 61)
• Algebraic Equation for Components (p. 63)
• Constraint Equation for Components (p. 63)
• Multicomponent Fluid Properties (p. 63)
• Energy Equation (p. 64)
• Multicomponent Energy Diffusion (p. 65)
1.5.1. Multicomponent Notation

Components are denoted using capital letters , , , and so on. In general, a quantity subscribed
with , , , and so on, refers to the value of the quantity corresponding to , , , and so on. For
example, the density ( ) of component would be written .
1.5.2. Scalar Transport Equation

For a multicomponent fluid, scalar transport equations are solved for velocity, pressure, temperature
and other quantities of the fluid. For details, see Governing Equations (p. 42). However, additional
equations must be solved to determine how the components of the fluid are transported within the
fluid.
The bulk motion of the fluid is modeled using single velocity, pressure, temperature and turbulence
fields. The influence of the multiple components is felt only through property variation by virtue of
differing properties for the various components. Each component has its' own equation for conservation
of mass. After Reynolds-averaging (see Turbulence Models (p. 99)) this equation can be expressed in
tensor notation as:
(1.147)
where:
is the mass-average density of fluid component in the mixture, that is, the mass of the component
per unit volume,
is the mass-average velocity field,
is the mass-average velocity of fluid component ,
is the relative mass flux,
is the source term for component , which includes the effects of chemical reactions.
Note that if all the terms in the expanded form of Equation 1.147 (p. 61) are summed over all com-
ponents, the result is the standard continuity equation,
(1.148)
because the reaction rates must sum to zero.
The relative mass flux term accounts for differential motion of the individual components. This term
may be modeled in a number of ways to include effects of concentration gradients, a pressure
gradient, external forces or a temperature gradient. Of these possible sources of relative motion
among the mixture components, the primary effect is that of concentration gradient. The model for
this effect gives rise to a diffusion-like term in Equation 1.147 (p. 61).
(1.149)
The molecular diffusion coefficient, , is assumed to be equal to , where is the Kinematic

Diffusivity set on the Fluid Models tab for a domain in CFX-Pre. For details, see Fluid Models Tab
in the CFX-Pre User's Guide. A detailed description of the effects of the relative mass flux term and
various models for it may be found in reference [29].
Now, define the mass fraction of component to be:
(1.150)
Note that, by definition, the sum of component mass fractions over all components is 1. Substituting
Equation 1.150 (p. 62) and Equation 1.149 (p. 62) into Equation 1.147 (p. 61), you have:
(1.151)
The turbulent scalar fluxes are modeled using the eddy dissipation assumption as:
(1.152)
where is the turbulent Schmidt number. Substituting Equation 1.152 (p. 62) into Equa-
tion 1.151 (p. 62) and assuming now that you have mass weighted averages of :
Multicomponent Flow
(1.153)
where:
(1.154)
Equation 1.153 (p. 63) is simply a general advection-diffusion equation of the form common to the
equations solved for each of the other dependent variables in the fluid flow calculation. Thus, it is
convenient to solve for the in order to establish the composition of the fluid mixture.
1.5.3. Algebraic Equation for Components

The specified equation is used to calculate the component mass fraction throughout the solution
domain.
1.5.4. Constraint Equation for Components

The CFX-Solver solves mass fraction equations (either transport equations or algebraic equations)
for all but one of the components. The remaining component is known as the constraint component
because its mass fraction is determined by the constraint equation:
(1.155)
The performance of the CFX-Solver will not be affected by your choice of constraint component.
1.5.5. Multicomponent Fluid Properties

The physical properties of general multicomponent mixtures are difficult to specify. The default
treatment in Ansys CFX 2021 R2 makes the assumption that the components form an ideal mixture.
For details, see Ideal Mixture in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
Now consider a given volume of the fluid mixture. Let be the mass of component present in
this volume, then . The partial volume of component is defined to be the volume, , that
would be occupied by the given mass of the component at the same (local) temperature and pressure
as the mixture. The "thermodynamic density" of the component, which results from evaluating its
equation of state at the mixture temperature and pressure, may be expressed as . Because
the partial volumes of all components must sum to the total volume, , you have:
(1.156)
or:
(1.157)
Thus, the mixture density may be calculated from the mass fractions and the thermodynamic
density of each component, which may require knowledge of the mixture temperature and pressure,
as well as an appropriate equation of state for each component.
Note carefully the distinction between and . The component mass density, , is a quantity re-
lating to the composition of the mixture, while the thermodynamic density, , is a material property
of the component.
An arbitrary constitutive fluid property may be calculated from:
(1.158)
where is the property value for fluid component . While it may appear anomalous at first sight
that density does not conform to this expression, the specific volume (volume per unit mass, that is,
) does indeed conform, as can be seen by considering Equation 1.158 (p. 64). Properties that
may be evaluated for a multicomponent mixture using Equation 1.158 (p. 64) include the laminar
viscosity , the specific heat at constant volume , the specific heat at constant pressure , and the
laminar thermal conductivity .
1.5.6. Energy Equation

Recall that Equation 2.5 (p. 101) is the Reynolds-averaged conservation equation for energy of a single
component fluid. Extending this equation for multicomponent fluids involves adding an additional
diffusion term to the energy equation:
(1.159)
For turbulent flow, this term is Reynolds-averaged (see Turbulence Models (p. 99)) giving:
(1.160)
This expression introduces several terms involving the fluctuations of diffusion coefficient, component
enthalpy and species concentration. Under certain circumstances, the fluctuating components could
be an important component of the diffusion process. However, adequate models are not available
within the existing turbulence model to account for these effects. Thus, only the mean component
is retained in the current version of Ansys CFX.
The implemented conservation of energy equation for multicomponent fluids involves only mean
scalar components and is expressed as:
Multicomponent Flow
(1.161)
1.5.7. Multicomponent Energy Diffusion

The energy equation can be simplified in the special case that all species diffusivities are the same
and equal to thermal conductivity divided by specific heat capacity,
(1.162)
Equation 1.162 (p. 65) holds when the Lewis number is unity for all components: .
For turbulent flow, assuming for all components is usually just as good as the common practice
of using the fluid viscosity for the default component diffusivity (unity Schmidt number, ).
For , the energy equation (Equation 1.161 (p. 65)) simplifies exactly to the following:
(1.163)
Equation 1.163 (p. 65) has the advantage that only a single diffusion term must be assembled, rather
than one for each component plus one for heat conduction. This can significantly reduce numerical
cost, in particular when the fluid consists of a large number of components.
When component-dependent turbulent Schmidt numbers are specified, the turbulent energy flux
must be generalized. This is achieved by splitting the turbulent fluctuation of enthalpy into the con-
tributions from temperature fluctuation, pressure fluctuation and fluctuations of component mass
fractions:
(1.164)
Using this transformation, the turbulent energy flux can be modeled by applying the eddy diffusivity
model with turbulent Prandtl number to the temperature fluctuations plus the sum of the secondary
enthalpy transport terms derived from the component mass fluxes:
(1.165)
(1.166)
(1.167)
Inserting the eddy diffusivity model for the turbulent component mass fluxes yields the following
model for the turbulent enthalpy flux:
(1.168)
The previous relation is equivalent to the eddy diffusivity model applied to enthalpy and generalized
for different and , as can be derived by expanding the enthalpy gradient term according to
the chain rule :
(1.169)
(1.170)
(1.171)
Using the above relations, the energy equation for generalized turbulent component transport becomes:
(1.172)
And for the special case that the eddy diffusivity assumption is used for modeling the turbulent mass
flux for each component:
(1.173)
For the Thermal Energy heat transfer model the pressure gradients are assumed to be small compared
to the other terms, and the corresponding terms are neglected from the equation.
1.6. Additional Variables

There are several types of Additional Variable equations supported by CFX-Solver:
• Transport Equations for Additional Variables (p. 66)
• Diffusive Transport Equations for Additional Variables (p. 67)
• Poisson Equations for Additional Variables (p. 67)
• Algebraic Equations for Additional Variables (p. 68)
1.6.1. Transport Equations for Additional Variables

The general form of the transport equation for an Additional Variable is:
(1.174)
where:
Additional Variables
• is the fluid velocity in the case of a fluid or porous domain, or in the case of a solid domain
with a specified solid motion velocity, where is the solid velocity.
• is the mixture density, mass per unit volume
• is the conserved quantity per unit volume, or concentration
• is the conserved quantity per unit mass
• is a volumetric source term, with units of conserved quantity per unit volume per unit time
• is the kinematic diffusivity for the scalar
For turbulent flow, this equation is Reynolds-averaged (see Turbulence Models (p. 99)) and becomes:
(1.175)
where:
• is the turbulence Schmidt number
• is the turbulence viscosity
1.6.2. Diffusive Transport Equations for Additional Variables

The general form of the diffusive transport equation for an Additional Variable (non-reacting scalar)
is:
(1.176)
where:
• is the mixture density, mass per unit volume.
• is the conserved quantity per unit volume, or concentration.
• is the conserved quantity per unit mass.
• is the kinematic diffusivity for the scalar.
1.6.3. Poisson Equations for Additional Variables

The general form of the Poisson equation for an Additional Variable (non-reacting scalar) is:
(1.177)
where:
• is the mixture density, mass per unit volume.
• is the conserved quantity per unit volume, or concentration.
• is the conserved quantity per unit mass.
• is the kinematic diffusivity for the scalar.
1.6.4. Algebraic Equations for Additional Variables

Additional Variables may be set up as either algebraic equations or transport equations. For algebraic
Additional Variables, you must provide an expression for its value throughout the domain. An algeb-
raic Additional Variable definition can be as simple as a copy of an existing variable.
Important:
Results obtained using an Additional Variable that references an existing variable may
differ from results obtained using the referenced variable directly. This is because the cal-
culation recipes used for such Additional Variables may differ from those used for the
variable referenced. An example of this occurs when the referenced variable is a wall or
boundary only variable. In particular, a variable-specific recipe may exist to gather integra-
tion point values to nodes and this recipe may differ from the generic recipe applied for
Additional Variables.
1.7. Rotational Forces

For flows in a frame of reference that rotates at angular velocity , additional sources of momentum
are required to account for the effects of Coriolis force, centrifugal force, and angular acceleration:
(1.178)
where:
(1.179)
(1.180)
(1.181)
and where is the location vector and is the relative frame velocity (that is, the rotating frame velocity
for a rotating frame of reference).
In the (total or thermal) energy equation, the advection and transient terms use the rothalpy, , defined
by Equation 1.182 (p. 68), in place of the total enthalpy.
(1.182)
In the (total or thermal) energy equation, an additional source of energy is required to account for the
effects of angular acceleration:
(1.183)
Sources
1.7.1. Alternate Rotation Model

By default, the advection term in the momentum equation models the relative frame velocity:
(1.184)
The alternate rotation model modifies the advection and transient terms so they involve the absolute
frame velocity, , rather than the relative frame velocity, .
The change of variable in the advection term requires a modification of the original Coriolis source
term. The final form of the momentum equation becomes:
(1.185)
Modeling details and recommendations on when this should be used are available in Alternate Rotation
Model in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.8. Sources
Additional source terms can be applied either to a volume defined by a subdomain, or to a point
within a domain. A point source is actually implemented as a volumetric source within a single domain
element whose center is nearest to the specified point.
This section describes:

1.8.2. General Sources
1.8.3. Mass (Continuity) Sources
1.8.4. Bulk Sources
1.8.5. Radiation Sources
1.8.6. Boundary Sources
For additional details, see Sources in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.

A momentum source is implemented in Ansys CFX as a force per unit volume acting on the fluid(s).
Momentum sources can be used to model isotropic losses in porous regions, directional losses in
porous regions, or other processes. These situations are described further in the following sections.
More information on how to use the momentum source models is available in Momentum Sources
in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.8.1.1. Isotropic Loss Model

The momentum loss through an isotropic porous region can be formulated using permeability and
loss coefficients as follows:
(1.186)
where is the permeability and is the quadratic loss coefficient. The linear component
of this source represents viscous losses and the quadratic term represents inertial losses.
Note:
may be thought of as a 'pressure gradient per dynamic head'. An engineering

handbook may provide data in the form of a 'pressure drop per unit head'. To calculate
, divide by the distance over which the pressure drop occurs (which could be the
thickness of a perforated plate, for example).
The source may alternatively be formulated using linear and quadratic resistance coefficients, sub-
stituting two coefficients and as follows:
(1.187)
(1.188)
1.8.1.2. Directional Loss Model

The momentum source through an anisotropic porous region (such as a honeycomb or perforated
plate) may be modeled using the directional loss model. With this model, the streamwise direction
(which is permitted to vary in space), must be specified. Consider a streamwise-oriented coordinate
system ( ) such that the -axis is aligned with the streamwise direction and the axes
lie on the transverse plane. The momentum losses in these directions are:
(1.189)
where and are the streamwise and transverse permeabilities, and and are
the streamwise and transverse quadratic loss coefficients. These quantities may also be expressed
in terms of linear and quadratic resistance coefficients.
In addition, the transverse loss may be modeled by multiplying the streamwise coefficients by some
factor. If this option is used together with a streamwise permeability, the implied transverse per-
meability is equal to the streamwise permeability divided by this factor.
Note:
Each of and may be thought of as a 'pressure gradient per dynamic head'. An

engineering handbook may provide data in the form of a 'pressure drop per unit head'.
Sources
To calculate or , divide by the distance over which the pressure drop occurs
(which could be the thickness of a perforated plate, for example).
1.8.1.3. General Momentum Sources

The general momentum source is available for specifying momentum sources that are not covered
by the isotropic or directional loss models. A different source can be specified for each direction
as follows:
(1.190)
(1.191)
(1.192)
where the quantities are the specified momentum components. In Ansys CFX 2021 R2, a
representative scalar linearization coefficient based on the derivative:
(1.193)
may be specified to provide robust convergence when a general momentum source is present.
1.8.1.4. Immersed Solid Sources

The presence of an immersed solid in the flow field is modeled through a body force similar to the
general momentum source. For details, see Immersed Solid Control in the CFX-Pre User's Guide and
Momentum Sources (p. 57).
1.8.2. General Sources

Any scalar equation may have a source term . This covers the energy, Additional Variable, turbulence,
and mass fraction equations.
A linearization coefficient
(1.194)
may also be specified to provide robust convergence when sources are present. For the energy
equation, the derivative is actually taken with respect to temperature.
For details, see General Sources in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.8.3. Mass (Continuity) Sources

The mass source contribution, , to the conservation equation for the fluid mass is specified exactly
as for a general source.
The mass source contributes an additional term to all other transported variables :
(1.195)
The exterior must be specified in the case that is positive, in which case, the source behaves
very much like an inlet boundary condition.
For details, see Mass (Continuity) Sources in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.8.4. Bulk Sources

For details, see Sources in Multiphase Flow (p. 224).
1.8.5. Radiation Sources

For details, see Radiation Theory (p. 345).
1.8.6. Boundary Sources

For details, see Boundary Sources in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.9. Boundary Conditions

• Inlet (Subsonic) (p. 72)
• Inlet (Supersonic) (p. 76)
• Outlet (Subsonic) (p. 76)
• Outlet (Supersonic) (p. 81)
• Opening (p. 81)
• Wall (p. 83)
• Symmetry Plane (p. 84)
1.9.1. Inlet (Subsonic)
1.9.1.1. Mass and Momentum

1.9.1.1.1. Normal Speed in
The magnitude of the inlet velocity is specified and the direction is taken to be normal to the
boundary. The direction constraint requires that the flow direction, , is parallel to the boundary
surface normal, which is calculated at each element face on the inlet boundary.
1.9.1.1.2. Cartesian Velocity Components

The boundary velocity components are specified, with a non-zero resultant into the domain.
(1.196)
Boundary Conditions
1.9.1.1.3. Cylindrical Velocity Components

In this case the velocity boundary condition is specified in a local cylindrical coordinate system.
Only the axial direction of the local coordinate system must be given and the components of
velocity in the r, theta and z directions are automatically transformed by the CFX-Solver into
Cartesian velocity components. So, in this case you would specify:
(1.197)
and the solver will compute the rotation matrix that transforms these components from the cyl-
indrical components to the Cartesian components such that the boundary condition is the same
as if Cartesian components were specified:
(1.198)
For details, see Cylindrical Velocity Components in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.9.1.1.4. Total Pressure

The Total Pressure (p. 34), , is specified at an inlet boundary condition and the CFX-Solver
computes the static pressure needed to properly close the boundary condition. For rotating
frames of reference one usually specifies the stationary frame total pressure instead.
The direction constraint for the Normal To Boundary option is the same as that for the Normal
Speed In option. Alternatively, the direction vector can be specified explicitly in terms of its three
components. In both cases, the boundary mass flow is an implicit result of the flow simulation.
1.9.1.1.5. Mass Flow Rate

The boundary mass flow rate is specified along with a direction component. If the flow direction
is specified as normal to the boundary, a uniform mass influx is assumed to exist over the entire
boundary. Also, if the flow direction is set using Cartesian or cylindrical components, the compon-
ent normal to the boundary condition is ignored and, again, a uniform mass influx is assumed.
The mass influx is calculated using:
(1.199)
where
(1.200)
is the integrated boundary surface area at a given mesh resolution. The area varies with mesh
resolution because the resolution determines how well resolved the boundary surfaces are. The
value of is held constant over the entire boundary surface.
1.9.1.2. Turbulence
For the - turbulence model and Reynolds stress models, the inlet turbulence quantities, and
, are either specified directly or calculated using expressions that scale the distribution at the inlet
according to the turbulence intensity, , where:
(1.201)
The inlet flows of and involve advection and diffusion.

(1.202)
(1.203)
The advection flows are evaluated using the computed inlet values of and :
(1.204)
(1.205)
The diffusion flows are assumed to be negligible compared to advection, and are equated to zero.
1.9.1.2.1. Default Intensity and Autocompute Length Scale

When default inlet turbulence intensity is selected, the value is set to:
(1.206)
which is an approximate value for internal pipe flow. The inlet turbulence energy is calculated
using:
(1.207)
and the turbulence dissipation calculated using:

(1.208)
where:
(1.209)
where is the turbulence intensity factor at the boundary condition. The default value of is
1000.
1.9.1.2.2. Intensity and Autocompute Length Scale

The turbulence intensity is specified directly and the distributions of and at the inlet calculated
using the same relationships as the Default Intensity and Autocompute Length
Scale option.
1.9.1.2.3. Intensity and Length Scale

The turbulence intensity and length scale are both specified. The turbulence kinetic energy and
dissipation are calculated using:
(1.210)
and
(1.211)
Boundary Conditions
1.9.1.2.4. k and Epsilon

Both and are specified directly:
(1.212)
and
(1.213)
When the Reynolds stress model is employed, the Inlet boundary conditions are specified with
the same turbulence options as those for the - model. Additionally, the stress tensors are ex-
tracted using the computed value of . This is done by assuming the Inlet boundary to be iso-
tropic with respect to the Reynolds stresses, such that the normal stress components are:
(1.214)
and the shear stress components are equal to zero:

(1.215)
1.9.1.3. Heat Transfer

1.9.1.3.1. Static Temperature
The inlet static temperature is specified:
(1.216)
The inlet energy flow involves advection and diffusion.

(1.217)
The energy flow by advection is a function of the specific total enthalpy, :

(1.218)
where is computed from the specific static enthalpy, , and the inlet boundary velocity:
(1.219)
The static enthalpy is computed using the specified value of , the boundary values of and
, and the thermodynamic relationship for for the given fluid. The evaluation of
depends upon the nature of the mass and momentum specification for the boundary condition.
The Inlet energy flow by diffusion is assumed to be negligible compared to advection, and equated
to zero.
1.9.1.3.2. Total Temperature

The boundary advection and diffusion terms for specified total temperature are evaluated in exactly
the same way as specified static temperature, except that the static temperature is dynamically
computed from the definition of total temperature:
(1.220)
which for a fluid with constant heat capacity is:
(1.221)
Additional information on the treatment of variable specific heat is available in Ideal Gas Equation
of State (p. 45).
1.9.1.4. Additional Variables

The value of the Additional Variable is specified explicitly at an inlet:
(1.222)
The inlet flow of involves advection and diffusion:

(1.223)
and the advection quantity is evaluated using the specified value of :

(1.224)
The inlet flow by diffusion is assumed to be negligible compared to advection, and set to zero.
1.9.2. Inlet (Supersonic)

The static temperature is specified at the supersonic inlet boundary:
(1.225)
1.9.2.1.2. Total Temperature

Total temperature is specified at the supersonic inlet boundary:
(1.226)
Static temperature is dynamically computed from the definition of total temperature.
1.9.3. Outlet (Subsonic)

1.9.3.1.1. Static Pressure (Uniform)
Relative Static Pressure is specified over the outlet boundary:
(1.227)
1.9.3.1.2. Normal Speed

The magnitude of the outlet velocity is specified and the direction is taken to be normal to the
boundary at mesh resolution.
Boundary Conditions

The boundary velocity components are specified, with a non-zero resultant out of the domain.
(1.228)

These are handled the same way as for an Inlet (Subsonic) (p. 72) boundary condition.
1.9.3.1.5. Average Static Pressure: Over Whole Outlet

The Outlet Relative Static Pressure allows the pressure profile at the outlet to vary based on up-
stream influences while constraining the average pressure to a user-specified value , where:
(1.229)
where is the imposed pressure at each integration point and the integral is evaluated over
the entire outlet boundary surface. To enforce this condition, the pressure at each boundary in-
tegration point is set to:
(1.230)
So, the integration point pressure in this case is set to the specified value plus the difference
between the local nodal value and the average outlet boundary pressure. In this way the outlet
pressure profile can vary, but the average value is constrained to the specified value.
1.9.3.1.6. Average Static Pressure: Above or Below Specified Radius

In this case, the average pressure is only constrained in the region above or below the specified
radius by shifting the calculated pressure profile by the difference between the specified average
and the nodal average above or below the specified radius.
1.9.3.1.7. Average Static Pressure: Circumferential

The circumferential averaging option divides the exit boundary condition into circumferential
bands (oriented radially or axially depending on the geometry). The pressure within each band
is constrained to the specified average pressure value the same way as is done for the overall
averaging:
(1.231)
where the specified value is applied within a band and the nodal average pressure is also calculated
within a band.
1.9.3.1.8. Mass Flow Rate: Scale Mass Flows

The mass flux distribution across the outlet is determined by starting with the local mass flow
rate distribution calculated by the flow solver at each integration point:
(1.232)
From that distribution, you calculate the estimated total mass flow rate through the outlet
boundary condition:
(1.233)
where the summation is over all boundary integration points. A scaling factor is computed at the
end of each coefficient loop that is used to scale the local integration point mass flows such that
they add up to the specified mass flow rate:
(1.234)
Iteratively, during the computation, can be greater than or less than unity. The final integration
point mass flows are reset by multiplying the integration point mass flows by the scaling factor:
(1.235)
In this way, the mass flux profile is an implicit result of the solution and at the same time gives
exactly the specified mass flow rate.
1.9.3.1.9. Mass Flow Rate: Shift Pressure with or without Pressure Profile
This condition differs from the last one in that pressure is shifted in the continuity equation to
get the specified mass flow rate. Generally speaking, the mass flow rate at each boundary integ-
ration point is dependent upon both velocity and pressure:
(1.236)
where the integration point velocity depends upon nodal velocity and integration point pressures
through the Rhie-Chow coupling. For this boundary condition, the integration point pressures
are given by an expression of the form:
(1.237)
where is an optional specified pressure profile, is the boundary node pressure,

is the outlet boundary nodal average pressure, is the Pressure Profile Blend factor that sets
how much the specified profile influences the boundary condition, and is the level shift
factor automatically computed by the CFX-Solver each coefficient loop to enforce the specified
mass flow rate, such that:
(1.238)
where the sum, in this case, is over all the outlet boundary condition integration points.
1.9.3.1.10. Mass Flow Rate: Shift Pressure with Circumferential Pressure Averaging
A further extension of the shift pressure feature for outlet mass flow rate conditions (or outlet
boundaries using an Average Static Pressure specification) enforces the specified profile as an
average pressure profile (or average pressure) in circumferential bands (radial or axial), held at a
particular value.
Boundary Conditions
Starting with the original formula for the integration point pressure in Equation 1.237 (p. 78):
instead of imposing a particular profile distribution, an average pressure profile within bands is
introduced:
(1.239)
where: is the average pressure desired in band , and is the current average
nodal value in band . corresponds to the Pressure Profile Blend factor. When the specified
profile spatially varies, the flow solver will compute the average of that profile within each band
and then use those values for .
1.9.3.1.11. Exit Corrected Mass Flow Rate

The Exit Corrected Mass Flow Rate (ECMF) boundary condition allows you to specify an equivalent
mass flow rate corrected to a user specified reference temperature and pressure. If the reference
conditions are not provided, reference conditions will default to 1 [atm] and 15 [°C], corresponding
to Standard Atmosphere Sea Level Static conditions.
Performance of compressible turbomachinery is generally dependent on ten variables; blade tip

diameter, rotational speed, mass flow rate, inlet total temperature and pressure, exit total temper-
ature and pressure, gas constant, specific heat ratio, and viscosity. These ten variables may be
reduced to six similarity criteria: pressure ratio, temperature ratio, non-dimensional mass flow,
non-dimensional speed, Reynolds number, and the ratio of specific heats.
The non-dimensional mass flow parameter ( ) is taken as the ratio of the actual mass flow rate
to that which would pass through an orifice of diameter with a velocity equal to the stagnation
speed of sound.
(1.240)
where and are the stagnation (total) density and speed of sound at the outlet, respectively.
The ECMF is obtained by multiplying the non-dimensional mass flow by a constant value equal
to the mass that would pass through an orifice of the same diameter, , at a velocity equal to
the speed of sound at reference conditions.
(1.241)
For ideal gases, we can substitute and with:
at the local and reference conditions, where is the ratio of specific heats and is the specific
gas constant.
This reduces Equation 1.241 (p. 79)to:
(1.242)
where and are the stationary frame total pressure and total temperature at the outlet.
To obtain a mass flow at the boundary, Equation 1.242 (p. 80)is rearranged to obtain the actual
mass flow rate based on the current outlet conditions and the specified corrected mass flow,
written as:
(1.243)
where, and are mass averaged values of total pressure and temperature in the stationary
frame at the outlet.
Note that the current implementation is based on the ideal gas reduction above. While the
boundary condition will still provide the stability benefits for non-ideal gas simulations, the spe-
cified corrected mass flow may not correspond exactly to Equation 1.241 (p. 79)due to differences
in how and are computed from the equation of state.
1.9.3.1.12. Radial Equilibrium

The radial equilibrium option divides the boundary condition into radially oriented circumferential
bands. The pressure within each band is constrained by the radial equilibrium condition:
(1.244)
This equation is used to calculate the pressure gradient in each band, , based on the
band averaged tangential velocity, , and density, , as well as the band center radius, . The
band edge pressures, , are obtained by integrating this equation starting from the specified
pressure at the radial reference position. This pressure is used to constrain the solution pressure
with the following equation:
(1.245)
where:
• is the area average nodal pressure, within a band
• is linearly interpolated between the band edge values to the local face radius, r
• and is the evaluated pressure at the band mid-radius.
As for all average static-pressure options, the pressure profile blend factor, F, can be applied to
this boundary condition. If the factor F=,1 then the pressure at each face is fully constrained to
the pressure obtained from the radial equilibrium condition, , so that a circumferential
profile is not allowed within the band. If the factor F=0, then a circumferential profile is allowed
to develop with the average of that profile equal to the radial equilibrium pressure.
Boundary Conditions
1.9.3.2. Turbulence, Heat Transfer, Convected Additional Variables, and Other

Scalars
For scalar quantities, the CFX-Solver imposes a constant gradient constraint (generally non-zero)
at the outlet boundary.
1.9.4. Outlet (Supersonic)

The specification of a supersonic outlet boundary condition requires no accompanying values, except
for the radiation intensity if radiation is modeled.
1.9.5. Opening
An opening boundary condition allows the fluid to cross the boundary surface in either direction. For
example, all of the fluid might flow into the domain at the opening, or all of the fluid might flow out
of the domain, or a mixture of the two might occur. An opening boundary condition might be used
where it is known that the fluid flows in both directions across the boundary.

The Cartesian components of the flow velocity are specified at the opening boundary:
(1.246)

These are handled the same way as for an Inlet (Subsonic) (p. 72) boundary condition.
1.9.5.1.3. Pressure and Direction

An opening boundary condition can also be specified with a Relative Pressure value:
(1.247)
The value is interpreted as relative total pressure for inflow and relative static pressure for outflow.
The direction component, normal to boundary condition or direction components, must also be
specified. The magnitude of the velocity at the opening boundary is then part of the solution.
1.9.5.1.3.1. Loss Coefficient
You can optionally specify a loss coefficient, :

(1.248)
with a velocity component specification at an opening boundary. The pressure drop is calculated
using:
(1.249)
where is the magnitude of the velocity component normal to the opening boundary. For
inflows, the constraint on pressure and velocity becomes:
(1.250)
and for outflows, the constraint becomes:

(1.251)
The coefficient can be used to model the pressure drop across a screen or other planar resistance.

Opening temperature or Static temperature can be specified at the opening boundary:
(1.252)

For flow into the domain, the value of the Additional Variable at an opening boundary is that spe-
cified on the Additional Variable Details tab:
(1.253)
For flow out of the domain the specified value is not used. The value for flow out of the domain
is calculated by the CFX-Solver and is the Additional Variable value taken from the solution field.
Boundary Conditions
1.9.6. Wall

1.9.6.1.1. No Slip (Not Moving, No Wall Velocity)
The velocity of the fluid at the wall boundary is set to zero, so the boundary condition for the
velocity becomes:
(1.254)
1.9.6.1.2. Free Slip

In this case, the velocity component parallel to the wall has a finite value (which is computed),
but the velocity normal to the wall, and the wall shear stress, are both set to zero:
(1.255)
(1.256)
1.9.6.1.3. Finite Slip

For details on finite slip wall, see Finite Slip Wall in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide
1.9.6.1.4. Specified Shear

For details on specified shear wall, see Specified Shear in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide
1.9.6.1.5. No Slip (Moving, with Wall Velocity)

In this case, the fluid at the wall boundary moves at the same velocity as the wall. There are three
different options for the wall velocity:
• Cartesian Components: You can directly specify Cartesian components in a local coordinate
frame or the global coordinate frame:
(1.257)
• Cylindrical Components: You can directly specify cylindrical components in a local cylindrical
coordinate system:
(1.258)
and the solver automatically transforms the cylindrical velocity components into the global
Cartesian coordinate system.
• Counter-rotating Wall and Rotating Wall : A counter-rotating wall can be specified for walls
in rotating frames. In this case, the wall is stationary in the absolute frame; in the relative frame,
it moves with a velocity:
(1.259)
where is the radial vector from the domain axis of rotation to the wall and is the domain
angular velocity.
A rotating wall can be specified in both stationary and rotating frames. This option is useful
to use in stationary domains when you would like to create a spinning wall. In this case, you
enter a local rotation axis for the wall boundary and the wall velocity:
(1.260)
The solver automatically transforms the specified wall velocity into Cartesian components. This
option could be used to duplicate the counter rotating wall option in rotating frames by explicitly
setting the angular velocity equal to minus one times the domain angular velocity.
1.9.6.2. Turbulence
The treatment of wall boundary conditions for turbulent flow is the same as for laminar flow, except
for No Slip. For details, see Modeling Flow Near the Wall (p. 153).

1.9.6.3.1. Adiabatic
The Adiabatic Wall boundary condition allows no heat transfer across the Wall boundary:
(1.261)
1.9.6.3.2. Fixed Temperature

Static Temperature is specified at the wall boundary:
(1.262)
1.9.6.3.3. Heat Flux

Heat flux at the wall boundary is specified:
(1.263)
1.9.6.3.4. Heat Transfer Coefficient

Heat flux at the wall boundary is calculated using:
(1.264)
where is a specified heat transfer coefficient, is the specified boundary temperature, (that
is, outside the fluid domain) and is the temperature at the internal near-wall boundary element
center node. For details, see Heat Transfer in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.

The options for specifying Additional Variable quantities at wall boundaries are analogous to those
for heat transfer.
1.9.7. Symmetry Plane

The symmetry plane boundary condition imposes constraints that ‘mirror’ the flow on either side of
it.
Automatic Time Scale Calculation
For example, the normal velocity component at the symmetry plane boundary is set to zero:
(1.265)
and the scalar variable gradients normal to the boundary are also set to zero:
(1.266)
1.10. Automatic Time Scale Calculation

This section describes the way in which a timestep is calculated when using the Auto Timescale
or Auto Timescale with a Maximum Timescale option for setting the timestep used during the
calculation of a solution. For details, see Timestep Selection in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.10.1. Fluid Time Scale Estimate

The following length scales are calculated by Ansys CFX:
(1.267)
where is the domain volume (over all domains), , and are the , and extents of the
domain (over all domains) and is the area of an ‘open’ boundary (that is, inlets, outlets or openings).
Further length scales are then calculated depending on the Length Scale Option parameter, which
can be Conservative, Aggressive or Specified Length Scale:
(1.268)
The velocity scales used to calculate a timestep are:
(1.269)
where is the arithmetic average of the velocity on a boundary, is the arithmetic average
of the nodal velocities, and are the maximum and minimum pressure values on an
‘open’ boundary and is the arithmetic average nodal density.
For compressible flows, a Mach number for the simulation is calculated as:
(1.270)
where is the arithmetic averaged speed of sound over all nodes.
For buoyant flows using the full buoyancy model:

(1.271)
and for the Boussinesq model:

(1.272)
where is the thermal expansivity and and are the maximum and minimum domain
temperatures (over all domains).
The final fluid time scale used is calculated as:

(1.273)
where:
(1.274)
with the dynamic viscosity μ, the total mass m and the total mass flow into the system .
For very small geometries, where the Reynolds number may be very small, including the diffusion
scale in the automatic timescale calculation can lead to very small timesteps, which can unnecessarily
slow down convergence. For such cases it may be better to use a physical timescale based on advection
scales instead.
(1.275)
If , then
(1.276)
1.10.2. Solid Time Scale Estimate

The solid time scale estimate will, in general, be much larger than the fluid time scale.
The length scale used to calculate a solid time scale, , is calculated in the same manner as for
fluid time scales. The default value is taken as the cube root of the volume of the solid domain.
A volume averaged diffusion is calculated as:

(1.277)
where each quantity is volume averaged over the solid. The solid time scale is finally calculated as:
(1.278)
where is the specified solid timescale factor, which has a default value of 1.
Mesh Adaption
When a rotating motion is enabled in a solid domain, the advective time scale is then computed as
where is the angular velocity. The solid timestep is taken as the minimum between the diffusive
and this new advective ( ) timescale.
The value of the computed timestep size is recorded in the CFX-Solver Output file.
1.11. Mesh Adaption

Mesh adaption in Ansys CFX is the process in which, once or more during a run, the mesh is selectively
refined in areas that depend on the adaption criteria specified. This means that as the solution is calcu-
lated, the mesh can automatically be refined in locations where solution variables are changing most
rapidly, in order to resolve the features of the flow in these regions.
More information on the mesh adaption process and controls is available in Mesh Adaption in the CFX-
Pre User's Guide.
Within the mesh adaption step itself, three processes take place:
1. Adaption criteria are calculated for each mesh element.
2. The appropriate number of nodes are added to the existing mesh according to the adaption criteria
calculated.
3. The solution already calculated on the older mesh is linearly interpolated onto the new mesh.
This section describes the details of exactly which elements are refined and how the refinement takes
place.
1.11.1. Adaption Criteria

This section describes how the adaption criteria are calculated for each mesh edge.
• If the adaption criteria method is Solution Variation, then the adaption criteria, , for a given
mesh edge of length is calculated as:
(1.279)
where is the adaption variable (such as density, pressure, and so on), is the global range
of the variable over all the nodes (excluding those on wall boundary conditions for turbulent
flow), is the difference between at one end of the edge and the other end, and is a
scalar for adaption variable to scale all the to take values between 0 and 1.
• If the adaption criteria method is Variation * Edge Length, then the adaption criteria
for a given mesh edge of length is calculated as:
(1.280)
where: is the global range of the adaption variable over all the nodes (excluding those
on wall boundary conditions for turbulent flow), is the difference between at one end of
the edge and the other end, and is a length chosen to scale all the to take values between
0 and 1.
• If you select more than one solution variable, then the adaption criteria are calculated for each
variable at each edge, and the sum over all adaption variables is used.
• If you specify the adaption criteria to be an expression, then the expression is evaluated at each
node, and the calculation of the adaption criteria follows as if this were another solution variable.
The edges that have the largest adaption criteria are marked for refinement, providing that this would
not result in mesh edges that were shorter than the Minimum Edge Length, if this was specified.
1.11.2. Mesh Refinement Implementation in Ansys CFX

There are two general methods for performing mesh adaption. Incremental adaption takes an ex-
isting mesh and modifies it to meet the adaption criteria. The alternative is remeshing, in which the
whole geometry is remeshed at every adaption step according to the adaption criteria. In Ansys CFX,
incremental adaption is used because this is much faster; however, this imposes the limitation that
the resulting mesh quality is limited by the quality of the initial mesh.
The particular implementation of incremental adaption that is adopted in Ansys CFX is known as
hierarchical refinement or h-refinement. Each adaption step consists of a structured refinement of
an existing mesh. A sequence of refinements form a set of hierarchical levels.
In each mesh adaption step, each mesh edge that is marked for adaption (see the previous section)
has an extra node placed half-way along it. The mesh elements that share this edge are then divided
to use the new node, subject to the following:
• Neighboring elements must only differ by one refinement level. Hence, one mesh element cannot
be divided twice if its neighbor has not been divided at all.
• Where possible, regular refinement of an element takes place. Regular refinement means that all
the edges of an element are divided into two, and the element split accordingly. To make this
possible, extra nodes may be added.
• No "hanging" nodes are allowed. This means that if an extra node is added to an edge, all the mesh
elements that share that edge must be refined.
• Only certain types of elements are allowed in the refined mesh: tetrahedron, prism, pyramid and
hexahedron.
1.11.2.1. Adaption in Inflated Regions of the Mesh

In regions where inflation has taken place (so that there are prisms and some pyramid elements
near wall boundary conditions), the mesh adaption avoids refining these elements in the direction
perpendicular to the wall. Only edges on the interface between the inflated elements and the rest
of the tetrahedral mesh are allowed to be marked for adaption. When the refinement of these
edges takes place, the refinement propagates through the layers of prismatic elements to the wall
boundary condition itself.
Mesh Adaption
1.11.2.2. Adaption to the Original Geometry

Mesh adaption in Ansys CFX does not have the capability of refining the surface mesh back to the
original geometry. This means that nodes that are added to the surface of the problem are added
onto the edges of the existing mesh rather than to the surfaces of the original geometry. An illus-
tration of these two alternatives is shown below. Note that only the option shown on the left is
available in Ansys CFX.
Note:
Support for adaption of the mesh to the original surface geometry is expected in future
releases.
1.11.3. Mesh Adaption Limitations

Mesh Adaption in Ansys CFX 2021 R2 is subject to the following limitations:
• Mesh adaption is limited to allocate 2^31-1 words of 4 byte integer stack space; this limits the
maximum problem size for mesh adaption to approximately 80 million elements (structured) and
200 million elements (unstructured).
• Mesh adaption cannot be used in multi-domain simulations or in cases with domain interfaces,
porous domains, elapsed time control, or external solver coupling. Mesh adaption also cannot be
used for transient, mesh-motion, radiative-tracking, or particle-transport cases.
• The mesh may not be coarsened such that original mesh elements are combined. Mesh elements
that have been refined in earlier adaption steps may be coarsened, back to their original mesh
elements, but not beyond.
• You must specify how much adaption takes place by specifying the maximum number of nodes
in the final mesh. You cannot specify that mesh adaption should take place until the mesh stops
changing or until a particular solution criterion is satisfied.
• The method used is not well-suited to meshes with many high-aspect ratio elements, because it
can only refine elements in an isotropic manner.
• The method cannot improve the quality of the existing mesh.
1.11.3.1. Mesh Adaption Tips

• More than one adaption step applied to a surface mesh with no underlying geometry can lead
to convergence problems with transonic problems.
• If you set Mesh Adaption Criteria Method to Solution Variation without specifying
Minimum Edge Length, then you may over-refine in regions where there are discontinuities. If
you want to adapt meshes containing geometrically small features, you can exploit the adaption
capability without limitation by not setting any minimum edge length.
• If you set Mesh Adaption Criteria Method to Variation * Edge Length, then you will
not over-refine discontinuities. This method places an emphasis on adapting long edges with
large variations of solution variable in preference to short edges with large variations of solution
variable. This method will also refine long edges with a small variation of solution variable.
• Adaption criteria values for each node will be computed as the average value of all edges con-
nected to the node, and these values will be stored in the results file for visualization purposes.
• If you find that the mesh adaption appears to have missed a discontinuity in a solution by refining
the mesh in front of or behind the discontinuity, then your solution was not sufficiently converged
before mesh adaption took place. As a solution containing a discontinuity develops, the location
of such a discontinuity may move. If the solution is not sufficiently converged before mesh adap-
tion takes place, then the mesh will be refined at the location of the discontinuity, which will
move as convergence continues. A lower Target Residual can be set on the Mesh Adaption/Ad-
vanced Parameters tab to correct this problem.
Flow in Porous Media
1.12. Flow in Porous Media

Flow in porous media in Ansys CFX can be calculated using either:
• A fluid domain together with a model for momentum loss. The effects of porosity are accounted for
only through this loss term; all other terms in the governing equations are not changed. As a result,
this formulation can be called the "superficial velocity formulation". For information on the momentum
loss models available with this formulation, see Momentum Sources (p. 69).
• A porous domain that involves one or more fluids and an optional solid. Porosity modifies all terms
in the governing equations as well as the loss term. As a result, this formulation can be called the
"true velocity formulation" or the "full porous model". This method supports solid models (for example,
for modeling thermal conductivity of the solid), and models for the interaction between the fluid and
solid parts of the domain.
1.12.1. Full Porous Model

The full porous model is at once both a generalization of the Navier-Stokes equations and of Darcy's
law commonly used for flows in porous regions. It can be used to model flows where the geometry
is too complex to resolve with a grid. The model retains both advection and diffusion terms and can
therefore be used for flows in rod or tube bundles where such effects are important.
In deriving the continuum equations, it is assumed that ‘infinitesimal’ control volumes and surfaces
are large relative to the interstitial spacing of the porous medium, but small relative to the scales that
you want to resolve. Thus, given control cells and control surfaces are assumed to contain both solid
and fluid regions.
The volume porosity at a point is the ratio of the volume available to flow in an infinitesimal
control cell surrounding the point, and the physical volume of the cell. Hence:
(1.281)
It is assumed that the vector area available to flow, , through an infinitesimal planar control surface
of vector area is given by:
(1.282)
where: is a symmetric second rank tensor, called the area porosity tensor. Recall that the
dot product of a symmetric rank two tensor with a vector is the vector . Ansys CFX
presently allows only to be isotropic; that is, .
Accordingly, when evaluating flows through boundaries, the area porosity effect is included in the
calculations. For example, when applying a heat flux to a boundary on a porous domain, the net heat
flux applied to the fluid phase is the product of the user-specified heat flux and the volume porosity
(for isotropic porosity). In the case of a solid phase, is used instead of the volume porosity.
The general scalar advection-diffusion equation in a porous medium becomes:

(1.283)
In addition to the usual production and dissipation terms, the source term will contain transfer
terms from the fluid to the solid parts of the porous medium.
In particular, the equations for conservation of mass and momentum are:

(1.284)
and:
(1.285)
where is the true velocity, is the effective viscosity - either the laminar viscosity or a turbulent
quantity, and is a momentum source which, in addition to other terms such as buoyancy, includes
a contribution (where and represents a resistance to flow in the porous medium). This
is in general a symmetric positive definite second rank tensor, in order to account for possible aniso-
tropies in the resistance.
In the limit of large resistance, a large adverse pressure gradient must be set up to balance the resist-
ance. In that limit, the two terms on the right-hand side of Equation 1.285 (p. 92) are both large and
of opposite sign, and the convective and diffusive terms on the left-hand side are negligible. Hence,
Equation 1.285 (p. 92) reduces to:
(1.286)
Hence, in the limit of large resistance, you obtain an anisotropic version of Darcy's law, with permeab-
ility proportional to the inverse of the resistance tensor. However, unlike Darcy's law, you are working
with the actual fluid velocity components , which are discontinuous at discontinuity in porosity,
rather than the continuous averaged superficial velocity,
1.12.1.1. Heat Transfer Through the Fluid Only

Heat transfer can be modeled with an equation of similar form:
(1.287)
where is an effective thermal conductivity and is a heat source to the porous medium.
1.12.1.2. Additional Variable Transfer Through the Fluid Only

For the fluid phases:
(1.288)
where is a volumetric source term to the porous medium, with units of conserved quantity per
unit volume per unit time.
1.12.1.3. Heat Transfer Through the Fluid and Solid

The current porous solid heat transfer formulation allows a finite temperature difference between
the fluid phases and the solid phase. It is a non-thermal equilibrium model, therefore there are
Flow in Porous Media
separate energy equations for each phase within the domain (N fluid phases plus one solid phase).
In addition, it makes no assumption on the solid material properties.
(1.289)
For the solid phase:
(1.290)
where the solid fraction , and the interfacial heat transfer to the fluid from the solid, , is
determined using an overall heat transfer coefficient model using:
(1.291)
is the overall heat transfer coefficient between the fluid and the solid.
is the interfacial area density between the fluids and the solid. For multiphase flows, this concept
can be split into a fluid-independent interfacial area density and a contact area fraction between
the fluid and the solid:
(1.292)
where represents the contact area fraction of fluid with the solid. For single-phase flows,
.
1.12.1.4. Additional Variable Transfer Through the Fluid and Solid

(1.293)
For the solid phase:
(1.294)
where , and the interfacial transfer between the fluid and the solid, , is determined using
an overall transfer coefficient model using:
(1.295)
is the overall additional variable transfer coefficient between the fluid and the solid.
is described in Heat Transfer Through the Fluid and Solid (p. 92).
1.12.1.5. Time-varying Porosity

For calculations without any heat or Additional Variable transfer through the solid, it is possible to
use a porosity that varies with time. For calculations that do include heat or Additional Variable
transfer through the solid, this is inadvisable because the term proportional to the rate of change
of porosity is omitted from the equations within the solid.
1.12.2. Porous Momentum Loss Models

The momentum loss models available for porous domains are identical to the loss models available
with the superficial velocity formulation. In particular, two options are available:
• Isotropic Loss Model (p. 69)
• Directional Loss Model (p. 70)
Note that, in these models, the velocity may refer to either true velocity or superficial velocity.
Changing from one to the other leads to different coefficients. For fluid domains, the solver assumes
that the coefficients multiply the superficial velocity, while for porous domains, you may choose either
true or superficial velocity.
For details on specifying fluid-specific sources in a multiphase flow, for a case involving a porous
medium (and for other cases), see Fluid-Specific Sources in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
1.13. Wall and Boundary Distance Formulation

Wall and boundary distances are used in various functions that control the transition between near-wall
and freestream turbulence models, and in the mesh deformation model. These distances are derived
using the same formulation, which is described here.
• 1D Illustration of Concept (p. 94)
• Concept Generalized to 3D (p. 95)
1.13.1. 1D Illustration of Concept

Consider the 1D case of a horizontal surface, with the Y direction normal to the surface:
Consider the following Poisson equation for a variable :
(1.296)
Wall Condensation Theory
with a boundary condition of at the wall.
Integrate once:
(1.297)
Integrate again:
(1.298)
Because at , you can deduce that . You also know from Equation 1.297 (p. 95) that:
(1.299)
Substituting into Equation 1.298 (p. 95) for and , you are left with a quadratic equation for in
terms of and :
(1.300)
Rearranging this gives:

(1.301)
where , , and
Solving this quadratic and choosing the positive root gives:
(1.302)
1.13.2. Concept Generalized to 3D

Equation 1.296 (p. 94) becomes a diffusion-only transport equation with a uniform source term of
unity:
(1.303)
Dirichlet conditions of are applied on boundaries of interest (such as walls), and Neumann (or
zero flux) conditions are applied on other boundaries. Equation 1.302 (p. 95) is then evaluated, replacing
with ( is always positive) and is interpreted as the distance to the nearest
boundary where was set. This gives the following expression for desired distance:
(1.304)
Because is always positive, the wall distance is also always positive.
1.14. Wall Condensation Theory

The wall condensation model may be used to model condensation of a condensable component of a
variable composition mixture, such as steam and air. Condensation may occur on walls or fluid solid
boundaries that are sufficiently cold to permit condensation onto a thin liquid film. It assumes that the
primary resistance to heat transfer is caused by the boundary gradient of concentration of the condens-
able component, and that the liquid film is sufficiently thin that its contribution to heat transfer resistance
is negligible. Condensation is modeled as a boundary mass sink of the condensable component, effect-
ively removing the condensed mass of the condensable from the fluid domain. Flow in the liquid film
is not modeled.
This chapter describes the following:

1.14.1. Wall Condensation Model
1.14.2. Condensation Heat Transfer (CHT)
1.14.3. Specification of Secondary Fluxes
1.14.1. Wall Condensation Model

A laminar boundary layer model (Equation 1.312 in the CFX-Solver Theory Guide (p. 97)) is employed
for laminar flow. A turbulent boundary layer model (Equation 1.318 in the CFX-Solver Theory
Guide (p. 98)) is employed for turbulent flow. This makes use of the turbulent wall functions.

1.14.1.1. Laminar Boundary Layer Model
1.14.1.2.Turbulent Boundary Layer Model
1.14.1.1. Laminar Boundary Layer Model

In a laminar boundary layer, the molar fluxes , of a non-condensable component and a
condensable component of a binary gaseous mixture through a plane parallel to, and at a distance
from, a wall, are given by:
(1.305)
(1.306)
is the binary diffusion coefficient, is the molar convective flux of the mixture, is the
molar density of the mixture and , are the molar fractions of the non-condensable and con-
densable components, respectively.
Adding Equation 1.305 (p. 96) and Equation 1.306 (p. 96), using , gives . Hence,
substituting into (Equation 1.306 (p. 96)) and rearranging gives:
(1.307)
Hence, integrating from the wall ( ) to the edge of the boundary layer ( ) gives:
Finally, assuming = constant in the boundary layer gives:
Wall Condensation Theory
(1.308)
It is convenient to express this result in terms of mass concentrations , , , and mass fluxes
, , . Component mass concentrations are related to component molar concentrations and
molecular weights , as follows:
(1.309)
Also, mixture concentrations are related to component concentrations as follows:

(1.310)
From Equation 1.309 (p. 97) and Equation 1.310 (p. 97), we define a mixture molecular weight re-
lating mixture mass and molar concentrations as follows:
(1.311)
Finally, we can substitute Equation 1.311 (p. 97) into Equation 1.308 (p. 97) to express the condens-
able component mass flux as follows:
(1.312)
where the mass transfer coefficient for laminar flow, , is given by:
(1.313)
The condensable component molar fraction at the interface is determined by assuming that the
vapor is in thermal equilibrium with the liquid film at the interface, and hence its partial pressure
is equal to its saturation pressure at the interface temperature. In reality, the vapor at the edge of
the boundary layer may be a supersaturated wet vapor, or mist. Only the dry part of the vapor will
form the concentration gradient which drives the condensation mass flux. Hence, only the molar
fraction of dry vapor must be used to determine the mass flux. This is achieved by clipping the
molar fraction at the edge of the boundary layer as follows:
(1.314)
where denotes the saturated molar fraction.
It is assumed that the liquid droplets suspended in the vapor are not transported to the interface,
but merely act as a reservoir for the production of dry vapor to counter the depletion of the
boundary layer by condensation.
1.14.1.2. Turbulent Boundary Layer Model

For turbulent flows, the concentration boundary layer is modeled using turbulent wall functions.
Consequently, we use discrete versions of Equation 1.305 (p. 96), Equation 1.306 (p. 96) employing
turbulent wall functions to model the mass fluxes in the turbulent boundary layer. Thus:
(1.315)
(1.316)
Here, w subscripts refer to wall quantities, P subscripts refer to near wall mesh points, and is
the wall multiplier determined by the form of the turbulent wall function ( for laminar
flow; for turbulent flow, see [227]). Performing the same manipulations as in the previous section,
we obtain:
(1.317)
As the multi-component flow model solves for mass fractions rather than molar fractions, it is more
convenient to work with mass fluxes and mass fractions rather than molar fluxes and mole fractions.
This gives the following formula for the condensation mass flux:
(1.318)
Note that the turbulent wall function array is only defined at no-slip walls. It is not defined at free
slip walls, specified stress walls, and non-overlap boundary conditions. Hence, wall condensation
is disallowed on these types of walls in the case of turbulent flows.
1.14.2. Condensation Heat Transfer (CHT)

At a fluid-solid boundary, the latent heat released by condensation to the liquid film is assumed to
be absorbed by the solid phase at the interface. This gives a heat source to the solid side:
(1.319)
where is the latent heat of vaporization.
At an isothermal wall boundary, the wall is assumed to constitute an infinite reservoir on which the
effect of the condensation heat source is negligible, hence it is maintained at its constant temperature.
1.14.3. Specification of Secondary Fluxes

Strictly speaking, it is necessary for you to specify only secondary fluxes for incoming boundary mass
sources. For this model of wall condensation, the corresponding boundary mass sources are outgoing.
The solver implementation of the wall condensation model exploits the boundary mass source ma-
chinery. All secondary fluxes are computed using the local solution values of variables, with the single
exception of component mass sources to the mass fraction equations. Consequently, for this model,
all secondary source information is automatically included.
It is possible in principal to define other boundary mass sources in addition to the condensation sinks,
provided that they are consistent with the internal options used for the wall condensation term.
However, in the current implementation, additional mass sources on wall condensation boundaries
are disallowed.
Chapter 2: Turbulence and Wall Function Theory
2.1.Turbulence Models
2.2. Eddy Viscosity Turbulence Models
2.3. Reynolds Stress Turbulence Models
2.4. Ansys CFX Laminar-Turbulent Transition Models
2.5. Large Eddy Simulation Theory
2.6. Detached Eddy Simulation Theory
2.7. Scale-Adaptive Simulation Theory
2.8. Modeling Flow Near the Wall
2.1. Turbulence Models

Turbulence consists of fluctuations in the flow field in time and space. It is a complex process, mainly
because it is three dimensional, unsteady and consists of many scales. It can have a significant effect
on the characteristics of the flow. Turbulence occurs when the inertia forces in the fluid become signi-
ficant compared to viscous forces, and is characterized by a high Reynolds Number.
In principle, the Navier-Stokes equations describe both laminar and turbulent flows without the need
for additional information. However, turbulent flows at realistic Reynolds numbers span a large range
of turbulent length and time scales, and would generally involve length scales much smaller than the
smallest finite volume mesh, which can be practically used in a numerical analysis. The Direct Numerical
Simulation (DNS) of these flows would require computing power that is many orders of magnitude
higher than available in the foreseeable future.
To enable the effects of turbulence to be predicted, a large amount of CFD research has concentrated
on methods that make use of turbulence models. Turbulence models have been specifically developed
to account for the effects of turbulence without recourse to a prohibitively fine mesh and direct numer-
ical simulation. Most turbulence models are statistical turbulence model, as described below. The two
exceptions to this in Ansys CFX are the Large Eddy Simulation model and the Detached Eddy Simulation
model.
• Large Eddy Simulation Theory (p. 139)
• Detached Eddy Simulation Theory (p. 144)
2.1.1. Statistical Turbulence Models and the Closure Problem

When looking at time scales much larger than the time scales of turbulent fluctuations, turbulent
flow could be said to exhibit average characteristics, with an additional time-varying, fluctuating
Turbulence and Wall Function Theory
component. For example, a velocity component may be divided into an average component, and a
time varying component.
In general, turbulence models seek to modify the original unsteady Navier-Stokes equations by the
introduction of averaged and fluctuating quantities to produce the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equations. These equations represent the mean flow quantities only, while modeling turbulence
effects without a need for the resolution of the turbulent fluctuations. All scales of the turbulence
field are being modeled. Turbulence models based on the RANS equations are known as Statistical
Turbulence Models due to the statistical averaging procedure employed to obtain the equations.
Simulation of the RANS equations greatly reduces the computational effort compared to a Direct
Numerical Simulation and is generally adopted for practical engineering calculations. However, the
averaging procedure introduces additional unknown terms containing products of the fluctuating
quantities, which act like additional stresses in the fluid. These terms, called ‘turbulent’ or ‘Reynolds’
stresses, are difficult to determine directly and so become further unknowns.
The Reynolds (turbulent) stresses need to be modeled by additional equations of known quantities
in order to achieve "closure." Closure implies that there is a sufficient number of equations for all the
unknowns, including the Reynolds-Stress tensor resulting from the averaging procedure. The equations
used to close the system define the type of turbulence model.
2.1.1.1. Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) Equations

As described above, turbulence models seek to solve a modified set of transport equations by in-
troducing averaged and fluctuating components. For example, a velocity may be divided into
an average component, , and a time varying component, .
(2.1)
The averaged component is given by:
(2.2)
where is a time scale that is large relative to the turbulent fluctuations, but small relative to the
time scale to which the equations are solved. For compressible flows, the averaging is actually
weighted by density (Favre-averaging), but for simplicity, the following presentation assumes that
density fluctuations are negligible.
For transient flows, the equations are ensemble-averaged. This allows the averaged equations to
be solved for transient simulations as well. The resulting equations are sometimes called URANS
(Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations).
Substituting the averaged quantities into the original transport equations results in the Reynolds
averaged equations given below. For details, see Transport Equations (p. 42). In the following
equations, the bar is dropped for averaged quantities, except for products of fluctuating quantities.
(2.3)
(2.4)
where is the molecular stress tensor (including both normal and shear components of the stress).
Eddy Viscosity Turbulence Models
The continuity equation has not been altered but the momentum and scalar transport equations
contain turbulent flux terms additional to the molecular diffusive fluxes. These are the Reynolds
stresses, . These terms arise from the nonlinear convective term in the un-averaged equations.
They reflect the fact that convective transport due to turbulent velocity fluctuations will act to en-
hance mixing over and above that caused by thermal fluctuations at the molecular level. At high
Reynolds numbers, turbulent velocity fluctuations occur over a length scale much larger than the
mean free path of thermal fluctuations, so that the turbulent fluxes are much larger than the mo-
lecular fluxes.
The Reynolds averaged energy equation is:
(2.5)
This equation contains an additional turbulence flux term, compared with the instantaneous
equation. For details on this, see Equation 1.85 (p. 42). The term in the equation
is the viscous work term that can be included by enabling Viscous Work in CFX-Pre.
The mean Total Enthalpy is given by:

(2.6)
Note that the Total Enthalpy contains a contribution from the turbulent kinetic energy, k, given by:
(2.7)
Similarly, the Additional Variable may be divided into an average component, , and a time
varying component, . After dropping the bar for averaged quantities, except for products of
fluctuating quantities, the Additional Variable equation becomes
(2.8)
where is the Reynolds flux.
Turbulence models close the Reynolds averaged equations by providing models for the computation
of the Reynolds stresses and Reynolds fluxes. CFX models can be broadly divided into two classes:
eddy viscosity models and Reynolds stress models.
2.2. Eddy Viscosity Turbulence Models

One proposal suggests that turbulence consists of small eddies that are continuously forming and dis-
sipating, and in which the Reynolds stresses are assumed to be proportional to mean velocity gradients.
This defines an "eddy viscosity model".
The eddy viscosity hypothesis assumes that the Reynolds stresses can be related to the mean velocity
gradients and eddy (turbulent) viscosity by the gradient diffusion hypothesis, in a manner analogous
to the relationship between the stress and strain tensors in laminar Newtonian flow:
(2.9)
where is the eddy viscosity or turbulent viscosity, which must be modeled.
Analogous to the eddy viscosity hypothesis is the eddy diffusivity hypothesis, which states that the
Reynolds fluxes of a scalar are linearly related to the mean scalar gradient:
(2.10)
where is the eddy diffusivity, and this has to be prescribed. The eddy diffusivity can be written as:
(2.11)
where is the turbulent Prandtl number. Eddy diffusivities are then prescribed using the turbulent
Prandtl number.
The above equations can express turbulent fluctuations in terms of functions of the mean variables
only if the turbulent viscosity, , is known. Both the - and - two-equation turbulence models use
this variable.
Subject to these hypotheses, the Reynolds averaged momentum and scalar transport equations become:
(2.12)
where is the sum of the body forces, and is the Effective Viscosity defined by:
(2.13)
and is a modified pressure, defined by:
(2.14)
The last term in Equation 2.14 (p. 102),
involves the divergence of velocity. It is neglected in Ansys CFX, although this assumption is strictly
correct only for incompressible fluids.
The treatment of the second term in the right-hand side of Equation 2.14 (p. 102) depends on the expert
parameter pressure value option, which can take the following values:
Option Description
1 When is required (for example, to calculate material properties), it is derived
from using Equation 2.14 (p. 102).
2 When is required (for example, to calculate material properties), it is
approximated as being equal to .
This is the
default. Option 2 is an approximation that may be numerically better-behaved than
option 1.
Option Description
3 is not computed using the term . However, this term is incorporated
directly in the momentum equation.
This option is mathematically equivalent to option 1, but may differ numerically.
The Reynolds averaged energy equation becomes:
(2.15)
Note that although the transformation of the molecular diffusion term may be inexact if enthalpy depends
on variables other than temperature, the turbulent diffusion term is correct, subject to the eddy diffus-
ivity hypothesis. Moreover, as turbulent diffusion is usually much larger than molecular diffusion, small
errors in the latter can be ignored.
Similarly, the Reynolds averaged transport equation for Additional Variables (non-reacting scalars) be-
comes:
(2.16)
Eddy viscosity models are distinguished by the manner in which they prescribe the eddy viscosity and
eddy diffusivity.
2.2.1. The Zero Equation Model in Ansys CFX

Very simple eddy viscosity models compute a global value for from the mean velocity and a geo-
metric length scale using an empirical formula. Because no additional transport equations are solved,
these models are termed ‘zero equation.’
The zero equation model in Ansys CFX uses an algebraic equation to calculate the viscous contribution
from turbulent eddies. A constant turbulent eddy viscosity is calculated for the entire flow domain.
The turbulence viscosity is modeled as the product of a turbulent velocity scale, , and a turbulence
length scale, , as proposed by Prandtl and Kolmogorov,
(2.17)
where is a proportionality constant. The velocity scale is taken to be the maximum velocity in the
fluid domain. The length scale is derived using the formula:
(2.18)
where is the fluid domain volume. This model has little physical foundation and is not recommen-
ded.
2.2.2. Two Equation Turbulence Models

Two-equation turbulence models are very widely used, as they offer a good compromise between
numerical effort and computational accuracy. Two-equation models are much more sophisticated
than the zero equation models. Both the velocity and length scale are solved using separate transport
equations (hence the term ‘two-equation’).
The - and - two-equation models use the gradient diffusion hypothesis to relate the Reynolds
stresses to the mean velocity gradients and the turbulent viscosity. The turbulent viscosity is modeled
as the product of a turbulent velocity and turbulent length scale.
In two-equation models, the turbulence velocity scale is computed from the turbulent kinetic energy,
which is provided from the solution of its transport equation. The turbulent length scale is estimated
from two properties of the turbulence field, usually the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation
rate. The dissipation rate of the turbulent kinetic energy is provided from the solution of its transport
equation.
2.2.2.1. The k-epsilon Model in Ansys CFX

is the turbulence kinetic energy and is defined as the variance of the fluctuations in velocity. It
has dimensions of (L2 T-2); for example, m2/s2. is the turbulence eddy dissipation (the rate at which
the velocity fluctuations dissipate), and has dimensions of per unit time (L2 T-3); for example,
m2/s3.
The - model introduces two new variables into the system of equations. The continuity equation
is then:
(2.19)
and the momentum equation becomes:
(2.20)
where is the sum of body forces, is the effective viscosity accounting for turbulence, and
is the modified pressure as defined in Equation 2.14 (p. 102).
The - model, like the zero equation model, is based on the eddy viscosity concept, so that:
(2.21)
where is the turbulence viscosity. The - model assumes that the turbulence viscosity is linked
to the turbulence kinetic energy and dissipation via the relation:
(2.22)
where is a constant. For details, see List of Symbols (p. 22).
The values of and come directly from the differential transport equations for the turbulence
kinetic energy and turbulence dissipation rate:
(2.23)
(2.24)
where , , and are constants. For details, see List of Symbols (p. 22).
and represent the influence of the buoyancy forces, which are described below. is the
turbulence production due to viscous forces, which is modeled using:
(2.25)
For incompressible flow, is small and the second term on the right side of Equa-
tion 2.25 (p. 105) does not contribute significantly to the production. For compressible flow,
is only large in regions with high velocity divergence, such as at shocks.
The term in Equation 2.25 (p. 105) is based on the "frozen stress" assumption [54]. This prevents
the values of and becoming too large through shocks, a situation that becomes progressively
worse as the mesh is refined at shocks. The parameter Compressible Production (accessible on the
Advanced Control part of the Turbulence section in CFX-Pre (see Turbulence in the CFX-Pre User's
Guide)) can be used to set the value of the factor in front of , the default value is 3, as shown. A
value of 1 will provide the same treatment as CFX-4.
In order to avoid the build-up of turbulent kinetic energy in stagnation regions, two production
limiters are available. For details, see Production Limiters (p. 114).
2.2.2.2. Buoyancy Turbulence

If the full buoyancy model is being used, the buoyancy production term is modeled as:
(2.26)
and if the Boussinesq buoyancy model is being used, it is:

(2.27)
This buoyancy production term is included in the equation if the Buoyancy Turbulence option
in CFX-Pre is set to Production, or Production and Dissipation. It is also included in
the equation if the option is set to Production and Dissipation. is assumed to be
proportional to and must be positive, therefore it is modeled as:
(2.28)
If the directional option is selected, then is modified by a factor accounting for the angle
between velocity and gravity vectors:
(2.29)
Default model constants are given by:
Turbulence Schmidt Number :
• = 0.9 for Boussinesq buoyancy
• = 1 for full buoyancy model
Dissipation Coefficient, C3 = 1
Directional Dissipation = Off
For omega based turbulence models, the buoyancy turbulence terms for the equation are derived
from and according to the transformation .
2.2.2.3. The RNG k-epsilon Model in Ansys CFX

The RNG model is based on renormalization group analysis of the Navier-Stokes equations.
The transport equations for turbulence generation and dissipation are the same as those for the
standard model, but the model constants differ, and the constant is replaced by the function
.
The transport equation for turbulence dissipation becomes:
(2.30)
where:
(2.31)
and:
(2.32)
For details, see List of Symbols (p. 22).
2.2.2.4. The k-omega Models in Ansys CFX

One of the advantages of the - formulation is the near wall treatment for low-Reynolds number
computations. The model does not involve the complex nonlinear damping functions required for
the - model and is therefore more accurate and more robust. A low-Reynolds - model would
typically require a near wall resolution of , while a low-Reynolds number - model would
require at least . In industrial flows, even cannot be guaranteed in most applications
and for this reason, a new near wall treatment was developed for the - models. It allows for
smooth shift from a low-Reynolds number form to a wall function formulation.
The - models assume that the turbulence viscosity is linked to the turbulence kinetic energy
and turbulent frequency via the relation:
(2.33)
2.2.2.4.1. The Wilcox k-omega Model

The starting point of the present formulations is the - model developed by Wilcox [11]. It
solves two transport equations, one for the turbulent kinetic energy, , and one for the turbulent
frequency, . The stress tensor is computed from the eddy-viscosity concept.
-equation:
(2.34)
-equation:
(2.35)
In addition to the independent variables, the density, , and the velocity vector, , are treated
as known quantities from the Navier-Stokes method. is the production rate of turbulence,
which is calculated as in the - model Equation 2.25 (p. 105).
The model constants are given by:

(2.36)
(2.37)
(2.38)
(2.39)
(2.40)
The unknown Reynolds stress tensor, , is calculated from:
(2.41)
In order to avoid the build-up of turbulent kinetic energy in stagnation regions, two production
limiters are available. For details, see Production Limiters (p. 114).
The buoyancy production term is included in the -equation if the Buoyancy Turbulence option
in CFX-Pre is set to Production or Production and Dissipation. The formulation is the same is
given in Equation 2.26 (p. 105) and Equation 2.27 (p. 105).
The buoyancy turbulence terms for the -equation are derived from and according to
the transformation .
The additional buoyancy term in the -equation reads:

(2.42)
Here the first term on the right hand side, which comes from the -equation, is included only if
the Buoyancy Turbulence option is set to Production and Dissipation. The second term, origin-
ating from the -equation, is included with both Production and Production and Dissipation
options.
If the directional option is selected, then the first term on the right hand side is modified according
to Equation 2.29 (p. 105):
(2.43)
2.2.2.4.2. The Baseline (BSL) k-omega Model

The main problem with the Wilcox model is its well known strong sensitivity to freestream con-
ditions (Menter [12]). Depending on the value specified for at the inlet, a significant variation
in the results of the model can be obtained. This is undesirable and in order to solve the problem,
a blending between the - model near the surface and the - model in the outer region was
developed by Menter [9]. It consists of a transformation of the - model to a - formulation
and a subsequent addition of the corresponding equations. The Wilcox model is thereby multiplied
by a blending function and the transformed - model by a function . is equal to one
near the surface and decreases to a value of zero outside the boundary layer (that is, a function
of the wall distance). For details, see Wall and Boundary Distance Formulation (p. 94). At the
boundary layer edge and outside the boundary layer, the standard - model is therefore re-
covered.
Wilcox model:
(2.44)
(2.45)
Transformed model:
(2.46)
(2.47)
Now the equations of the Wilcox model are multiplied by function , the transformed -
equations by a function and the corresponding - and - equations are added to give the
BSL model. Including buoyancy effects the BSL model reads:
(2.48)
(2.49)
The coefficient in the buoyancy production term in Equation 2.42 (p. 107) and Equa-
tion 2.43 (p. 108) is also replaced by the new coefficient .
The coefficients of the new model are a linear combination of the corresponding coefficients of
the underlying models:
(2.50)
All coefficients are listed again for completeness:

(2.51)
(2.52)
(2.53)
(2.54)
(2.55)
(2.56)
(2.57)
(2.58)
(2.59)
2.2.2.4.3. The Shear Stress Transport (SST) Model

The - based SST model accounts for the transport of the turbulent shear stress and gives
highly accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of flow separation under adverse pressure
gradients.
The BSL model combines the advantages of the Wilcox and the - model, but still fails to
properly predict the onset and amount of flow separation from smooth surfaces. This deficiency
is discussed in detail by Menter [9], but primarily arises because these models, which do not ac-
count for the transport of the turbulent shear stress, overpredict the eddy-viscosity. The proper
transport behavior can be obtained by a limiter to the formulation of the eddy-viscosity:
(2.60)
where
(2.61)
Again is a blending function similar to , which restricts the limiter to the wall boundary layer,
as the underlying assumptions are not correct for free shear flows. is an invariant measure of
the strain rate.
Note that the production term of is given by:

(2.62)
This formulation differs from the standard - model.
Note:
In the SST model, .
2.2.2.4.3.1. Blending Functions
The blending functions are critical to the success of the method. Their formulation is based on
the distance to the nearest surface and on the flow variables.
(2.63)
with:
(2.64)
where is the distance to the nearest wall, is the kinematic viscosity and:
(2.65)
(2.66)
with:
(2.67)
2.2.2.4.3.2. The Wall Scale Equation
During the solution of a simulation using the SST or BSL model, you will see a plot in the CFX-
Solver Manager for Wall Scale. These models require the distance of a node to the nearest
wall for performing the blending between - and - . Detailed information on the wall scale
equation is available in Wall and Boundary Distance Formulation (p. 94).
2.2.2.4.3.3. Modifications to SST for High Lift Devices
The high-lift modification for the SST turbulence model (SST-HL) is based on the observation
that for numerous airfoil predictions, the SST model over-predicts the maximum lift achievable.
In terms of physics, this means that the standard SST model predicts less and later flow separ-
ation from the airfoil than has been observed in experiments. The high-lift modification allows
the fine tuning of the SST model for such applications. The default value (0.9) of the tuning
parameter (CHL Coefficient) is optimized for a wide range of flows. Setting the parameter
value to unity reverts the model back to the standard SST model. It is worth noting that all
other available eddy-viscosity models lead to even stronger deviations from experimental data
compared to the SST model and so do not offer an alternative to the SST-HL modification.
Figure 2.1: Example showing effect of high-lift modification on results
2.2.2.4.4. The Reattachment Modification (RM) Model

RANS models are designed for predicting attached and mildly separated flows. It is known that
all RANS models fail in predicting the correct turbulence stress levels in large separation zones;
the turbulent stresses in the separating shear layer are typically underpredicted, leading to overly
large separation zones. This is often masked by the tendency of many RANS models to predict
delayed separation under adverse pressure gradients compared to experimental data. As the SST
model typically predicts the onset of separation with good accuracy, there is a need to introduce
additional production of turbulence under such conditions. To correct the problem, the Reattach-
ment Modification (RM) model modifies the SST model to enhance turbulence levels in the sep-
arating shear layers emanating from walls. This modification becomes less effective with increasing
mesh refinement, and, as a result, is not an official amendment to the SST model. Nevertheless,
the RM model is suitable for typical engineering applications, and has become especially popular
for modeling turbomachinery flows.
Note:
• The RM model should be used only to model flows separating from smooth surfaces
under the influence of adverse pressure gradients. It should not be treated as a
general-purpose enhancement to the SST model, as this may suppress errors caused
by poor mesh definition or inappropriate model assumptions.
• If the geometry of your case is complex, the RM model may be active in unintended
regions.
• In investigating 2D cases, the RM model loses effectiveness when the mesh resolution
in the boundary layer exceeds ~ 100 cells. With such significant mesh refinement,
the RM model behaves like the standard SST model.
In free mixing layers, the ratio of turbulence production to dissipation, , has an

equilibrium value of . However, the equilibrium value of is greatly exceeded in regions
of large flow separation from smooth surfaces. Based on this observation, the RM model adds a
source term to the right-hand side of the -equation used in the SST model. This source term,
, is given by:
(2.68)
is a function that was introduced to avoid interaction between the RM model and laminar-
turbulent transition models (see Ansys CFX Laminar-Turbulent Transition Models (p. 128)). The
function is given by:
(2.69)
where represents kinematic viscosity and is an adjustable coefficient whose default value
is . Note that decreasing the value of tends to decrease the effectiveness of the
function .
2.2.2.4.5. The GEKO Model

The Generalized k-Omega (GEKO) model is a two-equation model, based on the k-Omega model
formulation, but with the flexibility to tune the model over a wide range of flow scenarios.
The GEKO model’s main parameters, which are described under GEKO model in the CFX-Solver
Modeling Guide, are:
• Separation Coefficient
• Near Wall Coefficient
• Mixing Coefficient
• Jet Coefficient
The GEKO model is affected by the following advanced parameters:
• Curvature Correction
For details, see Curvature Correction for Two-Equation Models in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
• Corner Correction
For details, see Corner Correction in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
• GEKO Coefficients
The GEKO Coefficients normally do not need to be changed. Descriptions follow:
– Auxiliary Jet Coefficient
Auxiliary model coefficient of the GEKO turbulence model (default = 2.0).
Allows fine-tuning of the parameter to optimize free jets. Higher values increase the impact
of the Jet Coefficient.
– C1 Coefficient
Auxiliary model coefficient of the GEKO turbulence model (default = 1.7)
Allows adjustment of the log-layer.
– C2 Coefficient
– Laminar Blending Coefficient
Auxiliary model coefficient of the GEKO turbulence model (default = 25)
Controls the blending function used to de-activate the effects of FMIX and FJET in the
boundary layer. Setting a lower value reduces shielding of the boundary layer from the effects
of FMIX and FJET.
The Laminar Blending Coefficient is active only if the Intermittency transition model is enabled.
– Realization Coefficient
Model coefficient of the GEKO turbulence model (default 0.577)
Used to apply a realizability constraint to limit turbulence production. By default, this is applied
in addition to the production limiter.
– Turbulent Blending Coefficient
Controls the blending function used to de-activate the effects of FMIX and FJET in the
boundary layer.
Decreasing this value decreases the thickness of the layer near walls where FMIX and FJET are
deactivated. This results in the activation of the FMIX and FJET formulation closer to walls.
Ansys Fluent also has the GEKO model available. For details, see Generalized k-ω (GEKO) Model
in the Fluent Theory Guide.
2.2.2.5. Production Limiters

A disadvantage of standard two-equation turbulence models is the excessive generation of turbulence
energy, , in the vicinity of stagnation points. In order to avoid the build-up of turbulent kinetic
energy in stagnation regions, a formulation of limiters for the production term in the turbulence
equations is available.
The formulation follows Menter [9] and reads:

(2.70)
The coefficient is called Clip Factor and has a value of 10 for based models. This limiter
does not affect the shear layer performance of the model, but has consistently avoided the stagnation
point build-up in aerodynamic simulations.
Using the standard Boussinesq-approximation for the Reynolds stress tensor, the production term
can be expressed for incompressible flow as:
(2.71)
where denotes the magnitude of the strain rate and the strain rate tensor.
Kato and Launder [128] noticed that the very high levels of the shear strain rate in stagnation
regions are responsible for the excessive levels of the turbulence kinetic energy. Because the de-
formation near a stagnation point is nearly irrotational, that is the vorticity rate is very small, they
proposed the following replacement of the production term:
(2.72)
where denotes the magnitude of the vorticity rate and the vorticity tensor. In a simple shear
flow, and are equal. Therefore, formulation recovers in such flows, as seen in the first parts of
Equation 2.71 (p. 114) and Equation 2.72 (p. 114).
The production limiters described above are available for the two ε based turbulence models and
for the (k, )-, BSL- and SST-turbulence models. They are available in the Advanced Control settings
of the Turbulence Model section in CFX-Pre. For details, see Turbulence: Option in the CFX-Pre
User's Guide. The allowed options of the production limiter are Clip Factor and Kato Launder.
2.2.2.6. Curvature Correction for Two-Equation Models

One weakness of the eddy-viscosity models is that these models are insensitive to streamline
curvature and system rotation. Based on the work of Spalart and Shur [191] a modification of the
production term has been derived to sensitize the standard two-equation models to these effects
[192]. The empirical function suggested by Spalart and Shur [191] to account for these effects is
defined by
(2.73)
It is used as a multiplier of the production term and has been limited in Ansys CFX in the following
way:
(2.74)
where
and
The original function is limited in the range from 0.0 corresponding, for example, to a strong convex
curvature (stabilized flow, no turbulence production) up to 1.25 (for example, strong concave
curvature, enhanced turbulence production). The lower limit is introduced for numerical stability
reasons, whereas the upper limit is needed to avoid overgeneration of the eddy viscosity in flows
with a destabilizing curvature/rotation. The specific limiter 1.25 provided a good compromise for
different test cases that have been considered with the SST model (for example, flow through a U-
turn, flow in hydrocyclone, and flow over a NACA 0012 wing tip vortex [192]). The scaling coefficient
has been introduced to enable you to influence the effect of the curvature correction if needed
for a specific flow. The default value of this scaling coefficient is 1.0 and can be changed on the
Fluid Models tab of the Domain details view in CFX-Pre.
Assuming that all the variables and their derivatives are defined with respect to the reference frame
of the calculation, which is rotating with a rate , the arguments and of the function
are defined in the following way:
(2.75)
(2.76)
where the first term in brackets is equivalent to the 2nd velocity gradient (in this case the Lagrangian
derivative of the strain rate tensor) and the 2nd term in the brackets is a measure of the system
rotation. The strain rate and vorticity tensor are defined, respectively, using Einstein summation
convention as
(2.77)
(2.78)
where
and, where
are the components of the Lagrangian derivative of the strain rate tensor.
Finally, based on the performed tests, the empirical constants , and involved in Equa-
tion 2.73 (p. 115) are set equal to 1.0, 2.0, and 1.0, respectively.
This curvature correction is available for and -based eddy-viscosity turbulence models ( ,
RNG , - , BSL, SST) as well as the DES-SST and SAS-SST turbulence models.
2.2.3. The Eddy Viscosity Transport Model

A very simple one-equation model has been developed by Menter [32] [33]. It is derived directly from
the model and is therefore named the model:
(2.79)
where is the kinematic eddy viscosity, is the turbulent kinematic eddy viscosity and is a model
constant.
The model contains a destruction term, which accounts for the structure of turbulence and is based
on the von Karman length scale:
(2.80)
where S is the shear strain rate tensor. The eddy viscosity is computed from:
(2.81)
In order to prevent a singularity of the formulation as the von Karman length scale goes to zero, the
destruction term is reformulated as follows:
Reynolds Stress Turbulence Models
(2.82)
(2.83)
The coefficients are:
Coefficient Value
c 1 0.144
c 2 1.86
c 3 7.0
+ 13.5
A
0.41
1.0
By default, the model is solved in combination with the scalable wall function. For details, see Scalable
Wall Functions (p. 154).
2.2.3.1. Low Reynolds Number Formulation

Low Reynolds formulation of the model is obtained by including damping functions. Near wall
damping functions have been developed to enable integration to the surface:
(2.84)
where D 2 is required to compute the eddy-viscosity that goes into the momentum equations:
(2.85)
The low Reynolds formulation of the model requires a near wall mesh resolution of .
2.3. Reynolds Stress Turbulence Models

These models are based on transport equations for all components of the Reynolds stress tensor and
the dissipation rate. These models do not use the eddy viscosity hypothesis, but solve an equation for
the transport of Reynolds stresses in the fluid. The Reynolds stress model transport equations are solved
for the individual stress components.
Algebraic Reynolds stress models solve algebraic equations for the Reynolds stresses, whereas differential
Reynolds stress models solve differential transport equations individually for each Reynolds stress
component.
The exact production term and the inherent modeling of stress anisotropies theoretically make Reynolds
stress models more suited to complex flows; however, practice shows that they are often not superior
to two-equation models.
The Reynolds averaged momentum equations for the mean velocity are:
(2.86)
where is a modified pressure, is the sum of body forces and the fluctuating Reynolds stress
contribution is . Unlike eddy viscosity models, the modified pressure has no turbulence contribution
and is related to the static (thermodynamic) pressure by:
(2.87)
In the differential stress model, is made to satisfy a transport equation. A separate transport
equation must be solved for each of the six Reynolds stress components of . The differential
equation Reynolds stress transport is:
(2.88)
where and are shear and buoyancy turbulence production terms of the Reynolds stresses re-
spectively, is the pressure-strain tensor, and C is a constant.
Buoyancy turbulence terms also take the buoyancy contribution in the pressure strain term into
account and are controlled in the same way as for the and model. See the discussion below
Equation 2.27 (p. 105).
2.3.1. The Reynolds Stress Model

The standard Reynolds stress model in Ansys CFX is based on the -equation. The CFX-Solver solves
the following equations for the transport of the Reynolds stresses:
(2.89)
where is the pressure-strain correlation, and , the exact production term, is given by:
(2.90)
The production due to buoyancy is

(2.91)
where the second term represents the buoyancy contribution from the pressure-strain term (Launder
[196]), and is given by
(2.92)
If the Boussinesq buoyancy model is used, then is modeled as
(2.93)
where is the thermal expansion coefficient. Otherwise the term is modeled as (full buoyancy model
based on density differences)
(2.94)
As the turbulence dissipation appears in the individual stress equations, an equation for is still re-
quired. This now has the form:
(2.95)
In these equations, the anisotropic diffusion coefficients of the original models have been replaced
by an isotropic formulation, which increases the robustness of the Reynolds stress model.
The Reynolds stress model is also available with anisotropic diffusion coefficients. In this case, the
CFX-Solver solves the following equations for the transport of the Reynolds stresses:
(2.96)
where is the pressure-strain correlation, and , the exact production term, is given by Equa-
tion 2.90 (p. 118).
In this case the production due to buoyancy is for the Boussinesq approximation modeled as:
(2.97)
Otherwise the term is modeled as (full buoyancy model based on density differences):
(2.98)
The equation for is:
(2.99)
The model constants are listed below for each model.
2.3.1.1. Pressure-Strain Terms

One of the most important terms in Reynolds stress models is the pressure-strain correlation, .
It acts to drive turbulence towards an isotropic state by redistributing the Reynolds stresses.
The pressure strain term can be split into two parts:

(2.100)
where is the ‘slow’ term, also known as the return-to-isotropy term, and is called the
‘rapid’ term.
There are three varieties of the standard Reynolds stress models based on the -equation available.
These are known as LRR-IP, LRR-QI and SSG. The LRR-IP and LRR-QI models were developed by
Launder, Reece and Rodi [4]. In both models, the pressure-strain correlation is linear. "IP" stands for
Isotropization of Production and is the simplest of the 3 models. The two terms read:
(2.101)
(2.102)
The values of the two coefficients are and . is given by .
"QI" stands for Quasi-Isotropic and differs from the IP model in the formulation of the rapid term:
(2.103)
where is given by:
(2.104)
The SSG model was developed by Speziale, Sarkar and Gatski [5] and uses a quadratic relation for
the pressure-strain correlation.
In order to compare the pressure-strain correlations for the three models, a general form can be
derived based on the anisotropy tensor and the mean strain rate tensor and vorticity tensor,
and respectively. The general form reads:
(2.105)
(2.106)
where
(2.107)
(2.108)
(2.109)
This general form can be used to model linear and quadratic correlations by using appropriate
values for the constants. The constants are listed in the table below for each model.
Model
LRR-IP 0.1152 1.10 0.22 0.18 1.45 1.9
Model
LRR-QI 0.1152 1.10 0.22 0.18 1.45 1.9
SSG 0.1 1.36 0.22 0.18 1.45 1.83
Model
LRR-IP 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.6
LRR-QI 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.873 0.655
SSG 1.7 -1.05 0.9 0.8 0.65 0.625 0.2
Selection of the appropriate model is carried out on the Fluid Models panel of the Domains form
in CFX-Pre. The following options correspond to the types of models listed above:
• Reynolds Stress Model - LRR-IP
• SSG Reynolds Stress Model - SSG
• QI Reynolds Stress Model - LRR-IQ
The coefficients of the pressure strain term can be specified in CFX-Pre in the general form for the
LRR-QI and SSG models. The LRR-IP model has been added for completeness in the table above. In
CFX-Pre the pressure strain coefficients of the LRR-IP are asked in the form as given in Equa-
tion 2.101 (p. 120) and Equation 2.102 (p. 120). For the Boussinesq buoyancy model the default value
of is 0.9 for LRR-IP and LRR-QI and 2/3 for SSG. In the full buoyancy model based on density
differences the default value of is 1.0 for all models.
2.3.2. Omega-Based Reynolds Stress Models

CFX provides two Reynolds Stress- models: the Omega Reynolds Stress and Baseline (BSL) Reynolds
stress models. The two models relate to each other in the same way as the two equation and
BSL models. For details, see The Baseline (BSL) k-omega Model (p. 108).
The Reynolds Stress- turbulence model, or SMC- model, is a Reynolds stress model based on the
-equation. The advantage of the -equation is that it allows for a more accurate near wall treatment
with an automatic switch from a wall function to a low-Reynolds number formulation based on the
mesh spacing.
The modeled equations for the Reynolds stresses can be written as follows:
(2.110)
The production due to buoyancy is modeled in the same way as given in the Equation 2.93 (p. 119)
and Equation 2.94 (p. 119). The default value of is 0.9 for the Boussinesq buoyancy model and 1.0
in the full buoyancy model based on density differences.
2.3.2.1. The Omega Reynolds Stress Model

The Omega Reynolds Stress Model uses the following equation for :
(2.111)
The following coefficients apply:
(2.112)
2.3.2.2. The BSL Reynolds Stress Model

The coefficients and of the -equation, as well as both the turbulent Prandtl numbers and
, are blended between values from the two sets of constants, corresponding to the -based
model constants and the -based model constants transformed to an -formulation:
(2.113)
• Set 1 (SMC- zone):
(2.114)
The value of here corresponds to the model. For details, see The Wilcox k-omega Mod-
el (p. 107). The von Karman constant has a commonly used value of 0.41.
• Set 2 (SMC- zone):
(2.115)
The blending of coefficients is done by smooth linear interpolation with the same weight function
F1 as the one used in a cross-diffusion term of the -equation (Equation 2.113 (p. 122)):
(2.116)
where with:
(2.117)
and
(2.118)
2.3.2.3. Pressure-Strain Correlation

The constitutive relation for the pressure-strain correlation is given by:
(2.119)
The production tensor of Reynolds stresses is given by:
(2.120)
The tensor D ij, participating in the pressure-strain model Equation 2.119 (p. 123), differs from the
production tensor in the dot-product indices:
(2.121)
The turbulent viscosity in the diffusion terms of the balance equations (Equation 2.110 (p. 121) and
Equation 2.111 (p. 122)) is calculated in the same way as in the Wilcox model. For details, see
The Wilcox k-omega Model (p. 107).
(2.122)
The coefficients for the model are:
2.3.2.4. Wall Boundary Condition

The model is used in combination with the automatic wall treatment developed for the
based models ( , BSL and SST). The formulation has been recalibrated to ensure a constant
wall shear stress and heat transfer coefficient under variable near wall resolution.
2.3.3. Rotating Frame of Reference for Reynolds Stress Models

One of the advantages of Reynolds stress transport models, when compared to and models,
is their ability to simulate the additional anisotropy of the Reynolds stresses due to the Coriolis forces
appearing in the rotating frame of reference.
The necessary additional source terms to account for the Coriolis forces have been implemented into
Ansys CFX for use with any of the available Reynolds stress transport models. These terms are described
in a book by Wilcox [30], and in more detail in a paper by Launder, Tselepidakis and Younis [31].
If the flow equations are written in the frame of the coordinate system, which rotates relative to the
steady inertial frame with a rate then one new source term G ij has to be added directly to the
right hand side of the transport equation for , Equation 2.110 (p. 121):
(2.123)
where is a Levi-Chivita factor, equal to 1 if its indices {i,j,k} form an even permutation of {1,2,3},
equal to -1 for an odd permutation of {1,2,3}, and equal to 0 if any two indices are equal.
Besides the absolute velocity gradient tensor, participating in the production tensor Equa-
tion 2.120 (p. 123) and in the model equation for the pressure-strain correlation Equation 2.119 (p. 123),
is written in the rotating frame as a sum of the strain rate tensor S ij:
(2.124)
and the vorticity tensor , which has an additional term due to system rotation:
(2.125)
This representation of the velocity gradient results in an apparent additional source term G ij Equa-
tion 2.123 (p. 124), coming from the production term ( ). That is why in reference [31] the Coriolis
source term G ij differs from Equation 2.123 (p. 124) by an additional factor of 2.
2.3.4. Explicit Algebraic Reynolds Stress Model

Explicit Algebraic Reynolds stress models (EARSM) represent an extension of the standard two-equation
models. They are derived from the Reynolds stress transport equations and give a nonlinear relation
between the Reynolds stresses and the mean strain-rate and vorticity tensors. Due to the higher order
terms, many flow phenomena are included in the model without the need to solve transport equations.
The EARSM enables an extension of the current ( and BSL) turbulence models to capture the
following flow effects:
• Secondary flows
• Flows with streamline curvature and system rotation.
The implementation is based on the explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model of Wallin and Johansson
[188]. Differences from the original formulation by Wallin and Johansson are explained in the following
text. The current EARSM formulation can be used in CFX together with either the BSL or
model. It is recommended that the current EARSM formulation be used with the BSL model (BSL
EARSM).
With EARSM, the Reynolds stresses are computed from the anisotropy tensor according to its definition
(see Equation 2.107 (p. 120)):
where the anisotropy tensor is searched as a solution of the following implicit algebraic matrix
equation:
(2.126)
The coefficients in this matrix equation depend on the -coefficients of the pressure-strain term
in the underlying Reynolds stress transport model. Their values are selected here as =1.245, =0,
=1.8, =2.25.
The values of , , and are the same as those used in the original model by Wallin and Johansson
[188 ]. As for the value of , it is increased from 1.2 to 1.245 in the course of calibrating EARSM for
its use together with the BSL model.
and denote the non-dimensional strain-rate and vorticity tensors, respectively. They are defined
as:
(2.127)
(2.128)
where the time-scale is given by:

(2.129)
In order to arrive at an explicit solution of the Equation 2.126 (p. 125), the anisotropy tensor is expressed
as a polynomial based on the strain rate and the vorticity tensors as follows:
(2.130)
The -coefficients are evaluated to:
where the denominator Q is:
The invariants, which appear in the formulation of the anisotropy tensor and the coefficients, are
defined by:
The model representation of the anisotropy tensor Equation 2.130 (p. 125) and its coefficients follows
the original model by Wallin and Johansson [188] with two differences. First, the fourth order tensor
polynomial contribution (the term) is neglected in Equation 2.130 (p. 125). Second,
the tensor basis is slightly changed for convenience according to Apsley and Leschziner [219]. Although
the tensor basis is changed, the model remains algebraically equivalent to the original model of
Wallin and Johansson. The latter change results in correspondingly changed expressions for the
coefficients .
In three-dimensional flows, the equation to be solved for the function is of sixth order and no ex-
plicit solution can be derived, whereas in two-dimensional mean flows the function can be derived
from a cubic equation, an analytic solution of which is recommended by Wallin and Johansson [188]
also for three-dimensional cases:
(2.131)
where
A diffusion correction, suggested by Wallin and Johansson [188], is also implemented in CFX as an
option. This correction consists in the replacement of in the above written formulas for , and
, through :
where is the equilibrium value of , that is a value of achieved under the source term equilib-
rium = :
For the parameter , which scales the degree of the diffusion correction, Wallin and Johansson
suggest a value of 2.2. In the current CFX implementation, it is set by default to zero, but this can be
overridden.
In the original model by Wallin and Johansson [188], the diffusion terms in the transport equations
for and (or ) were calculated using the effective eddy viscosity, ,
of EARSM, where . The EARSM model, implemented in CFX, uses the standard eddy vis-
cosity for the diffusion terms. This model change helps to avoid the problems with
the asymptotic behavior at the boundary layer edge, which were reported by Hellsten [190].
For the underlying or BSL model, the standard coefficients are used.
2.3.4.1. Streamline Curvature and System Rotation

In order to account for effects of streamline curvature, the non-dimensional vorticity tensor is ex-
tended in the following way ([189], [190]):
(2.132)
where the contribution of the curvature correction based on the work of Wallin and Johansson
[189] and Spalart and Shur [191] is given in the following way:
(2.133)
where
and
In this formulation represents the Levi-Chivita factor, which is equal to 0 if two or more indices
are equal, 1 if the indices {i,j,k} form an even permutation of {1,2,3} and –1 if they form an odd
permutation. are the components of the coordinate system rotation vector. The coefficient
has to be calibrated. The scaling coefficient has been introduced similar to the ‘Curvature
Correction of Two-Equation Models’ in order to enable you to influence the effect of the curvature
correction term
if needed for a specific flow. The default value of this coefficient is 1.
In a rotational frame of reference, where the coordinate system rotates relative to a steady inertial
frame, the vorticity tensor reads:
(2.134)
Because the anisotropy tensor is computed in terms of nondimensional strain-rate and vorticity
tensors, the nondimensional form of this term becomes:
(2.135)
It should be noted that there are significant robustness issues with the streamline curvature model
described in Equation 2.133 (p. 127). This is because one has the second velocity derivative (that is,
the gradient of the strain rate) divided by the first velocity derivative (that is, the strain rate). Con-
sequently, numerical noise in the second velocity derivative is amplified when the strain rate is
small (for example, in the free stream outside of a shear layer). Because the curvature corrected
Reynolds stresses enter directly in the momentum equation, this can create a feedback loop that
results in increasing spikes in the Reynolds stresses that are unphysical and can even cause the
solver to diverge. The solution to this problem turned out to be to compute two sets of Reynolds
stresses with the EARSM, those with and without the curvature term in Equation 2.132 (p. 127). The
Reynolds stresses without the curvature term are used in the momentum equations, while the
Reynolds stresses with the curvature term are used in the assembly of the production term in the
and (or ) equations. Consequently, the change in turbulence production due to curvature is
still captured, however the feedback loop that caused the spikes in the Reynolds stresses is avoided
because the curvature term does not enter directly into the momentum equations. There is probably
some loss in accuracy due to this treatment. However this is preferable to a model, which is not
robust and cannot be used in industrial applications. The constant in Equation 2.132 (p. 127). has
been calibrated to a value of -0.4.
2.4. Ansys CFX Laminar-Turbulent Transition Models

2.4.1.Two Equation Gamma Theta Transition Model
2.4.2. One Equation Intermittency Transition Model
2.4.1. Two Equation Gamma Theta Transition Model
2.4.1.1. Overview
The full laminar-turbulent transition model is based on two transport equations, one for the inter-
mittency and one for the transition onset criteria in terms of momentum thickness Reynolds number.
It is called the Gamma Theta model and is the recommended transition model for general-purpose
applications. It uses an empirical correlation (Langtry and Menter) that has been developed to
cover standard bypass transition as well as flows in low free-stream turbulence environments. This
built-in correlation has been extensively validated together with the SST turbulence model ([101],
[102], [103]) for a wide range of transitional flows. The transition model can also be used with the
BSL or SAS-SST turbulence models.
The Gamma Theta Model has the following limitations:
Ansys CFX Laminar-Turbulent Transition Models
• The Gamma Theta Model, like all other engineering transition models, is only valid for wall
boundary layer flows. It cannot be applied to free shear flow transition. The model will predict
free shear flows as fully turbulent.
• Due to the specific formulation of the Gamma Theta equation, only classical boundary layers
with a defined freestream region can be handled. This means that the model is not applicable
to situations such as pipe or channel flow.
• The model is currently not linked to the buoyancy production terms because buoyancy driven
flows are outside the calibration space of the model. Therefore the model should not be used
in conjunction with non-zero buoyancy forces.
• The model is not Galilean invariant. This means it is only valid with respect to walls that are not
moving relative to the coordinate system.
It should be noted that a few changes have been made to this model compared to original version
(that is, the CFX-5.7 formulation, [101],[102]) in order to improve the transition predictions. These
include:
1. An improved transition onset correlation that results in improved predictions for both natural
and bypass transition.
2. A modification to the separation induced transition modification that prevents it from causing
early transition near the separation point.
3. Some adjustments of the model coefficients in order to better account for flow history effects
on the transition onset location.
You should use the new formulation [103], although the original version of the transition model
(that is, the CFX-5.7 formulation) can be recovered by specifying the optional parameter "Trans
ition Model Revision = 0" in the CCL in the following way:
FLUID MODELS:
…
TURBULENCE MODEL:
Option = SST
TRANSITIONAL TURBULENCE:
Option = Gamma Theta Model
Transition Model Revision = 0
TRANSITION ONSET CORRELATION:
Option = Langtry Menter
END
END
END
…
END
In order to capture the laminar and transitional boundary layers correctly, the mesh must have a
of approximately one. If the is too large (that is, > 5) then the transition onset location moves
upstream with increasing . You should use the High Resolution discretization scheme (which is
a bounded second-order upwind biased discretization) for the mean flow, turbulence and transition
equations.
Note:
The default production limiter for the turbulence equations is the ‘Kato-Launder’ formu-
lation when the transition model is used.
As outlined in Ansys CFX Laminar-Turbulent Transition Models in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide,
two reduced variants of the transition model are available besides the two-equation Gamma Theta
transition model:
• Specified Intermittency transition model — a zero-equation model.
• Gamma transition model — a one-equation model.
2.4.1.2. Transport Equations for the Gamma Theta Transition Model

The transport equation for the intermittency, , reads:
(2.136)
The transition sources are defined as follows:

(2.137)
where is the strain rate magnitude. is an empirical correlation that controls the length of
the transition region. The destruction/relaminarization sources are defined as follows:
(2.138)
where is the magnitude of vorticity rate. The transition onset is controlled by the following
functions:
(2.139)
(2.140)
(2.141)
is the critical Reynolds number where the intermittency first starts to increase in the boundary
layer. This occurs upstream of the transition Reynolds number, , and the difference between
the two must be obtained from an empirical correlation. Both the and correlations are
functions of .
The constants for the intermittency equation are:
(2.142)
The boundary condition for at a wall is zero normal flux while for an inlet is equal to 1.0.
The transport equation for the transition momentum thickness Reynolds number, , reads:
(2.143)
The source term is defined as follows:
(2.144)
(2.145)
(2.146)
(2.147)
The model constants for the equation are:

(2.148)
The boundary condition for at a wall is zero flux. The boundary condition for at an inlet
should be calculated from the empirical correlation based on the inlet turbulence intensity.
The model contains three empirical correlations. is the transition onset as observed in experi-
ments. This has been modified from Menter et al. [101] in order to improve the predictions for
natural transition and is defined as follows:
Parameters entering the empirical correlations for are the local turbulence intensity, , and
the Thwaites pressure gradient coefficient, , defined as:
(2.149)
where is the acceleration in the streamwise direction.
is used in Equation 2.144 (p. 131). is the length of the transition zone and goes into
Equation 2.137 (p. 130). The correlation for is a function of and is defined as:
(2.150)
A modification to is used in order to avoid a sharp increase in the skin friction in the
boundary layer shortly after transition:
is the point where the model is activated in order to match both and ; it goes into
Equation 2.140 (p. 130). The correlation between and is defined as follows:
(2.151)
can be thought of as the location where turbulence starts to grow while is the location
where the velocity profile first starts to deviate from the purely laminar profile.
2.4.1.3. Separation-induced Transition Correction

The modification for separation-induced transition is:
(2.152)
The model constants in Equation 2.152 (p. 132) have been adjusted from those of Menter et al. [101]
in order to improve the predictions of separated flow transition. The main difference is that the
constant that controls the relation between and was changed from 2.193, its value for a
Blasius boundary layer, to 3.235, the value at a separation point where the shape factor is 3.5 (see,
for example Figure 2 in Menter et al. [101]).
2.4.1.4. Coupling to the SST Model

The transition model interacts with the SST turbulence model, as follows:
(2.153)
(2.154)
(2.155)
where and are the original production and destruction terms for the SST model and
is the original SST blending function. Note that the production term in the -equation is not
modified. The rationale behind the above model formulation is given in detail in Menter et al. [101].
2.4.1.5. Gamma Theta Transition Model and Rough Walls

If the two-equation transition model is used together with rough walls, then an equivalent sand-
grain roughness height must be specified at the wall and in addition the option Roughness Cor-
relation must be selected on the Fluid Models tab of the Domain details view. Further information
on the rough wall modifications can be found in Treatment of Rough Walls (p. 157).
2.4.2. One Equation Intermittency Transition Model

2.4.2.1. Overview
2.4.2.2.Transport Equation for the Intermittency Transition Model
2.4.2.3. Coupling to SST Model
2.4.2.4. Intermittency Transition Model and Rough Walls
2.4.2.1. Overview
The Intermittency transition model [224] is a further development based on the - transition
model. The Intermittency transition model solves only one transport equation for the turbulence
intermittency, , and avoids the need for the second equation of the - transition model.
The Intermittency transition model has the following advantages over the - transition model:
• It reduces the computational effort by solving one transport equation instead of two.
• It avoids the dependency of the equation on the speed . This makes the Intermittency
transition model Galilean invariant. It can therefore be applied to surfaces that move relative to
the coordinate system for which the velocity field is computed.
• The model has provisions for crossflow instability that are not available for the - or -
transition model.
• The model formulation is simple and can be fine-tuned based on a small number of user para-
meters.
Like the - transition model, the Intermittency transition model is based strictly on local variables.
The Intermittency transition model is also available only in combination with the following turbulence
models:
• BSL - model
• SST - model
• Scale-Adaptive Simulation with BSL or SST
• Detached Eddy Simulation with BSL or SST
Note the following limitations:
• The Intermittency transition model is only applicable to wall-bounded flows. Like all other engin-
eering transition models, the model is not applicable to transition in free shear flows. The model
will predict free shear flows as being fully turbulent.
• The Intermittency transition model has only been calibrated for classical boundary layer flows.
Application to other types of wall-bounded flows is possible, but might require a modification
of the underlying correlations.
• The Intermittency transition model has not be calibrated in combination with other physical effects
that affect the source terms of the turbulence model, such as:
– Buoyancy
– Multiphase turbulence
Guidelines on the use of the Intermittency transition model are similar to those developed for the
- model as outlined in Ansys CFX Laminar-Turbulent Transition Models in the CFX-Solver
Modeling Guide.
2.4.2.2. Transport Equation for the Intermittency Transition Model

The transport equation for intermittency is the following:
The formulation of the source terms is similar in nature to the corresponding terms in the -
transition model. The transition source term is defined as:
where is the strain rate magnitude and .
The destruction/relaminarization source is defined as follows:
where is the magnitude of the absolute vorticity rate, and . The transition
onset is controlled by the following functions:
(2.156)
where is the wall distance and is a correlation used to trigger the transition model:
In this correlation, is the critical momentum thickness Reynolds number, and and are
locally defined variables that approximate the freestream turbulence intensity and the pressure
gradient parameter, respectively. A local formulation that provides levels in the middle of the
boundary layer similar to the freestream turbulence intensity, , is expressed as:
The formula for reads as:
(2.157)
For numerical robustness, was bounded as follows:

(2.158)
The function accounts for the influence of the pressure gradient on transition, and is defined
as:
The Intermittency transition model has been calibrated against a wide range of generic as well as
turbomachinery and external aeronautical test cases. While you should not have to adjust the
model coefficients in most situations, the model provides access to the coefficients so that you can
fine-tune the model. This should only be done based on detailed experimental data. You can adjust
the following constants in the correlations: , , , , , , , , ,
.
The constant defines the minimal value of critical number, whereas the sum of and
defines the maximal value of . The controls how fast the decreases as the tur-
bulence intensity ( ) increases. The and constants adjust the value of critical
number in areas with favorable and adverse pressure gradient, respectively. The constant be-
comes active in regions with separation, correcting the value if necessary. Additionally, the
size of the separation bubble can be tuned by another constant, , which enters the model
through the source terms directly rather than the correlations (see Coupling to SST Model (p. 138)).
The constants and define the limits of the function; while they typically do not need
to be adjusted, it is possible to do so (for details, contact your support engineer).
For crossflow transition, a widely used experimental correlation is the C1 correlation proposed by
Arnal (1984) [223]. According to that correlation, transition occurs when the following condition is
met:
where
The crossflow Reynolds number is defined as:
In the previous equations, is the crossflow Reynolds number, the index refers to a coordinate
system that is aligned with the freestream velocity (where refers to the boundary layer edge),
is the crossflow velocity normal to the direction of the freestream velocity. The value of 150 is
the calibration constant of the Arnal C1 criterion corresponding to a critical Reynolds number.
The Intermittency transition model accounts for the crossflow transition through a separate correl-
ation, which approximates the C1 correlation through a local formulation. The formulation uses
only local information and has the following functional form:
The function accounts for the influence of pressure gradient (shape factor); the function accounts
for the ratio of the crossflow strength relative to the streamwise strength; the Reynolds number
effect is included through . The correlation can be adjusted by the constant . The transition
location due to the crossflow instability will move upstream as increases.
The function is computed as follows:
where is a local variable used to approximate the pressure gradient parameter and is defined
similarly to (see Equation 2.157 (p. 135) and Equation 2.158 (p. 135)):
The crossflow indicator function is a non-dimensional measure of the local crossflow strength
relative to the streamwise strength. It is computed based on the wall normal change of the normal-
ized vorticity vector , which serves as a measure of the three-dimensionality of the velocity profile
and which becomes zero for 2D flow.
Here, is the vorticity vector and is the wall normal vector.
The indicator function is proportional to the local change of the flow angle and therefore a
measure of the overall crossflow strength.
The triggering function that accounts for the crossflow effects is defined as follows:
The source term in the Intermittency equation is then triggered, either by the primary triggering
function (see Equation 2.156 (p. 135)) of the Intermittency transition model, or by :
whichever has a maximal value.
The factor of 100 is used in in order to speed up the transition process.
The default values for the model constants are the following:
= 100.0, = 1000.0, = 1.0, = 14.68, = -7.34, = 0.0, = 1.5, =

3.0, = 1.0, = 1.0
2.4.2.3. Coupling to SST Model

The coupling between the Intermittency transition model and the SST - , SAS with SST and DES
with SST models is the same as for the - model and is accomplished by modifying the equations
of the original SST model as follows:
where and are the production and destruction terms from the turbulent kinetic energy
equation in the original SST turbulence model. The term is computed using Kato-Launder for-
mulation:
An additional production term, , has been introduced into the -equation to ensure proper
generation of at transition points for arbitrarily low (down to zero) levels. The additional term
is designed to turn itself off when the transition process is completed and the boundary layer has
reached the fully turbulent state. The expression for the reads as:
Large Eddy Simulation Theory
The constants and are adjustable. When the laminar boundary layer separates, the size of
the separation bubble can be controlled by changing the constant . The default value of the
constant is set to 1.0; a higher value results in a shorter bubble. This mechanism is different from
the one used for the - model, where the effective intermittency, , is allowed to exceed 1.0
whenever the laminar boundary layer separates. It should be noted however, that the constant
has an effect only for the bubbles developing under low conditions (<0.5%). It might also slightly
affect the length of transition in attached boundary layers under very low freestream turbulence
intensity.
2.4.2.4. Intermittency Transition Model and Rough Walls

Note that the correlation does not include effects of rough walls. If you plan to include rough walls,
it is recommended that you switch to the - transition model.
2.5. Large Eddy Simulation Theory

This section outlines the theoretical details of the LES model in Ansys CFX. Additional information on
setting up an LES simulation is available, as well as modeling advice. For details, see The Large Eddy
Simulation Model (LES) in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
The rationale behind the large-eddy simulation technique is a separation between large and small scales.
The governing equations for LES are obtained by filtering the time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations
in the physical space. The filtering process effectively filters out the eddies whose scales are smaller
than the filter width or mesh spacing used in the computations. The resulting equations thus govern
the dynamics of the large eddies.
A filtered variable is denoted in the following by an overbar and is defined by
(2.159)
where is the fluid domain, and is the filter function that determines the scale of the resolved eddies.
The unresolved part of a quantity is defined by

(2.160)
It should be noted that the filtered fluctuations are not zero:

(2.161)
The discretization of the spatial domain into finite control volumes implicitly provides the filtering op-
eration:
where is the control volume. The filter function implied here is then
(2.162)
Filtering the Navier-Stokes equations leads to additional unknown quantities. The filtered momentum
equation can be written in the following way:
where denotes the subgrid-scale stress. It includes the effect of the small scales and is defined by
(2.163)
The large scale turbulent flow is solved directly and the influence of the small scales is taken into account
by appropriate subgrid-scale (SGS) models. In Ansys CFX an eddy viscosity approach is used that relates
the subgrid-scale stresses to the large-scale strain rate tensor in the following way:
(2.164)
Unlike in RANS modeling, where the eddy viscosity represents all turbulent scales, the subgrid-scale
viscosity only represents the small scales.
It should be noted that the isotropic part of is not modeled, but added to the filtered static pressure.
Three models are available to provide the subgrid-scale (SGS) viscosity . You should use the wall-
adapted local eddy-viscosity model by Nicoud and Ducros [200](LES WALE model) as a first choice. This
is an algebraic model like the Smagorinsky model, but overcomes some known deficiencies of the
Smagorinsky model: the WALE model produces almost no eddy-viscosity in wall-bounded laminar flows
and is therefore capable to reproduce the laminar to turbulent transition. Furthermore, the WALE
model has been designed to return the correct wall-asymptotic -variation of the SGS viscosity and
needs no damping functions.
In addition to the WALE model, the Smagorinsky model [34] and the Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly model
(Germano et al. [198], Lilly [199]) are available. The Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly model is based on the
Germano-identity and uses information contained in the resolved turbulent velocity field to evaluate
the model coefficient, in order to overcome the deficiencies of the Smagorinsky model. The model
coefficient is no longer a constant value and adjusts automatically to the flow type. However this
method needs explicit (secondary) filtering and is therefore more time consuming than an algebraic
model.
2.5.1. Subgrid-Scale Models
2.5.1.1. Smagorinsky Model

The Smagorinsky model [34] is an algebraic model for the SGS viscosity . Based on dimensional
analysis, the SGS viscosity can be expressed as:
(2.165)
where is the length scale of the unresolved motion (usually the mesh size ) and
is the velocity of the unresolved motion.
Based on an analogy to the Prandtl mixing length model, the velocity scale is related to the gradients
of the filtered velocity:
(2.166)
This yields the Smagorinsky model [34] for the subgrid-scale (SGS) viscosity:
(2.167)
with the Smagorinsky constant. The value of the Smagorinsky constant for isotropic turbulence
with inertial range spectrum:
(2.168)
is:
(2.169)
For practical calculations, the value of is changed depending on the type of flow and mesh
resolution. Its value is found to vary between a value of 0.065 (channel flows) and 0.25. Often a
value of 0.1 is used and has been found to yield the best results for a wide range of flows. This is
also the default value of .
The coefficient is, therefore, not a universal constant and this is the most serious shortcoming
of this model. Furthermore, damping functions are needed close to walls.
2.5.1.1.1. Wall Damping

Close to walls, the turbulent viscosity can be damped using a combination of a mixing length
minimum function, and a viscosity damping function :
(2.170)
with:
(2.171)
C S and are constants which you can set; their default values are 0.1 and 0.4 respectively.
By default, the damping function is 1.0. A Van Driest and a Piomelli like damping can be spe-
cified by the user. For the Van Driest case, the damping function is:
(2.172)
with A = 25. For the Piomelli case it is:

(2.173)
with A = 25. The normalized wall distance:
(2.174)
is defined as a function of the calculated wall distance , kinematic viscosity , and local velocity
scale .
The Van Driest or Piomelli wall damping can be switched on when the LES turbulence model is
selected. The damping factor A is defaulted to 25.0.
2.5.1.2. WALE Model

The wall-adapted local eddy-viscosity model (Nicoud and Ducros [200]) is formulated locally and
uses the following equation to compute the eddy-viscosity:
(2.175)
where denotes the traceless symmetric part of the square of the velocity gradient tensor:
(2.176)
and where , and is the Kronecker symbol. The tensor can be rewritten
in terms of the strain-rate and vorticity tensors in the following way:
(2.177)
where the vorticity tensor is given by:
(2.178)
The main advantages of the WALE model are the capability to reproduce the laminar to turbulent
transition and the design of the model to return the correct wall-asymptotic -variation of the
SGS viscosity. It offers therefore the same advantages as the Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly model, and
at the same time does not require an explicit (secondary) filtering. The constant has been calib-
rated using freely decaying isotropic homogeneous turbulence: the default value is 0.5 and is
available in CFX-Pre.
2.5.1.3. Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly Model

Germano et al. [198] and subsequently Lilly [199] introduced a method for evaluating subgrid scale
model coefficients using information contained in the resolved turbulent velocity field, in order to
overcome the deficiencies of the Smagorinsky model. The model coefficient is no longer a constant
value and adjusts automatically to the flow type. The basic idea behind the model is an algebraic
identity, which relates subgrid scale stresses at two different filter widths. The filtering on the
smaller filter width is given implicitly by the mesh size, whereas the filtering on the larger filter
width requires the use of an explicit filtering procedure. Because it is required that the filter works
on unstructured meshes, a volume-weighted averaging of the variables from neighboring element
centers to the corresponding vertex is used.
The so-called Germano identity reads:

(2.179)
where represents the subgrid-scale (SGS) stress at scale and the SGS stress at scale { }:
(2.180)
(2.181)
and {…} denotes secondary filtering of a quantity with . The stress formulated by turbulent
motions of scale intermediate between and { } reads:
(2.182)
Although the Germano procedure can be applied with any SGS model, the Smagorinsky model has
been used to compute the SGS stresses at the different filtering levels:
(2.183)
(2.184)
Using the Germano identity one obtains:

(2.185)
The resulting system of Equation 2.185 (p. 143) is over-determined and the coefficient appears
inside the secondary filter operation. In order to solve this system of equations, the error associ-
ated with the Smagorinsky model is defined in the following way:
(2.186)
Lilly [199] applied a least square approach to minimize the error. The coefficient is taken out of
the filtering procedure. This leads to
(2.187)
(2.188)
Using the coefficient , the eddy viscosity is obtained by:

(2.189)
The model coefficient obtained using the dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly model varies in time and
space over a fairly wide range. To avoid numerical instability, a relaxation of in time is applied
and an upper and lower limit on the coefficient is imposed in the following way:
1. Lower bound in order to avoid negative viscosity:

(2.190)
2. Upper bound:
(2.191)
3. Relaxation in time:
(2.192)
Freely decaying isotropic homogeneous turbulence has again been used to calibrate . The
value of should be in the range of 0.04 to 0.09. The default value is 0.04 and can be specified
in CFX-Pre.
Note:
Density fluctuations are not accounted for in the current subgrid turbulence formulation
as they scale with the subgrid Mach number, which is small. For flows with strong
density variations, buoyancy effects are captured by the resolved large scales and not
modeled for the subgrid scales.
2.6. Detached Eddy Simulation Theory

This section outlines the theoretical details of the DES model in Ansys CFX. Details on setting up a DES
simulation and modeling advice are available. For details, see The Detached Eddy Simulation Model
(DES) in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
Experience has shown that the use of LES in boundary layer flows at high Re numbers is prohibitively
expensive [57] and therefore not useful for many industrial flow simulations. On the other hand, turbulent
structures can be resolved in massively separated regions, where the large turbulent scales are of the
same dimension as the geometrical structure generating them (airfoil flaps, buildings, blunt trailing
edges on turbine blades). DES is an attempt to combine elements of RANS and LES formulations in order
to arrive at a hybrid formulation, where RANS is used inside attached and mildly separated boundary
layers. Additionally, LES is applied in massively separated regions. While this approach offers many ad-
vantages, it is clearly not without problems, as the model has to identify the different regions automat-
ically. DES models require a detailed understanding of the method and the mesh generation requirements
and should not be used as "black-box." You are advised to read the Ansys CFX technical report [55] on
the subject, which explains all details on mesh generation requirements, zonal formulation and
boundary conditions.
The Ansys CFX version of the DES model is based on the SST formulation. The advantage of this com-
bination is that the accurate prediction of turbulent boundary layers up to separation and in mildly
separated regions carries over from the SST model. In addition, the SST model supports the formulation
of a zonal DES formulation [56], which is less sensitive to mesh resolution restrictions than the standard
DES formulation, as proposed by Strelets [58]. Refer to the Ansys CFX technical report [55] for details.
2.6.1. SST-DES Formulation Strelets et al.

The idea behind the DES model of Strelets [58] is to switch from the SST-RANS model to an LES
model in regions where the turbulent length, Lt, predicted by the RANS model is larger than the
local mesh spacing. In this case, the length scale used in the computation of the dissipation rate in
the equation for the turbulent kinetic energy is replaced by the local mesh spacing, .
Detached Eddy Simulation Theory
(2.193)
The practical reason for choosing the maximum edge length in the DES formulation is that the
model should return the RANS formulation in attached boundary layers. The maximum edge length
is therefore the safest estimate to ensure that demand.
The DES modification of Strelets can be formulated as a multiplier to the destruction term in the k-
equation:
(2.194)
with CDES equal to 0.61, as the limiter should only be active in the model region. The numerical
formulation is also switched between an upwind biased and a central difference scheme in the RANS
and DES regions respectively.
2.6.2. Delayed and Shielded DES-SST Model Formulation
Note:
The DDES and SDES models are not available in CFX.
The main practical problem with the DES formulation (both for the Spalart Allmaras and the standard
SST-DES model) is that there is no mechanism for preventing the limiter from becoming active in the
attached portion of the boundary layer. This will happen in regions where the is less than the
boundary layer thickness. In this case, the flow can separate as a result of the mesh spacing (mesh-
induced separation), which is undesirable. The DES formulations reduce the impact of the DES term
inside the boundary layer. This is achieved by function , which protects the boundary layer. For
, the original SST model is recovered; for , the original DES model is utilized.
(2.195)
There are several historic formulations for the function . Originally, the and blending
functions of the SST model were used [56]. Later, a specifically tuned function termed was added
[226].
(2.196)
Where is the wall distance, is the von Karman constant, and .
is superseded by the Shielded DES function (SDES). The function offers essentially
asymptotic shielding under mesh refinement and is recommended (and also set as the default). This
function is unpublished and proprietary to Ansys.
In addition, the SDES model features an alternative definition of the mesh length scale:
(2.197)
where is the volume of the cell and is its maximum edge length. Finally, for SDES, the
model coefficient is reduced to . Both of these changes result in much reduced eddy viscosity
levels in detached shear layers and quicker "transition" from RANS to LES.
Figure 2.2: Eddy viscosity profiles for DDES and SDES models under mesh refinement (p. 146) shows
the effect of improved shielding on boundary layer flows. The parameter is the local ratio of grid
spacing, , to boundary layer thickness, . The grid spacing is for the DDES model and
for the SDES model. Note, in the figure, that the range of is much wider for SDES. Nevertheless, the
SDES model is able to preserve the RANS model eddy viscosity whereas the DDES model deteriorates
for values of .
Figure 2.2: Eddy viscosity profiles for DDES and SDES models under mesh refinement
2.6.3. Stress-Blended Eddy Simulation (SBES)

2.6.3.1. General Concept
2.6.3.2. Example
2.6.3.1. General Concept

Stress-Blended Eddy Simulation (SBES) is a hybrid RANS-LES turbulence model family. It allows dif-
ferent RANS and LES models to be combined, using a blending function to automatically switch
between them. The blending function is the exact same function as the shielding function of the
SDES model (Delayed and Shielded DES-SST Model Formulation (p. 145)). Starting from the SDES-
SST model (see Delayed and Shielded DES-SST Model Formulation (p. 145)), SBES adds an explicit
switch of the model to an existing algebraic LES model in the LES zone (meaning regions where
).
The shielding function developed can be used in the following way for achieving a blending on
the stress level between RANS and LES formulations:
(2.198)
where is the RANS portion and is the LES portion of the modeled stress tensor. In cases
where both models are based on eddy viscosity concepts, the formulation simplifies to:
(2.199)
Such a formulation is only feasible due to the strength of the shielding properties of the shielding
function (as described in the previous section).
The main advantage of the SBES model is that it allows you to use a given LES model in the LES
portion of the flow, instead of relying on the LES capability of DES-like models. You can also use it
to visualize the regions where RANS and LES models are used, in order to check the consistency
of your setup. Finally, the SBES model allows you to have a rapid "transition" from RANS to LES in
separating shear layers.
In summary, the SBES model allows you to:
• generically combine RANS and LES model formulations
• clearly distinguish between the RANS and the LES regions based on the function
• use a rapid "transition" from RANS to LES in separating shear layers, due to the low stress levels
enforced by the LES model
2.6.3.2. Example
The following example illustrates the application of the SDES and SBES models to a jet emanating
from a nozzle. Figure 2.3: The Computational Domain and Mesh for the Subsonic Jet Flow (p. 147)
shows the geometry and mesh. The round jet flow has been experimentally investigated by
Viswanathan [225] at a Mach number of =0.9 and at a Reynolds number of =1.3 x 106, based
on the jet diameter and on the bulk velocity at the nozzle exit . The computational mesh
consisted of 4.1 x 106 hexahedral cells.
Figure 2.3: The Computational Domain and Mesh for the Subsonic Jet Flow
Figure 2.4: Iso-Surfaces of the Q-Criterion Colored with the Velocity Magnitude (p. 148) shows the
turbulence structures developing with the different models. The main goal of the hybrid RANS-LES
model is to "transition" as quickly as possible from the steady RANS mode into the scale resolving
three-dimensional LES mode.
As seen from Figure 2.4: Iso-Surfaces of the Q-Criterion Colored with the Velocity Magnitude (p. 148),
SBES and SDES provide a relatively rapid transition from the two-dimensional RANS to three-dimen-
sional LES structures. The fastest transition is achieved by the SBES formulation, followed by SDES.
DDES yields almost axisymmetric structures, which prevail for a noticeably longer distance from
the nozzle.
Figure 2.4: Iso-Surfaces of the Q-Criterion Colored with the Velocity Magnitude
Figure 2.5: Distribution of the Mean (Left) and RMS (Right) Velocity along the Jet Centerline (p. 148)
shows the comparison with experimental data. The left plot shows the mean axial velocity along
the centerline of the jet; the right plot shows the corresponding streamwise RMS fluctuations. It is
clear from both comparisons that the agreement with the data improves with the model’s ability
to quickly switch into LES mode.
Figure 2.5: Distribution of the Mean (Left) and RMS (Right) Velocity along the Jet Centerline
2.6.4. Discretization of the Advection Terms

Following Strelets [58], the zonal DES model switches from a second-order upwind scheme in the
RANS region to a central difference scheme in the LES region. The finite volume method approximates
the advection term in the transport equation for a generic variable as:
(2.200)
where is the control volume value, the index denotes the integration points on the control
volume faces, and are the mass flow and the transported variable value estimated at the in-
tegration point . The value of is obtained by interpolating from the surrounding mesh nodes
according to the selected discretization scheme. Blending between the upwind-biased scheme and
the central scheme is achieved by combining the corresponding interpolation values and
using the blending function :
(2.201)
A specific form of the blending function is taken from Strelets [58] with only minor changes:
(2.202)
(2.203)
(2.204)
with being the maximum neighboring mesh edge, and the same constant values as in Strelets
[58]:
(2.205)
Note:
For the SST-DES model, the blending function is additionally limited in order to prevent
the mesh-induced separation:
(2.206)
where F1 and F2 are the first and second SST blending function and ([129]), respectively. BF1
and BF2 are blend factors and are used in order to select one of the two blending functions. The
default and the recommendation is to use the second SST blending function F2, therefore the corres-
ponding default values are BF1 = 0 and BF2 = 1.
A limiter based on the Courant-number has been developed in order to avoid oscillations due to the
central difference scheme, which can occur for medium and high Courant-numbers (this limiter is not
given in the original formulation of Strelets [58]). The blending function is limited in the following
way:
(2.207)
The default values of and are 5.0 and 1.0, respectively.
The blending function, , is available in CFD-Post and allows you to distinguish between the regions
in the flow where the advection-scheme is user-specified (upwind-biased) or the central difference
scheme is used. The corresponding variable name in CFD-Post is Blending Function for DES
model.
According to Equation 2.201 (p. 149), the value of the variable is 1 to denote the user-specified advection
scheme and 0 for the central difference scheme. Therefore, a value of 1 typically denotes the RANS
region using an upwind-biased scheme and a value of 0 denotes the LES region using the central-
difference scheme. However, if the choice of the user-specified advection scheme is central difference,
then the Blending Function for DES model returns a value of 1 everywhere.
For SDES and SBES models, the default value of constant of Equation 2.203 (p. 149) is 0.4. This
constant is available in CFX-Pre as CCL parameter Csdes for Numerical Blending. Reducing
the value of this constant results in lower weighting of the upwind-biased scheme.
2.6.5. Boundary Conditions

For LES simulations, unsteady fluctuations have to be specified in most cases at the inlet boundaries.
This greatly complicates the use of LES in industrial flows, as the details of these fluctuations are
generally not known. In DES simulations, it is in most cases possible to specify the same boundary
conditions as for the SST model. This is particularly true if the default setting of the zonal model are
used ([55]).
2.7. Scale-Adaptive Simulation Theory

The Scale-Adaptive Simulation (SAS) is an improved URANS formulation, which allows the resolution of
the turbulent spectrum in unstable flow conditions. The SAS concept is based on the introduction of
the von Karman length-scale into the turbulence scale equation. The information provided by the von
Karman length-scale allows SAS models to dynamically adjust to resolved structures in a URANS simu-
lation, which results in a LES-like behavior in unsteady regions of the flowfield. At the same time, the
model provides standard RANS capabilities in stable flow regions.
In recent years the turbulent length-scale equation has been revisited by Menter and Egorov [130]. It
was shown that the exact transport equation for the turbulent length-scale, as derived by Rotta [134],
does actually introduce the second derivative of the velocity field and thereby into the turbulent
scale equation. In Menter and Egorov [130], a two-equation turbulence model was presented using a
formulation, which can be operated in RANS and SAS mode. While the further development of
this model is still ongoing, it was considered desirable to investigate if the SAS term in the model
could be transformed to existing two-equation models. The target two-equation model is the SST
model and this leads to the formulation of the SST-SAS model.
The original version of the SST-SAS model (Menter and Egorov [131]) has undergone certain evolution
and the latest model version has been presented in Egorov and Menter [197]. One model change is the
use of the quadratic length scale ratio in the Equation 2.210 (p. 151) below, rather than the
linear form of the original model version. The use of the quadratic length scale ratio is more consistent
with the derivation of the model and no major differences to the original model version are expected.
Another new model aspect is the explicitly calibrated high wave number damping to satisfy the require-
ment for an SAS model that a proper damping of the resolved turbulence at the high wave number
end of the spectrum (resolution limit of the mesh) must be provided. In the following the latest model
version of the SST-SAS model (Egorov and Menter [197]) will be discussed, which is also the default
version in Ansys CFX.
The governing equations of the SST-SAS model differ from those of the SST RANS model [129] by the
additional SAS source term in the transport equation for the turbulence eddy frequency :
(2.208)
Scale-Adaptive Simulation Theory
(2.209)
where is the value for the regime of the SST model.
The additional source term reads for the latest model version Egorov and Menter [197]:
(2.210)
This SAS source term originates from a term
in Rotta’s transport equation for the correlation-based length scale, see Menter and Egorov [130]. Because
the integral is zero in homogeneous turbulence, it should in general be proportional to a measure related
to inhomogeneity. The second velocity derivative was selected as this measure to ensure that the
integral alone is modeled to zero at a constant shear rate, thus leading to and ultimately to
in the SAS source term (Equation 2.210 (p. 151)).
This model version (Egorov and Menter [197], Model Version=2007) is used as default. In order to
recover the original model formulation (Menter and Egorov [131]), the parameter Model Version
must be set to 2005 directly in the CCL:
FLUID MODELS:
...
TURBULENCE MODEL:
Model Version = 2005
Option = SAS SST
END
...
END
The model parameters in the SAS source term Equation 2.210 (p. 151) are
Here is the length scale of the modeled turbulence

(2.211)
and the von Karman length scale given by
(2.212)
is a three-dimensional generalization of the classic boundary layer definition
The first velocity derivative is represented in by , which is a scalar invariant of the strain
rate tensor :
(2.213)
Note, that the same also directly participates in (Equation 2.210 (p. 151)) and in the turbulence
production term .
The second velocity derivative is generalized to 3D using the magnitude of the velocity Laplacian:
(2.214)
As a result, and are both equal to ( ) in the logarithmic part of the boundary layer, where =0.41
is the von Karman constant.
Beside the use of the quadratic length scale ratio , the latest model version provides for the
direct control of the high wave number damping. Two formulations are available:
1. The first formulation is the default and is realized by a lower constraint on the value in the fol-
lowing way:
(2.215)
This limiter is proportional to the mesh cell size , which is calculated as the cubic root of the
control volume size . The purpose of this limiter is to control damping of the finest resolved
turbulent fluctuations. The structure of the limiter is derived from analyzing the equilibrium eddy
viscosity of the SST-SAS model. Assuming the source term equilibrium (balance between production
and destruction of the kinetic energy of turbulence) in both transport equations, one can derive the
following relation between the equilibrium eddy viscosity , and :
(2.216)
This formula has a similar structure as the subgrid scale eddy viscosity in the LES model by
Smagorinsky:
Therefore it is natural to adopt the Smagorinsky LES model as a reference, when formulating the
high wave number damping limiter for the SST-SAS model. The limiter, imposed on the value,
must prevent the SAS eddy viscosity from decreasing below the LES subgrid-scale eddy viscosity:
(2.217)
Substitution of and in condition above (Equation 2.217 (p. 152)) results in the limiter
value used in Equation 2.215 (p. 152). Similar to LES, the high wave number damping is a cumulative
effect of the numerical dissipation and the SGS eddy viscosity. The model parameter has been
Modeling Flow Near the Wall
calibrated using decaying isotropic turbulence. The default value of is 0.11, which provides nearly
the same energy spectrum as the Smagorinsky LES model.
2. The second formulation limits the eddy viscosity directly:

(2.218)
The LES-WALE model is used for the calculation of the LES eddy viscosity because this model
is suitable for transitional flows and does not need wall damping functions. This limiter can be turned
on by setting the expert parameter limit sas eddy viscosity = t. The limiter (Equa-
tion 2.215 (p. 152) is then automatically turned off. The default value for the WALE model coefficient
is 0.5 and can be specified by the expert parameter limit sas eddy viscosity coef=0.5.
Similar to the DES formulation, the SAS model also benefits from a switch in the numerical treatment
between the steady and the unsteady regions. In DES, this is achieved by a blending function as proposed
by Strelets [58], which allows the use of a second order upwind scheme with the CFX-Solver in RANS
regions and a second order central scheme in unsteady regions. The blending functions are based on
several parameters, including the mesh spacing and the ratio of vorticity and strain rate, as explained
below.
2.7.1. Discretization of the Advection Terms

The discretization of the advection is the same as that for the SST-DES model, beside the fact that
no RANS-shielding is performed for the SAS-SST model. For details, see Discretization of the Advection
Terms (p. 148).
2.8. Modeling Flow Near the Wall

This section presents the mathematical details of how flow near to a no-slip wall is modeled in Ansys
CFX. An introduction to near-wall flow, modeling details and guidelines on using wall functions are
presented. For details, see Modeling Flow Near the Wall in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
2.8.1. Mathematical Formulation

The wall-function approach in Ansys CFX is an extension of the method of Launder and Spalding [13].
In the log-law region, the near wall tangential velocity is related to the wall-shear-stress, , by means
of a logarithmic relation.
In the wall-function approach, the viscosity affected sublayer region is bridged by employing empir-
ical formulas to provide near-wall boundary conditions for the mean flow and turbulence transport
equations. These formulas connect the wall conditions (for example, the wall-shear-stress) to the de-
pendent variables at the near-wall mesh node, which is presumed to lie in the fully-turbulent region
of the boundary layer.
The logarithmic relation for the near wall velocity is given by:
(2.219)
where:
(2.220)
(2.221)
+
u is the near wall velocity, is the friction velocity, U t is the known velocity tangent to the wall
at a distance of from the wall, y + is the dimensionless distance from the wall, is the wall shear
stress, is the von Karman constant and C is a log-layer constant depending on wall roughness
(natural logarithms are used).
A definition of in the different wall formulations is available in Solver Yplus and Yplus (p. 155).
2.8.1.1. Scalable Wall Functions

Equation 2.219 (p. 153) has the problem that it becomes singular at separation points where the
near wall velocity, U t, approaches zero. In the logarithmic region, an alternative velocity scale, u*
can be used instead of :
(2.222)
This scale has the useful property that it does not go to zero if U t goes to zero. Based on this
definition, the following explicit equation for can be obtained:
(2.223)
The absolute value of the wall shear stress , is then obtained from:
(2.224)
where:
(2.225)
and u * is as defined earlier.
One of the major drawbacks of the wall-function approach is that the predictions depend on the
location of the point nearest to the wall and are sensitive to the near-wall meshing; refining the
mesh does not necessarily give a unique solution of increasing accuracy (Grotjans and Menter [10]).
The problem of inconsistencies in the wall-function, in the case of fine meshes, can be overcome
with the use of the Scalable Wall Function formulation developed by Ansys CFX. It can be applied
on arbitrarily fine meshes and allows you to perform a consistent mesh refinement independent
of the Reynolds number of the application.
The basic idea behind the scalable wall-function approach is to limit the y * value used in the log-
arithmic formulation by a lower value of where 11.06 is the value of y * at the
intersection between the logarithmic and the linear near wall profile. The computed is therefore
not allowed to fall below this limit. Therefore, all mesh points are outside the viscous sublayer and
all fine mesh inconsistencies are avoided.
The boundary condition for the dissipation rate, , is then given by the following relation, which
is valid in the logarithmic region:
(2.226)
It is important to note the following points:
• To fully resolve the boundary layer, you should put at least 10 nodes into the boundary layer.
• Do not use Standard Wall Functions unless required for backwards compatibility.
+
• The upper limit for y is a function of the device Reynolds number. For example, a large ship
may have a Reynolds number of 109 and y + can safely go to values much greater than 1000. For
lower Reynolds numbers (for example, a small pump), the entire boundary layer might only extend
to around y + = 300. In this case, a fine near wall spacing is required to ensure a sufficient number
of nodes in the boundary layer.
If the results deviate greatly from these ranges, the mesh at the designated Wall boundaries will
require modification, unless wall shear stress and heat transfer are not important in the simulation.
In most turbulent flows the turbulence kinetic energy is not completely zero and the definition for
given in Equation 2.222 (p. 154) will give proper results for most cases. In flows with low free
stream turbulence intensity, however, the turbulence kinetic energy can be very small and lead to
vanishing and therefore also to vanishing wall shear stress, If this situation happens, a lower
limiter can be applied to by setting the expert parameter ‘ustar limiter = t’. will
then be calculated using the following relation:
(2.227)
The coefficient used in this relation can be changed by setting the expert parameter ‘ustar
limiter coef ‘. The default value of this parameter is 0.01.
2.8.1.2. Solver Yplus and Yplus

In the solver output, there are two arrays for the near wall spacing. The definition for the Yplus
variable that appears in the post processor is given by the standard definition of generally used
in CFD:
(2.228)
where is the distance between the first and second mesh points off the wall.
In addition, a second variable, Solver Yplus, is available and contains the used in the logarithmic
profile by the solver. It depends on the type of wall treatment used, which can be one of three
different treatments in Ansys CFX. They are based on different distance definitions and velocity
scales. This has partly historic reasons, but is mainly motivated by the desire to achieve an optimum
performance in terms of accuracy and robustness:
• Standard wall function (based on )
• Scalable wall function (based on )
• Automatic wall treatment (based on )
+
The scalable wall function y is defined as:
(2.229)
and is therefore based on 1/4 of the near wall mesh spacing.
Note that both the scalable wall function and the automatic wall treatment can be run on arbitrarily
fine meshes.
2.8.1.3. Automatic Near-Wall Treatment for Omega-Based Models

While the wall-functions presented above enable a consistent mesh refinement, they are based on
physical assumptions that are problematic, especially in flows at lower Reynolds numbers (Re<10
5
), as the sublayer portion of the boundary layer is neglected in the mass and momentum balance.
For flows at low Reynolds numbers, this can cause an error in the displacement thickness of up to
25%. It is therefore desirable to offer a formulation which will automatically switch from wall-functions
to a low-Re near wall formulation as the mesh is refined. The model of Wilcox has the advantage
that an analytical expression is known for in the viscous sublayer, which can be exploited to
achieve this goal. The main idea behind the present formulation is to blend the wall value for
between the logarithmic and the near wall formulation.
The automatic wall treatment allows a consistent y + insensitive mesh refinement from coarse
meshes, which do not resolve the viscous sublayer, to fine meshes placing mesh points inside the
viscous sublayer. Note that for highly accurate simulations, like heat transfer predictions, a fine
+
mesh with y around 1 is recommended.
The flux for the k-equation is artificially kept to be zero and the flux in the momentum equation is
computed from the velocity profile. The equations are as follows:
Flux for the momentum equation, F U:

(2.230)
with:
(2.231)
(2.232)
where
and
Flux for the k-equation:
(2.233)
In the -equation, an algebraic expression is specified instead of an added flux. It is a blend between
the analytical expression for in the logarithmic region:
(2.234)
and the corresponding expression in the sublayer:
(2.235)
with being the distance between the first and the second mesh point. In order to achieve a
smooth blending and to avoid cyclic convergence behavior, the following formulation is selected:
(2.236)
While in the wall-function formulation, the first point is treated as being outside the edge of the
viscous sublayer; in the low-Re mode, the location of the first mesh point is virtually moved down
through the viscous sublayer as the mesh is refined. Note that the physical location of the first
mesh point is always at the wall (y = 0). However, the first mesh point is treated as if it were y
away from the wall. The error in the wall-function formulation results from this virtual shift, which
amounts to a reduction in displacement thickness. Also, at very low Reynolds numbers this shift
becomes visible when the solution is compared with a laminar calculation, because the shift is not
needed in the laminar near wall treatment. This error is always present in the wall-function model.
The shift is based on the distance between the first and the second mesh point y = y 2 - y 1 with
y being the wall normal distance.
2.8.1.4. Treatment of Rough Walls

The near wall treatment that was discussed above (Scalable Wall Functions, Automatic Wall Treat-
ment) is appropriate when walls can be considered as hydraulically smooth. Surface roughness can
have a significant effect on flows of engineering interest. Surface roughness typically leads to an
increase in turbulence production near the wall. This in turn can result in significant increases in
the wall shear stress and the wall heat transfer coefficients. For the accurate prediction of near wall
flows, particularly with heat transfer, the proper modeling of surface roughness effects is essential
for a good agreement with experimental data.
Wall roughness increases the wall shear stress and breaks up the viscous sublayer in turbulent flows.
The figure below (Figure 2.6: Downward Shift of the Logarithmic Velocity Profile (p. 158)) shows the
downward shift in the logarithmic velocity profile:
(2.237)
where B=5.2. The shift is a function of the dimensionless roughness height, , defined as
.
Figure 2.6: Downward Shift of the Logarithmic Velocity Profile
For sand-grain roughness, the downward shift can be expressed as:

(2.238)
It has been shown that a technical roughness, which has peaks and valleys of different shape and
size, can be described by an equivalent sand-grain roughness ([113], [77]). The corresponding picture
is a wall with a layer of closely packed spheres, which have an average roughness height (see
Figure 2.7: Equivalent Sand-Grain Roughness (p. 158)):
Figure 2.7: Equivalent Sand-Grain Roughness
Guidance to determine the appropriate equivalent sand-grain roughness height can be obtained
from White [14], Schlichting [77] and Coleman et al. [193].
Depending on the dimensionless sand-grain roughness , three roughness regimes can be distin-
guished:
• hydraulically smooth wall :
• transitional-roughness regime:
• fully rough flow:
The viscous sublayer is fully established near hydraulically smooth walls. In the transitional roughness
regime the roughness elements are slightly thicker than the viscous sublayer and start to disturb
it, so that in fully rough flows the sublayer is destroyed and viscous effects become negligible.
From the picture of the sand-grain roughness (note that Figure 2.7: Equivalent Sand-Grain Rough-
ness (p. 158) shows a two-dimensional cut of a three-dimensional arrangement), it can be assumed
that the roughness has a blockage effect, which is about 50% of its height. The idea is to place the
wall physically at 50% height of the roughness elements:
(2.239)
This gives about the correct displacement caused by the surface roughness.
2.8.1.4.1. Rough Wall Treatment for Turbulence Models Based on the Dissipation
Equation
The Scalable Wall Function approach neglects the viscous sublayer and limits the value used in
the logarithmic formulation by a lower value of (Equation 2.229 (p. 156)).
This limiter must be combined with the formulation Equation 2.239 (p. 159) for the rough wall
treatment and reads:
(2.240)
2.8.1.4.2. Automatic Rough Wall Treatment for Turbulence Models Based on the
Omega Equation
The automatic wall treatment works well for smooth walls and has been extended for rough
walls. However, any calibration of the model coefficients has to be performed for both and
and is therefore more complex than for smooth walls. As outlined above, the viscous sublayer
gets more and more disturbed with increasing values of until it is destroyed in fully rough
flows. Therefore, a blending between the viscous sublayer and the logarithmic region is not
physical for large values of . This fact supports the idea of placing the wall physically at 50%
height of the roughness elements. Due to this shift, the viscous sublayer formulation has only an
influence for small values of in the automatic near wall treatment for rough walls. The blending
between the viscous sublayer formulation and the wall function is described in detail in the report
Lechner and Menter [194].
Because the automatic wall treatment works together with the transition model, it is the default
rough wall treatment. This default Automatic setting for the Wall Function option can be set
on the Fluid Models tab of the Domain details view in CFX-Pre. The CFX-Solver checks internally
if a roughness height has been specified for a wall and then uses the proper wall treatment: when
a roughness height exists, then the automatic rough wall treatment is used, otherwise the auto-
matic smooth wall treatment.
2.8.1.4.3. Transition and Rough Walls

If the two-equation transition model (Gamma Theta Model) is used together with rough walls,
then the option Roughness Correlation must be turned on in CFX-Pre on the Fluid Models tab
in order to take the roughness effects into account in the transition model. Setting the sand-grain
roughness height at a wall alone is not sufficient. The roughness correlation requires the geometric
roughness height as input parameter because it turned out that for the transition process from
laminar to turbulent flow, the geometric roughness height is more important than the equivalent
sand-grain roughness height. The correlation is defined as
(2.241)
where the function depends on the geometric roughness height . This function is proprietary
and therefore not given in this documentation. is then used in the correlations for
and (Equation 2.150 (p. 132) and Equation 2.151 (p. 132)) instead of , which rep-
resents the transition momentum thickness Reynolds number (for details, see Ansys CFX Laminar-
Turbulent Transition Models (p. 128)). In other words the roughness effect is taken into account
by using a modified transition momentum thickness Reynolds number in the correlations for
and .
Consequently the shift in Equation 2.239 (p. 159) was redefined as the minimum of either the
geometric roughness height or the sand grain roughness height as follows:
(2.242)
2.8.1.4.4. Wall Function Approach for Omega-Based Turbulence Models
The fact that the viscous sublayer is lost very quickly with increasing suggests to neglect the
viscous sublayer in the formulation of a near wall treatment for rough walls and leads to a second
rough wall treatment for -based turbulence models. It should only be used if you know that
the influence of the viscous sublayer can be neglected ( > 70) and if the flow is fully turbulent.
It can only be enabled by extracting the CCL and changing the Wall Function from Automatic
to Scalable.
Then scalable wall functions are used both for smooth and rough walls for the -based turbulence
models. The idea is comparable to the scalable wall function approach for the model, where
the first mesh point is shifted to the edge of the viscous sublayer and only the relations of the
logarithmic region are used to derive the boundary conditions. In order to avoid a negative log-
arithm in the logarithmic law of the wall, a lower value of 11.06 is defined in the following manner:
(2.243)
where .
It should be noted that this value is smaller than the lower limit in the scalable wall functions of
the model because for rough walls, the log layer extends to smaller values of . Because
the scalable wall function approach neglects the viscous sublayer, the diffusion coefficients in
the Navier-Stokes and turbulence transport equations must no longer be computed as the sum
of the laminar and turbulent viscosity. Instead the maximum value of the both is used. In the
momentum equation for example the effective viscosity will be computed as
(2.244)
Note that the logarithmic layer formulation is only correct if the molecular viscosity is not included
in the equations. This is ensured by the above formulation.
2.8.1.4.5. Treatment of the SST Model for Icing Simulations

An additional model, High Roughness (Icing), is available for the SST model. This model
is primarily designed and tested for icing applications. However it may also be useful for other
applications in which the boundary layer is fully resolved and there is surface roughness that is
large relative to the near-wall mesh.
Note:
The High Roughness (Icing) model requires that the near-wall mesh is fine
enough to fully resolve the boundary layer.
The model is based on the concept of non-zero eddy viscosity on the wall. It is estimated by
modeling the wall values of k and in accordance with the Colebrook correlation by Aupoix
[230]. Because the roughness effect is strong, the turbulent viscosity should be large compared
to the laminar viscosity at the wall. Specifically, Aupoix proposed the following formulations to
compute the non-dimensional k and on a wall , [230]:
(2.245)
(2.246)
where is a standard constant in the SST model, and and are defined as:
(2.247)
(2.248)
Therefore, all the wall values of k and are known:

(2.249)
(2.250)
No wall shift (like Equation 2.239 (p. 159)) is performed for this model.
2.8.1.5. Heat Flux in the Near-Wall Region

Heat flux at the wall can be modeled using the scalable wall function approach or the automatic
wall treatment. Using similar assumptions as those above, the non-dimensional near-wall temper-
ature profile follows a universal profile through the viscous sublayer and the logarithmic region.
The non-dimensional temperature, T +, is defined as:
(2.251)
where T w is the temperature at the wall, T f the near-wall fluid temperature, c p the fluid heat ca-
pacity and q w the heat flux at the wall. The above equation can be rearranged to get a simple
form for the wall heat flux model:
(2.252)
Turbulent fluid flow and heat transfer problems without conjugate heat transfer objects require the
specification of the wall heat flux, q w, or the wall temperature, T w. The energy balance for each
boundary control volume is completed by multiplying the wall heat flux by the surface area and
adding to the corresponding boundary control volume energy equation. If the wall temperature is
specified, the wall heat flux is computed from the equation above, multiplied by the surface area
and added to the boundary energy control volume equation.
2.8.1.5.1. Scalable Wall Functions

For scalable wall functions, the non-dimensional temperature profile follows the log-law relation-
ship:
(2.253)
where is defined in Equation 2.229 (p. 156) and is computed from Equation 2.255 (p. 162).
2.8.1.5.2. Automatic Wall Treatment

For the automatic wall function, the thermal boundary layer is modeled using the thermal law-
of-the-wall function of B.A. Kader [15]. Then, the non-dimensional temperature distribution is
modeled by blending the viscous sublayer and the logarithmic law of the wall. This can be
modeled as:
(2.254)
where:
(2.255)
(2.256)
Pr is the fluid Prandtl number, given by:

(2.257)
where is the fluid thermal conductivity.
2.8.1.5.3. Effect of Rough Walls

It can be shown for a flat plate with heat transfer that the wall heat flux is under-predicted if the
logarithmic law of the wall for the temperature is used in the form which has been derived for
smooth walls. Based on the idea that for the velocity and temperature logarithmic
laws of the wall are the same for smooth walls, the logarithmic law of the wall for the temperature
has been extended in a similar way as the one for the velocity to account for the wall roughness
effect. But instead of the roughness height Reynolds number , the formulation is based on
due to the influence of the Prandtl number that has already been accounted for in the
smooth wall formulation. A calibration constant has been introduced because the Kader logarithmic
law of the wall is not strictly identical with the velocity log law for . It should also
be noted that roughness elements introduce pressure-drag on the sides of the elements, which
is not present in the thermal formulation. The coefficient by which the thermal layer has to be
shifted is therefore expected to be smaller than one. The shift has been introduced in the rough
wall treatment of both and -based turbulence models. The modification of the logarithmic
law of the wall for the temperature reads:
(2.258)
where
The coefficient has been calibrated using the experimental data of Pimenta et al. [195] for a
flat plate with heat transfer. The experiment was performed with air as fluid and it has been
shown, that a value of 0.2 is a good choice in this case (Lechner and Menter [194]). Therefore the
default value of is 0.2. This coefficient is called Energy Calibration Coefficient and can be
changed in the CCL if necessary in the following way:
FLUID MODELS:
...
TURBULENCE MODEL:
Option = SST
END
TURBULENT WALL FUNCTIONS:
Option = Automatic
Energy Calibration Coefficient = 0.2
END
...
END
If the wall function approach for -based turbulence models is used, two additional points have
to be considered.
1. Similar to Equation 2.243 (p. 160) a lower limit for , which appears in the equation of ,
has been introduced. A value of 11.06 was chosen as lower limit:
(2.259)
2. Because the scalable wall function approach neglects the viscous sublayer, the following rela-
tion is automatically used to compute the effective conductivity :
(2.260)
2.8.1.5.4. Treatment of Compressibility Effects

With increasing Mach number (Ma > 3), the accuracy of the wall-functions approach degrades,
which can result in substantial errors in predicted shear stress, wall heat transfer and wall temper-
ature for supersonic flows.
It has been found that the incompressible law-of-the-wall is also applicable to compressible flows
if the velocity profile is transformed using a so-called "Van Driest transformation" [16]. The logar-
ithmic velocity profile is given by:
(2.261)
where , , = 0.41 and C = 5.2. The subscript w refers to wall

conditions, and the subscript "comp" refers to a velocity defined by the following equation
(transformation):
(2.262)
Near a solid wall, the integrated near-wall momentum equation reduces to:
(2.263)
while the energy equation reduces to:

(2.264)
Expressions for shear stress and heat flux applicable to the boundary layer region are:
(2.265)
and
(2.266)
If Equation 2.263 (p. 164), Equation 2.265 (p. 164) and Equation 2.266 (p. 164) are substituted into
Equation 2.264 (p. 164) and integrated, the resulting equation is:
(2.267)
which provides a relationship between the temperature and velocity profiles. Using the perfect
gas law, and the fact that the pressure is constant across a boundary layer, Equation 2.267 (p. 164)
replaces the density ratio found in Equation 2.262 (p. 164). Performing the integration yields the
following equation for the "compressible" velocity:
(2.268)
where:
(2.269)
(2.270)
(2.271)
The above derivation provides most of the equations necessary for the implementation of wall-
functions that are applicable to compressible flows. These wall-functions are primarily implemented
in two locations in Ansys CFX: hydrodynamics and energy. First, consider the implementation in
the hydrodynamics section. The equation for the wall-shear-stress is obtained after a slight re-
arrangement of Equation 2.261 (p. 164):
(2.272)
This is similar to the low speed wall-function, except that U comp now replaces U. The Van Driest
transformation given by Equation 2.268 (p. 164), must now be performed on the near wall velocity.
In the implementation, Equation 2.268 (p. 164) is re-written in the following form:
(2.273)
where:
(2.274)
This completes the wall-function modifications for the hydrodynamics.
The relationship between wall heat transfer, near wall velocity and near wall temperature is given
by Equation 2.267 (p. 164) (and also in rearranged form after Equation 2.273 (p. 165): the equation
for T w / T). A dimensionless variable, , can be defined as:
(2.275)
and hence:
(2.276)
From Equation 2.276 (p. 165) it is clear that knowing , the near wall velocity, the near wall
temperature and the wall heat transfer, the wall temperature can be calculated (if instead the
wall temperature is known, then the wall heat transfer is calculated). Before proceeding, it is in-
structive to consider the equation that is used in Ansys CFX for low Mach number heat transfer.
The equation is subsequently modified for use at higher Mach numbers. This unmodified equation
is given by:
(2.277)
where:
(2.278)
(2.279)
(2.280)
(2.281)
It can be seen that this equation blends between the linear and logarithmic near wall regions,
and hence is more general than just using the logarithmic profile that is implied by Equa-
tion 2.275 (p. 165). Equation 2.277 (p. 165) has been extended for use in the compressible flow re-
gime by interpreting the linear and logarithmic velocity profiles given above as "compressible"
or Van Driest transformed velocities:
(2.282)
(2.283)
This change is consistent with Equation 2.261 (p. 164). The "untransformed" velocities required by
Equation 2.277 (p. 165) can be obtained by applying the inverse Van Driest velocity transformation
to these "compressible" velocities. The inverse transformation is given by:
(2.284)
where:
(2.285)
(2.286)
and A and B are defined following Equation 2.268 (p. 164) above. The reverse transformed velocities
obtained from Equation 2.284 (p. 166) are substituted into Equation 2.277 (p. 165) to obtain the
value of . Either the wall heat transfer or the wall temperature can then be obtained from
Equation 2.276 (p. 165).
The Van Driest transformation described above is used when High Speed (compressible) Wall
Heat Transfer Model is selected in CFX-Pre, in the Domain details view:
• On the Fluid Models tab, under Turbulence, or
• For a multiphase case with a fluid-specific turbulence model, on the Fluid Specific Models
tab.
This option is available only in combination with the Total Energy heat-transfer model.
2.8.1.6. Additional Variables in the Near Wall Region

The treatment of additional scalar variables in the near wall region is similar to that for heat flux.
Chapter 3: GGI and MFR Theory
This chapter provides an overview of the numerical methods used for GGI (general grid interface) in
CFX.
A control surface approach is used to perform the connection across a GGI attachment or periodic
condition. A physically based intersection algorithm is employed to provide the complete freedom to
change the grid topology and physical distribution across the interface.
A general intersection algorithm permits connections to be successfully made, even when the resultant
surfaces on either side of an interface do not physically "fit" together to form a well defined physical
connection. In addition, an automatic surface trimming function is performed by the GGI algorithm, to
account for mismatched surface extent. This means that a GGI attachment or periodic condition can
be successfully defined where the surface on one side of the interface is larger (in extent) than the
surface on the other side of the interface. The interface is constructed between the overlapping regions
of the two sides of the interface.
Multiple Frames of Reference (MFR) allows the analysis of situations involving domains that are rotating
relative to one another. For CFX, this feature focuses on the investigation of rotor/stator interaction for
rotating machinery. Because MFR is based on the GGI technology, the most appropriate meshing style
may be used for each component in the analysis.
When using a Reynolds stress turbulence model (see Reynolds Stress Model in the CFX-Solver Manager
User's Guide) the contribution of the Reynolds stresses to the momentum equations at GGI interfaces
is approximated by an eddy viscosity approach. This approximation influences only the discretization
of the control volumes along the interface and is expected to be justifiable compared to the other ap-
proximations at the interface.

3.1. Interface Characteristics
3.2. Numerics
3.1. Interface Characteristics

The numerical algorithms employed, as well as the control surface treatment of the numerical fluxes
across the interface, are designed and implemented in such a way as to provide for maximum robustness
and accuracy. The treatment of the interface fluxes is fully implicit and fully conservative in mass, mo-
mentum, energy, scalars, and so on. This means that the multigrid solver can be applied directly, without
any penalty in terms of robustness or convergence rate, to problems involving GGI conditions. Each of
the different types of GGI interfaces have the following attributes:
1. Strict conservation is maintained across the interface, for all fluxes of all equations (after accounting
for changes in pitch).
GGI and MFR Theory
2. The interface treatment is fully implicit, so that the presence of an interface does not adversely
affect overall solution convergence.
3. The interface is applicable to incompressible, subsonic, transonic and supersonic flow conditions,
and all model options within CFX (for example, turbulence models, multiphase models, mixture
models, CHT, reaction, and so on).
4. The interface accounts internally for pitch change by scaling up or down (as required) the local
flows as they cross the interface, for the case of frame change interfaces.
5. Any number of GGI connection conditions are possible within a computational domain.
The surface fluxes along each side of the interface are discretized in terms of nodal dependent variables,
and in terms of control surface equations and control surface variables.
3.2. Numerics
If the case is transient rotor-stator, then the current relative position of each side of a sliding interface
is first computed at the start of each timestep. Each frame change model then proceeds by discretizing
the surface fluxes along each side of the interface in terms of nodal dependent variables, and in terms
of control surface equations and control surface variables. Each interface surface flow is discretized using
the standard flux discretization approach, but employs both the nodal dependent variables on the
local side of the interface and control surface variables on the interface region. Balance equations
within the interface region are generated for the interface variables from the flux contributions from
both sides of the interface. These equations are called control surface equations (different from control
volume equations) because they enforce a balance of surface flows over a given surface area.
In detail, the GGI connection condition is implemented as follows:
1. Define regions within the interface where the fluxes must balance: control surfaces. Within each
control surface, identify new dependent variables. These are called interface variables. For a Stage
(Mixing-Plane) interface, the balance is across the entire interface in the direction of rotation, with
as many control surfaces perpendicular to the direction of rotation as the grid permits. For all
other interfaces, the control surface balance is at the resolution of the interface grid.
2. Evaluate the fluxes at each interface location, by visiting all control volumes with surfaces exposed
to the interface. Evaluate the surface flows using the `standard' approach taken for all interior flux
evaluations for advection, diffusion, pressure in momentum, and mass flows. Use a combination
of nodal dependent variables and the interface variables in these evaluations. For example consider
advection; if the flow is into the interface control volume, the advected quantity is equated to the
interface variable. If the flow is out of the interface control volume, the advected quantity is equated
to the local nodal control volume variable. Below is a summary of all common flux discretizations
at the interface:
• Advection: Mass out is connected to the upstream (nodal) values, and mass in is connected to
upstream (control surface) values.
• Diffusion: A diffusion gradient is estimated using the regular shape function based gradient
coefficients, but all dependence of the gradient estimate on nodes on the interface are changed
to a dependence on interface variables.
Numerics
• Pressure in momentum: Evaluated using local nodal and control surface pressures and shape
function interpolations.
• Local pressure gradient in mass redistribution: This gradient is estimated using the regular
shape function based gradient coefficients, but all dependence of the gradient estimate on
nodal pressure on the interface is in terms of the interface pressure variable.
3. When a face is in contact with more than one control surface balance equation, discretize the fluxes
at each integration point location in terms of generic interface unknowns, evaluate the flux N times
(where N is the number of control surfaces in contact with the face), each time using a different
control surface variable and applying a weighting factor to the flow based on an `exposed fraction'
basis. Each partial flow is accumulated in the control volume equation and in the relevant control
surface equation.
4. Include each surface flow evaluation in two places: once in the interface control volume equation,
and once in the adjacent control surface equation. Once all interface surfaces have been visited,
the resulting equation set is as follows:
• All interface control volume equations are complete. Each equation has coefficients to the usual
neighboring nodal variables, as well as to interface variables.
• All control surface equations are now complete. Each equation has coefficients to local interface
variables as well as to nodal variables.
5. Solve the linear equation set to yield values of all nodal variables (from the control volume equations)
and all interface variables (from the control surface equations).
Chapter 4: Transient Blade Row Modeling Theory
Note:
For terminology and abbreviations used in this document, please refer to Transient Blade
Row Modeling Terminology in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
Transient blade row flow can be modeled using the Transient Rotor Stator frame change model. However,
transient turbomachinery flow calculations are computationally demanding because they often require
modeling the entire turbomachine geometry due to the unequal number of blades from one row to
another. In order to reduce the computational effort (resulting in a faster calculation) the problem setup
can be made on a reduced model of the turbomachine. This model reduction can be accomplished if
pitch-change methods such as PT, TT, or FT are used. The reduction in size of the computational domain
reduces memory requirements (by a factor of 1/number of passages) and results in faster solution
convergence to a steady-periodic state.
In addition, the time-marching solution methods are traditionally used to obtain the final steady-peri-
odic state. Time marching methods require integration over several blade passing periods before the
solution reaches steady-periodic conditions. The integration of the transient periodic flow can be further
accelerated by solving the flow problem using the Harmonic Analysis (HA) method. This chapter intro-
duces the Ansys CFX pitch-change methods for transient blade row modeling the Harmonic Analysis
solution method.
Pitch Change in a Blade Row

Using conventional methods for modeling transient rotor-stator applications, it is often the case that
prohibitive computing resources are required to obtain detailed accurate simulations.
Figure 4.1: One passage periodicity cannot be applied (p. 171) illustrates how conventional periodicity
is inadequate when trying to use one passage to model a simulation that has a non-unity pitch ratio.
Figure 4.1: One passage periodicity cannot be applied
Figure 4.2: Workaround using standard periodicity (p. 172) shows the workaround needed in using a
conventional pitch scaling (profile transformation) approach. For the pitch scaling approach, you must
replicate passages on both sides of the interface to reduce the pitch scale ratio to unity. Since most
systems have prime number of components, you need to model all the passages. This can be very costly
Transient Blade Row Modeling Theory
and might require the simulation of the entire wheel in turbo-machinery applications if the number of
blades on one of the sides is a prime number.
Figure 4.2: Workaround using standard periodicity
Figure 4.3: Phase Shifted Periodic Boundary Conditions (p. 172) illustrates the common principle used in
two of the Transient Blade Row methods: Time Transformation (p. 173) and Fourier Transformation (p. 175).
Each of these methods achieves what are effectively "phase shifted" periodic conditions through very
different approaches. The basic principle of a phase-shifted periodic condition is that the pitch-wise
boundaries R1/R2 and S1/S2 are periodic to each other at different instances in time. For example the
relative position of R1 and S1 at is reproduced between sides R2 and S2 at an earlier time
where is defined by . Here and are the rotor and stator component pitches,
respectively, and is the velocity of the rotor.
Figure 4.3: Phase Shifted Periodic Boundary Conditions
Time Transformation
4.1. Profile Transformation

The Profile Transformation (PT) method handles the pitch change across adjacent inter-row blade passages
by scaling the flow profiles across the transient rotor stator (TRS) interface while imposing standard
periodicity on the pitchwise periodic boundary. The scaling of the flow is proportional to the pitch ratio
between the rotor and stator passages. The PT interface treatment is the same as the one described in
Chapter 3. Therefore, PT TRS maintains full conservation and provides fast solutions to transient tur-
bomachinery flow problems. The PT interface allows for transient interactions to take place between
rotor and stator but, due to the pitch-wise approximation made on the periodic boundary, the dominant
blade passing frequency on both the rotor and the stator is the rotor passing frequency.
The PT interface can be used to connect two passages with a large pitch difference. However, to obtain
an accurate prediction of aerodynamic performance, the pitch ratio must be close to unity. This is possible
by using multiple passages per row so that the ensemble pitch ratio is near unity.
For modeling information, see Profile Transformation in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
4.2. Time Transformation

The Time Transformation method handles the problem of unequal pitch described above by transforming
the time coordinates of the rotor and stator in the circumferential direction in order to make the models
fully periodic in "transformed" time. Let the , , and coordinate axis represent the radial, tangential
(pitchwise) and axial directions of the problem described in Figure 4.3: Phase Shifted Periodic Boundary
Conditions (p. 172).
Mathematically, the condition of enforcing the flow spatial periodic boundary conditions on both rotor
and stator passages, respectively, is given by:
(4.1)
(4.2)
Alternatively, we can apply the following set of space-time transformations [217] to the problem above
as:
(4.3)
(4.4)
(4.5)
(4.6)
where .
The transformed set of equations now has regular spatial periodic boundary conditions as:
(4.7)
(4.8)
And the periodicity is maintained at any instant in time in the computational domain.
There are two important implications of working with the transformed system above instead of the
conventional system:
• The equations that are solved are in the computational ( , , , ) transformed space-time domain
and need to be transformed back to physical ( , , , ) domain before postprocessing.
• The rotor and stator passages are marching at different time step sizes.
One way of understanding the difference in time step size stated in the second point is:
a) Each passage experiences a different period; that is, the stator period is:
(4.9)
whereas the rotor period is:

(4.10)
b) The period in each passage must be discretized using an identical number of timesteps . We can
therefore write the rotor and stator periods as:
(4.11)
(4.12)
where and represent the time step size for the rotor and stator, respectively.
c) Combining the two definitions of rotor and stator periods in a) and b) we have the time step sizes
in the rotor and stator related by their pitch ratio as:
(4.13)
The simulation time step size set for the run is used in the stator passage(s) and Ansys CFX
computes the respective rotor passage time step size based on the rotor-stator interface pitch
ratio as described above.
When the solution is transformed back to physical time, the elapsed simulation time is considered the
stator simulation time.
The flow interaction across the rotor-stator interfaces is handled by the pitch scaling machinery already
present in the Profile Transformation method. However, while the Profile Transformation method results
in a 1:1 pitch ratio with incorrect frequency due to profile contraction or expansion, the Time Transform-
ation method has the correct frequency, as the time has been scaled proportionally.
Another way of seeing the difference in time step sizes is to look at the time vs. pitchwise direction
plot for both stator and rotor domains. In Figure 4.4: Rotor and stator periodic boundaries in space-
time (p. 175) the rotor domain periodic boundaries are plotted with reference to the stator domain. One
can notice that, even though the rotor pitch is smaller than the stator pitch in physical space, their
boundaries match in the inclined computational space after time . Furthermore, if we look at the
time step size of stator and rotor, we see that they are different and related by the rotor-stator pitch
ratio.
Fourier Transformation
Figure 4.4: Rotor and stator periodic boundaries in space-time
For modeling information, see Time Transformation in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
4.3. Fourier Transformation

The Fourier Transformation method applies the phase shifted boundary conditions illustrated in Fig-
ure 4.3: Phase Shifted Periodic Boundary Conditions (p. 172) in a more direct method than in the Time
Transformation method.
It basically consists of attempting to directly "impose" a phase shift between the R1,R2 boundaries and
the S1,S2 boundaries for the primitive variables of the problem. A direct method of applying the phase
shift boundary method was proposed by Erdos [215] but his method requires storage of the signal for
a complete period on all the R1/R2 S1/S2 boundaries including the interface shared by the rotor and
stator sections. The Frequency Transformation method makes use of temporal Fourier series decompos-
ition Equation 4.14 (p. 175) to avoid storing the signal on the S1/S2 and R1/R2 boundaries. This method
was initially introduced by He [218].
(4.14)
In this method the signal is decomposed into harmonics of the fundamental frequency of
each passage. For example in typical TRS problems this fundamental frequency is the inverse of the
blade passing period , where:
(4.15)
For other use cases the blade passing period can be calculated as :
• For an inlet disturbance case using from Inlet Disturbance Case in the CFX-Solver Modeling
Guide.
• For a blade flutter case using from Application of Phase-Shifted Boundaries to a Blade Flutter
Case in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
Along similar lines as Gerolymos [216] the rotor/stator interface can be further decomposed as a signal
in theta harmonics resulting in a double ( - ) Fourier series method Equation 4.16 (p. 176).
(4.16)
By decomposing the signal on pitch-wise periodics with temporal Fourier series and decomposing the
signal on the rotor/stator interface with double Fourier series we take advantage of an excellent data
compression method by making use of the periodic nature of the flow since only the Fourier coefficients
and need to be stored to reconstruct the flow at an arbitrary time and pitchwise location once
the transient periodicity regime is reached.
The Fourier Transformation method in Ansys CFX is implemented using a double-passage method. The
data is collected at the (implicit) interface (R2,S2) between the two passages, Figure 4.5: Double Passage
Method (p. 176). While performance is case dependent, the double-passage approach converges in
fewer cycles than a single-passage method, owing to the superior quality of the data update (Fourier
data is collected at the internal interface between passages, where the solution is fully implicit and far
from the actual periodic boundaries). The double-passage Fourier Transformation approach converges
very rapidly to a quasi-periodic state, requiring as few as 3-4 cycles in some cases.
Figure 4.5: Double Passage Method
Figure 4.6: Inlet Disturbance Configuration (p. 177) illustrates how the time shift is applied for the Double
Passage Fourier Transformation method.
Harmonic Analysis
Figure 4.6: Inlet Disturbance Configuration
The time shift is:
The signal on S1 is equal to the signal on S2 phase shifted by
The signal on S3 is equal to the signal on S2 phase shifted by
Where is the reconstructed signal at S2 using the accumulated Fourier coefficients on that same
boundary.
For modeling information, see Fourier Transformation in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
4.4. Harmonic Analysis

A solution to transient periodic flow can be obtained faster using a frequency-based solution method.
The Ansys CFX Harmonic Analysis (HA) is based on the Harmonic Balance (HB) / Time Spectral Method
(TSM) (see 228, 229) implemented within a pressure-based solution approach. In this method, the
transient flow variation is represented by a Fourier series for a prescribed fundamental frequency, .
Typically, harmonics (or modes) are retained in the Fourier series for this approximation. The unsteady
period is equally divided into time levels on which the time derivative is evaluated using
the spectral approximation, and the system of nonlinear equations coupling all time levels are solved
iteratively. For example, if one harmonic is retained ( ) then 3 time levels ( ) are required. If 3
harmonics are retained ( ) then 7 time levels ( ) are required. A pseudo-time marching approach
similar to the steady-state solution method is used to solve the time level coupled equations.
In general, complex transient flows containing sharp discontinuities may require a larger number of
harmonics to be retained in order to resolve the flow features, while simpler smooth flows require a
smaller number of harmonics. Typical flow problems are solved using equal to 1, 3, or 5. The smaller
the number of retained harmonics, the more efficient the Harmonic Analysis (HA) method is with respect
to the time-marching solution. Therefore, it is essential to use the smallest number of harmonics at
which the solution accuracy is acceptable. The efficiency of the solution calculation is also affected by
the size of the specified pseudo-time step. Typically, the size of the pseudo-time step is determined as
the period of the unsteadiness divided by the intended number of pseudo-time steps per period. A
large number of pseudo-time steps per period (this is, a small time step size) makes the solution converge
slowly and inefficiently with respect to a time-marching solution. A lower number of pseudo-time steps
per period (that is, a large time step size) advances faster towards the converged solution and is more
attractive, but may cause numerical stability issues. It has been found that 15 to 30 pseudo-time steps
per period typically results in a good balance between calculation efficiency and solution stability.
For details on how HA relates to a transient run with time marching, see Transient versus Harmonic
Solution Method in the CFX Reference Guide.
Note:
You cannot set up a case with Harmonic Balance and a Stage (Mixing-Plane) interface.
A use case involving HA is described in Blade Flutter using Harmonic Analysis in the CFX-Solver Modeling
Guide.
Chapter 5: Multiphase Flow Theory
This chapter discusses:
5.1. Multiphase Notation
5.2.The Homogeneous and Inhomogeneous Models
5.3. Hydrodynamic Equations
5.4. Multicomponent Multiphase Flow
5.5. Interphase Momentum Transfer Models
5.6. Solid Particle Collision Models
5.7. Interphase Heat Transfer
5.8. Multiple Size Group (MUSIG) Model
5.9.The Algebraic Slip Model
5.10.Turbulence Modeling in Multiphase Flow
5.11. Additional Variables in Multiphase Flow
5.12. Sources in Multiphase Flow
5.13. Interphase Mass Transfer
5.14. Free Surface Flow
Two distinct multiphase flow models are available in CFX, an Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase model and
a Lagrangian Particle Tracking multiphase model. This section describes Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase
flow theory. For information about modeling Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase flow in Ansys CFX, see Mul-
tiphase Flow Modeling. Lagrangian Particle Tracking theory and modeling are described in Particle
Transport Theory (p. 245) and Particle Transport Modeling, respectively.
You should be familiar with the mathematical implementation of single-phase flow before reading this
section. For details, see Basic Solver Capability Theory (p. 21).
5.1. Multiphase Notation

In addition to the notation given here, review the list of symbols. For details, see List of Symbols (p. 22).
Different phases of fluids are denoted using lowercase Greek letters , , , and so on. In general, a
quantity subscribed with , , , and so on, refers to the value of the quantity for that particular phase.
For example, the volume fraction of is denoted . Thus, the volume occupied by phase in a
small volume around a point of volume fraction is given by:
(5.1)
The total number of phases is . The volume fraction of each phase is denoted , where .
Multiphase Flow Theory
It is important to distinguish between the material density and the effective density of a fluid .
The material density, , is the density of the fluid if it is the only phase present, that is, the mass of
per unit volume of . The effective density is then defined as:
(5.2)
This is the actual mass per unit volume of phase , given that phase only occupies a fraction of the
volume, that is, the mass of per unit volume of the bulk fluid.
The mixture density is given by:

(5.3)
5.1.1. Multiphase Total Pressure

The total pressure in a multiphase simulation is defined as:
(5.4)
This definition is used for both incompressible and compressible flows, whereas single phase flows
treat total pressure differently depending on the simulation. For details, see Total Pressure (p. 34).
5.2. The Homogeneous and Inhomogeneous Models

Two different sub-models are available for Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase flow: the homogeneous model
and the inter-fluid transfer (inhomogeneous) model.
5.2.1. The Inhomogeneous Model
5.2.1.1. Interfacial Area Density

Interfacial transfer of momentum, heat and mass is directly dependent on the contact surface area
between the two phases. This is characterized by the interfacial area per unit volume between
phase and phase , known as the interfacial area density, . Note that it has dimensions of
inverse length.
Interfacial transfer can be modeled using either the particle or mixture models. These essentially
provide different algebraic prescriptions for the interfacial area density.
5.2.1.1.1. The Particle Model

The Particle model for interfacial transfer between two phases assumes that one of the phases
is continuous (phase ) and the other is dispersed (phase ). The surface area per unit volume
is then calculated by assuming that phase is present as spherical particles of Mean Diameter
. Using this model, the interphase contact area is:
(5.5)
This simple model is modified for robustness purposes in two ways:
The Homogeneous and Inhomogeneous Models
• is clipped to a minimum volume fraction to ensure the area density does not go exactly to
zero.
• For large (that is, when the assumption of being dispersed is invalid), the area density is
decreased to reflect the fact that it should lead to zero as tends to 1.
With these modifications, the area density for the particle model is implemented as
(5.6)
where
(5.7)
By default, and take values of 0.8 and 10-7, respectively. In some cases, it may be appro-
priate to use a different value for ; for example, increasing it to 10-3 provides a very crude
nucleation model for boiling a subcooled liquid. is controlled by the parameter Minimum
Volume Fraction for Area Density.
For non-drag forces, the solver uses a slightly different formulation of area density called the
Unclipped Interfacial Area Density. In this formulation, the area density is permitted to go to zero,
that is, in Equation 5.7 (p. 181). In addition, the area density is reduced more aggressively
as the dispersed phase volume fraction becomes large:
(5.8)
where:
The value of the exponent can be controlled with CCL. In the singleton particle model, you can
also specify a value for the Area Density Reduction Exponent. Setting the exponent to a negative
value causes the interfacial area density to be computed using the expressions for the clipped
area density described in Equation 5.6 (p. 181) and Equation 5.7 (p. 181), rather than the expression
for the unclipped area density.
Non-dimensional interphase transfer coefficients may be correlated in terms of the particle

Reynolds number and the fluid Prandtl number. These are defined using the particle mean
diameter, and the continuous phase properties, as follows:
(5.9)
(5.10)
where , and are the viscosity, specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity of the
continuous phase .
5.2.1.1.2. The Mixture Model
This is a very simple model that treats both phases , symmetrically. The surface area per unit
volume is calculated from
(5.11)
where is an interfacial length scale, which you must specify.
By way of example, suppose you have oil-water flow in which you may have either water droplets
in continuous oil, or oil droplets in continuous water, in the limits , respectively. Then,
a simple model for interfacial area density that has the correct behavior in these two limits is
given by:
(5.12)
and are clipped to be no smaller than permitted by the parameter Minimum Volume
Fraction for Area Density, which takes a default value of .
Non-dimensional interphase transfer coefficients may be correlated in terms of the mixture

Reynolds number and Prandtl number defined as follows:
(5.13)
(5.14)
where , , and are the density, viscosity, specific heat capacity and thermal con-
ductivity of the mixture respectively, defined by:
(5.15)
5.2.1.1.3. The Free Surface Model

The free surface model attempts to resolve the interface between the fluids. If there are just two
phases in the simulation, the following equation is used for interfacial area density:
(5.16)
Hydrodynamic Equations
This area density is clipped to be no smaller than , where is controlled by the para-
meter Maximum Length Scale for Area Density, which takes a default value of 1 m.
When more than two phases are present, this is generalized as follows:
(5.17)
5.2.2. The Homogeneous Model

In homogeneous multiphase flow, a common flow field is shared by all fluids, as well as other relevant
fields such as temperature and turbulence. This allows some simplifications to be made to the multi-
fluid model resulting in the homogeneous model.
For a given transport process, the homogeneous model assumes that the transported quantities (with
the exception of volume fraction) for that process are the same for all phases, that is,
(5.18)
Because transported quantities are shared in homogeneous multiphase flow, it is sufficient to solve
for the shared fields using bulk transport equations rather than solving individual phasic transport
equations.
The bulk transport equations can be derived by summing the individual phasic transport equations
(Equation 5.203 (p. 221)) over all phases to give a single transport equation for :
(5.19)
where:
(5.20)
The homogeneous model does not need to be applied consistently to all equations. For example,
the velocity field may be modeled as inhomogeneous, but coupled with a homogeneous turbulence
model. Alternatively, a homogeneous velocity field may be coupled with inhomogeneous temperature
fields. Homogeneous Additional Variables are also available in CFX.
5.3. Hydrodynamic Equations

The following is a summary of the equations of momentum and mass transfer for inhomogeneous and
homogeneous multiphase flow in CFX. The equivalent for single-phase flow is also available. For details,
see Transport Equations (p. 42).
5.3.1. Inhomogeneous Hydrodynamic Equations

The inhomogeneous hydrodynamic equations are as follows:
• Momentum Equations (p. 184)
• Continuity Equations (p. 185)
• Volume Conservation Equation (p. 185)
• Pressure Constraint (p. 185)
5.3.1.1. Momentum Equations
(5.21)
• describes momentum sources due to external body forces, and user-defined momentum
sources. For details, see Sources (p. 69).
• describes the interfacial forces acting on phase due to the presence of other phases. Addi-
tional information for the models available for interfacial forces is available in Interphase Mo-
mentum Transfer Models (p. 187).
• The term:
(5.22)
represents momentum transfer induced by interphase mass transfer. For details, see Interphase
Mass Transfer (p. 224).
• The above momentum equations are valid for fluid phases only. For dispersed solid phases, ad-
ditional terms are present representing additional stresses due to particle collisions.
Note:
The viscous stress term contains the product of and . Consequently, as the volume
fraction approaches zero, so does the dissipation. However for a dilute phase, the mag-
nitude of the dissipation is still significant because the mass of the dilute phase also
goes to zero as approaches zero. This is true not only for momentum but also for any
other transported quantity that includes a diffusion term (such as energy). In particular,
if the volume fraction gradient is very large, the diffusion term can cause severe conver-
gence problems because the cell with the smaller volume fraction will "see" a very large
relative flux. This problem can be significantly alleviated by using harmonic averaging
for the diffusion coefficients since the magnitude of the flux will be more sensitive to
the volume fraction of the cell with the smaller mass. To change to harmonic averages,
use the expert parameter settings diffusion coef averaging type = 3 for
Hydrodynamic Equations
scalar equations and stress coef averaging type = 3 for momentum equations.
For simulations that are laminar, or that have regions of low turbulent viscosity so that
molecular diffusion is locally significant, a simple workaround is to modify the viscosity
and thermal conductivity using CEL so that, below a volume fraction value of interest
that is physically suitable, viscosity and thermal conductivity approach zero as the volume
fraction approaches zero.
5.3.1.2. Continuity Equations
(5.23)
• describes user specified mass sources. For details, see Sources (p. 69).
• is the mass flow rate per unit volume from phase to phase . This term only occurs if in-
terphase mass transfer takes place. For details, see Interphase Mass Transfer (p. 224).
5.3.1.3. Volume Conservation Equation

This is simply the constraint that the volume fractions sum to unity:
(5.24)
This equation may also be combined with the phasic continuity equations to obtain a transported
volume conservation equation. Take Equation 5.23 (p. 185), divide by phasic density, and sum over
all phases. This yields:
(5.25)
Interpreting this equation is simpler if you consider the special case of incompressible phases with
no sources, in which it simplifies to:
(5.26)
which requires the volume flows to have zero divergence. Equation 5.25 (p. 185) is the volume
continuity equation solved by the CFX-Solver.
5.3.1.4. Pressure Constraint

The complete set of hydrodynamic equations represent equations in the unknowns
, , , , . You need more equations to close the system. These are given by con-
straints on the pressure, namely that all phases share the same pressure field:
(5.27)
5.3.2. Homogeneous Hydrodynamic Equations
5.3.2.1. Momentum Equations

The homogeneous model for momentum transport assumes:
(5.28)
and is given by Equation 5.23 (p. 185) and the momentum equation:
(5.29)
where:
(5.30)
The following points should be noted:
• The interphase transfer terms have all canceled out.
• This is essentially a single phase transport equation, with variable density and viscosity.
5.3.2.2. Continuity Equations

The homogeneous continuity equation is the same as for full multiphase, Equation 5.23 (p. 185),
except that is not phase specific.
5.3.2.3. Volume Conservation Equations

The homogeneous volume conservation equation is the same as for full multiphase, Equa-
tion 5.24 (p. 185), except that is not phase specific.
5.3.2.4. Pressure Constraint

The pressure constraint given above for full multiphase flow is also used for homogeneous multiphase
flow.
5.4. Multicomponent Multiphase Flow

In multiphase multicomponent flows, transport equations for the mass fractions of components
are assumed to take a similar form those used for single-phase multicomponent flow:
(5.31)
You should note that the molecular diffusion coefficients are given by , where is the Kinematic
Diffusivity.
Interphase Momentum Transfer Models
Source terms in multicomponent multiphase flow behave the same as multicomponent mass sources,
but on a per fluid basis. For details, see Sources (p. 69).
5.5. Interphase Momentum Transfer Models

The theory described in this section only applies to inhomogeneous multiphase flow. When using the
homogeneous model, momentum transfer between phases is assumed to be very large.
Interphase momentum transfer, , occurs due to interfacial forces acting on each phase , due to
interaction with another phase . The total force on phase due to interaction with other phases is
denoted , and is given by:
(5.32)
Note that interfacial forces between two phases are equal and opposite, so the net interfacial forces
sum to zero:
(5.33)
The total interfacial force acting between two phases may arise from several independent physical effects:
(5.34)
The forces indicated above respectively represent the interphase drag force, lift force, wall lubrication
force, virtual mass force, turbulence dispersion force and solids pressure force (for dense solid particle
phases only).
CFX provides a wide range of physical models for these forces. These models are described in the fol-
lowing places:
• Interphase Drag (p. 187)
• Lift Force (p. 193)
• Wall Lubrication Force (p. 196)
• Virtual Mass Force (p. 196)
• Interphase Turbulent Dispersion Force (p. 198)
• Solid Particle Collision Models (p. 199)
For more information, see Multiphase Flow with Turbulence Dispersion Force in the CFX Reference Guide.
5.5.1. Interphase Drag

The following general form is used to model interphase drag force acting on phase due to phase
:
(5.35)
Note that and . Hence, the sum over all phases of all interphase transfer terms is zero.
In this section, you will learn how the coefficients may be computed from a knowledge of dimen-
sionless drag coefficients. The range of models available for drag coefficients is also described.
The total drag force is most conveniently expressed in terms of the dimensionless drag coefficient:
(5.36)
where is the fluid density, is the relative speed, is the magnitude of the drag force and
is the projected area of the body in the direction of flow. The continuous phase is denoted by
and the dispersed phase is denoted by .
5.5.2. Interphase Drag for the Particle Model
For spherical particles, the coefficients may be derived analytically. The area of a single particle
projected in the flow direction, , and the volume of a single particle are given by:
(5.37)
where is the mean diameter. The number of particles per unit volume, , is given by:
(5.38)
The drag exerted by a single particle on the continuous phase is:

(5.39)
Hence, the total drag per unit volume on the continuous phase is:
(5.40)
Comparing with the Momentum Equations (p. 184) for phase , where the drag force per unit volume
is:
(5.41)
you get:
(5.42)
which can be written as:

(5.43)
This is the form implemented in CFX.
The following section describes drag correlations specific to dispersed multiphase flow.
5.5.2.1. Sparsely Distributed Solid Particles

At low particle Reynolds numbers (the viscous regime), the drag coefficient for flow past spherical
particles may be computed analytically. The result is Stokes’ law:
(5.44)
For particle Reynolds numbers, such as Equation 5.9 (p. 182), that are sufficiently large for inertial
effects to dominate viscous effects (the inertial or Newton’s regime), the drag coefficient becomes
independent of Reynolds number:
(5.45)
In the transitional region between the viscous and inertial regimes, for spherical
particles, both viscous and inertial effects are important. Hence, the drag coefficient is a complex
function of Reynolds number, which must be determined from experiment.
This has been done in detail for spherical particles. Several empirical correlations are available.
The one available in CFX is due to Schiller and Naumann (1933) [6]. It can be written as follows:
5.5.2.1.1. Schiller Naumann Drag Model

(5.46)
CFX modifies this to ensure the correct limiting behavior in the inertial regime by taking:
(5.47)
5.5.2.2. Densely Distributed Solid Particles

5.5.2.2.1. Densely Distributed Solid Particles: Wen Yu Drag Model
(5.48)
Note that this has the same functional form as the Schiller Naumann correlation, with a modified
particle Reynolds number, and a power law correction, both functions of the continuous phase
volume fraction .
You may also change the Volume Fraction Correction Exponent from its default value of -1.65,
if you want.
Note:
Although the Wen Yu drag law implemented in Ansys CFX follows the implementation
by Gidaspow [18] and its subsequent wide use, this implementation of the drag law
is, in fact, quite different from that given in the original Wen and Yu paper [181].
5.5.2.2.2. Densely Distributed Solid Particles: Gidaspow Drag Model
(5.49)
This uses the Wen Yu correlation for low solid volume fractions , and switches to Ergun’s
law for flow in a porous medium for larger solid volume fractions.
Note that this is discontinuous at the cross-over volume fraction. In order to avoid subsequent
numerical difficulties, CFX modifies the original Gidaspow model by linearly interpolating between
the Wen Yu and Ergun correlations over the range .
You may also change the Volume Fraction Correction Exponent of the Wen Yu part of the
correlation from its default value of -1.65, if you want.
5.5.2.3. Sparsely Distributed Fluid Particles (Drops and Bubbles)

At sufficiently small particle Reynolds numbers (the viscous regime), fluid particles behave in the
same manner as solid spherical particles. Hence, the drag coefficient is well approximated by the
Schiller-Naumann correlation described above.
At larger particle Reynolds numbers, the inertial or distorted particle regime, surface tension effects
become important. The fluid particles become, at first, approximately ellipsoidal in shape, and finally,
spherical cap shaped.
In the spherical cap regime, the drag coefficient is well approximated by:
(5.50)
Several correlations are available for the distorted particle regime. CFX uses the Ishii Zuber [19] and
Grace [35] correlations.
5.5.2.3.1. Sparsely Distributed Fluid Particles: Ishii-Zuber Drag Model

In the distorted particle regime, the drag coefficient is approximately constant, independent of
Reynolds number, but dependent on particle shape through the dimensionless group known as
the Eotvos number, which measures the ratio between gravitational and surface tension forces:
(5.51)
Here, is the density difference between the phases, is the gravitational acceleration, and
is the surface tension coefficient.
The Ishii-Zuber correlation gives:

(5.52)
In this case, CFX automatically takes into account the spherical particle and spherical cap limits
by setting:
(5.53)
The Ishii Zuber Model also automatically takes into account dense fluid particle effects. For details,
see Densely Distributed Fluid Particles (p. 191).
5.5.2.3.2. Sparsely Distributed Fluid Particles: Grace Drag Model

The Grace drag model is formulated for flow past a single bubble. Here the drag coefficient in
the distorted particle regime is given by:
(5.54)
where the terminal velocity is given by:
(5.55)
where:
(5.56)
and:
(5.57)
(5.58)
is the molecular viscosity of water at 25°C and 1 bar.
In this case, CFX automatically takes into account the spherical particle and spherical cap limits
by setting:
(5.59)
5.5.2.4. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles

5.5.2.4.1. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Ishii-Zuber Drag Model
The Ishii Zuber [19] drag laws automatically take into account dense particle effects. This is done
in different ways for different flow regimes.
In the viscous regime, where fluid particles may be assumed to be approximately spherical, the
Schiller Naumann correlation is modified using a mixture Reynolds number based on a mixture
viscosity.
5.5.2.4.2. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Dense Spherical Particle Regime

(Ishii Zuber)
(5.60)
Here, is the user-defined Maximum Packing value. This is defaulted to unity for a dispersed
fluid phase.
In the distorted particle regime, the Ishii Zuber modification takes the form of a multiplying
factor to the single particle drag coefficient.
5.5.2.4.3. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Dense Distorted Particle Regime (Ishii
Zuber)
(5.61)
5.5.2.4.4. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Dense Spherical Cap Regime (Ishii
Zuber)
(5.62)
The Ishii Zuber correlation, as implemented in CFX, automatically selects flow regime as follows:
5.5.2.4.5. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Automatic Regime Selection (Ishii

Zuber)
(5.63)
5.5.2.4.6. Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Grace Drag Model

The Grace [35] drag model is formulated for flow past a single bubble. For details, see Sparsely
Distributed Fluid Particles (Drops and Bubbles) (p. 190).
For high bubble volume fractions, it may be modified using a simple power law correction:
(5.64)
Here, is the single bubble Grace drag coefficient. Advice on setting the exponent value for
the power law correction is available in Densely Distributed Fluid Particles: Grace Drag Model in
the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
5.5.3. Interphase Drag for the Mixture Model

In the mixture model, a non-dimensional drag coefficient is defined as follows:
(5.65)
where is the total drag exerted by phase on phase per unit volume.
The mixture density is given by:

(5.66)
and the interfacial area per unit volume is given by:
(5.67)
where is a user-specified mixture length scale.
5.5.4. Interphase Drag for the Free Surface Model

In the free surface model, interphase drag is calculated in the same way as for the mixture model
(see Interphase Drag for the Mixture Model (p. 193)), except that the interfacial area density is given
by:
(5.68)
When more than two phases are present, this is generalized as follows:
(5.69)
[The Free Surface Model (p. 182)]
5.5.5. Lift Force

The lift force acts perpendicular to the direction of relative motion of the two phases.
CFX contains a model for the shear-induced lift force acting on a dispersed phase in the presence of
a rotational continuous phase. This is given by:
(5.70)
where is a non-dimensional lift coefficient. In a rotating frame of reference with rotation vector
, the lift force is given by:
(5.71)
Currently, Ansys CFX has the following built-in lift models:
• The Saffman Mei Lift Force Model (p. 194)
• The Legendre and Magnaudet Lift Force Model (p. 194)
• The Tomiyama Lift Force Model (p. 195)
5.5.5.1. The Saffman Mei Lift Force Model

This model is applicable mainly to the lift force on spherical solid particles, though it could be applied
to liquid drops that are not significantly distorted. It is a generalization of the older Saffman model,
which was applicable to a lower range of particle Reynolds numbers than the Saffman Mei model.
The lift coefficient is correlated in terms of both particle Reynolds number and vorticity Reynolds
numbers:
(5.72)
Saffman (1965, 1968) [86][170] correlated the lift force for low Reynolds number flow past a spher-
ical particle as follows:
(5.73)
where , and . By inspection, Saffman’s lift coefficient is related to the one

adopted in Ansys CFX as follows:
(5.74)
Saffman’s correlation was generalized by Mei and Klausner (1994) [87] to a higher range of particle
Reynolds numbers, as follows:
(5.75)
where , and .
5.5.5.2. The Legendre and Magnaudet Lift Force Model

This model, as developed by Legendre & Magnaudet (1998) [171], is applicable mainly to the lift
force of small diameter spherical fluid particles, though it could be applied to non-distorted liquid
drops and bubbles. In contrast to the lift force model of Saffman-Mei for rigid solid particles, it ac-
counts for the momentum transfer between the flow around the particle and the inner recirculation
flow inside the fluid particle as caused by the fluid friction/stresses at the fluid interface. Therefore
the predicted lift force coefficients are about a factor of 2-5 smaller than for rigid solid particles.
The range of validity given by Legendre & Magnaudet (1998) is as follows:

(5.76)
The lift force coefficient is then predicted by:

(5.77)
where
(5.78)
5.5.5.3. The Tomiyama Lift Force Model

This is a model applicable to the lift force on larger-scale deformable bubbles in the ellipsoidal and
spherical cap regimes. Like the Grace and Ishii-Zuber models for drag force, it depends on Eotvos
number. Hence, it requires specification of the surface tension between the dispersed and continuous
phases. Its main important feature is prediction of the cross-over point in bubble size at which
particle distortion causes a reversal of the sign of the lift force to take place. The lift coefficient is
given by (Tomiyama 1998) [172]:
(5.79)
where:
is a modified Eotvos number, based on the long axis, , of the deformable bubble:
The correlation has been slightly modified from Tomiyama’s original form, following Frank et al.
(2004) [173], whereby the value of for has been changed to to ensure a continuous
dependence on modified Eotvos number. Also, some publications omit the exponent of Eotvos
number in the formula for . The formula adopted here is taken from Wellek et al.[174].
5.5.6. Virtual Mass Force

The virtual mass force is proportional to relative phasic accelerations as follows:
(5.80)
In a rotating frame of reference with rotation vector , the virtual mass force in terms of is mod-
ified by Coriolis theorem, and is given by:
(5.81)
The non-dimensional virtual mass coefficient for inviscid flow around an isolated sphere. In
general, depends on shape and particle concentration may be specified by you as a constant
or a CEL expression.
5.5.7. Wall Lubrication Force

Under certain circumstances, for example, bubbly upflow in a vertical pipe, the dispersed phase is
observed to concentrate in a region close to the wall, but not immediately adjacent to the wall. This
effect may be modeled by the wall lubrication force, which tends to push the dispersed phase away
from the wall.
Currently, Ansys CFX has the following wall lubrication force models:
• The Antal Wall Lubrication Force Model (p. 196)
• The Tomiyama Wall Lubrication Force Model (p. 197)
• The Frank Wall Lubrication Force Model (p. 197)
5.5.7.1. The Antal Wall Lubrication Force Model

The Antal model, given by Antal et al. (1991) [88], computes the wall lubrication force as:
(5.82)
where
The non-dimensional coefficients are defaulted to and . You can change

these values.
• is the gas volume fraction.
• is the liquid density.
• is the unit normal pointing away from the wall.
• is the relative velocity difference between phases, in the plane of the nearby wall surface
(that is, orthogonal to ).
• is the dispersed phase mean diameter.
• is the distance to the nearest wall.
Note that this force is only active in a thin layer adjacent to the wall; it is only active up to a cut-
off distance of:
where with default values of and .
Hence, this force will only be activated on a sufficiently fine mesh, and grid convergence can be
expected only on extremely fine meshes.
5.5.7.2. The Tomiyama Wall Lubrication Force Model

Tomiyama (1998) [172] modified the wall lubrication force formulation of Antal, based on the results
of experiments with the flow of air bubbles in glycerin in a pipe. The modification is as follows:
(5.83)
Here, is the pipe diameter. Hence, although the model was found to be superior to Antal's [88]
(Frank et al. 2004 [173]), it is restricted to flows in pipe geometries. As is the case for the Tomiyama
lift force correlation, the coefficient is dependent on the Eotvos number, and hence on
the surface tension between the two phases. Frank et al (2004) modified this correlation slightly to
ensure continuous dependence of the wall lubrication coefficient on Eotvos number:
(5.84)
5.5.7.3. The Frank Wall Lubrication Force Model

Frank et al. ([177], [173]) generalized the Tomiyama model to produce the Frank Wall Lubrication
Force model, which has no dependence on pipe diameter, and is given by:
(5.85)
Note:
• preserves the same dependence on Eotvos number as the Tomiyama model.
• The cut-off coefficient, , determines the distance relative to the particle diameter over which
the force is active. gives the same range as the Antal model with default constants.
• The damping coefficient, , determines the relative magnitude of the force. gives
the same behavior as the Antal model with default constants. However, Frank et al. found that
such high damping of the wall lubrication force was not able to sufficiently counterbalance the
Tomiyama lift force in the near wall region.
• The power-law constant, , makes the force fall off with a variable potential law relationship:
. It is recommended that be in the range: 1.5 to 2.
• In extensive validation exercises by Frank et al. [177], the following model constants were determ-
ined in order to produce the best possible agreement with experimental data for vertical bubbly
flow in pipes: , , .
5.5.8. Interphase Turbulent Dispersion Force

The topics in this section include:
• Favre Averaged Drag Model (p. 198)
• Lopez de Bertodano Model (p. 199)
5.5.8.1. Favre Averaged Drag Model

CFX implements a model for turbulent dispersion force, based on the Favre average of the interphase
drag force [90].
(5.86)
Here, is the momentum transfer coefficient for the interphase drag force. Hence, the model
clearly depends on the details of the drag correlation used is the turbulent Schmidt number
for continuous phase volume fraction, currently taken to be .
is a user-modifiable CEL multiplier. Its default value is unity. These defaults are appropriate for
flows where the particle relaxation time is short relative to turbulent timescales, that is, for a low
turbulent stokes number (see, Turbulent Stokes Number (p. 288)). This is true for dispersed phases
that are light relative to the continuous phase, for example bubbles. However, for dispersed phases
that are significantly heavier than the continuous phase, it is only true for very small particles. The
default values will overestimate the turbulent dispersion force for large, heavy particles. In this case,
better agreement with experiments can be achieved by reducing the value of , or by making
Solid Particle Collision Models
it a decreasing function of turbulent Stokes number that is equal to unity when , and tending
to zero as . If such information is not available, it is recommended that you ignore the tur-
bulent dispersion force for particles of large Stokes number.
5.5.8.2. Lopez de Bertodano Model

The model of Lopez de Bertodano (1991) [20] was one of the first models for the turbulent dispersion
force:
(5.87)
Unfortunately, it is not possible to recommend universal values of for this model. values
of 0.1 to 0.5 have been used successfully for bubbly flow with bubble diameters of order a few
millimeters. However, values up to 500 have been required for other situations. See Lopez de Ber-
todano [21] and Moraga et al. [91].
This model is included in CFX for historical back compatibility with CFX. However, the relatively
more universal Favre Averaged Drag model is recommended for all situations where an appropriate
value of is unknown.
5.6. Solid Particle Collision Models

This section presents the theoretical background of the solid particle collision models implemented in
CFX.
The following topic(s) will be discussed:

5.6.1. Solids Stress Tensor
5.6.2. Solids Pressure
5.6.3. Solids Shear Viscosity
5.6.4. Solids Bulk Viscosity
5.6.5. Granular Temperature
5.6.1. Solids Stress Tensor

Additional stresses due to inter-particle collisions are modeled using a collisional solids stress tensor
in the solid phase momentum equation only:
(5.88)
Here, denotes solids pressure, denotes solids shear viscosity, and denotes solids bulk viscosity.
There are two important classes of models for these quantities:
5.6.1.1. Empirical Constitutive Equations

There exist wide classes of models where the constitutive elements of the solids stress are specified
using empirical constitutive relations. See, for example, (Enwald et al. [97]). In many of these, the
solids pressure, shear and bulk viscosities are simple functions of the solid phase volume fraction.
5.6.1.2. Kinetic Theory Models for the Solids Stress Tensor

These are a class of models, based on the kinetic theory of gases, generalized to take into account
inelastic particle collisions. In these models, the constitutive elements of the solids stress are functions
of the solid phase granular temperature, defined to be proportional to the mean square of fluctu-
ating solid phase velocity due to inter-particle collisions:
(5.89)
In the most general kinetic theory models, the granular temperature is determined from a transport
equation. However, in many circumstances, it is possible to ignore the transport terms, and determine
granular temperature from the resulting algebraic equation.
5.6.2. Solids Pressure
5.6.2.1. Empirical Constitutive Equations

The most popular constitutive equations for solids pressure are due to (Gidaspow [18]). These actually
specify the solids pressure gradient, rather than solids pressure directly:
(5.90)
(5.91)
Where is the Elasticity Modulus, is the Reference Elasticity Modulus, is the Compaction
Modulus, and is the Maximum Packing Parameter.
The Gidaspow model is implemented with an option for specifying the Reference Elasticity Mod-
ulus and Compaction Modulus. There is also an option to specify the Elasticity Modulus
directly. There is also an option to specify the solids pressure directly. This permits more general
constitutive relations than those where the solids pressure is a function of volume fraction only.
5.6.2.2. Kinetic Theory Models for Solids Pressure

The kinetic theory model for solids pressure is similar to the equation of state for ideal gases,
modified to take account of inelastic collisions, and maximum solid packing.
(5.92)
Here, denotes the coefficient of restitution for solid-solid collisions, and denotes the radial
distribution function. Popular models for the radial distribution function are given by:
Gidaspow (1994) [18]:

(5.93)
Lun and Savage (1986) [100]:

(5.94)
Note that the radial distribution function tends to infinity as . The singularity is removed in
CFX by setting:
(5.95)
where and:
(5.96)
5.6.3. Solids Shear Viscosity
5.6.3.1. Constitutive Equation Models

The simplest constitutive equation model for solids shear viscosity was presented by Miller and
Gidaspow (1992) [106]. They successfully modeled gas-solid flow in a riser using a solids shear vis-
cosity linearly proportional to the solids phase volume fraction.
(5.97)
Note that their constant of proportionality is dimensional, and is likely to require modification for
different fluid-solid material properties.
More complex models for solids shear stress enable the shear stress to become very large in the
limit of maximum packing. A wide range of such models is discussed in the review article by Enwald
et al [97].
It is possible for you to implement any of these models, using a CEL expression for the solids shear
viscosity. It is important to note that any solids volume fraction dependence must be included in
the CEL expression. This is because the CFX-Solver treats material shear viscosities and solids colli-
sional shear viscosities differently. In Eulerian multiphase flow applications, the effective material
shear viscosity, , is assumed to be of the form:
(5.98)
where is the single-phase material shear viscosity and is the volume fraction of that phase.
is defined in the material properties library and the multiplication of Equation 5.98 (p. 201) is
performed automatically by the CFX-Solver. However, if using a custom CEL expression for solids
shear viscosity, the full dependence on volume fraction must be included in the CEL expression,
that is, no internal multiplication by volume fraction will occur automatically.
5.6.3.2. Kinetic Theory Models for Solids Shear Viscosity

Typically, the shear viscosity is expressed as a sum of at least two contributions: the kinetic and
collisional contributions:
(5.99)
There is wide agreement on the correct form of the collisional contribution. As in the kinetic theory
of gases, it is proportional to the square root of the granular temperature:
(5.100)
However, there are many proposals in the literature for the correct form of the kinetic contribution.
For example:
Gidaspow (1994) [18]:
(5.101)
Lun and Savage (1986) [100]:
(5.102)
Here, .
Kinetic contributions are omitted from Ansys CFX.
5.6.4. Solids Bulk Viscosity
5.6.4.1. Constitutive Equation Models

Most simple constitutive equation models ignore the solids bulk viscosity. However, it is possible
for you to specify a model for this, using a CEL expression, if required. Note that, as for solids shear
viscosity (see Solids Shear Viscosity (p. 201)), the full dependence of the solids bulk viscosity on
solid phase volume fraction must be included in the CEL expression.
5.6.4.2. Kinetic Theory Models for Solids Bulk Viscosity

There is general agreement on the correct kinetic theory form for the solids bulk viscosity (Lun et
al. 1984 [99]).
(5.103)
5.6.5. Granular Temperature

Ansys CFX is restricted to models where the granular temperature is determined algebraically.
5.6.5.1. Algebraic Equilibrium Model

may be specified directly by the user, or from the assumption of local equilibrium in a transport
equation model. The latter is based on:
(5.104)
where denotes the solids shear stress tensor Equation 5.88 (p. 199), and:
(5.105)
Expand the production term:
(5.106)
(5.107)
where:
(5.108)
In order to determine from Equation 5.104 (p. 202), it is useful to take into account the dependence
of solids pressure and shear bulk viscosities on . You have:
(5.109)
so you may write:

(5.110)
(5.111)
Hence, substituting into Equation 5.107 (p. 203), you may express the production term in terms of
granular temperature as follows:
(5.112)
where:
(5.113)
Similarly, the dissipation term Equation 5.105 (p. 203) may be simplified as follows:
(5.114)
where:
(5.115)
Equating Equation 5.112 (p. 203) and Equation 5.114 (p. 203), and dividing by gives a quadratic
equation for :
(5.116)
Note that is strictly positive if, and only if, the coefficient of restitution is strictly less than unity.
In this case, in view of the fact that , Equation 5.116 (p. 203) has a unique positive solution:
(5.117)
The Algebraic Equilibrium model has the flaw that unphysically large granular temperatures can
be generated in regions of low solid particle volume fraction. To circumvent this, specify an upper
bound for the granular temperature. The square of the mean velocity scale is a reasonable estimate
for this.
5.6.5.2. Zero Equation Model

The Zero Equation Model implements the simpler algebraic model of Ding and Gidaspow [98].
(5.118)
5.7. Interphase Heat Transfer

In the multiphase model, there are separate enthalpy and temperature fields for each phase.
5.7.1. Phasic Equations

The multiphase version of the total energy equation generalizes Equation 1.85 (p. 42):
(5.119)
The multiphase version of the thermal energy equation for static enthalpy (incompressible and low
speed compressible flows only) generalizes Equation 1.92 (p. 43):
(5.120)
where:
• , , , denote the static enthalpy, the temperature, and the thermal conductivity of phase .
• represents the internal energy of phase , although the variable is still called Static Enthalpy in
CFD-Post.
• describes external heat sources. For details, see Sources (p. 69).
• denotes interphase heat transfer to phase across interfaces with other phases. For details,
see Inhomogeneous Interphase Heat Transfer Models (p. 205).
Interphase Heat Transfer
• The term
(5.121)
represents heat transfer induced by interphase mass transfer. For details, see Interphase Mass
Transfer (p. 224).
5.7.2. Inhomogeneous Interphase Heat Transfer Models

Interphase heat transfer occurs due to thermal non-equilibrium across phase interfaces. The total heat
per unit volume transferred to phase due to interaction with other phases is denoted , and is
given by:
(5.122)
where:
(5.123)
5.7.2.1. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients

Heat transfer across a phase boundary is usually described in terms of an overall heat transfer
coefficient , which is the amount of heat energy crossing a unit area per unit time per unit
temperature difference between the phases. Thus, the rate of heat transfer, , per unit time across
a phase boundary of interfacial area per unit volume , from phase to phase , is:
(5.124)
This may be written in a form analogous to momentum transfer:

(5.125)
where the volumetric heat transfer coefficient, , is modeled using the correlations described
below.
5.7.2.2. Particle Model Correlations

For particle model, the volumetric heat transfer coefficient is modeled as:
(5.126)
Hence, the interfacial area per unit volume and the heat transfer coefficient are required.
More information on interfacial area density calculation is available.
It is often convenient to express the heat transfer coefficient in terms of a dimensionless Nusselt
number:
(5.127)
In the particle model, the thermal conductivity scale is taken to be the thermal conductivity of
the continuous phase, and the length scale is taken to be the mean diameter of the dispersed
phase:
(5.128)
For laminar forced convection around a spherical particle, theoretical analysis shows that .
For a particle in a moving incompressible Newtonian fluid, the Nusselt number is a function of the
particle Reynolds number and the surrounding fluid Prandtl number .
Additional information on models in Ansys CFX is available in Particle Model Correlations for
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide. Some additional details for the
Interface Flux model are provided below.
• Interface Flux
The heat flux coefficients for both fluids and the interfacial heat flux value, F 12, from Fluid 1 to
Fluid 2 (Fluid 1 is the fluid to appear on the left of the Fluid Pairs list) are specified.F 12 is the
rate of heat transfer per unit time per unit interfacial area from phase 1 to phase 2. Hence, the
heat transferred to fluid 2 from fluid 1 per unit volume is given by:
(5.129)
may be given as a constant or an expression.
Typically, will be a function of the fluid 1 and fluid 2 temperature fields, and possibly other
variables. In this case, you may accelerate convergence of the coupled solver by also specifying
optional fluid 1 and fluid 2 heat flux coefficients.
(5.130)
The solver takes the absolute value of these flux coefficients to ensure that they are positive.
This is required for numerical stability. The partial derivatives need not be computed exactly; it
is sufficient for the specified coefficients to simply approximate the partial derivatives. Specification
of heat flux coefficients only affects the convergence rate to the solution of the coupled heat
transfer equations, it does not affect the accuracy of the converged solution.
For example, the simple model using a heat transfer coefficient multiplied by a bulk temperature
difference my be recovered using:
5.7.2.3. Mixture Model Correlations

When using the mixture model, the Nusselt number is defined in terms of a mixture conductivity
scale and the mixture length scale:
(5.131)
For details, see Mixture Model Correlations for Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient in the CFX-Solver
Modeling Guide.
Interphase Heat Transfer
5.7.2.4. The Two Resistance Model

There are special situations where the use of an overall heat transfer coefficient is not sufficient to
model the interphase heat transfer process. A more general class of models considers separate heat
transfer processes either side of the phase interface. This is achieved by using two heat transfer
coefficients defined on each side of the phase interface.
Defining the sensible heat flux to phase from the interface as:
(5.132)
and the sensible heat flux to phase from the interface as:
(5.133)
where and are the phase and phase heat transfer coefficients respectively. is interfacial
temperature, and it is assumed to be the same for both phases.
The fluid-specific Nusselt number is defined as:
(5.134)
where is the thermal conductivity of fluid , and is the interfacial length scale (the mean
particle diameter for the Particle Model, and the mixture length scale for the Mixture Model).
In the absence of interphase mass transfer, you must have overall heat balance . This
condition determines the interfacial temperature:
(5.135)
It also determines the interphase heat fluxes in terns of an overall heat transfer coefficient:
(5.136)
Hence, in the absence of interphase mass transfer, the two resistance model is somewhat superfluous,
as it may be implemented using a user-specified overall heat transfer coefficient.
It is possible to specify a zero resistance condition on one side of the phase interface. This is equi-
valent to an infinite fluid specific heat transfer coefficient . Its effect is to force the interfacial
temperature to be the same as the phase temperature, .
Modeling advice is available in Two Resistance Model for Fluid Specific Heat Transfer Coefficients
in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
5.7.3. Homogeneous Heat Transfer in Multiphase Flow

For all transport processes other than heat transfer, the shared field is the same as the transported
quantity in the equation. However, in the case of heat transfer, it is temperature that is shared but
enthalpy that is transported. Hence, CFX does not solve a bulk enthalpy equation, but rather solves
a separate enthalpy equation for each fluid with a large interphase heat transfer term, which forces
the temperature fields to be the same.
The equations solved are identical to the phasic equations for full multiphase described above. For
homogeneous heat transfer model, the interphase heat transfer coefficient is not modeled by any of
the correlations used in full multiphase. Instead it is chosen to be large relative to the other transported
processes in the equation, thereby ensuring the phasic temperatures are the same.
5.8. Multiple Size Group (MUSIG) Model

The MUSIG (Multiple Size Group) model has been developed for polydispersed multiphase flows. Here,
Polydispersed means that the dispersed phase has a large variation in bubble size.
In the MUSIG model, bubbles of the dispersed phase are grouped by bubble diameter into different
size groups.
With the homogeneous MUSIG model, all size groups move according to the same shared velocity field.
By contrast, the Inhomogeneous MUSIG or IMUSIG model is a variant of MUSIG that has velocity groups,
each with its own velocity field, fluid properties, and corresponding momentum, energy, and scalar
field equations. Each velocity group contains one or more of the defined size groups.
For example:
• One velocity group could contain all size groups that correspond to small-diameter bubbles,
• A second velocity group could contain all size groups that correspond to medium-diameter bubbles,
and
• A third velocity group could contain all size groups that correspond to large-diameter bubbles.
Note:
In the IMUSIG implementation in CFX, each velocity group of a given polydispersed fluid has
its own associated fluid. It is important that the fluid properties for all velocity groups are
consistent because they are for the same polydispersed phase.
In a real application with vertical walls, small bubbles tend to flow towards the walls of the domain
while big bubbles tend to flow towards the core of the geometry. Velocity groups add the flexibility
needed to allow smaller bubbles to move independently of larger bubbles. The so-called Tomiyama
critical diameter may be used as a guide for identifying a divide between velocity groups; Bubbles below
this critical diameter tend to experience a different lift force and so tend to move independently from
bubbles above this critical diameter.
For a given small volume of the domain, the volume of all bubbles contained in a given size group di-
vided by the volume of all bubbles contained in all size groups of the containing velocity group is com-
puted and held in a variable called Conservative Size Fraction. A related variable called Size
Fraction, which is derived from the computed value of Conservative Size Fraction, repres-
ents, for a given small volume of the domain, the volume of all bubbles contained in a given size group
divided by the volume of all bubbles contained in all size groups (of all velocity groups) for a polydis-
persed fluid.
The different size groups of the dispersed phase interact with each other through the mechanisms of
breakup and coalescence. Population balance equations are used to update the size fractions of each
Multiple Size Group (MUSIG) Model
size group while upholding conservation of mass. In addition to the mechanisms of breakup and coales-
cence, size groups can grow or shrink due to other mechanisms, such as phase change.
5.8.1. Model Derivation
5.8.1.1. Population Balance Equation
The starting point for the MUSIG model is the population balance equation. Let represent
the number density of particles of mass at time . Then the population balance equation is:
(5.137)
where:
represents the birth rate due to breakup of larger particles,
represents the death rate due to breakup into smaller particles,
represents the birth rate due to coalescence of smaller particles,
represents the death rate due to coalescence with other particles,
represents the birth rate due to phase change, and
represents the death rate due to phase change.
The birth and death rates due to breakup and coalescence may further be expressed as:
(5.138)
(5.139)
(5.140)
(5.141)
where represents the specific breakup rate (the rate at which particles of mass break
into particles of mass and ) and represents the specific coalescence rate (the rate
at which particles of mass coalesce with particles of mass to form particles of mass .
5.8.1.2. Size Fraction Equations

The next step of the MUSIG model is to discretize Equation 5.137 (p. 209) into size groups, or bins.
Let represent the number density of size group :
(5.142)
Also define the mass and volume fraction of size group to be and , respectively, and recognize
that . Now integrate Equation 5.137 (p. 209) over the bin size dimension and multiply by
to give:
(5.143)
or:
(5.144)
Defining the size fraction , this equation may also be written as:
(5.145)
which is the size fraction equation used by the MUSIG model. A further simplification is to assume
that all size groups share the same density and velocity yielding the homogeneous MUSIG
model:
(5.146)
5.8.1.3. Source Terms

The contribution of the birth rate due to breakup of larger particles to the source term in Equa-
tion 5.146 (p. 210) is:
(5.147)
Similarly, the contribution of the death rate due to breakup into smaller particles is:
(5.148)
Note that the total source due to breakup is zero when summed over all size groups:
(5.149)
For the discretized coalescence sources, you must define the coalescence mass matrix as the
fraction of mass due to coalescence between groups at , which goes into group :
(5.150)
The contribution of the birth rate due to coalescence of smaller particles to the source term in
Equation 5.146 (p. 210) is:
(5.151)
Similarly, the contribution of the death rate due to coalescence into larger groups is:
(5.152)
Note that this formulation for the coalescence source terms guarantees that the total source to
coalescence is zero when summed over all size groups:
(5.153)
This follows from the requirement that together with the following property
of the mass matrix for all :
(5.154)
When the thermal phase change model is used, MUSIG and IMUSIG account for phase change
between the continuous phase and the polydispersed phase.
This enables:
• New bubbles to nucleate from evaporation of the continuous phase
The RPI wall boiling model is able to drive the production of bubbles that are modeled by MUSIG
or IMUSIG. When you use the RPI wall boiling model with MUSIG or IMUSIG, the superficial
evaporation rate at a heated wall is computed by the RPI boiling model and then applied as a
source term (for nucleating bubbles) for one or more size groups of the MUSIG or IMUSIG model.
For details on the RPI wall boiling model, see Wall Boiling Model in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
• Existing bubbles to change size by evaporation from, or condensation to, the continuous phase.
• Existing bubbles to collapse by condensation to the continuous phase.
5.8.2. Size Group Discretization

We now consider how the size distribution is discretized into a predefined set of size groups. Note
that the group sizes are represented by mass rather than diameter or volume, because this leads to
simpler equations for variable-density fluids. However, for setup convenience, the size group discret-
ization is controlled by user-defined diameters; these diameters are converted to masses using the
fluid density (for constant density fluids) or a user-specified reference density (for variable density
fluids). The diameter and mass represented by a particular group are related by:
(5.155)
There are three built-in recipes for creating size groups from a user-defined minimum and maximum
diameter: equal mass, equal diameter, and geometric.
5.8.2.1. Equal Mass Discretization

In this case, the minimum and maximum mass are calculated from the minimum and maximum
diameter using Equation 5.155 (p. 212). The mass represented by group is calculated from:
(5.156)
where is the minimum particle mass, and

(5.157)
where is the maximum particle mass, and is the number of groups.
5.8.2.2. Equal Diameter Discretization

In this case, the diameter represented by group is calculated from:
(5.158)
where is the minimum particle diameter, and

(5.159)
where is the maximum particle diameter, and is the number of groups.
5.8.2.3. Geometric Mass Discretization

In this case, the mass represented by group is calculated from:
(5.160)
where is the mass represented by group , is the minimum particle mass, is the
maximum particle mass, and is the number of groups.
5.8.2.4. Comparison
The following table compares the discretization options for a polydispersed fluid having
and .
Table 5.1: Representative Particle Diameters in each Size Group
Equal Geometric
Equal Mass
Diameter Mass
Group Discretization
Discretization Discretization
(mm)
(mm) (mm)
1 0.5850 0.050 0.0225
2 0.8430 0.150 0.0284
3 1.000 0.250 0.0358
4 1.118 0.350 0.0451
5 1.216 0.450 0.0568
6 1.300 0.550 0.0715
7 1.375 0.650 0.0901
8 1.442 0.750 0.1140
9 1.503 0.850 0.1430
10 1.560 0.950 0.1800
11 1.613 1.050 0.2270
12 1.663 1.150 0.2860
13 1.710 1.250 0.3600
14 1.754 1.350 0.4540
15 1.796 1.450 0.5720
16 1.837 1.550 0.7210
17 1.875 1.650 0.9080
18 1.912 1.750 1.1440
19 1.948 1.850 1.4420
20 1.983 1.950 1.8170
5.8.2.5. Size Group Boundaries

Each size group represents a range of sizes, and therefore masses. The solver requires not only the
size and mass represented by each size group, but also each size group boundary. The manner in
which the masses represented by the group boundaries are calculated depends on the size group
discretization method:
• Equal diameter discretization: the diameter represented by the group boundary is assumed
to be midway between the diameters represented by the adjacent groups
• Other discretizations (including user-defined): the mass represented by the group boundary
is assumed to be midway between the masses represented by the adjacent groups
The mass represented by the upper limit of the largest-size group is based on the diameter repres-
ented by that limit; for user-defined groups, that diameter is not available and so is derived based
on an extrapolation of the two largest groups. The mass represented by the lower limit of the
smallest-size group is assumed to be zero.
5.8.3. Breakup Models

Breakup kernels are often expressed as a function of the breakup fraction:
(5.161)
CFX-Solver supports the following breakup models:

5.8.3.1. Luo and Svendsen Model
5.8.3.2. User-Defined Models
5.8.3.1. Luo and Svendsen Model

Luo and Svendsen [61] developed a theoretical model for the breakup of drops and bubbles in
turbulent suspensions. The model is based on the theory of isotropic turbulence and probability.
The breakup kernel is modeled as:
(5.162)
where:
(5.163)
is the dimensionless size of eddies in the inertial subrange of isotropic turbulence. The lower
limit of the integration is given by:
(5.164)
where
(5.165)
and is the minimum eddy ratio and can have a value between 11.4 and 31.4 (defaults to
11.4).
In addition, is a calibration coefficient, , is the continuous-phase eddy dissipation rate,

is the continuous-phase kinematic viscosity, and is the surface tension coefficient.
A custom model for the breakup kernel may also be provided. The model may be a CEL
expression or User Routine and may be a function of the diameter and/or mass represented by
groups and as well as any fluid variable.
5.8.4. Coalescence Models

CFX-Solver supports the following coalescence models:
5.8.4.1. Prince and Blanch Model
5.8.4.1. Prince and Blanch Model

The model of Prince and Blanch [62] assumes that the coalescence of two bubbles occurs in three
steps. First, the bubbles collide trapping a small amount of liquid between them. This liquid film
then drains until the liquid film separating the bubbles reaches a critical thickness. The film then
ruptures and the bubbles join together.
The coalescence kernel is therefore modeled by a collision rate of two bubbles and a collision effi-
ciency relating to the time required for coalescence:
(5.166)
The collision efficiency is modeled by comparing the time required for coalescence with the
actual contact time during the collision :
(5.167)
(5.168)
(5.169)
where is the initial film thickness, is the critical film thickness when rupture occurs, and is
the equivalent radius:
(5.170)
The turbulent contributions to collision frequency are modeled as:

(5.171)
where the cross-sectional area of the colliding particles is defined by:

(5.172)
the turbulent velocity is given by:
(5.173)
and is a calibration factor. The buoyancy contribution to collision frequency is modeled as:
(5.174)
where:
(5.175)
and is a calibration factor.
The shear contribution to collision frequency is currently neglected.
A custom model for the coalescence rate kernel may also be provided. The model may
be a CEL expression or User Routine involving the diameter and/or mass represented by groups
and as well as any fluid variable. Note that the model must give symmetric coalescence rates
( ).
5.9. The Algebraic Slip Model

Models for algebraic slip were first introduced by Ishii [59] Manninen and Taivassalo [60], provide a
more general formulation which forms the basis for the implementation in CFX.
5.9.1. Phasic Equations

A starting point is to review the equations for multiphase flow. The continuity equation for phase
is:
(5.176)
and the momentum equation is:
(5.177)
where represents momentum transfer with other phases.
5.9.2. Bulk Equations

A bulk continuity equation is derived by summing Equation 5.176 (p. 216) over all phases:
(5.178)
and a bulk momentum equation by summing Equation 5.177 (p. 216) over all phases:
The Algebraic Slip Model
(5.179)
where:
(5.180)
5.9.3. Drift and Slip Relations

You now define the slip velocity to be the phasic velocity relative to the continuous phase:
(5.181)
and the drift velocity as:

(5.182)
The slip and drift velocities are related by:

(5.183)
With these relationships, the phasic continuity equation may be written in terms of mass fraction and
drift velocity as:
(5.184)
5.9.4. Derivation of the Algebraic Slip Equation

The phasic and bulk momentum equations are first transformed to nonconservative form by combining
with the phasic and bulk continuity equations. The phasic momentum equation then becomes:
(5.185)
and the bulk momentum equation becomes:
(5.186)
Equation 5.185 (p. 217) and Equation 5.186 (p. 217) are combined to eliminate the pressure gradient
term, yielding:
(5.187)
Several assumptions are now made:
1. The dispersed phase is assumed to instantaneously reach its terminal velocity, so the transient
term on the drift velocity is neglected.
2. The approximation is made that:

(5.188)
3. The viscous stresses and apparent diffusion stresses are neglected.
With these approximations, Equation 5.187 (p. 218) simplifies to:

(5.189)
In addition, it is assumed that the interphase momentum transfer is due only to drag and that the
particles are spherical:
(5.190)
which leads to the following closed relationship for the slip velocity:
(5.191)
Note that, for rotating reference frames, the apparent accelerations are automatically included by
taking the derivative of the absolute frame velocity rather than relative frame velocity on the right-
hand-side.
The effect of in the bulk momentum equation is neglected in the current implementation.
5.9.5. Turbulence Effects

In Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase, the averaging process used ensures that turbulence effects
do not affect the continuity equation; instead, they appear as an apparent turbulent dispersion force
in the momentum equation.
In the ASM formulation outlined here, turbulent dispersion forces are not considered in the derivation
of slip velocity. Instead, turbulent dispersion is modeled using the same turbulence model as for
multicomponent flows:
(5.192)
Turbulence Modeling in Multiphase Flow
5.9.6. Energy Equation

For multicomponent fluids, the energy equation has an additional term corresponding to enthalpy
transport by species velocities. For standard transported components, this velocity is modeled using
Fick’s law. For ASM components, this term uses the drift velocity.
The following term is therefore added to the right-hand side of Equation 2.5 (p. 101):
(5.193)
5.9.7. Wall Deposition

If desired, the dispersed phase that accumulates on a wall boundary may be removed from the calcu-
lation. A sink for the ASM mass fraction is defined accordingly. The implicit assumption is that this
mass is replaced by an equal mass of the ballast (constraint) component. The energy equation also
removes the enthalpy of the ASM species and adds the enthalpy of the ballast species.
5.10. Turbulence Modeling in Multiphase Flow

This section describes the extension of the single-phase turbulence models to multiphase simulations.
Documentation that describes the theory of single-phase turbulence models should be read before
continuing with this section. For details, see Turbulence Models (p. 99).
5.10.1. Phase-Dependent Turbulence Models

Phase dependent turbulence models can be used in conjunction with the inhomogeneous model
(particle and mixture models) only.
5.10.1.1. The Eddy Viscosity Hypothesis

The eddy viscosity hypothesis is assumed to hold for each turbulent phase. Diffusion of momentum
in phase is governed by an effective viscosity:
(5.194)
5.10.1.2. Algebraic Models

5.10.1.2.1. Zero Equation Model
The default zero-equation model uses a formula based on geometric length scale and the mean
solution velocity. It is correlated for single-phase turbulent pipe flow. The turbulence viscosity is
modeled as the product of a turbulent velocity scale, , and a turbulence length scale, , as
proposed by Prandtl and Kolmogorov:
(5.195)
where is a proportionality constant. The velocity scale is calculated to be the maximum velocity
in phase . If you specify a value for the velocity scale, it will be used for all phases. The length
scale is derived using the formula:
(5.196)
where is the fluid domain volume.
5.10.1.2.2. Dispersed Phase Zero Equation Model

(5.197)
The parameter is a turbulent Prandtl number relating the dispersed phase kinematic eddy vis-
cosity to the continuous phase kinematic eddy viscosity .
In situations where the particle relaxation time is short compared to turbulence dissipation time
scales, you may safely use the default value . If the particle relaxation time is long compared
to turbulence dissipation time scales, it may be better to use a value of . This is highly
model dependent. Several models are available in the literature.
5.10.1.3. Two-Equation Models

For the - model, the turbulent viscosity is modeled as:
(5.198)
The transport equations for and in a turbulent phase are assumed to take a similar form to the
single-phase transport equations:
(5.199)
(5.200)
Definitions of the terms are available. For details, see The k-epsilon Model in Ansys CFX (p. 104).
The additional terms and represent interphase transfer for and respectively. These are
omitted in CFX, though they may be added as user sources.
Other two equation turbulence models are treated in a similar way.
5.10.1.4. Reynolds Stress Models

The multiphase versions of Reynolds stress models are equivalent to the single phase version, with
all flux and volumetric source terms multiplied by volume fractions. Single phase version information
is available. For details, see Reynolds Stress Turbulence Models (p. 117).
By default, no additional exchange terms are added, though they may be added as user sources.
Additional Variables in Multiphase Flow
5.10.2. Turbulence Enhancement

Sato [22] successfully modeled Particle Induced Turbulence this for bubbly flow using an enhanced
continuous phase eddy viscosity:
(5.201)
where is the usual Shear Induced Eddy Viscosity, and is an additional Particle Induced Eddy
Viscosity:
(5.202)
The variable has a value of 0.6.
5.10.3. Homogeneous Turbulence for Multiphase Flow

In homogeneous multiphase flow, bulk turbulence equations are solved which are the same as the
single phase equations, except that the mixture density and the mixture viscosity are used. Single
phase turbulence model information is available in Turbulence Models (p. 99).
For inhomogeneous multiphase flow, it is possible to solve a single turbulence field in a similar way
to homogeneous flow. For details, see Homogeneous Turbulence in Inhomogeneous Flow in the CFX-
Solver Modeling Guide.
5.11. Additional Variables in Multiphase Flow

When exists in phase , the corresponding field variable is denoted . If it obeys a transport
equation, it is given by:
(5.203)
Note:
• is the conserved quantity per unit mass of phase .
• is the conserved quantity per unit volume of phase , where
• is the Kinematic Diffusivity for the scalar in phase . This may be set for each Additional Variable
and each phase separately.
• is the external volumetric source term in phase , with units of conserved quantity per unit
volume per unit time.
• represents the total source to due to interphase transfer across interfaces with other phases.
• Although the turbulent Schmidt number, , is shown to apply to phase only, it currently cannot
be specified on a phase-specific basis in CFX.
As in single phase, Diffusive Transport and Poisson equations are also available for multiphase Additional
Variables). For details, see Additional Variables (p. 66). Diffusive transport equations exclude the advection
term, turbulent diffusion term, and contributions due to interphase mass transfer from Equa-
tion 5.203 (p. 221). Poisson equations exclude these terms as well as the transient term.
5.11.1. Additional Variable Interphase Transfer Models

It is possible for an Additional Variable to be coupled to a different Additional Variable across
a phase interface between fluids and .
The total source to per unit volume due to interaction with other phases is given by:
(5.204)
where:
(5.205)
The simplest models for interphase transfer between and take the driving force to be propor-
tional to the difference in bulk Additional Variable values across the phase interface:
(5.206)
(5.207)
The first of these is used if the Additional Variable is defined per unit mass. The latter is used if the
Additional Variable is defined per unit volume.
The coefficients are defined by analogy with heat transfer. For details, see Inhomogeneous In-
terphase Heat Transfer Models (p. 205).
Transfer of an Additional Variable across a phase boundary is described by an additional variable

transfer coefficient . It is the amount of crossing a unit area per unit time per unit difference
in across the phase boundary. Thus:
(5.208)
(5.209)
So, you have:

(5.210)
It is often convenient to express the Additional Variable transfer coefficient in terms of a dimensionless
Sherwood number , analogous to the Nusselt number in heat transfer.
(5.211)
The diffusivity scale is the kinematic diffusivity for a volumetric variable, and the dynamic diffus-
ivity for a specific variable.
Additional Variables in Multiphase Flow
5.11.1.1. Particle Model Correlations

In the particle model, the diffusivity scale is that of the continuous phase, and the length scale
is the mean diameter of the dispersed phase:
(5.212)
For laminar forced convection around a spherical particle, theoretical analysis shows that .
For a particle in a moving incompressible Newtonian fluid, the Sherwood number is a function of
the particle Reynolds number and the Additional Variable Prandtl number .
Details on the models available in CFX for Additional Variable transfer are available. For details, see
Particle Model Correlations in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide. Some additional details for the Interface
Flux model are provided below.
• Interface Flux
You specify directly the interfacial flux from Additional Variable in fluid 1 to Additional
Variable in fluid 2 of a specified fluid pair. This is the rate of Additional Variable transfer per
unit time per unit interfacial area from phase 1 to phase 2. Hence, the amount of Additional
Variable transferred to fluid 2 from fluid 1 per unit volume is given by:
(5.213)
may be given as a constant or an expression.
Typically, will be a function of the fluid 1 and fluid 2 Additional Variable fields, and possibly
other variables. In this case, you may accelerate convergence of the coupled solver by also spe-
cifying optional fluid 1 and fluid 2 Additional Variable flux coefficients.
(5.214)
The solver takes the absolute value of these flux coefficients to ensure that they are positive.
This is required for numerical stability. The partial derivatives need not be computed exactly; it
is sufficient for the specified coefficients to simply approximate the partial derivatives. Specification
of Additional Variable flux coefficients affects only the convergence rate to the solution of the
coupled transfer equations; it does not affect the accuracy of the converged solution.
For example, the simple model using a transfer coefficient multiplied by bulk specific Additional
Variable differences may be recovered using:
(5.215)
5.11.1.2. Mixture Model Correlations

If you are using the mixture model, the Sherwood number is defined in terms of a mixture diffusivity
scale and the mixture length scale:
(5.216)
5.11.2. Homogeneous Additional Variables in Multiphase Flow

Homogeneous Additional Variables are assumed to have the same values for all phases, that is,
(5.217)
and are described by the following bulk transport equation:

(5.218)
where:
(5.219)
Homogeneous diffusive transport equations exclude the advection term from Equation 5.218 (p. 224),
while homogeneous Poisson equations exclude the advection and transient terms.
Homogeneous Additional Variables are available for both homogeneous and inhomogeneous flow.
However, in most cases, the homogeneous assumption is inappropriate for volumetric Additional
Variables. For this reason, only specific Additional Variables are permitted to be homogeneous in
Ansys CFX.
5.12. Sources in Multiphase Flow

• Fluid-specific Sources (p. 224)
• Bulk Sources (p. 224)
5.12.1. Fluid-specific Sources

Fluid-specific sources are very similar to those for a single phase, except that they are implemented
on a phase basis. For details, see Sources (p. 69).
You may need to multiply a multiphase source by the volume fraction. For details, see Sources in
Multiphase Flow in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
5.12.2. Bulk Sources

Sources in multiphase flow often have the property that they scale with volume fraction, that is, as
the volume fraction source goes to 0, the source also goes to 0. Bulk sources satisfy this property.
They are applied at a fluid-independent level, and are therefore automatically added to the equations
of all fluids for which they are relevant.
5.13. Interphase Mass Transfer

Interphase mass transfer occurs when mass is carried from one phase into another. It is applicable to
both the inhomogeneous and homogeneous multiphase models. For details, see Interphase Mass
Transfer in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
Interphase Mass Transfer
Mass transfer is represented by sources in the phasic continuity equations:

(5.220)
• describes user specified mass sources. For details, see Sources (p. 69).
• is the mass source per unit volume into phase due to interphase mass transfer. This is expressed
as follows:
(5.221)
• is the mass flow rate per unit volume from phase to phase . You must have:
(5.222)
As it is important to keep track of the direction of mass transfer processes, it is convenient to express
as follows:
(5.223)
• The term: represents the positive mass flow rate per unit volume from phase to phase .
For mass transfer processes across a phase interphase, it is useful to express the volumetric mass sources
in terms of mass fluxes:
(5.224)
• is the mass flow rate per unit interfacial area from phase to phase , and is the interfacial
area density between the phases.
As interfacial area is commonly proportional to volume fraction, this permits automatic linearization of
mass transfer terms relative to volume fraction.
By default, is the clipped interfacial area density, which does not reach zero as volume fraction
goes to zero, being limited to a small clipping value. Using the clipped interfacial area density can be
useful because it serves as a crude nucleation model for some kinds of mass transfer. Note that the
droplet condensation model does not use the clipped interfacial area density for nucleation; instead, it
uses an explicit nucleation model.
In some cases, using the clipped interfacial area density can prevent obtaining a mass-conserving
solution. If so, using the unclipped interfacial area density may give better results. To use the unclipped
interfacial area density, set expert parameter ipmt area density clip = f.
The clipping value is obtained by using the specified minimum volume fraction (see Minimum Volume
Fraction in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide) in the calculation of interfacial area density.
5.13.1. Secondary Fluxes

The mass source terms affecting the continuity equations, are referred to as primary mass
sources. Clearly, if mass transfer occurs between phases, then this also induces additional sources
and sinks between all other transport equations. These are referred to as secondary sources, or
secondary fluxes, due to mass transfer.
The default form of the secondary source terms for a transported variable is:
(5.225)
That is, mass transfer from a phase into a phase carries the bulk conserved quantity into phase
. This is referred to as an upwind formulation, as the upwinded value is carried out of the outgoing
phase, and into the incoming phase.
This default formulation is modified in certain circumstances, in order to take account of discontinu-
ities in the transported variable at the phase interface, for example, enthalpy in the case of phase
change. For details, see The Thermal Phase Change Model (p. 229).
5.13.2. User Defined Interphase Mass Transfer

For advanced applications, it is possible to specify directly the interphase mass transfer sources.
If the interphase mass flux between any pair of phases is specified, the volumetric mass source
is computed internally by multiplying by interfacial area density:
(5.226)
• Alternatively, you may directly specify the volumetric mass source, or interphase mass flow, .
In both cases, all transport equations are automatically assigned default secondary sources of the
upwinded form:
(5.227)
This default form of secondary sources may be overridden in CCL.
5.13.3. General Species Mass Transfer

Consider the interphase mass transfer of a component A that is present in two phases and . There
are several different but related variables for measuring the concentration of component A in a mixture
that contains it.
(5.228)
These are related at follows:
(5.229)
5.13.3.1. Equilibrium Models

Consider two phases , , which contain a component A, and consider the situation where the
component A is in dynamic equilibrium between the phases. Typically, the concentrations of A in
each phase are not the same. However, there is a well defined equilibrium curve relating the two
concentrations at equilibrium. This is often, though not always, expressed in terms of mole fractions:
(5.230)
For binary mixtures, the equilibrium curve depends on temperature and pressure. For multicompon-
ent mixtures, it also depends on mixture composition. The equilibrium curve is in general monotonic
and nonlinear. Nevertheless, it is convenient to quasi-linearize the equilibrium relationship as follows:
(5.231)
Other useful forms of the equilibrium relationship are:
(5.232)
The various equilibrium ratios are related as follows:
(5.233)
5.13.3.1.1. Raoult’s Law

In gas-liquid systems, equilibrium relationships are most conveniently expressed in terms of the
partial pressure of the solute in the gas phase.
It is well known that, for a pure liquid A in contact with a gas containing its vapor, dynamic
equilibrium occurs when the partial pressure of the vapor A is equal to its saturated vapor pressure
at the same temperature.
Raoult’s law generalizes this statement for the case of an ideal liquid mixture in contact with a
gas. It states that the partial pressure of solute gas A is equal to the product of its saturated
vapor pressure at the same temperature, and its mole fraction in the liquid solution .
(5.234)
If the gas phase is ideal, then Dalton’s law of partial pressures gives:
(5.235)
and Raoult’s law in terms of a mole fraction equilibrium ratio:

(5.236)
5.13.3.1.2. Henry’s Law

In the case of a gaseous material A dissolved in a non-ideal liquid phase, Raoult’s law must be
generalized. Henry’s law states that a linear relationship exists between the mole fraction of A
dissolved in the liquid and the partial pressure of A in the gas phase. This is:
(5.237)
is Henry’s constant for the component A in the liquid . It has units of pressure, and is known
empirically for a wide range of material pairs, especially for common gases dissolved in water. It
is strongly dependent on temperature.
Henry’s law may also be combined with Dalton’s law in order to express it in terms of a mole
fraction equilibrium ratio:
(5.238)
Unfortunately, there is no common convention on the definition of Henry’s constant. Another

definition in common use relates the partial pressure in the gas to the molar concentration in the
liquid:
(5.239)
The two definitions of Henry’s constant are related by:

(5.240)
5.13.3.2. Two Resistance Model with Negligible Mass Transfer

Due to the presence of discontinuities in concentration at phase equilibrium, it is, in general, not
possible to model multicomponent mass transfer using a single overall mass transfer coefficient.
Instead, it is necessary to consider a generalization of the Two Resistance Model previously discussed
for heat transfer. For details, see The Two Resistance Model (p. 207).
Consider a species A dissolved in two immiscible phases and . The basic assumption is that
there is no resistance to mass transfer at the phase interface, and hence the equilibrium conditions
prevail at the phase interface.
Also, it is assumed in this section that the total mass transfer due to species transfer is sufficiently
small that primary mass sources to the phasic continuity equations are neglected. Hence, secondary
mass fluxes to the species mass transfer equations are also ignored.
You model the component mass transfer using mass transfer coefficients , , defined on either
side of the phase interface. These are usually defined so that driving forces are defined in terms of
molar concentration differences. Thus, the molar flux of A to phase from the interface is:
(5.241)
and the molar flux of A to phase from the interface is:

(5.242)
Multiplying through by the molar mass of A, this determines the mass fluxes as follows:
Mass flux of A to phase from the interface:
Mass flux of A to phase from the interface:

(5.243)
In order to eliminate the unknown interface values, Equation 5.242 (p. 229) and Equation 5.243 (p. 229)
must be supplemented by the equilibrium relation between and . This is most conveniently
expressed using the molar concentration equilibrium ratio:
(5.244)
The mass balance condition:

(5.245)
may now be combined with the quasi-linearized equilibrium relationship Equation 5.244 (p. 229) to
determine the interface mass concentrations:
(5.246)
These may be used to eliminate the interface values in Equation 5.242 (p. 229) and Equa-
tion 5.243 (p. 229) in order to express the interfacial mass fluxes in terms of the phasic mass concen-
trations:
(5.247)
5.13.4. The Thermal Phase Change Model

This model describes phase change induced by interphase heat transfer; it may be used to simulate
boiling and condensation, or melting and solidification. For example, it may be used to model con-
densation of saturated vapor bubbles in sub-cooled liquid, or evaporation of saturated bubbles in
superheated liquid.
This section discusses the theory. For modeling information, see Thermal Phase Change Model.
It is essential to consider the heat transfer processes on each side of the phase interface. Hence, the
Two Resistance model for interphase heat transfer must be used in conjunction with the Thermal
Phase Change model. For details, see The Two Resistance Model (p. 207).
Recall that, in this case, the sensible heat flux to phase from the interface is:
(5.248)
and the sensible heat flux to phase from the interface is:
(5.249)
• and are the phase and phase heat transfer coefficients respectively.
• The interfacial temperature is determined from considerations of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Ignoring effects of surface tension on pressure, assume , the saturation temperature.
Note that this is in contrast to the case where there is no mass transfer. In that case, the interfacial
temperature is determined from the sensible heat balance .
In the case of interphase mass transfer, the interphase mass transfer is determined from the total
heat balance, as follows.
Total heat flux to phase from the interface:

(5.250)
Total heat flux to phase from the interface:

(5.251)
• denotes mass flux into phase from phase .
• and represent interfacial values of enthalpy carried into and out of the phases due to phase
change, see below for details.
The total heat balance now determines the interphase mass flux:
(5.252)
The secondary heat flux term must be modified in order to take account of the discontinuity in static
enthalpy due to latent heat between the two phases. This is achieved using a modification of the
upwind formulation Equation 5.227 (p. 226), due to Prakash [53]. In this formulation, the bulk fluid
enthalpy is carried out of the outgoing phase, as in the default upwind formulation. However, the
saturation enthalpy is carried into the incoming phase. Thus:
(5.253)
5.13.4.1. Wall Boiling Model

Wall boiling starts when the wall temperature becomes sufficiently large to initiate the activation
of wall nucleation sites. This activation temperature is typically a few degrees above the saturation
temperature. However, at this stage, the average temperature of the liquid in the vicinity of the
heated wall is still well below the saturation temperature, hence in the sub-cooled boiling regime.
Evaporation starts in the microscopic cavities and crevices, which are always present on the solid
surface. Liquid becomes supersaturated locally in these nucleation sites, leading to the growth of
vapor bubbles. The bubbles detach when they are sufficiently large that external forces (inertial,
gravitational, or turbulent) exceed the surface tension forces that keep them attached to the wall.
As a bubble departs from the wall, it is displaced by subcooled liquid, after which the nucleation
site is free to create another bubble. In regions of the wall not affected by bubble growth, the wall
heat transfer to the liquid may be described by single phase convective heat transfer.
It is clear that detailed physics of bubble growth is very complex, and occurs on very small length
scales in the vicinity of the wall. It is unrealistic to model the detailed physics in a phase-averaged
Eulerian multiphase model. It is also unrealistic to resolve the small length scales with ultra-fine
meshes. The model described here is a so-called mechanistic model, which aims to model the im-
portant physical sub-processes using engineering correlations. The model is a sub-grid scale model,
in the sense that the complex physics is assumed to take place in a vicinity very close to the wall
that is smaller than the mesh resolution at the wall.
The first and most well-known model of this kind was formulated by Kurul and Podowski (1991)
[159], from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. It is known as the RPI model. In this model, a
number of the sub-models of the overall mechanistic model were taken from correlations originally
developed for exploitation in one-dimensional thermo-hydraulic simulation methods. This model
was implemented in CFX-4, with the near-wall distance taking the place of the centerline wall distance
in the one-dimensional models. Unfortunately, this lead to results that were strongly mesh-depend-
ent.
In the implementation in CFX-5.7.1, Egorov et al. formulated modifications of the one-dimensional

correlations with the aim of restoring mesh independence to the results. This modification of the
original RPI model is described here.

5.13.4.1.1. Partitioning of the Wall Heat Flux
5.13.4.1.2. Sub-models for the Wall Boiling Model
5.13.4.1.3. Determination of the Wall Heat Flux Partition
• Partitioning of the Wall Heat Flux (p. 231)
• Sub-models for the Wall Boiling Model (p. 233)
For more information about the wall boiling model and its usage, see Wall Boiling Model in the
CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
5.13.4.1.1. Partitioning of the Wall Heat Flux

A fundamental feature of the mechanistic model of wall nucleation is the algorithm for deciding
how the wall heat flux is to be partitioned among the separate physical processes of evaporation
and sensible heating of the fluids in contact with the wall. In regions of the wall not influenced
by nucleation sites, it is sufficient to consider the wall heat flux as contributing solely to single-
phase liquid convective heat transfer. However, in the vicinity of the nucleation sites, some of
the heat contributes to vapor production, and the remainder to super heating of the liquid phase
as it displaces the rising bubbles. This latter process is known as quenching.
Hence, the mechanistic heat partitioning model has the following structure:
where is the heat flux corresponding to convective heat transfer, is the evaporation heat
flux, and is the heat flux corresponding to quenching.
The heat partitioning model considers the whole wall surface area as being separated into three
fractions:
• Fraction is the fraction of wall area covered by a liquid film, influenced by vapor bubbles
formed on the wall.
• Fraction is the fraction of wall area that is in direct contact with vapor and therefore
subject to convective heat transfer to vapor.
• Fraction is the rest of the wall area, with .
For details on the calculation of these wall area fractions, see Area Influence Factors (p. 235).
The wall area fraction represents the part of the wall surface that does not 'feel' the presence
of the vapor phase. The wall heat flux for this part of the surface is modeled in a similar way as
for the single-phase flow of pure liquid, by using the turbulent wall function procedure in the
case of turbulent flow. This flux, called the convective heat flux , can be correlated for turbulent
flow as:
where:
• and are the convective heat fluxes to the liquid and vapor, respectively.
• is the temperature of the solid wall.
• is the temperature of the liquid at the wall.
• is the temperature of the vapor at the wall.
• is the turbulent heat transfer coefficient for liquid, which depends on the velocity field and
on the near-wall grid cell size. Kurul and Podowski (1991) [159] modeled using a one-di-
mensional Stanton number correlation. Egorov and Menter (2004) [163] modeled using the
turbulent wall function.
• is the turbulent heat transfer coefficient for vapor.
The wall area fraction represents the part of the wall surface that exchanges heat with both
phases. The already mentioned heat flux comes from this part of the surface and is consumed
for evaporation of the initially sub-cooled liquid:
(5.254)
where is the evaporation mass transfer rate per unit wall area, and and are the specific
enthalpies of the saturated vapor and sub-cooled liquid, respectively.
The wall heat flux that passes to the liquid through applies after a bubble departs and before
the next bubble forms at the same nucleation site. This additional mechanism of heating the liquid
phase is called quenching, and is modeled as:
The area fraction values and play an important role in the heat-partitioning model. They
are related to the nucleation site density per unit wall area and to the influence area of a single
bubble forming at the wall nucleation site. The latter value is modeled by introducing the bubble
departure diameter value , which can generally serve as a length scale of the wall boiling
mechanism. The RPI model assumes that the diameter of the bubble influence zone is twice as
large as , therefore the non-dimensional area fraction of the bubble influence is:
(5.255)
with used as shown in Equation 5.259 (p. 237).
Here, the diameter of the bubble influence is implicitly twice the bubble departure diameter.
Note that the latter can be controlled via the Bubble Departure Diameter settings (see RPI
Model in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide).
It should be noted that, for the evaporation rate and corresponding heat flux (Equa-
tion 5.254 (p. 233)), the upper limit of Equation 5.255 (p. 233) for bubble influence area fraction
does not apply. Instead of using a factor of as defined by Equation 5.255 (p. 233), the value
is directly modeled as being proportional to the nucleation site density .
5.13.4.1.2. Sub-models for the Wall Boiling Model

As mentioned in the previous section, the two most important parameters governing the heat
partitioning model are the nucleation site density and the bubble departure diameter . In
the RPI wall-boiling model they are correlated to the wall superheat and to
the near-wall liquid sub-cooling , respectively.

5.13.4.1.2.1. Wall Nucleation Site Density
5.13.4.1.2.2. Bubble Departure Diameter
5.13.4.1.2.3. Bubble Detachment Frequency
5.13.4.1.2.4. Bubble Waiting Time
5.13.4.1.2.5. Area Influence Factors
5.13.4.1.2.6. Convective Heat Transfer
5.13.4.1.2.7. Quenching Heat Transfer

5.13.4.1.2.8. Evaporation Rate
5.13.4.1.2.1. Wall Nucleation Site Density
The model for wall nucleation site density adopted in the RPI model is that of Lemmert and
Chawla (1977) [164]:
Note that the wall superheat in the above equation cannot be negative. Its negative value
means that the wall temperature drops below the saturation temperature, where there is no
boiling and the heat partitioning model is not used.
This model was implemented in CFX-4 with parameter , giving an overall correction
factor of . Egorov and Menter (2004) [163], conjecturing that this was a deliberate alteration
by the RPI group, related to the corresponding factor in the bubble waiting time model. Egorov
and Menter also reformulated the correlation as follows:
where and . This formulation avoids fractional powers

of physical dimensions, hence is more amenable to the use of different unit systems.
Alternative correlations have been proposed for nucleation site density by Kocamustafaogullari
and Ishii (1983) [160].
5.13.4.1.2.2. Bubble Departure Diameter
Kurul and Podowski (1991) [159] adopted the correlation for bubble departure diameter due
to Tolubinski and Kostanchuk (1970) [165]:
(5.256)
The parameters of the model are dimensional ( , , )

and are chosen to fit pressurized water data. Hence the model is clearly not universal. Negative
liquid sub-cooling is possible here, where it means onset of the bulk boiling. Limiting the bubble
departure diameter applies to this situation and prevents from growing too high.
Note that the model is strongly dependent on a liquid temperature scale. In the original exper-
imental data, this was taken as the pipe center-line temperature. CFX-4 used the cell-center
value in near wall cells, but this proved to give mesh-dependent results. Egorov and Menter
restored mesh independence by using the logarithmic form of the wall function to estimate
the liquid temperature, , at a fixed value of . Ansys CFX uses this method, with a
user-modifiable value of .
5.13.4.1.2.3. Bubble Detachment Frequency
The computation of the evaporation rate requires an additional model parameter, namely
the frequency of the bubble detachment from the nucleation site. The model adopted by
Kurul and Podowski is that due to Cole (1960) [166]:
Note that, due to its dependence on gravity, this correlation is taken from pool boiling. It is
simply estimated as the bubble rise velocity divided by the bubble departure diameter. The
drag coefficient factor was taken to be unity by Ceumern-Lindenstjerna (1977) [169].
5.13.4.1.2.4. Bubble Waiting Time
Kurul and Podowski (1991) [159] employed the model of Tolubinski and Kostanchuk (1970)
[165]. This fixes the waiting time between departures of consecutive bubbles at 80% of the
bubble detachment period:
(5.257)
The numerator in this equation is adjustable in Ansys CFX.
5.13.4.1.2.5. Area Influence Factors
Recall from Partitioning of the Wall Heat Flux (p. 231) that Kurul and Podowski assumed a dia-
meter of influence of a nucleating bubble equal to twice the bubble departure diameter .
Encoding this as a user-modifiable parameter (default value = 2), the area fraction of the
bubble influence is given by:
with used as shown in Equation 5.259 (p. 237).
The area fraction is computed as follows:
(5.258)
where:
• is the vapor volume fraction.
• is the critical volume fraction above which convective heat transfer to vapor is important.
• is the fraction of wall area that is in direct contact with vapor and therefore subject to
convective heat transfer to vapor.
The area fraction , which is subject to single phase liquid convective heat transfer, is limited
from below by a small value, so its actual form is:
5.13.4.1.2.6. Convective Heat Transfer
As discussed in Partitioning of the Wall Heat Flux (p. 231), single-phase convective heat transfer
to the liquid phase is modeled using the turbulent wall function (Egorov and Menter 2004
[163]).
This replaces the mesh dependent Stanton Number correlation originally employed by Kurul
and Podowski (1991) [159].
The single-phase convective heat transfer to the vapor phase is:
5.13.4.1.2.7. Quenching Heat Transfer
As discussed in Partitioning of the Wall Heat Flux (p. 231), quenching heat transfer to the liquid
phase in the area of influence of the vapor phase is modeled using a quenching heat transfer
coefficient:
In order to close the model, the quenching heat transfer coefficient , participating in the
quenching heat flux to liquid, must be defined. This value depends on the waiting time between
the bubble departure and the next bubble formation.
With this value, the quenching heat transfer coefficient is correlated as:
where is the liquid temperature conductivity coefficient. (Mikic and Rohsenow

1969 [167], Del Valle and Kenning 1985 [168]).
As for the case of bubble departure diameter, Egorov and Menter (2004) [163] used the logar-
ithmic form of the wall function to estimate the liquid temperature at a fixed value of
250.
5.13.4.1.2.8. Evaporation Rate
Knowing the bubble departure frequency, as well as the bubble size and the nucleation site
density, one can obtain the evaporation rate as a product of the bubble mass, the detachment
frequency and the site density:
This was the form adopted by Kurul and Podowski (1991) [159].
Egorov and Menter expressed the evaporation rate in terms of the non-limited area fraction
:
(unlike , can exceed 1). In this case, the evaporation rate obtains the form:
which is an extension of the Kurul and Podowski expression and coincides with it when the
Parameter is equal to 2 (default value).
In the final form of the evaporation rate, the area fraction factor is limited by:
(5.259)
defaults to 0.5.
5.13.4.1.3. Determination of the Wall Heat Flux Partition

The wall heat flux partition discussed in Partitioning of the Wall Heat Flux (p. 231), together with
the choice of submodels described in Sub-models for the Wall Boiling Model (p. 233), gives the
total heat flux as a complex nonlinear function of the wall superheat
In the case of an isothermal wall, the four components of the heat flux are computed explicitly
as functions of the given wall superheat. However, in the case of a wall with specified total heat
flux, or specified wall heat transfer coefficient and outside temperature, the above equation de-
termines implicitly as a function of the total heat supplied to the wall.
5.13.5. Cavitation Model

The tendency for a flow to cavitate is characterized by the cavitation number, defined as:
(5.260)
where is a reference pressure for the flow (for example, inlet pressure), is the vapor pressure for
the liquid, and the denominator represents the dynamic pressure. Clearly, the tendency for a flow to
cavitate increases as the cavitation number is decreased.
Cavitation is treated separately from thermal phase change, as the cavitation process is typically too
rapid for the assumption of thermal equilibrium at the interface to be correct. In the simplest cavitation
models, mass transfer is driven by purely mechanical effects, namely liquid-vapor pressure differences,
rather than thermal effects. Current research is directed towards models that take both effects into
account.
In CFX, the Rayleigh Plesset model is implemented in the multiphase framework as an interphase
mass transfer model. User-defined models can also be implemented.
For cavitating flow, the homogeneous multiphase model is typically used.
5.13.5.1. The Rayleigh Plesset Model

The Rayleigh-Plesset equation provides the basis for the rate equation controlling vapor generation
and condensation. The Rayleigh-Plesset equation describing the growth of a gas bubble in a liquid
is given by:
(5.261)
where represents the bubble radius, is the pressure in the bubble (assumed to be the vapor
pressure at the liquid temperature), is the pressure in the liquid surrounding the bubble, is
the liquid density, and is the surface tension coefficient between the liquid and vapor. Note that
this is derived from a mechanical balance, assuming no thermal barriers to bubble growth. Neglecting
the second order terms (which is appropriate for low oscillation frequencies) and the surface tension,
this equation reduces to:
(5.262)
The rate of change of bubble volume follows as:
(5.263)
and the rate of change of bubble mass is:
(5.264)
If there are bubbles per unit volume, the volume fraction may be expressed as:
(5.265)
and the total interphase mass transfer rate per unit volume is:
(5.266)
This expression has been derived assuming bubble growth (vaporization). It can be generalized to
include condensation as follows:
(5.267)
where is an empirical factor that may differ for condensation and vaporization, designed to account
for the fact that they may occur at different rates (condensation is usually much slower than vapor-
ization). For modeling purposes the bubble radius will be replaced by the nucleation site radius
.
Despite the fact that Equation 5.267 (p. 238) has been generalized for vaporization and condensation,
it requires further modification in the case of vaporization.
Vaporization is initiated at nucleation sites (most commonly non-condensable gases). As the vapor
volume fraction increases, the nucleation site density must decrease accordingly, because there is
less liquid. For vaporization, in Equation 5.267 (p. 238) is replaced by to give:
(5.268)
where is the volume fraction of the nucleation sites. Equation 5.267 (p. 238) is maintained in
the case of condensation.
To obtain an interphase mass transfer rate, further assumptions regarding the bubble concentration
and radius are required. The Rayleigh-Plesset cavitation model implemented in CFX uses the following
defaults for the model parameters:
For an illustration and a validation of the Rayleigh-Plesset cavitation model see Bakir et al. [148]
5.13.5.2. User Defined Cavitation Models

Additional information on creating a user-defined model is available. For details, see User Defined
Cavitation Models in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
When using a user-defined cavitation model, the CFX-Solver will perform generic linearizations for
the volume fraction and volume continuity equations to help stability and convergence. The satur-
ation pressure is used by the CFX-Solver in linearizing the cavitation rate against pressure.
5.13.6. The Droplet Condensation Model

The Droplet Condensation Model is useful for situations where a dry (or near-saturation) two-phase
flow undergoes rapid pressure reduction leading to nucleation and subsequent droplet condensation.
It is also useful to model additional condensation when droplets are already present in significant
quantities. Typical applications include low-pressure steam turbines, in which context this model is
also referred to as the Nonequilibrium Steam (NES) model. Such flows are typically transonic. The
droplet phase can enter through the inlet or appear through various nucleation mechanisms, including
homogeneous (volumetric) and heterogeneous (surface) nucleation. Presently, only one homogeneous
nucleation model is available for selection based on Classical theory. Heterogeneous and alternate
homogeneous nucleation models can be supplied using the available user-defined option.
The Droplet Condensation Model differs from the Thermal Phase Change model (see The Thermal
Phase Change Model (p. 229)) in that the droplet diameter is calculated as part of the model rather
than as a user input. This leads to improved accuracy. In order to do this a transport equation for
droplet number must also be solved, which has as its source term nucleation contributions. This
model differs from the Equilibrium Phase Change model (see Equilibrium Phase Change Model in the
CFX-Solver Modeling Guide) in that it does not assume the flow to instantaneously reach equilibrium
conditions, and therefore implicitly includes losses due to thermodynamic irreversibility.
In the following discussion, we consider a homogeneous multiphase system, in which the droplets
move with the same velocity as the continuous phase. However, the model has been generalized to
inhomogeneous systems as well.
The system of equations involves one continuous phase and any number of dispersed (condensed)
phases. The condensed phases travel at the speed of the continuous phase. Any combination of
condensed phases can exist in the solution so that for the continuous phase, , mass conservation
becomes:
(5.269)
where the mass sources are summed over the condensed phases. The condensed phases can
change size by condensation or evaporation.
For a condensed phase, , mass conservation is:
(5.270)
where each dispersed phase has a corresponding number equation of the form:
(5.271)
Here, is the nucleation model with units defined as the number of droplets generated per unit
time per unit volume of vapor and is the nucleated droplet mass based on , the critical radius
at formation of the dispersed phase, which is defined as:
(5.272)
where is the liquid surface tension, and is the Gibbs free energy change at the critical radius
conditions.
Note that the droplets are transported with the mixture velocity because no slip is assumed between
the phases. The usual constraint applies for the continuous-phase ( ) and condensed-phase ( ) volume
fractions where:
(5.273)
In addition, global continuity and momentum equations are also solved as described in Homogeneous
Hydrodynamic Equations (p. 186). By default, the CFX-Solver uses the following equation for continuous
phase energy, in total enthalpy form:
(5.274)
A viscous work term can optionally be included, but is usually negligible. A similar energy transport
equation can be applied for the dispersed phases, either in the context of small or large droplets as
will be discussed subsequently.
The Droplet Condensation model can be used for both small and large droplets. However, small and
large droplets use different models for heat transfer and phase change. For large droplets, the heat
transfer and phase change models described by the Thermal Phase Change model should be used.
For small droplets (less than 1 ) the Small Droplet heat transfer model is appropriate; it sets the
droplet temperature to
(5.275)
where refers to the saturation temperature, refers to the supercooling level in the gas phase,
is the droplet radius.
For small droplets, the interphase heat and mass transfer models are also modified to include the
influence of the Knudsen ( ) number on the Nusselt number. The dependence is required because
droplet sizes vary significantly from the initial nucleated radius (in a non-continuum regime) in the
range of angstroms.
The droplet growth rate can be computed according to either of the following growth models:
• Gyarmathy [233]:
(5.276)
• Young [234]:
(5.277)
where:
• represents the Knudsen number, defined as:
(5.278)
where:
– represents a mean free path coefficient with a default value of 1.5.
• is the latent heat of vaporization.
• is a coefficient that adjusts the distance from the droplet at which continuum processes, as op-
posed to free-molecular processes, occur, with typical values between 0 and 2.
• is the Prandtl number.
• and
(5.279)
where:
– is the condensation coefficient.
– is the heat capacity of the gas.
– is the growth coefficient that relates the condensation coefficient with the evaporation coeffi-
cient. The default value of is 9.
For a detailed review of droplet condensation models for steam, see [235].
The growth model is subsequently used to compute the interphase mass transfer rate in conjunction
with an interfacial area density to be described later in this section.
The source of droplets into the domain is based on a nucleation model, which for classical nucleation
models has the form of:
(5.280)
where is a constant determined by the particular nucleation model, is Boltzmann's constant, and
is the supercooled vapor temperature. To compute the Gibbs free energy change a property
database must be used that evaluates supercooled state properties. This requires an equation of state
for the vapor phase amenable to extrapolation into regions within the saturation zone. The IAPWS
and Redlich Kwong equations of state satisfy this requirement. A user-defined nucleation model can
also be applied, enabling different homogeneous or heterogeneous nucleation models to be employed.
The interaction between the phases by mass transfer depends on calculating the droplet diameter,
which, if a monodispersed distribution is assumed for droplets with a common origin, can be determ-
ined from the droplet number, . The relevant equation is then:
(5.281)
with an interfacial area density defined as:
(5.282)
The interfacial mass transfer term can then be computed with the known droplet growth rate and
the interfacial area density:
(5.283)
which can be used to obtain the heat transfer term:

(5.284)
Free Surface Flow
where is an upwinded total enthalpy, its value either for the continuous or dispersed phase de-
pending on the direction of interphase mass transfer. In addition, is the heat transfer (per unit
area) between the dispersed and continuous phase based on:
(5.285)
Since the droplets in condensing systems are generally quite small (less than 1 ), it is assumed
that the droplet temperature is uniform (a zero resistance model between the droplet surface and
its internal temperature). This implies that almost all of the heat transfer either comes from the con-
tinuous phase during evaporation or goes into it during condensation.
The Nusselt ( ) number underlying Equation 5.276 (p. 241) and Equation 5.285 (p. 243) is corrected
to account for droplet sizes that span a wide Knudsen number ( ) range (from free-molecular to
continuum). The Nusselt number applied is:
(5.286)
where is an empirical factor set to 3.18.
5.14. Free Surface Flow

This section describes free surface flow theory, which is the most common application of homogeneous
multiphase flow.
5.14.1. Implementation
The implementation of free surface flow in CFX is essentially the same as multiphase (homogeneous
or inhomogeneous) along with some special discretization options to keep the interface sharp. These
include:
• A compressive differencing scheme for the advection of volume fractions in the volume fraction
equations.
• A compressive transient scheme for the volume fraction equations (if the problem is transient).
• Special treatment of the pressure gradient and gravity terms to ensure that the flow remain well
behaved at the interface.
5.14.2. Surface Tension

The surface tension model used in CFX is based on the Continuum Surface Force model of Brackbill
et al. [27]. This models the surface tension force as a volume force concentrated at the interface, rather
than a surface force. Consider the free surface interface shown in the figure below:
Figure 5.1: Free Surface Interface
Define a Primary Fluid (the liquid phase) and a Secondary Fluid (usually a gas phase). The surface
tension force given by the Continuum Surface Force model is:
(5.287)
where:
(5.288)
(5.289)
where is the surface tension coefficient, is the interface normal vector pointing from the primary
fluid to the secondary fluid (calculated from the gradient of a smoothed volume fraction), is the
gradient operator on the interface and is the surface curvature defined by:
(5.290)
The two terms summed on the right hand side of Equation 5.288 (p. 244) reflect the normal and tan-
gential components of the surface tension force respectively. The normal component arises from the
interface curvature and the tangential component from variations in the surface tension coefficient
(the Marangoni effect).
The term is often called the interface delta function; it is zero away from the interface, thereby
ensuring that the surface tension force is active only near to the interface.
When the interface between the two fluids intersects a wall, it is possible to account for wall adhesion
by specifying the contact angle, , which the interface makes with the wall through the primary fluid.
The interface normal vector used for the calculations of both curvature and the surface tension force
must satisfy the wall contact angle.
Chapter 6: Particle Transport Theory
Particle transport modeling is a type of multiphase model, where particulates are tracked through the
flow in a Lagrangian way, rather than being modeled as an extra Eulerian phase. The full particulate
phase is modeled by just a sample of individual particles. The tracking is carried out by forming a set
of ordinary differential equations in time for each particle, consisting of equations for position, velocity,
temperature, and masses of species. These equations are then integrated using a simple integration
method to calculate the behavior of the particles as they traverse the flow domain.

6.1. Lagrangian Tracking Implementation
6.2. Momentum Transfer
6.3. Heat and Mass Transfer
6.4. Basic Erosion Models
6.5. Spray Breakup Models
6.6. Particle Collision Model
6.7. Particle-Wall Interaction
6.8. Quasi Static Wall Film Model
The following section describes the methodology used to track the particles.
6.1. Lagrangian Tracking Implementation

Within the particle transport model, the total flow of the particle phase is modeled by tracking a small
number of particles through the continuum fluid. The particles could be solid particles, drops or bubbles.
The application of Lagrangian tracking in CFX involves the integration of particle paths through the
discretized domain. Individual particles are tracked from their injection point until they escape the domain
or some integration limit criterion is met. Each particle is injected, in turn, to obtain an average of all
particle tracks and to generate source terms to the fluid mass, momentum and energy equations. Because
each particle is tracked from its injection point to final destination, the tracking procedure is applicable
to steady-state flow analysis.
The following sections describe the methodology used to track the particles.
6.1.1. Calculation of Particle Variables
6.1.2. Interphase Transfer Through Source Terms
6.1.1. Calculation of Particle Variables

The particle displacement is calculated using forward Euler integration of the particle velocity over
timestep, .
Particle Transport Theory
As , the particle displacement is given as:

(6.1)
where the superscripts o and n refer to old and new values respectively, and is the initial particle
velocity. In forward integration, the particle velocity calculated at the start of the timestep is assumed
to prevail over the entire step. At the end of the timestep, the new particle velocity is calculated using
the analytical solution to the particle momentum equation:
(6.2)
is the sum of all forces acting on a particle. This equation is an example of the generic transport
equation:
(6.3)
where is a generic transported variable, subscript indicates the value of the variable in the sur-
rounding fluid, is a linearization coefficient and is a general nonlinear source. The analytical
solution of the generic transport equation above can be written as:
(6.4)
The fluid properties are taken from the start of the timestep.
In the calculation of forces and values for and , many fluid variables, such as density, viscosity
and velocity are needed at the position of the particle. These variables are always obtained accurately
by calculating the element in which the particle is traveling, calculating the computational position
within the element, and using the underlying shape functions of the discretization algorithm to inter-
polate from the vertices to the particle position.
6.1.2. Interphase Transfer Through Source Terms

Just as the fluid affects the particle behavior through forces and, for example, convective heat transfer,
there is a counteracting influence of the particle on the fluid. This effect is termed as coupling between
phases. If the fluid is allowed to influence trajectories but particles do not affect the fluid, then the
interaction is termed one-way coupling. If the particles also affect the fluid behavior, then the inter-
action is termed two-way coupling.
The flow prediction of the two phases in one-way coupled systems is relatively straightforward. The
fluid flow field may be calculated irrespective of the particle trajectories. One-way coupling may be
an acceptable approximation in flows with low dispersed phase loadings where particles have a
negligible influence on the fluid flow.
Two-way coupling requires that the particle source terms are included in the fluid momentum
equations. The momentum sources could be due to turbulent dispersion forces or drag. The particle
source terms are generated for each particle as they are tracked through the flow. Particle sources
are applied in the control volume that the particle is in during the timestep.
The particle sources to the fluid momentum equations are obtained by solving transport equations
for the sources. The generic equation for particle sources is:
Momentum Transfer
(6.5)
Where are the contributions from the particles that are linear in the solution variable and
contains all other contributions, including when appropriate a mass transfer term . This
equation has the same form as the general particle transport and is solved in the same way as outlined
above.
The source, S, to be added to the continuous phase is then multiplied by the number flow rate for
that particle, which is the mass flow rate divided by the mass of the particle.
In CFX, the particle source terms are recalculated each time particles are injected. The source terms
are then retained in memory in order that they may be applied each time the fluid coefficients are
calculated. Thus, the particle sources may be applied even though particles have not been injected
in the current flow calculation.
6.2. Momentum Transfer

Consider a discrete particle traveling in a continuous fluid medium. The forces acting on the particle
that affect the particle acceleration are due to the difference in velocity between the particle and fluid,
as well as to the displacement of the fluid by the particle. The equation of motion for such a particle
was derived by Basset, Boussinesq and Oseen for a rotating reference frame:
(6.6)
which has the following forces on the right hand side:
• : drag force acting on the particle.
• : buoyancy force due to gravity.
• : forces due to domain rotation (centripetal and Coriolis forces).
• : virtual (or added) mass force. This is the force to accelerate the virtual mass of the fluid in the
volume occupied by the particle. This term is important when the displaced fluid mass exceeds the
particle mass, such as in the motion of bubbles.
• : pressure gradient force. This is the force applied on the particle due to the pressure gradient in
the fluid surrounding the particle caused by fluid acceleration. It is only significant when the fluid
density is comparable to or greater than the particle density.
• : Basset force or history term that accounts for the deviation in flow pattern from a steady state.
This term is not implemented in CFX.
The left hand side of Equation 6.6 (p. 247) can be modified due to the special form of the virtual mass
term (see Virtual or Added Mass Force (p. 250)), which leads to the following form of the particle velocity:
(6.7)
Only a part of the virtual mass term, , remains on the right hand side. The particle and fluid mass
values are given by:
(6.8)
with the particle diameter as well as the fluid and particle densities and . The ratio of the ori-
ginal particle mass and the effective particle mass (due to the virtual mass term correction) is stored in
(6.9)
Using , Equation 6.7 (p. 247) can be written as

(6.10)
Each term on the right hand side of Equation 6.10 (p. 248) can potentially be linearized with respect to
the particle velocity variable , leading to the following equation for each term:
(6.11)
The following sections show the contribution of all terms to the right hand side values and the lin-
earization coefficient .
6.2.1. Drag Force on Particles

The aerodynamic drag force on a particle is proportional to the slip velocity, , between the particle
and the fluid velocity:
(6.12)
where is the drag coefficient and is the effective particle cross-section. The drag coefficient,
, is introduced to account for experimental results on the viscous drag of a solid sphere. The coef-
ficient is calculated in the same way as for Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase flow.
Using the new variable , this leads to the following contribution to the right
hand side and linearization coefficient of Equation 6.7 (p. 247):
(6.13)
(6.14)
The particle momentum source due to drag is calculated from the following equation:
(6.15)
The source, , added to the continuous phase is then multiplied with the number rate for that particle.
Momentum Transfer
6.2.2. Buoyancy Force on Particles

The buoyancy force is the force on a particle immersed in a fluid. The buoyant force is equal to the
weight of the displaced fluid and is given by
(6.16)
where is the gravity vector.
This leads to the following contribution to the right hand side of Equation 6.7 (p. 247):
(6.17)
The buoyancy force has no contribution to the particle momentum source into the continuous phase.
6.2.3. Rotation Force

In a rotating frame of reference, the rotation term is an intrinsic part of the acceleration and is the
sum of Coriolis and centripetal forces:
(6.18)
As described elsewhere (see Pressure Gradient Force (p. 250) and Virtual or Added Mass Force (p. 250)),
the implemented rotation term also contains contributions from the pressure gradient and the virtual
mass force due to the domain rotation, which leads to the following final contribution of the rotation
term to the right hand side of Equation 6.7 (p. 247).
(6.19)
Using the substitutions:
Equation 6.19 (p. 249) can be written as:

(6.20)
where
• if neither pressure gradient nor virtual mass force is taken into account
• if only virtual mass force is taken into account
• if only pressure gradient force is taken into account
• if pressure gradient and virtual mass forces are taken into account
The rotation force has no contribution to the particle momentum source into the continuous phase.
6.2.4. Virtual or Added Mass Force

This force is caused by the fact that the particle has to accelerate some of the surrounding fluid,
leading to an additional drag of the following form:
(6.21)
If the virtual mass force is included, the coefficient is normally set to 1. However, when the virtual
mass force is not included, then effectively has the value zero, and is equal to 1. The second
part of the right hand side contains the particle velocity deviation, hence, it can be brought to the
left hand side of the particle momentum equation (see Equation 6.7 (p. 247)), leading to a modified
effective mass. Considering only steady-state flows, the remaining term can be written as
(6.22)
leading to the following contribution to the right hand side of Equation 6.7 (p. 247):
(6.23)
with
(6.24)
necessary if the particles are solved in a rotating system. The term is shifted to the rotation term
(see Equation 6.19 (p. 249)), therefore, the implemented virtual mass term reduces to
(6.25)
The particle momentum source due to the virtual mass force is computed from:
(6.26)
6.2.5. Pressure Gradient Force

The pressure gradient force results from the local fluid pressure gradient around the particle and is
defined as:
(6.27)
This force is only important if large fluids pressure gradients exist and if the particle density is smaller
than or similar to the fluid density. Neglecting diffusive and source terms in the steady-state momentum
equation, the pressure gradient can be replaced by the velocity gradient. Assuming a constant fluids
density, the pressure gradient force can be written as
(6.28)
Note:
The pressure gradient force is currently not available for transient simulations.
Momentum Transfer
leading to the following contribution to the right hand side of Equation 6.7 (p. 247):
(6.29)
with
(6.30)
necessary if the particles are solved in a rotating system. The term is shifted to the rotation term
(see Equation 6.19 (p. 249)), therefore, the implemented pressure gradient term reduces to
(6.31)
The particle momentum source due to the pressure gradient force is computed from:
(6.32)
6.2.6. Turbulence in Particle Tracking

The calculation of the instantaneous fluid velocity, in Equation 6.6 (p. 247), depends on the flow
regime and the type of particle tracking desired (mean or with turbulent dispersion). In laminar flows
or in flows where mean particle tracking is calculated, is equal to the mean local fluid velocity, ,
surrounding the particle. The path of a particle is deterministic (that is, there is a unique path for a
particle injected at a given location in the flow).
In turbulent tracking, the instantaneous fluid velocity is decomposed into mean, , and fluctuating,
, components. Now particle trajectories are not deterministic and two identical particles, injected
from a single point, at different times, may follow separate trajectories due to the random nature of
the instantaneous fluid velocity. It is the fluctuating component of the fluid velocity that causes the
dispersion of particles in a turbulent flow.
The model of turbulent dispersion of particles that is used, which is due to Gosman and Ioannides
[147], assumes that a particle is always within a single turbulent eddy. Each eddy has a characteristic
fluctuating velocity, , lifetime, , and length, l e. When a particle enters the eddy, the fluctuating
velocity for that eddy is added to the local mean fluid velocity to obtain the instantaneous fluid velocity
used in Equation 6.19 (p. 249). The turbulent fluid velocity, , is assumed to prevail as long as the
particle/eddy interaction time is less than the eddy lifetime and the displacement of the particle rel-
ative to the eddy is less than the eddy length. If either of these conditions is exceeded, the particle
is assumed to be entering a new eddy with new characteristic , , and l e.
The turbulent velocity, eddy length and lifetime are calculated based on the local turbulence properties
of the flow:
(6.33)
(6.34)
where k and are the local turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation, respectively, and is a turbulence
constant. The factor was chosen to relate the characteristic length scale to the eddy dissipation
length [39]. The variable is a normally distributed random number which accounts for the randomness
of turbulence about a mean value. Because of this randomness, each component of the fluctuating
velocity may have a different value in each eddy.
6.2.7. Turbulent Dispersion

If turbulent particle dispersion is enabled, you will need to track a much larger number of particles
(usually an order of magnitude higher) because a stochastic method is used. This will greatly increase
computational time; therefore, this is most often performed as a post-process where there is only
one particle iteration.
If turbulent dispersion is used in an iterative situation, it may not be possible to achieve complete
convergence because of the stochastic nature of the sources to the continuous phase, although the
random number generator used in determining the eddies is reset on each particle iteration.
6.3. Heat and Mass Transfer

• Heat Transfer (p. 252)
• Simple Mass Transfer (p. 253)
• Liquid Evaporation Model (p. 254)
• Oil Evaporation/Combustion (p. 257)
• Reactions (p. 258)
• Coal Combustion (p. 261)
• Hydrocarbon Fuel Analysis Model (p. 263)
6.3.1. Heat Transfer

The rate of change of temperature is governed by three physical processes: convective heat transfer,
latent heat transfer associated with mass transfer, and radiative heat transfer.
The convective heat transfer is given by:

(6.35)
where is the thermal conductivity of the fluid, and are the temperatures of the fluid and of
the particle, and is the Nusselt number given by:
(6.36)
Heat and Mass Transfer
where is the specific heat of the fluid, and and are the fluid dynamic viscosity and thermal
conductivity respectively.
For cases including multiphase reactions, the convective heat transfer has a blowing correction based
on the rate of mass transfer from the particle:
(6.37)
where is given by
(6.38)
and is the total mass transfer rate of the particle. This modification can be omitted by using the
expert parameter setting: pt heat transfer blowing correction = f.
The heat transfer associated with mass transfer is given by the relation:
(6.39)
where the sum is taken over all components of the particle for which heat transfer is taking place.
The latent heat of vaporization is temperature-dependent, and is obtained directly from the MA-
TERIALS information for the liquid in the particle and its vapor.
The radiative heat transfer, , for a particle with diameter , uniform temperature , and
emissivity , is given by:
(6.40)
where is the Radiation Intensity on the particle surface at the location of the particle, is the Re-
fractive Index of the fluid, and is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. An equivalent amount of heat can
be removed from the radiation field.
The rate of change of temperature for the particle is then obtained from:
(6.41)
where the sum in this equation is taken over all components of the particle including those not affected
by mass transfer.
The energy source to the continuous fluid is obtained from:

(6.42)
6.3.2. Simple Mass Transfer

Each component of mass being transferred between the continuous and particle phases satisfies the
equation:
(6.43)
In this equation, is the mass of the constituent in the particle, is the mass fraction of compon-
ent in the particle, is the mass fraction of component in the surrounding fluid, is the
equilibrium mass fraction ratio, is the dynamic diffusivity of the mass fraction in the continuum,
and is the Sherwood number given by:
(6.44)
If no value is set for the equilibrium mass fraction , a value of 1 is used.
The simple model assumes that the mass transfer is driven only by concentration differences. While
this may be appropriate in some situations, such as solids having a small moisture content, it does
not adequately account for the vapor pressure dependence on particle temperature, which is imported
for evaporating liquids. In these situations, the liquid evaporation model, presented below, is more
appropriate.
The mass source to the continuous fluid is obtained from:

(6.45)
6.3.3. Liquid Evaporation Model

The liquid evaporation model is a model for particles with heat and mass transfer. The model uses
two mass transfer correlations depending on whether the droplet is above or below the boiling point.
The boiling point is determined through an Antoine equation (vapor pressure equation that describes
the relation between vapor pressure and temperature for pure components, see Antoine Equation in
the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide) that is given by
(6.46)
where , and are user-supplied coefficients. The particle is boiling if the vapor pressure, , is
greater than the ambient gas pressure, .
When the particle is above the boiling point, the mass transfer is determined by:
(6.47)
where is the latent heat of evaporation of the particle component and where and are the
convective and radiative heat transfers, respectively.
When the particle is below the boiling point, the mass transfer is given by:
(6.48)
where is the droplet diameter, is the dynamic diffusivity of the component in the continuum
and is the Sherwood number (see Equation 6.44 (p. 254)). and are the molecular weights
of the vapor and the mixture in the continuous phase, is the equilibrium vapor mole fraction of
the evaporating component at the droplet surface, and is the mole fraction of the evaporating
component in the gas phase.
The mass source to the continuous fluid is obtained from:

(6.49)
6.3.3.1. Extension of the Liquid Evaporation Model

The Liquid Evaporation model described in the previous section is limited to being applied to a
single component of a particle. Under the following assumptions, the Liquid Evaporation model
can be extended to multi-component evaporation:
1. Particle liquids are entirely miscible in all proportions
2. Intermolecular forces between different particle components are of equal strength
These assumptions imply that the liquids in a multi-component particle form an ideal mixture. By
definition an ideal mixture is one which obeys Raoult's law (where the vapor pressure of an ideal
mixture is dependent on the vapor pressure of each chemical component and the mole fraction
of the component present in the mixture).
6.3.3.1.1. Examples of ideal mixtures

There is actually no such thing as an ideal mixture. However, some liquid mixtures get fairly close
to being ideal. These are mixtures of closely similar substances.
Commonly quoted examples include:
• hexane and heptane
• benzene and methylbenzene
The more dissimilar the nature of the substances, the more strongly the solution is expected to
deviate from ideality.
6.3.3.2. Determination of the Total Vapor Pressure of an Ideal Mixture

Based on the assumption of an ideal mixture, the total vapor pressure, , can be calculated
based on the assumption of Raoult’s law
(6.50)
where is the vapor pressure of a pure component and is the mole fraction of com-
ponent in the liquid phase. The vapor pressure of a pure component, is determined from
an Antoine equation. This equation has the following form:
(6.51)
where , and are the Antoine coefficients of binary mixture i.
Inserting Equation 6.51 (p. 255) into Equation 6.50 (p. 255) allows the calculation of the total vapor
pressure of the mixture as follows:
(6.52)
It can be seen that the total vapor pressure is a function of the material properties of the compon-
ents, the particle temperature, as well as the instantaneous composition of the evaporating droplet.
A particle is assumed to be boiling if the total vapor pressure, , of all evaporating components
is equal to or larger than the ambient gas pressure, :
If the total vapor pressure is below the ambient gas pressure, the particle is assumed to not boil.
6.3.3.3. Diffusion Regime (Non-Boiling Particles)

The particle evaporates in the diffusion regime if the particle is below the boiling point.
The mass transfer of a single particle component can be derived from the mass conservation
equation and can be written in the following form (see, for example, Abramzon and Sirignano [201]
and Sazhin [202])
(6.53)
where is the droplet diameter, is the dynamic diffusivity of the component in the continuum,
is the Sherwood number, and where and are the molecular weights of the vapor of
component and the mixture in the continuous phase. is the mole fraction of the vapor of
component in the continuum, is the equilibrium vapor mole fraction of component at the
droplet surface.
For the calculation of the molar concentration of component on the particle surface, , again
the assumption of Raoult’s law is applied:
(6.54)
The total mass flow rate is computed as the sum of the mass flow rates of all evaporating compon-
ents:
(6.55)
6.3.3.4. Boiling Particles

A particle is boiling if the total vapor pressure, , is greater than or equal to the ambient gas
pressure .
When the particle reaches the boiling point, the mass transfer is determined by the convective and
radiative heat transfer:
(6.56)
where is the latent heat of evaporation of component , and where and are the convective
and radiative heat transfer, respectively.
In order to determine the evaporation rate of a particular particle component, an additional assump-
tion is required. It is assumed that the evaporation rate of each component is proportional to the
ratio of the vapor pressure of this component to the total vapor pressure:
(6.57)
The component vapor pressure is computed from Raoult’s law:
(6.58)
Rearranging Equation 6.57 (p. 257):
(6.59)
and substituting it into Equation 6.56 (p. 257) gives the total mass transfer rate:
(6.60)
Using Equation 6.59 (p. 257) and Equation 6.60 (p. 257) the following equation for the mass transfer
of component can be derived:
(6.61)
with the modified latent heat (averaged with the molar concentration):
(6.62)
Note that this modified latent heat is only used for the computation of the mass transfer rates in
Equation 6.61 (p. 257).
6.3.4. Oil Evaporation/Combustion

The oil combustion model uses the particle transport model to track evaporating oil droplets, which
are modeled in a very similar way to the liquid evaporation model, and uses the eddy dissipation
model for the combustion of the volatile gases in the gas phase.
• The Eddy Dissipation Model (p. 307)
• Liquid Evaporation Model (p. 254)
6.3.4.1. Light Oil Modification

The light oil modification bases the physical parameters used in the Reynolds number, the Nusselt
number, and the Sherwood number on the gas assumed to be in the boundary layer of the droplet.
This, in turn, depends upon the Antoine equation (that is, if the drop is boiling, the gas in the
boundary layer is all volatiles). In the other extreme, the gas in the boundary layer consists entirely
of the local gas mixture.
6.3.5. Reactions
The only reactions allowed are generic Arrhenius reactions, and some specific char reactions for coal
combustion. The reactions determine the rate of change of species in the particle and the continuous
phase, and the amount of heat released in the two phases.
6.3.5.1. Arrhenius Reactions

For the Arrhenius reactions, all reactants must be in the particle, but products can be in both the
particle and the continuous phase. The rate of reaction is
(6.63)
where is the mass of reactant , V is the particle volume, is the order of reactant , and
(6.64)
where A has units of

(6.65)
Note that the Arrhenius expression is evaluated at the particle temperature,
The rate of change of mass of a reactant A is then , and of a product B is , where

is the mass coefficient of that species. The reaction orders and the temperature exponent
may be fractional numbers, and not necessarily integers.
6.3.5.2. Heat Release

For any reaction, the heat release depends upon the reference specific enthalpies of the various
reactants and products, if these are all provided. Alternatively, the heat release of a reaction can
be specified directly and is then given by
(6.66)
where refers to the reference material, and is the latent heat at the particle temperature.
6.3.5.3. Char Oxidation

6.3.5.3.1. Field
The char reaction is determined by both the rate of diffusion to the surface and the rate of
chemical reaction at the surface. The surface reaction is assumed to be first-order in the oxygen
mole fraction.
The rate of diffusion of oxygen per unit area of particle surface is given by kd(Xg-XS), where Xg is
the mole fraction of oxygen in the furnace gases far from the particle boundary layer and XS is
the mole fraction of oxygen at the particle surface. The value of kd is given by:
(6.67)
where:
• rp is the particle radius
• TP is the particle temperature
• Tg is the far-field gas temperature
• P is the local pressure
• PA is atmospheric pressure
• Dref is the dynamic diffusivity (recommended value is 1.8e-5 [kg m^-1 s^-1])
• Tref is the reference temperature (recommended value is 293 [K])
• is the exponent with value 0.75
The char oxidation rate per unit area of particle surface is given by kcXS. The chemical rate coef-
ficient kc is given by:
(6.68)
where:
• The parameters Ac and Tc depend on the type of coal, and are specified as input parameters.
• The default value of n is 0.0.
• For this model, kd and kc are in units of [kg m^-2 s^-1],
• Recommended values for Ac and Tc are 497 [kg m^-2 s^-1] and 8540 K [80].
By equating the diffusion rate and the chemical reaction rate to eliminate XS, the overall char
reaction rate of a particle is given by:
(6.69)
and is controlled by the smaller of the rates kd and kc.
6.3.5.3.2. Gibb
The oxidation mechanism of carbon can be characterized by the parameter so that oxides are
produced according to the equation:
(6.70)
The value of is assumed to depend on the particle temperature TP:
(6.71)
where the constants are given by Gibb as AS = 2500 and TS = 6240 K.
By solving the oxygen diffusion equation analytically, the following equation is obtained for the
rate of decrease in the char mass mc:
(6.72)
The far field oxygen concentration ρ ∞ is taken to be the time-averaged value obtained from the
gas phase calculation, and ρ c is the density of the char. Physically, k1 is the rate of external diffu-
sion, k2 is the surface reaction rate, and k3 represents the rate of internal diffusion and surface
reaction. These are defined as follows:
(6.73)
where D is the external diffusion coefficient of oxygen in the surrounding gas. The coefficient is
calculated in the same way as for the Field model, except in this model, kinematic diffusivity is
used instead of dynamic diffusivity:
(6.74)
where:
• Dref is the dynamic diffusivity (recommended value is 1.8e-5 [kg m^-1 s^-1])
• Tref is the reference temperature (recommended value is 293 [K])
• is the exponent with value 0.75.

(6.75)
where kc is the carbon oxidation rate, defined by the modified Arrhenius equation
(6.76)
The default values of the model constants are Ac = 14 [m s^-1 K^-1] and Tc = 21580 K. Further:
(6.77)
where:
(6.78)
The pore diffusivity, Dp, is computed from external diffusivity, D, according to:
(6.79)
Note that the units of k1, k2 and k3 for this model are s-1, and the units for kc in Equa-
tion 6.76 (p. 260) differ from those in Equation 6.68 (p. 259) in the Field model. "effic" is the so-
called "internal diffusion efficiency" and describes the effective internal diffusion coefficient of
oxygen within the particle pores. It is a user-accessible CCL parameter.
6.3.5.4. Radiative Preheating

The stability of a pulverized coal flame depends on the feedback of heat from the flame zone to
the raw coal as it emerges from the burner. In general, this preheating is supplied by a combination
of convective heating by recirculating product gases, as well as by the absorption of radiation. CFX
calculates the radiative heating using Equation 6.40 (p. 253).
The value of the particle emissivity is expected to change as pyrolysis proceeds (that is, it varies
depending upon the mass fractions of coal and char). The present model assumes a linear variation
in from the raw coal value (coal) to the value for char (char). That is:
(6.80)
where fv is the fractional yield of volatiles. Typical values for are 1 for coal and 0.6 for char.
6.3.5.5. Coal Combustion

6.3.5.5.1. Coal Combustion - Gas Phase
Coal combustion is calculated by combining a particle transport calculation of the coal particles
with an eddy dissipation calculation for the combustion of the volatile gases in the gas phase.
Two separate gases are given off by the particles, the volatiles and the char products that come
from the burning of carbon within the particle.
Gas phase combustion is modeled by means of regular single phase reactions. A transport
equation is solved in the fluid for each material given off by the particles. The ‘volatiles’ may be
either a pure substance, a fixed composition mixture, or several independent materials.
6.3.5.5.2. Coal Decomposition

Pulverized coal particles are treated in CFX as non-interacting spheres with internal reactions,
heat transfer and full coupling of mass, momentum and energy with the gaseous phase. The
combustion of a coal particle is a two stage process: the devolatilization of the raw coal particle
followed by the oxidation of the residual char to leave incombustible ash. The devolatilization is
usually modeled as a single step or a two step process. The char oxidation is modeled either as
a global reaction, or using an analytical solution for the diffusion and reaction of oxygen within
the pores of the char particle.
The devolatilization and char oxidation processes can occur on time scales on the order of milli-
seconds, which are several orders of magnitude less than the typical residence time of the particle
in the furnace. Large variations in time scales can result in numerically stiff equations, which can
cause accuracy problems with explicit integration algorithms. The CFX implementation of the
particle transport model bases its timestep on the reaction rate to ensure that the solution has
the required accuracy.
6.3.5.5.3. Devolatilization
Devolatilization can be modeled by one or more reaction steps using the generic Arrhenius
multiphase reactions capability, although normally the process is represented by one or two re-
action steps. The simpler model is the single reaction model of Badzioch and Hawksley [78]. If,
at time t, the coal particle consists of mass fractions CO of raw (that is, unreacted) coal, Cch of
residual char, and CA of ash, then the rate of conversion of the raw coal is:
(6.81)
and the rate of production of volatiles in the gas phase is given by:
(6.82)
where Y is the actual yield of volatiles (that is, the proximate yield multiplied by a factor to correct
for the enhancement of yield due to rapid heating), so that the rate of char formation is:
(6.83)
The rate constant kV is expressed in Arrhenius form as:
(6.84)
where TP is the temperature of coal particles (assumed uniform), R is the gas constant, and AV
and EV are constants determined experimentally for the particular coal.
Often the volatiles yield of a particular type of coal is known only from laboratory proximate
analysis, where the heating rate is low and the volatiles escaping from the coal may undergo
secondary reactions including cracking and carbon deposition on solid surfaces. It has been found
experimentally that volatiles released from pulverized coal particles widely dispersed in a gas
and heated quickly to typical furnace temperatures can produce a yield greater by as much as a
factor of two than the proximate value. If the single reaction model is used, it is difficult to know
which data to use because the coal particles experience a wide range of temperatures as they
disperse in the furnace.
Bituminous coals generally have a volatiles yield that depends strongly on temperature and
heating rates. In such cases, it is important to take account of this dependence, for example by
using a multiple reaction model of devolatilization. As an alternative to the single reaction model,
it is better to use the model of Ubhayakar et al. [79] in which two reactions with different rate
parameters and volatiles yields compete to pyrolyse the raw coal. The first reaction dominates
at lower particle temperatures and has a lower yield Y1 than the yield Y2 of the second reaction,
which dominates at higher temperatures. As a result, the final yield of volatiles will depend on
the temperature history of the particle, will increase with temperature, and will lie somewhere
between Y1 and Y2. In this model, the mass fraction of combustible material (the raw coal) is
specified as the mass fraction of volatiles because all this material could be converted to volatiles.
Again it is assumed that a coal particle consists of mass fraction CO of raw coal, Cch of residual
char after devolatilization has occurred, and CA of ash. The rate constants k1 and k2 of the two
reactions determine the rate of conversion of the raw coal:
(6.85)
the rate of volatiles production is given by:

(6.86)
and so the rate of char formation is:

(6.87)
The initial value of CO is equal to (1-CA). The value of Y1, and parameters A1 and E1 which define
k1 in the Arrhenius equation, analogous to Equation 6.84 (p. 262), are obtained from proximate
analysis of the coal. Y2, A2 and E2 are obtained from high temperature pyrolysis. Note that the
yields are defined on a dry ash-free (DAF) basis.
Typically, the coal particle will swell due to the gas release during the devolatilization phase. The
model assumes that the particle diameter changes in proportion to the volatiles released and
the fractional increase in the mean diameter of the coal particle after complete devolatilization
must be specified as input to the model. The particle diameter change due to swelling is calculated
using the following relation:
(6.88)
where:
• is the current particle diameter
• is the swelling coefficient
• is the particle diameter at the start of devolatilization
• is the rate of change of mass of the reference material
• is the mass of the reference material at the start of the devolatilization
When the swelling coefficient is equal to 0.0, the particle diameter stays constant during devolat-
ilization.
6.3.6. Hydrocarbon Fuel Analysis Model

The ‘Hydrocarbon Fuel Analysis’ model enables you to define all the properties of a solid or liquid
hydrocarbon fuel in a user-friendly way. The solver uses the provided information to derive the
parameters of related objects, such as the initial particle mass fractions, material properties of the
volatiles released, and stoichiometric or mass coefficients of reactions.
The primary input data corresponds 1-to-1 to what, typically, is available from standard analysis of
the solid or liquid fuel:
• Heating value (higher or lower heating value)
• Proximate analysis (mass fractions of ash, moisture, fixed carbon, and volatiles)
– As Received: 1 = ash + moisture + fixed carbon + volatiles
– Dry Ash Free: 1 = fixed carbon + volatiles
• Ultimate analysis (mass fractions of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine)
– As Received: 1 = ash + moisture + carbon + hydrogen + oxygen + nitrogen + sulfur + chlorine
– Dry Ash Free: 1 = carbon + hydrogen + oxygen + nitrogen + sulfur + chlorine.
Some additional input data is required by the solver, for which the default values should be appropriate
in many cases:
• Volatiles yield enhancement: Ratio of actual yield under rapid heating to that determined at a slow
heating rate in the proximate analysis.
• Average molar mass of volatiles released. Three options are available:
– Automatic: Computes average molar mass from volatiles elementary composition, assuming
a mixture of CH4, CO, H2, and H2O
– Value: Use value specified in fuel analysis
– Use Material Definition: Use value defined in volatiles fuel material.
• Reference conditions for heating value (temperature and pressure)
• Moisture latent heat in case of higher heating value specified:
– Automatic: Standard value (2.4423 [MJ/kg])
– Value: User value for given temperature and pressure.
The above data are used to derive the following quantities:
• Initial mass fractions for particle (ash, char and raw combustible).
Note that initial char mass fraction will typically be zero, as char is produced from raw combustible
during pyrolysis.
• Fuel volatiles material properties:
– Average molar mass
– Specific reference enthalpy (heating value)
Basic Erosion Models
– Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen content.
• Stoichiometric coefficients for gas phase reactions:
– Fuel volatiles oxidation
– NO reburn by fuel.
• Mass coefficients for multiphase reactions:
– Devolatilization (decomposition of raw combustible into char and volatiles)
– Char oxidation.
These calculations are performed using a model fuel determined by the fuel analysis data. The model
fuel has all chlorine removed but accounts for the oxygen needed to oxidize sulfur to SO2. Nitrogen
is included into the model fuel if the multiphase reactions are setup to release HCN to the gas phase,
otherwise, the fuel nitrogen is removed.
The total amount of material released to the gas phase during devolatilization is the actual volatiles
yield plus the moisture. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen content of the volatiles are computed from
ultimate analysis, which in turn defines the stoichiometric coefficients in the gas phase reactions in-
volving the volatiles material. When the fuel nitrogen model is selected, corrections are made in order
to account for the carbon and hydrogen released as HCN.
6.4. Basic Erosion Models

• Model of Finnie (p. 265)
• Model of Tabakoff and Grant (p. 266)
• Overall Erosion Rate and Erosion Output (p. 268)
6.4.1. Model of Finnie

The wear of a wall due to the erosive effect of particle impacts is a complex function of particle impact,
particle and wall properties. For nearly all metals, erosion is found to vary with impact angle and ve-
locity according to the relationship [63]:
(6.89)
where is a dimensionless mass, is the particle impact velocity and is a dimensionless

function of the impact angle. The impact angle is the angle in radians between the approaching
particle track and the wall. The value of the exponent, , is generally in the range 2.3 to 2.5 for metals.
Finnie’s model of erosive wear [64] relates the rate of wear to the rate of kinetic energy of impact of
particles on the surface, using :
(6.90)
where:
(6.91)
6.4.1.1. Implementation in CFX

In CFX, the need to adjust the dimension of to obtain a non-dimensional erosion factor is overcome
by specifying:
(6.92)
where is equal to .
Typical values for are given in the following table:
V0 Wall Material
952 [m/s] Aluminum
661 [m/s] Copper
1310 [m/s] Mild Steel
3321 [m/s] Hardened Steel
6.4.2. Model of Tabakoff and Grant

In the erosion model of Tabakoff and Grant, the erosion rate is determined from the following re-
lation:
(6.93)
where:
(6.94)
(6.95)
(6.96)
(6.97)
Here is the dimensionless mass (mass of eroded wall material divided by the mass of particle).
is the particle impact velocity. is the impact angle in radians between the approaching particle
track and the wall, being the angle of maximum erosion. to , and are model constants
and depend on the particle/wall material combination.
Basic Erosion Models
6.4.2.1. Implementation in CFX

The model constants in the original formulation of Tabakoff and Grant are only valid for particle
velocities specified in feet per second [ft/s]. The Tabakoff formulation is modified in CFX as outlined
below:
(6.98)
where:
(6.99)
(6.100)
(6.101)
(6.102)
Note:
The Tabakoff model typically returns an erosive wear with the dimensions milligrams of
eroded material per gram of colliding particles. In CFX, this variable is converted into
grams of eroded material per gram of colliding particles.
6.4.2.1.1. Mapping of CFX to Original Tabakoff Constants

To make the model more general, the model is rewritten so that all model constants have a di-
mension of velocity. The following list shows the link between the constants of the original
model and those in CFX:
6.4.2.1.2. Constants
Value Dimensions CFX-Pre Variable

(dimensionless) K12 Constant
(dimensionless)
[Velocity] Reference Velocity
1
2
3
[deg] Angle of Maximum
Erosion
where:
(6.103)
(6.104)
(6.105)
6.4.3. Overall Erosion Rate and Erosion Output

The erosion of a wall due to a particle is computed from the following relation:
(6.106)
as an individual representative particle represents many actual particles. Here is the mass of the
particle and is its number rate. The overall erosion of the wall is then the sum over all particles.
This gives an erosion rate in kg/s, and an erosion rate density variable in the res file and post-processor
in kg/s/m2. Note that this erosion rate is only a qualitative guide to erosion, unless precise values for
the model constants are known.
6.5. Spray Breakup Models

Spray processes play an important role in many technical systems and industrial applications. Examples
are spray painting or fuel injection systems.
The following sections give an overview about the spray breakup models that are implemented in Ansys
CFX 2021 R2:
6.5.1. Primary Breakup/Atomization Models
6.5.2. Secondary Breakup Models
6.5.3. Dynamic Drag Models
6.5.1. Primary Breakup/Atomization Models

The main task of primary breakup (or atomizer) models is to determine starting conditions for the
droplets that leave the injection nozzle. These conditions are:
• Initial particle radius
• Initial particle velocity components
• Initial spray angle
The radius, velocity, and spray angle parameters are influenced by the internal nozzle flow (cavitation
and turbulence induced disturbances), as well as by the instabilities on the liquid-gas interface.
The following primary breakup models are available in CFX:
• Blob Method (p. 269)
• Enhanced Blob Method (p. 269)
• LISA Model (p. 271)
• Turbulence Induced Atomization (p. 274)
Spray Breakup Models
For the Blob, Enhanced Blob, and the LISA model, the initial injection spray angle must be specified
explicitly, while for the Turbulence Induced Atomization model, the spray angle is computed within
the model.
A large variety of approaches of different complexities are documented in literature. For a compre-
hensive model overview, see Baumgarten et al. [120].
6.5.1.1. Blob Method

This is one of the simplest and most popular approaches to define the injection conditions of
droplets. In this approach, it is assumed that a detailed description of the atomization and breakup
processes within the primary breakup zone of the spray is not required. Spherical droplets with
uniform size, , are injected that are subject to aerodynamic induced secondary breakup.
Assuming non-cavitating flow inside the nozzle, it is possible to compute the droplet injection ve-
locity by conservation of mass:
(6.107)
is the nozzle cross-section and the mass flow rate injected through the nozzle.
The spray angle is either known or can be determined from empirical correlations. The blob method
does not require any special settings and it is the default injection approach in CFX.
Figure 6.1: Blob Method
6.5.1.2. Enhanced Blob Method

Kuensberg et al. [110] have suggested an enhanced version of the blob-method. Similar to the
blob-method, it is assumed that the atomization processes need not be resolved in detail. Contrary
to the standard blob-method, this method enables you to calculate an effective injection velocity
and an effective injection particle diameter taking into account the reduction of the nozzle cross-
section due to cavitation.
During the injection process, the model determines if the flow inside the nozzle is cavitating or not
and dynamically changes the injection particle diameter and the particle injection velocity. The
decision, whether the flow is cavitating or not, is based on the value of the static pressure at the
vena contracta, , that is compared to the vapor pressure, .
(6.108)
with:
(6.109)
is the coefficient of contraction that depends on nozzle geometry factor, such as nozzle length
versus nozzle diameter or the nozzle entrance sharpness [114].
If is higher than the vapor pressure, , the flow remains in the liquid phase and the in-
jection velocity is set equal to .
(6.110)
The initial droplet diameter is equal to the nozzle diameter, .
However, if is lower than , it is assumed that the flow inside the nozzle is cavitating
and the new effective injection velocity, , and injection diameter, , are computed from a
momentum balance from the vena contracta to the nozzle exit (2):
(6.111)
and:
(6.112)
with:
(6.113)
Figure 6.2: Enhanced-blob Method
6.5.1.2.1. Input Parameters for the Enhanced Blob Method

The following information is required for the enhanced blob method:
• Contraction coefficient due to cavitation inside the injection nozzle.
• Injection total pressure of the liquid - This information is required to compute the static pressure
of the liquid at the vena contracta.
• Injection total temperature of the liquid - This information is required to compute the static
temperature of the liquid at the vena contracta, which is required to determine the fluid vapor
pressure from an Antoine equation (homogeneous binary mixture).
• Vapor pressure of the particle fluid
Two options are available to compute the material vapor pressure: Automatic and Particle
Material Vapor Pressure.
– To specify the material vapor pressure directly, use the Particle Material Vapor
Pressure option.
– To have CFX compute the particle material vapor pressure from a homogeneous binary
mixture, use the Automatic option.
• Normal distance of the pressure probe from the injection center - The fluid pressure at this
position (marked as position 2 in Figure 6.2: Enhanced-blob Method (p. 270)) will be used to
determine the acceleration of the liquid from the vena contract to the injection nozzle outlet.
6.5.1.3. LISA Model

The LISA (Linearized Instability Sheet Atomization) model is able to simulate the effects of primary
breakup in pressure-swirl atomizers as described in this section and presented in detail by Senecal
et al. [126].
In direct-injection spark ignition engines, pressure swirl atomizers are often used in order to establish
hollow cone sprays. These sprays are typically characterized by high atomization efficiencies. With
pressure swirl injectors, the fuel is set into a rotational motion and the resulting centrifugal forces
lead to a formation of a thin liquid film along the injector walls, surrounding an air core at the
center of the injector. Outside the injection nozzle, the tangential motion of the fuel is transformed
into a radial component and a liquid sheet is formed. This sheet is subject to aerodynamic instabil-
ities that cause it to break up into ligaments.
Figure 6.3: Pressure Swirl Atomizer
Within the LISA model, the injection process is divided into two stages:
• Film Formation (p. 272)
• Sheet Breakup and Atomization (p. 272)
6.5.1.3.1. Film Formation

Due to the centrifugal motion of the liquid inside the injector, a liquid film along the injector
walls is formed. The film thickness, , at the injector exit can be expressed by the following rela-
tion:
(6.114)
where is the mass flow rate through the injector, is the particle density, and is the injector
exit diameter. The quantity is the axial velocity component of the film at the injector exit and
depends on internal details of the injector. In CFX, is calculated using the approach of Han et
al. [127]. It is assumed that the total velocity, , is related to the injector pressure by the following
relation:
(6.115)
where is the pressure difference across the injector and is the discharge coefficient, which
is computed from:
(6.116)
Assuming that is known, the total injection velocity can be computed from Equa-
tion 6.115 (p. 272). The axial film velocity component, , is then derived from:
(6.117)
where is the spray angle, which is assumed to be known. At this point, the thickness, , and
axial velocity component of the liquid film are known at the injector exit. Note that the computed
film thickness, , will be equal to half the injector nozzle diameter if the discharge coefficient,
, is larger than 0.7. The tangential component of velocity ( ) is assumed to be equal
to the radial velocity component of the liquid sheet downstream of the nozzle exit. The axial
component of velocity is assumed to remain constant.
6.5.1.3.2. Sheet Breakup and Atomization

After the liquid film has left the injector nozzle, it is subject to aerodynamic instabilities that cause
it to break up into ligaments. The theoretical development of the model is given in detail by
Senecal et al. [126] and is only briefly repeated here.
The model assumes that a two-dimensional, viscous, incompressible liquid sheet of thickness
moves with velocity through a quiescent, inviscid, incompressible gas medium. A spectrum of
infinitesimal disturbances is imposed on the initially steady motion, and is given in terms of the
wave amplitude, , as:
(6.118)
where is the initial wave amplitude, is the wave number, is the complex
growth rate, is the streamwise film coordinate, and is the time. The most unstable disturbance,
, has the largest value of and is assumed to be responsible for sheet breakup.
As derived by Senecal et al. [126], can be computed by finding the maximum of the following
equation:
(6.119)
here , that is, the ratio of local gas density to particle densities , and is the surface
tension coefficient. Once is known, the breakup length, , and the breakup time, , are given
by:
(6.120)
(6.121)
where is the critical wave amplitude at breakup and is an empirical sheet constant
with a default value of 12.
The unknown diameter, , of the ligaments at the breakup point is obtained from a mass balance.
For wavelengths that are long compared to the sheet thickness ( ; here the Weber
Number, , is based on half the film thickness and the gas density), is given by:
(6.122)
using the long wave ligament factor, , of 8.0 (default) and is the wave number corresponding
to the maximum growth rate, .
For wavelengths that are short compared to the sheet thickness, is given by:
(6.123)
In this case, the short wave ligament factor, , of 16.0 (default) is used and is given by:
(6.124)
The most probable droplet diameter that is formed from the ligaments is determined from:
(6.125)
using the droplet diameter size factor of 1.88 (default) and is the particle Ohnesorge number
that is defined as:
(6.126)
where is the Weber Number based on half the film thickness and the gas density. is the
Reynolds Number based on the slip velocity.
6.5.1.3.3. User Input Data for the LISA Model

Some of the settings for the simulation of primary breakup using the LISA model are:
• Injection pressure difference,
• Nozzle geometry (outer nozzle diameter , injection half cone angle )
• Normal distance of the density probe from the injection center:
The LISA model requires knowledge of downstream density. The solver finds this density by
probing the flow-field at a user-defined distance downstream of the injection location. This
distance is a user input given via Density Probe Normal Distance option in CFX-Pre.
• Swirl Definition
To add swirl to the flow of particles that stream from the injection region, select the Swirl
Definition check box and then specify a non-dimensional value to impart a tangential velocity.
The value that you specify is multiplied by the magnitude of the axial velocity (the axial velocity
being directed normal to the injector inlet area, with a magnitude that satisfies mass continuity)
in order to establish the (single) value for tangential velocity, to be applied over the entire in-
jector inlet area. The direction of swirl depends on whether you specify a positive or negative
value; the positive swirl direction is established by using the right-hand rule and the injector
axis.
• Particle mass flow rate,
For a complete list of required and optional settings for the LISA model and primary breakup
models in general, see Settings for Particle Primary Breakup in the CFX-Pre User's Guide.
6.5.1.4. Turbulence Induced Atomization

This atomization model is based on the modification of the Huh and Gosman model as suggested
by Chryssakis (see [155, 156]). It accounts for turbulence induced atomization and can also be used
to predict the initial spray angle. The model assumes that turbulent fluctuations within the injected
liquid produce initial surface perturbations, which grow exponentially by the aerodynamic induced
Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism and finally form new droplets. The initial turbulent fluctuations at the
nozzle exit are estimated from simple overall mass, momentum and energy balances. Droplets are
injected with an initial diameter equal to the nozzle diameter, . It is assumed that unstable
Kelvin-Helmholtz waves grow on their surfaces, which finally break up the droplet. The effects of
turbulence are introduced by assuming, that the atomization length scale, , is proportional to
the turbulence length scale and that the atomization time scale, , can be written as a linear
combination of the turbulence time scale (from nozzle flow) and the wave growth time scale (ex-
ternal aerodynamic forces). At breakup, child droplets also inherit a velocity component normal to
their parents’ velocity direction. This is different to the model suggested by Chryssakis, where child
droplets did not get this velocity component.
The initial spray angle is computed from the following relation:
(6.127)
The model does not take effects of cavitation into account, but assumes that the turbulence at the
nozzle exit completely represents the influence of the nozzle characteristics on the atomization
process.
6.5.1.4.1. User Input Data for Turbulence Induced Atomization

For the simulation of primary breakup using turbulence induced atomization, the following input
data is needed:
• Particle mass flow rate,
Injection pressure difference,
• Normal distance of the density probe from the injection center
• Nozzle length/diameter ratio - This is required for the calculation of the average turbulence
kinetic energy and dissipation rates.
• Nozzle discharge coefficient - This is the ratio of mass flow through nozzle to theoretically
possible mass flow and can be specified optionally.
6.5.1.5. Usage and Restrictions for Primary Breakup Models

Primary breakup models are used to determine starting conditions for the droplets that leave the
injection nozzle. To accomplish this task, the models use averaged nozzle outlet quantities, such
as liquid velocity, turbulent kinetic energy, location and distribution of liquid and gas zones, as input
for the calculation of initial droplet diameters, breakup times and droplet injection velocities. Because
all detailed information is replaced by quasi 1D data, the following restrictions will apply:
• Primary breakup model support will only be available for particle injection regions and not for
boundary condition.
• On particle injection regions, primary breakup will only be available for cone type injection, and
only if the nozzle cross sectional area is larger than 0.
6.5.2. Secondary Breakup Models

The following sections give an overview about the currently available secondary breakup models in
CFX. Further information about the breakup models can be found in the provided references.
6.5.2.1. Breakup Regimes

The breakup of a liquid jet into droplets is caused by a combination of different mechanisms: tur-
bulence within the liquid phase, implosion of cavitation bubbles and external aerodynamic forces
acting on the liquid jet. Depending on the injection parameters such as the relative velocity between
liquid and gas, the liquid and gas densities and the liquid viscosity and surface tension the contri-
bution of each of the above mechanisms to the spray breakup varies.
Breakup regimes are typically classified in terms of the dimensionless numbers: Weber Number
( ) and Ohnesorge number ( ), as given by:
(6.128)
(6.129)
where the subscript refers to the droplet (particle) and the subscript refers to the surrounding
fluid. Sometimes, the Weber number is defined using the particle radius, .
If a droplet is exposed to a gas flow, significant deformation starts at a Weber number of unity.
Above a certain value of the Weber number, the droplet deformation leads to breakup. Typically,
the following breakup regimes are observed [117]:
• Vibrational breakup: < 12
• Bag breakup: 12 < < 50
• Bag-and-stamen 50 < <

breakup: 100
• Sheet stripping: 100 < <

350
• Catastrophic breakup: 350 <
6.5.2.2. Numerical Approach to Breakup Modeling

For the numerical simulation of droplet breakup, a so-called statistical breakup approached is used
in CFX. In this framework, it is assumed that if a droplet breaks up into child droplets, the particle
diameter is decreased accordingly to the predictions of the used breakup model. The particle
number rate is adjusted so that the total particle mass remains constant (mass of parent droplet =
mass of child droplets). Using this assumption, it is not required to generate and track new
droplets after breakup, but to continue to track a single representative particle.
6.5.2.3. Reitz and Diwakar Breakup Model

This model ([115]) distinguishes between two breakup regimes: bag breakup and stripping breakup.
Breakup occurs if a critical particle Weber number has been exceeded. Independent of the breakup
regime, it is assumed that during breakup the following relation describes the reduction of the
particle radius:
(6.130)
is the droplet radius prior to breakup, is the new radius for the stable droplet and is
the characteristic breakup time. Values for and t are calculated from the equations given in
the following section:
6.5.2.3.1. Bag Breakup

( > ):
(6.131)
and
(6.132)
6.5.2.3.2. Stripping Breakup
( ):
(6.133)
and
(6.134)
The model constants , , and of the Reitz & Diwakar breakup model are accessible
via CCL. The standard values of the constants are given in Table 6.1: Reitz and Diwakar breakup
model constants and their default values (p. 277).
Table 6.1: Reitz and Diwakar breakup model constants and their default values
Con- Value CCL Name
stant
Time Factor for Bag Breakup
20 Time Factor for Stripping
6.0 Critical Weber Number for Bag
0.5 Weber Number Factor for
Stripping
6.5.2.4. Schmehl Breakup Model [112]

In the Schmehl model, the droplet deformation and breakup times are based on experimental
findings of Hsiang et al. [109] and Pilch et al. [117]. It can be shown that irrespective of the breakup
regime, the time to deform a particle from a sphere into a disk shape is approximately constant,
and is given by:
(6.135)
with the characteristic time given as:
(6.136)
The second phase of breakup, which is characterized by further distortion of the droplet to its final
destruction, is modeled by the following correlations:
(6.137)
Note that the last two breakup regimes are an extension to the originally proposed model by
Schmehl and are based on experimental findings given by [117].
For large Ohnesorge numbers , the following correlation is used:

(6.138)
6.5.2.4.1. Breakup Process for Schmehl Breakup Model

The breakup process used by the Schmehl breakup model can be summarized as follows:
• Breakup can only occur if the droplet Weber number, , is larger than the critical Weber
number, , where:
(6.139)
• Depending on the Weber number regime at the beginning of the breakup process, the
following droplet breakup scenarios are possible:
– Bag Breakup Regime - This is characterized by:
→ In this regime, the breakup occurs in the second half of the to time frame.
A random breakup time is computed.
Child droplet sizes and normal velocity of children after breakup are computed.
If the particle life time exceeds the breakup time, then breakup occurs.
– Multimode Regime - This is characterized by .
→ In this regime, the breakup occurs in the second half of the to time frame.
– Shear Breakup Regime - This is characterized by .
→ In this regime, the breakup can occur any time between and time frame.
Droplet size after breakup for the Bag Breakup and Multimode regimes is computed from the
following relation:
(6.140)
with:
(6.141)
In the Shear Breakup regime, the child droplet size, , is computed as:
(6.142)
where is the maximum stable diameter computed from the critical Weber number, ,
with:
(6.143)
Except for the Shear Breakup regime, all child droplets inherit their parent's velocity and an addi-
tional velocity component, , which is given by:
(6.144)
with at , and being the droplet diameter before breakup.
The velocity component is assumed to be in a plane normal to the parent droplet velocity
direction. Its circumferential orientation within this plane cannot be specified and is chosen ran-
domly. The total child droplet velocity is then determined from:
(6.145)
6.5.2.5. Taylor Analogy Breakup (TAB) Model [116]

O'Rourke and Amsden proposed the so-called TAB model that is based on the Taylor analogy.
Within the Taylor analogy, it is assumed that the droplet distortion can be described as a one-di-
mensional, forced, damped, harmonic oscillation similar to the one of a spring-mass system. In the
TAB model, the droplet deformation is expressed by the dimensionless deformation ,
where describes the deviation of the droplet equator from its underformed position (see Fig-
ure 6.4: Particle distortion for the TAB model (p. 281)). Assuming that the droplet viscosity acts as a
damping force and the surface tension as a restoring force, it is possible to write the equation of
deformation motion as:
(6.146)
Integration of this equation leads to the following time-dependent particle distortion equation:
(6.147)
with:
(6.148)
(6.149)
(6.150)
and are the initial values of distortion and distortion rate of change. For the TAB model,
and are typically taken as zero.
During particle tracking, Equation 6.108 (p. 269) is solved for the dimensionless particle distortion.
Breakup only occurs if the particle distortion y exceeds unity, which means that the deviation of
the particle equator from its equilibrium position has become larger than half the droplet radius.
The Sauter mean radius of the child droplets after breakup is calculated from the following expres-
sion:
(6.151)
that is based on the conservation of surface energy and energy bound in the distortion and oscil-
lation of the parent droplet and surface energy and kinetic energy of the child droplets.
The TAB model has been used to determine the normal velocity of the child droplets after breakup.
At the time of breakup, the equator of the parent droplet moves at a velocity of in
a direction normal to the parent droplet path. This velocity is taken as the normal velocity component
of the child droplets and the spray angle can be determined from:
(6.152)
After breakup of the parent droplet, the deformation parameters of the child droplet are set to
.
The following user accessible model constants are available for the TAB breakup model.
Table 6.2: TAB Breakup Model Constants and their Default Values
Con- Value CCL Name
stant
0.5 Critical Amplitude Coefficient
5.0 Damping Coefficient
1/3 External Force Coefficient
8.0 Restoring Force Coefficient
1.0 New Droplet Velocity Factor
10/3 Energy Ratio Factor
Figure 6.4: Particle distortion for the TAB model
6.5.2.6. ETAB [106]

The enhanced TAB model uses the same droplet deformation mechanism as the standard TAB
model, but uses a different relation for the description of the breakup process. It is assumed that
the rate of child droplet generation, , is proportional to the number of child droplets:
(6.153)
The constant , depends on the breakup regime and is given as:
(6.154)
with being the Weber number that divides the bag breakup regime from the stripping
breakup regime. is set to default value of 80. Assuming a uniform droplet size distribution,
the following ratio of child to parent droplet radii can be derived:
(6.155)
After breakup of the parent droplet, the deformation parameters of the child droplet are set to
. The child droplets inherit a velocity component normal to the path of the parent
droplet with a value:
(6.156)
where A is a constant that is determined from an energy balance consideration:
(6.157)
with:
(6.158)
and being the parent droplet drag coefficient at breakup.
It has been observed that the TAB model often predicts a ratio of child to parent droplet that is
too small. This is mainly caused by the assumption, that the initial deformation parameters
and are zero upon injection, which may lead to far too short breakup times. The largely un-
derestimated breakup times in turn lead to an underprediction of global spray parameters such as
the penetration depth, as well as of local parameters such as the cross-sectional droplet size distri-
bution. To overcome this limitation Tanner [107] proposed to set the initial value of the rate of
droplet deformation, , to the largest negative root of Equation 6.108 (p. 269):
(6.159)
while keeping the initial value of the droplet deformation, . is determined from the
following equation:
(6.160)
with C = 5.5
The effect of setting to a negative number is to delay the first breakup of the large initial
droplets and to extend their life span, which results in a more accurate simulation of the jet
breakup.
In addition to the TAB model constants, the following user accessible model constants are available
for the ETAB breakup model:
Table 6.3: ETAB Breakup Model Constants and Their Default Values
Con- Value CCL Name
stant
2/9 ETAB Bag Breakup Factor
2/9 Stripping Breakup Factor
80 Critical Weber Number for Stripping
Breakup
6.5.2.7. Cascade Atomization and Breakup Model (CAB)

A further development of the ETAB model, is the so-called Cascade Atomization and Breakup
Model (CAB). Identical to the ETAB model, the following equation is used to determine the child
droplet size after breakup:
(6.161)
the main difference being the definition of the breakup constant :
(6.162)
where
(6.163)
and
(6.164)
The model constants , and have the same values as given for the TAB model. For details
see Table 6.2: TAB Breakup Model Constants and their Default Values (p. 281).
In addition to the TAB model constants, the following user accessible model constants are available
for the CAB breakup model:
Table 6.4: CAB Breakup Model Constants and Their Default Values
Con- Value CCL Name
stant
0.05 CAB Bag Breakup Factor
80 Critical Weber Number for Stripping
Breakup
350 Critical Weber Number for Catastrophic
Breakup
6.5.3. Dynamic Drag Models

Many particle drag models assume that the droplet remains spherical throughout the domain. However,
this is not always the case and the particle shape may be distorted significantly. In the extreme case,
the particle shape will approach that of a disk. The drag coefficient is highly dependent on the particle
shape and it is therefore desirable to modify the standard drag laws to account for the effects of
droplet distortion.
In CFX, the following models are implemented that modify the drag coefficient depending on the
particle distortion:
6.5.3.1. Liu [108]

The drag coefficient is assumed to vary linearly between that of a sphere and that of a disk:
(6.165)
(6.166)
y is a measure of the particle distortion. If the droplet is not distorted , then the drag coefficient
of a sphere will be obtained. If the particle is maximally distorted , then the drag coefficient
of a disk will be obtained. This drag model is only available for the TAB, ETAB and CAB breakup
models.
Note:
The Liu drag coefficient modification is activated by default for the TAB, ETAB, and CAB
breakup models.
6.5.3.2. Schmehl [105]

The droplet deformation due to external aerodynamic forces leads to a change in the drag coefficient
of the droplet that is assumed to vary between the two limiting geometries, a sphere and a disk.
The drag coefficient of the droplet is given as:
(6.167)
with:
(6.168)
(6.169)
and:
(6.170)
The droplet aspect ratio, , and the particle distortion, , are related as follows:
(6.171)
here is 1 for a sphere and 0 for the distorted particle (disc).
This drag model is available for the Schmehl breakup model only. It is activated by default.
6.6. Particle Collision Model

6.6.1. Introduction to the Particle Collision Model
6.6.2. Implementation of a Stochastic Particle-Particle Collision Model in Ansys CFX
6.6.3. Range of Applicability of Particle-Particle Collision Model
6.6.4. Limitations of Particle-Particle Collision Model in Ansys CFX
Particle Collision Model
6.6.1. Introduction to the Particle Collision Model

Highly loaded gas-particle flows are commonly simulated by the two-fluid model where interactions
between particles are computed using the Kinetic Theory of Dense Gases. In classical Euler-Lagrange
modeling, the equations of motion of individual particles are solved without considering collisions
between particles because the presence of other particles is not taken into account.
The particle-particle collision model ( PPCM) in Ansys CFX takes inter-particle collisions and their effects
on the particle and gas phase into consideration. The model implemented into Ansys CFX is the
stochastic particle-particle collision model by Oesterlé & Petitjean [151] that has been extended by
Frank, Th. [149], Hussmann, B. et al. [150] and Sommerfeld [152].
6.6.1.1. Background Information

Standard Lagrange simulations are constrained to dilute gas-particle flows because particles are
treated as being independent of their neighbors. Activating the particle collision model facilitates
the application of the Lagrange model to dense gas-solid flows with a high mass-loading while the
particle volume fraction is still low. Hence, dense multiphase flows in which contact forces between
particles preponderate over aerodynamic forces exerted by the fluid, such as in fluidized beds or
hoppers, are excluded. This is because the model is limited to binary collisions that dominate, if
the average distance between two particles is much greater than their diameters.
Both the Euler-Euler multiphase model and the "classical" Euler-Lagrange model can approximate
dense gas-solid flows only roughly. The LPTM-PPCM (p. 285) model implemented in Ansys CFX ex-
pands the Euler-Lagrange model by a stochastic inter-particle collision model by enabling the so-
called four-way coupling. Hereby, the mutual influence of gas and particles is accounted for as
well as the mutual interaction of (spherical) particles by means of binary collisions.
6.6.2. Implementation of a Stochastic Particle-Particle Collision Model in

Ansys CFX
The main idea behind the stochastic collision model is the creation of a virtual collision partner, which
is done by using local size and velocity distributions of the droplet phase. Hence, the virtual droplet
is a representative of the local droplet population. This approach avoids the need to know the locations
of neighboring droplets and the time consuming search for collision partners in order to decide
whether a collision takes place or not. Only the droplet size- and velocity-distribution functions must
be stored for each computational element, see Sommerfeld, M. (1996) [152]. The following illustration
shows a virtual collision partner, Particle P2, whose position is determined using the following consid-
erations:
• Stochastic determination
• Probability equally distributed over cross-section
Figure 6.5: Position of the Virtual Collision Partner
6.6.2.1. Implementation Theory

For the calculation of the instantaneous velocity of the virtual collision partner, a partial correlation
of the turbulent fluctuation velocities between the real and the virtual particle is taken into account,
as proposed by Sommerfeld, M. (2001) [154]. The correlation is a function of the turbulent Stokes
number , which is the ratio of the aerodynamic relaxation time and a characteristic eddy lifetime,
the latter provided by the turbulence model. Small particles being able to follow the gas flow easily
have Stokes numbers below unity; the Stokes numbers of large inertial particles exceed unity.
Sommerfeld’s correlation function,

(6.172)
which was adapted to LES-data of a homogeneous isotropic turbulence field by Lavieville, J., E.
Deutsch, and O. Simonin (1995) [153], is used to determine the fluctuating velocity of the virtual
collision partner as given below:
(6.173)
where the index 1 stands for the real particle and index 2 for the virtual particle, index represents
the three coordinate directions and the prime indicates a fluctuating part of the velocity. is the
-th component of the mean fluctuation velocity in the control volume. is a Gaussian random
number with zero mean and a standard deviation of unity. It represents the uncorrelated part of
the fluctuation velocity of the virtual particle. Its instantaneous velocity is the sum of the fluctuating
part described above and the local mean value. The collision frequency is then determined in
analogy to the Kinetic Theory of Gases [151], by the following equation:
(6.174)
where and represent the instantaneous velocities of the real particle 1 and its collision partner
2. The diameter of the latter is sampled from a Gaussian distribution around the local average value.
The collision probability is a simple function of the collision frequency and the Lagrangian time
step and is calculated as follows:
(6.175)
The time step can be altered in the collision subroutine to ensure accuracy and stability of the
calculation by limiting it to . This allows for at most one binary collision per time step,
as derived by Sommerfeld, M. [152].
A uniformly distributed random number, , is then generated and compared to the collision
probability . If , the inter-particle collision is calculated deterministically. For , no
collision occurs and the velocity components of the real particle remain unchanged. In case of a
collision, the location of the virtual particle is determined in a stochastic way. The calculation of
the position of the collision partner relative to the real particle is done in a local coordinate system.
The position is sampled randomly from a uniform distribution on the collision cylinder cross-section
and a distance of the center point according to the sum of the two particle radii. Subsequently,
the position of the virtual particle is transformed back to the global system. A more detailed de-
scription is given by Frank, Th. (2002) [149].
At this stage, information on location, size and velocity of the virtual collision partner is known.
The next step is to determine the change in the velocity components caused by the collision. To
identify the post-collision velocities, the momentum transferred between the particles has to be
determined. For this purpose, it is again suitable to use a local coordinate system, different to the
one mentioned above and fixed to the real particle. To identify the post-collision velocities, the
momentum transferred between the particles has to be determined. Here a distinction is made
between a sliding and a non-sliding collision, if particle rotation is accounted for which affects the
tangential components of . During a non-sliding collision, the relative movement at the point of
contact ceases; whereas during a sliding collision, relative motion of the contact surfaces is main-
tained under the influence of sliding friction.
6.6.2.1.1. Particle Collision Coefficients Used for Particle-Particle Collision Model

Besides the coefficient of restitution considering the losses normal to the plane of contact, the
coefficients of sliding and static friction have to be supplied for the particle material, if particle
rotation is taken into account. Hence, in the case of rotating particles, a decision between the
two collision modes is made based on the coefficient of static friction. The respective components
of the transferred momentum are determined and the post-collision velocity components are
calculated in the local coordinate system. Finally these values are transformed back to the global
coordinate system and passed to the Lagrangian solver. Because the computational particles
(parcel) represent a number of real particles, it is assumed that all the real particles inside the
parcel collide with the same number of virtual particles.
The parameters used for the particle collision model are outlined below:
Sommerfeld Collision Model
• Coefficient of Restitution: Enter a numerical quantity or CEL based expression

to specify the value of coefficient of restitution for inter-particle collisions. A value of ‘1.0’
means a fully elastic collision, while a value of ‘0.0’ would result in an inelastic collision.
• Static Friction Coefficient and Kinetic Friction Coefficient: Enter

a numerical quantity or CEL based expression to specify values of coefficients of friction
for inter-particle collisions.
See Implementation Theory in the CFX-Solver Theory Guide (p. 286) for more information on
setting up Coefficient of Restitution, Static Friction Coefficient,
and Kinetic Friction Coefficient.
User Defined
This option is available only if you have created a particle user routine to set up the model.
Specify the name of Particle User Routine and select input arguments and type of particle
variables returned to the user routine from the Arguments and Variable List drop-down list,
respectively. See Particle User Routines in the CFX-Pre User's Guide for information on setting
up a particle user routine.
The friction coefficient values are dependent on particle material and should be obtained from
experimental investigations. As another example, a suitable (static and kinetic) friction coefficient
for the collision of steel particles can be assumed to be equal to 0.15, while a value of about 0.4
is mentioned in literature for glass particles. Furthermore, these values are dependent on the
surface roughness of the particle material and the degree of sphericity of the particle material in
the flow and are therefore subject to uncertainty.
6.6.2.1.2. Particle Variables Used for Particle-Particle Collision Model

The calculation of particle collisions with the Sommerfeld collision model uses instant-
aneous and averaged fluid and particle quantities as well as the following additional quantities:
• Particle number density (p. 288)
• Turbulent Stokes number (p. 288)
• Standard deviation of particle diameter and particle velocity (p. 289)
• Size of the integration time step of the Lagrange particle solver (User Fortran only) (p. 289)
6.6.2.1.2.1. Particle Number Density
The particle number density, , describes the number of particles per unit volume and is cal-
culated as follows:
(6.176)
In this expression, the sum is taken over all particles and all time-steps taken in the control
volume of each vertex. Here is the particle integration timestep and is the number rate
for the particle. is the volume of the control volume associated with the vertex.
6.6.2.1.2.2. Turbulent Stokes Number
The turbulent Stoke number, , is used for the calculation of the fluctuating velocity of the
collision partner of a droplet. The turbulent Stokes number is defined as the ratio of the aero-
dynamic relaxation time, , and a characteristic eddy lifetime, .
(6.177)
With
(6.178)
and
(6.179)
6.6.2.1.2.3. Standard Deviation of Particle Quantities
The calculation of the collision partner requires the instantaneous, the mean, and the standard
deviation values of particle quantities. The standard deviations of the following variables are
calculated and are available for solver internal use, as well as for Particle User Fortran and
postprocessing.
• Particle Velocity
• Particle Temperature
• Particle Diameter
• Particle Number Rate
The standard deviation of a particle variable, , is calculated within the "vertex variable" ma-
chinery and uses the following definition:
(6.180)
For information on vertex and RMS particle variables, see Particle Field Variables in the CFX
Reference Guide.
6.6.2.1.2.4. Integration Time Step Size (User Fortran Only)
The particle integration time-step is passed to the collision model routine that is provided by
the user. The timestep size is required to calculate the collision frequency for that particular
integration.
Note:
The particle-integration timestep can be accessed by you but it can not be changed.
The only exception is made for the particle collision model when using Particle User
Fortran. In this case, the solver allows users to overwrite the Particle Integra
tion Timestep variable. This extension is required, as the integration timestep
computed from the particle tracker is typically 2 to 4 orders of magnitude larger
than the one computed (and usually needed) by the collision model routine. This
ensures an accurate calculation of the droplet collision in regions with high particle
concentration. For details, see Implementation of a Stochastic Particle-Particle Collision
Model in Ansys CFX (p. 285).
Name Meaning Dimension

Particle Integration Timestep Size of the current integration time-step [Time]
Particle Turbulent Stokes Turbulent Particle Stokes number []
Number
Particle Number Density Particle number density [1/Length^3]
Name Meaning Dimension

RMS Particle Number Rate Standard deviation of the particle [1/Time]
number rate
RMS Velocity Standard deviation of particle velocity [Velocity]
RMS Mean Particle Diameter Standard deviation of particle diameter [Length]
6.6.3. Range of Applicability of Particle-Particle Collision Model

The aim of the LPTM-PPCM (p. 285) is to raise one of the restrictions for a Lagrangian particle tracking
model, namely to extend the range of applicability to higher concentrations of the dispersed partic-
ulate phase. A fluid particle flow can either be characterized by the ratio of the mean time between
particle-particle collisions and the particle relaxation time:
(6.181)
or by the inter-particle spacing defined as the ratio of the distance between two particles in the flow
and the particle diameter:
(6.182)
A fluid-particle flow is particle-particle collision dominated, if the ratio < 1, it means that the
time between adjacent particle-particle collisions is too small in order to enable the particle to get
accelerated by aerodynamic forces to its normal slip velocity with the carrier fluid until the next
particle-particle collision occurs. This fairly well corresponds to an inter-particle spacing of less than
10 and the fluid-particle flow is called a dense flow.
In the case of dense fluid-particle flow, it is necessary to additionally account for the direct particle-
to-particle momentum transfer. The PPCM model, in accordance with Oesterlé & Petitjean and Som-
merfeld, accounts for this inter-particle momentum transfer by making the assumption that only
binary particle collisions occur in the intermediate regime between dilute fluid-particle flows and flow
regimes in packed and fluidized beds. For the latter conditions it is not sufficient to assume binary
particle collisions and therefore the PPCM model is not applicable to flow regimes, where multiple
particles collide at the same time or stay in direct frictional contact.
Also see Requirements for the Applicability of Particle-Particle Collision Model in the CFX-Solver
Modeling Guide.
6.6.4. Limitations of Particle-Particle Collision Model in Ansys CFX

General model limitations and underlying assumptions are mentioned in Range of Applicability of
Particle-Particle Collision Model (p. 290) and in [149], [150] and [152]. When using the particle-particle
collision model in Ansys CFX, the following limitations apply:
• Particle collisions only take place between particles of the same type.
• Particle collisions are currently only supported for fully coupled particles.
• Collisions are taken into account in transient simulations only after the second time step, because
the PPCM relies on volume-averaged particle properties, which are available only after the completed
first time step. Thus, averaged particle properties used in the PPCM for the generation of the virtual
Particle-Wall Interaction
collision partner in binary particle collisions lag behind by one time step. With , the model
converges to the correct particle property representation for the virtual collision partner in the
PPCM, but for large integration time steps the particle phase information seen by the tracked
particle in the PPCM might be inaccurate.
Also see Requirements for the Applicability of Particle-Particle Collision Model in the CFX-Solver
Modeling Guide.
6.7. Particle-Wall Interaction

6.7.1. Introduction to Particle-Wall Interaction
6.7.2.The Elsaesser Particle-Wall Interaction Model
6.7.3. Stick-to-Wall Model
6.7.4.The Sommerfeld-Frank Rough Wall Model (Particle Rough Wall Model)
6.7.1. Introduction to Particle-Wall Interaction

Particle-wall interaction involves complex physics and not all aspects are well understood. Dimensional
analysis shows that droplet-wall interaction depends on the wall temperature, wall material and
roughness, impact angle and impact velocity, the existence of a wall film, and various other parameters.
Ansys CFX uses advanced particle-wall interaction and quasi-static wall film models to address some
of the shortcomings found in Ansys CFX 11.0 and previous releases (see the background informa-
tion (p. 291)). The following advanced particle-wall interaction models are available in Ansys CFX:
• Elsaesser particle-wall interaction model (p. 292) - This model accounts for all of the above listed
influencing factors during the particle droplet reflection.
• Stick-to-wall model (p. 297) - This model enforces all particles that hit a wall to become part of the
wall film.
For details on the implementation of quasi-static wall film in Ansys CFX, see Quasi Static Wall Film
Model (p. 298).
6.7.1.1. Background Information

In Ansys CFX 11.0 and all previous releases, a very simplistic approach is used to describe the process
of particles colliding with walls: It is assumed that during the collision process, particles exchange
momentum only with the wall. During such collisions, the momentum loss is controlled by constant
or time-dependent coefficients of restitution.
In the case of a fully inelastic collision, the particle is collected at a wall; however, the corresponding
particle mass or energy is no longer available for the simulation. It is also not possible to explicitly
account for the effects of wall roughness or wall temperature during the particle-wall interaction.
6.7.2. The Elsaesser Particle-Wall Interaction Model

The Elsaesser model is used to describe the outcome of a drop impact on a wall. The model distin-
guishes between three impact regimes (p. 292), which are characterized by their wall temperature and
the existence of a wall film.
This model is implemented in Ansys CFX as per Elsässer [175], however, with one exception that the
double droplet reflection used in the original formulation of Elsässer is neglected.[1]
This section uses the following notation for the remaining part of the model description:
• Incident parcel is designated with index "0"; whereas, "1" and consecutive integers are used for the
reflected parcels.
• Angles are always defined with respect to the wall tangent.
• The wall can be dry or wetted with the restriction that the wall film fluid is identical to the particle
fluid.
6.7.2.1. Classification of Impact Regimes

The impact regime classification is based on the work of Bai and Gosman [176], who defined two
limiting temperature to distinguish between the following three temperature regimes:
• Cold wall with wall film (cold-wetting)
• Hot wall with wall film (hot-wetting)
• Hot wall without wall film (hot-nonwetting)
The limiting temperatures are called pure adhesion temperature, TPA, and pure rebound temperature,
TPR. The pure adhesion and the pure rebound temperatures are functions of the wall and particle
material combination. Further dependencies (such as particle velocity, surface roughness, drop size
and initial temperature) probably play an important role for dynamic impact but are neglected
(usually done in most models), as the influences are not well known. Only the material properties
and the ambient pressure are therefore considered. The correlations used by Elsässer [175] to
compute rebound and adhesion temperatures are strictly valid only for a typical internal combustion
engine application, which involve the interaction of gasoline droplet on a wall material composed
of aluminum.
[1] The governing equations used in the formulation of Elsaesser particle-wall interaction
model in Ansys CFX differ in some coefficient values from those presented in Elsässer [175].
Figure 6.6: Particle-wall interaction as a function of the incoming particle Weber number (We)
and the wall temperature (TWall)
6.7.2.1.1. Cold Wall with Wall Film (TWall < TPA)

In this temperature regime, also known as cold-wetting, the following three impingement options
are modeled (see Figure 6.7: Particle-wall interactions for cold-wet walls (p. 294)):
• If the incoming particle Weber number (WeP) is below a critical Weber number (Wecrit) and a
wall film exists, then the impinging droplet is reflected.
• If the incoming particle Weber number is above a critical Weber number, then the incoming
particle sticks to the wall and forms a wall film (in the particle solver, this means that the particle
type is changed from regular particle to wall particle).
• If the incoming Weber number is increased further, then splashing occurs. In this case, part of
the incoming droplet sticks to the wall and only part of it is reflected back into the gas phase.
In the current release of Ansys CFX, mass removal from the wall film is neglected.
Figure 6.7: Particle-wall interactions for cold-wet walls
6.7.2.1.2. Hot Wall with Wall Film (TPA < TWall < TRA)
In this temperature regime, also known as hot-wetting, the following impingement options are
modeled (see Figure 6.8: Particle-wall interactions for hot wall with wall film (p. 295)):
• If the incoming particle Weber number is below a critical Weber number and a wall film exists,
then the impinging droplet is reflected.
• If the incoming particle Weber number is above a critical Weber number and a wall film exists
already, then the incoming particle sticks to the wall and its mass is transferred to the wall
film.
• If the incoming particle Weber number is above a critical Weber number, then boiling and
splashing are possible and are allowed to occur independently of each other. Also, a part of
the impinging droplet is transferred into the wall film.
• If the incoming Weber number is increased further, then splashing occurs. In this case, part of
the incoming droplet sticks to the wall and only part of it is reflected back into the gas phase.
The mass removal from the wall film is neglected.
Figure 6.8: Particle-wall interactions for hot wall with wall film
6.7.2.1.3. Hot Wall Without Wall Film (TWall > TRa)

In this temperature regime, also known as hot-nonwetting, no wall film can exist and the following
impingement options are modeled (see Figure 6.9: Particle-wall interaction for hot walls without
wall film (p. 295)):
• If the incoming particle Weber number is below a critical Weber number, then the impinging
droplet is reflected from the wall.
• If the incoming particle Weber number is above a critical Weber number, then part of the in-
coming droplet is reflected from the wall. The other part of the droplet disintegrates and forms
child droplets that are also reflected off the wall.
• If the incoming Weber number is increased further, then pure breakup occurs (that is, the in-
coming droplets complete disintegrates and form child droplets that reflect from the wall).
Figure 6.9: Particle-wall interaction for hot walls without wall film
6.7.2.2. Wall Roughness

Mean roughness values in internal combustion engine applications are of the same order as the
drop diameter. Therefore, a numerical consideration of the roughness cannot be neglected.
The Elsaesser model assumes an idealized 2D roughness profile in the impact plane of the drop. It
is presented as neighboring isosceles triangles with angle and a height of .
If a wall film exists, an effective film thickness, , between roughness elements is calculated from:
(6.183)
is the local film thickness. A non-dimensional roughness height, , is computed as:
(6.184)
with being the droplet diameter.
The virtual roughness angle, , is determined based on and as follows:
and
or
and
Particle with a non-dimensional size of larger than are unaffected by wall roughness, while
for smaller droplets the reflection is computed based on the virtual roughness angle, .
Note that contrary to the originally proposed model of Elsässer [175], multiple reflections within
one roughness element are not considered.
Figure 6.10: Treatment of rough walls
6.7.2.3. Range of Applicability, Input Data and Restrictions

The Elsaesser particle-wall interaction model is mainly targeted towards the application in internal
combustion engines, because most of the correlations used in the model are strictly only valid for
gasoline type of fuels and assume that the wall material is aluminum. The model uses over 50 dif-
ferent model constants internally.
To run a simulation using the Elsaesser wall interaction model, the following input is required:
• Wall material density
• Wall material heat capacity
• Wall material thermal conductivity
The particle solver automatically uses any roughness information you provided to simulate the
droplet reflection.
The Elsaesser model uses the child droplet generation capability of Ansys CFX. This feature is turned
on automatically, if the Elsaesser (or any other) advanced particle-wall interaction model is selected.
Particles that have hit the wall and have been changed into wall particles are reported separately
in the particle fate section. The wall film is represented by wall particles and it is assumed that this
film does not move due to external forces. The wall film can exchange mass and energy with its
surrounding, but no momentum.
6.7.3. Stick-to-Wall Model

The model enforces all particles that hit a wall to become part of the wall film, regardless of their
impact velocity or impact angle. Also, particles that are collected on a wall are able to interact with
their surroundings by exchanging mass and energy (for example, during the droplet evaporation).
6.7.4.The Sommerfeld-Frank Rough Wall Model (Particle Rough Wall Model)

The majority of industrially important disperse multiphase-flows are confined flows, such as flows in
cyclone separators or in pneumatic conveying pipe systems. The motion of large particles, which is
dominated by inertia, is strongly influenced by the confinement. Studies of the wall-collision process
have shown that irregularities due to wall-roughness and deviation of particle shape from a sphere
play important roles [208], [209], [210].
To account for the influence of wall roughness on the particle-wall collision, the irregular bouncing
model of Frank [211] is used. This model is based on the virtual wall model that was proposed by
Sommerfeld [212].
Figure 6.11: Particle-Wall Interaction at a rough wall. Definition of Δγ and characteristic

roughness element length scales
In this model, it is assumed that the reflection of a particle at a rough wall can be modeled as the
reflection of the particle at a virtual wall that is inclined with an angle of relative to the real wall.
The inclination angle is a function of the wall roughness scale and the particle diameter.
In the model of Frank [4] the inclination angle, , is sampled from a Gaussian distribution with a
mean value of 0° and a standard deviation of . The standard deviation depends on the particle
diameter and the roughness parameters. It is estimated as:
(6.185)
where:
• is the mean cycle of roughness (the average distance between peaks of wall material)
• is the mean roughness height
• is the standard deviation of the roughness height
6.8. Quasi Static Wall Film Model

In Ansys CFX, a so called quasi static wall film model is implemented that neglects the wall film movement
due to external forces, such as shear stress, gravity, pressure forces, etc. In this model, wall particles
interact only with their surroundings via mass transfer (evaporation) or heat transfer (wall conduction,
convection).

6.8.1. Assumptions
6.8.2. Determination of Flooded Regime
6.8.3. Energy Transfer to and from the Wall Film
6.8.4. Mass Transfer to and from the Wall Film
6.8.5. Wall Film Thickness
6.8.6. Wall Film in Moving Mesh Applications
6.8.7. User Control for Heat and Mass Transfer Terms of Wall Particles
Quasi Static Wall Film Model
6.8.1. Assumptions
The following main assumptions apply to the wall-film model:
• The wall film thickness is thin and the wall film does not alter the geometry.
• The existence of a wall film has no influence on the turbulence generation in the wall boundary
layer.
• Film particles are in direct contact to the wall and heat transfer from wall to film takes place by
conduction.
• Film particles originating from different particle types do not mix (that is, fuel droplets that hit oil-
covered walls do not interact with each other). In Ansys CFX, the particle solver checks that only
one particle type can form a wall film on a domain boundary.
• In the non-flooded regime wall particles keep their spherical shape.
• The simulation is assumed to be turbulent.
• The wall film model can be used only in transient simulations.
• The wall film model cannot be used together with dispersed Eulerian particles.
6.8.2. Determination of Flooded Regime

By default, it is assumed that a wall face is covered by a wall film (flooded) as soon as the first wall
particle is created on that particular face.
6.8.3. Energy Transfer to and from the Wall Film

The total heat transfer to a single wall film droplet is found from the following energy balance:
(6.186)
6.8.3.1. Conductive Heat Transfer

is the heat conducted from the wall, as given by:
(6.187)
where is the conductive heat transfer coefficient and is the wall area covered by the
particle. This term is always included in the energy equation for wall particles.
6.8.3.1.1. Non-flooded Regime

In the non-flooded regime, is assumed to be equal to the drop diameter. The wall contact area
is computed from .
6.8.3.1.2. Flooded Regime
In the flooded regime, is set equal to the wall film thickness, . The wall contact area is
computed from , with being the volume of the particle and the wall film
thickness that was computed at the previous time step.
6.8.3.2. Convective Heat Transfer

The heat transferred from the gas to the film, , is given by:
(6.188)
where is the area covered by a wall particle, is the conservative gas temperature at the
particle position, and is the film heat transfer coefficient.
This term is always included in the energy equation for wall particles.
6.8.3.2.1. Non-flooded Regime

For the non-flooded regime, and are computed as:
(6.189)
The Nusselt number used for the calculation of is computed using the Ranz-Marshall correlation
for a sphere:
(6.190)
6.8.3.2.2. Flooded Regime

In the flooded regime, is set equal to the transfer coefficient for energy computed by the flow
solver.
Note:
The energy transfer coefficient is only available for turbulent flows. A physics check is
added to the tracker setup phase to make sure that you set the flow type to turbulent.
6.8.3.3. Calculation of the Average Wall Film Temperature

The average wall film temperature (that is, the temperature of all wall particles associated to a
boundary vertex) is computed by using the particle vertex machinery, by adding up contributions
of wall particles (particles that already exist and new particles that turn into wall particles). This is
done as a postprocessing step after all particles have been tracked.
6.8.3.4. Evaporation from Film

accounts for the energy that is removed from the wall film particle, as it evaporates into the
surrounding medium:
(6.191)
is the latent heat of vaporization, is the rate of evaporation.
6.8.3.4.1. Non-flooded Regime (Non-boiling)

The mass transfer rate for a single droplet is computed using the Liquid Evaporation Model. For
particles below the boiling point, the following relation is used:
(6.192)
The transfer coefficient, , is defined as:

(6.193)
The Sherwood number is calculated using the Ranz-Marshall correlation for a sphere as:
6.8.3.4.2. Flooded Regime (Non-boiling)

The mass transfer rate of a particle component, , into the coupled Euler phase can be determined
by considering species mass balances on control surfaces on either side of the phase interface:
(6.194)
is the mass fraction of the particle component at the film surface, and is the surface diffusive
mass flux.
The surface mass flux can be expressed in terms of a mass transfer coefficient, , as:
(6.195)
is the mass fraction of the volatile particle component as obtained from the flow field solution.
The transfer coefficient, , is set equal to the transfer coefficient for scalars as computed by the
flow solver.
Inserting Equation 6.195 (p. 301) into Equation 6.194 (p. 301) and solving for , gives:
(6.196)
6.8.3.4.3. Flooded and Non-flooded Regime (Boiling Particles)

For particles above the boiling point this relation is used:
(6.197)
where and is given by Equation 6.187 (p. 299) and Equation 6.188 (p. 300) respectively.
is computed in the same way as for regular particles.
6.8.4. Mass Transfer to and from the Wall Film

Mass transfer due to evaporation is computed from Equation 6.192 (p. 301), Equation 6.196 (p. 301) or
Equation 6.197 (p. 301) depending on the regime (viz., flooded or non-flooded) and the state of the
particle (viz., boiling or non-boiling). Mass transfer from impinging droplets is computed by simply
adding the droplet mass to the film mass on a particular wall face.
6.8.5. Wall Film Thickness

The wall film thickness on a given (control volume) wall face is computed from the volume fraction,
, of all wall particles in a control volume, times the ‘control volume’ volume, , divided by the
local control volume face area, :
(6.198)
The generalization to control volume sectors or element faces is straightforward.
6.8.6. Wall Film in Moving Mesh Applications

Even though the wall film is assumed to be not moving due to external forces, there may be situations,
where the wall film is either moving with the wall (for example, piston top) or moving relative to the
grid (for example, cylinder wall). The second situation occurs due to the moving mesh approach used
for simulations with changing geometries.
Both situations are handled with the current approach without user interference. The distinction
whether wall particles move with a wall or move relative to the underlying mesh is based on the
value of the so called Wall Velocity, which is given as:
For the moving wall:
Velocity of mesh (Vmesh) Velocity of wall (Vwall) Velocity of wall-particle (Vwall-particle)
For the stationary wall:
Velocity of mesh (Vmesh) 0, Velocity of wall (Vwall) Velocity of wall-particle (Vwall-particle) 0
6.8.6.1. Wall Film Moving with Mesh

The situation is identical to the case, where wall particles are located at a non-moving wall.
When a particle has hit a wall face, the topological data of the impact is known and is stored in
the particle database. Because the particle does not move, there is no need to update this data
during the simulation.
6.8.6.2. Wall Film Moving Relative to Underlying Mesh

This case requires the update of the wall particle topology data during the simulation, as wall
particles may cross elements due to the specified mesh movement. The relocalization of wall particles
is currently done after all particles have been tracked. Due to performance reasons the update is
not done while tracking wall particles. Relocalizing wall particles at the end of a fluid time step
therefore puts an upper limit onto the maximum allowed fluid time step, because for accurate
simulations wall particle should not cross more than one element per fluid time step. If a too large
time step is used, wall particles will put their heat and mass sources into the last known element.
6.8.7. User Control for Heat and Mass Transfer Terms of Wall Particles
In Ansys CFX, the coupling of heat and mass transfer terms of wall particles into the coupled Eulerian
phase can be controlled, similar to the coupling control for regular particles. However, it is not possible
to control the coupling on a term-by-term basis, but the coupling is applicable on the global equation
level. This means that if the particle energy equation is run in a fully coupled mode, then this will not
only apply to regular particles, but also to wall bounded particles (and the wall film they represent).
Likewise, if the coupling of the energy equation is set to one-way coupled, then this also applies to
the wall particles of that particular particle type. The coupling control for wall particles is essentially
identical to what is currently done for regular particles. The same applies to the particle mass transfer
equation.
Chapter 7: Combustion Theory
This chapter covers the implementation of the combustion models in the CFX-Solver and extends the
ideas covered in Multicomponent Flow (p. 61). You should be familiar with the multicomponent flow
chapter before reading this section.

7.1.Transport Equations
7.2. Chemical Reaction Rate
7.3. Fluid Time Scale for Extinction Model
7.4.The Eddy Dissipation Model
7.5.The Finite Rate Chemistry Model
7.6.The Combined Eddy Dissipation/Finite Rate Chemistry Model
7.7. Combustion Source Term Linearization
7.8.The Flamelet Model
7.9. Burning Velocity Model (Premixed or Partially Premixed)
7.10. Burning Velocity Model (BVM)
7.11. Laminar Burning Velocity
7.12.Turbulent Burning Velocity
7.13. Extended Coherent Flame Model (ECFM)
7.14. Residual Material Model
7.15. Spark Ignition Model
7.16. Autoignition Model
7.17. Phasic Combustion
7.18. NO Formation Model
7.19. Chemistry Postprocessing
7.20. Soot Model
The following sections outline the basis of the implementation of combustion modeling in CFX. First,
the transport equations for energy and the components are revisited, then the chemical reaction rate
computation is described, and finally, the computation of the rate of progress of a chemical reaction
is explained in the context of the Eddy Dissipation and Finite Rate Chemistry Models. Extinction is
modeled by setting the reaction rate locally to zero.
Combustion Theory
7.1. Transport Equations

Combustion models in CFX use the same algorithm used for Multicomponent Fluid with the addition
of a source/sink term due to chemical reactions. The equation of transport for component I with mass
fraction, Y I is then:
(7.1)
where the source term S I is due to the chemical reaction rate involving component I.
7.2. Chemical Reaction Rate

In general, chemical reactions can be described in terms of K elementary reactions involving N C com-
ponents that can be written as:
(7.2)
where is the stoichiometric coefficient for component in the elementary reaction . The stoichiomet-
ric coefficients for reactants are denoted by a single dash, , and those for products by a double dash,
.
The rate of production/consumption, , for component can be computed as the sum of the rate of
progress for all the elementary reactions in which component participates:
(7.3)
where is the elementary reaction rate of progress for reaction , which in CFX can be calculated
using the Eddy Dissipation Model or/and the Finite Rate Chemistry Model. is the molar mass of
component .
7.3. Fluid Time Scale for Extinction Model

When the model for flame extinction at high turbulence is activated, local extinction occurs when .
While is directly specified, the turbulence time scale is computed from the CFD solution fields. One
possibility is to apply the Kolmogorov time scale:
(7.4)
An alternative is to use the mixing time scale:

(7.5)
The Eddy Dissipation Model
7.4. The Eddy Dissipation Model

The eddy dissipation model is based on the concept that chemical reaction is fast relative to the
transport processes in the flow. When reactants mix at the molecular level, they instantaneously form
products. The model assumes that the reaction rate may be related directly to the time required to mix
reactants at the molecular level. In turbulent flows, this mixing time is dominated by the eddy properties
and, therefore, the rate is proportional to a mixing time defined by the turbulent kinetic energy, , and
dissipation, .
(7.6)
This concept of reaction control is applicable in many industrial combustion problems where reaction
rates are fast compared to reactant mixing rates.
In the Eddy Dissipation model, the rate of progress of elementary reaction k, is determined by the
smallest of the two following expressions:
7.4.1. Reactants Limiter
(7.7)
where [ I ] is the molar concentration of component I and I only includes the reactant components.
7.4.2. Products Limiter
(7.8)
where P loops over all product components in the elementary reaction k.
The products limiter is disabled when the model coefficient B is set to a negative value. For both
single step and multi-step reaction schemes, it is turned off by default, (set to -1), but may be turned
on by explicitly setting the model coefficient B to a positive value (although this is not recommended
for multistep reaction schemes).
7.4.3. Maximum Flame Temperature Limiter

Optionally, a maximum flame temperature may be applied for the Eddy Dissipation model. The reaction
rate is smoothly blended to zero when the specified upper temperature limit is approached. This is
implemented by an additional bound added to the minimum condition in the EDM reaction rate:
(7.9)
where:
(7.10)
Combustion Theory
may be interpreted as a virtual concentration, which vanishes if the temperature is equal to

the maximum flame temperature. is the specific heat capacity of the fluid mixture at constant
pressure and is the reaction heat release per mole.
7.5. The Finite Rate Chemistry Model

The Finite Rate Chemistry model, as implemented in CFX, assumes that the rate of progress of elementary
reaction k can be reversible only if a backward reaction is defined. Therefore, the rate of progress R k,
is computed as:
(7.11)
where [ I ] is the molar concentration of component I and F k and B k are the forward and backward
rate constants respectively.
r represent the reaction order of component I in the elementary reaction k. This reaction order is equal
to the stoichiometric coefficient for elementary reactions, but it can be different for certain global reac-
tions.
The only built-in formula for the forward and backward rate constants assumes an Arrhenius temperature
dependence as:
(7.12)
(7.13)
where:
• A k is pre-exponential factor
• is the temperature exponent (dimensionless)
• E k is the activation energy
• T is the absolute temperature
can also be specified directly without using relations.
Separate sets of coefficients , and are applied to forward and backward rates.
7.5.1. Third Body Terms

In cases that a third body is needed for the reaction to occur, the rate of progress described earlier
is scaled by:
(7.14)
Combustion Source Term Linearization
where is the relative participation of component I i in reaction k.
For those components that have a high probability to participate in the reaction, the coefficient
is higher than those that rarely participate or do not participate at all ( ). If the third body term
is present in a reaction, CFX assumes the default efficiency for all components (Option = Default).
Efficiency factors can be specified for individual species by setting Option to Efficiency Factor
List and listing the components as well as their efficiency factors in the Materials List and
Efficiency Factor List parameters, respectively. If the Efficiency Factor List option
is effective, the default still applies to those components that are not listed.
7.6. The Combined Eddy Dissipation/Finite Rate Chemistry Model

The effective reaction rate, for the combined model, is computed to be the minimum of the Finite
Chemistry Rate and the Eddy Dissipation rate.
The Theory documentation for this model is the same as for others:
• The Finite Rate Chemistry Model (p. 308)
7.7. Combustion Source Term Linearization

The combustion source terms may have a dominant influence on the solution of the scalar and energy
equations. Thus, it is important to treat the combustion source terms carefully in order to obtain robust
convergence of the fluid flow.
A property of multicomponent fluids is that the mass fraction of any given component is bounded
between 0 and 1. Combustion tends to drive reactant concentrations towards the lower limit and
product concentrations toward the upper limit. If the timestep is large, the combustion sources may
cause scalars to exceed these bounds. Thus, the sources may need to be moderated to maintain phys-
ically realistic mass fractions.
The combustion sources in CFX have been linearized to prevent the formation of negative mass fractions.
Consider the solution of component I with the source term, R, which is calculated from Equa-
tion 7.15 (p. 309) in each control volume. To prevent the mass fraction of I from exceeding the bounds
of 0 to 1, the source term is calculated according to:
(7.15)
where and where
and is a small number (set to 10-6). The combustion reaction rate should approach 0 whenever any
of the reactant or product mass fractions approach 0. If the source is positive (for products), then the
first term on the right hand side of Equation 7.15 (p. 309) is zero and the source is:
(7.16)
otherwise:
Combustion Theory
(7.17)
Therefore, as , .
If the source is negative (reactants), then the second term on the right hand side of Equation 7.15 (p. 309)
is zero and the source is:
(7.18)
otherwise:
(7.19)
Therefore, as , .
This treatment of combustion sources enables larger timesteps to be used in calculating a steady-state
solution than would be possible without the linearization.
7.8. The Flamelet Model

The flamelet concept [37] for non premixed combustion describes the interaction of chemistry with
turbulence in the limit of fast reactions (large Damköhler number). The combustion is assumed to occur
in thin sheets with inner structure called flamelets. The turbulent flame itself is treated as an ensemble
of laminar flamelets that are embedded into the flow field.
The Flamelet model is a non equilibrium version of the classical "Burke-Schumann" limit. It adds new
details to the simulation of combustion processes compared to other common combustion models for
the price of the solution of only two scalar equations in the case of turbulent flow. An arbitrary number
of intermediates may be specified as long as their laminar chemistry is known.
The main advantage of the Flamelet model is that even though detailed information of molecular
transport processes and elementary kinetic reactions are included, the numerical resolution of small
length and time scales is not necessary. This avoids the well-known problems of solving highly nonlinear
kinetics in fluctuating flow fields and makes the method very robust. Only two scalar equations have
to be solved independent of the number of chemical species involved in the simulation. Information
of laminar model flames are pre-calculated and stored in a library to reduce computational time. On
the other hand, the model is still restricted by assumptions like fast chemistry or the neglecting of dif-
ferent Lewis numbers of the chemical species.
The coupling of laminar chemistry with the fluctuating turbulent flow field is done by a statistical
method. The PDF used can in principle be calculated at every point in the flow field by solving a PDF
transport equation as shown by Pope and many others. The most often mentioned advantage of this
method is that the nonlinear chemical source term needs no modeling. Even though the method avoids
some modeling that is necessary if using moment closure, it still requires modeling of some of the most
important terms, in particular, the fluctuating pressure gradient term and the molecular diffusion term.
If combustion occurs in thin layers as assumed here, the molecular diffusion term is closely coupled to
the reaction term and the problem of modeling the chemical source term is then shifted towards
modeling the diffusion term.
However, there is no source term in the mixture fraction equation, which is the principal transport
equation in the Flamelet model. Therefore, a presumed beta-PDF, which is a commonly accepted choice,
The Flamelet Model
is used here. Additionally, this avoids the extremely large computational efforts of calculating the PDF
in 3D with a Monte Carlo method.
The following list outlines the assumptions made to derive the Flamelet model:
• Fast Chemistry
• Unity Lewis numbers for all species,
• Combustion is in the Flamelet Regime
• Two feed system, that is, fluid composition at boundaries must be pure "fuel," pure "oxidizer" or a
linear blend of them.
• Diffusion flames. For premixed or partially premixed combustion, the Flamelet model can be combined
with a model for reaction progress. For details, see Burning Velocity Model (Premixed or Partially
Premixed) (p. 315).
Fluid properties, including temperature and density, are computed from the mean composition of the
fluid in the same way as for other combustion models, such as the Eddy Dissipation model.
The Flamelet model as implemented in CFX can be applied for non-adiabatic configurations. The only
limitation is that changes in the composition of the fluid due to different temperature and pressure
levels are not accounted for. However, the effect of heat loss and pressure on density and temperature
is taken into account. For heat losses occurring in many combustion devices, the influence of heat losses
on composition is sufficiently small to be neglected.
In a large number of industrial combustion devices, pure non-premixed combustion is less present than
premixed or partly premixed combustion. In CFX, a model for premixed and partially premixed combus-
tion is available, which involves the Flamelet model as a sub-model. For details, see Burning Velocity
Model (Premixed or Partially Premixed) (p. 315).
7.8.1. Laminar Flamelet Model for Non Premixed Combustion

A diffusion flame is characterized by the diffusion of reactants into the flame front. While convective
and diffusive time scales are of the same order of magnitude, the chemical time scales are much
smaller for typical combustion processes of interest. Several approaches to treat chemical reactions
have been developed and tested during the last decades.
The assumption of local chemical equilibrium has often been used in modeling the fast chemistry
regime. For hydrocarbon flames, however, the assumption of local chemical equilibrium results in an
over-prediction of intermediates like CO and H2. This suggests that non equilibrium effects are import-
ant in modeling these flames. Further essential non equilibrium effects are flame extinction, lift-off
and blow-out.
Another well known approach is the flame sheet model of Burke and Schuman often characterized
as 'mixed is burned'. Here, only the mixture of the reactants is calculated and the chemistry is treated
as infinite fast and complete when mixing is complete. Therefore, combustion occurs in an infinitely
thin sheet at the surface of stoichiometric mixture. Again non equilibrium effects are not taken into
account, which are important if the strongly varying time scales of the turbulent flow fields approach
those of the chemical reactions.
Combustion Theory
Linan [42] was the first who incorporated non equilibrium effects in diffusion flames. He analyzed the
inner structure of the thin laminar flame sheet, referred to here as a Flamelet using an asymptotic
description with a large Damköhler number as the expansion parameter. The Damköhler number is
the ratio of flow to chemical time scales:
(7.20)
Linan’s method is similar to Prandtl's boundary layer theory. The inner layer of the thin reaction sheet
with well defined structure is called "Flamelet" from now on. A more simple description of flamelets
is possible by using the mixture fraction, which is the sum of all elementary mass fractions:
(7.21)
which have its origin in a system consisting of fuel inlet (labeled 1) and oxidizer inlet (labeled 2). Here
is the mass fraction of species i, the mass fraction of a chemical element (such as C or H),
the molecular mass, and the number of elements in the molecule
(7.22)
Assuming equal diffusivities and heat capacities for all chemical components a conservation equation
for the mixture fraction Z can be derived by summing all species conservation equations, and the
chemical source terms therefore cancel exactly. The mixture fraction is not influenced by chemical
reactions because it deals with elements rather than molecules, and elements are not affected by
chemistry.
(7.23)
The isosurface determines the location of stoichiometric mixture. To be able to describe the
location of the flamelets anywhere in the flow field, a new coordinate system is introduced here. One
of its coordinates is locally perpendicular to the surface of stoichiometric mixture.
The transformation is shown for the temperature equation as an example. The 3 terms at the right
hand side represent chemical reactions, radiation and the transient pressure gradient, respectively.
The last is important for combustion involving fast changing pressure such as in closed burning
chambers of a piston engine.
(7.24)
After applying the following transformation rules:

(7.25)
(7.26)
(7.27)
and using the assumption of a constant Lewis number:

(7.28)
The Flamelet Model
you obtain the temperature equation in the form:
(7.29)
Because the Flamelet is assumed to be thin, only gradients normal to the surface of stoichiometric
mixture are large, and all terms without a second derivative in respect to the mixture fraction Z can
be neglected. When this is done formally by introducing a stretched coordinate, it turns out that the
remaining equation is essentially one dimensional. The same arguments apply for all other equations
as well:
(7.30)
Non equilibrium effects - the influence of the outer flow field on the inner reaction zone - are described
by the scalar dissipation rate at stoichiometric mixture.
(7.31)
It represents a reciprocal residence time that is increased by stretch effects of the flow field and reduced
by diffusion. At a critical value of the flame shows a threshold behavior and extinguishes. The
stretch in physical space leads to a reaction zone that is so thin that the production of heat cannot
balance the heat loss caused by conduction. The temperature drops to unburnt values and the reactions
freeze. `Freeze' means they are at lower temperatures and are much slower than the fluid time scales.
The important conclusion of this derivation is that flamelet structures in the presence of fast chemistry
can be described by one dimensional model flames. This will be used to model reacting turbulent
flow fields.
7.8.2. Coupling of Laminar Flamelet with the Turbulent Flow Field

In the turbulent flow field, the Favre averaged (tilde superscript) mixture fraction equation is solved:
(7.32)
The Favre averaging is extensively explained in the theory documentation of CFX. Statistical information
on the mixture fraction is obtained from the variance of Z.
(7.33)
The structure of this equation is similar to the mixture fraction equation itself except for last two
terms on the right hand side. The first source term is the production and the second source term
models the dissipation of the variance. Here, stands for the scalar dissipation rate and is modeled
in turbulent flow using the empirical relation:
Combustion Theory
(7.34)
It includes the effects of strain as well as mixture fraction fluctuations. The standard set of model
coefficients in CFX is , and
The mean composition of the fluid is computed as a function of mean mixture fraction, mixture
fraction variance and scalar dissipation rate by look-up in a flamelet library:
(7.35)
The integration over the probability density function (PDF) is not carried out during the CFD calcu-
lation, but is reflected in the flamelet library. For details, see Flamelet Libraries (p. 314). The CFD solver
looks up the preintegrated values from the library.
In principle, many types of PDF could be applied, but the most commonly agreed choice is the Beta-
PDF. The shape of is presumed to be that of a beta function ( -function):
(7.36)
(7.37)
The Beta-PDF is used for the Flamelet libraries shipped with CFX.
Note that for the table look-up, the solver is actually using instead of ,that is, the local value of
the scalar dissipation rate is applied instead of the value at stoichiometric mixture fraction. This is
exact only for stoichiometric mixture or for vanishing variance of mixture fraction (perfectly premixed
case). However, many radicals of interest, for example, OH radicals, have significant concentrations
only at stoichiometry and in its surrounding, which makes this approximation acceptable. In principle,
could be derived from the solution fields, but this would introduce errors, too, because it would
require either additional modeling or averaging over the computational domain.
7.8.3. Flamelet Libraries

A flamelet library provides the mean species mass fractions as functions of mean mixture fraction,
variance of mixture fraction and scalar dissipation rate:
(7.38)
A separate Flamelet library is required for each fuel and each combination of fuel/oxidizer inlet tem-
peratures and pressure level. The libraries shipped with CFX are listed in Table 7.1: Flamelet libraries
included with CFX (p. 315). The files reside in the subdirectory: <CFXROOT>/etc/reactions-ex-
tra/flamelet/
Burning Velocity Model (Premixed or Partially Premixed)
where <CFXROOT> is the location of your CFX installation.
Table 7.1: Flamelet libraries included with CFX
Library file name Fuel/Ox- Pres-

idizer sure
H2_Air_Tf300K_Tox300K_p1bar.fll hydrogen/air 298 298 1
[K] [K] [bar]
CH4_Air_Tf298K_Tox298K_p1bar.fll Methane/air 300 300 1
[K] [K] [bar]
7.9. Burning Velocity Model (Premixed or Partially Premixed)

The model for premixed or partially premixed combustion can be split into two independent parts:
• Model for the progress of the global reaction: Burning Velocity Model (BVM), also called Turbulent
Flame Closure (TFC)
• Model for the composition of the reacted and non-reacted fractions of the fluid: Laminar Flamelet
with PDF
The mass fractions in the non-reacted fraction of the fluid, , are obtained by linear blending of
fuel and oxidizer compositions. The species mass fractions in the burned fraction of the fluid, ,
are computed by applying the Flamelet model.
7.9.1. Reaction Progress

A single progress variable, , is used to describe the progress of the global reaction:
(7.39)
The composition of the fluid is determined by blending the compositions of the non-reacted state
(fresh gases) and the reacted state (burned gases), where corresponds to fresh materials and
corresponds to fully reacted materials.
In turbulent flow, a bimodal distribution of is assumed. At any given time and position in space the
fluid is considered to be either fresh materials or fully reacted. This assumption is justified if the
chemical reaction is fast compared to the integral turbulent time scales of the flow.
Then, the averaged reaction progress variable, , is the probability for the instantaneous state of the
fluid being reacted. The mean species composition of the fluid is computed according to:
(7.40)
For example, if , then the fluid at the given position will be fully reacted during 60% of time
and non-reacted during the remaining 40% of time.
The reaction progress variable is computed by solving a transport equation:
(7.41)
Combustion Theory
The default value of the turbulent Schmidt number for the reaction progress variable is .
In the limits of pure fuel and pure oxidizer, the reaction progress is not well defined because burnt
and unburnt conditions correspond to the same physical state:
(7.42)
(7.43)
This poses the issue of which boundary value to specify for when the mixture is either pure fuel or
pure oxidizer. Even though different values for correspond to the same mixture composition, it is
still important to impose the proper value on the boundary, because it controls the combustion regime
in the domain after mixing has occurred:
• corresponds with premixed combustion
• corresponds with non-premixed combustion (diffusion flame)
In most cases, is appropriate for fuel inlets (in fact, if for fuel the Flamelet model could be
used and not solve for at all). For oxidizer inlets, the appropriate boundary value depends on the
mixing process in the domain:
• for oxidizer premixing with fuel (e.g., primary air)
• for oxidizer mixing with products (e.g., secondary air)
However, which case applies may not be known prior to the simulation. In case of a flow split, it may
even be that both cases occur for the same oxidizer inlet. In this situation, the artificial distinction
between "burnt air" ( ) and "fresh air" ( ) may cause unphysical behavior such as even fuel being
generated by mixing of products with fresh air. For example, mixing "fresh air" ( , ) with
products ( , ) would result in a mixture that is only partially burnt ( , ). The reaction
progress of the resulting mixture equals the fraction of products , equivalent to fuel being re-
established. This is unphysical. The correct behavior would be obtained by mixing products with
"burnt air" ( , ).
7.9.2. Weighted Reaction Progress

In order to overcome the boundary value issue for reaction progress on oxidizer inlets, the weighted
reaction progress, , is introduced:
(7.44)
Because for pure oxidizer, the weighted reaction progress is well defined to be . Linear
combination of the transport equations for and yields the following transport equation for the
weighted reaction progress:
Burning Velocity Model (BVM)
(7.45)
The turbulent Schmidt number for the weighted reaction progress by default is . Because of
the formal derivation of the transport equation, its solution will be equivalent to solving for reaction
progress directly; that is, introducing the weighted reaction progress overcomes the boundary value
issue for reaction progress without changing the model. Reaction progress can be restored from
mixture fraction and the weighted reaction progress according to
(7.46)
The recipe for is ill-posed for . Therefore, numerical treatment is implemented in the limit of
pure oxidizer to smoothly blend both the reaction progress and its gradient to zero:
as
Default for Ansys CFX 2021 R2 is to solve for weighted reaction progress. Expert control (CCL) is
available for reverting to the standard reaction progress equation:
FLUID MODELS:
Option = Burning Velocity Model
REACTION PROGRESS VARIABLE:
Option = Reaction Progress
# default: Weighted Reaction Progress
END
END
7.10. Burning Velocity Model (BVM)

The burning velocity model (BVM), also known as turbulent flame closure (TFC), is used to close the
combustion source term for reaction progress.
(7.47)
(7.48)
Where is the density of the unburnt mixture. Note that the molecular diffusion term for the reaction
progress is removed from the transport equation. The diffusive exchange of species and energy, which
makes the flame proceed in space, is already accounted for by the source term . However, turbulent
transport is a convective process and is modeled using the Eddy Diffusivity approximation.
The model is completed with a closure for the turbulent burning velocity . Accordingly, this type of
model is called Turbulent Burning Velocity Model (BVM). The concept has two significant advantages
compared to models based on molecular reaction rates:
1. In a given configuration, typically varies by only 1 order of magnitude. In contrast, molecular

reaction rates occurring in combustion of hydro-carbonates typically vary in the computational
domain by several orders of magnitude.
Combustion Theory
2. can be measured directly in experiments, that is, data is available for the quantity that is modeled.
Further, the burning velocity directly determines target quantities of a simulation, such as flame position.
Thus, it is easier to derive and fine-tune accurate models for the burning velocity model than to do so
for approaches based on molecular reaction rates.
7.10.1. Equivalence Ratio, Stoichiometric Mixture Fraction

Referring to the unburnt mixture, the equivalence ratio describes the ratio of fuel relative to the
amount of fuel that potentially could be burnt with the available oxidizer. For stoichiometric mixture,
the equivalence ratio is defined to be , that is, the amount of fuel and oxidizer match such that
they could be burnt with neither fuel nor oxidizer left behind. indicates fuel-rich mixtures (excess
fuel), and indicates fuel-lean mixtures (excess oxidizer). The limits are for pure oxidizer and
(infinite) for pure fuel.
When the stoichiometric mixture fraction is known, the local equivalence ratio can be computed
from mixture fraction according to
(7.49)
The stoichiometric mixture fraction depends on the fuel and the oxygen content in the oxidizer
and is a property of the flamelet library.
• Value
This option enables you to specify directly the stoichiometric mixture fraction used for calculating
the equivalence ratio.
• Reactants
For this option, the reactants and their stoichiometric coefficients for a representative global reaction
are specified. For example, for a single component fuel,
(7.50)
or for the generic form,

(7.51)
The stoichiometric mixture fraction is computed using the reactants stoichiometric coefficients and
the corresponding species mass fractions in the fuel and oxidizer streams, respectively. The species
mass fractions in the fuel and in the oxidizer are obtained from the flamelet library.
• Automatic
This option derives the stoichiometric mixture fraction from the flamelet library requiring no addi-
tional information. The numerical procedure is described below.
Figure 1 shows the qualitative behavior of mass fractions for fuel and oxygen plotted over mixture
fraction (hydrogen/air in the example).
Laminar Burning Velocity
Figure 7.1: Oxygen Mass Fraction Over Mixture Fraction
One can observe that the oxygen concentration is approximately linear below and above the stoi-
chiometric mixture fraction: linear decay on the lean side and constantly zero on the fuel side. Obvi-
ously, the curvature of the curve is close to zero except near the sharp bend at stoichiometric mixture
fraction. This observation is generalized to establish the following procedure
The stoichiometric mixture fraction approximated by the point of maximum curvature for oxygen
mass fraction, or , is
(7.52)
This is a heuristic approach and only provides an approximation. You should check the plausibility
of the calculated value, which is reported to the CFX-Solver Output file. For details, see CFX-Solver
Output File (Combustion Runs) in the CFX-Solver Manager User's Guide.
7.11. Laminar Burning Velocity

The laminar burning velocity, , is a property of the combustible mixture. It is defined as the speed of
the flame front relative to the fluid on the unburnt side of the flame. The burning velocity relative to
the burnt fluid will be higher by a factor equal to the expansion ratio, .
Physically, the laminar burning velocity depends on the fuel, the equivalence ratio, the temperature of
the unburnt mixture (preheating) and on pressure. Depending on the configuration in the simulation,
it may be possible sometimes to neglect preheat and pressure dependencies. However, for partially
premixed combustion, it is very important to account for the dependency on equivalence ratio. Specific-
ally, the flammability limits have to be obeyed.
7.11.1. Value
User-defined laminar burning velocity, . It is recommended that you account for dependency on
the fuel/oxidizer ratio by making the expression depend on the equivalence ratio or the mixture
Combustion Theory
fraction. Properties of the unburnt mixture (temperature, density, specific heat capacity, thermal
conductivity) may be used in the expression in order to account for preheating or mixture dependency.
7.11.2. Equivalence Ratio Correlation

The equivalence ratio correlation follows the approach by Metghalchi and Keck [124], expressing the
laminar burning velocity as a base value at reference conditions, , multiplied by correction factors
for preheat and pressure dependencies:
(7.53)
The exponents for preheat dependency and for pressure dependency are quadratic polynomials in
equivalence ratio:
(7.54)
(7.55)
When all three coefficients are set to zero, then the preheat dependency or the pressure dependency
is disabled. For reference burning velocity, the following options are available:
• Fifth Order Polynomial (p. 320)
• Quadratic Decay (p. 320)
• Beta Function (p. 321)
All three options specify the flammability limits for fuel-lean and for fuel-rich mixtures, and
. The burning velocity is set to zero if the local equivalence ratio is out of these bounds.
7.11.2.1. Fifth Order Polynomial

The laminar burning velocity may be specified as a polynomial up to fifth order:
(7.56)
This polynomial is evaluated on a specified fit range, . Outside this range, the burning
velocity is modeled to linearly decay to zero at the flammability limit.
7.11.2.2. Quadratic Decay

For quadratic decay the maximum laminar burning velocity at reference conditions, , and the
corresponding equivalence ratio, , are given. For smaller or larger equivalence ratio the burning
velocity is modeled to decrease according to a quadratic decay coefficient, :
(7.57)
This quadratic function is evaluated on a specified fit range, . Outside this range, the
burning velocity is modeled to linearly decay to zero at the flammability limit.
Laminar Burning Velocity
7.11.2.3. Beta Function

The beta function correlation sets the maximum laminar burning velocity, , and the correspond-
ing equivalence ratio, . A beta function is used to model the velocity decay to zero at the fuel-
lean or fuel-rich flammability limit:
where and .
7.11.2.4. Residual Material Dependency

In order to account for the residual material, an optional correction factor is multiplied to the lam-
inar burning velocity:
(7.58)
where denotes the molar fraction (volume fraction) of the residual material and is a coefficient
function of the equivalence ratio:
(7.59)
In combination with the residual material model, the values of , and are calculated using the
equivalence ratio conditioned to the ‘fresh’ mixture without residual material.
The residual material dependency in the laminar burning velocity correlation is optional. The default
residual material dependency coefficient is constant zero, that is, no residual material dependency.
7.11.2.5. Metghalchi and Keck

The correlation by Metghalchi and Keck is based on the equivalence ratio correlation with quadratic
decay described above. Predefined sets of coefficients are provided for several hydrocarbon fuels.
The fuel type is characterized by the number of carbon atoms in the fuel molecule, here called the
fuel carbon index. Table 7.2: Fuel Dependent Coefficients for Metghalchi and Keck Laminar Burning
Velocity Correlation (p. 321) lists the coefficients for methane, propane and iso-octane (gasoline),
respectively.
Table 7.2: Fuel Dependent Coefficients for Metghalchi and Keck Laminar Burning Velocity
Correlation
Carbon Fuel
Index [m/s] [m/s]
1 Methane 0.35 -1.387 1.06 0.533 1.68
3 Propane 0.342 -1.387 1.08 0.536 2.50
8 Iso-octane 0.263 -0.847 1.13 0.601 3.80
For fuels with other carbon indices the coefficients are obtained by linear interpolation of the
provided values. Fit range, preheat dependency and pressure dependency are modeled independent
Combustion Theory
of the fuel (Table 7.3: Common Coefficients for Metghalchi and Keck Laminar Burning Velocity Cor-
relation (p. 322)).
Table 7.3: Common Coefficients for Metghalchi and Keck Laminar Burning Velocity Correlation
0.7 1.4 2.98 -0.8 0 -0.38 0.22 0
7.12. Turbulent Burning Velocity

For turbulent flow, the effective or turbulent burning velocity will differ from the laminar burning
velocity, . Typically turbulence will increase the burning velocity, because wrinkling of the flame front
results in an increased effective flame surface. At very high turbulence, the opposite effect may occur,
leading to a decrease in the effective burning velocity because of local extinction. A model is required
to describe the turbulent burning velocity as a function of laminar burning velocity and turbulence
quantities.
The burning velocity is defined relative to the unburnt fluid. Relative to the burnt fluid, it will be higher
by a factor equal to the fluid expansion ratio, .
7.12.1. Value
This option can be used to implement user models for turbulent burning velocity. Typically, this will
include expressions using laminar burning velocity and turbulence quantities.
7.12.2. Zimont Correlation

The closure developed by Zimont et al. [38] [40] [41] is used for the turbulent burning velocity:
(7.60)
The leading factor, , is a modeling coefficient that has the universal value (default), with the
exception of H2/Air flames where is recommended [41].
The stretching factor, , accounts for reduction of the flame velocity due to large strain rate (large
dissipation rate of the turbulent kinetic energy). This effect is modeled in terms of the probability for
turbulence eddy dissipation, , being larger than a critical value . For , flamelet extinction
takes place, while for , the stretching effect is ignored completely. Assuming a lognormal distri-
bution for , the stretching factor is given by:
(7.61)
where denotes the complimentary error function and is the standard deviation
of the distribution of , with being an empirical model coefficient (default ).
is the thermal diffusivity of the unburned mixture. The turbulent flame speed closure model is
completed with the following models for integral velocity fluctuations level:
Turbulent Burning Velocity
(7.62)
integral turbulent length scale:

(7.63)
and Kolmogorov length scale.

(7.64)
The critical dissipation rate, , is computed from a specified critical velocity gradient, , and the
kinematic viscosity of the fluid, , according to:
(7.65)
For steady laminar flow the critical velocity gradient for quenching, , can be obtained numerically.
However, for turbulent flows, the critical value must be larger than in laminar cases because the
smallest turbulent eddies, which are responsible for the largest strain rates, do not persist long enough
to quench a flame front locally. Furthermore, different model problems may result in significant vari-
ation of the critical values obtained. For these reasons, the quenching critical velocity gradient has
to be tuned for industrial simulations. In fact, it is the only significant parameter for tuning the
model.
Theory or numerical modeling can suggest a range of physically plausible values of . For example,
the inverse of the chemical time scale of the reaction, , scaled by a factor in the range 0.1 to 1.0
is a reasonable starting point. For gas turbine combustion chambers (burning a lean methane/air
mixture) values in the range:
to
depending on the configuration, have been used successfully [40] [41] It should be noted that these
recommended values are for atmospheric temperature and pressure.
Table 7.4: Default Model Coefficients for the Zimont Turbulent Burning Velocity Correlation
Parameter Default
Value
0.5
0.28
10000
7.12.3. Peters Correlation

The Peters correlation for turbulent burning velocity was originally developed for the G-equation
combustion model (N. Peters [37]). For CFX, it was adopted to be used with the burning velocity
model.
(7.66)
where , , , and .
Combustion Theory
Turbulence effects are modeled as a function of the ratio between the integral turbulence length
scale, , and the laminar flame thickness, .
(7.67)
(7.68)
The diffusion coefficient for the flame is computed from molecular properties of the unburnt mixture
indicated by the subscript u. The default values for the model constants are listed in Table 7.5: Default
Model Coefficients for Peters Turbulent Burning Velocity Correlation (p. 324).
Table 7.5: Default Model Coefficients for Peters Turbulent Burning Velocity Correlation
Coefficient Default
Value
0.37
0.78
2.0
1.0
7.12.4. Mueller Correlation

The correlation by Mueller et al. follows an approach similar to the Peters correlation. It accounts for
variation of the average laminar burning velocity due to turbulent fluctuations of mixture fraction
and accounts for extinction under high scalar dissipation rates. However, the Mueller correlation uses
a different correlation for turbulence dependency:
, ,
Where is the laminar burning velocity at stoichiometric mixture fraction (equivalence

ratio ). The laminar burning velocity is integrated over a presumed PDF accounting for fluctuations
of mixture fraction.
(7.69)
The presumed PDF for mixture fraction is described in Coupling of Laminar Flamelet with the Turbulent
Flow Field (p. 313). Table 7.6: Default Model Coefficients for Mueller Turbulent Burning Velocity Correl-
ation (p. 324) lists the default values for the model coefficients.
Table 7.6: Default Model Coefficients for Mueller Turbulent Burning Velocity Correlation
Coefficient Default
Value
1.5
0.8
1.0 [1/s]
Extended Coherent Flame Model (ECFM)
Coefficient Default
Value
1.0
7.13. Extended Coherent Flame Model (ECFM)

The Extended Coherent Flame Model (ECFM) shares the framework for premixed or partially premixed
combustion with the Burning Velocity Model (BVM). Transport equations are solved for mean mixture
fraction (Equation 7.32 (p. 313)), variance of mixture fraction (Equation 7.33 (p. 313)) and for either reaction
progress (Equation 7.41 (p. 315)) or weighted reaction progress (Equation 7.45 (p. 317)).
In order to describe the intensity and the location of the reaction zone the flame surface density is
introduced, which is defined as the area of flame surface per unit volume. The physical units are that
of an inverse length (for example, [1/m]). The reaction source in Equation 7.41 (p. 315) or Equa-
tion 7.45 (p. 317) is defined in terms of flame surface density as:
(7.70)
The flame surface density is calculated by solving a transport equation:
(7.71)
The source terms and their physical meanings are as follows:
• Flame surface production by turbulent stretch

(7.72)
• Flame surface production by mean flow dilatation
(7.73)
• Thermal expansion and curvature
(7.74)
• Destruction due to consumption

(7.75)
where the typical (default) values for and are 1.6 and 1.0, respectively.
Note that the production term and the destruction term are formulated in terms of the volumetric
reaction progress , in contrast to the specific reaction progress (Favre-average):
(7.76)
The flame surface density is a volumetric quantity, i.e. flame surface area per unit volume. In order
to be able to use the generic machinery for solving transport the specific flame surface density, , is
introduced as an auxiliary variable:
Combustion Theory
(7.77)
which can be rewritten as

(7.78)
The specific flame surface density is the flame surface area per unit mass. Rewriting Equation 7.71 (p. 325)
in terms of leads to:
(7.79)
The volumetric transport Equation 7.71 (p. 325) and the specific transport Equation 7.79 (p. 326) are
equivalent. The specific form has the advantage that it has the same structure as other transport
equations, which are also in specific form, and therefore Equation 7.79 (p. 326) may be solved using the
same discretization schemes and numerical algorithms. The flame surface density becomes a dependent
variable and is calculated according to Equation 7.77 (p. 326).
7.13.1. Turbulent Flame Stretch

The turbulent flame stretch accounts for the increase of flame surface area due to stretching and
wrinkling of the flame front under turbulence. For the Extended Coherent Flame Model this effect is
described by the Intermittent Turbulent Net Flame Stretch (ITNFS) model proposed by Meneveau and
Poinsot [186]:
(7.80)
where is the laminar flame speed, is the laminar flame thickness, is the mean turbulent
velocity fluctuation and is the integral length scale of turbulence, and,
7.13.2. Laminar Flame Thickness

The thickness of the laminar flame has to be provided in order to close the ITNFS model. For ideal
gases Blint’s correlation is a reasonable approximation:
Residual Material Model
(7.81)
Where is the Thickness Multiplier with a default value of 2.0, is the Temperature Exponent
with a default value of 0.7 and is the ‘diffusive’ flame thickness, which is scaled by a correction
factor accounting for the thermal expansion ratio in order to obtain the effective laminar flame
thickness. Additional information on laminar flame thickness calculation can be found in the literature,
for example in [187].
7.13.3. Wall Quenching Model

Quenching of the flame at walls is modeled by a simple wall flux model [182]. The model assumes
that the boundary layer for the flame surface density is thin such that the flame is unaffected by
the wall until it contacts it. When a flamelet is touching the wall it will be quenched, resulting in a
destruction of flame surface density at the wall.
The probability of a flamelet touching the wall is proportional to the fluctuation of the velocity
component normal to the wall, , multiplied by a factor in order to account for a 50% chance
for the fluctuation being directed towards the wall. This picture leads to a wall transfer coefficient
equal to , or the equivalent wall flux for flame surface density:
(7.82)
where is the flame surface density at the internal near-wall boundary element center node. The
sign of the flux is defined to be positive for flux in, and negative for flux going out.
7.14. Residual Material Model

The standard mixture fraction/reaction progress model assumes a two-stream mixing process of fuel
and oxidizer. The residual material model extends this framework by mixing with a third stream, the
residual or ballast material. The global mixing and reaction scheme is:
(7.83)
The residual material does not participate in the combustion directly, but it does interact with the
mixture and the propagation of the flame. The most significant effects are:
• Lower peak temperature (dilution)
• Slow down in laminar burning velocity
• Different mixture composition in chemical equilibrium because of lower temperature level and
chemical interaction of residual with products
For the dependency of the laminar burning velocity on the residual material concentration see also
section Equivalence Ratio Correlation (p. 320).
Combustion Theory
7.14.1. Exhaust Gas Recirculation

In principle the residual material could have an arbitrary composition. The Exhaust Gas model in
Ansys CFX restricts the residual material to be products originating from the same fuel and oxidizer
as for the combustion. Restricting the residual material to exhaust gas offers two advantages:
1. The interaction of the residual material with the products can be modeled using a single-mixture
fraction chemistry library (that is, the same flamelet libraries can be used as without residual ma-
terial).
2. Transformation of newly generated products into residual for simulation of subsequent engine
cycles.
For many practical applications it is appropriate to assume that the residuals are recirculated exhaust
gas. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) may be either externally by guiding the exhaust gas through a
duct or pipe into the fresh mixture, or internally by recirculation or incomplete load exchange.
It is still necessary to distinct between products and residuals, because a fresh mixture containing
residual material behaves differently than a partially-reacted mixture in the flamefront. The residual
material will be less reactive, due to lower temperature and lower radical concentrations, such that
no flame develops when merely mixing residuals with fuel and oxidizer.
7.14.2. Principal Variables and Transport Equation

The mixture is described as a three-stream system of fuel, oxidizer and residual material. The corres-
ponding mass fractions neglecting any reaction sources (as for mixture fraction) are fuel tracer, ,
oxidizer tracer, , and residual tracer or EGR tracer, . The tracer variables obey the following
obvious constraints, here written for the turbulent means (the same relations apply for the laminar/in-
stantaneous quantities):
(7.84)
where
The fuel tracer and mixture fraction are very closely related quantities. The difference is that the fuel
tracer refers to the mass of fresh fuel, while the mixture fraction does additionally include a contribution
from the residual materials. The fuel tracer is equal to mixture fraction if, and only if, the residual
mass fraction is zero.
Without loss of generality the residual material is defined to be stoichiometric,
which establishes the following relation between the overall mixture fraction and the tracer variables:
(7.85)
(7.86)
Residual Material Model
Using Equation 7.84 (p. 328) and Equation 7.85 (p. 328) it is sufficient to solve for two of the four variables
, , and . In addition to the mixture fraction equation discussed in section The
Flamelet Model (p. 310), a transport equation is solved for the Favre-averaged fuel tracer:
(7.87)
The equation is identical to that for the mean mixture fraction, except for boundary and initial condi-
tions.
When the residual material model is applied in combination with the weighted reaction progress
model (for details, see Weighted Reaction Progress (p. 316)), the reaction progress is calculated based
on the fuel tracer instead of mixture fraction. The relation between weighted reaction progress and
reaction progress (Equation 7.44 (p. 316) and Equation 7.46 (p. 317)) then becomes the following:
(7.88)
where
7.14.3. Mixture Composition

The residual material corresponds to stoichiometric products and its composition can be obtained
by lookup in the Flamelet library for stoichiometric conditions. The species mass fractions in the fresh
mixture with residual material are computed from mixture fraction and fuel tracer as follows:
(7.89)
where is the mixture fraction conditional to the combustible fraction of the mixture, that is,
the mixture without the residual material, see Equation 7.94 (p. 330).
The mass fraction in the total mixture is calculated by blending the fresh and burned fractions in the
same way as without the residual material model:
(7.90)
The species mass fractions for the flamelet solution, , and for inert mixing, , are provided
by the flamelet library.
7.14.4. Reinitialization for Subsequent Engine Cycles

When running an Internal Combustion Engine simulation with multiple subsequent cycles, the com-
bustion products will become the residual material in the following cycle. Therefore, the ‘new’ products
must be transformed into residual material. This is achieved by reinitializing fuel tracer and reaction
progress at specified times:
(7.91)
and
Combustion Theory
(7.92)
In case of the weighted reaction progress model, the second assignment is equivalent to:
(7.93)
In the expression for the new fuel tracer after reinitialization, , the first term accounts for the
excess fuel in the burnt fraction of the mixture, and the second term accounts for the fuel in the fresh
fraction.
Note that in the limit of zero scalar dissipation rate, , the reinitialization leaves the component
mass fractions effectively unchanged.
7.14.5. Equivalence Ratio and Conditional Fresh/Residual Mixtures

The Equivalence Ratio variable in the results file and in CEL is conditioned to the ‘fresh’ mixture.
It is calculated for the fuel and oxidizer with the residual material removed from the mixture:
(7.94)
(7.95)
Without loss of generality the residual material is assumed to be stoichiometric. Mixture fraction and
equivalence ratio conditional to the residual fraction are by definition
and
, respectively. Fuel-rich or fuel-lean residual material can be modeled as a combination of stoichiometric

residuals with either excess fuel or excess oxidizer in the fresh mixture. For the purpose of specifying
boundary conditions or initial values, the primitive variables can be calculated from the generalized
conditional mixture fractions, enabling
according to:
(7.96)
(7.97)
where denotes the mass fraction of non-stoichiometric residual material, and
Spark Ignition Model
and
are the conditional mixture fractions for the fresh and the residual mixture. Note that
if, and only if,
. Conditional equivalence ratios can be transformed into conditional mixture fractions and vice versa
according to:
(7.98)
(7.99)
(7.100)
(7.101)
7.15. Spark Ignition Model

The purpose of the spark ignition is two-fold: First, it is required in order to provide the appropriate
conditions to start the combustion at time and location of the spark. Second, the initial size of the spark
volume may be too small to be resolved by the mesh. Therefore, a model is needed in order to describe
the initial growth of the spark kernel
The current model assumes that the burnt region around the spark initially grows as a ball. During this
phase the radius of the spark kernel, , is computed solving a zero-dimensional initial value problem
(IVP). The radius at ignition, , is defined by the initial spark volume, :
(7.102)
where
The spark kernel radius is mapped onto the three-dimensional flow field by averaging the reaction
progress over the so-called phantom region. The phantom region is a ball of radius equal to the transition
radius, , and center equal to the spark center, . While solving for the kernel radius, the reaction
progress variable is algebraically set:
Combustion Theory
for
for
The initial value problem is solved until the kernel radius reaches the transition radius, , specified
by the user. At this point, the IVP solver is stopped and transition to the principal combustion model
is made (that is, switch to the burning velocity model).
The growth rate for the kernel radius is the turbulent burning velocity with a modification accounting
for high curvature while the kernel is small:
(7.103)
where
The IVP solver uses quantities averaged over the phantom region for laminar and turbulent burning
velocities, and , turbulence quantities, and , and densities of the burnt and the fresh mixture,
and .
7.16. Autoignition Model

A flammable mixture residing at sufficiently high temperature will ignite without further interaction
after some temporal delay. This phenomenon is called ‘autoignition’ or ‘selfignition’. The underlying
process is fuel reforming and buildup of intermediate species and radicals. In the initial stage of com-
bustion this is accompanied by only a small fraction of the total heat release (‘low’ temperature com-
bustion). When the radicals and intermediates have reached critical concentrations, the chemistry
transitions to the ‘high’ temperature regime with significant heat release.
The time expiring until the transition to the high temperature regime occurs, the ignition delay time,
is determined by detailed chemistry with dozens of species and hundreds of reactions involved. For
CFD it is impractical to calculate this process in all details. Instead, the progress of fuel reforming and
radical buildup is correlated with the elapsed fraction of the delay time, . A transport equation is
solved in order to account for variations of the ignition delay time:
(7.104)
The production term is disabled when no fuel is available, such that there is no further growth
behind the flame front. The elapsed fraction of ignition delay time, , may also be interpreted as a
normalized radical concentration.
Autoignition is modeled to occur when the scalar exceeds a threshold, . That is, reaction occurs if,
and only if, the delay time has expired. This leads to a distinction in two kinds of autoignition models:
‘Ignition Delay’ and ‘Knock’.
The physical information about ignition delay is provided by the ignition delay time, , which is the
primary input parameter to the model.
Autoignition Model
7.16.1. Ignition Delay Model

The ignition delay model is applicable when the principal combustion models would burn too early
otherwise. It is available for combustion models for non-premixed combustion:
• Eddy Dissipation (EDM)
• Laminar Flamelet with PDF
The ignition delay model suppresses the reaction locally until the delay time has expired. Prior to
that the reaction rate is set to zero (Eddy Dissipation) or the reaction progress is set to ‘fresh’ mater-
ial (Flamelet).
7.16.2. Knock Model

The knock model is applicable when the principal combustion model would not ignite otherwise.
This is the case for combustion models for premixed or partially-premixed combustion:
• Burning Velocity Model (BVM)
• Extended Coherent Flame Model (ECFM)
When autoignition (knock) occurs, a source term is added for reaction progress (BVM) or for flame
surface density (ECFM), respectively. The magnitude of the source is defined by the Knock Reaction
Rate, which by default is a first order Arrhenius reaction. For the BVM the following source is added
locally to the reaction progress equation:
(7.105)
where denotes a step function that is zero for and one for , is the Pre Expo-
nential Factor with a default value of and is the Activation Energy with a default
value of 15078 J/mol.
In order to improve the numerical robustness of the model, the knock reaction rate is limited to
consume only a certain fraction of the available fuel per timestep. The specified fraction is obeyed
accurately when using the first order time discretization scheme, and it is approximate for the second
order scheme. The default limit is , that is no more than 60% of the fuel locally available may
burnt by knock per timestep.
For the ECFM, the flame surface density is locally pulled towards a value equivalent to the knock re-
action rate by adding a corresponding ‘Dirichlet’ source term:
(7.106)
where
and, where is a large coefficient (for example, ).
Combustion Theory
7.16.3. Ignition Delay Time

The ignition delay time, , is a function of local conditions, namely the fuel, pressure and temper-
ature. You may either specify a custom correlation by CEL or chose from the built-in empirical correl-
ations.
7.16.3.1. Douaud and Eyzat

The ignition delay time of gasoline can be modeled using the empirical correlation by Douaud and
Eyzat [183]:
(7.107)
where the octane number, , is a user input parameter for the model. The correlation has been
calibrated for the octane number range .
7.16.3.2. Hardenberg and Hase

The ignition delay time of Diesel fuel can be modeled using the empirical correlation by Hardenberg
and Hase [185]:
(7.108)
where
The user input parameters are the mean piston speed, , the engine velocity in rounds per
minute, , and the cetane number of the fuel, . The apparent activation energy, , has
been calibrated for cetane number in the range .
7.17. Phasic Combustion

For multiphase simulations, phasic combustion describes combustion within each individual phase. The
combustion models are solved in exactly the same way as for a single phase simulation.
• The Finite Rate Chemistry Model (p. 308)
• The Combined Eddy Dissipation/Finite Rate Chemistry Model (p. 309)
• The Flamelet Model (p. 310)
• Burning Velocity Model (Premixed or Partially Premixed) (p. 315)
NO Formation Model
7.18. NO Formation Model

The NO formation model is fully integrated into the CFX reaction and combustion module. This provides
complete control to the NO model by means of common interface (REACTION object) on one hand;
on the other hand the generic reaction system profits from the extensions implemented for the NO
model (Arrhenius with Temperature PDF reaction rates, variable pre-exponential factor for Arrhenius
rates).
7.18.1. Formation Mechanisms

The formation of NOx is a complicated process involving several different mechanisms that are termed:
• Thermal NO
• Prompt NO
• Fuel Nitrogen
• N2O
• Reburn (destruction of NO)
Reactions for the first three formation paths (thermal, prompt and fuel) and for NO reburn are pre-
defined in the REACTIONS database. It is possible to add reactions for other mechanisms, or modify
the provided mechanisms, using the Reaction details view in CFX-Pre (or manually in the CCL com-
mands file).
7.18.1.1. Thermal NO
The thermal NO mechanism is a predominant source of NOx in gas flames at temperatures above
1800 K. The NO is formed from the combination of free radical O and N species, which are in
abundance at high temperatures. The two-step mechanism, referred to as the Zeldovich mechanism,
is thought to dominate the process:
(7.109)
(7.110)
In sub or near stoichiometric conditions, a third reaction may be important:

(7.111)
When this step is included with the first two, it is referred to as the extended Zeldovich mechanism.
The rates of each of these three reactions (using the subscripts 1,2,3 to describe the three reactions)
are expressed as [43]:
(7.112)
(7.113)
(7.114)
When multiplied by the concentrations of the reactants, they yield rates in terms of ,
which can be converted to a volumetric mass source term.
Combustion Theory
The first step tends to be rate limiting, producing both an NO and N radical species. The N radical
is assumed to be oxidized by reaction Equation 7.110 (p. 335) in the Zeldovich mechanism and also
by reaction Equation 7.111 (p. 335) in the extended Zeldovich mechanism. Either way, these second
oxidation reactions are assumed to be fast and if Reaction Equation 7.109 (p. 335) occurs, then two
NO molecules will be formed. The thermal NO formation in , , is therefore related
to the rate of reaction Equation 7.109 (p. 335):
(7.115)
(7.116)
Here, denotes the molecular mass of NO. Thus, if the molar concentrations [O] and [N2] of O
radicals and N2 are known, the thermal NO mechanism can be calculated.
When using the Laminar Flamelet model, almost always the O radical concentration can be taken
without further assumptions from the solution because the model predicts it directly. However,
when using the Eddy Dissipation model (EDM) and/or the Finite Rate Chemistry model (FRC), O
radical concentrations usually are not known directly but must be derived from other quantities.
Here, the O radical concentration is estimated from the molecular oxygen dissociation,
(7.117)
(Westenberg, 1975):
(7.118)
By substitution, the effective source term for NO then reads:

(7.119)
(7.120)
7.18.1.2. Prompt NO
At temperatures lower than 1800 K, hydrocarbon flames tend to have an NO concentration that is
too high to be explained with the Zeldovich mechanisms. Hydrocarbon radicals can react with
molecular nitrogen to form HCN, which may be oxidized to NO under lean flame conditions.
(7.121)
(7.122)
The complete mechanism is very complicated. However, De Soete (see also Peters and Weber, 1991)
proposed a single reaction rate to describe the NO source by the Fenimore mechanism,
(7.123)
(7.124)
and denote molar mass of NO and the mean molar mass of the mixture, respectively. The
Arrhenius coefficients depend on the fuel. (De Soete, 1974) proposed the following values:
Methane fuel
NO Formation Model
(7.125)
Acetylene fuel
(7.126)
7.18.1.3. Fuel Nitrogen

The fuel nitrogen model assumes that nitrogen is present in the fuel by means of HCN. HCN is
modeled to either form or destroy NO depending on the local conditions in the mixture, with HCO
acting as an intermediate species. The mechanism consists of three reaction steps:
1. HCN-NO formation:
2. HCN-NO destruction:
3. HCO oxidation:
The reaction rates in [mol/s] for the reactions are, respectively:

(7.127)
where
(7.128)
(7.129)
where denotes the molar fraction of and denotes the mean molar mass of the mixture.
7.18.1.4. NO Reburn
Under fuel rich conditions, when the amount of oxygen available is not sufficient to oxidize all of
the fuel, the excess fuel may lead to reduction of NO. This process can be described by a global
reaction:
(7.130)
Note that this is only a global representation; the physical process actually occurring is much more
complicated. The real process involves many intermediate components appearing during combustion
of the fuel, such as CHx radicals, which attack the NO.
The stoichiometric coefficients for fuel, carbon dioxide and water vapor are fuel-dependent. For a
given fuel they can easily be derived from the element balance. For methane, the global NO reburn
reaction is:
Combustion Theory
(7.131)
The reaction rate will be fuel dependent. For coal volatiles, the reaction rate defaults to:
(7.132)
The same reaction rate is applied for the predefined NO reburn reaction for methane.
7.18.1.5. Turbulence Effects

The above reaction rates are applicable to laminar flow, premixed chemistry. In turbulence systems,
fluctuations can have a dominant impact on the NO formation rate. For both the thermal and
prompt NO mechanisms, there is a strong dependence of the rates on the temperature due to their
high activation energy. Thus, temperature fluctuations, particularly positive fluctuations, can dra-
matically increase the NO formed in flames. These temperature fluctuations are included in CFX
using a statistical approach.
In order to determine the mean rate for NO formation, a presumed probability density function
(presumed PDF) method is used to compute the weighted average of the reaction rate:
(7.133)
This integration is carried out separately for each reaction step. For simplicity, the subscripts (thermal
or prompt) have been omitted. The integration range for temperature, , is the range of
temperatures occurring. The default for NO reactions is the range [300 K; 2300 K], but this may be
modified by you on a per reaction scope.
The probability density function (PDF) is computed from mean temperature, , and the variance
of temperature, . The shape of is presumed to be that of a beta function ( -function):
(7.134)
Where:
(7.135)
and:
(7.136)
For vanishing temperature variance (vanishing temperature fluctuations), the beta function is ap-
proaching to a single Dirac peak (delta-function). In the limit, the integrated reaction rate is the
same as for that for the standard Arrhenius rate. For very large fluctuation, the beta function goes
NO Formation Model
towards a double Dirac peak, and for small to medium temperature variance the shape of the PDF
is similar to that of a Gaussian distribution.
Arrhenius reaction rates integrated over a PDF for temperature is not limited to NO formation but
may be used for any reaction.
7.18.1.6. Temperature Variance Equation
For the temperature variance, , that is needed from constructing the probability density function
(PDF) used for the temperature integration, the following transport equation is solved:
(7.137)
Default values for the model coefficients are and .
The above equation is missing some physical aspects namely the production of temperature fluc-
tuations due to heat release by chemical reaction. Heat release is fluctuating, too, because of tur-
bulent fluctuations of the reactants. However, in the current model temperature variance is only
needed as input to another model: The construction of a probability density function with presumed
shape. For this purpose, the above equation provides sufficient accuracy.
For convenience of setting up a case, the temperature variance equation can be run without spe-
cifying BC or IC data. In the first release, these are not offered by the user interface (CFX-Pre). If
absent, zero fluctuations are assumed at inlets, openings and walls with specified temperature. At
walls with specified heat flux or transfer coefficient, the default BC for temperature variance is zero
flux.
7.18.1.7. Model Control

Because the model for NO formation is implemented by means of REACTION objects, you have
full control of all aspects of the model. CFX provides the same flexibility for the NO model as for
the generic combustion and reaction system.
7.18.1.7.1. Adjusting Model Coefficients

It is possible for a user to modify any coefficient of the NO model. Because the NO formation
reactions are defined by means of REACTION objects, they may be edited either in CFX-Pre in
the CCL Editor or in the CCL text file (commands file).
The model parameter that is most likely to need adjusting is the temperature integration range
for the presumed PDF. It is specified by the Lower Temperature and Upper Temperature
parameters. These appear in the FORWARD REACTION RATE object when Option is set to
Arrhenius with Temperature PDF. The predefined reaction schemes come with the
range set to the interval [300 K, 2300 K]. It is recommended that you adjust this to the maximum
temperature range occurring. For many systems, this temperature range is defined by the minimum
inlet temperature and the adiabatic flame temperature.
Combustion Theory
7.18.1.7.2. User Defined NO Formation Mechanisms

The NO formation model can be extended to a user's specific needs by adding appropriate reac-
tions for NO, for example, fuel nitrogen or the N2O reaction path. The procedure is the same as
for any other reaction. A user probably may want to chose the Arrhenius with Temperature
PDF option for reactions rate in order to account for turbulent fluctuations of temperature.
It is also possible to select each NO formation path individually (thermal, prompt, fuel nitrogen,
reburn, or possibly user defined). Simply add only those reactions to the mixture material that
you want to account for.
7.19. Chemistry Postprocessing

The components and reactions that are postprocessed are one-way coupled to the main simulation.
This means that there is no effect on mixture properties or heat release. The list of components and
reactions for postprocessing are specified by the user.
Postprocessing components:
• No contribution to mixture properties (density, static enthalpy)
• No contribution to total mass
Postprocessing reactions:
• Generate sources for components that are also postprocessed
• Generate no source for regular components (that is, not postprocessed ones)
• No heat release
The above model assumptions are justified if the component mass fractions and reaction turnover are
small relative to the bulk mixture. A typical application is the simulation of pollutants; for example, NO
formation. The transport equations for postprocessing components are solved at the end of the flow
analysis after the solving of the main equations. When the postprocessing reactions require a temper-
ature variance equation (reaction rate option is Arrhenius with Temperature PDF) and the
variance equation was not solved during the analysis, then temperature variance will be postprocessed
as well. In this case, the temperature variance equation will be solved first to convergence or maximum
number of iterations and is then followed by the postprocessing components group.
Note:
For steady-state cases, chemistry postprocessing is not performed at the end of the flow
analysis if the termination of the flow analysis was due to a user-defined solver interrupt
condition. For details, see Interrupt Control in the CFX-Pre User's Guide.
7.20. Soot Model

In the Magnussen soot model (Magnussen and Hjertager [46], it is assumed that soot is formed from a
gaseous fuel in two stages, where the first stage represents formation of radical nuclei, and the second
Soot Model
stage represents soot particle formation from these nuclei. Transport equations are solved for the spe-
cific concentration of radical nuclei, [mol/kg], and for the soot mass fraction, [kg/kg]:
(7.138)
(7.139)
The modeling procedure can be grouped into three independent parts:
1. Formation of nuclei and soot particles following the models of Tesner et al., [45]
2. Combustion of nuclei and soot particles
3. Magnussen’s Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC) for modeling the effect of turbulence on mean reaction
rates.
The soot model can be used in either single phase or multiphase flow (MPF) configurations. In multiphase
calculations, however, the soot variables cannot be a separate phase but must be assigned to one of
the fluids.
7.20.1. Soot Formation

Formation of nuclei and soot particles is computed following the empirical models of Tesner et al.
[45]. The source terms are formulated in terms of particle number concentrations for nuclei:
(7.140)
and soot particles:

(7.141)
Where [part/mol] is Avogadro’s number and:

(7.142)
is the mass of a soot particle and are the density and the mean diameter of the soot particles,
respectively. With the above definitions, the source terms for nuclei and soot formation
can be modeled as (Tesner et al. [45]):
(7.143)
(7.144)
In the nuclei equation, the spontaneous formation of radical nuclei from the fuel, , is modeled using
the Arrhenius approach,
(7.145)
Combustion Theory
where is the mass fraction of carbon in the fuel material. is a linear branching coefficient, is
a linear termination coefficient, and is a coefficient of linear termination or radical nuclei on soot
particles. In the soot equation, and are constants. The default values for all of the soot model
parameters are summarized in the following table:
Parameter Default Value by [part] Default value by [mol]
Fuel dependent (methane Fuel dependent (methane

12/16, acetylene 24/26) 12/16, acetylene 24/26)
Most references list the coefficients using the absolute particle number [part] in the physical dimensions.
However, for numerical, reasons CFX is using [mol] instead. To convert from the [part] system into
the [mol] system, coefficients and have to be multiplied by Avogadro’s number
[part/mol], and the coefficient must be divided by . All other coefficients
remain unchanged.
7.20.2. Soot Combustion
The mean rates of combustion of nuclei, , and soot particles, are calculated from the
fuel consumption reaction rate, in [kg/m3/s], as:
(7.146)
(7.147)
This is equivalent to posing the same assumptions to nuclei and soot particles combustion that were
made for fuel consumption. For example, when the Eddy Dissipation model is applied for the fuel
consumption reaction, combustion of nuclei and soot particles is assumed to operate at the fast
chemistry limit. No special model for turbulence effects is required for the nuclei and soot combustion
rates as this is already accounted for in the computation of the fuel reaction rate.
Soot Model
7.20.3. Turbulence Effects

The above reaction rates are applicable to laminar flow. In turbulent systems, fluctuations can have
a significant impact on nuclei and soot formation because of the nonlinearity of the respective source
terms. To account for the effect of turbulence on soot formation, the Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC)
developed by Magnussen [44] is applied.
The Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC) is a reactor concept that identifies a reactor, where the combustion
of fuel takes place, related to the fine structures in turbulence. This reactor is treated as a homogeneous
reactor exchanging mass and energy with the surrounding fluid. The fraction of mass that is contained
in the fine structures is determined from the turbulence quantities.
Local balance equations are solved to compute the temperature and the concentrations of nuclei
and soot particles in the fine structures and in the surrounding fluid, respectively. The mean source
terms are then computed assuming a bimodal distribution of the fluid between the fine structures
and the surrounding. For a detailed explanation of the Eddy Dissipation Concept, see (Magnussen,
1989).
The EDC procedure need not be applied to the soot combustion terms, because turbulence is already
accounted for in the computation of the fuel reaction rate. For details, see Soot Combustion (p. 342).
Chapter 8: Radiation Theory
This chapter contains a simple summary of the theory of thermal radiation and the algorithms used in
CFX:
• Radiation Transport (p. 345)
• Rosseland Model (p. 350)
• The P1 Model (p. 351)
• Discrete Transfer Model (p. 351)
• Monte Carlo Model (p. 352)
• Spectral Models (p. 353)
Details on modeling radiation in CFX are available in Radiation Modeling in the CFX-Solver Modeling
Guide.
8.1. Radiation Transport

The goal of radiation modeling is to solve the radiation transport equation, obtain the source term, S,
for the energy equation, and the radiative heat flux at walls, among others quantities of interest. You
should restrict yourself to coherent time-independent radiation processes. This is normally a very good
approximation of situations likely to be met in industrial applications because the time scale for radiation
to come into local equilibrium is very short and the temperatures are relatively low.
The spectral radiative transfer equation (RTE) can be written as:
(8.1)
where:
• = frequency
• = position vector
• = direction vector
• = path length
• = absorption coefficient
Radiation Theory
• = scattering coefficient
• = Blackbody emission intensity
• = Spectral radiation intensity which depends on position (r) and direction (s)
• = local absolute temperature
• = solid angle
• = in-scattering phase function
• = radiation intensity source term, or particle-radiation interactions
The RTE is a first order integro-differential equation for I v in a fixed direction, s. To solve this equation
within a domain, a boundary condition for I v is required. The following are the boundary conditions
currently supported in CFX:
• Diffusely emitting and reflecting opaque boundaries
(8.2)
where =spectral emissivity.
• Diffusely emitting and specularly reflecting boundaries
(8.3)
where:
• =diffuse reflectivity= *diffuse fraction
• =specular reflectivity= *(1-diffuse fraction)
• =spectral reflectivity= =
• =specular direction
• Semi-transparent walls (Monte Carlo only)
Due to the dependence on 3 spatial coordinates, 2 local direction coordinates, s, and frequency, the
formal solution of the radiative transfer equation is very time consuming and usually accomplished by
the use of approximate models for the directional and spectral dependencies. For directional approxim-
ations, CFX includes Rosseland, P-1, Discrete Transfer, and Monte Carlo. For spectral ap-
proximations, CFX includes: Gray, Multiband and Weighted Sum of Gray Gases.
Radiation Transport
8.1.1. Blackbody Emission

The energy spectrum for radiation emitted by a blackbody is represented by:
(8.4)
where:
• = refractive index
• = Planck’s constant
• = speed of light in vacuum
• = Boltzmann’s constant
Writing , you have:

(8.5)
where = Stefan-Boltzmann constant:

(8.6)
The total blackbody emission is simply the integral of over all frequencies:
(8.7)
Note that the blackbody emission is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature and because
of this strong dependence, radiation is usually unimportant or totally dominant for heat transfer.
The sun, for example, is approximately a blackbody at a temperature of 5700 K. The spectrum peaks
in the yellow part of the visible spectrum.
Combustion temperatures are typically 1000 - 2000 K, with spectrum peaks in the near infra-red range.
Note that the peak of the spectrum as a function of wavelength is at:
(8.8)
8.1.2. Particulate Effects to Radiation Transport

When your Ansys CFX model includes Lagrangian particles, you can include the effect of particles in
the radiation model.
For a medium containing gray absorbing and emitting particles, the contribution of the particles to
the transport equation for the incident radiation can be written as
(8.9)
where is the effective emission of the particles and is the effective absorption coefficient. These
are defined as follows:
Radiation Theory
(8.10)
and
(8.11)
In Equation 8.10 (p. 348) and Equation 8.11 (p. 348), , , and are the emissivity, projected area,
and temperature of particle . The summation is over particles in volume . These quantities are
computed during particle tracking in Ansys CFX.
The projected area of particle is defined as
(8.12)
where is the diameter of the th particle.
8.1.3. Quantities of Interest

The spectral radiative heat flux, , passing through a surface at some location r with a unit vector
normal n is:
(8.13)
Integrating the equation of transfer over solid angles, the divergence of the spectral radiative heat
flux is given by:
(8.14)
where G v is the spectral incident radiation, given by:
(8.15)
The total radiative flux is obtained by integrating Equation 8.14 (p. 348) over the spectrum:
(8.16)
In the case of pure scattering, . Therefore , as it should because in this case no energy
is lost from the radiation field; clearly this is also true in thermodynamic equilibrium.
8.1.3.1. Optical Thickness

Optical thickness is a dimensionless quantity that represents the ability of a given path length of
gas to attenuate radiation of a given wavelength. Optical thickness is given by:
(8.17)
Radiation Transport
where is the optical thickness (or opacity) of the layer of thickness and is a function of all the
values of between 0 and . A large value of means large absorption of radiation. Note that
this definition of optical thickness is different from that traditionally found in the optics literature
where the optical thickness is a property of the material.
8.1.4. Radiation Through Domain Interfaces

If radiation is included through conducting solids, then usually the difference in refractive indices
between the fluid and solid determines the amount of reflection and refraction that occurs. The
probability of being reflected is given by Fresnels’ equation
(8.18)
The fraction of the electromagnetic wave that is reflected normally depends on the polarization of
the photon. CFX does not keep track of photon polarizations. Assuming that the photons are randomly
polarized, then it is sufficient to take the average result. The two extreme polarizations are termed
transverse electric (TE) and transverse magnetic (TM), and describe the orientations of the electric
and magnetic vectors relative to the interface.
For the TE mode, the ratio of reflected to incident wave amplitude (E E) is given by:
(8.19)
and for the TM mode the ratio of reflected to incident wave amplitude ( ) is given by:
(8.20)
where and are the incident and refracted angles, and and are the refractive indices of the
two media.
The probability of being reflected is determined by the energy flow at the interface which is propor-
tional to the square of the wave amplitude. Thus, the average reflection coefficient is given as:
(8.21)
and the probability of being transmitted is:

(8.22)
No absorption takes place at the interface, so the probability of transmission plus reflection is always
one. If the photon is transmitted, then the angle of refraction is determined by Snells’ law:
(8.23)
CFX performs these calculations at every radiation element boundary, although, in most cases, there
is no change of refractive index.
Radiation Theory
8.2. Rosseland Model

The Rosseland approximation is a simplification of the Radiative Transport Equation (RTE) for the case
of optically thick media. It introduces a new diffusion term into the original energy transport equation
with a strongly temperature-dependent diffusion coefficient.
A good source for the simplification of the Radiation Transport Equation for the optically thick limit can
be seen in Siegel and Howe [23]. The total radiative heat flux in an optically thick, and linearly anisotropic
scattering medium can be written as:
(8.24)
where is the extinction coefficient (that is, absorption plus scattering).
When the Rosseland Approximation is introduced into the energy transport equation, the conduction
and radiative heat flux can be combined as:
(8.25)
(8.26)
(8.27)
where is the thermal conductivity and is the "total radiative conductivity." Equation 8.25 (p. 350) is
called upon to calculate the temperature field in the energy equation.
8.2.1. Wall Treatment

The Rosseland approximation is not valid near walls. Therefore, a special boundary condition must
be specified when heat conduction is comparable to radiation heat transfer. It has been proposed
[24] that a temperature slip boundary condition should be in this region. From [24] the heat flux at
the wall, is given by:
(8.28)
where is the slip co-efficient, is the wall temperature and is the gas temperature at the wall.
is computed as the solution of:
(8.29)
where is given by:
(8.30)
Discrete Transfer Model
8.3. The P1 Model

The Differential Approximation or P1 is also a simplification of the Radiation Transport Equation, which
assumes that the radiation intensity is isotropic or direction independent at a given location in space.
The full form of the radiant energy equation and the derivation of the P1 model for radiation are given
in Modest [8]. Only a brief summary will be given here.
The spectral radiative heat flux in the diffusion limit for an emitting, absorbing, and linearly scattering
medium, can be computed as:
(8.31)
The equation for the spectral incident radiation that results from substituting the above terms into the
radiation transport equation:
(8.32)
where is the linear anisotropy coefficient.
8.3.1. Wall Treatment

Assuming that the radiation intensity arriving at and leaving a wall are directionally independent, the
boundary condition for Equation 8.32 (p. 351) at walls is:
(8.33)
where is the unit vector outward normal to the wall, is a distance coordinate in the same direction,
and represents the value at the wall.
8.4. Discrete Transfer Model

The implementation of the Discrete Transfer model in CFX assumes that the scattering is isotropic;
therefore, Equation 8.1 (p. 345) can be simplified as:
(8.34)
Assuming that the system is reasonably homogeneous, so that:

(8.35)
the approach is then to solve for the intensity, , along rays leaving from the boundaries using the
equation of transfer:
(8.36)
where:
= Radiation Intensity leaving the boundary
= Mean Radiation Intensity
Radiation Theory
Then, integrate over solid angle at discrete points to get the spectral incident radiation, and the
radiative heat flux, and use the homogeneity assumption to extend the solution to the entire domain.
Non-linearities in the system due to scattering, diffuse reflection, or temperature dependency of radiation
quantities is overcome by iteration.
Because the objective of thermal radiation modeling is to obtain the total volumetric absorption and
emission, additional calculations are still needed. For the Gray spectral model, the calculation is done
once for a unique radiation intensity field. For the Multiband and Weighted Sum of Gray Gases, the
solution must be computed for each spectral band/ gray gas and a final integration to obtain the total
radiation quantities is required. Under the assumption of coherent radiation field, ie., the solution at a
given frequency is independent of that at all other frequencies.
8.5. Monte Carlo Model

The Monte Carlo model assumes that the intensity is proportional to the differential angular flux of
photons and you can think of the radiation field as a photon gas. For this gas, is the probability per
unit length that a photon is absorbed at a given frequency. Therefore, the mean radiation intensity,
is proportional to the distance traveled by a photon in unit volume at , in unit time.
Similarly is proportional to the rate of incidence of photons on the surface at , because volumetric
absorption is proportional to the rate of absorption of photons.
By following a typical selection of photons and tallying, in each volume element, the distance traveled,
you can obtain the mean total intensity.
By following a typical selection of photons and tallying, in each volume element, the distance times
the absorption coefficient, you can obtain the mean total absorbed intensity.
By following a typical selection of photons and tallying, in each volume element, the distance times
the scattering coefficient, you can obtain the mean total scattered intensity.
By also tallying the number of photons incident on a surface and this number times the emissivity, you
obtain the mean total radiative flux and the mean absorbed flux.
Note that no discretization of the spectrum is required because differential quantities are not usually
important for heat transfer calculations. Providing that the spectral (Multiband or Weighted Sum of
Gray Gases) selection is done properly, the Monte Carlo tallying automatically integrates over the
spectrum.
8.5.1. Monte Carlo Statistics

The Monte Carlo radiation solver computes the standard deviation error based on Poisson statistics.
The user-specified number of histories is divided into several groups. Histories are selected from each
group and their physical interactions (emission, absorption, reflection, and so on) are tracked through
the domain. At the end of the calculation, each group provides values for the quantities of interest,
such as irradiation heat flux or absorbed radiation. The mean value, and standard deviation, of each
quantity of interest are computed from the groups. A normalized standard deviation is computed by
dividing the standard deviation by the mean value.
Spectral Models
8.6. Spectral Models

The radiation intensity field is also a function of the spectrum as shown in Equation 8.1 (p. 345). In order
to make the spectral dependence tractable in conjunction with a flow calculation, CFX supports three
different models for the spectral dependency of the radiative transfer equation: Gray, Multiband and
Weighted Sum of Gray Gases.
8.6.1. Gray
The Gray model assumes that all radiation quantities are nearly uniform throughout the spectrum,
consequently the radiation intensity is the same for all frequencies. Then, the dependency of Equa-
tion 8.1 (p. 345) on frequency can be dropped.
This implies that only one radiative transfer equation must be solved and that all total radiation
quantities and their spectral counterpart are the same.
8.6.2. Multiband Model

For this model, the spectrum is sub-divided into spectral bands of finite width where radiative
quantities are nearly uniform or can be averaged without losing accuracy. These bands should span
the thermal radiation section of the spectrum. It is assumed that the value at a given spectral band
is represented by the spectral band midpoint value in frequency domain.
CFX assumes that the main spectral variable is frequency because it is independent of the material
refractive index and it will facilitate the setup of multidomain problems. Other spectral variables, such
wavelength and wavenumber would be available for vacuum only.
Then, the radiative transfer equation is integrated within is spectral band and a modified RTE is ob-
tained:
(8.37)
for , where the emission within the spectral band is weighted by:
(8.38)
After solving one RTE per spectral band, total radiation intensity can be computed as:
(8.39)
This immediately suggests that for an -band model, times as much work is required as for a gray,
-band model. In the case of the Discrete Transfer model, for small this turns out not to be true
because the tracking of the rays through the geometry is a major one-off overhead.
This model can be used in conjunction with all available radiation models.
Radiation Theory
8.6.3. Weighted Sum of Gray Gases

The radiative absorption and emission from a gas can be characterized by the emissivity as a function
of temperature and pL, that is the product of the partial pressure and the path length. In the context
of typical combustion systems, the dominant emitters of radiation are carbon dioxide and water vapor
(although hydrocarbons, CO and SO2 also make a minor contribution). Hottel and Sarofim [48] have
published emissivity charts for CO2 and H2O that have been obtained by a combination of measurement
and extrapolation. These plots show that emissivity is strongly dependent on and also has a
weaker dependence on the gas temperature. This functional dependence can be accurately correlated
by assuming that the emissivity arises as the result of independent emission from a sufficient number
of gray gases:
(8.40)
Because emissivity must be proportional to absorptivity by Kirchoffs’ law, it follows that must ap-
proach unity as . This imposes a constraint on the gray gas weights or amplitudes:
(8.41)
Also the requirement that is a monotonically increasing function of is satisfied if all the are
positive.
If the number of gray gases, , is large, then may be thought of as the fraction of the energy
spectrum, relative to the blackbody energy, for which the absorption coefficient is approximately .
Then, the methodology described for the Multiband model can be used directly.
8.6.3.1. Weighted Sum of Gray Gases Model Parameters

Hadvig [49] has published charts of emissivity of combined CO2-H2O mixtures, for mixtures with
different relative proportions of CO2 and H2O. For the case of natural gas combustion, it can be
shown that the proportions of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the products of combustion is
such that partial pressure ratio, / is approximately equal to 2. Similarly, this ratio is 1 for
oils and other fuels with the empirical formula, (CH2)x. Most other hydrocarbon fuels have combustion
products with a / ratio lying between 1 and 2. Starting from the charts of Hottel and
Sarofim (1967) [48] for CO2 and H2O and applying their correction factor for mixtures, Hadvig has
evaluated the emissivity of a gas mixture with / = 1 and 2 and presented the results as a
function of and . Leckner [50] has also published emissivity data, based on integrating the
measured spectral data for CO2 and H2O, which is in reasonable agreement with the Hottel charts
where the charts are based on measured data.
Taylor and Foster (1974) [51] have integrated the spectral data and constructed a multigray gas
representation:
(8.42)
where the are represented as linear functions of :
Spectral Models
(8.43)
As well as CO2 and H2O, the model developed by Beer, Foster and Siddall [52] takes into account
the contributions of CO and unburned hydrocarbons (for example, CH4), which are also significant
emitters of radiation. These authors generalize the parameterization of the absorption coefficients
as follows:
(8.44)
where is the partial pressure of CO and is the total partial pressure of all hydrocarbon
species.
The values of , [K-1], [m-1 atm-1] and [m-1 atm-1] are given in Table 8.1: Gray gas
emissivity parameters for a carbon dioxide / water vapor / hydrocarbon mixture. (p. 355), together
with a similar correlation for = 3, derived by Beer, Foster and Siddall [52], and suitable defaults
for = 2 or 1 (single gray gas) representations.
Table 8.1: Gray gas emissivity parameters for a carbon dioxide / water vapor / hydrocarbon
mixture.
Ng i Gaseous Fuels pH2O/pCO2 = 2 Oils pH2O/pCO2 = 1

b1i b2i ki kHCi b1i b2i ki kHCi
1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
2 1 0.437 7.13 0 3.85 0.486 8.97 0 3.41
2 0.563 -7.13 1.88 0 0.514 -8.97 2.5 0
3 1 0.437 7.13 0 3.85 0.486 8.97 0 3.41
2 0.390 -0.52 1.88 0 0.381 -3.96 2.5 0
3 0.173 -6.61 68.83 0 0.133 -5.01 109 0
4 1 0.364 4.74 0 3.85 0.4092 7.53 0 3.41
2 0.266 7.19 0.69 0 0.284 2.58 0.91 0
3 0.252 -7.41 7.4 0 0.211 -6.54 9.4 0
4 0.118 -4.52 80 0 0.0958 -3.57 130 0
Note:
To satisfy the requirement that the factors sum to unity, the factors must sum to
1.0 and the factors must sum to 0.
Chapter 9: Electromagnetic Hydrodynamic Theory
Computational Fluid Dynamics is based on the conservation of mass, momentum, energy, and chemical
species. Computational Electromagnetics (CEM) is based on:
• Maxwell's equations and further relations
• Material relations for polarization (permittivity), conductivity, and magnetization (permeability).
The interaction of CEM and CFD is through body forces that result due to interactions between electro-
magnetic fields and fluid motion.
Electromagnetic hydrodynamics is available to enable the modeling of:
• The electric potential for conducting materials (including magnetic induced currents)
• User-defined volumetric, point, and boundary sources
• Resistive heating in energy equations
• Conjugate transfer between fluid and solid domains
• Variable electrical conductivity (via CEL).
9.1. Electromagnetic Models

The solution of electromagnetic hydrodynamic problems at the continuum level requires the solution
of Maxwell’s equations. The fundamental equations are:
(9.1)
(9.2)
(9.3)
(9.4)
The Continuity equation (conservation of electric charge), which is a combination of the equations
above, is:
(9.5)
In the equations above:
• is the magnetic induction
• is the electric displacement
Electromagnetic Hydrodynamic Theory
• is the electric field
• is the magnetic field
• is the current density
• is the electric charge density
To close this system of equations, constitutive relationships and a suitable set of boundary conditions
must be included.
9.1.1. Constitutive Relationships

The electric field and the electric displacement are related through the polarization vector as:
(9.6)
where is the permittivity of vacuum. For linear materials (typically diamagnetic or paramagnetic),
the polarization vector can be written as
(9.7)
where is the electric susceptibility, which can be a function of the electric field .
A similar relationship is used to relate the magnetic induction to the magnetic field , and the
magnetization vector .
(9.8)
where is the permeability of vacuum. For linear materials, the magnetization vector can written
as
(9.9)
where is the magnetic susceptibility.
Finally, for the current density can be written as

(9.10)
where is the electrical conductivity.
9.1.2. Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is the study of the interactions between magnetic fields and electrically
conducting fluids. The body (Lorentz) force acts on the fluid when electric current ( ) flows at an angle
to the imposed magnetic field ( ). The resistive heating is measured in Joules.
For a particle:
(9.11)
where is the charge on the particle.
For a continuous fluid:
Electromagnetic Models
(9.12)
where:
(9.13)
9.1.3. Electrohydrodynamics (EHD)

Electrohydrodynamics (EHD) is the study of the interactions between magnetic fields and electrically
charged fluids (species, particles). The body (Coulomb) force acts on the charged fluid along the im-
posed electric field ( ).
(9.14)
9.1.4. Ferrohydrodynamics (FHD)

Ferrohydrodynamics (FHD) is the study of interactions between magnetic fields and magnetically
polarizable fluids (that is, ferrofluids). The body (Kelvin) force acts on the fluid magnetic dipoles along
to the magnetic field ( ).
(9.15)
9.1.5. Electromagnetic Basics: Potential Formulation in Ansys CFX

The electric potential ( ) for electric field ( ) is:
(9.16)
(9.17)
The magnetic vector potential ( ) for magnetic induction ( ) is:

(9.18)
(9.19)
9.1.6. Boundary Conditions

The boundary conditions are:
Electromagnetic Hydrodynamic Theory
9.1.7. Transformed Equations

In order to reduce the number of partial differential equations and transform them into something
similar to the general transport equation within the Ansys CFX solver, a formulation based on the
electric scalar potential , and the magnetic vector potential is used. The following vector identities
are used:
(9.20)
(9.21)
(9.22)
The electric and magnetic vector potentials are defined as:

(9.23)
(9.24)
Equation 9.1 (p. 357) and Equation 9.3 (p. 357) are automatically satisfied:
(9.25)
(9.26)
9.1.8. Conductive Media Approximation

Starting with Equation 9.5 (p. 357) and substituting the constitutive equations:
(9.27)
This can be rearranged as:

(9.28)
Assuming a quasi-steady model (that is, neglecting transient terms)

(9.29)
Similarly for Equation 9.3 (p. 357):

(9.30)
Using the constitutive relation between the Magnetic Induction ( ) and the Magnetic Field ( ), in
addition to the quasi-steady approximation:
(9.31)
Using vector identities (Equation 9.22 (p. 360)) assuming uniform magnetic permeability, and enforcing
the Coulomb gauge that , the transport equation for the magnetic vector potential becomes:
(9.32)
Fluid Dynamics Model
Note that the left-hand side of the transport equation for the magnetic vector potential has only
transport by diffusion, which is balanced by the sources on the right-hand side.
9.2. Fluid Dynamics Model

For reference, the transport equations for the fluid dynamics model expressed in vector notation (in-
cluding electromagnetic sources) are presented below.
Conservation of Mass
(9.33)
Conservation of Linear Momentum

(9.34)
where denotes the sources of momentum arising from the electromagnetic forces and is given
by:
(9.35)
Conservation of Energy
(9.36)
Where:
• is the total enthalpy, related to the static enthalpy by:

(9.37)
• The term represents the work due to viscous stresses and is called the viscous work term.
• The term represents the work due to external momentum sources and is currently neglected.
• The term represents the momentum source.
• The term represents the energy source due to resistive heating and is given by .
Chapter 10: Rigid Body Theory
This chapter contains a summary of the theory of rigid body and the algorithms used in Ansys CFX:
10.1. Equations of Motion of Rigid Body
10.2. Rigid Body Solution Algorithms
10.1. Equations of Motion of Rigid Body

The equations of motion of a rigid body can be written as:
(10.1)
(10.2)
These equations state that for a rigid body undergoing translation and rotation the rate of change of
linear and angular momentum, and , respectively, of the rigid body is equal to the applied force
and torque, and , respectively, acting on the body.
10.2. Rigid Body Solution Algorithms

The rigid body solution algorithm uses a linear momentum solver for the translation of the rigid body
and a separate angular momentum solver for the rotation of the rigid body. There are two choices for
the angular momentum solver (a First Order Backward Euler solver and a Simo Wong solver).
The remainder of this section describes:

10.2.1.Translational Equations of Motion
10.2.2. Rotational Equations of Motion
10.2.1. Translational Equations of Motion

The equation of motion for a translating center of mass , Equation 10.1 (p. 363), can be expressed
as:
(10.3)
where is the mass and represents the sum of all forces which include aerodynamic, weight of
rigid body, spring and/or explicit external force.
Expanding the sum of all forces, Equation 10.3 (p. 363) may be written as:
(10.4)
where is the aerodynamic force, is the gravity, is the linear spring constant and
is all other external forces acting on the body.
Rigid Body Theory
10.2.1.1. Newmark Integration

The linear momentum solver makes use of the Newmark integration scheme. The conventional
Newmark integration scheme [203] can be expressed as:
(10.5)
(10.6)
where is time, is representative of an entity such as spatial or angular position, and the subscripts
and represent the known solution at time and unknown solution at time , respectively.
The Newmark integration depends on two real parameters and . These parameters are directly
linked to accuracy and stability of the Newmark time integration scheme.
In typical applications of the Newmark method and are chosen to be ¼ and ½, respectively.
This choice of parameters corresponds to a trapezoidal rule that results in a second order accurate
scheme that is also unconditionally stable in linear analyses. The linear momentum equations are
solved using these parameters.
For fixed values of the external forces, the linear momentum solver advances the solution over time
using the following procedure:
1. Expressing Equation 10.4 (p. 363) as

(10.7)
and substituting for into Equation 10.5 (p. 364) where is replaced by and rearranging,
is determined from:
(10.8)
2. From Equation 10.5 (p. 364) where is replaced by and rearranging, is determined from:
(10.9)
3. From Equation 10.6 (p. 364) where is replaced by and rearranging, is determined from:
(10.10)
where is time.
Note that iteration of the above procedure is required to account for dependencies of the forces
on the position of the rigid body.
10.2.2. Rotational Equations of Motion

The equation of motion for a rotating rigid body can be rewritten in body-fixed coordinates (about
the center of mass) as:
(10.11)
where the mass moment of inertia matrix, , is defined as:
Rigid Body Solution Algorithms
(10.12)
In the mass moment of inertia matrix shown in Equation 10.12 (p. 365), the center of mass is given by
, and is a differential element of mass.
Equation 10.11 (p. 364) represents the spatial coordinate form for the classical Euler’s equation for the
rigid body in body-fixed coordinates.
Also, in Equation 10.11 (p. 364) is the total moment from all the separate contributions including
spring and other external moments:
(10.13)
where is the aerodynamic torque, is the rotational spring constant and is all other
external torques acting on the body.
10.2.2.1. First Order Backward Euler

From Equation 10.11 (p. 364) the first order backward Euler algorithm begins with:
(10.14)
Using the first order backward Euler algorithm, is given by:

(10.15)
where is determined from Equation 10.14 (p. 365).
Equation 10.15 (p. 365) can be expressed in terms of , angles in the global frame (see 206), as:
(10.16)
where
(10.17)
and where and are Euler Angle Y and Euler Angle X, respectively. For details on Euler Angles
see Rigid Body Motion in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.
Integrating in global coordinates using the first order backward Euler algorithm:
(10.18)
where is determined from Equation 10.16 (p. 365).
Rigid Body Theory
Note that in addition to providing only a first order integration of the rotational momentum the
first order backward Euler method does not exactly conserve total angular momentum and is subject
to potential of encountering Gimbal lock [205].
10.2.2.2. Simo Wong Algorithm

The Simo Wong (ALGO_C1 variant) algorithm is a second order time stepping algorithm that exactly
conserves energy and enforces conservation of total angular momentum. It uses a modified Newmark
integration scheme with constants of the Newmark method given by ½ and to realize the
second order accurate integration. A Quaternion representation is employed to avoid the potential
of Gimbal lock and the use of convected incremental body fixed coordinates is adopted to ensure
conservation of total angular momentum. For more information, see Simo Wong [204].
Chapter 11: Discretization and Solution Theory
11.1. Numerical Discretization
11.2. Solution Strategy - The Coupled Solver
11.3. Discretization Errors
11.1. Numerical Discretization

Analytical solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations exist for only the simplest of flows under ideal
conditions. To obtain solutions for real flows, a numerical approach must be adopted whereby the
equations are replaced by algebraic approximations that can be solved using a numerical method.
11.1.1. Discretization of the Governing Equations

Ansys CFX uses an element-based finite volume method, which first involves discretizing the spatial
domain using a mesh. The mesh is used to construct finite volumes, which are used to conserve rel-
evant quantities such as mass, momentum, and energy. The mesh is three dimensional, but for sim-
plicity we will illustrate this process for two dimensions.
The figure below shows a typical two-dimensional mesh. All solution variables and fluid properties
are stored at the nodes (mesh vertices). A control volume (the shaded area) is constructed around
each mesh node using the median dual (defined by lines joining the centers of the edges and element
centers surrounding the node).
Discretization and Solution Theory
Figure 11.1: Control Volume Definition
To illustrate the finite volume methodology, consider the conservation equations for mass, momentum,
and a passive scalar, expressed in Cartesian coordinates:
(11.1)
(11.2)
(11.3)
These equations are integrated over each control volume, and Gauss’ Divergence Theorem is applied
to convert volume integrals involving divergence and gradient operators to surface integrals. If control
volumes do not deform in time, then the time derivatives can be moved outside of the volume integrals
and the integrated equations become:
(11.4)
(11.5)
(11.6)
where V and s respectively denote volume and surface regions of integration, and dn j are the differ-
ential Cartesian components of the outward normal surface vector. The volume integrals represent
Numerical Discretization
source or accumulation terms, and the surface integrals represent the summation of the fluxes. Note
that changes to these equations need some generalization to account for mesh deformation. For
details, see Mesh Deformation (p. 380).
The next step in the numerical algorithm is to discretize the volume and surface integrals. To illustrate
this step, consider a single element like the one shown below.
Figure 11.2: Mesh Element
Volume integrals are discretized within each element sector and accumulated to the control volume
to which the sector belongs. Surface integrals are discretized at the integration points (ipn) located
at the center of each surface segment within an element and then distributed to the adjacent control
volumes. Because the surface integrals are equal and opposite for control volumes adjacent to the
integration points, the surface integrals are guaranteed to be locally conservative.
After discretizing the volume and surface integrals, the integral equations become:
(11.7)
(11.8)
(11.9)
where , V is the control volume, is the time step, is the discrete outward
surface vector, the subscript ip denotes evaluation at an integration point, summations are over all
the integration points of the control volume, and the superscript o refers to the old time level. Note
that the First Order Backward Euler scheme has been assumed in these equations, although a second
order scheme (discussed later) is usually preferable for transient accuracy.
11.1.1.1. Order Accuracy

Many discrete approximations developed for CFD are based on series expansion approximations
of continuous functions (such as the Taylor series). The order accuracy of the approximation is de-
termined by the exponent on the mesh spacing or time step factor of the largest term in the
truncated part of the series expansion, which is the first term excluded from the approximation.
Increasing the order-accuracy of an approximation generally implies that errors are reduced more
quickly with mesh or time step size refinement. Unfortunately, in addition to increasing the compu-
tational load, high-order approximations are also generally less robust (that is, less numerically
stable) than their low-order counterparts. Ansys CFX uses second order accurate approximations
as much as possible. The role of error is discussed further in Discretization Errors (p. 385).
11.1.1.2. Shape Functions

Solution fields and other properties are stored at the mesh nodes. However, to evaluate many of
the terms, the solution field or solution gradients must be approximated at integration points. Ansys
CFX uses finite-element shape functions (unless otherwise noted) to perform these approximations.
Finite-element shape functions describe the variation of a variable varies within an element as
follows:
(11.10)
where N i is the shape function for node i and is the value of at node i. The summation is over
all nodes of an element. Key properties of shape functions include:
(11.11)
(11.12)
The shape functions used in Ansys CFX are linear in terms of parametric coordinates. They are used
to calculate various geometric quantities as well, including ip coordinates and surface area vectors.
This is possible because Equation 11.10 (p. 370) also holds for the coordinates:
(11.13)
The tri-linear shape functions for each supported mesh element are given below:
11.1.1.2.1. Hexahedral Element

Figure 11.3: Hexahedral Element
The tri-linear shape functions for the nodes are:
(11.14)
11.1.1.2.2. Tetrahedral Element

Figure 11.4: Tetrahedral Element
(11.15)
11.1.1.2.3. Wedge Element

Figure 11.5: Wedge Element
(11.16)
11.1.1.2.4. Pyramid Element

Figure 11.6: Pyramid Element
(11.17)
11.1.1.3. Control Volume Gradients

In a few situations, gradients are required at nodes. Ansys CFX uses a form of the Gauss’ divergence
theorem to evaluate these control volume gradients:
(11.18)
where is the outward surface vector at ip.
This formula requires that be evaluated at integration points using finite-element shape functions.
11.1.1.4. Advection Term

The advection term requires the integration point values of to be approximated in terms of the
nodal values of . The advection schemes implemented in Ansys CFX can be cast in the form:
(11.19)
where is the value at the upwind node, and is the vector from the upwind node to the ip.
Particular choices for and yield different schemes as described below.
11.1.1.4.1. 1st Order Upwind Differencing Scheme
A value of yields a first order Upwind Difference Scheme (UDS). This scheme is very robust,
but it will introduce diffusive discretization errors that tend to smear steep spatial gradients as
shown below:
11.1.1.4.2. Specified Blend Factor
By choosing a value for between 0 and 1, and by setting equal to the average of the adja-
cent nodal gradients, the discretization errors associated with the UDS are reduced. The quantity
, called the Numerical Advection Correction, may be viewed as an anti-diffusive correction
applied to the upwind scheme. The choice is formally second-order-accurate in space, and
the resulting discretization will more accurately reproduce steep spatial gradients than first order
UDS. However, it is unbounded, and may introduce dispersive discretization errors that tend to
cause non-physical oscillations in regions of rapid solution variation as shown below.
11.1.1.4.3. Central Difference Scheme
With the central difference scheme (CDS), is set to 1 and is set to the local element
gradient. An alternative interpretation is that is evaluated using the tri-linear shape functions:
(11.20)
The resulting scheme is also second-order-accurate, and shares the unbounded and dispersive
properties of the Specified Blend Factor scheme. An additional undesirable attribute is that CDS
may suffer from serious decoupling issues. While use of this scheme is not generally recommended,
it has proven both useful for LES-based turbulence models.
11.1.1.4.4. Bounded Central Difference Scheme

The central differencing scheme described above is an ideal choice in view of its low numerical
diffusion. However, it often leads to unphysical oscillations in the solution fields. In order to avoid
these oscillations, the bounded central difference (BCD) scheme can be used as the advection
scheme.
The bounded central difference scheme is essentially based on the normalized variable diagram
(NVD) approach [213] together with the convection boundedness criterion (CBC) [214]. It uses
the central difference scheme wherever possible, but blends to the first-order upwind scheme
when the CBC is violated.
The bounded central difference scheme is suitable both for the LES and the SAS or DES turbulence
models. For SAS and DES, the bounded central difference scheme then replaces the numerical
blending between the central differencing scheme and the specified differencing scheme. See
Discretization of the Advection Terms (p. 148) for more details regarding the numerical blending.
11.1.1.4.5. High Resolution Scheme
The High Resolution Scheme uses a special nonlinear recipe for at each node, computed to be
as close to 1 as possible without introducing new extrema. The advective flux is then evaluated
using the values of and from the upwind node. The recipe for is based on the
boundedness principles used by Barth and Jesperson [28]. This methodology involves first com-
puting a and at each node using a stencil involving adjacent nodes (including the
node itself ). Next, for each integration point around the node, the following equation is solved
for to ensure that it does not undershoot or overshoot :
(11.21)
The nodal value for is taken to be the minimum value of all integration point values surrounding
the node. The value of is also not permitted to exceed 1. This algorithm can be shown to be
Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) when applied to one-dimensional situations.
11.1.1.5. Diffusion Terms

Following the standard finite-element approach, shape functions are used to evaluate spatial deriv-
atives for all the diffusion terms. For example, for a derivative in the X direction at integration point
ip:
(11.22)
The summation is over all the shape functions for the element. The Cartesian derivatives of the
shape functions can be expressed in terms of their local derivatives via the Jacobian transformation
matrix:
(11.23)
The shape function gradients can be evaluated at the actual location of each integration point (that
is, true tri-linear interpolation), or at the location where each ip surface intersects the element edge
(that is, linear-linear interpolation). The latter formulation improves solution robustness at the expense
of locally reducing the spatial order-accuracy of the discrete approximation.
11.1.1.6. Pressure Gradient Term

The surface integration of the pressure gradient in the momentum equations involves evaluation
of the expression:
(11.24)
The value of P ip is evaluated using the shape functions:
(11.25)
As with the diffusion terms, the shape function used to interpolate can be evaluated at the actual
location of each integration point (that is, true tri-linear interpolation), or at the location where
each ip surface intersects the element edge (that is, linear-linear interpolation). By default, linear-
linear interpolation is used unless the flow involves buoyancy, in which case tri-linear interpolation
is used for improved accuracy.
11.1.1.7. Mass Flows

The discrete mass flow through a surface of the control volume, denoted by , is given by:
(11.26)
This expression must be discretized carefully to lead to proper pressure-velocity coupling and to
accurately handle the effects of compressibility, as discussed below.
11.1.1.7.1. Pressure-Velocity Coupling

Ansys CFX uses a co-located (non-staggered) grid layout such that the control volumes are
identical for all transport equations. As discussed by Patankar [118], however, naïve co-located
methods lead to a decoupled (checkerboard) pressure field. Rhie and Chow [2] proposed an al-
ternative discretization for the mass flows to avoid the decoupling, and this discretization was
modified by Majumdar [119] to remove the dependence of the steady-state solution on the time
step.
A similar strategy is adopted in Ansys CFX. By applying a momentum-like equation to each integ-
ration point, the following expression for the advecting (mass-carrying) velocity at each integration
point is obtained:
(11.27)
(11.28)
(11.29)
= approximation to the central coefficient of momentum equation, excluding the transient

term
(11.30)
o
The overbars indicate averaging of adjacent vertex values to the integration point, while the
superscript denotes values at the previous time step.
The naïve discretization, given simply by averaging the adjacent vertex velocities to the integration
point, is augmented by a high-order pressure variation that scales with the mesh spacing. In
particular, when substituted into the continuity equation, the expression
(11.31)
becomes a fourth derivative of pressure that scales with . This expression represents a
spatially third-order accurate term, and is sometimes also called the pressure-redistribution term.
This term is usually significantly smaller than the average of vertex velocities, especially as the
mesh is refined to reasonable levels.
In some cases, the pressure-redistribution term can produce apparently significant spurious velocity
fields. This may occur when a strong pressure gradient is required to balance a body force, ,
such as buoyancy or porous drag. In these cases, the Rhie Chow discretization may lead to velocity
wiggles at locations where the body force is discontinuous (for example., at a free surface interface,
or at the boundary of a porous region). The wiggles are greatly reduced or eliminated by redis-
tributing the body force as follows:
(11.32)
11.1.1.7.2. Compressibility
Mass flow terms in the mass conservation equation involve a product of the density and the ad-
vecting velocity. For compressible flows, the discretization of this product is made as implicit as
possible with the use of the following Newton-Raphson linearization:
(11.33)
Here, the superscripts and respectively indicate the current and previous iterates. This results
in an active linearization involving both the new density and velocity terms for compressible
flows at any Mach number. The value of is linearized in terms of pressure as
(11.34)
11.1.1.8. Transient Term

For control volumes that do not deform in time, the general discrete approximation of the transient
term for the nth time step is:
(11.35)
n+½ n-½
where values at the start and end of the time step are assigned the superscripts and , re-
spectively.
With the First Order Backward Euler scheme, the start and end of time step values are respectively
approximated using the old and current time level solution values. The resulting discretization is:
(11.36)
It is robust, fully implicit, bounded, conservative in time, and does not have a time step size limitation.
This discretization is, however, only first-order accurate in time and will introduce discretization
errors that tend to diffuse steep temporal gradients. This behavior is similar to the numerical diffusion
experienced with the Upwind Difference Scheme for discretizing the advection term.
With the Second Order Backward Euler scheme, the start and end of time step values are respectively
approximated as:
(11.37)
(11.38)
When these values are substituted into the general discrete approximation, Equation 11.35 (p. 379),
the resulting discretization is:
(11.39)
This scheme is also robust, implicit, conservative in time, and does not have a time step size limit-
ation. It is second-order accurate in time, but is not bounded and may create some nonphysical
solution oscillations. For quantities such as volume fractions, where boundedness is important, a
modified Second Order Backward Euler scheme is used instead.
The default startup option for 2nd order transient discretization uses 1st order discretization for
the first timestep. Since 1st order discretization interprets the solution at the end of the timestep,
and 2nd order disrecetization interprets the solution in the middle of the timestep, a conservation
error occurs in the first step. The expert parameter transient startup option (described
in Discretization Parameters in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide) can be used to partially correct this
'half-timestep' conservation error. The error can be further minimized by reducing the timestep.
11.1.1.9. Mesh Deformation

The integral conservation equations presented above in Equation 11.4 (p. 368) must be modified
when the control volumes deform in time. These modifications follow from the application of the
Leibnitz Rule:
(11.40)
where is the velocity of the control volume boundary.
As before, the differential conservation equations are integrated over a given control volume. At
this juncture, the Leibnitz Rule is applied, and the integral conservation equations become:
(11.41)
(11.42)
(11.43)
The transient term accounts for the rate of change of storage in the deforming control volume,
and the advection term accounts for the net advective transport across the control volume's moving
boundaries.
Erroneous sources of conserved quantities will result if the Geometric Conservation Law (GCL):
(11.44)
is not satisfied by the discretized transient and advection terms. The GCL simply states that for each
control volume, the rate of change of volume must exactly balance the net volume swept due to
the motion of its boundaries. The GCL is satisfied by using the same volume recipes for both the
control volume and swept volume calculations, rather than by approximating the swept volumes
using the mesh velocities.
11.1.2. The Coupled System of Equations

The linear set of equations that arise by applying the finite volume method to all elements in the
domain are discrete conservation equations. The system of equations can be written in the form:
(11.45)
where is the solution, b the right hand side, a the coefficients of the equation, i is the identifying
number of the control volume or node in question, and nb means "neighbor", but also includes the
central coefficient multiplying the solution at the ith location. The node may have any number of
such neighbors, so that the method is equally applicable to both structured and unstructured meshes.
Solution Strategy - The Coupled Solver
The set of these, for all control volumes constitutes the whole linear equation system. For a scalar
equation (for example, enthalpy or turbulent kinetic energy), , and b i are each single numbers.
For the coupled, 3D mass-momentum equation set, they are a (4 x 4) matrix or a (4 x 1) vector, which
can be expressed as:
(11.46)
and
(11.47)
(11.48)
It is at the equation level that the coupling in question is retained and at no point are any of the
rows of the matrix treated any differently (for example, different solution algorithms for momentum
versus mass). The advantages of such a coupled treatment over a non-coupled or segregated approach
are several: robustness, efficiency, generality, and simplicity. These advantages all combine to make
the coupled solver an extremely powerful feature of any CFD code. The principal drawback is the
high storage needed for all the coefficients.
11.2. Solution Strategy - The Coupled Solver

Segregated solvers employ a solution strategy where the momentum equations are first solved, using
a guessed pressure, and an equation for a pressure correction is obtained. Because of the ‘guess-and-
correct’ nature of the linear system, a large number of iterations are typically required in addition to
the need for judiciously selecting relaxation parameters for the variables.
Ansys CFX uses a coupled solver, which solves the hydrodynamic equations (for u, v, w, p) as a single
system. This solution approach uses a fully implicit discretization of the equations at any given time
step. For steady-state problems, the time-step behaves like an ‘acceleration parameter’, to guide the
approximate solutions in a physically based manner to a steady-state solution. This reduces the number
of iterations required for convergence to a steady-state, or to calculate the solution for each time step
in a time-dependent analysis.
11.2.1. General Solution

The flow chart shown below illustrates the general field solution process used in the CFX-Solver.
The solution of each set of field equations shown in the flow chart consists of two numerically intensive
operations. For each time step:
1. Coefficient Generation: The nonlinear equations are linearized and assembled into the solution
matrix.
2. Equation Solution: The linear equations are solved using an Algebraic Multigrid method.
When solving fields in the CFX-Solver, the outer (or time step) iteration is controlled by the physical
time scale or time step for steady and transient analyses, respectively. Only one inner (linearization)
iteration is performed per outer iteration in steady-state analyses, whereas multiple inner iterations
are performed per time step in transient analyses.
Solution Strategy - The Coupled Solver
11.2.2. Linear Equation Solution

Ansys CFX uses a Multigrid (MG) accelerated Incomplete Lower Upper (ILU) factorization technique
for solving the discrete system of linearized equations. It is an iterative solver whereby the exact
solution of the equations is approached during the course of several iterations.
The linearized system of discrete equations described above can be written in the general matrix
form:
(11.49)
where is the coefficient matrix, the solution vector and the right hand side.
The above equation can be solved iteratively by starting with an approximate solution, , that is to
be improved by a correction, , to yield a better solution, , that is,
(11.50)
where is a solution of:

(11.51)
with , the residual, obtained from:

(11.52)
Repeated application of this algorithm will yield a solution of the desired accuracy.
By themselves, iterative solvers such as ILU tend to rapidly decrease in performance as the number
of computational mesh elements increases. Performance also tends to rapidly decrease if there are
large element aspect ratios present.
11.2.2.1. Algebraic Multigrid

The convergence behavior of many matrix inversion techniques can be greatly enhanced by the
use of a technique called ‘multigrid’. The multigrid process involves carrying out early iterations on
a fine mesh and later iterations on progressively coarser virtual ones. The results are then transferred
back from the coarsest mesh to the original fine mesh.
From a numerical standpoint, the multigrid approach offers a significant advantage. For a given
mesh size, iterative solvers are efficient only at reducing errors that have a wavelength of the order
of the mesh spacing. So, while shorter wavelength errors disappear quite quickly, errors with longer
wavelengths, of the order of the domain size, can take an extremely long time to disappear. The
Multigrid Method bypasses this problem by using a series of coarse meshes such that longer
wavelength errors appear as shorter wavelength errors relative to the mesh spacing. To prevent
the need to mesh the geometry using a series of different mesh spacings, Ansys CFX uses Algebraic
Multigrid.
Algebraic Multigrid [25] forms a system of discrete equations for a coarse mesh by summing the
fine mesh equations. This results in virtual coarsening of the mesh spacing during the course of
the iterations, and then re-refining the mesh to obtain an accurate solution. This technique signific-
antly improves the convergence rates. Algebraic Multigrid is less expensive than other multigrid
methods because the discretization of the nonlinear equations is performed only once for the finest
mesh.
Ansys CFX uses a particular implementation of Algebraic Multigrid called Additive Correction. This
approach is ideally suited to the CFX-Solver implementation because, it takes advantage of the fact
that the discrete equations are representative of the balance of conserved quantities over a control
volume. The coarse mesh equations can be created by merging the original control volumes to
create larger ones as shown below. The diagram shows the merged coarse control volume meshes
to be regular, but in general their shape becomes very irregular. The coarse mesh equations thus
impose conservation requirements over a larger volume and in so doing reduce the error components
at longer wavelengths.
11.2.3. Residual Normalization Procedure

As described above, the raw residual, [r], is calculated as the imbalance in the linearized system of
discrete equations. The raw residuals are then normalized for the purpose of solution monitoring and
to obtain a convergence criteria. An overview of the normalization procedure is given below.
For each solution variable, , the normalized residual is given in general by:
Discretization Errors
(11.53)
where is the raw residual control volume imbalance, a p is representative of the control volume
coefficient, and is a representative range of the variable in the domain. The exact calculation of
a p and is not simple and is not presented here. However, some important notes are:
1. The normalized residuals are independent of the initial guess.
2. a p is the central coefficient of the discretized control volume equation and therefore includes
relevant advection, diffusion, source linearization, and other terms.
3. For steady-state simulations, the time step is used only to underrelax the equations and is
therefore excluded from the normalization procedure. This ensures that the normalized residuals
are independent of the time step. The transient term is included in a p for transient simulations.
4. For multiphase, if equations are coupled through an interphase transfer process (such as interphase
drag or heat transfer), the residuals are normalized by the bulk a p.
11.3. Discretization Errors

There are often differences between the exact analytical solution of the modeled differential equations
(see Equation 11.1 (p. 368)), and the fully converged solution of their discrete representations (see
Equation 11.4 (p. 368)). These differences are referred to as discretization errors.
Like the principal variables being solved for, errors in these values are both generated by localized
sources and propagated (that is, amplified, advected, diffused) throughout the solution domain. Localized
sources of error result from the high-order terms that are excluded from the discrete approximations of
terms in the modeled equations. Conversely, error propagation results from the form of the terms that
are included in the discrete approximations. Both error sources and propagation are affected by the
solution and mesh distributions, as discussed in Controlling Error Sources (p. 385) and Controlling Error
Propagation (p. 386).
11.3.1. Controlling Error Sources

Reducing the source of solution error (that is, the magnitude of terms excluded in the discrete ap-
proximations) is critical if accurate numerical solutions are desired. The two most effective strategies
for accomplishing this are to increase the order-accuracy of discrete approximations (for example,
using the high resolution rather than the upwind difference advection scheme) and/or to reduce the
mesh spacing in regions of rapid solution variation. The former strategy is discussed above (see Ad-
vection Term (p. 374)), and implications of the latter are now considered.
Finely spaced isotropic mesh distributions are ideal, but they are often not tractable. A more useful
strategy for reducing sources of solution error is to generate anisotropic meshes with fine spacing in
directions of most rapid solution variation and relatively coarse spacing in other directions. This is
exemplified by typical boundary layer meshes that are compressed in the direction of most rapid
solution variation (that is, normal to the wall).
It is important to realize, however, that sources of solution error are also affected by poor geometrical
mesh quality (see Measures of Mesh Quality in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide). In particular, the error
source contributions due to the discretization of transient/storage, diffusion, source and Rhie-Chow
redistribution terms increase with mesh anisotropy. This is why, for example, high orthogonality and
low expansion factors are recommended in boundary layer meshes where diffusive transport dominates.
11.3.2. Controlling Error Propagation

Controlling the transport and, more importantly, the amplification of error, is also critical, given that
sources of solution error can often only be reduced and not eliminated. Little can be done to reduce
error transport because error is subject to the same physical processes (such as, advection or diffusion)
as the conserved quantities. Fortunately, the amplification of error is more easily controlled.
Errors are amplified by strong unphysical influences in the discrete form of the modeled equations.
These unphysical influences will lead to convergence difficulties, and in extreme cases, complete di-
vergence. Similar to error sources, error amplification is controlled through the choice of discretization
and/or the mesh distribution.
As highlighted above, (unphysical) negative influences may be introduced into the discretization
through the finite-element shape functions, and these influences may grow as geometrical mesh
quality (see Measures of Mesh Quality in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide) deteriorates. Tri-linear shape
functions, for example, are more susceptible to negative influences than linear-linear shape functions.
Nevertheless, tri-linear shape functions are used as much as possible due to their improved accuracy,
and linear-linear shape functions are used whenever solution robustness is critical.
Geometrical mesh quality is important regardless of the shape functions used. An excellent example
of this occurs when mesh elements are folded. If the mesh is sufficiently folded, control volumes be-
come negative and the balance between the transient/storage and flow terms is rendered physically
invalid. The amount of a conserved quantity within a control volume will actually decrease given a
net flow into the control volume.

Ansys CFX-Solver Theory Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ansys CFX-Solver Theory Guide

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 CFX-Solver Theory Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the documentation conventions discussed in the document?

What are some of the documentation conventions discussed in the document?

What strategies are discussed for controlling error sources in numerical solutions?

What strategies are discussed for controlling error sources in numerical solutions?

CFD EXPERTS

Simulate the Future

ANSYS, Inc. Release 2021 R2

© 2021 ANSYS, Inc. Unauthorized use, distribution or duplication is prohibited.

U.S. Government Rights

Published in the U.S.A.

1.2.1.2. The Momentum Equations ............................................................................................. 42

1.8.1. Momentum Sources ............................................................................................................... 69

1.9.5.1.3. Pressure and Direction .......................................................................................... 82

2.2. Eddy Viscosity Turbulence Models ................................................................................................. 101

2.6.3. Stress-Blended Eddy Simulation (SBES) ................................................................................. 146

5.3.2.1. Momentum Equations ................................................................................................. 186

5.11.2. Homogeneous Additional Variables in Multiphase Flow ....................................................... 224

6.3.3.3. Diffusion Regime (Non-Boiling Particles) ...................................................................... 256

6.6.1. Introduction to the Particle Collision Model .......................................................................... 285

7.4.2. Products Limiter ................................................................................................................... 307

7.18.1.4. NO Reburn ................................................................................................................ 337

11.1.1. Discretization of the Governing Equations .......................................................................... 367

This chapter describes:

For information on dealing with multiphase flow:

• Multiphase Flow Theory (p. 179)

• Particle Transport Theory (p. 245)

For information on combustion and radiation theory:

• Combustion Theory (p. 305)

• Radiation Theory (p. 345)

• Turbulence and Wall Function Theory (p. 99)

• GGI and MFR Theory (p. 167)

• Transient Blade Row Modeling Theory (p. 171)

• Electromagnetic Hydrodynamic Theory (p. 357)

• Rigid Body Theory (p. 363)

• Discretization and Solution Theory (p. 367)

Recommended books for further reading on CFD and related subjects:

• Further Background Reading in the CFX Introduction

1.1. Documentation Conventions

• Dimensions (p. 22)

• List of Symbols (p. 22)

• Variable Definitions (p. 27)

• Mathematical Notation (p. 40)

1.1.2. List of Symbols

• Multiphase Notation (p. 179)

• Multicomponent Notation (p. 61).

Symbol Description Dimensions Value

Symbol Description Dimensions Value

Symbol Description Dimensions Value

heat transfer coefficient

Symbol Description Dimensions Value

Symbol Description Dimensions Value

turbulent Prandtl number,

molecular stress tensor

Symbol Description Dimensions Value

• Multicomponent Flow (p. 61)

• Multiphase Flow Theory (p. 179)

1.1.3. Variable Definitions

1.1.3.1. Isothermal Compressibility

1.1.3.2. Isentropic Compressibility

1.1.3.3. Reference Pressure