Comparison of compressible and incompressible numerical methods in simulation of a cavitating jet through a poppet valve

Abstract

The regime of compressible flow generally refers to the super/subsonic case. However, several remarkable cases with low Mach number could not be appropriately described with the incompressible method. It is a similar case for a cavitating jet inside a poppet valve. In order to comprehensively address the discrepancy between incompressible and compressible methods, both non-cavitating and cavitating cases are performed in experiment and calculation based on OpenFOAM. Experiment reveals a transition in flow pattern in both non-cavitating and cavitating flow. For example, for 0.7 mm openness and 30-degree poppet angle, transition happens at approximately 29 and 27 bar pressure drop for the two cases, respectively. In general, results from the compressible method exhibit better agreement with experiment regarding both flow performance and flow structure. By contrast, the incompressible method could not provide an accurate description for the transition process under the applied flow condition. A series of studies are carried out with emphasis on such discrepancy. Firstly, the deviation in flow performance is addressed based on velocity profile and turbulence level. Secondly, the disparity in flow structure is illustrated and the mechanism for cavitation inception is discussed, which combined provide an interpretation of the deficiency of the incompressible method. Thirdly, different inlet boundary conditions are applied, and the results confirm the independence of deficiency of the incompressible method for inlet fluctuation. Finally, a re-examination is proposed concerning traditional notion of compressible flow as well as the applicability of incompressible numerical method.

Study on cavitation phenomenon of twin-tube hydraulic shock absorber based on CFD

“…Due to throttling loss, the pressure drops sharply at the recovery valve, when the pressure drops to the saturated vapor pressure of the oil, gas will be released from the oil around the recovery valve. Because the oil is mixed with large bubbles, resulting in the oil presents a non-contact state, this phenomenon is known as the hydraulic shock absorber cavitation phenomenon (Yuan, Song, & Liu, 2019).…”

Numerical study on void fraction wave of reciprocating multiphase pumps with high gas rates based on real gas models

“…Furthermore, the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology has been increasingly used in the research of the multiphase pumps, valves or other multiphase flows (Hao & Tan, 2018;Yuan et al, 2019). And the CFD reliability has been confirmed by the comparisons with experimental tests (Ramezanizadeh et al, 2019;Yu et al, 2015Yu et al, , 2019.…”

Numerical investigation into the cavitating jet inside water poppet valves with varied valve seat structures

“…Previous experimental evidence (Kumagai et al, 2016) indicated that an intimate interrelationship exists between the periodic behavior of the cavitating bubbles and the induced pressure fluctuation inside a poppet valve, but the underlying mechanisms associated with the microscopic flow dynamics have not been thoroughly clarified. Notably, an earlier study on numerical methods for a transitional cavitating jet (Yuan et al, 2019b) motivated a two-dimensional transient simulation of the cavitating jet inside an oil poppet valve, which revealed the complicated correlation between cavitation evolution and flow performance. However, owing to the much smaller viscosity of water fluid, the unsteady behavior of a water cavitating jet may display a substantial difference from that of an oil cavitating jet, and simulation of the water cavitating jet requires both an elaborate numerical treatment and significantly more computational resources to resolve the small-scale vortex cavitation structure featured with both three-dimensionality and highly transient characteristics.…”