Contact angle effects on microdroplet deformation using CFD

In this paper we use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to study the effect of contact angle on droplet shape as it moves through a contraction. A new non-dimensional number is proposed in order to predict situations where the deformed droplet will form a slug in the contraction and thus have the opportunity to interact with the channel wall. It is proposed that droplet flow into a contraction is a useful method to ensure that a droplet will wet a channel surface without a trapped lubrication film, and thus help ensure that a slug will remain attached to the wall downstream of the contraction. We demonstrate that when a droplet is larger than a contraction, capillary and Reynolds numbers, and fluid properties may not be sufficient to fully describe the droplet dynamics through a contraction. We show that, with everything else constant, droplet shape and breakup can be controlled simply by changing the wetting properties of the channel wall. CFD simulations with contact angles ranging from 30 degrees to 150 degrees show that lower contact angles can induce droplet breakup while higher contact angles can form slugs with contact angle dependent shape. Crown Copyright (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

CFD simulations of hydrocyclones with an air core - Comparison between large eddy simulations and a second moment closure

CFD simulations of the 75 mm, hydrocyclone of Hsieh (1988) have been conducted using Fluent TM. The simulations used 3-dimensional body fitted grids. The simulations were two phase simulations where the air core was resolved using the mixture (Manninen et al., 1996) and VOF (Hirt and Nichols, 1981) models. Velocity predictions from large eddy simulations (LES), using the Smagorinsky-Lilly sub grid scale model (Smagorinsky, 1963; Lilly, 1966) and RANS simulations using the differential Reynolds stress turbulence model (Launder et al., 1975) were compared with Hsieh's experimental velocity data. The LES simulations gave very good agreement with Hsieh's data but required very fine grids to predict the velocities correctly in the bottom of the apex. The DRSM/RANS simulations under predicted tangential velocities, and there was little difference between the velocity predictions using the linear (Launder, 1989) and quadratic (Speziale et al., 1991) pressure strain models. Velocity predictions using the DRSM turbulence model and the linear pressure strain model could be improved by adjusting the pressure strain model constants.