Assessment of Different Cavitation Models in Mixture and Eulerian Framework for Two-Phase Flow in Diesel Injectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative study using different cavitation models in mixture and Eulerian framework is carried out for the analysis of two-phase flows in diesel injectors. Three different cavitation models are investigated here: recently developed modified single-fluid, Schnerr-Sauer and Zwart-Gerber-Belamri models. The last two models have been implemented in both mixture and Eulerian framework. The numerical predictions are compared both qualitatively and quantitatively with experimental results available in the literature. Qualitative assessments have been carried out with experimental images of two-phase flow in an optically accessible nozzle. Quantitative comparisons have been done with measured mass flow rates and velocity profiles. It appears that at low pressure differentials there can be considerable discrepancy in the predictions of the vapour distribution from the three models considered. The modified single-fluid approach turns out to be comparatively better with respect to the other two models. Implementation in mixture and Eulerian framework yields noticeable differences in the results because of the relative velocity of the two phases. Numerical experiments have been carried out with different two-phase turbulence modelling approaches, pressure-velocity coupling algorithms, gradient calculation methods and under-relaxation factors to assess the robustness of the models. Additionally comparisons have been carried out for conditions under high inlet pressure in an axisymmetric nozzle to understand the performance of the models under realistic operating conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".