Abstract
It is known that the global performances of ejector-based systems (viz., at the “global-scale”) depend on the local flow properties within the ejector (viz., at the “local-scale”). For this reason, reliable computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) approaches, to obtain a precise and an a-priori knowledge of the local flow phenomena, are of fundamental importance to support the deployment of innovative ejector-based systems. This communication contributes to the existing discussion by presenting a numerical study of the turbulent compressible flow in a supersonic ejector. In particular, this communication focuses on a precise knowledge gap: the comparison between 2D and 3D modelling approaches as well as density-based and pressure-based solvers. The different approaches have been compared and validated against literature data consisting in entrainment ratio and wall static pressure measurements. In conclusion, this paper is intended to provide guidelines for researchers dealing with the numerical simulation of ejectors.
Highlights
Ejector is a flow device that provides a combined effect of compression, mixing and entrainment, with no-moving parts and without limitations concerning working fluids
It is known that the global performances of ejector-based systems
This communication contributes to the existing discussion by presenting a numerical study
Summary
Ejector is a flow device that provides a combined effect of compression, mixing and entrainment, with no-moving parts and without limitations concerning working fluids. As the performances of ejectorbased systems depend on the local flow properties, reliable computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) approaches, to obtain a precise and an a-priori knowledge of the local flow phenomena, are of fundamental importance to support the development of innovative ejector-based systems. This communication focuses on a precise knowledge gap: the comparison between 2D and 3D modelling approaches as well as density-based and pressure-based solvers. This communication contributes to the present day discussion, by comparing 2D and 3D modelling approaches as well as density-based and pressure-based solvers. The well-known benchmark of Sriveerakul et al [6] is used
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
