Research Papers

New Approach of Gas–Liquid Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations for the Study of Minimum Quantity Cooling With Airblast Plain-Jet Injectors

[+] Author and Article Information
Christophe Diakodimitris

Aero-Thermo-Mechanics Department,
Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Brussels 1050, Belgium
e-mail: christophe.diakodimitris@ulb.ac.be

Youssef R. Iskandar

Mechanical Engineering Department,
McGill University,
Montreal, PQ H3A OG4, Canada
e-mail: youssef.iskandar@mail.mcgill.ca

Patrick Hendrick

Aero-Thermo-Mechanics Department,
Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Brussels 1050, Belgium
e-mail: patrick.hendrick@ulb.ac.be

Pierre Slangen

LGEI-EqRIN Instrumentation Laser et Optique Appliquée,
Ecole des Mines d'Alès,
Alès 30319, France
e-mail: Pierre.Slangen@mines-ales.fr

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 15, 2012; final manuscript received May 16, 2013; published online July 17, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Steven J. Skerlos.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 135(4), 041009 (Jul 17, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: MANU-12-1083; doi: 10.1115/1.4024632 History: Received March 15, 2012; Revised May 16, 2013; Accepted May 17, 2013

Due to the complexity of multiphase flows, they are often studied with numerical simulations. These simulations must be validated with experimental results. This paper introduces a new approach to initialize the continuous phase of gas–liquid flows generated by airblast nozzles for microlubrication applications with a recently modified commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code FINE™/Open. Microlubrication is a technology used in metal machining where the coolant flow rate is lower than with conventional flood cooling. In this paper, single-phase gas and two-phase liquid–gas flows are studied. The continuous phase is simulated using Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations coupled with a k–ε turbulence model and the dispersed phase is simulated using a Lagrangian method. To validate these simulations, particle image velocimetry (PIV) and particle dynamics analysis (PDA) measurements have been performed. This study illustrates the possibility of performing complex two-phase simulations with the help of single-phase studies to initialize the continuous phase of the flow (i.e., the gas). The single-phase flow also helps in estimating the magnitudes of the droplet velocities.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Byrne, G., Dornfeld, D., and Denkena, B., 2003, “Advancing Cutting Technology,” CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol., 52(2), pp. 483–507. [CrossRef]
Weinert, K., Inasaki, I., Sutherland, J. W., and Wakabayash, T., 2004, “Dry Machining and Minimum Quantity Lubrication,” CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol., 53(2), pp. 511–537. [CrossRef]
Dhar, N. R., Kamruzzaman, M., and Ahmed, M., 2006, “Effect of Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) on Tool Wear and Surface Roughness in Turning AISI-4340 Steel,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 172(2), pp. 299–304. [CrossRef]
Zhang, S., Li, J., and Wang, Y., 2012, “Tool Life and Cutting Forces in End Milling Inconel 718 Under Dry and Minimum Quantity Cooling Lubrication Cutting Conditions,” J. Cleaner Prod., 32, pp. 81–87. [CrossRef]
Klocke, F., and Eisenblaetter, G., 1997, “Dry Cutting,” CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol., 46(2), pp. 519–526. [CrossRef]
Khan, M. M. A., Mithu, M. A. H., and Dhar, N. R., 2009, “Effects of Minimum Quantity Lubrication on Turning AISI 9310 Alloy Steel Using Vegetable Oil-Based Cutting Fluid,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 209(15–16), pp. 5573–5583. [CrossRef]
Liao, Y. S., Lin, H. M., and Chen, Y. C., 2007, “Feasibility Study of the Minimum Quantity Lubrication in High-Speed End Milling of NAK80 Hardened Steel by Coated Carbide Tool,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 47(11), pp. 1667–1676. [CrossRef]
Löpez De Lacalle, L. N., Angulo, C., Lamikiz, A., and Sánchez, J., 2006, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Effect of Spray Cutting Fluids in High Speed Milling,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 172(1), pp. 11–15. [CrossRef]
Tawakoli, T., Hadad, M. J., Sadeghi, M. H., Daneshi, A., Stöckert, S., and Rasifard, A., 2009, “An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Workpiece and Grinding Parameters on Minimum Quantity Lubrication-MQL Grinding,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 49(12–13), pp. 924–932. [CrossRef]
Diakodimitris, C., Hendrick, P., and Iskandar, Y. R., 2011, “Study of Minimum Quantity Cooling (MQC) on the Tool Temperature in Milling Operations,” 44th CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
Aoyama, T., 2002, “Development of a Mixture Supply System for Machining With Minimal Quantity Lubrication,” CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol., 51(1), pp. 289–292. [CrossRef]
Zeilmann, R. P., and Weingaertner, W. L., 2006, “Analysis of Temperature During Drilling of Ti6Al4V With Minimal Quantity of Lubricant,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 179(1-3), pp. 124–127. [CrossRef]
Duangkhamchan, W., Ronsse, F., Depypere, F., Dewettinck, K., and Pieters, J. G., 2012, “CFD Study of Droplet Atomisation Using a Binary Nozzle in Fluidised Bed Coating Original Research Article,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 68(1), pp. 555–566. [CrossRef]
Oesterlé, B., 2006, Écoulements Multiphasiques, Hermès-Lavoisier, Paris.
Minier, J.-P., and Peirano, E., 2001, “The PDF Approach for Turbulent Poly-Dispersed Two-Phase Flows,” Phys. Rep., 352(1-3), pp. 1–214. [CrossRef]
Lefebvre, A. H., 1989, Atomization and Sprays, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York.
Lefebvre, A. H., 1980, “Airblast Atomization,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 6(3), pp. 233–261. [CrossRef]
Lorenzetto, G. E., and Lefebvre, A. H., 1977, “Measurements of Drop Size on a Plain Jet Airblast Atomizer,” AIAA J., 15(7), pp. 1006–1010. [CrossRef]
Steimes, J., Diakodimitris, C., Matteo, M. D., and Hendrick, P., 2012, “A Laser Diffraction Study on Droplet Diameters in Two Lubrication Systems,” 16 th INT Symp on Applications of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Coaxial airblast plain-jet atomizer configuration (dimensions in mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic representation of the experimental set-up for the PDA and PIV technique

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Illustration of the magnitude of the velocity v (single-phase flow): m·g = 6.20·10-4kg/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Meshed geometry of the atomizer and ambient environment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison between single-phase flow simulations and PIV technique for different air and oil flows; (a) m·g = 5.00·10-4 kg/s, x = 40 mm; (b) m·g = 5.00·10-4 kg/s, x = 60 mm; (c) m·g = 5.60·10-4 kg/s, x = 40 mm; (d) m·g = 5.60·10-4kg/s, x = 60 mm; (e) m·g = 6.20·10-4 kg/s, x = 40 mm; (f) m·g = 6.20·10-4 kg/s, x = 60 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison between PIV and PDA techniques for different air and oil flows; (a) m·g = 5.00·10-4 kg/s,m·l = 1.66·10-4 kg/s,x = 40 mm; (b) m·g = 5.00·10-4 kg/s,m·l = 2.92·10-4 kg/s,x = 40 mm; (c) m·g = 5.60·10-4 kg/s,m·l = 1.66·10-4 kg/s,x = 40 mm; (d) m·g = 5.60·10-4 kg/s, m·l = 2.92·10-4 kg/s,x = 40 mm; (e) m·g = 6.20·10-4 kg/s,m·l = 1.66·10-4 kg/s,x = 40 mm; (f) m·g = 6.20·10-4 kg/s,m·l = 2.92·10-4 kg/s,x = 40 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Flow chart of the solution procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison between two-phase flow simulations and PDA technique for different MQC flows; (a) m·g = 6.20·10-4 kg/s, gas phase; (b) m·g = 6.20·10-4 kg/s,m·l = 1.66·10-4 kg/s, liquid phase; (c) m·g = 6.20·10-4 kg/s,m·l = 1.66·10-4 kg/s, liquid phase; (d) m·g = 6.20·10-4 kg/s,m·l = 1.66·10-4 kg/s, liquid phase



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In