CFD Simulations AC3-12: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Dave.Ellacott moved page SilverP:CFD Simulations AC3-12 to CFD Simulations AC3-12) |
||
(17 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''Application Challenge AC3-12''' © copyright ERCOFTAC 2013 | '''Application Challenge AC3-12''' © copyright ERCOFTAC 2013 | ||
==Overview of CFD Simulations== | ==Overview of CFD Simulations== | ||
Detailed numerical calculations were also performed by | Detailed numerical calculations were also performed by | ||
and Sommerfeld and Qiu (1993) using the two-dimensional | [[References_AC3-12#10|Sommerfeld ''et al.'' (1992)]] | ||
and [[References_AC3-12#11|Sommerfeld and Qiu (1993)]] using the two-dimensional | |||
axially-symmetric Euler/Lagrange approach without two-way coupling. The | axially-symmetric Euler/Lagrange approach without two-way coupling. The | ||
fluid flow calculation is based on the time-averaged Navier-Stokes | fluid flow calculation is based on the time-averaged Navier-Stokes | ||
equations in connection with a closure assumption for the turbulence | equations in connection with a closure assumption for the turbulence | ||
modelling. The solution of the above equations is obtained by using the | modelling. The solution of the above equations is obtained by using the | ||
so-called FASTEST-code (Dimirdzic and Peric, 1990) which incorporates | so-called FASTEST-code ([[References_AC3-12#2|Dimirdzic and Peric, 1990]]) which incorporates | ||
the well-known k-ε two-equation turbulence model and uses a finite- | the well-known k-ε two-equation turbulence model and uses a finite-volume | ||
approach to descretize the equations. In order to minimize the | |||
effects of numerical diffusion in the present calculations, the | effects of numerical diffusion in the present calculations, the | ||
quadratic, upwind-weighted differencing scheme (QUICK) was used for | quadratic, upwind-weighted differencing scheme (QUICK) was used for | ||
Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
techniques, where the convective flux can be calculated as a weighted | techniques, where the convective flux can be calculated as a weighted | ||
sum of the flux expressions from the "upwind" and QUICK differencing | sum of the flux expressions from the "upwind" and QUICK differencing | ||
schemes (Peric et al., 1988), was used | schemes ([[References_AC3-12#6|Peric ''et al.'', 1988]]), was used | ||
to avoid instabilities and | |||
convergence problems that sometimes appear when using higher order | convergence problems that sometimes appear when using higher order | ||
schemes. The choice of the solution procedure described above was based | schemes. The choice of the solution procedure described above was based | ||
on the recommendations of Durst and Wennerberg (1991) | on the recommendations of [[References_AC3-12#3|Durst and Wennerberg (1991)]] | ||
concluded that for moderate swirl intensities the k- | who also concluded that for moderate swirl intensities the k-ε | ||
performs reasonably well. | turbulence model performs reasonably well. | ||
==Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions Fluid Flow== | ==Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions Fluid Flow== | ||
The present calculations have been performed on a mesh of 80 by 78 grid | The present calculations have been performed on a mesh of 80 by 78 grid | ||
points in the stream-wise and radial directions, respectively. For two- | points in the stream-wise and radial directions, respectively. | ||
dimensional axis-symmetric calculations this grid resolution was found | For two-dimensional axis-symmetric calculations this grid resolution was found | ||
to be sufficient as demonstrated by Durst and Wennerberg (1991). | to be sufficient as demonstrated by [[References_AC3-12#3|Durst and Wennerberg (1991)]]. | ||
computational domain corresponds exactly to the experimental | The computational domain corresponds exactly to the experimental | ||
configuration given in Figure 1. However, in the stream-wise direction | configuration given in Figure 1. However, in the stream-wise direction | ||
it was only extended up to 1.0 m downstream from the inlet. The applied | it was only extended up to 1.0 m downstream from the inlet. The applied | ||
inlet conditions correspond to the measured mean velocity components | inlet conditions correspond to the measured mean velocity components | ||
(i.e. available for all three components) and the measured turbulent | (i.e. available for all three components) and the measured turbulent | ||
Line 44: | Line 46: | ||
==Modelling of Particle Phase== | ==Modelling of Particle Phase== | ||
Details on the treatment of the dispersed phase can be found in | Details on the treatment of the dispersed phase can be found in | ||
Sommerfeld and Qiu (1993). Here only a | [[References_AC3-12#11|Sommerfeld and Qiu (1993)]]. | ||
Here only a brief summary of the main issues | |||
is given. The converged solution of the gas flow field was used for the | is given. The converged solution of the gas flow field was used for the | ||
simulations of the particle phase based on a Lagrangian formulation of | simulations of the particle phase based on a Lagrangian formulation of | ||
Line 62: | Line 65: | ||
considered (see Table 1). Furthermore, some simplifications in the | considered (see Table 1). Furthermore, some simplifications in the | ||
equation of motion for the particles have been made, since a gas-solid | equation of motion for the particles have been made, since a gas-solid | ||
two-phase flow with a density ratio of | two-phase flow with a density ratio of | ||
<math>{\displaystyle \left.\rho_p/\rho \sim 2000\right.}</math> was considered. This | |||
implies that the added mass effect and the Basset history force have | implies that the added mass effect and the Basset history force have | ||
been neglected in the present calculations. As a consequence only the | been neglected in the present calculations. As a consequence only the | ||
Line 69: | Line 73: | ||
The equations of motion were solved by an explicit Euler method, where | The equations of motion were solved by an explicit Euler method, where | ||
the maximum allowable time step was set to be 10 | the maximum allowable time step was set to be 10 percent of the | ||
following characteristic time scales: | following characteristic time scales: | ||
Line 79: | Line 83: | ||
obtained from the local mean fluid velocities and the velocity | obtained from the local mean fluid velocities and the velocity | ||
fluctuations which are randomly sampled from a Gaussian distribution | fluctuations which are randomly sampled from a Gaussian distribution | ||
function characterized by and the fluid rms value, | function characterized by and the fluid rms value, σ. The latter is | ||
evaluated from the turbulent kinetic energy by assuming isotropic | evaluated from the turbulent kinetic energy by assuming isotropic | ||
turbulence. The instantaneous fluid velocities seen by the particles | turbulence. The instantaneous fluid velocities seen by the particles | ||
are randomly generated by the "discrete eddy concept" | are randomly generated by the "discrete eddy concept" | ||
et | (see [[References_AC3-12#12|Sommerfeld ''et al.'' 1993]]; [[References_AC3-12#14|Sommerfeld 2008]]) | ||
and are assumed to influence the | |||
particle movement during a certain time period, the interaction time, | particle movement during a certain time period, the interaction time, | ||
before new instantaneous fluid velocities are sampled from the Gaussian | before new instantaneous fluid velocities are sampled from the Gaussian | ||
Line 99: | Line 104: | ||
crossing the centreline is replaced by a particle entering at this | crossing the centreline is replaced by a particle entering at this | ||
location with opposite radial velocity. For the particle interaction | location with opposite radial velocity. For the particle interaction | ||
with the solid wall, elastic reflection is assumed (i.e., <math>{\nu_{p2}=-\nu_{p1}}</math>). | with the solid wall, elastic reflection is assumed (i.e., <math>{\displaystyle \nu_{p2}=-\nu_{p1}}</math>). | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
{{ACContribs | {{ACContribs | ||
|authors=Martin Sommerfeld | |authors=Martin Sommerfeld | ||
|organisation=Martin-Luther- | |organisation=Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ACHeader_ref | {{ACHeader_ref |
Latest revision as of 16:19, 11 February 2017
Particle-laden swirling flow
Application Challenge AC3-12 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2013
Overview of CFD Simulations
Detailed numerical calculations were also performed by Sommerfeld et al. (1992) and Sommerfeld and Qiu (1993) using the two-dimensional axially-symmetric Euler/Lagrange approach without two-way coupling. The fluid flow calculation is based on the time-averaged Navier-Stokes equations in connection with a closure assumption for the turbulence modelling. The solution of the above equations is obtained by using the so-called FASTEST-code (Dimirdzic and Peric, 1990) which incorporates the well-known k-ε two-equation turbulence model and uses a finite-volume approach to descretize the equations. In order to minimize the effects of numerical diffusion in the present calculations, the quadratic, upwind-weighted differencing scheme (QUICK) was used for differencing the convection terms. Furthermore, flux-blending techniques, where the convective flux can be calculated as a weighted sum of the flux expressions from the "upwind" and QUICK differencing schemes (Peric et al., 1988), was used to avoid instabilities and convergence problems that sometimes appear when using higher order schemes. The choice of the solution procedure described above was based on the recommendations of Durst and Wennerberg (1991) who also concluded that for moderate swirl intensities the k-ε turbulence model performs reasonably well.
Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions Fluid Flow
The present calculations have been performed on a mesh of 80 by 78 grid points in the stream-wise and radial directions, respectively. For two-dimensional axis-symmetric calculations this grid resolution was found to be sufficient as demonstrated by Durst and Wennerberg (1991). The computational domain corresponds exactly to the experimental configuration given in Figure 1. However, in the stream-wise direction it was only extended up to 1.0 m downstream from the inlet. The applied inlet conditions correspond to the measured mean velocity components (i.e. available for all three components) and the measured turbulent kinetic energy. At the walls no-slip conditions were applied in connection with the standard wall function. At the outflow boundary zero-gradients have been assumed.
Modelling of Particle Phase
Details on the treatment of the dispersed phase can be found in Sommerfeld and Qiu (1993). Here only a brief summary of the main issues is given. The converged solution of the gas flow field was used for the simulations of the particle phase based on a Lagrangian formulation of the basic equations, and a stochastic model was used for simulation the interaction of the particles with the fluid turbulence. For the calculation of the particle phase mean properties, a large number of particles were traced through the flow field, typically around 100,000.
In order to take into account the effect of the wide size spectrum of the glass beads used in the experiments on the particle mean velocities, the velocity fluctuations, and the dispersion process, the numerical calculations were performed considering the particle size distribution.
The effect of the particle phase on the fluid flow was neglected in the present calculations since only very small particle loadings were considered (see Table 1). Furthermore, some simplifications in the equation of motion for the particles have been made, since a gas-solid two-phase flow with a density ratio of was considered. This implies that the added mass effect and the Basset history force have been neglected in the present calculations. As a consequence only the drag force, considering a non-linear term for higher particle Reynolds numbers, and the gravity force were taken into account.
The equations of motion were solved by an explicit Euler method, where the maximum allowable time step was set to be 10 percent of the following characteristic time scales:
- the Stokesian response time of the particle,
- the time required for a particle to cross the mesh and
- the local eddy life-time
The instantaneous fluid velocity components in the above equations are obtained from the local mean fluid velocities and the velocity fluctuations which are randomly sampled from a Gaussian distribution function characterized by and the fluid rms value, σ. The latter is evaluated from the turbulent kinetic energy by assuming isotropic turbulence. The instantaneous fluid velocities seen by the particles are randomly generated by the "discrete eddy concept" (see Sommerfeld et al. 1993; Sommerfeld 2008) and are assumed to influence the particle movement during a certain time period, the interaction time, before new instantaneous fluid velocities are sampled from the Gaussian distribution function. In the present model, the successively sampled fluid velocity fluctuations and the individual components are assumed to be uncorrelated.
The boundary conditions for the particle tracking procedure are
specified as follows. At the inlet, the particle velocities and the
mass flux are specified according to the experimental conditions. This
implies that the actual injected particle size is sampled from the
measured local size distributions and the particle velocities are
sampled from a normal velocity distribution considering the measured
local size-velocity correlations for all three components. A particle
crossing the centreline is replaced by a particle entering at this
location with opposite radial velocity. For the particle interaction
with the solid wall, elastic reflection is assumed (i.e., ).
Contributed by: Martin Sommerfeld — Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2013