Best Practice Advice AC3-12: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 22: Line 22:


==Application Uncertainties==
==Application Uncertainties==
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA2}}-->
The flow geometry is relatively simple and can be accurately  specified
and discretised. The inlet conditions were measured 3 mm downstream the
exit of the inlet tubes so that the variation of the  flow  during  the
first 3 mm (i.e. from the exact geometrical exit) can be neglected.  In
previous calculations, as shown above, the  particle  size  across  the
central tube inlet was specified according to that provided in  Fig.  2
(i.e. no variation). The first measured profile reveals that a  spatial
variation of  the  particle  size  distribution  at  the  exit  can  be
neglected. Possibly however, the mean velocity and the rms  values  for
the different particle size classes might  be  slightly  different.  It
should be also kept in mind that the measurements were  only  done  for
one profile across the test section. Hence any asymmetries of the  flow
could bias the results.
 
==Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions==
==Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions==
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA3}}-->
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA3}}-->

Revision as of 12:22, 12 February 2013

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

Particle-laden swirling flow

Application Challenge AC3-12   © copyright ERCOFTAC 2024

Key Fluid Physics

The introduced swirling flows are highly turbulent and as known, the turbulence structure is strongly anisotropic. Moreover, the flow is characterized by a central recirculation region and a flow separation in the pipe expansion. Mostly such kind of flows is not stationary, but exhibits some fluctuations of the vortex core (precessing). This effect also influences the particle behaviour which is manifested in the formation of particle ropes. These are caused by slight fluctuations of the particle-laden primary jet induced by the vortex precession. Eventually these ropes move spirally along the test section wall downward. As a consequence of the locally high particle concentration two-way coupling effects and also inter-particle collisions might become of importance.

Application Uncertainties

The flow geometry is relatively simple and can be accurately specified and discretised. The inlet conditions were measured 3 mm downstream the exit of the inlet tubes so that the variation of the flow during the first 3 mm (i.e. from the exact geometrical exit) can be neglected. In previous calculations, as shown above, the particle size across the central tube inlet was specified according to that provided in Fig. 2 (i.e. no variation). The first measured profile reveals that a spatial variation of the particle size distribution at the exit can be neglected. Possibly however, the mean velocity and the rms values for the different particle size classes might be slightly different. It should be also kept in mind that the measurements were only done for one profile across the test section. Hence any asymmetries of the flow could bias the results.

Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions

Discretisation and Grid Resolution

Physical Modelling

Recommendations for Future Work




Contributed by: Martin Sommerfeld — Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024