Best Practice Advice AC3-12: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{ACHeader_ref
{{ACHeader
|area=3
|area=3
|number=12
|number=12
Line 6: Line 5:
__TOC__
__TOC__
=Particle-laden swirling flow=
=Particle-laden swirling flow=
'''Application Challenge AC3-12'''   © copyright ERCOFTAC {{CURRENTYEAR}}                           
'''Application Challenge AC3-12'''   © copyright ERCOFTAC 2013                         
=Best Practice Advice=
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA}}-->
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA}}-->
==Key Fluid Physics==
==Key Fluid Physics==
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA1}}-->
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==
==Application Uncertainties==
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA2}}-->
The flow geometry is relatively simple and can be accurately  specified
and discretised. The inlet conditions were measured 3&nbsp;mm downstream of 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
[[Test_Data_AC3-12#figure2|Fig.&nbsp;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}}-->
Previous calculations, as shown above, have been done based on the two-dimensional axisymmetric conservation equations.
As a  matter  of  fact however the flow should be considered as  fully  three-dimensional  and
possibly the computations should be done using an unsteady approach  in
order to capture the slight precessing of  the  swirling  vortex.  This
will  also  affect  the  particle  behaviour  and  it  is  possible  to
numerically predict particle rope formation  and  dispersion
([[References_AC3-12#5|Lipowsky&nbsp;and&nbsp;Sommerfeld&nbsp;2007]],
[[References_AC3-12#15|Sommerfeld&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''&nbsp;2010]]).
 
==Discretisation and Grid Resolution==
==Discretisation and Grid Resolution==
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA4}}-->
For full three-dimensional calculations of the considered swirling flow
at least 300,000 control volumes should  be  used  when  applying  RANS
methods. In the case of LES, the grid resolution should be much higher.
[[References_AC3-12#1|Apte&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.'' &nbsp;(2003)]]
have  for  example  used  1.6  million  hexahedral volumes.
 
For steady-state calculations several hundred  thousands  of  particles
should be sufficient. For unsteady simulations the number of considered
particles needs to be  higher  in  order  to  ensure  good  statistical
averaging.
 
==Physical Modelling==
==Physical Modelling==
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA5}}-->
It is suggested to calculate the swirling flow either with a  Reynolds-stress turbulence model
([[References_AC3-12#4|Lipowsky&nbsp;and&nbsp;Sommerfeld&nbsp;2005)]] or applying LES.
This has been done by [[References_AC3-12#1|Apte&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''&nbsp;(2003)]] using LES  on  an  unstructured
grid and applying the dynamic Smagorinsky  model.  For  simulating  the
particle phase the Lagrangian approach was adopted accounting for  drag
and gravity only. Moreover two-way coupling was accounted for. For Case
1 introduced here an excellent agreement with  all  components  of  the
measured gas and particle phase mean velocities  as  well  as  the  rms
velocities was obtained. Also the profiles of the particle number  mean
diameter were predicted reasonably well. A comparison with the  measured
stream-wise particle mass flux is not shown.
 
Due to the singularity at r&nbsp;=&nbsp;0 in a cylindrical  frame  of  reference,
particle tracking should be done on a Cartesian coordinate  system.  In
this formulation centrifugal and Coriolis forces should not appear. For
the considered gas-solid system, added mass, pressure  term  and  Basset
force  are  negligible.  Since  the  particles  are  relatively  small,
transverse  lift  forces  (slip-shear  and  slip-rotation  lift,  see
[[References_AC3-12#14|Sommerfeld&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''&nbsp;2008]])
have not a very strong effect on  the  particle
motion and the  resulting  concentration  profiles
(see  [[Evaluation_AC3-12#figure15|Fig.&nbsp;15]] and
[[References_AC3-12#11|Sommerfeld&nbsp;and&nbsp;Qiu&nbsp;1993]]).
Moreover,  the  model  for  predicting  the
instantaneous velocity seen by the particle has an essential effect  on
the  computed  particle  dispersion.  In  this  case  an  uncorrelated
isotropic discrete eddy concept was used. This model could be  improved
by accounting for the anisotropy of  turbulence  using  for  example  a
Langevin model ([[References_AC3-12#4|Lipowsky&nbsp;and&nbsp;Sommerfeld&nbsp;2005]]).
 
==Recommendations for Future Work==
==Recommendations for Future Work==
<!--{{Demo_AC_BPA6}}-->
The described test cases for particle-laden swirling flows provide very
detailed measurements for air- and particle-phase properties. It  would
be interesting to see a comparison of steady and unsteady  calculations
as well as  calculation  results  obtained  with  different  turbulence
closures, including LES.  Moreover,  in  the  case  of  rope  formation
(unsteady simulations)  the  effect  of  two-way  coupling  and  inter-particle
collisions should be evaluated.
<br/>
<br/>
----
----
{{ACContribs
{{ACContribs
|authors=Martin Sommerfeld
|authors=Martin Sommerfeld
|organisation=Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg
|organisation=Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
}}
}}
{{ACHeader
{{ACHeader_ref
|area=3
|area=3
|number=12
|number=12
Line 33: Line 110:




© copyright ERCOFTAC {{CURRENTYEAR}}
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2013

Latest revision as of 16:30, 11 February 2017

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

Particle-laden swirling flow

Application Challenge AC3-12   © copyright ERCOFTAC 2013

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 of 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

Previous calculations, as shown above, have been done based on the two-dimensional axisymmetric conservation equations. As a matter of fact however the flow should be considered as fully three-dimensional and possibly the computations should be done using an unsteady approach in order to capture the slight precessing of the swirling vortex. This will also affect the particle behaviour and it is possible to numerically predict particle rope formation and dispersion (Lipowsky and Sommerfeld 2007, Sommerfeld et al. 2010).

Discretisation and Grid Resolution

For full three-dimensional calculations of the considered swirling flow at least 300,000 control volumes should be used when applying RANS methods. In the case of LES, the grid resolution should be much higher. Apte et al.  (2003) have for example used 1.6 million hexahedral volumes.

For steady-state calculations several hundred thousands of particles should be sufficient. For unsteady simulations the number of considered particles needs to be higher in order to ensure good statistical averaging.

Physical Modelling

It is suggested to calculate the swirling flow either with a Reynolds-stress turbulence model (Lipowsky and Sommerfeld 2005) or applying LES. This has been done by Apte et al. (2003) using LES on an unstructured grid and applying the dynamic Smagorinsky model. For simulating the particle phase the Lagrangian approach was adopted accounting for drag and gravity only. Moreover two-way coupling was accounted for. For Case 1 introduced here an excellent agreement with all components of the measured gas and particle phase mean velocities as well as the rms velocities was obtained. Also the profiles of the particle number mean diameter were predicted reasonably well. A comparison with the measured stream-wise particle mass flux is not shown.

Due to the singularity at r = 0 in a cylindrical frame of reference, particle tracking should be done on a Cartesian coordinate system. In this formulation centrifugal and Coriolis forces should not appear. For the considered gas-solid system, added mass, pressure term and Basset force are negligible. Since the particles are relatively small, transverse lift forces (slip-shear and slip-rotation lift, see Sommerfeld et al. 2008) have not a very strong effect on the particle motion and the resulting concentration profiles (see Fig. 15 and Sommerfeld and Qiu 1993). Moreover, the model for predicting the instantaneous velocity seen by the particle has an essential effect on the computed particle dispersion. In this case an uncorrelated isotropic discrete eddy concept was used. This model could be improved by accounting for the anisotropy of turbulence using for example a Langevin model (Lipowsky and Sommerfeld 2005).

Recommendations for Future Work

The described test cases for particle-laden swirling flows provide very detailed measurements for air- and particle-phase properties. It would be interesting to see a comparison of steady and unsteady calculations as well as calculation results obtained with different turbulence closures, including LES. Moreover, in the case of rope formation (unsteady simulations) the effect of two-way coupling and inter-particle collisions should be evaluated.



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

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2013