Evaluation AC3-12: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 25: Line 25:
|}
|}


The measured cross-sectional profiles of the three velocity  components
are compared with the  calculations  in  Figure  11  for  Case  2.  The
agreement is very good, except for the  tangential  velocity  which  is
under-predicted in the region downstream  of  the  location  where  the
recirculation bubble has its largest radial  extension.  Although,  the
turbulent kinetic energy  of  the  gas  phase  is  considerably  under-
predicted in the initial mixing region between the primary and  annular
jets and within the recirculation at the edge of the pipe expansion  (z = 52 mm),
the agreement  is  reasonably  good  for  the  cross-sections
further downstream. Similar results have been obtained for swirl Case 1
which was summarized in  a  previous  publication  (Sommerfeld  et  al. 1992).
<br/>
<br/>
----
----

Revision as of 10:17, 12 February 2013

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

Particle-laden swirling flow

Application Challenge AC3-12   © copyright ERCOFTAC 2013

Comparison of Test Data and CFD

A rather good agreement between the experiments and predictions was obtained for gas and particle phase in both swirling cases considered. The comparison of the calculated streamlines of the gas flow with those obtained from the integration of the measured axial velocity shows that the flow field is predicted reasonably well for both conditions (Figure 10). The most obvious difference is that the axial extension of the central recirculation bubble is predicted to be larger at the top and downstream ends for both cases. The predicted width of the central recirculation bubble and the extension of the recirculation at the edge of the pipe expansion are in good agreement with the measured results.

AC3-12 fig10.png
Figure 10: Measured and calculated gas-phase streamlines (the upper parts of each figure corresponds to the calculations and the lower parts show the measurements); (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2.

The measured cross-sectional profiles of the three velocity components are compared with the calculations in Figure 11 for Case 2. The agreement is very good, except for the tangential velocity which is under-predicted in the region downstream of the location where the recirculation bubble has its largest radial extension. Although, the turbulent kinetic energy of the gas phase is considerably under- predicted in the initial mixing region between the primary and annular jets and within the recirculation at the edge of the pipe expansion (z = 52 mm), the agreement is reasonably good for the cross-sections further downstream. Similar results have been obtained for swirl Case 1 which was summarized in a previous publication (Sommerfeld et al. 1992).



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

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2013