Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Effects of Wall Roughness-Blog

Effects of Wall Roughness-Blog

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by kinthavong
Uploaded from Google Docs
Uploaded from Google Docs

More info:

Published by: kinthavong on Jul 23, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/23/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Numerical investigation into the effects of wall roughnesson a gas–particle flow in a 90
°
bend
Z.F. Tian
a
, K. Inthavong
a
, J.Y. Tu
a,*
, G.H. Yeoh
b
a
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, P.O. Box 71, Bundoora Vic 3083, Australia
b
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), PMB 1, Menai, NSW 2234, Australia
Received 29 November 2006; received in revised form 26 November 2007Available online 31 January 2008
Abstract
This paper presents a numerical study of a dilute gas–particle flow in a 90
°
bend by employing a Lagrangian particle-tracking modelcombined with a particle–wall collision model and a stochastic wall roughness model. The major objective of this study was to investigatethe effects of wall roughness on the particle flow properties. The numerical simulation revealed that wall roughness significantly reducedthe ‘particle free zone’ and smoothed the particle number density profiles by altering the particle rebounding behaviours. It was alsofound that wall roughness reduced the particle mean velocities and also increased the particle fluctuating velocities in both streamwiseand transverse directions.
Ó
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Gas–particle flow; 90
°
bend; CFD; Particle–wall collision; Wall roughness
1. Introduction
Gas–particleflowsinsideofpipebendsarefoundinmanyengineering applications.Air–coal flows incoalcombustionequipments, coal liquefaction–gasification in pipe systems,gas–particle flows in turbo machinery, and contaminantparticleflowsinventilationductsaresometypicalexamples.With the significant advancement of computer speed andmemory, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is becomingaviabletooltoprovidedetailedinformationofbothgasandparticle phases inthe components composing these systems.For the CFD approach, the particle–wall collisionmodel has an important influence on the prediction of gas–particle flows, especially for relatively large particles[1]. Nevertheless, despite the experimental and computa-tional investigations reported in[1–8]and many others,the success in properly modelling the particle–wall collisionprocess remains elusive due to its complex nature.Among the parameters, such as the particle incidentvelocity, incident angle, diameter of particle and its mate-rial properties, the wall surface roughness is one of thephysical parameters that govern the particle–wall collisionprocess and the wall collision frequency[5]. Sommerfeldand Huber[5]measured the gas–particle flows in a horizon-tal channel using particle-tracking velocimetry. They foundthat wall roughness considerably alters the particlerebound behaviour and on average causes a re-dispersionof the particle by reducing the gravitational settling.Another contribution to this work was the developmentand validation of a stochastic wall roughness distributionmodel that takes into consideration the so-called shadoweffect for small particle incident angles. It was demon-strated that particles may not hit the lee side of a roughnessstructure when the absolute value of the negative inclina-tion angle
j
c
À
j
becomes larger than the impact angle[5].This results in a higher probability for the particle to hitthe luff side, effectively shifting the probability distributionfunction of the effective roughness angle towards positivevalues. Later, Kussin and Sommerfeld[6]conducteddetailed measurements of gas–particle horizontal channel
0017-9310/$ - see front matter
Ó
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.12.005
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 99256191; fax: +61 3 99256108.
E-mail address:
Jiyuan.Tu@rmit.edu.au(J.Y. Tu).www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt
 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 1238–1250
 
Tian, Z. F., Inthavong, K., Tu, J. Y. and Yeoh, G. H. (2008). Numerical investigation into the effectsof wall roughness on a gas-particle flow in a 90-degree bend. International Journal of Heat andMass Transfer 51:1238-1250.
 
flows using glass particles with diameters from 60
l
m to1000
l
m and two stainless steel walls with different degreesof wall roughness. It was found that irregular particle–wallcollision due to the roughness enhances the transverse dis-persion of the particles across the channel and that the wallcollision frequency is increased due to a reduction in themean free path. The wall roughness was also found todecrease the particle mean velocity that is associated witha higher momentum loss in the particle phase while increas-ing both the streamwise and transverse fluctuating veloci-ties. The effects of wall roughness on particle velocities ina fully developed downward channel flow in air was exper-imentally investigated by Benson et al.[7], employing alaser Doppler anemometer (LDA) system. Similar to thestudies by Kussin and Sommerfeld[6], the wall roughnesswas found to substantially reduce the streamwise particlevelocities causing the particles to be uniformly distributedacross the channel after wall collision. The wall roughnessalso increases the particle fluctuating velocities by nearly100% near the channel centerplane. Using a stochastic wallroughness model similar to that of Sommerfeld and Huber[5], Squires and Simonin[8]numerically studied the particle phase properties in a gas–particle channel flow with threewall roughness angles, 0
°
(smooth wall), 2.5
°
and 5
°
. Themost pronounced effect of wall roughness was found onthe wall-normal component of the particle velocity (thetransverse particle velocity). The streamwise particle veloc-ity variance was increased, while the transverse particlefluctuating velocity was less sensitive to the wall roughness.The main focus of this paper is tonumerically investigatethe effects of wall roughness on the particle–wall collisionphenomenon and to extend these ideas to further character-ize the particle phase flow in a 90
°
bend. Previously, Tu andFletcher[9]computed a gas–particle flow in a square-sec-tioned 90
°
bend via an Eulerian–Eulerian model. Thistwo-fluidmodel,implementedthe
Re
-NormalisationGroup(RNG)
 – 
e
model along with generalised wall boundaryconditions and a particle–wall collision model to better rep-resent the particle–wall momentum transfer. ComparisonsofbothgasandparticlephasevelocitycomputationsagainstLaser Doppler Anemometry (LDA) measurements of Kliafa and Holt[10]were reasonably good. However, theinherentweaknessoftheEulerianformulationisitsinabilityto capture the aerodynamic drag force on the particle phasein the vicinity of a wall surface. The incident and reflectedparticles during the process of a particle–wall collision inthe Eulerian model is still far from adequate in terms of res-olution[11]. To overcome these difficulties, the Lagrangianparticle-tracking is thereby revisited to fundamentallydescribe the near-wall particle collision process.The authors[12]used a Lagrangian particle-trackingmodel, which included the stochastic wall roughness modelof Sommerfeld[1], to numerically simulate a gas–particleflow over a tube bank. The predicted mean velocities andfluctuations for both gas and 93
l
m particles were vali-dated against experimental data with good agreements.The numerical predictions revealed that the wall roughnesshas a considerable effect by altering the rebounding behav-iours of the large particles, consequently affecting the par-ticle motion downstream and shifting the particle collisionfrequency distribution on the tubes.This study employed the Lagrangian model, whileincluding a particle–wall collision model and a stochasticwall roughness model[5]to study the effects of wall rough-
Nomenclature
a
1
,
a
2
,
a
3
empirical const ants in Eq.(4)
D
particle drag coefficient
D
width of the bend
p
particle diameter
e
n
mean normal restitution coefficient
 g 
gravitational acceleration
r
i
inner wall radius
r
o
outer wall radius
r
*
non-dimensional wall distance
Re
Reynolds number
Re
p
relative Reynolds number
St
Stokes number
t
p
particle relaxation time
t
s
system response time
b
bulk velocity
u
pn
;
v
pn
particle normal incident velocity and normal re-flected velocity
u
pt
;
v
pt
particle tangential incident velocity and tangen-tial reflected velocity
s
characteristic velocity of the system
Greek symbols
l
dynamic viscosity
h
,
h
0
the particle incident angle without and withroughness effect
q
density
x
,
X
particle annular velocity before and after colli-sion
f
normally distributed random number
Subscripts
g gas phasen normal directiont tangential directionp particle phases system
Superscript
g gas phasep particle phase()
0
fluctuation
Z.F. Tian et al./International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 1238–1250
1239
 
ness on the particle phase flow field in a two-dimensional90
°
bend. The aforementioned models were implementedinto the FLUENT code via user-defined subroutines.Using user-defined subroutines allows the flexibility inextending the collision model to handle complex engineer-ing flows. To gain confidence in this numerical study, thepredicted mean velocities for both gas phase and 50
l
mparticles were validated against experimental data of Kliafaand Holt[10]. The Lagrangian model was used to investi-gate effects of wall roughness on the particle trajectories,particle number density distribution, particle mean veloci-ties and particle fluctuating velocities.
2. Computational method
 2.1. Gas phase and particle phase modelling 
The generic CFD commercial code, FLUENT[13], wasutilised to predict the continuum gas phase of the velocityprofiles under steady-state conditions. The air phase turbu-lence was handled by the RNG
 – 
e
model[14].A Lagrangian-formulated particle equation of motionwas solved with the trajectory of a discrete particle phasedetermined by integrating the force balance on the particle,which is written in a Lagrangian reference frame. Appro-priate forces such as the drag and gravitational forces areincorporated into the equation of motion. The equationcan be written asd
u
p
d
¼
 F 
D
ð
u
g
À
u
p
Þþ
 g 
ð
q
p
À
q
g
Þ
q
p
ð
1
Þ
where
u
is the velocity,
q
is density,
is the gravitationalacceleration and the subscript g and p denote the gas andparticle phase parameters, respectively.
D
(
u
g
À
u
p
) is thedrag force per unit particle mass, and
D
is given by
 F 
D
¼
18
l
g
q
p
2p
D
 Re
p
24
ð
2
Þ
where
l
g
is gas phase dynamic viscosity.
Re
p
is the relativeReynolds number defined as
 Re
p
¼
q
p
p
j
u
p
À
u
g
j
l
g
ð
3
Þ
p
is the particle diameter. The drag coefficient
D
is givenas
D
¼
a
1
þ
a
2
 Re
p
þ
a
3
 Re
2p
ð
4
Þ
where the
a
s
are empirical constants for smooth sphericalparticles over several ranges of particle Reynolds number[15]. By using stochastic tracking method as part of theEulerian–Lagrangian approach, FLUENT predicts the tur-bulent dispersion of particles by integrating the trajectoryequations for individual particles, using the instantaneousfluid velocity,
u
gi
þ
u
0
i
ð
Þ
along the particle path during theintegration process. With this method, discrete randomwalk or ‘‘eddy lifetime
model, is applied where the fluctu-ating velocity components,
u
0
i
that prevail during the life-time of the turbulent eddy are sampled by assuming thatthey obey a Gaussian probability distribution, so that
u
0
i
¼
n
 ffiffiffiffiffi ffi
u
0
2i
ð
5
Þ
where
n
is a normally distributed random number, and theremaining right-hand side is the local root mean square(rms) velocity fluctuations that can be obtained (assumingisotropy) by
 ffiffiffiffiffi
u
0
2i
¼
 ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
g
=
3
ð
6
Þ
The interaction time between the particles and eddies is thesmaller of the eddy lifetime,
s
e
and the particle eddy cross-ing time,
t
cross
. The characteristic lifetime of the eddy is de-fined as
s
e
¼À
L
log
ð
Þ ð
7
Þ
where
L
is the fluid Lagrangian integral time,
L
%
0.15/
x
. The variable
r
is a uniform random number between 0and 1. The particle eddy crossing time is given by
cross
¼À
p
ln 1
À
Le
p
u
gi
À
u
pi
!" #
ð
8
Þ
where
t
p
is the particle relaxation time
ð¼
q
s
2p
=
18
q
g
v
g
Þ
,
Le
is the eddy length scale, and
j
u
gi
À
u
pi
j
is the magnitude of the relative velocity. The particle interacts with the fluideddy over the interaction time. When the eddy lifetime isreached, a new value of the instantaneous velocity is ob-tained by applying a new value of 
n
in Eq.(5).The main focus of this paper is the effects of wall rough-ness on the particle phase flow field therefore, the volumefraction of particle phase was assumed to be very low(
6
10
À
6
). According to Elghobashi[16], the particles donot influence the carrier phase when the particle phase vol-ume fraction is less than 10
À
6
and the flow is in the limit of one-way coupling.
 2.2. The particle–wall collision model and wall roughnessmodel 
The particle–wall collision model of Sommerfeld andHuber[5]was employed to account for the particle–wallinteraction process.Fig. 1illustrates the impact of a spher-
ω 
p
 pin
u
 
 pn
u
pt
u
 
 pn
v
pt
v 
 pre
v
n
Ω
p
θ
Fig. 1. Particle–wall collision configuration.1240
Z.F. Tian et al./International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 1238–1250

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->