Wear 252 (2002) 179–188
On numerical modeling of particle–wall impaction in relationto erosion prediction: Eulerian versus Lagrangian method
B.E. Lee, J.Y. Tu, C.A.J. Fletcher
Centre for Advanced Numerical Computation in Engineering and Science (CANCES), The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
Received 31 January 2001; received in revised form 18 June 2001; accepted 31 July 2001
The modeling of particle–wall impaction in a conﬁned gas-particle ﬂow using both Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches is reported.The Lagrangian method is based on a general computational ﬂuid dynamics (CFD) code, FLUENT (FLUENT-4.3, 1996). In the Eulerianmethod, based on our previously developed code [J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power 119 (1997) 709], a computational procedure by decomposingone Eulerian solution of particulate phase into two equivalent Lagrangian solutions for incident and reﬂected particles has been developed.These two approaches are evaluated versus experimental data for particle–wall impaction using spray droplets. Two test cases, a 45
rampand an isolated single tube, have been studied using the above two approaches to determine the particle behavior and physical propertiesof impacting and reﬂected particles near wall surface. Results show that both approaches are successful in predicting the main featuresof particulate ﬂow near wall, however, the Eulerian approach is much less expensive than the Lagrangian approach in obtaining the ﬂowsolution of impacting particles. The particulate ﬂow predictions using both approaches have been applied for predicting tube erosions thatare compared with reported data. Good agreement between predictions using the two approaches and between the predicted and measurederosion results are observed. © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Impaction; Slip boundary; Impact velocity
The deposition and erosion of target metals by the im-paction of particles are found in many industrial multiphaseﬂow systems, such as in ﬂuidized beds and coal-ﬁred powerutility boilers. It has been pointed out in literature  thatfor the same conditions of target tube material and prop-erties of impacting particles, reduction in the momentumof the impinging particles and particle number density atimpact can greatly reduce the erosive wear of tubes. There-fore, it is important to model particle–wall impaction inconﬁned gas-particle ﬂow for predicting particle erosionand deposition on the wall surface.There are two basic approaches commonly used to predictgas-particle ﬂows: Lagrangian and Eulerian formulations.In the Lagrangian formulation, the motion of a single parti-cle is considered and relevant variables are calculated alongthe particle trajectory. One disadvantage of this approachis that it is computationally expensive for engineering ap-plications because of the great number of particles whichare required to determine the average behavior of the rela-
Corresponding author. Tel.:
clive.ﬂetcher@unsw.edu.au (C.A.J. Fletcher).
tively high particle loading. The Lagrangian formulation,however, is a more fundamental procedure to describe theparticle–wall collision process and can yield a detailedphysical description of individual particle motion.The Eulerian formulation treats both gas and particulateﬂows as continua and the phases are regarded as two mu-tually interacting ﬂuids. The main advantage of using theEulerian method is to make computation fairly economicalfor ﬂows with relatively high concentrations of particles andfor the purpose of engineering designs, such as power boilerdesign . In addition, effects of interactions, particularlyturbulence, between two phases (two-way coupling) aremore easily considered by using the Eulerian approach .However, some difﬁculties in using the Eulerian methodexist in the prediction of particle erosion and depositionbecause the Eulerian approach gives mean values of theparticulate phase over a small control volume where bothincident and reﬂected particles contribute to this meanvalue near wall surface. Pourahmadi and Humphrey  pre-dicted the erosion using the Eulerian approach with the slipboundary condition. This type of slip boundary conditionmay lead to a substantial error in the prediction of erosion.For instance, in the case of normal impaction, mean Eule-rian velocity would be 0, indicating that no erosion occurs.
0043-1648/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.PII: S0043-1648(01)00838-9