1
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
OF BUBBLES, DROPS AND PARTICLES
E. Loth
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign
Draft for Cambridge University Press
April 6, 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is a result of my interactions with students at the University of Illinois and my
colleagues in the multiphase flow community. I have tried to collect and organize their
brilliant ideas and work in a simple engineering discussion. In particular, I want to express my
appreciation to Prof. G.M. Faeth who introduced me to this subject. I would also like to
acknowledge the various sponsors of our multiphase research including AEDC, AFOSR,
DARPA, NASA, NCSA, NSF, ONR, SAIC, as well as Cambridge University and their Press.
I am especially grateful to all those who provided figures and suggestions for the text (you
know who you are!). To honor all of those who have contributed, 100% of the author proceeds
will be directed to the International Red Cross.
Of course, this book would not have been possible without the support of my wonderful
parents, wife, and children, to whom this book is sincerely dedicated.
2
PREFACE
The goal of this book is to present a basic overview of the equations, techniques, and
guidelines concerning engineeringlevel numerical simulation of dispersed multiphase flow
motion. Unlike most singlephase CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics), the problems for
multiphase CFD are often associated with first determining the appropriate set of equations to
solve as opposed to only concentrating on the appropriate numerical methods to solve the
equations. Thus, the text will concentrate on both determining the relevant governing
equations and models for a particular set of fluid physics of interest as well as the appropriate
methods for their numerical solution. Both experiments and theoretical analysis will be
discussed in order to help explain and support the general principles of the governing equations
and physics. It is hoped that this book allows the reader an introduction to various “tools”
(numerical methods) for a "job" (prediction of a particular set of dispersedphase properties)
which are appropriate for various “situations” (flow conditions and numerical resources). The
choice of a “tool” is often based on an appropriate balance between “performance” (accuracy
with respect to specific predicted characteristics) and “cost” (required computational resources).
The key physical process considered herein is momentum transfer to and from the particles,
with particular attention to turbulent flow aspects.
The target audience for this book (graduate students, engineers, etc.) is not assumed to have
any particular exposure to multiphase flow but is assumed to be familiar with singlephase
fluid dynamics. To aid in notation and to review relevant concepts, a brief summary of the
singlephase equations and flow regimes are given in Appendix A, while pertinent aspects of
singlephase computational fluid dynamics are overviewed in Appendix B.
The first three chapters focus on the physics of multiphase flow. In Chapter 1, the
multiphase flow issues are introduced and equations of motion for a single spherical particle
are discussed. Chapter 2 characterizes size, shape and trajectories for both solid and fluid
particles in various flows. In Chapter 3, particle motion is considered with respect to the
dynamics of many particles. From this, the coupling regimes of multiphase flow are classified
in terms of effects of the surrounding fluid on the particle motion, the effects of the particles on
the surrounding fluid motion, and the way in which particles can affect each other.
The remaining five chapters focus on the methodologies for multiphase simulation.
Chapter 4 broadly discusses numerical approaches for treatment of both the continuousphase
and the dispersedphase. This includes guidelines for choosing numerical approaches for a
particular simulation objective, i.e. choosing "tools" based on “performance” and “cost”.
Appendix B reviews some of the computational approaches for singlephase flow for reference.
Chapter 5 considers multiphase approaches for particles which are so small that they are
approximately in equilibrium with the surrounding fluid. In contrast, Chapters 6 and 7 focus
on nonequilibrium formulations using the pointforce approach to represent the surface
integrated forces on a particle. In particular, Chapter 6 describes various theoretical and
empirical pointforce force expressions for a particle, while Chapter 7 discusses numerical
approaches for the overall multiphase flowfields which employ the pointforce assumption.
Finally, Chapter 8 overviews resolvedsurface numerical methods where the flow around the
particle surface is directly simulated in detail (no pointforce approximation).
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction to Multiphase Fluid Dynamics............................................................. 14
1.1. Scope of the Book .............................................................................................. 14
1.2. Examples of Multiphase Flow in Engineering Systems..................................... 14
1.2.1. Multiphase Flow in Energy Systems .......................................................... 15
1.2.2. Multiphase Flow in Processing Systems..................................................... 16
1.2.3. Multiphase Flow in Biological and Environmental Systems...................... 18
1.3. Basic Terminology and Assumptions ................................................................ 21
1.4. Description of Uncoupled ContinuousPhase Flow........................................... 25
1.5. Equation of Motion for an Isolated Spherical Particle....................................... 27
1.5.1. General Particle Equation of Motion.......................................................... 27
1.5.2. QuasiSteady Drag Force............................................................................ 29
1.5.3. Surface Forces due to Accelerations........................................................... 39
1.5.4. Simplified Equations of Motion for an Isolated Particle ............................ 42
1.6. Mass and Heat Transfer for an Isolated Spherical Particle ................................ 44
1.7. Chapter 1 Problems ............................................................................................ 44
2. Characterizing Particle Sizes, Shapes and Trajectories ............................................ 49
2.1. Particle Size Distribution ................................................................................... 49
2.1.1. Definition of the Probability Distribution Function.................................... 49
2.1.2. Average and Effective Diameters ............................................................... 51
2.1.3. Analytical Probability Distribution Functions............................................ 55
2.2. Particle Shapes ................................................................................................... 58
2.2.1. FixedShape Solid Particles ........................................................................ 59
2.2.2. Deformable Fluid Particles ......................................................................... 60
2.3. Dynamics of Particle Orientation, Size and Shape ............................................ 66
2.3.1. Orientation Dynamics in FreeFall ............................................................. 67
2.3.2. Orientation Dynamics in Simple Shear Flow............................................. 71
2.3.3. Size Oscillations for Bubbles...................................................................... 72
2.3.4. NonSpherical Shape Oscillations for Fluid Particles ................................ 77
2.4. Fluid Particle Breakup and Coalescence........................................................... 78
2.4.1. Breakup due to RayleighTaylor Instabilties............................................. 79
2.4.2. Breakup due to KelvinHelmholtz Instabilities......................................... 82
2.4.3. Breakup due to Shear Deformation ........................................................... 82
2.4.4. Breakup due to Turbulence........................................................................ 85
2.4.5. Coalesence and breakup due to Collisions ................................................ 86
2.5. Chapter 2 Problems ............................................................................................ 44
3. Coupling Physics and Regimes for Multiphase Flow............................................... 93
3.1. Overview of Coupling Regimes......................................................................... 93
3.2. OneWay Coupling and Domain Stokes Number .............................................. 94
3.3. Turbulent Stokes Numbers............................................................................... 100
3.4. Turbulent Particle Dispersion........................................................................... 102
3.5. Turbulent Diffusion and Bias of Particles........................................................ 105
3.5.1. Diffusion of Mean Fluid Tracers .............................................................. 105
4
3.5.2. Diffusion of FiniteInertia Particles.......................................................... 108
3.5.3. Diffusion of Finite Inertia Particles with EddyCrossing Effects............. 115
3.5.4. Lagrangian Average of Particle Relative Velocity................................... 121
3.5.5. Eulerian Average of Particle Relative Velocity........................................ 124
3.6. Brownian Diffusion.......................................................................................... 131
3.7. TwoWay Coupling Criteria............................................................................. 134
3.7.1. Concentration Properties and Interphase Force ........................................ 134
3.7.2. Momentum Coupling Parameter (Effect on Mean Velocity) ................... 136
3.7.3. Turbulence Coupling Parameter (Effect on Kinetic Energy) ................... 139
3.8. ThreeWay and FourWay Coupling Criteria .................................................. 147
3.8.1. ThreeWay Coupling: ParticleParticle Fluid Dynamic Interactions........ 147
3.8.2. FourWay Coupling: ParticleParticle Collisions ..................................... 150
3.9. Multiphase FlowCoupling Summary.............................................................. 154
3.10. Chapter 3 Problems .......................................................................................... 156
4. Overview of Multiphase Flow Numerical Approaches .......................................... 158
4.1. DispersedPhase Flow Numerical Approaches................................................ 159
4.1.1. Lagrangian vs. Eulerian Approaches ........................................................ 159
4.1.2. MixedFluid vs. Separated vs. WeaklySeparated Approaches................ 167
4.1.3. PointForce vs. DistributedForce Approaches......................................... 173
4.1.4. ResolvedSurface Approaches.................................................................. 176
4.2. Comparing Physics Capabilties of Multiphase Methods ................................. 178
4.2.1. Predicting Particle Dynamics................................................................... 179
4.2.2. Predicting Turbulent Dispersion, Diffusion and Biases ........................... 182
4.2.3. Predicting Two, Three and FourWay Coupling.................................... 187
4.2.4. PhysicsBased Choices of Multiphase Methodologies............................. 189
4.3. Comparing Computational Costs of Multiphase Methods............................... 189
4.3.1. Number of Cells for ContinuousPhase Methods ..................................... 190
4.3.2. Number of Cells or Locations for DispersedPhase Methods .................. 194
4.4. Chapter 4 Problems .......................................................................................... 195
5. MixedFluid and WeaklySeparatedFluid Approaches ......................................... 196
5.1. MixedFluid Properties .................................................................................... 196
5.1.1. MixedFluid Density and Mass Fractions................................................. 196
5.1.2. MixedFluid Viscosity .............................................................................. 198
5.1.3. MixedFluid Compressibility.................................................................... 202
5.2. MixedFluid Methodologies............................................................................. 208
5.2.1. MixedFluid Transport Equations................................................................ 208
5.2.2. TimeAveraged Transport Equations........................................................ 211
5.3. WeaklySeparatedFluid Methods.................................................................... 219
5.3.1. WeaklySeparatedFluid Transport Equations.......................................... 219
5.3.2. TimeAveraged Transport Equation and Particle Velocity ...................... 224
5.3.3. Capability of Approaches for Particle Velocity Effects ........................... 226
5.4. Chapter 5 Problems .......................................................................................... 227
6. PointForce Components ........................................................................................ 229
6.1. General Decomposition of Point Forces .......................................................... 229
5
6.1.1. General Surface PointForce Expression.................................................. 229
6.1.2. Theoretical PointForce Momentum Equations........................................ 230
6.2. Drag Force........................................................................................................ 233
6.2.1. Spherical Solid Particles ........................................................................... 233
6.2.2. Influence of ContinuousPhase Compressibility and Rarefaction............ 236
6.2.3. Influence of Mass Flux, Turbulence and Particle Roughness................... 242
6.2.4. NonSpherical Solid Particles................................................................... 247
6.2.5. Spherical Fluid Particles ........................................................................... 258
6.2.6. Deformed Fluid Particles .......................................................................... 263
6.2.7. Influence of Vorticity and Particle Rotation ............................................ 276
6.3. Lift Force and Torque ...................................................................................... 277
6.3.1. VorticityInduced Lift ............................................................................... 279
6.3.2. SpinInduced Lift ...................................................................................... 282
6.3.3. Lift and Torque with both Particle and Fluid Rotation............................. 284
6.3.4. Lift and Torque for NonSpherical Particles ............................................ 288
6.4. Virtual Mass Force........................................................................................... 291
6.5. FluidStress Force ............................................................................................ 295
6.6. History Forces .................................................................................................. 296
6.7. Thermophoretic Forces .................................................................................... 300
6.8. ParticleWall Fluid Dynamic Forces................................................................ 302
6.9. ParticleParticle Fluid Dynamic Forces ........................................................... 307
6.10. ParticleWall and ParticleParticle Collision Effects....................................... 313
6.11. Chapter 6 Problems .......................................................................................... 307
7. PointForce Numerical Techniques ........................................................................ 322
7.1. Eulerian PointForce Formulations .................................................................. 322
7.1.1. Generalized EulerianEulerian PDEs and Numerical Methods................ 323
7.1.2. Incompressible Particles in a Compressible Gas...................................... 325
7.1.3. Incompressible Particles in an Incompressible Fluid............................... 328
7.1.4. Bubbles in an Incompressible Liquid....................................................... 331
7.1.5. Methods for Polydispersion .................................................................... 335
7.1.6. ParticleWall Interactions......................................................................... 335
7.1.7. TimeAveraged Turbulent Multiphase PDEs ........................................... 338
7.1.8. Eulerian Models for Turbulent Particle Diffusion.................................... 345
7.1.9. Eulerian Models for ContinuousPhase Turbulence Modulation ............. 351
7.2. Lagrangian PointForce Formulations ............................................................. 353
7.2.1. Lagrangian ODEs for Particle Properties ................................................. 353
7.2.2. Interpolating Fluid Properties at the Particle Location............................. 357
7.2.3. Lagrangian Particle Advection Schemes .................................................. 361
7.2.4. Representing Polydisperse Distributions .................................................. 369
7.2.5. Lagrangian Models for Turbulent Diffusion............................................. 371
7.2.6. Lagrangian Models for Brownian Diffusion............................................. 383
7.2.7. Eulerian CellAverages of Lagrangian Particle Properties....................... 384
7.2.8. TimeAverages of Lagrangian Particle Properties.................................... 384
7.2.9. ParticleWall Interaction Methods............................................................ 391
7.2.10. ParticleParticle Interaction Methods ....................................................... 391
7.3. Lagrangian DistributedForce Formulations.................................................... 401
6
7.3.1. SpatiallyAveraged Methods .................................................................... 406
7.3.2. SemiResolved Methods .................................................................................
7.4. Chapter 7 Problems ................................................................................................
8. ResolvedSurface Approach ................................................................................... 409
8.1. SurfaceFitted Grid Methods............................................................................ 409
8.1.1. Transport Equations, Grids, and Boundary Conditions............................ 410
8.1.2. Particle Equations of Motion .................................................................... 414
8.2. ContinuousInterface Methods for Solid Particles........................................... 416
8.3. ContinuousInterface Methods for Fluid Particles........................................... 416
8.3.1. MixedFluid Transport Equations and Boundary Conditions.........................
8.3.2. VolumeofFluid Methods ...........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.3.3. LevelSet Methods.......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.3.4. FrontTracking Methods ..............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.4. Chapter 8 Problems .......................................................................................... 429
Appendix A: SinglePhase Flow Equations and Regimes...................................................
A.1. ContinuousFlow Governing Equations.................................................................
A.2. Inviscid Flow Equations and Mach Number Regimes...........................................
A.3. Incompressible Viscous Flow Equations ...............................................................
A.4. Reynolds Number Regimes for the ContinuousPhase..........................................
A.5. Average Properties and Equations for Turbulent Flow..........................................
A.5.1. Averages of Fluctuating Velocities.................................................................
A.5.2. Homogeneous Isotropic Stationary Turbulence..............................................
A.5.3. Integralscales in Turbulent Flows..................................................................
A.5.4. MicroScales and Energy Cascade in Turbulent Flows..................................
A.5.5. TimeAveraged NavierStokes Equations ......................................................
A.5.6. Techniques for Closing the Turbulence Equations.........................................
A.5.7. FullyResolved and PartiallyResolved Techniques.......................................
Appendix B: SinglePhase Flow Discretization Techniques...............................................
B.1. Computational Grids and Local ShapeFunctions .................................................
B.2. Weighted Residual Methods ..................................................................................
B.3. Finite Difference Methods .....................................................................................
B.3.1. Spatial Discretization......................................................................................
B.3.2. Temporal Discretization..................................................................................
B.3.3. Incompressible Flow Implicit Schemes..........................................................
B.3.4. Compressible Flow FluxBased Schemes.......................................................
B.4. Finite Volume Method ...........................................................................................
B.5. Finite Element Method...........................................................................................
B.6. Spectral Method .....................................................................................................
B.7. Lattice Boltzman Method.......................................................................................
B.8. Direct Simulation MonteCarlo Method ................................................................
7
Nomenclature
English Variables
a speed of sound (Eq. A.20)
A area or boundary surface (Eq. 1.1b)
A bubble oscillation amplitude (Eq. 2.49)
A* area normalized by the surface area of a sphere of same volume (Eq. 6.23)
b RichardsonZaki exponent (Eq. 6.248)
B compressibility pressure constant (Eq. A.24)
B Spalding transfer number (Eq. 1.86)
Bo Bond number (Eq. 2.43)
c coefficient (Eq. 1.46)
const. an arbitrary constant of order unity
C force coefficient (Eq. 1.46)
C/S crosssection (Eq. 6.36)
c specific heat (Eq. 1.88)
C cumulative distribution function (Eq. 2.3)
Ca capillary number (Eq. 2.53)
d equivalent volumetric diameter of a particle (Eq. 1.1)
d* ratio of small to large particle diameter for a collision (Eq. 2.20)
d’ particle surface roughness (Eq. 6.113b)
d particlepath derivative (Eq. 1.13a)
D macroscopic length scale of physical domain (Fig. 1.20)
D fluid path derivative (Eq. 1.13b)
E particle aspect ratio (Eq. 2.36)
E Young’s modulus (Eq. 6.229)
e internal energy (Eq. 5.57)
e coefficient of restitution (Eqs. 6.223 and 6.232)
f Stokes drag correction factor (Eq. 1.55)
f frequency (e.g., Eq. 2.65) or a rate function (e.g., Eq. 7.13)
F general function (e.g., Eq. 6.258)
F force per unit mass (e.g., Eq. 7.127)
F force (Eq. 1.1)
f force per mixedfluid volume
Fr Froude number (Eq. 3.16)
g gravity acceleration vector (Eq. 1.23)
G filter function (Eq. A.132)
G CarnahanStarling equilibrium radial distribution function (Eq. 5.19)
h spread parameter for a size distribution (Eq. 2.23)
h enthalpy (Eq. 1.88)
H History force kernel (Eq. 6.193b)
H smoothed Heavyside function (Eq. 8.??)
i unit vector (Eq. 1.16)
I impulse (Eq. 6.21)
8
I moment of inertia (Eq. 6.154)
I* normalized moment of inertia about broadside axis (Eq. 2.48)
j tensor index (Eq. 3.31)
J* normalized McLaughlin lift parameter (Eq. 6.133)
J Jacobian of the EulerianLagrangian transformation (Eq. 7.195)
k turbulent kinetic energy of the surrounding fluid (Eq. A.71)
k thermal conductivity (Eq. 1.91)
K compressibility exponent (Eq. 2.63)
K
ij
viscous stress tensor (Eq. 8.3)
Kn Knudsen number (Eq. 1.19)
l wavelength (Eq. 2.76) or characteristic distance (Eq. A.81)
L Lagrange polynomial (Eq. 7.118)
L partial derivative operator (Eq. B.17)
m mass or shape oscillation mode (Eq. 2.74)
m viscosity function (Eq. 6.52)
m` mass flux (Eq. 1.84)
M Mach number (Eq. A.26)
Mo Morton number (Eq. 2.44)
MW Molecular weight of a gas (Eq. 1.86)
n wavenumber (Eq. A.95)
n outward normal vector (Eq. 1.66)
n
p
number of particles per mixedfluid volume (Eq. 3.141)
N number of realizations, particles, parcels, nodes, etc. (Eq. 3.29)
NSI no summation of indices (Eq. A.75)
N number of collisions per unit volume of mixture (Eq. 3.197)
O order of a term
Oh Ohnesorge number (Eq. 2.86)
p continuousphase pressure without local flow around particle surface (Eq. 1.9e)
P pressure around or inside of particle (Eq. 1.6)
P probability distribution function (Eq. 2.1a)
q arbitrary variable (Eq. 2.26)
q conservative variable vector for governing equations (Eq. 7.6)
Q flux vector for governing equations (Eq. 7.6)
`
Q heat transfer rate (Eq. 1.90)
r radial distance from particle centroid (Fig. 1.25)
r
p
effective particle radius (Eq. 1.1)
R acceleration parameter (Eq. 1.81a)
Re Reynolds number (Eq. 1.26)
Rn random number with uniform probability between 0 and 1 (Eq. 7.169)
R gas constant (Eq. A.21)
s speed ratio (Eq. 6.104)
S vector of the transport source terms
S Shields number (Eq. 5.13)
Sc Schmidt number, i.e. ratio of momentum to scalar diffusivity (Eq.1.94)
Sh Sherwood number, i.e. ratio of mass to molecular diffusivity (Eq. 1.87)
9
St Stokes number (Eq. 3.12)
STP standard temperature and pressure defined as 20
o
C and 1 atmosphere (Table A.1)
t time (Eq. 1.16)
T temperature (Eq. 1.18)
T fluid stress vector (Eq. 1.18)
T torque (Eq. 6.152)
u continuousphase velocity without local flow around particle surface (Eq. 1.9b)
U continuousphase velocity including local flow around particle surface (Eq. 1.8a)
U uncertainty of a variable (Eq. 4.13)
v velocity of the particle centroid (Eq. 1.9a)
V internal particle velocity (Eq. 1.8b), or a general velocity with a subscript
w weighting function (Eq. B.18)
w relative velocity of the dispersedphase (Eq. 1.9d)
W Faxencorrected relative velocity (Eq. 6.3)
We Weber number (Eq 2.39)
W Wiener process (Eq. 7.183)
x streamwise direction for Cartesian coordinates (Eq. 1.16)
x position vector (Eq. 1.16)
x relative position vector (Eq. A.75)
x
i
a general Cartesian direction (Eq. 1.16)
X mass fraction (Eq. 3.145, Eq. 5.6)
y transverse or wallnormal direction for Cartesian coordinates (Eq. 1.16)
z spanwise direction for Cartesian coordinates (Eq. 1.16)
Y dragpower parameter (Eq. 2.18)
Z transfer function (Eq. 7.245 or Eq. 8.25)
Latin Variables
α dispersedphase volume fraction
β collision impact parameter (Eq. 2.93)
δ Kronecker delta (Eq. A.10), boundary layer thickness (Eq. 4.76), or interface thickness
(Eq. 8.19)
Δ discretization increment or subgrid scale property
ε turbulent dissipation of continuousfluid (Eq. A.73)
ε small perturbation («1)
φ azimuthal angle coordinate (Eq. A.57) or levelset function
Φ velocity potential (Eq. 6.176) or discretization shape function (Eq. 4.42)
γ gas specific heat ratio (Eq. 6.93)
γ` shear rate (Eq. 5.53)
Γ gamma function (Eq. 2.26)
η particle mass loading (Eq. 3.144)
ϑ particle collision angle (Eq. 2.93, Fig. 2.47)
κ Boltzmann constant (Eq. 3.135)
λ Kolmogorov length scale of the turbulence (Eq. A.92) or viscosity function (Eq. 6.55)
Λ integrallength scale of the turbulence (Eq. 3.75)
10
μ dynamic viscosity (Eq. 1.5)
*
p
μ viscosity ratio (Eq. 1.5)
Π momentum coupling parameter (Eq. 3.151)
ν kinematic viscosity (Eq. A.47)
ρ density (Eq. 1.3)
*
p
ρ density ratio (Eq. 1.4)
θ
polar angle for particlecentered coordinates (Fig. 1.25 and Eq. A.57)
Θ mass diffusivity (Eq. 1.87)
Θ
∗
turbulent particle diffusivity normalized by that of a fluid tracer (Eq. 3.45)
σ surface tension (Eq. 1.6)
τ timescale (Eq. 1.75)
ϒ correlation function (Eq. 3.35)
ϖ vapor mole fraction (Eq. 6.124)
∀ volume (Eq. 1.1)
ω continuousphase fluid vorticity (Eq. 1.10)
ω∗ nondimensional continuousphase vorticity (Eq. 6.115)
Ω angular rotation rate (of particle, unless otherwise specified) (Eq. 1.10)
Ω∗ nondimensional particle rotation rate (Eq. 6.115)
ξ decorrelation parameter (Eq. 7.165b)
ψ stream function (Eq. 1.29)
Ψ velocity ratio for a particleparticle collision (Eq. 1.60)
ζ Gaussian random number with mean of zero and variance of unity (Eq. 4.71)
English Subscripts
@p continuousfluid property extrapolated to particle center of mass
b bubble
buoy buoyancy effect
Bass Basset history
Br Brownian motion
clean conditions where the interface is fully mobile
clus cluster of particle due to preferential concentration
cont contaminated conditions where the interface is immobilized
conv convective
coll particleparticle or particlewall collisions
crit critical condition where flow transitions
cross eddycrossing effect
diss dissipation
dom fluid domain of interest (entire computational domain)
dyn dynamic pressure
d volumetric diameter or dispersed phase
D drag or overall macroscopic domain scales
E Eulerian
E particle aspect ratio
e element
11
eff effective
eq equilibrium
exact exact solution
f continuousphase fluid
fr wall friction
fm freemolecular
g gas
g gravity
gap gap between particle surface and wall or another particle
H history force effect
hy hybrid LES/RANS turbulence model
I interface between particle and surrounding fluid
ic particle internal circulation effect
inj injection
init initialization
int interphase interaction
inv inviscid
irreg irregularlyshaped characteristic
Kn Knudsen
KH KelvinHelmholtz instability
k ∇ due to gradients in the turbulent kinetic energy
L lift
L Lagrangian property
LN LogNormal size distribution values
l liquid or wavelength
lam laminar
m mixedfluid
m`
surface mass flux or blowing effect
mm moleculemolecule interaction
mom mean continuousphase momentum
M Mach number
mE moving Eulerian property
n number of particles
nat natural frequency
o reference state
osc related to oscillations
p particlephase (dispersedphase) or unhindered pressure
pP particles per parcel
pΔ particles per computational cell
pp particleparticle
pw particlewall
plastic onset of plastic deformation
prod turbulent production
proj projected
pseudo pseudoturbulence
P parcel (computational group of particles) or local pressure
12
PΔ parcels per computational cell
r radial direction
rel local difference between particle and surrounding fluid
ref reference condition
rep repulsion force
rms root of the mean of the squares, i.e. ( )
N
2
rms i
i 1
1
q q
N
=
≡
∑
rot rotational
RR RosinRammler size distribution values
RT RayleighTaylor instability
s sampling point
s constant entropy
S fluid stress
sep separated wake conditions
sf skin friction
shear linear velocity shear
side side force, perpendicular to lift and drag forces
slip molecular slip along a surface
sphere for an equivalent spherical particle
surf surfaceaveraged quantity, typically of particle
swim due to selfpropulsion from shape oscillation
t tangential
term terminal characteristic of particle in quiescent fluid
tot total or stagnation conditions
trans transitional flow condition where flow becomes completely turbulent
turb turbulent
um unmixed
vap vapor
w wall interaction effect
win window of history integral
yield yield stress value
Z distributedforce or velocity envelope
Latin Subscripts
α finite volume fraction effects
∀
addedmass effect or particle volume
Δ cell resolution discretization or subgrid scale property
Λ integralscale of turbulence
θ polar component with respect to particlecentered spherical coordinates
∞ longtime or farfield property
Superscripts
in before interaction with wall
out after interaction with wall
n timestep index
13
+ normalized by wall shearstress values
* nondimensional, typically particle property normalized by continuousfluid property
Functions of an Arbitrary Property q
q
Eulerian timeaverage, or spatialfiltered value for LES
q' instantaneous fluctuation from timeaverage ( q q) = −
q¯ Eulerian densityweighted (Favre) average
q" instantaneous fluctuation from densityweighted average ( q q) = − ¯
ˆ q Lagrangian pathaverage
q′′′ instantaneous fluctuation from pathaverage ˆ ( q q) = −
q ensembleaverage for many particles
q
Concentrationweighted (Eq. 7.21)
q
Lagrangian transformation (Eq. 8.4)
[ ]
q convected quantity
Comparison Symbols
~ same order of magnitude
≈ approximately equal
≈
/
not approximately equal
≡ equal by definition
<
¯
less than or of the same order
>
¯
more than or of the same order
« at least an order of magnitude smaller
» at least an order of magnitude larger (and thus will typically dominate)
⊥ normal component with respect a wall or to particle axis of symmetry
║ parallel component with respect a wall or to particle axis of symmetry
=f (q) variable is a function of parameter q
≠f (q) variable is not a function of parameter q
O(q) on the order of q, e.g., O(1) means the value is on the order of unity
q→0 the limit where q can be neglected altogether
14
1. Introduction to Multiphase Fluid Dynamics
1.1. Scope of the Book
This book focuses on simulating engineeringlevel multiphase fluid dynamics. The term
multiphase flow was coined by the late Prof. Soo of the University of Illinois in 1965 and
includes fluid dynamics of multiple phases. Generally, the surrounding fluid can be a liquid or
a gas while the particles can be solid, liquid, or gas. The focus of this text is on the motion of
particles which are small relative to the overall domain and are “dispersed”, i.e. have
trajectories more influenced by their interaction with the surrounding fluid (e.g. drag force)
than by collisions with other particles.
Dispersed particle dynamics are common in many engineering systems. Because of this,
robust and accurate description of multiphase flow is important as knowledge of the
characteristics can lead to increases in performance, reduction in cost, and improved safety for
engineering systems. In recent years, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has become an
indispensable predictive tool for gathering information to be used for design and optimization
for fluid systems. Thus, the combination of CFD and multiphase flow has emerged as an
important research area, but one with unique characteristics and issues. For example,
multiphase flow approaches include a wide variety of approaches such as variations in
reference frame representation (Eulerian or Lagrangian), phase coupling (intraphase and/or
interphase coupling), and particle/flow detail (e.g., high resolution around a single particle or
bulk description of thousands or millions of particles). These different approaches are
associated with large variations in computer usage and predictive fidelity. Thus, simulation of
dispersed multiphase flow requires careful consideration of both the flow regimes and the
relevant numerical approaches. As such, this text is designed to relate various multiphase fluid
physics to the appropriate governing equations and numerical schemes.
For additional information on such topics and on topics outside the scope of this book,
there are several excellent publications to which the reader is referred. Multiphase fluid
physics are discussed in the texts of Clift et al. 1978, Wallis 1969, Soo 1990, Crowe et al.
(1998), Kleinstreuer (2003), Brennen (2005) and Michaelides (2006). Reviews focusing on
computational multiphase flow include Elghobashi (1994), Faeth (1987), Shirolkar et al.
(1996), Shyy et al. (1997) and Tomiyama (1998), as well as Prosperetti & Tryggvason (2007).
Important studies which focus on the mathematical treatments of twophase flow include Drew
& Passman (1998) and Prosperetti (1998) while heat and mass transfer aspects are discussed by
Williams (1965), Oran & Boris (1987), Kuo (1986), and Sirignano (1999).
1.2. Examples of Multiphase Flow in Engineering Systems
Dispersed particleladen multiphase flow is important to many engineering applications
including aerospace, atmospheric, biological, chemical, civil, mechanical, and nuclear systems.
Table 1.1 lists some engineering applications for the four primary conditions of dispersed
multiphase flow: solid particles in a gas, liquid droplets in a gas, solid particles in a liquid, and
gas bubbles in a liquid. Examples from three types of systems which involve multiphase flow
are discussed in the following and include: energy systems (related to the generation of energy
or mechanical work), processing systems (related to the production and transport of fluids), and
environmental systems (related to natural and biological transport processes). As will de
discussed, these flow can be quite complex as they can include a wide range of flow and
15
particle lengthscales and timescale and also include issues of turbulence, convection, settling,
resuspension, twoway coupling, collisions, coalescence, breakup, erosion, accretion, etc.
Numerical approaches of various systems must therefore be tailored to the relevant physics so
that the simulations can improve performance, alleviate problems, and/or predict overall
behavior.
1.2.1. Multiphase Flow in Energy Systems
Circulating Fluidized Beds
Combustion of coal and other solid fuels for power generation is often most efficiently
accomplished for power generation via a “fluidized bed” which involves many multiphase
processes. In such a system, the solid fuel is fed into the bed after crushing and the injected
upwardflowing gas flows causes the particles to be approximately suspended and exposed to
high convection velocities and heat transfer rates which, in turn, cause rapid combustion (Basu,
1999). At low flow rates, the fluidized bed is quite compact with so that particleparticle
collisions dominate the bed dynamics. However, the emphasis has recently been on higher
efficiency lowpolluting circulating fluidized beds (Fig. 1.1) where higher gas velocities and
dispersed flow conditions allow particles to burn as they move upward. To avoid particles
exiting the system, vertical channels can be employed to capture the particles and force them
back down into the combustion region for continued recirculation (Fig. 1.2a). Smaller particles
which exit the primary burner can have secondary recirculation in an economizer before they
are reinjected into the lower bed. For finer particles which are not recirculated, downstream
stages employ other filtering devices such as the cyclone shown in Fig. 1.2b. Employing
various stages of filtration allows maximum particle removal while avoiding significant
pressure losses.
AirBreathing and Rocket Engines
Airbreathing engines generally involve multiphase flows in three aspects of the process:
the presence of particles within the air intake, the injection and distribution of the fuel spray in
the combustion chamber, as well as the production and evolution soot particles (e.g. Fig. 1.3).
With regard to the air intake aspect, particle ingestion causes erosion of the turbomachinery
components during nearground operations in sandy or dusty regions. This problem can be
minimized by inlet flow curvature but the performance is sensitive to particle concentration,
size and trajectory. Water droplet ingestion is another issue at near freezing temperatures since
it can lead to ice formation on compressor blades which can degrade performance and/or
breakoff in pieces leading to engine damage. The fuel spray is another important multiphase
aspect, and results in a complex cloud of droplets created from pressurized ejection. The size,
velocity, and spatial distribution of the spray are important in describing the performance of the
system and pollution emission, including soot concentration.
Rocket engines flows are a common aerospace application which involves multiphase flow.
A solidpropellant engine fuels often include aluminum fuel particles to increase thrust levels.
The particles breakoff from the internal sidewall surfaces as the binder around them burns
16
away, and they are then transported along the core flow of the combustion chamber (Fig. 1.4).
The particles undergo complex changes, since they transition from solid to liquid and then
evaporate and combust. However, some of the particles do not vaporize before the nozzle
region which can lead to undesired buildup or ablation. There are also a variety of multiphase
issues associated with liquidfueled rockets such as gasification transition as the fuel and
oxidizer is pumped from tanks and converted into gas.
Nuclear Reactors
Nuclear power plants rely heavily on heat removal by water, which will often boil due
to the high temperatures. Thus, vapor bubble flow convection has been widely studied due to
its importance in the safety and thermal efficiency of these systems. However, these flows can
be complex since they involve nonspherical bubble shapes with changing volumes.
Furthermore, the random passage of bubble wakes in the flow causes complex velocity
fluctuations beyond that of conventional turbulence. The phenomenon has been termed
“pseudoturbulence” or “burbulence” (since it can occur even in laminar flow conditions and is
often most apparent for bubbly systems).
1.2.2. Multiphase Flow in Processing Systems
Chemical Reactors
Multiphase flow is important in many liquid chemical reactors since they often employ
bubble columns and airlifts (Fig. 1.5) to cause high mass and/or chemical transport rates
among liquids, gasses, and solids. The reactor processes include fermentation, bio
oxygenation, production of cell cultures and proteins, wastestream treatment, etc. The transfer
rates are a function of the bubble size distribution, mean and fluctuating velocities and
trajectories, bubble coalescence and breakup, as well as particlebubble interactions.
Advanced bubble columns employ impellers and nonlinear configurations which further
complicate the fluid dynamics.
While most systems focus on chemical reactions outside of the bubbles, there is a related
process which conducts chemical reactions inside a bubble, called sonochemistry. This
phenomenon is based on acousticallydriven microbubble oscillations which momentarily
create very high pressures and temperatures during the contraction phase. This is
accomplished by driving the bubbles with highamplitude pressure fluctuations near their
natural frequency. As a result, the bubbles will undergo a rapid and violent collapse during the
compression portion such that the gas inside the bubble may be driven to temperatures of more
than 10,000
o
K and pressures of more than 10,000 atmospheres (Suslick & Flannigan, 2005).
As a result, the gas inside the bubble becomes plasma and emit light which can be seen with
the unaided eye. This emission is termed “sonoluminescence” and an example is shown in
Fig. 1.6a. These intense chemical reactions are valuable for a number of applications including
degradation of organic species in contaminated water and the production of protein micro
spheres for drugdelivery (Fig. 1.6b), biomedical imaging, and blood substitutes.
17
Pump and Pipe Flows
Liquid pumping by propellers is used in many systems to achieve high throughput.
However, the associated high blade speeds can cause the local pressure to drop below the local
vapor pressure, giving rise to a multiphase flow phenomenon known as cavitation. If their
presence is extensive, the emergence of cavitating vapor bubbles can reduce the overall
pumping performance. In addition, cavitating bubbles may undergo violent condensation
collapse on the blade surfaces which can cause an intense localized pressure wave and cause
surface pitting.
Multiphase flow can also be a benefit since the use of carefully chosen polymers or micro
bubbles can reduce the viscous losses in a channel flow. In particular, polymer chains added in
very small volume fractions (about 10
4
) have been found to reduce the mean skin friction by
more than 80% by suppressing turbulent transport near the walls (Fig. 1.7). One of the most
famous examples of this is the successful use of dragreducing polymer along the Alaskan oil
pipeline (they have also been used for other flows including fire hose nozzles). Similarly, the
injection of microbubbles has been found to reduce the skin friction losses (also shown in Fig.
1.7), though the required volume fractions are typically larger (about 10
2
or more). While not
as robust and understood, the bubbly flow drag reduction eliminates some environmental and
cost concerns associated with polymers. Therefore, this technique is also being actively
explored for implementation into commercial or military vessels as it could be highly
beneficial in terms of reduced fuel for transportation.
Multiphase flow is also important for analyzing systems which involve transporting
particles in pipes. Particle conveying systems are called “slurries” when they are liquiddriven
and “pneumatic transport” when they are airdriven. In both cases, the dynamics of particles
can involve regions where convection effects are important (though, much of the transport
involves dense multiphase regions). Understanding the trajectories of particles in pipe flows
(including sliding, bouncing and resuspension dynamics) is important to minimize the wall
deposition, especially for turbulent flows. Even in laminar flows, wall deposition can occur
due to random Brownian motion resulting from the collisions of the surrounding fluid
molecules of the particle surface. This phenomenon can be employed for “clean rooms”
though proper design of the flow filtering.
Sloshing Dynamics
Multiphase flow is also important to the transport of liquids in containers where sloshing
may occur. Such transport is particularly important for Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) shipping as
oceanic vessels have steadily increased in size to respond to mounting international energy
demand. The subcooled and pressurized LNG tanks can suffer high impact sloshing loads
when large unsteady ship motions occur (Fig. 1.8a). Smallscale experiments (Fig. 1.8b) have
qualitatively shown that these impact pressures can be substantially cushioned by the presence
of dispersed bubbles due to the resulting compressibility of the mixed fluid. Cavitation and
condensation can also occur due to the rapid changes in pressure and including this phenomena
will further complicate the simulation methodology.
18
Sprayer Systems
Sprayer systems include applications such as surface coating/painting, powder production,
particle filtering, hazard mitigation, etc. For surface coating, it is desirable to apply a spray
with droplets of a particular size range since large droplets tend to cause surface anomalies and
small droplets may not deposit on the target zone and instead be carried away with air currents.
A particularly complex multiphase flow process is that of extremedurability singlecrystal
solid metallic coatings. To achieve such coatings, plasma sprays are employed (Fig. 1.9)
whereby a metal powder is injected into a supersonic hightemperature gas jet and the particles
become molten or semimolten as they are entrained. The convected particles ideally impinge
on the target surface with an appropriate speed and size to liquefy (with little or no splashing)
and then crystallize. Careful choice of the particle material and sizes as well as the jet flow and
plasma temperatures can result in surface coatings with high toughness, such as used for gas
turbine blades to increase their wear resistance.
Spraying systems have also been used to produce powders, i.e. fine solid particles. In an
industrial spray dryer (Fig. 1.10a), this is typically accomplished by first emulsifying the
material into liquid form and then downward spraying the liquid mixture into a large chamber
in which drygas is injected. The droplets from the spray then solidify in flight and settle to
create a powder at the bottom of the chamber (Fig. 1.10b). Using multiple stages increases the
system thermal efficiency and particle size uniformity, and also prevents overheating of
powder particles along their trajectories. Achieving a desired powder size and consistency is
difficult but critical for the production of foods, detergents, pharmaceuticals, ceramics,
herbicides, pesticides, etc.
1.2.3. Multiphase Flow in Biological and Environmental Systems
Particle Motion in the Blood Stream and the Body
The bloodstream is the most important liquid flow within the human body and it may
contain particles by disease or from medical treatments. In terms of disease, cholesterol or
calcium particles can undergo wall deposition and thus can accrete on certain vessel surfaces
(perhaps due to low shearstress and certain biochemical conditions). This is a complex
problem as the flow is pulsatile with threedimensional geometries (especially near grafts) and
may also be transitional if not turbulent in the large vessels near the heart. The resulting
particle accretion is called “plaque” deposition and, if severe, can cause a blockage in the blood
vessel (called a stenosis) which can lead to poor circulation and breakoff can even lead to
blockage occurs in the brain blood vessels resulting in an intracranial aneurysm, i.e., a stroke.
On the other hand, artificial introduction of particles can be used for purposes of drug
delivery or imaging diagnostics. For example, bubbles can also be injected to serve as a
“contrast agent”, i.e. a diagnostic marker within the body. In particular, the microbubbles
(about three microns in diameter and composed of helium, carbon dioxide or other gasses) can
be injected into the body. The small bubble size allows for low volume concentrations (e.g., a
0.0001%) that are harmless but high number concentrations (e.g. 20,000 bubbles per cc) that
provide a significant acoustic signal when excited by an applied sound field. These signals can
19
show bloodflow patterns in the heart to find any regions with poor circulation or to find
tumors in nonvascular regions (Fig. 1.11).
Particle Motion in Respiratory Passages
The introduction of particles to the human respiratory system is a related and important
dispersed multiphase problem. Oral spraydrug delivery by inhalers are based on the ability of
the aerosol droplets to avoid wall deposition so as to maximize airborne delivery to the lung
cavity (Fig. 1.12). In the case of airborne pollutants, the opposite is desired, i.e., deposition of
particles in the mouth and nasal passages is favorable since it avoids particulate transport to the
sensitive tissue of the lungs. The probability of particle deposition in the respiratory system
varies significantly with particle size. For particles which are greater than onemicron in
diameter, inertia impact and curved passages dominate the deposition rates. For smaller
particles, say 0.1 to 1 micron in diameter, the velocity caused by gravitational settling becomes
dominant. The deposition of “ultrafine” particles (0.1 microns in diameter) is dominated by
Brownian diffusion, i.e. diffusion by the random molecular collisions of the gas with individual
particles. If such particles do not deposit and reach the lungs, they can permanently settle and
do significant harm, particularly among children and the elderly.
Atmospheric Solid Particulates
Because of the potential impact to the respiratory system of humans and animals, there has
been a significant concern regarding the emissions of micron and submicron sized particles in
the atmosphere, commonly regarded as “particulate pollution”. As such, air quality is often
characterized in terms of the microparticle concentration (Table 1.2). In 2003, over 25 urban
areas were found to have Air Quality Index (AQI) levels above the unhealthy threshold of 100
for more than 10 days. The modeling for these particles can extend to the entire planetary
atmospheric boundary layer as shown in Fig. 1.13a. Furthermore, interaction of such particles
with water droplets from clouds or rain may even affect weather patterns. Particles released in
urban environments have also been investigated as shown in Fig. 1.13b, where one must
consider the effect of the “street canyons” between buildings where particulate concentration
can rise due to recirculating (trapped) air. Another motivation to understand such transport of
particles is to be able to assess the threat of terrorists placing a device which emits hazardous
particles. In particular, the consequences of the release of a highly lethal powder (e.g.,
anthrax) or the use of a “dirty bomb” (where an explosive device is used to scatter radioactive
materials) are now being carefully studied.
There are also natural events which can cause very high particulate concentrations,
including particles emitted from a large fire or by gigantic dust storms (Fig. 1.14). Knowing
the particle concentration and movement for such events is important to environmental
modeling and to determine regions suitable for aircraft operation and to assess impact on
surface water and agricultural areas. Another natural event involving particle injection into the
atmosphere is the case of volcanic eruptions for which ash particles can eject upwards at
speeds of hundreds of meters per second and disperse on a continental scale as a result. A
particularly deadly condition can occur if the particleladen cloud has a somewhat lower
20
velocity but a very high particle mass content so that its effective much denser than the
surrounding “unladen” air. In this case, the particle cloud may fall and be driven along the
ground forming what geologists call a “pyroclastic flow” (Fig. 1.15). Such flows can have
temperatures up to 600
o
C with speeds up to 100 km/hr and can propagate up to 60 kilometers.
These particledriven” or “gravitycurrent” pyroclastic flows have the capacity to rapidly
incinerate and asphyxiate such that they have killed more people than traditional upward
spewing volcanic eruptions (Chester, 1993).
Atmospheric Liquid Particles
The formation and coalescence of drops in clouds is another area in which multiphase CFD
is being applied to understand the controlling processes. The prediction and understanding of
rain cloud formation is important to weather prediction and climatology. However, the
mechanisms which cause clouds to rapidly transition from small droplets (about 120 microns)
into large rain drops (about 1001000 μm) during the formation of a thunderstorm are not well
understood.
For aircraft, droplets concentrations and size impact the visibility for pilots, but take on
additional significance at nearfreezing conditions as they can rapidly accrete on wings and
other aircraft surfaces (Fig. 1.16a). The accretion, commonly known as aircraft icing, can result
in a substantial degradation to the aerodynamic lift on a control surface. The resulting loss of
maneuvering control has been responsible for several fatal aviation accidents. The accretion is
strongly influenced by particle inertia, turbulent dispersion and the surface roughness. To
understand this, groundbased experiments are conducted in icing wind tunnels whereby
droplets are injected upstream of a refrigerated wind tunnel test section (Fig. 1.16b).
Sediment and Bubble Transport in Bodies of Water
Sediment transport in natural bodies of water can play a significant role in the health and
maintenance of rivers and coastal areas. For example, silting can dramatically reduce the
capacity of rivers and has been cited as one of the reasons for some of the more devastating
floods in Asia and elsewhere. Coastal land erosion is another problem that has become more
severe in the last few decades since it can lead to substantial losses of animal habitats and
affect human population centers. Erosion can be driven by the liftingup of particles (typically
by drag and lift forces) along with the subsequent convection and resettling. However, these
aspects are complicated by the waveinduced and currentinduced turbulent boundary layers.
Particles can also be introduced for environmental cleaning of waste streams by addition of
chemicals to form a precipitate of unwanted matter. To remove the precipitate, bubbles
(typically ranging from 30 to 300 microns) can be introduced to achieve “air flotation” since
they attach themselves to the suspended particles (Fig. 1.17a). The resulting bubble/particle
agglomerates rise to the top of the flotation tank where they are collected in a sludge blanket
that is later removed while the particlefree water passes below a baffle (Fig. 1.17b). The
sludge blanket is then removed to produce wastefree water.
Bubbles are also injected in plumes for reservoirs and wastewater treatments to increase
oxygen content and control pH levels. In these largescale water bodies, the upward rise of the
21
bubbles entrains the surrounding liquid through complex turbulent mixing and interaction
between the phases. This flow mixture is complicated by presence of large bubbles which can
coalesce, deform due to inertia effects, and exhibit nonlinear (“zigzag”) trajectories.
Interestingly, bubble plumes has also been used by humpback whales and dolphins to catch
fish. For example, a whale (or several whales) will dive beneath a group of prey and then
slowly spiral upwards while blowing bubbles (Fig. 1.18). This creates a cylindrical wall of
bubbles, which “traps” the prey in a virtual net, allowing a whale to then swim and feed
through this region. Leighton (2004) suggested that the reason for the “trapping” is that the
bubbles create an acousticallyinsulated environment.
Bubbles of specific sizes and concentrations are also released along the hull of military
ships for stealth. This process is called “masker” and is intended to modify or reduce the
underwater acoustic detectability of the vessel. The bubble trajectories are strongly affected by
the boundary layer along the ship and a downstream turbulent wake which affects their spatial
distribution. Their size distribution is also important because this determines the acoustical
insulation properties.
1.3. Basic Terminology and Assumptions
To describe multiphase flow regimes, a few essential definitions are needed. A "particle" is
defined herein as a relatively small unattached body immersed in a flow and can be solid
particle (such as dust) or a fluid particle (such as droplet or a bubble). Particles can be grouped
in natural and manmade categories as shown in Fig. 1.19 and can occur in a wide range of
sizes varying from less than a micron to greater than a centimeter. To quantify the particle size,
the volumetric diameter (d) is often used. Denoting an individual particle volume as ∀
p
this
diameter is equal to that of a sphere which has the same net volume (Fig. 1.20a):
( )
1/3
p p
d 2r 6 / ≡ ≡ ∀ π 1.1
The above equation also defines the particle volumetric radius (r
p
) as that for a spherical
particle of the same volume. . If the particle is a sphere, its surface area is simply:
2
p sphere p
A A 4 r = = π
1.2
For a nonspherical particle,
p sphere
A A > and this difference can important for surfaceaveraged
phenomena such as mass and heat transfer. The particle mass can be used along with the
particle volume to define the particle density:
p p p
m / ρ ≡ ∀
1.3
In this text, we will assume the particle density is uniform so that the center of mass is equal to
the centroid (x
p
) for spherical particles. The particle density ratio can be defined as
*
p p f
/ ρ ≡ ρ ρ
1.4
We may refer to “veryheavy” particles as having
*
p
ρ »1 and “verybuoyant” particles as having
*
p
ρ «1. Examples of veryheavy particles include solid particles and droplets in a gas flow
22
(which fall in the direction of gravity). Examples of verybuoyant particles include bubbles
and hollow particles in a liquid (which rise opposite the direction of gravity). Examples of
particles with density ratios of the order of unity include drops in immiscible liquids. Herein,
“immiscible” indicates that there is no molecular mixing at the interface so that the drop
properties (mass, volume, etc.) remain distinct from those of the surrounding liquid.
The macroscopic length scale of the continuousflow domain (such as a channel width or a
jet diameter) is defined as D. In this text, the particle size will be assumed to be small in
comparison, i.e. d«D (Fig. 1.20b). Since each particle is assumed to be surrounded by a fluid
which otherwise fills the domain, the particles in general will be referred to as the “dispersed
phase” and the surrounding fluid will be referred to as the “continuousphase”. Most of the
analyses herein will assume a single dispersedphase and a single continuousphase, but they
are generally extendable to multiple phases.
Dispersed flow, the focus of this book, indicates that particle motion is generally dominated
by the interaction with the surrounding flow as opposed to the presence of nearly particles. At
low particle concentrations, there is “oneway coupling” whereby the dispersedphase motion
is affected by the continuousphase but not viceversa. The dispersedphase motion is typically
controlled by particle inertia, drag and gravitational forces. At higher concentrations, the
dispersedphase can also affect the continuousphase through by changing the momentum or
effective density and this is referred to as “twoway coupling”. At even higher concentrations,
“threeway coupling” may occur whereby particleparticle fluid dynamic interactions can occur
when particles in close proximity, but not touching. In particular, threeway coupling occurs
when the flow around a particle will influence the flow around a neighboring particle, e.g.,
though wakes. Finally, “fourway coupling” refers to particleparticle collisions when actual
contact is made. As noted in §1.1, “dispersedflow” conditions arise when particle motion is
dominated by the continuousphase flow interactions. On the other hand, “dense” flow occurs
when the particle motion is dominated by particleparticle interactions, i.e. threeway or four
way coupling effects are stronger than oneway coupling effects. Details and criteria of these
different coupling regimes will be discussed in Chapter 2. In the remainder of this chapter, we
will consider a single isolated particle whose influence on the surrounding flow will be
negligible (consistent with oneway coupling).
The continuousphase surrounding the particle will always be a fluid (gas or liquid) and it
will be associated with the subscript "f". It will generally be assumed to behave as a
continuum such that a dynamic fluid viscosity (μ
f
) and density (ρ
f
) of this phase can be defined.
The subscript "p" will be used when referring to particle properties, e.g., the volumeaveraged
particle density is ρ
p
. For a fluid particle, the viscosity of the particle (μ
p
) becomes finite and
may play a role in the particle dynamics. However, if the particle is a solid, the viscosity of the
particle can be considered infinite. A fluid associated with either phase can also be assumed to
have either gas or liquid properties (denoted by subscripts “g” and “l”).
For fluid particles, the ratio of the viscosities can be important and is defined as
*
p p f
/ μ ≡ μ μ
1.5
The viscosity ratio will tend to exhibit the same tendencies as that for the density ratio, i.e.,
liquid drops in a gas correspond to
*
p
ρ »1 and
*
p
μ »1 while gas bubbles in a liquid correspond to
*
p
ρ «1 and
*
p
μ «1. Similarly, drops in an immiscible liquid correspond to
*
p
ρ ~1 and
*
p
μ ~1.
23
Density, viscosity and other fluid properties are listed in Table A.1 for two gasses and two
liquids at STP (standard temperature and pressure) conditions of 20
o
C and 1 atm.
The shape curvature of liquid particles is controlled by the interface stress. For a particle at
rest, this stress is based on the YoungLaplace equation which states that the difference
between the surrounding fluid pressure (P
f
) and the particle pressure (P
p
) is based on surface
tension (σ) and the local interface curvature radii in the two orthogonal directions (r
I,1
and r
I,2
):
p f
I,1 I,2
1 1
P P
r r
⎛ ⎞
= + σ +
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
1.6
The “I” subscript denotes and interface property and for conciseness, P
f
will be generally
expressed as P in this text. The pressure relationship for a sphere becomes:
p p
P P 2 / r = + σ
1.7
Note that surface tension is a property of an interface between two fluids and values for a
liquid (as in Table A.1) are typically referenced to air.
To determine the fluid dynamics forces, the various velocities of the multiphase flow
should be defined. A velocity or a force will be represented as a vector quantity when given in
boldface (e.g., U) and as a tensor quantity when given with an index (e.g., U
i
). The scalar
magnitude of a vector will be represented by a regular typeface (e.g., U equals U). There are
two sets of velocities that one may employ: surfacebased and centroidbased. The surface
based velocities are shown in Fig. 1.21a and include the continuousfluid velocity (U) is
defined only outside of the particle surface and takes into account the particle presence by
following streamlines around the body and by taking into account the particle wake. Similarly,
the internal particle velocity (V) is defined only within ∀
p
and may account for rotation in the
case of a solid particle or recirculation in the case of a fluid particle. These two velocities are
thus defined as
velocity outside a particle including disturbance around the surface
velocity inside a particle including any rotation or recirculation
≡
≡
U
V
1.8a
1.8b
The centroidbased velocities are shown in Fig. 1.21b and include the particle translational
velocity (v) at the particle centroid (x
p
) and the “unhindered” continuousfluid velocity which
neglects local particle disturbances so that it is exists in all portions of the domain, including
with the particle. The unhindered velocity at the particle center of mass represents the fluid
velocity which would occur if the particle was not present and is defined as u
@p
. This can be
used with the particle velocity to defined the particle relative velocity (w) and these various
velocities are thus defined with the unhindered continuousphase pressure (p) as:
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
p p
@p p
@p
t 0
( t t) ( t)
translation velocity of particle centroid
t
continuousphase velocity neglecting local particle disturbances
t , t
t t t
p continuousphase pressure neglecting local
Δ →
+ Δ −
≡ ≡
Δ
≡
≡
≡ −
≡
x x
v
u
u u x
w v u
particle disturbances
1.9a
1.9b
1.9c
1.9d
1.9e
24
Note that V=v for a solid nonrotating spherical particle, but is otherwise different. Note also
that U=u and P=p far way from the particle or if there is no particle, but are otherwise different.
To demonstrate the difference between u and U, consider a singleparticle falling in a large
tank with quiescent conditions (stagnant fluid). The flow disturbances near the particle surface
result in U≠0 locally; however, since the fluid is stagnant in the absence of the particle, u=0
throughout. However, if there are other particles which as a collection cause the overall fluid to
move, then u
@p
(and u in general) can include changes due to the neighboring particles but not
due to the single particle at whose location it is defined. It is important to note that u
@p
is un
physical (the continuousphase does not exist inside the particle) and only will be used for
mathematical and computational convenience.
The unhindered continuousphase vorticity (ω) similarly neglects local disturbances caused
by an individual particle and is defined as twice the fluid angular rotation:
ω
f
≡2 Ω
f
1.10
The fluid vorticity hypothetically extrapolated to x
p
is then ω
@p
which can be used with the
particle angular velocity about the particle center of mass (Ω
p
of Fig. 1.21b) to define the
relative angular velocity as
Ω
p,rel
(t) ≡ Ω
p
(t)
 ½ ω
f@p
(t) = Ω
p
 Ω
f@p
1.11
Often, the subscript “f” will be implied for ω, while the subscript “p” will be implied for Ω.
Forces, velocities, and particle positions can generally vary in space (x) and time (t).
Temporal variation can be considered in terms of various reference frames including a fixed
Eulerian reference frame, a particleLagrangian reference frame, and a fluidLagrangian
reference frame (Fig. 1.22). For example, the Eulerian derivative of an arbitrary parameter
“q” is based on temporal changes at a fixed point in the domain, x (though, the domain itself
may be moving at some velocity) and thus is given as
t 0
q q( t t) q( , t)
t t
Δ →
∂ + Δ −
≡
∂ Δ
x, x
1.12
In comparison, the particlepath and fluidpath Lagrangian time derivatives are defined along a
path specified by v and u respectively, i.e.
t 0
q q( t t t) q( , t) q
q
t t t
Δ →
+ Δ + Δ − ∂
≡ = + ⋅ ∇
Δ ∂
x v , x
v
d
d
t 0
q q( t t t) q( , t) q
q
t t t
Δ →
+ Δ + Δ − ∂
≡ = + ⋅ ∇
Δ ∂
x u , x
u
D
D
1.13a
1.13b
This assumes that the variable q can be considered as a continuum throughout the domain (this
may not be possible with certain properties) so that these two derivatives can be related for a
scalar field as:
q q
q
t t
= + ⋅ ∇ w
d D
d D
1.14
For a vector field q, the Lagrangian derivatives are related in vector form and tensor form as:
25
( ) ( )
t t t
∂
+ ⋅ ∇ + ⋅ ∇
∂
q q q
= v q = w q
d D
d D
i i i i i
j j
j j
q q q q q
v w
t t x t x
∂ ∂ ∂
+ +
∂ ∂ ∂
= =
d D
d D
1.15a
1.15b
In these equations, the LHS is the Lagrangian time derivative along the particle path while the
RHS is Lagrangian time derivative along the unhindered fluid path.
Vector quantities will be often represented in Cartesian coordinates for convenience. For
example, the three Cartesian components of the particle velocity and position vector are based
on the unit vectors in the x, y, and z directions as
v(t) ≡ v
x
(t)
i
x
+ v
y
(t)
i
y
+ v
z
(t)
i
z
x
p
(t) ≡ x
p
(t)
i
x
+ y
p
(t)
i
y
+ z
p
(t)
i
z
1.16a
1.16b
However, sometimes the velocities, positions and forces will be given in spherical coordinates
fixed to the particle to examine flow inside or in the immediate vicinity of a particle. For the
declaration of several other variables and symbols used in the text, the reader is further referred
to the nomenclature. However, new variables will generally be defined as they are introduced.
1.4. Description of Uncoupled ContinuousPhase Flow
In this section, we consider the condition where the continuousflow is “uncoupled”, i.e.,
there is a negligible impact of the particles on the surrounding flow evolution given by u. This
neglects disturbances in the immediate vicinity of the particle surface as well as macroscopic
changes due to the collective action of the particles. This uncoupled condition is consistent
with a small number of particles in the domain, such that the continuousphase behaves as in a
“singlephase flow” and whose conservation equations are discussed in Appendix A. This
condition also serves as a baseline to which we can add the influence of particles on the
surrounding flow, i.e., the “coupled” conservation equations to be discussed in Chapters 5, 7 &
8. Often, a continuum flow assumption is often made as discussed below.
Continuum Approximation
To establish the conventional derivativebased conservation equations for the continuous
phase which will be introduced in the next subsection, it is important that the surrounding
fluid can be considered as a continuum. The continuum approximation is reasonable if the
relevant lengthscales for the flowfield (e.g., D) are much larger than the average inter
molecular spacing of the continuousphase (l
mm
). In this case, a large number of molecular
interactions occur over the relevant lengthscale, such that only the averaged effect is important
and the individual discrete (random) interactions are not significant. The breakdown of
continuum occurs quite differently in a liquid than in a gas. For liquids, the intermolecular
spacing is on the order of the molecular lengthscale (less than a nanometer), whereas gasses
typically have an intermolecular spacing which may be on the order of a thousand times the
molecular diameter. Therefore, the continuum approximation is more likely to be violated with
26
gas flows than with liquid flows for a given particle size.
To determine the continuum criteria for a gas, the average meanfree path must be obtained.
This is defined as the average distance traveled by gas molecules between collisions with each
other. The mean freepath is inversely proportional to the product of the number of molecules
per unit volume and their effective crosssectional area (which is based on the molecular
diameter). However, the molecular diameter is not a directly measurable quantity, so a more
practical means of assessing the meanfree path is to relate it to the average rms (rootmean
square) speed of the molecules (v
mm
) and the measured gas viscosity and density:
mm
mm
2
v
μ
=
ρ
g
g
l
1.17
For a perfect gas, the average speed of the molecules is related to the gas temperature and gas
constant (defined in Appendix A.1), such that
8
mm
v T
π
=
g g
R 1.18
and is therefore roughly onethird greater than the gas speed of sound (a
g
). Based on this, the
molecular meanfree path for air at STP is about 0.07 μm and thus the continuum assumption
is generally reasonable except at very small scales. Since gasses in general have similar
dynamic viscosities which are only a moderate function of absolute temperature
(approximately square root dependence), substantial increases in the meanfree path primarily
occur at low gas densities such as those found in vacuum conditions (where the mean free path
is inversely proportional to pressure) or very high altitudes (e.g., the mean free path at 130 km
in the atmosphere is about one meter).
To characterize when effects of molecular collisions can be neglected and a continuum can
be assumed, it is helpful to parameterize the competing effects. This is accomplished with the
Knudsen number (Kn), which is defined as the ratio of the meanfree path to the relevant flow
lengthscale. In multiphase flow, one can define both a macroscopic (continuousphase)
Knudsen number and a particle Knudsen number for the continuousphase flow (U) as follows
mm
D
mm
p
Kn
D
Kn
d
≡
≡
l
l
1.19a
1.19b
In general, very small values of the Knudsen number (e.g., less than 10
2
) are consistent with
the continuum approximation and a noslip boundary condition on a solid surface. This is
because a very large number of molecular collisions occur over the relevant lengthscale, such
that the effects of their discrete interactions are negligible. Boundary conditions for small but
finite Knudsen number (about 10
1
) as illustrated in Fig. 1.23 can be incorporated by assuming
a finite slip velocity at solid surfaces. For Knudsen numbers of order unity, the flow can not be
considered as a continuum with respect to the relevant lengthscales and noncontinuum
aspects should be incorporated directly. As the Knudsen number becomes much greater than
unity, a freemolecular flow regime is established, which is dominated by individual molecular
collisions.
Based on this definition, continuum approximation criteria for the macroscopic fluid
dynamics and the local fluid dynamics over the particle can be defined as
Kn
D
→0 macroscopic flow acts as a continuum 1.20a
27
Kn
p
→0 flow around the particle acts as a continuum 1.20b
For air at STP, the Kn
p
criterion suggests that particles which are on the order of 510 microns
or larger can be reasonably considered to obey the continuum approximation. While this
assumption will generally be used in this text, the noncontinuum effects for micronsized or
submicron particles will be discussed in Chapters 6 and 8. The assumption of a continuum for
the macroscopic continuousphase flow will be used throughout the text.
General transport equations
Assuming a continuum fluid with respect to the uncoupled flow, the transport equations
can be written by assuming no mass, momentum, or energy transfer between the fluid system
and the particles or between the fluid system and the surroundings. The general (three
dimensional, unsteady, compressible, viscous) conservation equations of mass, momentum,
and energy are given by Eqs. A.5, A.6 and A.13. If the flow is compressible, these partial
differential equations (PDEs) are supported by an equation of state to relate pressure changes
to density changes discussed in Section §A.1. The Mach number is often used to assess the
flow compressibility, whereby higher Mach numbers indicate larger fluid dynamic changes in
pressure and density. Various inviscid formulations are discussed in §A.2, while viscous
formulations are discussed in §A.3 and §A.4 in terms of the three primary viscous regimes:
laminar, transitional, and turbulent flow.
1.5. Equation of Motion for an Isolated Spherical Particle
This section will discuss general and specific equations of motion for an isolated, spherical
particle subjected to drag and gravitational forces and simple flows. The resulting basic
equations introduced in this section will be useful to illustrate the most common aspects of
multiphase fluid dynamics discussed in Chapter 24.
1.5.1. General Particle Equation of Motion
The overall particle translational equation of motion simply specifies that the rate of change
of the particle’s linear momentum is equal to the net sum of the forces acting on the particle.
This yields a general Lagrangian equation of momentum given by
( )
p body surf coll
m t = + + v / F F F d d
1.21
The right hand side (RHS) includes the forces associated with these temporal changes. Body
forces (F
body
) are those proportional to the particle mass, surface forces (F
surf
) are those
proportional to the particle surface area and related to the surrounding fluid stress, and collision
forces (F
coll
) includes the effects of other particles or walls which may come in contact with
28
the particle. These forces control the particle velocity, which is needed for the companion
Lagrangian equation of particle position
p
t
≡
x
v vv
d
d
1.22
Integration of this equation yields the particle trajectory as a function of time.
In the following, the RHS of Eq. 1.21 will be constructed in terms of particle and
continuousphase characteristics under specific assumptions. In this text, the body forces are
assumed to be represented solely by the gravitational force (F
g
) which acts in the direction of
the gravity acceleration vector (g), such that
F
body
≈ F
g
= m
p
g 1.23
This assumes that other body forces (such as electromagnetic forces) are negligible. In this
chapter, collision forces will be neglected since we have assumed an isolated particle.
The surface force for a spherical particle can be written in terms of the pressure and viscous
stresses (Eq. A.60) acting over a differential surface area (Eq. 1.2):
( )
surf r rr r r r p
P K K K dA
θ θ φ φ
= − + + +
∫∫
F i i i i
1.24
In this equation, i
r
is the unit normal in the outward radial direction while i
θ
and i
φ
are in the
polar (θ) and azimuthal (φ) directions. Note that this results is general in that no assumptions
are made of the relative velocity, vorticity or temperature and thus requires an exact solution of
the flow to implement. Another approach to describe the surface forces is to decompose it into
a linear sum of various fluid dynamic forces related to certain flow properties:
F
surf
= F
D
+ F
L
+ F
∀
+ F
H
+ F
S
+ F
Br
+ F
∇T
1.25
These individual components include forces due to:
drag (F
D
) which resists the relative velocity,
lift (F
L
) which arise due to particle spin or fluid shear,
virtualmass (F
∀
) which is related to the surrounding fluid that accelerates with the particle,
history (F
H
) which takes into account unsteady stress over the particle,
fluidstress (F
S
) which stems from the fluid dynamic stresses in the absence of the particle,
Brownian motion (F
Br
) random motion from discrete molecular interactions, and
thermophoresis (F
∇T
) force due to molecular interactions along a temperature gradient.
Note also that we have not included two effects associated with continuousphase flow
rotation: centrifugal and Coriolis forces. The centrifugal force is associated with particles
being “thrown out” of rotating flow regions. It is not a surface force but instead represents the
inertia associated with a particle which tends to translational motion and thus resists rotational
motion. Similarly, the Coriolis force is not a surface force but is instead a relative acceleration
to a continuousphase system which is uniformly rotating. As such, both effects are already
implicitly incorporated into Eq. 1.21 so long as a Cartesian coordinate system is employed, but
would need to be added if one chooses a rotating coordinate system.
The above decomposition is the one of several assumptions that will employed in this
chapter to obtain a closedform solution for the surface force. Others include negligible
compressibility effects for the surrounding fluid flow as well as continuum conditions
(Kn
p
→0) so that the abovementioned thermophoresis and Brownian forces are negligible.
29
Next, we assume that the surrounding flowfield velocity gradients and particle spin are
negligible so that particle lift need not be considered (F
L
=0). Finally, the particle is assumed
to be spherical with constant diameter and density. Using the above assumptions, a simplified
surface force expression can be obtained as discussed in the following two sections.
While the surface forces discussed in this Chapter are limited to the above conditions,
Chapter 6 will consider more general conditions so that these assumptions can be relaxed. In
particular, it will address issues associated with various shapes and particle surface conditions,
flow compressibility, noncontinuum effects, lift forces, particleparticle interaction, particle
wall interactions, etc.
1.5.2. QuasiSteady Drag Force
The quasisteady drag force arises from pressure and viscous stresses applied to the particle
surface. The resulting force resists the relative velocity so that it is defined to act in the
direction opposite of the particle relative velocity (w). In this section, the force will be
considered for steady continuum conditions. Furthermore, the particle and the farfield
velocities are both assumed to be steady, i.e. w is constant, in order to obtain the “quasisteady
drag force”. If there are no spatial gradients in the unhindered continuousphase flow, i.e.
∇u=0, then the u
@p
is the same as that in the farfield, i.e. w=vu
∞
=vU
∞
.
The dependence of the drag force on the magnitude of the relative velocity is primarily
dictated by the particle Reynolds number (Re
p
), defined as
f
p
f
Re
ρ
≡
μ
w d
1.26
The particle Reynolds number is the nondimensional ratio of fluid inertial forces to viscous
forces with respect to the fluid dynamics in the vicinity of the particle. The Reynolds number
can be used to categorize the flowfield regime seen by the particle (Fig. 1.24). The fluid
dynamics around the particle, in turn, determine the quantitative relationship between the
relative velocity and the drag force exerted on the particle. In the following, the particle Mach
number (M
p
=w/a) is assumed to be small so that the flow can be considered incompressible
(see §A.2).
Creeping Flow: Stokes Solution
When the inertial effects are negligible, the viscous and pressure fields dominate the flow
field solution resulting in a fully attached laminar flow over the particle (e.g., Fig. 1.24a). The
dominance of viscosity also means that the shear stresses are felt far from the particle surface.
As a result, this low Reynolds number condition is often called “creeping flow”. For this
condition, Stokes (1851) derived the drag force in this limit of negligible convection and by
assuming incompressible continuum flow of constant density and viscosity around the particle.
Simplifying the incompressible NavierStokes momentum equation based on these
assumptions and additionally neglecting gravitational and unsteady terms, yields a balance
30
between the pressure gradient and the viscous stresses (Eq. A.63). Considering this equation
for the case of flow around a stationary particle (v=0) yields the Stokes equation:
2
f
P ∇ = μ ∇ U for Re
p
→0 1.27
The neglect of gravity eliminates the hydrostatic pressure gradient associated with buoyancy
(Eq. A.56), but this effect will be reintroduced in the next section. For a particle, application
of this PDE and the proper surface boundary conditions can describe the local velocity field of
the continuousphase fluid around the particle. As such, the resulting velocity field is affected
by the particle displacement and thus is different from the unhindered velocity near the particle
surface (i.e. U≠u).
The PDE of Eq. 1.27 can be expressed in terms of axisymmetric flow in spherical
coordinates (see §A.3) with a control volume is consistent with the particle center as shown in
Fig. 1.25, and moves at the speed of the particle. In this case, the radial and tangential velocity
components based on polar coordinates (U
r
and U
θ
) are defined throughout the surrounding
flow (r≥r
p
) and the swirl velocity is assumed to be negligible, i.e. no azimuthal velocity (U
φ
=0).
From this, Eq. 1.27 can be decomposed into radial and tangential momentum equations as
discussed in §A.3:
2 2
r r r r r
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
f
U 2U cot U U 2U U U 1 P 2 1 cot 2
r r r r r r r r r
θ θ
∂ θ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ θ
= + − + + − −
μ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂θ ∂θ ∂θ
2 2
r
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
f
U U U U U U 1 P 2 1 cot 2
r r r r r sin r r r
θ θ θ θ θ
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ θ
= + − + + +
μ ∂θ ∂ ∂ θ ∂θ ∂θ ∂θ
1.28a
1.28b
By introducing the Stokes spherical stream function which satisfies continuity, the radial and
tangential velocity components of the continuousphase fluid can be expressed as
U
r
=
2
1
r sin
∂ψ
θ ∂θ
U
θ
= 
1
r sin r
∂ψ
θ ∂
1.29a
1.29b
For convenience, we can introduce a specialized spherical differential operator
2
′ ∇ defined as
2
2
2 2
q sin 1 q
q
r r sin
∂ θ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ⎞
′ ∇ = +
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂θ θ ∂θ
⎝ ⎠
1.30
This special operator is similar to, but different than, the true Laplacian operator of Eq. A.59.
Substituting these velocity components of Eq. 1.29 into Eq. 1.28 and applying this special
operator notation, yields the streamfunction based momentum equations
( )
2 f
2
P
r r sin
μ ∂ ∂
′ = ∇ ψ
∂ θ ∂θ
( )
2 f
1 P
r r sin r
−μ ∂ ∂
′ = ∇ ψ
∂θ θ ∂
1.31a
1.31b
The pressure term can be eliminated by crossdifferentiating Eq. 1.31a with respect to θ and Eq.
1.31b with respect to r to yield a single fourthorder PDE:
31
2 2
( ) 0 ′ ′ ∇ ∇ ψ = 1.32
Boundary conditions are needed to allow solution of this differential equation.
The boundary conditions for a solid nonrotating sphere are given by a noslip condition on
the particle surface, i.e. U
r
=U
θ
=0 at r=r
p
. Based on Eq. 1.29, these boundary conditions can be
written in terms of the stream function
0
r
∂ψ ∂ψ
= =
∂θ ∂
as r = r
p
1.33
Far from the surface, the boundary conditions correspond to uniform flow in the horizontal
direction (xdirection) so that the radial and tangential farfield components can be written as:
r
U U cos
∞
= − θ as r → ∞
U U sin
θ ∞
= θ as r → ∞
1.34a
1.34b
Note that this coordinate system translates the continuousphase velocities to ones relative to
the velocity of the particle centroid. Based on Eq. 1.29, this yields a boundary condition on the
stream function given by
2 2
1
2
U r sin const.
∞
ψ = − θ+ as r → ∞ 1.35
The constant in the above equation is arbitrary and so can be set to zero. The solution may be
obtained by assuming separation of variables so that ψ/sin
2
(θ) is a function of radius that
satisfies the governing equation (Eq. 1.32) and the above boundary conditions (Eq. 1.35). In
this manner, the stream function can be obtained as (White, 1991):
3
2
p p 2
3
3r r
U r
1 sin
2 2r 2r
∞
⎛ ⎞
ψ = − − + θ
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
1.36
The first term of the RHS expression corresponds to the farfield condition (Eq. 1.35), the
second term is called the Stokeslet (a viscous correction), and the third term is called the
doublet (which is an inviscid correction). The viscous correction decays much more slowly
with increasing distance from the particle surface than the inviscid correction because of the
low Reynolds number of the flow. From Eq. 1.29, the radial and tangential velocities can be
obtained (with freestream, doublet and Stokeslet contributions) as
3
p p
r 3
3
p p
3
3r r
U U cos 1
2r 2r
3r r
U U sin 1
4r 4r
∞
θ ∞
⎛ ⎞
= − θ − +
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞
= θ − −
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
1.37a
1.37b
The resulting streamlines are symmetric both fronttoback and toptobottom, which is
consistent with the flow seen in Fig 1.24a and the condition of reversibility associated with Eq.
A.63. This indicates that the particle influence is felt as far upstream as it is felt downstream.
To obtain the pressure field, the pressure gradients can first be expressed in terms of radial
and tangential pressure gradients
32
P P
dP dr d
r
∂ ∂
= + θ
∂ ∂θ
1.38
The derivatives of the pressure on the RHS of this equation are given by Eq. 1.29 in terms of
the spherical differential operator which, in turn, can be obtained from Eqs. 1.30 and 1.36 as
2
p 2
3U r
sin
2 r
∞
θ
′ ∇ ψ = 1.39
The pressure can then be obtained by substituting the RHS expression into Eqs. 1.31 and 1.38
and integrating to yield
p f
2
3U r
P P cos
2r
∞
∞
μ
= − θ 1.40
This can be evaluated on the sphere surface by setting r=r
p
. The result indicates that the
pressure is symmetric toptobottom but is antisymmetric in the streamwise direction. Since
w<0 (Fig. 1.25), the pressure is higher on the front of the particle (θ=0) than on the back (θ=π),
giving rise to a drag in the positive xdirection.
The surface force can be considered in terms of the pressure and viscous stresses from Eq.
1.24. The pressure component of this force can be written as
pressure r p
P dA = −
∫∫
F i
1.41
Based on symmetry of the flow about xaxis, the net drag will be in the xdirection so that this
integral can be solved by taking the streamwise component of pressure stress (Pcosθ) over the
upper surface (θ=0 to π) and introducing a factor of 2 for the lower surface. The differential
area can be based on a spherical element (dA
p
=π
2
p
r sinθdθ) to obtain:
2
pressure p x p f
0
2 r Pcos sin d 2 r
π
∞
= π θ θ θ = π μ
∫
F i U 1.42
This is known as the pressure drag or “form drag”.
To determine the shear component of drag, the viscous stresses of Eq. A.60 must be
considered. For a particle with no swirl velocity, the terms associated with U
φ
and gradients in
φ can be neglected. Furthermore, the boundary conditions of Eq. 1.34, conditions of symmetry
and the assumption of a constant particle radius eliminate result in only one nonzero viscous
stress component on the surface:
r
r f
U U 1
K r
r r r
θ
θ
⎡ ⎤ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
≡ μ +
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
∂ ∂θ
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
1.43
Given the fluid velocity from Eq. 1.37 and this term, the shear force contribution of Eq. 1.24
can be integrated on the particle surface to yield:
F
shear
= 4 π r
p
μ
f
U
∞
1.44
This is called the “friction drag” and turns out to be twice the pressure drag. The total drag
force is simply the sum of the form and friction drags. We can generalize the above analysis to
the case of a particle moving at a steady speed relative to the flow so that the approaching
33
velocity for Fig. 1.25 is U
∞
v. If the unhindered flow is uniform, u
@p
=U
∞
then the approach
velocity is w (Eq. 1.9d) so that the total drag in the particle reference frame is:
D pressure shear p f f
6 r 3 d = + = − π μ = − π μ F F F w w
1.45
Therefore, the creeping flow conditions yields a drag force linearly proportional to relative
velocity. This is often referred to as the Stokes’ drag, owing to his derivation and is in good
agreement with the experimental results for small but finite Reynolds numbers (e.g., within 2%
accuracy for Re
p
<0.1).
To nondimensionalize the drag force, one may define a drag coefficient (C
D
) based on the
total drag force normalized by projected crosssectional area and the farfield “dynamic
pressure” (½ρ
f
w
2
based on Eq. A.41). The definition is shown below along with value for
creeping flow based on Eqs. 1.26 and 1.45:
( )
D D
D 1 2 2 1 2
f
8 proj f
2
f
D p 1 2 2
p f
8
F F
C
d w
A w
3 d w 24
C Re 0
Re d w
≡ =
πρ
ρ
π μ
= = →
πρ
for
1.46a
1.46b
Therefore, the creeping flow drag coefficient is inversely proportional to Reynolds number.
While some theoretical results can be employed to extend the Stokes theory to small but finite
Re
p
values (as will be discussed in §6.2.1), unfortunately there is no closedform analytical
solution for the viscous flowfield once the particle Reynolds number is greater than unity.
High Reynolds Number Flow: NewtonBased Drag
At the other extreme of very high Reynolds numbers (Re
p
»1), some theoretical analysis is
also possible if we assume the viscous effects are confined to a small regions near the surface
so that much of the external flow can be analyzed with inviscid potential flow theory. For
incompressible flow, the equations of motion for mass and momentum in spherical coordinates
are given by Eqs. A.57 and A.58. Considering only the flow outside of the boundary layer, an
inviscid boundary condition can be approximately applied at the particle surface, i.e. u
r
=0,
while the farfield boundary conditions are the same as Eq. 1.34. The stream function solution
turns out to be a linear combination of a uniform stream and a pointdoublet (White, 1991),
which can be given in terms of radial and tangential velocity components by Eq. 1.29. If we
consider the flow solution in terms of the relative velocity of a moving particle, the result is:
( )
( )
( )
2 2
p p 1 1 2 2 2 2
p p 2 2 2 2
p p
3 3
p p
r 3 3
3 3
p p
3 3
r r
r r
U v r sin wr sin
r r r r
r r
U U v cos 1 wcos 1
r r
r r
U U v sin 1 wsin 1
2r 2r
∞
∞
θ ∞
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
ψ = − − θ − = θ −
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
= − − θ − = θ −
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
= − θ + = − θ +
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
1.47a
1.47b
1.47c
For the velocities, the first term in the parentheses is the farfield solution while the second
term is the inviscid doublet. In contrast to the viscous solution, the tangential surface velocity
34
is finite and given by Eq. 1.47c as
3
2
U wsin
θ
= − θ. Using this velocity and the Bernoulli
relation (Eq. A.41), the inviscid surface pressure over a sphere is given as:
2 2
f
9
1
P P w 1 sin
2
4
∞
⎛ ⎞
= + ρ − θ
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
1.48
The pressure is thus symmetric about the fore and aft surface, with the stagnation pressure
recovered at both θ=0 and π. Such a pressure distribution can be expressed by defining a
pressure coefficient which is the difference between the static and the farfield pressures
normalized by the farfield relative dynamic pressure:
P 2
1
2 f
P P
C
w
∞
−
≡
ρ
1.49
The potential flow C
P
based on Eq. 1.48 can be compared to that for the Stokes surface
pressure distribution based on Eq. 1.40:
( )
2
P
C 1 9 / 4 sin = − θ for potential flow
P p
C 6cos / Re = θ for creeping flow
1.50a
1.50b
The C
P
for potential flow thus tends to unity at the stagnation points and a minimum at θ=π/2,
while the creeping flow solution yields a much higher C
P
at the stagnation points since the
pressure rise is based on viscous effects and not a dynamic pressure recovery.
Integrating this symmetric inviscid pressure distribution over the particle surface leads to
the solution F
D
=0. This is known as d’Alembert’s paradox, i.e., that the net force acting on a
body moving though an inviscid fluid is zero. This is, of course, inconsistent with the drag
commonly observed on bodies at high Reynolds numbers. While much of the flow around the
particle may be consistent with the above theoretical analysis, The reason for this difference
lies in the viscous effects which are dominant in the thin region near the particle surface. This
region is defined as the “boundary layer” and is important because it allows for nonzero
viscous stress to act on the body owing to the noslip condition. In addition, the boundary
layer determines if and where the flow will separate from the particle surface. At high particle
Reynolds numbers, the boundary layer always separates and yields a turbulent wake. Once the
flow separates, the concept of a thin boundary layer for the downstream portion is lost and the
outer potential flow solution is also unreasonable. Prior to separation, the attached boundary
layer can generally have two states: laminar or turbulent.
The condition where the attached boundary layer is thin and laminar (and the wake is fully
turbulent) is called the “subcritical” regime (Fig. 1.24c). For a solid sphere in uniform flow,
this regime has an approximate Reynolds number range given by 2,000<Re
p
<300,000 and
includes laminar separation point just before the midplane (θ~80
o
). In the upstream attached
region, the pressure distribution similar to the inviscid solution given by Eq. 1.48 as shown in
Fig. 1.26. However, in the downstream separated region, the pressure is nearly constant (since
there is little dynamic pressure in this region) and is controlled by the value near separation.
Since the downstream pressure is lower than that of the front stagnation region, this yields a net
pressure drag opposing the relative velocity. The portion of drag associated with friction is
related to the shear stress acting on the surface. Before the separation point, the velocity field
just above the boundary layer closely follows the inviscid solution (Eq. 1.47). The noslip
condition within the attached boundary layer results in a shear stress component of drag
opposing the relative velocity. After the separation point, the wall shear stress is nearly
negligible (due to lower velocities and lower gradients in the detached flow zone) so that there
35
is little viscous drag in this region. As such, the upstream portion of viscous drag dominates.
Thus, friction and form drag are both important in this Reynolds number range and are
controlled by the separation mechanisms, which is related to viscous effects close to the
particle surface. This indicates that drag can be substantial even at high Reynolds numbers
which explains d’Alembert’s paradox.
Since both the pressure and shear stresses are related to the local dynamic pressure and
since the separation point is approximately constant for the subcritical regime, it can be
expected that the resulting drag force will be simply proportional to the freestream dynamic
pressure and the particle frontal area. Based on Eq. 1.46, this suggests that the drag coefficient
be approximately constant in the regime, which is consistent with measurements in this Re
p
range (Fig. 1.27). The occurrence of a nearly constant drag coefficient for large particles was
first recognized by Sir Isaac Newton when he analyzed drag resistance for projectiles in 1710.
As such, this value has been called the “Newton drag coefficient” and the “critical drag
coefficient”. The minimum and maximum Reynolds numbers for which the drag is
approximately constant can be defined as Re
p,sub
and Re
p,crit
. Thus, the critical drag coefficient
may be defined for the general case and the solid sphere case as:
D,crit
C const. ≈ for Re
p,sub
<Re
p
<Re
p,crit
D,crit
C 0.40 0.45 ≈ − for 2,000<Re
p
<300,000 for a solid sphere
1.51a
1.51b
As will be discussed in §6.2, nonspherical particles may have Newton regimes but with
different critical drag coefficient and with different Reynolds number ranges because of
changes in boundary layer transition and separation physics.
For a solid sphere at Re
p
>300,000, the attached boundary layer becomes turbulent and
causes the flow separation point to be shifted to a further downstream position (θ~120
o
). The
reduced separation region associated with a wire tripping is shown in Fig. 1.24d, which is
significantly smaller than that associated with the subcritical flowfield shown in Fig. 1.24c.
This allows the pressure to follow the potential flow solution over a larger portion of the
surface and thus substantially increases the pressure in the aft region as compared to the sub
critical case (Fig. 1.26). As a result, the drag coefficient in this “supercritical” regime drops
dramatically, which creates a phenomenon termed the “drag crisis” (Fig. 1.27). This reduction
in drag was first observed by G. Eiffel, who was both an avid fluid dynamicist and the famous
French architect. In the supercritical regime, the drag again becomes sensitive to the
Reynolds number since the turbulent boundary layer separation point varies with Re
p
. The
maximum Reynolds number for which the drag is approximately constant is termed the
“critical Reynolds number”, Re
p,crit
. For a solid sphere, this is generally defined when the drag
coefficient first drops below 0.3 and is about 300,000.
Because most multiphase flows have particle with Re
p
<Re
p,crit
, the supercritical region is
usually not applicable unless the particles are very large and moving at very high speeds. For
example, a 75 mm (3”) diameter baseball moving at 36 m/s (80 mph) in air at STP has an Re
p
of about 1.8x10
5
consistent with subcritical conditions for a smooth sphere. However, the
stitching on the surface prematurely “trips” the attached boundary layer to become turbulent so
that the drag crisis occurs with a reduced resistance and thus faster speeds. A similar drag
reduction occurs with the addition of dimples on a golf ball, thus allowing longer trajectories.
Drag at Intermediate Reynolds numbers
36
The intermediate Reynolds number is that between creeping flow conditions (with fully
attached flow) and that below the subcritical Newtonregime (with fully turbulent wakes and
nearly constant drag coefficient), i.e. 0.1<Re
p
<2,000. Based on flow visualizations such as Fig.
1.24, the intermediate Reynolds number flowfield in the rear of the particle undergoes several
transitions: from an attached laminar wake for Re
p
<20 (Fig. 1.24a), to a separated but still
laminar wake (Fig. 1.24b), to an unsteady transitional wake. As the Reynolds number
increases from 25 to 100, the point of separation point moves upstream from the rear
stagnation point with θ≈180
o
at Re
p
=25 to θ≈108
o
at Re
p
=100, and modest changes for higher
Reynolds numbers. In all these cases, the front portion of the particle surface is characterized
by an attached laminar boundary layer. As seen in Fig. 1.26, the C
P
upstream distribution also
moves from the creeping flow distribution towards the potential flow distribution (given by Eq.
1.50) as the Reynolds number increases. The downstream C
P
distribution contains regions of
nearly constant value associated with flow separation. Larger regions of flow separation are
associated with decreased recovery at the rear stagnation point, and this commensurately lower
pressure at the rear of the particle is associated with an increase in drag.
Based on measurements of the drag coefficient for intermediate Reynolds numbers (Fig.
1.27), the drag coefficient transitions from the creeping flow value given by Eq. 1.46 to the
nearly constant critical drag coefficient of Eq. 1.51b. While there is no general analytical
solution for intermediate Reynolds numbers, empirical drag coefficient expressions can be
used to describe the overall variation, e.g., the expression by White (1991):
D
p p
24 6
C 0.4
Re 1 Re
= + +
+
for Re
p
<2x10
5
1.52
The first term on the RHS is the Stokes limit, the last term on the RHS is the Newton limit, and
the intermediate term is simply an empirical correction. The agreement with experimental data
for this expression is good for a large range of conditions as shown in Fig. 1.27. Also shown
in this figure is the Putnam (1961) fit, which is another empirical expression which is suitable
for low and intermediate values of Reynolds numbers:
D 1/3
p p
24 4
C
Re Re
= + for Re
p
<1000
1.53
A similar fit (which would be difficult to distinguish from the Putnam fit in Fig. 1.27) for small
to moderate Reynolds numbers is the SchillerNaumann (1933) expression, which is
( )
0.687
D p
p
24
C 1 0.15Re
Re
= + for Re
p
< 1000
1.54
This is the most commonly used drag coefficient in multiphase flows since it is quite accurate
and since many particles are constrained to Re
p
values in this range. A more detailed
comparison of these drag coefficient expressions is given in §6.2. Unlike the analytical
creeping flow drag, such empirical drag coefficients are nonunique and only valid for
conditions for which they have been calibrated. There are, unfortunately, many other empirical
expressions which can arise in computational multiphase fluid dynamics.
One may quantify the departure of the drag from the Stokes solution by normalizing the
drag force by the creeping flow solution for a sphere in an incompressible uniform continuum,
37
D
f
F
f
3 d w
≡
− π μ
1.55
This ratio is called the “Stokes correction factor” so that drag force can be written as
1 2
D f f D
8
3 d f d C = − π μ πρ F w =  w w
1.56
If only Reynolds number effects are considered (i.e. a solid sphere in incompressible flow), the
Stokes correction factor correction factor can be denoted as f
Re
, which can be related to the
drag coefficient and expressed using White’s fit as:
D p p p
D
Re
D p p p
F (Re ) Re /4 Re
C
f 1
F (Re 0) (24/ Re ) 60 1 Re
≡ = = + +
→ +
1.57
To account for conditions that may include continuousfluid compressibility, nonspherical
particle shapes, etc., a set of detailed models for C
D
and f will be discussed in §6.2. However,
White (1991) notes that the drag coefficients for nonspherical particles tend to “be in the ball
park” of those for a sphere with the same volume. This is also generally true with respect to
differences between solid and fluid particles (discussed next) so that the expressions developed
in this section are generally reasonable firstorder approximations.
Drag for Spherical Fluid Particles
Compared to the solid sphere discussed above, a fluid sphere (drop or bubble) can
allows internal recirculation. Because of this, the flow past the particle need not come to rest
on the surface as there will be a finite amount of slip (U
θ
≠0 at r=r
p
) which will yield a reduced
drag. This condition for Re
p
→0 permits an analytical solution if the interface between the
phases can be considered clean (i.e. fully mobile) and that the surface tension is uniform over
the particle (reasonable if the effect of contaminants is negligible). The freestream boundary
conditions of Eq. 1.34 for U and the stream function PDE of Eq. 1.32 for Ψ
for a rigid sphere
in creeping flow still apply. However, the mobile interface leads to modified surface boundary
conditions. In particular, a spherical fluid particle leads to the following tangential and normal
stress balances at the interface (denoted by subscript “I”) based on K
rθ
and K
rr
of Eq. A.60:
r r
p f p
I
I p
r r
p f
p I I
U V 2
P P 2 2
r r r
V U V U 1 1 1
r r
r r r r r r r
θ θ
∂ ∂ σ ⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤ − + μ − μ =
⎣ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥
∂ ∂
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂σ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
μ + −μ + =
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
∂ ∂θ ∂ ∂θ ∂θ
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
1.58a
1.58b
The first equation (Eq. 1.58a) relates the interface pressure jump to the deviatoric (normal)
viscous stresses and the surface tension. This simplifies to the spherical version of Eq. 1.7 in
quiescent conditions. The second equation (Eq. 1.58b) relates the tangential shear stress to the
gradients in surface tension and replaces the no–slip boundary condition used for solid particles.
If one assumes a constant surface tension (reasonable for uncontaminated conditions with no
temperature gradients), negligible particle viscosity (reasonable for bubbles) and negligible
radial velocity (appropriate for constant diameter), then Eq. 1.58b simplifies to:
38
I
U
0
r r
θ
⎡ ⎤ ∂ ⎛ ⎞
=
⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
∂
⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
1.59
This equation is often termed the “stressfree” condition since it is consistent with zero
tangential stress of the liquid on the bubble surface.
If one defines an internal stream function Ψ
p
based on the internal particle velocity V,
the boundary conditions at r=r
p
for steady flow can be expressed as:
p
p
p
f p 2 2
p
f p p 2 2
p
r r
1 1
r r r r r r
1 1
P 2 2 P 2
r r sin r r r sin
ψ = ψ
∂ψ
∂ψ
=
∂ ∂
∂ψ ⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂ψ ∂ ⎛ ⎞
μ = μ
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
∂ψ ⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂ψ σ ∂ ⎛ ⎞
− μ + = − μ
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
∂ θ ∂θ ∂ θ ∂θ
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
1.60a
1.60b
1.60c
1.60d
The first equation (Eq. 1.60a) indicates that the interface bounds the two velocity domains and
that the surface of the sphere is a streamline (no mass transfer across the particle surface). The
second equation (Eq. 1.60b) indicates that the tangential velocity is continuous across the
interface. The third equation (Eq. 1.60c) stems from Eq. 1.58b if one assumes constant
surface tension (consistent with isothermal conditions) and that U
r
=V
r
=0 at the interface
(consistent with a constant particle diameter). The fourth equation (Eq. 1.60d) stem from the
normal stress balances of Eq. 1.58a.
The analytical solution for the continuousphase and particlephase streamlines for the
above boundary conditions is generally called the HadamardRybczynski solution as it was
independently derived by both in 1911. Details of the stream function derivation are given by
Batchelor (1967) and with the solution:
* 3 *
2
p p p p 2
* 3 *
p p
3r (2 3 ) 3r
wr
1 sin
2 2r(3 3 ) 2r (3 3 )
⎡ ⎤ + μ μ
ψ = − + θ
⎢ ⎥
+ μ + μ
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
1.61
The RHS expression reverts to the solid sphere expression of Eq. 1.36 as
*
p
μ →∞ . The
theoretical internal motion associated with Ψ
p
is called the Hill’s vortex and compares
reasonably well with experimental streamlines as shown in Fig. 1.28. The external pressure
distribution just outside of the particle can be obtained using the relationships of Eqs. 1.31 and
1.61 to yield:
*
p f p
2 *
p
3wr (2 3 )
P P cos
2r (3 3 )
∞
μ + μ
= − θ
+ μ
1.62
The internal pressure within the fluid particle (P
p
) is associated with a discontinuity at the
interface due to the surface tension and shear stress by Eq. 1.60d and is thus given by:
39
p p
p 2 *
p p
5wr
2
P P cos
r 2r (1 )
∞
μ
σ
= + − θ
+μ
1.63
In the limit of no relative velocity, the internal pressure is simply specified by the surface
tension jump, i.e. Eq. 1.7. Thus, a spherical shape is reasonable for creeping flow conditions
consistent with the analysis of Saito (1913).
The external pressure (of Eq. 1.62) and shear stress (both the tangential and the
deviatoric normal components) can be integrated over the particle surface to determine the drag
in steady flow conditions yielding
F
D
=  6 π r
p
μ
f
w
*
p
*
p
2 3
3 3
+ μ
+ μ
1.64
If we define the Stokes correction for internal circulation (f
μ*
) as the ratio of the drag force
acting on fully mobile fluid sphere to the drag force on a solid sphere at Re
p
→0, we have
* *
D p p p
* * *
D p p p
F ( , Re 0) 2 3
f
F ( , Re 0) 3 3
μ
μ → + μ
≡ =
μ →∞ → + μ
1.65
Therefore, the drag of a fluid sphere at this condition with
*
p
0 μ → (e.g., a gas bubble in a
liquid) is 2/3 of that for a solid sphere. However, contaminants in the system often cause the
interface to become immobile (or partially immobile) such that this drag reduction is not
realized (or only partially realized). Furthermore, spherical liquid droplets falling in a gas will
tend to be characterized by
*
p
μ →∞ so that the correction of Eq. 1.65 will be negligible. The
impact of contamination, deformation and impact of finite density and viscosity ratios on drag
at finite Reynolds numbers will be discussed in §6.2.5 and §6.2.6. Furthermore, low density
ratio fluid particles tend to be especially influenced by the accelerationbased forces in addition
to the velocitybased drag force.
1.5.3. Surface Forces due to Accelerations
Assuming again a solid spherical particle in a continuum incompressible flow, the surface
forces associated with accelerations of the farfield continuousphase velocity and the particle
velocity are considered in this section. This will give rise to three types of acceleration forces:
the fluidstress force, the added mass force, and the history force.
The first acceleration force is the fluidstress force (F
S
) which arises due to the continuous
phase pressure and shear stresses that will exist in the absence of the particle. For example,
consider the deformable fluid element in the steady diverging nozzle flow of Fig. 1.29. As the
element moves downstream, it will decelerate according to the area increase. This deceleration
along the fluid element Lagrangian path (x
f
) is simply controlled by the fluid stresses (pressure
and shear) integrated over the fluid element surface. The surfacearea integration (over A
f
) can
be converted to a volume integration (over ∀
f
) by applying the divergence theorem. For
example, the pressure stress which acts opposite the outward unit normal vector n of the fluid
element surface yields a fluidstress force based on pressure divergence within the volume:
40
( ) ( )
f f f
p dA p d p − = − ∇ ∀ = −∀ ∇
∫∫ ∫∫∫
n
1.66
The RHS expression assumes that the pressure gradients are approximately uniform in the
vicinity ∀
f
(reasonable for small lengthscales compared to changes in the fluid properties). A
similar conversion can be applied to the viscous stresses if the differential volume is assumed
small, so that the net fluid stress over the volume of a fluid element is given by:
( )
S,f f ij
= p K ∀ −∇ +∇ F
1.67
Therefore, the “unhindered” stresses (which neglect the influence of the particle) give rise to a
fluidstress force for either a fluid element or a solid spherical particle which inhabits the same
space (Maxey and Riley, 1983). Within the fluid volume, one may also relate the pressure and
viscous stresses by the singlephase momentum equation (Eq. A.6b):
( )
f f f f
p K
t
⎛ ⎞
−∇ +μ ∇ ∀ = ρ ∀ −
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
u
g
D
D
1.68
These unhindered fluidstress forces (which neglect the influence of the particle within ∀
f
) will
act on a fluid element, e.g., to decelerate it along its path as shown in Fig. 1.29.
Now consider a spherical particle which occupies this volume (∀
p
=∀
f
). As will be
discussed in §6.5 and by Maxey (1993), a particle is subjected to the same fluidstress forces
per unit volume that a fluid element would experience from LHS of Eq. 1.68. Thus, a particle
which occupies a volume ∀
p
will have a fluidstress force given by:
( )
@p
S p ij f p
p K =
t
⎛ ⎞
= ∀ −∇ +∇ ρ ∀ −
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
u
F g
D
D
1.69
This shows that the fluidstress force can be considered in terms of the fluid and gravitational
accelerations and is proportional to the displaced continuousphase mass
f @p f p
m ≡ ρ ∀
1.70
If the continuousphase fluid acceleration is negligible, then the fluidstress force reduces to
the buoyancy force
S buoy f p
 → ≡ ρ ∀ F F g
for steady flow
1.71
Thus the buoyancy force is equal to the hydrostatic pressure gradient of Eq. A.56 integrated
over the particle volume and acts in the opposite direction of the gravity. Since the fluid stress
is proportional to the continuousphase density, it will tend to be more important for particles
with low density ratios, i.e.
*
p
ρ «1, e.g. it is the cause of bubble rise.
The second acceleration force is the addedmass or virtual mass force (F
∀
) which arises
when the particle acceleration is different from that of the continuousphase field, i.e. when
there is a nonzero relative acceleration
( )
t 0 ≠ w / d d . This relative acceleration gives rise to an
additional force because a portion of the surrounding fluid (in the vicinity of the particle) is
carried along with the particle with the same acceleration. This is due to the particle boundary
conditions which prevents mass flux through the surface. The surrounding fluid mass which
moves the particle is referred to as the “addedmass” or the “virtual mass” (m
∀
). It is
schematically described in Fig. 1.30 as an integrated effect that is strongest near the particle
surface and weakens further away. For a solid sphere, the addedmass can be related to the
displaced fluid mass using by defining c
∀
as the virtual mass coefficient:
41
f@p
m = c m
∀ ∀
1.72
Analytically, the force require to accelerate the addedmass associated with a sphere at the
relative particle acceleration is defined as the addedmass force, i.e.
@p
f p f p
= c = c
t t t
∀
∀ ∀
⎛ ⎞
− ρ ∀ ρ ∀ −
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
u
w v
F
d
d d
d d d
1.73
The addedmass coefficient, c
∀
, is typically taken as ½ since this corresponds to both the value
for both the Stokes’ regime and inviscid flow (Maxey, 1993), and moreover it has been found
to be reasonable for a wide range of Reynolds numbers for spheres (see §6.4).
The third acceleration force arises when the viscous stresses on the particle surface are
unsteady and is called the history force (F
H
) since it will depend on the temporal development
of this flow. This force can be significant if the accelerations are large and the viscous effects
are strong but is zero if inviscid flow is considered (unlike the added mass force which is
present for both viscous and inviscid flow conditions). The history force arises due to the
unsteady development of the viscous region due to the particle noslip condition. It is
generally treated separately from the quasisteady drag force F
D
, but is, in fact, the unsteady
portion of the drag force so that the two forces together are the total drag.
To aid in the understanding of the history force, one may consider a flat plate which is at
rest in an initially quiescent flow (u=0 throughout) but then is impulsively accelerated to a
fixed velocity. The velocity field is governed by the onedimensional unsteady flow equation:
2
x x
f f 2
u U P
t x x
∂ ∂ ∂
ρ = − +μ
∂ ∂ ∂
1.74
The creeping flow solution is Stokes’ First Problem (Crowe et al. 1998) and indicates that the
boundary layer above the plate grows in time after the impulsive acceleration (i.e. when the
plate is moving at a constant velocity) which causes the shear force to decay since the velocity
gradient is distributed an increasing distance. Eventually, the flow will be steady with a fixed
shear force on the plate. In the same way, a particle initially at rest and then accelerated to a
constant speed will have a viscous drag that decays in time until it finally reached the steady
state solution given by Eq. 1.45.
Based on these same principles, the derivation for the history force on a spherical particle
was first formulated by Basset (1888) for creeping flow conditions (Re
p
→0). Assuming the
particle is initially at a quasisteady state and the continuousflow is spatially uniform away
from the particle, the theoretical Basset history force is given by:
t
2 t 0
H f f
0
3 1
d
2 t t
=
⎡ ⎤ ⎛ ⎞
= − πρ μ τ +
⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
τ − τ
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
∫
w w
F
d
d
d
1.75
Thus, the influence of previous accelerations on the current force decays as a function of t
1/2
,
a result which is consistent with that of the flat plate. As with quasisteady drag, there is no
analytical solution for the history forces for Re
p
>1. However, as discussed in §6.6, this force
tends to be negligible when Re
p
»1, when the particle relative acceleration are weak compared
to those on the RHS of Eq. 1.69, or when the particle density ratio is high (
*
p
ρ »1).
42
1.5.4. Simplified Equations of Motion for an Isolated Particle
Translational Equations of Motion
Depending on the assumptions used, a variety of equations of motion can be put forth.
Based on the above surface and body force expressions at creeping flow (Re
p
→0), the particle
equation of motion for the translational acceleration of an isolated, rigid, nonrotating,
spherical particle in a continuousphase velocity field is:
(ρ
p
+ c
∀
ρ
f
)∀
p
t
d
d
v
= 3 π d μ
f
w
+ ∀
p
(ρ
p
ρ
f
) g +
t
@p @p 2 t 0
f p f f
0
3 1
c d
t t 2 t t
=
∀
⎡ ⎤ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
ρ ∀ + − πρ μ τ +
⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
τ − τ
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
∫
u
w w
d
d
d
d d
D
D
u
1.76
This is the classic BassetBoussinesqOseen (BBO) equation. It is worth noting that this result
is nonempirical, i.e. it can be obtained directly from the incompressible continuum flow
equations (Eq. A.54) applied to the particle’s exterior surface.
If one wishes to employ a similar equation of motion at larger Reynolds numbers, the
creeping drag force is generally replaced by the empirical drag force (Eq. 1.56). The added
mass and fluid stress expressions are unchanged since they are also theoretically correct in the
potential flow limit, and have been found to be generally reasonable for a wide range of Re
p
conditions. However, the history and lift forces are generally neglected for noncreeping
conditions since they are somewhat controversial and often weaker for higher Reynolds
numbers (although significant advances have been made for some conditions as discussed in
§6.3 and §6.6). Thus, a corresponding noncreeping equation of motion can be given as
( ) ( )
@p @p
p f p f p f p f p
c 3 d f c
t t t
∀ ∀
⎛ ⎞
ρ + ρ ∀ = − π μ + ρ −ρ ∀ +ρ ∀ +
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
u
w g
d
d
D
d
d D
u
v
1.77
This equation of motion is used often by many multiphase researchers in computations for
general Re
p
conditions with the above assumptions. For a more general equation of motion,
Chapter 6 will discuss incorporation of nonspherical and compressible flow effects, lift due to
vorticity and/or particle rotation, history force, thermophoresis, etc.
The particle acceleration terms have been placed on the LHS (lefthandside) of Eq. 1.77
indicating that an “effective mass” of the particle can be defined as the sum of the particle mass
and the virtual mass:
m
eff
≡ m
p
+ m
∀
= (ρ
p
+ c
∀
ρ
f
) ∀
p
1.78
One can consider two limits of this effective mass expression. If the particle density is much
greater than that of the surrounding fluid (
*
p
ρ »1), as is typically the case of a liquid or solid
particle in a gas, then the effective mass is approximately equal to m
p
. However, if the particle
density is much less than that of the surrounding fluid (
*
p
ρ «1), as is typically the case of a gas
bubble in a liquid, then the effective mass is approximately equal to m
∀
.
The terms associated with gravity in Eq. 1.77 can be similarly grouped together to form an
“effective” gravitational force which is proportional to the difference between the particle mass
and the displaced mass (the Archimedes principle):
43
( ) ( )
g,eff p p f p f @p
m m = ∀ ρ −ρ = − F g g
1.79
If the particle density is much greater than that of the surrounding fluid (
*
p
ρ »1), then the
effective gravitational force can be approximated as the body force of the particle (F
g,eff
≈F
g
).
However, if the particle density is much less than that of the surrounding fluid (
*
p
ρ «1), then the
effective gravitational force can be approximated as the buoyancy force acting on the particle
(F
g,eff
≈F
buoy
).
With the above notations and the assumption of a spatiallyuniform unhindered continuous
phase velocity ( 0 ∇ = u ), the isolated spherical particle equation of motion becomes:
( )
@p
eff D g,eff f p
m + 1 c
t t
∀
∂
= +ρ ∀ +
∂
u
v
F F
d
d
1.80
This equation may written in terms of particle acceleration by defining an acceleration
parameter (R) as follows:
( )
( )
f f
*
p f p
@p
f
2 *
p
c 1 c
R
c c
18 f
 + 1 R R
t t d c
∀ ∀
∀ ∀
∀
ρ +ρ +
≡ =
ρ +ρ ρ +
∂
ν
= − +
∂ ρ +
u
w v
g
d
d
1.81a
1.81b
The acceleration parameter relates the importance of the fluid acceleration to the particle
acceleration. Assuming an addedmass coefficient of ½, R approaches 3 for verybuoyant
particles (
*
p
ρ «1) indicating the fluid acceleration effect can be substantial. However, R tends
to 0 for very dense particles (
*
p
ρ »1) indicating the fluid acceleration effect (last term on RHS
of Eq. 1.81b) will be small. Even in steady flows, the acceleration parameter can be important
since it helps relate the particle acceleration to effective gravitational acceleration. For
example, veryheavy particles (
*
p
ρ »1) initially accelerate at g but verybuoyant particles
(
*
p
ρ «1) initially accelerate at 2g, due to the added mass effect.
Terminal Velocity
If only drag and effective gravitational forces are important, the relative particle
velocity will eventually an relative equilibrium speed which is called the “terminal velocity”
(w
term
). This velocity is independent of the initial conditions and is equal to the steadystate
velocity achieved in quiescent conditions and so can be obtained based on the balance between
drag and effective gravitational forces of Eq. 1.81b. It will be in the direction of g for
*
p
ρ >1 or
–g for
*
p
ρ <1 and can be expressed by either the Stokes correction factor or the drag coefficient:
44
( )
2
p f
term
f term
p f
term
f D,term
d
18 f
d
4
w
3 C
ρ −ρ
=
μ
ρ −ρ
=
ρ
g
w
g
1.82a
1.82b
The magnitude of the terminal velocity increases for increasing particle diameter or density
difference increases, but this sensitivity is stronger in the creeping flow regime where f is
approximately constant. Examples of typical terminal velocities (using Table A.1 and Eq.
1.83) are 3.8 m/s (Re
p
≈250) for a 1 mm water drop an 0.11 m/s (Re
p
≈110) for a 1 mm
contaminated bubble rising in water. A linear (Stokes) drag generally requires Re
p,term
< 0.1
which corresponds to diameters less than 60 μm for a water drop in air or less than 40 μm for a
bubble in water.
For creeping flow or Newtondrag, w
term
can be computed explicitly since either f or C
D
is a constant in these two regimes. In the intermediate Reynolds number regime, these
coefficients are a function of Re
p
so that an iterative solution is required to determine w
term
, e.g.,
using Eqs. 1.26, 1.57, and 1.82a). To avoid this, Ferry & Balachandar (2001) developed an
approximate explicit correlation for the Stokes correction:
( )
3 2
p,Stokes f p f f
Re gd 18 = ρ ρ −ρ μ
( )
0.18
term p,Stokes p,Stokes
f 1 0.76Re 1 0.025Re
⎡ ⎤
≈ + +
⎣ ⎦
for Re
p
<1000
1.83a
1.83b
From this f
term
expression, w
term
and Re
p,term
may be computed using Eq. 1.82a and 1.26. This
noniterative approach yields a drag coefficient accurate to within 2% when compared to
experimental data of Fig. 1.27.
1.6. Mass and Heat Transfer for an Isolated Spherical Particle
While fluid dynamics are the focus of this text, simplified equations for heat and mass
transfer are introduced herein to provide the reader with the basic relationships. For more
detailed discussion on heat and mass transfer, the reader is referred to texts of Clift et al.
(1978), Soo (1990) Crowe et al. (1998), Sirignano (1999), Brennen (2005) and Michaelides
(2006). These equations presented herein are idealized for the simple case of an isolated
spherical particle with uniform internal temperature and density. The continuousphase
surrounding the particle is assumed to have uniform temperature and radiation and chemical
reactions are neglected. Furthermore, the kinetic energy associated with the fluid velocity
emanating from the particle surface due to any mass transfer will be neglected compared to
changes in the internal energy (temperature) of the particle. As such, the below relations are
reasonable for most noncombusting particles.
The particle mass transfer rate is defined as the change in particle mass per unit time and
can be related to the change in particle diameter:
( )
2
p p
p
ρ d m
d
m
t 2 t
π
≡ = `
d d
d d
1.84
45
The rate at which mass is transferred from the surrounding fluid to the particle is thus defined
as positive, e.g.
p
m` >0 for a condensing drop and
p
m` <0 for an evaporating drop. The mass
transfer will be governed by two effects: 1) how close the surrounding fluid is to saturation for
the particle species and 2) how fast the particle mass species can move (diffuse) through the
surrounding fluid.
The first effect is related to the particle species mass fraction within the surrounding
fluid defined as X
p@f
. For example, this can represent the vapor fraction of the particle matter
if the surrounding fluid is a gas or the liquid fraction of the particle matter if the surrounding
fluid is a liquid. The normalized difference between the species mass fraction on the surface,
which is assumed to be saturated (X
p@f,sat
) and that in the farfield (X
p@f,∞
) can be quantified by
the Spalding transfer number, B, as:
p@f,sat p@f,
p@f,sat
X X
B
1 X
∞
−
=
−
1.85
For a gas, the mass fraction is equal to the ratio of the particle species vapor pressure (P
vap
) to
the local unhindered gas pressure (p) times the ratio of the particle species vapor molecular
weight (MW
vap
) to the overall gas molecular weight (MW
g
). If the particle has a uniform
internal temperature, then the vapor pressure at the surface (P
vap,surf
) is equal to the saturated
vapor pressure at the droplet temperature (T
p
). In contrast, the unhindered vapor fraction
(p
vap,∞
) will be based on the gas temperature (T
g
) and need not be saturated so that Eq. 1.85
becomes:
( )
vap,surf vap
vap
vap vap,surf
P p
B
p MW / MW P
−
=
−
g
1.86
If the surrounding gas has the same vapor pressure as the saturated value found on the particle
surface, the Spalding number (and mass transfer) will be zero indicating equilibrium. However,
high particle temperatures or low vapor concentrations in the farfield will lead to evaporation
with B
vap
>0 and evaporation, i.e.
p
m` <0. In contrast, low drop temperatures or high vapor
concentrations in the farfield will yield to condensation with B
vap
<0 and
p
m` >0.
The second effect is the diffusivity of the particle species while in the surrounding fluid,
which is denoted herein by Θ
p@f
. For a droplet evaporating or condensing in a gas, Θ
p@f
is
given by the molecular diffusion of the droplet vapor within the surrounding fluid, which
indicates its net diffusivity (Eq. A.48). For a bubble condensing in a liquid or a particle
melting in a liquid, Θ
p@f
becomes the molecular diffusion of the particles species in a liquid
based on conditions just outside of the particle surface. Higher diffusivity allows the species to
move faster toward the particle (positive mass transfer) or faster away from the particle surface
(negative mass transfer). One may then define a normalized mass transfer as the Sherwood
number (based on the surrounding fluid density and the particle diameter):
p
f p@f
m
Sh
dρ B
≡ −
π Θ
`
1.87
This allows the mass transfer relationship of Eq. 1.84 can be written as:
f p@f p
2
p p
2ρ B Sh 2m
d
t ρ d ρ d
Θ
= − =
π
`
d
d
1.88
46
For creeping flow (Re
p
→0) and saturated conditions (B→0), an exact solution for the mass
transfer rate can be obtained using the Stokes solution of velocity field coupled with solution of
the concentration diffusion equation for negligible convection. The resulting analytical
solution corresponds to Sh=2 (Clift et al. 1978). If the Spalding number and the diffusivity are
also constant (consistent with weak changes in temperature) and the particle density is constant,
the particle surface area changes linearly in time. This is often referred to the “d
2
law” which
can be expressed in terms of a masstransfer timescale (
m
τ
`
) as:
f p@f 2 2 2
t o t o
p m
2
p t o
m
f p@f
4ρ B Sh
t B
d d t d 1
ρ B
ρ d
4ρ B Sh
= =
=
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ Θ
= − = −
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
τ
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
τ ≡
Θ
`
`
1.89a
1.89b
The masstransfer timescale indicates the time it will take for the particle mass to disappear
for B>0, but indicates the time for the particle surface area to double for B<0.
The particle heat transfer from the continuousphase to a single particle is defined as
p
`
Q but particle energy can also be modified by phase change so that the Lagrangian ODE is
given by:
( )
p,p p
p phase p p
T
m m
t
= +
`
`
d c
h Q
d
1.90
In this equation, c
p,p
is the specific heat (at constant pressure) of the particle and h
phase
is the
enthalpy required for particle matter to change from a phase consistent with the particle to a
phase consistent with the surrounding fluid phase. For a droplet in a gas, h
phase
is equal to the
heat of vaporization which is a positive quantity. An evaporating drop will experience a
positive heat transfer (
p
`
Q >0), a negative mass transfer (
p
m` <0) and a T
p
given by the wetbulb
temperature. The temperature condition indicates that the LHS of Eq. 1.90 is approximately
zero so that the two RHS terms must be equal and opposite. The heat transfer rate from the
continuousphase is generally proportional to the particle diameter, the thermal conductivity of
the continuous phase (k
f
), the temperature difference between the farfield fluid and the particle
surface (T
f
T
p
), and the relative velocity of the particle. For static conditions, this
proportionality can be used to define the nondimensional heat transfer as the Nusselt number:
( )
p
f f p
Nu
d T T
≡
π −
`
Q
k
1.91
A more formal and general definition of the Nusselt number is given by Sirignano (1999)
which allows internal temperature variations, whereas the form herein assumes that the particle
internal temperature is uniform and equal to T
p
. For creeping flow conditions (with no
convective heat transfer), the heat transfer around the particle is similar to that for mass
transfer except governed by thermal diffusivity instead of mass diffusivity. As a result, the
exact solution of the temperature field PDEs similarly yields a constant nondimensional
transfer rate which corresponds to Nu=2.
Assuming the specific heat of the particle is constant, the temperature evolution given
by Eq. 1.90 can be written in terms of the temperature difference and the change in particle
diameter:
47
( )
p phase
f
f p 2
p p,p p,p
T 3
6Nu d
T T
t ρ d d t
= − +
d h
k d
d c c d
1.92
If the surrounding fluid temperature is approximately constant and mass transfer is neglected,
the ODE can be integrated to show that the relative temperature difference will decay
exponentially based on a thermal response time (τ
T
):
p f
f
2
po f p p,p T
2
p p,p
T
f
T (t) T
12 t t
exp exp
T T ρ d
ρ d
12
⎛ ⎞ − ⎛ ⎞
= − = −
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
− τ
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
τ ≡
k
c
c
k
1.93a
1.93b
The particle temperature can be considered constant for t«τ
T
and can be considered to be in
equilibrium with the surrounding fluid for t»τ
T
. Thus, the thermal response time is an
indication of the timescale to reach equilibrium if there is an initial temperature difference.
For droplets in a gas or solid particle in a liquid, the mass transfer and heat transfer timescales
of Eqs. 1.89b and 1.93b are similar and these phenomena can be coupled through Eq. 1.90. For
bubbles, the particle thermal inertia is so small that its temperature ir primarily governed by
that of the surrounding liquid unless there are very rapid changes in liquid temperature or
bubble volume (Owis & Nayfeh, 2003).
For finite Reynolds and Spalding numbers of drops, the heat and mass transfer rates
increase beyond their creeping values due to convection effects. These effects can be modeled
with the empirical RanzMarshall (1952) relationships which assume that the mass transfer is
proportional to the heat transfer and which employ the Schmidt and the Prandtl numbers of the
surrounding fluid (Eqs. A.51 and A.52) as follows:
( )
( )
1/2 1/3
p f
ln 1 B
Sh 2 0.6 Re Sc
B
+
= + ⋅ ⋅
( )
( )
1/2 1/3
p f
ln 1 B
Nu 2 0.6 Re Pr
B
+
= + ⋅ ⋅
1.94a
1.94b
While these relationships are widely employed, more detailed expressions can take into
account variable Spalding numbers, high mass transfer rates, effects of particle spacing, etc.
(Sirignano, 1999).
1.7. Chapter 1 Problems
For all problems in all chapters, show all steps and discuss all assumptions.
1.1) Describe a research area or engineering application that involves multiphase flow.
Discuss some of the key particle interaction physics and issues of current research.
1.2) Express the particle Knudsen number (Kn
p
) in terms of the particle Reynolds number
(Re
p
) and relative Mach number (M
p
=w/a). Determine the minimum diameter particle that is
considered to be in continuum for air at a standard altitude of 10 km where p=26,400 Pa,
T=−50
o
C and μ
f
=1.447x10
5
kg/msec.
48
1.3) Starting from Eqs. A.6a and A.8, derive the Stokes flow PDE of Eq. 1.27 for flow
about a particle in the creeping flow limit (Re
p
→0) by nondimensionalizing terms with
particle diameter and relative velocity as well as fluid density and viscosity.
1.4) Starting from the velocity field of Eq. 1.37, obtain the friction drag given by Eq. 1.44.
1.5) For inviscid flow over a sphere, show that the streamfunction of Eq. 1.47a is
consistent with the velocity field of inviscid velocity field of Eqs. 1.47b and 1.47c using the
relationships of Eq. 1.29. Further show that Eqs. 1.47b and 1.47c satisfy the farfield and
surface boundary conditions as well as continuity equation given by Eq. A.57.
1.6) Starting from the pressure field solution of Eq. 1.62, obtain the form drag for an
uncontaminated spherical gas bubble which has negligible viscosity.
1.7) Starting from Eq. 1.77, obtain Eqs. 1.81 and 1.82 and note all assumptions. For a 200
micron diameter rain drops at STP obtain w
term
and Re
p
to within 1% by iteration with White’s
drag coefficient and Table A.1 properties. Compare this result to the noniterative technique of
Eq. 1.83.
1.8) Starting from Eq. 1.90, obtain the ODE for the particle temperature, and then apply
the necessary assumptions to obtain the solution given by Eq. 1.93.
49
2. Characterizing Particle Sizes, Shapes and Trajectories
2.1. Particle Size Distribution
There are a wide variety of mechanisms which can cause size distributions in
multiphase flows such as solid particles breakup (e.g., from crushing), drop breakup (e.g.,
from spray turbulence and shear), or bubble breakup (from fragmentation of air jets). In
addition, particleparticle coalescing can lead to polydisperse size distributions of raindrops or
soot particles. In many multiphase flows, it is important to understand the size distribution
which can be expected. For solid particles, this can be measured by using a series of finer and
finer screens (which filter particles with sizes greater than a certain diameter). The size
distribution can be quantified by noting the mass fraction (by weight) or number fraction (by
count) which remains after each screen. A particle group whose diameters are all nearly
uniform is said to have a “monodisperse” size distribution. Conversely, a particle group
whose diameters vary significantly is said to have a “polydisperse” size distribution. Size
variations within a particle cloud will result in a variety of particle responses and thus a range
of particle paths and relative velocities, etc. For example, fluidized beds typically involve a
complex mixture of solids with gases for which the particle size (and relative velocity)
determines such aspects as bed expansion, fluidization velocity, and various mass and heat
transfer properties. Similarly, droplet sprays have a size distribution which is due to complex
breakup mechanisms near the nozzle. In both cases, the distribution of particle sizes is critical
to the performance of the combustion system. Therefore, it is important to characterize this
aspect in a particle mixture. The following section focuses on describing these distributions
through statistical integration.
2.1.1. Definition of the Probability Distribution Function
Measurements of the size distribution are often obtained by separating the distribution into
a series of bins, which are groups of particles of approximately the same diameter. The
resulting size distribution is commonly referred to as a size probability distribution function
(PDF). The numberbased probability distribution function, P
N
(d), is the probability per bin
width (Δd) that an individual particle diameter will be in the range of d½Δd to d+½Δd. Thus,
P
N
(d) has units of 1/length and in a discrete sense is the number of particles in a bin (N
pΔd
)
normalized by both the total number of particles (N
p
) and the bin width (Δd) and the sum of the
probabilities times the bin width is unity:
( )
N,i i p d,i p
(d ) N / N d
Δ
≡ Δ P
d
N
N,i i
i 1
(d ) d = 1
Δ
=
Δ
∑
P
2.1a
2.1b
In the latter equation, the total number of bins is N
Δd
. An example probability size distribution
for a spray is shown in Fig. 2.1a, where the rectangular skyline function describes the
measured bin distribution with a discrete representation. If the sampling error for the number
50
of particles counted in a bin is Gaussian, the uncertainty of a bin probability is proportional to
(N
Δ
)
1/2
, e.g., 100 particles are needed for 10% uncertainty and 10,000 for 1% uncertainty.
As in Fig. 2.1a, the measured data can also be fit with a continuous analytical probability
distribution function (example functions will be discussed in the next section). The integral of
the continuous representation of the PDF over all possible particle diameters is also unity:
N
0
(d) d = 1
∞
∫
P d 2.2
The discrete and continuous descriptions will be equivalent as the bin sizes tend to zero if a
statistically large number of particles (with respect to the desired accuracy level) is considered.
The integral of the PDF to a certain diameter d (normalized by the integral over all sizes)
represents the fraction of particles which have a diameter of d or less. This fraction is defined
as the cumulative distribution function (CDF) based on the number of particles, C
N
(d):
d
N d
0
N N
0
N
0
(d) d
(d) = (d) d
(d) d
∞
≡
∫
∫
∫
P d
C P d
P d
2.3
As such, C
N
(d) equals unity (100%) for the largest possible particle diameter. As an example,
the discrete and interpolated CDF corresponding to Fig. 2.1a are given in Fig. 2.1b.
In addition to the numberbased distributions discussed above, one may also define
volumebased distributions. The volume based probability distribution (P
∀
) is based on the
volume of particles within a bin normalized by the bin width and the total volume of particles,
while the cumulative volumebased distribution function (C
∀
) is based on the integral value:
p d p
N N
p,i p,i
i 1 i 1
d d
3
N d
0 0
3 0
N
0 0
1
(d) /
d
(d) d (d) d d
(d) = (d) d =
(d) d (d) d d
Δ
∀
= =
∀
∀ ∀ ∞ ∞
∀
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
⎛ ⎞
≡ ∀ ∀
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Δ
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
≡
∑ ∑
∫ ∫
∫
∫ ∫
P
P d P d
C P d
P d P d
2.4a
2.4b
The cumulative volumebased distribution function is equal to the massfraction distribution
function, assuming the particle density is uniform. Knowledge of C
∀
can be used to define the
“massfraction diameter” (d
q%
) where q% represents the volume fraction associated with
particles of diameter d or smaller, i.e.
q% q%
d d
∀
=
≡
C @
2.5
Thus, half the particle mass is contained in the range d≤d
50%
. The mass fraction diameter can
also be used to define broadness of a size distribution using the ratio of the diameter with
C
∀
=90% to the diameter defined by C
∀
=10%, i.e. d
90%
/d
10%
. If the particle distribution is very
narrow, this ratio will tend toward unity. For example, Gauthier et al. (1999) suggested that a
51
particle mixture can be considered approximately monodisperse for d
90%
/d
10%
<1.2. However,
as the particle size distribution gets broader, d
90%
/d
10%
will increase indicating a more
polydisperse distribution.
There are two common uses for number and volume distributions in numerical multiphase
flow applications. The first is to use the sizedistribution to obtain effective characteristics for
a “particlecloud” defined as many particles moving as a group, i.e. with similar velocity and
location. The average diameter within the cloud is often described as the effective particle
diameter so that only a single diameter needs be considered for the equation of motion. The
second is to use the sizedistribution to generate a statistically large number of individual
particles (each with individual diameters and equations of motion) such that the net distribution
is properly represented. This is often done by approximating the distributions with analytical
functions. The effective diameter concept is discussed in the next section, while common
analytical distribution functions used for the second aspect are treated in §2.1.3.
2.1.2. Average and Effective Diameters
When there are a large number of particles, it may not be possible to measure or simulate
the motion of each particle. Therefore, average particle characteristics can be useful in
describing a group of particles. For multiphase flows with a large variation in particle diameter,
an average diameter can be employed to represent the dynamics or coupling of the particles.
This can be especially important for Eulerian representations of particles (discussed in §4.1)
since the PDEs for the particle concentration and momentum distribution assume an average
particle diameter evaluated over a computational control volume, and representing multiple
particle diameters often requires multiple sets of Eulerian PDEs. Thus, it is computationally
convenient and expedient to identify an average particle diameter to represent the polydisperse
distribution. For a polydisperse diameter distribution, one can define several average
diameters based on a measured or interpolated distribution function as discussed below. In
addition, “effective” diameters for certain fluid dynamic phenomenon can be determined based
on such averages and identification of the controlling physics.
Average Weighted Diameters
There are many average diameters that can be used to describe a size distribution
depending on how the probability distribution function is weighted. A general expression for a
particle diameter average (d
ij
) with various diameter weightings can be based on the ratio of
two differently weighted PDFs:
1
i j
i j
i j N N
0 0
d d d d d d d
∞ ∞
−
⎡ ⎤
≡
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∫ ∫
( )
( ) ( ) P d P d
2.6
Three common averages are the numberaveraged diameter (d
10
), the areaaveraged diameter
(d
20
) and the volumeaveraged diameter (d
30
) which are defined as
52
10 N
0
1
2
2
20 N
0
d d d d
d d d d
∞
∞
≡
⎡ ⎤
≡
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∫
∫
( )
( )
P d
P d
1
3
3
30 N
0
d d d d
∞
⎡ ⎤
≡
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∫
( ) P d
2.7a
2.7b
2.7c
These equations can employ either the discrete or continuous expressions for P
N
(d). For a
given size distribution, increasing the weighting power causes an increase in the average
diameter. For example, the numberaverage diameter will be less than the areaaveraged
diameter which is less than the volumeaveraged diameter, i.e., d
10
<d
20
<d
30
, etc.
The three diameters of Eq. 2.7 can help characterize the effective diameter for processes
that are proportional to particle number, surface area or particle volume. For example, the
average drag for a particle in a Newtonbased regime is proportional to the particle area and
would be best represented by d
20
. Alternatively, the representation of the net gravitational
force for a particle cloud is proportional to the particle volume and would be best represented
by d
30
. Many physical processes involve a balance between surfaceaveraged and volume
averaged physics. Some examples include drag force vs. gravitational force, droplet
vaporization rate vs. particle thermal inertia, surface tension energy vs. particle kinetic energy,
etc. Because of the ubiquity of this balance, two common average diameters used in
engineering systems are the Sauter mean diameter (SMD) and the volumewidth mean
diameter (VWMD) which are defined as
3
3 2 30
32 N N 2
20 0 0
3
3 30
31 N N
10 0 0
d
d (d)d d (d)d d
d
d
d (d)d d (d)d d
d
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
≡ =
≡ =
∫ ∫
∫ ∫
P d P d
P d P d
2.8a
2.8b
As shown below, these mean diameter are effective diameters for a multiphase system
governed by drag and gravitational forces under certain conditions.
DragBased Effective Diameters
To obtain the average diameter which best represents the motion of a cloud of particles, it
is important to determine the forces that dominate the particle motion. If the particle
accelerations are weak, then Eq. 1.80 indicates that these forces include the effective
gravitational force and the drag force. The particle cloud will then move at some single
effective relative velocity, w
eff
, which is characterized by a “drag effective diameter”, d
eff
. To
obtain this effective diameter, one may apply the terminal velocity force and assume that the
particle mixture is governed by a uniform particle density as well as a uniform fluid density
and viscosity. The effective diameter and relative velocity of the particle cloud can be
obtained from the integrated force distributions based on the size PDF.
The net effective gravitational force magnitude can be obtained by integrating over all
particle sizes based on Eq. 1.79 as:
53
p p
N N
p f p f
3
g,eff p,i N
i 1 i 1
p p o
g g
1
F (d)d d
N N 6
∞
= =
ρ −ρ π ρ −ρ
= ∀ =
∑ ∑
∫
P d 2.9
This indicates that this net force is proportional to d
30
. For the net drag force for a polydisperse
mixture moving at the effective relative velocity, Eq. 1.46 applied to a size distribution yields:
p
N
2 2
D f eff N D
i 1
p o
1
F w (d)C (d)d d
N 8
∞
=
π
= ρ
∑
∫
P d
2.10
The integrand includes the drag coefficient, which is a function of particle Reynolds number.
By assuming the surrounding fluid density and viscosity are constant, we can consider the two
limits of Newtonbased drag and Stokes drag to evaluate the effective diameter and velocity.
Particles in the inertiadominated drag regime (about Re
p
>2000) have a drag coefficient
which is independent of Reynolds number (C
D,crit
) such that the drag force is proportional to
the “areaaveraged” diameter d
20
. Note that this result is independent of the exact value of
C
D,crit
(e.g., those caused by particle deformation, flow compressibility, circulation within a
fluid particle, threeway interaction, etc.) as long as the drag coefficient is not a function of
particle Reynolds number. The balance of the net gravitational force and the net drag force is
given by ΣF
g,eff
=ΣF
D
. For the inertiadominated drag regime (Rep > 2000), Eqs. 2.9 and 2.10
can be combined to yield
2 2 * 3
eff D,crit N p N
o o
3
w C (d)d d g 1 (d)d d
4
∞ ∞
= ρ −
∫ ∫
P d P d
2.11
The ratio of the two integrals is equal to the Sauter mean diameter (Eq. 2.8a). Therefore, the
group relative velocity (equal to the group terminal velocity) becomes:
( )
*
eff p 32 D,crit
w 4 / 3 1 d g / C = ρ − 2.12
Thus, the Sauter mean diameter is the drageffective diameter (d
eff
=d
32
) for particles governed
by Newtonbased drag, regardless of the particlesize PDF (i.e., it can be monodisperse, bi
modal or polydisperse). This result is consistent with the common usage of the SMD to
characterize a polydisperse fluidization (Wen & Yu, 1966; Wu & Baeyens, 1998).
Now let us consider the other extreme of creeping flow where C
D
=24/Re
p
. Substituting this
drag coefficient (which is inversely proportional to the particle diameter) into Eq. 2.10 and
then equating this with Eq. 2.9 yields a balance of drag and gravitational forces:
* 3
eff f N p N
o o
18w (d)d d g 1 (d)d d
∞ ∞
ν = ρ −
∫ ∫
P d P d
2.13
The effective velocity is then proportional to the square of the “volumewidth diameter”
(d
eff
=d
31
) of Eq. 2.8b:
( )
2 *
eff 31 p f
d 1 18 = ρ − ν w g
2.14
54
The inclusion of other effects (due to shape, flow compressibility, slipsurface, threeway
interaction, etc.) will not significantly affect this result so long as C
D
is proportional to 1/Re
p
,
which is often be true for creeping flow (§6.2).
The above analysis can be extended to the intermediate Reynolds number regime to
determine the effective diameter and velocity. For this, it is important to determine the drag
coefficient dependence on particle diameter for Eq. 2.10, which in turn is equivalent to
determining the C
D
dependence on Re
p
if ρ
p
, ρ
f
, and ν
f
are fixed. If one assumes a power
relationship for small changes in Re
p
, this can be expressed as
( )
Y 2
D Y p
C c Re
−
≈ 2.15
In this relationship, the local slope in a loglog version C
D
vs. Re
p
is the power exponent, Y2,
and c
Y
is a coefficient. The exponent term Y is a function of Reynolds number whereby Y=1
and c
Y
=24 for the creeping flow limit but Y=2 and c
Y
=C
D,crit
for the inertiadominated limit.
To obtain an analytical expression for Y for intermediate Re
p
, one may take the natural log of
both sides of Eq. 2.15:
( )
D p Y
ln(C ) Y 2 ln(Re ) ln(c ) = − +
2.16
Considering only small changes in Re
p
so that the last term on the RHS is approximately a
constant, and then differentiating this equation with respect to Re
p
yields:
p
D D
p D p
Re
[ln(C )] C
Y 2
[ln(Re )] C Re
∂ ∂
= ≈ −
∂ ∂
2.17
A closedform expression for the LHS can be obtained from the White empirical drag
coefficient expression (Eq. 1.52), so that the dragpower parameter for a solid particle is:
( )
p
2
p p p
p
3 Re
24 24 6
Y 2 0.4
Re Re 1 Re
1 Re
⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ = − + + +
⎢ ⎥
+
⎢ ⎥
+
⎣ ⎦
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
2.18
The variation of this parameter with particle Reynolds number is given in Fig. 2.2a. However,
the drag coefficient for a pure (uncontaminated) spherical bubble is proportional to 1/Re
p
for a
wide range of Re
p
conditions (as will be discussed in §6.2.5), in which case Y≈1.
The effective diameter for Eq. 1.82 is then d
3Y
with a corresponding effective velocity:
2
(3 Y)
3 2 * *
N 3Y p p
0
eff
Y
f Re f Re
N
0
(d)d d d 1 g 1 g
w
18 f 18 f
(d)d d
∞
−
∞
⎡ ⎤
ρ − ρ −
⎢ ⎥
= =
⎢ ⎥
ν ν
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∫
∫
P d
P d
2.19
To determine the importance of the Y parameter, one may compare the effective terminal
velocity based on the Sauter mean diameter (d
32
) to one based on the correct diameter (d
3Y
).
This velocity ratio should approach unity if the SMD is reasonable to use. To illustrate this
importance consider a simple bidisperse mixture composed of two particle sizes (d
small
and
d
large
). The size ratio for this mixture is defined as:
*
small small large
d d / d ≡
2.20
55
The influence for a range of diameter ratios is plotted in Fig. 2.2.b where it can be seen that the
velocity ratio approaches unity for high Re
p
indicating that the SMD is appropriate. However,
use of the d
3Y
becomes more important for smaller Re
p
values and as the size distribution
broadness increases, e.g. the creeping flow effective velocity overprediction by 20% for
*
small
d 0.33 = . For a more general polydisperse distribution, the effective diameter and particle
cloud velocity based on Eq. 2.19 have been found to be reasonable for a fluidized beds when
the size distribution is not too broad (Loth et al. 2004)
eff
w(d) w ≈ if d
90%
/d
10%
< 3
2.21
Broader size distributions exhibited substantial vertical segregation of particle (e.g., larger
particles found at lower heights) indicating a single effective velocity is no longer reasonable.
The above analysis can also be modified for the case where the particle density varies
according to particle diameter, ρ
p
(d), by defining an “effective particle density” as ρ
p,eff
. Wu &
Baeyens (1998) simply define this effective density as the sum of the total particle mass
normalized by the sum of the total particle volume:
3 3
p,eff N p N
0 0
(d) (d)d d (d)d d
∞ ∞
ρ ≡ ρ
∫ ∫
P d P d
2.22
In this case, the particle density ratio for w
eff
becomes ρ
p,eff
/ρ
f
, where the same effective
diameter dependencies (with Y) still arise.
This general approach can be used for other multiphase characteristics (density, viscosity,
velocity, temperature, etc.) if the key physics are identified and the PDF is known. If discrete
experimental distributions are used, they must be integrated for different Re
p
values, etc. As
such, it is often convenient to use analytical functions to describe such PDFs since they can
lead to corresponding analytic expressions for mean diameters, etc. Such analytic PDFs are the
topic of the next section.
2.1.3. Analytical Probability Distribution Functions
Despite the wide variety of mechanisms which can cause particle size distributions
(crushing, breakup, coalescence, etc.), most size distribution functions are qualitatively similar.
Because of this, several analytic functions have been proposed to described the PDFs using a
mean diameter, a broadness parameter, and a normalized distribution function. Such
representations are useful in computational multiphase methods to allow rapid estimation of
average diameters or to allow random numerical sampling for a size distribution (§7.2.2). In
the following, the two most common analytical PDFs of particle size are discussed: the Rosin
Rammler distribution and the LogNormal distribution.
RosinRammler Distribution
The RosinRammler distribution was originally developed to characterize pulverized coal,
but was found to be quite robust in representing the cumulative mass PDF (C
∀
) for a wide
variety of powdered materials (Rosin & Rammler, 1933). As a result, this is one of the most
56
common size distribution functions in existence today and is used in a wide variety of
applications. The PDF form is relatively simple and includes two empirical constants:
( ) RR
1
h
RR
(d) 1 exp d / d
∀
⎡ ⎤
= − −
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
C
2.23
In this equation, d
RR
and h
RR
are respectively the RosinRammler reference diameter and
spread parameter, which describe a mean size and the broadness of the distribution. The mean
size corresponds to d
RR
≈d
63%
, which can be seen by substituting d=d
RR
into Eq. 2.23. Size
distributions for two different spread parameters are shown in Fig. 2.3a where it can be seen
that an increasing h
RR
corresponds to an increasing difference between d
10%
and d
90%
. The
spread parameter is zero for a monodisperse (uniform) size distribution and is of order unity for
a very polydisperse (broad) size distribution. Historically, experimental data have been plotted
on a loglog scale as in Fig. 2.3b to obtain the spread parameter (equal to the inverse of the
slope on such a plot) and the reference diameter, d
RR
(equal to diameter corresponding to
C
∀
≈0.63). Such reasonable agreement for massbased CDF is typical such that the Rosin
Rammler distribution is the most common representation of mass distribution for pulverized
materials.
The RosinRammler spreadparameter can be used to quantify the broadness of a size
distribution in terms of the ratio of the 90% diameter to the 10% diameter (Eq. 2.5):
( )
RR 90% 10%
h 0.324ln d / d ≈
2.24
For example, the h
RR
=0.2 of Fig. 2.3a corresponds to a diameter ratio of 1.85 and larger
spreads will be consistent with larger diameter ratios. This spread parameter can also be used
to determine whether a particle size distribution is approximately “monodisperse”. The
definition for “monodisperse” given by Gauthier et al. (1999) is d
90%
/d
10%
<1.2, which
corresponds to h
RR
<0.06, while that given by Crowe et al. (1998) is (d
rms
d
50%
)/d
50%
<0.1, which
corresponds to h
RR
<0.05.
In order to compute various diameter averages, Rosin & Rammler (1933) derived the
numberbased PDF in terms of the spread parameter and the reference diameter as:
( )
( )
( )
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
1 4h
1
h
h
N
RR RR RR
d
d
d /
(d) exp d /
h d 1 3h
−
⎡ ⎤
= −
⎢ ⎥
Γ −
⎣ ⎦
P
2.25
This solution includes the mathematical Gamma function, defined for an arbitrary variable q by
q 1 b
0
2
(q) b e b
∞
− −
Γ =
π
∫
d
2.26
The Gamma function is plotted in Fig. 2.4a and has the properties Γ(q+1)= qΓ(q), Γ(½)= π
1/2
,
and Γ(1)= Γ(2)=1, but is undefined at q=0. Based on the properties of the Gamma function,
the general relationship for an average diameterweighted probability can be found from
integrating Eq. 2.25:
[ ]
( )
( )
i
RR i
N RR
RR 0
1 (i 3)h
(d)d d d
1 3h
∞
Γ + −
=
Γ −
∫
P d
2.27
57
Based on this equation and Eq. 2.6, the Sauter and volumewidth diameters become:
( )
( )
32 RR
RR
31 RR
RR
1
d d
1 h
1
d d
1 2h
=
Γ −
=
Γ −
2.28a
2.28b
Note that these mean diameter expressions indicate the limits of applicability for the Rosin
Rammler distribution function. In particular, it is required that h
RR
<1 in order to compute d
32
and required that h
RR
<½ to compute d
31
(else the diameters can be negative or undefined due to
properties of the Gamma function). This unfortunately prevents computation of effective
diameters for size distributions which are very broad. Furthermore, d
10
values based on the
RosinRammler distribution function are sometimes in poor agreement with the experimentally
measured d
10
values, a problem discussed by Mugele & Evans (1951). If accurate descriptions
of numberbased distribution instead of massbased distribution are desired, Kuo (1986)
suggests using other distribution functions, which are discussed below.
LogNormal Distribution
The LogNormal size distribution assumes a Gaussian distribution of particle size about a
logbased normalized diameter for the numberbased PDF
( )
2
LN
N
LN LN
ln d / d
1 1
(d) exp
2 h 2 h d
⎧ ⎫
⎡ ⎤
⎪ ⎪
= −
⎨ ⎬ ⎢ ⎥
π
⎣ ⎦ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
P
2.29
In this equation, h
LN
represents the LogNormal spread parameter and d
LN
represents the Log
Normal reference diameter. This distribution can be integrated using Eq. 2.3 to give the
cumulative number distribution
( )
LN
N
LN
ln d / d
1
(d) 1 erf
2 h 2
⎧ ⎫
⎡ ⎤
⎪ ⎪
= +
⎨ ⎢ ⎥⎬
⎪ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦
⎩ ⎭
C
2.30
In this equation, “erf” is the Error function, which is defined for a variable q by
2 q
b
0
2
erf (q) e b
−
=
π
∫
d
2.31
The Error function is plotted in Fig. 2.4b and has the following properties: erf(q)=erf(q),
erf(∞)=1, and erf(0)=0. Substituting d=d
LN
into Eq. 2.30, shows that the LogNormal mean
diameter corresponds to a C
N
=50%, i.e. the diameter which equally divides the numberbased
particle population. The massbased cumulative function can be similarly obtained:
( )
2
LN LN
LN
ln d / d 3h
1
(d) 1 erf
2 h 2
∀
⎧ ⎫
⎡ ⎤ −
⎪ ⎪
= +
⎨ ⎢ ⎥⎬
⎪ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦
⎩ ⎭
C
2.32
Thus, the diameter which equally divides the particle mass is given by d
50%
=d
LN
exp(3h
LN
2
).
58
Example fits of the LogNormal function for numberbased and volumebased cumulative
distributions are given for spray data in Fig. 2.5a. In general, the fit is quite reasonable and it
can be seen that C
∀
<C
Ν
for a given diameter, which is consistent with d
30
>d
10
. Note that the
spread parameter from Fig. 2.5a corresponds to a relatively broad distribution, which is beyond
the capability of the RosinRammler function for characterizing the volumewidth diameter
(see Table 2.1). The LogNormal distribution generally provides a reasonable representation
of the numberbased size distribution for droplets and bubbles as shown in Fig. 2.5b. Based on
Eqs. 2.5 and 2.32, the LogNormal spread parameter can be related to the size ratio as:
( )
LN 90% 10%
h 0.39ln d / d ≈
2.33
A monodisperse distribution defined by d
90%
/d
10%
<1.2 thus corresponds to h
LN
<0.07.
The general equation for a mean diameter of the LogNormal distribution can be obtained
from Eqs. 2.6 and 2.29 as:
1 2
ij LN LN
2
d d exp (i j)h ⎡ ⎤ = +
⎣ ⎦
2.34
This can be used to relate the Sauter mean diameter to the volumetricwidth mean diameter and
to relate the effective diameter (for an arbitrary Re
p
) to the lognormal mean diameter:
d
32
=d
31
exp(h
LN
2
/2)
d
eff
= d
3Y
= d
LN
exp [h
LN
2
(Y3)/4]
2.35a
2.35b
Thus, the Log Normal distribution allows any mean diameter to be defined for any spread
parameter, which is not true for the RosinRammler PDF. This is shown in Table 2.1 along
with the ratio of the SMD to VWMD indicating that the distinctions become significant for
braoder distributions, e.g. d
90%
/d
10%
>2. In addition, it should be noted that effective velocities
are not appropriate for h
RR
>0.36 or h
LN
>0.43 based on Eq. 2.21.
It should be noted that the predictive performance for the PDF described by the Log
Normal distribution is not always good. For example, comparison with the Houghton droplet
data (Fig. 2.6) indicates that the RosinRammler approach gives a better characterization. An
even better result is obtained using the upperlimit function (Kuo, 1986), which is a variant of
the RosinRammler method that incorporates a maximum droplet size to prevent excessive tails
at large diameters. There are several other size distribution functions including the Nukiyama
Tanasaw function (Kuo, 1986), the loghyperbolic function (Crowe et al. 1998), and
distributions based particularly on bubble breakup (Lasheras, 1998). As such, there is no
single robust and universal distribution function.
2.2. Particle Shapes
While the most commonly used particle description is that of a sphere, nonspherical
shapes frequently occur due to natural or manufacturing processes. In this section, we will
consider particle shapes which are fixed or have reached an equilibrium at the terminal velocity.
Often the shapes are mild deviations from the spherical case and can be classified as
ellipsoidalparticles, i.e. the projected area is an ellipse when viewed from any of the three axes.
An ellipsoid has three different crosssectional diameters and has a volume based on these
59
three diameters, i.e. d
3
=d
1
d
2
d
3
.
A special types of ellipsoid is the spheroid where one of the three crosssectional shapes is
a circle and the other two are equal ellipse. This is equivalent to having two equal cross
sectional diameters. This leads to an axis of symmetry which is perpendicular to the circular
crosssection. The axis lengths along the axis of symmetry (d
&
) and about the axis of
symmetry (d
⊥
) are shown in Fig. 2.7a, and their ratio defines the particle aspect ratio:
E d / d
⊥
=

2.36
Spheroids can be generally classified as oblate (E<1) or prolate (E>1) and quantified by their
aspect ratio. For oblate spheroids, the shape becomes a circular disk in the limit E→0 , while
prolate spheroids approach a needle shape as E→∞. The volume of an ellipsoid is proportional
to the product of the three major axes so that for both prolate and oblate spheroids:
2
p
6
= d d
π
⊥
∀

2.37
Therefore, the volumebased diameter (Eq. 1.1) is given by
1/ 3 2/ 3
d=d E =d E
−
⊥ 
2.38
Of course, E=1 reverts the geometry to a sphere.
Such rounded shapes often occur for fluid particles because surface tension minimizes local
curvature. In contrast, solid particles can contain edges and points if they are formed by
crystallization which can lead to simple geometric shapes that are cylindrical, conic or cubic as
shown in Fig. 2.7b. However, particles often take on more complex and irregular shapes if
they are formed by crushing or fragmentation. Some discussion on solid and fluid particles is
given in the next two sections.
2.2.1. FixedShape Solid Particles
Nonspherical solid bodies can be classified as regularlyshaped particles (ellipsoids, cones,
disks, etc.) or irregularlyshaped particles (nonsymmetric rough surfaces). Regularlyshaped
solid particles are based on simple crosssections, such as those in Fig. 2.7. On the other hand,
irregular particles, such as the soot particle of Fig. 2.8, do not possess symmetry which
prevents analytic representations of the surface. In either case, it is convenient to use particle
mass and density to obtain the volumebased diameter (Eq. 1.1).
Regularlyshaped particles can be divided into those without edges and those with edges.
Regular solid shapes without edges commonly include spheroids and ellipsoids. Regular solid
shapes with edges include cones, cylinders and cuboids (also called “rectangular parallel
pipeds” or rectangular boxes). Cuboids are made up of connecting orthogonal rectangular
faces and characterized by three perpendicular lengths, e.g., a cuboid with a length ratio of
1:1:1 is simply a cube. Regularlyshaped particles with edges are often associated with
crystallization, which can create natural directions for growth. There are also a wide variety of
water crystal shapes that naturally form in the atmosphere. The wellknown dendrites (snow
flakes) have shapes which are sixarmed, nearlysymmetric, highlyintricate and flat (Fig. 2.9a).
These dendrites form at temperatures somewhat below freezing due to a process whereby
liquid vapor condenses on ice crystals as they grow. This accounts for the many frilly surfaces
60
that grow on the crystal. However, there are dozens of other ice crystal shapes which can form
and most are generally simpler in geometry and without porosity. For example, needles and
hexagon disks are common shapes for diameters of 1 mm or less (Fig. 2.9b and 2.9c). Man
made crystals such as carbon nanotubes and protein crystals tend to form in disks and needle
shapes. Very large solids such as hail and graupel (several mm in diameter) form by
agglomeration (instead of crystaline growth) and resemble oblate spheroids.
Irregularly shaped particles can stem from random coagulation (Fig. 2.8) but can also result
from breakup of larger solid objects or particles. In particular, grinding and crushing
processes (such as used to produce coal particles and sand grit) create complex shapes that
cannot be defined by a simple geometric surface. Examples of such particles at micron scales
are shown in Fig. 2.10, which can be seen to be qualitatively similar to crushed particles at
much larger scales, e.g. gravel. The degree of deviation from a sphere of such irregular
particle can be characterized by the ratio of surface area to that of a sphere with equivalent
volume as will be discussed in §6.2.4.
2.2.2. Deformable Fluid Particles
While nonspherical solid particles generally owe their shape to formation or breakup as
discussed above, dispersed fluid particles (bubbles and drops away from walls) can deform
based on the interplay of surface tension and the fluiddynamic stresses on the particle surface.
Thus, the shape of a fluid particle is not permanent and deforms according to the stresses
imparted by the surrounding environment. The surface tension forces will always drive a free
particle toward a spherical shape, whereas initial conditions and/or fluiddynamic forces are the
primary sources of nonsphericity. Thus zerogravity (or microgravity) conditions with steady
uniform flow will result in a spherical shape once the particle relative velocity becomes
negligible. However, initial conditions, acceleration or gravity can cause significant
deformation owing to the relative velocity and accompanying fluid stresses. This section
focuses on the steady shapes expected for fluidparticles associated with a fixed relative
velocity. The dynamics of particle size and shape caused by acceleration or instabilities will be
discussed later in §2.3.
Weber Number and Terminal Velocity Parameters
The importance of the fluid surface stresses on particle deformation tends to scale with the
dynamic pressure seen by the particle since it is the surface pressure distribution and surface
tension which controls the deformation. This pressure distribution, in turn, can be primarily
characterized the dynamic pressure and the Reynolds number (which controls importance of
viscosity), and secondarily by the viscosity ratio (which controls recirculation). However, the
deformation is also related to the ratio of the continuousfluid stresses (which cause
deformation and are proportional to the dynamic pressure) to the surface tension stresses
(which resist deformation). This ratio is defined as the Weber number by:
2
f
wd
We
ρ
≡
σ
2.39
61
where σ is the surface tension between the particle and the surrounding fluids (see Table A.1).
The influence of Reynolds number, Weber number and viscosity ratio on both shape and
drag has been investigated theoretically by many researchers with perhaps the most important
results are given by Saito (1913), Taylor & Acrivos (1964), and Moore (1965). Saito
examined the creeping flow limit of Re
p
→0 (where inertial terms are neglected), and showed
that a fluid particle of any viscosity ratio and Weber number will remain spherical, consistent
with analysis of Eq. 1.63. This criterion can be qualitatively expressed as
Re
p
«1 particles rapidly tend to spherical geometry 2.40
To quantify this relationship, one may suggest that fluid particles are spherical for Re
p
<0.1.
Experimentally observed shapes at such Reynolds numbers are at least qualitatively consistent
with this result. For example, the data of Pan & Acrivos (1968), Grace (1973), Grace et al.
(1976), and Bhaga & Weber (1981) suggest approximate criteria of Re
p
<0.2 for clean bubbles
and Re
p
<0.5 for contaminated bubbles and drops. Taylor & Acrivos extended this condition to
small but finite Re
p
values (see §6.2.6 for details) and found that the deformation is principally
controlled by Weber number, and that the onset of ellipsoidal condition (often defined as
E≤0.9) occurs at We≈0.64 for clean gas bubbles.
At very high Reynolds numbers, Moore analyzed gas bubbles and found that onset of
ellipsoidal shapes occurs at We=0.79. These results are also consistent with experiments,
which showed that very large Weber numbers coincide with highly deformed bubbles and
drops. In summary, the degree of deformation at finite Re
p
can be qualitatively expressed as
We
«1 particles rapidly tend to spherical geometry
We ~ 1 moderate deviations from a sphere can occur
We » 1 large deviations from a sphere can occur
2.41
These trends are consistent with measurements and simulations for a wide range of Reynolds
numbers (from 1 to 10,000). In particular, such observations indicate approximately spherical
conditions are roughly given by
0.9 E 1.0 ≤ ≤ when Re
p
< 0.2 or We
< 0.8
2.42
A quantitative description of aspect ratio and drag dependence on Re
p
, We, density ratio and
viscosity ratio will be discussed in §6.2.6.
While the instantaneous shape and drag will vary with the instantaneous Weber number
and Reynolds number, it is convenient to consider first the steadystate shapes at terminal
velocity since this condition is well documented. However, the terminal velocity requires
knowledge of the drag coefficient which may not be known since it can be a complex function
of the shape. Therefore, it is convenient to consider dimensionless parameters which do not
require the drag or terminal velocity to be known a priori. To determine these, we note that
the terminal shape and terminal velocity (and thus Re
p,term
and We
term
) are uniquely specified
by the particle volumetric diameter, interface surface tension, and gravity along with dispersed
phase and continuousphase fluid densities and viscosities. This allows identification of two
nondimensional parameters which do not involve velocity: Bond number (Bo) and Morton
number (Mo). The Bond number (also called the Eötvös number) is proportional to particle
volume and is given by
2
p f
gd
Bo
ρ −ρ
≡
σ
2.43
62
This parameter represents the ratio of effective gravitational forces to surface tension forces,
where the former is proportional to the density difference between the phases and the
gravitational acceleration. Note that the effective gravitational force itself does not cause
deformation, e.g., a bubble which is initially released at zero velocity will have little
deformation even if the Bond number is high. However, once such a bubble reaches terminal
velocity, the effective gravitational forces are exactly balanced by drag and the associated
dynamic pressure determines the terminal deformation. In this sense, high Bond numbers are
qualitatively similar to high Weber numbers in terms of Eq. 2.41. The Morton number is also a
function of the density difference, but includes an additional dependence on the continuous
phase viscosity:
4
f p f
2 3
f
g
Mo
μ ρ −ρ
≡
ρ σ
2.44
This parameter has no direct physical interpretation but is conveniently constant for a given set
of continuousphase and the dispersedphase fluids.
The above two parameters are convenient in terms of test conditions. For example, it is
straightforward to conduct measurements with Mo fixed while varying Bo (by simply changing
particle size) or to keep Bo fixed and change Mo (by simply changing fluid viscosity). In
comparison, it is more difficult to hold Re
p
fixed while varying We (and viceversa) since
changing either viscosity or particle velocity will change w. As such the static parameters of
Mo and Bo can be more convenient to characterize terminal steadystate conditions while the
dynamic parameters Re
p
and We are best for describing nonequilibrium (w≠w
term
) ellipsoidal
conditions. Furthermore, the gravitational effects associated with Bo and Mo help specify the
hydrostatic pressure gradients at terminal conditions which influence shape deformations. It
should be noted that these parameters can be related only at the terminal conditions:
2
term
4
p,term
We Mo
Re Bo
=
2.45
Note that the terminal Weber and Bond numbers can also be related by the terminal drag
coefficient through Eqs. 1.82b, 2.39, and 2.43:
term
D,term
4Bo
We
3C
=
2.46
Therefore, fluid particles in the Newtonbased drag regime (constant C
D
) will have a linear
relationship between We
term
and Bo. In the following subsections, we will review the well
documented terminal shapes for drops in gasses (
*
p
ρ »1) and for gas bubbles or liquid drops in
liquids (
*
p
ρ «1 or
*
p
ρ ~1).
Terminal Shapes for Droplets in a Gas
Fluid particles in a gas with a low terminal Weber number are expected to be nearly
spherical. As an example, a water drop in air is spherical (aspect ratios within 2% of unity) for
diameters of 0.5 mm or less, such as the shape shown in Fig. 2.11a. As the drop diameter and
63
corresponding Weber number increase, the drop tends towards an oblate spheroid (the tear
shaped rain drop is a myth). This spheroidal shape is due to the fact that the internal pressure
is approximately constant but the external pressure around a sphere is highest at the incoming
stagnation point (bottom of the drop) and the lowest along the sides. Oblate shapes (E<1) are
the most common at terminal conditions, though some special conditions can lead to prolate
shapes (Helenbrook & Edwards, 2002). One reason for the preference in oblate shapes has to
do with trajectory stability for these conditions, as will be discussed in the next section. For
water droplets in air, E≈0.9 (often defined as the onset of significant oblate deformation)
corresponds to a We≈2 and a diameter of about 1 mm.
At higher Weber numbers, the lower (fore) surface becomes substantially flatter than the
top (aft) surface due to a lower pressure in the rear as compared to the front stagnation point
and hydrostatic pressure gradients. As an example, a 5.8 mm water drop with a Weber
number of order ten is shown in Fig. 2.11b. While not obvious from the photograph of Fig.
2.11b, drops undergoing significant deformation can develop a dimple on the upstream (i.e.
lower) surface. This dimple is shown more clearly by the crosssection schematic in Fig. 2.12
for the 6 mm drop. The oblate shape causes the drag coefficient to be greater than that for a
spherical droplet of equivalent volume due to increased frontal area. This increased drag for
deformed particle results in a lower terminal velocity than that expected for a spherical particle
(quantitative relationships will be given in §6.2).
For We»1, the dynamic pressure at the leading stagnation point (the center of the bottom
surface) increases further relative to surface tension which can lead to severe exaggeration of
the dimple. In particular, a large drop falling in a gas often forms a bag shape whereby the
middle of the drop is hollowed out yielding a parachute type of effect (see Figs. 2.11c and
2.12). However, this condition is typically shortlived as it is highly unstable and will lead to
breakup of the droplet. Therefore, raindrops are rarely larger than 10 mm since they will
break up if they exceed this diameter. This breakup condition corresponds to a critical Bond
number discussed with more detail in §2.4.1.
Terminal Shapes for Bubbles and Drops in a Liquid
Gas bubbles and immiscible liquid particles in a liquid have very similar shapes at terminal
conditions and thus are often analyzed in a similar fashion. For the common range of Morton
numbers for bubbles and drops (<10
6
), the evolution of these shapes as We increases is shown
in Fig. 2.13, with specific examples of bubbles shown in Figs. 2.14. At low Weber numbers,
both types of fluid particles will be nearly spherical at low Weber numbers. An example of
this is shown in Fig. 2.14a for small bubbles effervescing in a glass of champagne (naturally
obtained by French researchers). The aspect ratio of these bubbles which are 1 mm or less in
diameter is typically within a few percent of unity, depending on the water contamination.
Interestingly, this is roughly the same size criterion for deformation of water drops in a gas at
terminal velocity since ρ
f
2
term
w is similar for both cases.
At Weber numbers of order of unity, fluid particles in a liquid typically take the shape of an
oblate ellipsoid. However, the aft portion (bottom) of a bubble will tend to be flatter as shown
in Fig. 2.14b. This deviation from an ellipsoidal shape is related to a combination of buoyancy
and flow recirculation effects which yield a separation region with nearly uniform pressure that
causes the rear interface to become nearly horizontal when surface tension is weak.
64
A further increase in the Weber number leads to different shapes depending on the
Reynolds number. For Re
p,term
>100 leads to a “sphericalcap” shape (Fig. 2.14c). This
geometry is defined by a hemispherical shape on the top and a flat surface on the bottom,
which will generally undulate due to unsteadiness in the wake. As shown in Fig. 2.15a, the
wake is generally turbulent and “open” in the sense that a readily identified recirculation
pattern is no longer applicable. At higher Morton numbers, moderate Reynolds numbers
(about 40<Re
p
<100), the wake can produce an approximately steady recirculation pattern (Fig.
2.15b). In both cases, the approximately flat rear portion indicates that the surface tension is
very weak so that the continuousphase hydrostatic pressure is simply equal to the internal
bubble pressure on this surface.
For We
term
>18 and Re
p,term
>100, effects of viscosity and surface tension become negligible
and a sphericalcap bubble shape is experimentally observed. The aspect ratio of height to
diameter for this bubble shape is approximately E≈1/4 independent of further increases in
Weber number or Reynolds number. The upper surface of this shape can be approximated as
spherical with a radius of curvature given by r
I
≈9d/8. Assuming inviscid flow, negligible
surface tension, and a balance between the continuousphase and bubblephase pressure
distribution over this portion of the surface, the drag coefficient and an associated relationship
between Weber and Bond number (using Eq. 2.46) are given by:
D,term
term
C 8 / 3
Bo 2We
≈
≈
for sphericalcap bubbles
2.47a
2.47b
Thus, a sphericalcap shape is consistent with Bo greater than 36. Similarly, the Re
p
>100
criterion is consistent with Mo les than about 10
4
based on Eq. 2.45. This combination
(Bo>36 and Mo<10
4
) can be conveniently specified a priori without knowledge of the
terminal velocity to predict the occurrence of a spherical cap bubble based only on bubble size.
However, such bubbles can be difficult to initiate and will tend to break up in unsteady flows.
As the Morton numbers become larger, effects of fluid viscosity become more significant.
Thin disklike shapes are possible depending on the viscosity ratio and initial conditions and at
very high Weber numbers (>100), the bubble can form a skirt which extends downward from
the spherical cap portion partially enclosing the wake (Fig. 2.16). At Re
p
<40, an oblate
ellipsoidal cap can form. However, it should be noted that the transition Weber number for
various bubble shapes can be affected by contamination.
Influence of Contaminants
As noted in §1.5.2, contaminants can affect the internal flowfield of a fluid particle. These
surfaceactive contaminants are called “surfactants” and are typically organic molecules or
submicron particles which can adhere to the fluidparticle interface. As an example of the
influence of surfactants, detergent mixed into water can create bubbles that are highly stable.
The presence of surfactants can reduce surface tension and, in high concentrations, eventually
renders the interface immobile. As such, surfactants can increase drag from a condition
governed by recirculation (Eq. 1.64) to one governed by a noslip interface (Eq. 1.33). This, in
turn, can affect the particle terminal velocity, wake and shape.
Surfactants can delay the transition from spherical to ellipsoidal bubbles for a given
fluid particle diameter because they result in a decreased terminal velocity and thus reduced
65
Weber numbers. For example, this transition occurs approximately at diameters of 1.1 mm in
clean (uncontaminated) water but occurs at diameters of 1.7 mm for tap water (Clift et al. 1978
and Wu & Gharib, 2002). In addition, the reduction in surface tension over the surface due to
contamination can lead to ellipsoidal shapes that are comparatively more flattened. Since the
velocity change is not as significant with liquid drops in a gas (since μ
p
»μ
f
), the importance of
surfactants on spherical drops is generally negligible. Surfactants are also not important for
highly deformed particles, since surface tension and flow recirculation plays a weaker role in
their shapes (Clift et al. 1978).
Predicting the conditions which will cause a bubble to be contaminated is difficult. If the
fluid particle is initially clean, the surfactants generally attach themselves to the interface and
are swept to the aft region where their concentration can build up (Bel Fdhila & Duineveld
1996; Cuenot et al. 1997). Therefore, the effect of contaminants can be path and time
dependent since the fluid particle may be initially clean. The gradients of surfactant
concentration on a fluid particle surface can lead to significant gradients in the interfacial
surface tension. The resulting surface tension gradients lead to tangential stresses (known as
Marangoni stresses) that oppose surface
convection so that recirculation is inhibited. In order
to account for this phenomenon, the stagnant cap model was developed by Griffith (1962),
which assumes that the absorbed surfactant molecules are dragged towards the rear of the fluid
particle by the adjacent liquid (Griffith, 1962). In the model, the interface is separated into two
parts, a mobile portion which represents the clean surface, and an immobile (noslip) interface
that represent the contaminated surface.
The level of the surfactant concentration on the fluid particle interface can be broadly
classified into three regimes: clean, partiallycontaminated, and contaminated. The “clean”
condition allows a fully mobile interface with full internal recirculation as in Fig. 1.28 and
corresponds to θ
clean
=180° in Fig. 2.17. As the concentration on the surface increases, parts of
the fluid particle surface become immobile and the recirculation is limited to a fraction of the
surface (0°<θ
clean
<180°). This “partiallycontaminated” condition is generally associated with
an increased drag (e.g., reduced terminal velocity). The “contaminated” or “fully
contaminated” condition corresponds to θ
clean
=0°. In this case, the particle surface is saturated
with surfactants so that it is immobile, i.e. the surface effectively reverts to a noslip condition
(and thus, terminal velocity) equivalent to that of a solid particle.
These three regimes can be related to the concentration of surfactants in the liquid. It is
especially difficult to remove such impurities from water. Furthermore gaswater interfaces
are especially susceptible to the influence of surfactants particularly for small surfaceto
volume ratios. As such, it is difficult to achieve clean conditions for water for bubble
diameters less than 1 mm. As an example, Fig. 2.18 identifies the partiallycontaminated
regime for various surfactants and multiphase systems. Roughly, concentration levels below
10
4
g/L can be considered clean (or sometimes called “pure”) for most fluid particles, while
concentrations above 10
2
g/L can be considered fullycontaminated. However, the boundaries
between the regimes are a function of bubble diameter and surfactant type. The characterizing
properties of surfactants include solubility, surface pressure, cation concentration, organic
concentration, molecular weight, etc. As a result, generalizations based only on overall mass
concentration are difficult since different surfactants can have different levels of effectiveness.
For example, consider a 1.6 mm bubble in water with a surfactant concentration of 10
3
g/L of
either sodium dodecyl sulfate or the more effective Triton X100 as shown in Fig. 2.18. The
former yields a clean bubble whereas the latter yields a fullycontaminated bubble.
66
Water itself is often classified as tap water, distilled water or hyperclean water, each of
which can be assigned an approximate surfactant concentration level as shown in Table 2.2.
Distilled water is obtained by heating to form steam which is condensed elsewhere, leaving
behind impurities which have higher boiling points than water. However, many organic
substances are easily dissolved in water and have similar or lower boiling point then water,
making them notoriously difficult to remove. In order to further purify water, various filtration
systems (deionization, reverse osmosis, etc.) and UV light are employed to remove surfactants
and produce “hyperclean” water. Even with these techniques, a clean condition in terms of
bubble surface mobilization can only be expected for bubbles of diameters greater than 0.7 mm
for hyperclean water. As a result, few, if any, researchers have obtained clean conditions for
bubbles with diameters less than 0.5 mm in water solutions.
Comparing Deformation in Liquids vs. Gases
It is interesting to compare the shape regimes for
*
p
ρ »1 and
*
p
ρ «1. The theoretical and
experimental qualitative boundaries for the different shape categories are shown in Fig. 2.19.
Here it can be seen that the approximate criterion for onset of ellipsoidal shape is We>2 for
water drops in air and We>0.8 for uncontaminated bubbles in water. Similarly, comparing Fig.
2.11b with 2.14b indicates that although the drop has a larger Weber number and Bond number,
the bubble has a larger deformation. This indicates that bubbles are more readily deformed for
a given dynamic pressure. This difference can be attributed to the weak internal circulation for
a drop in a gas compared to that for a clean bubble. As a result, the bubble has higher
pressures in the aft portion and lower pressures at the sides for a given dynamic pressure as
compared to that for a drop at the same Re
p
. This effect can be explained by looking at Fig.
1.26. A clean bubble (which does not have flow separation) yields a pressure distribution close
to that of inviscid potential flow while the pressure distribution for a drop is close to that for a
subcritical solid sphere. The more exaggerated pressure variation found for the bubble
translates into higher deformations as compared to those for a drop at the same Weber number.
This also explains why contaminated bubbles (which can have flow separation) exhibit less
deformation than clean bubbles (Fig. 2.19).
The differences in the surface pressure distribution coupled with hydrostatic gradients also
result in different shape asymmetry with respect to the upstream (foreportion) and
downstream (aftportion) of the fluid particle. In particular, a drop in a gas yields a flatter
portion on the upstream portion (bottom surface) while a bubble in a liquid yields a flatter
portion near the aftportion (though this happens to also be on the bottom surface). This
difference will be discussed in §2.4.1 to explain why bubble shapes are more stable than drop
shapes. In particular, droplets will tend to break up at Weber numbers on the order of 10 while
the spherical cap bubble shape can be stable at Weber numbers on the order of 100 or more.
2.3. Dynamics of Particle Orientation, Size and Shape
Various phenomena can lead to timedependent changes in particle orientation, size and
shape. Even in the simple case of a particle accelerating from rest to its terminal velocity, there
can be significant changes in the particle orientation and shape. For example, a solid particle
67
may experience changes in its orientation if it is nonspherical and a fluid particle may deform
as its relative velocity increases. Continuousphase flow gradients (especially turbulence) can
also cause orientation dynamics, deformations, and even particle breakup. Continuousphase
pressure fluctuations can also cause a gas bubble to undergo significant size oscillations, which
can lead to nonspherical shapes and eventually cause breakup at high amplitudes. In the
following, the controlling physics of these phenomena are overviewed. Techniques to describe
these interactions for pointforce particles will be discussed in Chapter 7, whereas Chapter 8
will discuss resolvedsurface methods which automatically capture such effects for individual
particles (without the need for analytical or empirical models).
2.3.1. Orientation Dynamics in FreeFall
When a particle is spherical, its trajectory in freefall is generally rectilinear and
parallel to the direction of gravity. However, nonspherical particles can undergo various types
of “secondary” motion with respect to their shape orientation (e.g., the particle axis of
symmetry may oscillate about the axis of gravity) and/or with respect to their path orientation
(e.g., the particle trajectory may oscillate about a vertical line). The capability for such
motions is related to a particle’s wake, which is determined by its shape and Reynolds number
for solid particles. In addition, fluid particles can have flow recirculation and dynamic shapes
which lead to further complexity. The orientation dynamics of solid and fluid particles are
discussed in the following sections for the simple condition of freefall in a quiescent
continuousflow. It should be noted that three secondorder tensors can be used to describe
the orientation dynamics associated with surface forces and torque for a general particle shape
(Clift et al. 1978). However, we will forgo such complexity until Chapter 6, and instead
discuss here the dynamics for some simple shapes and conditions.
Solid Particles
The most commonly studied nonspherical particle shape is the spheroid. Many other non
spherical particles can be roughly approximated as spheroids, so that this shape is an important
baseline condition. One can consider the dynamics of these particles for the Stokes flow limit,
intermediate Reynolds numbers, and the Newtonbased drag limit. At creeping flow
conditions (Re
p
→0), a constantdensity spheroidal particle with a moderate aspect ratio will
experience negligible torque if the axis of symmetry is located either exactly parallel or
perpendicular to the direction of gravity. However, its preferred orientation of falling will be
with the longest dimension(s) perpendicular to the gravity direction, i.e. falling “broadside”,
due to stability considerations. To see this, consider a needle particle falling in the “length
wise” or “vertical” direction where the axis of symmetry parallel to gravity. A slight angular
perturbation from this lengthwise orientation will yield a torque which tends to exaggerate this
perturbation (similar to an airfoil at an angle of attack) so that the vertical orientation is
dynamically unstable (Galdi et al. 2002). In fact, this instability is the reason why an arrow,
rocket or bullet (which can be approximated as prolate spheroids) must be stabilized with fins
or a spin velocity in order to retain a streamwise orientation with lower frontal area to allow
less drag and higher speeds. Now consider the same needle falling broadside. An angular
68
perturbation from this orientation will yield a torque which tends to counter this perturbation,
thus returning the particle to its original orientation. This preferred orientation is consistent
with that found for oblate ellipsoidal fluid particles in free fall (Figs. 2.11b and 2.14b), even
though it has higher drag.
In some exceptions, a particle at low Reynolds numbers will not necessarily prefer the
broadside orientation. This includes the presence of neighboring particles (or nearbywalls)
which oppose a change in orientation through threeway coupling effects such that the vertical
orientation can be preferred. Also, nonNewtonian viscous properties for the continuousphase
can cause the pointeddown orientation to be stable (Galdi et al. 2002). In addition, very small
particles for which Kn
p
is no longer small can have their orientations perturbed by random
molecular collisions, a process referred to as Brownian motion (§3.6). Finally, irregularly
shaped particles generally do not possess a torquefree equilibrium orientation. Instead, they
are typically unstable for all orientations and thus rotate and tumble in freefall.
At moderate Reynolds numbers (about Re
p
<100), the preferred orientations and
dynamics of a solid particle in freefall are similar to those for creeping flow conditions. For
example, ellipsoids, cylinders, and disks will tend to freefall with a broadside orientation (e.g.,
Fig. 2.20) and irregularlyshaped particles will tumble but have a pathaveraged orientation
which is approximately broadside (Gogus et al. 2001).
At higher Reynolds numbers (about Re
p
>100), nonspherical particles will typically fall
in a broadside condition but with significant secondary motion due to the presence of strong
unsteadiness in their wakes. For spheroids with significant eccentricity (E<0.5 or E>2),
terminal trajectories may exhibit substantial periodic movement in which the minor axis rotates
to trace out a cone or tumbles endoverend motion. A wellstudied particle shape for this
secondary motion is that of a circular disk (a very low aspect ratio oblate ellipsoid). In freefall
at high Reynolds numbers, the disk motion can be complex and depends on the particle’s
moment of inertia about the broadside axis. In particular, Willmarth (1964) observed four
types of motion for disks (Fig. 2.21): a) “steadymotion” falling in the broadside orientation, b)
“periodicmotion” with back and forth oscillations, c) “chaotic motion” which continually
transitions between periodic and tumbling motion, and d) “tumblingmotion” with endover
end flips. For the periodicmotion, any initial disturbance results in a continuous back and
forth motion whereby the particle slides at an angle towards one direction, flattens out, and
then repeats this motion in the other direction (Fig. 2.21b). For the intermediate unsteady
condition known as chaoticmotion, the periodic motion is enhanced to larger amplitudes until
tumbling sets in, but this tumbling is not preserved and instead it abruptly transitions back to
the periodic mode after some time, whereby the process can be repeated (Fig. 2.21c). Thus,
this motion regime will also have a mean horizontal glide in between that of periodicmotion
and tumblemotion. The tumblemotion results in trajectories where the slide motion becomes
so exaggerated that it points the outward edge upwards and the inner edge downward,
reversing the process (Fig. 2.21d). The horizontal drift associated with the chaotic and
tumbling motion can be quite substantial and because of this Stringham et al. (1969) classified
the regime as “glidetumble”. Many of these motions can be observed in nature through the
fall of leaves and seeds to the ground.
In order to characterize the different regimes of the disk trajectories, a nondimensional
moment of inertia can be defined (Willmarth, 1964) based on disk geometry and density ratio
69
*
p p *
5
f
d
d 64d
⊥
⊥
πρ
≡ =
ρ

I
I 2.48
In this relationship, d
⊥
is the disk diameter and d
║
is the disk thickness based on notation of Fig.
2.7a. Based on experiments, a regime map was constructed as a function of I* and Re
p
as
shown in Fig. 2.22. This map shows that steadymotion is found for all particles with
Reynolds numbers of 100 or less. This is consistent with the stable trajectory expected for
broadside ellipsoids at low Reynolds numbers. At higher Reynolds numbers, the unsteadiness
in the wake prevents stable trajectories and instead tumbling motion is observed for particles
with Re
p
>100 and I*>0.04. For high I*, the tumbling motion is more periodic with little
horizontal drift. Intermediate inertias at these Reynolds numbers tend to cause chaotic motion,
while lower inertias give rise to periodic motion without the disk flipping over.
In comparisons to disks, other nonspherical shapes tend to have less secondary motion.
In particular, Stringham et al. (1969) noted that oblate spheroids with E>0.5 are less prone to
orientation dynamics as compared to disks (consistent with having lower nondimensional
inertias than disks) and will only have minor periodic oscillations for Re
p
<10
4
. Cylinders and
prolate spheroids tend to fall broadside at Re
p
>100 but with secondary motions which are a
function of d / d
⊥ 
and
*
p
ρ (Clift et al. 1978).
Fluid Particles
As discussed in §2.2, droplets freefalling in a gas will tend to have spherical shapes at
low Bond numbers and Reynolds numbers. This spherical symmetry leads to torquefree
conditions, such that rectilinear motion is obtained for terminal velocity conditions. As
deformation increases yielding oblate spheroids or more distorted shapes, the trajectory will
generally retain a steady rectilinear condition for Re
p
<200. However, higher Reynolds
numbers will yield an unsteady wake accompanied by lateral periodic trajectory oscillations
(deVries et al. 2001). These motions are qualitatively consistent with those for ellipsoidal
solid particles, i.e., they generally fall in to the “rocking” regime (equivalent to the periodic
motion defined for disks) for moderate aspect ratios. However, the tumbling regime noted for
solid particles with low aspect ratios (about 0.3 or less) is not generally observed for highly
deformed fluid particles and instead nearly rectilinear motion is more common.
For bubbles and drops in a liquid, spherical shapes again give rise to a rectilinear path in
quiescent flow. The appearance of oblate ellipsoidal shapes is often followed a secondary
motion phenomena with respect to particle shape orientation and pathlines, e.g. the “rocking”
motion shown in Fig. 2.23. The minimum diameter for which secondary motion occurs is
sometime referred to as the oscillation diameter (d
osc
) and is on the order of 1.31.7 mm for air
in water. The onset of secondary motion is typically categorized with “zigzag” trajectories
(sinusoidal motion within a plane) or “spiral” trajectories (3D helicoidal motion). The zigzag
motion is closely contained within a single vertical plane but the spiral motion yields a
trajectory which approximately circumscribes a vertical elliptical cylinder surface. Examples
of trajectories are shown for a bubble in water in Fig. 2.24 where the lateral amplitude
deviation is denoted by A
osc
. In tap water, the motion is typically helicoidal for 1.3 mm ≤ d ≤
2.0 mm, zigzag followed by helicoidal for 2.0 mm ≤ d ≤ 3.6 mm, and just zigzag for 3.6 mm
70
≤ d ≤ 6 mm (Clift et al. 1978; Ellingsen and Risso, 2001). Larger bubbles between 7 mm and
15 mm in diameter result in approximately rectilinear motion with rocking (Aybers & Tapucu
1969). Finally, spherical cap bubbles (d > 15 mm) yield a return to nearly rectilinear motion,
though weak rocking can still occur for turbulent wake conditions (Fan & Tsuchiya,
1993).
Measurements of perturbation amplitude from the mean path (A
osc
) for a variety of bubble
diameters are shown in Fig. 2.25 for air in water. While there is significant variation, the
amplitude in quiescent conditions is generalized herein as
osc osc osc
3.5 mm d d 6.5 mm 0 mm ≈ < < ≈ A for else A
2.49
Thus the lateral zigzag motion can be approximated using a frequency (f
osc
) as:
( )
osc osc osc o
y sin 2 t t ⎡ ⎤ ≈ π −
⎣ ⎦
A f
2.50
The lateral motion can be extended to approximate helicoidal motion by superimposing a
similar x
osc
expression which is π/2 out of phase with y
osc
. For air bubbles between 1 and 6
mm in diameter, the zigzag frequency (f
osc
) in water is about 7 Hz, while the spiraling
frequency is about 5 Hz (Mercier & Forslund, 1973).
While the above may serve as general guidelines, deVries et al. (2001) and Wu & Gharib
(2002) noted that water purity and release mechanism can affect the secondary motion in terms
of A
oscl
, f
osc
and especially d
osc
. In particular, the oscillation diameter for secondary motion
may vary substantially as shown in Table 2.3 depending of fluid type, contamination level and
temperature. In general, cleaner conditions and lower Morton numbers (e.g., for warmer
conditions) allow for larger oscillation diameters, but there are additional influences of
viscosity ratio, Weber number and Reynolds number which influence this transition. Although
not included in the above equations, the trajectory oscillations can result in a net horizontal
drift away from the vertical axis, but this is generally limited to a small fraction of A
osc
over a
single oscillation (Mercier & Forslund, 1973).
Nonrectilinear motion is generally a result of the wake dynamics but it is not necessarily
caused by unsteady vortex shedding (as is the case for solid ellipsoidal particles). This was
confirmed with experiments using shadowgraphs of the bubble trajectory during spiraling
motion as shown in Fig. 2.26a where the flow is clearly attached with a laminar wake. It can
also be seen that the wake is “doublethreaded” since it consists of two counterrotating vortex
filaments due to the ellipsoidal shape. The curvature of these filaments leads to a wake
induced lift on the bubble, which causes an instantaneous sideways force. This movement, in
turn, leads to asymmetric production of vorticity in the filament during its lateral motion such
that the side force causes a change in direction, resulting in zigzag or spiral behavior (deVries,
et al. 2001). For Re
p
greater than about 1000 (or less at higher surfactant levels), a
conventional unsteady wake shedding phenomenon will occur and the trajectory oscillation
amplitudes tend to increase, though some evidence of the two counterrotating filaments can
still be seen near the bubble surface (Fig. 2.26b). In most of these cases, the bubble shape does
not change (or changes very little), whereas the orientation changes significantly.
The oscillation frequency and amplitude of bubble trajectories in quiescent conditions will
similarly occur when the surrounding liquid is moving so long as the relative velocity is
considered. The pervasiveness of this motion even in turbulent flow conditions was observed
in the experiments of Ford & Loth
(1998) where the motion relative to the instantaneous
continuousfluid flow exhibited similar amplitude and oscillation frequencies as seen for
71
quiescent conditions (Fig. 2.27). This indicates that the correlation between the bubble wake
and its dynamics is approximately preserved in tap water even when subjected to a
substantially unsteady and nonuniform surrounding.
2.3.2. Orientation Dynamics in Simple Shear Flow
In the following, solid and fluid particles are considered with respect to their motion and
orientation in a simple shear flow defined by Eq. A.34.
Solid Particles
Solid particles in a linear shear flow (Fig. A.3a) can undergo complex dynamics with
respect to shape orientation. For creeping flow conditions, Jeffrey (1922) showed analytically
that this condition causes the axis of symmetry of a spheroid to rotate in a periodic orbit for a
given aspect ratio (Fig. 2.28). The timescale for this motion is given by
shear
2 1
E
E
ω
π ⎛ ⎞
τ = +
⎜ ⎟
ω
⎝ ⎠
2.51
This behavior has been confirmed experimentally for ellipsoidal particles by Gauthier et al.
(1998). These orbits are also a function of the initial condition such that the trajectory never
theoretically forgets its original orientation and maintains a specific orbit. However, random
forcing due to Brownian motion or turbulence can result in transition between various orbits.
Similar behavior has also been observed for approximately ellipsoidal particles such as
cylinders and disks, though with somewhat modified rotation rates. If a gravitational force is
also important to the motion (i.e. terminal velocities on the order of tip rotation velocities),
then the dynamics can be either stabilized or enhanced depending on the relationship between
the shear forces and body forces stemming from the particle’s orientation to gravity (Broday et
al. 1998). In addition, particles without foreandaft symmetry (such as Figs. 2.8 & 2.10) will
generally have a chaotic tumbling motion while undergoing shear since the axis of drag will
not necessarily be along the center of mass, resulting in a net torque.
Fluid Particles
Under continuousfluid shear with negligible gravity (especially for immiscible drops in a
liquid where
*
p
ρ ~1), the fluid particle will stretch. The strength of the shear (Eq. A.34) can be
compared to the viscous forces by defining a shearbased Reynolds number
2
f shear
f
d
Re
ω
ρ ω
≡
μ
2.52
For linear shear applied to an initially spherical particle stretching will produce an ellipsoidal
shape with the longdimension oriented in the direction of shear (Fig. 2.29). Cox (1969) found
that the particle shape for Re
ω
→0 is an ellipsoid where the three diameters are give by the
ratios E
1/2
:1:E
1/2
and where the longest and shortest diameters are in the shear plane
72
(perpendicular to the vorticity vector). He also noted that deformation increases proportional
to the shear Capillary number (Ca
ω
) which can be related to a deformation timescale (τ
σ
) as:
f
shear shear
d
Ca
ω σ
μ ⎛ ⎞
≡ ω = τ ω
⎜ ⎟
σ
⎝ ⎠
2.53
The shear Capillary number is an indicator of the ratio of shear stresses to surface tension
stresses. For long times (t»τ
σ
) and small deformations (Ca
ω
«1), the equilibrium orientation
angle for the fluid particle is theoretically given by:
*
p 1
19 Ca
1
tan
4 2 40
ω −
σ
⎛ ⎞ μ
π
θ = +
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
2.54
This angle approaches 45
o
for weak shear and approaches 90
o
for high shear. An example of a
stretched fluid particle is shown in Fig. 2.29 where the theoretical angle is reasonable.
However, higher deformations can lead to breakup (to be discussed later).
2.3.3. Size Oscillations for Bubbles
Fluid particles can also deform radially with changes to their overall volume if the particle
material is significantly compressible. In particular, bubbles can undergo significant size
oscillations. To describe this phenomenon, one must relate the change in the bubble pressure
to change in the bubble volume. This involves the equation of state and the dynamics of the
surrounding liquid. For weak volumetric oscillations, the bubble remains nearly spherical and
the volume change can be simply related to the change in diameter. The analysis for a
spherical compressible bubble surrounded by an incompressible liquid was first obtained by
Lord Raleigh in 1917. He assumed a uniform internal pressure and neglected surface tension,
gravity, and viscosity effects. The effects of surface tension and viscosity were added by
Plesset in 1949 resulting in the wellknown RaleighPlesset equation which is overviewed
below and further details are given by Brennen (1995).
Consider a gas bubble of radius r
p
, of density ρ
g
, and pressure P
g
that is surrounded by an
incompressible liquid of density ρ
l
and pressure P. Assume that all the motion is radial with a
spherical coordinate system emanating from the bubble center (r=0) as shown in Fig. 2.30.
The liquid velocity is only radial U
r
and is equal to the interface velocity at r=r
p
:
( ) ( )
p r p r p
r U r , t V r , t ≡ = `
2.55
Considering any spherical surface in the surrounding liquid region (r>r
p
), conservation of mass
necessitates that the liquid flux though any such surface be conserved if the liquid is
incompressible and no mass transfer occurs, i.e.
2 2
r p p
r U r r const. = = `
2.56
The conservation of momentum from the incompressible NavierStokes equation with only
radial variations (Eq. A.58a and A.59) is
2 r r r
r r 2
U U U 1 P 1
u r 2U
t r r r r r
⎡ ⎤ μ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
+ = − + −
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
∂ ∂ ρ ∂ ρ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
l
l l
2.57
73
Substituting, the expression for U
r
from Eq. 2.56 into Eq. 2.57 and solving for the radial
pressure gradient outside of the bubble (Batchelor, 1967) yields
( ) ( )
2
2 2
p p p p 2 5
1 P 1 2
r r r r
r r t r
∂ ∂
− = −
ρ ∂ ∂
` `
l
2.58
Note that the viscous terms have conveniently dropped out of this expression and that the RHS
consists of only timederivative terms. Integrating this momentum equation to the farfield
(r→∞) relates the surface liquid pressure (P
surf
) to the farfield liquid pressure (P
∞
) as
( )
( )
2
2
p p
2 surf
p p 4
r r
P P 1
r r
r t 2r
∞
− ∂
= −
ρ ∂
`
`
l
2.59
To solve this ODE one must obtain a state relationship between the liquid pressure and the
bubble radius. This can be obtained by examining the force balance across the bubble interface
assuming that the bubble pressure is uniform throughout and defined as P
g
. The liquid pressure
on the outside surface of the bubble can be defined as the interface pressure which is uniform if
the bubble is stationary (w=0). The pressure difference across the interface can be obtained
from Eq. 1.58a assuming negligible internal viscosity and then related to
p
r` by Eq. 2.56 as:
surf
r
p
surf p p p
P P
4 U 2 2
2 r
r r r r
−
μ μ ∂ σ σ ⎛ ⎞
= − = +
⎜ ⎟
ρ ρ ρ ∂ ρ ρ
⎝ ⎠
`
g
l l
l l l l l
2.60
Combining this result with Eq. 2.59 relates bubble pressure to the interface acceleration (
p
r `` ) as:
( )
2
p
p p p
p p
P P 4 r
3 2
r r r
2 r r
∞
− ν
σ
= + + +
ρ ρ
`
`` `
g l
l l
2.61
Thus, surface tension dictates the pressure difference for the steadystate equilibrium condition.
Further assuming that the bubble pressure is based on an ideal gas (Eq. A.21) yields:
,eq ,eq ,eq surf p,eq
P T P 2 / r = ρ = + σ
g g g g
R
2.62
In this equation, r
p,eq
is the equilibrium bubble radius based on
p
r 0 = ` and R
g
is the gas constant
for the bubble fluid.
In order to close the ODE, we must relate the bubble radius to the bubble pressure by an
equation of state for the gas (based on conservation of energy) and a densityvolume
relationship (based on conservation of mass). The corresponding relationship for pressure,
density, and radius ratios can be given in a generalized form as:
p,eq
,eq ,eq p
3
P r
P r
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ρ
= = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
ρ
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
g g
g g
g g
K K
2.63
In this equation, K
g
is the gas compressibility exponent where K
g
=γ for isentropic conditions
(Eq. A.27) and K
g
=1 for isothermal conditions (T
g
=T
l
). The isentropic limit is reasonable for
fast dynamics and negligible heat transfer, i.e. rapidly oscillating large bubbles with a high
volume to surface ratio. The isothermal condition is reasonable when heat transfer dominates,
i.e. slow dynamics of small bubbles so that the temperature of the surrounding liquid dictates
the bubble temperature.
Substituting Eq. 2.63 into Eq. 2.61 yields the generalized RaleighPlesset ODE:
74
( )
3
2
,eq p,eq p
p p p
p p p
P r 4 r
P 2 3
r r r
r r 2 r
∞
⎛ ⎞ ν
σ
− − = + +
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
ρ ρ ρ
⎝ ⎠
`
`` `
g
K
g l
l l l
2.64
This equation can be solved numerically for the general case once the initial conditions and
boundary conditions are specified. An important characteristic of this equation is the natural
frequency of the system, f
nat
. This can be obtained by linearizing the above ODE and
considering small perturbations about the equilibrium condition as discussed by Brennen
(1995). The resulting natural frequency is given by:
2
nat 2 2
p,eq p,eq
1
3 P 2(3 1)
4 r r
∞
⎡ ⎤
σ
= + −
⎢ ⎥
π ρ
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
g g
l
f K K
2.65
For bubble diameters on the order of 100 μm or more, surface tension can generally be
neglected. Furthermore, such bubble diameters will have natural frequencies much greater
than that of the bubble thermal response (Eq. 1.93b) so that an isentropic (vs. isothermal)
description is appropriate. These conditions yield the Minnaert (1933) frequency:
( )
2 2
nat eq
3 P d
∞
= γ π ρ
l
f 2.66
For example, a 3 mm diameter bubbles at small depths will yield a Minnaert frequency of
about 2 kHz. For smaller bubbles, viscosity, surface tension and even vapor pressure effects
become important so that frequencies for bubbles of radius 1100 μm are limited to about 4
kHz. Note that these frequencies are much higher than the 57 Hz associated with secondary
motion of bubble trajectories (§2.3.1), so that the two mechanisms are uncorrelated.
Consider a bubble subjected to a sinusoidal pressure oscillation of low frequency (f«f
nat
)
such that it has an isothermal response (K
g
=1). If the amplitudes are also weak (ε«1), the
imposed pressure can be expressed as:
[ ]
eq
P P 1 sin(2 t) = + πf ε
2.67
In this case, the liquid radial momentum is negligible so that the RHS of Eq. 2.64 is neglected
and internal bubble pressure and radius are given by the quasisteady values:
[ ]
( )
,eq
1/3
p p,eq
P P 1 sin(2 t)
r r 1 sin 2 t
−
= + π
⎡ ⎤ = + π
⎣ ⎦
g g
f
f
ε
ε
2.68a
2.68b
Such a result is shown in Fig. 2.31 for f = f
nat
/20 and 1/ 20 = ε , whereby the internal pressure is
at a maximum when the radius is at a minimum, and the latter has nondimensional oscillation
amplitudes which are smaller than that for the pressure. One may also consider a bubble which
is initially set in motion based on Eq. 2.68 within a finite liquid volume. If the surrounding
fluid is incompressible and inviscid, there will be no damping or radiation loss and the radial
motion will be selfsustaining, i.e. the dynamics may continue indefinitely. Incorporation of a
finite viscosity and/or finite liquid compressibility will convert the kinetic energy of the system
into unrecoverable thermal energy and thus damp out the behavior while incorporation of a far
field pressure will serve as a sink for the radiated energy.
75
An interesting and different result occurs when faster bubble oscillations occur with
frequencies that are on the order of f
nat
. In this case, the dynamics governed by Eq. 2.64 must
be solved numerically if the amplitudes are no longer asymptotically small. For a continuous
external forcing given by finiteamplitude sinusoidal farfield pressure oscillation, the
corresponding radial dynamics are quite different than that given by the quasisteady case.
For example, Fig. 2.32 shows pressure and radial oscillations for inviscid conditions (generally
reasonable for airwater bubbles greater than 30 μm in diameter) for bubbles excited by
frequencies on the order of the natural frequency by an ambient pressure oscillation with an
amplitude of 0.35 = ε . In these cases, one may observe a dramatically larger and more
complex bubble radius sensitivity to pressure fluctuations as compared to the quasisteady case.
Indeed, sonoluminescence and use of microbubble as a contrastagent (§1.2.2 and §1.2.3)
take advantage of this sensitivity. The condition with f =0.8 f
nat
yields very sharp decreases in
the bubble radius during some of the contractions. This is related to the large inertia of the
surrounding liquid which causes the surrounding fluid motion to continue contracting even
though the bubble pressure has started to rise above the equilibrium condition. As a result, the
bubble continues to contract significantly below the minimum radius given by the quasisteady
oscillation and this contraction builds up a higher gas pressure until the inward liquid motion is
eliminated. After this point, there is a rapid outward expansion. Near the maximum bubble
diameter, there is also a tendency for the liquid to continue moving outward despite the local
bubble pressure dropping below the farfield condition. The condition with f=1.8f
nat
yields
radius variations with less amplitude but which are more nonlinear.
Since forcing near the natural frequency causes much larger amplitude oscillations than
that of the nonresonant conditions, accurate analysis of this condition generally requires
inclusion of both liquid compressibility and more detailed internal gas dynamics. To
incorporate liquid compressibility with a finite speed of sound in the liquid (a
l
) , Keller &
Kolodner (1956) used a spherical unsteady counterpart of Eq. A.45 for constant speed of sound
to obtain a linearized waveequation for the liquid velocity potential outside of the bubble:
2
2
2 2
1
a t
∂ Φ
= ∇ Φ
∂
l
2.69
If the velocity potential is known from this ODE, the liquid pressure distribution can be
determined with the spherical Bernoulli equation given the initial pressure (P
init
) at t=0:
( ) ( )
2
1
init
2
P P / t / r
⎡ ⎤
= −ρ ∂Φ ∂ + ∂Φ ∂
⎣ ⎦
l
2.70
This equation can be applied at the interface with Eq. 2.60 to relate the liquid velocity potential
to the bubble radius. If viscosity and surface tension are neglected (reasonable if the bubble is
not small), the resulting boundary conditions are given by
surf p
p p
P P r=r
r / r r=r
=
= ∂Φ ∂ `
g
at
at
2.71a
2.71b
These boundary conditions, coupled with the bubble state relation (Eq. 2.63) and the governing
ODE (Eq. 2.69) can be used to solve the bubble dynamics given initial (equilibrium) conditions.
However, numerical methods are needed as this system is nonlinear. Assuming that the radius
oscillations are small, Keller & Kolodner linearized the differential equation to give an
analytical solution:
76
init init init p
1 2 2 2
p,eq p,eq p,eq
3 P 3 P 3 P r
1 c exp cos 1 t c
r 2 a r r a
⎛ ⎞
⎛ ⎞
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
= + − − +
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ρ ρ ρ
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
g g g
l l l l l
K K K
2.72
In this equation, c
1
and c
2
are constants based on the initial amplitude and phase angle of the
bubble oscillations. This result is an exponentially damped sinusoidal oscillation which shows
that the oscillations will reduce in magnitude due to finite speed of sound. Note that as a
l
→∞
(tending to an incompressible surrounding liquid), the damping effect is eliminated and an
impulsively started oscillation will continue unabated at the natural frequency given by Eq.
2.65.
A condition of a bubble oscillation that particularly requires compressibility condition is
that of a stepfunction forcing with high amplitude. An underwater explosion can be
characterized by this condition and will cause strong expansion of the combustion gas products,
which can then lead to oscillating bubble dynamics that decay due to water compressibility.
Figure 2.33 shows experimental data of the gas cloud radius from a 100 meter deep explosion
of 1 kg of tetryl. In addition, the analytical prediction based on the linearized compressibility
correction (given by Eq. 2.72) is shown along with numerical solution for nonlinear
compressibility and dynamics (given by solution of Eqs. 2.64, 2.69, 2.70 and 2.71). In each
case, an equilibrium radius and initial amplitude were selected to fit the experimental data.
The dynamics and decay resulting from acoustic energy dissipated outside of the bubble are
accurately predicted at short times (first few cycles) using nonlinear theory, but the longtime
dynamics are reasonably linearized compressibility. Note that the equilibrium radius
physically changed during the oscillations due to continued product release so that a larger r
p,eq
was used for the longtime behavior than was needed to describe the shorttime behavior. This
result indicates that the linearized solution is reasonable for small to moderate amplitude
variations, but that complex behavior associated with very high amplitudes and the spikes in
bubble collapse can only be captured by the nonlinear analysis.
To extend the liquid compressibility and finite relative velocity, Prosperetti (1987) included
a general perturbation analysis to the RayleighPlesset equation, which he combined with the
pressure jump across the interface (Eq. 2.60) and the unhindered pressure (Eq. 1.9e) to yield:
( )
2
1 2 3 2
p p p p p p p p p p
4
p p
4 3 1 1 2
r r r r r 6r r r 2r P P r w
2 a r r
⎛ ⎞
μ σ
⎡ ⎤ + − + + = − − − − ρ
⎜ ⎟
⎣ ⎦
⎜ ⎟
ρ
⎝ ⎠
`` ` ``` ` `` ` `
l
g l l
l l
2.73
The viscous effect is the same as that appearing in Eq. 2.64, while the relative velocity effect is
incorporated through a dynamic pressure (½ρ
l
w
2
) and is significant when the relative velocity
is on the order of the interface speeds (
p
r` ). Liquid compressibility (which changes this to a 3
rd
order ODE ) will also be important if the interface speeds are no longer negligible to the liquid
speed of sound. In such cases, the internal Mach number is likely to be significant such that
there may be internal radial pressure waves (e.g. Eq. 2.63 may not be sufficient to describe gas
pressure throughout). For strong oscillations, heat transfer and nonspherical motion effects
can become important (Feng & Leal, 1997). This is particularly true for sonoluminescence.
For sonoluminescence (Fig. 1.6a), the bubble diameter is very small (a few microns) and
subjected to ultrasonic excitation near the natural frequency. In this case, the assumption of
uniform properties inside the bubble breaks down because of the internal shock wave.
Therefore, this condition requires a description of the radial variation of the gas flow within the
bubble using the Euler equations of motion, e.g., numerical solution of Eq. A.44 written in
77
spherical coordinates (Kameda & Matsumoto, 1996). Secondly, assumptions of an ideal gas
and constant molecular weight can break down such that the use of variable gas constants with
species equations may be needed to provide good comparison with experiment (Feng & Leal,
1997). Moreover, if the interface velocities are no longer small compared to the liquid sound
speed, a more physical description of liquid compressibility, such as the Tait equation given by
Eq. A.24, may be needed. Finally, the surrounding fluid bulk viscosity and thermal
conductivity can also be significant in damping strong oscillations for small bubbles. For
example, viscous and thermal effects were found to be critical in determining the dynamics of
a 3 micron bubble driven by pressure oscillations with 0.3 = ε (Moshaii et al. 2004).
2.3.4. NonSpherical Shape Oscillations for Fluid Particles
This section considers two types of shape oscillations: 1) harmonic modes in response to
external excitations, and 2) tangential oscillations which are selfgenerated. The first type of
shape oscillation modes are important as they can relate to bubble breakup mechanisms, while
the second topic is associated with locomotion (swimming) of microorganisms, which can be
thought of as selfpropelling particles.
Shape Oscillations due to External Perturbations
When a fluid particle is exposed to pressure fluctuations or unsteady conditions, it can
undergo shape oscillations. The simplest condition is the first mode (m=1) which corresponds
to volumetric oscillations for a spherical shape as discussed in the previous section. Higher
modes are called harmonics and differ in that there are asymmetric (nonspherical) shape
oscillations with no volumetric change. The second mode (m=2) corresponds to oscillations
between an oblate ellipsoid on one axis to a sphere to a prolate ellipsoid on a perpendicular
axis and then back again (Fig. 2.34a). Higher modes occur with more complex shapes, e.g., the
m=3 and m=5 conditions will lead to triangular and starlike configurations that oscillate
approximately within a plane (Figs. 2.34b and 2.34c). Turbulence can also excite such shape
oscillations as shown in Fig. 2.35, although with less symmetry.
Lamb (1945) derived the natural frequencies for the simple geometric modes assuming
small oscillations about a spherical shape for a fluid particle immersed in an infinite fluid. To
obtain these frequencies, the velocity potential was employed for sinusoidal oscillations of the
instantaneous particle surface about the equilibrium sphere radius with an internal pressure
based on surface tension and the (linearized) local surface curvature. The natural frequency of
a harmonic mode (m>1) was then found to be
2
nat ,m
3
p f p
m(m 1)(m 1)(m 2)
(m 1) m r
+ − + σ
=
⎡ ⎤ + ρ + ρ
⎣ ⎦
f
2.74
Despite the stringent assumptions of this theory, experiments have shown the predicted
frequencies to be in good agreement for bubbles (Feng & Leal, 1997) and droplets (Azuma &
Yoshihara, 1999). The second mode (Fig. 2.34a) has the lowest frequency given by:
78
2
nat ,2 3
p f p
24
(3 2 )r
σ
=
ρ + ρ
f
2.75
This yields f
nat,2
of 760 Hz for a 1 mm diameter water drop in air, and 950 Hz for a 1 mm gas
bubble in water. The second mode is normally the most important as it is the one most likely
to be initiated. Higher modes may be manifested in controlled conditions with m as high as 10.
However, it is often difficult to singularly excite only one mode since weak asymmetries (e.g.,
due to walls or neighboring particles) often lead to interactions between various shape modes
resulting in complex shape dynamics (Azuma & Yoshihara, 1999).
In general, the nonspherical frequencies are lower than that predicted for the mode 1
spherical oscillation given by Eq. 2.66. However, these frequencies become comparable for
very small bubbles (about 100 μm or less). This can yield significant coupling between the
shape and size oscillations (Feng & Leal, 1997). Such coupling can also lead to bubble break
up during sonoluminescence.
SelfGenerated Shape Oscillations for Swimming Organisms
Many researchers have examined the dynamics of microorganisms with selflocomotion
using analyses of fluid particles, albeit with complex interfaces and shapes. Single and
multiplecell bodies contain fluid like interiors enclosed in a semideformable membrane (often
with finite porosity). The drag on these “particles” is similar to that of contaminated
immiscible drops in a liquid of similar density. However, the important difference is that
microorganisms often use shape oscillations for self propulsion for their survival, e.g. to swim
in the direction of higher food or oxygen content within a liquid. The swimming is often
accomplished by the motion of small (relative to their body size) eukaryotic flagella or cilia on
the organism’s surface (Fig. 2.36a) which move in a coordinated fashion to evoke surface
waves. The surface waves include both tangential and radial motions, and generally map out an
elliptical path (Fig. 2.36b). The radial motion is critical; otherwise, there would not be a net
propulsive force.
The surface traveling waves move from the tip (θ=0) to the base (θ=π), with wavelengths
on the order of 1020% of the body length and radial amplitudes of about 5% of the body
length. These “metachronal waves” have frequencies on the order of 10
2
10
3
Hz for typical
bacterium dimensions. This yields swimming speeds of about 5d/sec, e.g., a 30 μm diameter
body will move roughly 150 μm/sec relative to the surrounding liquid (Brennen & Winet,
1977). The resulting body Reynolds numbers are very small, about 10
6
to 10
3
so that the
creeping flow theory may be used. Theoretical analysis indicates that locomotion efficiency
will be maximized in creeping flow if the vorticity production is minimized (Stone & Samuel,
1996). Therefore, small cilia compared to the body length are best for efficiency, while the
larger flagella are best for maximizing speed.
2.4. Fluid Particle Breakup and Coalescence
Under significant local stresses, a fluid particle may not only deform but also breakup into
two or more smaller particles. The initial particle is sometimes called the “parent” particle and
79
the particles resulting from breakup are sometimes called the “children” particles. There are
thermodynamic mechanisms which can cause fluid particle breakup, such as bubble breakup
by cavitation collapse or drop breakup by internal boiling. However, the focus here is on fluid
dynamic breakup mechanisms due to: RayleighTaylor instabilities (due to density
differences), KelvinHelmholtz instabilities (due to velocity differences), shear deformation,
turbulent interaction and particleparticle collisions. The latter two mechanisms can also lead
to coalescence, especially for fluid particles of similar size.
2.4.1. Breakup due to RayleighTaylor Instabilties
If a fluid particle is subjected to high accelerations and has a density different from that of
the continuousphase, the interface may become unstable. In particular, instabilities are likely
when the deformations due to dynamic pressure become severe such that the surface tension
may be insufficient to maintain the particle’s surface integrity. One may expect such breakup
physics to scale with the Weber number, since it controls the degree of deformation. High
Weber numbers can result from high terminal velocities, a high injection velocity (used to help
break up droplets in the case of internal combustion engine sprays), and surrounding fluid
unsteadiness (e.g., turbulence or shock waves). In most cases, the timedependent instability
which causes breakup can be attributed to the acceleration of the particle’s interface and the
density difference between the phases, as discussed in the following section.
Resulting from Gravitational Acceleration
As noted in Fig. 2.11c, a droplet with a high density ratio (
*
p
ρ »1) at terminal conditions will
typically form an indentation in the upstream portion of the droplet which leads to a bag drop.
The wall of the bag becomes thinner with time until it shatters which also causes breakup of
the toroid rim (Fig. 2.37). The breakup can be traced to the instability which causes the
dimple at the leading surface to grow and eventually form a bag (Fig. 2.12). This mechanism
for this growth is the RayleighTaylor instability.
For the purposes of both physical explanation and theoretical analysis, it is convenient to
examine the RayleighTaylor (RT) instability in terms of two immiscible fluids of different
densities and separated by an initially flat interface (Fig. 2.38a). If the lighter fluid is on the
top (e.g., oil on top of water), the interface is both statically and dynamically stable. If the
denser fluid is on top (e.g., water on top of oil), the interface is only statically stable and any
curvature perturbation can lead to a dynamic instability due to hydrostatic forces. If surface
tension is negligible, a RayleighTaylor can occur when an increase in density occurs in the
direction opposite to gravity. However, the onset of this instability is also sensitive to the
wavelengths since it may be counteracted by capillary forces which scale with surface tension
and the interface diameter (σ/D). For example, a thin tube such as a straw can indefinitely
support a heavier fluid above a lighter fluid. However, a large container can not similarly
support a heavier fluid above a lighter fluid, e.g., hydrostatic force will destabilize a water
layer over a bath of oil if there is a interface is subjected to a perturbations. Thus, larger
wavelengths are more unstable.
80
The RayleighTaylor instability can be analyzed by considering an interface which is
initially steady and nominally horizontal. As a result, both fluids are subjected to gravitational
acceleration normal to the interface, but are otherwise unaccelerated. To determine whether a
disturbance will be damped or excited, one may examine the dynamics of an interface
perturbation. If one assumes that the fluids are incompressible, irrotational and initially
stagnant, this velocity potential satisfies the Laplace equation (Eq. A.37). The potential for a
sinusoidal perturbation of magnitude Φ
o
, wavelength l, and angular frequency f is given by:
2 i(x / t )
o
e
π −
′ Φ = Φ
l f
2.76
In this equation, x is the distance along the interface (Fig. 2.38b). The induced perturbation
velocity field for the above velocity potential can then be used to determine the spatially
varying and unsteady static pressure on either side of the interface with Eq. A.41. The pressure
difference across the interface is simply given by surface tension and surface curvature (Eq.
1.6) for inviscid flow. Assuming that the amplitude of the perturbation is small, one may
derive the dispersion relation for exponential growth rate (Lamb, 1945) from which the
RayleighTaylor instability frequency is identified as:
( )
3
upper lower
RT
upper lower upper lower
1 2 g 2
2
⎡ ⎤ ρ −ρ
π π σ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
= −
⎢ ⎥
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
π ρ +ρ ρ +ρ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
f
l l
2.77
A disturbance will be: unstable if this frequency is real, neutrally stable if this frequency is zero,
and dynamically stable if this frequency is imaginary. Thus, an unstable condition requires
that the first term in square brackets is positive (i.e. ρ
upper
>ρ
upper
) and that the second term is
smaller (low enough surface tension or large enough wavelength). The critical wavelength
associated with a neutrally stable condition (f
RT
=0) is given by:
( )
crit ,RT
upper lower
2
g
σ
= π
ρ −ρ
l
2.78
Thus, l<l
crit,RT
indicates a stable condition while l>l
crit,RT
will lead to instability. The most
unstable wavelength can be obtained by taking the derivative of the f
RT
with respect to the
wavelength and setting this to zero. This yields 3 l
crit,RT
, which is the wavelength where the
disturbances grow the fastest. Viscosity effects will reduce the growth rates of the disturbance
but will not change the critical frequency and wavelengths given by Eqs. 2.77 and 2.78.
The next step is to relate the instability characteristics to the interface of a fluid particle.
The RT instabilities will be most profound at the interface location where the density increase
is in the opposite direction of gravity, i.e. where
p f
(ρ −ρ ⋅ )n g is largest. For a drops in a gas,
this will occur on the lower surface (Fig. 2.39a) while for a bubble it will occur on the lower
surface (Fig. 2.39b). The assumption of an initially flat interface is reasonable in these area if
the Weber number is significantly greater than unity, especially for the case of a drop in a gas
(Fig. 2.11b). The maximum wavelength that can be supported on the particle interface may be
estimated as half the drop circumference. In this case, the critical wavelength (and associated
instability) can be related to the droplet diameter by:
1
2 crit ,RT crit ,RT
d ≈ π l
2.79
Thus, droplets with d<d
crit,RT
are expected to be stable whereas larger drops (which allow larger
wavelengths) are expected to develop an RT instability.
81
The above analysis may be used to determine the maximum droplet size in terminal
velocity conditions. In particular, Eqs. 2.78 and 2.79 show that the critical breakup diameter
corresponds to a critical value of the Bond number (defined in Eq. 2.43) as
2
crit ,RT p f
crit
gd
Bo ~16
ρ −ρ
=
σ
2.80
Thus droplets in terminal velocity freefall with smaller Bond numbers are expected to be
stable, while larger Bond numbers can be expected to breakup. Based on Eq. 2.80, the
predicted maximum terminal size for water drops in air with this criterion is 11 mm which
reasonably matches the experimental observation of about 10 mm. The simple flatinterface
analysis is also consistent with experimental evidence for several fluid particles for which
μ
p
>μ
f
, i.e. drops in a gas and some immiscible drops in a liquid (Clift et al. 1978). Since large
distorted drops at high Re
p
values have a drag coefficient of approximately 8/3 (§6.2.6), this
Bond number can be expressed in terms of a terminal Weber number based on Eq. 2.47b. Thus,
the critical Weber number is given by:
crit ,RT,term
We ~ 8
2.81
Note that this criterion is based on steadystate terminal velocity conditions.
Next we consider why the RayleighTaylor instability has a much weaker impact on a
bubble despite having the same density difference and same surface tension. The difference
can be traced to the local interface shape where the instabilities are generated. For the bubble,
the top interface is expected to be the location where instabilities grow fastest (Fig. 2.39b).
However, unlike the droplet at high Weber numbers, this region of a bubble has significant
convex curvature as shown in Fig. 2.14b (and as discussed in §2.2.2). As such, the bubble will
be more resistant to RayleighTaylor instabilities because: 1) the leadingedge curvature yields
an initial surface tension force which will resist convex (dimple) instabilities, and 2) the
fraction of the interface that is nearly flat is less than that for a drop, and 3) the higher
recirculation rates in bubbles (compared to that in drops) allows instabilities to convect away
from the leading edge before they can cause breakup. As a result, bubbles are much less
sensitive to gravitational RT instabilities than droplets of similar Weber numbers. Droplets in
an immiscible liquid are even less sensitive to RayleighTaylor instabilities since the density
difference is far smaller than for drops in a gas.
Resulting from Particle Acceleration
In the case where the relative particle acceleration is much higher than that dictated by
gravitational conditions, the Bond number is no longer an applicable parameter. To investigate
such conditions, Joseph et al. (1999) conducted experiments with shockinduced instability and
breakup of drops. They noted that bagtype breakup could occur at very high Weber
numbers (about 5,000) as shown in Fig. 2.40a. A closeup image of the drop where the surface
instabilities begin is shown in Fig. 2.40b. This portion is consistent with the region most
susceptible to RayleighTaylor instabilities (Fig. 2.39a) and may thus be analyzed accordingly.
However, one must employ the interface acceleration due to particle acceleration since this is
very high (more than 10
6
m/s
2
) compared to that of gravitational acceleration. If the local
particle acceleration is used in the RayleighTaylor instability criteria of Eqs. 2.78 and 2.79,
the critical wavelength and diameter are given by:
82
crit ,RT
p f
crit ,RT crit ,RT
2
w / t
d 2 /
σ
=
ρ −ρ
≈ π
l
d d
l
2.82a
2.82b
The experimental results showed that instabilities of this wavelength appeared on the droplet
surface (Fig. 2.40b), even at very high Weber numbers (about 5,000). The results suggested
that high accelerations will produce breakup for d>d
crit,RT
given by Eq. 2.82, though further
studies are needed to confirm this result.
Resulting from Interface Radial Acceleration
When a fluid particle is exposed to pressure fluctuations, the resulting size oscillations
(discussed in §2.3.3) can also lead to breakup due to asymmetric instabilities. The breakup
due to size oscillations for liquid droplets in a gas is relatively rare because the relative
incompressibility of the internal liquid yields low accelerations of the radius. However, the
breakup of bubbles due to size oscillation instabilities is widely known to occur because of the
strong sensitivity of the bubble volume to external pressure perturbations. As an example, the
collapse of an acoustically excited bubble can result in several “children” bubbles (Fig. 2.41).
These interface oscillations can be associated with a critical breakup diameter by substituting
p
r `` for particle relative velocity in Eq. 2.82. The frequencies for such oscillations are typically
much higher than that associated with RayleighTaylor instabilities, so that these two processes
are effectively decoupled. For example, a 6 mm diameter bubble will have a natural volume
oscillation frequency of about 8 kHz (Eq. 2.66) whereas the most unstable RayleighTaylor
frequency can be found by Eq. 2.77 to be about 6 Hz.
2.4.2. Breakup due to KelvinHelmholtz Instabilities
The KelvinHelmholtz (KH) instability is associated with flows which have tangential
velocities that vary in magnitude. It is caused by hydrodynamic amplification of perturbations
and can arise on a interface which has a velocity discontinuity as shown in Fig. 2.42. For this
idealized condition, a sinusoidal surface wave (Fig. 2.38b) will tend to cause a local increase in
the upper velocity on its crest based on potential flow (similar to the velocity increase seen
around the sides of an inviscid sphere). This, in turn, will cause a lower local pressure on the
crest which serves to pull the crest higher. The opposite will occur in the wave valley, i.e. the
local velocity will decrease causing the pressure to increase further which serves to push the
indention downward. The amplification of the surface wave perturbations results in interface
instabilities. A classic example of this is windinduced wave instabilities on a body of water.
In this case, perturbations are amplified by the above KH mechanism but are stabilized by
gravitational forces which tend to make the interface flat. This balance effectively determines
the wave height. Another example is that of a shear layer as shown by Fig. A.5, where a
velocity difference between two parallel flowing streams results in eddy and braid structures.
In both fluids are of the same density and are miscible with low viscosity, there are no
stabilizing gravitational or surface tension forces to deter the instabilities so that they lead to
turbulent flow for any wavelength (Fig. A.5c). However, if the two immiscible fluids are
83
separated by an interface, the KH instabilities are limited to a critical wavelength based surface
tension. To determine this wavelength, one may again use inviscid potential flow theory
(Drazin, & Reid, 1981). The resulting dispersion relation for a perturbed planar interface
yields a KH instability frequency given by:
2 flow
KH flow flow
flow stag flow
1 2
U U
⎡ ⎤
⎛ ⎞
⎛ ⎞ ρ πσ
⎢ ⎥
= ± −
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
ρ ρ +ρ ⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
f
l l
2.83
An unstable condition corresponds to a real root and this can be used to determine the critical
length scale as:
flow stag
crit ,KH 2
flow stag flow
2
U
⎛ ⎞ ρ +ρ
πσ
=
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
ρ ρ
⎝ ⎠
l
2.84
Therefore, a given wavelength is more likely to be unstable as the velocity increases or as the
surface tension reduces.
To translate the above instability analysis for an initial flat interface to that of a fluid
particle, one may assume that the fluid inside the particle is approximately stagnant (so that
ρ
stag
=ρ
p
) while the continuousphase velocity over the surface drives the instabilities as shown
in Fig. 2.42 (so that ρ
flow
=ρ
f
). Furthermore, the fluid velocity over the surface (U
flow
) can be
assumed to be proportional to the particle relative velocity (w) and the critical wavelength
(l
crit,KH
) will be proportional to the critical particle diameter for breakup (d
crit,KH
). This may be
used to define the critical Weber number and relate this to the fluid densities, while
experiments may be used to determine the constants of proportionality:
( )
2
p f
f crit ,KH
crit ,KH
p
w d
We 12
ρ +ρ
ρ
≡ ≈
σ ρ
2.85
For the condition of
*
p
ρ »1 (droplets in a gas at high Re
p
), this corresponds to We
crit
≈12 which
is the wellknown dynamic criterion of Taylor (1949). Note that the constant of proportionality
is difficult to predict theoretically since the edges of a fluid particle will have large curvature
and will be highly convection. Nevertheless, some researchers have obtained a critical Weber
number assuming V
1
≈w and assuming the most unstable wavelength (instead of the critical
wavelength) should be used, which yields the same RHS as Eq. 2.85 except with 4π=12.57 as
the constant, so that the difference is minor. For droplets moving at high velocities (e.g., due
to spray injection), We
crit
~12 has been found to be a reasonably accurate predictor for the
breakup which typically occurs with the bagtype mode of Fig. 2.37 whereas higher Weber
numbers (e.g. We>50) lead to “aerodynamic sheetstripping” and “explosive” breakup modes
(Theofanous et al. 2004).
Several researchers have also noted that viscous effects can stabilize a drop and allow
increased critical Weber numbers. To characterize this influence, it is convenient to define the
Ohnesorge numbers based on the respective viscosities and densities of either the surrounding
fluid or of the particle fluid:
84
1/4
f
f
p f
*
p p
p f
*
p
p
We Mo
Oh
Re Bo d
Oh Oh
d
μ ⎛ ⎞
≡ = =
⎜ ⎟
ρ σ ⎝ ⎠
μ μ
≡ =
ρ σ
ρ
2.86a
2.86b
These two dimensionless parameters respectively relate external and internal viscous stresses
to surface tension stresses. Often, Oh
p
is typical larger than Oh
f
for drops in a gas so that one
may expect Oh
p
(i.e. internal stresses) to dominate the viscous influence. Based on
experiments for drops with Oh
p
values as high as 5, Pilch & Erdman (1987) proposed the
following empirical dynamic correlation for drop breakup:
( )
1.6
crit ,KH p
We 12 1 1.07Oh = +
2.87
However, this viscous correction is approximate since it is based on particular set of test
conditions and since RT instabilities due to rapid acceleration or deceleration can also be
important (Faeth, 1987). In fact, current detailed models for drop breakup are based on a
combination of RT and KH instabilities.
It interesting to compare the inviscid (high Re
p
) RayleighTaylor and KelvinHelmholtz
instability criteria of Eqs. 2.81 and 2.85 for different density ratios. For
p f
ρ ρ > (droplets in a
gas), the KelvinHelmholtz prediction of We
crit
≈12 is less restrictive than that the Rayleigh
Taylor criterion of We
crit,term
≈8. However, this RT value is more appropriate for terminal
velocity conditions while the KH is more appropriate for unsteady interactions at high relative
velocity. For
p f
ρ ρ < (bubbles), the KH instability based on Eq. 2.85 negligible and the RT
instability was discussed previously to be weak, and this combination is consistent with
sphericalcap bubbles at very large Weber numbers. For
p f
ρ ρ ∼ (droplets in immiscible
liquids), the KelvinHelmholtz instability will typically dominate (e.g., We
crit
≈24) since the
RayleighTaylor instability (based on density–difference) will be weak in comparison.
2.4.3. Breakup due to Shear Deformation
When exposed to a continuousphase linear shear flow (Fig. A.3a), a fluid particle will
deform and rotate (§2.3.2 and Fig. 2.29). As the shear rate increases, deformation will elongate
the particle until instabilities arise and the drop or bubble interface will rupture. This
deformation is influenced by the shear Reynolds number (Re
ω
of Eq. 2.52) and by Capillary
number (Ca
ω
of Eq. 2.53). These two parameters can be combined to form a shear Weber
number given by:
3 2
f shear
d
We Re Ca
ω ω ω
ρ ω
= =
σ
2.88
Many of the drop breakup experiments have been conducted in immiscible liquids with
*
p
ρ ~1
where the relative velocities are sufficiently small to allow detailed observation of the shear
induced deformation. Two such examples are shown in Fig. 2.43 where both cases have
*
p
μ ∼1 but their Ca
ω
(defined in Eq. 2.53) values differ by a factor of four. The low shear (small
85
Ca
ω
) case of Fig. 2.43a exhibits a breakup at an aspect ratio (E) of about onethird. The
resulting children particles include two primary drops and a few small satellite drops in the
region of rupture. The high shear (high Ca
ω
) case of Fig. 2.43b, the deformation is more
influenced by viscosity and can survive greater aspect ratio before rupture (Fig. 2.43b).
The critical Capillary number for breakup of fluid particles is denoted Ca
ω,crit
. While
robust criteria are not generally available for this parameter, guidelines are available from
numerical simulations. For example, the
p f
ρ ≈ ρ results of Fig. 2.44 indicate strong sensitivity
of viscosity ratio at creeping flow conditions (Re
ω
«1) with breakup conditions limited to
viscosity ratios of 0.005<μ
∗
<3. This limited region of finite Ca
ω,crit
values is attributed to a
strong viscous coupling between the particle and continuousphase fields (Khismatullin et al.
2003). As Re
ω
increases, the deformation increases due to increased inertia and the critical
capillary number (Ca
ω,crit
) reduces. At Re
ω
=50, the breakup criterion becomes independent of
the viscosity ratio and roughly characterized by We
ω,crit
≈2.5. This criterion is consistent with
experiments of breakup at high Reynolds numbers (Clift et al. 1978). However, the role of
surfactants and density ratio numbers complicate matters further such that the understanding of
shear breakup criteria is incomplete.
2.4.4. Breakup due to Turbulence
Many engineering and natural multiphase systems include turbulent flow, and often drops
or bubbles will breakup when exposed to sufficiently strong levels of turbulence. Since many
generations of particle splitting may occur, this yields a spectrum of particle sizes. In general,
the mechanisms of deformation and breakup can include all those discussed in §2.4.1 and
§2.4.2: indentation due to high relative velocity, stretching due to high velocity shear,
acceleration instability from RayleighTaylor (near the leading edge), or shear instability from
KelvinHelmholtz modes (near the sides). The characteristics of turbulence are discussed in
§A.5 which includes a wide range of nonlinear turbulent structures (vortices or other features
such as seen in Fig. A.5c) which can drive fluid particle deformations. As such, turbulent
breakup is quite complex and primarily predicted with empirical models.
In some cases, droplets are first stretched into in ligaments as in Fig. 2.45. This can be
attributed to shear deformation (as in Fig. 2.43) or shape oscillations (e.g. m=2 of Fig. 2.34a)
Such ligaments typically have a dumbbell type shape with a thinner filament in between the
larger masses. This filament will then break up due to surface instabilities along its length,
yielding two primary drops along with several smaller satellite drops which arise from the
breakup of the connecting filament. However, many other highly deformed shapes have been
found to lead to breakup. Thus, the process is best considered from a probabilistic point of
view owing to the wide range of mechanisms, shapes, and outcomes that are possible.
Similarly, bubbles subjected to turbulence can undergo a variety of breakup scenarios
including shape oscillations and shear deformation as shown in Fig. 2.46. These results are
similar to those observed by other researchers for gravitational conditions (MartinezBazan et
al. 1999a; Qiand (2003) who also noted that higher instantaneous Weber numbers tended to
yield a higher number of daughter bubbles.
Despite the complexity of turbulent deformation and breakup physics for drops and
bubbles, some simple scaling techniques can be used to qualitatively determine the maximum
86
particle size which can exist. In particular, Hinze (1975) postulated that the local shear stresses
deform a drop and will break it apart if these stresses exceed those resisting deformation
(particle surface tension and particle viscosity). Hinze suggested that the local turbulent
kinetic energy was important (whether the breakup was due to shear deformation, shape
oscillations, RayleighTaylor instabilities, KelvinHelmholtz instabilities, etc.). Further, Hinze
proposed that the turbulent structures whose wavelength (l) is similar to the drop diameter (d)
are primarily responsible for breakup. This is because very large structures will be seen as
nearly uniform by the drop while very small structures will be weaker and will not cause
wholebody deformations to the drop. To determine the intensity of kinetic energy at a scale of
the particle diameter, the corresponding turbulent wavelength was assumed to occur in the
inertial subrange and thus proportional to (εd)
2/3
based on Eq. A.96b. Assuming further that
the effect of the viscosity (and thus the Ohnesorge number) is negligible in the deformation and
breakup, Hinze proposed a constant of proportionality from experimental studies for droplet
breakup so that the critical turbulent Weber number is given by:
2/3 5/3
f crit
,crit
2 d
We 1.2
ε
ρ ε
≡ ≈
σ
2.89
Any fluid particle with d>d
crit
is thus likely to be brokenup in turbulence. This critical Weber
number has been found to reasonably predict size distributions of drops (Clift et al. 1978) and
bubbles (MartinezBazan et al. 1999b; Millies & Mewes, 1999).
Since turbulent dissipation is not always easily measured, Risso and Fabre (1998)
proposed a modified critical Weber number expression based on turbulent kinetic energy and
integral lengthscale and determined a critical value based on microgravity experiments:
5/3
f crit
k,crit 2/3
0.7 kd
We 3
ρ
≈ ≈
σΛ
2.90
A similar Weber number was defined by Qiand (2003) but with a critical value given by
We
k,crit
≈2 based on the results of Sevik & Park (1973). Still other proposed formulations
include effects of viscosity through the Ohnesorge number, which can be especially important
for low Re
p
conditions (about 10 or less). Furthermore, MartinezBazan et al. (1999b) noted
that the distribution of the turbulence spectra can also be important. The variety of proposed
forms for the critical Weber number reflects the complexity and empiricism associated with
turbulence modeling.
Turbulent flow can also lead to particleparticle interactions which can result in break
up and coalescence of fluid particles. The collision frequencies as a function of drop size and
turbulent flow properties will be discussed in §3.8.2. The type of outcome which arise from
these collisions is discussed in the following section.
2.4.5. Coalesence and Breakup due to Collisions
Fluid particles can coalesce, rebound or breakup if they collide with other fluid particles.
This can be important to overall size distributions. For example, growth of cloud drops to rain
drops is primarily attributed to particleparticle collisions. Similarly, bubble size distributions
are primarily governed by a balance between turbulent breakup and bubble coalescence.
Breakup may also occur on wall surfaces due to droplet splatter or bubble splitting, but such
87
effects are typically secondary in terms of determining size distributions. The following
discusses the potential outcomes for drops in a gas, the most commonly studied case, followed
by some discussion for bubbles and drops in liquids.
Droplet Collisions in a Surrounding Gas
Dropletdroplet collisions in a gas (
*
p
ρ »1) occur when two droplets move towards each
other in flight and come into direct contact. The most common interaction is a binary collision
whereby two particles collide (trinary and more complex collisions are generally rare). A
binary collision typically results in significant fluid particle deformation, particularly if the
particles are of similar size. The drop size difference can be characterized by normalizing the
small diameter by the large diameter (Eq. 2.20). The relative velocity of the particle centroids
as they move towards each other (i.e. the incoming velocity) is given as
p p 1 2 large small −
≡ − = − v v v v v
2.91
The collision kinetic energy from this velocity can be compared to that of surface tension by
defining a collisional Weber number:
2
p p p small
p p
v d
We
−
−
ρ
≡
σ
2.92
This equation uses the diameter of the smaller droplet to allow a finite value even in the
limiting case of a drop interacting with an unbounded liquid pool. If the collisions are not
headon, the skewness of the collision can be characterized by the incoming impact angle ϑ
in
,
which is defined as the angle between the particleparticle contact plane and the relative
incoming velocity vector (Fig. 2.47). This angle can be used to define an impact parameter:
( )
in
cos β≡ ϑ
2.93
Thus, a headon collision corresponds to ϑ
in
=90
o
and β=0 while a near grazing condition
corresponds to ϑ
in
=0
o
and β=1.
The dynamics which occurs depends primarily upon We
pp
and β and can be classified by
the five types of interactions shown in Fig. 2.48 and listed below (in order of increasing We
pp
and thus impact speeds):
SC: “slow coalescence” where the droplets move slowly enough that there is little
deformation and there is sufficient time for the interfaces to merge by diffusion;
B: “bounce” where the impact speeds allow for significant deformation but the interaction
time is too short for any coalescence;
FC: “fast coalescence” whereby large deformation dynamics occur after impact causing the
interfaces to break and merge due to hydrodynamic instabilities, after which the dynamics
subside and a single combined drop is formed;
HS: “headon separation” where the droplets impact at roughly headon angles and
temporarily coalesce due to the high impact speeds, but the high inertias of the moving
mass regions cause a shape reflection (as if reflecting off an inviscid wall) which leads to
separation of the original primary drops but with a residual filament (which can form a
satellite drops); and
88
GS “grazing separation” or “offcenter separation” where the droplets impact at roughly
grazing conditions and temporary coalesce but then separate due to shape reflections (often
more complex than a simple mode 2 oscillation), which leads to two primary droplets and a
residual filament which can lead to many satellite drops.
Brenn et al. (2001) showed that increasing the collisional Weber number for the GS regime
increases the number of small satellite drops due to increased instability of the filament.
The range of interactions observed for droplets as a function of Weber number and
collision angle is shown with a qualitative map in Fig. 2.49. This figure shows that slow
coalescence (SC) is observed at very low Weber numbers, while bouncing (B) dominates at
higher Weber numbers, particularly for offaxis collisions. For onaxis collisions, an increase
in Weber number leads to fast coalescence (FC) and eventually headon separation (HS). For
nearly grazing conditions, the bounce outcome is followed at higher Weber numbers by
grazing separation (GS). The regime boundaries in Fig. 2.49 can be characterized by the three
intercepts (We
SC
, We
B
, and We
FC
) as well as the Weber number for β=0.5 for grazing
separation (We
GS
). Predictions of these four characteristic Weber numbers and of the collision
angle dependence are also shown in this figure. The predictions are based on models which
incorporate influence of relative diameter (based on the diameter ratio of Eq. 2.20), viscosity
effects (through the Ohnesorge numbers of Eq. 2.86), and interface dynamics.
The first intercept (We
SC
) occurs at the boundary between slow coalescence and head
on bouncing. This boundary occurs when the time required for a slow coalescence merger to
occur (τ
SC
) equals the contact time between two drops during a headon bouncing collision
(τ
cont
). Thus, the Weber number associated with τ
SC
=τ
cont
defines We
SC
. The contact time
scale has been extensively studied and shown by Foote (1974) to vary inversely and
quadratically to the impact velocity (and thus the impact Weber number) as:
( )
4 3
cont p p p p
p p
d v d / We
−
−
τ ≈ σ ρ = ρ σ 2.94
In the following, a model for τ
SC
is put forth.
The merger in the slow coalescence process can be regarded as a twostep process:
condensation of a liquid bridge between the drops based and drainage of a significant portion
of the droplet fluid into this bridge to ensure interface merger. The two steps can be expressed
in terms of timescales for bridging and draining (τ
bridge
and τ
drain
) along with two empirical
coefficients (c
bridge
and c
drain
):
SC bridge bridge drain drain
c c τ = τ + τ
2.95
The bridge timescale is controlled by molecular diffusion of particle species vapor in the gas
when the two drop interfaces are in very close proximity, about 100 angstroms. If the
surrounding gas is initially “dry”, the bridge time will be proportional to the droplet area (d
2
)
and inversely proportional to the diffusion rate of the droplet species in the surrounding gas
(
p@f
Θ of Eq. 1.87). However, if the surrounding gas is already saturated with particle species
vapor, then the bridge time will be zero. As such, the bridge timescale can be expressed in
terms of the surface vapor pressure (at T
p
and saturated conditions) and the farfield vapor
pressure (at T
g
but not necessarily saturated conditions) as:
89
3/2
2
vapor,surf vapor
ref
bridge
p@f ,ref ref vapor,surf
P p
T d p
p T P
⎡ ⎤ −
⎛ ⎞
τ ≡
⎢ ⎥
⎜ ⎟
Θ
⎝ ⎠
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
2.96
In this equation,
p@f ,ref
Θ is the binary diffusivity at a reference pressure and temperature (p
ref
and T
ref
) while the term in the square brackets accounts for finite vapor pressure in the farfield.
The drainage timescale can be related to particle viscosity and a bridge lengthscale as:
3
drain p p p
d Oh d / τ =μ σ= ρ σ 2.97
The RHS expression indicates that drainage time is linearly proportional to the particle
Ohnesorge number and a square root term which is often defined as the capillary timescale.
Using τ
SC
=τ
cont
, Eqs. 2.952.97 and the empirical values for the constants (c
bridge
=0.15 and
c
drain
=5.0 based on by Loth et al. 2008), the Weber number defining the headon SC boundary
is given by:
( )
1
3
SC bridge p p
We 0.15 d 5Oh
−
⎡ ⎤
≈ τ σ ρ +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
2.98
This model indicates a reduced SC probability as gas pressure, gas density or droplet viscosity
increase, which is consistent with experimental results, e.g., Figs. 2.49 & 2.50. Such figures
also show that the collision angle dependence on this boundary is approximately linear so that
the overall boundary can be estimated as:
( )
SC/B SC
We =We 1β
2.99
As such, slow coalescence is not expected to occur for grazing conditions.
For the B/FC boundary (between bouncing and fast coalescence), the associated
deformation dynamics (Fig. 2.48) indicate that the drops are flattened up against each other and
separated by a thin parallel gas layer. The separating gas layer will remain intact if the
interface oscillations are damped which will then lead to a bounce outcome (We
pp
<We
B
).
Otherwise, wave instabilities will form which will lead to interface merging and fast
coalescence (We
pp
>We
B
). Therefore, the boundary is determined by the dynamics of the
interfaces and the cushioning gas for which gas viscosity, gas pressure, droplet viscosity and
surface tension are all expected to play a role. Their role is not understood theoretically but
Loth et al. (2008) collapsed the experimental data with the following dependence:
1/2
f f
p p B
Oh Oh 1
0.46 0.105
Oh Pd Oh Pd We
−
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
σ σ
≈
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
+ 2.100
This includes two empirical coefficients and a nonmonotonic variation of this parameter to
predict the headon boundary. The influence of collision angle is better understood and is
reasonably predicted by a model of Estrade et al. (1999), which can be approximated as:
B
B/ FC 1.5
We (1 β)
We
(1 )
+
=
−β
2.101
This model is based on the assumption that fast coalescence will occur if the initial kinetic
energy exceeds that needed to create a minimum deformation of the droplets.
The boundary between fast coalescence and headon separation was treated
90
theoretically by Ashgriz & Poo (1989) for inviscid conditions which incorporates collision
angle dependence and correlates well with experiments at low droplet viscosities. Their set of
four equations can be approximated with a single equation (for computational convenience) as:
( ) ( )
p
FC
FC/HS * *
small small
582Oh +12
We
We =
13β d 13β d
=
2.102
For the headon boundary Weber number, Qian & Law (1997) noted an influence at high liquid
viscosities which can be incorporated as:
FC p
We =12+582Oh
2.103
Similarly, the boundary between fast coalescence and grazing separation (FC/GS) was
successfully obtained analytically by BrazierSmith et al. (1972) for the inviscid limit. Their
result describes the boundary dependence in terms of collision angle and size ratio as:
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
2/3
2 3 11/3
* * * * 3
small small small small
GS
FC/GS
2 2
* * 5
small small
d +d  1 d 1+d
We
We
5.24β
1+d d
⎧ ⎫
+
⎨ ⎬
⎩ ⎭
=
2.104
Again, the headon boundary Weber number requires a correction for highly viscous drops,
which was proposed by Loth et al. (2008) as:
( )
GS p
We =21+630 Oh
2.105
It is important to note that We
FC/HS
and We
FC/GS
are independent of the gas properties (density,
pressure, etc.), unlike that for We
SC
and We
B
.
In general, predictions based on these four boundaries yield at least qualitative results
(e.g., Figs. 2.49 & 2.50). The lack of prediction accuracy can be partially attributed to the
empirical character of the models but also to experimental uncertainty and other factors. One
such factor is a difference in electrostatic charge which can promote coalescence even when
the charges are of the same sign (Czys & Ochs, 1998). Another factor is that of nonspherical
droplet shapes, which can greatly complicate collision outcomes and lead to a large number of
satellite drops (Willis & Orme, 2000).
Drop and Bubble Collisions in a Liquid
Bubbles (
*
p
ρ «1) and immiscible droplets (
*
p
ρ ~1) in a liquid can have similar outcomes
as those seen for drops in a gas. However, the collision Weber numbers are typically limited to
values on the order of unity due to the reduced inertia of the particles and the higher viscosity
of the surrounding fluid. As a result, collision outcomes tend to be confined to slow
coalescence or bouncing.
For headon clean bubblebubble interactions in gravitational conditions, the slow
coalescence regime is typified by We
SC
≈0.2, while bouncing tends to occur for 0.2<We
pp
<3
(Duineveld, 1995). In addition, Duineveld noted that We
SC
depends on whether there is vortex
shedding or contamination. This latter is important because surfactants can prevent the
drainage needed to rupture the interfaces so that there are fewer opportunities for coalescence
(Walter & Blanch, 1986). For example, bubbles in saltwater tend to have longer lifetimes and
larger sizes than bubbles in freshwater due to the stability provided by the contaminant. As
91
another example, detergents include surfactants which can prevent coalescence and yield
foams (or emulsions in the case of immiscible droplets in liquids). Because of the complex
nanoscale physics involved in the drainage, models for coalescence rates can be quite
empirical, especially in contaminated systems (Tsouris & Tavlarides, 1994).
2.5. Chapter 2 Problems
2.1) Consider a particle mixture which has a triangularlyshaped number probability
distribution function given in the following figure.
Determine: a) d
10
, b) d
30
, c) d
31
, and d) d
32
. Obtain and plot the numberbased cumulative
distribution function.
2.2) a) Derive an analytical expression for Y beginning with Eq. 2.15 but using the Putnum
fit (Eq. 1.53) instead of the White fit. b) Is the behavior of the Putnam Y in the Newton drag
regime physically appropriate? Explain why or why not. c) Consider a bidisperse mixture
with two particle sizes (d
large
=2d
small
) which each constitute 50% of the total particles by
number. If the particles move as a single cloud with a mean Re
p
consistent with Y=1.5,
obtaining d
3J
/d
32
and discuss whether it is reasonable to describe this mixture with a single
effective cloud velocity and the Sauter Mean Diameter.
2.3) a) Obtain the Eq. 2.24 relation between the RosinRammler spread parameter and the
diameter ratio (d
90%
/d
10%
) starting with the C
∀
distribution function of Eq. 2.23. b) Obtain the
similar relation given by Eq. 2.33 starting with the LogNormal C
∀
distribution function of Eq.
2.32. c) Show that d
10
<d
20
<d
30
etc. for a polydisperse lognormal distribution.
2.4) Based on the definitions of Re
p
, We, Mo and Bo, confirm the relationships given in
Eqs. 2.45, 2.46 and 2.86.
2.5) Consider a spherical cap bubble rising at terminal velocity at a high Bond number
such that surface tension effects are weak. The top portion of the bubble shape can be
approximated with a constant radius of curvature (r
cap
=9d/8) while the bottom is a flat
horizontal interface.
a) If there is no surface tension, the liquid dynamic pressure distribution over the top surface of
the bubble is given by the inviscid Bernoulli relation (Eq. 1.48) and must be balanced by the
hydrostatic pressure change. Write the pressure balance and then apply small angle
d
20 μm
P
N
10 μm 30 μm
r
cap
θ
92
approximations (θ«1) for the trigonometric functions to obtain the corresponding drag
coefficient of Eq. 2.47a ; b) Show that this drag coefficient yields the relationship given by Eq.
2.47b; c) Discuss the qualitative differences between drop deformation in a gas and bubble
deformation in a liquid for both moderate and high Weber numbers.
2.6) a) Starting from Eqs. 2.552.57, derive the isothermal version of RayleighPlesset
ODE (given by Eq. 2.64). b) Obtain an expression for the corresponding natural frequency of
this ODE by assuming a constant farfield pressure, negligible viscosity and weak bubble
oscillations of the form ( )
p p,eq
r r 1 sin 2 t ⎡ ⎤ = + π
⎣ ⎦
f ε with ε«1. Hint: neglect higherorder in ε and
consider the remaining sin(2πft) terms to solve for f
nat
.
2.7) For a 2 mm diameter bubble in water at isothermal conditions with a farfield liquid
pressure of one atmosphere, obtain: a) the natural frequencies with m=1,2,3; b) the
characteristic frequency (inverse of characteristic timescale) for shear deformation, and c) the
most unstable frequency for RayleighTaylor instability (if it exists), and d) the level of
turbulent dissipation for which bubble breakup is likely to occur.
2.8) Consider monodisperse ethanol drops of 20 microns in diameter at STP conditions
injected into dray air (similar to that seen for a precompression fuel spray). Compute the
maximum relative velocity where: a) slow coalescence occurs, b) where headon bounce
occurs, c) and where fast coalescence will occur at any angle (i.e. when We
FC/HS
=We
FC/GS
).
93
3. Coupling Physics and Regimes for Multiphase Flow
3.1. Overview of Coupling Regimes
Multiphase flows can have more than one type of dispersedphase (e.g., particles and
bubbles in a liquid) and/or more than one type of continuousphase (e.g., particles in two
immiscible liquids). But the most common occurrence is for one dispersedphase and one
continuousphase. There are a variety of interactions which can occur between the two phases
(particlefluid interactions) and among the dispersedphase (particleparticle interactions).
Particlefluid interactions encompass both the effects of the continuousphase on the particle
trajectories and the effect of the particles on the continuousphase flow distribution. Particle
particle interactions can refer to two separate mechanisms: fluiddynamic interactions and
collisions. Particleparticle fluiddynamic interactions occur when the proximity of one
particle directly affects the fluid dynamic forces of a neighboring particle, such as by wake
drafting. In contrast, particleparticle collisions occur when particles come into direct contact,
e.g., the particles can rebound, shatter, or coalesce. Similarly particlewall collisions can result
in particles which reflect, breakup or adhere.
There are several regimes which describe the degree and type of coupling which occurs
between particle motion and that of its surroundings. These regimes are illustrated in Fig. 3.1
and can be used to classify the character of the multiphase flow, and thus to help determine
appropriate numerical techniques. The broadest division is between dispersed and dense flow.
Dispersed flow (which is the focus of this text) is defined herein as the conditions when the
particles can be considered to approximately move as individual entities. In dense flows, the
interactions between particles dominate the particle motion. An increase in particle
concentration by volume decreases the average interparticle spacing. Such a change makes
fluid dynamic interactions and collisions among particles are more likely, and thus can cause a
change from dispersed to dense flow.
Additional divisions can be made for dispersed flow based on the degree of coupling,
which tends to increase as the number of particles increases. By order of increasing mass and
volume fractions (e.g., starting from an isolated particle), dispersedflow includes four different
coupling regimes:
a) “oneway”: particlephase motion affected by the continuousphase but not viceversa,
b) “twoway”: particlephase also affects the continuousphase through fluid coupling,
c) “threeway”: flow disturbances caused by particles affect the motion of nearby particles,
d) “fourway”: contact collisions also influence the overall particle motion.
The first three regimes include only fluid dynamic interactions, whereas the fourth regime
includes particle collisions. These regimes occur in many practical multiphase flows. An
example effect of oneway coupling is the drag of a particle, which is caused by the surface
fluid dynamic forces. For twoway coupling, and an example effect of is the upward
momentum of a liquid induced by a bubble rising in a plume. An example effect of threeway
coupling would be a particle drafting behind another particle. Small rain drops colliding and
coalescing to form larger rain drops is an example of fourway coupling. So long as fluid
dynamic forces dominate the particle movement, these are dispersed flow regimes.
94
Dense flow, where particleparticle (threeway or fourway) interactions dominate, can be
divided into two categories: “collisiondominated” and “contactdominated”. For collision
dominated conditions, the particles tend to move at speeds on the order of the terminal velocity
and therefore the interactions yield high rebound velocities. In these conditions, fourway
interactions dominate over oneway effects so that the importance of the surrounding fluid is
reduced. As the particle concentration increases further, the time of contact tends to increase
as compared to the time of freeflight motion. This will eventually lead to contactdominated
flows, where the particles tend to spend most of the time in contact with other particles, e.g.,
particles roll and rub against each other. Often, the effects of the continuous fluid on the
particles are weak and can be neglected, e.g., granular flows typically are modeled by
neglecting the presence of the surroundingfluid. Dense flow and dispersed flow can also co
exist in some multiphase flows. For example, sediment transport of a particle bed (e.g., sand,
dust or snow) by boundary layer flows (wind or water) have denseflow regimes near the
particle bed and dispersed flow in the outer region.
The rest of this chapter will examine the physic and develop approximate criteria for the
various coupling regimes which characterize a multiphase flow. It should be noted that
defining the boundaries between these various regimes can be subjective, but qualitative
relationships help determine the expected type of coupling. This, in turn, helps determine the
appropriate equations of motion (for both phases) and the appropriate numerical strategy. This
is important in order to capture the relevant physics at a reasonable computational cost.
3.2. OneWay Coupling and Domain Stokes Number
To begin, we will consider the oneway coupling condition where the surrounding fluid
is not influenced by the dispersedphase (i.e., the flow motion is independent of the particle
presence), but the particle dynamics directly respond to the fluid velocity. This can range from
simple surroundingfluid velocity variations which are approximately onedimensional (such as
inviscid flow though a nozzle), to the more complex diffusion dynamics associated with
turbulent or molecular fluctuations. The oneway coupling assumption is reasonable in many
multiphase flow conditions and can be particularly advantageous in terms of devising an
expedient numerical strategy. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the surrounding flow
field (especially, if steady) can be determined beforehand without regard to the particle
conditions, i.e., the solution does not require the position, velocity and trajectories of the
particles. Secondly, several particle conditions can be applied to this same flowfield to allow
a parametric variation (e.g., vary injection location, velocity or particle size). Thus, the one
way coupling assumption can represent a significant reduction in required computational
resources and/or scheme development, and therefore this simplification should be used when it
is appropriate. The conditions associated with twoway coupling will be discussed in §3.7.
Particle Response Time
In order to assess oneway coupling, it is helpful to consider the particle response to a
simple continuousphase flow field. In particular, the temporal response to the restoring drag
force for a given effective mass can be used to define a particle response time as
95
2 *
p f p eff
p
D f D
( c )d 4( c )d m
F 18 f 3C
∀ ∀
ρ + ρ ρ +
τ ≡ = =
μ
w
w
3.1
Thus, particle response time is effectively proportional to ρ
p
for
*
p
ρ »1, but to ρ
f
for
*
p
ρ «1. For
the “linear drag” regime where f
Re
is a constant (Eq. 1.57 with Re
p
«1) so that τ
p
is proportional
to d
2
and independent of the local relative and so can be known a priori. This is quite
convenient since many twophase interactions are characterized to the particle response time.
For the “Newton drag” regime where C
D
is approximately constant (Eq. 1.51 with Re
p
»1), τ
p
is
proportional to d but is inversely proportional to w. As such, τ
p
can vary in time and space if
there are local relative velocity changes and this variation can similarly occur for intermediate
Re
p
values due to nonlinear drag effects (Eq. 1.57). For convenience, an a priori estimate of
the response time can be made for intermediate and high Reynolds numbers by assuming that
the relative velocity can be approximated by the terminal velocity and by combining Eqs. 1.81a,
1.82a and 3.1:
term
p p,term
w
g 1 R
τ ≈ τ =
−
for nearequilibrium conditions
3.2
Therefore, the terminal particle response time for a veryheavy particle (R→0) tends to w
term
/g
while that for a verybuoyant particle (R→3) tends to w
term
/2g. The response time for a
neutrallybuoyant particle (R=1 & w
term
=0) can instead be obtained via Eq. 3.1 as d
2
/12fν
f
.
If heat transfer also occurs, it is interesting to compare this momentum response time to the
thermal response time (Eq. 1.93b). The ratio of these two response times for creeping flow is
( )
p T f f p,p
2 3 τ τ = μ k c
3.3
As an example, this ratio is about 0.2 for water droplets in air (Table A.1) such that the thermal
changes will be slower than (but on the order of) the momentum changes.
Solutions to Linear Equations of Motion
Based on Eq. 1.77 for an isolated solid spherical particle (which neglects Basset history, lift
and particleparticle interactions), the particle equation of motion can be given as
( ) ( ) ( )
@p @p
p f p f f 2
f
c 1 c
t (d /18 f ) t
∀ ∀
−
ρ + ρ = + ρ −ρ +ρ +
μ
u v u
v
g
D
d
d D
3.4
This assumes that fluid accelerations along the particle and fluid path are approximately equal:
@p @p
t t
≈
u u
D d
D d
3.5
This relationship is exact in the creeping flow regime (Maxey, 1993) and is otherwise
reasonable if the fluid stress is a secondary force or if the fluid spatial gradients are weak. The
result of Eq. 3.4 can then be rearranged using the particle response time (τ
p
of Eq. 3.1) to yield
an equation for the particle acceleration equivalent to Eq. 1.81b:
96
@p @p
p
(1 R) R
t t
= − − +
τ
v  u u
v
+ g
d
d
d d
3.6
For the “linear drag” regime, τ
p
is a constant so that this equation can be decomposed into
independent equations of motion for each direction. In contrast, a “nonlinear drag” regime
associated with finite Re
p
values can not be linearly decomposed and is not as convenient to
solve analytically.
The above particle equation of motion can be integrated for the linear drag regime if u
@p
is
constant along the particle path (e.g. the flow is uniform). If the initial particle velocity is
denoted v
o
, the particle velocity can be written as:
( )
( )
( )
p p p
t / τ t / τ t / τ
0 @p p
(t) e 1 e 1 R 1 e
− − −
= + − + − τ − v v u g
3.7
This solution can be used to formulate an “exponential” numerical scheme for the particle
equation of motion with the following notation: the change in time is denoted by Δt, the value
of a property q at time t
n
is denoted by q
n
(known value), and the value at time t+Δt=t
n+1
is
denoted by q
n+1
(unknown value to be solved). In this case, the updated velocity and position
values can be expressed as:
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
n n
p p
n
p
Δt/τ Δt/τ
n+1 n n n
@p p
Δt/τ
n+1 n n n n n n
p p p p @p p
e 1 e 1 R τ
τ 1 R τ 1 e 1 R τ Δt
− −
−
⎡ ⎤ = + − + −
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ = − − − + + −
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
v v u g
x x + w g u g
3.8a
3.8b
This onestep exponential scheme is popular is exact for Stokesian particles in a uniform
steady flow (for which particle response time and fluid velocity are constant). It can also be
employed at moderate Reynolds number conditions and weakly varying flows by assuming
that u
@p
and τ
p
vary only weakly through the timestep and can be estimated by the value at t
n
.
However, the timestep should be chosen to be sufficiently small so that the truncated terms
have little influence. Since the trajectory dynamics are dictated by the particle response time,
this infers:
p
t Δ τ <
3.9
Advanced integration schemes to handle highly nonlinear drag, strong flow acceleration along
the particle path, lift, collisions, history force, etc. are discussed in §7.2.3. However, Eq. 3.8 is
reasonable and useful for simple flows where drag and gravitational forces dominate.
The gravitational effects can be shown more clearly by incorporating the terminal velocity
using Eq. 3.2 and again assuming linear drag with uniform steady flow:
( )( )
p p
t / τ t / τ
0 @p term
e 1 e
− −
= + + − v v u w
3.10
Thus, the particle relative velocity tends to the terminal velocity for long times, i.e. t»τ
p
. Thus,
particles will take longer to respond to continuousphase velocity (and any of its changes) as τ
p
increases. Also, particles with very small τ
p
will adapt more quickly to their equilibrium state
(e.g., will tend to always move at a relative velocity equal to their terminal velocity).
If we neglect gravitational effects (g=0), then the solution for the relative velocity is simply
related to the initial conditions and the particle response time:
97
( ) ( )
term o term p
w w w w exp t / − = − − τ
3.11
At longtimes, the particle will reach a terminal velocity with respect to the fluid w→w
term
. If
we neglect gravitational effects (g=0), this reverts to w=w
o
exp(t/τ
p
) indicating that the relative
velocity will decrease exponentially at a time scale τ
p
, such v→u for longtimes, e.g., the
relative velocity will reduce by about 95% at t=3 τ
p
. These trends are illustrated in Fig. 3.2,
indicating that the particle response timescale dictates the time it takes for a particle to adapt
to the surrounding flow based on drag.
Particle Stokes Number
If the continuousphase flow field varies along the particle path, the relative magnitude of
the particle response time can be normalized by the timescale associated with the continuous
fluid velocity changes (τ
f
). This ratio is defined as the particle “Stokes number”
2
p p f
f f f
( c )d
St
18 f
∀
τ ρ + ρ
≡ =
τ μ τ
3.12
The Stokes number is an important measure of the degree of correlation which may be
expected between the particle velocity and the fluid velocity field for a given fluid timescale.
For a very small Stokes number (St→0), the time for the particle velocity to react to the
changes in continuousphase velocity is negligible such that v(t)→u
@p
(t)+w
term
(based on Eqs.
3.10 and 3.11). As the Stokes number increases, the particle will take longer to accommodate
to changes in the surrounding fluid velocity. At a Stokes number of order of unity (St~1), one
would expect v to be both substantially influenced by u but also lag in phase with u. For a
very large Stokes number (St»1), the particle inertia is too great to be significantly affected by
the continuousfluid unsteadiness. In general, the continuousfluid timescale may contain
both overall macroscopic timescales as well as smaller local timescales (i.e., several
frequencies). In such cases, one Stokes number is not sufficient to describe all the particle
dynamics. In the following, the timescale associated with the overall continuousphase flow
domain is first considered, while more local time scales associated with turbulence will be
considered in the next section.
Domain Stokes Number
For an unsteady flow, the domain timescale (τ
D
) can be associated with the overall period
of the flow oscillations. For example, flows can be dominated by fluidstructure interactions
(as in oscillations of a piston in an internal combustion engine, or aeroelastic flutter), pressure
disturbances (as in acoustic or shockwave oscillations), or pulsatile flow (as in blood flow or
waveinduced motion). For a steady flow in the Eulerian reference frame, τ
D
can be
characterized by a macroscopic lengthscale (D) and velocityscale (u
D
):
D D
D/ u τ ≡
3.13
98
The macroscopic scales for the continuousphase are based on the relevant flow conditions
over which flow changes may occur. For example, D for an external flow may be set as the
object length or width and u
D
set as the freestream speed. For a channel flow (Fig. 3.3a) D
may be set as a divergence length or channel diameter and u
D
set as the mean velocity. While
the choice of D and u
D
is somewhat arbitrary, use of consistent characterization will allow
comparisons between two different flow or two different particles.
Once the macroscopic timescale is defined, the macroscopic Stokes number is simply
D p D
St / ≡ τ τ
3.14
This Stokes number is important in determining whether (and to what degree) particles will
generally follow the continuousphase streamlines. In particular, the degree of this tracking is
based on whether the St
D
is small, intermediate, or large. To illustrate this dependence, Fig.
3.3b shows the influence of St
D
on particle velocity in the diverging channel of Fig. 3.3a
assuming gravitational and initial condition effects are negligible (w
term
/u
D
→0 and w
o
/u
D
→0).
For St
D
«1, the particle velocities will be similar to that of the continuousfluid since the
particles adjust very quickly to the local fluid conditions and follow their streamlines. An
example of this is a very small water (fog or cloud) droplet which would follow the flow
streamlines closely. For St
D
»1, a particle would not significantly adjust to an evolving channel
velocity due to its large response time (τ
p
). For example, a large hail particle or a bullet with
very high inertia would only be weakly affected by variations in the surrounding flow. In
between these two extremes, a particle with St
D
~1 will be significantly affected by the
continuousfluid but will have substantial differences between v and u. An example of this
could be mediumsized water drops which will have significant inertia but will be affected by
the surrounding flow. The response of the particle dynamics to integralscale turbulence is
thus primarily a function of Stokes number and may be summarized as:
St
D
»1 particle motion weakly affected by the macroscopic flow
St
D
~1 particle motion substantially modified by the macroscopic flow
St
D
«1 particle motion closely follows the macroscopic flow
3.15
Quantitative values for these criteria depend on the flow geometry and the specific definition
used for the domain scales, e.g., whether D is based on channel length or channel width, etc.
While the timescale ratio given by the Stokes number is the most important parameter for
particle dynamics, other parameters are important and can dominate under certain conditions.
Two such parameters include the velocityscale ratio (w
term
/u
D
) and the acceleration parameter
(R). These three parameters are consistent with a nondimensionalization of Eq. 3.7, and they
can be related to the macroscopic Froude number (Eq. A.62a) by:
( )
2
D D
D
term D
u St
Fr  1 R 
gD w / u
≡ = −
3.16
While the Froude number is independent of the particle properties, but the RHS expression
indicates it control which particle parameters are likely to be more important. For example,
highspeed flows with Fr
D
»1 are more likely to have particles with significant Stokes numbers,
while lowspeed flows with Fr
D
«1 are more likely to have particles with significant velocity
ratios. For linear drag, the particle response time is independent of Re
p
so that macroscopic
99
particle dynamics will then be uniquely determined by the initial particle conditions and three
of the following four nondimensional parameters (R, Fr
D
, St
D
, u
D
/w
term
).
If the particle Reynolds number is not small, then the Stokes correction factor (f) is
dependent upon Re
p
as are the instantaneous τ
D
and St
D
. For an overall characterization, one
may define a pathaveraged quantity ( ˆ q ) using an initial time (t
0
) and a time shift (τ)as:
0
0
t
t
1
ˆ q q t
+τ
≡
τ
∫
d 3.17
Using a time period based on the domain timescale, the pathaveraged Stokes number can be
expressed in terms of the Stokes correction by Eqs. 3.1 and 3.12:
´
( )
0 D 0 D
0 0
2
t t
p f
D
D p 2
t t
D D f D
( c )d
1 1
St St t t 1/ f
18
+τ +τ
∀
⎡ ⎤ ρ + ρ
= = τ =
⎢ ⎥
τ τ μ τ
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∫ ∫
d d
3.18
If the average particle relative velocity is similar to its terminal conditions, then:
´ term
D
D,term
D
w
St St
g 1 R
≈ =
− τ
3.19
This form is convenient for a given terminal velocity.
If the average relative velocity differs substantially from its terminal velocity, Eq. 3.19 is
no longer valid then an average of the inverse of the correction factor should be employed. In
this case, it may be convenient to express the pathaverage in terms of the Reynolds number
variations. If the initial conditions is given by Re
p,o
and the final state is given by
Re
p,ref
=w
ref
d/ν
f
where w
ref
is the final relative velocity, then the pathaverage on the RHS of Eq.
3.18 can be expressed as:
( )
( ) ( )
p,ref
p
p,o
p
p,ref p,o
Re
Re
Re Re
Re Re
1
1/ f 1/ f
⎡ ⎤
≈
⎣ ⎦
−
∫
d
3.20
If Re
p
<1,000 so that the Putnam fit (Eq. 1.53) is reasonable and Re
p,ref
»Re
p,o
, an analytical
solution can be obtained:
´
1/ 3
p,ref 1 1
2/ 3
p,ref p,ref
Re
1 6
f 18 tan
Re Re 6
− −
⎡ ⎤
⎛ ⎞
≈ − ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
3.21
This resulting
´
D St can then be used to characterize the response of particles to a given
continuousphase flow field.
An application of this result is that of cloud droplets which may collect on a wing moving
at speed u
∞
as shown in Fig. 3.4a. The small drops with a rapid response time will tend to
move around the airfoil with the airflow streamlines with no impact. In contrast, large drops
will impinge directly and intermediate drops will have some trajectory deflection but some of
these will impact. It is important to know which drops will impact since they can then freeze
and adhere to the airfoil, which can form a safety hazard (Fig. 1.16). The probably of impact
can be quantified in terms of an impact efficiency which can be related to the particle Stokes
number. For example, particles with St
D
«1 will tend to an impact efficiency of zero while
100
those with St
D
»1 will tend to impact efficiency of unity. The macroscopic timescale (τ
D
) for
the continuousfluid velocity variations can be simply defined as the ratio of airfoil chord
length to flight speed. However, the particle response time (τ
p
) for nonlinear drag will vary in
throughout the trajectory so a pathaverage is needed. For this, one may assume that that the
droplet is initially at a terminal velocity (Re
p
=Re
p,term
) but transitions to a high relative velocity
nearly equal to the airfoil velocity at the final state (Re
p,ref
≈Re
p,∞
=du
∞
/ν
f
). Further assuming
Re
p,∞
»Re
p,term
, one may employ Eqs. 3.18 and 3.21 to describe the pathaveraged Stokes
number and use this to assess the likelihood of impact for a given airfoil shape and angle of
attack (Langmuir, 1946). As shown in Fig. 3.4b,
´
D St correlates well with the impact
efficiency (which is the fraction of droplets per frontal area which will impact) independent of
the reference Reynolds number. This indicates that the pathaveraged Stokes number
reasonably scales the particle dynamics.
3.3. Turbulent Stokes Numbers
Since turbulence contains a wide range of time scales, there are a correspondingly wide
range of Stokes numbers (§A.5). At the microscales where most of the dissipation occurs,
homogeneous turbulence away from the walls is characterized by the Kolmogorov scales (Eq.
A.93) while nonhomogeneous turbulence close to walls is characterized by the inner scales
(Eq. A.100). The corresponding microscale Stokes numbers can be defined as:
p
2
p p fr
fr f
St
u
St
λ
λ
+
τ
≡
τ
τ τ
≡ =
τ ν
3.22a
3.22b
Since these represent sensitivity of particle dynamics to the fastest timescales of the
turbulence, particles with small microscale Stokes numbers effectively can be considered as
fluid tracers with respect to turbulent dispersion. If the microscale Stokes number is very
large, then the particles are unaffected by the smallscale turbulence and may instead be
affected by the largescale turbulence.
The largest turbulent timescales are the integralscales (Eq. A.78) which contain most of
the turbulent energy. The corresponding integralscale Stokes number is defined as:
p
St
Λ
Λ
τ
≡
τ
L
3.23
Note that the denominator is the integral timescale along the Lagrangian fluid path (Eq.
A.78a). This is most appropriate for small lowinertia particles since these tend to follow the
instantaneous fluid path (Fig. 3.5). For large high inertia particle which tend to move with the
mean flow, the movingEulerian timescale would be more appropriate but τ
ΛL
and τ
ΛmE
are
typically similar (Eq. A.79) so that this distinction is not critical so that the above definition is
reasonable.
101
The integral Stokes number is perhaps the most important to describe turbulent diffusion
since the large turbulent structures yield the greatest velocity and position fluctuations. To
demonstrate its influence, one may consider particle dynamics in a freeshear layer since this
flow has welldefined largescale structures (Fig. A.5c). A schematic of the various particle
trajectories as a function of St
Λ
are shown in Fig. 3.6a. A particle with very small inertia
(St
Λ
«1) will be strongly affected by the turbulence so that its trajectory will closely follow the
largescale structures of the fluid. In the other extreme, a particle with very large inertia
(St
Λ
»1) will continue on its trajectory with only a small influence from any turbulent structures.
In between these extremes, intermediate response time particles (St
Λ
~1) will have paths
substantially influenced by the vortices but with significant deviations from the fluid paths.
Thus, the response of the particle dynamics to integralscale turbulence may be summarized as:
St
Λ
»1 particle motion weakly affected by the turbulent structures
St
Λ
~1 particle motion substantially modified by integralscale structures
St
Λ
«1 particle motion closely follows integralscale structures
3.24
This is similar to the criteria used for the macroscopic features (Eq. 3.15).
The particle density ratio also has an effect on the particle trajectories, particularly for
intermediate Stokes numbers. Veryheavy particles ( * ρ »1) with St
Λ
~1 will tend to be
centrifuged to the outer edges of the vortices and will also tend to collect in the high shear
regions. This is seen in Fig. 3.6b which includes an experimental visualization of solid
particles dispersing in a gas shear flow. In contrast, verybuoyant particles (
*
p
ρ «1) will tend to
move to the cores of vortices (which have low pressure) as demonstrated in Fig. 3.6c. This is
due to the fluid stress forces which cause particles to move in the opposite direction of a
pressure gradient (Eq. 1.69) and becomes important when this effect is stronger than that due to
hydrostatic pressure gradients. To characterize this nondimensionally, one may relate the
pressure gradient of a turbulent eddy pressure to the turbulent velocities with Eq. A.43 and use
this relationship to define an integralscale Froude number (analogous to the domain Froude
number of Eq. 3.16):
( ) ( )
2
f
2
p u
u u
Fr
g g
Λ
Λ
Λ Λ
Λ
Λ
∇ = ρ ∇
≡ ≈
Λ τ
L
3.25a
3.25b
We note that the approximation for the RHS of Eq. 3.25b employs the integral timescale and
assumes that c
Λτ
≈1 (as defined by Eq. A.90). It also shows that the turbulent Froude number
can be expressed as a ratio of hydrodynamic acceleration (u
Λ
/τ
Λ
) to the hydrostatic
acceleration (g). As such, the behavior seen in Fig. 3.6c is consistent with a substantial Fr
Λ
. In
contrast, a bubble rising in very weak turbulence (Fr
Λ
≈0) will be dominated by the balance of
drag forces and hydrostatic effects and thus ignore movement to vortex cores and instead move
along vertical lines at the terminal velocity.
It is also instructive to note that the Stokes number and the Froude number can be related
(by Eqs. 3.2, 3.23 and 3.25) to the nondimensional terminal velocity defined as:
,term * term
term
St 1 R
w
w
u Fr
Λ
Λ Λ
−
≡ =
3.26
102
The value
*
term
w is often called the “drift parameter” since it characterizes the particle deviation
from the continuousfluid fluctuations. Since the Froude number only a function of the
continuousphase properties, this indicates that the Stokes number and the terminal velocities
ratios have the same dependence on particle size, density, etc. for a given flow field. As noted
for the macroscopic dimensionless values (Eqs. 3.14 and 3.16), the above relationships indicate
that the particle response to integralscale turbulence is primarily a function of four non
dimensional parameters (Fr
Λ
, St
Λ
,
*
term
w , R), of which three are independent.
Turning now to the smallest scales of the turbulence, we consider the impact of
Kolmogorov Stokes numbers on particle dynamics. Particles with St
λ
«1 can be considered as
nearly immiscible fluid tracers since their terminal velocity (and relative velocities) will be
small with respect to the velocity fluctuations of the even smallest eddies. Thus, these micro
particles will act as fluid tracers with v≈u so long as molecular motion is ignored. Particles
with St
λ
~1 respond only approximately to the smallscale vortex features, resulting in a
significant relative velocity fluctuations. These scales correspond to high vorticity and fluid
stress fluctuations so that St
λ
~1 can lead to a turbulent bias from the terminal velocity under
certain conditions. Particles with St
λ
»1, will not be significantly affected by the smallest
energy dissipating scales.
Similar arguments can be applied to wallshear flows in terms of St
+
(corresponding to the
smallestscale features). For example, Fig. 3.7 shows a flow with St
+
~1 (and St
Λ
«1) whereby
the particles faithfully follow the largescale turbulent features (such as boundary layer
ejections) far away from the wall (Fig. 3.7a), but show preference to concentrate in lowspeed
streaks for thin turbulent features close to the wall (Fig. 3.7b). The results shown in this figure
are based on Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) which resolves all the length scales and
frequencies of turbulent flow for the continuousphase fluid. The DNS technique is an
effective supplement to experimental measurements to help understand multiphase turbulent
flows (though it is limited to modest Reynolds numbers will be discussed in §4.3.1).
Note that the coupling criteria used for the integralscale turbulence given by St
Λ
values in
Eq. 3.24 can be similarly applied to the Kolmogorovscale turbulence based on by St
λ
or the
innerscale turbulence based on by St
+
. These different regimes can be further used to
understand and model the particle concentration patterns and spread rates caused by the
continuousflow turbulence, i.e. “turbulent dispersion”. This subject is explored in more detail
in the following two sections. Afterwards, §3.6 will discuss the related topic of “Brownian
diffusion” where very small particle can diffuse owing to the random arrival of fluid molecules.
3.4. Turbulent Particle Dispersion
Turbulent dispersion for twophase flows refers to the evolution of particle, droplet, or
bubble concentrations due to underlying turbulent features of the continuous phase. This
process is very important for many engineering flows since rapid distribution of injected
particles throughout a domain is often most effectively accomplished by turbulent dispersion.
The power of turbulence is thus employed in many energy systems to rapidly disperse particles.
For example, piston and turbine engines often introduce higher turbulence levels so that
injected fuel droplets will be distributed throughout the combustion chamber to ensure more
uniform distribution of the fuel vapor to improve efficiency and reduce pollution. Similarly,
103
bubble columns or plumes (Fig. 1.5) are typically turbulent to promote high mass and chemical
transfer rates between the two phases. Plasma sprays also use turbulence to ensure uniform
coating (Fig. 1.9). Many of the other particle distribution phenomenon discussed in §1.2 are
also a result of turbulent dispersion. Therefore, it is important to understand and predict the
spread of particles and droplets due to turbulence.
In many ways, particle mixing is similar to the continuousphase species mixing discussed
in §A.5.5. In particular, the instantaneous spread of particles is related to the underlying
turbulent structures and the instantaneous gradients of particle concentration. However, it can
also be considered in the mean with respect to average turbulence intensity and mean particle
concentration gradients. Because of this, particle distribution due to turbulent dispersion is
often considered in terms of two aspects:
1. preferential concentration, which refers to the spatiotemporal details of the particle
concentration field generated by instantaneous and local features (such as vortex
structures) of the turbulence; and
2. mean diffusion, which refers only to the overall mean (timeaveraged) spread rate of
particles caused by the turbulence.
The difference between these two aspects is illustrated in Fig. 3.8 for the case of particles
injected into a turbulent boundary layer. The instantaneous particle positions associated with
“preferential concentration” (also called “structural dispersion”) is depicted in Fig. 3.8a. Here
it can be seen that local variations in the particle distribution give rise to complex patterns, as
also seen in Fig. 3.7. In contrast, Fig. 3.8b depicts the corresponding timeaveraged particle
concentration associated with “mean diffusion” where the mean particle cloud progressively
spreads out laterally as it convects in the streamwise direction. The differences between
preferential concentration and mean diffusion are similar to those between local mixing and
overall diffusion of a fluid tracer in a turbulent flow. However, it should be kept in mid that
the particle response time (via the effective Stokes number) will lead to additional complexities.
The remainder of this section discusses some aspects and implications of preferential
concentration along with basic definitions for mean particle diffusion, while §3.5 discusses the
latter in substantial detail.
Preferential Concentration
The description preferential concentration was termed by Eaton & Fessler (1994) to explain
the phenomenon of particles tending towards specific types of turbulent features. As discussed
in the above boundary layer example, the spatiotemporal variations in the particle distribution
associated with preferential concentration can be substantial. The spatial variations can be
especially noted in Figs. 3.63.7 where pockets of high and low particle concentration are
found to occur after some time. As such the instantaneous particle concentration can differ
substantially from the mean particle concentration profile. These differences are a function of
the turbulence intensity, turbulence structure and the particle inertia (via Stokes numbers). In
particular, preferential concentration is correlated with the particle Stokes number based on the
smallest turbulence scales, e.g., based on St
+
in the case of nearwall regions (Fig. 3.7) and
based on St
λ
in the case of freeshear flows or regions away from the wall. For example, Fig.
3.9 shows a snapshot of the instantaneous distribution particle concentration within a plane for
St
λ
~1 and approximately HIST flow (§A.5.2). This snapshot demonstrates a strong correlation
104
between regions of low particle concentration and regions with high continuousphase vorticity,
consistent with centrifugal dispersion of particles. Other experiments at St
λ
~1 but with
anisotropic nonhomogenous turbulence also yielded similar results (Fig. 3.10a). For particles
with longer response times (St
λ
~10 and St
Λ
~1), experiments in a stirredbox configuration in
nearly zerogravity show that particle concentration tendencies are still present but are not as
distinct (Fig. 3.10b). Particles with still longer response times (St
λ
~100 and St
Λ
~10) tend to be
homogeneously distributed with respect to the turbulent integralscales indicating that their
inertia is too high to have significant correlations with even the largest turbulent structures.
The effects of preferential concentration can impact the macroscopic characteristics of the
flow and may be critical to the efficiency (and simulation) of energy systems. For example,
preferential concentration in an internal combustion engine chamber can cause droplets to
“cluster” in certain regions instead of being distributed uniformly. Droplet evaporations in
such clustered regions will lead to local fuelrich pockets which can dramatically change the
local chemical kinetics and overall efficiency. To avoid this, Sankaran and Menon (2002)
showed that preferential concentration of fuel droplets can be reduced by introducing swirl
type combustors. The clustering phenomenon can also lead to increased particleparticle
collision which may explain how rainclouds are quickly formed. In particular, the rapid
coalescing of small cloud droplets of about 10100 microns into rain droplets of about 200
1000 microns has been related to turbulence and preferential concentration (Sundaram &
Collins, 1997).
Preferential concentration can also lead to changes in the mean relative velocity of particles,
by at least two mechanisms: preferential bias and clustering bias. Preferential bias is a one
way coupling mechanism owing to particle trajectories favoring certain paths and flow
structures. Clustering bias is a twoway coupling mechanism whereby high particle
concentrations in certain regions lead to clusters which act approximately as a single larger
entity. For heavy particles, this concentration can impart a local downwash on the flow so that
the accompanying particles will fall faster than that of an isolated particle (while buoyant
particles may rise faster due to an imparted upwash). These bias mechanisms will be discussed
in §3.5.5.
Mean Particle Diffusion
A common characterization of mean turbulent diffusion is the spatial spreading of particles
(both longitudinally and laterally) from an injection point. With respect to the mean spreading,
it is helpful to define a particle cloud as a group of particles which originated from a single
point in space but were released at different times (Fig. 3.11). Turbulent events will lead to a
unique particle trajectory for each release time. Each pathaveraged velocity can be defined as:
0
t
p p p
t
0
1
ˆ ( , t) t
+τ
≡
τ
∫
d v v x
3.27
In this equation, τ is the time period since the initial release time (t
0
). The resulting particle
position is also a function of the duration time τ and the release point x
0
p p o
ˆ ( ) τ = τ + x v x
3.28
105
Next, we define the notation, q as the ensemble average over a statistically large number of
particles (N
p
), i.e.
p
p
N
1
k
N
i k
q q
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
=
≡
∑
3.29
One may then define the ensembleaveraged particle position, the particle position deviation
from the mean, and the ensembleaveraged variation about the mean as follows:
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
p
p
p
p
N
1
p p,k
N
k 1
p p p
N
1
p p pk pk
N
k 1
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
=
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
=
τ ≡ τ
′ τ ≡ τ − τ
′ ′ ′ ′ ⋅ ≡ ⋅
∑
∑
x x
x x x
x x x x
3.30a
3.30b
3.30c
For convergence, this ensembleaverage should consider releases distributed over a long time
period compared to τ
Λ
. As illustrated in Fig. 3.11, the ensembleaveraged particle position
characterizes the mean trajectory while the ensembleaveraged variation characterizes the
mean spread of the particle about the mean trajectory at a given time. To incorporate
anisotropic diffusion, the mean spread can be given in tensor form as
pi pj
x x ′ ′ and the
corresponding spread rate of the particle cloud is given as:
pi pj pi pj
1 1
p,ij
2 2
x x x x
t
′ ′ ′ ′
Θ ≡ =
τ
d d
d d
3.31
The magnitude of Θ
p,ij
is also known as the “particle diffusivity” and can be a result of
turbulent diffusivity (§3.5) or Brownian diffusion (§3.6). In order to model the turbulent
diffusivity, it is helpful to first consider the turbulent diffusion of fluid tracers (particles with
zero relative velocity and zero inertia), as discussed in the next section. This will be followed
by the additional consideration of inertial and gravitational effects on mean turbulent diffusion
in a following section.
3.5. Turbulent Diffusion and Bias of Particles
3.5.1. Diffusion of Mean Fluid Tracers
In order to eventually characterize the mean turbulent diffusion of particles (which can be
quite complex), it is helpful to first consider the mean diffusion of a fluid tracer which has zero
inertia. The fluid tracer can be thought of as an infinitely small immiscible particle, i.e., it has
a Stokes number of zero and is not subjected to molecular diffusion. The spread of a single
fluidtracer can be represented in terms of instantaneous velocity and position (similar to those
defined for a general particle by Eqs. 3.27 and 3.28) while the mean diffusion of many such
tracers can be related to the means square of perturbations from the ensembleaveraged path:
106
( )( )
0
i fi
St 0
t
fi fi fi,0 fi fi,0
t
0
fi fi fi fi fi fj
1 1
turb,ij
2 2
v u
ˆ x ( ) u dt x u x
x ( ) x ( ) x ( ) x ( ) x x
t t
→
+τ
≡
τ ≡ + = τ +
′ ′ τ − τ τ − τ
Θ ≡ =
∫
D D
D D
3.32a
3.32b
3.32c
Taylor’s theory for diffusion (Reeks, 1977) assumes homogeneous turbulence (i.e. the mean
fluid statistics are the same at all positions in space) and relates the above spread rate to the
integral of the fluctuating velocities with a time shift:
0 0
t t
turb,ij i 0 j i j ,ij
t t
0 0
( ) u (t )u (t) dt u u ( )dt
+τ +τ
′ ′ ′ ′ Θ τ ≡ ≈ ϒ τ
∫ ∫
L
3.33
The RHS expression was obtained by employing the Lagrangian correlation of velocity (Eq.
A.77a) and assumes that the ensembleaveraged turbulent velocity fluctuations and correlations
among are the fluidtracers are given by the average values, which is consistent with the
assumption of homogeneous turbulence (§A.5.2).
If one further assumes that the turbulence is isotropic and thus has negligible cross
correlations (Eq. A.74), then the fluidtracer diffusion also has the same properties, i.e.
( )
turb t ,11 t ,22 t ,33 turb,ij
i j ≠
Θ ≈ Θ ≈ Θ ≈ Θ Θ >
3.34
A similar statement can be made about the Lagrangian correlation function (Eq. A.76), so that
the resulting diffusion can then be written in terms of the turbulence strength (Eq. A.72) as:
0
0
t
2
turb
t
( ) u (t) dt
+
Λ
τ
Θ τ = ϒ
∫
L
3.35
Based on this equation, one may readily identify two asymptotic values for the fluidtracer
diffusivity: a “shorttime” limit defined by
Λ
τ τ <
L
and a “longtime” limit defined by
Λ
τ τ >
L
.
For shorttimes, ϒ
L
is approximately unity since it is near the autocorrelation value (see Fig.
A.12) and the diffusivity is then:
2
turb
( ) u
Λ
Θ τ ≈ τ
for τ « τ
ΛL
3.36
This indicates that the shorttime diffusivity will increase linearly with time. For longtimes,
the integral in Eq. 3.35 will simply become the Lagrangian integral timescale of the velocity
fluctuations as defined in Eq. A.78a. Therefore, the longtime diffusion rate (denoted by
turb,∞
Θ ) is linearly proportional to the turbulent kinetic energy and the integral timescale:
2
turb,
u
∞ Λ Λ
Θ ≈ τ
L
for τ » τ
ΛL
3.37
This result also indicates that the longtime diffusion of fluid tracers becomes independent of
time (i.e. the particles spread out at a constant rate) which is a result of diffusion being
influenced by the entire spectrum of turbulent scales. This limit is often the most relevant
since mean characteristics are typically realized at time scales much greater than the turbulent
107
integralscale. For intermediate times, the particle spread rate can be obtained by assuming
that the correlation function has an exponential dependence (Eq. A.80a) so that
( )
2
turb
/
( ) u 1 e
Λ
−
Λ Λ
τ τ
Θ τ = τ −
L
L
3.38
This relationship is shown in Fig. 3.12a and recovers Eqs. 3.36 and 3.37 in the short and long
time limits. It also shows that turbulent diffusivity is proportional to the turbulent kinetic
energy and reaches a longtime equilibrium.
To obtain the positional rms of fluidtracers as a function of time, the above equation can
be integrated for each coordinate direction as:
( )
2
f f f f f f
/
x x y y z z 2u 1 e
Λ
−
Λ Λ Λ
τ τ
⎡ ⎤
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ = = = τ τ − τ −
⎣ ⎦
L
L L
3.39
Note that the diffusion for a fluid tracer in HIST is isotropic so that fluidtracer mean cloud
volume will grow like a sphere about the trajectory dictated by the mean velocity. The RHS
expression indicates that the shorttime growth rate is quadratic (proportional to τ
2
) while the
longtime rate is linear (proportional to τ). The theoretical behavior is shown in Fig. 3.12b and
compares quite favorably with measurements and DNS data for which the HIST approximation
is reasonable. For example, a twodimensional flow with mean velocity only in the x
direction ( )
x
u u = will result in
f f
y z 0 = = . If the strengths of the velocity fluctuations
are anisotropic but the flow is homogenous and the integral timescale is a constant, the spread
is a tensor given by:
( )
fi fj i j
/
x x 2u u 1 e
Λ
−
Λ Λ
τ τ
⎡ ⎤
′ ′ ′ ′ = τ τ − τ −
⎣ ⎦
L
L L
3.40
As such, the diffusion in each direction will be proportional to the strength of the fluctuations
in that direction. For example, the anisotropy in the velocity fluctuations for the inner portion
of a turbulent boundary layer shown in Fig. A.10 will lead to anisotropic diffusion
with
f f f f f f
x x z z y y ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ > > , i.e. a particle cloud would grow like an ellipsoid.
The presence of nonzero crosscorrelations (i.e.
i j
u u 0 for i j ′ ′ ≠ ≠ ) can also lead to a lateral
drift with respect to the mean velocity path. To quantify this drift, Hinze (1975) derived a
general equation for the ensembleaveraged mean velocity by assuming longtimes and weak
turbulence. A similar simplified equation can be obtained for 2D flow with mean velocity
only in the xdirection:
f,x x x x x
f, y y y y y
u u u u u
u u u u u
′ = = + ≈
′ ′ = = + ≈
3.41a
3.41b
Now consider the pathaverage lateral movement of a fluid tracer in this flow
´
0 0
t t
y y y x y x y f
f f x
2 2
t t
f x x x x x x 0 0
u u u u u u u y ˆ y y u 1 1
dt 1 dt
x x x u u u u u u
+τ +τ
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ + ⎛ ⎞ ′
≈ ≈ = ≈ − ≈ − ≈ −
⎜ ⎟
′ τ + τ
⎝ ⎠
∫ ∫
3.42
This equation first approximates the ensembleaverage with the pathaverage (reasonable for
many particles for longtimes), and then approximates the integrand using the approximations
of Eq. 3.41 which are equivalent to assuming that the product of the mean velocities is much
108
smaller than the crosscorrelation, i.e. (
x y x y
u u u u ′ ′ < ). As an example, consider the jet flow
shown in Fig. 3.13a for which tracers are released below the centerline so that the cross
correlation is nonzero and the above assumptions are reasonable. The measured concentration
distribution in the lateral direction is shown in Fig. 3.13b and indicates an approximately
Gaussian distribution whose width is consistent with Eq. 3.40 and whose shift is consistent
with Eq. 3.42. As shown in the figure, this net migration is generally small compared with the
overall diffusion spread rate. It should be noted that gradients in the turbulence intensity can
also lead to a net migration, and this aspect will be discussed in §3.5.5.
3.5.2. Diffusion of FiniteInertia Particles
Correlations of Fluid and Particle Velocities along the Particle Path
To assess particle diffusivity due to the surrounding turbulence, it is important to define the
correlation and integral timescale of the continuousphase fluctuations along the particle path:
0
i @p, j p
f @p,ij
i j
@p,ij f @p,ij
t
u ( , t)u ( ( ) , t )
(τ)
u ( , t)u ( , t)
(τ) τ
∞
Λ
′ ′ τ τ + + τ
ϒ ≡
′ ′
τ ≡ ϒ
∫
x v x
x x
d
NSI
3.43a
3.43b
In Eq. 3.43a, the correlation may be anisotropic and there is no summation of indices (NSI) for
the RHS. Similar to the fluidtracer correlation function (Eq. A.75) and diffusion definition
(Eq. 3.33), the Lagrangian particle correlation function and associated turbulent diffusivity can
be written in terms of the velocity fluctuations, i.e.
0
i j j p
p,ij
i j j
t
p,ij i 0 j
t
0
v ( , t)v ( , t )
(τ)
v ( , t)v ( , t)
( ) v (t )v (t) dt
+τ
′ ′ + + τ
ϒ ≡
′ ′
′ ′ Θ τ =
∫
x x
x x
x
NSI
3.44a
3.44b
In the fluidtracer limit, the above correlation functions and the integral timescale revert to
that of Eqs. A.77a and A.78a. As such, the particle diffusivity reverts to the fluidtracer
diffusivity of Eq. 3.33. To quantify the nontracer effects, it is helpful to first define a
normalized particle diffusivity ratio, Θ
∗
, as the ratio of the particle turbulent diffusivity to the
fluidtracer turbulent diffusivity:
*
ij p,ij turb,ij
/ Θ ≡ Θ Θ
NSI
3.45
In the most complex case of NAsT (Nonhomogeneous Anisotropic Turbulence), the diffusion
ratio tensor can be a function of particle inertia, relative velocity, and location. In the simplest
case of HIST with particles of negligible inertia and relative velocity, the diffusion ratio will
simply be unity, i.e., Θ
∗
→1 as St
Λ
→0. In the following, particles in HIST will be considered
for arbitrary inertias but with small relative velocity compared to that of turbulence, e.g., a
109
negligible terminal or injection velocity compared to u
Λ
. Later subsections will account for
relative velocity effects.
Zero EddyCrossing Particle Diffusivity
A theoretically important limit for examining turbulent diffusion is that with finite particle
inertia (and finite Stokes number) but with negligible mean relative velocity compare to the
turbulence velocity. In this condition, the particles do not cutthrough the turbulence in any
preferred direction and this is called the “zero eddycrossing” limit. This limit is reasonable if
terminal velocities and injection relative velocities are small compared to the turbulent velocity
and there are no significant spatial variations in the mean velocity and turbulence. For such a
condition, the ensembleaveraged particle motion, i.e. 0 ≈ w . An arbitrary quantity (q) that
satisfies these conditions will be denoted as follows:
( )
term rms inj rms w 0
q q w / u 0, w / u 0
≈
′ ′ ≡ → →
3.46
This limit is reasonable at longtimes for small particles in strong turbulence or for particles in
microgravity conditions. For this limit, one may define a normalized continuousphase
turbulence intensity based on the particle mean relative velocity (which is approximately the
inverse of the normalized terminal velocity of Eq. 3.26):
*
*
term term
u u 1
u
w w w
Λ Λ
Λ
≡ ≈ =
3.47
Thus, the limit defined by Eq. 3.46 is consistent with
*
u
Λ
→∞ or
*
term
w 0 → .
For the zero eddycrossing limit, the particle velocity correlation function is approximately
a scalar and can be related to the particle velocity fluctuations based on Eq. 3.44 as
0
0
t
p p,ii i i p
t
( ) ( ) v ( , t)v ( , t ) t
+τ
′ ′ Θ τ ≈ Θ τ = + + τ
∫
x x d x
3.48
Based on this equation and the analysis used for Eq. 3.36, the shorttime particle diffusion is
consistent with the particle velocity correlation function of approximately unity, so that:
( ) ( )
2 2
*
p turb rms rms
/ v / u ′ ′ Θ ≡ Θ Θ ≈
for t « τ
ΛL
3.49
Thus, the shorttime diffusion ratio is proportional to the ratio of particle velocity fluctuations
to those of the fluid.
To determine the diffusion ratio at intermediate and longtimes, one must integrate the
particle equation of motion. To make this problem analytically tractable, a linear solid particle
drag is assumed (f=1) and the lift and history forces are assumed to be negligible. Note that
this latter assumption may not be appropriate for small density ratios (i.e. bubbly flows),
especially with respect to the history force effects but this will be addressed in a later sub
section. Based on Eqs. 1.77 and 3.1 and the above assumptions, the particle equation of
motion is:
110
p p
R
t t
+ = +
τ τ
d
d
d d
@p @p
u u
v v
3.50
For c
∀
= ½, R becomes 3/(1+2
*
p
ρ ) based on Eq. 1.81a. For the zero eddycrossing mean limit
of Eq. 3.46, the ensembleaveraged particle trajectory will be the same as a fluid tracer,
i.e.
p o
= τ +
@p
x u x . Hinze (1975) approximated the continuousphase velocity fluctuations as
a Fourier integral of the turbulent energy spectrum and then applied the above particle equation
of motion to relate
f @p
ϒ to
p
ϒ for HIST. For convenience, it is helpful to define an effective
Stokes number in terms of the fluid timescale along the particle path (Eq. 3.43b):
p 2
@p
@p
St
Λ
Λ
τ
≡
τ
3.51
Based on this definition, the above assumptions, and Eq. 3.50, Hinze obtained the particle
diffusion (“after some calculation”) for zero eddycrossing as:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2
@p @p @p p p, w 0
2 2
@p @p
( ) R St exp / St 1 R exp /
1
u 1 St
Λ Λ Λ ≈
Λ Λ Λ
Θ τ − −τ τ − − −τ τ
= −
τ −
3.52
This result can be normalized by Eq. 3.38 to give the turbulent particle diffusion ratio:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2
@p @p @p @p p
*
2
@p @p
1 St St R exp / St 1 R exp /
/ 1 St 1 exp /
Λ Λ Λ Λ
Λ Λ Λ Λ
− + − −τ τ + − −τ τ
Θ =
⎡ ⎤ τ τ − − −τ τ
⎣ ⎦
L L
3.53
As such, the particle Stokes number influences the diffusivity ratio which is often described as
the “inertia effect”.
For longtimes, the terms in the square brackets of Eq. 3.53 approach unity. As such, the
longtime particle diffusion ratio with zero eddycrossing is given by :
*
, w 0
@p, w 0
∞ ≈
Λ ≈
Λ
τ
Θ =
τ
L
3.54
The influence of particle inertia (Stokes number) on
@p, w 0 Λ ≈
τ determines the longtime
diffusion. For small inertia particles, the particle path is very close to the fluid path so that:
*
, w 0
1
∞ ≈
Θ ≈
for
St 1
Λ
<
L
3.55
In the limit of very high inertias, the particle path will tend to the moving Eulerian path (shown
in Fig. 3.5) so that so that τ
Λ@p
→τ
ΛmE
(Reeks, 1977; Stock, 1996). Thus
*
, w 0 ∞ ≈
Λ
Λ
τ
Θ =
τ
mE
L
for
St →
Λ
∞
L
3.56
Based on Eq. A.79,
Λ Λ
τ ≈ τ
L mE
for HIST, so that longtime diffusion reverts to approximately
unity for both Stokes number limits. As proposed by Csanady (1963), this further suggests:
111
@p, w 0 Λ Λ Λ ≈
τ ≈ τ ≈ τ
L mE
3.57
From this, it is reasonable to assume that the influence of Stokes number on longtime
diffusion is generally weak for HIST with negligible gravity. However, Wang & Stock (1993)
noted that significant differences between τ
ΛL
and τ
ΛmE
can occur. To account for this, they
developed a model to describe the transition of τ
Λ@p
between these two time scales as a
function of particle Stokes number. Thus, Eq. 3.57 may only be qualitatively correct in some
cases, though it is commonly used.
Assuming Eq. 3.57 is appropriate, Eq. 3.53 simplifies to:
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
2 2
p
*
w 0
2
1 R exp / St exp /
1
1 St 1 exp /
Λ
Λ
Λ τ
≈
τ Λ
⎡ ⎤
− −τ τ + −τ τ
⎣ ⎦
Θ = +
⎡ ⎤ − − −τ τ
⎣ ⎦
L
L
L
L
3.58
The dependence of this diffusivity ratio as a function of path duration for high density ratio
particles (
*
p
1 ρ > ) is plotted in Fig. 3.14a for various integralscale Stokes numbers. In general,
the diffusion ratio increases with both path duration and inertia. At very longtimes compared
to the particle inertia (
p
/ St , i.e.
Λ Λ
τ τ τ τ > >
L L
), the diffusion ratio approaches unity. As such,
the diffusion for very small particles or for very longtimes is consistent with the fluid tracer
limit (i.e. it becomes independent of the particle inertia). In the limit of very large particle
inertia ( St 1
Λ
>
L
) at shorttimes, the diffusion ratio tends to zero for shorttimes consistent
with the inability of the particle to respond to the turbulent fluctuations. If the Stokes number
is taken as the pathaveraged value (
St
ΛL
) which includes the Stokes correction factor, these
trends are consistent with experimental results for nonlinear drag particle diffusion of Crowe
et al. (1988) and Wang & Stock (1993).
It is interesting to consider the impact of density ratio for a Stokes number of unity, for
which Eq. 3.58 can be evaluated using the rule of L’Hopital. The result is shown in Fig. 3.14b
and indicates the influence of
*
p
ρ at shorttimes is substantial. In particular, heavy particles
will spread less for shorttimes, neutrallybuoyant particles spread at the same rate as fluid
tracers for all times, and low density particles will actually spread faster than fluid tracers (up
to eight times faster). However, history and buoyancy forces (neglected in these predictions)
will both oppose such large diffusion increases for low density particles. As such, these
predictions and those of Eqs. 3.52, 3.53 and 3.58 may be only qualitatively correct for bubbles
or other lowdensity particles.
Perhaps the most important result of Eq. 3.58 is that the diffusion ratio for longtimes and
zero gravity approaches that of the fluidtracer independent of the density ratio and Stokes
number:
*
, w 0
1
∞ ≈
Θ =
for all
St
ΛL
and R 3.59
This can also be inferred from application of Eq. 3.57 when considering the limits of Eq. 3.55
and 3.56. This result occurs because the longtime integration and ensembleaveraging
eventually dominate over any lag associated with particle inertia. Thus, the spread rate will
eventually be the same for all particles. However, the time it takes to achieve the longtime
112
limit increases with the Stokes number so that the net spread for such particles will always be
less at a given time, as discussed below.
Particle Positional Variance
To see the effect that particle inertia has on the instantaneous spread of a particle cloud, the
particle diffusion rate can be integrated in time:
0
1 1 1 2 2 2
p p p p
2 2 2
t w 0 w 0 w 0
w 0
t x y z
τ
≈ ≈ ≈
≈
⎡ ⎤
′ ′ ′ Θ ≡ = =
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∫
d
3.60
To determine the RHS terms, one may integrate Eq. 3.52 (which neglects the history force).
The result can be normalized by the spread for tracer particles (Eq. 3.39) to obtain a
dimensionless particle spread in the ydirection as:
( )
p
2
2 2 2
p p
w 0
3
2 2
y y
1 St R 1 R
e 1 St e 1
1 St 1 St 2 u
Λ
Λ Λ Λ
τ
τ
−
−
≈ τ
τ Λ
Λ
Λ Λ
+ −
′ ′
⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ − τ −
⎢ ⎥ = − − ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
τ − − τ
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
⎣ ⎦
⎣ ⎦
L
L L
L
L
L L
3.61
As with the particle diffusion rate, this result may not be quantitatively correct for finite R
values, e.g., for bubbles. The theoretical dependency of this particle positional variance is
shown in Fig. 3.15a for various Stokes numbers with R→0, e.g., heavy particles in a gas. As
expected, the diffusion rate (slope of the curve) is shown to eventually approach unity for large
times (
p
τ τ > ) but is much less than the fluidtracer diffusion rate for short and intermediate
times for large Stokes numbers. The initially lower slope indicates that the particle spread at
high inertias will always lag behind the diffusion of fluidtracers.
These predictions are compared to experimental HIST particles dispersion in Fig. 3.15b for
a wake flow studied by Snyder & Lumley (1971) with particles of various sizes and densities.
In the experiments, the integral timescale was assumed to be approximately constant and
based on a value at midpoint downstream (τ
ΛL
=0.25k/ε). For the lightest particles (hollow
glass beads), the theoretical predictions for zero eddycrossing compare reasonably well with
the experimental data when matching the particle Stokes number. This can be reasonably
expected since the terminal velocity was a small fraction of the turbulent velocity fluctuations
(i.e.
*
term
w 1 < ) such that the assumption of negligible gravity effects on diffusion was
reasonable. However, as the particle terminal velocity increased (for the corn pollen and solid
glass particles), the measured particle spread rate was found to decrease substantially as
compared to the zero eddycrossing diffusion predictions. This discrepancy is a result of an
eddycrossing effect associated with finite relative velocity, discussed in the next section.
Particle Velocity Fluctuations in Laminar Flow with a Single Frequency
Before addressing the fluctuations in turbulent flow, the simpler condition of particles
subjected to laminar flow which is excited by a single frequency is discussed. Consider a
spatiallyuniform oscillatory flow based on a time period of oscillations given by τ
D
. Consider
a particle equation of motion given by Eq. 1.76 which assumes creeping flow (Re
p
→0) but
113
incorporates the Basset history (Eq. 1.75). If one assumes the influence of the initial
conditions is negligible (dw/dt=0 at t=0), the theoretical velocity amplitude ratio is analytically
tractable and yields (L’Esperance et al. 2006):
( )
( )
( ) ( )
D D D
rms
2 2
rms
D
D D D
St R 1 St 3RSt / 2
v
1
u
1 3RSt / 2 St 3RSt / 2
− +
⎛ ⎞
≈ +
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
+ + +
for laminar flow
3.62
The history force effect is represented by the square root terms. As shown in Fig. 3.16, this
singlefrequency prediction compares well with laminar flow experiments for a variety of
density ratios at low Re
p
values. The above result for veryheavy particles (R→0) yields a
negligible influence of the history force so that:
( )
2
rms
2
2
rms
D
v 1
u
1 St
⎛ ⎞
→
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ +
for laminar flow and
*
p
1 ρ >
3.63
The result for particles whose densities are on the order of the fluid or much lower indicates a
significant influence of the history force when St
D
is finite.
Particle Velocity Fluctuations
One may define the turbulent particle kinetic energy in a fashion similar to that for the fluid
kinetic energy (Eq. A.71)
1
p i i
2
k v v ′ ′ ≡ 3.64
Using the same assumptions used for particle diffusion, Hinze (1975) represented the fluid and
particle velocities as Fourier integrals for all the frequencies (f) of the turbulent spectrum:
1 2
0
3 4
0
u (c cos t c sin t) d
v (c cos t c sin t) d
∞
∞
′ = +
′ = +
∫
∫
f f f
f f f
3.65a
3.65b
These equations include four lengthscales constants (c
1
, c
2
, c
3
, and c
4
) which can be obtained
by substituting the RHS expressions into the particle equation of motion given by Eq. 3.50.
Setting the sum of the sine and cosine terms on both sides of this equation to be equal allows
the following relations to be obtained:
2 2 3
p p
3 1 2 2 2 2 2
p p
3 2 2
p p
4 1 2 2 2 2 2
p p
τ (R 1) τ (R 1)
c 1 c c
1 τ 1 τ
τ (R 1) τ (R 1)
c c 1 c
1 τ 1 τ
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ − −
= + +
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
+ +
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ − −
= − + +
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
+ +
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
f f
f f
f f
f f
3.66a
3.66b
114
Taking the square of Eqs. 3.65a and 3.65b applying a long time averaging (as in Eq. A.70)
yields:
2 2
2 1 2
0
2 2
2 3 4
0
π(c +c )
u d
2
π(c +c )
v d
2
∞
∞
′ =
τ
′ =
τ
∫
∫
f
f
3.67a
3.67b
To integrate the fluid velocity fluctuations, one may assume that the Lagrangian correlation
coefficient for the fluid motion may be represented by an exponential function (Eq. A.80a).
Hinze (1975) obtains
2 2 2 2 2
2 Λ 1 2
Λ
1 τ π (c +c )
u '
4 τ
⎛ ⎞ +
=
⎜ ⎟
τ
⎝ ⎠
L
L
f
3.68
Substituting this results and Eqs. 3.66a and 3.66b into Eq. 3.67b yields
( )( )
2 2
2 2
p p
Λ Λ
2 2 2
2
Λ 0 p Λ
k 1 τ R
2τ 1 St R v
d
k π 1 St 1 τ 1 τ
u
∞
+ ′ +
= = =
+ + + ′
∫
2
L L
2
L L
f
f
f f
3.69
Thus, the normalized particle kinetic energy is a function of the Stokes number and the density
ratio and tends to unity for the tracer particle limit.
The appropriateness of the above result can be considered for both veryheavy particles
(R→0) and bubbles (R→3). For the heavy particle limit, the particle fluctuations reduce as
Stokes number increases:
2
2
v 1
1 St
u
Λ
′
≈
+
′
L
for turbulent flow and
*
p
1 ρ > 3.70
Compared to the oscillating laminar flow (Eq. 3.63), this Stokes number dependence has
similarities (e.g., no history force effect) but also substantial differences. As such, the response
of a particle due to a turbulent spectrum is fundamentally different than that due to a single
frequency. As shown in Fig. 3.17, the turbulent result of Eq. 3.70 compares reasonably with
simulation data of turbulent flows for heavy particles with negligible mean relative velocities,
even when effects of nonlinear drag are included (Sommerfeld, 2001; Squires, 2007). It is
interesting that the kinetic energy ratio reduces with Stokes number independent of whether
shorttimes or longtimes are considered. This is because the reduction due to Stokes number
in Eq. 3.70 is caused by an inertial decorrelation as particles velocities become less dependent
on fluid fluctuations. In contrast, the diffusion rate varies substantially between shorttimes
(Eq. 3.49) and longtimes (Eq. 3.54) since it eventually incorporates all the lowfrequency
contributions so that it becomes independent of Stokes number.
For bubbles (R→3), Eq. 3.69 yields k
p
/k=9 for St
Λ
»1, i.e. the bubble velocity fluctuations
much larger than the fluid fluctuations for significant inertia. However, experiments and DNS
results (as discussed in the next section) typically indicate that bubble kinetic energies are
typically limited to that of the continuousphase, i.e. k
p
/k≤1, contrary to this prediction. The
problem of Eq. 3.69 may be firstly attributed to its neglect of history forces, which can
115
dramatically limit particle velocity fluctuations for the laminar flow case as noted in Eq. 3.62
and Fig. 3.16. This conclusion is also supported by analysis from Reeks & McKee (1984)
which indicated that Basset history coupled with initial relative velocities can affect the
turbulent flow diffusion even at longtimes. Unfortunately, it is difficult to incorporate finite
Reynolds number history force effects into theoretical predictions of particle kinetic energy in
turbulent flows. A second problem associated with Eq. 3.69 is that bubbles and low density
particles are more likely to have significant mean relative velocities. This is because they tend
to be associated with lower speed flows and thus lower Froude numbers. This leads to higher
terminal velocity ratios for a given Stokes number based on Eq. 3.25. Such significant relative
velocities would violate the assumption of Eq. 3.46, on which Eq. 3.69 is based. Before
addressing this issue (in §3.5.3), the particle relative velocity fluctuations are investigated.
Using the velocity fluctuations of Eq. 3.65 and again neglecting the mean relative velocity,
the relative particle velocity fluctuations can also be represented as a Fourier integral
( ) ( )
3 1 4 2
0
w v u c  c cos t c  c sin t d
∞
′ ′ ′ ≡ − = + ⎡ ⎤
⎣ ⎦ ∫
f f f
3.71
Based on Eq. 3.66, these parameter differences in the integral can be expressed as
2 2 3
p p
3 1 1 2 2 2 2
p p
3 2 2
p p
4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
p p
τ (R 1) τ (R 1)
c  c c c
1 τ 1 τ
τ (R 1) τ (R 1)
c  c c c
1 τ 1 τ
− −
= +
+ +
− −
= − +
+ +
2
f f
f f
f f
f f
3.72a
3.72b
The meansquare of Eq. 3.71 can then be obtained as
( ) ( )
2 2
3 1 4 2
2
0
π c  c c  c
w d
2T
∞ ⎡ ⎤
+
⎣ ⎦
′ =
∫
f
3.73
This equation can be integrated using Eq. 3.68 to yield
( )( )
2 2 2 2
Λ Λ
2 2 2
2
Λ 0 p Λ
2τ St (R 1) w (R 1)
d
π 1 St 1 τ 1 τ
u
∞
′ − −
= =
+ + + ′
∫
L L
2
L L
f
f
f f
3.74
Thus, the relative particle velocity fluctuations are a function of the Stokes number and the
density ratio, but tend to zero for the tracer particle limit. As with Eq. 3.69, this result must be
modified for conditions with significant eddycrossing effects and/or low particle density ratios,
which is the following subject.
3.5.3. Diffusion of Finite Inertia Particles with EddyCrossing Effects
EddyCrossing and EddyInteraction TimeScales
The above discussion assumed that mean particle relative velocity was small compared
to the continuousphase turbulence. If this assumption is not reasonable, then w may
116
substantially veer from the mean fluid path. Conveniently, this does not necessarily lead to any
changes in the magnitude of the continuousphase fluctuations if the turbulence is homogenous.
For example, a stationary (v=0) particle in HIST will experience the same
rms
u′ as a particle
moving with the mean flow (v=u ). However, these two particles will see a different frequency
of the continuousphase fluctuations, since the stationary particle will have fluctuations wash
over it at a faster rate than the particle which moves with the flow. Thus the timescale for
turbulence along the particle path may no longer be given by τ
ΛL
if u v ≠ . In general, a
particle with substantial relative velocity will experience a shorter timescale since the particle
path will cut through an eddy, rather than remain with it during its entire Lagrangian lifetime.
This is referred to as the “eddycrossing effect” since it is based on the time it takes for the
particle to cross a typical turbulent structure (of size Λ) and is qualitatively shown in Fig. 3.18.
The eddycrossing effect may be quantified by considering particles which move at high
relative speeds to the turbulence so that they cut through the turbulence structures in times
which are much shorter than the integral timescale. This limit is equivalent to Taylor’s
“frozen turbulence” hypothesis noted in §A.5.3 whereby the turbulence structures do not have
time to evolve along the particle path during their interaction with the particle. As a result, the
change of fluid velocity fluctuations “seen” by the particle is simply a result of a spatial
decorrelation (and not temporal correlation) given by the spatial shift wτ. Application of this
frozen turbulence assumption to Eq. 3.43 yields the integraltime of turbulence along the
particle path for the eddycrossing effect. This timescale is denoted τ
cross
, and the integral of
the associated correlation function happens to out to be equal to the integrallength scale,
defined by Eqs. A.81 for streamwise fluctuations and by A.84 for transverse fluctuations:
( ) ( )
0 0
cross
1
, 0 d , 0 dx
w w
∞ ∞
Λ
τ ≡ ϒ = τ τ = ϒ = τ =
∫ ∫
w w x x
3.75
Recall from Eq. A.87 that the integral lengthscale for streamwise velocity fluctuations is
different from that for lateral fluctuations because of the “continuity effect” so that the eddy
crossing timescale is anisotropic (even for HIST):
cross
cross
/ w
/ w
⊥ ⊥
τ ≡ Λ
τ ≡ Λ
 
3.76a
3.76b
For isotropic turbulence, the ratio of the streamwise to lateral lengthscales is 2 (Eq. A.89) and
thus so is the ratio of the streamwise to lateral eddycrossing timescales. However, typical
anisotropic freeshear and boundarylayer flows tend to have a lengthscale ratio that is
somewhat larger, about 23 (Hinze, 1975).
Next, we consider the decorrelation time along the particle path for intermediate conditions
(e.g.,
*
u
Λ
~1) where the eddycrossing effect is significant but does not dominate. A general
relationship was rigorously derived by Wang & Stock (1993) for anisotropic particlefluid
correlations and diffusivities. However, Csanady (1963) obtained a simple relationship for the
particlepath decorrelation timescale in HIST flow based on a quadratic combination of the
integralscale and eddycrossing frequencies:
117
( ) ( )
1/ 2
2 2
@p cross
0
, d
∞
−
− −
Λ Λ
τ ≡ ϒ = τ τ τ ≈ τ + τ
∫
w
L
x
3.77
This equation was found to reasonably characterize particle dispersion in approximately HIST
flow (Csanady, 1963) and appropriately recovers the frozenflow and zerocrossing limits for
high and low relative velocities. To show this, consider particles whose mean relative speed is
equal to the terminal velocity. In this case, τ
cross
is proportional to Λ/w
term
by Eq. 3.75, while
τ
ΛL
is proportional to Λ/u
Λ
by Eq. A.90. As such,
*
term
w 1 > leads to τ
cross
«τ
ΛL
which is
consistent with the frozen turbulence limit for which the eddycrossing effect will dominate so
that τ
Λ@p
→τ
cross
. In contrast,
*
term
w 1 < leads to τ
cross
»τ
Λ
which is consistent with the zero
eddycrossing limit of §3.5.2 so that τ
Λ@p
→τ
ΛL
.
As shown in Fig. 3.19a, the decorrelation time of the fluid turbulence observed by the
particle given by Eq. 3.77 will be shorter as
*
term
w increases due to the eddycrossing effect.
Based on the above, the timescale for fluid velocity decorrelation be given as
2 2 2
@p,i term i
/ 1 w /
Λ Λ Λ
τ = τ + τ Λ
L L
3.78
This assumes that τ
ΛL
is isotropic (same for both streamwise and lateral velocity fluctuations)
but allows for anisotropy in the integral lengthscales consistent with the discussion of §A.5.3
(Sawford, 1991). One may then define an effective Stokes number which incorporates the
eddycrossing effect and integral lengthscale anisotropy as:
( )
2
@p,i term i
St St 1 w /
Λ Λ Λ
= + τ Λ
L L
3.79
This timescale ratio is important for turbulent dispersion since it compares the particle
response time to the effective turbulence timescale seen by the particle, and thus controls the
overall response.
Diffusion Ratio for EddyCrossing Effects
Noting that the integral timescale seen by the particle will be modified by the eddy
crossing effect by Eq. 3.78, the diffusivity of particles given by Eq. 3.53 can be used to obtain
the corresponding longtime diffusion ratio as:
( )
1/ 2
2
@p,i *
,i term i
1 w /
−
Λ
∞ Λ
Λ
τ
⎡ ⎤
Θ = = + τ Λ
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
τ
L
L
3.80
This is similar to the result of Eq. 3.54 which is independent of both particle inertia and density
ratio, but differs in that the eddycrossing effect leads to diffusion which is reduced in
magnitude. The diffusion can also be anisotropic even for HIST flows due to directional
variations associated with the eddycrossing time (Eq. 3.76). The differences in streamwise
and lateral length scales can be related to the turbulence “structure parameter” defined in Eq.
A.90:
118
( ) ( )
1
2
c
u u
⊥
Λτ
Λ Λ Λ Λ
Λ
Λ
≡ ≈
τ τ

L L
3.81
This constant can be used with Eqs. 3.26 and 3.76 to give the longtime diffusion in the
longitudinal and lateral directions for particles primarily driven by drag and gravitational
forces:
( )
( )
1/ 2
2
* *
term
1/ 2
2
* *
term
1+ w / c
1+ w / 2c
−
⊥∞ Λτ
−
∞ Λτ
⎡ ⎤
Θ =
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤
Θ ≈
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

3.82a
3.82b
These results are plotted in Fig. 3.19b for HIST flow where the longtime diffusion ratios
without the gravitational effect tend toward unity (consistent with Eq. 3.59). As the particle
relative velocity increases, the influence of the eddycrossing effect reduces the diffusion ratios
anisotropically (i.e.
* *
⊥∞ ∞
Θ ≤ Θ

), so that the streamwise diffusion will be twice that of the
lateral diffusion when the eddycrossing effect dominates, i.e.
*
term
w 1. >
The predicted lateral diffusion using c
Λτ
=1.5 is shown in Fig. 3.20a compared against a
wide range of Stokes numbers and density ratios in free shear flows. This includes
measurements and simulations of heavy particles in gridgenerated turbulence respectively by
Wells & Stock (1983) and Elghobashi & Truesdell (1984) as well as measurements of bubbles
in water by Lasheras (1998) and Poorte & Biesheuvel (2002). As expected, very small
particles with high turbulence and negligible terminal velocity will have a longtime particle
diffusivity which is approximately equal to the scalar diffusivity. On the other hand, particles
with a large terminal velocity will have a particle diffusivity which is much lower. This trend
applies to both bubbles in a liquid and particle in a gas, which is consistent with result of Eq.
3.80 which is independent of
*
p
ρ . It should also be noted that while the experiments include
particle Reynolds numbers much greater than unity with nonlinear drag, the theoretical
diffusion model, which assumes Stokes drag, behaves reasonably well.
However, it can be seen that the data spread is significant indicating that the value of c
Λτ
may not be unique, and indeed this scatter can be accommodated by ranging this coefficient
from 0.5 to 5. Similar trends of longtime diffusion ratio with
*
term
w are shown in Fig. 3.20b
for fullyresolved DNS data for heavy particles in a stirred box and bubbles in an outer portion
of a boundary layer (where history forces have been included). The trends again demonstrate
the importance of the eddycrossing effect in controlling longtime turbulent diffusion for
particles. However, the heavy particle results are better correlated with the Csanadybased
theory that uses c
Λτ
=0.5, indicating further that this constant may have variations from flow to
flow. Indeed, Wang & Stock (1993) noted that the structure parameter may vary as much as
0.1 to 10 depending on the individual flow details. Furthermore, c
Λτ
values for NAsT flows
can vary as a function of location and even direction (Bocksell & Loth, 2006).
Finally, we return to the Snyder & Lumley data which we were unable to predict when the
terminal velocity was significant (Fig. 3.15b), and evaluate the lateral particle spread again but
with the eddycrossing and continuity effects included (based on Eqs. 3.60, 3.79, and 3.97).
119
The normalized theoretical result for heavy particles in the ydirection (which is perpendicular
to the mean relative velocity) is given by
( )
2
@p
rms @p
p p
2
@p @p p
y y
2 2
exp exp
1 St
u
Λ ⊥
Λ ⊥
Λ ⊥ Λ ⊥
+
⎡ ⎤ ′ ′ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
τ τ τ
= − − − ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
τ − τ τ
′ τ ⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
3.83
Note that this equation can be modified for streamwise diffusion by substituting the lateral
integral timescale and Stokes number with the values
@p @p
and St
Λ Λ
τ
 
.
If we specify c
Λτ
=1.5, Fig. 3.21 shows that the particle spread rates are reasonably
represented by the theoretical diffusion ratios, despite the assumption that the integral time
scale is constant (it actually increased nearly threefold over the measuring range). The heavier
particles (copper and solid glass) were associated with higher relative velocities and, as
expected, the resulted in reduced experimental diffusion rates according to the eddycrossing
effect. The lightest particles (hollow glass) were dominated by the eddy life time with respect
to their diffusion and thus yielded the largest diffusion rates. It can also be seen that the initial
diffusion spread is approximately quadratic like that of a fluid tracer (Eq. 3.36) and that the
eddycrossing effect is important for intermediate (and not just long) times.
In summary, the four main characteristics associated with diffusion of particles in
homogeneous isotropic stationary turbulence are:
a) inertia effect which reduces Θ
∗
as St
ΛL
increases for short and intermediate times,
a) longtime limit which yields
*
∞
Θ →1 for zerocrossing conditions
c) eddycrossing effect which reduces
*
∞
Θ as
*
term
w increases
d) continuity effect which causes
*
∞
Θ

to be twice
*
⊥∞
Θ
for large
*
term
w
In addition, the particle turbulent energy ratio (k
p
/k) is found to reduce for heavy particles as
St
Λ
increases, but is approximately unity for bubbles. These characteristics can be used to
develop numerical models for turbulence diffusion of particles (discussed in §7.17 and §7.2.5)
and for particle velocity bias (discussed in the next section). In the following, the effects of
relative velocity are incorporated into the models for fluctuations of particle velocity and of
particle relative velocity.
Particle Kinetic Energy for Eddycrossing Effects
Since the eddycrossing effect reduces the integral timescale of turbulence seen the
particle, Eq. 3.69 can be modified using 3.80 to obtain the kinetic energy ratio (neglecting
history force effects):
( )
( )
2
2
2
term i
i,rms
2
i,rms
term i
1 St R 1 w /
v
u
1 St 1 w /
Λ Λ
Λ Λ
+ + τ Λ
⎛ ⎞ ′
=
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
′
⎝ ⎠
+ + τ Λ
L L
L L
NSI
3.84
This equation indicates that variations in Λ
i
(Eq. 3.81) can lead to anisotropy in the particle
velocity fluctuations when the eddycrossing is significant. For veryheavy particles (R→0) in
HIST, the overall particle kinetic energy is the sum of all three components:
120
( ) ( )
p
2 2
term term
k
2/ 3 1/ 3
k
1 St 1 w / 1 St 1 w /
Λ Λ ⊥ Λ Λ
= +
+ + τ Λ + + τ Λ
 L L L L
3.85
If the terms in the parentheses are limited to values of 4 or less, this can be approximated as:
( )
1
2
p
term
k
1 St 1 w /
k
−
Λ Λ ⊥
⎡ ⎤
≈ + + τ Λ
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
L L
3.86
Employing the structure parameter of Eq. 3.81, the term in the square brackets can be defined
as an effective Stokes number for isotropic diffusion:
( )
2
1 *
@p term
2
St St 1 w / c
Λ Λ Λτ
≡ +
L
3.87
The turbulent kinetic energy is therefore simplified as
( )
1
p @p
k / k 1 St
−
Λ
≈ +
L
for
*
p
1 ρ > 3.88
This result has been found to be reasonable for a wide range of particle Reynolds numbers and
flow conditions (Fig. 3.22).
For bubbles (R→3), the kinetic energy ratio has been used for moderate Stokes numbers by
Mudde & Simonin (1999). However, at high Stokes numbers, this equation yields bubble
kinetic energies which are an order of magnitude greater than that of the liquid turbulence.
This substantial increase is in contrast to experimental evidence for bubbles which indicate that
the turbulence ratio is generally of order unity (Sun & Faeth, 1986). This difference can be
attributed to the neglect of history force effects, which are known to reduce the velocity
fluctuations in laminar conditions (e.g., Eq. 3.62). Furthermore, lift forces and eddycrossing
effects will reduce the degree of correlation of the particle and fluid velocity fluctuations. As a
result, the fluidstress force effects (which are responsible for predictions of k
P
>k in Eq. 3.84 at
high Stokes numbers) will be reduced. Based on the data of Fig. 3.20b, one may propose an
empirical model which suggests that the increases due to fluidstress force effects are
approximately canceled out by the history force, lift and eddycrossing effects so that:
p
k k ≈ for
*
p
1 ρ < and
p
Re 1 >
3.89
Of course, more research is needed to develop a quantitative description of bubble turbulence
intensity and for other lowdensity particle with finite R values.
The relative velocity fluctuations obtained for linear drag in HIST Eq. 3.74 for
*
p
1 ρ > can
be extended to include eddycrossing effects by using the transformation of Eq. 3.87 to modify
the effective Stokes number seen by the particle:
2
2
Λ@p
rms
2
rms Λ@p
St
w w
u 1 St
u
⎛ ⎞ ′ ′
≡ =
⎜ ⎟
′ +
′
⎝ ⎠
3.90
It is instructive to consider the limits of very small and very large Stokes numbers for the RHS
expression. Particles with very small Stokes numbers and linear drag will rapidly respond to
all the turbulent frequencies so that they are generally in a static equilibrium, i.e.
121
rms rms
w / u 0 ′ ′ → for
Λ@p
St 1 <
3.91
In contrast, very large Stokes number particles do not respond significantly to the turbulence
and their relative velocity fluctuations will simply equal to the continuousphase velocity
fluctuations.
RMS RMS
w u ′ ′ → for
Λ@p
St 1 >
3.92
As shown in Fig. 3.23, the Stokes number variations for the relative velocity fluctuations are
reasonably represented with available data. Further, as long as the turbulence is weak,
homogenous and isotropic, the initial conditions are negligible, and the drag force is linear, the
timeaveraged relative velocity will tend to the terminal velocity for the above conditions:
term
w w → for
Λ@p
St 1 <
3.93
In addition, the mean particle Reynolds number will tend to Re
p,term
. However, as will be
discussed in the next section, these mean quantities can differ from the terminal velocity values
if some of the above restrictions are relaxed.
3.5.4. Lagrangian Average of Particle Relative Velocity
Substantial turbulence levels can cause changes in mean particle relative velocity as well as
the corresponding particle Reynolds number. The following subsection deals with several
mechanisms which can cause such changes.
Reynolds Number Changes due to Relative Velocity Fluctuations
For a particle falling in steady state in nonturbulent conditions, the particle Reynolds
number is simply equal to the terminal Reynolds number. However, this is not true if there are
significant relative velocity fluctuations, e.g., arising from turbulence. To show this, consider
the pathaveraged Reynolds number of a particle:
f f
p
f f
d w d w
Re
ρ ρ
≡ =
μ μ
3.94
To obtain the pathaveraged relative velocity magnitude, one may decompose the relative
velocity vector along the particle path in terms of a trajectoryaveraged mean and a fluctuation
about this mean using the notation:
´
′′′ = + w w w
3.95
Assuming the mean continuousphase flow is uniform and the fluctuations are isotropic and
homogeneous, this particle average velocity after a longtime (t»τ
p
) will come to an
equilibrium value. Taking a pathaverage of the equation of motion (Eq. 1.80) in these
conditions, the average drag force must balance the effective gravitational force:
122
D g,eff
ˆ
= F F 3.96
Assuming constant particle diameter, shape and viscosity, this indicates
´
term term
f f = w w 3.97
Further assuming that the drag is linear so that the pathaveraged Stokes correction is a
constant (f=1 for a solid sphere), leads to a steadystate result consistent with Eq. 3.93:
term
ˆ = w w
3.98
Thus, the pathaveraged velocity vector for linear drag is simply the terminal velocity since
lateral fluctuations of w (perpendicular to g) will cancelout for long times.
However, the magnitude of the fluctuations in both lateral directions will always be
positive at any instant, so that a timeaverage of this magnitude will be nonzero. For weak
fluctuations (
RMS term
w w ′′′ < ), this effect will be negligible so that
term
ˆ w w w ≈ ≈ . For strong
fluctuations (
rms
ˆ w w ′′′ > ), all three components increase the mean magnitude of the relative
velocity so that
rms
w 3w′′′ ≈ . From these two limits, one may construct an approximation
for general conditions as:
( )
3
2
i i rms
i 1
ˆ ˆ w w w w 3w
=
′′′ ′′′ = + ≈ +
Σ
3.99
Using the pathaveraged relative velocity of Eq. 3.95 and assuming homogenous turbulence
and isotropic particle statistics, Eq. 3.90 can be rewritten as
Λ@p
rms
rms Λ@p
St
w
u 1 St
′′′
=
′ +
3.100
Based on Eqs. 3.94, 3.99 and 3.100, the pathaveraged particle Reynolds number becomes:
2 2 2
@p x y z
p
rms rms
p,term term term term
@p
3St w w w Re
w u
1 3 1
Re w w w
1 St
Λ
Λ
+ +
′′′ ′
= ≈ + ≈ +
+
3.101
This indicates that the mean particle Reynolds number will increase with the turbulence
intensity. While Eq. 3.100 assumes Re
p
«1, Fig. 3.24 also shows that this equation is
reasonable for nonlinear drag regimes. This figure also shows that
p
Re can greatly exceed
Re
p,term
for high Stokes number and turbulence intensities. This can be important because
increases in the particle Reynolds number beyond the creeping flow limit can significantly
enhance heat and mass transfer rates (Eq. 1.94). The relative velocity fluctuations can also
affect the mean relative velocity if the drag is nonlinear, as discussed in the following.
Nonlinear Drag Bias
123
For a particle with linear drag, the pathaveraged relative velocity will equal the terminal
velocity (Eq. 3.98). However, a particle with nonlinear drag with relative velocity fluctuations
can yield a modified relative velocity. To show this, consider a heavy particle in the Newton
drag regime (2,000<Re
p
<300,000) where C
D
is approximately constant and where drag is the
only surface force applied to the particle. Whether at terminal conditions or in turbulent flow,
the longtime averaged drag force magnitude is then equal to the gravitational force based on
Eq. 3.96. Equating these drag forces under these two conditions yields:
´
1 1 2 2 2
f term D term g,eff D,z f z D
8 8
d w C F F F d w wC π ρ = = = = π ρ 3.102
The terminal velocity can then be related to the timeaveraged velocity as:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
2 2
2 2
term z z z z z x y z z z
ˆ ˆ w w w w w w w w w w 3w w ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ = = + + + + ≈ +
3.103
The approximation on the RHS assumes that the fluctuating terms dominate and are isotropic.
These terms can be approximated using Eq. 3.100 (which assumes weak turbulence) as
1
2
@p
2 2
term @p term
St
w 3u u
1
w 1 St u u w
−
Λ
Λ
⎡ ⎤
⎛ ⎞
′ ′
≈ + ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
′ ′ + +
⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
for C
D
=const. 3.104
The result indicates that the mean relative velocity will be generally less than the terminal
velocity, e.g., heavy particles will have a lower fall rate once in turbulence. Since the above
results indicates ( )
( )
D D
ˆ F w F w ≥ , care must be taken when computing the average nonlinear
drag force in turbulence.
A similar bias also exists for intermediate particle Reynolds numbers. The difference
between the mean drag and the force computed with only the mean relative velocity can be
expressed in terms of the Stokes correction factor and the vertical velocity (w
z
) as:
( )
( )
( )
z
D
z z z z
D
z z z z
f f w
F w ˆ fw f w f w fw
1 1
ˆ F w ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ f w f w f w f w
′′′ −
′′′ ′′′ ′′′ +
= = = + = +
`
`
` ` ` `
3.105
The SchillerNaumann expression of Eq. 1.54 can be used for the mean Stokes correction:
´
0.687
p
ˆ
f 1 0.15Re ≈ +
for Re
p
<1000
3.106
The instantaneous correction for small fluctuations (
i,rms
ˆ w w ′′ < ) is then:
´
( )
0.687
0.687
0.687
p
p z
ˆ f 1 0.15Re 1 0.15Re w/ w = + = + 3.107
If one assumes
i
ˆ w w ′′ < , then the term in parentheses can be approximated to firstorder as:
0.687
2 2 2 0.687 0.687
y
z x z z z
z z z z z z
w
w w w w w
1 1 2 1 1 0.687
ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ w w w w w w
′′′
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′
+ + + ≈ + ≈ + ≈ +
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
3.108
Combining Eqs. 3.107 and 3.108, the RHS correlation of Eq. 3.105 can be expressed as:
124
( )
( )
´
´
( )
0.687 2
p
D z
z
0.687 2
D z
z p
F w w
fw 0.103Re
1 1
ˆ ˆ F w w ˆ f w
1 0.15Re
′′′
′′′
≈ + ≈ +
+
`
3.109
Incorporating Eq. 3.100 then yields:
( )
( )
´
´
0.687 2
p Λ@p D
RMS
0.687
D term Λ@p
p
St F w
u 0.103Re
1
ˆ F w w 1 St
1 0.15Re
⎛ ⎞ ′
≈ +
⎜ ⎟
+
⎝ ⎠ +
for Re
p
<1000
3.110
Therefore, increasing Stokes number, turbulence intensities and particle Reynolds number all
increase the LHS ratio beyond unity. As shown in Fig. 3.25, this approximation is reasonable
for a fixed particle (infinite Stokes number) exposed to turbulent intensities as high as 25%.
As with the Newton drag regime, the mean relative velocity for the intermediate drag
regime will also decrease in magnitude compared to the terminal velocity. However, Eqs.
3.106 and Eq. 3.110 yield implicit relationships for this change which must be solved
iteratively. An implicit model for the nonlinear drag effect was also developed by Mei (1994)
based on an intermediate Re
p
form. An approximate explicit expression which gives similar
results using the Y function of Eq. 2.18 is given by:
( )
( )
1/ 2
@p term
Re z
2
*
term term @p
term
St 3 Y 1 ˆ w w
1 1 1
w w 1 St
1 w
−
Λ
Λ
⎡ ⎤
⎛ ⎞
−
Δ
⎢ ⎥
≡ − ≈ + − ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎥ +
+
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
3.111
This equation is constructed to approach the Newtondrag form (Eq. 3.104) for high turbulence
and high Re
p
and the creepingflow form (Eq. 3.98) for low Re
p
. As shown in Fig. 3.26, this
HISTbased approximation is quantitatively consistent with simulations of Stout et al. (1995)
for particles subjected to stochastic and uncorrelated fluid velocity fluctuations for which only
drag and gravitational forces were present. This equation is also qualitatively consistent with
experiments of particles in an oscillating fluid (Tunstall & Houghton, 1968), though the neglect
of history force, fluid stress fluctuations and the container boundaries may be responsible for
the differences. In general, the results of Fig. 3.26 show that nonlinear drag will reduce the
magnitude of trajectoryaveraged relative velocity as particle Reynolds number, relative
turbulence levels (
*
u
Λ
) and/or Stokes number increase. In many multiphase flows, the non
linear drag changes are moderate because the latter two effects tend to counteract. For
example, large particles will tend to have high Stokes numbers but large terminal velocities, i.e.
small
*
u
Λ
levels, while small particles tend to be characterized by small Stokes numbers but
with large
*
u
Λ
levels.
3.5.5. Eulerian Average of Particle Relative Velocity
In addition to the nonlinear drag bias mentioned above, turbulence can also introduce
biases that impacts the Eulerian mean relative velocity. These biases generally do not affect
the relative velocity along the Lagrangian path, but instead arise because the particle
trajectories are biased towards certain regions so that the mean flow that the particle “sees” is
125
different from that seen by fluid tracers (§3.4). If one assumes that these effects act linearly,
they can be identified using an Eulerian timeaverage of Eq. 3.95:
term Re pref clus k
ˆ ˆ
∇ ∇α
′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ = + = + = + Δ + + + + w w w w w w w w w w w 3.112
The RHS includes the Lagrangianaveraged relative velocity, followed by preferential bias
(due to particles tendency to be located in upwashes or downwashes), cluster bias (due to the
change in local effective density for a cluster of particles), turbophoresis (due to turbulent
gradient bias) and concentrationdiffusivity (due to concentration gradient bias).
Before discussing these biases, it is useful to establish the baseline condition where they do
not have an effect. Consider a single particle which rises or falls in a continuousphase flow
with homogenous isotropic turbulence identified by
RMS
u and u ( u )
Λ
′ = . If we assume that the
particle has very weak or very strong inertia compared to the Kolmogorov scales (i.e.
St 1 or St 1
λ λ
< > ), the continuousphase velocity fluctuations along the particle path will be
independent of the particle dynamics since the trajectory will either be near that of a fluid
tracer or be insensitive to the turbulence structures. In this case, the fluctuations seen by the
particles will have zero mean, i.e.
@p @p
u u u 0 ′ ′ ′ ≈ ≈ =
3.113
Similarly, there will be no bias in fluid accelerations or vorticity. If the trajectoryaveraged
relative velocity and that measured in an Eulerian frame (based on Eq. 3.112) are equal, then
term Re
ˆ ≈ + Δ w w = w w
3.114
Note that Eqs. 3.112 and 3.114 both allow for nonlinear drag bias effects to be included in the
trajectoryaveraged relative velocity, but this velocity is approximately the terminal velocity
for low Re
p
. If Eulerian biases are significant, then particles will “see” continuousphase
velocities or surrounding particle concentrations which are biased, so that the terms on the
RHS of Eq. 3.112 may be important.
Preferential Bias and Clustering Bias
The trajectories associated with preferential concentration can also affect the Eulerian
averaged terminal velocity of a particle, since particles can be attracted to certain features of an
unsteady flow. For example, heavy particles tend to move toward the outside of eddy due to
centrifugal forces (an inertia effect), whereas bubbles are often attracted to the center of eddy
cores where the pressure gradient is lowest due to fluidstress forces. This can lead to a
significant increase in the mean relative velocity for veryheavy particles and a decrease for
verybuoyant particles. As a result, there are substantial changes in the local fluid velocity
seen by the particles, i.e. “preferential bias” as shown schematically in Fig. 3.27. Thus
particles with * ρ »1 will tend to move towards the outside edges of vortices and thus catch
downdrafts so that their overall settling velocity is enhanced, which is confirmed by the
experiments of Yang & Shy (2003). Verybuoyant particles (with * ρ «1) will tend to move
towards the center of the vortices and thus will also experience downward continuousfluid
velocity perturbations but this will lead to a decrease in the rise velocity, an effect which is
most extreme when St
λ
is on the order of unity (Wang & Maxey, 1993). A visualization of this
126
phenomenon is shown in Fig. 3.28 where it can be seen that heavy particles tend to be located
in downdrafts. Thus, even if the particle velocity relative to the local fluid region remains
fixed, the tendency for the particle to “ride” in local regions which have a bias from the mean
fluid velocity will allow the particle to have a bias when considered from an Eulerian (full
domain) point of view.
To describe the impact of particle dynamics for a heavy particle with finite Stokes number,
consider the difference between the continuousphase velocity averaged along the particle path
(Lagrangian) and the velocity averaged at a fixed point (Eulerian):
´
ˆ u u u ′ ≡ −
3.115
The Eulerianaveraged particle velocity is then
´
ˆ ˆ ′′′ ′ = + = + v = w+u w w +u w u +u
3.116
If many particles are considered and the turbulence is homogeneous, the pathaveraged
properties can be approximated as Eulerian ensembleaveraged properties. Furthermore, the
ensembleaveraged properties (which are numberweighted) can be approximated as the
particle concentrationweighted properties. These approximations applied to the pathaveraged
continuousphase velocity fluctuations yields an Eulerian correlation:
´
u u u u
u u u u u u
′ ′ ′ ′ α α + α α
′ ′ ≈ = − ≈ − = − =
α α α
3.117
This bias can be interpreted as a correlation between particle concentration and continuous
phase turbulence, owing to the attraction of the particle to certain flow structures. For
preferential bias, heavy particles are more likely to be located in downdraft regions and
bubbles are more likely to be located to updraft regions (though there may be exception for
nearly neutrallybuoyant particles as will be discussed). This preference can be expressed as
´
0 ′ ⋅ > u g . This bias is likely to be significant when the particle trajectories have sufficient
inertia to allow trajectories separate from a fluidtracer but small enough inertia such that they
are strongly influenced by the continuousphase turbulent structures. There have been both
theoretical and empirical attempts to model this bias as discussed below.
The preferential bias for an isolated particle (α=0) in a homogenous isotropic turbulent
flow was analyzed by Maxey (1987) assuming weak turbulence (
*
u 1
Λ
< ), weak inertia
( St 1
λ
< ) and linear drag as the only surface force. The correlation of particles with turbulent
fluctuations was found to yield a bias in the fluid velocity seen by the particles, i.e. a nonzero
0 α=
′ u . This bias can be expressed in terms of the particle response time, the turbulence
intensity and the intermediate length scale (Eq. A.97) as:
2
p
pref 0
term int er
u
3
8 w g
Λ
α=
τ
π
′′′ ′ ≈ ≈
g
w u
l
for St 1
λ
< &
*
p
1 ρ >
3.118
This was extended to bubbles by Spelt & Biesheuvel (1997) by including fluidstress force to
account for bias of continuousphase velocity acceleration along the particle path, i.e. a non
zero
0
t
α=
′ u / D D . This preferential bias given by Eq. 3.118 can be approximately generalized
for bubbles and arbitrary density ratio (various R values) as:
127
( )
2
p
pref
term int er
u 3 1 R
8 w g
Λ
τ − π
′′′ ≈
g
w
l
for St 1
λ
<
3.119
To relate the RHS expression to particle Stokes number, note that the intermediate length scale
will generally be bounded by the integral lengthscale and the Taylor lengthscale. If one
assumes l
inter
≈l
Taylor
and applies Eq. A.98, this theoretical bias (normalized by the integral
velocity scale) can be approximated in terms of the Kolmogorov Stokes number (Eq. 3.22a) as:
( )
( )
pref
3 1 R St
0.3St 1 R
u g g 8 15
λ
λ
Λ
′′′
− π
≈ ≈ −
w
g g
for St 1
λ
< 3.120
Consistent with experimental and DNS data, this result indicates that the bias phenomena
occurs when the particle dynamics interacts with the microscales (St
λ
of order unity) while its
magnitude is dictated by integral velocity scale (u
Λ
). This first dependence is attributed to the
ability of a particle to be preferentially located while the second dependence is associated with
the strength of the vortices (Yang & Lei, 1998). Spelt & Biesheuvel also showed a second
order effect for verybuoyant particles associated whereby lateral motion induces a lift force
downward, which can exaggerate the above preferential bias.
The preferential bias effect has been studied with oneway coupled DNS results for heavy
particles (R→0), where an increase in the fall velocity occurs at small Stokes numbers. This is
consistent with the above theory based on St 1
λ
< when the terminal velocity is equal to the
Kolmogorov velocity (Fig. 3.29a). As the particle inertia becomes larger, the theoretical result
no longer applies and over predicts the preferential bias effect, which instead peaks at St
λ
of
order unity, after which it decays. This indicates that high inertias cause the particle to be
unresponsive to preferential location, which is consistent with experimental and computational
results (Fig. 3.9a and 3.10a). Using the Taylor lengthscale defined by Eq. A.98, Yang & Lei
(1998) found that this trend is quantitatively consistent for Taylor Reynolds numbers (defined
as u
Λ
l
Taylor/
ν
f
) ranging from 20 to 150.
Additionally, DNS and experimental results have indicated that the preferential bias effect
has a dependence on turbulence intensity with a peak at
* *
term
w ( 1/ u ) 0.4
Λ
= ≈ (Fig. 3.29b). This
dependency and peak is not predicted from Eq. 3.120 but can be qualitatively explained based
on expected particle dynamics. In particular, high terminal velocities (
*
term
w 1 > ) will cause
the particles to have strong eddycrossing effects can not be preferentially located for
significant times. In contrast, low terminal velocities (
*
term
w 1 < ) will cause the particles to
closely follow the fluid reducing the probability of the relative movement needed for
preferential location. The DNS results of Fig. 3.29 can be used to develop an empirical model
for preferential bias of heavy Stokesian particles with linear drag in HIST as
( )
*
pref
0 term
3 2
*
term
St w
1.15
u u 1 2.2St g
1 4.4 w
α= λ
Λ Λ λ
⎡ ⎤
′′′
⎛ ⎞ ′
⎢ ⎥
≈ ≈
⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎥ +
⎝ ⎠ +
⎣ ⎦
w
u g
for
*
p
ρ »1
3.121
128
As shown in Fig. 3.29, this empirical approximation is approximately consistent with the Spelt
& Biesheuvel theory (Eq. 3.120) for low inertia particles ( St 1
λ
< ), while also being consistent
with the experiments and DNS for other conditions.
Since the introduction of nonlinear drag is found to increase the overall drag for heavy
particles, this effect can counteract some of the increases caused by the preferential bias
(Nielsen, 2007). This is shown in Fig. 3.30a where nonlinear drag effects tend to reduce the
impact of preferential bias and in some cases can actually lead to a net reduction in the settling
velocity. To predict the combination of these two effects, the empirical models may be
combined linearly (assuming gravity is in the –z direction) as
term Re pref
′′′ ≈ + Δ + w w w w
3.122
This linear combination is generally reasonable as shown in Fig. 3.30a, though tends to
exaggerate the net effects at larger Stokes numbers where the agreement is only qualitative.
This indicates the difficulty in quantitatively predicting the bias effect for general conditions.
Another difficulty in predicting the change in settling velocity is that the above theories and
empirical relations are limited to sparse (oneway coupling) conditions. However, finite mass
loading (η, to be defined in §3.7.1) coupled with preferential concentration (Figs. 3.9 and 3.10)
can cause particles to collect locally in clusters. These clusters can act as single mixedfluid
entities whose effective density is higher than that of the surrounding flow which has little to
no particle concentration. As a result, cloud clusters of heavy particles will induce a local
downward velocity of the mixture which exaggerates the settling velocity compared to the
terminal velocity. This increase in the fall (or rise) velocity can be referred to as a “clustering
bias”. As shown in Fig. 3.30b, heavy particles with mass loadings as small as 1% can cause
substantial increases in the Eulerianframe fall velocity. Also shown is the model of Eq. 3.122
which underestimates the net change in settling velocity when significant mass loadings are
present. A model for this cluster velocity was developed by Aliseda et al. (2002) based on a
balance of the effective weight and drag of the cluster cloud. In general, the cluster velocity
(V
clus
) is proportional to the local concentration and the (d
clus
/d)
2
, where d
clus
is the cluster
cloud diameter. This cluster bias increases the mean relative velocity of the particle observed in
an Eulerian reference frame. It can be effectively considered as a threeway coupled bias to the
velocityfield so that Eq. 3.122 becomes
´
pref clus pref clus α
′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ≈ ≈ + = + u w w w w V
3.123
Using measurements of the local concentration and cluster diameter, this yielded reasonable
predictions of the increase in settling velocity at finite volume fractions (Aliseda et al. 2002).
However, it is difficult to correlate the mean volume fraction and particle size to the cluster
cloud concentration and diameter. Indeed, it can be seen in Fig. 3.30b that the cluster velocity
is not generally linearly proportional to the mean volume fraction.
For bubbles and low density particles, the preferential bias effect will be exaggerated due to
fluidstress terms and will furthermore cause a net decrease in rise velocity as compared to the
quiescent terminal velocity. The theoretical result of Eq. 3.120 for weak turbulence and small
inertias is generally consistent with stochastic numerical simulations, DNS results and the
available experimental data of Poorte & Biesheuvel (2002), so long as linear drag is
appropriate. Note that this theoretical result does not include the lift or history force effects,
which are initially secondorder but are expected to be more significant as the inertia and
turbulence levels are stronger. At higher Stokes numbers or turbulence levels, the theoretical
129
result tends to overpredict the impact. An improvement in prediction for these conditions can
be obtained by extending the empirical model of Eq. 3.121 to include density ratio effects:
( )
( )
( )
pref ,i
3 2
2
*
term
term
1 R St
1.15
w g
1 2.2 1 R St
1 4.4 w
λ
λ
⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤
′′′
−
⎢ ⎥
≈ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
+ − ⎢ ⎥
+
⎣ ⎦
⎣ ⎦
w
g
3.124
This result is at least qualitatively reasonable when compared to the experimental bubble and
DNS data in Fig. 3.31a, but there is a fair amount of uncertainty due to the neglect of history
force and/or lift effects in the DNS results as well as substantial differences with respect to the
artificial spectra results. Furthermore, all the results were for dilute conditions and twoway
coupling effects (such as clustering bias) may give additional modifications to the Eulerian rise
velocity.
For sparsely distributed particles of intermediate density ratio, one may expect a decrease
in terminal velocity for buoyant particles and an increase for heavy particles based on Eq.
3.124. However, there is little experimental or DNS data which has investigated a range of
density ratios, though there is one experimental study which considered buoyant drops with a
specific density ratio of 0.85 in turbulent water flows. The measurements of the mean Eulerian
velocity are shown in Fig. 3.31b and this yields the interesting result that both decreases and
increases were observed with respect to the terminal velocity. The increases are surprising
since preferential bias and nonlinear drag effects are expected to only yield velocity reductions,
and even in those cases the predictions are not consistent with the experimental trends. The
only clear trend is that the measurements for
*
u 1
Λ
> lead to a velocity increase regardless of
the Stokes number. It is possible that “clustering bias” may explain these increased rise rates,
especially if local cluster concentration levels and/or diameters increase with relative
turbulence intensity. However, there is insufficient data on local cluster concentration levels
and diameters in the buoyant drop studies for this to be verified. Freidman & Katz (2002)
developed a trapping model which indicated that the change in terminal velocity scales linearly
with turbulence intensity for
*
u 1
Λ
> . This model can be empirically represented as
( )
2
* *
term
term term
1
w g
w 50 w
′′′
≈
+
w g
for
*
p
ρ <
¯
1
3.125
In summary, the variety of trend observed in Figs. 3.293.31 indicate that much additional
work is needed to understand the impact of nonlinear drag, preferential bias and clustering
bias, especially for density ratios of order unity.
Turbulence Gradient Bias (Turbophoresis)
If particles are subjected to turbulence which is significantly nonhomogenous (i.e. includes
substantial spatial gradients in turbulent kinetic energy), a phenomenon known as "turbo
phoresis” occurs which leads to a mean drift of particles from regions of high turbulence into
regions of low turbulence. This effect is often negligible in the streamwise direction, but can
be significant in the transverse direction where the mean particle velocity may be otherwise
small. This phenomenon is somewhat similar to the preferential bias in that particles ride in
130
regions which (due to the particle inertia) are biased towards lower turbulence intensity regions.
This turbophoretic velocity can be conceptualized in terms of two regions where one has a high
turbulence and the other has a low turbulence level (Fig. 3.31Xa). If we consider an interface
between these two regions, the probability that a particle crosses the interface is proportional to
the local turbulence level. Therefore, the mean flux is towards the lower turbulence region, i.e.
in the direction of k −∇ .
To model the effect of turbophoresis, consider the equation of motion for veryheavy
particles (
*
p
ρ »1) so that the drag is the only surface force. Assuming linear drag (Re
p
«1), the
timeaveraged equation of motion from Eqs. 3.43.6 becomes
i i
p
v w
t
= −
τ
d
d
3.126
If one further assumes small particle response times, the particle accelerations approach that of
the continuousphase so that the LHS can be approximated as:
j j i
i i i i i i i i
j j j i
j j j j j
u u u
v u u u u u
u u u u
t t t x x x x x
′ ′ ′ ∂ ∂ ′ ∂ ∂ ∂
′ ′ ≈ ≈ = + = − +
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
d d D
d d D
3.127
The first and second terms on the RHS can be neglected if the mean velocity gradients are
weak and since the velocity fluctuations are divergencefree (Eq. A.104b). Assuming isotropic
turbulence (Eq. A.74b) and substituting this result into the force balance of Eq. 3.126 yields a
turbophoretic relative velocity bias for small response times as:
2
k,i p
3
i
k
w
x
∇
∂
′′′ = − τ
∂
for St 1
Λ
<
L
&
*
p
1 ρ >
3.128
The above result indicates that turbulence tends to move particles from regions of high
turbulence intensity to regions of low turbulence intensity as discussed above. An important
example of turbophoresis occurs with particles in a turbulent boundary layer. Since the
transverse gradients in the ydirection are the largest (Fig. A.10), this effect will give induce a
normal particle velocity away from the portion of the boundary layer with maximum
turbulence intensity. In the near wall region, this is consistent with measurements of particle
deposition fluxes (Fig. 3.32). A derivation of turbophoresis for general density ratios but
small Stokes numbers is given in §5.3.2 while a nonalgebraic version for any Stokes number
is noted in §7.1.8.
Concentration Gradient Bias
Another Eulerian gradientbased drift which can arise is that due to particle concentration.
This bias arises because turbulence will generally diffuse a mean concentration gradient, e.g.
Fig. A.17 for fluid tracer. For particles, this can be explained by considering a control surface
for a homogenous isotropic turbulent flowfield. If the mean particle concentration on both
sides of the surface are equal then the mean flux through this surface will be simply be zero.
However, if there is a particle concentration gradient perpendicular to this surface with higher
concentration region on the LHS of the surface, then more particles are apt to pass from the
131
LHS than from the RHS (Fig. 3.31Xb). This yields a numberweighted mass flux of particles
to the RHS since these particles are correlated with a rightward fluid velocity fluctuation.
This concentrationgradient bias can thus be considered in terms of Eq. 3.117 as:
p
N
i
,i i i,k
i k
p
u 1
w u u
N
∇α
∇α
=
∇α
⎛ ⎞
′ ′ α
′′′ ′ ′ = ≡ =
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
α
⎝ ⎠
∑
3.129
The RHS correlation between concentration and velocity fluctuations can be expected to
become stronger as the concentration gradient or turbulence intensity increases and will be in
the direction of  ∇α . As such, it can be modeled with the diffusion gradient hypothesis of Eq.
A.121 as:
2
i
,i
turb i
c k
u 1
w
Sc x
μ
∇α
′ ′ α ∂α
′′′ = ≈ −
α α ε ∂
3.130
Additions to this model have been proposed by Elghobashi & AbouArab (1983) which may be
important in onhomogenous turbulence.
3.6. Brownian Diffusion
As mentioned earlier, the two primary phenomena that give rise to particle diffusivity are
turbulent and Brownian diffusion. While turbulent diffusion is created by the semiorganized
and semirandom interactions of particles with turbulent structures, Brownian diffusion is
created by the random collisions of the continuousphase fluid molecules on the particle
surface (Fig. 3.33a). The resulting wandering trajectory was first studied in 1827 with a
microscope by a botanist named Robert Brown, who observed motion of organic and inorganic
particles which were quite small (about 1 μm diameter) and within in a liquid. This motion
can be important for the diffusion of small particles in microfluidic liquid delivery devices,
which are important for many bioengineering processes. For gas flows, Brownian motion is
typically important for small particles in flows with low speeds and small distances, e.g.,
aerosol particles in respiratory tracts (Fig. 1.12) and nearwall particle deposition in pipe flows
(Fig. 3.32). Brownian diffusion is analogous to turbulent mixing in that the two phenomena
can be considered as stochastic processes in the mean. However, unlike turbulent dispersion,
Brownian motion does not have any spatial or temporal “structures” since the molecular
collisions are only governed by random statistical probabilities. As such, only mean diffusion
is relevant for the description of Brownian motion.
This phenomenon was not fully understood or accepted for some time until Einstein’s 1905
quantitative analysis on the statistical molecular theory of heat in liquids outlined the laws
governing particle movements due to molecular interactions. Einstein’s explanation was so
compelling that it played a major role in transforming the concept of molecules from a
hypothetical (and controversial) postulate to a practical and accepted fact. The key to
Einstein’s analysis is that the fluiddynamic force exerted on the particle can be decomposed
into a continuumbased friction force based on the noslip condition along with a random force
resulting from the molecular collisions (F
Br
). This decomposition is appropriate because the
frequency of molecular collisions is much higher than the response time of the particle. One
132
may define u as the continuum fluid velocity, i.e. defined by the ensemble average speed of the
fluid molecules at a given point. In contrast, the particle velocity v is assumed to incorporate
noncontinuum effects. Based on the definition of relative velocity (Eq. 1.9d), the particle
dynamic equation in steady flows for general Knudsen numbers is then given by
p f Kn Br
m 3 d f (t)
t
= − π μ +
v
w F
d
d
3.131
If we consider the flow around the particle to be nearly in a continuum (Kn
p
«1), then the
overall motion of the particle can be approximated with a Stokesian drag response (f
Kn
=1).
However, increased Knudsen numbers can cause a reduction in drag, i.e. f
Kn
<1 (§6.2.2). In the
following, we will retain f
Kn
but consider it to be a constant. Since Brownian motion is most
commonly studies in gas flows, we will further assume that the ratio of particle density to fluid
density is very high so that the particle history force and added mass effects are negligible.
While the added mass effect can be incorporated by replacing m
p
with m
eff
of Eq. 1.78 in the
above equation, it will be shown that the longtime Brownian diffusion is independent of this
effect and a similar comment can be made for the history force (Mainardi & Pironi, 1996).
In the following, the basic principles of Brownian diffusion will be analyzed for quiescent
conditions (u=0) since the corresponding movement and diffusion effect can be linearly super
posed to particle trajectories in flows with continuum velocity (Fig. 3.33b). Let us further
focus on the motion associated with just one Cartesian direction with
x p
v x / t ≡ d d . and define
x
p
as the movement of a particle from an initial location, i.e., define x
p
(t=0)=0. Since the
molecules have no preferred direction, the ensembleaveraged force function will have a zero
mean, i.e.
Br
F 0 = . If initial particle position and velocity is given by x
p
(t=0)=v
x
(t=0)=0, the
ensembleaveraged particle location and velocity will be stationary:
p
x 0 = and
x
v 0 = .
The instantaneous 1D dynamic equation of Eq. 3.131 with these assumptions can then be
expressed in terms of the particle position as:
p p
p f Kn Br
x x
m 3 d f F (t)
t t t
⎛ ⎞
= − π μ +
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
d d
d
d d d
3.132
If we multiply this equation with the particle position, use the chain rule to expand the LHS
derivative, and then take the ensemble average over many interactions for all terms, this yields:
2
p p p
p p p f Kn p p Br
x x x
m x m 3 d f x x F (t)
t t t t
⎛ ⎞
− = π μ +
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
d d d
d
d d d d
3.133
Since the forcing function is random with no bias, the last term on the RHS can be eliminated.
The second term on the LHS can be rewritten as
2
p x
m v , which is proportional to the random
translational kinetic energy of the particle velocity fluctuations in one direction. This can be
related to the overall kinetic energy of the fluid as follows.
Over a time period much greater than the particle response time, an equilibrium condition
will exist such that the random particle energy in all directions will be eventually equal to the
random kinetic energy of the surrounding fluid molecules. This is referred to as the equi
partition of kinetic energy between the molecules and the particle. The random kinetic
energy associated with a fluid is isotropic and equal to 3/2 of the product of the absolute
133
temperature of the surrounding fluid and the Boltzmann constant (κ). Equating this fluid
kinetic energy with all three components of the particle’s kinetic energy gives
( )
3 1 2 2 2
f p x y z
2 2
T m v v v κ = + +
3.134
Note that the Boltzmann constant can be related to the universal gas constant of Eq. A.21
normalized by Avogardo’s number
( ) ( )
23 2 2 23
univ
1.38x10 m kg / Ks / 6.022x10 / mol
−
κ = =R
3.135
Since the particle random energy driven by Brownian motion must also be isotropic, our 1D
dynamic equation can be written as:
p x
p f f Kn p x
x v
m T 3 d f x v
t
= κ − π μ
d
d
3.136
If this ordinary differential equation is integrated twice and evaluated for longtime diffusion,
the particle positional variation becomes independent of particle mass and is given by:
2 f
p
Br
f Kn
2 T t
x
3 d f
κ
=
π μ
3.137
This equilibrium spread rate thus describes the particle positional variance resulting from many
molecular collisions. For a spherical coordinate system, the radial spread from a point source
is given as
2 2 f
p p
Br Br
f Kn
2 T t
r 3 x
d f
κ
= =
π μ
3.138
Note that the Brownian spread is independent of particle density and the frequency of the
molecular collisions (thus the exact form of F
Br
is not critical to this result).
The translational Brownian diffusion rate in a Cartesian direction can be defined based on
the spread rate which gives a constant value for long times:
p p
1
Br f
Br
2
f Kn
x x
T
t 3 d f
′ ′
κ
Θ ≡ =
π μ
d
d
3.139
The diffusion rate increases linearly with temperature, just as observed for molecular diffusion
of a gas (and many liquids), which is consistent with the increased energy of the random
molecular motion. The inverse dependence on particle size in this equation explains why
Brownian diffusion is only observed in small particles. In addition, the diffusion rate decreases
with increased dynamic viscosity, which is consistent with an increased hindering of the
particle motion. For example, 1 μm diameter particles will have a radial diffusivity in room
temperature water which is on the order of 1 μm
2
/s, so that release from a single point will
yield a movement on the order of the particle diameter over a 1 second period. By comparison,
this same particle in air in 1 second will diffuse about 8 particle diameters assuming Stokes
drag. However, small particles in gasses are likely to have a finite Knudsen number. In this
case, a noncontinuum Stokes correction (to be discussed in §6.2.3) should be included since
the noslip condition is no longer strictly enforced on the particle surface. As the particle
134
becomes smaller and tends toward the mass and size of a continuousfluid molecule, the inertia
time response will become negligible compared to the timescale of the molecular interactions.
This will render the particle diffusivity to be effectively a molecular diffusivity, i.e.
Br f
Θ →Θ ,
where the latter is discussed in §A.3.
The presence of Brownian motion can cause particles to spread from regions of high
concentration to low concentration in the same manner as that for turbulence (Eq. 3.130). This
leads to Brownian concentrationgradient bias for the relative particle motion:
f
Br,i
f Kn i
T
w
3 d f x
κ ∂α
′′′ = −
π μ α ∂
3.140
In general, this bias will be negligible compared to that of turbulent diffusion, but can be
significant for very small particles acting over short distances. An additional molecular
interaction effect can arise if there are strong gradients in temperature, which causes particles
to move in the direction of lower temperatures. This phenomenon is called “thermophoresis”
and is generally negligible when particles observe a continuum, i.e. the particle Knudsen
number is very low. However, for finite Kn
p
values and high temperature gradients, this effect
can be important and will be discussed in §6.7.
3.7. TwoWay Coupling Criteria
Twoway coupling in twophase flows generally denotes the interphase transfer of mass,
momentum or energy and is important to the fluid dynamic description of both phases. In this
text, only the momentumbased twoway coupling will be considered whereby the presence of
the particles affects the velocity field of the continuousphase flow. This type of coupling has
three primary modes: 1) changes in the net momentum of the continuousphase, 2) changes in
continuousphase turbulence, and 3) changes in the effective fluid properties including
viscosity, density, specific heat, etc. All three types of coupling are proportional to the number
of particles in the domain and can additionally depend on the particle mass and/or interphase
force. In the following, we first discuss the key parameters that drive interphase coupling and
then consider the limits at which twoway coupling should be considered. Crowe et al. (1998)
gives similar criteria for the limits associated with mass and energy transfer.
3.7.1. Concentration Properties and Interphase Force
The particle concentration, particle volume fraction, particle loading, and particle
interphase force are key parameters used to determine whether twoway momentum coupling
is important for a multiphase flow. The particle concentration is often expressed in terms of
the volume of the mixedfluid (
m
∀ ), which is the space taken up by both the continuousphase
fluid and the particles. To characterize particle concentration as a “continuum” variable
throughout a domain, the mixedfluid volume should be large enough to encompass many
particles. Defining
p,
N
∀
as the total number of particles in a mixture volume, the continuum
135
assumption is then reasonable for
p,
N 1
∀
> . The corresponding particle number density (n
p
) is
then defined as the number of particles per unit volume of the mixedfluid, i.e.
p,
p, p,
p N
m
f p,k
i k
N N
n
∀
∀ ∀
=
≡ =
∀
∀ + ∀
∑
3.141
For example, an aerosol spray region may have an n
p
value of 10
3
particles/mm
3
. If the mixed
fluid volume is taken to be the domain volume (
D
∀ ), one may define a macroscopic number
density (n
p,D
) as
p
pD
D
N
n ≡
∀
3.142
In this equation, N
p
represents the total number of particles in the domain. The macroscopic
numberdensity will give a reasonable estimate of the local number density for an
approximately uniform particle concentration. However, significant differences can occur
between the local and domain numberdensities if particles are only located in specific regions
(e.g., injection locations) or if particle trajectories have preferred directions (e.g.,
gravitationally settle). Flowfields can also cause particle concentrations to be localized, e.g.,
preferential concentration associated with turbulence can cause peak concentrations in low
vorticity regions (Fig. 3.9).
The volume of dispersedphase per unit volume of mixed fluid can be defined as the
“volume fraction” (α), which depends on the ensembleaveraged particle volume (Eq. 1.1) and
number density:
p
N
3 p,k
k 1
p p p
m
volume of particles
n d n
volume of mixture 6
∀
=
∀
π
α ≡ = = ∀ =
∀
∑
3.143
For veryheavy particles (ρ
p
»ρ
f
), the dispersedphase may only occupy only a small fraction of
the mixedfluid volume but can constitute a substantial portion of the mixedfluid mass.
Therefore, it is often convenient in this case to define a “mass loading” (η) based on the ratio
of net particle mass to net continuousfluid mass in the mixedfluid volume
p,
N
*
p,k m p
i k
f
m /
mass of particles
mass of fluid (1 ) (1 )
∀
=
∀ αρ
η ≡ = =
−α ρ −α
∑
3.144
One may also define the mass fraction as:
p,
N
p,k m p
i k
p
p f p f
m /
mass of particles
X
mass of mixture (1 ) (1 )
∀
=
∀ αρ
≡ = =
αρ + −α ρ αρ + −α ρ
∑
3.145
For particles in a gas with a mass loading of order unity, the volume fraction is quite small. In
such cases, the mass loading can be approximated as η≈X
p
=α
*
p
ρ . If the mass loading is also
small, then it is approximately equal to the mass fraction.
Another key parameter for twoway coupling is the magnitude of the force that a particle
exerts on the fluid (F
int
), which is equal and opposite to the force that the fluid imparts on a
136
particle (F
int
). This force represents the interphase momentum transfer between the continuous
fluid and a single particle. This force is equal to the sum of the surface forces that act on a
particle (F
surf
) except the fluidstress force (F
S
). The latter force is excluded since it acts on
the particle surface in the same way that it acts on a fluid element with an equivalent surface
(Drew, 1983). Thus, the fluidstress force is already accounted for in the continuousphase
equations of motion (e.g., Eq. A.6a). As such, the interphase force is:
F
int
≡ F
surf
− F
S
3.146
Based on Eq. 1.25, the interphase force of a particle on the flow can be written as
F
int
= F
D
+ F
L
+ F
∀
+ F
H
+ F
Br
+ F
∇T
3.147
This force can be simplified under various circumstances as follows.
If the density ratio is very high (
*
p
ρ »1) as is the case of particles in a gas, it is common to
neglect added mass, fluid stress and history forces but retain drag, lift and thermophoretic
effects (e.g., the simulations of Fig. 3.32) so that
F
int
≈ F
D
+ F
L
+ F
∇T
3.148
If the density ratio is very low (
*
p
ρ «1) as is the case of bubbles in a liquid, the body force is
negligible compared to the hydrostatic surface forces and the particle inertia is negligible
compared to the added mass force. As a result, the net surface force is approximately zero so
that the interaction force equals the fluidstress force
F
surf
≈ 0
F
int
≈  F
S
3.149a
3.149b
In this limit, the interphase coupling only involves the continuousfluid velocity properties,
though the net twoway coupling will also be a function of the bubble concentration field
(which is dependent on the particle velocity field via oneway coupling effects).
Finally, consider the case for which the particle moves at a constant velocity (w≈w
term
)
which is given by the balance of drag and effective gravitational forces:
( )
int g,eff p f p
≈ = ρ −ρ ∀ F F g
3.150
This is the “terminal velocity approximation” and is appropriate once the initial transients are
diminished and if the flow variations in space and time are mild in comparison, i.e. the terminal
velocity is much greater than any fluid velocity variations. As such, this assumption will not
be generally reasonable for microgravity conditions, neutrallybuoyant particles, high particle
injection velocities, highly unsteady (such as turbulent) flows, etc.
3.7.2. Momentum Coupling Parameter (Effect on Mean Velocity)
The presence of particles can modify the mean flowfield of the surrounding fluid. In an
internal flow, this can appear in the form of modified mean flow speed and/or mean pressure
gradient. To determine the conditions where such an effect is possible, a momentum coupling
137
parameter can be defined in terms of the net change in momentum caused by twoway coupling
averaged over the domain, i.e.
( ) ( )
( )
f f
0
D
f
0
D
u u
momentum imparted by the particles
unladen momentum of continunous phase u
α α=
α=
⎡ ⎤ ρ − ρ
Π ≡ =
⎢ ⎥
ρ
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
3.151
In general, if the meanflow coupling parameter is small (Π
D
«1), one may reasonably neglect
the influence of the particles of the continuousfluid bulk momentum, and therefore assume
oneway coupling. In order to assess this parameter for general conditions, it is helpful to first
consider two limiting conditions: the “mixedfluid” limit (St
D
«1) and the “fullyseparated”
limit where the particle velocity (St
D
»1). The momentum coupling parameters for these two
limits are next discussed, followed by a combined expression for intermediate conditions.
MeanFlow Coupling for MixedFluid Conditions
One way that the dispersedphase can affect the continuousflow is through modification of
the effective or mixedfluid properties. This mechanism is generally realized when the
dispersedphase is small enough that it moves with the same velocity of the continuousphase.
As noted in Eq. 3.15, this is consistent with the small domain Stokes number (St
D
«1). The
result for twoway coupling is a single mixedfluid velocity field for both phases:
m St 0 @p →
≈ ≈ v v u
3.152
In this case, twoway coupling effects are primarily limited to changes in the mixedfluid fluid
density in regions of high particle concentration.
The “mixedfluid” density (also called the “effective density” or “modified density”) is
simply the mass of all phases per unit volume and can be related to the volume fraction as
m p f
(1 ) ρ ≡ ρ α+ρ −α
3.153
In the limit of veryheavy particles and low volume fractions, this equation combined with Eq.
3.144 yields a simplified mixedfluid density and volume fraction relationship:
m f
f p
(1 )
/
ρ ≈ ρ + η
α ≈ ρ η ρ
for
*
p
ρ »1 and 1 α <
3.154a
3.154b
As such, the effective density and volume fraction increase linearly as mass loading increases
and the assumptions used in Eq. 3.154 are consistent with mass loadings of order unity or less.
An example of a flow for which the mass loading effects are strong is the pyroclastic flow of
Fig. 1.12, where higher effective density causes particleladen flow to spread along the ground.
For verybuoyant particles, the mixedfluid density is:
m f
(1 ) ρ ≈ ρ −α for
*
p
ρ «1
3.155
In this case, the voids created by bubbles serve to reduce the effective density as particle
concentration increases. An example of twoway coupling due to this effect is a buoyant
plume caused by microbubbles (often used in aerating large water bodies), where an upward
flow is induced by the reduced effective density.
138
Since the change in fluid momentum is proportional to the density change, the meanflow
momentum coupling parameter for mixedfluid conditions approximated over the domain is:
*
D,m m,D f f D p
/ 1 Π ≡ ρ −ρ ρ ≈ α ρ −
3.156
Modifications of other fluid properties can also occur, e.g., mixedfluid viscosity, specific heat
ratio, speed of sound, etc. (§5.1.1). However, these effects are often secondary and similarly
depend on mass loading at high density ratios and particle volume fraction at low density ratios,
so that the above coupling parameter still qualitatively applies. Thus, mixedfluid coupling is
only expected to be negligible when
D,m
1 Π < .
Mean Flow Coupling for Unmixed Conditions
The conditions where continuousphase and particlephase velocities are distinct can be
considered separated or “unmixed” conditions. In this case, the coupling is related to the
interphase force (F
int
) instead of an effective density change. For example a vertical pipe with
an upward gas flow subjected to the addition of falling particles will tend to have a decreased
gas velocity (Fig. 3.34a). The impact of the force of the particles on the continuousfluid
momentum based on Eq. 3.151 can be related to the timescale over which the change occurs
(τ
mom
) for a domain which contains N
p
particles as:
mom p int,un
D mom int
D,um 3
f D f D p
N F
F
u D u
τ
α τ
Π ≡ ≈
ρ ρ ∀
3.157
The RHS expression is based on an average particle volume fraction (α
D
) and the momentum
timescale can be based on either the particle response time (τ
p
) or the domain timescale (τ
D
),
depending on the type of interaction. A simple approximation is to take the maximum of these
twoscales:
( )
mom p D
max , τ ≈ τ τ
3.158
If one assumes the interphase force is dominated by drag, the above results can be combined
with the definitions of Eqs. 3.1 and 3.13 to yield:
( ) ( )
* 1
D,um D p D D
c w / u max 1,St
−
∀
Π = α ρ +
3.159
Therefore, the momentum coupling increases as the particle concentration, relative density and
relative velocity increase. The heavy particle limit for small Stokes numbers is similar to the
momentumcoupling parameter defined by Crowe et al. (1998).
If the particle response time is significant and dominates the domain timescale, the mean
coupling parameter has the following density limits:
( )
D,um D D
w / u Π ≈ η for ρ
p
»ρ
f
and
D
St 1 >
( )
D,um D D
c w / u
∀
Π ≈ α for ρ
p
«ρ
f
and
D
St 1 >
3.160a
3.160b
The combined limits are similar to the mixed condition (Eq. 3.156) in that that they scale
linearly with the particle loading (η for veryheavy particles and α for verybuoyant particles).
139
However, the unmixed coupling also depends on the relative velocity. As such, the impact on
momentum will be consistent with the relative velocity direction. For example, heavy particles
falling at near terminal velocity will incur a downward component on the continuousphase
flow. However, relative velocities can be dictated by high injection velocities such as droplet
sprays in engines (Gosman & Ioannides, 1981) or rapid variations with respect to time or space
such as shock waves (Sivier et al. 1994). In other cases, boundary reflections and high particle
inertias may primarily determine the relative velocity, e.g., the horizontal pipe flow of Kussin
& Sommerfeld (2001) where the particle velocities were dictated by wall collisions (Fig.
3.34b).
Mean Flow Coupling for General Particle Velocity
The coupling parameter based on effective density (Eq. 3.156) can be empirically
combined with that based on interphase force (Eq. 3.157) as
D D,m D,um
Π ≈ Π + Π
3.161
It can be expected that higher values of Π
D
will yield significant changes in the continuous
phase flowfield due to the presence of particles. Figure 3.35 shows twoway coupling effects
for several multiphase channel flows (including the data shown in Fig. 3.34) in terms of the
momentum coupling parameter. In Fig. 3.35a, the centerline velocity change becomes
significant for Π
D
>0.3. In these studies, the particles generally lagged the continuousphase
mean flow velocity, which is consistent with a reduction in the continuousflow velocity as
twoway coupling increased. Changes in the axial pressure gradients for channel flows are
shown in Fig. 3.35b where twoway coupling effects became more pronounced as Π
D
increased. These studies included cases where particle velocity lagged or led the continuous
phase velocity, which corresponded to increases or decreases in the pressure gradient needed to
establish the mean flow. The effect of Π
D
on the pressure gradient effect is greater than that
on the centerline velocity since the pressure loss tends to scale with the velocity squared.
Based on such results, a reasonable criterion for the influence of particle forces on the
mean continuousphase velocity or pressure can be approximately given by
Π
D
>
¯
0.1 for significant twoway momentum coupling 3.162
Note that this mean velocity coupling parameter only indicates the potential for twoway
coupling to occur since it does not contain information as to whether or how the particles will
accelerate and/or decelerate the flow (which will be determined by the detailed particle and
continuous velocityfield interactions).
3.7.3. Turbulence Coupling Parameter (Effect on Kinetic Energy)
If the flow is turbulent, the coupling associated with the continuousphase turbulent kinetic
energy is often referred to as turbulence “modulation”. This phenomenon is quite complex as
it can yield both increases and decreases in turbulence. These relationships are diagrammed in
Fig. 3.36 along with the primary continuousphase phenomena that modify turbulence
(production at large scales and dissipation at small scales). It is generally difficult to predict
140
whether particles will increase or decrease a flow’s turbulence, let alone predict the magnitude
of the change. As such, turbulence modulation has been the subject of much research and
debate (Eaton, 1999). However, the type of changes which can occur can be illustrated by
considering particles which are stationary (fixed in space) so that they act as effectively as a
wire mesh as the flow moves past them. If the incoming flow is laminar or of lowturbulence,
a mesh with large wire diameters can yield local turbulent wakes will produce significant
overall turbulence in the flow (Snyder & Lumley, 1971). However, if the incoming flow is
already substantially turbulent, then a mesh with small wire diameters can reduce the
turbulence levels by breaking up the largeeddies and cause increased dissipation.
Correspondingly, wind tunnels commonly incorporate fine meshes to reduce the overall
turbulence levels in their test section. With particles that move and react to the turbulence, the
interactions become more complicated and such generalizations based on only size may not be
appropriate.
To determine whether twoway coupling on turbulence is likely, a kinetic energy coupling
parameter may be defined based on the change expected due to particles (similar to Eq. 3.151)
and this parameter can be considered in terms of both turbulence production and dissipation:
0
k
0
k k
k
α α=
α=
−
Π ≡
3.163
To estimate this parameter, we first consider the turbulence for the condition of mixedfluid
(negligible relative velocity), followed by the condition of heavy particles with significant
density and relative velocity. Lastly, we will consider the bubbly flow condition ( * ρ «1) which
can often include the additional complexity of pseudoturbulence.
Turbulence Coupling for MixedFluid Conditions
Similar to mixedfluid conditions for mean velocity, particles which have a small relative
velocity compared to that of the fluid turbulence intensity can be considered to yield mixed
fluid conditions (Eq. 3.152). This criterion w u
Λ
< can be expressed as
*
term
w 1 < using the
parameter defined in Eq. 3.26. Druzhinin & Elghobashi (1999) and Ferrante & Elghobashi
(2003) investigated such conditions with numerical simulations and found that the change in
momentum associated with increased mixedfluid density led to longerlived particle velocity
fluctuations is a production mechanism for continuousphase turbulence. However, the
particlefluid coupling also increased the continuousphase velocity gradients which is a
damping mechanism, so that generally decreases in turbulence were observed. As with the
momentum coupling parameter for mixedfluid conditions (Eq. 3.156), these turbulence
coupling effects are primarily related to changes in the effective density so that the turbulence
coupling parameter can be approximated as:
*
k,m p
1 Π ≈ α ρ −
3.164
This overall reduction in turbulence is similar to that observed for liquid flows with the
addition of polymers or microbubbles (Fig. 1.7) or small glass particles (Zisselmar & Molerus,
1979).
141
Turbulence Dissipation Coupling
If the particles have a substantial relative velocity (e.g.,
*
term
w of order unity or greater),
then the effects associated with a modified density (given by Eq. 3.153) will be reduced since
the phases will not move in unison. The resulting associated motion and forces between the
phases can lead to additional mechanisms of production and/or dissipation beyond that of
singlephase turbulence (Eq. A.124). The kinetic energy coupling parameter can be considered
as the sum of these multiphase generation and loss mechanisms:
k pr od diss
Π = Π −Π
3.165
An example multiphase flow with twoway turbulence dissipation is a pipe flow with small
particles. This case was experimentally investigated by Kulick et al. (1994) for downward
flow with 50 μm glass and 70 μm copper particles. As shown in Fig. 3.37, the turbulence
distribution near the pipe center (y=0) was reduced as the mass loading increased, especially
for the copper particles which had higher terminal velocities. These trends indicate turbulence
dissipation tends to occur for small particle sizes and Reynolds numbers (about 5 or less for
these flows). In the following, the dissipation coupling parameter is considered.
To estimate the loss of continuousphase turbulent kinetic energy due to the particle force,
it is generally reasonable to neglect unsteady particle wake effects as well as particleparticle
and particlewall interactions. In this case the loss of turbulent kinetic energy of the
continuousphase includes two components: 1) the transfer of fluctuating fluid energy to
thermal energy (heat) through viscous dissipation and 2) the transfer of fluctuating fluid energy
to particle kinetic energy. The first loss component was illustrated above as analogous to
turbulence moving past a screen, representing particles fixed in space (v=0). In this case,
viscous losses will convert some of the turbulent kinetic energy into heat, representing a net
loss. Recalling that work rate is the dotproduct of the force and velocity vectors, the loss in
kinetic energy is equal to the ensembleaverage of the interphase force and the fluid velocity
fluctuations along the particle path, i.e.
int @p
′′′ ⋅ F u . The second loss component considers how
the particle movement varies due to the turbulence. In particular, it represents the work done
by the fluid fluctuations to impart particle velocity fluctuations. This work rate can be
expressed as the pathaveraged product of fluid force applied to the particles and the change in
particle velocity, i.e.
int
′′ ⋅ F v . The two kinetic energy loss mechanisms can thus be linearly
combined as
int
′′′ ⋅ F w .
To model this combined energy loss, it is convenient to assume that the interphase force
can be approximated as the drag force (Eq. 3.148) and that the drag is linear, i.e. constant
particle response time. In this case, the average turbulent kinetic energy consumed per particle
can be written as (Kenning & Crowe, 1997):
( )
2 2 2 2 eff eff eff
int,i i i i i 1 2 3 rms
p p p
m m m
F w w w w w w w 3 w ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ⋅ ≈ + = + + =
τ τ τ
3.166
Parthasarathy & Faeth (1990) noted that the RHS term represents the turbulence dissipation
directly caused by relative velocity fluctuations of a particle. Based on Eqs. 3.1 and 3.143, the
dissipated energy per unit volume of mixture can then be expressed as:
142
( )
p f p f 2
p int,i i rms i i i i i
p p
c c
n F w 3 w 3 w v w u
∀ ∀
ρ + ρ ρ + ρ
′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ′′′ ≈ α = α −
τ τ
3.167
This indicates the relative velocity fluctuations are primarily responsible for turbulence
dissipation. Note that these approximations assume a linear drag for the particles, but can be
reasonable for nonlinear drag so long as the mean relative velocity is much greater than the
relative fluctuations so that τ
p
does not vary considerably along the path. Also note that the
RHS term shows the dissipation loss decomposed into two separate parts. The portion related
to
i i
w u ′′′ ′′′ was identified by Eaton (1999) as the “work done by the turbulence against the
particle drag force” and is consistent with the first loss mechanism. The portion related to
i i i
w v ′′′ ′′′ was identified by Kenning & Crowe (1997) as the “work done by the carrier fluid to
oscillate the dispersedphase” and is the second loss mechanism.
Based on the above, the particleinduced dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy per unit
mass of the continuousphase can be defined as
p
k,diss int,i i
diss f
n
k
F w
t
∂ ⎛ ⎞
′′′ ≡ = −
⎜ ⎟
∂ ρ
⎝ ⎠
S
3.168
This result, in the limit of heavy particles, has been derived by Sundaram & Collins (1996).
Based on Eqs. 3.100 and 3.167, the particleinduced dissipation for HIST flow can be
approximated as
( ) ( )
p f p f Λ@p 2
rms
diss f p f p Λ@p
3 c 2 c k St
k
w
t 1 St
∀ ∀
ρ + ρ α ρ + ρ α
∂ ⎛ ⎞
′′′ ≈ − ≈ −
⎜ ⎟
∂ ρ τ ρ τ +
⎝ ⎠
3.169
This can be compared the unladen (singlephase) dissipation rate which can be approximated
by Eqs. A.91 and A.124 for homogenous isotropic turbulence as:
( )
0
0
k / t c k /
α= τ Λ
α=
∂ ∂ = −ε ≈ − τ
L
3.170
The dissipation coupling parameter (Π
diss
) can then be defined as particleinduced dissipation
rate normalized by the singlephase dissipation rate:
( )
( )
( )
p f Λ@p
diss
diss
f Λ Λ@p
0
2 c k / t St
k / t c St 1 St
∀
τ
α=
ρ + ρ α ∂ ∂
Π ≡ ≈
∂ ∂ ρ +
3.171
This indicates that particles which interact with the flow but which have significant inertias
(St
Λ
~1) will yield the most impact on turbulence dissipation. Changes in streamwise velocity
fluctuations for several channel flows are shown in Fig. 3.38, which indicates significant
reductions as the coupling parameter increases. Significant changes can occur for Π
diss
as low
as 0.02. However, this correlation is qualitative and may be sensitive to differences in channel
geometry (rectangular vs. circular), flow direction (upwards vs. downwards), degree of wall
reflections, as well as the complexities associated with the nonhomogeneous anisotropic flow
field.
143
Turbulence Production Coupling
As particle size increases significantly, the result of twoway coupling can also lead to
turbulence increases. For example, consider the multiphase upward pipe flows shown in Fig.
3.39. These conditions yield a transition to increased turbulence production in portions of the
flow as the particle size and mass loading increase. Production dominates for all locations for
Fig. 3.39a whose larger particles are characterized by Re
p
~2200 (such that fullyturbulent
wakes are expected). For the moderate size particles of Fig. 3.39b, the turbulence is reduced
near the walls but is enhanced near the centerline. The nearwall reduction is consistent with
locally higher turbulence levels of the singlephase flow so that particlebased damping is more
likely to have an effect. In contrast, the nearcenterline unladen turbulence has little single
phase turbulence so that particlebased turbulent production is more likely to be seen.
Therefore, twoway turbulence coupling can lead to both enhancement and dissipation of the
turbulence depending on the local singlephase flow characteristics. In the following, the
mechanisms for turbulence production are considered.
In order to understand more clearly the turbulence production by the particles, it is helpful
to consider a condition with zero mean shear rate. A simple example of this is the continuous
settling of particles in an otherwise quiescent bath so that that any turbulence generated is due
solely to the particles. This condition was studied experimentally by Parthasarathy and Faeth
(1990) for a range of terminal Reynolds numbers (38 to 545) and a range of volume fractions
(10
5
to 10
4
). The measured turbulence levels were found to be anisotropic with longitudinal
fluctuations approximately twice that of lateral fluctuations, i.e.
,RMS ,RMS
u 2u
⊥
′ ′ ≈

. The
measured velocity correlations indicated that these fluctuations arose from fullydeveloped
turbulence and not the simple random arrival of particles, whose wakes are nominally laminar
for most of the Re
p
values investigated (Chen et al. 2000). This turbulence was formed
through the nonlinear amalgamation of the particle wakes and led to cascade of kinetic energy
with a 5/3 slope as observed in singlephase turbulence (Fig. A.16). The measurements also
indicated that the rate of kinetic energy production is a fraction of the mean work applied by
the particles per unit volume and can be represented as
pr od p int f
c n F w/ ρ . The coefficient c
prod
can be estimated from experiments by assuming turbulence production is balanced by the
unladen turbulent dissipation and by particleinduced dissipation:
prod p int,i i f 0 p int,i i
c n F w n F w
α=
′′′ ′′′ = ρ ε +
3.172
For
*
term
w 1 > and St 1
Λ
< , the particleinduced dissipation term can be neglected and the
conventional dissipation can be obtained from measured integralscale properties of the
turbulence (Eq. A.91). For the LHS, the particle velocity and interphase force can be assumed
to be consistent with terminal velocity conditions (as used in Eq. 3.167) so that the turbulent
production rate due to particles can be defined and approximated as:
prod p prod p f 2
k,prod int,i i term
prod f f p
c n c ( c )
k
F w w
t
∀
ρ +ρ α
∂ ⎛ ⎞
≡ ≈ =
⎜ ⎟
∂ ρ ρ τ
⎝ ⎠
S
3.173
Based on the above, the highloading production coefficient can be obtained as shown in Fig.
3.40, which suggests c
prod
~0.025 for a wide range of conditions (38<Re
p
<550). However, this
value is qualitative since there is significant scatter in the data and potentially a weak
144
dependence on flow or particle Reynolds number. Furthermore, Yarin & Hetsroni (1994)
suggested that turbulence production fraction was proportional to C
D
4/3
and roughly doubles for
pipe flow as compared to HIST flow. Assuming the above c
prod
value as a constant, the
turbulence production coupling parameter can be estimated from Eq. 1.61 as:
( )
( )
( )
( )
*
2
Pr od p Pr od p int,i i prod *
pr od term 2
f
0
k / t c c c n F w
w
k / t u / St
∀
Λ Λ Λ
α=
∂ ∂ α ρ +
Π ≡ ≈ =
− ∂ ∂ ρ τ
L
3.174
This equation uses the same normalization as for dissipation coupling (Eq. 3.171) except for a
sing change so that the coupling parameter is a positive quantity.
The production and dissipation parameters (which are both defined as positive values) can
be combined to give an overall turbulence coupling parameter for the continuousphase
streamwise fluctuations as
( )
( )
( )
*
2
p
Λ@p *
pr od diss pr od term
Λ@p
c
2St
c w
St c 1 St
∀
Λ
τ
⎡ ⎤
α ρ +
⎢ ⎥ Π −Π ≈ −
+ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
3.175
Thus, the turbulent energy dissipation can involve productions from the average relative
velocity as well as dissipation from the relative velocity fluctuations (Al Taweel & Landau,
1977). This result indicates that particles with higher terminal velocity ratios are more likely
to lead to a net increase in the turbulence. Given that c
τ
is on the order of 0.20.3 and typical
particle Stokes numbers in many multiphase flows are on the order of 0.1 to 1.0, the condition
for which the particleinduced production just cancels out the particleinduced dissipation (no
net increase) corresponds to
*
term
w values on the order of 512. This is consistent with
experimental results (e.g., Tsuji et al. 1984, Maeda et al. 1980, Kulick et al. 1994 and others)
which indicate
*
term
w 8 >
¯
for net increase in turbulence by particles (0.1<St
Λ
<1) 3.176
This criterion explains why flows with smaller particles tend to be associated with turbulence
reduction (Fig. 3.37) while flows with larger particles tend to be associated with turbulence
enhancement (Fig. 3.39a). Rewriting the criterion for a net increase as
term
u w / 8
Λ
<
¯
also
explains why a single particle type can lead to turbulence reduction in low u
Λ
regions but
enhancement in high u
Λ
regions. For example, the channel flow of Fig. 3.39b reveals particle
induced production in the center where singlephase turbulence is low (recall Fig. 3.37a) and
particleinduced dissipation nearer the wall. This criterion may also be extended to conditions
where the particle mean relative velocity is not dictated by terminal velocity. For example, the
transition from dissipation to production takes place at w/u
Λ
~7 for the channel flow of Kussin
& Sommerfeld (2001).
Other criteria for turbulence enhancement have been proposed based on particle size or
particle Reynolds number. In particular, Gore & Crowe (1989) suggested that turbulence
production results d/Λ>0.1 while Hetsroni (1989) suggested that particles with highly unsteady
wakes (e.g., Re
p
>400) will tend to increase turbulence, while smaller particles with laminar
steady wakes (e.g., Re
p
<100) will tend to decrease turbulence by increasing dissipation. These
criteria are often reasonable but are not always robust. For example, Parthasarathy & Faeth
(1990) and Chen et al. (2000) measured turbulence increases for small particles at low
145
Reynolds numbers (d/Λ≈0.03 and Re
p
<110). Furthermore, Tsuji et al (1984) measured an
overall turbulence decrease for much larger particles at higher Reynolds numbers (d/Λ≈0.2 and
Re
p
>1000). As such, the criterion for heavy particles is not completely understood. Further
complications arise for buoyant particles as discussed below.
PseudoTurbulence
For particles that have densities much less than that of the continuousphase, another
phenomenon that can affect Eulerianmeasured values of
rms
u′ is pseudoturbulence. This is
caused by Eulerianaveraged fluid displacements associated with the added mass of passing
particles as illustrated in Fig. 3.41. Therefore, pseudoturbulence is not considered to be true
turbulence since it is simply the random arrival of added mass regions at a measuring volume
and can occur even in laminar flow. This effect was investigated by Theofanous & Sullivan
(1982) and Lance & Bataille (1991a, 1991b) who made Eulerian measurements of the
continuousphase velocity fluctuations in pipe flows and in nearly HIST flows with ellipsoidal
bubbles. The associated pseudoturbulence caused the velocity fluctuations to be significantly
enhanced as the volume fraction and relative terminal velocity increased (Fig. 3.42). Because
the added mass causes this phenomenon, pseudoturbulence is especially important for bubbles,
and is sometimes called “burbulence”.
Pseudoturbulence may be theoretically modeled for a spherical bubble by noting that the
added mass is traveling at a speed of w
term
with respect to the continuous phase meanflow.
The associated kinetic energy of the added mass for this case is
2
1
2 p f term
c w
∀
∀ ρ as discussed in
§6.4. If threeway coupling effects are negligible, then the effects of all the added masses on
the fluid may be linearly superimposed and defined as the addedmass continuousphase
kinetic energy (k
∀
). This kinetic energy for a single particle can be related to the local
continuousphase disturbances due to added mass. Assuming that the added mass coefficient is
isotropic, the pseudoturbulence kinetic energy per unit mass of fluid is given by (van
Wijndgaarden, 1998):
( )
1 1 2
i i term
2 2
k u u c w
∀ ∀
∀
′ ′ ≡ ≈ α 3.177
This result is consistent with the sum of the individual components energies derived from
potential flow theory (Biesheuvel & van Wijndgaarden, 1984):
( ) ( )
1 2
i i term ii term,i term,i
10
u u c 3w w w
∀
∀
′ ′ = α δ + 3.178
Thus, 40% of the kinetic energy is in the direction of the relative velocity while the lateral
directions each have 30%.
If the bubbles are ellipsoidal as in Fig. 2.11b, then the added mass will become anisotropic
with both parallel and perpendicular components. The added mass coefficients in the two
directions can be related through potential flow theory (Loewenberg, 1993) as:
( )
c 1/ 1 2c
∀⊥ ∀
= +

3.179
For ellipsoidal bubbles of air in water rising broadside, typical values for c
∀
(related to
motion in the direction of the relative velocity) range from 0.53 as deformation increases
146
(Bataille et al. 1991). Measurements of the continuousphase fluctuations in the longitudinal
direction made by Lance & Bataille (1991a) can be used to estimate the pseudoturbulence as
the increase associated with finite volume fraction (Fig. 3.42) and, as noted in Fig. 3.43, the
induced fluctuations are approximately given by:
( ) ( )
2
term
=0
u u u u u u c w
∀
∀
α
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ≈ − ≈ α
      
3.180
At the larger volume fractions, the experimental data tend towardc
∀
=2 which is consistent
with increased deformation for larger diameters (van Wijndgaarden, 1998 and §6.4).
It is important to note that the result of Eq. 3.180 is about twofold greater than expected by
rectilinear theory (Eq. 3.177). The measured increase in fluctuations levels may be attributed
to the nonrectilinear path of the bubbles (Figs. 2.232.27), which lead to potential flow
fluctuations in the continuousphase. Also note that the energy associated with the lateral
fluctuations in quiescent flow is expected to be substantially less, e.g., reduced by tenfold for
c
∀
=2 based on Eq. 3.179. As such, one may expect that most of the kinetic energy stems
from the streamwise fluctuations, i.e.
1 2
term
2
k c w
∀ ∀
≈ α

3.181
This empirical relationship is similar in form to the theoretical outcome for spherical bubbles
(Eq. 3.177). The effective Eulerian kinetic energy (k
eff
) which may be measured can be
modeled as the sum of the true turbulence (k) and the pseudoturbulence
eff
k k k
∀
= +
3.182
Strong interactions between the two types of turbulence (when both are significant) can also
increase isotropy of the overall turbulence (Lance & Bataille, 1991b). However, it should be
kept in mind that particle dispersion will only be influenced by the “shearinduced” turbulence.
As such, the analysis in §3.33.5 and §3.7 does not require modification for pseudoturbulence.
To include pseudoturbulence, the overall turbulence coupling parameter of Eq. 3.165 can
be extended to include the kinetic energy of Eq. 3.181 as:
( )
2
*
k,eff pr od diss term
c w
∀
Π ≡ Π −Π + α

3.183
The effect of Π
k,eff
on measured turbulence averaged over pipe crosssections for particles with
*
p
ρ »1 is shown in Fig. 3.42a. The figure shows that turbulence production for solid particles
and drops is associated with Π
k,eff
>0 while attenuation correlates with Π
k,eff
<0. The transition
between the lower left quadrant and the upper right quadrant is consistent with
*
term
w 8 >
¯
, as
expected from Eq. 3.176. This transition is also at least qualitatively consistent with
turbulence modulation data reviewed by Gore & Crowe (1989). If bubbles are considered, the
pseudoturbulence and terminal velocity effects dominate so that generally only turbulence
enhancement has been observed (Π
k,eff
>0). Representative data are shown in Fig. 3.42b (a log
log version of the upper quadrant of Fig. 3.44a) for which velocity fluctuation increases as the
turbulence coupling parameter rises. Based on these two figures, an approximate criterion for
the impact of particles on the continuousfluid kinetic energy can be given as:
Π
k,eff
 >
¯
0.02 for significant twoway turbulence coupling 3.184
147
Of course, the turbulence coupling parameter only indicates the capacity for the particles to
affect the kinetic energy of the continuousphase whereas the quantitative changes are a
function of the flow details and the interphase exchange mechanisms.
3.8. ThreeWay and FourWay Coupling Criteria
Threeway and fourway coupling refers to the addition of two separate mechanisms:
particleparticle fluid dynamic interactions and particleparticle contact interactions (Fig. 3.1).
The first mechanism, particleparticle fluid dynamic interaction, can be defined to occur when
two particles do not come into direct contact with each other, but their respective virtual or
viscous volumes intersect so that they interact in a fluid dynamical sense. The second
mechanism, particleparticle collision, refers to the actual surfacetosurface contact
interactions when physical volumes of particle intersect.
In some cases, both types of interactions may be important. For example, consider the
condition where solid particles are falling at nearly their terminal velocity in a quiescent fluid.
If a particle happens to arrive at a location which is just downstream of another particle it will
see the upstream particle’s wake which will represent a lower relative velocity as compared to
the conditions if the particle was isolated. This condition is shown in Fig. 3.45a and is termed
“drafting” and results in lower drag for the downstream particle such that it travels faster and
eventually catches up to the upstream particle. As it approaches the surface of the upstream
particle, there will be some fluid dynamic repulsion observed at short separation distances due
to the fluid between the particles which may hinder contact. If this hindering is not significant
because of low fluid density or viscosity, the particles may collide with a significant velocity
causing the trailing particle to bounce upwards with respect to its relative motion. However, if
the particleparticle approach velocity is small and the fluid dynamic repulsion is significant,
the trailing particle will slow down substantially before contact and may gently touch on the
particle below it. This is referred to as “kissing” and may result in both particles traveling
together for a short period (Fig. 3.45b). However, this geometry is generally unstable to small
velocity perturbations (similar to the instability of prolate particle falling vertically), such that
the particles will then tend to separate and to rotate about each other. This is referred to as
tumbling and can lead to a nearly stable condition of parallel motion of both particles (Fig.
3.45c). This condition tends to create particles grouped roughly along horizontal planes rather
than being randomly dispersed (Zenit et al. 2001).
In this section, we seek to qualitatively determine the conditions for which these two
effects become significant to the overall particle motion (i.e., where the multiphase flow is no
longer dilute). It is helpful to know this since particle breakup and/or coalescing are more
likely to occur as particle collisions increase. It is also important to establish such criteria since
inclusion of the threeway and fourway coupling mechanisms will substantially complicate the
numerical treatment and increase the required computational resources (as will be discussed in
Chapter 4).
3.8.1. ThreeWay Coupling: ParticleParticle Fluid Dynamic Interactions
148
Particleparticle fluid dynamics effects are often characterized in terms of the interparticle
spacing (l
pp
). This is defined as the distance between centroids of two particles, and for
spherical particles is related to the gap between two particle surfaces (l
gap
) and their radii as:
pp p p p,1 p,2 −
≡ = − x x l l
( ) ( )
1
gap pp p,1 p,2 pp 1 2
2
r r d d ≡ − + = − + l l l
3.185a
3.185b
Assuming a uniform lattice distribution and a uniform particle size, the mean particle spacing
(using the notation of Eq. 3.29 and employing the nearest neighbor) can be approximated by
the volume fraction as
( )
1/3
pp gap
d / 6 d ≈ π α ≈ + l l 3.186
Thus, increased volume fractions will lead to reduced particle spacing, which will lead to
increased fluid dynamic interactions between particles. For reference, a volume fraction of 1%
corresponds to an interparticle gap of 2.7 diameters.
Significant Threeway Coupling
Threeway coupling arises when a particle’s movement is affected by the presence of
surrounding particles. One way to assess such fluid dynamic interaction is to compare the drag
of an isolated single particle as compared to that average drag of particles in a finite
concentration mixture. At very low Reynolds numbers (Re
p
«1), the particle drag becomes
especially sensitive to particle spacing since the viscous effects are felt far from the particle.
Batchelor (1972) analyzed this condition and determined the effective mixedfluid viscosity
(μ
m
) for a dilute matrix of particles in a linear shear flow (Fig. A.3a). This was accomplished
by considering the net increase in overall fluid shear stresses due to the presence of particle
boundary conditions, yielding:
f p
m
f f p
5
2
1
⎛ ⎞ μ + μ
μ
= + α
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
μ μ +μ
⎝ ⎠
3.187
This result has been confirmed by several experiments for volume fractions of up to 5% (Zuber,
1964; Davis & Acrivos, 1985). Thus for solid particles (
p
μ →∞), a 1% volume fraction is
associated with a 2.5% increase in the effective viscosity. For linear drag, this will yield a
commensurate reduction in the particle terminal velocity:
term, 0
term m
term term, 0 f
w
f
w f
α=
α=
μ
= =
μ
for
p
Re 1 <
3.188
This is roughly consistent with particleladen flows at higher Reynolds numbers (§6.9) which
demonstrate threeway coupling effects for volume fractions on the order of 1% or more. For
example, experiments and simulations have shown that particles with a lateral surface gap of
three diameters yield a 2% increase in drag for Re
p
values ranging from 50 to 150 (Kim et al.
1993, Chen & Wu, 1999) while similar changes are found for streamwise gaps of four to five
149
diameters (Sirignano, 1993; Yuan & Prosperetti, 1994). Based on such findings, a criterion for
the onset of particleparticle fluid dynamic interactions can be given approximately as:
α >
¯
0.01 for significant threeway coupling in mixedconditions 3.189
However, this criterion should be considered as only a rough guideline since and often criteria
are put forth that are even more restrictive.
Turbulent flow can be especially sensitive to threeway coupling because variations in
particle concentration will cause local reductions in particle spacing. Because of this,
Elghobashi (1994) recommends a criterion of α>0.1% for significant threeway coupling at
low Reynolds numbers. Preferential concentration in turbulence may also lead to “clustering
bias” as discussed in §3.5.5. This phenomenon can substantially affect Eulerianobserved fall
velocities for α values as low as 10
5
for particles in a gas, which correspond to mass loadings
on the order of 1% or more. Note that the clustering bias begins with preferential
concentration (a oneway coupling mechanism) which leads to local downdrafts or updrafts
imparted by heavy or buoyant particles (a twoway coupling mechanism) which then results in
the accompanying particles have increased Eulerian velocities (a threeway coupling
mechanism!). To take this into account, Eq. 3.189 can be modified where turbulent
preferential concentration is strong to establish a criterion for threeway coupling or
*
p
ρ »1 as:
η >
¯
0.01 for significant threeway coupling in clusteringconditions 3.190
For buoyant particles, the twoway coupling mechanism for clustering bias will be based on
volume fraction instead of mass loading. As such, the equivalent criterion to Eq. 3.190 for
these flows would be α >
¯
0.01 which happens to correspond to Eq. 3.189.
Dense Flow
Once the interparticle gap is of the order of the particle radius, the virtual volumes can
overlap significantly such that particles tend to move as a closeknit group instead of as
individual entities. It is difficult to determine a precise volume fraction where the flow
transitions from “dispersed” to “dense” conditions in terms of particleparticle fluid dynamic
interaction, but several researchers have proposed some typical values. For example, Zuber
(1964) suggested that volume fractions below 5% are consistent with the assumption “that each
particle makes its own independent contribution to the local resistance of its own motion” such
that only minor corrections are needed. However, the drag and added mass effects corrections
for threeway coupling are generally reasonable up to volume fractions of about 10%20%
(Sangani et al. 1991) while higher volume fractions are best considered as a porous medium
(Gidaspow, 1994; Zhang & Reese, 2003). A transition regime spanning 5%20% roughly
corresponds to an interparticle gaps (l
gap
) ranging from one diameter (α=6.5%) to one radius
(15.5%). Assuming that the transition roughly occurs at an intermediate volume fraction of
about 10% is consistent with many researchers, and this is the criterion proposed herein:
α <
¯
0.1 for dispersedphase flow
α >
¯
0.1 for dense flow based on threeway coupling
3.191a
3.191b
150
Again, as with the other coupling parameters put forth, these are rather approximate criteria
and should be viewed as only qualitative.
3.8.2. FourWay Coupling: ParticleParticle Collisions
For particleparticle collisions, any direct contact is likely to significantly affect the particle
trajectories. The contact arises because of interparticle velocities (v
pp
) created by differences
in the relative velocities between neighboring trajectories. They can occur for a variety of
reasons. For gravitationally dominated interparticle velocities, collisions can arise due to
differences in terminal velocity which are a result of fluiddynamic interaction (Fig. 3.45) or
variations in particle size or shape (Fig. 3.46a). In the latter case, the interparticle velocity
will be proportional to the differences in drag, e.g., due to Δw
term
. When the interparticle
velocities are controlled by changes in the mean flow (e.g., turning flows or shock flows),
particles of different inertias will respond with different paths leading to potential collisions
(Fig. 3.46b), and this effect can be related to ΔSt
D
. Turbulence and unsteady flows can also
cause particles to interact and collide (Fig. 3.46c). This behavior will be more noticeable
between particles with different inertias, but will be still substantial for monodisperse particles
(i.e. no size variations are needed for this phenomenon to occur). In such cases, the inter
particle velocity will increase with turbulence intensity and will be a function of the relevant
particle inertia scales (St
Λ
or St
λ
).
Particleparticle collisions become significant to the overall particle trajectories when the
frequency of collisions for a particle along its path (f
coll
) becomes high. The particle collision
timescale can then be defined as the inverse of this frequency, i.e.
coll coll
1/ τ ≡ f
3.192
To compare the importance of collisions to drag forces with regard to the particle trajectory,
one may then compare the particle’s fluid dynamic response time (τ
p
) to the collision time
scale (τ
coll
). If the particle responds quickly to the continuousfluid velocities and only
occasionally undergoes collisions (τ
p
«τ
coll
), its trajectory will be dominated by the fluid
dynamic interactions. In this case, fourway coupling will not dominate (Fig. 3.47a). In the
other extreme for which there are many collisions during the particle’s fluid dynamic response
time (τ
coll
«τ
p
), the particle trajectory will be primarily determined by the particleparticle
contact interactions (Fig. 3.47b). This comparison is quantified by defining a collision Stokes
number as
coll p coll p coll
St / ≡ τ τ = τ f
3.193
Thus a high collision Stokes number
means that the fluid dynamic response is comparatively
slow so that collisions will dominate the particle motion. Conversely a low collision Stokes
number indicates that the particle response time is comparatively fast. Based on the coupling
regime definitions of §3.1, these regimes can therefore be summarized as follows
St
coll
«1 for negligible particleparticle collisions
St
coll
» 1 for dense flow based on fourway coupling
3.194a
3.194b
151
Approximate thresholds of St
coll
<0.1 and St
coll
>10 can be used for these two limits. As per Fig.
3.1, fourway coupling dense flows can be subdivided into collisiondominated flows (where
collisions between particles dominate their motion) and contactdominated flows, such as
granular flows (where particle contact for finite time periods determines the particle motion).
These two regimes can be identified by considering the ratio of average contact time to the
time scale between collisions, whereby large ratios would suggest contactdominated flows.
In order to establish the conditions when particleparticle collisions are dominant,
secondary or negligible, an estimate of the particle collision frequency along the trajectory of a
single particle is needed. The frequency of collisions per particle can be determined from the
interparticle velocity (v
pp
), the particles per unit volume (n
p
of Eq. 3.141), and the swept area
(A
pp
). This area is shown in Fig. 3.48 and is based on a diameter equal to the sum of the strike
and target particle (d
1
+d
2
). The collision frequency is therefore:
( )
2
1
coll p p p p p 1 2 p p p
4
A v n d d v n
− − −
= = π + f
3.195
Combining Eqs. 3.1, 3.143, 3.193, and 3.195 for a monodisperse particle distribution yields a
collision Stokes number similar to that defined by Crowe et al. (1998):
*
p p p
coll
f
v ( c )d
St
3 f
− ∀
α ρ +
=
ν
3.196
Thus, the importance of collisions scales linearly with the particle volume fraction and inter
particle velocity. To determine the latter, we will consider the two primary mechanisms which
lend themselves to theoretical analysis: collisions due to terminal velocity variations and
collisions due to turbulence.
Collisions due to Terminal Velocity Variations
For conditions where the interparticle velocity can be determined, the collision frequency
per unit volume can be defined as N. In a monodisperse mixture, the number of collisions per
unit volume in the mixture is proportional to the number concentration (n
p
) and the collision
frequency, i.e.
2 2
p coll p p p
n d n v
−
≡ = π N f
3.197
For a polydisperse mixture, the number of collisions of particles of diameter d
i
with particles of
diameter d
j
, will be proportional to the product of the concentrations and the interparticle
velocity (Eq. 3.195):
( )
2
1
ij i j p,i p, j p p
4
d d n n v
−
= π + N 3.198
If the interparticle velocity is associated with a difference in the terminal velocity between the
two particle sizes then v
pp
=w
term,i
w
term,j
. If we consider, the particle to have a linear drag law
(small Re
p
), then the terminal velocity is proportional to the particle diameter squared (Eq.
1.82a). For the nonlinear drag case, we should include the Stokes correction factor such that
152
( ) ( )( )
2
2 2
ij,term i j p,i p, j p f i term,i j term, j
f
g
d d n n d / f d / f
72
π
= + ρ −ρ −
μ
N
3.199
This result can be simplified if the difference between the two particle diameters is small, i.e.
( )
j i
d d 1 where 1 = + < ε ε . Such an approximation may be reasonable for collisions among
particle distributions which are approximately monodisperse as discussed in §2.1.3. For
example, conditions with d
90%
/d
10%
=1.2 can be characterized with 0.1 ≈ ε . Employing the
weak size variation approximation into Eq. 3.199 and ignoring higherorder terms, yields
4
ij,term p,i p, j p f i
f
g
n n d
9 f
π
= ρ −ρ
μ
N ε
3.200
Consider a bidisperse particle distribution which is equally divided by number concentration,
i.e.
p,i p,j p
1
2
n n n ≈ ≈ . Assuming that the volume fraction is small ( 1 α < ) and that only binary
collisions occur, the collisional Stokes number based on Eqs. 3.1, 3.143, 3.197 and 3.200 is:
( )
3
p f p f
coll,term 2 2
f
d g c
St
108 f
∀
α ρ −ρ ρ +ρ
=
μ
ε
3.201
For a given volumetric concentration, collision dominated flow for terminal velocity is thus
more likely as the size disparity, particle diameter and density difference increase.
Collisions due to Turbulence
For turbulent flow, there are tow fundamental models for the limits of very high particle
inertia and very low particle inertia: kineticbased collisions and diffusionbased collisions.
These two limits will be considered in the following along with a simple approximation to
represent particles with intermediate inertias.
For kineticbased collisions, particle trajectories are assumed to intersect based on random
fluctuations of the particles in turbulent flow. To model this condition, Abrahamson (1975)
assumed that the fluid velocity correlations between two colliding particle trajectories could be
neglected, i.e. the trajectories arise from separate eddies. This is sometimes referred to as an
uncorrelated collision model and is reasonable when the particle do not closely follow the
surrounding fluid velocity correlations (e.g., St
ΛL
»1). In this case, the collision frequency can
be related simply to the strength of the particle velocity fluctuations
2
ij,kinetic p,rms p,i p, j
4 d v n n ′ = π N
3.202
The particle velocity fluctuations can be related to the continuousphase velocity fluctuations
for heavy particles (Eqs. 3.70 and 3.63). Assuming a monodisperse size distribution and using
the integral timescale of Eq. A.90 yields a kineticbased collisional Stokes number
coll,kinetic
St 24
St
d
1 St
Λ
Λ
Λ
≈ α
π
+
L
L
3.203
153
Thus, the importance of collisions scales linearly with the particle volume fraction (α), but the
relationship to particle size is more complex since there is a dependency on integralscale
Stokes number. Note that variations in the particle size distribution or a mean shear flow as
well as eddycrossing effects (via Eq. 3.84) can increase the collision frequency further.
In the other limit of high path correlation, Saffman and Turner (1956) investigated a
diffusionbased mechanism for collisions of equal sized particles in HIST. The Saffman
Turner theory assumed d«λ and St
λ
«1 so that only weak variations from the fluid path are
considered. For a monodisperse size distribution, the collision frequency stems from local
velocity gradients associated with turbulent dissipation and can be expressed in terms of the
Kolmogorov timescale (Eq. A.93) as
i
ij,diff p, j coll,diff ,i p, j
16
n n
5
λ
α
= =
π τ
N f 3.204
Thus, the small particle collisional Stokes number (based on diffusion theory) is given by
coll,diff
St St
λ
≈ α
3.205
As can be seen in Fig. 3.49, the actual collision frequency is bounded by the above two
limiting cases and tends towards the diffusion theory (Eq. 3.205) for small Stokes numbers
while tending to the kinetic theory (Eq. 3.203) for larger Stokes numbers. This, collisions in
turbulence, St
coll,turb
, will generally bounded by these two limits
coll,diff coll,turb coll,kinetic
St St St ≤ ≤
3.206
For intermediate Stokes numbers, the finite but incomplete correlation of fluid velocity
fluctuations seen by the particles yields a collision frequency to be more than that given by the
SaffmanTurner diffusion theory but less than that of the Abrahamson kinetic theory.
Unfortunately, this intermediate regime does not lend itself to theoretical analysis as the
effects of particle inertia, preferential concentration, and integralscale turbulence
characteristics become important (Sundaram & Collins, 1997; Ferry & Balachandar, 2002).
Therefore, several authors have given empirical corrections which combine these two regimes,
e.g., Williams and Crane (1983), Sundaram & Collins (1997), and Kruis & Kusters (1997).
Herein we put forth a simple correlation based on a pathaveraged St
ΛL
(similar to that used for
domain Stokes number in Eq. 3.161)
2
coll,diff coll,kinetic
coll,turb
St St St
St 24
St St
1 St 1 St d
1 St
Λ
Λ ⊥
λ
Λ Λ
Λ
⎛ ⎞
+
Λ α
⎜ ⎟
≈ = +
⎜ ⎟ + + π
+
⎝ ⎠
L
L
L L
L
3.207
This empirical combination will be bounded and properly tend towards the two theoretical
limits for very small and very large values of St
ΛL
. Based on Fig. 3.49, this combination
provides qualitative agreement with detailed numerical simulations. This relationship also
indicates that the collisional Stokes number is linearly proportional to the volume fraction.
Comparison with Eq. 3.201 indicates that the turbulent collision rate will generally dominate as
compared to that associated with terminal velocity variations if the size distribution is narrow,
about d
90%
/d
10%
<1.2.
154
Collisions due to Brownian Motion
Finally, a collision rate due to Brownian motion was obtained by Smoluchowski (1916) in
terms of the temperature and the Boltzmann constant (κ, given in Table A.1) as
( )
2
i j
ij,Br p,i p, j
f i j
d d
2 T
n n
3 d d
+
κ
=
μ
N
3.208
This overall frequency can be converted into a collisional Stokes number for a monodisperse
distribution (d
j
=d
j
) based on Eqs. 3.1, 3.143, 3.193 and 3.197 and assuming Stokesian drag:
( )
coll,Br p f 2
f
8 T
St c
9 d
∀
κ α
= ρ + ρ
π μ
3.209
This collisional Stokes number decreases with particle diameter while that for turbulent
diffusion (Eq. 3.205) showed an increase with particle inertia and diameter. As such, the
Brownian collision rate will be negligible in comparison except when particles are quite small.
3.9. Multiphase FlowCoupling Summary
As discussed in §3.33.5, the particle Stokes number is the primary indicator of the
particle’s ability to follow the flow. In particular, the oneway coupling regimes can be
summarized in order of decreasing particle inertia as follows:
St
D
» 1 particle motion negligibly affected by the macroscopic fluid motion
St
Λ
»1 particle motion negligibly affected by the turbulent structures
St
Λ
~1 particle motion substantially modified by integralscale structures
St
Λ
«1 particle motion closely follows integralscale structures
St
λ
~1 particle motion substantially modified by Kolmogorov structures
St
λ
«1 particle motion closely follows all turbulent structures
3.210
Similarly the twoway, threeway, and fourway multiphasecoupling criteria discussed in
§3.73.8 can be summarized as:
Π
D
«1 for negligible twoway momentum coupling by particles
Π
k
«1 for negligible twoway turbulence coupling by particles
α«1 for negligible threeway coupling in mixedconditions
η
«1 for negligible threeway coupling with heavy particle clustering
α>
¯
0.1 for dominate threeway coupling: dense flow
St
coll
«1 for negligible fourway coupling on particles
St
coll
»1 for dominate fourway coupling: dense flow
3.211
It should be noted that these criteria are qualitative since they do not account for differences
associated with: domain flow geometry, domain unsteadiness, nonlinear drag, eddycrossing
effects, particle contamination, size distribution, anisotropic or nonhomogenous turbulence
features, etc. However, it is helpful to understand when specific coupling mechanisms are
155
important as this can dictate the appropriate numerical method for analysis (a subject to be
discussed in the next chapter).
To illustrate the conditions associated with different coupling regimes, the above criteria
can be used to construct regime maps as shown in Figs. 3.50 and 3.51 as a function of particle
size and concentration. These particular regime maps provide approximate boundaries for the
various coupling conditions for two common conditions with substantially different density
ratios: solid particles droplets in air (
*
p
ρ ~1000) and air bubbles in water (
*
p
ρ ~0.001). The latter
case is also approximately representative of liquid or solid particles in a liquid (
*
p
ρ ~1). For the
particle phase, the maps consider a range of particle sizes from 10 microns (below which non
continuum effects may become significant) to 5 mm (above which bubbles become highly
ellipsoidal). The drag coefficients used in these regime maps are primarily based on the
expressions given in §1.5.2, but some corrections are made for ellipsoidal bubble shapes (based
on expressions in §6.2.6). The demarcations of the various coupling regimes are based on Eqs.
3.210 and 3.211 assuming monodisperse particles moving approximately at their terminal
velocity. For the continuousphase, domain sizes are set as 100 mm which is a typical scale for
many laboratory flows, and ensures a large D/d ratio (ranging from 20 to 10,000). To allow
similar domain Reynolds numbers for both maps, the air flow speed was set to be an order of
magnitude larger than the water flow speed (5 m/s vs. 0.5 m/s). The flow is considered to be
homogeneous isotropic stationary turbulent flow with u
Λ
≈0.05u
D
and τ
λ
≈0.05τ
Λ
≈0.05τ
D
(typical of the middle portion of fullydeveloped turbulent channel flows at these domain
Reynolds numbers).
The case of particles in air is shown in Fig. 3.50 in terms of particle diameter vs. mass
loading (η). For very low mass loadings (η), only oneway coupling is present. This coupling
at the smallest diameters is consistent with St
λ
~1 whereby preferential concentration effects
can be significant, e.g., Fig. 3.26. At larger diameters, particle inertia will lead to particle
concentration features on the integralscale (Fig. 3.6). In this regime the overall diffusivities of
the particle to the flow has begun to reduce compare to that for scalars. At very large Stokes
numbers, the particles tend to cut through the flowfield with only minor deviations from
terminal velocity trajectories.
As mass loading increases, the first coupling regime encountered is typically an affect on
the continuous turbulence levels, and it is important to note that impact of the particles on the
spectra at higher frequencies can come at loadings which are an order of magnitude smaller
(Druzhinin & Elghobashi, 1999). For large values of
*
term
w , pseudoturbulence is more likely
which results in the turbulence becoming more sensitive to the particle presence and generally
enhanced as compared to the singlephase conditions. At moderately larger values of mass
loading, mean flow coupling becomes important especially for small particles when mixed
fluid conditions apply. Particleparticle collisions associated with turbulent mixing then
become important, particularly for intermediatesized particles since the collision frequencies
become large while the particle response times are still modest. Note that significant size
variation will result in particle collision effects becoming important at much lower volume
fractions. At still higher mass loadings, threeway coupling effects become important (α=1%),
though these can be important at even lower void fractions if preferential concentration causes
“clustering”. The end of the dispersed flow regime and the onset of dense flow correspond to
conditions where threeway coupling dominates (especially for smaller particles) or collision
frequency dominates (especially for larger particles).
156
For the bubbly flow considered in Fig. 3.51, we consider the increased particle
concentration in terms of volume fraction (similar results can be expected for particles in liquid
with. In comparing with Fig. 3.50, we note that most of the above trends are again evident, but
there are some significant exceptions. For example, bubbles in water have lower terminal
velocities (compared to particle in a gas for the same diameter) due to increased continuous
phase viscosity. The corresponding reduced Stokes numbers result is more likely to lead to
tracer particle behavior for the oneway coupling effects. Furthermore, the importance of
volume loading (compared to mass loading) for bubbly flows leads to increased sensitivity to
threeway coupling effects as compared to that for twoway or fourway coupling effects. In
particular, particleparticle collisions due to turbulence become important for volume fraction
of only a few percent and can even be more significant for polydisperse size distributions. For
example, a distribution given by d
90%
/d
10%
~10 would cause collision effects to become
important for volume fractions as little as 0.1%. The twoway coupling to the continuous
phase turbulence tends to be dominated by production and pseudoturbulence mechanisms so
that enhancement is expected for most conditions. Finally, dense flow occurs once the volume
fraction of particle becomes substantial, e.g., reaches 10%. It should be emphasized that the
above regime maps indicate the qualitative capacity of a multiphase flow to incur coupling, but
do not dictate the magnitude or direction of the modification.
3.10. Problems
3.1) Derive the exponential explicit scheme of Eq. 3.8a for the particle velocity starting
from Eq. 3.4 assuming a constant fluid velocity throughout the domain and Stokesian drag
(f=1).
3.2) Use the scheme of Problem 1 to predict the onedimensional velocity of a veryheavy
particle (R→0) for zero gravity (g=0) a total time integration of 3τ
p
. Assume that the particle
is initially at rest (v=0 at t=0) but is subjected to a constant fluid velocity of constant
magnitude u
o
. Use a reasonably small timestep, and plot together the predicted solution for
this condition in terms of v/u
o
as a function of t/τ
p
. Discuss the trend in particle velocity
evolution. Also show that this scheme is “exact” (not a function of timestep) by comparing it
with the analytical solution. Under what conditions will the exponential scheme no longer be
exact?
3.7) Consider a HIST wake flow of air at STP with the following turbulent properties: a
Lagrangian fluid timescale of 0.1 s, a kinetic energy of 0.06m
2
/s
2
, c
τ
=0.2 and c
Λτ
=1.5
a) compute St
Λ
and St
λ
for an isolated 100 micron water drop and comment on the type of one
way coupling expected for these Stokes numbers;
b) compute the long time transverse diffusion rate and the particle turbulent kinetic energy
c) explain qualitatively why some turbulent bias effects can be neglected with respect to wfor
this particle and why significant ones would give an increase or decrease compared to w
term
;
then compute wbased on the significant bias effects
3.8) Starting from Eq. 3.35, derive Eq. 3.38 and also show that this result yields the limits
given by Eqs. 3.36 and 3.37 for short and long times, respectively, and yields the fluidtracer
spread of 3.38.
3.9) Derive the general particle spread rms as a function of time and the longtime of Eq.
3.137 starting from Eq. 3.132.
157
3.10) For the conditions of problem 7 and a mass loading of 10%:
a) determine Π
k
and comment on whether you would expect a change in the continuousphase
turbulence due to twoway coupling and whether any such change would likely be an increase
or a decrease;
b) determine the turbulent and Brownian collisional Stokes numbers (St
coll, turb
and St
coll, Br
)
and comment on whether collisional effects will be significant or dominate particle motion in
either case.
158
4. Overview of Multiphase Flow Numerical Approaches
In this chapter, our attention is turned to numerical formulations for treating multiphase
flow. The numerical methodology is strongly related to the flow physics of interest and the
governing equations for both phases. The numerical resources required are also related to the
minimum spatial and temporal discrimination needed and on the mathematical character of the
solution. The emphasis will be on defining the general characteristics of the various available
approaches, discussing their appropriateness for specific simulation objectives (predicting
mean diffusion, determining a bubble shape evolution, etc.) and quantifying the associated
computational resources (programming, CPU time, CPU memory, etc.).
The first section of this chapter deals with the various approaches categorized by their
treatment of the reference frames, velocity fields, and interphase surface forces. The second
section gives some guidelines on comparing the various methodologies in terms of the
predicting various multiphase fluid physics such as oneway coupling (including turbulent and
Brownian diffusion), twoway coupling (which modifies the equations and techniques), as well
as threeway and fourway coupling (which describe particleparticle interactions). The third
section discusses the computational requirements primarily in terms of number of continuous
phase and particle phase nodes required. Note that numerical methodologies for the uncoupled
continuousphase flow are described in Appendix B. This uncoupled flow is important as it
drives the particle dynamics in dispersed flow conditions, and also serves as a baseline
description for the coupled continuousflow equations.
In general, this chapter is intended to give a brief survey of the “tools” available, some
guidelines on the “jobs” for which these tools are best suited, and the “costs” for their
implementation. This should allow one to select a numerical technique which is optimal for
the desired multiphase analysis. The following chapters (58) will provide more depth and
details of the mechanics and performance of the various approaches.
159
4.1. DispersedPhase Flow Numerical Approaches
There are a large variety of numerical methods for multiphase flow, and so it is helpful to
consider the various ways to categorize the approaches. The most common categorization is
by the reference frame for the particles: Lagrangian vs. Eulerian approaches. Other major
categorizations include: MixedFluid vs. SeparatedFluid approaches and PointForce vs.
ResolvedSurface approaches. These three classifications are overviewed in Table 4.1 in terms
of the momentum PDEs assuming no chemistry or noncontinuum effects. These conservation
equations will be put forth assuming simplified volumetric averaging principles for dispersed
particles in a continuum. However, a more formal derivation of these equations requires
careful consideration of the spatial and temporal averaging limits and the assumption of small
but finite particle size. As such, the reader is particularly referred to details given by Drew
(1983), Zhang & Prosperetti (1994), Crowe et al. (1998), and Prosperetti (2007). There are
subtle differences among these derivations in these sources which are particular to different
assumptions.
4.1.1. Lagrangian vs. Eulerian Approaches
One of the key divisions between the various multiphase numerical methods is that of the
reference frame for treating the dispersedphase. While continuousflow CFD formulations are
generally considered in an Eulerian reference, the dispersedphase characteristics (velocity,
concentration, diameter, etc.) are commonly treated with either Lagrangian or Eulerian
representations. If we consider the case where the particles are small in size compared to the
grid resolution of the continuousphase (larger particles will be considered later), a natural
approach is to use particle trajectories, i.e. the Lagrangian dispersedphase representation. In
this case, the particle characteristics (velocity, position, etc.) are declared and updated along
the particle pathlines, which are based on the center of mass of the particle (or along the center
of mass for a cloud of particles) as shown in Fig. 4.1a. In contrast, the Eulerian dispersed
phase representation generally declares the particle characteristics (velocity, concentration,
etc.) at nodes coincident with those of the continuousphase grid (Fig. 4.1b). Hybrid
approaches are generally rare, though this may be an important area of research in the future.
The two different reference approaches (Lagrangian vs. Eulerian) for the particle
characteristics lead to different formulations in the dispersedphase equations of motion, as
discussed in the following.
Lagrangian DispersedPhase Equation of Motion
In the Lagrangian methodology, the particle pathlines are determined by the particle
equation of motion. Generally, this yields an ordinary differential equation (ODE) for each
particle (as in §1.5) using particle path derivatives (with temporal discretization as discussed in
§2.2). Thus, the equation of motion for the Lagrangian dispersedphase coupled with the
definitions of particle velocity (§1.3) and mass transfer rate (§1.6) in tensor form are given by
160
( ) ( ) ( )
i
p body surf coll body int coll p ij
i i
v
m F F F F F F p K
t
= + + = + + + ∀ −∇ +∇
d
d
pi i
x / t v ≡ d d
p p
m / t m ≡ ` d d
4.1a
4.1b
4.1c
The RHS forces of Eq. 4.1a are considered along the path of the particle, where the surface
force is separated into interphase forces and fluidstress forces as noted in Eq. 3.146, and
where the fluidstress forces are given by Eq. 1.67. Note that these ODEs are formally coupled,
e.g., the particle velocity is needed for integrating the particle position, but the particle velocity
and mass transfer are also a function of the local flow conditions.
The particle energy equation can be neglected altogether if the continuousphase flow is
approximately isothermal (e.g., incompressible adiabatic flow) and the relative temperature
differences with the particles are small. However, these conditions are not satisfied in many
conditions, particularly if there are significant heat and mass transfer effects. An energy ODE
along the particle path can be expressed in terms of the particle specific energy (e
p
), the particle
specific heat at constant pressure (c
p,p
) and the absolute temperature (e.g., Kelvin):
p p,p p
e T ≡c
4.2
Based on this definition, the Lagrangian transport can be generalized to include gradients in the
surrounding fluid temperature but limited to some specific assumptions (discussed below) as
( )
p
p p p phase p eff
e
m m T
t
= + +∀ ∇⋅ ∇
`
`
d
Q h k
d
4.3
As in Eq. 1.90, the RHS includes the specific enthalpy required for phase change of the particle
material (h
phase
) and the heat transfer rate per particle (
p
`
Q ). The last RHS term of Eq. 4.3 is the
energy transfer due to temperature gradients in the surrounding fluid with an effective
conductivity,
eff
k . This can be approximated by the mixedfluid conductivity (k
m
) which is is
based on the volume fraction contributions (Crowe et al., 1998) so that:
eff m p f
(1 ) ≈ ≡ α + −α k k k k
4.4
This mixedfluid conductivity definition assumes that heating of the particles and continuous
phase occurs simultaneously and is independent of whether the mixture is miscible or
immiscible so long as the thermal equilibrium approximation applies. This assumption for the
effective conductivity is reasonable if the particles have a small thermal response time (τ
T
of
Eq. 1.93b) compared to the timescale of temperature changes in the fluid. If the particle
thermal response time is very large, the thermal diffusivity will tend to that conducted only
through the continuousphase, i.e.
eff f
(1 ) → −α k k . Since the differences in thermal
conductivities for most substances does not vary widely (e.g., Table A.1), the difference
between these two limits is generally not significant for dispersed flows (α<10%). As such, Eq.
4.4 is both common and generally reasonable (Crowe et al. 1998, Elghobashi, 2006).
For the above energy equation, the internal temperature of the particle is assumed to be
unaffected by the four following mechanisms: particle compressibility, chemical reactions,
internal temperature gradients, or the normal surface velocity. There are specific conditions for
161
which these assumptions are not reasonable. Firstly, a compressible fluid particle with rapid
volumetric changes (e.g., subjected to strong acoustic waves) will undergo changes in internal
temperature, which can include reversible pressure work as well as irreversible viscous
dissipation (Crowe et al. 1998). This is particularly true for bubbles in liquids, in which case a
RayleighPlesset momentum equation (§2.3.3) can be supplemented with a similar energy
equation (Brennen, 2005). Secondly, the particle or surrounding fluid chemical composition
may change in time and/or space which can cause changes in the heat and mass transfer rates
as well as the fluid properties. This is especially common in the combustion of multi
component drops in gasses, and methods for these effects are discussed by Sirignano (1999).
Thirdly, the particle internal temperature distribution may not be uniform and affected by
finiterate internal conduction (as well as internal convection for fluid particles) which
indicates that the particle surfaceaveraged temperature is different than its volumeaveraged
temperature. Such nonuniformity can be important for particles immersed in flows with rapid
temperature changes or particle with large thermal inertias, and requires additional RHS terms
and/or internal temperature modeling (Sirignano, 1999, Michaelides, 2006). Lastly, neglecting
the kinetic energy associated with the normal surface velocity assumes that the efflux velocity
on the particle surface due to mass transfer (
r,m
u
`
) is small compared to the particle
translational energy. Crowe et al. (1998) derived this additional energy term but not that it is
nearly always negligible compared to the heat of phase change.
Particle Concentration with the Lagrangian Approach
Since the dispersedphase is treated in terms of individual particle paths (or group of
particles) for the Lagrangian method, no continuum approximation is required. As such, this
approach is also sometimes referred to as the “discrete” approach. When coupled with an
Eulerian representation of the continuousphase, this combined treatment is termed the
“EulerianLagrangian” approach. Thus the Lagrangian particle trajectories are generally not
coincident with the Eulerian continuousphase mesh (Fig. 4.1a). To translate particle
trajectories to Eulerian concentration fields, cellaveraged concentrations are typically used.
For the concept of a local concentration to be wellposed, the computational cell should be
large enough to encompass at least a single particle, i.e.:
p Δ
∀ < ∀
¯
for a wellposed cellvolume for concentration
4.5
If this is not satisfied (e.g., the cellvolume is wholly located within a particle), the concept of a
number of particles per cell volume is not reasonable.
The cellaveraged number density or volume fraction (Eq. 3.143) can be obtained by
determining all the particles whose centroids (x
p
) is within the discrete cell volume (
Δ
∀ ) and
then summing up their respective volumes (
p, j
∀ ):
p
p p p, j
j 1
N
1
n
Δ
=
Δ
α = ∀ = ∀
∀
∑
4.6
Note that ∀
Δ
is the cell volume that includes both the continuousphase and the dispersed
phase and thus is sometimes referred to as the mixedfluid cell volume. Also, note that a
162
particle volume that overlaps a cell boundary will only partially contribute, i.e.
p, j
∀ only
includes the portion of the particle volume within the discrete cell. There are also other high
order approximations based on relative distance of the particle to the cell center (as will be
discussed in §7.2.7), but these are still based on a summation of individual properties. The
Eulerian conversion of Eq. 4.6 is reasonable provided there are many particles per cell (as will
be discussed in the next subsection). Similar equations can convert Lagrangian particle
velocities and temperatures to cellaveraged Eulerian particle velocities and temperatures.
In multiphase conditions where the number of physical particles is very high (e.g.,
hundreds or thousands of particles per computation cell), it may be impossible or inconvenient
to track all of the particles with Lagrangian ODEs. An alternative approach is to use
representative Lagrangian particles called “parcels”. These representative particle groups are
essentially a small cloud of particles that are all modeled with the same Lagrangian trajectory.
These parcels are also sometimes called “computational particles” or “superparticles”. If we
denote N
pP
as the number of physical particles in a parcel, corresponding ODEs for the parcel
trajectory and momentum (where v
P
as the velocity of the parcel) can be given as
( )
( ) ( )
pP
pP P,i pP P,i
pP p P,i pP body surf coll
i
N particles / parcel
N x / t N v
N m v / t N F F F
≡
=
= + +
d d
d d
4.7a
4.7b
4.7c
If there is no mass transfer, breakup or coalescence, the number of particles per parcel will be
constant along its trajectory. In this case, the set of equations for a single parcel are effectively
the same as those for a single particle so that the parcel approach is much more
computationally efficient. For example, N
pP
=100 allows the number of computed trajectories
to be 100fold less for a fixed number of particles in the domain.
To express the volume fraction of particles in a computational cell, a simple method is to
sum over the number of Lagrangian parcels within an Eulerian cell (defined as N
PΔ
):
P
p p pP, j p, j
j 1
N
1
n N
Δ
=
Δ
α = ∀ = ∀
∀
∑
4.8
Details of this and other averaging techniques will be discussed in §7.2.7. To initialize parcels
in a computational cell for a region with a monodisperse particle mixture, the initial number of
parcels for each cell (N
PΔ,init
) is often set uniformly throughout the domain. In this case, the
initial number of particles per parcel (N
pP,init
) can be expressed as:
( ) ( )
pP,init p P
init
init
N / N
Δ Δ
= α∀ ∀ for monodisperse parcel initialization
4.9a
A similar initialization of parcels can be used for polydisperse size distributions (as will be
discussed in §7.2.4). The parcel volume can be defined and expressed as:
( ) ( )
P
P,init p pP P
init
init
volume of mixedfluid occupied by parcel
N / / N
Δ Δ
∀ ≡
∀ = ∀ α = ∀
4.9b
4.9c
The scale of this volume determines the spatial accuracy of the pointforce approximation
because the continuousphase properties for F
surf
of Eq. 4.7c are obtained at the parcel center
163
(x
P
) but are meant to represent the properties throughout
P
∀ . If the cloud is large, there can be
a substantial variation of continuousphase flow variables across its length. This problem can
be minimized by limiting the parcel cloud to a lengthscale on the order of the minimum
continuousphase lengthscale which, in turn, can be estimated as the continuousphase grid
resolution (given by Eqs. B.14a, B.14b and B.14c):
P Δ
∀ < ∀
¯
for wellposed parcel volume
4.10
This criterion specifies that the Lagrangian parcel cloud volume be bounded by the Eulerian
computational volume of the continuousphase flow. This limitation is also consistent with the
summation of Eq. 4.8, which effectively assumes that all the particles associated with a parcel
contribute to the computational cell in which x
P
is located. As such, Eq. 4.10 places an upper
bound N
pP
for the parcel method.
Eulerian DispersedPhase Continuum Approximation
The Eulerian description applied to the dispersedphase (Fig. 4.1b) generally requires that
the particle properties (such as concentration, velocity or temperature) can be approximated as
a continuum. This is generally known as the “particlephase continuum” assumption (Drew &
Passman, 1999). This continuum treatment assumes that the particle concentration field is
“wellposed”, is “continuously differentiable” and is “gradientresolved” throughout the
domain. The “wellposed” criterion is established by Eq. 4.5 and the other two criteria are
discussed in the following.
The “continuouslydifferentiable” assumption is related to the number of particles per
computational cell (N
pΔ
). To illustrate this, consider the larger and smaller computational
volume (with respect to particle spacing) given in Fig. 4.2. The larger volume contains many
particles so that the number density (n
p
of Eq. 3.141) does not depend significantly on the exact
volume position. In contrast, the smaller volume has a lengthscale that is on the order of the
average interparticle spacing (defined in Eq. 3.186). In this case, the local concentration can
vary dramatically depending on the specific location of the volume (e.g., it can be finite or zero
depending on whether it happens to capture a particle). These differences are important if one
wishes to represent concentration gradients. For example, consider two neighboring control
volumes with a particle concentration defined as n
p,i
and n
p,i+1
(Fig. 4.3a). For cell volumes
with many particles, n
p
will tend to vary smoothly between cells. Thus the concentration at an
intermediate location can be obtained by applying a Taylor series expansion for n
p,i
:
1/ 2
2 3 2 3
p p p
p,i p,i 2 3
i
i i
n n n
x 1 x 1 x
n n ...
2 x 2! 2 x 3! 2 x
+
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ⎞ Δ Δ Δ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
= + + + +
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
4.11
Combining this with a similar expansion for n
pi+1
but with a backwards shift (–Δx) yields:
( )
1/ 2
2
p,i 1 p,i
p,i
n n
n O x
2
+
+
+
= + Δ 4.12
By dropping the higher order terms of Eq. 4.12, we obtain a “finite difference” of n
p,i+1/2
based
on the cell volume discretization. The linear variation in n
p
approximated in Eq. 4.12 is also
consistent with linear shape functions used for FiniteVolume or FiniteElement approaches
164
(§B.1). The concentration given by Eq. 4.12 can be compared to the concentration defined by
the particles actually within the i+1/2 control volume, and the difference is the discretization
error. While some discretization error is always expected whenever the interparticle spacing is
nonuniform it will generally be small for large N
pΔ
.
A much different result arises if N
pΔ
is no longer large. For example, Fig. 4.3b shows a
grid resolution which is on the order of the local interparticle spacing (Δx~l
pp
). For these
particular volume locations, n
pi+1
happens to be one while n
p,i
is zero. This discontinuous
change in the number density distribution between the cells indicates that a finite difference
mean between two adjoining cells will give substantially different results depending on the
selected position of the numerical control volumes. For example, the n
p,i+1/2
based on Eq. 4.12
will be about half that obtained by the dashedline control volumes. Thus, finite difference
expressions of the gradients which assume a continuouslydifferentiable concentration (Eq.
4.11) are no longer reasonable to employ since the results are highly sensitive to control
volume location.
The above discretization error for the cellaveraged concentration is related to the using
statistical analysis of uncorrelated events. In this case the statistical uncertainty of the number
density (
p
n U ) is proportional to the square root of the sampling frequency:
1
p p p
n ~ n N
−
Δ
U 4.13
Based on this, a frequency of 100 particles per cell translates into an uncertainty of 10%, while
10
4
particles would be needed to ensure an uncertainty of 1%. Of course, if N
pΔ
is order unity,
then the error in n
p
will be on the order of 100% as shown in Fig. 4.3b. Thus, a large number
of particles per cell is needed for accurate predictions of the gradients, i.e. an Eulerian
representation requires:
p
N 1
Δ
> for a continuouslydifferentiable concentration
4.14
In a sense, the continuum assumption for the multiphase flow is similar to that for a single
phase flow as discussed in §1.4. For example, the latter assumes a large number of molecules
over for any fluid control volume so that fluid properties such as density, pressure and velocity
can be taken as continuum values, i.e. Kn
f
→0 so that individual molecular interactions can be
ignored.
The third assumption required is that the continuum Eulerian particle concentration field is
“gradient resolved”. This requires that the mixedfluid volume is small enough to capture the
continuum particle concentration gradient (∇n
p
). This will be satisfied when the lengthscale
associated with the continuum concentration gradients is much larger than that associated with
the control volume:
1/3
p p
x n / n
Δ
∀ = Δ ∇ < for a gradientresolved particle concentration
4.15
Thus, the deterministic concentration gradient is grid independent if this criterion is satisfied.
It should be kept in mind that local variations in particle spacing associated with a random
distribution should not be considered (else this constraint can not be satisfied).
Since Eq. 4.14 automatically satisfies Eq. 4.5 and since Eq. 3.186 relates concentration to
spacing, all three of the Eulerian continuum assumptions may be satisfied by:
165
p p p p
x n / n
−
Δ ∇ < < l for a particle concentration “continuum”
4.16
Thus, an Eulerian treatment requires a cell resolution lengthscale which is both larger than the
mean interparticle spacing and smaller than the deterministic concentration gradient length
scale. This indicates that the cell discretization can have problems if it is too big (e.g., using
the entire domain for the cell volume would not capture any concentration gradients) or if it is
too small (e.g., movement of a single particle from the cell volume can cause the large changes
in the concentration).
Note that the instantaneous continuum approximation constraint (Eq. 4.16) may be relaxed
if just the mean properties are of interest. For example, the timeaveraged particle number
density (Drew & Passman, 1999) is given by:
p p p
0
1
n n (t)dt
τ
α = ∀ =
τ
∫
as τ →∞
4.17
If the total number of particles considered over the time integral is large, then
p
n can be
considered as a continuum even if the number of particles in a cell at a given time instant is
small or even zero. For example, a computational cell which has an average of 0.1 particles
based on Eq. 4.17 can be considered equivalent to a 10% probability that a particle will be
located in the cell volume at any given time. As such, the uncertainty of Eq. 4.13 would only
arise if one wishes to convert this probability into an instantaneous realization. Using such a
timeaverage allows the constraints of Eqs. 4.14 and 4.15 to be relaxed, but the continuum
approximation still requires that the cellvolume be wellposed (Eq. 4.5) so that:
p p
d x n / n < Δ ∇ < for a mean particle concentration “continuum”
4.18
This can allow a much broader range of computational resolutions as compared to that of Eq.
4.16. In addition, use of a mean concentration gradient eliminates the issue of random particle
spacing. If an unsteady flow is considered, the averaging of Eq. 4.17 can instead be considered
over a timestep Δt. In this case, the requirements for temporal discretization of unsteady
concentration fields are analogous to those for spatial discretization of concentration gradient
fields, as shown in Fig. 4.4.
Eulerian DispersedPhase Equation of Motion
In the Eulerian approach, the particle concentration and momentum are solved with
transport equations in a manner similar to the density and momentum for the continuousphase
(i.e., analogous to equations in Appendix A). To allow this, we assume that the particle
characteristics (such as n
p
or α) can be described as a continuum as discussed above. The
conservation equations for the Eulerian dispersedphase mass, momentum and energy can be
derived in the same manner as that for the continuousphase (§A.1). For continuity, the rate of
mass change in a control volume is equal to the mass flux through its boundaries and any mass
source term within the control volume. Written in PDE form and ignoring the effects of
Brownian diffusion and particle collisions (at least until §4.2.2), this governing equation per
unit volume of the mixedvolume fluid in conservative form becomes:
166
( ) ( )
p p p p j
p p
j
m n m n v
n m
t x
∂ ∂
+ =
∂ ∂
` 4.19
Note that the above RHS Eulerian source term is also the RHS Lagrangian source term of Eq.
4.1c since both LHS terms are consistent. The particle momentum is obtained by equating the
rate of momentum change with the forces based on Eq. 4.1a:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
p p i p p i j
p body int p i p ij
i
j
m n v m n v v
n F F m v p K
t x
∂ ∂
⎡ ⎤
+ = + + +∀ −∇ +∇
⎣ ⎦
∂ ∂
` 4.20
Note that a RHS mass transfer term is a result of using a conservative form for the LHS.
The energy equation (assuming a continuum in the particle concentration) equates the rate
of particle energy change with convection and energy transfer (Crowe et al. 1998). This can be
obtained in a manner similar to Eq. A.15 assuming a thermal diffusion due to temperature
gradients and a mixed conductivity and assuming that the particles due no work (since there is
no particle pressure):
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
p p p p p p j
p p m p p p phase p p
j
m n e m n e v
n T n m + m e
t x
∂ ∂
+ = ∀ ∇⋅ ∇ + +
∂ ∂
`
` ` k Q h 4.21
Note that the last term on the RHS also account for the heat transfer from the continuousphase
and the energy required for phase change. In addition, a mass flux term as in Eq. 4.20 also
appears due to the conservative form.
The above transport equations can be considered in terms of steadystate properties if
the dispersedphase field is ergodically stationary. In this case, a timeaverage of Eqs. 4.19
4.21 assuming constant particle mass yields
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
p j
j
p i j
p p body p int p coll p p ij
i
j p
p p j
p p
p p m
j p
n v
0
x
n v v
1
n F n F n F n p n K
x
n e v
n
n T
x
∂
=
∂
∂
ρ = + + + − ∇ + ∇
∂ ∀
∂
ρ = + ∇⋅ ∇
∂ ∀
`
Q
k
4.22a
4.22b
4.22c
Representations of the timeaveraged terms will require turbulence models (§A.5.5A.5.6) and
will be discussed in Chapter 7.
Once the Eulerian conservation equations are discretized, each (cellaveraged) node in the
computational domain will include cellaveraged particlephase variables but require the
constraints of Eq. 4.18. When coupled with an Eulerian representation of the continuousphase,
this overall multiphase treatment is termed the “EulerianEulerian” or “twofluid” approach.
Importantly, this approach allows the dispersedphase PDEs to be treated with the same
discretization techniques as used for the continuousphase PDEs. It also conveniently allows
the same grid for both phases so that the grid resolution is equivalent (Δx
f
=Δx
p
). Because of
this the average interphase coupling terms are treated in the same manner for both phases so
167
that EulerianEulerian approaches are especially efficient and accurate when twoway coupling
effects are present (to be discussed later).
To summarize, the Eulerian approach for the dispersedphase: 1) requires a continuum
assumption for the particle characteristics, and 2) leads to PDEs for the particle characteristics
on a discrete grid similar to that for the continuousphase characteristics. When coupled with
transport equations for the continuousphase, this is often called the “twofluid” method or the
“EulerianEulerian” multiphase formulation. In contrast, the Lagrangian approach leads to
ODEs along the particle path. In either case, the particle relative velocity must be obtained and
the possible methods for this are discussed in the following section.
4.1.2. MixedFluid vs. Separated vs. WeaklySeparated Approaches
Depending on how the particle relative velocity is treated, a second type of classification is
“mixedfluid” vs. “separatedfluid”. For the separatedfluid approach, the continuousphase
PDEs employ an Eulerian field of PDEs while the particle field is treated with a separate set of
PDEs for an Eulerian representation or ODEs for a Lagrangian representation. These are
coupled through a relative velocity as discussed above. For the mixedfluid approach, the
particle relative velocity is considered negligible so that the surrounding fluid and particles are
considered numerically as one fluid with a single PDE for the mixture. In addition, there is a
third (hybrid) method called the “weaklyseparatedfluid” approach, which generally assumes
that the relative velocity accelerations are small. These three methods are discussed below.
MixedFluid Treatment
The mixedfluid approximation assumes that the dispersedphase and the continuousphase
are in local kinetic and thermal equilibrium, i.e., the relative velocities and temperatures
between the two phases are negligible in comparison to variations of the overall flowfield
p f f
v u u
T T T
−
−
<
<
for mixedfluid treatment
4.23a
4.23b
Neglecting these relative components at all points (x) in the domain yields the mixed fluid
values for velocity and temperature
m @p
m p
( ,t) ( ,t) ( ,t)
T ( ,t) T( ,t) T ( ,t)
≡ →
≡ →
v x u x v x
x x x
4.24a
4.24b
For flows with weak accelerations, the kinetic equilibrium is equivalent to the terminal velocity
being much less than any relevant continuousphase velocity scales, e.g., w
term
«u
D
for steady
macroscopic flows and w
term
«u
λ
for turbulent flows. From a dynamics point of view, this is
equivalent to having infinite interphase drag between the particles and the fluid, i.e. negligible
inertia and zero response time. Therefore, the mixedfluid approach is consistent with particle
sizes so small that all the relevant Stokes numbers are much less than unity, e.g., St
D
«1 if
macroscopic effects are important or St
λ
«1 if all turbulent features are important. If there are
variations in flow temperature, the temperature differences between the two phases are
similarly assumed to be negligible which coincides with infinite heat transfer rates. Therefore,
168
the mixedfluid approach is only reasonable for very small particles with respect to relative
velocity (equivalent to an immiscible mixture distributed throughout a domain). Since the
velocities and temperatures of both phases are now assumed to be represented by single values,
this mixedfluid approach has also been termed the “Locally Homogeneous Flow” approach
(Faeth, 1987), the “SingleFluid Scalar Transport” approach, and the “ModifiedDensity”
approach.
A key aspect for the mixedfluid method is the use of the mixedfluid density as defined in
Eq. 3.153. The mixedfluid density from an Eulerian reference frame is simply based on a cell
average of the phase masses within its volume (Eq. 3.153):
ρ
m
(x,t) = α(x,t) ρ
p
(x,t) + [1α(x,t)] ρ
f
(x,t) 4.25
This is illustrated for a onedimensional discretization in Fig. 4.4 where the mixedfluid density
can be assumed to vary in x or t so long as the number of particles within a space or time
increment is sufficiently large, i.e. the continuum approximation is ensured. If the particle and
surroundingfluid densities are constant, the volume fraction alone is sufficient to characterize
the presence of the dispersedphase throughout the domain. Otherwise, local pressure
variations can cause changes in the particle density (such as bubble volume changes with
hydrostatic pressure) and/or the continuousfluid density (such as compressible flow
conditions). In this case, equations of state are needed to relate pressure to the phase densities.
Use of the mixedfluid approximation results in a single set of momentum conservation
equations for the flow mixture (as opposed to one set for the continuousphase and one set of
the dispersedphase). Because of this, the mixedfluid treatment allows significant numerical
simplicity for all dispersed conditions, and thus should be used when appropriate. Furthermore,
collision effects are generally negligible for a mixedfluid since v=u everywhere. The resulting
mixture equations can thus be obtained for transport of mass, momentum and energy in
conservative form in a manner similar to that used for Eqs. A.5a, A.6a and A.15 yielding:
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
m m, j
m
j
m m,i m, j m m,i m,ij
m i
j i j
m m m, j
m,i m m
m,ij ij m m
j j
v
0
t x
v v v K
p
g
t x x x
e v
v e
K p T
t x x
∂ ρ
∂ρ
+ =
∂ ∂
∂ ρ ∂ ρ ∂
∂
+ = ρ − +
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
∂ ρ
∂ ∂ ρ
+ = − δ ∇⋅ ∇
∂ ∂ ∂
+ k
4.26a
4.26b
4.26c
This equation introduces a mixedfluid viscous stress tensor (K
m,ij
) which can be written in
terms of a mixedfluid viscosity
mj
mi
m,i j m ij m
j i
V
V 2
K
x x 3
⎛ ⎞ ∂
∂
= μ + − δ ∇⋅
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
v
4.27
Recall that the mixed fluid viscosity for Stokesian conditions and small volume fractions is
given by Eq. 3.187.
Some key aspects of these equations are worth noting. First, the mixedfluid set of
equations is inherently a twoway coupled system since all phases act in concert. Second, the
particle size and shape are directly employed (and effects not incorporated) since the relative
velocities are assumed insignificant. As a result, the particle characteristics to be solved for are
169
generally limited to the cellaveraged α and ρ
p
distributions (where the latter is simply constant
if the particle is incompressible). Chapter 5 will discuss details of the mixedfluid state
equations and other characteristics.
SeparatedFluid Treatment
The “separatedfluid” treatment generally assumes the continuousphase and dispersed
phase have distinct transport equations. These can be in the form of either an Eulerian
Eulerian or EulerianLagrangian approach, whereby the interphase processes are related by the
relative differences. If we assume that the particle velocity is defined in an Eulerian sense such
that Eq. 4.14 is satisfied, then one may define an Eulerian relative velocity (similar to Eq. 1.9d)
as an average over many particles in a control volume centered at x so that:
( ,t) ( ,t) ( ,t) − w x = v x u x
4.28
The mass, momentum and energy conservation equations of the dispersed phase were given by
Eq. 4.1 for the Lagrangian approach and by Eqs. 4.194.21 for the Eulerian approach (which
neglects particle collisions and Brownian diffusion). The latter can be rewritten in terms of
particle volume fraction and the interphase force (Eq. 3.146):
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
p p j
p
j p
p i p i j
int,i body,i p i ij
j p
p p p p j
p p phase p eff
j p
v
m
t x
v v v
F F m v p K
t x
e e v
m +e T
t x
∂ αρ ∂ αρ
α
+ =
∂ ∂ ∀
∂ αρ ∂ αρ
α
⎡ ⎤
+ = + + + α −∇ +∇
⎣ ⎦
∂ ∂ ∀
∂ αρ ∂ αρ
α
⎡ ⎤
+ = + + α∇⋅ ∇
⎣ ⎦
∂ ∂ ∀
`
`
`
` Q h k
4.29a
4.29b
4.29c
If the body force is only gravitational, then F
body,i
is given by Eq. 1.23, and if the continuous
phase flow is incompressible and weakly coupled, then F
S,i
(last term on RHS of Eq. 4.29b)
can be expressed by Eqs. 1.69 and 4.6. These separatedfluid EulerianEulerian multiphase
formulation will be discussed further in §7.1.1 while a similar discussion and presentation is
given in §7.2.5 for the EulerianLagrangian multiphase formulation.
For twoway and threeway coupling, the continuousphase mass, momentum and energy
must also take into account interphase transfer due to
p int p
m , F , and
`
` Q . However, these
conservation equations must also take into account that the continuousphase mass only
occupies part of the mixedfluid volume. For example, the continuousphase fluid mass per
mixedfluid volume is given by
f
(1 ) −α ρ . Application of the Reynolds Transport Theorem of
Eq. A.4 to this quantity yields the continuousphase continuity equation, where the interphase
mass transfer is included as a sink term:
[ ] f j
f
p
j p
(1 ) u
(1 )
m
t x
⎡ ⎤ ∂ −α ρ
∂ −α ρ
α
⎣ ⎦
+ = −
∂ ∂ ∀
` 4.30
The RHS is thus equal and opposite to the source term used for the particlephase Eulerian
transport of Eq. 4.29a.
170
For the momentum equation, the Reynolds Transport Theorem (Eq. A.1) and the Gauss
Divergence Theorem (Eq. A.3) can be used to describe the change in continuousphase
momentum per unit volume, i.e.
f i
(1 ) u −α ρ . This change can be related by Newton’s second
law to the body, fluidstress, and interphase coupling forces applied to the continuousphase as:
[ ]
( )
f i j
f i
f i
j
i j ij
int,i p i
j p
(1 ) u u
(1 ) u
(1 ) g
t x
(K p )
(1 ) F m v
x
⎡ ⎤ ∂ −α ρ
∂ −α ρ
⎣ ⎦
+ = −α ρ
∂ ∂
⎡ ⎤ ∂ − δ
α
+ −α − +
⎢ ⎥
∂ ∀
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
`
4.31
The first term on the RHS is simply the body force applied to the continuousphase mass per
unit volume. The second term on the RHS can be obtained by subtracting the fluidstress force
applied to the particle (Eqs. 4.6 and 1.69) from the total fluidstress force to all phases:
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
p
N
S,f m ij p,k ij m ij
k 1
p K p K 1 p K
Δ
=
= ∀ −∇ +∇ − ∀ −∇ +∇ = ∀ −α −∇ +∇
∑
F 4.32
This result is consistent with Eq. 1.67 and indicates that the portion applied to the continuous
phase is the complement of the portion applied to the particles in Eq. 4.29b. A rigorous
derivation and discussion of this term is given by Prosperetti (2007). The third term is the
momentum transferred to the particle phase, which is equal to and opposite of the particle
momentum source terms of Eq. 4.29b. The interphase force term can be related to the fluid
dynamic particle surface force by Eq. 3.146:
( ) ( )
i j ij
int,i surf ,i
p p j
(K p )
F F
x
⎡ ⎤ ∂ − δ
α α
= −α
⎢ ⎥
∀ ∀ ∂
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
4.33
Substituting the RHS expression into Eq. 4.31 yields a common form on the continuousphase
momentum transport:
[ ] ( )
surf ,i p i f i j i j ij f i
f i
j j p
F m v (1 ) u u (K p ) (1 ) u
(1 ) g
t x x
⎡ ⎤ α + ∂ −α ρ ∂ − δ ∂ −α ρ
⎣ ⎦
+ = −α ρ + −
∂ ∂ ∂ ∀
`
4.34
Further assuming constant viscosity and density yields the momentum equation in Table 4.1.
The coupled energy equation for the continuousphase can be similarly obtained in
conservative form by employing the same assumptions used for particle energy transport (Eq.
4.3) and neglecting the following effects: energy interactions associated with particle volume
change or shape changes, kinetic energy of the particle surface efflux due to mass transfer, and
energy release associated with chemical reactions. The resulting equation is:
[ ]
[ ]
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
f tot j
f tot
j
i j ij i
eff
f j j
j j
i
p p phase p p i i int,i i i j ij
p j
(1 ) e u
(1 ) e
t x
(1 )(K p )u
T
(1 ) g u (1 )
x x
v
m +e m v v F v K p
x
⎡ ⎤ ∂ −α ρ
∂ −α ρ
⎣ ⎦
+ =
∂ ∂
⎡ ⎤ ∂ −α − δ
∂ ∇
⎣ ⎦
−α ρ + + −α
∂ ∂
∂ α
α
⎡ ⎤
− + + + + − δ
⎣ ⎦
∀ ∂
`
` `
k
Q h
4.35
A detailed derivation and accounting of these terms is given by Crowe et al. (1998) and an
additional shaft work term is identified by Brennen (2005). Herein, the physical interpretation
171
of these terms is outlined. The LHS terms (first line) include the temporal and spatial changes
in the total fluid energy within the surrounding fluid volume, and the first three RHS terms
(second line) are similar to those for the uncoupled singlephase energy equation given by Eq.
A.13 except that they are limited to the surrounding fluid volume fraction. These include the
work associated with moving the fluid against the body force (1
st
term) and against the fluid
stress forces (2
nd
term), as well as the thermal diffusion within the continuousphase volume
(3
rd
term). The remaining RHS terms (third line) are associated with the interphase energy
coupling. The term in the square brackets includes the heat and mass transfer terms which
appeared as sinks in the particle energy equation (Eq. 4.29c), the kinetic energy sink term
associated due to generation of particle mass, and the work required to move the particles
based on interphase force. The last term represents the work required to move the particles
based on fluid stress. These two work terms can be rearranged using Eq. 4.33 as follows:
( )
( )
( )
i j ij i
i
int,i i i j ij surf ,i i
p j p j
(K p )v
v
F v (K p ) F v
x x
⎡ ⎤ ∂ α − δ
∂ α
α α
⎣ ⎦
− + − δ = − +
∀ ∂ ∀ ∂
4.36
The first term on the RHS is the work associated the net surface force while the second term
combined with the second term on the RHS of Eq. 4.35 describes the work associated with
relative particle velocity against the fluidstress forces.
If the mass loading and volume fractions are also small (η«1 and α«1), then only oneway
coupling occurs and the continuousphase governing equations (Eqs. 4.304.36) revert to the
singlephase equations in Appendix A. If these parameters are not small but the equilibrium
assumption of Eq. 4.24 is valid, then the continuousphase Eulerian conservation equations can
be combined with the Eulerian particlephase equations (Eq. 4.29) to yield the mixedfluid
conservation equations (Eq. 4.26). These continuousphase conservation equations neglect the
flowfield deflections around an individual particle surfaces but retain the viscous drag forces
on the particles themselves. Note that the continuousphase flow equations can be treated as
inviscid in the limit of no particle influence but still include twoway coupling owing to drag of
the particles stemming from an Re
p
based on μ
f
. For example, one may simulate attenuation of
a shockwave due to particles by neglecting K
ij
in Eqs. 4.314.35 while retaining F
int,i
or F
surf,i
.
The differences between the mixedfluid and separatedfluid approaches are illustrated in
Fig. 4.5 and Table 4.1. Note that the mixedfluid approach generally uses only the Eulerian
reference frame for both phases assuming negligible velocity and temperature differences
between the phases. In contrast, the separatedfluid approach allows for strong and unsteady
relative velocity differences, requires more differential equations, and includes both Eulerian
Eulerian and EulerianLagrangian formulations. The following section discusses a hybrid
approach for conditions which are in between that of separated flow and mixedfluid flow.
WeaklySeparatedFluid Treatment
An intermediate method between the mixedfluid method and the separatedfluid method is
the “weaklyseparatedfluid” or “partiallymixed” method. The simplest and most common
version of the weaklyseparatedfluid method assumes that the particle relative acceleration is
negligible in comparison to the fluid acceleration.
172
t t
≈
v u (
d D
d D
i.e.
t t
<
w u (
d D
d D
for weaklyseparated fluid treatment 4.37
This assumption is consistent with negligible particle inertia and indicates that the
gravitational force alone determines the relative velocity, i.e.
@p term
( ,t) ( ,t) + = v x u x w
4.38
This is also called the “terminal velocity” approach. The particle is also considered to be in
thermal equilibrium: T
p
=T. As a result, no momentum or energy PDEs is needed for the
dispersed phase (Table 4.1). Thus, the continuousphase equations only require the addition of
a dispersedphase transport equation for the particle concentration, and the Eulerian and
Lagrangian versions of this transport are simply:
( )
( )
p j@p term, j p
p
j p
pi
i @p term,i
(u w )
m
t x
x
u w
t
⎡ ⎤ ∂ αρ + ∂ αρ
α
⎣ ⎦
+ =
∂ ∂ ∀
= +
`
d
d
4.39a
4.39b
Since particle inertia is neglected, this approach is reasonably accurate when St«1.
A slightly modified version of this approach can take into account small but finite particle
acceleration. As discussed in §5.3.1, this yields a perturbation correction to Eq. 4.38 which is
appropriate for small particle response time as:
( )
@p 2
@p term p p
+ (1 R) O
t
⎛ ⎞
τ − τ
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
u
v = u w  +
D
D
4.40
This correction has been found to be reasonable for macroscopic flow with St
D
<1 or for
turbulent flows resolved by DNS with St
λ
<1. This Stokes number restriction is less stringent
than that for the mixedfluid approach but more severe than that for the separatedfluid
approach. Note that the partiallymixed or weaklyseparatedfluid approach places no
restrictions on the terminal velocity magnitude, as is the case with the separatedfluid approach.
Generally, the weaklyseparatedfluid approach employs oneway coupling so that Eq. 4.39
can be solved after the continuousphase flow solution for u
j
is determined. This is convenient
since a single solution of the continuousphase PDEs can be used with Eq. 4.40 to obtain
particle velocity fields for conditions with different terminal velocities, response times, and
density ratios. Because of this, Ferry & Balachandar (2001) named the EulerianEulerian
version of this treatment (e.g., Eq. 4.39a) as the “fastEulerian” approach. Similarly, the
EulerianLagrangian weaklyseparatedfluid version (e.g., Eq. 4.39b) can be called “the fast
Lagrangian” approach). If there is twoway coupling, these particle continuity equations must
be solved simultaneously with continuousphase PDEs (Eqs. 4.304.35).
As with other approaches, the weaklyseparatedfluid treatment can be applied in a time
averaged sense for turbulent flow by decomposing the particle velocity into timeaveraged and
fluctuating components. If the turbulence is homogenous and isotropic, the particle drag is
linear, and the particle concentration is uniform, the timeaveraged particle velocity is given by
term
( ,t) ( ,t) + = v x u x w
4.41
173
Since the timeaveraged continuousphase is based only on mean integralscale turbulence, the
timeaveraged weaklyseparatedfluid approach only requires St
Λ
<0.5 instead of St
λ
<0.5 or
St
+
<0.5 (depending on whether particle is near wall or not) for fullyresolved turbulence.
Additional corrections to Eq. 4.41 can be made to include local gradients of the continuous
phase flow field as well as preferential bias and nonlinear drag (§5.3.2).
4.1.3. PointForce vs. DistributedForce Approaches
As noted in the two previous sections, the separatedfluid and weaklyseparatedfluid
treatments require knowledge of the surface forces acting on the particle (F
surf
) to determine its
movement. These forces are also needed if twoway and threeway coupling effects are to be
included for the continuousphase fluid solution. In determining F
surf
, there are three primary
approaches: the "pointforce" representation for particles smaller than the gridscale (d<Δx),
the "distributedforce" representation for particles on the order of the gridscale (d~Δx), and the
“resolvedsurface” representation for particles much larger than the gridscale (d»Δx). The
first two are discussed in this section while the third is discussed in the following section.
PointForce Treatment
The pointforce (also referred to as the “pointmass” or “pointvolume”) treatment is
consistent with the discussions in the previous chapters and the mixedfluid and separatedfluid
treatments described above. The pointforce technique has the advantage of eliminating the
need to simulate the detailed flow around the particle. For example, if Lagrangian particles are
considered with shape functions Φ (discussed in §B.1), then the relative velocity is given by
N
p p @p p p j j p
j 1
( , t) ( , t) ( , t) ( , t) (t) ( )
Φ
=
= − = − Φ
∑
w x v x u x v x u x
4.42
In this equation, N
Φ
is all the number of computational cells associated with a particle location.
Use of the shape function allows the velocity of all surrounding nodes to be included in the
evaluation of u
@p
. This is shown schematically in Fig. 4.6a for a twodimensional grid. For an
Eulerian treatment of the dispersedphase averaged over several particles, Eq. 4.28 can be used
to express the relative velocity in terms of velocities at the grid nodes:
i i i
( , t) ( , t) ( , t) = − w x v x u x
4.43
As discussed in §1.3, the continuousphase characteristics in either case do not include the
fluid disturbances associated with individual particles. This indicates that the particle should
be smaller than the lengthscales associated with continuousphase gradients. Since this is also
true for the discretization of the continuousphase, it yields a size criterion based on
computational resolution:
d<Δx for pointforce treatment 4.44
Thus, the particle size should be small compared to the continuousphase discretization so that
interpolating to a particle location is reasonable and occurs within a single control volume. A
more rigorous criterion would be d«Δx such that the particle will see only very weak
continuousfluid gradients over the length scale associated with its diameter. As such, the
174
computational resolution for the continuousphase flow must be as large or larger than the
particle diameter, while still being sufficiently small enough to provide gridindependent
results for the continuousphase solution. Since the computational resolution is generally set
by the latter constraint, the pointforce technique is generally limited to particles which are
smaller than any resolved spatial features within the computational domain. For example, a
fullyresolved description of a turbulent flow would require that the particle diameter be
smaller than the smallest eddy scales, i.e. d<λ away from walls or d
+
<1 near walls which is
consistent with Eq. 4.44. As such, the pointforce technique is formally limited to particles
smaller than the microscale for resolved turbulence simulations.
Once the unhindered flow characteristics are known, a pointforce equation (as discussed in
§1.5) can be used describe the surface forces based on a linear combination of drag, lift, added
mass, history, fluidstress, etc.
F
surf
= F
D
+ F
L
+ F
∀
+ F
H
+ F
S
+ etc.
4.45
The fluid dynamic forces on the particle can be obtained with empirical or theoretical
treatments (e.g., F
surf
=3πdfμ
f
w if only drag is to be included). As will be discussed in
Chapter 6, there are a variety of pointforce expressions to take into account aspects such as: a)
particle shape, size, and orientation; b) effects of Reynolds and Mach numbers; c) slip and no
slip surface conditions, d) turbulence levels, etc. The surface force representations are tailored
to specific situations based on the physics of interest, test conditions, etc. As such, there is a
large variety and number (dozens) of pointforce expressions which have appeared in the
multiphase literature. This nonuniqueness indicates there is no single standard expression
which should be applied to all conditions and one must instead choose the appropriate point
force equations just as carefully as one chooses the appropriate numerical solution techniques.
If twoway coupling is to be included, the effects of the particles should be distributed back
in terms of cellaveraged properties for the Eulerian treatment of the continuousphase given
by Eqs. 4.30, 4.31 and 4.35. If Lagrangian particles are employed, then the coupling
contribution to a continuousphase node can be computed from the associated global shape
function and the computational volumes of the surrounding elements defined in §B.3. For
example, the interphase force coupling terms of Eq. 4.31 at node j can be expressed as:
e
p
e
p
N
N
j p,k D,e,k
k 1
e 1 ,e
N
N
int int,k D,e,k
k 1
e 1
p ,e
j
1
1
Δ
Δ
=
= Δ
=
=
Δ
⎛ ⎞
α = ∀ Φ
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∀
⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
α
= Φ
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
∀ ∀
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
F F
4.46a
4.46b
In these equations, N
e
is the number of elements associated with node j,
,e Δ
∀ is the volume of
each of those elements, N
pΔ
is the number of particles associated with an element e,
p,k
∀ is the
volume of each of those particles, F
int,k
is the interphase force for each of those particles, and
De,k
Φ is the shape function for particle k associated with node j and element e. Use of shape
functions allows the particle’s contributions to vary linearly as it moves between two nodes.
An illustration of particle force mapping from the Lagrangian dispersedphase nodes to the
continuousphase nodes is shown schematically in Fig. 4.6b for a twodimensional grid. This
can be extended to parcels by replacing N
pΔ
with N
PΔ
for the RHS summations and multiplying
the individual terms with the number of particles per parcel (N
pP
).
175
Note that Eq. 4.46 assumes that an evenly spaced distribution of Lagrangian particles will
lead to a uniform volume fraction and interphase force distribution on the Eulerian mesh. This
can be approximately ensured if computational cells contain one or more particles, i.e. ∀
Δ
>∀
p
/α.
This limits particle spacing to be less than the grid scale, resulting in an exception to Eq. 4.44:
d<Δx/α
1/3
for Lagrangian pointforce treatment with twoway coupling 4.47
The similar limitation for parcels is satisfied by Eq. 4.10.
For an Eulerian treatment of the dispersedphase, the interphase coupling terms can be
obtained directly via the cellaveraged particle concentration. For example, the interphase
force per unit volume evaluated at the fluid node j is simply
( ) ( )
j int j
int
p p, j
j
, t , t α ⎛ ⎞
α
=
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∀ ∀
⎝ ⎠
x F x
F
4.48
As compared to Eq. 4.46b, this EulerianEulerian formulation is numerically convenient
(especially if there are many particles per computational cell) since communication of data
between the phases occurs at coincident node locations so that there is no interpolation error.
Furthermore, the Eulerian approach does not include the added restriction of Eq. 4.47. The
characteristics of the pointforce method are summarized in Fig. 4.7a, and indicate that this
technique is limited to small particle sizes but is highly efficient for many particles.
DistributedForce Treatment
The distributedforce or “semiresolved” technique is employed when the particle diameter
is on the order of the spatial resolution of the continuousphase, i.e.
d~Δx for distributedforce treatment 4.49
In this case, the variations in the flow properties in the region of the particle should be
considered since the fluid interactions between the two phases occurs over distances extending
several particle diameters (§1.5.2). Furthermore, the feedback of the particle on the
surrounding fluid will be As such, the coupling should extend over a region larger than a single
grid cell (Fig. 4.7b). To include the surface force on the particle, there are two distributed
force methods: “spatiallyaveraged” and “semiresolved”. The spatiallyaveraged approach
obtains unhindered conditions by surface and volume averages in the vicinity of the particle as
opposed to using a single interpolated point (u
@p
). As discussed in §7.3.1, this is approach is
generally limited to d<3Δx without twoway coupling, but d<Δx with twoway coupling. In
contrast, the semiresolved approach directly integrates twoway coupling effects and thus
allows for larger particles (or finer resolutions) based on 5Δx<d<10Δx as discussed in §7.3.2.
Note that both techniques share a similar approach for distributing the interphase force on the
fluid.
For twoway coupling (impact of the particle on the continuousphase flow), there are
many variants of the distributedforce technique. To impart F
int
over a region, a Lagrangian
Eulerian force transfer function (Z
F
) can be used about the vicinity of the particle located at x
p
.
This is illustrated in Fig. 4.8b where the Lagrangian particle force is mapped onto the Eulerian
grid. Similar distributions can be applied for mass and heat transfer. The distributedforce
176
technique is thus as a hybrid between the pointforce approach and the resolvedsurface
approach (discussed below).
4.1.4. ResolvedSurface Approaches
For very large particles, the resolvedsurface approach can be used if the detailed local flow
over the particle surface is numerically discretized and computed. This approach resolves the
fluid surface stresses so that they may be computationally integrated to compute the resulting
fluid dynamic forces on the particle. This method is also called the “full DNS” approach and
requires the computational resolution to sufficiently describe the detailed stress distribution
over the particle surface, e.g.
d»Δx for resolvedsurface treatment 4.50
This criterion requires many fluid nodes per individual particle, e.g., hundreds or thousands
depending on the particle geometry, Reynolds number, etc. As such, this technique is only
reasonable when there are few particles in the computational domain. However, this technique
has the advantage of allowing complex particle geometries and incorporating detailed non
linear flowfields around the particles without resulting to theoretical or empirical surface force
descriptions, which may be inappropriate for complex particle or local fluid behavior (Fig. 4.8).
Since the surfaceforce is obtained from the surrounding flow, it does not require any force
decomposition in terms of lift, drag, addedmass, history, fluidstress, etc. since all these
effects are directly incorporated by the discrete surface integration. In particular, no
assumptions of particle shape, particle Reynolds number, particle or flow acceleration, surface
conditions, flow gradients, etc. are required for use of this formulation. Thus, there is no need
to determine u
@p
for a particle relative velocity and no empirical or analytical force
expressions are required. Furthermore, in the case of a fluidparticle (e.g., droplet or bubble),
the interior fluid dynamics may also be directly simulated using internal discretization (this can
be important since the recirculation can affect the surface stresses). Also note that twoway,
threeway, and fourway coupling are automatically included in the resolvedsurface approach
since the interstitial fluid and contact dynamics can be fully resolved as well. As such, the
resolvedsurface technique is the most desirable in terms of accuracy as it allows the most
physically realistic surface force method, but is also the most computationally intensive
approach.
There are two primary treatments for the resolvedsurface method which depend on how
the interface between the particle and the continuous phase is treated: the “SurfaceFitted Grid
Method” (SFGM) and the “ContinuousInterface Method” (CIM). These two approaches are
illustrated in Fig. 4.9 (where the outward normal of the interface is n) and are overviewed in
the following and discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.
SurfaceFitted Grid Method
The surfacefitted grid approach is typically used when the particle shape is simple (e.g., a
sphere or an ellipsoid) so that the grid resolution over the surface is straightforward. In this
case, the interface is discontinuous, i.e. infinitely thin (Fig. 4.9b). For a solid particle, there is
177
only flow field outside of the particle and the PDEs for U with ρ
f
can be based on transport
equations discussed in Appendix A. For example an incompressible viscous flow momentum
equation is given in Table 4.1 for SFGM. The boundary condition on the particle surface can
be either slip if an inviscid approximation is reasonable or noslip if viscosity is important.
The viscous boundary condition for a fluid particle interface which is contaminated (§2.2.2)
will be the same as that for a solid noslip surface. Numerical discretization and solution for
this flow can be based on the methods outlined in Appendix B. An example of a resolved
surface SFGM vector field solution for a spherical solid particle with a viscous boundary
condition is shown in Fig. 4.10a, where the particle causes a wake flow.
For a fluid particle with significant recirculation, the particle interior should also be
discretized. In this case, a separate set of conservation equations with V and ρ
p
is needed for
the internal particle fluid dynamics. Furthermore, the viscous boundary condition for a clean
interface is replaced with a balance of the tangential stresses between the continuousphase to
that of the particlephase at the surface:
( )
ij j ij j
p
K n K n =
4.51
In this equation, n
j
is the local surface normal unit vector and for a spherical particle this leads
to Eq. 1.58b. If the particle is also allowed to deform, then the normal stress conditions must
also be considered. If the viscous stresses associated with compressive strain are ignored
(reasonable for incompressible flow), the normal conditions for a deformed surface are given
by Eq. 1.6.
Once the flow field around the particle surface is known, the surface force can be
determined by numerically integrating the pressure and the continuousphase shear stress
(based on U) over the discretized surface elements:
( )
surf ,i i ij j p
F Pn K n A = − + Δ
∑
4.52
In this equation, ΔA
p
is a discrete particle surface area element. This can be combined with Eq.
4.1a to move the particle to the next position with a new velocity and acceleration.
ContinuousInterface Method
There are several types of continuousinterface techniques and they can be broadly sub
divided into two classes: those that treat fixedshape particles with no internal flow description
(e.g., solid particles) and those that treat deformable fluid particles with an internally computed
flow (e.g., drops and bubbles). The former class is often used with complex solid particle
shapes where the surrounding flow field (U) is obtained at fluid nodes in the vicinity of the
interface and beyond. Since no internal particle velocity is computed, the centroid velocity (v)
is obtained explicitly by numerical integration of the particle surface stresses at the interface.
The latter class is the more common resolvedsurface approach for fluid particles since it takes
advantage of the continuousinterface method’s ability to handle complex interface dynamics
(§8.2). Since it treats the interface as a fluid mixture with variable properties, it is sometimes
termed the “Eulerian mixedfluid interface approach”. As shown in Table 4.1, this approach
uses a mixedfluid velocity (V
m
) throughout the domain as a local volume fraction (α) to
indicate whether a cell contains no portion of the particle (α=0), some portion of the particle
178
(0<α<1), or is within the particle (α=1). Solution of V
m
can be used to infer the surrounding
fluid velocity (U) where α=0 and the internal particle velocity (V) where α=1. The net particle
trajectory (v) is obtained implicitly based on the average movement of the interface surface
(which typically defined at α= ½). This class is illustrated in Fig. 4.9c. The main benefit of
this approach is that V
m
can be solved on a simple Cartesian grid (Fig. 4.9c) which generally
allows the fastest computation for a given number of grid points. This is particularly
advantageous if the particle shape is complex and/or changes due to fluid dynamic
deformations as it avoids the complex surface gridding needed for the SFGM approach. An
example of a bubble simulated with the CIM treatment is shown in Fig. 4.10b where it can be
seen that a complex shape results from the balance of fluid dynamic and surface tension forces.
For the mixedfluid interface approach, an individual Eulerian cell which happens to be
located within the interface or in the interior of the particle will only contain a small fraction of
the total particle volume (∀
Δ
«∀
p
). This limitation is consistent with Eq. 4.50, i.e. the interface
should generally be smaller than the overall particle diameter to ensure that the interface
thickness does not significantly corrupt the solution. The finite interface thickness is non
physical and is a result of the need to allow a continuum of the volume fraction so that an
Eulerian conservation equation for the mixture fraction and local density can be employed
across the interface. Thus, the interface is constructed to be as thin as possible while still
allowing a stable continuum variation of the mixedfluid density across the grid, which
typically results in a thickness of 34 computational cells and special techniques must be used
to ensure that the interface does not numerically diffuse beyond a certain threshold.
If one neglects the distributed surface tension force, the resolvedsurface PDEs (for Δx«d)
are similar to the mixedfluid PDEs (for d«Δx) as shown in Table 4.1. However, there are key
differences in the volume fraction range and the fluid properties. For example, the mixedfluid
approach employ an immiscible viscosity such as Eq. 3.187 (limited to small α), whereas the
CIM will employ a miscible viscosity based linearly on volume fraction (where 0≤α≤1):
( )
m f p
1 μ = −α μ +μ α
4.53
Similar relationships can be employed for thermal conductivity, specific heats, etc. Thus, the
mixedfluid approach assumes an immiscible mixture while the Continuousinterface Method
fluid properties and the equation of state are for a miscible mixture (this difference is illustrated
in Fig. 4.11). A key aspect of the CIM approach is that the surface force of Eq. 4.52 and the
stress boundary conditions of Eqs. 1.6 and 4.51 are implicitly and automatically satisfied. As
such, no separate ODEs are needed to update the particle velocity and rotation and F
surf
need
not be computed.
4.2. Comparing Physics Capabilties of Multiphase Methods
As discussed above, there are three main classifications for multiphase numerical
treatments: Lagrangian vs. Eulerian, MixedFluid vs. SeparatedFluid, and PointForce vs.
ResolvedSurface. As shown in Table 4.1, these various techniques have different equations
which must be numerically solved. Each of these descriptions has been used extensively for
multiphase flows, and the choice of which numerical approach to employ depends significantly
on which particle and fluid physics are relevant and of interest. This section contains an
overview of the relationships between the various numerical treatments and particlefluid
179
phenomena. In particular, the computational approaches outlined in §4.1 will be reviewed
according to their capabilities (and limitations) in terms of describing the multiphase physics
outlined in Chapters 13.
4.2.1. Predicting Particle Dynamics
Predicting Particle Surface Forces and Relative Velocities
The most accurate approach is to use a resolvedsurface technique to predict the particle
dynamics (Fig. 4.8). The particle surface stresses are based on the unsteady threedimensional
flow field around the particle (and inside if the particle is a fluid). The resolvedsurface
methods thus can capture directly the surface force and torque applied to the particle for a wide
variety of conditions. No assumption of linear decomposition of surface forces is needed since
the total stress on the surface automatically includes any linkages between drag, lift, added
mass effects, history forces, etc. Thus, the resolvedsurface avoids any empirical pointforce
corrections which may not be appropriate for nonspherical particles, e.g., the deforming
bubble shown in Fig. 4.10b.
Even when the particle is spherical, the resolvedsurface method generally yields a more
accurate description of the surface force (and thus of the particle dynamics). For example,
Bagchi & Balachandar (2003) noted that a resolvedsurface technique was needed to accurately
predict the insanities surface forces for d>10λ, i.e. the particle lengthscale greatly exceeded
the Kolmogorov lengthscale. Since more than 100 points were employed around the particle
circumference, this is consistent with the Eq. 4.50. The pointforce approach was found to be
quite reasonable for reasonable for d<λ, and the distributedforce approach may be used for
intermediate particle sizes, e.g. d<3λ. Since the spectrallyresolved gridspacing away from
the particle was about Δx~3λ, these limits are consistent with Eqs. 4.44 and 4.49.
In this case, it is helpful to consider the relationship between the microscale length ratios
(which determine the computational approach) and the microscale Stokes numbers (which
determine the relative inertia of the particles). Assuming Stokesian drag (f=1), the
Kolmogorov ratios can be related by combining Eqs. 3.1, 3.22a, A.92a
*
p
St d
18
c
λ
∀
=
λ ρ +
4.54
For a particle density ratio of 900 (approximately that of water drops in air) where one wishes
to accurately predict the instantaneous surface forces, this suggests:
d>10λ St
λ
>5000 resolvedsurface approach
d~3λ St
λ
~500 distributedforce with separatedfluid approach
d~λ St
λ
~50 pointforce w/ separatedfluid approach
d~0.1λ St
λ
~0.5 pointforce w/ weaklyseparatedfluid approach
d<0.03λ St
λ
<0.05 mixedfluid approach
4.55
However, the guidelines become more restrictive in terms of Stokes number at very low
particle density ratios. For example, gas bubbles in a liquid with c
∀
= ½ suggest:
d>10λ St
λ
>3 resolvedsurface approach
d~3λ St
λ
~0.3 distributedforce approach
d<λ St
λ
<0.03 mixedfluid approach
4.56
180
These criteria similarly apply in wallbounded flows (e.g. a resolvedsurface approach is
needed for d
+
>10) since the nearwall microscale ratios can be related by combining Eqs. 3.1,
3.22b and A.101 as:
*
fr p
d St
d 18
y c
+
+
∀
≡ =
ρ +
4.57
Therefore, caution should be used when applying pointforce technique to low density particles
in that the instantaneous force may not be properly resolved. However, the lowfrequency and
mean surface force effects can still be captured with a distributedforce technique for d»λ or
d
+
»1. As such, integralscale and mean flow particle dynamics are generally captured with a
pointforce or distributedforce technique so long as d»Λ, etc.
Predicting ParticleWall Interactions
Capturing the wall interaction physics will depend on whether a resolvedsurface, mixed
fluid or pointforce approach is employed. With a resolvedsurface approach, the fluid
dynamic effects with wall interactions can be incorporated directly if gap region is sufficiently
discretized. For wall collisions, the reflection dynamics for solid particles can be captured by
modeling the internal solid mechanics but are more commonly described with coefficients of
restitution as a function of impact speed and particle properties (§6.10). For fluid particles,
reflection can be captured with a deformable interface by including surface tension effects. In
the extreme of a mixedfluid approach, the particles move in unison with the continuousphase
so that wall boundary conditions are placed only on v
m
.
For a pointforce separatedfluid approach, the capability to handle the particlewall
interactions depends on the type of boundary conditions. If the particles are near the wall, the
fluid dynamic interaction can often be modeled within the pointforce approximation for
simple conditions, e.g., spheres at creeping flow conditions, as discussed in §6.8. Wallcontact
interactions can often be handled with a boundary condition. For deposition or stick conditions,
the boundary condition is “free” so that v is unconstrained at the surface and particles simply
flux into the wall (Fig. 4.12a). The flux rate per unit wall area is based on the particle
concentration and the particle velocity normal to the wall surface (v
⊥
). There is no major
problem with either the Eulerian or Lagrangian methods in representing this behavior.
However, if the particles reflect, slide or roll along the surface, then the reference frame can
have a significant effect in terms of capturing the associated physics.
A Lagrangian approach can explicitly determine when a particle’s surface will intersect
with the wall surface. The rebounding particle velocity can be determined based on models for
the coefficients of restitution and friction. For example, a reflecting boundary condition will
redirect the particle velocity once within a particle radius of the surface (Fig. 4.12b). If
parallel and normal coefficients of restitution (e
║
and e
⊥
) are known, then the outgoing
velocities are related to the incoming velocities by
out in
out in
v v
v v
⊥ ⊥ ⊥
= −
=
  
e
e
4.58a
4.58b
181
This boundary condition ensures mass conservation (zero net flux through the wall). Similar
relationships can be used to obtain a Lagrangian sliding condition (e
⊥
=0) and a change or
preservation of the particle rotation (§6.10).
In contrast, the Eulerian representation of a particle velocity field is limited to a single
particle velocity for a given control volume. Since mass conservation dictates a zeroflux
condition to the wall, the cellaveraged velocity must be parallel to the wall, i.e.
v 0
⊥
=
4.59
Thus the Eulerian continuum representation of v can not be multivalued to represent both the
particles moving towards and away from the wall. As such, it incorrectly describes the wall
normal momentum variations. The Eulerian scheme also has difficulties in terms of
representing the tangential velocity reductions associated with e
&
since these are associated
with discrete collisions. Because of this, the tangential effects are simply ignored with this
approach.
Predicting Size Distributions
To simulate particles with a size distribution, generally the distribution is specified at some
initial time or location and one must predict the ensuing particle velocities. When the particles
within the computational domain are not all of a single size or shape, the Lagrangian technique
can be simply combined with statistical sampling to represent the particle size distribution. For
example, LogNormal or RosinRammler functions (§2.1.3) can be used with a random number
generator with a statistically large number of particle trajectories to reasonably recover the size
distribution PDF. If parcels are employed for clouds of monodisperse particles, then a similar
number of trajectories are needed to ensure recovery of the PDF.
To incorporate polydispersion with the Eulerian treatment, one may employ an effective
velocity and diameter for the particles within the control volume (see §1.3). However, the
particle velocity will be different from the predicted velocity if the size distribution is large or
particle Reynolds number is small. This can be seen by comparing the actual relative particle
velocity for a particular diameter with the computed (effective) particle velocity and diameter
by Eq. 2.19 that
( )
3 J
J
eff 3J
d / d
−
= w w
4.60
For a Newtonbased drag (with constant drag coefficient and Y=2), a 10% diameter deviation
from mean diameter (d
3Y
) would correspond to a relative velocity error of 3%. However, a
Stokesian particle (Re
p
→0) will have Y=1 such that a diameter deviation of 10% within a
control volume will lead to a relative velocity error of about 20%. Similar problems can arise
due to initial conditions, flowfield gradients, and turbulent diffusion and these errors can
accumulate over time. Thus, an Eulerian particle field computed with effective diameters and
velocities can only be used to represent only a modest variation of size diameters.
If the particle size distribution is broad and an Eulerian approach is still preferred (due to
twoway coupling and/or large numbers of particles), then multiple Eulerian particle fields can
be employed. In this case, each field represents a bin of particles with a particular diameter
range and mean diameter. The number of particles per unit volume then becomes a vector
182
(n
pk
) where k indicates the bin number (Crowe et al. 1998). This approach is sometimes called
the “multigroup”, “multifluid” or “multibin” approach. Each bin can be specified with a
specific particle diameter range and represented by a bin diameter d
k
and velocity v
k
(other
characteristics can be similarly discretized, e.g., temperature). The sum of all the volume
fractions from these bins represents the total volume fraction of the dispersedphase
K
k
k 1
=
α = α
∑
4.61
In this equation, K represents the total number of bins. As such, K transport equations are
needed for each Eulerian particle group based on a bin’s effective diameter and velocity:
( )
( ) ( )
( )
k i,k
k
j
k p i,k j,k k i,k
k
k p i surf coll
i,k
j p,k
v
0
t x
v v v
g F F
t x
∂ α
∂α
+ =
∂ ∂
∂ α ρ ∂ α
α
+ = α ρ + +
∂ ∂ ∀
4.62a
4.62b
Thus, the general dispersedphase velocity vector is now represented as a tensor which is a
function of both direction and bin number. This decomposition of the size PDF into several
fields can also accommodate mass exchanges in between bins.
As may be expected, the above Eulerian bin approach can be computationally intensive
since the number of dispersedphase variables at each node will increase linearly with the
number of bin (Eulerian fields) than are used. To minimize computational memory and CPU,
one typically wishes to minimize the number of bins by making each bin as wide (in terms of
particle diameter range) as reasonable. The bin width can be specified according to the desired
accuracy, e.g., Eq. 4.60 can be used to estimate velocity variations if gravity dominates. If the
particles are of sufficiently small Stokes number, the bin momentum equation can be used (e.g.,
Eq. 4.62b). Another way to address the polydisperse issue for an Eulerian treatment is assume
a specific PDFs form and then numerically solve for the mean diameter and broadness at each
location, i.e. develop transport PDEs of the PDF constants (e.g., d
RR
and h
RR
of Eq. 2.23) and
then numerically solve these throughout the discretized domain (see §7.1.1). This tends to be
more efficient than bin methods for simple flowfields, but can be difficult to incorporate
complex geometries and wall boundary conditions, etc.
4.2.2. Predicting Turbulent Dispersion, Diffusion and Biases
Predicting the impact of continuousphase turbulence on the particle trajectories and
concentration fields is highly dependent on the numerical modeling used to describe the
continuousphase turbulence. In general, the choice of continuousphase treatment should
mirror the particlefluid physics desired, particularly with respect to the length and time scales.
As discussed in §A.5.5§A.5.7, there is a wide variety of continuousphase techniques in terms
of ability to resolve turbulent structures including: DNS (resolves all the eddies), LES (resolves
the eddies into the inertial subrange), POD (resolves just the most energetic eddies), and
RANS (no eddies resolved, just integralscales identified). Based on the concept of spatially
183
filtered equations using a filter G, each technique can then be characterized by a filter length
scale, Δ
G
, below which eddies structures will be directly simulated. For the techniques
mentioned above, the filter lengthscale can be related to various turbulent lengthscales:
Δ~λ for DNS, λ<Δ
G
<Λ for LES, Δ
G
~Λ for POD, and Δ
G
~∞ for RANS.
Filter Stokes Number
To describe the impact on particle trajectories with specific response times, it is convenient
to convert these filter lengthscales to filter timescales. To do this, one may decompose the
physical velocity field associated with the various approaches into a resolved portion (
Δ
u )
which is computed directly, and an unresolved portion (
Δ
′ u ) whose effects are modeled:
( , t) ( , t) ( , t)
Δ Δ
′ = + u x u x u x
4.63
The unresolved (spatiallyfiltered) portion of the flowfield requires modeling and can be
characterized by the spatiallyfiltered kinetic energy (k
Δ
) discussed in §A.5.7. For isotropic
turbulence, the subgrid timescale can be approximated in a manner similar to Eq. A.91 using
Eqs. A.133 and A.137:
1/ 2
c k / c / k
Δ τ Δ τ Δ
τ ≈ ε ≈ Δ 4.64
From this and the particle response time (Eq. 3.1), one can define the filter Stokes number
p
St /
Δ Δ
≡ τ τ
4.65
This parameter can then be used to determine which particles have a large enough response
time to see a sufficiently resolved flowfield to accurately capture their trajectories:
St 1
Δ
> all particle dynamics are captured
4.66
This condition thus allows direct capture of mean diffusion (including anisotropic and non
homogeneous turbulence effects), nonlinear drag and preferential concentration effects such as
preferential bias and clustering bias.
In the other extreme, particles with St
Δ
«1 (e.g., RANS flows where St
Δ
=0) will have too
short of a frequency response to capture particle inertia effects and will effectively behave as
passive tracers to the resolved flow structures. Therefore, the physics of nonlinear drag bias
preferential bias, clustering bias, and turbophoresis can not be directly captured. However,
some empirical models can be used to mimic these effects as will be discussed in Chapters 5
and 7 and are briefly outlined below.
Filtered Diffusion Techniques
Mean particle diffusion can be modeled using the modeled turbulent kinetic energy (k
Δ
)
and particle characteristics based on the analysis presented in §3.5. In terms of accuracy, this
presents two problems. First, such models depend on the accuracy of the continuousphase
RANS predictions for mean velocities, turbulent kinetic energy, dissipation, etc. which have
been found to be problematic for complex geometries or complex NAsT flows (Piomelli, 1997).
184
Second, the particle diffusion models are similarly based on empirical arguments and
coefficients (e.g., c
Λτ
) so that they are also not strongly robust in complex geometries or flows.
For a pointforce separatedfluid approach there are two basic mean diffusion techniques: 1)
deterministic diffusion for the Eulerian particle approach and 2) stochastic diffusion for the
Lagrangian particle approach. These two techniques are overviewed in the following, and
contrasted according to their ability to capture the diffusion physics for HIST flows with
constant particle diameter and density.
The deterministic diffusion approach is best suited for Eulerian treatments of the particle
and employs the diffusion particle rate (Θ
p
, defined in §3.5.2) and relates it to the particle
velocity fluctuations via the gradient transport model (Crowe et al. 1998)
i p
i
v
x
∂α
′ ′ α = −Θ
∂
4.67
This approach is equivalent to the Fickian diffusion applied in the singlephase flow (Eq.
A.105). From this, the conservation of particle concentration of Eq. 4.39a can be written as
( )
i
p
i i i
v
x x x
∂ α ⎡ ⎤ ∂ ∂α
= Θ
⎢ ⎥
∂ ∂ ∂
⎣ ⎦
4.68
For this approach, the time of release can not be readily incorporated. Therefore, a longtime
diffusion rate (Θ
p∞
) is generally used in this equation. This diffusion for HIST can be obtained
from §3.5 but is more commonly modified to employ the local relative velocity and filtered
turbulent energy via Eq. A.72 as
1/ 2
2
p
2 w
1+
c 2k / 3
−
Δ⊥∞ Δ∞
Λτ Δ
⎡ ⎤
⎛ ⎞
⎢ ⎥
Θ = Θ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
4.69
The fluid turbulent diffusion rate can in turn be related to properties of the RANS solution, e.g.,
2
t t
c k
Sc Sc
μ Δ
Δ
Δ∞
Δ
ν
Θ ≡ =
ε
4.70
The turbulent Schmidt number is typically a constant (e.g., Sc
turb
=0.7). Thus a uniform
flowfield will result in a uniform spread rate based on longtime diffusion as shown in Fig.
4.13b (whereas shorttime and intermediatetime physics are difficult to include).
Incorporating additional complexities in terms of the flow and geometries is discussed in
§7.1.5.
For a Lagrangian approach, stochastic techniques are typically used to model the mean
turbulent diffusion. The simplest of these is the discontinuous randomwalk (DRW) approach
where the continuousphase velocity seen by the particle is the sum of the mean velocity field
and a fluctuation component which can be derived from the rms and a random number
generator:
i p i p i,rms p i
u ( , t) u ( ) u ( ) (t) ′ = + ζ x x x
4.71
185
In this equation, ζ is a Gaussian random number with a zero mean and a unity variance which
recovers the mean and rms values of the LHS for a large number of samples. For isotropic
turbulence, the rms values are based on the filtered kinetic energy:
rms
u 2k / 3
Δ
′ = 4.72
In order to ensure the correct diffusion timescale for these perturbation, a clocktime (τ
clock
) is
initiated once a random number has been sampled in that direction. The velocity perturbation
is kept fixed until this clocktime exceeds the eddyinteraction time of the particle after which
it is resampled and the timeclock is restarted (details of this technique will be given in §7.2.5).
The resulting velocity fluctuations are qualitatively illustrated in Fig. 4.14, which gives the
trajectories like those drawn in Fig. 4.13c. As such, this provides a net diffusion if a
statistically large number of particle paths is considered. Lagrangian stochastic approaches
allow a temporal development from shorttime to longtime diffusion and have been successful
for mean particle diffusion in NAsT flow. However, as with the Eulerian approach, its
performance depends on accurate RANS predictions of the continuousphase turbulence. In
addition, it should be considered in terms of turbulent biases, as discussed below.
Capturing or Modeling Turbulent Biases
Depending on the numerical method employed, the different types of turbulent bias
mentioned in §3.5.4 and §3.5.5 can be captured directly, modeled approximately or neglected
altogether. These dependencies are summarized in Table 4.2 for various approaches, in order
of increasing complexity required to compute the particle velocity field. The mixedfluid
approach allows the simplest description of the multiphase field, but cannot account for any of
the relative velocity effects. The weaklyseparatedfluid approach avoids this limitation and
allows most of the relative velocity effects to be modeled without need of ODEs or PDEs for
the particle velocity field, so long as the relevant Stokes number is on the order of unity or less.
However, it assumes a quasiequilibrium condition for all cells so that initial conditions effects
must be neglected (this would be a problem for a spray for which droplets are far from terminal
velocity until far downstream). The separatedfluid approach can capture directly effects of
initial conditions, nonlinear drag bias, turbophoresis, preferential bias and clustering bias.
However, incorporating clustering bias requires that the threeway coupling among groups of
particle be simulated which requires: a) fully resolving the particle surfaces (i.e. resolved
surface approach), b) using theoretical interactions available only for limited conditions (e.g.,
creeping flow or inviscid interactions at large distances), or c) models of threeway coupling
(which are largely empirical).
If a timeaveraged approach is employed, then the effects of turbophoresis, preferential
bias, and clustering bias cannot be incorporated directly and instead require
theoretical/empirical modeling. An advantage of the Lagrangian description of the particles for
a timeaveraged approach is that the nonlinear drag effects can be taken into account directly
since relative velocity fluctuations are incorporated. In contrast, nonlinear drag effects must
be modeled with an Eulerian particle description.
If a Large Eddy Simulation approach is employed and the particles have substantial inertia
compared to the subgrid timescales, then the particle dynamics will be independent of the
subgrid flowfield (Eq. 4.66). In this case, simply using the resolved continuousphase flow
186
field for the particle trajectories will allow bias effects to be captured as found for DNS
simulations. If the LES temporal resolution is coarsely resolved or the particle dynamics are of
high frequency such that the opposite limit is reached (St
Δ
«1), then the particle velocity effects
are only captured in a manner similar to that of a RANS approach, i.e. any bias effects must be
modeled. For an intermediate condition of St
Δ
<1, the weaklyseparatedfluid approach can be
used to simulate the subgrid particle dynamics. On the other hand, if LES filter and particle
conditions allow the resolved flow timescales to be sufficiently small such that St
Δ
>1, then
unsteady effects associated with turbophoresis, nonlinear drag, and preferential bias can be
approximately incorporated without modeling.
Predicting Particle Brownian Motion
To capture Brownian motion physics, the random molecular interactions with an
individual particle can be represented numerically by two extremes: full resolution of
individual moleculeparticle collisions (as in Fig. 1.23) and mean diffusion based on
empirical/theoretical models for the net effect of many such interactions as discussed in §3.6.
Because a fullyresolved approach is generally impractical due to the extremely large number
of molecular interactions associated with even 1 μm particles, mean diffusion techniques are
generally used when noncontinuum particle effects are weak (Kn
p
«1). Typically, this involves
a mean diffusion technique coupled with a pointforce model. Basic methods for both Eulerian
and Lagrangian particle reference frames are outlined below.
For an Eulerian particle representation in laminar flow, theoretical Brownian diffusion
rates (e.g., Eq. 3.139) can be applied to the particle mass transport equation of Eq. 4.29a in a
manner similar to that for turbulent diffusion (Eq. 4.68) and molecular diffusion (Eq. A.50a).
The resulting transport equation is
( )
( ) ( )
p
p p Br p
p
m
t
∂ αρ
α
⎡ ⎤
+∇⋅ αρ = +∇⋅ Θ ∇ αρ
⎣ ⎦
∂ ∀
v ` 4.73
An additional term can be added to the RHS with respect to diffusion due to particleparticle
collisions (though such a term is often nonlinear). This approach captures the longtime
diffusion associated with monodisperse particles. If there are a large variety of particle sizes,
then one may need to consider several Eulerianphase fields (e.g., using Eq. 4.62) or turn to a
Lagrangian approach. In the limit as the particle size approaches the molecule size, the
diffusion rate tends to Θ
f
so that the transport mechanism reverts to that for laminar species
diffusion (Eq. A.50). For turbulent flow,
Br pt
Θ Θ < so that Brownian diffusion will be
generally negligible in a computational approach that includes timeaveraged turbulence.
Lagrangian approaches for mean Brownian diffusion are advantageous in that they may
handle a large size distribution, intermediate diffusion times, and wall reflections in a straight
forward manner. In this approach, the unsteady Brownian force of Eq. 3.131 can be simulated
in a stochastic fashion to compute the discrete particle paths, which are then averaged over
many realizations. The surrounding velocity seen at the particle (u
i@p
) can be specified in
terms of a continuum component and a stochastic (Brownian) component. The latter can be
modeled with an approach is similar to Eq. 3.122 by including a Brownian Force based on a
random number generator. Further details of this approach will be given in §7.2.6.
187
4.2.3. Predicting Two, Three and FourWay Coupling
As with oneway coupling physics discussed above, resolvedsurface approaches can also
directly handle twoway, threeway, and fourway coupling aspects. In particular, resolved
surface approaches determine the detailed flow around the particle so that twoway coupling is
captured directly. Also, the fluid between particles is numerically discretized so that the
particleparticle fluid dynamic interactions (e.g., drafting which yields reduced drag for a
particle trailing in the wake of another particle) can be captured (threeway coupling). By
considering the contact mechanics between the interfaces of two or more particles, the
resolvedsurface method can also handle fourway coupling directly including such aspects as
kissing and tumbling (Fig. 3.45) which can continuously rearrange particle distributions.
Furthermore, proper interface treatment for splitting and amalgamation of particles can
simulate individual breakup and coalescence dynamics.
When pointforce approaches are used instead, many of the above aspects can only be
empirically or analytically modeled for simple conditions (e.g., spherical solid particles in
nearly uniform continuousphase flow). This is discussed below in terms of Eulerian and
Lagrangian reference frames for twoway, threeway and fourway coupling.
PointForce TwoWay Coupling
For either Lagrangian or Eulerian pointforce treatments, inclusion of twoway coupling
effects requires description of the particle interphase forces on the continuousphase transport
equations so that the phases are fully coupled. The interphase coupling force (F
int
as defined
in Eq. 3.146) is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the particle force acting on the
continuousphase (F
int
). Thus, any physical shortcoming associated with the pointforce
predictions of the particle interphase force or particle positions (as discussed in §4.2.1) will
necessarily reduce the accuracy of the twoway coupling aspects.
Additional issues can arise with respect to the particle reference frame. The use of an
Eulerian frame for the dispersedphase (§4.1.3) allows u and v to be discretized in the same
fashion so that w is everywhere defined with a consistent control volume. This Eulerian
Eulerian approach allows both phases to be treated with similar discretization and numerical
techniques. When Lagrangian approaches are employed, the sum of interphase particle force
per mixedfluid volume (n
p
F
int
) can be distributed to the continuousphase nodes by shape
functions as in Fig. 4.6b. However, numerical errors can occur if the number of parcels per
cell (N
PΔ
) is not sufficiently high:
N
PΔ
>1 for pointforce treatment with twoway coupling 4.74
Often four or more parcels per cell are employed for accuracy, but this leads to significant
computational overhead communicating the parcel information to the Eulerian reference frame,
the Lagrangian approach is generally less computationally efficient. For example, Druzhinin
& Elghobashi (1998, 1999) examined twoway coupling in a turbulent flow with DNS and
188
found the EulerianEulerian treatment to be almost an order of magnitude more efficient than
the EulerianLagrangian treatment for similar accuracy levels.
PointForce ThreeWay Coupling
In a Lagrangian pointforce approach, it is possible to track each particle and its neighbors
individually so that threeway coupling effects can be modeled based on particleparticle fluid
dynamic distances. However, this approach is computationally impractical for large numbers
of particles. Furthermore, corrections to the isolated drag force based on separation distance
(l
pp
) are not well understood for finite Re
p
conditions since the interactions are anisotropic and
often involve several particles (not just binary interactions). As such, it is simpler and much
more common to employ effective viscosity treatments based on mean particle concentrations
(Eq. 3.187). More detailed treatment will be discussed in §6.9. Such ensembleaveraged
approaches can be used for Lagrangian particle and parcels as well as the Eulerian dispersed
phase treatment by modifying F
D
accordingly. However, such ensembleaveraged approaches
cannot directly incorporate individual dynamics of particlefluidparticle events, which cause
attraction or repulsion (e.g., drafting, kissing, and tumbling).
PointForce FourWay Coupling
To incorporate fourway coupling with a pointforce approach, one may employ an
approach that models each particleparticle interaction or simply tries to capture the mean
effects of many interactions. Capturing every particle interaction in a Lagrangian reference is
the most accurate technique for the same reasons associated with particlewall reflections
(§4.2.1). To determine when such collisions occur, each particle path must be considered in
terms of the neighboring particle positions for each timestep to determine potential collision
partners. Once a collision is identified, the collision dynamics can be obtained by models of
the restitution and friction (Crowe et al. 1988). The simplest particleparticle collision model
is conservation of linear momentum, which assumes solid elastic spheres with no mass flux
interaction (no coalescence or breakup). However, finite energy losses can be straightforward
to incorporate via coefficients of restitution (for linear particle momentum) and friction (for
angular particle momentum) such as that used in the particlewall interaction model.
Incorporation of nonspherical shapes substantially complicates particle collision detection and
momentum interaction such that empirical probabilistic models are generally employed. The
same is true for breakup and coalescence physics.
If the number of particles in the system is large (e.g., 10
5
or more) and/or the collision
frequency becomes high (St
coll
»1), then it may be more computational efficient to capture only
the mean collisional effects. The mean collisional approach is most easily handled with an
Eulerian description of the particles based on collision rates given in §3.8.2. However, when
the flow approaches a dense condition in terms of particleparticle collisions (St
coll
»1), the
ensembleaveraged particle collisions can be modeled as an effective stresses on the particle
concentration. In particular, collisions tend to increase the particle velocity fluctuations and
tend to disperse the particles to regions of lower concentration. These stresses can be
incorporated into the particle transport equations using kinetic theory concepts such as
189
“granulartemperature” (which stems from gas kinetic models which relate random molecular
motion to gas pressure). This approach is not described further since this text is focused on
dispersed flow (Eq. 3.189), but additional details for dense flow treatment are given by
Gidaspow (1994) and Crowe et al. (1998).
4.2.4. PhysicsBased Choices of Multiphase Methodologies
It is instructive to consider the links between the various dispersedphase numerical
approaches and the continuousphase numerical approaches based on the above discussions.
The primary treatments discussed above for the continuousphase and dispersedphase
formulations are presented in Fig. 4.15 in terms of the relevant physics. On the top of this
figure, the various continuousphase methods are determined by the type of flow and the
phenomena of interest. The chosen approach dictates the smallest relevant continuousphase
lengthscale to be resolved (l
min
). For example, this lengthscale for a mean flow description
could be a shear layer or boundary layer thickness (δ). The l
min
, in turn, determines the
minimum continuousphase resolution needed (Δx). The lower portion of this figure then
compares this resolution to the particle size (d) to determine the appropriate dispersedphase
approach (e.g., pointforce, distributedforce or resolvedsurface). The appropriate reference
frame (Eulerian or Lagrangian) for the particle approach is then based on which multiphase
physics are most critical.
4.3. Comparing Computational Costs of Multiphase Methods
Ideally one would like to employ the most accurate techniques available for a given two
phase flow problem. For example, if the flow is turbulent, a direct numerical simulation
(DNS) description for the continuousphase would be preferred. If the particle Reynolds
number is not small or the particle has complex shape or surface condition, then a resolved
surface simulation (RSS) is preferred. These approaches are desirable from a physics
standpoint as they do not rely on any empirical approximations, as discussed above.
Unfortunately, the computational resources required for these approaches are often too
intensive for most engineering calculations. For example, a high flow Reynolds number may
prohibit DNS while a high number of particles may prohibit RSS (and trying to accomplish
DNS and RSS simultaneously is even more challenging). Because the practical issue of
computational resources must also be weighed in the decision of computational strategy, most
multiphase flows are simulated with some level of modeling. Therefore, the previous
discussion on “accuracy” of numerical approaches should be complemented with discussions
on computational “cost”, which is the subject of this section.
To give a guide regarding the cost of various techniques, estimates of the required
computational resources for various approaches are put forth. The resources are most closely
tied to numerical resolution and so will be characterized in this manner. The general principle
for numerical resolution is to employ a sufficiently high spatial and temporal resolution such
that the results are discretizationconvergent (further decreases in grid or timestep size do not
lead to significant differences in the predicted results). Assuming an Eulerian description of
190
the continuousphase, the number of unknowns can be estimated as proportional to the number
of continuousphase grid cells (N
f
). As such, one may expect CPU time and memory to also
scale with N
f
. Similarly, the computational resources required for the dispersedphase can be
expected to scale with the number of dispersedphase cells or particle locations (N
d
), where
particle properties (e.g., velocity, position, etc.) must be determined. If this information is
known for a specific numerical approach, one may roughly gauge the order of CPU
requirements. This can be correlated with the previous discussion on the fluidparticle physics
that can be captured for a particular approach, so that one may estimate the physics one can
afford to resolve within a given budget of computational resources.
It should be noted that the following estimates for N
f
and N
d
are rough guides only, since
the actual computational resources can vary widely due to variations in dimensionality,
flowfield complexity or technique aspects. For example, a compressible viscous flow will
require more CPU and unknowns per nodal location than that for a twodimensional inviscid
irrotational incompressible flow. Furthermore, the cost of computing unknowns depends
markedly on the type of timestepping (explicit vs. implicit, singlestep vs. multistep, etc.) and
the computer processing speed and architecture (e.g., massively parallel computers are better
suited for explicit techniques while serial machines are better suited for implicit techniques).
In addition, the below approximations for the number of continuousphase or dispersedphase
cells do not take into account substantial differences which may occur due to variations in
boundary conditions (e.g., a complex domain will often require more computational cells
than a
similarlysized spherical or cubic domain) or due to spatial discretization accuracy (e.g.,
spectral methods in simple domains may allow higher spatial accuracy for a given number of
unknowns). Note also that inclusion of twoway coupling does not substantially increase the
number of unknowns but the numerical solutions may require longer times for convergence or
may need to be rerun for each new particle condition.
4.3.1. Number of Cells for ContinuousPhase Methods
Resolution Length Scales
The primary factors that determine the number of continuousphase cells in the domain (N
f
)
are the dimensionality (e.g., 2D vs. 3D) and the range of numerical lengthscales. With
respect to the lengthscales, the smallest will be based on the minimum numerical spatial
resolution while the largest will be based on the domain scales. For the latter, an average
domain lengthscale (D) can be based on the computational domain volume, i.e. D
3
~D
x
D
y
D
z
.
On the other hand, the minimum length scale is often subjective or not known until grid
dependency studies are completed. Some guidelines are discussed below for uncoupled
continuousphase flows and discussed later for coupled continuousphase conditions.
In general, the grid resolution is based on l
min
as noted in Fig. 4.15. For many flows, this
lengthscale tends to be based on geometric features. In such a case, we typically require about
520 grid points to resolve the smallest feature, e.g.,
min min
x /10 Δ ∼ l 4.75
Note that l
min
is not necessarily the smallest possible feature but instead the smallest feature
which the user deems as physically relevant. For example, resolution of roughness elements
191
on a wall can be important since the elements can significantly affect particle deposition (Fig.
1.16a). However, the effect of roughness elements can also be treated in an average sense by
imposing an appropriate boundary condition at the surface for rough walls or may even be
neglected altogether if the elements are small.
In addition, the grid resolution can be based on flow features. For inviscid flows, shock
waves or other contact discontinuities arise in the system and these may require high resolution
in their vicinity to ensure that they are resolved to reasonable thicknesses. For laminar
boundary layer flows, a mesh with about 20 points across the boundary layer thickness (δ) is
generally sufficient. Assuming that δ is in the direction of the yaxis, this gives
min
y / 20 Δ δ ∼ 4.76
Typically, the gradients in the spanwise and streamwise directions are larger for attached
flows so that resolution in these directions can be anisotropic. However, flow separation can
lead to isotropic flow features and thus require a more uniform resolution.
For turbulent flows, the spatial resolution will depend primarily on whether any spatial
filtering is employed as discussed in §A.5.7. A timeaveraged RANS approach is by far the
least computationally intensive, especially for flows which are 2D for both domain geometry
and boundary conditions. If the flow includes only shear layers (of thickness δ) then the above
resolutions used for laminar flow will generally suffice for RANS flows. For spatiallyfiltered
approaches like LES, resolution down to the subgrid cutoff scale will be required:
min min min G
y x z Δ Δ Δ Δ ∼ ∼ ∼
4.77
For DNS, all scales are resolved down to the Kolmogorov scales, i.e.
min min min
y x z Δ Δ Δ λ ∼ ∼ ∼ 4.78
For wallbounded flows, additional nearwall resolution is needed because of the viscous sub
layer so that a minimum resolution (based on inner units of Eq. A.101) is generally given for
RANS, LES and DNS by
min
y 1
+
Δ ∼ 4.79
For RANS flows, the streamwise and spanwise resolutions will be similar to those given above
for laminar boundary layers. For spatiallyfiltered approaches like LES, the normal resolution
will be similar to that given by Eq. 4.77 while for DNS the streamwise and normal resolutions
along the wall are on the order of the viscous sublayer thickness, e.g.,
min min
x z ~ 5
+ +
Δ Δ ∼ .
In the special case of the resolvedsurface treatment for particles, the geometricbased l
min
will be the particle size (d) since the flow over and around the particle must be discretized and
accurately simulated. Moreover, a thin boundary layer of thickness δ may also form over the
particle so that the criteria of Eq. 4.76 or 4.79 should be applied for the normal direction.
Number of ContinuousPhase Fluid Cells
Once the relevant minimum spatial resolution and domain length scales are determined,
their ratio can be used to estimate the total computational resolution in terms of N
f
. If uniform
192
resolution is used throughout a simple Cartesian domain (i.e. Δx=Δx
min
, etc.), then the number
of nodes can be approximated as the number of cells which scale with the domain lengths:
x y z
f fx fy fz
D D D
N N N N
x y z
≈ ≈
Δ Δ Δ
4.80
A similar equation for twodimensional flows yields a quadratic dependence. However, grid
stretching if often used to reduce the number of grid points (and thus the required
computational resources) so that Eq. 4.80 can be considered an upper bound. If this stretching
is uniform then the grid size for an individual element can be described (Eq. B.30) as
( )
i 1
i o
x x 1
−
Δ
Δ = Δ +ε 4.81
Overall grid stretching is typically limited to be less than 20% from cell to cell (0.2<ε
Δ
<0.2)
since larger changes tend to degrade spatial accuracy (Eq. B.31). This magnitude is reasonable
for both continuous mesh variations used in structured grids or layered levels of hrefinement
or prefinement used in unstructured meshes (§B.1). The total number of cells in the x
direction (N
f,x
) can then be related to the macroscopic domain length in the xdirection:
( )
( )
fx
fx
N
N
i 1
x
i 1
o
1 1
D
1
x
−
Δ
Δ
=
Δ
+ −
= + =
Δ
∑
ε
ε
ε
4.82
This estimate can be extrapolated to a 3D domain for the total number of cells with reference
to the minimum grid resolution if, and only if, stretching is used in all three direction as:
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
x x min y y min z z min
f
x y z
ln 1 D / x ln 1 D / y ln 1 D / z
N
ln 1 ln 1 ln 1
Δ Δ Δ
Δ Δ Δ
+ Δ + Δ + Δ
≈
+ + +
ε ε ε
ε ε ε
4.83
Such a uniform grid stretching assumes that there is one region which requires the minimum
resolution and the grid is stretched in all the outward directions from this region, which is often
a good approximation for the case of a flow around a single particle treated via the resolved
surface approach. Roughly, Eq. 4.83 is a lower bound on the total number of fluid cells
required, whereas Eq. 4.80 is an upper bound.
For many continuousphase flow grids, the above estimations are reasonable (Loth, 2000).
However, spectral methods are much more efficient at capturing spatial scales since the
flowfield is solved in wavespace instead of physicalspace. Therefore, Eq. 4.83 will
substantially overestimate the number of fluid nodes for spectral methods, though these
methods are only appropriate for simple domain configurations where there are no sharp flow
gradients, e.g., incompressible turbulence in simple channel.
As noted above, determining the number of nodes for turbulent flows is generally more
complex because it is a function of the flow Reynolds number and turbulent scales. However,
the resources for internal flows are roughly related to the macroscopic Reynolds number (Re
D
).
As shown in Fig. 4.16, the number of grid cells increases slowly with Re
D
and can be roughly
approximated a priori as
0.2
f D
N 1000Re ∼ 2D RANS wallbounded requirements 4.84
193
This correlation is similar to that based on skinfriction variation which yields a dependency of
Re
D
1/4
(Loth, 2000). For external flows, the resolution is typically reduced since the boundary
layer thickness normalized by streamwise length (δ/D) generally decreases with Re
D
. Thus an
approximation of N
f,D
for external flows is more difficult since flow separation and geometry
can greatly affect the boundary layer thickness, but Eq. 4.84 is a reasonable upper bound.
For LES, the nodal resolution will be a function of the spatialfilter lengthscale Δ
G
defined
in Eq. A.132. This filter is generally related to the grid resolution, which can vary depending
on the range of macro to microscales of the flow and the available computational resources.
Piomelli
(1997) estimated the nodal resolution in each direction as Re
D
2/5
for freeshear flows,
yielding a 3D dependency of Re
D
6/5
. A wallbounded flow with a viscous sublayer requires
additional resolution but this proportionality is expected to be consistent and indeed a rough
approximation for internal flows based on a survey of LES studies (Fig. 4.16) is:
1.2
f D
N 0.2Re ∼ LES wallbounded requirements 4.85
Again, external turbulent flows are more difficult to estimate but Eq. 4.85 can be used as a
conservative guideline, i.e. nodal requirements may be expected to vary significantly for an
equivalent Re
D
(Dorgan & Loth, 2005). An approach which is intermediate to LES and RANS
(in terms of both resolution and computational resources) is the Hybrid RANS/LES approach.
However, the number of nodes for a hybrid approach is difficult to estimate in advance, but
some rough estimates have been put forth by Loth (2000).
For DNS in freeshear regions, Λ/λ~Re
Λ
3/4
as noted in §B.3. If we assume that D/u
D
is
linearly related to Λ/u
Λ
, then D/λ~Re
D
3/4
such that the total number of cells or nodes required
will scale with Re
D
9/4
. For example, consider a 1 cm diameter water jet flowing at 1 m/s (a
relatively modest flow field in terms of size and speed). This gives rise to a turbulent flow
with Re
D
of 10
4
, which corresponds to D/λ of 10
3
. The total number of nodes in 3D will be
on the order of 10
9
. While grid stretching and higherorder elements can reduce the number of
nodes required, computational resources limit DNS to only modest flow Reynolds numbers.
DNS for wallbounded flows (which resolve the viscous sublayer) is even more restrictive,
e.g., Re
D
7/2
(Piomelli, 1997). As shown in Fig. 4.16, this proportionality is reasonable for
internal flow simulations with simple geometries so that a rough estimate for turbulent
conditions can be given by:
( )
3.5
f D
N 0.002Re ∼ DNS wallbounded requirements 4.86
Since Eq. 4.86 assumes orthogonal shape functions, it will substantially underestimate the
number of nodes if there are complexities in domain geometry. In summary, the choice of
RANS, LES or DNS should be a balance between available computational resources (and time)
with the level of robustness desired in the continuousphase flow solution (for a given flow
Reynolds number).
Generally, the inclusion of twoway coupling for pointforce or distributedforce
approaches will not significantly increase the total number of computational points required.
However, if a resolvedsurface method is used, then fluid cells are needed to resolve the flow
around the particle surface. If the particle boundary layer is thin, roughly 10,000 fluid cells
may be needed around an individual solid particle so that
194
4
f f , 0 p
N N 10 N
α=
+ ∼ Lagrangian resolvedsurface requirements
4.87
This is a firstorder estimate as the actual number of needed nodes or cells may increase for
complex particle shapes, high particle Reynolds numbers, and whether any interior nodes are
needed for a fluid particle.
4.3.2. Number of Cells or Locations for DispersedPhase Methods
Next, the dispersedphase computational requirements are considered in terms of the
number of locations where particle characteristics (velocity, etc) are to be simulated. The most
common Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches are generally based on the number of particles in
the simulation, as shown in Fig. 4.17. A more detailed classification of approaches is given in
Fig. 4.18 based on Stokes number, particle size, and relative number of fluid nodes to the
number of particles (or parcels).
The pointforce techniques have particle diameters less than the grid length scale and can
be distinguished by Eulerian or Lagrangian approaches to describe the particle motion. For the
Eulerian approach, the dispersedphase unknowns are generally computed with the same
resolution as that of the continuousphase, i.e.
N
d
= N
f
Eulerian pointforce requirements 4.88
Note that this result is independent of the total number of particles (N
p
) in the domain. As such,
Eulerian methods are generally applied for conditions when N
p
»N
f
as this affords significant
computational efficiency per particle.
If the physics suggest a Lagrangian approach (e.g., to capture particlewall effects or
turbulent diffusion) and there are a large number of particles (N
p
»N
f
), then a Lagrangian parcel
approach is appropriate. For example, a typical combustion spray may include 10
12
drops but
the combustion chamber may be modeled with only 10
6
fluid cells. If twoway coupling is
important, then one must ensure sufficient parcel resolution (Eq. 4.74). If the particle sizes are
uniform, generally four or more parcels per Eulerian cell are reasonable so that
N
d
= N
P
~ 4N
f
Lagrangian parcel pointforce requirements 4.89
The number of parcels that are needed will increase if polydisperse size distributions and/or
unstructured grids are to be considered. If the total number of particles in the domain
decreases such that it is on the order of the number of fluid nodes or less, a conventional
Lagrangian pointforce approach for individual particles should be used. In this case, the
number of particle nodes (parcels) is simply equal to the number of particle trajectories at each
timestep within the domain
N
d
= N
p
Lagrangian pointforce requirements 4.90
If the particle diameters become on the order of the continuousphase grid size, then a
Lagrangian distributedforce approach is needed. In this case the number of particle nodes is
again given by Eq. 4.90 but each particle then interacts with a number of fluid nodes. If the
number of particles is reduced down to a relatively small number (about 1100), then a
resolvedsurface simulation may be appropriate. For a Lagrangian interface approach, each
particle trajectory can be tracked based on surface integrated forces so that
195
N
d
= N
p
Lagrangian resolvedsurface requirements 4.91
Since there are only a few particles, this is not a significant computational cost. However, the
number of fluid cells will substantially increase beyond the uncoupled resolution (Eq. 4.87).
In summary, computational techniques for particles, drops, and bubbles become more
computationally intensive as the level of physics to be resolved increases. Similarly the
required computational resources increase as the number and/or size of the particles increase.
Thus, individual access to computing memory and time, turnaround constraints, and the desired
prediction characteristics should all be carefully considered. Use of the concepts illustrated by
Figs. 4.14 and 4.17 allows engineers to select numerical approaches in their most reasonably
reduced form (to minimize computational effort) while ensuring a sensible solution (providing
sufficient accuracy of physics). Effectively, this is the CFD equivalent of Einstein’s comment:
“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Fortunately, the continuing increase
of computing power will allow increased resolution and consequently improved representation
of the fluid physics and/or the capability to handle more complex systems.
In the next four chapters, different multiphase numerical techniques will be discussed in
more detail, starting from approaches appropriate to the smallest particles and ending with
approaches appropriate to the largest particles (in line with the sequence given in Fig. 4.17).
4.4. Problems
4.1) Discuss the primary reasons for choosing a particular technique among a specific set of
techniques for the following sets:
a) Lagrangian particle vs. Lagrangian parcel approaches,
b) Lagrangian parcel vs. Eulerian bin approaches for polydisperse particles,
c) mixedfluid vs. weaklyseparated approaches vs. separatedfluid, and
d) pointforce vs. distributed force vs. resolvedsurface approaches.
4.2) Describe the twoway coupled continuousphase momentum transport of Eq. 4.31
starting from the Reynolds Transport Theorem of Eq. A.1.
4.3) a) Describe Eq. 4.57. b) Develop a guide like Eqs. 4.55 or 4.56 for sand particles in
water with ρ
p
=2.5ρ
f
.
4.4) Starting from the separatedfluid Eulerian dispersedphase and continuousphase
momentum equations (Eqs. 4.29b and 4.31), derive the mixture momentum equation (Eq.
4.26b) and explain any assumptions needed.
4.5) a) Select a dispersed multiphase flow problem and discuss the flow aspects which you
would like to predict. b) Identify a typical flow Reynolds numbers and the relevant
particle Stokes number. c) Describe the numerical approaches and transport equations
for each phase that would be appropriate and explain your reasoning. c) Estimate the
number of continuousfluid nodes and particle nodes which may be needed.
196
5. MixedFluid and WeaklySeparatedFluid Approaches
The mixedfluid and weaklyseparatedfluid techniques assume that the particle response
time is relatively small compared to the resolved fluid time scales. To their advantage, these
two techniques are computationally efficient in that they require only a modest increase in
computational resources beyond that of an uncoupled singlephase flow simulation. Both
techniques typically take advantage of mixedfluid properties in terms of density, viscosity,
speed of sound, etc. which is described in the first part of this chapter. The rest of the chapter
then deals with mixedfluid approximation for the transport equations, whereby the relative
velocity is assumed to be negligible. This is followed by a discussion on the weaklyseparated
fluid approach whereby a finite relative velocity is included based on terminal velocity and
local conditions. For both the mixedfluid and weaklyseparatedfluid approach, unsteady and
timeaveraged formulations are considered and brief comments are made regarding the
associated numerical aspects.
5.1. MixedFluid Properties
5.1.1. MixedFluid Density and Mass Fractions
The mixedfluid approach assumes that the particles and the continuousphase fluid are in
local kinetic and thermal equilibrium, i.e., the relative velocities and temperatures are not
significant (Eq. 4.24) and only cellaveraged quantities of density, momentum and energy are
transported (Eq. 4.26). These assumptions are often also used to define a “colloidal
suspension” which refers to suspended small particles (with respect to the timescale of the
overall fluid dynamics). The mixedfluid formulation allows substantial computational
simplicity since neither particle size nor terminal velocity plays a role in the computations (and
do not need to be specified). The method also automatically allows for twoway coupling and
does not require the flow be dilute.
With the mixedfluid approach, the volume fraction (α) can be used to describe the
concentration of the dispersedphase within a grid cell. The multiphase mixture is assumed to
be represented by a single mixedfluid density (ρ
m
), velocity (v
m
) and temperature (T
m
). This
is reasonable if the pathaveraged magnitude of the particle relative velocity is small compared
to the relevant pathaveraged convective velocity. A rigorous constraint for the mixedfluid
approach can be based on both the mean and fluctuating components of the relative velocity:
rms
ˆ w u < for mixedfluid approximation
5.1
If this constraint is satisfied, the particles will effectively follow the continuousphase path
lines as noted by Eq. 4.24a, creating an immiscible mixture.
The above criterion generally requires that each particle terminal velocity and response
time is small compared to the key continuousphase velocity and timescales. If we assume
that the fluid processes are governed by a general wavelength (l), the mixedfluid criteria are:
197
term
w
1 St 1
u
< < and
l
l
for mixedfluid approximation
5.2
In turbulent flow, the integralscale properties can be important to mean particle diffusion or
overall turbulence modulation. However, wavelengths down to the microscales will become
important if aspects such as nearwall deposition or preferential bias are important. Thus,
implementation of the mixedfluid approximation criteria depends on the wavelength of
interest, e.g.
term D D
w u St 1 < < and for mixedfluid at macroscopic scales
term
w u St 1
Λ Λ
< < and for mixedfluid at turbulent integralscales
term
w u St 1
λ λ
< < and for mixedfluid at all turbulent scales
5.3a
5.3b
5.3c
As an example, consider the Snyder & Lumley (1971) turbulent wake flow of Fig. 3.21 which
includes a continuousphase (air) mean velocity of 6.55 m/s with u
Λ
~ 0.13 m/s, τ
Λ
~ 0.06 sec,
u
λ
~ 0.03 m/s, τ
λ
~ 0.003 sec (§A.5.3 and A.5.4). For terminal velocity conditions, the
Kolmogorovscale criteria for spherical particles with ρ
p
=1000 kg/m
3
can be satisfied with
particle diameters as large 10 μm (
term
w /u St 0.1
λ λ
≈ ≈ ) while the integralscale criteria would
allow diameters as large as 20 μm (
term
w /u 0.1 and St 0.02
Λ Λ
≈ ≈ ). In the latter case, the
velocity ratio is more restrictive which is consistent with Fr
Λ
<1 for this flow (Eq. 3.25).
The most important mixedfluid property is density. The cellaveraged mixedfluid density
(Eq. 4.25) is simply a function of the volume fraction and density ratio of the individual phase
components
( )
m p f
1 ρ = ρ α+ρ −α
5.4
If there are multiple particle fields and associated volume fractions, then the density can be
defined as
( )
n n
m p,i i f i
i 1 i 1
1
= =
⎛ ⎞
ρ ≡ ρ α +ρ − α
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
∑ ∑
5.5
The mixture density can also be used to define the massfractions (Eq. 3.145). If there is only
one type of particle, the mass fractions for each phase are given by
p p
p
p f m
f f
f
p f m
X
(1 )
(1 ) (1 )
X
(1 )
ρ α ρ α
≡ =
ρ α+ρ −α ρ
ρ −α ρ −α
≡ =
ρ α+ρ −α ρ
5.6a
5.6b
Thus, the mass factions are everywhere conserved so that Eq. 5.6b can be replaced by
p f
X X 1 + =
5.7
Similar to Eq. 5.5, this can also be extended to include multiphase particle phase groups.
If heat transfer effects are included (e.g., over a boundary surface), a mixedfluid thermal
conductivity can be employed for the mixedfluid volume. Since the particles and continuous
phase are heated simultaneously (Eq. 4.24b) and this transfer is volumebased, a firstorder
198
approximation for mixedfluid thermal conductivity can be given in terms of the phase volume
fractions (Crowe et al. 1998) :
m p f
(1 ) = α + −α k k k
5.8
If the particle conductivity is greater than that of the surrounding fluid, the mixedfluid has an
increase net conductivity. The specific heat of the mixture is based on the massfractions and
can be obtained by considering an energy balance with constant temperature (T
m
):
p,m m f p, p f p,
(1 ) ( ) ρ = −α ρ +αρ ≈ ρ +η
g s g s
c c c c c
5.9
In the following, the viscosity and compressibility properties are discussed for various
multiphase mixtures based on the mixedfluid assumption.
5.1.2. MixedFluid Viscosity
The mixedfluid viscosity (or “effective viscosity”) is the ratio of the bulk stress to the bulk
rate of strain for the mixture averaged over a volume that includes many particles. Often the
mixedfluid viscosity is normalized by the continuousphase viscosity to define an effective
dimensionless viscosity:
* m
m
f
μ
μ ≡
μ
5.10
In the following, threeway coupling effects on the mixedfluid viscosity is considered for both
solid and fluid particles, first without particleparticle interactions and then with Brownian
induced particleparticle interaction.
Solid Particles in a Fluid without ParticleParticle Interactions
The Newtonian mixedfluid viscosity for solid spherical particles was derived by Einstein
in 1906 for the dilute flow limit (no interparticle effects) with creeping flow conditions. This
bulk viscosity for immiscible mixtures can be obtained by considering an isolated particle in a
straining field and assuming the effects can be summed linearly for many particles. It is
interesting that the initial derivation by Einstein contained an error in which he later found and
corrected in 1911 when comparison with experimental data showed a quantitative deviation.
Details of a similar derivation of the effective viscosity are given by Batchelor (1972) whereas
a simple overview is given below.
For a single particle, a pure strain is imposed in the farfield and the particle is located such
that extrapolated velocity to the particle center of mass (e.g., centroid for uniform density
particle) is zero. The strain is assumed to be very weak such that velocity gradients non
dimensionalized by density, viscosity and particle diameter are small. Further assuming a
creeping flow approximation allows the inertial terms in the NavierStokes equations to be
neglected (Eq. A.63). Finally, a noslip boundary condition is assumed (Eq. 1.27). From the
governing equation and the boundary conditions, the continuousphase velocity can be
obtained analytically in the region extending from the particle surface to the farfield. From
this, the stress tensor in the continuousphase (Eq. A.9) can be determined at any point. This
199
can then be used to determine the additional energy dissipation owing to the distortion of the
velocity field to satisfy the boundary conditions on the particle surface. By linearly summing
this increased dissipation for several particles within a dispersedphase continuum for small α,
the Einstein viscosity correction is expressed to firstorder as:
( )
* 2
m
1 2.5 μ = + α+ α O
5.11
While this result assumes that the particles are small (consistent with negligible relative
velocity of the particles in the mixedfluid approach), it does not assume that they are
monodisperse. Thus, a volume fraction of 5% for a polydisperse distribution (which has an
interparticle gap of about 1.2 diameters by Eq. 3.186) corresponds to a 12.5% increase in
viscosity. This result neglects particleparticle interactions and so is only expected to be
reasonable for α«1. Experiments of sedimenting spheres at low Reynolds numbers have found
that this viscosity ratio to be reasonably for small volume concentrations, e.g., α of 10% or less
as shown in Fig. 5.1a. Increased sensitivity has been found for nonspherical particle. For
example, the mixedviscosity for oblate ellipsoids with aspect ratio E (<1) can be approximated
(van der Kooij et al. 2001) as
( )
* 2
m
2 1
1 2.5 E 2
3 E
⎡ ⎤
⎛ ⎞
μ ≈ + + − α+ α
⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
+ O
5.12
Similar results are found for long slender ellipsoids (E>1) by Harding et al. (1995). Thus, this
approximation is reasonable for aspect ratios (E) ranging 0.25 to 4, and indicates maximum
increases in viscosity of about 20% for α=5%.
Rheology measurements have been conducted between parallel plates with a small gap and
have generally confirmed the above results for modest volume fractions, about α<10% as
shown in Fig. 5.1a. However, gravitational settling can cause concentration nonuniformities,
e.g., heavier particles tend to the lower surface. Since the settling can be counteracted with
viscous resuspension at high shear rates, the particle concentration field and thus the mixed
fluid viscosity can be a function of the shear rate, i.e. the mixedfluid viscosity is effectively
nonNewtonian (Drew & Passman, 1999). Acrivos et al. (1993) noted that this effect is
primarily a function of the ratio of viscous to buoyancy forces which can be quantified in terms
of the Shields number of the mixture (S), which for flow perpendicular to gravity and a channel
height of D is given by:
9
f shear p f
2
/ Dg = μ ω ρ −ρ S
5.13
If the viscous resuspension effects are dominant (S»1), the concentration gradient effect will
be negligible. In this case, a mixedfluid viscosity is reasonable and is independent of shear
rate. However, at Shields number of order unity or less, the gravitational effect will be
substantial, indicating that the mixedfluid approach may not be reasonable.
Fluid Particles in a Fluid without ParticleParticle Interactions
One may also apply a similar creepingflow analysis to fluid particles (Batchelor, 1970) by
assuming an uncontaminated surface such that the particle surface boundary conditions are
200
based on a tangential stress balance which allows finite tangential slip (Eq. 1.58b). In a
manner similar to that derived for the drag on fluid particles in creeping flow (§1.5.2), the first
order mixedfluid viscosity (for nearly dilute flow) can be obtained as
*
p *
m *
p
2.5 1
1
1
⎛ ⎞ μ +
μ = + α
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
μ +
⎝ ⎠
5.14
This is the result used in Eq. 3.187 to estimate threeway coupling effects. As the particle
viscosity approaches infinity (or the surface becomes fullycontaminated), the viscosity ratio
reverts to the solidparticle case of Eq. 5.11. However, when the particle viscosity is negligible
compared to the continuousphase (as in the case of uncontaminated gas bubbles in a liquid)
then the mixedfluid viscosity ratio (for nearly dilute flow) simply becomes
*
m
1 μ = + α 5.15
Thus a volume fraction of 5% corresponds to only a 5% increase in viscosity for such bubbly
mixtures. This reduced impact of volume fraction is consistent with the reduced stress and
dissipation which occurs for mobile interface conditions as compared to noslip conditions.
It is important to note that the above discussion on viscosity assumes that the twophases
are immiscible so that individual particle volumes and shapes may be defined at any time. This
is in contrast to the miscible condition where the phases are fluids mixed at the molecular scale.
In the miscible case of two fluids, the viscosity is based on the volume fraction of its
components, i.e. ( )
* *
m p
1 μ → −α + αμ . For highly deformable liquid particles in a liquid
mixture, there may be a tendency towards this limit but generally smaller particles have very
high relative surface tension so that Eq. 5.15 is more appropriate.
Solid Particles in a Fluid with ParticleParticle Interactions
Particleparticle interactions can occur at higher volume fractions and influence the
effective viscosity of the mixedfluid. These interactions may include chemical and electrical
mechanisms at dense conditions, but primarily include Brownian motion and particleparticle
collision dynamics as discussed herein (van der Werff and deKruif, 1989). To assess the
influence of Brownian motion, one may define a Brownian frequency (f
Br
) based on the
isolated Brownian diffusivity (given by Eq. 3.139) normalized by the particle diameter:
Br f
Br 2 3
f
4 4kT
d 3 d
Θ
≡ =
π μ
f
5.16
The mixedfluid fluid shear rate can be defined in a manner similar to Eq. A.34 as:
m,x
m,shear
v
y
∂
ω =
∂
5.17
This may be normalized by Eq. 5.16 to define a shear frequency ratio:
3
f m,shear * shear
shear
Br f
3 d
4kT
π μ ω
≡ =
f
f
f
5.18
201
This ratio is proportional to the particle Peclet number and compares the importance of viscous
diffusion to Brownian diffusion for a shear flow. The two extremes of this ratio are defined as
the lowshear or lowfrequency limit (
*
shear
1 < f ) for which the associated viscosity is defined
as
*
m,0
μ , and the highshear or highfrequency limit (
*
shear
1 > f ) for which the associated
viscosity is defined as
*
m,∞
μ . Data from these two limits are shown in Fig. 5.1 as a function of
particle volume fraction. The lowshear limit (
*
m,0
μ ) represents a longtime “equilibrium”
conditions where Brownian diffusion dominates while the highshear limit (
*
m,∞
μ ) represents a
shorttime “dynamic” conditions where Brownian motion is negligible (Verberg et al. 1997).
As shown in Fig. 5.1, both limits are reasonably represented by the Einstein viscosity (Eq.
5.7) for small volume fractions, even though this theoretical result was obtained for the high
shear limit. In fact, the highshear limit is reasonably represented by this viscosity for volume
fractions as much as 20% as shown in Fig. 5.1a. At higher volume fractions, the particle
particle surface interactions become important which can be related to the fraction of particle
pairs which are in contact (G), i.e. the fraction of particles that are colliding, exchanging
momentum and thus contributing to the dissipation. Assuming isotropy and hard spheres, this
fraction is equal to the equilibrium radial distribution function which can be represented by the
CarnahanStarling approximation given as:
( )
3
1
2
1
α
−
−α
G = 5.19
The increase in mixedfluid viscosity is expected to depend on this fraction and, in fact, this
fraction can be used to reasonably represent the highshear limit (Verberg et al. 1997), i.e.
*
m,∞
μ ≈G
5.20
As shown in Fig 5.1a, the CarnahanStarling approximation is quite reasonable for volume
fractions as high as 50%.
Brady (1993) derived an expression for the lowshear viscosity which includes a higher
order correction associated with the increase in viscosity due to Brownian stresses
( )
2
*
m,o
12
5
α
μ ≈ +
G
G
5.21
A similar expression obtained by Verberg et al. (1997) gives nearly identical results for
α<40%. There are also several empirical expressions for the lowshear limit of viscosity such
as the Eiler fit used by Leighton & Acrivos (1987):
2
*
m
max
1.5
1
1 /
⎛ ⎞ α
μ ≡ +
⎜ ⎟
−α α
⎝ ⎠
5.22
In this equation, α
max
is the maximum volume fraction, also referred to as the packing limit, for
which values ranging from 0.58 to 0.68 are reported in the literature depending on shear rate,
packing organization, and particle charge (van der Werff & de Kruif, 1989; Stickel and Powell,
2005). Variations on the Eiler fit are given by Chapman & Leighton (1991) with a numerator
202
of 1.59 (vs. 1.5), and by Stickel and Powell (2005) with a numerator of 1.25(which allow the
expression to correctly approach the Einstein viscosity in the dilute limit).
The above results indicate that the equilibrium mixedfluid viscosity is always less than the
dynamic mixedfluid viscosity (i.e.
* *
m,o m,∞
μ ≤ μ ). This can be attributed to the increased
mixing (mobilization of the particle) caused by Brownian motion at long timescales and is
consistent with the experimental differences between Figs. 5.1a and 5.1b. As a consequence,
subjecting a multiphase suspension to increasing shearrates in time can result in a viscosity
consistently reducing until it reaches
*
m,∞
μ , a phenomenon often described as “shearthinning”.
Models to determine the effective viscosity for intermediate frequencies with substantial
volume fractions are given by Verberg et al. (1997) and Brady (1993). However, this
complication can generally be avoided for dispersed conditions (α<10%) since the Einstein
expression (which is independent of the frequency) is quite reasonable (Figs. 5.1a and 5.1b).
5.1.3. MixedFluid Compressibility
Relationships between pressure and density may be used to account for mixedfluid
compressibility aspects. These relationships depend on whether the continuous phase is a gas
or a liquid, and each of these cases is discussed in the following two subsections, along with
the effective speed of sound of the mixture. The latter is important to determine whether the
flow speed can induce compressibility (analogous to the singlephase behavior of Fig. A.4).
Solid or Liquid Particles in a Gas
The mixedfluid compressibility relationships for solid or liquid particles in a gas ( * ρ »1)
typically make use of the “dusty gas assumption” (Marble, 1970). This assumption indicates
that the net particle volume is negligible (α«1) but the particle mass can be significant
compared to that of the gas. As such, bulk properties associated with flow compressibility are
conventionally described as a function of the mass loading (η), which represents the ratio of
dispersedphase mass to continuousfluid mass within a mixedfluid volume (Eq. 3.144). Thus,
the mixedfluid density can be approximated as
( )
m f
1 ρ ≈ ρ + η
5.23
Assuming that the mixedfluid obeys an ideal equation of state, the unhindered pressure is
m m m m
p p T = = ρ R dustygas equation of state
5.24
Based on the mixedfluid assumption, we note that thermal equilibrium stipulates T
m
=T
g
(=T
p
).
Based on the negligible particle volume fraction assumption, the mixedfluid pressure is
defined as that external to the particles and thus equal to the gas pressure, i.e. p
m
=p
g
(Wallis,
1969). In Eq. 5.24, the mass loading affects the density but not the pressure or temperature so
that an ideal equation of state requires:
( )
m
/ 1 = + η
g
R R
5.25
Therefore, the particles decrease the gas constant, which is equivalent to an increased
203
molecular weight for a dusty gas based on Eq. A.21.
It is often of interest to determine the speed of sound for a particular flow to note the
degree of compressibility one might expect, since this may affect the manner in which
boundary conditions are employed (§A.2) and numerical methods are chosen (§B.3.2). To
determine the sound speed for the dustygas assumption, we must first obtain the specific heats
of the mixture. If the dispersedphase is a solid, the specific heat is approximately independent
of pressure, i.e.
p ∀
≡ ≈
s s, s,
c c c . A similar approximation can be made if the particle is instead a
liquid. If the particle specific heat is normalized by the gas specific heat as
*
s
c , it can be used to
define the mixedfluid specific heat based on Eq. 5.9:
( )
*
p,
*
f p, p f p,
p,m p,
m f
/
(1 ) ( )
1
1 1
≡
−α ρ +αρ ρ +η ⎛ ⎞ +η
= ≈ =
⎜ ⎟
ρ ρ +η +η
⎝ ⎠
s s g
g s g s
s
g
c c c
c c c c
c
c c
5.26a
5.26b
The mixedfluid specific heat at constant volume
,m
( )
∀
c can be similarly obtained. In either
case, the mixedfluid specific heat will increase or decrease depending on whether the ratio of
Eq. 5.26a is greater or less than unity. For most solid and liquid particles in a gas,
*
s
c >1 is
greater than one so that
p,m
c increases with particle loading. However,
*
s
c can be less than
unity if the particles are composed of a metal or if the gas has a low molecularweight, e.g.,
hydrogen or helium.
The particles can also affect the specific heat ratio. Assuming that the overall mixture is
calorically perfect (see §A.1), the "mixed" specific heat ratio can be obtained from Eq. 5.9 as
(Rudinger, 1964)
*
p, p,m
m *
,m ,
1
1
∀ ∀
⎛ ⎞ + η
+ η
γ ≡ = = γ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
+ η + γ η
⎝ ⎠
g s
s
g
g s g s
c c c
c
c c c c
5.27
For finite particle loadings, this yields 1≤γ
m
≤γ
g
such that the dusty gas approximation results
in a reduced compressibility exponent. This result is expected since the particlephase is
incompressible (i.e. has an intrinsic compressibility exponent of unity). From Eqs. 5.25 and
5.27, the acoustic speed can then be obtained as:
( )( )
* 2
m m m
2
*
1 a
a
1 1
+ η γ
= =
γ
+ η + γ η
s
g g g
g s
c R
R
c
5.28
As such, the mixedfluid sound speed will be reduced as η or
*
s
c increases (Fig. 5.2a).
The mixedfluid approximation can break down at highspeeds based on the criterion of
Eq. 5.1 since particle dynamics (and thus relative velocities) can be important. For example,
consider air at STP flowing though a 0.1 meter diameter nozzle at nearly sonic conditions so
that the macroscopic fluid timescale (τ
D
) is about 0.3 msec. For a particle to move
approximately in equilibrium with this flow, it should have a much smaller τ
p
(e.g., less than
0.1 msec), which for a particle density of 1000 kg/m
3
corresponds to a diameter of less than 6
microns. However, if the fluid domain timescales are based on much larger scales such as the
volcanic ash expulsion flow (Fig. 1.15), then particles on the order of 100200 microns in
diameter may be reasonably considered to be in equilibrium.
204
Bubbles in a Liquid
The compressibility of a bubbly mixture in a liquid can be studied analytically using the
mixedfluid assumptions. The relationship between density and pressure which determines the
mixture equation of state is affected by the compressibility of the particle phase but also by
frequency of the flow (f
l
) relative to the natural frequency of the bubble size oscillation (f
nat
from Eq. 2.66). For a lowfrequency formulation (f
l
«f
nat
), the bubble size and volume can be
considered to be in quasisteady equilibrium with the local pressure of the surrounding fluid
and the surface tension. This allows us to relate the internal bubble pressure (P
g
) to the
continuousphase unhindered liquid pressure (p) from Eq. 1.7 or Eq. 2.62, i.e.:
b
P p 2 / r = + σ
g
5.29
If one assumes that the particle density is much less than that of the liquid, the mixedfluid
density can be approximated as:
( ) ( )
m p f
1 1 ρ = αρ + −α ρ ≈ −α ρ
l
5.30
Next, one may define a reference mixedfluid volume is ∀
mo
, where the subscript “o” refers to
a reference condition. As the pressure changes, the volume will be modified but the mass will
be preserved such that
m m mo mo
ρ ∀ = ρ ∀
5.31
If the liquid is incompressible, its associated volume will be constant and equal to the reference
value, i.e.
f m o mo
(1 ) (1 ) ∀ = −α ∀ = −α ∀
5.32
The bubble compressibility can be given by the polytropic exponent K
g
(Eq. 2.63) so that the
particle volumes within the mixedfluid (
p
Σ∀ ) can be related to the local pressure. The mixed
fluid volume can then be related to the reference conditions:
1/
o p,o
m f p o mo o mo
p
p 2 / r
(1 )
p 2 / r
⎛ ⎞ + σ
∀ ≡ ∀ + Σ∀ = −α ∀ + α ∀
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
+ σ
⎝ ⎠
g
K
5.33
If the bubble radius is large enough (e.g., greater than 10 μm for bubbles in water), then the
pressure difference due to surface tension can be ignored and a simple relationship between
mixedfluid density and pressure can be obtained (Peregrine & Thais, 1996) by dividing Eq.
5.33 by Eq. 5.31:
1/
o o o
m mo mo
1 p 1
p
⎛ ⎞ −α α
= +
⎜ ⎟
ρ ρ ρ
⎝ ⎠
g
K
5.34
Solving for the pressure yields
( )
m o
o mo m o
p
p 1
⎡ ⎤
ρ α
=
⎢ ⎥
ρ −ρ −α
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
g
K
bubblyflow equation of state 5.35
Therefore the pressure can be related directly to the reference conditions and the mixedfluid
density, which is convenient for numerical formulations as an equation of state. This change in
pressure can also be expressed in terms of the change of volume fraction as:
205
( ) ( )
( )
o o
o
o o
1
p
p 1
⎡ ⎤ −α α+ α−α α
α
= ≈
⎢ ⎥
−α α α
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
g
K
5.36
The RHS approximation assumes isothermal conditions and small volume fractions. The result
indicates that a pressure increase leads to a commensurate linear decrease in the volume
fraction as the gasphase portion is compressed. If the liquid is also compressible, then its
pressuredensity relationship (e.g., Eq. A.24) must be incorporated in the above analysis to
obtain the mixedfluid equation of state.
The speed of sound of a multiphase mixture can also be related to the speeds of sound for
each phase by considering perturbations in the volume fractions (Brennen, 2005). Defining a
volume perturbation using the notation
o
∀≡ ∀ + δ∀ and normalizing this by the reference
mixedfluid volume yields the following volume ratios for continuousphase, particlephase
and mixedfluid:
( )
( )
fo f fo o f f
f
mo mo mo fo f
fo
p po p p po o
p
mo mo mo po p
po p
p
f p
mo m m
mo mo mo
(1 ) m
p
p
m
p
p
1
∀ + δ∀ ρ −α ∀
= = =
∂ρ
∀ ∀ ∀ ρ + δρ
ρ + δ
∂
Σ∀ Σ∀ + δΣ∀ Σ ρ α
= = =
∂ρ
∀ ∀ ∀ ρ + δρ
ρ + δ
∂
δ∀ + δΣ∀
∀ + δ∀ ∀
= = +
∀ ∀ ∀
5.37a
5.37b
5.37c
Combining these equations and neglecting secondorder terms, e.g., 1/(1+δ)≈1 δ, one can
obtain the normalized change in the mixedfluid volume in terms of the surrounding fluid
pressure change (δp) as:
o o m
mo o o
P
1
p p
p p P
⎛ ⎞ ∂ρ ∂ ∂ρ ⎛ ⎞ −α α δ∀
= − δ − δ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∀ ρ ∂ ρ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
g g g
g g g
5.38
The reciprocal of
p
p / p ∂ ∂ for a bubble can be obtained in terms of surface tension (Eq. 5.29):
( )
1/3
1/3
p p p
p 1 4 2 1
1 2 1 2 1
P P r 3m P 3r P
∂ ρ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ∂ρ
∂ ∂ π σ
= − σ = − σ = − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ρ ∂
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
g
g
g g g g g
5.39
The LHS of Eq. 5.38 normalized by the pressure change can be written for constant mass as:
mo m m m m
mo 2
mo m mo
(1/ ) 1 1
p p p p
⎛ ⎞ ρ δ∀ δ ρ δρ ∂ρ
= ρ = − ≈ −
⎜ ⎟
∀ δ δ ρ δ ρ ∂
⎝ ⎠
5.40
If one assumes adiabatic isentropic processes, Eq. A.20 indicates that the two terms in
parentheses on the RHS of Eq. 5.38 are related to the speed of sound for the liquid and the gas
while the term in parentheses on RHS of Eq. 5.40 is related to the speed of sound of the
mixture. Therefore, combining the above equations and dropping the “o” subscript yields:
m m m
m 2 2 2 2
m m b b b
1 1
a p p 1 2 / 3 a r a a
⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞
⎛ ⎞ ∂ρ ∂ρ ρ α −α
≡ = = +ρ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ − σ ρ ρ ρ
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
g g l l
s s
5.41
206
This result was extended by Brennen (2005) to include effects of mass transfer in the form of
evaporation and condensation.
The above equation can be simplified by neglecting surface tension, which is reasonable if
2
p
a r σ ρ <
g g
and consistent with d>10 μm. This assumption leads to the wellknown Minnaert
(1933) equation:
2 2 2
m m
1 1
a a a
α −α
= +
ρ ρ ρ
g g l l
adiabatic bubblyflow speed of sound
5.42
This result is equivalent to stating that the mixture acoustic impedance (LHS) is equal to the
volumetric average of the acoustic impedance for the particles and the surrounding fluid.
[Interestingly, the Minnaert relationship combined with the dustygas assumptions of low
volume fraction and veryheavy particles leads to ( )
2 2
m
a a / 1 = + η
g
, which is the same result
given by Eq. 5.28 if
*
0 →
s
c .]
The above assumption of an isentropic process with no heat transfer allows the pressure
density derivative for the gasphase to be expressed as
2
P / a T ∂ ∂ρ = = γ
g g g g g
R . However, this
may be unreasonable if liquid temperature controls the bubble temperature so that it is
approximately isothermal while undergoing volume changes. This is especially true if there is
high heat transfer rates caused by significant water liquid vapor within the bubble or bubble
surface to volume ratios are high (smaller bubbles). In this case, the pressuredensity
derivative should be expressed as P / T ∂ ∂ρ =
g g g g
R , so that one should substitute
2 2
a / for a γ
g g
in
Eqs. 5.41 and 5.42 to obtain isothermal relationships. Figure 5.3a shows a comparison of
experimental data of gas bubbles in water with the speed of sound predictions from adiabatic
and isothermal assumptions at zero frequency. In general, the isothermal approximation is
reasonable over a wide range of volume fractions, consistent with a mixedfluid with infinite
heat transfer rates. It is interesting to note that intermediate volume fractions for adiabatic or
isothermal conditions lead to a sonic velocity which is substantially less than either of the
singlephase velocities! Because of this, choked flow of bubbly systems can occur at quite
modest speeds. As such, compressibility corrections should be considered whenever the
mixture Mach number is no longer small, e.g., if M
m
>0.2 (which can correspond to speeds as
low as 4 m/s in air/water mixtures).
If one further assumes liquid incompressibility to simply the process, the isothermal
mixture speed of sound of Eq. 5.42 becomes:
2
m
p
a
(1 )
=
⎡ ⎤ α ρ −α +ρ α
⎣ ⎦
l g
5.43
This “reduced isothermal prediction” yields results which are quite similar to the fully
compressible isothermal predictions as shown in Fig. 5.3a with differences of only about 1%
for α>10
3
. However, the reduced isothermal prediction is undefined (tends to infinity) for
α→0. This reduced prediction can also be linearized for small but finite void fraction to give
an even simpler expression:
2
m
a p / ≈ αρ
l
5.44
This “linearized isothermal prediction” is not valid in either the very small or very large
volume fraction limits, but is reasonable for 0.001<α<0.1 (Fig. 5.3a).
207
Now, let us consider bubbly flow subjected to frequencies that are no longer small
compared to the natural frequency of the bubble (f
nat
, Eq. 2.66). In this case, we need to include
the bubble size dynamics via the RayleighPlesset equation of Eq. 2.64 instead of the quasi
steady pressure balance given by Eq. 5.29. Brennen (2005) discusses a linearized approach to
determine the coherent portion of the wave speed as a function of the signal frequency (f).
This is based on the same assumptions used for Eq. 5.35 (bubbles with negligible mass in an
incompressible liquid) and yields a wave speed as a dispersion relation
( )
2 2 2
2 2
p,eq nat 2
m diss 2 2
nat nat eq eq
4 r
a 1 c
3 1
⎡ ⎤
π
= + − ⎢ ⎥
−α α
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
f
f f
f f
5.45
In this equation, α
eq
and r
p,eq
refer to an equilibrium volume fraction and bubble radius about
which the cycle oscillations will occur, where the latter can be obtained by Eq. 5.29. Also,
included is a dissipation constant (c
diss
) which represents the effective damping due to viscous
effects, acoustic radiation, etc. If the only damping is due to viscosity (caused by the radial
motion of bubble interface), then the damping coefficient can be given as
diss 2
nat p,eq
2
c
r
ν
=
π
l
f
5.46
Brennen (2005) discusses inclusion of other effects such as mass transfer.
The differences between Eq. 5.44 and Eq. 5.45 indicate significantly different physics
between the lowfrequency regime and the highfrequency regime. First of all, there is no
damping for lowfrequencies whereas the damping can be very high for the highfrequency
regime, especially as volume fraction increases. Because of this, most experimental studies on
attenuation have been limited to volume fraction below 1%. Secondly, the highfrequency
relation of Eq. 5.45 indicates that the wave propagation is dispersive which is caused by
scattering from the bubbles as they oscillate. This leads to an incoherent portion of the wave
speed if the bubble distribution is randomly distributed. A third issue is that the wave speed is
sensitive to the bubble diameter. This is indicated in Fig. 5.3b where the prediction of wave
speed as a function of frequency is much improved if the polydisperse distribution is taken into
account (as compared to a monodisperse prediction based on a mean bubble size). This figure
(for a small volume fraction of 0.02%) also indicates that while the speed of sound is reduced
compared to the singlephase speed for low frequencies, it can actually be increased for high
frequencies. It should also be noted that c
diss
was empirically set to be 0.5 to match the
experimental results (which was much greater than the value given by Eq. 5.46) and the
attenuation is found to increase dramatically (by several orders of magnitude) for frequencies
close to the natural frequency (Drew and Passman, 1999; Brennen 2005). This suggests that
some form of the RayleighPlesset equation with liquid compressibility (e.g. Eq. 2.73) should
be integrated for these conditions. If the wave speed is on the order of the gas speed of sound
(typical for shock fronts in dilute bubbly mixtures) then the internal gas pressure should be
obtained by solution of the compressible flow equations (Kameda & Matsumoto, 1996). For
an Eulerian treatment of mixedfluid, the ODEs for the bubble dynamics and internal gas
dynamics can be applied on average over a cell volume.
Solid or Liquid Particles in a Compressible Liquid
208
The compressibility of a mixture of particles in a liquid can predicted by using Minneart’s
impedance relationship for the speed of sound of a mixture (Eq. 5.42) by assuming both phases
are represented with a single velocity and a single pressure field and fourway coupling and
surface tension effects are negligible. Experimental results for water containing small solid
particles (about 1 micron in diameter) are shown in Fig. 5.4 where the agreement with
Minneart’s impedance relationship can be seen to be quite reasonable (Brennen, 2005). If both
phases are incompressible (e.g., solid particles in a lowspeed liquid), then no equation of state
is needed for the mixture.
5.2. MixedFluid Methodologies
5.2.1. MixedFluid Transport Equations
The Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) which govern mixedfluid flow are based on
transport equations similar to that of singlephase flow, i.e. continuity, momentum and energy.
However, as additional transport equation for dispersedphase mass transport is needed. These
PDEs are discussed below in an Eulerian framework, which is consistent with typical
numerical implementation.
Particle Mass and MixedFluid Mass Transport
It should be noted that two conservation equations are generally needed for the mixedfluid
methodology: one for mass for the dispersed fluid (which allows determination of the α
distribution) and one for mass for the mixedfluid (which allows determination of the ρ
m
distribution). Note that each of these transport equations must be supplemented with proper
boundary and initial conditions for solution as well as the equation of state for the mixture
(discussed in the previous section). For the particle concentration, the transport equation of Eq.
4.73 can be obtained in the mixedfluid limit as
( )
( ) ( )
p
p m p Br p
p
m
t
∂ αρ
α
⎡ ⎤
+∇⋅ αρ = +∇⋅ Θ ∇ αρ
⎣ ⎦
∂ ∀
v ` 5.47
This includes the rate of mass transfer per particle from the continuousphase to the dispersed
phase
p f
(m m ) = − ` ` which may occur because of evaporation, condensation, solidification, etc.
This can be complimented with the continuousphase equation given by Eq. 4.30. However, a
mixedfluid mass transport (based on the linear combination of the particlephase and
continuousphase equations) is instead more commonly used:
( ) ( )
m
m m Br p
t
∂ρ
⎡ ⎤
+∇⋅ ρ = ∇⋅ Θ ∇ αρ
⎣ ⎦
∂
v 5.48
The RHS term can be neglected if the Brownian diffusion speeds of Eq. 3.140 are relatively
small, i.e.
Br,i m,i
w v ′′ < .
209
For dustygas flows with negligible Brownian motion, the transport equation for the mixed
fluid density is simply
( )
m
m m
0
t
∂ρ
+∇⋅ ρ =
∂
v 5.49
However, the transport equation is often written in terms of the mass loading since the volume
fraction is generally negligible. Assuming no mass transfer, the mixedfluid version of the
continuousphase flow (Eq. 4.30) becomes
( )
f
f m
0
t
∂ρ
+∇⋅ ρ =
∂
v 5.50
Combining this PDE with the dustygas version of Eq. 5.47 and the approximation of Eq.
3.154b yields a transport equation for the mass loading (Collins et al. 1994):
f f m
0
t
∂η
ρ +ρ ∇⋅ η =
∂
v 5.51
Therefore, the mass conservation transport PDEs for dustygas are given by Eqs. 5.49 and 5.51.
If both phases are incompressible (ρ
f
and ρ
p
are constant), the transport equations for
mixture density and the volume fraction (Eqs. 5.47 and 5.48) will be simplified. If one further
assumes negligible effects of mass transfer and Brownian motion, then
m
/ t 0 ρ ≈ D D so that the
mass conservation equations become:
m
m
0
t
0
∂α
+ ⋅ ∇α =
∂
∇⋅ =
v
v
5.52a
5.52b
This combination of a passive transport PDE for the volumetric fraction coupled with a
divergencefree mixture velocity field is commonly used for bubbly flows. The latter
incompressibility condition eliminates the need for an equation of state so that the pressure can
be obtained in a manner similar to the case of incompressible singlephase flow solvers, e.g.,
via a Poisson equation, as is be discussed at the end of this section.
For very lowspeed flows with significant particle volume fraction, it may be important to
retain the Brownian effects with an incompressible version of Eq. 5.47 and further include
mass diffusion associated with fluidshear effects. For the latter, Leighton & Acrivos (1987)
modeled the diffusion associated with spatial variations in mixedfluid viscosity ratio (Eq.
5.10) and mixedfluid shear rate (Eq. 5.17):
( ) ( )
2 2 2 *
m Br m,shear m m,shear m
c d c d ln
t
α
∂α
⎡ ⎤
+ ⋅ ∇α = ∇⋅ Θ ∇α+ α∇ αω + α ω ∇ μ
⎣ ⎦
∂
v 5.53
Compared to Eq. 5.47, there are two new terms on the RHS due to threeway coupling in
addition to that associated with Brownian diffusion. One of these is associated with gradients
in the shear rate and represents effects of hydrodynamic interactions between particles. The
other term is associated with gradients in viscosity which arise from particle concentration
gradients. These two terms include two empirical coefficients c
α
and c
m
which Subia et al.
(1998) respectively set as 0.1 and 0.15 based on comparisons with experiment at low shear
Reynolds numbers (Re
ω
«1). Anisotropic versions of these terms were found to give improved
agreement with experiments as discussed by Fang et al. (2002).
210
MixedFluid Momentum and Energy Transport
It is helpful to define a mixedfluid viscous shear stress similar to that used in Eq. A.9:
m, j m,i m,k
m,ij m ij
j i k
v v v
2
K
x x 3 x
⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂ ∂
≡ μ + − δ
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
5.54
Noting that the mixedfluid density (Eq. 5.4) and the mixedfluid viscosity (§5.1.2) are both
functions of the volume fraction, the mixedfluid momentum transport of Eqs. 4.26b and 4.27
can be written as
( )
( )
m m
m m m m m,ij
p K
t
∂ ρ
+∇⋅ ρ = ρ −∇ +∇
∂
v
v v g 5.55
This approaches the singlephase momentum equation of Eq. A.6a and A.9 for small volume
fraction and is equivalent to the mixedfluid PDE of Table 4.1 if flow divergence effects are
neglected (Eq. 5.52a). This form assumes negligible collisions with respect to the pressure so
that continuousphase pressure is sufficient to describe the pressure stresses. As discussed in
§3.8.2, neglecting particleparticle collisions is reasonable for small Stokes numbers, which is
consistent with the mixedfluid assumption (Eq. 5.1). If combined with the continuity equation
of Eq. 5.49 (which neglects Brownian motion), the RHS can be written as
m m
/ t ρ v D D ,
approaches the singlephase form given by Eq. A.6b for small volume fraction:
The conservation of mixedfluid energy is generally formulated based on the characteristics
of the continuousphase. If the continuousphase is a compressible gas and both the potential
energy and phase change enthalpy are neglected, then it is numerically convenient to express
the mixedfluid energy transport in conservative form. Using the total energy (as in Eq. A.13)
and a mixedfluid velocity yields:
( )
( ) ( )
m m,tot
m m,tot m m m m,ij m m m
e
e K p ( T )
t
∂ ρ
⎡ ⎤
+∇⋅ ρ = ρ ⋅ ∇⋅ − ⋅ +∇⋅ ∇
⎣ ⎦
∂
v g v + v k
5.56
In the above equation, k
m
is the mixedfluid thermal conductivity coefficient (Eq. 5.30), K
m,ij
is
the mixedfluid viscous stress (Eq. 5.54), and e
m,tot
is the total energy of the mixture which
includes both internal energy and kinetic energy. The internal energy can be written in terms
of the mixedfluid temperature using the mixedfluid specific heat of Eq. 5.9:
1 2 2
1
2 m,tot m m p,m m m
2
e e v c T v ≡ + = +
5.57
If one employs the dusty gas approximation, the continuousphase is assumed to be a
calorically perfect gas and the dispersed phase is a solid or liquid with negligible volume
fraction but much higher density, i.e. 1 α < and
p f
ρ ρ > . In this case, use of Eq. 5.26b
allows the mixedfluid total energy to be represented as
( ) ( )
1 * 2
m,tot p, m m
2
e 1 T / 1 v = + η + η +
g s
c c
5.58
On the other hand, if the initial and boundary conditions include no temperature variations (as
in many lowspeed flows and bubbly flows), this yields isothermal conditions so that the
energy equation can be dropped entirely (Ahuja et al. 2000).
Numerical Issues
211
Because of their similarity, standard singlephase techniques can be used for the mixed
fluid equations if their mathematical and resolution properties are similar. For example,
steadystate mixedfluid PDEs are typically solved with the same convergence acceleration
techniques used for singlephase flow, e.g., the local timestepping and multigrid schemes of
§B.3.2. However, the multiphase PDEs include and additional transport equation for the
dispersedphase mass transport. While this PDE can sometimes be treated like a variable
density mass continuity PDE, conditions with high spatial gradients in particle concentration
(due to concentration fronts) may require special techniques. In particular, nonlinear and/or
higherorder schemes (mentioned in §B.3.2) are commonly used to ensure that numerical
diffusion does not become problematic.
The compressibility of the phases will also be critical to the application of the numerical
techniques. For example, a dustygas variable formulation (Eqs. 5.49, 5.51, 5.55, 5.56 and
5.58) can be expressed in the conservative fluxbased forms (Eqs. B.75 and B.76) and can be
solved with the explicit compressible schemes (§B.3.4). This can be used in combination with
a dustygas equation of state (Eq. 5.24). On the other hand, an incompressible bubbly flow
formulation (Eqs. 5.52 and 5.55) can be solved with primitive variables using pressurebased
techniques (§B.3.3). If an implicit threestep MAC technique (Eqs. B.70, B.71b and B.71c) is
used, Eqs. B.54b and 5.55 are transformed as:
( )
( )
( )
n
1 pred n n n 1
m,i m,i pred,i pred,i
2
m i
pred 2
m,i
m
2
i i
n 1 pred
m,i m,i
f i
1 p
v v t 3
x
v p
x t x
p
t
v v
x
−
+
∂
= + Δ −
ρ ∂
∂ ∂ Δ
ρ
=
∂ Δ ∂
∂ Δ
Δ
= −
ρ ∂
 f f
5.59a
5.59b
5.59c
Note that Eq. 5.59b is implicit and must be solved iteratively for the pressure, which may
include a hydrostatic pressure gradient (Eq. A.56). The assumption of a constant gas density
required for this formulation is reasonable if the pressure variations are weak. For example, a
water flow with vertical changes of 0.1m or less and velocity changes of 1 m/s or less will lead
to pressure changes of 1% or less (based on Eq. A.41). For larger pressure changes, one may
need to take into account compressibility of the bubbles using a conservativevariable
formulation and a bubbly flow equation of state (e.g., Eq. 5.29 or Eq. 5.35).
5.2.2. TimeAveraged Transport Equations
The above mixedfluid approach can be directly used in turbulent flows by resolving all
scales with an unsteady threedimensional approach and application of the full unsteady
NavierStokes equations. However, timeaveraged formulations are often employed to reduce
the numerical resources required for simulation. These formulations represent the turbulence
with mean integralscale values (to model mean turbulent diffusion, etc.), so that only the
criteria of Eq. 5.3b are needed to employ a mixedfluid approach. Such formulations below
212
can be also considered in an LES framework assuming the particle dynamics are weak, i.e.
St
Δ
«1 (discussed in §4.2.2).
Since the mixedfluid can have a variable density, the timeaveraged equations are best
obtained with the densityweighting, i.e. using Favreaveraging (discussed in §A.5.5). For
example, the Favreaveraging and decomposition for a mixedfluid property are given by:
m m
m
m
q
q
ρ
≡
ρ
¯ 5.60a
m m m
q q q′′ = + ¯
5.60b
The double prime superscript denotes the densityweighted perturbation. The averaging
properties of Eqs. A.111 and A.112 similarly apply. For the mixedfluid density, one may also
combine Eqs. 5.4 and 5.60a as
( ) ( )
m m p m f m m m p f m
q q 1 q q 1 q
⎡ ⎤
ρ = ρ α +ρ −α = ρ = ρ α+ρ −α
⎣ ⎦
¯ ¯
5.61
Therefore, Favreaveraging also applies to the volumeaveraged phase densities, e.g.,
p m p m
q q ρ α = ρ α¯ 5.62
In the following, the mixedfluid properties are discussed followed by formulation of the
Favreaveraged mass, momentum and energy mixedfluid equations in tensor notation.
Timeaveraged Mixture Properties
The mean mixture density can be obtained from Eq. 5.4 as:
( )
m p f p f
1 ′ ′ ′ ′ ρ = ρ α+ ρ −α +ρ α −ρ α 5.63
The RHS is commonly simplified by neglecting the fluctuation terms. This is obviously
appropriate if the particle and fluid phase density are constant (e.g., solid particles in a liquid).
Even when turbulence causes significant phase density fluctuations, these fluctuation terms can
typically be neglected. For the example of a dustygas, the particle density is typically constant
(so
p
0 ′ ′ ρ α = ) while the turbulenceinduced variations of the surrounding gas density are
negligibly correlated with those of particle volume fraction (i.e.
f f
′ ′ ρ α ρ < ). In the other
extreme of a bubbly flow, the surrounding liquid density can be considered constant (so
f
0 ′ ′ ρ α = ) while any turbulenceinduced changes in the bubble density will be negligible
compared because
p f
(1 ) ′ ′ ρ α ρ −α < . Thus, the mean mixedfluid density is approximately:
( )
m p f
1 ρ ≈ ρ α+ ρ −α
5.64
As a result, the instantaneous variation of the mixedfluid density is given as:
( )
m m m p f
′ ′ ρ ≡ ρ − ρ ≈ α ρ − ρ
5.65
Thus, volume fraction fluctuations affect the instantaneous mixedfluid density but not the
mean mixedfluid density.
213
Using similar arguments, the mixedfluid viscosity can be similarly expressed in terms of
mean properties for dispersedphase conditions. For example, using the Einstein viscosity
correction of Eq. 5.11 yields:
( )
m m m m m m f
1 2.5 μ = ρ ν = ρ ν ≈ ρ ν + α ¯ ¯ 5.66
Other property relations (e.g., c
p
, k
m
, a
m
, e
p
, e
f
, etc.) can be correspondingly expressed as
functions of only mean volume fraction, density, pressure etc.
MixedFluid Equation of State
If either of the phases are themselves significantly compressible, a mixedfluid equation of
state is needed to relate
m
and p. ρ For the dustygas equation of state (Eqs. 5.24 and 5.25),
the timeaverage can be approximated as:
( )
m m m m
p 1 T T + η = ρ ≈ ρ
g g
R R
m m m m
m
T T
p T
1 1 p / p
ρ ρ
= ≈ ≈ ρ
′ ′ + η + η+ η
g g
g g
R R
R
5.67a
5.67b
The approximation used in Eq. 5.67a is the conventional singlephase assumption (Speziale et
al. 1991) that the correlations between the gas density and temperature turbulent fluctuations
do not make a significant contribution to the mean pressure. This is generally reasonable
except for conditions of combustion or hypersonic flow. The approximation used in Eq. 5.67b
is that the pressure fluctuations of the gas are not strongly related to the mass loading
fluctuations, i.e. p p ′ ′ η η < . This is similar to the argument used to obtain Eq. 5.64.
For a bubbly flow with turbulent timescales larger than the thermal response timescale
(Eq. 1.93b), an isothermal behavior is expected and the instantaneous state relationship of Eq.
5.35 can be rewritten in terms of the local volume fraction (instead of α
o
) as:
( )
m mo
m
o mo mo
1
p
1
p
ρ −ρ −α
ρ
α = = − + α
ρ ρ
5.68
Taking a timeaverage of this equation and assuming p p ′ ′ α α < for “lowspeeds” yields a
mean equation of state given by:
m
o mo
p
1
p
ρ
α = − + α
ρ
5.69
This form is convenient in that it does not include any perturbation correlations.
To examine conditions where the criterion for “lowspeeds” is reasonable, note that typical
pressure fluctuations in turbulence are related to the velocity fluctuations, e.g.,
rms
p 0.6 u u ′ ′′ ′′ ρ ∼
l
(Hinze, 1975). If the velocity fluctuations are limited by
rms
u 0.1u ′′ < ¯ and the
mean velocity is limited by 13 m/s, then
rms
p 0.01p ′ < . Furthermore, Eq. 5.35 indicates that the
volume fraction and pressure are approximately inversely proportional, i.e. / p / p ′ ′ α α ≈ − so
that
4
p / p 10
−
′ ′ − α α < for lowspeeds with no mass transfer 5.70
214
This is the assumption is used often (e.g., Chahed et al. 2003) and a similar relationship can be
put forth regarding density,
p p
/ 1 ′ −ρ α ρ α < , and temperature. However, the above inequality
also assumes that the pressure frequencies are small compared to the bubble natural frequency
so that the bubble is near equilibrium and nonlinear volume oscillation effects are negligible.
Transport Equations for MixedFluid Density and Volume Fraction
The timeaverage of the mixedfluid continuity equation (Eq. 5.48) gives
( )
m m,i
m
i
v
0
t x
∂ ρ
∂ρ
+ =
∂ ∂
5.71
An unsteady term is retained as a numerical convenience to provide a “pseudosteady”
formulation (introduced with Eq. A.114) which allows a timemarching schemes to converge
the solution to a steadystate. Using Eq. 5.60a, a Favreweighted average yields:
( )
m m,i
m
i
v
0
t x
∂ ρ
∂ρ
+ =
∂ ∂
¯
5.72
This averaging eliminates the fluctuating correlations which would have occurred with a
Reynoldsaverage (e.g., compare Eq. A.113a to Eq. A.113b). Similarly, the timeaverage of
the mixedfraction PDE (Eq. 5.47) with a “pseudosteady” formulation is given by:
( ) ( )
( )
p p m,i
p Br p
i p
v
m
t x
∂ ρ α ∂ ρ α
α
⎡ ⎤
+ = +∇⋅ Θ ∇ ρ α
⎣ ⎦
∂ ∂ ∀
` 5.73
Based on Eq. 5.64, the volumeaveraged phase densities can be used for Favreaveraging (Eq.
5.61) so that the transport equation becomes:
( ) ( )
( )
p p m,i
p Br p
i p
v
m
t x
∂ ρ α ∂ ρ α
α
⎡ ⎤
+ = +∇⋅ Θ ∇ ρ α
⎣ ⎦
∂ ∂ ∀
¯
` 5.74
Again, it is seen that Favreaveraging can eliminate turbulent fluctuation correlations. If the
particles are incompressible and one neglects Brownian motion and mass transfer and does not
retain the artificial unsteady term, then the mixturefraction PDE is greatly simplified:
( )
m,i
i
v
0
x
∂ α
=
∂
¯
5.75
This result indicates that the volumefraction weighted velocity is divergencefree. This
property may be exploited numerically with a pressurebased solver, similar to the use of Eqs.
5.59b and 5.59c for Eq. 5.52b For chemical reactions and other special cases, it may be useful
to employ an additional transport equation for ′ ′ α α , which can then be used to prescribe a
probability distribution function for the volume fraction.
For later transport equations, the difference between the Reynoldsaveraged velocity and
the Favreaveraged velocity is needed and this can be obtained with Eqs. 5.59 and A.112:
m,i m,i m m,i m m,i m,i
v v v / v v ′ ′ ′ ′′ − = ρ ρ = = ¯ 5.76
The term on the RHS is sometimes expressed as the drift velocity (Viollet & Simonin, 1994)
and represents the flux associated with turbulent mixing, i.e. it causes mean mixedfluid
215
density to diffuse. This term requires turbulence modeling as will be discussed in a later sub
section.
MixedFluid Momentum Transport
For the mixedfluid momentum, a conservative form is often employed since the density
variations due to the multiphase properties can be substantial (§B.3). Applying a timeaverage
with a “pseudosteady” formulation to Eq. 5.55 yields:
( ) ( )
m m,i m m,i m, j
m, j m,i m,k
m i m
j i i j i k
v v v
v v v
p 2
g
t x x x x x 3 x
⎡ ⎤
∂ ρ ∂ ρ
⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂ ∂
∂ ∂
⎢ ⎥
+ = ρ − + μ + −
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
5.77
By employing Favreaveraging (Eq. 5.60), the triplecorrelation on the LHS can be simplified.
The velocity gradient terms on the RHS can also be simplified and then approximated as
m, j m, j m, j m, j
m m m m m m m
i i i i
v v v v
x x x x
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
μ = ρ ν = ρ ν ≈ ρ ν
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
¯
¯ 5.78
The last approximation assumes that the variations in the effective viscosity are not
significantly correlated to the fluctuations in the velocity gradient, e.g.,
m m, j
v 0 ′′ ′′ ν ≈ . This is
quite common and is consistent with using a quasisteady viscosity expressions (§5.1.2). The
momentum equation can then be rewritten as
( ) ( )
( )
m m,i m, j m m,i
m i
j i
m m,i m, j
m, j m,i m,k
m m
i j i k j
v v v
p
g
t x x
v v
v v v
2
x x x 3 x x
∂ ρ ∂ ρ
∂
+ = ρ −
∂ ∂ ∂
′′ ′′ ∂ ρ ⎡ ⎤
⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂ ∂
∂
+ ρ ν + − − ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
¯ ¯ ¯
¯ ¯ ¯
¯
5.79
This is similar to Eq. A.115b for a singlephase stratifieddensity field. To close the equations,
the velocity fluctuation tensor correlation (
m,i m, j
v v ′′ ′′ ) requires turbulence modeling, which will
be discussed in a later subsection.
MixedFluid Energy Transport
The average energy equation can also be obtained using enthalpy, internal energy or total
energy as the transport variable. There are many forms of the average energy equation
resulting from a variety of assumptions and choices of enthalpy or energy for the transport
variable (e.g., Bilger, 1976; Kuo, 1986, Shyy et al. 1997; Chung 2002). If total energy is used
for the transport variable, timeaveraging Eq. 5.56 yields:
( ) ( )
m m,tot m m,tot m,i
m
m i m,i m,i m,ij m, j m
i i i
e e v
T
g v pV K v
t x x x
∂ ρ ∂ ρ
⎛ ⎞
∂ ∂
+ = ρ − + +
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
+ k 5.80
Application of Favreaveraged with a simplification of the heat transfer term yields:
216
( ) ( )
( )
m m,tot m m,tot m,i
m
m i m,i m,i m m, j m,ij
i i i
m m,tot m,i m,i m,ij m,i m,ij
i
e e v
T
g v pv v K
t x x x
e v v K v K
x
∂ ρ ∂ ρ
⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂
+ = ρ − + +
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
∂
′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ −ρ + +
∂
+
+
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯
¯ ¯ ¯
¯
k
5.81
The heat transfer term was simplified using two assumptions: 1) the thermal conductivity
coefficients of each phase given in Eq. 5.8 are constant so that mixedfluid conductivity is only
a function of α , and 2) the temperature fluctuations are weakly correlated to the density
fluctuations so that
m m
T T ≈
¯
. Both of these assumptions are generally reasonable for low
speed flows (Bilger, 1976). The total internal energy on the LHS includes internal and kinetic
energy (Eq. 5.57) and can also be written in terms of Favreaveraged temperature by assuming
the specific heats of each phase (Eq. 5.9) are constant:
( )
1 1
m m,tot m p,p m,tot m,i m,i m p,p m,tot m,i m,i m,i m,i
2 2
m p,p p p,p f p,f
e T v v T v v v v
(1 )
′′ ′′ ρ = ρ + ≈ ρ + +
ρ ≈ αρ + −α ρ
¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯
c c
c c c
5.82a
5.82b
The RHS mixedfluid fluctuations of total energy can then be expressed as:
( ) m m,i m p,m m m,i m m,k m,k m,i m,k m,k m,i
e v T v v v v v v v ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ρ = ρ + ρ + ¯ ¯ c
5.83
Additional correlations appear with respect to the viscous shear stress, e.g.,
m, j m,i m,k
m,ij m ij
j i k
v v v
2
K
x x 3 x
⎛ ⎞ ′′ ′′ ′′ ∂ ∂ ∂
′′ = μ + − δ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
5.84
The RHS neglects fluctuations between the viscosity and the velocity and utilizes the drift
velocity of Eq. 5.76. As such, the above transport equations require relations for terms such as
m m,i
v ′ ′ ρ ,
m,i m, j
v v ′′ ′′ and
m m,i
T v ′′ ′′ , which are (finally) discussed in the following.
Turbulence Modeling
The above transport equations involve correlations quite similar to the singlephase counter
parts discussed in §A.5.5. For example,
m m,i
v ′ ′ ρ is associated with diffusion of the mixedfluid
density from regions of high concentration to regions of low concentrations. To show this
qualitatively, consider the turbulent mixing shown in Fig. A.18 and assume that the upper
white region has no particles while the lower black region represents fluid mixed with many
particles such that it has a higher mixedfluid density, i.e.
m
/ y 0 ∂ρ ∂ < . In this case, an
upward velocity fluctuation (
m,y
v 0 ′ > ) will tend to carry high density fluid from below to upper
regions introducing a local increase in the mixedfluid density (
m
0 ′ ρ > ). Similarly, a
downward velocity would tend to carry lower density fluid producing a local decrease in the
mixedfluid density. In both cases, this leads to
m m,i
v ′ ′ ρ >0 which is an upward diffusion and is
in the opposite direction of the mixedfluid density gradient. Furthermore, increased mean
gradients will lead to increases turbulent transport of the density perturbations. Furthermore,
high spatial gradients in mixedfluid density and high turbulent viscosity levels can both be
expected to increase the diffusion magnitude. Based on the above phenomenology, one may
217
expect that
m m,i
v ′ ′ ρ will be related to
m
−∇⋅ ρ and to μ
turb,m
. Indeed, the densityvelocity
correlations can be modeled via Fickian diffusion as is used for the singlephase transport (Eq.
A.121) as :
turb,m
m
m m,i m m,i
turb i
v v
Sc x
μ
∂ρ
′′ ′ ′ ρ = ρ = −
∂
5.85
The negative sign is consistent with diffusion in the opposite direction of the gradient and
indicates that the drift velocity identified in Eq. 5.76 serves to reduce the mixedfluid density
gradient. As with the continuousphase version, Sc
t
is generally taken as 0.7 based on several
experiments which compared turbulent mass diffusion to turbulent momentum diffusion (Faeth,
1987).
A similar argument can be made regarding the Favreaveraged temperature and velocity
fluctuations so that one may expect one may expect that
m m,i
T v ′′ ′′ will be related to
m
T −∇⋅
¯
and
to μ
turb,m
. Again applying a Fickian diffusion model yields:
turb,m
m
m m m,i
turb i
T
T v
Pr x
μ
∂
′′ ′′ ρ = −
∂
¯
5.86
This form uses a turbulent Prandtl number which is the ratio of momentum diffusion to thermal
diffusion, which is analogous to the laminar version given by Eq. A.52 and is generally taken
as 0.9 (Shyy et al. 1997).
Perhaps the most important correlation is
m,i m, j
v v ′′ ′′ which is needed to close the momentum
equation. This term is associated with diffusion of the mixedfluid momentum from regions of
high velocity to regions of low velocity. As with the temperature and density, this term is
expected to be proportional to the density gradients and turbulent viscosity. As with the single
phase equivalent given by Eqs. A.115b and A.116b, it is referred to as a turbulentstress on the
fluid and is typically modeled by assuming a Boussinesq gradient diffusion process:
m, j m,i m,k
m,ij m m,i m, j m,turb ij m m
j i k
v v v
2
K v v k
x x 3 x
⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂ ∂
′′ ′′ ′′ ≡ −ρ ≈ μ + − δ + ρ
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
¯ ¯ ¯
¯
¯
5.87
This closure model mimics the laminar viscosity stress which appears on the RHS of Eq. 5.79.
It also includes the turbulent kinetic energy to satisfy the condition when there are no spatial
gradients of the mean mixedfluid velocity:
1
m m,i m,i
2
k v v ′′ ′′ ≡
¯
5.88
The mixedfluid turbulent viscosity is also expected to scale with the strength of the turbulence.
As with the stratified flow relations of Eqs. A.117, A.122 and A.123, a common approach is to
model this viscosity in terms of the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation:
2
m,t m m,turb m m,turb m m m
c k /
μ
μ = ρ ν = ρ ν ≈ ρ ε
¯
¯ ¯ 5.89
In the RHS expression, c
μ
is the empirical constant widely taken as 0.09 (Eq. A.120) and
allows an effective viscosity given as.
( )
m,eff m m m,turb
μ = ρ ν + ν ¯ ¯
5.90
As such, closure of the above equations lastly requires equations for of the mixedfluid
turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation in terms of mean flow properties.
218
The most common approach for these two terms is to use a twoequation turbulence model.
For freeshear flows, a popular version of this is the k
m
ε
m
formulation (Faeth, 1987). In
particular, Favreaveraged transport PDEs can be written for both the mixedfluid kinetic
energy and dissipation to incorporate the physics associated with the convection, generation,
diffusion and dissipation using the methodology used for those in Eq. A.126:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
m m m m m,i
m, j
m
m,ij m,i m,eff m m
i i i i i
m m m,i m, j m m
m
m,ij m,i
i i i m
k k v
v
k p
K v
t x x x x x
v v
1.44 p
K v
t x x x k
∂ ρ ∂ ρ
∂ ⎛ ⎞
∂ ∂ ∂
′′ ′′ + = − + μ −ρ ε
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
∂ ρ ε ∂ ∂ ρ ε ⎛ ⎞ ε ∂
′′ ′′ + = −
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
¯ ¯
¯ ¯
¯
¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯
¯
2
m m
m,eff m
i i m
1.9
x x k
⎛ ⎞ ∂ε ε ∂
+ μ − ρ
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
¯ ¯
¯
5.91a
5.91b
As with Eqs. A.125b and A.126a, each LHS represents the mean convection with a “pseudo
steady” formulation. The first two terms on each RHS are the production terms associated
with the mean velocity and pressure gradients. Each of the third terms includes the effective
viscosity (Eq. 5.90) and represents the turbulent diffusion of the conserved quantity. The last
term represents dissipation and is therefore negative. The reader is referred to §A.5.5A.5.6 for
additional discussion on the assumptions and modeling issues associated with these equations.
There are several important aspects of these turbulence model equations. Firstly, they
employ empirical coefficients (0.09, 1.3, 1.44, 1.9, etc.) which have been obtained by
validation with simple shear flows, but which are not universal. Secondly, they arise from
simplifying assumptions that fluctuation correlations can be related to gradients of the mean
velocity field. Thirdly, several terms have been neglected in expressing these two equations.
Some of these are discussed by Shyy et al. (1997) and in fact there are many different versions
of the PDEs depending on which terms are included and how they are modeled, etc. Generally
these terms are secondary, but in some cases are helpful to improve calibration fidelity. Lastly,
these transport equations can be replaced by those of other turbulence models such as the kω
model (which tends to give better treatment for all boundary layers) and stresstensor models
which allow for the prediction of anisotropic turbulence intensities. Thus employment of this
approach for complex conditions, especially with NAsT flows can be expected to lead to
significant error.
Axisymmetric ShearLayer Examples
For axisymmetric freeshear flows with the boundary–layer approximation, the above
transport equations can be compactly summarized (Faeth, 1987) as:
( ) ( )
m m,x m m,r m,t
q
q
v q v q
q
r
x r r r r c r
⎛ ⎞ ∂ ρ ∂ ρ μ
∂ ∂
+ − =
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
¯ ¯
S
5.92
The source term and coefficients are given in Table 5.1 where the various q’s represent
transport quantities of mixedfluid mass, dispersedphase mass, mixedfluid momentum,
turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent dissipation. This formulation assumes low Mach
number isothermal freeshear flows so that wall effects associated with μ
m,t
and many of the
compressibility corrections are negligible. Faeth (1987) discussed the solution of these
219
equations for several multiphase flowfields whereby the coupled PDEs were solved by adding
timederivative terms to the transport equations, i.e. the “pseudounsteady” formulation
discussed in §A.5.5.
Sample predictions of this RANS mixedfluid approach are shown in Fig. 5.5 based on
particleladen circular jet data of McComb & Salih (1977, 1978). The particles for these flows
have small terminal velocities (
*
term
w 1 < ), so that the Stokes number criterion of Eq. 5.3b is
the most important constraint for use of the mixedfluid approximation. The titanium dioxide
particles (d=2.3 μm and ρ
p
=4,260 kg/m
3
) were consistent with a mixedfluid condition since
the particle response time (based on the local centerline conditions) was small, about St
Λ
~0.01.
As a result, they were reasonably modeled with the mixedfluid approximation. The tungsten
particles (d=5.7 μm and ρ
p
=19,300 kg/m
3
) were placed in a smaller jet and yielded a larger
response time (about St
Λ
~2). Consequently these higher inertia particles were not modeled
well with the mixedfluid approximation. In particular, these particles yielded reduced lateral
diffusion consistent with increased Stokes numbers (Fig. 3.21). Similar trends were found for
bubbly flows (Sun & Faeth, 1986; Loth & Faeth, 1989).
5.3. WeaklySeparatedFluid Methods
For many particle flows, the mixedfluid approach is often unacceptable since interphase
differences can have a significant effect on the mean convection of the individual phases. For
example, errors as large as 50% have been found with respect to experimental particle
concentrations and particle velocities once particle response times become significant (e.g., Fig.
5.5b). Furthermore, the physics of preferential concentration and turbophoresis can not be
captured with the mixedfluid approach, which assumes w≈0. Therefore, separatedfluid
representations of the particle and continuousfluid fields which directly take these differences
into account are more common. However, they are also more computationally demanding. An
intermediate option which retains the computational convenience of the mixedfluid method
but allows relative velocity physics is the weaklyseparatedfluid approach. This approach
assumes that the relative velocity is a function only of the instantaneous continuousphase
conditions and the particle response time. In its simplest form with w=w
term
, the weakly
separatedfluid approach has been called the “terminal velocity” or “laminar sedimentation”
approach (Hubert, 2001). The more general form has been called this the “fast Eulerian”
method by Ferry & Balachandar (2001) call the weaklyseparatedfluid method the “fast
Eulerian” method because of its computational efficiency while Rani & Balachandar (2003)
call it the “equilibrium Eulerian” method because it neglects the particle velocity history. In
general, this method is often reasonable for particles with finite but modest Stokes numbers
(e.g., less than unity) and is discussed below for both instantaneous and averaged continuous
phase flow fields.
5.3.1. WeaklySeparatedFluid Transport Equations
The basic concept of the weaklyseparatedfluid approach is to obtain the particle velocity
field solely from the instantaneous particle characteristics (e.g., size and density) and the
220
instantaneous continuousphase velocity and acceleration field (using the pointforce
approximation). This will require the particle response time influence to be small compared to
the continuousphase timescales so that the particle will not be significantly affected by
previous particle conditions, e.g., injection conditions are assumed to be unimportant.
Weaklyseparated Eulerian Particle Field
To obtain the weaklyseparatedfluid flow equations, the Lagrangian particle momentum
equation can be transformed into an Eulerian equation for particle velocity as a function of the
continuousphase properties (and independent of particle history). To do this, let us initially
assume that w«u and St«1 so that w may be considered in terms of a small perturbation
(whereas mixedfluid assumes w≈0 and St≈0). For the weaklyseparated condition, Eq. 3.5
is therefore appropriate since the difference between du
@p
/dt and Du
@p
/Dt (based on Eq. 1.15)
will be similarly small, i.e.
( ) ( )
@p @p @p
⋅ ∇ ⋅ ∇ w u u u <
5.93
In fact, this approximation becomes exact Re
p
«1 (Maxey, 1987). Based on Eq. 3.6 for a solid
spherical particle (which neglects Basset history, lift and particleparticle interactions), the
particle equation of motion can be rearranged as:
@p
@p p
(1 R) R
t t
⎡ ⎤
τ − + −
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
u
v
v = u + g
d
d
d d
5.94
The particle acceleration term on the RHS must be treated in order to allow the weakly
separated flow approach. Taking the Lagrangian time derivative of all the terms in Eq. 5.94
yields (Ferry & Balachandar, 2001):
( )
2
2
@p @p @p
p p 2 2
R
t t t t t
⎛ ⎞
= + τ − ≈ + τ
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
u u u
v v
( ( (
( (
d d d
d d
O
d d d d d
5.95
The first approximation indicates that the accelerations differ by a term of order τ
p
while the
second approximation is consistent with Eq. 3.5. Substituting this result on the RHS of Eq.
5.95 into the particle acceleration term on the RHS of Eq. 5.94 and applying Eq. 3.5 yields:
@p 2
@p p p
(1 R) O( )
t
⎛ ⎞
τ − τ
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
D
D
u
v = u + g  +
5.96
Substituting expressions for the terminal velocity (Eq. 1.82a) and the Eulerian time derivative
(Eq. 1.15) and neglecting the secondorder terms on the RHS (equivalent to assuming small τ
p
),
the firstorder “weaklyseparatedfluid” particle velocity is given by
( )
@p
@p term p @p @p
(R 1)
t
∂ ⎡ ⎤
= τ − + ⋅ ∇
⎢ ⎥
∂
⎣ ⎦
u
v u + w + u u
5.97
This is the equation obtained by Druzhinin (1995) and indicates that this equilibrium particle
velocity is simply a function of particle response time and the continuousphase properties.
221
The RHS of this equation can be obtained for each timestep to solve for the Eulerian
particle velocity field (which is independent to that at the previous timestep), e.g.
( ) ( )
n 1
@p n 1 n 1 n 1 n 1 n 1
@p term p @p @p
R 1
t
+
+ + + + +
⎡ ⎤ ∂
= τ − + ⋅ ∇
⎢ ⎥
∂
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
u
v u + w + u u
5.98
There are no stability constraints on this algebraic solution and the RHS timederivative term
can be obtained by backward differencing with the previous timestep or central differencing
with the n and n+2 timestep values of u
@p
for higheraccuracy. Ferry & Balachandar (2001)
extended the above derivation to include the secondorder terms and nonlinear response times
as well as the effects of lift and Bassethistory forces. However, Eq. 5.98 generally is
reasonable for Stokes numbers less than unity and Re
p
less than 10.
If the fluid accelerations and gradients are weak ( u / t g and u g / u ∂ ∂ ∇ < < ) or the particle
response time is negligible compared to fluid timescales, then Eq. 5.98 simply reverts to:
n 1 n 1
@p term
+ +
= v u + w
5.99
This is the “terminal velocity approach” whereby the particle velocity field is simply linearly
shifted from the continuousphase velocity field (both have the same acceleration field). In
either case, the above equations remove the need for integrating a particle momentum PDE.
The resulting velocity field from Eq. 5.98 or Eq. 5.99 can then be used in the particle
concentration PDE of Eq. 4.29a (assuming constant particle density) as:
p
j
j p p
m
v
t x
α
∂α ∂α
+ =
∂ ∂ ∀ ρ
`
5.100
For the terminal velocity approach, this equation simplifies to a linearized advection equation.
The numerical solution of the concentration transport equation is generally chosen to be
consistent with the methods used for the continuousfluid (App. B), i.e. same spatial
discretization and timestep integration. Note that for oneway coupled conditions, the
continuousphase velocity is independent of the particle velocity. This is especially convenient
for handling polydisperse size distributions, since one may then construct several bins to
describe the different sets of particle diameters (as discussed in §4.2.1). For a single solution
of u, the particle velocity fields for all the bins can be based on bin versions of Eq. 5.98. Each
of the particle velocity fields can then be used to determine each of the concentration fields
using bin versions of Eq. 5.100.
The weaklyseparatedfluid approach can also be extended to include some twoway
coupling by noting that the fluid dynamic surface force based on the above assumptions and
neglecting particle collisions can be written based on Eqs. 1.21 and 1.23 under the assumption
of constant particle mass. The surface force per unit particle volume can then be
approximately written in terms of the fluid acceleration by Eq. 5.95
@p
surf
p p
p
t t
⎛ ⎞
⎛ ⎞
= ρ − ≈ ρ −
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
∀
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
u
F v
g g
(
D
d
d D
5.101
The Lagrangian fluid acceleration term on the RHS can then be converted to a temporal and
spatial and derivatives of conservative quantities (e.g., Eq. A.6b). The modified RHS can then
be substituted into the continuousphase momentum equation (Eq. 4.31) and written using the
222
modified density of Eq. 5.4 as:
( )
( ) ( )
m
m m i j ij
K p
t
∂ ρ
+∇⋅ ρ = ρ ∇⋅ − δ
∂
u
uu g + 5.102
This twoway coupled weaklyseparatedfluid equation for u is identical to that for the mixed
fluid approach for V
m
given by Eq. 5.44. Thus, the continuousphase momentum in either
approach is only affected by the modified density (Ferry & Balachandar, 2001). Similarly, the
effect of the particles in terms of threeway coupling and mixture compressibility for the
weaklyseparatedfluid approach can also be included by using the mixedfluid properties
(§5.1.2 and §5.1.3).
WeaklySeparated Lagrangian Particle Field
An approach for a weaklyseparated Lagrangian particle field using an Eulerian
continuousphase flow field was developed by Healy & Young (2005) based on an integration
of the lineardrag particle dynamics equation of Eq. 3.6. In particular, one may use a central
difference in time to estimate the fluid acceleration along the particle path (based on Eq. B.49)
to incorporate its effect in terms of the include fluidstress force as:
( ) ( )
p p
t / t /
n 1 n 1 n n n 1 n
@p @p p @p @p
e (1 R) R / t 1 e
−Δ τ −Δ τ
+ + +
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
= + + τ − − Δ −
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
v u v  u g + u u
5.103
This is similar to the integration scheme of Eq. 3.8a except that it employs the continuousfluid
velocities at both timesteps. This requires that the continuousphase flow field be solved first
but ensures numerical stability even when the particle response times is small, i.e.
p
t τ Δ < .
Once the particle velocities at the old and new timesteps are known from Eq. 5.103, the
particle position may be similarly updated by modifying Eq. 3.8b to give:
( )
( ) ( )
( )
p
p
Δt/τ
n+1 n n+1/2
p p p
Δt/τ p n+1/2 n 1 n
@p p @p @p p
+τ 1 e
τ R
1 R τ Δt τ 1 e
t
−
−
+
= −
⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤
+ + − + − − −
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ Δ
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
x x v
u g u u
5.104
For nonlinear drag, the particle response time in Eqs. 5.1035.104 can be replaced with
n
p
τ ,
which can be computed using w
n
via Eq. 3.1. Note that this approach uses v
n
to help compute
v
n+1
, and as such can account for initial conditions. This is in contrast to the weaklyseparated
Eulerian approach which does not use v
n
at all, and thus can not allow for effects of initial
conditions as indicated Table 4.2. While the weaklyseparated Lagrangian approach is not
necessarily more efficient than the fullyseparated Lagrangian approach in terms of computing
the particle velocity, it is more computationally efficient in terms of computing particle
concentration fields as discussed in the following.
For a known Lagrangian particle velocity field, the local instantaneous particle
concentration may be obtain based on the number of particles within each cell (Eq. 4.6), but
such methods require many particles per cell to achieve highaccuracy, especially if twoway
coupling is important (Eq. 4.26). However, the weaklyseparated assumptions allow another
option which is much more computationally efficient. This method can be derived starting
from an Eulerian particle concentration PDE. For example, Eq. 5.100 can be expanded as
223
j j p
j
j j j p p
v v m
1 1
v
t x x t x
⎛ ⎞ ∂ ∂
∂α ∂α α ⎛ ⎞
+ + = + =
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
α ∂ ∂ ∂ α ∂ ∀ ρ
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
`
d
d
5.105
The LHS can be rearranged to yield a Lagrangian ODE for concentration change:
( )
p
p
m ln
t m
α
= −∇⋅ + v
`
d
d
5.106
This technique has been called the “full Lagrangian” method by Healy & Young (2005) since it
allows particle concentration to be carried as an additional quantity along trajectories. A key
for this method is to obtain the divergence of the particle velocity field, which is not normally
available with a Lagrangian method. However, the weaklyseparated conditions allows this
spatial derivative to be described using Eq. 5.97
( )
@p
@p p @p @p
(R 1)
t
∂ ⎡ ⎤
∇⋅ = ∇⋅ τ − ∇⋅ + ⋅ ∇
⎢ ⎥
∂
⎣ ⎦
u
v u + u u
5.107
Substituting this equation into Eq. 5.106 and discretizing with a centraldifferencing scheme
yields the concentration along a “representative” particle path defined by Eq. 5.103
( ) ( )
n 1/ 2
n 1
@p p
@p p @p @p n
p
m
ln t R 1
t m
+
+
⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎤ ∂
⎛ ⎞ α ⎪ ⎪
= Δ −∇⋅ − τ − ∇⋅ + ⋅ ∇ +
⎢ ⎥ ⎨ ⎬ ⎜ ⎟
α ∂
⎢ ⎥ ⎝ ⎠ ⎪ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦
⎩ ⎭
u
u u u
`
5.108
This can then be interpreted as an ODE for the parcel concentration. If the continuousphase
and particle momentum equations are first integrated to t
n+1
, then the RHS can be estimated
using Eqs. B.49 and B.50. The volume fraction along the path can then be integrated, though
care must be taken with the timestep so that that the RHS is small compared to unity to ensure
accuracy.
This method has several advantages. Firstly, note that all the terms on the RHS are
straightforward to obtain for an Eulerian discretization of continuousphase velocity field, e.g.,
the spatial derivatives at timesteps n and n+1 can be averaged while the temporal derivative
for n+1/2 can be obtained with central differencing between timesteps n and n+1. This
technique requires that each particle be initialized with the local particle concentration field
and then Eq. 5.108 can be used to find its temporal evolution. The particle concentration
within a computational cell is then simply given by the average within that cell, i.e.
j
j 1
N
1
N
Δ
=
Δ
α = α
∑
5.109
Other methods to convert the Lagrangian concentrations to Eulerian concentrations will be
discussed in §7.2.7. The major benefit of this method is that it is much more computationally
efficient than the conventional counting method of Eq. 4.6. For example, 2D particle
flowfield simulations by Healy & Young (2005) required only 200 pathlines with the full
Lagrangian method to obtain a statistically converged particle concentration, while about
20,000 conventional pathlines were required to produce the same level of accuracy.
224
WeaklySeparated Advantages
There are key numerical efficiency advantages to using the weaklyseparatedfluid
approach as compared to the conventional Eulerian separatedfluid methods. The major
advantage of the weaklyseparatedfluid approach is that the dispersedphase momentum PDEs
(three in 3D flow) are eliminated and replaced by the algebraic expression such as given in Eq.
5.98. This is particularly convenient if one wishes to describe several bins of the particle phase
to allow a polydisperse distribution. In addition, the separatedflow PDEs often limit the
particle velocity updates to timesteps based on some fraction of the particle response time
(e.g., Δt=τ
p
/8). This can be overly restrictive if τ
p
«τ
f
. While, there are some approximate
methods which can avoid this restriction (Ling et al. 1998), use of the weaklyseparated
approach allows Δt to be determined instead by τ
f
(as well as the PDE character and time
integration scheme as discussed in §B.3.2)
The major advantage of the weaklyseparatedfluid over the mixedfluid approach is an
improved description of particle velocity that can approach the separated (exact) solution. This
is demonstrated in Fig. 5.6a where the changes of particle velocity in a wallbounded turbulent
flow are reasonably reproduced up to a Stokes number of unity. Inclusion of the fluid
acceleration terms for the weaklyseparatedfluid approach (Eq. 5.97) tends to be somewhat
more accurate than that of the terminal velocity approach (Eq. 5.99). Similarly, Fig. 5.6b
shows that the relative velocity fluctuations (related to preferential bias) are reasonably
modeled with the weaklyseparated approach for St
+
<1. Note that the ability to incorporate the
particle dynamics associated at these conditions through Eq. 5.97, also allows the weakly
separated approach to capture the physics of nonlinear drag bias and turbophoresis directly,
whereas the terminal velocity or mixedfluid approaches can not capture preferential bias or
clustering bias.
However, it should be noted that the weaklyseparatedfluid approach can not easily
incorporate particle collisions in an Eulerian treatment. Because of this, nonphysically large
particle concentrations may occur due to streamline crossings if the instantaneous Stokes
numbers get too large (Ferry & Balachandar, 2001). Such errors in the particle transport (Eq.
5.100) can lead to sharp concentration gradients and numerical instabilities for higherorder
schemes. To prevent nonphysical concentration gradients and numerical instabilities, artificial
diffusion can be added (Rani & Balachandar, 2003). However, the inclusion of physical
diffusion (from Brownian motion or turbulence) in the transport equation can also eliminate
this problem. Incorporation of such diffusion is discussed in the next section.
5.3.2. TimeAveraged Transport Equation and Particle Velocity
As with the mixedfluid equations, timeaveraged weaklyseparatedfluid formulations for
turbulent flow may also be developed. Such time averaging assumes that the particle response
times do not exceed the integral timescales (i.e. St
Λ
<1) while for LES the particle response
times should not exceed the subgrid timescales (i.e. St
Δ
<1). A timeaverage of the mixture
fraction transport of Eq. 4.73 (which includes Brownian transport) can be used to obtain a PDE
for α . If the continuousphase is incompressible and does not include twoway coupling
effects, it is likely to be given in a Reynoldsaveraged formulation (e.g., Eqs. A.104a and
A.115a). In this case, it is helpful to use Reynoldsaveraging (not a Favreaveraging) for the
225
mixture fraction PDE. If one also retains the unsteady term for a pseudounsteady formulation,
the result becomes:
( )
i
i
Br
i i i i
v
v
t x x x x
∂ α ⎛ ⎞ ′ ′ ∂α ∂α ∂ ∂α
+ + = θ
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
5.110
For small particle inertias, the second term on the LHS can be modeled in the same manner as
Eq. 5.85 as a turbulent diffusion component (Young & Leeming, 1997):
( )
t ,m i
Br
i i t ,m i
v
t x x Sc x
⎡ ⎤
⎛ ⎞ μ ∂ α
∂α ∂ ∂α
+ = θ + ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
5.111
In order to apply this particle concentration transport equation, we need the timeaveraged
particle velocity field. This can be obtained directly from the continuousphase velocity field
through the weaklyseparatedfluid approach outlined below.
Averaged Particle Velocity
Using the perturbation assumption of Eq. 5.97, the timeaveraged particle velocity can be
written in terms of the terminal velocity and the massweighted continuousphase velocity as:
i@p i@p
i i@p term,i p j@p j@p
j j
u u
v u w (R 1) u u
x x
⎛ ⎞ ′ ∂ ∂
′ = + τ − + ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
+
5.112
As before, a correction is included based on particle response time. The last correlation term
on the RHS of Eq. 5.112 is related to nonhomogenous turbulence which will be discussed in
the next section. However, if the turbulence is approximately homogeneous and the spatial
gradients of the turbulence and the mean flow are weak, then the velocity gradient terms
become negligible and we recover the terminal velocity approach of Eq. 5.99
i i@p term,i
v u w = +
5.113
Experiments in gravitydominated ( Fr 1
Λ
> ) for have shown This has been found to be a
reasonable approximation for particles in homogeneous weak turbulence if the flow is dilute
and gravity dominated and the particle drag is linear (Crowe et al. 1996 and Brennen, 2005).
Note that variations due to twoway, threeway and fourway coupling can be incorporated
by including mixedfluid effects on the density, viscosity and collisional pressure. However,
there are three types of coupling conditions where the average relative velocity will be
significantly different than that given by the terminal velocity. These conditions include
unsteady effects associated with: 1) turbophoresis, 2) nonlinear drag bias, 3) preferential bias,
and 4) clustering bias. These are discussed in the following three subsections.
Turbulent Bias Effects
226
Let us consider flows with substantial spatial variations of the timeaveraged turbulence
intensity based on Eq. 5.112. In this case, a model for the correlation term on the far RHS
must be obtained. This term can be rewritten (temporarily dropping the “@p” notation) as
j j
i i
j i
j j j
u u u
u
u u
x x x
′ ′ ′′ ∂ ∂ ′ ∂
′ ′′ = −
∂ ∂ ∂
5.114
For incompressible flow, the second term on the RHS can be neglected since
j j
u / x ′ ∂ ∂ =0 (refer
to Eq. 5.69). The first term can then be modeled as in Eq. 5.87 for anisotropic turbulence, or as
1
3 i
k/ x ∂ ∂ for isotropic turbulence (Bocksell & Loth, 2006). Neglecting the mean velocity field
gradients, Eqs. 5.112 and 5.114 can be combined to give the change in relative velocity due to
turbulence gradients:
i j
i term,i k,i p
j
u u
w w w (R 1)
x
∇
′ ′ ∂
′′′ − = = −τ −
∂
for St 1
Λ
<
L
5.115
The RHS is the “turbophoretic velocity” seen by particles of small inertias. This reverts to that
derived for veryheavy particles in Eq. 3.128, whereby an increase of the turbulent kinetic
energy in one direction leads to a turbophoretic velocity in the opposite direction for a high
density particle (R>1) or in the same direction for a low density particle (R<1). As shown in
Fig. 3.25, the turbophoretic velocity (along with lift) is important to predict particle deposition
physics for St
+
of 0.1 to about 20 (corresponding to St
Λ
of about 0.01 to 1). This figure also
indicates that Brownian diffusion (RHS of Eq. 5.110) becomes more important at smaller
particle inertias, while turbulent diffusion (2
nd
term on LHS of Eq. 5.111) becomes more
important at higher inertias.
An assumption in the weaklyseparatedfluid approach is that the drag is linear so that the
mean relative velocity is simply equal to the terminal velocity. However, a nonlinear drag
behavior (variable τ
p
) coupled with finite fluctuations in the relative velocity will result in
w¯ <w
term
as discussed in §3.5.4. Furthermore, preferential concentration effects can be
incorporated for isotropic turbulence based on Eq. 3.122 so that Eq. 5.112 becomes:
i@p i@p j@p
i i@p Re,i pref,i p j@p
j j
u u u
v u w w (R 1) u
x x
⎛ ⎞ ′ ′ ∂ ∂
′′′ = + Δ + τ − + ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂
⎝ ⎠
+
5.116
This could also be extended to include cluster bias effects, but these are not well understood as
discussed in §3.5.5 and noted in Table 4.2.
5.3.3. Capability of Approaches for Particle Velocity Effects
To conclude this chapter, it is worthwhile to review the capabilities of the mixedfluid
techniques. The mixedfluid approach (and the other methods) can incorporate twoway and
threeway coupling effects based on modified density, viscosity, etc. It can also be employed
with a timeaveraged (or LES) description of the continuousphase flow. The main attribute of
mixedfluid approach is that it allows the simplest computational description of the multiphase
field, but can not account for any of the relative velocity or particle inertia effects (Table 4.2).
227
The weaklyseparated approach allows for any magnitude of terminal velocity to be
included and can also allow for weak inertial effects, e.g., St
D
<1 for non–turbulent flows and
St
λ
<1 for turbulent flows. For these conditions, the unsteady weaklyseparatedfluid approach
allows all the relative velocity effects to be included without need of ODEs or PDEs for the
particle velocity field. Favreaveraged continuousphase fields can also be employed with the
weaklyseparatedfluid approach to include terminal velocity effects in a timeaveraged sense.
However, these approaches can suffer limitations in terms of predicting preferential
concentration and associated bias effects, since these phenomena tend to be strongest for
Stokes numbers of order unity (§3.5.5).
Though not listed or discussed above, it should be noted that Large Eddy Simulations can
similarly incorporate the weaklyseparatedfluid approach to allow algebraic representations of
the particle velocity field if the particle dynamics are weak (i.e. St
Δ
<1). In this case, the
effects of turbophoresis can be modeled in a manner similar to that for a steady timeaveraged
approach, i.e. Eq. 5.116 can be interpreted as an LES transport equation if
i
u¯ represents the
unfiltered velocity field and
i
u′′ represents the filtered velocity field (§B.4). The separated
fluid approach is more robust as it can handle all particle Stokes numbers) but is
computationally intensive. Various formulations for the pointforce representations needed for
the separatedfluid approach are discussed in the next chapter.
5.4. Problems
5.1) Based on Eqs. 5.29 and 5.30, derive the bubblyflow speed of sound relations given by
Eqs. 5.41 and 5.42.
5.2) Consider a 1D mixedfluid multiphase flow moving at a constant velocity of 5 μm/s
which contains water and very small neutrallybuoyant constantdiameter spherical
particles so that a mixedfluid approach is appropriate.
a) Derive appropriate discretized equation for the Eulerian particle volume fraction.
b) Use these equations to solve for the unsteady volume fraction distribution in a domain
of x=0,L where L=100 μm with the initial conditions: α=0 for x≤0.4L, α=0.1 for
x≥0.5L and α varies linearly for 0.4L≤x≤0.5L. Use a grid resolution of 100 cells and
a sufficiently small temporal resolution to ensure timestep independence (and stability).
c) On one graph, plot the volume fraction distribution for t = 0, 1, 2 and 4 seconds and
discuss the trends and what effects, in any, are associated with your numerical scheme.
5.3) a) Starting from Eq. 5.54, derive the following mixedfluid momentum equation (and
state all assumptions requited):
( )
( )
m mi mj
mj
mi
m i m m,t m
j i i j i
v v
v
v p 2
g k
x x x x x 3
⎡ ⎤ ∂ ρ ⎛ ⎞ ∂
∂ ∂ ∂
= ρ − + μ +μ + − ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
¯ ¯
¯
¯
b) Based on Eq. 5.87, qualitatively explain the fluid physics which relate the mean
velocity gradients to the velocity fluctuations and the sign of this first term.
Quantitatively show that the second term must be included in Eq. 5.87 by considering i=j.
5.4) a) Starting with Eq. 1.77, derive Eq. 5.98 and show that is secondorder accurate with
respect to τ
p
. b) Continue with a timeaverage of this expression to obtain Eq. 3.128.
228
5.4) Starting with Eq. 5.105, derive Eq. 5.108.
5.5) Consider a potential flow solution of flow past a cylinder whose stream function is given
by
( )
2 2 2
o
u y 1 r / x y
∞
⎡ ⎤
ψ = − +
⎣ ⎦
. For a very heavy particle (R→0) with linear drag, a
Stokes number defined as
D p o
St u / r
∞
= τ , and a terminal velocity given by w
term,y
=
0.1u
∞
i
y
:
a) Use the Eulerian weaklyseparated approach of Eq. 5.98 to analytically obtain v
y
/u
∞
at
x/r
o
=1.1 for y/r
o
ranging from 3 to +3 for St
D
=0.2 and 2.
b) Use the terminalvelocity approach of Eq. 5.99 to similarly obtain v
y
/u
∞
.
c) Use the separatedfluid Lagrangian approach of Eq. 3.8 to obtain v
y
/u
∞
for particles
when they cross the plane at x/r
o
=1.1 but are initially released with a velocity equal to
that of the fluid
and at positions with y/r
o
of 2, 1, 0, +1, +2, +3 and x/r
o
=2. Make sure
your timestep is small enough that your results are timeaccurate.
d) For St
D
=0.2, plot v
y
/u
∞
as a function of y/r
o
for the three different techniques (use solid
and dashed lines for the two Eulerian approaches and symbols for the discrete values of
the separatedfluid approach). Make a similar plot for St
D
=1. Discuss the differences
among the three techniques for these two conditions.
229
6. PointForce Components
This chapter will discuss the individual components (drag, lift, etc.) for the surface
averaged fluid stresses based on the pointforce assumption for an individual particle. The
intention of this section is to account for different multiphase conditions with the aim to
reproduce the integrated surfaceforce with reasonable fidelity. The components forces are
generally formulated in terms of the surroundingfluid which is unhindered by the presence of
the particle under consideration. As such, these components may be used to integrate the
particle equation of motion. However, collision effects associated with a nearby individual
particle or a wall are considered in terms of instantaneous and discontinuous changes in the
particle momentum.
Some of the surfaceforce expressions can be based on direct theoretical results while other
formulations are given as empirical descriptions of analytical functions, experimental data sets,
or resolvedsurface simulations (RSS). However, the various formulations will often be only
applicable (or validated) for a specific range of particlefluid conditions. In addition, there are
still several complex flow regimes where no force formulations can be recommended with
confidence, e.g., no accurate models are available for instantaneous drag and lift for irregular
particle shapes. As such, it is not possible to identify a single pointforce expression of motion
with surfaceaveraged expressions that is robust for all conditions!
Within this chapter, a baseline pointforce expression is first considered for relatively
simple conditions to serve as a reference for more complex conditions. This is followed by
separate discussions for the effects of fluid dynamic surface forces and individual contact
forces on a particle equation of motion. In particular, drag force, lift force and torque,
unsteady forces, particlewall and paired particleparticle interactions, etc. are considered, each
for a variety of conditions but for an isolated particle. The final section of this chapter then
considers effects associated with flow fields of finite particle volume fractions. It should be
noted that only fluid dynamic and contact effects will be discussed, whereas issues associated
with chemical reaction, ionization, magnetic fields, electric fields, photonic fields, van der
Waals forces, etc. will not be considered in this text and the reader is referred to Clift et al.
(1978), Soo (1990), and Crowe et al. (1998).
6.1. General Decomposition of Point Forces
6.1.1. General Surface PointForce Expression
The fluid dynamic surface force (F
surf
) for a single particle is generally represented as a
linear sum of several individual and independent forces. As noted in Eq. 1.25, this includes
drag (F
D
), lift (F
L
), virtual mass force due to relative acceleration (F
∀
), farfield fluidstresses
acting on the particle surface (F
S
), history force (F
H
), Brownian force (F
Br
) and the surface
force due to thermal gradients (F
∇T
). If we examine the deterministic portion of this equation,
the general expression for F
surf
and F
int
(Eq. 3.146) becomes
230
F
surf
= F
D
+ F
L
+
F
S
+
F
∀
+
F
H
+
F
∇T
= F
int
+
F
S
6.1
The stochastic effect of Brownian motion which will not be discussed in Chapter 6 since it is
convenient to separate this force out for many numerical techniques. In particular, it will be
incorporated through concentration diffusion in §7.1 and as a random force in §7.2. As such,
the thermophoretic force discussed in Chapter 6 is considered to only incorporate the mean
effect of molecular interactions. The RHS of Eq. 6.1 has three important caveats (similar
statements can be made with respect to the fluid dynamic torque acting on a particle):
1) Linear decomposition is not guaranteed except for some simple conditions which
permit theoretical treatment (two wellknown examples are treated in the next section).
Thus, the linear decomposition is not necessarily robust as there can be nonlinear
interactions between the various forces. Such interactions are not well understood but
are often small enough to be neglected for many conditions.
2) Many force expressions are empirical. This arises because theoretical treatments are
often limited to small particle Reynolds numbers. Similarly, complex fluid dynamics
(e.g., turbulence) or complex geometries (e.g., irregular particles) will generally
necessitate using experimental or resolvedsurface simulation results to validate or even
determine reasonable pointforce expressions.
3) The pointforce treatment assumes that continuousfluid gradients (over the particle
length scale) are small or negligible. The quasisteady drag force generally neglects
spatial gradients while lift, addedmass, history forces, fluidstress and thermophoresis
forces are based on weak spatial gradients. Since the continuousfluid properties are
based on extrapolated to the particle centroid, the occurrence of high gradients or non
linear flow around the particle may not be reasonable with a pointforce approximation,
such that distributed–force or resolvedsurface techniques may instead be needed (see
§4.1.3).
To numerically address conditions where these caveats become problematic, resolvedsurface
simulation (RSS) techniques are requires and are discussed in Chapter 8.
6.1.2. Theoretical PointForce Momentum Equations
There are many analytical expression of the surface force, starting from the seminal work
of Stokes in 1851, which produced Eq. 1.46. The conditions which permit a full theoretical
solution typically include spheroidal shapes at creeping flow conditions (Re
p
→0) or inviscid
flow conditions (μ
f
=0). In particular, there are two important particle equations of motion for a
solid sphere of uniform mass: the MaxeyRiley equation for creeping irrotational flow and the
AutonHuntPrud’homme equation for inviscid rotational flow. These two equations often
serve as baseline equations of motion to which additional effects are incorporated.
The MaxeyRiley equation (1983) assumes a nonrotating rigid particle in an unsteady,
incompressible flow. The relative particle velocity is allowed to be finite but small enough in
terms of Reynolds number that nonlinear convective terms can be neglected (similar to Eq.
A..64). The flow is also allowed to be nonuniform but with weak spatial gradients so that they
can be considered small perturbation to the overall flowfield. These latter assumptions can be
summarized in terms of the relative velocity to the continuousphase and its gradients:
231
p
f
@p 2
@p 2
@p 2
Re 1
u
d
u
u
d
ν
∇
∇
<
<
<
6.2a
6.2b
6.2c
Recall that the continuousfluid properties at the particle locations ignore local disturbances
caused by the particle and are imaginary since the surrounding fluid does not physically exist
inside the particle. As such, u
@p
is a helpful mathematical representation but is not a
physically measurable quantity.
The MaxeyRiley was important in that it extended the socalled BBO equation to non
uniform flows and eliminated some inconsistencies of previous equations. As discussed in
§1.5.4, the BBO equation was based on earlier work for uniform, but unsteady, flow past a
particle and stemmed from contributions by Basset (1888), Boussinesq (1903) and Oseen
(1927). The MaxeyRiley derivation is more complex than the Stokes drag derivation of §1.5.2
and the final result using the decomposition of Eq. 6.1 is given by:
D f
@p
S f p
2
2
@p
f p
t
3 2
H f f
2
0
2
2
@p
3 d
t
d
40
c
t
(0)
d
t t
d
24
∀ ∀
= − π μ
⎡ ⎤
= ρ ∀ −
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎛ ⎞
∇
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
= − ρ ∀
⎡ ⎤
τ ⎛ ⎞
= − πρ μ τ +
⎢ ⎥
⎜ ⎟
− τ
⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
≡ ∇
∫
D
D
d
d
d d
d
F W
u
F g
w  u
F
W/ W
F
W w  u
6.3a
6.3b
6.3c
6.3d
6.3e
Note that the added mass coefficient ( c
∀
) for Eq. 6.3c is ½ based on the spherical shape and
that the finite W(0) in Eq. 6.3d is based on later work by Maxey (1993) and was not in the
original MaxeyRiley derivation (since this was assumed to be zero). At creeping conditions,
the effect of linear flow nonuniformity was found to be negligible (i.e. no lift force) but
secondorder gradients did make a contribution. The corrections associated with these
gradients (represented by ∇
2
u
@p
) are often called Faxen terms, since Faxen (1922) was first to
obtain such contributions. For example, the above quasisteady drag (F
D
) is similar to the
Stokes drag of Eq. 1.45 except that it includes a flow nonuniformity term, which is
incorporated by defining a Faxencorrected relative velocity W (Eq. 6.3e). The fluidstress
term (F
S
) is the same as that given by Eq. 1.69 (since this stems directly from Eq. 1.68), but the
addedmass force (F
∀
) and the history force (F
H
) differ from Eqs. 1.73 and 1.75 due to Faxen
corrections.
For uniform flow and no initial relative velocity, the above equation reverts to the BBO
equation given in Eq. 1.76. An important point about the MaxeyRiley equation is that the
232
above combination of forces was obtained within a single theoretical framework. Thus, the
above decomposition is exact and complete within the bounds of the above stated conditions.
Auton (1987) and Auton et al. (1988) considered a much different limit: a sphere moving
relative to an inviscid but rotational fluid. These studies assumed a fixed particle subjected to
a farfield linear shear flow (Fig. A.3a) and employed slip conditions on the particle surface
(Eq. 4.54). Auton assumed the spatial velocity gradient to be weak compared to change in
relative velocity across the particle. To extend this to unsteady and straining flows, Auton et al.
additionally assumed that the temporal velocity gradient was weak. These two assumptions
can be written as
shear
2
w
d
w
t d
∂
∂
<
<
w
ω
6.4a
6.4b
As was shown with the simpler case of uniform steady flow of Eq. 1.50a the inviscid
assumption leads to zero net drag on the body (F
D
=F
H
=0). Including the hydrostatic effect, the
surface force has the form F
surf
=F
S
+F
∀
+F
L
where these first two components are given
(neglecting higherorder terms) as:
@p
S f p
@p
f p
t
c
t t
∀ ∀
⎡ ⎤
= ρ ∀ −
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤
= ρ ∀ −
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
u
F g
u
v
F
D
D
D
d
D d
6.5a
6.5b
These authors noted that the lift contain both an inertial force (related to the addedmass effect)
and a rotational force. For a sphere in inviscid flow, the combination was found to be
( )
1
L f p
2
= ρ ∀ × F w ω
6.6
The sum of forces given by Eq. 6.5 and 6.6 can be called the AHP particle dynamic equation
since the authors were Auton, Hunt and Prud’homme. As with the MaxeyRiley equation, it is
a complete and consistent result for the stated assumptions.
It is interesting to compare the AHP equation to the MaxeyRiley (or the BBO) equation.
We note that the fluid stress is the same in both cases, so that one may expect Eq. 6.3b to be
generally robust for spherical particles. The added mass terms are slightly different between
Eq. 6.3c and 6.5b, though Maxey (1993) noted that the differences are negligible in the
creeping flow limit if ∇
2
u
@p
is negligible (i.e. weak gradients). For the condition of small but
finite Reynolds numbers, Coimbra and Kobayashi (2002) and others obtain the fluidstress
force of Eq. 6.5b, so that form may be assumed as reasonably robustness. The remaining
forces components are quite different in that drag and history effects are included in the
creeping flow limit whereas only lift is included for the inviscid limit.
In order to address conditions which are inconsistent with both the MaxeyRiley or AHP
assumptions (e.g., finite Reynolds numbers, nonspherical shapes, deformability,
compressibility, etc.), the individual force terms are generally modified. In such circumstances,
the drag force (F
D
) is defined as acting in the direction of w, while the lift force (F
L
) for zero
233
rotation is defined as acting in the direction
shear
×w ω . As will be discussed in the rest of this
chapter, there are a wide variety of analytical and empirically derived force terms which have
been developed to address such conditions. The theoretical expressions are often limited to
smallperturbations and simple conditions while the empirical expressions allow for more
complex conditions but are subject to the experimental uncertainties and bias on which they are
based. In either case, the pointforce expressions are typically limited to specific regimes and
are generally obtained independently (based on the assumptions of Eqs. 6.1 and 6.2) so that
force interactions are neglected. Thus, the three caveats mentioned in the previous section
should be kept in mind, i.e. one must always be aware of the assumptions upon which an
individual surfaceforce expression is obtained to determine the extent of its validity.
6.2. Drag Force
Since the drag force is typically the most important surfaceforce, it will be discussed first.
As discussed in §1.5, the general expression for drag force can be written in terms of a
correction to the Stokesian drag (f) or in terms of a drag coefficient (C
D
)
( )
2
D f f D
3 d f / 8 d C = − π μ − π ρ F w = w w
6.7
Recall that f is more convenient for low particle Reynolds numbers while C
D
is more
convenient for high particle Reynolds numbers, and both are simply related by
D
p
24f
C
Re
=
6.8
As such, f=1 corresponds to spherical solid particles in a uniform incompressible continuum
creeping flow based on Eq. 1.46, while f≠1 represents a correction to the Stokes drag. For
example, f
Re
denotes a correction due to finite particle Reynolds number, i.e.
D p
D
Re
D p f
F (Re )
F
f
F (Re 0) 3 d w
≡ =
→ π μ
6.9
Similarly, f
shape
denotes a correction due to nonsphericity via the normalized area ratio, f
μ*
denotes a correction due to finite viscosity ratio, f
Kn
denotes a correction due to non
continuum effects via the Knudsen number, f
M
denotes a correction due to compressibility via
the Mach number, etc. While some of these corrections can be combined as a linear product,
e.g., f(Re,Kn)=f
Re
f
Kn
under some conditions, this may not be appropriate in many cases, e.g.,
f(E,Μ)≠f
E
f
Μ
. Expressions for pointforce drag for a variety of flow conditions will be
discussed in §6.2, beginning with Reynolds number effects.
6.2.1. Spherical Solid Particles
Flow over a Solid Sphere
234
The most straightforward particle condition to consider is that of a smooth isolated solid
sphere with no rotation surrounded by an incompressible fluid. To consider the rationale for
employing various drag expressions, it is helpful to consider the corresponding flow physics.
The flow about the particle can vary from fully attached to massivelyseparated conditions as
shown in Fig. 6.1. The separated flow is initially laminar, and then becomes transitional and
finally turbulent. For the transitional and turbulent conditions, the separation point is
controlled by downstream vortices due to instabilities of the shear layer, which is often referred
to as vortex shedding. For transitional flow, the shedding frequency increases (normalized by
the free stream velocity and particle diameter) and moves closer to the surface as Re
p
increases
(Clift et al. 1978). The shedding reaches the surface itself at about Re
p
of 6000, where the
shedding frequency (normalized by w/d) is maximized. For 6000<Re
p
<2x10
5
, the separation
occurs at a point which rotates around the sphere at the shedding frequency yielding coherent
structures. If one considers the broad range of Reynolds number regimes for such a particle,
the progression can be summarized as follows:
1) Re
p
«1: creeping flow where convective terms are weak or negligible (Fig. 1.24a)
2) Re
p
<22: laminar steady attached flow but significant convective terms (Fig. 6.1ab)
3) 22<Re
p
<130: laminar separation with laminar wake (Figs. 1.24b, 6.1cf)
4) 130<Re
p
<1500: laminar boundarylayer/separation with unsteady (transitional) wake
5) 1500<Re
p
<250,000: laminar boundarylayer/separation with turbulent wake (Fig. 1.24c)
6) Re
p
>250,000: turbulent boundarylayer/separation with turbulent wake (Fig. 1.24d)
Flows over particle which are nearly spherical and nearly solid will generally progress through
these same regimes, though the Reynolds number associated with each regime may differ.
Stokes Correction for a Solid Sphere
The variation in particle drag coefficient for these regimes is shown in Fig. 6.2. In the
creeping flow limit f=1 so that the drag coefficient varies inversely with particle Reynolds
number (Eq. 6.8). To consider the drag at small but finite particle Reynolds numbers, Oseen
(1910) included the effects of the convective terms in a linearized fashion (rather than
neglecting them altogether as in the creeping flow condition). In particular, the surface force
was derived with the linearized momentum equation (Eq. A.64). The justification for this
linearization is that the convective terms for small Re
p
become significant (compared to the
viscous terms) primarily at large distances from the body (where U approaches U
∞
). The
analytical solution is discussed by Clift et al. (1978) and the resulting surface pressure
coefficient (defined by Eq. 1.49) is given by:
2
p
p
6cos 1 3cos
C
Re 2 2
θ θ
= − +
6.10
This can be compared to the Stokes solution for surface pressure distribution (Eq. 1.39):
p p
C 6cos / Re = θ
6.11
The additional contribution of the Oseen result is symmetric about the particle equator so that
the form drag for the Oseen solution is still given by the creeping flow result (Eq. 1.42). On
the other hand, the convective terms lead to an increased surface shear stress so that a higher
friction drag occurs. As a result, the Stokes correction for the Oseen drag is:
235
f
Re
= 1 + (3/16) Re
p
for Re
p
«1 6.12
While derived assuming small Re
p
values, this result turns out to be reasonable for Reynolds
numbers of order unity. For example, the Stokes formulation will underestimate the drag by
more than 7% at Re
p
=0.5, whereas the Oseen drag overestimates it by only 2%. Proudman
(1969) obtained a higherorder approximate solution which is even reasonable for Re
p
values
as large as 4.
At higher Reynolds numbers, convection effects become stronger and empirical
expressions are needed because the flowfield is not analytically tractable. For example, Clift
et al. gives a tenpart empirical curve set for sphere drag up to Re
p
of 10
6
, i.e. the conditions
include creeping flow and up to and past the drag crisis. However, single equations are often
preferred for numerical applications. Using experimental drag measurements for solid spheres
up to flow separation, Clift et al. (1978) suggest the following expression
( ) 10 p
0.82 0.05log Re
p Re
f 1 0.1315Re
−
= + for Re
p
<20 6.13
There are a large number of curvefits which have been proposed for the sphere correction data
at higher Re
p
values for which the flow is separated. A common and reasonably accurate for
the drag of particles with laminar and transitional wakes is given by the SchillerNaumann drag
expression (Eq. 1.54) whose Stokes correction is given by:
0.687
Re p
f 1 0.15Re = + for Re
p
< 1000 6.14
The combination of a laminar boundary layer and turbulent wakes (subcritical conditions)
reduces the sensitivity of the flow and the drag coefficient with respect to Reynolds number.
Consistent with Newton’s drag law, the drag coefficient in this regime nearly levels off to a
constant value which is termed C
Dcrit
and has a value of about 0.40.45. The transition from
creeping flow all the way to subcritical flow can be modeled by the fit of Dallavalle (1948):
2
p
Re
0.4Re
f 1
24
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ = +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
for Re
p
< 2x10
5
6.15
However, the White fit of Eq. 1.52 tends to give a more accurate representation for this same
range of Reynolds numbers. Upon careful examination, there is actually a modest increase in
the drag coefficient for 6,000 < Re
p
< 2x10
5
which is caused by mild forward increases in the
separation point. The White and Dallavalle do not capture the slight rise in C
D
, but this is
captured by the more accurate subcritical expression is given by Clift and Gauvin (1970):
( )
1.16
0.687
D p
p
p
24 0.42
C 1 0.15Re
42,500
Re
1+
Re
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
= + +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
for Re
p
< 2x10
5
6.16
This expression is accurate to within 6% error of experimental data (Fig. 6.2) and the term in
square brackets demonstrates that this is an extension of the SchillerNaumann drag correction
of Eq. 6.14. Note that all these expression assumes that there is no mass flux at the particle
surface. If mass flux does occur, e.g. due to combustion, this can serve to reduce or increase
236
the drag depending on the flux direction. This effect is called “surface blowing” and is
discussed in the next section.
At still higher Reynolds number, the boundary layer becomes turbulent, rendering it less
prone to separation. This phenomenon is associated with a more advanced separation point
(compare Figs. 1.24c and 1.24d), and the resulting improved pressure recovery on the aft
surface causes the drag coefficient to rapidly decrease (below 0.1). This is known as the “drag
crisis” which occurs at Re
pcrit
. The critical Reynolds number for a smooth sphere in uniform
flow is on the order of 300,000 but even small roughness elements or surroundingfluid
turbulence levels can cause a significant reduction. Both of these effects are discussed in the
next section.
6.2.2. Influence of ContinuousPhase Compressibility and Rarefaction
The level of compressibility of the fluid can become important at high relative particle
velocities, while the level of rarefaction can become important for small particles with respect
to the molecular meanfree path. In both cases, the effects are generally seen for fluid and
solid particles in gasses (ρ
∗
»1), so this section will focus on that condition. The two key
parameters to characterize compressibility are the Mach number and Knudsen number,
respectively. For a gas, the Mach number is based on the surrounding speed of sound
p
g g g
w w
M
a T
≡ =
γR
6.93
This assumes a thermally perfect gas with a fixed specific heat ratio (γ) and gas constant (R
g
) as
discussed in §A.1. Compressibility will generally be significant when the relative Mach
number is no longer small, e.g., 0.4 or more (i.e. w>140m/s for air at STP). Such conditions
can not be expected based on terminal velocity. Instead, significant relative Mach numbers are
generally due to particles interacting with highspeed flows. Examples include particles in a
plasma spray or a rocket engine with a supersonic exit flow, particles ablating form a surface in
a hypersonic boundary layer, and particles subjected to a shock wave. In these cases,
significant relative Mach numbers can occur for durations on the order of the particle response
time (Sivier et al. 1994). Thus, compressibility effects can be important to provide an
understanding of the particle dynamics in such conditions.
To assess the validity of a continuum surrounding flow, the particle Knudsen number is
defined as the ratio meanfreepath length of the surrounding molecules to the particle diameter
(Eq. 1.19b). This can be written in terms of the particle Mach and Reynolds numbers for an
ideal gas (Schaaf & Chambré, 1958) as
p
mm
p
p
M
Kn
d 2 Re
⎛ ⎞
πγ
≡ =
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
l
6.94
The magnitude of the Knudsen number leads to a range of conditions as noted in Table 6.5.
Small values of the Knudsen number (<10
3
) are consistent with a continuum noslip
approximation whereby a very large number of molecular collisions occur at the particle
surface. The noslip criterion can expressed as
237
f
p
f f
Kn 1 or d
a
μ
ρ
< > for continuum flow around the particle
6.95
Since gas viscosity and speed of sound typically have a modest variation with temperature, the
continuum approximation is generally reasonable for particles of a significant size, e.g.,
diameters greater than 10 microns in atmospheric conditions. However, larger sizes are
required in lowdensity gases, e.g., near vacuum conditions or at very high altitudes. When
Kn
p
is no longer small, the flow around the particle can no longer be considered as a
continuum. In this case, the molecules do not have a sufficiently high collision rate with the
particle and each other. As a result, noncontinuum effects lead to a difference between the
mean molecular velocity and the mean particle surface velocity, i.e. a partialslip condition.
This phenomenon is referred to as “accommodation”. For slip flow, the noncontinuum effect
is weak and can be considered a small departure from the noslip condition (allowing some
theoretical analysis). Knudsen numbers much greater than unity are generally considered
“freemolecular” flow conditions where the molecules impact and reflect from the particle with
negligible molecularmolecular interactions (theoretical analysis is again possible in this
regime). The “transition” regime corresponds to Kn
p
of order unity (e.g., Fig. 6.36) and is the
most complex to analyze. Before addressing the drag coefficient associated with the different
Mach and Knudsen number regimes, it is useful to note whether compressibility or rarefaction
dominate the local flow physics.
Based on Eq. 6.94, one may generally consider the drag coefficient to be a function of two
independent parameters (among M
p
, Re
p
and Kn
p
). At very high Reynolds numbers (Re
p
»1),
the physics tends to be dominated by compressibility (M
p
) since Kn
p
will be generally small in
these conditions. At very low Reynolds numbers, the physics will tend to be dominated by
rarefaction (Kn
p
), since M
p
will be generally small in these conditions. These two regimes are
illustrated in Fig. 6.37 in terms of an empirically determined drag coefficient for a sphere in
thermal equilibrium, i.e.
p g
T T
∞
= developed by Loth (2008d). These curves (supported by
experimental and numerical results as discussed below) indicate a nexus of the compressibility
and rarefaction effects at a single Reynolds number, i.e.
D p p p
C 1.63 Re =45 M Kn ≈ at for all and
6.96
The independence of compression or rarefaction at this condition (for thermal equilibrium) was
first noted by Zarin (1970). This condition corresponds to a particle with a steady separated
wake in the incompressible continuum limit. Unfortunately, the corresponding flow is not
analytically tractable. However, the nexus condition can be exploited to provide a robust
prediction of the drag by considering separate models for Re
p
<45 (where rarefaction effects are
know to dominate since typical M
p
values are small) and for Re
p
>45 (where compressibility
effects are known to dominate since typical Kn
p
values are small). In the following, the
rarefactiondominated regime is first considered followed by the compressiondominated
regime.
RarefactionDominated Regime
The effect of rarefaction becomes important for finite Knudsen numbers and low Reynolds
numbers as discussed above. When the flow is in continuum (Eq. 6.95 satisfied), the drag
force for a spherical particle given by the SchillerNaumann expression of Eq. 6.14 is
238
reasonable (for Re
p
<45). For finite Knudsen numbers but small Reynolds numbers, a Stokes
correction can be defined as
D p p
Kn
f
F (Kn , Re 0)
f
3 d
→
≡
πμ
6.97
This is often referred to as the Cunningham (1910) correction factor and depends on the
surface properties. For a smooth particle, the angles of incidence and reflection at the
molecular length scales will be equal (specular reflection) and the tangential momentum will
be conserved. For a rough particle, the normal velocity component is assumed zero while the
molecular reflection will be random (diffuse reflection) and some portion of the tangential
momentum will be lost. The accommodation coefficient is defined as the fraction of molecules
which undergo diffuse reflection upon impacting the particle (whereas the remaining fraction
undergoes specular reflection).
For small but finite Knudsen numbers, the normal boundary condition is simply given by
U
r
=0 at r=r
p
if there is no mass transfer. However, the tangential condition can be expressed in
terms of the velocity gradients, the surface temperature gradient, and a tangential momentum
coefficient (c
θ
) as given by Talbot et al. (1980):
p
p
r
m m
r r
r r
T
U U 1
U c r c
r r r T
θ
θ θ − θ
=
=
⎛ ⎞ ν ∂ ⎛ ⎞
⎡ ⎤ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ⎞
≈ − + ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∂θ ∂ ∂θ
⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
g g
g g
l
R
( )
accom accom
c 2 c / c
θ
≡ −
6.98a
6.98b
The first term on the RHS of Eq. 6.98a is proportional to the surface shear stress (in square
brackets) but becomes negligible if the meanfree path of the molecules is relatively small
(continuum flow). For finite Kn
p
values this term can be significant and is proportional to c
θ
,
and thus the accommodation coefficient. The latter is constrained by c
accom
≤1 and has a
typical value of 0.9 on most surfaces, which corresponds to c
θ
≈1.22, though this coefficient
can range from 1.0 to 1.5. Talbot et al. (1980) also pointed out that the c
θ
value used for the
velocity term may be different from that used for temperature term. However, the difference is
typically quite small (about 3%) so that a single value of c
θ
, as used herein, is generally
reasonable.
Assuming weak temperature gradients so that the second term of Eq. 6.98a can be
neglected, Basset (1888) theoretically obtained a Knudsen correction factor for slip flow:
2
Kn p p p
f 1 2c Kn + (Kn ) Kn 1
θ
= − < for O
6.99
In the other limit of free molecular flow (
p
Kn 1 > ), Epstein (1929) obtained a theoretical result
by assuming the velocity distribution of the molecules striking the sphere is based on a
Maxwell distribution (and unaffected by the presence of the sphere) yielding
Kn p
p
8 2 /(c 1)
f Kn 1
36Kn
θ
+ π +
→ > for
6.100
Combining this correction factor (which is inversely proportional to Kn
p
) with its definition
(Eq. 6.97) and Eq. 6.94, indicates that the drag force is independent of viscosity in the free
molecular flow limit. This is because the molecular velocity distribution is no longer
Maxwellian, since binary collisions are no longer the dominant process for exchange of energy
between the gas molecules. Note that some of the early studies defined Knudsen number based
in particle radius, but generally it is based on particle diameter, as is the case for this text.
239
These two definitions led to a factor of two typos in the above equation (and some of the below
equations) in the equations given by some references.
To bridge the gap from very low to very high Knudsen numbers, Phillips (1975) proposed
an approximate theoretical solution. This assumed low Re
p
and M
p
but allowed for
intermediate Knudsen number values and obtained
2 2 2
p p
Kn 2 2 2 2 3
p p p
15c 6c Kn (16 16c 4 )(c 2)Kn
f
15c 24c Kn 36c (c 1)Kn 72(c 2)(c 1)Kn
θ θ θ θ
θ θ θ θ θ θ
− + + + π +
=
+ + + + + +
6.101
A reasonably accurate empirical representation which is consistent with c
θ
≈1.22 and the
above equation is that discussed by Clift et al. (1978) :
Kn
p p
1
f
1 Kn 2.514 0.8exp( 0.55/ Kn )
=
⎡ ⎤ + + −
⎣ ⎦
6.102
In the limit of particle Reynolds and Mach numbers much less than unity, both the theoretical
and empirical expressions (Eqs. 6.101 and 6.102) show that the slip effect results in decreasing
equivalent drag as the Knudsen number increases. As shown in Fig. 6.38, both expressions
also compare favorably with the experimental data of Milliken (1911, 1923) for which the
charge of an electron was first measured! Also shown in this figure is the Direct Simulation
MonteCarlo (§B.8) data of Benson et al. (2004) which follows the trends as well. To account
for finite Reynolds numbers, the above Knudsen number effect can be extended by including a
SchillerNaumann correction as
( )
p
0.687
D,Kn,Re Kn p
p
24
C f 1 0.15Re
Re
= +
6.103
This expression, which will be shown to be quite robust, can use either a theoretical or an
empirical Knudsen correction (e.g., Eq. 6.101 or Eq. 6.102), but assumes the particle Mach
number is small. Note that use of the drag coefficient form, instead of the drag correction form,
is more appropriate in freemolecular flow for which the drag is no longer proportional to
viscosity.
As the particle Mach number becomes significant, e.g., of order unity or more, a free
molecular creeping flow limit can be obtained in terms of the molecular speed ratio:
p
s M / 2 ≡ γ 6.104
Assuming equal tangential and normal accommodation coefficients, Stadler & Zurick (1951)
and Schaaf & Chambré (1958) derived the freemolecular compressibility limit for s≥1 for
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 4 2
p
D,fm 4 3
1 2s exp s 4s 4s 1 erf s
T
2
C
2s 3s T s
∞
+ − + −
= + + π
π
6.105
The first two terms on the RHS are associated with diffuse reflection effects while the third
term is associated with specular reflection and includes the effect of the particle temperature
ratio. This ratio is based on T
∞
which is the farfield gas temperature as seen by the particle, i.e.
the uncoupled gas temperature hypothetically extrapolated to the particle centroid (T
f@p
). This
is normally equal to the particle temperature for thermal equilibrium conditions, but T
p
may be
different than the ambient temperature if the particle is undergoing rapid heating or cooling
(e.g., due to injection conditions, shock passage, etc.). Hersch et al. (1969) noted that the form
of Eq. 6.105 is equal to the Epstein (1929) model if one assumes that the thermal
240
accommodation coefficient is equal to the momentum accommodation coefficient. The free
molecular drag coefficient for equilibrium particle temperature is defined as
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
p
2 2 4 2
D,fm D,fm,T T 4 3
1 2s exp s 4s 4s 1 e rf s
C C
2s s
∞
=
+ − + −
′ = = +
π
6.106
In the limit of very high speed ratios, this gives
D,s 1
C′
>
=2, which is often taken as the lower
limit for creeping flow.
The free molecular limit can be empirically corrected for finite Reynolds numbers by
ensuring that the nexus given by Eq. 6.96 is satisfied (regardless of particle temperature) with
an drag coefficient expression proposed by Loth (2008d):
D,fm
D,fm,Re
p D,fm
C
C
Re C
1 1
1.63 45
=
′
⎛ ⎞
+ −
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
6.107
In this case, the limit of very high speed ratios and equilibrium particle temperature but finite
Reynolds numbers becomes
( )
1
D,s 1,Re p
C 0.5 0.0169 Re
−
′ = +
>
, which is often taken as the lower
limit for low Reynolds number drag. This limit and the creeping freemolecular limits of Eq.
6.106 are shown in Fig. 6.39, where it can be seen that there is a substantial difference between
the freemolecular values and the continuum CliftGauvin drag coefficient, especially at small
particle Reynolds numbers.
While the freemolecular compressibility limit is appropriate for s≥1 (including hypersonic
conditions), it becomes undefined (infinite) for the zero Mach number limit. To additionally
blend the finite Mach number limit with the zero Mach number limit, the following empirical
combination may be used (Loth, 2008d):
4
p D,fm,Re D,Kn,Re
D,fm,M,Re p 4 4
p p
M C C
C Re 45
1 M 1 M
= + ≤
+ +
for
6.108
This expression represents the overall fit to the rarefaction regime and simultaneously allows
for Reynolds, Mach, Knudsen, and temperature ratio effects for the rarefaction dominated
regime. For the low Mach and Reynolds number conditions of Fig. 6.39, this reverts to the
theoretical creeping limits of Eqs. 6.99 and 6.100 for very small or very large Knudsen
numbers. For the finite Mach number conditions, this model correctly asymptotes to the free
molecular limit (shown by the dotted lines in Fig. 6.39) including the limit of s»1 where
D
C 2 → . This model also properly represents Reynolds number effects as shown by
comparison with experimental data and numerical data in Fig. 6.39. The latter is based on
Direct Simulation MonteCarlo (DSMC) whereby representative molecular interactions are
employed to make statistical predictions (§B.8). Because of these attributes, the present model
consistently outperforms those of Carlson & Hoglund (1964), Crowe (1967), Henderson (1976),
and Hermsen (1979) in the rarefactiondominated regime, e.g., as shown in Fig. 6.40.
Temperature ratio effects are also included in the present model via the specular term of Eq.
6.105. As shown in Fig. 6.41a, this leads to increases in drag as the particle temperature
increases due to an additional viscous contribution. The effect is highest at the creeping
compressible flow limit (where the model reverts to Eq. 6.105) and reduces as the Re
p
increases. For all these conditions, the present drag model gives the best prediction of the
temperature influence and a typical comparison with previous models is shown in Fig. 6.41b.
241
Beyond the nexus point (in the compression dominated region), little data is available to
support whether the temperature increases or decreases the drag but in general the effect of
p
T / T
∞
is small (Aerosty, 1962; Bailey & Hiatt, 1972). The next section discusses the
influence of Mach and Reynolds numbers in this regime.
.
CompressionDominated Regime
Various compressible flow features will determine the flowfield over a sphere depending
on the Mach number (Fig. 6.43). The compressiondominated regime generally yields
increased drag as the Mach number increases (recall Fig. 6.37), which can be quantified in
terms of a drag ratio defined as:
D,crit
M
D,crit ,M 0
C
C
C
=
≡
6.109
As with the drag ratio for shape effects, the baseline (incompressible) critical drag coefficient
is taken as 0.42.
The increase in drag is initially due to the influence of compressibility on boundary layer
separation for M
p
>0.2 (Schlichting, 1979). The compressibility is generally most significant at
the point with the highest velocity, which is typically just above the boundary layer at θ=90
o
according to potential flow theory (Eq. 1.47c). As the Mach numbers increases the maximum
flow velocity at this point will eventually reach a sonic speed. The freestream Mach number
associated with this condition is defined as the critical Mach number (M
crit
), about 0.6 for a
sphere (Hoerner, 1965). Beyond this speed, gas dynamic waves appear. For example, flow at
a subsonic but supercritical Mach number is shown in Fig. 6.42a, where one can see weak
expansion waves as the flow becomes locally supersonic, followed by a lambdashock pattern
at the top of the sphere. This boundary layer shock interaction promotes earlier flow
separation than that seen for the incompressible condition (Fig. 1.24d). As a result, the drag
significantly increases for M
p
>M
crit
(Fig. 6.43).
As the Mach number becomes supersonic, a bowshock forms in front of the sphere (Fig.
6.42b) but the point of flow separation moves further back since there is no longer a lambda
shock present. The corresponding drag initially increases until it is maximized at about M
p
of
1.5 (Fig. 6.43). At higher Mach numbers, the flow retains a bowshock but the standoff
distance is reduced and boundary layer separation is further delayed due to supersonic
expansion over the rear portion (Fig. 6.42c). As a result, the drag ratio is somewhat reduced
and eventually approaches a constant at hypersonic Mach numbers,
M
C 2
→∞
≈ (Fig. 6.43).
Since the rear flow separation is primarily dictated by the gas dynamics, the flow and the drag
coefficient are not sensitive to Re
p
for M
p
>1.5, i.e. there is no “dragcrisis” when the boundary
transitions from laminar to turbulent conditions (Fig. 6.2). As a result, Crowe (1967) termed
the supersonic C
D
as the “inviscid drag coefficient” because boundary layer properties have
little influence. There is no theoretical correction for Mach number effects at these conditions
so the drag ratio must be described empirically, and can be modeled as a twopart equation:
242
( )
( )
{ }
M p p
2
M p p
5 2
C tanh 3ln M 0.1 M 1.45
3 3
C 2.044 0.2exp 1.8 ln M /1.5 M 1.45
⎡ ⎤
= + + ≤
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤
= + − ≥
⎣ ⎦
for
for
6.110a
6.110b
This is similar to the fit given by Crowe et al. (1972) and follows the collected data in Fig. 6.43.
In order to represent the influence of Mach number between the nexus point (where the
effect is negligible) and the high Re
p
regime (where the effect is given by Eq. 6.110), it is
convenient to employ a modified CliftGauvin drag expression in the following form
0.687 M
D p M
M
p
1.16
p
0.42C 24
C 1 0.15Re H
42, 500G
Re
1+
Re
⎡ ⎤
= + +
⎣ ⎦
for Re
p
>45
6.111
This expression involves the critical drag coefficient ratio defined in Eq. 6.109 but also
introduces two empirical functions of the particle Mach number given by Loth (2008d) as:
( )
4
M p p
M p p
M
M
M
G 1 1.525M M 0.89
G 0.0002 0.0008tanh 12.77 M 2.02 M 0.89
0.258C
H 1
1 514G
= − <
⎡ ⎤
= + − >
⎣ ⎦
= −
+
for
for
6.112a
6.112b
6.112c
The form of G
M
is constructed to ensure that the incompressible CliftGauvin limit is recovered
as M
p
approaches zero while H
M
is constructed to ensure that the nexus of Eq. 6.96 is satisfied.
As shown in Fig. 6.44a, this model is more robust than previous models in terms of predictive
performance, which was true for a wide range of M
p
. In general, the variation in drag
coefficient becomes weaker as the Mach number increases (Figs. 6.37 and 6.44b). Finally, it
should be noted that all of the above compressibility and rarefaction effects assume spherical
shapes, since little is known about the orientation dynamics and drag of nonspherical objects
in “free” trajectories.
6.2.3. Influence of Mass Flux, Turbulence and Particle Roughness
Effect of Surface Mass Flux
An aspect which can affect the particle drag is a finite mass flux at the surface. It is
generally most significant for particles in a gas where it has been termed “blowing” since rapid
evaporation or sublimination can lead to significant radial gas velocities. For example, small
combusting kerosene droplets can have radial outgassing velocities on the order of the relative
velocity. The surface fluid velocity (based on the mass flux) and the particle relative velocity
can be used to define a dimensionless mass flux velocity which can be simplified as an velocity
integral for constant density as:
243
( )
r,m surf
p *
m
2
surf f
u dA
m
u
wA w d
≡ =
ρ π
∫
`
`
`
6.119
The flow solution for flow around a sphere with Re
p
→0 was obtained by Dukowicz (1982) for
surface mass flux at isothermal conditions with uniform viscosity as a function of the mass
flux Reynolds number, defined as follows:
*
p m p
f
m
vapor f
Re u m
Re
2 2 d
ρ
≡ =
ρ μ π
`
`
`
6.120
For arbitrary massflux Reynolds number with either blowing (
m
Re
`
>0) or suction (
m
Re
`
<0),
the corresponding creepingflow drag correction for isothermal mass flux becomes:
( )
( ) ( )
m
m
Re
m
m m 2
1 Re
m m
2
1 1 Re e
2
f Re
3
1 Re e 1 Re
−
−
⎡ ⎤
− +
= ⎢ ⎥
+ − + ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
`
`
`
` `
` `
6.121
For small mass fluxes, this tends to
m m
f 1 7Re / 24 ≈ −
` `
, consistent with a drag force of
p
m w − ` .
A similar low Re
p
result was obtained by Eisenklam et al. (1967) but based on an Oseentype
drag and a prescribed vapor concentration distribution and tends to
m m
f 1 13Re / 24 ≈ −
` `
for small
mass fluxes. However, experiments also obtained by Eisenklam et al. for both evaporating and
bringing drops with Re
p
in the range of 0.1 to 1 yielded trends closer to
m m
f 1 Re ≈ −
` `
assuming
a viscosity for Re
p
based on an average of farfield gas and local vapor viscosities; a result
consistent with later measurements and predictions (Sirignano, 1999). All these forms show
that outward (blowing) surface velocity will reduce the effective drag while inward (suction)
velocity will cause a drag increase. This is because blowing tends to remove vorticity from the
surface thus reducing the net friction drag on the particle.
At Re
p
>1, the mass flux from the particle surface tends to be directed downstream and thus
can be interpreted as a thrust once a farfield control volume is employed, again giving rise to
reduced drag for blowing conditions. For isothermal constantviscosity conditions, resolved
surface simulations with blowing by Niazmand & Renksizbulut (2003) and Cliffe & Lever
(1985) for Re
p
up to 500 were reasonably represented by the following empirical relationships:
( )
Re,m Re m
D
D,m 0 Re Re
f f f 1
C
C f f
=
+ −
≡ ≈
` `
`
for Re
p
≤10 and
m
Re 5 ≤
`
( )
0.2
Re,m * D
m
D,m 0 Re
f
C
1 20u
C f
=
≡ = +
`
`
`
for 10≤Re
p
≤500 and
m
Re 5 ≤
`
6.122a
6.122b
However, mass transfer tends to occur when there is temperature difference in which cases, the
above relationships may no longer be reasonable and heat transfer becomes important to
describe the detailed physics. There have been several empirical relations proposed based on
resolvedsurface simulations as discussed by Sirignano (1999), but often these results do not
tend correctly to the solid particle drag expression for zero blowing. However, the
experimental drag data of Eisenklam et al. (1967) and Yuen and Chen (1976) for both
evaporating and condensing drops in gasses are reasonably correlated up to Re
p
of 500 by
244
using the empirical “1/3rule”. This rule employs an “evaporating gas temperature” (
m
T
`
)
which is 1/3 of the “unhindered” gas temperature (which does not take into account the
droplet’s presences) and 2/3 of the droplet surface temperature.
m f p,surf
1 2
T T T
3 3
≡ +
`
6.123
Similarly, an evaporating gas mixture is defined based on an “evaporating vapor mole fraction”
(
m
ϖ
`
) equal to 1/3 of the farfield vaporfraction and 2/3 of the drop surface vaporfraction.
m f p,surf
1 2
3 3
ϖ ≡ ϖ + ϖ
`
6.124
These results can then be used to compute an evaporating viscosity,
m
μ
`
, equal to the volume
weighted viscosities of the species of the evaporating gas mixture taken at the evaporating
temperature (e.g., via relations such as Eq. A.16). This evaporating viscosity is then used to
define an evaporating Reynolds number:
( )
( )
f f f
f
p, m p
m m m m
T ,
wd
Re Re
T ,
μ ϖ
ρ
≡ =
μ μ ϖ
`
` ` ` `
6.125
This Reynolds number can then be used for the particle drag (e.g., via Eq. 6.16 or 6.14), i.e.
( )
( )
D p, m
Re,m
D
Re D,m 0 D p
C Re
f
C
f C C Re
=
≡ =
`
`
`
6.126
Thus, evaporation tends to reduce the effective Reynolds number which therefore reduces drag,
while condensation would yield the opposite trend. Dukowicz (1984) employed resolved
surface simulations and found that this result yields generally reasonable predictive
performance when extended to conditions with moderate Re
p
values. The predictions with this
simple adjustment are shown in Fig. 6.51 and are reasonable, especially for Re
p
<10. As such,
Eq. 6.126 is a commonly used and reasonably robust empirical relationship for drag
modification for droplets in gasses with significant mass flux. The correlation can be improved
somewhat (Fig. 6.51) by defining a corrected evaporating Reynolds number for Eq. 6.126 as
( )
p,m,corr p,m p, m
Re Re 1 0.007Re ≡ +
` ` `
6.127
However, this “corrected 1/3rule” expression is generally limited to Re
p
<1000, beyond which
droplet deformation tends to occur which will dominate drag modifications (Fig. 6.28).
As far as combining the above relationships, Niazmand & Renksizbulut (2003) used
resolvedsurface simulations to show that the effects of spin and blowing can be approximately
combined as follows:
Re, ,m Re, Re,m
D
D, 0,m 0 Re Re Re
f f f
C
C f f f
Ω Ω
Ω= =
⎛ ⎞
≡ ≈
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
` `
`
for Re
p
≤500,
m
Re 5 ≤
`
and
*
p
Ω <1
6.128
However, experimental drag data for rotation combined with blowing or suction is lacking so
that this relationship should be viewed with some caution.
245
Finally, we mention the impact of surrounding flow planar strain. Bagchi & Balachandar
(2002c) noted that the increase in drag for 10<Re
p
<300 with RSS results is at least
qualitatively consistent with the increase associated with potential flow theory, and even
quantitatively in the absence of flow separation (Re
p
<20). While the trends are complex at
higher Re
p
values, the net changes in drag were generally small (on the order of a few %)
indicating that the neglect of strain or other aspects of Mechanism 5 is generally reasonable.
Effect of Turbulence on Drag
The effect of turbulence magnitude and frequency on the drag of particles is a matter of
considerable debate and complexity. There are at least seven mechanisms by which turbulence
may affect particle mean relative velocity with respect to the average fluid velocity, i.e. w. In
particular, turbulence can introduce:
1) nonlinear drag bias due to finite rms of the relative velocity (decreases w)
2) preferential bias for heavy particles (increases w) or buoyant particles (decreases w)
3) turbophoresis (bias w towards regions of lower kinetic energy)
4) clustering bias which can induce threeway coupling (increases w)
5) local fluid vorticity and/or particle rotation to increase drag (decreases w)
6) nonlinear/unsteady flow gradients about the particle (modifies w)
7) reduced dragcrisis critical Reynolds number, especially with roughness (modifies w)
Mechanisms 17 are taken into account with full numerical resolution of all flow scales for
both the particle and the flow, i.e. use of RSS and DNS (Table 4.2). However, this combined
approach can be extremely intensive in terms of computational resources and so is only
practical for a few particles in a simple flow at a modest Reynolds number.
For the pointforce approach, the focus of this chapter, the ability to capture the first five
mechanisms for is related to the numerical method employed (Table 4.2) and is summarized
below. If one considers the pointforce approach in conjunction with DNS, then Mechanisms
13 can be taken into account directly since no modeling is required for the flow field details,
e.g., the interactions between the unsteady turbulent structures and the particle trajectories are
fully captured. This can also be true for Mechanism 4 with respect to oneway coupling, but
the increase in volume fraction may also lead to threeway and fourway coupling effects
which requires modeling (§3.8, §6.7). The impact of vorticity or particle rotation on drag
(Mechanism 5), can be empirically modeled at finite Re
p
as noted in the following section
(§6.2.7).
If the turbulent structures are unresolved because of the use of RANS (or unresolved down
to the particle response time when using LES), then models are needed to account for
Mechanisms 23 (§3.5.5). In addition models are needed for Mechanism 1 for an Eulerian
treatment of the particles (§3.5.4) and an additional correction is needed for Lagrangian
treatment of particles in nonhomogeneous turbulence (§7.2.5). Mechanisms 45 are difficult
to model within an averaged approach.
The remainder of this section focuses on pointforce models for Mechanisms 6 and 7. For
Mechanism 6, consider a particle which is held stationary with respect to a relative mean
velocity but is subjected to velocity fluctuations and turbulent structures of the incoming flow.
Such a scenario is consistent with wind tunnel measurements past fixed objects. An example
of this is shown in Fig. 6.45, where it can be seen that an increase in turbulence (normalized by
246
the relative velocity) resulted in a more unsteady and complex wake (Wu & Faeth, 1994). If
one employs the instantaneous relative velocity given by DNS coupled with a pointforce drag
with d<λ (based on Eq. 4.44), then the impact of this mechanism is small. This is
demonstrated in Fig. 4.14b which compares RSS and pointforce descriptions of the surface
force for such a case. However, as the particle becomes larger (d»λ) a distributedforce model
is needed and random fluctuations about the predicted surface force arise as shown in Fig.
4.14a, though the average drag is reasonably represented. A similar result is shown in Fig.
6.46 for a bubble with d»λ, whereby the drag model is reasonable on average, but the
fluctuations are only approximately captured. No robust model has been proposed to account
for the instantaneous discrepancies for a point or distributedforce description with d»λ.
However, several studies have been conducted to model the effect of Mechanism 6 on the
average drag when a RANS description of the flow is employed. Published data for solid and
liquid particles reviewed by Crowe et al. (1998) indicate a variety of results for the mean effect
of turbulence on a fixed particle, including both increases and decreases in drag. Unfortunately,
Crowe et al. concluded that there is insufficient evidence to propose a quantitative robust
variation of the nonturbulent drag behavior for subcritical Reynolds numbers, so that
assuming the mean drag (based on the mean relative velocity) is not significantly affected by
turbulence levels for Re
p
<100 is not an unreasonable assumption. In fact, detailed experiments
by Warnica et al. (1995) lend further support to this assumption.
Effect of Turbulence and Roughness on the Drag Crisis
In contrast to many of the above mechanisms, the reduction of Re
p,crit
by turbulence
(Mechanism 7) has received much more attention. This effect arises because increased free
stream fluctuations introduce instabilities which cause the particle’s boundary layer to
transition sooner to turbulent flow. A similar effect is caused by roughness on the surface of a
particle. As a result, the drag crisis occurs at lower Reynolds numbers in the presence of
increased turbulence or particle roughness. To quantify the impact on Re
p,crit
(defined when C
D
drops below 0.3), the particle surface variations (
RMS
d′ ) are normalized by its diameter and the
freestream turbulence levels
RMS
(u′ of Eq. A.72) are normalized by the relative velocity:
* RMS
* RMS
RMS
u
u
w
d
d
d
Λ
′
≡
′
′ ≡
6.113a
6.113b
The roughness effect is shown in Fig. 6.47a for a relatively low turbulence level for
*
RMS
d′ up to
1.5%, which leads to a fourfold reduction in Re
p,crit
. Conditions with very high surface
irregularities (
*
RMS
d′ on the order of 15% or higher) have been studied in the context of irregular
particles as discussed in §6.2.4. While very high Re
p
studies for such conditions are scarce,
there is no evidence of any drag coefficients below 0.3 for such particles. Furthermore, such
particles are not likely to have a dragcrisis at all since the highly irregular surfaces will cause
the particles to have turbulent flow over the particle at modest Re
p
values for which the
measured C
D
is approximately constant (e.g., noncircular cross section particles in Fig. 6.8).
247
Unfortunately, there is not sufficient quantitative data at intermediate surface roughness levels
(0.015<
*
RMS
d′ <0.15) to determine the behavior of the transition.
The effect of turbulence is qualitatively equivalent to that of small roughness levels on the
particle surface. This effect is shown in Fig. 6.47b for particles that are effectively smooth
(
*
RMS
d′ <10
4
) for which Re
p,crit
reduces to values as low as 20,000 at turbulence levels of 20%.
On the other hand, turbulence levels less than 1% have little effect on critical Reynolds number.
The combined effect of roughness and turbulence intensity is also shown in Fig. 6.47b, where
it can seen that turbulence has a more profound effect and that the combination gives even
larger reductions in Re
p,crit
. Correspondingly, roughness becomes less important at high
turbulence intensities. An empirical expression which approximately correlates the combined
effects of the data in Fig. 6.47a and Fig. 6.47b (and is shown on both figures) is given by
( ) ( ) ( )
0.03 0.55 0.07
* * *
10 p,crit RMS RMS RMS
log Re 4.4 d +0.002 1.9 u d +0.002 ′ ′ ′ = 6.114
However, this relationship belies a complex influence of turbulence for
*
RMS
u′ >0.1. In
particular, high turbulence gives rise to a “transcritical” regime occurs for which the drag
coefficient twice drops below 0.3 as Re
p
increases. This regime is shown in Fig. 6.48 whereby
the drag coefficient undergoes an initial drop, followed by a rise, followed by a second drop.
While the mechanisms for these rapid changes are not fully understood, Clamen & Gauvin
(1969) suggest the following. At high turbulence but moderate Re
p
values, the laminar
boundary layer separates sooner but then undergoes reattachment creating a separation bubble
as has been noted on some airfoils. The resulting wake turns out to be significantly smaller
which causes the first C
D
drop below 0.3. At a somewhat larger Re
p
value, this laminar
separation bubble fails to reattach leading to a massively separated condition and very high C
D
values. Finally, the boundary layer transition to turbulent before separation and so stays
attached longer, creating a smaller wake and dropping the C
D
below 0.3 again. As such, drag
can be quite sensitive at high turbulence levels, e.g., at turbulence levels of 35% C
D
can change
by an order of magnitude for only a factor of three change in Re
p
. Furthermore, Neve &
Shansonga (1989) reported that the drag coefficient sensitivity to turbulence is also function of
the nondimensional turbulent lengthscales seen by the particle (Λ/d), though it disappears
altogether for d«λ. As such, significant caution is needed when employing the standard sub
critical drag expressions of §6.2.1 (which assume approximately constant C
D
from
1000<Re
p
<Re
p,crit
) when the turbulence levels are beyond a few %. With respect to largescale
roughness below Re
p,crit
, there are various theories.
6.2.4. NonSpherical Solid Particles
The drag of nonspherical solid particles will depend on the degree of nonsphericity as
well as their orientation to the flow (since the drag will generally be anisotropic with respect to
direction). For nonspherical solid bodies, particles may be classified as regularlyshaped
(ellipsoids, cones, disks, etc. as shown in Fig. 2.7b) or irregularlyshaped (nonsymmetric
rough surfaces as shown in Fig. 2.82.9). The drag associated with these two types of particle
shapes is discussed below, beginning with spheroids and ellipsoids.
248
Spheroids and Ellipsoids in Creeping Flow (Re
p
«1)
As discussed in §2.2, ellipsoids are the most commonly characterized regularlyshaped
particle. In particular, the spheroid is defined by an aspect ratio (E) based on the ratio of the
diameters along and about the axis of symmetry (Eq. 2.36). Oblate spheroids will have E<1
with the limiting shape E=0 corresponding to a disk; while prolate spheroids will have E>1
with the limiting shape E=∞ corresponding to a needle (Fig. 2.7a). In both cases E=1
corresponds to a sphere. We may define the Stokes correction for ellipsoid of aspect ratio (f
Ε
)
as the ratio of creeping solid spheroid drag force to creeping solid sphere drag force (where
both have the same volume equivalent diameter):
D p
E
f
F (E, Re 0)
f
3 d w
→
≡
π μ
6.17
Thus f
E
approaches unity as E approaches unity. Exact, limiting and approximate solutions for
the drag on spheroids at creeping flow conditions (Re
p
→0) were derived by Oberbeck (1876).
In particular, he obtained corrections for flow parallel to the axis of symmetry (
E
f

) and flow
perpendicular to the axis of symmetry (
E
f
⊥
). These are given in Table 6.1 along with
approximations for small departures from the spherical shape, i.e. E1«1, as well as small
departures from the limiting solutions (disk or needle geometries).
The trends for the parallel drag correction factor as a function of aspect ratio are shown in
Fig. 6.3 where the approximate and limiting conditions are shown to be reasonable over a wide
range of aspect ratios in comparison to the exact values. It can also be seen that variations in E
from 0.01 to 100 result in only moderate changes in the overall drag correction (less than four
fold). This arises because increases in friction drag for longer bodies are approximately
balanced by decreases in pressure drag, while the reverse is true for shorter bodies. It is
interesting that the minimum drag shape and orientation is a prolate spheroid with aspect ratio
E=1.955 moving parallel to the axis of symmetry, where
E
f

=0.9555 (Fig. 6.3). However, this
condition is not generally stable and the more commonly occurring broadside orientation has a
drag correction which is greater than unity
Generally, spheroids traveling at an initial orientation with no rotation will continue to fall
at the same orientation, though a broadside orientation tends to be more stable (§2.3.1). If the
initial orientation is parallel or perpendicular to the relative velocity, no torque exists since the
drag acts in the opposite direction to the gravitational force. However, it is possible for a
spheroid to be at an orientation which is neither parallel nor perpendicular. In this case, the
drag force may be obtained based on a linear combination of
E
f

and
E
f
⊥
because of the linear
drag associated with creeping flow, i.e.
( )
D f E E
3 f f
⊥ ⊥
= − πμ + F w w
 
6.18
In this equation, and
⊥
w w

are the components of relative velocity which are parallel and
perpendicular to the particle’s axis of symmetry (and whose vector sum is w). If both velocity
components are nonzero, this leads to an interesting result as F
D
will not be parallel to w
(compare Eqs. 6.7 and 6.18). As a result, the terminal velocity direction will differ from the
direction of gravity, i.e. the particle will have a glide angle with respect to g causing a lateral
249
velocity component (White, 1991). One may recast the force of Eq. 6.14 into a drag
component in the relative velocity direction and then define the remaining fluid dynamic force
as lift. However, the force of Eq. 6.14 is often denoted as drag while lift is defined to be the
result of nonzero continuousphase shear or nonzero relative rotation of the particle (§6.3).
Similarly, the drag force for ellipsoids with aspects ratios E1, E2 and E3 (and other
orthotropic particles) will be based on the Stokes correction factor in each direction and the
component of relative velocity associated with each axis direction
( )
D f 1 E1 2 E2 3 E3
3 f f f = − πμ + + F w w w
6.19
In Brownian motion, all orientations can be assumed to be equally possible for many
realizations (or long times) since molecular interaction is random. In this case, one may
consider an average correction factor by integrating over all possible orientations. For particles
which are regularly shaped about three axes, this integration yields a correction which is based
on the average of the inverse correction factors (Clift et al. 1978), i.e.:
E E1 E2 E3
3 1 1 1
f f f f
= + +
6.20
Since spheroids have two axes which are equal in length and perpendicular to the axis of
symmetry, this yields
E1 E E2 E3 E
f f and f f f
⊥
= = =

. If one assumes that Stokesian drag is
appropriate which is reasonable for most small particles in a liquid (whereas small particles in
air undergoing Brownian motion will generally include noncontinuum effects as discussed in
6.2.5), then the net correction for oblate and prolate shapes based on Eq. 6.20 and Table 6.1
becomes:
1/ 3 2
E
1
1/ 3 2
E
2
E 1 E
f for E<1
cos E
E E 1
f for E>1
ln E E 1
−
−
−
−
=
−
=
⎛ ⎞
+ −
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
6.21a
6.21b
This average drag correction is also reasonable to within a few percent (Davis, 1991) for the
wide range of orientations caused by Jeffrey orbits, which result from shear flow (§2.3.2). As
may be expected, the minimum drag shape for a given particle volume when averaging over all
orientations is a sphere (for which f
E
=1).
Other RegularlyShaped Particles in Creeping Flow (Re
p
«1)
Regularlyshaped nonspheroidal particles such as cones, cubes, etc. (Fig. 2.7b) do not
typically have analytical solution for the drag even in the creeping flow limit (Re
p
«1).
Therefore, the shape correction values are typically obtained by terminal velocity experiments
comparing a nonspherical particle to a spherical particle with the same volume and thus the
same volumetric diameter (Eq. 1.1). Since the drag is linearly proportional to the relative
velocity for creeping conditions, use of Eq. 1.82a yields:
250
( )
p
D,shape term,shape term,sphere
shape
f term,sphere term,shape
Re 1 & const.vol.
F f w
f
3 d w f 1 w
≡ = =
π μ =
<
6.22
As a first approximation, the shapes and corresponding drag corrections of many particles may
be approximated as ellipsoids by determining an effective aspect ratio (E). As shown in Fig.
6.3, this approach works well for cylinders since their shape is quite similar to that of a
spheroid. In particular, the drag increases for cylinders correspond reasonably well to the
limiting cases of spheroidal disks and needles. However, the drag for a cylinder with a length
to diameter ratio of unity is somewhat larger (by 14.4%) than that predicted for a sphere,
primarily due to the increased surface area for the cylinder. This difference becomes more
profound if the particles have additional edges or indentations as this causes extra surface area
(A
surf
) for the same volume. One may also from the spheroidal drag relations that the projected
crosssectional area (A
proj
) with respect to the direction of the particle’s relative velocity would
be important for nonspherical drag effects.
As such, to estimate the shape factor for nonspheroidal regularlyshaped particles, it is
common to consider two dimensionless area parameters: the surface area ratio and the
projected area ratio. Each of these areas can be normalized by the surface area of a sphere
which has the same volume, i.e.
proj * * surf
surf proj 1 2 2
4
A
A
A , A
d d
≡ ≡
π π
6.23
The surface area ratio will always be greater than one since the spherical geometry has the
minimum surface area for a given volume, i.e.,
*
surf
A ≥1. The inverse of the surface area ratio is
more commonly defined as the “sphericity ratio” (Wadell, 1934), the “sphericity” (Clift et al.
1978), or the “shape factor” (Crowe et al. 1998). For a cylinder with a length to diameter
ratio defined by E
cyl
, geometric relations can provide the surface area ratio and equivalent
volume diameter:
( )
1/ 3
cyl cyl cyl *
cyl surf cyl 1/ 3
2
cyl
cyl
L 2E 1 3E
E , A , d=d
d 2
18E
+ ⎛ ⎞
≡ =
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
6.24
The projected area ratio will depend on the orientation of the particle as well as its shape. For
example, a long cylinder will have
*
proj
A >1 if it falls broadside, whereas it will have
*
proj
A <1 if
it falls vertically along its axis. Equations for
*
surf
A and
*
proj
A for doublecones, cuboids, etc.
are given as a function of orientation in Clift et al. (1978) for nonisometric conditions. There
are also other measures of particle nonsphericity discussed by Clift et al. (1978) but these are
the two most commonly used parameters for particles with symmetry and turn out to be the
most effective in correlating the drag (Ganser, 1993; Madhav & Chhabra, 1995; Xie & Zhang,
2001).
In general, one would expect that larger values of
*
proj
A or
*
surf
A would correspond to larger
drag values, and indeed this is the case. Leith (1987) suggested the following correlation of
these two area ratios for the Stokes shape correction factor
251
* *
shape proj surf
1 2
f A A
3 3
= + 6.25
This relationship was based on the fact that onethird of the drag of a sphere is form drag
(related to the projected area) while twothirds is friction drag (related to the surface area), and
that the form and skin friction drags are proportional to the particle diameter. This ratio holds
reasonably well for many nonspherical particles, especially those with small deviations from a
sphere. In particular, isometric particles with equal sides (cubes, octahedron, tetrahedron, etc.)
have a projected area which is approximately the same for all orientations so that the projected
areas for these shapes can be estimated as unity. Table 6.2 lists some regular particle shapes
along with measured and predicted Stokes correction factors. The relations are generally
reasonable for mild to moderate nonsphericity, but differences become significant for large
number of convolutions or holes in the shape (e.g., the foursphere cluster).
If the particle can be reasonably approximated as having a surface area close to that of a
spheroid, one can use the corresponding surface area ratio relationships (Clift et al. (978):
( )
2/ 3 4/ 3 2
*
surf
2 2
1/ 3
* 1 2
surf 2/ 3
2
E E 1 1 E
A ln E 1
2
4 1 E 1 1 E
1 E
A sin 1 E E 1
2E
2 1 E
−
− −
−
⎛ ⎞
+ −
= + ≤ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
− − −
⎝ ⎠
= + − ≥
−
for
for
6.26
Unlike the surface area, the projected area depends on orientation. For a spheroid falling at a
broadside orientation, the projected area ratio can be given from Eqs. 2.37 and 2.38 as
* 1/ 3
proj 2
2
* 2/3
proj 2
d d
A E E 1
d
d
A =E E 1
d
⊥
⊥
= = ≤
= ≥

for
for
6.27
Since creeping drag is not highly sensitive to details in particle shape, the spheroidal
approximation is reasonable for many particles, e.g., cylinders as shown in Fig. 6.3.
From Table 6.2, it can be noted that increased deviations from a spheroid result in
decreased accuracy of Eq. 6.25. Highly flattened or elongated particle shapes (E«1 or E»1)
tend to be overpredicted as discussed by Ganser (1993). For example, application of Eq. 6.25
to disks yields a drag which is about 14% too high for both orientations when compared to the
exact solution. More complex correlations have also been offered but in general empirical
measurements for a specific shape are recommended when the deviation from spherical
condition is extreme.
IrregularlyShaped Particles in Creeping Flow (Re
p
«1)
Many naturally occurring particles are irregular in shape as shown in Fig. 2.10. For those
that closely resemble regularlyshaped particles (such as Fig. 2.10c), the above creeping drag
corrections (Table 6.1 or Eq. 6.25) are generally adequate. However, many particles are too
irregular (e.g., Figs. 2.8, 2.10a and 2.10b) and pose a significant challenge for a number of
252
reasons. Firstly, the surface area or projected area of such particles may be difficult or
impossible to measure so that approximations based on the above area ratios are of little use.
Secondly, experiments for irregular particles at creeping flow conditions are not as plentiful as
that for regular particles. Third, the shape characterization of the particles is often not
documented (e.g., a study may mention simply that sand particle of an effective diameter was
used). Finally, within any mean shape characterization for such particles, irregularity generally
leads to random protuberances orientations so that the statistical variation of drag is often large.
Given these challenges, it can be expected that only approximate and probabilistic
predictions are possible for highly irregular particles. A wide variety of shapecharacterizing
parameters have been put forth for irregular particles, but the most common and most
successful is the Corey shape function (CSF). This function is given by
max max med
d / d d which
employs the three lengths of a particle in mutuallyperpendicular directions: the particle’s
longest dimension (d
max
), the shortest dimension (d
min
), and the intermediate or medium
direction (d
med
). A different representation of the CSF is the “maxmedmin area”:
* max med
mmm 2
min
d d
A
d
≡
6.28
This form is chosen for its consistency with Eq. 6.23 so that increasing area ratios correspond
to increasing drag corrections. Since particles will generally lie on a plate on their broadside,
the maximum and medium dimensions can be obtained through visualization from above,
while the minimum dimension (thickness) can be obtained from visualization from a side. This
must then be repeated for a statistically large number of samples to obtain an average max
medmin area. While cumbersome, this shape characterization is much more convenient than
the sphericity because the surface area of irregular particles is often impractical to measure,
and the same is true for other measures like notroundedness, anisometry and bulkiness ratio.
Furthermore, the maxmedmin area has been found to be generally better at correlating drag
modifications (Clift et al. 1978; Dressel, 1985; Jimenez & Madsen 2003, Smith & Chueng,
2003). Note that a projection area is difficult to characterize for an irregular particle since its
asymmetry generally leads to torque imbalances and thus complex tumbling. However, the
freefall orientation for irregular particles is not uniformly random over all possible angles as
they tend to fall mostly in the socalled broadside orientation so that d
min
is roughly parallel to
the average fall direction (§2.3.1).
Some approximate values for
*
mmm
A for irregular nonspherical particle shapes are given by
Jimenez & Madsen (2003), e.g., 1.2 for smooth wellrounded shapes, 2 for shapes with some
edges but naturally rounded, and 6 for crushed sediment with sharp edges. Experimental
correlation of this area ratio with the Stoke drag correction for particles in freefall with Re
p
«1
is given in Fig. 6.4. As expected for irregular shapes, there is significant scatter but a strong
trend is observed with increasing area ratio correlated with increasing drag. A general curve fit
(averaged over many orientations and particle samples) was given by Loth (2008c) as
( )
0.09
*
shape mmm
f A = 6.29
This is nearly identical to the fit proposed by Dressel (1985) except that a 0.1 exponent was
used. Other shape factors (“roundedness”, “perimeter”, “circularity”, “shape entropy”,
“polygonal harmonics”, etc.) have also been put forth to characterize the shape irregularity, but
253
the impact of the maxmedmin area tends to be strongest since creeping flow is not sensitive
to sharp edges (Clift et. al. 1978; TranCong et al. 2004). However, it should be kept in mind,
that Eq. 6.29 is only a rough estimate, as evidenced by the large experimental data spread
shown in Fig. 6.4. For particles, for which even
*
mmm
A is not readily available, it is useful to
note that a theorem of Hill and Power (1956) which states that the drag coefficient in creeping
flow is at most the drag of a circumscribing sphere and at least the drag of an inscribing sphere
(Fig. 6.5).
NonSpherical Particles in the NewtonDrag Regime (Re
p,sub
<Re
p
<Re
p,crit
)
Consistent with how we treated sphere drag in §1.5.2, it is helpful to consider the drag at
high Reynolds numbers before proceeding to intermediate values. As with spherical particles,
nonspherical solid particles with Reynolds numbers in the range of 10
3
10
5
tend to have drag
coefficients which are approximately constant for a given shape. Since this is evidence of a
Newtondrag regime, these drag coefficients can be defined as a critical drag coefficients
specific to a given shape: C
D,crit,shape
. This drag coefficient can be normalized by that of a
sphere with the same volume (similar to the definition of f
shape
) and the Reynolds number
regime can use the same notation as that for Eq. 1.51b:
D,shape,crit
shape
D,sphere,crit
d=const.
C
C const.
C
≡ ≈ for a given shape
6.30
Thus, C
shape
can be thought of as a Newton drag correction; though Thompson & Clark (1991)
referred to this value as “scruple”. Consistent with the CliftGauvin expression, this correction
will be based herein on
D,sphere,crit
C 0.42 ≈ , which is the approximate average for a sphere over
10
4
<Re
p
<10
5
(Fig. 6.2). A simple way to obtain this correction is compare the terminal
velocities of a nonspherical particle with a spherical particle of the same volume (and density)
and employ Eq. 1.82b:
( )
2
shape term,sphere term,shape
C w / w = 6.31
Measured values of C
shape
based on freefall trajectories of different particle geometries are
given in Table 6.3 and further geometries are given by Lasso & Weidmann (1986). Since
particle trajectories at Re
p
>200 tend to have some minor oscillations due to unsteady separated
wake effects, measurements from timeaveraged terminal velocities will formally yield path
averaged Newton drag corrections, i.e.
shape
C .
While corrections for a few specific particle types are known, it is helpful to develop
correlations for generally predicting the Newton drag correction. Similar to the creeping flow
conditions, area ratios are expected to dominate the drag corrections. While drag at high
Reynolds numbers is normally defined by the projected area, it is difficult to determine
*
proj
A
for some particles since the trajectories will generally include secondary motion so that they
are not always falling in a broadside orientation. Therefore, several authors (Clift et al. 1978;
Thompson & Clark, 1991; Ganser, 1993) recommend only using sphericity, i.e. relating C
shape
254
to
*
surf
A . The surface area ratios for cylinders and spheroids are given in Eqs. 6.23 and 6.24,
while Table 6.3 gives area ratios for other shapes. This table also shows that the Newton drag
corrections tend to increase with
*
surf
A with greater sensitivity than at creeping flow conditions,
i.e. C
shape
values of Table 6.3 are larger than f
shape
values of Table 6.2 for the same shape. This
may be attributed to the increased sensitivity of particle boundary layer separation to increased
shape convolutions at high Re
p
conditions. This sensitivity influences the extent of separated
wake flow and the pressure drag component (in contrast, creeping conditions lead to attached
flow over the particle regardless of any shape convolutions.
The drag corrections for shapes in Table 6.3 which have aspect ratios of order unity or less
as well as and data for disks (0.012≤Ecyl≤0.515) and a spheroid (E=0.5) freefalling in liquids
are plotted as a function of the surface area ratio in Fig. 6.6. Despite the wide variety of
particle shapes and surface area ratios, a reasonable correlation was obtained by (Loth, 2008c):
( ) ( )
1/ 2
* *
shape surf surf
C 1 1.5 A 1 6.7 A 1 = + − + − E 1 ≤ for and
*
p
ρ ~1 6.32
However, this fit does not take into account inertia effects which can be significant at low
aspect ratios and high density ratios. In particular, disks at high Reynolds numbers can
undergo significant pitching and/or tumbling depending on the nondimensional moment of
inertia (Eq. 2.48), which in turn is proportional to density ratio (Fig. 2.22). Measured drag
coefficients for disks falling in air (Willmarth et al. 1964) indicate a somewhat reduced drag
for a given area ratio. However, data of Stringham et al. (1969) indicate that inertia effects are
further modified once the Reynolds number based on the disk diameter becomes larger than
2000. As such, the above drag correction expression is only approximate.
For cylinders and prolate spheroids (E>1), secondary motion has also been found to be
significant only at extreme aspect ratios. For example, Jayaweera & Mason (1965) found that
unsteady motion such as fluttering was present in liquids at high Reynolds numbers up to
E
cyl
<25, whereas Gorial & O’Callaghan (1990) found that cylinders in air were generally stable
for E
cyl
>4. However, both studies (and those they reviewed) indicated that for cylinders with
E
cyl
>10 the drag coefficient defined using broadside projected area was approximately unity,
i.e.
* *
D D,proj proj proj
C C A A = ≈ , corresponds to a shape factor of 2.4
*
surf
A . Data collected and
reviewed by Christiansen & Barker (1965) for cylinders of E
cyl
=1.75 and E
cyl
=2.5 indicate
secondary motion is sensitive to * ρ and that affects the mean drag coefficients (up to ±20%),
but in general cylinders and prolate ellipsoids can be approximately represented for a wide
variety of density ratios by the following relationship (Loth, 2008c):
( )
* *
shape surf surf
C 1 0.7 A 1 2.4 A 1 ≈ + − + − E 1 > for 6.33
Interestingly, the result for long cylinders (E
cyl
»1) is approximately consistent with that based
on a fixed finitelength cylinder in the broadside orientation, i.e.
shape shape
C C
⊥
≈ . However,
this is not generally true for some other nonspherical particle shapes because secondary
motion tends to yield higher drag than that of a fixed broadside motion. As such, averaged
freefall data is important to obtain reasonable results of the mean drag.
To account for secondary motion, a potentially more accurate but complex technique is to
determine the timeevolving particle orientation during its trajectory based on applied torque
255
and particle dynamics, and then apply a C
shape
based on this instantaneous local orientation.
While more demanding numerically, this has the advantage of employing the more detailed
drag data associated with various orientations (which can be obtained from fixed wind or water
tunnel studies) and furthermore allows inclusion of the lift and side forces to simulate lateral
motion. An example of this was conducted by List et al. (1973) for an ellipsoid of E=0.5,
whereby the oscillatory motion was investigated and at least qualitative agreement was
obtained with respect to modeling secondary motion.
The case of irregular particles is further complicated by the randomness of the shapes and
dynamics. However, a review of experimental studies for mean drag of irregularlyshaped
particles suggests that it is again reasonable to use the maxmedmin area ratio (as was used for
the Stokes correction factor). A qualitative dependency of the mean Newton shape factor for
available data is shown in Fig. 6.7 which can be reasonably correlated (Loth, 2008c) as:
*
shape mmm
C 6A 1 = − 6.34
This relationship, unlike Eq. 6.29 leads to a drag correction greater than unity as
*
mmm
A approaches unity. This trend may be attributed to the increased drag associated with
tumbling and flow separation for surface roughness at high Re
p
(whereas creeping flow drag is
relatively insensitive to roughness). However, as with the Stokes correction for irregular
particles, there is substantial uncertainty associated with Eq. 6.34 such that it is only a rough
guide to the expected drag correction sampled over many particles.
NonSpherical Particles at Intermediate Reynolds Numbers
Based on the above, nonspherical particles at intermediate Re
p
can also be expected to
produce a significant increase in drag coefficient as compared to that for spheres. Such a result
is shown in the inset of Fig. 6.8 for the regularlyshaped data of Haider & Levenspiel (1989).
Determining a robust dependency at intermediate Re
p
for nonspherical particles has
challenged many researchers and there have been more than a dozen forms of correlations (see
review by Chhabra et al. 1999). The most successful approaches are those by Ganser (1993)
and Cheng (1997) which use a combination of the Stokes drag correction and the Newton drag
correction. These approaches assume that the dependence which governs the variation from
Re
p
→0 to Re
p,crit
is functionally similar for all particle shapes and that the differences are
simply the corrections at the two extremes (given by f
shape
and C
shape
). Ganser argued this
dependency based on dimensional analysis, and it can be expressed via
* *
D p
C Re ) = f( by
normalizing the drag coefficient and Reynolds number as:
* D
D
shape
shape p
*
p
shape
C
C
C
C Re
Re
f
≡
≡
6.35a
6.35b
Evidence of this dependency can be seen in Fig. 6.8 where a freefall data for a large variety of
nonspherical particles from Jayaweera & Mason (1965), Haider & Levenspiel (1989), Madhav
256
& Chhabra (1995), TranCong et al. (2004) are found to approximately collapse for these
normalized parameters. In this conversion, a broadside orientation was employed for the
Stokes correction, i.e. oblate particles are related to
E
f

while prolate particle are related to
E
f
⊥
.
Upon close inspection of Fig. 6.8, one notes that there tends to be two different curves
along which the data from different shapes collapse. These two curves are related to the
“crosssection of the particle shape relative to the flow” or “C/S” for short. In particular,
particles which can have a “circular C/S” such as spheres and needles (which tend to fall
broadside) are fitted by the solid line. In contrast, particles which will have a “noncircular
C/S” such as cubes, cones, disks (which tend to fall broadside) are fitted by the dashed lines.
Further data for agricultural particles are given by Gorial & O’Callaghan (1990) and Xie &
Zhang (2001) and generally follow the trends given above. This segregation may be related to
the fluid dynamics over the particle surface. In particular, particles which present a circular
C/S to the flow will have a surface separation point that will vary substantially with Re
p
(§6.2.1) while particles which present a noncircular C/S to the flow tend to have a separation
point at the surface edges which initiates at a low Rep (about 10 or less) and stays fixed
regardless of Re
p
changes beyond that level.
Another example of the normalized drag curve is shown in Fig. 6.9 for particle shapes that
correspond to various forms of atmospheric precipitation including: spherical drops
(corresponding to clouds and small rain drops), various forms of snow in the form of dendrites,
needles and disks (recall examples in Fig. 2.9), as well as hail shapes in the forms of a cone
hemisphere and a spheroid with E=0.5. The limiting shape corrections for the spheroid and the
needles are well represented by Table 6.1 and Eqs. 6.32 and 6.33. The data again falls along
the two curves seen in Fig. 6.8 corresponding to whether the particle crosssection is circular or
noncircular. One would expect all prolate spheroids to yield a dragcurve with a “circular
crosssection” but an interesting issue is whether this is also true for some oblate spheroids.
The spheroid data in Fig. 6.9 and the E=0.5 resolvedsurface simulations of (Comer &
Kleinstreuer, 1995) indicate that such a dragcurve holds for E≥0.5, while the disk data (with
E
cyl
≤0.05) indicate “noncircular crosssection” characteristics. Other simulations by Comer &
Kleinstreuer for Re
p
ranging from 40120 indicate that spheroids with E=0.2 lie approximately
in the middle of the circular and noncircular crosssection curves.
Use of a dimensionless CliftGauvin expression based on Eq. 6.16 yields
( )
( )
*
*
*
0.687
*
D p
p
1.16
p
24 0.42
C 1 0.15 Re
42,500
Re
1+
Re
⎡ ⎤
= + +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
for ≈ circular C/S
6.36
As shown in Figs. 6.8 and 6.9, this gives good correlation for particles for a wide range of
Reynolds numbers whose relative crosssection (C/S) is approximately circular, e.g., spheres,
cylinders and even oblate spheroids with E>0.5. As such, Eq. 6.36 can be referred to as the
“circular C/S CliftGauvin fit”. For moderate particle Reynolds numbers, a normalized
SchillerNaumann expression may be similarly defined by modifying Eq. 6.14, i.e.
* 0.687
shape p
f f [1 0.15(Re ) ] = + for
*
p
Re < 1000 with ≈ circular C/S 6.37
Other expressions for spherical particles could also be normalized in this fashion.
257
For the second group of particles whose relative crosssection is noncircular, a modified
version of the CliftGauvin formula similar to that proposed by Ganser can be obtained based
on the best fit to the data as
( )
( )
*
*
*
0.74
*
D p
0.5
p
p
24 0.42
C 1 0.035 Re
Re
1+ 33 Re
⎡ ⎤
= + +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
for noncircular C/S
6.38
This correlation is referred to herein as the “noncircular Ganser fit” and, as shown in Fig. 6.8,
gives reasonable agreement for a wide variety of shapes. One may also consider the form
proposed by Cheng for sand particles, which is similar to normalizing the Dallavalle drag
expression (Eq. 6.15) except that Cheng used an exponent of 1.5 (vs. 2). However, this was
based on limited irregular particle data (in terms of both shape and Reynolds number range)
and neither of these exponent values gives good agreement with the more comprehensive non
spherical data presented in Fig. 6.8 and 6.9. A successful variant given by Loth (2008c) simply
employs an exponent of unity (i.e.
D shape p shape
C 24f / Re 0.4C = + ) so that:
*
D
*
p
24
C 0.4
Re
= + for noncircular C/S
6.39
This is referred to as the “noncircular C/S Cheng fit” and is found to give a remarkably good
correlation as shown in Fig. 6.8 and 6.9, though it does not allow for potential dips which may
occur at about
*
p
Re of about 1000 (prior to reaching the critical drag coefficient).
The maximum
*
p
Re used for the normalized drag correlations is not well known for most
shapes. Particles that are nearly spherical but with smallscale rough surfaces (about 1% or
less) or spheroids with moderate aspect ratios (e.g., for ½<E<2) can yield a decreased Re
p,crit
but generally display a nearly constant Newtonlike drag coefficient for
*
p
Re up to 40,000
(Pettyjohn & Christiansen, 1948). However, the Newton regime for disks tends to be limited
to
*
p
Re >1000 since inertia (I*) effects can become important thereafter. In contrast, the
maximum Re
p
for the Newton regime of irregularlyshaped particles is generally high or
unknown since they exhibit little or no drag crisis (Albertson, 1952; Alger & Simmons, 1968;
and Gogus et al. 2001). This is because such particles tend to have a consistent bluffbody
separation and tumbling motion for a large range of Re
p
. With respect to irregular particles,
the results are generally is consistent with Eq. 6.39 but data are not available over the entire
range of Reynolds numbers (from Stokes to Newton behavior) for a single shape set in order to
establish this correlation as definitive.
In summary, the key to the drag coefficient for nonspherical particles primarily is to
obtaining the Stokesian and Newton corrections for the particle and then employ a normalized
expression for the drag coefficient. These values can be obtained from the preceding figures
and tables for C
shape
and broadside values of f
shape
or upon correlations given in Eqs. 6.25, 6.29,
6.326.34. However, it should be kept in mind that the correlations are based on mean freefall
characteristics and that the area ratios give only a gross generalization of the shape
characteristics, e.g., regularlyshaped particles of different shapes but the same sphericity ratio
can have significantly different Newtonbased drag coefficients (that are not predicted by the
258
above functions). Thus, it is always best to obtain C
D
based on experiments with that same
particle shape and Reynolds number, especially for shapes that are substantially nonspherical.
6.2.5. Spherical Fluid Particles
Now let us consider the situation which arises when the particle is a fluid. If the
instantaneous Weber number is sufficiently low (§2.2.2), such particles are generally spherical
in shape (e.g., Figs. 2.11a and 2.14a). The regime for spherical fluid particles as a function of
Bond number and terminal Reynolds number is illustrated in Fig. 2.19, and generally any
particles in the creeping flow regime (Re
p
→0) can be considered spherical. An approximately
spherical geometry persists for terminal velocity conditions with Re
p
<300 for water drops in air
and with Re
p
<100 for gas bubbles in water. This section will focus on spherical fluid particles,
while the following section will focus on deformed fluid particles.
A spherical fluid particle can have different drag than that of a solid spherical particle due
to the influence of the viscosity ratio and surfactants. If the particle is spherical and is fully
contaminated its surface can be approximated with a noslip condition. In this case, the
expressions for a solid spherical particle (§6.2.1) are appropriate. However, if the particle is
clean or partiallycontaminated, then there can be a slip flow along the particle interface which
is driven by internal circulation and the relative velocity. This tends to reduce the impact of
viscous drag, but can also change the form drag. In terms of the viscosity ratio, fluid particles
can be generally divided into two groups: μ
∗
»1 (liquid drops in gas) and μ
∗
of order unity or
less (immiscible liquid drops or gas bubbles in a liquid). The two groups can behave much
differently at finite Reynolds numbers. However, for creeping flow (discussed in the below
subsection), a unified theoretical treatment can be applied for fluid particles of all viscosity
ratios.
Fluid Spheres at Creeping Flow Limit
If the fluid sphere has no contaminants, then an exact analytical solution can be obtained
for the creeping flow regime as discussed in §1.5.2. Based on the stream function (Eq. 1.61),
the tangential velocity solution outside of the fluid sphere is given by
* 3 *
p p p p
* 3 *
p p
r 2 3 r
U wsin 1
4r 1 4r 1
θ
⎡ ⎤ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ + μ μ
= − θ − − ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
+μ +μ
⎢ ⎥
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
6.40
The limit as the viscosity ratio approaches zero (e.g., a gas bubble in a liquid) gives a
tangential velocity on the particle surface (r=r
p
) given by
1
2
U wsin
θ
= − θ for
*
p
μ →0
6.41
This result is 1/3 of that for an inviscid freeslip surface (Eq. 1.47c), and indicates that the flow
over the particle surface includes a stagnation point at θ=0 and π but peaks at a magnitude of ½
w at the top and bottom locations which drives the internal circulation (Fig. 1.28). The
difference is attributed to the stressfree boundary condition (Eq. 1.59).
259
The corresponding drag force can be obtained from the pressure, shearstress, and
deviatoric normal stress contributions for the fluid particle so that the Stokesian correction
associated with internal circulation follows the HadamardRybczynski result
*
* *
D p p p
*
f
p
F ( , Re 0) 2 3
f
3 d w
3 3
μ
μ → + μ
≡ =
π μ
+ μ
6.42
Recall that
*
p
μ is the particle viscosity normalized by the external fluid viscosity (Eq. 1.5). It is
instructive to evaluate three limits of this expression:
* * *
p p p
, 1, and 0. μ →∞ μ → μ → The high
viscosity ratio condition is generally satisfied when the fluid is liquid and the external fluid is a
gas, e.g., a raindrop. In this limit, the tangential velocity reverts to the Stokes flow solution of
a solid particle, yielding a negligible drag correction:
* f 1
μ →∞
= for drops in a gas
6.43
However, it should be noted that the internal fluid motion can be important to the overall heat
transfer between a drop and the surrounding gas since the temperature field depends on internal
convection. The second condition of intermediate viscosity ratio is approximately satisfied for
the case where the internal fluid and the external fluid are immiscible liquids of similar
viscosities with no surfaceactive contaminants. The resulting flow yields a drag which
happens to correspond to the average of their two drags
*
1
f 5 / 6
μ →
= for clean immiscible drops in a liquid
6.44
The third condition of negligible viscosity ratio is theoretically satisfied for the case where the
internal fluid is air and the external fluid is water, such as a gas bubble, where the lower drag
corresponds to
*
0
f 2 / 3
μ →
= for clean bubbles in a liquid
6.45
This yields a 3/2 increase in the terminal velocity compared to that for a solid sphere (with the
same density difference and diameter). However, such changes are not observed in
experiments with water due to insufficient purity as discussed below.
The purity assumption used above for the HadamardRybczynski solution indicates that the
interface is free of any surfaceactive contaminants (surfactants). In view of this, some careful
measurements were conducted in fluids for which contaminants can be nearly completely
removed. This includes experiments of air bubbles in aqueous dextrose solutions and mercury
drops in pure glycerin, for which the predicted terminal velocities agreed well with the
experimental results (Clift et al. 1978). However, interfaces with high surface tensions such
air/water and air/liquidmetals are extremely susceptible to contaminants, especially at small
diameters, so that it is generally not possible to eliminate their effect even with careful
distillation and filtering (as discussed in §2.2.2). As a result, the presence of surfactants in
even modest amounts (i.e., amounts so small as to have a negligible effect on viscosity or
density of the fluid) can partially or fully immobilize the surface flow. If the surface is fully
immobile, then internal circulation is effectively nullified and a solidsphere drag will result.
Such contamination is especially observed for small particles due to their increased surfaceto
volume ratio and increased sensitivity to surfactants of a given size. In particular, bubble
diameters of 100 μm or less (consistent with Re
p
<1) in water or other easily contaminated
260
liquids are generally assumed to have contaminated surfaces yielding a drag consistent with
solid particle behavior:
* f 1
μ
≈ for contaminated conditions (e.g., small gas bubbles in water)
6.46
Examples of fluid particles which tend to the limits of Eqs. 6.43, 6.45 and 6.46 are shown in
Fig. 6.10.
As the Stokes solidparticle drag solution was extended to include linearized inertial terms
by the Oseen expression, Brenner & Cox (1963) extended the HadamardRybczynski
expression to include inertial terms for a spherical fluid particle. This includes a small
correction for small but finite Re
p
values:
( )
*
2
* *
p p
2
p p p
* *
p p
2 3 2 3
3
f Re Re ln Re
16
3 3 3 3
μ
⎛ ⎞
+ μ + μ
⎜ ⎟
= + +
⎜ ⎟
+ μ + μ
⎝ ⎠
O
for clean conditions
6.47
The corresponding drag coefficient for
*
p
μ →∞ (e.g., drop in a gas) approaches the Oseen
expression (Eq. 6.12) but approaches C
D
=2+16/Re
p
for
*
p
μ →0 (e.g., clean gas bubble in a
liquid). These linearized expressions are reasonable up until about Re
p
of unity (as was found
for the Oseen correction). However, it should be recalled that small bubbles in water are
unlikely to be clean due to the presence of surfactants.
Partiallycontaminated fluid spheres can be expected to have drag coefficients in between
that given by the HadamardRybczynski and Stokes solutions. Various approaches to account
for this effect can be related to the angle of the clean portion (θ
clean
) as defined in Fig. 2.17.
Sadhal & Johnson (1983) obtained an exact solution for the variable viscosity case at the
creeping flow limit
( )
*
clean
1
*
clean clean clean clean
p
3
,
* *
p
p
2 2 sin sin 2 sin3
2 3
f
3 3
2 3 3
μ θ
π− θ + θ + θ − θ
+ μ
= +
+ μ
π + μ
6.48
The above references note that the determination of θ
clean
is related to the gradient of surface
tension over the surface caused by the surfactant concentration and is based on a large host of
physiochemical processes including chemistry, ionization, solubility, absorption, surface
tension, surfactant dynamics, etc. Furthermore, the contamination process is also time
dependent in that injection of a bubble may initially be characterized as clean (with a lower
Stokesian correction) but over a distance associated with several bubble diameters, the
collection of surfactants and dynamic sweeping of these to the rear of the bubble will tend to
increase the stagnant region, until a steadystate condition has been reached. In fact, the
precise method of injection and detachment dynamics can affect the initial concentration levels
so as to change the particle shape for a given bubble diameter (Wu & Gharib, 2002). As such,
θ
clean
may depend on particle sizes, transit times, release mechanisms, contaminant
concentration levels and chemical makeup.
Fluid Spheres at Intermediate and Large Reynolds Numbers
261
When the Reynolds number becomes much greater than unity, the above expressions are no
longer applicable. As with the solidsphere case, the fluid physics change substantially for
large Reynolds numbers, but are also sensitive to
*
p
μ . For example, Fig. 6.11 shows
streamlines at Re
p
=100 for fluid particles of different viscosity ratios. The spherical droplet in
a gas at
*
p
μ =55 (about a 600 micron water drop freefalling in air), yields steady flow
separation and an external flowfield (Fig. 6.11a) which emulates that of the solid particle (Fig.
6.1). This is because the high viscosity of the fluid particle reduces the internal velocities to a
small fraction of the overall relative velocity, so that the surface condition is quite similar to a
noslip condition. In contrast, a spherical gas bubble in a liquid at
*
p
μ =0 with an
uncontaminated interface (about an 800 micron gas bubble freerising in clean liquid) will have
a much different external flowfield (Fig. 6.11b). In particular, the internal recirculation yields
a surface velocity in the direction of the relative flow thereby lessening the local shear stress
and eliminating any wake separation of the external liquid. In fact, a clean spherical gas
bubble in a liquid will have no wake separation for all Reynolds numbers. The streamlines of a
fullycontaminated spherical gas bubble have negligible internal recirculation and so yield a
steady flow separation (Fig. 6.11c), effectively identical to that of a solid particle or a droplet
in a low viscosity gas.
The surface pressure distributions for different viscosity ratios at Re
p
=100 (Fig. 6.12) are
consistent with the above flow physics. The solidsphere and liquidsphere in a gas give nearly
identical results with a similar separation point of about 130
o
. However, the clean gas sphere
in a liquid closely follows the inviscid potential flow solution up until the aft region (at about
130
o
), where the pressure recovery is not as high. The reduced recovery results in bubble
pressure drag, though a viscous component also exists and actually dominates the drag for
Re
p
<200 (Clift et al. 1978).
As expected from the above, the particle drag for droplets in a gas or for contaminated
bubbles closely mimics that for a solidsphere, e.g., to within 12% as shown in Fig. 6.10.
Therefore, one may simply invoke the empirical SchillerNaumann expression given by Eq.
6.14 for fluid particles up to Re
p
of 1000 so long as there is negligible deformation. However,
once the effective viscosity ratio is reduced, the drag on fluid spheres will be less than that of
solid spheres due to flow recirculation (as was found for the creeping flow condition).
In the extreme of a clean bubble with a very low viscosity ratio (
*
p
μ «1), the lack of
separation fortunately allows closedform theoretical solutions. In particular, Levich (1949,
1962) analyzed the flow by assuming a thin boundary layer on the surface and in the wake and
approximating the flow outside of these viscous regions with the potential flow solution (recall
Fig. 6.12). By assuming high Reynolds numbers and a “stressfree” surface boundary
condition on the bubble surface (Eq. 1.59), he then related the viscous dissipation in the
boundary layer to work done by drag. The result yields a linear drag which can be expressed in
terms of a Stokes correction as
( )
1/ 2
Re 1, * 0 p
f 2 Re
−
μ →
= +
>
O for clean bubbles with Re
p
»1
6.49
The corresponding drag coefficient is given by C
D
=48/Re
p
. Moore (1963) extended the
accuracy of this theory to include an additional term appropriate for intermediate Reynolds
numbers. The resulting Stokes correction can be expressed as:
262
( )
11/ 6
Re 1, * 0 p
p
2.21
f 2 1 Re
Re
−
μ →
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
= − +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
>
O for clean bubbles with Re
p
»1
6.50
The term in the square brackets represents the correction to the Levich drag. Moore’s
expression is found to be reasonable for clean bubbles with Re
p
values as low as 100. To
bridge the gap between the Moore and HadamardRybczynski theoretical results, Mei et al.
(1994) proposed the following empirical blended function which tends properly to each limit
1
Re, * 0
p p
2 8 1 3.315
f 1 1+
3 Re 2 Re
−
μ →
⎧ ⎫
⎡ ⎤ ⎛ ⎞
⎪ ⎪
⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
= + +
⎨ ⎬
⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎪
⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
⎩ ⎭
for clean bubbles
6.51
For a wide range of Reynolds numbers, this expression was found to show good comparison
with both clean bubble experimental data (Fig. 6.10) and resolved–surface simulations (Takagi
& Matsumoto, 1996; Magnaudet & Eames, 2000).
Since flow separation may occur for intermediate values of
*
p
μ , analytical solutions are not
available at high Reynolds numbers. Therefore, some guidance must be taken from
experiments and resolvedsurface simulations (Fig. 6.13). As with the HadamardRybczynski
result, particle drag was found to monotonically decrease as the viscosity ratio is reduced. The
increment in drag for a clean fluid particle beyond that of a clean bubble can be normalized by
the difference between the solidsphere and clean bubble results. This ratio is defined as Δf*
which varies from zero to unity as the particle