You are on page 1of 9

International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Multiphase Flow
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j m u l fl o w


Advances in studies on two-phase turbulence in dispersed multiphase flows
L.X. Zhou *
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, Tsinghua Garden, Haidian District, Beijing 100084, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 October 2008
Received in revised form 6 February 2009
Accepted 10 February 2009
Available online 26 February 2009
Dispersed flows
Multiphase flows
Particle turbulence

a b s t r a c t
Particle/droplet/bubble fluctuation and dispersion are important to mixing, heat and mass transfer, combustion and pollutant formation in dispersed multiphase flows, but are insufficiently studied before the
90 years of the last century. In this paper, the present author reports his systematic studies within nearly
20 years on two-phase turbulence in dispersed multiphase flows, including particle fluctuation in dilute
gas-particle and bubble-liquid flows, particle-wall collision effect, coexistence of particle turbulence and
inter-particle collisions, fluid turbulence modulation due to the particle wake effect and validation of the
two-fluid RANS modeling using large-eddy simulation.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Turbulent dispersed multiphase flows, including gas-particle,
gas-droplet, liquid-particle and bubble-liquid flows, are widely
encountered in power, chemical, metallurgical, aeronautical, astronautical, nuclear and hydraulic engineering. The turbulence of fluid
(gas or liquid) itself is already a complex phenomenon. Turbulent
dispersed multiphase flows with co-existing dispersed phase (particles, droplets, bubbles) and continuous phase (gas or liquid) are
much more complex. The particles, droplets or bubbles have their
own strong fluctuations leading to their dispersion (diffusion), and
meanwhile the existence of the dispersed phases will cause the
change (modification) of the fluid turbulence. There are strong turbulence interactions between the dispersed and continuous
phases. The turbulent fluctuation of the dispersed phase will affect
its mixing with the continuous phase, hence has important effect
on the pressure drop, heat and mass transfer between two phases,
collection efficiency, flame stabilization, combustion efficiency,
pollutant formation, etc. There was less understanding to the
behavior of so-called particle/bubble/droplet turbulence until the
second half of years 80 of the last century. Over a long period the
most popular theory was the Hinze–Tchen’s ‘‘particle-trackingfluid” theory (Hinze, 1975), according to which the particle turbulent fluctuation should be always weaker than the fluid turbulent
fluctuation, and the larger the particle size, the weaker its turbulent fluctuation. In the framework of two-fluid models, Elghobashi
et al. (1984) combined the gas k-e turbulence model with an algebraic particle turbulence model (it is called by us a k-e–Ap model).
Similar approaches have been taken by Melville and Bray (1979),
Chen and Wood (1985), Mostafa and Mongia (1988), etc. All of
* Tel.: +86 10 62782231; fax: +86 10 62781824.
E-mail address:
0301-9322/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

these approaches for the particle turbulence are based on the idea
of Hinze–Tchen’s particle-tracking-fluid theory of particle fluctuation. However, it was found by the present author that in some
cases or in some regions of the flow field, in contrast to the
Hinze–Tchen’s theory, the particle fluctuation is stronger than
the fluid turbulent fluctuation, and the larger the particle size,
the stronger its turbulent fluctuation. Instead of Hinze–Tchen’s
theory, a transport equation theory of particle turbulent kinetic energy was proposed (Zhou and Huang, 1990), according to which
particle turbulent fluctuation depends on its own convection, diffusion, production due to mean motion and dissipation/production
due to the effect of fluid turbulence, and not only the effect of fluid
turbulence, as that predicted by the Hinze–Tchen’s theory. Subsequently, Tu (1995) also proposed a transport equation of particle
turbulent kinetic energy, similar to that proposed by Zhou and
Huang with only minor difference in the closure models of some
phase interaction terms.
Later, it was found that the anisotropy of particle turbulence is
even greater than that of fluid turbulence. A unified second-order
moment (USM) theory, i.e., a theory of two-phase Reynolds stress
transport equations, was proposed (Zhou et al., 1994; Zhou and
Chen, 2001). On the other hand, a group of investigators, for example, Zaichik (2001), Reeks (1992), Simonin (1996), derived and
closed the particle Reynolds stress equations based on the probability density function (PDF) approach. Due to the limitation of
the length of this paper, in the following text only the two-phase
turbulence models developed by Zhou et al. will be reviewed.
For the effect of wall on particle flow behavior a particle-wall collision theory accounting for the friction, restitution and wall roughness was proposed (Zhang and Zhou, 2005). For dense gas-particle
flows, both large-scale fluctuation due to particle turbulence and
small-scale fluctuation due to inter-particle collision are taken into
account using a so-called USM-H theory (Yu and Zhou et al., 2005).

ij . we will give a brief description and experimental verification of the proposed models: (a) the two-phase Reynolds stress equation (unified second-order moment. np v pj . but also by its own . to understand the instantaneous turbulence structures. np v pj ¼  ð12Þ rp @xj rp @xj   @ @ @ le @k þ G þ Gp  qe ðqV j kÞ ¼ ð13Þ ðqkÞ þ @t @xj @xj rk @xj    @ @ @ le @ e e ðqV j eÞ ¼ ðqeÞ þ ð14Þ þ ce1 ðG þ Gp Þ  ce2 qe @t @xj @xj re @xj k   @ðNp kp Þ @ @ Np mp @kp þ Pp  Np ep ðNp kp V pk Þ ¼ ð15Þ þ @t @xk @xk rp @xk @  @  kpg þ V k þ V pk kpg @t @xk ! ! 2 2 kp @kpg @ k 1 þ cs þ ckp qp kp þ qk  ðq þ qp Þkpg ¼ @xk e ep @xk qsrp   1 @ v pi @v i 1 v i v pk þ v pi v k ð16Þ   kpg 2 @xk @xk se viv j ¼ The physical meanings of the USM and k-e–kp models are (1) the particle turbulent fluctuation is determined not only by the local gas turbulence as that given by the Ap model.ij ¼ X qp p srp ðv pi v j þ v pj v i  2v i v j Þ is a phase interaction term expressing the fluid Reynolds stress production/destruction due to particle drag force. eij are terms having the same meanings as those well known in single-phase fluid Reynolds stress equations.. Pij . 2007). It is used together with the gas turbulence k-e model. Particle fluctuation and dispersion in dilute gas-particle flows For predicting particle fluctuation. v pj v i also should be used. 2. Also. In 1990–1994 we proposed a two-phase Reynolds stress transport equation model.ij . production terms of particle Reynolds stress and the production term due to fluid turbulence.X. For example. large-eddy simulation of liquid-bubble flows was carried out (Yang et al. respectively For a closed system. Based on the concept of transport of particle turbulence. Pij .ij þ ep. 2002). (c) the USM model for dense gas-particle flows (USM-H model). (6)–(8). the LDV and PDPA measurements show that the particle turbulence intensity is larger than the gas one in the whole flow field of confined jets and in the reverse flow zones of recirculating and swirling flows. the transport equations of np v pi . the transport equations of two-phase velocity correlation v pi v j and particle turbulent kinetic energy are derived based on the fluid and particle momentum equations and closed as: @ @ ðv pi v j Þ ðv pi v j Þ þ ðV k þ V pk Þ @t @xk   @ @ 1 h ðme þ mp Þ ðv pi v j Þ þ q v v þ qv i v j ¼ @xk @xk qsrp p pi pj  i  @V pi @V j e þ v k v pi ð9Þ ðq þ qp Þv pi v j  v pk v j  v pi v j dij @xk @xk k   @ @ @ kp @kp ðN p kp Þ þ þ Pp  Np ep ð10Þ ðN p V pk kp Þ ¼ N p csp v pk v pl @t @xk @xk ep @xl where the last term on the right-hand side of Eq.ij þ Pp. constituting a k-e–Ap model. i. Tchen first considered the single-particle motion in a fluid eddy.. the smaller the particle fluctuation. np np . in order to use LES statistical results for validating the USM closure models. In this case the governing equations for isothermal turbulent gas-particle flows. 1975) for the ratio of particle viscosity over gas viscosity or particle diffusivity over gas diffusivity as 2 1 mp =mT ¼ Dp =DT ¼ ðkp =kÞ ¼ ð1 þ sr1 =sT Þ .. Based on two-phase instantaneous momentum equations.e. which consists of the following expressions and equations     2 @V i @V j 2 @V pi @V pj kdij  mt .. v pi v pj ¼ kp dij  mp ð11Þ þ þ 3 3 @xj @xi @xj @xi mp @Np mp @Np np v pj ¼  . (e) a twofluid large-eddy simulation (LES) of gas-particle flows. In the following text. a unified second-order moment (USM) twophase turbulence model (Zhou et al. sr1 ¼ qs d2p =ð18lÞ. momentum and Reynolds stress equations. (1). beside Eqs. and ep ¼  s1rp ½v pi v i þ v pi v pi þ N1p ðV i  V pi Þnp v pi : Eqs. sT ¼ k=e ð1Þ This model can simply be denoted as an ‘‘Ap model”.L. (d) the gas turbulence modification model accounting the particle wake effect.ij are the diffusion. and the particle turbulence intensity increases with the increase of the particle size in a certain size range. The new source term for two-phase flows Gp. Recently. Dp. 1994). According to Eq. USM) and two-phase turbulent kinetic energy equation (k-e–kp) models. Dij . it was studied using both LES and RANS modeling (Zeng and Zhou et al. It is found that the k-e–kp model is a reduced form of the USM model in case of nearly isotropic turbulent gas-particle flows. the gas-particle flows are studied using LES. v pi v j . ep. and even nowadays is widely adopted as particle dispersion models in two-fluid models in some commercial software. including fluid and particle continuity. The transport equation of dissipation rate of fluid turbulent kinetic energy for two-phase flows is:    @ @ @ k @e e ð8Þ ðqV k eÞ ¼ þ ce1 ðG þ Gp Þ  ce2 qe ðqeÞ þ ce v k v l @t @xk @x e @xl k P q where the new source term is Gp ¼ p srpp ðv pi v i  v i v i Þ. (6)–(10) constitute the unified second-order moment twophase turbulence model. in contrast to what predicted by the Ap model. (b) the two-phase particle-wall collision model. 1990). the fluid and particle Reynolds stress equations are derived and closed. can be given as: @q @ ðqV j Þ ¼ 0 þ @t @xj @ qp @ ðq V pj Þ ¼ 0 þ @xj p @t qp @ @ @p @ sji ðqV j V i Þ ¼  þ þ Dqg i þ ðV  V i Þ ðqV i Þ þ @t @xj @xi @xj srp pi qp @ @ ðq V pj V pi Þ ¼ qp g i þ ðV  V pi Þ ðq V pi Þ þ @t p @xj p srp i @ @ ðqV k v i v j Þ ¼ Dij þ Pij þ Gpij þ Pij  eij ðqv i v j Þ þ @t @xk @ @ ðNp V pk v pi v pj Þ ¼ Dp.ij ðN p v pi v pj Þ þ @t @xk ð2Þ ð3Þ ð4Þ ð5Þ ð6Þ ð7Þ 101 where. including the particle wake effect. using Reynolds expansion and time averaging. Zhou / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108 For the effect of particles on gas turbulence. However. we started from the fluid N–S equation and instantaneous particle motion equation. derived and closed an energy equation model of particle turbulence (kp model) (Zhou and Huang. the particle fluctuation should be always smaller than the gas fluctuation and the larger the particle size. Pp. using the Reynolds expansion and time averaging. and afterwards Hinze used the Taylor’s statistical theory of turbulence to obtain the Hinze– Tchen’s model (Hinze. (9) is closed by assuming that the dissipation of two-phase velocity correlation is proportional to the dissipation rate of the gas turbulent kinetic energy. accounting for only the gravitational and drag forces.

2002) and their comparison with the PIV measurement results. Fig. taking the restitution... Vertical normal reynolds stress ( Exp. 1. so in some cases or some regions the particle turbulence may be stronger than the gas turbulence. . and zero normal particle velocity and zero normal gradient of other particle variables at the wall are assumed as V pw ¼ 0 Fig.X. restitution coefficient and wall roughness. 2 gives the predicted vertical normal Reynolds stresses for the liquid and bubbles in bubble-liquid flows in a bubble column using a full second-order moment (FSM) model and an algebraic stress model (ASM) (Zhou and Yang et al. The results also indicate that the anisotropy of bubble turbulence is stronger that of liquid turbulence (not shown here). Zhou / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108 3. which is obviously not true in practical gas-particle flows where particle-wall collision plays important role. A particle-wall collision model in the framework of two-fluid approach. These results are in contrast to what predicted previously by some investigators who told us that bubbles always attenuate liquid turbulence.   @/p ¼0 @y w ð17Þ This model is equivalent to the full reflection condition without energy loss in the Lagrangian approach. 2. — FSM. Particle-wall collision effect It is well known that the particle-wall collisions are directly treated in the Lagrangian discrete particle simulation. 1 shows the simulation results of particle number density in windsand flows behind an obstacle (Laslandes and Sacre. These equations imply that Fig. and the subscript 1 denotes the values in the near-wall grid nodes. respectively. giving a more uniform particle concentration distribution. 1998) using both k-e–kp and k-e–Ap models and their comparison with experiments. whereas the k-e– kp model accounting for the convection of particle turbulence. (2) the particle turbulent fluctuation is anisotropic and its anisotropy may be stronger than that of gas turbulence. . and the liquid (with lower inlet velocity) turbulence is produced not only by its own velocity gradient but also by the enhancement due to bubble fluctuation. . indicating a good agreement. the particle number density. seriously under-predicts the particle dispersion leading to more ununiform particle concentration distribution. much better predicts the particle dispersion. diffusion and production. e and a denote the friction coefficient. It is seen that the k-e–Ap model based on the theory of particle tracking local gas turbulence. convection. the subscript b denotes the values at the wall. friction and wall roughness into account was proposed by the present author (Zhang and Zhou. Fig. in much better agreement with the measurement results. For example. In the early-developed Eulerian–Eulerian or two-fluid modeling of fluidparticle flows. 2005). the capital alphabets U and V denote time-averaged particle velocities and lower-case alphabets u and v denote particle fluctuation velocities.102 L. ASM). not observed in experiments. the particle-wall collision was not taken into account. . The results show that in the bubble column the dispersed phase turbulence-bubble turbulence is much stronger than the liquid turbulence due to its higher inlet velocity. longitudinal velocity and longitudinal component of normal Reynolds stresses at the walls are given as !   1 1 1 V p1 Npb ¼ Np1 1 þ ð18Þ 1  pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 e 3 2kp =3   1 2 V pb ¼ ðV p1 þ V p1 f Þ 1  a0 ð19Þ 3 1 2 up upb ¼ up1 up1 f3  a0 ½2  f 2 ð1 þ eÞg 3 1 2 þ v p1 v p1 ð1 þ eÞ½3f 2 þ a0 ð1  2f 2 Þ 3 2 1 2 2 þ up1 v p1 f ½3  a0 ð2e þ 3Þ þ U p1 U p1 a0 f 2 ð1 þ eÞ 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 þ V p1 V p1 ½3ef þ a0 ð1 þ e  2ef Þ  U p1 V p1 a0 f ð1 þ 2eÞ 3 3 ð20Þ where f. Particle number density (after Laslandes and Sacre).

3.0 0.0 0 2 4 0 w p (m/s) 2 4 0 w p (m/s) x=25mm x=3mm 2 4 0 2 4 0 w p (m/s) w p (m/s) x=52mm 2 4 2 w p (m/s) w p (m/s) 4 2 w p (m/s) 4 2 4 w p (m/s) x=85mm x=112mm x=155mm x=195mm x=315mm Exp.8 r/R 0.2 0. not in agreement with experimental results.ij þ Pp. (18)–(20). 3) and RMS tangential fluctuation velocity (Fig.  C ep.103 L. 1. give lower near-wall particle tangential time-averaged and RMS fluctuation velocities due to the effect particle-wall collisions. whereas the prediction results using the boundary condition ‘‘bc 1”. not accounting for the particle-wall collisions. (17). Particle RMS tangential fluctuation  ce2 a  g qgm eg ¼ Cg a @xk eg @xl kg  ð23Þ where Gg. based on Eq.2 ap qpm ep @xk ep @xl kp  where Gp. based on Eqs. since there are interaction terms in the par- ticle Reynolds stress equations and the H ¼ 2b kpg  kp ð24Þ .0 0 1 w p′′ (m/s) x=3mm 0 1 w p′′(m/s) x=25mm 0 1 w p′′(m/s) x=52mm 2 1 w p′′(m/s) 2 1 2 w p′′(m/s) 1 w p′′(m/s) 2 0.4 0.5 w p′′(m/s) 1.velocity components and Reynolds stresses will change under the effect of particle-wall collision due to friction.ij þ ¼ b v pi v gj þ v gi v pj  2v gi v gj The particle Reynolds stress equation @ ap qpm v pi v pj @t þ @ ap qpm V pk v pi v pj @xk ¼ Dp.ij  ep. restitution and wall roughness.8 r/R 0. the particle number density.ij þ Gp. Some of the closed USM-H model equations are: The gas Reynolds stress equation @ ag qgm v gi v gj @t þ @ ag qgm V gk v gi v gj @xk ¼ Dg. bc1 bc2 Fig. This is not a simple superposition. In this model the gas turbulence and particle large-scale fluctuation are predicted using the USM two-phase turbulence model. 4) of swirling gas-particle flows measured by Sommerfeld and Qiu (1991) show that the prediction results using the boundary condition ‘‘bc 2”. give higher near-wall particle time-averaged and RMS fluctuation velocities.5 w p′′(m/s) 1.0 x=85mm x=112mm x=155mm x=195mm x=315mm Exp. The predicted particle tangential time-averaged velocity (Fig. bc1 bc2 ¼ 2b kgp  kg . ce3 ¼ 1:8 @ ap qpm ep @t  þ @ ap qpm V pk ep @xk  i  @ @e e h d kp ¼ ap qpm C p v pk v pl p þ p C ep. 1994).ij  ð21Þ where Gg.ij þ Pg.4 0. A USM-H two-phase turbulence model for dense gas-particle flows was proposed by the present author (Yu and Zhou et al..2 0.0 0. Coexistence of particle turbulence and inter-particle collisions In dense gas-particle flows there are both large-scale particle fluctuations due to particle turbulence and small-scale particle fluctuations due to inter-particle collisions.ij þ P g.1 Pp þ Gp.6 0. 4. given by Gidaspow’s kinetic theory (Gidaspow.X. and the particle small-scale fluctuation due to inter-particle collisions is predicted using the particle pseudo-temperature equation – H equation.ij ¼ b v pi v gj þ v pj v gi  2v pi v pj The equations of dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy for gas and particle phases: @ ag qgm eg @t  þ @ ag qgm V gk eg @xk  i @ kg @e e h   g qgm v gk v gl g þ g ce1 P g þ Gg. Zhou / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108 1. and not obey the law of zero normal velocity and zero-gradient of other variables.ij þ P p.6 0. Particle tangential time-averaged velocity (m/s). 2005).0 0. in agreement with those observed in experiments.ij ð22Þ  where Gp. The wall roughness can lead to redistribution of particle Reynolds stress components after particle-wall collision.ij  eg.

for dense gas-particle flows in a downer. neglecting inter-particle collision.010 USM −Θ k-ε − k P−Θ 6 DSM-Θ USM 5 4 3 2 0. LES and RANS modeling.20 up′′ uin Fig. not observed in experiments.05 vp′′ uin 0. 5.2 0.015 0. also over-predicts the non-uniformness of particle velocity distribution.05 0. 8. expressing the effect of the dissipation rate of particle turbulent kinetic energy on the particle pseudo-temperature.8 1.6 y/H 3 2 @ ap qpm V pk H 3 4@ ap qpm H 5 þ @t @xk 2     @V pk @V pi @V pi @ 3 @H þ lp ap qpm v pk h þ CH þ ¼ @xk 2 @xk @xi @xk @xk   2 @V pl @V pl 2 þ lp e p  P p þ np  lp c 3 @xl @xl 0.p.8 USM The particle pseudo-temperature transport equation: k-ε -kP-Θ y/H 0.005 1 0.ij þ Pg.4 0. 5 and 6 give the simulation results of particle volume fraction (Fig.10 0. The DSM-H model.15 Fig. (1992). It is seen that the USM-H model can more properly predict the anisotropy of particle RMS fluctuation velocities-the axial component is greater than the vertical component.p.8 USM k-ε -kP-Θ 0.ij  eg.00 0.ij þ V gk þ V pk @t @xk þ T g.ij þ Pg.0 Exp.2 0. (26). neglecting the anisotropy of particle turbulence. 7 and 8 show the simulation results of particle horizontal and vertical RMS fluctuation velocities for horizontal gas-particle pipe flows measured by Kussin and Sommerfeld (2002). the particles are treated as point sources. the obtained source term is always negative.4 0. It is seen that the USM-H model. r/R 0.p.0 Exp. the particle-source term in the gas Reynolds stress equation or the turbulent kinetic energy equation is the difference between the gas-particle velocity correlation and the gas Reynolds stress.0 0. In the two-fluid approach of RANS modeling. flows.0 0. measured by Wang et al. neglecting particle turbulence. ð25Þ USM-Θ 0.104 L. Up to now.4 Fig.2 0.00 0. The k-e–kp–H model. not in agreement with experiments. 7. Turbulence modulation in gas-particle flows with the particle wake effect The problem of gas turbulence in gas-particle flows or. gives a high peak of particle volume fraction near the wall and non-uniform particle velocity distribution.020 0.2 ð26Þ The interaction between the large-scale and small-scale particle fluctuations is the third term on the right-hand side of Eq.0 0. Zhou / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108 Experiment USM −Θ 0.X.p. gives the particle volume fraction and velocity distribution in best agreement with the measurement results.15 0. so-called turbulence modulation from the single-phase turbulence. The two-phase velocity correlation equation: @ v pi v gj @ v pi v gj  ¼ Dg. attracts more and more attention in recent years. whereas the USM model over-predict this anisotropy and the k-e–kp–H model entirely cannot predict this anisotropy.025 USM 0. The USM model. respectively. accounting for both particle turbulence and interparticle collision. in most of DNS. Figs. Particle vertical RMS fluctuation velocity.0 r/R 0. various empirical and semi-empirical models have been proposed. Particle velocity. 1. Owing to the fact that the former is always smaller than the latter.6 0.4 0.030 7 k-ε − kP−Θ Particle Velocity (m/s) Particle volume fraction 8 Experiment 0. For dilute gas-particle 0. leading to the .6 0. 6. gives too uniform particle volume fraction and velocity distributions. Figs. USM-Θ 0.ij 1.0 Fig. 6).p.8 1. Particle horizontal RMS fluctuation velocity. 5) and particle velocity (Fig. 5. Particle volume fraction.6 0.Θ 0.035 DSM.10 0.0 0.

4m/s experiment m=0.0 þ @ ag qgm V gk v gi v gj ¼ Dg. 2007) we at first did the simulation of gas turbulent flows passing a single particle using both RANS modeling with a Reynolds stress equation turbulence model and LES with a Smagorinsky subgrid scale stress model..05 0.00 -1. and 0. It is found that the results obtained using the model accounting for the particle wake effect are in much better agreement with the experimental results than those obtained using the model not accounting for the particle wake effect in predicting the following phenomena: 1 mm particles only enhance gas turbulence intensity. 9.5 0. In fact.15 Eq.4m/s m=0. (b) with 1 mm particles. U=13.4.U=13.5 mm particles enhance or attenuate gas turbulence at different locations.1m/s m=0. U=10.0 -0.1m/s (wake effect) m=0.U=13. U=10. The filtered governing equations for a two-fluid LES are given as 0.4m/s m=0.1m/s (no wake effect) @xk ð28Þ Fig.0 r/R b 0. U=13.7m/s (no wake effect) @ ag qgm v gi v gj u/U 0.4.05 c ag qg dp V~g  V~p . Air turbulence intensity ((a) with 0.2 mm particles).6. the second-order moment two-phase turbulence model and is used to simulate dilute gas-particle flows.ij þ Pg. the proposed model is taken as a sub-model.ij @ sg ag qg  þ þ þ v pi  v gi ¼ @xj @xj @xj sr @ @ ðap qp V pj V pi Þ ðap qp V pi Þ þ @t @xj @ ss as qs @ sp. Re srp ¼ ¼ p lg 18lg ð1 þ Re2=3 p =6Þ qp d2p -0.15 experiment m=0.5 0. 1994) n   o sp ¼ ap qp H 1 þ 2ð1 þ eÞg 0 ap þ ap pp r  V p dij  2ap lp Sp ð32Þ     3 @ ap qp H þ r  ap qs HV s ¼ r  jp rH  cp  3bH 2 @t ð33Þ . Zhou / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108 a for the particle wake effect is proposed.4m/s m=3.05 Gpw ¼ c qp ap V 2rel srp ð27Þ where 0. Then.00 -1.00 -1.4m/s m=0. The simulation results are compared with experimental results and the simulation results obtained by the two-phase flow model not accounting for the particle wake effect.105 L. U=13. both the wake behind the particle and the vortex shedding should contribute to the velocity disturbance and are considered as the sources of turbulence production.0 r/R 0. dissipation of gas turbulence.2 mm particles only attenuate gas turbulence. 9 gives the RMS gas fluctuation velocities with different sizes of particles in vertical gas-particle pipe flows.0 r/R Fig.5 0.4.5 1.e.0 0.7m/s (wake effect) m=3. The gas Reynolds stress equation with the particlesource term accounting for the particle wake effect is: experiment m=0. Since the large-size eddies are mainly responsible for the mechanism of particle enhancing gas turbulence. A turbulence enhancement model in the gas Reynolds stress equation based on the single-particle simulation is obtained as 0.ij þ Gg. U=13. particle has finite volume.4m/s (no wake effect) u/U 0.0 0.5 1. U=13.7m/s m=0. 0. in our studies (Zeng and Zhou et al.6.U=13.15 experiment m=0. LES is used by us to validate the USM two-phase turbulence model. a turbulence enhancement model @ @ ðak qk Þ þ ðak qk V kj Þ ¼ 0 ðk ¼ g. 6.ij  eg.5.6.sgs.ij þ Gpw dij The turbulence enhancement by the particle is studied under various particle sizes and relative gas velocities. neglecting the sub-grid scale particle stress and using the particle pseudo-temperature proposed by Gidaspow’s kinetic theory (Gidaspow.5 1. U=13.10 0.. A two-fluid LES of gas-particle flows and validation of the USM two-phase turbulence model u/U 0. Based on these simulation results. When gas passes over the particle. (c) with 0.ij þ P g. (1984).0 0.0 -0. U=10. incorporated into the two-phase flow model.5 mm particles.5.10 @t 0.4m/s (wake effect) m=0.4m/s experiment m=0. U=13.10 Large-eddy simulation (LES) can give us the instantaneous turbulence structures and its statistical results can be used to validate the RANS turbulence models. pÞ @t @xj @ @ ag qg V gi þ ðag qg V gi V gj Þ @t @xj @pg @ sg.sgs ¼ þ ðV  V pi Þ þ @xj sr gi @xj ð29Þ ð30Þ ð31Þ For particle-collision stress. (23) indicates that the turbulence enhancement due to the particle wake effect is proportional to the particle size and the squire of relative velocity.4m/s experiment m=3.5. U=13.X. i. measured by Tsuji et al. U=13.

X.0 X/H=3.2 1. LES results are somewhat better than the USM results. Zhou / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108 u 2p 0. .0 0. mT ¼ C 2s D2 S .8 1.2 0. 11 shows the predicted particle axial RMS fluctuation velocity using LES and USM for axi-symmetric sudden-expansion gasparticle flows measured by Xu and Zhou (1999).USM). in some cases. swirling gas-particle flows. The distribution of gas-particle velocity correlation is similar to that of particle axial RMS fluctuation velocity. Fig.0 X/H=5. 7.0 0. However.0 0. 1963) is used for the gas sub-grid scale stress 1 3 sg. 1991). It implies that the USM two-phase turbulence model is validated by LES.8 0.03 0. It is seen that LES results are closer to the experimental results than the USM results.0 X/H=5.0 0.1 0. These models are more reasonable than the traditional Hinze–Tchen’s theory. Fig.06 0.0 0.2 0. The Smagorinsky model (Smagorinsky.sgs.03 0.0 (b) lateral direction Fig. It implies that the USM model remains to be improved.2 1. 12 shows the axial component of gas-particle velocity correlation.2 0.0 X/H=3. which also should be improved.1 0.2 0.4 Y/H 1. There is still certain discrepancy between the LES results and experiments due to the 2D LES and the shortcomings of the Smagorinsky SGS stress model. .6 1.03 0.03 0.106 L. j Exp.4 0..ij ¼ 2mT Sij þ dij skk . — LES.1 0.4 Y/H 1.00 0.00 U in 2. .0 X/H=8.6 1.0 0.06 1. .8 0.10 0.2 1. but the former is smaller than the latter.0 X/H=1.8 1. Both of these modeling results are in agreement with the experimental results. Sij ¼ ð@V i =@xj þ @V j =@xi Þ=2 S ¼ ð2Sij Sij Þ1=2 ð34Þ Fig.0 X/H=8.0 0.4 0.0 X/H=1.0 (a) streamwise direction v 2p 0. 10. Both modeling results are in good agreement with experimental results. the particle RMS fluctuation velocities are still under-predicted. Conclusions (1) The USM and k-e–kp two-phase turbulence models can well predict stronger particle fluctuation than the gas fluctuation and stronger anisotropy of particle turbulence than that of gas turbulence for some cases and in some regions of the flow field.05 0.00 0.6 0. The two models give the same trend in agreement with experiments. Particle RMS fluctuation velocities (m s1. 10 gives the LES and USM simulated particle RMS fluctuation velocities and their comparison with experimental results for backward-facing step gas-particle flows (Hishida and Maeda.6 0.00 0. for example.00 Uin 2.

N. 271–275.E.2 0. 41. J. Shinomi. 207–212. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory Descriptions. 1975. However. New York. L. Particle axial RMS fluctuation velocity. C. Chem.. (3) In dense gas-particle flows.. 0. 15–32. LDV measurements of air-solid two-phase flow in a vertical pipe. D. General circulation experiments with the primitive equation I. Turbulence characteristics of particle-laden flow behind a rearward facing step.1 H EXP. M. 1991. 63.0 0. O. AIChE J.R. Y. Wang. Bray. Maeda. Fluids A4. Simonin. J. V. Int. Aerodyn. 143–159. Hinze. ASME-FED 121. The former leads to enhancing particle dispersion. J.X. 1992. Y.. C. K. whereas the latter will reduce particle large-scale fluctuation. D. 11.. Y. M. H.. 1992. Fluid Mech. Smagorinsky....0 0. Jin. Xu. Eng.. Zhou / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108 0.6 r/R 0. Zhou. 139. On the continuum equations for a dispersed particles in nonuniform flows. M. Mostafa. 381–384. M. there is interaction between the large-scale particle fluctuation due to particle turbulence and small-scale particle fluctuation due to inter-particle collision. Reeks.. J.S. Lecture Series 1996-02. Ind. M. 1988. Phys. A Turbulence closure model for dilute gas-particle flows.. Numerical computation of turbulent gas-particle flow in a 90-degree bend. Detailed measurements in a swirling particulate two-phase flow by a phase-Doppler anemometer. 1984. Large-eddy simulation of bubble-liquid confined jets. 2005. Y.1 H USM Fig.1 0..0 0..C. H. Risk. Fan. von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics. Mostafa. A USM-H two-phase turbulence model for simulating dense gas-particle flows. J. The proposed model can well predict different behavior of different size range particles in turbulence modulation. In: Combustion and Turbulence in Two-Phase Flows.0 0. 2063–2075. 74–76.. J. J. that is. Y. J. A. A model of the two-phase turbulent jet. Cai.0 X=1. 349–360. Int. Eng. (5) The USM two-phase turbulence model is only preliminarily validated by a two-fluid LES. 1979. Sin. W. Aplichenkov. J. . Y. ASME FED. Heat Mass Transfer 22.0 0. Laslandes.3 0. Acknowledgements This study was sponsored by the Projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grants 50736006 and 50606026.W. Wood. neglecting either particle turbulence or interparticle collision or the anisotropy of particle turbulence.J.K. Turbulence. J. 228–234.1 0. Hydrodynamics of cocurrent downflow circulating fluidized bed (CDCFB). Sommerfeld.. J.2 0. Gas-particle velocity correlation m s1. 2187–2197.0 0. 1995.3 0.1 0.1 0..P.. 577–587.1 0. Gidaspow.O. L.8 0. Zhou. including friction. A..0 1. 647–656. Fletcher.1 0. Fluids 33 (1). San Francisco..0 0.. Experimental studies on particle behavior and turbulence modification in horizontal channel flow with different wall roughness. The USM-H model can better predict these phenomena than other models.X. It gives reduced particle velocity and particle turbulence owing to energy losses during collision.A. Melville. 21...107 L. has important effect on the near-wall particle velocity and turbulence. 1991. M. Tsuji.4 0. P.X.2 0. Tu. Yang. 1999.. Wang. 1290–1303.. Academic Press. S. On the interaction of particles and turbulent flow. the gas turbulence modulation in dense gas-particle flows remains to be further studied. Continuum modeling of dispersed two-phase flows.I. Multiphase Flow 10. The basic experiment.P.4 H X=1. 1963..X. L. J. McGraw Hill.. Zhou... Heat Fluid Flow 12. Int. 12. T.G.1 0... Mongia. Exp.M. References Chen. Acta Mech.4 0. Elghobashi.1 H X=3.Y.2 0. 1994. J. 2001. Experimental studies on two-phase fluctuation velocity correlation in sudden expansion flows.C. Hishida. 1984. 1985.A. 365–371.. Chin. Bai. Morikawa. Heat Mass Transfer 31. 2002. 91 (3). Prediction of the particle-laden jet with a two-equation turbulence model.. (4) The particle wake effect plays important role in the gas turbulence modulation. a more advanced two-phase sub-grid scale stress model remains to be developed.0 0. Kussin. X=14.H. (2) The particle-wall collision. 10. S. Qiu. 1996.2 0.6 r/R 0. Powder Technol.. F. Int. Wind Eng. 99–108. Sacre. Heat Fluid Flow 22. 2002.E. B.. Sommerfeld. However.W. The wall roughness will increase the longitudinal component of particle RMS fluctuation velocity and reduce the normal component..4 H EXP. Chem. Abou-Arab. 1998. Can.. Zaichik.. L.1 0.0 1. X=7 H LES X=14...8 0.2 0. 70. 417–434. Paper SM1999-7909. L.. H. restitution and wall roughness. C. Monthly Weather Rev. 697–710.3 0. leads to redistribution of normal components of particle normal stresses near the wall.. Int. A statistical model for transport and deposition of high-inertia colliding particles in turbulent flow. Transport of particles by a turbulent flow around an obstacle-a numerical and a wind tunnel approach.1 H X=7 H LES USM Fig..0 X=3. K. Yu.

S.Y. 33. 2001. Chin. L. numerical methods in multiphase flows. Sci. C.X. Chem. D. Powder Technol. Zhou. Large eddy simulation of particle wake effect and RANS simulation of turbulence modulation in gas-particle flows. Zhou / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 100–108 Zeng. Sci. Zhou. J.X. Huang. T. 1990. C. T.Q. A unified second-order moment two-phase turbulence model for simulating gas-particle flows. L. Fan. M.. 2007... 2002. Simulation of strongly swirling gas-particle flows using USM and k-e–kp two-phase turbulence models. H. 53–59. Liao. L. L. On the second-order moment turbulence model for simulating a bubble column. Zhou. . 111–120. L.X.X.. Lian.Y. Chen. Zhang. X.. L... Chin.. X. 15...J. 159. Prediction of confined gas-particle jets by an energy equation model of particle turbulence... Zhou. Chen.. 12–16... 307–313. Z..X. Ed. Qi. Yang. A second-order moment particle-wall collision model accounting for the wall roughness. 57. ASME-FED 185. 114. 1–11.X. Zhou. 3269– 3281. Powder Technol. 2005.. Lee.M. 1994.108 L.X.X. Zhou. Eng. Eng. Engl. Chem. L.