Numerical Study of A Harsh Environment Testing Facility: July 2018

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/330541852
Numerical Study of a Harsh Environment Testing Facility
Thesis · July 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32593.17763
CITATIONS READS
0 316
1 author:
George-Madalin Chitaru
Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest
8 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by George-Madalin Chitaru on 22 January 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MINISTERUL EDUCAȚIEI NAȚIONALE ȘI CERCETĂRII ȘTIINȚIFICE
UNIVERSITATEA TEHNICĂ DE CONSTRUCȚII BUCUREŞTI
FACULTATEA DE INGINERIE A INSTALAȚIILOR
MASTER’S THESIS
Project coordinator,
Conf. Dr. Ing. Costin Ioan Coșoiu
Author,
Ing. CHITARU George-Mădălin
Bucharest
2018
MINISTERUL EDUCAȚIEI NAȚIONALE ȘI CERCETĂRII ȘTIINȚIFICE
UNIVERSITATEA TEHNICĂ DE CONSTRUCȚII BUCUREŞTI
FACULTATEA DE INGINERIE A INSTALAȚIILOR
Master Efficacité énergétique des installations techniques du bâtiment
NUMERICAL STUDY OF A HARSH

ENVIRONMENT TESTING FACILITY
Project coordinator,
Conf. Dr. Ing. Costin Ioan Coșoiu
Author,
Bucharest
2018
DECLARAȚIE DE ONESTITATE
RO: Prin prezenta declar că lucrarea de disertație cu titlul "Numerical study of a

harsh environment testing facility" este redactată de mine și nu a mai fost prezentată
niciodată la o altă facultate sau instituție de învățământ superior din țară sau străinătate.
DECLARATION OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
EN: I hereby declare that the master’s thesis "Numerical study of a harsh
environment testing facility" is written by me and has never been presented to another
faculty or institution of higher education in the country or abroad.
Bucureşti, 26 Iunie 2018

Bucharest, 26 June 2018
Student,
CONTENT
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... 6

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. 9
LIST OF SYMBOLS ........................................................................................... 10
FOREWORD ...................................................................................................... 12
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ 13
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 2 - THE HARSH ENVIRONMENT TESTING FACILITY................... 17
Details on the geometry of the testing facility ............................................ 17
Experimental data gathering ..................................................................... 18
Standard Sand & Dust test procedure....................................................... 19
CHAPTER 3 - GEOMETRY AND MESH GENERATION ................................... 20
CHAPTER 4 - THE NUMERICAL MODEL ......................................................... 21
Solver and model set-up ........................................................................... 21
4.1.1 Conservation of mass ...................................................................................................21
4.1.2 Conservation of momentum .........................................................................................22
4.1.3 Conservation of energy.................................................................................................23
4.1.4 Viscous and Turbulence model ....................................................................................23
4.1.5 Near wall treatment .......................................................................................................25
4.1.6 Defining the materials/phases ......................................................................................27
Cell zone and boundary conditions ........................................................... 29
4.2.1 The inlet boundary conditions .......................................................................................29
4.2.2 The heating battery .......................................................................................................30
4.2.3 The injector boundary conditions ..................................................................................33
4.2.4 Wall and outlet boundary conditions .............................................................................36
Solution set-up .......................................................................................... 36
4.3.1 Pressure-velocity coupling ............................................................................................36
4.3.2 Spatial discretization .....................................................................................................37
CHAPTER 5 - MESH INDEPENDENCE STUDY ............................................... 41
Defining the meshes ................................................................................. 41
Simulation set-up ...................................................................................... 44
Results and discussion ............................................................................. 45
5.3.1 Grid parameters and quality results from ICEM CFD ...................................................45
5.3.2 Quality results from ANSYS Fluent simulations ...........................................................48
Conclusions of the mesh independence study .......................................... 52
CHAPTER 6 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................... 54
Choosing the right inlet velocity................................................................. 54
Description of the 4 injection methods tested ............................................ 57
Simulation set-up ...................................................................................... 58
Comparison for the low velocity injection case .......................................... 61
Comparison for the medium velocity injection case .................................. 65
Comparison for the high velocity injection case ........................................ 70
influence of the gravitational acceleration ................................................. 75
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 78
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 80
ANNEX ............................................................................................................... 82
Annex 1 – Results for mesh quality comparison study .................................... 82
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1:Geometry of the entire harsh environment testing facility _______________ 17

Figure 2.2: Photo of the inlet section, where the fan and the heating battery are placed 17
Figure 2.3: Closer look at the injection mechanism ____________________________ 18
Figure 2.4: Photo with the uncovered test section and the visible support for the actuator
___________________________________________________________________ 18
Figure 3.1: Pre-Mesh of the harsh environment testing facility ___________________ 20
Figure 4.1: The layers formed in the near-wall region __________________________ 25
Figure 4.2: Grid representation of the near-wall boundary region in the test section [a
minimum of 12 cells] ___________________________________________________ 26
Figure 4.3: Wall Y+ representation (A minimum value of 11 in the experimental vein) _ 27
Figure 4.4: Division of the tunnel into 4 main sections _________________________ 29
Figure 4.5: The pressure drop variation determined from experimental data points ___ 31
Figure 4.6: The pressure drop variation per unit meter determined from experimental
data________________________________________________________________ 31
Figure 4.7: The pressure drop variation per unit meter [CFD Results vs Analytic Data] 32
Figure 4.8: Static pressure contours for 5 m/s inlet velocity _____________________ 33
Figure 4.9: Dust volume fraction representation with Phase Coupled SIMPLE scheme 37
Figure 4.10: Dust volume fraction representation with Coupled scheme ____________ 37
Figure 4.11: Interfacial shape representations for 1st Order Upwind and Modified HRIC
___________________________________________________________________ 37
Figure 4.12: Contours of Volume Fraction on the longitudinal middle-plane for First Order
Upwind and Modified HRIC discretization schemes ___________________________ 38
Figure 4.13: Close-Up to the injection area __________________________________ 38
Figure 4.14: Results comparison between First Order Upwind and Modified HRIC ___ 39
Figure 5.1: Mesh transversal representation at the test section entrance ___________ 43
Figure 5.2: Mesh longitudinal representation on the small section tube ____________ 43
Figure 5.3: Cross-section at vein entrance and close-up to center (highly skewed
elements highlighted for the cylindrical injector geometry) ______________________ 44
Figure 5.4: Histogram of equiangular quality across the domain __________________ 46
Figure 5.5: Histogram of orthogonal quality across the domain ___________________ 47
Figure 5.6: Histogram of aspect ratio across the domain _______________________ 47
Figure 5.7: Residuals of dust volume fraction after 1500 iterations ________________ 48
Figure 5.8: Residuals of dust velocity on X direction after 1500 iterations ___________ 49
Figure 5.9: Area Weighted Uniformity Index for the dust volume fraction at the test
section entrance ______________________________________________________ 49
Figure 5.10: Mass Averaged Dust Velocity in the test section volume _____________ 50
Figure 5.11: Area Weighted Average of dust volume fraction at test section entrance _ 50
Figure 5.12: Maximum value of dust volume fraction in the test section volume ______ 51
Figure 5.13: Dust mass imbalance between injection points and outlet surface ______ 51
Figure 5.14: Total dust mass in the test section volume ________________________ 52
Figure 6.1: Airflow velocity plot through the center line of the test section entrance at 0.8
m/s inlet velocity ______________________________________________________ 55
Figure 6.2: Air and Dust velocity plot on a line passing through the center of the test
section entrance at 0.8 m/s inlet velocity ____________________________________ 55
Figure 6.3: Air and Dust velocity plot on a line passing through the center of the test
section entrance at 11 m/s inlet velocity ____________________________________ 56
Figure 6.4: Airflow velocity plot through the center line of the test section entrance at 0.7
m/s inlet velocity ______________________________________________________ 57
Figure 6.5: Graphical representation of the 4 injection methods __________________ 58
Figure 6.6: Normalized volume fraction contour on the test section entrance for the low
velocity dust injection case ______________________________________________ 63
Figure 6.7: XY Velocity plot on the center line of the test section entrance for the low
Figure 6.8: Dust velocity contours in the experimental vein for the low velocity dust
injection case ________________________________________________________ 64
Figure 6.9: Normalized volume fraction contour on the test section entrance for the
medium velocity dust injection case _______________________________________ 67
Figure 6.10: XY Velocity plot on the center line of the test section entrance for the
medium velocity dust injection case _______________________________________ 67
Figure 6.11: Dust velocity contours in the experimental vein for the medium velocity dust
injection case ________________________________________________________ 69
Figure 6.12: Normalized volume fraction contour on the test section entrance for the high
Figure 6.13: XY Velocity plot on the center line of the test section entrance for the high
Figure 6.14: Dust velocity contours at the injection point for the high velocity dust
injection case ________________________________________________________ 75
Figure 6.15: Normalized volume fraction contour on the test section entrance for the
FFRI injection method with a high dust injection velocity and gravitational acceleration 77
Figure 6.16: XY Velocity plot on the center line of the test section entrance for the FFRI
injection method with a high dust injection velocity and gravitational acceleration ____ 77
Figure 6.17: Side view of dust velocity contours for the high velocity dust injection case
with added gravitational acceleration ______________________________________ 77
Figure 6.18: Side view of air velocity contours for the high velocity dust injection case
with added gravitational acceleration ______________________________________ 77
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Results from battery pressure drop simulations for the 3D model with Refined
Mesh 1 grid .................................................................................................................... 33
Table 5.1: Side-by-side comparison of the 5 grids ......................................................... 46
Table 6.1 Mass flow boundary conditions for each injection method .............................. 60
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Index for previous time

𝑛 ,𝑛 + 1 step, and index for current [-] Ec. (1)
time step;
Density for phase q and s at Ec. (1; 4;
𝜌𝑞𝑛 , 𝜌𝑠𝑛 [kg/m3]
time step n 5 ;6 ;7 ;8 ;9 ;10)
Volume fraction for phase q
𝛼𝑞𝑛 , 𝛼𝑠𝑛 [1/m] Ec. (1; 4; 5 ;6 ;7 ;8)
and s at time step n
Face value of the qth
𝑛+1
𝛼𝑞,𝑓 volume fraction at time step [-] Ec. (1)
n+1
Volume flux through the
𝑈𝑓𝑛+1 [m3/s] Ec. (1)
face at time step n+1
𝑆𝛼𝑞 Cell volume fraction source
[-] Ec. (1)
term
𝑉 Cell volume [N/(m2s)] Ec. (1)
𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 , 𝑚̇𝑞𝑝 , 𝑚̇𝑙𝑠 , 𝑚̇𝑠𝑙 Interphase mass transfer [kg/s] Ec. (1 ;4 ;5 )
∆𝑡 time scale [s] Ec. (1 ;5;6;7;8)
Air and dust volume
𝛼𝑎𝑖𝑟 , 𝛼𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 [-] Ec. (3)
fractions
𝑔⃗ Gravitational force [-] Ec. (4 ;5)
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗,
𝑣 𝑞 ⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑣𝑠 Velocity of phases q and s [m/s] Ec. (4 ;5)
∇𝑝 Pressure gradient [Pa/m] Ec. (4 ;5)
𝑝𝑠 Solids pressure for phase s [Pa] Ec. (5)
Stress-strain tensor for
𝜏̿𝑞 , 𝜏̿𝑠 [Pa/m] Ec. (4 ;5 ;6)
phases q and s
Lift force acting on phases
𝐹⃗𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡,𝑠 [m2/s3] Ec. (4;5)
q and s
Wall lubrication force acting
𝐹⃗𝑤𝑙,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑤𝑙,𝑠 [m2/s2] Ec. (4 ;5)
on phases q and s
Virtual mass force acting on
𝐹⃗𝑣𝑚,q , 𝐹⃗𝑣𝑚,𝑠 [Pas] Ec. (4;5)
the phases q and s
Turbulent dispersion force
𝐹⃗𝑡𝑑,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑡𝑑,𝑠 [kg/m3] Ec. (4 ;5)
acting on phases q and s
Interphase momentum
𝐾𝑝𝑞 , 𝐾𝑙𝑠 [-] Ec. (4;5)
exchange coefficient
Specific enthalpy of the qth
ℎ𝑞 [kj/kg] Ec. (6)
phase
𝑞⃗𝑞 Heat flux [kJ/m2] Ec. (6)
𝑆𝑞 User defined source term [kW] Ec. (6)
Intensity of heat exchange
𝑄𝑝𝑞 [kJ/s] Ec. (6)
between phases p and q
Interphase enthalpy
ℎ𝑝𝑞 , ℎ𝑞𝑝 [kj/kg] Ec. (6)
exchange
𝑘 Turbulent kinetic energy [m2/s2]; Ec. (7 ;8)
𝜀 Turbulent dissipation rate [m2/s3 or J/kg∙s] Ec. (7 ;8)
𝜈 Cinematic viscosity [m2/s] Ec. (7 ;8)
𝜇 Dynamic viscosity [Pa∙s] Ec. (7 ;8 ;9 ;10)
Velocity component in
𝑢𝑗 [m/s] Ec. (7 ;8)
corresponding direction
𝜇𝑡 Turbulent eddy viscosity [m2/s] Ec. (7 ;8)
Generation of turbulence
𝐺𝑘 kinetic energy due to mean [m2/s2]; Ec. (7)
velocity gradients
Generation of turbulence
𝐺𝑏 kinetic energy due to [m2/s2]; Ec. (7 ;8)
buoyancy
Contribution of the
𝑌𝑀 fluctuating dilatation in [m2/s2] Ec. (7)
compressible turbulence
Turbulent Prandtl numbers
𝜎𝑘 , 𝜎𝜀 [-] Ec. (7 ;8)
for k and ε
𝑆𝑘 , 𝑆𝜀 User defined source terms [-] Ec. (7 ;8)
𝐶1 , 𝐶1𝜀 , 𝐶2 , 𝐶3𝜀 Constants [-] Ec. (7 ;8)
Source term for the x, y or z
𝑆𝑖 [Pa] Ec. (9 ;10)
momentum equation
Viscous resistance
𝐷𝑖𝑗 [1/m2] Ec. (9)
coefficient
1
Permeability [1/m2] Ec. (10)
𝛼
Inertial resistance
𝐶𝑖𝑗 , 𝐶2 [1/m] Ec. (9 ;10)
coefficients
|𝑣| Velocity magnitude [m/s] Ec. (9 ;10)
Velocity on the x, y or z
𝑣𝑗 [m/s] Ec. (9 ;10)
direction
Length of the porous zone
∆𝑛𝑗 [m] Ec. (9 ;10 ;11 ;12)
on the x, y or z direction
𝑆𝑖 𝑛 Momentum sink per unit
[Pa/m] Ec. (12)
meter
∆𝑝 Total pressure drop [Pa] Ec. (11)
Pressure drop per unit
∆𝑝𝑛 [Pa/m] Ec. (11 ;12)
meter
𝑣 Velocity [m/s] Ec. (11 ;12)
𝑚̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 , 𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 Mass flow of dust or air [kg/s] Ec. (15)
̇
𝑉𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 Volumetric flow of dust; [m3/s] Ec. (15)
𝜌𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡, 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 Density of dust or air [kg/m3] Ec. (15)
Ing. CHITARU George-Mădălin Master’s Thesis
FOREWORD
This thesis has been the result of a 2-year collaboration with the Department of
Hydraulics and Environmental Protection from the Technical University of Civil
Engineering of Bucharest and it continues the work presented in Georgescu (2017) and
Georgescu et al (2017).
The theme of this paper was proposed as a result of a research partnership between
the Technical University of Civil Engineering and the National Institute for Aerospace
Research "Elie Carafoli". The research grant under which the collaboration between the
two entities was concluded was registered under number C244 / 2016. The objective of
this collaboration was to conduct studies to characterize and improve the performance of
one of the newest INCAS facilities, namely the harsh environment testing facility used
to conduct experiments regarding the exposure of aviation equipment to high
concentrations of dust or sand, combined with air temperature levels specific to the desert
areas. This harsh environment facility was built primarily to test new equipment developed
under the AFLoNext project, which is supported through the European Framework
Program for Research and Technological Development (FP7) and which aims to improve
airplane performance by reducing fuel consumptions and noise levels during take-off and
landing procedures. However, after a thorough verification, the same facility could be
used to test and certify different types of equipment.
From the Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest, the research team
responsible for the C244/2016 contract was composed of 3 master’s students (Ing.
George-Mădălin Chitaru, Ing. Matei-Răzvan Georgescu and Ing. Gelu Muscă),
coordinated by Conf. Dr. Ing. Costin Ioan Coșoiu.
The experimental data was collected at INCAS, and the research was carried out in
the Department of Hydraulics and Environmental Protection at the Aerodynamics and
Wind Engineering Laboratory "C. Iamandi ".
Finally, I would like to thank the National Institute for Aerospace Research for giving
us the opportunity to work on this project. I would also like to thank all those in the
Hydraulics and Environmental Protection Department for having provided us with all the
necessary equipment and simulation software, as well as technical support and advice
offered.
Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 12

ABSTRACT
The combined effects of dust, sand and volcanic ash is of high interest for the aircraft
industry due to a plethora of technical problems that these can cause for airplane
systems, from the obstruction of openings or penetration into cracks, crevices, bearings
and joints, to erosion and corrosion of different airplane components. Due to the many
potential problems that can arise, aviation authorities have imposed standard testing
procedures in order to ensure that any airborne equipment would be tested to various
environmental conditions, one of these conditions being the exposure to blowing dust and
sand at moderate speeds. To assure the safety of the airships, airline companies are
continuously trying to reduce the effects of particle ingestion and component deterioration
for key aircraft equipment that is usually exposed to dust & sand while flying. The
preferred choice for making these kinds of tests are special harsh environment testing
facilities (special atmospheric boundary layer wind-tunnels) that can recreate the same
exterior conditions as the dust heavy environments. One of these testing facilities can be
found at the National Institute for Aerospace Research “Elie Carafoli” in Bucharest
(INCAS) where new airplane equipment for the AFLoNext European project is being
tested.
The main objective of our work is to study the multiphase flow of dust with air and
sand with air inside this harsh environment testing facility and to determine if there are
ways of improving the current set-up. Due to the advantages that virtual modeling is
offering nowadays, the study has been done mostly numerically, using a commercial
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation software in order to analyze the particle
behavior during the standard experimental procedure. A series of CFD simulations have
been conducted to determine the distribution of the granular secondary phase within the
test section of the tunnel.
In order to compute the multiphase flow, the Eulerian multiphase model, along with
the realizable k-ε viscous model and with the dispersed multiphase turbulence model
have been chosen to run the steady state simulations. Lacking an experimental validation,
a grid independence study has been realized to verify the robustness of the simulation
model. Results from various injection methods have been collected and compared with
regards to particle cross section distribution, actual particle velocity and also particle
trajectory for the case when gravity is accounted for.
The findings have shown that improvements can be made to the reference injection
system in order to obtain a more even distribution for the granular phase, therefore
offering a better reproduction of the real-world phenomena. Moreover, the numerical
model could be used to approximate the correct positioning of the equipment inside the
test section, as well as determining the required dust mass flow at the injection points so
that the concentration of the particulate matter is kept within the limits imposed by the
standard test procedure.
This work provides a better understanding of a particle-laden flow inside a wind-
tunnel and also suggestions of possible modifications to a real-life test facility which can
improve the accuracy of the experiments carried therein.

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Airborne particles represent a potential problem for the aeronautical industry that is
usually associated with the flight of aircrafts in dust and sand loaded areas like the deserts
or areas which suffer droughts for longer periods of time [Lekas et al (2011)]. Due to the
atmospheric circulation, the particles can get airborne by the effects of saltation and
suspension and form dust or sand storms. In situations where there is significant
atmospheric instability the particulate matter can reach as high as 6000 m and it can
travel to farther regions where there are usually no such phenomena [Ghosh (2014);
Middleton and Kang (2017)]. Still, most of the time the aircrafts are affected by sand and
dust storm activity within the atmospheric boundary layer where higher concentrations of
particulate matter are present. These particles could represent a hazard for airplanes after
repeated take-off and landing procedures and they can represent an even more serious
problem for aircrafts that fly only at low-altitude regime, like the helicopters in dust loaded
areas. [Bojdo and Filippone (2014)]
Furthermore, the frequency of sand and dust storms (SDS), has increased
dramatically over the last decades, especially in arid or semi-arid zones that have been
affected by desertification, land degradation and deforestation. It has therefore become
more common to encounter an SDS on flight paths that pass through these regions.
[Ganor (2010); Sissakian et al (2013); Notaro et al (2015); Krasnov et al (2016)] Moreover,
considering that air traffic in these particle laden environments has been continuously
increasing and that the desertification and pollution have caused an overall augmentation
in atmospheric particle concentration, the aircrafts are becoming more and more exposed
to the effects of particle ingestion and deposition.
Due to the increased global awareness of this phenomenon [UNEP (2016);
International Conference on Combating Sand and Dust Storms, Tehran (2017)],
governments and agencies like the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have taken
measures to assure that any airborne equipment would be tested to various
environmental conditions, one of these conditions being the exposure to blowing dust and
sand at moderate speeds. At at the moment of writing this paper, there are 3 standard
test procedures that are specified in the EASA “Certification Specifications and
Acceptable Means of Compliance for Engines (CS-E)” [EASA (2007)]:
1) EUROCAE ED-14G
2) RTCA/DO-160, Section 12, Category D
3) MIL-STD-810
Besides airplane rerouting, flight cancellation and airport operation difficulties, more
important problems that are associated with dust & sand loaded areas are tied to the
mechanical impact of the particles upon the aircraft’s exposed components, like: erosion
and corrosion of turbine blades or other vulnerable components, failure of systems that
rely on the pitot-static probes, failure of conditioning packs due to blockage or, in severe
cases, even engine flame out in flight. [Reagle (2012); Khalifa (2016)] In order to avoid
these problems, adequate modifications should be made to improve the design of the
engine or other exposed components based on the particle mass ingestion tolerance and
resistance. Companies which are involved into such research & development projects
need to test these parts in a safe and controlled environment. The preferred choice for
making these kinds of tests are special wind tunnels that can recreate similar conditions
as the sand & dust laden environments.

As previously discussed in Georgescu et al. (2017) the main objective of our work
is to study the multiphase flow of dust with air and sand with air inside a harsh
environment testing facility – a dedicated wind tunnel located at the National Institute for
Aerospace Research “Elie Carafoli” (INCAS) in Bucharest. The facility has been created
with the purpose of testing a new type of actuator that was developed for the European
project AFLoNext which aims to improve the aircraft performance and reduce the noise
produced by airplanes. As mentioned before, the aircraft equipment has to be tested
according to a standard test procedure, and in our case the EUROCAE ED-14G (2011)
has been chosen. This procedure imposes a minimum and a maximum limit for the dust
concentration and for the airflow velocity, as well as conditions for the airflow temperature
and exposure time. In order to provide more information on the efficacy of the tests, a
study of the flow inside the tunnel has to be conducted.
The complexity of multiphase flows, where fine solid particles are moving through
air, represents a serious challenge for physical experiments due to multiple limitations
like the difficulty of conducting a precise measurement of the particulate matter
concentration or the availability of technical equipment and the investments that are
required for any additional equipment. Furthermore, the facility needs to be sealed in
order to keep the particulate matter inside the tubes. This represents a serious constraint
for the experimental set-up because the equipment cannot be installed wherever desired.
The opaque walls of the facility (Figure 2.2; Figure 2.3; Figure 2.4) do not offer many
possibilities for measuring the particle velocity or particle concentration through non-
invasive methods like the laser-based techniques. Moreover, equipment placement inside
the facility might also be an issue. Firstly, due to the impact of the dust and sand particles
upon sensitive instruments and secondly, due to the influence of the instrument itself upon
the flow inside. Taking into account these limitations of physical experiments and tests in
the case of multiphase flows and the necessity of making design changes to the reference
injection system, a numerical approach was preferred for the preliminary analysis of the
facility.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has become an important engineering tool
during the past decades due to the increase in computational speed and power efficiency
of the computer chips. In certain cases, CFD simulations offer great advantages
compared to physical models, like: reduced modelling costs, reduced modelling time,
possibility to conduct full scale analysis even with very large models (while physical
experiments are usually realized at a reduced scale), a more detailed visualization and
examination of flow variables, etc. Of course, the accuracy of the CFD results can
sometimes be debatable, since there is a large number of uncertainty and error sources
that can influence the reproduction of the physical phenomenon. Therefore, an
experimental validation is frequently necessary in order to verify the virtual model.
This thesis focuses on the numerical simulations carried out using a commercial
computational fluid dynamics simulation software (ANSYS Fluent). The simulations aim
to predict the behavior of the particle laden flow inside the harsh environment test facility
and to determine the proper conditions required to achieve the desired secondary phase
concentration, particle velocity and particle distribution in the test section. In the following
chapters, different approaches for the particle injection mechanism will be presented,
along with the difficulties encountered in each case. Since airflow velocity and airflow
temperature are parameters that can be easily assessed, even on physical models, the
big challenge remains to find an injection method that would offer an adequate particle
dispersion in the test section while controlling the concentration of these particles within
the limits imposed by the standard test procedure EUROCAE ED-14G (2011).
Unfortunately, due to the limited time and the inability of procuring the necessary

equipment for conducting an experimental validation, the study focuses only on the
numerical results.
The findings have shown that there are improvements that could be made to the
reference injection system in order to obtain a more even distribution for the granular
phase, thus offering a better reproduction of the real-world phenomena. After comparing
the results from different simulations, it was found that the particle behavior can be very
different from one case to another, and that the boundary conditions for one injection
method don’t offer similar results for all other methods. Moreover, the numerical model
has been proven useful to approximate the required dust mass flow at the injection points
so that the concentration of secondary phase is kept within the limits imposed by the
standard test procedure. Finally, observations regarding the influence of the gravitational
force on the particle trajectory could prove useful in determining the correct positioning of
the equipment inside the test section.
The content of this thesis has been divided into 7 main chapters as follows. A short
introductory part presenting the purpose, methodology and findings of the study followed
by the presentation of the real-life testing facility, with all of its features and with the
experimental data that was gathered and used to define the numerical model. For the
next part of the paper, the steps taken for creating the virtual geometry and the
computational grid will be presented. Afterwards, in the 4th chapter, the detailed
configuration for the Fluent numerical model will be exposed in order to assure all of the
necessary information for replicating the simulations presented in this study, if needed.
After presenting the numerical model, in the 5th chapter, the importance of a detailed
mesh independence study will be treated. Having chosen the proper mesh size, in the
6th chapter four different injection methods will be presented and the results will be
analyzed with regards to: particle dispersion, particle concentration and particle velocity
within the test section and the influence of gravity upon the particle trajectory. Finally, in
the last part of the paper, conclusions and future research possibilities for the project will
be discussed.

CHAPTER 2 - THE HARSH ENVIRONMENT TESTING

FACILITY
DETAILS ON THE GEOMETRY OF THE TESTING FACILITY

The geometry of the virtual model has been taken from the real-life harsh
environment testing facility located at the National Institute for Aerospace Research “Elie
Carafoli” in Bucharest. The specific layout of the wind-tunnel is presented in Figure 2.1.
On the right side there is an inlet section with a diameter of 700 mm, where an axial fan
is installed. The fan has been upgraded with a custom-made control system which uses
a frequency converter to vary the rotational speed, thus providing us with the ability to
control the airflow velocity in the experimental vein as required by the test procedure. The
fan is then followed by a rectangular multi-coil heating battery that enables us to raise the
airflow temperature to as high as 55°C, which is a temperature that can be expected in
desert zones and it is therefore required by the test procedure. A photo of the inlet section
is presented in Figure 2.2 below.
Figure 2.1:Geometry of the entire harsh environment testing facility
Figure 2.2: Photo of the inlet section, where the fan and the heating battery are placed
After the battery, a honeycomb has been introduced to straighten the flow and just
after that there is a convergent-divergent section where the injection mechanism is
installed and where the sand and dust tests are taking place. As it can be seen in Figure
2.1, the section of the tunnel gradually reduces from 700mm diameter to 400mm diameter
through a constriction element and right after the contraction there is the injection
mechanism which is the highlight of our CFD simulations. A part of the injection
mechanism can be seen in Figure 2.3 below. The tube presented in the photo is
connected to a dust recipient and to an air compressor. The high-pressure air enters the

dust recipient and entrains the fine particles which are then sent in the tunnel through the
visible tube. The interior part of the injection system, which is not visible in the photo, is
made up of a 15 cm long tube with a 12 mm exterior diameter that ends with a very small
injection nozzle. The size of the injection nozzle is modular, but for our study we have
considered only a nozzle with 1.8 mm diameter. The direction of the injection is the same
as the airflow, right on the axis of the wind tunnel.
Figure 2.3: Closer look at the injection mechanism

On the other end of the 400mm tube there is the test section where the equipment
should be placed. As it can be observed in Figure 2.4, the cover of the test section is
removable so that the equipment can be placed inside. Additionally, the cover has a small
transparent window in the envelope so that the equipment can be monitored during the
dust and sand tests. In the same photo, the placement for the actuator stand can also be
seen. Right after the test section, there is a divergent cone which increases the diameter
of the tunnel back to 700mm in order to reduce the speed of the flow before entering the
two cyclone separators. The separators have been installed to avoid releasing high
concentrations of particles into the atmosphere.
Figure 2.4: Photo with the uncovered test section and the visible support for the actuator
EXPERIMENTAL DATA GATHERING
Before starting the first numerical simulation stage, it was necessary to collect an
experimental dataset to determine the operating parameters of the installation and how
these vary. Therefore, a series of experimental tests was carried out using a single-phase
flow, by introducing only air through the inlet section of the aerodynamic tunnel without
injecting any dust or sand particles through the dedicated mechanism. What we aimed to

determine was the fan operating curves, the pressure drop across different tunnel
segments and the correspondence between the airflow velocity and the fan rotational
speed. These values would later be used to determine the boundary conditions for the
virtual model.
In order to be able to conduct the experimental study, a series of small holes have
been made through the envelope of the tunnel that allowed us to install pressure, velocity
and temperature sensors on key sections like: before and after the fan, before and after
the heating battery, before and after the honeycomb mesh and before and after the
experimental vein. The device with which we realized the measurements was a Kimo
AMI 300 equipped with a differential pressure transmitter, with a range between 0 and
2500 Pa, and a hot wire anemometer, with a range between 0.15 and 30 m/s. All the
gathered data has been postprocessed to obtain the pressure drop ∆𝑃 on each of the
sections, the porosity of the heating battery and the fan operating curves.
The results from this stage have already been presented in Georgescu (2017), and
therefore are not going to be discussed again in the current paper. However, as an
addition to the information provided by Georgescu (2017), a validation of the battery
porosity for the improved 3D virtual model will be provided.
STANDARD SAND & DUST TEST PROCEDURE
The tests carried out inside the facility need to respect the conditions specified in
EUROCAE ED-14G (2011). This standard test procedure comprises four different cycles
for testing the dust & sand ingestion tolerance, each of them corresponding to certain
environmental conditions:
• Dust test Cycle 1: A dust concentration between 3.5 g/m3 and 8.8 g/m3 has to
be maintained, with an airflow speed on the X direction between 0.5 m/s and
2.4 m/s, with an airflow temperature of 25±2 °C and a relative humidity of 30%.
The dust has to be silicon dioxide between 97% - 99% and the average particle
diameter has to be 25 µm. The equipment will be tested for one hour on all of
its faces.
• Dust test Cycle 2: Requires the same dust concentration, airflow velocity and
relative humidity, but with an increased airflow temperature of 55±2 °C. The
same type of dust will be used.
• Sand test Cycle 1: An airflow speed on the X direction between 18 m/s and 29
m/s, with an airflow temperature of 25±2 °C and a relative humidity of 30%. The
concentration of dust changes depending on the type of aircraft and exposure
of the equipment.
• Sand test Cycle 2: Requires the same airflow velocity and relative humidity,
but with an increased airflow temperature of 55±2 °C. The same type of sand
and concentration will be used.
For this thesis only the “Dust test Cycle 1” has been studied, therefore the
numerical simulations have aimed to respect the conditions imposed for this
procedure. However, the methods employed could generally be applied for each of
the other 3 tests.

CHAPTER 3 - GEOMETRY AND MESH GENERATION
The first step in any CFD project is to create or procure the geometry of the domain
that needs to be studied. In this case, it was necessary to create the virtual geometry from
scratch because there was no CAD model of the facility already available. The geometry
has been created in one of the ANSYS products, ICEM CFD. As seen in Figure 3.1, the
3D virtual model used for the CFD simulations does not contain the entire harsh
environment testing facility, as we were interested to study only what happens in the test
section and what is the influence of the upstream components. Omitting the cyclonic
separators and the last few meters of the tunnel has offered us a great advantage
because we spared precious time not modeling their complex geometry and it significantly
reduced the time required to run the simulations due to a much lower number of cells.
Figure 3.1: Pre-Mesh of the harsh environment testing facility

The next step is to divide this big domain in multiple very small subdomains. This
process is usually called mesh generation or grid generation. There are more types of
mesh that can be used, depending on the studied phenomenon and on the complexity of
the geometry. In our case, a structured mesh made of quad face elements and
hexahedral volume elements has been the right choice in order to reduce the probability
of numeric diffusion and to efficiently compute the flow. The entire segment of the tunnel
where the dust is being injected has been refined in order to capture the high velocity and
high volume fraction gradients (Figure 5.2 – Chapter 5). Moreover, special attention has
been taken for the center area where the geometry of the injector imposed a very fine
refinement of the mesh. The addition of the small injection tube in the middle of the tunnel
has been a real challenge during the preparation of the mesh, mainly due to its cylindrical
shape and due to the very small dimensions of the injection nozzles (1.8 mm in diameter).
Assuring the continuity of the mesh with such a geometry is not easy, and as you can see
in Figure 5.3 - Chapter 5 a few highly skewed elements are created in the center of the
tunnel due to the shape of the injector. Since we have a structured mesh, these elements
have been mirrored on all of the interior block faces and this generated a series of low
quality cells along the domain. However, an analysis of the mesh quality indicators
[Chapter 5.3] has been conducted and the results were very positive. The important
quality indicators in ICEM CFD (equiangular skewness, orthogonal quality and aspect
ratio) have shown that the overall quality of the mesh is not really affected.
In addition to what was presented in Georgescu (2017), in this paper a series of
improvements have been made for the 3D virtual model: changes to boundary conditions,
changes to turbulence models, changed pressure-velocity coupling method, changes to
volume fraction discretization scheme and added new dust injection methods. Moreover,
a mesh independence study has been conducted in order to check the accuracy and the
repeatability of the results. Therefore, all the attention will be on the results and analysis
of this new 3D model.

CHAPTER 4 - THE NUMERICAL MODEL
SOLVER AND MODEL SET-UP

In this chapter the process of setting up the FLUENT model is described. First of all,
the type of solver and the type of simulation will be chosen. Afterwards, the appropriate
mathematical models that are used to describe the physical phenomena have to be
selected. This involves the models for the multiphase flow, the turbulence model, the
viscosity model and the energy model. The next step is to define the composition and the
physical properties of the materials that are being used in the simulation. These materials
are, in this case, the solid surfaces, the solid particles and the air that flows inside the
domain. After that, the boundary conditions and the cell conditions have to be chosen.
This implies to know what type of boundary or cell condition is suited for each element in
this specific case and to also have a minimum of experimental data in order to set
adequate values for each of the parameters.
During this phase we also encountered one of the limitations of the multiphase
model that we have chosen. This meaning that the fan boundary condition was not
compatible with the Eulerian model, which forced us to use a simple velocity inlet. Since
the simulations were only ran for the dust test cycle, with a relatively low airflow velocity
(from 0.8 to 2.4 m/s), it was considered that the presence of the fan wouldn’t have had a
great impact on the results anyway.
Since the CFD simulations involved a multiphase flow at low velocities, we have
used the incompressible Pressure-Based flow solver and, because we had to run a
plethora of different scenarios, the steady state approach was chosen in order to reduce
the run time and the complexity of the simulations. To compute the multiphase flow, the
Granular Eulerian Multiphase Model was used due to its ability of treating the different
phases as two separate continua, and therefore solving the momentum, energy and
turbulence equations for each phase separately. Compared to the Lagrange approach,
the Eulerian model is not limited by the volume fraction each phase can occupy within a
cell. This provided a great advantage since we were not sure about the behavior of the
particles and how these would stack up in certain cells near the injection point. Another
advantage, and a very important one, was also the simulation time, since the Eulerian
model is less computationally intensive when treating with multiphase turbulence models.
Because the Lagrange model tracks each individual particle, when working with a large
number of particles, the simulation time can increase considerably.
4.1.1 CONSERVATION OF MASS
The continuity equation in the case of Eulerian multiphase flows is a bit different
from the standard formulation since interphase exchanges also occur. This means that
the volume fraction for each phase has to be calculated [ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide
Chapter 17]. Due do the time independent (steady state) simulations, the implicit
formulation for the volume fraction equations has been chosen (1) and the continuity will
be assured by the condition expressed in (2).
𝛼𝑞𝑛+1 𝜌𝑞𝑛+1 −𝛼𝑞𝑛 𝜌𝑞𝑛
𝑉 + ∑𝑓(𝜌𝑞𝑛+1 𝑈𝑓𝑛+1 𝛼𝑞,𝑓
𝑛+1
) = [𝑆𝛼𝑞 + ∑𝑛𝑝=1(𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 − 𝑚̇𝑞𝑝 )] 𝑉 (1)
∆𝑡
Where:
𝑛, 𝑛 + 1 = index for previous time step, and index for current time step;
𝜌𝑞𝑛 , 𝜌𝑞𝑛+1 = density of the phase material at time steps n and n+1;

𝛼𝑞𝑛 , 𝛼𝑞𝑛+1 = cell value of volume fraction at time steps n and n+1;
𝑛+1
𝛼𝑞,𝑓 = face value of the qth volume fraction at time step n+1;
𝑈𝑓𝑛+1 = volume flux through the face at time step n+1;

𝑆𝛼𝑞 = cell volume fraction source term;
𝑉 = cell volume;
𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 , 𝑚̇𝑞𝑝 = mass transfer between phase q and phase p;
∆𝑡 = time scale.
In the above equation the qth phase is the dust and the pth phase is the air. It is worth
mentioning that, with default settings, FLUENT only calculates the secondary phase
volume fraction, estimating the volume fraction for the primary phase from the condition
expressed in (3).
∑𝑛𝑞=1 𝛼𝑞 = 1 (2)
This means that, in our case, only the volume fraction for the dust will be computed
using (1) and the volume fraction for the air will be considered equal to the difference:
𝛼𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1 − 𝛼𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 (3)
Another thing worth mentioning is that, for the above equation (1), the source term
𝑆𝛼𝑞 is zero.
4.1.2 CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM

The Eulerian model considers a multi-fluid approach to describe the multiphase
granular flows. This means that the disperse phase is treated as a secondary continuous
phase interacting with the primary continuous phase. The software calculates and
averages the conservation of momentum using two different formulations: a formulation
for the fluid-fluid momentum (4) and a formulation for the fluid-solid momentum (5)
[ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide Chapter 17].
𝜕
(𝛼 𝜌 ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗)
𝑣 + ∇(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑣
𝑣𝑞 ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗)
𝑞 = −𝛼𝑞 ∇𝑝 + ∇𝜏̿𝑞 + 𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 𝑔
⃗+
𝜕𝑡 𝑞 𝑞 𝑞
∑𝑛𝑝=1(𝐾𝑝𝑞 (𝑣
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑝 − ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗)
𝑣𝑞 + 𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑣𝑞𝑝 + (𝐹⃗𝑞 + 𝐹⃗𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡,𝑞 + 𝐹⃗𝑤𝑙,𝑞 + 𝐹⃗𝑣𝑚,𝑞 + 𝐹⃗𝑡𝑑,𝑞 )
𝑣𝑝𝑞 − 𝑚̇𝑞𝑝 ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗) (4)
𝜕
(𝛼 𝜌 𝜈⃗ ) + 𝛻(𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝜈⃗𝑠 𝜈⃗𝑠 ) = −𝛼𝑠 𝛻𝑝 − 𝛻𝑝𝑠 + 𝛻𝜏̿𝑠 + 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑔⃗ +
𝜕𝑡 𝑠 𝑠 𝑠
∑𝑛𝑙=1(𝐾𝑙𝑠 (𝑣
⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑙 − ⃗⃗⃗⃗)
𝑣𝑠 + 𝑚̇𝑙𝑠 ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑣𝑠𝑙 + (𝐹⃗𝑠 + 𝐹⃗𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡,𝑠 + 𝐹⃗𝑤𝑙,s + 𝐹⃗𝑣𝑚,𝑠 + 𝐹⃗𝑡𝑑,𝑠 )
𝑣𝑙𝑠 − 𝑚̇𝑠𝑙 ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗) (5)
Where:
𝑔⃗ = the gravitational force;
𝛼𝑞 , 𝜌𝑞 , 𝛼𝑠 , 𝜌𝑠 = the volume fraction and the density for the qth and sth phase;
𝑣𝑞 ⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗, 𝑣𝑠 = velocity of the qth and sth phase;
∇𝑝 = the pressure gradient shared by all phases;
𝑝𝑠 = the solids pressure for the sth phase;

𝜏̿𝑞 , 𝜏̿𝑠 = the stress-strain tensor for the qth and sth phase;
𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 , 𝑚̇𝑞𝑝 , 𝑚̇𝑙𝑠 , 𝑚̇𝑠𝑙 = the interphase mass transfer;
𝑣𝑝𝑞 , ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ 𝑣𝑞𝑝 , ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑣𝑙𝑠 , ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑣𝑠𝑙 = the interphase velocity;
𝐹⃗𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑠 = an external body force acting on the qth and sth phase;
𝐹⃗𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡,𝑠 = the lift force acting on the qth and sth phase;
𝐹⃗𝑤𝑙,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑤𝑙,𝑠 = the wall lubrication force acting on the qth and sth phase;
𝐹⃗𝑣𝑚,q , 𝐹⃗𝑣𝑚,𝑠 = the virtual mass force acting on the qth and sth phase;
𝐹⃗𝑡𝑑,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑡𝑑,𝑠 = the turbulent dispersion force acting on the qth and sth phase;
𝐾𝑝𝑞 , 𝐾𝑙𝑠 = interphase momentum exchange coefficient;
4.1.3 CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
To assure the energy conservation for multiphase applications, once again two
separate equations have to be calculated, but they both have the same formulation
[ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide Chapter 17]:
𝜕 𝑑𝑝𝑞
(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 ℎ𝑞 ) + ∇(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑞 ℎ𝑞 ) = 𝛼𝑞 + 𝜏̿𝑞 : ∇𝑢
⃗⃗𝑞 − ∇q
⃗⃗ q +
𝜕𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑆𝑞 + ∑𝑛𝑝=1(𝑄𝑝𝑞 + 𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 ℎ𝑝𝑞 − 𝑚̇𝑞𝑝 ℎ𝑞𝑝 ) (6)
Where:
𝛼𝑞 , 𝜌𝑞 , 𝜏𝑞 = have been previously mentioned in equations (1), (4) and (5);
ℎ𝑞 = the specific enthalpy of the qth phase;
𝑞⃗𝑞 = the heat flux;
𝑆𝑞 = the user defined source term;
𝑄𝑝𝑞 = the intensity of heat exchange between the pth and qth;
ℎ𝑝𝑞 , ℎ𝑞𝑝 = the interphase enthalpy;
4.1.4 VISCOUS AND TURBULENCE MODEL
Turbulence modelling has been one of the more difficult tasks for CFD applications.
Even though there are numerous models that have been proposed, none of them are
perfect for every situation. This is why a thorough documentation is necessary in order to
make the right choice regarding the turbulence model.
In this case, we have opted to use a Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
Two Equation Model because this has shown the perfect ratio of accuracy to complexity,
meaning that the results present a satisfying accuracy with lower resource demands (time
and hardware) [Ratnam and Vengadesan (2007); Fröhlich and von Terzi (2008)]. There
are two main categories of RANS Two Equation Models: k-ε and k-ω. Having compared
the limitations of both categories we have chosen to use the k-ε model which solves two
additional equations, one for the turbulent kinetic energy k and the other for kinetic energy
dissipation rate ε. The limitations of this group of models were mainly observed for
simulations of flows with severe pressure gradients, separated flows, recirculation caused
by adverse pressure gradients, or strong streamline curvatures [Wasserman (2016)].
Since for the studied case these physical phenomena are not present, or at least not in
the sections that we are interested in, the choice of the k-ε family seemed more in line
with our research. The advantages that it has given us (less computational resources,
robustness in calculation of fully turbulent flows, ease of implementation, better
convergence) far outweigh the disadvantages. All these aspects also make it better for
parametric studies with lots of scenarios like it was the case for this thesis.
After a proper analysis of the available options for the viscous model, the Realizable
k-ε set of equations has been chosen due to its advantages compared to the older
Standard k-ε approach. The Realizable model is an improved version of the Standard
model and has been proven to be more robust when solving rotating flows, recirculation,
jet flows, mixing layers and separated flows because of a new approach for calculating
the turbulence dissipation rate ε [Shih et al. (1995)]. For the turbulent kinetic energy k, the
Realizable model uses a similar method as the older Standard k - ε model. The transport
equations for the turbulent kinetic energy k and for the turbulence dissipation rate ε are
presented in equations (7) and (8).
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇 𝜕𝑘
(𝜌𝑘) + (𝜌𝑘𝑢𝑗 ) = 𝜕𝑥 [ (𝜇 + 𝜎 𝑡 ) (𝜕𝑥 )] + 𝐺𝑘 + 𝐺𝑏 − 𝜌𝜀 − 𝑌𝑀 + 𝑆𝑘 (7)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑗 𝑘 𝑗
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇 𝜕𝜀 𝜀2 𝜀
(𝜌𝜀) + (𝜌𝜀𝑢𝑗 ) = 𝜕𝑥 [ (𝜇 + 𝜎𝑡 ) (𝜕𝑥 )] + ρC1 𝑆𝜀 − 𝜌𝐶2 𝑘+ + 𝐶1𝜀 𝑘 𝐶3𝜀 𝐺𝑏 + 𝑆𝜀 (8)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑗 𝜀 𝑗 √𝜈∗𝜀
Where:
𝜂 𝑘 𝑘2
𝐶1 = max [0.43, 𝜂+5] ; 𝜂 = 𝑆 𝜀 ; 𝑆 = √2𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 ; 𝜇𝑡 = 𝜌𝐶𝜇 𝜀
𝑘 = turbulent kinetic energy [m2/s2];

𝜀 = turbulent dissipation rate [m2/s3 or J/kg∙s] ;
𝜌 = density of the phase [kg/m3];
𝜈 = cinematic viscosity [m2/s];
𝜇 = dynamic viscosity [Pa∙s];
𝑢𝑗 = velocity component in corresponding direction [m/s];
𝜇𝑡 = turbulent eddy viscosity [m2/s] ;
𝐺𝑘 = generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients [m2/s2];
𝐺𝑏 = generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy [m2/s2];
𝑌𝑀 = contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence [m2/s2];
𝜎𝑘 , 𝜎𝜀 = turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and ε [-];
𝑆𝑘 , 𝑆𝜀 = user defined source terms [-];
𝐶1 , 𝐶1𝜀 , 𝐶2 , 𝐶3𝜀 = constants.
Additionally, for every viscous model category, ANSYS Fluent also offers a series
of turbulence model options. For the k – ε family we can choose from 3 models: mixture,
dispersed and per-phase turbulence models.
After analyzing the application possibilities for each of them, we have chosen the
dispersed turbulence model because the study involves much lower concentrations of

secondary phase (dust) compared to the primary continuous phase (air), therefore the
dust phase is considered dilute to the primary phase. This is also shown later in the results
where the maximum volume fractions in the test section of the tunnel are presented.
The dispersed turbulence model introduces a series of changes to the
aforementioned equations: a modified k – ε model for the primary phase to predict
turbulence, a modification to the interphase turbulent momentum transfer, a phase
weighted averaging process for the turbulence and Tchen-theory correlations to predict
turbulent quantities for the dispersed phases.
4.1.5 NEAR WALL TREATMENT
As mentioned before, no model is perfect for every situation, therefore ANSYS
Fluent offers the possibility to adapt these models for each case through additional
options. One of these options, for the k – ε model, is the near-wall treatment. Choosing
an approach for the near-wall treatment can either improve the accuracy of the
simulations or totally deteriorate the results.
In our case we are talking about a multiphase flow inside a cylindrical tunnel. This
means that the flow will be wall bounded on the entire peripheric area. The presence of
the no-slip walls will have significant impact on the velocity field and on the turbulence. It
is well known that the no-slip condition implies a velocity equal to zero where the fluid is
in direct contact with a solid surface, therefore a velocity gradient is formed in the close
vicinity of the wall. However, the influence of the wall on the turbulence is not that evident.
Multiple experiments [Fischer et al (2001), Salim and Cheah (2009)] have shown that
there are three important layers in the near-wall region: a viscous sublayer right near the
wall, a fully-turbulent layer towards the exterior part of the near-wall region and a buffer
layer right between them. In the viscous sublayer the flow is almost laminar, so the
viscous forces have the greatest impact on momentum, heat and mass transfer. In the
exterior layer the flow is fully turbulent, therefore the influence that turbulence has will
become much greater than that of the viscosity. Finally, in the buffer layer both of these
forces have significant impact on the flow [ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide Chapter 4]. A
representation of these layers can be seen in Figure 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1: The layers formed in the near-wall region

[ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide Chapter 4]

ANSYS Fluent offers two approaches to simulate the flow in the near-wall region:
wall functions and near-wall model. In the case of wall functions the presence of viscosity
in the viscous sublayer and in the buffer layer is neglected, so the fully-turbulent region is
connected to the no-slip wall through a series of formulas, called wall functions. This
simplifies the calculation because the turbulence model will not be altered by the
presence of the wall. For the second approach, the viscosity is taken into consideration,
therefore a series of modifications take place for the turbulence models.
Finally, since the simulation does not involve wall heat transfer and since the
accuracy of the flow near the wall is not a key aspect, we have chosen to use the Scalable
Wall Functions since they avoid any grid restrictions and can also be used for low y+
values (y+ <11) [ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide Chapter 4]. Moreover, the quality of the
results in the wall boundary layer depends more on the resolution of the boundary layer
than on the y+ values. A general recommendation is to have at least 10-20 cells that
define the boundary layer region. As you can see in Figure 4.2 below, the boundary layer,
for a completed simulation, in the test section has a minimum of 12 cells, which satisfies
the grid-size condition for an accurate boundary layer representation. We have opted to
use a value closer to the minimum requirement of 10 cells in order to provide a
compromise between the y+ value and the boundary layer grid resolution. As seen in
Figure 4.3, the y+ value in the test section has a minimum value of y+ ≈ 11. This means
that we managed to satisfy both the grid resolution condition and the minimum y+
condition. Of course, turbulence modelling remains a challenge for CFD simulations,
therefore an experimental validation still needs to be conducted in order to verify the
accuracy of the model.
Figure 4.2: Grid representation of the near-wall boundary region in the test section [a minimum of 12
cells]

Figure 4.3: Wall Y+ representation (A minimum value of 11 in the experimental vein)
Note: The y+ value after the divergent cone are lower due to a flow separation.
4.1.6 DEFINING THE MATERIALS/PHASES

Defining the primary phase was straightforward since ANSYS Fluent already
provides the material “Air” in its database. It was not necessary to make any changes to
the default properties. The same applies for the solid material used to define all the walls
within the model. We have used the default “Aluminum” material since no special
conditions were needed for these elements.
Defining the secondary phase was not as easy because ANSYS Fluent offers a few
more options when simulating a solid granular phase inside a fluid phase. As mentioned
before in [Chapter 4.1.2] the Eulerian model uses a multi-fluid approach to simulate
multiphase flows. This means that our solid phase will be treated as fluid continua, but
with special solid physical properties. To enable these properties, we have chosen the
Eulerian Granular model.
For the configuration of the granular model we can either set user-defined
values/functions or choose one of the predefined models provided by the Fluent
database. After analyzing the documentation of the models provided by ANSYS Fluent,
it was decided that the available models are sufficiently reliable to be used in our case,

therefore no user defined values or functions were employed. Moreover, using these
models also significantly reduced the set-up period for the CFD simulations.
As a result, the dust has been defined as a granular phase using average values for
silica flour properties: a constant diameter of 25µm, a density of 2650 kg/m3, a specific
heat of 730 J/kg×K, a thermal conductivity of 1.5 W/m×K, a molecular weight of 25175
kg/kmol and a viscosity of 1.7894e-05 kg/m×s, which Fluent imposes to be the same as
for the primary phase (air). Regarding the other options, we have decided to use the
Syamlal-O’Brien equations to account for the granular viscosity, solids pressure and
radial distribution [Syamlal et al (1993)], the Lun-et-al equation to compute the bulk
viscosity [Lun et al (1984)], the algebraic formulation for the granular temperature, the
default constant value of 0.63 for packing limit and, finally, for frictional viscosity no model
has been selected as we decided that we can neglect its influence.
For the phase interaction configuration, the virtual mass modeling has been
neglected, as the secondary phase density heavily exceeds the primary phase density
[ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide Chapter 17.5.10]. The Syamlal-O’Brien model [Syamlal and
O’Brien (1989)] has been chosen for the fluid-solid drag exchange coefficient due to its
synergy with the Syamlal-O’Brien equations for granular viscosity [ANSYS 17.5.6.2].
Further, the Moraga lift force model [Moraga et al (1999)] has been selected for its
applicability to spherical solid particles. Then the Simonin model was used for the
turbulent dispersion force [Simonin and Viollet (1990)]. To maintain a good convergence
level the turbulence interaction has been neglected [ANSYS Fluent User Guide Chapter
24.5.3.1]. Furthermore, to account for the particle collision a constant value of 0.9 was
used for the restitution coefficient considering the results from [C.J. Reagle (2012)]. For
simulations including thermal energy influence, the Gunn model [Gunn (1978)] has been
used for the heat transfer coefficient as recommended in [ANSYS Fluent User Guide
Chapter 24.5.4]. Finally, the symmetric model for the interfacial area concentration has
been used, and the mass transfer mechanisms and surface tension force modeling have
been neglected.

CELL ZONE AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
4.2.1 THE INLET BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
The cell zone and boundary conditions have been defined in order to reproduce, as
best as possible, what the standard procedure EUROCAE ED-14G (2011) imposes for
the dust test cycle. Using the conditions specified at [Chapter 2.3] and the experimental
data from [Chapter 2.2] we have defined the boundary conditions in order to respect both
the standard procedure conditions and the capabilities of the testing facility.
First of all, the virtual model has been divided, right from the geometry creation
stage, into 4 main sections. These 4 sections are: the tunnel section occupied by the
battery, the tunnel section dedicated for the tests, the interior volume occupied by the
injector and the last section is what remains of the tunnel volume. Dividing the tunnel into
different section allows us to set different Cell Zone conditions for each of them. This was
necessary due to particularities of these specific zones: the battery zone needs to be
modeled as a porous media to account for the pressure drop caused by the heating coils,
the interior of the injector needs to be set as a solid material and the test section, while
not having special conditions, it was easier to model it as a separate cell zone in order to
facilitate the postprocessing of the results and the generation of plots and other graphic
representations. The 4th section is what remains of the tunnel, where no special conditions
are required, therefore this zone is modeled with the default fluid options. A representation
of the tunnel divisions can be seen in Figure 4.4 below.
Figure 4.4: Division of the tunnel into 4 main sections

Starting from the inlet section, due to limitations of the Eulerian model, the fan
boundary condition couldn’t be used. Even though there are ways of simulating the
presence of the fan through user-defined functions, due to the lack of appropriate
experimental data, and in order to simplify the model, the presence of the physical fan
has been neglected. Instead, a velocity inlet has been used at a constant value with the
flow direction set on the X component, which is parallel with the tunnel axis. Due to lack
of additional data, the specification method for the turbulence has been defined with the
turbulent intensity (I=5%) and with the hydraulic diameter (Dh = 0.7m). It is worth
mentioning that there have been several attempts of simulating the circular motion of the
fan at the inlet, but the results have shown that the flow was only impacted in the close
vicinity of the inlet. This was also a reason why it was decided to keep the normal velocity
inlet condition. It should be noted that this remark might only apply to the low inlet
velocities from the dust test cycles. For the high velocity inlets of the sand test cycles the
rotational component of the air might have greater influence on the turbulence along the
tunnel.
Considering that the standard procedure specifies an interval of airflow velocities
(0.5 m/s to 2.4 m/s) the simulation possibilities are endless, but the available resources
do not offer the possibility to analyze every possible scenario. Therefore, we have decided

to limit the study to only one inlet velocity. The advantage of this single velocity approach
is a reduced uncertainty and error probability when analyzing the dust injection
simulations. In the end, if results are conclusive for this case, the same procedure could
be applied to any of the specified velocities.
As a result, an initial value of 0.8 m/s at the fan zone was chosen, in order to
generate an average velocity value of approximately 2.4 m/s in the smaller section tube,
where the test section is found. However, after the results analysis from the mesh
independence study, we noticed that the local velocity in the test section surpasses the
2.4 m/s limit imposed by the standard procedure due to the influence of the near-wall
effect and due to the injection of the mixture (dust + air). Therefore, a velocity inlet of
0.7 m/s was preferred for the comparison study between the 4 injection methods. This
aspect is discussed in more detail in [Chapter 6.1].
4.2.2 THE HEATING BATTERY
The addition of the heating battery was an important aspect of our model because,
on the one hand it is responsible with increasing the temperature of the airflow, and on
the other hand it adds a drop in pressure due to the presence of the heating coils.
Additionally, this pressure drop is variable with the velocity of the airflow and it has to be
defined in such a manner that it changes accordingly to the real-life scenarios.
To include the effect of this variable pressure drop in the simulations, the battery
section has been modelled as a porous media. The influence of the porous media is
accounted through the addition of a momentum source term to the fluid flow equations.
This source term acts as a momentum sink, usually with a negative value, and it consists
of a viscous loss term and an inertial loss term. These two terms are defined within
ANSYS Fluent as Viscous Resistance and Inertial Resistance. The momentum sink
formulation, which comprises these two terms, can be presented in two forms: a more
general form for non-homogeneous media (9) and a reduced form for homogeneous
media (same properties on all directions) (10).
1
𝑆𝑖 = − (∑3𝑗=1 𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝜇𝑣𝑗 ∆𝑛𝑗 + ∑3𝑗=1 𝐶𝑖𝑗 2 𝜌|𝑣|𝑣𝑗 ∆𝑛𝑗 ) (9)
𝜇 1
𝑆𝑖 = − (𝛼 𝑣𝑖 ∆𝑛𝑗 + 𝐶2 2 𝜌|𝑣|𝑣𝑖 ∆𝑛𝑗 ) (10)
Where:
𝑆𝑖 = the source term for the x, y or z momentum equation [Pa];
1
𝐷𝑖𝑗 , = the viscous resistance coefficient or the permeability [1/m2];
𝛼
𝐶𝑖𝑗 , 𝐶2 = the inertial resistance coefficients [1/m];
|𝑣| = the velocity magnitude [m/s];
𝑣𝑗 = the velocity on the x, y or z direction [m/s];
∆𝑛𝑗 = the length of the porous zone on the x, y or z direction [m];
𝜌, 𝜇 = the density and the dynamic viscosity of the fluid that passes the porous media;
In our case, we have considered the porous zone as a homogenous media since
the flow was mainly affected on the X direction, with negligible impact on the Y and Z
directions. Therefore, the only unknown values from equation (10) remain the viscous
resistance coefficient (or permeability) and the inertial resistance coefficient. These two
terms, needed to define the porosity, have been determined from the experimental data
collected on-site at the testing facility, as described in Georgescu et al (2017).
A regression curve describing the pressure drop variation with the airflow velocity
has been determined (11) from the aforementioned experimental data using the pressure

drop formulation and the methodology described in ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide Chapter
6.2.3.7. As mentioned before, we have considered the porous zone as being
homogenous, therefore we have only considered the pressure drop and the length of the
porous zone on the X direction (direction of the flow).
Figure 4.5: The pressure drop variation determined from experimental data points
Figure 4.6: The pressure drop variation per unit meter determined from experimental data
[Georgescu et al (2017)]
In order to determine the viscous and the inertial resistance factors, we have taken
equation (10) and we have divided it to the length on the X direction in order to have the
same form as equation (11). Putting both equations (10) and (11) side-by-side, we have
determined the coefficients needed to define the porosity within Fluent:

∆𝑝
∆𝑝𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 = ∆𝑛 = 4.21𝑣 2 + 6 × 10−14 𝑣 (11)
S 𝜇 1
𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 = ∆punit = ∆𝑛i = − (𝛼 𝑣 + 𝐶2 2 𝜌𝑣 2 ) (12)
𝑗
Where:
𝑆𝑖 𝑛 = the momentum sink per unit meter [Pa/m];
∆𝑛 = the length of the porous zone (the battery) [m]
∆𝑝 = the total pressure drop on the battery section [Pa]
∆𝑝𝑛 = the pressure drop per unit meter [Pa/m]
𝑣 = velocity of the fluid passing through the porous zone (battery) [m/s]
Knowing that ∆𝑛 = 0.8 𝑚, we determined the inertial resistance factor (13) and
viscous resistance (14) following the methodology used by ANSYS Fluent:
1 6×10−14 1
= = 3.35 × 10−9 [𝑚2 ] (13)
𝛼 𝜇
𝜌 −1 1
𝐶2 = 4.21 ( 2) = 6.8735 [𝑚] (14)
In order to verify the accuracy of the porous media impact on the flow, we have
conducted a series of simulations in which the velocity at the inlet was varied from 0.5
m/s to 7 m/s and the pressure drop on the battery section was registered for each case.
We have then compared the results obtained from the simulations with the curves
determined by the experimental data and we have considered that the accuracy is
sufficient enough if relative errors were under 1%.
Figure 4.7: The pressure drop variation per unit meter [CFD Results vs Analytic Data]
As it can be seen in Figure 4.7 above, the results from the new 3D model are in line
with the results from the axisymmetric model described in Georgescu et al (2017). The
red circles represent the points calculated with the analytic formula from (8) and the
continuous line represents the CFD results. The largest relative error of 0,95% (Table 4.1)
was recorded for the 0,5 m/s injection velocity. This is of no concern, especially
considering that the pressure-drop values for velocities between 0 and 1 m/s are very

small. Seeing these results, we can conclude that the virtual model captures the influence
of the heating battery upon the airflow with high enough accuracy, and that the simulation
outcome has shown good correlation with the experimental data.
Table 4.1: Results from battery pressure drop simulations for the 3D model with Refined Mesh 1 grid
Inlet
Δpunit analytic p1static CFD p2static CFD Δptot static CFD Δpunit CFD Error
Velocity
[m/s] [Pa/m] [Pa] [Pa] [Pa] [Pa/m]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.7 2.06 -0.05 -1.72 1.67 2.08 0.95%
1 4.25 -0.11 -3.51 3.40 4.25 0.08%
2 17.00 -0.44 -14.04 13.60 17.00 0.00%
3 38.27 -0.98 -31.57 30.60 38.25 -0.06%
4 68.02 -1.70 -56.07 54.37 67.96 -0.08%
5 106.22 -2.61 -87.53 84.92 106.15 -0.07%
6 152.89 -3.69 -125.95 122.26 152.82 -0.05%
7 208.03 -4.96 -171.33 166.37 207.97 -0.03%
8 271.64 -6.40 -223.67 217.27 271.59 -0.02%
Figure 4.8: Static pressure contours for 5 m/s inlet velocity

NOTE: It is worth mentioning that this procedure has taken place after conducting
the mesh independence study, therefore the mesh resolution is the one specified in the
conclusions of the next chapter.
In Figure 4.8 a representation of the pressure variation along the entire domain has
been presented. We can see that, besides the pressure-drop on the heating-battery, each
of the other segments of the tunnel can be monitored. Even though this was not a point
of interest for our study, the methodology that we have used to check the correlation with
experimental data can be applied for all other components like: honeycomb meshes,
convergent cone, divergent cone etc.
In addition to the porous settings, an energy source term has also been defined for
the heating battery, for the cases where the standard procedure imposes an increase in
temperature from 25 °C to 55 °C. The initial objective of this stage of the study was to
verify if the heating battery will have sufficient power to increase the airflow temperature
to a desired value when high airflow velocities are used (like the ones required by the
sand test). Realizing the limitations regarding the approach used to simulate the heat
transfer, it was decided that this part of the study was not of high interest, therefore no
additions have been made to the information already provided in Georgescu (2017).
4.2.3 THE INJECTOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
First of all, it should be noted that, in reality a mixture composed of both air and dust
phases is introduced through the injection nozzles, just like it was described in [Chapter
2.1], but in our study the mass flow of injected air is neglected. Due to the complexity of
this process, there have been some limitations that forced us to make rough assumptions
regarding the working principles of the reference injection system:

1. The first problem encountered was the difficulty to approximate the
concentration of dust right at the injection point. This has generated
uncertainties regarding the volume fraction values for the air and dust.
2. The second limitation was caused by the lack of actual velocity and/or pressure
values at the injection point, which again has caused incertitude regarding the
flow regime that we were dealing with. Since the reference system works with
compressed air and very short releases, we were not sure if the injection
velocities are in the subsonic or in the supersonic regime.
3. A third shortcoming was caused by the lack of turbulence data at the injection
nozzle, which forced us to approximate the intensity and the viscosity ratio.
4. The last limitation was the lack of data regarding the dispersion of dust during
a test session, therefore we didn’t have a good reference of the performance of
the initial injection system in order to at least approximate the other parameters.
Conducting the experimental studies to overcome these limitations require
expensive equipment and time to set up the tunnel accordingly. Because resources were
limited, and since the tunnel couldn’t suffer any modifications when the data was needed,
we had no experimental values regarding any of the aforementioned parameters.
As it was presented in Georgescu (2017) the injection nozzles were first considered
as velocity inlets. However, for this new 3D model, a different approach has been taken
and the nozzles have been set as mass flow inlets.
The advantage of the first method is that, a “velocity inlet” type offers a very
precise control on the velocity of each of the phases (air and dust) that is introduced
through the injection points, with also an option to control the volume fraction for the
secondary phase (dust). But, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, we didn’t have any
experimental values for the velocity of the air or dust particles that are introduced through
the reference injection system. Therefore, the advantage to accurately control the velocity
was not of high value. Moreover, trying to control the total dust concentration* in the
test section with the proper combination of velocity and dust volume fraction was very
difficult, time consuming and it wasn’t reliable since, in a real-life scenario, the possibility
to control the velocity with such a high level of accuracy is not feasible.
*NOTE: Total dust concentration [g/m3] refers to the total mass of dust, in grams,
that can be found in the entire volume of the test section, in cubic meters. This value is
different from the local dust concentration in each cell which varies considerably
depending on the injection system.
Compared to the first approach, the second method has proven to be more useful
in our case because the “mass flow” boundary condition offers precise control on the
mass flow of both phases, with an additional option to control the volume fraction of
the dust phase which enabled us to also variate the injection velocity as desired. This
means that we have more control on the total concentration of dust that passes through
the test section, while also controlling the dispersion of the particles.
Moreover, knowing the velocity of the airflow, we can make useful approximations
for the required dust mass flow at the injection point in order to obtain a certain total dust
concentration in the test section. For example:
We know that the concentration in the test section should be between 3.5 g/m3 and
8.8 g/m3. We aim to get a concentration of 5 g/m3:

𝑔𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡
Required concentration 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 5 [ ]
𝑚3
Test section volume: 𝑉𝑇𝑆 = 0.125 [𝑚3 ]

Required dust mass: 𝑀𝑇𝑆 = 5 ∗ 0.125 𝑚3 = 0.625𝑔𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡
𝑚3
𝑚
Mean velocity of the airflow: 𝑣𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = 2.4 𝑠
Distance to test section: 𝐷 = 3 𝑚

3𝑚 𝑔𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡
Initial mass flow: 𝑚̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 = 0.625 𝑔𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 ∗ 𝑚 = 0.78
2.4 𝑠
𝑠
With this initial value we run a simulation for a limited number of iterations and then
we verify if the actual concentration of dust given by the simulation 𝐶𝑠𝑖𝑚 is close to what
we were aiming for (𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 5 𝑔/𝑚3 ). Most probably the value will not be exactly the one
that we search for, but we can increase or decrease the mass flow depending on the ratio
between the two concentrations and rerun the simulations. This way it should not take
more than 2 steps to get close to the value of 5 g/m3. Of course, the concentration might
not be exactly the same for each injection method because the forces acting on the
particles have a different impact level, and they can either slow down or accelerate the
flow of dust just as explained in [Chapter 6.3]. However, from the results presented in
Table 6.1 we can see that the differences are not that significant and can be neglected
considering the large interval in which we work in (3.5 g/m3– 8.8 g/m3). In the end, after a
series of simulations, we have decided that a total dust mass flow rate of 1.5 g/s was a
good all-around value since it provided a total dust concentration within the standard
procedure limits no matter the injection method that was used.
Another advantage of the “mass flow” type is that, if we change the inlet velocity
from 0.7 m/s to another value this means that we can recalculate the approximate
required mass flow just with the ratio between the new velocity and the old velocity in the
test section. For example: for a velocity of 1.4 m/s the airflow in the small section tube will
be twice as fast, therefore we can assume that we will need a dust mass flow rate twice
as high to maintain approximately the same concentration within the test section. In the
end the dispersion of the particles might be very different, but the total concentration
should have close-enough values.
A simplification that we considered for this stage was to specify the mass flow only
for the dust phase since we were not really interested to control the mass flow of air that
comes through the injection point. The fraction of air that is mixed with the dust can be
computed from the volume fraction specification like in the example below:
𝑔
Considering that a dust injection mass flow of 𝑚̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 1.5 , and a dust volume
𝑠
3
𝑚𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡
fraction 𝛼𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 0.02 [𝑚3 ] have already been determined, we can calculate the portion
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
of air that is injected 𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 with:
(1−𝛼 ) 𝑚 1−0.02 3 𝑘𝑔 𝑔
𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝑉̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 × 𝛼 𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 × 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 5.66 × 10−7 [ 𝑠 ] × 0.02 [−] × 1.2 [𝑚3 ] = 0.033 𝑠 (15)
𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡
Where:
𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔 0.0015 𝑚 3
𝑚̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 0.0015 ; 𝜌𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 2650 𝑚3 ; 𝑉̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 2650 = 5.66 × 10−7 [ 𝑠 ]
𝑠

𝑚̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 , 𝜌𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡, 𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 , 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = the mass flow and density of the dust and air phases; the
density of the air was considered 1.2 kg/m3.
𝑉̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = the volumetric flow of dust;
Regarding the dust volume fraction values, these were chosen depending on the
dust velocity that we aimed to get at the nozzles. The principle is simple: if a higher dust
velocity is desired (𝑣𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 ↑), then a lower volume fraction (𝛼𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 ↓) value should be used,
and if a lower dust velocity is desired (𝑣𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 ↓) then the dust volume fraction should be
raised (𝛼𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 ↑).
It is worth mentioning that for each of the injection methods a fixed total dust mass
flow was used 𝑚̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 0.0015 𝑘𝑔/𝑠, but this total mass flow was divided differently for
each method, considering the differences in the number of nozzles, the total injection
area and the kind of dispersion that we want to obtain, as it can be seen in Table 6.1
[Chapter 6.3].
Finally, the boundary condition set-up for the injection points has been completed
by specifying the turbulence parameters. As previously mentioned, due to lack of
appropriate experimental data, the default ANSYS values for intensity and viscosity ratio
𝜇
(I=5% and 𝑡=10) have been chosen for the turbulence specification method.
𝜇
4.2.4 WALL AND OUTLET BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

To account for the presence of the static walls, as described in [Chapter 4.1.5], the
no-slip condition has been chosen for every boundary wall, including the walls of the
injection system.
Finally, to finish the entire set-up, an outflow boundary condition has been defined
at the outlet. This option has also been changed compared to the initial “pressure
outlet” configuration specified in Georgescu (2017). The outflow boundary type has
been chosen because it works better with “mass flow” inlets and also because the
pressure value at that point of the tunnel is unknown. As mentioned in [Chapter 3], the
virtual model ends just before the second honeycomb mesh and presuming that the
pressure at that point is constant and equal to the atmospheric pressure was seen as a
possible source of error. The outflow boundary type doesn’t assume any pressure and
lets the program compute the pressure and velocity at the outlet depending on the
upstream flow. Additionally, in a real scenario, the local pressure in the entire tunnel
actually varies with the inlet velocity, therefore assuming a constant pressure at the outlet
was not seen as ideal.
SOLUTION SET-UP
4.3.1 PRESSURE-VELOCITY COUPLING
The solution set-up begins with the specification of the pressure-velocity coupling
method. In Georgescu (2017) the Phase Coupled SIMPLE algorithm was used.
However, due to some continuity inconsistencies caused by dust volume fraction
artefacts (Figure 4.9), it was necessary to change from the Phase-Coupled SIMPLE
algorithm to the more robust Coupled Pressure-Velocity method (Figure 4.10). This
helped with improving the overall model stability, but the calculation time has increased
by 3 to 4 times. To help alleviate the impact on the simulation time, the Pseudo Transient
method has been chosen for solving the flow. The “Pseudo Transient” option is a form of
variable under-relaxation method, which helps with reaching convergence faster for
steady state simulations using the pressure-based Coupled solver.

Figure 4.9: Dust volume fraction representation with Phase Coupled SIMPLE scheme
Figure 4.10: Dust volume fraction representation with Coupled scheme

4.3.2 SPATIAL DISCRETIZATION
Regarding spatial discretization, a scheme involving First Order Upwind, Second
Order Upwind and Modified HRIC methods was used in order to obtain a good
convergence level with a sufficient numerical accuracy.
A change that was included, compared to the simulations from Georgescu (2017)
was the use of a higher order discretization scheme for the volume fraction. For this
new 3D model, all simulations were initiated with the First Order Upwind scheme, but
after 1000 iterations the Modified HRIC scheme was employed in order to refine the
solution. As it can be noticed in Figure 4.11; Figure 4.12Figure 4.13 the results are
considerably different. The biggest difference comes from the interfacial representation
which is heavily approximated in the case of First Order Upwind schemes compared to
the Modified HRIC scheme (Figure 4.11). This interfacial reconstruction is responsible for
correctly approximating the motion of the particles and also the mass transfer between
cells. Therefore, it has a very high impact on the dispersion of the dust throughout the
domain, and especially near the injection zone where the dust is introduced at higher
velocities and normal to the airflow direction. The Modified HRIC scheme has been tested
and validated in Walters and Wolgemuth (2009).
Figure 4.11: Interfacial shape representations for 1st Order Upwind and Modified HRIC
[Walters and Wolgemuth (2009)]
As it can be noticed in Figure 4.12 below, due to the overly diffusive nature of the
1st Order Upwind scheme, the dust is actually more evenly dispersed across the
transversal section of the tunnel. This is caused by severe numerical diffusion determined

by the presence of large velocity gradients, which are not properly handled by the 1 st
Order Upwind scheme. This mainly happens because, for any field variable, this scheme
assumes only a cell-average value that holds throughout the entire cell. In the end, this
alters the approximation of the particle trajectory and of the mass transfer between cells.
Even though the results seem positive, they are actually not a good representation of the
real phenomena.
Figure 4.12: Contours of Volume Fraction on the longitudinal middle-plane for First Order Upwind and
Modified HRIC discretization schemes
On the other hand, the Modified HRIC scheme does not offer us the same good
results in terms of dust dispersion, but it actually describes better the motion of the
particles. In Figure 4.13 a close-up of the injection area is presented and here it can be
observed how the two discretization schemes differ one from another. The Modified HRIC
scheme uses a nonlinear blend of upwind and downwind differencing which takes into
account the presence of the velocity gradients and provides improved accuracy in
approximating the mass transfer between two adjacent cells. As a result, in Figure 4.13b,
we can see that the particles do not spread as much as for the Upwind case and that the
motion of the dust near the injection area affects the entire trajectory of the particles,
which tend to accumulate near the walls (Figure 4.12).
Figure 4.13: Close-Up to the injection area

Left: First Order Upwind Right: Modified HRIC
The differences between the two schemes are reflected in the final results. As we
can see in Figure 4.14a, the dust uniformity in the case of 1st Order Upwind was as high
as 0.37, while for the Modified HRIC scheme the uniformity dropped to 0.2. This is a
significant change in the results because the uniformity index is determined with the
average and local dust volume fraction values, which are also used to evaluate the
concentration of the dust. We remind that the local concentration is one of the key factors
that we want to control in the assessment of the injection methods.
Furthermore, in Figure 4.14b, we can notice that even the velocity of the dust is
affected by the volume fraction discretization scheme, introducing a difference of around
10%. This happens because the drag, lift and other forces that act on the particles vary

with the level of dispersion. This is a good example of how a simple setting in a CFD
simulation can change the entire solution.
Figure 4.14: Results comparison between First Order Upwind and Modified HRIC
Left: Area Weighted Dust Uniformity Index Right: Mass Averaged Dust Velocity
In the end, for the Volume Fraction spatial discretization we used:
• Iterations 0 - 400: First Order Upwind
• Iterations 1000 - 1500: Modified HRIC
While for the rest of the flow variables (Momentum, Turbulent Kinetic Energy,
Turbulent Dissipation Rate, and Energy) the spatial discretization has been done as
follows:
• Iterations 400 - 1000: Second Order Upwind
• Iterations 1000 - 1500: Second Order Upwind
A convergence criterion of 10-5 was set for all equations, but the model has rarely
converged to that level. Due to the small volume fractions of dust, there have always been
difficulties with secondary phase convergence, and also with secondary phase X velocity.
However, convergence is not the only indicator for the accuracy of the results. In our case
it was expected not to reach very low convergence levels due to the complexity of the
physics that are being computed (flow separation after divergent cone, particle dispersion,
particle collision, turbulence interactions, interphase exchanges etc.) therefore additional
factors were taken into consideration to evaluate the accuracy of the results.
One important aspect was to check the total mass imbalance of dust and air. An
acceptable error of 1% was considered as the limit for this factor. A second aspect that
we monitored was the fluctuation of key physical quantities or “quantities of interest”, how
they are called in a more CFD language. The physical quantities that were interesting for
us in this case were: the mass-averaged velocity in the volume of the test section, the
area-weighted uniformity index at the entrance in the test section, the volume-
averaged dust volume fraction and the maximum dust volume fraction on the test
section volume, the total dust mass in the test section volume and, of course, the mass
imbalance of dust between the inlets and the outlet.

The mass-averaged velocity was chosen as a monitor because we wanted to
know if the dust velocity is close to the airflow velocity when it passes through the test
section. If there are differences between the two velocities, then it means that the dust is
either accelerated or decelerated when it reaches the test object, which might produce
errors in the real test results. The convergence issues for the momentum equations was
also a reason to monitor this value.
The area-weighted uniformity index of the dust volume fraction was chosen as
an indicator for the level of dispersion of the particles at the entrance in the test section.
If the uniformity index is higher, then the dust volume fraction variations from cell-to-cell
is lower and the other way around. A uniformity index of 1 means that the dust is evenly
distributed on the entire surface, while an index close to 0 means that the dust is poorly
dispersed and that there are cell faces with no dust at all and cell faces with very high
concentrations of dust.
The averaged dust volume fraction and maximum dust volume fraction were
being monitored as indicators for the total concentration and for the maximum
concentration of dust in the test section. These values were also helpful to have an idea
of how much the cell volume fraction varies when the uniformity index is computed.
The total dust mass was monitored as a reassurance that the computed average
volume fraction is a good indicator for the total dust concentration. Knowing the dust mass
and the test section volume the total concentration can be easily calculated. But with the
average volume fraction we also get some information about the local dust concentration
for the cells.
Finally, the dust mass imbalance was monitored in order to assure that there are
no fluctuations for this quantity when checking if the mass imbalance is lower than 1%.
Fluctuations mean that the steady-state simulation has not reached a steady-state yet.
Therefore, we must assure that all monitored values remain at a constant value for a
certain number of iterations before assuming that the solution is “converged”.
There are, of course, many other things to consider when judging the accuracy of
CFD simulations. Even if a solution presents good convergence, no physical quantity
fluctuations and very low mass imbalances, this does not mean that the simulation is a
good representation of the true physical behavior. The converged solution can still offer
poor results if the boundary conditions and the numerical models have not been properly
defined for the studied case. This is why any CFD model should be rigorously checked,
from geometry and mesh generation, to boundary conditions and solver settings to ensure
its suitability for the problem at hand.
The best way to verify the performance of a virtual model is by comparing it to a
physical model in order to see how close to reality are the simulated results.
Unfortunately, we did not have the possibility to make such a comparison, therefore we
relied only on a thorough verification of each step in the creation of the virtual model, from
geometry and mesh generation to monitoring the aforementioned “quantities of interest”
while simulations were running.

CHAPTER 5 - MESH INDEPENDENCE STUDY
DEFINING THE MESHES

An appropriate mesh is of great importance for the accuracy of any CFD simulation.
In order to check that the resolution of the grid is high enough to capture every physical
aspect of the flow in the right manner, a comparison study between three or more
successively finer grids is required. This process is called “grid convergence study” or
“mesh independence study”.
A mesh independence study can be done in several ways and it usually involves
more steps. For this case, the method that we used has been divided into 3 stages:
1) Defining an initial mesh: For this first stage the idea is to start with a simulation
using a coarser mesh, to check if the solution reaches a good converge level and
to check all the quality indicators like mass imbalance and fluctuations in the
monitored physical quantities. If the solution is stable and if it presents good results,
then we can consider it a good starting point for our mesh study.
2) Refining the initial mesh: As mentioned before, having a converged solution does
not mean the job is done. If the solution is not grid independent then we can’t
assume that the simulation is accurate enough. In this second stage, the mesh that
was used for the simulation at stage 1 will be refined in order to see if the solution
changes. When the grid is refined, the cells become smaller and the total number
of cells, that compose our domain, increases. This means that the spatial and
temporal discretization errors are reduced. But this process does not have a linear
trend. Instead, the errors should have an asymptotical tendency towards zero,
meaning that, at a certain point, refining the grid will not change the solution
anymore, therefore a grid independency is reached.
During this stage the same conditions and the same number of iterations have been
used for the simulation. The idea is to change only the resolution of the grid. When
the simulation is completed, the results from the 2 meshes are compared and there
are two possibilities:
• If the results from the initial mesh and from the refined mesh are similar (with
an acceptable error) then it means that the initial mesh was accurate enough
to capture the result. Therefore, the next step would be to coarsen the initial
mesh and see if we can get the same results with a lower resolution mesh
in order to reduce the computational time.
• If there are considerable differences between the 2 meshes, then it means
that the first mesh was not fine enough to accurately represent all the
physical phenomena. Therefore, the next step would be to refine the mesh
even more and see if the solution changes again.
3) Refine or Coarsen until mesh independency is obtained: The last stage is
based on repeating the 2nd stage for a number of times until a mesh independent
solution is obtained. It is recommended that the refinement be done only on one
direction at a time, to see which dimension of the cells has the biggest impact on
the flow. The number of cells was increased from 25% up to 100% between each
subsequent mesh. In the end, even if there are more mesh sizes that have been
compared, only a few of them will be chosen for comparison in order to facilitate
the graphical representations.

As a result, for this mesh independency study, 5 grids have been realized and
compared:
1) The “Initial Mesh”, which is composed of 2.264.744 elements and which
represents our reference point since it was used for many preliminary
simulations (Figure 5.1a and Figure 5.2a). It is recommended that, in the
preliminary phase, a coarser mesh be used in order to reduce computational
time while checking different models and discretization schemes.
2) The “Refined Mesh 1” with a total of 4.180.032 elements. For this mesh, only
the number of transversal cells was increased by refining all the circular faces
that define each of the interior volumes (Figure 5.1b and Figure 5.2a). Due to
the fact that this refinement needs to be done on the whole domain, in order to
assure the continuity of the mesh, this resulted in a grid with almost double the
number of elements.
3) The “Refined Mesh 2” which is composed of 5.065.620 elements is the result
of a subsequent grid refinement of the “Refined Mesh 1”. For this part, only the
number of longitudinal cells on the 400 mm section tube was increased (Figure
5.2b), because this is the main interest zone where most of the complex
physical phenomena occurs. Since the refinement was not necessary on the
whole domain of the tunnel, this resulted in only a 22% increase in the number
of elements, from 4.180.032 to 5.065.620.
4) The “Refined Mesh 3” which is composed of 6.944.708 elements is another
subsequent grid refinement of the “Refined Mesh 1”. After seeing the results
from the first 2 refinements (Figure 5.4 to Figure 5.12), it was decided that the
increase in longitudinal cells has no real effect, and that another transversal
refinement was necessary. Therefore, this 4th grid was created by increasing
the number of transversal cells of the “Refined Mesh 1” even more (Figure 5.1c).
This resulted in a 66% increase from the initial 4.180.032 elements.
5) The “Refined Mesh 1 HQ”. Additionally, because the geometry of our model
was quite complex, a high-quality mesh was difficult to obtain. Due to the
presence of the small cylindrical injector right in the middle of the tunnel, a series
of highly skewed elements are generated in the center of the grid, as it can be
observed in Figure 5.3 below. In order to assure that these elements won’t affect
the fidelity of the results, a simplified grid was created, in which the cylindrical
geometry of the injector was replaced by a rectangular geometry. Even though
this does not reflect the reality it was important to know if the low-quality
elements influence the results in any way. Using the rectangular geometry
offered a much higher minimum grid quality due to the absence of highly skewed
elements. The differences between the two meshes can be better observed in
Table 5.1 below.
It is worth mentioning that for the HQ (high quality) mesh, only the geometry
was changed, without any additional refinement. As it can be observed in the
comparison table (Table 5.1), the mesh was generated with almost the same
number of elements as for the Refined Mesh 1.

Figure 5.1: Mesh transversal representation at the test section entrance

a) Initial Mesh b) Refined Mesh 1, Refined Mesh 2 and Refined Mesh 1 HQ c) Refined Mesh 3
Figure 5.2: Mesh longitudinal representation on the small section tube

a) Refined Mesh 1 b) Refined Mesh 2

Refined Mesh 1 Refined Mesh 1 HQ

Figure 5.3: Cross-section at vein entrance and close-up to center (highly skewed elements
highlighted for the cylindrical injector geometry)
SIMULATION SET-UP
A series of preliminary simulations have been run before choosing the boundary
conditions and the models for the mesh independence study. The settings for the domain
set-up and the solution set-up are the same as previously presented in [Chapter 4].
Therefore, the next configuration has been used:
- Gravity: The presence of the gravitational acceleration has been neglected for this
grid comparison study in order to reduce the number of variables that needed to be
taken into account.
- Inlet: Constant air velocity of 0.8 m/s at a temperature of 25 °C, with constant
turbulence intensity of 5% and a hydraulic diameter of 0.7 m for the turbulence
specification.
- Heating battery: Was modelled as a porous zone, but without the energy source
term because we aim to respect the conditions for the Dust test Cycle 1.
- Injection method: We have chosen to use the 5-way injection method because it
was one of the most studied cases during this project and because it represents a
good middle point between the reference system and the newly proposed injection
methods. All the injection methods are described in more detail in [Chapter 6.2].
- Injection conditions: For the 5-way injection method previously mentioned we
have used a constant value of 𝑚̇𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 0.0015 𝑘𝑔/𝑠 for the total dust mass flow
rate. This total dust mass flow rate has been divided into 5 equal mass flow rates
of 𝑚̇𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 0.0003 𝑘𝑔/𝑠 for each of the 5 nozzles (the nozzles have the same
dimensions therefore the same mass flow is imposed). The dust volume fraction
has been set to 𝛼𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 0.02 , for each nozzle, in order to have an injection velocity
𝑣𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 ≅ 2.2 𝑚/𝑠 which is close to the airflow velocity inside the test section. The
temperature of the injected mixture has been set to 25 °𝐶 to maintain the same
temperature across the tunnel. The turbulence intensity and viscosity ratio have
𝜇
been set to 𝐼 = 5% and 𝜇𝑡 = 10.
- Outlet: The outlet has been defined as outflow with no additional changes.
- Solution set-up: The Coupled Pressure-Velocity scheme was employed, together
with the Pseudo Transient method. All simulations have respected the same spatial
discretization scheme mentioned in [Chapter 4.3.2]:
• Iterations 0-400: First Order Upwind for all variables;
• Iterations 400-1000: Second Order Upwind for Momentum, Turbulent
Kinetic Energy and Turbulent Dissipation Rate with First Order Upwind
for the Volume Fraction;
Kinetic Energy and Turbulent Dissipation Rate with Modified HRIC for the
Volume Fraction.
The 5 grids have been compared on the one hand with regards to equiangular
skewness, aspect ratio and ortho quality, and on the other hand with regards to
convergence level, dust velocity, particle distribution in the test section and mass
imbalance. All physical quantities specified in [Chapter 4.3.2] were monitored and
compared after each simulation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.3.1 GRID PARAMETERS AND QUALITY RESULTS FROM ICEM CFD
First of all, a side-by-side comparison of the 5 grids quality metrics has been
conducted, in order to have a better idea about the overall quality of each mesh. These
metrics have been extracted from ICEM CFD which is the software used to create the
geometry and the grids. From the list of available quality metrics, the three most important
have been selected for the comparison: the orthogonal quality, the equiangular skewness
and the aspect ratio. These are also the metrics that ANSYS Fluent uses to report the
quality of the grid, although in Fluent the reported values are the ones corresponding to
the minimum quality and maximum aspect ratio. Because Fluent is ignoring the overall
mesh quality, we have shown in the following paragraphs that properly judging the quality
of a mesh means more than just checking the worst values in the domain. In addition to
these quality indicators, the average simulation time per iteration has also been recorded,
in order to see how each refinement affects the total simulation time.
From Table 5.1 it can be noticed that the first 4 grids present a rather low minimum
orthogonal quality and equiangular quality, but the mean values do reflect an overall high-
quality mesh. It can also be observed that the mesh refinement can have either a positive
or a negative impact on the minimum quality values, with very small improvements to the
mean quality results. As mentioned before, these low minimum values are generated by
a very small number of highly skewed elements (from 0.005% to 0.01% depending on the
mesh) that are present in the center of the grid, therefore their impact on the overall quality
should be negligible. This can also be observed in the histogram representation for the
equiangular quality and for the orthogonal quality distribution across the domain which
are presented in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 below.
Table 5.1: Side-by-side comparison of the 5 grids
ICEM CFD Grid Quality Parameters
Mesh Type
Initial Refined Refined Refined Refined
Criteria Mesh Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 1 HQ
No. of elements 2,264,744 4,180,032 5,065,620 6,944,708 4,180,672
Orthogonal Min 0.137 0.149 0.149 0.118 0.675
Quality Mean 0.929 0.948 0.949 0.955 0.948
Equiangular Min 0.134 0.111 0.111 0.083 0.480
Quality Mean 0.913 0.923 0.923 0.925 0.918
Aspect Max 66.23 86.94 81.67 110.86 63.93
Ratio Mean 8.24 8.59 7.21 7.48 8.83
Average time per iteration 26 s 36 s 60 s 155 s 36 s
The first histogram (Figure 5.4) shows a rather similar quality distribution between
the 5 grids, with somewhat different values for the initial mesh. For all grids, 99.9% of the
elements present a quality higher than 0.5, which is considered to be a very acceptable
value. This is also why there are no bars visible after the 0.5 mark, because the number
of elements was too small to be represented in the chart.
In the second histogram (Figure 5.5) it can be seen that the quality distribution is
very different between 0.8 and 1 but considering the mean values from Table 5.1 these
differences do not affect the overall quality of the grids. The result is even better than the
equiangular quality histogram, since there are almost no bars visible after the 0.7 mark.
That is because about 99,9% of the elements show an orthogonal quality higher than
0.65, the only exception being the initial mesh which has only 99.7% of the elements.
It is worth mentioning that a “Global mesh smoothing” process, that aims to improve
the overall quality of the mesh, was used for each of these grids. However, a certain
number of elements couldn’t be modified in any way. Therefore, these were the best
results that we could obtain in terms of mesh quality.
Histogram of equiangular quality

Initial Mesh Refined Mesh 1 Refined Mesh 2 Refined Mesh 3 Refined Mesh 1 HQ
60%
50%
Percentage of cells
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Equiangular Quality
Figure 5.4: Histogram of equiangular quality across the domain

Histogram of Quality
70%
60%
Percentage of cells [%]
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Orthogonal Quality[-]
Figure 5.5: Histogram of orthogonal quality across the domain
In addition to the orthogonal quality and equiangular quality, the aspect ratio is also
a determining factor in the evaluation of a mesh. As it can be noticed in Table 5.1, the
maximum aspect ratio increases with each transversal refinement and decreased with
longitudinal refinement. However, we can observe that the mean aspect ratio actually
decreases for the second transversal refinement.
Aspect ratio refers to the difference between the minimum and the maximum
dimensions for an element. In a simplified way, this means that, at a certain point, we
have a cell that is 66 to 110 times longer than its width. A more detailed explanation about
how the aspect ratio for a hexahedral cell is calculated can be found in [ANSYS ICEM
CFD Help Manual]. A maximum value of 40 is usually recommended for the aspect ratio.
Even though this value is not respected for all elements, after analyzing the results, the
percentage of cells that have an aspect ratio higher than 40 is between 0.4% and 1.2%.
Histogram of Aspect Ratio
50%
45%
40%
Percentage of cells [%]
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
66 63 60 56 53 50 46 43 40 36 33 30 26 23 20 17 13 10 7 3
Aspect Ratio [-]
Figure 5.6: Histogram of aspect ratio across the domain
A detailed overview of the postprocessed data used for the table and the histograms
above can be found in [Annex 1].

5.3.2 QUALITY RESULTS FROM ANSYS FLUENT SIMULATIONS

After running all the simulations, the convergence level, important physical
quantities and mass imbalance have been compared in order to verify the grid
independence of the results.
Firstly, the convergence for each of the 5 meshes has been analyzed. The results
from Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 represent the secondary phase volume fraction and the
secondary phase X direction velocity residuals. These two residuals were chosen
because they were the only ones presenting difficulties passing the 10-4 threshold. As it
can be noticed, all of the 5 meshes present very similar convergence tendency, with only
the initial mesh showing significant differences compared to the others. In the case of
dust volume fraction the difference is rather negligible, but for the dust X velocity the initial
mesh presents a quasi-transient behavior with small fluctuations. This is probably the
reason why the convergence did not drop to the same values as the other 4 meshes.
Moreover, for both plots it can be noticed that a steady-state is obtained long before the
threshold of 1500 iterations, which demonstrates the stability of the model.
Analyzing the convergence tendency of all grids, we can conclude that the initial
mesh did present some instability in the solution, and that the refinement of the initial grid
did improve this aspect. However, any mesh refinement above Refinement 1 (Refined
Mesh 1) does not generate a change in the solution behavior therefore it can be
considered that, for the convergence comparison, the Refined Mesh 1 is the best
choice in terms of performance and iteration time. In addition, despite the better
minimum quality results, the HQ mesh does not seem to offer an improved convergence
level compared to the meshes with highly-skewed elements. This shows that Fluent
handles very well the presence of these elements, especially when using the 2 nd order
discretization schemes.
Figure 5.7: Residuals of dust volume fraction after 1500 iterations

Figure 5.8: Residuals of dust velocity on X direction after 1500 iterations

Having decided that the convergence of the simulations is satisfying enough, we
moved forward to analyzing the quantities of interest. The first important physical quantity
that was compared was the area weighted uniformity index for the secondary phase (dust)
volume fraction. The graph presented in Figure 5.9 below shows similar results as the
convergence graphs in terms of variation between meshes. In the 0 to 1000 iterations
interval, while the First Order Upwind scheme was used for the volume fraction
discretization, a difference of about 10-20% can be noticed between the Initial Mesh and
the other 4 meshes, but anything above Refinement 1 does not show further
improvement. This time, the high-quality mesh also presented a somewhat different
result. However, after switching to the Modified HRIC scheme, these differences became
smaller and all grids presented very close results. It can be noticed again that passing
from First Order Upwind to Modified HRIC discretization generates a decrease in the
uniformity index.
Figure 5.9: Area Weighted Uniformity Index for the dust volume fraction at the test section entrance

Furthermore, in Figure 5.10, the mass averaged dust velocity shows a very positive
result between the meshes and even between the different discretization schemes
employed. This shows that the grid refinement does not impact the momentum transport
equations as much as the volume fraction equations. In addition, we can notice that the
average velocity is 2.6 m/s, which surpasses the limit imposed by the test procedure. This
issue has been discussed in [Chapter 4.2.1].
Figure 5.10: Mass Averaged Dust Velocity in the test section volume
Like in the velocity graph, a similar tendency can also be noticed for the mass
averaged volume fraction at the vein entrance (Figure 5.11). All 5 grids present the same
solution behavior with too small variations to be taken into consideration.
Figure 5.11: Area Weighted Average of dust volume fraction at test section entrance
However, when analyzing the maximum dust volume fraction at the test section
entrance, we can notice small differences between the grids, but these differences are
negligible compared to the targeted volume fractions of 3.32e-06 and 1.32e-06 which are
over 50 times lower than these maximum values. Moreover, the differences can come
from the variation in the cells dimensions between the meshes, and not from actual
numerical difference. Since the cells become smaller with each refinement it is normal to
have higher maximum dust concentrations in the smaller cells because more particles
are packed together into a smaller volume. Therefore, these values cannot be considered
as a crucial factor in the mesh independency study, but it remains an important quantity
for the assessment of the dust distribution.
Figure 5.12: Maximum value of dust volume fraction in the test section volume
Finally, the mass imbalance has been analyzed. As it was previously mentioned, a
maximum mass imbalance of 1% is recommended. Considering that the dust mass
introduced is 0.0015 kg/s, this means that an error of 0.000015 kg/s (15E-06 kg/s) would
be acceptable. In Figure 5.13 we can see that all 5 meshes respect the mass imbalance
conditions, with values well below the limit of ± 1%. The two red line limits have been set
at 5E-06 and -5E-06, which represents a ± 0.33%, in order to better show the stability of
the solution.
Figure 5.13: Dust mass imbalance between injection points and outlet surface

As expected, since the mass imbalance results are close and since we have used
the same mass flow conditions, in Figure 5.14 we can see that the total dust mass in the
test section volume is the same for all 5 grids. As shown in [Chapter 4.2.3], knowing this
value we can calculate the dust concentration in the test section. In this case, for a dust
mass of approximately 0.55 𝑔𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 we obtain a concentration of around 4.4 𝑚 3
which is
well between the limits imposed.
Figure 5.14: Total dust mass in the test section volume

CONCLUSIONS OF THE MESH INDEPENDENCE STUDY
This mesh independence study has shown us that judging the quality of the mesh
by the minimum and maximum values might not be sufficient to determine the suitability
of a grid. A more detailed analysis of the main quality metrics shows that the overall quality
of the 5 grids is very similar, with very small improvements between subsequent
refinement levels.
The residuals comparison has shown small instabilities of the initial mesh and
therefore the necessity of the first transversal refinement was justified. However,
additional longitudinal or transversal refinement did not have any additional impact upon
the results.
Analyzing the monitored physical quantities we have seen that, in most cases, all 5
grids present similar results with very small variations that do not have a significant impact
on the final solution. Still, we notice that the initial mesh sometimes presents noticeable
differences and is not always in line with the other results. Therefore, the necessity of the
first transversal refinement was demonstrated once again. Further grid refinements have
not shown any significant improvement.
Furthermore, all grids have shown a good result for the mass imbalance which is
situated well below the ±1% acceptable mark. The variations between the 5 cases are
not very significant, but a small instability of the initial mesh is again noticed. The “Refined
Mesh 1” shows less ample fluctuations therefore improved stability. Moreover, all meshes
presented the same evolution in total dust mass, which generated a constant
concentration of around 4.4 𝑚 3 in the test section volume.

Finally, it has been shown that the overall convergence or the evolution of the
quantities of interest does not actually improve with the HQ (high-quality) mesh. It was
concluded that the highly-skewed elements in the center area do not affect the fidelity of
the simulations. This has been demonstrated by the identical results between the High-
Quality mesh and the Refined Mesh 1.
In the end, the „Refined Mesh 1” was chosen as the base for all future simulations
since it presented the best results in terms of computing time and solution accuracy.
It is worth noting that the conclusion of this mesh independence study might not be
applicable for all injection methods because the physical phenomena that has to be
captured by the CFD model might change from one case to another. Therefore, it is
possible that, for a different injection system or different injection velocity, the flow might
introduce new aspects that must be captured by even smaller cells. The most correct
method of assuring the mesh independency for all cases is to conduct a separate study
for each injection method and even for each injection velocity. Since this was a
preliminary study, the mesh independence study was limited to only one case which was
considered a fair middle point between all studied scenarios.

CHAPTER 6 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CHOOSING THE RIGHT INLET VELOCITY

As mentioned in the previous chapter, using the 0.8 m/s velocity at the inlet should
have generated a flow of around 2.4 m/s in the smaller section tube. However, analyzing
the results from the mesh independence study, it was noticed that the introduction of the
dust in the airflow, along with the influence of the near-wall region, produces an
acceleration of the flow to over 2.7 m/s which surpasses the limits of the standard testing
procedure (0.5 – 2.4 m/s). After investigating the possible reasons for this acceleration, 3
main factors were decided to be most influencing:
- Firstly, in a real-life scenario, the injected mass flow of mixture raises the total
volumetric flow inside the small section tube which in the end increases the average
velocity of the flow passing through the test section. However, in our case, the mass
flow of air injected is neglected (it was set to 0 kg/s) and the mass flow rate of dust
is quite small to produce significant changes in the volumetric flow, therefore the
impact of this factor is not considerable. Nonetheless, in reality, for the physical
tests this aspect should have great influence on the total airflow passing through
the test section and it should be taken into account;
- Secondly, the frontal injection of dust at high velocities could produce an
acceleration of the air around it, meaning that it generates an additional kinetic
energy that is not fully dissipated when the airflow reaches the test section. The
magnitude of this factor mainly depends on the velocity at the injection point, and
in some cases, it accelerates the airflow, while in other cases it can decelerate it.
Ideally, we should use velocity values that do not change the airflow in a meaningful
way, thus allowing us to have a uniform flow in the test section. But, as we will see
in the results, controlling this factor is not that easy because the velocity also
dictates the dispersion level of the particles.
- Finally, the influence of the near-wall region on the velocity gradient means that the
hydraulic diameter where the airflow moves at an average velocity is smaller than
the actual diameter of the tube. Since in the near wall boundary region the velocity
is smaller than the average value on the cross-section (of 2.4 m/s for example),
then the velocity of the flow outside this boundary layer needs to be slightly higher
than the average to account for the losses near the wall.
These effects are better represented in the figures below. In Figure 6.1, Figure 6.2
and Figure 6.3 velocity plots for both single phase flow and multiphase flow have been
extracted from the simulations using the “Refined Mesh 1” grid. These plots represent the
velocity variation on a line parallel with the Y axis and which passes through the center
of the test section entrance.
In Figure 6.1, for the single-phase simulation, we can clearly notice the influence of the
near-wall region when there is no dust injected in the small diameter tube. We can see
that within 1cm from the wall the air velocity is way under 2m/s, and the airflow reaches its
maximum velocity at about 5 cm from the wall. In order to assure the mass conservation,
the airflow between 0.2 m and 0.5 m is accelerated to around 2.7 m/s, which is way more
𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑚
than we expected after calculating with the simple formula: 𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 [ 𝑠 ]. That is
because the actual area where the air moves at an average speed is around 0,114 m 2,
corresponding to a hydraulic diameter of 0,38 m, instead of 0,125 m2 which corresponds
to the physical diameter of 0,4 m.

Moreover, in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 it can be noticed that the injection of dust at
different velocities can have different impact on the uniformity of the airflow. For the first
case an example taken from a simulation with 0,8 m/s inlet velocity and 2.2 m/s dust
injection velocity was used. We can observe that, compared to the air only result, the dust
flow actually decelerates the airflow due to friction and turbulent viscosity. This happens
because the dust injection was made at a velocity that is about 20% lower than the
average airflow velocity. However, when increasing the frontal injection velocity to around
11 m/s (Figure 6.3) we can see that the friction of the particles with the air produces a
significant increase in the airflow velocity which rises to around 3.2 m/s in the center. It
should be noted that this effect adds to the already accelerated airflow at 2.7 m/s through
the influence of the near-wall region. The end result is an error of around 30% compared
to the 2.45 m/s which was initially calculated with the theoretic formula. This error could
generate inaccurate results when running the physical tests, therefore the aspects
mentioned above should be taken into account when choosing the operating parameters.
Figure 6.1: Airflow velocity plot through the center line of the test section entrance at 0.8 m/s inlet velocity
Figure 6.2: Air and Dust velocity plot on a line passing through the center of the test section entrance at
0.8 m/s inlet velocity
Figure 6.3: Air and Dust velocity plot on a line passing through the center of the test section entrance at
11 m/s inlet velocity
NOTE: This last graph (Figure 6.3) has been extracted from one of the simulations
used to assess the performance of the Frontal Grille & Radial Slit injection method
described in [Chapter 6.2]. The inlet velocity was kept at the same value of 0.8 m/s, while
the radial and frontal dust injection velocities were set to approximately 11 m/s. All other
settings remained the same.
To conclude this analysis of the different factors that need to be taken into
consideration when choosing the inlet and the injection velocity we have made a list of
constraints and remarks that should be accounted for, not only when running the CFD
simulations but also while conducting the physical experiments.
List of constraints:
1) When choosing the inlet velocity, the influence of the additional mass flow at the
injection system should be taken into account in order to keep the airflow velocities
within specified limits;
2) When choosing the inlet velocity, the influence of the near-wall boundary region
should be taken into account because it can accelerate the airflow in the center;
3) When choosing the injection velocity, special attention should be given to the frontal
injection nozzles which might produce an acceleration of the airflow passing
through the test section;
4) When choosing the injection method, a better dust dispersion tends to increase the
friction between the air and the particles and therefore reduce the impact of the
injection velocity. The increased friction with the air will diminish the inertial forces
of the particles, accelerating them if the velocity of the airflow is higher than the
velocity of the particles and decelerating them if the particles are introduced at a
higher velocity than the upstream airflow.
5) The cumulative effect of all the aspects previously mentioned should be taken into
account;
Considering all the highlighted factors specified in this subchapter, we have decided
to run all future simulations with an inlet velocity of 0.7 m/s, which should generate an
airflow of around 2.4 m/s if we consider that the calculated value is 2.1 m/s and that the
influence of the near-wall region adds, in average, an increase of 0.3 m/s to the airflow in
the center. In addition, the influence of the dust velocity was tried to be mitigated by using
appropriate frontal injection velocities so that a uniform airflow is formed at the test section
entrance.
As it can be observed in Figure 6.4: Airflow velocity plot through the center line of
the test section entrance at 0.7 m/s inlet velocity below, our assumptions about the 0,7
m/s were correct. With this inlet velocity, the average speed of the airflow in the middle is
about 2.4 m/s due to the near-wall effect. It should be noted that the small non-uniformity
in the middle of the line is caused only by the presence of the cylindrical injector since no
dust was injected for this simulation.
Figure 6.4: Airflow velocity plot through the center line of the test section entrance at 0.7 m/s inlet velocity
DESCRIPTION OF THE 4 INJECTION METHODS TESTED

One important objective of this study was to find different solutions for the injection
mechanism in order to obtain a uniform dust distribution and an appropriate concentration
of dust within the test section. Therefore, a comparison study between 4 different types
of injection methods has been undertaken:
1) Single point injection (Figure 6.5a), further abbreviated as SPI, with a free
injection area of Sinj = 2.54mm2 through a small frontal nozzle. This injection method
has been chosen as a representation of the real injection system which is
somewhat similar, but with a circular nozzle instead of a rectangular one. This will
also be called as the “reference injection method”;
2) Multi-point injection (Figure 6.5b), further abbreviated as MPI, comprised of 1
small frontal nozzle with a free injection area of Sinj = 2.54mm2, and an additional 4
sideway nozzles with the same dimensions Sinj = 2.54mm2. This injection method
has been chosen in order to improve the transversal dispersion of the particles.

3) Radial injection (Figure 6.5c), further abbreviated as RI, comprised of 1 small
frontal nozzle with a free injection area of Sinj = 2.54mm2 and a radial slit with a free
injection surface of Sinj = 60mm2. In this case, the radial slit replaces the 4 sideway
nozzles from the MPI method in order to have a more uniform release of particles
at the injection point.
4) Full frontal & Radial injection (Figure 6.5d), further abbreviated FFRI, comprised
of 1 large frontal grille with a free injection area of Sinj = 110mm2 and one radial slit
with a free injection surface of Sinj = 60mm2. In this case, the small frontal nozzle
has been replaced with a grille like system in order to increase the dispersion angle
of the frontal injected particles.
Figure 6.5: Graphical representation of the 4 injection methods

a) single point injection (SPI) b) multi-point injection (MPI)
c) radial injection (RI) d) full frontal & radial injection (FFRI)
SIMULATION SET-UP
The settings for the domain set-up and the solution set-up are the same as
previously presented in [Chapter 4]. Therefore, the next configuration has been used:
- Gravity: The presence of the gravitational acceleration has been neglected for this
comparison study in order to reduce the number of variables that needed to be
taken into account.
- Inlet: Constant air velocity of 0.7 m/s at a temperature of 25 °C, with constant
turbulence intensity of 5% and a hydraulic diameter of 0.7 m for the turbulence
specification.
- Heating battery: Was modelled as a porous zone, but without the energy source
term because we aim to respect the conditions for the Dust test Cycle 1.
- Injection method: Four different injection methods. Multiple simulations have been
run, in which identical boundary conditions were used for each of the injection
methods in order to provide a side-by-side comparison at the end;
- Injection conditions: For all the injection methods previously mentioned we have
used a constant value for the total mass flow rate of 𝑚̇𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 1.5 𝑔/𝑠. When
possible, this total dust mass flow rate has been equally divided between the
different injection nozzles. However, for the FFRI method the division of the total
mass flow rate has been done differently due to the large increase in the injection
area. The dust volume fraction has been set accordingly, for each nozzle, in order
to obtain a certain injection velocity. To highlight the different behavior of the 4
injection systems, three velocity regimes have been used: low velocity injection,
medium velocity injection and high velocity injection. In each case, the temperature
of the injected mixture has been set to 25 °C, to maintain the same temperature
across the tunnel, and the turbulence intensity and viscosity ratio have been set to
𝜇
𝐼 = 5% and 𝜇𝑡 = 10.

A detailed overview of the mass flow boundary conditions imposed for each
injection method is presented in Table 6.1 below.
- Outlet: The outlet has been defined as outflow with no additional changes.
- Solution set-up: The Coupled Pressure-Velocity scheme was employed, together
with the Pseudo Transient method. All simulations have respected the same spatial
discretization scheme mentioned in [Chapter 4.3.2]:
• Iterations 0-400: First Order Upwind for all variables;
Kinetic Energy and Turbulent Dissipation Rate with First Order Upwind
for the Volume Fraction;
Kinetic Energy and Turbulent Dissipation Rate with Modified HRIC for the
Volume Fraction.
Additional information about the set-up is presented in [Chapter 4].
After a series of preliminary simulations, it was found that there is no ideal
combination of dust mass flow rate and dust velocity to suit all cases. For example, for
the MPI method a mass flow rate of 1.5 g/s (0.3 g/s at each nozzle) and an injection
velocity of 2.2 m/s has proven to offer good results in terms of dust volume fraction and
dust distribution within the test section. But this was not true for all the injection methods,
because the amplitude of the acting forces is different in each case.
Take for example the case of small injection nozzles, for which the concentration of
particles is very high right at the injection point due to the increased solid volume fraction.
For these nozzles, the inertial forces of the particles are greater and the fluid-solid drag
is weaker due to the reduced friction of the particles with the air. However, the solid-solid
drag (particle-particle collisions) is increased, and this augments the effect of the inertial
force which allows the particles to move further from the injection point. On the other
hand, for the slit type and grille type nozzles, the concentration of particles is lower due
to the increased injection area and the decreased solid volume fraction at the injection
point. In this case, the inertial force of the dust is weaker because the particles are spread
and there is more friction of the particles with the air around them, which augments the
dissipation rate of the kinetic energy of the injected dust. It has already been
demonstrated in [Peng et al (2014)] that the particle-particle collision increases
monotonically with the solid matter concentration and that the effect of solid-solid
interactions can be significant to the dispersion of the particles. The cumulative effect
of the fluid-solid drag, particle-particle collisions, lift and body forces (when gravity
is used) has a considerable impact on the dispersion of the particles and
unfortunately, there are no ways of predicting the extent of these changes. However,
thanks to the advantages offered by the CFD simulations, we can provide a side-by-side
comparison with relevant graphical output to show the changing behavior of the particles
during different scenarios.
The effect of the variable magnitude of the forces previously mentioned can be seen
in the following subchapters where three different injection velocity regimes were used
(low velocity, medium velocity and high velocity) in order to highlight important differences
between the 4 injection methods.

Table 6.1 Mass flow boundary conditions for each injection method
Injection Method
Boundary Conditions 1 Point Injection 5 Point Injection Radial Injection Radial & Frontal
Total mass flow 0.0015 [kg/s] 0.0015 [kg/s] 0.0015 [kg/s] 0.0015 [kg/s]
Dust Mass flow Nozzle 1 0.0015 [kg/s] 0.0003 [kg/s] 0.0003 [kg/s] 0.0007 [kg/s]
Constant parameters
Dust Mass flow Nozzle 2 x 0.0003 [kg/s] 0.0012 [kg/s] 0.0008 [kg/s]
Dust Mass flow Nozzle 3 x 0.0003 [kg/s] x x
Area Nozzle 1 2.55 [mm²] 2.55 [mm²] 2.55 [mm²] 110.00 [mm²]
Area Nozzle 2 x 2.55 [mm²] 60.00 [mm²] 60.00 [mm²]
Area Nozzle 3 x 2.55 [mm²] x x
Dust VF Nozzle 1 0.1 [-] 0.0200 [-] 0.02 [-] 0.0011 [-]
Dust VF Nozzle 2 x 0.0200 [-] 0.003 [-] 0.0023 [-]
Dust VF Nozzle 3 x 0.0200 [-] x x
Low Velocity Test

Dust velocity Nozzle 1 2.22 [m/s] 2.22 [m/s] 2.22 [m/s] 2.22 [m/s]
Dust velocity Nozzle 2 x 2.22 [m/s] 2.22 [m/s] 2.22 [m/s]
Dust velocity Nozzle 3 x 2.22 [m/s] x x
Total dust concentration 3.80 [g/mc] 5.10 [g/mc] 5.34 [g/mc] 4.44 [g/mc]
Average dust velocity in
2.21 [m/s] 2.30 [m/s] 2.18 [m/s] 2.19 [m/s]
test section
Dust VF Nozzle 1 0.02 [-] 0.0040 [-] 0.004 [-] 0.00022 [-]
Dust VF Nozzle 2 x 0.0040 [-] 0.00067 [-] 0.00046 [-]
Medium Velocity Test

Average dust velocity 2.71 [m/s] 1.92 [m/s] 2.33 [m/s] 2.46 [m/s]
Dust VF Nozzle 1 0.005 [-] 0.0010 [-] 0.001 [-] 0.000055 [-]
Dust VF Nozzle 2 x 0.0010 [-] 0.000167 [-] 0.000110 [-]
High Velocity Test

Average dust velocity 2.96 [m/s] 2.17 [m/s] 2.42 [m/s] 2.58 [m/s]

COMPARISON FOR THE LOW VELOCITY INJECTION CASE
For the first set of comparisons we have decided to use a low injection velocity, with
a value close to the velocity of the airflow passing through the small section tube. This
condition has been selected because it was previously analyzed when conducting the
mesh independence study. These being said, the dust velocity at the injection point was
set to around 2.2 m/s, just as indicated in Table 6.1 above.
As it can be observed, in the figures below there are significant differences between
each of the 4 cases regarding not only the dust dispersion (Figure 6.6), but also the
influence on the uniformity of the airflow at the test section entrance (Figure 6.7). For the
SPI method we can see that the frontal injection through the small nozzle presents a very
poor dispersion level with a uniformity index of only 0.004. Due to lack of significant
turbulence, the injected particles tend to stick together and follow their trajectory parallel
with the airflow. Because of this concentrated dust flow in the middle, the airflow presents
a slight irregularity right in the center of the test section due to the friction of the air, which
moves at an average of 2.4 m/s, with the dust, which moves at an average of 2.21 m/s.
We remind that a small non-uniformity was already produced by the presence of the
cylindrical injector (Figure 6.4).
The MPI method, on the other hand, shows an interesting improvement from the
SPI method. We can notice that the dust that comes out from the sideway nozzles is
being dispersed much better, providing regions that even respect our ideal interval of dust
concentration. However, this dispersion takes place on a limited zone of the cross-
section, and there are still small patches with high dust volume fractions, especially in the
middle where the dispersion of the dust is almost insignificant. This generates a low value
for the uniformity index which is not very satisfying despite the small improvements. A
positive remark can be made about the low influence that the dust injection has on the
uniformity of the airflow at the test section entrance. The graph shown in Figure 6.7b,
presents very small variations along the middle line which means that the flow of dust and
the flow of air are moving almost at the same speed.
As explained earlier in [Chapter 6.3], using similar boundary conditions for different
injection methods can yield very different results. This is better represented by comparing
Figure 6.6b to Figure 6.6c and Figure 6.6d. In the case of RI and FFRI method, even if
we used the same dust velocity and dust mass flow rate as for the MPI method, due to
the larger injection areas, the interaction forces acting on the particles generate a
significant change of the final result. Therefore, the dispersion of dust is realized at a
much narrower angle because the particles that are injected radially do not travel as far
from the injection point as in the case of MPI due to two main reasons. On the one hand,
due to the lower solid volume fractions that increase fluid-solid drag and slows down the
dust particles right after the injection, and on the other hand due to the reduced particle-
particle collisions which decreases the inertia of the dust and allows the upstream airflow
to change the particles trajectory faster. In the end, both RI and FFRI methods show
similar results with the SPI method, with very small differences to the uniformity index,
but nothing worth considering as a real improvement. Moreover, due to the high solid
volume fractions in the middle, the airflow shows again a small deceleration in the center
of the tunnel. We were expecting to see a much better dispersion for the FFRI method
because the frontal injection area was increased by almost 40 times, but the results were
even worse than for the RI method. This could be explained by the much higher frontal
dust mass flow rate (0,7 g/s for FFRI vs 0,3 g/s for RI).

a) single point injection (SPI) a) single point injection (SPI)
b) multi-point injection (MPI) b) multi-point injection (MPI)
c) radial injection (RI) c) radial injection (RI)

d) full frontal & radial injection (FFRI) d) full frontal & radial injection (FFRI)
Figure 6.6: Normalized volume fraction contour Figure 6.7: XY Velocity plot on the center line of the
on the test section entrance for the low velocity test section entrance for the low velocity dust
dust injection case injection case
In Figure 6.8 below a more detailed representation of how the solid phase is injected
and how the dust flow is distributed on the small section tube is provided. We can notice
that, even if the particles are injected at around 2.2 m/s, the dust flow near the injection
area quickly loses kinetic energy and falls under 2 m/s (represented by the greenish
colors). However, while traveling along the small section tube, the particles are
accelerated by the airflow around it, eventually reaching the values seen in Figure 6.7
above. In Figure 6.8a, we can see the narrow angle to which the dust is spread for the
SPI method, while in Figure 6.8b we can notice the wider spread angle and a more
significant evolution of the dust flow along the experimental vein for the MPI method. We
can notice that the trajectory of the particles is not only affected near the injection point,
but also while moving towards the test section entrance. This improves the dispersion for
the MPI method but leaves us with that free dust zone right near the center of the tunnel.
As expected, in Figure 6.8c and Figure 6.8d the dispersion is less significant and the
particles tend to follow a straight path towards the outlet.
a) single point injection (SPI) a) single point injection (Zoom)

b) multi-point injection (MPI) b) multi-point injection (zoom)
c) radial injection (RI) c) radial injection (Zoom)
d) full frontal & radial injection (FFRI) d) full frontal & radial injection (Zoom)
Figure 6.8: Dust velocity contours in the experimental vein for the low velocity dust injection case

COMPARISON FOR THE MEDIUM VELOCITY INJECTION CASE
Considering the results from the low velocity comparison, we have decided to use
the same approach for different velocities . For this second case we have considered a
medium injection velocity of around 11 m/s, which was taken as 5 times the low velocity.
This was called “medium velocity case” just because it was the middle value between the
lowest and the highest velocity used for the comparisons. In other words, none of the
terminologies used has a specific physical meaning. The boundary conditions for the dust
mass flow rate were left at the same value of 1.5 g/s and only the solid volume fractions
were changed in order to increase the velocity by 5 times. The exact values that were
used can be seen in Table 6.1 above.
In the figures below, we can see that the results for the SPI method remain almost
the same, with a very narrow dispersion angle and a low uniformity index. However, the
average velocity of the dust flow has increased to 2.71 m/s, meaning that the inertial force
was now higher than the frictional forces. This is showed by the fact that the dust is still
accelerated when entering the test section. Due to the fluid-solid friction, this has also
generated an acceleration of the air particles in the middle of the tunnel which can be
observed in Figure 6.10a. This acceleration has a negative impact on the uniformity of
the flow and is therefore not desirable. In order to reduce this effect an improved particle
dispersion is required so that the particles could be slowed down to the airflow speed
before reaching the test section.
This time, the results for the MPI method were a bit unexpected. The dust injected
at only 11 m/s is being sent towards the walls of the tunnel and tends to remain in that
region until exiting at the outlet. The uniformity index result presented in Figure 6.9b is
very good, but the dust just flows near the walls and does not pass through the middle
area where the equipment is actually placed. Therefore, the results are not that promising
in this case, but adding gravitational force to the simulation might actually offer some
interesting outcomes. In Figure 6.10b we can also see that the dust that flows near the
wall produces an acceleration of the airflow in that region, actually providing a much more
uniform velocity distribution at the test section entrance.
Comparing the results from the MPI method with those from the RI and FFRI
methods, we can see once again how important are the forces that act on the particles.
The results for the RI and FFRI methods are pretty similar, with still a very narrow angle
of dispersion and a poor uniformity index. However, we notice that at this narrow angle
the RI has a small advantage over the FFRI in terms of velocity profile at the test section
entrance. This is mostly because there are less particles injected through the frontal
nozzle than in the case of FFRI. Nonetheless, the poor dispersion and the large areas of
high concentration of dust (red and yellow contours) does not make it an ideal case.
It is worth mentioning that the increased frontal velocity has also generated some
issues with the convergence of the turbulent dissipation rate ε, the simulations taking
longer to reach stability and sometimes presenting fluctuations for the physical quantities
that were monitored. This behavior was not expected when the comparison study was
started, therefore some questions have been raised regarding the accuracy of the
simulations. However, after analyzing the possible sources of the convergence stalling
we realized that the problem might come from the flow separation caused by the divergent
cone and not from the flow within the small section tube. The increased center velocities
along with this flow separation might cause problems with the Outflow boundary type
which requires a fully developed flow at the outlet. Another reason might be the necessity
for a time-dependent simulation. In this regard, further investigations are required.


Figure 6.9: Normalized volume fraction contour Figure 6.10: XY Velocity plot on the center line of
on the test section entrance for the medium the test section entrance for the medium velocity
velocity dust injection case dust injection case
In Figure 6.11 below we can see more clearly how the dust is being distributed for
each case. Nothing really changes for the SPI method compared to Figure 6.8a, just the
angle of dispersion which is a big larger. However, we now notice that the dust flow is
decelerated by the airflow around it and not accelerated like it was the case for the low
velocity injection. This is shown by the velocity contour which maintains a value past 2.6
m/s on the entire length of the small section tube, slowly reaching the 2.5-2.4 m/s mark
towards the end of the test section. The most interesting representation is for the MPI
method, in which we can see how the injected dust particles tend to stick to the wall. This
is caused by one of the aspects of turbulence, which implies that cross-stream motion
pushes the low momentum fluid towards the center of the stream, and the high
momentum fluid towards the boundary layer (wall). Since the dust is treated as fluid
continua (with the same viscosity as the air) and since it has a higher momentum than
the airflow, then it is expected for it to move closer towards the wall. This happens at least
until the dust velocity comes to the same value as the airflow velocity or even lower
because, theoretically, after that it should be pushed towards the middle. A good
representation of this phenomena is shown in the results for the high injection velocity
case where the particles present this exact behavior and are sent towards the center of
the tunnel after reaching a lower velocity due to friction with the tunnel walls. Therefore,
we should also take this factor into consideration when choosing the injection velocity.
For the RI and FFRI methods we can see similar representations with a noticeable
increase in dust velocity for the FFRI case due to the higher frontal dust volume fractions.
The increased velocity and volume fractions of the dust have a negative impact on the
results of the FFRI method. As it can be noticed in Figure 6.11c and Figure 6.11d, even
if the dispersion of the particles at the injection point is better than in the case of RI, the
dispersion at the test section entrance is actually almost the same. This happens because
for the RI the dispersion angle slightly increases while moving from the injection point
towards the test section.


Figure 6.11: Dust velocity contours in the experimental vein for the medium velocity dust injection case

COMPARISON FOR THE HIGH VELOCITY INJECTION CASE
For the last case we have decided to raise the dust injection velocity by about 4
times, going from 11 m/s to 44 m/s in order to see what happens for each of the 4
methods, with some of the results being anticipated and others raising some question
marks.
As expected, the dispersion level for the SPI method was not great (Figure
6.12Figure 6.12a). The particles still remain packed while traveling along the tunnel,
therefore maintaining a high inertia and reaching the test section with a velocity of around
3 m/s. This produces a heavy alteration of the airflow uniformity right in the center (Figure
6.13a). Until this point, it was shown in multiple scenarios that the reference injection
system does not work very well for the CFD simulations. Therefore, we suppose that a
part of this behavior might also be encountered in physical experiments if similar
conditions are to be imposed.
For the MPI method, the medium velocity of 11 m/s was already too powerful
because it was sending the particles towards the wall, so the same phenomenon occurs
for the high velocity injection. However, the results for the high velocity case are a bit
better in terms of dust dispersion, uniformity index and particle concentration. In Figure
6.12b and Figure 6.14b we can see that the dust that is injected radially, loses its
momentum due to the impact with the solid surface of the wall and after a while it is being
redirected towards the middle of the tube. This happens either due to the rebound effect
or due to the cross-sectional turbulent motion, or even due to both effects at the same
time. In the end, this method might seem like an interesting alternative, but controlling this
rebound process in reality might be difficult and it should be noted that these results do
not take gravity into consideration. There is also a small amelioration of the frontal
dispersion, but nothing significant because high concentrations and a high dust velocity
are still present.
An additional change caused by the impact of the particles with the wall is that the
dust flow shows a rotational component relative to the injection points. Since the flow has
rotated from the initial axis it can be noticed that, in Figure 6.13b, only the velocity for the
concentrated dust in the center is represented because the plot line passes right through
the larger zones that are populated with dust. In order to provide a visual representation
of the velocity of the particles that enter the test section, an additional graph has been
added in Figure 6.13b*. For this latter XY plot, the entire surface of the test section
entrance was used, but the visual representation corresponds only to the maximum
values of the particles, as seen from a perfectly perpendicular view to the XY plane of the
tunnel. The representation is not very accurate, since it uses a 2D view to represent
values from a 3D view. However, in this case it is sufficient to know only the maximum
values, and this is why we have chosen to add this representation.
The RI method finally shows some significant progress in Figure 6.12c. The
dispersion of the radially injected particles is much improved, offering a better uniformity
index and concentrations that mostly seem to fit our ideal interval. The velocity of the
radially injected particles also seems to be in line with the airflow velocity, although the
frontally injected dust poses the same problems as for the MPI method. Moreover, the
shape of the dust flow is also questionable, but we assume that the rectangular form is
caused by the shape of the mesh which is also rectangular, in the middle section of the
tunnel (Figure 5.1). In an ideal situation, the mesh should have no impact upon the
graphical representation of the solution, therefore a more thorough investigation on this
type of dispersion might be required. As mentioned in [Chapter 5], a mesh independence
study for each injection method could be necessary. In the end, even though we have a

better radial dispersion, there is still a significant area in the center which is not populated
with dust. Therefore, the addition of the frontal grille was seen as a possible solution to
this shortcoming of the RI method.
Finally, the FFRI method shows the best overall results with a very large dispersion
angle, both for the radial and for the frontal injected particles. The uniformity index also
has an acceptable value, considering that the dust is present only on a quarter of the
section. The local concentrations of dust are almost entirely in the ideal interval, with the
usual highly concentrated zone in the center. In terms of dust velocity, the results are
somewhere in the middle between SPI and RI. Despite the good dispersion, the particles
still have a high velocity when reaching the test section. As we were expecting, the
velocity has dropped with the increase in the dispersion level, compared to the SPI
results. However, since the frontal injected mass flow is higher than in the case of the RI
method, the inertia of the particles that come out from the frontal grille is higher and tends
to entrain the nearby particles that come from the radial slit. This phenomenon can be
better observed in Figure 6.14d where it can be seen that the particles that are introduced
radially are quickly losing kinetic energy right after the injection, passing from the red
velocity contour to an orange contour. But after about 1.5m from the injector these
particles are accelerated again, and the source seems to be the frontal injected dust. In
the end, this aspect could be mitigated through a lower frontal injection velocity or lower
inlet velocity, but then again, the dispersion could also change significantly. This shows
how complex is the analysis of multiphase flows involving particulate matter.
It should be noted that for the high velocity cases, some small instabilities of the
solution were encountered, just as explained at the end of [Chapter 6.5]. These
instabilities have stalled the convergence and they have produced small numerical errors
like the non-uniform shape of the FFRI dust flow. Continuing the simulation for the FFRI
method for 3000 more iterations, we noticed slight oscillations in certain physical
quantities, therefore we concluded that the steady-state approach was probably not
sufficient to capture the complex behavior of the particles when using high injection
velocities. For this reason, the next logical step should be to repeat the best
simulation scenarios with a time-dependent solver.

b*) multi-point injection (MPI) b*) Multi-Point Injection (MPI)

Figure 6.12: Normalized volume fraction Figure 6.13: XY Velocity plot on the center line of the
contour on the test section entrance for the high test section entrance for the high velocity dust
velocity dust injection case injection case
In Figure 6.14 the evolution of the dust flow in the small section tube, for the high
injection velocity case, can be observed. Here we can clearly see that the SPI method
still shows a very poor dispersion angle compared to the alternatives. For the MPI case,
we can see in Figure 6.14b how the radially injected dust particles are sent towards the
wall where they quickly lose their kinetic energy, passing from red to orange and then to
green contours. As opposed to the medium velocity injection case, this process happens
much faster and it is amplified by the increased friction with the wall. Since the particles
lose their kinetic energy to the point where their velocity is lower than the airflow velocity,
the cross-sectional turbulent motion starts sending the dust particles back into the center
of the flow. In the same figure, the rotation of the dust can also be seen when looking at
the volume fraction contours relative to the XY and XZ planes.
Passing to Figure 6.14c we can immediately see the difference between the MPI
and the RI methods when looking at the travel distance of the particles relative to the
injection point. It can also be noticed, by looking at the close-up view to the injection point,
that this difference comes from the fact that for RI the dust comes out in all directions.
Since the particles are very evenly spread around the radial slit, the fluid-solid drag is
much increased and the particle-particle collisions are reduced. As mentioned before,
these two factors act against the inertial force of the dust which loses its kinetic energy
and is eventually taken away by the upstream airflow.
In Figure 6.14d, it can be noticed that the result for the FFRI method presents the
best dispersion, both near the injection area and along the small section tube. It can be
seen that the dust flow covers a significant area of the test section entrance, and that it
passes right through the middle, where usually the airplane equipment is positioned. This
should provide a full exposition of the equipment to the dust flow, with the only concern
being the velocity impact and the higher dust concentrations in the middle.
In the end, none of the 4 injection methods that were analyzed is flawless. However,
this comparison study has shown that the FFRI method has the best potential of providing

an adequate dust distribution in the test section and further investigations should
concentrate on the feasibility and applicability of this method in a real-life scenario.

Figure 6.14: Dust velocity contours at the injection point for the high velocity dust injection case
INFLUENCE OF THE GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION
For all previous simulations we have chosen to neglect the influence of the
gravitational acceleration in order to facilitate the comparison study between the different
injection methods and to reduce the number of variables that could influence the air and
dust flows. Since this is one important aspect of the physical experiments, it had to be
included in our numerical study. However, since adding gravity means adding an
additional level of complexity, we have chosen to focus our attention on only one of the
previous cases that was run without gravity. Considering the results from the comparison
study, the high velocity injection case was chosen, along with the full frontal & radial
injection (FFRI) method, because it was considered the best overall result from all
scenarios that were analyzed.
These being said, the boundary conditions, model set-up and solver set-up was
kept the same as presented in [Chapter 6.3] with the only difference being the addition
of the gravitational acceleration on the negative Y axis. As before, the simulation was kept
running until the residuals and the monitored physical quantities were stabilized.
As it can be seen in the figures below, the addition of the gravity has significantly
changed the results of the previous simulation where we ignored its influence. In Figure
6.15 it can be noticed that the dispersion level of the dust remains about the same, but
the particles are more evenly spread, which generates an increase in the uniformity index
from 0,198 to 0,212. Nonetheless, the most obvious difference is of course the position
of the solid particles when entering the test section. Due to their very high mass, the
injected particles have a descendent trajectory corresponding to the direction of the
gravitational acceleration. This change in trajectory is more or less noticeable depending
on the dust volume fractions. As we can see in Figure 6.15, the concentrated dust zone
from the middle has shifted more than the dispersed particles around it. This happens
because the more the particles are packed together, the less they are influenced by the
airflow which tends to keep them on the same trajectory as the air streamlines. The results
show us that the combined effect of the fluid-solid drag, lift and buoyancy forces, in this
case, is much smaller than the magnitude of the gravitational force. Moreover,
considering that buoyancy is not that significant in our case and that the lift force acts on
the particles only where there are meaningful velocity gradients, we can only assume that
the fluid-solid drag remains the most significant force to oppose the change in trajectory
caused by the gravitational acceleration. Therefore, we have concluded that the low
velocity of the airflow might not be sufficient to provide enough drag and entrain the heavy
dust particles, especially when these are packed together.

This aspect is very important for our study, because the equipment that is tested
should be fully exposed to the dust flow. If in reality we have a similar change in particle
trajectory, this could generate accuracy errors for the dust tests if, for example, a large
amount of particles miss the solid object placed in the experimental section.
Furthermore, the change in trajectory does not only cause a shift in the impact zone
of the particles, but it also generates an accumulation of dust right after the divergent
cone. As it can be seen in Figure 6.17 the dust slowly falls down to the bottom of the
tunnel and, due to the sudden change in diameter after the divergent cone, a significant
loss of kinetic energy is produced which heavily slows down the particles and allows them
to accumulate in the lower part of the tube.
In reality, additional forces like the virtual mass force, Magnus lift force or Brownian
force might also have an impact on the solid particle behavior, but their magnitude has to
be determined before making assumptions about their impact level. Still, a remark can be
made for the mass force, which refers to the added acceleration to a surrounding fluid by
a particles (or a number of particles) motion at a velocity higher than that of the fluid.
Placing Figure 6.17 and Figure 6.18 side-by-side we can observe that the change in dust
flow trajectory also affects the movement of the air within the tunnel. Apparently, instead
of having the airflow controlling the direction of the dust flow, the exact opposite happens,
and in the end, this produces a significant alteration of the airflow uniformity. The solid-
solid drag seems to have an important impact on the magnitude of this phenomenon,
because the particles tend to entrain each other instead of following the airflow
streamlines. Therefore, we could expect that increased dispersion levels and lower local
dust concentrations might reduce the severity of this change in particle motion. In the end,
we can conclude that the addition of gravitational force does not only influence the
trajectory of the dust particles, but also the airflow trajectory, through the mixing caused
by the change in dust particle motion.
Additionally, it should be noted that the high-velocity dust injection generates an
airflow and dust flow velocity that is actually outside the specified interval from the
standard procedure. Considering that even with these increased velocities the particles
are still falling on the bottom of the tunnel, this might pose some problems for the physical
tests, if the same phenomenon happens in reality.
All in all, further investigations on the influence of the gravitational force are required
and a comparison with experimental data is necessary in order to validate our assumptions
before continuing with the numerical analysis. At this time, two solutions to account for this
change in trajectory are envisaged:
1) to reposition the injector at an appropriate angle towards the upper part of the
tunnel, so that the dust will pass through the middle of the section rather than falling
towards the bottom;
2) to reposition the tested object, if possible.

Figure 6.15: Normalized volume fraction contour Figure 6.16: XY Velocity plot on the center line of
on the test section entrance for the FFRI injection the test section entrance for the FFRI injection
method with a high dust injection velocity and method with a high dust injection velocity and
gravitational acceleration gravitational acceleration
Figure 6.17: Side view of dust velocity contours for the high velocity dust injection case with added
gravitational acceleration
Figure 6.18: Side view of air velocity contours for the high velocity dust injection case with added
gravitational acceleration

CONCLUSIONS
Considering the air traffic in the desert areas nowadays, where sand and dust
storms have an increased occurrence, many potential problems related to the flight of
airplanes in these harsh zones can arise. Therefore, knowing the particle ingestion
tolerance of the exposed equipment to such environmental conditions can have large
safety and financial implications.
A detailed configuration of the numerical model has been presented in order to
provide all necessary information for replicating the CFD experiment. During the
development of the project, the numerical model has been proven useful when trying to
approximate the required dust mass flow at the injection points in order to provide an
adequate concentration of dust in the test section. A simple iterative process, that uses
the CFD results, has been proposed in order to correlate the required dust mass at the
injector with a certain concentration value in the test section. Additionally, the porous zone
configuration that was used to take into account the variable pressure drop on the heating
battery has proven to offer very close results to the experimental data.
A mesh independence study has also been conducted and the results have
indicated that only a transversal refinement was necessary to obtain a grid independent
result. Additionally, it was shown that the highly skewed elements caused by the
cylindrical shape of the injector do not affect the accuracy of the simulations. However,
the mesh independence study has only taken into consideration one injection method and
one injection velocity. Individual grid comparison studies might be necessary for each
separate case.
A comparison between 4 injection methods using 3 different injection velocity
regimes has been conducted. The results have shown that changes to the reference
injection system can be made in order to obtain a more even distribution for the granular
phase. The last proposed injection method (FFRI) tries to overcome the drawbacks of the
previous ones, showing the best results when a high-velocity injection is employed. Still,
due to the high dust velocity in the middle of the tunnel, the uniformity of the flow is not
perfect. Further investigations will focus on mitigating the influence of the frontal injected
particles.
During the comparison study, some convergence stalling and fluctuations of the
physical quantities have been noticed for the medium and high injection velocity cases.
Analyzing the possible sources of the stalling, two possible solutions have been
envisaged for the next steps of the project: extending the virtual model in order to have a
fully developed flow at the outlet and changing the simulation from a steady-state to a
time-dependent solver.
Finally, it was shown that the gravitational acceleration is a strong influential factor
in our numerical study, its addition changing the dispersion level, the volume fraction
distribution and the trajectory of the particles. The results from this last simulation suggest
that the gravitational force is greater than the drag, lift and buoyancy forces and this allows
the particles to fall towards the bottom of the tunnel. This type of simulation could be used
to approximate the correct positioning of the equipment inside the test section so that it
is fully exposed to the dust flow. However, an experimental validation of the particle
behavior is required in order to support our claims.
All things considered, this work provides a better understanding of a particle-laden
flow inside a harsh environment testing facility that is used for dust and sand exposure
experiments. Suggestions of possible modifications to this test facility have been made,

with the scope of improving the accuracy of the experiments carried therein. Through this
preliminary study we have shown that there are many potential influencing factors that
can affect the distribution of the granular phase, like the dust injection velocity, the local
solid volume fractions or the magnitude of the interaction forces like the gravitational
force, drag, lift and inertia. Additionally, the results have also highlighted some influencing
factors for the airflow velocity. It was shown that the near-wall boundary region and the
dust injection velocity can accelerate the airflow in the middle and alter the velocity profile
of the air entering the test section.
In the end, this thesis could be used as a step-by-step example for conducting
similar numerical experiments for multiphase flows involving fine solid particles and low
to moderate velocity airflows.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Lekas, Th. I., Kallos, G., Kushta, J., Solomos, S., Mavromatidis, E. (2011) - Dust impact on
aviation. 6th International Workshop on Sand/Dust Storms and Associated Dust fall,
September 7-9, Athens, Greece;
[2] Ghosh, T. (2014) - Dust storm and it’s environmental implications. Journal of Engineering
Computers & Applied Sciences (JECAS) ISSN No: 2319-5606 Volume 3, No.4, April 2014;
[3] Middleton, N., Kang, U. (2017) - Sand and Dust Storms: Impact Mitigation. Sustainability
2017, 9, 1053; doi:10.3390/su9061053;
[4] Bojdo, N., Filippone, A. (2014) - Effect of desert particulate composition on helicopter engine
degradation rate. 40th European Rotorcraft Forum, Southampton, September 2014
[5] Ganor, E., Osetinsky, I., Stupp, A., Alpert, P. (2010) - Increasing trend of African dust, over
49 years, in the eastern Mediterranean. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Volume 115, Issue D7, April 2010, doi:10.1029/2009JD012500
[6] Sissakian, K. V., Al-Ansari, N., Knutsson, S. (2013). Sand and dust storm events in Iraq.
Natural Science 5 (2013), No. 10, 1084-1094, Article ID:37734, doi:10.4236/ns.2013.510133
[7] Notaro, M., Yu, Y., Kalashnikova, O. V. (2015) - Regime shift in Arabian dust activity,
triggered by persistent Fertile Crescent drought. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres Volume 120, Issue 19 Pages: i-v, 9837-10568, October 2015, doi:
10.1002/2015JD023855;
[8] Krasnov, H., Katra, I., Friger, M. (2016) - Increase in dust storm related PM10 concentrations:
A time series analysis of 2001-2015. Environmental Pollution Volume 213, June 2016, Pages
36-42;
[9] United Nations Environment Programme UNEP (2016) - Global Assessment of Sand and
Dust Storms. ISBN: 978-92-807-3551-2, UNEP Job Number: DEW/1971/NA
[10] International Conference on Combating Sand and Dust Storms: Challenges and Practical
Solutions Tehran, the Islamic Republic of Iran (3-5 July 2017)
[11] European Aviation Safety Agency (2007) - Certification Specifications for Engines -
Acceptable Means of Compliance (CS-E Book 2);
[12] Reagle, C.J. (2012). Technique for Measuring the Coefficient of Restitution for Microparticle
Sand Impacts at High Temperature for Turbomachinery Applications. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, August 2012, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA;
[13] Khalifa, E.M. (2016). Conscious study of impact of dust storm on aviation and airport
management. International Journal of Science Research and Technology, Volume 2 Issue
2, p 51-57, 25th June 2016;
[14] Georgescu, M. R., Chitaru, G.M., Coșoiu, C.I., Brânză, I., Nae, C. (2017). Numerical study
of the secondary phase dispersion in a particle-laden flow. International Conference on
ENERGY and ENVIRONMENT (CIEM) 2017, doi:10.1109/CIEM.2017.8120851;
[15] EUROCAE ED-14G (2011), Environmental conditions and test procedures for airborne
equipment. Section 12 Sand and Dust;
[16] Georgescu, M. R., (2017) – Cercetări privind simularea interacțiunii particulelor în suspensie
cu suprafețele solide. Universitatea Tehnica de Constructii Bucuresti – Facultatea de
Inginerie a Instalatiilor;
[17] ANSYS Documentation R18.2 (2017), ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide, Chapter 17: Multiphase
Flows - 17.5.4. Conservation Equations, 17.5.10. Virtual Mass Force, 17.5.6.2. Fluid-Solid
Exchange Coefficient,
[18] Ratnam, G. S., Vengadesan, S. - Performance of two equation turbulence models for
prediction of flow and heat transfer over a wall mounted cube. International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer, Volume 51, Issues 11–12, June 2008, Pages 2834-2846,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.09.029;
[19] Fröhlich, J. and von Terzi, D. (2008) - Hybrid LES/RANS methods for the simulation of
turbulent flows. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 44. 349-377, DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.
2008.05.001

[20] Wasserman, S. (2016) - Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your CFD Simulation –
www.engineering.com
[21] Shih, T.-H., Liou, W. W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., Zhu, J. (1995) - A New Eddy-Viscosity Model
for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows - Model Development and Validation".
Computers Fluids. 24(3). 227–238. 1995;
[22] Fischer, M., Jovanović, J., and Durst, F. (2001) - Reynolds number effects in the near-wall
region of turbulent channel flows. Physics of Fluids 13, 1755 (2001), doi: 10.1063/1.1367369;
[23] Salim, S. M., and Cheah, S.C. (2009) - Wall y+ Strategy for Dealing with Wall-bounded
Turbulent Flows. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science. 2175;
[24] ANSYS Documentation R18.2 (2017), ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide, Chapter 4: Turbulence
- 4.16. Near-Wall Treatments for Wall-Bounded Turbulent Flows;
[25] Syamlal, M., Rogers, W. and O’Brien, T. J. - MFIX Documentation: Volume1, Theory Guide.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. DOE/METC-9411004,
NTIS/DE9400087, 1993;
[26] Lun, C. K. K., Savage, S. B., Jeffrey, D. J. and Chepurniy, N. (1984) - Kinetic Theories for
Granular Flow: Inelastic Particles in Couette Flow and Slightly Inelastic Particles in a General
Flow Field. J. Fluid Mech. 140. 223–256. 1984
[27] Syamlal M. and O’Brien, T. J. (1989) - Computer Simulation of Bubbles in a Fluidized Bed.
AIChE Symp. Series. 85. 22–31. 1989;
[28] Moraga, F. J., Bonetto, R. T. and Lahey, R. T. (1999) - Lateral forces on spheres in turbulent
uniform shear flow. International Journal of Multiphase Flow. 25. 1321–1372. 1999.
[29] Simonin, O. and Viollet, P. L. (1990) - Modeling of Turbulent Two-Phase Jets Loaded with
Discrete Particles. Phenomena in Multiphase Flows. 259–269. 1990;
[30] ANSYS Documentation R18.2 (2017) - ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide, Chapter 24: Modeling
Multiphase Flows - 24.5.3.1. Including Turbulence Interaction Source Terms; 24.5.4.
Including Heat Transfer Effects;
[31] Gunn, D. J. (1978) - Transfer of Heat or Mass to Particles in Fixed and Fluidized Beds. Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer. 21. 467–476. 1978.
[32] EUROCAE ED-14G (2011), Environmental conditions and test procedures for airborne
equipment. Section 12 Sand and Dust.
[33] ANSYS Documentation R18.2 (2017), ANSYS Fluent User Guide, Chapter 6: Cell zone and
boundary conditions - 6.2.3. Porous Media Conditions;
[34] Peng, Z., Ghatage, S. V., Doroodchi, E., Joshi, J.B., Evans, G. M. and Moghtaderi B. (2014)
- Forces acting on a single introduced particle in a solid-liquid fluidized bed. Chemical
Engineering Science, Volume 116, 6 September 2014, Pages 49-70,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2014.04.040;

ANNEX
ANNEX 1 – RESULTS FOR MESH QUALITY COMPARISON STUDY
Histogram of equiangle skewness

60%
50%
Percentage of cells
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Equiangle Skewness
Histogram of Aspect Ratio

60.0%
50.0%
Percentage of cells
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
66 63 60 56 53 50 46 43 40 36 33 30 26 23 20 17 13 10 7 3
Aspect Ratio

Histogram of Quality
70%
60%
Percentage of cells
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Equiangle Skewness
Initial Mesh Initial Mesh Initial Mesh

Histogram of Equiangle Skewness values Histogram of Aspect Ratio (Fluent) values Histogram of Quality values
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
0.134 1 0.913 1.414 66.23 8.243 0.137 1 0.929
Min Quality Cells % Total Max Ratio Cells % Total Min Quality Cells % Total
0.95 1143405 50.5% 50.5% 66.23 645 0.0% 0.0% 0.95 934328 41.3% 41.3%
0.90 460354 20.3% 70.8% 62.92 953 0.0% 0.1% 0.90 780813 34.5% 75.7%
0.85 176897 7.8% 78.6% 59.61 427 0.0% 0.1% 0.85 400970 17.7% 93.4%
0.80 171667 7.6% 86.2% 56.30 1147 0.1% 0.1% 0.80 107617 4.8% 98.2%
0.75 146388 6.5% 92.7% 52.98 495 0.0% 0.2% 0.75 25989 1.1% 99.3%
0.70 102227 4.5% 97.2% 49.67 564 0.0% 0.2% 0.70 5670 0.3% 99.6%
0.65 47222 2.1% 99.3% 46.36 1966 0.1% 0.3% 0.65 2718 0.1% 99.7%
0.60 7752 0.3% 99.6% 43.05 2052 0.1% 0.4% 0.60 1374 0.1% 99.8%
0.55 4884 0.2% 99.8% 39.74 2226 0.1% 0.5% 0.55 1611 0.1% 99.8%
0.50 2655 0.1% 99.9% 36.43 3906 0.2% 0.6% 0.50 2325 0.1% 99.9%
0.45 1037 0.0% 100.0% 33.12 11236 0.5% 1.1% 0.45 626 0.0% 100.0%
0.40 4 0.0% 100.0% 29.80 23041 1.0% 2.1% 0.40 445 0.0% 100.0%
0.35 0 0.0% 100.0% 26.49 37454 1.7% 3.8% 0.35 6 0.0% 100.0%
0.30 0 0.0% 100.0% 23.18 60968 2.7% 6.5% 0.30 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.25 0 0.0% 100.0% 19.87 81540 3.6% 10.1% 0.25 1 0.0% 100.0%
0.20 0 0.0% 100.0% 16.56 121369 5.4% 15.5% 0.20 46 0.0% 100.0%
0.15 0 0.0% 100.0% 13.25 210383 9.3% 24.7% 0.15 164 0.0% 100.0%
0.10 252 0.0% 100.0% 9.93 492604 21.8% 46.5% 0.10 41 0.0% 100.0%
0.05 0 0.0% 100.0% 6.62 883413 39.0% 85.5% 0.05 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.00 0 0.0% 100.0% 3.31 328355 14.5% 100.0% 0.00 0 0.0% 100.0%

Refined Mesh 1 Refined Mesh 1 Refined Mesh 1

0.111 1 0.923 1.414 86.94 8.59 0.149 1 0.948

0.95 2146436 51.4% 51.4% 86.95 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.95 2360617 56.5% 56.5%
0.90 882579 21.1% 72.5% 82.60 13 0.0% 0.0% 0.90 1508832 36.1% 92.6%
0.85 483098 11.6% 84.0% 78.25 8 0.0% 0.0% 0.85 232395 5.6% 98.1%
0.80 335548 8.0% 92.0% 73.91 10 0.0% 0.0% 0.80 52112 1.2% 99.4%
0.75 175348 4.2% 96.2% 69.56 105 0.0% 0.0% 0.75 15425 0.4% 99.7%
0.70 72073 1.7% 98.0% 65.21 2600 0.1% 0.1% 0.70 3645 0.1% 99.8%
0.65 46794 1.1% 99.1% 60.86 1966 0.0% 0.1% 0.65 1859 0.0% 99.9%
0.60 21535 0.5% 99.6% 56.52 3948 0.1% 0.2% 0.60 1341 0.0% 99.9%
0.55 9567 0.2% 99.8% 52.17 5397 0.1% 0.3% 0.55 1446 0.0% 99.9%
0.50 3413 0.1% 99.9% 47.82 9764 0.2% 0.6% 0.50 1036 0.0% 100.0%
0.45 2652 0.1% 100.0% 43.47 13854 0.3% 0.9% 0.45 1032 0.0% 100.0%
0.40 515 0.0% 100.0% 39.13 17649 0.4% 1.3% 0.40 40 0.0% 100.0%
0.35 101 0.0% 100.0% 34.78 31154 0.7% 2.1% 0.35 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.30 121 0.0% 100.0% 30.43 63999 1.5% 3.6% 0.30 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.25 0 0.0% 100.0% 26.08 102897 2.5% 6.1% 0.25 2 0.0% 100.0%
0.20 0 0.0% 100.0% 21.74 156023 3.7% 9.8% 0.20 38 0.0% 100.0%
0.15 0 0.0% 100.0% 17.39 250690 6.0% 15.8% 0.15 211 0.0% 100.0%
0.10 252 0.0% 100.0% 13.04 698612 16.7% 32.5% 0.10 1 0.0% 100.0%
0.05 0 0.0% 100.0% 8.69 1688514 40.4% 72.9% 0.05 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.00 0 0.0% 100.0% 4.35 1132825 27.1% 100.0% 0.00 0 0.0% 100.0%

0.111 1 0.923 1.414 81.67 7.208 0.149 1 0.949
0.95 2563068 50.6% 50.6% 81.67 11 0.0% 0.0% 0.95 2947115 58.2% 58.2%
0.90 1116672 22.0% 72.6% 77.59 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.90 1777991 35.1% 93.3%
0.85 590694 11.7% 84.3% 73.51 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.85 249252 4.9% 98.2%
0.80 400192 7.9% 92.2% 69.42 66 0.0% 0.0% 0.80 60584 1.2% 99.4%
0.75 205128 4.0% 96.3% 65.34 1778 0.0% 0.0% 0.75 17944 0.4% 99.7%
0.70 87783 1.7% 98.0% 61.26 925 0.0% 0.1% 0.70 4476 0.1% 99.8%
0.65 56703 1.1% 99.1% 57.17 1894 0.0% 0.1% 0.65 2108 0.0% 99.9%
0.60 25528 0.5% 99.6% 53.09 2695 0.1% 0.1% 0.60 1547 0.0% 99.9%
0.55 11550 0.2% 99.8% 49.00 3547 0.1% 0.2% 0.55 1775 0.0% 99.9%
0.50 3931 0.1% 99.9% 44.92 6750 0.1% 0.3% 0.50 1285 0.0% 100.0%
0.45 3252 0.1% 100.0% 40.84 6596 0.1% 0.5% 0.45 1256 0.0% 100.0%
0.40 634 0.0% 100.0% 36.75 9482 0.2% 0.7% 0.40 27 0.0% 100.0%
0.35 104 0.0% 100.0% 32.67 14982 0.3% 1.0% 0.35 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.30 121 0.0% 100.0% 28.59 28977 0.6% 1.5% 0.30 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.25 0 0.0% 100.0% 24.50 79657 1.6% 3.1% 0.25 2 0.0% 100.0%
0.20 0 0.0% 100.0% 20.42 176179 3.5% 6.6% 0.20 38 0.0% 100.0%
0.15 0 0.0% 100.0% 16.33 294979 5.8% 12.4% 0.15 219 0.0% 100.0%
0.10 260 0.0% 100.0% 12.25 643388 12.7% 25.1% 0.10 1 0.0% 100.0%
0.05 0 0.0% 100.0% 8.17 2438478 48.1% 73.2% 0.05 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.00 0 0.0% 100.0% 4.08 1355228 26.8% 100.0% 0.00 0 0.0% 100.0%


0.083 1 0.925 1.414 110.86 7.477 0.118 1 0.955
0.95 3564602 51.3% 51.3% 110.87 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.95 4861404 70.0% 70.0%
0.90 1538572 22.2% 73.5% 105.32 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.90 1773123 25.5% 95.5%
0.85 826171 11.9% 85.4% 99.78 8 0.0% 0.0% 0.85 231510 3.3% 98.9%
0.80 508037 7.3% 92.7% 94.24 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.80 45983 0.7% 99.5%
0.75 255097 3.7% 96.4% 88.69 10 0.0% 0.0% 0.75 16714 0.2% 99.8%
0.70 119139 1.7% 98.1% 83.15 85 0.0% 0.0% 0.70 6972 0.1% 99.9%
0.65 70117 1.0% 99.1% 77.61 423 0.0% 0.0% 0.65 2460 0.0% 99.9%
0.60 35616 0.5% 99.6% 72.06 758 0.0% 0.0% 0.60 1807 0.0% 99.9%
0.55 14334 0.2% 99.8% 66.52 4128 0.1% 0.1% 0.55 1758 0.0% 100.0%
0.50 7656 0.1% 99.9% 60.98 5896 0.1% 0.2% 0.50 1198 0.0% 100.0%
0.45 3470 0.1% 100.0% 55.43 6772 0.1% 0.3% 0.45 1361 0.0% 100.0%
0.40 1174 0.0% 100.0% 49.89 6631 0.1% 0.4% 0.40 118 0.0% 100.0%
0.35 213 0.0% 100.0% 44.35 18192 0.3% 0.6% 0.35 40 0.0% 100.0%
0.30 90 0.0% 100.0% 38.80 22142 0.3% 0.9% 0.30 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.25 100 0.0% 100.0% 33.26 31261 0.5% 1.4% 0.25 18 0.0% 100.0%
0.20 60 0.0% 100.0% 27.72 94924 1.4% 2.8% 0.20 26 0.0% 100.0%
0.15 0 0.0% 100.0% 22.17 252959 3.6% 6.4% 0.15 27 0.0% 100.0%
0.10 34 0.0% 100.0% 16.63 561222 8.1% 14.5% 0.10 189 0.0% 100.0%
0.05 226 0.0% 100.0% 11.09 2892936 41.7% 56.1% 0.05 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.00 0 0.0% 100.0% 5.54 3046346 43.9% 100.0% 0.00 0 0.0% 100.0%
Refined Mesh 1 HQ Refined Mesh 1 HQ Refined Mesh 1 HQ

0.48 1 0.918 1.414 63.93 8.832 0.675 1 0.948
0.95 2061884 49.3% 49.3% 63.94 2956 0.1% 0.1% 0.95 2350688 56.2% 56.2%
0.90 921279 22.0% 71.4% 60.74 1265 0.0% 0.1% 0.90 1512594 36.2% 92.4%
0.85 471429 11.3% 82.6% 57.54 9776 0.2% 0.3% 0.85 236551 5.7% 98.1%
0.80 338378 8.1% 90.7% 54.35 2712 0.1% 0.4% 0.80 48170 1.2% 99.2%
0.75 201005 4.8% 95.5% 51.15 7014 0.2% 0.6% 0.75 22610 0.5% 99.8%
0.70 74602 1.8% 97.3% 47.95 5263 0.1% 0.7% 0.70 9722 0.2% 100.0%
0.65 52003 1.2% 98.6% 44.76 12316 0.3% 1.0% 0.65 337 0.0% 100.0%
0.60 31431 0.8% 99.3% 41.56 11238 0.3% 1.3% 0.60 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.55 18412 0.4% 99.8% 38.36 13208 0.3% 1.6% 0.55 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.50 9157 0.2% 100.0% 35.16 19040 0.5% 2.0% 0.50 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.45 1092 0.0% 100.0% 31.97 35473 0.8% 2.9% 0.45 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.40 0 0.0% 100.0% 28.77 54363 1.3% 4.2% 0.40 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.35 0 0.0% 100.0% 25.57 77022 1.8% 6.0% 0.35 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.30 0 0.0% 100.0% 22.38 102140 2.4% 8.5% 0.30 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.25 0 0.0% 100.0% 19.18 140722 3.4% 11.8% 0.25 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.20 0 0.0% 100.0% 15.98 217267 5.2% 17.0% 0.20 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.15 0 0.0% 100.0% 12.79 483987 11.6% 28.6% 0.15 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.10 0 0.0% 100.0% 9.59 1017255 24.3% 52.9% 0.10 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.05 0 0.0% 100.0% 6.39 1354389 32.4% 85.3% 0.05 0 0.0% 100.0%
0.00 0 0.0% 100.0% 3.20 613266 14.7% 100.0% 0.00 0 0.0% 100.0%
View publication stats

Numerical Study of A Harsh Environment Testing Facility: July 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Study of A Harsh Environment Testing Facility: July 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Numerical Study of a Harsh Environment Testing Facility

Thesis · July 2018

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NUMERICAL STUDY OF A HARSH

RO: Prin prezenta declar că lucrarea de disertație cu titlul "Numerical study of a

DECLARATION OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Bucureşti, 26 Iunie 2018

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... 6

Figure 2.1:Geometry of the entire harsh environment testing facility _______________ 17

Index for previous time

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 12

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 13

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 14

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 15

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 16

CHAPTER 2 - THE HARSH ENVIRONMENT TESTING

DETAILS ON THE GEOMETRY OF THE TESTING FACILITY

Figure 2.1:Geometry of the entire harsh environment testing facility

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 17

Figure 2.3: Closer look at the injection mechanism

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 18

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 19

CHAPTER 3 - GEOMETRY AND MESH GENERATION

Figure 3.1: Pre-Mesh of the harsh environment testing facility

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 20

CHAPTER 4 - THE NUMERICAL MODEL

SOLVER AND MODEL SET-UP

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 21

𝑈𝑓𝑛+1 = volume flux through the face at time step n+1;

4.1.2 CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 22

𝑘 = turbulent kinetic energy [m2/s2];

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 24

Figure 4.1: The layers formed in the near-wall region

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 25

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 26

Figure 4.3: Wall Y+ representation (A minimum value of 11 in the experimental vein)

4.1.6 DEFINING THE MATERIALS/PHASES

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 27

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 28

Figure 4.4: Division of the tunnel into 4 main sections

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 29

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 30

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 31

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 32

Figure 4.8: Static pressure contours for 5 m/s inlet velocity

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 33

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 34

Test section volume: 𝑉𝑇𝑆 = 0.125 [𝑚3 ]

Distance to test section: 𝐷 = 3 𝑚

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 35

4.2.4 WALL AND OUTLET BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 36

Figure 4.10: Dust volume fraction representation with Coupled scheme

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 37

Figure 4.13: Close-Up to the injection area

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 38

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 39

Facultatea de Inginerie a Instalațiilor - UTCB 40

CHAPTER 5 - MESH INDEPENDENCE STUDY

DEFINING THE MESHES

b) multi-point injection (MPI) b) Multi-Point Injection (MPI)