4.5 Article

Inertial particle velocity and distribution in vertical turbulent channel flow: A numerical and experimental comparison

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPHASE FLOW
Volume 120, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2019.103105

Keywords

Inertial particles; Wall turbulence; Simulations; Experiment

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. Army Research Office [G00003613-ArmyW911NF-17-0366]
  2. Office of Naval Research [N00014-16-1-2472]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study is concerned with the statistics of vertical turbulent channel flow laden with inertial particles for two different volume concentrations (Phi(V) = 3 x 10(-6) and Phi(V) = 5 x 10(-5)) at a Stokes number of St(+) = 58.6 based on viscous units. Two independent direct numerical simulation models utilizing the point-particle approach are compared to recent experimental measurements, where all relevant non-dimensional parameters are directly matched. While both numerical models are built on the same general approach, details of the implementations are different, particularly regarding how two-way coupling is represented. At low volume loading, both numerical models are in general agreement with the experimental measurements, with certain exceptions near the walls for the wall-normal particle velocity fluctuations. At high loading, these discrepancies are increased, and it is found that particle clustering is overpredicted in the simulations as compared to the experimental observations. Potential reasons for the discrepancies are discussed. As this study is among the first to perform one-to-one comparisons of particle-laden flow statistics between numerical models and experiments, it suggests that continued efforts are required to reconcile differences between the observed behavior and numerical predictions. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available