4.7 Article

A comprehensive probability density function formalism for multiphase flows

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 628, 期 -, 页码 181-228

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S002211200900617X

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy Early Career Principal Investigator [DE-FG02-03ER25550]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A theoretical foundation for two widely used statistical representations of multiphase flows, namely the Eulerian-Eulerian (EE) and Lagrangian-Eulerian (LE) representations, is established in the framework of the probability density function (p.d.f.) formalism. Consistency relationships between fundamental statistical quantities in the EE and LE representations are rigorously established. it is shown that fundamental quantities in the two statistical representations bear an exact relationship to each other only under conditions of spatial homogeneity. Transport equations for the probability densities in each statistical representation are derived. Exact governing equations for the mean mass, mean momentum and second moment of velocity corresponding to the two statistical representations are derived from these transport equations. In particular, for the EE representation, the p.d.f. formalism is shown to naturally lead to the widely used ensemble-averaged equations for two-phase flows. Galilean-invariant combinations of unclosed terms in the governing equations that need to be modelled are clearly identified. The correspondence between unclosed terms in each statistical representation is established. Hybrid EE-LE computations can benefit from this correspondence, which serves in consistently transferring information from one representation to the other. Advantages and limitations of each statistical representation are identified. The results of this work can also serve as a guiding framework for direct numerical Simulations of two-phase flows, which can now be exploited to precisely quantify unclosed terms in the governing equations in the two statistical representations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据