4.4 Article

Computations of Particle-Laden Turbulent Jet Flows Based on Eulerian Model

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4025364

关键词

gas-solid flow; two-fluid model; axisymmetric jets; turbulence modulation; kinetic theory; Stokes number

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerical simulations using an Eulerian two-fluid model were performed for spatially developing, two-dimensional, axisymmetric jets issued from a 30-mm-diameter circular nozzle. The nozzle was simulated separately for various flow conditions to get fully developed velocity profiles at its exit. The effect of interparticle collisions in the nozzle gives rise to solids pressure and viscosity, which are modeled using kinetic theory of granular flows (KTGF). The particle sizes are in the range of 30 mu m to 2 mm, and the particle loading is varied from 1 to 5. The fully developed velocity profiles are expressed by power law, U = U-c(1 - (r/R))(N). The exponent, N, is found to be 0.14 for gas phase, irrespective of particle sizes and particulate loadings. However, the solid-phase velocity varies significantly with the particle diameter. For particle sizes up to 200 mu m, the exponent is 0.12. The center line velocity (U-c) of the solid phase decreases and, hence, the slip velocity increases as the particle size increases. For 1 mm and 2 mm size particles, the exponent is found to be 0.08 and 0.05, respectively. The developed velocity profiles of both the phases are used as the inlet velocities for the jet simulation. The modulations on the flow structures and turbulent characteristics of gas flow due to the solid particles with different particle sizes and loadings are investigated. The jet spreading and the decay of the centerline mean velocity are computed for all particle sizes and loadings considered under the present study. Additions of solid particles to the gas flow significantly modulate the gas turbulence in the nozzle as well as the jet flows. Fine particles suppress the turbulence, whereas coarse particles enhance it.

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

4.4
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