4.6 Article

Numerical study on mechanism of condensation oscillation of unstable steam jet

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 211, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2019.115303

关键词

Numerical simulation; Steam bubble condensation; Pressure oscillation; Oscillation mechanism

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51876166]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province of China [2018JC-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Submerged steam jet condensation is widely used in many industries. However, this process may cause damage to equipment due to pressure oscillation, especially at low steam mass flux. The dynamic process of steam bubble and different pressure oscillation types were investigated in this numerical study. Five typical stages were observed, which were bubble growth stage, bubble slow necking stage, bubble rapid necking stage, bubble detachment stage and secondary bubble oscillation stage. Two pressure oscillation types were found by the synchronization analysis of bubble pattern and pressure field. The mechanisms of condensation oscillation of unstable steam jet were revealed. As for the first type, two pressure peaks existed in the fluctuation process of secondary bubble volume. The higher pressure peak was generated when secondary bubble was oscillated to its minimum volume, and the other was generated when secondary bubble was collapsed. As for the second type, only one pressure peak existed and secondary bubble was quickly contracted without volume fluctuation. Pressure peak was generated when secondary bubble was quickly contracted to its minimum volume. Moreover, analyses of flow field pressure at different locations were carried out. Results indicated that the pressure fluctuation was mainly induced by the condensation oscillation of secondary bubble for both types. The trends of pressure at different locations were the same as that of secondary bubble internal pressure. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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