4.7 Article

Effect of particle concentration on turbulent modulation inside hydrocyclone using coupled MPPIC-VOF method

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2020.118206

关键词

Hydrocyclones; MPPIC-VOF approach; LES; Turbulent modulation; Particle concentration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study discusses the implementation of a coupled Multi-phase particle in cell method and Volume of Fluid flow solver to simulate particles in a fluid flow field with a free surface. By testing multiple sub-grid scale models, it was found that the dynamic k-equation model has the best-predicting capability for the mean and turbulent flow field. The study shows that even with low solid concentration, the fluctuating flow field increases substantially with varying particle concentration.
We discuss the implementation of a coupled Multi-phase particle in cell method (MPPIC) and Volume of Fluid (VOF) flow solver to simulate particles in a fluid flow field having a free surface. Using the solver developed using OpenFOAM 4.1 library, we study the flow of particles inside a highly anisotropic turbulent flow field of a hydrocyclone. The free surface from the air-core inside the hydrocyclone is resolved using the VOF method coupled with the LES turbulence model. We test multiple sub-grid scale model and find the dynamic k-equation model to have the best-predicting capability of the mean and turbulent flow field as well as the air-core shape. Using the established flow field, we study the particle flow properties and its effect on the fluid flow field using a four-way coupled description between MPPIC and VOF. Important flow properties such as the particle flow field velocity and turbulence modulation with varying particle concentration were studied. It was found that even with low solid concentration (0.3?1.5% by volume) there is a quite substantial increase in the fluctuating flow field (around 12%) and with a further increase (1.8%) we observe a decrease in the turbulent levels by approximately 6%.

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