4.7 Article

Two-fluid LES and RANS modeling of sudden-expansion gas-particle flows

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 323, 期 -, 页码 45-50

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2017.09.048

关键词

Large-eddy simulation; RANS modeling; Gas-particle flows; Two-fluid modeling

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51390493, 51106006, 51266008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sudden-expansion gas-particle flows are widely encountered in fluid and thermal engineering and are typical cases for basic studies. Both two-fluid large-eddy simulation (LES) and Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) modeling using a unified second-order (USM) two-phase turbulence model are studied in this paper. The advantage of LES is showing the detailed flow structures and improving the simulation results. For LES most of investigators adopt Eulerian-Lagrangian (E-L) LES approach, in which the widely used are Smagorinsky eddy-viscosity model, Germano dynamic eddy-viscosity model and Kim's SGS energy equation model for single-phase flows and there are no particle SGS stress models. Some researchers proposed gas-phase SGS stress models accounting for the effect of particles in E-L LES. A few investigators proposed particle SGS stress models for two-fluid LES of gas-particle flows, however the particle SGS stress models are simply imitated from the gas SGS stress model, and the interaction between gas and particle SGS stresses is not taken into account. In this paper a k(gs)-k(ps)-k(pgs), two-phase SGS stress model for two-fluid LES of gas-particle flows is proposed to simulate sudden expansion gas-particle flows. Simultaneously, The USM-RANS modeling was made for sudden-expansion gas particle flows. Also, measurements were made to validate both LES and RANS modeling results. It is shown that LES can reveal the detailed flow structures and surely in most regions of the flow field make some improvements over the USM-RANS modeling. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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