Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Solid particle spreading in gas-dispersed confined swirling flow. Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches

Solid particle spreading in gas-dispersed confined swirling flow. Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches Abstract Dynamics of a disperse phase in a swirling two-phase flow behind a sudden tube expansion is simulated with the aid of Eulerian and full Lagrangian descriptions. The carrier phase is described by three-dimensional Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equations with consideration of inverse influence of particles on the transport processes in gas. The velocity profiles calculated using these two approaches are practically the same. It is shown that the main difference between the Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches is presented by the concentration profile of the dispersed phase. The Eulerian approach underpredicts the value of particle concentration as compared with the Lagrangian approach (the difference reaches 15−20 %). The dispersed phase concentration predicted by the Lagrangian approach agrees with the measurement data somewhat better than the data obtained through the Eulerian approach. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Thermophysics and Aeromechanics Springer Journals

Solid particle spreading in gas-dispersed confined swirling flow. Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches

Thermophysics and Aeromechanics , Volume 24 (3): 14 – May 1, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/solid-particle-spreading-in-gas-dispersed-confined-swirling-flow-GCinWaPG07
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
2017 Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.
ISSN
0869-8643
eISSN
1531-8699
DOI
10.1134/S0869864317030015
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Dynamics of a disperse phase in a swirling two-phase flow behind a sudden tube expansion is simulated with the aid of Eulerian and full Lagrangian descriptions. The carrier phase is described by three-dimensional Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equations with consideration of inverse influence of particles on the transport processes in gas. The velocity profiles calculated using these two approaches are practically the same. It is shown that the main difference between the Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches is presented by the concentration profile of the dispersed phase. The Eulerian approach underpredicts the value of particle concentration as compared with the Lagrangian approach (the difference reaches 15−20 %). The dispersed phase concentration predicted by the Lagrangian approach agrees with the measurement data somewhat better than the data obtained through the Eulerian approach.

Journal

Thermophysics and AeromechanicsSpringer Journals

Published: May 1, 2017

References