0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Validation of Two-Fluid Eulerian CFD Modeling for Microbubble Drag Reduction Across a Wide Range of Reynolds Numbers

[+] Author and Article Information
Robert F. Kunz, Howard J. Gibeling, Arnold A. Fontaine, Howard L. Petrie

Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16803

Martin R. Maxey

 Brown University, Providence, RI 02912

Gretar Tryggvason

 Worchester Polytechnic Institute, Worchester, MA 01609

Steven L. Ceccio

 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

J. Fluids Eng 129(1), 66-79 (May 27, 2006) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2375124 History: Received August 11, 2005; Revised May 27, 2006

An Eulerian two-fluid computational fluid dynamics model has been developed for flows with microbubble drag reduction (MBDR). This paper focuses on recent validation studies for MBDR flows across a spectrum of Reynolds numbers. Direct numerical simulations and two sets of experimental flat plate boundary layer measurements are studied. In this paper, the interfacial dynamics and other models used are first presented, followed by detailed comparisons with the validation cases. Emphasis is placed on the modeling strategies required to capture measured volume fraction, bubble size, and bubble velocity distributions, as well as skin friction drag reduction.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Comparison of two-field and four-field simulations for U∞=18m∕s HIPLATE cases. (top) Drag reduction vs. x. (bottom) Normalized bubble velocity vs. normalized flow rate.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Low volume fraction comparison between RANS and FCM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

High volume fraction comparison between RANS and FCM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Void fraction profiles for 12-in. tunnel comparison for U=13.7m∕s, Q=2.1l∕s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Void fraction profiles at MB2 for 12-in. tunnel comparison for U=13.7m∕s, Q=2.1l∕s. Profiles for four bubble fields and total gas are shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Void fraction profiles for 12-in. tunnel comparison at U=10.7m∕s, Q=0.7l∕s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Void fraction profiles for 12-in. tunnel comparison at U=10.7m∕s, Q=2.1l∕s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Bubble velocities for U=13.7m∕s, Q=0.7l∕s at MB2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Drag reduction at MB2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Diagram of HIPLATE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of predicted and measured DR vs. x for U∞=18m∕s HIPLATE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Predicted gas volume fractions. Contour plot+profile at x=10.68m for U∞=18m∕s, Q=0.378m3∕s HIPLATE case (y coordinate scaled by 200).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of predicted and measured DR vs. x for U∞=12m∕s HIPLATE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Comparison of predicted and measured DR vs. x for U∞=6m∕s HIPLATE cases

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Predicted gas volume fraction contour plot for U∞=6m∕s, Q=0.378m3∕s HIPLATE case (y coordinate scaled by 50)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of predicted and measured DR vs. volumetric fraction of gas flow rate at upstream and downstream shear stress measurement stations for U∞=12 and 18m∕s HIPLATE cases

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Comparison of predicted and measured bubble velocity vs. volumetric fraction of gas flow rate at upstream and downstream measurement stations for U∞=12 and 18m∕s HIPLATE cases

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison of predicted and measured bubble velocity vs. volumetric fraction of gas flow rate at upstream and downstream measurement stations for U∞=12 and 18m∕s HIPLATE cases. Virtual mass and cluster drag set to zero.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Comparison of computed and measured bubble size distributions and mean diameters for the five HIPLATE cases where these measurements were taken

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Comparison of predicted (with breakup and coalescence) and measured DR vs. x for U∞=12m∕s HIPLATE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Comparison of predicted (with breakup and coalescence) and measured DR vs. x for U∞=18m∕s HIPLATE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Comparison of predicted (with breakup and coalescence) and measured bubble size distributions and mean diameters for the five HIPLATE cases where these measurements were taken

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In