0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Comparison of Lagrangian and Eulerian Simulations of Slurry Flows in a Sudden Expansion

[+] Author and Article Information
P. Frawley, A. P. O’Mahony, M. Geron

Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

J. Fluids Eng 132(9), 091301 (Sep 10, 2010) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002357 History: Received March 11, 2009; Revised July 12, 2010; Published September 10, 2010; Online September 10, 2010

From a review of technical literature, it was not apparent if the Lagrangian or the Eulerian dispersed phase modeling approach was more valid to simulate dilute erosive slurry flow. In this study, both modeling approaches were employed and a comparative analysis of performances and accuracy between the two models was carried out. Due to an impossibility to define, for the Eulerian model already implemented in FLUENT , a set of boundary conditions consistent with the Lagrangian impulsive equations, an Eulerian dispersed phase model was integrated in the FLUENT code using subroutines and user-defined scalar equations. Numerical predictions obtained from the two different approaches for two-phase flow in a sudden expansion were compared with the measured data. Excellent agreement was attained between the predicted and observed fluid and particle velocity in the axial direction and for the kinetic energy. Erosion profiles in a sudden expansion computed using the Lagrangian scheme yielded good qualitative agreement with measured data and predicted a maximum impact angle of 29 deg at the fluid reattachment point. The Eulerian model was adversely affected by the reattachment of the fluid phase to the wall and the simulated erosion profiles were not in agreement with the Lagrangian or measured data. Furthermore, the Eulerian model under-predicted the Lagrangian impact angle at all locations except the reattachment point.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Computational cell adjacent to wall boundary

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of sudden expansion test section

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Computational grid

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Fully developed flow profile at inlet

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Axial velocity profile calculated on three grid levels

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of measured and predicted fluid phase mean axial velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of measured and predicted fluid phase turbulent kinetic energy

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Measured and predicted particle axial velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Curve fit of the erosion model of Oka to normalized carbon steel erosion data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Normalized erosion curve for type 304 stainless steel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Measured erosion rate and normalized predicted erosion rate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Characteristic of particle-wall impact: (a) impact velocity and (b) impact angle

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