0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

A Model Constraint for Polydisperse Solids in Multifluid Flows

[+] Author and Article Information
Michael P. Kinzel

Mem. ASME
Bechtel, BSII,
12011 Sunset Hills Drive,
Reston, VA 20190
e-mail: mpk176@psualum.com

Leonard Joel Peltier

Mem. ASME
Bechtel, BSII,
12011 Sunset Hills Drive,
Reston, VA 20190
e-mail: ljpeltie@bechtel.com

Brigette Rosendall

Mem. ASME
Bechtel, BSII,
12011 Sunset Hills Drive,
Reston, VA 20190
e-mail: brosenda@bechtel.com

Mallory Elbert

Bechtel, BSII,
12011 Sunset Hills Drive,
Reston, VA 20190
e-mail: mhelbert@bechtel.com

Andri Rizhakov

Bechtel, BSII,
12011 Sunset Hills Drive,
Reston, VA 20190
e-mail: arizhako@bechtel.com

Jonathan Berkoe

Mem. ASME
Bechtel, BSII,
12011 Sunset Hills Drive,
Reston, VA 20190
e-mail: jon.berkoe@synchroltd.com

Kelly Knight

Mem. ASME
Bechtel, BSII,
12011 Sunset Hills Drive,
Reston, VA 20190
e-mail: kknight@bechtel.com

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 17, 2014; final manuscript received May 28, 2015; published online July 10, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Francine Battaglia.

J. Fluids Eng 137(11), 111104 (Jul 10, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1673; doi: 10.1115/1.4030762 History: Received November 17, 2014

A method to assess computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models for polydisperse granular solids in a multifluid flow is developed. The proposed method evaluates a consistency constraint, or a condition that an Eulerian multiphase solution for a monodisperse material in a single carrier fluid is invariant to an arbitrary decomposition into a pseudo-polydisperse mixture of multiple, identical fluid phases. The intent of this condition is to develop tests to assist model development and testing for multiphase fluid flows. When applied to two common momentum exchange models, the constraint highlights model failures for polydisperse solids interacting with a multifluid flow. It is found that when inconsistency occurs at the algebraic level, model failure clearly extends to application. When the models are reformulated to satisfy the consistency constraint, simple tests and application-scale simulations no longer display consistency failure.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Consistency criteria test case evaluating the Wen–Yu model in various scenarios. The subfigures indicate two scenarios: (a) pseudo-multifluid with two fluids and one solid or a (b) pseudo-polydisperse solid test case with one fluid and two solids. A diagram representing each scenario is indicated in the upper part of each subfigure. The center part of each subfigure indicates the volume fraction distributions, whereas the lower part indicates the predicted momentum exchange coefficients.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Consistency criteria test case evaluating the Ergun model in various scenarios. The subfigures indicate two scenarios: (a) pseudo-multifluid with two fluids and one solid or a (b) pseudo-polydisperse solid test case with one fluid and two solids. A diagram representing each scenario is indicated in the upper part of each subfigure. The center part of each subfigure indicates the volume fraction distributions, whereas the lower part indicates the predicted momentum exchange coefficients.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Consistency criteria test case evaluating the model of Yin and Sundaresan [4] and Holloway et al. [5,6] model. The subfigures indicate two scenarios: (a) pseudo-multifluid with two fluids and one solid or a (b) pseudo-polydisperse solid test case with one fluid and two solids. A diagram representing each scenario is indicated in the upper part of each subfigure. The center part of each subfigure indicates the volume fraction distributions, whereas the lower part indicates the predicted momentum exchange coefficients.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Setup of experiment and computational model. (a) The dimensions of the mixing vessel setup and (b) the corresponding mesh used for the simulations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the concentration profile predictions versus elevation for the baseline and present models applied to pseudo-polydisperse and pseudo-multifluid conditions. Ideally, all three variations will reproduce the same result. (a) The baseline model, which is the Huilin–Gidaspow model from ANSYS Fluent 14.0 and (b) the present model results.

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