0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

New Two-Fluid Model Near-Wall Averaging and Consistent Matching for Turbulent Bubbly Flows

[+] Author and Article Information
Avinash Vaidheeswaran

School of Nuclear Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47906
e-mail: avaidhee@purdue.edu

Deoras Prabhudharwadkar

GE Global Research,
Bangalore 560066, India
e-mail: dprabhud@gmail.com

Paul Guilbert

ANSYS UK Ltd,
Abingdon OX14 4RW, Oxon, UK
e-mail: paul.guilbert@ansys.com

John R. Buchanan, Jr.

Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation,
Bettis Laboratory,
West Mifflin, PA 15122
e-mail: jack.buchanan@unnpp.gov

Martin Lopez de Bertodano

School of Nuclear Engineering,
Purdue University,
400 Central Drive,
West Lafayette, IN 47906
e-mail: bertodan@purdue.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 15, 2016; final manuscript received July 11, 2016; published online September 14, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Samuel Paolucci.

J. Fluids Eng 139(1), 011302 (Sep 14, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: FE-16-1170; doi: 10.1115/1.4034327 History: Received March 15, 2016; Revised July 11, 2016

A new two-fluid model averaging in the near-wall region is proposed to ensure consistent matching of the two-phase k–ε turbulence model with the two-phase logarithmic law of the wall (Marie J. L., Moursali, E., and Tran-Cong, S., 1997, “Similarity Law and Turbulence Intensity Profiles in a Bubbly Boundary Layer,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 23(2), pp. 227–247). The void fraction distribution obtained with the averaging procedure is seen to conform to the two-phase wall function approach which is based on a double step function void fraction distribution. In particular, the proposed averaging technique is shown to achieve grid convergence in the near-wall region, which could not be obtained otherwise. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results with the proposed technique are in good agreement with experiments on upward bubbly flows over a flat plate, and upward and downward flows in pipes. An additional advantage of the proposed technique is that it replaces the wall force model, which has a significant degree of uncertainty in turbulent flow modeling, with a simpler geometric constraint.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Convergence of (a) α2 and (b) u1 distributions with standard TFM—Nakoryakov et al. [24]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Computational domain and boundary conditions—Marie et al. [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Prediction of (a) α2 and (b) u1 with standard TFM—Marie et al. [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Computational domain and boundary conditions—Serizawa et al. [25]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Prediction of (a) α2 and (b) u1 with standard TFM—Serizawa et al. [25]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Double-step function approximation and (b) velocity profiles with modified scaling for different peak void fractions—Marie et al. [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Geometry of a spherical bubble in the near-wall region and (b) void fraction approximation for near-wall averaging using data—Marie et al. [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of averaged and reconstructed void fraction profiles—Nakoryakov et al. [24]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) Convergence of void fraction and (b) liquid velocity profiles with new near-wall averaged TFM—Nakoryakov et al. [24]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a) Convergence of void fraction and (b) liquid velocity profiles with new near-wall averaged TFM—Marie et al. [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

(a) Dimensionless velocity profile using standard scaling and (b) modified scaling with new near-wall averaged TFM—Marie et al. [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) Convergence of void fraction and (b) liquid velocity distributions for jg = 0.077 m/s and jf = 1.36 m/s with new near-wall averaged TFM—Serizawa et al. [25]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

(a) Convergence of void fraction liquid velocity and (b) distributions for jg = 0.086 m/s and jf = 1.72 m/s with new near-wall averaged TFM—Serizawa et al. [25]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

(a) Computational domain and boundary conditions and (b) comparison of α2 distributions for jg = 0.1 m/s and jf = 0.94 m/s—Wang et al. [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) Convergence of α2 and (b) u1 distributions for jg = 0.1 m/s and jf = 0.94 m/s—Wang et al. [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

(a) Convergence of α2 and (b) u1 distributions for jg = 0.1 m/s and jf = 0.71 m/s—Wang et al. [26]

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