Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T18:19:54.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the transition between turbulence regimes in particle-laden channel flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2018

Jesse Capecelatro*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Olivier Desjardins
Affiliation:
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-7501, USA
Rodney O. Fox
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, 618 Bissell Road, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1098, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: jcaps@umich.edu

Abstract

Turbulent wall-bounded flows exhibit a wide range of regimes with significant interaction between scales. The fluid dynamics associated with single-phase channel flows is predominantly characterized by the Reynolds number. Meanwhile, vastly different behaviour exists in particle-laden channel flows, even at a fixed Reynolds number. Vertical turbulent channel flows seeded with a low concentration of inertial particles are known to exhibit segregation in the particle distribution without significant modification to the underlying turbulent kinetic energy (TKE). At moderate (but still low) concentrations, enhancement or attenuation of fluid-phase TKE results from increased dissipation and wakes past individual particles. Recent studies have shown that denser suspensions significantly alter the two-phase dynamics, where the majority of TKE is generated by interphase coupling (i.e.  drag) between the carrier gas and clusters of particles that fall near the channel wall. In the present study, a series of simulations of vertical particle-laden channel flows with increasing mass loading is conducted to analyse the transition from the dilute limit where classical mean-shear production is primarily responsible for generating fluid-phase TKE to high-mass-loading suspensions dominated by drag production. Eulerian–Lagrangian simulations are performed for a wide range of particle loadings at two values of the Stokes number, and the corresponding two-phase energy balances are reported to identify the mechanisms responsible for the observed transition.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 
Figure 0

Table 1. Fluid–particle parameters used in the channel simulations. Reynolds numbers are defined as $Re_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}}=2U_{b}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}$, $Re_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=u_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}$ and $Re_{p}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}_{p}gd_{p}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}$. The Stokes numbers are defined as $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}_{p}U_{b}/(2\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF})$ and $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}_{p}u_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}$. $\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}_{c}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}_{w}$ are the Kolmogorov length scales at the centre and wall of the single-phase channel flow, respectively.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Instantaneous fields of fluid velocity magnitude in the $z$–$y$ plane (a–e) and $x$–$y$ plane (f–j) for $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=2.1$. Colour ranges from $|\boldsymbol{u}_{f}|/U_{b}=0.5$ (blue) to $|\boldsymbol{u}_{f}|/U_{b}=1.4$ (red). Black dots represent particle positions.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) Total energy based on the mixture density $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{f}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{p}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{p}$ normalized by the corresponding energy of the single-phase flow and (b) skin-friction coefficient as a function of mass loading. $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=0.21$ (○), $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=2.1$ (♢) and corresponding single-phase values (– –).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Mean two-phase statistics for $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=0.21$ (a,b) and $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=2.1$ (c,d) with $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=0.2$ ($\times$), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=1$ ($\ast$), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=2$ (○), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=4$ (▵), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=10$ (▫) and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=20$ (♢).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Two-phase energy profiles normalized by $U_{b}^{2}$ for $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=0.2$ showing $k_{f}$ (–), $k_{p}$ (– –) and $\langle \unicode[STIX]{x1D6E9}\rangle _{p}$ (– - – - –).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Two-phase energy profiles normalized by $U_{b}^{2}$ for $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=2.1$ showing $k_{f}$ (–), $k_{p}$ (– –) and $\langle \unicode[STIX]{x1D6E9}\rangle _{p}$ (– - – - –).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Energy spectra normalized by the corresponding streamwise fluid-phase velocity fluctuations versus normalized wavenumber $\unicode[STIX]{x1D705}d_{p}$. $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=0.21$ (a,b) and $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=2.1$ (c,d) at $y^{+}=50$ (a,c) and the centreline (b,d) with $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=0.2$ ($\times$), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=1$ (*), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=2$ (○), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=4$ (▵), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=10$ (▫) and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}=20$ (♢).

Figure 7

Figure 7. Fluid-phase TKE budget normalized by viscous scales $u_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}^{4}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}$ for $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=0.21$. Turbulent convection (– –), $-\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}$ (– - – - –), $\text{d}{\mathcal{E}}/\text{d}y$ ($\cdots \,$), ${\mathcal{P}}_{shear}$ (–), ${\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{P}}$ (–$\times$–) and ${\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{E}}$ (–$\ast$–).

Figure 8

Figure 8. Fluid-phase TKE budget normalized by viscous scales $u_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}^{4}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}$ for $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=2.1$. Turbulent convection (–), $-\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}$ (– - – - –), $\text{d}{\mathcal{E}}/\text{d}y$ ($\cdots$), ${\mathcal{P}}_{shear}$ (–), ${\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{P}}$ (–$\times$–) and ${\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{E}}$ (–$\ast$–).

Figure 9

Figure 9. (a) Channel-averaged dissipation based on the mixture density $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{f}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{p}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{p}$ normalized by viscous scales $u_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}^{4}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}$ for (a) $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=0.21$ and (b) $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=2.1$. $\overline{{\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{E}}}$ (○), $\overline{{\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{E}}_{p}}$ (♢), $-\overline{\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}}$ (▫), and $-\overline{\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}_{p}}$ (▵), $\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}$ (▿).

Figure 10

Figure 10. Fluid-phase TKE budget normalized by viscous scales $u_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}^{4}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}$ for $St_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}=2.1$ with linear Stokes drag (a,c,e) and the nonlinear drag correlation given by Tenneti et al. (2011) (b,d,f). Turbulent convection (– –), $-\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}$ (– - – - –), $\text{d}{\mathcal{E}}/\text{d}y$ ($\cdots$), ${\mathcal{P}}_{shear}$ (–), ${\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{P}}$ (–$\times$–) and ${\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{E}}$ (–$\ast$–).