Experimental and numerical study of fence effects on dust emission into atmosphere from open storage piles

  • S. Torno
  • J. Toraño
  • M. Menéndez
  • M. Gent
  • I. Álvarez
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The results obtained from the research on the behaviour of fences (solid and porous) in the protection against particulated material emission to the atmosphere from open storage piles, are presented. This research was carried out through computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation by software Ansys CFX-10.0 in 3D, with K-epsilon being considered in the turbulence model. The efficiency of the use of porous fences as a protection against the wind flow, which interacts with an open storage pile, is shown. The use of these fences (when porosity is ɛ=30%) allows the reduction of wind flow velocity which interacts with the pile in comparison with the case of no use of fences (when porosity is 100%). In addition, the use of porous fences makes the velocity vortex, which is formed between the solid fence (ɛ=0%) and the pile, disappear, reducing the particle emission to the atmosphere by 78%.

Key words

open storage pile air pollution particle emission wind erosion porous fence computational fluid dynamics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    ORAVISJÄRVI K, TIMONEN K L, WIIKINKOSKI T, RUUSKANEN A R, HEINANEN K, RUUSKANEN J. Source contributions to PM2,5 particles in the urban air of a town situated close to a steel works [J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2003, 37(8): 1013–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    PORT TRAFFIC STADISTICS [EB/OL]. http://www.puertos.es/en/estadisticas/index.html. 2008.
  3. [3]
    TORNO S. Dust emission in open storage piles [D]. Oviedo University, Ed. Ediuno, 2008: 1–382. (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    BILLMAN B J, ARYA S P S. Windbreak effectiveness for storage-pile fugitive dust control: A wind tunnel study, EPA/600/ S3-85/059 [R]. United Stated Environmental Protection Agency, Research and Development, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    TORNO S, TORAÑO J, DIEGO I, MENÉNDEZ M, GENT M, VELASCO J. CFD simulation with multiphase flows in porous media and open mineral storage pile [J]. WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences, 2009, 63: 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    BOLDES U, GOLDBERG A, DI LEO J M, COLMAN J, SCARABINO A. Canopy flow and aspects of the response of plants protected by herbaceous shelterbelts and wood fences [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2002, 90: 1253–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    TORAÑO J, TORNO S, MENÉNDEZ M, GENT M. Dust emission calculations in open storage piles protected by means of barriers, CFD and experimental tests [J]. Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 2009, 9: 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    DIEGO I, PELEGRY A, TORNO S, TORAÑO J, MENENDEZ M. Simultaneous CFD evaluation of wind flow and dust emission in open storage piles [J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2009, 33: 3197–3207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    WILSON J D. Numerical studies of flow through a windbreak [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1985, 21: 119–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    KIM H B, LEE S J. The structure of turbulent shear flow around a two-dimensional porous fence having a bottom gap [J]. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2002, 16(3): 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    LEE S J, LIM H C. A numerical study on flow around a triangular prism located behind a porous fence [J]. Fluid Dynamics Research, 2001, 28: 209–221.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    TORAÑO J, RODRÍGUEZ R, DIEGO I, RIVAS J M, PELEGRY A. Influence of the pile shape on wind erosion CFD emission simulation [J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2007, 31: 2487–2502.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    DIEGO I, TORAÑO J, TORNO S, GARCÍA B. Experimental tests and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of barriers installed around open storage piles of raw materials [J]. WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences, 2008, 59: 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    PERERA MDAES. Shelter behind two-dimensional solid and porous fence [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1981, 8: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    LEE S J, KIM H B. Laboratory measurements of velocity and turbulence field behind porous fences [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1999, 80: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    KIM H B, LEE S J. Hole diameter effect on flow characteristics of wake behind porous fences having the same porosity [J]. Fluid Dynamics Research, 2001, 28: 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    LEE S J, PARK K C, PARK C W. Wind tunnel observations about the shelter effect of porous fences on the sand particle movements [J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2002, 36: 1453–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    ANSYS Inc.. ANSYS CFX [EB/OL]. URL: http://www.ansys.com/products/cfx. 2008.
  19. [19]
    GOSMAN A D. Developments in CFD for industrial and environmental applications in wind engineering [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1999, 81: 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    STUNDER B, ARYA S. Windbreak effectiveness for storage pile fugitive dust control: A wind tunnel study [J]. Journal of Air Pollution Control Association, 1988, 38: 135–143.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    COLEMAN H W, STEELE W G. Experimentation and uncertainty analysis for engineers [M]. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    KIM H G, LEE C M, LIM H C, KYONG N H. An experimental and numerical study on the flow over two-dimensional hills [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1997, 66: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    ANSYS CFX-Solver [M]. Release 10.0: Theory. Flow in porous media, 2008: 65–67.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    TIWARY A, MORVAN H P, COLLS J J. Modelling the size-dependent collection efficiency of hedgerows for ambient aerosols [J]. Journal of Aerosol Science, 2005, 37: 990–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    ANSYS ICEMCFD 10.0 [M]. Tutorial Manual, Tetra Meshing, 2008: 309–310.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    WANG H, TAKLE E S. A numerical simulation of boundary-layer flows near shelterbelts [J]. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 1995, 75: 141–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    ARYA S P S, CAPUANO M E, FAGEN L C. Some fluid modeling studies of flow and dispersion over two-dimensional low hills [J]. Atmospheric Environment, 1987, 21: 753–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    ANSYS CFX-Solver [M]. Release 10.0: Particle Transport Theory Lagrangian Tracking Implementation, 2008: 174.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    US EPA, Update of Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors In AP-42 Section 11.2-Wind Erosion [R]. MRI No. 8985-K, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, 1988.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    MULESKI G E. Coal Yard Wind Erosion Measurement [R]. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Torno
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Toraño
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Menéndez
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Gent
    • 1
    • 2
  • I. Álvarez
    • 2
  1. 1.Mining and Civil Works Research GroupOviedo UniversityAsturiasSpain
  2. 2.School of MinesOviedo UniversityAsturiasSpain

Personalised recommendations