Advertisement

Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 1239–1254 | Cite as

A Comparative Study of Mixed Resolved–Unresolved CFD-DEM and Unresolved CFD-DEM Methods for the Solution of Particle-Laden Liquid Flows

  • Sahan Trushad Wickramasooriya KuruneruEmail author
  • Ewen Marechal
  • Michael Deligant
  • Sofiane Khelladi
  • Florent Ravelet
  • Suvash Chandra Saha
  • Emilie Sauret
  • Yuantong Gu
Original Paper
  • 431 Downloads

Abstract

The exorbitant economic and environmental cost associated with fouling propels the need to develop advanced numerical methods to accurately decipher the underlying phenomena of fouling and multiphase fluid transport in jet-engine fuel systems. Clogging of jet-fuel systems results in the foulants to settle in seconds to form a porous layer which restricts fuel flow. The objective of this research is to numerically examine the transient evolution of particle-laden liquid flow and particle accumulation on an idealized jet-fuel filter. This is achieved by using two numerical approaches: coupled unresolved computational fluid dynamics-discrete element method (CFD-DEM), and coupled mixed resolved–unresolved CFD-DEM method. We assess the efficacy of both numerical methods by comparing the numerical results against experimental data. Results have shown that the particle accumulation and deposition profiles are in good agreement with the experimental results. Moreover, it is found that the particle distribution spread along the length and height of the channel reflects the actual particle spread as observed in the experiments. The unresolved CFD-DEM and mixed resolved–resolved CFD-DEM method could be harnessed to study complex multiphase fluid flow transport in various other applications such as compact heat exchangers and fluidized beds.

Keywords

Multiphase flow Particle-laden liquid flow CFD-DEM Brinkman penalization Fouling 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. The authors states there were no human participants or animals involved in this research project.

References

  1. 1.
    (1999) Petroleum project fact sheet fouling minimization. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy website: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f16/foulmitpet.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
  2. 2.
    (2010) European aviation safety agency certification specification for engines CS-E. Amendment 3 10. Retrieved from European Aviation Safety Agency website: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/CS-E_Amendment%203.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2018
  3. 3.
    Baena S, Lawson C, Lam J (2012) Cold fuel test rig to investigate ice accretion on different pump inlet filter-mesh screens. In: 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICASGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balay S, Abhyankar S, Adams MF, Brown J, Brune P, Buschelman K, Dalcin L, Eijkhout V, Gropp WD, Kaushik D, Knepley MG, McInnes LC, Rupp K, Smith BF, Zampini S, Zhang H, Zhang H (2017) PETSc web page. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc. Accessed 4 Aug 2016
  5. 5.
    Bayomy A, Saghir M, Yousefi T (2016) Electronic cooling using water flow in aluminum metal foam heat sink: Experimental and numerical approach. Int J Therm Sci 109:182–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caretto L, Gosman A, Patankar S, Spalding D (1972) Two calculation procedures for steady three-dimensional flows with recirculation. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on numerical methods in fluid mechanics, vol 19. pp 60–68Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cueto-Felgueroso L, Colominas I, Nogueira X, Navarrina F, Casteleiro M (2007) Finite volume solvers and moving least-squares approximations for the compressible Navier–Stokes equations on unstructured grids. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:4712–4736MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cundall PA, Strack OD (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29(1):47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Bellis F, LA C (2012) CFD optimization of an immersed particle heat exchanger. Appl Energy 97:841–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Felice R (1994) The voidage function for fluid-particle interaction systems. Int J Multiph Flow 20(1):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Du Plessis JP, Masliyah JH (1991) Flow through isotropic granular porous media. Transp Porous Media 6(3):207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ebrahimi M, Crapper M, Ooi JY (2016) Numerical and experimental study of horizontal pneumatic transportation of spherical and low-aspect-ratio cylindrical particles. Powder Technol 293:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elghobashi S (1994) On predicting particle-laden turbulent flows. Appl Sci Res 52(4):309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feng Y, Yu A (2010) Effect of bed thickness on the segregation behavior of particle mixtures in a gas fluidized bed. Ind Eng Chem Res 49(7):3459–3468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferziger JH, Peric M (2012) Computational methods for fluid dynamics. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geng Y, Che D (2011) An extended DEM-CFD model for char combustion in a bubbling fluidized bed combustor of inert sand. Chem Eng Sci 66(2):207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gidaspow D (1994) Multiphase flow and fluidization: continuum and kinetic theory descriptions. Academic Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldschmidt M, Beetstra R, Kuipers J (2004) Hydrodynamic modelling of dense gas-fluidised beds: comparison and validation of 3D discrete particle and continuum models. Powder Technol 142(1):23–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gu L, Min J, Wu X, Yang L (2017) Airside heat transfer and pressure loss characteristics of bare and finned tube heat exchangers used for aero engine cooling considering variable air properties. Int J Heat Mass Transf 108:1839–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jasak H (1996) Error analysis and estimation for the finite volume method with applications to fluid flows. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London Imperial CollegeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kloss C, Goniva C, Aichinger G, Pirker S (2009) Comprehensive DEM-DPM-CFD simulations-model synthesis, experimental validation and scalability. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on CFD in the minerals and process industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kloss C, Goniva C, Hager A, Amberger S, Pirker S (2012) Models, algorithms and validation for opensource DEM and CFD-DEM. Prog Comput Fluid Dyn Int J 12(2–3):140–152MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koch DL, Hill RJ (2001) Inertial effects in suspension and porous-media flows. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 33(1):619–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kubicki D, Lo S (2012) Slurry transport in a pipeline–comparison of CFD and DEM models. In: Ninth international conference on CFD in the minerals and process industries CSIRO, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuruneru S, Sauret E, Saha S, Gu Y (2016) Numerical investigation of the temporal evolution of particulate fouling in metal foams for air-cooled heat exchangers. Appl Energy 184:531–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuruneru S, Sauret E, Saha S, Gu Y (2017) A coupled finite volume and discrete element method to examine particulate foulant transport in metal foam heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf 115:43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuruneru S, Sauret E, Saha S, Gu Y (2018) Coupled CFD-DEM simulation of oscillatory particle-laden fluid flow through a porous metal foam heat exchanger: mitigation of particualte fouling. Chem Eng Sci 179:32–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li L, Li B, Liu Z (2017) Modeling of spout-fluidized beds and investigation of drag closures using OpenFOAM. Powder Technol 305:364–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu G, Yu F, Lu H, Wang S, Liao P, Hao Z (2016) CFD-DEM simulation of liquid–solid fluidized bed with dynamic restitution coefficient. Powder Technol 304:186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marchal E, Tomov P, Khelladi S, Bakir F (2014) A hybrid finite volume discrete elements for two-phase flows: application to snow showers in jet-engine fuel systems. In: IMA conference on mathematical modelling of fluid systems, 10–12 September 2014, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marechal E (2016) Etude du colmatage des systmes carburant de turboracteurs par des suspensions denses de particules de glace. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Nationale Suprieure d’Arts et MtiersGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marshall J (2009) Discrete-element modeling of particulate aerosol flows. J Comput Phys 228(5):1541–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mezhericher M, Brosh T, Levy A (2011) Modeling of particle pneumatic conveying using DEM and DPM methods. Part Sci Technol 29(2):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Müller-Steinhagen H, Malayeri M, Watkinson A (2009) Heat exchanger fouling: environmental impacts. Heat Transf Eng 30(10–11):773–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Müller-Steinhagen H, Malayeri M, Watkinson A (2011) Heat exchanger fouling: mitigation and cleaning strategies. Heat Transf Eng 32(3–4):189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Murray B, Broadley S, Morris G (2011) Supercooling of water droplets in jet aviation fuel. Fuel 90:433–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    OpenFOAM (2015) Relative tolerance openfoam userguide. http://www.openfoam.com/documentation/user-guide/fvSolution.php/. Accessed 22 July 2017
  38. 38.
    OpenFOAM (2016) Openfoam v4.1. https://openfoam.org/release/4-1/. Accessed 10 Dec 2016
  39. 39.
    OpenFOAM (2017) Openfoam v5 user guide: 4.5 solution and algorithm control. https://cfd.direct/openfoam/user-guide/fvsolution/. Accessed 15 July 2018
  40. 40.
    Pierre C, Bouyssier J, de Gournay F, Plouraboue F (2014) Numerical computation of 3D heat transfer in complex parallel heat exchangers using generalized graetz modes. J Comput Phys 268:84–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Piquet A, Roussel O, Hadjadj A (2016) A comparative study of Brinkman penalization and direct-forcing immersed boundary methods for compressible viscous flows. Comput Fluids 136:272–284MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Qian F, Huang N, Lu J, Han Y (2014) CFD-DEM simulation of the filtration performance for fibrous media based on the mimic structure. Comput Chem Eng 71:478–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ramgadia AG, Saha AK (2012) Fully developed flow and heat transfer characteristics in a wavy passage: effect of amplitude of waviness and reynolds number. Int J Heat Mass Transf 55(9):2494–2509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ramrez L, Nogueira X, Khelladi S, Chassaing J, Colominas I (2014) A new higher-order finite volume method based on moving least squares for the resolution of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations on unstructured grids. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 278:883901MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reid M (2013) Engine fuel system tolerance to fuel born ice. In: Managing water and ice in aviation fuel under low temperature conditions, Seminar proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rhie C, Chow W (1983) A numerical study of the turbulent flow past an isolated airfoil with trailing edge separation. AIAA J 21:1525–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sleight P, Carter R (2008) Report on the accident to boeing 777-236ER, G-YMMM at London Heathrow Airport on 17 January 2008. Retrieved from aviation and airspace policy website: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/1-2010-boeing-777-236er-g-ymmm-17-january-2008. Accessed 1 May 2016
  48. 48.
    Sturm M, Wirtz S, Scherer V, Denecke J (2010) Coupled DEM-CFD simulation of pneumatically conveyed granular media. Chem Eng Technol 33(7):1184–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tian Z, Tu J, Yeoh G (2007) Numerical modelling and validation of gas-particle flow in an in-line tube bank. Comput Chem Eng 31(9):1064–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tryggvason G (2010) Virtual motion of real particles. J Fluid Mech 650:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tsuji Y, Tanaka T, Ishida T (1992) Lagrangian numerical simulation of plug flow of cohesionless particles in a horizontal pipe. Powder Technol 71(3):239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tsuji Y, Kawaguchi T, Tanaka T (1993) Discrete particle simulation of two-dimensional fluidized bed. Powder Technol 77(1):79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wahyudi H, Chu K, Yu A (2016) 3D particle-scale modeling of gas-solids flow and heat transfer in fluidized beds with an immersed tube. Int J Heat Mass Transf 97:521–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang FL, He YL, Tong ZX, Tang SZ (2017) Real-time fouling characteristics of a typical heat exchanger used in the waste heat recovery systems. Int J Heat Mass Transf 104:774–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang S, Guo S, Gao J, Lan X, Dong Q, Li X (2012) Simulation of flow behavior of liquid and particles in a liquid–solid fluidized bed. Powder Technol 224:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Xiao H, Sun J (2011) Algorithms in a robust hybrid CFD-DEM solver for particle-laden flows. Commun Comput Phys 9(02):297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Xu J, Liu X, Pang M (2016) Numerical and experimental studies on transport properties of powder ejector based on double venturi effect. Vacuum 134:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yu A (2005) Powder processing models and simulations. In: Bassani F, Liedl GL, Wyder P (eds) Encyclopedia of condensed matter physics, vol 4, invited contributionGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhu H, Zhou Z, Yang R, Yu A (2007) Discrete particle simulation of particulate systems: theoretical developments. Chem Eng Sci 62(13):3378–3396CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sahan Trushad Wickramasooriya Kuruneru
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ewen Marechal
    • 3
  • Michael Deligant
    • 3
  • Sofiane Khelladi
    • 3
  • Florent Ravelet
    • 3
  • Suvash Chandra Saha
    • 2
  • Emilie Sauret
    • 1
  • Yuantong Gu
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Advanced Modelling and Simulation in Engineering and Science, School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical EngineeringQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of SydneyUltimoAustralia
  3. 3.Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Laboratoire de Dynamique des Fluides, DynFluid Lab - EA92ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations