# Why average volume fraction greater than 1? (attached files)

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

November 23, 2012, 02:55
Why average volume fraction greater than 1? (attached files)
#1
New Member

Titus Ofei
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 4
Hi all CFX users

I have encountered some CFX post results which seem to me unrealistic.
I am simulating two-phase flow (particles-liquid) through a horizontal concentric annular wellbore at steady state condition. I am using 'particle transport solids' as the morphology for the particle

The particles are injected into the annulus at a constant rate and random. I also considered both one-way and full coupling to model the transport of the particle.

I want to determine the concentration of particles in the annulus. So I created a plane and polyline at the axial center of the annular section. I used the polyline to create a chart of average cuttings(particle) concentration verses axial distance. The results are over unity (1) which is unrealistic. What could be the error here?

I have attached more plots to see how the particles are formed along the axial length of the wellbore.

Your contribution to this problem is welcome. Further information required will be made available.

Many thanks
Attached Images
 Avg cuttings concentration.jpg (43.0 KB, 37 views) axial section of contour_cuttings concentration.jpg (36.4 KB, 33 views) cross section of contour_cuttings concentration.jpg (38.3 KB, 30 views)

 November 23, 2012, 05:20 #2 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,662 Rep Power: 84 This is because you are using particle tracking in a regime it is not suited for, well at least not with the sub-models you are using. Particle tracking does not account for maximum packing and particle to particle interactions, so the volume fraction can go as high as it likes. Also note that lagrangian particle tracking is only good for low particle volume fractions - you obviously have high volume fractions so I would suggest the particle tracking model is not a suitable model for this application. You need to include a packing model to make it more realistic. I would forget about particle tracking and move to eularian particle tracking where there are a few models which can handle dense volume fractions and maximum particle packing. An alternate approach would be to couple with a DEM software which can handle the particle packing - but this would be additional software and all the fun and games of coupling software together. TitusOfei likes this.

November 23, 2012, 09:12
#3
New Member

Titus Ofei
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 4
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks This is because you are using particle tracking in a regime it is not suited for, well at least not with the sub-models you are using. Particle tracking does not account for maximum packing and particle to particle interactions, so the volume fraction can go as high as it likes. Also note that lagrangian particle tracking is only good for low particle volume fractions - you obviously have high volume fractions so I would suggest the particle tracking model is not a suitable model for this application. You need to include a packing model to make it more realistic. I would forget about particle tracking and move to eularian particle tracking where there are a few models which can handle dense volume fractions and maximum particle packing. An alternate approach would be to couple with a DEM software which can handle the particle packing - but this would be additional software and all the fun and games of coupling software together.
Hi Glenn, thanks for your quick response to my problem. Its very useful information.
I can understand from your reply that i need to go for Eulerian-particle tracking. My understanding from the manual (cfx_mod) is that, for Eulerian-particle model, the liquid phase should have a morphorlogy as continuous fluid while the solid phase as dispersed solid. Is it the same as you are suggesting?

This approach is seeking for the volume fraction of each phase at the inlet boundary condition. I'm quite in a dilemma since my aim is to determine the volume fraction of solids at the end of the simulation run.

A clear description of my problem: (drilling process): fluid (water) flows through the inlet of annular pipe at a constant rate and flows out. Cuttings (solids) are also injected at a constant rate through the inlet of the annular pipe and flows out. What is the concentration (volume fraction) of cuttings at the end of the simulation run. I'm considering steady state.

Once again, many thanks for your patience

Titus

November 25, 2012, 05:02
#4
Super Moderator

Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,662
Rep Power: 84
Quote:
 continuous fluid while the solid phase as dispersed solid. Is it the same as you are suggesting?
That appears suitable for your model.

Quote:
 This approach is seeking for the volume fraction of each phase at the inlet boundary condition.
This is just the same BC as what you applied in the particle trakcing model, only you are specifying it in a Eularian framework not a Lagrangian one. The Eularian model is not asking for anything new.

Based on your initial model the cuttings are much heavier than water and quickly fall out of the flow and form a bed on the bottom. Is the physically realistic?

November 25, 2012, 10:26
#5
New Member

Titus Ofei
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 4
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks That appears suitable for your model. This is just the same BC as what you applied in the particle trakcing model, only you are specifying it in a Eularian framework not a Lagrangian one. The Eularian model is not asking for anything new. Based on your initial model the cuttings are much heavier than water and quickly fall out of the flow and form a bed on the bottom. Is the physically realistic?
Thanks Glenn for your suggestion.

Yes, in my initial model the cuttings are much heavier than the water. This is physically realistic in drilling (oil and gas) operations. This model is a horizontal wellbore where the drilled cuttings settle to form a bed due to gravity effect as it travels from upstream(downhole) to downstream(surface).

I will try your suggestion and give you feedback.
Once again, many thanks for your time

Titus

 November 25, 2012, 17:37 #6 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,662 Rep Power: 84 In this case then things like scour, settling and packing are important. This will be a challenege in CFX.... Definitely try Eularian approaches, but you might need to move to a CFD code with an actual scour model. Flow3D has one, but am not sure how applicable it is to this model.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post sope111 CFX 11 July 15, 2012 08:20 Max585 FLUENT 1 March 20, 2012 08:49 umar959 Main CFD Forum 0 January 20, 2012 03:47 gopala OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 April 27, 2009 10:46 paean OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 November 14, 2008 22:14

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:34.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Top