CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > General Forums > Main CFD Forum

Particle -laden flow using LES-DEM in OpenFoam

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   May 7, 2021, 05:48
Default Particle -laden flow using LES-DEM in OpenFoam
  #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 4
atul1018 is on a distinguished road
Hello All


I am simulating a particle-laden flow (backward facing step), which is turbulent flow case. Particles are injected from inlet after certain time and fluid and particle velocity profiles are compared with the experimental data. The case is simulated using DPMFoam.



firstly, I used RANS (with dispersion model to get effect of turbulent fluctuations on particles) to resolve the fluid field, the resolved fluid fields are the used to predict the particle trajectories in the domain. The simulated fluid velocity profiles give excellent agreement with the data but particles dispersion is under-estimated, thus giving very different particle velocity profiles than that of observed in experiment.



As the RANS gives the mean fields and effect turbulent fluctuations are modeled by some dispersion models, which seems to under predict the dispersion. I decided to use LES in order to get fluid fields which 80-90 % resolved, thus no need to use any dispersion model.


When LES-DEM is performed, the fluid velocity profiles gives good agreement and particle velocity profile has improved than that of RANS-DEM. But still I get very less particles below the step (still particle dispersion is under-predicted. I am wondering what could be reason for that?


Any Expert comments?


Best Regards
Atul
atul1018 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 7, 2021, 14:13
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,061
Rep Power: 64
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
First, since you are simulating a backward facing step you should check if your flow velocity is correct. There are many database for such flow to compare the statistics.
If your solution is correct, you have to consider that a filtered velocity is not exactly what appears in an experiment. The particle can have some inertia and the real velocity is a DNS-like solution. Check better the condition of the experiment.
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2021, 04:02
Default
  #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 4
atul1018 is on a distinguished road
Hello FMDenaro


Thanks for your answer.



Quote:
First, since you are simulating a backward facing step you should check if your flow velocity is correct. There are many database for such flow to compare the statistics.
-the flow velocity profiles for fluid phase give really good agreement with the experimental data. I compared Umean and Urms, both seems to be giving good match with experiment. isn't it sufficient to say that I got correct solution for fluid phase?


Quote:
If your solution is correct, you have to consider that a filtered velocity is not exactly what appears in an experiment. The particle can have some inertia and the real velocity is a DNS-like solution. Check better the condition of the experiment.
-As said, I think my fluid solution is correct and I also understand that LES doesn't resolve/represent actual solution. But as I am resolving 80%-90% kinetic energy, I should get at least some particle below the step. The problem I face is that I get almost no particles below the step at measurement locations (till 1/3rd of domain), particles start to get disperse towards the outlet of the domain (in remaining 2/3rd of domain), which is opposite to observations in physical experiment. In the physical experiment the particles are fully dispersed till the reattachment location.


Am I doing anything wrong or missing something?
What do you suggest in order to get better dispersion of particles?


Best Regards
Atul
atul1018 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2021, 04:39
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,061
Rep Power: 64
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Many reasons could be possible I cannot say what happens.

From your description seems that the recirculation region is steady and isolated from the main flow. And that is wrong. You should provide the plot of the velocity profile at several stations.
Could you show also the experimental data?
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2021, 04:53
Default
  #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 4
atul1018 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
From your description seems that the recirculation region is steady and isolated from the main flow. And that is wrong. You should provide the plot of the velocity profile at several stations.
Could you show also the experimental data?
-no, the re-circulation region is not steady, I performed averaging in order to get mean values (UMean). I plot the velocity profiles (Umean) at several stations and you can see the flow gets reattached ~x/H=7 as observed in the experimental data.
-I am also attaching plot of the particle velocity profiles at several stations, you can see that particles below y/H <1 are almost zero before reattachment point (x/H=7), they start to get dispersed after this reattachment location.



Any idea, what could be the reason of it?


Best Regards
Atul
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg fluid.jpeg (25.4 KB, 15 views)
File Type: jpeg particle.jpeg (27.9 KB, 13 views)
atul1018 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2021, 05:07
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,061
Rep Power: 64
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by atul1018 View Post
-no, the re-circulation region is not steady, I performed averaging in order to get mean values (UMean). I plot the velocity profiles (Umean) at several stations and you can see the flow gets reattached ~x/H=7 as observed in the experimental data.
-I am also attaching plot of the particle velocity profiles at several stations, you can see that particles below y/H <1 are almost zero before reattachment point (x/H=7), they start to get dispersed after this reattachment location.



Any idea, what could be the reason of it?


Best Regards
Atul


That fact that the particles follow apparently only the mean velocity is strange.
How do you distribuite the particles at the inflow?
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2021, 05:17
Default
  #7
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 4
atul1018 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
How do you distribuite the particles at the inflow?
- I inject the particles from the inlet after some time has passed (e.g. total simulation is 1 sec, particles are injected @0.5sec till the end of simulation). The numbers of particles per second are calculated as 10% of fluid mass flow rate. The particles are defined by some diameter and density. the particles injected have uniform distribution @ inlet.
atul1018 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2021, 05:31
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,061
Rep Power: 64
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by atul1018 View Post
- I inject the particles from the inlet after some time has passed (e.g. total simulation is 1 sec, particles are injected @0.5sec till the end of simulation). The numbers of particles per second are calculated as 10% of fluid mass flow rate. The particles are defined by some diameter and density. the particles injected have uniform distribution @ inlet.



First, I suppose that you inject only after the flow is fully developed, that is after the numerical transient is ended.
Then, your particles have a mass and therefore some inertia, they do not follow the lagrangian trajectories.

Maybe the diameter and the density is larger than the experimental ones? That could justify that fact that they are not so subject to the fluctuations.
Of course, some bug in the code could be also a simple reason.
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2021, 05:42
Default
  #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 4
atul1018 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
First, I suppose that you inject only after the flow is fully developed, that is after the numerical transient is ended.
Then, your particles have a mass and therefore some inertia, they do not follow the lagrangian trajectories.
-I have also performed the RANS-DEM simulations where I have injected the particles from the beginning, but it doesn't really make any difference. I will perform the LES-DEM following your suggestion where particles are injected from the beginning of simulation.


Quote:
Maybe the diameter and the density is larger than the experimental ones? That could justify that fact that they are not so subject to the fluctuations.
Of course, some bug in the code could be also a simple reason.
-The description of particles are same as mentioned in the paper. These are copper particles (density 8800 kg/m3) having diameter 70 micrometer.
-I have tried almost everything in my knowledge but it seems the dispersion are under predicted in both LES-DEM and RANS-DEM (with dispersion model too). May be its the bug nut I am not sure.
atul1018 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2021, 07:10
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,061
Rep Power: 64
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by atul1018 View Post
-I have also performed the RANS-DEM simulations where I have injected the particles from the beginning, but it doesn't really make any difference. I will perform the LES-DEM following your suggestion where particles are injected from the beginning of simulation.



-The description of particles are same as mentioned in the paper. These are copper particles (density 8800 kg/m3) having diameter 70 micrometer.
-I have tried almost everything in my knowledge but it seems the dispersion are under predicted in both LES-DEM and RANS-DEM (with dispersion model too). May be its the bug nut I am not sure.



I suggest to do a check by performing first a simulation of a passive lagrangian tracer. If it works you can try increasing the density and diameter step-by-step
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2021, 04:30
Default
  #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 4
atul1018 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
I suggest to do a check by performing first a simulation of a passive lagrangian tracer. If it works you can try increasing the density and diameter step-by-step
-Since my aim is to assess the particle tracking solvers in OpenFOAM and verify the findings of physical experiment, I can't change density or diameter randomly. So changing any parameter randomly wont be representing the experiment which i intent to simulate.

-I wanted to know what could be the reason of particle not dispersing properly below the step as found in the physical experiment.


Best Regards
Atul
atul1018 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
dispersion model, dpmfoam, les, particle-laden flow, rans

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Frequently Asked Questions about Installing OpenFOAM wyldckat OpenFOAM Installation 2 December 8, 2021 00:18
Multiphase flow - incorrect velocity on inlet Mike_Tom CFX 6 September 29, 2016 01:27
Suggestion for a new sub-forum at OpenFOAM's Forum wyldckat Site Help, Feedback & Discussions 20 October 28, 2014 09:04
New OpenFOAM Forum Structure jola OpenFOAM 2 October 19, 2011 06:55
Different flow pattern between OpenFOAM and CFX AirS OpenFOAM 0 January 12, 2010 07:08


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:26.