- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Particle-resolved simulations of shock-induced flow through particle clouds at different Reynolds numbers

Andreas Nygård Osnes1,2,*, Magnus Vartdal2,†, Marianne Gjestvold Omang3,4,‡, and Bjørn Anders Pettersson Reif1,§

  • 1Department of Technology Systems, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 70 Kjeller, NO-2027 Kjeller, Norway
  • 2Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, P.O. Box 25, NO-2027 Kjeller, Norway
  • 3Norwegian Defence Estates Agency, P.O. Box 405 Sentrum, NO-0103 Oslo, Norway
  • 4Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1029 Blindern, NO-0315 Oslo, Norway

  • *Andreas-Nygard.Osnes@ffi.no
  • †Magnus.Vartdal@ffi.no
  • ‡m.g.omang@astro.uio.no
  • §b.a.p.reif@its.uio.no
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 014305 – Published 27 January, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.5.014305

Abstract

This study investigates the Reynolds-number dependence of shock-induced flow through stationary particle clouds at 10% volume fraction, using ensemble-averaged results from three-dimensional particle-resolved large eddy simulations. The advantage of using large eddy simulations to study this problem is that they capture the strong velocity shears and flow separation caused by the no-slip condition at the particle surfaces. The shock particle cloud interaction produces a reflected shock wave, whose strength increases with decreasing particle Reynolds number. This results in important changes to the flow field that enters the particle cloud. The results show an approximate proportionality between the mean flow velocity and the flow fluctuation magnitudes. Maximum particle drag forces are in excellent agreement with previous inviscid studies, and we complement these results with statistics of time-averaged particle forces as well as the variation of temporal oscillations. The results of this work provide a basis for development of improved simplified dispersed flow models.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (53)

  1. E. J. Chang and K. Kailasanath, Shock wave interactions with particles and liquid fuel droplets, Shock Waves 12, 333 (2003).
  2. S. L. Davis, T. B. Dittmann, G. B. Jacobs, and W. S. Don, Dispersion of a cloud of particles by a moving shock: Effects of the shape, angle of rotation, and aspect ratio, J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 54, 900 (2013).
  3. Z. Ren, B. Wang, G. Xiang, D. Zhao, and L. Zheng, Supersonic spray combustion subject to scramjets: Progress and challenges, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 105, 40 (2018).
  4. F. Zhang, D. L. Frost, P. A. Thibault, and S. B. Murray, Explosive dispersal of solid particles, Shock Waves 10, 431 (2001).
  5. A. Chaudhuri, A. Hadjadj, O. Sadot, and G. Ben-Dor, Numerical study of shock-wave mitigation through matrices of solid obstacles, Shock Waves 23, 91 (2013).
  6. A. M. Milne, E. Floyd, A. W. Longbottom, and P. Taylor, Dynamic fragmentation of powders in spherical geometry, Shock Waves 24, 501 (2014).
  7. M. Sichel, C. W. Kauffman, and Y. C. Li, Transition from deflagration to detonation in layered dust explosions, Process Saf. Prog. 14, 257 (1995).
  8. K. Chojnicki, A. B. Clarke, and J. C. Phillips, A shock-tube investigation of the dynamics of gas-particle mixtures: Implications for explosive volcanic eruptions, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L15309 (2006).
  9. T. Inoue, R. Yamazaki, and S.-I. Inutsuka, Turbulence and magnetic field amplification in supernova remnants: Interactions between a strong shock wave and multiphase interstellar medium, Astrophys. J. 695, 825 (2009).
  10. D. W. Silvia, B. D. Smith, and J. M. Shull, Numerical simulations of supernova dust destruction. II. Metal-enriched ejecta knots, Astrophys. J. 748, 12 (2012).
  11. E. P. DeMauro, J. L. Wagner, S. J. Beresh, and P. A. Farias, Unsteady drag following shock wave impingement on a dense particle curtain measured using pulse-burst PIV, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 064301 (2017).
  12. T. G. Theofanous, V. Mitkin, and C.-H. Chang, The dynamics of dense particle clouds subjected to shock waves. Part 1. Experiments and scaling laws, J. Fluid Mech. 792, 658 (2016).
  13. J. L. Wagner, S. J. Beresh, S. P. Kearney, W. M. Trott, J. N. Castaneda, B. O. Pruett, and M. R. Baer, A multiphase shock tube for shock wave interactions with dense particle fields, Exp. Fluids 52, 1507 (2012).
  14. R. W. Houim and E. S. Oran, A multiphase model for compressible granular–gaseous flows: Formulation and initial tests, J. Fluid Mech. 789, 166 (2016).
  15. G. B. Jacobs, W. S. Don, and T. Dittmann, High-order resolution Eulerian–Lagrangian simulations of particle dispersion in the accelerated flow behind a moving shock, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 26, 37 (2012).
  16. Y. Ling, J. L. Wagner, S. J. Beresh, S. P. Kearney, and S. Balachandar, Interaction of a planar shock wave with a dense particle curtain: Modeling and experiments, Phys. Fluids 24, 113301 (2012).
  17. G. S. Shallcross and J. Capecelatro, A parametric study of particle-laden shock tubes using an Eulerian-Lagrangian framework, in Proceedings of AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 2018), p. 2080.
  18. Y. Sugiyama, H. Ando, K. Shimura, and A. Matsuo, Numerical investigation of the interaction between a shock wave and a particle cloud curtain using a CFD–DEM model, Shock Waves 29, 499 (2019).
  19. T. G. Theofanous and C.-H. Chang, The dynamics of dense particle clouds subjected to shock waves. Part 2. Modeling/numerical issues and the way forward, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 89, 177 (2017).
  20. M. G. Omang and J. K. Trulsen, Multi-phase shock simulations with smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), Shock Waves 24, 521 (2014).
  21. D. Lhuillier, C.-H. Chang, and T. G. Theofanous, On the quest for a hyperbolic effective-field model of disperse flows, J. Fluid Mech. 731, 184 (2013).
  22. Y. Mehta, T. L. Jackson, and S. Balachandar, Pseudo-turbulence in inviscid simulations of shock interacting with a bed of randomly distributed particles, Shock Waves 30, 49 (2020).
  23. Y. Mehta, C. Neal, K. Salari, T. L. Jackson, S. Balachandar, and S. Thakur, Propagation of a strong shock over a random bed of spherical particles, J. Fluid Mech. 839, 157 (2018).
  24. Y. Mehta, K. Salari, T. L. Jackson, and S. Balachandar, Effect of Mach number and volume fraction in air-shock interacting with a bed of randomly distributed spherical particles, Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 014303 (2019).
  25. J. D. Regele, J. Rabinovitch, T. Colonius, and G. Blanquart, Unsteady effects in dense, high speed, particle laden flows, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 61, 1 (2014).
  26. O. Sen, N. J. Gaul, S. Davis, K. K. Choi, G. Jacobs, and H. S. Udaykumar, Role of pseudo-turbulent stresses in shocked particle clouds and construction of surrogate models for closure, Shock Waves 28, 579 (2018).
  27. T. G. Theofanous, V. Mitkin, and C.-H. Chang, Shock dispersal of dilute particle clouds, J. Fluid Mech. 841, 732 (2018).
  28. P. Das, O. Sen, G. Jacobs, and H. S. Udaykumar, A sharp interface Cartesian grid method for viscous simulation of shocked particle-laden flows, Int. J. Comput. Fluid D 31, 269 (2017).
  29. Z. Hosseinzadeh-Nik, S. Subramaniam, and J. D. Regele, Investigation and quantification of flow unsteadiness in shock-particle cloud interaction, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 101, 186 (2018).
  30. H. Naiman and D. D. Knight, The effect of porosity on shock interaction with a rigid, porous barrier, Shock Waves 16, 321 (2007).
  31. A. N. Osnes, M. Vartdal, M. G. Omang, and B. A. P. Reif, Computational analysis of shock-induced flow through stationary particle clouds, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 114, 268 (2019).
  32. M. Vartdal and A. N. Osnes, Using particle-resolved LES to improve Eulerian-Lagrangian modeling of shock wave particle cloud interaction, in Proceedings of the Summer Program 2018 (Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford, CA, 2018), pp. 25–34.
  33. S. S. Tiwari, E. Pal, S. Bale, N. Minocha, A. W. Patwardhan, K. Nandakumar, and J. B. Joshi, Flow past a single stationary sphere, 2. Regime mapping and effect of external disturbances, Powder Technol., doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2019.04.032 (2019).
  34. H. Sakamoto and H. Haniu, A study on vortex shedding from spheres in a uniform flow, J. Fluids Eng. 112, 386 (1990).
  35. T. Nagata, T. Nonomura, S. Takahashi, Y. Mizuno, and K. Fukuda, Investigation on subsonic to supersonic flow around a sphere at low Reynolds number of between 50 and 300 by direct numerical simulation, Phys. Fluids 28, 056101 (2016).
  36. T. Nagata, T. Nonomura, S. Takahashi, Y. Mizuno, and K. Fukuda, Direct numerical simulation of flow past a sphere at a Reynolds number between 500 and 1000 in compressible flows, in Proceedings of AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 2018), p. 0381.
  37. V. M. Boiko, V. P. Kiselev, S. P. Kiselev, A. N. Papyrin, S. V. Poplavsky, and V. M. Fomin, Shock wave interaction with a cloud of particles, Shock Waves 7, 275 (1997).
  38. G. Emanuel and J. P. Jones, Compressible flow through a porous plate, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 11, 827 (1968).
  39. C. T. Crowe, J. D. Schwarzkopf, M. Sommerfeld, and Y. Tsuji, Multiphase Flows with Droplets and Particles (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2011).
  40. J. D. Schwarzkopf and J. A. Horwitz, BHR equations re-derived with immiscible particle effects, technical report, Los Alamos National Laboratory (2015).
  41. G. A. Brès, F. E. Ham, J. W. Nichols, and S. K. Lele, Unstructured large-eddy simulations of supersonic jets, AIAA J. 55, 1164 (2017).
  42. G. A. Bres, S. T. Bose, M. Emory, F. E. Ham, O. T. Schmidt, G. Rigas, and T. Colonius, Large-eddy simulations of co-annular turbulent jet using a Voronoi-based mesh generation framework, in Proceedings of AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 2018), p. 3302.
  43. M. Masquelet, J. Yan, A. Dord, G. Laskowski, L. Shunn, L. Jofre, and G. Iaccarino, Uncertainty quantification in large eddy simulations of a rich-dome aviation gas turbine, in ASME Turbo Expo 2017: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2017), pp. V04BT04A049–V04BT04A049.
  44. A. W. Vreman, An eddy-viscosity subgrid-scale model for turbulent shear flow: Algebraic theory and applications, Phys. Fluids 16, 3670 (2004).
  45. A. N. Osnes, M. Vartdal, M. G. Omang, and B. A. P. Reif, Numerical investigation of shock wave particle cloud interaction in cylindrical geometries, in Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Computational Mechanics MekIT'19, edited by B. Skallerud and H. I. Andersson (International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Barcelona, Spain, 2019).
  46. M. Sun, T. Saito, K. Takayama, and H. Tanno, Unsteady drag on a sphere by shock wave loading, Shock Waves 14, 3 (2005).
  47. I. Rodríguez, O. Lehmkuhl, R. Borrell, and A. Oliva, Flow dynamics in the turbulent wake of a sphere at sub-critical Reynolds numbers, Comput. Fluids 80, 233 (2013).
  48. G. Akiki, T. L. Jackson, and S. Balachandar, Pairwise interaction extended point-particle model for a random array of monodisperse spheres, J. Fluid Mech. 813, 882 (2017).
  49. R. Clift and W. H. Gauvin, Motion of particles in turbulent gas streams, in Proceedings of Chemchea (1970), pp. 14–28.
  50. E. Achenbach, The effects of surface roughness and tunnel blockage on the flow past spheres, J. Fluid Mech. 65, 113 (1974).
  51. T. Akutsu, Wall confinement effects for spheres in the Reynolds number range of 30–2000, PhD. thesis, University of British Columbia, 1977.
  52. S. Krishnan and A. Kaman, Effect of blockage ratio on drag and heat transfer from a centrally located sphere in pipe flow, Eng. Applicat. Computat. Fluid Mech. 4, 396 (2010).
  53. W. W. H. Yeung, On pressure invariance, wake width and drag prediction of a bluff body in confined flow, J. Fluid Mech. 622, 321 (2009).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 014305– Published 27 January, 2020
  • Received 21 June 2019
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2020 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation