- 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

Anisotropy characterization of turbulent fluidization

F. Dabbagh1,* and S. Schneiderbauer1,2,†

  • 1Christian Doppler Laboratory for Multiscale Modeling of Multiphase Processes, Johannes Kepler University, Altenbergerstraße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria
  • 2Department of Particulate Flow Modeling, Johannes Kepler University, Altenbergerstraße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria

  • *firas.dabbagh@jku.at
  • †simon.schneiderbauer@jku.at
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 094301 – Published 6 September, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.7.094301

Abstract

This work explores the turbulence anisotropy behavior of a fluidized gas-particle suspension obtained from highly resolved kinetic-theory-based two-fluid model simulations. Therein, the phase-filtered anisotropy Reynolds stress tensor is considered to classify the possible states of turbulence in the barycentric anisotropy invariants map. The temporal turbulence trajectories have revealed a nonlinear converging demarcation line that evolved differently on the gas and solid phases. It isolates the prolate-like cluster's turbulence from the oblate-like background strain on the solid phase, while on the gas phase, the trajectories turn from nearly three-dimensional (3-D) turbulence inside the clusters to 1-D turbulence in the transition regions (from dense to dilute), which then develops into 2-D turbulence in the dilute areas. The converged trajectories at the demarcation lines are found to move always toward isotropy, revealing the return-to-isotropy problem and the tendency to extinguish the bulk anisotropy. The prevalent turbulence type on the solid phase has indicated a 1-D turbulence preference, which is consistent with the reported cluster-induced turbulence in the literature. Moreover, the granular temperature as a quantitative measure of uncorrelated particle agitation is found to accumulate predominantly in 1-D turbulence (dominant solid divergence and strain) and moderately in 2-D turbulence (dominant solid convergence) at the upstream parts of clusters. Similar disclosure of turbulence types is adopted as well, for the variance of solid concentration, drag production, and the magnitudes of the gas-phase Reynolds stress and rate-of-strain tensors. They have demonstrated a similar preferential turbulence anisotropy, which in turn promotes the applicability of the eddy-viscosity approach for modeling the gas-phase Reynolds stress contributions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (64)

  1. K. Choi and J. Lumley, The return to isotropy of homogeneous turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 436, 59 (2001).
  2. S. Schneiderbauer and M. Saeedipour, The impact of interphase forces on the modulation of turbulence in multiphase flows, Acta Mech. Sin. 38, 721446 (2022).
  3. P. Gualtieri, F. Picano, G. Sardina, and C. M. Casciola, Clustering and turbulence modulation in particle-laden shear flows, J. Fluid Mech. 715, 134 (2013).
  4. J. Rotta, Statistische Theorie nichthomogener Turbulenz, Z. Phys. 129, 547 (1951).
  5. L. J. Lumley and G. R. Newman, The return to isotropy of homogeneous turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 82, 161 (1977).
  6. S. Banerjee, R. Krahl, F. Durst, and Ch. Zenger, Presentation of anisotropy properties of turbulence, invariants versus eigenvalue approaches, J. Turbul. 8, N32 (2007).
  7. J. L. Lumley, Computational modeling of turbulent flows, Adv. Appl. Mech. 18, 123 (1978).
  8. L. Terentiev, The turbulence closure model based on linear anisotropy invariant analysis, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Fakultät der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany, 2005.
  9. G. Emory and G. Iaccarino, Visualizing turbulence anisotropy in the spatial domain with componentality contours, Center for Turbulence Research, Annual Research Briefs, 2014, pp. 123–138.
  10. I. Stiperski, G. G. Katul, and M. Calaf, Universal Return-to-Isotropy of Inhomogeneous Atmospheric Boundary Layer Turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 194501 (2021).
  11. G. Iaccarino, A. A. Mishra, and S. Ghili, Eigenspace perturbations for uncertainty estimation of single-point turbulence closures, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 024605 (2017).
  12. A. A. Mishra and G. Iaccarino, Theoretical analysis of tensor perturbations for uncertainty quantification of Reynolds averaged and subgrid scale closures, Phys. Fluids 31, 075101 (2019).
  13. J. F. Heyse, A. A. Mishra, and G. Iaccarino, Estimating RANS model uncertainty using machine learning, J. Global Power Propulsion Soc. 1 (2021).
  14. K. Nobarani and S. E. Razavi, Deep learning to advance the eigenspace perturbation method for turbulence model uncertainty quantification, arXiv:2202.12378.
  15. M. Andersson and M. Karlsson, Characterization of anisotropic turbulence behavior in pulsatile blood flow, Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 20, 491 (2021).
  16. T. Ma, B. Ott, J. Fröhlich, and A. D. Bragg, Scale-dependent anisotropy, energy transfer, and intermittency in bubble-laden turbulent flows, J. Fluid Mech. 927, A16 (2021).
  17. C. K. K. Lun, S. B. Savage, D. J. Jeffrey, and N. Chepurniy, Kinetic theories for granular flow: Inelastic particles in Couette flow and slightly inelastic particles in a general flow field, J. Fluid Mech. 140, 223 (1984).
  18. D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization (Academic Press, San Diego, 1994).
  19. T. B. Anderson and R. Jackson, Fluid mechanical description of fluidized beds. Equations of motion, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 6, 527 (1967).
  20. K. Agrawal, P. N. Loezos, M. Syamlal, and S. Sundaresan, The role of meso-scale structures in rapid gas-solid flows, J. Fluid Mech. 445, 151 (2001).
  21. W. D. Fullmer and C. M. Hrenya, Quantitative assessment of fine-grid kinetic-theory-based predictions of mean-slip in unbounded fluidization, AIChE J. 62, 11 (2016).
  22. W. D. Fullmer, G. Liu, X. Yin, and C. M. Hrenya, Clustering instabilities in sedimenting fluid-solid systems: Critical assessment of kinetic-theory-based predictions using direct numerical simulation data, J. Fluid Mech. 823, 433 (2017).
  23. M. C. Baker, R. O. Fox, B. Kong, J. Capecelatro, and O. Desjardins, Reynolds-stress modeling of cluster-induced turbulence in particle-laden vertical channel flow, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 074304 (2020).
  24. R. O. Fox, On multiphase turbulence models for collisional fluid-particle flows, J. Fluid Mech. 742, 368 (2014).
  25. S. Beetham, R. O. Fox, and J. Capecelatro, Sparse identification of multiphase turbulence closures for coupled fluid-particle flows, J. Fluid Mech. 914, A11 (2021).
  26. A. Innocenti, R. O. Fox, and S. Chibbaro, A Lagrangian probability-density-function model for turbulent particle-laden channel flow in the dense regime, Phys. Fluids 33, 053308 (2021).
  27. A. M. Lattanzi, V. Tavanashad, S. Subramaniam, and J. Capecelatro, Stochastic model for the hydrodynamic force in Euler-Lagrange simulations of particle-laden flows, Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 014301 (2022).
  28. S. Rauchenzauner and S. Schneiderbauer, A dynamic multiphase turbulence model for coarse-grid simulations of fluidized gas-particle suspensions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 247, 117104 (2022).
  29. S. Schneiderbauer and M. Saeedipour, Sub-grid deconvolution approach for filtered two-fluid models and the application to fluidized gas-particle suspensions, in Turbulence and Interactions (Springer International, Berlin, 2021), pp. 183–188.
  30. S. Schneiderbauer and M. Saeedipour, Numerical simulation of turbulent gas-solid flow using an approximate deconvolution model, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 114, 287 (2019).
  31. S. Schneiderbauer, Validation study on spatially averaged two-fluid model for gas-solid flows: I. a priori analysis of wall bounded flows, AIChE J. 64, 1591 (2018).
  32. M. H. Uddin and C. J. Coronella, Effects of grid size on predictions of bed expansion in bubbling fluidized beds of Geldart B particles: A generalized rule for a grid-independent solution of TFM simulations, Particuology 34, 61 (2017).
  33. F. Dabbagh and S. Schneiderbauer, Small-scale flow topologies, pseudo-turbulence, and impact on filtered drag models in turbulent fluidization, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 074301 (2021).
  34. B. G. M. van Wachem, J. C. Schouten, C. M. van den Bleek, R. Krishna, and J. L. Sinclair, Comparative analysis of CFD models of dense gas-solid systems, AIChE J. 47, 1035 (2001).
  35. S. Schneiderbauer, A. Aigner, and S. Pirker, A comprehensive frictional-kinetic model for gas-particle flows: Analysis of fluidized and moving bed regimes, Chem. Eng. Sci. 80, 279 (2012).
  36. N. P. Waterson and H. Deconinck, Design principles for bounded higher-order convection schemes—a unified approach, J. Comput. Phys. 224, 182 (2007).
  37. Openfoam v5 user guide, Op (2018)en FOAM Foundation https://cfd.direct/openfoam/user-guide-v5/.
  38. J. Capecelatro, O. Desjardins, and R. O. Fox, On the transition between turbulence regimes in particle-laden channel flows, J. Fluid Mech. 845, 499 (2018).
  39. C. Y. Wen and Y. H. Yu, Mechanics of fluidization, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62, 100 (1966).
  40. Y. Igci, A. T. Andrews, S. Sundaresan, S. Pannala, and T. J. O'Brien, Filtered two-fluid models for fluidized gas-particle suspensions, AIChE J. 54, 1431 (2008).
  41. S. Radl and S. Sundaresan, A drag model for filtered Euler-Lagrange simulations of clustered gas-particle suspensions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 117, 416 (2014).
  42. M. Ishii, Thermo-Fluid Dynamic Theory of Two-Phase Flow, Collection de la Direction des Etudes et recherches d'Electricité de France (Eyrolles, Paris, 1975).
  43. U. Schumann, Realizability of Reynolds-stress turbulence models, Phys. Fluids 20, 721 (1977).
  44. G. Kindlmann, Superquadric tensor glyphs, in Proceedings of the 6th Joint Eurographics-IEEE TCVG Conference on Visualization (Eurographics Association, Konstanz, Germany, 2004), pp. 147–154.
  45. W. N. Edeling, G. Iaccarino, and P. Cinnella, Data-free and data-driven RANS predictions with quantified uncertainty, Flow, Turbul. Combust. 100, 593 (2018).
  46. J. Capecelatro, O. Desjardins, and R. O. Fox, On fluid-particle dynamics in fully developed cluster-induced turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 780, 578 (2015).
  47. W. D. Fullmer and C. M. Hrenya, Continuum prediction of scale-dependent, anisotropic fluctuating kinetic energy in gas-solid flows, Chem. Eng. Sci. 186, 84 (2018).
  48. A. Ferrante and S. Elghobashi, On the physical mechanisms of two-way coupling in particle-laden isotropic turbulence, Phys. Fluids 15, 315 (2003).
  49. S. B. Pope, Turbulent Flows (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).
  50. S. Sarkar and C. G. Speziale, A simple nonlinear model for the return to isotropy in turbulence, Phys. Fluids A: Fluid Dyn. 2, 84 (1990).
  51. S. Rauchenzauner and S. Schneiderbauer, A dynamic anisotropic spatially averaged two-fluid model for moderately dense gas-particle flows, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 126, 103237 (2020).
  52. J.-F. Parmentier, O. Simonin, and O. Delsart, A functional subgrid drift velocity model for filtered drag prediction in dense fluidized bed, AIChE J. 58, 1084 (2012).
  53. S. Schneiderbauer and M. Saeedipour, Approximate deconvolution model for the simulation of turbulent gas-solid flows: An a priori analysis, Phys. Fluids 30, 023301 (2018).
  54. A. Ozel, Y. Gu, C. C. Milioli, J. Kolehmainen, and S. Sundaresan, Towards filtered drag force model for non-cohesive and cohesive particle-gas flows, Phys. Fluids 29, 103308 (2017).
  55. M. Germano, Turbulence: The filtering approach, J. Fluid Mech. 238, 325 (1992).
  56. Y. Igci and S. Sundaresan, Verification of filtered two-fluid models for gas-particle flows in risers, AIChE J. 57, 2691 (2011).
  57. M. Mehrabadi, J. A. K. Horwitz, S. Subramaniam, and A. Mani, A direct comparison of particle-resolved and point-particle methods in decaying turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 850, 336 (2018).
  58. J. Capecelatro, O. Desjardins, and R. O. Fox, Numerical study of collisional particle dynamics in cluster-induced turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 747, R2 (2014).
  59. C. M. Hrenya and J. L. Sinclair, Effects of particle-phase turbulence in gas-solid flows, AIChE J. 43, 853 (1997).
  60. J. H. Cloete, S. Cloete, S. Radl, and S. Amini, On the choice of closure complexity in anisotropic drag closures for filtered two fluid models, Chem. Eng. Sci. 207, 379 (2019).
  61. A. Ozel, P. Fede, and O. Simonin, Development of filtered Euler-Euler two-phase model for circulating fluidised bed: High resolution simulation, formulation, and a priori analyses, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 55, 43 (2013).
  62. A. D. Burns, T. Frank, I. Hamill, and J. Shi, The Favre averaged drag model for turbulent dispersion in Eulerian multi-phase flows, in 5th International Conference on Multiphase Flow, ICMF'04 (Yokohama, Japan, May. Proceeding CD-ROM, 2004), paper No. 392, pp. 1–17.
  63. S. Schneiderbauer, A spatially-averaged two-fluid model for dense large-scale gas-solid flows, AIChE J. 63, 3544 (2017).
  64. K. Horiuti, Alignment of eigenvectors for strain rate and subgrid-scale stress tensors, in Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation IV (Springer, Berlin, 2001), pp. 67–72.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 094301– Published 6 September, 2022
  • Received 11 April 2022
  • Accepted 5 August 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2022 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation