0 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Rochdi Demagh

paper

- Hydro Static Forces
- A Brief Introduction to Turbulence
- Lecture 1= Introduction
- Verma S K 1970 04 Master
- 561
- 3943-16660-1-PB
- Paper 2013
- Intro to fm
- 1-s2.0-000925099500088M-main
- 0103
- JoV Thermal CS RG
- Prediction of Power-Law Fluid Flow through an Eccentric Annulus with Inner Cylinder in Rotation using k-ω Turbulence Model
- Chapter 8 SU13
- kasat2008
- fatique.pdf
- Exam
- SLUG FLOW TWO PHASE FLOW
- SPE-564-PA.pdf
- 7.5-02-07-03.9
- Fuchs 2004

Anda di halaman 1dari 14

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j m u l fl o w

A droplet transport model for channel and pipe ﬂow based on particle kinetic

theory and a stress–x turbulence model

Roar Skartlien *

Institute for Energy Technology, P.O. Box 40, N-2027 Kjeller, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A model for droplet transport in turbulent gas–liquid ﬂow in horizontal channels or pipes is developed.

Received 16 July 2008 We invoke the kinetic theory of Reeks and co-workers for inertial particles, and the Reynolds stress-x

Received in revised form 17 February 2009 model of Wilcox for the gas turbulence. We introduce a suitable turbulence boundary condition at the

Accepted 12 March 2009

gas–liquid interface. The full kinetic model is compared to experimental data using high density SF6

Available online 25 March 2009

gas and Exxsol oil, and the model gives a good prediction of the droplet distribution.

A simpliﬁed ‘‘ﬁrst order model” that adopts a diameter-averaged eddy diffusivity from the full turbu-

Keywords:

lence model, and that ignores the variation of the turbulence over the cross section, gives reasonable

Suspensions

Particle diffusivity

order of magnitude estimates of the droplet concentration proﬁles. There is, however, a clear tendency

Turbophoresis to overestimate the droplet concentration near the interface (and hence the axial droplet transport rate).

Particle continuum equations Furthermore, the classical single phase pipe ﬂow diffusivity ð0:075Ru Þ underestimates the averaged eddy

Kinetic theory diffusivity by a factor of about two (giving too small concentration and transport rate).

Droplet transport The strength of the full kinetic model is that it correctly predicts a droplet diffusivity that accounts for

the droplet inertia. This is important for the larger droplets close to the interface which contribute the

most to the axial droplet transport rate. Hence, a simple eddy diffusivity will not correctly predict the

droplet transport rate, since the droplet inertia is then ignored.

The droplet concentration in the upper half of the ﬂow volume is dominated by the smaller droplets,

and these are in contrast subject to the scalar eddy diffusivity. An elevated concentration close to the

upper wall may be accounted for by a double-vortex secondary ﬂow perpendicular to the axial mean

ﬂow.

Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

(R is the pipe radius, or the half-height of the gas volume when the

In pipelines or channels with stratiﬁed gas–liquid ﬂow, fre- thickness of the liquid layer is appreciable) is too low to provide a

quently encountered in the nuclear and oil/gas industries, en- sufﬁcient scale height of the total concentration proﬁle when the

trained droplets in the gas may constitute an important fraction friction velocity u is estimated from standard pipe ﬂow formulae

of the total liquid ﬂow rate. The goal in this paper is to construct from the given pressure drop. And second, the experimental con-

a model for droplet transport accounting for variations in the gas centration in the upper half of the ﬂow volume shows a plateau,

turbulence level and stress in the ﬂow cross section. of even an increase with height, for moderate mean gas velocities.

Previous work has shown that simple ‘‘ﬁrst order modelling” of This could not be modelled by a superposition of simple exponen-

the droplet concentration in stratiﬁed liquid/gas ﬂow, based on a tial proﬁles with droplet-size dependent scale heights. For larger

particulate suspension in homogeneous turbulence, will not give gas velocities where the concentration proﬁle is less steep (with

fully satisfactory results when compared to experimental data a ﬂow cross section height smaller than 10 exponential scale

(Skartlien, 2006). Such modelling consists of an exponential con- heights), such a concentration plateau was not found.

centration proﬁle for each droplet size, by assuming constant diffu- The concentration in the lower half of the gas volume will inﬂu-

sivity (homogeneous turbulence) throughout the ﬂow cross ence the axial transport of ﬂuid in the form of droplets, while the

section. The data examined in this work were those of Tayebi concentration of droplets in the upper half of the pipe is essential

et al. (2000), that covers the vertical diameter in a horizontal pipe. for the deposition of corrosion inhibitor and production chemicals

on the pipe wall. Glycol based corrosion inhibitor is often injected

in the water ﬂowing in the bottom of the pipeline and the most

* Tel.: +47 63 80 64 67; fax: +47 63 81 11 68. likely mechanism for obtaining vertical transport of the corrosion

E-mail address: roar.skartlien@ife.no inhibitor is turbulent diffusion of droplets.

0301-9322/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseﬂow.2009.03.009

604 R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616

First order modelling captures only approximately the two most rate x, in the gas volume. The dissipation rate per unit of turbulent

important effects – turbulent diffusion and gravity. Turbulent dif- kinetic energy, is given by the relation ¼ b kx, where b is a

fusion is providing the particle ‘‘lift”, which is balanced by gravity. constant. The Reynolds averaged momentum equation completes

This type of rough diffusion model has been used by several the model. We assume that the gas turbulence is unaffected by

authors (e.g., Paras and Karabelas, 1991) with reasonable success the droplets.

in ﬂow of relatively large gas ﬂow Reynolds numbers, even though We have not attempted to construct a complete wall-to-wall

some fundamental physical effects are ignored. The two most turbulence model, including the interface. A model for the gas

important (and well known) mechanisms that should be included turbulence only, then implies that we need input parameters

is the effect of inhomogeneous turbulence, and the inﬂuence of describing the interfacial stress and dissipation. We will tune these

particle inertia on the particle diffusivity. It is expected that inclu- parameters such that the model predicts the correct velocity pro-

sion of these effects will extend the applicability of the model. ﬁle and eddy viscosity. We have modiﬁed the code of Wilcox

Previous ‘‘higher order” Eulerian modelling efforts (e.g., Young (2006) to account for a fully turbulent interface (Biberg, 2005),

and Leeming, 1997) have accounted for turbulence inhomogeneity, while the treatment in the viscous sublayer near the wall is in its

but a common ingredient has been coarse approximations of the original form. We assume that the interface is fully turbulent,

particle diffusivity and turbophoretic drift induced by the gradient being controlled by the turbulence in either ﬂuid. The viscous sub-

in turbulence kinetic energy. The current work attempts to im- layer effect that would occur for a smooth or ﬂat interface is then

prove this situation by invoking the kinetic theory of Reeks not included in the model.

(1992) for particles (or droplets) in combination with a full The turbulence model is essentially a tri-diagonal matrix solver

Reynolds stress model for the gas. The kinetic theory automatically combined with iterations to solve the nonlinear set of equations.

provides the needed generalized particle diffusivity to account for The matrices are conditioned to obtain the necessary stability in

both small particles controlled by ﬂuid diffusivity, and larger par- the iteration process. The turbulence model equations are solved

ticles for which the ﬂuid diffusivity plays no role (Skartlien, 2007). through the viscous sublayer near the solid wall and down to the

In a general sense, the kinetic theory requires the full Reynolds gas–liquid interface. The model equations are given in the annex.

stress tensor of the carrier phase. In simple channel ﬂow geometry, The model constants have been developed for single phase channel

only the wall normal stress is needed. In the current approach, the ﬂow, and we adopt the same constants for the current application.

stress-x model of Wilcox (2006) is implemented to accompany the

kinetic theory. We will neglect two-way coupling between the 2.1. Considerations on channel ﬂow geometry

droplets and the gas turbulence for now, even though particles or

droplets in gas may dissipate or amplify the gas turbulence The experimental work of Williams et al. (1996) demonstrates

depending on the droplet size (e.g., Crowe, 2000; Drazen and that the droplet concentration in the gas volume displays a strong

Jensen, 2007). inﬂuence of gravity for moderate gas velocities. In this regime, grav-

For stratiﬁed air/water ﬂow in horizontal pipes, Williams et al. ity and turbulent diffusion play an equally important role, and the

(1996) found that the cross sectional droplet concentration may cross sectional density contours in the pipe are roughly parallel to

deviate from a horizontally stratiﬁed proﬁle with monotonically the gas/liquid interface. In this case one can justify the use of 1D

decreasing concentration with height. This ‘‘deviatoric behavior” models describing the cross sectional variation of the concentration

was also found in the data by Tayebi et al. (2000), as noted above, proﬁle along the vertical pipe diameter. We will therefore adopt a 1D

noting that the gas velocities were smaller and the gas density lar- modeling approach in this work, which will provide the concentra-

ger in the Tayebi data. To explain these anomalies in the droplet tion proﬁle along the vertical diameter of the pipe.

concentration proﬁle, two hypotheses have been suggested by The 1D model consists of a stratiﬁed, fully developed, statisti-

many authors: (1) Reynolds stress driven secondary ﬂows in the cally stationary droplet laden ﬂow in a horizontal channel bounded

pipe cross section generate sufﬁcient cross sectional transport of by upper and lower walls that are parallel to the mean ﬂow.

droplets (Speziale, 1982, Williams et al., 1996), or (2) turbulence Gravity acts in the vertical direction ðyÞ perpendicular to the

inhomogeneity modulates the distribution of droplets due to tur- boundaries. For the ﬂuid, we use ½u; v ; w for the ﬂuctuating veloc-

bophoresis (Reeks, 1992). We will address both of these hypothe- ity components, and ½U; V; W for the Reynolds averaged compo-

ses in the current work. nents, where the components refer to the streamwise ðxÞ, wall

In the following, we discuss the model equations and their normal ðyÞ and spanwise (z) components, respectively.

boundary conditions, and compare the model results to experi-

ments. The turbulence model is described in Section 2. A brief 2.2. The momentum equation

overview of the particle kinetic model is given in Section 3. Section

4 describes the calculation of concentration proﬁles. In Section 5 For fully developed channel ﬂow, the Reynolds averaged

we compare the results to the experimental data of Tayebi et al. momentum equation is

(2000). These experiments were done in a horizontal pipe of inner

ox P þ oy ðloy U sxy Þ ¼ 0; ð1Þ

diameter of 9.95 cm containing Exxsol-D80 oil and dense SF6 gas.

The gas density and velocity represents ﬁeld conditions. The dis- where loy U sxy is the total shear stress, sxy ¼ qg uv ; l ¼ qg m and

cussion and conclusions are given in Section 6. Additional details the axial pressure gradient ox P is constant. Wilcox invokes the Bous-

are available in an Electronic annex available from the journal sinesq approximation at this stage relating the mean velocity to the

web page. These sections are referred to as the ‘‘annex” in the Reynolds stress via the eddy viscosity,

following text.

sxy ¼ qg uv ’ lT oy U; ð2Þ

2. Wilcox’ turbulence model modiﬁed for an interfacial sional form (wall units)

boundary condition

y

ð1 þ lþT Þoyþ U þ ¼ 1 ðR þ 1Þ : ð3Þ

We have adopted Wilcox’ incompressible 1D channel ﬂow code h

(Wilcox, 2006), solving for the full Reynolds stresses, the mean One can relate the height ym of maximum velocity ðoy U ¼ 0Þ, to

velocity, the turbulent kinetic energy k, and the speciﬁc dissipation R ¼ si =sw , via 1 ðR þ 1Þym =h ¼ 0. Here, sw ¼ qg ðu Þ2 is the wall

R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616 605

shear stress, and u is the wall friction velocity. We will adjust R so þ qg ki ak

ki ¼ ¼ R pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ; ð11Þ

that the position of the modelled velocity maximum matches the sw cl

measured maximum.

where R ¼ si =sw .

2.3. Input parameters to the turbulence model For the Reynolds stress equations that govern the deviatoric

normal stresses, we ﬁnd that Neumann interfacial boundary condi-

The required parameters are the frictional Reynolds number tions are best suited. Here, the derivatives of ri ¼ ui ui 2=3k are

Res ¼ hu =m, shear stress ratio R ¼ si =sw , and the boundary value set to zero,

of the speciﬁc dissipation xi . In fact, h; R and xi would be output

parameters from a complete wall-to-wall turbulence model that oy ri ¼ 0 ð12Þ

includes the interface. such that the normal stress derivatives will be ð2=3Þoy k. This

The shear stress ratio R and xi are tuned to match the measured approach ensures a smooth transition from the bulk ﬂow to the

axial velocity proﬁle UðyÞ. We adjust R so that the height ym at interface. In contrast, setting ﬁxed values at the interface (Dirichlet

which U is maximum, coincides with the measured height. The conditions) by the ad hoc assumption of isotropy in which the

interfacial value xi is then adjusted to match the velocity proﬁle normal stresses are set to 2=3k, yield large and possibly unrealistic

near the interface. This latter tuning does not inﬂuence the velocity gradients near the interface. However, the performance of the

proﬁle in the upper half of the ﬂow volume very much. Neumann condition remains to be tested by comparison to experi-

The wall friction velocity is calculated from the given axial pres- mental stress values. These are not available in the current data set.

sure gradient. For fully turbulent Poiseuille type channel ﬂow of Finally, we note that the interfacial boundary value of the spe-

height h, the pressure gradient and the boundary shear stresses ciﬁc dissipation is, in wall units,

are related by

ak

hjox Pj ¼ si þ sw ; ð4Þ xþi ¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ; ð13Þ

bx j cl Res

when the shear stress variation over the thin viscous sublayer where j is von Kármáns constant, and bx is a free parameter. The

against the wall is ignored (recall that the total shear stress varies

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ corresponding eddy viscosity is (Biberg, 2005)

linearly). With the wall friction velocity u sw =q,

þ

ki

hjox Pj mþT i ¼ ¼ Res bx jR: ð14Þ

¼ R þ 1: ð5Þ xþi

qðu Þ2

For given h and axial pressure gradient ox P, the wall friction velocity Tuning xi via bx corresponds to an adjustment of the boundary

is given by eddy viscosity which in turn inﬂuences the velocity proﬁle near

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ the interface.

hjox Pj

u ¼ : ð6Þ

ðR þ 1Þq 3. Reeks’ particle kinetic model

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ﬃ We will adopt the kinetic theory of Reeks (1992) for a dilute

vertical centerline. The interfacial friction velocity ui si =q is particle suspension in turbulent gas ﬂow. The current version of

then found by the relation the theory is suitable for describing the transport properties of

pﬃﬃﬃ

ui ¼ Ru : ð7Þ particles or droplets in a lighter surrounding ﬂuid, with both light

ðSt 1Þ and heavy particles ðSt 1Þ as deﬁned by their Stokes

This value is used for the characteristic velocity that controls the number ðStÞ in terms of the ratio between particle frictional relax-

entrainment rate of droplets from the large scale interface. These ation time to turbulence integral timescale seen from the particles.

entrainment relations are given in the annex (Binder and Hanratty, Skartlien (2007b) ﬁnds that the correspondence is very good in

1992; Guha, 1997; McCoy and Hanratty, 1977; Tatterson, 1975). both Stokes number regimes, conﬁrming the general validity of

the theory.

2.4. Interfacial boundary conditions for normal stress and k It is assumed (1) that the particle Reynolds number is sufﬁ-

ciently low such that only a linear drag-force in the particle equa-

Following Newton and Behnia (2001), the turbulent kinetic tion of motion needs to be retained. In this case, one is able to

energy ki at a fully turbulent interface is given in terms of interfa- separate the turbulent driving force on the particles from the fric-

cial shear stress si ¼ ðsxy Þi , tion force. For non-linear drag, separation can be obtained by per-

si forming a linearization procedure such that the drag coefﬁcient

ki ¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ; ð8Þ becomes a function of the relative mean velocity between the par-

qg c l

ticles and the ﬂuid (e.g., Reeks, 1992). One also has to neglect lift

where cl ¼ 0:09. Berthelsen and Ytrehus (2005) and Durbin et al. forces due to local vorticity in the carrier ﬂuid, but the lift contribu-

(2001) incorporate a roughness parameter Rs to account for the tion from the mean shear can be retained in the form of non-diag-

transition from a smooth to a rough surface, onal components of a drag tensor. Furthermore, (2) inter-particle

si collisions or interactions are neglected. These two assumptions

ki ¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ a ; ð9Þ are necessary to invoke the current form of the kinetic theory of

qg c l k

Reeks. The basics of the theory are outlined in the annex.

where

3.1. Momentum and stress equations

ak ¼ min½1; ðRþs =90Þ2 : ð10Þ

In this section we will ignore the inﬂuence from secondary

The roughness scale Rþ s is given in wall units. For a fully turbulent

ﬂows and set the mean ﬂuid velocity and mean particle velocity

interface deﬁned by Rþ þ

s > 90; ak ¼ 1. A speciﬁcation of Rs is then

in the cross section to zero. Later, we will discuss the effects of a

only necessary if the interface is not considered to be fully turbulent

secondary gas ﬂow. For the ﬂuctuating particle velocity compo-

(e.g., via the RMS height of a wavy interface). In wall units,

606 R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616

nents we use the notation ½up ; v p ; wp , and ½U p ; V p ; W p for the We further adopt the ‘‘passive scalar approximation – PSA”

ensemble averaged velocities. The components of the momentum (Skartlien, 2007) for the dispersion vector component c

y ,

equation as derived from kinetic theory become

cy ¼ oy kyy : ð24Þ

oy qv p v p þ qg e ¼ oy kyy q c y q; ð15Þ

This approximation assures the correct behavior for the momentum

oy qv p up þ qbðU p UÞ ¼ oy kyx q c x q;

equation in incompressible ﬂow in the limit of small particle Stokes

oy qv p wp ¼ oy kyz q c z q; number.

3.3. Turbulence correlation time seen from particles

while the normal components of the stress equation become

One can show that the wall normal particle diffusivity limits to

oy qv p v p v p þ 2bqv p v p ¼ 2ql yy ; ð16Þ

oy qup up v p þ 2bqup up ¼ 2qlxx 2qTxy oy U p ;

ðyy Þh ¼ hvv is; ð25Þ

oy qwp wp v p þ 2bqwp wp ¼ 2ql zz :

when transport of kinetic stress can be ignored, and when the

The particle dispersion tensors k; l

and c all depend on the ﬂuid locally homogeneous form of the dispersion tensor kyy is invoked.

Reynolds stresses, and in particular on the normal stress hvv i in This limit is then appropriate for the smaller particles where the

the current channel ﬂow setting (as we shall see below). The k ten- eddy diffusivity is the relevant diffusivity. If we assume a Schmidt

sor introduces particle diffusion, l

acts as a stress source, and c

in- number of unity, the eddy diffusivity is equal to the eddy viscosity

duces a momentum source. The axial stress equation has an (i.e., the momentum diffusivity). Consistency between the eddy dif-

additional source due to the mean shear oy U p . For further informa- fusivity and the particle diffusivity for vanishing relaxation time

tion on the kinetic theory, see the annex and Hyland et al. (1999), (passive tracer particles adjust to the ﬂow instantaneously), then

Swailes et al. (1998) and Reeks (2001, 2005). implies the following correlation time

3.4. Concentration proﬁle and particle diffusivity

The dispersion coefﬁcients can be written (e.g., Reeks, 1992),

kyy ¼ hy f 0 i;

p y ð17Þ With given dispersion tensor component kyy , drift coefﬁcient c

y ,

and normal stress v p v p , the formal solution of (15) in terms of par-

l yy ¼ hv 0

p fy i; ð18Þ

ticle density (or concentration) is

where the wall normal force is fy0 ¼ v =sp . To evaluate these coefﬁ- Z y

yy ð0Þ ge þ cy ðfÞ

cients, we invoke Green’s function of the EOM to express the posi- qðyÞ ¼ qð0Þ exp sp df ; ð27Þ

yy ðyÞ 0 yy ðfÞ

tion yp and velocity v p in terms of fy0 . This results in the evaluation of

the auto-correlation function where yy is the wall normal component of the particle diffusivity

tensor.

C yy ðx; xp Þ ¼ hfy0 ðx; tÞfy0 ðxp ðsÞ; sÞi; ð19Þ

The particle diffusivity follows directly from the basic assump-

where xp ðsÞ is the particle position ½xp ; yp ; zp at time s 6 t, and tions of (1) a simpliﬁed EOM with (2) a Gaussian turbulence force.

x ¼ xp ðtÞ is a chosen evaluation point in the medium, through The diffusivity has two contributions: a wall normal stress contri-

which the particle passes at time t. Thus, the ensemble average bution sp v p v p and a contribution due to the direct forcing by the

(over all turbulence realizations) is referred to a ﬁxed evaluation carrier ﬂuid turbulence, sp kyy ,

point x and a stochastic point xp ðsÞ.

We now apply the locally homogeneous approximation. This yy ðyÞ ¼ sp v p v p þ kyy : ð28Þ

means that we treat the turbulence ðfy0 Þ as if it were homogeneous,

Both contributions are mainly controlled by the ﬂuid normal

but at the local values. Such an approximation gives reasonable

stress hvv i in the current channel ﬂow setting (with v p v p driven

results for a wide range of Stokes numbers (Skartlien, 2007). In

by l yy ). The normal stress contribution sp ðv p v p Þ dominates for

homogeneous turbulence, the following essential simpliﬁcation

the larger Stokes numbers, while for smaller Stokes numbers,

can be made: The two-point force correlations can be expressed in

the term sp kyy dominates. In the limit of vanishing relaxation

terms of a time dependent exponential decay of the local single-point

time, sp kyy converges to the passive scalar diffusivity. It is then

correlations (e.g., Reeks, 1992). This gives

clear that a particle diffusivity approximation based on a passive

ðt sÞ scalar diffusivity only will fail for larger Stokes numbers. In most

C yy ’ hfy0 ðx; tÞfy0 ðx; tÞi exp ; ð20Þ

s previous modelling efforts, however, the particle diffusivity is

usually set equal to the eddy viscosity of the ﬂuid (which is equal

where the characteristic correlation time is s. The dispersion com-

to the passive scalar diffusivity for a Schmidt number of unity).

ponents are now given by the explicit form

One would assume that this is a potentially valid approximation

2 for low Stokes numbers (small droplets).1

kyy ¼ hvv i ðs=sp Þ ; ð21Þ

1 þ s=sp For the special case of homogeneous turbulence, yy reduces to a

constant and c y ¼ 0, such that an exponential proﬁle is recovered,

kyy

l yy ¼ ; ð22Þ

s sp g e

qðyÞ ¼ qð0Þ exp y :

where hvv i is the wall normal stress of the carrier ﬂuid. For station- yy

ary ﬂow, the Reynolds time average vv is equivalent to the ensem-

ble average, 1

Skartlien (2007) evaluates kyy directly from particle tracking simulations, and

ﬁnds that the eddy viscosity of the ﬂuid is only a coarse approximation to the particle

vv ¼ hvv i for stationary flow; ð23Þ

diffusivity, even for the low Stokes number regime. This reﬂects the well known fact

that a diffusivity deﬁned in terms of a gradient diffusion ﬂux is generally a non-local

such that the Reynolds averages from the turbulence model can be quantity in inhomogeneous media (inhomogeneous turbulence) through the path-

used as to calculate the dispersion tensor components above. history of the particles.

R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616 607

Although widely used as a ﬁrst approximation, we note that the expo- 4. Calculation of the total concentration proﬁle

nential proﬁle is not strictly applicable in wall bounded ﬂow, where

turbulence is always inhomogeneous. We will see in the following 4.1. Integration over the size distribution

that accounting for inhomogeneous turbulence can give signiﬁcant

improvements compared to a homogeneous approximation. This The turbulence model equations are solved ﬁrst, and the output

approach involves the simultaneous solution of the momentum is then given as input to the kinetic model for the droplets. The

equation (15) and stress equation (16), which is relatively particle equations are solved for each droplet size, and the full con-

straightforward. centration proﬁle is obtained by integration over the size bins. This

approach is valid when coalescence, breakup and turbulence mod-

3.5. Boundary conditions, numerical solution and input parameters iﬁcation in the bulk ﬂow can be ignored.

The total density proﬁle is obtained by summing over all the

The density (or concentration) boundary condition qð0Þ for the density bins,

concentration proﬁle (27) may be determined from the empirical X

entrainment and deposition relations as described in the annex. qðyÞ ¼ qi ð0Þci ðyÞ; ð35Þ

The relaxation time is sp ¼ V T =g which we deﬁne in terms of the i

where ci ðyÞ is the concentration proﬁle normalized to the value at

velocity is calculated according to the annex (Rivkind and Ryskin,

y ¼ 0. These concentration proﬁles (for droplets with diameter di )

1976). The turbulence normal stress hvv i and timescale s is pro-

are obtained from the kinetic theory with the turbulence model

vided from the Reynolds stress model.

input. The corresponding boundary densities qi ð0Þ are determined

In order to close the stress equation (16), we apply the

from the Rosin–Rammler distribution, and the total boundary den-

Chapman–Enskog relation (e.g., Sergeev et al., 2002; Zaichik and

sity. See annex for the determination of droplet diameters, relaxa-

Alichenkov, 2005),

tion time and boundary density, respectively.

v p v p v p ’ yy oy v p v p : ð29Þ

This closure relation for the triple correlation truncates the formally 4.2. First order modelling

inﬁnite set of equations to second order. Combining (15) and (16)

with the Chapman–Enskog relation, gives a single equation for We will compare the concentration proﬁles to those generated

v p v p , in the form of the non-linear second order equation by ﬁrst order modelling. For ﬁrst order modelling, each size bin is

associated with their own scale height Hi giving a proﬁle

ge þ c

y yy 2

b2 v p v p þ oy v p v p o v p v p ¼ bl

yy : ð30Þ qi ðyÞ ¼ qi ð0Þ expðy=Hi Þ. The total density proﬁle is now

2 2sp y X

The two required boundary conditions may be chosen as the end-

qðyÞ ¼ qi ð0Þ expðy=Hi Þ: ð36Þ

i

point values of the normal stress (Dirichlet conditions). We have

not considered Neumann conditions yet. A solution can be obtained The scale height for bin i is

by linearization and Newton–Raphson iteration. The linearized dif-

ferential equation corresponds to a tri-diagonal matrix equation Hi ¼ ð37Þ

ðV T Þi

which is easy to implement numerically.

The stress boundary conditions are deﬁned by adopting the lo- and ðV T Þi is the terminal velocity of the droplet with diameter di

cal form of the stress equation, which will result if the transport of (Ueda, 1979; Yoon, 2005, see annex). Here, is a characteristic dif-

kinetic stress is set to zero, fusivity that is assumed to be independent of droplet size,

2bqv p v p ¼ 2qlyy : ð31Þ ¼ fðh=2Þueff ; ð38Þ

This translates to where f ¼ 0:075 is the non-dimensional scalar diffusivity in the

s=sp core regions of single phase pipe ﬂow. This estimate may be reason-

v p v p ¼ sp lyy ¼ hvv i : ð32Þ

1 þ s=sp able for the smaller droplets that follow the ﬂuid closely, but not for

the larger droplets due to inertial effects that give appreciable

This relation provides a reasonable limiting behavior; for large Stokes

velocity differences between the ﬂuid and the droplets.

number (heavy particles) the boundary kinetic stress will be much

To match the characteristic diffusivity in the current in two-

smaller than the ﬂuid stress, and for vanishing Stokes number, the

phase ﬂow, we deﬁne an effective friction velocity ueff . The ﬁrst

particle stress will be equal to the ﬂuid stress. The last assumption

choice is the average between wall and interface values,

is accurate while the former assumption may be questionable. We

ﬁnd that for the larger droplets, a moderate ampliﬁcation of the esti- ueff ¼ ðui þ u Þ=2: ð39Þ

mated stress provides a better match to the experimental concentra-

A more representative approach for wall-interface conﬁgurations is

tion proﬁle near the interface. We will therefore use the form

to simply adopt the average value of the eddy viscosity from the

s=sp Wilcox model,

v p v p ¼ hvv i f ðs=sp Þ; ð33Þ

1 þ s=sp Z h

1

where the ‘‘ampliﬁcation factor” ^ ¼ mT ðyÞ dy fðh=2Þu^eff : ð40Þ

h 0

a

f ðs=sp Þ ¼ 1 þ ð34Þ We will test both of these estimates below.

1 þ s=sp

is designed such that f ! 1 for small droplets and f ! 1 þ a for hea- 5. Comparison to pipe ﬂow experiments

vier droplets. To obtain a reasonable match to the data for all cases,

we found that a ¼ 1=2 gave good results. This gives a factor 3/2 lar- 5.1. Flow parameters

ger value of the normal stress for heavy droplets ðs=sp ! 0Þ. For the

upper boundary, we set f ¼ 1 since only the smaller droplets will be The experiments were carried out using an iso-kinetic probe, as

present here. described in detail by Tayebi et al. (2000). We use four test cases

608 R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616

Table 1

Flow parameters. The superﬁcial and maximum gas velocities are given together with the pressure gradient (pressure drop), gas density and mean interface height relative to the

pipe ﬂoor. The RMS wave height at the interface is ry . The inner pipe diameter is 9.95 cm.

A 4.33 5.68 88 23.4 27.0 4.0

B 4.51 5.64 117 32.5 26.0 4.5

C 6.89 8.17 192 23.4 21.5 4.5

D 7.00 8.01 240 32.5 18.5 3.0

Table 2

Table 3

Wall friction velocities, Reynolds numbers and core values sm ¼ maxðsÞ of the

Tuned parameters. a is the ampliﬁcation on the lower boundary kinetic stress relative

turbulence timescale.

to the homogeneous value, d=d 32 is the calibration factor on the Azzopardi mean

Case u ðm=sÞ Res Re sm ðmsÞ droplet size formula (see annex). rd =d is the normalized width of the Rosin–Rammler

size distribution. R is the shear stress ratio based on the location of the maximum of

A 0.30 33,400 628,000 38

the mean velocity proﬁle. bx is the interfacial eddy viscosity calibration factor,

B 0.31 49,500 905,000 42

adjusted to match the mean velocity near the interface.

C 0.49 59,300 995,000 27

D 0.49 86,000 1,408,000 29 Case a

d=d rd =d R bx

32

B 1.5 1.5 0.7 1.8 0.050

C 1.5 2.0 0.7 1.7 0.035

taken from the Tayebi data. Cases A and B are the low velocity

D 1.5 2.0 0.7 1.5 0.035

cases, while cases C and D are the high velocity cases. The gas den-

sities were set to a high and a low value for each value of the super-

ﬁcial gas velocities. Table 1 summarizes the ﬂow parameters.

The gas volume height is h ¼ Di yi where the inner pipe diame- tion, the ﬁtted shear stress ratio R, and the ﬁtted bx parameter that

ter is Di ¼ 99:5mm, and yi is the liquid thickness (or interface height) controls the speciﬁc dissipation at the interface (which again controls

along the vertical diameter. The viscosity of the SF6 gas is the eddy viscosity at the interface). Recall that R and bx is needed as

l ¼ 1:5 105 ; Ns=m2 and for the Exxsol oil, ld ¼ 1:6 103 Ns=m2 . input or tuning parameters in the current gas turbulence model. In

The surface tension between the oil and gas is r ¼ 22 103 N=m. principle, these parameters could be taken as output from a complete

The oil density is 820 kg/m3. The gas Reynolds number Re ¼ wall-to-wall turbulence model including the gas–liquid interface.

hU max =m and the friction Reynolds number Res are given in Table 2,

together with the wall friction velocities. 5.2. Turbulence proﬁles and timescales

The tuned parameters are given in Table 3. These are the droplet

mean diameter, relative to the Azzopardi (1985)-formula (see annex), The gas turbulent kinetic energy, stress components and time-

the relative standard deviation of the Rosin–Rammler size distribu- scale s for case A (Re = 628,000) is given in Fig. 1. The turbulent

Fig. 1. Case A (Re = 628,000). Top: turbulent kinetic energy k (solid line), axial stress uu (dotted), spanwise stress ww (dashed) and wall normal stress vv (dash-dot). The

proﬁles are normalized to ðu Þ2 . Bottom: the thin line shows the adopted timescale mT =vv which is consistent with scalar diffusivity, and the thick line s ¼ 2=x.

R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616 609

kinetic energy reaches a minimum in the core ﬂow near 0.65 ﬂow sectionally averaged diffusivity, rather than the estimate (38), or

volume heights. The normal stress vv (dash dotted line) is about the classical pipe core value.

one half the kinetic energy k (full line). The proﬁle shapes are not The ﬁrst order model (with cross sectionally averaged eddy dif-

very sensitive to the Reynolds number, although they are some- fusivity) matches the data well for cases A and B, except in upper

what ﬂatter for the larger Reynolds number, with smaller interface parts of the ﬂow volume, where the data shows an increasing con-

values relative to ðu Þ2 . Only in the very narrow wall region will the centration with height towards the pipe roof. This behavior is not

proﬁle shapes differ signiﬁcantly with Reynolds number, but this is possible to encapsulate with ﬁrst order modelling. Kinetic model-

not visible in the full-range plot. The turbulence timescale s ling does a slightly better job, with somewhat elevated concentra-

reaches a maximum where the turbulence energy is a minimum, tion in the upper parts, but the increasing density is not captured.

and the timescale diminishes towards the wall and the interface We will address this by invoking secondary ﬂow later.

where the characteristic eddy sizes and turnover times are smaller. The situation is different for cases C and D for higher gas veloc-

ity. The largest deviation between the ﬁrst order model and the

5.3. Concentration and mean velocity proﬁles data are now found near the interface. Here, the density proﬁle

in the data is steeper than the ﬁrst order proﬁle. This indicates that

Figs. 2–5 show the results for all cases, without invoking sec- the average eddy diffusivity overpredicts the actual diffusivity

ondary ﬂow. The upper left panel shows the density data (crosses) close to the interface. The kinetic model (thin full line) seems to

together with the density from the kinetic model (thin full line). predict proﬁles with a qualitative match to the data.

The dash-dotted lines are the ﬁrst order model proﬁles resulting Near the interface, only heavy inertial droplets with the larger

from using a single characteristic eddy diffusivity. The thin dash- Stokes numbers contribute signiﬁcantly to the concentration. The

dotted line is the result from using the diffusivity (38), and the diffusivity for these droplets is controlled by the kinetic stress.

thick dash-dotted line is the result from using the cross sectional Nonlocal coupling via the transport term, and the kinetic stress

average of the eddy viscosity (40). boundary condition, introduces nonlocal effects in the stress pro-

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

The lower right panels show the eddy viscosity as the thin full ﬁle for relatively large stopping distance v p v p sp . For large Stokes

line (normalized to ½h=2u ). The thin horizontal line shows the numbers, these effects can be appreciable and we may expect sig-

classical pipe core value f ¼ 0:075, and the thin dotted line shows niﬁcant deviations from the local eddy diffusivity (or the character-

the diffusivity (38) with the average friction velocity. The thick istic eddy diffusivity). There are, however, clear differences

dotted line shows the cross sectional average (40). We note that between the density proﬁles from the kinetic model and the data

this value is about twice the value of (38). Thus, for a ﬁrst order for all cases. In this respect, we will discuss the role of secondary

model to give reasonable concentration proﬁles, we require a cross ﬂow below.

Fig. 2. Case A. The upper left panel shows the density data (crosses) together with the results from the kinetic model (thin full line). The thin dotted line is the result from

using the characteristic diffusivity (38), and the thick dash-dotted line is the result from using the cross sectional average scalar diffusivity (40). The lower left panel shows

the density proﬁle for all the size bins, as they are calculated from the kinetic theory. Deviations from straight lines are due to turbulence inhomogeneity. The smaller droplets

have almost ﬂat proﬁles, while the large droplets have steep proﬁles. The upper right panel shows the axial velocity proﬁle together with the data, after tuning R and the

interfacial eddy viscosity. The lower right panel shows the eddy diffusivity (or eddy viscosity) normalized to ðh=2Þu . The thin horizontal line shows the pipe core value

f ¼ 0:075, and the thin dotted line shows the diffusivity (38). The thick dotted line shows the average (40).

610 R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616

The lower left panels (Figs. 2–5) show the density proﬁle for all droplets have steep proﬁles and contribute only near the interface.

the size bins, as they are calculated from the kinetic theory. The Only the smaller droplets contribute near the pipe wall. The effect

smaller droplets contribute with almost ﬂat proﬁles. The large of inhomogeneous turbulence is seen for most of the density

R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616 611

proﬁles (most of the sizes) noting that homogeneous turbulence The lower boundary value of the kinetic stress is set close to the lo-

would have produced linear proﬁles on the log-plot. A characteris- cal value, such that also for the more inertial particles, the local and

tic ‘‘bump” is seen in the proﬁles between 0.6 and 0.8 channel non-local stress values are comparable.

heights, which is due a varying particle diffusivity and the turb- The total particle diffusivity (thick full line, upper right panels)

ophoretic effect that accumulates the droplets where the turbulent tends to be signiﬁcantly less than the eddy diffusivity (thin full

kinetic energy is a minimum. line) in the lower half of the ﬂow volume for the larger droplets

The upper right panels show the axial velocity proﬁle together (d=d > 1:0 in Fig. 8). The reason for this is the smoothing effect

with the data, after tuning R and the interfacial eddy viscosity. of the Chapman–Enskog transport term in the kinetic stress equa-

tion. The concentration proﬁle is therefore steeper closer to the

5.4. Diffusivity and turbophoresis interface where the larger particles dominate.

The momentum equation (15) can be rewritten as the diffusion 5.5. Effects of secondary ﬂow

equation

The basic source of secondary ﬂow in a general sense is anisot-

yy oy q qsp oy vpvp sp qg e ¼ 0; ð41Þ ropy of the normal stresses in a plane perpendicular to the mean

ﬂow (Speziale, 1982). Previous experimental work (e.g., Williams

where yy oy q is the turbulent diffusive mass ﬂux density,

et al., 1996) and simulation work (e.g., van’t Westende et al.,

qsp oy ðv p v p Þ is the turbophoretic ﬂux, and qsp g e the gravitational

2007), clearly suggest that secondary ﬂow can be signiﬁcant in a

ﬂux. Figs. 6–8 show the corresponding drift velocities obtained by

pipe cross section. Reynolds stress anisotropy in pipe ﬂow can be

dividing each term by the density (lower left panels). Each ﬁgure

induced by several different mechanisms such as varying rough-

shows the contributions for a single droplet size for case A. The dif-

ness of the liquid ﬁlm along the wall perimeter, non-circular cross

fusive and turbophoretic contributions are comparable for the

section of the gas volume (Speziale, 1982), droplet concentration

smaller size range, while the diffusive contribution is relatively lar-

gradients and ﬁnally waves on the gas–liquid interface (Nordsveen

ger for d=d > 0:1. Turbophoresis and varying diffusivity inﬂuence

and Berthelsen, 1997). The two more robust mechanisms in pipe

the concentration proﬁle and its deviation from the leading order ﬂow is probably the wall roughness effect and the non-circular

exponential, resulting in a characteristic elevated density (‘‘bump”) cross section effect, since these are present regardless of the exis-

near y=h ’ 0:7 (lower right panels). tence of well deﬁned interfacial waves and details in the concen-

The diffusivity is dominated by the inertial term sp ðv p v p Þ for tration proﬁle.

d=d P 0:4 (upper right panels), while for the smaller droplets,

To leading order, the secondary ﬂow pattern is symmetric with

the ﬂuid induced part sp kyy dominates. The limiting value of sp kyy respect to the vertical centerline in a pipe. The most simple ﬂow

is the eddy diffusivity for vanishing size or relaxation time. conﬁguration is two counter-rotating, axially aligned vortices

The normal stress v p v p (thick full line in the upper left panel) is (van’t Westende et al., 2007) resulting in the circulation shown

very close to the local value sp l yy (thin full line) obtained by ignor- in Fig. 9, with downﬂow along the vertical centerline. The LES-sim-

ing the Chapman–Enskog transport term in the stress equation. ulation of van’t Westende et al. (2007) includes the wall roughness

612 R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616

Fig. 6. Diffusivity and turbophoresis for the droplet size d=d ¼ 0:12. The upper left panel shows the Stokes number sp =sðyÞ (thin, U-shaped line), particle normal stress (thick

full line), local estimate of the particle normal stress (thin, full line) and the ﬂuid normal stress (dashed line). The upper right panel shows the total diffusivity sp vv þ kyy

(thick line), the ﬂuid contribution sp kyy (dashed line) and the eddy viscosity (thin full line). The lower left panel shows the diffusion equation terms normalized by density.

The dashed line shows the diffusion velocity yy oy lnðqÞ, the thin full line shows the turbophoretic velocity sp oy ðv p v p Þ, and the thin straight line shows the gravitational

velocity (settling velocity) sp g e . The lower right panel shows the relative concentration.

Fig. 7. Diffusivity and turbophoresis for the droplet size d=d

R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616 613

¼ 1:2. The coding is the same as for Fig. 6. Note the deviation between the total diffusivity s ðvv þ

Fig. 8. Diffusivity and turbophoresis for the droplet size d=d kyy Þ (thick line,

p

upper right panel) and the eddy viscosity (thin full line), due to increasing effect of particle inertia.

effect, and demonstrates an upﬂow along the pipe walls opposite The response of the droplets to the secondary ﬂow depends on

the roughness gradient of the wall ﬁlm, and a downﬂow along the Stokes number. Inertial particles will be quite insensitive to the

the vertical diameter. The magnitude of the secondary ﬂow was secondary ﬂow, while smaller droplets behave more as passive

about 1–2% of the maximum axial ﬂow velocity. tracers, and follow more closely the secondary ﬂow pattern. We

will assume that the secondary ﬂow velocity component for the

smaller droplets will be equal to the secondary ﬂow component

of the ﬂuid, and scale down in magnitude with increasing Stokes

number. Therefore, a convergent and compressible secondary gas

ﬂow near the top of the pipe will increase the density of the smal-

ler droplets locally.

For simplicity, we assume a ‘‘quasi-2D” description along the

vertical diameter by including effects of convergent/divergent hor-

izontal ﬂow in the particle equations, and by keeping the channel

ﬂow Reynolds stress equations unchanged. We will specify a verti-

cal ﬂow proﬁle corresponding to the pattern in Fig. 9. We note that

a substantially more complicated 2D cross sectional description for

the kinetic theory, accompanying a Reynolds stress driven mean

ﬂow, is needed to model the secondary ﬂow effect in a fully consis-

tent manner.

The vertical component of the particle momentum equation in a

Cartesian 2D description is, with w-velocity components in the

spanwise (horizontal) direction z,

oy qv p v p þ qV 2p þ oz qwp v p þ qW p V p þ qg e þ qbðV p VÞ

¼ oy kyy q oz kzy q c

y q: ð42Þ

We may solve this equation along the vertical centerline by specify-

ing the terms that couple to the horizontal direction. Before we

Fig. 9. Qualitative secondary ﬂow streamlines based on the variation of the liquid

proceed, we will assume that oz -gradients in the turbulent shear

ﬁlm roughness and non-circular gas ﬂow cross section. We assume two counter- stress qwp v p and qkzy can be ignored at the centerline. Using the

rotating axial vortices as indicated. The pattern is symmetric with respect to the continuity equation r ðqVp Þ ¼ 0 for the particles, and oz V p ¼ 0 at

vertical centerline, and the ﬂow is purely vertical and downwards along this line. ‘+’ the centerline (V p is the most negative here),

indicates a region with converging mass ﬂux giving an excess density for a passive

tracer. ‘’ indicates a region of mass ﬂux divergence. The grey shaded area in the oy qV 2p þ oz ðqW p V p Þ ¼ qoy V 2p =2 : ð43Þ

bottom of the pipe illustrates the liquid layer.

614 R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616

These considerations enable (42) to be solved for q, with a given giving the following drag force per unit mass due to secondary ﬂow,

mean vertical velocity V p ,

vg nðyÞ

bðV p VÞ ¼ : ð48Þ

qoy ðV 2p =2Þ þ oy qv p v p þ qg e þ qbðV p VÞ ¼ oy kyy q cy q: ð44Þ 1 þ vg sp =u u

The formal solution of (44) then assumes the previous exponential Here, v is a tunable factor. We ﬁnd that v ¼ 0:1 gives a reasonable

form, ﬁt to the concentration proﬁle, and this choice makes the drag force

8 h

i 9 contribution smaller than oy ðV 2p =2Þ in (45).

Z y þ bðV p VÞþoy V 2p =2

ð0Þ < y ge þ c = Figs. 10 and 11 for cases A and C show the best ﬁt density pro-

qðyÞ ¼ qð0Þ yy exp sp df : ð45Þ

yy ðyÞ : 0 yy ; ﬁles when a secondary ﬂow proﬁle on the form

The effect of secondary ﬂow in the kinetic stress will be ignored, VðyÞ ¼ Mðy=h 1Þexpðy=h1Þ=Hs þ N ð49Þ

keeping the stress equation on the form (16). is applied (cases B and D show similar results). For all cases, the im-

When ðV p VÞ > 0 (gas downﬂow relative to the mean particle posed secondary ﬂow gives a signiﬁcant effect in the concentration

velocity at the centerline), the background ﬂuid provides a down- proﬁles in the upper half of the ﬂow volume, giving qualitatively

ward frictional force, adding onto the effect of gravity. This reduces correct results. We use the same secondary ﬂow velocity proﬁle

the local scale height and steepens

the density gradient. The for a given axial superﬁcial velocity, and assume that the secondary

‘‘dynamic pressure” term oy V 2p =2 represents the effect of the ﬂow velocity does not depend on the gas density.

converging/diverging secondary ﬂow along the centerline. For the The adopted velocity proﬁle is qualitatively similar to that of

upper half of the pipe, this term is positive and the ﬂow conver- van’t Westende et al. (2007), with the extremal value located near

gence elevates the density (the effect is opposite in the lower half y=h ’ 0:7. The lower right panels show the assumed secondary

of the pipe where the ﬂow diverges). ﬂow velocity normalized to the wall friction velocity. The

The secondary ﬂow along the centerline due to a single vortex maximum velocities correspond to about 0.35 m/s for cases A

pair is ﬁtted by the smooth function (and B), and 0.25 m/s for cases C and D. This is comparable to the

V ¼ nðyÞ; ð46Þ LES-values of van’t Westende.

We may also construct a ﬁrst order density proﬁle corrected for

with n > 0. For small droplets we will require ðV p VÞ ! 0 secondary ﬂow, by adopting constant value for the diffusivity,

although we do not formally account for true passive tracers within and cy ¼ 0 as discussed earlier. Eq. (45) then reduces to

the regime of the adopted equation of motion (requiring that the

ns g o Z

sp y h

i

particle/ﬂuid density ratio is large). A suitable model for the mean qðyÞ ¼ qð0Þexp p e

y exp bðV p VÞþoy V 2p =2 df ; ð50Þ

particle velocity may then be deﬁned by 0

Vp ¼ ð47Þ

1 þ vg sp =u order proﬁle. This approach can be justiﬁed since the smaller drop-

Fig. 10. Case A with secondary ﬂow. The upper left panel shows the density data (crosses) together with the results from the kinetic model including secondary ﬂow (thin full

line). The lower left panel shows the density proﬁle for all the size bins. The upper right panel shows the axial velocity proﬁle together with the data, which is assumed to be

unaffected by the secondary ﬂow. The lower right panel shows the assumed secondary ﬂow velocity V along the vertical centerline.

R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616 615

Fig. 11. Case C with secondary ﬂow. The coding is the same as for Case A with secondary ﬂow.

lets dominate at large height where the secondary velocity has the interface. Furthermore, the theory accounts for turbophoresis,

largest impact. Thus, one can choose a local value of the eddy diffu- which is migration of particles (droplets) away from regions of

sivity (for large heights) and use (50) for the smaller droplets, as an large particle kinetic energy.

improved ﬁrst order solution.

6.2. Modelling results

6. Summary and conclusions

We ﬁnd that varying diffusivity and turbophoresis accumulate

6.1. Model properties droplets near the core region of the ﬂow, where the turbulent

kinetic energy of the gas is at a minimum. The concentration

A model for the droplet concentration proﬁle in turbulent gas– proﬁle in the upper half of the ﬂow volume is due to the smaller

liquid ﬂow in horizontal channels has been developed. The novelty droplets, which are subject to a diffusivity that is close to the eddy

of the current approach is the combination of the kinetic theory of diffusivity. In the low velocity cases (A and B) the measured droplet

Reeks (1992) to describe the droplets in each size bin, with the concentration is increasing towards the upper pipe wall (concen-

Reynolds stress model of Wilcox (2006) for the gas turbulence. We tration inversion). We demonstrate that when a compressible dou-

assume a Rosin–Rammler size distribution, and neglect coalescence ble-vortex secondary ﬂow is included in the model, we obtain

and breakup in the gas ﬂow, and wall deposition effects on the excellent agreement to the data in all cases. van’t Westende et al.

concentration. We have neglected the back reaction on the gas tur- (2007) shows via LES simulations that the smaller droplets advect

bulence (two-way coupling is ignored). An entrainment correlation into a stagnation point between the vortices, leading to increased

due to Schadel and Hanratty (1989) is used to describe the boundary droplet density near the upper pipe wall. Accumulation of droplets

concentration near the large scale gas–liquid interface. near the upper wall is of importance in the context of wall deposi-

The model is compared to measured concentration proﬁles and tion of corrosion inhibitor that may be carried by the droplets.

velocity proﬁles along the vertical diameter in the pipe cross The concentration near the large scale gas/ﬂuid interface is

section for four different combinations of gas velocity (in the range dominated by the larger droplets. The corresponding diffusivity

6–7 m/s) and gas density (in the range 20–30 kg/m3). The data are may deviate signiﬁcantly from the eddy diffusivity, and we ﬁnd a

taken from Tayebi et al. (2000), using SF6 gas and Exxsol oil in a lower local diffusivity near the interface. This leads to a steeper

10 cm diameter horizontal pipe. These experiments utilised an concentration than what would result if we applied the eddy diffu-

iso-kinetic probe. sivity. A reliable prediction of the concentration proﬁle near the

The strength of the kinetic theory lies in the fact that it predicts interface is important for estimating the mass ﬂux or transport rate

a generalized particle diffusivity valid for all Stokes numbers (or of droplets in the gas ﬂow, since the largest ﬂux contribution will

droplet sizes), such that both the ‘‘passive tracer regime” of the be found near the interface where the concentration is large, and

smaller droplets, and the ‘‘free ﬂight regime” of the larger droplets, the gas velocity is large.

can be included in the same consistent description. The latter pop- A simpliﬁed ‘‘ﬁrst order model” that adopts a single character-

ulation of droplets is subject to a diffusivity which is (1) non-local istic particle diffusivity, gives reasonable order of magnitude esti-

and (2) sensitive to the ﬂuctuation kinetic energy at the large scale mates of the droplet concentration, provided that the cross

616 R. Skartlien / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 35 (2009) 603–616

sectionally averaged eddy diffusivity from the full turbulence mod- transport”. M.W. Reeks, D.C. Swailes and P. van Dijk of the Univer-

el is adopted. This diffusivity is larger than the classical pipe core sity of Newcastle, UK, are thanked for valuable discussions.

value which is often used in droplet transport modelling (e.g., Paras

and Karabelas, 1991 for air–water ﬂow). The above-mentioned Appendix A. Supplementary data

effects in the concentration proﬁle (modiﬁed diffusivity for large

droplets and secondary ﬂow effects for small droplets) will not Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in

be captured by ﬁrst order modelling. This may lead to an overesti- the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseﬂow.2009.03.009.

mated average droplet transport rate (due to the larger droplets),

or an underestimated droplet concentration near the top of the References

pipe (due to the smaller droplets).

The applicability of the complete model is straightforward, Azzopardi, B.J., 1985. Drop sizes in annular two-phase ﬂow. Exp. Fluids 3, 53.

since only tridiagonal matrix equations need to be solved. These Berthelsen, P.A., Ytrehus, T., 2005. Calculations of stratiﬁed wavy two-phase ﬂow in

pipes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 31, 571.

equations are nonlinear and iterations are needed to solve them. Biberg, D., 2005. Mathematical models for two-phase stratiﬁed pipe ﬂow, Ph.D.

A number of auxiliary variables are available from the turbulence Thesis, University of Oslo.

model, such as the axial velocity proﬁle. Hence, the axial droplet Binder, J.L., Hanratty, T.J., 1992. Use of Lagrangian methods to describe drop

deposition and distribution in horizontal gas–liquid annular ﬂows. Int. J.

ﬂux may be calculated. We note that a full wall-to-wall cross sec-

Multiphase Flow 18, 803.

tional model is not treated in this work. Such an effort requires a Crowe, C.T., 2000. On models for turbulence modulation in ﬂuid–particle ﬂows. Int.

self-consistent treatment of the turbulence across the large scale J. Multiphase Flow 26, 719.

Drazen, D., Jensen, A., 2007. Time-resolved combined PIV/PTV measurements of

gas/liquid interface.

two-phase turbulent pipe ﬂow. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International

Conference on Multiphase Flow, ICMF 2007, Leipzig, Germany, July 9–13, 2007.

6.3. Considerations on the scaling of the concentration proﬁle with Durbin, P.A., Medic, G., Seo, J.-M., Eaton, J.K., Song, S., 2001. Rough wall modiﬁcation

respect to pipe diameter of two-layer k–. J. Fluids Eng., Trans. ASME 123, 16.

Guha, A., 1997. A uniﬁed Eulerian theory of turbulent deposition to smooth and

rough surfaces. J. Aerosol Sci. 28, 1517.

We compared the model to experimental data from a 10cm Hyland, K.E., McKee, S., Reeks, M.W., 1999. Derivation of a pdf kinetic equation for

diameter pipe. Oil/gas ﬁeld conditions correspond to much larger the transport of particles in turbulent ﬂows. J. Phys. A 32, 6169.

McCoy, D.D., Hanratty, T.J., 1977. Rate of deposition of droplets in annular two-

diameters (a factor of 10 larger), and it is thus of interest to exam- phase ﬂow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 3, 319.

ine the scaling property of the concentration proﬁles, with respect Newton, C.H., Behnia, M., 2001. A numerical model of stratiﬁed wavy gas–liquid

to pipe diameter. pipe ﬂow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56, 6851.

Nordsveen, M., Berthelsen, A.F., 1997. Wave induced secondary motions in stratiﬁed

In the context of ﬁrst order modelling, the scaling of the concen- duct ﬂow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 23, 503.

tration proﬁle with respect to the ﬂow volume height h (or pipe Paras, S.V., Karabelas, A.J., 1991. Droplet entrainment and deposition in horizontal

radius with given holdup) depends on (a) the characteristic scale annular ﬂow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 17, 455.

Reeks, M.W., 1992. On the continuum equations for dispersed particles in

height Hi , which is the ratio between the characteristic particle

nonuniform ﬂows. Phys. Fluids A 4, 1290.

diffusivity and the settling velocity of a droplet of diameter Reeks, M.W., 2001. Particle drift in turbulent ﬂows: the inﬂuence from local

di ; Hi ¼ ðdi Þ=½g sp ðdi Þ, and (b) the concentration boundary condi- structure and inhomogeneity. In: ICMF 2001, New Orleans, 2001, No. 187.

Reeks, M.W., 2005. On model equations for particle dispersion in inhomogeneous

tion. The scaling properties of the diffusivity for large and small

turbulence. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 31, 93.

droplets are different (as demonstrated using the kinetic theory). Rivkind, V.Y., Ryskin, G.M., 1976. Flow structure in motion of a spherical drop in a

For the larger droplets, the particle kinetic stress dominates and ﬂuid medium at intermediate Reynolds number. Fluid Dyn. (USSR) 11, 5.

non-local transport of kinetic stress may be important (in the Schadel, S.A., Hanratty, T.J., 1989. Interpretation of atomization rates of the liquid

ﬁlm in gas–liquid annular ﬂow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 15, 893.

limiting case, the droplet trajectories are close to ballistic and the Sergeev, Y.A., Johnson, R.S., Swailes, D.C., 2002. Dilute suspension of high inertia

carrier phase plays only a minor role). particles in the turbulent ﬂow near the wall. Phys. Fluids 14, 1042.

For the smaller droplets, local turbulent diffusion is the important Skartlien, R., 2006. First order model for droplet transport in stratiﬁed gas ﬂow. IFE-

Report, IFE/KR/F-2006/110.

effect, and the characteristic diffusivity scale as

hueff , where ueff Skartlien, R., 2007. Kinetic modeling of particles in stratiﬁed ﬂow – evaluation of

is a characteristic friction velocity (characteristic turbulent velocity) dispersion tensors in inhomogeneous turbulence. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 33,

and h is the ﬂow volume height (see the diffusivities deﬁned by Eqs. 1006.

Skartlien, R., 2007b. Evaluation of a kinetic theory model for inertial particles in

(38) and (40)). The dimensionless scale height for a given particle stratiﬁed turbulent ﬂow – the inﬂuence of the Stokes number. In: Proceedings

size di , will then scale as Hi =h

ueff =g sp ðdi Þ. That is, for small of the International Conference on Multiphase Flow, ICMF 2007, Leipzig,

droplets, the scale height is proportional to the ﬂow volume height Germany, July 9–13, 2007.

Speziale, C.G., 1982. On turbulent secondary ﬂows in pipes of non-circular cross-

h provided that the left-hand side of the equation (or ueff ) is kept

section. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 20, 863.

constant. Swailes, D.C., Sergeev, Y.A., Parker, A., 1998. Chapman–Enskog closure

The droplet size distribution is likely to vary with h, since the approximation in the kinetic theory of dilute turbulent gas-particulate

suspensions. Physica A 254, 517.

mean droplet size and size variance depends on the gas turbulence

Tatterson, D.F., 1975. Rate of atomization and drop size in annular two-phase ﬂow,

level at the interface and in the gas volume. Entrainment (atomiza- Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA.

tion) and deposition rates also depend on the turbulence level at Tayebi, D., Nuland, S., Fuchs, P., 2000. Droplet transport in oil/gas and water/gas

the interface. Future analysis is necessary to clarify how the ﬂow at high gas densities. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 26, 741.

Ueda, T., 1979. Entrainment rate and size of entrained droplets. Bull. JSME 22, 171.

boundary condition and the droplet size distribution depend on van’t Westende, J.M.C., Belt, R.J., Portela, L.M., Mudde, R.F., Oliemans, R.V.A., 2007.

h. This is to some extent dependent on more fundamental research Effect of secondary ﬂow on droplet distribution and deposition in horizontal

on the turbulent gas/liquid interface, and droplet breakup in turbu- annular pipe ﬂow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 33, 67.

Wilcox, C.D., 2006. Turbulence Modelling for CFD, second ed. DCW Industries.

lent gas. Advanced numerical CFD and experimental work, Williams, L.R., Dykhno, L.A., Hanratty, T.J., 1996. Droplet ﬂux distributions

together with physical modelling, are strongly encouraged to gain and entrainment in horizontal gas–liquid ﬂows. Int. J. Multiphase Flow

more insight in the scaling properties. 22, 1.

Yoon, S.S., 2005. Droplet distributions at the liquid core of a turbulent spray. Phys.

Fluids 17, 035101–035103.

Acknowledgements Young, G., Leeming, A., 1997. A theory of particle deposition in turbulent pipe ﬂow.

J. Fluid Mech. 340, 129.

Zaichik, L.I., Alichenkov, V.M., 2005. Statistical models for predicting particle

This work has been funded by the Research Council of Norway

dispersion and preferential concentration in turbulent ﬂows. Int. J. Heat Fluid

via ‘‘Strategic Institute Project ES132014, Droplet Transport Model- Flow 26, 416.

ing and Generation Enhancement in Hydrocarbon Multiphase

- Hydro Static ForcesDiunggah olehSarath Chandra
- A Brief Introduction to TurbulenceDiunggah olehSalahuddin Ahmed
- Lecture 1= IntroductionDiunggah olehDennise Shughni
- Verma S K 1970 04 MasterDiunggah olehAli Abdul-Rahman
- 561Diunggah olehlig
- 3943-16660-1-PBDiunggah olehdaniela
- Paper 2013Diunggah olehyicdoo
- Intro to fmDiunggah olehebrahem_sahil5188
- 1-s2.0-000925099500088M-mainDiunggah olehMelissa Anderson
- 0103Diunggah olehSajid
- JoV Thermal CS RGDiunggah olehGuillermo Araya
- Prediction of Power-Law Fluid Flow through an Eccentric Annulus with Inner Cylinder in Rotation using k-ω Turbulence ModelDiunggah olehAnonymous vQrJlEN
- Chapter 8 SU13Diunggah olehDavid Pavelko
- kasat2008Diunggah olehGopal Kasat
- fatique.pdfDiunggah olehPSUNDHANSCRIBD
- ExamDiunggah olehhumbleavi
- SLUG FLOW TWO PHASE FLOWDiunggah olehTochi Krishna Abhishek
- SPE-564-PA.pdfDiunggah olehJean Carlos
- 7.5-02-07-03.9Diunggah olehelsaorduna
- Fuchs 2004Diunggah olehDavid Guerra Layana
- 6%2E2003-4162.pdfDiunggah olehhenk
- 9.MultiphaseDiunggah olehAlexsander Suryawan
- Lab Instructions(1)Diunggah olehAndrew
- ReportDiunggah olehAfthab Sait
- pipe_flowDiunggah olehVinay Gupta
- Micro MixingpptDiunggah olehPradeep Kethavath
- Mordecai-Mark Mac Low et al- Kinetic Energy Decay Rates of Supersonic and Super-Alfvénic Turbulence in Star-Forming CloudsDiunggah olehWhiteLighte
- Materi MedfluDiunggah olehAhmad_Hasinur
- dowson1962.pdfDiunggah olehyasir hamid
- Dynamic Response Factor as Per as 1170.2Diunggah olehZarna Modi

- Bulk Viscosity in the Navier-Stokes EquationsDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- A Stochastic Description of Wall Sources in a Turbulent Field-- Part 2. sDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- A Review of Research on Cylindrical Particulate FlowsDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- téléchargementDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Dilute Gas–Solid Two-phase Flows in a Curved 90 Duct Bend-- CFD Simulation With Experimental ValidationDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Salon Innovation2015 PosterPresentationsDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Dimensioning of Tube Mills.pdfDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- 1166197294Syamlal 1985Diunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Modeling, Numerical Methods, And Simulation for Particle-fluid Two-phase Flow ProblemsDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Chapitre 1 Approche de La Maintenance IndustrielleDiunggah olehSySekouAmadTidiane
- Collisional Solid's Pressure Impact on Numerical Results From a Traditional Two-fluid ModelDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Collisional Solid's Pressure Impact on Numerical Results From a Traditional Two-fluid ModelDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Drew & Lahey the Analysis of Two-phase Flow and Heat Transfer Using a Multidimensional, Four Field, Two-fluid ModelDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- A Two-scale Second-Order Moment Particle Turbulence Model for Gas-particle FlowDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- A Comparison of Two Approaches to Derivation of Boundary Conditions forDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- NomenclatureDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Islam 2018Diunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Yassine 1Diunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Rechnique.txtDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- download-1.txtDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- yassine4.txtDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Rechnique.txtDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Eck 2004Diunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Eck 2004Diunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Gladen2016-The Morphological Stability and Fuel Production of Commercial FibrousDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Particle Velocity Profiles and Residence TimeDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- Zhang 2014Diunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- DownloadDiunggah olehRochdi Demagh
- wu2014Diunggah olehRochdi Demagh

- Andromeda GalaxyDiunggah olehIulian Popa
- Annual Report 2014Diunggah olehRahulSingh
- Tender Documents Machinery & Equipment MPTCDiunggah olehAsad Aijaz
- JAPAN HIGHLIGHTS.pdfDiunggah olehBenedict-Karen Baydo
- THERMOHYDRODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A JOURNAL BEARINGDiunggah olehAmalendu Biswas
- Engg Cutoff 2017 HkDiunggah olehRajeshKumar
- Singularity (Abomination & Desolation of Mankind) Chapter 5. Mark of our Generation (Unedited)Diunggah olehMatthew Strom
- Exploring Oil Data LinkedDiunggah olehJahangir Malik
- Cataloging Profile ReportDiunggah olehTSEvans
- IGS Strategic Plan 2013 FinalDiunggah olehDeepak Kumar
- 11-12-31 The Latest From Countrywide's Sandor Samuels/Bet Tzedek Productions: Cynical Holocaust ExploitationDiunggah olehHuman Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
- Rule 1940 Fire Protection and ControlDiunggah olehAureen Joy Lofranco Condino
- PM Assignment 2Diunggah olehTabish
- Windows 10 Activator2018_v0.3Diunggah olehG srinivas
- Faraday InductionDiunggah olehThämäíyänthí Rätnäm
- Jarvisdother083D ModellingDiunggah olehMathew David
- ORDUDE #5-The SimplexDiunggah olehthabrani
- AlternativesDiunggah olehMANOJ JETHVA
- ASCE 7-05 Supplement No 2Diunggah olehSherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- 042123StructuralFacingTile.docDiunggah olehjack.simpson.chang
- Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System 2008 AuditDiunggah olehR1Lawrence
- Revolutionary GeometryDiunggah olehapi-3701267
- Sbo,Lbo,IleusDiunggah olehagung
- PR Check ListDiunggah olehCharitha Ranwala
- KHillardResume8-14PortfolioDiunggah olehkhillard1
- Drilling FluidsDiunggah olehtashh rao
- kutipanDiunggah olehwahyusoil unhas
- svalenza resumeDiunggah olehapi-285467578
- Creating Online Brand Personality the Role of Personal DifferenceDiunggah olehJoseph
- OOP in Python-textbokDiunggah olehaleong1