A kinetic-based hyperbolic two-fluid model for binary hard-sphere mixtures

2019 ◽  
Vol 877 ◽  
pp. 282-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney O. Fox

Starting from coupled Boltzmann–Enskog (BE) kinetic equations for a two-particle system consisting of hard spheres, a hyperbolic two-fluid model for binary, hard-sphere mixtures is derived with separate mean velocities and energies for each phase. In addition to spatial transport, the BE kinetic equations account for particle–particle collisions, using an elastic hard-sphere collision model, and the Archimedes (buoyancy) force due to spatial gradients of the pressure in each phase, as well as other forces involving spatial gradients (e.g. lift). In the derivation, the particles in a given phase have identical mass and volume, and have no internal degrees of freedom (i.e. the particles are adiabatic). The ‘hard-sphere-fluid’ phase is obtained in the limit where the particle diameter in one phase tends to zero with fixed phase density so that the number of fluid particles tends to infinity. The moment system resulting from the two BE kinetic equations is closed at second order by invoking the anisotropic Gaussian closure. The resulting two-fluid model for a binary, hard-sphere mixture therefore consists (for each phase $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=1,2$) of transport equations for the mass $\unicode[STIX]{x1D71A}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}$, mean momentum $\unicode[STIX]{x1D71A}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}\boldsymbol{u}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}$ (where $\boldsymbol{u}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}$ is the velocity) and a symmetric, second-order, kinetic energy tensor $\unicode[STIX]{x1D71A}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D640}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}=\frac{1}{2}\unicode[STIX]{x1D71A}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}(\boldsymbol{u}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}\otimes \boldsymbol{u}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D748}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}})$. The trace of the fluctuating energy tensor $\unicode[STIX]{x1D748}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}$ is $\text{tr}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D748}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}})=3\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E9}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}$ where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E9}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}$ is the phase temperature (or granular temperature). Thus, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D71A}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}E_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D71A}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}}\text{tr}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D640}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}})$ is the total kinetic energy, the sum over $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$ of which is the total kinetic energy of the system, a conserved quantity. From the analysis, it is found that the BE finite-size correction leads to exact phase pressure (or stress) tensors that depend on the mean-slip velocity $\boldsymbol{u}_{12}=\boldsymbol{u}_{1}-\boldsymbol{u}_{2}$, as well as the phase temperatures for both phases. These pressure tensors also appear in the momentum-exchange terms in the mean momentum equations that produce the Archimedes force, as well as drag contributions due to fluid compressibility and a lift force due to mean fluid-velocity gradients. The closed BE energy flux tensors show a similar dependence on the mean-slip velocity. The characteristic polynomial of the flux matrix from the one-dimensional model is computed symbolically and depends on five parameters: the particle volume fractions $\unicode[STIX]{x1D711}_{1}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D711}_{2}$, the phase density ratio ${\mathcal{Z}}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{p}$, the phase temperature ratio $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E9}_{r}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E9}_{2}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E9}_{1}$ and the mean-slip Mach number $Ma_{s}=\boldsymbol{u}_{12}/\sqrt{5\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E9}_{1}/3}$. By applying Sturm’s Theorem to the characteristic polynomial, it is demonstrated that the model is hyperbolic over a wide range of these parameters, in particular, for the physically most relevant values.

1973 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 2071 ◽  
Author(s):  
DK Astin ◽  
ID Watson

The excess thermodynamic functions of 12 mixtures, each representative of a certain type of system, have been calculated by means of the van der Waals, Frisch,1 and Carnahan and Starling2 equation of state, in conjunction with one-fluid and two-fluid models of conformal mixtures. In addition, the equation of state of hard sphere mixtures of Mansoori et al.3 has been used. Though none of the approaches give quantitative agreement for any of the systems considered, they all give a qualitative account which broadly reflect the trends in behaviour. In the cases where it is appropriate to comment on the qualitative accuracy the two-fluid model, used with either the Frisch or Carnahan and Starling equation of state, shows a slight superiority to the others.


2013 ◽  
Vol 717 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. La Mantia ◽  
D. Duda ◽  
M. Rotter ◽  
L. Skrbek

AbstractQuantum turbulence in thermal counterflow of superfluid ${\text{} }^{4} \mathrm{He} $ is studied at length scales comparable to the mean distance $\ell $ between quantized vortices. The Lagrangian dynamics of solid deuterium particles, of radius ${R}_{p} $ about one order of magnitude smaller than $\ell $, is analysed in a planar section of the experimental volume by using the particle tracking velocimetry technique. We show that the average amplitude of the acceleration of the particles seems to increase as the temperature decreases and applied heat flux increases and this can be explained by exploiting the two-fluid model of superfluid ${\text{} }^{4} \mathrm{He} $. We also report that, at the probed length scales, the normalized distribution of the acceleration of the particles appears to follow an unexpected classical-like behaviour.


1991 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 216-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Hasan ◽  
R. P. Roy ◽  
S. P. Kalra

Measurements of local vapor phase residence time fraction, liquid phase temperature, and heated wall temperature were carried out in subcooled flow boiling of Refrigerant-113 through a vertical annular channel. Data are reported for two fluid mass velocities and two pressures over a range of wall heat flux. Estimates of typical vapor bubble size and velocity are given. Some comparisons with a one-dimensional two-fluid model of subcooled boiling flow are also presented.


Author(s):  
M.-L. Bordas ◽  
A. Cartellier ◽  
P. Se´chet

Pressure drop and gas void fraction are important parameters for the design of multiphase packed bed reactors which are widely used in petrochemical industry. Several experimental studies have been devoted to the hydrodynamics of two-phase cocurrent upflow or downflow through fixed beds, and various correlations of limited range of validity are available in the literature. However, there is not yet a clear agreement on the form of the momentum equations to be used in such systems. Early attempts devoted to the pressure drop estimate were based on an extension of the Lockhart-Martinelli approach (Sweeney 1967), Rao et al. 1983). More recently, Attou at al. (1999) proposed the first serious attempt to adapt the Eulerian two-fluid model to cocurrent bubbly flows through packed beds. From an analysis of their proposal, it happens that the basic mechanical equilibrium for the gas phase needs to be reconsidered. In this scope, we derived a new model on the basis of the so-called hybrid approach initially developed for bubbly flows in ducts in absence of shear-induced turbulence (Achard and Cartellier 2000). As a first application, we considered a mean unidirectional flow of a bubbly mixture through a porous medium composed of beads uniform in size. For steady and fully established flows, and assuming a flat void fraction (α) profile, the resulting momentum equations for each phase write: Liquidphase:−dpdz=ρLg+fLS−fLG1−α(1)Gasphase:−dpdz=ρGg+fLS+fLGα(2) where fLS is the resultant of the liquid shear stress exerted on beads surface and on exterior walls, and where the quantity fLG = α F* / Vp represents the interaction force density between the gas and the liquid (F* is the mean force on bubbles and Vp = 4πa3/3 denotes the bubble volume, a being the bubble radius). The main difference with the model derived by Attou et al. is the presence of the fLS term in the gas phase equation. Without this term, the relative velocity of bubbles would be controlled by the axial pressure gradient dP/dz even in non accelerating flows which is unphysical. On the opposite, in the present model (1–2) the relative movement of bubbles is simply due to buoyancy. The set of equations (1–2) provides a mean to exploit the experimental data to derive the required closures, namely the evolution of the friction fLS with the gas content and that of the momentum exchange between phases fLG. Notably, from (1) and (2), one gets fLG=α(1−α)(ρL−ρG)g(3) In order to establish reliable closures, available experimental data of the literature are currently revisited under this framework. For the friction term, which is the principal contribution to the pressure drop, the usual closure law for fLS as given by an Ergun equation adapted to two-phase flows is under analysis. For the interfacial momentum transfer, the objective is to evaluate an “apparent” drag coefficient defined as Cd = F*/[ρL Ur2 π a2 / 2] where the mean relative velocity Ur is defined as the difference between the mean gas and liquid velocities averaged over a volume. Indeed, paralleling an approach already exploited for bubbly flows in ducts (Riviere and Cartellier 1999), it happens that the mean void fraction can be derived from equations (1) and (2) assuming a flat void fraction profile: β(1−β)−α(1−α)=(4π/3)α(1−α)[gδ2VSLνc](aδ)2fd(4) where δ is the typical size of the pores and where fd = (π/2) Rep Cd is expected to be a function of the bubble size, the porosity ε and the void fraction. To extract fd or Cd from (4), a characteristic bubble size must be specified. As shown Fig.1, the bubble size is controlled by the bed geometry and evolves between 0.2 δ and 3 δ in the dilute limit (Bordas et al. (2001)). Analysis of the existing data will be presented based on these size estimates, and comparison will be performed of this “apparent” drag with values measured for isolated bubbles in fixed beds (Fig.2).


Author(s):  
Hideaki Hosoi ◽  
Hiroyuki Yoshida

Two-fluid model can simulate two-phase flow by computational cost less than detailed two-phase simulation method such as interface tracking method. Therefore, two-fluid model is useful for thermal hydraulic analysis in large-scale domain such as rod bundles. However, since two-fluid model include a lot of constitutive equations, applicability of these constitutive equations must be verified by use of experimental results, and the two-fluid model has problems the result of analyses depends on accuracy of constitutive equations. To solve these problems, an advanced two-fluid model has been developed in Japan Atomic Energy Agency. In the model, an interface tracking method is combined with the two-fluid model to predict large interface structure behavior accurately. Liquid clusters and bubbles larger than a computational cell are calculated using the interface tracking method, and those smaller than a cell are simulated by the two-fluid model. Constitutive equations to evaluate the effect of small bubbles or droplets on two-phase flow required in the advanced two-fluid model as same as a conventional two-fluid model. However, dependency of small bubbles and droplets on two-phase flow characteristic is relatively small, and the experimental results to verify the equations are not required much. The turbulent dispersion force term is one of the most important constitutive equations for the advanced two-fluid model. The turbulent dispersion force term has been modeled by many researchers for the conventional two-fluid model. However, the existing models include effects of large bubbles and deformation of bubbles implicitly, these models are not applicable to the advanced two-fluid model. In this study, we develop the new model for turbulent dispersion force term. In this model, effect of large bubbles and deformation of bubbles are neglected. The liquid phase turbulent kinetic energy and bubble-induced turbulent kinetic energy are considered to evaluate driving force in the turbulent diffusion of small bubbles. The bubble-induced turbulent kinetic energy is given by the function of bubble diameter and local relative velocity, and the liquid phase turbulent kinetic energy is similar to the single phase flow case. Furthermore, we considered energy transfer from the bubble-induced kinetic energy to the liquid phase turbulent kinetic energy. To verify the developed model, the advanced two-fluid model and the model for turbulent dispersion term were incorporated to the 3-dimensional two-fluid model code ACE-3D, and comparisons between the results of analyses and air-water two-phase flow experiments in 200 mm diameter vertical pipe were performed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 033324
Author(s):  
Alejandro Clausse ◽  
Martín López de Bertodano

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 037116
Author(s):  
Victor L. Mironov

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document