TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of numerical methods for fully resolved simulations of particle-laden turbulent flows

AU - Brändle de Motta, J.C.

AU - Costa, P.

AU - Derksen, J.J.

AU - Peng, C.

AU - Wang, L.-P.

AU - Breugem, W.-P.

AU - Estivalezes, J.L.

AU - Vincent, S.

AU - Climent, E.

AU - Fede, P.

AU - Barbaresco, P.

AU - Renon, N.

N1 - This work was granted access to the HPC resources of CALMIP and the National Center for Atmospheric Researchs (NCAR) supercomputing centers. P. Costa acknowledges the funding from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology under grant no. SFRH/BD/85501/2012. L.-P. Wang acknowledges the funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants CBET-1706130.

PY - 2019/1/30

Y1 - 2019/1/30

N2 - During the last decade, many approaches for resolved-particle simulation (RPS) have been developed for numerical studies of finite-size particle-laden turbulent flows. In this paper, three RPS approaches are compared for a particle-laden decaying turbulence case. These methods are, the Volume-of-Fluid Lagrangian method, based on the viscosity penalty method (VoF-Lag); a direct forcing Immersed Boundary Method, based on a regularized delta-function approach for the fluid/solid coupling (IBM); and the Bounce Back scheme developed for Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM-BB). The physics and the numerical performances of the methods are analyzed. Modulation of turbulence is observed for all the methods, with a faster decay of turbulent kinetic energy compared to the single-phase case. Lagrangian particle statistics, such as the velocity probability density function and the velocity autocorrelation function, show minor differences among the three methods. However, major differences between the codes are observed in the evolution of the particle kinetic energy. These differences are related to the treatment of the initial condition when the particles are inserted in an initially single-phase turbulence. The averaged particle/fluid slip velocity is also analyzed, showing similar behavior as compared to the results referred in the literature. The computational performances of the different methods differ significantly. The VoF-Lag method appears to be computationally most expensive. Indeed, this method is not adapted to turbulent cases. The IBM and LBM-BB implementations show very good scaling.

AB - During the last decade, many approaches for resolved-particle simulation (RPS) have been developed for numerical studies of finite-size particle-laden turbulent flows. In this paper, three RPS approaches are compared for a particle-laden decaying turbulence case. These methods are, the Volume-of-Fluid Lagrangian method, based on the viscosity penalty method (VoF-Lag); a direct forcing Immersed Boundary Method, based on a regularized delta-function approach for the fluid/solid coupling (IBM); and the Bounce Back scheme developed for Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM-BB). The physics and the numerical performances of the methods are analyzed. Modulation of turbulence is observed for all the methods, with a faster decay of turbulent kinetic energy compared to the single-phase case. Lagrangian particle statistics, such as the velocity probability density function and the velocity autocorrelation function, show minor differences among the three methods. However, major differences between the codes are observed in the evolution of the particle kinetic energy. These differences are related to the treatment of the initial condition when the particles are inserted in an initially single-phase turbulence. The averaged particle/fluid slip velocity is also analyzed, showing similar behavior as compared to the results referred in the literature. The computational performances of the different methods differ significantly. The VoF-Lag method appears to be computationally most expensive. Indeed, this method is not adapted to turbulent cases. The IBM and LBM-BB implementations show very good scaling.

KW - Particle-laden flows

KW - Finite-size particles

KW - Turbulence

KW - Direct numerical simulations

U2 - 10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.10.016

DO - 10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.10.016

M3 - Article

VL - 179

SP - 1

EP - 14

JO - Computers & Fluids

JF - Computers & Fluids

SN - 0045-7930

ER -