Numerical Investigation using RANS Equations of Two-dimensional Turbulent Jets

and Bubbly Mixing Layers

Kareem Akhtar
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University in partial fulllment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Engineering Science and Mechanics
Saad A. Ragab, Chairman
Muhammad R. Hajj
Mark Cramer
July 26, 2010
Blacksburg, Virginia
Keywords:(conned jets, bubbly mixing layers)
Numerical Investigation using RANS Equations of Two-dimensional Turbulent Jets
and Bubbly Mixing Layers
Kareem Akhtar
Abstract
This thesis presents numerical investigations of two-dimensional single-phase turbulent
jets and bubbly mixing layers using Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations.
The behavior of a turbulent jet conned in a channel depends on the Reynolds number
and geometry of the channel which is given by the expansion ratio (channel width to jet
thickness) and oset ratio (eccentricity of the jet entrance). Steady solutions to the RANS
equations for a two-dimensional turbulent jet injected in the middle of a channel have been
obtained. When no entrainment from the channel base is allowed, the ow is asymmetric
for a wide range of expansion ratio at high Reynolds number. The jet attaches to one of
the channel side walls. The attachment length increases linearly with the channel width for
xed value of Reynolds number. The attachment length is also found to be independent of
the (turbulent) jet Reynolds number for xed expansion ratio. By simulating half of the
channel and imposing symmetry, we can construct a steady symmetric solution to the RANS
equations. This implies that there are possibly two solutions to the steady RANS equations,
one is symmetric but unstable, and the other solution is asymmetric (the jet attaches to one
of the side walls) but stable. A symmetric solution is also obtained if entrainment from jet
exit plane is permitted. Fearn et al. (Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 121, 1990) studied the
laminar problem, and showed that the ow asymmetry of a symmetric expansion arises at
a symmetry-breaking bifurcation as the jet Reynolds number is increased from zero. In the
present study the Reynolds number is high and the jet is turbulent. Therefore, a symmetry-
breaking bifurcation parameter might be the level of entrainment or expansion ratio.
The two-dimensional turbulent bubbly mixing layer, which is a multiphase problem, is
investigated using RANS based models. Available experimental data show that the spreading
rate of turbulent bubbly mixing layers is greater than that of the corresponding single phase
ow. The presence of bubbles also increases the turbulence level. The global structure of the
ow proved to be sensitive to the void fraction. The present RANS simulations predict this
behavior, but dierent turbulence models give dierent spreading rates. There is a signicant
dierence in turbulence kinetic energy between numerical predictions and experimental data.
The models tested include k , shear-stress transport (SST), and Reynolds stress transport
(SSG) models. All tested turbulence models under predict the spreading rate of the bubbly
mixing layer, even though they accurately predict the spreading rate for single phase ow.
The best predictions are obtained by using SST model.
iii
Dedication
Dedicated to my Parents.
iv
Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to thank my parents for their support and prayers which they made
for my success. I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my friend and academic
adviser Dr. Ragab, whose kind guidancemade me only possible to accomplish this work.
Without his guidance and persistent help this thesis would not have been possible. He was
always there at his oce even on weekends to answer my questions and review my work. I
simply have no words to explain his help and support. I would also like to thank Dr. Salem
Said who helped me how to use ANSYS and CFX. I would also like to thank Dr. Imran
Akhtar for his generous help. I would then like to thank Tim Tomlin. Tim spent hours and
hours with me to show how to use lcc system. I am also very thankful to Dr. Hajj for his
kindness and support during my studies. I am also grateful to Dr. Cramer for his input and
taking the time out of their busy schedule to review my work. I would also like to thank to
my close friends for all their support.
v
Contents
Abstract ii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgments v
Contents vi
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xii
1 Two-Dimensional Turbulent Jets in a Symmetrical Channel 1
1.1 Introduction: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Governing Equations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Channel Geometry: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Boundary Conditions and Mesh Details: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.5 Eects of Expansion Ratio on the Turbulent Jet: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.6 Eects of Channel Length: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
vi
Kareem Akhtar Contents
1.7 Eects of Entrainment: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.8 Eect of Numerical Treatment of the Outlet Boundary Condition: . . . . . . 23
1.9 Eects of Reynolds Number: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.10 Conclusions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2 Numerical Simulations of Turbulent Bubbly Mixing Layers 31
2.1 Introduction: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2 Governing Equations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.3 Mixing Layer Geometric Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.4 Boundary Conditions and Grid Description: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5 Numerical Simulations Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.6 Liquid (Water) Supercial Velocity Proles: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.7 Mixing Layer Growth Rate: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.8 Gas Supercial Velocity Proles: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.9 Void Fraction: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.10 Fine Grid Simulations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.11 Comparison Between Dierent Turbulence Models: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.12 Comparison with Experimental Data: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.13 Conclusions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3 A Numerical Study of Gas Hold Up in a Water Tank Supplied by a Dual
Jet of Air and Water 62
vii
Kareem Akhtar Contents
3.1 Geometric Details: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2 Grid Generation and Geometric Details: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3 Numerical Simulations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.4 Results: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.5 Comparison and Conclusion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
viii
List of Figures
1.1 Two-dimensional computational domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Two-dimension grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4 (a) Velocity contours (b) Streamlines, W=75mm, Re=30000 . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.5 Velocity contours for dierent width (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.6 Streamlines for dierent width (W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.7 Attachment length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.8 Attachment length as function of expansion ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.9 Non-dimensional attachment length vs channel width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.10 Velocity contours for dierent channel length, W=110mm,Re=30000 . . . . . 20
1.11 Velocity streamlines for dierent channel length, W=110mm,Re=30000 . . . 20
1.12 Attachment length vs channel length with xed width, W=110mm, Re=30000 21
1.13 Vertical velocity at section y=80mm for dierent channels with dierent lengths 21
1.14 Velocity contours and streamlines for dierent channel length, width=110mm 22
1.15 Special domain (a) boundary conditions (b) velocity contours . . . . . . . . . 24
1.16 Special domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ix
Kareem Akhtar List of Figures
1.17 Velocity contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.18 Velocity contours for dierent Reynolds numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.19 Attachment length vs Reynolds number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.1 Mixing layer geometry and boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2 (a)coarse grid (b)coarse grid (c) coarse grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3 (a)ne grid (b) trailing edge of splitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4 Velocity contours for single phase ow run 2-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.5 Water supercial velocity for run 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.6 Water supercial velocity for run 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.7 Water velocity proles for single phase run 2-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.8 Water supercial velocity proles for run 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.9 Water supercial velocity proles for run 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.10 Mixing layer thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.11 Mean velocity prole for single phase run 2-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.12 Mean water supercial velocity for two-phase run 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.13 Mean water supercial velocity for two-phase ow run 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.14 Mean supercial air velocity proles for run 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.15 Mean supercial air velocity proles for run 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.16 Void fraction run 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.17 Mean velocity in the liquid phase run 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.18 Mean velocity in the liquid phase run 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.19 Liquid supercial velocity proles for dierent turbulence models . . . . . . . 55
x
Kareem Akhtar List of Figures
2.20 Comparison with the experiments for single phase ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.21 Comparison with the experiments two-phase run 2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.22 Comparison with the experiments two-phase run 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.23 Turbulent energy comparison with experimental data for run 2-4 . . . . . . . 58
3.1 Geometry details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.2 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3 Two-dimensional grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.4 Air volume fraction contours for case 1: air jet below water jet . . . . . . . . 68
3.5 Air volume fraction contours for case 2: air jet above water jet . . . . . . . . 69
3.6 Air volume (%) in water tank for air jet below water jet . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.7 Air volume (%) in water tank for air jet above water jet . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.8 Water volume (%) in air tank for air jet below water jet . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.9 Water volume (%) in air tank for air jet above water jet . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.10 Air volume fraction comparison between case1 and case2 . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.11 Water volume fraction comparison between case1 and case2 . . . . . . . . . . 73
xi
List of Tables
2.1 Fine and coarse grid details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2 Inlet conditions for dierent runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3 Numerical and experimental vlaues for
L
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
xii
Chapter 1
Two-Dimensional Turbulent Jets in
a Symmetrical Channel
This chapter presents a numerical study of the behavior of a two-dimensional turbulent jet
issuing from a slit in a wall and owing midway between two parallel plates. The ow
geometry may also be considered to be a sudden expansion of a symmetric channel where the
expansion ratio is very high. Even though the boundary conditions support the possibility of
a ow that is symmetric about the channel mid-plane, experimental studies show asymmetric
ow; except at a very low Reynolds number (laminar ow) where the ow may be symmetric.
The behavior of the conned turbulent jet depends on the Reynolds number and geometry
of the channel given by expansion ratio (channel width to jet thickness) and oset ratio
(eccentricity of the jet entrance).
A numerical study is conducted to determine the eects of the expansion ratio (ratio of
channel width to jet thickness) on the jet behavior. The jet simulations are performed using
1
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 2
ANSYS Fluent-6. For a wide range of expansion ratio and high Reynolds number (turbu-
lent ow) the channel ow is asymmetrical and the jet attaches to one of the side walls. In
our numerical simulations we studied the behavior of a turbulent jet at Reynolds number
(Re=30000) for dierent values of expansion ratio. The attachment length increases linearly
with expansion ratio. The eects of the channel length and inow/outow boundary condi-
tions on this phenomenon are investigated. The channel length has no eect provided that it
is greater than the expected attachment length. The study also shows that the asymmetric
ow phenomenon is independent of the numerical treatment of the outow boundary con-
dition, but dependent on the inow condition. Numerical simulations show that the ow is
symmetrical only when entrainment is allowed at the inow boundary.
1.1 Introduction:
Jets have numerous applications such as environmental discharges, burners, injectors, mixing
and otation cells, automobiles etc. Conned jets exhibit a wide range of ow features
such as oscillations in a symmetric channel, asymmetric ow under symmetric conditions,
deection towards the boundary, attachment with the solid boundary and change of ow
pattern under entrainment condition. All these features are important and can aect device
eciency and performance. Conned laminar jet at low Reynolds number and moderate
expansion ratio (duct width/jet width) is studied and well documented by Sarma et al.
(2000). Conned symmetric and oset jet was studied numerically by Ouwa et al. (1986)
but for xed expansion ratio and Reynolds number from 400 to 8000. Experimental and
numerical studies show that the symmetrical conned jet behavior depends on Reynolds
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 3
number as well as on expansion ratio. The eects of Reynolds number on conned symmetric
jet is studied by many authors, mostly laminar ow, no signicant study is available on the
eects of expansion ratio on turbulent jet. The purpose of the present study is to investigate
the behavior of symmetrically conned turbulent jet under dierent expansion ratios at high
Reynolds numbers.
Due to its fundamental nature of the problem and its applications, jet ow is studied
from time to time. New features and properties are explored each time. Dierent aspects
of laminar and turbulent, free and conned jets with dierent geometric conditions (oset
ratios), have been studied. Sato (1960) studied the stability and transition of a two dimen-
sional jet. He deduced that, the oscillations in two-dimensional jet observed in the vicinity
of shear layer are caused by small velocity uctuations, originated near the nozzle exit plan.
Fully developed nozzle velocity proles led to anti-symmetric shedding, whereas undeveloped
proles to symmetric shedding. However, he was unable to nd the critical Reynolds number
for anti-symmetric ow. Sato and Sakao (1964) were able to distinguish the ow on the basis
of Reynolds number by investigating experimentally the stability of a two-dimensional jet
ow at low Reynolds number. They found that the whole jet is laminar if the jet Reynolds
number (based on the slit width and the maximum velocity of the jet) is less than 10. There
are some periodic uctuations when Reynolds number is between 10 and 50. When Reynolds
number is greater than 50 they found that the periodic uctuations develop into irregular
periodic uctuations.
Durst et al. (1974) and Cherdron et al. (1978) demonstrated that symmetric ows can
exist in two-dimensional (plane) symmetric sudden expansion ducts for only a limited range
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 4
of Reynolds numbers. At higher Reynolds numbers, the small disturbances generated at
the lip of the sudden expansion are amplied in the shear layers formed between the main
ow and the recirculation ow in the corners. The result is a shedding of eddy-like patterns
which alternate from one side to the other with consequent asymmetry of the mean ow,
particularly of the sizes of the two regions of re-circulations. The anti-symmetric shedding
causes asymmetric mean ow patterns.
Mitsunaga and Hirose (1979) studied ow patterns in a rectangular channel. They found
that the critical Reynolds number ranges from 40 to 60 for transition from symmetric to
asymmetric ow. Ouwa et al. (1981) also studied two-dimensional water jet ow in a rectan-
gular channel and found that the critical Reynolds number (based on nozzle width) is of the
order of 30. The asymmetric ow remains steady up to Reynolds number of the order 60. The
main ow becomes unsteady for Reynolds number higher than of 60. The two experiments
by Mitsunaga et al. and Ouwa et al. have dierent oset ratio.
Sobey (1985) investigated steady and oscillatory ow through a two-dimensional channel
expansion. He reported vortex wave (due to shear layer instability) during steady ow past
a moving indentation in a channel. Ouwa et al. (1986) studied the characteristics of conned
symmetric, asymmetric and wall jets at low Reynolds number in a rectangular channel. They
found that, the transition from laminar to turbulent ow occurs when AR cRe
m
, regardless
of the conguration of jet, where AR is the aspect ratio (height/length); c and m are empirical
constants.
Fearn et al. (1990) studied the asymmetric ow in a symmetric channel using bifurcation
theory and numerical simulations. They found numerically that the asymmetry rises at the
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 5
critical Reynolds number R
c
> 400.17%, and a third recirculation region with the wall was
observed at Reynolds number 125. Mataoui and Schiestel (2009) also found the oscillation
of jet ow inside a channel cavity (one end closed) both experimentally and numerically.
Steady ow (non-oscillatory ow) was found at high value of aspect ratio (height/length),
however oscillatory ow (periodic oscillation) was found for several geometric and dynamical
parameters. They found that the jet apping frequency increases linearly with Reynolds
number and decreases a lot with height of the cavity.
Along with experimental studies, numerical studies were also carried out from time to
time, under dierent geometric and boundary conditions. Ouwa et al. (1986) numerically
simulated two-dimensional plane jet in conned symmetric and asymmetric channel by means
of successive over-relaxation upwind schemes. Both symmetric and asymmetric ow patterns
were obtained for symmetric channel with critical Reynolds number Re
c
= 30. Dierent
ow patterns were reported for asymmetric channel with Reynolds number from 100 to 4000.
Umeda et al. (1990) simulated under-expanded slab jets by solving two-dimensional Eulerian
equations using second order-accurate explicit Osher scheme, with high aspect ratio i.e. 8 and
with a pressure ratio of the jet 4.48. They found that two- dimensional slab jet is symmetric
when symmetric boundary condition is applied. The asymmetric self sustained oscillations
occur when the asymmetric boundary condition is applied. The oscillations continue even if
the asymmetric boundary condition is replaced by symmetric boundary condition.
Gu (1996) simulated two-dimensional turbulent oset jets by solving two-dimensional
unsteady Navier-stokes equations for velocity components along with k turbulence model.
The two-dimensional model predicted that attachment of non-buoyant oset jet with oset
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 6
ratio 25 to a boundary did not occur in a case of symmetric geometry and external forces
about the initial jet centerline. The symmetric ow becomes stable if the discharge is located
at a suciently large distance from boundaries and if no disturbance is introduced.
Sarma et al. (2000) simulated laminar jet ow in a conned channel. They found that at
low expansion ratio (channel width/jet width) and Reynolds number the jet is symmetric, but
for higher expansion ratio and Reynolds number the jet ow at steady state becomes asym-
metric. For still higher values it becomes oscillatory with respect to time. When entrainment
is introduced the asymmetric instabilities and temporal oscillations occur at higher critical
Reynolds number for given expansion ratio. For xed expansion ratio when Reynolds num-
ber is increased the ow development rst becomes asymmetric and for still higher Reynolds
number it develops temporal oscillations.
Deniskhina et al. (2005) simulated plan turbulent jet ow into a rectangular cavity i.e.
with one end closed (dead end). The calculations were performed for two ow modes of which
the rst one is statistically steady and second is self-oscillatory. Three dierent approaches
were used for numerical simulations i.e. large eddy simulations (LES) with subgrid model of
Smagorinsky and steady and unsteady Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations (SRANS
and URANDS). For the rst ow mode all the three approaches gave close results, but for
second ow mode (self- oscillatory) best results were obtained by LES and three dimensional
URANS.
Kana and Das (2005) simulated two-dimensional incompressible non-buoyant oset jet by
stream functions and vorticity formulation considering the problem as asymptotic solution to
the transient equation. They studied the behavior of the jet with respect to oset ratio and
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 7
Reynolds number. It was found that the reattachment length depends on Reynolds number
and oset ratio. Reattachment length increases with the increase of Reynolds number for
xed oset ratio. Also at high oset ratio the decay of the horizontal velocity component
depends on Reynolds number only.
1.2 Governing Equations:
The Reynolds-averaged continuity and momentum equations (RANS equations) are given by
U = 0 (1.1)
U
t
+ (U U) = { u

} (1.2)
where the instantaneous velocity is decomposed into mean and uctuating components,
u = U +u

(1.3)
and
U =
1
t
_
t+t
t
udt (1.4)
=Density, u=velocity vector, U =average velocity,u

=uctuating velocity = stress tensor.

Term u

is called Reynolds stress tensor. The k which is a two-equation model

uses the gradient diusion hypothesis to relate the Reynolds stresses to the mean velocity
gradients and the turbulent viscosity. The turbulent viscosity is modeled as the product of a
turbulent velocity and turbulent length scale. The turbulence velocity scale is computed from
the turbulent kinetic energy, which is provided from the solution of its transport equation.
The turbulent length scale is estimated from two properties of the turbulence eld, usually
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 8
the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate. The dissipation rate of the turbulent
kinetic energy is provided from the solution of its transport equation. The k model
introduces two new variables into the system of equations. The continuity equation remain
the same, and momentum equation becomes,
U
t
+ (U U) = p +
_

eff
_
U +U
T
__
(1.5)

eff
is the eective viscosity accounting for turbulence, and is given by

eff
= +
t
(1.6)
p is the modied pressure and is given by dened by
p = p +
2
3
k +
2
3

t
U (1.7)
where
t
is the turbulent viscosity. For k model, turbulent viscosity is given by

t
= C

k
2

(1.8)
C

is a constant with value 0.09. k is the turbulent kinetic energy and is dened as the
variance of the uctuations in velocity. is the turbulence eddy dissipation (rate at which
turbulence kinetic energy is dissipated). The values of k and come directly from the dif-
ferential transport equations for the turbulence kinetic energy and turbulence dissipation
rate:
(k)
t
+ (Uk) = [
_
+

t

k
_
k] +P
k
(1.9)
()
t
+ (U) = [
_
+

t

_
] +

k
(C
1
P
k
C
2
) (1.10)
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 9
Where C
1
, C
2
,
k
and

are constants with values 1.44, 1.92, 1 and 1.3, respectively. P

k
is
the turbulence production due to viscous and buoyancy forces given by
P
k
=
t
U
_
U +U
T
_

2
3
U (3
t
U +k) +P
kb
(1.11)
P
kb
is buoyancy production term and depends on the buoyancy turbulence, which are given
in CFX manual. Based on k, SST model accounts for the transport of the turbulent shear
stress and gives highly accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of ow separation
under adverse pressure gradients. Although, the Baseline (BSL) k model combines the
advantages of theWilcox k and the k model, but still fails to properly predict the
onset and amount of ow separation from smooth surfaces. The main reason is that both
models do not account for the transport of the turbulent shear stress. This results in an over
prediction of the eddy-viscosity. The proper transport behavior can be obtained by a limiter
to the formulation of the eddy-viscosity given by

t
=
a
1
k
max(a
1
, SF
2
)
(1.12)
where S is an invariant measure of the strain rate. F
2
is a blending function, which restricts
the limiter to the wall boundary layer, as the underlying assumptions are not correct for free
shear ows. The blending function is given by
F
2
= tanh
_

2
2
_
(1.13)

2
= max
_
2

y
,
500v
y
2

_
(1.14)
Where y is the distance to the nearest wall, is the kinematic viscosity, is the turbulent
frequency and

is constant having value 0.09.

Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 10
1.3 Channel Geometry:
The baseline two-dimensional geometry used in simulations is shown in gure 1.1. The domain
width (W) is 75mm and height (H) is 180mm. Although we changed the width and height
for dierent runs but we started each series from this baseline geometry. The jet nozzle exit
is 3mm. The jet thickness and jet velocity are kept constant in each simulation. Also in all
simulations b
1
= b
2
(see gure 1.3), so the oset ratio in all runs is equal to 1. The entrance
channel length of the jet is extended in the upstream direction up to 60mm in order to get
a fully developed prole. Our simulations show that the jet is sensitive to boundary layer
prole at the exit. For some cases dierent results were observed for with and without the
extended entrance channel of jet. The extended entrance channel prole is used in all runs.
k turbulent model is used for all presented simulations.
Figure 1.1: Two-dimensional computational domain
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 11
1.4 Boundary Conditions and Mesh Details:
ANSYS ICEM CFD 12.0 is used for grid generation. To minimize truncation error, very
dense grid is used near all walls. Dierent sections of the grid are shown in gure 1.2. The
boundary conditions are labeled in gure 1.3. We have three types of boundary conditions:
wall, inlet and opening. At the bottom we have velocity inlet for water jet, at the top opening
boundary condition, where static pressure is prescribed, is used. All the rest of the boundaries
are no-slip walls. The results show that there is no dierence between the boundary condition
opening and outlet. We keep the opening condition in all runs which is more physical.
Figure 1.2: Two-dimension grid
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 12
The boundaries labeled as side b1 and b2 are changed to pressure inlets for en-
trainment case, discussed in section 1.6 in detail. The velocity of the jet is kept at 10(m/s)
in each run. So, with the jet thickness of 3mm, and kinematic viscosity of 1 10
6
(m
2
/s)
the Reynolds number is 30000 in all simulations.
Figure 1.3: Boundary conditions
Results:
Results are arranged into ve dierent sections: eects of expansion ratio on turbulent
jet, eects of channel length, eects of entrainment, eects of numerical treatment of the
outlet boundary condition and eects of Reynolds number.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 13
1.5 Eects of Expansion Ratio on the Turbulent Jet:
In this section, we discuss the eects of expansion ratio. We dene expansion ratio as the
ratio of the channel width to the jet thickness. The velocity contours and streamlines are
shown in gures 1.4. It is evident that the ow is asymmetrical. In fact the jet deects
towards the boundary wall, either left or right, and attaches to it. The jet remains attached
all the way to the exit boundary. There are three circulation regions, one in the middle of
channel and one in each corner. The size of circulation region changes with change in width
of the channel.
Figure 1.4: (a) Velocity contours (b) Streamlines, W=75mm, Re=30000
To study the eects of distance between the walls on this phenomenon, dierent simula-
tions are run by changing the width of the channel, but keeping the Reynolds number and
the channel length constant. The purpose of these runs is to see whether the ow becomes
symmetrical after certain width, second to determine the changes in the attachment distance
of the jet. The velocity contours and streamlines for dierent width or expansion ratio are
plotted in gures 1.5 and 1.6, respectively.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 14
Figure 1.5: Velocity contours for dierent width (W)
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 15
Figure 1.6: Streamlines for dierent width (W)
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 16
We observe that the jet attaches to one of the walls. The jet attaches randomly to one
of the walls if the channel width is less than 180mm, which the length of the computational
domain. By further increasing the channel width, we nd that the jet does not attach to
either wall in the given length, but it oscillates in the domain of length 180mm. Even for
very high expansion ratio and width of 250mm, the jet oscillates indicating that it would
attach if the length is increased. We dene the attachment point as the point where the
wall shear stress is zero as sketched in gure 1.7. Below this point we have the entrapped
uid in circulation region, and above this point the jet moves up along the wall and exits the
channel. The point is determined by visual interrogation of the streamlines in the channel.
The distance of the attachment point from the bottom of the channel is the attachment
length. By changing the width and keeping the length and thickness of the jet constant,
we determined the attachment length for a range of expansion ratio. It is found that the
attachment length increases linearly with increase of expansion ratio as shown in gure 1.8.
However, the ratio of the attachment length to the width of the channel is approximately
equals 0.7; hence it is nearly independent of the channel width as shown in gure 1.9.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 17
Figure 1.7: Attachment length
Figure 1.8: Attachment length as function of expansion ratio
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 18
Figure 1.9: Non-dimensional attachment length vs channel width
1.6 Eects of Channel Length:
In the previous section, we discussed the eects of expension ratio on the two-dimensional
jet by changing the width of the symmetrical channel at constant Reynolds number. The
purpose of this section is to investigate the eects of streamwise channel length on velocity
eld, jet apping, and the attachment length. We expect that for very large channel length,
the outer boundary will be far away from the inlet, and its location should not inuence the
ow development in the channel. This section will demonstrate that the results we obtained
are independent of the outow boundary location.
Dierent simulations are run by changing the length of channel in steps of 180mm, but
with constant width (110mm) and jet Reynolds number equal to 30000. The velocity contours
and streamlines are plotted in gures 1.10 and 1.11, respectively. The velocity contours and
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 19
streamlines show that a two-dimensional jet will attach to a side wall provided that the
channel length is greater than a critical value; which is approximately equal to the channel
width. The numerical simulations performed by Sarma et al. (2000)for a two-dimensional
laminar jet show further jet oscillations along the channel. We do not see such oscillations
for a turbulent jet in our domain with maximum channel length 720mm.
Figure 1.12 shows the attachment length as function of the channel length. The attach-
ment length of the jet is almost constant. The attachment length decreases slightly with the
increase in channel length, but remains constant with further increase. Figure 1.13 shows a
comparison of the vertical velocity proles at a section near the attachment point (y=80mm)
for dierent channel lengths. The changes in velocity proles due to increasing channel length
become negligible for channel length greater than or equal 360mm. Hence, the velocity eld
is independent of the location of the outow boundary (channel length). Since, there is no
dierence in the attachment length and the velocity prole for dierent channel lengths, we
conclude that the results presented are independent of the outer boundary location.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 20
Figure 1.10: Velocity contours for dierent channel length, W=110mm,Re=30000
Figure 1.11: Velocity streamlines for dierent channel length, W=110mm,Re=30000
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 21
Figure 1.12: Attachment length vs channel length with xed width, W=110mm, Re=30000
Figure 1.13: Vertical velocity at section y=80mm for dierent channels with dierent lengths
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 22
1.7 Eects of Entrainment:
In all simulations presented, impermeable walls were assumed on both sides of the jet at
its exit plane. In this section, the eects of entrainment from the jet exit plane will be
investigated. To allow entrainment, we changed the boundary condition of sides b1 and b2
(gure 1.3) to pressure inlet; where atmospheric pressure is specied.
Simulations are run on channel with a large length of 720mm and width 110mm. The jet
Reynolds number is still the same i.e. Re=30000. Symmetric ow is predicted for the two
dimensional jet as shown in gure 1.14. This indicates that when entrainment at the jet exit
plane is allowed, it is possible to obtain symmetric ow. The critical limit of entrianment for
symmetric solution has not been determined. Sarma et al.(2000) found that for a laminar jet
at Re=200 and ER=20, the ow in the channel becomes asymmetric even in the presence
of entrainment. Further investigation is needed to study the eects of entrainment on the
turbulent jet case for dierent Reynolds number and expansion ratio.
Figure 1.14: Velocity contours and streamlines for dierent channel length, width=110mm
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 23
1.8 Eect of Numerical Treatment of the Outlet Boundary
Condition:
This section deals with the discussion of dierent measurements taken to make sure that
ow is independent of the type of boundary condition imposed at the channel exit. Both
opening and outlet boundary conditions are tested for the upper edge of the boundary.
No dierence is found in the results, and will not be shown here.
In most of the results reported here, opening is used as a boundary condition for the
upper edge as shown in gure 1.3. Opening boundary condition allows reversed ow at
the boundary as shown by the streamline depicted gure 1.11. A special type of domain
is created as shown in 1.15(a). Now, we change the boundary condition at the top of the
channel to a solid wall, and allow the ow to exit the channel from two symmetrical holes
on the side walls. The thickness of each hole is equal to half of the jet thickness. It is found
that the jet still attaches to one of the side walls as shown in gure 1.15(b). So, no change
is found as a result of changing the outer boundary condition type.
For further verication that the jet attachment phenomenon is independent of the numer-
ical treatment of the outow boundary condition, we simulate the ow in the domain shown
in gure 1.16. We removed the outer edge and put the entire channel in a larger square room
having an edge length of 540mm. The entire domain in initialized with zero velocity. All
surfaces are treated as solid walls, except the outer bottom surface is treated as opening to
allow the ow to exit the large room. The velocity contours are shown in gure 1.17. Results
show that jet still attaches to one of the side walls; which conrms that the jet attachment
phenomenon is independent of the numerical treatment of the outow boundary condition.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 24
Figure 1.15: Special domain (a) boundary conditions (b) velocity contours
Figure 1.16: Special domain
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 25
Figure 1.17: Velocity contours
1.9 Eects of Reynolds Number:
In this section, we discuss the eects of Reynolds number on the two-dimensional turbulent
jet. We change the jet velocity, and x the expansion ratio. Figure 1.18 shows that the velocity
contours for three dierent velocity of the jet i.e. 10(m/s), 50(m/s) and 100(m/s). The
attachment length is calculated for each Reynolds number. It is found that the attachment
length remain constant with the increase in Reynolds number as shown in gure 1.19.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 26
Figure 1.18: Velocity contours for dierent Reynolds numbers
Figure 1.19: Attachment length vs Reynolds number
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 27
1.10 Conclusions:
We conducted a numerical study of a two-dimensional incompressible turbulent jet in a
symmetrical channel. We investigated the jet ow as function of expansion ratio (channel
width to jet thickness), channel length, Reynolds number and entrainment condition. The
resulting ow in the channel is asymmetric for a wide range of expansion ratio at high
Reynolds number. The jet deects and attaches to one of the channel walls. The attachment
length increases linearly with the channel width for xed value of Reynolds number. The
ratio of the attachment length to channel width is approximately 0.7. The attachment length
is also found to be independent of the (turbulent) jet Reynolds number for xed expansion
ratio.
Results indicate that the attachment length of the jet and the velocity eld are indepen-
dent of the location or numerical details of the outow boundary; hence we conclude that
the phenomenon of turbulent jet attachment is not a result of the numerical treatment of the
outer boundary condition.
By simulating half of the channel and imposing symmetry, we can construct a steady
symmetric solution to the RANS equations. This implies that there are possibly two solutions
to the steady RANS equations, one is symmetric but unstable, and the other solution is
asymmetric (the jet attaches to one of the side walls) but stable. A symmetric solution
is also obtained if entrainment from jet exit plane is permitted. Fearn et al. (Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, vol. 121, 1990) studied the laminar problem, and showed that the ow
asymmetry of a symmetric expansion arises at a symmetry-breaking bifurcation as the jet
Reynolds number is increased from zero. In the present study the Reynolds number is high
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 28
and the jet is turbulent. Therefore, a symmetry-breaking bifurcation parameter might be the
level of entrainment or expansion ratio.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 29
References:
Cherdron,W., Durst, F., and Whitelaw, J.H., Asymmetric ows and instabilities in sym-
metric ducts with sudden expansions Journal of Fluid Mechanics (1978), 84:1:13-31 Cam-
bridge University Press.
Denisikhina, D.M., Bassina, I.A., Nikulin, D. A., and Strelets,M.Kh., Numerical simu-
lation of self-excited oscillation of a turbulent jet owing into a rectangular cavity High
Temperature. Vol. 43, No. 4, 2005, pp. 568-579. Translated from Teplozika Vysokikh
Temperatur, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2005, pp. 568-579. Original Russian Text Copyright 2005 by
D. M. Denisikhina, I. A. Bassina, D. A. Nikulin, and M. Kh. Strelets.
Durst, F., Melling, A., and Whitelaw, J.H., Low Reynolds number ow over a plane
symmetric sudden expansion Journal of Fluid Mechanics (1974), 64:1:111-128 Cambridge
University Press.
Fearn, R. M., Mullin, T., and Clie, K. A. Nonlinear ow phenomena in a symmetric
sudden expansion Journal of Fluid Mechanics (1990), 211:595-608 Cambridge University
Press.
Kanna, P.R, and Das, M.K., Numerical simulation of two-dimensional laminar incom-
pressible oset jet ows International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids Volume 49
Issue 4, Pages 439 - 464 Published Online: 8 Jun 2005.
Mataoui, A. and Schiestel, R., Unsteady phenomena of an oscillating turbulent jet ow
inside a cavity: Eect of aspect ratio Journal of Fluids and Structures Volume 25, Issue 1,
January 2009, Pages 60-79.
Mitsunaga, S., and Hirose, T., : Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. 42 (1976) No. 364,3889[in
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 1 30
Japanese]
Ouwa,Y., Watanabe, M., and Matsuoka, Y., Behavior of a conned plane jet in a rect-
angular channel at low Reynolds number I. general ow characteristics Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.
25 (1986) pp. 754-761.
Ouwa, Y., Watanabe, M., and Asawo,H., Flow visualization of a two-dimensional water
jet in a rectangular channel Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp.
243 (1981).
GU, R., Modeling two-dimensional turbulent oset jets Journal of hydraulic engineering
1996, vol. 122, no11, pp. 617-624.
Sarma, A.S.R., Sundararajan, T., and Ramjee, V., Numerical simulation of conned
laminar jet ows International journal for numerical methods in uids 2000, vol. 33, no5,
pp. 609-626.
Sato The stability and transition of a two-dimensional jet Journal of Fluid Mechanics
(1960), 7:1:53-80 Cambridge University Press.
Sato, H., and Sakao, F., An experimental investigation of instability of a two-dimensional
jet at low Reynolds numbers J. Fluid Mech. (1964), vol.20, part 2, pp. 337-352
Sobey, I.J., Observation of waves during oscillatory channel ow Journal of Fluid Me-
chanics (1985), 151:395-426 Cambridge University Press.
Umeda, Y., Ishii, R., Matsuda, T., Yasuda, A., Sawada, K., and Shima, E., Instability
of astrophysical jets.II. Numerical simulation of two-dimensional choked underexpanded slab
jets Progess of Theoretical Physics, vol. 84, no.5, November 1990.
Chapter 2
Numerical Simulations of Turbulent
Bubbly Mixing Layers
This chapter presents numerical simulations of two-dimensional turbulent bubbly mixing
layers. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the eects of turbulence models on the sim-
ulations of bubbly mixing layers using Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations.
The models tested include k , shear-stress transport (SST), and Reynolds stress trans-
port (SSG) models. Mean liquid and gas velocity proles, expressed in similarity variables,
are compared to experimental data for single and two phase ows. It is found that RANS
simulations show that the spreading rates of turbulent bubbly mixing layers are greater than
that of the corresponding single phase ow, but dierent turbulence models give dierent
spreading rates. The increase in spreading rate is consistent with experimental observations.
All tested turbulence models under predict the spreading rate of the bubbly mixing layer,
even though they accurately predicted the spreading rate for single phase ow. The global
31
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 32
structure of the ow proved to be sensitive to the gas volume fraction (as also concluded by
Roig 1997), and the best predictions are obtained by using SST model.
2.1 Introduction:
Bubbly ow is widely used in industrial processes like mineral processing and bubbly reactors
for heat and mass transfer. In mineral processing, such as otation cells, bubbly ow is used
as a technique to separate solid-solid particles and hence to extract minerals. In mechanically
agitated otation cells, the raw ore is mixed with water in a large tank, and air is injected
and dispersed by the action of a rotor into small bubbles. The desired mineral particles are
chemically treated to make them hydrophobic. Upon collision with bubbles, particles attach
to the bubbles and oat to the top of the tank. In this way minerals are collected and removed
from the tank. The process depends on bubbles generation, bubbles size distributions, bubble-
particle interaction, and bubbles dispersion within the otation cell. Similarly, the bubbly
reactors have many applications ranging from chemical processes to water treatment. The
eciency of the reactors depends on ecient mixing, interfacial transfer rates, and bubbles
dispersion, etc. Performance improvements of these industrial processes require a correct
understanding of mechanisms involving multiphase ow dynamics. Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) is a promising tool for understanding and investing these complex processes.
The mixing layer is a simple, yet fundamental, shear ow that has been proven useful
for testing of turbulence models and understanding basic mechanism of uid mixing and
dispersion. Both experimental and numerical research have been carried out in the last two
decades for the prediction of bubbly mixing layers. These experiments give the structure
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 33
of the turbulent bubbly ow, knowledge about bubble size distributions and the turbulence
kinetic energy in the bubbly ow.
Roig et al. (1997) found that turbulent mixing-layer structure is sensitive to void fraction
in their experiments on single phase and bubbly ow with low void fraction and low liquid
velocities. The bubbly mixing layer spreading rate was found to be more than that of single
phase ow. Also, the turbulent kinetic energy of bubbly ow was found to be higher than that
of single phase ow. Rightley et al. (2000) studied bubbly mixing layer ow in a horizontal
channel with very low void fraction on one side only. They studied the interaction of micro
bubbles with free shear layer and investigated the coherent large scales of the ow on the
bubble dispersion eld and the energy redistribution within the carrier phase (water). Coline
et al. (2001) found the bubble distribution in a vertical upward ow, a vertical downward
ow and upward ow under micro gravity condition in a turbulent pipe ow. They found
that in the vertical upward ow, the bubbles move radially towards the pipe wall under the
action of lift force. However, bubbles do not move towards the wall in microgravity condition.
In downward ow the bubbles move towards the center of the pipe.
When air is injected in water the bubble size varies in shape and size due to break up and
coalescence. Martnez-Bazn et al. (2002) injected an air jet inside a water jet, and found that
the bubble size distribution depend on dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy, global
air void fraction and on the ratio between the residence time and the break-up time. Neto
et al. (2007) injected air in a water tank together with a water jet and found a critical
nozzle Reynolds number value of Re=8000 for large bubbles to break up into small bubbles.
They also found that a Webber number of We
w
= 25 is necessary to produce strong bubble
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 34
deformation and breakup away from the nozzles. Qi and Shuli (2008) also found that the
presence of bubbles increases the level of turbulence in the ow. Tournemine and Roig (2010)
analyzed the primary instability of buoyant conned bubbly mixing layers. They found that
the induced buoyancy eect generates longitudinal accelerations which are at the origin of self
excited large scale oscillation under certain conditions. Experimental evidence was provided
that these oscillations are global modes.
Numerical work on single phase mixing layer started earlier and is well developed. But Nu-
merical work on two phase ow became as a matter of interest in the past decade. Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and Large-Eddy Simulations (LES) in conjunction with the
Euler-Euler model are being used most of the time for the prediction of multiphase ow.
Lakehal et al. (2002) performed LES of turbulent shear ows. They simulated a mixing layer
with the same conditions as that experimentally investigated by Roig et al. (1999). They
found that there is no dierence between two-dimensional and three dimensional simulation
for the tested conditions. Close comparison with experimental work was obtained with bub-
ble lift coecient of C
L
= 1.25. Results obtained by using Smagorinsky model were closer
to experimental data than those obtained by Germanos dynamic model. Also the Dynamic
Smagorinsky Model (DSM) strategy didnt work well. Dhotre et al. (2007) also found that
the dynamic approach of Germano does not perform better than the Smagorinsky model
in their LES of square cross-sectioned bubble column. Close agreements with experiments
were found with Smagorinsky model for a model constant of C
s
= 0.12. Ayed et al. (2007)
reported new results for a turbulent buoyant bubbly shear layer experiment. The results were
simulated using Euler-Euler two-uid model. The concentration of dissolved oxygen in the
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 35
liquid was reproduced by the model. The prole of dissolved oxygen were not satisfactory
for y > 0.12 (transverse horizontal axis) and x > 0.2 (streamwise vertical axis) due to the
eect of wall. They reported that the eect of turbulence, bubble deformation, and of im-
purities are not yet completely explored even though some formulations based on turbulent
time scales were proposed for stirred gas-liquid systems and validated against experimental
investigations. Hu et al. (2007) simulated gas-liquid bubbly ow in a at bubble column
using Eulerian-Lagrangian based large-eddy simulation. A concept of particle-source-in-cell
(PSI-ball) is formulated to map a Lagrangian quantity to Eulerian reference frame. High
prediction accuracy was achieved in an extensive comparison with the experimental data. A
detailed second order statistics related to pseudo-turbulent uctuations (missing in RANS)
is reported.
Min et al. (2008) numerically simulated gas dispersion in an aerated stirred reactor with
multiple impellers. An Euler-Euler approach with constant single average bubble diameter
(SABD) and the population balance model (PBM) and multiple size groups (MUSIG) model
were used with commercial CFD (CFX) code to compute gas void fraction. When compared
with experimental data, the SABD does not predict the void fraction correctly. The prediction
of PBM and MUSIG model were found to be correct. The reason is that SABD ignores the
breakup and coalescence of bubbles while the PBM-MUSIG model considers these events.
Niceno et al. (2008) simulated square cross-sectional bubble column using Euler-Euler
large eddy simulation using Neptune CFD code. Results were also compared with results
obtained from simulations performed using the CFX-4 (one equation model) code. Results
from Smagorinsky SGS model in the Neptune CFD code and CFX were close to each other.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 36
The liquid velocity proles were under predicted but the gas proles were predicted well by
both codes.
2.2 Governing Equations:
The governing equations for multiphase ow are the continuity and momentum RANS equa-
tions which are given by

t
(r

) + (r

) = 0 (2.1)

t
(r

) + (r

)) = r

+
_
r

_
U

+ (U

)
T
__
+r

g +M

(2.2)
where refers to the phase, r

denotes the volume fraction of each phase, is the density,g

is the gravitational acceleration and U is velocity vector. M

is the interfacial forces acting

on phase due to the presence of other phases. The total force on phase due to interaction
with other phases e.g. is given by
M

=
M

(2.3)
and
M

= M
D

+M
L

+M
LUB

+M
TD

+.... (2.4)
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 37
Interphase Drag
The following general form is used to model interphase drag force acting on phase due
to phase :
M

= c
(d)

(U

) (2.5)
c
(d)

=
3
4
C
D
d
r

|U
beta
U
alpha
| (2.6)
For spherical particles the Schiller Naumann Drag Model the drag coecient C
D
is given
by
C
D
=
24
Re
_
1 + 0.15Re
0.687
_
(2.7)
The multiphase versions of turbulence models are equivalent to the single phase version,
with all ux and volumetric source terms multiplied by volume fractions. The eddy viscosity
hypothesis is assumed to hold for each turbulent phase. Diusion of Momentum in phase
is governed by an eective viscosity:

eff
=

+
t
(2.8)
For the k model, the turbulent viscosity is modeled as:

t
= c

_
k

_
(2.9)
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 38
The transport equations for k and in a turbulent phase are assumed to take a similar
form to the single-phase transport equations:
(r

)
t
+
_
r

_
+

t

k
_
k

__
= r

(P

) +T
(k)

(2.10)
()
t
+ (U) = [
_
+

t

_
] +

k
(C
1
P
k
C
2
) (2.11)
where C
1
, C
2
,
k
and

are constants with values 1.44, 1.92, 1 and 1.3, respectively.

The multiphase versions of Reynolds stress models are equivalent to the single phase version,
with all ux and volumetric source terms multiplied by volume fractions. Sato successfully
modeled particle induced turbulence this for bubbly ow using an enhanced continuous phase
eddy viscosity:

tc
=
ts
+
tp
(2.12)
2.3 Mixing Layer Geometric Details
The two-dimensional computational domain used in simulations is shown in gure 2.1(a).
It has the same dimensions as the test section of the mixing layer facility used by Roig et
al. (1997). It is a rectangular channel of width of (2b) = 400mm and height of H = 2.3m.
A splitter is inserted in the middle dividing the channel into two sides, side 1 to the right
and side 2 to the left of the plate. The geometric details of splitter plate trailing edge are
shown in gure 2.1(b). The plate height is 300mm, and its thickness is 2mm over most of
its length, except for the last 10mm where its thickness drops to 0.5mm at the trailing edge.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 39
This design closely matches the trailing edge, which is described as a cusp, in the Roig et al.
(1997) experimental facility. The simulations reported here show that no vortices are shed
from the trailing edge of the splitter plate.
Figure 2.1: Mixing layer geometry and boundary conditions
2.4 Boundary Conditions and Grid Description:
The commercial software ANSYS ICEM CFD 12.0 is used for grid generation. The grid is
block structured as shown in gures 2.2 and 2.3. Two grids, denoted as coarse and ne grids,
are used to check the eects of grid resolution on the simulations accuracy; the number of
elements is shown in table 2.1. A Cartesian coordinate system is introduced with origin at the
trailing edge of the splitter plate, and the x-axis is vertically upward (streamwise direction)
and the y-axis is horizontal (transverse to the mixing layer). The gravitational acceleration
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 40
is downward. The boundary conditions are labeled in gure 2.1. We have three types of
boundary conditions: solid walls, inlets and outlet. The two vertical side walls and the sur-
face of splitter plate are assumed to be no-slip walls for both phases. At the bottom we have
two velocity inlets conditions; one on each side of the splitter plate, and at the top we impose
a pressure outlet condition. Subscripts L and G are used to denote liquid and gas phases,
respectively. Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the right (y > 0) and left (y < 0) sides of the splitter
plate, respectively.
Figure 2.2: (a)coarse grid (b)coarse grid (c) coarse grid
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 41
Figure 2.3: (a)ne grid (b) trailing edge of splitter
Domain Nodes Elements
Coarse grid 274,400 136,145
Fine grid 940,800 468,476
Table 2.1: Fine and coarse grid details
2.5 Numerical Simulations Parameters:
Dierent numerical runs were performed by changing the void fraction () and magnitude of
inlet velocities. ANSYS CFX 12.0 is used to solve the RANS two-phase ow equations. The
parameters of dierent numerical runs are given in table 2.2; they correspond to conditions of
Roig et al. (1999) experiments. Experiment 2-1 is purely single phase (liquid water) because
the void fraction in both sides is zero. The void fraction () in each experiment is less than
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 42
Experiment 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4

10
% 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0
U
L10
(m/s) 0.615 0.53 0.51 0.58

20
% 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.5
U
L20
(m/s) 0.255 0.23 0.18 0.19
U
L0
= U
L10
U
L20
0.36 0.3 0.33 0.34
U
Lm0
=
(U
L10
U
L20
)
2
0.435 0.38 0.345 0.385

0
=
U
L0
2U
Lm0
0.414 0.395 0.478 0.506

L
24 11 13 14
Table 2.2: Inlet conditions for dierent runs
2%. The liquid velocity in each experiment is less than 1 (m/s). The mean bubble diameter
is 2mm. The Reynolds number Re = U
Lo
x

L
varies from 1.910
4
to 4.410
5
indicating that
the ow is fully turbulent, where x is streamwise distance measured from the splitter plate
trailing edge, as shown in gure 2.1(a), and U
Lo
is velocity dierence across the mixing
layer.
Results
Results in this chapter are divided into seven sections: liquid (water) supercial velocity
proles, mixing layer growth rate, gas supercial velocity proles, void fraction, ne grid sim-
ulations, comparison between dierent turbulence models and comparison with experimental
data.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 43
2.6 Liquid (Water) Supercial Velocity Proles:
The water volume fraction is greater than 98% in each case. So, the water ow gives us the
global structure of the ow. A single phase simulation was performed rst. It is expected
that RNAS model works well for single ow as reported in the literature. The water velocity
contours for single phase ow run 2-1 are shown in gure 2.4. The red color shows the high
velocity side. For two-phase ows, the supercial velocity counters of liquid in runs 2-2 and
2-4 are shown in gures 2.5 and 2.6, respectively. The supercial velocity is the product of
the local velocity and local volume fraction. Contours for run 2-4 are signicantly dierent
from those for run 2-2. This is due to the dierence in the inlet values of void fraction. At
the inlet, the void fraction is zero in the high speed side for run 2-4, whereas for run 2-2, the
void fractions are equal on both sides of the mixing layer. The mixing layer drifts towards
the side of higher void fraction. This result is supported by experimental data. Even though
the void fraction in run 2-4 is only 1.5 %, yet it has a strong eect on the overall behavior of
the mixing layer, hence indicating how the ow is sensitive to the void fraction.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 44
Figure 2.4: Velocity contours for single phase ow run 2-1
Figure 2.5: Water supercial velocity for run 2-2
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 45
Figure 2.6: Water supercial velocity for run 2-4
The water velocity proles for single-phase ow run 2-1 at dierent streamwise stations
x=-1cm, 20cm, 30cm, and 40cm are shown in gure 2.7. The proles show the spreading
of the mixing layer with the streamwise distance. SST turbulence model is used here. The
supercial velocity proles for two-phase ow runs 2-2 and 2-4 at dierent stations are plotted
in gures 2.8 and 2.9, respectively. An important observation can be seen that the velocities
to the left and right of the mixing layer almost remain constant and equal to inlet conditions;
only the mixing layer thickness increases. The same observation can be seen in the single
phase ow.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 46
Figure 2.7: Water velocity proles for single phase run 2-1
Figure 2.8: Water supercial velocity proles for run 2-2
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 47
Figure 2.9: Water supercial velocity proles for run 2-4
2.7 Mixing Layer Growth Rate:
In order to quantify mixing layer growth for single-phase and two-phase runs, we introduce
non-dimensional similarity variables U
+
L
and
L
dened by
U
+
L
=
U
L
U
L2
U
L1
U
L2
(2.13)

L
=
L
y y1
2
x
(2.14)
Where y
1/2
is dened by U
L
(y
1/2
) = U
Lm
and
L
is a measure of mixing layer growth rate,
which will be compared with the experimental lateral expansion. If the spreading rate of the
mixing layer is measured by the angle as shown in gure 2.10, then we dene
L
as

L
=
1
tan
L
=
1

L
(2.15)
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 48
Figure 2.10: Mixing layer thickness
So a small value of
L
means greater expansion rate of mixing layer. A good approximation
of the velocity prole of single phase mixing layer is the Gortlers prole (Schlichting, 1979
seveth edition), which is given by
u(
L
) = 0.5[1 +erf(
L
)] (2.16)
where erf(
L
)is the error function given by
erf() =
2

_

0
e

2
dx (2.17)
In gures 2.11, 2.12, 2.13 show a comparison between the computed velocity proles, ex-
pressed in terms of similarity variables U
+
L
and
L
, and Gortlers prole. For each run, the
value of (
L
) is determined to obtain the best match between the two proles. This was done
by varying
L
and then visually inspecting the plots of the two proles. The best value for

L
for single phase is 24. Extending the same concept for two phase ow, we present liquid
velocity proles for two phase runs 2-2 and 2-4 in gures 2.12 and 2.13, respectively. For run
2-2 the value of
L
was found to be 21 while for run 2-4 having bubbles only on one side the
value of
L
was found to be 19. This indicates that the spreading rate measured by 1/
L
is
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 49
dierent from single phase ow and depends on the void fraction. The dierence is due to
the presence of bubbles which generates buoyancy eects in the ow and density dierence
between the two sides. We note that the prole at the edges i.e. near |
L
| = 1 is not matching
well with Gortlers prole. The comparison is more favorable as we rene the grid as will be
shown in section 2.10.
Figure 2.11: Mean velocity prole for single phase run 2-1
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 50
Figure 2.12: Mean water supercial velocity for two-phase run 2-2
Figure 2.13: Mean water supercial velocity for two-phase ow run 2-4
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 51
2.8 Gas Supercial Velocity Proles:
The mean supercial air velocity proles for run 2-2 and run 2-4 at dierent streamwise
locations x = 6cm, 20cm, 30cm, and 40cm are shown in gures 2.14 and 2.15, respectively.
As show in these gures the air velocity is high compared to liquid velocities. The slip
velocity (U
G
U
L
) for run 2-4 (having air bubble only in one side) is 0.21 m/s. There is
a peak in the velocity prole for run 2-4, which corresponds to a peak in the void fraction.
The experimental work by Roig et al.(1999) also show some peaks of void fraction for some
sections but not in the entire ow.
Figure 2.14: Mean supercial air velocity proles for run 2-4
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 52
Figure 2.15: Mean supercial air velocity proles for run 2-2
2.9 Void Fraction:
Void fraction proles are plotted in the gure 2.16. In the experimental work performed by
Roig et al. ( 1999 and 2006) peaks in void fraction that depends on the inlet conditions are
also observed. These peaks are due to the boundary layer developing on the splitter plate,
which depend on inlet conditions.
Figure 2.16: Void fraction run 2-4
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 53
2.10 Fine Grid Simulations:
Fine grid simulations are run to make sure that our calculations are independent of grids.
The computational domain and all boundary conditions are identical to that of the coarse
grid. The value of
L
is calculated for ne grid. We nd
L
= 18 for run 2-4 (for coarse grid it
is 19) and
L
= 20 for run 2-2 (for coarse grid the value is 21). The water supercial velocity
in similarity variables are plotted in gures 2.17 and 2.18 for run 2-4 and 2-2, respectively.
Better agreement between simulations and Geortlers prole is evident.
Figure 2.17: Mean velocity in the liquid phase run 2-4
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 54
Figure 2.18: Mean velocity in the liquid phase run 2-2
2.11 Comparison Between Dierent Turbulence Models:
The eects of turbulence models on RANS predictions of two-phase mixing layers are reported
here. Three models known as SST model, k model and SSGR model are tested. Results
show that SST model gives better prediction in comparison to other models. The k model
prediction are close to SST model, but SSGR model predictions show large deviation in the
spreading rate of bubbly mixing layer. Figure 2.19 shows plots of water velocity proles
for three turbulence models compared with Geartlers law. The plots indicate that the SST
model gives better agreement with Geortlers law for
L
equal to 19. The k model deviates
slightly from SST but the SSGR model deviates a lot for the same value of
L
.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 55
Figure 2.19: Liquid supercial velocity proles for dierent turbulence models
2.12 Comparison with Experimental Data:
Comparison is being made with the experimental work performed by the Roig et al. (1999).
The value of
L
is for single phase ow in the numerical simulations was found to be 24 which
agrees with the experimental value reported by Roig et al. The velocity proles in similarity
variables are compared in gure 2.20. For two-phase ow RANS simulations considerably
underestimate the growth rate of the mixing layer. The values of
L
in the experiments
for run 2-4 and 2-2 are 14 and 11, respectively, as compared to 20 and 18. If we use the
experimental values for scaling the RANS model predictions, we obtain the proles shown in
gures 2.21 and 2.22. Only if use the higher values of
L
, we can bring the RANS models
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 56
Run Experimental Value Numerical Value ( ne Grid)
2-2 11 20
2-4 14 18
Table 2.3: Numerical and experimental vlaues for
L
simulations to match with the Gortler prole or experimental data prole.
Figure 2.20: Comparison with the experiments for single phase ow
To investigate the turbulence kinetic energy, we plot the longitudinal velocity uctuations
of the liquid velocity in a non-dimensional form. u
/
1
2 =
u
/
L
2
U
2
L
The prole u
/
1
2 agianst
L
is
shown in the gure 2.23. The plot indicates that there is large dierence in the turbulence
kinetic energy between the experimental results and numerical results. This increase in
velocity or turbulence kinetic energy is due to turbulence induced by the bubbles, which is
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 57
Figure 2.21: Comparison with the experiments two-phase run 2-4
Figure 2.22: Comparison with the experiments two-phase run 2-2
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 58
not captured by the RANS models.
Figure 2.23: Turbulent energy comparison with experimental data for run 2-4
2.13 Conclusions:
We tested RANS models for a multiphase ow given by a bubbly mixing layer. The simula-
tions were performed with two grid resolutions. RANS models including SST model, k
model and SSGR models were used in simulations for single phase (water only) and multi-
phase (air and water) ow. The mixing layer thickness was calculated, and the results are
compared with experiments. For single phase ow the numerical predictions agree with the
experimental data for mean velocity and spreading rate. For multiphase the RANS models
predictions do not agree with experimental work. Numerical results show that the SST model
gives slightly better predictions for multiphase ow than the k and SSGR models. It is
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 59
found that RANS model do not predict the turbulence kinetic energy correctly. There is a
signicant dierence in turbulence kinetic energy of numerical predictions and experimental
data. There are also dierences in the liquid mean velocity proles. The failure of local
turbulence models are also reported by Lakehal et al (2002). The possible reason may be
that RANS work on constant bubble diameter, but in reality the bubble diameter varies and
has a distribution. The constant diameter of bubble ignores the coalescence and break up of
bubbles that induce local turbulence in the ow and changes the kinetic energy of the carrier
phase. The argument is presented by Min et al (2008) that a model with constant single av-
erage bubble diameter (SABD) does not predict correctly void fraction. The RANS models
need further investigation to include turbulence generation due to breakup and coalescence.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 60
References:
Ayed, H., Chahed, J., and Roig, V., Hydrodynamics and mass transfer in a turbulent
buoyant bubbly shear layer AIChE Journal Volume 53 Issue 11, Pages 2742 - 2753.
Colin, C., Legendre, D., and Fabre, J., Bubble distribution in a turbulent pipe ow
Microgravity Research and Applications in Physical Sciences and Biotechnology, Proceedings
of the rst international symposium held 10-15 September, 2000 in Sorrento, Italy. edited by
Minster, O., and Schrmann, B., European Space Agency, ESASP 454, 2001., p.91
Dhotre, M.T., Niceno, B., and Smith, B.L., Large eddy simulation of a bubble column
using dynamic sub-grid scale model Chemical Engineering Journal Volume 136, Issues 2-3,
1 March 2008,Pages 337-348.
Dr. Schlichting, H., Boundary-Layer Theory translated by Dr. J. Ketin seventh Edition
[pages 737 and 738]
Hu,G., and Celik, I., Eulerian-Lagrangian based large-eddy simulation of a partially
aerated at bubble column Chemical Engineering Science Volume 63, Issue 1, January 2008,
Pages 253-271.
Lakehal, D., Smith, B.L., and Milelli, M., Large-eddy simulation of bubbly turbulent
shear ows Journal of Turbulence, Volume 3, N 25 May 2002.
Martnez-Bazn, C., Montas, J.L. and Lasheras,J.C., Statistical description of the bubble
cloud resulting from the injection of air into a turbulent water jet International Journal of
Multiphase Flow Volume 28, Issue 4, April 2002, Pages 597-615.
Min, J. Bao, Y., Chen, L., Gao, Z., and Smith, J.M., Numerical simulation of gas
dispersion in an aerated stirred reactor with multiple impellers Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 2 61
2008, 47 (18), pp 7112-7117.
Neto, I.E.L, Zhu, D.Z., and Rajaratnam, N., Bubbly jets in stagnant water International
Journal of Multiphase Flow Volume 34, Issue 12, December 2008, Pages 1130-1141.
Niceno, B., Boucker, M., and Smith, B.L., Euler-Euler large eddy simulation of a square
cross-sectional bubble column using the Neptune CFD code Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations Volume 2009, Article ID 410272.
Rightley, P.M., and Lasheras, J.C. Bubble dispersion and interphase coupling in a free-
shear ow J. Fluid Mech. (2000), vol. 412, pp. 21-59.
Roig, V., Suzanne, C., and Masbernat, L., Experimental investigation of a turbulent
bubbly mixing layer International Journal of Multiphase Flow Volume 24, Issue 1, February
1998, Pages 35-54.
Qi, S., and Shuli, W. Measurement of turbulent of gas-liquid two-phase ow in a bubble
column with a laser velocitymenter Advances in Natural Science ISSN 1715-7862 Canadian
Research Development Center of Sciences and Cultures.
Tournemine, A.L.D. and Roig, V. Self-excited oscillations in buoyant conned bubbly
mixing layers Phys. Fluids 22, 023301 (2010).
Chapter 3
A Numerical Study of Gas Hold Up
in a Water Tank Supplied by a
Dual Jet of Air and Water
This chapter deals with the numerical simulations of mixing of two parallel jets of air and
water injected into a tank initially lled with water. The purpose is to explore this ow
conguration as a new conceptual design of a mineral separation machine. In mechanically
agitated otation machines, air is injected within an impeller placed in a tank of water and
minerals. Air break up into bubbles by a rotor installed in the tank. The injection point of
the air is important. It can aect the generation of bubbles and hence the separation process.
In this chapter, we simulate the mixing of an air jet with a parallel water jet. The eects
of the relative position of the two jets on gas hold up in the tank is an important design
parameter. In this study we determined the gas hold up in a tank for two cases by changing
62
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 63
the air entrance, in one case air jet is above water jet and in the other case air jet is below
the water jet.
It is found that when air jet is below the water jet, the gas hold up is more than the case
when the air jet is above the water jet. When air jet is below the water jet, air has more time
to travel and interact with the shear induced by the water jet, hence, gives more mixture.
3.1 Geometric Details:
The two-dimensional geometry is shown in gure 3.1. The domain width and height are
selected so as to make sure that the water and air jets do not deect and attach to the
bottom boundary. The jet deection and attachment are discussed in detail in chapter 1.
The total height of the domain is 1400mm and width of the domain is 600mm. The two jets
are supplied by two separate but parallel channels. Each jet width is 10mm. The main tank
is divided into two parts; and according to their initializations, we refer to them as a water
tank and an air tank, as shown in gure 3.2. The purpose of air tank is to provide a space
for the mixture generated due to the air entering into the water tank. So, we have four parts:
air tank, water tank, water jet and air jet.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 64
Figure 3.1: Geometry details
3.2 Grid Generation and Geometric Details:
ANSYS ICEM CFD is used for grid generation. Dierent sections of the grid are shown in
gure 3.3. The dierent colors show the dierent parts of the domain discussed in section 3.1.
A ne grid is generated at the center of the grid, where the two jets interact, and a coarser
grid is generated away from the center. Each part of the domain is initialized separately. The
water tank is initialized with water with zero velocity; air tank is initialized with air with
zero velocity. The air jet is initialized with air and water jet is initialized with water. The
boundary conditions are labeled in gure 3.2. The boundary conditions are inlet, opening
and no-slip wall. At inlets, mass ow rate is specied instead of velocity. The upper edge of
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 65
the domain is an opening for air only with zero gauge pressure. The bottom edge is an outlet
for water only. Continuity is imposed on both air opening and water outlet. The boundary
between the air and water tanks is an internal boundary which is treated as interface. An
interface is a ow through boundary where mass, momentum and turbulence parameters are
conserved.
Figure 3.2: Boundary conditions
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 66
Figure 3.3: Two-dimensional grid
3.3 Numerical Simulations:
Numerical simulations are performed using ANSYS CFX. The mathematical modeling for
two-phase ow is discussed in chapter 2 section 2.2. Numerical simulations are performed for
two cases: Case 1: air jet is injected below the water jet, Case 2: air jet is injected above the
water jet. The boundary conditions for each case are the same. The air jet velocity in both
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 67
cases is 3.19(m/s), and water jet velocity in each case is 1.7(m/s).; the only dierence in the
cases is the vertical stratication of two jets. The air bubble diameter is selected as 1mm.
3.4 Results:
Simulations are performed by solving the unsteady RANS equations. The air volume fraction
contours after dierent time steps for case 1 and case 2 are shown in gure 3.4 and gure
3.5, respectively. The air volume fraction contours provide visual evidence of better air
dispersion when air jet is injected below the water jet. Gas hold up is monitored in the water
tank (initially lled with water) as function of time for each case, and the results are shown
by gures 3.6 and 3.7. The gas holdup increases with time. The water volume fraction in
the air tank (initially lled with air) is also calculated after dierent time steps. Figures 3.8
and 3.9 show the water volume fraction for air tank for case 1 and case 2. As expected, the
water volume fraction in air tank also increases with time because the air volume fraction in
water tank increases. The total quantity of water and air in the domain (water tank + air
tank) remains constant.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 68
Figure 3.4: Air volume fraction contours for case 1: air jet below water jet
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 69
Figure 3.5: Air volume fraction contours for case 2: air jet above water jet
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 70
Figure 3.6: Air volume (%) in water tank for air jet below water jet
Figure 3.7: Air volume (%) in water tank for air jet above water jet
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 71
Figure 3.8: Water volume (%) in air tank for air jet below water jet
Figure 3.9: Water volume (%) in air tank for air jet above water jet
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 72
3.5 Comparison and Conclusion:
Comparison is made between the gas hold up in the two cases. Figure 3.10 shows the air
volume fraction in water tank for cases 1 and 2. The gure shows that if the air jet is injected
below the water jet, enhanced air dispersion is achieved in a shorter time compared to the
case when the air jet is injected above the water jet. Furthermore, the enhanced gas hold up
for case 1 persists over time. Similarly, water volume fraction in air tank is compared in both
cases as shown in gure 3.11. Like the air volume fraction in water tank, the water volume
fraction in air tank is also greater in case 1 than case 2. Injection of air jet below the water
jet gives air more time to interact and be inuenced by the shear of the water jet. Whereas
when the air jet is injected above the water jet, buoyancy accelerates the upward motion of
the air jet with less time to be inuenced by the water jet. This oers a new concept for the
design of ecient otation cells. Stratication of layers of air jets and water (or slurry) jets
can be explored to enhance particle-bubble collision for less power consumption. This will
make the otation process more ecient and mechanically simpler than the case of impeller
agitated cells.
Kareem Akhtar Chapter 3 73
Figure 3.10: Air volume fraction comparison between case1 and case2
Figure 3.11: Water volume fraction comparison between case1 and case2