UFR 1-07 Description: Difference between revisions
Line 447: | Line 447: | ||
* Agrawal ''et al.'' (University of Oklahoma/NASA) [[UFR_1-07_References#33|[33]]][[UFR_1-07_References#34|[34]]] | * Agrawal ''et al.'' (University of Oklahoma/NASA) [[UFR_1-07_References#33|[33]]][[UFR_1-07_References#34|[34]]] | ||
* Gebhart ''et al.'' (Cornell University) [[UFR_1-07_References#19|[19]]][[UFR_1-07_References#35|[35]]][[UFR_1-07_References#36|[36]]] | * Gebhart ''et al.'' (Cornell University) [[UFR_1-07_References#19|[19]]][[UFR_1-07_References#35|[35]]][[UFR_1-07_References#36|[36]]] | ||
* O‘Hern ''et al.'' (Sandia National Laboratories) [[UFR_1-07_References#4|[4]]][[UFR_1-07_References#37|[37]]] | |||
O | |||
[4][37] | |||
{{UFRHeader | {{UFRHeader |
Revision as of 16:52, 5 July 2010
Unsteady Near-Field Plumes
Free Flows
Underlying Flow Regime 1-07
Description
Introduction
Free vertical buoyant plumes and free-jets are related phenomena, both having a core region of higher momentum flow surrounded by shear layers bounding regions of quiescent fluid. However, whereas for jets the driving force for the fluid motion is a pressure drop through an orifice, for plumes the driving force is buoyancy due to gradients in fluid density. Plumes can develop due to density gradients caused by temperature differences, for example in fires, or can be generated by fluids of different density mixing, such as hydrogen releases in air. There are many flows of both engineering and environmental importance that feature buoyant plumes, ranging from flows in cooling towers and heat exchangers to large geothermal events such as volcanic eruptions. There has been considerable attention paid to the mean flow behaviour of plumes in the far field, e.g. Chen & Rodi [5] or List [6] [7], which are examined in a companion UFR. However, there has been less study of the near-field unsteady dynamics of plumes.
In the present work, only non-reacting plumes are considered. This choice has been made in order to avoid the additional complexities associated with combustion, soot production and radiation in fire plumes. For helium plumes, the difference in density between helium and air is a factor of seven which is similar to that in fire plumes [8]. The principal difference between fire and helium plumes arises from the fact that heat is released locally from the flame in fire plumes whereas in helium plumes the buoyancy is produced only near the source where there are large concentration gradients.
The near-field of buoyant plumes features two key instabilities. The first is the Rayleigh-Taylor instability related to the presence of dense fluid above less-dense fluid. The two layers of different-density fluid are in equilibrium if they remain completely plane-parallel but the slightest disturbance causes the heavier fluid to move downwards under gravity through the lighter fluid. At the interface between the two fluids, irregularities are magnified to form fingers or spikes of dense fluid separated by bubbles of lighter fluid. The size of these irregularities grows exponentially with time and the smaller the density difference, the larger the wavelength of the instability. There has been considerable research into the dynamics of Rayleigh-Taylor instability (e.g. [9][10] [11][12]) as a consequence of its importance in nuclear weapons, atmospheric flows and astrophysics. Figure 2 shows the classic spike and bubble flow structures characteristic of R-T instability produced by two fluids of different density mixing, taken from Cook et al. [13].
The second instability in buoyant plumes is the Kelvin-Helmholtz
instability related to the shear-layer interface between the rising
plume and the ambient fluid. This forms axisymmetric roll-up vortex
sheets on the boundary between the two layers of fluid travelling at
different velocities, and is a feature in practically all turbulent
shear flows including jets and wakes.
There is some uncertainty over the relative significance of the R-T and K-H instabilities in buoyant plumes. Buckmaster & Peters [14], Ghoniem et al. [15], Coats [16], and Albers & Agrawal [17] have suggested that the K-H instability plays the dominant role in plumes whilst others, including DesJardin et al. [1] , Tieszen et al. [2] and Cetegen & Kasper [18], suggest that the R-T instability is more important. For more details of the instability mechanisms and the transition to turbulence in buoyant flows, see also Gebhart et al. [19].
The Puffing Cycle
Medium to large scale plumes are characterised by the repetitive shedding of coherent vortical structures at a well-defined frequency, a phenomenon known as “puffing”. DesJardin et al. [1] present a detailed analysis of the plume puffing cycle, which they decompose into a number of stages. In the first stage, the less-dense plume fluid is rising close to the plume axis. Near the base of the plume, there is a layer of dense air overlying the less-dense plume fluid. There are two instabilities near the edge of the plume: one related to the misalignment of the vertical pressure-gradient and radial density gradient (the baroclinic torque) and another due to the misalignment of the vertical gravity and the radial density gradient (the gravitational torque). These produce a rotational moment on the fluid, increasing its vorticity and pulling air into the plume. The fluid motion coalesces to produce a large toroidal vortex which is self-propagated vertically upwards. As the vortex shifts vertically, fluid is pumped through to the core of the plume resulting in higher velocities on the plume axis. Radial velocities are induced near the base of the plume and air is drawn in producing an unstable stratification of denser fluid above less-dense fluid, ready for the cycle to begin again.
Using Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS),
Jiang & Luo [20] [21] found
that the gravitational torque is responsible for much of the initial
production of vorticity in plumes. The term is highest towards the edge
of the plume where the density gradient vector is pointing radially
outwards at right-angles to the gravitational vector. The baroclinic
torque was found to dominate the vorticity transport once the puffing
structure has been established.
The toroidal vortex structure produced in small puffing plumes of helium
in air, with a source diameter of under 10 cm, is relatively coherent.
As the size of the plume is increased, the strength of secondary
azimuthal instabilities increase which destabilize the toroidal vortex,
producing finger-like instabilities. These are shown clearly near the
base of the plume in the LES of
DesJardin et al. [1] (see
Figure 3). The secondary instabilities generate streamwise vorticity
that enhances the mixing process. DesJardin et al. suggest
that capturing these instabilities may be important in numerical
simulations of pool fires where combustion is predominantly
mixing-controlled.
Characteristic Dimensionless Parameters
There are a number of dimensionless parameters which are used to characterise buoyant plumes. For plumes produced by a release of buoyant gas, the inlet Reynolds number, Re, is given by:
where is the plume fluid
density, is the inlet velocity, D
is the characteristic inlet length scale or inlet diameter and
is the dynamic viscosity. The Reynolds number
represents the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces. At high
Reynolds numbers, the destabilizing inertial forces dominate the
viscous forces and the flow is turbulent. For isothermal pipe flows,
this occurs for Re > 3000. Between
2000 < Re < 3000 the flow is transitional,
for Re < 2000 the flow is usually laminar.
A useful parameter for describing buoyant flows is the densimetric
Froude number, Fr, which represents the ratio of inertial
forces to buoyancy forces. It is defined here as:
where g is the gravitational acceleration and
is the ambient fluid density. The densimetric Froude number varies from near zero for
pure plumes to infinity for pure jets. Some texts choose to define
Fr using the square of the definition given above
(e.g. Chen & Rodi [5]).
The Richardson number, Ri, is simply the inverse of the square
of the Froude number:
In some texts, the density difference in the Froude and Richardson
numbers is made dimensionless using the plume source density, ,
instead of the ambient density, .
Subbarao & Cantwell [22]
note that the Richardson number can be
interpreted as the ratio of two timescales: the time for a fluid
element to move one jet diameter due to inertia, ,
and the time for a fluid element to move the same distance under the
action of buoyancy, , where:
In addition to Reynolds{}-number effects, the transition from laminar to
turbulent flow is affected by the strength of buoyancy. In a buoyant
plume that is initially laminar but transitions to turbulent flow at
some distance further downstream, the point at which transition occurs
moves closer to the source as either the Reynolds number or the
Richardson number is increased [22].
Frequency of Pulsatile Plume Motion
The dimensionless Strouhal number, St, is used to describe the oscillation frequency of unsteady plumes. It is defined as follows:
where is the frequency of the oscillation.
A number of empirical correlations for the puffing frequency of plumes
have been developed based on the Richardson number.
Cetegen & Kaspar [18]
found that for axisymmetric helium-air plumes with ,
the Strouhal number was related to the
Richardson number by:
The graph of St versus Ri taken from their paper
showing this relationship is reproduced in Figure 4. Between
there is a transitional region as the plume becomes more turbulent and mixing is enhanced.
For the Strouhal number was found to scale according to:
For planar helium plumes (produced by rectangular nozzles) with Richardson number in the range , Cetegen et al. [23] found that the Strouhal number varied according to:
A similar relationship for planar plumes was obtained in the more recent
DNS of planar plumes by Soteriou et al. [24],
who obtained the correlation:
The difference between the puffing frequency in planar and axisymmetric
plumes has been attributed to the difference in mixing rates and the
strength of the buoyancy flux in the two cases. If the planar and
axisymmetric Strouhal number correlations given by Equations (6) and
(8) are extrapolated to higher Richardson numbers, they suggest that
planar plumes exhibit higher frequency pulsations for
(where the two correlations cross over).
For axisymmetric fire plumes, Cetegan & Ahmed [25]
found the following relationship between the puffing frequency, , and the
diameter of the burner or source, :
Their correlation is compared to the experimental data in Figure 5. It
is remarkably consistent, considering that the fire plumes used in
their study involved solid, liquid and gas fuel sources. The dependence
of the puffing frequency on the source diameter is slightly stronger in
helium plumes, where [18].
For planar helium
plumes, Soteriou et al. [24]
showed that the frequency varied
according to .
Observations from plume experiments
[18][22][26]
and CFD simulations [24]
have shown that the pulsation frequency in plumes does not
strongly depend on the Reynolds number. The relative unimportance of
the Reynolds number suggests that the instability mechanism controlling
the pulsatile behaviour is essentially inviscid [24]. Once the
conditions are met for the plume to become oscillatory, viscosity no
longer appears to play a significant role in the puffing frequency. The
helium plume experiments and simulations reported by
Soteriou et al. [24]
showed that
the puffing frequency is unaffected by having the nozzle orifice flush
to a solid surface or having the pipe from which the buoyant fluid
escapes mounted free from the surrounding walls.
Onset of Pulsatile Flow Behaviour
The onset of unsteady flow behaviour in plumes is controlled by the balance of inertial, viscous and buoyancy forces. When viscous forces dominate, the plume remains steady.
Cetegen et al. [23] and
Soteriou et al. [24]
investigated in depth the transition from steady to unsteady flow
behaviour in planar non-reacting plumes using both experiments and
direct numerical simulation. Figure 6a shows some of their results,
where plumes are characterised as either stable or unstable. The graph
axes are the source Reynolds number and the inverse density ratio,
. Clearly, as either the Reynolds
number is increased or the inverse density ratio decreases, the plume
becomes less stable.
Experiments with both axisymmetric and planar plumes have found that
pulsations are not produced when the density ratio exceeds
[18][23][27][28].
Simulations
by Soteriou et al.[24] showed that pulsations could in fact
be produced at density ratios closer to one, but that the Froude and
Reynolds numbers at which these pulsations were obtained would not be
easily achieved experimentally.
Using their simulations, Soteriou et al. [24] were able to
examine separately the effects of the Reynolds number, the density
ratio and the Froude number on the onset of transition. They obtained a
transition relationship between Reynolds and Richardson numbers of
(see Figure 7). The plume was unsteady
for Reynolds or Richardson numbers above the line shown in the graph
(i.e. for or
).
Cetegen et al. [23]
showed experimentally that when the nozzle
orifice is mounted flush to a wall, the transition from a stable to an
oscillatory plume occurs at a lower threshold velocity. The presence of
a flat plate surrounding the nozzle prevents any coflow which results
in higher induced cross-stream velocities. These cause the plume
immediately downstream of the nozzle to contract more and produce a
thinner column of buoyant fluid that is more susceptible to
perturbations.
In terms of the onset of unsteady flow behaviour, axisymmetric plumes
are significantly more stable than planar plumes. This is shown clearly
in the results of Cetegen et al.[23] (Figure 6b),
where the conditions for stability of axisymmetric plumes are shown in addition
to the planar plume behaviour with and without a flat plate.
Review of UFR studies and choice of test case
Experiments
Most of the experimental data available on the near-field unsteady behaviour of non-reacting buoyant plumes has originated from the following American groups:
- Cetegen et al.(University of Connecticut) [18][23][24][28][29][30]
- Mell et al. (National Institute for Standards & Technology, NIST) [31][32]
- Subbarao & Cantwell (Stanford University) [22]
- Agrawal et al. (University of Oklahoma/NASA) [33][34]
- Gebhart et al. (Cornell University) [19][35][36]
- O‘Hern et al. (Sandia National Laboratories) [4][37]
Contributed by: Simon Gant — UK Health & Safety Laboratory
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2010