UFR 1-07 Description: Difference between revisions
Line 752: | Line 752: | ||
constant coefficients (''C<sub>s</sub>'' = 0.1 and | constant coefficients (''C<sub>s</sub>'' = 0.1 and | ||
''Pr<sub>t</sub>'' = 0.3). The same grid of | ''Pr<sub>t</sub>'' = 0.3). The same grid of | ||
256 × 128 × 128<math>\approx</math>4.2M nodes | 256 × 128 × 128 <math>\approx</math>4.2M nodes | ||
for the domain | |||
of 16 × 8 × 8 diameters was used in both cases. | |||
of 16 | |||
Good agreement was obtained between the LES results and the experiments | Good agreement was obtained between the LES results and the experiments | ||
in terms of the radial profiles of mean velocity and temperature in the | in terms of the radial profiles of mean velocity and temperature in the |
Revision as of 11:01, 6 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]
Cetegen et al.’s
group examined both reacting and non-reacting plumes over a period
of nearly a decade. Over that time, a number of significant works were
published on axisymmetric helium plumes [18][30],
planar helium plumes [23]
and the effect of acoustic forcing on helium
plumes [28][29].
A website with animations of various plumes is also
online[1]
Empirical correlations were produced for the puffing frequency of
planar and axisymmetric plumes and the causes of transition from steady
to oscillatory plume behaviour were investigated (see discussion
above). Their work on forced plumes involved using a loudspeaker to
impart streamwise velocity fluctuations to the plume fluid. They found
that plumes responded readily to the forcing and produced toroidal
vortices at the forcing frequency. Interestingly, as the forcing
approached the natural frequency of the flow, the large-scale
vortices became more unstable and chaotic. This contrasts to other
flows, such as jets and mixing layers, where forcing at the natural
frequency leads to more spatial and temporal coherence.
In 1994, a series of helium plume experiments were undertaken by
Johnson at NIST. Pure helium was released vertically through a 7.29 cm
diameter pipe into ambient, quiescent air. The exit velocity was varied
to examine different conditions and simultaneous velocity and
concentration measurements were made. The data from these
experiments has never been published fully in a conference or journal
paper, but it has been used in two published computational studies by
Mell et al. (also at NIST) [31][32].
The full data is also now available online on Mell's website[2]
together with the results from simulations and other data for reacting plumes.
Yep et al.[33] and
Pasumarthi & Agrawal [34] performed helium
plume experiments in reduced gravity, using a drop tower facility at
NASA. They showed that a naturally steady helium plume was up to 70%
wider in microgravity than in normal earth gravity [33].
A plume at higher Re and Ri that exhibited puffing behaviour in
earth gravity was found to produce steady flow behaviour in
microgravity. This was taken as providing direct physical evidence that
the oscillatory behaviour of low-density plumes is buoyancy induced.
Subbarao & Cantwell [22]
investigated buoyant plumes of helium with a
co-flow of air at a fixed velocity ratio of two. They examined the
effects of varying the Richardson and Reynolds numbers independently
within the range 390 < Re < 772 and
0.58 < Ri < 4.97, and examined the natural
frequency of the oscillations and the transition to turbulence. Based
on their findings, they proposed a buoyancy Strouhal number of the
form:
where is a constant, chosen as 0.445, and
the density difference in the Richardson number is made dimensionless
using the plume source density. In the range of flows they considered
where Ri > 1, the buoyancy Strouhal number was
found to be approximately constant at a value of 0.136.
Gebhart et al.’s works [19][35][36]
have examined in detail the transition mechanisms and instability of laminar plumes,
largely based on theoretical stability analysis and empirical studies.
Some very early numerical simulations of plumes were performed in [35]
where inviscid solutions of the Orr-Somerfield equations were
obtained for symmetric and asymmetric plume disturbances.
O‘Hern et al. [4][37]
performed detailed experiments on turbulent helium plumes to help provide data
for validation of LES models. Their facility at Sandia National
Laboratories involved a main chamber with dimensions
6.1 × 6.1 × 7.3 metres and a 1 metre diameter plume source.
The Reynolds number based on the inlet diameter and velocity was 3200,
the Richardson number around 76. Measurements taken using
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and Planar Laser-Induced
Fluorescence (PLIF) produced simultaneous time-resolved velocity and
mass fraction data. This was used to calculate density-weighted
Favre-averaged and Reynolds-averaged statistics. The detailed
measurements were analysed to understand the dynamics of the unsteady
plume and the role of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability in producing
bubble and spike flow structures. The experiments were
subsequently used in computational studies by DesJardin et al. [1],
Tieszen et al. [2],
Xin [3],
Nicolette et al. [38],
Chung & Devaud [39]
Blanquart & Pitch[40]
and Burton [41].
Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFD simulations of the unsteady near-field behaviour of buoyant plumes have mainly used Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) or Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) rather than traditional Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) turbulence models.
There are two notable exceptions. Firstly, the work of
Nicolette et al. [38], who performed RANS simulations using a
newly-developed buoyancy-modified k – ε model.
The cases examined involved large-diameter helium plumes,
including those studied experimentally by
O‘Hern et al. [4].
The axial velocity was overpredicted in the near-field
due to delayed onset of transition to turbulence in the model. Results
were also found to be sensitive to the grid resolution, with steady
solutions at low resolution and unsteady solutions at high resolutions,
using grids with more than 1 million cells. Their modified
k – ε model was found to be more numerically stable and
gave better predictions over a broader range of grid resolution than
the standard k – ε model. The same research
group also investigated a Temporally-Filtered Navier Stokes (TFNS)
approach for modelling helium plumes [42].
The second notable RANS study is the recent work of
Chung & Devaud [39],
who used both buoyancy-modifed steady k –ε RANS
models and LES to study the large helium plumes examined
experimentally by O‘Hern et al. [4].
The RANS simulations were
performed using the commercial CFD code, CFX, and the LES simulations using the Fire
Dynamics Simulator (FDS) code from NIST[3].
For the RANS simulations, the flow was treated as
axisymmetric and details of the experimental geometry, including the
location of the co-flow air inlets and the ground plane were included
in the model. Both Simple Gradient Diffusion Hypothesis (SGDH) and
Generalized Gradient Diffusion Hypothesis (GGDH) models were tested and
the sensitivity of the results to the modelling constant Cε3 was assessed[4]. For the LES, a simpler geometry was modelled
with only the plume source and ground plane, and the sensitivity of the
results to the Smagorinsky constant and the grid size was examined.
Four different uniform Cartesian grids were tested for the LES with
cell sizes ranging from 1/10 to 1/80 of the plume source diameter,
producing grids with between 63,000 and 33 million cells. The RANS
results showed very significant sensitivity to the choice of Cε3,
with centreline velocities at a distance 0.4 diameters downstream from
the source ranging from 0.85 to 5.0 m/s for values of Cε3
from 1.0 to 0.0, respectively, for the SGDH model. The GGDH was found
to be even more sensitive to the choice of Cε3.
This significant sensitivity to the choice of Cε3
compared to previous studies of the model behaviour in the far-field
of buoyant plumes was attributed to the very large density difference
in the near-field.
Good predictions were obtained using Cε3 = 0.30
for the SGDH model and Cε3 = 0.23
for the GGDH model. The SGDH model gave best
agreement with the experiments in terms of the mean concentrations,
whilst the GGDH model gave overall slightly better agreement in terms
of the streamwise velocity. It was noted by
Chung & Devaud [39] that the
Cε3
constant may need to be tuned to the particular
buoyant plume conditions to obtain the best results. The LES
predictions were in good agreement with the experimental measurements
both in terms of the puffing frequency and the mean velocity, which was
predicted to within the limits of experimental uncertainty up to an
axial distance of 0.6 diameters downstream from the plume source. For
the mean concentration, the peak centreline values were in good
agreement with the measurements at the base of the plume but became
overpredicted beyond a distance of 0.2 source diameters, and by 0.6
diameters the peak was more than a factor of two higher than the
experimental values. The overprediction of concentration and, to a
lesser extent, velocity, on the plume centreline was attributed to
under-resolution of buoyancy-induced turbulence, which
Chung & Devaud [39] suggested could be
improved by using a more sophisticated
subgrid-scale model that took into account the effects of
backscatter. Best agreement with the experiments was obtained with the
finest grid, although results with a grid of 4 million cells (a cell
size of 1/40 of the source diameter) were nearly as good, and
Chung & Devaud [39] considered them to
provide an appropriate balance of accuracy and computational cost.
Changing the Smagorinsky constant to values of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3
was found to affect mean velocity and concentration statistics
differently at different positions. At an axial distance of 0.4
diameters, a value of Cs = 0.0
provided best agreement with the experiments whilst closer to the
source a value of Cs = 0.1
produced better predictions. Overall, it was recommended to use values of Cs
between 0.15 and 0.20 with a grid resolution of 4 million cells.
Amongst the earliest DNS studies of plumes are those published
in 2000 by Jiang & Luo [20][21].
They examined both plane and axisymmetric non-reacting and reacting
plumes with temperature ratios of 2,
3 and 6, and Reynolds number of 1000. The flows were treated as
two-dimensional or axisymmetric. This choice was justified on
the basis that previous fire-plume studies [43][44] had indicated that buoyancy-induced vortical structures were produced primarily
by axisymmetric instability waves and therefore
azimuthal wave modes could be ignored. The more recent study of
DesJardin et al. [1] has highlighted that azimuthal
instabilities are significant near the base of large helium plumes.
Two-dimensional/axisymmetric simulations also do not capture the
turbulent three-dimensional vortex stretching mechanism.
Jiang & Luo [20][21]
used their DNS results to examine the budget of the vorticity transport equation. The
production of vorticity near the base of the plume was found to be
dominated by the gravitational torque in the initial phase of the
vortex formation. Later, when the vortex had become more established
and was convecting downstream, the baroclinic torque was found to be
the dominant term. The gravitational torque was mainly responsible for
the necking phenomenon near the base of the plume whilst the baroclinic
torque was more important in forming necking and diverging sections of
the vortical structures further downstream.
More recently, Soteriou et al. [24] performed high-resolution two-dimensional simulations of transitional plumes using a Lagrangian Transport Element Method. Simulations were compared to the planar helium plume experiments of Cetegen et al. [23]. The aim of their study was to understand the mechanisms involved in the near-field flow instability. The effects of changing the density ratio, the Reynolds number and Froude number (S, Re and Fr) were explored. The simulations captured the plume pulsation frequency and the correct overall instantaneous flow behaviour. The pulsation frequency was found to be insensitive to the Reynolds number, which confirmed previous observations from plume experiments [18][26]. Whilst experiments had suggested that the pulsation instability does not occur for plumes with density ratios less than [18][27], the simulations by Soteriou et al. [24] found that pulsations were produced at lower values of S, but that the Froude and Reynolds numbers at which these pulsations were observed could not be easily achieved experimentally. It was also shown that a necessary condition for stable, steady plumes was for the circulation[5] to increase monotonically with height. This leads the flow induced into the plume to be directed inwards towards the plume axis (necking). A non-monotonic increase in the circulation (i.e. a local maximum) leads to vortex formation. Depending upon the relative magnitude of the local convective, buoyant and viscous forces, it was noted that a local circulation maxima could be smoothed out or amplified.
In the mid-1990s, Mell et al. [31][32]
studied the behaviour of helium
plumes using the FDS code. Axisymmetric simulations were compared to
experiments undertaken in-house at NIST for Froude numbers of
0.0015 ≤ Fr ≤ 0.64
and Reynolds numbers based on the
exit velocity and nozzle diameter of 22 ≤ Re ≤ 446
(for details, see Mell's website[6].
Results from the simulations were in reasonable agreement with the
experiments in terms of flow structures, puffing frequency, mean axial
velocity and mean helium concentrations near the nozzle. At distances
of more than 3 nozzle diameters downstream from the source, the
agreement between simulations and experiments worsened — the axial
mean velocity becoming overpredicted by nearly 40%. This was
attributed to the increasing importance of three-dimensional
turbulent flow structures with downstream distance which were not
captured in their axisymmetric simulations.
Mell et al. [31][32]
also investigated the effect of
neglecting the baroclinic torque term on the flow simulations.
Neglecting the term was found to cause the plume to pulsate at
significantly higher frequencies. More recent simulations by Xin [3],
also undertaken using FDS, studied the helium plume experiments of
O‘Hern et al. [37]
and investigated the influence of the baroclinic torque.
The works of Zhou et al. [45][46]
were the first to examine the
unsteady motion of plumes using LES all the way from the source to the
fully-developed plume region in the far field where the flow exhibits
self-similar behaviour. In their simulations, the flow domain
extended to a distance of 16 nozzle diameters from the source. Their
simulations were compared to the thermal plumes of
George et al. [47]
and Shabbir & George [48]
(R = 1273, Fr = 1.4) in [45]
and to those of Cetegen [28] (Re = 730 and 1096,
Ri = 0.324 and 0.432) in [46].
In both cases, the simulations
used a low-Mach-number approach and a Smagorinsky LES model with
constant coefficients (Cs = 0.1 and
Prt = 0.3). The same grid of
256 × 128 × 128 4.2M nodes
for the domain
of 16 × 8 × 8 diameters was used in both cases.
Good agreement was obtained between the LES results and the experiments
in terms of the radial profiles of mean velocity and temperature in the
self{}-similar plume region. The decay of mean centreline velocity and
temperatures in the simulations followed the {}-1/3 and {}-5/3 decay
laws characteristic of fully{}-developed plume behaviour. In the
near{}-field of the plume, the dynamic puffing behaviour was reasonably
well{}-captured when compared to the Cetegen \& Kasper [18] correlation
(Equation 6). In [46], the LES data was used to present budgets for
various terms in the mean axial velocity, temperature, turbulent
kinetic energy and temperature{}-variance equations in the
fully{}-developed plume region. A more recent study by Zhou \& Hitt
[49] analysed the data obtained in one of their earlier studies using
proper orthogonal decomposition.
Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~cetegen/cetegen/previous%20research/researchproj.html?plume
- ↑ http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/userpages/wmell/plumes.html
- ↑ For details of how to download the FDS code and relevant documentation, see http://www.fire.nist.gov/fds
- ↑ For more information on these model details, see the companion UFR on the far-field behaviour of plumes.
- ↑ The circulation, , is defined as the integral of vorticity over a surface,
- ↑ http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/userpages/wmell/plumes.html
Contributed by: Simon Gant — UK Health & Safety Laboratory
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2010