INAUGURAL–DISSERTATION zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der ...
INAUGURAL–DISSERTATION zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der ...
INAUGURAL–DISSERTATION zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2.1. State of the Art 13<br />
the governing equations for the gas phase include appropriate source terms to compute<br />
the effects of droplets.<br />
The other important SF method for modeling sprays is the CFM, which employs<br />
a continuum formulation of the conservation equations for both phases [81, 82]. The<br />
motion of both droplets and gas are treated as interpenetrating continua. The work of<br />
Faeth [72] gives an extensive review of all the Euler – Lagrangian models.<br />
The Euler – Lagrangian approach is so far consi<strong>der</strong>ed to be effective in many applications,<br />
which gives detailed information at the micro-level, however it has significant<br />
drawbacks as listed by Archambault [67]. For instance, inclusion of droplet–droplet<br />
interactions such as coalescence and breakup, which occur quite frequently in spray<br />
flows, increases the computational complexity. The computational cost could be very<br />
expensive due to the large number of droplets needed to reach the statistical convergence,<br />
and it may pose difficulties and numerical instabilities in coupling of Lagrangian<br />
description of dispersed phase with the Eulerian equations of the gas phase. The computational<br />
cost is also dependent on mass loading of the dispersed phase. According<br />
to Archambault [67], the vertices of the droplet trajectory and numerical grid of the<br />
gas phase never coincide, hence a sub-grid model is required in or<strong>der</strong> to compute the<br />
exchange rate between the phases [83]. Grid independent solutions are quite difficult to<br />
obtain [84], which could be because of an insufficient number of droplets in a grid cell<br />
leading to a significant error as can be observed in the regions of high droplet number<br />
density.<br />
The study of Garcia et al. [85] and Riber et al. [86] describe and analyze the<br />
comparison of computational time between Euler – Euler and Euler – Lagrangian in<br />
homogeneous and non-homogeneous flows.<br />
There is a tremendous amount of literature available on the Eulerian – Lagrangian<br />
approaches in spray flows and spray drying [76, 87–93], and references therein. As the<br />
focus of the current work is about Euler – Euler approach to spray flows, this section<br />
presents the review of available literature in this area.<br />
A numerous Eulerian models have been recently developed where the disperse phase<br />
described based on a kinetic equation and continuum phase is resolved using Navier–<br />
Stokes equations. The basic idea in kinetic equation based Eulerian methods is that<br />
instead of solving the usual Euler equations for the dispersed phase, the evolution of the<br />
moment transform of the kinetic equation is solved, which resembles Navier – Stokes -<br />
like equation, and this equation is coupled to the continuum phase with the appropriate<br />
source terms. Such a kinetic equation is first <strong>der</strong>ived by Williams [42], known as<br />
Williams’ spray equation which is analogous to Boltzmann’s equation of molecules [94,<br />
95]. The <strong>der</strong>ivation of Williams’ spray equation is given by Archambault [67] and<br />
Ramakrishna [41]. This equation describes the temporal evolution of the probable