The Rheology Dependent Region in Turbulent Pipe Flow of a Generalised
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
20th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference Perth, Australia 5-8 December 2016 The rheology dependent region in turbulent pipe flow of a Generalised Newtonian fluid J. Singh, M. Rudman and H. M. Blackburn Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia Abstract the kinematic fluid viscosity as: Direct numerical simulations (DNS) of turbulent pipe flow of n 1 n = Kg˙ − (1) a Generalised Newtonian (GN) fluid at Ret = 323 are analysed to identify the region where GN rheology has the major influ- + + 1=2 ence. The flow domain is divided into two parts: in y < yup Here, g˙ = (2si jsi j) is the second invariant of the strain rate + + and y > yup, with the viscosity modelled using a power-law tensor s and K, n are the model parameters called the consis- + + + + rheology for y < yup and a uniform viscosity for y > yup. tency and flow index. Equation (1) represents shear-thinning + behaviour when n < 1 i.e. the fluid viscosity decreases with in- Values for yup of 35 and 70 are considered. Results show that creasing shear rate. For n > 1 shear-thickening behaviour is beyond y+ = 70, the GN rheology has no significant effect on observed and for n = 1:0 a Newtonian rheology is recovered. the mean flow or turbulence statistics, and that the effect of GN Shear-thinning behaviour is the most widely observed GN phe- rheology is confined to the near wall. To understand these re- nomena [3]. sults, the turbulent kinetic energy budget of the GN fluid and a Newtonian fluid at the same Ret = 323 are compared. The com- For turbulent pipe flow of Newtonian fluids, it is common to parison shows that the GN viscosity-dependent terms in the bal- split the flow domain into a viscous wall region (y+ < 50) and ance either vanish or do not show rheology dependence beyond an outer layer (y+ > 50) [4]. Here, y+ is the non-dimensional y+ = 70. The current results imply that in Reynolds averaged distance from the wall defined using pipe radius R, fluid viscos- + Navier–Stokes and Large eddy simulations the GN rheology’s ity n and friction velocity ut as y = utR=n. The fluid viscos- effects can be taken care of by modifying the wall functions. ity is known to be important only in the viscous wall region. However, in the case of a shear-thinning fluid where the fluid Introduction viscosity increases with decreasing shear rate (and hence with Since Reynolds’ experiments in 1883, studies of wall bounded distance from the wall), the extent of the viscous region is not turbulent flows have significantly contributed in our understand- well known. ing of turbulence. Pipe flow is a subset of wall bounded flows DNS is a powerful tool in understanding wall bounded turbu- which has the characteristic feature of an enclosed geometry, lence. In this study we use a powerful feature of DNS, (i.e. making it easiest to realise in experiments compared to (for ex- the ability model unreal physics), to identify the region where ample) channel flow [2]. Pipe flow also has direct industrial shear-thinning behaviour is important. This is done by running relevance as pipeline transport is the most common method of DNS in which shear-thinning rheology is used only in the near- transporting fluids in industrial processes. There is a vast lit- wall region and Newtonian rheology is used away from the wall. erature available on turbulent pipe flow of Newtonian fluids, The results will show if non-uniform viscosity and viscosity however, studies that aim to develop understanding in non- fluctuations away from the wall have any effect on the overall Newtonian pipe flow turbulence are far less common. turbulent pipe behaviour, and confirm where they must be con- Non-Newtonian fluids are very common in many industrial ap- sidered. This result will have implications for the development plications including mining, polymer processing, waste water of turbulence models suitable for GN fluids in higher Reynolds treatment etc., as well as in nature. They are different from numbers flows. Newtonian fluids as they do not show a constant viscosity (shear stress divided by shear rate). The viscosity of a non-Newtonian Computational Details fluid will often depend on shear rate, shear history and in some applications they show partial elastic behaviour. Generalised Numerical Method Newtonian (GN) fluids are a subclass of non-Newtonian fluids We use the Semtex code [1] which is a spectral element-Fourier for which the viscosity can be defined as a function of the in- DNS code [1] to solve the following governing equations. stantaneous shear rate alone. The viscosity of many fluids such as fine particle suspensions, sewage sludge, paint, some poly- ¶u=¶t + u ∇u = ∇p + ∇ t + f ; with ∇ u = 0: (2) meric solutions, some bodily fluids such as blood etc. can be · − · · well approximated by the GN assumption. These are the fluids Here, u is the velocity vector, p, t and f are pressure, shear of interest here. stress tensor and body force, each divided by the fluid density. We will refer to them as pressure, shear stress and body force The mathematical expression that relates shear stress (or alter- despite this scaling.. The shear stress t is defined using the GN natively viscosity) of a GN fluid to the local instantaneous shear assumption as t = 2n(g˙)S. rate is termed a rheology model. The parameters of this model are determined from the experimentally measured shear stress In the current simulations the pipe is periodic, 10D long and versus shear rate curve (i.e. a shear rheogram). In this study we discretised with 288 Fourier modes in the axial direction. The use a power-law rheology model which is a simple and com- pipe cross-section is covered by 297 spectral elements that use mon model that nevertheless expresses the rheology of some 10th order Gauss-Lobatto-Legendre polynomials. Implemen- materials quite well. The power-law rheology model defines tation of a pressure gradient in the Fourier direction is imple- mented via the body force term by setting fz = ¶p=¶z. The non-uniform viscosity of the non-Newtonian fluid is handled + by decomposing it into a spatially constant nre f and a spatially in the viscous sub-layer (y < 5). Unlike Newtonian fluids, varying component n nre f . The spatially constant component shear-thinning fluids do not follow the Newtonian law of wall − + + + + nre f is treated implicitly whereas n nre f is treated explicitly in i.e. Uz = y in the viscous sub-layer (¶Uz =¶y = 1) (see the − + + 6 time. For more details see [1] and [6]. inset plot in figure 1c). Instead, ¶Uz =¶y increases slightly in the viscous sub-layer as the fluid becomes more shear-thinning, Mesh Spacing and Simulation Parameters with the explanation being complex and tangential to the dis- cussion here. Deviation between the U+ profiles of the PL sim- We define the generalised and friction Reynolds numbers as: z ulations and the Newtonian log-law is due to shear-thinning as noted in [6, 7]. ReG = UbD=nw Ret = utR=nw (3) Here, D and R are pipe diameter and radius, Ub is the bulk ve- I locity (flow rate per unit area), ut is the friction velocity de- 4 1=2 II fined as u = (tw=r) where the mean wall shear stress is t III tw = (D=4)¶p=¶z. In equation (3) the mean wall viscosity nw (a) w is chosen as the viscosity scale as suggested in [7]. For a power- ν/ν 2 law fluid nw is easily written as: 1=n 1 1=n nw = (K =r)(tw) − (4) 0 1 10 100 + The non-dimensional distance from the wall is defined as y+ = 25 y I (R r)ut=nw, where r is the radial distance from the pipe centre. 20 − II In the current simulations (ReG = 11000, Ret = 323), the near (b) 15 III + + + z y r U wall mesh spacing is D = 1 and D( q) = 7. A uniform mesh 10 spacing of Dz+ = 25 is used in the axial direction. 5 We consider three cases with decreasing width of the non- 0 Newtonian rheology domain. First we run the simulation where 1 10 100 + 1.2 y+ PL rheology is assumed at all y (case I). The fluid vis- 1.1 + cosity is modelled via equation 1 with the model parameters rz S 1 K = 345:35 10 6 Pa s n and n = 0:6. In the other two PL 0.8 − − = 2 × + + 0.9 cases, we limit the non-Newtonian domain up to y = yup (see (c) + 1 5 table 1) and beyond that use a uniform viscosity which is set /∂y 0.4 I + + z equal to the mean viscosity observed in case I at the same yup. II An additional simulation is run with Newtonian rheology, i.e. ∂U III 0 a constant viscosity that is set equal to the mean wall viscosity 1 10 100 nw in the PL simulations. A fixed axial forcing fz = 0:01165 N y+ 1 m− is used in all simulations. Figure 1: Profiles of (a) the mean viscosity and (b) the mean Case y+ n =n up N w axial velocity plotted in wall units. Dotted lines in (b) show the I 323 – + + + + classical Newtonian law of wall Uz = y , Uz = 2:5lny +5:5. II 70 2.6 The effect of switching the rheology model is negligible on the III 35 2.0 mean axial velocity profiles. Newt. – 1 Table 1: Upper limit of the non-Newtonian domain in different The effect of restricting PL rheology to the near wall region is + + cases.