On the autonomous validation and comparison of particle models for a Newtonian laminar flow mixing model using PEPT

被引:3
作者
Hart-Villamil, Roberto [1 ]
Ingram, Andy [1 ]
Windows-Yule, Christopher [1 ]
Gupta, Santoshkumar [2 ]
Nicusan, Andrei L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Sch Chem Engn, Birmingham B15 2TT, England
[2] Hindustan Unilever R&D, Bengaluru 560066, Karnataka, India
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
Positron Emission Particle Tracking (PEPT); Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD); validation; Discrete Element Method (DEM); Stirred tank mixing; Qsim; COMPUTATIONAL FLUID-DYNAMICS; STIRRED-TANK; PSEUDOPLASTIC FLUIDS; CFD SIMULATIONS; TURBULENT-FLOW; VELOCIMETRY; TRACKING; SOLIDS; PARAMETERS; HYDRODYNAMICS;
D O I
10.1016/j.cherd.2024.04.023
中图分类号
TQ [化学工业];
学科分类号
0817 ;
摘要
A methodology for the validation of a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) mixing model using Positron Emission Particle Tracking (PEPT) was applied to a horizontal laminar stirred tank containing Newtonian glycerol. Particle trajectories recorded using PEPT were compared to three one-way particle-coupled CFD models (CFD-DEM, and CFD-Lagrangian, and CFD-Massless) through time-averaging and binning into a grid of 3-D voxels. A cell-by-cell comparison of particle velocities between the computational models and PEPT highlighted the accuracy of the CFD-DEM and CFD-Massless models over the Lagrangian model. Furthermore, using PEPT as a validation dataset the Pearson r-squared was used as a cost function to guide an autonomous calibration of a 5-dimensional DEM parameter space. A novel statistic, the simulation quality coefficient Qsim, was applied to assess accuracy between trajectory datasets and revealed the extent to which a model can be considered calibrated. Considering the balance between computational cost and precision, the CFD-massless model was the most effective particle model for this validation workflow. Further investigations will apply this methodology to calibrate non-Newtonian laminar CFD models.
引用
收藏
页码:139 / 150
页数:12
相关论文
共 62 条
  • [51] Schiller L, 1933, Z VER DTSCH ING, V77, P318
  • [52] Validation of CFD simulations of a stirred tank using particle image velocimetry data
    Sheng, J
    Meng, H
    Fox, RO
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 1998, 76 (03) : 611 - 625
  • [53] Sommerfeld M., 2000, Lecture series, V6, P3
  • [54] Simulation Analysis of Power Consumption and Mixing Time of Pseudoplastic Non-Newtonian Fluids with a Propeller Agitator
    Wang, Shiji
    Wang, Peng
    Yuan, Jianping
    Liu, Jinfeng
    Si, Qiaorui
    Li, Dun
    [J]. ENERGIES, 2022, 15 (13)
  • [55] Wildman RD, 2001, LECT NOTES PHYS, V564, P215
  • [56] Windows-Yule CRK, 2022, PAP PHYS-LA PLATA, V14, DOI [10.4279/PIP.140010, 10.4279/pip.140010]
  • [57] Windows-Yule K., 2022, POSITRON EMISSION PA
  • [58] LASER-DOPPLER MEASUREMENTS OF TURBULENT-FLOW PARAMETERS IN A STIRRED MIXER
    WU, H
    PATTERSON, GK
    [J]. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE, 1989, 44 (10) : 2207 - 2221
  • [59] Calibration and verification of DEM parameters for dynamic particle flow conditions using a backpropagation neural network
    Ye, Fangping
    Wheeler, Craig
    Chen, Bin
    Hu, Jiquan
    Chen, Kaikai
    Chen, Wei
    [J]. ADVANCED POWDER TECHNOLOGY, 2019, 30 (02) : 292 - 301
  • [60] Extensive validation of computed laminar flow in a stirred tank with three Rushton turbines
    Zalc, JM
    Alvarez, MM
    Muzzio, FJ
    Arik, BE
    [J]. AICHE JOURNAL, 2001, 47 (10) : 2144 - 2154