CFD SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS OF PARTICULATE DEPOSITION ON GAS

TURBINE VANES

THESIS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in
the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
PRASHANTH S. SHANKARA, B. TECH
Graduate Program in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering

The Ohio State University

2010

Master's Examination Committee:

Dr. Jeffery P. Bons, Advisor
Dr. Ali Ameri
Dr. Jen Ping Chen

Copyright by
Prashanth S Shankara
2010

ABSTRACT
Syngas from alternate fuels is used as a fuel in land based gas turbine engines as a lowgrade fuel. The reduction in cost by use of these fuels comes at the cost of deposition
from particulate in the syngas on turbine blades, a ffecting the turbine performance and
component life. A computational deposition model was developed based on a model
developed at BYU to simulate and study the effects of deposition on gas turbine vanes
with film cooling. The deposition model was built using the CFD software, FLUENT
with User-Defined Functions (UDF) programmed in C language and hooked to FLUENT.
The particle trajectories were calculated by Euler-Lagrange method. The fluid flow and
heat transfer were solved first using RANS and deposition simulations were run as postprocessing in 3 steps moving, sticking and detachment. Improvements to the wall
friction velocity from the BYU model were incorporated and simulations on a bare 3D
domain showed reasonable agreement with experimental results and followed the trend of
capture efficiency decreasing with decreasing temperature. Deposition prediction on 3D
coupon with film cooling showed the relationship between hot-side surface temperature
and capture efficiency at different blowing ratios. Inaccurate prediction of hot-side
surface temperature resulted in higher capture efficiencies. Deposition patterns were
obtained from simulations using User-Defined Memory Locations to show number of
particles depositing at each location on the surface. Simulation of deposition on a VKI
ii

blade in 3D domain showed interesting insight into particle behavior at different

diameters. Smaller particles tended to follow the flow field and as the diameter increased,
the particles showed a tendency to keep their path along the line of injection and not
follow the flow field. Deposition predictions showed higher sticking efficiency at lower
diameter (~1) and very low sticking at higher diameters. A new Young modulus
correlation was developed to account for the dependence of particle Youngs modulus
and deposition on surface temperature. Simulations with new model improved
predictions on a very fine mesh with y+ less than 1 at blowing ratios, M=1 & 2 while
M=0.5 still showed larger capture efficiency due to inaccurate surface temperature
prediction.

iii

Dedication

To my Mom, Dad & Brother for always being there

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work would not have been possible without the support of my advisor, Dr. Jeffrey P.
Bons, who offered me the chance to be a p art of his wonderful research group and
believed in me just when I was at the crossroads of my graduate studies. Many thanks,
Dr. Bons, for your faith in me and the desire to live up to your expectations has
constantly pushed me to work harder. I would also like to thank my mentor, Dr. Ali
Ameri, for constantly being a source of immense knowledge, advice and most
importantly, for also being so understanding and supportive and always encouraging me
to see the light at the end of the tunnel. My sincere thanks go out to Dr. Jen Ping Chen for
being a part of my thesis committee and providing his valuable insights. I would also like
to thank the University Turbine Systems Research (UTSR) group for their financial
support. The numerical simulations were made possible through the use of
supercomputing resources provided by the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC). Special
thanks to Brett Barker who helped with the numerical simulations, Ai Weiguo for passing
on his knowledge of UDFs and also to Trevor Goerig and Curtis Memory for answering
my endless questions and making the lab a fun place to work at. A special note of thanks
to Dr. Gerald M. Gregorek. Our interactions may have been few but you were a source of
inspiration and a major reason behind me choosing to come to Ohio State.
This thesis would not have been possible without the unconditional love and support of
my family back in India. Thank you, Mom and Dad, for letting me follow my dreams and
v

to follow my own path in life even though it was light years away from the norm. Special
note of thanks to all my wonderful friends for making everyday life fun at OSU.

vi

VITA

March 2003..SDAV Hr. Sec. School, Chennai, India

March 2007......B.TECH, Mechanical Engineering, SRM University, India
Sep 2007-Present....M.S., Aerospace Engineering, The Ohio State University

FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstractii
Acknowledgements..v
Vitavii
List of Tables...x
List of Figures.xi
Nomenclaturexiii
1. Introduction..1
2. Lite rature Review3
2.1. Eulerian Particle Tracking..3
2.2. Lagrangian Particle Tracking.....4
2.3. Turbulence Models....6
3. Particle Tracking Methodology10
3.1. Carrier Phase.10
3.2. Discrete Phase...12
3.3. Particle Trajectory Calculations...17
3.4. Coupling of discrete & continuous phase.20
3.5. Turbulent Particulate Dispersion..21
4. Particle Deposition Model.26
4.1. Particle-Wall Interaction...27
viii

4.2. Particle Sticking....27

4.3. Particle Detachment..30
4.4. Youngs Modulus Determination.32
5. Deposition Model Development in FLUENT 6.3.26...35
6. Particle Deposition on a Coupon..39
6.1. Boundary Conditions41
6.2. Carrier Phase Simulations.41
6.3. Particle Phase Simulations42
6.4. Results...43
6.A. Particulate Deposition on Coupon with Film Cooling.47
6.1A. Geometry & Grid Generation.47
6.2A. Boundary Conditions & Simulations..51
6.3A. Results.53
7. Application to VKI blade..63
7.1. Boundary Conditions65
7.2. Simulations & Results..66
8. Improvements to the Deposition Simulations...74
9. Conclusions & Recommendations..78
References.82
Appendix: Particle Deposition Model UDF Source Code

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Forces acting on the particle in the dispersed phase.17
Table 6.1: Summary of experiments for the bare coupon case..41
Table 6.2: Ash particle properties..42
Table 7.1: Boundary conditions for the VKI blade66

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig: 3.1. Classification of flow regimes for gas-solid flows, Elgobashi, S.49).............20
Fig 4.1: Forces responsible for particle adhesion on a surface..28
Fig 5.1: Deposition Mode Flowchart.37
Fig. 6.1: Computational domain for the bare coupon simulation..39
Fig. 6.2: Geometry and boundary conditions of the model in 2D view.40
Fig 6.3: Cut section of the mesh along X-plane.41
Fig: 6.4: Impact efficiency vs Particle Diameter at 1453 K..43
Fig: 6.5: Capture Efficiency vs Gas Temperature.44
Fig: 6.6: Schematic of the 3D computational domain...48
Fig. 6.7: View of the tetrahedral volume mesh for the 3D case50
Fig. 6.8: Cut-section view of the volume mesh for the 3D case50
Fig 6.9: Surface mesh on the plate for 3D tetrahedral grid50
Fig. 6.10 Velocity magnitude contours (m/s) for M=0.5, 1, 2 along centerline
plane...54
Fig. 6.11: Surface temperature contours at different blowing ratios on 1 inch diameter
coupon55
Fig 6.12: Comparison of area-averaged surface temperature on coupon at 1453 K..56
Fig 6.13: Comparison of capture efficiency vs b lowing ratio at 1453 K...57
Fig. 6.14: Velocity vectors along the centerline plane for M=158
Fig 6.15: Deposition patterns from the model for M=2.60
xi

Fig 6.16: Deposition patterns from the model for M=0.5..60

Fig 6.17: Deposition patterns from the model for M=1.60
Fig 6.18: Comparison of deposition from experimental & simulation for M=0.561
Fig 6.19: Comparison of deposition from experiments & simulation for M=0.2..61
Fig 7.1: Computational grid used for the VKI blade.64
Fig 7.2: Computational domain and Internal Region.65
Fig 7.3: Mach number contours for M=0.85 by OSU...66
Fig 7.4: Mach number contours for M=1.02 by OSU...67
Fig 7.5: Mach number contours for M=0.85 by El-Batsh.67
Fig 7.6: Mach number contours for M=1.02 by El-Batsh.67
Fig. 7.7: Particle trajectories through the passage for d p = 0.1m69
Fig. 7.8: Particle trajectories through the passage for d p = 1m....69
Fig. 7.9: Particle trajectories through the passage for d p = 10 m.70
Fig 7.10: Sticking Efficiency vs Particle Diameter at M=0.85..71
Fig. 8.1: Close up view of the boundary layer on the coupon...75
Fig. 8.2: View of the tetrahedral mesh for the computational domain..75
Fig. 8.3: Comparison of capture efficiency from new correlation with earlier results..77

xii

NOMENCLATURE
Symbol
Ap

Surface Area of particle, [m2 ]

Mean molecular speed, [m/s]

Cc, Cu

Cunningham correction factor, [-]

Cd

Coefficient of drag, [-]

Cp

Specific heat of particle, [J/kg.K]

C L, C

Coefficients for eddy lifetime model, [-]

d, D

Cooling hole diameter, [m]

dij

Deformation tensor, [m/s]

dp , Dp

Particle diameter, [m]

El-Batsh parameter, [Pa]

Ei

Mean velocity of fluid, [m/s]

Ep

Particle Youngs modulus, [Pa]

Es

Surface Youngs modulus, [Pa]

FD

Drag force on particle, [N]

Fpo

Particle sticking force, [N]

Fs

Saffman lift force, [N]

Fx

Additional force term in the particle trajectory equation, [N]

gx

Acceleration term in the particle trajectory equation, [m/s 2 ]

Gk

Generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients

Generation of
xiii

hc

Convective heat transfer coefficient, [W/m2 K]

Turbulence intensity, [%]

Turbulence kinetic energy, [m2 /s2 ]

k1, k2

El-Batsh parameter constants, [-]

kf

Thermal conductivity of the continuous phase, [W/m-K]

ks

Sticking force constant, [-]

Constant coefficient of Saffmans lift force, [-]

Kn

Knudsen number, [-]

Kr

Local velocity gradient, [m/s]

Le

Eddy length, [m]

mp

Mass of the particle, [kg]

Blowing ratio, [-]

Mach number, [-]

Nu

Nusselt number, [-]

Static pressure of fluid, [Pa]

Pr

Prandtl number, [-]

P0

Total pressure of fluid, [Pa]

Universal gas constant, [J/K.mol]

Rep

Reynolds number of the particle, [-]

Distance between cooling holes, [m]

Sk , S

User defined source terms

Ratio of particle density to fluid density, [-]

Time, [s]

Gas temperature, [K]

Tp

Particle temperature, [K]

xiv

Free-stream temperature, [K]

Tavg

Average between particle and surface temperature, [K]

Fluid velocity, [m/s]

Gaussian distributed random velocity fluctuation, [m/s]

u*

Wall friction velocity, [m/s]

uj

Instantaneous fluid velocity, [m/s]

up

Particle velocity, [m/s]

uc

Critical wall shear velocity, [m/s]

Uj

Coolant velocity at exit of cooling holes, [m/s]

Uf

Freestream velocity, [m/s]

vcr

Capture velocity, [m/s]

vn

Normal velocity, [m/s]

Gaussian distributed random velocity fluctuation, [m/s]

Gaussian distributed random velocity fluctuation, [m/s]

WA

Work of sticking, [-]

Distance of first cell center from the wall, [m]

y+

Dimensionless wall distance of first cell center from the wall, [m]

Yk

Dissipation of k due to turbulence, [-]

Dissipation of due to turbulence, [-]

Volume fraction of dispersed phase, [-]

Turbulent dissipation rate, [m2 /s3 ]

Mean free path of the gas molecules, [ m]

Dynamic viscosity of fluid, [kg/m.s]

Kinematic viscosity, [m2 /s]

Poissons ratio of particle material, [-]

xv

Poissons ratio of surface material, [-]

Specific dissipation rate, [s-1 ]

, f

Density of fluid, [kg/m3 ]

Particle density, [kg/m3 ]

Effective diffusivity of k, [m2 /s]

Effective diffusivity of , [m2 /s]

Particle relaxation time, [s]
Wall shear stress, [Pa]
Lifetime of eddy, [s]

xvi

1. INTRODUCTION
Land-based turbine manufacturers have recently moved towards low- grade fuels in an
effort to reduce the high costs associated with high-quality fuels. These low-grade fuels
are usually gasified to produce syngas which contains a number of impurities. These
impurities are the major causes of the DEC (Deposition, Erosion & Corrosio n)
phenomenon in gas turbine engines. The phenomenon of deposition from syngas fuels on
turbine vanes is of specific interest in this thesis. Various experiments have been
conducted to study the effects of deposition on turbine vanes and blades, especially on
the film cooling and heat transfer in the turbine. Numerical simulation of deposition is
highly important to corroborate the results obtained from the experiments and also to
shed light on various deposition issues that might be hard to decipher in the experiments.
El-Batsh et al., (44), Ai & Fletcher (17), Hamed et al., (62), Brach et al., (59), Soltani &
Ahmadi (57), Greenfield & Quarini (24), Guha (15) and Wang & Squires (14) have all
performed numerical simulations for varying cases to simulate particle trajectories,
particle impact, sticking, deposition and so forth. Bons et al., (44) have been conducting
deposition experiments on gas turbine material coupons and turbine vanes with particular
interest on the effect of deposition on film cooling. Numerical simulations have been
performed in concurrence with these experiments at various stages to validate the
experimental results and also with a goal to build a numerical model that can effectively
simulate deposition conditions inside a gas turbine. This thesis is an extension of the
earlier numerical simulations and is aimed at building & delivering a particle deposition
1

model that can be applied to future simulations of deposition on a turbine vane with film
cooling.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Numerical simulation of particle deposition has been performed by various researchers
previously although cases of deposition simulation on gas turbine vanes with film cooling
are few and far between. Initial simulations of particle transport and deposition were
aimed at analyzing the effect of parameters like surface temperature, particle diameter,
particle temperature, turbulent dispersion etc. on deposition. Two different approaches
for particle deposition have been dealt with in literature namely Eulerian and
Lagrangian. The gas phase is always modeled by the Eulerian approach where the gas is
treated as a continuum and can be solved either by RANS simulations (Reynolds
Averaged Navier Stokes) or DNS/LES (Direct Numerical Simulations/Large Eddy
Simulations). The Eulerian-Eulerian method performs particle tracking by focusing on
the control volume while the Eulerian-Lagrangian method focuses on the particle tracks
instead. The Eulerian method considers particles as a continuum and develops the particle
tracks based on the conservation equation applied on a control volume basis with
particles grouped together under various control volumes. The gas and particle phases are
treated as interpenetrating continua and are coupled together by exchange coefficients.
2.1) Eule rian Particle Tracking
The Eulerian particle tracking is the most preferred method for indoor environments as
shown by Murakami et al., (1) and Zhao et al., (2 & 3). Friedlander and Johnstone (18)
and Davies (19) developed the first deposition model based on an Eulerian approach.

Menguturk & Sverdrup (4) developed an Eulerian model based on the assumption that
the particles were very small and hence the inertia effect can be ignored. Dehbi (5) noted
that the Eulerian approach is very suitable only fo r flows with dense particle suspensions
where the particle-particle interaction is too large to ignore. The inter-phase exchange
rates and the closure laws, in addition to the strong coupling between the phases have to
be accurately defined for a proper Eulerian simulation which often presents quite a
challenge. Yau & Young(6), Wood(7) & Kladas(8) used the Eulerian method by solving
all particles on the basis that they were outside the boundary layer, thereby solving the
continuity equations under turbulent flow conditions. Huang et al.,(9) and Ahluwalia et
al.,(10) used the Eulerian deposition model to simulate the deposition of fine particles on
coal-fired gas turbines. They both considered the effects of Brownian diffusion, turbulent
diffusion and thermophoresis on the particles.
2.2) Lagrangian Particle Tracking
The Lagrangian approach treats the particles as a dispersed phase and tracks individual
particles. The particle volume fraction is usually assumed negligible compared to the
carrier phase volume and particle-particle interactions are usually neglected. Kallio &
Reeks (11) calculated the deposition of particles in a simulated turbulent flow field using
the Lagrangian model in a turbulent duct. They solved the equation of motion for
particles with relaxation time ranging from 0.3 to 1000. The particle relaxation time is a
measure of particle inertia and denotes the time scale with which any slip velocity
between the particles and the uid is equilibrated. The relaxation time is usually the time
required by the particle to respond to changes in fluid velocity and depends on particle
size, particle density and fluid viscosity. The particle relaxation time is:

(2.1)
Their model showed very good agreement with the experimental data of Liu & Agarwal
(20). Ounis et al., (12) and Brooke etal., (13) used the Lagrangian approach whilst
solving the carrier phase flow by DNS method while Wang & Squires (14) used LES to
simulate the flow field in their Eulerian-Lagrangian calculations. Guha (15) noted that
when particle motion is significantly affected by turbulence and the fluctuating flow field
velocities become important, Lagrangian calculations are needed. Lagrangian approach
provides a more detailed and realistic model of particle deposition because the
instantaneous equation of motion is solved for each particle moving through the field of
random fluid eddies. This method is valid for all particle sizes as particles are treated
individually. Moreover, it provides information about particle collision at the surface
which is helpful while incorporating the sticking model. El- Batsh et al., (16) pioneered
the Lagrangian DPM (Discrete Phase Method) modelin the CFD software, FLUENT by
developing a deposition model based on Eulerian-Lagrangian approach and successfully
demonstrated the model for various experimental cases. This deposition model was based
on three processes: particle transport, particle sticking and particle detachment and serves
as the basis for the development of the OSU model. Ai et al., (17) employed the El-Batsh
study the particle-wall interaction in the previous phase of this research study. They
developed and validated the deposition model with experimental results of deposition on
a bare and TBC coated coupon with film cooling. The OSU model is an extension of the
model used by Ai et al., (17) and is intended to extend the applicability of the deposition
model to actual turbine vane geometries with film cooling.

The turbulence model used in the Eulerian simulation of the flow field is usually chosen
based on the flow physics. RANS simulations assume isotropic turbulence which is not
the case near-wall and hence the accuracy is affected due to empiricism in the turbulence
model. El-Batsh et al., (16) and Ai et al., (17) both used the RANS in their simulations.
DNS solves the exact Navier-Stokes equations without any empiricism or modeling and
hence is very computationally extensive. LES is mainly used for unsteady flows as it uses
small and more universal scales and minimizes empiricism in turbulence modeling. The
relevant turbulent eddies are resolved and the unsteady flow is represented accurately.
Shah (21) used LES to study the particle transport in an internal cooling ribbed duct.
Iacono et al., (22) used LES with one-way coupling for particle deposition onto rough
surfaces with good results. Mazur et al (23) used LES with the CFD software, FLUENT
for particle deposition simulations on turbine vane successfully. Greenfield & Quarini (24
& 25) modeled the turbulence as a series of random eddies with a lifetime of their own
and associated random fluctuating velocities. Abuzeid et al., (26) modeled the transport
of particles in turbulent flow field using both Eulerian & Lagrangian simulations. They
found that the Lagrangian simulation was more accurate than Eulerian for various particle
sizes. In addition, Lagrangian particle tracking calculations provided information about
number of particles impinging on the surface, impinging velocity and particle direction
relative to the surface.
2.3) Turbulence Models:
El-Batsh et al., (16) used the Standard k- model and the RNG k- model in conjunction
with the Standard wall function and the two-layer zonal model. This choice was based
more on the fact that the CFD software, FLUENT did not offer the k- turbulence

models at that time. The turbulence model affects the particle trajectory through the
turbulent kinetic energy which is used to calculate the fluctuating velocities. There is not
enough literature on the effect of various turbulence models on particle transport,
although selection of the right turbulence model based on the flow field characteristics
will ensure accurate flow field prediction which affects particle transport. Ajersch et al.,
(27) reported that the k- model gave better prediction of the near-wall flow structures
compared to the k- model. Silieti et al., (28) predicted film-cooling effectiveness using 3
different turbulence models: the Realizable k- model (RKE), Standard k- model and
the v2 -f model. They also compared the same for different mes h groups, namely
hexahedral, hybrid and tetrahedral grids. They noted that tetrahedral grids needed enough
near wall resolution to accurately predict the film-cooling effectiveness which has been
found to influence the particle deposition greatly in litera ture. The deposition on a surface
depends on the particle and the surface temperature. Higher film cooling effectiveness
leads to lesser deposition due to the cooler temperatures on the surface. Particle
deposition also affects the film cooling effectiveness. Presence of surface roughness and
blockage of film cooling holes due to deposition seriously affect film cooling
effectiveness and performance. Bogard et al., (67) conducted deposition experiments
using molten wax materials and found that leading edge film cooling reduced the
deposition compared to no film cooling. They also found that deposition decreased
cooling effectiveness by as much as 25%. Their simulations showed that the RKE model
better predicted the film-cooling effectiveness in the region of 2 x/D 6. Harrison and
Bogard (29) found that the standard k- (SKW) model

best predicted laterally averaged adiabatic effectiveness, and that the realizable k- model
was best along the centerline. El- Batsh et al., (16) showed that the Std. k- model with
standard wall functions over-predicts the deposition velocity for particles with relaxation
time less than 10. The std k- model has been used to simulate indoor flow field
successfully by Zhang & Chen (30). Jovanovic et al (31) et al used std k- model for
their two-phase flow modeling of air-coal mixture channels with single blade turbulators.
Theodoridis (32) et al used a std k- model with std wall function for simulation of
turbine blade film cooling without lateral injection. Turbulence intensity predicted in the
stagnation region was not realistic and an anisotropy correction was applied for better
prediction. York and Laylek (33) used a realizable k- model which over predicted the
results in the region between stagnation line and the second row of holes. The general
idea from the literature is that accounting for anisotropic effects is important when using
the standard turbulence models in FLUENT. Ai et al., (17) used Std. k- model with
RANS to compute flow field and heat transfer for their analysis of particle deposition on
a turbine coupon. The k- model was used to eliminate the use of wall functions, thereby
eliminating the approximation of particle trajectory near the wall and resolving the actual
trajectory equations for better prediction. The k- model depends on isotropic turbulence
assumption which is not the case near wall and hence leads to over-prediction of
deposition velocity for particles with relaxation time less than 10. Jin (64) noted from his
simulations that the standard wall functions used with the k- model generate unrealistic
large steady state velocities within the boundary layer leading to large deposition
velocities for particles with relaxation time less than 10. So et al (63) proved in their
simulations that the k- turbulence model over-predicts the turbulent kinetic energy

within the viscous sub- layer where the turbulence energy damps out much faster. This
causes some regions in the viscous sub-layer to acquire abnormally high fluctuating
velocities normal to the wall. Particles with low relaxation time change quickly with the
flow field changes and the high normal velocities in the flow cause these particles to
acquire a high normal velocity, leading to over-prediction of deposition velocity. The k-
turbulence model can be applied throughout the boundary layer provided the near wall
mesh resolution is sufficient. This model requires no special near-wall treatment and
hence will be used in this study.

3. PARTICLE TRACKING METHODOLOGY

The particle tracking methodology used in the OSU model is based on the Discrete Phase
Model (DPM) of the CFD simulation software, FLUENT 6.3.26. FLUENT 6.3.26 was
chosen after a careful consideration of various commercial CFD packages. Zevenhoven
(34) compared 6 different CFD packages with particle tracking capabilities. Although
STAR-CD was found to be the most versatile, he noted that FLUENT is very capable in
cases where particle-particle interaction is negligible. Hence, FLUENT was used for
particle tracking simulations through the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC). Particle
tracking in FLUENT is divided into two phases: Carrier phase and Discrete phase. The
DPM model follows Lagrangian particle tracking and hence the carrier phase flow field is
solved initially and allowed to reach a steady state before the discrete phase is injected
into the carrier phase. The particles are considered to be in the discrete phase since the
particle loading volume is considerably negligible in all cases compared to the carrier
phase volume.
3.1) Carrier Phase:
The flow field is assumed to be single phase, incompressible and Newtonian. The effect
of particles on the flow field is negligible and is not taken into account. The RANS
equations will be used as the governing equations to transport the flow field quantities.
LES is computationally intensive and needs several computers using the same jobs to
process different datasets on different CPUs simultaneously. DNS is expensive for the
current problem and not available in FLUENT. The conservation equations for mass and
10

momentum are solved for all flows with an additional energy equation solved for cases
with heat transfer or compressibility. The initial cases of validation of the model with
results from Ai et al., (17) are incompressible flows and the later cases with turbine vanes
are compressible flows and solved accordingly.
The governing equations for the carrier phase are from the FLUENT manual (35) as:
(

ui
t

ui
j

x j

p
xi

x j

ui
x j

x j

( u iu j )

(3.1)

where u i u j is the Reynolds stress. Standard k- turbulence model will be used for the
closure equations, which is based on the Wilcox k- model. The turbulence kinetic
energy, k, and the specific dissipation rate are obtained from the following transport
equations:

(
ku
)

k

k
i
( )

S
k
k k
k

t
x

x
i
j
j

(3.2)

and

u
)

( )

(
)

t
x

x
x
i

(3.3)

Where k is the turbulent kinetic energy, is the specific dissipation rate. In these
equations, Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity
gradients. G represents the generation of . k and represent the effective diffusivity
of k and , respectively. Yk and Y represent the dissipation of k and due to turbulence.
Sk and S are user-defined source terms.

11

3.2) Discrete Phase

FLUENT predicts the trajectory of a discrete phase particle (or droplet or bubble) by
integrating the force balance on the particle, which is written in a Lagrangian reference
frame. This force balance equates the particle inertia with the forces acting on the
particle, and can be written (for the

direction in Cartesian coordinates) as:

(3.4)

Where the first term on the right hand side is the drag force on the particle per unit
particle mass, the second term is the effect of gravity on the particle and F x indicates all
other additional forces.
In all the simulations in this study, the following assumptions were made regarding the
dispersed phase based on the experimental conditions and the particle characteristics used
in the experiments:

The particles are rigid spheres and they are considered as points located at the
center of the sphere.

The particle density is substantially larger than the uid density.

Inter-collision forces are neglected due to low volume fraction of the particles.

Particles do not affect fluid turbulence. Experiments by Kulick et al., (37) and
Kaftori et al., (38) have shown that for low volume fractions the turbulence
modifications are negligible. Also, in the near-wall region where the particle
concentration may be locally large, the turbulence intensities are modified by a
very small amount and can be neglected.

For the particle sizes considered in the study, sub-grid scales have a negligible
effect on particle trajectories.
12

The effect of material roughness is not considered when bouncing the particles
from the wall.

The particles in the flow field are assumed to be spherical particles throughout this study
and are subjected to various forces as explained by Rudinger (36) as follows:
Fp = drag force + added mass effect + history effect + gravitational force + Buoyancy
force + Lift force + Intercollision force + Brownian force + Thermophoresis force +
Magnus force + Basset Force
These forces have been discussed extensively by El-Batsh et al., (17) and many others in
previous literature and hence only a brief description of these forces is provided here.
Various deposition models in literature have used either one or a combination of the
forces mentioned above based on the characteristics of the particle flow expected.
Identification of the forces that affect the particle regime for a particular case is extremely
important for accurate tracking of the particle trajectory.
Drag force is the Stokes drag that acts on the particle due to the relative velocity between
the fluid and the particle and acts in the direction of the flow. The drag force is the most
dominant force for particle motion, especially when the particle Reynolds number is less
than 100. The drag force is based on the Stokes law when Re p <1, modified Stokes law
when 1<Rep <500 and the Newtons law when 500<Re p <2x105 . The second term
describes the acceleration of the fluid near the particle surface from fluid velocity to the
particle velocity. Mass of fluid that undergoes this acceleration is called carried mass
which is equal to one half of the displaced mass of the fluid. The acceleration of the fluid
near the particle causes the flow around the particle to differ from that in the steady
motion. The force required to maintain the flow pattern was approximated by Basset and

13

is represented by the third term. This force depends on the history of the particle
trajectory and hence is called the history effect. The effect of the added mass and
Basset forces is negligible for particles with density substantially larger than the fluid
density. Sommerfeld (41) and Elgobashi and Truesdell (39) showed that the Basset forces
are only important for particles with (p /f << 1). The added mass effect was also found
to be true in the same regime. Saffmans lift force is caused by the shear of the
surrounding fluid which results in a non-uniform pressure distribution around the particle.
This force assumes non-trivial magnitudes only in the viscous sublayer. If a particle leads
the fluid motion, then the lift force is negative and the particle moves down the velocity
gradient towards the wall. Conversely, if the particle lags the fluid, then the lift force is
positive and it moves up the velocity gradient away from the wall. This force usually
enhances deposition velocity and Wang et al (40) have shown that neglecting this force
results in a small decrease in the deposition rate. The gravitational force is the body force
acting on the particle and is only important for large particles in a Stokes regime. The
particles used in this study are in the region of 1-15 m and hence this force is neglected.
Basset Force, Buoyancy Force and added mass effect are usually negligible for particle
deposition studies and hence neglected. Intercollision force is the force exerted due to
inter-particle collisions. It is usually important when the volume fraction of the dispersed
phase is high. Magnus force is the lift developed due to rota tion of the particle. The lift is
caused by the pressure dfference between
both sides of the particle resulting from the velocity dfference due to rotation. Kallio &
Reeks (11) noted that it is an order of magnitude lesser than the Saffman force in most
regions of flow field and hence neglected. Brownian and Thermophoretic forces are

14

important for sub- micron particles. Brownian force is caused by the random impact of
particles with agitated gas molecules. Talbot et al., (42) showed that the thermophoretic
force is caused by the unequal momentum exchange between the particle and the fluid.
This force is caused by the unequal momentum exchange between the particle and the
fluid. The higher molecular velocities on one side of the particle due to the higher
temperature give rise to more momentum exchange and a resulting force in the direction
of decreasing temperature. Both these forces are neglected as the particles considered in
this study are larger than 0.03 m. El-Batsh et al (16) noted that based on the results of
Talbot et al., (42), rarefaction effects are important when the particles are in the submicron region as there is a reduction in the drag coefficient. In such a situation, the gas
flow around the particle cannot be regarded as a continuum. Instead, the particle motion
is induced by collisions of gas molecules with the particle surface. The rarefaction is
important in the non-continuum regime which is decided by the Knudsen number (Kn).
The Knudsen number is defined as the ratio of the mean free path of the gas molecules to
the particle size.
(3.5)
And
(3.6)
and the mean molecular speed are given by:
(3.7)
where R is the gas constant.

15

All experimental cases in this study have 0.1<Kn<10. Talbot et al., (42) have shown in
their experiments that there is considerable reduction of drag coefficient due to
rarefaction effect for Kn>0.02 and hence this effect is included. The reduction in the drag
coefficient is accounted for by the Cunningham correctio n factor described by Talbot et
al., (42) as:
(3.8)
Shah et al., (21) used the drag force and the gravitational force only and considered other
forces to be negligible based on previous literature. Dehbi (5) considered only the drag
force in his Eddy Interaction Model. Hamed et al (43) also considered only the drag and
gravitational force in addition to their model for rotating machinery and the force due to
rotation can be ignored. Iacono et al., (22) used drag force, gravitational force and
Saffman Lift Force as the effect of Saffman Lift on particle deposition is high in the
viscous sublayer. Ai et al., (17) used the drag force at steady state and Saffman Lift Force
in their simulation of particle deposition on high pressure turbine vane. Table 3.1
summarizes the various forces considered and identifies those that are incorporated in the
current model.

16

Table 3.1: Forces acting on the particle in the dispersed phase

FORCE
1

Drag

Domain of Importance
Dominant force for particle motion; Rep<100, spherical
particles assumed. Stokes' law: Rep < 1; Modified Stokes'

Included
YES
1<Rep < 500

Law: 1<Rep < 500; Newton's Law: 500< Rep< 2 x 105

2

Rarefaction

Important for sub-micron particles (<1m) for non-continuum

Effect

regime; Continuum: Kn < 0.1; Transition: 0.1 < Kn < 10

0.1<Kn<10 though sub-micron

Free-molecule: Kn > 10; Important for Kn>0.02

particles are less

Virtual Mass

Important for small values of particle material density to gas

Effect

density; p / f << 1

Basset

Important for small values of particle material density to gas

Saffman Lift

Magnus

Non-trivial magnitudes only in the viscous sub-layer; slight

Lift force due to particle rotation; atleast an order of

magnitude lower than Saffman force in most regions;

Gravity

NO
p / f >> 1

decrease in deposition rate if neglected.

6

NO
p / f >> 1

density; p / f << 1
5

YES

Important in Stokes Regime for large particles

YES
More accurate deposition rate
NO
No particle rotation in the flow
NO
Very small particles

Thermophoretic

Important for sub-micron particles and Kn < 2

NO
Kn > 10

Brownian

Important for dp < 0.03 m

NO
dp > 0.03 m

10

Intercollision

Important for high-volume fraction of particles

NO
Low volume fraction of particles

3.3) Particle Trajectory Calculations

Based on the particle characteristics and previous literature, the forces that are considered
to be acting on the particle throughout this study are as follows:
17

Drag Force with Cunningham correction factor for rarefaction effect

Saffman Lift Force

Accordingly, eq. 3.4 can be re-written as follows to calculate the particle trajectory by
integrating the following equation of motion (in the x direction):
(3.9)
where Cd is the drag coefficient. The first term on the right hand side represents the drag
force per unit particle mass and the second term contains only the Saffman Lift Force.
FLUENT provides controls to include the Cunningham correction factor and the Saffman
force in the particle trajectory calculations. A user-defined subroutine can also be used to
include these forces. The drag force is given by:
(3.10)
where the Cunningham correction factor is
(3.11)
where is the molecular mean free path.
The Saffman Lift force was initially given by Saffman (47) as:
(3.12)
where K r is the local velocity gradient.
However, this expression was originally derived for an unbounded shear flow and does
not include the effects due to proximity of the wall and finite Reynolds numbers. A more
accurate representation of this force is given by Li and Ahmadi (48) who used the
following generalized expression of the force for three-dimensional shear fields:

18

(3.13)

where,

is the velocity of the particle, d is the particle diameter, S is the ratio of particle

density to fluid density, is kinematic viscosity, K = 2.594 is the constant coefficient of

Saffman's lift force and

is the instantaneous fluid velocity with uj = Ej + u:, where Ej is

the mean velocity of the fluid, and u is its fluctuating component.

is the deformation

tensor and is given by:

(3.14)
The expression for the Saffman lift force is restricted to small particle Reynolds number.
In addition, the particle Reynolds number based on the particle-fluid velocity difference
must be also smaller than the square root of the particle Reynolds number based on the
shear field. The calculation of heat transfer to or from the particles in this study
considered only heating or cooling of the particles and neglected any phase changes or
particle radiation. The particle energy equation in terms of particle temperature is given
by:
)
where mp

(3.15)

is the particle mass, C p is the particle specific heat, Tp is the particle

temperature, Ap is the surface area of the particle, and hc is the convective heat transfer
coefficient. The assumption is made that the particle has no effect on the fluid flow due to
the dilute particle flow. The convective heat transfer coefficient is evaluated using the
correlation given by FLUENT (35) and Crowe et al (45):
(3.16)

19

where Nu is the Nusselt number and Pr is the Prandtl number. The Biot number in these
experiments in less than 0.1 and there is negligible internal resistance to heat transfer at
these Biot number values. The Biot number for 5m, for example, was 0.043. The body
has high internal conductivity at these values and the temperature change remains the
same. Hence, the body or particle has uniform temperature throughout and t he lumped
mass system approximation can be used to solve the Heat Transfer
3.4) Coupling of discrete and continuous phase:
Goesbet et al. (46) showed in their studies that there can be three types of coupling for
solid particles in turbulent flows as follows:

One-way coupling: Effect of turbulence on particle trajectories and dispersion

Two-way coupling: Effect of particles on turbulence

Four-way coupling: Effect of particles on each other

Usually, the particulate flow in compressor or turbine regimes is very dilute flow. The
present problem can be modeled with one-way coupling as the particle volume is very
low compared to the flow volume and hence the effect of particles on turbulence and on
each other is very negligible.

Fig: 3.1. Classification of flow regimes for gas-solid flows, Elgobashi, S. (49)
20

Fig 3.1 shows the various flow regimes and the type of coupling suitable between carrier
and dispersed phase. 2 is the volume fraction of the dispersed phase, k is the
Kolmogorov time scale in seconds, t 1 is the Lagrangian Integral time scale in seconds
and x 12 is the particle relaxation time in seconds.
3.5) Turbulent Particulate Dispersion
One of the prominent characteristics of turbulent flows is their diffusivity. Turbulence is
able to mix and transport species, momentum and energy much faster than is done by
molecular diffusion. Turbulent dispersion is best studied from a Lagrangian viewpoint by
following the motion of fluid elements. Kuo (50) noted that turbulent dispersion can be
accounted for by either a deterministic or Stochastic model. Deterministic models take
into account the slip velocity and calculate the interface mass/heat transport rates using
the slip velocity by taking into account the Reynolds number and the Sherwood/Nusselt
number. Stochastic models are similar to the deterministic models but they also take into
account the effect of turbulent fluctuations on particle motion and interface transport.
The particle dispersion in the turbulent flow field can be accounted for by two methods in
FLUENT (35):
(1) Stochastic tracking/Discrete Random Walk (DRW) model
(2) Particle cloud approach
For a case of steady state particle tracking, FLUENT s imulates particle streams rather
than individual particles. The one-way coupling method is generally used to simulate the
particle tracks. Information about the discrete phase concentration can only be obtained
by two-way coupling.

21

As explained by Tian & Ahmadi (66), in turbulent flow field, turbulence diffusion by
instantaneous flow fluctuations is the main mechanism for particle dispersion and
depositions. This is in addition to the other mechanisms such as molecular diffusion,
convective transport and gravitational sedimentation. Therefore, it is critical to
incorporate appropriate model for simulating turbulence fluctuations for accurate analysis
of particle transport and deposition processes. The most faithful simulation of fluctuation
velocity should be able to capture the details of the turbulence eddy structures. Currently,
this is only possible by DNS that is only practical for low Reynolds number duct flows.
For practical applications, however, turbulence fluctuation is mainly estimated using a
variety of stochastic approaches.
In the DRW model, each injection is tracked repeatedly to obtain a statistically
meaningful sampling. The number of tries option in the Injections panel in FLUENT
is used to set the number of times every injection needs to be tracked. Mass flow rates
and exchange source terms for each injection are divided equally among the multiple
stochastic tracks. Without Stochastic Tracking, only one particle trajectory is calculated
for each injection point and the effects of turbule nce are ignored which is not a valid
assumption. FLUENT uses a probability distribution function (PDF) for calculation of the
perturbation in flow field velocities. For n number of stochastic tries, n values of
perturbation are calculated for n different regions in the PDF and n different particle
tracks are generated from the same injection point. But the mass flow rate for the
injection at that point will be divided equally among the n particles, thus matching the
total mass flow rate through the inlet while accounting for the particle dispersion. This
accounts for the dispersion effect and ensures the deposition calculation is performed for

22

n different trajectories instead of just one particle track, thus being more representative
of deposition. The DRW model moves each particle through the medium using the
velocity field obtained from the solution of the flow equation to simulate advection and
adds a random displacement to simulate dispersion. Hence, the transport equations are
not solved directly and the approach is free of numerical dispersion and artificial
oscillations.
The DRW model is also popularly known as the Eddy Interaction Model and was
developed by Gosman & Ioannides (51). The EIM is a stochastic random walk treatment
in which particles are made to interact with the instantaneous velocity field u+u(t),
where u is the mean velocity and u(t) the fluctuating velocity. By computing the paths of
a large enough number of particles, the effects of the fluctuating flow field can be taken
into account. In essence, the EIM aims at reconstructing the instantaneous field from the
local mean values of velocity and turbulent intensity. The EIM models the turbulent
dispersion of particles as a succession of interactions between a particle and eddies which
have finite lengths and lifetimes. It is assumed that at time to , a particle with velocity up is
captured by an eddy which moves with a velocity composed of the mean fluid velocity,
augmented by a random instantaneous component which is piecewise constant in time.
When the lifetime of the eddy is over or the particle crosses the eddy, another interaction
is generated with a different eddy, and so forth. One drawback of the EIM/DRW model is
that it does not account for the strong anisotropic nature of turbulence inside the
boundary layer as it is based on an assumption of isotropic turbulence. Based on the
model of Gosman and Ioannides (51), the eddy has the following length and lifetime:
(3.17)

23

(3.18)
where k and are respectively the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation rate, while Cs
are constants. In FLUENT, the fluid velocity fluctuations are assumed isotropic and the
rms values of the velocity are obtained from the following relationship:
(3.19)
Where

(3.20)

Each eddy is characterized by a Gaussian distributed random velocity fluctuation and a

time scale in this model. Dehbi (5) successfully included a boundary layer model which
models the turbulence differently inside and outside the boundary layer. Although this
would be a much more accurate representation of particle dispersion in turbulent flows,
previous deposition studies have used the default isotropic FLUENT model with success
for particle deposition studies.
The particle cloud model considers the statistical evolution of a particle cloud about a
mean trajectory. A particle cloud is required for each particle type in this model. The
concentration of particles about the mean trajectory is represented by a Gaussian
probability density function (PDF) whose variance is based on the degree of particle
dispersion due to turbulent fluctuations. The mean trajectory is obtained by solving the
ensemble-averaged equations of motion for all particles represented by the cloud. The
cloud enters the domain either as a point source or with an initial diameter. The cloud
expands due to turbulent dispersion as it is transported through the domain until it exits.
As mentioned before, the distribution of particles in the cloud is defined by a probability
density function (PDF) based on the position in the cloud relative to the cloud center. The

24

value of the PDF represents the probability of finding particles represented by that cloud
with residence time t at location x i in the flow field. This model is computationally less
expensive but is less accurate since the gas phase properties like temperature are
averaged within a cloud. Hence, the Stochastic DRW model was chosen to model the
turbulent dispersion of particles.

25

4. PARTICLE DEPOSITION MODEL

The OSU deposition model based on the previous deposition models of El-Batsh et al.,
(16) and the BYU model by Ai et al., (17). The main goal of the deposition model was to
accurately model the particle-wall interaction and to improve upon the BYU model,
while extending the applicability to simulate deposition on a 3D turbine vane with film
cooling. FLUENT has built- in conditions and offers the following boundary conditions
when a particle strikes a boundary face:

Reflect elastic or inelastic collision

Trap particle is trapped at the wall

Escape particle escapes through the boundary

Wall-jet particle spray acts as a jet with high Weber number & no liquid film

Wall- film stick, rebound, spread & flash based on impact energy & wall
temperature

Interior particle passes through an internal boundary zone

Since none of these boundary conditions accurately represent the particle-wall interaction
in the compressor and turbine regimes, a deposition model was built- in FLUENT using
User Defined Functions (UDF) which would serve as the boundary condition for
modeling particle-wall interaction. A UDF is a routine (programmed by the user) written
in C using standard C functions and pre-defined FLUENT macros that can be
dynamically linked with the solver. The source files containing UDFs can either be
interpreted or compiled by the user in FLUENT.
26

4.1) Particle-Wall Inte raction:

Interaction of a particle with a surface usually results in sticking and buildup (deposition),
impact removal of the surface (erosion) and chemical buildup (corrosion). This study is
primarily concerned with modeling the deposition under the assumption of smooth
surfaces. The modeling process will deal with the build-up of deposition and the
subsequent effect on film cooling effectiveness due to this buildup in the next stage.
The particle-wall interaction leading to deposition is a two-step process, involving a
purely mechanical interaction and a fluid dynamic interaction. The mechanical
interaction called the sticking process is the determination of whether the particle sticks
to the surface when it comes into contact with a wall. The sticking model is based on the
previous adhesion models in literature which consider the elastic properties of the particle
and the surface only under dry conditions. Once the particle sticks, the next process is to
determine whether the particle remains stuck to the surface or is removed from the
surface based on the critical moment theory. This step is called the detachment process
and is the fluid dynamic interaction.
4.2) Particle Sticking:
Extensive reviews of particle adhesion/sticking have been provided in literature by Corn
(52), Krupp (53), Visser (54), Tabor (55) and Bowling (56). There are three main forces
that contribute to particle adhesion as shown in fig 3.2 and they are:

Van der Waals force Arises due to molecular interaction between solid surfaces

Electrostatic force Caused by charging the particles electrically in the gas

stream

27

Liquid Bridge force Caused by the formation of a liquid bridge between

particles and surface. In gas turbines, the use of low-grade fuels containing alkali
components gives rise to alkali vapor in addition to ash. If the temperature in the
thermal boundary layer is lower than the dew point of the alkali vapors, the alkali
vapors condense and form the liquid bridge.

Fig 4.1: Forces responsible for particle adhesion on a surface

From the literature mentioned above, Soltani & Ahmadi (57) concluded that the Van der
Waals force is the major contributor to surface adhesion under dry conditions. The Van
der Waals force was calculated by either a microscopic or a macroscopic approach. The
microscopic approach was based on the interactions of the individual molecules, while
the macroscopic approach dealt directly with the bulk properties of the interacting bodies.
One shortcoming of these early theories was that the effect of contact deformation on the
adhesion force was neglected. Johnson, Kendall, and Roberts (58) used the surface
energy and surface deformation effects to develop an improved contact model. This
model was nicknamed the JKR theory. According to this model, at the mome nt of
separation, the contact area does not disappear entirely; instead, a finite contact area
exists. Soltani & Ahmadi (57) used the JKR theory as a basis to form the evaluation of
the minimum critical shear velocity to be used in the critical moment theory for particle
28

detachment. Based on all the previous literature on deposition, El- Batsh et al., (16) put
together a complete deposition model to model the sticking and detachment process. The
JKR model gives the sticking force based on the particle size a nd material properties with
constants being derived from experiments.
This sticking force is given by the JKR model as:
(4.1)
where ks is a constant equal to 3/4. The Work of Sticking, WA is a constant which
depends upon the material properties of the particle and of the surface and has the units of
J/m2 . This constant is obtained experimentally for some materials. For any particle, the
co-efficient of restitution is defined as the ratio of the particle rebound velocity to the
particle normal velocity. As the particle normal velocity decreases, the particle rebound
velocity decreases and eventually reaches a point where no rebound occurs and the
particle is captured. This velocity at which capture of a particle occurs is known as the
capture/critical velocity. Brach and Dunn (59) formulated an expression to calculate the
capture velocity of a particle using a semi-empirical model. In this model, the capture
velocity of the particle was calculated based on the experimental data and is given as
follows:
(4.2)
where E is the composite Youngs modulus which is determined based on the Youngs
modulus of the particle and the surface. The particle normal velocity (vn ) is then
compared to the capture velocity. If the particle normal velocity is less than the capture
velocity, the particle sticks to the surface; else, it rebounds.
vn < vcr - particle sticks;

vn > vcr - particle rebounds

29

Once the particle rebounds, it continues on its trajectory until it leaves the domain or
impacts the surface again. The El- Batsh parameter is based on the Youngs modulus of
the particle and the surface and is given as:

(4.3)

and

(4.4)

and

(4.5)

where vcr is the particle capture velocity [m/s], Es is the Young's modulus of surface
material [Pa], s is the Poisson's ratio of surface material, Ep is the Young's modulus of
particle material [Pa], p is the Poisson's ratio of particle material, d p is the particle
diameter [m] and p is the particle density [kg/m3].
4.3) Particle Detachment
A particle may be detached from a surface when the applied forces overcome t he
adhesion forces. Therefore, particles may lift-off from the surface, slide over it or roll on
the surface. These detachment mechanisms have been discussed by Wang [60], among
others. The critical moment theory of Soltani & Ahmadi (57) is used to determine the
detachment of particle from the surface. Here, the critical wall shear velocity is defined
as:
(4.6)
where uc is the critical wall shear velocity, Cu is the Cunningham correction factor, dp is
the diameter of particle and Kc is the El- Batsh parameter. The particle will be removed
from the surface if the turbulent flow has a wall friction velocity (
30

) where w

is the wall shear stress) which is larger than uc. Detachment occurs when the fluid
dynamic moment in the viscous sublayer exceeds the moment exerted o n the particle by
the sticking force. A user-defined function (UDF) was created in the C programming
language using the various UDF macros available to create a deposition model which
would determine the capture velocity and critical wall shear velocity of every particle that
hits the surface and create a dataset for all particles that deposit on the surface. The
development of the UDF and its incorporation into FLUENT will be dealt with in the
next section. The BYU model calculated the wall friction velocity of the particle based on
the particle velocity instead of the gas velocity. This was based on the assumption that the
particle and the gas phase are in equilibrium. The wall shear stress is usually given by:

(4.7)
Where u is the time-averaged velocity at the wall and the shear stress is the shear stress
calculated at the wall.
The BYU model used the particle velocity at the center of the first cell near the wall and
the corresponding distance of the cell center from the wall to calculate the velocity
gradient resulting in the following formulation:
(4.8)
The particles are considered to be spherical particles and hence the distance of the cell
center from the wall was considered to be the distance of the center of the particle from
the wall, assuming that the particle is in contact with the surface. The OSU model has

31

done away with this assumption and calculates the wall friction velocity from the y+
formulation.
The wall friction velocity in the model was calculated as follows:
(4.9)
where

is the dimensionless wall distance, y is the distance of the first grid point from

the wall and

is the local kinematic viscosity in m2 /s. The effects of viscosity were not

accounted for in these simulations as using the same flow conditions as the BYU model
would help identify the areas of concern in the model. Still, in the next phase, viscosity
will be used as a function of temperature and this can be specified in the FLUENT MATERIALS panel. This is expected to be a more robust method of calculating the wall
friction velocity as the y+ is calculated inherently in the FLUENT code based on the wall
shear stress as is the universal method rather than being dependent on the particle
velocity. The deposition model differed from the BYU model in the calculation of the
wall friction velocity and was validated against the previous simulation results from
BYU.
4.4) Youngs Modulus Determination
El-Batsh et al., (16) used a deposition model to calculate the deposition for the impact of
an Ammonium Fluorescein sphere against a Molybdenum surface. The Young's modulus
of the Ammonium Fluorescein sphere and the Molybdenum surface were known from
experimental results previously. One of the problems encountered when calculating the
capture velocity in the BYU model is the information on the material properties of the
particle and the surface. These properties were not available in literature for the fly-ash
material. Also, to study the effect of surface temperature on particle sticking, the
32

dependence of material properties like Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio on

temperature was required. This led to a correlation between the material property,
Young's modulus and the temperature in El-Batsh model. The El-Batsh parameter is
needed to calculate the capture velocity and this information is obtained from a
correlation by fitting the experimental data. For every gas temperature, the value of E was
changed in the eq.4.2 until the capture efficiency matched that from the experiments. The
assumption was made that the particle sticking properties represent the target surface
properties as well Richards et al., (68) performed deposition experiments for a timeperiod that would build a monolayer on the surface. They found that the surface
properties were not changing as the monolayer developed. The experiments at BYU were
run for a period of time long enough to let a monolayer to build on the surface and hence,
the majority of the particles interacting with the surface would be interacting with the
monolayer and hence the assumption of same properties for the particle and the surface is
valid. The El- Batsh parameter was calculated by assuming a constant value of 0.27 for
the Poisson ratio of both particle and the surface based on experimental results. Using the
E values obtained for each gas temperature, a correlation was developed by Ai & Fletcher
(17) as follows:
(4.10)
Soltani & Ahmadi (57) showed that as the Youngs modulus increases, the capture
velocity and subsequently, the capture efficiency decreases. Though the gas temperature
was used to achieve the correlation, using the average temperature of the particle and the
surface instead resulted in better agreement with the experimental results. This

33

correlation was used in the current deposition modeling initially before obtaining our own
correlation to account for the change in the calculation of the wall friction velocity.
Capture efficiency is defined as the ratio of the mass of the particles deposited on the
surface to the total mass of particles entering the domain. It can also be defined as the
product of the impact efficiency and the sticking efficiency. Impact efficiency is the
ratio of the mass of the particles impacting the surface to the total mass of the particles
entering the domain. Sticking efficiency is the ratio of the mass of the particles
deposited on the surface to the mass of the particles impacting the surface. These 3
efficiencies are the most important parameters in the deposition calculations.

34

5. DEPOSITION MODEL DEVELOPMENT IN FLUENT 6.3.26

The previous section provided a detailed description of the Lagrangian particle tracking
methodology and the particle deposition model to be used in this study. This section will
deal with the programming and development of the deposition model and the integration
of the model using User Defined Functions (UDF) in the commercial CFD software,
FLUENT 6.3.26. The deposition model was programmed using the C language and is
shown in appendix.1. User Defined Memory Locations (UDML) were used to store the
deposition results in order to enable post-processing of the results and simulate images of
deposition. The process of running the FLUENT DPM model with the deposition model
is shown below:
1. Create the geometry and mesh in a pre-processor (GAMBIT for tetrahedral grids
and GRIDPRO for hexahedral grids)
2. Load the mesh in FLUENT and solve the flow- field and heat transfer
3. Save the case and data file
4. Open the case file
5. Set the number of User Defined Memory Locations (UDML) using Define User
Defined Memory
6. Initialize the flow field
7. Use Display Contours to display the UDML on the wall surface where the
deposition model is used as a boundary condition to initialize the UDML values
to zero
35

8. Compile and load the UDF through Define User Defined Function Compile
option. The UDF should be in the same folder as the case and data files
9. Open the data file
10. Set User-defined memory locations through the Execute-on-demand function
using Define User Defined Execute on Demand
11. Set up the DPM model using Define Models Discrete Phase. This panel
enables setting up the parameters for steady particle tracking and also the
injection parameters
12. Choose Stokes-Cunningham as the drag force parameter and set the value of the
Cunningham Correction Factor to 1.2
13. Use the Physical Models tab and enable the Saffman Lift Force option
14. Use the Injections option in this panel to setup the particle injections.
15. Choose inert as the particle type for all simulations. Injection type can be either
group or surface depending on the simulation
16. Set injection parameters like location, velocity, temperature, diameter, etc. Also,
set the number of iterations for the stochastic particle tracking.
17. Use Define Boundary conditions to select the wall on which the deposition
model has to be applied. In the DPM tab in the Boundary Condition panel, choose
user-defined as the boundary condition and select the UDF file (*.c)
18. Click Display Particle tracks to display the particle tracks and run the deposition
model
A flow-chart detailing the process is shown in fig. 5.1

36

Fig. 5.1: Deposition model flow chart

37

The UDF was programmed using built- in macros in FLUENT for the DPM model. The
DEFINE_DPM_BC macro enables the user to specify a boundary condition that is
different from the default boundary conditions for the particle-wall interaction. The
EXECUTE_ON_DEMAND macro is used to execute any process at any time during the
simulation. In this UDF, this macro is used to set the user-defined memory locations in
the data file. One major point to be noted in the current simulations is that the c hange in
the geometry due to the deposition and its effect on the fluid flow and cooling
effectiveness is not considered. Still, various methods to incorporate the changes in
geometry and the subsequent changes in the flow field have been analyzed and a
framework on this has been created for the next user.

38

6) PARTICLE DEPOSITION ON A COUPON

Ai et al., (17) used their deposition model on two different cases for a bare coupon,
without and with film cooling. They obtained their Youngs modulus correlation from
simulations on a bare coupon without film cooling in a 2D domain. The bare coupon has
a thermal conductivity of 9 W/m.K. The OSU model was validated against results from
the experiments on the bare coupon without film cooling initially. The results from these
simulations and comparisons with the BYU model are detailed in this section. The initial
experiments were conducted with a coupon made of Inconel. The coupon was set at an
angle of 45 to the flow field. The backside of the coupon was insulated with ceramic
material, resulting in nearly adiabatic conditions. The initial computational model was an
extension of the BYU 2D simulations in a 3D domain. The computational domain in 3D
space and the schematic and boundary conditions for the simulations are shown below:

Fig. 6.1: Computational domain for the bare coupon simulation

39

Fig. 6.2: Geometry and boundary conditions of the model in 2D view

The high temperature circular gas jet has a diameter of 25.4 mm, the same as the
equilibrium duct diameter in the experiments. The whole domain is a cylindrical section
of 508 mm in diameter and height. The coupon is 25.4 mm in diameter, cylindrical and
has a thickness of 3.556 mm. The coupon is placed at an angle of 45 to the mainstream
gas flow as in the experiments. The coupon holder from the experiments is neglected
since it does not affect the deposition and flow field to a large extent and also due to the
ease of modeling and meshing the domain by neglecting the holder. The geometry a nd
mesh were generated using GAMBIT's unstructured tetrahedral topology grids consisting
of tetrahedral cells. The total number of computational cells was 1,260,184. The accuracy
of the computational model and deposition model are strongly influenced by the quantity,
quality and location of grids resolving the flow physics. The y+ value of the mesh was
between 15 & 40, in conjunction with the y+ of 12-300 used in the BYU model. Detailed
sections of the mesh are shown below:

40

Fig 6.3: Cut section of the mesh along X-plane

6.1) Boundary Conditions:
The fluid enters through the velocity inlet at 173 m/s and at a gas temperature varying
from 1293 K to 1453 K. The table below gives the experimental conditions and the
capture efficiency obtained from the experiments, along with the coupon surface
temperature. All other sides of the coupon were considered to be adiabatic. All walls of
the mainstream duct are considered as pressure outlets with a temperature of 300 K,
simulating atmospheric conditions.

The walls of the inlet equilibrium duct were

considered to be adiabatic. The gas was modeled as incompressible air using the ideal gas
law, with gas density a function of the fluid temperature.
Table 6.1: Summary of experiments for the bare coupon case
Inlet Velocity (m/s)
Mass mean diameter (m)
Gas Temperature (K)
Surface Temperature (K)
Capture Efficiency (%)

1453
1311
7.87

1425
1281
4.47

173.0
13.4
1408
1374
1270
1234
2.938 0.932

1352
1232
0.517

1293
1191
0.0001

6.2) Carrier Phase Simulations

The continuous phase flow field was solved first and then the discrete phase model was
used to track the trajectory of the particles. The fluid/carrier phase was solved using the
Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations governing the transport of the
41

averaged flow quantities. The SIMPLE algorithm couples the pressure and velocity.
Pressure and Momentum equations are discretized by the PRESTO and QUICK scheme
respectively. The discretization of the energy equation is performed using the secondorder upwind scheme and the discretization of the k and equations in the k-
turbulence model uses the first-order upwind scheme. Convergence was determined by
reduction of normalized residuals for each parameter as follows: continuity (< 10 -4 ),
velocity (<10-6 ), energy (<10-7 ), and turbulence quantities (<10-5 ). Convergence monitors
were set up at various points inside the domain to monitor the flow variables and full
convergence was deemed to achieved only after the monitors of the flow variab les
became steady.
6.3) Particle Phase Simulations
The simulations were performed with group injection in FLUENT. In group injections,
5000 ash particles were released at the center of the inlet surface and impinged on the
target surface. The particles are in equilibrium with the gas phase at the inlet of the
domain and hence had the same temperature and velocity as the carrier phase. Although
this is not a fair representation of the particle distribution at the inlet, all previous
modeling results by Ai & Fletcher were performed using group injection and hence it was
carried out to validate the deposition model. The properties of the ash particle are given
below:
Table 6.2: Ash particle properties from Ai et al., (17)
d(um)

(kg/m^3)

Cp(J/kg.K)

k(W/m.K)

13.4

990

984

0.5

42

Particle trajectories and temperatures were modeled on a particle-by-particle basis using

the stochastic random-walk model as explained before. All simulations with group
injections were run with a minimum of 10-20 tries in the stochastic model to obtain a
better representation of each particle's behavior. The Runge Kutta method was used to
integrate the particle equations.
6.4) Results
Fig 6.5 and 6.6 show the comparison of the impact and capture efficiency from the OSU
model with previous results from the BYU model and the experiments. This initial
comparison was necessary to identify the shortcomings of the OSU model and to validate
the model against well-established results before making improvements to the model. The
OSU model contained the new formulation of wall- friction velocity and the results will
shed light on whether the new model improves upon the capture efficiency prediction.
Impact Efficiency vs Particle Diameter at 1453K

Impact Efficiency (%)

120
100

80
Impact % by OSU

60

Impact % by Ai et al
40
20
0
0

2
4
6
Particle diameter, in m

Fig: 6.4: Impact efficiency vs Particle Diameter at 1453 K

43

Capture Efficiency vs Gas Temperature

9
8

Capture Efficiency (%)

6
5
Experimental

OSU model

Ai et al

2
1
0
1250

1300

1350
1400
Gas Temperature (K)

1450

1500

Fig: 6.5: Capture Efficiency vs Gas Temperature

The capture efficiency is based mainly on the impact & sticking efficiency. Fig. 6.4
shows that the OSU model shows extremely good agreement with the BYU model for
impact efficiency at 1453 K. This shows that the particle tracking methodology and
parameters used in the OSU model work well since the trajectory of all particles have
been calculated for calculating the impact efficiency and this value agreed well with the
BYU results.
Fig. 6.5 shows the comparison of capture efficiency with different gas temperatures for a
mass mean diameter of 13.4 um. The OSU model agrees reasonably well with Ai et al.
and this improved model was expected to give better results when we move on to cases
with film cooling and vanes. One thing of note in the OSU model is that the capture
efficiency does not agree well with the experiments at lower temperatures. On further
analysis of the model, it was decided that the different methodology for calculating the
wall friction velocity is the cause for this. The newer wall friction velocity was supposed
44

to provide improved predictions but is based solely on the y+ at the wall which in turn is
dependent on the shear stress of the wall surface. The y+ value in these simulations was
kept at 15-40 to be in conjunction with the y+ of 12-300 used in the simulations at BYU.
The k- turbulence model usually needs the mesh to be refined as close to the wall as
possible with a y+ of around 1 giving better results than a higher y+ value (35). Wang et
al., (61) showed that the boundary layer usually acts as a barrier for particles to reach the
wall, thereby reducing the capture efficiency. Hence, proper modeling of the boundary
layer is extremely important for accurate capture efficiency prediction. A high value of
y+ as used in the BYU model will not resolve the boundary layer sufficiently to track
particle behavior inside this layer. The higher capture efficiency shown by both the
computational models can be attributed to not resolving the boundary layer completely to
the wall. Dehbi (5) used a separate model to account for the dispersion of particles inside
the boundary layer. The wall friction velocity in the OSU model is directly proportional
to the dimensionless wall distance (y+) and inversely proportional to the distance of the
center of the first cell away from the wall to the wall (y). Resolution of the mesh all the
way to the wall will enable more accurate representation of the wall shear stress, possibly
correcting for errors in the y+. A lower y+ would also mean a change in the value of y.
The 3D simulations throw light on the shortcomings of the previous model and on ways
to improve the capture efficiency prediction. Another area of concern is the Youngs
modulus correlation in the BYU model that was developed based on a 2D simulation of a
3D domain. The 2D simulation cannot capture the exact flow field over the coupon as in
a 3D simulation due to the circular nature of the coupon. This correlation will be revisited
after the initial simulations to validate the model. The impact efficiency graph shows that

45

the smaller the particle, the lesser the impact efficiency, thus corroborating the results of
Ai & Fletcher (17). Similar calculations for capture efficiency of the model showed a
trend similar to the one observed by Ai & Fletcher where the capture efficiency decreased
with decreasing gas temperatures. The OSU model captures the trend expected from the
experiments and further improvements will be made in the next simulations with film
cooling holes, thereby ensuring the changes to the model hold well for future cases with
film cooling in a vane.

46

6-A) CONJUGATE HEAT TRANSFER AND PARTICULATE DEPOSITION ON

A COUPON WITH FILM COOLING
The deposition model has been tested with previous test results from Ai & Fletcher (17)
on a 2D geometry with no film cooling and no conjugate heat transfer. The results as
mentioned above capture the various trends in deposition effectively and hence the model
is validated as fit to be applied to the 3D case with conjugate heat transfer and film
cooling. The experiments were carried out for various geometries with s/d being 3, 3.375
and 4.5 and the blowing ratios ranging from M=0.5 to M=2.0 with each of these cases
being modeled by Ai & Fletcher (17). Our modeling pertains to the single case of
s/d=3.375 where d=1 mm with blowing ratios of M=0.5, 1.0, 2.0. The distance between
the cooling holes is denoted by s/d with s being the actual distance between the holes
given with reference to the hole diameter (d). The blowing ratio (M) is defined as the
ratio of the coolant velocity at the exit of the cooling holes (Uj) to the free-stream
velocity (Uf).
6.1A) Geometry & Grid Generation
A schematic of the computational domain is given in figure 6.6. The computational
domain is the same as the one used by Ai & Fletcher (17) and the simulation has been
carried out with the exact same conditions as in their modeling. This has been done in the
view that any areas of concern in the deposition model can be easily identified and
rectified if the simulation is carried out in the same way as in (17). The computational

47

domain includes a mainstream duct, the coolant plenum and the solid plate with film
cooling holes completely occupying the area between the two ducts.

Fig: 6.6: Schematic of the 3D computational domain

The cooling holes are 3 in number and are cylindrical in shape. The mainstream duct has
a mixture outlet through which the mixture of gas and coolant flows. In the actual
experiments, the solid coupon is inclined at an angle of 45 to the mainstream flow and
the cooling holes are at an angle of 30 to the solid coupon surface and this has been
replicated in the domain geometry. The mainstream section is 81 mm in length, 39 mm in
width and 36 mm in height. The row of 3 film cooling holes are located inclined at an
angle of 30 to the plate surface and their centers are located 36 mm from the flat plate
leading edge and 45 mm upstream of the mixture outlet. The coolant plenum is 81 mm in
length, 39 mm in width and 40.5 mm in height. The flat plate has a thickness of 3 mm.
48

The cooling holes diameter is 1 mm and the hole spacing is 3.375 mm. The mainstream
gas enters the duct through an inlet of diameter 25.5 mm while the coolant enters the
plenum through an inlet of diameter 13.5 mm.
Two different grids were generated for this geometry, a tetrahedral mesh using GAMBIT
and a hexahedral mesh using GRIDPRO. The mesh generated was an unstructured
tetrahedral mesh as shown in fig 6.7 and a close-up of the mesh on the plate is shown in
fig. 6.9. The hexahedral mesh generated using GRIDPRO is shown in fig. 6.8. The total
number of computational cells was 746,554 for the tetrahedral case. The accuracy of the
computational model and the deposition model depends on the quality and location on
grids fine enough to resolve the flow physics in the areas of interest. Keeping this in
mind, the grid was created with fine cells near the coupon surface and the film cooling
holes where there are reasonably large gradients of the flow variables. The y+ was still
maintained at 12-300 (tetrahedral mesh) as in the BYU model to gain more insight on
how the y+ is affecting the deposition with the new wall friction calculation. The
deposition model was run on both grids for better insight into whether any one type of
mesh has an advantage over another for future cases. Skewness in the grid was kept to a
maximum of 0.86 while meshing and is later brought down to 0.75 in FLUENT using
polyhedral cells.

49

Fig. 6.7: View of the tetrahedral volume mesh for the 3D case

Fig. 6.8: Cut-section view of the volume mesh for the 3D case for hex mesh

Fig 6.9: Surface mesh on the plate for 3D tetrahedral grid

50

6.2A) Boundary Conditions & Simulations

The boundary conditions for the case were obtained from experimental values from Ai &
Fletcher (17). The mainstream gas enters the inlet at a temperature of 1453K and a
velocity of 173 m/s. The turbulence intensity at the mainstream inlet was specified as a
value of 4.25% based on the flow conditions. The temperatures on the top and side walls
of the mainstream duct were specified as 900K while the temperature of the wall close to
the inlet was 300K. These values were obtained from the experiments. The viscosity of
the fluid was kept as a constant at 1.79e-05 kg/m-s. The hot and cold sides of the coupon
were designated as a coupled boundary in FLUENT. This eliminates the need to specify
the heat flux or any other boundary conditions and this facilitates conjugate heat transfer
between the solid and fluid domains. The side walls of the coupon plate were set to be
adiabatic, thereby making the heat flux to flow in only one direction inside the solid
plate. A no-slip condition was applied to all the walls. The coolant inlet conditio ns were
derived at from the blowing ratio and the velocity and the temperature expected at the
entry to the film cooling holes. A density ratio was chosen such that the entry conditions
into the film cooling holes were satisfied. The coolant inlet had a te mperature of 293K
and a velocity of 0.592 m/s for the M=1 case which would give the desired conditions at
the cooling holes entry. The coolant velocity for the other cases of M=0.5 and M=2 were
arrived at from the blowing ratio formulation using the free-stream velocity. The walls of
the coolant plenum were set to be adiabatic. The turbulence intensity is:
(6.1)
Since prior knowledge of the flow velocity at both inlets was available, the turbulence
intensity was easily calculated. The initial simulations were made based on

51

'Incompressible ideal gas law' in FLUENT for the density of air as stated in Ai & Fletcher
(17). The inlets were mentioned as Velocity Inlets and the outlet was a Pressure Outlet
for the incompressible case. The incompressible ideal gas law calculates the density
based only on the temperature. The density does not depend on the local relative pressure
field.
The chosen case was initially run as a compressible flow using the ideal gas law for
density as per Ai and Fletcher(17). The thermal conductivity of the solid plate was set to
9 W/m-K. The Mach number at the gas inlet was 0.2263 and 0.00172 at the coolant inlet.
Compressible flow simulations for gases with Mach numbers in the incompressible range
are extremely difficult to converge and though the results of temperature and velocity
field on the plate were in the vicinity of the previous experimental and modeling results,
it was observed that more than 20,000 iterations will be required for the case to converge
fully. One factor contributing to this is the use of mass flow inlet in FLUENT which
significantly takes longer to converge compared to velocity and pressure inlets. Also, the
mesh was found to be too coarse to capture the flow physics effectively and the y+ values
were adapted on the hot and cold side to around 1, which is the standard y+ value region
for the k- model. This was found to bring the temperature down considerably. Low
surface temperatures were observed near the cooling hole exits. The surface temperature
is the area-weighted average temperature on the plate's hot side over a circle of diameter
one inch which is the diameter of the actual coupon used in the experiments. The
deposition model will also take into account only those particles that are deposited within
this circular area. The residuals for continuity were less than 10e-4, the residuals for
velocity was 10e-6, the residuals for energy were 10e-7 and the turbulence quantities had

52

a residual of 10e-5. Although the residuals indicated convergence, the monitors of

pressure, temperature and velocity at various points inside the domain did not converge.
Even after 20,000 iterations, the flow still did not achieve complete convergence and
correspondence with the FLUENT support center also reiterated the theory that mass
flow inlets for this case will take longer to converge. Initially, we were not able to
achieve agreement with experimental data for the average surface temperature on the two
sides of the plate using compressible flow solver. This led to the conclusion that
incompressible analysis is needed because the cold side flow has a Mach number of
0.002 for a compressible solver is not suitable. A compressible solver may be used if
combined with a pre-conditioner for low Mach number flows. The final deposition
simulation has been performed on the flow-field solution from the incompressible solver.
6.3A) Results
The flow- field results and the surface temperature profiles for all 3 blowing ratios are
shown below in fig. 6.10. These are the results from the tetrahedral mesh with y+ of 1540. Initial deposition simulations were performed on this mesh to determine the effect of
the new wall friction velocity calculation on the efficiency. The hexahedral mesh will be
used with a new Youngs modulus correlation obtained from the OSU model. The
formulae for calculating the wall friction velocity depending on the non-dimensionless
distance away from the wall is:

(6.2)

The velocity contours below show that at higher blowing ratios, the velocity of the
coolant coming out of the cooling holes is higher, thereby pushing more part icles away

53

from the wall resulting in lesser deposition. This is shown in fig 6.3 where the capture
efficiency is lower as the blowing ratio increases. Also, the presence of more coolant
reduces the surface temperature which in turn increases the particle Youngs modulus
(Ep ) as per eq. 4.10, resulting in lesser capture velocity. As a result, more particles have
normal velocity greater than the capture velocity and hence do not stick to the surface,
giving low capture efficiency. These findings have already been reporter by Ai &
Fletcher (17).

M=0.5

M=1

M=2

Fig. 6.10 Velocity magnitude contours (m/s) for M=0.5, 1, 2 along centerline plane

54

Fig 6.11 shows the surface temperature contours for all three blowing ratios. The area of
interest is not the entire rectangular plate, rather a circular area of diameter one inch
similar to the coupon in the experiments. The images show the higher surface
temperature for the M=0.5 case, thereby resulting in higher capture efficiency.

M=0.5

M=1

M=2
Fig. 6.11: Surface temperature contours at different blowing ratios on 1 inch diameter
coupon; Flow Direction is from left to right
55

The initial deposition simulations have been carried out with group injection where
5000 particles are injected from the center of the hot gas inlet. This has been done so as
to compare the deposition results with the new wall friction velocity calculation with
those of Ai & Fletcher (17) who used a similar injection. A much more representative
injection type is the surface injection option, where a particle is injected from the center
of every face in the surface mesh at the inlet. All simulations shown in this section have
been carried out with the same Youngs modulus correlation as obtained at BYU. These
results will give an indication of any potential changes that need to be incorporated in the
model, most particularly revisiting the Youngs modulus correlation and the effect of
wall shear stress and in turn, the non-dimensionless wall distance (y+) on the capture
efficiency prediction. Fig 6.12 and 6.13 show the comparison of the front-side surface
averaged temperature and the capture efficiency obtained with the experimental results
and the results of Ai & Fletcher (17).
Front side surface Temperature vs Blowing Ratio at 1453K

Front-side surface Temperature (K)

1360

1340
1320
1300

1280
Experimental

1260

OSU model

1240

Ai et al

1220
1200
1180
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Blowing Ratio, M

Fig 6.12: Comparison of area-averaged surface temperature on coupon at 1453 K

56

Capture % vs Blowing Ratio at 1453 K

7

Capture Efficiency (%)

6
5
4
Experimental

OSU model
Ai et al

1
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Blowing Ratio (M)

Fig 6.13: Comparison of capture efficiency vs blowing ratio at 1453 K

Fig 6.12 shows that the front-side surface temperature from both simulations shows a
reasonable agreement with the experimental surface temperature. Particle capture
velocity and capture efficiency are directly proportional to the hot-side surface
temperature of the coupon. A higher hot-side surface temperature at M=0.5 is seen in
both OSU and BYU models. This has a direct correlation to the higher capture efficiency
obtained at this blowing ratio in the next figure. At M=1, the OSU model had a closer
agreement with the experimental hot-side surface temperature than the BYU model
which is reflected in the better agreement with the capture efficiency. The change in
calculation of the wall friction velocity also played a part in the improvement prediction
of the capture efficiency at M=1. At M=2, the OSU model exhibits a higher hot-side
surface temperature, resulting in a higher capture efficiency. These results show that
modeling the conjugate heat transfer properly plays an important role in the prediction of
57

capture efficiency. The increased value of surface temperature predicted could be a result
of not enough mesh resolution near the wall resulting in fluid flow field not being
resolved properly. This directly affects the surface temperature on the plate and also the
particle transport near the wall. It has been shown in literature that boundary layers act as
a deterrent to the particles reaching the wall surface, thereby reducing the chances of
particles sticking to the surface. The figure 6.15 shows the near wall velocity vectors with
a y+ value of 12-300 in the OSU model. As observed, prominent boundary layers are
absent near the wall which is a potential cause of more particles reaching and sticking to
the surface.

Fig. 6.14: Velocity vectors along the centerline plane for M=1

The images of the deposition patterns on the plate at different blowing ratios provide
interesting insight into the effects of film cooling on deposition. These images were
obtained from the OSU deposition model using the same group injection conditions as

58

used by Ai et al. Deposition patterns from surface injection will be obtained for these
cases too which will provide better comparison with the actual experimental deposition
patterns obtained at BYU due to surface injection being more representative of
experimental conditions. The images show that deposition is concentrated around the
cooling hole in the middle and there is no deposition near or in the flow path of coolant
from the cooling holes at the end. Although the images give rise to this conclusion, it
should be noted that the injection type was group injection with all particles released
from the center of the inlet. This is a fair assumption for obtaining capture efficiency but
cannot be used to compare the deposition patterns with images from experiments. The
experiments had uniform distribution of particles throughout the entire inlet area rather
than injection from the center and hence the patterns obtained would show deposition all
over the one inch diameter coupon. Still, the following images can be used as a validation
of the model as they show almost no deposition in the flowpath right ahead of the cooling
holes. The deposition is mainly concentrated near the outer edges of the coupon. This is
also seen in the experimental images where deposition is extremely low in the flowpath
right ahead of the cooling holes. The images also sho w the higher capture efficiency at
M=0.5 compared to M=2 as seen in the experiments. The low blowing ratio at M=0.5
results in lower velocities coming out of the cooling holes. The particle normal velocity
near the walls is closer to the fluid velocity and the lower values of fluid velocity reduce
the particle normal velocity. This results in more particles having lesser normal velocities
than capture velocity leading to more sticking.

59

Total Impact

Sticking

Not Sticking

Fig 6.15: Deposition patterns from the model for M=2

Total Impact

Sticking

Not Sticking

Fig 6.16: Deposition patterns for the model for M=0.5

Total Impact

Sticking

Fig 6.17: Deposition patterns for the model for M=1.0

60

Not Sticking

Fig 6.18: Comparison of deposition from experimental & simulation for M=0.5

Fig 6.19: Comparison of deposition from experiments & simulation for M=2

The above images show the comparison of the simulation pattern developed from the
OSU model with the actual deposition images from the experiments. The deposition
simulation for M=2.0 predicted a higher capture efficiency than in the experiments and
hence there are more deposits around the edges. Still, the deposits in the film cooling hole
downstream is almost negligible compared to the total amount deposited which is the
main observation from the experimental images. These images do not show the
deposition but a representation of the number of particles deposited at each location. The

61

accumulated number of particles at each face location on the surface is shown as the
value of the cell to which the face belongs to. In the next phase of the research,
generation of images with realistic deposition heights will be handled.

62

7. APPLICATION TO VKI BLADE

El-Batsh et al. (16) used their deposition model on a VKI transonic turbine inlet guide
vane. Experimental results were not available but since the deposition model was already
validated for various cases and agreed well with experimental data, a simulation on this
vane with similar boundary conditions as expected in actual vanes would provide insight
into how deposition works on vanes. This vane was chosen as there are well documented
experimental results obtained at the Von Karman Institute (VKI) for flow field
measurements. The velocity values used in these experiments satisfied the requirements
of modern day gas turbines. Validation on this 2D vane is essential before moving onto a
3D vane with film cooling. All previous validation of the OSU model ha s been against
experimental data from coupons made of turbine material and it is essential to test the
models performance on an actual turbine vane. The surface velocity and the downstream
total pressure distribution are known from the experiments. The model will be applied for
2 Mach numbers, namely M=0.85 and M=1.02. The vane geometry and the mesh are
given below:
Chord Length, (mm): 67.65
Pitch, (mm)

: 57.5

Throat, (mm)

: 14.93

63

Fig 7.1: Computational grid used for the VKI blade

Grid

Oct 19, 2009

FLUENT 6.3 (2d, pbns , rngke)

A hexahedral mesh was created in a 2D domain with 5168 cells. El-Batsh (17) used a
structured body- fitted 2D hexahedral grid to accurately resolve the pressure distribution
behind the vane. The mesh at OSU was generated using GRIDPRO by breaking up the
domain into multiple regions of interest, thereby preserving the fineness of the mesh in
the important areas of the flow field. The passage behind the vane is crucial due to larger
pressure distribution variations and so is the leading edge of the vane. A body- fitted mesh
was generated to better resolve the boundary layer properties along the surface of the
vane. The mesh at OSU was generated with time constraints in mind and hence is much
coarser than the mesh used by El-Batsh. There are not enough cells in the region near the
leading edge of the blade and also in the aft region of the trailing edge where the flow
leaves the vane. Also, enough mesh cells are not available in the blade suction surface to
account for the difference in length between the pressure and suction surfaces. Even with
these considerations in mind, the mesh generated was deemed to be suitable enough to
accurately represent the trend of the sticking efficiency with particle diameter as noticed
64

by El-Batsh et al (17). Since the exact injection properties used by El-Batsh are not
known, it would be futile to spend time on matching his exact flow field conditions and
wiser to concentrate simply on validating whether the deposition model follows the trend
for deposition on a turbine vane.
7.1) Boundary Conditions
The inlet and exit boundary conditions were specified using a Pressure Inlet and Exit
boundary condition in FLUENT. The inlet Mach number was set to 0.85 and then to 1.02
and the flow was solved using the compressible solver in FLUENT. The k- turbulence
model was used with enhanced wall treatment. Fig 3.2 shows the schematic of the
computational domain and table 3.1 lists the boundary conditions used. The turbulence
length scale was set using l=0.07L where L is the characteristic length and was set to be
the blade pitch.

Fig 7.2: Computational domain and Internal Region

The total pressure was used at the inlet and the static pressure was used at the exit. The
total pressure was calculated from the following relation using the standard air properties:
65

(7.1)
Table 7.1: Boundary Conditions for the VKI Blade
Mach Number
Total Inlet Pressure, [Pa]

0.85

1.02

147500

159600

Total Inlet Temperature, [K]

420

420

Freestream Turbulence [%]

Turbulence Characteristic Length, [mm]

Static Outlet Pressure, [Pa]

89600

82300

Wall Temperature, [K]

1273

1273

Incidence Angle, [deg]

0.0

0.0

7.2) Simulations and Results

The pressure-velocity coupling was performed using the SIMPLE discretization scheme.
The Quadratic Upwind Interpolation (QUICK) scheme was used as the discretization
scheme to provide higher order accuracy. The flow-field results for the two Mach number
cases are shown below.

Fig 7.3: Mach number contours for M=0.85 by OSU

66

Fig 7.4: Mach number contours for M=1.02 by OSU

Fig 7.5: Mach number contours for M=0.85 by El-Batsh

Fig 7.6: Mach number contours for M=1.02 by El-Batsh

67

The Mach number contours show the pressure distribution expected in a vane passage.
The pressure side distributions are very smooth with smooth transition in the Mach
numbers too. The Mach number distribution from OSU simulations on the suction side,
especially from the region between the mid-chord and the trailing edge differ from the
results from El-Batsh in that the shock observed is less prominent in the OSU
simulations. Also to be noted is the flow leaving the trailing edge, the OSU simulations
not showing accurate Mach number as in the simulations by El-Batsh. These differences
can be attributed to not enough mesh resolution in these passages in the mesh generated
at OSU. Still, the variations are not considerable enough to affect the particle trajectories
to a great extent. Hamed et al. (62) performed erosion simulations on a GE E3 first stage
LP turbine with similar conditions for particle sticking. Their simulations provide insight
into the particle trajectory behavior in a turbine, specially the stator vane. These
simulations also give valuable information on particle tracking and modeling the particlewall interaction in the flow-field of a turbine. The figures below show the particle
trajectories for 3 different particle diameters of 0.1, 1 & 10 m with surface injectio n at
M=0.85

68

Fig. 7.7: Particle trajectories through the passage for d p = 0.1m

Fig. 7.8: Particle trajectories through the passage for d p = 1m

69

Fig. 7.9: Particle trajectories through the passage for d p = 10 m

Fig. 7.7 shows the particle pathlines at a particle diameter of 0.1 m. The smaller
particles tend to follow the carrier phase flow since the effects of inertia are less
prominent. The image shows that the particles move very close to the wall and hence a
lesser chance of impacting the wall as they are almost parallel to the wall. Particles that
stick to the wall and are sheared away by the friction forces are still influenced greatly by
the flow field and are carried away by the fluid flow in its path. The particles that do
tend to impact the surface have very low normal velocities. This gives a greater chance of
their normal velocity being lesser than the capture velocity and hence sticking to the wall.
This explains the lower impact efficiency but higher sticking efficiency at low particle
diameters. This affirms the notion that smaller particles tend to impact the wall less than
the larger particles and also tend to have greater capture efficiency. Fig. 7.8 shows similar
pathline results for the 1m diameter particles. The impact on the pressure side is similar
70

to the earlier case but the number of impacts on the suction surface is considerably lesser.
Most of the impacts on the suction surface are caused by the particles reflected from the
pressure surface of the neighboring blade in the passage. In this case, the particles deviate
away from the suction surface very early and hence are moving away from the suction
side of the next blade. Fig. 7.9 shows an even more prominent behavior of the particle
trajectory based on the particle size. The 10m particles are inertia-dominated and hence
are not greatly influenced by the flow field, resulting in trajectories completely different
from the fluid flow path. Larger particles tend to almost centrifuge after impacts and also
are prone to more impacts due to a change of angle from the fluid flow and reach the wall
surface almost perpendicular to it, leading to more impacts. This in turn causes greater
normal velocities, leading to more chance of the normal velocity being greater than the
capture velocity resulting in greater number of particles not sticking to the surface. All
this leads to the lesser sticking efficiency usually noted at large diameters.
Sticking Efficiency vs Particle Diameter at Wall Temperature of 1273K
1

Sticking Efficiency (%)

-2

10

12

0.1
OSU model
El-Batsh model
0.01

0.001

Particle Diameter (m)

Fig 7.10: Sticking Efficiency vs Particle Diameter at M=0.85

71

The above graph shows the comparison of the particle sticking efficiency predicted from
the OSU model in comparison with El- Batsh et al. The Youngs modulus correlation was
changed according to the material used by El-Batsh but the correlation was still
dependent on the gas temperature. Samples of 4100 particles were injected with a
uniform distribution over the blade pitch. The particle density was considered to be 1700
kg/m3 based on the experimental results of Ahluwalia et al., (10). The specific heat of ash
from the corresponding experiments was found to be 710 J/KgK. Three particle diameters
were considered for this case d=0.1, 1 and 10 m. The particle velocity and temperature
at injection were considered to be the same as the gas properties at the inlet. The thermal
conductivity of the ash particle used by El-Batsh was unknown and was considered to be
the same as the one used in the previous simulations. The Youngs modulus was assumed
as per the following correlation:
Ep = 120 (1589 Tp )3

(7.2)

The trend of the sticking efficiency decreasing with increasing diameter as seen by ElBatsh is reflected by the OSU model. The sticking efficiencies calculated by the OSU
model are not the same as El-Batsh at higher diameters. The mach number contours show
that El- Batsh simulations show a much more prominent shock than the OSU simulations.
There is no experimental data for these cases to compare with and the wall friction
velocity calculation used by El- Batsh is not known. There is no proof that the sticking
efficiencies calculated by El- Batsh are accurate values for these cases considering the
lack of experimental data to support these predictions. Hence, the values obtained from
the OSU model cannot be dismissed altogether. Also, at 10m, the sticking efficiency is
so low in both the models that the number of particles sticking might be anywhere

72

between one and five particles out of a total of 4100. The DPM results from FLUENT
cannot be expected to accurately predict the exact number of particles sticking due to the
various assumptions that go into the deposition model and the calculation of model
parameters by different methods in different models. Incidentally, the simulations from
the BYU model predict a sticking efficiency of between 0.7-1.0 for temperatures in the
range of 1400 K for a particle diameter of 1m for simulations on a bare coupon. The
OSU model shows a sticking efficiency of 0.8 for 1m for wall temperature of 1476K
which is in the range predicted by BYU model. Still, the deposition model matches the
trend and this is a desirable result and a validation checkpoint before moving onto the
OSU turbine vane simulations with film cooling. Also, the deposition model will be
similarly validated for the GE-E3 vane in a 3D domain and with the time constraints in
mind, these results for the VKI vane are considered enough for validation.

73

8. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DEPOSITION SIMULATIONS

In this section, a description of changes and improvements to the deposition simulations
is given. One of the major changes from the BYU model is the change in the ca lculation
of wall friction velocity from being based on the particle velocity to being based on the
non-dimensionless distance to the wall (y+) and in turn, the shear stress at the wall. All
BYU simulations were performed on computational grids with y+ of 12-300 and the k-
turbulence model. Although this y+ lies outside the viscous sub-layer zone, the k-
turbulence model usually requires the mesh to be resolved all the way up to the wall.
This, in turn, requires the y+ value to be less than 1 to achieve a fine mesh near the wall
surface of interest. A better resolution of the flow- field is achieved, especially of the
viscous boundary layer near the wall with a finer mesh. Also, as shown by Wang et al.,
(61) boundary layers ensure lesser number of particles reach the surface which is an
actual phenomena occurring in the experimental cases. Further, Ai & Fletcher (17)
developed their Youngs modulus correlation based on the older method of calculating
the wall friction velocity and also on a mesh with a y+ of 12-300. It was deemed fit to
arrive at a newer correlation using the OSU model, ensuring the flow- field results for
obtaining the new correlation are obtained from a finely resolved near-wall mesh. A 2-D
mesh for the same geometry as in the 3-D simulations on the bare coupon in Section.6
was generated with enough near-wall resolution to give a y+<5 which is the acceptable
region for the k- turbulence model used in these simulations. The mesh was generated
with 165,258 cells in the 2-D domain. A hexahedral boundary layer was fitted to the
74

coupon wall and the remaining areas of the domain were meshed with tetrahedral cells.
All boundary conditions and flow- field simulation conditions were the same as in the
bare coupon case.

Fig. 8.1: Close up view of the boundary layer on the coupon

Fig. 8.2: View of the tetrahedral mesh for the computational domain

Once the flow-field solution was obtained, the OSU deposition model was applied to all 6
temperatures as in the earlier case. The BYU Youngs modulus correlation was not used
here. Instead, the value of the Youngs modulus was iterated with the OSU model until

75

the model gave the exact capture efficiency as in the experiments. Thus, 6 different
Youngs modulus values were obtained for every gas temperature and these results were
used to come up with a new correlation based on the improved wall friction velocity
prediction and a better resolution of the flow field. The new Youngs modulus correlation
is given below:
(8.1)
where Tavg is the average of the temperature between the gas and the surface. This newer
correlation was obtained from a very finely resolved mesh with clear boundary layers and
hence is better applicable to solutions with y+ < 5. All simulations on the vane with film
cooling in the next stage will be performed on a hexahedral mesh created in GRIDPRO
with enough mesh resolution to give a y+ < 5. Hence, this new correlation is expected to
give better deposition prediction for the case of turbine vane with film cooling. The
hexahedral mesh shown in Section 3 for the coupon with film cooling holes was
generated in GRIDPRO and has a y+ of less than 1. The OSU model was tested with the
new Youngs modulus correlation on the flow- field results from the hexahedral mesh. All
simulation conditions are the same as in the earlier case, except the turbulence model.
The SST k- turbulence model was used instead of the Standard model due to
convergence issues. The capture efficiency predictions from the new correlation are
compared against the results from the BYU model, the OSU model with Ai & Fletchers
correlation and the experimental results. The results are shown below in fig. 9.3.

76

Capture % vs Blowing Ratio at 1453 K

7

Capture Efficiency (%)

4
Experimental

OSU model

Ai et al
OSU with new correlation

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Blowing Ratio (M)

Fig. 9.3: Comparison of capture efficiency from new correlation with earlier results

The deposition prediction has improved at blowing ratios M=1 and 2 with the new
correlation and the hexahedral mesh. The capture efficiency at M=0.5 is still not
agreeable with the experimental results. This is due to the fact that the surface
temperature on the hot side (1340 K) is still not the same as the one from the experiments
(1270 K). Still, the new correlation is expected to be an improvement and is considered a
better fit for future simulations with very fine near-wall mesh resolution.

77

9) CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

A deposition model was developed and validated to be used for deposition simulations on
a turbine vane with film cooling using the commercial CFD software, FLUENT 6.3.26.
The model was based on the deposition model developed by El Batsh et al., (16) and also
the BYU model (17). The model was developed in FLUENT using User-Defined
Functions (UDF) and was programmed using the C language. The model utilized the
UDF macros in FLUENT to built a tailor-made boundary condition for the wall surface
where the particles impact. Special User-Defined Memory (UDM) locations were used to
facilitate post-processing of the deposition results and also to obtain deposition patterns
on the vane in future.
The deposition model consisted of particle tracking, particle sticking and particle
detachment. The OSU model included a different method of calculating the wall friction
velocity that is used in the detachment model. The y+ and in turn the wall shear stress
were utilized to calculate the wall friction velocity which should give more accurate
representation of detachment than the BYU model that was based on the particle velocity.
Initial simulations were run on the 2D computational domain with just the bare coupon
and results showed good agreement for impact efficiency and particle tracking with
experimental results and the BYU model. The capture efficiency compared well at high
temperatures but did not agree well at lower temperatures similar to the BYU model. A
tetrahedral and a hexahedral mesh were created for the 3D simulations of the bare coupon
with film cooling. Simulations on the tetrahedral mesh predicted higher capture
78

efficiencies at M=0.5 & M=2 than experimental results but agreed well at M=1. The
surface temperature prediction at M=0.5 & 2 was higher in the model which was a cause
of the over-prediction. Another cause for the over-prediction was the use of k-
turbulence model as used in the BYU model with y+ ranging from 15-40. The k- model
needs the mesh to be refined all the way to the wall. These results were later re visited
with the hexahedral mesh with a y+ of less than 1. The areas of concern in the model
were identified in this phase and refinement of the grid all the way to the wall was
established as a criterion for better prediction in future. The post-processing capability in
the UDF delivered good images of the deposition pattern on the coupon and also will be
useful for build-up of deposition in the simulations in future.
Validation of the model was performed by simulating deposition on the VKI blade as
done by El-batsh et al., (16). Three different particle diameters (0.1, 1 & 10m) were
used in this case and the simulations showed that the smaller particles tend to follow the
flow- field and the larger particles tend to maintain their injection trajectory due to greater
Stokes number & greater drag force that reduces lift-off with the flow. Despite the many
changes from the El-batsh model, the OSU model still showed considerable agreement
with the sticking efficiencies predicted by El-batsh et al., (16). The final case was the
simulation of deposition on GE E3 vane. No previous deposition results are available for
this vane and hence this case was used to validate the results from the VKI blade for a
vane in 3D domain. Particle trajectory images showed similar results as in the VKI blade
for different diameters and impact efficiency increased as the particle diameter increased
as shown by Ai & Fletcher (17).

79

A new correlation for the Youngs modulus was developed since the OSU model differed
from the BYU model in some aspects and this correlation was used for simulations on the
hexahedral mesh with y+ less than 1 for the coupon with film cooling. The newer
correlation and the changes in the model led to better prediction of capture efficiency at
M=1 & M=2 compared to the BYU model. Capture efficiency at M=0.5 was still higher
which indicated that other factors like surface temperature, flow- field of particle size
could also be a major factor for deposition.
The OSU model is validated and ready to be applied to simulations of deposition on
turbine vane with film cooling which will be done in the next phase of the research.
Although the model improved prediction of capture efficiency & captured the trends
expected in particle depositions effectively for different cases, there is scope for
improvement in the model and some of the recommendations are given below:
1. The gas viscosity in the current model is set to a constant value but future
simulations should look into modeling the viscosity accurately as a function of
temperature.
2. The tools and data collection mechanisms are in place to develop patterns of
fouling on the blade due to deposition. Further investigation needs to be done to
identify ways to implement this and also to incorporate the effect of deposition
build-up on the flow- field and particle tracking.
3. Tafti (63) used a model based on critical viscosity to predict the particle
deposition. Analysis of this model and identifying the changes in prediction
brought about by using the critical viscosity will provide good insight into the
characteristics of the OSU model.

80

4. The deposition patterns developed currently in the simulations shows the exact
locations of the deposition but not the accurate height of deposition and the
changes in the flow field due to deposition build up. Using the particle path file
with software like MATLAB to simulate this height should be studied.
5. Mesh should be refined all the way to the wall to better capture the boundary
layer as this plays an important role in the transport of particles to the wall
surface.
6. Particle tracking in a hexahedral domain with lower number of cells used more
computational time than a similar tetrahedral domain with more cells and this
should be investigated to determine whether this was an isolated incident.
7. Conjugate Heat Transfer plays an important role in the capture efficiency
prediction and enough care should be taken to accurately solve the flow- field and
heat transfer before applying the deposition model as this could save valuable
time.

81

REFERENCES
1) Murakami, S., Kato, S., Nagano, S., and Tanaka, S., 1992, Diffusion
characteristics of airborne particles with gravitational settling in a convectiondominant indoor flow field, ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 98, part 1, pp. 8297.
2) Zhao, B., Zhang, Z., Li, X., and Huang, D., 2004, Comparison of diffusion
characteristics of aerosol particles in different ventilated rooms by numerical
method, ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 110, pp. 88-95
3) Zhao, B., Zhang, Z., and Li, X., 2005, Numerical study of the transport of
droplets or particles generated by respiratory system indoors, Building and
Environment, Vol. 40, pp. 1032-1039.
4) Menguturk, M. and Sverdrup, E. F. (1982), A Theory for Fine Particle
Deposition in Two-dimensional Boundary Layer Flows and Application to
Gas Turbines, Transaction of ASME, Journal of Engineering for Power, Vol.
104, pp. 69-76.
5) Dehbi. A, A CFD model for particle dispersion in turbulent boundary layer
flows, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (2008), pp. 707715
6) Yau, K. K. and Young, J. B. (1987), The Deposition of Fog Droplets on
Steam Turbine Blades by Turbulent Diffusion, Transactions of ASME,
Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol.109, pp. 429-435.

82

7) Wood, N. B. (1981), A Simple Method for the Calculation of Turbulent

Deposition to Smooth and Rough Surfaces, J. Aerosol Science, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp. 275-290.
8) Kladas, D. D. (1993), Turbine Cascade Optimization Against Particle
Deposition, Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Patras.
9) Huang, W.; Yu, M.; Yao, X. and Mao, J. (1997), Numerical Study of Fine
Particle Deposition in Gas Turbine Cascade, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Multiphase Flow, pp. 250-256.
10) Ahluwalia, R. K.; Im, K. H.; Chuang, C. F. and Hajduk, J. C. (1986), Particle
and Vapor Deposition in Coal-Fired Gas Turbines, ASME paper 86-GT-239.
11) Kallio GA, Reeks MW. 1989. A numerical simulation of particle deposition in
turbulent boundary layers. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 15:43346
12) Ounis H, Ahmadi G, McLaughlin JB. 1993. Brownian particle deposition in a
directly simulated turbulent channel flow. Phys. Fluids 5:142732
13) Brooke JW, Hanratty TJ, McLaughlin JB. 1994. Free- flight mixing and
deposition of aerosols. Phys. Fluids 6:340415
14) Wang Q, Squires KD. 1996. Large eddy simulation of particle- laden turbulent
channel flow. Phys. Fluids 8:120723
15) Guha. A, Transport and deposition of particles in turbulent and laminar flow,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech, 2008. 40:311-41

83

16) El-Batsh, H. and H. Haselbacher, "Numerical Investigation of the Effect of

Ash Particle Deposition on the Flow Field through Turbine Cascades," IGTI,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, GT-2002-30600 (2002).
17) Ai. W and Fletcher.T.H, Computational Analysis of Conjugate Heat Transfer
and Particulate Deposition on a High Pressure Turbine Vane, IGTI, Florida,
USA, GT-2009-59573 (2009)
18) Friedlander, S.K. and Johnstone, H.F., 1957, "Deposition of Suspended
Particles from Turbulent Gas Streams," Industry of Chemical Engineering, v
49, pp.p1151-1157.
19) Davies, C.N., 1966, "Deposition from Moving Aerosols," In Aerosol Science,
Academic Press
20) Liu, B. and Agarwal, J., 1974, "Experimental Observation of Aerosol
Deposition in Turbulent Flow,"Aerosol Science, 5, pp. 145.
21) Shah, A. and Tafti, D.K., Transport of Particulates in an Internal Cooling
Ribbed Duct, J. Turbomach. 129, 816 (2007), DOI:10.1115/1.2720509
22) Iacono. G, Reynolds. A, Tucker. P, Particle deposition onto rough surfaces,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, July 2008, Vol. 130 / 074501
23) Mazur,

Z., Campos-Amezcua,

R., Campos-Amezcua,

A., Numerical

Simulation of Erosion in Modified Nozzles of Axial Flow Turbine, Power for

Land, Sea and Air, 2006, Barcelona, Spain, GT 2006- 90027
24) Greenfield, C. and Quarini, G. (1997), Particle Deposition in a Turbulent
Boundary Layer, including the Effect of Thermophoresis, Proc. of the 1997
ASME Fluids Eng. Div. Summer Meeting, Gas Particle Flows, ASME

84

25) Greenfield, C. and Quarini, G. (1998), A Lagrangian Simulation of Particle

Deposition in a Turbulent Boundary Layer in the Presence of Thermophoresis,
Applied Mathematical Modeling, Vol. 22, pp. 759-771.
26) Abuzeid, S. ; Ahmed, A. and Goodarz, A. (1990), Numerical Simulations of
Particle Deposition from a Point Source in Turbulent Flow, Proceedings of the
36th Annual Technical Meeting of Institute of Environmental Sciences,
Mount Prospect, IL, USA,pp. 295-302.[3] Ahluwalia, R. K
27) Ajersch, P., Zhou, J.-M., Ketler, S., Salcudean, M., and Gartshore, I.S., 1995,
"Multiple Jets in a Crossflow: Detailed Measurements and Numerical
Simulations," International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and
Exposition, Houston, TX, USA.
28) Silieti, M., Kassab, A.J., and Divo, E., 2005, "Film Cooling Effectiveness
from a Single Scaled- up Fan-Shaped Hole a Cfd Simulation of Adiabatic and
Conjugate Heat Transfer Models," Paper No. GT2005-68431.
29) Harrison, K.L. and Bogard, D.G., 2008, "Comparison of Rans Turbulence
Models for Prediction of Film Cooling Performance," ASME Paper No.
GT2008-51423.
30) Zhang Z, Chen Q., Comparison of the Eulerian and Lagrangian methods for
predicting particle transport in enclosed spaces, Atmospheric Environment
2007; 41(25):523648.
31) Jovanovic, R., Cvetinovic, D., Stefanovic, P. and Swiatkowski, B., Turbulent
two-phase flow modeling of air-coal mixture channels with single blade

85

turbulators, International Conference of Numerical Analysis and Allied

Mathematics. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 936, pp. 300-303(2007).
32) Theodoridis, G.S., Lakehal, D., Rodi, W., 2001, Three-dimensional
calculations of the flow field around the turbine blade with film cooling
injection near the leading edge, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 66, 57-83.
33) York, D.Y., and Leylek, J.H., 2002, "Leading Edge Film Cooling Physics:
Part I -Adiabatic Effectiveness," ASME Paper No. GT-2002-30166 & GT2002-30167, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
34) Zevenhoven, R., Particle / turbulence interactions and CFD modeling of
dilute suspensions, Topical meeting on Modeling of Combustion and
Combustion Processes, Turku, Finland, November 15-16, 2000
35) FLUENT 6.3.26 User Guide, 2006, FLUENT Inc
36) Rudinger, G., Fundamentals of gas-particle flow, Elsevier Scientific Pub.
Co., Amsterdam, New York, 1980
37) Kulick, J.D., Fessler, J.R., and Eaton, J.K., Particle response and turbulence
modification in fully developed channel flow, J. Fluid Mech., 277, 109-134,
1994
38) Kaftori, D., Hetsroni, G., and Banerjee, S., Particle behavior in the turbulent
boundary layer. I. Motion, deposition, and entrainment, Phys. Fluids 7, 10951106, 1995
39) Elgobashi, S., and Truesdell, G.C., (1992), Direct Simulation of Particle
Dispersion in Decaying Isotropic Turbulence, J. of Fluid Mech., 242, p. 655700.

86

40) Wang, J., Shirazi, S.A., A CFD Based Correlation for Erosion Factor for
Long-Radius Elbows and Bends, Journal of Energy Resources Technology
125, 26 (2003)
41) Sommerfeld, M. (2000), Theoretical and Experimental Modeling of
Particulate Flow, VKI lecture Series, 2000-06.
42) Talbot, L., Cheng, R. K., Schefer, R. W. and Willis, D. R. (1980),
Thermophoresis of Particles in a Heated Boundary Layer, J. Fluid Mech.,
Vol. 101, Part 4, pp. 737-758.
43) Hamed, A.A., Das, K., Basu, D., Droplet Trajectories and Collection on Fan
Rotor at off-design conditions, Power for Land, Sea and Air, 2006,
Barcelona, Spain, GT 2006 91214
44) Bons, J.P., Ai, W.G., Harding, S., Murray, N., Fletcher and T.H., Lewis, S.,
"Effect of Hole Spacing on Deposition of Fine Coal Flyash near Film Cooling
Holes," IGTI, 2009, Orlando, Florida.
45) Crowe, C. Sommerfeld, M. and Tsuji, Y. (1997), Multiphase Flows with
Droplets and Particles, CRC Press.
46) Gouesbet, G., A. Berlemont and P. Desjonqures, "Particle Lagrangian
simulation in turbulent flows," Int. J. Multiphase Flow 16, 19 (1990).
47) Saffman, P. G. (1965), The Lift on a Small Sphere in a Slow Shear Flow,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 22, Part 2, pp. 385-400.
48) A. Li and G. Ahmadi., Dispersion and Deposition of Spherical Particles from
Point Sources in a Turbulent Channel Flow, Aerosol Science and
Technology, 16:209-226, 1992.

87

49) Elghobashi, S., Particle- laden turbulent flows: direct simulation and closure
models, Applied Scientific Research, 48: 301-314, 1991.
50) Kuo, K. K.-y. "Principles of Combustion", Wiley Interscience (1986) p. 573589
51) Gosman, A.D. and Ioannides, E., 1983, Aspects of computer simulation of
liquid fuelled combustors, J. Energy 7, pp. 482490.
52) M. Corn, in: Aerosol Science, C. N. Davies (Ed.), p. 359. Academic Press,
New York (1966).
53) H. Krupp, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 1, 111-140 (1967).
54) J. Visser, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 3, 331-363 (1972).
55) D. Tabor, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 58, 2-13 (1977).
56) R. A. Bowling, J. Electrochem. Soc. 132, 2208-2219 (1985).
57) Soltani, M., and Ahmadi, G., On particle adhesion and removal mechanisms
in turbulent flows, J. Adhesion Sci. Technology, Vol. 8, No. 7, pp-763-785
(1994)
58) K. L. Johnson, K. Kendall and A. D. Roberts, Proc. R. Soc., London 324, 301313 (1971).
59) Brach, Raymond M. and Dunn, Patrick F.(1992), A Mathematical Model of
the Impact and

Adhesion of Microspheres,

Aerosol Science and

Technology,16:1,51-64.
60) H. C. Wang, J. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 13, 386-396 (1990)

88

61) Wang J., Levy E.K., Particle motions and distributions in turbulent boundary
layer of air-particle flow past a vertical flat plate, (2003) Experimental
Thermal and Fluid Science, 27 (8), pp. 845-853.
62) Hamed, A.A., Tabakoff, W., Arora, P., Das, K. & Rivir, R.B., Turbine Blade
Surface Deterioration by Erosion, ASME. Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol.
127 No 3, July 2005, pp 445-452.
63) Tafti, D., Syngas Particulate Deposition and Erosion at the Leading Edge of
a Turbine Blade with Film Cooling, UTSR Workshop, Oct 2009
64) So, R.M.C., Zhang, H.S., and Speziale, C.G., 1991, Near-wall modeling of
the dissipation-rate equation, AIAA Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 2069-2076
65) Jin. C., A numerical simulation of particle deposition in turbulent pipe
flow, Newcastle University
66) Tian. L., Ahmadi. G., Particle Deposition in turbulent duct flows
Comparison of different model predictions, Aerosol Science 38 (2007) 377
397
67) Bogard, D.G., Thole, K.A., Simulating Particle Deposition and Mitigating
Deposition Degradation Effects in Film Cooled Turbine Sections, UTSR
Peer Review Workshop VI, Oct, 2009
68) Richards, G. A.; Logan, R. G.; Meyer, C. T. and Anderson, R. J. (1992), Ash
Deposition at Coal-Fired Gas Turbine Conditions: Surface and Combustion
Temperature Effects, Transactions of ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas
Turbines and Power, Vol. 114, pp. 132-138.

89

APPENDIX
/*DEPOSITION MODEL UDF
AUTHOR: PRASHANTH S. SHANKARA */
#include "udf.h"
#include "dpm.h"
#include "mem.h"
#include "sg.h"
#define nu_s 0.27

/*Poisson ratio of the surface*/

#define nu_p 0.27

/*Poisson ratio of the particle*/

#define VISC 1.7894e-05

/*Viscosity*/

/*#define RGAS (UNIVERSAL_GAS_CONSTANT/MW)*/

#define Tdatum 288.15
#define NUM_UDM 6

/* No. of user-defined memory locations8/

real ParticleTotalMass;
real P_Mass[6];
real P_Impact_Mass[6];
real P_Stick_Mass[6];
Domain *domain;

*Get domain pointer and assign later to domain*/

/* Boundary condition macro for the deposition model*/

DEFINE_DPM_BC(udfdeposition8,p,t,f,f_normal,dim)
90

{
#if !RP_HOST

/* Used only for 3D cases*/

real crit_vel,alpha,Tavg,Ep,vcr=0.,Es,k1,k2,calc,E,utau1,dudz,wall_shear_stress;
real Cu,cbar,lamda,kn,val,kc,ucws,utc,h,del,ufr,ff,utau,area,wall_shear_force,utaunew;
real vn=0.;
real utau2, utc1,vpabs=0.,MassImpact;
real nor_coeff=0.8;
real tan_coeff=0.4;
real R=287.;
real tem_Mass=0.;
real tem_Particle_Dia=0.;
real A[ND_ND],ds,es[ND_ND],A_by_es,dr0[ND_ND],ivu=0.,jvv=0.,kvw=0.,du=0.;
real tauwall1=0.,tauwall2=0.,tauwall3=0.,wallfricv1=0.,wallfricv2=0.,wallfricv3=0.;
real yplus,wallfricv4=0.,wallfricv5=0.,uvel,vvel,wvel,dumag=0.;
FILE *fp;*

Thread *tcell=P_CELL_THREAD(p);

/* Exact thread location of particle*/

/*cell_t c=RP_CELL(&p->cCell); */
/*Thread *tcell=RP_THREAD(&p->cCell);*/
cell_t c=P_CELL(p);

/* Exact cell location of particle*/

Domain *d;
real normal[3];
int i,idim=dim;

91

real Wa = 0.039;
d=Get_Domain(1);
real x[ND_ND];
for (i=0.; i<idim; i++)
normal[i] = f_normal[i];
C_UDMI(c,tcell,0) += 1.0;

if(p->type==DPM_TYPE_INERT)

/* Checks if inert particle is used*/

{
/*computing normal velocity*/
for(i=0.;i<idim;i++)
{
vn += p->state.V[i]*normal[i];
vpabs += pow(p->state.V[i],2.);
}
vpabs = pow(vpabs,.5);

/*computing critical velocity*/

Tavg = (F_T(f,t)+C_T(c,tcell))/2.;
/*Message("Avg temp is %g\n",Tavg);*/
/*Message("particle temp is %g\n",P_T(p));*/
92

/*Message("face temp from tcell is %g\n",F_T(f,tcell));*/

/*Message("normal face temp is %g\n",F_T(f,t));*/

/*NEW CORRELATION*/
Ep=(3.*(pow(10.,20.)))*exp(-0.02365*Tavg);
Es=Ep;
/*Message("Young's mod is %g\n",Ep);*/
k1 = (1.-(nu_s*nu_s))/(3.14*Es);
k2 = (1.-(nu_p*nu_p))/(3.14*Ep);
/*Message("particle density is %g\n",P_RHO(p));*/
/*Message("Ai particle density is %g\n",p->init_state.rho);*/
calc = (5.*3.14*3.14*(k1+k2))/(4.*(pow(P_RHO(p),1.5)));
E = 0.51*(pow(calc,(2./5.)));

/* El- Batsh parameter*/

vcr = pow(((2.*E)/P_DIAM(p)),(10./7.));
/*Message("capture velocity is %g\n",vcr);*/

MassImpact=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
C_UDMI(c,tcell,1)+=MassImpact;
cbar = sqrt(((8.*C_RGAS(c,tcell)*C_T(c,tcell))/3.14));
lamda = (2.*C_MU_EFF(c,tcell))/(C_R(c,tcell)*cbar);
kn = (2.*lamda)/P_DIAM(p);

/* Knudsen number*/

Cu = 1.+kn*(1.2+(0.41*exp(-0.88/kn))); /*Cunningham Correction Factor*/

Tavg = (F_T(f,t)+C_T(c,tcell))/2.; /*Avg of particle & surface temperature*/

93

/*Calculating El-Batsh parameter*/

val = ((1.-(pow(nu_s,2.)))/Es)+((1.-(pow(nu_p,2.)))/Ep);
kc = (4./3.)/val;

/*Calculating critical wall shear velocity*/

ucws = ((Cu*Wa)/(C_R(c,tcell)*P_DIAM(p)))*(pow((Wa/(P_DIAM(p)*kc)),(1./3.)));
utc = sqrt(ucws);
/*

Message("wall shear vel is %g\n", utc);*/

utc1=pow(ucws,0.5);

/*Calculating wall friction velocity*/

/* Alternate Method 1*/

/*dudz = C_DUDZ(c,tcell);*/
/*utau1 = sqrt((VISC*dudz)/C_R(c,tcell));*/
/*Message("Friction vel by regular formula is %g\n",utau1);*/
yplus=F_STORAGE_R(f,t,SV_WALL_YPLUS_UTAU);

/*Alternate Method 2*/

ivu=C_U(c,tcell)*normal[0];
jvv=C_V(c,tcell)*normal[1];
kvw=C_W(c,tcell)*normal[2];

94

du =ivu+jvv;
Thread *t0=THREAD_T0(t);
cell_t c0=F_C0(f,t);
BOUNDARY_FACE_GEOMETRY(f,t,A,ds,es,A_by_es,dr0);
/*

Message("wall distance is %g\n",ds);*/

tauwall1=C_MU_EFF(c,tcell)*(du/ds);
wallfricv1=sqrt(tauwall1/C_R(c,tcell));
/*

Message("wallfrictionvelocity 1 is %g\n",wallfricv1);*/

if (yplus<11.25)
{
tauwall2=C_MU_EFF(c,tcell)*C_STRAIN_RATE_MAG(c,tcell);
wallfricv2=sqrt(tauwall2/C_R(c,tcell));
}
else
{
wallfricv2 = (1./0.41)*log(yplus*9.);
}
/*

Message("wallfrictionvelocity 2 is %g\n",wallfricv2);*/

/* Alternate Method 3*/

tauwall3=C_MU_EFF(c,tcell)*sqrt(C_DUDX(c,tcell)*(C_DUDX(c,tcell)+C_DUDX(c,tc
ell))+C_DUDY(c,tcell)*(C_DUDY(c,tcell)+C_DVDX(c,tcell))+C_DUDZ(c,tcell)*(C_D

95

UDZ(c,tcell)+C_DWDX(c,tcell))+C_DVDX(c,tcell)*(C_DVDX(c,tcell)+C_DUDY(c,tce
ll))+C_DVDY(c,tcell)*(C_DVDY(c,tcell)+C_DVDY(c,tcell))+C_DVDZ(c,tcell)*(C_DV
DZ(c,tcell)+C_DWDY(c,tcell))+C_DWDX(c,tcell)*(C_DWDX(c,tcell)+C_DUDZ(c,tcel
l))+C_DWDY(c,tcell)*(C_DWDY(c,tcell)+C_DVDZ(c,tcell))+C_DWDZ(c,tcell)*(C_D
WDZ(c,tcell)+C_DWDZ(c,tcell)));
wallfricv3=sqrt(tauwall3/C_R(c,tcell));

/*ACTUAL WALL FRICTION VELOCITY CALCULATION*/

/*

Message("wall yplus is %g\n",yplus);*/

ds=C_WALL_DIST(c,tcell);
wallfricv4=(VISC*yplus)/(ds*C_R(c,tcell));

/* Alternate Method 5*/

uvel=C_U(c0,t0);
vvel=C_V(c0,t0);
wvel=C_W(c0,t0);
dumag=sqrt((uvel*uvel)+(vvel*vvel));
if(yplus>10)
wallfricv5=sqrt((C_MU_EFF(c,tcell)*dumag)/(C_R(c,tcell)*ds));
else
wallfricv5=sqrt((VISC*dumag)/(C_R(c,tcell)*ds));
/*

Message("wallfrictionvelocity 5 is %g\n",wallfricv5);*/

96

fp=fopen("Impact2.txt","a");
fprintf(fp,"%6.3f

%6.2f

%6.2f

%f

%f

%f

P_DIAM(p),vn,vcr,Ep,MassImpact,ucws,utaunew);

tem_Particle_Dia=P_DIAM(p)*pow(10,6);
if(tem_Particle_Dia<1)
P_Impact_Mass[0]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else if(tem_Particle_Dia>1 && tem_Particle_Dia<3)
P_Impact_Mass[1]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else if(tem_Particle_Dia>3 && tem_Particle_Dia<5)
P_Impact_Mass[2]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else if(tem_Particle_Dia>5 && tem_Particle_Dia<7)
P_Impact_Mass[3]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else if(tem_Particle_Dia>7 && tem_Particle_Dia<10)
P_Impact_Mass[4]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else
P_Impact_Mass[5]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);

/* PARTICLE DOES NOT STICK*/

if(abs(vn)>vcr)
{
C_UDMI(c,tcell,2) += 1.0;
C_UDMI(c,tcell,3) += P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);

97

%f\n",

for(i=0;i<idim;i++)
p->state.V[i]-=vn*normal[i];

/*Apply tangential coefficient of restitution. */

for (i=0; i<idim; i++)
p->state.V[i]*=tan_coeff;

/*Add reflected normal velocity. */

for (i=0; i<idim; i++)
p->state.V[i]-=nor_coeff*vn*normal[i];

/* Store new velocity in state0 of particle*/

for (i=0; i<idim; i++)
p->state0.V[i]=p->state.V[i];
return PATH_ACTIVE;
}

/* PARTICLE DEPOSITS*/
else
if(wallfricv4 < utc)
{

/*num of particles deposited or num of hits*/

98

C_UDMI(c,tcell,4) += 1.0;
/* mass of particles deposited*/
C_UDMI(c,tcell,5) += P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
tem_Mass=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
if(tem_Particle_Dia<1.)
P_Stick_Mass[0]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else if(tem_Particle_Dia>1 && tem_Particle_Dia<3)
P_Stick_Mass[1]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else if(tem_Particle_Dia>3 && tem_Particle_Dia<5)
P_Stick_Mass[2]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else if(tem_Particle_Dia>5 && tem_Particle_Dia<7)
P_Stick_Mass[3]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else if(tem_Particle_Dia>7 && tem_Particle_Dia<10)
P_Stick_Mass[4]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);
else
P_Stick_Mass[5]+=P_FLOW_RATE(p)*pow(10,9);

fp=fopen("Stick2.txt","a");
fprintf(fp,"%f

%f

%6.2f

%f

tem_Particle_Dia,tem_Mass,vn,vcr,Ep,ucws,utaunew);
fclose(fp);
}
}

99

%6.2f

%6.2f

%f\n",

return PATH_ABORT;
#endif

/* Only for 3D cases*/

/*Setting UDM locations and initializing them to 0*/

DEFINE_ON_DEMAND(reset_UDMsnew)
{
int i=0;
Thread *t;
Domain *d;
cell_t c;
face_t f;
d=Get_Domain(1);
Message("Setting UDMs \n");
thread_loop_c(t,d)
{
begin_c_loop(c,t)
{
for(i=0;i<6;i++)
C_UDMI(c,t,i)=0.0;
}
end_c_loop(c,t)

100

}
}

101