4.7 Article

Four kinds of the two-equation turbulence model's research on flow field simulation performance of DPF's porous media and swirl-type regeneration burner

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 397-404

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.116

关键词

Diesel particulate filter (DPF); Turbulence model; Computational fluid dynamics (CFD); Swirl burner; Porous media; Back-flow

资金

  1. Postgraduate Innovative Research Project of Shaoyang University [CX2014SY016]
  2. Innovation Platform Open Foundation in Higher Educational Institutions of Hunan Province [12K130]
  3. Aid Program for Science and Technology Innovative Research Team in Higher Educational Institutions of Hunan Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The flow field of the diesel particulate filter (DPF) with porous media and the swirl regeneration burner is complex, so which kind of turbulence model to be chosen has a great influence on the accuracy and performance on the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation. Based on Fluent software and with the same conditions, the standard k - epsilon RNG k - epsilon, Realizable k - epsilon and SST k - omega turbulence models were adopted to get the back-flow characteristics and the distribution of velocity, pressure and turbulent kinetic energy in the swirl burner and the porous media, then the results were compared and analyzed. It shows that, at the sudden expansion zones and near-wall region, the flow characteristics and back-flow features of the Realizable k - epsilon model are clearer than that of the standard k-e model and the RNG kmodel, and the maximum peaks of turbulent kinetic energy and the larger gradient are gotten by the RNG k - epsilon model, but better back-flow characteristics and more abundant details of flow field by the SST k - omega model, and the center average velocity and pressure at the inlet and outlet all agreed well with experiments. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据