task ii presentations task ii overview – morley 3d ... › apex › meeting22 › taskii...
TRANSCRIPT
Slide 1
Task II Presentations
Task II Overview – Morley
3D Modeling Benchmarks – Smolentsev
HIMAG Status - Munipalli
APEX Electronic MeetingFebruary 2, 2003
Slide 2
Modeling1D/2D/3D Modeling Development and Testing
HIMAG Development and Testing
ExperimentsMTOR (shared with Task I)
FLIHY (& Jupiter-2)
Papers for APEX Report“Modeling and experiments for liquid metal free surface MHD flow”
“Modeling and experiments for turbulent free surface flow and heat transfer”"On the choice of dependent variables in modeling LM-MHD flows for fusion
applications”
Task II Activities and Papers
Slide 3
3D MHD Modeling Summary
• Benchmark problems (Smolentsev)– MHD Lid-driven cavity
• HIMAG progress (Munipalli)– Inclined-plane in field gradient – NSTX jet
• DiMES modeling • Telluride workshop (Ni)• Fluent 6.1 with MHD beta-package being
used at UCLA
Slide 4
x
y
0 25 50 75 1000.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
Green Line: 40x200 Meshes for NonMHD FlowBlue Line: 40x200 Meshes for MHD FlowCyan Line: 80*200 Meshes for MHD Flow
x
y
0 25 50 75 1000.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
red line: nonmhd flow with Re=123.5 driven by gravity forceblue line: mhd flow with Ha=28.84, Re=123.5 driven by gravity force
B formulation is solvedheight function method is used for the interfacial flowparabolized navier-stokes equation is simulated
Level set method and electric potential poissonequation from HIMAG
VOF method + B formula
height function method and B formula
Re=123.6, Ha=28.84, density ratio=0.001, viscosity ratio=0.001, conductivity ratio=0
X
Y
0 25 50 75 1000.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
From Neil Using VOF+B formula
Inclined plate two-fluid mhd and non-mhd flows
Slide 5
DiMES Experiment Proposal
• Heated Li sample• Insulated cup• Mesh restraint• Electric current diagnostics• Biasing• 3D Modeling
Slide 6
Current Status FLIHY Heat Transfer Experiments
• New heat transfer enhancement experiments with span-wise cylinders
• New curved test section ready for construction
Water Film flowing under IR heater
FlowHeat Flux
Slide 7 Heat Transfer Enhancement by streamwise riblets
Smooth Modified
0.1 4.0 10000 0.94 2.2 1.8 3.47 2.67 30%
3.5 5.8 14500 25 1.0 7.2 2.38 1.05 127%
3.5 9.7 24250 52 0.9 7.2 2.24 1.03 117%
50 10.4 26000 320 0.6 21.7 1.99 1.16 72%
75 15.0 37500 723 0.5 28.2 2.21 2.15 3%
Improvement in surface
temperature drop (%)
mean surface temperature
differnce (Ts-Tb)
Inclination angle
(degrees)
Flow rate (l/s)
Reynolds number
Froud Number
Mean height (cm)
surface deformation
ratio (%)
Slide 8
Drain
Support FrameFLIHY – Proposed Curved Hydrodynamic Test Section
Flow 3D Model3D analysis showing exit velocity profile.
Nozzle is symmetric along the X-Y plane
• Assess free surface fluid flow behavior along curved surfaces -degree of uniform flow thickness and occurance of hydraulic jump phenomena
• Study surface waviness throughout the flow channel.
• Study flow behavior around penetrations
Slide 9
11 cm
15 degrees angle
30 degrees
Z=17.404,X=30.857,
R= 7.594
R= 3.6
Z=3.7,X=8.66,
R=49.14
X=18, Y=53.14
R=49.14
R=32
X=18, Y=-32
R=32Y=0
R=7.4833
X=31, Y=-11.492
X=40.1, Y=9.645
R=15.492
Curved Hydrodynamic Test Section –Nozzle Design using FLOW3D
Slide 10
Thermofluid Task Schedule for 6 year collaboration
FuY 2001 FuY 2002 FuY 2003 FuY 2004 FuY 2005 FuY 2006
ThermofluidFlowExperiments
Facility:FLIHY-Closed(UCLA)
Non-magnetic Phase Magnetic Phase
Check &Review
Turbulence Visualization Experiments
Heat Transfer Experiments
Pipe flow geometries with innovative heat transfer enhancement configurations
Continue with heat transfer, or another option
Check &Review
Continue with MHD, or another option?
Turbulence Visualization Experiments
Heat Transfer Experiments
Same geometries as 2001-03 with magnetic field
IntegratedFLIBE
Experiment?
Check &Review
Flibe Loop, or another option?
Slide 11
Acrylic
0 ft 5 ft 10 ft 15 ft 20 ft 25 ft
MixingTank
•• •• •• ••••••
Power Controller
Polished SS304 Pipe (D = 3.5 inch)
Acrylic FlowStraightener
AcrylicWater Box
Band Heater, 120 V max, 1250 W max
304 SS Pipe Wall
Pipe
Copper Interlayer
T-type TC, 0.02 in diameter304 SS sheathed, ungrounded
304 SS Pipe Wall
Pipe
Water Box
Pipe Centerline
Machined Smooth
Epoxy JointWeld
O-Ring
FlangeBolt
roughly to scalePipe Centerline roughly to scale
TraversingTC Probe
TC Multiplexer
•
FusedJoint
Straight Pipe Heat Transfer and PIV Test Section
Slide 12 MTOR
• Task I MHD film and droplet experiments
• Ultrasound testing in quasi-2D test section
Slide 13
Flowmeter Calibration Tests
MTOR Flowmeter Calibration
lit/sec = 0.1701*mVR2 = 0.9999
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
liters/second
flow
met
er s
igna
l (m
V)
calculated calibration
• Data from 2D test section seemed inconsistent with models
• Flowmeter calibration using discharge technique showed analytic expression was incorrect
• New flowmeter calibration constant applied to old data
Slide 14
Checking Russian Data on Properties
Property Measurements
3.25E+06
0.45445
6333.1
measured
-0.62%3.27E+06V,I on biased capillary
tube
22 CElectrical conductivity(Ω-1m-1)
33.58%0.3402Cannon-Fenske
Viscometer
22 CViscosity(10-6 m2/s)
-0.44%6360.9Weighed graduated cylinder
22 CDensity(kg/m3)
deviationRussianmethodtempProperty
Slide 15
2D Inclined-Plane Test Section
• 300 A (~106 A/m2) available for magnetic propulsion tests
• 7 Ultrasonic Flow Height Transducers
• Variable inclination
• Flow area: 20 cm x 60 cm(wide to keep Haβ small)
• Various wall types: insulated, coated, metallic
Slide 16
LM In LM OutElectrode
Electrode
Ultrasound Transducer
B
Experiments for 2D Inclined Plane Flow with Magnetic Propulsion
Free SurfaceNozzleHCl bath
Flow Spreader
Slide 17
Dynamic flow height measurements using ultrasound technique
to 100 MS/s DAQ – height resolution ~27µm
-0.5-0.4
-0.3-0.2-0.1
0
0.10.20.3
0.40.5
0.0E+00 5.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.5E-05 2.0E-05
pulseinitiation
reflection from acrylic-LM interface
reflection from LM free surface
LM
Acrylic
Transducer
time-of-flight
height = speed-of-sound*(time-of-flight/2)
(speed-of-sound for ga alloy measured 2740 m/s)
Slide 18
Both B field and Magnetic Propulsion current act to reduce film thickness
Film
Hei
ght (
m)
0.E+001.E-032.E-033.E-034.E-035.E-036.E-037.E-03
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No field
Bmax = 0.5
Imp = 160A
Imp = 258A
Q = 0.15 l/sθ = 0.3°Re = 1711Hamax = 85
each point is average of ~50 points taken over 1 sec
Averaged Height Data –Subcritical Flow, No nozzle
Probe number (distance from inlet, 6 cm separation)
Slide 19
Magnetic propulsion effective, but data also shows some instability
0 .E+00
1 .E-03
2 .E-03
3 .E-03
4 .E-03
5 .E-03
6 .E-03
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
He
igh
t (m
)
B = 0 T
B = 0 .18 T
B = 0 .31 T
B = 0 .31 T, Imp = 210 A
2mm nozzle followed by hydraulic jump, Subcritical Flow
Q = .15 l/sθ= 0.5°Re=1711Halocal≈40
• B-field acts to laminarize flow – Reducing flow resistance and surface waves
• Presence of magnetic propulsion current triggers surface wave with ~1 s period
data from probe 4, 22 cm downstream from nozzle
Slide 20
Why does presence of magnetic field lead to acceleration of flow?
0
1
Y / h
• In most cases the ratio Ha/Re > 0.008, which for pipe flows is an approximate cutoff above which turbulence is suppressed.
• Flow is elongated in field direction so that only small drag coming from Hartmann layers
• Transverse current flow mostly acts to accelerate liquid, except very near inlet (inside the nozzle), property of 1/R magnetic field which has no inflection point.
• Gradient is not strong enough to modify velocity profile significantly so that velocity profile is still nearly low shear laminar parabolic.
decelerating current
accelerating current
B B
Slide 21
Other observations • Complete channel filling was a problem for the non-wetted channel,
especially at larger inclination angle. Magnetic propulsion current however forced channel filling. Channel wetting also eliminated channel filling issue.
• Initial conditions with Fr both greater than (supercritical) and less than (subcritical) unity were explored, but in all initially supercritical cases up toflowrate Q = ~0.2 l/s, the flow experience a hydraulic jump near the nozzle exit and became subcritical for the remainder of the flow.
• The degree of turbulence suppression and presence of magnetic propulsion current was not enough to inhibit the formation of a hydraulic jump near the nozzle exit for low flowrate cases
• The ultrasound technique proved effective with gallium alloy flows described above, but the signal behavior was erratic, sometimes disappearing and reappearing with no good explanation. Cleaning with HCl aided in getting good ultrasound signal
Slide 22
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.0E-03
3.5E-03
4.0E-03
1 2 3 4 5 6
Probe Number
flo
w h
eig
ht Height data with no field
compared well to Bernoulli model with f = 0.4 (shown) and k-e data (not-shown)
Q = .278 l/sθ= 1°Re=3088Ha=0
B = 0 T at nozzle exit
2mm Nozzle Supercritical Turbulent Flow
Slide 23
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.0E-03
1 2 3 4 5
Probe number
flo
w h
eig
ht
B = 0.45 T at nozzle exitB = 0.29 T at probe 5
Height data at max field compared to Bernoulli model with fully laminar to fully turbulent transition at Ha/Re ~ 0.007– flow is not fullylaminarized.
Q = .278 l/sθ= 1°Re=3088Ha=40-20
2mm Nozzle Supercritical MHD-Laminarized Flow
Slide 24
flowdirection (m)
heig
ht(m
)
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
Averaged MTOR data
1D model
2mm Nozzle Supercritical MHD-Laminarized Flow
Contour plot shows 2D VOF laminar model result
Slide 25
2mm Nozzle Supercritical MHD-LaminarizedFlow with Magnetic Propulsion
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.0E-03
3.5E-03
4.0E-03
1 2 3 4 5 6
Probe Number
Flow
Hei
ght (
m)
B = 0.45 T at nozzle exitB = 0.29 T at probe 5Iapplied = 237 A
Q = .278 l/sθ= 1°Re=3088Ha=40-20
Height data at max field compared to Bernoulli model with purely laminar flow –experimental data shows flow is not accelerated until probe 6?
Slide 26
Magnetic propulsion instability not seen in supercritical MHD Free surface flow
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.0E-03
0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8
Time (s)
flow
hei
ght (
m)
I=2000I=3400IMP=170IMP=237
Slide 27
Future Plans for quasi-2D test sectionfilm flow experiments
• A detailed comparison of the quantitative data acquired form this experiment to the 2D and 3D numerical models still needs to be performed
• Exploration of effects from 3D fields, and expanding/contracting wall area.
• Testing of MetFlow ultrasonic velocimeter device to see how well it can be used for free surface measurments.