2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.01.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Particle dispersion and deposition in ventilated rooms: Testing and evaluation of different Eulerian and Lagrangian models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
83
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 175 publications
(95 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(19 reference statements)
6
83
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This indicates that small particles behave like a passive tracer gas. This also implies that both the Eulerian and Lagrangian methods should have similar accuracy in predicting transport and dispersion of small particles as shown in Figures 6-8 as already being found by others [15][16][17]. However, the particle concentration was much higher than that of the tracer gas at the locations near the ceiling region in position 3.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…This indicates that small particles behave like a passive tracer gas. This also implies that both the Eulerian and Lagrangian methods should have similar accuracy in predicting transport and dispersion of small particles as shown in Figures 6-8 as already being found by others [15][16][17]. However, the particle concentration was much higher than that of the tracer gas at the locations near the ceiling region in position 3.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The drift flux model [13] integrates the gravitational settling, convection and diffusion effects of particles into the governing equation of particles. In the drift flux model, the governing equation for particle transport in turbulent flow field is expressed as:…”
Section: Drift Flux Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the computational cost of the Lagrangian method limits its application in smoke simulations within large-scale fire enclosures as statistically stable particle concentrations require a large number of particle tracks [13]. Compared with the expensive computational requirement of the Lagrangian method, the computational cost of the Eulerian method for simulating particle movement is significantly lower.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The major difference between Eulerian and Lagrangian models lies in the fact that the Eulerian method treats particles as a continuum through a continuous scalar field determined by writing and solving a particle transport equation (Gouesbet and Berlemont 1999), whereas the Lagrangian method considers two different phases: a fluid phase treated as a continuum by solving the time-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, and a discrete particle phase requiring the resolution of an equation of motion resulting from various forces acting on each individual particle to obtain a single particle trajectory (Zhao et al 2008). The Eulerian method has the advantage of being relatively straightforward because the mean particle concentration is calculated directly by solving an advection-diffusion conservation equation in a turbulent flow on the same grid, and because computational time is significantly reduced as there is no individual particle tracking required, in contrast with Lagrangian modeling approaches (Dupont et al 2006;Lai and Chen 2007a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many authors have compared the Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches and tested their respective ability to assess particle dispersion and deposition indoors for different turbulent flow configurations. According to Gouesbet and Berlemont (1999), Zhang and Chen (2007), and Zhao et al (2008), there is no clear-cut way to conclude which is the better of the two models today, as each imposes its own fundamental assumptions, often leading to fully comparable predictions. However, in any case, regardless of the models used, proper treatment of the near-wall flow is absolutely critical to obtaining accurate particle deposition prediction, since fluctuating near-wall velocities are highly anisotropic, with the component normal to the wall being smaller than the components in the other two directions (Lai and Chen 2007b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%