Nuclear Science and Engineering

ISSN: 0029-5639 (Print) 1943-748X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/unse20

Deposition of Particles in Turbulent Flow on

Channel or Pipe Walls

S. K. Beal

To cite this article: S. K. Beal (1970) Deposition of Particles in Turbulent Flow on Channel or Pipe
Walls, Nuclear Science and Engineering, 40:1, 1-11, DOI: 10.13182/NSE70-A18874

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.13182/NSE70-A18874

Published online: 13 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=unse20

Download by: [University of Texas Libraries] Date: 25 August 2017, At: 01:39
 NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: 40, 1-11 (1970)

Deposition of Particles in Turbulent Flow on

Channel or Pipe Walls

S. K. Beal
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory
West Mifflin, Pennsylvania 15122
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

Received August 28, 1968

Revised August 18, 1969
This paper describes a method for predicting the deposition of particles en-
trained in turbulent flow. The method predicts the deposition of particles ranging
from molecular size to ~100m in diameter. Brownian diffusion, turbulent diffu-
sion, and inertial effects are accounted for, and the existence of an equilibrium
concentration of particles close to the wall is postulated. The method shows r e a -
sonable agreement with published data.

INTRODUCTION both effects, the method reported here is valid for

The transport and deposition of entrained p a r -
ticles from a turbulent stream onto the walls of a
channel or pipe has been investigated before, but
in general the investigations have been limited to
either relatively large particles (> 1/z in diam)
or molecular-size (dissolved) particles. The
theory for large particles was developed by
Friedlander and Johnstone 1 and for small p a r t i -
cles by Lin et al. 2 A unified approach has been
developed to cover a size range including these
extremes, and the results obtained agree reason-
ably well with published data.
ANALYSIS
The method of analysis is basically a combina-
tion of the methods used in Refs. 1 and 2. In the
approach used here, however, both the particle
momentum and Brownian or molecular diffusion
a r e included in one equation. Lin et al., 2 who
were studying small particles (<0.1 ,u diam), ne-
glected the m o m e n t u m effects introduced by
Friedlander and Johnstone who, in turn, were
studying large particles l/i diam) and therefore
neglected Brownian diffusion. By accounting for
1
S. K. FRIEDLANDER and H. F. JOHNSTONE, Ind.
Eng. Chern., 49, 1151 (1957).
2
C. S. LIN, R. W. MOULTON, and G. L. PUTNAM,
Ind. Eng. Chem., 45, 636 (1953).
both small and large particles and both low and
high velocities so long as the flow is turbulent.
The equation describing the particle flux in
t e r m s of the diffusivities and the concentration
gradient is
with the boundary condition, y = S, C = Cs.
The concentration, Cs, is the concentration at
y = S, where S is the particle stopping distance
measured from the wall, f i r s t postulated by
Friedlander and Johnstone. They argued that p a r -
ticles need only diffuse to within one stopping
distance f r o m the wall. From this point on, by
virtue of their momentum, the particles will coast
to the wall. For large particles the stopping dis-
tance can be appreciable compared to the bound-
ary layer thickness, so that deposition rates f a r
in excess of those resulting from pure diffusion
can result. For small particles, however, the
stopping distance is small compared to the bound-
ary layer so that diffusion dominates. A discus-
sion of the method and assumptions used to
determine the stopping distance is given in Appen-
dix A.
We will integrate Eq. (1) exactly as one does in
solving for the temperature drop across a com-
posite wall, i.e., we will find (instead of tempera-
ture differences) concentration differences f r o m
place to place across the boundary layer. By
 adding these together, we can then find the p a r t i - Equation (4) describes the transport of p a r t i -
cle flux in t e r m s of the average and wall concen- cles to the wall in t e r m s of the difference between
trations. To do this we need expressions for N the concentrations at y+ = S+ andy+ = 5. We now
and e as functions of y (D is independent of want to obtain an expression for transport in
position). t e r m s of the concentrations a t ^ + = 5 and;y + = 30.
We assume that the eddy diffusivities of mass The eddy diffusivity correlation used here as de-
and momentum a r e equal, so that the Lin et al., 2 rived by Lin et al., 2 is
correlation can be used to express e as a function
of that is, - - 0.959, 5 « 30 (5)
v 5
e =v i ^ ) , y+ 5 . (2) Integration of Eq. (1), using Eq. (5) for e, gives
We take N as varying linearly from the wall to the N0
center line of the channel or pipe (see Appendix B) C30 - C5 - Tf 5 ( £ - 0.959v)|
U V//2

N = No (3) D + 5.04v 250

x In (6)
D + 0.04v h+
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

Using the boundary conditions C = C x + at y+ = S+

Equation (6) describes the transport of particles
and C = C5 at y+ = 5, we may integrate Eq. (3)
in t e r m s of the difference between the concentra-
2/3
tions at y+ = 5 and y+ = 30. We next obtain an ex-
14.5 No
Cs - Cs 6) pression for the transport rate in t e r m s of the
concentration at y+ = 30 and the bulk or average
=
3E7(//2) 1/2 • M
1/3 concentration.
(14 No In the turbulent core > 30) Friedlander and
• O (4) Johnstone 1 used the Reynolds analogy, i.e., the
1.5 k+ Vif/2)1'2
mass flux divided by the concentration gradient is
where equal to the momentum flux divided by the velocity
gradient. In symbolic form,
h i M n N
(7)
(dC\ IdU\ '
^ H - A f e r - w ) w ) p
w )
In turbulent flow, a reasonable approximation
hftferr 2/3/
is that r is a linear function of y [r = r 0 ( l - 2 y / h ) ] ,
(S+ so that N/T is a constant. If it is assumed that at
+
14.5 \D/ \14.5/ \DJ U = U, C = Cavg, then we may integrate Eq. (7) to
obtain
14m " - N0
+ / 3 tan" 1 Cavg - C30 - C d U
(U - Uao) . (8)
73 so U f / 2
The velocity at y+ = 30 (U3o) is, f r o m the velocity
14.5 \Dj
—
profile presented by Lin et al., 2
- V3 tan" 1
73
Uso = 13.73 U i f / 2 (9)
2/3 '
kl - which we may use in Eq. (8) to obtain
14
S+ ln<
) - 2 No
•'avg - C30 = U f / 2 (1 - 13.73 yffj2) (10)
[ ^ M l
/s+ y/vY We may add Eqs. (4), (6), and (10) just as one
+
i.5\D) \14.5/ \D) would do in the temperature difference problem to
obtain_an equation for No as a function of CaVg -
Cs+, U, a n d S + and the physical p a r a m e t e r s of the
system.
Note that so f a r we have only considered S + <
5. Even for nominal values of particle density,
fluid viscosity, etc., S + can be > 5, but the p r e -
ceding analysis is not valid under these conditions.
This difficulty is easily overcome for 5 « S + < 30
by integrating Eq. (1) between the limits of S + and
 30 and using the eddy diffusivity correlation appli- S+ > 30
cable in the buffer layer [Eq. (5)]. Using Eq. (5)
Finally, from Eq. (10) and the boundary condi-
in Eq. (1) along with the same assumptions noted
tions for S+ > 30,
previously we obtain,
U // 2
C30 - C.v+
J N0 f 0.959)
K =
(1 - 13.73V//2)
(14)
U Jf/2\
Equations (12) to (14) describe the particle flux

)J
D + 5.04 v
in t e r m s of known p a r a m e t e r s with the exception
- 0.959 of Cs+. We will assume at this point that the con-
- ( t centration at y+ = S + is the same as the concen-
tration at the wall (C0). That is, those particles
(11) which are transported to the wall build up to a
steady-state concentration in a short time. The
If ^ = 5, Eq. (11) reduces to Eq. (6). Equation
resulting particle concentration profile will then
(10) still applies in the turbulent core so that we
be as shown in Fig. 1. Equations (12) to (14) may
can add it to Eq. (11) to obtain an expression for
be expressed as
N0 with 5 < 30.
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

To complete the analysis, an additional expres- No

sion is required when S + > 30. We integrate Eq.
(8) using the boundary conditions,
Cavg at U = U
C = Cs+atU U30
This gives the same result as Eq. (10) except that
the quantity on the left side is C avg - C x + . The
preceding equations form a relationship between
the particle flux at the wall and the concentration
difference for different ranges of S + .
These equations will now be collected.
0 < S+ < 5
Adding Eqs. (4), (6), and (10) and solving for
No/{ C avg - C.s+) = K (the transport coefficient) 3 gives
=K (15)
^avg - C o
where K = K ( f j , d,D, S+, . . . ) represents the
right sides of Eqs. (12) to (14), the choice depend-
ing on the magnitude of S+. If some particles do
not quite reach the wall and/or if some do not
stick on impact, we postulate that there will be an
accumulation in the boundary layer near the wall,
and C 0 will increase f r o m an initial value of zero
to some steady-state value. This nonzero concen-
tration will inhibit the transport of particles so
that only enough particles a r e transported to the
wall to replace those which deposit on the surface.
The flux of particles depositing on the wall from
the region within S+ can be written as
Nw = vpCo (16)

XC Tr

(D + 5.04iA 250 1 - 13.73V772)" 1

x In +
VD + 0.04^/ h+ JJ/2 j
(12)

where F(u/D, S+) and G{v/D, S+) a r e defined fol-

lowing Eq. (5).

5 a S+ < 30
Fig. 1. C vs y+ assuming same concentration at
Adding Eqs. (10) and (11) and solving for K y+ = 0 and y+ = S+.
gives

K =• (13)
D + 5.04 v 10 /_ S+\) 1 - 13.73V/72
1 + ^ ( ^ - 0.959^) In
h+
D+ - 0.959^

a
To return to our heat transfer analogy, K is analogous to the overall heat transfer coefficient for a composite
wall. It has the dimensions of velocity.
 where v is the radial velocity of particles (from plane in one direction is, according to Jeans, 3
both fluid motion and Brownian motion) within the 1/2
region d+/2 < y+ < S"1" and p is the fraction of v„ = [KBT~1
[2irm„
particles sticking on impact (the sticking proba-
bility). According to the principle of the equipartition of
Now we assume that N0 = Nw; that is, the flux of energy (see, for example, Kennard 4 or Glasstone 5 )
particles into the region within S + is equal to the the kinetic energy of the particles due to Brownian
flux of particles to the wall. This assumption is motion is equal to that of the molecules causing
predicated on C0 being a steady-state concentra- that motion. Thus
tion. We assume that this condition is reached 1/2 mvl 1/2 m„
quickly so that the period during which C0 is (23)
2
building up to its steady-state value can be n e -
glected. With these assumptions we can solve Eqs. By combining Eqs. (22) and (23), the particle
(15) and (16) simultaneously to give velocity is b
Nw Kpv
(17) <24)
^avg K + pv - - [ i s r •
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

Thus, the particle behaves like a molecule except,

where Kpv/(K + pv) is called the deposition coeffi-
cient (K d ).
Examination of Eq. (17) shows that as K be-
comes very large with respect to pv, the transport
flux approaches
Nw = pVC;avg {k » p v ) (18)
and as pv becomes very large with respect to K,
Nw = K C a v g {pv » K ) . (19)
Equation (18) indicates that with very large t r a n s -
port rates f r o m the bulk fluid to the region inside
S+, C0 approaches C avg ; that is, there is no con-
centration gradient across the channel except for
the region very close to the wall iy+ « S+) and
transport to the wall is controlled by the transport
through this region. Equation (19) shows that if
transport through the S+ region is not limiting,
then transport f r o m the bulk stream i s . Note also
that if P, v, or K becomes zero, then deposition on
the wall is zero.
To follow up on our heat t r a n s f e r analogy, Eq.
(17) may be rearranged to the form
N,„ 1 The total particle velocity is obtained by adding
(20)
^avg J_ _1
+
pv K
In this f o r m the right-hand side is analogous to
thermal resistances in s e r i e s .
The average velocity, v, of the particles close
to the s u r f a c e s , is considered to consist of two
p a r t s , a component due to a fluid motion normal to
the wall and a component due to Brownian motion
of the particle itself
V = Vf + VB . (21)
The Brownian motion velocity can be d e t e r -
mined by considering that it is caused by mole-
cules of the fluid striking the particles. The
average velocity of molecules in a fluid crossing a
because of its higher mass, it moves more slowly.
The particle velocity due to fluid motion is de-
termined f r o m Laufer's data 6 for the fluid velocity
normal to the wall. Laufer's data can be r e p r e -
sented fairly well by two straight lines :
v+ = 0.05 ;y+ 0 « y+ 10
7
vf = 0.5 + 0.0125 (y+ - 10) 1 0 « y + « 30 . (25)
The particles may be anywhere between y+ = d+/2
and y+ = S+. At y+ = (d+/2) they a r e presumed to
have a velocity due to fluid motion equal to
vf{d+/2) and at S+, v/(S+). The arithmetic mean of
these two values will be used but will be divided
by two since the velocity fluctuations a r e directed
both toward and away f r o m the wall. Thus,
v+(d+/ 2) + vj(S+)
(26)
7
The velocity, vf, is then
vf [vf(d*-/2) + vt(S+)) . (27)
the components Vf and vB. This result may be used
b
F o r small particles in a gas, the Cunningham c o r -
rection factor should be included here.
3
J. JEANS, An Introduction to the Kinetic Theory of
Gases, pp. 58-59, Cambridge University P r e s s , New
York (1940).
4
E. H. KENNARD, Kinetic Theory of Gases, p. 282,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1938).
5
S. GLASSTONE, Textbook of Physical Chemistry,
2nd ed., p. 257, D. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton, N.J.
(1946).
6
J. LAUFER, " T h e Structure of Turbulence in Fully
Developed Pipe Flow," NACA 1174, National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics (1954), (available f r o m NASA
as TR-1174).
 with Eq. (17) to determine the deposition coeffici-
ent provided the sticking probability, p , is known.
Unfortunately, there is at present no reliable
method of predicting p , and in all subsequent dis-
cussion we will assume it is 1.0,
The preceding analysis has resulted in equa-
tions describing the deposition flux at the wall in
t e r m s of the physical properties of the system
(velocity, density, etc.), and the average particle
concentration. If values for these p a r a m e t e r s a r e
known or can be estimated, then the particle
deposition rate can be calculated.
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON
WITH DATA
Figure 2 shows the effect of velocity upon de-
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017
position, where we see that, at sufficiently high
velocities, momentum effects become important
(the steep portion of the curves) even for small
lO2 lO3 I0 4
FLUID VELOCITY, CM/SEC
Fig. 2. Effect of velocity on deposition.
particles. The discontinuities in the slope result
from the different eddy diffusivity correlations
used in integrating a c r o s s the boundary layer.
We also see f r o m Fig. 2 that neglecting the
particle momentum (coasting) would lead to sig-
nificant e r r o r at high velocities, while neglecting
Brownian diffusion would lead to e r r o r at low
velocities.
Figure 3 shows the effect of particle size upon
deposition. Starting at the left, the deposition of
very small colloidal particles is entirely diffusion
controlled, and the rate decreases with increasing
particle size, since the Brownian diffusion coeffi-
cient is inversely proportional to the size of the
diffusing species. However, increasing the size
(mass) increases the momentum, so that particle
momentum effects gain importance. The deposi-
tion rate reaches a minimum beyond which the
process is essentially momentum controlled. P r o -
ceeding on to the right, when the particle size has
increased to the point where the stopping distance
is greater than the boundary layer thickness,
particle size no longer has any effect, and the
transport rate remains constant for a given
velocity.
The discontinuities in the slope a r e the result
of the different eddy diffusivity correlations as
PARTICLE MOMENTUM NEGLECTED
BROWNIAN DIFFUSION NEGLECTED — — » x.
10" I I lllllll [ I I llllll I I I Mini i /III
I0"3 I0"2 10"' 10° 10'
PARTICLE DIAMETER, MICRONS
Fig. 3. Effect of particle size on deposition.
 noted previously. The minima in the curves a r e of I M 11 ll| J ! I /I l l l l l | 1—I I I 11 li
interest, since they represent the particle sizes P; /
most likely to remain entrained (i.e., least likely
to be transported to the wall). A 2.63 /i
A comparison of this theory with data for v a r i - O 1.81/1
ous types and sizes of particles is shown on Figs. O 1.57 fj.
o
4 to 13. In all cases, the sticking probability was UJ i • 1.32 fj.
w
taken as 1.0. In the range of velocities and p a r t i - "V FRIEDLANDER AND
2
cle sizes studied by Friedlander and Johnstone 1 o JOHNSTONE
(Figs. 4 to 7) Brownian diffusion was negligible; PRESENT METHOD-
particle momentum and turbulent diffusivity were z
Id
the governing mechanisms. F u r t h e r , in the m a -
jority of their data, S4" was less than the thickness I o-i
of the laminar sublayer and was never as large as o
o
30, the edge of the buffer layer. The dashed lines NOTE:
show deposition coefficients predicted with Fried- PREDICTED CURVES FOR
lander and Johnstone's equations. c The results in .57 AND I.8I/1 PARTICLES
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

o
a. ARE THE SAME BECAUSE
UJ v2
o DIFFERENT FRICTION
FACTORS COMPENSATE
1—I II I I I! j "T I I II I I I
FOR DIFFERENT
PARTICLE SIZES

, 100 F T / S E C
10' i aR3 I I III T M i I ill I i M mi
10 I0 3 10 10s
PIPE VELOCITY, CM/SEC

Fig. 5. Comparison with Friedlander and John-

oUJ stone's data for the deposition of iron particles in air.
</>

§10°

obtained with the equations developed here agree

UJ
o with the data about as well as those f r o m F r i e d -
lander and Johnstone's method, so that it is not
o
o absolutely clear which is better. Figure (8) shows
icr1 that the data of Schwendiman and Postma 7 seem to
- 0 . 5 4 C M PIPE
be closer to the results f r o m this theory but the
<
o/> 1.3 CM PIPE
difference is slight. Since all these data a r e for
a. fairly large particles, there should be no dramatic
2 . 5 CM PI PE
difference between this method and that of F r i e d -
2 . 5 CM P I P E lander and Johnstone.
10'1-2
I . 3 CM P I P E Wells and Chamberlain 8 have obtained deposi-
0 . 5 4 CM PIPE tion data which include the region where Browni-
FRIEDLANDER AND
an diffusion is important, and their results a r e
JOHNSTONE
shown on Fig. 9 along with predictions made using
PRESENT METHOD
the present theory and that of Davies. 0 The p a r t i -
100 F T / S E C
cles in these experiments were Aitken nuclei,
drops of t r i c r e s y l phosphate, and polystyrene
icr I I I I IIIIII i i i 11 in
I0 2 I03 I04 io 5
7
FLUID VELOCITY IN P I P E , C M / S E C L . C. SCHWENDIMAN and A. K. POSTMA, " T u r b u -
lent Deposition in Sampling Lines," in Seventh AEC Air
Fig. 4. Comparison with Friedlander and Johnstone's
Cleaning Conference held at Brookhaven National Lab-
data for the deposition of 0.8-/i iron particles in air.
oratory, October 10-12, 1961, TID-7627, p. 127, USAEC
(1962).
c 8
In calculating S , the particle radius was added to A. C. WELLS and A. C. CHAMBERLAIN, Brit. J.
the stopping distance as noted above, so the curves here Appl. Phys., 18, 1793 (1967).
9
differ slightly from those given by Friedlander and C. N. DAVIES, Aerosol Science, p. 423 ff, Academic
Johnstone in Ref. 1. P r e s s , New York (1966).
 10' i i i | y ~
O • POLISHED SURFACE / w'
A • 4 0 0 GRIT ROUGHENED
10° - SURFACE
o
UJ • • AS FABRICATED
c/o
s SURFACE
5
o _ 3/4 IN. STAINLESS
STEEL PIPE
UJ
o 4/i. PARTICLES
10-2
o Zy. PARTICLES
0

g I0-1 - 1 10-3

o
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

FRIEDLANDER
a.
LJ AND JOHNSTONE
Q
10-4 PRESENT METHOD'
, 30 FT/SEC

I0"5 —J L i i
1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5XI03 3XI0 3
I0 4 4
3XI0
PIPE VELOCITY, CM/SEC PIPE REYNOLDS NUMBER
Fig. 6. Comparison with Friedlander and John- Fig. 8. Comparison with Schwendimen and P o s t m a ' s
stone's data for the deposition of 1.81-ji aluminum p a r - data for the deposition of zinc sulfide particles in air.
ticles in air.

10' spheres. It can be seen that neither theory s a t i s -

"I TTH 1 I I I I I factorily represents the data for the larger p a r t i -
cles (>~1 ju). The reason for the poor agreement
is not clear. Wells and Chamberlain's data for the
larger particles seem to be low relative to the
other investigators cited h e r e , even when the dif-
ferent particle densities a r e accounted f o r . The
agreement between both theories and the data for
5
o. the smaller particles is fairly good. d The princi-
pal difference between Davies' method and the one
given here is in the calculation of the stopping
10° —
distance. Davies calculates S+ using the velocity
associated with the position of the particle, where-
z as in the method given here, which is essentially
o
the same as Friedlander and Johnstone's, the
particle is assumed to have a velocity equal to
that of the fluid out in the turbulent core.
Sehmel 10 obtained deposition data for uranine-
• - FRIEDLANDER
AND JOHNSTONE
methylene blue particles ranging f r o m 1 to 10 /J. in
— PRESENT METHOD
"The agreement between the two theories would be
improved if the Cunningham correction to the Brownian
, 10 FT/SEC
diffusion coefficient were incorporated into the theory
10" I IT I I I I II I presented here. This would make the two predictions
I02 2 5 10 2XI03 substantially the same at d < 0.1 n, Davies value being
PIPE VELOCITY, C M / S E C the c o r r e c t one at this point.

Fig. 7. Comparison with Friedlander and John- G. A. SEHMEL, "Aerosol Deposition f r o m Turbu-
stone's data for the deposition of 30-/i lycopodium spores lent A i r s t r e a m s in Vertical Conduits," BNWL-578,
in air. Battelle Northwest Laboratory (1968).
 o
Ld
trt
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

o
U-
ll_
UJ
o
o

o
Q.
UJ
O

PARTICLE DIAMETER, MICRONS

REYNOLDS NUMBER X 10"*
Fig. 9. Comparison with Wells and Chamberlain's
data for the deposition of various p a r t i c l e s in air. Fig. 10. Comparison with Sehmel's data for deposi-
tion in a 0.21-in. pipe.
diameter. A comparison of the theory with some
of his data is shown on Figs. 10 through 12. The
agreement here is fairly good except for the data
tubes made of benzoic acid were dissolved by
f r o m the 1.15-in.-diam pipe with the higher Rey-
passing various solutions through them, and the
nolds numbers and larger (5 and 8 M) particles.
transport of dissolved material f r o m the walls
Apparently this difference was due to reentrain-
was measured. Figure 13 shows a comparison be-
ment because the agreement was good when the
tween Harriott and Hamilton's measurements and
pipe walls were sticky.
the predicted values obtained f r o m the equations
Most of the preceding data a r e for relatively
developed h e r e . Their measured molecular dif-
large particles (1 to 30 /J.) where momentum ef-
fusivity was used in place of the Brownian diffu-
fects dominate. Data on the transport of very
sion c o e f f i c i e n t . It can be seen that both
small particles, in this case, molecules, a r e p r e -
predictions a r e low by ~40%, for reasons which
sented by Harriott and Hamilton. 11 In their tests,
a r e not clear. Quite possibly a different eddy
U
P . HARRIOTT and R. M. HAMILTON, Chem. Eng. diffusivity correlation would give better a g r e e -
Sci., .20, 1073 (1965). ment.
 1 1 i —[ 1 1 1 1 1_ T I I I I I I
-
:
_ A PURE WATER
• 41.2% GLYCERINE/WATER
x
-
\ ^^^ ~ o
UJ
SOLUTION
to
\
o 10° X X "= 5
<n — o
o ; 10-2 -
o A 1 / B E
0 z
H"
10,-1
*
X / • UJ
X o
o = * X
u. / /o
LL.
o UJ
UJ o
8 io-2 o
z
o
E /° E a.
o
o.
</)
to
•B
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

z<
2 10-5 • -
UJ
o or

• PARTICLE DIAMETER, I
• MICRONS _
10 -4
0
I I 1 1 in

• 2 =
OO

X 5 : I0"3 J I I I I ''I

i
0 8 I0 4
I05
I0'5 1 1 l l l l l l
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 TUBE REYNOLDS NUMBER
-4
REYNOLDS NUMBERXIO
Fig. 13. Comparison with Harriott and Hamilton's
Fig. 11. Comparison with Sehmel's data for deposi- data for transport f r o m the wall.
tion in a 0.62-in. pipe.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the equations developed here

have been applied to the extremes of particle size
diameter from ~10 - 3 ju. (benzoic acid molecules) to
30 /it (lycopodium spores), to a velocity range of
1 f t / s e c for the benzoic acid to 200 f t / s e c for
particles, to a Reynolds number range from 3 X
103 for particles to 105 for benzoic acid, and to
transport in both liquids and gases. The fairly
good agreement even under these diverse condi-
tions is considered justification for the validity of
the method.

APPENDIX A

The Stopping Distance Concept

The stopping distance as defined by Friedlander
and Johnstone, is the distance a particle with an
initial velocity v will coast in a stagnant or slow
moving fluid under the influence of drag forces
alone. A further refinement was added to this
definition by R. G. Kennison of Knolls Atomic
REYNOLDS NUMBER X I 0 " 4 Power Laboratory, who proposed that the radius
of the particle be included, since the center of the
Fig. 12. Comparison with Sehmel's data for deposi- particle need be a distance only d/2 from the wall
tion in a 1.15-in. pipe. to be in contact. By solving the differential equa-
 tion of motion f o r the particle under these condi- APPENDIX B
tions the following approximate r e s u l t is obtained:
Radial Variation of Particle Flux
_ _ ppd2v d
6 (Al) Assuming that the velocity and concentration
-~m~+2
p r o f i l e s a r e s y m m e t r i c about the axis of the pipe,
F r e i d l a n d e r and Johnstone, using data developed that no p a r t i c l e s a r e created, accumulated, or
by L a u f e r , 6 take the value of v to be destroyed, and that axial diffusion is negligible, a
m a s s balance on a volume element, dV = 2nrArAx,
v = 0.9 U f f ] 2 f o r y+ > 80 . (A2) gives
Thus, rx+Ax, . rr+Ar,

S = + _ (A3) 277r Jx (N)rdx + 2ir Jr (CU)xrdr

The r e a s o n f o r using a value of v which occurs in

= 2ir(r + Ar) f*+Ax(N)r+Ardx + 2ir
the turbulent core (y+ > 80) to calculate the stop- ff+A r
ping distance f o r a particle in the boundary layer J
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

is not immediately obvious. The concept proposed

by F r i e d l a n d e r and Johnstone and used h e r e is r (CU)x+Axrdr (Bl)
that " e d d i e s carrying the particles diffuse f r o m
the turbulent core to within one stopping distance so that in the limit as Ar and Ax approach z e r o ,
of the w a l l . "
This concept r e q u i r e s that turbulent eddies ± m = - r ± ( C V ) . (B2)
penetrate the boundary layer and retain their If we consider a m a s s balance in an incremental
momentum until they reach S + . A s i m i l a r concept length of pipe and use average velocities and
is that momentum is t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m the turbu- concentrations, then
^LK (CU) Mo = 2KDC
= (B3)
lent core to the particle at S+ causing the particle dx ' ' r0 r„
to move, in the way that momentum is t r a n s f e r r e d
along a line of bowling balls causing the end ball By analogy to Eq. (B3) we will a s s u m e that
to move with the r e s t remaining stationary.
Neither of these concepts is particularly s a t i s f y - (Clf) = - a C (B4)
dx
ing, however, and so other ways of solving the
problem were investigated. where a i s , f o r the p r e s e n t , an unknown constant.
F i r s t , it was postulated that p a r t i c l e s penetrate We f u r t h e r a s s u m e that the radial concentration
a distance S + from the turbulent core into the profile can be r e p r e s e n t e d by a 1/n profile (Ref.
boundary layer and then diffuse a distance 30 - S + 12); i.e.,
to the wall. Equations based on this concept w e r e C _ fyi + 1)(2n + 1) '
found to give numerical r e s u l t s lower than F r i e d - C 2n2
( i - ^ y . ( B5)
lander and Johnstone's data by a factor of 104 at a
fluid velocity of 4000 c m / s e c .
Another concept i s t h a t S + should be calculated Combining Eqs. (B2),(B4),and (B5) and integrating
using the value of v at y+ = S*. Equations based on f r o m r = 0, N = 0 to Np we obtain
this concept w e r e derived but also yielded values >2«+l
of the t r a n s p o r t coefficient which were a factor of
104 lower than F r i e d l a n d e r and Johnstone's data. N
aCrl I~(n + l)(2re + 1)1 (
F r i e d l a n d e r and Johnstone also investigated this r L 2w J 2n + 1
approach and a r r i v e d at the s a m e conclusion,
namely that only by assigning a high value to v,
such a s would r e s u l t f r o m turbulent eddies pene- (B6)
trating the boundary l a y e r , could the high m a s s n +1
t r a n s f e r r a t e s be accounted f o r . On a purely Using the boundary condition, r =r0, N = No, we
pragmatic b a s i s , t h e r e f o r e , this concept was ac- find q to be
cepted. Davies 9 p r e s e n t s equations derived on the
b a s i s that the p a r t i c l e s have a velocity associated 2No = 2Xd (B7)
with their position; however his method f a i l s to C r0 r0
a g r e e (within a factor of 100) with the experimen- which is consistent with Eq. (B3). This may be
tal r e s u l t s for the l a r g e r p a r t i c l e s . used in Eq. (B6) to give
 , 2B+1 C s + = particle concentration at y+ = S*
-1
AT_ <in + 1)(2n + 1) ' - A C0 = particle concentration very close to wall
No n (?) + 1
D = Brownian diffusion coefficient, D= (KBT)/
n+1 (3ird/j.)
r\
11
- 1
-r0- J (B8) d = particle diameter
n +1
/ = Fanning friction factor (= 1/4 Moody friction
If the concentration profile behaves in a s i m i l a r factor)
manner to the velocity profile, then n should be
f a i r l y l a r g e . Reference 12 indicates that at a h = channel spacing or pipe diameter
Reynolds number of 4000, the velocity profile is h+
= dimensionless channel spacing or pipe di-
well represented by Eq. (B5) with n = 6.0. At a m e t e r , h+ = (hU 4J]2)/V
higher Reynolds numbers n > 6, being 7.0 at
Re = ~10 5 . We will assume, then, that for turbulent K = t r a n s p o r t coefficient, (N/AC)
flow, the value of n for the concentration profile
will be 6.0 or g r e a t e r . Figure B1 is a plot of Eq. KD = deposition coefficient
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 01:39 25 August 2017

(B8) withra = 6.0, and we see that a linear approx-

KB = Boltzmann constant, 1.38 x 10"16 (g - cm 2 )/
imation is reasonable. As n becomes l a r g e r , the
(molecule - 0 K -sec 2 )
linear approximation becomes b e t t e r .
Using the same approach for a channel rather m = particle m a s s
than a pipe gives similar r e s u l t s . m m = m a s s of molecule
N = particle or colloid m a s s flux
No = particle flux in wall region
Nw = particle flux depositing on wall
p = sticking probability
r = radial coordinate
r 0 = radius of pipe
S = stopping distance
Ppd2v d QMUd2 ppJfJZ d
+ _ +
18ju. 2 ii 2

S+ = d i m e n s i o n l e s s stopping distance, S + =
(SUJfj2)/v
T = absolute t e m p e r a t u r e
U* = dimensionless velocity at any point, U+ = U/
(tfV/72)
U = average fluid velocity
Fig. B - l . Radial variation of particle flux. v = radial velocity of particle
x = axial coordinate
y = radial coordinate
NOMENCLATURE
y+ = d i m e n s i o n l e s s radial coordinate, y+ =
C = particle concentration
(y U ^ f / 2 ) / v
Cavg = average (bulk) particle concentration
v = kinematic viscosity
12
H. SCHLICHTING, Boundary Layer Theory, p. 402, /J. = dynamic viscosity
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York (1955).
e = eddy diffusivity