Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:32:54.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction of electrostatic and fluid dynamic fields in wire—plate electrostatic precipitators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

G. A. Kallio  and
D. E. Stock
G. A. Kallio
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA Present Address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, California State University, Chico, CA 95929-0930, USA.
D. E. Stock
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gas flow through wire–plate electrostatic precipitators is influenced by a secondary flow of electrical origin known as electric wind. This phenomenon arises when significant momentum is transferred from corona-generated ions to the gas. Electric wind can produce turbulence and recirculation. This complex flow field was characterized in a simple, three-wire precipitator by flow visualization, electrostatic and fluid dynamic numerical modelling, and laser-Doppler anemometry (LDA).

Velocity of seeded smoke was measured by two-component LDA. Coulomb effects were regionally eliminated by performing measurements along symmetry axes where the electric field and streamwise velocity component were mutually perpendicular. Coulomb drift velocities were also estimated from field charging theory to allow interpretation of measured transverse velocities. For a low inlet velocity (0.5 m/s), mean flow recirculation was evident and turbulence intensities as high as 50 % were measured. Higher inlet velocities (1.0, 2.0 m/s) yielded no flow recirculation and lower turbulence levels that were polarity-dependent. Measured profiles of streamwise velocity showed that flow acceleration zones occurred upstream of each wire and also between wires near the collecting plate. The induced turbulence displayed significant inhomogeneity and anisotropy.

A combined finite-element, finite-difference electrostatic model was developed to yield ion density and electric field distributions within the precipitator. These predictions were used to incorporate an electric body force into a two-dimensional, turbulent fluid dynamic model based upon the k–ε formulation. The model predicted recirculating mean flow and turbulent diffusivities that were consistent with the smoke flow visualizations and LDA measurements.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 240 , July 1992 , pp. 133 - 166
Copyright
© 1992 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barata, J. M. M., Durao, D. F. G. & Heitor, M. V. 1985 Experimental and numerical study on the aerodynamics of jets in ground effect. Tenth Symp. on Turbulence, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, Paper 34.
Bernstein, S. & Crowe, C. T. 1981 Interaction between electrostatics and fluid dynamics in electrostatic precipitators. Environ. Intl 5, 181–189.Google Scholar
Cobine, J. D. 1958 Gaseous Conductors — Theory and Engineering Applications. Dover.
Cooperman, P. 1971 A new theory of precipitator efficiency. Atmos. Environ. 5, 541–551.Google Scholar
Cottrell, F. G. 1914 Problems in smoke, fume and abatement. US Govt Printing Office, Publication 2307, pp. 553–585.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. H. 1984 Secondary flows and turbulence in electrostatic precipitators. Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University.
Deutsch, W. 1922 Bewegung und Ladung der Elektricitatstrager in Zylinder Kondensator. Ann. Phys. 58, 335–344.Google Scholar
Eschbach, E. J. 1982 Numerical prediction of electrostatic precipitator performance. MS Thesis, Washington State University.
Flippen, L. D. 1982 Electrohydrodynamics. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University.
Gosman, A. D. & Pun, W. M. 1973 Calculation of recirculating flows. Lecture Notes, Imperial College of Science and Technology.
Inculet, I. 1982 Particle charging in de corona fields. IEEE Trans. Electric. Insul., EI-9, 158–191.Google Scholar
Jones, W. P. & McGuirk, J. J. 1980 Computation of a round turbulent jet discharging into a confined cross flow. In Turbulent Shear Flow 2 (ed. L. Bradbury et al.), pp. 233–245. Springer
Jurewicz, J. T. & Stock, D. E. 1975 A numerical model for turbulent diffusion in gas-particle flows. ASME Winter Annual Meeting, New York, Paper 75-WS/FE-33.Google Scholar
Kallio, G. A. 1987 Interaction of electrostatic and fluid dynamic fields in wire-plate precipitators. PhD dissertation, Washington State University.
Kallio, G. A. & Stock, D. E. 1985 Computation of electrical conditions inside wire-duct electrostatic precipitators using a combined finite-element, finite-difference technique. J. Appl. Phys. 59, 999–1005.Google Scholar
Kallio, G. A. & Stock, D. E. 1990 Flow visualization inside a wire plate electrostatic precipitator. IAS Trans. Indust. Appl. 26, 503–514.Google Scholar
Kihm, K. D., Mitchner, M. & Self, S. A. 1985 Comparison of wire-plate and plate-plate electrostatic precipitators in turbulent flow. High Temperature Gasdynamics Laboratory Rep. J-8. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kuffel, E. & Zaengl, W. S. 1984 High Voltage Engineering, pp. 371–377. Pergamon.
Kumaran, A. R. 1983 Aspects of the fluid mechanics of electrostatic precipitators. Temperature Gas Dynamics Laboratory Rep. 15–83-TR. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Larsen, P. S. & Sorensen, S. K. 1984 Effect of secondary flows and turbulence on electrostatic precipitator efficiency. Atmos. Environ. 18, 1953–1957.Google Scholar
Launder, B. E. & Spalding, D. B. 1974 The numerical computation of turbulent flow. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng. 3, 259–289.Google Scholar
Leonard, G. L., Mitchner, M. & Self, S. A. 1980 Particle transport in electrostatic precipitators. Atmos. Environ. 14, 1289–1299.Google Scholar
Leonard, G. L., Mitchner, M. & Self, S. A. 1983 An experimental study of the electrohydrodynamic flow in electrostatic precipitators. J. Fluid Mech. 127, 123–140.Google Scholar
Masuda, S., Akutsu, K., Kanno, Y. & Ko, T. 1979 Motion of small charged particles inside an electrostatic precipitator. In Proc. IEEE-Industry Application Society Annual Meeting, pp. 139–145.
Mcdonald, J. R. 1978 A mathematical model of electrostatic precipitation. US, Environmental Protection Agency Rep. EPA-500/7–78/111A, Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Melcher, J. R. 1981 Continuum Electromechanics, pp. 3.1–3.2 MIT Press.
Panofsky, W. K. H. & Phillips, M. 1952 Classical Electricity and Magnetism, 2nd edn, pp. 182–183. Addison—Wesley.
Patankar, S. V. 1980 Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, pp. 105–109. Hemisphere Publishing; McGraw-Hill.
Patankar, S. V., Basu, D. K. & Alpay, S. A. 1977 Prediction of the three-dimensional velocity field of a deflected turbulent jet, Trans. ASME I: J. Fluids Engng 99, 758–762.Google Scholar
Patankar, S. V. & Spalding, D. B. 1972 A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows. Intl. J. Heat Mass Transfer 15, 987–1805.Google Scholar
Pickard, W. F. 1955 Electrical force effects in dielectric liquids. Prog. Dielectrics, 5, 1–39.Google Scholar
Ramadan, O. E. & Soo, S. L. 1959 Electrohydrodynamic secondary flow. Phys. Fluids 12, 1943–1945.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. 1975 Effects of the corona discharge on electric-wind convection and eddy diffusion in an electrostatic precipitator. Ph.D. Thesis, The Cooper Union University.
Spiegel, M. R. 1975 Probability and Statistics, chap. 5. Schaum's Outline Series, McGraw-Hill.
Stock, D. E. & Crowe, C. T. 1974 The effect of electrohydrodynamic secondary flow in the performance of electrostatic precipitators. In Proc 1974 Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute Meeting, pp. 254–265. Stanford University Press.
Stock, D. E. & Fadeff, K. G. 1983 Measuring particle transverse velocity using an LDA. Trans. ASME I: J. Fluids Engng 105, 458–460.Google Scholar
Thomsen, H. P., Larsen, P. S., Christensen, E. M. & Christiansen, J. V. 1982 Velocity and turbulence fields in negative corona wire-plate precipitator. Dept. of Fluid Mechanics Rep. AFM 82–08. Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
Vahl Davis, G. De & Mallinson, G. D. 1972 False diffusion in numerical fluid dynamics, University of New South Wales, School ofMech. and Ind. Eng. Rep. 1972/FMT/1.
White, H. J. 1953 Industrial Electrostatic Precipitation, p. 140. Addison-Wesley.
Williams, J. C. & Jackson, R. 1952 The motion of solid particles in an electrostatic precipitator. In Symp. on the Interaction Between Fluids and Particles, Third Congr. of the European Federation of Chemical Engineering, pp. 282–288.
Yabe, A., Mori, Y. & Hijikata, K. 1978 EHD study of the corona wind between wire and plate electrodes. AIAA J. 15, 340–345.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, T. & Sparks, L. E. 1985 Effect of turbulent electrohydrodynamics on electrostatic precipitator efficiency. Gas-Solids Flows, AIAA/ASME 4th Fluid Mechanics. Plasma Dynamics and Lasers Conference. Atlanta, GA.
Yamamoto, T. & Velkoff, H. R. 1981 Electrohydrodynamics in an electrostatic precipitator. J. Fluid Mech. 108, 1–18.Google Scholar