Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T15:05:43.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Joint numerical and experimental investigation of turbulent mixing in a supercritical CO2 shear layer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2025

Dhruv Purushotham
Affiliation:
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Chang Hyeon Lim
Affiliation:
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Adam M. Steinberg
Affiliation:
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Devesh Ranjan
Affiliation:
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Joseph C. Oefelein*
Affiliation:
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
*
Corresponding author: Joseph C. Oefelein, joseph.oefelein@gatech.edu

Abstract

Turbulent mixing in a supercritical CO$_2$ shear layer is examined using both experimental and numerical methods. Boundary conditions are selected to focus on the rarely studied near-critical regime, where thermophysical properties vary nonlinearly with respect to temperature and pressure. Experimental results are obtained via Raman spectroscopy and shadowgraphy, while numerical results are obtained via direct numerical simulation. The shear layer growth rate is found to be 0.2. Additionally, density profiles indicate a relaxation of density gradients between the mixed fluid and heavy fluid as the flow evolves downstream, which runs counter to existing supercritical shear layer data in the literature. The computational results identify significant anisotropy in the turbulence in the shear layer, which is discussed in terms of the development of regions of high density gradient magnitude. The Reynolds-averaged enstrophy budget at various streamwise locations indicates no significant dilatational or baroclinic contribution within the shear layer.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Selected thermodynamic property variations as functions of pressure and temperature for carbon dioxide. The isobar identified by the solid red line in each graph clearly captures the order-of-magnitude change in these properties exhibited near the critical point. Variations of similar magnitudes are found in all thermodynamic and transport properties. In each graph, broken black lines represent relaxations of these variations at different conditions, while ideal gas behaviour is identified by the solid black line in each case.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Variation in selected transport properties for CO$_2$: (a) dynamic viscosity; (b) Prandtl number.

Figure 2

Table 1. Channel inlet boundary conditions for the computations. The Reynolds number ($Re$) is based on the channel half-height $h$. Note that the upper and lower stream flow and boundary conditions for the experiment are inverted relative to the computations due to configurational considerations.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (a) Three-dimensional model of the experimental facility; colour is used to represent the inflow and outflow of CO$_2$. (b) Piping and instrumentation diagram.

Figure 4

Figure 4. (a) Three-dimensional model of the test section. Note the presence of two (green) optical access panels. (b) Image of the test bench showing the inlet and optical sections. The inset shows the test section field of view as seen through the first (leftmost) optical access panel.

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a) Isometric and (b) front views of the spontaneous Raman scattering set-up in the current test section configuration.

Figure 6

Table 2. Definition of dimensionless variables used in the governing equations. Reference quantities (subscripted ‘ref’) are defined based on physical parameters of the system being modelled computationally. Dimensional quantites in the table are identified by a superscripted asterisk.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Sketch of the computational domain. The red boxed region demarcates the approximate location of the shear layer. Axis labels are provided in non-dimensional terms, with the thickness of the splitter plate used as the reference length.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Plots of the (a,b) longitudinal, (c,d) cross-stream and (e,f) spanwise two-point, one-time spatial autocorrelation functions, for (a,c,e) the upper channel and (b,d,f) the lower channel. The results indicate that at separation distance 6 mm, the turbulence becomes decorrelated, and this is used as justification for the domain width in the computations.

Figure 9

Table 3. Channel-specific resolution data for the DNS grid. The subscript $w$ denotes data immediately adjacent to any solid walls, while $c$ denotes channel core data. Here, $N_{y^+ \leqslant 30}$ denotes the number of computational cells within the buffer region of the turbulent boundary layer adjacent to the walls. The $+$ superscript is used to denote data reported in wall-normal units.

Figure 10

Table 4. Global grid characteristics. Here, AR denotes aspect ratio, SF the skewness factor, and GR the cell-to-cell growth ratio. Data reported include cells within the buffer region.

Figure 11

Figure 8. (a) Kolmogorov length scale, and (b) axial, (c) cross-stream, (d) spanwise grid spacing normalised by the Kolmogorov length scale, as functions of height above the domain lower wall. Calculations consider only the solenoidal component of the total dissipation rate. They involve ensemble averaging in the spanwise direction using one instantaneous data frame with the mixing layer in a statistically stationary state. Data are sampled at an arbitrarily selected axial location 5 mm downstream of the splitter plate tip.

Figure 12

Figure 9. Plots showing (a) the smallest turbulent thermal length scale ($\eta _\theta$) and (b) axial, (c) cross-stream, (d) spanwise normalised grid spacing data as functions of height above the domain lower wall. Scales smaller than $\eta _\theta$ are dominated by diffusive mechanisms. Calculations still assume classical Kolmogorov turbulence and involve ensemble averaging in the spanwise direction for one instantaneous data frame with the mixing layer in a statistically stationary state. Data are sampled at an axial location 5 mm downstream of the splitter plate tip.

Figure 13

Figure 10. Visualisation of the shear layer, obtained using shadowgraphy. The coloured boxes represent two fields of view (FoV) for which spontaneous Raman scattering signals are obtained. In the images, the flow travels from left to right. Flow conditions are the same as outlined in table 1 but are flipped relative to the configuration specified in the table, and this is accounted for in all quantitative results.

Figure 14

Figure 11. Instantaneous visualisation of the plane shear layer. Results are obtained via Raman scattering, and presented in terms of the density difference ratio, defined according to (3.1). Each image corresponds to a different instant in time, with no correlation between images. The arrows indicate the direction of the flow, as well as an approximate indication of the velocity magnitude in each stream. The development of the classical coherent structures, first reported by Brown & Roshko (1974), can be seen here, especially in the leftmost image.

Figure 15

Figure 12. Three-dimensional view of the spatially evolving mixing layer obtained via DNS. The Q-criterion isosurfaces are visualised at $Q=110\,000$$\rm s^{-2}$. The isosurfaces are coloured by the local isothermal compressibility of the fluid. The translucent domain bounding box is coloured by temperature to highlight its spatial variation.

Figure 16

Figure 13. Ensemble-averaged flow fields of the sCO$_2$ mixing layer. Density difference ratios (see (3.1) for a definition) are plotted as functions of space for a two-dimensional slice through the mixing layer. Results are obtained via spontaneous Raman scattering.

Figure 17

Figure 14. Ensemble-averaged density field, obtained through spontaneous Raman scattering. Five temperature measurements at distinct locations are obtained using RTDs. These are represented by scatter points and are overlaid on the contour. Results are shown for FoV 1.

Figure 18

Figure 15. Density difference ratio $\xi$ as a function of height above the lower wall of the domain. The black solid line is obtained via direct density measurements from Raman scattering. The red scatter points represent calculated density values, here represented in terms of $\xi$. The shaded green region brackets one standard deviation of the Raman-obtained density profile.

Figure 19

Figure 16. Mixed material as a function of streamwise location. The colours represent the fields of view highlighted in figure 10. In the graph legend, MM stands for mixed material (using $\Theta = 0.70$), and VT represents the visual thickness obtained by using a full-width half-maximum (FWHM) technique. The grey dashed line represents the growth rate found via the visual thickness, while the purple dotted line represents the growth rate calculated through the mixed material.

Figure 20

Figure 17. One-dimensional spectrum of the turbulent kinetic energy $\text{E}(\kappa _3)$ taken from the DNS data sampled in the shear layer ($x = 25$ mm, $y = 12.5$ mm). Spectral decomposition is performed on a velocity signal taken along the homogeneous $z$ direction. A reference $-5/3$ line, which corresponds to classical inertial range Kolmogorov turbulence, is added as a point of comparison.

Figure 21

Figure 18. Schematic of the AIM. The envelope of realisability is identified by the red line, while the three-dimensional greyscale graphics represent the shape of the Reynolds stress ellipsoids along the right and left limbs of the AIM. An ellipsoid is also included for the isotropic turbulence limit, for reference.

Figure 22

Figure 19. Anisotropy invariant maps (Lumley triangles) obtained from the computational results: (a) randomly down-sampled DNS data; (b) points in mixing layer only. Invariants of the anisotropic part of the Reynolds stress tensor (as defined in (3.5)) are plotted as functions of ensemble-averaged density and coloured by height above the lower wall of the domain. Each scatter point represents the values of the respective invariants at a given spatial location in the domain. The realisability envelope is identified by black dashed lines.

Figure 23

Figure 20. Two-dimensional view of the Lumley triangle plotted in figure 19. Data are isolated at $\overline {\rho } = 324.6\, \rm kg\, m^{-3}$, which is halfway between the upper and lower limits of the ensemble-averaged density. The realisability envelope is demarcated by black dashed lines. All data points found within the DNS field matching this density value are plotted on the map, and no down-sampling is performed.

Figure 24

Figure 21. Variation of the kinematic viscosity of CO$_2$ with temperature and pressure.

Figure 25

Figure 22. Enstrophy budget obtained from the DNS calculations. Results are included for three streamwise stations: (a) $x=10\,\text{mm}$, (b) $x=20\,\text{mm}$, (c) $x=30\,\text{mm}$. The data are ensemble averaged.