Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T22:59:09.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Numerical analyses of wire-plate electrohydrodynamic flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2023

Xuerao He
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, 117575 Singapore
Pedro A. Vázquez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Física Aplicada III, Universidad de Sevilla, ESI, Camino de los Descubrimientos s/n, 41092 Sevilla, Spain
Mengqi Zhang*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, 117575 Singapore
*
Email address for correspondence: mpezmq@nus.edu.sg

Abstract

We present numerical analyses of two-dimensional electrohydrodynamic (EHD) flows of a dielectric liquid between a wire electrode and two plate electrodes with a Poiseuille flow, using direct numerical simulation and global stability analysis. Both conduction and injection mechanisms for charge generation are considered. In this work we focused on the intensity of the cross-flow and studied the EHD flows without a cross-flow, with a weak cross-flow and with a strong cross-flow. (1) In the case without a cross-flow, we investigated its nonlinear flow structures and linear dynamics. We found that the flow in the conduction regime is steady, whereas the flow in the injection regime is oscillatory, which can be explained by a global stability analysis. (2) The EHD flow with a weak cross-flow is closely related to the flow phenomena in an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). Our analyses indicate that increasing the cross-flow intensity or the electric Reynolds number leads to a less stable flow. Based on these results, we infer that one should adopt a relatively low voltage and weak cross-flow in the wire-plate EHD flow to avoid flow instability, which may hold practical implications for ESP. (3) The case of strong cross-flow is examined to study the EHD effect on the wake flow. By comparing the conventional cylindrical wake with the EHD wake in linear and nonlinear regimes, we found that the EHD effect brings forward the vortex shedding in wake flows. Besides, the EHD effect reduces the drag coefficient when the cross-flow is weak, but increases it when it is strong.

JFM classification

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 in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Sketch of the wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow problem.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Geometry and boundary conditions of wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Steady state of the wire-plate EHD flow without cross-flow at $Re^E=0.1, C_I=0$ (thus, the ion generation mechanism is the dissociation process). Distributions of (a) positive species, (b) negative species, (c) net charges, (d) $x$-velocity field and streamlines, (e) $y$-velocity field and ( f) positive and negative species $\bar {N}_+, \bar {N}_-$, net charges $\bar {N}_+-\bar {N}_-$, electric potential $\bar \phi$ and $y$-velocity $\bar U_y$ along the line of $x=0$.

Figure 3

Figure 4. (a) Growth rates of the conduction regime of a wire-plate EHD flow without cross-flow at different electric Reynolds numbers, the frequencies are all zero; and the corresponding leading eigenvectors at $Re^E=0.1, C_I=0$ for (b) positive charge density; (c) negative charge density; (d) $x$ velocity; (e) $y$ velocity.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Nonlinear simulation of wire-plate EHD flow without a cross-flow at $C_I=0.2$ (thus, the dominant ion generation mechanism is injection; which is the same for the cases below with $C_I>0$). Distribution of (a) positive species; (b) negative species; (c) net charges and (d) velocity magnitude and streamlines at $Re^E=0.9$. (e) Time evolution of maximum velocity magnitude at different $Re^E$. ( f) Concentration of positive species at $Re^E=1.2$ at different times, from top to bottom, $t=t_1, t_2, t_3$, as shown in the inset of panel (e).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Concentration of positive and negative species, electric potential and $y$ velocity along the line of $x=0$ of the SFD base flow of a wire-plate EHD flow without cross-flow in the injection regime at $Re^E=1.2, C_I=0.2$.

Figure 6

Figure 7. (a) Growth rates and (b) frequencies of a wire-plate EHD flow without cross-flow in the injection regime at different electric Reynolds numbers obtained by IRAM and nonlinear simulations. The inset of panel (a) is the log plot of the amplitude of $U_x$ vs $t$, and its slope in the linear phase gives the linear growth rate. The inset of panel (b) shows the $x$-velocity evolution of point (0,0.25) in a nonlinear simulation at $Re^E=0.9, 1.2$. The corresponding leading eigenvectors at $Re^E=1.2$ are shown: (c) positive charge density; (d) negative charge density; (e) $x$ velocity; ( f) $y$ velocity.

Figure 7

Figure 8. (a) The leading eigenvectors of a wire-plate EHD flow without a cross-flow at $Re^E=1, C_I=0.2$ for pressure. (b) Pressure perturbation at $x = 0.5$ of the upper plate (red line in panel (a)) as a function of $y$ and time.

Figure 8

Figure 9. (a) Evolution of the maximum velocity norm of a nonlinear wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow at $U_0=0.3$ vs $Re^E$. The instants $t_4, t_5, t_6$ in the zoomed-in view denote three sampling times that are depicted in panels ( f) and (g). Distribution of (b) positive species, (c) negative species, (d) $x$-velocity field and streamlines, (e) $y$-velocity field of the final steady state of a wire-plate EHD flow with a weak cross-flow at $U_0=0.3, Re^E=4$. Distribution of ( f) positive species density and (g) the velocity magnitude of a wire-plate EHD flow with a weak cross-flow at a periodic state at $U_0=0.3, Re^E=6$. In each panel, from top to bottom, the time stamps are $t=t_4$, $t=t_5$, $t=t_6$, respectively ($t_4-t_6$ can be found in panel (a)).

Figure 9

Figure 10. Comparison for time evolution of the drag coefficient (a) $C_d$ and its decomposition of (b) the pressure drag coefficient $C_{dp}$ and (c) the friction drag coefficient $C_{df}$ between the cylinder wake flow and wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow at $Re^E=4$ and $Re^E=6$ at $U_0=0.3$. The dash lines denote the time-averaged value of $C_d$, $C_{dp}$ and $C_{df}$ in the oscillation state.

Figure 10

Figure 11. Growth rates and frequencies of a wire-plate EHD flow with a weak cross-flow at (a,b) different $Re^E$ at $U_0=0.3$, and (c,d) different $U_0$ at $Re^E=4.5$, and the corresponding leading eigenvectors at $U_0=0.3, Re^E=4.5$ for (e) positive charge density, ( f) negative charge density, (g) $x$ velocity, (h) $y$ velocity.

Figure 11

Figure 12. The final steady state of nonlinear simulation for wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow at $U_0=7$. (a) The concentration of positive species, (b) vorticity.

Figure 12

Figure 13. Nonlinear simulation for cylinder wake flow and wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow at (a) $U_0=12$ at $t=75$, (b) $U_0=15$ at $t=40$, (c) $U_0=18$ at $t=30$, (d) $U_0=21$ at $t=20$. In each panel, from top to bottom, they are vorticity of a Newtonian cylinder wake flow, vorticity of a wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow, positive charge density of a wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow.

Figure 13

Figure 14. Comparison for time evolution of the nonlinear results between a cylinder wake flow (black lines) and wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow (red lines) at different $U_0$. Results are shown for (a) $U_x$ at the sampling point (10,0), (b) $U_y$ at the sampling point (10,0), (c) $C_l$ for the wire, (d) $C_d$ for the wire.

Figure 14

Figure 15. Comparison for time evolution of the drag coefficient $C_d$ and its decomposition of the pressure drag coefficient $C_{dp}$ and friction drag coefficient $C_{df}$ between the cylinder wake flow (with the superscript ‘cyl’) and wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow (with the superscript ‘EHD’) at $Re^E=2.4$ at (a) $U_0=12$, (b) $U_0=15$, (c) $U_0=18$, (d) $U_0=21$.

Figure 15

Figure 16. The streamwise pressure distribution with respect to the arc length acting on the upper half-wire for a cylinder wake flow and wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow at $Re^E=2.4$ and $U_0=12$. Here $\varOmega _1$$\varOmega _3$ denote the area of the shaded parts.

Figure 16

Figure 17. The SFD base flow (a,c,e) and mean flow (b,df) for the cylinder wake flow and wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow at $U_0=12$. From top to bottom, they are (a,b) vorticity of the cylinder wake flow, (c,d) vorticity of the wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow, (ef) positive charge density of the wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow. The black solid lines are the outlines of the recirculation zones and the black dots are the separation points.

Figure 17

Figure 18. Growth rates and frequencies of a cylinder wake flow and wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow at different $U_0$.

Figure 18

Figure 19. The leading eigenvectors of a cylinder wake flow (a,b), and a wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow based on a SFD base flow (cf) and mean flow (g,h) at $U_0=12$ for (a,c) $x$ velocity, (b,d) $y$ velocity, (e,g) positive charge density, ( f,h) negative charge density.

Figure 19

Figure 20. Comparison of current density distribution along the plate electrodes on the top plate for $\varPhi _0^*=3$ kV without cross-flow between our results (DNS) and figure 5 in McCluskey & Atten (1988) (experiment).

Figure 20

Figure 21. Comparison of velocity profiles for $Re = 740$ and $\varPhi _0^* = 0$ kV (upper side) and $\varPhi _0^* = 3$ kV (lower side) for different downstream distances. Results are shown for (a) $x = 20D^*$, (b) $60D^*$, (c) $100D^*$, (d) $140D^*$. The experimental data are extracted from McCluskey & Atten (1988).

Figure 21

Figure 22. Comparison of streamwise velocity profiles for different downstream distances: (a) $x = -21R$, (b) $-3R$, (c) $-1.5R$, (d) $1.5R$, (e) $3R$.

Figure 22

Figure 23. Eigenvalues of the leading eigenmode at different cross-flow velocities $U_0$ at $\lambda =0.5$.

Figure 23

Table 1. Comparison of growth rate obtained by the Power method and Arnoldi method for wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille flow at different $U_0$ and $Re^E$.

Figure 24

Figure 24. Distribution of the Legendre spectral elements for the wire-plate EHD-Poiseuille problem.

Figure 25

Table 2. Grid independence validation at $U_0=21, Re^E=2.4$.

Figure 26

Figure 25. Time evolution of the maximum velocity magnitude for different meshes at $U_0=0.3, Re^E=6$.

He et al. Supplementary Movie 1

See "He et al. Supplementary Movie Captions"

Download He et al. Supplementary Movie 1(Video)
Video 2.6 MB

He et al. Supplementary Movie 2

See "He et al. Supplementary Movie Captions"

Download He et al. Supplementary Movie 2(Video)
Video 3.7 MB

He et al. Supplementary Movie 3

See "He et al. Supplementary Movie Captions"

Download He et al. Supplementary Movie 3(Video)
Video 1.5 MB
Supplementary material: File

He et al. Supplementary Movie Captions

He et al. Supplementary Movie Captions

Download He et al. Supplementary Movie Captions(File)
File 13.7 KB