Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 Validation Guide
February 2005
Copyright
c 2005 by Fluent Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or otherwise used in
any form without express written permission from Fluent Inc.
Airpak, FIDAP, FLUENT, FloWizard, GAMBIT, Icemax, Icepak, Icepro, MixSim, and
POLYFLOW are registered trademarks of Fluent Inc. All other products or name
brands are trademarks of their respective holders.
Fluent Inc.
Centerra Resource Park
10 Cavendish Court
Lebanon, NH 03766
Introduction
Introduction-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Contents
Introduction Introduction-1
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 TOC-1
CONTENTS
TOC-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
CONTENTS
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 TOC-3
CONTENTS
TOC-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
CONTENTS
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 TOC-5
CONTENTS
TOC-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
CONTENTS
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 TOC-7
CONTENTS
TOC-8
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 1. Flow in a Rotating Cavity
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this validation is to compare numerical values of swirl and radial velocity
in a rotating cavity with experimental data from Michelsen [1].
1.3 References
1. Michelsen, J. A., Modeling of Laminar Incompressible Rotating Fluid Flow, AFM
86-05, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Fluid Mechanics, Technical University of
Denmark, 1986.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 1-1
Flow in a Rotating Cavity
Rotating Cover
L = 1.0 m
R = 1.0 m
Ω = 1.0 rad/s
Region to
be modeled
L
y
R
1.4 Results
Figures 1.4.1 - 1.4.4 compare the computed swirl and radial velocity profiles with mea-
sured data at y = 0.6 m (for both the stationary and the rotating reference frame).
Figures 1.4.5 - 1.4.8 compare the computed and measured velocities at y = 0.9 m. The
computed velocities in the rotating frame were transformed to the stationary reference
frame of the measured data. The results obtained with FLUENT match the measured
velocity profiles and reproduce accurately the sharp gradients in swirl and radial velocity
in the region of x = 0.9 m. The results show that the second-order discretization scheme
produces good agreement with the data using a 41 × 41 non-uniform grid.
1-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
1.4 Results
y=0.6
y_exp=0.6
1.20e-01
1.00e-01
8.00e-02
6.00e-02
4.00e-02
2.00e-02
Radial
Velocity -3.47e-18
(m/s) -2.00e-02
-4.00e-02
-6.00e-02
-8.00e-02
-1.00e-01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
y=0.6
y_exp=0.6
1.20e-01
1.00e-01
8.00e-02
6.00e-02
4.00e-02
2.00e-02
Radial
Velocity -3.47e-18
(m/s) -2.00e-02
-4.00e-02
-6.00e-02
-8.00e-02
-1.00e-01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 1-3
Flow in a Rotating Cavity
y=0.6
y_exp=0.6
7.00e-01
6.00e-01
5.00e-01
4.00e-01
Swirl
Velocity 3.00e-01
(m/s)
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
y=0.6
y_exp=0.6
7.00e-01
6.00e-01
5.00e-01
4.00e-01
Swirl
Velocity 3.00e-01
(m/s)
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
1-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
1.4 Results
y=0.9
y_exp=0.9
1.60e-01
1.40e-01
1.20e-01
1.00e-01
8.00e-02
Radial
Velocity 6.00e-02
(m/s)
4.00e-02
2.00e-02
0.00e+00
-2.00e-02
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
y=0.9
y_exp=0.9
1.60e-01
1.40e-01
1.20e-01
1.00e-01
8.00e-02
Radial
Velocity 6.00e-02
(m/s)
4.00e-02
2.00e-02
0.00e+00
-2.00e-02
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 1-5
Flow in a Rotating Cavity
y=0.9
y_exp=0.9
1.00e+00
9.00e-01
8.00e-01
7.00e-01
6.00e-01
Swirl 5.00e-01
Velocity
4.00e-01
(m/s)
3.00e-01
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
y=0.9
y_exp=0.9
1.00e+00
9.00e-01
8.00e-01
7.00e-01
6.00e-01
Swirl 5.00e-01
Velocity
4.00e-01
(m/s)
3.00e-01
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
1-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 2. Natural Convection in an Annulus
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to compare the numerical prediction of temperature profiles
along the symmetry lines with the experimental results of Kuehn and Goldstein [1,2] for
the eccentric and concentric case. The test also compares the numerically predicted heat
flux from the surface of the inner and outer cylinders for the eccentric and concentric
cases with the experimental results.
→
T ϕ g
0
R
0
D
0
ευ
D
Ti i
x
y
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 2-1
Natural Convection in an Annulus
The radii of the outer and inner cylinders, respectively, are 46.3 mm and 17.8 mm. For
the eccentric annulus case the eccentricity is = −0.6245, which is very close to the value
of −0.623 reported in the experiment. The eccentricity is the measure of the distance
the inner cylinder is moved from the concentric position and is defined as
= v /L (2.2-1)
where
v = the distance along the vertical axis
the inner cylinder is moved
from the concentric position
(negative downwards)
= −17.8 mm
L = Do −D
2
i
= 28.5 mm
Do = the diameter of the outer cylinder
= 92.6 mm
Di = the diameter of the inner cylinder
= 35.6 mm
2.3 References
1. Kuehn, T.H. and Goldstein, R.J., An Experimental Study of Natural Convection
Heat Transfer in Concentric and Eccentric Horizontal Cylindrical Annuli, Journal
of Heat Transfer, 100:635–640, 1978.
2. Kuehn, T.H. and Goldstein, R.J., An Experimental and Theoretical Study of Nat-
ural Convection in the Annulus Between Horizontal Concentric Cylinders, Journal
of Fluid Mechanics, 74:695–719, 1976.
2.4 Results
The temperature profiles along the symmetry lines for the eccentric and concentric cases
are compared to the experimental data of Kuehn and Goldstein [1,2]. The agreement
between the FLUENT predictions and the experimental data is very good.
The heat flux from the inner and outer cylinder surfaces for the eccentric and concentric
cases is compared with the experimental data. FLUENT predictions of heat flux agree well
with the benchmark experimental results, except for the outer wall heat flux prediction
of the eccentric annulus. The relatively high grid skewness near the outer wall could be
a possible reason for this marked deviation from the experimental data.
2-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
2.4 Results
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 2-3
Natural Convection in an Annulus
fl6
Exp
3.75e+02
3.70e+02
3.65e+02
3.60e+02
3.55e+02
Static 3.50e+02
Temperature
3.45e+02
at
Bottom 3.40e+02
Symmetry
(k) 3.35e+02
3.30e+02
3.25e+02
-0.048 -0.046 -0.044 -0.042 -0.04 -0.038 -0.036 -0.034
Position (m)
Figure 2.4.1: Temperature Profile Along the Bottom Symmetry Line for the
Eccentric Case
fl6
Exp
3.75e+02
3.70e+02
3.65e+02
3.60e+02
3.55e+02
Static
Temperature 3.50e+02
at
Top 3.45e+02
Symmetry
(k) 3.40e+02
3.35e+02
3.30e+02
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Position (m)
Figure 2.4.2: Temperature Profile Along the Top Symmetry Line for the Ec-
centric Case
2-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
2.4 Results
fl6
Exp
3.50e+02
3.00e+02
2.50e+02
Surface 2.00e+02
Heat
Flux
at 1.50e+02
Inner
Wall
(w/m2) 1.00e+02
5.00e+01
-0.04 -0.035 -0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0
Position (m)
Figure 2.4.3: Comparison of Heat Flux from the Inner Cylinder Surface for
the Eccentric Case
fl6
Exp
0.00e+00
-5.00e+01
-1.00e+02
-1.50e+02
Surface
Heat -2.00e+02
Flux
at
-2.50e+02
Outer
Wall
(w/m2) -3.00e+02
-3.50e+02
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -1.73e-18 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Position (m)
Figure 2.4.4: Comparison of Heat Flux from the Outer Cylinder Surface for
the Eccentric Case
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 2-5
Natural Convection in an Annulus
fl6
Exp
3.75e+02
3.70e+02
3.65e+02
3.60e+02
3.55e+02
Static 3.50e+02
Temperature
3.45e+02
at
Bottom 3.40e+02
Symmetry
(k) 3.35e+02
3.30e+02
3.25e+02
-0.05 -0.045 -0.04 -0.035 -0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015
Position (m)
Figure 2.4.5: Temperature Profile Along the Bottom Symmetry Line for the
Concentric Case
fl6
Exp
3.75e+02
3.70e+02
3.65e+02
3.60e+02
3.55e+02
Static 3.50e+02
Temperature
3.45e+02
at
Top 3.40e+02
Symmetry
(k) 3.35e+02
3.30e+02
3.25e+02
0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055
Position (m)
Figure 2.4.6: Temperature Profile Along the Top Symmetry Line for the Con-
centric Case
2-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
2.4 Results
fl6
Exp
3.50e+02
3.00e+02
2.50e+02
2.00e+02
Surface
Heat 1.50e+02
Flux
at
1.00e+02
Inner
Cylinder
(w/m2) 5.00e+01
0.00e+00
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Position (m)
Figure 2.4.7: Comparison of Heat Flux from the Inner Cylinder Surface for
the Concentric Case
fl6
Exp
0.00e+00
-5.00e+01
-1.00e+02
-1.50e+02
Surface
Heat -2.00e+02
Flux
at
-2.50e+02
Outer
Cylinder
(w/m2) -3.00e+02
-3.50e+02
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -1.73e-18 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Position (m)
Figure 2.4.8: Comparison of Heat Flux from the Outer Cylinder Surface for
the Concentric Case
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 2-7
Natural Convection in an Annulus
2-8
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 3. Flow in a 90◦ Planar Tee-Junction
3.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to compare FLUENT’s prediction of the fractional flow in a
dividing tee-junction with the experimental results of Hayes et al. [1].
ρVc W
Re = (3.2-1)
µ
3.3 References
1. Hayes, R.E., Nandkumar, K., and Nasr-El-Din, H., Steady Laminar Flow in a 90
Degree Planar Branch, Computers and Fluids, 17(4): 537–553, 1989.
3.4 Results
The test runs were made for five different Reynold numbers (Re = 10, Re = 100,
Re = 200, Re = 300, and Re = 400). The FLUENT predictions are compared with
the experimental results of Hayes et al.[1]. It is seen that with increasing flow rate in
the main channel, less fluid escapes through the secondary (right) branch. The following
table shows the fractional flow in the upper branch versus the Reynolds number. The
FLUENT predictions of fractional flow versus Re agree very well with the experiment.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 3-1
Flow in a 90◦ Planar Tee-Junction
Ps = 0
L W = 1m
L = 3m
Ps = 0
W
W 2/3 L
3-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
3.4 Results
fl6.data
Exp.data
1.00e+00
9.00e-01
8.00e-01
Flow
Split
7.00e-01
in
Upper
Branch
6.00e-01
5.00e-01
0 100 200 300 400
Reynolds Number, Re
Figure 3.4.1: Flow Split in the Upper Branch vs. Reynolds Number
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 3-3
Flow in a 90◦ Planar Tee-Junction
3-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 4. Flows in Driven Cavities
4.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to compare the prediction of u and v velocity profiles in the
2D laminar driven trapezoidal cavity flow against the calculations by Darr and Vanka
[1], and to compare u velocity profiles in the 2D laminar driven triangular cavity flow
against the calculations of Jyotsna and Vanka [2].
4.3 References
1. Darr, J.H. and Vanka, S.P., Separated Flow in a Driven Trapezoidal Cavity, Phys.
Fluids A, 3(3):385–392, March 1991.
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Trapezoidal Cavity
The u velocity profile at the vertical centerline of the cavity and the v velocity profile
at the horizontal centerline of the cavity are compared to Darr and Vanka [1] results for
both types of meshes.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 4-1
Flows in Driven Cavities
1m
U = 400 m/s
wall
1m
U = 400 m/s
wall
2m
2m
Uwall = 2 m/s
h=4m
4-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
4.4 Results
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 4-3
Flows in Driven Cavities
fl6 x-center
Exp.
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
Normalized 2.00e-01
u
Velocity -5.55e-17
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
-6.00e-01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
fl6 y-center
Exp.
3.00e-01
2.50e-01
2.00e-01
1.50e-01
1.00e-01
5.00e-02
Normalized
v 1.39e-17
Velocity -5.00e-02
-1.00e-01
-1.50e-01
-2.00e-01
-2.50e-01
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Position (m)
4-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
4.4 Results
fl6 x-center
Exp.
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
Normalized 2.00e-01
u
Velocity -5.55e-17
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
-6.00e-01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
fl6 y-center
Exp.
3.00e-01
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
Normalized 2.78e-17
v
Velocity
-1.00e-01
-2.00e-01
-3.00e-01
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 4-5
Flows in Driven Cavities
8.00e-01
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
Normalized
u 2.00e-01
Velocity
0.00e+00
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
Position (m)
8.00e-01
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
Normalized
u 2.00e-01
Velocity
0.00e+00
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
Position (m)
4-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 5. Periodic Flow in a Wavy Channel
5.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to compare the predictions of FLUENT’s standard k-ε and RNG
k-ε turbulence models against the experimental results of Kuzan [1] for the u velocity
profiles.
1m
periodic
D=1m h = 0.9 m boundaries H = 1.1 m
0.25 m
0.75 m
5.3 References
1. Kuzan, J.D., Velocity Measurements for Turbulent Separated and Near-Separated
Flows Over Solid Waves, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Chem. Eng., Univ. Illinois, Urbana,
IL, 1986.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 5-1
Periodic Flow in a Wavy Channel
5.4 Results
Figures 5.4.1 - 5.4.4 compare the u velocity profiles at the wave crest and at the wave
trough with Kuzan’s [1] experimental results for both the standard k-ε and the RNG k-ε
models. The u velocity is normalized by the average fluid velocity at the mean channel
height, U = 0.816 m/s.
The velocity profiles at the wave trough confirm that the flow reversal occurs in the
wave hollow, thus creating a recirculation zone. Near the top straight wall, velocity
profiles remain attached to the wall. The predictions are in very close agreement with
the experimental data.
5-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
5.4 Results
x-coordinate-3
experiment
1.40e+00
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
x-vel-norm
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
y2norm
Figure 5.4.1: Normalized u Velocity at the Wave Crest (Standard k-ε Model)
x-coordinate-3
experiment
1.40e+00
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
x-vel-norm
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
y2norm
Figure 5.4.2: Normalized u Velocity at the Wave Crest (RNG k-ε Model)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 5-3
Periodic Flow in a Wavy Channel
x-coordinate-4
experiment
1.40e+00
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
6.00e-01
x-vel-norm
4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y-norm
x-coordinate-4
experiment
1.40e+00
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
x-vel-norm 6.00e-01
4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
-2.00e-01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y-norm
Figure 5.4.4: Normalized u Velocity at the Wave Trough (RNG k-ε Model)
5-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 6. Heat Transfer in a Pipe Expansion
6.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to validate FLUENT’s standard and non-equilibrium wall
functions together with the standard k-ε and RNG k-ε turbulence models against the
experimental data of Baughn et al. [1].
H=1m
D pressure outlet
velocity inlet d axis
H 40 H
x
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 6-1
Heat Transfer in a Pipe Expansion
6.3 References
1. Baughn et al., Local Heat Transfer Downstream of an Abrupt Expansion in a Circu-
lar Channel With Constant Wall Heat Flux, Journal of Heat Transfer, 106:789–796,
1984.
2. Patel, C., Rodi, W., and Scheuerer, G., Turbulence Models for Near-Wall and
Low-Reynolds-Number Flows: A Review, AIAA Journal, 23(9), 1984.
6.4 Results
The quantity of interest for comparison with the measurements of [1] is the Nusselt
number, N u, along the heated wall. The Nusselt number was calculated from the bulk
temperature and the heat transfer coefficient. (See Figure 6.2.1 for the location of x.)
The bulk temperature is
q̇ 00 (x)4x
TB (x) = + 273 (6.4-1)
Reµcp
where q̇ 00 (x) is the local heat flux (constant, in this case). The local heat transfer coeffi-
cient is
q̇ 00 (x)
h(x) = (6.4-2)
Twall (x) − TB (x)
h(x)D
N u(x) = (6.4-3)
k
where D is the diameter of the pipe and k is the thermal conductivity of the fluid.
Data of [1] are in terms of N u/N uDB where N uDB is the Nusselt number calculated with
the Dittus-Boelter formula.
The variation of the ratio N u/N uDB along the heated wall for the standard k-ε and RNG
k-ε models with standard wall functions and non-equilibrium wall functions is presented
here.
The FLUENT results are compared to the experimental results of [1]. The agreement is
satisfactory for all cases. The use of the non-equilibrium wall functions slightly improves
the results.
6-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
6.4 Results
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 6-3
Heat Transfer in a Pipe Expansion
fl6
exp
5.00e+00
4.50e+00
4.00e+00
3.50e+00
3.00e+00
nu_nub 2.50e+00
2.00e+00
1.50e+00
1.00e+00
5.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (m)
Figure 6.4.1: N u/N uDB along the Downstream Pipe Wall (Standard k-ε
Model, Standard Wall Functions)
fl6
exp
5.00e+00
4.50e+00
4.00e+00
3.50e+00
3.00e+00
nu_nub 2.50e+00
2.00e+00
1.50e+00
1.00e+00
5.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (m)
Figure 6.4.2: N u/N uDB along the Downstream Pipe Wall (Standard k-ε
Model, Non-Equilibrium Wall Functions)
6-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
6.4 Results
fl6
exp
5.00e+00
4.50e+00
4.00e+00
3.50e+00
3.00e+00
nu_nub 2.50e+00
2.00e+00
1.50e+00
1.00e+00
5.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (m)
Figure 6.4.3: N u/N uDB along the Downstream Pipe Wall (RNG k-ε Model,
Standard Wall Functions)
fl6
exp
5.00e+00
4.50e+00
4.00e+00
3.50e+00
3.00e+00
nu_nub 2.50e+00
2.00e+00
1.50e+00
1.00e+00
5.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (m)
Figure 6.4.4: N u/N uDB along the Downstream Pipe Wall (RNG k-ε Model,
Non-Equilibrium Wall Functions)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 6-5
Heat Transfer in a Pipe Expansion
6-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 7. Propane Jet in a Coaxial Air Flow
7.1 Purpose
The aim of this validation is to compare FLUENT’s predictions for the mean mixture
fraction and the axial velocity along the jet axis with the experimental data of Strahle
and Lekoudis [1]. The test was conducted using two methods: the non-reacting species
transport model and the mixture fraction/PDF model. It also incorporated two types of
meshes: a quadrilateral mesh and a triangular mesh.
7.3 References
1. Strahle, W.C., and Lekoudis, S.G., Evaluation of Data on Simple Turbulent Re-
acting Flows, AFOSR TR-85 0880, Chapter 2, School of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
7.4 Results
FLUENT’s results for the four runs are compared to the data from [1] in Figures 7.4.1–
7.4.7, as measured along the symmetry axis of the tunnel, downstream of the jet pipe
exit. Figures 7.4.1–7.4.4 compare the propane mass fraction or the mean mixture fraction
(for the nonreacting species transport model and the mixture fraction/PDF model).
Figures 7.4.5–7.4.7 compare the axial velocities of the mixing flow.
Predictions of the mixture fraction or the propane mass fraction are very good for all the
runs. The axial velocity distribution is in very close agreement with the benchmark.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 7-1
Propane Jet in a Coaxial Air Flow
D = 0.3 m
L=2m
C3 H 8
air air
d’ = 11 mm
d = 5.2 mm
7-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
7.4 Results
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 7-3
Propane Jet in a Coaxial Air Flow
axis-4
exp
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
Mass 6.00e-01
fraction
of
c3h8 4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Figure 7.4.1: Propane Mass Fraction along the Symmetry Axis (Non-
Reacting Species Transport Model, Quadrilateral Mesh)
axis-4
exp
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
Mass 6.00e-01
fraction
of
c3h8 4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Figure 7.4.2: Propane Mass Fraction along the Symmetry Axis (Mixture
Fraction/PDF Model, Quadrilateral Mesh)
7-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
7.4 Results
axis-4
exp
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
Mass 6.00e-01
fraction
of
c3h8 4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
axis-4
exp
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
Mass 6.00e-01
fraction
of
c3h8 4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Figure 7.4.4: Mixture Fraction along the Symmetry Axis (Mixture Frac-
tion/PDF Model, Triangular Mesh)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 7-5
Propane Jet in a Coaxial Air Flow
axis-4
exp
7.00e+01
6.00e+01
5.00e+01
Axial 4.00e+01
Velocity
(m/s)
3.00e+01
2.00e+01
1.00e+01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Figure 7.4.5: Axial Velocity along the Symmetry Axis (Mixture Frac-
tion/PDF Model, Quadrilateral Mesh)
axis-4
exp
7.00e+01
6.00e+01
5.00e+01
Axial 4.00e+01
Velocity
(m/s)
3.00e+01
2.00e+01
1.00e+01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Figure 7.4.6: Axial Velocity along the Symmetry Axis (Non-Reacting Species
Transport Model, Quadrilateral Mesh)
7-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
7.4 Results
axis-4
exp
7.00e+01
6.00e+01
5.00e+01
Axial 4.00e+01
Velocity
(m/s)
3.00e+01
2.00e+01
1.00e+01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Figure 7.4.7: Axial Velocity along the Symmetry Axis (Mixture Frac-
tion/PDF Model, Triangular Mesh)
axis-4
exp
7.00e+01
6.00e+01
5.00e+01
Axial 4.00e+01
Velocity
(m/s)
3.00e+01
2.00e+01
1.00e+01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Figure 7.4.8: Axial Velocity along the Symmetry Axis (Non-Reacting Species
Transport Model, Triangular Mesh)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 7-7
Propane Jet in a Coaxial Air Flow
7-8
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 8. Non-Premixed Hydrogen/Air Flame
8.1 Purpose
The purpose of this validation is to compare FLUENT’s predictions for the density and
the axial velocity along the jet axis with the experimental data of [1]. The test uses the
Finite-Rate/Eddy-Dissipation model and the Non-Premixed Combustion model with a
quadrilateral mesh and a triangular mesh.
D = 0.3385 m
L=2m
air air
fuel
d’=9.525 mm
d = 5.2 mm
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 8-1
Non-Premixed Hydrogen/Air Flame
8.3 References
1. Strahle, W.C. and Lekoudis, S.G., Evaluation of Data on Simple Turbulent Reacting
Flows, AFOSR TR-85 0880, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA.
8.4 Results
Figures compare FLUENT’s results with the experimental data (density and axial ve-
locity) as measured along the symmetry axis of the tunnel, downstream of the injector.
The density drops downstream of the injector where the hydrogen is burnt. Further
downstream, the density increases with the diffusion of the products.
8-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
8.4 Results
Non-Premixed Co
Finite Rate/EDM
experimental data 8.00e-01
7.00e-01
6.00e-01
5.00e-01
Density
(kg/m3) 4.00e-01
3.00e-01
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Non-Premixed Co
Finite Rate/EDM
experimental data1.20e+02
1.00e+02
8.00e+01
Axial 6.00e+01
Velocity
(m/s)
4.00e+01
2.00e+01
0.00e+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 8-3
Non-Premixed Hydrogen/Air Flame
Non-Premixed C
Finite Rate/EDM
experimental da
9.00e-01
8.00e-01
7.00e-01
6.00e-01
Density 5.00e-01
(kg/m3)
4.00e-01
3.00e-01
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
Non-Premixed Co
Finite Rate/EDM
experimental data1.20e+02
1.00e+02
8.00e+01
Axial 6.00e+01
Velocity
(m/s)
4.00e+01
2.00e+01
0.00e+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Position (m)
8-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 9. 300 kW BERL Combustor
9.1 Purpose
This validation compares FLUENT’s predictions for the mass fractions of CO2 , O2 , the
axial and tangential velocity, and the temperature at stations 27, 109, and 343 mm
downstream of the quarl exit with the experimental data of [1]. It uses the Finite-
Rate/Eddy-Dissipation model and the Non-Premixed Combustion model with the k-
turbulence model and the Discrete Ordinates (DO) radiation model.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 9-1
300 kW BERL Combustor
300 mm
761 mm
382 mm
1066.8 mm
1651 mm
343 mm
109 mm
27 mm
measurement locations
(distance from quarl exit)
burner
9-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
9.3 References
195 mm
o
20
swirling 1.66 Do
combustion air 1.33 Do
Do 1.15 Do
24 holes 0.66 Do
natural gas
∅ 1.8 mm
Do = 87 mm
9.3 References
1. Sayre, A., Lallemant, N., Dugu J., and Weber, R., Scaling Characteristics of Aero-
dynamics and Low-NO x Properties of Industrial Natural Gas Burners, The SCAL-
ING 400 Study, Part IV: The 300 kW BERL Test Results, IFRF Doc No F40/y/11,
International Flame Research Foundation, The Netherlands.
9.4 Results
9.4.1 Flow Field
The axial (u) velocity fields obtained from both the eddy-breakup and the conserved
scalar models are compared with experimental measurements as radial profiles at three
different stations: 27 mm downstream of quarl, 109 mm downstream of quarl, and 343
mm downstream of quarl. The formation of the internal and external recirculation zones
can be clearly seen. Both the eddy breakup and Non-Premixed Combustion models are
seen to overpredict the strength of the reverse flow velocities near the centerline. This
could be attributable to modeling the 3D problem as axisymmetric. The peak velocities
are also overpredicted. Further, the peak velocities do not decay as quickly as indicated
by the experimental data.
The swirl (w) velocity profiles are also compared with the experimental data. The com-
parisons reveal that at 27 mm downstream of quarl, both models capture the double peak
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 9-3
300 kW BERL Combustor
structure revealed in the experiments, but the magnitude of the inner peak is underpre-
dicted. The eddy breakup model underpredicts the swirl more than the Non-Premixed
Combustion model. At the station 109 mm downstream of the quarl, both models predict
a higher decay of the tangential velocity compared to experiments.
9-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
9.4 Results
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
1.40e-01
1.20e-01
1.00e-01
8.00e-02
Mass
fraction 6.00e-02
of
co2
4.00e-02
2.00e-02
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
1.40e-01
1.30e-01
1.20e-01
1.10e-01
1.00e-01
Mass
fraction 9.00e-02
of
co2 8.00e-02
7.00e-02
6.00e-02
5.00e-02
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
Figure 9.4.2: CO2 Mass Fraction at 109 mm from the Quarl Exit
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 9-5
300 kW BERL Combustor
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
1.45e-01
1.40e-01
1.35e-01
1.30e-01
Mass 1.25e-01
fraction
of 1.20e-01
co2
1.15e-01
1.10e-01
1.05e-01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
Figure 9.4.3: CO2 Mass Fraction at 343 mm from the Quarl Exit
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
2.50e-01
2.25e-01
2.00e-01
1.75e-01
1.50e-01
1.25e-01
Mass
fraction 1.00e-01
of 7.50e-02
o2
5.00e-02
2.50e-02
0.00e+00
-2.50e-02
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
9-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
9.4 Results
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
1.60e-01
1.40e-01
1.20e-01
1.00e-01
Mass 8.00e-02
fraction
of 6.00e-02
o2
4.00e-02
2.00e-02
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
7.00e-02
6.00e-02
5.00e-02
4.00e-02
Mass
fraction 3.00e-02
of
o2
2.00e-02
1.00e-02
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 9-7
300 kW BERL Combustor
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
2.00e+03
1.80e+03
1.60e+03
1.40e+03
Static
Temperature 1.20e+03
(k)
1.00e+03
8.00e+02
6.00e+02
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
2.20e+03
2.00e+03
1.80e+03
Static 1.60e+03
Temperature
(k)
1.40e+03
1.20e+03
1.00e+03
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
9-8
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
9.4 Results
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
2.10e+03
2.00e+03
1.90e+03
1.80e+03
1.70e+03
Static 1.60e+03
Temperature
1.50e+03
(k)
1.40e+03
1.30e+03
1.20e+03
1.10e+03
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
5.00e+01
4.00e+01
3.00e+01
2.00e+01
Axial
Velocity 1.00e+01
(m/s)
0.00e+00
-1.00e+01
-2.00e+01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 9-9
300 kW BERL Combustor
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
3.50e+01
3.00e+01
2.50e+01
2.00e+01
1.50e+01
Axial
Velocity 1.00e+01
(m/s)
5.00e+00
0.00e+00
-5.00e+00
-1.00e+01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
3.50e+01
3.00e+01
2.50e+01
2.00e+01
1.50e+01
Axial
Velocity 1.00e+01
(m/s)
5.00e+00
0.00e+00
-5.00e+00
-1.00e+01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
9-10
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
9.4 Results
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
1.20e+01
1.00e+01
8.00e+00
Swirl 6.00e+00
Velocity
(m/s)
4.00e+00
2.00e+00
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
1.40e+01
1.20e+01
1.00e+01
8.00e+00
Swirl
Velocity 6.00e+00
(m/s)
4.00e+00
2.00e+00
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 9-11
300 kW BERL Combustor
Finite-Rate/EDM
Non-Premixed
Exp
1.00e+01
8.00e+00
6.00e+00
4.00e+00
2.00e+00
Swirl
Velocity 0.00e+00
(m/s)
-2.00e+00
-4.00e+00
-6.00e+00
-8.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Position (m)
9-12
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 10. Flow through an Engine Inlet Valve
10.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to compare the FLUENT prediction of the local velocity field
against experimental data of Chen et al. [1].
flow inlet
1.379 kg/s z
.0
46
φ
40 φ 39.5
10
y
43.0
562
φ 93.65
flow exit
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 10-1
Flow through an Engine Inlet Valve
10.3 References
1. Chen, A., Lee, K.C., Yianneskis, M., and Ganti, G., Velocity Characteristics of
Steady Flow Through a Straight Generic Inlet Port, International Journal for Nu-
merical Methods in Fluids, 21:571–590, 1995.
10.4 Results
Figures compare FLUENT’s results with the experimental data (z component of velocity
at different heights). All the characteristics of the flow (the angle of the inlet jet, the
vortices at the far right and the far left side of the cylinder, and the little vortex to the
left of the valve) are correctly predicted by FLUENT.
10-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
10.4 Results
1st-order
2nd-order
exp z=-40 mm
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
2.00e-01
-5.55e-17
-2.00e-01
Z -4.00e-01
Velocity
-6.00e-01
(m/s)
-8.00e-01
-1.00e+00
-1.20e+00
-1.40e+00
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Y
Z X
Position (m)
1st-order
2nd-order
exp z=-25 mm
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
Z
Velocity -6.00e-01
(m/s) -8.00e-01
-1.00e+00
-1.20e+00
-1.40e+00
-1.60e+00
-0.03 -0.02 -0.011.73e-18 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Y
Z X
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 10-3
Flow through an Engine Inlet Valve
1st-order
2nd-order
exp z=-10 mm
4.00e-01
2.00e-01
5.55e-17
-2.00e-01
Z
Velocity -4.00e-01
(m/s)
-6.00e-01
-8.00e-01
-1.00e+00
-0.03 -0.02 -0.011.73e-18 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Y
Z X
Position (m)
1st-order
2nd-order
exp z=-5 mm
1.50e+00
1.00e+00
5.00e-01
Z 0.00e+00
Velocity
(m/s)
-5.00e-01
-1.00e+00
-1.50e+00
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Y
Z X
Position (m)
10-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
10.4 Results
1st-order
2nd-order
exp z=+5 mm
5.00e-01
2.50e-01
0.00e+00
-2.50e-01
-5.00e-01
Z -7.50e-01
Velocity
-1.00e+00
(m/s)
-1.25e+00
-1.50e+00
-1.75e+00
-2.00e+00
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Y
Z X
Position (m)
1st-order
2nd-order
exp z=+10 mm
0.00e+00
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
-6.00e-01
Z -8.00e-01
Velocity
(m/s) -1.00e+00
-1.20e+00
-1.40e+00
-1.60e+00
-0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 -8.67e-19 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Y
Z X
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 10-5
Flow through an Engine Inlet Valve
1st-order
2nd-order
exp z=+15 mm
-5.55e-17
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
-6.00e-01
Z
Velocity -8.00e-01
(m/s)
-1.00e+00
-1.20e+00
-1.40e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Y
Z X
Position (m)
10-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 11. Turbulent Flow in a Transition Duct
11.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to assess the ability of FLUENT to reproduce the complicated
three-dimensional features of a flow in a circular to rectangular transition duct. FLUENT
predictions for the following quantities are compared with the experimental data of Davis
and Gessner [1]:
11.3 References
1. Davis, D.O., and Gessner, F.B., Experimental Investigation of Turbulent Flow
Through a Circular-to-Rectangular Transition Duct, AIAA Journal, 30(2):367–375,
1992.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 11-1
Turbulent Flow in a Transition Duct
Outlet
Station 6
Station 5
Y
X Z Inlet
11-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
11.4 Results
11.4 Results
Figures show comparison of the following profiles for all three turbulence models:
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 11-3
Turbulent Flow in a Transition Duct
RSM
RNG k-e
std k-e
1.50e-01
Exp
1.00e-01
5.00e-02
1.39e-17
Pressure -5.00e-02
Coefficient
-1.00e-01
-1.50e-01
-2.00e-01
-2.50e-01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Y
Z X
Position (m)
RSM
RNG k-e
std k-e
1.50e-01
Exp
1.00e-01
5.00e-02
1.39e-17
Pressure -5.00e-02
Coefficient
-1.00e-01
-1.50e-01
-2.00e-01
-2.50e-01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Y
Z X
Position (m)
11-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
11.4 Results
RSM
RNG k-e
std k-e
5.00e-03
Exp
4.50e-03
4.00e-03
3.50e-03
Skin 3.00e-03
Friction
Coefficient 2.50e-03
2.00e-03
1.50e-03
1.00e-03
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Y
Z X
Position (m)
RSM
RNG k-e
std k-e
4.00e-03
Exp
3.75e-03
3.50e-03
3.25e-03
3.00e-03
Skin
Friction 2.75e-03
Coefficient
2.50e-03
2.25e-03
2.00e-03
1.75e-03
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Y
Z X
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 11-5
Turbulent Flow in a Transition Duct
RSM
RNG k-e
std k-e
2.00e-01
Exp
1.50e-01
1.00e-01
5.00e-02
Pressure
Coefficient 1.39e-17
-5.00e-02
-1.00e-01
-1.50e-01
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Y
Z X
Position
11-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 12. Transonic Flow Over an RAE 2822 Airfoil
12.1 Purpose
The purpose of this validation is to compare the predictions of FLUENT with the experi-
mental data of Cook et al. [1] for flow over an RAE 2822 airfoil. The quantities examined
are:
12.3 References
1. Cook, P.H., McDonald, M.A., and Firmin, M.C.P., AEROFOIL RAE 2822 Pres-
sure Distribution and Boundary Layer and Wake Measurements, AGARD Advisory
Report No. 138, 1979.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 12-1
Transonic Flow Over an RAE 2822 Airfoil
0.121 m
1.00 m
12.4 Results
A comparison of FLUENT’s predictions of the static pressure coefficient Cp with experi-
mental data has been done for a hybrid and a quadrilateral mesh. In general, FLUENT’s
predictions agree well with the experimental data.
The shock location over the airfoil is quantified as the location where the top surface
pressure coefficient increases rapidly. Table 12.4.1 compares the numerical predictions of
the shock location, the lift coefficients, and the drag coefficients with the experimental
values.
From Table 12.4.1, the predicted shock locations and lift coefficients are predicted within
4% of the experimental results, and the drag coefficients are predicted within 6% of the
12-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
12.4 Results
wall_top
wall_bottom
Exp
-1.50e+00
-1.00e+00
-5.00e-01
Pressure 0.00e+00
Coefficient
5.00e-01
1.00e+00
1.50e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 12-3
Transonic Flow Over an RAE 2822 Airfoil
wall_top
wall_bottom
Exp
-1.50e+00
-1.00e+00
-5.00e-01
Pressure 0.00e+00
Coefficient
5.00e-01
1.00e+00
1.50e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
wall_top
wall_bottom
Exp
-1.50e+00
-1.00e+00
-5.00e-01
Pressure 0.00e+00
Coefficient
5.00e-01
1.00e+00
1.50e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
12-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
12.4 Results
wall_top
wall_bottom
Exp
-1.50e+00
-1.00e+00
-5.00e-01
Pressure 0.00e+00
Coefficient
5.00e-01
1.00e+00
1.50e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
wall_top
wall_bottom
Exp
-1.50e+00
-1.00e+00
-5.00e-01
Pressure 0.00e+00
Coefficient
5.00e-01
1.00e+00
1.50e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 12-5
Transonic Flow Over an RAE 2822 Airfoil
wall_top
wall_bottom
Exp
-1.50e+00
-1.00e+00
-5.00e-01
Pressure 0.00e+00
Coefficient
5.00e-01
1.00e+00
1.50e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Position (m)
12-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 13. Mid-Span Flow Over a Goldman Stator
Blade
13.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to compare FLUENT’s predictions with the experimental data
of Goldman et al.[1]. A comparison is also made between the predictions obtained using
the Euler equations and the full Navier-Stokes equations.
13.3 References
1. Goldman, L.G., and McLallin, K.L., Cold-Air Annular Cascade Investigation of
Aerodynamic Performance of Core-Engine-Cooled Turbine Vanes: I Solid Vane Per-
formance and Facility Description, NASA Technical Memorandum X-3224, April
1977.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 13-1
Mid-Span Flow Over a Goldman Stator Blade
Blade
Inlet
Periodic
Boundary
0.3 m
0.3 m
Outlet
Inlet Outlet
13.4 Results
A comparison of the predictions of pressure ratio on the blade (defined as the ratio
of static pressure to the inlet total pressure) with the experimental data is shown in
Figures 13.4.1 to 13.4.6. FLUENT’s predictions of pressure distribution at the mid-span
of the blade closely match the experimental data of Goldman et al. [1]. The pressure
losses at the mid-span due to the presence of end-wall and fluid viscosity are seen to be
negligible.
13-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
13.4 Results
Pressure ratio
Exp
leading edge 1.00e+00
pressure side
suction side
9.50e-01
9.00e-01
8.50e-01
8.00e-01
Pressure
ratio 7.50e-01
7.00e-01
6.50e-01
6.00e-01
5.50e-01
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
X (m)
2D Goldman Stator
Blade Pressure Ratio: 50% span Nov 18, 2004
FLUENT 6.2 (2d, dp, coupled exp)
Figure 13.4.1: Pressure Ratio on the Blade (Euler Equations with the Cou-
pled Explicit Solver)
Pressure ratio
Exp
leading edge 1.00e+00
pressure side
suction side
9.50e-01
9.00e-01
8.50e-01
8.00e-01
Pressure
ratio 7.50e-01
7.00e-01
6.50e-01
6.00e-01
5.50e-01
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
X (m)
2D Goldman Stator
Blade Pressure Ratio: 50% span Nov 18, 2004
FLUENT 6.2 (2d, dp, coupled exp, rke)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 13-3
Mid-Span Flow Over a Goldman Stator Blade
Pressure ratio
Exp
leading edge 1.00e+00
pressure side
suction side
9.50e-01
9.00e-01
8.50e-01
8.00e-01
Pressure
ratio 7.50e-01
7.00e-01
6.50e-01
6.00e-01
5.50e-01
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
X (m)
2D Goldman Stator
Blade Pressure Ratio: 50% span Nov 18, 2004
FLUENT 6.2 (2d, dp, coupled imp)
Figure 13.4.3: Pressure Ratio on the Blade (Euler Equations with the Cou-
pled Implicit Solver)
Pressure ratio
Exp
leading edge 1.00e+00
pressure side
suction side
9.50e-01
9.00e-01
8.50e-01
8.00e-01
Pressure
ratio 7.50e-01
7.00e-01
6.50e-01
6.00e-01
5.50e-01
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
X (m)
2D Goldman Stator
Blade Pressure Ratio: 50% span Nov 18, 2004
FLUENT 6.2 (2d, dp, coupled imp, rke)
13-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
13.4 Results
Pressure ratio
Exp
leading edge 1.00e+00
pressure side
suction side
9.50e-01
9.00e-01
8.50e-01
8.00e-01
Pressure
ratio 7.50e-01
7.00e-01
6.50e-01
6.00e-01
5.50e-01
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
X (m)
2D Goldman Stator
Blade Pressure Ratio: 50% span Nov 18, 2004
FLUENT 6.2 (2d, dp, segregated)
Figure 13.4.5: Pressure Ratio on the Blade (Euler Equations with the Seg-
regated Solver)
Pressure ratio
Exp
leading edge 1.00e+00
pressure side
suction side
9.50e-01
9.00e-01
8.50e-01
8.00e-01
Pressure
ratio 7.50e-01
7.00e-01
6.50e-01
6.00e-01
5.50e-01
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
X (m)
2D Goldman Stator
Blade Pressure Ratio: 50% span Nov 18, 2004
FLUENT 6.2 (2d, dp, segregated, rke)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 13-5
Mid-Span Flow Over a Goldman Stator Blade
13-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 14. Compressible Turbulent Mixing Layer
14.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to compare FLUENT’s predictions of velocity profiles along the
mixing layer with the experimental data of Goebel and Dutton [1]. The profiles of turbu-
lent kinetic energy as the mixing layer evolves are also compared with the experimental
data.
72 mm
U_2 = 100 m/s
Symmetry
300 mm
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 14-1
Compressible Turbulent Mixing Layer
14.3 References
1. Goebel, S.G., and Dutton, J.C., Experimental Study of Compressible Turbulent
Mixing Layers, AIAA Journal, 29(4):538–546, 1991.
14.4 Results
The following figures compare the computed velocity profiles and turbulent kinetic energy
with measured data at different axial locations (for all three k- models). The predictions
using the RNG and realizable models are better than the predictions with the standard
k- model.
14-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
14.4 Results
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
3.00e+03
Exp
2.50e+03
2.00e+03
Turbulent 1.50e+03
Kinetic
Energy
(m2/s2) 1.00e+03
5.00e+02
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
6.00e+03
Exp
5.00e+03
4.00e+03
Turbulent 3.00e+03
Kinetic
Energy
(m2/s2) 2.00e+03
1.00e+03
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 14-3
Compressible Turbulent Mixing Layer
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+03
Exp
6.00e+03
5.00e+03
4.00e+03
Turbulent
Kinetic 3.00e+03
Energy
(m2/s2)
2.00e+03
1.00e+03
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+03
Exp
6.00e+03
5.00e+03
4.00e+03
Turbulent
Kinetic 3.00e+03
Energy
(m2/s2)
2.00e+03
1.00e+03
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
14-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
14.4 Results
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+03
Exp
6.00e+03
5.00e+03
4.00e+03
Turbulent
Kinetic 3.00e+03
Energy
(m2/s2)
2.00e+03
1.00e+03
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+03
Exp
6.00e+03
5.00e+03
4.00e+03
Turbulent
Kinetic 3.00e+03
Energy
(m2/s2)
2.00e+03
1.00e+03
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 14-5
Compressible Turbulent Mixing Layer
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
8.00e+03
Exp
7.00e+03
6.00e+03
5.00e+03
Turbulent 4.00e+03
Kinetic
Energy 3.00e+03
(m2/s2)
2.00e+03
1.00e+03
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+02
Exp
6.00e+02
5.00e+02
Axial 4.00e+02
Velocity
(m/s)
3.00e+02
2.00e+02
1.00e+02
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
14-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
14.4 Results
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+02
Exp
6.00e+02
5.00e+02
Axial 4.00e+02
Velocity
(m/s)
3.00e+02
2.00e+02
1.00e+02
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+02
Exp
6.00e+02
5.00e+02
Axial 4.00e+02
Velocity
(m/s)
3.00e+02
2.00e+02
1.00e+02
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 14-7
Compressible Turbulent Mixing Layer
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+02
Exp
6.00e+02
5.00e+02
4.00e+02
Axial
Velocity 3.00e+02
(m/s)
2.00e+02
1.00e+02
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+02
Exp
6.00e+02
5.00e+02
4.00e+02
Axial
Velocity 3.00e+02
(m/s)
2.00e+02
1.00e+02
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
14-8
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
14.4 Results
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+02
Exp
6.00e+02
5.00e+02
4.00e+02
Axial
Velocity 3.00e+02
(m/s)
2.00e+02
1.00e+02
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
realizable k-e
RNG k-e
std k-e
7.00e+02
Exp
6.00e+02
5.00e+02
4.00e+02
Axial
Velocity 3.00e+02
(m/s)
2.00e+02
1.00e+02
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 1.73e-18 0.005 0.01 0.015
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 14-9
Compressible Turbulent Mixing Layer
14-10
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 15. Reflecting Shock Waves
15.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to validate FLUENT’s ability to predict reflecting shock waves
and their effect on wall pressure distribution and heat transfer.
cowl wall
M=1.66
D=1.524 cm P=Pe afterbody
To=477.8 K
Tw=328 K
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 15-1
Reflecting Shock Waves
cowl wall
M=1.66, P=Pe
D=1.524 cm
To=477.8 K
20o
afterbody
Tw=328 K
15.3 References
1. Hopkins, H. B., Konopka, W., and Leng, J. Validation of scramjet exhaust simula-
tion technique at Mach 6. NASA Contractor Report 3003, 1979.
15.4 Results
Figure 15.4.1 compares pressure ratio as a function of horizontal distance for the three
different meshes and for the experimental results [1]. All are in excellent agreement.
Pressure is normalized by the entrance value, Pe .
Figure 15.4.3 compares the heat transfer rate for the three 0-degree meshes with the
experimental values. Agreement is good for all of the cases, especially for the quadrilateral
and hybrid meshes.
Figures 15.4.2 and 15.4.4 show the pressure and heat transfer distributions for the 20-
degree configuration and the comparison with the experiment. Because the impinging
shock wave is not as strong as in the 0-degree case, no mesh adaption is required for this
case.
15-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
15.4 Results
hybrid-mesh
quad-mesh
tri-mesh
1.40e+00
Experimental
1.20e+00
1.00e+00
8.00e-01
p_pe
6.00e-01
4.00e-01
2.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 15-3
Reflecting Shock Waves
afterbody
Experimental
5.50e-01
5.00e-01
4.50e-01
4.00e-01
3.50e-01
p_pe 3.00e-01
2.50e-01
2.00e-01
1.50e-01
1.00e-01
5.00e-02
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Position (m)
hybrid-mesh
quad-mesh
tri-mesh
0.00e+00
Experimental
-5.00e+04
-1.00e+05
-1.50e+05
Total -2.00e+05
Surface
Heat -2.50e+05
Flux
(w/m2) -3.00e+05
-3.50e+05
-4.00e+05
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Position (m)
15-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
15.4 Results
afterbody
Experimental
-2.00e+04
-4.00e+04
-6.00e+04
-8.00e+04
-1.00e+05
Total
Surface -1.20e+05
Heat
Flux -1.40e+05
(w/m2)
-1.60e+05
-1.80e+05
-2.00e+05
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Position (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 15-5
Reflecting Shock Waves
15-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 16. Turbulent Bubbly Flows
16.1 Purpose
This validation compares FLUENT’s predictions of void fraction and axial velocity for
bubbly flow in a vertical pipe with experimental data from Wang et al. [1]. It uses the
Eulerian multiphase model with the standard k- turbulence model.
d = 0.057 m
L = 2.5 m
uc = 0.495 m/s
ud = 0.758 m/s
_
α = 0.132
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 16-1
Turbulent Bubbly Flows
16.3 References
1. Moraga, F. J., Bonetto, R.T. and Lahey, R. T. 1999 Lateral forces on spheres in
turbulent uniform shear flow. Int. J.Multiphase Flow 25, 1321-2372.
16.4 Results
Figures 16.4.1 and 16.4.2 show the comparison between experimental and FLUENT’s data
for the continuous-phase axial velocity and the dispersed-phase volume fraction radial
profiles. Note that simulation results at x = 26, 35 and 44 d were essentially the same
due to the fully-developed nature of the flow at those downstream locations. There is a
good agreement for the velocity, and excellent agreement for the dispersed-phase volume
fraction. Inviscid lift is predominant in the outer layer, pushing bubbles toward the wall,
while vortex shedding lift dominates the inner layer, driving bubbles from the wall.
Near the wall, liquid film between the bubble and the wall moves slower than the liquid at
the free-stream side of the bubble. This velocity gradient is due to the no-slip condition
at the wall, creating a pressure difference driving bubbles from the wall.
16-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
16.4 Results
x=26d
x=35d
x=44d
2.50e-01
Exp
2.25e-01
2.00e-01
1.75e-01
1.50e-01
Volume 1.25e-01
Fraction
1.00e-01
of
Dispersed 7.50e-02
Phase
(Air) 5.00e-02
2.50e-02
0.00e+00
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Y
Z X
Radial Coordinate (m)
x=26d
x=35d
x=44d
6.00e-01
Exp
5.00e-01
4.00e-01
Axial 3.00e-01
Velocity
of
Continuous 2.00e-01
Phase
(m/s)
1.00e-01
0.00e+00
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Y
Z X
Radial Coordinate (m)
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 16-3
Turbulent Bubbly Flows
16-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 17. Adiabatic Compression and Expansion
Inside an Idealized 2D In-Cylinder Engine
17.1 Purpose
This validation compares FLUENT’s predictions for an idealized 2D in-cylinder engine
simulating an adiabatic process against analytical data from isentropic thermodynamic
relations. Two different methods are used to model the deforming mesh: dynamic layering
and spring-based smoothing with local remeshing.
ϑ
crank angle
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 17-1
Adiabatic Compression and Expansion Inside an Idealized 2D In-Cylinder Engine
8m
TDC
10 m
8m
BDC
PISTON
17.3 Results
FLUENT results were compared with analytical data from isentropic thermodynamic rela-
tions. Pressure and temperature values were obtained through the following expressions:
γ−1
T2 V1
= (17.3-1)
T1 V2
γ
P2 V1
= (17.3-2)
P1 V2
where P1 is the pressure at the volume V1 and temperature T1 , P2 is the pressure at the
volume V 2 and temperature T2 and γ is the specific heat ratio.
Figures 17.3.1 and 17.3.2 compare the temperature and pressure of FLUENT results
against the analytical data, showing an excellent match of the values for both the layering
methods, dynamic layering, and the spring-based smoothing method with local remeshing
for the dynamic mesh motion.
17-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
17.3 Results
Analytical
fl6 Layer
fl6 Remesh
9.00e+05
8.00e+05
7.00e+05
6.00e+05
5.00e+05
Static
Pressure 4.00e+05
(pascal)
3.00e+05
2.00e+05
1.00e+05
0.00e+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (sec)
Figure 17.3.1: Static Pressure in the Chamber Area During One Piston Cycle
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 17-3
Adiabatic Compression and Expansion Inside an Idealized 2D In-Cylinder Engine
Analytical
fl6 Layer
fl6 Remesh
6.00e+02
5.50e+02
5.00e+02
Static 4.50e+02
Temperature
(k)
4.00e+02
3.50e+02
3.00e+02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (sec)
Figure 17.3.2: Static Temperature in the Chamber Area During One Piston
Cycle
17-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 18. Cavitation Over a Sharp-Edged Orifice
18.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to validate the capability of the cavitation model when ap-
plied to a cavitating flow. The strength of the cavitation depends on the inlet pressure.
When the inlet pressure is small, the cavitation number is large, and the flow is weakly
cavitating. For larger inlet pressures, the cavitation number is smaller, which in turn
results in a strongly cavitating flow.
Fourteen (14) test cases were prepared with the inlet total pressure ranging from 1.9×105
to 4 × 108 Pa. The computed discharge coefficients were compared with the experimental
correlation by Nurick [1].
R = 11.52 mm
L = 32 mm
Flow
y r = 4.032 mm
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 18-1
Cavitation Over a Sharp-Edged Orifice
18.3 References
1. W.H. Nurick, Orifice Cavitation and its Effects on Spray Mixing, Journal of Fluids
Engineering, Vol. 98, 1976.
18.4 Results
Experimental data is available in the form of discharge coefficient versus cavitation num-
ber, where the discharge coefficient is defined as ṁ/ṁi , ṁ is the computed mass flow rate,
and ṁi is the ideal mass flow rate through
q the orifice. The ideal mass flow rate through
the orifice is computed as ṁi = A 2ρ(Po − Pexit ), where A is the cross-sectional area
of the orifice, A = πr2 , ρ is the density, and Po and Pexit are the inlet pressure and the
exit pressure, respectively. FLUENT shows excellent agreement with the experimental
measurements.
18-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
18.4 Results
dis-coeff.
dis-coeff-exp
1.00e+00
9.00e-01
8.00e-01
7.00e-01
6.00e-01
dis-coeff. 5.00e-01
4.00e-01
3.00e-01
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
0.00e+00
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
cavitation-number
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 18-3
Cavitation Over a Sharp-Edged Orifice
18-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 19. Oscillating Laminar Flow Around a Circular
Cylinder
19.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to validate FLUENT’s ability to predict the frequency of
periodically shed vortices behind a circular cylinder using the iterative and non-iterative
time advancement schemes. The present calculations are confined to the low-Reynolds-
number regime (Re = 100), which encompasses unsteady asymmetric flow. The results
obtained using the different non-iterative time advancement (NITA) schemes (NITA with
PISO and NITA with Fractional Step) are compared to the iterative time advancement
(ITA) scheme and to experimental data from Braza et al. [1].
Flow 10D
y U = 1 m/s
20D
19.3 References
1. Braza, M., Chassaing, P., and Minh, H.H., Numerical Study and Physical Analysis
of the Pressure and Velocity Fields in the Near Wake of a Circular Cylinder, J.
Fluid Mech., 165:79-130, 1986.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 19-1
Oscillating Laminar Flow Around a Circular Cylinder
19.4 Results
The flow seems to demonstrate periodic shedding of vortices downstream of the cylinder.
To quantify the periodicity of the flow, the time history of the y velocity, situated at a
point that is 1 m behind the cylinder in the near wake, is presented. Also an FFT analysis
of the lift coefficient on the cylinder wall is presented to determine the frequency of oscil-
lations. The Strouhal number corresponding to the maximum magnitude of oscillations
with different solver schemes are summarized in Table 19.4.1.
From experimental data, we have a Strouhal number of 0.165. The Formula for the
Strouhal number is
S = (N ∗ D)/V∞ (19.4-1)
where N is the frequency, D is the diameter of the cylinder, and V∞ is the freestream
velocity. Solving Equation 19.4-1 for the experimental frequency, we get N = 0.0825s−1 .
Computational results yield a frequency of N = 0.0865s−1 , which are within 5% of
the experimental value. Furthermore, the ITA and NITA schemes gave nearly identical
solutions.
19-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
19.4 Results
NITA+FS
NITA+PISO
iterative
4.00e-01
3.00e-01
2.00e-01
1.00e-01
Area 0.00e+00
Weighted
Average -1.00e-01
Y
Velocity -2.00e-01
(m/s)
-3.00e-01
-4.00e-01
140 150 160 170 180 190 200
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 19-3
Oscillating Laminar Flow Around a Circular Cylinder
NITA+FS
NITA+PISO
iterative
5.00e-01
4.50e-01
4.00e-01
3.50e-01
3.00e-01
Magnitude 2.50e-01
2.00e-01
1.50e-01
1.00e-01
5.00e-02
0.00e+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Frequency (Hz)
19-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
Validation 20. Rotation of Two Immiscible Liquids
20.1 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to validate FLUENT’s Volume of Fluid (VOF) model for rota-
tional flow of immiscible liquids. FLUENT’s predictions of swirl velocity and displacement
of the interface between the liquids are in close agreement with the experimental data of
Sugimoto and Iguchi [1].
ω 1
Reω = R( )2 (20.2-1)
νw
Vw
VR = (20.2-2)
Vso
where, R is the radius of the vessel, ω is the angular velocity of the vessel, νw is the
kinematic viscosity of water, Vw is the volume of water, Vso is the volume of silicone oil,
Reω is the rotation Reynolds number, and VR is the volume ratio.
Dimensionless swirl velocity is defined as Vsw /(Rω), where Vsw is the swirl velocity
of water, and R and ω are the radius of the cylinder and the angular velocity of the
cylindrical vessel, respectively.
Development of the flow field as a function of time, and the behavior of the interface
between the two liquids are numerically studied using the VOF model. A geometric
reconstruction scheme is used for the entire unsteady run. Due to the symmetrical
nature of the flow, a 2D axisymmetric calculation is performed.
20.3 References
1. Sugimoto, T. and Iguchi, M., Behavior of Immiscible Two Liquid Layers Contained
in Cylindrical Vessel Suddenly Set in Rotation, ISIJ Int., 42, pp. 338-343, 2002.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 20-1
Rotation of Two Immiscible Liquids
120 mm
Hw Water
g
φ 46 mm
20-2
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
20.4 Results
20.4 Results
Experimental data is available in the form of
where Vsw is the swirl velocity of water, and the displacement, h, of the interface on
the axis of the vessel is calculated from the initial horizontal interfacial plane. Time
histories of dimensionless swirl velocities of water are compared with experimental results
for a Reω = 35.6 and a VR of 0.5. The axial (x) and radial (r) coordinates of the
locations, where the profiles are computed, are shown in Figures 20.4.3, 20.4.2, 20.4.1, and
20.4.4. The axial distance is measured from the bottom of the cylinder. For Reω = 74.9
and VR=1, the variation of the interface height, h, with time is measured from the
intermediate data files. Results show strong agreement with experimental results.
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 20-3
Rotation of Two Immiscible Liquids
r=4.83mm(FLUENT)
r=4.83mm(Exp)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Dimensionless 0.50
swirl
0.40
velocity
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
r=9.43mm(FLUENT)
r=9.43mm(Exp)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Dimensionless 0.50
swirl
0.40
velocity
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
20-4
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005
20.4 Results
r=14.26mm(FLUENT)
r=14.26mm(Exp)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Dimensionless 0.50
swirl
0.40
velocity
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
FLUENT
Exp
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
Interface
height 2.00
h
(mm)
1.00
0.00
-1.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 20.4.4: Vertical Displacement of the Interface on the Axis for Reω =
74.9 and V R = 1.0
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005 20-5
Rotation of Two Immiscible Liquids
20-6
c Fluent Inc. February 3, 2005