Scientific Bulletin of the Workshop on

Politehnica University of Timisoara Vortex Dominated Flows –

Transactions on Mechanics Achievements and Open Problems
Special issue Timisoara, Romania, June 10 - 11, 2005

A NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE 3D SWIRLING FLOW IN A PIPE WITH

CONSTANT DIAMETER. PART 2: TURBULENT COMPUTATION

Sebastian MUNTEAN, Senior Researcher* Ivana BUNTIĆ, PhD student

Center of Advanced Research in Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machinery
Engineering Sciences University of Stuttgart
Romanian Academy - Timisoara Branch
Albert RUPRECHT, Head of Fluid Mechanics Group Romeo SUSAN-RESGA, Prof.
Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machinery Department of Hydraulic Machinery

*Corresponding author: Bv Mihai Viteazu 24, 300223, Timisoara, Romania

Tel.: (+40) 256 403692, Fax: (+40) 256 403700, Email: seby@acad-tim.tm.edu.ro
Ui [m/s] filtered velocity
ABSTRACT P [Pa] averaged pressure
This paper presents a numerical investigation of the τ ij [Pa] Reynolds stresses
3D turbulent and incompressible swirling flow in a α [-] model constant
constant diameter pipe. In order to evaluate the ∆ [m] resolved length scale
influence of different turbulence models the 3D ∆ t [s] time step
2 3
computations were performed. The 3D ε [m /s ] dissipation rate
computational domain corresponds to a pipe with ν 2
[m /s] kinematic viscosity
constant diameter. Two turbulence models νt [m2/s] turbulent viscosity
implemented in FENFLOSS and one model in
Subscripts and Superscripts
FLUENT are investigated. In order to validate our
r radial direction
methodology and to assess the accuracy of the
u tangential direction
numerical results, extensive comparisons with
z axial direction
available experimental data are performed. The
vorticity and the helicity are used to analyze the
ABBREVIATIONS
flow field.
in, out inlet section, outlet section
KEYWORDS
1. INTRODUCTION
swirling flow, 3D turbulent computation, helicity
The design and construction traditionally are
NOMENCLATURE forced to rely heavily on experience, experimental
U, V, W [m/s] mean velocity components data and empirical expressions. However, such
(axial, radial and tangential) approach used to the exclusion of available
Ui [m/s] averaged velocity computational or analytical techniques would soon
prove both expensive and incapable of assimilating
R [m] radius
the vast amount of design information. Thus,
D = 2R [m] diameter
computer modeling is becoming increasingly
L [m] lenght
attractive as a complementary and supplementary
g [m/s2] gravity
tool to aid design process.
k [m2/s2] turbulent kinetic energy
A research task emphasized in both modeling and
f [-] filter function
experimental communities in recent years is that of
hmax [m] local grid size
swirling flow. A huge amount of work concerning
k [m2/s2] turbulent kinetic energy
the prediction of turbulent flows is reported in the
L [m] Kolmogorov length scale
literature. However, very few is directly applicable
Pk [-] production term
to the problem of the relaxation of disturbance in
u [m/s] local velocity
pipe flow. Contrary to the majority of the work for
engineering purposes, the geometry of this problem
is very simple. However, the accuracy requirement
for the prediction of the pipe flow is stronger than
the commonly required accuracy for engineering
purposes. Since the numerical prediction of
turbulent flows involves modeling of certain aspects
of the flow, this modeling has to be considered very
carefully for its effect on the accurate prediction of
the swirling flows.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the
application of various turbulence models in the
prediction of confined, swirling flows. Evaluation
of the various turbulence models implemented in
FENFLOSS and FLUENT codes was performed by
comparison of the numerical predictions with
experimental data. The turbulent computation of a
swirling flow in a pipe is investigated. Additionally,
the boundary layer grid refinement and turbulence
models are evaluated. The objective of this study is
to evaluate the capability of turbulence models to
simulate this type of flow. The preliminary results
are included in this paper due to the fact that the
turbulent computations are extremely time
consuming (at least one order of magnitude more
time consuming than inviscid computations).
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2
presents the experimental database. Sections 3 and 4
present the computational domains, equations and
boundary conditions when a turbulent computation
is considered. In Section 5 and 6 the numerical
methods, turbulence models and numerical results
obtained with FENFLOSS code and FLUENT
package are presented, respectively. In order to
validate our methodology and to assess the accuracy
of the numerical results, extensive comparisons
with available experimental data are performed.
Next, the numerical results are analyzed and the
helicity quantity is used to investigate the flow
field. The paper conclusions, as well as the
perspectives for this work are summarized in the
last section.
2. EXPERIMENTAL DATA BASE
The experimental data used for evaluation of the
computation in this work are provided by Dr.
Wiendelt Steenbergen, Eindhoven University of
Technology. The measurements are included in his
PhD Thesis [23], in which all details of
experimental setup can be found. The experimental
data are also included in the ERCOFTAC database
(Test case 72: Turbulent Pipe Flow with Swirl).
The following experimental data are available:
the distributions of mean velocities and Reynolds
stresses. Eight measurement sections of
measurements are available at follows: 4.3, 7.7,
11.5, 21.3, 28.1, 34.9, 48.5, 75.6 (see Figure 1,
[11]). The maximum allowed deviation of the mean
velocity components from the nominal values
is/was ±1%. All data are available in non-
dimensional form: mean velocities are scaled with
the bulk velocity, Reynolds stresses are scaled with
the bulk velocity squared, radial positions
(measured from the pipe axis) are scaled with the
pipe radius R, while the axial positions of the
measurement planes are scaled with the pipe
diameter D. The data are expressed in a cylindrical
coordinate system, with the velocity components in
the axial, circumferential and radial direction
denoted by U, W and V, respectively.
The measurements were performed in a
hydraulically smooth pipe with diameter D=70
[mm] for the concentrated vortex (CV) with initial
swirl intensity S0 ≈ 0.18. All measurement series
were performed for Reynolds number of 50.000 and
300.000. The data were obtained with a 2-
component laser-Doppler system. The total velocity
vector and Reynolds stress tensor were acquired by
performing three measurements in each point, with
the laser-Doppler system aligned under three
different angles within the azimuthal plane, i.e. the
plane perpendicular to the pipe axis.
3. COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN
The 3D computational domain is a pipe with the
constant diameter D=0.32 m in order to ensure a
Reynolds number of 300.000 when the bulk
velocity U=0.9375 [m/s] and water kinematics
viscosity are considered. The first section of the
measurements is used as the inlet section. Based on
the 3D Euler numerical investigations performed by
Muntean et al. [11] the following parameters and
boundary conditions are chosen: a) for FLUENT
computations the domain length L=15D and the
radial equilibrium condition at the outlet section; b)
for FENFLOSS the computational length L=30D.
4. EQUATIONS AND BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
4.1. Equations
In this work an incompressible fluid with
constant properties is considered. The governing
equations describing this incompressible, viscous
and time dependant flow are the Navier-Stockes
equations. They express the conservation of mass
and momentum. In the RANS approach, the same
equations are time or ensemble averaged leading to
the well known RANS equations:
 ∂U i ∂U i ∂P ∂τ ij 1.5
+U j =− + ν∇ 2U i − (1)
∂t ∂x j ∂x i ∂x j
1
∂U i
=0
∂x i U
(2) 0.5 W

U, W
In RANS τij expresses the Reynolds stress tensor
which is unknown and has to be modelled. The task 0

of turbulence modelling is in the formulation and

determination of suitable relations for Reynolds −0.5
stresses.
It is generally believed that swirling flows cannot −1
be predicted accurately by a turbulence model using 0 0.2 0.4
r/R [−]
0.6 0.8 1

a scalar eddy viscosity, for fundamental reasons.

Most of the evidence for this failure of scalar eddy
viscosity models is collected either in shear flows
with a longitudinal streamline curvature, or in
strongly swirling flows. The experimental results
obtained by Dr. Steenbergen [23] show that the
Figure 1. The radial distribution of the axial U (●)
and circumferential W (■) mean velocities imposed
at the inlet section according to the experimental
data at Re=3ooooo, [23].
0.2

physical shortcomings of the scalar eddy viscosity

concept also apply to the flows containing a weak
0.15
swirl. It appears that the additional production of
the tangential shear stress vw induced by streamline
uu, vv, ww

curvature, is still significant at low swirl numbers. 0.1 uu

The observed development of the circumferential
axis

wall
vv
velocity distribution towards almost linear or ww

positively curved shapes even suggests, that the 0.05

adequacy of any eddy-viscosity model, either scalar
or tensorial, decreases with a decreasing swirl
number. The reason for the latter seems to be rooted 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
in the large contribution of diffusive radial transport r/R [−]
rather than in curvature induced production of vw,
Figure 2a. The radial distribution of the Reynolds
[23].
stresses uu (●), vv (■) and ww (♦) imposed at the
For these reasons, it is plausible that accurate
inlet section according to the experimental data,
predictions of the velocity field can only be realized
[23].
with models in which the dynamics of the Reynolds
stress is as much as possible represented. 0.1

Consequently, the RSM model available in

FLUENT commercial code is investigated, [3], as
well as two models implemented in FENFLOSS 0.05
code, [8], [9].
uv, vw, uw

uv
axis

wall

4.2. Boundary conditions vw

uw
At the inlet section the velocity field (three
0
velocity components) and the turbulent quantities
are imposed.

−0.05
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r/R [−]

Figure 2b. The radial distribution of the Reynolds

stresses uv (×), vw (*) and uw (▲) imposed at the
inlet section according to the experimental data,
[23].
 In FLUENT computations, the individual approximation of 2nd order. For the velocity
Reynolds stresses are imposed according to the components and the turbulence quantities a trilinear
measurements [16], [23], see Figures 2a-b. approximation is applied. The pressure is assumed
Additionally, the turbulence dissipation rate ε is to be constant within element. For advection
required. The radial equilibrium condition is dominated flow a Petrov-Galerkin formulation of
imposed at the outlet section displaced at 15D 2nd order with skewed upwind orientated weighting
downstream from the inlet section while on the wall function is used.
a no-slip condition is considered.
In FENFLOSS computations, the k and ε values
are required to be imposed at the inlet section.
Accordingly, these quantities are computed using
the following formulae:

k=
1 2
2
(
u + v 2 + w2 . ) (3)

and
3

ε = Cµ ( ) 3
4
k2
D
. (4)

with Cµ = 0.09 and D = 0.32 m . Figure 3 presents

the distribution of turbulent quantities k and ε
computed using the Reynolds stresses. At the outlet
section the constant pressure is imposed.
0.15

0.1

Figure 4. FENFLOSS flow chart

axis
k, eps

wall

k
eps
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
r/R [−]
Figure 3. The radial distribution of the turbulent
kinetic energy (●) and the dissipation rate of
turbulence (■) computed using experimental data
with equations (3) and (4).
5. FENFLOSS NUMERICAL METHOD
The computations are performed using the
program FENFLOSS (Finite Element based
Numerical FLOw Simulation System) which is
developed at the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and
Hydraulic Machinery, University of Stuttgart.
It is based on the Finite Element Method. For
spatial domain discretisation 8-node hexahedral
elements are used. Time discretisation involves a
three-level fully implicit finite difference
For the solution of the momentum and continuity
equations a segregated algorithm is used. It means
that each momentum equation is handled
independently. They are linearised and the linear
equation system is solved with a conjugated
0.8 1 gradient method BICGSTAB2 of van der Vorst [24]
with an incomplete LU decomposition (ILU) for
preconditioning. The pressure is treated with the
modified Uzawa pressure correction scheme [26].
The pressure correction is performed in a local
iteration loop without reassembling the system
matrices until the continuity error is reduced to a
given order.
After solving the momentum and continuity
equations, the turbulence quantities are calculated
and a new turbulence viscosity is gained. The k and
ε - equations are also linearised and solved with
BICGSTAB2 algorithm with ILU preconditioning.
The whole procedure is carried out in a global
iteration until convergence is obtained. For
unsteady simulation the global iteration has to be
performed for each time step. FENFLOSS flow
chart is shown in Figure 4.
The code is parallelised and computational
domain is decomposed using double overlapping
grids. In that case the linear solver BICGSTAB2 has
a parallel performance and the data exchange
between the domains is organised on the level of the
matrix - vector multiplication. The preconditioning
is then local on the each domain. The data exchange
uses MIP (Message Passing Interface) on the
computers with distributed memory. On the shared
memory computers the code applies OpenMP. For
more details on the numerical procedure and
parallelisation the reader is referred to [7], [8].
5.1. Very Large Eddy Simulation
Lately several hybrid methods are proposed in the
literature:
Very Large Eddy Simulation (VLES)
Semi-Deterministic Simulations (SDS)
Coherent Structure Capturing (CSC)
Detached Eddy Simulation (DES)
Hybrid RANS/LES
Limited Numerical Scales (LNS)
Simulations and their main aim is to overcome the
computational costs and capacity problems. These
methods try to keep computational efficiency of
RANS and the potential of LES to resolve large
turbulent structures. Although they can be
performed on coarser grids, the simulations are
strongly dependent on the modelling.
Above mentioned methods slightly differ in
filtering techniques, applied model and
interpretation of the resolved motion, but broadly
speaking they all have a tendency to solve complex
unsteady turbulent flows at high Reynolds number
implying a principle “solve less – model more”, see
Figure 5 and Table 1. It means that the relevant part
of the flow (unsteadiness) is resolved and the rest is
modelled.
5.2. Adaptive turbulence model
Classical turbulence models, which are usually
applied for solving engineering flow problems,
model the whole turbulent spectrum. They show
excessive viscous behaviour and very often damp
down unsteady motion quite early. Therefore they
are not completely successful for some flow cases.
VLES is used for resolving at least one part of
turbulence spectrum and thus getting more precise
picture of the flow behaviour. Depending on the
type of the flow and grid size applied model should
automatically adjust to one of the modelling
approaches schematically shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5. Modelling approach in VLES

Table 1. Resolution in DNS, LES and VLES [16]

Model Resolution

Direct numerical All turbulent scales

simulation (DNS) are resolved
Large eddy Grid size and filtering Figure 6. Adjustment for adaptive model
simulation with are sufficient to Therefore an adaptive model is developed. Its
near-wall resolve 80% of the advantage is that with increasing computer power it
resolution energy can be afforded that a larger part of spectrum is
Large eddy Grid size and filtering resolved (due to a finer computational grid). As a
simulation with are sufficient to result the accuracy of the calculation improves.
near-wall resolve 80% of the For distinguishing resolved and modelled
modelling energy distant from turbulence spectrum (see Figure 7), the adaptive
the wall, but not in model uses a filtering technique. There are several
the near-wall region of them described in the literature [6], but the
Very large eddy Grid size and filtering applied technique is similar to Willems [25]. The
simulation (VLES) are not sufficiently smallest resolved length scale ∆ used in filter is
fine to resolve 80% according to Magnato and Gabi [6] dependant on
of the energy the local grid size or the computational time step
All of them are based on the same idea to and local velocity.
represent a link between RANS and LES. Generally
they all can be classified as Very Large Eddy
 k3/ 2
L= . (11)
ε
Modelled length scales and turbulent viscosity are
kˆ 3 / 2 (12)
Lˆ =
εˆ
kˆ 2 (13)
νˆt = c µ ⋅
εˆ
with c µ = 0.09.
Figure 7. Distinguishing of turbulence spectrum by The filtering procedure leads to the final equations
VLES
∂k ∂k ∂  νˆ  ∂k  ˆ
The basis of the adaptive model is the k-ε model +U j = ν + t 
 ∂x  + Pk − ε (14)
of Chen and Kim [1]. It is chosen due to its ∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σk  j 
simplicity and capacity to better handle unsteady
∂ε ∂ε ∂  νˆ  ∂ε 
flows. Its transport equations for k and ε are given +U j = ν + t  +
as ∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σ ε  ∂x j 

  ∂k  ε ˆ ε2  Pˆ 
∂k ∂k ∂ ν c1ε Pk − c2ε + c3ε  k  ⋅ Pˆk (15)
+U j = ν + t 
 ∂x  + Pk − ε (5) k k
∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σk  j   k 
with the production term
∂ε ∂ε ∂  ν t  ∂ε 
+U j = ν + 
 + ) )  ∂U i ∂U j  ∂U i
∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σ ε  ∂x j 
 Pk = ν t  +  . (16)
 ∂x j ∂x i  ∂x j
2  
ε ε P 
c1ε Pk − c 2ε + c 3ε  k  ⋅ Pk (6)
k k  k 43
4 For more details of the model and its characteristics
142 4
additional term the reader is referred to [20].
with following coefficients: 5.3. FENFLOSS numerical results
σ k = 0.75, σ ε = 1.15, c1ε = 1.15 , c2ε = 1.9 and Hexahedral mesh with 390k elements was used
c 3ε = 1.15 . with refinements close to the symmetry axis and
Additionally they need to be filtered. According to near the wall. Dimensionless y+ value for the wall
the Kolmogorov theory it can be assumed that the function is about 40.
dissipation rate is equal for all scaled. This leads to Figure 8 shows the comparison between
computed axial and circumferential mean velocities
ε = εˆ (7) computed with VLES and Kim-Chen models and
It is not acceptable for turbulent kinetic energy. experimental data [23]. It can be seen that the
Therefore it is need filtering experimental data are inadequately predicted with
Kim-Chen model. The main conclusion is that the
  ∆  Kim-Chen model is still dissipative even with its
kˆ = k ⋅ 1 − f   . (8)
  L  additional production term (eg. (6)). The main
deficiency is apparent in relation to the two
As a suitable filter equations model. The problem is the isotropic
 0 for ∆ ≥ L character of the turbulent viscosity, or alternatively,
 2/3 an invariant coefficient in the equation for the eddy
f =  ∆ (9)
1−   for L>∆ viscosity. The isotropic eddy viscosity concept is
  L

not suitable for complex flows or turbulent flows
is applied where which are influenced by body forces acting in a
preferred direction, such as swirling flows.
 u ⋅ ∆t  ∆V for 2D
∆ = α ⋅ max  with hmax = 3 (10)
 hmax  ∆V for 3D

contains model constant α in a range from 1 to 5.

Then the Kolmogorov scale L for the whole
spectrum is given as
 1.25
viscous near to the wall. In all cases investigated the
1
core dimensionless variable for wall function is chosen
smaller than 15 (y+<15).
0.75 Based on our numerical investigations [11] the
0.5
<U> Re=3e5 [Ste95] following solver parameters are selected: the time-
<U>, <W> [−]

advancing scheme is 2nd-order implicit; the

<W> Re=3e5 [Ste95]
VLES

momentum equation is discretized with a 2nd-order

Kim−Chen
0.25

upwind scheme; the pressure discretization uses a

0
PREssure Staggering Option (PRESTO) scheme,
−0.25 with a Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of Operators
boundary
layer boundary (PISO) pressure-velocity coupling.
−0.5
layer
S1 6.1. RSM Approach
−0.75
−1 −0.75 −0.5 −0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 The Reynolds stress model (RSM) is the most
r/R [−]
elaborated turbulence model that FLUENT code
1.25
viscous provides [3]. Abandoning the isotropic eddy-
core
1 viscosity hypothesis, the RSM closes the Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes equations by solving
0.75
transport equations for the Reynolds stresses,
<U> Re=3e5 [Ste95]
0.5 <W> Re=3e5 [Ste95] together with an equation for the dissipation rate.
<U>, <W> [−]

0.25
0
−0.25
boundary
layer
−0.5
S2
−0.75
−1 −0.75 −0.5 −0.25
r/R [−]
Figure 8. The radial distribution of the axial <U>
(●) and circumferential <W> (■) mean velocities in
sections S1 (above) and S2 (below), respectively.
Comparison experimental data [23] against 3D
unsteady numerical results computed with two
turbulent models implemented in FENFLOSS code:
── VLES model and ─ ─ Kim-Chen model.
Alternatively, the flow field computed with
VLES model predicts the measurements better than
the Kim-Chen model. However, the tangential
velocity component seems to be underestimated
while the axial component is overestimated. A
possible explanation for this high discrepancy is
that the grid is still too coarse for VLES.
Consequently, further investigations with fine grid
(especially in axial direction) are needed in order to
compute more accurately the swirling flow with
both Kim-Chen and VLES model.
6. FLUENT NUMERICAL METHOD
The 3D unsteady turbulent flow simulations are
performed with the FLUENT 6.0.12 commercial
software [3], using the hexahedral mesh generated
with Gambit [4]. The grid has 245k cells, and it was
refined in the symmetry axis neighbourhood and
VLES
Kim−Chen This means that seven additional transport equations
must be solved in 3D problems. Since the RSM
accounts for the effects of swirl and rapid changes
in strain rate in a more rigorous manner than one-
equation and two-equation models, it has greater
potential to give accurate predictions for complex
boundary
layer flows. However, the fidelity of RSM predictions is
still limited by the closure assumptions employed to
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
model various terms in the exact transport equations
for the Reynolds stresses. The modeling of the
pressure-strain and dissipation-rate terms is
particularly challenging, and often considered to be
responsible for compromising the accuracy of RSM
predictions.
The Reynolds stress model involves calculation
of the individual Reynolds stresses, using
differential transport equations. The individual
Reynolds stresses are then used to obtain closure of
the Reynolds-averaged momentum eq (1). The exact
form of the Reynolds stress transport equations may
be derived by taking moments of the exact
momentum equation. This is a process wherein the
exact momentum equations are multiplied by a
fluctuating property, the product then being
Reynolds-averaged. Unfortunately, several of the
terms in the exact equation are unknown and
modeling assumptions are required in order to close
the equations. More details of the RSM and its
characteristics are referred to [3].
Compared with the two equations models, the
RSM requires additional memory and CPU time
due to the increased number of the transport
equations for Reynolds stresses. On average, the
RSM in FLUENT requires 50-60% more CPU time
per iteration compared to the two equations models. the Euler computations. In other hand, further
Furthermore, 15-20% more memory is needed. investigations are needed in order to compute more
accurately the turbulent swirling flows.
6.2. FLUENT numerical results
A good agreement between numerical results 7. NUMERICAL RESULTS ANALYSIS
computed with RSM and experimental data is
In order to understand better the physics of
obtained in free vortex region, see Figure 9.
1.25 swirling flow a deeply analysis is performed.
viscous
core
First, the vorticity field is computed in order to
1
compare the numerical results against theoretical
0.75 results fitted with so called Q-vortex, [11].
<U> Re=3e5 [Ste95]
Vorticity is defined mathematically as,
0.5
<U>, <W> [−]

<W> Re=3e5 [Ste95]

inviscid
RSM
ω = ∇ ×U . (17)
0.25
and informally as the local component of rotation in
0
the flow.
−0.25 70 viscous
boundary boundary
core
layer layer
boundary
−0.5 60
layer
S1
−0.75 50
−1 −0.75 −0.5 −0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
r/R [−]

vorticity
1.25 40
viscous
core
1 30

0.75 20
<U> Re=3e5 [Ste95]
0.5 <W> Re=3e5 [Ste95] 10
<U>, <W> [−]

inviscid
RSM
0.25 0
−0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
r/R [−]
0
Figure 10. The radial distribution of the vorticity
−0.25
boundary (●) at the inlet section.
layer
−0.5
S2 boundary
layer
Figure 10 shows the radial distribution of
−0.75 vorticity computed at the inlet section. The Rankine
−1 −0.75 −0.5 −0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
r/R [−] vortex is built using the asymptotic behavior of the
Figure 9. The radial distribution of the axial <U> Burgers' vortex for large and small radius with
(●) and circumferential <W> (■) mean velocities in respect to the vortex characteristic radius Rc . The
sections S1 (above) and S2 (below), respectively. vortex characteristic radius Rc = 0.177 (see Table
Comparison experimental data [23] against 3D 1, [11]) marked with black solid line in Figure 10
unsteady numerical results computed with FLUENT represents the hypothetical border between viscous
code: ── RSM and ─ ─ Euler model. core region and free vortex region, respectively. As
Contrary, a discrepancy between RSM results and a result, this border suggests the limit where the
measurement is observed in viscous core region. local component of flow rotation is negligible.
Moreover, the tangential velocity component is However, the vorticity value at the vortex
evaluated using a numerical scheme too dissipative characteristics radius is still significant. In
whilst the axial component is contrary predicted. consequence of this observation the vorticity
The same conclusion is emerged from numerical remains significant in the transition region between
investigations obtained with VLES model. the two regions. Therefore, the Euler model
However, the numerical results computed with presents small discrepancies refer to the
Euler model predict the measurements better than measurements in the transition region.
the RSM approach, see Figure 8. Additionally, the Next, the helicity is defined [9] as
Euler computation requires less CPU time and H = ω ⋅ U = (∇ × U ) ⋅ U . (18)
memory than the RSM with one order of
magnitude. Actually, for engineering applications The helicity of a fluid particle is defined as dot
with complex geometries we strongly recommend product of vorticity and velocity vector. The helicity
is a scalar quantity and changes its sign due to the
change from a right-handed to a left-handed frame
of reference. It is therefore important to specify the
used frame, [10]. Right-handed cylindrical
coordinate system is used in our case. It is well
known that the dot product is zero only if the
vectors are orthogonal one to another or one of
them is zero.
5
viscous
core
0
−5
helicity
−10
−15
−20
−0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
r/R [−]
Figure 11. The radial distribution of the helicity (●)
at the inlet section.
Figure 12. The helical filaments generated in the
viscous core region.
The helicity distribution at the inlet section is
presented in Figure 11. The values of helicity are
maxima in viscous core region, especially on the
axis. In this case, the fluid particle injected on the
axis has the maximum trajectory while the
trajectories of the fluid particles injected in viscous
core region at larger radii are shorter and shorter in
axial direction, see Figure 12. Contrary, the
trajectories of the fluid particles injected in free
vortex region at larger radii are longer and longer in
axial direction, see Figure 13.
Figure 13. The helical filaments generated in the
free vortex (potential) region.
8. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a methodology for computing
the 3D incompressible and turbulent swirling flow
in a pipe with constant diameter.
For prediction of the confined, swirling flow
different turbulence models are investigated. Both
turbulence models implemented in FENFLOSS
code predicts inadequately the experimental data.
However, the VLES model offers a better solution
than the Kim-Chen model. The RSM implemented
in FLUENT lead to the significantly better
numerical results using turbulence models. Further
investigations are required to improve the numerical
results computed with all turbulence models.
Finally, the vorticity and the helicity quantities
are used to evaluate the velocity field.
boundary ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
layer
This work has been supported by the EC-funded
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 project HPC-Europa contract number 506079 and
Romanian National University Research Council
Grant (CNCSIS) 33/2005. Numerical computations
were performed at the High Performance
Computing Center (HLRS), University of Stuttgart.
The first author would like to thank Institute of
Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machinery from
University of Stuttgart where he performed this
work as Visiting Researcher in period January-
March 2005. Special gratitude to Dr. Wiendelt
Steenbergen for his assistance with the experimental
database.
REFERENCES
1. Chen Y.S., Kim S.W. (1987) Computation
of turbulent flows using an extended k-
ε turbulence closure model. NASA CR-
179204
2. Dahlhaug O.G., (1997) A study of swirl
flow in draft tubes, PhD Thesis, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway. Report ITEV:1997:05
3. Fluent Inc. (2001) FLUENT 6. User’s
Guide, Fluent Incorporated, Lebanon USA.
4. Fluent Inc. (2001) Gambit 2. User’s Guide,
Fluent Incorporated, Lebanon USA.
5. Kito O., (1991) Experimental Study of
Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Straight Pipe,
J. Fluid Mech., 225:445-479.
6. Magnato F., Gabi M. (2000) A new
adaptive turbulence model for unsteady
flow fields in rotating machinery.
Proceedings of the 8th International
Symposium on Transport Phenomena and
 Dynamics of Rotating Machinery Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart,
(ISROMAC 8) Germany.
7. Maihöfer M., Ruprecht A. (2003) A Local 20. Ruprecht A. (2005) Numerische
Grid Refinement Algorithm on Modern Strömungssimulation am Beispiel
High-Performance Computers. Proceedings hydraulischer Strömungsmaschinen,
of Parallel CFD 2003, Elsevier, Habilitation thesis, University of Stuttgart,
Amsterdam. Germany.
8. Maihöfer M. (2002) Effiziente Verfahren 21. Sloan D.G., Smith P.J., Smoot D., (1986)
zur Berechnung dreidimensionaler Modeling of swirl in turbulent flow
Strömungen mit nichtpassenden Gittern. systems, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart, 12:163-250.
Germany. 22. Speziale G.C., (1991) Analytical Methods
9. Moffatt H.K., (1969) The degree of for the Development of Reynolds-Stress
knottedness of tangled vortex lines, J. Fluid Closure in Turbulence, Annu. Rev. Fluid.
Mech., 44:705-719. Mech. 23:107-157.
10. Moffatt H.K., Tsinober A., (1992) Helicity 23. Steenbergen W., (1995) Turbulent Pipe
and Laminar and Turbulent Flow, Annu. Flow with Swirl, PhD Thesis, Eindhoven
Rev. Fluid. Mech., 24:281-312. University of Technology, Eindhoven, The
11. Muntean S., Ruprecht A., Resiga R., (2005) Netherlands.
A Numerical Investigation of the 3D 24. van der Vorst H.A. (1994) Recent
Swirling Flow in a pipe with Constant Developments in Hybrid CG Methods. In:
Diameter. Part 1: Inviscid Computation. In Gentzsch W., Harms U. (eds) High-
Proceedings of the Workshop on Vortex Performance Computing and Networking,
Dominated Flows - Achievements and vol. 2: Networking and Tools, Lecture
Open Problems, June 10-11 2005, Notes in Computer Science, 797, Springer,
Timisoara, Romania. (submitted) Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, pp.174–183.
12. Nallasamy M., (1987) Turbulence Models 25. Willems W. (1997) Numerische Simulation
and their Appliactions to the Prediction of turbulenter Scherströmungen mit einem
Internal Flows: A Review, Computer and Zwei-Skalen Turbulenzmodell, Ph.D.
Fluids, 15(2):151-194. thesis, Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany.
13. Parchen R. R., (1998) Steenbergen W., 26. Zienkiewicz O.C., Vilotte J.P., Toyoshima
Experimental and Numerical Study of S., Nakazawa S. (1985) Iterative method
Turbulent Swirling Pipe Flows, J. Fluid for constrained and mixed finite
Eng., 120(1):54-61. approximation. An inexpensive
14. Parchen R.R., (1993) Decay of Swirl in improvement of FEM performance.
Turbulent Pipe Flows, PhD Thesis, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 51:3-
Eindhoven University of Technology, 29.
Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
15. Patankar S.V., (1980) Numerical Heat
Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere,
Washington, D.C., USA.
16. Pope S.B. (2000) Turbulent flows,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
17. Rhie C.M., Chow. W.L., (1983) Numerical
Study of the Turbulent Flow Past an Airfoil
with Trailing Edge Separation, AIAA
Journal, 21(11):1525-1532.
18. Rodi W., (1976) a New Algebraic Relation
for Calculating the Reynolds Stresses,
ZAMM 56:219-221.
19. Ruprecht A. (1989) Finite Elemente zur
Berechnung dreidimensionaler turbulenter
Strömungen in komplexen Geometrien,