CFD Modeling for the

Estimation of Pressure
Loss Coefficients of Pipe
Fittings: An Undergraduate
Project
KUMAR PERUMAL,1 RAJAMOHAN GANESAN2
1

Department of Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia

Received 2 January 2015; accepted 9 August 2015

ABSTRACT: This work reports the outcomes of a senior undergraduate project done as part of a CFD course
offered at Curtin University, Malaysia. Pressure loss coefficients for single phase flow through 90 degree bend has
been estimated using CFD simulation. It is evident from the results that a validated CFD model is a reliable and
cheap tool for loss coefficient estimation of any combination of pipe fitting and complex fluid / flow. 2015 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. Comput Appl Eng Educ 24:180185, 2016; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/
cae; DOI 10.1002/cae.21695
Keywords: 90 degree bend; CFD; multiphase flow; pressure loss coefficient

INTRODUCTION
Pipe ttings such as valve, bend, tee, elbow, contraction and
expansion are integral part any piping system found in chemical
and allied industrial processes. These are mainly used to control
the ow rate and change the direction of ow, which causes energy
loss in addition to that caused by the uid ow through straight
pipes. Flow of uids in a piping system is accompanied by both
skin and form friction, resulting in pressure or energy loss. Skin
friction, which is responsible for pressure loss in straight pipe ow,
is the friction between the pipe wall and the uid and also between
the uid layers. Whereas, form friction is caused by pipe ttings as
the uid is subjected to sudden velocity and direction changes.
Reliable pressure loss coefcients for various pipe ttings are
needed to calculate the additional energy loss and determine the
correct pump size [1]. The classic reference for such data is the
Chemical Engineers handbook [2]. But this data are limited to only
single phase ow of Newtonian uids. Industrial ows are often
complex involving either multi phases (i.e., solidliquid, gas
liquidsolid) or non-Newtonian uids. The pressure loss

Correspondence to K. Perumal (p.kumar@curtin.edu.my).

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

180

coefcients for such uids and ows are not readily available in
hand books. So there are several attempts by researchers to
determine these coefcients. In one of the earliest works, Griskey
and Green [3] determined pressure loss coefcient data for dilatant
uids. Turian et al. [4] provided loss coefcients for turbulent ows
of concentrated non-Newtonian slurries and Telis-Romero et al. [5]
presented the data for laminar ow of pseudo plastic uids.
The summary of the published literature is given in Table 1.
A careful examination of the literature reveals that most of the
previous work is experimental (E) in nature, which is expensive
compared to the numerical simulation (CFD) studies. The cost of
experimental studies further increases when it involves sophisticated instruments such as Electrical Capacitance Tomography,
Wire Mesh Sensor Tomography. Because of the low cost, use of
CFD for the study of uid mechanics, heat and mass transfer of
various chemical processes has increased signicantly in the last
decade or so.
Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulations predict
ow variables such as velocity, pressure ect, by solving the
mathematical equations describing the relationship between the
ow variables. So the accuracy of the simulation results depends
on how well the mathematical model or equations captures the
ow physics. The accuracy of the mathematical model is evaluated
by comparing the simulation results with the experimental results.
This process is called validation in CFD parlance. The

CFD MODELING FOR THE ESTIMATION OF PRESSURE LOSS

Table 1

181

Summary of Published Literature on Pipe Fittings

Reference

Pipe fitting

Fluid

Remarks

908 bend

Airwater

908 bend

Airwater

Michaelides and Lai

[8]
Hilgenstock and
Ernst [9]

Return bend

Airsolid

908 bend

Single phase

Legius and Van der

Akker [10]
Pal and Hwang [11]

908 bend

Airwater

Globe valve, sudden contraction

and sudden expansion
Bends

Oil in water
measured emulsion
Coalair

Deshpande and
Barigou [13]

Sudden contraction and

sudden expansion

Gasliquid

Deshpande and
Barigou [14]

Bend, elbow, orifice plate and

perforated plate

Gasliquid foam

Butterfly valve, plug valve,

Bend and union
Diaphragm valve

Xanthan gum

(E), One of the early works in which flow distribution in

bend was measured experimentally
(CFD), The two dimensional model results did not match
well with the experimental results of Gardner and Neller
[12]
(E), Comparison between experimental and correlation
predicted pressure drop is good
(CFD), It is suggested that CFD should be used in
conjunction with experiments to understand three
dimensional flow field
(E & CFD), Good agreement between modelling and
experiment results has been found
(E), Pressure loss coefficients are as function of Reynolds
number covering laminar and turbulent regimes
(E), Among the tested bends, (Long radius, Short radius and
Blinded T bend), Blinded T was found to be best for
pneumatic transport of coal
(E), Presence of pipe fittings in foam flow is found to affect
the foam structure seriously. This may have foam serious
practical implications when preservation of foam structure
is important
(E), Except orifice plate, all other fittings (bend, elbow,
perforated plate) introduce large differences in liquid
holdup and pressure drop gradient between the flows in the
upstream and downstream pipe sections.
(E), Pressure loss coefficients were determined and
correlated in terms of Reynolds number
(E), Pressure loss coefficients are measured in the laminar,
transitional and turbulent regimes for valves ranging from
40 100 mm
(E), A general correlation was presented for the elbow bend
pressure drop in terms of Reynolds numbers
Three phase flow is more complex than the two phase flow
(E), Correlation for pressure loss coefficients was developed
for fully and half open positions
(E), It is observed that each fitting has a significant and
different pressure loss
(E), Flow pattern has been studied using advanced
instrumentation such as Electrical Capacitance
Tomography and Wire Mesh Sensor Tomography
(E), Pressure loss coefficients are measured as function of
generalized Reynolds number covering laminar and
turbulent regimes
(E), Velocity profiles are measured using ultrasonic velocity
profiling technique
(E), Due to the sharp changes in flow direction, the
rectangular bend has a higher value of bend pressure drop
(CFD), A detailed study has been performed to generate
profiles of velocity, pressure and volume fraction of phases
over a wide range of water and oil velocities
(E), Correlations for pressure loss coefficients are developed
using the experimental data
(E) Valve coefficients are determined as function of valve
openings
(E) two-phase pressure drop through a horizontal, equalsided, sharpedged, combining tee junction was measured
and the new experimental data were used to assess the
performance of existing models
(CFD) Effect of gas and solid velocity on erosion of elbows
studied
(E) Conductance probe technique has been used to study the
flow pattern upstream and downstream of bend
(E) Dual wire mesh sensor has been used to study the effect
of bend on the stratified and annular flow characteristics

Gardner and Neller

[6]
Carver [7]

Venkatasubramanian
et al. [12]

Polizelli et al. [15]

Fester et al. [16]

Spedding and
Bernard [17]
Spedding et al. [18]
Fester and Slatter
[19]
Liu and Dian [20]
Abdulkadir et al. [21]

Water, glycerol
and CMC

908 Elbow

Gasliquid

908 Elbow
Globe valve

Wateroil air
Water, glycerol
and CMC
Coal water slurry

908 bend, gradual and sudden

contraction
900 bend

Airsilicone oil

Cabral et al. [22]

Butterfly valve, Ball valve, Bend,

Tee and Union

Liquid food products

Kotze et al. [23]

Diaphragm valve

CMC

Sharma et al. [24]

Rectangular and U Return Bend

Oilwater

Kaushik et al. [25]

Sudden contraction and sudden

expansion

Oilwater

Ma and Zhang [26]

Tee, sudden contraction, sudden

expansion and 908 elbow
Gate and Globe valve

Phase change slurry

Joyce and Soliman

[28]

Tee junction

Airwater

Nan Lin et al. [29]

Elbow

Gassolid

Saidj et al. [30]

908 bend

Airwater

Vieira et al. [31]

908 bend

Gasliquid

Alimonti et al. [27]

Gasliquid

182

PERUMAL AND GANESAN

mathematical model is rened till a reasonable agreement between

the simulation and experimental results is attained. Such a
validated model can be used with condence to get a deeper
insight of the underlying physical mechanisms and to predict
velocity and phase distribution with high spatial and temporal
resolution for complex industrial ows [32]. Similar experimental
studies of such ows are expensive as sophisticated instrumentation is needed. Thus, CFD technology is an effective and versatile
tool for ow predictions if the physical phenomena are adequately
described by the mathematical model. It should be mentioned here
that experimental studies are indispensable to get the mathematical model validated.
Recently, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation
is increasingly being used as a teaching and research tool in the
undergraduate Mechanical, Chemical and Food Engineering
courses [3337]. It is either taught as a separate course or used
in courses like Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer to enhance the
teaching and learning process. It must be noted that CFD is taught
mostly as an elective course in many universities around the world
[34]. It is believed that CFD must be made a core part of the
undergraduate curriculum as it is widely used in the industry and
academia as a design and optimization tool [3437]. As a teaching
aid, CFD can make Transport Phenomena education interesting as
it allows visualization of ow, temperature, pressure and species
elds [35].
The objective of this work is to demonstrate the use of CFD
simulation for the determination of pressure loss coefcients. This
has been done for single phase Newtonian uid ow through a 90
degree bend. A good agreement between the simulated and
empirical loss coefcients gives credibility to CFD simulation for
its application to multiphase ow predictions.

Figure 1 Geometry of the 90 degree bend.

Momentum conservation:
@
r~
u r  ruu~ rp r  t
@t

Where r is the density, u is the velocity, p is the pressure, t is the

viscous stress tensor.
Advanced turbulence models such as Direct Numerical
Simulation (DNS) can be useful to understand the physics of
turbulence, but requires powerful computing facility [39]. In this
work, one of the RANS turbulence models, that is, the realizable ke turbulence model was found to be adequate to model turbulence.
The k and e equations are as follows:


 
@
@
@
m @k
Gk  re 3
rk
rkui
m t
@t
@xi
@xj
s k @xj
@
@
@
reui
re
@t
@xi
@xj

CFD MODELING



 
mt @e
e2
p
rC1 Se  C2 r
s e @xj
k ne

Geometry Creation and Grid Independence Study

Geometry creation is the rst step in CFD modelling, which is
done using a pre-processor. In this work, the 90 degree bend
(Fig. 1), has been created using the ANSYS Design Modeler.
Geometry with a total horizontal length of 150 in together with a
vertical length of 50 in has been designed in order to ensure fully
developed ow. Grid generation is a key issue in ow simulation
as it governs the stability and accuracy of the ow predictions [38].
For the present case of ow through a 90 degree bend, unstructured
tetrahedral hybrid cells were used to discretize the entire ow
domain (Fig. 2). Grid independence study was carried out using
progressively larger number of cell elements. The results of the
grid independence study is shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that
there is practically no change in the pressure drop as the number of
grid is increased.

Where Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy

due to the mean velocity gradients, S is the mean strain rate and C1,
C2, sk and se are the model constants. The turbulent viscosity, mt is
computed as follows:
mt rCm

k2
e

Where k, e are turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent kinetic

energy dissipation rate, respectively. Cm is computed from mean
strain and vorticity rate.

Governing Equations
The mass and momentum conservation equations are expressed as
follows:
Mass conservation:
@r
r  r~
u 0
@t

Figure 2

Meshed geometry of the 90 degree bend.

CFD MODELING FOR THE ESTIMATION OF PRESSURE LOSS

183

loss coefcient, which accounts for the form friction. The Fanning
friction factor is dened as [41]:
f

DPs D
2rV2 L

Where DPs is the pressure loss caused by the straight pipe section
of length L and Kf is dened as follows:
Kf

Figure 3 Grid Independence StudyPressure drop result showing

percentage deviation from the chosen base case versus number of grids
for Re 10000.

Boundary Conditions
Water at ambient temperature (300K) was used as the working
uid. Simulations were carried out by specifying velocity at the
inlet of the horizontal pipeline. Turbulent intensity, I and the
hydraulic diameter, Dh were specied for an initial guess of
turbulent quantities (k and e). The turbulent intensity was
estimated for each case based on the formula I 0.16(Re)1/8
and was about 3% for all the cases. Outow boundary condition
was used at the outlet boundary.

Numerical Solution Strategy

The second-order upwind scheme was used for discretization of
the convection, turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent kinetic
energy dissipation rate terms. SIMPLE algorithm was employed to
resolve the coupling between velocity and pressure elds.
The convergence criterion is based on the residual value of
calculated variables such as mass, velocity components, turbulent
kinetic energy (k), turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate (e). In
the present calculations, the residual values were set at 104 for all
variables. The under-relaxation factors used for the stability of the
converged solutions were set at their default values. The numerical
simulation was decided as converged when the normalized
residual for each variable was less than the set residual value.

2DPf
rV2

Where DPf is the pressure loss caused by the pipe tting. A plot
between DPf and rV2/2 results in a straight line passing through
origin with Kf as the slope, which is the average value of the
pressure loss coefcient for the given ow condition. But, for
accurate determination of pressure loss, knowledge of loss
coefcient as a function of Reyolds number is essential. Figure 4
shows the comparison between loss coefcients from simulation
and published literature.
Hooper [42] developed an empirical two k method, which
correlates the loss coefcient with the Reynolds number and the
diameter of the tting through the following equation.



K1
1
10
K1 1
Kf
D
Re
The K1 and K1 values for the 90 degree bend are taken as
800 and 0.25 respectively and D is the diameter of the tting in
inches. It should be noted that this method is applicable only for
single-phase ow through pipettings. Several authors [15,22]
have modied this equation for the ow of complex uids and
ows and estimated the K1 and K1 values for both laminar and
turbulent regimes. Csizmadia and Hos [43] used experiments and
CFD modelling to determine the loss coefcient of Bingham and
Power law uids for ow though diffuser and elbows. It can be
observed that the agreement between the K values is reasonably
good, particularly for Re <100000. Beyond this Re value, the
empirical Kf values become constant, whereas the simulated value
of [43] is lower than their own experimental value and of Miller
[44]. They claimed that this under prediction by simulation maybe
due to the assumption of hydraulically smooth pipe. In spite of the
similar assumption, the realizable ke turbulence model, (with
standard wall functions) used in the present work is able to predict

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the ow of an incompressible uid through a horizontal section
of uniform pipe with no work input/output, the mechanical energy
balance can be written as [40].
P1  P2 XF

6
g
rg
Where P is the static pressure of ow and r is the uid density,
while the subscripts indicate points 1 and 2, respectively. The term
F accounts for the friction losses, which include losses in the
straight pipe section (i.e. skin friction) and from pipe ttings (i.e.
form friction) in the system. These can be formulated as
X

X 2fV2L
D

X KfV2
2

Where f is the Fanning friction factor, which accounts for the skin
friction loss, V is the average velocity of the uid, L is the pipe
length and D is the pipe diameter. Kf is the dimensionless pressure

Figure 4 Comparison of Pressure Loss Coefcients as function of

Reynolds Number.

184

PERUMAL AND GANESAN

Figure 5

Velocity Contour for Re 10000.

better Kf values compared to the SST turbulence model used by

[43]. From these results, students are able to appreciate the fact
that a validated CFD model is a very useful tool for the
determination of pressure loss coefcient of any combination of
tting and complex uid / ow.
The powerful post processing tools such as contour plots
enable students to visualize the contribution of form friction to the
pressure loss. The drastic change in ow velocity and the
separation of boundary layer around the bend (as highlighted) can
be easily observed from the contour plot (Fig. 5).

CONCLUSIONS
The usefulness of CFD simulation for the estimation of pressure
loss coefcients of pipe ttings has been demonstrated through a
senior undergraduate project. The results are conclusive that a
validated CFD model is a cheap alternative for simulating
complex industrial ows and hence the determination of loss
coefcients. It is strongly believed that contour plots will help
students in the visualisation of uid ow phenomena such as
boundary layer separation.

REFERENCES
[1] B. S. Massey, Mechanics of uids, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold,
London, UK, 1970.
[2] R. H. Perry and D. W. Green, Perrys chemical engineers hand book,
7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
[3] R. G. Griskey and R. G. Green, Flow of dilatants (shear-thickening)
uids, AIChE J 17 (1971), 725728.
[4] R. M. Turian, T. W. Ma, F. L. G. Hsu, M. D. J. Sung, and G. W.
Plackmann, Flow of concentrated slurries: 2. Friction losses in bends,
ttings, valves and venturi meters, Int J Multiphas Flow 24 (1998),
243269.
[5] J. Telis-Romero, M. A. Polizelli, A. L. Gabas, and V. R. N. Telis,
Friction losses in valves and ttings for viscoplastic uids, Can J
Chem Eng 83 (2005), 181187.
[6] G. C. Gardner and P. H. Neller, Phase distributions ow of an air?
water mixture round bends and past obstructions, Proc Inst Mech
Engrs 184 (1969), 93101.

[7] M. B. Carver, Numerical computation of phase separation in two uid

ow, ASME J Fluid Engg 106 (1984), pp. 147153.
[8] E. E. Michaelides and F. C. Lai, Pressure loss through return bends in
AirSolid ows, Int J Multiphas Flow 13 (1987), 269274.
[9] A. Hilgenstock and R. Ernst, Analysis of Installation effects by means
of Computational Fluid Dynamics - CFD vs Experiments?, Flow
Meas lnstrum 7 (1996), 161171.
[10] H. J .W. M. Legius and H. E. A. van der Akker, Numerical and
experimental analysis of translational gasliquid pipe ow through a
vertical bend. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
Multiphase (BHR) Group, Cannes, France, 1997.
[11] R. Pal and C. Y. J. Hwang, Loss Coefcients for ow of surfactant
stabilized emulsions through pipe components, Trans IChemE 77 Part
A (1999), 685691.
[12] S. Venkatasubramanian, H. Tashiro, G. E. Klinzing, and K.
Mykelbust, Solids ow behavior in bends: assessing ne solids
buildup, Powder Tech 113 (2000), 124131.
[13] N. S. Deshpande and M. Barigou, The ow of gas - liquid foams
through pipe ttings, Int J Heat Fluid Fl 22 (2001), 94101.
[14] N. S. Deshpande and M. Barigou, Foam ow phenomena in sudden
expansions and contractions, Int J Multiphas Flow 27 (2001),
14631477.
[15] M. A. Polizelli, F. C. Menegalli, V. R. N. Telis, and J. Telis Romero,
Friction losses in valves and ttings for power law uids, Braz J Chem
Eng 20 (2003), 455463.
[16] V. G. Fester, D. M. Kazadi, B. M. Mbiya, and P. T. Slatter, Loss
coefcients for ow of Newtonian and non-Newtonian uids through
diaphragm valves, Chem Eng Res Design 85 (2007), 13141324.
[17] P. L. Spedding and E. Benard, Gasliquid two phase ow through a
vertical 908 elbow bend, Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 31 (2007), 761769.
[18] P. L. Spedding, E. Benard, and N. M. Crawford, Fluid ow through a
vertical to horizontal 90_ elbow bend III three phase ow, Exp
Thermal Fluid Sci 32 (2008), 827843.
[19] V. G. Fester and P. T. Slatter, Dynamic similarity for non-Newtonian
uids in globe valves, Chem Eng Res Design 87 (2009), 291297.
[20] M. Liu and Y. F. Duan, Resistance properties of coal?water slurry
owing through local piping ttings, Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 33
(2009), 828837.
[21] M. Abdulkadir, D. Zhao, S. Sharaf, L. Abdulkareem, I. S. Lowndes,
and B. J. Azzopardi, Interrogating the effect of 90 degree bends on airsilicone oil ows using advanced instrumentation, Chem Eng Sci 66
(2011), 24532467.
[22] R. A. F. Cabral, V. R. N. Telis, K. J. Park, and J. Telis-Romero,
Friction losses in valves and ttings for liquid food products, Food
Bioprod Process 89 (2011), 375382.

CFD MODELING FOR THE ESTIMATION OF PRESSURE LOSS

[23] R. Kotze, J. Wiklund, R. Haldenwang, and V. Fester, Measurement

and analysis of ow behaviour in complex geometries using the
Ultrasonic Velocity Proling (UVP) technique, Flow Meas Instrum
22 (2011), 110119.
[24] M. Sharma, P. Ravi, S. Ghosh, G. Das, and P. K. Das, Hydrodynamics
of lube oilwater ow through 1808 return bends, Chem Eng Sci 66
(2011), 44684476.
[25] V. V. R. Kaushik, S. Ghosh, G. Das, and P. K. Das, CFD simulation of
core annular ow through sudden contraction and expansion,
J Petroleum Sci Eng 8687 (2012), 153164.
[26] Z. W. Ma. and P. Zhang, Pressure drops and loss coefcients of a phase
change material slurry in pipe ttings, Int J Refrig 35 (2012), 9921002.
[27] C. Alimonti, Experimental characterization of globe and gate valves in
vertical gas - liquid ows, Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 54 (2014), 259266.
[28] G. Joyce and H. M. Soliman, Pressure drop in a horizontal, equal
sided, sharp edged, combining tee junction with airwater ow, Exp
Thermal Fluid Sci 55 (2014), 140149.
[29] N Lin, H-Q Lan, Y-G Xu, Y Cui, and G Barber, Coupled effects
between solid particles and gas velocities on erosion of elbows in
Natural gas pipelines, Procedia Eng 102 (2015), 893903.
[30] F. Saidj, R. Kibboua, A. Azzi, N. Ababou, and B. J. Azzopardi,
Experimental investigation of air?water two-phase ow through
vertical 90 degree bend, Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 57 (2014), 226234.
[31] R. E. Vieira, N. R. Kesana, B. S. Mclaury, S. A. Shirazi, C. F. Torres, E.
Schleicher, and U. Hampel, Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 59 (2014), 7287.
[32] D. H. Zheng, X. He, and D. F. Che, CFD simulations of hydrodynamic
characteristics in a gasliquid vertical upward slug ow, Int J Heat
Mass Tran 50 (2007), 41514165.
[33] T. Pujol, L. Montoro, M. Pelegri, and J. R. Gonzalez, Learning
Hydraulic Turbomachinery with Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) codes, Comput Appl Eng Educ 21 (2013), 684690.

185

[34] S. Aradag, K. Cohen, C. A. Seaver, and T. Mclaughlin, Integration

of computations and experiments for ow control research with
undergraduate students, Comput Appl Eng Educ 18 (2010),
727735.
[35] J. A. Rabi, R. B. Cordeiro, and A. L. Oliveira, Introducing natural
convective chilling to food engineering undergraduate freshmen:
Case studies assisted by CFD simulation and eld visualization,
Comput Appl Eng Educ 17 (2009), 3443.
[36] D. M. Fraser, R. Pillay, L. Tjatindi, and J. M. Case, Enhancing the
Learning of Fluid Mechanics using Computer Simulations, J Eng
Educ (2007), 381388.
[37] F. Stern, T. Xing, D. B. Yarbrough, A. Rothmayer, G. Rajagopalan,
S. P. Otta, D. Caughey, R. Bhaskaran, S. Smith, B. Hutchings, and S.
Moeykens, Hands on CFD educational interface for engineering
courses and laboratories J Eng Educ (2006), 6383.
[38] P. Kumar, and M. W. Ming Bing, A CFD study of low pressure wet
gas metering using slotted orice meters, Flow Meas Instrum 22
(2011), 3342.
[39] J. Kim, P. Moin, and R. Moser, Turbulence statistics in fully
developed channel ow at low Reynolds number, J Fluid Mech 177
(1987), 133166.
[40] R. Darby, Chemical engineering uid mechanics. 2nd ed Marcel
Dekker Inc, New York, 2001.
[41] E. J. Garcia and J. F. Steffe, Comparison of friction factor equations
for non-Newtonian uids in pipe ow, J Food Process Eng 9 (1987),
93120.
[42] W. B. Hooper, The Two-K Method Predicts, Chem Eng 24 (1981), 96.
[43] P. Csizmadia and C. Hos, CFD-based estimation and experiments on
the loss coefcient for Bingham and power-law uids through
diffusers and elbows, Comp Fluids 99 (2014), 116123.
[44] D. S. Miller, Internal ow systems, BHRA Fluid Eng (1978).

BIOGRAPHIES
Kumar Perumal obtained his PhD degree from
the University Institute of Chemical Technology
(UICT), Mumbai, India under the guidance of
Padmabhushan Prof. J.B. Joshi. Kumar is
currently an associate professor and associate
Dean for Teaching and Learning in the Faculty of
Engineering and Science, Curtin University,
Sarawak Campus, Malaysia. His research interests include Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD), Fluids and Thermal Engineering, Process Intensication Studies, and Engineering Education Research.

Rajamohan Ganesan is a senior lecturer of

Mechanical Engineering at Curtin University,
Sarawak, Malaysia and he obtained his PhD in
Mechanical Engineering from Curtin University,
Perth, Australia. He received his MEng and
BEng degree from the Bharathidasan University,
India. His research interests are production of
power from low grade heat, mixed convection,
and radiation heat transfer.