Year 3.1 - Laminar & Turbulent Flow Investigation - Computational Fluid Dynamics Assignment

2013/14
Computational Fluid Mechanics Assignment
By: Steven Goddard

Student Number: 10038749
Course: Mechanical Engineering (PT)
Student Number: 10038749 CFD Assignment Page 2 of 41
Executive Summary
This assignment details my investigations into basic laminar flow and three types of turbulent flow.
A mesh study was performed to identify suitable meshes for Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)
simulations.
Theoretical and empirical data from a number of sources have been used to calculate expected
velocity profiles and pressure gradients for these flows. This theoretical data has then been
compared to simulation data and evaluated.
Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Laminar Flow ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.1. Initial Work ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.2. Parabolic Input Velocity Distribution .............................................................................................................. 10
1.2.1. Derivation of Hagen-Poiseuille Flow from Navier Stokes Equations ...................................................... 11
1.3. Parabolic Inlet Velocity Simulation & Laminar Mesh Study ............................................................................ 12
1.4. Methods for Increasing Efficiency when Simulating Laminar Flow ................................................................ 15
2. Turbulent Flow ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
2.1. Introduction to Turbulent Flow ...................................................................................................................... 16
2.2. Calculation of Turbulent Flow ......................................................................................................................... 17
2.3. Computation Methods .................................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.1. K-Epsilon.................................................................................................................................................. 19
2.3.2. Shear Stress Transport (SST) ................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.3. Baseline (BSL) and Speziale, Sarkar and Gatski (SSG) Reynolds Stress ................................................... 19
2.4. Smooth Pipe Flow ........................................................................................................................................... 19
2.5. Transitional Region Rough Pipe Flow.............................................................................................................. 26
2.6. Fully Turbulent Rough Pipe Flow .................................................................................................................... 30
3. Alternative Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 36
4. Recommendations for Further Work ...................................................................................................................... 37
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................... 37
5.1. Laminar Flow ................................................................................................................................................... 37
5.2. Turbulent Flow ................................................................................................................................................ 37
5.3. Final Remarks .................................................................................................................................................. 37
References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix ......................................................................................................................................................................... 41

Figures
Figure 1 - Golden Syrup Flowing From a Teaspoon ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 - Osborne Reynolds (1842 –1912) (Robodoc, 2004) ...................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 - Initial Run Mesh, Looking End on – Created using ICEM CFD ........................................................................................................ 7
Figure 4 - Developing Flow Velocity .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 5 - Initial Run - Developing Velocity Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 6 - Simulated and Theoretical Fully Developed Laminar Flow Velocity Profiles with Uniform Inlet Velocity .................................... 9
Figure 7 - Initial Run – Theoretical and Simulated Axial Pressure Variation Comparison ........................................................................... 10
Figure 8 - Left to Right: Gotthilf Hagen (1797 - 1884) & Jean Poisuille (1797 - 1869) ................................................................................. 10
Figure 9 - Everyday Example of Turbulent Flow .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10 - Typical Velocity and Shear Distributions in Turbulent Flow near a Wall: (a) Shear; (b) Velocity. ............................................. 17
Figure 11 - Left to Right: Ludwig Prandtl, Theodore Von Kármán & Clark Blanchard Millikan ................................................................... 18
Figure 12 - Velocity Profile Comparison for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow - Pipe 1 ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 13 - Axial Pressure Variation for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow – Pipe 1........................................................................................... 21
Figure 15 - CFX Solver showing Convergence for Pipe 2 Smooth Turbulent Flow....................................................................................... 22
Figure 16 - Axial Pressure Variation for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow - Pipe 2 ........................................................................................... 23
Figure 21 - Velocity Profile Comparison for Transitional Rough Flow - Pipe 1 ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 22 - Axial Pressure Variation for Transitional Rough Flow - Pipe 1 .................................................................................................. 28
Figure 23 - Velocity Profile Comparison for Transitional Rough Flow - Pipe 2 ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 24 - Axial Pressure Variation for Transitional Rough Flow - Pipe 2 .................................................................................................. 30
Figure 25 - Velocity Profile Comparison for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 1 ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 26 – Close up of Centreline Velocity on Figure 25 ............................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 27 - Axial Pressure Variation for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 1 ............................................................................................. 33
Figure 28- Velocity Profile Comparison for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 2........................................................................................ 33
Figure 29 - Close Up of Centreline Velocity on Figure 28 ............................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 30 - Axial Pressure Variation for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 2 ............................................................................................. 34
Figure 31 - Fully Turbulent Rough Flow (From Pipe 2 - K-Epsilon) .............................................................................................................. 35
Figure 32 - Centreline Velocity along Pipe (Data from Pipe 2 - Shear Stress Transport) ............................................................................. 35
Figure 33 - Centreline Velocity along Pipe (Data from Pipe 1 - Shear Stress Transport) ............................................................................. 36
Tables
Table 1 - CFX-Pre Parameters for First Run ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2 - Results of Laminar Mesh Study (Series 1)..................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 3 - Results of Laminar Mesh Study (Series 2)..................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4 - Mesh Settings for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow ........................................................................................................................... 20
Table 5 - Pipe 1 - Turbulence - Smooth Pipe Flow ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 9 - Mesh Setting for Transient and Fully Turbulent Rough Flow ....................................................................................................... 27
Table 10 - Transient Rough Flow - Pipe 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 11 - Transient Rough Flow - Pipe 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 12 - Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 13- Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 33

Introduction
This report describes the research, theoretical and computational methods, results and evaluation of work set out in
the Thermofluid Systems assignment brief.
This report has been written by Steven Goddard (Student Number 10038749) as part of the Mechanical Engineering
(Part Time) course at UWE, Bristol during the 2013/2014 student year.
Understanding fluid flow in pipes is of great importance to many industrial applications today, such as chemical
processing, long distance fuel transfer and precise scientific experiments. The fluid dynamics work that helps us
understand these processes also attempts to predict other phenomenon which we often take for granted such as
our planets complex weather systems.
Using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software, ICEM CFD and ANSYS CFX (ANSYS CFX, Release 15.0), I have
meshed various sized horizontal pipes. Starting with basic laminar flow I have compared the well understood theory
with CFD simulation. Further into my investigation I have constructed a number of coarse and fine meshes to help
me understand the properties of a “good” mesh.
Upon deciding on two suitable meshes I have simulated turbulent flow with three main scenarios:
• Smooth Wall Flow

• Transitional Rough Flow
• Fully Turbulent Rough Flow
As the theory of turbulent flow is not completely understood I have been using various approximations and empirical
data from a variety of sources to obtain my calculations. I have used four turbulent simulation modelling techniques
to demonstrate turbulent flow. During my turbulent simulations I have continued to refine my mesh until I found
two that worked well.
Following my simulations I have compared the velocity profiles and pressure variations to my theoretical results, I
have identified problems that have occurred, anomalies discovered and evaluated the data I have produced.

1. Laminar Flow
Laminar flow (also known as streamline flow) occurs at low Reynolds numbers (approximately lower than 2040). This
is due to the dominant viscous forces and is characterised by a smooth, constant fluid motion. Laminar flow in a pipe
can be considered as the relative motion of concentric cylinders of fluid fixed at the pipe wall (Velocity = 0) and the
other cylinders moving at increasing speed toward the centre of the pipe (Velocity = 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 ).
T o simply demonstrate a common example of laminar flow I’ve used some golden syrup flowing off of a teaspoon.
Figure 1 - Golden Syrup Flowing From a Teaspoon
My first investigations were based on a laminar flow in a smooth and straight pipe.
1.1.Initial Work
To begin my investigation I started by researching Reynolds number, as this dictates the type of flow.
Reynolds Number (𝑅𝑒), (introduced by George Gabriel Stokes in 1851) was popularized by Osborne Reynolds in
1883. It is the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and can be used to characterise different flow regimes
such as Laminar, Transitional and Turbulent flow.
Figure 2 - Osborne Reynolds (1842 –1912)

(Robodoc, 2004)
For this first run I chose to use a uniform velocity profile, in order to create an appropriate CFD model I required
to understand the entrance length. This describes the theoretical length at which the flow will become fully
developed and is used after fluid has entered a pipe or as it passes through components that disrupt the flow
such as bends, pumps or turbines.
To begin, an entrance length number must be determined, for laminar flow this can be expressed as:
𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 = 0.06𝑅𝑒
For my first run I chose to use a Reynolds number of 1000 as this is well within the specification for laminar
flow. This results in an Entrance Length Number of 60.
Entrance Length (𝑙𝑒 ) can be determined using the following equation:
𝑙𝑒 = 𝐸𝑙 ∙ 𝑑
I chose a diameter of 15mm which was based on a standard radiator pipe (DIYData.com, 2000). This gave me an
Entrance Length of 0.9m. As this distance was the point at which the flow had fully developed I have increased
this by 25% to allow the CFD model to show the flow once it had developed, therefore my overall length was
1.125m.
I began by creating a mesh using ICEM CFD, this mesh consisted of a central square section with 10 divisions
along the vertical and horizontal edges. Due to the importance of calculations at the pipe wall needing more
accuracy I split the edge from the central square to pipe wall into 20 divisions with ratio settings as follows:
• Spacing 1 = 1x10-5 • Ratio 2 = 2

• Ratio 1 = 1.25 • Max Space = 0.05
• Spacing 2 = 1
I then extruded the mesh so that it had 300 layers at 0.00375m spacing; this created the 1.125m length pipe
needed and resulted in 235984 calculation nodes on the mesh. For this first run these settings and divisions
were chosen as an educated guess based on the mesh creation tutorials given at the start of the course (Fisher,
2013).
Inlet velocity was calculated using the equation for Reynolds Number, rearranged for velocity:
𝜌𝑉𝐷 𝑅𝑒𝜇
𝑅𝑒 = → 𝑉=
𝜇 𝜌𝐷
Where 𝜇 = Dynamic Viscosity, 𝜌 = Fluid Density and D = Pipe Diameter.
I used water as my fluid and based on the materials properties used in ANSYS CFD the inlet velocity for this run
will be 0.05951 m/s.
Figure 3 - Initial Run Mesh, Looking End on – Created using ICEM CFD
0.015m Diameter Pipe, 10 Central Divisions, 20 Radial Divisions
The simulation was defined in CFX-Pre with the following parameters, all other parameters remained default.
MATERIAL: Water TURBULENCE MODEL: REFERENCE PRESSURE:

Density = 997.0 [kg m^-3] Option = Laminar Reference Pressure = 1 [atm]
Molar Mass = 18.02 [kg kmol^-1]
Dynamic Viscosity = 8.899E-4 [kg m^-1 s^-1]
BOUNDARY: Default Domain Default BOUNDARY: Outlet BOUNDARY: Inlet

Boundary Type = WALL Boundary Type = OUTLET Boundary Type = INLET
Location = Wall Location = Outlet Location = Inlet
Option = No Slip Wall Option = Subsonic Option = Subsonic
Option = Average Static Pressure Normal Speed = 0.089 [m s^-1]
Relative Pressure = 0 [Pa] Option = Normal Speed
Table 1 - CFX-Pre Parameters for First Run
The solver ran for 22 iterations until the residual target of 1 × 10−4 was reached. This took 4 minutes and 47
seconds. The results were then loaded into CFX-Post for analysis.
Figure 4 - Developing Flow Velocity

Created using ANSYS CFX-Post
Figure 4 shows a geometrical plane that has been produced along the ZX plane and set to show velocity.
As expected on the left hand side of the pipe (inlet), the flow is at a uniform value across the pipe diameter as I
set previously. For this uniform inlet flow, the velocity is actually the mean flow velocity or half the max velocity
once fully developed.
Towards the outlet the flow starts to slow down at the walls and speed up in the centre until eventually the flow
is fully developed and is represented in the form of a parabolic profile.
To investigate further I have created two charts (Figure 5 & Figure 7) to show how the velocity profile and
pressure changes axially along the pipe.
For the velocity in Figure 5 each data series is taken in 1/10th intervals along the pipe; as shown the profiles
slowly develop into a parabola. From 0.9m onwards (represented by the red, blue and green dotted lines) the
flow has fully developed and as expected the velocity profile undergoes negligible change.

Figure 6 shows a comparison between the simulation and the theoretical results. The two profiles are quite
similar from the wall until around 0.00375m. The error between the results reaches a maximum at the centre of
the pipe of 5.5%.
Figure 5 - Initial Run - Developing Velocity Profile
Figure 6 - Simulated and Theoretical Fully Developed Laminar Flow Velocity Profiles with Uniform Inlet Velocity
In Figure 7 pressure is measured along the centreline. (Note that due to how the mesh was extruded in ICEM
CFD and how the boundaries were set in CFX-Pre, 0.0m is the outlet of the pipe). The development of the flow in
the simulation results is shown by the decreasing gradient of pressure change most easily seen at the beginning
of the pipe; theoretically the pressure drop is shown to be linear. The simulation results eventually settle to a
linear decline after 0.90m (0.225m on the graph) when the flow has fully developed.

Figure 7 - Initial Run – Theoretical and Simulated Axial Pressure Variation Comparison
1.2.Parabolic Input Velocity Distribution

One improvement to my Initial Run would be to program the inlet velocity to be the same as the fully developed
laminar flow.
Fortunately, in the late 1830’s two men, Gotthilf Heinrich Ludwig Hagen from Königsberg, East Prussia (modern
day Russia) and Jean Léonard Marie Poiseuille from Paris, France derived an equation which allows the pressure
drop in a fluid flowing through a pipe to be calculated. The equation can also be arranged to give a full solution
for the parabolic laminar flow profile.
Figure 8 - Left to Right: Gotthilf Hagen (1797 - 1884) & Jean Poisuille (1797 - 1869)
(Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung, 1899 & Artem Korzhimanov, 2010)

1.2.1. Derivation of Hagen-Poiseuille Flow from Navier Stokes Equations

(White, F. M. (2003))
Before the Hagen-Poiseuille Equation can be derived several assumptions need to be made:
• No Swirl (𝑉𝑟 = 0) or Radial components (𝑉𝜃 = 0).

𝑑…
• Flow is axisymetric =0
𝑑𝜃
𝑑𝑤
• Flow is fully developed =0
𝑑𝑧
𝑑…
• Flow is steady =0
𝑑𝑡
The Navier Stokes equations reduce as follows:
r direction:
𝛿𝑉𝑟 𝛿𝑉𝑟 𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑉𝑟 𝛿𝑉𝑟 𝑉𝜃2 𝛿𝑝 𝛿 1𝛿 1 𝛿 2 𝑉𝑟 𝛿 2 𝑉𝑟 2 𝛿𝑉𝜃

𝜌( + 𝑉𝑟 + +𝑤 − ) = − + 𝜌𝑔𝑟 + 𝜇 { [ (𝑟𝑉𝑟 )] + 2 + 2 − 2 }
𝛿𝑡 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝜃 𝛿𝑧 𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝜃 2 𝛿𝑧 𝑟 𝛿𝜃
Simplifies to:
𝛿𝑝
=0
𝛿𝑟
𝜃 direction:
𝛿𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑉𝜃 𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑉𝜃 𝑉𝑟 𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑉𝜃 1 𝛿𝑝 𝛿 1𝛿 1 𝛿 2 𝑉𝜃 𝛿 2 𝑉𝜃 2 𝛿𝑉𝑟

𝜌( + 𝑉𝑟 + + 𝑤 )= + 𝜌𝑔𝜃 + 𝜇 { [ (𝑟𝑉𝜃 )] + 2 + − }
𝛿𝑡 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝜃 𝑟 𝛿𝑧 𝑟 𝛿𝜃 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝜃 2 𝛿𝑧 2 𝑟 2 𝛿𝜃
All terms here equate to zero.
z direction:
𝛿𝑤 𝛿𝑤 𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑤 𝛿𝑤 𝛿𝑝 1 𝛿 𝛿𝑤 1 𝛿 2𝑤 𝛿 2𝑤
𝜌( + 𝑉𝑟 + +𝑤 ) = − + 𝜌𝑔𝑧 + 𝜇 [ (𝑟 ) + 2 2 + 2 ]
𝛿𝑡 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝜃 𝛿𝑧 𝛿𝑧 𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝜃 𝛿𝑧
Simplifies to:
𝛿𝑝 1𝛿 𝛿𝑤 1𝛿 𝛿𝑤 1 𝛿𝑝
0=− +𝜇[ (𝑟 )] → (𝑟 ) =
𝛿𝑧 𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝛿𝑟 𝜇 𝛿𝑧
Solving the equation for velocity in the z direction gives:
1 𝑑𝑝 2
𝑤𝑧 = 𝑟 + 𝐶1 ln 𝑟 + 𝐶2
4𝜇 𝑑𝑧
In order for 𝑤𝑧 to be a finite number (𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 ), when 𝑟 = 0, to avoid the ln term 𝐶1 needs to equal 0.
Also for a no slip boundary condition at the pipe wall this means that: 𝑤𝑧 = 0 when 𝑟 = 𝑅
Therefore:
1 𝑑𝑝 2
𝐶2 = 𝑅
4𝜇 𝑑𝑧
Thus the parabolic velocity profile which I will be using for my subsequent laminar flow simulations can be
expressed as:
1 𝑑𝑝 2
𝑤𝑧 = − (𝑅 − 𝑟 2 )
4𝜇 𝑑𝑧
Max Velocity can be found by applying the appropriate boundary conditions (r=0).
𝑅2 𝑑𝑝
𝑤𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (− )
4𝜇 𝑑𝑧
As shown previously:
𝑤𝑧𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.5𝑤𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥
And assuming a linear pressure drop it can be said that:
𝑑𝑝 Δ𝑝
− =
𝑑𝑧 𝐿
Substituting 𝑤𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 into 𝑤𝑧𝑎𝑣𝑔 and knowing that = 2𝑅 :
𝑅 2 Δp 𝑅 2 Δ𝑝 𝐷 2 Δ𝑝
𝑤𝑧𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.5 ( )= =
4𝜇 𝐿 8𝜇 𝐿 32𝜇 𝐿
Rearranging this for Δ𝑝 gives the Hagen Poiseuille equation (also shown are 2 other common
representations that use volume flow rate rather than average velocity):
32𝜇𝐿𝑤𝑧𝑎𝑣𝑔 8𝜇𝐿𝑄 128𝜇𝐿𝑄

Δ𝑝 = = =
𝐷2 𝜋𝑅 4 𝜋𝐷 4
1.3.Parabolic Inlet Velocity Simulation & Laminar Mesh Study

The next stage in my investigation was to simulate laminar flow using the Hagen-Poiseuille flow equation
described above. During these runs I took the opportunity to look at various mesh sizes and their effects on the
accuracy of my results.
To begin with I did some initial research into what makes a good mesh (Baker, 2002). I found the following
points to be the most important aspects to creating a mesh:
• The density of the mesh should be high enough to capture all relevant flow features.
• Mesh adjacent to the wall should be fine enough to resolve the boundary layer flow.
• A uniform mesh will not allow detailed computation at the pipe wall where it is most needed.
• More cells/nodes will give higher accuracy but will increase CPU time.
• Avoid high aspect ratios.
• Errors occur when the mesh:
o Is too coarse
o Has high skewness.
o Has large jumps in volume between adjacent cells.
o Inappropriate boundary layer mesh.
Following this I began the first series of my mesh investigations.

I have used a non-uniform grid which is bunched to give a finer mesh at the pipe wall. I have used the following
bunching settings to start with:
• Mesh Law: BiGeometric • Spacing 2: 0
• Spacing 1: 1.00E-06 • Ratio 2: 2
• Ratio 1: 1.2 • Max Space: 0
During set up in CFX-Pre I have simplified the Parabolic Input Velocity Profile equation further by removing the
differential pressure term as follows, start with:
1 𝑑𝑝 2
𝑤𝑧 = − (𝑅 − 𝑟 2 )
4𝜇 𝑑𝑧
Apply the boundary condition 𝑟 = 0 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑧 = 𝑤𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 which gives:
1 𝑑𝑝 2 1 𝑑𝑝 𝑤𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑤𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑅 → =
4𝜇 𝑑𝑧 4𝜇 𝑑𝑧 𝑅2
This expression can now be substituted back into the original to give:
𝑤𝑧 2 2)
𝑟2
𝑤𝑧 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑟 − 𝑅 = 𝑤 𝑧 (1 − )
𝑅2 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑅2
The majority of simulations were run on an Intel Core i7 - 3770 CPU with 16GB RAM unless stated with 100 max
iterations and 10^-4 convergence criteria.
The simulations were based on a mesh with 10 to 50 divisions and 100, 200 and 300 layers on a 1.2m pipe.
Readings for the centreline (max) velocity were taken past the point of developing flow at 0.9m, 1.0m, 1.1m and
1.2m and then averaged and compared to the theoretical max velocity to get an error percentage, I chose to
compare max velocity as this is where the maximum error occurred on my initial run.
I’ve also recorded the pressure at the start of the pipe and compared this with the theoretical value expected.
Aspect Ratio
(Central mesh)
Iterations
Divisions
Layers
Total Velocity Pressure

Runtime Notes
Nodes Error Error
10 24 42824 100 00:01:25 Outlet Errors 100.00% 100.00%

20 48 186244 24 00:01:36 Good Run -0.26% 0.78%
100
30 72 430664 21 00:03:04 Good Run -0.65% 0.48%

40 96 776084 19 00:04:56 Good Run -2.38% 0.84%
50 120 1222504 18 00:11:50 Good Run (Ran on I3 Processor/ 4gb RAM) -3.94% 1.44%
10 12 85224 45 Error On Run
20 24 370664 100 00:11:54 Outlet Errors 97.57% 99.99%
200
30 36 857064 16 00:04:50 Good Run -2.55% 1.26%

40 48 1544484 15 00:12:30 Good Run -5.38% 2.19%
50 60 2432904 11 00:11:41 Good Run - Strange Velocity Curve/Pressure -92.48% -98.07%
10 8 127624 100 00:04:06 Outlet Errors 96.18% 100.68%
20 16 555044 32 00:05:45 Outlet Errors - User Stopped Early 76.36% 100.00%
300
30 24 1283464 11 00:04:54 Outlet Errors 98.81% 85.69%

40 14 Good Run - Error at End of Run When
32 2312884 00:13:19 accessing file -6.37% 2.66%
50 40 3643304 No Run
Table 2 - Results of Laminar Mesh Study (Series 1)

My observation of this series of results is that they converge with minimal iterations and subsequently
computation time is reduced. Accuracy appears to be higher during the runs with 100 layers, as layer count
increased I experienced errors with the smaller division runs, leading to large error (76.336% to 98.81%).
In conclusion the 100 layer mesh with 20 or 30 divisions seem to yield the best results with a satisfactory
runtime.
Next I began another series of runs with the following bunching settings; this produced an even finer mesh
towards the pipe wall:
• Mesh Law: BiGeometric • Spacing 2: 0

• Spacing 1: 1.00E-08 • Ratio 2: 2
• Ratio 1: 1.2 • Max Space: 0
These simulations were run with the same divisions and layers, on the same computer.
Aspect Ratio
(Central mesh)
Iterations
Divisions
Layers
Total Velocity Pressure

Runtime Notes
Nodes Error Error
10 24 42824 100 00:01:31 Outlet Errors 99.97% 100.00%

20 48 186244 100 00:05:46 Good Run 0.13% 1.43%
100
30 72 430664 100 00:12:55 Good Run 0.09% 0.77%

40 96 776084 100 00:20:13 Good Run -0.01% 0.59%
50 120 1222504 100 00:54:26 Good Run (Ran on I3 Processor/ 4gb RAM) -0.17% 0.57%
10 12 85224 100 00:02:50 Outlet Errors 99.79% 100.00%
20 24 370664 100 00:11:09 Good Run - Pressure Wavey 0.20% 2.01%
200
30 36 857064 100 00:26:22 Good Run 0.09% 0.78%

40 48 1544484 24 00:12:32 Good Run 0.03% 1.04%
50 60 2432904 No Run
10 8 127624 56 00:02:20 Outlet Errors 100.00% 100.00%
20 16 555044 54 00:09:22 Outlet Errors 100.00% 100.00%
300
30 24 1283464 100 00:26:42 Good Run 0.09% 0.77%

40 32 2312884 No Run
50 40 3643304 No Run
Table 3 - Results of Laminar Mesh Study (Series 2)
From this series I obtained some very accurate results with error percentages failing to exceed 0.2% error.
Similarly to the first series of runs, larger errors started occurring during the high layer/low division runs.
The problems with this series of runs was that most of the simulations didn’t converge to 10^-4 and therefore
reached the maximum iteration count before stopping.
Going forward to my turbulent runs I have decided to use the following meshes:
• Series 1 (1E-006 Bunching Spacing) – 20 Divisions with 100 layers.

I chose this mesh due to the low runtime of 1 minute 36 seconds and the lowest velocity error of 0.26%
and pressure error of 0.78%.

• Series 2 (1E-008 Bunching Spacing) – 40 Divisions with 200 Layers.

Although the majority of these meshes didn’t converge the ones that eventually finished did produce
respectable error values. The best run gave a 0.01% error, however I have chosen to go with the second
best as this run converges after 24 iterations and also produced an error of 0.03%. Choosing this mesh
also meant that I would be able to investigate the effect of bunching spacing on a turbulent simulation.
For the full set of data see Appendix 1.
1.4.Methods for Increasing Efficiency when Simulating Laminar Flow

From my research on CFD simulation for laminar flow I have realised that it would be possible to increase the
efficiency when running laminar simulations.
• A 2D planar mesh would give the same results as the flow does not change radially.
• As the flow is parabolic and axisymetric, the results are essentially mirrored so you could simplify
further by halving the 2D plane.
These methods would greatly reduce the number of nodes in the mesh and decrease computational time
significantly allowing a finer mesh.

2. Turbulent Flow
2.1.Introduction to Turbulent Flow
Unlike Laminar flow where the kinetic energy dies out due to the action of fluid viscosity, Turbulent flow
exhibits chaotic property changes which include low and high momentum diffusion along with quick variations
of pressure and velocity. Unsteady vortices appear within the flow and can last various lengths of time before
they disperse. Typically (but not always) turbulence occurs in flows with Reynolds numbers greater than 4000.
I have demonstrated in Figure 9 a type of turbulence that you may experience every day, a mug of black coffee
with milk being poured into it. When the milk hits the coffee vortices appear as the water is swirling turbulently
in the cup, the initial vortices disperse giving rise to others as the milk mixes in the cup.
Figure 9 - Everyday Example of Turbulent Flow
Turbulence is also a very active field and is currently described by some scientists as one of the most important
unsolved problems in physics. During my research into turbulent flow I discovered that the 6th Clay Mathematics
Institute Millennium Prize Problem is that of Navier Stokes Existence and Smoothness, understanding this could
be a first step in understanding Turbulence. Recently on the 10th January 2014 the problem was claimed to have
been solved by Kazakh mathematician Mukhtarbay Otelbaev and his paper is currently under review.
(BNews.kz, 2014)
At this moment in time however, turbulence cannot be solved as easy as laminar flow and the use of empirical
data is a requirement.

2.2.Calculation of Turbulent Flow

In previous efforts to understand turbulent flow, 3 layers have been identified:
• Wall Layer – Where viscous laminar shear is dominant.

• Outer/Mainstream Layer – Where turbulent shear is dominant.
• Overlap Layer – Where both viscous and turbulent shear are important.
Figure 10 - Typical Velocity and Shear Distributions in Turbulent Flow near a Wall: (a) Shear; (b) Velocity.
(White F. M. 2003)
To elaborate further on the layers of turbulent flow, in 1930 the German born scientist Ludwig Prandtl (1875 –
1953) deduced that velocity (𝑢) at the wall must be independent of shear layer thickness.
Using dimensional analysis this can be shown by the law of the wall equation:
𝑢 𝑦𝑢∗ 𝜏𝑤
𝑢+ = = 𝐹 ( ) 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑢∗ = √
𝑢∗ 𝜐 𝜌
A few years later in 1933, Theodore Von Kármán (1881 – 1963) also determined that velocity in the outer layer
was not influenced by the molecular viscosity, although its deviation from the stream velocity 𝑈 needs to
depend on the boundary layer thickness and the other properties.
Using dimensional analysis this can again be simplified to the Velocity-defect law for the outer layer:
𝑈−𝑢 𝑦
= 𝐺 ( )
𝑢∗ 𝛿
The two laws described above are accurate for a variety flows however they must overlap smoothly in the
intermediate layer and in 1937 Clark Blanchard Millikan (1903 – 1966) shows that this is true by using the
logarithmic-overlap layer equation:
𝑢 1 𝑦𝑢∗
= ln +𝐵
𝑢∗ 𝑘 𝜈
The values for k and B change very slightly depending on what literature one reads but the majority seem to take
k = 0.41 and B = 5.0 which is what I will be using in my investigations. (White, F. M. 2003)
I will be using the logarithmic-overlap equation as the inlet velocity profile for my smooth pipe turbulent runs as
this is a good representation of the developed flow I will be comparing.

Figure 11 - Left to Right: Ludwig Prandtl, Theodore Von Kármán & Clark Blanchard Millikan
(Stahlkocher, 1883 & SAB,2012 & Sechler, 1969)
However before I can use the logarithmic overlap equation in my CFD model I need to compute U* which
involves a few steps, starting back at the friction factor and pressure drop.
There are several methods for obtaining the friction factor; one is by simply looking at the Moody chart which is
accurate to ±15%, for my problem this gives a value of 0.0355. The others involve formulae such as the
generally accepted form for a smooth pipe which I have solved for f using numerical software (Wolfram Alpha,
2009):
1 (log(2) + log(5))2
= 2 log(𝑅𝑒𝑑 𝑓 0.5 ) − 0.8 → 𝑓 = 2 ≈ 0.0355106
𝑓 0.5 3 3
4𝑊 (300 (10 ⁄5 log(2) + 10 ⁄5 log(5)))
Where W is the Lambert W function or Product Logarithm.

Paul Richard Heinrich Blasius (1883 – 1970), a student of Prandtl also formulated a much simpler equation for
friction factor which is effective between Reynolds numbers of 4000 to 100000:
𝑓 = 0.316𝑅𝑒𝑑−0.25 = 0.0359
There is little error between the methods shown and I’ve chosen to take 0.0355 as my friction factor.
The next parameter needed is the pressure drop and I tried two equations to get this, the first is the Poiseuille
version used previously in laminar flow and the alternative form is from Blasius. The results are very similar and
I have used the Blasius value in my calculations:
𝑓𝐿
Δ𝑝 = 0.5𝜌𝑉 2 = 45.11652 𝑃𝑎
𝐷
Δ𝑝 ≈ 0.241𝐿𝜌0.75 𝜇 0.25 𝑑 −4.75 (0.25𝜋𝑑 2 𝑉) = 45.60619 𝑃𝑎
Where V is the average velocity.
Next up is the Shear stress at the wall which is calculated as follows:
𝐷Δ𝑝
𝜏𝑤 = = 0.57008 𝑃𝑎
4𝐿
And finally, U* can be obtained:
𝜏𝑤
𝑈∗ = √ = 0.02391 𝑚/𝑠
𝜌

2.3.Computation Methods
Throughout the turbulence modelling I have been using 4 different turbulence modelling options.
From my research (Karthik, T. S. D., 2011) it seems that each option is best suited to particular flows or scenarios
such as an aircraft wing, flow down a pipe or flow along a flat plate etc...
Whilst setting up the simulation I came across a problem, the log term in the logarithmic overlap equation would
get to a point where it would be trying to evaluate terms ≤ 0. This returned an error as you would expect.
In order to make this work I have changed R from 0.0075 to 0.0075000001 so that it does not try and evaluate at
0 and I have also added in the √𝑅𝑎𝑑12 term to the expression below to ensure that as the calculation is
performed beyond the centre of the pipe the expression the log term is trying to evaluate will stay positive.
Therefore the inlet velocity expression for smooth pipe flow is as follows:
Ux*((1/0.41)*ln(((0.0075000001[m]-(sqrt(Rad1^2)))*Ux)/(8.926*10^-7)[m^2 s^-1])+5)
2.3.1. K-Epsilon
The k-Epsilon model is a “Two Equation” model as solves for variables: k; the turbulent kinetic energy
and 𝜀; the rate of dissipation of kinetic energy. Advantages of this model are that is it relatively simple to
implement, the calculations are stable and converge rate is good with relatively low memory requirements
making it attractive for industrial applications. The disadvantages are that it is not suited for swirling or
rotating flows, adverse pressure gradients or jet flow.
2.3.2. Shear Stress Transport (SST)

SST is an eddy-viscosity model and a combination of the k-omega model (not used in my comparisons) and
the k-epsilon model mentioned above. Advantages with SST are that it tends to be most accurate when
calculating the flow near to the wall which is very useful and can give very accurate results however the
convergence rate can often be high which leads to the k-epsilon model commonly being solved initially.
2.3.3. Baseline (BSL) and Speziale, Sarkar and Gatski (SSG) Reynolds Stress
BSL is an omega based model, this model is preferred over the standard omega Reynolds Stress model (not
used in this comparison).
SSG is an epsilon based model, theoretically this should be better than k-epsilon but this may not be the
case in practice due to deficiencies inherited from the underlying k-epsilon equations.
2.4.Smooth Pipe Flow

For my smooth flow turbulent runs I have used the 2 meshes chosen from my laminar mesh study these are
labelled Pipe 1 and Pipe 2 in Table 4.
During runs for the first 2 pipes I was experiencing some minor errors therefore I decided to experiment further
with lower aspect ratio meshes and took this opportunity to try out 1.00E-05 bunching spacing, this aids in the
repeatability of my experiments.
I calculated aspect ratio based on the cells at the centre of the pipe mesh therefore the aspect ratio at the wall
of the pipe is going to be much larger, however this value gives an adequate guide for comparison.
I derived the following equation to approximate aspect ratio:
𝐿
3𝛼 ×
𝛽
𝐴𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐷
Where 𝛼 = Number of Divisions, 𝛽 = Number of Layers, L = Length of Pipe & D = Pipe Diameter.
Mesh Settings Pipe 1 Pipe 2 Pipe 3 Pipe 4

Vertical Divisions 20 40 20 20
Horizontal Divisions 20 40 20 20
Radial Divisions 20 40 20 20
Spacing 1 1.00E-06 1.00E-08 1.00E-05 1.00E-06
Ratio 1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Layers 100 200 300 400
Spacing 0.003 0.0015 0.001 0.00075
Total Nodes 186244 1544484 555044 739444
Aspect Ratio (Central) 12 12 4 3
Table 4 - Mesh Settings for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow
The settings I have used for each run have been standard apart from the inlet velocity profile used, water as my
fluid and medium intensity as my turbulence option.
In my analysis the primary comparison is the velocity profiles produced by each type of run and the centreline
velocity. My secondary comparison is the axial pressure variation along the pipe.
Turbulence Model K-Epsilon Shear Stress Transport BSL Reynolds Stress SSG Reynolds Stress
Notes Good Run Changed Outlet to Changed Outlet to Good Run
"Opening" "Opening".
Unsatisfactory run. Unsatisfactory run.
Error @ Centreline 0.0435605 0.0323985 0.0533235 0.027124
Error @ Centreline -10.14% -7.05% -13.00% -5.65%
Run Time 00:01:44 00:09:40 00:13:45 00:03:54
Iterations 18 100 100 27
Efficiency 36.19% 4.83% 5.58% 10.02%
Table 5 - Pipe 1 - Turbulence - Smooth Pipe Flow
Velocity Profile Comparison for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow - Pipe 1

0.45
0.4
0.35
Velocity (m/s)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 -4E-18 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Pipe Radius (m)
Pipe 1 - K-Epsilon Velocity Theory Pipe 1 - Shear Stress Transport

Pipe 1 - BSL Reynolds Stress Pipe 1 - SSG Reynolds Stress
Figure 12 - Velocity Profile Comparison for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow - Pipe 1
Axial Pressure Variation for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow - Pipe 1

50
45
40
35
30
Pressure (Pa)
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Distance from Outlet (m)
Pipe 1 - K-Epsilon Pressure Theory Pipe 1 - SSG Reynolds Stress
Figure 13 - Axial Pressure Variation for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow – Pipe 1
Pipe 1 illustrates good shaped runs for both K-Epsilon and SSG Reynolds however the centreline velocities for
these runs are out by 10.14% and 5.56% respectively this is backed up by the low starting pressure shown in
Figure 13. Shear Stress Transport and BSL Reynolds Stress runs resulted in errors that have clearly had an
adverse effect on my results for velocity as they show as having a higher velocity bias to the positive radius side
(right) side of Figure 12. These runs also resulted in a relatively large starting pressure that was clearly incorrect.
Due to this large error I have removed the runs from Figure 13 to improve resolution on the runs that completed
more successfully, I feel this is justified based on the strange shaped velocity profiles shown in Figure 12.
Turbulence Model K-Epsilon Shear Stress Transport

Notes Stopped by Changed Outlet to "Opening". Bad Run did not
User. Bad Run converge. Paused and restarted various times
Error @ Centreline 0.039818 0.016036
Error @ Centreline -9.76% 3.99%
Run Time 00:24:45 00:21:45
Iterations 35 112
Efficiency 2.32% 1.06%


0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Velocity (m/s)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 -9E-18 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Pipe Radius (m)
Figure 15 - CFX Solver showing Convergence for Pipe 2 Smooth Turbulent Flow


50
40
Pressure (Pa)
30
20
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Pipe 2 - K-Epsilon Pressure Theory Pipe 2 - Shear Stress Transport
Figure 16 - Axial Pressure Variation for Smooth Pipe Turbulent Flow - Pipe 2
With Pipe 2 I ran into numerous errors with convergence and run time. Figure 15 shows the unusual way that
RMS P-Mass fails to converge and instead seems to rise and plateau at around 1e-02 until I manually ended the
run at 112 iterations. On a typical run I would expect to see RMS V-Mom (Blue) and RMS P-Mass (Red) to
converge fairly quickly whilst RMS W-Mom (Yellow) tends to lag behind and converge last. On both of these runs I
had similar errors with plateaued convergence or “opening errors”, which is when the CDF software recommends
changing the Outlet boundary condition to an Opening.
Nevertheless when post processing I found that the results were quite accurate (9.76% and 3.99% error) when
compared to theory. The starting pressures again correlate with the velocity error, K-Epsilon has a low starting
pressure and also exhibits a low centreline velocity compared to theory, and the velocity profile for K-Epsilon also
shows two spikes as the boundary layer velocity moves towards the outer layer. This looks like evidence of K-
Epsilons unreliability when calculating velocity at the wall, which is a characteristic mentioned in various
references to this computation method. (Karthik T. S. D., 2011)
Shear Stress Transport starts high, matching the over-predicted centreline velocity. An interesting observation for
this run is that after around 0.03m along the pipe the axial pressure variation is very accurate when compared to
the theory.
Due to the high run-times and lack of convergence on the first two runs I decided at this point to re-evaluate my
meshes, this is when I focused on the aspect ratio and a change of bunching when creating the following two
meshes, Pipe 3 and 4.
Notes Good Run Good Run Good Run Good Run
Error @ Centreline -12.64% 5.18% 5.34% -10.07%
Run Time 00:03:44 00:12:00 00:18:34 00:08:18
Efficiency 19.21% 2.60% 1.74% 7.10%


0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Velocity (m/s)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 -9E-18 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Pipe Radius (m)


50
45
40
35
Pressure (Pa)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Pipe 3 - Shear Stress Transport Pipe 3 - BSL Reynolds Stress
The Pipe 3 mesh has an aspect ratio of 4 with 10e-05 bunching; overall the simulations were a success with no
errors on either computation method, errors from theory ranged from 5.34% to 12.64% which I feel is an
acceptable margin. Starting axial pressure once again seems to coincide with the over and under-predicted
centreline velocities. When comparing the accuracy with run-time the K-Epsilon came out as the best at 19.21%
compared to the second best SSG Reynolds Stress at 7.10%, however k-epsilon also gave an acceptable but large
error of 12.64%. The most accurate result was given by the Shear Stress Transport at 5.18%, but this was

hindered by a run-time of 12 minutes, giving an overall efficiency of 2.6%. K-Epsilon and SSG Reynolds stress
exhibits a velocity profile shape which I would have expected with steep gradients towards the wall and a near
flat middle, Shear Stress Transport and BSL Reynolds Stress both have smooth curved velocity profiles.
Run Time 00:04:28 00:16:14 00:11:48 00:11:50
Efficiency 18.68% 1.97% 3.90% 5.02%

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Velocity (m/s)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 -1.1E-17 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Pipe Radius (m)

Pipe 4 had an extended number of layers (400) compared to previous runs. This resulted in the lowest aspect
ratio of all my meshes. I also decreased the bunching spacing back down to 10e-06. Despite the finer mesh and
lower aspect ratio, surprisingly the results were slightly less accurate and efficient than Pipe 3.
Again, pressure and centreline velocities correlate with each other. K-Epsilon and SSG Reynolds Stress produced
very similar results to Pipe 3; this is good evidence of repeatability and improves my confidence in these results.
Shear Stress Transport exhibits the curved smooth velocity profile as in Pipe 3 but BSL Reynolds Stress shows a
flat middle and steep gradients towards the wall as I have come to expect.


50
45
40
35
Pressure (Pa)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

2.5.Transitional Region Rough Pipe Flow

Until the year 1800 and the experiments performed by French physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736 –
1806), it was unknown that surface roughness had an effect on friction resistance. For laminar flow the effect is
negligible, however turbulent flow is strongly affected by roughness. (White F. M., 2003)
The transition region is in-between laminar and turbulence (with a Reynolds Number from 2300 to 4000),
laminar flow seems to occur toward the pipe wall and turbulent flow in the centre, during the transition region
Reynolds Number still has a moderate effect on the friction factor, however the friction factor can be subject to
large uncertainties in this flow type. For this set of runs I have lowered the Reynolds number to 2500 to ensure
a transitional flow, this has had a small effect on fully developed length and velocity.
As I based my pipe diameter on a radiator pipe it seemed a suitable choice to use copper or brass as the
material and hence an absolute roughness value of 𝑒 = 0.0015 𝑚𝑚. However, I’ve realised when I come to do
subsequent runs in the fully turbulent region the corresponding relative pipe roughness line on the moody
diagram points to an area near to the far right of the graph and only just above the complete turbulence line,
this also required a Reynolds number in the magnitude of 108 . Therefore I have decided to compromise and use
a rougher pipe based on the value for commercial steel, 𝑒 = 0.046 mm. (White, F. M., 2003)
In order to calculate the friction factor I used the Haaland equation which is an approximation of the Colebrook
Equation. (Darcy Friction Factor, 2014)
1.11 −1 2
𝜀 ⁄𝐷 6.9
𝑓 ≈ ((−1.8 log10 [( ) + ]) ) = 0.04296
3.7 𝑅𝑒

For pressure drop I have used the Blasius equation as before:
Δ𝑝 ≈ 0.241𝐿𝜌0.75 𝜇 0.25 𝑑 −4.75 (0.25𝜋𝑑 2 𝑉) = 9.85494 𝑃𝑎

Now following the same steps as with the smooth pipe, I calculated Shear Stress at the wall and subsequently
U*.
𝐷Δ𝑝
𝜏𝑤 = = 0.12319 𝑃𝑎
4𝐿
𝜏𝑤
𝑈∗ = √ = 0.0111156 𝑚/𝑠
𝜌
For rough flow, the velocity equation changes slightly with the addition of a value called ΔB. This value
essentially shifts the logarithmic overlap curve to reflect the rough pipe flow and is calculated as follows:
1 𝜀𝑢∗
Δ𝐵 = ln ( ) = −1.36
𝑘 𝜐
Mesh settings for both Transient and Fully Turbulent flow are shown in Table 9.
Mesh Settings Pipe 1 Pipe 2

Vertical Divisions 20 20
Horizontal Divisions 20 20
Radial Divisions 20 20
Spacing 1 1.00E-05 1.00E-06
Ratio 1 1.2 1.2
Layers 300 400
Spacing 0.001 0.00075
Total Nodes 555044 739444
Aspect Ratio (Central) 4 3
Table 9 - Mesh Setting for Transient and Fully Turbulent Rough Flow
Similar to smooth flow, the settings I have used for each run have been standard apart from the inlet velocity
profile used (which now includes the ΔB term), water as my fluid and medium intensity as my turbulence
option. I have also set the wall boundary layer to “Rough Wall” setting with a 0.046mm sand grain roughness to
represent the commercial steel pipe being used.
As before my primary comparison is the velocity profiles produced by each type of run and the centreline
Run Time 00:02:25 00:11:12 00:07:54 00:05:08
Efficiency 17.69% 3.50% 5.75% 8.08%
Table 10 - Transient Rough Flow - Pipe 1

Velocity Profile Comparison for Transitional Rough Flow

0.25
0.2
Velocity (m/s)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 -1.2E-17 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Pipe Radius (m)

Figure 21 - Velocity Profile Comparison for Transitional Rough Flow - Pipe 1
Axial Pressure Variation for Transitional Rough Flow

16
14
12
Pressure (Pa)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Figure 22 - Axial Pressure Variation for Transitional Rough Flow - Pipe 1
For transient rough flow on Pipe 1 my initial observation was the increased error in my results compared to
smooth flow, although not completely off the chart, Pipe 1 errors ranged from 12.33% to 18.14%, it is evident
that CFD is less reliable in the transition region than it is for a smooth pipe which is likely to do with the friction
factor used.
K-Epsilon has again resulted in a very efficient run compared to the other results but also the largest error
(18.14%). Likewise, Shear Stress Transport has the smallest error but takes the longest time to converge.
When looking at the pressure variation along the pipe all results start with relatively large errors but BSL
Reynolds Stress eventually takes the closest profile to the theoretical values.
Unlike the results from smooth pipe flow, the pressure does not correlate with the under and over-prediction
for centreline velocity. For example, the Shear Stress Transport shows the highest starting pressure, yet it does
not have the highest centreline velocity.
Another observation in these results is on the K-Epsilon velocity profile towards the pipe wall, as the velocity
increases sharply the profile looks like it overshoots very slightly before going into the shallower gradient
towards the centre; this could be evidence of an anomaly or inaccuracy in the calculations.
RunTime 00:02:52 00:14:25 00:09:42 00:06:59
Efficiency 16.39% 2.52% 4.59% 6.27%
Table 11 - Transient Rough Flow - Pipe 2
Velocity Profile Comparison for Transitional Rough Flow

0.25
0.2
Velocity (m/s)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 -1.4E-17 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Pipe Radius (m)

Figure 23 - Velocity Profile Comparison for Transitional Rough Flow - Pipe 2

Axial Pressure Variation for Transitional Rough Flow

16
14
12
Pressure (Pa)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Figure 24 - Axial Pressure Variation for Transitional Rough Flow - Pipe 2
Pipe 2 confirms that CFD for transient flow is less accurate than for smooth flow with errors ranging from
11.53% to 20.3%. Efficiency was less than Pipe 1 which is further evidence that a finer mesh toward the pipe
wall and a lower aspect ratio may not always be the key to a more successful simulation.
The K-Epsilon and SSG Reynolds Stress produce a slightly larger pressure error on Pipe 2 whereas Shear Stress
Transport and BSL Reynolds Stress are approximately identical.
The velocity profiles look very similar to Pipe 1 with BSL Reynolds Stress producing the expected shape profile
despite having a high error centreline velocity. K-Epsilon also shows slightly larger overshoots as described in
Pipe 1 at the velocity changes from pipe wall to outer layer.
2.6.Fully Turbulent Rough Pipe Flow

For fully turbulent flow, the Reynolds number has a negligible effect on the friction factor as the sub-layer is
totally broken up by the roughness, however to be in the complete turbulence region on the moody diagram I
have changed my Reynolds number to 3000000, this results in a higher velocity flow and a longer pipe to ensure
I have a fully developed flow.
My length for fully developed flow is 0.792m and I have chosen to go with a 0.9m length pipe.
To calculate velocity the equation is similar to transitional turbulence whereby you subtract the ΔB term.
However the calculations for friction factor, ΔB and pressure drop are different.
There is a specific equation for friction factor for fully rough flow (White F. M, 2003), again I have used the
roughness of commercial steel, 0.046mm:
2
1
𝑓=( ) = 0.02632
𝜀/𝑑
−2 log ( 3.7 )

ΔB also changes when the flow is fully turbulent:
1 𝜀𝑢∗
ΔB = ln ( ) − 3.5 = 11.78942
𝑘 𝜐
For pressure drop Blasius equation no longer holds true as the Reynolds number is too high, therefore I have
returned to using the original equation for pressure drop.
𝑓𝐿
Δ𝑝 = 0.5𝜌𝑉 2 = 25094252.16 𝑃𝑎
𝐷
Going through the process again I obtain the following values for shear stress and friction velocity:
𝐷Δ𝑝 𝜏𝑤
𝜏𝑤 = = 104559.384 𝑃𝑎 𝑈∗ = √ = 10.2408 𝑚/𝑠
4𝐿 𝜌
Mesh settings for my CFD runs are the same as transient flow and can be seen in Table 9. Run settings are
identical to transient flow settings apart from the new variables shown above.
All of these runs were carried out on a slower computer that all other runs which has had a direct effect on the
run-time. (Intel i3 Processor with 4GB Ram in room 1N65).
As before my primary comparison is the velocity profiles produced by each type of run and the centreline
Notes Good Run Good Run Good Run (Fluctuating) Good Run
Error @ Centreline 1.31% 3.36% -0.98% 1.90%
Run Time 00:11:32 00:22:01 00:32:58 00:31:24
Efficiency 27022.60% 14457.19% 9239.17% 9985.87%
Table 12 - Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 1
For my first fully turbulent rough flow run I observed a large increase in accuracy throughout all turbulence
models (0.98% - 3.36%). These runs also took far longer to converge than the previous turbulent scenarios.
In a complete reversal of previous simulations Shear Stress Transport now gives the most inaccurate result
whereas k-Epsilon now gives a very accurate centreline velocity at the lowest run-time.

Velocity Profile Comparison for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow

250
200
Velocity (m/s)
150
100
50
0
-0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 -1E-17 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Pipe Radius (m)

Figure 25 - Velocity Profile Comparison for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 1

225
220
Velocity (m/s)
215
210
205
200
-0.0025 2E-18 0.0025
Pipe Radius (m)

Figure 26 – Close up of Centreline Velocity on Figure 25
Figure 26 shows a close up of the centreline velocity; from this figure the centreline velocity errors are more
easily identifiable. An additional observation I made during this run was with the BSL Reynolds Stress, as shown
in Figure 26 the velocity profile is fluctuating and continues to do this all the way until the steep gradient
towards the pipe wall, however BSL Reynolds Stress still retains the best steep to (approximately) flat velocity
profile shape and has the most accurate centreline velocity.
With the pressure, SSG Reynolds Stress and Shear stress Transport produce a lower starting pressure which
inversely correlates with a higher centreline velocity whereas BSL Reynolds Stress and K-Epsilon are very
accurate which is represented also via the velocity profile.

Axial Pressure Variation for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow

1.00E+07
8.00E+06
Pressure (Pa)
6.00E+06
4.00E+06
2.00E+06
0.00E+00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Figure 27 - Axial Pressure Variation for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 1
Notes Good Run Good Run Good Run (Fluctuating) Good Run
Error @ Centreline 1.99% 5.36% -1.84% 4.64%
Run Time 00:14:32 00:29:04 00:45:43 00:38:03
Efficiency 21594.55% 11182.43% 6605.99% 8478.02%
Table 13- Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 2

250
200
Velocity (m/s)
150
100
50
0
-0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 -1.2E-17 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Pipe Radius (m)

Figure 28- Velocity Profile Comparison for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 2

230
225
220
Velocity (m/s)
215
210
205
200
-0.0025 2E-18 0.0025
Pipe Radius (m)

Figure 29 - Close Up of Centreline Velocity on Figure 28
Axial Pressure Variation for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow

1.00E+07
8.00E+06
Pressure (Pa)
6.00E+06
4.00E+06
2.00E+06
0.00E+00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Figure 30 - Axial Pressure Variation for Fully Turbulent Rough Flow - Pipe 2
Pipe 2 has generated data with similar characteristics of previous runs, firstly the data is less accurate than pipe
1 (1.84% to 5.36%) despite higher bunching ratio and lower aspect ratio. As for SSG Reynolds Stress and Shear
Stress Transport these both give lower starting pressures resulting in higher centreline velocities, further
clarifying the results from Pipe 1.
K-Epsilon and BSL Reynolds Stress both give similar velocity errors; however K-Epsilon does this with far less
iterations. BSL Reynolds also exhibits the fluctuating behaviour of Pipe 1 which demonstrates that this wasn’t
due to computation anomalies and is more due to a characteristic of this turbulent model.

Increase in Velocity during this part of the flow
Figure 31 - Fully Turbulent Rough Flow (From Pipe 2 - K-Epsilon)
Figure 32 - Centreline Velocity along Pipe (Data from Pipe 2 - Shear Stress Transport)
In addition to my general observations of axial pressure and velocity profiles I have also noticed strange behaviour
with the velocity profile (for both meshes) along the length of the pipe in the z-direction during the fully turbulent
rough pipe runs. Figure 31 and Figure 32 illustrate what I was seeing. From 0.0m to approximately 0.4m along the
pipe the centreline velocity increases before slowing and gently rising again at which point my pipe mesh ends.

In an effort to understand this further I have analysed various characteristics of the flow, Figure 33 clearly shows
activity at 0.4m whereby there is a large increase in turbulent kinetic energy.
I have concluded that if Figure 32 was extrapolated the centreline velocity would once again rise by less than the first
peak and oscillate periodically tending to a steady velocity. One explanation for this could be that the flow has not
fully developed in the 0.9m length as calculated via the entrance length method. This then leads me to conclude that
the entrance length calculations are not suitable for fully turbulent rough flow or flow at high Reynolds numbers.
To test his hypothesis I could create a longer pipe with the same turbulent conditions, due to time constraints and
the scope of this assignment I have not done this.
Figure 33 - Centreline Velocity along Pipe (Data from Pipe 1 - Shear Stress Transport)
3. Alternative Methods
Throughout this investigation I have been amazed by the amount of different methods that can be used both in
theoretical calculations and computation methods, this truly shows how active and exciting this area of physics
currently is.
A sample of these methods are listed below:
Turbulent Velocity Profiles
• 1/7th Power Law

• Mixing Length Model
• Reynolds Stress
Computational Methods
• K-Epsilon Variants (Omega, EARSM)

• Zero Equation
• Eddy Viscosity Transport Equation
• Reynolds Stress Variants (Omega, QI, LRR)

4. Recommendations for Further Work

As shown in the previous section there are many methods and techniques that were not used during my
investigation therefore I have compiled a short list of further work that could be carried out further to this
investigation:
• Investigate a larger variety of turbulent modelling assumptions. (K-Omega etc..)

• Investigate different turbulent options, throughout this investigation I stuck with medium intensity for
all experiments and only varied the modelling assumptions (K-Epsilon, SST etc..)
• Investigate the effect of different sized and different material pipes.
• Use higher Reynolds numbers for smooth pipe flow.
• Apply some of the advanced turbulent options to the simulations based on theoretical calculations.
5. Conclusion
There are several conclusions than can be made from this investigation:
5.1.Laminar Flow
It is clear that laminar flow can be calculated with adequate precision through theoretical and computational
methods, this is proven by my investigations in Section 1 showing errors to the precision of 0.01%.
It is evident that some theoretical work needs to be done to achieve the best results via simulation. The
difference can be seen by simply setting the inlet velocity to a uniform value as per my first simulation and
subsequently applying the Hagen Poiseuille parabolic velocity profile.
5.2. Turbulent Flow

My investigations into turbulent flows have shown typical accuracy when dealing with 3 different turbulent
scenarios.
Smooth Flow generated reasonably accurate results compared to theory and also proved that a good mesh for
laminar flow may not necessarily be ideal for turbulent flow, leading to a need to re-iterate my mesh selection.
Transitional Flow generated less accurate results than smooth flow and this was probably due to the
uncertainty when calculating friction factors coupled with the additional variables relating to the rough pipe
surface.
For both Smooth and Transitional flow the K-Epsilon method seemed to be an efficient way to get a quick and
initial result. Once happy with the simulation settings and mesh, Shear Stress Transport should be used. This
turbulence model generally takes longer to converge but provides a more accurate representation of the flow.
For fully turbulent flow in a rough pipe BSL Reynolds Stress seems to result in the most accurate error at
centreline velocity (1.84%), however the profile shows small random fluctuations across the pipe which leads
me to think that this should not be completely trusted. K-Epsilon seems to work very well to this type of flow
giving a smooth and very accurate (1.99%) error at centreline velocity. Another benefit of the K-Epsilon method
is that it is very quick to converge and provides the most efficient way of getting an accurate result.
5.3.Final Remarks
Overall, throughout this investigation I have come to realise that whilst laminar flow is well understood,
turbulent flow is not and despite numerous methods of approximation and attempts of understanding based on
empirical data turbulence cannot always be successfully predicted.

This leads to me questioning the actual validity of the theoretical and the computational predictions.
The only way to truly understand and trust theoretical and or computational data is develop a scenario that is
adequate for the problem you are dealing with, once you have done this theoretical and/or computational
predictions can me made which must then be compared to physical experimentation. This could even result in
an iterative process to calibrate simulations to better match experimental data.
CFD is an extremely useful tool but ultimately even the input data one provides is based on approximated
theory and empirical data the output data is also based on a variety of modelling assumptions.
Physical experimental data will give a truly accurate representation but this is often not possible or cost
effective and compromises need to be made.
Theory and CFD provide a good educated guess and that is usually a better start than having no idea at all!

References
ANSYS (2014), ANSYS CFX (Release 15.0) [Computer Program]
[available at: http://www.ansys.com/Simulation/Fluid+Dynamics/Fluid+Dynamics+Products/ANSYS+CFX]
Unknown (2000) Water Central Heating [Online]
http://www.diydata.com/planning/central_heating/pipework.php [accessed 20/02/14]
Fisher D. A. (2013) Creating a Mesh for CFX Analysis using ICEM CFD, University West of England
Robodoc (2004), Osborne Reynolds [Online Image]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reynolds
[accessed: 20/02/14]
Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung (1899), Gotthilf Hagen [Online Image]. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthilf_Heinrich_Ludwig_Hagen [accessed: 20/02/14]
Artem Korzhimanov (2010), Jean-Louis Marie Poiseuille [Online Image]. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_L%C3%A9onard_Marie_Poiseuille [accessed: 20/02/14]
Salih (2013) Hagen–Poiseuille flow from the Navier–Stokes equations [Online]. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagen%E2%80%93Poiseuille_flow_from_the_Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations
White F. M. (2003), Chapter 6 - Viscous Flow in Ducts. Fluid Mechanics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill
BNews.kz (2014) Academician from Astana solves one of most difficult math problems of millennium. BNews.kz, 10th
January. Available from: http://bnews.kz/en/news/post/180213/ [accessed: 20/02/14]
White F. M. (2003), Typical Velocity and Shear Distributions in Turbulent Flow Near a Wall. Fluid Mechanics (5th ed.).
McGraw-Hill)
Stahlkocher, (1883), Ludwig Prandtl [Online Image]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Prandtl

Science Advisory Board (SAB) (2012), Von Karman [Online Image] Available at:
http://www.sab.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=18803 [accessed: 20/02/14]
Sechler E. E. (1969) Clark Blanchard Millikan 1903-1966 [Book], National Academy of Sciences. Available from:
http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/millikan-clark.pdf [accessed: 20/02/14]
Wolfram Alpha LLC (2009), Wolfram|Alpha.[Software], (accessed: 04/02/14)
Bakker, A. (2002) Applied CFD – Lecture 7 – Meshing [Presentation]. Available from:

http://www.bakker.org/dartmouth06/engs150/ [accessed: 20/02/14]
Karthik T. S. D. (2011), Turbulence Models and Their Applications [Presentation] Department of Mechanical
Engineering IIT Madras. Available at: http://www.leb.eei.uni-
erlangen.de/winterakademie/2011/report/content/course01/pdf/0112.pdf [accessed: 20/02/14]
Harel Geron (2013) Dary Friction Factor Formulae [Online]. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy_friction_factor_formulae#Approximations_of_the_Colebrook_equation

Bibliography
May A. P. H. (2012) Introduction to CFD. Thermofluid Systems, University West of England
May A.P.H (2009) Introduction to Thermofluid Systems, Thermofluid Systems, University West of England
May A. P. H (n.d) CFD in Pipe Flows, Thermofluid Systems, University West of England
Jackson D., Launder B. (2007) Osborne Reynolds and the Publication of His Papers on Turbulent Flow. University of
Manchester [available at: http://158.110.32.35/download/CERN07/ARFM2007.pdf] [viewed on 20/02/14].
Hu Y. F., Carter J. G., Blake R. J. (1995) The Effect of Grid Aspect Ratio on the Convergence of Parallel CFD Algorithms.
Daresbury Laborator [available at: http://www2.research.att.com/~yifanhu/PUB/aspect.pdf] [viewed on 20/02/14]
Karthik T. S. D. (2011) Turbulence Models and Their Applications [available at: http://www.leb.eei.uni-
erlangen.de/winterakademie/2011/report/content/course01/pdf/0112.pdf] [viewed on 20/02/14]
Singh, S. Bhandari, D. (2012) Analysis of Fully Developed Turbulent Flow in a Pipe Using Computational Fluid
Dynamics. Bipin Tripathi Kumaon Institute of Technology.
Ryan, D. (n.d) ANSYS ICEM CFD and ANSYS CFX Introductory Training Course Notes. University of Birmingham.
Sleigh, P. A. Goodwill I. M. (2008) Fluid Flow In Pipes. University of Leeds.

Appendix

Year 3.1 - Laminar &amp; Turbulent Flow Investigation - Computational Fluid Dynamics Assignment

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Year 3.1 - Laminar &amp; Turbulent Flow Investigation - Computational Fluid Dynamics Assignment

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2013/14

Computational Fluid Mechanics Assignment

By: Steven Goddard

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

• Smooth Wall Flow

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Figure 1 - Golden Syrup Flowing From a Teaspoon

Figure 2 - Osborne Reynolds (1842 –1912)

Entrance Length (𝑙𝑒 ) can be determined using the following equation:

• Spacing 1 = 1x10-5 • Ratio 2 = 2

Where 𝜇 = Dynamic Viscosity, 𝜌 = Fluid Density and D = Pipe Diameter.

MATERIAL: Water TURBULENCE MODEL: REFERENCE PRESSURE:

BOUNDARY: Default Domain Default BOUNDARY: Outlet BOUNDARY: Inlet

Table 1 - CFX-Pre Parameters for First Run

Figure 4 - Developing Flow Velocity

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Figure 5 - Initial Run - Developing Velocity Profile

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

1.2.Parabolic Input Velocity Distribution

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

1.2.1. Derivation of Hagen-Poiseuille Flow from Navier Stokes Equations

• No Swirl (𝑉𝑟 = 0) or Radial components (𝑉𝜃 = 0).

The Navier Stokes equations reduce as follows:

𝛿𝑉𝑟 𝛿𝑉𝑟 𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑉𝑟 𝛿𝑉𝑟 𝑉𝜃2 𝛿𝑝 𝛿 1𝛿 1 𝛿 2 𝑉𝑟 𝛿 2 𝑉𝑟 2 𝛿𝑉𝜃

𝛿𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑉𝜃 𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑉𝜃 𝑉𝑟 𝑉𝜃 𝛿𝑉𝜃 1 𝛿𝑝 𝛿 1𝛿 1 𝛿 2 𝑉𝜃 𝛿 2 𝑉𝜃 2 𝛿𝑉𝑟

All terms here equate to zero.

Solving the equation for velocity in the z direction gives:

And assuming a linear pressure drop it can be said that:

Substituting 𝑤𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 into 𝑤𝑧𝑎𝑣𝑔 and knowing that = 2𝑅 :

32𝜇𝐿𝑤𝑧𝑎𝑣𝑔 8𝜇𝐿𝑄 128𝜇𝐿𝑄

1.3.Parabolic Inlet Velocity Simulation & Laminar Mesh Study

Following this I began the first series of my mesh investigations.

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Total Velocity Pressure

10 24 42824 100 00:01:25 Outlet Errors 100.00% 100.00%

30 72 430664 21 00:03:04 Good Run -0.65% 0.48%

30 36 857064 16 00:04:50 Good Run -2.55% 1.26%

30 24 1283464 11 00:04:54 Outlet Errors 98.81% 85.69%

Table 2 - Results of Laminar Mesh Study (Series 1)

• Mesh Law: BiGeometric • Spacing 2: 0

Total Velocity Pressure

10 24 42824 100 00:01:31 Outlet Errors 99.97% 100.00%

30 72 430664 100 00:12:55 Good Run 0.09% 0.77%

30 36 857064 100 00:26:22 Good Run 0.09% 0.78%

30 24 1283464 100 00:26:42 Good Run 0.09% 0.77%

Table 3 - Results of Laminar Mesh Study (Series 2)

• Series 1 (1E-006 Bunching Spacing) – 20 Divisions with 100 layers.

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

• Series 2 (1E-008 Bunching Spacing) – 40 Divisions with 200 Layers.

For the full set of data see Appendix 1.

1.4.Methods for Increasing Efficiency when Simulating Laminar Flow

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Figure 9 - Everyday Example of Turbulent Flow

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

2.2.Calculation of Turbulent Flow

• Wall Layer – Where viscous laminar shear is dominant.

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

Where W is the Lambert W function or Product Logarithm.

Steven Goddard –Mechanical Engineering (Part Time)

2.3.2. Shear Stress Transport (SST)

2.4.Smooth Pipe Flow

Mesh Settings Pipe 1 Pipe 2 Pipe 3 Pipe 4

Year 3.1 - Laminar & Turbulent Flow Investigation - Computational Fluid Dynamics Assignment

Year 3.1 - Laminar & Turbulent Flow Investigation - Computational Fluid Dynamics Assignment