ME 450/550 Computational Fluid Dynamics

CFD Lab 2: Verification and Validation of

Turbulent Pipe Flow Simulations
Submitted to: Professor Tao Xing

Name: Cristofer Farnetti

University ID: 111-67743
E-mail: farn7259@vandals.uidaho.edu
Department: University of Idaho Mechanical Engineering

Date: 03/21/2016
I.

Problem Description and Simulation Design (10 points)

The purpose of this lab is to provide CFD hands-on experience with turbulence modelling
using Ansys 16.2 software suite. The software will be used to define the characteristics of the

system such as centerline velocity distribution, and friction factors for various meshes using the
k-omega turbulence model. Additionally, turbulence model effects are studied by using the
Spalart-Allmaras (1-eqn) model. Verification and validation methods will be utilized on conver
The system that is modelled is turbulent pipe flow with a pipe length of 6.096 [m] and
radius of 0.02619 [m]. A Reynolds number of 109,983 is used for turbulent pipe flow based on
the specified pipe radius. The fluid that is simulated in the pipe is air at 24 degrees Celsius,
which gives a density of 1.1885 [kg/m^3] and a dynamic viscosity of 1.8396E-02 [kg/m-s]. For
the purposes of the simulation, uniform velocity at the inlet will be specified as 32.5 [m/s], noslip boundary conditions at the pipe wall, and a constant outlet pressure of 747 Pa. Since the pipe
is symmetric about its center an axisymmetric boundary condition will also be applied, and thus
allowing for us to only have to model one half of the pipe.

II. CFD Process (10 points)

See the tables below for the overarching details of the CFD process.

1.) Geometry
a. Open geometry editor from Workbench 16.2
i. In the sketch tab select rectangle and draw the pipe from the origin on
the xy plane
ii. Define the length and width of the pipe
iii. Apply surface
1

2.) Mesh
a. Open mesh editor from Workbench 16.2
i. Define boundaries and apply a face mesh
ii. Define axial and radial edge sizes
1. For the radial edge size at the inlet define bias type as
_ _ ___ _____ and set the bias factor to 10000
2. For the radial edge size at the inlet define bias type as
_____ ___ _ _ and set the bias factor to 10000
iii. Create named selections for the inlet, centerline, outlet, and pipe wall
3.) Setup/Physics
a. Open Ansys Fluent by selecting the setup editor in Workbench 16.2
i. Before Fluent opens define double precision, axisymmetric, and Parallel
processing
ii. In the General tab
1. Under Model, choose: Viscous-SST k-omega
2. BCs:
a. Wall: no slip
b. Centerline: Axis
c. Inlet: Const. velocity = 32.5 [m/s]
d. Outlet: Const. pressure = 747 [Pa]
3. Fluid: Air
4. Define density (1.1885 kg/m^3) and dynamic viscosity
(1.8396E-5 kg/m-s)
5. Set velocity at the inlet= 32.5 m/s
iii. Set the reference values and have the solver compute from inlet
4.) Solution
a. Method
i. Scheme: SIMPLE
ii. Gradient: Least Square Cell Based
iii. Pressure: Second Order
iv. Momentum: Second Order Upwind
v. Turbulent Kinetic Energy: Second Order Upwind
vi. Specific Dissipation Rate: Second Order Upwind
b. Initialization: Standard- From inlet
c. Residuals Monitoring, set all equal convergence criteria
d. Calculation by iteration, 5000 reported at every 20 iterations
5.) Results
a. CFD solution for friction factor
b. Plots
i. Centerline velocity profile
ii. Centerline pressure distribution CFD vs EFD
iii. Residuals
iv. Velocity vectors
v. Radial velocity contours
vi. Velocity profiles for CFD inlet and outlet, EFD for fully developed ,
CFD for developing

vii. Skin friction coeff.

viii. Normalized axial velocity profiles for fully developed flow

III.

Data Analysis and Discussion (65 points)

Mesh Number
Grid Points
(Axial Radial)

A.

226 23

320 32

1
451
45

Verification and validation of turbulent pipe flow (k- model, 15 points)

Mesh
Number
3
2
1

Grid Points
(Axial
Radial)
226 23
320 32
451 45

Friction factor in developed

region (Convergence
tolerance 10-10)
1.904E-02
1.915E-02
1.921E-02

Experimental
data (D)

Relative error
E(%D)

1.998E-02

4.70%
4.15%
3.85%

Verification and Validation Table

Mesh Number
R
P
1,2,3
0.55
0.8745
*error for solution on fine grid 1

E* (%D)
3.85%

UG (%D)
0.61503%

UD (%D)
15%

UV (%D)
15.0126 %

Developing length (mesh 1) = 3.1(m)

Figure 1. Residuals

Figure 2. Centerline pressure distribution

(CFD and EFD data)

Figure 3. Centerline velocity distribution

Figure 4. Wall Skin friction factor distribution

Figure 6. Contours of radial velocity

Figure 5. profiles of axial velocity at all
axial locations with EFD data

Figure 7. Velocity vectors at the region flow begin to

become fully developed.

Figure 8. Normalized developed axial velocity

Profile (turbulent and laminar)

B. Effects of turbulence model on solutions (same setup as A except using 1equation S-A turbulence model; 15 points)
Mesh
Number
3
2
1

Grid Points
(Axial
Radial)
226 23
320 32
451 45

Friction factor in developed

region (Convergence
tolerance 10-10)
1.859E-02
1.857E-02
1.858E-02

Experimental
data (D)

Relative error
E(%D)

1.998E-02

6.96%
7.06%
7.01%

Verification and Validation

Mesh Number
1,2,3

R
-0.50

P
N/A

E* (%D)
7.01%

UG (%D)
0.05%
(Estimated)

UD (%D)
15%

UV (%D)
15.0000835
%

*error for solution on fine grid 1

Developing length= 4.15 (m)

Figure 1. Residuals

Figure 3. Centerline velocity distribution

Figure 2. Centerline pressure distribution

(CFD and EFD data)

Figure 4. Wall Skin friction factor distribution

Figure 6. Contours of radial velocity

Figure 5. profiles of axial velocity at all
axial locations with EFD data

Figure 7. Velocity vectors at the region flow begin

to become fully developed.

C.

Figure 8. Normalized developed axial velocity

Profile (turbulent and laminar)

Questions in CFD Lab 2 (35 points)

(1) Zoom in the mesh created and tell where the mesh is refined? Why?
Answer:
The mesh is finer toward the wall because for high Reynolds number flows in general
the boundary layer becomes quite small near the wall and in order to resolve this a finer

mesh near the wall must be used. An example of its importance would be to resolve the
viscous sub-layer where shear stresses are high and must be accounted for.
(2) How well is the agreement between the CFD and EFD for the developed axial
velocity and centerline pressure for the two turbulence models? Discuss the
differences between CFD and EFD and possible reasons.
Answer:
The developed axial velocity profiles for CFD and EFD agree pretty well with 42
[m/s] versus 38 [m/s] at the centerline for EFD and CFD respectively. This difference in
results could possibly occur due to the shortcomings of the k-omega model, for
example perhaps the upstream effects in the developing region did not properly
conserve the turbulent kinetic energy as the flow developed, which might lead to a
lower velocity. Another possibility could be the turbulent energy dissipation rate was
too high so the energy being carried by the fluid dissipated too quickly to its
surroundings in some form, resulting in a lower outlet centerline velocity.
For pressure, CFD underestimates the pressure in comparison to the EFD data up
until the end of the pipe, at which the CFD data overestimates. Possible reasons for the
initial underestimate could be that the boundary layer convergence was not predicted
correctly which could result in some error in the solution. For measuring pipe flow
characteristics (whether measuring velocity or pressure) using EFD, the introduction of
the measurement devices themselves could disrupt the flow and thus not revealing the
true nature of the flow.
(3) What is the value for radial velocity at developing and developed region?
Answer:
The radial velocity profile in the developing region varies from -2.02E-01[m/s] to about
-1.06E-02 [m/s]. In the developed region, the radial velocity is a constant 1.07E-02
[m/s].
(4) What are the main differences for normalized axial velocity profile between laminar
and turbulent flows? Evaluate the axial velocity gradient in the normal direction of
wall (du/dr), which is larger?
Answer:
The largest differences between the laminar and turbulent velocity profiles is that the
velocity gradient is much greater for laminar flow and does not vary as much as the
turbulent profile. du/dr for the laminar model is not constant, but the variation is not as
great as the turbulent profile because du/dr near the wall in the turbulent model is quite
large in comparison to the smooth gradient of the laminar pipe flow.
(5) Do you observe any differences on the CFD results using the two turbulence models?
Are they both validated, |E|<UV? Which one is more accurate?
Answer:

Yes, there are some differences in the solutions for friction factors when the turbulence
model is changed from the k-omega (2-eqn) to the Spalart-Allmaras (1-eqn). The
solutions for friction factor decreased when the Spalart-Allmaras model was used,
which means the solution deviated even further from the EFD data. In both turbulence
models |E| < U_v, which leads to the conclusion that both models are validated;
however, the k-omega had a lower error (3.85% in the grid triplet study) than the
Spalart-Allmaras model (7.01% in the grid triplet study) which shows that the k-omega
model is more accurate.

IV. Conclusions (15 points)

A. Summarize your findings and relate them to classroom lectures or
textbooks (9 points)
The number of iterations to achieve convergence with the mesh 1 was about 2500 in
contrast to the mesh 3, which was about 600 iterations, the computational cost is
significantly lower and the error estimate is only about 0.85% greater with the coarse
grid spacing. This is exclusively for the k-omega (2-eqn) model. For the SpalartAllmaras (1-eqn) model, the number of iterations for mesh 1 was about 860 and the
number of iterations for mesh 3 was 325 which again shows that the more coarse the
mesh, the lower the computational cost; however, with this turbulence model the fine
and coarse mesh had increased errors of 7.01% and 6.96% respectively. This
relationship has been discussed in lectures throughout the semester.
When using the k-omega model, monotonic convergence of the solutions was
achieved but when the Spalart-Allmaras model, oscillatory convergence of the solutions
was achieved. For monotonic convergence it is simple to calculate all of the numbers
required to determine if the solution is validated. The same cannot be said for
oscillatory convergence so in order to gain as much information about the system as
possible U_G was estimated with the below equation,
U G =1/2(S U S L )
Which gives an unusually small grid uncertainty (see tables in section B), and intuition
tells me that it is an underestimate.
One of the most noticeable difference between the two turbulence models used in
this lab was the prediction of developing length. In the k-omega turbulence model, the
developing length was calculated to be about 3.1 [m], at which the centerline velocity
becomes constant (Figure 5A). For the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model, the
centerline velocity distribution (Figure 5B) shows that after the initial spike in velocity
(in the developing region) the velocity drops down slightly below what its constant
value is in the developed region, but recovers and levels out. This drop in velocity,
although it is not much, delays fully developed flow producing a developing length of
about 4.15 [m]. It is unclear which turbulent model is more correct, but some insight is
offered when the axial velocity profiles for developed flows is examined. The SpalartAllmaras model is closer to the EFD data than the k-omega model, which might
indicate that the flow physics are more accurate for the SA model.
It is worth noting the subtle differences in the velocity profiles for the developed
and developing regions given from Figure 5A and Figure 5B. As mentioned before, the
9

SA model developed velocity profile is a closer match to the EFD data, but in addition
to that, the developing region agrees more closely to the last 4 data points near the pipe
wall (the difference is small and almost unnoticeable unless the plots are transposed on
each other). This is confusing to say that the velocity profiles match more closely to the
EFD data for the SA model, but there is a larger error in the solution for friction factor.
To possibly add some explanation to why this occurs, looking at the CFD vs. EFD
centerline pressure distribution plots might help (Figure 2A and Figure 2B). The SA
model predicts a lower inlet pressure by about 50 [Pa] when compared to the k-omega
model which could be the reason for a lower friction factor calculation since the
pressures are lower throughout the solution. See equation for friction factor below:
4r(P1P2 )
f=
LV 2
If all other variables in the equation remain the same and the difference in pressure is
lowered, then the result will be a lower friction factor.

B. Comments on the hands-on experience, the software interface, and

overall lab performance (4 points)
The hands-on experience with turbulence modelling was very exciting because it is
more applicable to real life situations since a majority of flows are turbulent. The
simulation was much easier this time because much of the lab was the same as last time
except a few of the parameters. This lab involved more critical thinking about the
solutions than the last, which was nice, challenging, and fun. The lab instructions were
very easy to follow. The software interface is very intuitive and I am beginning to get
the hang of the program.

C. Suggestions and improvements (2 points)

This lab was really well laid out, but it had a few less figures to compare our figures to
which isnt a bad thing because it makes us think critically about whether or not our
data is what should be expected. I am sure that there is a website out there that is
dedicated to helping beginning CFD users get into turbulent modelling, so perhaps
providing some beginners resources would offer some supplementary knowledge.

10