Fluid Mechanics

Laboratory N°1
Two-Dimensional Laminar Pipe Flow Simulation

GROUP: 11
Members:
Constanza Quintanilla
Thiare Sandoval
Ignacio Muñoz
Pablo Godoy
Isidora Rauld
Teachers:
Patricio Moreno
Sebastián Sepúlveda
INTRODUCTION
Carrying out simulations is very important because through the use of this tool,
evaluation, and analysis of new systems and some of those already existent can be
done. It helps to anticipate the real process, to validate it and to obtain its best
configuration.

The laboratory consisted in a simulation of a fictional and laminar flow, which

moves through a pipe of a circular section, with known diameter and length, and
known input velocity. With all this, it seeks to analyze and determine the
streamlines of velocity and pressure contours, the input and output velocity profile,
and to compare the results obtained with an analytical solution.

The objective of this laboratory is to appreciate the principles of fluid mechanics

discussed in classes, through the simulation. Also, it can compare the theory with
the practice, and evaluate the uncertainties of the numerical experiments.

PROCEDURE
To carry out the simulation, the Reynolds Numbers were first calculated, with which
the dimensional scale dictated by the problem was obtained. For this, equation 1
(as shown below) was used.

(𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒) × ( 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦) 0.2 (𝑚/𝑠) × 1(𝑚/𝑠)

𝑅𝑒 = 𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
= 0,0002 (𝐾𝑔/𝑚·𝑠)
(Ec.1)

With the results obtained, it was noted that the Reynolds Number is equal to 100,
which is less than 2300. In this case, this ensures that the flow is laminar.

The length is in the z axis where r is the radial coordinate that moves with an angle
theta; cylindrical coordinates were used in the problem to use symmetry, using
fewer cells, and also reducing computational calculations.

The Navier-Stokes and mass conservation equations were modified for the use of
cylindrical equations. Also, it was possible to notice that if velocity rings were
considered, when changing the theta, the velocity stayed the same. Due to this, a
3D problem could be solved through the use of a 2D model without losing the
physical characteristics of the flow. The equations mentioned above are presented
below.

𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙:

𝑓(𝑟, 𝑧) ; 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑡𝑎

𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒: ρ(𝑟, 𝑧)
𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦: 𝑉 = 𝑉𝑟 · 𝑒𝑟 + 𝑉𝑇 · 𝑒𝑇
𝑉𝑇 = 𝑉𝑇(𝑟, 𝑧)
𝑉𝑧 = 𝑉𝑧(𝑟, 𝑧)

𝑁𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑟 − 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑘𝑒𝑠:
2
𝑑𝑉𝑟 𝑑𝑉𝑟 𝑑ρ 1 𝑑 𝑑𝑉𝑟 𝑉𝑟 𝑑 𝑉𝑟
𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟: ρ( 𝑉𝑟 𝑑𝑧 + 𝑉𝑧 𝑑𝑧
) = − 𝑑𝑟
+ µ( 𝑟 𝑑𝑟
(𝑟 𝑑𝑟
)− 2 + 2 ) (Ec.2)
𝑟 𝑑𝑟
 2
𝑑𝑉𝑧 𝑑𝑉𝑧 𝑑ρ 1 𝑑 𝑑𝑉𝑧 𝑉𝑟 𝑑 𝑉𝑧
𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑧: ρ( 𝑉𝑟 𝑑𝑧
+ 𝑉𝑧 𝑑𝑧
) = − 𝑑𝑧
+ µ( 𝑟 𝑑𝑟
(𝑟 𝑑𝑟
)− 2 + 2 ) (Ec.3)
𝑟 𝑑𝑧

1 𝑑 𝑑𝑉𝑧
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠: 𝑟 𝑑𝑟
( 𝑟𝑉𝑟 ) + 𝑑𝑧
= 0 (Ec.4)

The following assumptions were made for the resolution of the computational
problem:
- line symmetry
- incompressible flow
- steady state (ρ = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡)
- laminar flow (100 < 2300)

The computational domain of 1000 cells, you can see it in figure 10 and 11 in the
appendix.

Where it can be noted that due to the no slip condition, the speed in r and z is
equal to 0 in the walls since the molecules do not slip on the wall since the wall is
stopped. The velocity gradient is equal to zero and the pressures remain constant
on the r axis inside the pipe since the ratio between the velocity difference and the
distance difference remained constant. At the inlet, the fluid velocity is 1(m/s) and
at the outlet the pressure corresponds to atmospheric pressure, all of the
aforementioned characteristics correspond to the boundary conditions of the
laminar tube of the problem. A simulation was carried out, the steps followed are
detailed below.

For the simulation in the first part, the geometry of the problem and the dimensions
of the tube through which the fluid was going to flow were carried out, in addition,
a mesh of 1000 elements were defined, which means that the computational
domain was divided into 1000 cells where they were solved. the Navier-Stokes and
mass conservation equations, with this it was possible to notice that 3000 equations
were solved in total.

Then the parts of the laminar tube mesh were assigned, where the entrance, exit,
axis of symmetry and the wall were defined, in addition the corresponding
boundary conditions were assigned to each part of the tube.

Subsequently, the setup of the problem was carried out where the fluid and its
characteristics were defined, in addition to defining the equations to be solved, in
this case in cylindrical coordinates and the acceptable tolerance level, the boundary
conditions were defined.

Then the results module of Ansys program was used to visualize the results. The
velocity and pressure fields were analyzed in detail, velocity profiles were generated
in different areas of interest. Then, the velocity profile graphs produced by the
program were analyzed.

To finish the first analysis, the results obtained with the analytical solutions
calculated by hand using the velocity profile equation for Hagen-Poiseuille flows
from the course book were reviewed. Finally, an analysis of the same problem was
carried out but with a computational domain of 4000 cells where only the number of
columns and rows of the previous problem was changed. As it can be seen in figure
2, this was made to see how the computational solution approached the analytical
solution with an increase in the number of cells compared to the 1000 cell solution.

The computational domain of 4000 cells, you can see it in figure 12 and 13 in the
appendix.

RESULTS
1. Velocity Contour and Velocity Vectors

Figure 1: Velocity magnitude contours

Figure 1 represents the velocity contours through the whole pipe. In the inlet of the
pipe, the velocity in the cross section is approximately 1[𝑚/𝑠] (green color), because
one of the boundary conditions was that on the inlet, the fluid moves with a uniform
velocity of 1[𝑚/𝑠]. This is consistent with the velocity vectors at this location (figure
2), where all the vectors are seen to be of the same length, showing that it is a flow
with uniform velocity.

It is possible to notice that in the walls of the pipe the velocity of the fluid is 0 [𝑚/𝑠]
due to the no slip condition. This means that as a result of the walls being static,
the molecules that are near to the wall have the same velocity.

Near the outlet of the pipe, where the flow is fully developed, it can be seen that
the molecules that flow near to the wall remain static but as they move away from
the wall (going to the center of the pipe) they acquire a higher velocity. This can be
seen in figure 1 as there are blue tones on the walls and red tones in the center.
This can also be seen in the velocity contour and in the velocity vectors. In the
inlet, the molecules start with uniform velocity, but in the end the velocity vectors
show a parabolic velocity profile (figure 3), characteristic of a fully developed
laminar flow.
Figure 2: Velocity Vectors on inlet Figure 3:Velocity vectors 0.5 m from outlet

2. Pressure Contours.

Figure 4. Pressure Contours

In the pressure contour shown in figure 4, it can be seen that the biggest pressure
is located in the beginning, from there on, while the flow is moving, the pressure
decreases until the exit. This can be explained through the loss of energy and
because fluids tend to flow from the biggest pressure point towards the lowest
pressure point, or a point with pressure equal to zero. This is consistent with the
gradient of velocity and with the boundary condition of pressure, both of which
show that while moving across the tube there is an increase in velocity.

Most of the time the changes of colors are not as drastic as they are seen in these
graphs (which change from red to blue in an abrupt manner). These abrupt changes
are likely caused due to loss of energy of the system, imperfections in the form of
the tube, and differences in the atmospheric pressure in the exit of the tube
(because the simulation uses the atmospheric pressure at sea level).
3. Streamlines.

Figure 5. Streamlines

As shown in figure 5, the speed of flow of this fluid tends to increase in the center
of the pipe, this can be explained due to the no slip condition, which states that as
the molecules get closer to the wall, the more the other molecules slow them down,
reaching a velocity near to zero. This is caused because the molecules that are next
to the wall do not move, and they slow down the ones next to them. It makes
sense that the fluid moves faster near the center, because the molecules that have
more distance from the friction force of the walls get more velocity, as it also needs
to move more water, since the streamlines move to the center and the liquid
conglomerates. It can be said that it is consistent with the change of velocity,
where, in the inlet you can see a green zone, and then, while the flow starts to
develop, the streamlines get a color with tones closer to red.

Also, you can see that in the beginning the streamlines are not parallel to the walls,
this is because some time and distance is required for the fluid to be traveled so that it
can get to a fully developed flow. So, in the beginning all cells have the same axial
velocity of 1 [m/s], but as the fluid moves, it tends to go faster in the middle, so
the streamlines tend to go there. This is coherent with the theoretical concept that
when a fluid has a fully developed laminar flow, it will have straight flow lines
(complete streamline figure in appendix 1).
4. Developed Flow zone, right before the end, and at the pipe outlet.

Figure 6. Velocity vectors at the end of the pipe.

Figure 6 it can be observed that the flow in the simulation is laminar, because it has
a parabolic velocity profile. Also, it is possible to see that the velocity profile is
symmetric, and it has a red color on the center because maximum velocity is
achieved in the center. Meanwhile the flow is slower in the walls, with values near to
zero, that is why these parts are represented in blue, due to the not slip condition.
That is why, if you compare this image with figure 3, at a distance of 2.5 meters
from the entrance, the flow is already fully developed, but this picture has a total
length of 2.8 meters, this was done just in case it had some minimum changes.
However, it does not show significant differences. Right before the end and in the
pipe outlet, both have almost the same vectors of velocity.

5. Analytical result of this problem at the completely developed flow zone.

Figure 7. Analytical Solution and 1000 cells.

There is some level of difference between the simulation and the analytical solution
in the axial velocity vector as can be seen in figure 7. This difference in this vector
is due to the small number of cells utilized for this simulation and that it is a
rectangular mesh instead of a higher quality one. With that said, the difference is
not large (with a maximum difference of 0.027[m/s]) enough to discard all the
results.

6. 4000 cells simulation.

Figure 8. Analytical solution, 1000 and 4000 cells simulation.

Figure 8 shows a velocity profile graph of a simulation carried out, with the same
rectangular geometry and the same conditions for the mesh used for figure 7, but
with 4000 cells instead of 1000. This figure includes the velocity profiles presented
in figure 7. It is possible to observe that the new simulation follows in a closer way
the graph of the analytical solution, reaching a velocity of 1.988 [m/s].

Comparing the flow of 1000 and 4000 divisions, with more cells, a more detailed
graph shows in a better way the changes of colors according to the changes of
velocity and pressure. This also has a consequence in the velocity profile, where,
while there are more cells in the program, it can show a more similar result to the
analytic result of the problem, but it can be more difficult for the WorkBench to
calculate the solutions and graphics.
CONCLUSION

In relation with the software used for this experience, this is a better way to solve
fluids problems in comparison to using the Navier-Stokes equations. This can be
explained because most of the fluids do not have the conditions to eliminate
unknown variables, such as velocity, pressure, or viscosity. Therefore, normally
there would be more terms that are not known than the number of equations
needed to find solutions for these unknown values. Consequently, with the CFD, the
data can be modified so that an answer can be reached.

It is important to remark that all the objectives were accomplished in this

experience. The students learned how to deal with this new software and
understood how to use it to solve problems with a higher level of complexity than
the ones which can be manually calculated. Also, they learned that the flow
behavior through the tube is because of the gradient of pressure that pushes the
flow from a bigger pressure point to a lower one. This causes the velocity vectors
and streamlines, and both have a similar behavior due to the not slip condition.

Finally, while analyzing the results, it is possible to conclude that it takes about 2.5
meters for the fluid to get a fully developed flow, point in which it reached a
maximum velocity of 1.973 [m/s] with the 1000 cell mesh, and of 1.988 [m/s] with
the 4000-cell mesh. Keeping in mind that the maximum analytical velocity result is
2 [m/s], it can be concluded that through the use of a bigger count of cells in the
mesh, there will be a closer result to the real value, but it is not recommended to
use as many divisions as possible because the capacity of the computer can limit
the efficiency to get a result.
REFERENCES:
● Young, Donald F., Munson, Bruce R., Okiishi, Theodore H., and Huebsch,
Wade W. A Brief introduction to Fluid Mechanics. Wiley.

Debe estar referenciado en el informe

APPENDIX 1:

Figure 9. Complete figure of streamlines of the simulation.

Figure 10. Computational domain of 1000 cells

Figure 11: Inlet zoom of computational domain of 1000 cells

Figure 12: Computational domain of 4000 cells

Figure 13: Inlet zoom of computational domain of 4000 cells