ME 522 ANSYS Fluent Project

Andy Hamley
February 27, 2019
Problem Statement
Consider an incompressible fluid flowing between 2 parallel plates which are separated by distance 10cm and
20cm. The fluid is flowing with a velocity U0 = 1m/s and 100m/s. There is an obstacle above the bottom plate
whose dimensions are 2cm X 1cm (W x H). Find
1. The pressure loss due to the obstacle in the direction of flow.
2. Find velocity vectors, will the fluid gets stabilized after certain length? Demonstrate.

U =1 m/s & 100 m/s

0
W
L
Classifying Flow
• Reynolds Number
• Water selected as flow medium
(incompressible).
• In limiting case of infinitely wide 1 m/s 100 m/s
duct, hydraulic diameter in Re
10 cm 199541 19954106
calculation is 2 times the spacing of
the plates. 20 cm 399082 39908211
𝑉𝐷𝐻 ReD by Flow Case
• 𝑅𝑒𝐷 =
ν
• All cases > 3000, therefore flow is
turbulent.
Geometry – Design Modeler 2D
10 cm Plate Gap 20 cm Plate Gap

50 cm total duct length considered with obstacle centered – some distance for flow to develop before obstacle
and some distance after to look at flow stability.
Meshing Study
• Built meshes of decreasing element size and monitored change in solution
results.
• First three cases used a global minimum element size with uniform inflation along
all walls.
• Inflation parameters tuned to ensure finer mesh extended to slightly above
obstacle to ensure wake behavior was captured.
Mesh Case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Global Element Size 5 [mm] 2.5 [mm] 1 [mm]
Inflation Type Smooth Transition Smooth Transition Smooth Transition
Transition Ratio 0.4 0.6 0.7
Layers 8 20 25
Growth Rate 1.15 1.1 1.05
Meshing Study
• 1 [m/s] and 100 [m/s] 10 cm plate separation problem cases used for
study with mesh carried over for 20 cm case.
• 100 m/s problem case failed to converge (high mass residuals) in Case
3.
Meshing Study – Case 3 Convergence Issue

Pressure Contour Elevated Mass Residuals

Inflation boundary
Meshing Study
• Final mesh case included 2 inflation-enhanced zones.
• Upper wall left at previous parameters
• Lower inflation method/parameters changed to extend inflation zone
further into wake
Upper Wall Lower Wall
Inflation Type: Smooth Transition Inflation Type: Total Thickness
Transition Ratio: 0.7 Number of Layers: 80
Maximum Layers: 25 Growth Ratio: 1.05
Growth Ratio: 1.05 Maximum Thickness: 5 [cm]
Meshing Study
• Inflation zone contains wake after adjustment

Velocity Contour from 100 m/s case

Meshing Study
10 cm 100 m/s Pressure Drop 10 cm 100 m/s Pressure Drop
126 1.380E+06
125
1.350E+06
124
123 1.320E+06
Pressure Drop [Pa]

Pressure Drop [Pa]

122 1.290E+06
121
1.260E+06
120
Observed Poor
119 1.230E+06
Convergence
118 1.200E+06
117
1.170E+06
116
115 1.140E+06
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Mesh Case Mesh Case

Solution Setup
• Mesh Case: 3 for 1 m/s, 4 for 100 m/s
• Model: K-epsilon model for turbulence, default values.
• Boundary Conditions: Velocity inlet (1 or 100 m/s), Pressure Outlet (0
Pa gauge), no-slip wall for plates.
• Material: Water from FLUENT Database.
• Calculation Iterations: As many as required for residuals to stabilize
(“Hockey Stick”) or reach below E-10 magnitude. Monitored
continuity, velocities, k, and epsilon.
Solution

Sample residual monitor, continuity converged before 7500 iterations.

Results – Pressure Drop
• Calculated mass flow averaged
pressure on inlet surface.
Pressures measured in [Pa]
• Boundary Condition of 0
1 m/s 100 m/s pressure on outlet surface.
• Table at left represents inlet
10 cm 118 1.307E06 minus outlet pressure (drop
20 cm 53.3 5.768E05 across obstruction).
• Dependent on length of
inlet/outlet duct sections.
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 1 m/s, 10 cm spacing

Flow Reattaches
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 1 m/s, 10 cm spacing, obstacle and flow
detachment detail:
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 10 cm spacing

Flow Reattaches
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 10 cm spacing, obstacle and
upstream flow detachment detail:
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 10 cm spacing, obstacle and
downstream flow detachment detail:
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 1 m/s, 20 cm spacing

Flow Reattaches
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 1 m/s, 20 cm spacing, obstacle and flow
detachment detail:
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 20 cm spacing

Flow Reattaches
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 20 cm spacing, obstacle and
upstream flow detachment detail:
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 20 cm spacing, obstacle and
downstream flow detachment detail:
Improvements for Next Presentation
• Better distribution of mesh resolution using different controls
(coarser in free stream and finer throughout obstacle wake).
• Inlet length – short for uniform distribution at obstacle and minimal
pressure loss or longer for fully developed flow?
• Outlet length – possibly two analyses, one short for pressure drop
measurement and one long for stability analysis.
• Learn more about/tune turbulence model parameters.
ME 522 ANSYS Fluent Project
Presentation 2
Andy Hamley
March 27, 2019
Problem Statement
Consider an incompressible fluid flowing between 2 parallel plates which are separated by distance 10cm and
20cm. The fluid is flowing with a velocity U0 = 1m/s and 100m/s. There is an obstacle above the bottom plate
whose dimensions are 2cm X 1cm (W x H). Find
1. The pressure loss due to the obstacle in the direction of flow.
2. Find velocity vectors, will the fluid gets stabilized after certain length? Demonstrate.

U =1 m/s & 100 m/s

0
W
L
Previous Presentation - Recap
• Flow classification as turbulent
• Meshing study to determine element sizing required to capture flow
phenomena in problem
• Same parameters used for following analyses
• Solution setup
• Results for symmetric geometry (obstruction in center of flow field)
Improved Downstream Stability Analysis
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 20 cm spacing

Flow reattaches, but can’t see

downstream of this point
Improved Downstream Stability Analysis
• Observe behavior further downstream of obstruction to confirm
stability – boundary of separation zone previously at edge of model.
• Accuracy v. Computational Expense - computer struggled with
increased volume at same mesh sizing.
• Struggled using mesh controls to sufficiently simplify free stream
mesh while retaining high resolution in required areas.
• Chose to change position of obstruction within existing volume to
observe downstream effects.
Sample Revised Geometry
Higher-Fidelity Mesh Sample
Higher-Fidelity Mesh Sample
Results – Pressure Drop
Centered Obstacle [Pa]
• Calculated mass flow averaged
1 m/s 100 m/s pressure on inlet surface.
• Boundary Condition of 0
10 cm 118 1.307E06
pressure on outlet surface.
20 cm 53.3 5.768E05 • Table at left represents inlet
Short Inlet, Long Exit [Pa] minus outlet pressure (drop
across obstruction).
1 m/s 100 m/s • Dependent on length of
10 cm 114 1.172E06 inlet/outlet duct sections.

20 cm 51.5 5.076E05
Results – Pressure Drop

1 m/s, 10 cm case 100 m/s, 10 cm case

Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 1 m/s, 10 cm spacing, revised geometry

Flow reattaches,
stays attached
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 1 m/s, 20 cm spacing, revised geometry

Flow reattaches,
stays attached
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 10 cm spacing, revised geometry

Flow reattaches,
stays attached
Results – Downstream Stability
Velocity Vector Map, 100 m/s, 20 cm spacing

Flow reattaches,
stays attached
Results – Pressure Drop

1 m/s, 10 cm case 100 m/s, 10 cm case

Realizable k-epsilon and Parameters
• 2 additional equations in comparison to Navier-stokes equations
• K – turbulent kinetic energy
• Epsilon – turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate
• Realizable version has epsilon equation derived more closely from
actual physics
• Resolves rotational elements more accurately than standard k-epsilon
model
• Computationally economical, commonly used in industry
Realizable k-epsilon and Parameters
• Most analyses performed with all default turbulence parameters
• C_2 and Prandtl number defaults in turbulence model kept at defaults
per manual recommendation
• Experimented with changing velocity inlet turbulence parameters:
• Calculated turbulence intensity based on fully-developed flow model in
Fluent manual.
• < 1% Change observed in 100m/s test case
More Potential Improvement

2D Fine Mesh Required Coarser Mesh in X-Direction

Should Suffice

Use data at this point as

BCs for subsequent,
coarser simulation?