COSMOS Analysis Products. COSMOS FloWorks Fundamentals - 2008 PDF

COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals -i
Solving Engineering Tasks

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Simulating Engineering Tasks with COSMOSFloWorks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
Solving Engineering Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
Frequent Errors and Improper Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
Advanced Knowledge
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Mesh Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Types of Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Mesh Construction Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Basic Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Control Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Resolving Small Features by Using the Control Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Contracting the Basic Mesh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Resolving Small Solid Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Curvature Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Tolerance Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Contents
-ii COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals
Narrow Channel Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Local Mesh Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Recommendations for Creating the Computational Mesh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Mesh-associated Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Visualizing the Basic Mesh Before Constructing the Initial Mesh . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Enhanced Capabilities of the Results Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Viewing the Initial Computational Mesh Saved in the .cpt Files . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Viewing the Computational Mesh Cells with the Mesh Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Visualizing the Real Computational Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
Switching off the Interpolation and Extrapolation of Calculation Results . . . . 2-18
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
Calculation Control Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Finishing the Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Refinement of the Computational Mesh During Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Flow Freezing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
What is Flow Freezing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
How It Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Flow Freezing in a Permanent Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Flow Freezing in a Periodic Mode. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
Cavitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Limitations and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Examples of use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Rotating impeller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Hydrofoil in a tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
Ball valve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
Steam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
Physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34
Example of use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Heat exchanger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Humidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals -iii
Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36
Example of use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
Real Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39
Physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39
Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40
Example of use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
Joule-Thomson effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43
Meshing Additional Insight
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Initial Mesh Generation Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Refinements at Interfaces Between Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Local Mesh Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Irregular Cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
The "Optimize thin walls resolution" option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
Postamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Validation Examples
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Flow through a Cone Valve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23
Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27
Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions . . . . . . . . 4-31
Flow over a Circular Cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35
Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-Divergent Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39
Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43
-iv COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals
Flow over a Heated Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49
Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-55
Heat Transfer from a Pin-fin Heat Sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61
Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-65
Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-69
Flow over a Heated Cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-73
Natural Convection in a Square Cavity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-77
Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-83
Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-87
Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-93
Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-99
Flow in an Impeller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-103
Cavitation on a hydrofoil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-109
Thermoelectric Cooling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-113
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-117
Technical Reference
Physical Capabilities of COSMOSFloWorks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Governing Equations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
The Navier-Stokes Equations for Laminar and Turbulent Fluid Flows. . . . . . . . 5-2
Laminar/turbulent Boundary Layer Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-6
Constitutive Laws and Thermophysical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-6
Real Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-7
Compressible Liquids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
Non-Newtonian Liquids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
Equilibrium volume condensation of water from steam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
Conjugate Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
Thermoelectric Coolers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
Radiation Heat Transfer Between Solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14
General Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14
Ray Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15
View Factor Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
Environment and Solar Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18
Radiative Surface Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18
Viewing Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19
COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals -v
Global Rotating Reference Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19
Local rotating regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20
Mass Transfer in Fluid Mixtures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21
Flows in Porous Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21
Two-phase (fluid + particles) Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23
Cavitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25
Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26
Internal Flow Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26
External Flow Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27
Wall Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28
Internal Fluid Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28
Periodic Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29
Numerical Solution Technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29
Computational Mesh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29
Spatial Approximations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-31
Spatial Approximations at the Solid/fluid Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-31
Temporal Approximations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32
Form of the Numerical Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33
Methods to Resolve Linear Algebraic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34
Iterative Methods for Nonsymmetrical Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34
Iterative Methods for Symmetric Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34
Multigrid Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35
-vi COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals
COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals 1-1
1
Solving Engineering Tasks
Introduction
Engineering problems are problems connected with designing various objects or systems.
There are three general approaches to solving engineering problems:
an experimental approach: a hardware rig or prototype, i.e., the full-scale object
and/or its model, is manufactured and the experiments needed for designing the
object are conducted with this hardware;
a computational approach: the computations needed for designing the object are
performed and their results are directly used for designing the object, without
conducting any experiments;
a computational-experimental approach combines computations and
experiments (with the manufactured full-scale object and/or its model) needed for
designing the object, their sequence and contents depending on the solved problem,
e.g. iterative procedures may be run.
Each of the first two approaches has advantages and disadvantages.
The purely experimental approach, being properly conducted, does not require additional
validations of the obtained results, but it is very expensive, even if it is realized on the
object models, since testing facilities and hardware are required anyway. Moreover, if the
object models are tested, the obtained results must be scaled to the full-scale object, so
some computations are still required.
Chapter Introduction
1-2
The purely computational approach, being properly performed, is substantially less
expensive than the experimental one, both in finances and in time, but it requires
assurance in adequacy of the obtained computational results. Naturally, such assurance
must be based on numerous verifications and validations of the used computational codes,
both from mathematical and physical viewpoints, i.e., both on the mathematical accuracy
of the obtained results (the results adequacy to the used mathematical model) and on the
adequacy of the used mathematical model to the governing physical processes, that is
validated by comparing the computations with the available experimental data.
The third approach, if it reasonably combines experiments and computations, joins the
advantages of both of the first two above-mentioned approaches and avoids their
disadvantages. Complex engineering problems are solved mainly in this way. A
computational code validated on available experimental data allows of quickly selecting
the optimal object design and/or its optimal operating mode. Then necessary experiments
are conducted to verify the selection.
When selecting from the world market a computational code that is most suitable for
solving your problems, it is necessary to take into account the following suggestions. Any
computational code is based, firstly, on a mathematical model of the governing physical
processes, expressed, as a rule, in the form of a set of differential and/or integral equations
derived from physical laws, and include, if necessary, semi-empirical and empirical
constants and/or relationships. Secondly, a method of solving these equations is required.
Since, as a rule, the equations of the mathematical model cannot be solved analytically,
they are solved in a discrete form on a computational mesh, so the solution of the
mathematical problem is obtained with a certain degree of accuracy. Naturally, the
accuracy of solution of the mathematical problem depends both on the method of
discretising the differential and/or integral equations and on the method of solving the
obtained discrete equations. Once these methods have been selected, the accuracy of
solution of the mathematical problem depends on how well the computational mesh
resolves the problem regions of non-linear behavior. To provide good accuracy, the mesh
must be rather fine in these regions. Moreover, a usual way of estimating the accuracy of
solution of the mathematical problem consists of obtaining solutions on several different
meshes, from coarser to finer. So, if beginning from some mesh in this set, the difference
in the interesting physical parameters between the solutions obtained on the finer and
coarser meshes becomes negligible from the viewpoint of the engineering problem, i.e.,
the solution flattens, then the accuracy of solution of the mathematical problem required
for solving this engineering problem is considered to be attained, since the so-called
solution mesh convergence is attained. Naturally, the solution of the mathematical
problem can differ from the experimental values (i.e., from the solution of the physical
problem, if it is known), and this difference depends, firstly, from the conformity of the
mathematical model and the simulated physical processes, and, secondly, on the errors
with which these experimental values have been measured and which, as a rule, are known
and tend to decrease upon increasing the number of tests in which they are measured.
Correspondingly, the computational codes presented on the market differ from each other
not only in their cost, but also in accuracy of mathematical simulation of the physical
problems, as well as in the procedure of specifying the initial data, in the amount of users
time needed for this specification, in the procedure of solving a problem and the computer
memory and CPU time needed for obtaining a solution of the required accuracy, and at last
in the procedures of processing and visualization of the obtained results and the users
time needed for that.
Naturally, a highly accurate solution requires a fine computational mesh, and consequently
rather substantial computer memory and CPU time, as well as, in some cases, increased
user time and efforts for specifying the initial data for the calculation. As a result, if the
time needed to solve an engineering problem with a computational code exceeds some
threshold time, then either the engineering problem becomes irrelevant, e.g. because your
competitors have out-distanced you by this time, or alternative approaches, which may be
not so accurate, but are surely faster, are used instead in order to solve this problem at
given time span.
Before getting acquainted with the recommended procedure of obtaining a reliable and
rather accurate solution of an engineering problem with COSMOSFloWorks, it is
expedient to consider COSMOSFloWorks features governing the below-described
strategy of solving engineering problems with COSMOSFloWorks.
Since COSMOSFloWorks is based on solving time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations,
steady-state problems are solved through a steady-state approach. To more quickly obtain
the steady-state solution, a method of local (over the computational domain) time steps is
employed. A multigrid method is used for accelerating the solution convergence and
suppressing parasitic oscillations. The computational domain is designed as a
parallelepiped enveloping the model with planes orthogonal to the axes of the SolidWorks
models Cartesian Global coordinate system. The computational mesh is built by dividing
the computational domain into parallelepiped cells whose sides are orthogonal to the
Global coordinate system axes. (The cells lying outside the fluid-filled regions and outside
solids with heat conduction inside do not participate in the subsequent calculations).
Procedures of the computational mesh refinement (splitting) are used to better resolve the
model features, such as high-curvature surfaces in contact with fluid, thin walls
surrounded by fluid, narrow flow passages (gaps), and the specified insulators
boundaries. During the subsequent calculations during the solving of the problem the
computational mesh can be refined additionally (if that is allowed by the user-defined
settings) to better resolve the high-gradient flow and solid regions revealed in these
calculations (Solution-Adaptive Meshing).
Chapter Simulating Engineering Tasks with COSMOSFloWorks
1-4
Since steady-state problems are solved in COSMOSFloWorks through the steady-state
approach, it is necessary to properly select the termination moment for the calculation. If
the calculation is finished too early, i.e., when the steady state solution has not been
attained yet, then the obtained solution can depend on the specified initial conditions and
so be not very reliable. On the contrary, if the calculation is finished too late, then some
time has been wasted uselessly. To optimize the termination moment for the calculation
and to determine more accurately physical parameters of interest which oscillate in
iterations (e.g. a force acting on a model surface, or a model hydraulic resistance), you
may specify physical parameters of interest as the calculation goals.
The way to simulate an engineering problem with SolidWorks+COSMOSFloWorks
correctly and adequately from the physical viewpoint, i.e. to state the corresponding
model problem, and to solve this model problem properly and reliably with
COSMOSFloWorks, is described in the chapters Simulating Engineering Tasks with
COSMOSFloWorks and Solving Engineering Tasks.
1 Simulating Engineering Tasks with COSMOSFloWorks
It is necessary to remember that a fast but inaccurate beginning will cost you much efforts
and time spent uselessly not only for specifying the initial data, but, even worse, for the
subsequent calculations, until they will finally become reliable. Therefore, we strongly
recommend that you carefully read this section.
1.1 Selecting Geometrical and Physical Features of the Task
Before you start to create a SolidWorks model and a COSMOSFloWorks project, it is
necessary to select the engineering problems geometrical and physical features that most
substantially influence this problems solution - first of all, those of them which are
important for estimating the possibility of solving this problem with COSMOSFloWorks.
For example,
if the problem contains movable parts, then it is necessary to estimate the
importance of taking their motions into account when solving the problem, and, if
these motions are important, then to estimate a possibility of solving this problem
with a quasi-stationary approach, since model parts motions during a calculation
are not considered in COSMOSFloWorks (however, you may specify a translational
and/or rotational motion of the specific wall),
if the problem includes several fluids, or fluid and solid, then it is necessary to
estimate the importance of chemical reactions between them for the problems
solution, and, if the reactions are important, i.e., the reactions rates are rather high
and the reacting fluids are intensely mixed with each other under the problems
conditions, then to estimate a possibility of introducing the reaction products as an
additional fluid when solving this problem, since chemical reactions are not
considered in COSMOSFloWorks,
if the problem includes fluids of different types (for example, a gas and a liquid),
and there is an interface between them or these fluids are mixing, then it is
necessary to estimate the importance of taking it into account, since
COSMOSFloWorks can not consider a free fluid surface, or mixing of fluids of
different types.
We can present other examples of an clear impossibility of solving some engineering
problems with COSMOSFloWorks, as well as of simplifying the engineering problems for
solving them with COSMOSFloWorks, but it is impossible to envision and describe all the
possible situations in the present document, so that on each particular case you will have
to make decision by yourself.
1.2 Creating the Model and the COSMOSFloWorks Project
If the SolidWorks model has already been created when designing the object, i.e. it is fully
adequate to the object, then, to solve the engineering problem with COSMOSFloWorks, it
may be required:
to simplify the model by removing the parts which do not influence the problems
solution, but consume computer resources, i.e. memory and CPU time. For
example, a corrugated model surface which will result in an exceedingly large
number of mesh cells required to resolve it can be specified instead as smooth
surface with equivalent wall roughness. If a model has thin solid protrusions or
narrow fluid-filled blind holes whose influence on the overall flow pattern is, by
rough estimate, barely perceptible, it would be better to remove these features in
order to avoid the excessive mesh splitting around them.
to add auxiliary parts to the model, e.g. inlet and outlet tubes for stabilization of the
flow, lids to cover the inlet and outlet openings, and parts to denote rotating regions,
local initial meshes or other areas where special conditions are applied.
Both these actions, being executed properly, can be very pivotal in obtaining a reliable and
accurate solution. Naturally, adding the auxiliary parts to a model will inevitably cause an
increase of the computational mesh cells and, consequently, the required computer
memory and CPU time, therefore these parts dimensions must be adequate to the stated
problem.
If a model has not been created yet, it is expedient to take all the above-mentioned factors
into account when creating it.
If all effects of these actions are not clear enough, it may be worthwhile to vary the model
parts and/or their dimensions in a series of calculations in order to determine their effects
on the obtained solution.
Then, in accordance with the problems physical features revealed and adapted to
COSMOSFloWorks capabilities, the basic part of the COSMOSFloWorks project is
specified, i.e., the problem type (internal or external), fluids and solids involved in the
problem, physical features taken into account (e.g. heat conduction in solids,
time-dependent analysis, gravitational effects, etc.), boundaries of the calculation domain,
initial and boundary conditions, and, if necessary, fluid subdomains, rotating regions,
volume and/or surface heat sources, fans and other features and conditions.
Chapter Solving Engineering Tasks
1-6
The specified boundary conditions, as well as heat sources, fans, and other conditions and
features must correspond to the problems physical statement and must not conflict with
each other.
Eventually, you specify the physical parameters of interest as the COSMOSFloWorks
project goals. They can be local or integral, defined within the whole computational domain
or on some model surfaces, or in some volumes (local parameters are determined over some
region in the form of their minimum, or maximum, average, or bulk average values). This
will allow you to substantially increase reliability and accuracy of determination of these
physical parameters, since their behavior is saved on each iteration during the calculation
and can be analyzed later. On the contrary, the convergence behavior of all other parameters
can not be analyzed afterwards, as they are saved only at the last iteration and, probably, at
some user-specified iterations, whose number is restricted by the disk space limit.
2 Solving Engineering Tasks
As soon as you have specified the basic part of the COSMOSFloWorks project that is
unlikely to be changed in the subsequent calculations, the next step is to select the strategy
of solving the engineering problem with COSMOSFloWorks, i.e., obtaining the reliable
and accurate solution of the problem.
2.1 Strategy of Solving the Engineering Tasks
As it has been mentioned in Introduction, by performing a series of calculations on a set of
computational meshes ranging from coarser to finer ones, we can estimate the accuracy of
solution of the mathematical problem. As soon as the calculation on a finer mesh does not
yield a noticeably different (from the engineering problems viewpoint) solution, i.e. the
solution flattens with respect to the mesh cells number, we can conclude that the solution
of the mathematical problem has achieved mesh convergence, i.e., the required
mathematical solution accuracy is attained. Naturally, first you must determine the
threshold for a solution-vs.-mesh change, so that the change smaller than this threshold
will be considered as negligible. Since the determination of this threshold is possible only
in relation with some physical parameter, it is natural to connect it with the physical
parameters of interest of the engineering problem in question, in particular, with the
admissible determination errors of these physical parameters. Moreover, since steady-state
problems are solved with COSMOSFloWorks through the steady-state approach, the
supervision for a behavior of the calculation goals during the calculation (i.e., in
iterations) can serve two purposes. Firstly, if these parameters oscillate during the
solution, it will allow you to determine their values and observation errors more accurately
by averaging them over a number of iterations and determining their deviation from this
average value. Secondly, you may want to intervene in the calculation process by finishing
the calculation manually if you see that either the calculation is unacceptable for you by
some reasons, or, vice versa, if the solution has actually already converged, so that there is
no reason to calculate any further.
Therefore, the strategy of solving an engineering problem with COSMOSFloWorks
consists, first of all, in performing several calculations on the same basic project (i.e., with
the same model, inside the same computational domain, and with similar boundary and
initial conditions) varying only the computational mesh. Since the computational mesh is
built automatically in COSMOSFloWorks, it may be varied by varying the project
parameters that govern its design (the initial computational mesh on which the calculation
starts, and maybe its refinement during the calculation): Result Resolution Level,
Minimum Gap Size, Minimum Wall Thickness.
An additional item of this strategy of solving an engineering problem with
COSMOSFloWorks consists in varying the auxiliary elements added to the model as
needed to solve the problem with COSMOSFloWorks (e.g. inlet and outlet tubes attached
to the inlet and outlet openings, for internal problems), whose dimensions are questionable
from the viewpoint of their necessity and sufficiency. Those physical parameters of the
engineering problem whose values are not known exactly and which, in your opinion, can
influence the problem solution, must be varied also. When performing these calculations,
there is no need to investigate the solution-vs.-mesh convergence again, since it has been
already achieved before. It is enough to just perform these calculations with the project
mesh settings that provided the solution with satisfactory accuracy during the
solution-vs.-mesh convergence investigation. The same applies also to the parametric
engineering calculations while you are changing the model parts and/or flow parameters.
However, you must keep in mind the potential necessity for checking the
solution-vs.-mesh convergence, because in doubtful cases it must be checked again.
In spite of the apparent simplicity of the proposed strategy, its full realization is usually
troublesome due to the substantial difficulties including, first of all, a dramatic increase of
the requirements for computer memory and CPU time when you are substantially
increasing the number of cells in the computational mesh. Since both the computer
memory and the time for which the engineering problem must be solved are usually
restricted, the specific realization of this strategy eventually governs the accuracy of the
problem solution, whether it will be satisfactory or not. Perhaps, a further simplification of
the model and/or reducing the computational domain will be required.
Some specific description of this strategy are presented in the next sections of this
document.
2.2 Settings for Resolving the Geometrical Features of the Model and for
Obtaining the Required Solution Accuracy
The computational mesh variation described in Section 2.1 is the key item of the proposed
strategy of solving engineering problems with COSMOSFloWorks.
The result resolution level specified in the Wizard governs the number of basic mesh cells,
the criteria for refinement (splitting) of the basic mesh to resolve the model geometry, i.e.,
creating the initial mesh, as well as the criteria for refinement (splitting) of the initial mesh
during the problem solution. The Result Resolution specified in the Wizard defines the
following parameters in the created project: the Level of initial mesh and the Results
resolution level. The Level of initial mesh governs only the initial mesh and is accessible
1-8
(after the Wizard has been finished) from the Initial Mesh dialog box. The Results
resolution level is accessible from the Calculation Control Options dialog box and
controls the refinement of computational mesh during calculation and the calculation
finishing conditions. The Geometry Resolution options that also influence the initial mesh
may be changed on the Automatic Settings tab of the the Initial Mesh dialog box. Their
effects can be altered on the other tabs of the Initial Mesh dialog box or in the Local Initial
Mesh dialog box.
Before creating the initial mesh, COSMOSFloWorks automatically determines the
minimum gap size and the minimum wall thickness for the walls whose are in contact with
a fluid on both sides. That is required for resolving the geometrical features of the model
with COSMOSFloWorks computational mesh. So, when creating the initial mesh, it is
taken into account that the number of the mesh cells along the normal to the model surface
must not be less than a certain number if the distance along this normal from this surface
to the opposite wall is not less than the minimum gap size. Depending on the mesh cell
arrangement, the model flow passages not resolved with the computational mesh either are
automatically replaced with a wall, or increased up to the mesh cell size. In the automatic
mode these mesh parameters are determined from dimensions of the surfaces on which
boundary conditions have been specified, e.g. the model inlet and outlet openings in an
internal analysis, as well as those surfaces and volumes on or in which heat sources, local
initial conditions, surface and/or volume goals and some of the other conditions and
features have been specified. Before the calculation, you can see the minimum gap size
and the minimum wall thickness determined in such a way. If these values cannot provide
an adequate resolution of the model geometry, you can specify them manually. At that, it
is necessary to take into account that the number of the computational mesh cells
generated to resolve the model geometrical features depends on the specified result
resolution level.
Evidently, when creating a COSMOSFloWorks project it is necessary to make sure that
both the minimum gap size and the minimum wall thickness are relevant to the model
geometry. However, if the model geometry is complicated (e.g. there are non-circular flow
passages, sharp edges protruding into the stream, etc.), it can be difficult to determine
these parameters unambiguously. In this case it may be useful to perform several
calculations by varying these parameters within a reasonable range in order to reveal their
influence on the problem solution. In accordance with the strategy of solving engineering
problems, these calculations must be performed at different result resolution levels.
The initial mesh created at result resolution levels of 35 is not changed during the
solving of a problem, i.e. is not adapted to the solution being obtained. Result resolution
levels of 57 yield the same initial mesh, but at result resolution levels of 6 and 7 the
mesh is refined during the calculations in the regions of increased physical parameters
gradients. At level 8, a finer initial mesh is generated and refinements during calculation
takes place.
It makes sense to perform calculations at the result resolution level of 3 if both the model
geometry and the flow field are relatively smooth. For more complex problems we
recommend first of all to perform the calculation at the result resolution level of 4 or,
better, 5 (naturally, with specifying explicitly the minimum gap size and minimum wall
thickness). After that, if the calculation at the result resolution level of 5 has been
performed, we recommend, in order to ascertain the mesh convergence, to perform the
calculation at the result resolution level of 7 and, if the computer resources allow you to do
this, at the result resolution level of 8.
2.3 Monitoring the Calculation
Monitoring the calculation, i.e., at least, monitoring behavior of the physical parameters
specified by you as the project goals (you can inspect also physical parameters fields at the
specified planar cross-sections) is useful for the following reasons:
you can intervene in the process of calculation, i.e., manually finish the calculation
before it finishes automatically, if you see that either the calculation is unacceptable
for you for some reasons (e.g. if COSMOSFloWorks has generated warnings
making clear that the sequential calculation is senseless), or, vice versa, when
solving a steady-state problem (that concerns some time-dependent problems also),
the solution has already converged, so that there is no reason to continue the
calculation;
if a steady-state problem is solved, and the physical parameters specified by you as
the project goals oscillate during the iterations, then inspecting these parameters
behavior during the calculation will allow you to determine their values and
determination errors more accurately by averaging their values over the iterations
and determining their deviations from these average values;
if the physical parameters of interest do not change substantially during the
calculation, you can obtain their intermediate (preliminary) values beforehand, and
in the subsequent iterations they will be refined finally;
if you solve a time-dependent problem, you can immediately see the calculation
results before the calculation is finished.
The first above-mentioned reason is especially useful since it allows you to substantially
reduce the CPU time in some cases. For example, if you do not specify the high Mach
number gas flow in the project settings, whereas in fact the flow becomes supersonic, or if
COSMOSFloWorks warns you about a vortex at the model outlet, that substantially
reduces the calculation accuracy, making it necessary to change some of the problem
settings (i.e. specify high Mach number flow for the first case or lengthen the model outlet
tube for the second one). If you solve a steady-state problem at the result resolution level
of 7 or 8 and you see that the computational mesh refinements performed during the
calculation do not increase the number of cells in the mesh and, therefore, do not
noticeably improve the problem solution (the values of the project goals does not change),
you can finish the calculation relatively early (say, after 12 travels have been
performed).
1-10
2.4 Viewing and Analyzing the Obtained Solution
When viewing and analyzing the obtained solution after finishing the calculation, it is
recommended first of all, in accordance with the above-mentioned suggestions, to plot the
evolutions of the project goals during the calculation, if you did not monitor them directly
as the calculation went on. If a steady-state problem is solved, and you have specified the
physical parameter of interest as the project goal, then, if this parameter has oscillated
during the calculation, you can determine its value more accurately by averaging it over
the last iterations interval in which its steady-state oscillation is seen. By that you also
determine the variance of this goal, i.e., its deviation from the average value, that
characterizes the goal determination error in the obtained solution.
It is also useful to check for vortices at the model outlet, as well as to see the flow pattern
in the model and, if heat transfer in solids has been calculated, the temperature distribution
over the solid parts of the model. Naturally, first of all it is expedient to see the obtained
field of the physical parameter you are interesting in, not only in the region of interest, but
also in a broader area, in order to check this field for apparently incosistent results.
It is also worthwhile to examine the obtained fields of other physical parameters related to
the one you are interested in. For example, if you are interested in the total pressure loss,
you may want to see the velocity field, whereas if you are interested in the temperature of
solid, a picture of the fluid-to-solid heat flux field is also useful.
2.5 Estimating the Reliability and Adequacy of the Obtained Solution
In accordance with the general approach to estimating reliability and accuracy of the
engineering problem solution obtained with a computational code, this estimation consists
of the following two parts: an estimation of how accurate is the solution of the
mathematical problem corresponding to the mathematical model of the physical process,
and an estimation of accuracy of simulating the physical process with the given
mathematical model.
The accuracy of solution of the mathematical problem is determined by mathematical
methods, independently of the consistency of the model to the physical process under
consideration. In our case, this accuracy estimation is based on analyzing the mesh
convergence of the problem solutions obtained on different computational meshes (See
Section 2.2). Then, since steady-state problems are solved with COSMOSFloWorks via a
steady-state approach by employing local time steps, it is useful to verify additionally the
accuracy of the obtained solution by solving the similar time-dependent problem not
employing local time steps.
As soon as the mathematical problem solution of a satisfactory accuracy has been
obtained, the next step consists of estimating the accuracy of simulating the physical
process under consideration with the mathematical model employed in the computational
code. To do this, the obtained solution is compared with the available experimental data
(taking into account their errors which consist of measurement errors and experimental
errors arising from possible spurious influences). Naturally, since experimental data are
always restricted, for this validation it is desirable to select the data which are as close to
the engineering problem being solved as possible. To validate the computational code on
the available experimental data, you have to solve the corresponding test problem in
addition to the engineering problem being solved (preferably before you start to solve the
engineering problem following the above-mentioned strategy), but this operation
increases the reliability of estimating the obtained solution of the engineering problem so
substantially that the required additional time and efforts will be fully paid back later on,
in particular when solving similar engineering problems.
If after solving the test problem you see that accuracy of its solution obtained with
COSMOSFloWorks is not satisfactory from your viewpoint, check to see that you have
properly specified the COSMOSFloWorks project, that all substantial features of the
engineering problem have been taken into account, and, finally, that COSMOSFloWorks
restrictions do not impede solving this engineering problem.
3 Frequent Errors and Improper Actions
Let us consider errors and improper actions frequently done when solving engineering
problems with COSMOSFloWorks.
When Specifying Initial Data:
not taking into account physical features which are important for the engineering
problem under consideration: e.g. high Mach number gas flow (should be taken
into account if M>3 for steady-state or M>1 for transient tasks or supersonic flow
occurs in about a half of the computational domain or greater), gravitational
effects (must be taken into account if either the fluid velocity is small, the fluid
density is temperature-dependent, and a heat source is considered, or several
fluids having substantially different densities are considered in a gravitational
field), necessity of the time-dependent analysis (e.g. at the moderate Reynolds
numbers, when unsteady vortices are generated);
incorrectly specifying symmetry planes as the computational domain boundaries
(e.g. at the moderate Reynolds numbers, when unsteady vortices are generated;
you should keep in mind that the symmetry of model geometry and initial and
boundary conditions does not guarantee you the symmetry of flow field);
if symmetry planes have been specified and you click Reset at the Size tab of the
Computational Domain dialog box, please do not forget to replace Symmetry
by Default at the Boundary Condition tab;
if you have specified symmetry planes and intend to specify mass or volume flow
rates at a model inlet or outlet openings, please do not forget to specify only their
parts falling into the computational domain instead of the total flow rates at these
openings;
if you specify integral boundary or volume conditions (heat transfer rates, heat
generation rates, etc.), please remember that their values specified in the
COSMOSFloWorks dialog boxes correspond to the area or volume's part falling
into the computational domain;
Chapter Frequent Errors and Improper Actions
1-12
if you specify a flow swirl on a model inlet or outlet openings (in the Fans or
Boundary Conditions dialog boxes), please do not forget to specify properly
their swirl axes and the proper coordinate system for that in the Definition tab;
if you specify a Unidirectional or Orthotropic porous medium, please do not
forget to specify their directions;
please do not forget that the specified boundary conditions must not conflict with
each other. For example, if you deal with gas flows and the model inlet flow is
subsonic, whereas the flow inside the model becomes supersonic, it is incorrect
to specify flow velocity or volume flow rate as a boundary condition at the model
inlet, since they are fully determined by the geometry of the model flow passage
and the fluids specific heat ratio;
if you solve a time-dependent problem, and this problem has cyclic-in-time
boundary conditions, thus leading to a steady-state cyclic-in-time solution, to
obtain which you have to calculate the flow several times in cycle, every time
specifying the solution from the previous calculation as the initial condition for
the next calculation, there is no need to specify the boundary conditions for
several cycles. Instead it is more convenient to specify them for a cycle and
perform a series of calculations, running each calculation with selected Take
previous results check box in the Run dialog box;
when specifying Surface Goals, Volume Goals, Equation Goals, it is better to
give them sensible names to identify these goals unambiguously, instead of
selecting them in the tree and looking for the respective places at the model in the
SolidWorks graphics area;
if you want to monitor the intermediate calculation results at certain sections of
the model during the calculation, it is better to determine these sections positions
in the Global coordinate system beforehand, i.e. before actually running the
calculation, since during the calculation it is a bit more difficult and you may be
literally late in terms of the problems physical time;
When Monitoring a Calculation:
when monitoring intermediate calculation results during a calculation, please do
not forget the spatial nature of the problem being solved (of course, if the
problem itself is not 2D). To take a look at the full pattern it is expedient to see
the results at least in 2 or 3 intersecting planes;
When Viewing the Obtained Solution after Finishing a Calculation:
please take into account that all settings made in the View Settings dialog box
concern all Cut Plots, 3D Plots, Surface Plots, Flow Trajectories, Isosurfaces,
which are active in the SolidWorks graphics area, therefore:
your will not be able to open the Flow Trajectories dialog box if a parameter
defined only on wall surfaces has been selected on the Contours tab and the
Use from contours option has been selected at the Flow Trajectories tab of
the View Settings dialog box;
to view different result features in different panes simultaneously, it is
necessary to split the SolidWorks graphics area into 2 or 4 panes and build
different result features in different graphical areas through their individual
Cut Plots, 3D Plots, Surface Plots, Flow Trajectories, Isosurfaces defined
in these areas;
if you intend to see integral physical parameters (e.g. area, mass or volume flow
rates, heat generation rates, forces, etc.) with the Surface Parameters dialog
box, please remember that
their shown values are determined over the parts of the surface that belong to
the computational domain;
their determination errors include errors of representing these surfaces in
SolidWorks and COSMOSFloWorks, the latter depends on the computational
mesh;
if you want to see a computational mesh in Cut Plots and/or Surface Plots,
please do not forget to select Display mesh under Tools, Options, Third Party
Options, otherwise the Mesh button in the Cut Plots and Surface Plots
PropertyManagers will be absent, so you can not view a computational mesh.
Chapter Frequent Errors and Improper Actions
1-14
2
Advanced Knowledge
Introduction
The present document supplies you with our experience of employing the advanced
COSMOSFloWorks capabilities, organized in the following topics:
Manual adjustment of the initial computational mesh settings
Mesh-associated tools (viewing the mesh before and after the calculation and
advanced post-processing tools)
Calculation control options (refinement of the computational mesh during calculation,
conditions of finishing the calculation)
Flow freezing
1 Mesh Introduction
This chapter provides the fundamentals of working with the COSMOSFloWorks
computational mesh, describes the mesh generation procedure, and explains the use of
parameters governing both automatically and manually controlled meshes.
First, let us introduce a set of definitions.
1.1 Types of Cells
Any COSMOSFloWorks calculation is performed in a rectangular parallelepiped-shaped
computational domain whose boundaries are orthogonal to the axes of the Cartesian
Global Coordinate System. A computational mesh splits the computational domain with a
set of planes orthogonal to the Cartesian Global Coordinate System's axes to form
rectangular parallelepipeds called cells. The resulting computational mesh consists of
cells of the following four types:
Fluid cells are the cells located entirely in the fluid.
Chapter Mesh Introduction
2-2
Solid cells are the cells located entirely in the solid.
Partial cells are the cells which are partly in the solid and partly in the fluid. For
each partial cells the following information is kept: coordinates of intersections of
the cell edges with the solid surface and normal to the solid surface within the cell.
Irregular cells are partial cells for which the normal to the solid surface cannot be
determined. Cells of this type are never generated with the modern version of
COSMOSFloWorks, however, such cells may be found in the meshes built with the previous
versions of COSMOSFloWorks)
As an illustration let us look at the original model (Fig.1.1) and the generated
computational mesh (Fig.1.2).
Fig.1.1 The original model.
Fig.1.2 The computational mesh cells of different types
Zero level cell (basic cell)
Solid cell
Partial cell
First level cell
Fluid cell
Partial cell
1.2 Mesh Construction Stages
Refinement is a process of splitting a rectangular computational mesh cell into eight cells
by three orthogonal planes that divide the cell's edges in halves. The non-split initial cells
that compose the basic mesh are called basic cells or zero level cells. Cells obtained by the
first splitting of the basic cells are called first level cells, the next splitting produces
second level cells, and so on. The maximum level of splitting is seven. A seventh level cell
is 8
7
times smaller in volume than the basic cell.
The following rule is applied to the processes of refinement and merging: the levels of two
neighboring cells can only be the same or differ by one, so that, say, a fifth level cell can
have only neighboring cells of fourth, fifth, or sixth level.
The mesh is constructed in the following steps:
Construction of the basic mesh taking into account the Control Planes and the
respective values of cells number and cell size ratios.
Resolving of the interface between substances, including refinement of the basic mesh
at the solid/fluid and solid/solid boundaries to resolve the relatively small solid features
and solid/solid interface, tolerance and curvature refinement of the mesh at a
solid/fluid, solid/porous and a fluid/porous boundaries to resolve the interface
curvature (e.g. small-radius surfaces of revolution, etc).
Narrow channels refinement, that is the refinement of the mesh in narrow channels
taking into account the respective user-specified settings.
Refinement of all fluid, and/or solid, and/or partial mesh cells up to the user-specified
level.
Mesh conservation, i.e. a set of control procedures, including check for the difference
in area of cell facets common for the adjacent cells of different levels.
Optimize thin walls resolution. In the early versions of
COSMOSFloWorks refinement of the mesh within model's walls
was needed to resolve thin walls properly, but it could also lead to
increase in number of cells in adjacent fluid regions, especially in
narrow channels between walls. If this additional mesh refinement is
critical for obtaining the proper results and you want to perform
calculation on the same mesh as in the earlier version of
COSMOSFloWorks, clear the Optimize thin walls resolution check
box. In this case the mesh will be almost the same as in that earlier
version, with the main difference of absence of irregular cells.
During the solution-adaptive meshing the cells can be refined and
merged. See Refinement of the Computational Mesh During
Calculation on page 23.
If you switch on or off heat conduction in solids, or add/move
insulators, you should rebuild the mesh.
2-4
After each of these stages is passed, the number of cells is increased to some extent.
In COSMOSFloWorks you can control the following parameters and options which
govern the computational mesh:
1 Nx, the number of basic mesh cells (zero level cells) along the X axis of the Global
Coordinate System. 1 Nx 1000
2 Ny, the number of basic mesh cells (zero level cells) along the Y axis of the Global
Coordinate System. 1 Ny 1000.
3 Nz, the number of basic mesh cells (zero level cells) along the Z axis of the Global
Coordinate System. 1 Nz 1000.
4 Control planes. By adding and relocating them you can contract and/or stretch the
basic mesh in the specified directions and regions. Six control planes coincident with
the computational domain's boundaries are always present in any project.
5 Small solid features refinement level (L
b
). 0 L
b
7.
6 Curvature refinement level (L
cur
). 0 L
cur
7.
7 Curvature refinement criterion (C
cur
). 0 C
cur
.
8 Tolerance refinement level (L
tol
). 0 L
tol
7.
9 Tolerance refinement criterion (C
tol
). 0 C
tol
.
10 Narrow channels refinement: Characteristic number of cells across a narrow channel,
Narrow channels refinement level, The minimum and maximum height of narrow
channels to be refined.
These options are described in more detail below in this chapter.
1.3 Basic Mesh
The basic mesh is a mesh of zero level cells. In case of 2D calculation (i.e. if you select the
2D plane flow option in the Computational Domain dialog box) only one basic mesh cell
is generated automatically along the eliminated direction. By default COSMOSFloWorks
constructs each cell as close to cubic shape as possible.
The number of basic mesh cells could be one or two less than the
user-defined number (Nx, Ny, Nz). There is no limitation on a cell
oblongness or aspect ratio, but you should carefully check the
calculation results in all cases for the absence of too oblong or
stretched cells.
1.4 Control Planes
The Control Planes option is a powerful tool for creating an optimal computational mesh,
and the user should certainly become acquainted with this tool if he is interested in
optimal meshes resulting in higher accuracy and decreasing the CPU time and required
computer memory. Control planes allow you to resolve small features, contract the basic
mesh locally to resolve a particular region by a denser mesh and stretch the basic mesh to
avoid excessively dense meshes.
1.5 Resolving Small Features by Using the Control Planes
If the level of splitting is not high enough, small solid features may be not resolved
properly. In this case, two methods can be used to improve the mesh:
increase the level of splitting. However, this may result in unnecessary increase of
the number of cells in other regions, creating a non-optimal mesh, or
set a control plane crossing the relevant small feature (e.g. a solid's sharp edge).
This will allow you to resolve this feature better without creating an excessively
dense mesh elsewhere. It is especially convenient in cases of sharp edges oriented
along the Global Coordinate System axes.
It is recommended that you place a control plane slightly submerged
into the solid, and avoid placing it coincident with the solid surface.
Fig.1.3 Basic mesh examples.
a) 10x12x1
b) 40x36x1
2-6
1.6 Contracting the Basic Mesh
Using control planes you may contract the basic mesh in the regions of interest. To do this,
you need to set control planes surrounding the region and assign the proper Ratio values to
the respective intervals. The cell sizes on the interval are changed gradually so that the
proportion between the first and the last cells of the interval is close (but not necessarily
equal) to the entered Ratio value. Negative values of the ratio correspond to the reverse
order of cell size increase. Alternatively, you may explicitly set the Number of cells for
each interval, in which case the Ratio value becomes mandatory. For example, assume
that there are two control planes Plane1 and Plane2 (see Fig.1.4) and the ratio on the
interval between them is set to 2. Then the basic mesh cells adjacent to the Plane1 will be
approximately two times longer than the basic mesh cells adjacent to the Plane2.
Fig.1.4 Specifying custom control planes.
Use of control planes is especially recommended for external analyses, where the
computational domain may be substantially larger than the model.
In the Fig.1.6 two custom control planes are set through the center of the body with the
ratio set to 5 and -5, respectively, on the intervals to the both sides of each plane.
1.7 Resolving Small Solid Features
The procedure of resolving small solid features refines only the cells where the solid/fluid
(solid/solid, solid/porous as well as fluid/porous) interface curvature is too high: the
maximum angle between the normals to a solid surface inside the cell exceeds 120, i.e.
the solid surface has a protrusion within the cell.
Such cells are split until the the Small solid features refinement level of splitting mesh
cells is achieved.
1.8 Curvature Refinement
The curvature refinement level is the maximum level to which the cells will be split during
refinement of the computational mesh until the curvature of the solid/fluid or fluid/porous
interface within the cell becomes lower than the specified curvature criterion (C
cur
).
The curvature refinement procedure has the following stages:
1 Each solid surface is triangulated: COSMOSFloWorks gets triangles that make up the
SolidWorks surfaces.
2 A local (for each cell) interface curvature is determined as the maximum angle
between the normals to the triangles within the cell.
3 If this angle exceeds the specified C
cur
, and the curvature refinement level is not
reached then the cell is split.
Fig.1.5 Default control planes. Fig.1.6 Two custom control planes.
The performance settings do not govern the triangulation
performance.
2-8
The curvature refinement is a powerful tool, so that the competent usage of it allows you
to obtain proper and optimal computational mesh. Look at the following illustrations to
the curvature refinement by the example of a sphere.
Fig.1.7 Curvature refinement level is 0;
Total number of cells is 64.
Curvature criterion is 0.317;
Curvature criterion is 0.1;
1.9 Tolerance Refinement
Tolerance refinement allows you to control how well (with what tolerance) mesh polygons
approximate the real interface. The tolerance refinement may affect the same cells that
were affected by the small solid features refinement and the curvature refinement. It
resolves the interface's curvature more effectively than the small solid features refinement,
and, in contrast to the curvature refinement, discerns small and large features of equal
curvature, thus avoiding refinements in regions of less importance (see images below).
Any surface is approximated by a set of polygons whose vertices are surface's intersection
points with the cells' edges. This approach accurately represents flat faces though
curvature surfaces are approximated with some deviations (e.g. a circle can be
approximated by a polygon). The tolerance refinement criterion controls this deviation. A
cell will be split if the distance (h, see below) between the outermost interface's point
within the cell and the polygon approximating this interface is larger than the specified
criterion value.
1.10 Narrow Channel Refinement
The narrow channel refinement is applied to each flow passage within the computational
domain (or a region, in case that local mesh settings are specified) unless you specify for
COSMOSFloWorks to ignore passages of a specified height. The Narrow Channels term
is conventional and used for the definition of the flow passages of the model in the
direction normal to the solid/fluid interface.
The basic concept of narrow channel refinement is to resolve the narrow channels with a
sufficient number of cells to provide a reasonable level of solution accuracy. It is
especially important to have narrow channels resolved in analyses of low Reynolds
numbers or analyses with long channels, i.e. in such analyses where the boundary layer
thickness becomes comparable to the size of the partial cells where the layer is developed.
The narrow channel settings available in COSMOSFloWorks are the following:
Narrow channels refinement level the maximum level of cells refinement in
narrow channels with respect to the basic mesh cell.
Characteristic number of cell across a narrow channel the number of cells
(including partial cells) that COSMOSFloWorks will attempt to set across the model
flow passages in the direction normal to the solid/fluid interface. If possible, the
number of cells across narrow channels will be equal to the specified characteristic
number, otherwise it will be as close to it as possible. The Characteristic number
of cells across a narrow channel (let us denote it as Nc) and the Narrow channels
refinement level (let us denote it as L) both influence the mesh in narrow channels
in the following manner: the basic mesh in narrow channels will be split to have Nc
number per channel, if the resulting cells satisfy the specified L. In other words,
whatever the specified Nc, the smallest possible cell in a narrow channel is 8
L
times
smaller in volume (or 2
L
times smaller in each linear dimension) than the basic
mesh cell. This is necessary to avoid undesirable mesh splitting in very fine
channels that may cause the number of cells to increase to an unreasonable value.
2-10
The minimum height of narrow channels, The maximum height of narrow
channels the minimum and maximum bounds for the height outside of which a
flow passage will not be considered as a narrow channel and thus will not be refined
by the narrow channel resolution procedure.
For example, if you specify the minimum and maximum height of narrow channels, the
cells will be split only in those fluid regions where the distance between the opposite walls
of the flow passage in the direction normal to wall lies between the specified minimum
and maximum heights.
The narrow channel refinement operates as follows: the normal to the solid surface for
each partial cell is extended up to the next solid surface, which will be considered to be the
opposite wall of the flow passage. If the number of cells per this normal-to-wall direction
is less than the specified Nc, the cells will be split to satisfy the narrow channel settings as
described above.
Although the settings that produce an optimal mesh depends on a particular task, here are
some rule-of-thumb recommendations for narrow channel settings:
1 Set the number of cells across narrow channel to a minimum of 5.
2 Use the minimum and maximum heights of narrow channels to concentrate on the
regions of interest.
3 If possible, avoid setting high values for the narrow channels refinement level, since it
may cause a significant increase in the number of cells where it is not necessary.
Fig.1.11 Curvature refinement level is 3; Small solid features refinement level is 3; Narrow channel
refinement is disabled; Total number of cells is 6476.
refinement is on: 5 cells across narrow channels, Narrow channels refinement level is 2; Total number of
cells is 8457.
refinement is on: 5 cells across narrow channels, Narrow channels refinement level is 7; Total number of
cells is 33293.
2-12
1.11 Local Mesh Settings
The local mesh settings option is one more tool to help create an optimal mesh. Use of
local mesh settings is especially beneficial if you are interested in resolving a particular
region within a complex model.
The local mesh settings can be applied to a component, face, edge or vertex. You can
apply local mesh settings to fluid regions and solid bodies. To apply the local mesh
settings to a fluid region you need to specify this region as a solid part or subassembly and
then disable this component in the Component Control dialog box. The local mesh settings
are applied to the cells intersected with the selected component, face, edge, or a cell
enclosing the selected vertex. However, cells adjacent to the cell of the local region may
be also affected due to the refinement rules described in the Mesh Construction Stages
chapter.
Fig.1.14 The local mesh settings used: The rhombic channel is refined into 4
th
level cells, and two narrow
channels are refined to have 10 cells across each channel.
1.12 Recommendations for Creating the Computational Mesh
1 At the beginning create the mesh using the default (automatic) mesh settings. Start
with the Level of initial mesh of 3. On this stage it is important to recognize the
appropriate values of the minimum gap size and minimum wall thickness which will
provide you with the suitable mesh. The default values of the minimum gap size and
minimum wall thickness are calculated using information about the overall model
dimensions, the Computational Domain size, and area of surfaces where conditions
(boundary conditions, sources, etc.) and goals are specified. Don't switch off the
Optimize thin walls resolution option, since it allows you to resolve the model's thin
walls without the excessive mesh refinement.
2 Closely analyze the obtained automatic mesh, paying attention to the total numbers of
cells, resolution of the regions of interest and narrow channels. If the automatic mesh
does not satisfy you and changing of the minimum gap size and minimum wall
thickness values do not give the desired effect you can proceed with the custom mesh.
3 Start to create your custom mesh with the disabled narrow channel refinement, while
the Small solid features refinement level and the Curvature refinement level are
both set to 0. This will produce only zero level cells (basic mesh only). Use control
planes to optimize the basic mesh.
4 Next, adjust the basic mesh by step-by-step increase of the Small solid features
refinement level and the Curvature refinement level. Then, enable the narrow
channels refinement.
5 Finally, try to use the local mesh settings.
2 Mesh-associated Tools
2.1 Introduction
Since the mesh settings tool is an indirect way of constructing the computational mesh, to
better visualize the resulting mesh various post-processing tools are offered by
COSMOSFloWorks. In particular, these tools allow to visualize the mesh in detail before
the calculation, substantially reducing the CPU and user time.
The computational mesh constructed by COSMOSFloWorks or other CFD codes cannot
resolve the model geometry at the mesh cell level exactly. A discrepancy can lead to
prediction errors. To facilitate an analysis of these errors and/or to avoid their appearance,
COSMOSFloWorks offers various options for visualizing the real computational
geometry corresponding to the computational mesh used in the analysis.
Chapter Mesh-associated Tools
2-14
Since the numerical solution is obtained inevitably in the discrete form, i.e., in the centers
of computational mesh cells, it is interpolated and extrapolated by the post-processor to
present the results in a smooth form, which is typically more convenient to the user. As a
result, some prediction errors can stem from these interpolations and extrapolations. To
facilitate an analysis of such errors and/or to prevent their appearance,
COSMOSFloWorks offers an option to visualize the physical parameters values
calculated at the centers of computational mesh cells, so that when presenting results by
coloring an area with a palette, the results are considered constant within each cell.
2.2 Visualizing the Basic Mesh Before Constructing the Initial Mesh
Using this option the user can inspect the Basic mesh and its Control planes corresponding
to the mesh settings, which can be made manually or retained by default. The plot appears
as soon as these settings have been made or changed, so you immediately see the resulting
mesh. (See Help or Users Guide defining the Basic mesh and its Control planes).
To enable this option, select the Show basic mesh option in the FloWorks, Project menu,
or in the Initial Mesh dialog box. The option is accessible both before and after the
calculation.
Using this option, you may shifting the Control planes to desired positions to assure that
certain features of the model geometry are captured by the computational mesh.
2.3 Enhanced Capabilities of the Results Loading
COSMOSFloWorks allows to view not only the calculation results and the current
computational mesh on which they have been obtained, but also the initial (i.e., on which
the calculation begins) computational mesh separately. The latter can be viewed either
before or after the calculation, allowing the user to compare the initial and current (i.e.,
refined during the calculation) computational meshes.
Fig.2.1 The Basic mesh (left) and the Initial mesh (right).
To view various meshes, you must open the corresponding file via the Load results dialog
box. The calculation results, including the current computational mesh, are saved in the
.fld files, whereas the initial computational mesh is saved separately in the .cpt file. All
these files are saved in the project folder, whose name (a numeric string) is formed by
COSMOSFloWorks and must not be changed. The .cpt files and the final (i.e., with the
solution obtained at the last iteration) .fld files have the name similar to that of the project
folder, whereas the solutions obtained during the calculation at the previous iterations
(corresponding to certain physical time moments, if the problem is time-dependent) are
saved in the .fld files with names r_<iteration number>, e.g. the project initial data are
saved in the r_000000.fld file.
2.4 Viewing the Initial Computational Mesh Saved in the .cpt Files
To optimize the process of solving an engineering problem and to save time, in some cases
it may be useful to view the initial computational mesh before performing the calculation,
particularly to be sure that the model features are resolved well by this mesh. To view the
initial computational mesh after loading the .cpt file, COSMOSFloWorks offers you Cut
Plots, Surface Plots, and the Mesh option (see below), which are also used for viewing
the calculation results.
2.5 Viewing the Computational Mesh Cells with the Mesh Option
To view fluid cells of the computational mesh cells (i.e. the cells lying fully in the fluid),
solid cells (lying fully in the solid), and partial cells lying partly in the fluid and partly in
the solid, COSMOSFloWorks offers you the Mesh option.
Different colors can be used to better differentiate between the computational mesh cells
of each of the above-mentioned types. To see the cells in a certain parallelepiped region,
the user must specify the coordinates of the region boundaries in the Global Coordinate
System.
Do not try to load the calculation results obtained in another project
with a different geometry; the effect is unpredictable.
Fig.2.2 The Load Results dialog box.
2-16
Using the Mesh option, you can also save the information concerning the mesh cells,
including the physical parameters values obtained in their centers, in ASCII or Excel files.
2.6 Visualizing the Real Computational Geometry
Since the SolidWorks model geometry, especially its high-curvature parts, cannot be
resolved exactly at the cell level by the rectangular (parallelepiped) computational mesh,
the real computational geometry corresponding to the computational mesh used in the
analysis can be viewed after the calculation to avoid or estimate the prediction errors
stemming from this discrepancy. If no solution-adaptive meshing occurs during the
calculation, the real computational geometry can be viewed just after the mesh generation.
This option is employed by clearing the Use CAD geometry check box in Cut Plots, 3D
Plots, Surface Plots, Flow Trajectories, Point Parameters and XY Plots. The result is
especially clear when colored Contours are used to visualize a physical parameter values
(see Fig.2.3).
This capability is especially useful for revealing the model surface regions which are
inadequately resolved by the computational mesh. Let us consider Fig.2.4 with the
temperature Cut Plots as an example. The white detail in the bottom part is an insulator, so
the heat transfer within it is not considered. It contains a small closed cavity which is
omitted in the analysis and therefore is invisible on the cut plot, too. However, the mesh
resolution of the triple border between the insulator, the cavity, and the heat-conducting
solid body leads to the formation of cog-shaped artifacts.
Visualization of a large amount of computational mesh cells (e.g. all
fluid cells in the whole computational domain) may be impractical,
since it could require substantial time and memory, and even then
you might not be able to see all the visualized cells because the
majority of them will likely be screened from view by other cells.
Fig.2.3 Surface Plots on a SolidWorks model inner surface (left) and on its computational
realization (right).
On the other hand, this option may be useful when creating Surface Plots for SolidWorks
models containing rippled surfaces whose ripples have not been resolved by the
computational mesh and are not essential from the problem solution viewpoint, since the
coloring of the simplified solid/fluid interface instead of coloring the actual SolidWorks
model faces allows you to substantially reduce the CPU time and memory requirements.
If the computational mesh has resolved the SolidWorks model well,
so the obtained computational results are adequate, then enable the
Use CAD geometry option before performing the final Cut Plots and
Surface Plots to obtain smooth pictures which are more convenient
for the analysis.
When creating a Surface Plot with the Use CAD geometry option
switched off, only the solid/fluid interfaces of partial cells within the
computational mesh are colored. When a Surface Plot is created in
the Use all faces mode, solid/fluid interfaces of all partial cells are
colored. However, when a Surface Plot is created on a selected
surface, the solid/fluid interfaces are colored only in the partial cells
intersected by the SolidWorks model surface approximated by
triangles inside SolidWorks, which may differ from the
mesh-approximated surface of the model. As a result, there may exist
some partial cells which are not intersected by the triangulated
surface, and therefore their solid/fluid interfaces would not be
colored (see gray strips in Fig.2.5). Naturally, this circumstance
concerns the picture only and does not affect the calculation results.
Fig.2.4 Cut plots using CAD geometry (left) and meshed geometry (right).
2-18
2.7 Switching off the Interpolation and Extrapolation of Calculation Results
Since the numerical solution is obtained inevitably in the discrete form, i.e., in the form of
values in the centers of the computational mesh cells in COSMOSFloWorks, it is
interpolated and extrapolated by the post-processor to present the results in a smooth form,
which is typically more convenient to the user. As a result, prediction errors can stem from
and/or be hidden by such interpolation and extrapolation that smoothens the calculation
results. To facilitate the revealing, analysis, and elimination of such errors,
COSMOSFloWorks offers an option to visualize the physical parameter values as is, i.e.
without interpolation, when presenting calculation results in Cut Plots and Surface Plots
(other result features, namely, isolines, isosurfaces, flow streamlines and particle
trajectories can not be built at all without interpolation), so when coloring a surface with a
palette, the results are considered constant within the mesh cells (see Fig.2.6).
Since the mesh cells centers used in coloring the surface can lie at
different distances from the surface, this can introduce an additional
variegation into the picture, if the value of the displayed parameter
depends noticeably on this distance (see Fig.2.6).
Fig.2.5
Fig.2.6 The fluid velocity Surface Plots created with (left) and without (right) interpolating and
extrapolating the calculation results.
2-20
2.8 Conclusion
The presented mesh-associated tools of COSMOSFloWorks are additional tools for
obtaining reliable and accurate results with this code. These tools are summarized in the
table:
Option
Application
Reason
Basic
mesh
Initial
mesh
After the
calculation
Visualizing the
Basic mesh
+ + +
To inspect the Basic mesh and
setting its Control planes
Widened
capabilities of
loading the results
+ +
To view the Initial mesh and
the calculation results
Viewing the Initial
mesh
+ +
To analyze the Initial mesh
Viewing mesh
cells of different
type
+ +
To view mesh cells and save
the respective physical
parameters values
Visualizing the
computational
geometry
+ +
For analysis of inadequate
results and quick
post-processing of the results
of complicated models
Switching off the
interpolation of
results
+
For analysis of inadequate
results
3 Calculation Control Options
3.1 Introduction
The Calculation Control Options dialog box introduced into COSMOSFloWorks allows
you to control:
conditions of finishing the calculation,
saving of the results during the calculation,
refinement of the computational mesh during the calculation,
freezing the flow calculation,
time step for a time-dependent analysis,
number of rays traced from the surface if radiating heat transfer is enabled.
This dialog box is accessible both before the calculation and during the calculation. In the
last case the new-made settings are applied to the current calculation starting from the next
iteration.
The main information on employing the options of Finishing the calculation and
Refining the computational mesh during calculation is presented in this document.
3.2 Finishing the Calculation
COSMOSFloWorks solves the time-dependent set of equations for all problems, including
steady-state cases. For such cases it is necessary to recognize the moment when a
steady-state solution is attained and therefore the calculation should be finished. A set of
independent finishing conditions offered by COSMOSFloWorks allow the user to select
the most appropriate conditions and criteria on when to stop the calculation. The following
finishing conditions are offered by COSMOSFloWorks:
maximum number of refinements;
maximum number of iterations;
maximum physical time (for time-dependent problems only);
maximum CPU time;
maximum number of travels;
convergence of the Goals.
In COSMOSFloWorks you can select the finishing conditions that are most appropriate
from your viewpoint to solve the problem under consideration, and specify their values.
For the latter two conditions (i.e., for the maximum number of travels and the Goals
Travel is the number of iterations required for the propagation of a
disturbance over the whole computational domain. Current number
of iterations per one travel is presented in the Info box of the
Calculation monitor.
Chapter Calculation Control Options
2-22
convergence settings) COSMOSFloWorks presents their default values (details are
described below). You can also select the superposition mode for multiple finishing
conditions in the Finish Conditions value cell: either to finish the calculation when all the
selected finishing conditions are satisfied or when at least one of them is satisfied.
In any case, information on the finishing conditions due to which the calculation has
finished is shown in the Monitors Log box.
The Goals convergence finishing condition is complex since it consists of satisfying all the
specified Goals criteria. A specified Goal criterion includes a specified dispersion, which
is the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the Goal, and a specified
analysis interval over which this difference (i.e., the dispersion) is determined. The
interval is taken from the last iteration rearwards and is the same for all specified Goals.
The analysis interval is applied after an automatically specified initial calculation period
(in travels), and, if refinement of the computational mesh during calculation is enabled,
after an automatically or manually specified relaxation period (in travels or in iterations)
since the last mesh refinement is reached. As soon as the Goal dispersion obtained in the
calculation becomes lower than the specified dispersion, the Goal is considered
converged. As soon as all Goals included in the Goals convergence finishing condition (by
selecting them in the On/Off column) have converged, this condition is considered
satisfied. The Goals not included into the Goals convergence finishing condition are used
for information only, i.e., with no influence on the calculation finishing conditions.
Let us consider the COSMOSFloWorks default values for the maximum number of travels
and the Goals convergence settings in detail. These default (recommended by
COSMOSFloWorks) values depend on the Result resolution level either specified in the
Wizard or changed by pressing the Reset button in the Calculation Control Options dialog
box. For higher Result resolution levels the finishing conditions are tighter.
The default maximum number of travels depends on
the type of the specified Goal (i.e., dynamic or diffusive, see below);
the specified Result resolution level;
the problem's type (i.e., incompressible liquid or compressible gas, low or high
Mach number gas flow, time-dependent or steady-state).
The Dynamic goals are: Static Pressure, Dynamic Pressure, Total
Pressure, Mass Flow Rate, Forces, Volume Flow Rate, and Velocity.
The Diffusive goals are: Temperature, Density, Mass in Volume,
Heat flux, Heat transfer rate, Concentrations, Mass Flow Rate of
species, and Volume Flow Rate of species.
The default Goals convergence settings are the default analysis interval, which is shown
in the Finish tab of the Calculation Control Options dialog box, and the default Goals
criterion dispersion values, which are not shown in the Calculation Control Options dialog
box, but, instead, are shown in the Monitors Goal Table or Goal Plot table (in the Criteria
column), since they depend on the values of the Goal physical parameter calculated in the
computational domain, and therefore are not known before the calculation and, moreover,
can change during it. In contrast, the Goals criterion dispersion values specified manually
do not change during the calculation.
As for the automatically specified initial calculation period (measured in travels), it
depends on the problem type, the Goal type, and the specified Result resolution level.
3.3 Refinement of the Computational Mesh During Calculation
Refinement of the computational mesh during calculation is a process of splitting or
merging of the computational mesh cells in high-gradient flow areas. This option has the
following governing parameters:
refinement level,
splitting/merging criteria (also named refinement/unrefinement criteria,
respectively),
permission to refine cells in fluid and/or solid regions,
approximate maximum number of cells,
strategy of refinements during the calculation.
The first four parameters are described in COSMOSFloWorks Help and Users Guide.
Here, let us consider the Refinement Strategy in detail. The following three strategies are
available:
Periodic refinement;
the manually specified analysis interval for the Goals
convergence finishing criteria must be substantially longer than
the typical period of the flow field oscillation (if it occurs);
the Goals determined on solid/fluid interfaces or model
openings, as well as the Post-processor Surface Parameters, yield
the most accurate and correct numerical information on flow or
solid parameters, especially integral ones;
Global Goals yield the most reliable information on flow or solid
parameters, although they may be too general;
the CPU time depends slightly on the number of the specified
Goals, but, in some cases, vary substantially in the case of
presence of a Surface Goal;
Surface and Volume Goals provide exactly the same information
that may be obtained via the Surface and Volume Parameters
Post-processor features, respectively.
Chapter Calculation Control Options
2-24
Tabular Refinement;
Manual Only refinement.
In the first two strategies the refinement moment is known beforehand. The solution
gradients are analyzed over iterations belonging to the Relaxation interval, which is
calculated from the current moment rearwards. As a result, only steady-state gradients are
taken into account. The default length of the Relaxation interval can be adjusted manually.
On the other hand, the analysis must not continue with the same relaxation interval
defined from the start of the calculation, in order to avoid taking into account the initial
highly unsteady period. Therefore, a period of at least two relaxation intervals is
recommended before the first refinement. If the first assigned refinement is scheduled in a
shorter term from the beginning, the period over which the gradients are analyzed is
shortened accordingly, so that in the extreme case it can be as short as one current
iteration. If you initiate a refinement manually within this period, the gradients are
analyzed in one current iteration only. Naturally, such a short period give not very reliable
gradients and hence may result in an inadequate solution or excessive CPU time and
memory requirements.
The figure below illustrates these concepts. Here, the letter r denotes the Relaxation
interval. This figure involves both Periodic and Tabular refinements. Case 1 is the
recommended normal approach. In the Case 2 the first refinement is too close to the
starting point of the calculation, so the gradients are analyzed over the shorter interval
(which could even be reduced to only one current iteration in the extreme case). Case 3 is
a particular case when a refinement is initiated manually just before a previously assigned
refinement. As a result, the manual refinement is well-defined, since the gradients have
been analyzed over almost the entire relaxation interval, but on the other hand, the
previously assigned refinement is performed on the substantially shorter interval, and
therefore its action can be incorrect. Case 3 demonstrates the possible error of performing
manual and previously assigned refinements concurrently.
4 Flow Freezing
4.1 What is Flow Freezing?
Sometimes it is necessary to solve a problem that deals with different processes
developing at substantially different rates. If the difference in rates is substantial (10 times
or higher) then the CPU time required to solve the problem is governed almost exclusively
by the slower process. To reduce the CPU time, a reasonable approach is to stop the
calculation of the fastest process (which is fully developed by that time and does not
change further) and use its results to continue the calculation of the slower processes. Such
an approach is called freezing.
In the case of problems solved with COSMOSFloWorks the processes of convective mass,
momentum, and energy transport are the fastest processes to develop and to converge,
whereas the processes of mass, momentum, and energy transfer by diffusion are the
slowest ones. Accordingly, COSMOSFloWorks offers the Flow Freezing option that
allow you to freeze, or fix, the pressure and velocity field while continuing the calculation
of temperature and composition. This option is especially useful in solving steady-state
Fig.3.1 Refinement strategy.
Collecting of the statistics is prohibited
Statistics are collected
Refinement
Case 1
Auto ref.
r r
r
r
0
0
Ref. point 1
Ref. point 2
Case 2 Case 3
Ref. point 1
r r
Manual ref.
Chapter Flow Freezing
2-26
problems involving diffusion processes that are important from the users viewpoint, e.g.
species or heat propagation in dead zones of the flow. Time-dependent analyses with
nearly steady-state velocity fields and diffusion processes developing with time are also
examples of this class of problems. As a result, the CPU time for solving such problems
can be substantially reduced by applying the Flow Freezing option.
COSMOSFloWorks treats Flow Freezing for the High Mach number flows differently. All
flow parameters are frozen, but the temperature of the solid is calculated using these fixed
parameters at the outer of the boundary layer and user defined time step. Temperature
change on the solid's surface and relevant variation of the heat flows are accounted in the
boundary layer only. It is impossible (and makes no sense) to use Flow Freezing for
calculation of concentration propagation in the High Mach number flow. If custom time
step is not specified, the steady-state temperature of solid will be reached in one time step
assumed to be infinite.
4.2 How It Works
To access the Flow Freezing option, open the Calculation Control Options dialog box,
then the Advanced tab. This option has three modes: Disabled (by default), Periodic, and
Permanent.
Flow Freezing in a Permanent Mode
As an example of applying the Flow Freezing option, let us consider a plane flow (2D)
problem of heating the vortex core in a vessel (Fig.4.1).
At the beginning the entire fluid region is filled with a cold (T=300 K) liquid. A hot
(T=400K) liquid enters the vessel through the lower channel (the upper channel is the
exit). As a result, a vortex with a cold core is developed in the vessel. The vortex core
temperature is changed mainly due to heat diffusion. To measure it, a small body is placed
at the vortex center and disabled in the Component Control dialog box, so that it is treated
by COSMOSFloWorks as a fluid region. Its minimum temperature (i.e., the minimum
fluid temperature in this region) is the Volume Goal of the calculation.
Fig.4.1 Heating the vortex core in a vessel.
First of all, let us consider Flow Freezing operating in the Permanent mode. The only
user-specified parameter in Permanent mode is the starting moment of enabling the Flow
Freezing option. Until this moment the calculation runs in a usual manner. After this
moment the fluid velocity field becomes frozen, i.e., it is no longer calculated, but is taken
from the last iteration performed just before the Flow Freezing Start moment. For the
remainder of the run only the equations terms concerning heat conduction and diffusion
are calculated. As a result, the CPU time required per iteration is reduced.
The starting moment of the Flow Freezing option should be set not too early in order to let
the flow field to fully develop. As a rule, an initial period of not less than 0.25 travels is
required to satisfy this condition. In most problems the 0.5 travel initial period is
sufficient, but there are problems that require a longer initial period.
When first solving the problem under consideration we set the maximum number of
travels to 10. The calculation performed without applying the Flow Freezing option then
required about 10 travels (the CPU time of 13 min. 20 s on a 500 MHz PIII computer) to
reach the convergence of the project Goal (the steady-state minimum fluid temperature in
the vortex core). However, the steady-state fluid velocity field was reached in about 0.5
travels, i.e., substantially earlier. So, by applying the Flow Freezing option in the
Permanent mode (just after 0.5 travels) the same calculation only required a CPU time of 7
min. 25 s on the same computer to reach the convergence of the project Goal.
Convergence histories of the both Goal are plotted in Fig.4.2.
If it is necessary to perform several calculations with the same fluid velocity field, but
different temperatures and/or species concentrations, it is expedient to first calculate this
fluid velocity field without applying the Flow Freezing option. Then, clone the
COSMOSFloWorks project into several projects (including copying the calculation
results), make the required changes to these projects, and perform the remaining
calculations for these projects using the calculated results as initial conditions and
applying the Flow Freezing option in the Permanent mode with a zero Start period.
The Flow Freezing Start moment, as well as other parameters of the
Calculation Control Options dialog box can be changed during a
calculation.
As soon as the Flow Freezing option is invoked, only the slowest
processes are calculated. As a result, the convergence and finishing
criteria can become non-optimal. Therefore, to avoid obtaining
incorrect results when enabling the Flow Freezing option, it is
recommended to increase the maximum number of travels specified
at the Finish tab of the Calculation Control Options dialog box by
1.55 times compared to the number that was set automatically or
required for the calculation performed without the Flow Freezing
option.
Chapter Flow Freezing
2-28
Flow Freezing in a Periodic Mode
In some problems the flow field depends on temperature (or species concentrations), so
both the velocity and the temperature (concentrations) change simultaneously throughout
the calculation. Nevertheless, since they change in a different manner, i.e., the velocity
field changes faster than the temperature (concentrations) field, therefore approaching its
steady state solution earlier, the Flow Freezing option can be used in a Periodic mode to
reduce the CPU time required for solving such problems. The Periodic mode of the Flow
Freezing option consists of calculating the velocity field not in each of the iterations (time
steps), but periodically for a number of iterations specified in No freezing (iterations)
after a period of freezing specified in the Freezing (iterations) (see Fig.4.3) The
temperatures and concentrations are calculated in each iteration. Examples include
channel flows with specified mass flow rates and pressures, so the fluid density and,
therefore, velocity depend on the fluid temperature, or flows involving free convection,
where due to the buoyancy the hot fluid rises, so the velocity field depends on the fluid
temperature.
If you forget to use the calculated results as initial conditions, then
the saved fluid velocity field will be lost in the cloned project, so the
project must be created again. To use the calculated results as initial
conditions for the current project, select the Transferred type of
Parameter definition for the initial conditions in the General Settings
dialog box.
Fig.4.2 The convergence history of the Goal (which is the minimum fluid temperature in the vortex
core) with and without applying the Flow Freezing option.
Fig.4.3
As an example, let us consider a 3D external problem of an air jet outflow from a body
face into still air (see Fig.4.4, in which the jet outflow face is marked by a red line). Here,
the wire frame is the computational domain. The other body seen in this figure is
introduced and disabled in the Component Control dialog box (so it is a fluid region) in
order to see the air temperature averaged over its face (the project Goal), depending on the
air temperature specified at the jet outflow face.
This problem is solved in several stages. At the first stage, the calculation is performed for
the cold (T = 300 K, which is equal to the environment temperature) air jet. This
calculation requires a CPU time of 12 min. 14 s. Then we clone the project including
copying the results. Next, we set the outlet air temperature to T = 400 K, specify the
Periodic mode of the Flow Freezing option by its Start moment of 0.25 travels (in order
for the heat to have time to propagate along the jet to the measuring face) and under
Duration specify 10 as both the Freezing (iterations) and No freezing (iterations) values.
Then perform the calculation on the same computational mesh with the Take previous
results option in the Run box. As you can notice, the calculation with flow freezing takes
less CPU time than the similar calculation without the Flow Freezing option enabled.
5 Cavitation
5.1 Physical model
Cavitation is a common problem for many engineering devices dealing with liquid flows.
The deleterious effects of cavitation include: lowered performance, load asymmetry,
erosion and pitting of blade surfaces, vibration and noise, and reduction of the overall
machine life. Cavitation models used today range from rather crude approximations to
sophisticated bubble dynamics models. Details about bubble generation, growth and
collapse are important for the prediction of a solid surfaces erosion, but are not necessary
to estimate the performance of a pump, valve or other equipment. In COSMOSFloWorks
an engineering model of cavitation is employed to predict the extent of cavitation and its
influence on the performance of the analyzed device.
Fig.4.4 Air jet outflow from a body face into a still air.
Chapter Cavitation
2-30
Limitations and Assumptions
The model has the following limitations and/or assumptions:
Cavitation is currently available only for incompressible water (when defining the
project fluids you should select Water from the list of Pre-Defined liquids);
cavitation in mixtures of different liquids cannot be calculated.
The properties of the dissolved non-condensable gas are set to be equal to those of
air.
Thermodynamic parameters in the phase transition areas should be contained within
the following bounds:
277.15 < T < 583.15 K, 800 < P < 10
7
Pa.
The model does not describe the detailed structure of the cavitation area, i.e
parameters of individual vapor bubbles are not considered.
The parameters of the flow at the inlet boundary conditions must be such that the
volume fraction of liquid water in the inlet flow would be at least 0.1.
5.2 Interface
Cavitation option in COSMOSFloWorks is
switched on by checking the Cavitation
check box either in Wizard or in the
General Settings window. Since
COSMOSFloWorks may consider
cavitation only in incompressible water, the
selection of any fluid type other than liquid
or of any fluid other than water renders this
check box unavailable.
Cavitation option for a fluid subdomain is
switched on in a manner similar to that for the whole project.
Once enabled, the Cavitation option requires you to specify the
Dissolved gas mass fraction. The default value of this parameter is
0.00001. This value is typical for air dissolved in water under normal
conditions and therefore is appropriate for most cases. If needed, you
can specify a different value of the Dissolved gas mass fraction in the
range of 10
-4
...10
-8
.
Cavitation is represented in the calculation results via the following
parameters: Water Mass Fraction, Water Volume Fraction, Vapour
Mass Fraction, and Vapour Volume Fraction, which describe the local
fraction of the fluid components (water and vapour) by mass and by
volume. Note that you may need to check some of those parameters in
the Parameter list to enable their selection in the View Settings
window.
5.3 Examples of use
Rotating impeller
Water flows through a rotating impeller with five blades of curved shape, as shown on the
picture. The aim of simulation is to predict the impeller characteristics.
Due to the pressure drop on suction side of the impeller blades, a cavitation may develop
in these areas, which cannot but affect the impeller performance.
The appearance of calculated cavitation area in the form of isosurfaces is shown below on
Figure 2.1.

Fig. 2.1. Isosurfaces for vapour volume fraction of 10%.
Chapter Cavitation
2-32
Hydrofoil in a tunnel
A symmetric hydrofoil is placed in a sufficiently wide water-filled tunnel with a non-zero
angle of attack. Obviously, water flow develops some pressure drop on the leeward side of
the hydrofoil, which at certain conditions can lead to cavitation.
Figure 2.2 contains a representation of the
calculated cavitation area visualized in terms of
vapour volume fraction.
Ball valve
Water flows inside an about half-opened ball valve
(see Figure 2.3) at the relatively low pressure and
high velocity producing cavitation.
The results visualized in the form of Cut plot with Vapour volume fraction as displayed
parameter are presented on Figure 2.4. It is clearly seen that sudden expansion of the flow
produce an area of strong cavitation.
Fig. 2.2. Calculated cavitation area.
Fig. 2.3. Model of the ball valve.
Fig. 2.4. Distribution of the vapour volume fraction.
5.4 Recommendations
If your analyze a flow of water in some points of which the local static pressure may
fall below the liquid's vapour pressure at the local temperature causing cavitation or
if a localized boiling of water may occur in the water flow due to intense heating, it
is recommended to select the Cavitation option in the Fluids dialog box of the
Wizard or General Settings.
Cavitation area growths slowly during calculation and there is a risk that the
calculation will stop before the cavitation area develops completely. To avoid this,
always specify Global Goal of Average Density and increase the Analysis interval
on the Finish tab of the Calculation Control Options dialog box up to 2.5 travels.
Also make sure that the other finish conditions do not cause the calculation to stop
before goals are converged. The easiest way to ensure that is to select If all are
satisfied in the Value cell for the Finish conditions on the Finish tab of the
Calculation Control Options dialog box.
The Cavitation option should not be selected if you calculate a water flow in the
model without flow openings (inlet and outlet).
The fluid region where cavitation occurs should be well resolved by the
computational mesh.
To see the cavitation areas, you may select, for example, Vapour Volume Fraction
or Density (the latter one is probably the best choice) as the parameter for
visualization.
6 Steam
6.1 Physical model
COSMOSFloWorks allows you to consider water steam among the project fluids. Like
Humidity, the Steam option may be used to analyze engineering problems concerning
water vapour and its volume condensation, along with the corresponding changes in the
physical properties of the project fluid. Steam option in COSMOSFloWorks describes the
behavior of pure water steam (for which, say, a description as "air with 100% humidity at
100C", although nominally correct, would sound a bit weird) or its mixtures with other
gases.
COSMOSFloWorks project may include pure Steam or its mixture with Gases (but
not with Real gases).
Thermodynamic parameters of steam should be contained within the following
bounds:
283 < T < 610 K, P < 10
7
Pa.
The volume fraction of condensed water should never exceed 5%.
Chapter Steam
2-34
Steam option is incompatible with the High Mach number flow option, i.e. the two
can not be employed simultaneously.
The employed model of condensation is fully equilibrium and considers only
volume condensation.
6.2 Interface
Steam is treated by COSMOSFloWorks as
a special kind of fluid and may be selected
from the Engineering Database just like
any other fluid.
Steam may be assigned for a fluid
subdomain as well as for the whole project.
Steam may be mixed with any regular
Gases (but not with Real gases). In this case, its concentration in a form
of mass or volume fraction must be specified in Initial conditions, as
well as in all boundary conditions.
Steam content in the mixtures of water steam with other gases is
represented in the calculation results via Steam Mass Fraction, Steam
Volume Fraction (that represent mass and volume fractions of water,
respectively) and Relative Humidity (which is the ratio of the local
partial density of water to the density of saturated water vapor under
current conditions). The content of particular form of water, i.e. vapor or
liquid, is represented via Condensate Mass Fraction (that represents
mass fraction of condensed steam in the fluid) and Moisture Content
(that represents the fraction of condensed steam with respect to the
overall content of steam). Note that you may need to check some of
those parameters in the Parameter list to enable their selection in the
View Settings window.
6.3 Example of use
Heat exchanger
COSMOSFloWorks calculates the equilibrium condensation in water steam as steam
flows through a cooled tube of a heat exchanger. Figure 2.5 shows cut plot of the
condensate mass fraction parameter.
6.4 Recommendations
To avoid the risk of finishing the calculation before the condensation develops
completely, always specify some goal strongly dependent on condensation, for
example Global Goal of Average Density, and make sure that the calculation will
not stop before this goal is converged.
To see the condensation areas, you may use Relative Humidity or the Condensate
Mass Fraction as the parameter for visualization.
7 Humidity
7.1 Physical model
COSMOSFloWorks allows you to consider the relative humidity of the gas or mixture of
gases. This allows you to analyze engineering problems where the condensation of water
vapor contained in the air (or other gas), or, more generally speaking, where any
differences in physical properties of wet and dry air play an important role. Examples may
include air conditioning systems (especially in wet climate or in the places where relative
humidity is very important, e.g. libraries, art museums, etc.), tank steamers, steam turbines
and other kinds of industrial equipment. COSMOSFloWorks can calculate equilibrium
volume (but not surface) condensation of steam into water. As a result, the local fractions
of gaseous and condensed steam are determined. In addition, the corresponding changes
of the fluid temperature, density, enthalpy, specific heat, and sonic velocity are determined
and taken into account.
Fig. 2.5. Cut plot showing the condensate mass fraction.
Chapter Humidity
2-36
Humidity is currently available only in Gases (both in individual gases and in
mixtures), but not in Real gases.
Thermodynamic parameters in the fluid areas where humidity is considered should
be contained within the following bounds:
283 < T < 610 K, P < 10
7
Pa.
The volume fraction of condensed water should never exceed 5%.
Humidity option is incompatible with the High Mach number flow option, i.e. the
two can not be employed simultaneously.
The model does not describe the condensation process in as subtle detail as the
parameters of individual liquid droplets.
Surface condensation, i.e. the formation of dew on solid surfaces, is not considered.
The condensed steam has no history, since the employed condensation model is
fully equilibrium. In other words, the state of condensed steam at given point is
governed solely by the local conditions at this point.
7.2 Interface
Humidity option in COSMOSFloWorks is
switched on by checking the Humidity
check box either in Wizard or in the
General Settings window. This check box
is present only if the current fluid type is
set to Gases.
Once Humidity is switched on, the relative
humidity of the gas becomes available to
specify in the Initial conditions window.
The relative humidity is defined as the
ratio of the current water vapor density to
that of saturated water vapor under current
conditions.
Humidity can be assigned for a fluid
subdomain as well as for the whole project by selecting the check box
of the same name, and, once assigned, becomes available to specify in
the Humidity Parameters group box.
The relative humidity must be specified within all boundary and initial
conditions in contact with the fluid region for which the calculation of
relative humidity is performed.
Together with the humidity value for boundary and initial
conditions you must also specify the values of Humidity
reference pressure and Humidity reference
temperature that describe the conditions under which the
relative humidity has been determined, since these values
may differ from the current pressure and temperature.
Chapter Humidity
2-38
Humidity is represented in the calculation results via the following
parameters: Steam Mass Fraction, Steam Volume Fraction (that
represent mass and volume fractions of water, respectively) and Relative
Humidity (which is the ratio of the local partial density of water to the
density of saturated water vapor under current conditions). The content
of particular form of water, i.e. vapor or liquid, is represented via
Condensate Mass Fraction (that represents mass fraction of water
condensate in the fluid) and Moisture Content (that represents the
fraction of condensed water with respect to the overall content of water).
Note that you may need to check some of those parameters in the
Parameter list to enable their selection in the View Settings window.
7.3 Example of use
Aircraft
An air flow around an aircraft model can be simulated with the Humidity option selected.
The examination of relative humidity distribution (Figure 2.6) reveals broad areas of more
than 80% relative humidity from above of both wings. Naturally, these areas (together
with smaller zones near the cockpit and the tail unit) are enriched with water condensate,
as it may be seen on Figure 2.7.
7.4 Recommendations
If your analyze a flow of gas containing some amount of water vapor and the
conditions are likely to get over the dew point, it is recommended to consider
humidity in the calculation as described in this chapter.
Fig. 2.7. Isosurfaces of condensate mass
fraction = 0.00015
Fig. 2.6. Flow trajectories colored in
accordance with relative humidity.
To avoid the risk of finishing the calculation before the condensation develops
completely, always specify some goal strongly dependent on condensation, for
example Global Goal of Average Density, and make sure that the calculation will
not stop before this goal is converged.
To see the condensation areas, you may use Relative Humidity or the Condensate
Mass Fraction as the parameter for visualization.
8 Real Gases
8.1 Physical model
COSMOSFloWorks has an ability to consider real gases. A wide choice of predefined real
gases is presented. The user may also create user-defined real gases by specifying their
parameters. This option may be useful in the engineering problems concerning gases at
nearly-condensation temperatures and/or at nearly-critical and supercritical (that is to say,
very high) pressures, i.e. at conditions where the behavior of the gas can no longer be
represented adequately by the ideal-gas state equation.
The model of real gas implemented in COSMOSFloWorks employs a custom
modification of the Redlich-Kwong state equation. Naturally, the equation unavoidably
has certain bounds of applicability, which are explained on the picture below:
Chapter Real Gases
2-40
The area of validity of the model includes zones 10, 11 and 12. (Each predefined real gas
has its own values of P
min
, P
max
, T
min
, and T
max
, and those are also to be specified for a
user-defined real gas.) If the calculated pressure and/or temperature fall outside of this
area, COSMOSFloWorks issues a warning. The warning for zones 1 - 8 is: Real gas
parameters (pressure and/or temperature) are outside the definitional domain of
substance properties, with comment: P < P
min
, P > P
max
, T < T
min
, or T > T
max
,
depending on what has actually happen. The warning for zone 9 is: Phase transition in
the Real gas may occur.
Real gas may be used in a COSMOSFloWorks project as pure fluid or in mixture
with Gases (but not with other Real gases).
Pressure and temperature of real gas should be contained within certain limits (those
are specified individually for each of the predefined real gases).
Real gas should not be put under conditions that cause its condensation into liquid.
The use of real gas is incompatible with the High Mach number flow option.
The precision of calculation of thermodynamic properties at nearly-critical
temperatures and supercritical pressures may be lowered to some extent in
comparison to other parameter ranges. The calculations involving user-defined real
gases at supercritical pressures are not recommended.
The copying of pre-defined real gases to user-defined folder is impossible since the
employed models are not exactly similar.
8.2 Interface
Real gases are a special type of fluids and
may be selected from the Engineering
Database along with other fluids.
Real gas may be assigned for a fluid
subdomain as well as for the whole project.
Real gases may be mixed with regular Gases (though not with each
other). In this case, substance concentrations in a form of mass or
volume fractions must be specified in Initial conditions, as well as in all
boundary conditions.
To create a user-defined real gas,
the user must create a new item
in the corresponding folder in the
Engineering Database and
specify the following parameters:
Molar mass;
Critical pressure p
c
;
Critical temperature T
c
;
Critical compressibility factor Z
c
;
Redlich-Kwong equation type that should be used, i.e. the
original one or its modifications by Wilson, Barnes-King, or
Soave;
Acentric factor (if applicable);
Minimum temperature, i.e. the lower margin of validity of the model;
Maximum temperature, i.e. the corresponding upper margin;
Order of ideal gas heat capacity polynomial, i.e. the order of polynomial function
of temperature that defines the "ideal-gas" constituent of the real gas specific heat at
constant pressure;
Coefficients of ideal gas heat capacity polynomial, i.e. the coefficients of the
aforementioned polynomial;
Polarity (check if the gas in question has polar molecules);
Vapor viscosity dependence on temperature, i.e. the coefficients a and n in the
equation describing vapor viscosity as = aT
n
;
Vapor thermal conductivity
dependence on temperature, which
includes the coefficients a and n and the
choice of dependency type between linear = a+nT and power-law = aT
n

forms;
Chapter Real Gases
2-42
Liquid viscosity dependence on temperature, which includes the coefficients a
and n and the choice of dependency type between power-law = aT
n
and
exponential = 10
a(1/T-1/n)
forms;
Liquid thermal conductivity dependence on temperature, which includes the
coefficients a and n and the choice of dependency type between linear = a+nT
and power-law = aT
n
forms;
The coefficients of the user-specified dependencies for thermophysical properties should
be entered only in SI unit system, except those for the exponential form of dynamic
viscosity of the liquid, which should be taken exclusively from Ref. 1.
Note that the foregoing dependencies for the specific heat and transport properties cover
only the ideal-gas constituents of the corresponding properties, i.e. their values at
low-pressure limit, and the actual formulae contain pressure-dependent corrections which
are calculated automatically.
The post-processor display parameters
concerning real gas includes its mass and
volume fractions in a mixture (if it is not a sole
component of the fluid) and the Real Gas
State. The latter parameter represents the local
phase state of real gas, which may be Vapor,
Liquid, Supercritical, or Out of range. Once
selected, it renders inaccessible the Palette and
Min/Max settings within the View settings
window and replaces the Color bar with the
schematic phase diagram that provides an
explanation of meaning of particular colors, as
shown on the picture.
8.3 Example of use
Joule-Thomson effect
A flow of nitrogen through a tube containing narrow restriction is simulated. To reduce
computation time, the tube was split in halves by a symmetry plane and Symmetry
condition was applied to the corresponding boundary of the Computational Domain.
The calculation within ideal gas approximation, i.e. with nitrogen selected from Gases as
the project fluid, results in the temperature distribution shown on Figure 2.1. It is clearly
seen that the temperature of the gas, after undergoing a noticeable drop while passing
through the hole, later reinstates its initial value. This is an expected behavior of an ideal
gas, as its enthalpy does not depend on pressure.
The calculation was repeated with fluid changed to nitrogen selected from Real Gases and
all other conditions similar. Now the gas temperature at outlet is different from that at inlet
(see Figure 2.9).
Hence we may conclude that the real gas reveals a nonzero Joule-Thomson effect, as
expected.
8.4 Recommendations
Minimum temperature for user-defined real gas should be set at least 5...10 K higher
than the triple point of the actual substance.
Maximum temperature for user-defined real gas should be set so as to keep away
from the area of dissociation of the gas.
The user-specified dependencies for the specific heat and transport properties of the
user-defined real gases should be valid in the whole temperature range from T
min
to
T
max
(or, as for liquid, in the whole temperature range where the liquid exists).
8.5 References
1 R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, B.E. Poling. The properties of gases and liquids, 4th edition,
McGraw-Hill Inc., NY, USA, 1987.
Fig. 2.8. Field of temperatures for a flow of ideal gas.
Fig. 2.9. Field of temperatures for a flow of real gas.
Chapter Real Gases
2-44
3
Meshing Additional Insight
Introduction
COSMOSFloWorks considers the real model designed in SolidWorks and generates a
rectangular computational mesh automatically distinguishing the fluid and solid domains.
The corresponding computational domain is generated in the form of a rectangular
parallelepiped enclosing the model. In the mesh generation process, the computational
domain is divided into uniform rectangular parallelepiped-shaped cells, which form a
so-called basic mesh. Then, using information about the model geometry,
COSMOSFloWorks further constructs the mesh by means of various refinements, i.e.
splitting of the basic mesh cells into smaller rectangular parallelepiped-shaped cells, thus
better representing the model and fluid regions. The mesh from which the calculation
starts, so-called initial mesh, is fully defined by the generated basic mesh and the
refinement settings.
Each refinement has its criterion and level. The refinement criterion denotes which cells
have to be split, and the refinement level denotes the smallest size to which the cells can
be split. Regardless of the refinement considered, the smallest cell size is always defined
with respect to the basic mesh cell size so the constructed basic mesh is of great
importance for the resulting computational mesh.
The main types of refinements are:
Small Solid Features Refinement
Curvature Refinement
Tolerance Refinement
Narrow Channel Refinement
Square Difference Refinement
In addition, the following two types of refinements can be invoked locally:
Cell Type Refinement
Chapter Initial Mesh Generation Stages
3-2
Solid Boundary Refinement
During the calculation, the initial mesh can be refined further using the
Solution-Adaptive Refinement.
Though it depends on a refinement which criterion or level is available for user control,
we will consider all of them (except for the Solution-Adaptive Refinement) to give you a
comprehensive understanding of how the COSMOSFloWorks meshing works.
In the chapter below the most important conclusions are marked with the blue italic font.
For abbreviation list refer to the Glossary paragraph.
1 Initial Mesh Generation Stages
1.1 Basic Mesh Generation and Resolving the Interface
1.1.1) Create basic mesh cells whose sizes are governed by the computational domain
size, the user-specified Control Planes and the number of the basic mesh cells. [Nx, Ny,
Nz, Control Planes. Parameters which act on each stage are summarized in square
brackets at the end of the stage.]
1.1.2) Analyze triangulation in each basic mesh cell at the interfaces between different
substances (such as solid/fluid, solid/porous, solid/solid and porous/fluid interfaces) in
order to find the maximum angle between normals to the triangles which compose the
interface within the cell.
1.1.3) Depending on the maximum angle found, the decision whether to split the cell or
not is made in accordance with the specified Small solid features refinement level
(SSFRL), Narrow channel refinement level (NCRL), Curvature refinement level (CRL)
and Curvature criterion (CRC), Tolerance refinement level (TRL) and Tolerance
Refinement Criterion (TRC) (see the Refinements at Interfaces Between Substances
paragraph). [SSFRL, NCRL, CRL and CRC]
1.1.4) If a basic mesh cell is split, the resulting child cells are analyzed as described in
1.1.2 and 1.1.3, and split further, if necessary. The cell splitting will proceed until the
interface resolution satisfies the specified SSFR criterion, CRC and TRC, or the
corresponding level of splitting reaches its specified value.
1.1.5) The operations 1.1.2 to 1.1.4 are applied for the next basic mesh cell and so on,
taking into account the following Cell Mating rule: two neighboring cells (i.e. cells having
a common face) can be only cells whose levels are similar or differ by one. This rule has
the highest priority as it is necessary for simplifying numerical algorithm in solver.
If a cell belongs to a local initial mesh area, then the corresponding
local refinement levels will be applied (see the Local Mesh Settings
paragraph).
The specified levels of splitting denote the maximum admissible
splitting, i.e. they show to which level a basic mesh cell can be split
if it is required for resolving the solid/fluid interface within the cell.
The mesh at this stage is called the primary mesh. The primary mesh implies the complete
basic mesh with the resolution of the solid/fluid (as well as solid/solid, solid/porous, etc.)
interface by the small solid features refinements and the curvature refinement also taking
into account the local mesh settings.
1.2 Narrow Channel Refinement
After the primary mesh has been created, the narrow channel refinement is put in action.
The Narrow Channels term is conventional and used for the definition of the model flow
passages which are narrow in the direction normal to the solid/fluid interface.
Regardless of the real solid curvature, the mesh approximation is that the solid boundary is
always represented by a set of flat elements, whose nodes are the points where the model
intersects with the cell edges. Thus, whatever the model geometry, there is always a flat
element within a partial cell and the normal to this element denotes the direction normal to
the solid/fluid interface for this partial cell. See the Irregular Cells paragraph for details.
The narrow channel refinement operates as follows:
1.2.1) For each partial cell COSMOSFloWorks calculates the local narrow channel
width as the distance between this partial cell and the next partial cell found on the line
normal to the solid/fluid interface of this cell (i.e. normal to the flat surface element
located in the cell).
The fourth-level red cells appearing
after resolving the cog cause the
neighboring cells to be split up to
third level (yellow cells), that, in
turn, causes the subsequent
refinement producing second level
cells (green cells) and first level
cells (blue cells). The white zero
level cell (basic mesh cell) remains
unsplit since it borders on first level
cells only, thus satisfying the rule.
The Cell Mating rule is strict and has higher priority than the other
cell operations. The rule is also enforced for the cells that are entirely
in a solid.
If the line normal to the solid/fluid interface crosses a local initial
mesh area, then the corresponding local narrow channel refinement
settings is applied to the cells in this direction.
Fig.1.1
Fluid cell refinement due to the Cell Mating rule.
3-4
1.2.2) If the distance value falls within the range defined by the Minimum height of
narrow channel (NCHmin) and Maximum height of narrow channel (NCHmax) options,
the number of cells per this interval is calculated including both partial cells and taking
into account which portion of each partial cell is in fluid. [NCHmin, NCHmax]
1.2.3) More precisely, the number of cells across the channel (i.e. on the interval between
the two partial cells) is calculated as N = N
f
+ n
p1
+ n
p2
, where N
f
is the number of fluid
cells on the interval, and n
p1
and n
p2
are the fluid portions of the both partial cells. This
value is compared with the specified Characteristic number of cells across a narrow
channel (CNC). If N is less than the specified CNC then the cells on this interval are split.
For example, on Fig.1.2 N
f
= 2, n
p1
= n
p2
= 0.4, and N = 2+0.4+0.4 = 2.8 which is less than
the criterion. On Fig.1.3 the partial cells are split, so that the fluid portions of the
newly-formed partial cells are n
p1
= n
p2
= 9/10, and the criterion is satisfied (N > CNC).
The narrow channel refinement is symmetrical with respect to the midpoint of the interval
and proceeds from the both ending partial cells towards the midpoint. [CNC, NCRL].
On Fig.1.4 the specified Characteristic number of cells across a channel is 5 but only two
cells were generated since the maximum refinement level of one allows only basic mesh
cells and first-level cells to be generated.

Fig.1.2
NCRL = 2; CNC = 3;
N = 2.8 < CNC
Fig.1.3
NCRL = 3; CNC = 3;
N = 3.8 > CNC
Like in the other refinements, the Narrow channel refinement level
(NCRL) denotes the maximum level to which the cells can be split to
satisfy the CNC criterion. The NCRL has higher priority than the
CNC, so the refinement will proceed until the CNC criterion is
satisfied or all the cells reach the Narrow channel resolution level.

Fig.1.4
CNC = 5; NCRL = 1
Fig.1.5
CNC = 5; NCRL = 3
On Fig.1.5 the specified Narrow channel refinement level is high enough to allow five
cells to be placed across the channel.
Note that (see Fig.1.6) the partial cells near the channels dead end and the orifice were not
split like the other partial cells along the channel. This is due to the fact that the right angle
was approximated by the flat element sloping to the both sides of the channel. Therefore
the normal to the solid\fluid interface determined in these corner cells, unlike the other
partial cells, is not perpendicular to the channel, so the number of cells per this direction
satisfies the criterion without further splitting.
1.2.4) Refinement on Openings This refinement is intended to force the splitting of the
partial cells which were not refined due to the chamfer approximation of the right angles
(Fig.1.6), if these cells are at the boundary condition surface.
On Fig.1.7 the boundary condition specified on the wall in the end of the channel causes
the Refinement on Opening procedure that splits the red partial cells to the next level.
1.2.5) Next, for all the fluid cells within the entire computational domain the following
Fluid Cell Leveling procedure is applied: if a fluid cell is located between two cells of
higher level, it is split to be equalized with the level of neighboring smaller cells.

Fig.1.6
Normal to the solid\fluid interface direction in
the corner cells.
Fig.1.7
CNC = 5; NCRL = 3; Inlet velocity at the
channel end-wall.
3-6
1.3 Thin walls resolution
In contrast to the narrow channels, thin walls can be resolved without the mesh refinement
inside the wall, since the both sides of the thin wall may reside in the same cell. Therefore,
the amount of cells needed to resolve a thin wall is generally lower than the number of
cells needed to properly resolve a channel of the same width. See Fig.1.8 - 1.10 illustrating
the thin walls resolution technology and its limitations.
Fig.1.8
One mesh cell can contain more than one fluid and/or solid volume; during calculation
each volume has an individual set of parameters depending on its type (fluid or solid).
Solid 1
Solid 2
Fluid 1
Fluid 2
Fig.1.9
If the wall thickness is greater than the basic mesh cell's size across the wall or if the
wall creates only one fluid volume in the cell, then the opposite sides of the wall will not
lay within the same cell. Such walls are resolved with two or more cells across.
1.4 Square Difference Refinement
The Square Difference Refinement checks the neighboring partial cells of different levels
for the difference between their fluid passage areas. If the difference between the fluid
passage area of the higher-level cell and the total fluid passage areas of the adjacent
lower-lever cells exceeds the Square Difference Refinement Criterion (SDRC) then the
greater-level cell is split to the level of adjacent cells in order to equalize the fluid passage
areas (see Fig.1.11). The Square Difference Refinement is always enabled and cannot be
disabled since it is a strict solver requirement. As with the Cell Mating rule, this is another
condition imposed by the solver to provide stability for the convergence processes.
Though you cannot turn off the Square Difference Refinement, you can control its
criterion, which is directly proportional to the Curvature refinement criterion. [CRC].

Fig.1.11
Two adjacent partial cells of
different levels at the cylinder
surface.
Fig.1.12
Cut plot of the cylinder. The concerned cells are blue.
SSFRL = 2; CRL = 0; CRC = 3.14; NCRL = 1.
Fig.1.10
The edges of thin walls ending within a mesh cell are trimmed. These mesh cells are called
Trimmed cells.
Model geometry Meshed geometry
Trimmed edge
Trimmed cell
3-8
Fig.1.11 shows neighboring partial cells of different levels at the cylinder's solid/fluid
interface. The fluid passage area of the higher-level cell is the ABDE polygon. The total
fluid passage area of the lower-level cells is the ABCDE polygon, so the difference
between the fluid passages is the yellow BCD triangle. In this example we have increased
the curvature refinement criterion to , thereby increasing the Square Difference
Refinement Criterion so that the fluid passage difference (BCD) is smaller than the
criterion, and thus, there is no need to split the higher-level cell.
Note that the Square Difference Refinement may cause a domino effect when one splitting
produces cells which become lower-level cells for the next adjacent cell causing it to split
too, and so on, resulting in an increased number of cells.
In the Fig.1.13 the total number of cells is nearly 20% more than in the Fig.1.14 in spite of
the fact that the Curvature refinement is disabled (CRL = 0) in the first case. Here, the
model geometry is similar and before the Square Difference Refinement the mesh is
practically the same in both cases and mostly governed by the Small Solid Features
Refinement when the SSFRL exceeds the CRL, i.e. changing the CRL from 0 to 3 would
not change substantially the number of cells. However, in the first case the curvature
criterion is lower, resulting in a more stringent criterion of the Square Difference
Refinement. So the smaller Square Difference Refinement criterion leads to a greater
number of cells subject to the Square Difference Refinement. In the Fig.1.13 you can see a
stripe of the third level cells along the cylinder. This is the result of the Square Difference
Refinement and the domino effect when a cell on the cylinder edge involves the
neighboring cell in the refinement procedure and so forth along the cylinder.
If in the first case we specify the same CRC as in the second case (0.5054 rad), the total
number of cells decreases to 40963.
Fig.1.13
SSFRL = 3, CRL = 0; CRC = 0.45
Total cells = 49391.
Fig.1.14
SSFRL = 3, CRL = 2; CRC = 0.50;
Total cells = 41376.
Increase of the curvature criterion will increase the Square
Difference Refinement Criterion, and, in turn, decrease the number
of cells in both cases.
1.5 Mesh Diagnostic
The mesh diagnostic is intended to inspect the resulting initial mesh but not to change the
total number of cells.
2 Refinements at Interfaces Between Substances
Different interface types (solid/fluid, solid1/solid2, solid/porous or porous/fluid) are
checked on different refinement criteria, namely: small solid features criterion, curvature
refinement criterion, tolerance refinement criterion and narrow channel refinement
criterion for solid/fluid and solid/porous interfaces; small solid features criterion for
solid1/solid2 interfaces; small solid features criterion and curvature refinement criterion
for porous/fluid interfaces. Whereas the specified refinement levels are equally applied to
any interface type.
2.1 Small Solid Features Refinement
The small solid features refinement acts on the cells where the maximum angle between
normals to the surface-forming triangles is strictly greater than 120. To make this
120-degree criterion easier to understand, let us consider simple small solid features of
planar faces only. The normal to triangles that form the planar face is normal to the planar
face too. Therefore, instead of considering the normals to the triangles we can consider
normals to faces, or better the angle between faces.
In Fig.2.1 the cells with the cogs of 150 and 60 degrees were not split by the small solid
features refinement because the maximum angles between the faces (i.e. between normals
to the triangles enclosed by the cell) are 30 and 120, respectively. If the angle between
the normals becomes greater than 120 (121 for the 59-cog) then the cell is split. The
cell with the square spike surely has to be split because the lateral faces of the spike have
their normals at the angle of 180, thus satisfying the 120-degree criterion.
Note that rectangular corners (like in the rightmost cell) do not satisfy the criterion and
therefore will not be resolved by the small solid features refinement.
Fig.2.1
SSFRL = 1, CRL = 0, NCRL = 0
Chapter Refinements at Interfaces Between Substances
3-10
From Fig.2.2 it is clear that the cells are split by the 120-degree criterion up to the first
level, as defined by the narrow channel refinement level.
For the information about how the NCRL influences the narrow channel refinement see
the Narrow Channel Refinement paragraph.
2.2 Curvature Refinement
The curvature refinement works in the same manner as the small solid features refinement
with the difference that the critical angle between the normals can be specified by the user
(in radians) as curvature refinement criterion (CRC). Here, the smaller the criterion, the
better resolution of the solid curvature. To give more precise and descriptive explanation,
the following table presents several CRC values together with the corresponding angles
between normals and the angles between planar faces.
Remember that if the Narrow channel refinement is enabled, the
maximum level to which the small solid features refinement can split
the cells is set as the maximum level from the specified SSFRL and
Narrow channel refinement level (NCRL). In other words, if the
Narrow channel refinement is enabled, the SSFRL has no effect if it
is smaller than the NCRL.
Table 2.1: Influence of the curvature criterion on the solid curvature resolution.
Curvature
criterion, rad 0.3176 0.4510 0.5548 0.6435 1.0472 1.5708 2.0944 3.1416
' between
normals, [degrees]
>19 >25 >31 >36 >60 >90 >120 180
between faces,
[degrees]
<161 <154 <148 <143 <120 <90 <60 0
Fig.2.2 SSFRL = 0, CRL = 0, NCRL = 1
The table states that if the CRC is equal to 0.4510 rad, then all the cells where the angle
between normals to the surface-forming triangles is more than 25 degrees will be split.
You can see that the curvature criterion set to 0.4510 rad splits the cells with the
150-degrees cog.
However, the default curvature criterion values are small enough to resolve obtuse angles
and curvature well. Increasing the curvature criterion is reasonable if you want to avoid
superfluous refinement but it is recommended that you try different criteria to find the
most appropriate one.
The curvature criterion also denotes the criterion of the Square Difference Refinement.
The square difference refinement criterion is directly proportional to the CRC, so the
smaller CRC, the smaller square difference refinement criterion, resulting in a greater
number of cells appearing after the Square Difference Refinement.
2.3 SSFRL or CRL
Why is it necessary to have two criteria? As you can see, the curvature refinement has
higher priority than the small solid features refinement if the curvature criterion is smaller
than 2/3 . Note that COSMOSFloWorks-specified values of the curvature criterion are
always smaller than 2/3 .
Nevertheless, the advantage of the small solid features refinement is that being sensitive to
relatively small geometry features it does not notice the large-scale curvatures, thus
avoiding refinements in the entire computational domain but resolving only the areas of
small features. At the same time, the curvature refinement can be used to resolve the
large-scale curvatures. So both the refinements have their own coverage providing a
flexible tool for creating an optimal mesh.
Fig.2.3 CRL = 1, CRC = 0.5548,
SSFRL = 0, NCRL = 0
Fig.2.4 CRL = 1, CRC = 0.451,
SSFRL = 0, NCRL = 0
Note that the curvature refinement works exactly as the small solid
features refinement when the curvature criterion is equal to 2.0944
rad (2/3).
In other words, if you did not set the CRC greater than 2/3 and if
the SSFRL and NCRL are smaller than the CRL, then the small solid
feature refinement would be idle.
Chapter Local Mesh Settings
3-12
2.4 Tolerance Refinement
Any surface is approximated by a set of polygons whose vertices are the points of
intersection of this surface with the cells' edges. This approach accurately represents flat
faces though curved surfaces are represented by some approximation (e.g. as a circle can
be represented by a polygon). The tolerance refinement criterion controls the precision of
this approximation. A cell will be split if the distance between the outermost point of the
surface within the cell and the polygon approximating this surface is larger than the
specified criterion value.
3 Local Mesh Settings
The local mesh settings influence only the initial mesh and do not affect the basic mesh in
the local area, but are basic mesh sensitive in that all refinement levels are set with respect
to the basic mesh cell.
The local mesh settings are applied to the cells intersected with the local mesh region
which can be represented by a component, face, edge or vertex.
If a cell intersects with different local mesh setting regions, the refinement settings in this
cell will be used to achieve the maximum refinement.
Cell Type Refinement. The refinement level of cells of a specific type (all cells, fluid and
partial cells, solid and partial cells, or only partial cells) denotes the minimum level to
which the corresponding cells must be split if it doesnt contradict the Cell Mating rule.
The minimum level means the lower bound to which it is obligatory
to split cells, though the cells can be split further if it is required to
satisfy the other criteria such as Small solid features refinement,
Curvature refinement, Narrow channels refinement or Solid
Boundary Refinement.
Tolerance Refinement Small Solid Feature Refinement
Tolerance criterion = 0.1
Tolerance
criterion = 0.08

Tolerance Refinement Curvature Refinement
Refines cells taking into account the
curvature only.
Tolerance criterion = 0.1
Refines cells only if the solid part cut by
the polygon is large enough (h > 0.1)
Tolerance
criterion = 0.03

If different cell types are to be refined, the refinement level of partial cells is set as the
maximum level among all selected levels.
The local mesh settings have higher priority over the initial mesh settings. Therefore, the
local mesh cells will be split to the specified local refinement levels regardless of the
general SSFRL, CRL and NCRL (specified in the Initial Mesh dialog box). This, however,
may cause refinement of cells located outside of the local region due to imposing the Cell
Mating rule.
4 Irregular Cells
When analyzing the computational mesh from the results file obtained with the earlier
versions of COSMOSFloWorks, you may notice the presence of irregular cells. An
irregular cell is a computational mesh cell lying at the solid/fluid interface (or solid/solid
interface in cases where two or more different solids are within the cell), partly in one
substance and partly in another, and characterized by the impossibility to define the
solid/fluid interface position within the cell, given the cells nodes positions relative to
solid region and the intersections of the solid/fluid interface with the cell. Please note that
there are no irregular cells in the newly generated meshes, because the solid/fliud interface
is now always resolved properly.
You can use use the Results Summary to find out whether irregular cells are present and
use the Mesh Visualization tool to detect where they are located.
5 The "Optimize thin walls resolution" option
In the earlier versions of COSMOSFloWorks refinement of the mesh around model's walls
was needed to resolve thin walls properly, but it could also lead to increase in number of
cells in adjacent fluid regions, especially in narrow channels between walls. If this
additional mesh refinement is critical for obtaining proper results and you want to perform
calculation on the same mesh as in the earlier version of COSMOSFloWorks, clear the
Optimize thin walls resolution check box. In this case the mesh will be almost the same
as in the previous version, the main difference is the absence of irregular cells. (see
Fig.5.1).
Chapter Postamble
3-14
6 Postamble
The problem of resolving a model with the computational mesh is always model-specific.
In general, a denser mesh will provide better accuracy but you should tend to create an
optimal mesh and to avoid redundant refinement.
When performing a calculation, try different mesh settings and analyze the obtained
results carefully in order to understand whether it is necessary to refine the mesh or a
coarser resolution is acceptable for the desired accuracy.
7 Glossary
Nx, Ny, Nz Number of basic mesh cells per X, Y and Z directions, respectively.
SSFRL Small solid features refinement level.
CRL Curvature refinement level.
CRC Curvature refinement criterion.
TRL Tolerance refinement level.
TRC Tolerance refinement criterion.
NCRL Narrow channel refinement level.
Fig.5.1
Mesh refinement around a thin wall: (a) the Optimize thin walls resolution option is switched
off, i.e. the mesh cells are split as in the previous versions of COSMOSFloWorks; (b) the Optimize
thin walls resolution option is selected (the default state), i.e. the mesh cells are not split.
(a) (b)
solid/fluid
interfaces
CNC Characteristic number of cells across a narrow channel.
NCHmin The minimum height of narrow channels.
NCHmax The maximum height of narrow channels.
SDRC Square difference refinement criterion.
Chapter Glossary
3-16
4
Validation Examples
Introduction
A series of calculation examples presented below validate the ability of
COSMOSFloWorks to predict the essential features of various flows, as well as to solve
conjugate heat transfer problems (i.e. flow problems with heat transfer in solids). In order
to perform the validation accurately and to present clear results which the user can check
independently, relatively simple examples have been selected. For each of the following
examples, exact analytical expression or well-documented experimental results exist.
Each of the examples focus on one or two particular physical phenomena such as: laminar
flow with or without heat transfer, turbulent flows including vortex development,
boundary layer separation and heat transfer, compressible gas flow with shock and
expansion waves. Therefore, these examples validate the ability of COSMOSFloWorks to
predict fundamental flow features accurately. The accuracy of predictions can be
extrapolated to typical industrial examples (encountered every day by design engineers
and solved using COSMOSFloWorks), which may include a combination of the
above-mentioned physical phenomena and geometries of arbitrary complexity.
Chapter Introduction
4-2
1 Flow through a Cone Valve
Let us see how COSMOSFloWorks predicts incompressible turbulent 3D flows in a 3D
cone valve taken from Ref.14 (the same in Ref.2) and having a complex flow passage
geometry combining sudden 3D contractions and expansions at different turning angles
(Fig. 1.1.). Following the Refs.2 and 14 recommendations on determining a valves
hydraulic resistance correctly, i.e. to avoid any valve-generated flow disturbances at the
places of measuring the flow total pressures upstream and downstream of the valve, the
inlet and outlet straight pipes of the same diameter D and of enough length (we take 7D
and 17D) are connected to the valve, so constituting the experimental rig model (see Fig.
1.2.). As in Ref.14, a water flows through this model. Its temperature of 293.2 K and fully
developed turbulent inlet profile (see Ref.1) with mass-average velocity U 0.5 m/s (to
yield the turbulent flows Reynolds number based on the pipe diameter Re
D
= 10
5
) are
specified at the model inlet, and static pressure of 1 atm is specified at the model outlet.
The corresponding model used for these predictions is shown in Fig. 1.2.. The valves
turning angle is varied in the range of 055 (the valve opening diminishes to zero at
= 8230).
The flow predictions performed with COSMOSFloWorks are validated by comparing the
valves hydraulic resistance
v
, and the dimensionless coefficient of torque M (see Fig.
1.1.) acting on the valve, m, to the experimental data of Ref.14 (Ref.2).
Fig. 1.1. The cone valve under consideration: D = 0.206 m, D
ax
= 1.515D, = 1340.
Fig. 1.2. The model for calculating the 3D flow in the cone valve.
Outlet static pressure
P = 101325 Pa
Inlet velocity
profile
Chapter Flow through a Cone Valve
4-4
Since Ref.14 presents the valves hydraulic resistance (i.e. the resistance due to the flow
obstacle, which is the valve)
v
, whereas the flow calculations in the model (as well as the
experiments on the rig) yield the total hydraulic resistance including both
v
and the tubes
hydraulic resistance due to friction,
f
, i.e. =
v
+
f
, then, to obtain
v
from the flow
predictions (as well as from the experiments),
f
is calculated (measured in the
experiments) separately, at the fully open valve ( = 0); then
v
= -
f
.
In accordance with Ref.14, both and
f
are defined as (P
o inlet
- P
o outlet
)/(U
2
/2), where
P
o inlet
and P
o outlet
are the flow total pressures at the models inlet and outlet, accordingly,
is the fluid density. The torque coefficient is defined as m = M/[D
3
(U
2
/2)(1+
v
)],
where M is the torque trying to slew the valve around its axis (vertical in the left picture in
Fig. 1.1.) due to a non-uniform pressure distribution over the valves inner passage
(naturally, the valves outer surface pressure cannot contribute to this torque). M is
measured directly in the experiments and is integrated by COSMOSFloWorks over the
valves inner passage.
The COSMOSFloWorks predictions have been performed at result resolution level of 5
with manual setting of the minimum gap size to the valves minimum passage in the Y = 0
plane and the minimum wall thickness to 3 mm (to resolve the valves sharp edges).
COSMOSFloWorks has predicted
f
= 0.455,
v
shown in Fig. 1.3., and m shown in Fig.
1.4. It is seen that the COSMOSFloWorks predictions well agree with the experimental
data.
This cone valve's 3D vortex flow pattern at = 45 is shown in Fig. 1.5. by flow
trajectories colored by total pressure. The corresponding velocity contours and vectors at
the Y = 0 plane are shown in Fig. 1.6..
The predictions have been performed on a computational mesh consisting of about
150000 cells and have required about 270 MB memory and about 7 hours to run on a
1GHz PIII platform for each specified .

0.1
1
10
100
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
() () () ()

v
Experimental data
Calculation
Fig. 1.3. Comparison of the COSMOSFloWorks predictions with the Ref.14 experimental data on the
cone valves hydraulic resistance versus the cone valve turning angle.
Fig. 1.4. Comparison of the COSMOSFloWorks predictions with the Ref.14 experimental data on the
cone valves torque coefficient versus the cone valve turning angle.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
()
m
Experimental data
Calculation
Chapter Flow through a Cone Valve
4-6
Fig. 1.5. Flow trajectories colored by total pressure at = 45.
Fig. 1.6. The cone valves velocity contours and vectors at = 45.
2 Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates
Let us consider two-dimensional (planar) steady-state laminar flows of Newtonian,
non-Newtonian, and compressible liquids between two parallel stationary plates spaced at
a distance of 2h (see Fig. 2.1.).
In the case of Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids the channel has a 2h = 0.01 m height
and a 0.2 m length, the inlet for these liquids have standard ambient temperature (293.2 K)
and a uniform inlet velocity profile of u
average
= 0.01 m/s (entrance disturbances are
neglected). The inlet pressure is not known beforehand, since it will be obtained from the
calculations in accordance with the specified channel exit pressure of 1 atm. (The fluids
pass through the channel due to a pressure gradient.)
Since the Reynolds number based on the channel height is equal to about Re
2h
=100, the
flow is laminar.
As for the liquids, let us consider water as a Newtonian liquid and four non-Newtonian
liquids having identical density of 1000 kg/m
3
, identical specific heat of 4200 J/(kgK) and
identical thermal conductivity of 10 W/(mK), but obeying different non-Newtonian liquid
laws available in COSMOSFloWorks.
The considered non-Newtonian liquids' models and their governing characteristics are
presented in Table 4.1. These models are featured by the function connecting the flow
shear stress () with the flow shear rate ( ), i.e. , or, following Newtonian
liquids, the liquid dynamic viscosity () with the flow shear rate ( ), i.e. :
1 the Herschel-Bulkley model: , where K is the consistency
coefficient, n is the power-law index, and is the yield stress (a special case with
n = 1 gives the Bingham model);
2 the power-law model: , i.e., , which is a special case of
Herschel-Bulkley model with = 0;
Fig. 2.1. Flow between two parallel plates.
u
average
or m
& ( ) & f =
&
( ) & & =
( )
o
n
K + = &
o
( )
n
K & = ( )
1
=
n
K &
o
Chapter Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

4-8
3 the Carreau model: , , where
is the liquid dynamic viscosity at infinite shear rate, i.e. the minimum dynamic
viscosity, is the liquid dynamic viscosity at zero shear rate, i.e. the maximum
dynamic viscosity, K
1
is the time constant, n is the power-law index (this model is a
smooth version of the power-law model).
In accordance with the well-known theory presented in Ref.1, after some entrance length,
the flow profile u(y) becomes fully developed and invariable. It can be determined from
the Navier-Stokes x-momentum equation corresponding to
this case in the coordinate system shown in Fig. 2.1. (y = 0 at the channel's center plane,
is the longitudinal pressure gradient along the channel, in the flow under
consideration).
As a result, the fully developed u(y) profile for a Newtonian fluid has the following form:
u(y) = - ,
where is the fluid dynamic viscosity and is the half height of the channel,
,
where u
average
is the flow's mass-average velocity defined as the flow's volume flow rate
divided by the area of the flow passage cross section.
For a non-Newtonian liquid described by the power-law model the fully developed u(y)
profile and the corresponding pressure gradient can be determined from the following
formulae:
& =
( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) 2 / 1
2
1
1

+ + =
n
o
K &

Non-Newtonian liquid No. 1 2 3 4

Non-Newtonian liquid model Herschel-Bulkley Bingham Power law Carreau
Consistency coefficient, K (Pas
n
) 0.001 0.001 0.001 -
Power law index, n 1.5 1 0.6 0.4
Yield stress, o
(Pa) 0.001 0.001 - -
Minimum dynamic viscosity,

(Pas)
- - - 10
-4
Maximum dynamic viscosity, o
(Pas)
- - - 10
-3
Time constant, K
1
(s) - - - 1
h
const
dy
d
dx
dP
w

= = =
dx
dP
dy
du
= &
) (
2
1
2 2
y h
dx
dP
2
3
h
u
dx
dP
average
=

, .
For a non-Newtonian liquid described by the Herschel-Bulkley model the fully developed
u(y) profile can be determined from the following formulae:
at ,
at ,
where the unknown wall shear stress is determined numerically by solving the
nonlinear equation
,
e.g. with the Newton method, as described in this validation. The corresponding pressure
gradient is determined as .
For a non-Newtonian liquid described by the Carreau model the fully developed u(y)
profile can not be determined analytically in an explicit form, so in this validation example
it is obtained by solving the following parametric equation:
,
,
where p is a free parameter varied within the p
max
range,
,
( )
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
=
+
n
n
average
h
y
n
n
u y u
1
1
1
1 2
n
average
n
n
h
u
h
K
dx
dP
|
|
.
|
\
| +
=
1 2
( ) ( )
n
n
o w
w
n
n
n
K
h
u y u
1
/ 1
max
1
+
+
= =
h y
w
o
<
( )
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
+
n
n
o w
o w
h
y
u y u
1
max
1

h y
w
o
>
w
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+

+
=
+
w
o w
n
n
o w
w
n
average
n
n
n
n
K
h
u

1 2
1
1
1
/ 1
h dx
dP
w
=
( ) ( )
2 / ) 1 (
2 2
0
1 ) (

+ + =
n
w
p p
h
y
( )
( 1) / 2
2 2 2 2 0 0
max 2 2
( ) ( ) 1
1
2 ( 1) ( 1)
n
w w w
h h h
u u p p np
n n

| |
= +
|
+ +
\ .
( ) |
.
|
\
|
+ + =

2 / ) 1 (
2
max
2
0 max
1 ) (
n
w
p p
4-10
The p value is varied to satisfy .
The corresponding pressure gradient is equal to .
The SolidWorks model for the 2D calculation is shown in Fig. 2.2.. The boundary
conditions are specified as mentioned above and the initial conditions coincide with the
inlet boundary conditions. The results of the calculations performed with
COSMOSFloWorks at result resolution level 5 are presented in Figs.2.3 - 2.8. The channel
exit u(y) profile and the channel P(x) profile were obtained along the sketches shown by
green lines in Fig. 2.2..
( )
( 1) / 2
2 2 2 2 0 0
max max max max
2 2
( ) ( ) 1
1
2 ( 1) ( 1)
n
w w w
h h h
u p p np
n n

| |
= + + +
|
+ +
\ .
max
0 0
h p
average
dy
hu udy u dp
dp
= =

h dx
dP
w
=
Fig. 2.2. The model for calculating 2D flow between two parallel plates with COSMOSFloWorks.
Fig. 2.3. The water and liquid #3 velocity profiles u(y) at the channel outlet.
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
-0.005 -0.003 -0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005
Y, m
U, m/s
Water, theory
Water, calculation
Liquid #3, theory
Liquid #3, calculation
From Figs.2.4, 2.6, and 2.8 you can see that for all the liquids under consideration, after
some entrance length of about 0.03 m, the pressure gradient governing the channel
pressure loss becomes constant and nearly similar to the theoretical predictions. From
Figs.2.3, 2.5, and 2.7 you can see that the fluid velocity profiles at the channel exit
obtained from the calculations are close to the theoretical profiles.
Fig. 2.4. The water and liquid #3 longitudinal pressure change along the channel, P(x).
101325
101325.05
101325.1
101325.15
101325.2
101325.25
101325.3
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
X, m
P, Pa
Water, theory
Water, calculation
Liquid #3, theory
Liquid #3,
calculation
Fig. 2.5. The liquids #1 and #2 velocity profiles u(y) at the channel outlet.
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
-0.005 -0.003 -0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005
Y, m
U, m/s
Liquid #1, theory
Liquid #1,
calculation
Liquid #2, theory
Liquid #2,
calculation
4-12
In the case of compressible liquids the channel has the height of 2h = 0.001 m and the
length of 0.5 m, the liquids at its inlet had standard ambient temperature (293.2 K) and a
uniform inlet velocity profile corresponding to the specified mass flow rate of
= 0.01 kg/s.
The inlet pressure is not known beforehand, since it will be obtained from the calculations
as providing the specified mass flow rate under the specified channel exit pressure of 1
atm. (The fluids pass through the channel due to the pressure gradient).
Fig. 2.6. The liquids #1 and #2 longitudinal pressure change along the channel, P(x).
101325
101325.1
101325.2
101325.3
101325.4
101325.5
101325.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
X, m
P, Pa
Liquid #1, theory
Liquid #1,
calculation
Liquid #2, theory
Liquid #2,
calculation
Fig. 2.7. The liquid #4 velocity profile u(y) at the channel outlet.
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
-0.005 -0.003 -0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005
Y, m
U, m/s
Liquid #4, theory
Liquid #4,
calculation
m&
Let us consider two compressible liquids whose density obeys the following laws:
the power law:
, where
0
, P
0
, B and n are specified:
0
is the liquid's density
under the reference pressure P
0
, B and n are constants,
the logarithmic law:
, where
0
, P
0
, B and C are specified:
0
is the liquid's
density under the reference pressure P
0
, B and C are
constants.
In this validation example these law's parameters values have been specified as
0
=10
3

kg/m
3
, P
0
= 1 atm, B = 10
7
Pa, n = 1.4, C = 1, and these liquids have the 1Pas dynamic
viscosity.
Since this channel is rather long, the pressure gradient along it can be determined as
, where is the liquids' dynamic viscosity, is the liquid mass
flow rate, S is the channel's width, is the liquid density.
Therefore, by substitution the compressible liquids' (P) functions, we obtain the
following equations for determining P(x) along the channel:
for the power-law liquid:
Fig. 2.8. The liquid #4 longitudinal pressure change along the channel, P(x).
101325
101325.02
101325.04
101325.06
101325.08
101325.1
101325.12
101325.14
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
X, m
P, Pa
Liquid #4, theory
Liquid #4,
calculation
0 0
n
P B
P B
| |
+
=
|
+
\ .
0
0
1 *ln
B P
C
B P
=
+
+
2
3 P m
x h S
&
m&
4-14
its solution is
,
where C
1
is a constant determined from the boundary conditions;
for the logarithmic-law liquid:
, this equation is solved numerically.
Both the theoretical P(x) distributions and the corresponding distributions computed
within COSMOSFloWorks on a 5*500 computational mesh are presented in Figs.2.9 and
2.10. It is seen that the COSMOSFloWorks calculations agree with the theoretical
distributions.
1/
0
2
0
3
n
P B P m
x h S P B
+ | |
=
|
+
\ .
&
( )
1 1
1
0 1 2
0
3
( )
1
n n
n m
P B P B x C
n h S
+
+ = + +
+
&
2
0 0
3
1 ln
P m P B
C
x h S P B
| |
+
=
+
\ .
&
Fig. 2.9. The logarithmic-law compressible liquid's longitudinal pressure change along the channel,
P(x).
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
18000000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
X, m
P, Pa
LN, theory
LN, calculation
Fig. 2.10. The power-law compressible liquid's longitudinal pressure change along the channel, P(x).
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
X, m
P, Pa
Power, theory
Power, calculation
4-16
3 Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes
Having been encouraged by the 2D results presented in the previous example, let us now
see how the 3D flow through a straight pipe is predicted. Let us consider water (at
standard 293.2 K temperature) flowing through a long straight pipe with circular cross
section of d = 0.1 m (see Fig. 3.1.). At the pipe inlet the velocity is uniform and equal to
u
inlet
. At the pipe outlet the static pressure is equal to 1 atm.
The SolidWorks model used for all the 3D pipe flow calculations is shown in Fig. 3.2. The
initial conditions have been specified to coincide with the inlet boundary conditions. The
computational domain is reduced to domain (Z 0, Y 0) with specifying the flow
symmetry planes at Z = 0 and Y = 0.
According to theory (Ref.1), the pipe flow velocity profile changes along the pipe until it
becomes a constant, fully developed profile at a distance of L
inlet
from the pipe inlet.
According to Ref.1, L
inlet
is estimated as:
Fig. 3.1. Flow in a pipe.
u
inlet
Fig. 3.2. The SolidWorks model for calculating 3D flow in a pipe with COSMOSFloWorks.
Chapter Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes
4-18
where Re
d
= Ud/ is the Reynolds number based on the pipe diameter d, U is the
mass-average flow velocity, is the fluid density, and is the fluid dynamic viscosity.
Therefore, to provide a fully developed flow in the pipe at Re
d
under consideration, we
will study the cases listed in Table 1:. Here, L
pipe
is the overall pipe length. All the
COSMOSFloWorks predictions concerning the fully developed pipe flow characteristics
are referred to the pipe section downstream of the inlet section.
*) the lengths in brackets are for the rough pipes.
The flow regime in a pipe can be laminar, turbulent, or transitional, depending on Re
d
.
According to Ref.1, Re
d
= 4000 is approximately the boundary between laminar pipe flow
and turbulent one (here, the transitional region is not considered).
Theory (Refs. 1 and 4) states that for laminar fully developed pipe flows
(Hagen-Poiseuille flow) the velocity profile u(y) is invariable and given by:
where R is the pipe radius, and dP/dx is the longitudinal pressure gradient along the pipe,
which is also invariable and equal to:
The COSMOSFloWorks predictions of dP/dx and u(y) of the laminar fully developed pipe
flow at Re
d
= 100 performed at result resolution level 6 are presented in Fig. 3.3. and Fig.
3.4. The presented predictions relate to the smooth pipe, and similar ones not presented
here have been obtained for the case of the rough tube with relative sand roughness of
k/d=0.20.4 %, that agrees with the theory (Ref.1).

Table 1: Pipe inlet velocities and lengths.
Re
d
u
inlet
, m/s L
inlet
, m L
pipe
, m
0.1 10
-6
0.3 0.45
100 0.001 0.3 0.45
1000 0.01 3 4.5
10
4
0.1 4 (5)* 6 (10)*
10
5
1 4 (5)* 6 (10)*
10
6
10 4 (5)*6 6 (10)*
=
=
=
6
10 ... 6000 Re , 40
6000 ... 2500 Re , 100
2500 ... 1 . 0 Re , 3 Re 03 . 0
d
d
d d
d
d
d d
L
inlet
=
) (
4
1
) (
2 2
y R
dx
dP
y u =
,
2
8
R
u
dx
dP
inlet
=

.

From Fig. 3.3. one can see that after an entrance length of about 0.15 m the pressure
gradient predicted by COSMOSFloWorks coincides with the one predicted by theory.
Therefore, the prediction of pipe pressure loss is excellent. As for local flow features, from
Fig. 3.4. one can see that the fluid velocity profiles predicted at the pipe exit are rather
close to the theoretical profile.
101325.0000
101325.0002
101325.0004
101325.0006
101325.0008
101325.0010
101325.0012
101325.0014
101325.0016
101325.0018
101325.0020
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
X (m)
Pressure (Pa)
Theory
Calculation
Fig. 3.3. The longitudinal pressure change (pressure gradient) along the pipe at Re
d
100.
Fig. 3.4. The fluid velocity profile at the pipe exit for Re
d
100.
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Y (m)
Velocity (m/s)
Theory
Calculation
4-20
The velocity profile and longitudinal pressure distribution in a smooth pipe at Re
d
= 10
5
,
i.e., in a turbulent pipe flow regime, predicted by COSMOSFloWorks at result resolution
level 6 are presented in Figs.3.5 and 3.6 and compared to theory (Ref.1, the Blasius law of
pressure loss, the 1/7-power velocity profile).
Then, to stand closer to engineering practice, let us consider the COSMOSFloWorks
predictions of the pipe friction factor used commonly and defined as:
where L is length of the pipe section with the fully developed flow, along which pressure
loss P is measured.
101200
101400
101600
101800
102000
102200
102400
0 2 4 6 8 10
X (m)
Pressure (Pa)
Theory
Calculation
Fig. 3.5. The longitudinal pressure change (pressure gradient) along the pipe at Re
d
= 10
5
.
L
d
u
P
f
inlet
=
2
2
,
In Figs. 3.7 and 3.8 (scaled up) you can see the COSMOSFloWorks predictions performed
at result resolution level 5 for the smooth pipes in the entire Re
d
range (both laminar and
turbulent), and compared with the theoretical and empirical values determined from the
following formulae which are valid for fully-developed flows in smooth pipes (Refs.1, 2,
and 4):
It can be seen that the friction factor values predicted for smooth pipes, especially in the
laminar region, are fairly close to the theoretical and empirical curve.
As for the friction factor in rough pipes, the COSMOSFloWorks predictions for the pipes
having relative wall roughness of k/d=0.4% (k is the sand roughness) are presented and
compared with the empirical curve for such pipes (Refs.1, 2, and 4) in Fig. 3.8.. The
underprediction error does not exceed 13%.
Additionally, in the full accordance with theory and experimental data the
COSMOSFloWorks predictions show that the wall roughness does not affect the friction
factor in laminar pipe flows.
Fig. 3.6. The fluid velocity profile at the pipe exit at Re
d
= 10
5
.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Y (m)
Velocity (m/s)
Theory
Calculation
1 4 5
2
5
64
, Re 2300
Re
0.316 Re , 4000 Re 10
, Re 10
d
d
d d
d
d
laminar flows,
f turbulent flows,
Re
1.8 log turbulent flows
6.9
= < <
| |
\ .

4-22

Fig. 3.7. The friction factor predicted by COSMOSFloWorks for smooth pipes in comparison with the
theoretical and empirical data (Refs.1, 2, and 4).
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Re
d
Friction factor
Smooth pipes,
theoretical and
empirical data
Calculation
0.010
0.100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Re
d
Friction Factor
Smooth wall,
theoretical and
empirical data
Smooth wall,
calculation
Rough wall,
k/d=0.4%, empirical
data
Rough wall,
k/d=0.4%,
calculation
Fig. 3.8. The friction factor predicted by COSMOSFloWorks for smooth and rough pipes in
comparison with the theoretical and empirical data (Refs.1, 2, and 4).
4 Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates
In the previous example we have presented a validation for laminar and turbulent flows in
smooth and rough pipes for a wide range of Reynolds numbers. Now let us consider
uniform flows over smooth and rough flat plates with laminar and turbulent boundary
layers, so that COSMOSFloWorks predictions of a flat plate drag coefficient are validated.
We consider the boundary layer development of incompressible uniform 2D water flow
over a flat plate of length L (see Fig. 4.1.). The boundary layer develops from the plate
leading edge lying at the upstream computational domain boundary. The boundary layer at
the leading edge is considered laminar. Then, at some distance from the plate leading edge
the boundary layer automatically becomes turbulent (if this distance does not exceed L).
The SolidWorks model is shown in Fig. 4.2.. The problem is solved as internal in order to
avoid a conflict situation in the corner mesh cell where the external flow boundary and the
model wall intersect. In the internal flow problem statement, to avoid any influence of the
upper model boundary or wall on the flow near the flat plate, the ideal wall boundary
condition has been specified on the upper wall. The plate length is equal to 10 m, the
channel height is equal to 2 m, the walls thickness is equal to 0.5 m.

Water
L
Fig. 4.1. Flow over a flat plate.
Fig. 4.2. The model for calculating the flow over the flat plate with COSMOSFloWorks.
Outlet
Rough or smooth wall
Ideal wall Inlet
Chapter Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates
4-24
To solve the problem, an incoming uniform water flow of a certain velocity (see below),
temperature of 293.2 K, turbulence intensity of 1%, and turbulence length of 0.01 m is
specified at the channel inlet, whereas the water static pressure of 1 atm is specified at the
channel outlet.
The flow computation is aimed at predicting the flat plate drag coefficient, defined as (see
Refs. 1 and 4):
where F is the plate drag force, A is the plate surface area, is fluid density, and V is the
fluid velocity.
According to Refs.1 and 4, the plate drag coefficient value is governed by the Reynolds
number, based on the distance L from the plate leading edge (Re
L
= VL/, where is the
fluid density, V is the incoming uniform flow velocity, and is fluid dynamic viscosity),
as well as by the relative wall roughness L/k, where k is the sand roughness. As a result,
Refs.1 and 4 give us the semi-empirical flat plate C
D
(Re
L
) curves obtained for different
L/k from the generalized tubular friction factor curves and presented in Fig. 4.3. (here,
k). If the boundary layer is laminar at the plate leading edge, then the wall roughness does
not affect C
D
until the transition from the laminar boundary layer to the turbulent one, i.e.,
the C
D
(Re
L
) curve is the same as for a hydraulically smooth flat plate. The transition
regions boundaries depend on various factors, the wall roughness among them. Here is
shown the theoretical transition region for a hydraulically smooth flat plate. The transition
region's boundary corresponding to fully turbulent flows (i.e., at the higher Re
L
) is marked
in Fig. 4.3. by a dashed line. At the higher Re
L
, the semi-empirical theoretical curves have
flat parts along which Re
L
does not affect C
D
at a fixed wall roughness. These flat parts of
the semi-empirical theoretical curves have been obtained by a theoretical scaling of the
generalized tubular friction factor curves to the flat plate conditions under the assumption
of a turbulent boundary layer beginning from the flat plate leading edge.
To validate the COSMOSFloWorks flat plate C
D
predictions within a wide Re
L
range, we
have varied the incoming uniform flow velocity at the model inlet to obtain the Re
L
values
of 10
5
, 310
5
, 10
6
, 310
6
, 10
7
, 310
7
, 10
8
, 310
8
, 10
9
.To validate the wall roughness
influence on C
D
, the wall roughness k values of 0, 50, 200, 10
3
, 510
3
, 10
4
m have been
considered. The COSMOSFloWorks calculation results obtained at result resolution level
5 and compared with the semi-empirical curves are presented in Fig. 4.3..
As you can see from Fig. 4.3., C
D
(Re
L
) of rough plates is somewhat underpredicted by
COSMOSFloWorks in the turbulent region, at L/k 1000 the C
D
(Re
L
) prediction error
does not exceed about 12%.
A
V
F
C
d
2
2
=
,
Fig. 4.3. The flat plate drag coefficient predicted with COSMOSFloWorks for rough and hydraulically
smooth flat plates in comparison with the semi-empirical curves (Refs.1 and 4).
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
Re
C
D
L/k=1e3
L/k=2e3
L/k=1e4
L/k=5e4
L/k=2e5
Smooth
Chapter Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates
4-26
5 Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct
In the previous examples we have considered laminar and turbulent flows over flat plates
and in straight pipes. Let us now see how COSMOSFloWorks predicts 3-dimensional
incompressible flow in a 90
o
-bend square duct.
Following Ref.8, we will consider a steady-state flow of water (at 293.2 K inlet
temperature and U
inlet
= 0.0198 m/s inlet uniform velocity) in a 4040 mm square
cross-sectional duct having a 90-angle bend with r
i
= 72 mm inner radius (r
o
= 112 mm
outer radius accordingly) and attached straight sections of 1.8 m upstream and 1.2 m
downstream (see Fig. 5.1.). Since the flow's Reynolds number, based on the duct's
hydraulic diameter (D=40 mm), is equal to Re
D
= 790, the flow is laminar.
The COSMOSFloWorks prediction was performed at result resolution level 7.
The predicted dimensionless (divided by U
inlet
) velocity profiles are compared in Figs.5.2,
5.3 with the ones measured with a laser-Doppler anemometry at the following duct cross
sections: X
H
= -5D, -2.5D, 0 (or =0) and at the =30, 60, 90 bend sections. The z
and r directions are represented by coordinates and , where z
1/2
= 20 mm.
The dimensionless velocity isolines (with the 0.1 step) at the duct's = 60 and 90
sections, both measured in Ref.8 and predicted with COSMOSFloWorks, are shown in
Figs.5.4 and 5.5.
It is seen that the COSMOSFloWorks predictions are close to the Ref.8 experimental data.
Fig. 5.1. The 90-bend square duct's configuration indicating the velocity measuring
stations and the dimensionless coordinates used for presenting the velocity profiles.
o
i o
r r
r r
1/ 2
z
z
Chapter Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct
4-28
Fig. 5.2. The duct's velocity profiles predicted by COSMOSFloWorks (red lines) in comparison with
the Ref.8 experimental data (circles).

Fig. 5.3. The duct's velocity profiles predicted by COSMOSFloWorks (red lines) in comparison
with the Ref.8 experimental data (circles).
z/z1/2=0.5 z/z1/2=0
z/z
1/2
=0.5 z/z
1/2
=0
Chapter Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct
4-30
Fig. 5.4. The duct's velocity isolines at the = 60section predicted by COSMOSFloWorks (left)
in comparison with the Ref.8 experimental data (right).
Fig. 5.5. The duct's velocity isolines at the =90section predicted by COSMOSFloWorks (left)
in comparison with the Ref.8 experimental data (right).
6 Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions
In this example we will consider both turbulent and laminar incompressible steady-state
flows through 2D (plane) channels with bilateral and unilateral sudden expansions and
parallel walls, as shown in Figs.6.1 and 6.2. At the 10 cm inlet height of the
bilateral-sudden-expansion channels a uniform water stream at 293.2 K and 1 m/s is
specified. The Reynolds number is based on the inlet height and is equal to Re = 10
5
,
therefore (since Re > 10
4
) the flow is turbulent. At the 30 mm height inlet of the
unilateral-sudden-expansion channel an experimentally measured water stream at 293.2 K
and 8.25 mm/s mean velocity is specified, so the Reynolds number based on the inlet
height is equal to Re = 250, therefore the flow is laminar. In both channels, the sudden
expansion generates a vortex, which is considered in this validation from the viewpoint of
hydraulic loss in the bilateral-expansion channel (compared to Ref.2) and from the
viewpoint of the flow velocity field in the unilateral-expansion channel (compared to
Ref.13).
In accordance with Ref.2, the local hydraulic loss coefficient of a bilateral sudden
expansion (the so-called total pressure loss due to flow) for a turbulent (Re > 10
4
) flow
with a uniform inlet velocity profile depends only on the expansion area ratio and is
determined from the following formula:
where A
0
and A
1
are the inlet and outlet cross sectional areas respectively, P
0
and P
1
are
the inlet and outlet total pressures, and u
0
2
/2 is the inlet dynamic head.
Fig. 6.1. Flow in a 2D (plane) channel with a bilateral sudden expansion.
outlet
X
Y
inlet
Water
1 m/s
Fig. 6.2. Flow in a 2D (plane) channel with a unilateral sudden expansion.
400 mm 20 mm
3
0

m
m
h

=

1
5

Y
X
0
Inlet experimental velocity profile
recirculation
Lr
2
1
0
2
0
1 0
1
2
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
=
A
A
u
P P
s
,
Chapter Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions
4-32
In a real sudden expansion the flow hydraulic loss coefficient is equal to =
f
+
s
, where
f
is the friction loss coefficient. In order to exclude
f
from our comparative analysis,
we have imposed the ideal wall boundary condition on all of the channel walls.
In this validation example the channel expansion area ratios under consideration are: 1.5,
2.0, 3.0, and 6.0. To avoid disturbances at the outlet due to the sudden expansion, the
channel length is 10 times longer than its height. The 1 atm static pressure is specified at
the channel outlet.
The
s
values predicted by COSMOSFloWorks at result resolution level 8 for different
channel expansion area ratios A
0
/A
1
are compared to theory in Fig. 6.3.
From Fig. 6.3., one can see that COSMOSFloWorks overpredicts
s
by about
4.5...7.9 %.
The model used for the unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's flow calculation is shown
in Fig. 6.4. The channel's inlet section has a 30 mm height and a 20 mm length. The
channel's expanded section (downstream of the 15 mm height back step) has a 45 mm
height and a 400 mm length (to avoid disturbances of the velocity field compared to the
experimental data from the channel's outlet boundary condition). The velocity profile
measured in the Ref.13 at the corresponding Re
h
= 125 (the Reynolds number based on
the step height) is specified as a boundary condition at the channel inlet. The 10
5
Pa static
pressure is specified at the channel outlet.
Fig. 6.3. Comparison of COSMOSFloWorks calculations to the theoretical values (Ref.2) for the sudden
expansion hydraulic loss coefficient versus the channel expansion area ratio.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A
0
/A
1

s
Theory
Calculation

The flow velocity field predicted by COSMOSFloWorks at result resolution level 8 is
compared in Figs.6.5, 6.6, and 6.7 to the values measured in Ref.13 with a laser
anemometer. The flow X-velocity (u/U, where U = 8.25 mm/s) profiles at several X =
const (-20 mm, 0, 12 mm, 150 mm) cross sections are shown in Fig. 6.5. It is seen that
the predicted flow velocity profiles are very close to the experimental values both in the
main stream and in the recirculation zone. The recirculation zone's characteristics, i.e. its
length L
R
along the channel's wall, (plotted versus the Reynolds number Re
h
based on the
channel's step height h, where Re
h
=125 for the case under consideration), the separation
streamline, and the vortex center are shown in Figs.6.6 and 6.7. It is seen that they are very
close to the experimental data.
Fig. 6.4. The SolidWorks model for calculating the 2D flow in the
unilateral-sudden-expansion channel with COSMOSFloWorks.
Inlet velocity profile
Chapter Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions
4-34
As one can see, both the integral characteristics (hydraulic loss coefficient) and local
values (velocity profiles and recirculation zone geometry) of the turbulent and laminar
flow in a 2D sudden expansion channel under consideration are adequately predicted by
COSMOSFloWorks.
Fig. 6.5. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's velocity profiles predicted by COSMOSFloWorks
(red lines) in comparison with the Ref.13 experimental data (black lines with dark circles).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 50 100 150 200 250
Reh
L
/
h

-
r
e
c
i
r
c
u
la
t
io
n

z
o
n
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
Fig. 6.6. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's recirculation zone length predicted by
COSMOSFloWorks (red square) in comparison with the Ref.13 experimental data (black signs).
0
5
10
15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
separation streamlines,
calculation
vortex center, calculation
Fig. 6.7. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel recirculation zone's separation streamlines and
vortex center, both predicted by COSMOSFloWorks (red lines and square) in comparison with the
Ref.13 experimental data (black signs).
7 Flow over a Circular Cylinder
Until now, we have considered only internal flows. Let us now consider an external
incompressible flow example. In this example, water at a temperature of 293.2 K and a
pressure of 1 atm flows over a cylinder of 0.01 m or 1 m diameter. The flow pattern of this
example substantially depends on the Reynolds number which is based on the cylinder
diameter. At low Reynolds numbers (4 < Re < 60) two steady vortices are formed on the
rear side of the cylinder and remain attached to the cylinder, as it is shown schematically
in Fig. 7.1. (see Refs.3).
At higher Reynolds numbers the flow becomes unstable and a von Karman vortex street
appears in the wake past the cylinder. Moreover, at Re > 60100 the eddies attached to
the cylinder begin to oscillate and shed from the cylinder (Ref.3). The flow pattern is
shown schematically in Fig. 7.2..
To calculate the 2D flow (in the X-Y plane) with COSMOSFloWorks, the model shown in
Fig. 7.3. has been created. The cylinder diameter is equal to 0.01 m at Re 10
4
and 1 m at
Re>10
4
. The incoming stream turbulence intensity has been specified as 1%. To take the
flows physical instability into account, the flow has been calculated by
COSMOSFloWorks using the time-dependent option. All the calculations have been
performed at result resolution level 7.
Fig. 7.1. Flow past a cylinder at low Reynolds numbers (4 < Re < 60).
Fig. 7.2. Flow past a cylinder at Reynolds numbers Re > 60100.
Chapter Flow over a Circular Cylinder
4-36
In accordance with the theory, steady flow patterns have been obtained in these
calculations in the low Re region. An example of such calculation at Re=41 is shown in
Fig. 7.4. as flow trajectories over and past the cylinder in comparison with a photo of such
flow from Ref.9. It is seen that the steady vortex past the cylinder is predicted correctly.
Fig. 7.3. The SolidWorks model used to calculate 2D flow over a cylinder.
Fig. 7.4. Flow trajectories over and past a cylinder at Re=41 predicted with COSMOSFloWorks
(above) in comparison with a photo of such flow from Ref.9 (below).
The unsteady vortex shedding from a cylinder at Re > 60..100, yields oscillations of both
drag and lateral forces acting on the cylinder and a von Karman vortex street is formed
past the cylinder. An X-velocity field over and past the cylinder is shown in Fig. 7.5. The
COSMOSFloWorks prediction of the cylinder drag and lateral force oscillations'
frequency in a form of Strouhal number (Sh = D/(tU), where D is the cylinder diameter, t
is the period of oscillations, and U is the incoming stream velocity) in comparison with
experimental data for Re10
3
is shown in Fig. 7.6..
Fig. 7.5. Velocity contours of flow over and past the cylinder at Re=140.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 Re
Sh
Fig. 7.6. The cylinder flow's Strouhal number predicted with COSMOSFloWorks (red triangles) in
comparison with the experimental data (blue line with dashes, Ref.4).
Chapter Flow over a Circular Cylinder
4-38
The time-averaged cylinder drag coefficient is defined as
where F
D
is the drag force acting on the cylinder, U
2
/2 is the incoming stream dynamic
head, D is the cylinder diameter, and L is the cylinder length. The cylinder drag
coefficient, predicted by COSMOSFloWorks is compared to the well-known C
D
(Re)
experimental data in Fig. 7.7..
DL U
F
C
2
D
D
2
1
=
0.1
1
10
100
1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Re
C
D
Fig. 7.7. The cylinder drag coefficient predicted by COSMOSFloWorks (red diamonds) in comparison
with the experimental data (black marks, Ref.3)
8 Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-Divergent Channel
Until now we have only considered incompressible flows, so now we will study a
compressible, supersonic flow.
The first example is a supersonic flow of air in a 2D (plane) convergent-divergent channel
whose scheme is shown on Fig. 8.1.
A uniform supersonic stream of air, having a Mach number M=3, static temperature of
293.2 K, and static pressure of 1 atm, is specified at the channel inlet between two parallel
walls. In the next convergent section (see Fig. 8.2.) the stream decelerates through two
oblique shocks shown schematically in Fig. 8.1. as lines separating regions 1, 2, and 3.
Since the convergent section has a special shape adjusted to the inlet Mach number, so the
shock reflected from the upper plane wall and separating regions 2 and 3 comes to the
section 3 lower wall edge, a uniform supersonic flow occurs in the next section 3 between
two parallel walls. In the following divergent section the supersonic flow accelerates thus
forming an expansion waves fan 4. Finally, the stream decelerates in the exit channel
section between two parallel walls when passing through another oblique shock.
The SolidWorks model of this 2D channel is shown in Fig. 8.3.
Fig. 8.1. Supersonic flow in a 2D convergent-divergent channel.
Fig. 8.2. Dimensions (in m) of the 2D convergent-divergent channel including a reference line for
comparing the Mach number.
Chapter Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-Divergent Channel
4-40
Since the channel was designed for the inviscid flow of an ideal gas, the ideal wall
boundary condition has been specified and the laminar only flow has been considered
instead of turbulent. The computed Mach number along the reference line and at the
reference points (1-5) are compared with the theoretical values in Fig. 8.4..
To obtain the most accurate results possible with COSMOSFloWorks, the calculations
have been performed at result resolution level 8. The predicted Mach number at the
selected channel points (1-5) and along the reference line (see Fig. 8.2.), are presented in
Table.8.1 and Fig. 8.4. respectively.
Table.8.1 Mach number values predicted with COSMOSFloWorks with comparison
to the theoretical values at the reference points.
From Table.8.1 and Fig. 8.4. it can be seen that the COSMOSFloWorks predictions are
very close to the theoretical values. In Fig. 8.4. one can see that COSMOSFloWorks
properly predicts the abrupt parameter changes when the stream passes through the shock
and a fast parameter change in the expansion fan.
Fig. 8.3. The model for calculating the 2D supersonic flow in the 2D convergent-divergent
channel with COSMOSFloWorks.
Point 1 2 3 4 5
X coordinate of point, m 0.0042 0.047 0.1094 0.155 0.1648
Y coordinate of point, m 0.0175 0.0157 0.026 0.026 0.0157
Theoretical M 3.000 2.427 1.957 2.089 2.365
COSMOSFloWorks
prediction of M 3.000 2.429 1.965 2.106 2.380
Prediction error,% 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6
To show the full flow pattern, the predicted Mach number contours of the channel flow are
shown in Fig. 8.5..
This example illustrates that COSMOSFloWorks is capable of capturing shock waves with
a high degree of accuracy. This high accuracy is possible due to the COSMOSFloWorks
solution adaptive meshing capability. Solution adaptive meshing automatically refines the
mesh in regions with high flow gradients such as shocks and expansion fans.
Fig. 8.4. Mach number values predicted with COSMOSFloWorks along the reference line (the
reference points on it are marked by square boxes with numbers) in comparison with the theoretical
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18x, m
M
Theory
Calculation
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 8.5. Mach number contours predicted by COSMOSFloWorks.
Chapter Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-Divergent Channel
4-42
9 Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body
Now let us consider an external supersonic flow of air over a segmental conic body shown
in Fig. 9.1. The general case is that the body is tilted at an angle of with respect to the
incoming flow direction. The dimensions of the body whose longitudinal (in direction t,
see Fig. 9.1.) and lateral (in direction n) aerodynamic drag coefficients, as well as
longitudinal (with respect to Z axis) torque coefficient, were investigated in Ref.5 are
presented in Fig. 9.2. They were determined from the dimensionless body sizes and the
Reynolds number stated in Ref.5.
The model of this body is shown in Fig. 9.3..
Fig. 9.1. Supersonic flow over a segmental conic body.
Center of
gravity
n
y
x
a
t
External air flow
M
= 1.7
Fig. 9.2. Model sketch dimensioned in centimeters.
Chapter Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body
4-44
To compare the COSMOSFloWorks predictions with the experimental data of Ref.5, the
calculations have been performed for the case of incoming flow velocity of Mach number
1.7. The undisturbed turbulent incoming flow has a static pressure of 1 atm, static
temperature of 660.2 K, and turbulence intensity of 1%. The flow Reynolds number of
1.710
6
(defined with respect to the body frontal diameter) corresponds to these
conditions, satisfying the Ref.5 experimental conditions.
To compare the flow prediction with the experimental data of Ref.5, the calculations have
been performed for the body tilted at = 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 angles. To
reduce the computational resources, the Z = 0 flow symmetry plane has been specified in
all of the calculations. Additionally, the Y = 0 flow symmetry plane has been specified at
= 0 and 180.
The calculations have been performed at result resolution level 6.
The comparison is performed on the following parameters:
longitudinal aerodynamic drag coefficient,
where F
t
is the aerodynamic drag force acting on the body in the t direction (see Fig. 9.1.),
U
2
/2 is the incoming stream dynamic head, S is the body frontal cross section (being
perpendicular to the body axis) area;
Fig. 9.3. The SolidWorks model for calculating the 3D flow over the 3D segmental conic
body with COSMOSFloWorks.
S U
F
C
2
t
t
2
1
=
,
lateral aerodynamic drag coefficient,
where F
n
is the aerodynamic drag force acting on the body in the n direction (see Fig.
9.1.), U
2
/2 is the incoming stream dynamic head, S is the body frontal cross section
(being perpendicular to the body axis) area;
on the longitudinal (with respect to Z axis) aerodynamic torque coefficient,
where M
z
is the aerodynamic torque acting on the body with respect to the Z axis (see Fig.
9.1.), U
2
/2 is the incoming stream dynamic head, S is the body frontal cross section
(being perpendicular to the body axis) area, L is the reference length.
The calculation results are presented in Figs.9.4 and 9.5.
From Fig. 9.4., it is seen that the COSMOSFloWorks predictions of both C
n
and C
t
are
excellent.
S U
F
C
2
n
n
2
1
=
,
SL U
M
m
2
z
z
2
1
=
,
Fig. 9.4. The longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic drag coefficients predicted with COSMOSFloWorks
and measured in the experiments of Ref.5 versus the body tilting angle.
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Attack angle
(degree)
C
t , C
n
Ct experiment
Ct calculation
Cn experiment
Cn calculation
4-46
As for the longitudinal aerodynamic torque coefficient (m
z
) prediction, it is also close to
the experimental data of Ref.5, especially if we take into account the measurements error.
To illustrate the quantitative predictions with the corresponding flow patterns, the Mach
number contours are presented in Figs. 9.6, 9.7, and 9.8. All of the flow patterns presented
on the figures include both supersonic and subsonic flow regions. The bow shock consists
of normal and oblique shock parts with the subsonic region downstream of the normal
shock. In the head subsonic region the flow gradually accelerates up to a supersonic velocity
and then further accelerates in the expansion fan of rarefaction waves. The subsonic wake
region past the body can also be seen.
Fig. 9.5. The longitudinal aerodynamic torque coefficient predicted with COSMOSFloWorks and
measured in the experiments (Ref.5) versus the body tilting angle.
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Attack angle
(degree)
m
z
Experiment
Calculation
Fig. 9.6. Mach number contours at = 0
o
.
As the forward part becomes sharper, the normal part of the bow shock and the
corresponding subsonic region downstream of it become smaller. In the presented
pictures,

the smallest nose shock (especially its subsonic region) is observed at a = 60
o
.
Fig. 9.7. Mach number contours at = 60.
Fig. 9.8. Mach number contours at = 90.
4-48
10 Flow over a Heated Plate
Until now we have only considered flow in or around bodies with adiabatic walls. We will
now consider flows with other thermal boundary conditions.
The first example, is a uniform 2D flows with a laminar boundary layer on a heated flat
plate, see Fig. 10.1.. The incoming uniform air stream has a velocity of 1.5 m/s, a
temperature of 293.2 K, and a static pressure of 1 atm. Thus, the flow Reynolds number
defined on the incoming flow characteristics and on the plate length of 0.31 m is equal to
3.110
4
, therefore the boundary layer beginning from the plates leading edge is laminar
(see Ref.6).
Then, let us consider the following three cases:
Case #1: the plate over its whole length (within the computational domain) is 10C
warmer than the incoming air (303.2 K), both the hydrodynamic and the thermal boundary
layer begin at the plate's leading edge coinciding with the computational domain
boundary;
Case #2: the upstream half of the plate (i.e. at x 0.15 m) has a fluid temperature of 293.2
K, and the downstream half of the plate is 10C warmer than the incoming air (303.2 K),
the hydrodynamic boundary layer begins at the plate's leading edge coinciding with the
computational boundary;
Case #3: plate temperature is the same as in case #1, the thermal boundary layer begins at
the inlet computational domain boundary, whereas the hydrodynamic boundary layer at
the inlet computational domain boundary has a non-zero thickness which is equal to that
in case #2 at the thermal boundary layer starting.
Chapter Flow over a Heated Plate
4-50
The calculation goal is to predict the local coefficient of heat transfer from the wall to the
fluid, as well as the local skin-friction coefficient.
The SolidWorks model used for calculating the 2D flow over the heated flat plate with
COSMOSFloWorks is shown in Fig. 10.2.. The problem is solved as internal in order to
avoid the conflict situation when the external flow boundary with ambient temperature
conditions intersects the wall with a thermal boundary layer.
To avoid any influence of the upper wall on the flow near the heated lower wall, the ideal
wall boundary condition has been specified on the upper wall. To solve the internal
problem, the incoming fluid velocity is specified at the channel inlet, whereas the fluid
static pressure is specified at the channel exit. To specify the external flow features, the
incoming stream's turbulent intensity is set to 1% and the turbulent length is set to 0.01 m,
i.e., these turbulent values are similar to the default values for external flow problems.
Fig. 10.1. Laminar flow over a heated flat plate.
Heated plate
T = 303.2 K
Air flow
V = 1.5 m/s
T = 293.2 K
Computational domain
The heat transfer coefficient h and the skin-friction coefficient C
f
are COSMOSFloWorks
output flow parameters. The theoretical values for laminar flow boundary layer over a flat
plate, in accordance with Ref.6 can be determined from the following equations:
where
k is the thermal conductivity of the fluid,
x is the distance along the wall from the start of the hydrodynamic boundary layer,
Nu
x
is the Nusselt number defined on a heated wall as follows:
for a laminar boundary layer if its starting point coincides with the thermal
boundary layer starting point, and
Fig. 10.2. The SolidWorks model used for calculating the 2D flow over heated flat plate with
COSMOSFloWorks.
Inlet velocity U
x
Ideal wall
Heated wall
Static pressure opening
x
k
h
x
Nu
=
,
2 / 1
x
3 / 1
x
Re Pr 332 . 0 Nu =
3 4 / 3
0
2 / 1
x
3 / 1
) x / x ( 1
Re Pr 332 . 0
=
x
Nu
4-52
for a laminar boundary layer if the thermal boundary layer begins at point x
0
lying
downstream of the hydrodynamic boundary layer starting point, in this case Nu
x
is
defined at x>x
0
only;
where is the Prandtl number, is the fluid dynamic viscosity, C
p
is the
fluid specific heat at constant pressure, is the Reynolds number
defined on x, is the fluid density, and V is the fluid velocity;
at , i.e., with a laminar boundary layer.
As for the hydrodynamic boundary layer thickness needed for specification at the
computational domain boundary in case #3, in accordance with Ref.6, it has been
determined from the following equation: , so = 0.00575 m in this
case. For these calculations all fluid parameters are determined at the outer boundary of
the boundary layer.
The COSMOSFloWorks predictions of h and C
f
performed at result resolution level 7, and
the theoretical curves calculated with the formulae presented above are shown in Figs.10.3
and 10.4. It is seen that the COSMOSFloWorks predictions of the heat transfer coefficient
and the skin-friction coefficient are in excellent agreement with the theoretical curves.
Pr
C
p
k
----------
=
Re
x
Vx
---------- -
=
0, 664
Re
fx
C =
5
Re 5 10
x

0.5
4.64 / Re
x
x =

Fig. 10.3. Heat transfer coefficient change along a heated plate in a laminar boundary layer:
COSMOSFloWorks predictions compared to theory.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
X (m)
h (W/m^2/K)
Case #1, theory
Case #1, calculation
Case #2, theory
Case #3, theory
Fig. 10.4. Skin-friction coefficient change along a heated plate in a laminar boundary layer:
COSMOSFloWorks predictions compared to theory.
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.02
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
X (m)
C
f
Cases #1 and #2,
theory
Case #3, theory
Case#3, calculation
4-54
11 Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube
We will now consider incompressible laminar flow in a portion of an annular tube, whose
outer shell is a heat source having constant heat generation rate Q
1
with a heat-insulated
outer surface, and whose central body fully absorbs the heat generated by the tubes outer
shell (i.e. the negative heat generation rate Q
2
is specified in the central body); see Fig.
11.1.. (The tube model is shown in Fig. 11.2.). We will assume that this tube is rather long,
so the tube's L=1 m portion under consideration has fully developed fluid velocity and
temperature profiles at the inlet, and, since the fluid properties are not
temperature-dependent, the velocity profile also will not be temperature-dependent.
Fig. 11.1. Laminar flow in a heated annular tube.
X
Y
1.2m
0.4m
1.4 m
X
Y
1m
Q1 or T1
Q2 or T2
P = 1 atm
U, T
Fig. 11.2. A model created for calculating 3D flow within a heated annular tube using
COSMOSFloWorks.
Chapter Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube
4-56
To validate the COSMOSFloWorks capability for solving conjugate heat transfer
problems both with and without radiation, let us solve the following three problems: 1) a
conjugate heat transfer problem with convection only, 2) radiation heat transfer only
problem, and 3) a conjugate heat transfer problem with both convection and radiation.
In the first problem we specify Q
2
= -Q
1
, so the convective heat fluxes at the tube inner
and outer walls are constant along the tube. The corresponding laminar annular pipe flow's
fully developed velocity and temperature profiles, according to Ref.6, are expressed
analytically as follows:
u(r) = ,
T(r)= ,
where = ,
u is the fluid velocity,
T is the fluid temperature,
r is the radial coordinate,
r
1
and r
2
are the tube outer shells inner radius and tubes central body radius,
respectively,
is the volume-average velocity, defined as the volume flow rate divided by the tube
cross-section area,
q
2
is the the heat flux from the fluid to the tubes central body,
k is the fluid thermal conductivity,
T
2
is the surface temperature of the central body.
The heat flux from the fluid to the tube's central body (negative, since the heat comes from
the fluid to the solid) is equal to
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
1
) / ln(
) / ln(
1
2 1
2
2
2
1
2
2
r r
r r
r
r
r
r
|
|
.
|
\
|
2
2
2
2
ln
r
r
r
k
q
T
1 ) / ln( / 1
2
2
2
1
2 1
2
2
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
r
r
r r
r
r
u
u
2
r r
r
T
=
|
.
|
\
|
L r
Q

2
2
2
q
2
= k =
Let Q
1
= - Q
2
= 107.235 W and 13.59 m/s ( = -10 m/s), the fluid has the following
properties: k = 0.5 W/(mK), C
p
= 500 J/(kgK), = 0.002 Pas, = 0.1 kg/m
3
. Since the
corresponding (defined on the equivalent tube diameter) Reynolds number Re
d
815 is
rather low, the flow has to be laminar. We specify the corresponding velocity and
temperature profiles as boundary conditions at the model inlet and as initial conditions,
and P
out
= 1 atm as the tube outlet boundary condition.
To reduce the computational domain, let us set Y=0 and X=0 flow symmetry planes
(correspondingly, the specified Q
1
and Q
2
values are referred to the tube section's quarter
lying in the computational domain). The calculation have been performed at result
resolution level 7.
The fluid temperature profile predicted at 0.75 m from the tube model inlet is shown in
Fig. 11.3. together with the theoretical curve.
It is seen that this prediction practically coincides with the theoretical curve.
Before solving the third problem coupling convection and radiation, let us determine the
radiation heat fluxes between the tube's outer and inner walls under the previous problem's
wall temperatures. In addition to holding the outer shell's temperature at 450 K and the
central body's temperature at 300 K as the volume sources, let us specify the emissivity of
1
= 0.95 for the outer shell and
2
= 0.25 for the central body. To exclude any convection,
let us specify the liquid velocity of 0.001 m/s and thermal conductivity of 10
-20
W/(mK).
u
Fig. 11.3. Fluid temperature profiles across the tube in the case of convection only, predicted with
COSMOSFloWorks and compared to the theoretical curve.
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Y, m
T
Theory
Calculation
4-58
Let J
2
denote the radiation rate leaving the central body, and G
2
denotes the radiation rate
coming to the central body, therefore Q
2r
= J
2
- G
2
(the net radiation rate from the central
body). In the same manner, let J
1
denote the radiation rate leaving the outer shell's inner
surface, and G
1
denote the radiation rate coming to the outer shell's inner surface,
therefore Q
1r
= J
1
- G
1
(the net radiation rate from the outer shell's inner surface). These
radiation rates can be determined by solving the following equations:
J
2
= A
2
2
T
2
4
+ G
2
(1-
2
),
G
2
= J
1
F
1-2
,
J
1
= A
1
1
T
1
4
+ G
1
(1-
1
),
G
1
= J
2
F
2-1
+ J
1
F
1-1
,
where =5.66910
-8
W/m
2
K
4
is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, F
1-2
, F
2-1
, F
1-1
are these
surfaces' radiation shape factors, under the assumption that the leaving and incident
radiation fluxes are uniform over these surfaces, Ref.6 gives the following formulas:
F
1-2
=(1/X) - (1//X){arccos(B/A) - (1/2/Y)[(A
2
+ 4A - 4X
2
+ 4)
1/2
arccos(B/X/A) +
+ Barcsin(1/X)-A/2]},
F
1-1
=1-(1/X)+(2//X)arctan[2(X
2
-1)
1/2
/Y]-(Y/2//X){[(4X
2
+Y
2
)
1/2
/Y]arcsin{[4(X
2
-1)+
+ (Y/X)
2
(X
2
-2)]/[Y
2
+4(X
2
-1)]}-arcsin[(X
2
-2)/X
2
]+(/2)[(4X
2
+Y
2
)
1/2
/Y-1]}
F
2-1
= F
1-2
A
1
/A
2
, where X=r
1
/r
2
, Y=L/r
2
, A=X
2
+Y
2
-1, B=Y
2
-X
2
+1.
These net and leaving radiation rates (over the full tube section surface), both calculated
by solving the equations analytically and predicted by COSMOSFloWorks at result
resolution level 7, are presented in Table 2:.
Table 2: Radiation rates predicted with COSMOSFloWorks with comparison
to the theoretical values.
It is seen that the prediction errors are quite small. To validate the COSMOSFloWorks
capabilities on the third problem, which couples convection and radiation, let us add the
theoretical net radiation rates, Q
1 r
and Q
2 r
scaled to the reduced computational domain,
i.e., divided by 4, to the Q
1
and Q
2
values specified in the first problem. Let us specify Q
1

= 1108.15 W and Q
2
= -203.18 W, so theoretically we must obtain the same fluid
temperature profile as in the first considered problem.
Value, W Prediction error,%
Q2 r -383.77 -388.30 1.2%
J2 r 1728.35 1744.47 0.9%
Q1 r 4003.68 3931.87 -1.8%
J1 r 8552.98 8596.04 0.5%
Parameter Theory (Ref.6), W
COSMOSFloWorks predictions
The fluid temperature profile predicted at 0.75 m from the tube model inlet at the result
resolution level 7 is shown in Fig. 11.4. together with the theoretical curve. It is seen that
once again this prediction virtually coincides with the theoretical curve.
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Y, m
T, K
Theory
Calculation
Fig. 11.4. Fluid temperature profiles across the tube in the case coupling convection and radiation,
predicted with COSMOSFloWorks and compared to the theoretical curve.
4-60
12 Heat Transfer from a Pin-fin Heat Sink
Heat sinks play an important role in electronics cooling. Following the experimental work
presented in Ref.19 and numerical study presented in Ref.21, let us consider heat transfer
from an electrically heated thermofoil which is mounted flush on a plexiglass substrate,
coated by an aluminum pin-fin heat sink with a 99 pin fin array, and placed in a closed
plexiglass box. In order to create more uniform ambient conditions for this box, it is
placed into another, bigger, plexiglass box and attached to the heat-insulated thick wall,
see Figs. 12.1, 12.2. Following Ref.19, let us consider the vertical position of these boxes,
as it is shown in Fig. 12.1. (c) (here, the gravity acts along the Y axis).
Fig. 12.1. The pin-fin heat sink nestled within two plexiglass boxes: l
cp
=L
s
=25.4 mm, h
cp
=0.861 mm, H
p
=5.5
mm, H
b
=1.75 mm, S
p
=1.5 mm, S
ps
= Ls/8, L=127 mm, H=41.3 mm, Hw=6.35 mm (from Ref.19).
Chapter Heat Transfer from a Pin-fin Heat Sink
4-62
The corresponding model used in the calculations is shown in Fig. 12.2.. In this model's
coordinate system the gravitational acceleration vector is directed along the X axis. The
computational domain envelopes the outer surface of the external box, and the Z=0
symmetry plane is used to reduce the required computer resources.
According to Ref.19, both the heat sink and the substrate are coated with a special black
paint to provide a surface emissivity of 0.95 (the other plexiglass surfaces are also opaque,
diffuse and gray, but have an emissivity of 0.83).
The maximum steady-state temperature T
max
of the thermofoil releasing the heat of
known power Q was measured. The constant ambient temperature T
a
was measured at the
upper corner of the external box. As a result, the value of
R
ja
= (T
max
- T
a
)/Q (12.1)
was determined at various Q (in the 0.1...1 W range).
The ambient temperature is not presented in Ref.19, so, proceeding from the suggestion
that the external box in the experiment was placed in a room, we have varied the ambient
temperature in the relevant range of 15...22C. Since R
ja
is governed by the temperature
difference T
max
- T
a
, (i.e. presents the two boxes thermal resistance), the ambient
temperature range only effects the resistance calculations by 0.6C/W at Q = 1W, (i.e. by
1.4% of the experimentally determined R
ja
value that is 43C/W). As for the boundary
conditions on the external boxs outer surface, we have specified a heat transfer coefficient
of 5.6 W/m
2
K estimated from Ref. 20 for the relevant wind-free conditions and an
ambient temperature lying in the range of 15...22C (additional calculations have shown
that the variation of the constant ambient temperature on this boundary yield nearly
identical results). As a result, at Q = 1W (the results obtained at the other Q values are
shown in Ref.21) and T
a
=20C we have obtained R
ja
= 41C/W, i.e. only 5% lower than
the experimental value.
Fig. 12.2. A model created for calculating the heat transfer from the pin-fin heat sink through the two
nested boxes into the environment: (a) the internal (smaller) box with the heat sink; (b) the whole model.
a b
The flow streamlines visualized in Ref.19 using smoke and obtained in the calculations
are shown in Fig. 12.3..
Fig. 12.3. Flow streamlines visualized by smoke in the Ref.19 experiments (left) and
obtained in the calculations (colored in accordance with the flow velocity values) (right).
Chapter Heat Transfer from a Pin-fin Heat Sink
4-64
13 Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid
Until now, we have studied various flow problems including those with heat flow from the
model walls to the fluid, but we have not considered heat conduction in solids (i.e., a
conjugate heat transfer). To validate this capability, let us consider unsteady heat
conduction in a solid. To compare the COSMOSFloWorks predictions with the analytical
solution (Ref.6), we will solve a one-dimensional problem.
A warm solid rod having the specified initial temperature and the heat-insulated side
surface suddenly becomes and stays cold (at a constant temperature of T=300 K) at both
ends (see Fig. 13.1.). The rod inner temperature evolution is studied. The constant initial
temperature distribution along the rod is considered: T
initial
(x)=350K.
The problem is described by the following differential equation:
where , C, and k are the solid material density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity,
respectively, and is the time, with the following boundary condition: T=T
0
at x = 0 and
at x = L.
In the general case, i.e., at an arbitrary initial condition, the problem has the following
solution:
where coefficients C
n
are determined from the initial conditions (see Ref.6).
With the uniform initial temperature profile, according to the initial and boundary
conditions, the problem has the following solution:
Fig. 13.1. A warm solid rod cooling down from an initial temperature to the temperature at
the ends of the rod.
T
initial
= 350 K
T = 300 K
T = 300 K
X
L
T
k
C
x
T
2
2
,
+ =
1
) /( ) / (
0
sin
2
n
C k L n
n
L
x n
e C T T

,
[ ]
+ =
1
) /( /
) sin(
1 4
50 300
2
n
C k L n
L
x n
e
n
T

(K).
Chapter Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid
4-66
To perform the time-dependent analysis with COSMOSFloWorks, a SolidWorks model
representing a solid parallelepiped with dimensions 10.20.1 m has been created (see
Fig. 13.2.).
The evolution of maximum rod temperature, predicted with COSMOSFloWorks and
compared with theory, is presented in Fig. 13.3.. The COSMOSFloWorks prediction has
been performed at result resolution level 5. One can see that it coincide with the
theoretical curve.
The temperature profiles along the rod at different time moments, predicted by
COSMOSFloWorks, are compared to theory and presented in Fig. 13.4.. One can see that
the COSMOSFloWorks predictions are very close to the theoretical profiles. The
maximum prediction error not exceeding 2K occurs at the ends of the rod and is likely
caused by calculation error in the theoretical profile due to the truncation of Fourier series.
Fig. 13.2. The SolidWorks model used for calculating heat conduction in a solid rod with
COSMOSFloWorks (the computational domain envelopes the rod).
Fig. 13.3. Evolution of the maximum rod temperature, predicted with COSMOSFloWorks and
compared to theory.
305
315
325
335
345
355
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Physical time (s)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
K
)
Theory
Calculation
Fig. 13.4. Evolution of the temperature distribution along the rod, predicted with COSMOSFloWorks
and compared to theory.
300
305
310
315
320
325
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X (m)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
K
)
t=5000s/theory
t=5000s/calculation
t=10000s/theory
t=10000s/calculation
Chapter Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid
4-68
14 Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat Transfer
Let us now consider an incompressible laminar flow of hot fluid through an externally
cooled circular tube (Fig. 14.1.). The fluid flow has fully developed velocity and
temperature profiles at the tube inlet, whereas the heat transfer conditions specified at the
tube outer surface surrounded by a cooling medium sustain the self-consistent fluid
temperature profile throughout the tube.
In accordance with Ref.6, a laminar tube flow with a fully developed velocity profile has a
self-consistent fully developed temperature profile if the following two conditions are
satisfied: the fluid's properties are temperature-independent and the heat flux from the
tube inner surface to the fluid (or vise versa) is constant along the tube. These conditions
provide the following fully developed tube flow temperature profile:
T(r, z) = T(r=0, z=z
inlet
) - ,
where
T is the fluid temperature,
r is a radial coordinate (r = 0 corresponds to the tube axis, r = R
i
corresponds to the tube
inner surface, i.e., R
i
is the tube inner radius),
z is an axial coordinate (z = z
inlet
corresponds to the tube inlet),
q
w
is a constant heat flux from the fluid to the tube inner surface,
k is the fluid thermal conductivity,
is the fluid density,
C
p
is the fluid specific heat under constant pressure,
Fig. 14.1. Laminar flow in a tube cooled externally.
Liquid
Laminar flow
Polystyrene
Te(z)
e
= const
r
( )
2 4
4
1
4
w inlet
w i
i i p max i
q z z
q R r r
k R R C u R
(
| | | |
( +
| |
(
\ . \ .

Chapter Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat Transfer
4-70
u
max
is the maximum fluid velocity of the fully developed velocity profile
= u
max
.
Since the tube under consideration has no heat sinks and is cooled by surrounding fluid
medium, let us assume that the fluid medium surrounding the tube has certain fixed
temperature T
e
, and the heat transfer between this medium and the tube outer surface is
determined by a specified constant heat transfer coefficient
e
.
By assuming a constant thermal conductivity of the tube material, k
s
, specifying an
arbitrary
e
, and omitting intermediate expressions, we can obtain the following
expression for T
e
:
,
where R
o
is the tube outer radius.
In the validation example under consideration (Fig. 14.2.) the following tube and fluid
characteristics have been specified: R
i
= 0.05 m, R
o
= 0.07 m, z - z
inlet
= 0.1 m, the tube
material is polystyrene with thermal conductivity k
s
= 0.082 W/(mK), u
max
= 0.002 m/s,
T(r=0, z=z
i
) = 363 K, q
w
= 147.56 W/m
2
, k = 0.3 W/(mK), C
p
= 1000 J/(kgK), fluid
dynamic viscosity = 0.001 Pas, = 1000 kg/m
3
(these fluid properties provide a
laminar flow condition since the tube flow Reynolds number based on the tube diameter is
equal to Re
d
= 100). The T(r,z
inlet
) and u(r) profiles at the tube inlet, the T
e
(z) distribution
along the tube,
e
= 5 W/(m
2
K), and tube outlet static pressure P
out
= 1 atm have been
specified as the boundary conditions.
The inlet flow velocity and temperature profiles have been specified as the initial
conditions along the tube.
To reduce the computational domain, the calculations have been performed with the Y=0
and X=0 flow symmetry planes. The calculations have been performed at result resolution
level 7.
The fluid and solid temperature profiles predicted at z = 0 are shown in Fig. 14.3. together
with the theoretical curve. It is seen that the prediction practically coincides with the
theoretical curve (the prediction error does not exceed 0.4%).
( )
u r
1
2
r
R
i
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
\ .
\ .
( ) + + = = =
|
|
.
|
\
|
o
R
i
R
s
k
o
R
e
k
i
R
w
q
inlet
z z r T z
e
T ln
1 1
4
3
) , 0 (
i
R
max
u
p
C
inlet
z z
w
q
|
.
|
\
|

+
4

Outlet static
pressure opening
Computational
domain
Inlet velocity
opening
Sketch line for
temperature profile
determination
Fig. 14.2. The model used for calculating the 3D flow and the conjugate heat transfer in the tube
with COSMOSFloWorks.
Fig. 14.3. Fluid and solid temperature profiles across the tube, predicted with COSMOSFloWorks
and compared with the theoretical curve.
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
R, m
T, K
Theory liquid
Theory solid
Calculation
Chapter Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat Transfer
4-72
15 Flow over a Heated Cylinder
Let us now return to the earlier validation example of incompressible flow over a cylinder
and modify it by specifying a heat generation source inside the cylinder (see Fig. 15.1.).
The cylinder is placed in an incoming air stream and will acquire certain temperature
depending on the heat source power and the air stream velocity and temperature.
Based on experimental data for the average coefficient of heat transfer from a heated
circular cylinder to air flowing over it (see Ref.6), the corresponding Nusselt number can
be determined from the following formula:
where constants C and n are taken from the following table:
Here, the Nusselt number, Nu
D
= (hD)/k (where h is the heat transfer coefficient
averaged over the cylinder, and k is fluid thermal conductivity), the Reynolds number,
Re
D
= (UD)/ (where U is the incoming stream velocity, and is fluid dynamic
viscosity), and the Prandtl number, Pr=C
p
/k (where is fluid dynamic viscosity, C
p
is
fluid specific heat at constant pressure, and k is fluid thermal conductivity) are based on
the cylinder diameter D and on the fluid properties taken at the near-wall flow layer.
According to Ref.6, Pr = 0.72 for the entire range of Re
D
.
Re
D
C n
0.4 - 4 0.989 0.330
4 - 40 0.911 0.385
40 - 4000 0.683 0.466
4000 - 40000 0.193 0.618
40000 - 400000 0.0266 0.805
Fig. 15.1. 2D flow over a heated cylinder.
External air flow
Heat source q
Y
X
( )
3 1
Pr Re =
n
D D
C Nu
,
Chapter Flow over a Heated Cylinder
4-74
To validate the COSMOSFloWorks predictions, the air properties have been specified to
provide Pr = 0.72: k = 0.0251375 W/(mK), = 1.810
-5
Pas, specific heat at constant
pressure C
p
= 1005.5 J/(kgK). Then, the incoming stream velocity, U, has been specified
to obtain Re
D
= 1, 10, 100, 10
3
, 10
4
, 510
4
, 10
5
, 210
5
, and 310
5
for a cylinder
diameter of D = 0.1 m (see Table 3:).
This validation approach consists of specifying the heat generation source inside the
cylinder with a power determined from the desired steady-state cylinder temperature and
the average heat transfer coefficient, h = (Nu
D
k)/D. Nu
D
is determined from the
specified Re
D
using the empirical formula presented above. The final cylinder surface
temperature, that is also required for specifying the heat source power Q (see Table 3:) is
assumed to be 10C higher than the incoming air temperature. The initial cylinder
temperature and the incoming air temperature are equal to 293.15 K. The cylinder material
is aluminum. Here, the heat conduction in the solid is calculated simultaneously with the
flow calculation, i.e., the conjugate heat transfer problem is solved.
As a result of the calculation, the cylinder surface has acquired a steady-state temperature
differing from the theoretical one corresponding to the heat generation source specified
inside the cylinder. Multiplying the theoretical value of the Nusselt number by the ratio of
the obtained temperature difference (between the incoming air temperature and the
cylinder surface temperature) to the specified temperature difference, we have determined
the predicted Nusselt number versus the specified Reynolds number. The values obtained
by solving the steady-state and time dependent problems at result resolution level 5 are
presented in Fig. 15.2. together with the experimental data taken from Ref.6.
Table 3: The COSMOSFloWorks specifications of U and Q for the problem under
consideration.
From Fig. 15.2., it is seen that the predictions made with COSMOSFloWorks, both in the
time-dependent approach and in the steady-state one, are excellent within the whole Re
D

range under consideration.
1 1. 510
-4
0. 007
10 1. 510
-3
0. 016
10
2
0. 015 0. 041
10
3
0. 15 0. 121
10
4
1. 5 0. 405
10
5
15 1. 994
Re D U, m/s Q,W
Fig. 15.2. Nusselt number for air flow over a heated cylinder: COSMOSFloWorks predictions and the
experimental data taken from Ref.6.
0.1
1
10
100
1000
1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Re D
Nu
D
Calculation,
steady-state
Calculation,
time-dependent
Chapter Flow over a Heated Cylinder
4-76
16 Natural Convection in a Square Cavity
In the previous validation examples we have considered forced convection, i.e., heat
transfer between a wall and a fluid while the fluid flow is caused by some driving force
other than temperature gradient, so that its characteristics are specified via the flow
parameters at model openings (internal problems) or at far-field boundaries (external
problems). Let us now consider a heat transfer due to a heat-induced natural convection
within a closed cavity.
Here we will consider a 2D square cavity with a steady-state natural convection, for which
a highly-accurate numerical solution has been proposed in Ref.10 and used as a
benchmark for about 40 computer codes in Ref.11, besides it well agrees with the
semi-empirical formula proposed in Ref.12 for rectangular cavities. This cavity's
configuration and imposed boundary conditions, as well as the used coordinate system,
are presented in Fig. 16.1.. Here, the left and right vertical walls are held at the constant
temperatures of T
1
= 305 K and T
2
= 295 K, accordingly, whereas the upper and bottom
walls are adiabatic. The cavity is filled with air.
The square cavity's side dimension, L, is varied within the range of 0.0111...0.111 m in
order to vary the cavity's Rayleigh number within the range of 10
3
10
6
. Rayleigh
number descibes the characteristics of the natural convection inside the cavity and is
defined as follows:
,
where is the volume expansion coefficient of air,
g is the gravitational acceleration,
C
p
is the air's specific heat at constant pressure,
T=T
1
- T
2
= 10 K is the temperature difference between the walls,
Fig. 16.1. An enclosed 2D square cavity with natural convection.
Adiabatic walls
L
305 K
295 K
Y
g
X

k
T L C g
Ra
p

=
3 2
1
T
=
Chapter Natural Convection in a Square Cavity
4-78
k is the thermal conductivity of air,
is the dynamic viscosity of air.
The cavity's model is shown in Fig. 16.2..
Due to gravity and different temperatures of the cavity's vertical walls, a steady-state
natural convection flow (vortex) with a vertical temperature stratification forms inside the
cavity. The Ra = 10
5
flow's prediction performed with COSMOSFloWorks is shown in
Fig. 16.3..
Fig. 16.2. The model created for calculating the 2D natural convection
flow in the 2D square cavity using COSMOSFloWorks.
Fig. 16.3. The temperature, X-velocity, Y-velocity, the velocity vectors, and the streamlines,
predicted by COSMOSFloWorks in the square cavity at Ra = 10
5
.
A quantitative comparison of the COSMOSFloWorks predictions performed at result
resolution level 8 with References.10, 11 (computational benchmark) and 12
(semi-empirical formula) for different Ra values is presented in Figs.16.4 - 16.6. The
Nusselt number averaged over the cavity's hot vertical wall (evidently, the same value
must be obtained over the cavity's cold vertical wall) , where
q
w av
is the heat flux from the wall to the fluid, averaged over the wall, is considered in
Fig. 16.4..
Here, the dash line presents the Ref.12 semi-empirical formula
,
where D is the distance between the vertical walls and L is the cavity height (D=L in the
case under consideration). One can see that the COSMOSFloWorks predictions practically
coincide with the benchmark at Ra 10
5
and are close to the semi-empirical data.
/( )
av wav
Nu q L T k =
1/ 4 1/ 4
0.28 ( / )
av
Nu Ra L D

=
Fig. 16.4. The average sidewall Nusselt number vs. the Rayleigh number.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Ra
Nu
av
Refs.10, 11
Ref.12
Calculation
4-80
The dimensionless velocities of the natural convection flow in the X and Y directions,
and (which are maximum along the cavity's
mid-planes, i.e., along the vertical mid-plane and along the horizontal
mid-plane) are considered in Fig. 16.5.. The dimensionless coordinates, and
, of these maximums' locations (i.e., for and for ) are
presented in Fig. 16.6.. One can see that the COSMOSFloWorks predictions of the natural
convection flow's local parameters are fairly close to the benchmark data at Ra 10
5
.
p
U L C
U
k

=
p
V L C
V
k

=
max
U
max
V
L
x
x =
L
y
y =
y
max
U x
max
V
Fig. 16.5. Dimensionless maximum velocities vs. Rayleigh number.
1
10
100
1000
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Ra
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

U

m
a
x
,

V
m
a
x
Vmax, Refs.10, 11
Vmax, calculation
Umax, Refs.10, 11
Umax, calculation

Fig. 16.6. Dimensionless coordinates of the maximum velocities' locations.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Ra
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

X

V
m
a
x
,

Y
U
m
a
x
Y Umax, Refs.10, 11
Y Umax, calculation
X Vmax, Refs.10, 11
X V max,
4-82
17 Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows
Let us now consider the COSMOSFloWorks capability to predict particles trajectories in a
gas flow (i.e. two-phase flow of fluid + liquid droplets or solid particles).
In accordance with the particles motion model accepted in COSMOSFloWorks, particle
trajectories are calculated after completing a fluid flow calculation (which can be either
steady or time-dependent). That is, the particles mass and volume flow rates are assumed
substantially lower than those of the fluid stream, so that the influence of particles
motions and temperatures on the fluid flow parameters is negligible, and motion of the
particles obeys the following equation:
where m is the particle mass, t is time, V
p
and V
f
are the particle and fluid velocities
(vectors), accordingly,
f
is the fluid density, C
d
is the particle drag coefficient, A is the
particle frontal surface area, and F
g
is the gravitational force.
Particles are treated as non-rotating spheres of constant mass and specified (solid or
liquid) material, whose drag coefficient is determined from Hendersons semi-empirical
formula (Ref.7). At very low velocity of particles with respect to carrier fluid (i.e., at the
relative velocitys Mach number M 0) this formula becomes
where Reynolds number is defined as
d is the diameter of particles, and is the fluid dynamic viscosity.
To validate COSMOSFloWorks, let us consider three cases of injecting a particle
perpendicularly into an incoming uniform flow, Fig. 17.1.. Since both the fluid flow and
the particle motion in these cases are 2D (planar), we will solve a 2D (i.e. in the XY-plane)
flow problem.
g d
p f p f f
p
F A C
V V V V
dt
dV
m +

=
2
) (
,
38 0.
Re 48 0 Re 03 0 1
12 4.
Re
24
C
d
+
+ +
+ =
. .

d V V
p f f

= Re
,

Uniform
fluid flow

Particle injection

Fig. 17.1. Injection of a particle into a uniform fluid flow.
Chapter Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows
4-84
Due to the same reason as in the previous validation examples with flow over flat plates,
we will solve this validation as an internal problem. The corresponding SolidWorks model
is shown in Fig. 17.2.. Both of the walls are ideal, the channel has length of 0.233 m and
height of 0.12 m, all the walls have thickness of 0.01 m. We specify the uniform fluid
velocity V
inlet
, the fluid temperature of 293.2 K, and the default values of turbulent flow
parameters with the laminar boundary layer at the channel inlet, and the static pressure of
1 atm at the channel outlet. All the fluid flow calculations are performed at a result
resolution level of 5.
To validate calculations of particles trajectories by comparing them with available
analytical solutions of the particle motion equation, we consider the following three cases:
a) the low maximum Reynolds number of Re
max
= 0.1 (air flow with V
inlet
= 0.002
m/s, gold particles of d = 0.5 mm, injected at the velocity of 0.002 m/s
perpendicularly to the wall),
b) the high maximum Reynolds number of Re
max
= 10
5
(water flow with V
inlet
= 10
m/s, iron particles of d = 1 cm, injected at the velocities of 1, 2, 3 m/s
perpendicularly to the wall),
c) a particle trajectory in the Y-directed gravitational field (gravitational acceleration
g
y
= -9.8 m/s
2
, air flow with V
inlet
= 0.6 m/s, an iron particle of d = 1 cm, injected
at the 1.34 m/s velocity at the angle of 63.44
o
with the wall).
In the first case, due to small Re values, the particle drag coefficient is close to C
d
=24/Re
(i.e., obeys the Stokes law). Then, neglecting gravity, we obtain the following analytical
solution for the particle trajectory:
Fig. 17.2. The model.
Inlet
Outlet
Ideal Wall
Origin and particle
injection point
)
18
exp( ) (
18
) (
2
0
2
0
t
d
V V
d
t V X t X
p
fx
t
px
p
fx
t
+ + =
=
=
,
)
18
exp( ) (
18
) (
2
0
2
0
t
d
V V
d
t V Y t Y
p
fy
t
py
p
fy
t
+ + =
=
=
,
where V
fx
, V
px
, V
fy
, V
py
are the X- and Y-components of the fluid and particle velocities,
accordingly,
p
is the particle material density. The COSMOSFloWorks calculation and
the analytical solution are shown in Fig. 17.3.. It is seen that they are very close to one
another. Special calculations have shown that the difference is due to the C
D
assumptions
only.
In the second case, due to high Re values, the particle drag coefficient is close to C
d
=0.38.
Then, neglecting the gravity, we obtain the following analytical solution for the particle
trajectory:
The COSMOSFloWorks calculations and the analytical solutions for three particle
injection velocities, V
py
(t=0) = 1, 2, 3 m/s, are shown in Fig. 17.4.. It is seen that the
COSMOSFloWorks calculations coincide with the analytical solutions. Special
calculations have shown that the difference is due to the C
D
assumptions only.
In the third case, the particle trajectory is governed by the action of the gravitational force
only, the particle drag coefficient is very close to zero, so the analytical solution is:
Fig. 17.3. Particle trajectories in a uniform fluid flow at Re
max
= 0.1, predicted by COSMOSFloWorks
and obtained from the analytical solution.
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 X (m)
Y (m)
Analytical
solution
Calculation
)
285 . 0
1 ln( ) (
285 . 0
) (
0
0
t
d
V V
d
t V Y t Y
p
fy
t
py
p
fy
t
+ + + =
=
=
,
)
.
ln( ) (
.
) ( t
d
285 0
1 V V
285 0
d
t V X t X
p
fx
0 t
px
p
fx
0 t
+ + + =
=
=
.
2
0
0
0
2
1
|
|
.
|
\
|

+ + =
=
=
=
px
t
t
py
t
V
X X
y
g t V Y Y
.
Chapter Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows
4-86
The COSMOSFloWorks calculation and the analytical solution for this case are presented
in Fig. 17.5.. It is seen that the COSMOSFloWorks calculation coincides with the
analytical solution.
I
Fig. 17.4. Particle trajectories in a uniform fluid flow at Re
max
= 10
5
, predicted by COSMOSFloWorks
and obtained from the analytical solution.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
X (m)
Y (m)
Vp = 1 m/s,
analytical solution
Vp = 1 m/s,
Calculation
Vp = 2 m/s,
analytical solution
Vp = 2 m/s,
Calculation
Vp = 3 m/s,
analytical solution
Vp = 3 m/s,
Calculation
Fig. 17.5. Particle trajectories in the Y-directed gravity, predicted by COSMOSFloWorks and
obtained from the analytical solution.
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
X (m)
Y (m)
Calculation
Theory
18 Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream
Let us now validate the COSMOSFloWorks capability to calculate fluid flows through
porous media.
Here, following Ref.2, we consider a plane cold air flow between two parallel plates,
through a porous screen installed between them, see Fig. 18.1.. At the channel inlet the air
stream velocity profile is step-shaped (specified). The porous screen (gauze) levels this
profile to a more uniform profile. This effect depends on the screen drag, see Ref.2.
The SolidWorks model used for calculating the 2D (in XY-plane) flow is shown in Fig.
18.2.. The channel has height of 0.15 m, the inlet (upstream of the porous screen) part of
the 0.3 m length, the porous screen of the 0.01 m thickness, and the outlet (downstream of
the porous screen) part of the 0.35 m length. All the walls have thickness of 0.01 m.

Air

L
Porous screen
X
Y
Fig. 18.1. Leveling effect of a porous screen (gauze) on a non-uniform stream.
Fig. 18.2. The SolidWorks model used for calculating the 2D flow between two parallel plates and
through the porous screen with COSMOSFloWorks.
Chapter Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream
4-88
Following Ref.2, we consider porous screens (gauzes) of different drag, :
= 0.95, 1.2, 2.8, and 4.1, defined as:
where P is the pressure difference between the screen sides, V
2
/2 is the dynamic
pressure (head) of the incoming stream.
Since in COSMOSFloWorks a porous mediums resistance to flow is characterized by
parameter k = - gradP/V, then for the porous screens k = V /(2L), where V is the fluid
velocity, L is the porous screen thickness. In COSMOSFloWorks, this form of a porous
mediums resistance to flow is specified as k = (AV+B)/, so A = /(2L), B = 0 for the
porous screens under consideration. Therefore, taking L = 0.01 m and = 1.2 kg/m
3
into
account, we specify A = 57, 72, 168, and 246 kg/m
-4
for the porous screens under
consideration. In accordance with the screens nature, their permeability is specified as
isotropic.
According to the experiments presented in Ref.2, the step-shaped velocity profiles V(Y)
presented in Fig. 18.3. have been specified at the model inlet. The static pressure of 1 atm
has been specified at the model outlet.
The air flow dynamic pressure profiles at the 0.3 m distance downstream from the porous
screens, both predicted by COSMOSFloWorks at result resolution level 5 and measured in
the Ref.2 experiments, are presented in Fig. 18.4. for the = 0 case (i.e., without screen)
and Figs.18.5-18.8 for the porous screens of different .
2
2
V
P

= ,
Fig. 18.3. Inlet velocity profiles.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Y (m)
V (m/s)
=0, 0.95 =0, 0.95 =0, 0.95 =0, 0.95
=1.2 =1.2 =1.2 =1.2
=2.8 =2.8 =2.8 =2.8
=4.1 =4.1 =4.1 =4.1
It is seen that the COSMOSFloWorks predictions agree well, both qualitatively and
quantitatively, with the experimental data both in absence of a screen and for all the
porous screens (gauzes) under consideration, demonstrating the leveling effect of the
gauze screens on the step-shaped incoming streams. The prediction error in the dynamic
pressure maximum does not exceed 30%.
Fig. 18.4. The dynamic pressure profiles at = 0, predicted by COSMOSFloWorks and compared to
the Ref.2 experiments.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Y (m)
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
a
)
Calculation
Experiment
Fig. 18.5. The dynamic pressure profiles at = 0.95, predicted by COSMOSFloWorks and compared
to the Ref.2 experiments.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 Y (m)
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
a
)
Calculation
Experiment
4-90

Fig. 18.6. The dynamic pressure profiles at = 1.2, predicted by COSMOSFloWorks and
compared to the Ref.2 experiments.
0
50
100
150
200
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 Y (m)
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
a
)
Calculation
Experiment
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Y (m)
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
a
)
Calculation
Experiment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 Y (m)
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
a
)
Calculation
Experiment
4-92
19 Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities
In the previous validation examples we have considered COSMOSFloWorks predictions
of pressure-driven incompressible flows in various channels with stationary (motionless)
walls. Since COSMOSFloWorks allows the motion of walls, let us now see how
COSMOSFloWorks predicts lid-driven (i.e., shear-driven) 2D recirculating flows in
closed 2D triangular and trapezoidal cavities with one or two moving walls (lids) in
comparison with the calculations performed in Refs.15 and 16.
These two cavities are shown in Fig. 19.1.. The triangular cavity has a moving top wall,
the trapezoidal cavity has a moving top wall also, whereas its bottom wall is considered in
two versions: as motionless and as moving at the top wall velocity. The no-slip conditions
are specified on all the walls.
Shown in Refs. 15 and 16, the shear-driven recirculating flows in these cavities are fully
governed by their Reynolds numbers Re = U
wall
h/, where is the fluid density, is
the fluid dynamic viscosity, U
wall
is the moving wall velocity, h is the cavity height. So,
we can specify the height of the triangular cavity h = 4 m, the height of the trapezoidal
cavity h = 1 m, U
wall
= 1 m/s for all cases under consideration, the fluid density = 1
kg/m
3
, the fluid dynamic viscosity =0.005 Pas in the triangular cavity produces a Re =
800, and = 0.01, 0.0025, 0.001 Pas in the trapezoidal cavity produces a Re = 100, 400,
1000, respectively.
Fig. 19.1. The 2D triangular (left) and trapezoidal (right) cavities with the moving walls (the
motionless walls are shown with dashes).
2
h
U
1
1
2
U
U
U
wa
Chapter Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities
4-94
The cavities models are shown in Fig. 19.2.. The COSMOSFloWorks calculation of flow
in the triangular cavity has been performed on the 4896 computational mesh. The results
in comparison with those from Ref.15 are presented in Fig. 19.3. (streamlines) and in Fig.
19.4. (the fluid velocity X-component along the central vertical bisector shown by a green
line in Fig. 19.2.). A good agreement of these calculations is clearly seen.

Fig. 19.2. The models for calculating the lid-driven 2D flows in the triangular (left) and trapezoidal
(right) cavities with COSMOSFloWorks.
Fig. 19.3. The flow trajectories in the triangular cavity, calculated by COSMOSFloWorks (right) and
compared to the Ref.15 calculation (left).
The COSMOSFloWorks calculations of flows in the trapezoidal cavity with one and two
moving walls at different Re values have been performed with the 10050 computational
mesh. Their results in comparison with those from Ref.16 are presented in Fig.
19.5.-19.10 (streamlines) and in Fig. 19.11. (the fluid velocity X-component along the
central vertical bisector shown by a green line in Fig. 19.2.). A good agreement of these
calculations is seen.
Fig. 19.5. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with a top only moving wall at Re = 100,
calculated by COSMOSFloWorks (right) and compared to the Ref.16 calculation (left).
Fig. 19.4. The triangular cavitys flow velocity X-component along the central vertical bisector,
calculated by COSMOSFloWorks (red line) and compared to the Ref.15 calculation (black line with
circlets).
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Y, m
Vx/Uwall
Calculation
4-96
Fig. 19.8. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with two moving walls at Re = 100,
Fig. 19.11. The flow velocity X-component along the central vertical bisector in the trapezoidal
cavity with two moving walls at Re = 400, calculated by COSMOSFloWorks (red line) and compared
to the Ref.16 calculation (black line).
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Y, m
Vx/Uwall
Calculation
4-98
20 Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover
In the previous COSMOSFloWorks validation example we considered a lid-driven 2D
recirculating flow in a 2D cavity. Since COSMOSFloWorks allows to consider rotating
walls, let us now see how COSMOSFloWorks predicts a 3D recirculating flow in a
cylindrical vessel closed by a rotating cover (see Fig. 20.1.) in comparison with the
experimental data presented in Ref.17 (also in Ref.18). This vessel of R = h = 0.144 m
dimensions is filled with a glycerol/water mixture. The upper cover rotates at the angular
velocity of . The other walls of this cavity are motionless. The default no-slip boundary
condition is specified for all walls.
Due to the cover rotation, a shear-driven recirculating flow forms in this vessel. Such
flows are governed by the Reynolds number Re = R
2
/, where is the fluid density,
is the fluid dynamic viscosity, is the angular velocity of the rotating cover, R is the
radius of the rotating cover. In the case under consideration the 70/30% glycerol/water
mixture has = 1180 kg/m
3
, = 0.02208 Pas, the cover rotates at = 15.51 rpm, so Re =
1800.
The COSMOSFloWorks calculation has been performed on the 824182 computational
mesh. The formed flow pattern (toroidal vortex) obtained in this calculation is shown in
Fig. 20.2. using the flow velocity vectors projected onto the XY-plane. The tangential and
radial components of the calculated flow velocity along four vertical lines arranged in the
XY-plane at different distances from the vessel axis in comparison with the Ref.17
experimental data are presented in Figs.20.3-7 in the dimensionless form (the
Y-coordinate is divided by R, the velocity components are divided by R). There is good
agreement with the calculation results and the experimental data shown.
Fig. 20.1. The cylindrical vessel with the a rotating cover.
rotating cover
R
h
Chapter Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover
4-100
Fig. 20.2. The vessel's flow velocity vectors projected on the
Fig. 20.3. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along the X = 0.6 vertical,
calculated by COSMOSFloWorks (red) and compared to the Ref.17 experimental data.
Chapter Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover
4-102
21 Flow in an Impeller
In the previous validation example we had considered COSMOSFloWorks predictions of
a recirculating flow in a cylindrical vessel with a rotating cover. The calculation had been
performed in the coordinate system related to the stationary object (vessel), and a part
(cover) rotated in this coordinate system. Let us now validate the COSMOSFloWorks
ability to perform calculations in a rotating coordinate system related to a rotating solid.
Following Ref.22, we will consider the flow of water in a 9-bladed centrifugal impeller
having blades tilted at a constant 60 angle with respect to the intersecting radii and
extending out from the 320 mm inner diameter to the 800 mm outer diameter (see Fig.
21.1.). The water in this impeller flows from its center to its periphery. To compare the
calculation with the experimental data presented in Ref.22, the impeller's angular velocity
of 32 rpm and volume flow rate of 0.00926 m
3
/s are specified.
Since the impeller's inlet geometry and disk extension serving as the impeller's vaneless
diffuser have no exact descriptions in Ref.22, to perform the validating calculation we
arbitrarily specified the annular inlet as 80 mm in diameter with an uniform inlet velocity
profile perpendicular to the surface in the stationary coordinate system.The impeller's
disks external end was specified as 1.2 m diameter, as shown in Fig. 21.2..
The above-mentioned volume flow rate at the annular inlet and the potential pressure of 1
atm at the annular outlet are specified as the problem's flow boundary conditions.
Fig. 21.1. The impeller's blades geometry.
Fig. 21.2. The model used for calculating the 3D flow in the impeller.
Chapter Flow in an Impeller
4-104
The COSMOSFloWorks 3D flow calculation is performed on the computational mesh
using the result resolution level of 5 and the minimum wall thickness of 2 mm (since the
blades have constant thickness). To further capture the curvature of the blades a local
initial mesh was also used in the area from the annular inlet to the blades' periphery. As a
result, the computational mesh has a total number of about 1,000,000 cells.
Following Ref.22, let us compare the passage-wise flow velocities (w
s
, see their definition
in Fig. 21.3., = 60) along several radial lines passing through the channels between the
blades (lines g, j, m, p in Fig. 21.4.) at the mid-height between the impeller's disks.
The passage-wise flow velocities divided by r
2
, where is the impeller's angular
velocity and r
2
= 400 mm is the impeller's outer radius, which were measured in Ref.22
and obtained in the performed COSMOSFloWorks calculations, are shown in Fig. 21.5., 6,
7, and 8. In these figures, the distance along the radial lines is divided by the line's length.
The COSMOSFloWorks results are presented in each of these figures by the curve
obtained by averaging the corresponding nine curves in all the nine flow passages between
the impeller blades. The calculated passage-wise flow velocity's cut plot covering the
whole computational domain at the mid-height between the impeller's disks is shown in
Fig. 21.9.. Here, the g, j, m, p radial lines in each of the impeller's flow passages are
shown. A good agreement of these calculation results with the experimental data is seen.
Fig. 21.3. Definition of the passage-wise flow velocity.
Fig. 21.4. Definition of the reference radial lines along which the passage-wise flow
velocity was measured in Ref.22 (from a to s in the alphabetical order).
Fig. 21.5. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the g (see Fig. 21.4.) radial line,
calculated by COSMOSFloWorks and compared to the experimental data.
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
relative distance along the radial line
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
a
s
s
a
g
e
w
i
s
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
)
calculation
experiment
Fig. 21.6. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the j (see Fig. 21.4.) radial line, calculated
by COSMOSFloWorks and compared to the experimental data.
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
a
s
s
a
g
e
w
i
s
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
)
calculation
experiment
4-106
Fig. 21.7. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the m (see Fig. 21.4.) radial line,
0
0 .2 5
0.5
0 .7 5
0 0 .5 1
re lative dis tanc e along the rad ial line
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
a
s
s
a
g
e
w
i
s
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
)
calculation
experiment
Fig. 21.8. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the p (see Fig. 21.4.) radial line,
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
a
s
s
a
g
e
w
i
s
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
)
calculation
experiment
Fig. 21.9. A cut plot of the impeller's passage-wise flow velocity calculated by
COSMOSFloWorks.
4-108
22 Cavitation on a hydrofoil
When the local pressure at some point in the liquid drops below the liquid's vapour
pressure at the local temperature, the liquid undergoes phase transition and form cavities
filled with the liquid's vapor with an addition of gas that has been dissolved in the liquid.
This phenomenon is called cavitation.
In this validation example we consider COSMOSFloWorks abilities to model cavitation
on the example of water flow around a symmetric hydrofoil in a water-filled tunnel. The
calculated results were compared with the experimental data from Ref. 23.
The problem is solved in the 2D setting. A symmetric hydrofoil with the chord c of
0.305 m is placed in a water-filled tunnel with the angle of attack of 3.5. The part of the
tunnel being modelled has the following dimensions: length l = 2 m and height
h = 0.508 m. The calculation is performed four times with different values of the
cavitation number defined as follows:
where is the inlet pressure, P
v
is the saturated water vapor pressure equal to 2340 Pa at
given temperature (293.2 K), is the water density at inlet, and is the water velocity
at inlet (see Fig. 22.1.).
The inlet boundary condition is set up as Inlet Velocity of 8 m/s. On the tunnel outlet
an Environment Pressure is specified so that by varying it one may tune the cavitation
number to the needed value. The project fluid is water with the cavitation option switched
on, while the other parameters are default. A local initial mesh was created in order to
resolve the cavitation area better. The resulting mesh contains about 30000 cells.
P
v
1
2
---U
2
------------------- =
P
Fig. 22.1. The model geometry.

Chapter Cavitation on a hydrofoil
4-110
The qualitative comparison in a form of cut plots with Vapor Volume Fraction as the
visualization parameter are shown on Fig. 22.2.
Fig. 22.2. A comparison of calculated and experimentally observed cavitation areas for different
=1.1
=0.97
=0.9 =0.88
The calculated length of the cavitation area was derived from the distribution of the
Vapor Volume Fraction parameter over the hydrofoils surface as the distributions
width at half-height. The results are presented on Fig. 22.3.
According to Ref. 23, the "clear appearance" of the cavity becomes worse for larger cavity
lengths. The experimental data also confirm that the amount of uncertainty increases with
increasing cavity extent. Taking these factors into account together with the comparison
performed above, we can see that the calculated length of the cavitation area agrees well
with the experiment for a wide range of cavitation numbers.
Pressure measurements were performed on the hydrofoil surface at x/c = 0.05 in order to
calculate the pressure coefficient defined as follows:
A comparison of the calculated and experimental values of this parameter is presented on
Fig. 22.4. and also shows a good agreement.
Fig. 22.3. A comparison of calculated and measured cavitation lengths
Cp
P
P
x c 0.05 =
1
2
---U
2
-------------------------------------- =
Chapter Cavitation on a hydrofoil
4-112
Fig. 22.4. A comparison of calculated and measured pressure coefficient
23 Thermoelectric Cooling
COSMOSFloWorks has the ability to model the work of a thermoelectric cooler (TEC),
also known as Peltier element. The device used in this example has been developed for
active cooling of an infrared focal plane array detector used during the Mars space mission
(see Ref. 24).
According to the hardware requirements, the cooler (see Fig. 23.1.) has the following
dimensions: thickness of 4.8 mm, cold side of 8X8 mm
2
and hot side of 12X12 mm
2
. It
was built up of three layers of semiconductor pellets made of (Bi,Sb)
2
(Se,Te)
3
-based
material. The cooler was designed to work at temperatures of hot surface in the range of
120-180 K and to provide the temperature drop of more than 30 K between its surfaces.
To solve the engineering problem using COSMOSFloWorks, the cooler has been modelled
by a truncated pyramidal body with fixed temperature (Temperature boundary
condition) on the hot surface and given heat flow (Heat flow boundary condition) on the
cold surface (see Fig. 23.3.).

Fig. 23.1. Structure of the thermoelectric cooler. Fig. 23.2. The thermoelectric module test
setup. (Image from Ref. 24)
Fig. 23.3. The model geometry.
Chapter Thermoelectric Cooling
4-114
The TEC characteristics necessary for the modelling, i.e. temperature dependencies of the
maximum pumped heat, maximum temperature drop, maximum current strength and
maximum voltage, were represented in the COSMOSFloWorks Engineering Database as a
linear interpolation between the values taken from Ref. 24 (see Fig. 23.4.).
As it can be seen on Fig. 23.5., the temperature drop between the coolers hot and cold
surfaces in dependence of current agrees well with the experimental data.
Fig. 23.4. The TECs characteristics in the Engineering Database.
Fig. 23.5. T as a function of current under various T
h
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
I, A
D
e
l
t
a

T
,

K
Th=160 K - Experimental
Th=160 K - Simulated
Th=180 K - Experimental
Th=180 K - Simulated
The dependency of T against heat flow under various T
h
(see Fig. 23.6.) is also in a good
agreement with the performance data, as well as the coefficient of performance COP (see
Fig. 23.7.) defined as follows:
where P
in
is the coolers power consumption, and Q
c
and Q
h
are the heat flows on the cold
and hot faces, respectively.
COP
Q
c
P
in
-------
Q
c
Q
h
Q
c
------------------- = =
Fig. 23.6. T as a function of heat flow under various T
h
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Qc, W
D
e
l
t
a

T
,

K
Th=160 K - Perf ormance Curve
Th=160 K - Simulation
Chapter Thermoelectric Cooling
4-116
Finally, we may conclude that COSMOSFloWorks reproduces thermal characteristics of
the thermoelectric coolers at various currents and temperatures with good precision.
Fig. 23.7. COP as a function of T under various T
h
.
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Delta T, K
C
O
P
References
1 Schlichting, H., Boundary Layer Theory. 7th ed., McGraw Hill, New York, 1979.
2 Idelchik, I.E., Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance. 2nd ed., Hemisphere, New York,
1986.
3 Panton, R.L., Incompressible Flow. 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.
4 White, F.M., Fluid Mechanics. 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
5 Artonkin, V.G., Petrov, K.P., Investigations of aerodynamic characteristics of
segmental conic bodies. TsAGI Proceedings, No. 1361, Moscow, 1971 (in Russian).
6 Holman, J.P., Heat Transfer. 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
7 Henderson, C.B. Drag Coefficients of Spheres in Continuum and Rarefied Flows.
AIAA Journal, v.14, No.6, 1976.
8 Humphrey, J.A.C., Taylor, A.M.K., and Whitelaw, J.H., Laminar Flow in a Square
Duct of Strong Curvature. J. Fluid Mech., v.83, part 3, pp.509-527, 1977.
9 Van Dyke, Milton, An Album of Fluid Motion. The Parabolic press, Stanford,
California, 1982.
10 Davis, G. De Vahl: Natural Convection of Air in a Square Cavity: a Bench Mark
Numerical Solution. Int. J. for Num. Meth. in Fluids, v.3, p.p. 249-264 (1983).
11 Davis, G. De Vahl, and Jones, I.P.: Natural Convection in a Square Cavity: a
Comparison Exercise. Int. J. for Num. Meth. in Fluids, v.3, p.p. 227-248 (1983).
12 Emery, A., and Chu, T.Y.: Heat Transfer across Vertical Layers. J. Heat Transfer, v.
87, p. 110 (1965).
13 Denham, M.K., and Patrick, M.A.: Laminar Flow over a Downstream-Facing Step in a
Two-Dimensional Flow Channel. Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., v.52, p.p. 361-367
(1974).
14 Yanshin, B.I.: Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Pipeline Valves and Elements.
Convergent Sections, Divergent Sections, and Valves. Mashinostroenie, Moscow,
1965.
15 Jyotsna, R., and Vanka, S.P.: Multigrid Calculation of Steady, Viscous Flow in a
Triangular Cavity. J. Comput. Phys., v.122, No.1, p.p. 107-117 (1995).
16 Darr, J.H., and Vanka, S.P.: Separated Flow in a Driven Trapezoidal Cavity. J. Phys.
Fluids A, v.3, No.3, p.p. 385-392 (1991).
17 Michelsen, J. A., Modeling of Laminar Incompressible Rotating Fluid Flow, AFM
86-05, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Fluid Mechanics, Technical University of
Denmark, 1986.
18 Sorensen, J.N., and Ta Phuoc Loc: Higher-Order Axisymmetric Navier-Stokes Code:
Description and Evaluation of Boundary Conditions. Int. J. Numerical Methods in
Fluids, v.9, p.p. 1517-1537 (1989).
Chapter References
4-118
19 Enchao Yu, Yogendra Joshi: Heat Transfer Enhancement from Enclosed Discrete
Components Using Pin-Fin Heat Sinks. Int. J. of Heat and Mass Transfer, v.45, p.p.
4957-4966 (2002).
20 Kuchling, H., Physik, VEB FachbuchVerlag, Leipzig, 1980.
21 Balakin, V., Churbanov, A., Gavriliouk, V., Makarov, M., and Pavlov, A.: Verification
and Validation of EFD.Lab Code for Predicting Heat and Fluid Flow, In: CD-ROM
Proc. Int. Symp. on Advances in Computational Heat Transfer CHT-04, April 19-24,
2004, Norway, 21 p.
22 Visser, F.C., Brouwers, J.J.H., Jonker, J.B.: Fluid flow in a rotating low-specific-speed
centrifugal impeller passage. J. Fluid Dynamics Research, 24, pp. 275-292 (1999).
23 Wesley, H. B., and Spyros, A. K.: Experimental and computational investigation of
sheet cavitation on a hydrofoil. Presented at the 2nd Joint ASME/JSME Fluid
Engineering Conference & ASME/EALA 6th International Conference on Laser
Anemometry. The Westin Resort, Hilton Head Island, SC, USA August 13 - 18, 1995.
24 Yershova, L., Volodin, V., Gromov, T., Kondratiev, D., Gromov, G., Lamartinie, S.,
Bibring, J-P., and Soufflot, A.: Thermoelectric Cooling for Low Temperature Space
Environment. Proceedings of 7th European Workshop on Thermoelectrics, Pamplona,
Spain, 2002.
5
Technical Reference
1 Physical Capabilities of COSMOSFloWorks
With COSMOSFloWorks it is possible to study a wide range of fluid flow and heat
transfer phenomena that include the following:
External and internal fluid flows
Steady-state and time-dependent fluid flows
Compressible gas and incompressible fluid flows (either in different projects or
simultaneously in different regions not in contact with each other)
Free, forced, and mixed convection
Fluid flows with boundary layers, including wall roughness effects
Laminar and turbulent fluid flows
Multi-species fluids and multi-component solids
Heat conduction in fluid, solid and porous media with/without conjugate heat
transfer and/or contact heat resistance between solids and/or radiation heat transfer
between opaque solids (some solids can be considered transparent for radiation),
and/or volume (or surface) heat sources, e.g. due to Peltier effect, etc.
Various types of thermal conductivity in solid medium, i.e. isotropic, unidirectional,
biaxial/axisymmetrical, and orthotropic
Fluid flows and heat transfer in porous media
Flows of non-Newtonian liquids
Flows of compressible liquids
Real gases
Two-phase (fluid + particles) flows
Equilibrium volume condensation of water from steam and its influence on fluid
flow and heat transfer
Chapter Governing Equations
5-2
Relative humidity in gases and mixtures of gases
Fluid flows in models with moving/rotating surfaces and/or parts
Cavitation in incompressible water flows
Periodic boundary conditions.
2 Governing Equations
2.1 The Navier-Stokes Equations for Laminar and Turbulent Fluid Flows
COSMOSFloWorks solves the Navier-Stokes equations, which are formulations of mass,
momentum and energy conservation laws for fluid flows. The equations are supplemented
by fluid state equations defining the nature of the fluid, and by empirical dependencies of
fluid density, viscosity and thermal conductivity on temperature. Inelastic non-Newtonian
fluids are considered by introducing a dependency of their dynamic viscosity on flow
shear rate and temperature, and compressible liquids are considered by introducing a
dependency of their density on pressure. A particular problem is finally specified by the
definition of its geometry, boundary and initial conditions.
COSMOSFloWorks is capable of predicting both laminar and turbulent flows. Laminar
flows occur at low values of the Reynolds number, which is defined as the product of
representative scales of velocity and length divided by the kinematic viscosity. When the
Reynolds number exceeds a certain critical value, the flow becomes turbulent, i.e. flow
parameters start to fluctuate randomly.
Most of the fluid flows we encounter in engineering practice are turbulent, so
COSMOSFloWorks was mainly developed to simulate and study turbulent flows. To
predict turbulent flows, we use the Favre-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, where
time-averaged effects of the flow turbulence on the flow parameters are considered,
whereas the other, i.e. large-scale, time-dependent phenomena are taken into account
directly. Through this procedure, extra terms known as the Reynolds stresses appear in the
equations for which additional information must be provided. To close this system of
equations, COSMOSFloWorks employs transport equations for the turbulent kinetic
energy and its dissipation rate, the so-called k- model.
COSMOSFloWorks employs one system of equations to describe both laminar and
turbulent flows. Moreover, transition from a laminar to turbulent state and/or vice versa is
possible.
Flows in models with moving walls (without changing the model geometry) are computed
by specifying the corresponding boundary conditions. Flows in models with rotating parts
are computed in coordinate systems attached to the models rotating parts, i.e. rotating with
them, so the models' stationary parts must be axisymmetric with respect to the rotation
axis.
The conservation laws for mass, angular momentum and energy in the Cartesian
coordinate system rotating with angular velocity about an axis passing through the
coordinate system's origin can be written in the conservation form as follows:
where u is the fluid velocity, is the fluid density, is a mass-distributed external force
per unit mass due to a porous media resistance (Si
porous
), a buoyancy (Si
gravity
= - g
i
,
where g
i
is the gravitational acceleration component along the i-th coordinate direction),
and the coordinate systems rotation (Si
rotation
), i.e., Si = Si
porous
+ Si
gravity
+ Si
rotation
, h is
the thermal enthalpy, is a heat source or sink per unit volume, is the viscous
shear stress tensor, is the diffusive heat flux. The subscripts are used to denote
summation over the three coordinate directions.
For calculations with the High Mach number flow option enabled, the following energy
equation is used:
where e is the internal energy.
For Newtonian fluids the viscous shear stress tensor is defined as:
(5.1) 0 ) = u (
x
+
t
i
i
(5.2)
i
R
ij ij
j i
j i
j
i
S
x
=
x
p
) + u u (
x
+
t
u
+ +
) (
3 , 2 , 1 = i
(5.3) ( ) , ) (
H i i
j
i R
ij i
R
ij ij j
i i
i
Q u S
x
u
t
p
q u
x
=
x
H u

t
H
+ + +
+ + +

,
2
2
u
h H + =
S
i
Q
H

i k
q
i
(5.4)
( ) , ) (
H i i
j
i R
ij i
R
ij ij j
i i
i
Q u S
x
u
q u
x
=
x
p
E u

t
E
+ + +
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
,
2
2
u
e E + =
(5.5)
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
k
k
ij
i
j
j
i
ij
x
u
x
u
x
u

3
2
5-4
Following Boussinesq assumption, the Reynolds-stress tensor has the following form:
Here is the Kronecker delta function (it is equal to unity when i = j, and zero
otherwise), is the dynamic viscosity coefficient, is the turbulent eddy viscosity
coefficient and k is the turbulent kinetic energy. Note that and k are zero for laminar
flows. In the frame of the k- turbulence model, is defined using two basic turbulence
properties, namely, the turbulent kinetic energy k and the turbulent dissipation ,
Here is a turbulent viscosity factor. It is defined by the expression
and y is the distance from the wall. This function allows us to take into account
laminar-turbulent transition.
Two additional transport equations are used to describe the turbulent kinetic energy and
dissipation,
(5.6)
ij
k
k
ij
i
j
j
i
t
R
ij
k
x
u
x
u
x
u

3
2
3
2
|
|
.
|
\
|
i j

t
2
k C
f
t
=
(5.7)
f
( ) [ ]
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
T
y
R
R f
5 , 20
1 025 . 0 exp 1
2
(5.8) ,
where
2
k
R
T
=
,
y k
R
y
=
( )
k
i k
t
i
i
i
S
x
k
x
k u
x t
k
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
,
(5.9)
( )

S
x x
u
x t
i
t
i
i
i
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
, (5.10)
where the source terms and are defined as
Here represents the turbulent generation due to buoyancy forces and can be written as
where is the component of gravitational acceleration in direction , the constant
B
= 0.9, and constant is defined as: C
B
= 1 when , and 0 otherwise;
The constants , , , , are defined empirically. In COSMOSFloWorks
the following typical values are used:
C
= 0.09, C
1
= 1.44, C
2
= 1.92,
= 1.3,
Where Lewis number Le=1 the diffusive heat flux is defined as:
Here the constant
c
= 0.9, Pr is the Prandtl number, and h is the thermal enthalpy.
These equations describe both laminar and turbulent flows. Moreover, transitions from
one case to another and back are possible. The parameters k and are zero for purely
laminar flows.
S
k
S
B t
j
i R
ij k
P
x
u
S +
=
(5.11)
k
f C P C
x
u
f
k
C S
B B t
j
i R
ij
2
2
2
1
1

|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
.
(5.12)
P
B
i B
i
B
x
g
P
=

1
(5.13)
g
i
x
i
C
B
P
B
0 >
3
1
05 . 0
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
f
f
,
( )
2
2
exp 1
T
R f =
(5.14)
C
C
1
C
2

k

k
1 = (5.15)
i c
t
i
x
h
q
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =

Pr
, i = 1, 2, 3. (5.16)
t
5-6
Laminar/turbulent Boundary Layer Model
A laminar/turbulent boundary layer model is used to describe flows in near-wall regions.
The model is based on the so-called Modified Wall Functions approach. This model is
employed to characterize laminar and turbulent flows near the walls, and to describe
transitions from laminar to turbulent flow and vice versa. The modified wall function uses
a Van Driest's profile instead of a logarithmic profile. If the size of the mesh cell near the
wall is more than the boundary layer thickness the integral boundary layer technology is
used. The model provides accurate velocity and temperature boundary conditions for the
above mentioned conservation equations.
Constitutive Laws and Thermophysical Properties
The system of Navier-Stokes equations is supplemented by definitions of thermophysical
properties and state equations for the fluids. COSMOSFloWorks provides simulations of
gas and liquid flows with density, viscosity, thermal conductivity, specific heats, and
species diffusivities as functions of pressure, temperature and species concentrations in
fluid mixtures, as well as equilibrium volume condensation of water from steam can be
taken into account when simulating steam flows.
Generally, the state equation of a fluid has the following form:
where y =(y
1
, ... y
M
) is the concentration vector of the fluid mixture components.
Excluding special cases (see below subsections concerning Real Gases, Equilibrium
volume condensation of water from steam), gases are considered ideal, i.e. having the
state equation of the form
where R is the gas constant which is equal to the universal gas constant R
univ
divided by
the fluid molecular mass M, or, for the mixtures of ideal gases,
where , m=1, 2, ...,M, are the concentrations of mixture components, and is the
molecular mass of the m-th component.
Specific heat at constant pressure, as well as the thermophysical properties of the gases,
i.e. viscosity and thermal conductivity, are specified as functions of temperature. In
addition, proceeding from Eq. (5.18), each of such gases has constant specific heat ratio
C
p
/C
v
.
(5.17)
,
( ), y , ,T p f =
RT
P
= (5.18)
,
=
m
m
m
univ
M
y
R R (5.19)
,
y
m
M
m
Excluding special cases (see below subsections Compressible Liquids, Non-Newtonian
Liquids), liquds are considered incompressible, i.e. the density of an individual liquid
depends only on temperature:
and the state equation for a mixture of liquids is defined as
The specific heat and the thermophysical properties of the liquid (i.e. viscosity and
thermal conductivity), are specified as functions of temperature.
Real Gases
The state equation of ideal gas (5.18) become inaccurate at high pressures or in close
vicinity of the gas-liquid phase transition curve. Taking this into account, a real gas state
equation together with the related equations for thermodynamical and thermophysical
properties should be employed in such conditions. At present, this option may be used
only for a single gas, probably mixed with ideal gases.
In case of user-defined real gas, COSMOSFloWorks uses a custom modification of the
Redlich-Kwong equation that may be expressed in dimensionless form as follows:
where p
r
= p/p
c
, T
r
= T/T
c
,
r
= V
r
Z
c
, V
r
=V/V
c
, F=T
r
-1.5
, p
c
, T
c
, and V
c
are the
user-specified critical parameters of the gas, i.e. pressure, temperature, and specific
volume at the critical point, and Z
c
is the gas compressibility factor that also defines the a,
b, and c constants. A particular case of equation (5.22) with Z
c
=1/3 (which in turn means
that b=c) is the original Riedlich-Kwong equation as given in Ref. 11.
Alternatively, one of the modifications (Ref. 11) taking into account the dependence of F
on temperature and the Pitzer acentricity factor may be used: the Wilson modification,
the Barnes-King modification, or the Soave modification.
The specific heat of real gas at constant pressure (C
p
) is determined as the combination of
the user-specified temperature-dependent "ideal gas" specific heat (C
p
ideal
) and the
automatically calculated correction. The former is a polynomial with user-specified order
and coefficients. The specific heat at constant volume (C
v
) is calculated from C
p
by means
of the state equation.
(5.20) , ( ) T f =
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

m
m
m
y
(5.21)
|
|
.
|
\
|
+

=
) (
1
c
F a
b
T p
r r r
r r
(5.22)
5-8
Likewise, the thermophysical properties are defined as a sum of user-specified "basic"
temperature dependency (which describes the corresponding property in extreme case of
low pressure) and the pressure-dependent correction which is calculated automatically.
The basic dependency for dynamic viscosity of the gas is specified in a power-law form:
= aT
n
. The same property for liquid is specified either in a similar power-law form
= aT
n
or in an exponential form: = 10
a(1/T-1/n)
. As for the correction, it is given
according to the Jossi-Stiel-Thodos equation for non-polar gases or the Stiel-Thodos
equations for polar gases (see Ref. 11), judging by the user-specified attribute of polarity.
The basic dependencies for thermal conductivities of the substance in gaseous and liquid
states are specified by the user either in linear = a+nT or in power-law = aT
n
forms,
and the correction is determined from the Stiel-Thodos equations (see Ref. 11).
All user-specified coefficients must be entered in SI unit system, except those for the
exponential form of dynamic viscosity of the liquid, which should be taken exclusively
from Ref. 11.
In case of pre-defined real gas, the custom modification of the Riedlich-Kwong equation
of the same form as Eq. (5.22) is used, with the distinction that the coefficients a, b, and c
are specified explicitly as dependencies on T
r
in order to reproduce the gas-liquid phase
transition curve at P < P
c
and the critical isochore at P > P
c
with higher precision.
When the calculated (p, T) point drops out of the region bounded by the temperature and
pressure limits (zones 1 - 8 on Fig.2.1) or gets beyond the gas-liquid phase transition
curve (zone 9 on Fig.2.1), the corresponding warnings are issued and properties of the real
gas are extrapolated linearly.
If a real gas mixes with ideal gases (at present, mixtures of multiple real gases are not
considered), properties of this mixture are determined as an average weighted with mass
or volume fractions:
where is the mixture property (i.e., C
p
, , or ), N is the total number of the mixture
gases (one of which is real and others are ideal), Y
i
is the mass fraction (when calculating
C
p
) or the volume fraction (when calculating and ) of the i-th gas in the mixture.
The real gas model has the following limitations and assumptions:
The precision of calculation of thermodynamic properties at nearly-critical
temperatures and supercritical pressures may be lowered to some extent in
comparison to other temperature ranges. Generally speaking, the calculations
involving user-defined real gases at supercritical pressures are not recommended.
The user-defined dependencies describing the specific heat and transport properties
of the user-defined real gases should be applicable in the whole T
min
...T
max
range
(or, speaking about liquid, in the whole temperature range where the liquid exists).
Fig.2.1
(5.23)
Y
i
i
i 1 =
N
=
5-10
T
min
for user-defined real gas should be set at least 5...10 K higher than the triple
point of the substance in question.
Compressible Liquids
Compressible liquids whose density depends on pressure and temperature can be
considered within the following approximations:
obeying the logarithmic law:
where
o
is the liquid's density under the reference pressure Po, C, B are
coefficients, here
o
, C, and B can depend on temperature, P is the calculated
pressure;
obeying the power law:
where, in addition to the above-mentioned designations, n is a power index which
can be temperature dependent.
Non-Newtonian Liquids
COSMOSFloWorks is capable of computing laminar flows of inelastic non-Newtonian
liquids. In this case the viscous shear stress tensor is defined, instead of Eq. (5.5), as
where shear rate,
and for specifying a viscosity function the following three models of inelastic
non-Newtonian viscous liquids are available in COSMOSFloWorks:
The Herschel-Bulkley model:
where K is the liquid's consistency coefficient, n is the liquid's power law index, and
is the liquid's yield stress. This model includes the following special cases:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
=
0
0
ln 1 /
P B
P B
C
,
n
B P
B P
/ 1
0
0
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
=
,
,
(5.24)
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
i
j
j
i
ij
x
u
x
u
&
i
j
j
i
ij jj ii ij
x
u
x
u
d d d d
= = ,
2
&
( ) &
( ) ( )

&
& &
o
n
K + =
1
,
o

n = 1, = 0 describes Newtonian liquids, in this case K is the liquid's dynamic
viscosity;
n = 1, > 0 describes the Bingham model of non-Newtonian liquids, featured by a
non-zero threshold yield stress ( ) below of which the liquid behaves as a solid, so
to achieve a flow this threshold shear stress must be exceeded. (In
COSMOSFloWorksthis threshold is modeled by automatically equating K, named
plastic viscosity in this case, to a substantially high value at );
0 < n < 1, = 0 describes the power law model of shear-thinning non-Newtonian
liquids (see also below).
n > 1, = 0 describes the power law model of shear-thickening non-Newtonian
liquids (see also below).
The power law model: ,
in contrast to the Herschel-Bulkley model's special case, the values are restricted:
min

max
;
The Carreau model:
where:
is the liquid's dynamic viscosity at infinite shear rate, i.e., the minimum
dynamic viscosity,
is the liquid's dynamic viscosity at zero shear rate, i.e., the maximum dynamic
viscosity,
K
t
is the time constant,
n is the power law index.
This model is a smooth version of the power law model with the restrictions. In these
models, all parameters with the exception of the dimensionless power law index are
temperature-dependent in a general case.
Equilibrium volume condensation of water from steam
If the gas whose flow is computed includes steam, COSMOSFloWorks can predict an
equilibrium volume condensation of water from this steam (without any surface
condensation) taking into account the corresponding changes of the steam temperature,
density, enthalpy, specific heat, and sonic velocity. In accordance with the equilibrium
approach, local mass fraction of the condensed water in the local total mass of the steam
and the condensed water is determined from the local temperature of the fluid, pressure,
and, if a multi-component fluid is considered, the local mass fraction of the steam. Since
this model implies an equilibrium conditions, the condensation has no history, i.e. it is a
local fluid property only.
o
o
<
o
( ) ( )
1
=
n
K & &
,
( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) 2 / 1
2
1

+ + =
n
t o
K &
,

5-12
In addition, it is assumed that
the volume of the condensed water is neglected, i.e. considered zero, so this
prediction works properly only if the volume fraction of the condensed water does
not exceed 5%,
the steam temperature falls into the range of 283...610 K and the pressure does not
exceed 10 MPa.
2.2 Conjugate Heat Transfer
COSMOSFloWorks allows to predict simultaneous heat transfer in solid and fluid media
with energy exchange between them. Heat transfer in fluids is described by the energy
conservation equation (5.3) where the heat flux is defined by (5.16). The phenomenon of
anisotropic heat conductivity in solid media is described by the following equation:
where e is the specific internal energy, e = cT, c is specific heat, Q
H
is specific heat
release (or absorption) per unit volume, and
i
are the eigenvalues of the thermal
conductivity tensor. It is supposed that the heat conductivity tensor is diagonal in the
considered coordinate system. For isotropic medium
1
=
2
=
3
= .
If a solid consists of several solids attached to each other, then the thermal contact
resistances between them (on their contact surfaces), specified in the Engineering database
in the form of contact conductance (as m
2
K/W), can be taken into account when
calculating the heat conduction in solids. As a result, a solid temperature step appears on
the contact surfaces. In the same manner, i.e. as a thermal contact resistance, a very thin
layer of another material between solids or on a solid in contact with fluid can be taken
into account when calculating the heat conduction in solids, but it is specified by the
material of this layer (its thermal conductivity taken from the Engineering database) and
thickness. The surface heat source (sink) due to Peltier effect may also be considered (see
"2.3. Thermoelectric Coolers" on page 5-13).
The energy exchange between the fluid and solid media is calculated via the heat flux in
the direction normal to the solid/fluid interface taking into account the solid surface
temperature and the fluid boundary layer characteristics, if necessary.
H
i
i
i
Q
x
T
x t
e
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
(5.25)
,
If a solid medium is porous with a fluid flowing through it, then a conjugate heat transfer
problem in this porous-solid/fluid medium can be solved also in the manner described
below. The equations (5.3) and (5.25) are solved in a usual way, but with addition of
energy exchange between the fluid and the porous solid matrix, defined via the volumetric
heat exchange in the Eq. (5.25) in a form of , where
is the user-defined volumetric coefficient of heat transfer between fluid and the porous
matrix, T
p
is the temperature of the porous matrix, T is the fluid temperature, and the same
Q
H
with the opposite sign is employed in Eq. (5.25) for the porous matrix. Note that the
and c of the porous matrix used in Eq. (5.25) can differ from those of the corresponding
bulk solid material. Naturally, both the fluid flow equations and the porous matrix heat
transfer equation take into account the fluid and solid densities multiplied by the
corresponding fluid and solid volume fractions in the porous matrix.
2.3 Thermoelectric Coolers
Thermoelectric cooler (TEC) is a flat sandwich consisting of two plates covering a circuit
of p-n semiconductor junctions inside. When a direct electric current (DC) i runs through
this circuit, in accordance with the Peltier effect the aiT
c
heat, where a is the Seebeck
coefficient, T
c
is the TEC's "cold" surface temperature, is pumped from the TEC's "cold"
surface to its "hot" surface (the "cold" and "hot" sides are determined from the DC
direction). This heat pumping is naturally accompanied by the Joule (ohmic) heat release
at both the TEC surfaces and the heat transfer from the hotter side to the colder (reverse to
the Peltier effect). The ohmic heat release is defined as Ri
2
/2, where R is the TEC's
electric resistance, while the heat transfer is defined as kT , where k is the TEC's
thermal conductivity, T = T
h
- T
c
, T
h
is the TEC's "hot" surface temperature. The net
heat transferred from the TEC's "cold" surface to its "hot" surface, Q
c
, is equal to
,
Correspondingly, the net heat released at the TEC's "hot" surface, Q
h
, is equal to
.
In COSMOSFloWorks a TEC is specified by selecting a flat plate (box) in the model,
assigning its "hot" face, and applying one of the TECs already defined by user in the
Engineering Database. The following characteristics of TEC are specified in the
Engineering Database:
the maximum DC current, i
max
the maximum heat Q
cmax
transferred at this i
max
at T = 0
the maximum temperature difference T
max
, attained at Q
c
= 0
the voltage V
max
corresponding to i
max
.
Q
Hporosi t y
T
p
T ( ) =
T k i R T i a Q
c c
= 2 /
2
T k i R T i a Q
h h
+ = 2 /
2
5-14
All of these characteristics are specified for two T
h
values, in accordance with the
information usually provided by the TEC suppliers. Proceeding from these characteristics,
the a(T), R(T), and k(T) linear functions are determined. The functional boundary
conditions are specified automatically on the TEC's "cold" and "hot" surfaces, which must
be free from other boundary conditions.
The temperature solution inside the TEC and on its surfaces is obtained using a special
procedure differing from the standard COSMOSFloWorks calculation procedure for heat
conduction in solids.
The TEC's "hot" face must be in contact with other solids, i.e it must not be in contact with
any fluid. In addition, it is required that the obtained TEC solution, i.e. T
h
and T, lie
within the TEC's operating range specified by its manufacturer.
2.4 Radiation Heat Transfer Between Solids
In addition to heat transfer in solids, COSMOSFloWorks is capable to calculate radiation
heat transfer between solids whose surface emissivity is specified. If necessary, a heat
radiation from the computational domain's far-field boundaries or the model's openings to
the model surfaces can be defined and considered either as from solid surfaces, i.e. by
specifying these boundaries' emissivity and temperature, or as a solar radiation defined by
the specified location (on the surface of the Earth) and time (including date) or by constant
or time-dependent direction and intensity.
General Assumptions
The radiation heat transfer is analyzed under the following assumptions:
The heat radiation from the solid surfaces, both the emitted and reflected, is assumed
diffuse (except for the symmetry radiative surface type), i.e. obeying the Lambert law,
according to which the radiation intensity per unit area and per unit solid angle is the
same in all directions.
The propagating heat radiation passes through a body specified as radiation transparent
without any refraction and/or absorption.
The project fluids neither emit nor absorb heat radiation (i.e., they are transparent to
the heat radiation), so the heat radiation concerns solid surfaces only.
The radiative solid surfaces which are not specified as a blackbody or whitebody are
assumed an ideal graybody, i.e. having a continuous emissive power spectrum similar
to that of blackbody, so their monochromatic emissivity is independent of the emission
wavelength. For certain materials with certain surface conditions, the graybody
emissivity can depend on the surface temperature.
Ray Tracing
In a general case, the surfaces participating in the heat radiation (hereinafter radiative
surfaces) can emit, absorb, and reflect a heat radiation. Therefore, both the heat radiation
L leaving a radiative surface and the net radiation N being the difference between the
radiation heat leaving this surface and the radiation heat arriving at it, are calculated for
each of these surfaces.
,
,
where is this surface emissivity, is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, T is the
temperature of the surface (T
4
is the heat radiated by this surface in accordance with
the Stefan-Boltzman law), I is the radiation arriving at this surface, is a reflection
coefficient ( = 1 - for graybody walls and = 0 for openings).
In order to reduce the of memory requirements, the problem of determining the leaving
and net heat radiation fluxes is solved using a discrete ray Monte-Carlo approach
consisting of the following main elements:
To reduce the number of radiation rays and, therefore, the required calculation time and
resources, the computational mesh cells containing faces approximating the radiative
surfaces are joined in clusters by a special procedure that takes into account the face
area and angle between normal and face in each partial cell. The cells intersected by
boundaries between radiative surfaces of different emissivity are considered as
belonging to one of these surfaces and cannot be combined in one cluster. This
procedure is executed after constructing the computational mesh before the calculation
and after each solution-adaptive mesh refinement, if any.
From each cluster, a number of rays are emitted, equally distributed over the enclosing
unit hemisphere. Each ray is traced through the fluid and transparent solid bodies until
it intercepts the computational domains boundary or a cluster belonging to another
radiative surface, thus defining a target cluster. Since the radiation heat is transferred
along these rays only, their number and arrangement govern the accuracy of
calculating the radiation heat coming from one radiative surface to another (naturally,
the net heat radiated by a radiative surface does not depend on number of these rays).
So, for each of the clusters, the hemisphere governed by the rays origin and the normal
to the face at this origin is uniformly divided into several nearly equal solid angles
generated by several zenith angles (at least 3 within the 0...90 range, including the
4
L T I = +
( )
4
N L I T I 1 = = +
5-16
zero zenith angle of the normal to the face) and several azimuth angles (at least 12
within the 0...360 range).
The total number of emitted rays is
,
where m is the number of different latitude values for the rays (including the polar ray),
n is the number of different longitude values (n = 2 for 2D case),
and are the zenith (latitudinal) and azimuth (longitudinal) angles, respectively.
The value of m is defined directly by the View factor resolution level which can be
changed by the user via the Calculation Control Options dialog box. The value of n
depends on m as follows: .
The higher the View factor resolution level, the better the accuracy of the radiation heat
transfer calculation, but the calculation time and required computer resources increase
significantly when high values of View factor resolution level are specified.
Periodically during the calculation, a radiation ray is emitted in each of the solid angles in
a direction that is defined randomly within this solid angle. These radiation rays are traced
until intersection with either another radiative surface or the boundary of the
computational domain. To increase the accuracy of heat radiation calculation, the number
of radiation rays emitted from each cluster can be increased automatically during the
calculation, depending on the surface temperature and emissivity, to equalize the radiation
heat emitting through the solid angles.
When a radiation ray intercepts a cluster of other radiative surfaces, the radiation heat
carried by this ray is uniformly distributed over the area of this cluster. The same
procedure is performed if several radiation rays hit the same cluster. To smooth a
possible non-uniformity of the incident radiation heat distribution over a radiative
Fig.2.2Definition of rays emitted from cluster.
( ) 1 1 + = n m N
4 = m n
surface, a fraction of the radiation heat arriving with rays at a cluster can be transferred
to the neighboring clusters also. In addition, small fluctuations are smoothed by the
heat conduction in solid regions.
View Factor Calculation
The view factor between two clusters is the fraction of the total radiation energy emitted
from one of the clusters that is intercepted by other clusters. The following relations are
used in the code to define the view factor.
3D case
View factor for each ray (except for the polar ray) are defined as follows:
, , .
View factor for the Polar ray is:
.
2D case
, , .
.
Set of Equations
is the Incident radiation flux;
where:
is the emissivity coefficient, is the reflection coefficient ( = 1- for walls, = 0 for
openings), and is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
n
F
k
k
=
( )
( )
2
1 1
1 2
(
+
=
n m
n
k
k
1 ,..., 2 , 1 = m k
( )
( )
2
1
1
1 1
polar
m n
F
m n
(

=
(
+
(

2
k
k
F

=
( ) ( )
( )
(

= 1 2
1 2 2
sin
1 2 2
sin 2 k
m m
k

1 ,..., 2 , 1 = m k
( )
(

=
1 2
1
cos
m
m
F
polar
=
j
j ji i
L F I
4
) (
i i
j
j ji i i
T L F L =

4 2
8
10 672 . 5
K m
W
=
5-18
Environment and Solar Radiation
Environmental and solar radiation can be applied to external and internal problems. In
fact, an environment radiation is the energy flux generated by the walls of an imaginary
huge room that surrounds the body. This flux has predefined radiation parameters. In
contrast to the environment radiation, the solar radiation is modeled by the directional
energy flux. Therefore, we define solar radiation via its power flow (intensity) and its
directional vector. Directed energy fluxes can be emitted by the surfaces that have the
Solar opening boundary condition.
The external radiation view factor can be calculated as , where F
i
are the
view factors for the rays that have reached the boundaries of the computational domain,
and S is the cluster area. Each Solar opening boundary condition produces one ray that
follows the directional vector. After it reaches the outer boundary or the surface having
appropriate radiation boundary condition, the view factor can be estimated as
.
Radiative Surface Types
For the Wall and Wall to ambient boundary condition, the program gets Tr from the
current results set.
For the Opening/Outer Boundary boundary condition, Tr is taken from the
Engineering Database.
The rays are emitted only from surfaces and boundaries on which the Wall or
Opening boundary conditions are applied.
Surfaces with the specified Absorbent wall boundary condition are taken into account
during the calculation but they can act as absorbents only. This wall type takes all heat
from the radiation that reaches it and does not emit any heat.
Radiative surface type Prescribed values Dependent values
Wall , Tr = 1-, =
Opening/Outer boundary , Tr = 0, = 1
Solar opening n, W = 1
Symmetry No parameters
Absorbent wall No parameters
Wall to ambient , Tr = 1-, =
Non-radiative No parameters
S F F
i
i
=

( ) S n n F
clust solar
= ,
The Symmetry boundary condition forces the walls to which it is applied to reflect rays
as an ideal mirror.
The Solar opening boundary condition requires the wall to emit radiation like the outer
solar radiation. It is specified by the direction vector and intensity. The solar radiation at
the computational domain boundaries can be specified not only by the direction vector and
intensity, but also by the location (on the surface of the Earth) and time.
Wall to ambient reproduces the most elementary phenomenon among the radiation
effects. The walls with this condition does not interact with any other surfaces. They can
only exhaust energy into the space that surrounds the computational domain. Heat flux
from the surface could be calculated as:
,
where is the temperature of the environmental radiation.
Non-radiative boundary condition removes specific surfaces from the radiation heat
transfer analysis, so they do not affect the results.
After rays reach the surfaces for which Opening, Solar opening or Wall to
ambient radiative surface types are specified, they disappear. All energy that is carried
out by these rays also dies away.
Viewing Results
The main result of the heat radiation calculation is the solids surface or internal
temperatures. But these temperatures are influenced by calculations of heat transfer in
solids and solid/fluid heat transfer also. To see the radiation calculations results only, the
User may view the Leaving radiant flux and the distributions of the Net radiant flux over
the selected radiative surfaces as Surface Plots, and their maximum, minimum, and
average values over these surfaces in the Surface Parameters dialog boxes, as well as the
Leaving radiation rate and Net radiation rate as an integral over these surfaces in the
Surface Parameters dialog boxes.
2.5 Global Rotating Reference Frame
The rotation of the coordinate system is taken into account via the following
mass-distributed force:
where e
ijk
is the Levy-Civita symbols (function), is the angular velocity of the rotation,
r is the vector coming to the point under consideration from the nearest point lying on the
rotation axis.
( )
4 4
out out
Tr Tr O =
out
Tr
i k j ijk rotation i
r u e S
2
2 + = ,
5-20
2.6 Local rotating regions
This option is employed for calculating time-dependent (transient) or steady-state flows in
regions surrounding rotating non-axisymmetrical solids (e.g. impellers, mixers, propellers,
etc), when a single global rotating reference cannot be employed. For example, local
rotating regions can be used in analysis of the fluid flow in the model including several
components rotating over different axes and/or at different speeds or if the computational
domain has a non-axisymmetrical (with respect to a rotating component) outer solid/fluid
interface. In accordance with the employed approach, each rotating solid component is
surrounded by an axisymmetrical (with respect to the component's rotation axis) Rotating
region, which has its own coordinate system rotating together with the component. If the
model includes several rotating solid components having different rotation axes, the
rotating regions surrounding these components must not intersect with each other. The
fluid flow equations in the stationary (non-rotating) regions of the computational domain
are solved in the inertial (non-rotating) Cartesian Global Coordinate System. The
influence of the rotation's effect on the flow is taken into account in the equations written
in each of the rotating coordinate systems.
To connect solutions obtained within the rotating regions and in non-rotating part of the
computational domain, special internal boundary conditions are set automatically at the
fluid boundaries of the rotating regions. Since the coordinate system of the rotating region
rotates, the rotating regions boundaries are sliced into rings of equal width as shown on
the Fig.2.3. Then the values of flow parameters transferred as boundary conditions from
the adjacent fluid regions are averaged circumferentially over each of these rings.
To solve the problem, an iterative procedure of adjusting the flow solutions in the rotating
regions and in the adjacent non-rotating regions, therefore in the entire computational
domain, is performed with relaxations.
Fig.2.3
Computational domain or fluid subdomain
Flow parameters are calculated in the inertial Global Coordinate System
Rotation axis
Flow parameters are
averaged over these rings
Local rotating region
Flow parameters are calculated
in the local rotating coordinate
system
Please note that even in case of time-dependent (transient) analysis the flow parameters
within the rotating regions are calculated using a steady-state approach and averaged on
the rotating regions' boundaries as described above.
2.7 Mass Transfer in Fluid Mixtures
The mass transfer in fluid mixtures is governed by species conservation equations. The
equations that describe concentrations of mixture components can be written as
Here D
mn
, are the molecular and turbulent matrices of diffusion, S
m
is the rate of
production or consumption of the m-th component.
In case of Fick's diffusion law:
The following obvious algebraic relation between species concentrations takes place:
2.8 Flows in Porous Media
Porous media are treated in COSMOSFloWorks as distributed resistances to fluid flow, so
they can not occupy the whole fluid region or fill the dead-end holes. In addition, if the
Heat conduction in solids option is switched on, the heat transfer between the porous
solid matrix and the fluid flowing through it is also considered. Therefore, the porous
matrix act on the fluid flowing through it via the S
i
, S
i
u
i
, and (if heat conduction in solids
is considered) Q
H
terms in Eqs. (5.2) and (5.3), whose components related to porosity are
defined as:
( ) ( ) M 1,2,..., , = +
|
|
.
|
\
|
m S
x
y
D D
x
y u
x t
y
m
i
n
t
mn mn
i
m i
i
m
(5.26)
D
mn
t

t
mn
t
mn mn mn
D D D = = ,
(5.27)
=
m
m
y 1
. (5.28)
j ij porous i
u k S =
,
(5.29)
,
(5.30)
Q
Hporosit y
T
p
T ( ) =
5-22
where k is the resistance vector of the porous medium (see below), is the user-defined
volumetric porous matrix/fluid heat transfer coefficient, T
p
is the temperature of the
porous matrix, T is temperature of the fluid flowing through the matrix, and the other
designations are given in Section 1. In addition, the fluid density in Eqs. (5.1)-(5.3) is
multiplied by the porosity n of the porous medium, which is the volume fraction of the
interconnected pores with respect to the total medium volume.
In the employed porous medium model turbulence disappears within a porous medium
and the flow becomes laminar.
If the heat conduction in porous matrix is considered, then, in addition to solving
Eqs. (5.1)-(5.3) describing fluid flow in porous medium, an Eq. (5.25) describing the heat
conduction in solids is also considered within the porous medium. In this equation the
source Q
H
due to heat transfer between the porous matrix and the fluid is defined in the
same manner as in Eq. (5.30), but with the opposite sign. The values of and c for the
porous matrix may differ from those of the corresponding bulk solid material and hence
must be specified independently. Density of the solid material is multiplied by the solid
volume fraction in the porous matrix, i.e. by (1-n).
Thermal conductivity of the porous matrix can be specified as anisotropic in the same
manner as for the solid material.
The conjugate heat transfer problem in a porous medium is solved under the following
restrictions:
heat conduction in a porous medium not filled with a fluid is not considered,
porous media are considered transparent for radiation heat transfer,
heat sources in the porous matrix can be specified in the forms of heat generation
rate or volumetric heat generation rate only; heat sources in a form of constant or
time-dependent temperature can not be specified.
To perform a calculation in COSMOSFloWorks, you have to specify the following porous
medium properties: the effective porosity of the porous medium, defined as the volume
fraction of the interconnected pores with respect to the total medium volume. Later on, the
permeability type of the porous medium must be chosen among the following:
isotropic (i.e., the medium permeability is independent of direction),
unidirectional (i.e., the medium is permeable in one direction only),
axisymmetrical (i.e., the medium permeability is fully governed by its axial and
transversal components with respect to a specified direction),
orthotropic (i.e., the general case, when the medium permeability varies with
direction and is fully governed by its three components determined along three
principal directions).
Then you have to specify some constants needed to determine the porous medium
resistance to fluid flow, i.e., vector k defined as k = - grad(P)/(V), where P, , and V are
fluid pressure, density, and velocity, respectively. It is calculated according to one of the
following formulae:
k = PS/(mL), where P is the pressure difference between the opposite sides of a
sample parallelepiped porous body, m is the mass flow rate through the body, S and
L are the body cross-sectional area and length in the selected direction, respectively.
You can specify P as a function of m, whereas S and L are constants. Instead of
mass flow rate you can specify volume flow rate, v. In this case COSMOSFloWorks
calculates m = v. All these values do not specify the porous body for the
calculation, but its resistance k only.
k = (AV+B)/, where V is the fluid velocity, A and B are constants, is the fluid
density. Here, only A and B are specified, since V and are calculated.
k= /(D
2
), where and are the fluid dynamic viscosity and density, D is the
reference pore size determined experimentally. Here, only D is specified, since
and are calculated.
k= /(D
2
)f(Re), differing from the previous formula by the f(Re) factor, yielding a
more general formula. Here, in addition to D, f(Re) as a formula dependency is
specified.
To define a certain porous body, you specify both the body position in the model and, if
the porous medium has a unidirectional or axisymmetrical permeability, the reference
directions in the porous body.
2.9 Two-phase (fluid + particles) Flows
COSMOSFloWorks calculates two-phase flows as a motion of spherical liquid particles
(droplets) or spherical solid particles in a steady-state flow field. COSMOSFloWorks can
simulate dilute two-phase flows only, where the particles influence on the fluid flow
(including its temperature) is negligible (e.g. flows of gases or liquids contaminated with
particles). Generally, in this case the particles mass flow rate should be lower than about
30% of the fluid mass flow rate.
5-24
The particles of a specified (liquid or solid) material and constant mass are assumed to be
spherical. Their drag coefficient is calculated with Hendersons formula (Ref. 1), derived
for continuum and rarefied, subsonic and supersonic, laminar, transient, and turbulent
flows over the particles, and taking into account the temperature difference between the
fluid and the particle. The particle/fluid heat transfer coefficient is calculated with the
formula proposed in Ref. 2. If necessary, the gravity is taken into account. Since the
particle mass is assumed constant, the particles cooled or heated by the surrounding fluid
change their size. The interaction of particles with the model surfaces is taken into account
by specifying either full absorption of the particles (that is typical for liquid droplets
impinging on surfaces at low or moderate velocities) or ideal or non-ideal reflection (that
is typical for solid particles). The ideal reflection denotes that in the impinging plane
defined by the particle velocity vector and the surface normal at the impingement point,
the particle velocity component tangent to surface is conserved, whereas the particle
velocity component normal to surface changes its sign. A non-ideal reflection is specified
by the two particle velocity restitution (reflection) coefficients, e
n
and e
, determining
values of these particle velocity components after reflection, V
2,n
and V
2,
, as their ratio to
the ones before the impingement, V
1,n
and V
1,
:
As a result of particles impingement on a solid surface, the total erosion mass rate,
R
erosion
, and the total accretion mass rate, R
accretion
, are determined as follows:
,
,
where:
N is the number of fractions of particles specified by user as injections in
COSMOSFloWorks (the user may specify several fractions of particles, also called
injections, so that the particle properties at inlet, i.e. temperature, velocity, diameter, mass
flow rate, and material, are constant within one fraction),
i is the fraction number,
M
p i
is the mass impinging on the model walls in unit time for the i-th particle fraction,
K
i
is the impingement erosion coefficient specified by user for the i-th particle fraction,
V
p i
is the impingement velocity for the i-th particle fraction,
b is the user-specified velocity exponent (b = 2 is recommended),
f
1 i
(
p i
) is the user-specified dimensionless function of particle impingement angle
p i
,
f
2 i
(d
p i
) is the user-specified dimensionless function of particle diameter d
p i
.
n , 1
V
n , 2
V
n
e =
, 1
V
, 2
V
e =
i p i p i 2 i p i 1
b
i p
N
1 i
M
i erosion
m d ) d ( f ) ( f V K R
i p
& =

=
=
N
1 i
i p accretion
M R
2.10 Cavitation
A liquid subjected to a low pressure above a threshold ruptures and forms vaporous
cavities. More specifically, when the local pressure at a point in the liquid falls below the
liquid's vapour pressure at the local temperature, the liquid undergoes phase transition and
form cavities filled with the liquid's vapor with an addition of gas that has been dissolved
in the liquid. This phenomenon is called cavitation.
A homogeneous equilibrium model of cavitation in water is employed. The computational
simplicity is the main advantage of the homogeneous model. The stationary homogeneous
flow approach provides a simple technique for analyzing two-phase flows. It is accurate
enough to handle a variety of practically important processes, including localized boiling
of water due to intense heating.
The fluid is assumed to be a homogenous gas-liquid mixture with the volume-averaged
parameters and the gaseous phase comprising the liquid vapour and non-condensable
(dissolved) gas. The liquid vapour to gas ratio is defined at the local equilibrium
thermodynamic conditions. By default, the mass fraction of non-condensable air is set to
10
-5
. This is a typical value under normal conditions and appropriate in most cases but it
can be modified by the user in the range of 10
-4
10
-8
.
The homogeneous equilibrium cavitation model does not describe the detailed structure of
the cavitation area, and the migration of individual vapour bubbles in the counter-gradient
direction is not considered. The velocities and temperatures of the gaseous (including
vapour and non-condensable gas) and liquid phases are assumed to be the same.
The density of the gas-liquid mixture is calculated as:
, ,
where v is the specific volume of the gas-liquid mixture, v
l
is the specific volume of
liquid, z
v
(T,P) is the vapour compressibility ratio, P is the local static pressure, T is the
local temperature, y
v
is the mass fraction of vapour, y
g
is the mass fraction of the
non-condensable gas;
g
is the molar mass of the non-condensable gas,
v
is the molar
mass of vapour, R
univ
is the universal gas constant.
The mass fraction of vapour y
v
is computed numerically from the following non-linear
equation for the full enthalpy gas-liquid mixture:
,
v
1
=
v
v univ
v l v g
g
univ
g
P
P T Tz R
y P T v y y
P
T R
y v

) , (
) , ( ) 1 ( + + =
2
2
) , ( ) , ( ) 1 ( ) , (
v I
P T h y P T h y y P T h y H
C
v v l v g g g
+ + + =
5-26
where temperature of the mixture T is a function of pressure P and y
v
. Here h
g
, h
l
, h
v
are
the enthalpies of non-condensable gas, liquid and vapour, respectively,
is the squared impulse.
The model has the following limitations and assumptions:
Cavitation is currently available only for incompressible water (when defining the
project fluids you should select Water SP from the list of Pre-Defined liquids);
cavitation in mixtures of different liquids cannot be calculated.
The properties of the non-condensable gas are set to be equal to those of air.
The temperature and pressure in the phase transition areas should be within the
following ranges:
T = 277.15 - 583.15 K, P = 800 - 10
7
Pa.
If the calculation has finished or has been stopped and the Cavitation option has
been enabled or disabled, the calculation cannot be resumed or continued and must
be restarted from the beginning.
The Cavitation option should not be selected if you calculate a water flow in the
model without flow openings (inlet and outlet).
The model does not describe the detailed structure of the cavitation area, i.e
parameters of individual vapour bubbles.
The fluid region where cavitation occurs should be well resolved by the
computational mesh.
The parameters of the flow at the inlet boundary conditions must be such that the
volume fraction of liquid water in the inlet flow would be at least 0.1.
2.11 Boundary Conditions
Internal Flow Boundary Conditions
For internal flows, i.e., flows inside models, COSMOSFloWorks offers the following two
options of specifying the flow boundary conditions: manually at the model inlets and
outlets (i.e. model openings), or to specify them by transferring the results obtained in
another COSMOSFloWorks calculation in the same coordinate system (if necessary, the
calculation can be performed with another model, the only requirement is the flow regions
at the boundaries must coincide).
With the first option, all the model openings are classified into "pressure" openings,
"flow" openings, and "fans", depending on the flow boundary conditions which you
intend to specify on them.
2 2 2
) ( ) ( ) (
z y x C
u u u I + + =
A "pressure" opening boundary condition, which can be static pressure, or total pressure,
or environment pressure is imposed in the general case when the flow direction and/or
magnitude at the model opening are not known a priori, so they are to be calculated as part
of the solution. Which of these parameters is specified depends on which one of them is
known. In most cases the static pressure is not known, whereas if the opening connects the
computational domain to an external space with known pressure, the total pressure at the
opening is known. The Environment pressure condition is interpreted by
COSMOSFloWorks as a total pressure for incoming flows and as a static pressure for
outgoing flows. If, during calculation, a vortex crosses an opening with the Environment
pressure condition specified at it, this pressure considered as the total pressure at the part
of opening through which the flow enters the model and as the static pressure at the part of
opening through which the flow leaves the model.
Note that when inlet flow occurs at the "pressure" opening, the temperature, fluid mixture
composition and turbulence parameters have to be specified also.
A "flow" opening boundary condition is imposed when dynamic flow properties (i.e., the
flow direction and mass/volume flow rate or velocity/ Mach number) are known at the
opening. If the flow enters the model, then the inlet temperature, fluid mixture
composition and turbulence parameters must be specified also. The pressure at the
opening will be determined as part of the solution. For supersonic flows the inlet pressure
must be specified also.
A "fan" condition simulates a fan installed at a model opening. In this case the
dependency of volume flow rate on pressure drop over the fan is prescribed at the opening.
These dependencies are commonly provided in the technical documentation for the fans
being simulated.
With the second option, you specify the boundary conditions by transferring the results
obtained in another COSMOSFloWorks calculation in the same coordinate system. If
necessary, the calculation can be performed with another model, the only requirement is
the flow regions at the boundaries must coincide. At that, you select the created boundary
conditions type: either as for external flows (so-called "ambient" conditions, see the next
Section), or as for "pressure" or "flow" openings, see above. If a conjugate heat transfer
problem is solved, the temperature at the part of the boundary lying in a solid body is
transferred from the other calculation.
Naturally, the flow boundary conditions specified for an internal flow problem with the
first and/or second options must be physically consistent with each other, so it is expedient
to specify at least one "pressure"-type boundary condition and at least one "flow"-type
boundary condition, if not only "ambient" boundary conditions are specified.
External Flow Boundary Conditions
For external problems such as flow over an aircraft or building, the parameters of the
external incoming flow (so-called "ambient" conditions) must be defined. Namely the
velocity, pressure, temperature, fluid mixture composition and turbulence parameters must
be specified. Evidently, during the calculation they can be partly violated at the flow
boundary lying downstream of the model.
5-28
Wall Boundary Conditions
In COSMOSFloWorks the default velocity boundary condition at solid walls corresponds
to the well-known no-slip condition. The solid walls are also considered to be
impermeable. In addition, the wall surface's translation and/or rotation (without changing
the model's geometry) can be specified. If a calculation is performed in a rotating
coordinate system, then some of the wall surfaces can be specified as stationary, i.e. a
backward rotation in this coordinate system (without changing the model geometry).
COSMOSFloWorks also provides the "Ideal Wall" condition that corresponds to the
well-known slip condition. For example, Ideal Walls can be used to model planes of flow
symmetry.
If the flow of non-Newtonian liquids is considered, then the following slip condition at
solid walls can be specified: if the shear stress exceeds the yield stress value
0,slip
, then
a slip velocity v
slip
determined from , where C
1
and C
2
, as well
as
0,slip
, can be specified by user, if they are not specified in the model of non-Newtonian
liquid. If conjugate heat transfer in fluid and solid media is not considered, one of the
following boundary conditions can be imposed at solid walls: either the wall temperature
or the heat flux,
being positive for heat flows from fluid to solid, equal to zero for adiabatic
(heat-insulated) walls, and negative for heat flows from solid to fluid.
When considering conjugate heat transfer in fluid and solid media, the heat exchange
between fluid and solid is calculated by COSMOSFloWorks, so heat wall boundary
conditions are not specified at the walls.
Internal Fluid Boundary Conditions
If one or several non-intersecting axisymmetric rotating regions (local rotating reference
frames) are specified, the flow parameters are transferred from the adjacent fluid regions
and circumferentially averaged over rotating regions boundaries as boundary conditions.
2
C
slip 0, 1 slip
) ( C v =
w
T T = (5.31)
,
w
q q = (5.32)
Periodic Boundary Conditions
The "periodicity" condition may be applied if the model consist of identical geometrical
features arranged in periodic linear order. Periodic boundary conditions are specified at
the pair of computational domain boundaries for the selected direction in which a
geometrical feature or a group of features repeats regularly over distance. Periodic
boundary conditions allows to reduce the analysis time by calculating the fluid flow only
for a small group of identical geometrical features or even just for one feature, but taking
into account influence of other identical features in the pattern. Please note that the
number of basic mesh cells along the direction in which the "periodicity" condition is
applied must be no less than five.
3 Numerical Solution Technique
The numerical solution technique employed in COSMOSFloWorks is robust and reliable,
so it does not require any user knowledge about the computational mesh and the numerical
methods employed. But sometimes, if the model and/or the problem being solved are too
complicated, so that the COSMOSFloWorks standard numerical solution technique
requires extremely high computer resources (memory and/or CPU time) which are not
available, it is expedient to employ COSMOSFloWorks options which allow the
adjustment of the automatically specified values of parameters governing the numerical
solution technique. To employ these options properly and successfully, take into account
the information presented below about COSMOSFloWorks numerical solution technique.
Briefly, COSMOSFloWorks solves the governing equations with the finite volume (FV)
method on a spatially rectangular computational mesh designed in the Cartesian
coordinate system with the planes orthogonal to its axes and refined locally at the
solid/fluid interface and, if necessary, additionally in specified fluid regions, at the
solid/solid surfaces, and in the fluid region during calculation. Values of all the physical
variables are stored at the mesh cell centers. Due to the FV method, the governing
equations are discretized in a conservative form. The spatial derivatives are approximated
with implicit difference operators of second-order accuracy. The time derivatives are
approximated with an implicit first-order Euler scheme. The viscosity of the numerical
scheme is negligible with respect to the fluid viscosity.
3.1 Computational Mesh
COSMOSFloWorks computational mesh is rectangular everywhere in the computational
domain, so the mesh cells sides are orthogonal to the specified axes of the Cartesian
coordinate system and are not fitted to the solid/fluid interface. As a result, the solid/fluid
interface cuts the near-wall mesh cells. Nevertheless, due to special measures, the mass
and heat fluxes are treated properly in these cells named partial.
The rectangular computational domain is automatically constructed (may be changed
manually), so it encloses the solid body and has the boundary planes orthogonal to the
specified axes of the Cartesian coordinate system. Then, the computational mesh is
constructed in the following several stages.
Chapter Numerical Solution Technique
5-30
First of all, a basic mesh is constructed. For that, the computational domain is divided into
slices by the basic mesh planes, which are evidently orthogonal to the axes of the
Cartesian coordinate system. The user can specify the number and spacing of these planes
along each of the axes. The so-called control planes whose position is specified by user
can be among these planes also. The basic mesh is determined solely by the computational
domain and does not depend on the solid/fluid interfaces.
Then, the basic mesh cells intersecting with the solid/fluid interface are split uniformly
into smaller cells in order to capture the solid/fluid interface with mesh cells of the
specified size (with respect to the basic mesh cells). The following procedure is employed:
each of the basic mesh cells intersecting with the solid/fluid interface is split uniformly
into 8 child cells; each of the child cells intersecting with the interface is in turn split into 8
cells of next level, and so on, until the specified cell size is attained.
At the next stage of meshing, the mesh obtained at the solid/fluid interface with the
previous procedure is refined (i.e. the cells are split further or probably merged) in
accordance with the solid/fluid interface curvature. The criterion to be satisfied is
established as follows: the maximum angle between the normals to the surface inside one
cell should not exceeds certain threshold, otherwise the cell is split into 8 cells.
Finally, the mesh obtained with these procedures is refined in the computational domain to
satisfy the so-called narrow channel criterion: for each cell lying at the solid/fluid
interface, the number of the mesh cells (including the partial cells) lying in the fluid region
along the line normal to the solid/fluid interface and starting from the center of this cell
must not be less than the criterion value. Otherwise each of the mesh cells on this line is
split into 8 child cells.
As a result of all these meshing procedures, a locally refined rectangular computational
mesh is obtained and used then for solving the governing equations on it.
Since all the above-mentioned meshing procedures are performed before the calculation,
the obtained mesh is unable to resolve all the solution features well. To overcome this
disadvantage, the computational mesh can be refined further at the specified moments
during the calculation in accordance with the solution spatial gradients (both in fluid and
in solid, see Users Guide for details). As a result, in the low-gradient regions the cells are
merged, whereas in the high-gradient regions the cells are split. The moments of the
computational mesh refinement during the calculation are prescribed either automatically
or manually.
3.2 Spatial Approximations
The cell-centered finite volume (FV) method is used to obtain conservative
approximations of the governing equations on the locally refined rectangular mesh. The
governing equations are integrated over a control volume which is a grid cell, and then
approximated with the cell-centered values of the basic variables. The integral
conservation laws may be represented in the form of the cell volume and surface integral
equation:
are replaced by the discrete form
The second-order upwind approximations of fluxes F are based on the implicitly treated
modified Leonard's QUICK approximations (Ref. 3) and the Total Variation Diminishing
(TVD) method (Ref. 4).
In COSMOSFloWorks, especially consistent approximations for the convective terms, div
and grad operators are employed in order to derive a discrete problem that maintains the
fundamental properties of the parent differential problem in addition to the usual
properties of mass, momentum and energy conservation.
Spatial Approximations at the Solid/fluid Interface
Considering equation (5.34) for partial mesh cells (i.e., for the mesh cells cut by the
solid/fluid interface), we introduce the additional boundary faces and the corresponding
boundary fluxes taking the boundary conditions and geometry into account (see Fig.3.1),
as well as use a special calculation procedure for them. As a result, the solid/fluid interface
influence on the problem solution both in the fluid and in the solid is calculated very
accurately.

= +
dv ds dv Q F U
t
(5.33)
( ) Qv S F Uv = +
faces cell
t

(5.34)
5-32
3.3 Temporal Approximations
Time-implicit approximations of the continuity and convection/diffusion equations (for
momentum, temperature, etc.) are used together with an operator-splitting technique
(Ref. 5, Ref. 6, and Ref. 7). This technique is used to efficiently resolve the problem of
pressure-velocity decoupling. Following the SIMPLE-like approach (Ref. 8), an elliptic
type discrete pressure equation is derived by algebraic transformations of the originally
derived discrete equations for mass and momentum, and taking into account the boundary
conditions for velocity.
Fig.3.1 Computational mesh cells at the solid/fluid interface.
3.4 Form of the Numerical Algorithm
Let index 'n' denotes the time-level, and '*' denotes intermediate values of the flow
parameters. The following numerical algorithm is employed to calculate flow parameters
on time-level (n+1) using known values on time-level (n):
* = (p
n
+p,T*,y*),
Here U = (u, T, , , y)
T
is the full set of basic variables excluding pressure p,
u=(u
1
,u
2
,u
3
)
T
is the velocity vector, y = (y
1
, y
2
, ..., y
M
)
T
is the vector of component
concentrations in fluid mixtures, and p = p
n+1
- p
n
is an auxiliary variable that is called
a pressure correction. These parameters are discrete functions stored at cell centers. They
are to be calculated using the discrete equations (5.35)-(5.40) that approximate the
governing differential equations. In equations (5.35)-(5.40) A
h
, div
h
, grad
h
and L
h
=
div
h
grad
h
are discrete operators that approximate the corresponding differential operators
with second order accuracy.
Equation (5.35) corresponds to the first step of the algorithm when fully implicit discrete
convection/diffusion equations are solved to obtain the intermediate values of momentum
and the final values of turbulent parameters, temperature, and species concentrations.
The elliptic type equation (5.36) is used to calculate the pressure correction p. This
equation is defined in such a way that the final momentum field u
n+1
calculated from
(5.35) satisfies the discrete fully implicit continuity equation. Final values of the flow
parameters are defined by equations (5.37)-(5.40).
( )
n n
h
S p A
t
= +
*
*
U U
U - U
,
n
n
,
(5.35)
( )
,
t t t
p L
n
h
h
* *
1 u div (5.36)
(5.37)
,
1
p t
h
n
grad =
+ *
u u
, p p p
n n
+ =
+1 (5.38)
, , , , T T
1 n n 1 n n * * 1 * * 1
y y = = = =
+ + + +
(5.39)
( ) y
1 1 1 1
, ,
+ + + +
=
n n n n
T p
(5.40)
.
5-34
3.5 Methods to Resolve Linear Algebraic Systems
Iterative Methods for Nonsymmetrical Problems
To solve the asymmetric systems of linear equations that arise from approximations of
momentum, temperature and species equations (5.35), a preconditioned generalized
conjugate gradient method (Ref. 9) is used. Incomplete LU factorization is used for
preconditioning.
Iterative Methods for Symmetric Problems
To solve symmetric algebraic problem for pressure-correction (5.36), an original
double-preconditioned iterative procedure is used. It is based on a specially developed
multigrid method (Ref. 10).
Multigrid Method
The multigrid method is a convenient acceleration technique which can greatly decrease
the solution time. Basic features of the multigrid algorithm are as follows. Based on the
given mesh, a sequence of grids (grid levels) are constructed, with a decreasing number of
nodes. On every such grid, the residual of the associated system of algebraic equations is
restricted onto the coarser grid level, forming the right hand side of the system on that
grid. When the solution on the coarse grid is computed, it is interpolated to the finer grid
and used there as a correction to the result of the previous iteration. After that, several
smoothing iterations are performed. This procedure is applied repeatedly on every grid
level until the corresponding iteration meets the stopping criteria.
The coefficients of the linear algebraic systems associated with the grid are computed
once and stored.
References
1 Henderson, C.B. Drag Coefficients of Spheres in Continuum and Rarefied Flows.
2 Carlson, D.J. and Hoglund, R.F. Particle Drag and Heat Transfer in Rocket Nozzles.
3 Roache, P.J., (1998) Fundamentals of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Hermosa
Publishers, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
4 Hirsch, C., (1988). Numerical computation of internal and external flows. John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester.
5 Glowinski, R. and P. Le Tallec, (1989). Augmented Lagrangian Methods and
Operator-Splitting Methods in Nonlinear Mechanics. SIAM, Philadelphia.
6 Marchuk, G.I., (1982). Methods of Numerical Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
7 Samarskii, A.A., (1989). Theory of Difference Schemes, Nauka, Moscow (in Russian).
8 Patankar, S.V., (1980). Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere,
Washington, D.C.
9 Saad, Y. (1996). Iterative methods for sparse linear systems, PWS Publishing
Company, Boston.
10 Hackbusch, W. (1985). Multi-grid Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, NY,
USA.
11 Reid R.C., Prausnitz J.M., Poling B.E. (1987). The properties of gases and liquids, 4th
edition, McGraw-Hill Inc., NY, USA.
12 Idelchik, I.E. (1986). Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, 2nd edition, Hemisphere,
New York, USA.
Chapter References
5-36

COSMOS Analysis Products. COSMOS FloWorks Fundamentals - 2008 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COSMOS Analysis Products. COSMOS FloWorks Fundamentals - 2008 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals -i

Solving Engineering Tasks

Chapter Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

Non-Newtonian liquid No. 1 2 3 4

Chapter Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

Fig. 22.1. The model geometry.

COSMOSFloWorks 2008 Fundamentals 5-11

Chapter Governing Equations

You might also like