Term Proj TTHGDBKJM PDF

MECE 6353
Term Project
CFD Study for Swirling Flow and Vortex Breakdown
CFD Study of Swirling Flows and Vortex Breakdown in
A Confined Cylinder with One Rotating Endwall
– MECE 6353
Term Project
1
MECE 6353
Term Project
Table of Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
2. Project Scope……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
3. Previous Work on Vortex Breakdown in a Cylinder with One Rotating Wall…………………5
4. A Brief Description of the Physics…………………………………………………………………………………9
5. Numerical Treatment by Escudier, Lopez, and Sotiropoulos……………………………………….….
a. Escudier………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
b. Lopez………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12
c. Sotiropoulos……………………………………………………………………………………………………13
6. Attempt to Reproduce the Steady Symmetric Bubble Type of Vortex Breakdown……….…
a. Problem Setup………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
b. Results for Base Case….…………………………………………………………………………………..18
c. Reformulation of Solution Method………………………………………………………………….23
d. Results of Other Cases…………………….……………………………………………………………..25
e. Boundary and Initial Condition(s) Study…………………………………………………………..32
f. Attempts with Other Meshes...………..………………………………………………………………36
g. Symmetric Bubble Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….38
7. Attempt to Reproduce the Unsteady Symmetric Bubble Type of Vortex Breakdown……...
a. Discussion (Incomplete)…………………………………………………………………………………..40
8. Attempt to Reproduce the 3D Spiral Type of Vortex breakdown……………………………….……
a. Mesh, Problem Setup, and Discussion (Incomplete)…………………………………………42
9. Project Conclusions.…………………………………………………………………………………………………….43
10. References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..44
2
MECE 6353
Term Project
1. Introduction
This project will explore the mathematical and numerical modeling aspects involved with
simulating the fluid phenomenon of vortex breakdown occurring in cases of swirling flows. Swirling flow
is a type of fluid flow characterized by a region of fluid moving in a whirling, spinning, or eddying
motion. Rapid swirling flow occurring around a point (center) is called a vortex. Vortices occur either as
free (irrotational), forced (rotational), or a combination. An example of a free vortex is water going
down a drain in a bath tub while an example of a forced vortex includes the rotation of a fluid in a tea-
cup after being stirred by a spoon. A free vortex is created by a potential while a forced vortex is due to
the entire region of fluid being rotated as a solid body. A free vortex will have a tangential velocity that
varies inversely to the center of rotation, thus the angular momentum at a given distance will be
constant and the vorticity is zero (except at the singularity at center-line). On the other hand, a forced
vortex rotates as a solid body, there is no shear and the fluid will have a constant vorticity everywhere.
The free surface forms a parabola. Both vortex types experience a low pressure region at the core.
Figure 1.1 displays the expected free surfaces due to each vortex type.
a. b.
Figure 1.1 – a) Free Vortex and b) Forced Vortex.
Under certain conditions in a swirling flow, certain instabilities can cause an alteration in the
core structure of the flow. These instabilities include regions of secondary flow and are referred to as
vortex breakdowns. Vortex breakdowns can be visualized as flow separations characterized by regions
of stagnation, reverse flow, or recirculation zones. The exact cause of vortex breakdown is still not
entirely understood but there has been much experimental as well as numerical investigation into the
topic since the early 1950s.
This project will attempt to reproduce some of the results claimed by various papers that have
attempted to numerically simulate vortex breakdown in swirling flows. Swirling flows can be created
many different ways; to name a few related to cylinders: rotation of a cylinder, rotating a specific
endwall of a cylinder, injecting fluid tangentially through inlet(s) on the side of a cylinder, and axial flow
through a cylinder with a section of it rotating. Simulations where the fluid does not enter or leave the
cylinder are called confined cylinders while simulations where the fluid flows through the system are
called open.
3
MECE 6353
Term Project
Originally, this project was geared towards reproducing swirling flows in cylinders with fluid
being injected tangentially though an inlet into the cylinder. Figure 1.2 a) depicts three cases that were
of interest to reproduce. Initial attempts to reproduce results led to many challenges. For instance,
when attempting to duplicate the results produced by Bottaro [1], the problem appeared ill-posed as
the boundary conditions were difficult to duplicate, the assumptions of the velocity profile at the inlet
are questionable and the rigid geometry of the inlet raises issues with vortex shedding which can
potentially have a dramatic impact on the flow. The velocity profile at the inlet is assumed to be
uniform and no comment was mentioned in Bottaro [1] about the sharp edges of the tangentially inlet
(figure 1.2 b) and its impact on the incoming flow of the fluid. One should expect vortex shedding to
occur at these sharp corners leading to the requirement of an extremely fine mesh near the inlet. Not
capturing the correct physics at the inlet can play a major role in shaping the downstream behavior of
the flow. It is also highly unlikely the velocity profile of the incoming fluid at the inlet is uniform either.
Both of these issues raised questions about whether or not the solutions presented in Bottaro [1] are
valid. There were very few other papers on the topic of swirling flows in cylinders with a single
tangential inlet that appeared tractable for this project, therefore the tangential inlet problem was
abandoned.
a) b)
Figure 1.2 – a) Shows three cases of breakdown found for different Reynolds number, from the
left, Re=6.4, 12.8 and 25.6 Bottaro [1]. B) Proposed geometry to solve the tangentially inlet
induce swirling flow in a pipe. The boundary conditions and geometry of the inlet are
questionable.
Figure 1.3 – Attempt to replicate figure 1.2 (a) for each Reynolds number Re=6.4, 12.8 and 25.6.
The inlet boundary condition was difficult to replicate leading to results that did not qualitative
match.
4
MECE 6353
Term Project
2. Project Scope
This project focuses on swirling flows generated in a confined cylinder with one rotating
endwall. There has been much experimental and numerical work carried out for this problem in the last
50 years. Essentially, there are three significant types of vortex breakdowns that can occur in a cylinder.
The first is a fully developed symmetrical bubble-like shape that forms at a stagnation point along the
center axis of the cylinder. The bubble-like shape forms as the result of the fluid recirculating near the
stagnation point. The second vortex breakdown of interest contains two symmetrical bubble-like
shapes interacting in an unsteady and oscillatory manner, completely changing their overall shape over
time in a periodic manner. The last vortex breakdown is a spiral like shape that circles around the center
axis in a helical manner. The spiral shape decays quickly. Some of the spiral types can be fully
developed or unsteady. This project will attempt to reproduce some of these vortex breakdown types in
an iterative manner, starting with the simpler case of fully developed steady symmetrical bubble-like
vortex breakdowns moving towards the oscillatory unsteady bubble-like shape and possibly finishing up
with the three dimensional spiral steady types, granted if time permits. Figure 2.1 below depicts the
three cases of vortex breakdown.
a) b)
Figure 6.
Figure 2.1 – Vortex Breakdown Types a) Symmetric Bubble Type b) Spiral Type c)
Oscillatory Unsteady type (snapshots over time).
The symmetrical bubble-like shape can be produced two dimensionally. This problem offers a
good starting point. The problem is tractable and good results exist as more than one author has
attempted to reproduce it independently employing different numerical/experimental techniques. The
initial problem will provide a good study of the mesh and its impact on convergence. Various numerical
models can be tested on different meshes in a timely manner. Once a good mesh has been found and a
sequence of numerical procedures has been established, the unsteady oscillatory vortex breakdown
case can be pursued. The second part of the problem will require a study of how the temporal domain
can be simulated. Lastly, the mesh can be elevated to three dimensions, a new mesh study will be
conducted and the quest for a spiral vortex breakdown will commence.
5
MECE 6353
Term Project
3. Previous Work on Vortex Breakdown in a Cylinder with One Rotating Wall

The earliest record of vortex breakdown in swirling flows can be found in Talbot [10] from the
1950’s. Talbot experimented with flows in pipes that contained a rotating section. Talbot was primarily
interested in the decay of the swirling motion in a pipe after the rotating section. Visually in his
experiments he was able to identify two types of swirling flow instabilities (Talbot did not call it vortex
breakdown). He produced a curve for when these swirling flow instabilities occurred in the Re-S plane,
here Re is Reynolds number and S is a dimensionless term characterizing swirl (inverse Rossby number).
Around the corner in 1957, Peckham and Atkinson discovered vortex breakdowns in the tip vortices
of delta-winged aircraft, Peckham [14]. The phenomenon of vortex breakdown is critical for some
devices; vortex breakdown had become a “serious problem for high angle of attack for highly
maneuverable military aircraft.” Lopez [8] 533. Fixed-blade hydraulics turbines and swirling combustors
are other examples of devices where vortex breakdown is critical.
Around 1960, Harvey [7] identified experimentally vortex breakdowns occurring in rotating flows in
cylinders. In 1968, Vogel [19] attempted experiments that tried to capture the appearance of vortex
breakdowns that occurred in cylinders with a single rotating end-wall. The number of experimental
cases he carried out was limited but he was able to successfully capture a few cases of single vortex
breakdown. It wasn’t until around 1982 to 1984 that Escudier [3] extended the experiments of Vogel by
creating a device (Figure 3.1) that could vary the parameters of the flow (cylinder height, rotation rate)
of the cylinder. Escudier’s device was able to receive an injection of dye at the top of the central
cylinder axis; a laser-induced-fluorescence technique was used to illuminate the flow-pattern in the
cylinder. His experiments produced steady symmetric bubble-like shapes as depicted in figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1– Escudier’s device used to produce swirling flows and vortex breakdown.
6
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 3.2 – Flow visualization pattern at Re=1854 and . A double breakdown can be seen
as a recirculation zone near the top and one stagnation zone below, Escudier [3].
According to Escudier’s opinion, vortex breakdown can be detected in a cylinder with a rotating
endwall by the control parameters, Reynolds number and the cylinder aspect ratio, Escudier [4]. A
number of several great photographs were captured for different cases of rotational Reynolds number,
, and the ratio of cylinder height to cylinder radius, . Escudier created a diagram
depicting critical stability curves as functions of rotational Reynolds number and the cylinder aspect
ratio that determine the number of vortex breakdowns to expect as well as when to expect unsteady
versus steady vortex breakdowns (See Figure 3.3 below).
Figure 3.3 – Diagram indicating stability boundaries for single, double, and triple vortex breakdowns as
well as boundary for steady and unsteady oscillatory flow in the (Re, H/R) plane, Escudier [3].
7
MECE 6353
Term Project
Around the time of Escudier’s 1982-1984 work, others had attempted experiments similar to
Escudier (e.g. Sarpkaya [15] 1971 and Escudier & Zehnder [5] 1982). From all of these works, Lopez
concluded that “a number of distinctive forms of breakdown were observed in these investigations,
which also showed the phenomenon typically to be unsteady and possessing various degrees of
turbulence and asymmetry. From these results, it had been assumed that a description of vortex
breakdown would require a three-dimensional, time-dependent calculation of the Navier-Stokes
equations, albeit with the possibility at high Reynolds numbers of modeling the small-scale turbulence,”
Lopez [8], 533.
Initial numerical works involved solutions of the time-independent axisymmetric Navier-Stokes
equations. There are numerous attempts to calculate vortex breakdown numerical by using the steady
and unsteady axisymmetric equations (Lugt and Haussling [11], 1973 & 1982; Lopez [8], 1990; Mullin
[12], [13] 1998 and 2000; recently Escudier [2] 2007; etc). According to Sotiropoulos,”three-dimensional
numerical simulations have been reported, among others, by Menne 1988, Breuer and Hanel 1990, Spall
et al. 1990 and Tromp and Beran 1997. Most of these studies have primarily focused on time-asymptotic
breakdown structures and have successfully reproduced both bubble and spiral modes,” Sotiropoulos
[18], 447. Sotiropoulos used the unsteady three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations to
numerically simulate the bifurcations of bubble-type vortices to unsteady columnar vortex flow in a
confined cylinder with a rotating endwall. The three primary works that this project will reference to
compare results with include Lopez [8], Escudier [2], and potentially Sotiropoulos [18].
Lopez [8] was the first to successfully reproduce all of the flows in Escudier [3]. Lopez [8] covers
both reproductions of the steady cases and as well as a one case of unsteady oscillatory flow solving the
problem as 2D axisymmetric. Escudier later in 2007 produced a numerical work examining vortex
breakdown in a confined conical cylinder, Escudier [2]. Escudier [2] examines the impact of varying
radial clearance from the center axis on vortex breakdown. This work is a study responding to the
claims produced in Mullin [13] that numerically/experimentally studied vortex breakdown in a confined
cylinder with a slight modification to the problem; a cylinder-shaped rod was added to the axis of the
confined cylinder. The rod is capable of varying in diameter at different heights of the cylinder. The
crux of Mullin [13] is the claim that altering the diameter of the inner cylinder impedes the occurrence
of vortex breakdown. Escudier [2] is the correct place to kickoff this project as he ran his simulations in
Fluent, version 6.0. Escudier also performed a mesh and convergence study based on principles found
in Ferziger [6] similar to what was taught in class. Escudier also reproduced a qualitative comparison of
streamlines produced numerically versus the visual flow pattern found in one of his dye experiment
cases conducted in 1984. Lopez also has a plot of the predicted streamlines for the same case.
Lopez’s work is good and serves as an excellent source of how to solve a CFD related problem before
commercial packages like Fluent existed. Lopez successfully reproduced an oscillatory case and provides
qualitative pictures showing the phenomenon and one quantitative plot showing the periodic
unsteadiness of the vortex bubble. This can be used as comparison later.
Sotiropoulos [17] investigates the transition from the bubble-like symmetric breakdown to the spiral
vortex breakdown. The problem is solved numerically using the unsteady three dimensional Navier
Stokes equations. Sotiropoulos also verified one of Escudier’s experimental cases, in fact the same case
found in Escudier [2], Re=1854 and H/R=2. One surprising result from Sotiropoulos [17] is the
predictions of spiral vortex breakdowns in cases studied by previous authors restricted to using
unsteady axisymmetric assumptions that did not report the occurrence of spiral breakdowns.
Sotiropoulos [17] demonstrates the ability to reproduce the oscillatory unsteady case in Lopez [8]. If the
rotation is increased further, the oscillatory bubble, found in Lopez [8], collapses and a slender vortex
core subject to wave trains forms. This is also supported in the Sorenson [16]. At even higher rates of
rotation, the vortex core begins spiraling around the axis.
8
MECE 6353
Term Project
4. A Brief Description of the Physics

The following paragraph is borrowed from Lopez [8] that describes the physics of the flow in the
confined cylinder with rotating endwall in a concise manner, “The fluid, which completely fills the
cylindrical container, is initially a t rest. At t = 0, the bottom endwall is impulsively set to rotate at
constant angular speed Q. An Ekman boundary layer develops on the rotating. This rotating boundary
layer then acts as a centrifugal pump, sending fluid radially outwards in a spiraling motion while
‘sucking’ fluid into it from above. This pumping action of the boundary layer together with the presence
of the cylindrical wall at r = R sets up a secondary meridional circulation. The fluid pumped out of the
Ekman layer spirals up the cylindrical wall, establishing a sidewall boundary layer. In time, fluid with
angular momentum reaches the vicinity of the stationary top endwall, where it is turned and advected
towards the centre. It spirals inwards creating a further boundary layer on the top endwall. On the
stationary endwall the fluid separates at r = 0 and a concentrated central vortex is formed whose core
size depends on the depth of the boundary layer from which it emerged. The fluid then spirals down this
central vortex to be sucked back into the Ekman layer,” Lopez *8+, 539. This paints a perfect picture of
the flow and will be useful to keep in mind when examining vector plot results.
9
MECE 6353
Term Project
5. Numerical Treatment by Escudier, Lopez, and Sotiropoulos
Escudier 2007
Since Escudier has such an intimate understanding of his experiments in 1984 and he used
Fluent 6.0 to carry out his numerical work in 2007, it is reasonable to assume his results in Escudier [2]
are valid.
Escudier solves the problem of vortex breakdown in a closed conical container. There are three
control parameters used: rotational Reynolds number, aspect ratio H/R, and the conical angle α. A
conical angle α=0° corresponds to a regular cylinder. A conical angle α<0° is called a convergent
geometry while a conical angle α>0° is called a divergent geometry. No specific details of exact
dimension are given, neither are their specific details about the fluid properties (density, viscosity).
Theoretically, as long as the same dimensionless control parameters are used, the same results should
be achieved; however the path to get the same results may be different. Several simulations were
carried out for various conical angles but the aspect ratio of the cylinder was fixed to H/R=2 and the
rotational Reynolds number is predominantly 1854. A few cases were run with rotational Reynolds
number 2354 and 3354. Escudier assumed the vortex bubble breakdown is symmetric (based on his
experiments). The flow field in the container was calculated with the assumptions that the flow is
laminar, incompressible, steady, and axisymmetric (two-dimensional). These assumptions will omit any
non-symmetrical behavior such as spiral-type instabilities. The fluid is single phase and the governing
equations are from the incompressible Navier Stokes equations, essentially govern conservation of mass
and momentum. Gravitational impact has been neglected, only viscous forces are present. The
following nomenclature is used by Escudier and will be adopted for this study as well. (Figure 5.1)
Figure 5.1- Nomenclature of terms in Escudier [2] adopted for this project.
10
MECE 6353
Term Project
The geometry is described in figure 5.2, note the aspect ratio is maintained at H/R=2 and the
axisymmetric condition is employed. The axis of symmetric is denoted by the broken line segment AB
and the rotating endwall is the line segment BC. The remaining perimeter is described by the line
segments CDA.
Figure 5.2- Diagram depicting conical container.
Escudier used three different meshes, a course, medium, and fine mesh denoted by M1, M2, and
M3 respectively. Each mesh is a structured uniform grid with spatial increments ∆x, ∆r such that ∆x=∆r.
The number of cells in each mesh is M1 – 100 x 200, M2 – 200 x 400, and M3 – 400 x 800. The mesh
sizing was chosen specifically to carry out a convergence study found in Ferziger [6], 58-60.
Escudier used the SIMPLEC pressure based calculation in Fluent 6.0 to solve the coupling of the
pressure and velocity. The pressure and momentum were discretized using a second-order upwind
scheme. Double precision was used to omit round-off errors. The residuals are claimed to reach levels
between 1x10-12 and 1x10-15.
Results from the simulations carried out by Escudier are first qualitatively compared against flow
visualizations taken from his 1984 experiment. Escudier also monitored the pressure coefficient along
the wall of the entire perimeter of the cylinder. The mesh sizes were chosen to employ a numerical
technique found in Ferziger [6] that is used to estimate actual order of convergence and also gives
indication if the numerical method is indeed converging. The point of interest used to conduct the mesh
study was the position of the first stagnation point χs on the axis, measured from the top of the cylinder
down the axis. The point χs is normalized with respect to the cylinder radius. Escudier concluded that
the M2 mesh was sufficient enough to provide solutions for the problems. For some cases of strictly
convergent and divergent geometry, Escudier refined the meshes near the boundaries and corners to
capture the existence of Moffat corner eddies.
To further provide quantitative evidence that his numerical method reproduces valid results, the
pressure coefficient was captured along the wall perimeter of the inside of the container for a wide
range of convergent and divergent geometries. This data was compared with the predictions of Mullin
[13] and were found to correspond.
11
MECE 6353
Term Project
Lopez 1990
Lopez [8] was the first to successfully produce all of the flow visualizations in Escudier [3]
numerically. Lopez made similar assumptions as Escudier [2]. He assumed the flow is incompressible
and solved the unsteady axisymmetric form of the incompressible Navier Stokes equations. The
equations are solved using a stream-function-vorticity formulation, where pressure does not appear
explicitly. Gravity was neglected as well. The equations were discretized on a uniform structured grid
composed of (nr+1) x (nz+1) grid nodes using a second order centered difference scheme spatially on all
the terms except for the advection terms. For the advection terms, another scheme was used. The time
domain is discretized using an alternating time step scheme. The cell increments ∆z, ∆r are held equal
similar to Escudier’s meshes. The problem is solved with a predictor/corrector method over time. The
time step is held to satisfy the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy stability condition found in Williams [20].
Lopez used two different types of mesh sizes, ∆z=∆r=1/60 and ∆z=∆r=1/40 to handle the cases
of H/R=1.5. He claims no noticeable differences were found using different mesh sizes. For the cases
with H/R=2.5, Lopez used ∆z=∆r=1/100. The time step was held at ∆t=0.05 for all cases except for when
∆z=∆r=1/100, ∆t=0.025. Most of his comparisons are qualitative, matching streamlines with
observations found in Escudier [3]. The estimated location of stagnation points, diameter of vortex
bubbles, and identification of recirculation zones were compared quantitatively. Some quantitative
results were compared with vorticity integral results from Dijkstra and Heijst 1983.
The key result of interest from this paper is to reproduce the case H/R=2.5 with Re=2765, the
oscillatory unsteady case. Two vortex breakdowns are present that are close to another. Their
interaction induces an unsteady motion that oscillates in a set period offering an excellent candidate to
evolve this problem from steady to transient.
12
MECE 6353
Term Project
Sotiropoulos 1998
Sotiropoulos [18] is an excellent work of addressing a problem similar to Lopez and Escudier with
the exception that the assumption of being axisymmetric is removed. Sotiropoulos attempted to
numerically demonstrate the transition from steady bubble-shaped vortex breakdown to the unsteady
column vortex breakdown (spiral type). He essentially removed the axisymmetric condition and used
the full blown unsteady three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. The rotating end
wall initially rotates to satisfy Re=2100 and then increases rotation to satisfy Re=3750. The equations
are solved using a finite volume approaching utilizing an explicit, multi-stage, dual time-stepping
scheme. The mesh used contains 100x53x53 nodes, 100 in the axial direction and 53x53 in the radial
plane. The cells of the mesh in the axially direction are spaced uniformly while the cells in the radial
direction are clustered along the wall boundary and axis while left slightly more coarse in the mid
section of the cylinder (less activity). The mesh was created using a technique called hyperbolic tangent
stretching. The time step is set at ∆t=0.02.
Figure 5.3 – Picture of mesh used by Sotiropoulos to simulate spiral vortex breakdown
13
MECE 6353
Term Project
6. Attempt to Reproduce the Symmetric Bubble Type of Vortex Breakdown
Problem Setup
One of the first tasks in Escudier [2] was a mesh and convergence study performed on a base case,
Re=1865 and H/R=2, from one of the visualization experiments in Escudier [3]. He used three different
uniform quad cell meshes M1, M2, and M3. The number of cells for each mesh was chosen
systematically to perform the convergence study described in Ferziger [6]. The results of his initial
simulation carried out on an M2 mesh produced the plot in figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1- Comparison of contour plot of the stream function of the base case, Re=1854 and
H/R=2, in Escudier [2] with the flow visualization in Escudier[3].
The normalized distance to first stagnation point was captured. Figure 6.2 depicts the
point used in the mesh/convergence study of Ferziger [6].
Figure 6.2 – Distance to Stagnation Point.
Once a solution appears converged in Fluent, the stagnation point is measured and recorded.
The number of cells in each mesh M1, M2, and M3 are related by a power of 2. M1 has 20000 cells, M2
14
MECE 6353
Term Project
has 80000 cells, and M3 has 320000 cells. This relationship allows us to relate the uniform step size of
the mesh to the distance to the stagnation point. The relationship can be curve fit to a function of the
form . Here b is the theoretical value achieved at a step size of 0, is the rate of
convergence, and is curve fitting constant. Three points are required to build a unique curve-fit, hence
the three mesh sizes. The value b is called the Richardson extrapolation coined by its inventor who first
used the concept. The mesh study exercise is also useful for determined the percentage of
discretization error present in the simulation and provides some concept of convergence and accuracy
of the solution.
Figure 6.3 – Mesh Study Results taken from Escudier 2007.
15
MECE 6353
Term Project
The table in figure 6.3 shows that the meshes only produce a difference of about 1% in between
solutions. The curve-fit reveals that even though the solution method is using second-order schemes to
resolve velocity and pressure, the method is actually performing only first order accuracy.
Three two-dimensional planar uniform quadrilateral cell meshes were created similar to the
meshes found in Escudier [2]. These meshes have extremely small values of skewness, squish, or aspect
ratio. Since no dimensions of the experiment are mentioned in Escudier [2], the radius was set to 1 m
and the height of the plane was set to 2 m, this ensures H/R = 2. The axis of symmetry is chosen in the
x-axis direction. This is a requirement imposed by Fluent otherwise the simulation will fail to run. The
rotating endwall is specified on the right side. The problem contains simple non-flow boundary
conditions. Only a rotational speed needs to be specified on the rotating wall boundary. Figure 6.4
shows a picture of the mesh M1.
Figure 6.4 – Mesh M1- 100 x 200 cells, Figure 6.5 – Subtle spiral flow 2D cannot
capture
The problem is solved using a pressure-based solver, steady, and with axisymmetric swirl.
Modeling the problem in 2D will not pick up any of the spiral-type instabilities shown in figure 6.2. The
fluid is assumed to be single phase and incompressible. The viscosity and density of the fluid is not
specified in Escudier [2], so values of and are used. These assumptions on the fluid and
geometry will set the rotational Reynolds number Re=Ω, the angular velocity of the endwall in rads/sec.
This might have an impact on the solution of the problem but theoretically should lead to results similar
to Escudier [2]. Perhaps later, this will be an area of refinement if the correct dimensions of the cylinder
can be found. The reference values are updated in fluent to scale everything accordingly to the
rotational Reynolds number. This makes comparison with results in Escudier [2] possible. The rotational
wall is set to be a moving wall with a rotational motion, the speed is set to Re=Ω. The velocity condition
along each wall is set to be no-slip. The problem uses a standard laminar model and no turbulence is
assumed for these cases. At first, the inviscid model was selected but this immediately led to a diverged
solution. Viscosity apparently must be present for a solution to exist.
For the solution method, the SIMPLEC algorithm was used and second-order upwind was
selected for the momentum and swirl velocity. A Green-Gauss Node Based gradient was selected based
on experience from the pipe-inlet flow homework assignment. Pressure was set to the standard
method. At this stage, relaxation factors were left alone. Both the flow and swirl-velocity were set to be
solved.
16
MECE 6353
Term Project
The continuity residual was set to 1e-9 and the rest were left alone. After some practice runs, it
was immediate that the momentum equation related residuals go to zero much quicker than the
continuity equation residual. Lastly, two monitors were created, one to measure the minimum
pressure coefficient along the axis and another to measure the maximum pressure coefficient along the
rotating endwall. These were used to detect convergence as well as to immediately compare with figure
10 found in Escudier [2]. The minimum pressure coefficient along the axis is expected to be near -0.006
while the maximum pressure coefficient along the rotating endwall is expected to be near 0.1 (see figure
6.6).
Figure 6.6- (Left) Region where pressure coefficient is sampled. (Right) Pressure coefficient profiles
along the axis for different convergent/divergent geometries.
The initial values were all set to zero except for the swirl velocity which was set to 0.1 m/s. A
small positive value was required to get the simulation moving otherwise it would converge to a trivial
everywhere zero (no flow) case. The simulation was stopped three times when the continuity level
reached 10e-5, 10e-7, and 10e-9. The pressure coefficient along the perimeter was captured. It was
used also determine if the method was converging to a solution. The plot looks qualitatively and
quantitatively similar to the 0° curve found in figure 6.6 above.
17
MECE 6353
Term Project
Results for Base Case
Figure 6.7 – Graph plotting multiple instances of the pressure coefficient profile along the axis at
different iteration times when the continuity residual reached 1e-5, 1e-7, and 1e-9.
From figure 6.7, there is not much difference between 1e-7 and 1e-9. The residuals and
pressure coefficient monitors are shown below for mesh M1 below in figure 6.8.
Figure 6.8 – Residuals for initial run using SIMPLEC method on mesh M1
18
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 6.9 – Left) Maximum pressure coefficient profile on rotating endwall converging near 0.1
Right) Minimum pressure coefficient monitor converging to -0.006.
The same methodology was used on the M2 and M3 meshes. The pressure coefficient
profile along the axis is plotted for each mesh M1, M2, and M3. The plot demonstrates that the M2
mesh result is close to the M3 mesh result. Escudier suggested that the M2 mesh would be sufficient
enough to use for analysis versus the M3 mesh. The simulation with the M3 mesh took over 14 hours to
achieve the same level of residuals as the M2 and M3 cases, while M2 runs in less than 1 hour.
Figure 6.10 – Plot that shows the pressure coefficient profile along the axis for each of
the three given meshes M1, M2, and M3
The stagnation point was measured for each mesh and the mesh study was conducted in a
similar manner to Escudier, the results are displayed in the table below with a plot of the fitted data.
19
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 6.11 – Table showing stagnation points along with plot of curved fit. The plot indicates
the second-order scheme is converging in a first-order manner.
The stagnation points in the table in figure 6.11 do not 100% match results from Escudier [2],
however they are quite close. The theoretical value for a mesh step size of zero, using Richardson’s
extrapolation, reveals the stagnation point should exist at 0.2107 which is very close to the theoretical
prediction in figure 6.3. Sotiropoulos also claims in Sotiropoulos [18] the stagnation point for the case
Re=1854, H/R=2 is 0.21. Another consistent match with Escudier is that the SIMPLEC method for this
problem is performing like a first-order scheme even though second order methods are being used.
Below is a qualitative comparison between the contours lines of the stream function generated
by the simulation using the M2 mesh and the results for the base case in Escudier [2]. The existence of
two vortex bubbles is predicted in both cases. The primary bubble is clear while the secondary bubble is
harder to detect.
20
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 6.12 – Comparison of case Re=1854 and H/R=2 contour lines of the stream function with
Escudier’s original experimental result, (left) Escudier [2] base case match on mesh M2, and (right)
solution produced in project on mesh M2.
Furthermore, the pressure coefficient along the rotating axis is matched below for the case of 0°
with mesh M2.
Figure 6.13- (Left) Location of sampled Pressure Coefficient. (Middle) Plot of pressure
coefficient profile along the rotating endwall for divergent/convergent geometry from
Escudier [2]. (Right) Plot of pressure coefficient profile along the rotating endwall.
21
MECE 6353
Term Project
Lastly, the pressure coefficient along the remaining perimeter is compared for the case of 0°, mesh M2.
Figure 6.14- Left) Location of sampled pressure coefficient. Middle) Plot of pressure
coefficient profile along remaining perimeter for divergent/convergent geometry taken
from Escudier [2]. Right) Plot of pressure coefficient profile along remaining perimeter.
The flow field is plotted via using a vector plot below in figure 6.15. The flow pattern is
consistent with the physics described by Lopez [8] in section 4. It is interesting to note that the flow
along the axis from the top of the container to the rotating endwall bends around the recirculation zone.
Figure 6.15- Vector plot for the case Re=1854 and H/R=2 matching physics described by Lopez [8].
22
MECE 6353
Term Project
Reformulation of Solution Method
The simulation overall appears to have converged to a result very close to Escudier [2]. The
result appears to reflect what is seen in the flow visualizations in Escudier [3]. The stagnation point is
slightly off but the pressure coefficient along the perimeter matches quite well. Escudier’s prediction
that the method performs in a 1st order manner was also verified. The SIMPLEC method provided one
way of getting a solution but some observations were noted in the residuals, figure 6.8. After about
1250 iterations, the residuals began to form a wave-like pattern. Residuals would go down and then go
back up, almost in a 2 steps 1 step backward motion. The type of behavior you would expect to see
when a numerical method is overshooting and correcting. This issue can cause a longer wait time for a
result and possibly may impact the quality of the answer. Mesh M2 appeared to reproduce nearly the
same result as M3 therefore a study was conducted trying different methodologies out.
Figure 6.16 – Duplication of figure 6.8 revealing the wave-like pattern in the residuals.
Other methodologies either took too long to run or produced a similar result to the SIMPLEC
algorithm. On consistent fact between model choices was the fact that the Green-Gauss node based
method for the gradient produced better accuracy over the Green-Gauss cell based method or least-
squares method. The method that produced a notable difference was the Coupled method using
second-order upwind for the momentum and swirl. The notable difference is the removal of the wavy
like residuals found using other methods. The SIMPLE, SIMPLEC, and PISO method all took about 4000
iterations to achieve the same residuals and similar level results. First order methods did not give good
accuracy for any scheme. Differences between methods were insignificant. The coupled method
achieved the same level of accuracy in nearly half the time. Figures 6.17 and 6.18 show the residuals
and monitors using the coupled method. Notice the number of iterations significantly reduced from
4500 to about 2500. Also, another improvement was to specific an initial value for the swirl velocity.
The mean swirl velocity was used instead of 0. This immediately saved even more iterations.
23
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 6.17 – Residuals for Coupled method on mesh M1.
Figure 6.18 – Pressure Coefficient Monitor using Coupled method on mesh M1.
The Coupled method produced a result quicker with quantitatively similar results as the
SIMPLEC method produced results. Mesh M2 was used with the Coupled method to reproduce the
other divergent/convergent geometry cases covered by Escudier. The following figures, 6.19 to 6.25,
will contain the results for the divergent/convergent cases for Re=1854 and H/R=2 which further
reproduce results close to Escudier [2] both quantitatively and qualitatively.
24
MECE 6353
Term Project
Results of Other Cases
Figure 6.19- Streamline comparisons for 0° base case geometry at Re 1854, H/R=2
Left) Escudier Right) Project.
Figure 6.20 – Streamline comparisons for -7° convergent case geometry at Re 1854, H/R=2
25
MECE 6353
Term Project
26
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 6.24 – Streamline comparisons for limiting -26.6° convergent case geometry at Re 1854, H/R=2
27
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 6.25 – Streamline comparisons for 25° divergent case geometry at Re 1854, H/R=2
The qualitative comparisons above show good results. The Moffat eddies in the corners of the
convergent geometry cases predicted by Escudier are discovered in figures 6.23 to 6.25. The Coupled
method produces good results. For quantitative evidence, the following pressure coefficient plots were
generated for comparison.
Figure 6.26 – Axial Pressure Coefficient Comparison between Left) Escudier and Right) Project for
convergent and divergent cases, Re=1854 and H/R=2
28
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 6.27 – Rotating endwall pressure coefficient profile comparison between (Left) Escudier and
(Right) Project for convergent and divergent geometry cases Re=1854 and H/R=2.
Figure 6.28 – Remaining perimeter pressure coefficient profile comparison between (Left) Escudier and
(Right) Project for convergent and divergent geometry cases Re=1854 and H/R=2.
The plots in figures 6.26 and 6.27 quantitatively match very well which suggest a good
converged result. However, there was a bit of difficulty matching the plots quantitatively in figure 6.28.
The pressure coefficient did not match; even after the boundary was adapted. To further establish the
results are good overall, the next few pages compare results with Lopez [8].
29
MECE 6353
Term Project
(i) (ii)
Lopez Project
Figure 6.29- Comparison of plots of (i) streamlines and (ii) angular momentum for case Re = 1000 and
H/R=2.5 taken from Lopez [8] (Figure 2).
(i) (ii)
Lopez Project
(i) (ii)
Lopez Project
30
MECE 6353
Term Project
The contours of total head were compared qualitatively with Lopez [8] (Figure 3) and found to
be similar.
Figure 6.32 – Plots of total head ( ) for the case Re=1994 and H/R=2.5, (left) Lopez [8] (Figure 3)
result (right) Streamlines calculated in Project.
The figures 6.29 to 6.32 duplicate various results from Lopez [8]. The results in general line up
quite well qualitatively. Unfortunately, there were no explicit quantitative pieces of data to easily
compare with in Lopez [8]. The results were published in scaled terms but the reference values were
not given.
31
MECE 6353
Term Project
Boundary and Initial Condition(s) Study
There is only one boundary condition to change, the rotational speed at the rotating wall
boundary. All other boundary conditions are fixed (e.g. no slip at wall). The interval of rotational speeds
that produces stable/valid results should correspond quite well with Escudier’s stability chart, (reprinted
in Figure 6.33).
Figure 6.33 – Stability chart, same as in figure 3.3.
A negative rotational speed is valid and produces similar results as its positive counterpart does.
The direction has no impact on the answer. For this study, we shall only consider positive rotational
values. The trivial case, a rotational speed of zero, converges immediately and leaves the velocities of
the fluid in the cylinder zero. For simplicity, this study will fix the aspect ratio at H/R=2.5, use mesh M1,
and assume all initial conditions are zero (no velocity). From the results produced by Lopez [8] above, it
is clear that the Coupled numerical method is stable up to Re=2494. A result was always reached. Once
Re=2765, according to figure 6.33, the problem becomes unsteady. Now an unsteady result does not
entail the Coupled method will blow up, it will just have trouble converging to a steady state as no true
steady state exists. A stable unsteady result will have bounded residuals. There is however a bound on
the rotational speed where the residuals will diverge. This is the bound on rotational speed we seek.
Experimenting with different rotational speeds, for H/R=2.5, the critical value appears to be around
Re=3300. This breakdown makes sense as according to Sotiropoulos [18], the bubble breaks up after
Re>3000. The divergence of the residuals can be seen in figure 6.34. From Re=2800 to Re=3300, the
residuals reach a limit and continue on. For Re < 2800, the residuals converge in a first order manner as
shown previously.
32
MECE 6353
Term Project
Continuity
Swirl/Axial/Radial
Figure 6.34 – Diverging Residuals at Re=3300 and H/R=2.5
The same rotational speed upper stability bound study was conducted using the same initial
conditions but for the SIMPLEC method. Surprisingly, the SIMPLEC method was able to remain stable for
rotational numbers exceeding 20000. This is a perfect example of why a stable numerical algorithm
doesn’t necessarily entail a good solution. On the other hand, the coupled algorithm was more sensitive
to stability than the SIMPLEC algorithm. This experiment begs the question, “Is stability necessarily a
good thing for boundary conditions outside of the numerical methods solution space?”
Setting the initial condition velocities to zero generally entails a good solution for rotational
numbers < 3000. Picking initial velocities closer to the actual solution velocities will allow the numerical
method to converge faster. However, performing a sensitivity analysis on initial conditions is time
consuming.
For the H/R=2.5 case and Re=2494, the initial axial, radial, and swirl velocity were varied to
determine if there was any impact on the solution in terms of speeding up number of iterations,
increasing the number of iterations, or causing the solution to diverge. The experiment was carried out
for the Coupled algorithm using mesh M1 (interest of saving time). For the initial condition, axial
velocity=0, radial velocity=0, and swirl velocity = 0 the Coupled algorithm takes approximately 1000
iterations to reach all residuals below 1e-7, shown in figure 6.34.
Continuity
Swirl/Axial/Radial
Figure 6.35–Residuals for Re=2494, H/R=2.5, and initial velocities all zero
33
MECE 6353
Term Project
Convergence was accelerated setting the axial velocity to 1000 m/s as shown in figure 6.36.
Swirl/Axial/Radial
Continuity
Figure 6.36–Residuals for Re=2494, H/R=2.5, and initial velocities all zero except axial velocity = 1000.
Continuity residual now is below velocity residuals.
Large axial values, axial velocity>2500, caused the continuity residual to fall beneath the radial and
swirl velocities increasing the amount of time required to reach accepted convergence. Axial values
exceeding 1e5 caused divergence. Negative axial values caused similar problems. The best initial value
for axial velocity was found to be 500 m/s. The residuals fell under 1e-7 within 550 iterations.
The same exercise was carried out individually for the axial and swirl velocity. The pressure was left
alone. The radial velocity initial condition had a similar effect as axial velocity. Setting axial velocity to
500 m/s led to residuals converging to less than 1e-7 around 550 iterations. However, the initial swirl
velocity impacted the convergence in a different manner. An initial large swirl value, swirl velocity >
2000 m/s caused the numerical method to take more time iterating to get to the same level of
convergence as initial values set to zero. An initial swirl velocity > 3000 caused the numerical method to
diverge. Negative swirl values impacted the convergence in a similar manner as positive swirl values.
Once each initial value was pertubated, multiple values were pertubated and the impact on
convergence was investigated. The best initial condition in terms of getting the Coupled method to get
residuals to converge quickest occurs when the axial velocity = 750, radial velocity = 700, and the swirl
velocity = 120. This set of initial conditions led the residuals to less than 1e-07 within 450 iterations.
Guessing the initial swirl velocity appears to control convergence the most. Figure 6.37 on the beginning
of the next page shows the residuals for the selected initial conditions that provide good convergence.
An initial condition study was not conducted using the SIMPLEC algorithm. The SIMPLEC algorithm was
able to manage a large range of rotational numbers without blowing up. This evidence suggests that
most likely the SIMPLEC algorithm will remain stable with a large range of varying initial conditions.
34
MECE 6353
Term Project
Figure 6.37–Residuals for Re=2494, H/R=2.5, and initial velocities all zero except axial velocity = 1000.
Continuity residual now is below velocity residuals.
35
MECE 6353
Term Project
Other Mesh Attempts
Other meshes were constructed and tested using the Coupled method. The planar mesh
consisting of quadrilateral cells performed quite well in terms of numerical accuracy and matching the
flow pattern. The meshes used in this project were quite dense. The density was required to pick up
the re-circulation zones. Some refinement was attempted to get a coarser zone in the center while
maintaining denser regions along the border.
Meshes consisting only of triangles immediately resulted in failure An all triangle mesh either
suffered from not being fine enough to converge or resulted in too high skewness or high aspect ratio
which led to immediate numerical stability. The only aspect positive about a triangle mesh is that it
used about 20,000 elements less than an equivalent all quad mesh (in terms of element size).
Figure 6.38 – Example of all triangle mesh that resulted in high skewness
The next attempt was to use all quadrilaterals but distribute the cells in a non-uniform manner.
More cells were placed near the boundaries and less cell were placed in the center. This particular mesh
has less 20000 cells than Mesh M2 which has 80000 cells.
Figure 6.39 – Example of a non-uniform mesh consisting of all quadrilateral cells
36
MECE 6353
Term Project
The mesh in figure 6.39 was used to reproduce Re=1854 and H/R=2, the base case found in Escudier [2].
The iterations took longer to run and the residuals converged in a similar manner to the case with a
uniform mesh. However, the accuracy was not as good as the uniform case; the minimum pressure
coefficient along the axis is calculated to be -0.00638 while the uniform case predicts -0.006 (matches
Escudier [2]). Adaption was needed but that would have added more cells which defeats the purpose of
the entire exercise. Sometimes using less cells isn’t better. Even though the modified mesh has a less
number of cells than the uniform equivalent, it took longer to run and more iterations were required to
reach an answer that was less accurate than the uniform mesh case. For this given flow problem, it
appears just about every cell is being utilized in the mesh. A quadrilateral mesh appears to be the best
choice to align with the flow pattern.
Figure 6.40– Residuals of non-uniform mesh with Coupled method
Figure 6.41– Minimum pressure coefficient along the axis, reached -0.00638.
37
MECE 6353
Term Project
Symmetric Bubble Conclusion
The 2D axisymmetric steady incompressible fluid in a cylinder with one-rotating endwall

required little information to setup and was rich with physics. Even though the meshes appeared to be
trivial as they were uniform and consisted of quadrilateral cells, the cells were required to be small in
order to pick up the stagnation points and recirculation zone. This aspect offered a challenge.
Initially in this project, several practice runs were completed. Residuals behaved nicely and
converged to zero but post-processing offered a challenge. The stream contours were hard to generate
as Fluent only offers up to 100 streamlines. The recirculation zones were extremely sensitive and did
not appear in the streamlines at first. After carefully constructing a vector plot, the recirculation zones
appeared and the problem was identified. Several streamline plots had to be taken and superimposed
in a graphics program later.
The mesh study did not line up as planned but was very close to Escudier’s results in Escudier
[2]. This exercise was interesting as it revealed the 1st order convergence behavior even though second
order upwind methods were imposed. The nature of the problem must be the source of this issue.
There is no inflow to outflow in this project. The problem is confined. One would think that
conservation of mass would not be an issue as no new mass is added and no existing mass exits the
system. The continuity residual always seemed to converge slower than any other residual when the
initial conditions were all set to zero. This might provide some evidence to support the argument that
the Coupled method spent most of its iteration time balancing mass. This could be a consequence of
finite volume techniques. Perhaps this problem is better suited for a different numerical technique.
In terms of the solution methods used, it was quite a surprise that the Coupled method
performed more efficiently than the SIMPLEC method. The Coupled method was able to produce the
same level of accuracy in less time. The Coupled method does require more memory however than the
SIMPLEC method. It can be seen in figures 6.16 and 6.17 the comparison of convergence using the
different methods. The accuracy can be confirmed by examining figure 6.28, the plot of the minimum
pressure coefficient along the axis achieved. However, the SIMPLEC method appears to be more robust
in terms of allowing for a much larger range of initial/boundary conditions. For problems of this nature,
that is rotation induced with no inlet/outlet flow, the Coupled method appears to be the best choice.
It was also amazing to learn that the initial condition played a key role in speeding up
convergence. Picking the correct method and parameters were essential to get the necessary graphs
produced. On average, runtimes took 45 minutes to an hour per a case for mesh M2. The one-time run
of mesh M3 for the base mesh study took over 8 hours to get a good converged result.
Another lesson learned was to not rely on the behavior of the residuals. Residuals are great for
detecting divergence but they certainly do not indicate the level of accuracy achieved or if a solution has
been met or not. Hence, this project relied heavily on the pressure coefficient monitors. Even the
results of the pressure coefficient monitors had to be compared against Escudier [2]. In the case of
attempting a different mesh, the solution method appeared to converge but the pressure coefficient
monitor was extremely off compared to the uniform mesh M2 result run in the mesh study.
38
MECE 6353
Term Project
The solution results compared qualitatively well against other authors but qualitatively only
matched Escudier [2]. The pressure coefficient profile along the outer perimeter wall and cylinder top
was the only data that did not match 100% for a few strictly convergent/divergent cases. It still remains
a mystery at this time at the exact reason for the small discrepancy. Results compared with Lopez [8]
were within range but were not verified quantitatively. Hopefully one can infer that if Escudier [2]
results were matched than the Lopez [8] results should match as well, especially for the case of Re=1854
and H/R=2. Hopefully this leap of faith holds for the oscillatory case which will hopefully be attempted
next.
39
MECE 6353
Term Project
7. Attempt to Reproduce the Unsteady Symmetric Bubble Type of Vortex Breakdown

Discussion
The same mesh used in section 6 for the Lopez [2] cases for H/R=2.5 was used in an attempt to
reproduce Re=2765, the unsteady oscillatory case. Figure 7.1 below is from Escudier [3]. The dye lines
indicate the unsteadiness in the problem due to the two recirculation zone interacting.
Figure 7.1 –From Escudier [3] revealing an unsteady oscillatory case occurring at Re=2765 and H/R=2.5.
Figure 7.2 – From Lopez [8] (figure 6) are two plots that show the stream lines plots at different
points of times and the oscillatory nature of the stream function at a particular point, (1/6 R, 2/3 H).
40
MECE 6353
Term Project
Unfortunately no valid results were created yet for the oscillatory case. Several attempts were
made to duplicate the result but were unsuccessful. Some oscillation was found but eventually the
numerical solution would appear to reach a steady state. The oscillation is quite subtle and might be
difficult to reproduce. The Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy stability condition was even satisfied. A time step
was chosen to be 0.002 for .
Some oscillation was detected up front but it was very difficult to determine if the solution was
in the process of converging or if the oscillatory flow was reached. The residuals did not go to zero
either.
Figure 7.3 – The residuals from an attempt to reproduce the unsteady oscillatory
case, Re=2765 and H/R=2.5 from Lopez [8].
Figure 7.4 – Screenshots of streamlines at different times attempting to capture

oscillating flow, result is definitely questionable.
This is the furthest that was reproduced for oscillatory flow and the project is out of
time now. The mesh study from the first phase was successful for setting up the correct mesh
requirements to capture the flow. It appears to now be an issue of further investigating the
temporal domain.
41
MECE 6353
Term Project
8. Attempt to Reproduce the 3D Spiral Type of Vortex Breakdown
The first challenge with producing a 3D spiral type of vortex breakdown is to construct a fine
enough three dimensional mesh that is capable of running in a reasonable amount of time while
capturing the complex flow patterns. A mesh was created and the base case Re=1865 and H/R=2
was attempted to be reproduced using the incompressible Navier Stokes equations.
Figure 8.1 – Fine mesh used to capture 3D Spiral Type Vortex Breakdowns.
The problem was setup using similar inputs to the 2D case. The axisymmetric conditions are
removed and the solution method was picked to be the Coupled method. The steady was chosen
first to attempt to reproduce the Re=1856 and H/R=2 base case.
There is one major difference between the 2D case and the current 3D case, the amount of time
it takes to get a solution. The problem took too long to iterate to get any useful results.
Unfortunately, there is no time left for this project so it was cut short.
42
MECE 6353
Term Project
9. Project Conclusions
Unfortunately the project ran out of time, consequentially results for the unsteady
oscillatory case and three dimensional spiral type vortex breakdowns fell short. Fortunately,
there were a lot of good challenges for the symmetrical bubble-like shaped vortex breakdown
case. Good results for the symmetrical case were produced and matched published numerical
and experimental results. Details of the conclusions of the symmetric bubble-like shaped vortex
breakdowns can be found on page 38.
The most important fact learned about this project is the discovery of a better solution
method used for producing confined flows, the Coupled method, with second-ordered upwind
for momentum, appears to offer advantages in terms of convergence speed and accuracy. The
mesh study also revealed that even though a method may say second-order, it doesn’t always
perform as a second-order method. This was enlightening and the value of the mesh study
conducted in Ferziger [6] is priceless.
The mesh requirements are also quite intense for producing these flows. Small fine
uniform meshes, approximately possessing a normalized element size of ∆x=∆y=∆z=0.005,
appear to offer the best accuracy and time spent per iteration.
This project also serves as a perfect example for not relying on the residues to
determine convergence. Other monitors were created that were more reliable indicators of
convergence. On the other hand, residuals are quite good indicators of determining when a
method has diverged. If there was more time, much more would have been learned about the
temporal domain and perhaps more about turbulence modeling for the 3D case.
43
MECE 6353
Term Project
References
[1] Bottaro A., Laminar Swirling Flow and Vortex Breakdown in a Pipe, Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 89 : 41, 1991
[2] Escudier, M. P., O’Leary, J., and Poole, R. J., 2007, “Flow Produced in a Conical Container by a Rotating
Endwall,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow.
[3] Escudier, M.P., 1984. Observations of the flow produced in a cylindrical container by a rotating endwall.
Exp. Fluids 2 (4), 189±196.
[4] Escudier, M.P., 1988. Vortex breakdown: Observations and explanations. Prog. Aerospace Science 25,
189±229.
[5] Escudier, M.P. and Zehnder, N., Vortex flow regimes, J. Fluid Mech. 115 (1982) 105-121.
[6] Ferziger, J.H., Peric, M., 2002. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd edition. Springer, New York.
[7] Harvey, J. K. 1960 Analysis of the ‘vortex breakdown’ phenomenon, Part 2. Imperial College, Aero. Dept.
Rep. 103.
[8] Lopez, J.M., 1990. Axisymmetric vortex breakdown Part 1. Confined swirling flow. J. Fluid Mech. 221,
533±552.
[9] Lugt, H., Abboud, M., 1987. Axisymmetric vortex breakdown with and without temperature effects in a
container with a rotating lid. J. Fluid Mech. 179, 179±200.
[10] L. Talbot, Laminar swirling pipe flow, J. Appl. Mech. 21 (1954) 1-7.
[11] Lugt, H., Haussling, H.J., 1973. Development of flow circulation in a rotating tank. Acta Mech. 18, 255±272.
[12] Mullin, T., Tavener, S.J., Cliffe, K.A., 1998. On the creation of stagnation points in a rotating flow. J. Fluids
Eng. 120, 685–689.
[13] Mullin, T., Kobine, J.J., Tavener, S.J., Cliffe, K.A., 2000. On the creation of stagnation points near straight
and sloped walls. Phys. Fluids 12 (2),425–431.
[14] Peckham., H. & Atkinson,. 1957 Preliminary results of low speed wind tunnel tests on a Gothic wing of
aspect ratio 1.0. Aero. Res. Counc. CP-508.
[15] Sarpkaya, T., 1971, On stationary travelling vortex breakdown. J. Fluid Mech. 45, 545-592.
[16] Sorensen, J.N., Christensen, E.A., 1995. Direct numerical simulation of rotating fluid flow in a closed
cylinder. Phys. Fluids 7 (4), 64±778.
[17] Sotiropoulos, F., Ventikos, Y., 1998. The Three-Dimensional Structure of Vortex Breakdown in a Cylindrical
Container with a rotating Endwall, submitted for publication to the J. Fluid Mech.
[18] Sotiropoulos, F. & Ventikos, Y. 1998 Transition from bubble-type vortex breakdown to columnar vortex in
a confined swirling flow. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 19, 446{458.
[19] Vogel, H.U., 1968. Experimentelle Ergebnisse u¨ber die laminare Stro¨mung in einem zyindrischen
eha¨use mit darin rotierende Scheibe, MPI fur Stromingsforschung, Bericht 6.
[20] Williams G, . P. 1967 Thermal convection in a rotating fluid annulus: Part 1. The basic Aero. Dept Rep. 102.
Gehiiuse mit darin rotierender Scheibe. Max-Planck-Inst. Bericht 6. axisymmetric flow. J . Atmos. Sci. 24,
144-161.
44

Term Proj TTHGDBKJM 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

Term Proj TTHGDBKJM PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MECE 6353

CFD Study of Swirling Flows and Vortex Breakdown in

A Confined Cylinder with One Rotating Endwall

3. Previous Work on Vortex Breakdown in a Cylinder with One Rotating Wall

4. A Brief Description of the Physics

5. Numerical Treatment by Escudier, Lopez, and Sotiropoulos

Figure 5.2- Diagram depicting conical container.

6. Attempt to Reproduce the Symmetric Bubble Type of Vortex Breakdown

Figure 6.2 – Distance to Stagnation Point.

Figure 6.3 – Mesh Study Results taken from Escudier 2007.

Results for Base Case

Reformulation of Solution Method

Figure 6.17 – Residuals for Coupled method on mesh M1.

Results of Other Cases

Boundary and Initial Condition(s) Study

Figure 6.33 – Stability chart, same as in figure 3.3.

Figure 6.34 – Diverging Residuals at Re=3300 and H/R=2.5

Other Mesh Attempts

Figure 6.39 – Example of a non-uniform mesh consisting of all quadrilateral cells

Figure 6.40– Residuals of non-uniform mesh with Coupled method

Symmetric Bubble Conclusion

The 2D axisymmetric steady incompressible fluid in a cylinder with one-rotating endwall

7. Attempt to Reproduce the Unsteady Symmetric Bubble Type of Vortex Breakdown

Figure 7.4 – Screenshots of streamlines at different times attempting to capture

8. Attempt to Reproduce the 3D Spiral Type of Vortex Breakdown

You might also like