Fluid Validation Report

fluidyn MP 5.
2 Validation Report – Fluid Flow
fluidyn MP
Version 5.2
FEB 2010
Validation Report – Fluid Flow

Version 5.2
FEB 2010
www.fluidyn.com
Copyright © 2009 an unpublished work by Transoft International. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
All Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without the prior written consent of Transoft
International. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. Use of this document is governed by Transoft
International Licence Agreement. This document contains confidential and proprietary information constituting valuable trade secrets.
1
fluidyn MP 5.2 Validation Report – Fluid Flow
Introduction
This document describes some of the studies done to validate the fluid flow solvers in
fluidyn-MP. The input files of these studies are available in the directories with names
MPV_Fnnn, where nnn is the identification number of a case.
Following table summarises the reported studies:
List of Validation Studies

No. Case Name Title and Description Solver Page
2D Rotating Cylinder: Two-dimensional steady
1 MPV_F001 incompressible laminar viscous flow around a rotating NT 5
cylinder. Rotating wall boundary condition is used.
2D Rotating Cylinder with Cyclic BC: Simulation of
steady two-dimensional incompressible, laminar,
2 MPV_F002 viscous flow around a rotating cylinder using rotational NT 11
cyclic boundary conditions. Rotating wall boundary
condition is used.
Air Injection: Simulation of injection of high
temperature air jet into a stagnant atmosphere. Flow is
3 MPV_F003 NT 18
transient compressible laminar, and viscous. Fluid is
single component. Full gravity buoyancy model.
Lid Driven Cavity: Lid driven flow in a two-
dimensional cavity. Flow is steady, incompressible,
4 MPV_F004 NT 31
laminar, and viscous. Moving wall boundary condition
is used.
Natural Convection of Air in a Square Cavity: Flow is
steady, incompressible, laminar, and viscous. Fluid is
5 MPV_F005 NT 37
single component. Boussinesq buoyancy model.
Isothermal wall boundary conditions are used.
Radiation Heat Transfer in a Square Cavity with Natural
Convection: Flow is steady, incompressible, laminar
6 MPV_F006 and viscous. Fluid is single component. Boussinesq NT 44
buoyancy model. Radiating isothermal wall boundary
conditions.
Flow over a Flat Plate: Flow is steady, two-dimensional,
7 MPV_F007 incompressible, turbulent, and viscous. Fluid is single NT 48
component.
Channel Flow: Flow is steady, two-dimensional,
component.
Axis-Symmetric Round Jet: Flow is steady,
component.
Flow over a Backward Facing Step: Flow is steady,
10 MPV_F010 two-dimensional, incompressible, turbulent, and NT 69
viscous. Fluid is single component.
2
Flow past a Circular Cylinder: Flow is unsteady, two-

11 MPV_F011 dimensional, incompressible, laminar, and viscous. NT 79
Fluid is single component.
Radiation Heat Transfer in a Cubical Cavity: Flow is
12 MPV_F012 steady, three-dimensional, incompressible, laminar and NT 88
viscous. Fluid is single component.
Fully Developed Turbulent Pipe Flow with Convective
Heat Transfer through Pipe Wall: Flow is axis
13 MPV_F013 NT 92
symmetric, steady, and incompressible. Fluid is single
component. Grid refinement study is done.
Flow over a NACA 0012 Airfoil: Flow is transonic, and
14 MPV_F101 TVD 101
inviscid. Angle of attack is 1.25 o.
Flow over 4.2% thick circular arc bump: Flow is
15 MPV_F102 TVD 108
transonic, and inviscid.
Shock tube: This is a Riemann problem. Flow is one
16 MPV_F103 TVD 113
dimensional, and inviscid.
Turbulent Natural Convection in an Enclosed Tall
Cavity: Flow is two dimensional, steady, and
17 MPV_F014 NT 124
incompressible. Two different Rayleigh number are
considered for study.
Axis-symmetric Countercurrent Flow: Flow is axis
symmetric, steady, laminar, and incompressible. Two
18 MPV_F015 NT 135
fluids are immiscible. Computed fully developed
velocity profile is compared with the analytical solution.
Detonation of H2-O2 mixture in fully confined volume:
19 MPV_F201 Simulations of the detonation of mixtures of hydrogen NT 142
and oxygen inside a fully confined volume
3
MPV_F001: Swirling Flow between Two Concentric

Rotating Cylinders
(Laminar, Non-Periodic Taylor-Couette Flow)
1. Introduction
Swirling flow between two concentric rotating cylinders is known as ‘Taylor-Couette’ flow.
Such flow has significant importance in chemical, nuclear industry. When the flow is steady,
laminar; we can have the exact solution of Navier-Stokes equations for Taylor-Couette flow
[1]. The objective of this study is to validate results from Fluidyn-MP solver against
analytical solution for laminar Taylor-Couette flow.
Section 2 describes the physical problem. Section 3 gives the geometric details of the domain
and the mesh created. Section 4 gives material properties and flow configuration. Section 5
gives boundary and initial conditions. Section 6 gives solution schemes and parameters used.
Section 7 presents comparison of the numerical solution with analytical solution and
conclusion. Section 8 gives the list of references.
2. Physical Problem
Fig. 1: Domain geometry (2D)
Considering only inner cylinder is rotating, Reynolds number can be defined based on radial
gap between two concentric cylinders and tangential velocity at inner cylinder. Critical
Reynolds number, which determines nature of the flow i.e. whether laminar or turbulent is
specific to the geometry and fluid in consideration. Since exact solution of Navier-Stokes
equations for Taylor-Couette flow is valid only for laminar flows [1], we have to restrict flow
in laminar regime. Geometric parameters, fluid properties, boundary conditions are taken
from reference [2].
4
3. Geometry and Mesh

Domain description:
Radius of inner cylinder (R1) = 0.03 m
Radius of outer cylinder (R2) = 0.04035 m
Only one element is considered along the length of cylinders, because of the symmetry. To
capture accurate results near walls, fine mesh is created near walls using power law technique
available in meshing software Fluidyn-CADGEN. Fig. 2 shows mesh variation along the
radius. Total 19800 hexahedral elements are used for the simulation.
Fig. 2: Mesh variation along the radius
4. Material Properties and Configuration

Properties of fluid:
Material Type Liquid

Specific Heat 4187 (J/kg.K)
Density (ρ) Constant 1000 (kg/m3)
Thermal Conductivity Const Prtl No 0.72
Diffusion Coefficient Const Diff Coeff 0
Dynamic Viscosity (µ) Constant 0.1 (Pa.s)
Table 1: Material properties
Angular velocity of inner cylinder wall (w1) =1 rad/s
Reynolds number = (ρ*(R1* w1)*(R2-R1))/(µ)

= (1000*(0.03*1)*(0.04035-0.03))/(0.1)
= 3.105
(Re)critical = 95 [2]
A steady, viscous, laminar, and incompressible flow is considered.
5
Note:
Fluid properties Specific Heat, Thermal Conductivity, and Diffusion Coefficient are not used
in the calculation.
5. Boundary and Initial Conditions

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group SYM1) and
maximum (boundary face group SYM2) Z coordinate are assigned ‘Symmetry’
boundary condition. This boundary condition does not require any input data.
2. Boundary faces corresponding to outer cylinder wall (boundary face group

OUTERWALL) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options
No slip
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
3. Boundary faces corresponding to inner cylinder wall (boundary face group

INNERWALL) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options and
values
No slip
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: YES
Axis Pts: (0,0,0)(0,0,1)
Rotation speed: 1
Initial Conditions
Flow is initialized as follows,
Pressure = 0 Pa
Velocity (u,v,w) = (1e-5,0,0) (m/s)
6. Method of Solution, Numerical Schemes, and Parameters

Solution control data is as follows
Fluid solver NSNT – Steady

Convection scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd order
Flux limiter Van Leer
Averaging Arithmetic
Pressure-Velocity coupling SIMPLEC
Number of pressure correctors 2
Non-orthogonal terms ON
Convergence tolerance 1e-15
6
Number of iterations for gradient calculation 2

Table 2: Solution control data
Advanced solver parameters for solution variables are as follows,

Pressure
Solution Scheme Upwind
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 100
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relaxation Type Linear
Relax 1
Linear Equation Solver ICCG
Table 3: Advanced solver parameters for Pressure
Since rotating wall is a source term for momentum equation, false time-step method is used
for solving momentum equations.
U-Velocity
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Flux Limiter Van Leer Smooth
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relaxation Type False Time Step
Relax 0.01
Linear Equation Solver CGSTAB
Table 4: Advanced solver parameters for U-Velocity
V-Velocity
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.01
Table 5: Advanced solver parameters for V-Velocity
7
This is a 2D case. Momentum equation in Z direction is not solved. For variable ‘W-
Velocity’ give (MAXIT = 0).
This is isothermal case. Energy equation is not solved. For variable ‘Temperature’ give
(MAXIT = 0).
Execution Control data is as follows,
Simulation End Cycle 2000

Result Dump Cycle 1000
Result Dump Overwrite Cycle 500
Restart Dump Cycle 0
Restart Dump Overwrite Cycle 0
Trace Dump Cycle 1
Table 6: Execution control data
7. Results and Discussion

Analytical solution is available for steady, laminar flow between two rotating cylinders [1].
Fig.3 and Fig. 4 show comparison of results obtained from FLUIDYN-MP with analytical
solution.
Tangential Velocity vs Radius
0.035
0.030
0.025
Tangential Velocity (m/s)
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.040
Radius (m)
ANALYT ICAL MP
Fig.3: Comparison of computed Tangential velocity with analytical solution
8
Pressure vs Radius
0.100
0.090
0.080
Pressure (Pa) 0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.040
Radius (m)
ANALYT ICAL MP
Fig. 4: Comparison of computed Pressure with analytical solution
Results obtained for flow between concentric rotating cylinders, using FLUIDYN-MP
compares well with the analytical solution for laminar, non-periodic flows. It is found that
higher order convection schemes are required to reduce the discretization errors.
8. References
1. White, F.M., VISCOUS FLUID FLOW, Section 3-2.3 to Section 3-2.4, Pg. Nos. 110-
114, McGraw-Hill International Editions, Second Edition – 1991.
2. Hua-Shu Dou, Boo Cheong Khoo, and Khoon Seng Yeo, Instability of Taylor-Couette
Flow between Concentric Rotating Cylinders, Table 2.
9
MPV_F002: Swirling Flow between Two Concentric

Rotating Cylinders using Rotational Cyclic Boundary
Condition
(Laminar, non-Periodic Taylor-Couette Flow)
1. Introduction
Swirling flow between two concentric rotating cylinders is known as ‘Taylor-Couette’ flow.
Such flow has significant importance in chemical, nuclear industry. When the flow is steady,
laminar; we can have the exact solution of Navier-Stokes equations for Taylor-Couette flow
[1]. The objective of this study is to validate results from FLUIDYN-USERMPS using
rotational cyclic boundary condition against analytical solution for laminar Taylor-Couette
flow.
2. Physical Problem
10
In present case, computational domain consists of 90o sector of the total geometry as shown
in Fig. 1. Considering only inner cylinder is rotating, Reynolds number can be defined based
on radial gap between two concentric cylinders and tangential velocity at inner cylinder.
Critical Reynolds number, which determines nature of the flow i.e. whether laminar or
turbulent is specific to the geometry and fluid in consideration. Since exact solution of
Navier-Stokes equations for Taylor-Couette flow is valid only for laminar flows [1], we have
to restrict flow in laminar regime. Geometric parameters, fluid properties, boundary
conditions are taken from reference [2].

Domain description:
Radius of inner cylinder (r1) = 0.03 m
Radius of outer cylinder (r2) = 0.04035 m
90o sector is considered for simulation because of rotational cyclic condition. Only one
element is considered along the length of cylinders, because of the symmetry. To capture
accurate results near walls, fine mesh is created near walls using power law technique
available in meshing software FLUIDYN-CADGEN. Fig. 2 shows mesh variation along the
radius. Total 4920 hexahedral elements are used for the simulation.
Fig. 2: Mesh variation along the radius


Angular velocity of inner cylinder wall (w1) =1 rad/s
11
Reynolds number = (ρ*(r1* w1)*(r2-r1))/(µ)

= (1000*(0.03*1)*(0.04035-0.03))/(0.1)
= 3.105
(Re)critical = 95 [2]
Note:
in the calculation.
Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group SYM1) and

maximum (boundary face group SYM2) Z coordinate are assigned ‘Symmetry’

OUTERWALL) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options
No slip
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
3. Boundary faces corresponding to inner cylinder wall (boundary face group

INNERWALL) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options and
values
No slip
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: YES
Axis Pts: (0,0,0)(0,0,1)
Rotation speed: 1
4. Cyclic faces (see Fig. 1) are assigned ‘Symmetry’ boundary condition (boundary face
groups CYC1 and CYC2). Through user-coding these faces are assigned rotational
cyclic boundary condition.
Initial Conditions
Pressure = 0 Pa
12

Fluid solver NSNT - Steady

Accuracy 3rd order
Pressure
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 100
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 1
Since rotating wall is a source term for momentum equation, false time-step method is used
for solving momentum equations.
U-Velocity
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.01
13
V-Velocity
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.01
(MAXIT = 0).

Trace Dump Cycle 1

Analytical solution is available for steady, laminar flow between two rotating cylinders [1].
Fig.3 and Fig. 4 show comparison of results obtained from FLUIDYN-MP with analytical
solution.
14
Tangential Vel ocity vs Radius

0.035
0.030
0.025
Tangential Velocity (m/s)
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.040
Radius (m)
ANALYT ICAL MP
Fig.3: Comparison of computed Tangential velocity with analytical solution
Pressure vs Radius
0.100
0.090
0.080
0.070
Pressure (Pa)
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.040
Radius (m)
ANALYT I CAL MP
Fig. 4: Comparison of computed Pressure with analytical solution
Results obtained for flow between concentric rotating cylinders, using FLUIDYN-MP with
rotational cyclic boundary condition compares well with the analytical solution for laminar,
non-periodic flows. It is found that higher order convection schemes are required to reduce
the discretization errors.
15
8. References
1. White, F.M., VISCOUS FLUID FLOW, Section 3-2.3 to Section 3-2.4, Pg. Nos. 110-
114, McGraw-Hill International Editions, Second Edition – 1991.
2. Hua-Shu Dou, Boo Cheong Khoo, and Khoon Seng Yeo, Instability of Taylor-Couette
Flow between Concentric Rotating Cylinders, Table 2.
16
MPV_F003: Simulation of High Temperature Air Injection

to a Stagnant Atmosphere
1. Introduction
This report presents results of the numerical simulation of an injection problem at low Mach
number regime. Results from MP solver are compared with the numerical case study
performed by Beccantini et al [1] using Gas Flow solver.
Section 7 presents comparison of the numerical solution from MP with that from Beccantini
et al [1] and conclusion. Section 8 gives the list of references.
2. Physical Problem
11
Rectangular
Cavity
11
Opening 11
11
Fig. 1: 2D planar rectangular cavity with opening at the bottom
Fig. 1 shows the set-up [1]. It is 2D planar rectangular cavity with opening at the bottom.
However, in the present simulation, due to the symmetry of the system with respect to z-axis,
17
only half of the region is considered. This 2D planar rectangular cavity is initially filled with
a calorically perfect gas with initial temperature (To) and initial pressure (Po). The same gas is
injected from the bottom part of the cavity. Opening width is (l). The cavity walls are
supposed to be impermeable and adiabatic. The injected flow temperature is (TH); the
momentum shape is parabolic and symmetric with z-axis.

Dimensions are as follows,
L=3m
H=7m
l = 0.2 m
Flow is symmetric about z-axis, hence only a half of the geometry (see Fig. 1) is modeled.
Fine mesh of uniform size (0.0125x0.0583)m is created along the opening area. Coarse mesh
of uniform size (0.0269x0.0583)m is created in remaining region (see Fig. 2). Computational
domain consists of 8160 elements.
Fig. 2: Fine (for opening region) and Coarse mesh in computational domain
18

Material Type Gas - Compressible

Molecular Wt 28.97
EOS Perfect Gas
A transient, viscous, laminar flow is considered.

Boundary Conditions
In the opening region, injection boundary conditions are given by average momentum
(mH), temperature (TH), and pressure (pH).
mH = 1.0 kg/m2.s
TH = 600 K
pH = 100000 Pa
The parabolic profile of the z-velocity (w) at the opening is given by,
w = ((6*mH)/(l2*ρ))*((l2/4)-y) (Eq. 1)
where,
(ρ) is density and (y) is y-coordinate from axis of symmetry.
Eight boundary faces are modeled as opening. Boundary face center value is entered
in Eq.1 and z-velocity is obtained. Face center y-coordinate and corresponding z-
velocity is given in Table 2 below. These eight boundary groups are assigned ‘Vel
Inflow’ boundary condition.
Boundary face group Boundary face center y- z-velocity (m/s)

coordinate (m)
INLET_1 0.00625 2.572947
INLET_2 0.01875 2.492227
INLET_3 0.03125 2.330788
INLET_4 0.04375 2.088628
INLET_5 0.05625 1.765748
INLET_6 0.06875 1.362149
INLET_7 0.08125 0.877829
INLET_8 0.09375 0.31279
Table 2: z-velocity values at opening
19
Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group SYM_X1) and

maximum (boundary face group SYM_X2) x-coordinate are assigned ‘Symmetry’
boundary condition. This boundary condition does not require any input data. Also
boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group SYM_Y1) y-coordinate
are assigned ‘Symmetry’ boundary condition.
Boundary faces corresponding maximum (boundary face group WALL_Z2) z-coordinate,

maximum (boundary face group WALL_Y2) y-coordinate are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary
condition. Also boundary faces corresponding to minimum z-coordinate (excluding
boundary faces corresponding to opening) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with
following options
No slip
ADIABATIC
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
Initial Conditions
Pressure = 100000 (Pa)

Temperature = 300 (K)
Velocity (u,v,w) = (0,0,2) (m/s)

Fluid solver NSNT - EUL – IMP

Convection scheme Upwind
Accuracy -
Flux limiter -
Pressure-Velocity coupling SIMPLE
Density Relaxation Factor 0.3
Time Step 0.001
Maximum No. of Outer Iteration 500
Pressure
Accuracy -
20
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 500
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.3
V-Velocity
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 50
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.3
W-Velocity
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 50
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.3
Table 6: Advanced solver parameters for W-Velocity
Temperature
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 50
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
21

Relax 0.3
Table 7: Advanced solver parameters for Temperature
This is a 2D case. Momentum equation in X direction is not solved. For variable ‘U-Velocity’
MAXIT = 0 is specified.
Simulation End Time 6

Result Dump Frequency 0.5
Result Dump Overwrite Frequency 0.1
Restart Dump Frequency 0
Restart Dump Overwrite Frequency 0
Trace Dump Frequency 0.001

Results obtained from MP at time t = 6 (s) are compared with that from Beccantini et al [1].
W vs z at y = 0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
z (m)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
W (m/s)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 3 : Evolution of z-velocity (W) along line y = 0 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
22
T vs z at y = 0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
z (m)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0
T (K)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 4 : Evolution of temperature (T) along line y = 0 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
V vs z at y = L/4
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
z (m)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
V (m/s)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 5 : Evolution of y-velocity (V) along line y = L/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
23
W vs z at y = L/4
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
z (m)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00
W (m/s)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 6 : Evolution of z-velocity (W) along line y = L/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
T vs z at y = L/4
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
z (m)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
300.0 310.0 320.0 330.0 340.0 350.0 360.0 370.0
T (K)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 7 : Evolution of temperature (T) along line y = L/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
24
V vs y at z = H/4
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
-0.020
V (m/s)
-0.040
-0.060
-0.080
-0.100
-0.120
-0.140
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 8 : Evolution of y-velocity (V) along line z = H/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
W vs y at z = H/4
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
W (m/s)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
-0.5
-1.0
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 9 : Evolution of z-velocity (W) along line z = H/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
25
T vs y at z = H/4
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
T (K)
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 10 : Evolution of temperature (T) along line z = H/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
V vs y at z = H/2
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
V (m/s)
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
-0.35
-0.40
-0.45
-0.50
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 11 : Evolution of y-velocity (V) along line z = H/2 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
26
W vs y at z = H/2
4.5
3.5
W (m/s) 2.5
1.5
0.5
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
-0.5
-1.5
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 12 : Evolution of z-velocity (W) along line z = H/2 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
T vs y at z = H/2
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
T (K)
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 13 : Evolution of temperature (T) along line z = H/2 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
27
V vs y at z = 3H/4
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
-0.05
-0.15
V (m/s)
-0.25
-0.35
-0.45
-0.55
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 14 : Evolution of y-velocity (V) along line z = 3H/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
W vs y at z = 3H/4
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
W (m/s)
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 15 : Evolution of z-velocity (W) along line z = 3H/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
28
T vs y at z = 3H/4
380.0
370.0
360.0
350.0
T (K)
340.0
330.0
320.0
310.0
300.0
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
y (m)
Beccantini et al MP
Fig. 16 : Evolution of temperature (T) along line z = 3H/4 (m) at time t = 6 (s)
The results from MP simulation are in good comparison with the numerical results from Gas
Flow solver [1].
8. References
1. Beccantini, A., Studer, E., Gounand, S., Magnaud, J.P., Kloczko, T., and Corre, C.,
“Numerical simulation of an injection problem at low Mach number regime”,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2000, 00:1-6.
29
MPV_F004: Flow in a Lid Driven Square Cavity
1. Introduction
The laminar incompressible flow in a square cavity whose top wall moves with a uniform
velocity in its own plane has served over and over again as a model problem for testing and
evaluating numerical techniques, in spite of the singularities at two of its corners [1]. This
report presents results of the numerical simulation of flow in a lid driven square cavity using
MP. Results from MP solver are compared with those obtained by Ghia et al [1].
gives boundary and initial conditions. Section 6 gives solution schemes and solver parameters
used. Section 7 presents comparison of numerical solution from MP with simulation results
from Ghia et al [1] and conclusion. Section 8 gives the list of references.
2. Physical Problem
Fig. 1: 2D Lid driven square cavity
30
Fig. 1 shows the problem set-up. It is a 2D square cavity with top horizontal wall moving
with some velocity and all other walls are stationary. Flow is steady, viscous, and laminar.
Reynolds number is calculated based on length of side of square cavity and moving wall
velocity.

It is a square cavity with side 0.5 m.
Because of the symmetry of the flow, only one element is modeled in the Z-direction. A
uniform mesh with 128X128 elements is created. Fig. 2 shows computational mesh.
Fig. 2: Mesh in computational domain

Material Type Gas - Incompressible

Density (ρ) Constant 1.1614 (kg/m3)
31
Dynamic Viscosity (µ) Constant 1.846e-5 (Pa.s)

Note:
in the calculation.
A steady, viscous, laminar flow is considered.

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group SYM_Z1) and
maximum (boundary face group SYM_Z2) z-coordinate are assigned ‘Symmetry’
2. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum y-coordinate (boundary face group

STA_WALL_Y1), minimum x-coordinate (boundary face group STA_WALL_X1),
and maximum x-coordinate (boundary face group STA_WALL_X2) are assigned
‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options
No slip
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
3. Boundary faces corresponding to maximum y-coordinate (boundary face group

MOV_WALL_Y2) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options
No slip
Moving Wall : YES

Wall Vel(u,v,w): (0.031789,0,0)
Rotating Wall: NO
Initial Conditions
Pressure = 0 (Pa)


32
Accuracy 3rd Order

Pressure
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 50
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.001
Relax 0.5
U-Velocity
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.001
Relax 0.8
V-Velocity
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
33
SOR 0.001
Relax 0.8
Velocity’ MAXIT = 0 is specified.
This is isothermal case. Energy equation is not solved. For variable ‘Temperature’ MAXIT =
0 is specified.

Trace Dump Cycle 1

Non-dimensional horizontal velocity (U+) along the non-dimensional vertical distance (Y+)
through geometric center and non-dimensional vertical velocity (V+) along the non-
dimensional horizontal distance (X+) through geometric center are compared. Comparison is
as follows,
34
Y+ vs U+
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
Y+
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
-0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000
U+
Ghia et al MP
Fig. 3: Comparison of U+ for Re = 1000
V+ vs X+
0.600
0.400
0.200
V+
0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000
-0.200
-0.400
-0.600
X+
Ghia et al MP
Fig. 4: Comparison of V+ for Re = 1000
Results from MP solver are in good comparison with results from Ghia et al.
8. References
1. U. Ghia, K. N. Ghia, and C. T. Shin, “High-Re Solutions for Incompressible Flow Using
the Navier-Stokes Equations and a Multigrid Method”, Journal Of Computational
Physics 48, 387-411 (1982).
35
MPV_F005: Natural Convection of Air in a Square Cavity

1. Introduction
This report describes the calculation, using Fluidyn-MP, of the natural convection flow of a
Boussinesq fluid in a square cavity at different Rayleigh numbers. The results are compared
with those obtained by Davis et al. [1].
Section 2 and 3 describe the problem description and the geometry and computational mesh,
respectively. Section 4 gives the material properties and configuration used. Section 5
describes the boundary and initial conditions and Section 6 describes the solver settings used
for the numerical solution. The results and discussion and references mentioned are given in
Section 7 and Section 8, respectively.
2. Problem Description
This is a steady, two-dimensional problem for the viscous flow of a fluid in a square cavity
with differentially heated sidewalls and adiabatic top and bottom walls. The effect of
temperature variation is that density variation interacting with gravity produces a body force
that may modify the flow considerably and may be the principal driving force in the flow.
This is called the buoyancy-driven or natural convection flow. In this study, we calculate the
flow-field and temperature distribution for different values of Rayleigh numbers (Ra = 10E3,
10E4, 10E5 and 10E6). Comparisons are made with the results given in Ref [1]. Figure 1
shows a schematic of the geometry.
Figure1: Problem Description

The geometry is shown in Fig.1. Two meshes have been used, 40×40 uniform mesh (Figure2)
and 80×80 uniform mesh (Figure3). The former was used for Ra = 103 and 104, while the
latter was used for Ra = 105 and 106.
36
Figure2: Uniform Mesh (40×40)
Figure3: Uniform Mesh (80×80)
4. Material Properties and Configuration.

The flow is laminar and viscous and Boussinesq approximation is used to calculate the
buoyancy. The properties and wall temperatures are chosen such that the required Rayleigh is
obtained. Gravity is chosen in the opposite to Y-direction. All the units are mentioned in SI
units.
Cp 1007 (J/kg.K)
37
ρ 1.1614 (kg/m3)
Pr 0.71
µ 1.846x10-5 (Pa.s)
T0 300 (K) (Reference temperature)
β 2.9017x10-09 (K-1) (Expansion coefficient)
Table 1: Properties of fluid.
Table. 1 shows the properties used for the Ra=103 and to get the other Raleigh numbers
simply changed the expansion coefficient without changing any other conditions.

Figure 1 shows different boundary surfaces. Since the flow is two-dimensional in x-y
plane, the z-surfaces have been assigned the symmetry boundary condition. Rest of the
four surfaces (Top, bottom, left and Right) is static and non-rotating with no slip
boundary condition. The left and right walls are isothermal with the former at a higher
temperature and are at 400K and 300K respectively. The top and bottom walls are
adiabatic.
Initial pressure of the fluid is 0 bar and 0.01, 0, 0 m/s for the three components of velocity
respectively. Initial fluid temperature was equal to the cold wall temperature.
6. Numerical Schemes and Solver Parameters

Convective fluxes across the control volume faces were calculated using TVD (with
different flux limiters). Table. 2 show the different limiters used for different Rayleigh
numbers. The results obtained from TVD schemes were found to be in better proximity
with the Ref [1]. Pressure equation was under-relaxed with a relaxation factor of 0.5 and
relaxation factors of 0.8 and 1.0 were used for velocity solution and temperature
solution, respectively.
Ra Best Convection Scheme

3
10 TVD (3RD order, Van Albada Limiter)
104 TVD (3RD order, SuperBee Limiter)
5
10 TVD (3RD order, MinMod Limiter)
106 TVD (3RD order, MinMod Limiter)
Table 2: Flux limiters used for Raleigh numbers

The following results have been compared with Ref [1] for different Rayleigh numbers.
a) Maximum U-Velocity and its location on a Vertical Line passing through the
Geometric Centre of Cavity. (U-max)
b) Maximum V-Velocity and its location on a Horizontal Line passing through the
Geometric Centre of Cavity. (V-max)
c) Average Nusselt Number throughout the cavity. (Nu-avg)
38
d) Average Nusselt Number on the vertical plane passing through the geometric center
of cavity. (Nu-1/2)
e) Average Nusselt Number on the left plane (x = 0) (Nu-0)
f) Maximum Nusselt Number on the left plane (x = 0) and its location. (Nu0-max)
g) Minimum Nusselt Number on the left plane (x = 0) and its location (Nu0-min)
Methodology Used for each Ra

1. Calculation of U-max and V-max for various Convection Schemes
2. Calculation of other parameters (c to g) for the above convection scheme. All
the Nusselt Numbers have been calculated by using Simpson’s Rule of Numerical
Integration.
7.1 Ra = 103
U-max V-max Nu0-max Nu0-min

Nu-avg Nu-1/2 Nu-0
y x y y
3.634 3.679 1.116 1.117 1.116 1.501 0.694

Ref [1]
Location 0.813 0.179 - - - - -
3.613 3.668 1.121 1.124 1.108 1.509 0.691

Present Study
Location 0.825 0.175 - - - - -
3
Table 3: Comparison of present study with Davis [1] for Ra=10
Figure 4: Temperature contour plot Figure 5: Velocity vectors plot
39
7.2 Ra = 104
U-max V-max Nu-avg Nu-1/2 Nu-0 Nu0-max Nu0-min
y x y y
Ref [1] 16.182 19.509 2.234 2.235 2.242 3.545 0.592

Location 0.823 0.12 - - - - -
Present Study 15.919 19.188 2.2656 2.2766 2.208 3.571 0.577

Location 0.825 0.125 - - - - -
Figure 6: Temperature contour plot Figure 7: Velocity vectors plot
7.3 Ra = 105
U-max V-max Nu-avg Nu-1/2 Nu-0 Nu0-max Nu0-min
y x y y
Ref [1] 34.81 68.22 4.51 4.512 4.523 7.761 0.736

Location 0.855 0.066 - - - - -
Present Study 34.403 67.730 4.5527 4.545 4.490 7.800 0.719

Location 0.85 0.0625 - - - - -
40
Figure 8: Temperature contour plot Figure 9: Velocity vector plot
7.4 Ra = 106
Nu-avg Nu-1/2 Nu-0 Nu0-max Nu0-min

U-max V-max
y x y y
65.33 216.75 8.798 8.816 8.928 18.076 1.005

Ref [1]
Location 0.851 0.0387 - - - - -
Present
63.307 215.556 8.993 8.976 9.012 18.641 0.954
Study
Location 0.85 0.0375 - - - - -
41
Figure 10: Temperature contour plot Figure11: Velocity vectors plot
It should be noted that the values given in Ref [1] are obtained from a 4th order polynomial
curve fitting, where as the values obtained in the present studies are the non-interpolated mesh
point values. This is the major source of error, both for the parameter values and their
corresponding locations. Though the results given in Table 3 to 6 shows good agreement with
Davis [1].
8. References
1. G DE Vahl Davis, “Natural Convection of air in a square cavity: A Bench Mark Numerical
Solution”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol 3, pp 249-264
(1983).
42
MPV_F006: Radiative Heat Transfer in a Square Cavity

with Natural Convection
1. Introduction
This report describes the calculation, using Fluidyn-MP, the effect of radiative heat transfer
along with natural convection of viscous fluid for a two dimensional square cavity. The
radiative heat transfer plays a crucial role when the temperatures are high, like furnaces
where the temperature can be 1000 K to 3000 K. Results from Fluidyn-MP are compared
with that from Fluent.
Section 2 and 3 describe the physical problem and the geometry and computational mesh,
describes the boundary and initial conditions and Section 6 describes the numerical scheme
and solver parameters used for the numerical solution. The results and their discussions are
dealt with in Section 7.
This is a steady, two-dimensional, viscous flow of a fluid in a square cavity with
differentially heated sidewalls and adiabatic top and bottom walls. The effect of radiation and
buoyancy is also considered. In this study, we calculate the flow-field and temperature
distribution for different values of absorptivity values of 0.2 and 5. Comparisons are made
with the results obtained by Fluent using discrete ordinate model. Figure 1 shows a
schematic of the geometry.
Figure1: Problem description

Geometry is shown in Fig. 1. In order to solve the present case a two-dimensional 50X50
non-uniform mesh is used in the x-z directions and one cell is considered in the y-direction.
Figure. 2 show the mesh used for the solving the problem considered.
43
Figure2: Non-Uniform Mesh (50×50)

The flow is laminar and viscous and Boussinesq approximation is used to calculate
the buoyancy. The properties and wall temperatures are chosen such that the required
Ra is obtained. Gravity is chosen in the opposite to z-direction and all the units are
chosen in SI units.
Cp 11030 (J/kg.K)
ρ 1000 (kg/m3)
Pr 0.71
µ 1.0x10-3 (Pa.s)
T0 1500 (K) (Reference temperature)
β 1.0x10-05 (K-1) (Expansion coefficient)
Ka 0.2 (absorbivity)
(0,0, -6.96X10-05) (m/s2) Gravity vector
Table. 1 shows the properties used for the present study and Ka=5 considered for the
case keeping all the remaining parameters constant. All the walls are considered black.

Figure 1 shows different boundary surfaces. Since the flow is two-dimensional in x-z
plane, the y-surfaces have been assigned the symmetry boundary condition. Rest of the
four surfaces (Top, bottom, left and Right) is static and non-rotatory with no slip
boundary condition. The left and right walls are isothermal with the former at a lower
44
temperature and are at 1000K and 2000K respectively. The top and bottom walls are
adiabatic.
Initial pressure and temperatures of the fluid in the domain are initialized as 0 bar, 0K
and 1.0X10-08, 0, 0 m/s for the three components of velocity respectively.

Convective fluxes across the control volume faces were calculated using upwind scheme for
all the variables. Pressure equation was under-relaxed with a relaxation factor of 0.1 and
relaxation factors of 0.8 and 0.9 were used for velocity solution and temperature solution,
respectively. For radiation relaxation factor of 1 provided.

The results obtained by Fluidyn-MP are compared with the Fluent. In order to make
comparison the velocity in the z-direction (Vz) is taken along the x-direction at z=0.5. Figure
3 and 4 shows the velocity for the absorptivity (Ka=) 0.2 and 5 respectively. The results are
in good agreement with Fluent.
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
Velocity
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.0001 Fluent Data

Present Data
-0.0002
-0.0003
Distance
Figure3: Velocity (Vz) along the x-direction for Ka=0.2
45
5.E-04
4.E-04
3.E-04
2.E-04
1.E-04
Velocity
0.E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1.E-04
-2.E-04
Fluent Data
-3.E-04 Present Data
-4.E-04
-5.E-04
Distance
Figure4: Velocity (Vz) along the x-direction for Ka=5
46
MPV_F007: Turbulent Boundary Layer Over a Flat Plate
1. Introduction
In this case, turbulent boundary layer over flat plate is solved for zero pressure gradient using
K- ε model. Skin friction coefficient values obtained by K- ε model are compared with the
empirical White’s relation [1].
Section 2 describes the problem description. Section 3 gives the geometry and mesh.
Section 4 present material properties and flow configuration. Boundary as well as initial
condition has been described at section 5. Section 6 describes the method of solution,
numerical schemes and parameters. Section 7 presents the required numerical results and
plots.
Figure 1. Computational domain for flow over flat plate
The computational domain for flow over flat plate is shown in the Fig 1. It consists of two
zones, first zone having ‘pressure static’ boundary conditions at the top and the symmetry
boundary conditions at the bottom. This zone allows uniform flow at the leading edge. The
second zone contains a no-slip wall at the bottom face (e − f), with a ‘pressure static’
boundary for b − c. The entry length, de is taken as equal to the plate length. Height of the
computational is taken to be 0.3L.
• a - d : inlet • c - f : outlet
• e - f : no-slip wall • d - e : symmetric boundary surface
• a - b and b - c : pressure outflow boundary

Geometry is same as that of the Figure 1. The mesh is shown, as the following Figure 2.
47
Figure 2. Geometry and mesh for the flow over flat plate
Type of mesh Unstructured

Type of element Hexahedral
Number of fluid elements 10935
Number of fluid nodes 22304
Number of Boundary Faces 22302
Table 1 Description of the mesh

The fluid material has been taken as ‘air’ with the following properties
Name of the material Air

Material Type Gas
Dynamic Viscosity Constant 5.0 × 10-6 (Pa.s)
Table 2 Properties of the material, thermal conductivity and the diffusion are not used in the
computation
Flow Configuration: The flow is steady, incompressible, viscous and turbulent.
Turbulence model used: k- ε model.

Turbulence Prandtl number used: 0.92.
Turbulence k- ε model constants:
Cµ = 0.09, Cε1 = 1.44, Cε2 = 1.92, Cε3 = 0, Cεb = 0, σk = 1.0, σε = 1.914,
C1’ = 1.44, C2’ = 1.44, Rec = 122, Lmax = 1.
48

Boundary Conditions:
Referring to Figure 1, the boundary conditions have been applied as following.
• Inlet: Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘a’ and ‘d’ P=0, T=300K, U=1.0 m/s,
V=0, Turbulence K.E = 0.01 Turbulence length scale = 0.11
• Outlet: Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘c’ and ‘f’ P=0, T=300, ρ=1.0 kg/m,
Turbulence K.E =10 -8, Turbulence length scale = 10-8, pressure outflow
• Far field: Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘a’ and ‘c’
P=0, Pressure outflow
• No Slip wall: Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘e’ and ‘f’ No slip (U = V = 0)
and adiabatic condition.
• Symmetric boundary: Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘d’ and ‘e’
• Other two side walls have been given the boundary conditions as ‘symmetric’
one.
Initial Conditions
Initial conditions have been imposed on all fluid elements through the input file “init.dat”.
6. Method of Solution, Numerical Schemes and Parameters

Solution Controls are given in the following tables.
Global Input data for NSNT steady solution:

Convection interpolation scheme Upwind difference scheme
Accuracy ----
Flux limiter ----
Table 3 Global Input data for NSNT steady solution
Solver parameters for Pressure

Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 500
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
49

Relax 0.5
Table 4 Solver parameters for Pressure
Solver parameters for U-Velocity

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
Blending Factor ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.7
Table 5 Solver parameters for U-Velocity
Solver parameters for V-velocity

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.7
Table 6 Solver parameters for V-velocity
Solver parameters for Turbulence parameter ‘k’

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.7
Table 7 Solver parameters for Turbulence parameter ‘k’
50
Solver parameters for Turbulence parameter ‘ε’

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.7
Table 8 Solver parameters for Turbulence parameter ‘ε’
Execution control Parameters

Trace Dump Cycle 0
Table 9 Execution control Parameters

Figure 3 and figure 4 shows the contour of the velocity in ‘x’ and ‘y’ directions respectively
along the symmetry plane.
Figure 5 shows the vector plot where the flow variation can be noted at the surface of the
plate.
Figure 6 shows the contour plot of the turbulent viscosity.
As shown in Fig 7, the skin friction coefficient obtained by Fluidyn-MP is in good agreement
with the result obtained by White’s correlation [1].
51
Figure 3. Contour of velocity in x direction for the flow over a flat plate.
52
Figure 4. Contour of velocity in y direction for the flow over a flat plate.
53
Figure 5. Velocity vector plot for the flow over a flat plate.
54
Figure 6. Contour plot of turbulent viscosity for the flow over a flat plate.
Skin friction over the flat plate
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.014
Skin Friction (Cf)
0.012
MP 5.1.1
0.010
White's Correlation
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Distance from leading edge
Fig. 7. Skin friction verses distance from the leading edge of the flat plate for MP 5.1.1 and
that of Whites correlation function [1]
55
8. References
1. White F.M. “Viscous Fluid Flow”, McGraw-Hill, New York 1974.
56
MPV_F008: Two-Dimensional Turbulent Channel Flow
1. Introduction
In this study a turbulent flow in the 2-D channel is simulated using Fluidyn-MP. The
numerical solution is obtained by using Standard K-ε model and is compared with the Direct
Numerical Simulation (DNS) of Mansour et al [1]. Air is considered as working fluid and
based on this the calculated Reynolds number was found 20000, which is turbulent flow.
Section 2 and 3 describe the problem description and the geometry and computational mesh,
describes the boundary and initial conditions and Section 6 describes the solver settings used
for the numerical solution. The results and discussion and references mentioned are given in
Section 7 and Section 8, respectively.
This is a steady, two-dimensional, viscous, turbulent flow of a fluid in a 50×1 two-
dimensional channel as shown in Fig. 1. The length considered is found to be sufficient for
the flow to be fully developed. The details of geometry are
a-b : inlet c-d : outlet a-c and b-d : no-slip wall
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the 2D-channel

Geometry is shown in Fig.1. In order to resolve steep gradients near the walls non-uniform
mesh, which is clustered near the walls, is taken in the y-direction. Figure 2 shows the mesh
considered for the present case.
57
Figure 2: Non-uniform Mesh

The flow is two-dimensional, viscous and turbulent. Air is taken as working fluid and the
properties are shown in Table 1. The Reynolds number based on channel height is calculated
and found to be 20000, which is much above the critical Reynolds number (≈2300) and
Standard k-ε model is well valid. All the units are mentioned in SI units.
Cp 1007 (J/kg.K)
ρ 1 (kg/m3)
Pr 0.72
µ 5.0x10-5 (Pa.s)

Figure 1 shows different boundary surfaces. Since the flow is two-dimensional in x-y plane,
the z-surfaces have been assigned the symmetry boundary condition. No-slip boundary
condition is applied at the walls (i.e. a-c and b-d as shown in Fig. 1). Velocity of U=1m/s,
V=0m/s, turbulent kinetic energy (Κ)=0.0375 and length scale l=2.635x10-05 is applied at the
inlet (i.e. a-b). Pressure static boundary condition is applied at the outlet (i.e. c-d). Pressure is
given as zero and effective distance as 1.0X1006 and both the turbulent kinetic energy and
length scale is given as 1.0X10-08.
Initial pressure of the fluid in the domain are initialized as 0 bar and 1.0, 0, 0 m/s for the three
components of velocity respectively. The turbulent kinetic energy and length scale are
initialized with 1.0X10-08.

Convective fluxes across the control volume faces were calculated using upwind scheme for
all the variables. Pressure equation was under-relaxed with a relaxation factor of 0.7 and
relaxation factors of 0.5 and 0.4 were used for velocity and turbulent parameters respectively.
58
The results obtained by Fluidyn-MP are compared with DNS solution of Mansour et al. The
U-velocity along the y-direction at the outlet up to center of channel (y/H=0.5, where
H=height of channel) is taken into consideration and the results are good agreement with
DNS solution.
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
Distance(2*y/H )
DNS
0.60
Present Study
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Velocity(U/U c )
Figure 3: Scaling of the mean velocity profile in the outer layer; for the 2-D channel flow
using the standard k-ε model and DNS by Mansour et al [1].
8. References
1. Mansour, N. N., Kim, J. and Moth, P. (1988), "Reynolds Stress and Dissipation Rate
Budgets in Turbulent Channel Flow," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 194, pp. 15-44.
59
MPV_F009: Axis-Symmetric Round Jet
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of numerical simulation of axi-symmetric round free jet. The
main objective of this study is to compute flow properties of turbulent round free jet using
Standard k-ε model and compare with the experimental results. For this purpose the
experimental results of Panchapakesan N.R [1] is considered.
plots.
2.Problem Description
Figure 1. Computational domain for axi-symmetric round jet
The computational domain for the case of axi-symmetric round free jet is as shown in the
Fig.1. An axial length of 3.2m and radial length of 0.96m is taken as considered by Zhou et
al. The vertical wall at the inlet is to limit the computational domain. This wall does not
affect the high velocity turbulent jet of radius 0.000305m emerging from the nozzle, as the
free stream turbulence away from the jet region is negligible. The free boundary is located at
a distance of 0.96m away from the centerline of the jet.
60
Figure 2: Computational geometry and grid adopted for simulation of the axi-symmetric
round jet flow.
The computational geometry and grid adopted for simulation of the axi-symmetric round free
jet flow is shown in Fig 2. Due to large value of the gradients at the inlet domain a fine
meshing is done. Some important details of the mesh are as follows:

Type of element Hexahedral and wedge
Table 1: Description of the mesh.

Material Type Gas
Dynamic Viscosity (µ) Constant 4.32 × 10-4 (Pa.s)
Table 2: Description of the material properties

C1’ = 1.44, C2’ = 1.44, Rec = 122, Lmax = 1.
61

Boundary Conditions
• Inlet: Surface named by ‘inlet’ P=0, T=300K, U=27.0 m/s, V=0, turbulence K.E =
0.0729, Turbulence length scale = 0.00129
-8
• Outlet: Surface named by ‘outlet’ P=0, T=300, turbulence K.E. =10 , Turbulence
length scale =10-8, pressure outflow
• Far field (free stream boundary): Surface defined by ‘free boundary’ P=0, turbulence K.E
=10 -8, Turbulence length scale =10-8, ρ = 1.0, Mach number = 0
• No Slip wall: Surface named by ‘wall boundary’ No slip (U = V = 0) and adiabatic

condition.
Initial Conditions
Initial conditions have been imposed on all fluid elements.
Initial pressure 0 Pa
Initial temperature 300 K
Initial velocity 0.0001 m/s
Turbulent Kinetic energy 10-8
Turbulent length scale 10-8
Table 3: Initialization parameters for the solver

Type of flow: Steady state, viscous and turbulent.

Accuracy ----
Flux limiter ----
Number of iterations for gradient 1
62
calculation
Table 4: Global Input data for NSNT steady solution

Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 500
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.7
Table 5: Solver parameters for Pressure

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Table 6: Solver parameters for U-Velocity

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Table 7: Solver parameters for V-velocity
Solver parameters for W-Velocity

Accuracy ----
63
Flux Limiter ----

BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Table 8: Solver parameters for W-Velocity

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.4
Table 9: Solver parameters for Turbulence parameter ‘k’

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.4
Table 10: Solver parameters for Turbulence parameter ‘ε’

Trace Dump Cycle 0
Table 11: Execution control Parameters
64

In the Fig.3 the decay of the velocity along the jet axis is compared with the experiments
conducted by Panchapakesan et al[1], where Uj is the jet velocity at exit of the nozzle, Uc is
the centerline velocity in axial direction, D is the diameter of the jet and X is the axial
distance from the exit of the nozzle. Present computations using MP-5.1.1 agree reasonably
well with the experimental results.
High Reynolds number turbulent round jet flow exhibits self similarity beyond X /d = 30. Self
similarity profile of the axial mean velocity at X/d=100 axial location is compared with
previous experimental and computational data as shown in Fig. 5. These plots match well.
The quantity r 1 / 2 represents the radial distance at a particular axial location where the axial
mean velocity becomes half of the centerline mean velocity at the same section.
In round jet flow, r 1/2 increases linearly with the axial distance X. The derivative of the axial
direction gives the so called “spreading rate” of the flow, which is constant and an important
parameter for evaluation of the turbulence models. The spreading rate for the present
computations using the standard k-ε model can be seen in Fig. 4. The MP-solver shows the
linear spreading rate.
14
12
10
8
Uj/Uc
MP-solver
6
Experimental, Panchapakesan et. al
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
X/d
Figure 3 Plot of centerline velocity with respect to the axial distance from the source of the
jet. Experimental results are taken from the work of Panchapakesan et al [1].
65
5
Uj/Uc
MP-solver
4
Experimental, Panchapakesan et. a
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
X/d
Figure 4 Growth of the jet in the axial direction.
1.2
MP-solver
Experimental, Panchapakesan et. al
0.8
0.6
U/Uc
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.2
r/r1/2
Figure 5 Radial variation of speed of the air jet at X/D =100. Experimental results are taken
from the work of Panchapakesan et al[1].
66
8. References
1. Panchapakesan N. R. and Lumley J. L., “Turbulence Measurements in Axi-Symmetric
Jets of air and Helium. Part 1 Air Jet”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 246, pp. 197-
223, 1993.
67
MPV_F010: 2-D Backward Facing Step

1. Introduction
The turbulent flow in the backward facing step is studied numerically using K- ε model and
the results are compared with the Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) results.
plots and comparison with DNS results.
Figure 1. Computational domain for flow over a backward facing step
The computational domain is shown in Fig 1. Here, the step height h = 1, Hd=5,Ls =10,
Le=30 and the origin of the coordinate system is at the corner of the step (d).
In this work the flow over a backward facing step with expansion ratio of 1:2 at a low
Reynolds number of 5100 which is based on the step height and inlet free stream velocity is
considered which has been studied earlier using DNS by Le and Moin [1]. The calculation
domain extends form X/h = -10 to X/h = 30 with the step located at X/h =0 where ‘h’ is the
step height. The channel height is 5h at the inlet and 6h downstream of the step.
Figure 2: Computational geometry and grid adopted for simulation of the 2-D backward
facing step
68
A two dimensional Cartesian grid adopted for simulation of the 2-D backward facing step is
shown in Fig 2. Some important details of the mesh are as follows:

Type of element Hexahedral
Table 1: Description of the mesh

Material Type Gas
Dynamic Viscosity Constant 3.07 × 10-5 (Pa.s)
Table 2 Description of the material properties

C1’ = 1.44, C2’ = 1.44, Rec = 122, Lmax = 1.
5. Boundary Conditions and Initial Conditions

Boundary Conditions
• Inlet: Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘a’ to ‘b’; P=0, T=300K, U = 0.1338
m/s, V = 0, turbulence K.E = 0.0729, Turbulence length scale = 0.00129.
• Outlet: Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘e’ to ‘f’; P=0, T=300, ρ=1.17
kg/m2, turbulence K.E =10 -8, Turbulence length scale =10-8, pressure outflow
• Far field (free boundary): Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘a’ to ‘e’
P=0, Pressure outflow
• No Slip wall: Surface defined by the line joining the points ‘b’, ‘c’, ‘d’, ‘f’; No slip (U =
V = 0) and adiabatic condition.
• Other two side walls have been given the boundary conditions as ‘symmetric’ one.
Initial Conditions
Initial conditions have been imposed on all fluid elements.
69
Initial pressure 0 Pa
Initial temperature 300 K
Initial velocity 0.1338 m/s
Turbulent Kinetic energy 10-8
Turbulent length scale 10-8
Table 3: Initial conditions for some parameters


Accuracy ----
Flux limiter ----
Table 4 Global Input data for NSNT steady solution:

Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 500
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.7
Table 5 Solver parameters for Pressure

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
70
SOR Type Relative

SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Table 6 Solver parameters for U-Velocity

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Table 7 Solver parameters for V-velocity

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 50
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.4
Table 8 Solver parameters for Turbulence parameter ‘k’

Accuracy ----
Flux Limiter ----
BM ---
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
71
Relax 0.4
Table 9 Solver parameters for Turbulence parameter ‘ε’

Trace Dump Cycle 0
Table 10 Execution control Parameters

The velocity which is normalized by the inlet velocity at different downstream locations X/H
= (4, 6,10,15,19) are plotted along y/H direction, that are shown in the figures 3 to figure 7.
The turbulent kinetic energy obtained at different locations at X/H = (4, 6,10,15,19) are
normalized by the square of maximum velocity at the stream-wise locations and plotted along
y/H are shown in figures 8 to figure 12. The values are compared with the DNS results
obtained by Le et al[1].
The MP-5.1.1 results are giving reasonable results with the DNS results.
Velocity profile at X/H = 4
4
MP 5.1.1
y/h
DNS (Le et al.)

3
0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
U/Uref
Figure 3: Normalized Mean Velocity Profile at X/H=4
72
3.5
2.5
MP 5.1.1
y/h
1.5
DNS(Le et al.)
0.5
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-0.5
U/Uref
MP 5.1.1
y/h
3
DNS (Le et al)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-1
U/Uref
Figure 5: Normalized Mean Velocity Profile at X/H=10.
73
4
MP 5.1.1
y/h
DNS (Le et al)

3
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
U/Uref

MP 5.1.1
y/h
3
DNS (Le et al)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-1
U/Uref
74
Turbulent Kinetic energy profile
MP 5.1.1
y/h
3
DNS (Le et al)
0
-0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
-1
K.E./(Uref*Uref)
Figure 8: Normalized Turbulent kinetic energy Profile at X/H=4.

Turbulent kinetic energy profile
4
MP 5.1.1
y/h
DNS (Le et al)

3
0
-0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
K.E./(Uref*Uref)
Figure 9: Normalized Turbulent kinetic energy Profile at X/h=6
75
Turbulent kinetic energy at X/H = 10
4
MP 5.1.1
y/h
DNS (Le et al)

3
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
K.E./(Uref*Uref)
Figure 10: Normalized Turbulent kinetic energy Profile at X/H = 10

Turbulent kinetic energy at X/H = 15
4
MP 5.1.1
y/h
DNS (Le et al)

3
0
-0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
K.E./(Uref*Uref)
Figure 11: Normalized Turbulent kinetic energy Profile at X/H=15
76
Turbulent kinetic energy profile at X/H = 19
4
MP 5.1.1
y/h
DNS (Le et al)

3
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
K.E./(Uref*Uref)
Figure 12: Normalized Turbulent kinetic energy Profile at X/h=19
8. References
1. Le H., Moin P. and Kim J., “Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Flow over a
Backward-Facing Step”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 330, pp. 349-374, 1997.
77
MPV_F011: Flow past a Circular Cylinder
1. Introduction
The present study aims at observing the fluid behavior when a laminar flow passes over a
circular cylinder placed in a narrow channel. The analytical model consists of two-
dimensional incompressible viscous flow past circular cylinder in the narrow channel at low
Reynolds number. The frequency of oscillations of X and Y component of the velocity at a
specified trace point in the flow field is calculated from numerical simulation in Fluidyn-MP
and is compared with that available in Ref. [1].
2. Physical Problem
Fig.1: The basic problem
The system under consideration as shown in Fig.1, consists of a narrow channel of width
W=0.045 m, length L=0.75 m (W<<L), a circular cylinder of diameter D=0.015 m, which is
placed symmetrically at a dimensionless distance of S/D=15 from the entrance of the channel.
A 25% glycerin aqueous solution is used as the fluid with a parabolic inlet velocity profile
with an average velocity at the inlet, Uin=0.032 m/s.
Fig.2: Fluid Domain geometry near the circular cylinder
78
Geometry of the problem for the fluid domain is as shown in Fig.2

Radius of inner cylinder (R1) = 0.0075 m (actual cylinder)
Radius of outer cylinder (R2) = 0.015 m (for meshing purpose)
Edge of the square = channel width = W = 0.045 m (for meshing purpose)
Only one element is considered along the length of cylinder, because of the symmetry. To
capture accurate results near the walls of the circular cylinder, fine mesh is created near walls
using power law technique available in meshing software Fluidyn-CADGEN. Fig. 3 shows
mesh variation around the circular cylinder. In this case total 12400 hexahedral elements are
used.
Fig. 3: Mesh variation around the circular cylinder

Density Constant 1060 (kg/m3)
Dynamic Viscosity Constant 0.0020988
Table 1:Fluid material properties
79
Reynolds Number = (Uin*D)/ ν

= (0.032*0.015)/1.98E-06
= 243
Note:
1). Fluid properties Specific Heat, Thermal Conductivity, and Diffusion Coefficient are not
used in the calculation.

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces perpendicular to the length of the cylinder (that is groups BFZ1 and
BFZ2) are assigned ‘Symmetry’ boundary condition. This boundary condition does
not require any input data.

CYLINDER_BDRY_GRP) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following
options:
No slip
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
3. Boundary faces parallel to the length of the cylinder and perpendicular to the inlet
boundary face (that is groups BFY1 and BFY2) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary
condition with following options:
No slip
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
4. Boundary faces at the inlet of the flow (that is group BFX1) are given a user boundary
condition. The velocity profile at the inlet is made parabolic by writing a user-code
for the same. Average velocity at the inlet is Uin=0.032 m/s.
5. Boundary faces at the exit (that is group BFX2) is given as ‘Pressure static’ boundary
condition with following options:
Pressure Value = 0 Pa
Effective Distance = 1 m
Temperature = 298 K
Initial Conditions
1. First, the simulation is run for the steady case with all other configuration remaining
same. Final steady solution is assigned to all the fluid elements for the transient case
as initial condition.
80
2. Element group named ‘ASYMMETRY’ is made by cutting a section of elements in

XY plane in the downstream of the cylinder and given a zero velocity as an initial
condition. This is done to disturb the flow, which is helpful in the formation and the
shedding of the vortices. Following values are given for this group as initial
condition.
Pressure Value = 0 (Pa)

Velocity (u,v,w) = (1e-10,0,0) (m/s)
Note: Absolute zero velocity is an invalid input to the solver.

Solution control data is as follows,
Fluid solver NSNT - EUL - IMP

Accuracy -
Flux limiter -
Convergence tolerance 1E-006
Pressure
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Flux Limiter SMART
Blending Factor 1.0
BM -
MAXIT 500
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.5
U-Velocity
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Flux Limiter SMART
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 20
81
SOR Type Relative

SOR 0.1
Relax 0.7
V-Velocity
Solution Scheme TVD
Accuracy 3rd Order
Flux Limiter SMART
Blending Factor 1
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.7
(MAXIT = 0).
Time step for the simulation was taken as 0.03 s and Number of Outer Iterations = 35.
Simulation End Time 50.01 s

Result Dump Frequency 0.03 s
Result Dump Overwrite Frequency 0.03 s
Restart Dump Cycle 0s
Restart Dump Overwrite Cycle 0s
Trace Dump Cycle 0.03 s

The results obtained can be viewed in the form of vectors, contours, and XY plots. For the
XY plot, a trace point is given. The trace point is located at a distance of 0.0475 m from the
center of the cylinder in positive x-direction. At the trace point, variables like pressure, X and
Y component of velocity are recorded against time. All the XY plots are shown below.
82
1) XY Plot of X-component of velocity at the fluid trace point
Fig.4: X-component velocity oscillations at the fluid trace point located at a distance of
0.0475m from the center of the cylinder
83
2) XY Plot of Y-component of velocity at the fluid trace point
Fig.5: Y-component velocity oscillations at the fluid trace point located at a distance of
84
3) XY Plot for pressure at the fluid trace point
Fig.6: Pressure oscillations at the fluid trace point located at a distance of

The results as obtained from ref. [1] are tabulated and compared with the computed results in
Table 7.
Variable Vel-X oscillations Vel-Y oscillations
Reference [1] Computed Reference [1] Computed

Amplitude (m/s) 8E-03 3.21E-03 2.88E-02 1.55E-02
Frequency (Hz) 1.386 1.3 0.746 0.649
Table 7: Comparison of frequency and amplitude
The frequencies obtained in the present computation compare well with the computational
results in Ref [1]. However, there is a large difference in the amplitudes of the oscillations
between the computed results. This could be due to the differences in the mesh and the time
step used and is being investigated.
85
8. References
1. Yoshizawa Masatsuga, Sugiura Katsuhisa and Haga Shigenori, Vortex-induced vibration
of a spring-supported cylinder in a narrow channel, “Flow Induced Vibration”, 2000,
pp53-60.
86
MPV_F012: Radiation Heat Transfer in a Cubical Cavity

1. Introduction
This report describes the calculation, using Fluidyn-MP, the effect of radiative heat transfer
in a three-dimensional square cavity is studied. The radiative heat transfer plays a crucial role
when the temperatures are high, like furnaces where the temperature can be 1000K to 3000K.
Section 2 and 3 describe the physical problem and the computational mesh, respectively.
Section 4 gives the physical properties used. Section 5 describes the boundary and initial
conditions and Section 6 describes the numerical schemes and solver parameters used for the
numerical solution. The results and their discussion are dealt with in Section 7.
This is a steady, three-dimensional, radiative heat transfer study of a fluid in a 1×1×1
dimensional cavity as shown in schematic diagram Fig. 1. The effect of convection and
conduction of a fluid in a cavity is neglected. All the walls are considered as isothermal and
Black. Comparisons are made with the results obtained by Phoenix using 6-flux model and
theory.
Figure1: Problem Description

Geometry is shown in Fig 1 and to solve the present case a three-dimensional 10X10X10
uniform mesh is used in all the directions.

The properties used for the present case is shown in Table 1. The emissivity of all the
walls is chosen as one. All the units are in SI units.
87
Cp 0.1
ρ 1
Pr 1.0x10100
µ 1
Ka 1 (absorptivity)

Figure 1 shows different boundary surfaces. No-slip boundary condition is applied on all
the walls. The walls at x=1, y=0 and z=0 are considered as isothermal and temperature is
chosen as 64.8052K and the remaining walls are also considered isothermal and 0K
temperature is applied. All the walls are considered black.
Initial pressure and temperatures of the fluid in the domain are initialized as 0 bar 0K and
1.0X10-08, 0, 0 m/s for the three components of velocity respectively.

Since the effect of convection and conduction is neglected the momentum and pressure
correction is not solved (i.e. the maximum inner iterations are chosen as 0). Upwind
scheme is used for temperature and scalar equations. In order to ensure convergence
‘false time step method’ is chosen as relaxation type for the temperature. Relaxation of
1.0 is provided for temperature and scalar equations.

The results obtained by Fluidyn-MP are compared with the theoretical results by
Grandison et al [1] and Phoenix. In order to make comparison the results are taken
along the x-direction at y=0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 keeping the z=0.5 and are shown in Figure 2,
3 and 4 respectively. The results obtained using Fluidyn-MP are in better agreement
with theoretical results compared to Phoenix using 6-flux model.
88
0.9
0.8
0.7
Emissivity Power (W/m2)
0.6
0.5
0.4
Present Study
0.3 Theory
Phoenics
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Distanc e
Figure2: Emissive power against distance along x-axis for z=0.5; y=0.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
Emissivity Power (W/m )
2
0.5
0.4
Present Study
0.3
Theory
Phoenics
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Distance
89
0.75
0.7
0.65
Emissive power (W/m )
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
Present study
0.4 Theory
Phoenics
0.35
0.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Distanc e
8. References
A.J.Grandison, E.R.Galea and M.K.Patel: “Fire Modelling Standards/Benchmark: Report on
Phase 1 Simulations”, Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, Ref.
home_office_validation/AG/01/2k/Rev 1.0, February 2001.
90
MPV_F013: Fully Developed Turbulent Pipe Flow with

Convective Heat Transfer through Pipe Wall
1. Introduction
The transition Reynolds number for flow through a cylindrical pipe is around 2000-4000. As
a result, most industrial flows are turbulent in nature. Accurate numerical simulations of such
flows would therefore be of great interest to all industries. For turbulent flow through a pipe,
velocity distribution is roughly given by following empirical relation [1].
V r
≈ (1 − )1 / 7
Vmax R
Also, for fully developed turbulent flow in smooth tubes the, following relation is
recommended by Dittus and Boelter [2].
Nu = Re 0.8 Pr N
N = 0.3 for cooling of fluid
The objectives of this study are to validate results from Fluidyn-MP solver against
1. Empirical relation for average velocity for fully developed axis-symmetric
incompressible turbulent pipe flow.
2. Empirical relation for convective heat transfer coefficient.
We also perform a grid refinement study for a converging value of heat flux through the pipe
wall.
Section 7 presents comparison of the numerical solution with empirical solution and
2. Physical Problem
Considering a cylindrical pipe, Reynolds number can be defined based on diameter of the
pipe, velocity of the flow, dynamic viscosity and density of the fluid. Critical Reynolds
number, which determines nature of the flow i.e. whether laminar or turbulent is between
2000 and 4000 for this case. Appropriate length of the cylindrical pipe has been taken to
ensure that the flow is fully developed.
Fluid is at higher temperature than pipe wall.

Domain description:
Radius of cylinder (R) = 0.1 m
Length of cylinder (l) = 10 m
91
Due to the axis-symmetric nature of the flow through a cylindrical pipe, a 2° sector was
considered with only one element in theta direction.
For all simulations, 50 elements were taken along the length of the pipe and 10, 20, 40, 80,
160 elements along the radial direction for each of the 5 simulations. Geometry and mesh
were created in Fluidyn-CADGEN. Since a sector of a cylinder was used, both hexahedral
and wedge elements were used in the mesh.
Fig.1 : Uniform element distribution along the radius of cylindrical pipe

Material Type Gas

Specific Heat 1005 (J/kg-K)
Dynamic Viscosity (µ) Constant 1.85 E-05 (Pa-s)
92
Reynolds number = (ρ*V*D)/(µ)

= (1*1*0.2)/(1.85E-5)
= 10810.81
(Re)critical = 2000-4000.
Thus, a turbulent flow is considered. The k-ε model is used for turbulence modeling. The
turbulent Prandtl number used is 0.9.
Note:
Diffusion coefficient is not used in numerical calculations.

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to wall of the cylinder was assigned ‘Wall’ boundary
condition with following options
No slip
Isothermal Wall: T = 293 K
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
2. Boundary faces corresponding to inlet was assigned the ‘Vel Inflow’ boundary
condition with following options.
Velocity = 1
Velocity DCs = 1/0/0
Pressure = 0
Temperature = 298 K
Turb. KE = 1E-8
Turb. Length Scale = 1E-8
3. Boundary faces corresponding to outlet was assigned the ‘Pressure Static’ boundary
Pressure = 0
Temperature = 298 K
Effective Length = 0
Turb. KE = 1E-8
Turb. Length Scale = 1E-8
4. Remaining (V shaped) non-parallel boundary faces was assigned the ‘Symmetry’

Initial Conditions
Pressure = 0 Pa
93
Velocity (u,v,w) = (0.5,0,0) (m/s)

Temperature = 298 K


Convection scheme UDS
Accuracy -
Flux limiter -
Pressure
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 100
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.7
U-Velocity
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
94
V-Velocity
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
This is an axis-symmetric case. Momentum equation in Z direction need not be solved. For
variable ‘W-Velocity’ (MAXIT = 0) was set.
Temperature
Solution Scheme Gamma Difference
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM 1
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Tke
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 50
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.3
Table 7: Advanced solver parameters for Turbulent KE
Eps
Accuracy -
95
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 50
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.3
Table 8: Advanced solver parameters for ε

Trace Dump Cycle 1
Note:
Advanced solver parameters and execution control data mentioned in above tables were for
case with elements 50x160. For other cases see respective input file for these parameters.
7.1 Velocity ratio comparison
Empirical relation of velocity profile for fully developed axis-symmetric incompressible

turbulent pipe flow is available [1]. Ratio of velocity and maximum velocity was plotted
against radius. Results of the simulation in Fluidyn-MP are in good agreement with empirical
relation.
96
(V/Vmax) vs Radius
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
(V/Vmax)
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120
Radius (m)
Empirical [1] 50x10 50x20 50x40
Fig. 2 : Comparison of velocity ratio for 50x10, 50x20, and 50x40 mesh configuration
(V/Vmax) vs Radius
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
(V/Vmax)
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120
Radius (m)
Empirical [1] 50x80 50x160 50x80 power law
Fig. 3 : Comparison of velocity ratio for 50x80, 50x160, and 50x80(power law) mesh
configuration
97
7.2 Grid refinement study for heat flux and comparison of convective heat transfer coefficient
Number of Divisions Division Length (m) Heat Flow (W)

10 1.00E-02 -5.20E-01
20 5.00E-03 -5.99E-01
40 2.50E-03 -6.72E-01
80 1.25E-03 -7.23E-01
160 6.25E-04 -7.36E-01
Table 10: Grid refinement and heat flux data
(The values of heat flow are for a 2º sector of the wall.)
Heat flow rate vs Number of elements along radius

-0.500
0.000 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000
-0.550
Heat flow rate (W)
-0.600
-0.650
-0.700
-0.750
Number of elements along radius
Grid refinement study
Fig. 4 : Grid refinement plot for heat flow rate
As seen from the plot, the value of heat flow is converging to a constant value -0.74 W. For
this converged value of heat flow through wall, comparison of convective heat transfer
coefficient is as follows,
Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m2.K)

Fluidyn MP Reference [2]
4.24 4.5393
Table 11: Comparison of convective heat transfer coefficient for converged heat flow value
As seen in Table 11, result from Fluidyn MP is in good agreement with the empirical relation.
98
8. References
1. Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E., Lightfoot, E.N.: “Transport Phenomena,” 2nd ed., John Wiley
& Sons (Asia), Pte. Ltd., Singapore, section 5.1, p. 154, 2002.
2. Holman, J.P., White, P.R.S.: “Heat Transfer,” 7th ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Singapore, section 6.2, p. 282, 1990.
99
MPV_F101: Flow over a NACA 0012 Airfoil

1. Introduction
A transonic, and inviscid flow over a NACA 0012 airfoil is studied in this case. Variation
obtained from Fluidyn MP, of coefficient of pressure (Cp) along the lower and upper surface
of the airfoil is compared with that available in Caughey et. al. [1].
2. Physical Problem
Fig. 1 shows domain with enlarged profile of NACA 0012 airfoil.
Fig.1 : Geometry of the problem
Inviscid, compressible air passes over the airfoil with free-stream Mach number 0.8. Airfoil is
symmetric, and an angle of attack is 1.25o.
100

Outer free-stream boundary is at distance six times the chord length of the airfoil.
Airfoil if symmetric about X-axis and nose of airfoil is at origin. Because of symmetry in XY
plane, only one element is created in Z direction. The domain is discretised with 8448
hexahedral elements. 44 elements are created along radial direction of circular domain and
192 elements along circumferential direction. Surrounding region of airfoil has dense mesh as
compared to outer region of the domain.
Fig. 2: 44x192 mesh
The mesh near airfoil is as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3: Mesh around airfoil
101

Material Type Gas - Compressible

Molecular Wt 28.97
EOS Perfect Gas
Gamma 1.4
Thermal Conductivity Const Thermal Cond 0
Dynamic Viscosity Constant 0

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to upper and lower surface of airfoil (i.e. group
AERO_UPPER and group AERO_LOWER) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition
with following options
Free slip
Adiabatic
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
2. Boundary faces corresponding to outer boundary of the domain (i.e. group OUTER)
are assigned the ‘Free Stream’ boundary condition with following options.

Density = 1.225 (kg/m3)
Mach Number = 0.8
Velocity DCs = 0.999762/0.02181149/0
3. Boundary faces corresponding to XY planes at minimum and maximum Z co-ordinate

(i.e. groups SYM1 and SYM2) are assigned ‘Symmetry’ boundary condition. This
boundary condition does not require any input data.
Initial Conditions

Velocity (u,v,w) = (271.587,5.93878,0) (m/s)
102

Fluid solver NSTVD

Convection scheme Van Leer
Accuracy 3rd order
CFL Scale Factor Default -
Time Stepping Global
Simulation End Time 0.1

Trace Dump Frequency 0
Variation of coefficient of pressure along airfoil surface obtained from Fluidyn MP is

compared with ref [1]. Plots of comparison are shown in Fig. 4 and 5. Fig. 6 shows variation
of coefficient of pressure on upper and lower surfaces of airfoil.
103
Variation of coefficient of pressure for airfoil upper surface

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Cp
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
x (m)
Fluidyn MP Caughey and Jameson
Fig. 4 : Comparison of Cp for upper airfoil surface
Variation of coefficient of pressure for airfoil upper surface

1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Cp
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
x (m)
Fluidyn MP Caughey and Jameson
Fig. 5 : Comparison of Cp for lower airfoil surface
104
Variation of coefficient of pressure for airfoil NACA 0012

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Cp
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
x (m)
Lower surface Upper surface
Fig. 6 : Variation of Cp along lower and upper surface of airfoil NACA 0012
Results obtained from Fluidyn MP are in good agreement with the reference values.
However, location of shock at upper surface region is shifted slightly towards left. Iso-Mach
lines are as shown in Fig. 7.
105
Fig. 7 : Iso-Mach lines around airfoil
8. References
1. Caughey, D., Jameson, A., “Development of computational techniques for transonic
flows: An historical perspective”.
106
MPV_F102: Flow over a 4.2% thick circular arc bump

1. Introduction
A transonic and inviscid flow over a smooth bump is studied in this case. Variation obtained
from Fluidyn MP of coefficient of pressure (Cp) along the lower wall of the channel with the
bump is compared with that available in Ref. [1].
2. Physical Problem
The geometry of the channel is as shown below,
Fig.1 : Geometry details of the channel
Inviscid, compressible air enters channel from left at Mach number 0.85 and leaves from
right side.

For Fig. 1,
L=1m
H = 2.073 m
For geometry creation, origin is taken as starting point of the bump. Because of symmetry in
XY plane, only one element is created in Z direction. The domain is discretised with 3200
hexahedral elements. 80 divisions are used for stream-wise direction and 40 divisions are
used for wall normal direction.
107
Fig. 2: 80x40 mesh

Material Type Gas – Compressible

Molecular Wt 28.97
EOS Perfect Gas
Gamma 1.4
Thermal Conductivity Const Thermal Cond 0
Dynamic Viscosity Constant 0

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to upper wall (i.e. group FLU_BFY2) and wall with
bump (i.e. group bc_nwall) are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following
options
No slip
Adiabatic
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
2. Boundary faces corresponding to inlet are assigned the ‘Subinflow’ boundary


Density = 1.225 (kg/m3)
Mach Number = 0.85
Velocity DCs = 1/0/0
108
3. Boundary faces corresponding to outlet are assigned the ‘Suboutflow’ boundary

4. Boundary faces corresponding to XY planes at minimum and maximum Z co-ordinate

(i.e. groups FLU_BFZ1 and FLU_BFZ2) are assigned ‘Symmetry’ boundary
condition. This boundary condition does not require any input data.
Initial Conditions


Fluid solver NSTVD

Convection scheme Van Leer
Accuracy 3rd order
CFL Scale Factor User 2.5975
Time Stepping Global
Simulation End Time 1

Trace Dump Frequency 0
109

Iso-Mach lines are as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3: Iso-Mach lines
The comparison of variation of the coefficient of pressure (Cp) along the lower wall of the
channel with shock fitted simulation of the Ref. [1] is shown in Fig. 4.
110
Variation of coefficient of pressure

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-4 -2 -0.1 0 2 4
-0.2
Cp
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0
x (m)
Fluidyn MP Ref. [1]
Fig. 4: Comparison of Cp
Location of the shock, downstream the bump is predicted accurately. Cp values are in good
agreement with that of Ref. [1].
8. References
1. Rizzi, A.: “Numerical Methods for the Computation of Inviscid Transonic Flows with
Shock Waves – Computation of Rotational Transonic Flow”, GAMM workshop, volume
3, Friedr. Vieweg & Sons Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig, p. 153-166, 1981.
111
MPV_F103: Shock Tube
1. Introduction
A compressible, inviscid flow of a perfect gas inside a shock tube is considered in this
problem. The objective is to validate obtained variation of the density, velocity, and Mach
number with reference [1].
Section 7 presents comparison of the numerical solution with reference [1] and conclusion.
Section 8 gives the list of references.
2. Physical Problem
This is a one dimensional Riemann (shock tube) problem for perfect gas. Density, Mach
number, and pressure vary across the length of the tube. The problem is solved for two
different initial conditions as CASE_A and CASE_D stated in reference [1].

Domain description:
Length of the tube = 14 m
The domain is discretised by using 140 cells with only one element along the width and
thickness of the tube. The domain is divided into two parts at the middle of the tube.
Fig. 2: Mesh variation along the tube length
112

Material Type Gas

Equation of state(EOS) Perfect Gas
Molecular Weight (Mol. Wt.) 28.97
Gamma 1.4
Thermal Conductivity Const Prtl No 0
Diffusion Coefficient Const Thermal 0
Conductivity
Viscosity (µ) Constant laminar 0
Viscosity
A compressible, inviscid, and laminar flow is considered.

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group FLU_BFZ1) and
maximum (boundary face group FLU_BFZ2) Z coordinate are assigned ‘Symmetry’
2. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group FLU_BFX1,

FLU_BFY1) and maximum (boundary face group FLU_BFX2, FLU_BFY2) X & Y
coordinate are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options
Free slip
Adiabatic
Initial Conditions
Initial flow conditions for CASE_A and CASE_D are listed as follows,
Case State Density Energy Velocity

(kg/m3) (m/s)2 (m/s)
CASE_A Left 0.066 7.22e6 1e-5
Right 0.03 1.44e6 1e-5
CASE_D Left 1.0 2.0e6 1e-5

Right 0.01 2.5e5 1e-5
Table 2: Initial Condition

Solution control data is as follows,
113
Fluid solver NSTVD

Solution scheme Van Leer
Accuracy 3rd order
CFL Scale Factor 2.5975
Time stepping Global
CASE_A CASE_D
Simulation End Time 0.003523 0.003232
Result Dump Frequency 0.0017615 0.001616
Result Dump Overwrite Frequency 0 0
Restart Dump Cycle 0 0
Restart Dump Overwrite Cycle 0 0
Trace Dump Cycle 0 0

Density
Fill contours of the density along the tube length for CASE_A and CASE_D are as
seen in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 respectively. Density values for CASE_A and CASE_D
along with the results from Ref [1] are plotted as a function of the tube length; see
Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 respectively. The profile curve obtained from Fluidyn-MP and
reference [1] are in good agreement.
114
Fig 3: Fill contour of Density along the tube length for CASE_A
Density vs Tube length for CAS E A

0.090
0.080
0.070
0.060
Density (kg/m3)
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000
T ube length (m)
reference MP
Fig 4: Comparison of density variation along the tube length for CASE_A
115
Fig 5: Fill contour of Density along the tube length for CASE_D
Density vs Tube length for CAS E D

1.200
1.000
0.800
Density (kg/m3)
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000
T ube length (m)
reference MP
Fig 6: Comparison of density variation along the tube length for CASE_D
116
Velocity
Fill contours of the speed along the tube length for CASE_A and CASE_D are as
seen in Fig. 7 and Fig. 9 respectively. Speed values for both the cases along with the
results from Ref [1] are plotted as a function of the tube length; see Fig. 8 and Fig. 10
respectively. The agreement between Fluidyn-MP results and that of Ref [1] is
excellent.
Fig 7: Fill contour of Speed along the tube length for CASE_A
117
Velocity vs Tube length for CAS E A

1400.000
1200.000
1000.000
800.000
Velocity (m/s)
600.000
400.000
200.000
0.000
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000
-200.000
T ube length (m)
reference MP
Fig 8: Comparison of speed variation along the tube length for CASE_A
Fig 9: Fill contour of Speed along the tube length for CASE_D
118
Velocity vs Tube length for CAS E D

250 0.000
2000 .000
Velocity (m/s) 1500.000
1000.000
500.000
0.000
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000
-500.000
T ube length (m)
reference MP
Fig 10: Comparison of speed variation along the tube length for CASE_D
Mach Number
Fill contours of the Mach number along the tube for CASE_A and CASE_D are as seen in
Fig. 11 and Fig. 13 respectively. The Mach number values for CASE_A and CASE_D along
with the results from Ref [1] are plotted as a function of the tube length; see Fig. 12 and Fig.
14 respectively. The Fluidyn-MP results are in good agreement with that from Ref [1].
119
Fig 11: Fill contour of Mach number along the tube length for CASE_A
Mach number vs Tube length for CAS E A

1.200
1.000
0.800
Mach number
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000
T ube length (m)
reference MP
Fig 12: Comparison of Mach number variation along the tube length for CASE_A
120
Fig 13: Fill contour of Mach number along the tube length for CASE_D
Mach number vs Tube length for CAS E D

3.000
2.500
2.000
Mach number
1.500
1.000 r
0.500
0.000
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000
-0.500
T ube length (m)
reference MP
Fig 14: Comparison of Mach number variation along the tube length for CASE_D
121
8. References
Montagne, J.L., Yee, H.C. and, Vinokur, M.: “Comparative Study of High-Resolution Shock-
Capturing Schemes for a Real Gas”, NASA TM 100004, 1987.
122
MPV_F014: Turbulent Natural Convection in an Enclosed

Tall Cavity
1. Introduction
Natural convection of a Boussinesq fluid in a tall cavity with differentially heated sidewalls at
two different Rayleigh numbers is studied here. Such a flow occurs in airspace in a double-
pane window or in double-wall panels in buildings. The objective is to predict the
temperature variation inside the cavity and to validate the obtained results with the reference
[1].
Section 7 presents comparison of the numerical solution with experimental solution and
2. Physical Problem
A Steady, two-dimensional viscous flow of a fluid in a tall cavity with differentially heated
sidewalls is considered. Due to the effect of temperature difference between the walls, the
fluid density varies. Varying fluid density on interaction with gravity produces body forces,
which acts as principal driving force. The flow due to this force is known as Buoyancy-driven
123
or Natural convection flow. In this study, we calculate the temperature distribution for
different values of Rayleigh numbers (0.86E+06 & 1.43E+06). Under these conditions the
flow in the core of the cavity is fully turbulent and property variations with the temperature
are comparatively small. The results are validated with the experimental values of reference
[1].

Domain description:
Height of the Cavity = 2.18 m
Width of the Cavity = 0.076 m
Depth of the Cavity = 1.0 m
Only one element is considered along the depth of cavity, because of the symmetry. Total
10000 hexahedral elements are used for the simulation. Fig. 2 shows a zoomed view to give a
clear portray of the mesh.
Fig. 2: Zoomed view of the mesh

Material Type Incompressible Gas

124
Density (ρ) Constant 1.0 (kg/ m3)

Dynamic Viscosity (µ) Constant 1E-05 (Pa.s)
The flow is considered as steady, two-dimensional, viscous, and turbulent flow. The
Boussinesq equation is used for solving gravity forces and Standard k-epsilon model is used
for solving turbulence. The parameters for Boussinesq model and k-epsilon standard model
are shown in the following tables.
Gravity vector (0, -9.81, 0) m/s2

Reference Temperature 273 K
Expansion Co-efficient 1.415E-03 1/K
Table 2: Parameters for Boussinesq model
Cµ σk σε C1ε C2ε C3 Cb Lmax

0.09 1.0 1.314 1.44 1.92 0 0 10
Table 3: Parameters for k-epsilon standard model

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group FLU_BFZ1) and
maximum (boundary face group FLU_BFZ2) Z coordinate are assigned ‘Symmetry’
2. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group FLU_BFY1) and

maximum (boundary face group FLU_BFY2) Y coordinate are assigned ‘Wall’
boundary condition with following options
No slip
Adiabatic Wall
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
3. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group FLU_BFX1) X

coordinate are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options and values
No slip
Isothermal Wall: Value: 288.1K
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
4. Boundary faces corresponding to maximum (boundary face group FLU_BFX2) X

coordinate are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options and values
No slip
125
Isothermal Wall: Value: 307.7 K (for Rayleigh number 0.86E+06)

328.0 K (for Rayleigh number 1.43E+06)
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
Initial Conditions
Pressure =0 (Pa)
Temperature = 288.1 (K)
Velocity (u,v,w) = (1E-05,0,0) (m/s)
Turbulent KE = 1E-05 (m2/s2)
Turb Len Scale = 1E-05 (m)


Accuracy 3rd order
Pressure
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 50
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.7
.
U-Velocity
126
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
V-Velocity
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
This is a 2D case and Momentum equation in Z direction is not solved. Hence the MAXIT for
W-Velocity is 0.
W-Velocity
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 0
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Table 8: Advanced solver parameters for W-Velocity
Temperature
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
127
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.01
Relax 0.5
Turbulent KE
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Table 10: Advanced solver parameters for Turbulent KE
Turbulent eps
Accuracy -
Flux Limiter -
Blending Factor -
BM -
MAXIT 20
SOR Type Relative
SOR 0.1
Relax 0.5
Table 11: Advanced solver parameters for Turbulent eps

Trace Dump Cycle 1
128

The Rayleigh number is calculated using the following formula:
Ra = (g∆TβW3)/(να)
Where,
g - Acceleration due to gravity
∆T - Temperature differential
β - Thermal expansion coefficient
W - Width of the plate
ν - Kinematic viscosity
α - Thermal diffusivity.
The Rayleigh number calculated using above mentioned formula for ∆T = 39.9 is 1.75E+06
and in reference [1] the Rayleigh number is mentioned as 1.43E+06 for the same ∆T. The MP
results for ∆T = 39.9 are matching with experimental values.
CASE_A (Rayleigh number = 0.86 E+06):
The temperature variations along the width (X-direction of domain geometry) of the cavity at
various heights (Y-direction of the domain geometry) are plotted with the experimental
values from reference [1] in the following figures. The results are in good agreement with the
experimental results.
Rayleigh Number = 0.86E+06
36.000
32.000
28.000
Temperature (C)
24.000
20.000
16.000
12.000
0.000 0.016 0.032 0.048 0.064 0.080
X Distance (m)
exp y/H=0.05 MP y/H=0.05 exp y/H=0.1
MP y/H=0.1 exp y/H=0.3 MP y/H=0.3
Fig 3: Temperature variation for Rayleigh number = 0.86E+06
129

36.000
32.000
28.000
Temperature (C)
24.000
20.000
16.00 0
12.0 00
0.000 0.016 0.032 0 .04 8 0.064 0.080
X Distance (m)
exp y/H=0.5 MP y/H=0.5


36.00 0
32.0 0 0
28.000
Temperature (C)
24.000
20.000
16.0 0 0
12.000
0.000 0.016 0.032 0.048 0.064 0.080
X Distance (m)
exp y/H=0.7 MP y/H=0.7 exp y/H=0.95 MP y/H=0.95
Fig 5: Temperature Variation for Rayleigh number = 0.86E+06
130
CASE_B (Rayleigh number = 1.43 E+06):

The results are in good agreement with the experimental results.
Rayleig h Number = 1.43E+06

56.000
48.000
40.000
Temperature (C)
32.000
24.0 00
16.000
8.00 0
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080
X Dist ance (m)
exp y/H=0.05 MP y/H=0.05 exp y/H=0.1
MP y/H=0.1 exp y/H=0.3 MP y/H=0.3
131

56.000
49.000
42.000
Temperature (C)
35.000
28.000
21.000
14.000
0.000 0.016 0.032 0.048 0.064 0.080
X Distance (m)
exp y/H=0.5 MP y/H=0.5

63.000
56.000
49.000
Temperature (C)
42.000
35.000
28.000
21.000
14.000
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080
X Distance (m)
exp y/H=0.7 MP y/H=0.7 exp y/H=0.95 MP y/H=0.95
132
8. References
1. Betts, P.L., Bokhari, I.H., “Experiments on turbulent natural convection in an
enclosed tall cavity”, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 21, 675-683
(2000).
133
MPV_F015: Axis-symmetric Countercurrent Flow

1. Introduction
A laminar, incompressible countercurrent flow is simulated. Fluids are immiscible. The
objective is to study the hydrodynamic behavior of the two fluids viz. water and air, and
compare computed fully developed velocity profile with the analytical solution.
and the mesh created. Section 4 gives the material properties and the flow configuration.
Section 5 gives the boundary and initial conditions. Section 6 gives the solution schemes and
parameters used. Section 7 presents the comparison of the numerical solution with the
analytical solution and conclusion. Section 8 gives the list of references.
2. Physical Problem
Fig. 1: Domain geometry

Geometry considered for the study of axis-symmetric countercurrent flow is a sector of angle
θ = 5o as shown in the figure above.

Domain description:
Height of the domain = 1.0 m
134
Width of the domain (Radius of the tube) = 0.01 m

Width of gas domain = 0.0097 m
Width of liquid domain = 0.0003 m
Mesh description:
- 1000 cells along the height of the tube (Z axis direction)

- 42 cells in radial (X axis) direction for gas
- 8 cells in radial (X axis) direction for liquid
- Only one element is considered along the circumference of the tube.
Fig. 2 shows the mesh used for the simulation.
Fig. 2: Mesh variation along the radial direction

AIR:
Material Type Incompressible Gas
Dynamic Viscosity (µ) Constant 1.7E-05 (Pa.s)
Table 1: Material properties of air
WATER:
Specific heat 4187 (J/kg.K)
135

Dynamic Viscosity (µ) Constant 1.0E-03 (Pa.s)
Table 2: Material properties of water
Surface tension coefficient = 1.807e-2 N-m

Contact angle = 55o
The flow is steady, axis-symmetric, viscous, and laminar.
A passive scalar ‘MARK’ is defined. ‘MARK’ is used for defining initial flow fields for air
and water. Variable ‘MARK’ is not solved in this case.

Boundary Conditions
1. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum and maximum (boundary face group
SYMMETRY) Y coordinate are assigned ‘Symmetry’ boundary condition. This
boundary condition does not require any input data.
2. Boundary faces corresponding to maximum (boundary face group WALL) X

coordinate are assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options
No slip
Adiabatic Wall
Moving Wall NO
Rotating Wall NO
Scalars flux 0
Table 3: Details of ‘Wall’ boundary condition
3. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum Z coordinate have two boundary

conditions ‘Vel Inflow’ and ‘Pressure Static’ for air inlet and water outlet respectively
with following options and values
Vel Inflow Pressure Static

Pressure 0 (Pa) Pressure 0 (Pa)
Temperature 300 (K) Effective distance 1e+06 (m)
Flow velocity 0.497 (m/s) Temperature 300 (K)
Velocity DC’s (0,0,1) (m/s) Scalars value 1
Scalars value 0 - -
Table 4: Boundary conditions at minimum Z coordinate
4. Boundary faces corresponding to maximum Z coordinate have two boundary

conditions ‘Vel Inflow’ and ‘Pressure Static’ for water inlet and air outlet with
following options and values
Vel Inflow Pressure Static

Pressure 0 (Pa) Pressure 0 (Pa)
136
Temperature 300 (K) Effective distance 1e+06 (m)

Flow velocity 0.2879 (m/s) Temperature 300 (K)
Velocity DC’s (0,0,-1) (m/s) Scalars value 1
Scalars value 0
Table 5: Boundary conditions at maximum Z coordinate
Initial Conditions
Flow fields are initialized separately for both the element groups AIR and WATER,
AIR
Pressure =0 (Pa)
Velocity (u, v, w) = (0,0,0.497) (m/s)
Scalars value =0
WATER
Pressure =0 (Pa)
Velocity (u, v, w) = (0,0, -0.2879) (m/s)
Scalars value =1


Accuracy 1st order
Pressure-Velocity coupling SIMPLE

Variables Pressure U-Velocity W-Velocity
Solution Scheme Upwind Upwind Upwind
Accuracy - - -
Flux Limiter - - -
Blending Factor - - -
BM - - -
MAXIT 500 20 20
SOR Type Relative Relative Relative
SOR 0.01 0.01 0.01
Relaxation Type Linear Linear Linear
137
Relax 0.6 0.6 0.6

Linear Equation ICCG CGSTAB CGSTAB
Solver
Table 7: Advanced solver parameters
This is a 2D case in ZX plane hence the MAXIT for V-Velocity is 0. The free surface of the
liquid is indicated by a scalar called ‘MARK’. The fluids are immiscible. MAXIT for scalar
‘MARK’ is set to 0.

Trace Dump Cycle 200

Velocity vector plot:
The results are obtained after the 1000 cycles. With a mass imbalance of 0.74% and 0.15%
for air and water respectively. The W-velocity vectors in ZX plane are as seen in Fig. 3
below. The W-velocity vectors along the line varying from ‘x = 0’ m to maximum of ‘x’
value at a height of 0.05 m are as seen in Fig. 4 below.
138
Fig. 3: W-Velocity vector plot
Fig. 4: W-Velocity vector plot at z = 0.5 m
139
Pressure contour plot:
The pressure contour field in the ZX plane is as seen in Fig. 5 below,
Fig. 5: Pressure contour plot in ZX plane
Velocity profile comparison:
The numerically computed velocity profile along the radius of the tube is compared with
analytical solution.
The analytical formulae from reference [1] for liquid and gas velocity profiles are:
ul ( r ) = βl R2 [ (r/R)2 – 1)]/4µl + K1 ln (r/R)

ug ( r ) = βg R2 [ (r/R)2 – δ2)]/4µg + K2
where,
βl = ρlg + ∆Pf /H, βg = ρgg + ∆Pf /H
Kl = (βl - βg)(δR) 2/ 2µl , K2 = -βlR2(δ2-1)/4µl + K1lnδ
δ = ri/R
ri = gas radius (0.0097 m)
R = radius of tube (0.01 m)
140
Vel Z vs Radius
1.5
1.0
Vel Z (m/s)
0.5
0.0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
-0.5
Radius (m)
ANALYT ICAL MP
Fig. 6: Comparison of W-Velocity profile along the radius
As seen in Fig. 6, computed profile deviates from analytical solution near the center of the
tube. Pressure drop from simulation is 15.27 Pa.
8. References
1. Lebens et al, “Hydrodynamic behavior of Countercurrent Gas-Liquid Flow in the
Channels of an Internally Finned Monolith”.
141
MPV_F201: Detonation of H2-O2 mixture in fully confined

volume
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of numerical simulations of the detonation of mixtures of
hydrogen and oxygen inside a fully confined volume. The objective of this study is to
validate results from Fluidyn-MP solver, by comparing the computed temporal evolution of
the pressure at the selected points inside a confined volume, due to the detonation, with the
available experimental measurements. For this purpose we selected the results from a
benchmark experiment performed by Sochet et al [1]. These measurements were previously
used by Beccantini et al [2] to compare their numerical results.
gives boundary condition, initial conditions and ignition data. Section 6 gives solution
schemes and parameters used. Section 7 presents comparison of the numerical solution with
experimental measurement. Section 8 gives the list of references.
2. Physical Problem
Fig. 1 shows computational domain, it is a prismatic box, which contains a hemispherical

bubble confining a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen at the center of the bottom surface.
However, in the present simulation, due to the symmetry of the system, only the region
defined by the blue dotted lines (see Fig. 1) is considered. Chemical reaction in the H2−O2
mixture is assumed to take place through a single-step global reaction of the form
142
2H2 + O2 ↔ 2H2O + ∆Q,
Where ∆Q is the heat released due to the reaction. Rate of change of mass of different species
are computed using the equations of the Arrhenius form as follows:
R forward = 1.1725 × 10 14 exp( − 8310 / T )(Y H 2 ) 2 (YO2 ) 1 , and
R backward = 1 . 1725 × 10 14 exp( − 83100 / T )( Y H 2 O ) 2 .
The rate expression for the forward reaction is similar to that used by Beccantini et al [2].
However, in the present case a reverse reaction was introduced to approximate the
endothermic dissociation reactions taking place at temperatures higher than 3000 K. In the
present study two cases are considered one with bubble radius of 0.05 m and other with
bubble radius of 0.07 m.

Domain description:
Box dimension = (0.5 m × 0.3 m × 0.4 m)
Only the region indicated by blue dotted lines in Fig. 1 is considered because of symmetry.
The hemispherical bubble of reactive gases is located at (0, 0, 0), which is at the center of the
bottom face. In the present case computations were done using cells of uniform size (0.005 m
× 0.005 m × 0.005 m) throughout the domain. A single block was used for the whole domain.
Total 120000 hexahedral elements are used for simulation.
143
Fig. 2: Mesh

Mixture Composition: o2/n2/h2/h2o
Properties of fluid mixture components
Components o2 n2 h2 h2o
of fluid
mixture
Material Compressible Compressible Compressible Compressible
Type gas gas gas gas
Molecular 31.998 28.07 2.01594 18.0153
Weight
Specific heat 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
ratio
Thermal Const Prtl No 0.72 0.72 0.15 0.72
Conductivity
Diffusion Constdiff 0 0 0 0
Coefficient Coefficient
Dynamic Constant 2.6e-05 1.0e-05 0.000126 2.6e-05
Viscosity (µ) (Pa.s) (Pa.s) (Pa.s) (Pa.s)
144
Values of Cp for all the species are calculated from the enthalpy values given in the
B B
corresponding .prp files (from JANNAF tables).

Boundary Conditions
5. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum Z and maximum X coordinate are
assigned ‘Symmetry’ boundary condition. This boundary condition does not require
any input data.
6. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum of X, Y and maximum of Y, Z are

assigned ‘Wall’ boundary condition with following options
No slip
Moving Wall: NO
Rotating Wall: NO
Scalar flux: 0
Initial Conditions
Following set of initial conditions were used:
Initial mixture pressure = 101325 Pa

Initial temperature = 300 K
Initial velocity = 1e-05
Initial mass fraction of H2 in the reactive mixture = 0.1111
B B
Initial mass fraction of O2 in the reactive mixture = 0.8889

B B
Initial mass fraction of H2O = 0

B B
Ignition parameters
The ignition parameters were assigned the following values:
Parameters Detonation
Cut-off temperature 1000 K
Number of ignition points 1
Coordinates of the igniter (-0.0025, 0.0025, 0.0025)
Time to initiate ignition 1.0 × 10-6 s
P P
Time to terminate ignition 1.0 × 10-3 s

P P
Reciprocal time constant for 1.25 × 106 1/s

P P
ignition energy
Table 2: Ignition Data
145

Solution control data is as follows:
Fluid solver NSMB

Solution scheme QSOU
Time step 1e-08
Maximum time step 1e-06
Growth factor 10
Convergence tolerance (epsy, epsv, epsp, 1e-06
epst, epsk, epse)
Simulation End Cycle 0.0015

Result Dump Cycle 1e-04
Result Dump Overwrite Cycle 1e-08
Trace Dump Cycle 0

When the ignition energy is high enough the deflagration accelerates to an explosion. This
leads to the formation of a high-pressure reaction wave front. In this case the reactive mixture
is consumed completely in a very short time. This high-pressure wave then propagates
through the un-reacting air and gets reflected from the walls.
The coordinates of the monitoring points with respect to the center of the hemispherical
bubble are:
P0 → (-0.125,0,0)
P7 → (-0.19, 0.045,0.2)
P11 → (-0.25, 0.16,0)
P10 → (0, 0.3,0)
P1 → (-0.19, 0.255,0.2)
Fig. 3-7 shows the temporal evolution of the pressure recorded at different points in the
domain due to the propagation of such a pressure wave for bubble radius 0.05m.
Fig. 8-12 corresponds to the temporal evolution of the pressure recorded at different points in
the domain due to the propagation of such a pressure wave for bubble radius 0.07m.
146
2
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time (ms)
Experimental MP
Fig. 3: Temporal variation of over pressure at P0 for hemispherical bubble of radius 0.05m
2
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time (ms)
Experimental MP
147
2
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time (ms)
Experimental MP
2
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time (ms)
Experimental MP
148
2
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time (ms)
Experimental MP
Fig. 7:Temporal variation of over pressure at P11 for hemispherical bubble of radius 0.05m
4
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time(ms)
Experimental MP
149
Pressure (bar) 3
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time(ms)
Experimental MP
2
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
T ime (ms)
Experimental MP
150
2
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time (ms)
Experimental MP
2
Pressure (bar)
0
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Time (ms)
Exprerimental MP
151
8. References
3. Sochet, I., Renard, J., Trimoulet, A., and Desrosier, C., Etude Expérimentale des
Interactions Onde de Choc et Structures Lors d’une Explosion en Expace Confiné,
Technical Report, LEES, Bourges, 1997.
4. Beccantini, A., Paillére, H., Morel, R., and Dabbene, F., Multi-dimensional Simulation of
Hydrogen Detaonations, 17th International Colloquium on the Dynamics of Explosions
P P
and Reactive Systems, July 25-30, 1999, Heidelberg, Germany.
152
MPV_F000: Format of the Validation Report

1. Introduction
2. Physical Problem

Boundary Conditions
Initial Conditions
8. References
153

Fluid Validation Report

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

Fluid Validation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

fluidyn MP 5.

2 Validation Report – Fluid Flow

Validation Report – Fluid Flow

Following table summarises the reported studies:

List of Validation Studies

Flow past a Circular Cylinder: Flow is unsteady, two-

MPV_F001: Swirling Flow between Two Concentric

Fig. 1: Domain geometry (2D)

3. Geometry and Mesh

Fig. 2: Mesh variation along the radius

4. Material Properties and Configuration

Material Type Liquid

Angular velocity of inner cylinder wall (w1) =1 rad/s

Reynolds number = (ρ*(R1* w1)*(R2-R1))/(µ)

A steady, viscous, laminar, and incompressible flow is considered.

5. Boundary and Initial Conditions

2. Boundary faces corresponding to outer cylinder wall (boundary face group

3. Boundary faces corresponding to inner cylinder wall (boundary face group

6. Method of Solution, Numerical Schemes, and Parameters

Fluid solver NSNT – Steady

Number of iterations for gradient calculation 2

Advanced solver parameters for solution variables are as follows,

Execution Control data is as follows,

Simulation End Cycle 2000

7. Results and Discussion

Fig.3: Comparison of computed Tangential velocity with analytical solution

Pressure (Pa) 0.070

Fig. 4: Comparison of computed Pressure with analytical solution

MPV_F002: Swirling Flow between Two Concentric

Fig. 1: Domain geometry (2D)

3. Geometry and Mesh

Fig. 2: Mesh variation along the radius

4. Material Properties and Configuration

Material Type Liquid

Angular velocity of inner cylinder wall (w1) =1 rad/s

Reynolds number = (ρ*(r1* w1)*(r2-r1))/(µ)

A steady, viscous, laminar, and incompressible flow is considered.

5. Boundary and Initial Conditions

1. Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group SYM1) and

2. Boundary faces corresponding to outer cylinder wall (boundary face group

3. Boundary faces corresponding to inner cylinder wall (boundary face group

Flow is initialized as follows,

6. Method of Solution, Numerical Schemes, and Parameters

Fluid solver NSNT - Steady

Advanced solver parameters for solution variables are as follows,

Table 4: Advanced solver parameters for U-Velocity

Execution Control data is as follows,

Simulation End Cycle 2000

7. Results and Discussion

Tangential Vel ocity vs Radius

Fig.3: Comparison of computed Tangential velocity with analytical solution

Fig. 4: Comparison of computed Pressure with analytical solution

MPV_F003: Simulation of High Temperature Air Injection

3. Geometry and Mesh

4. Material Properties and Configuration

Material Type Gas - Compressible

A transient, viscous, laminar flow is considered.

5. Boundary and Initial Conditions

Boundary face group Boundary face center y- z-velocity (m/s)

Boundary faces corresponding to minimum (boundary face group SYM_X1) and

Boundary faces corresponding maximum (boundary face group WALL_Z2) z-coordinate,

Pressure = 100000 (Pa)

6. Method of Solution, Numerical Schemes, and Parameters

Reynolds number = (ρ(R1 w1)*(R2-R1))/(µ)

Reynolds number = (ρ(r1 w1)*(r2-r1))/(µ)