ME526

Simulation of Physical Processes

Assignment 1:
Swirl Flow Around Rotating Disk

Group 11
Victor Salguero, AbdelRahman AbdelRahman
Dancho Ivanov, Jean-Marc Lubiba, Dan Kenney
Introduction 2

Procedure 2

Results 3

Discussion 12
Question (a): Axial symmetry discussion 12
Question (b): Why 2-D cross-section? Error! Bookmark not defined.
Question (c): Velocity Component discussion 13
Question (d): “No-slip” condition discussion 14
Question (e): “Sliding wall” condition discussion 14
Conclusion 15

Appendix 16
Assignment Description 16
Modeling Instructions 18

1
Introduction
The purpose of this assignment is to use COMSOL to explore an interesting aspect of fluid
dynamics. We use COMSOL to create a “whirling” structure and simulate the physical behavior
of an object. The object is a rotating disk inside a tank experiencing different angular velocities
and plotting its corresponding velocity fields. Streamlines are also introduced in the plots which
help us visualize the objects flow in different situations.

Procedure
The modeling instructions were followed for this simulation. The modeling instructions have
been added to the Appendix for reference.

2
Results

Figure 1: Results for angular velocity of ω = 0.25π rad/s. The surface plot shows the
magnitude of the velocity field and the white lines are streamlines of the velocity field.

At lower speeds, there appear to be four regions of fluid flow with different velocities. In
the first two regions, directly adjacent to the top and bottom of the stirrer, the streamlines within
the individual regions are relatively symmetric and equally-spaced. The circles within those
streamline regions are fairly concentric as well. Further away from the stirrer however, near the
walls of the container, the third and fourth region of streamlines become apparent. These regions
show more tightly-packed streamlines. In these regions, the closer proximity of the streamlines
indicates that the velocity of the fluid elements differs from the velocity of the fluid closer to the
stirrer.

3
 Figure 2: Results for angular velocity of ω = 0.5π rad/s.

With a doubling of the angular velocity of the stirrer, the fluid flow profile changes slightly.
It can now be observed that there are only two distinct regions - above and below the stirrer. The
streamlines within the top and bottom regions of the container are fairly equidistant with respect
to each other and the circles within the top and bottom streamline regions are concentric with
respect to each other. The symmetry and regularity of the streamlines indicate that fluid elements
in the top region of the container are rotating with a similar velocity. Similarly, the fluid elements
in the bottom region are also rotating with a uniform velocity, regardless of their proximity to the
stirrer. It also indicates that the rate of change of the fluid velocity going from the middle of the
container towards the walls changes uniformly.

4
 Figure 3: Results for angular velocity of ω = 2π rad/s.

As the angular velocity of the stirrer increases, there are visible changes in the symmetry
and distribution of the streamlines above and below the stirrer. There is a clear asymmetry in the
density and proximity of the streamlines in the left versus right regions of the container, i.e. the
region of fluid adjacent to the rotor versus the region adjacent to the container wall.

5
 Figure 4: Results for angular velocity of ω = 4π rad/s.

In this graph, the angular velocity is increased eight-fold from the original angular velocity.
This plot is particularly interesting because there are signs of turbulence developing along the left
side, at the stirrer-fluid interface. At lower speeds, such as in Figures 1-3, these areas
demonstrate smooth streamlines.
The faster movement of the stirrer disrupts the fluid to a greater extent, which is depicted
by the asymmetrical streamlines. The circular streamlines are no longer concentric, indicating that
there is a difference in the velocities of fluid particles in different areas of the container.

6
 Figure 5: Magnitude of the velocity field (surface) and isocontours for the azimuthal
velocity component for angular velocities (left to right) of ω = 0.25π rad/s.

Figure 5 above shows the contours of the angular velocity field at the initial velocity of
the stirrer. As can be seen, the contours show a decrease in angular velocity as the fluid flows
away from the stirrer.

7
 Figure 6: Results for angular velocity of ω = 0.5π rad/s.

As the velocity is doubled, the contour lines show a spike in angular velocity stemming
from the stirrer. This is to be expected as the velocity increases the stirrer will have more of an
impact on the fluid flow of the system.

8
 Figure 7: Results for angular velocity of ω = 2π rad/s.

With further increases to the velocity of the stirrer, the trend shown by Figure 6 is
exacerbated and the contour lines appear much closer to a turbulent system. They appear to form
the beginnings of eddies that will swirl underneath and above the stirrer.

9
 Figure 8: Results for angular velocity of ω = 4π rad/s.
Figure 8 shows the contour lines of the fluid flow system at the highest velocity
simulated. A sharp spike in the angular velocity of the fluid can be seen stemming from teh
stirrer, while twin swirls form around the spike.

10
 Figure 9: Results for angular velocity of ω = 500π rad/s.

In this scenario, the angular velocity is increased to 500π rad/sec. The surface plot shows
the turbulent viscosity and turbulent flow in the mixer volume. The white lines represent the
streamlines of the velocity field.

Observing this plot will tell us that there is higher dynamic viscosity in areas with less
dense velocity streamlines. This can be explained with the following logic: Areas with less dense
velocity lines see less internal friction. Areas with denser velocity lines have more internal friction
and decrease the viscosity due to the internal friction and heat generated. Viscosity is a function
of temperature where fluids become less viscous as temperature increases.

11
Discussion

Question (a): Axial symmetry discussion

Axial symmetry is used in this case to indicate to COMSOL that this 2D geometry is
actually a piece of a 3D structure which would be created by revolving the 2D slice. This is
important because it means COMSOL uses the correct equations when calculating the fluid flow
properties of the structure. It works from a physics and mathematical standpoint because, by
utilizing the axisymmetric settings in COMSOL, the actual math and physics calculated is that of
a 3D structure. While the resulting geometry is only 2D, COMSOL behind the scenes is treating
it as a 3D structure created by revolving the 2D slice.
If the same simulation was performed using the 2D planar option and corresponding setup,
COMSOL would not know to treat the geometry as a slice of a 3D structure and all equations
would be used assuming only 2 dimensions. This presents a problem when trying to simulate
rotational fluid flow swirling around an axis as it must be represented in 3 dimensions. Figure 10
below demonstrates one of the flaws with attempting to use the 2D planar options:

Figure 10: Sliding wall condition represented by the 2D planar settings.

As observed in the figure above, the sliding wall condition used to represent the motion of
the stirrer in the axisymmetric version of the simulation is not properly represented in 2D planar.
Instead of a rotational movement, it becomes a translational motion that does not simulate the
stirrer accurately. Thus, the 2D simulation would not be simulating the same scenario as the
axisymmetric simulation, resulting in answers that vary greatly.

12
Question (b): Why 2-D cross-section?
It is not necessary to model the structure as a 3D model or as a full cross-section due to
the natural symmetry of the structure. The cross-section that COMSOL creates can be rotated
around an axis placed in the center of the structure to create the whole 3D mode. This means
that the state of the 3D model can be accurately modeled by the simple 2D cross-section that is
generated. In general, in finite element analysis (FEA), more elements and a finer mesh are
desired, since a higher number will simulate the real structure more accurately. However, this
increase in the element number will also increase the overall processing power required by the
computer running the simulation. If the full 3D model was created and the same number of
elements used for the simulation, the computer would encounter a harder time simulating the
conditions than with a simpler 2D structure. In addition, the inclusion of sharp corners and odd
geometry in 3D may require a finer mesh than the general mesh being used in order to accurately
simulate conditions.

Question (c): Velocity Component discussion

They mean that even if it looks as if we are dealing with a 2D surface, we are still dealing
with a 3D circular element. We need the three velocity components that would indicate to the
program that particles in this system are moving in a 3D circular manner around its axis of
symmetry in an angular velocity fashion. The angular component of velocity is important in giving
us correct results. Although the angular velocity is not seen in the 2D result, it impacts the planar
which are in fact seen.

13
Question (d): “No-slip” condition discussion
The no-slip condition assumes that at a solid boundary, the fluid will have zero velocity
relative to the boundary. I think this is a valid approximation and realistic. No-slip condition is
believed to be valid as long as the characteristic scale of the flow is much greater than the mean
length of the path of the fluid molecular between collisions. The no-slip condition is also not valid
for Low Reynold's number flows. At room temperature, I believe the “no slip” condition will hold.
If we did not impose this condition, the velocity at the surface would not be zero relative to the
surface so the object will not be rotating uniformly together around its own axis.

Figure 11: No-slip condition description.

Question (e): “Sliding wall” condition discussion

The sliding wall condition is appropriate when the surface is sliding in the tangential
direction. This is the case we have here where the rotor is sliding tangentially to the fluid. This
allows the wall of the boundary to have a value and eliminates a need for it to move with the
reference frame, which would be the rotor in this case. To summarize, the sliding wall condition
disbonds the fluid at the boundary with the physical rotor as it rotates. This is realistic and reflects
on the real physical behavior. When the rotor first starts turning, the same idea applies. The fluid
will slide along this surface and should not “stick” representing the “no-slip” condition discussed
earlier. However in reality, if the rotor is turning slowly at the beginning, the viscosity of the fluid
would make it ”stick” more to the surface of the rotor.

14
Conclusion
The main lesson learnt from this exercise was getting familiar with COMSOL and
accustomed to the system that it uses for fluid dynamics. Another benefit of this exercise was to
create a connection between software and reality by simulating and analyzing a 3D scenario using
a 2D axisymmetric option. By doing so, COMSOL enables us to analyze complex 3D geometries
with minimal computational power.

15
Appendix

Assignment Description

16
17
Modeling Instructions

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25