CFD simulation using ansys fluent

Fluid Mechanics MECH 340

Roll # Name

DR. FADI ALNAIMAT

UAEU
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
3 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
4 Mathematical Formulation....................................................................................................................................... 4
5 Results and discussion................................................................................................................................................ 6
5.1 problem Specifications...................................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Expected errors in governing equation with respect to real world scenario............................7
5.3 Simulation in ansys fluent (every step)......................................................................................................7
5.3.1 Geometry......................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.3.2 commands applied...................................................................................................................................... 9
5.3.3 Mesh.................................................................................................................................................................. 9
5.3.4 Setup in Fluent........................................................................................................................................... 10
5.3.5 Solution/Method....................................................................................................................................... 16
6 crux & conclusion...................................................................................................................................................... 17
7 References.................................................................................................................................................................... 18
 2 ABSTRACT
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a wide method for predicting fluid dynamics around any
physical boundary. The boundary can be circular, like in pipes, or rectangular, like in ducts. These
ducts are commonly used in a wide range of engineering applications such as refrigeration and
heat pump systems, power plants, biomedical devices, aircrafts, automobiles, and heat ventilation
and air conditioning, among others. Analytically evaluating CFD involves using equations such as
PDEs and ODEs to obtain correct findings; nevertheless, analytical solutions only apply to known
shapes; for irregularly shaped bodies, the analytical method is unable to provide realistic and
instant answers. By the flip hand, we may solve various simultaneous equations using computers
and numerical techniques using techniques and circuits in software, there are tens of commercial
software are available in the market to compute CFD in any irregularly shaped body but they give
approximate solutions like ANSYS, SOLIDWORKS, SAP2000, ABAQUS, MARC, STARDYNE,
COSMOS/M, PRO-MECHANICA, NISA, CATIA, CREO, LS-DYNA, MSC-NASTRAN etc. CFD can be
used for a variety of purposes, including design optimization, heat transfer analysis, head loss
prediction, shear force computation, fluid uniformity, multi-physics simulation, and transient
analysis. However, both analytical and numerical methods make assumptions such as assumed
boundary conditions, laminar flow consideration, incompressible flow, no slip boundary
condition, uniform walls, negligible wall thickness, one dimensional steady state flow with a low
Reynolds number, and an entirely uniform mesh, among others. Finite volume method (FVM),
Finite element method (FEA) for analytical approach, turbulence modeling, meshing, multiphase
flow, thermal transfer, and so on are primarily the approaches and methodologies utilized in CFD.
We estimated median shear strength at the wall and pressure drop at the inlet and outlet of the
duct in this report, and our primary findings show that software solutions are more accurate than
solutions using regulating equations, which is due to the main difference in boundary conditions
and assumptions. However, on an industrial scale, utilizing ANSYS fluent for CFD simulation is
not recommended because their method of solving complex issues overlooks a lot of physics and
produces completely incorrect outcomes.
Keywords:
Streamline, contours, CFD-post, mesh.

3 INTRODUCTION
In this project we are conducting a CFD simulation using ANSYS fluent software of two circular
ducts of vary diameter attached to each other at center line. Diameter of pipe one is 0.06m and
diameter for second pipe is 0.025m, similarly length for former is 0.5m and for latter is 0.25m.
Fluid passes from inlet, wall and outlet is taken as oil with following properties.

Fluid (oil)
Density ρ 900 kg/m3
Coefficient of viscosity μ 81e10-3 Pa.s
Sketching the model in the geometry section of ANSYS-workbench, extrusion and applying
boundary conditions by defining wall, inlet, outlet, and fluid, applying material of model,
development of very fine mesh by discretization of whole body into small matrices, drawing
contours of velocity, pressure, and streamlines in the setup section, plotting a graph between
pressure drop vs different Reynold's numbers, calculating average sh Writing governing
equations for a particular situation and theoretically determining pressure drop and average
shear force using assumptions such as constant temperature, no slip condition, zero wall
thickness, and steady state condition, etc. In the end, compare the findings to the theoretical
answer and percentage error computation. Explain why there is an inaccuracy in the results
comparison and reach a conclusion. Let's go on to look at the literature on CFD in ANSYS fluent.
The basic governing equations that regulate the physics of fluid mechanics and environmental
sciences and are employed in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) research include continuous
equations, Navier-Stokes equations, and power formulas.[1]. The governing equations are
derived from Newton's Laws and Reynolds' Moving Theorem, which can be written in a broader
context of the integral equations. Nonetheless, such a large structure makes accurate evaluation
down to the scale of fluid element packets impossible.[2]. McFarland and Landy (1980) tested oil
with three different circular pipe layouts. They compared ocular observations of mixing
processes in various pipe layouts to transient and steady-state data for fluid pressure and
temperature. One of their most important discoveries was that adequate mixing of identical
fluids may be done within a small width (L/D 10) without significant tension decreases. [3]. A.
Began (2000) concentrated on the geometric optimization of circular pipes to minimize
turbulence and pressure mistakes, thus minimizing the energy wasted during fluid flows. To
minimize damages, they calculated main and branch pipe lengths and diameter ratios. [4]. Vaasa
(2007) made significant contributions to the research of head loss and pipe angles induced by
fluid flow through a circular pipe. He computed the results for all types of flows at various
velocity ratios and compared them to Vazsonyi and Gardel's empirical formulas. He also
investigated the link involving angle and radius, as well as the difference in head loss calculated
using formulas and empirical methodologies. [5]. Stigler (2011) researched a more ideal version
of a circular pipe in which the pressures at the ends of the pipes are the same from input to
output. They compared PIV measurement to numerical pipe flow simulation. Two different things
were compared. The first was a comparison of streamlining. It depicts both an overall picture and
an evaluation of fluid flow in a pipe. The second method is to compare velocity profiles at each
pipe junction branch.[6]. Nimbalkar (2010) was particularly interested in decreasing thermal
fatigue induced by the mixing of two fluids or the same fluid at different temperatures in pipe
sections. Their primary goal was to determine the relationship between branch and primary pipe
velocity ratios and velocity and temperature changes in the main pipe. They also determined the
minimum distance required for departure and entrance effects by simulating different pipe
widths. [7]. Continuity equation of Newtonian Fluid flowing over the boundary in three
dimensional Cartesian coordinate is given below:
∂u ∂v ∂w
+ + =0 CITATION Cen 20 ¿ 1033[8]
∂x ∂ y ∂z
Similarly we have DARCY–WEISBACH equation for calculation of pressure drop across ducts as
shown below:
2
LV CITATION KOT 17 ¿ 1033[9]
∆ P=f
2D

4 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
In this project, we have two circular pipes that are interconnected at a common centerline; fluid
oil travels from the left (inlet) to the right (outlet), and after some length, there is an abrupt
contraction; friction is the main factor for pressure losses and shear force amplification. We are
assuming laminar flow, a steady state situation, and neglecting fluid frictional heating, among
other things. Shear force generated at the wall as a result of friction, regardless of whether or not
we are contemplating a no-slip scenario, as indicated in the image below:

Figure 3.1

if we know the mass flow rate, we can easily calculate the average velocity and similarly velocity
streamlines (represented in a figure) by using following equation:
ṁ
ṁ=ρ V avg A cV avg =
ρ Ac

Where, Ac is a cross-sectional area of pipe and ρ is a density of flowing fluid.

Figure 3.2
Either the fluid in pipe is laminar or turbulent can be estimated by using the equation of
Reynold’s number that is:

ρV avg D
ℜ=
μ

Where D is the diameter of pipe and μ is a coefficient of viscosity of flowing fluid.

Pressure drop at two points in a channel can calculated from the following relation:

32 μL V avg
∆ P=P1−P2= 2
D

This is a total pressure drop from inlet to outlet of pipe, where D and L are diameter and length of
pipe. There are other pressure losses as well that is due to viscous effects like friction with the
wall and sudden contraction (vacuum in streamlines generated) due to change in cross-section of
pipe. The expression is as follows:
2
L ρV avg
∆ P L =f
D 2

Where f is a Darcy friction factor,

8τw
f= 2
ρV avg

For circular, horizontal and laminar flow pipe f is given by,

64
f= ℜ

Where Re is a Reynolds number, that shows the nature of flow either laminar, transitional or
turbulent. Similarly, for average shear stress, we calculate average shear force for laminar flow
and given assumption.

τ avg=μ V avg shear froce=τ avg ( A )=μ V avg ( A)

Effect of surface roughness and friction between fluid layers with itself is ignored.
Here are some equations of motion of fluid flowing in computational fluid dynamics domain that
shows fluid behavior with three equations in Cartesian coordinate system and four unknowns.

( )
' 2 2 2
∂u ∂v ∂ w −1 ∂ P ∂ u ∂ v ∂ w
x−momentum :u +v +w = +v 2 + 2 + 2
∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂x ∂ x ∂ y ∂ z

( )
' 2 2 2
∂u ∂v ∂ w −1 ∂ P ∂u ∂ v ∂ w
y−momentum :u +v +w = +v 2 + 2 + 2
∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂y ∂ x ∂ y ∂ z
 ( )
' 2 2 2
∂u ∂v ∂ w −1 ∂ P ∂u ∂ v ∂ w
z−momentum :u +v +w = +v 2 + 2 + 2
∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂z ∂ x ∂ y ∂ z

The above equation assumes that the fluid is Newtonian, that the flow is steady, incompressible,
and laminar, with constant characteristics and a free surface effect. In the analysis section, we
will plug values into these equations and compare the results to the numerical solutions provided
by software. We will also examine the trend of pressure drop from uniform section to lower area
section of pipe, as well as shear force comparison with velocity profile across length. Other
motion equations include the transport equation and the Navier Stokes equation.

−1 ⃗ '
( V⃗ . ⃗∆ ) ⃗
V= ∆ P +v ∆ ⃗
2
V
ρ

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Theoretically we’ll calculate pressure drop and shear force from inlet to outlet, from equations,

32 μLV avg
∆ P= 2
D

ρV avg D
ℜ=
μ

Calculate average velocity for Re 500,

V avg of oil=0.75 m/s

−3 −3
32(81× 10 )(0.75)(0.75) 32(81 ×10 )(0.75)(0.75)
∆ P= +
0.062 (0.025)2

∆ P=2737.8 Pa

64 8 τ w
=
ℜ ρV2
avg

2
shear stress=τ w =8.1 N /m

Average shear froce=τ avg ( A )=0.027 N

5.1 PROBLEM SPECIFICATIONS

D1 0.06m
D2 0.025m
L1 0.5m
L2 0.25m
 5.2 EXPECTED ERRORS IN GOVERNING EQUATION WITH RESPECT TO
REAL WORLD SCENARIO
Errors in Velocity:
Aerodynamic effects that were ignored in the analytically model could explain differences in
velocity profiles between analytical and numerical results. Turbulence is inherently captured by
numerical models, which leads to rate estimate disparities.
Errors in Pressure Drop:
The difference in drop of pressure can be attributed to assumptions in the theoretical framework,
such as the absence of turbulence effects and reduced geometry considerations. Pressure drop
projections are affected by numerical simulations, which provide an improved representation of
stream occurrences.
Differences in Shear Force:
Alternative modeling approaches could explain differences in average shear force at the wall. The
analytical solution may overlook certain fluid features that numerical simulations capture more
fully.
Treasures of Number:
Variance in analytical and Fluent results could be attributable to numerical issues such as mesh-
induced errors or solver settings. Mesh refinement and sensitivity testing can aid in reducing
discrepancies. Finally, due to analytical model constraints and the additional complexities
introduced in numerical simulations, differences between analytical and numerical findings must
be foreseen. Recognizing these variations is essential for understanding outcomes from
simulations and improving simulation integrity in future research.

5.3 SIMULATION IN ANSYS FLUENT (EVERY STEP)

5.3.1 GEOMETRY

5.3.1.1 SKETCH 1

5.3.1.2 SKETCH 2
5.3.2 COMMANDS APPLIED

5.3.3 MESH
In ANSYS Mechanical, fine mesh is generated by mesh command as shown below:
5.3.3.1 COMMANDS APPLIED

5.3.4 SETUP IN FLUENT

 Steady one dimensional conditions, absolute and
pressure based conditions are taken as
assumptions.

5.3.4.1 FLUID SELECTION

5.3.4.2 VELOCITY APPLIED AT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

5.3.4.3 RUN CALCULATIONS AT 20 ITERATIONS
We get x, y and z velocity and its trend as shown below:
5.3.4.4 VELOCITY CONTOUR
5.3.4.5 PRESSURE VECTOR/CONTOUR
5.3.4.6 AVERAGE SHEAR STRESS CONTOUR

5.3.4.7 PRESSURE DROP FROM INLET TO OUTLET

5.3.4.8 SHEAR STRESS PLOT

5.3.4.9 SHEAR FORCE PLOT

5.3.5 SOLUTION/METHOD

5.3.5.1 PRESSURE DROP AT RE = 500

5.3.5.2 STREAMLINES

5.3.5.3 VELOCITY PLOT

Like illustrated in the plots and figures above, the pipe contracts, causing force and velocity to
decrease initially and then increase.

Pressure Drop vs. Reynolds Number: A graph is generated that depicts the pressure drop across
the ducts in relation to Reynolds numbers. This graph displays the relationship between pressure
drop and flow conditions and aids in understanding the hydrologic operation of the system.

Shear Force Average and Pressure Drop: Real-time observations are compared to analytical
answers for average shear force at the wall and pressure drop between the intake and output.
Scientific and numeric results may differ due to biases in the mathematical framework, turbulent
effects not present in the analytical approach, and numerical renditions in the simulations.

6 CRUX & CONCLUSION

Empirical outcomes outperform software results because the assumption ratio is smaller in
analytical solutions. There are numerous variations between actual versus animated case exits,
such as:

• Variations in friction

• Mesh flaws • Aluminum is utilized; material attributes are not specified.

• Turbulence in the flow

• Weight and thickness of the walls

The CFD simulation in ANSYS Fluent successfully captured the gas flow parameters within the
interconnected square ducts, providing useful insights into the system's behavior.

There were differences between numerical and analytical conclusions, underscoring the
importance of accounting for turbulence effects, geometric complexities, and numerical
distortions.

Differences in velocity profiles, pressure drop, and shear forces demonstrated the limitations of
mathematical equations in capturing fluid dynamics, proving the advantage of numerical
simulations in producing accurate findings.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Conduct additional sensitivity analyses on mesh resolution to validate simulation findings and
decrease mesh-induced errors.

• Examine how different turbulence models and boundary layer treatments affect the accuracy of
CFD simulations.

• Consider adding other physics, such as heat transmission, to widen the scope of the simulation
and provide a fuller picture of the system.

• Collaborate with experimental studies to validate numerical findings and increase simulation
dependability.

• Modify and validate the numerical model on a regular basis in light of new studies and
developments in CFD methodology.

Finally, ANSYS Fluent was utilized to successfully simulate fluid flow in interconnected square
ducts. Disagreements with analytical solutions underlined the importance of taking into
consideration the complexities inherent in real circumstances, as well as the need for innovation.

7 REFERENCES

[1] Tey-Wah-yen, "equations in CFD". china Patent

http://www.akademiabaru.com/ProgEE.html, 2022.

[2] N. Azwadi, "Simulation in CFD technique". China Patent 10455, 2015.

[3] A. chaturvedi, "CFD SIMULATIONS OF FLOW AND PRESSURE DROP IN PIPE". India Patent
FM-059, 2011.

[4] A. Rocha, "Thermodynamic optimization of geometry". Japan Patent Int. J. Therm. Sci. 39,
 949–960, 2000. , 2000.

[5] V. S. Naik-Nimbalkar, "Thermal mixing in T-junctions". USA Patent 534, 2009.

[6] Stigler, "The fluid flow in the t-junction". Florida Patent 5-6, 2012.

[7] Nimbalkar, "Thermal mixing in T-junctions," Oxford University Press, Manchester, 2023.

[8] Cengel, Fluid mechanics a modern approach, 2020.

[9] KOTHAND, Fluid Mechanics Mathematical solution, 2017.