Water flow through a thick orifice - Non axisymmetric streamlines

milan.2012 · July 24, 2013, 04:47

Hello

I am modeling a thick orifice using a "2D" simulation in CFX.

Fluid: Water
Inlet BC: Velocity (3 m/s)
Outlet BC: Static pressure, averaged at the outlet.
Details of the Mesh:

Mesh.jpg

Turbulence model: K-e or SST

I am obtaining a non-symmetric streamline at the discharge of the orifice. See the attached pictures:

Streamline_K-e.jpg
Streamline_SST.jpg

This is different from what I expected (fig taken from the literature, Roul 2012).

Expected_streamlines.jpg

The high velocity stream at the discharge of the coefficient is deflected differently (up or down) depending on the turbulence model.

Any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated.

BTW no experimental results available.

Milan

References:
2012. Roul. Numerical Modeling of Pressure drop due to Singlephase Flow of Water and Two-phase Flow of Airwater Mixtures through Thick Orifices.

evcelica · July 24, 2013, 14:30

Your simulation looks like what I would expect, look up the "coanda effect".

milan.2012 · July 25, 2013, 17:46

Thanks Erik, I learned something new.

Do you think that this phenomenon will exist in flow in pipes?

Regards

Milan

ghorrocks · July 25, 2013, 21:12

Absolutely! It is a general fluid mechanics phenomenon. A fluid jet near a wall will bend and attach itself to the wall. The physics of why it does it is interesting, well worth reading up about.

milan.2012 · August 7, 2013, 08:09

Hello again

An update on my problem. I am now doing the simulation with air ideal gas, Inlet BC= normal speed 2.5 m/s, Outlet BC= static pressure 8.35 barg. See below the streamlines for the 3D and 2D simulation, The Coanda effect is not present in the 3D simulation.

Streamlines_3D.jpg
Streamlines_2D.jpg

Has it maybe something to do with the number of elements that I am using?, type of simulation (maybe transient is better than steady state?).

The pressure drop calculated with the 2D simulation is significantly smaller (0.02 bar) than the one calculated with the 3D simulation (2.2 bar, in the order of magnitude of experiments).

Regards

ghorrocks · August 7, 2013, 08:16

Make sure you are taking into account the thickness of the 2D model when you compare the flowrates.

Your 2D model is artificially constraining the simualtion so it does nto surprise me that it is inaccurate.

The general question on accuracy is an FAQ: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys..._inaccurate.3F

milan.2012 · August 7, 2013, 09:23

Hello Glenn, thank you for your prompt answer.

The physical problem that I am trying to solve is similar to the 3D geometry shown in the figure. I have inlet and outlet pressures, fluid type (air), inlet temperature, and mass flow. I calculated the inlet normal velocity with the air density at the inlet and the pipe area.

Your comment: "Make sure you are taking into account the thickness of the 2D model when you compare the flowrates."

I am comparing directly the pressure drop from the 2D and 3D simulation against the experimental value. The results of the 3D simulation give a better match against the experimental data, the 2D simulation is far off.

Your comment: "Your 2D model is artificially constraining the simualtion so it does nto surprise me that it is inaccurate."

Could you expand a bit more on that?. For pipes (or essentially any device with axisymmetry) and single phase flow I thought it was "standard" practice to simulate either a wedge or a plane with a height equal to the pipe diameter.

In this case I would suspect that the difference between the 2D and 3D simulation might be caused by the artificial boundary symmetry condition, that is not capturing what happens in reality in the flow.

Thank you for the webpage about accuracy, it is a nice summary (check list) to take into consideration.

Regards

ghorrocks · August 7, 2013, 18:28

You have drawn your 2D flow with a thickness. Just make sure you include the thickness in mass flow/volume flow rate calculations.

2D artificially constrains the flow because it does not allow the flow to move in the Z direction. If the flow is naturally 2D anyway (which low and high Re flows usually are) that is not a problem, but for intermediate Re flows you often get flow oscillations in the Z direction which need to be captured if you want to be accurate. So modelling an intermediate Re flow as 2D would cause inaccuracy.

July 24, 2013, 04:47	Water flow through a thick orifice - Non axisymmetric streamlines	#1
milan.2012 New Member Milan Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 14 Rep Power: 13	Hello I am modeling a thick orifice using a "2D" simulation in CFX. Fluid: Water Inlet BC: Velocity (3 m/s) Outlet BC: Static pressure, averaged at the outlet. Details of the Mesh: Mesh.jpg Turbulence model: K-e or SST I am obtaining a non-symmetric streamline at the discharge of the orifice. See the attached pictures: Streamline_K-e.jpg Streamline_SST.jpg This is different from what I expected (fig taken from the literature, Roul 2012). Expected_streamlines.jpg The high velocity stream at the discharge of the coefficient is deflected differently (up or down) depending on the turbulence model. Any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated. BTW no experimental results available. Milan References: 2012. Roul. Numerical Modeling of Pressure drop due to Singlephase Flow of Water and Two-phase Flow of Airwater Mixtures through Thick Orifices.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
problem with two phase flow (air injected in water)	miles_davis	OpenFOAM	15	March 31, 2021 09:36
Mass Flow rate in spray water modeling	Behnam Ghadimi	FLUENT	0	June 8, 2013 16:05
Discontinuity at water level in stratified 2 phase flow	kbaker	CFX	24	June 14, 2012 07:37
pressure distribution in water flow, differences in icoFoam and COMSOL	deniggo	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	14	September 30, 2010 03:48
Easy question: how to simulate water flow?	Freeman	FLUENT	6	March 4, 2009 02:31

July 24, 2013, 14:30		#2
evcelica Senior Member Erik Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Earth (Land portion) Posts: 1,167 Rep Power: 23	Your simulation looks like what I would expect, look up the "coanda effect".

July 25, 2013, 17:46		#3
milan.2012 New Member Milan Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 14 Rep Power: 13	Thanks Erik, I learned something new. Do you think that this phenomenon will exist in flow in pipes? Regards Milan

July 25, 2013, 21:12		#4
ghorrocks Super Moderator Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,701 Rep Power: 143	Absolutely! It is a general fluid mechanics phenomenon. A fluid jet near a wall will bend and attach itself to the wall. The physics of why it does it is interesting, well worth reading up about.

August 7, 2013, 08:09		#5
milan.2012 New Member Milan Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 14 Rep Power: 13	Hello again An update on my problem. I am now doing the simulation with air ideal gas, Inlet BC= normal speed 2.5 m/s, Outlet BC= static pressure 8.35 barg. See below the streamlines for the 3D and 2D simulation, The Coanda effect is not present in the 3D simulation. Streamlines_3D.jpg Streamlines_2D.jpg Has it maybe something to do with the number of elements that I am using?, type of simulation (maybe transient is better than steady state?). The pressure drop calculated with the 2D simulation is significantly smaller (0.02 bar) than the one calculated with the 3D simulation (2.2 bar, in the order of magnitude of experiments). Regards

August 7, 2013, 08:16		#6
ghorrocks Super Moderator Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,701 Rep Power: 143	Make sure you are taking into account the thickness of the 2D model when you compare the flowrates. Your 2D model is artificially constraining the simualtion so it does nto surprise me that it is inaccurate. The general question on accuracy is an FAQ: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys..._inaccurate.3F

August 7, 2013, 09:23		#7
milan.2012 New Member Milan Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 14 Rep Power: 13	Hello Glenn, thank you for your prompt answer. The physical problem that I am trying to solve is similar to the 3D geometry shown in the figure. I have inlet and outlet pressures, fluid type (air), inlet temperature, and mass flow. I calculated the inlet normal velocity with the air density at the inlet and the pipe area. Your comment: "Make sure you are taking into account the thickness of the 2D model when you compare the flowrates." I am comparing directly the pressure drop from the 2D and 3D simulation against the experimental value. The results of the 3D simulation give a better match against the experimental data, the 2D simulation is far off. Your comment: "Your 2D model is artificially constraining the simualtion so it does nto surprise me that it is inaccurate." Could you expand a bit more on that?. For pipes (or essentially any device with axisymmetry) and single phase flow I thought it was "standard" practice to simulate either a wedge or a plane with a height equal to the pipe diameter. In this case I would suspect that the difference between the 2D and 3D simulation might be caused by the artificial boundary symmetry condition, that is not capturing what happens in reality in the flow. Thank you for the webpage about accuracy, it is a nice summary (check list) to take into consideration. Regards

August 7, 2013, 18:28		#8
ghorrocks Super Moderator Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,701 Rep Power: 143	You have drawn your 2D flow with a thickness. Just make sure you include the thickness in mass flow/volume flow rate calculations. 2D artificially constrains the flow because it does not allow the flow to move in the Z direction. If the flow is naturally 2D anyway (which low and high Re flows usually are) that is not a problem, but for intermediate Re flows you often get flow oscillations in the Z direction which need to be captured if you want to be accurate. So modelling an intermediate Re flow as 2D would cause inaccuracy.