CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > FLUENT

Computed Pressure Drop is lower than experimental data

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   May 16, 2017, 16:27
Unhappy Computed Pressure Drop is lower than experimental data
  #1
Member
 
Ash Kotwal
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: North Dakota, USA
Posts: 92
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 9
Ash Kot is on a distinguished road
Hello Everyone,

Objective: To simulate Gas-liquid 2 Phase flow in FLUENT based on experimental data, and compare with respect to experimental data for channel with sudden area of expansion.

I'm running the FLUENT 2 Phase flow (gas(Nitrogen)-liquid(Water)) Eulerian-Eulerian multi-phase model, RSM (Reynold's Stresses 5 equation model) model for turbulence calculations.

it's 2D steady-state analysis.

Boundary Conditions: inlet: pressure inlet, Outlet: pressure Outlet, Volume fraction is used for consideration between phases. (Values for boundary conditions are taken from Experimental calculations)

Outcome: Computed Pressure Drop is lower than experimental pressure drop across sudden expansion.

Why is it showing lower pressure drop compared to experimental value?
How can I get exact pressure drop value for expansion channel?
Ash Kot is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 16, 2017, 23:56
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,679
Rep Power: 66
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
Are the differences even significant?

You are using nearly a dozen models that try to mimic actual reality, if you want to exactly match results then either improve the models or stop using models altogether. You're using a multiphase model, a turbulence model, the properties are modelled, you're modelling it as steady state, etc. The list goes on and on. Of course this is assuming you made no mistakes along the way.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 17, 2017, 09:41
Default
  #3
Member
 
Ash Kotwal
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: North Dakota, USA
Posts: 92
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 9
Ash Kot is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
Are the differences even significant?

You are using nearly a dozen models that try to mimic actual reality, if you want to exactly match results then either improve the models or stop using models altogether. You're using a multiphase model, a turbulence model, the properties are modelled, you're modelling it as steady state, etc. The list goes on and on. Of course this is assuming you made no mistakes along the way.


I activated multiphase eulerian eulerian model, and for catching turbulence in pipe, because the Reynolds number for hydraulic diameter is high. For turbulence I decided to use RSM, that's all.

These are I guess basic models which we need to activate. There is no involvement of energy equation.

The model is stable and it's converging, because the inlet mass flow rate is equal to outlet mass flow rate, by speculation based on the surface monitors.

Also, I used k-epsilon per phase model, but still pressure drop is significantly low.

Value, for example, for 5g/s mixture flow rate (in terms of experimental analysis) is 0.5 kpa, while fluent shows 0.12 kpa.


Sent from my iPhone using CFD Online Forum mobile app
Ash Kot is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
2-phase flow, eulerian eulerian, fluent, multi phase flow, reynolds stress model

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wind tunnel Boundary Conditions in Fluent metmet FLUENT 6 October 30, 2019 12:23
Pressure drop in pipe flow with Large Eddy Simulation xerox FLUENT 1 October 16, 2019 08:55
Periodic flow using Cyclic - comparison with Fluent nusivares OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 30 December 12, 2017 05:35
static vs. total pressure auf dem feld FLUENT 17 February 26, 2016 13:04
Hydrostatic pressure in 2-phase flow modeling (long) DS & HB Main CFD Forum 0 January 8, 2000 15:00


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:45.