|
[Sponsors] |
July 22, 2020, 17:54 |
Strange pressure drop behavior
|
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 7 |
Hi Foamers,
recently, I have been working on some 3D 90 degree bends. I investigated two cases: 1: With constant diameter D1 (from inlet to outlet which means inlet pipe of D1, 90 degree bend of D1, then outlet pipe of D1) 2: With bigger diameter (D2>D1) at the inlet, then reducing to the same diameter at the outlet (which means inlet pipe of D2, 90 degree bend of D2, reducer from D2 to D1 after the bend, then outlet pipe of D1) I expected the second geometry to have lower pressure drop; however, simulation results are showing opposite of that... Some details: simpleFoam, incompressible, turbulent (tried kEpsilon, realizableKE, kOmegaSST all giving similar answers), used wall functions. Any ideas would help... Thanks |
|
July 22, 2020, 20:38 |
|
#2 |
Member
Ardalan
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta, USA
Posts: 77
Rep Power: 14 |
Hi,
How much is your pressure drop? Would you post your p file? Try a finer mesh and check the results if you are sure about your p BCs! Ardalan |
|
July 23, 2020, 12:58 |
|
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 7 |
Quote:
Thanks for your swift reply. They are 292 and 492 Pa for Case 1 and Case 2, respectively. Sure, here is the p file: Code:
/*--------------------------------*- C++ -*----------------------------------*\ | ========= | | | \\ / F ield | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox | | \\ / O peration | Version: v1812 | | \\ / A nd | Web: www.OpenFOAM.com | | \\/ M anipulation | | \*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format binary; class volScalarField; arch "LSB;label=32;scalar=64"; location "0/refrigerant"; object p; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [0 2 -2 0 0 0 0]; internalField uniform 0; boundaryField { Inlet { type zeroGradient; value uniform 0; } Outlet { type fixedValue; value uniform 0; } Wall { type zeroGradient; value uniform 0; } } // ************************************************************************* // Last edited by mm66; July 23, 2020 at 14:42. |
||
July 23, 2020, 20:05 |
|
#4 |
Member
Ardalan
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta, USA
Posts: 77
Rep Power: 14 |
Hi,
You say that the pressure drop for a nozzle in larger than that in a pipe! right? It should be like this. That is not strange. The nozzle decreases the pressure and increases the velocity. Ardalan |
|
July 24, 2020, 10:59 |
|
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 7 |
Quote:
Please note that the first case is a simple pipe with a 90 degree bend. The second case is the same but the inlet and bend have larger diameters. So I expect the second case to have lower pressure drop. My hand calculations also support this but not OpenFOAM... Thanks, MJ |
||
July 24, 2020, 14:59 |
|
#6 |
Member
Ardalan
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta, USA
Posts: 77
Rep Power: 14 |
As you have smaller outlet, the pressure decreases and the velocity increases in the outlet. Your boundary condition at outlet is set to zero so the simulation increases the pressure in the reset of the domain to keep the outlet to zero.
Anyhow, it increases the pressure gradient in the domain. In a constant diameter pipe, pressure loss is due to the friction. In a nozzle or a sudden contraction, the dissipation will be added to the friction too. If you change anything in a constant diameter pipe you will have higher loss. |
|
July 24, 2020, 15:38 |
|
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 7 |
Quote:
Mmmm, the outlet size is the same for both cases. It's the inlet size that increases in the second case. So I expect the second case to have lower pressure drop... |
||
Tags |
bend, pressure drop, simplefoam |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
strange pressure behavior using interFoam for 3D micro-channel | red.yxg | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 4 | January 31, 2020 16:18 |
Polydispersed phase pressure drop with drop size | Laksh | CFX | 1 | June 8, 2017 19:56 |
Computed Pressure Drop is lower than experimental data | Ash Kot | FLUENT | 2 | May 17, 2017 10:41 |
lower pressure drop compared to experimental value in Two phase flow calculations. | Ash Kot | Fluent Multiphase | 0 | May 16, 2017 17:29 |
Pipe Flow - Pressure Drop | Daniel L | FLOW-3D | 2 | December 10, 2010 05:23 |