MCG3341: Fluid Mechanics 2

CFD Project Lab Report

Written by: Daniel Jang (300021537)

Teaching Assistant: Farzane Zangene

Professor: Aliou Sow

July 4th, 2020

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Calculations 4

Figures and Plots – Laminar 5

Discussion – Laminar 24

Figures and Plots – Turbulent 26

Discussion – Turbulent 30

Conclusion 31

Works Cited 32

2
Introduction

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a powerful tool utilizing applied

mathematics, physics, as well as computational software in order to visualize and
simulate how a fluid flows. For this project, we use a software called “Star-CCM”, which
helps us analyze laminar and turbulent flows with different mesh sizes, velocity, and
pressure changes.

For this project, we take a look at a Venturi tube, which is a cylindrical pipe used
to measure the flow of water (at 20℃). Along the Venturi tube, there is a throat section,
which narrows in diameter. This reduction in diameter results in an increase of the
water’s velocity, as well as a differential pressure between the inlet and throat. This tube
is a practical application to Bernoulli’s equation, and allows us to measure fluid flow.
The Venturi tube for this project can be seen below:

Figure 1: ASME Standard Venturi Tube

3
The specifications for this tube is seen below:

Calculations
For individual specifications based on student number,

𝑑
= (2 + 4)(5)% = 65%
𝐷

As a result, 𝐿! = 0.00944 m , and 𝐿" =0.01425 m

For water at 20℃,

𝑅𝑒 ∗ 𝜇 1000 ∗ 0.001002𝑃𝑎 − 𝑠
𝜈= = = 0.10038 𝑚⁄𝑠
𝜌∗𝐷 𝑘𝑔A
998.2 𝑚! ∗ 0.01 𝑚

Where:

𝜇 is the dynamics viscosity of water at 20℃

Re is the Reynolds Number
𝜌 is the density of water at 20℃
D is the inlet diameter

4
Figures and Plots - Laminar

Mesh Grid Size = 0.001 m

Figure 1: Sketch of Venturi Tube Contour

Figure 2: Geometry of Venturi Tube

Figure 3: Mesh Plot of Venturi Tube (Mesh Grid Size = 0.001m)

5
 Figure 5: Residual Plot (Mesh Grid Size = 0.001)

Figure 6: Vector Velocity Plot (0.001m)

Figure 7: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Vector Velocity Plot (0.001 m)

6
 Figure 8: Scalar Plot – Axial Velocity (0.001m)

Figure 9: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Axial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.001 m)

Figure 10: Scalar Plot - Radial Velocity (0.001 m)

Figure 11: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Radial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.001 m)

7
 Figure 12: Scalar Plot – Pressure (0.001 m)

Figure 13: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Pressure Scalar Plot (0.001 m)

Mesh Grid Size = 0.0005 m

Figure 14: Zoomed-In View of Mesh Plot (0.0005 m)

8
 Figure 15: Residual Plot (0.0005 m)

Figure 16: Vector Velocity Plot (0.0005 m)

Figure 17: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Vector Velocity Plot (0.0005 m)

9
 Figure 18: Scalar Plot – Axial Velocity (0.0005 m)

Figure 19: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Axial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.0005 m)

Figure 20: Scalar Plot - Radial Velocity (0.0005 m)

Figure 21: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Radial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.0005 m)

10
 Figure 22: Scalar Plot – Pressure (0.0005 m)

Figure 23: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Pressure Scalar Plot (0.0005 m)

Mesh Grid Size = 0.00033 m

Figure 24: Mesh Plot of Venturi Tube (Mesh Grid Size = 0.00033m)

11
 Figure 25: Residual Plot (0.00033 m)

Figure 26: Vector Velocity Plot (0.00033 m)

Figure 27: Scalar Plot - Axial Velocity (0.00033 m)

12
Figure 28: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Axial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.00033 m)

Figure 29: Scalar Plot - Radial Velocity (0.00033 m)

Figure 30: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Radial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.00033 m)

13
 Figure 31: Scalar Plot - Pressure (0.00033 m)

Figure 32: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Pressure Scalar Plot (0.00033 m)

Mesh Grid Size = 0.0001 m

Figure 33: Mesh Plot of Venturi Tube (Mesh Grid Size = 0.0001m)

14
 Figure 34: Residual Plot (0.0001 m)

Figure 35: Vector Velocity Plot (0.0001 m)

Figure 36: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Vector Velocity Plot (0.0001 m)

15
 Figure 37: Scalar Plot - Axial Velocity (0.0001 m)

Figure 38: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Axial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.0001 m)

Figure 39: Scalar Plot – Radial Velocity (0.0001 m)

16
Figure 40: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Radial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.0001 m)

Figure 41: Scalar Plot – Pressure (0.0001 m)

17
Reynolds Number = 10000; v = 1.0038 m/s , Mesh Size = 0.001

Figure 43: Mesh Plot of Venturi Tube (Mesh Grid Size = 0.001m, Re= 10000)

Figure 44: Residual Plot (0.001 m, Re = 10000)

Figure 45: Vector Velocity Plot (0.001 m, Re = 10000)

18
 Figure 46: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Vector Velocity Plot (0.001 m, Re=10000)

Figure 47: Scalar Plot - Axial Velocity (0.001 m, Re = 10000)

Figure 48: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Axial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re = 10000)

19
 Figure 49: Scalar Plot - Radial Velocity (0.001 m, Re = 10000)

Figure 50: Zoomed-In View of Throat–Radial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re = 10000)

Figure 51: Scalar Plot - Pressure (0.001 m, Re = 10000)

Figure 52: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Pressure Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re = 10000)

20
Reynolds Number = 100000; v = 10.038 m/s , Mesh Size = 0.001 m

Figure 53: Mesh Plot of Venturi Tube (Mesh Grid Size = 0.001m, Re= 100000)

Figure 54: Residual Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 55: Vector Velocity Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

21
 Figure 56: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Vector Velocity Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 57: Scalar Plot - Axial Velocity (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 58: Zoomed-In View of Throat–Axial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 59: Scalar Plot - Radial Velocity (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

22
Figure 60: Zoomed-In View of Throat–Radial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re =100000)

Figure 61: Scalar Plot - Pressure (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 62: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Pressure Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

23
Discussion Laminar Flow
The 4 mesh sizes used in this experiment were: 0.001m (base
size),0.0005m(coarsest), 0.00033m, and 0.0001 (finest). For a mesh size of 0.001, the
velocity in the throat is at approximately 0.28354 m/s. For a mesh size of 0.0005, the
velocity at the same area is approximately 0.30028 m/s, while for a mesh size of
0.00033, the velocity is approximately 0.30086 m/s. Finally, for the finest mesh size
(0.0001m), a velocity of 0.30561 m/s is observed. Clearly, as the mesh becomes finer,
the velocity is seen to increase, which may be explained as an increase in accuracy of
solution. In addition, decreasing the mesh size increased our computation times,
significantly.

When observing the top and bottom surfaces of the tube, the velocity of the fluid
particles is approximately zero at these locations. This can be explained due to the no-
slip condition, which states that velocities at the walls are equal to zero. Consequently,
the further the fluid is from the walls, it experiences a higher velocity.

In accordance with the design and Bernoulli’s equation, the throat of our Venturi
tube is the region where velocities are highest. Initially, at the inlet, the velocity profile is
relatively small, and there are high viscous forces. However, when the tube diameter
converges at the throat, the velocity profile increases rapidly, and the viscous forces are
lower, until the fluid passes this region. As we increase the Reynolds number, this
phenomenon is less apparent, because the viscous term becomes negligible, and we
can assume that the flow is almost inviscid.

Based off our results, it would be ideal to use Mesh 2 (0.00033). Mesh 1 is
coarse, which resulted in the residuals not converging as well as yielding higher error.
The benefit to using a coarse mesh is the computation time, which is much lower in
comparison to Mesh 2 and 3. Mesh 3 yielded the most accurate results, as well as a
lower error. However, Mesh 3 requires intensive RAM consumption, which results in a
much longer time for computation. Therefore, in order to satisfy accurate and fast

24
calculations, Mesh 2 proves to be the middle-ground. The results are still accurate
enough, and do not require intensive computing capabilities.

Initially, the Reynolds number was 1000. By increasing the number to 10000, we
calculate the velocity to be 1.0038 m/s. Although 10000 is much greater than 2300,
(which is the approximate value for when a flow in a tube changes from laminar to
turbulent) it was not high enough for STAR-CCM+ to detect any faulty results. Thus, we
increase the Reynolds number from 10000 to 100,000, where the velocity is 10.038 m/s.
Observing the results for a Reynolds number of 100000, we notice that the solution
does not converge. This is an indication that the flow has become turbulent, which
differs from our laminar flow conditions.

25
Figures and Plots - Turbulent

Turbulence Model; Re = 100000, v = 10.38 m/s, mesh size = 0.001 m

Figure 63: Residual Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 64: Mesh Plot of Venturi Tube (Mesh Grid Size = 0.001m, Re= 100000)

26
 Figure 65: Vector Velocity Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 66: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Vector Velocity Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 67: Scalar Plot - Axial Velocity (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 68: Zoomed-In View of Throat–Axial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

27
 Figure 69: Scalar Plot - Radial Velocity (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 70: Zoomed-In View of Throat–Axial Velocity Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 71: Scalar Plot - Pressure (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

28
Figure 72: Zoomed-In View of Throat – Pressure Scalar Plot (0.001 m, Re = 100000)

Figure 73: Scalar Plot – Turbulent Kinetic Energy

Figure 74: Zoomed-In View of Throat- Turbulent Kinetic Energy Scalar Plot (0.001m, Re=100000)

29
Discussion Turbulent Flow

For turbulent flows, the results are predictably much different than laminar flows.
The flow development is uniform throughout, as evident in figure 65,67, and 69, where
there is not a noticeable color change along the pipe. When analyzing the residual plot
for turbulent flow, the graph does not converge to zero, which makes it difficult to fully
understand the flow. Results in which the residuals converge as low as possible is
preferred; the more residuals converge means the more realistic our flow is.

Flow separation occurs in both laminar and turbulent flows due to the pressure
gradient increasing in the direction of the flow, which affects the fluid’s boundary layer.
In laminar flows, forcing it to become turbulent can prevent this separation. For turbulent
flows, modifying the surface pressure distribution will prevent flow separation. Turbulent
flow mixes the flow, which results in high speed fluid moving into the bottom of the
boundary layer, near the surface. The high speeds in the boundary layer is able to
overcome the adverse pressure gradient. There seems to be less drag than for a similar
laminar flow case.

There is no doubt that Star-CCM+ is an extremely powerful tool. For our case of
a simple model, the computations were still very intensive on the RAM. I can only
wonder what the limitations of STAR-CCM+ is, regarding part complexity. As mentioned
earlier, the convergence of our residual plots are a good indicator of whether our flow is
comparable to real flows or not. In some cases, this seems to be the case, but again,
software has its limitations for now. Improved computation entails more optimized
software, as well as improved hardware.

30
Conclusion

In conclusion, STAR-CCM+ is a very powerful tool, and allowed us to visually simulate

the flows. Through this experiment, it can be observed that decreasing the mesh size
increases the computation needed, but yields a more accurate solution. Thus, when the
user is using this tool, they must be able to produce a solution that may sacrifice
time/resources and accuracy, depending on their priorities.

31
 Works Cited

“Water - Dynamic and Kinematic Viscosity.” Engineering ToolBox,

www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-dynamic-kinematic-viscosity-d_596.html.

“Water - Density, Specific Weight and Thermal Expansion Coefficient.” Engineering ToolBox,
www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-density-specific-weight-d_595.html.

32