UFR 4-18 Evaluation: Difference between revisions
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
<math>f = (0.25 + 0.1175/(P/D-1)^{1.08}) Re^{-0.16}</math> | <math>f = (0.25 + 0.1175/(P/D-1)^{1.08}) Re^{-0.16}</math> | ||
Note that the experimental results have an error of 2.5%. | |||
Large Eddy Simulation shows a very good agreement with the correlations and Ames et al. experimental results. The relative error is equal to 1% end 3% for the two Reynolds numbers, respectively. for both computed Reynolds numbers. The EB-RSM shows a very satisfactory pressure loss coefficient at <math>Re_D=10000</math> (1% error) but a worse pressure loss coefficient at <math>Re_D=30000</math> (10% error). The kω-SST shows globally good results (7% and 6% errors) and the φ-model poorer results with an error of 17% and 12% for the two Reynolds numbers, respectively. | Large Eddy Simulation shows a very good agreement with the correlations and Ames et al. experimental results. The relative error is equal to 1% end 3% for the two Reynolds numbers, respectively. for both computed Reynolds numbers. The EB-RSM shows a very satisfactory pressure loss coefficient at <math>Re_D=10000</math> (1% error) but a worse pressure loss coefficient at <math>Re_D=30000</math> (10% error). The kω-SST shows globally good results (7% and 6% errors) and the φ-model poorer results with an error of 17% and 12% for the two Reynolds numbers, respectively. | ||
Revision as of 12:52, 21 April 2015
Flow and heat transfer in a pin-fin array
Confined Flows
Underlying Flow Regime 4-18
Evaluation
Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments
Discuss how well the CFD calculations of the assessment quantities
compare with experiment and with one another. Present some key
comparisons in the form of tables or graphical plots and, where
possible, provide hyperlinks to the appropriate results database.
Results with different turbulence models covering as wide a range as
possible should be included in the discussion. However, if too many
different calculation results are available (e.g. from workshops) do
not present all the comparisons here. A selection should be made
showing results only for the most typical and practically important
models. Comprehensive comparisons can be made available via a link to
the associated databases. Finally, draw conclusions on the ability of
the models used to simulate the test case flow.
Global comparisons
Pressure loss coefficient
The following table gives the numerical values of the presure loss coefficient in Ames et al. experiment as well as those obtained in the main computations.
Figure ?? shows these values and compare them to existing correlations from the literature:
- Metzger et al. (1982) :
for , Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbases.") from server "https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle f = 0.317 {Re_D}^{−0.132} } , for , Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle f = 1.76 {Re_D}^{−0.318}}
- Jacob (1938) :
Note that the experimental results have an error of 2.5%. Large Eddy Simulation shows a very good agreement with the correlations and Ames et al. experimental results. The relative error is equal to 1% end 3% for the two Reynolds numbers, respectively. for both computed Reynolds numbers. The EB-RSM shows a very satisfactory pressure loss coefficient at (1% error) but a worse pressure loss coefficient at (10% error). The kω-SST shows globally good results (7% and 6% errors) and the φ-model poorer results with an error of 17% and 12% for the two Reynolds numbers, respectively.
Wall resolved LES is then the best candidate to obtain almost perfect pressure loss coefficients in the present configuration. The EB-RSM five very good results at the lowest Reynolds number but a substantial error is observed at . Although the kω-SST exhibits pretty good results, the physics of the present flow is not well captured and one can't rely on this model. The φ-model has to be avoided for the present configuration in order to compute the pressure loss coefficient.
kω-SST (Menter (1994)), φ-model (Laurence et al. (2005))
Ames et al. | LES3000 | Ames et al. | LES10000 | EBRSM10000 | PHI10000 | kwSST10000 | Ames et al. | EBRSM30000 | PHI30000 | kwSST30000 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value | 0.111 | 0.1076 | 0.095 | 0.0939 | 0.0963 | 0.0789 | 0.0883 | 0.07 | 0.0771 | 0.0615 | 0.0744 |
Error (%) | - | 3 | - | 1 | 1 | 17 | 7 | - | 10 | 12 | 6 |
Figure ??: Pressure loss coefficient
Average Nusselt Number
Ames et al. 3000 | Ames et al. 10000 | Ames et al. 30000 | LES3000 | LES10000 | EBRSM10000 | PHI10000 | kwSST10000 | EBRSM30000 | PHI30000 | kwSST30000 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22.1 | 54.1 | 111.5 | 21.6 | 48.6 | 48.1 | 37.6 | 33.1 | 114.8 | 93.3 | 72 |
Figure ??: Averaged Nusselt number on the bottom wall
Local comparisons
Mean pressure coefficient
Figure ??: Pressure coefficient along the midline of the pins - LES at
Figure ??: Pressure coefficient along the midline of the pins - LES and URANS computations at
Figure ??: Pressure coefficient along the midline of the pins - URANS computations at
Mean velocity profiles
Figure ??: Mean stream-wse velocity component along line B - LES at
Figure ??: Mean stream-wse velocity component along line B - LES and URANS computations at
Figure ??: Mean stream-wse velocity component along line B - URANS computations at
Figure ??: Mean stream-wse velocity component along line A1 - URANS computations at
R.m.s. velocity profiles
Figure ??: R.m.s. of the stream-wise velocity component along line B - LES at
Figure ??: R.m.s. of the stream-wise velocity component along line B - LES and URANS computations at
Figure ??: Resolved and modelled contributions to the r.m.s. of the stream-wise velocity component along line B - URANS computations at
Figure ??: R.m.s. of the stream-wise velocity component along line B - URANS computations at
Figure ??: Resolved and modelled contributions to the r.m.s. of the stream-wise velocity component along line B - URANS computations at
Figure ??: R.m.s. of the stream-wise velocity component along line A1 - URANS computations at
Figure ??: Resolved and modelled contributions to the r.m.s. of the stream-wise velocity component along line A1 - URANS computations at
Nusselt number on the bottom wall
Figure ??: Local Nusselt number on the bottom wall - LES computation at vs. experimental results from Ames et al.
Figure ??: Local Nusselt number on the bottom wall - LES and URANS computations at vs. experimental results from Ames et al.
Figure ??: Local Nusselt number on the bottom wall - URANS computations at vs. experimental results from Ames et al.
Figure ??: Local Nusselt number on the bottom wall - - top: Y=0, bottom: Y=1.25 - symb.: Exp. - black: LES
Figure ??: Local Nusselt number on the bottom wall - - top: Y=0, bottom: Y=1.25 - symb.: Exp. - black: LES - red: EBRSM - blue: Phi-model - green: kw-SST
Figure ??: Local Nusselt number on the bottom wall - - top: Y=0, bottom: Y=1.25 - symb.: Exp. - red: EBRSM - blue: Phi-model - green: kw-SST
Contributed by: Sofiane Benhamadouche — EDF
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024