UFR 4-08 Evaluation: Difference between revisions
m (UFR 4-08 Evaluation moved to SilverP:UFR 4-08 Evaluation) |
m (Dave.Ellacott moved page SilverP:UFR 4-08 Evaluation to UFR 4-08 Evaluation over redirect) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{UFR|front=UFR 4-08|description=UFR 4-08 Description|references=UFR 4-08 References|testcase=UFR 4-08 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 4-08 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 4-08 Quality Review|bestpractice=UFR 4-08 Best Practice Advice|relatedACs=UFR 4-08 Related ACs}} | {{UFR|front=UFR 4-08|description=UFR 4-08 Description|references=UFR 4-08 References|testcase=UFR 4-08 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 4-08 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 4-08 Quality Review|bestpractice=UFR 4-08 Best Practice Advice|relatedACs=UFR 4-08 Related ACs}} | ||
| Line 37: | Line 36: | ||
{{UFR|front=UFR 4-08|description=UFR 4-08 Description|references=UFR 4-08 References|testcase=UFR 4-08 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 4-08 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 4-08 Quality Review|bestpractice=UFR 4-08 Best Practice Advice|relatedACs=UFR 4-08 Related ACs}} | {{UFR|front=UFR 4-08|description=UFR 4-08 Description|references=UFR 4-08 References|testcase=UFR 4-08 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 4-08 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 4-08 Quality Review|bestpractice=UFR 4-08 Best Practice Advice|relatedACs=UFR 4-08 Related ACs}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:17, 12 February 2017
Orifice/deflector flow
Underlying Flow Regime 4-08 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
Evaluation
Comparison of CFD calculations with Experiments
A comparison of the numerical results with the experiments was conducted for both cases A and B. The mean velocities were predicted reasonably well, however, a small over-prediction of the axial velocity in the region of the vena contracta was observed (Fig. 6). In the shear layer at x/H = 2 the turbulent kinetic energy was considerably under-predicted. Further downstream an over-prediction of the maximum k-value was found (Fig. 6). The above conclusions can be also made for case A, however, the agreement with the measurements was slightly better, especially for the turbulent kinetic energy. The calculated normalized wall friction coefficient for this case also agreed very well with the measurements (Fig. 7)
Fig. 6 Comparison of computed and measured profiles of the mean velocities and the turbulent kinetic energy for case B with Re = 22,000 using 248 x 56 grids
Fig. 7 Comparison of the computed and measured normalized wall friction coefficient along the pipe, starting at the orifice for case A and Re = 22,000
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
Contributors: Martin Sommerfeld - Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg