Evaluation AC3-10

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

Combining/dividing flow in Y junction

Application Challenge 3-10 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004

Comparison of Test data and CFD

The CFD results have been used to calculate the pressure drops between the main branch (leg 1) and each of the two secondary branches (legs 2 and 3) for each case. These are compared with the experimental data in Figures 11 to 14. The following conclusions can be drawn:

• Both turbulence models predict the variation of pressure drop with flow split in the Y-junction reasonably well.

• Neither turbulence model shows much sensitivity to the near-wall mesh resolution.

• The ‘differential stress’ turbulence model generally gives better agreement with the experimental data.

Recommendations for future work

The following recommendations for future work are appropriate:

• Do further CFD calculations using finer grids.

• Perform further experiments to measure velocities and turbulence quantities within the Y-junction

Figure 6 - Y-Junction Geometry & Block Structure

Figure 7 – Coarse mesh at z=0

Figure 8 – Coarse mesh at main branch inlet

Figure 9 – Fine mesh at z=0

Figure 10 – Fine mesh at main branch inlet

Figure 11 Test D - Comparison of experimental data and CFX4 predictions

Figure 12 Test D – Comparison of experimental data and CFX4 predictions

Figure 13 Test H – Comparison of experimental data and CFX4 predictions

Figure 14 Test H – Comparison of experimental data and CFX4 predictions

© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004

---

Contributors: Alan Stevens - Rolls-Royce Marine Power, Engineering & Technology Division

Site Design and Implementation: Atkins and UniS

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice