Difference between revisions of "Evaluation AC3-10"

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: ='''Combining/dividing flow in Y junction'''= '''Application Challenge 3-10''' © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004 =='''Comparison of Test data and CFD'''== The CFD results have be...)
 
m (Dave.Ellacott moved page Silver:Evaluation AC3-10 to Evaluation AC3-10 over redirect)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{AC|front=AC 3-10|description=Description_AC3-10|testdata=Test Data_AC3-10|cfdsimulations=CFD Simulations_AC3-10|evaluation=Evaluation_AC3-10|qualityreview=Quality Review_AC3-10|bestpractice=Best Practice Advice_AC3-10|relatedUFRs=Related UFRs_AC3-10}}
 +
 
='''Combining/dividing flow in Y junction'''=
 
='''Combining/dividing flow in Y junction'''=
  
Line 139: Line 141:
  
  
 +
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
  
 
+
----
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
 
  
 
Contributors: Alan Stevens - Rolls-Royce Marine Power, Engineering & Technology Division
 
Contributors: Alan Stevens - Rolls-Royce Marine Power, Engineering & Technology Division
  
Site Design and Implementation: Atkins and UniS
+
Site Design and Implementation: [[Atkins]] and [[UniS]]
 
 
        Top              Next
+
{{AC|front=AC 3-10|description=Description_AC3-10|testdata=Test Data_AC3-10|cfdsimulations=CFD Simulations_AC3-10|evaluation=Evaluation_AC3-10|qualityreview=Quality Review_AC3-10|bestpractice=Best Practice Advice_AC3-10|relatedUFRs=Related UFRs_AC3-10}}

Latest revision as of 16:12, 11 February 2017

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



Image302.gif


Image303.gif


Image304.gif


Image305.gif


Image306.gif


Image307.gif


Image308.gif


Image309.gif


Image310.gif


Image311.gif


Image1.jpg


Image2.jpg


Image312.gif


Image3.jpg


Image313.gif


Figure 6 - Y-Junction Geometry & Block Structure


Image314.gif

Figure 7 – Coarse mesh at z=0


Image315.gif

Figure 8 – Coarse mesh at main branch inlet


Image316.gif

Figure 9 – Fine mesh at z=0


Image317.gif

Figure 10 – Fine mesh at main branch inlet


Image318.gif

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


Image319.gif

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


Image320.gif

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


Image321.gif

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