VALIDATION EXAMPLES

SOLIDWORKS FLOW SIMULATION 2021

EN
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter 2
Flow through a Cone Valve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 3
Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 4
Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 5
Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 6
Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Chapter 7
Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Bilateral Sudden Expansion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Unilateral Sudden Expansion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Flow Simulation, v2021 3

July 2020
 Table of Contents

Chapter 8
Flow over a Circular Cylinder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Chapter 9
Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-Divergent Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Chapter 10
Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Chapter 11
Flow over a Heated Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Chapter 12
Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter 13
Pin-fin Heat Sink Cooling by Natural Convection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 14
Plate Fin Heat Sink Cooling by Forced Convection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Chapter 15
Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 16
Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Chapter 17
Flow over a Heated Cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Chapter 18
Natural Convection in a Square Cavity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Chapter 19
Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Chapter 20
Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Chapter 21
Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Chapter 22
Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Chapter 23
Flow in an Impeller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 24
Rotation of Greek Cross Cylinder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

4 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020
Table of Contents

Chapter 25
Cavitation on a hydrofoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Chapter 26
Isothermal Cavitation in a Throttle Nozzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Chapter 27
Thermoelectric Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Chapter 28
Buice-Eaton 2D Diffuser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Chapter 29
Flow Over a Broad-crested Weir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Chapter 30
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Flow Simulation, v2021 5

July 2020
 Table of Contents

6 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020
 List of Figures

Figure 2-1. The cone valve under consideration: D = 0.206 m, Dax = 1.515D, α = 13°40’. 17
Figure 2-2. The model for calculating the 3D flow in the cone valve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 2-3. Comparison of the Flow Simulation predictions with the experimental data on the
cone valve’s hydraulic resistance versus the cone valve turning angle. . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 2-4. Comparison of the Flow Simulation predictions with the experimental data on the
cone valve’s torque coefficient versus the cone valve turning angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 2-5. Flow trajectories colored by total pressure at φ = 45°. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 2-6. The cone valve’s velocity contours and vectors at φ = 45°. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 3-1. Flow between two parallel plates.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 3-2. The model for calculating 2D flow between two parallel plates with Flow
Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 3-3. The water and liquid #3 velocity profiles u(y) at the channel outlet. . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 3-4. The water and liquid #3 longitudinal pressure change along the channel, P(x). 26
Figure 3-5. The liquids #1 and #2 velocity profiles u(y) at the channel outlet. . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 3-6. The liquids #1 and #2 longitudinal pressure change along the channel, P(x). . . 27
Figure 3-7. The liquid #4 velocity profile u(y) at the channel outlet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 3-8. The liquid #4 longitudinal pressure change along the channel, P(x). . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 3-9. The logarithmic-law compressible liquid's longitudinal pressure change along the
channel, P(x). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 3-10. The power-law compressible liquid's longitudinal pressure change along the
channel, P(x). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 4-1. Flow in a pipe.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 4-2. The geometry model for calculating 3D flow in a pipe with Flow Simulation. 32
Figure 4-3. The fluid velocity profile at the pipe exit for Red = 100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 4-4. The longitudinal pressure change (pressure gradient) along the pipe at Red = 100.
34
Figure 4-5. The longitudinal pressure change (pressure gradient) along the pipe at Red = 105.
35
Figure 4-6. The fluid velocity profile at the pipe exit at Red = 105. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 4-7. The friction factor predicted by Flow Simulation for smooth pipes in comparison
with the theoretical and empirical data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 4-8. The friction factor predicted by Flow Simulation for smooth and rough pipes in
comparison with the theoretical and empirical data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 5-1. Flow over a flat plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 5-2. The model for calculating the flow over the flat plate with Flow Simulation: (1) inlet,
(2) outlet, (3) ideal wall, (4) rough or smooth wall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 5-3. The flat plate drag coefficient predicted with Flow Simulation for rough and
hydraulically smooth flat plates in comparison with the semi-empirical curves. . . . 41
Figure 6-1. The 90°-bend square duct's configuration indicating the velocity measuring stations
and the dimensionless coordinates used for presenting the velocity profiles. . . . . . . 44

Flow Simulation, v2021 7

July 2020
 List of Figures

Figure 6-2. The duct's velocity profiles predicted by Flow Simulation (red lines) in comparison
with the experimental data (circles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 6-3. The duct's velocity profiles predicted by Flow Simulation (red lines) in comparison
with the experimental data (circles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 6-4. The duct's velocity isolines at the θ = 60° section predicted by Flow Simulation (left)
in comparison with the experimental data (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 6-5. The duct's velocity isolines at the θ = 90° section predicted by Flow Simulation (left)
in comparison with the experimental data (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 7-1. Flow in a 2D (plane) channel with a bilateral sudden expansion. . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 7-2. Flow in a 2D (plane) channel with a unilateral sudden expansion. . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 7-3. Comparison of Flow Simulation calculations to the theoretical values for the sudden
expansion hydraulic loss coefficient versus the channel expansion area ratio. . . . . . 51
Figure 7-4. The geometry model for calculating the 2D flow in the unilateral-sudden-expansion
channel with Flow Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 7-5. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's velocity profiles predicted by Flow
Simulation (red lines) in comparison with the experimental data (black lines with dark
circles).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 7-6. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's recirculation zone length predicted by
Flow Simulation (red square) in comparison with the experimental data (black signs).53
Figure 7-7. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel recirculation zone's separation streamlines
and vortex center, both predicted by Flow Simulation (red lines and square) in
comparison with the experimental data (black signs).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 8-1. Flow past a cylinder at low Reynolds numbers (4 < Re < 60).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 8-2. Flow past a cylinder at Reynolds numbers Re > 60…100.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 8-3. The geometry model used to calculate 2D flow over a cylinder. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 8-4. Flow trajectories over and past a cylinder at Re = 41 predicted with Flow Simulation
(above) in comparison with a photo of such flow (below). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 8-5. Velocity contours of flow over and past the cylinder at Re = 140.. . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 8-6. The cylinder flow's Strouhal number predicted with Flow Simulation (red triangles)
in comparison with the experimental data (blue line with dashes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 8-7. The cylinder drag coefficient predicted by Flow Simulation (red diamonds) in
comparison with the experimental data (black marks). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 9-1. Supersonic flow in a 2D convergent-divergent channel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 9-2. Dimensions (in m) of the 2D convergent-divergent channel including a reference line
for comparing the Mach number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 9-3. The model for calculating the 2D supersonic flow in the 2D convergent-divergent
channel with Flow Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 9-4. Mach number values predicted with Flow Simulation along the reference line (the
reference points on it are marked by square boxes with numbers) in comparison with the
theoretical values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 9-5. Mach number contours predicted by Flow Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 10-1. Supersonic flow over a segmental conic body.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 10-2. Model sketch dimensioned in centimeters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 10-3. The geometry model for calculating the 3D flow over the 3D segmental conic body
with Flow Simulation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

8 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020
List of Figures

Figure 10-4. The longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic drag coefficients predicted with Flow
Simulation and measured in the experiments versus the body tilting angle. . . . . . . . 66
Figure 10-5. The longitudinal aerodynamic torque coefficient predicted with Flow Simulation
and measured in the experiments versus the body tilting angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 10-6. Mach number contours at α = 0°. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 10-7. Mach number contours at α = 60°. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 10-8. Mach number contours at α = 90°. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figure 11-1. Laminar flow over a heated flat plate:
1 - computational domain, 2 - heated plate.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 11-2. The geometry model used for calculating the 2D flow over heated flat plate with
Flow Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 11-3. Heat transfer coefficient change along a heated plate in a laminar boundary layer:
Flow Simulation predictions compared to theory.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 11-4. Skin-friction coefficient change along a heated plate in a laminar boundary layer:
Flow Simulation predictions compared to theory.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 12-1. Laminar flow in a heated annular tube.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 12-2. A model created for calculating 3D flow within a heated annular tube using Flow
Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 12-3. Fluid temperature profiles across the tube in the case of convection only, predicted
with Flow Simulation and compared to the theoretical curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 12-4. Fluid temperature profiles across the tube in the case coupling convection and
radiation, predicted with Flow Simulation and compared to the theoretical curve. . 82
Figure 13-1. The pin-fin heat sink nestled within two plexiglass boxes: (a) pin array, (b) pin size
and pitch, (c) external enclosure, (d) internal enclosure.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 13-2. A model created for calculating the heat transfer from the pin-fin heat sink through
the two nested boxes into the environment: (a) the internal (smaller) box with the heat
sink; (b) the whole model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Figure 13-3. Flow streamlines visualized by smoke in the experiments (left) and obtained in the
calculations (colored in accordance with the flow velocity values) (right). . . . . . . . 86
Figure 14-1. Geometry model of the heat sink. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Figure 14-2. Vertical cut view of heat sink: (1) heat sink, (2) thermocouple, (3) electrically
heated foil, (4) insulation, (5) bottom of wind tunnel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Figure 14-3. The computational mesh (cases 1-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 14-4. Thermal resistance of the Heat Sink versus Reynold number in comparison with the
experimental data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 15-1. A warm solid rod cooling down from an initial temperature to the temperature at the
ends of the rod.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Figure 15-2. The geometry model used for calculating heat conduction in a solid rod with Flow
Simulation (the computational domain envelopes the rod). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 15-3. Evolution of the maximum rod temperature, predicted with Flow Simulation and
compared to theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 15-4. Evolution of the temperature distribution along the rod, predicted with Flow
Simulation and compared to theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 16-1. Laminar flow in a tube cooled externally: (1) liquid, (2) polystyrene. . . . . . . . 95
Figure 16-2. The model used for calculating the 3D flow and the conjugate heat transfer in the

Flow Simulation, v2021 9

July 2020
 List of Figures

tube with Flow Simulation: (1) sketch line for temperature profile determination, (2)
computational domain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 16-3. Fluid and solid temperature profiles across the tube, predicted with Flow
Simulation and compared with the theoretical curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 17-1. 2D flow over a heated cylinder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Figure 17-2. Nusselt number for air flow over a heated cylinder: Flow Simulation predictions
and the experimental data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 18-1. An enclosed 2D square cavity with natural convection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 18-2. The model created for calculating the 2D natural convection flow in the 2D square
cavity using Flow Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 18-3. The parameters distributions predicted by Flow Simulation in the square cavity at
Ra = 105: (a) temperature, (b) X-velocity, (c) Y-velocity, (d) velocity vectors, and (e)
streamlines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 18-4. The average sidewall Nusselt number vs. the Rayleigh number. . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 18-5. Dimensionless maximum velocities vs. Rayleigh number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 18-6. Dimensionless coordinates of the maximum velocities' locations. . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 19-1. Injection of a particle into a uniform fluid flow.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Figure 19-2. The model geometry: (1) inlet, (2) origin and particle injection point, (3) outlet,
(4) ideal wall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Figure 19-3. Particle trajectories in a uniform fluid flow at Remax = 0.1, predicted by Flow
Simulation and obtained from the analytical solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Figure 19-4. Particle trajectories in a uniform fluid flow at Remax = 105, predicted by Flow
Simulation and obtained from the analytical solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Figure 19-5. Particle trajectories in the Y-directed gravity, predicted by Flow Simulation and
obtained from the analytical solution.I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 20-1. Leveling effect of a porous screen (gauze) on a non-uniform stream: (1) air stream,
(2) porous screen.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Figure 20-2. The geometry model used for calculating the 2D flow between two parallel plates
and through the porous screen with Flow Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Figure 20-3. Inlet velocity profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Figure 20-4. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 0, predicted by Flow Simulation and compared
to the experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Figure 20-5. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 0.95, predicted by Flow Simulation and
compared to the experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Figure 20-6. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 1.2, predicted by Flow Simulation and
compared to the experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 20-7. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 2.8, predicted by Flow Simulation and
compared to the experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 20-8. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 4.1, predicted by Flow Simulation and
compared to the experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 21-1. The 2D triangular (left) and trapezoidal (right) cavities with the moving walls
(the motionless walls are shown with dashes). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Figure 21-2. The models for calculating the lid-driven 2D flows in the triangular (left) and
trapezoidal (right) cavities with Flow Simulation, where MW - moving walls. . . . 122
Figure 21-3. The flow trajectories in the triangular cavity, calculated by Flow Simulation (right)

10 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020
List of Figures

and compared to the reference calculation (left).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Figure 21-4. The triangular cavity’s flow velocity X-component along the central vertical
bisector, calculated by Flow Simulation (red line) and compared to the reference
calculation (black line with circlets).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 21-5. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with a top only moving wall at
Re = 100, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the reference
calculation (left). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 21-6. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with a top only moving wall at
Re = 400, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the reference
calculation (left). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 21-7. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with a top only moving wall at
Re = 1000, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the reference
calculation (left). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 21-8. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with two moving walls at Re = 100,
calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the reference calculation (left).
125
Figure 21-9. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with two moving walls at Re = 400,
calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the reference calculation (left).
125
Figure 21-10. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with two moving walls at Re = 1000,
calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the reference calculation (left).
125
Figure 21-11. The flow velocity X-component along the central vertical bisector in the
trapezoidal cavity with two moving walls at Re = 400, calculated by Flow Simulation
(red line) and compared to the reference calculation (black line). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 22-1. The cylindrical vessel with the a rotating cover (yellow). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Figure 22-2. The vessel's flow velocity vectors projected on the XY-plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 22-3. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along the X = 0.6
vertical, calculated by Flow Simulation (red) and compared to the experimental data.
129
Figure 22-4. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along the X = 0.7
vertical, calculated by Flow Simulation (red) and compared to the experimental data.
130
Figure 22-5. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along the X = 0.8
vertical, calculated by Flow Simulation (red) and compared to the experimental data.
131
Figure 22-6. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along the X = 0.9
vertical, calculated by Flow Simulation (red) and compared to the experimental data.
132
Figure 23-1. The impeller's blades geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 23-2. The model used for calculating the 3D flow in the impeller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Figure 23-3. Definition of the passage-wise flow velocity: PS - pressure side, SS - suction side.
135
Figure 23-4. Definition of the reference radial lines along which the passage-wise flow velocity
was measured experimentally (from a to s in the alphabetical order). . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Flow Simulation, v2021 11

July 2020
 List of Figures

Figure 23-5. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the g radial line, calculated by
Flow Simulation and compared to the experimental data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Figure 23-6. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the j radial line, calculated by Flow
Simulation and compared to the experimental data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Figure 23-7. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the m radial line, calculated by
Flow Simulation and compared to the experimental data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 23-8. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the p radial line, calculated by
Flow Simulation and compared to the experimental data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 23-9. A cut plot of the impeller's passage-wise flow velocity calculated by Flow
Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure 24-1. Cylinder cross-section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Figure 24-2. Flow field at ω = 300 rpm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Figure 24-3. Flow field at ω = 2000 rpm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Figure 24-4. The lift coefficient predicted by Flow Simulation and measured experimentally.
141
Figure 24-5. The aerodynamic coefficients predicted by Flow Simulation and measured
experimentally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Figure 25-1. The model geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Figure 25-2. A comparison of calculated and experimentally observed cavitation areas for
different cavitation numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Figure 25-3. A comparison of calculated and measured cavitation lengths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 25-4. A comparison of calculated and measured pressure coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Figure 26-1. The channel geometry: (s) symmetry plane, L = 1 mm, H = 0.299 mm, W = 0.3 mm,
Rin = 0.02 mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Figure 26-2. The computational mesh (zoom-view). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Figure 26-3. Cavitation fields at symmetry plane.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 26-4. Mass flow rate versus pressure drop at 100 bar inlet pressure in comparison with the
experimental data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 27-1. Structure of the thermoelectric cooler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 27-2. The thermoelectric module test setup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 27-3. The model geometry: (1) TEC, (2) part of infrared focal plane array detector,
(3) part of heat sink. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 27-4. The TEC’s characteristics in the Engineering Database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Figure 27-5. ΔT as a function of current under various Th.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Figure 27-6. ΔT as a function of heat flow under various Th. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 27-7. COP as a function of ΔT under various Th. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 28-1. Schematics of the diffuser. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Figure 28-2. Skin friction along lower (a) and upper (b) walls predicted by Flow Simulation and
measured experimentally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Figure 28-3. Mean velocity (a) and turbulent energy (b) profiles predicted by Flow Simulation
and measured experimentally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 29-1. Steady flow over a broad-crested weir.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Figure 29-2. The water stream depth and the velocity at the weir highest point predicted by theory
and calculated by Flow Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

12 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020
 List of Tables

Table 3-1. Non-Newtonian liquids' models and their governing characteristics . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 4-1. Pipe inlet velocities and lengths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 9-1. Mach number values predicted with Flow Simulation with comparison to the
theoretical values at the reference points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 12-1. Radiation rates predicted with Flow Simulation with comparison to the theoretical
values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 14-1. Inlet boundary conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Table 17-1. Constants for use with Nusselt equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Table 17-2. The Flow Simulation specifications of U and Q for the problem under consideration.
100
Table 26-1. Properties of the diesel fuel (2-D) at 30°C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Flow Simulation, v2021 13

July 2020
 List of Tables

14 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020
 Chapter 1
Introduction

A series of calculation examples presented below validate the ability of SOLIDWORKS®

Flow Simulation to predict the essential features of various flows, as well as to solve conjugate
heat transfer problems (i.e. flow problems with heat transfer in solids). In order to perform the
validation accurately and to present clear results which the user can check independently,
relatively simple examples have been selected. For each of the following examples, exact
analytical expression or well-documented experimental results exist. Each of the examples
focus on one or two particular physical phenomena such as: laminar flow with or without heat
transfer, turbulent flows including vortex development, boundary layer separation and heat
transfer, compressible gas flow with shock and expansion waves. Therefore, these examples
validate the ability of Flow Simulation to predict fundamental flow features accurately. The
accuracy of predictions can be extrapolated to typical industrial examples (encountered every
day by design engineers and solved using Flow Simulation), which may include a combination
of the above-mentioned physical phenomena and geometries of arbitrary complexity.

Flow Simulation, v2021 15

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Introduction

16 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 2
Flow through a Cone Valve

Let us see how Flow Simulation predicts incompressible turbulent 3D flows in a 3D cone
valve. Characteristic of cone valve inner flow filed influences directly the valves performance.
Especially when fluid flow in runner is turbulent, characteristics of flow field have great
influence on the valves working performance.
The 3D cone valve experimental data is taken from Ref. 27 (the same in Ref. 14). The cone
valve has a complex flow passage geometry combining sudden 3D contractions and expansions
at different turning angles φ (Figure 2-1). Following the Ref. 14 and Ref. 27 recommendations
on determining a valve’s hydraulic resistance correctly, i.e. to avoid any valve-generated flow
disturbances at the places of measuring the flow total pressures upstream and downstream of the
valve, the inlet and outlet straight pipes of the same diameter D and of enough length (we take
7D and 17D) are connected to the valve, so constituting the experimental rig model (see
Figure 2-2). As in Ref. 27, a water flows through this model. Its temperature of 293.2 K and
fully developed turbulent inlet profile (see Ref. 21) with mass-average velocity U ≈ 0.5 m/s (to
yield the turbulent flow’s Reynolds number based on the pipe diameter ReD = 105) are specified
at the model inlet, and static pressure of 1 atm is specified at the model outlet.

Figure 2-1. The cone valve under consideration: D = 0.206 m, Dax = 1.515D,
α = 13°40’.

The corresponding model used for these predictions is shown in Figure 2-2. The valve’s turning
angle φ is varied in the range of 0…55° (the valve opening diminishes to zero at φ = 82°30´).

Flow Simulation, v2021 17

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow through a Cone Valve

Figure 2-2. The model for calculating the 3D flow in the cone valve.

The flow predictions performed with Flow Simulation are validated by comparing the valve’s
hydraulic resistance ζv, and the dimensionless coefficient of torque M (see Figure 2-1) acting on
the valve, m, to the experimental data of Ref. 27 (Ref. 14).

Since Ref. 27 presents the valve’s hydraulic resistance (i.e. the resistance due to the flow
obstacle, which is the valve) ζv, whereas the flow calculations in the model (as well as the
experiments on the rig) yield the total hydraulic resistance including both ζv and the tubes’
hydraulic resistance due to friction, ζf, i.e. ζ = ζv + ζf, then, to obtain ζv from the flow predictions
(as well as from the experiments), ζf is calculated (measured in the experiments) separately, at
the fully open valve (φ = 0); then ζv = ζ – ζf.

In accordance with Ref. 27, both ζ and ζf are defined as (Po inlet – Po outlet)/(ρU2/2), where

Po inlet and Po outlet are the flow total pressures at the model’s inlet and outlet, accordingly, ρ is
the fluid density. The torque coefficient is defined as m = M/[D3·(ρU2/2)·(1 + ζv)], where M is
the torque trying to slew the valve around its axis (vertical in the left picture in Figure 2-1) due
to a non-uniform pressure distribution over the valve’s inner passage (naturally, the valve’s
outer surface pressure cannot contribute to this torque). M is measured directly in the
experiments and is integrated by Flow Simulation over the valve’s inner passage.

The Flow Simulation predictions have been performed at result resolution level of 5 with
manual setting of the minimum gap size to the valve’s minimum passage in the Y = 0 plane and
the minimum wall thickness to 3 mm (to resolve the valve’s sharp edges).

Flow Simulation has predicted ζf = 0.455, ζv shown in Figure 2-3, and m shown in Figure 2-4 It
is seen that the Flow Simulation predictions well agree with the experimental data of Ref. 27.

This cone valve's 3D vortex flow pattern at φ = 45° is shown in Figure 2-5 by flow trajectories
colored by total pressure. The corresponding velocity contours and vectors at the Y = 0 plane are
shown in Figure 2-6.

18 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow through a Cone Valve

Figure 2-3. Comparison of the Flow Simulation predictions with the

experimental data on the cone valve’s hydraulic resistance versus the cone
valve turning angle.

Figure 2-4. Comparison of the Flow Simulation predictions with the

experimental data on the cone valve’s torque coefficient versus the cone valve
turning angle.

Flow Simulation, v2021 19

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow through a Cone Valve

Figure 2-5. Flow trajectories colored by total pressure at φ = 45°.

Figure 2-6. The cone valve’s velocity contours and vectors at φ = 45°.

20 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 3
Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

Let us consider two-dimensional (planar) steady-state laminar flows of Newtonian, non-

Newtonian, and compressible liquids between two parallel stationary plates spaced at a distance
of 2h.
In the case of Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids the channel has a 2h = 0.01 m height and a
0.2 m length, the inlet for these liquids have standard ambient temperature (293.2 K) and a
uniform inlet velocity profile of uav = 0.01 m/s (entrance disturbances are neglected). The
geometry model is shown in Figure 3-1.The inlet pressure is not known beforehand, since it will
be obtained from the calculations in accordance with the specified channel exit pressure of
1 atm. The fluids pass through the channel due to a pressure gradient.

Figure 3-1. Flow between two parallel plates.

Since the Reynolds number based on the channel height is equal to about Re2h = 100, the flow is
laminar.

As for the liquids, let us consider water as a Newtonian liquid and four non-Newtonian liquids
having identical density of 1000 kg/m3, identical specific heat of 4200 J/(kgK) and identical
thermal conductivity of 10 W/(mK), but obeying different non-Newtonian liquid laws available
in Flow Simulation.

The considered non-Newtonian liquids' models and their governing characteristics are presented
in Table 3-1. These models are featured by the function connecting the flow shear stress (τ) with

Flow Simulation, v2021 21

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

the flow shear rate ( ), i.e. , or, following Newtonian liquids, the liquid dynamic
viscosity (η) with the flow shear rate ( ), i.e. :

1. the Herschel-Bulkley model: , where K is the consistency coefficient, n

is the power-law index, and τ0 is the yield stress (a special case with n = 1 gives the
Bingham model);

2. the power-law model: , i.e., , which is a special case of Herschel-

Bulkley model with τ0 = 0;

3. the Carreau model: , , where η∞ is the liquid

dynamic viscosity at infinite shear rate, i.e. the minimum dynamic viscosity, η0 is the
liquid dynamic viscosity at zero shear rate, i.e. the maximum dynamic viscosity, K1 is
the time constant, n is the power-law index (this model is a smooth version of the power-
law model).

Table 3-1. Non-Newtonian liquids' models and their governing characteristics

Non-Newtonian liquid No. 1 2 3 4

Non-Newtonian liquid model Herschel- Bingham Power Carreau
Bulkley law
Consistency coefficient, K (Pa·sn) 0.001 0.001 0.001 -
Power law index, n 1.5 1 0.6 0.4
Yield stress, τ0 (Pa) 0.001 0.001 - -
Minimum dynamic viscosity, η∞ - - - 10-4
(Pa·s)
Maximum dynamic viscosity, η0 - - - 10-3
(Pa·s)
Time constant, K1 (s) - - - 1

In accordance with the well-known theory presented in Ref. 21, after some entrance length, the
flow profile u(y) becomes fully developed and invariable. It can be determined from the Navier-

Stokes x-momentum equation corresponding to this case in the

22 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

coordinate system shown in Figure 3-1 (y = 0 at the channel's center plane, is the

longitudinal pressure gradient along the channel, in the flow under consideration).

As a result, the fully developed u(y) profile for a Newtonian fluid has the following form:

where η is the fluid dynamic viscosity and h is the half height of the channel,

where uav is the flow's mass-average velocity defined as the flow's volume flow rate divided by
the area of the flow passage cross section.

For a non-Newtonian liquid described by the power-law model the fully developed u(y) profile
and the corresponding pressure gradient can be determined from the following formulas:

, .

For a non-Newtonian liquid described by the Herschel-Bulkley model the fully developed u(y)
profile can be determined from the following formulas:

at ,

at ,

where the unknown wall shear stress τw is determined numerically by solving the nonlinear
equation

Flow Simulation, v2021 23

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

e.g. with the Newton method, as described in this validation. The corresponding pressure

gradient is determined as .

For a non-Newtonian liquid described by the Carreau model the fully developed u(y) profile can
not be determined analytically in an explicit form, so in this validation example it is obtained by
solving the following parametric equation:

where p is a free parameter varied within the ±pmax range,

The p value is varied to satisfy .

The corresponding pressure gradient is equal to .

The geometry model for the 2D calculation is shown in Figure 3-2. The boundary conditions are
specified as mentioned above and the initial conditions coincide with the inlet boundary
conditions. The results of the calculations performed with Flow Simulation at result resolution
level 5 are presented in Figure 3-2 – Figure 3-7. The channel exit u(y) profile and the channel
P(x) profile were obtained along the sketches shown by green lines in Figure 3-2.

24 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

Figure 3-2. The model for calculating 2D flow between two parallel plates with
Flow Simulation.

Figure 3-3. The water and liquid #3 velocity profiles u(y) at the channel outlet.

Flow Simulation, v2021 25

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

Figure 3-4. The water and liquid #3 longitudinal pressure change along the
channel, P(x).

Figure 3-5. The liquids #1 and #2 velocity profiles u(y) at the channel outlet.

From Figure 3-4, Figure 3-6, and Figure 3-8 you can see that for all the liquids under
consideration, after some entrance length of about 0.03 m, the pressure gradient governing the
channel pressure loss becomes constant and nearly similar to the theoretical predictions. From
Figure 3-3, Figure 3-5, and Figure 3-7 you can see that the fluid velocity profiles at the channel
exit obtained from the calculations are close to the theoretical profiles.

26 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

Figure 3-6. The liquids #1 and #2 longitudinal pressure change along the
channel, P(x).

Figure 3-7. The liquid #4 velocity profile u(y) at the channel outlet.

In the case of compressible liquids the channel has the height of 2h = 0.001 m and the length of
0.5 m, the liquids at its inlet had standard ambient temperature (293.2 K) and a uniform inlet
velocity profile corresponding to the specified mass flow rate of = 0.01 kg/s.

The inlet pressure is not known beforehand, since it will be obtained from the calculations as
providing the specified mass flow rate under the specified channel exit pressure of 1 atm. (The
fluids pass through the channel due to the pressure gradient).

Flow Simulation, v2021 27

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

Figure 3-8. The liquid #4 longitudinal pressure change along the channel, P(x).

Let us consider two compressible liquids whose density obeys the following laws:

• the power law: ,

where ρ0, P0, B and n are specified: ρ0 is the liquid's density under the reference pressure
P0, B and n are constants,

• the logarithmic law: ,

where ρ0, P0, B and C are specified: ρ0 is the liquid's density under the reference
pressure P0, B and C are constants.

In this validation example these law's parameters values have been specified as ρ0 =103 kg/m3,
P0 = 1 atm, B = 107 Pa, n = 1.4, C = 1, and these liquids have the 1 Pa·s dynamic viscosity.

Since this channel is rather long, the pressure gradient along it can be determined as

where η is the liquids' dynamic viscosity, is the liquid mass flow rate, S is the channel's
width, ρ is the liquid density.

28 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

Therefore, by substitution the compressible liquids' ρ(P) functions, we obtain the following
equations for determining P(x) along the channel:

• for the power-law liquid:

its solution is ,

where C1 is a constant determined from the boundary conditions;

• for the logarithmic-law liquid: ,

this equation is solved numerically.

Both the theoretical P(x) distributions and the corresponding distributions computed within
Flow Simulation on a 5x500 computational mesh are presented in Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10. It
is seen that the Flow Simulation calculations agree with the theoretical distributions.

Figure 3-9. The logarithmic-law compressible liquid's longitudinal pressure

change along the channel, P(x).

Flow Simulation, v2021 29

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar Flows Between Two Parallel Plates

Figure 3-10. The power-law compressible liquid's longitudinal pressure change

along the channel, P(x).

30 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 4
Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

Let us see how the 3D flow through a straight pipe is predicted. We pay particular attention to
friction, which is directly related to the pressure drop and head loss during flow through a pipe.
We consider water (at standard 293.2 K temperature) flowing through a long straight pipe with
circular cross section of d = 0.1 m (see Figure 4-1). At the pipe inlet the velocity is uniform and
equal to uin. At the pipe outlet the static pressure is equal to 1 atm.

Figure 4-1. Flow in a pipe.

The geometry model used for all the 3D pipe flow calculations is shown in Figure 4-2 The
initial conditions have been specified to coincide with the inlet boundary conditions. The
computational domain is reduced to domain (Z ≥ 0, Y ≥ 0) with specifying the flow symmetry
planes at Z = 0 and Y = 0.

Flow Simulation, v2021 31

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

Figure 4-2. The geometry model for calculating 3D flow in a pipe with Flow
Simulation.

According to theory (Ref. 21), the pipe flow velocity profile changes along the pipe until it
becomes a constant, fully developed profile at a distance of Lin from the pipe inlet. According to
Ref. 21, Lin is estimated as:

where Red = ρ·U·d/µ is the Reynolds number based on the pipe diameter d, U is the mass-
average flow velocity, r is the fluid density, and μ is the fluid dynamic viscosity.

Therefore, to provide a fully developed flow in the pipe at Red under consideration, we will
study the cases listed in Table 4-1. Here, Lpipe is the overall pipe length. All the Flow
Simulation predictions concerning the fully developed pipe flow characteristics are referred to
the pipe section downstream of the inlet section.
Table 4-1. Pipe inlet velocities and lengths.
Red uin, m/s Lin, m Lpipe, m
0.1 10-6 0.3 0.45

32 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

Table 4-1. Pipe inlet velocities and lengths. (cont.)

Red uin, m/s Lin, m Lpipe, m
100 0.001 0.3 0.45
1000 0.01 3 4.5
104 0.1 4 (5)* 6 (10)*

105 1 4 (5)* 6 (10)*

106 10 4 (5)* 6 (10)*

*) the lengths in brackets are for the rough pipes.

The flow regime in a pipe can be laminar, turbulent, or transitional, depending on Red.
According to Ref. 21, Red = 4000 is approximately the boundary between laminar pipe flow and
turbulent one (here, the transitional region is not considered).

Theory (Refs. 21 and 25) states that for laminar fully developed pipe flows (Hagen-Poiseuille
flow) the velocity profile u(y) is invariable and given by:

where R is the pipe radius, and dP/dx is the longitudinal pressure gradient along the pipe, which
is also invariable and equal to:

The Flow Simulation predictions of dP/dx and u(y) of the laminar fully developed pipe flow at
Red = 100 performed at result resolution level 6 are presented in Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4. The
presented predictions relate to the smooth pipe, and similar ones not presented here have been
obtained for the case of the rough tube with relative sand roughness of k/d = 0.2…0.4 %, that
agrees with the theory (Ref. 21).

Flow Simulation, v2021 33

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

Figure 4-3. The fluid velocity profile at the pipe exit for Red = 100.

Figure 4-4. The longitudinal pressure change (pressure gradient) along the pipe
at Red = 100.

From Figure 4-4 one can see that after an entrance length of about 0.15 m the pressure gradient
predicted by Flow Simulation coincides with the one predicted by theory. Therefore, the
prediction of pipe pressure loss is excellent. As for local flow features, from Figure 4-3 one can
see that the fluid velocity profiles predicted at the pipe exit are rather close to the theoretical
profile.

The velocity profile and longitudinal pressure distribution in a smooth pipe at Red = 105, i.e., in
a turbulent pipe flow regime, predicted by Flow Simulation at result resolution level 6 are
presented in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 and compared to theory (Ref. 21, the Blasius law of
pressure loss, the 1/7-power velocity profile).

34 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

Figure 4-5. The longitudinal pressure change (pressure gradient) along the pipe
at Red = 105.

Then, to stand closer to engineering practice, let us consider the Flow Simulation predictions of
the pipe friction factor used commonly and defined as:

where L is length of the pipe section with the fully developed flow, along which pressure loss
∆P is measured.

Figure 4-6. The fluid velocity profile at the pipe exit at Red = 105.

Flow Simulation, v2021 35

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

In Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8 (scaled up) you can see the Flow Simulation predictions
performed at result resolution level 5 for the smooth pipes in the entire Red range (both laminar
and turbulent), and compared with the theoretical and empirical values determined from the
following formulas which are valid for fully-developed flows in smooth pipes (Refs. 21, 14, and
25):

It can be seen that the friction factor values predicted for smooth pipes, especially in the laminar
region, are fairly close to the theoretical and empirical curve.

As for the friction factor in rough pipes, the Flow Simulation predictions for the pipes having
relative wall roughness of k/d = 0.4% (k is the sand roughness) are presented and compared with
the empirical curve for such pipes (Refs. 21, 14, and 25) in Figure 4-8. The underprediction
error does not exceed 13%.

Additionally, in the full accordance with theory and experimental data the Flow Simulation
predictions show that the wall roughness does not affect the friction factor in laminar pipe
flows.

Figure 4-7. The friction factor predicted by Flow Simulation for smooth pipes in
comparison with the theoretical and empirical data.

36 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

Figure 4-8. The friction factor predicted by Flow Simulation for smooth and
rough pipes in comparison with the theoretical and empirical data.

Flow Simulation, v2021 37

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Pipes

38 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 5
Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates

Let us consider uniform flows over smooth and rough flat plates with laminar and turbulent
boundary layers, so that Flow Simulation predictions of a flat plate drag coefficient are
validated.
We consider the boundary layer development of incompressible uniform 2D water flow over a
flat plate of length L (see Figure 5-1). The boundary layer develops from the plate leading edge
lying at the upstream computational domain boundary. The boundary layer at the leading edge
is considered laminar. Then, at some distance from the plate leading edge the boundary layer
automatically becomes turbulent (if this distance does not exceed L).

Figure 5-1. Flow over a flat plate.

The geometry model is shown in Figure 5-2. The problem is solved as internal in order to avoid
a conflict situation in the corner mesh cell where the external flow boundary and the model wall
intersect. In the internal flow problem statement, to avoid any influence of the upper model
boundary or wall on the flow near the flat plate, the ideal wall boundary condition has been
specified on the upper wall. The plate length is equal to 10 m, the channel height is equal to 2 m,
the walls’ thickness is equal to 0.5 m.

Flow Simulation, v2021 39

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates

Figure 5-2. The model for calculating the flow over the flat plate with Flow
Simulation: (1) inlet, (2) outlet, (3) ideal wall, (4) rough or smooth wall.

To solve the problem, an incoming uniform water flow of a certain velocity (see below),
temperature of 293.2 K, turbulence intensity of 1%, and turbulence length of 0.01 m is specified
at the channel inlet, whereas the water static pressure of 1 atm is specified at the channel outlet.

The flow computation is aimed at predicting the flat plate drag coefficient, defined as (see
Refs. 21 and 25):

where F is the plate drag force, A is the plate surface area, ρ is fluid density, and V is the fluid
velocity.

According to Refs. 21 and 25, the plate drag coefficient value is governed by the Reynolds
number, based on the distance L from the plate leading edge (ReL = ρ·V·L/μ, where ρ is the fluid
density, V is the incoming uniform flow velocity, and μ is fluid dynamic viscosity), as well as
by the relative wall roughness L/k, where k is the sand roughness. As a result, Refs. 21 and 25
give us the semi-empirical flat plate CD(ReL) curves obtained for different L/k from the
generalized tubular friction factor curves and presented in Figure 5-3 (here, ε ≡ k). If the
boundary layer is laminar at the plate leading edge, then the wall roughness does not affect CD
until the transition from the laminar boundary layer to the turbulent one, i.e., the CD(ReL) curve
is the same as for a hydraulically smooth flat plate. The transition region’s boundaries depend
on various factors, the wall roughness among them. Here is shown the theoretical transition
region for a hydraulically smooth flat plate. The transition region's boundary corresponding to
fully turbulent flows (i.e., at the higher ReL) is marked in Figure 5-3 by a dashed line. At the

40 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates

higher ReL, the semi-empirical theoretical curves have flat parts along which ReL does not affect
CD at a fixed wall roughness. These flat parts of the semi-empirical theoretical curves have been
obtained by a theoretical scaling of the generalized tubular friction factor curves to the flat plate
conditions under the assumption of a turbulent boundary layer beginning from the flat plate
leading edge.

To validate the Flow Simulation flat plate CD predictions within a wide ReL range, we have
varied the incoming uniform flow velocity at the model inlet to obtain the ReL values of 105,
3·105, 106, 3·106, 107, 3·107, 108, 3·108, 109. To validate the wall roughness influence on CD,
the wall roughness k values of 0, 50, 200, 103, 5·103, 104 mm have been considered. The Flow
Simulation calculation results obtained at result resolution level 5 and compared with the semi-
empirical curves (Refs. 21 and 25) are presented in Figure 5-3.

As you can see from Figure 5-3, CD(ReL) of rough plates is somewhat underpredicted by Flow
Simulation in the turbulent region, at L/k = 1000 the CD(ReL) prediction error does not exceed
about 12%.

Figure 5-3. The flat plate drag coefficient predicted with Flow Simulation for
rough and hydraulically smooth flat plates in comparison with the semi-
empirical curves.

Flow Simulation, v2021 41

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flows Over Smooth and Rough Flat Plates

42 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 6
Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct

Let us see how the 3D flow through a bend square duct is predicted. The main feature of flow
through a bend is the presence of a radial pressure gradient created by the centrifugal force
acting on the fluid. Because of this, the fluid at the center of the pipe moves towards the outer
side and comes back along the wall towards the inner side. If the bend curvature is strong
enough, the adverse pressure gradient near the outer wall in the bend and near the inner wall just
after the bend may lead to flow separation at these points, giving rise to a large increase in
pressure losses.
Following Ref. 13, we will consider a steady-state flow of water (at 293.2 K inlet temperature
and Uin = 0.0198 m/s inlet uniform velocity) in a 40x40 mm square cross-sectional duct having
a 90°-angle bend with ri = 72 mm inner radius (ro = 112 mm outer radius accordingly) and
attached straight sections of 1.8 m upstream and 1.2 m downstream (see Figure 6-1). Since the
flow's Reynolds number, based on the duct's hydraulic diameter (D = 40 mm), is equal to
ReD = 790, the flow is laminar.

Flow Simulation, v2021 43

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct

Figure 6-1. The 90°-bend square duct's configuration indicating the velocity
measuring stations and the dimensionless coordinates used for presenting the
velocity profiles.

The predicted dimensionless (divided by Uin) velocity profiles are compared in Figure 6-2 and
Figure 6-3 with the ones measured with a laser-Doppler anemometry at the following duct cross
sections: XH = -5D, -2.5D, 0 (or θ = 0°) and at the θ = 30°, 60°, 90° bend sections. The z and r

directions are represented by coordinates and , where z1/2 = 20 mm. The

dimensionless velocity isolines (with the 0.1 step) at the duct's θ = 60° and 90° sections, both
measured in Ref. 13 and predicted with Flow Simulation, are shown in Figure 6-4 and
Figure 6-5.

It is seen that the Flow Simulation predictions are close to the Ref. 13 experimental data.

The duct's velocity profiles predicted by FLOEFD (red lines) in comparison with the Ref. 13
experimental data (circles).

44 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct

Figure 6-2. The duct's velocity profiles predicted by Flow Simulation (red lines)
in comparison with the experimental data (circles).

Flow Simulation, v2021 45

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct

Figure 6-3. The duct's velocity profiles predicted by Flow Simulation (red lines)
in comparison with the experimental data (circles).

46 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct

Figure 6-4. The duct's velocity isolines at the θ = 60° section predicted by Flow
Simulation (left) in comparison with the experimental data (right).

Figure 6-5. The duct's velocity isolines at the θ = 90° section predicted by Flow
Simulation (left) in comparison with the experimental data (right).

Flow Simulation, v2021 47

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in a 90-degree Bend Square Duct

48 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 7
Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and
Unilateral Sudden Expansions

In this example we will consider both turbulent and laminar incompressible steady-state flows
through 2D (plane) channels with bilateral and unilateral sudden expansions and parallel walls.
The both channel geometries are shown in Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2. At the 10 cm inlet height
of the bilateral-sudden-expansion channels a uniform water stream at 293.2 K and 1 m/s is
specified. The Reynolds number is based on the inlet height and is equal to Re = 105, therefore
(since Re > 104) the flow is turbulent. At the 30 mm height inlet of the unilateral-sudden-
expansion channel an experimentally measured water stream at 293.2 K and 8.25 mm/s mean
velocity is specified, so the Reynolds number based on the inlet height is equal to Re = 250,
therefore the flow is laminar. In both channels, the sudden expansion generates a vortex, which
is considered in this validation from the viewpoint of hydraulic loss in the bilateral-expansion
channel (compared to Ref. 14) and from the viewpoint of the flow velocity field in the
unilateral-expansion channel (compared to Ref. 9).

Figure 7-1. Flow in a 2D (plane) channel with a bilateral sudden expansion.

Figure 7-2. Flow in a 2D (plane) channel with a unilateral sudden expansion.

Bilateral Sudden Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Flow Simulation, v2021 49

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions
Bilateral Sudden Expansion

Unilateral Sudden Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Bilateral Sudden Expansion

It is known from hydrodynamics that channels with a sudden expansion generate hydraulic
resistance to the flow due to a loss of flow energy caused by vortices in the vortex region
downstream of the sudden expansion.
In accordance with Ref. 14, the local hydraulic loss coefficient of a bilateral sudden expansion
(the so-called total pressure loss due to flow) for a turbulent (Re > 104) flow with a uniform
inlet velocity profile depends only on the expansion area ratio and is determined from the
following formula:

where A0 and A1 are the inlet and outlet cross sectional areas respectively, P0 and P1 are the
inlet and outlet total pressures, and ρu02/2 is the inlet dynamic head.

In a real sudden expansion the flow hydraulic loss coefficient is equal to ξ = ξf + ξs, where ξf is
the friction loss coefficient. In order to exclude ξf from our comparative analysis, we have
imposed the ideal wall boundary condition on all of the channel walls.

In this validation example the channel expansion area ratios under consideration are: 1.5, 2.0,
3.0, and 6.0. To avoid disturbances at the outlet due to the sudden expansion, the channel length
is 10 times longer than its height. The 1 atm static pressure is specified at the channel outlet.

The ξs values predicted by Flow Simulation at result resolution level 8 for different channel
expansion area ratios A0/A1 are compared to theory (Ref. 14) in Figure 7-3

From Figure 7-3, one can see that Flow Simulation overpredicts ξs by about 4.5...7.9 %.

50 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions
Unilateral Sudden Expansion

Figure 7-3. Comparison of Flow Simulation calculations to the theoretical

values for the sudden expansion hydraulic loss coefficient versus the channel
expansion area ratio.

Unilateral Sudden Expansion

The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's flow also known as flow over a backward-facing
step is a widely used benchmark problem to evaluate the accuracy of computational codes
predicting behavior of separated flows.
The model used for the unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's flow calculation is shown in
Figure 7-4. The channel's inlet section has a 30 mm height and a 20 mm length. The channel's
expanded section (downstream of the 15 mm height back step) has a 45 mm height and a
400 mm length (to avoid disturbances of the velocity field compared to the experimental data
from the channel's outlet boundary condition). The velocity profile measured in the Ref. 9 at the
corresponding Reh = 125 (the Reynolds number based on the step height) is specified as a
boundary condition at the channel inlet. The 105 Pa static pressure is specified at the channel
outlet.

Flow Simulation, v2021 51

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions
Unilateral Sudden Expansion

Figure 7-4. The geometry model for calculating the 2D flow in the unilateral-
sudden-expansion channel with Flow Simulation.

The flow velocity field predicted by Flow Simulation at result resolution level 8 is compared in
Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6, and Figure 7-7 to the values measured in Ref. 9 with a laser
anemometer. The flow x-velocity (u/U, where U = 8.25 mm/s) profiles at several x = const
(-20 mm, 0, 12 mm, …, 150 mm) cross sections are shown in Figure 7-5 It is seen that the
predicted flow velocity profiles are very close to the experimental values both in the main
stream and in the recirculation zone. The recirculation zone's characteristics, i.e. its length LR
along the channel's wall, (plotted versus the Reynolds number Reh based on the channel's step
height h, where Reh = 125 for the case under consideration), the separation streamline, and the
vortex center are shown in Figure 7-6 and Figure 7-7. It is seen that they are very close to the
experimental data.

52 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions
Unilateral Sudden Expansion

Figure 7-5. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's velocity profiles

predicted by Flow Simulation (red lines) in comparison with the experimental
data (black lines with dark circles).

Figure 7-6. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel's recirculation zone

length predicted by Flow Simulation (red square) in comparison with the
experimental data (black signs).

Flow Simulation, v2021 53

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flows in 2D Channels with Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Expansions
Unilateral Sudden Expansion

Figure 7-7. The unilateral-sudden-expansion channel recirculation zone's

separation streamlines and vortex center, both predicted by Flow Simulation
(red lines and square) in comparison with the experimental data (black signs).

As one can see, both the integral characteristics (hydraulic loss coefficient) and local values
(velocity profiles and recirculation zone geometry) of the turbulent and laminar flow in a 2D
sudden expansion channel under consideration are adequately predicted by Flow Simulation.

54 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 8
Flow over a Circular Cylinder

Let us now consider an external incompressible flow example. In this example, water at a
temperature of 293.2 K and a pressure of 1 atm flows over a cylinder of 0.01 m or 1 m diameter.
The flow pattern of this example substantially depends on the Reynolds number which is based
on the cylinder diameter.
At low Reynolds numbers (4 < Re < 60) two steady vortices are formed on the rear side of the
cylinder and remain attached to the cylinder, as it is shown schematically in Figure 8-1 (see
Ref. 19).

Figure 8-1. Flow past a cylinder at low Reynolds numbers (4 < Re < 60).

At higher Reynolds numbers the flow becomes unstable and a von Karman vortex street appears
in the wake past the cylinder. Moreover, at Re > 60…100 the eddies attached to the cylinder
begin to oscillate and shed from the cylinder (Ref. 19). The flow pattern is shown schematically
in Figure 8-2.

Figure 8-2. Flow past a cylinder at Reynolds numbers Re > 60…100.

Flow Simulation, v2021 55

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow over a Circular Cylinder

To calculate the 2D flow (in the X-Y plane) with Flow Simulation, the model shown in
Figure 8-3 has been created. The cylinder diameter is equal to 0.01 m at Re ≤ 104 and 1 m at
Re > 104. The incoming stream turbulence intensity has been specified as 0.1%. To take the
flow’s physical instability into account, the flow has been calculated by Flow Simulation using
the time-dependent option. All the calculations have been performed at result resolution level 6.

Figure 8-3. The geometry model used to calculate 2D flow over a cylinder.

In accordance with the theory, steady flow patterns have been obtained in these calculations in
the low Re region. An example of such calculation at Re = 41 is shown in Figure 8-4 as flow
trajectories over and past the cylinder in comparison with a photo of such flow from Ref. 23. It
is seen that the steady vortex past the cylinder is predicted correctly.

Figure 8-4. Flow trajectories over and past a cylinder at Re = 41 predicted with
Flow Simulation (above) in comparison with a photo of such flow (below).

56 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow over a Circular Cylinder

The unsteady vortex shedding from a cylinder at Re > 60...100, yields oscillations of both drag
and lateral forces acting on the cylinder and a von Karman vortex street is formed past the
cylinder. An x-velocity field over and past the cylinder is shown in Figure 8-5. The Flow
Simulation prediction of the cylinder drag and lateral force oscillations' frequency in a form of
Strouhal number (St = D/(t·U), where D is the cylinder diameter, t is the period of oscillations,
and U is the incoming stream velocity) in comparison with experimental data from Ref. 25 for
Re ≥ 103 is shown in Figure 8-6.

Figure 8-5. Velocity contours of flow over and past the cylinder at Re = 140.

Figure 8-6. The cylinder flow's Strouhal number predicted with Flow
Simulation (red triangles) in comparison with the experimental data (blue line
with dashes.

Flow Simulation, v2021 57

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow over a Circular Cylinder

The time-averaged cylinder drag coefficient is defined as

where FD is the drag force acting on the cylinder, ρU2/2 is the incoming stream dynamic head,
D is the cylinder diameter, and L is the cylinder length. The cylinder drag coefficient, predicted
by Flow Simulation is compared to the well-known CD(Re) experimental data from Ref. 19 in
Figure 8-7.

Figure 8-7. The cylinder drag coefficient predicted by Flow Simulation (red
diamonds) in comparison with the experimental data (black marks).

58 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 9
Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-
Divergent Channel

The present example is concerned with the study of compressible flow in a typical design of the
nozzle with a fixed convergent section followed by a fixed divergent section. This nozzle
configuration is called a convergent-divergent, or CD.
Now let us consider an external supersonic flow of air in a 2D (plane) convergent-divergent
channel whose scheme is shown on Figure 9-1.

Figure 9-1. Supersonic flow in a 2D convergent-divergent channel.

A uniform supersonic stream of air, having a Mach number M = 3, static temperature of

293.2 K, and static pressure of 1 atm, is specified at the channel inlet between two parallel
walls. In the next convergent section (see Figure 9-2) the stream decelerates through two
oblique shocks shown schematically in Figure 9-1 as lines separating regions 1, 2, and 3. Since
the convergent section has a special shape adjusted to the inlet Mach number, so the shock
reflected from the upper plane wall and separating regions 2 and 3 comes to the section 3 lower
wall edge, a uniform supersonic flow occurs in the next section 3 between two parallel walls. In
the following divergent section the supersonic flow accelerates thus forming an expansion
waves fan 4. Finally, the stream decelerates in the exit channel section between two parallel
walls when passing through another oblique shock.

Flow Simulation, v2021 59

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-Divergent Channel

Figure 9-2. Dimensions (in m) of the 2D convergent-divergent channel

including a reference line for comparing the Mach number.

The geometry model of this 2D channel is shown in Figure 9-3.

Since the channel was designed for the inviscid flow of an ideal gas, the ideal wall boundary
condition has been specified and the laminar only flow has been considered instead of turbulent.
The computed Mach number along the reference line and at the reference points (1-5) are
compared with the theoretical values in Figure 9-4.

Figure 9-3. The model for calculating the 2D supersonic flow in the 2D
convergent-divergent channel with Flow Simulation.

To obtain the most accurate results possible with Flow Simulation, the calculations have been
performed at result resolution level 6. The predicted Mach number at the selected channel
points (1-5) and along the reference line (see Figure 9-2), are presented in Table 9-1 and
Figure 9-4 respectively.

60 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-Divergent Channel

Table 9-1. Mach number values predicted with Flow Simulation with
comparison to the theoretical values at the reference points
Point 1 2 3 4 5
X coordinate of point, m 0.0042 0.047 0.1094 0.155 0.1648
Y coordinate of point, m 0.0175 0.0157 0.026 0.026 0.0157
Theoretical M 3.000 2.427 1.957 2.089 2.365
FLOEFD prediction of M 3.000 24.29 19.65 2.106 2.380
Prediction error, % 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6

From Table 9-1 and Figure 9-4 it can be seen that the Flow Simulation predictions are very
close to the theoretical values. In Figure 9-4 one can see that Flow Simulation properly predicts
the abrupt parameter changes when the stream passes through the shock and a fast parameter
change in the expansion fan.

Figure 9-4. Mach number values predicted with Flow Simulation along the
reference line (the reference points on it are marked by square boxes with
numbers) in comparison with the theoretical values.

To show the full flow pattern, the predicted Mach number contours of the channel flow are
shown in Figure 9-5.

Flow Simulation, v2021 61

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Supersonic Flow in a 2D Convergent-Divergent Channel

Figure 9-5. Mach number contours predicted by Flow Simulation.

This example illustrates that Flow Simulation is capable of capturing shock waves with a high
degree of accuracy. This high accuracy is possible due to the Flow Simulation solution adaptive
meshing capability. Solution adaptive meshing automatically refines the mesh in regions with
high flow gradients such as shocks and expansion fans.

62 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 10
Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic
Body

Now let us consider an external supersonic flow of air over a segmental conic body. The general
case is that the body is tilted at an angle of α with respect to the incoming flow direction.
The dimensions of the body whose longitudinal (in direction t, see Figure 10-1) and lateral (in
direction n) aerodynamic drag coefficients, as well as longitudinal (with respect to Z axis)
torque coefficient, were investigated in Ref. 1 are presented in Figure 10-2. They were
determined from the dimensionless body sizes and the Reynolds number stated in Ref. 1.

Figure 10-1. Supersonic flow over a segmental conic body.

Flow Simulation, v2021 63

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body

Figure 10-2. Model sketch dimensioned in centimeters.

The model of this body is shown in Figure 10-3.

Figure 10-3. The geometry model for calculating the 3D flow over the 3D
segmental conic body with Flow Simulation.

64 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body

To compare the Flow Simulation predictions with the experimental data of Ref. 1, the
calculations have been performed for the case of incoming flow velocity of Mach number 1.7.
The undisturbed turbulent incoming flow has a static pressure of 1 atm, static temperature of
660.2 K, and turbulence intensity of 1%. The flow Reynolds number of 1.7·106 (defined with
respect to the body frontal diameter) corresponds to these conditions, satisfying the Ref. 1
experimental conditions.

To compare the flow prediction with the experimental data of Ref. 1, the calculations have been
performed for the body tilted at α = 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 150° and 180° angles. To reduce the
computational resources, the Z = 0 flow symmetry plane has been specified in all of the
calculations. Additionally, the Y = 0 flow symmetry plane has been specified at α = 0° and 180°.

The calculations have been performed at result resolution level 6.

The comparison is performed on the following parameters:

• longitudinal aerodynamic drag coefficient,

where Ft is the aerodynamic drag force acting on the body in the t direction (see
Figure 10-1), ρU2/2 is the incoming stream dynamic head, S is the body frontal cross
section (being perpendicular to the body axis) area;
• lateral aerodynamic drag coefficient,

where Fn is the aerodynamic drag force acting on the body in the n direction (see
Figure 10-1), ρU2/2 is the incoming stream dynamic head, S is the body frontal cross
section (being perpendicular to the body axis) area;
• on the longitudinal (with respect to Z axis) aerodynamic torque coefficient,

where Mz is the aerodynamic torque acting on the body with respect to the Z axis (see
Figure 10-1), ρU2/2 is the incoming stream dynamic head, S is the body frontal cross
section (being perpendicular to the body axis) area, L is the reference length.

Flow Simulation, v2021 65

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body

The calculation results compared with the experimental data from Ref. 1 are presented in
Figure 10-4 and Figure 10-5.

Figure 10-4. The longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic drag coefficients

predicted with Flow Simulation and measured in the experiments versus the
body tilting angle.

From Figure 10-4, it is seen that the Flow Simulation predictions of both Cn and Ct are
excellent.

As for the longitudinal aerodynamic torque coefficient (mz) prediction, it is also close to the
experimental data of Ref. 1, especially if we take into account the measurements error.

Figure 10-5. The longitudinal aerodynamic torque coefficient predicted with

Flow Simulation and measured in the experiments versus the body tilting
angle.

66 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body

To illustrate the quantitative predictions with the corresponding flow patterns, the Mach number
contours are presented in Figure 10-6, Figure 10-7, and Figure 10-8. All of the flow patterns
presented on the figures include both supersonic and subsonic flow regions. The bow shock
consists of normal and oblique shock parts with the subsonic region downstream of the normal
shock. In the head subsonic region the flow gradually accelerates up to a supersonic velocity
and then further accelerates in the expansion fan of rarefaction waves. The subsonic wake
region past the body can also be seen.

Figure 10-6. Mach number contours at α = 0°.

Flow Simulation, v2021 67

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body

Figure 10-7. Mach number contours at α = 60°.

68 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body

Figure 10-8. Mach number contours at α = 90°.

As the forward part becomes sharper, the normal part of the bow shock and the corresponding
subsonic region downstream of it become smaller. In the presented pictures, the smallest nose
shock (especially its subsonic region) is observed at α = 60°.

Flow Simulation, v2021 69

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Supersonic Flow over a Segmental Conic Body

70 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 11
Flow over a Heated Plate

Now let us consider a uniform 2D flows with a laminar boundary layer on a heated flat plate.
The incoming uniform air stream has a velocity of 1.5 m/s, a temperature of 293.2 K, and a
static pressure of 1 atm, see Figure 11-1. Thus, the flow Reynolds number defined on the
incoming flow characteristics and on the plate length of 0.31 m is equal to 3.1·104, therefore the
boundary layer beginning from the plate’s leading edge is laminar (see Ref. 12).

Then, let us consider the following three cases:

• Case #1
The plate over its whole length (within the computational domain) is 10°C warmer than
the incoming air (303.2 K), both the hydrodynamic and the thermal boundary layer
begin at the plate's leading edge coinciding with the computational domain boundary;
• Case #2
The upstream half of the plate (i.e. at x ~ 0.15 m) has a fluid temperature of 293.2 K, and
the downstream half of the plate is 10°C warmer than the incoming air (303.2 K), the
hydrodynamic boundary layer begins at the plate's leading edge coinciding with the
computational boundary;
• Case #3
Plate temperature is the same as in case #1, the thermal boundary layer begins at the
inlet computational domain boundary, whereas the hydrodynamic boundary layer at the
inlet computational domain boundary has a non-zero thickness which is equal to that in
case #2 at the thermal boundary layer starting.
The calculation goal is to predict the local coefficient of heat transfer from the wall to the fluid,
as well as the local skin-friction coefficient.

Flow Simulation, v2021 71

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow over a Heated Plate

Figure 11-1. Laminar flow over a heated flat plate:

1 - computational domain, 2 - heated plate.

The geometry model used for calculating the 2D flow over the heated flat plate with Flow
Simulation is shown in Figure 11-2. The problem is solved as internal in order to avoid the
conflict situation when the external flow boundary with ambient temperature conditions
intersects the wall with a thermal boundary layer.

To avoid any influence of the upper wall on the flow near the heated lower wall, the ideal wall
boundary condition has been specified on the upper wall. To solve the internal problem, the
incoming fluid velocity is specified at the channel inlet, whereas the fluid static pressure is
specified at the channel exit. To specify the external flow features, the incoming stream's
turbulent intensity is set to 1% and the turbulent length is set to 0.01 m, i.e., these turbulent
values are similar to the default values for external flow problems.

72 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow over a Heated Plate

Figure 11-2. The geometry model used for calculating the 2D flow over heated
flat plate with Flow Simulation.

The heat transfer coefficient h and the skin-friction coefficient Cf are Flow Simulation output
flow parameters. The theoretical values for laminar flow boundary layer over a flat plate, in
accordance with Ref. 12 can be determined from the following equations:

where

k is the thermal conductivity of the fluid,

x is the distance along the wall from the start of the hydrodynamic boundary layer,

Nux is the Nusselt number defined on a heated wall as follows:

for a laminar boundary layer if it’s starting point coincides with the thermal boundary layer
starting point, and

Flow Simulation, v2021 73

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow over a Heated Plate

for a laminar boundary layer if the thermal boundary layer begins at point x0 lying downstream
of the hydrodynamic boundary layer starting point, in this case Nux is defined at x > x0 only;

where is the Prandtl number, μ is the fluid dynamic viscosity, Cp is the fluid specific

heat at constant pressure, is the Reynolds number defined on x, ρ is the fluid

density, and V is the fluid velocity;

at Rex ≤ 5·105, i.e., with a laminar boundary layer.

As for the hydrodynamic boundary layer thickness d needed for specification at the
computational domain boundary in case #3, in accordance with Ref. 12, it has been determined
from the following equation: , so d = 0.00575 m in this case. For these
calculations all fluid parameters are determined at the outer boundary of the boundary layer.

The Flow Simulation predictions of h and Cf performed at result resolution level 7, and the
theoretical curves calculated with the formulas presented above are shown in Figure 11-3 and
Figure 11-4. It is seen that the Flow Simulation predictions of the heat transfer coefficient and
the skin-friction coefficient are in excellent agreement with the theoretical curves.

Figure 11-3. Heat transfer coefficient change along a heated plate in a laminar
boundary layer: Flow Simulation predictions compared to theory.

74 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow over a Heated Plate

Figure 11-4. Skin-friction coefficient change along a heated plate in a laminar

boundary layer: Flow Simulation predictions compared to theory.

Flow Simulation, v2021 75

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow over a Heated Plate

76 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 12
Convection and Radiation in an Annular
Tube

We will now consider incompressible laminar flow in a portion of an annular tube, whose outer
shell is a heat source having constant heat generation rate Q1 with a heat-insulated outer surface,
and whose central body fully absorbs the heat generated by the tube’s outer shell (i.e. the
negative heat generation rate Q2 is specified in the central body).
The main dimensions of the annular tube are shown in Figure 12-1. The 3D tube model is
shown in Figure 12-2. We will assume that this tube is rather long, so the tube's L = 1 m portion
under consideration has fully developed fluid velocity and temperature profiles at the inlet, and,
since the fluid properties are not temperature-dependent, the velocity profile also will not be
temperature-dependent.

Figure 12-1. Laminar flow in a heated annular tube.

Flow Simulation, v2021 77

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube

Figure 12-2. A model created for calculating 3D flow within a heated annular
tube using Flow Simulation.

To validate the Flow Simulation capability for solving conjugate heat transfer problems both
with and without radiation, let us solve the following three problems:

1. a conjugate heat transfer problem with convection only,

2. radiation heat transfer only problem, and
3. a conjugate heat transfer problem with both convection and radiation.
In the first problem we specify Q2 = –Q1, so the convective heat fluxes at the tube inner and
outer walls are constant along the tube. The corresponding laminar annular pipe flow's fully
developed velocity and temperature profiles, according to Ref. 12, are expressed analytically as
follows:

78 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube

where ,

u is the fluid velocity,

T is the fluid temperature,
r is the radial coordinate,
r1 and r2 are the tube outer shell’s inner radius and tube’s central body radius, respectively,

is the volume-average velocity, defined as the volume flow rate divided by the tube cross-
section area,

q2 is the heat flux from the fluid to the tube’s central body,

k is the fluid thermal conductivity,

T2 is the surface temperature of the central body.

The heat flux from the fluid to the tube's central body (negative, since the heat comes from the
fluid to the solid) is equal to

Let Q1 = –Q2 = 107.235 W and ≈ 13.59 m/s (φ = -10 m/s), the fluid has the following
properties: k = 0.5 W/(m·K), Cp = 500 J/(kg·K), μ = 0.002 Pa·s, ρ = 0.1 kg/m3. Since the
corresponding (defined on the equivalent tube diameter) Reynolds number Red ≈ 815 is rather
low, the flow has to be laminar. We specify the corresponding velocity and temperature profiles
as boundary conditions at the model inlet and as initial conditions, and Pout = 1 atm as the tube
outlet boundary condition.

To reduce the computational domain, let us set Y = 0 and X = 0 flow symmetry planes
(correspondingly, the specified Q1 and Q2 values are referred to the tube section's quarter lying
in the computational domain). The calculation have been performed at Result Resolution
Level 6.

The fluid temperature profile predicted at 0.75 m from the tube model inlet is shown in
Figure 12-3 together with the theoretical curve.

Flow Simulation, v2021 79

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube

Figure 12-3. Fluid temperature profiles across the tube in the case of
convection only, predicted with Flow Simulation and compared to the
theoretical curve.

It is seen that this prediction practically coincides with the theoretical curve.

Before solving the third problem coupling convection and radiation, let us determine the
radiation heat fluxes between the tube's outer and inner walls under the previous problem's wall
temperatures. In addition to holding the outer shell's temperature at 450 K and the central body's
temperature at 300 K as the volume sources, let us specify the emissivity of ε1 = 0.95 for the
outer shell and ε2 = 0.25 for the central body. To exclude any convection, let us specify the
liquid velocity of 0.001 m/s and thermal conductivity of 10-20 W/(m·K).

Let J2 denote the radiation rate leaving the central body, and G2 denotes the radiation rate
coming to the central body, therefore Q2r = J2 – G2 (the net radiation rate from the central
body). In the same manner, let J1 denote the radiation rate leaving the outer shell's inner surface,
and G1 denote the radiation rate coming to the outer shell's inner surface, therefore Q1r = J1 –
G1 (the net radiation rate from the outer shell's inner surface). These radiation rates can be
determined by solving the following equations:

80 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube

where σ = 5.669·10-8 W/(m2K4) is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, F1-2, F2-1, F1-1 are these
surfaces' radiation shape factors, under the assumption that the leaving and incident radiation
fluxes are uniform over these surfaces, Ref. 12 gives the following formulas:

F2-1 = F1-2·A1/A2, where X = r1/r2, Y = L/r2, A = X2+Y2–1, B = Y2–X2+1.

These net and leaving radiation rates (over the full tube section surface), both calculated by
solving the equations analytically and predicted by Flow Simulation at Result Resolution
Level 6, are presented in Table 12-1.
Table 12-1. Radiation rates predicted with Flow Simulation with comparison
to the theoretical values.
Parameter Theory (Ref. 12), W Calculated Value, W Prediction Error, %
Q2r -383.77 -388.30 1.2%
J2r 1728.35 1744.47 0.9%
Q1r 4003.68 3931.87 -1.8%
J1r 8552.98 8596.04 0.5%

It is seen that the prediction errors are quite small. To validate the Flow Simulation capabilities
on the third problem, which couples convection and radiation, let us add the theoretical net
radiation rates, Q1r and Q2r scaled to the reduced computational domain, i.e., divided by 4, to
the Q1 and Q2 values specified in the first problem. Let us specify Q1 = 1108.15 W and Q2 = –
203.18 W, so theoretically we must obtain the same fluid temperature profile as in the first
considered problem.

The fluid temperature profile predicted at 0.75 m from the tube model inlet at the Result
Resolution Level 6 is shown in Figure 12-4 together with the theoretical curve. It is seen that
once again this prediction virtually coincides with the theoretical curve.

Flow Simulation, v2021 81

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Convection and Radiation in an Annular Tube

Figure 12-4. Fluid temperature profiles across the tube in the case coupling
convection and radiation, predicted with Flow Simulation and compared to the
theoretical curve.

82 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 13
Pin-fin Heat Sink Cooling by Natural
Convection

A heat sink is a passive heat exchanger that transfers the heat generated by an electronic or a
mechanical device to a fluid medium, often air or a liquid coolant, where it is dissipated away
from the device, thereby allowing regulation of the device's temperature. Heat sinks play an
important role in electronics cooling. In computers, heat sinks are used to cool CPUs, GPUs,
and some chipsets and RAM modules. Heat sinks are used with high-power semiconductor
devices such as power transistors and optoelectronics such as lasers and light emitting diodes
(LEDs), where the heat dissipation ability of the component itself is insufficient to moderate its
temperature.
Following the experimental work presented in Ref. 29 and numerical study presented in Ref. 2,
let us consider heat transfer from an electrically heated thermofoil which is mounted flush on a
plexiglass substrate, coated by an aluminum pin-fin heat sink with a 9x9 pin fin array, and
placed in a closed plexiglass box. In order to create more uniform ambient conditions for this
box, it is placed into another, bigger, plexiglass box and attached to the heat-insulated thick
wall, see Figure 13-1 and Figure 13-2. Heat sink and enclosure geometry with their main
dimensions is shown in Figure 13-1, where 1 - smoke inlet, 2 - enclosure under study
(plexiglass), 3 - external enclosure (plexiglass), 4 - insulation, 5 - opening, 6 - substrate, 7 - heat
sink, 8 - heat source (lcp x lcp x hcp). The dimension values are set as follows: length of
component lcp = Ls = 25.4 mm, thickness of component hcp = 0.861 mm, height of the pin
Hp = 5.5 mm, height of the substrate board Hb = 1.75 mm, size of the pin Sp = 1.5 mm, pin
spacing Sps = Ls/8, length of enclosure L = 127 mm, height of enclosure H = 41.3 mm, thickness
of enclosure wall Hw = 6.35 mm, ratio between opening area and the top wall area (L x L)
Sv = 0, 0.4. Following Ref. 29, let us consider the vertical position of these boxes, as it is shown
in Figure 13-1 (c) (here, the gravity acts along the Y axis).

Flow Simulation, v2021 83

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Pin-fin Heat Sink Cooling by Natural Convection

Figure 13-1. The pin-fin heat sink nestled within two plexiglass boxes: (a) pin
array, (b) pin size and pitch, (c) external enclosure, (d) internal enclosure.

The corresponding model used in the calculations is shown in Figure 13-2. In this model's
coordinate system the gravitational acceleration vector is directed along the X axis. The
computational domain envelopes the outer surface of the external box, and the Z = 0 symmetry
plane is used to reduce the required computer resources.

84 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Pin-fin Heat Sink Cooling by Natural Convection

Figure 13-2. A model created for calculating the heat transfer from the pin-fin
heat sink through the two nested boxes into the environment: (a) the internal
(smaller) box with the heat sink; (b) the whole model.

According to Ref. 29, both the heat sink and the substrate are coated with a special black paint
to provide a surface emissivity of 0.95 (the other plexiglass surfaces are also opaque, diffuse
and gray, but have an emissivity of 0.83).

The maximum steady-state temperature Tmax of the thermofoil releasing the heat of known
power Q was measured. The constant ambient temperature Ta was measured at the upper corner
of the external box. As a result, the value of

was determined at various Q (in the 0.1...1 W range).

The ambient temperature is not presented in Ref. 29, so, proceeding from the suggestion that the
external box in the experiment was placed in a room, we have varied the ambient temperature in
the relevant range of 15...22°C. Since Rja is governed by the temperature difference Tmax – Ta,
(i.e. presents the two boxes’ thermal resistance), the ambient temperature range only effects the
resistance calculations by 0.6°C/W at Q = 1 W, (i.e. by 1.4% of the experimentally determined
Rja value that is 43°C/W). As for the boundary conditions on the external box’s outer surface,
we have specified a heat transfer coefficient of 5.6 W/m2·K estimated from Ref. 17 for the
relevant wind-free conditions and an ambient temperature lying in the range of 15...22°C
(additional calculations have shown that the variation of the constant ambient temperature on
this boundary yield nearly identical results). As a result, at Q = 1 W (the results obtained at the
other Q values are shown in Ref. 2) and Ta = 20°C we have obtained Rja = 41°C/W, i.e. only
5% lower than the experimental value.

Flow Simulation, v2021 85

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Pin-fin Heat Sink Cooling by Natural Convection

The flow streamlines visualized in Ref. 29 using smoke and obtained in the calculations are
shown in Figure 13-3.

Figure 13-3. Flow streamlines visualized by smoke in the experiments (left) and
obtained in the calculations (colored in accordance with the flow velocity
values) (right).

86 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 14
Plate Fin Heat Sink Cooling by Forced
Convection

This validation example demonstrates Flow Simulation capabilities to simulate forced air
cooling of plate fin heat sink placed in a wind tunnel.
The calculations are based on the experimental results from Ref. 15, where several flow regimes
were considered.

Heat sink geometry with its main dimensions is shown in Figure 14-1. The dimension values
were set as follows: fin height (H) of 10 mm, thickness of 1.5 mm and fin-to-fin distance (d) of
5 mm while the heat sink width (B) and length were 52.8 mm and the base thickness was 3 mm.
The wind tunnel width (CB), height (CH) and length were 160 mm, 15 mm and 200 mm
respectively.

Figure 14-1. Geometry model of the heat sink.

The model of heat sink is made of solid aluminum (thermal conductivity 200 W/(m·K)). It is
heated by MINCO Thermofoil™ electrical heater with a heat load of 10 W. The bottom of the
heated foil is insulated with a 25 mm Polystyrene brick (thermal conductivity 0.033 W/(m·K)).
The heat sink is placed in a rectangular wind tunnel duct with the walls made of Plexiglass
(thermal conductivity 0.2 W/(m·K)). It is mounted in such a way that the fin base is flush with
the duct wall as shown in Figure 14-2.

Flow Simulation, v2021 87

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Plate Fin Heat Sink Cooling by Forced Convection

Figure 14-2. Vertical cut view of heat sink: (1) heat sink, (2) thermocouple,
(3) electrically heated foil, (4) insulation, (5) bottom of wind tunnel.

The performance of the heat sink is estimated by a thermal resistance defined as:

where Ths is the temperature of the heat sink base, T0 is the temperature at the wind tunnel inlet
and q is the total power input of the heat source (10 W). In Ref. 15, the Ths value was measured
by averaging the reading of four thermocouples (two of them can be seen in Figure 14-2) placed
symmetrically at the corners of the heat sink base.

Table 14-1 shows air inlet flow conditions specified for the calculations, inlet temperature is
constant and equal 20°C. To perform the calculations, five cases are considered, each with a
different inlet velocity uin that was determined as follows:

where A = 24 cm2 is the wind tunnel cross sectional area; is the volumetric air flow rate at
standard conditions defined as

88 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Plate Fin Heat Sink Cooling by Forced Convection

where w is the average air velocity; Afront = 1.4 cm2 is the front area of the fins; Redh is the
Reynolds duct number; dh is the hydraulic diameter of the wind tunnel; μ is the dynamic
viscosity of air; ρ is the density of air.
Table 14-1. Inlet boundary conditions.
Case uin, m/s Redh
1 0.903 1740
2 1.287 2480
3 1.583 3050
4 1.899 3660
5 3.633 7000

The outlet static pressure is set to 1 atm.

The heat exchange between the outer duct surfaces and the ambient medium with the
temperature of 20°C is defined by a Newton's law of cooling with the heat-transfer coefficient
of 3 W/m2·K.

Since the geometry model has a symmetry plane, only a half of the model is used to generate the
computational mesh.

The automatically generated mesh with RRL = 3 contained approximately 26 000 cells for
cases 1-4 and with RRL = 5 contained approximately 109 000 cells for case 5. Figure 14-3
shows the mesh generated in the fluid region in one of the heat sink cross-sections. One can see
that there only about 3-4 cells generated between two adjacent fins.

Figure 14-3. The computational mesh (cases 1-4).

The values of thermal resistances predicted by Flow Simulation and the corresponding values
measured experimentally from Ref. 15 are shown in Figure 14-4. According to this plot, the
difference between the calculations and the experimental measurements is less than 10%.

Flow Simulation, v2021 89

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Plate Fin Heat Sink Cooling by Forced Convection

Figure 14-4. Thermal resistance of the Heat Sink versus Reynold number in
comparison with the experimental data.

This indicates that the sufficient accuracy of the results is maintained even on a coarse mesh
generated inside the narrow channels.

90 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 15
Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid

To validate heat conduction in solids (i.e., a conjugate heat transfer), let us consider unsteady
heat conduction in a solid.
To compare the Flow Simulation predictions with the analytical solution (Ref. 12), we will
solve a one-dimensional problem.

A warm solid rod having the specified initial temperature and the heat-insulated side surface
suddenly becomes and stays cold (at a constant temperature of Tw = 300 K) at both ends (see
Figure 15-1). The rod inner temperature evolution is studied. The constant initial temperature
distribution along the rod is considered: Tini(x) = 350 K.

Figure 15-1. A warm solid rod cooling down from an initial temperature to the
temperature at the ends of the rod.

The problem is described by the following differential equation:

where ρ, Cp, and k are the solid material density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity,
respectively, and t is the time, with the following boundary condition: T = T0 at x = 0 and at
x = L.

In the general case, i.e., at an arbitrary initial condition, the problem has the following solution:

where coefficients Cn are determined from the initial conditions (see Ref. 12).

Flow Simulation, v2021 91

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid

With the uniform initial temperature profile, according to the initial and boundary conditions,
the problem has the following solution:

To perform the time-dependent analysis with Flow Simulation, a geometry model representing
a solid parallelepiped with dimensions 1 x 0.2 x 0.1 m has been created (see Figure 15-2).

Figure 15-2. The geometry model used for calculating heat conduction in a
solid rod with Flow Simulation (the computational domain envelopes the rod).

The evolution of maximum rod temperature, predicted with Flow Simulation and compared
with theory, is presented in Figure 15-3. The Flow Simulation prediction has been performed at
result resolution level 5. One can see that it coincide with the theoretical curve.

92 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid

Figure 15-3. Evolution of the maximum rod temperature, predicted with Flow
Simulation and compared to theory.

The temperature profiles along the rod at different time moments, predicted by Flow
Simulation, are compared to theory and presented in Figure 15-4.

One can see that the Flow Simulation predictions are very close to the theoretical profiles. The
maximum prediction error not exceeding 2 K occurs at the ends of the rod and is likely caused
by calculation error in the theoretical profile due to the truncation of Fourier series.

Figure 15-4. Evolution of the temperature distribution along the rod, predicted
with Flow Simulation and compared to theory.

Flow Simulation, v2021 93

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Unsteady Heat Conduction in a Solid

94 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 16
Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat
Transfer

Let us now consider an incompressible laminar flow of hot fluid through an externally cooled
circular tube.
The fluid flow has fully developed velocity and temperature profiles at the tube inlet, whereas
the heat transfer conditions specified at the tube outer surface surrounded by a cooling medium
sustain the self-consistent fluid temperature profile throughout the tube. The geometry model is
shown in Figure 16-1.

Figure 16-1. Laminar flow in a tube cooled externally: (1) liquid, (2) polystyrene.

In accordance with Ref. 12, a laminar tube flow with a fully developed velocity profile has a
self-consistent fully developed temperature profile if the following two conditions are satisfied:
the fluid's properties are temperature-independent and the heat flux from the tube inner surface
to the fluid (or vise versa) is constant along the tube. These conditions provide the following
fully developed tube flow temperature profile:

where

T is the fluid temperature,

r is a radial coordinate (r = 0 corresponds to the tube axis, r = Ri corresponds to the tube inner
surface, i.e., Ri is the tube inner radius),

Flow Simulation, v2021 95

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat Transfer

z is an axial coordinate (z = zin corresponds to the tube inlet),

qw is a constant heat flux from the fluid to the tube inner surface,

k is the fluid thermal conductivity,

ρ is the fluid density,

Cp is the fluid specific heat under constant pressure,

umax is the maximum fluid velocity of the fully developed velocity profile:

Since the tube under consideration has no heat sinks and is cooled by surrounding fluid
medium, let us assume that the fluid medium surrounding the tube has certain fixed temperature
Te, and the heat transfer between this medium and the tube outer surface is determined by a
specified constant heat transfer coefficient αe.

By assuming a constant thermal conductivity of the tube material, ks, specifying an arbitrary αe,
and omitting intermediate expressions, we can obtain the following expression for Te:

where Ro is the tube outer radius.

In the validation example under consideration (Figure 16-2) the following tube and fluid
characteristics have been specified: Ri = 0.05 m, Ro = 0.07 m, z - zin = 0.1 m, the tube material
is polystyrene with thermal conductivity ks = 0.082 W/(m·K), umax = 0.002 m/s,
T(r = 0, z = zin) = 363 K, qw = 147.56 W/m2, k = 0.3 W/(m·K), Cp = 1000 J/(kg·K), fluid
dynamic viscosity μ = 0.001 Pa·s, ρ = 1000 kg/m3 (these fluid properties provide a laminar flow
condition since the tube flow Reynolds number based on the tube diameter is equal to
Red = 100). The T(r, zin) and u(r) profiles at the tube inlet, the Te(z) distribution along the tube,
αe = 5 W/(m2·K), and tube outlet static pressure Pout = 1 atm have been specified as the
boundary conditions.

The inlet flow velocity and temperature profiles have been specified as the initial conditions
along the tube.

To reduce the computational domain, the calculations have been performed with the Y = 0 and
X = 0 flow symmetry planes. The calculations have been performed at result resolution level 7.

96 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat Transfer

The fluid and solid temperature profiles predicted at z = 0 are shown in Figure 16-3 together
with the theoretical curve. It is seen that the prediction practically coincides with the theoretical
curve (the prediction error does not exceed 0.4%).

Figure 16-2. The model used for calculating the 3D flow and the conjugate heat
transfer in the tube with Flow Simulation: (1) sketch line for temperature profile
determination, (2) computational domain.

Flow Simulation, v2021 97

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Tube with Hot Laminar Flow and Outer Heat Transfer

Figure 16-3. Fluid and solid temperature profiles across the tube, predicted
with Flow Simulation and compared with the theoretical curve.

98 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 17
Flow over a Heated Cylinder

Let us now return to the earlier validation example of incompressible flow over a cylinder and
modify it by specifying a heat generation source inside the cylinder.
The cylinder is placed in an incoming air stream and will acquire certain temperature depending
on the heat source power and the air stream velocity and temperature. The geometry model is
shown in Figure 17-1.

Figure 17-1. 2D flow over a heated cylinder.

Based on experimental data for the average coefficient of heat transfer from a heated circular
cylinder to air flowing over it (see Ref. 12), the corresponding Nusselt number can be
determined from the following formula:

where constants C and n are taken from the Table 17-1 below.
Table 17-1. Constants for use with Nusselt equation.
ReD C n
0.4 – 4 0.989 0.330
4 – 40 0.911 0.385
40 – 4000 0.683 0.466
4000 – 40 000 0.193 0.618
40 000 – 400 000 0.0266 0.805

Here,
the Nusselt number, NuD = (h·D)/k (where h is the heat transfer coefficient averaged over the

Flow Simulation, v2021 99

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow over a Heated Cylinder

cylinder, and k is fluid thermal conductivity),

the Reynolds number, ReD = (U·D)/μ (where U is the incoming stream velocity, and μ is fluid
dynamic viscosity), and
the Prandtl number, Pr = μ·Cp/k (where μ is fluid dynamic viscosity, Cp is fluid specific heat at
constant pressure, and k is fluid thermal conductivity) are based on the cylinder diameter D and
on the fluid properties taken at the near-wall flow layer. According to Ref. , Pr = 0.72 for the
entire range of ReD.

To validate the Flow Simulation predictions, the air properties have been specified to provide
Pr = 0.72: k = 0.0251375 W/(m·K), μ = 1.8·10-5 Pa·s, specific heat at constant pressure
Cp = 1005.5 J/(kg·K). Then, the incoming stream velocity, U, has been specified to obtain
ReD = 1, 10, 100, 103, 104, 5·104, 105, 2·105, and 3·105 for a cylinder diameter of D = 0.1 m
(see Figure 17-1).

This validation approach consists of specifying the heat generation source inside the cylinder
with a power determined from the desired steady-state cylinder temperature and the average
heat transfer coefficient, h = (NuD·k)/D. NuD is determined from the specified ReD using the
empirical formula presented above. The final cylinder surface temperature, that is also required
for specifying the heat source power Q (see Table 17-2) is assumed to be 10°C higher than the
incoming air temperature. The initial cylinder temperature and the incoming air temperature are
equal to 293.15 K. The cylinder material is aluminum. Here, the heat conduction in the solid is
calculated simultaneously with the flow calculation, i.e., the conjugate heat transfer problem is
solved.

As a result of the calculation, the cylinder surface has acquired a steady-state temperature
differing from the theoretical one corresponding to the heat generation source specified inside
the cylinder. Multiplying the theoretical value of the Nusselt number by the ratio of the obtained
temperature difference (between the incoming air temperature and the cylinder surface
temperature) to the specified temperature difference, we have determined the predicted Nusselt
number versus the specified Reynolds number. The values obtained by solving the steady-state
and time dependent problems at result resolution level 5 are presented in Figure 17-2 together
with the experimental data taken from Ref. 12.
Table 17-2. The Flow Simulation specifications of U and Q for the problem
under consideration.
ReD U, m/s Q, W
1 1.5x10-4 0.007
10 1.5x10-3 0.016

102 0.015 0.041

103 0.15 0.121

104 1.5 0.405

100 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow over a Heated Cylinder

Table 17-2. The Flow Simulation specifications of U and Q for the problem
under consideration. (cont.)
ReD U, m/s Q, W
105 15 1.994

From Figure 17-2, it is seen that the predictions made with Flow Simulation, both in the time-
dependent approach and in the steady-state one, are excellent within the whole ReD range under
consideration.

Figure 17-2. Nusselt number for air flow over a heated cylinder: Flow
Simulation predictions and the experimental data.

Flow Simulation, v2021 101

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow over a Heated Cylinder

102 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 18
Natural Convection in a Square Cavity

This validation example demonstrates Flow Simulation capabilities to simulate natural

convection. Natural convection has attracted a great deal of attention from researchers because
of its presence both in nature and engineering applications. In nature, convection cells formed
from air raising above sunlight-warmed land or water are a major feature of all weather systems.
In engineering applications, convection is commonly visualized in the formation of
microstructures during the cooling of molten metals, and fluid flows around shrouded heat-
dissipation fins, and solar ponds. A very common industrial application of natural convection is
free air cooling without the aid of fans.
Here we will consider a 2D square cavity with a steady-state natural convection, for which a
highly-accurate numerical solution has been proposed in Ref. 7 and used as a benchmark for
about 40 computer codes in Ref. 8, besides it well agrees with the semi-empirical formula
proposed in Ref. 10 for rectangular cavities. This cavity's configuration and imposed boundary
conditions, as well as the used coordinate system, are presented in Figure 18-1. Here, the left
and right vertical walls are held at the constant temperatures of T1 = 305 K and T2 = 295 K,
accordingly, whereas the upper and bottom walls are adiabatic. The cavity is filled with air.

Figure 18-1. An enclosed 2D square cavity with natural convection.

The square cavity's side dimension, L, is varied within the range of 0.0111...0.111 m in order to
vary the cavity's Rayleigh number within the range of 103…106. Rayleigh number describes the
characteristics of the natural convection inside the cavity and is defined as follows:

Flow Simulation, v2021 103

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Natural Convection in a Square Cavity

where is the volume expansion coefficient of air,

g is the gravitational acceleration,

Cp is the air's specific heat at constant pressure,

ΔT = T1 – T2 = 10 K is the temperature difference between the walls,

k is the thermal conductivity of air,

μ is the dynamic viscosity of air.

The cavity's model is shown in Figure 18-2.

Figure 18-2. The model created for calculating the 2D natural convection flow in
the 2D square cavity using Flow Simulation.

Due to gravity and different temperatures of the cavity's vertical walls, a steady-state natural
convection flow (vortex) with a vertical temperature stratification forms inside the cavity. The
Ra = 105 flow's prediction performed with Flow Simulation is shown in Figure 18-3.

104 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Natural Convection in a Square Cavity

Figure 18-3. The parameters distributions predicted by Flow Simulation in the

square cavity at Ra = 105: (a) temperature, (b) X-velocity, (c) Y-velocity, (d)
velocity vectors, and (e) streamlines.

A quantitative comparison of the Flow Simulation predictions performed at result resolution

level 8 with Ref. 7, Ref. 8 (computational benchmark) and Ref. 10 (semi-empirical formula) for
different Ra values is presented in Figure 18-4 - Figure 18-6. The Nusselt number averaged
over the cavity's hot vertical wall (evidently, the same value must be obtained over the cavity's

cold vertical wall) , where qw,av is the heat flux from the wall to the fluid,
averaged over the wall, is considered in Figure 18-4.

Here, the dash line presents the Ref. 10 semi-empirical formula:

where D is the distance between the vertical walls and L is the cavity height (D = L in the case
under consideration). One can see that the Flow Simulation predictions practically coincide
with the benchmark at Ra ≤ 105 and are close to the semi-empirical data.

Flow Simulation, v2021 105

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Natural Convection in a Square Cavity

Figure 18-4. The average sidewall Nusselt number vs. the Rayleigh number.

The dimensionless velocities of the natural convection flow in the X and Y directions,

and (which are maximum along the cavity's mid-planes,

i.e., along the vertical mid-plane and along the horizontal mid-plane) are considered

in Figure 18-5. The dimensionless coordinates, and , of these maximums'

locations (i.e., for and for ) are presented in Figure 18-6. One can see that the
Flow Simulation predictions of the natural convection flow's local parameters are fairly close to
the benchmark data at Ra ≤ 105.

106 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Natural Convection in a Square Cavity

Figure 18-5. Dimensionless maximum velocities vs. Rayleigh number.

Figure 18-6. Dimensionless coordinates of the maximum velocities' locations.

Flow Simulation, v2021 107

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Natural Convection in a Square Cavity

108 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 19
Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows

Let us now consider the Flow Simulation capability to predict particles trajectories in a gas
flow (i.e. two-phase flow of fluid + liquid droplets or solid particles).
In accordance with the particles motion model accepted in Flow Simulation, particle
trajectories are calculated after completing a fluid flow calculation (which can be either steady
or time-dependent). That is, the particles mass and volume flow rates are assumed substantially
lower than those of the fluid stream, so that the influence of particles’ motions and temperatures
on the fluid flow parameters is negligible, and motion of the particles obeys the following
equation:

where m is the particle mass, t is time, Vp and Vf are the particle and fluid velocities (vectors),
accordingly, ρf is the fluid density, Cd is the particle drag coefficient, A is the particle frontal
surface area, and Fg is the gravitational force.

Particles are treated as non-rotating spheres of constant mass and specified (solid or liquid)
material, whose drag coefficient is determined from Henderson’s semi-empirical formula
(Ref. 11). At very low velocity of particles with respect to carrier fluid (i.e., at the relative
velocity’s Mach number M → 0) this formula becomes:

where Reynolds number is defined as:

d is the diameter of particles, and μ is the fluid dynamic viscosity.

To validate Flow Simulation, let us consider three cases of injecting a particle perpendicularly
into an incoming uniform flow, Figure 19-1. Since both the fluid flow and the particle motion in
these cases are 2D (planar), we will solve a 2D (i.e. in the XY-plane) flow problem.

Flow Simulation, v2021 109

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows

Figure 19-1. Injection of a particle into a uniform fluid flow.

Due to the same reason as in the previous validation examples with flow over flat plates, we will
solve this validation as an internal problem. The corresponding geometry model is shown in
Figure 19-2. Both of the walls are ideal, the channel has length of 0.233 m and height of 0.12 m,
all the walls have thickness of 0.01 m. We specify the uniform fluid velocity Vin, the fluid
temperature of 293.2 K, and the default values of turbulent flow parameters with the laminar
boundary layer at the channel inlet, and the static pressure of 1 atm at the channel outlet. All the
fluid flow calculations are performed at a result resolution level of 5.

Figure 19-2. The model geometry: (1) inlet, (2) origin and particle injection
point, (3) outlet, (4) ideal wall.

To validate calculations of particles trajectories by comparing them with available analytical

solutions of the particle motion equation, we consider the following three cases:

1. the low maximum Reynolds number of Remax = 0.1

(air flow with Vin = 0.002 m/s, gold particles of d = 0.5 mm, injected at the velocity of
Vp = 0.002 m/s perpendicularly to the wall),

110 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows

2. the high maximum Reynolds number of Remax = 105

(water flow with Vin = 10 m/s, iron particles of d = 1 cm, injected at the velocities of
Vp = 1, 2, 3 m/s perpendicularly to the wall),

3. a particle trajectory in the Y-directed gravitational field

(gravitational acceleration gy = -9.8 m/s2, air flow with Vin = 0.6 m/s, an iron particle of
d = 1 cm, injected at the velocity of Vp = 1.34 m/s at the angle of 63.44o with the wall).

In the first case, due to small Re values, the particle drag coefficient is close to Cd = 24/Re (i.e.,
obeys the Stokes law). Then, neglecting gravity, we obtain the following analytical solution for
the particle trajectory:

where Vfx, Vpx, Vfy, Vpy are the X- and Y-components of the fluid and particle velocities,
accordingly, ρp is the particle material density. The Flow Simulation calculation and the
analytical solution are shown in Figure 19-3. It is seen that they are very close to one another.
Special calculations have shown that the difference is due to the CD assumptions only.

Figure 19-3. Particle trajectories in a uniform fluid flow at Remax = 0.1, predicted
by Flow Simulation and obtained from the analytical solution.

Flow Simulation, v2021 111

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows

In the second case, due to high Re values, the particle drag coefficient is close to Cd = 0.38.
Then, neglecting the gravity, we obtain the following analytical solution for the particle
trajectory:

The Flow Simulation calculations and the analytical solutions for three particle injection
velocities, Vpy(t = 0) = 1, 2, 3 m/s, are shown in Figure 19-4. It is seen that the Flow Simulation
calculations coincide with the analytical solutions. Special calculations have shown that the
difference is due to the CD assumptions only.

In the third case, the particle trajectory is governed by the action of the gravitational force only,
the particle drag coefficient is very close to zero, so the analytical solution is:

The Flow Simulation calculation and the analytical solution for this case are presented in
Figure 19-5. It is seen that the Flow Simulation calculation coincides with the analytical
solution.

Figure 19-4. Particle trajectories in a uniform fluid flow at Remax = 105,

predicted by Flow Simulation and obtained from the analytical solution.

112 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows

Figure 19-5. Particle trajectories in the Y-directed gravity, predicted by Flow

Simulation and obtained from the analytical solution.I

Flow Simulation, v2021 113

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Particles Trajectories in Uniform Flows

114 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 20
Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream

Let us now validate the Flow Simulation capability to calculate fluid flows through porous
media.
Here, following Ref. 14, we consider a plane cold air flow between two parallel plates, through
a porous screen installed between them, see Figure 20-1. At the channel inlet the air stream
velocity profile is step-shaped (specified). The porous screen (gauze) levels this profile to a
more uniform profile. This effect depends on the screen drag, see Ref. 14.

Figure 20-1. Leveling effect of a porous screen (gauze) on a non-uniform

stream: (1) air stream, (2) porous screen.

The geometry model used for calculating the 2D (in XY-plane) flow is shown in Figure 20-2.
The channel has height of 0.15 m, the inlet (upstream of the porous screen) part of the 0.3 m
length, the porous screen of the 0.01 m thickness, and the outlet (downstream of the porous
screen) part of the 0.35 m length. All the walls have thickness of 0.01 m.

Flow Simulation, v2021 115

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream

Figure 20-2. The geometry model used for calculating the 2D flow between two
parallel plates and through the porous screen with Flow Simulation.

Following Ref. 14, we consider porous screens (gauzes) of different drag, ζ:

z = 0.95, 1.2, 2.8, and 4.1, defined as:

where ΔP is the pressure difference between the screen sides, q = ρV2/2 is the dynamic pressure
(head) of the incoming stream.

Since in Flow Simulation a porous medium’s resistance to flow is characterized by parameter

k = -gradP/ρV, then for the porous screens k = V·ζ/(2L), where V is the fluid velocity, L is the
porous screen thickness. In Flow Simulation, this form of a porous medium’s resistance to flow
is specified as k = (A·V+B)/ρ, so A = ρ·ζ/(2L), B = 0 for the porous screens under consideration.
Therefore, taking L = 0.01 m and ρ = 1.2 kg/m3 into account, we specify A = 57, 72, 168, and
246 kg/m-4 for the porous screens under consideration. In accordance with the screens’ nature,
their permeability is specified as isotropic.

116 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream

According to the experiments presented in Ref. 14, the step-shaped velocity profiles V(Y)
presented in Figure 20-3 have been specified at the model inlet. The static pressure of 1 atm has
been specified at the model outlet.

Figure 20-3. Inlet velocity profiles.

The air flow dynamic pressure profiles at the 0.3 m distance downstream from the porous
screens, both predicted by Flow Simulation at result resolution level 5 and measured in the
Ref. 14 experiments, are presented in Figure 20-4 for the ζ = 0 case (i.e., without screen) and
Figure 20-5-Figure 20-8 for the porous screens of different ζ.

It is seen that the Flow Simulation predictions agree well, both qualitatively and quantitatively,
with the experimental data both in absence of a screen and for all the porous screens (gauzes)
under consideration, demonstrating the leveling effect of the gauze screens on the step-shaped
incoming streams. The prediction error in the dynamic pressure maximum does not exceed
30%.

Flow Simulation, v2021 117

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream

Figure 20-4. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 0, predicted by Flow

Simulation and compared to the experiments.

Figure 20-5. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 0.95, predicted by Flow

Simulation and compared to the experiments.

118 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream

Figure 20-6. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 1.2, predicted by Flow

Simulation and compared to the experiments.

Figure 20-7. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 2.8, predicted by Flow

Simulation and compared to the experiments.

Flow Simulation, v2021 119

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Porous Screen in a Non-uniform Stream

Figure 20-8. The dynamic pressure profiles at ζ = 4.1, predicted by Flow

Simulation and compared to the experiments.

120 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 21
Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and
Trapezoidal Cavities

The lid-driven cavity is an important fluid mechanical system serving as a benchmark for
testing numerical methods and for studying fundamental aspects of incompressible flows in
confined volumes which are driven by the tangential motion of a bounding wall.
Let us now see how Flow Simulation predicts lid-driven (i.e., shear-driven) 2D recirculating
flows in closed 2D triangular and trapezoidal cavities with one or two moving walls (lids) in
comparison with the calculations performed in Ref. 16 and Ref. 6.

These two cavities are shown in Figure 21-1. The triangular cavity has a moving top wall, the
trapezoidal cavity has a moving top wall also, whereas its bottom wall is considered in two
versions: as motionless and as moving at the top wall velocity. The no-slip conditions are
specified on all the walls.

Figure 21-1. The 2D triangular (left) and trapezoidal (right) cavities with the
moving walls (the motionless walls are shown with dashes).

As shown in Ref. 16 and Ref. 6, the shear-driven recirculating flows in these cavities are fully
governed by their Reynolds numbers Re = ρ·Uw·h/μ, where ρ is the fluid density, μ is the fluid
dynamic viscosity, Uw is the moving wall velocity, h is the cavity height. So, we can specify the
height of the triangular cavity h = 4 m, the height of the trapezoidal cavity h = 1 m, Uw = 1 m/s
for all cases under consideration, the fluid density ρ = 1 kg/m3, the fluid dynamic viscosity
μ = 0.005 Pa·s in the triangular cavity produces a Re = 800, and μ = 0.01, 0.0025, 0.001 Pa·s in
the trapezoidal cavity produces a Re = 100, 400, 1000, respectively.

Flow Simulation, v2021 121

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities

The cavities’ models are shown in Figure 21-2. The Flow Simulation calculation of flow in the
triangular cavity has been performed on the 48x96 computational mesh. The results in
comparison with those from Ref. 16 are presented in Figure 21-3 (streamlines) and in
Figure 21-4 (the fluid velocity X-component along the central vertical bisector shown by a
green line in Figure 21-2). A good agreement of these calculations is clearly seen.

Figure 21-2. The models for calculating the lid-driven 2D flows in the triangular
(left) and trapezoidal (right) cavities with Flow Simulation, where MW - moving
walls.

122 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities

Figure 21-3. The flow trajectories in the triangular cavity, calculated by Flow
Simulation (right) and compared to the reference calculation (left).

Figure 21-4. The triangular cavity’s flow velocity X-component along the central
vertical bisector, calculated by Flow Simulation (red line) and compared to the
reference calculation (black line with circlets).

The Flow Simulation calculations of flows in the trapezoidal cavity with one and two moving
walls at different Re values have been performed with the 100x50 computational mesh. Their
results in comparison with those from Ref. 6 are presented in Figure 21-5 – Figure 21-10

Flow Simulation, v2021 123

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities

(streamlines) and in Figure 21-11 (the fluid velocity X-component along the central vertical
bisector shown by a green line in Figure 21-2). A good agreement of these calculations is seen.

Figure 21-5. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with a top only
moving wall at Re = 100, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared
to the reference calculation (left).

Figure 21-6. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with a top only
moving wall at Re = 400, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared
to the reference calculation (left).

Figure 21-7. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with a top only
moving wall at Re = 1000, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared
to the reference calculation (left).

124 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities

Figure 21-8. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with two moving
walls at Re = 100, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the
reference calculation (left).

Figure 21-9. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with two moving
walls at Re = 400, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the
reference calculation (left).

Figure 21-10. The flow streamlines in the trapezoidal cavity with two moving
walls at Re = 1000, calculated by Flow Simulation (right) and compared to the
reference calculation (left).

Flow Simulation, v2021 125

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Lid-driven Flows in Triangular and Trapezoidal Cavities

Figure 21-11. The flow velocity X-component along the central vertical bisector
in the trapezoidal cavity with two moving walls at Re = 400, calculated by Flow
Simulation (red line) and compared to the reference calculation (black line).

126 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 22
Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating
Cover

Let us now see how Flow Simulation predicts a 3D recirculating flow in a cylindrical vessel
closed by a rotating cover.
The calculated predictions are compared with the experimental data presented in Ref. 18 (also
in Ref. 22). This vessel of R = h = 0.144 m dimensions is filled with a glycerol/water mixture.
The upper cover rotates at the angular velocity of W. The other walls of this cavity are
motionless. The default no-slip boundary condition is specified for all walls. The geometry
model is shown in Figure 22-1.

Figure 22-1. The cylindrical vessel with the a rotating cover (yellow).

Due to the cover rotation, a shear-driven recirculating flow forms in this vessel. Such flows are
governed by the Reynolds number Re = ρ·Ω·R2/μ, where ρ is the fluid density, μ is the fluid
dynamic viscosity, Ω is the angular velocity of the rotating cover, R is the radius of the rotating
cover. In the case under consideration the 70/30% glycerol/water mixture has ρ = 1180 kg/m3,
μ = 0.02208 Pa·s, the cover rotates at Ω = 15.51 rpm, so Re = 1800.

Flow Simulation, v2021 127

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover

The Flow Simulation calculation has been performed on the 82x41x82 computational mesh.
The formed flow pattern (toroidal vortex) obtained in this calculation is shown in Figure 22-2
using the flow velocity vectors projected onto the XY-plane. The tangential and radial
components of the calculated flow velocity along four vertical lines arranged in the XY-plane at
different distances from the vessel axis in comparison with the Ref. 18 experimental data are
presented in Figure 22-3 – Figure 22-6 in the dimensionless form (the Y-coordinate is divided
by R, the velocity components are divided by Ω·R). There is good agreement with the
calculation results and the experimental data shown.

Figure 22-2. The vessel's flow velocity vectors projected on the XY-plane.

128 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover

Figure 22-3. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along
the X = 0.6 vertical, calculated by Flow Simulation (red) and compared to the
experimental data.

Flow Simulation, v2021 129

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover

Figure 22-4. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along
the X = 0.7 vertical, calculated by Flow Simulation (red) and compared to the
experimental data.

130 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover

Figure 22-5. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along
the X = 0.8 vertical, calculated by Flow Simulation (red) and compared to the
experimental data.

Flow Simulation, v2021 131

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in a Cylindrical Vessel with a Rotating Cover

Figure 22-6. The vessel's flow tangential and radial velocity components along
the X = 0.9 vertical, calculated by Flow Simulation (red) and compared to the
experimental data.

132 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 23
Flow in an Impeller

Let us now validate the Flow Simulation ability to perform calculations in a rotating coordinate
system related to a rotating solid.
Following Ref. 24, we will consider the flow of water in a 9-bladed centrifugal impeller having
blades tilted at a constant 60° angle with respect to the intersecting radii and extending out from
the 320 mm inner diameter to the 800 mm outer diameter (see Figure 23-1). The water in this
impeller flows from its center to its periphery. To compare the calculation with the experimental
data presented in Ref. 24, the impeller's angular velocity of 32 rpm and volume flow rate of
0.00926 m3/s are specified.

Figure 23-1. The impeller's blades geometry.

Since the impeller's inlet geometry and disk extension serving as the impeller's vaneless diffuser
have no exact descriptions in Ref. 24, to perform the validating calculation we arbitrarily
specified the annular inlet as 80 mm in diameter with an uniform inlet velocity profile
perpendicular to the surface in the stationary coordinate system.The impeller's disks external
end was specified as 1.2 m diameter, as shown in Figure 23-2.

Flow Simulation, v2021 133

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in an Impeller

Figure 23-2. The model used for calculating the 3D flow in the impeller.

The above-mentioned volume flow rate at the annular inlet and the potential pressure of 1 atm at
the annular outlet are specified as the problem's flow boundary conditions.

The Flow Simulation 3D flow calculation is performed on the computational mesh using the
result resolution level of 5 and the minimum wall thickness of 2 mm (since the blades have
constant thickness). To further capture the curvature of the blades a local initial mesh was also
used in the area from the annular inlet to the blades' periphery. As a result, the computational
mesh has a total number of about 1 000 000 cells.

Following Ref. 24, let us compare the passage-wise flow velocities (ws, see their definition in
Figure 23-3, β = 60°) along several radial lines passing through the channels between the blades
(lines g, j, m, p in Figure 23-4) at the mid-height between the impeller's disks.

134 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow in an Impeller

Figure 23-3. Definition of the passage-wise flow velocity: PS - pressure side,

SS - suction side.

Figure 23-4. Definition of the reference radial lines along which the passage-
wise flow velocity was measured experimentally (from a to s in the alphabetical
order).

The passage-wise flow velocities divided by Ωr2, where Ω is the impeller's angular velocity,
r2 = 400 mm is the impeller's outer radius, which were measured in Ref. 24 and obtained in the
performed Flow Simulation calculations, are shown in Figure 23-5 – Figure 23-8. In these

figures, the distance along the radial lines is divided by the line's length , where the
respective subscripts denote suction side (ss) and pressure side (ps). The Flow Simulation
results are presented in each of these figures by the curve obtained by averaging the
corresponding nine curves in all the nine flow passages between the impeller blades. The
calculated passage-wise flow velocity's cut plot covering the whole computational domain at the
mid-height between the impeller's disks is shown in Figure 23-9. Here, the g, j, m, p radial lines

Flow Simulation, v2021 135

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in an Impeller

in each of the impeller's flow passages are shown. A good agreement of these calculation results
with the experimental data is seen.

Figure 23-5. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the g radial line,
calculated by Flow Simulation and compared to the experimental data.

Figure 23-6. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the j radial line,
calculated by Flow Simulation and compared to the experimental data.

136 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Flow in an Impeller

Figure 23-7. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the m radial line,
calculated by Flow Simulation and compared to the experimental data

Figure 23-8. The impeller's passage-wise flow velocity along the p radial line,
calculated by Flow Simulation and compared to the experimental data.

Flow Simulation, v2021 137

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow in an Impeller

Figure 23-9. A cut plot of the impeller's passage-wise flow velocity calculated
by Flow Simulation.

138 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 24
Rotation of Greek Cross Cylinder

To validate the capability of Flow Simulation to simulate the rotation by using the Local
region(s) (Sliding) option, let us consider a rotating cylinder of a Greek cross section with axes
perpendicular to the direction of motion and determine the air force acting on the rotating
cylinder.
The model was tested at an airspeed of 10 m/s in infinite length-diameter ratio; cross-sectional
dimensions are shown in Figure 24-1. The results of its experimental study are given in Ref. 20.

Figure 24-1. Cylinder cross-section.

The experimental data consist of drag and lift forces as functions of the ratio of peripheral to
translation speed:

where U´ is the peripheral speed, U0 is the airspeed, ω is the rotation speed, L is the "lift" or the
cross-wind force, D is the "drag" force, q is the dynamic pressure and S is the projected area of
the cylinder.

For the calculation, a time-dependent analysis with the constant time step from 1/160 of the
rotation period for ω ≤ 1000 rpm up to 1/80 of the rotation period for ω > 1000 rpm has been

Flow Simulation, v2021 139

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Rotation of Greek Cross Cylinder

performed on the 100x80x1 computational mesh. The flow fields at ω = 300 rpm and
ω = 2000 rpm are shown in Figure 24-2 and Figure 24-3 respectively.

Figure 24-2. Flow field at ω = 300 rpm.

Figure 24-3. Flow field at ω = 2000 rpm.

The aerodynamic coefficients, which were predicted by Flow Simulation and compared against
the experimental data (see Ref. 20), are shown in Figure 24-4 and Figure 24-5.

Comparison of the aerodynamic coefficients shows that Flow Simulation predicts the rotation
effects with good accuracy.

140 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Rotation of Greek Cross Cylinder

Figure 24-4. The lift coefficient predicted by Flow Simulation and measured
experimentally.

Figure 24-5. The aerodynamic coefficients predicted by Flow Simulation and

measured experimentally.

Flow Simulation, v2021 141

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Rotation of Greek Cross Cylinder

References

142 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 25
Cavitation on a hydrofoil

When the local pressure at some point in the liquid drops below the liquid's vapor pressure at
the local temperature, the liquid undergoes phase transition and form cavities filled with the
liquid's vapor with an addition of gas that has been dissolved in the liquid. This phenomenon is
called cavitation.
In this validation example we consider Flow Simulation abilities to model cavitation on the
example of water flow around a symmetric hydrofoil in a water-filled tunnel. The calculated
results were compared with the experimental data from Ref. 4.

The problem is solved in the 2D setting. A symmetric hydrofoil with the chord c of 0.305 m is
placed in a water-filled tunnel with the angle of attack of 3.5°. The part of the tunnel being
modeled has the following dimensions: length l = 2 m and height h = 0.508 m. The calculation
is performed four times with different values of the cavitation number s defined as follows:

where P∞ is the inlet pressure, Pv is the saturated water vapor pressure equal to 2340 Pa at given
temperature (293.2 K), ρ is the water density at inlet, and U∞ is the water velocity at inlet (see
Figure 25-1).

The inlet boundary condition is set up as Inlet Velocity of 8 m/s. On the tunnel outlet an
Environment Pressure is specified so that by varying it one may tune the cavitation number to
the needed value. The project fluid is water with the cavitation option switched on, and the mass
fraction of non-condensable gas is set to 5·10-5. A local initial mesh was created in order to
resolve the cavitation area better. The resulting mesh contains about 30 000 cells.

Flow Simulation, v2021 143

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Cavitation on a hydrofoil

Figure 25-1. The model geometry.

The qualitative comparison in a form of cut plots with Vapor Volume Fraction as the
visualization parameter are shown on Figure 25-2.

144 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Cavitation on a hydrofoil

Figure 25-2. A comparison of calculated and experimentally observed

cavitation areas for different cavitation numbers.

Flow Simulation, v2021 145

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Cavitation on a hydrofoil

The calculated length of the cavitation area was derived from the distribution of the
Vapor Volume Fraction parameter over the hydrofoil’s surface as the distribution’s width at
half-height. The results are presented on Figure 25-3.

Figure 25-3. A comparison of calculated and measured cavitation lengths.

According to Ref. 4, the "clear appearance" of the cavity becomes worse for larger cavity
lengths. The experimental data also confirm that the amount of uncertainty increases with
increasing cavity extent. Taking these factors into account together with the comparison
performed above, we can see that the calculated length of the cavitation area agrees well with
the experiment for a wide range of cavitation numbers.

Pressure measurements were performed on the hydrofoil surface at x/c = 0.05 in order to
calculate the pressure coefficient defined as follows:

A comparison of the calculated and experimental values of this parameter is presented on

Figure 25-4 and also shows a good agreement.

146 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Cavitation on a hydrofoil

Figure 25-4. A comparison of calculated and measured pressure coefficient.

Flow Simulation, v2021 147

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Cavitation on a hydrofoil

148 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 26
Isothermal Cavitation in a Throttle Nozzle

Cavitation and turbulence inside a diesel and gasoline injectors play a critical role in primary
spray breakup and development processes. In this validation example we consider Flow
Simulation capabilities to simulate cavitation in industrial liquid flows using the Isothermal
Cavitation Model.
The problem studied here validates this model by considering a 3D diesel fuel flow in a throttle
channel that was studied experimentally in Ref. 26. According to this work, thermal effects in
the considered flow are negligible. Therefore, it is reasonable to apply the Isothermal
Cavitation Model.

Throttle channel geometry with its main dimensions is shown in Figure 26-1.

Figure 26-1. The channel geometry: (s) symmetry plane, L = 1 mm,

H = 0.299 mm, W = 0.3 mm, Rin = 0.02 mm.

Flow Simulation, v2021 149

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Isothermal Cavitation in a Throttle Nozzle

Diesel fuel at 30°C is supplied to the inlet under the pressure (Pin) of 100 bar. The outlet
pressure (Pout) varies from 10 to 70 bar. The properties of the analyzed fuel for the given
temperature are presented in the following table:
Table 26-1. Properties of the diesel fuel (2-D) at 30°C
Density (kg/m3) 836
Molar Mass (kg/mol) 0.198
Dynamic Viscosity (Pa·s) 0.0025
Saturation Pressure (Pa) 2000

It is assumed that fuel contains dissolved air. The mass fraction of dissolved air is set to 0.001 to
conform with the experimental data.

The objective of the calculations is to obtain channel characteristic under cavitation conditions
and compare it with the experimental measurements. Because throttle channel has a symmetry
plane, only a half of the model is used to generate the computational mesh. A finer local mesh is
used to resolve the flow in the narrow channel and the adjacent regions providing about 15 mesh
cells across the channel half-height. Additional refinement is performed in the region near the
small fillet Rin. The resulting mesh are shown in Figure 26-2.

Figure 26-2. The computational mesh (zoom-view).

Figure 26-3 shows the distribution of the vapor volume fraction at different pressure drop. This
figure provides a view of the initiation and development of the cavitation area.

150 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Isothermal Cavitation in a Throttle Nozzle

Figure 26-3. Cavitation fields at symmetry plane.

The dependency of the pressure drop on the mass flow rate both predicted by Flow Simulation
and determined experimentally are shown on Figure 26-4. The difference between the
calculations and the experimental measurements is less than 5%. Also, as it can be seen from the
Figure 26-3 and Figure 26-4, the critical cavitation point corresponds to the pressure drop of
about 70 bar. This point defines the transition from a pressure-dependent mass flow to choked
mass flow that is induced by cavitation.

Figure 26-4. Mass flow rate versus pressure drop at 100 bar inlet pressure in
comparison with the experimental data.

The comparison of the Flow Simulation calculations with the experimental data shows that the
application of the Isothermal cavitation model that employs a limited set of fluid properties
allows to predict cavitating flow characteristics with the sufficient accuracy.

Flow Simulation, v2021 151

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Isothermal Cavitation in a Throttle Nozzle

152 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 27
Thermoelectric Cooling

Flow Simulation has the ability to model the work of a thermoelectric cooler (TEC), also
known as Peltier element.
The device used in this example has been developed for active cooling of an infrared focal plane
array detector used during the Mars space mission (see Ref. 28).

According to the hardware requirements, the cooler (see Figure 27-1 and Figure 27-2) has the
following dimensions: thickness of 4.8 mm, cold side of 8x8 mm2 and hot side of 12x12 mm2.
It was built up of three layers of semiconductor pellets made of (Bi,Sb)2(Se,Te)3-based
material. The cooler was designed to work at temperatures of hot surface in the range of 120-
180 K and to provide the temperature drop of more than 30 K between its surfaces.

Figure 27-1. Structure of the thermoelectric cooler

Flow Simulation, v2021 153

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Thermoelectric Cooling

Figure 27-2. The thermoelectric module test setup.

To solve the engineering problem using Flow Simulation, the cooler has been modeled by a
truncated pyramidal body with fixed temperature (Th) on the hot surface and given heat flow
(Qc) on the cold surface (see Figure 27-3).

Figure 27-3. The model geometry: (1) TEC, (2) part of infrared focal plane array
detector, (3) part of heat sink.

154 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Thermoelectric Cooling

The TEC characteristics necessary for the modeling, i.e. temperature dependencies of the
maximum pumped heat, maximum temperature drop, maximum current strength and maximum
voltage, were represented in the Flow Simulation Engineering Database as a linear
interpolation between the values taken from Ref. 28 (see Figure 27-4).

Figure 27-4. The TEC’s characteristics in the Engineering Database.

As it can be seen on Figure 27-5, the temperature drop between the cooler’s hot and cold
surfaces in dependence of current agrees well with the experimental data.

Flow Simulation, v2021 155

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Thermoelectric Cooling

Figure 27-5. ∆T as a function of current under various Th.

The dependency of ΔT against heat flow under various Th (see Figure 27-6) is also in a good
agreement with the performance data, as well as the coefficient of performance COP (see
Figure 27-7) defined as follows:

where Pin is the cooler’s power consumption, and Qc and Qh are the heat flows on the cold and
hot faces, respectively.

156 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Thermoelectric Cooling

Figure 27-6. ∆T as a function of heat flow under various Th.

Figure 27-7. COP as a function of ∆T under various Th.

Finally, we may conclude that Flow Simulation reproduces thermal characteristics of the
thermoelectric coolers at various currents and temperatures with good precision.

Flow Simulation, v2021 157

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Thermoelectric Cooling

158 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 28
Buice-Eaton 2D Diffuser

To validate the performance of the Flow Simulation enhanced k-ε turbulence model, let us
consider a flow through the Buice-Eaton diffuser. This problem was a test-case for the 8th
ERCOFTAC/IAHR/COST Workshop on Refined Turbulence modeling in Espoo, Finland, 17-
18 June 1999.
The flow includes a smooth-wall separation due to an adverse pressure gradient, reattachment
and redevelopment of the downstream boundary layer. The results of its experimental study are
given in Ref. 5. The data include mean and fluctuating velocities at various stations in the
diffuser and skin friction data on both walls.

The Buice-Eaton diffuser, illustrated in Figure 28-1, is an asymmetric 2D diffuser in which

incompressible, fully developed turbulent flow undergoes smooth wall separation and
reattachment. The lower wall of the diffuser slopes down at 10° and opens the diffuser up to
4.7 times the entrance height, H = 0.59055 in. The inlet channel flow is turbulent and fully-
developed with a Re = 20 000 based on the centerline velocity and the channel height.

Figure 28-1. Schematics of the diffuser.

Flow Simulation, v2021 159

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Buice-Eaton 2D Diffuser

For the calculation, 2D computational domain was considered. As the Fully developed flow
boundary condition was specified at the inlet, so a short entrance was used. A large outlet was
used so that the flow had time to stabilize before reaching the outlet, to avoid causing any
upstream effects. The basic initial mesh was 495x100x1 cells (in the X-Y plane).

The skin friction along lower and upper walls of Buice-Eaton diffuser is shown in Figure 28-2.

Figure 28-2. Skin friction along lower (a) and upper (b) walls predicted by Flow
Simulation and measured experimentally.

The mean velocity and turbulent kinetic energy profiles for the Flow Simulation simulation,
along with experimental results can be seen in Figure 28-3.

160 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Buice-Eaton 2D Diffuser

Figure 28-3. Mean velocity (a) and turbulent energy (b) profiles predicted by
Flow Simulation and measured experimentally.

Comparison of the experimental and calculated results shows that Flow Simulation predicts the
separation point and the extent of the recirculation region with good accuracy.

Flow Simulation, v2021 161

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Buice-Eaton 2D Diffuser

162 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 29
Flow Over a Broad-crested Weir

In this validation example we consider Flow Simulation capabilities to simulate free-surface

flows using the Volume of Fluid (VOF) technique.
The problem studied here validates this model by considering a water flow over a broad-crested
weir that was studied theoretically by using Bernoulli’s theorem in Ref. 3.

The considered model of a broad-crested weir is shown in Figure 29-1, where

H = 0.06, 0.065, 0.07 m is the initial height of water, a = 0.05 m is the height of the weir at its
highest point, d is the depth of the stream and h is the fall in water level below that some
distance upstream where the water velocity V is negligibly small.

Figure 29-1. Steady flow over a broad-crested weir.

The water density is ρ = 1000 kg/m3 and its viscosity is μ = 0 Pa·s.

Lets observe the level of the surface of the dammed slowly-moving water upstream of the weir.
At the place where d + h is a minimum, i.e. above the highest point of the weir, the values of d
and V are:

For the calculation, 2D computational domain was considered and a time-dependent analysis
was performed. To specify the initial water level and opening boundary conditions, the zero
reference point for the pressure in hydrostatic equilibrium should be defined first. Let the zero
reference point be at the height H. Thus the initial water distribution can be defined as Initial
Condition by specifying the Initial fluid equals Water, the Static Pressure equals

Flow Simulation, v2021 163

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
Flow Over a Broad-crested Weir

Patm = 101325 Pa and the Pressure potential is checked. The inlet boundary condition can be
defined as the Static Pressure equals Patm and the Initial fluid equals Water at the height
below H and Air at the height above H, and the Pressure potential is checked. The outlet
boundary condition can be defined as the Static Pressure specified as the dependency on height
(y coordinate) Patm – ρair·g·(y – H), where ρair = 1.2 kg/m3, g = 9.81 m/s2, the Initial fluid
equals Air, and the Pressure potential is unchecked.

Figure 29-2 shows a comparison between the theoretical and calculated depth of the water
stream da and the water velocity Va at the weir highest point.

Figure 29-2. The water stream depth and the velocity at the weir highest point
predicted by theory and calculated by Flow Simulation.

Comparison of the water stream characteristics predicted by calculation and by theory shows
that Flow Simulation simulates the free-surface flows with good accuracy.

164 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
 Chapter 30
References

The list of references arranged alphabetically by author is given below.

1. Artonkin, V.G., & Petrov, K.P. (1971). Investigations of aerodynamic characteristics of
segmental conic bodies. Trudy TsAGI 1361, 1-25. [in Russian].
2. Balakin, V., Churbanov, A. G., Gavriliouk, V., Makarov, M., & Pavlov, A. (2004).
Verification and Validation of EFD.Lab Code for Predicting Heat and Fluid Flow. In
ICHMT DIGITAL LIBRARY ONLINE. Begel House Inc..
3. Batchelor, C. K., & Batchelor, G. K. (2000). An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Brewer, W. H., & Kinnas, S. A. (1955).Experimental and computational investigation of
sheet cavitation on a hydrofoil. In Proceedings of the 1995 ASME/JSME Fluids
Engineering and Laser Anemometry Conference and Exhibition.
5. Buice, C. U., & Eaton, J. K. (2000). Experimental Investigation of Flow Through an
Asymmetric Plane Diffuser. Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 122, No. June, 433-435.
6. Darr, J. H., & Vanka, S. P. (1991). Separated Flow in a Driven Trapezoidal Cavity.
Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics, 3(3), 385-392.
7. de Vahl Davis, G. (1983). Natural Convection of Air in a Square Cavity: a Bench Mark
Numerical Solution. International Journal for numerical methods in fluids, 3(3), 249-
264.
8. de Vahl Davis, G., & Jones, I. P. (1983). Natural Convection in a Square Cavity: a
Comparison Exercise. International Journal for numerical methods in fluids, 3(3), 227-
248.
9. Denham, M. K., & Patrick, M. A. (1974). Laminar Flow over a Downstream-Facing
Step in a Two-Dimensional Flow Channel. Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs, 52(4), 361-367.
10. Emery, A., & Chu, T.Y. (1965). Heat Transfer across Vertical Layers. ASME. J. Heat
Transfer. February 1965; 87(1): 110-114.
11. Henderson, C.B. (1976). Drag Coefficients of Spheres in Continuum and Rarefied
Flows. AIAA journal, 14(6), 707-708.
12. Holman, J. P. (1997). Heat Transfer. 8’th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Humphrey, J. A. C., Taylor, A. M. K., & Whitelaw, J. H. (1977). Laminar Flow in a
Square Duct of Strong Curvature. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 83(3), 509-527.

Flow Simulation, v2021 165

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.
References

14. Idelchik, I. E. (1986). Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance. Washington, DC, Hemisphere

Publishing Corp., 1986, 662 p. Translation.
15. Jousson, H., & Palm, B. (2000). Thermal and Hydraulic Behavior of Plate Fin and Strip
Fin Heat Sinks Under Varying Bypass Conditions. IEEE Transactions on Components
and Packaging Technologies, 23(1), 47-54.
16. Jyotsna, R., & Vanka, S. P. (1995). Multigrid Calculation of Steady, Viscous Flow in a
Triangular Cavity. Journal of Computational Physics, 122(1), 107-117.
17. Kuchling, H. (1980) Nachschlagebücher für Grundlagenfächer, Physik. Verb.
Fachbuchverlag, Leipzig. [in German]
18. Michelsen, J. A. (1986). Modeling of Laminar Incompressible Rotating Fluid Flow. Ph.
D. Thesis, Department of Fluid Mechanics, Technical University of Denmark.
19. Panton, R. L. (1996). Incompressible Flow. 2nd ed., New York: J. Wiley.
20. Reid, E. G. (1924). Tests of rotating cylinders. Technical notes NACA-TN-209.
21. Schlichting, H. (1979). Boundary Layer Theory. 7th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Sørensen, J. N., & Loc, T. P. (1989). Higher-Order Axisymmetric Navier-Stokes Code:
Description and Evaluation of Boundary Conditions. International journal for numerical
methods in fluids, 9(12), 1517-1537.
23. Van Dyke, M. (1982). An Album of Fluid Motion. Stanford, California: Parabolic Press.
24. Visser, F. C., Brouwers, J. J. H., & Jonker, J. B. (1999). Fluid flow in a rotating low-
specific-speed centrifugal impeller passage. Fluid dynamics research, 24(5), 275-292.
25. White, F.M. (1994). Fluid Mechanics. 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
26. Winklhofer, E., Kull, E., Kelz, E., & Morozov, A. (2001). Comprehensive Hydraulic
and Flow Field Documentation in Model Throttle Experiments Under Cavitation
Conditions. In Proceedings of the ILASS-Europe conference, Zurich (pp. 574-579).
27. Yanshin, B. I. (1965). Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Pipeline Valves and Elements.
Convergent Sections, Divergent Sections, and Valves. Moscow: Mashinostroenie.
28. Yershova, L., Volodin, V., Gromov, T., Kondratiev, D., Gromov, G., Lamartinie, S.,
Bibring, J-P., & Soufflot, A. (2002). Thermoelectric Cooling for Low Temperature
Space Environment. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Thermoelectrics,
Pamplona.
29. Yu, E., & Joshi, Y. (2002). Heat Transfer Enhancement from Enclosed Discrete
Components Using Pin-Fin Heat Sinks. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
45(25), 4957-4966.

166 Flow Simulation, v2021

July 2020

Note - Viewing PDF files within a web browser causes some links not to function. Use HTML for full navigation.