UFR 4-20 Evaluation: Difference between revisions
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Figure 7a shows that a top-hat profile is present at x/L = 0.2 in both the measurements and simulation results, and that the agreement between the predictions of the CFD models and the experimental results is very good; only RSM starts deviating below y/L = 0.82. Please note that in contrast to Figure 5, no top-hat profile is visible in Fig. 7c, which is due to the too low measurement resolution for ROI1 to capture the large velocity gradients in the boundary layer and shear layer. Figure 7d shows that the low-Reynolds number version of the k-ε model by | Figure 7a shows that a top-hat profile is present at x/L = 0.2 in both the measurements and simulation results, and that the agreement between the predictions of the CFD models and the experimental results is very good; only RSM starts deviating below y/L = 0.82. Please note that in contrast to Figure 5, no top-hat profile is visible in Fig. 7c, which is due to the too low measurement resolution for ROI1 to capture the large velocity gradients in the boundary layer and shear layer. Figure 7d shows that the low-Reynolds number version of the k-ε model by | ||
[[UFR_4-20_References#6|Chang ''et al.'' (1995)]] | [[UFR_4-20_References#6|Chang ''et al.'' (1995)]] | ||
provides the best agreement with the experimental results with respect to the location of maximum velocity, and thus with respect to the location of detachment of the wall jet. The worst overall agreement is present for the RSM model and SST model, especially with respect to the prediction of the location of maximum velocity and of jet detachment. | provides the best agreement with the experimental results with respect to the location of maximum velocity, and thus with respect to the location of detachment of the wall jet. The worst overall agreement is present for the RSM model and SST model, especially with respect to the prediction of the location of maximum velocity and of jet detachment. | ||
<div id="figure7"></div> | |||
{|align="center" | |||
|[[Image:UFR4-20_Fig7.jpg|650px]] | |||
|- | |||
|align="left"|'''Figure 7:''' (a) 3D room geometry with indication of coordinate system, U<sub>0</sub>, h<sub>inlet</sub>, h<sub>outlet</sub>, and dimensions of the test section L<sup>3</sup>. (b) 2D schematic representation of the plane wall jet with I the inner region, II the outer region, U<sub>M</sub> the maximum velocity, y<sub>M</sub> the distance from the top wall to the location of U<sub>M</sub>, y<sub>C</sub> the distance from the bottom wall to the location of U<sub>M</sub> and y<sub>½</sub> the location of ½ U<sub>M</sub> in the outer region (e.g. [[UFR_4-20_References#25|Launder and Rodi 1981]]). Figure from [[UFR_4-20_References#42|van Hooff ''et al.'' (2012a)]]. | |||
|} | |||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 15:18, 5 December 2017
Mixing ventilation flow in an enclosure driven by a transitional wall jet
Confined Flows
Underlying Flow Regime 4-20
Evaluation
Comparison of CFD calculations with experiments
The results of the steady RANS CFD simulations are compared with the measurement results from the PIV measurements. Figure 7 shows the dimensionless streamwise velocities (U/UM) along vertical lines at three locations in the vertical center plane (z/L = 0.5) of the enclosure; x/L = 0.2; x/L = 0.5 and x/L = 0.8, for a slot Reynolds number of ≈ 1,000. Note that the results at x/L = 0.2 (Fig. 7a) are provided for the smaller region of interest, i.e. ROI2, while the other results are provided for the total vertical cross-section, i.e. ROI1.
Figure 7a shows that a top-hat profile is present at x/L = 0.2 in both the measurements and simulation results, and that the agreement between the predictions of the CFD models and the experimental results is very good; only RSM starts deviating below y/L = 0.82. Please note that in contrast to Figure 5, no top-hat profile is visible in Fig. 7c, which is due to the too low measurement resolution for ROI1 to capture the large velocity gradients in the boundary layer and shear layer. Figure 7d shows that the low-Reynolds number version of the k-ε model by Chang et al. (1995) provides the best agreement with the experimental results with respect to the location of maximum velocity, and thus with respect to the location of detachment of the wall jet. The worst overall agreement is present for the RSM model and SST model, especially with respect to the prediction of the location of maximum velocity and of jet detachment.
|
| Figure 7: (a) 3D room geometry with indication of coordinate system, U0, hinlet, houtlet, and dimensions of the test section L3. (b) 2D schematic representation of the plane wall jet with I the inner region, II the outer region, UM the maximum velocity, yM the distance from the top wall to the location of UM, yC the distance from the bottom wall to the location of UM and y½ the location of ½ UM in the outer region (e.g. Launder and Rodi 1981). Figure from van Hooff et al. (2012a). |
Contributed by: T. van Hooff — Eindhoven University of Technology
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024