ESDU TN 06023
CFD validation studies for pressure loss and flow characteristics in sudden contractions.
Abstract:
This Technical Note describes the CFD studies conducted by ESDU for the validation of the predictions of pressure loss and flow characteristics in sharp, round and chamferedged sudden contractions, in support of the correlations in ESDU 05024. The CFD calculations were carried out using the CFD package CFX5 by ANSYS Inc., and were compared with data found in the literature. The CFD predictions for the flow fields were compared with LDA measurements and numerical studies. The CFD for predictions the pressure loss coefficient were compared with the experimental data and correlations. The fluid was assumed incompressible and Newtonian. The flow regimes were laminar, transitional, and turbulent (1 =< Re =< 10^{6}). Best Practice Guidelines for the CFD modelling of the flow in sudden contractions are provided.Indexed under:
 None
Details:
Data Item ESDU TN 06023  

Format: 

Status: 

Previous Releases:  
ISBN: 

The Data Item document you have requested is available only to subscribers or purchasers.
 Subscribers login here.
 If you are not an ESDU subscriber you can
 find out how to subscribe, or
 purchase this Data Item from the IHS Standards Store.
The graphs listed below are available only to subscribers.
 Subscribers login here.
 If you are not an ESDU subscriber find out how to subscribe.
This Data Item contains 65 interactive graph(s) as listed below.
Graph  Title 

Figure 1a  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 23, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 1a  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 23, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 1b  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 23, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 1b  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 23, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 2a  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 196, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 2a  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 196, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 2b  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 196, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 2b  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 196, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 3a  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 196, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 3a  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 196, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 3b  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 196, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 3b  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 196, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 4a  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 1213, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 4a  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 1213, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 4b  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 1213, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 4b  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Durst and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results for Re_{l} = 1213, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 5a  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for pressure profiles with Durst and coworkers numerical results for Re_{l} = 563 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 5a  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for pressure profiles with Durst and coworkers numerical results for Re_{l} = 563 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, upstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 5b  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for pressure profiles with Durst and coworkers numerical results for Re_{l} = 563 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 5b  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for pressure profiles with Durst and coworkers numerical results for Re_{l} = 563 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, downstream of the contraction plane 
Figure 6a  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for upstream separation size with Durst and coworkers numerical results for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, separation length 
Figure 6b  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for upstream separation size with Durst and coworkers numerical results for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, separation height 
Figure 7a  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for downstream separation size with Durst and coworkers measurements and numerical results for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, separation length 
Figure 7b  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for downstream separation size with Durst and coworkers measurements and numerical results for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, separation height 
Figure 8  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for static pressure loss coefficient with Kaye and Rosen measurements for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285 
Figure 9a  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with experimental data and correlations for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, laminar to turbulent flow 
Figure 9b  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with experimental data and correlations for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.285, transitional and turbulent flow 
Figure 10a  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results upstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 10^{5} and A2/A1 = 0.332: x/Dl = 0.5 
Figure 10a  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results upstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 10^{5} and A2/A1 = 0.332: x/Dl = 0.5 
Figure 10b  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results upstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 10^{5} and A2/A1 = 0.332: x/Dl = 0.1 
Figure 10b  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results upstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 10^{5} and A2/A1 = 0.332: x/Dl = 0.1 
Figure 11a  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results downstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 10^{5} and A2/A1 = 0.332: x/Dl = 0.15 
Figure 11a  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results downstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 10^{5} and A2/A1 = 0.332: x/Dl = 0.15 
Figure 11b  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results downstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 10^{5} and A2/A1 = 0.332: x/Dl = 0.1 
Figure 11b  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results downstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 10^{5} and A2/A1 = 0.332: x/Dl = 0.1 
Figure 12  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results upstream and downstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 105 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.332 
Figure 12  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD axial velocities with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements and numerical results upstream and downstream of the contraction plane for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 105 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.332 
Figure 13  Part 1  Comparison of the ESDU CFD local centreline velocity with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 105 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.332 
Figure 13  Part 2  Comparison of the ESDU CFD local centreline velocity with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 105 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.332 
Figure 14  Comparison of the ESDU CFD downstream core flow extent with Bullen and coworkers LDA measurements for Re_{l} = 1.54 x 105 and A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.332 
Figure 15  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for static pressure loss coefficient with Kaye and Rosen measurements for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.135 
Figure 16  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for static pressure loss coefficient with Kaye and Rosen measurements for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.332 
Figure 17  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for static pressure loss coefficient with Kaye and Rosen measurements for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.629 
Figure 18a  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with experimental data and correlations for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.135. Laminar to turbulent flow 
Figure 18b  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with experimental data and correlations for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.135. Transitional and turbulent flow 
Figure 19a  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with experimental data and correlations for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.332. Laminar to turbulent flow 
Figure 19b  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with experimental data and correlations for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.332. Transitional and turbulent flow 
Figure 20a  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with experimental data and correlations for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.629. Laminar to turbulent flow 
Figure 20b  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with experimental data and correlations for A_{2}/A_{1} = 0.629. Transitional and turbulent flow 
Figure 21  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with Bullen measurements and Crane, Miller, Idel'chik correlations for Re_{2} = 3 x 10^{5} 
Figure 22  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with Benedict measurements and ESDU CFD data at the flow reattachment point for Re_{2} = 3 x 10^{5} 
Figure 23  Comparison of the ESDU CFD data for total pressure loss coefficient with Harris measurement for Re_{l} = 10^{5} 
Figure 27  Comparisons for the recovery length 
Figure 28  Comparisons for the kinetic energy factor 
Figure 29  Comparisons for the momentum profile factor 
Figure 30  Comparison with Crane correlation for the continuitymean roundedge factor 
Figure 31  Comparison for the continuitymean roundedge factor with Miller and Idel'chik correlations and Bullen's experimental data 
Figure 32  Comparison for the continuitymean roundedge factor with Miller correlation and Hamilton's experimental data 
Figure 33a  Comparison for the continuitymean chamferedge factor with Idel'chik correlation for angle = 15 degrees 
Figure 33b  Comparisons for the continuitymean chamferedge factor with Idel'chik and Miller correlations for angle = 30 degrees 
Figure 33c  Comparisons for the continuitymean chamferedge factor with Idel'chik and Miller correlations for angle = 45 degrees 
Figure 33d  Comparison for the continuitymean chamferedge factor with Idel'chik correlation for angle = 60 degrees 
Figure 34a  Comparisons for the continuitymean chamferedge factor with Idel'chik correlation for l_{e}/D_{2} = 0.05 
Figure 34b  Comparisons for the continuitymean chamferedge factor with Idel'chik correlation for l_{e}/D_{2} = 0.1 
Figure 34c  Comparisons for the continuitymean chamferedge factor with Idel'chik correlation for l_{e}/D_{2} = 0.2 