0
Research Papers: Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Turbulent Flow in Corrugated Pipes

[+] Author and Article Information
Henrique Stel, Rigoberto E. M. Morales, Admilson T. Franco, Silvio L. M. Junqueira, Raul H. Erthal

Thermal Sciences Laboratory-LACIT, Federal Technological University of Paraná - UTFPR, CEP. 80230-901 Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil

Marcelo A. L. Gonçalves

TE/CENPES/PETROBRAS, 21941-598 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

J. Fluids Eng 132(7), 071203 (Jul 22, 2010) (13 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002035 History: Received September 09, 2009; Revised June 04, 2010; Published July 22, 2010; Online July 22, 2010

Abstract

This article describes a numerical and experimental investigation of turbulent flow in pipes with periodic “d-type” corrugations. Four geometric configurations of d-type corrugated surfaces with different groove heights and lengths are evaluated, and calculations for Reynolds numbers ranging from 5000 to 100,000 are performed. The numerical analysis is carried out using computational fluid dynamics, and two turbulence models are considered: the two-equation, low-Reynolds-number Chen–Kim $k-ε$ turbulence model, for which several flow properties such as friction factor, Reynolds stress, and turbulence kinetic energy are computed, and the algebraic LVEL model, used only to compute the friction factors and a velocity magnitude profile for comparison. An experimental loop is designed to perform pressure-drop measurements of turbulent water flow in corrugated pipes for the different geometric configurations. Pressure-drop values are correlated with the friction factor to validate the numerical results. These show that, in general, the magnitudes of all the flow quantities analyzed increase near the corrugated wall and that this increase tends to be more significant for higher Reynolds numbers as well as for larger grooves. According to previous studies, these results may be related to enhanced momentum transfer between the groove and core flow as the Reynolds number and groove length increase. Numerical friction factors for both the Chen–Kim $k-ε$ and LVEL turbulence models show good agreement with the experimental measurements.

<>

Figures

Figure 1

Schematic design of the corrugated pipe and its representative dimensions

Figure 2

Periodic module with one groove used as the numerical domain. Designations are described in the text.

Figure 3

Computational grid used in the numerical calculations using the CK k-ε model

Figure 4

Validation of the present numerical approach. Velocity profiles over a d-type corrugated pipe wall.

Figure 5

Schematic of the experimental setup

Figure 6

Numerical and experimental friction factors for configurations (a) C1, (b) C2, (c) C3, and (d) C4

Figure 7

Streamlines obtained from the numerical calculations for two Reynolds numbers and four groove configurations

Figure 8

Example of a vector plot of the velocity field inside a cavity (ReD=100,000 for configuration C3)

Figure 9

Pressure contour plots near the groove for ReD=50,000 for the geometric configurations studied

Figure 10

Comparison of the radial velocity component near the wall for different configurations for ReD=10,000 at different groove monitoring points: (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C

Figure 11

Comparison of the radial velocity component near the wall for different configurations for ReD=50,000 at different groove monitoring points: (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C

Figure 12

Comparison of the radial velocity component near the wall for different configurations for ReD=100,000 at different groove monitoring points: (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C

Figure 13

Comparison of the radial velocity component near the wall for different Reynolds numbers for configuration C3 (measured at monitoring point C)

Figure 14

Turbulence kinetic energy contour plots near the groove for ReD=50,000 for the four geometric configurations studied

Figure 15

Comparison of the dimensionless Reynolds shear stress near the wall for different configurations for ReD=10,000 at different groove monitoring points: (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C

Figure 16

Comparison of the dimensionless Reynolds shear stress near the wall for different configurations for ReD=50,000 at different groove monitoring points: (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C

Figure 17

Comparison of the dimensionless Reynolds shear stress near the wall for different configurations for ReD=100,000 at different groove monitoring points: (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C

Figure 18

Comparison of the dimensionless Reynolds shear stress near the wall for different Reynolds numbers for configuration C3 (measured at station B)

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections