0
Research Papers: Techniques and Procedures

# Experimental Validation Data for Computational Fluid Dynamics of Forced Convection on a Vertical Flat Plate

[+] Author and Article Information
Jeff R. Harris

Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84322
e-mail: jeff.harr@aggiemail.usu.edu

Blake W. Lance

Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84322
e-mail: b.lance@aggiemail.usu.edu

Barton L. Smith

Professor
Fellow ASME
Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84322
e-mail: barton.smith@usu.edu

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 15, 2014; final manuscript received July 4, 2015; published online August 10, 2015. Editor: Malcolm J. Andrews.

J. Fluids Eng 138(1), 011401 (Aug 10, 2015) (14 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1201; doi: 10.1115/1.4031007 History: Received April 15, 2014

## Abstract

A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation dataset for turbulent forced convection on a vertical plate is presented. The design of the apparatus is based on recent validation literature and provides a means to simultaneously measure boundary conditions (BCs) and system response quantities (SRQs). All important inflow quantities for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS). CFD are also measured. Data are acquired at two heating conditions and cover the range 40,000 < Rex < 300,000, 357 <  $Reδ2$ < 813, and 0.02 < Gr/Re2 < 0.232.

<>

## Figures

Fig. 1

The difficulty spectrum of SRQs, after Ref. [6]

Fig. 2

The validation hierarchy with cross-hatch showing the amount of detail in each level, after Ref. [6]

Fig. 3

A velocity profile for the inlet of the test section is shown, along with uniform and parabolic profiles. The Reynolds stress is also plotted along with a line of 10% of the time-mean streamwise velocity.

Fig. 4

A schematic of the wind tunnel showing the inlet contraction, test section, and the coordinate system

Fig. 5

Cross section of the heated wall

Fig. 6

The orientation of the camera and laser for PIV inflow data acquisition (x = 0). The laser and camera are traversed across the test section to obtain nine planes of velocity data. The flow direction is out of the page. (a) shows the nominal setup that is also used to obtain the velocity over the heat flux sensors and is referred to as orientation A. (b) shows the inlet profile specific orientation to obtain the w component of velocity and is orientation B.

Fig. 7

The centerline inlet profiles for A and B orientations. The A orientation profiles are at z = 0. The points for the B orientation are data at the z = 0 intersections of profiles in the x–z plane. The uncertainty of the B orientation data is within the size of the symbols.

Fig. 8

A time-averaged streamwise velocity contour plot of the PIV measurements at the inlet of the test section, x = 0. This velocity field was formed by plotting nine vertical (constant z) profiles of velocity.

Fig. 9

A schematic showing the locations of heaters and heat flux sensors. Each of the three power supplies powers two heaters.

Fig. 10

An image of the wall, with the image width being 2.25 mm

Fig. 11

The error of the wall location relative to the wall image using two methods. The scale factor is approximately 84 pixels/mm.

Fig. 12

The measured heat flux and two correlations with the Kays trend found from Eq. (12) and the Incropera from Eq. (13) for the buoyancy-aided case

Fig. 13

The nondimensional boundary layer time-mean streamwise velocity and Reynolds normal stress for the flow over the three heat flux sensor positions with u¯∞=4.49 m/s for the buoyancy-aided case

Fig. 14

The wall coordinate profiles at each heat flux sensor position using the variable κ and B for the buoyancy-aided case

Fig. 15

The measured heat flux and two correlations with the Kays trend found from Eq. (12) and the Incropera trend from Eq. (13) for the buoyancy-opposed case

Fig. 16

The nondimensional boundary layer time-mean streamwise velocity and Reynolds normal stress for the flow over the three heat flux sensor positions with u¯∞=4.56 m/s for the buoyancy-opposed case

Fig. 17

The boundary layer streamwise velocity profiles for the flow over the three positions for three repeats of the isothermal measurement

Fig. 18

The boundary layer streamwise velocity residuals for the flow over the three positions for three repeats of the isothermal measurement

Fig. 19

The boundary layer streamwise velocity Reynolds normal stress residuals for the flow over the three positions for three repeats of the isothermal measurement

Fig. 20

The boundary layer velocity comparison for the isothermal forced convection buoyancy aided and opposed cases. The relative difference between the cases is also plotted as δu¯F,G.

Fig. 21

A plot of the Nusselt number ratio versus the special buoyancy parameter for the data in this study and the data presented in Ref. [17]

Fig. 22

A comparison of the classic shape factor with the expected trend as a function of the second shape factor η (see Eq. (18))

Fig. 23

The boundary layer velocity profiles for an unheated and heated low Reynolds number flow

Fig. 24

The streamwise velocity at the first heat flux sensor position for several inlet ε treatments

## 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