0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Numerical and Experimental Investigation on Flow Dynamics in a Pipe With an Abrupt Change in Diameter

[+] Author and Article Information
Ivar Annus

Department of Civil Engineering
and Architecture,
Tallinn University of Technology,
Ehitajate tee 5,
Tallinn 19086, Estonia
e-mail: ivar.annus@taltech.ee

Alexander Kartushinsky

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Tallinn University of Technology,
Ehitajate tee 5,
Tallinn 19086, Estonia
e-mail: aleksander.kartusinski@taltech.ee

Anatoli Vassiljev

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Tallinn University of Technology,
Ehitajate tee 5,
Tallinn 19086, Estonia
e-mail: anatoli.vassiljev@taltech.ee

Katrin Kaur

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Tallinn University of Technology,
Ehitajate tee 5,
Tallinn 19086, Estonia
e-mail: katrin.kaur@taltech.ee

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received January 8, 2019; final manuscript received March 12, 2019; published online April 15, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Svetlana Poroseva.

J. Fluids Eng 141(10), 101301 (Apr 15, 2019) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-19-1015; doi: 10.1115/1.4043233 History: Received January 08, 2019; Revised March 12, 2019

Flow dynamics in a pipe with an abrupt change in diameter was experimentally and numerically analyzed. Two-dimensional stationary Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) k–ε epsilon model was used to describe the development of axial and radial velocity and turbulent kinetic energy in two cases. The theoretical results were compared with experimental findings gained in a transparent pipe test rig. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) technique was used to analyze the development of flow in a pipe with complex geometry. The measured and modeled velocities and turbulent kinetic energy were found to be in good agreement. The two-dimensional stationary RANS k–ε model is suitable for the analysis of the flow dynamics in real old rough pipes where the pipe wall build-up leads to changes in the actual diameter of the pipe but the flow can still be considered axially symmetrical.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Lansey, K. E. , El-Shorbagy, W. , Ahmed, I. , Araujo, J. , and Haan, C. T. , 2001, “ Calibration Assessment and Data Collection for Water Distribution Networks,” J. Hydraul. Eng., 127(4), pp. 270–279. [CrossRef]
Christensen, R. T. , Spall, R. E. , and Barfuss, S. L. , 2011, “ Application of Three RANS Turbulence Models to Aged Water Transmission Pipes,” J. Hydraul. Eng., 137(1), pp. 135–139. [CrossRef]
Vassiljev, A. , and Koppel, T. , 2015, “ Estimation of Real-Time Demands on the Basis of Pressure Measurements by Different Optimization Methods,” Adv. Eng. Software, 80, pp. 67–71. [CrossRef]
Annus, I. , and Vassiljev, A. , 2015, “ Different Approaches for Calibration of an Operational Water Distribution System Containing Old Pipes,” Proc. Eng., 119, pp. 526–534. [CrossRef]
Boxall, J. B. , Saul, A. J. , and Skipworth, P. J. , 2004, “ Modeling for Hydraulic Capacity,” J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 96(4), pp. 161–169. [CrossRef]
Vijiapurapu, S. , and Cui, J. , 2007, “ Simulation of Turbulent Flow in a Ribbed Pipe Using Large Eddy Simulation,” Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A, 51(12), pp. 1137–1165. [CrossRef]
Vijiapurapu, S. , and Cui, J. , 2010, “ Performance of Turbulence Models for Flows Through Rough Pipes,” Appl. Math. Modell., 34(6), pp. 1458–1466. [CrossRef]
Stel, H. , Morales, R. E. M. , Franco, A. T. , Junqueira, S. L. M. , Erthal, R. H. , and Gonc¸alves, M. A. L. , 2010, “ Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Turbulent Flow in Corrugated Pipes,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 132(7), p. 071203. [CrossRef]
Stel, H. , Franco, A. T. , Junqueira, S. L. M. , Erthal, R. H. , Mendes, R. , Gonçalves, M. A. L. , and Morales, R. E. M. , 2012, “ Turbulent Flow in D-Type Corrugated Pipes: Flow Pattern and Friction Factor,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 134(12), p. 121202. [CrossRef]
Calomino, F. , Tafarojnoruz, A. , De Marchis, M. , Gaudio, R. , and Napoli, E. , 2015, “ Experimental and Numerical Study in the Flow Field and Friction Factor in a Pressurized Corrugated Pipe,” J. Hydraul. Eng., 141(11), p. 04015027. [CrossRef]
Christensen, R. T. , 2009, “ Age Effects on Iron-Based Pipes in Water Distribution Systems,” Ph.D. thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Mullin, T. , Seddon, J. R. T. , Mantle, M. D. , and Sederman, A. J. , 2009, “ Bifurcation Phenomena in the Flow Through a Sudden Expansion in a Circular Pipe,” Phys. Fluids, 21(1), p. 014110. [CrossRef]
Sanmiguel-Rojas, E. , del Pino, C. , and Gutiérrez-Montes, C. , 2010, “ Global Mode Analysis of a Pipe Flow Through a 1:2 Axisymmetric Sudden Expansion,” Phys. Fluids, 22(7), p. 071702. [CrossRef]
Sanmiguel-Rojas, E. , and Mullin, T. , 2012, “ Finite-Amplitude Solutions in the Flow Through a Sudden Expansion in a Circular Pipe,” J. Fluid Mech., 691, pp. 201–213. [CrossRef]
Ding, D. , and Wu, S. , 2010, “ Numerical Application of kɛ Turbulence Model to the Flow Over a Backward-Facing Step,” Sci. China: Technol. Sci., 53(10), pp. 2817–2825. [CrossRef]
Schäfer, F. , Breuer, M. , and Durst, F. , 2009, “ The Dynamics of the Transitional Flow Over a Backward-Facing Step,” J. Fluid Mech., 623, pp. 85–119. [CrossRef]
Sciacchitano, A. , and Wieneke, B. , 2016, “ PIV Uncertainty Propagation,” Meas. Sci. Technol., 27(8), p. 084006. [CrossRef]
Launder, B. E. , and Spalding, D. B. , 1974, “ The Numerical Computation of Turbulent Flows,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech., 3(2), pp. 269–289. [CrossRef]
Davidson, P. A. , 2006, Turbulence. An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, Oxford University Press, New York.
Launder, B. E. , Morse, A. P. , Rodi, W. , and Spalding, D. B. , 1972, “ The Prediction of Free Shear Flows—A Comparison of Six Turbulence Models,” NASA Free Shear Flows Conference, VA, Report No. NASA SP-311.
Pope, S. B. , 1978, “ An Explanation of the Round Jet/Plane Jet Anomaly,” AIAA J., 16(3), pp. 279–281. [CrossRef]
Smith, E. J. , Mi, J. , Nathan, G. J. , and Dally, B. B. , 2004, “ Preliminary Examination of a ‘Round Jet Initial Condition Anomaly’ for the kε Turbulence Model,” 15th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Sydney, Australia, Dec. 13–17, pp. 1–4.
Mackenzie, A. , Lopez, A. , Riros, K. , Stickland, M. T. , and Dempster, W. M. A. , 2015, “ Comparison of CFD Software Packages' Ability to Model a Submerged Jet,” 11th International Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, Dec. 7–9, pp. 1–4.
Fertziger, J. H. , and Perić, M. , 2002, Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Kartushinsky, A. , Michaelides, E. , Hussainov, M. , and Rudi, Y. , 2009, “ Effects of the Variation of Mass Loading and Particle Density in Gas-Solid Particle Flow in Pipes,” Powder Technol., 193, pp. 176–181. [CrossRef]
Perić, M. , and Scheuerer, G. , 1989, “ CAST—A Finite Volume Method for Predicting Two-Dimensional Flow and Heat Transfer Phenomena,” GRS Technische Notiz, Köln, Germany, Report No. GRS-TN-SRR-89-01.
Kartushinsky, A. , Rudi, Y. , Stock, D. , Hussainov, M. , Shcheglov, I. , and Tisler, S. , 2013, “ 3D RANS-RSTM Numerical Simulation of Channel Turbulent Particulate Flow With Wall Roughness,” 11th International Conference Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics, Rhodes, Greece, Sept. 21–27, pp. 1067–1070.
Kartushinsky, A. , Rudi, Y. , Hussainov, M. , Shcheglov, I. , Tisler, S. , Krupenski, I. , and Stock, D. , 2014, “ RSTM Numerical Simulation of Channel Particulate Flow With Rough Wall,” Computational and Numerical Simulation, Intech, London, pp. 41–63.
Annus, I. , and Koppel, T. , 2011, “ Transition to Turbulence in Accelerating Pipe Flow,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 133(7), p. 071202. [CrossRef]
Annus, I. , Koppel, T. , Sarv, L. , and Ainola, L. , 2013, “ Development of Accelerating Pipe Flow Starting From Rest,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 135(11), p. 111204. [CrossRef]
Ariyaratne, C. , He, S. , and Vardy, A. E. , 2010, “ Wall Friction and Turbulence Dynamics in Decelerating Pipe Flows,” J. Hydraul. Res., 48(6), pp. 810–821. [CrossRef]
Koronaki, E. D. , Liakos, H. H. , Founti, M. A. , and Markatos, N. C. , 2001, “ Numerical Study of Turbulent Diesel Flow in a Pipe With Sudden Expansion,” Appl. Math. Modell., 25(4), pp. 319–333. [CrossRef]
Frawley, P. , O'Mahony, A. P. , and Geron, M. , 2010, “ Comparison of Lagrangian and Eulerian Simulations of Slurry Flows in a Sudden Expansion,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 132(9), p. 091301. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the test rig

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of computational domain and boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Calculated axial velocity and turbulent kinetic energy profiles for three grid sizes (experiment 1, x =69 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the measured and modeled axial velocity at the pipe axis (experiment 1). Uncertainty of measured axial velocity was ±2.4%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the measured and modeled axial velocity at the pipe axis (experiment 2). Uncertainty of measured axial velocity was ±2.4%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the measured and modeled turbulent kinetic energy at the pipe axis (experiment 1). Uncertainty of measured turbulent kinetic energy was ±3.6%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the measured and modeled turbulent kinetic energy at the pipe axis (experiment 2). Uncertainty of measured turbulent kinetic energy was ±3.6%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the measured and modeled axial velocity profiles near the inlet (x =69 mm) and outlet (x =161 mm) of thetest section (experiment 1). Uncertainty of measured axial velocity was ±2.4%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of the measured and modeled axial velocity profiles near the inlet (x =69 mm) and outlet (x =161 mm) of thetest section (experiment 2). Uncertainty of measured axial velocity was ±2.4%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the measured and modeled radial velocity profiles near the inlet (x =69 mm) and outlet (x =161 mm) of the test section (experiment 1). Uncertainty of measured radial velocity was ±22.5%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of the measured and modeled radial velocity profiles near the inlet (x =69 mm) and outlet (x =161 mm) of the test section (experiment 2). Uncertainty of measured radial velocity was ±22.5%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of the measured and modeled turbulent kinetic energy profiles near the inlet (x =69 mm) and outlet (x =161 mm) of the test section (experiment 1). Uncertainty of measured turbulent kinetic energy was ±3.6%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of the measured and modeled turbulent kinetic energy profiles near the inlet (x =69 mm) and outlet (x =161 mm) of the test section (experiment 2). Uncertainty of measured turbulent kinetic energy was ±3.6%.

Tables

Errata

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 eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In