8 vues

Transféré par Victor Hugo Vieira

© All Rights Reserved

- Fluent Tutorial
- Best Practice Guidelines for Turbo Machinery
- CFD Drag Prediction Training Workshop
- @@@@X- Study on Hydrodynamic Slug Flow Mitigation With Wavy Pipe Using a 3D–1D Coupling Approach
- Computation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients of Portable Autonomous
- Fluent-Intro 14.5 WS03 Multi Species Postprocessing
- Analysis of Unsteady Propeller Blade Forces by RAN
- Multiphase CFD Modeling of TBR
- 114Hai
- Mixing and Deposition of Sediment-laden Buoyant Jets
- J030101053059.pdf
- 3445603526352
- Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Flow Analysis of the Water Saving Safety Valve
- TribInt
- CFD Techniques - An Overview (G.S.v.L. Narasimham) - Report
- 4.2 Drill Bit Hydraulics (ADS)
- OMAE2006-92334.pdf
- Similarity-Solution-Of-Plane-Turbulent-Mixing-Layer.pdf
- 155992.pdf
- Numerical Simulation of Minimum Distance Jet Impingement Heat Transfer

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 52

M.Sc in Wind Energy

By

Naeem Memon

Venkata Ratnam Kondreddi

Technical University of Denmark

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 5

1.1 ASKERVEIN HILL: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................ 6

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM................................................................. 7

1.3 INLET PROFILE ......................................................................................... 7

1.4 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 8

1.4.1 Rough Wall Boundary ......................................................................... 9

1.4.2 Logarithmic Law of Wall..................................................................... 9

2. TURBULENCE MODELS..........................................................................10

2.1 K-EPSILON MODEL .......................................................................................10

2.1.2 Constants for K-epsilon Model..............................................................11

2.2 K-OMEGA TURBULENCE MODEL ....................................................................12

2.3 .SHEAR STRESS TRANSPORT MODEL ( SST ) ...............................................13

3. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS ...............................................................14

3.1. GRID TESTING ........................................................................................14

3.1.1: First node height..................................................................................15

3.1.2 Expansion factor ...................................................................................19

3.2. TURBULENCE MODELS .................................................................................22

4. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................31

5. MODEL SETUP ..........................................................................................32

5.1 ANSYS DESIGN MODELER .......................................................................32

5.2 ANSYS CFX MESH ..................................................................................33

5.3 CFX PRE-PROCESSOR .............................................................................34

5.4 CFX SOLVER ..........................................................................................36

5.5 CFX POST ..............................................................................................37

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................38

APPENDIX..........................................................................................................40

1

List of Figures

FIGURE 2: CONTOUR MAP SHOWING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ASKERVEIN HILL.............. 7

FIGURE 3: THEORETICAL VELOCITY PROFILE AT INLET. ............................................ 8

FIGURE 4: Y PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.0049M. ......16

FIGURE 5: Y PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049M. ....16

FIGURE 6: Y PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.0003M. ......17

FIGURE 7: SPEED-UP ALONG LINE A WITH VARYING FIRST PRISM LAYER HEIGHT......17

FIGURE 8: SPEED UP ALONG THE VERTICAL LINE FROM HT. .....................................18

FIGURE 10: YPLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049 WITH

EXPANSION FACTOR 1.2...................................................................................19

FIGURE 11: Y PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049 WITH

EXPANSION FACTOR 1.3...................................................................................20

FIGURE 12: YPLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049 WITH

EXPANSION FACTOR 1.4...................................................................................20

FIGURE 13: YPLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049 WITH

EXPANSION FACTOR 1.5...................................................................................21

FIGURE 14: SPEED-UP ALONG LINE A WITH DIFFERENT EXPANSION FACTORS HAVING

FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049M HEIGHT. .......................................................21

FIGURE 15: SPEED UP ALONG THE VERTICAL LINE FROM HT. ...................................22

FIGURE 16: COMPARISON OF SPEED-UP VALUES ALONG LINE A AT 10M. ..................23

FIGURE 17: COMPARISON OF SPEED-UP VALUES ALONG LINE AA AT 10M. ..............24

FIGURE 18: SPEED-UP VALUES ALONG THE VERTICAL LINE AT HT FOR DIFFERENT

TURBULENCE MODELS COMPARED WITH COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL

VALUES. .........................................................................................................25

FIGURE 19: VELOCITY VECTORS FOR FLOW OVER LINE A FOR K-EPSILON TURBULENCE

MODEL WITHOUT HAVING RE-CIRCULATION. ...................................................25

FIGURE 20: Y-PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE USING K-EPSILON MODEL. ..........................26

FIGURE 21:Y-PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE USING K-OMEGA MODEL.............................26

FIGURE 22: VELOCITY VECTORS FOR FLOW OVER LINE A FOR K-OMEGA TURBULENCE

MODEL...........................................................................................................27

FIGURE 23: Y-PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE USING SST MODEL. ....................................27

FIGURE 24: VELOCITY VECTORS FOR FLOW OVER LINE A FOR SHEAR STRESS

TURBULENCE MODEL, RE-CIRCULATION ZONE IS VISIBLE IN DOWNSTREAM. .....28

FIGURE 25 : STREAM LINES PLOT SHOWING THE RECIRCULATION ZONE AT THE LEA

SIDE OF THE HILL. ...........................................................................................29

FIGURE 26: COMPARING RESULTS WITH THE COMPUTATIONS BY KARL J. EIDSVIK

ALONG LINE A AT 10M. ...................................................................................29

FIGURE 27: COMPARISON OF SPEEDUP VALUES ALONG AA AT 10M WITH KARL

RESULTS .........................................................................................................30

FIGURE 28: COMPARISON OF SPEEDUP VALUES FROM THE CFD SIMULATIONS WITH

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ................................................................................30

FIGURE 30: ANSYS WORKBENCH OVERVIEW ...........................................................32

FIGURE 33: CFX - SOLVER OVERVIEW ....................................................................36

FIGURE 35: ASKERVEIN HILL WITH XYZ COORDINATES ..........................................40

2

FIGURE 36 : THE SURFACE OF ASKERVEIN...............................................................41

FIGURE 37: DOMAIN OF ASKERVEIN WITH HEIGHT OF 1KM .....................................41

FIGURE 39 : DOMAIN AFTER VOLUME MESH ...........................................................44

FIGURE 40: DOMAIN OF ASKERVEIN SHOWING VARIABLES AND COEFFICIENTS OF

TURBULENCE MODEL ......................................................................................45

FIGURE 42: INLET VELOCITY VECOTRS IN X(VSX) AND Y(VSY) DIRECTIONS OF THE

DOMAIN ..........................................................................................................46

FIGURE 45: SOLVER MANAGER ...............................................................................48

FIGURE 46: PLANES A AND AA ALONG THE ASKERVEIN HILL ..................................49

FIGURE 47: VELOCITY VECTORS ALONG THE PLANES A AND AA.............................50

FIGURE 48: POLY-LINES ALONG THE LINE A AT 10M AND ALONG THE GROUND OF

ASKERVEIN HILL ............................................................................................50

FIGURE 49: LINE AT HT DRAWN FROM HT TO DOMAIN HEIGHT ...............................51

List of Tables

......................................................................................................................12

TABLE 2: DIFFERENT TEST GRIDS VARYING IN Y. ...................................................15

TABLE 3: DIFFERENT TEST GRIDS VARYING WITH EXPANSION FACTORS....................19

TABLE 4: CHANGE IN EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CONSTANT INFLATION LAYER ..........43

TABLE 5: CHANGE IN FIRST PRISM HEIGHT FOR CONSTANT EXPANSION FACTOR ......43

3

Abstract

computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) model. The Askervein hill, which has complex

topology and some experimental data of wind measurements, is used to validate a

flow solver to model this kind of flow. The report consists of two parts, the first part

explains the estimation and discussion of results for flow over complex terrain using

two-equation turbulence models and the second part of report describes the CFD

package. The results obtained from the CFD simulations are then compared with the

experimental data obtained from the studies of Taylor and Teunissen[3] in 1983 and

CFD simulations from Niels N.Srensen[1] and Karl J.Eidsvik[18] for better

understanding of results for the flow in the complex terrain. Our results show that

refinement of the grid is having greater influence on the results and the flow is well

predicted even for the coarser grid. In the context our findings we suggest that the

Shear Stress Turbulence (SST) model can produce better results than other

turbulence models.

4

1. Introduction

Increasing interest in wind power far from flat coastal areas makes it

necessary to develop tools that are able to accurately simulate the wind over

complex terrain. The standard approaches for the estimation of wind power

potential have focused either on numerical calculations using specified physics or

in-situ measurements. Both methods fail when the terrain becomes complex.

Already in a gently mountainous area simplified physics are no longer valid. The

simple numerical algorithms for instance linearized equations, rudimentary or no

turbulence models create additional physical effects that are not seen in reality.

Even the measurements close to the turbine do not guarantee success either.

Typically these measurements are performed at lower height than the hub height of

turbine. Furthermore the final location of the wind turbine often changes. After a

year of measurements the estimated wind power obtained at the height of

anemometer has to be extrapolated up to the actual hub height. The errors incurred

during this extrapolation are difficult to estimate.

Linearized models are good enough in predicting the flow both at upwind and at the

summit of isolated hills of moderate slope (e.g., Mason and king [10], 1985).

However isolated hills are rarely found in nature and the poor prediction at the lee

side may affect the simulation at the second hill or set of hills located further

downstream. The main limitation is the lack of ability to compute separation caused

by using the linearized equations and the restriction to gentle terrain.

As a result we made our focus on a non-linear model CFX, a computational fluid

dynamics (CFD) model, to estimate the wind resource over a complex terrain.

The main drawback in the computer simulations of atmospheric flows over complex

topography is the unavailability of experimental data but this is not same in the case

of Askervein as this hill has been extensively measured in-situ in 1983 (Taylor and

Teunissen[3], 1983, 1985), providing the ideal frame work for the validation of

computational models.

Askervein hill has been studied both by full-scale measurements, see Taylor and

Teunissen[3] (1983-4); by wind tunnel measurements, see Teunissen and Shork[14]

(1985), and Bowen and Teunissen[12] (1986); by linear models, see Walmsley and

Salmon[16] (1984), Beljaars et al[11] (1987), Troen and Petersen[15] (1989), Zeman

and Jensen[17] (1987) and for non-linear models, see Raithby et al[13] (1987), Niels.

N.Srensen[1] (1995), F.A.Castro et al[4] (2003), Karl.J.Eidsvik[18] (2004), Kim &

Patel[6] (2000).

Flow separation at the lee side of the hill is still an unresolved issue where the field

measurements show a rapid decrease in speed-up ratio. Different thoughts are

available regarding the issue; for instance Kim and Patel[6] (2000) conjectured that

this three dimensional flow separation at the lee slope is due to the blockage effect

of neighbouring hills but according to F.A. Castro[4] (2003) presence of the nearby

topography does not affect the flow neither at the top nor at the downstream of the

Hill. F.A.Castro[4] (2003) and Niels. N.Srensen[1] (1995), both at windward slope

and lee side of the hill, find a substantial agreement between the Experimental

results and the computational results.

5

Niels.N.Srensen[1] (1995) has developed 2D and 3D finite volume code in general

curvilinear coordinates to compare 2D and 3D computations over different objects

with measurements. He has also tested Askervein Hill as test case and his findings

are used in this study as a reference.

The objective of this study is to simulate the flow over the complex terrain by using

different turbulence models, all the above studies are conceded only on k- model,

which made it interesting for us to observe the results at turbulence models other

than k- and suggest a best suited model for flow over complex terrains.

high hill (Figure 1) on the west coast of the island of South Uist in the Outer

Hebrides of Scotland. The selection of the site was done considering many goals

such as simple topography, good wind conditions, easy access etc.

The hill is nearly ellipsoidal (Figure 2) in the contour plan[2] having minor and

major axis of 1000 and 2000 meters respectively. Askervein is the most complete

field experiment site to date; with 50 towers deployed, out of 50 towers 27 were

equipped with three component turbulence sensors.

Askervein is a smooth hill with an interesting topography: the hill has a quite simple

geometrical shape and resembles an ellipsoid. The results have been used in much

verification and testing of different models, both numerical and experimental (wind

tunnel experiments), therefore this case is particularly well documented. This made

the Askervein hill case most suitable reference to test numerical results versus full-

scale experimental data.

140

HT

120

100

Height [m])

80

60

40

20

0

-1500 -10 00 -500 0 500 10 00 150 0

D is t anc e along line A [m ]

6

1.2 Description of the problem

Srensen of Ris (National Laboratory of Denmark), this data is originally extracted

from full-scale field experiment (P.A Taylor & H.W. Teunissen[3] 1983). The

contour lines (Figure 2) of the hill were generated from the map of (P.A Taylor &

H.W. Teunissen[3] 1983) and the lines A & AA were taken out.

20

20

40

1000 20

500 20 20

40

20

40

20

60

80

40

0

40

60

60

12

10 0

20

0

20

10

20

80

1

-500

80

80

40

10 0

40

-1000 60

60

40 80

20

40

-1500

60 60

-2000 20 40 60 60 80

-1000 -500 0 500 1000

This simulation will be compared with the field experimental results and also with

the results from Niels.N. Sorensens[1] (June 1995) and Karl J.Eidsvik[18]

simulations. Three turbulence models are selected for this purpose: K-epsilon

model, K-omega model and Shear Stress Turbulence (SST) model.

J.Eidsvik[18] , TU03B and MF-03d cases from the field experiments P.A Taylor &

H.W. Teunissen[3] 1983 are chosen for the comparison of the results. Mf-03d case

will be compared with Karl J.Eidsvik[18] and our computational results, as this case

is not shown in Niels.Srensen[1] 1995. The two runs are cases with the wind

direction equal to 210, approximately along the line A. Wind speed at the reference

site was 8.9 m/sec at 10m height from ground whereas the roughness length (z0) was

0.03m for the entire terrain.

The theoretical velocity profile is shown in Figure 3.

7

V elocity profile

100

90

80

70

60

Z [m]

50

40

30

20

10

0

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

velocity [m/sec]

U* z

U (z) = ln( ). (1)

z0

Where

U * = Frictional velocity=0.61

= Von Karman coefficient =0.40

z = Height above ground.

The inlet was specified according to the profile discussed above, the outlet was

considered fully developed and the Terrain of the site was modelled according to the

rough wall version of logarithmic law of wall; symmetry condition was applied for

the top boundary of the domain.

The computations for all the three models were performed on High-resolution

scheme.

8

1.4.1 Rough Wall Boundary

Local Reynolds number and the strong gradient of variables near the wall region

requires more attention, it could not be solved by simply following the standard

procedure as the Reynolds number is changing and becomes low when the flow

reaches the near wall region (Niels.N. Srensen[1] 1995).

Fine grids are required near the wall region in order to calculate the flow precisely,

which takes a lot more time and memory space for simulations. To solve this issue

low Reynolds number version of k-epsilon model has been used with fine mesh near

the wall. This approach has shown to work for the industrial flows only with the

smooth walls; it seems impossible for this approach to predict the atmospheric flow

over rough walls. The reason for this is flow over the hill region will have a domain

of large size where as the size of the roughness elements is very small which in turn

exceeds the number of cells for the computation domain and the memory will go

beyond the capacity of modern computers (Niels.N. Srensen[1] 1995).

Log- Wall-law is a technique where the calculation of flow near the wall is

abandoned, which circumvent the problem of low Reynolds numbers and

requirement of fine mesh to resolve the strong gradients. In log-wall-method the

steep gradient near the wall region is excluded from the calculation and the near

wall flow is modelled by the one-dimensional couette flow assuming zero pressure

gradient, Which, however, is not true for flow over a hill. By modelling the near

wall flow, the fine mesh needed here can be avoided, which in turn cut down the

execution time and the same time avoiding low Reynolds number region allowing

the use of standard K-epsilon model.

Assuming that the velocity profile reasonably approximates the velocity distribution

near the wall, it provides the mean to numerically compute the fluid shear stress as a

function of velocity at a given distance from the wall. This is known as the Wall

function and the logarithmic nature gives it to a well known Log Law of The Wall.

U 1 y

= log e + C (2)

uT z0

where

uT = (3)

z 0 uT

C= (4)

y uT

y+ = (5)

The part of the layer over which the law is valid is usually called the Inner layer or

Wall Layer and the rest is called as the Outer Layer . The outer limit of the validity

9

is at a distance equal to approximately 20% of layer thickness and becomes

smaller to the regions where the flow having strong pressure gradients, especially

those approaching separation. Close to the surface ( y+<3 ) Reynolds shear stress is

y

negligible and the viscous stresses affect the velocity at this region, U = , so

[7],

the law is always true there(Bradshaw & Huang 1995).

C is related to the increase in U across viscous wall region, y+<30-50. By

experiments eq. (2) is valid with = 0.41 and C5.0, for y+>30 but y/ <0.1-0.2.

It should be noted that the validity of outer limit must depend on the outer length

scale rather than the viscous length scale / uT , because the viscous effects are

negligible in the log law region.

2. Turbulence Models

The Reynolds equations conservation of mean mass and momentum are given as:

U i

=0 (6)

x i

U i U j

Uj

U i

x j

=

1 P

+

x i x j

x

+

x i

(

uiu j ) (7)

j

assumption:

U i U j 2

ui u j = t + + ij k (8)

x xi 3

j

number k-epsilon model was developed by Jones and launder[20] in 1973, several

investigators have subsequently modified the work.

k2

t = c (9)

dissipation of turbulence ( ) are not derived here and will not be given in detail

and neither the closed approximations used will be discussed in detail here.

10

t k

xi

(u j k )=

x j

x

+ pk (10)

k j

(u j )= t + c 1 pk c 2

2

(11)

x j x j x j k k

u i U i U j

pk = t + . (12)

x j x xi

j

It is seen from the equations (eq.10 - 11) of turbulent kinetic energy and the

dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy the effect of coriolis is vanished, which is

present in the normal Reynolds stress equations (Niels.N.Srensen[1]1995). The

explanation of this is coriolis force does not change the energy of the normal

stresses but distributes the energy among the three components.

Due to the above-mentioned reason K-epsilon model is unable to predict the

flow over such region where the redistribution of coriolis takes place. In such

scenarios K-epsilon model must be abandoned, and another model that ensures

all the effects along with the coriolis should be used, the recommended choice is

Reynolds stress model.

Quite a much work has been done in past for determining the K-epsilon model

constants in-order to test them on variety of flows for their precision of

predicting relatively close results to the experimental ones. These constants are

determined from the experimental data, considering basic universal flows, and

afterwards these findings are improved by computational optimizations.

The standard values are tuned to fit some basic flow problems like shear layer in

local equilibrium, decaying grid turbulence and boundary layer where

logarithmic velocity profile prevails. The model constants can be adjusted

according to the nature of the flow.

The standard K-epsilon model is unable to predict the right level of turbulence

in the weak shear layer away from the ground. In this region the turbulent

viscosity is over predicted, (Detering and Etling[9], 1985). The standard model

constants have been modified in attempt to improve the situation.

By considering the turbulence near the wall region phenomenon, K-epsilon

model constants can be obtained by the following equations:

2

U 2T (13)

C =

k

2

C 1 = C 2 1

, (14)

C 2

11

UT (U*) is the frictional velocity at the wall.

k is the Turbulent kinetic energy.

is the von Karman constant equals to 0.40.

turbulence, remain unchanged. The diffusion constant k (Turbulent prandtl

number) also remains constant, as in some extents the ratio of turbulent

diffusivity of momentum and turbulent kinetic energy is equal.

C 2 1.92

1.30

k = 1. 0

The modified values of C and C 1 are as under :

2

C 1 = C 2 1

= 1.54.

C 2

Under is the list of constants both for industrial and atmospheric flows of K-

epsilon model.

Constants C C 1 C 2 k

Values

Values

Table 1: Standard and modified values of constants for K-Epsilon model.

and a second equation for the specific turbulent dissipation rate (or turbulent

frequency) . There are several versions of k-omega model. The Wilcox model

is as under:

The turbulent kinetic energy equation is given by

k

dk

=

dt x j

(

+ t

*

x j

)

+ Pk k

*

(15)

12

d

= ( + t ) + Pk

2

dt x j x j k (16)

k

t = (17)

and the auxiliary relations are

= * k. (18)

The constants used in this model are

5 3 9 1 1

= = * = = * =

9 40 100 2 2

The k-omega turbulence model performs well and, in fact is superior to the k-

epsilon model in the laminar sub layer and the logarithmic region of the boundary

layer. However, the k-omega model has been shown influenced strongly by the

specification of freestream value of outside the boundary layer. Therefore the K-

omega model does not predict well in the wake region of boundary layer. On the

other hand, the K-epsilon model behaves superior to that of K-omega model in the

outer portion and wake regions of the boundary layer, but inferior in the inner

region of boundary layer.

To include the best features of each model, Menter [17-11, Hoffmann & Chiang[8]]

has combined different elements of K-epsilon and K-omega models to form a new

two-equation turbulence model. This model incorporates the K-omega model for the

inner region and switches to k-epsilon for the outer and wake regions of the

boundary layer. Menter introduced two versions of this model referred as the

baseline (BSL) model and, a modified version of BSL, the Shear-Stress Transport

(SST) model.

The combined k / k two equation model is given by:

k

dk

=

dt x j

(

+ t

*

) + Pk k

x j

*

(19)

and

d 1 k

= ( + t ) + 2 (1 F 1) 2 + Pk 2

dt x j x j x j x j t

u i (20)

Pk = ij

x j

and (21)

u u j 2 u 2

ij = t i + ij k k ij

x x i 3 x k 3

(22)

13

The constants appearing in the in equations are expressed in a general compact form

as

= F1 1 + (1 F1 ) 2 ; See (Hoffmann and Chiang[8] 1998)

Where 1 represents the constants associated with the k and 2 represents the

constants associated with k model.

The difference between baseline model and shear stress transport model is in the

definition of turbulent viscosity and the specification of constants.

The turbulent viscosity is defined as:

a1 k

t =

max(a1 , F2 ) (23)

k 500v

arg 2 = 2 , 2

. (24)

0.09 y y

The constants for 1 and 2 are identical for the baseline model, except k1 .

The values of the constants for set 1(k-omega model) are specified according to

k1 = 0.85, w1 = 0.5, 1 = 0.075

= 0.09 = 0.41

k 2 = 1.0, w2 = 0.856, 2 = 0.0828

= 0.09 = 0.41

This section concerns the simulated results for different grids and turbulence

models. Aim of investigating different grids in section 3.1.1 is to select a suitable

mesh that could produce good results. In the next section (3.1.2), selected mesh

would be tested further on changing the inflation layers and final mesh would be

selected from this section, which will be used later in section 3.2 for investigating

the flow at different turbulence models.

Simulated results would be compared with the field measurements TU-03b and

MF-03d from P.A. Taylor & H.W Teunissen[3] (1983) and with the numerical

results of Niels.N.Srensem[1] (1995).

Grid testing is one of the important aspects of this subject; a good mesh is the prime

object of finding. Here is a need to find a mesh, which can properly simulate the

flow over the hill with required results in minimum possible time by keeping the

less memory space in machine. Coarsest grid will be selected from this section to

14

perform the final computations at different turbulence models, as finer meshes

require more space and time to produce results.

Note that all the tests have been done with the K-Epsilon model and equilibrium

condition, with analytical profile at inlet.

(m) (Inflated layers)

A 0.0049 1.2

B 0.00049 1.2

C 0.0003 1.2

Table 2: Different test grids varying in y.

Expansion factor of all grids was kept same with varying height of first prism layer.

Computational results for the Y+ for all grids dont have much difference in value.

Figure 4-6 are showing the Y+ value at surface with different first prism height

values.

The best choice for the first prism layer is the value equal to the roughness of the

surface / terrain so the simulations were not taken beyond the roughness value of

terrain as it would result in the generation of thin prism layers which are not reliable

enough to predict the appropriate values and it may also result in the failure of

volume mesh/ simulations.

The speed-up values for line A are plotted in Figure 7. Upstream speed-up values

are 11% under predicted at hilltop. Each grid is producing almost same result on the

Up-stream side of hill but on the lee side it varies and grid A is found to be in better

agreement with the experimental values.

In principle grids B and C should produce better results than A grid as these grids

are finer and having more elements than grid A but as observed in (Figure 7)

above two grids are not in better agreement with experimental results and are 20%

too short than experimental results at 400m at lee side, where as A is 10% too short

from experimental results at the same position. The reason comes to us for this

behavior of grids could be the thin nature of prisms in the laminar region/ near

surface.

(Figure 8) is showing the speed up values along the vertical line at HT(highest point

at line A) for the three grids, values for all grids are almost the same, these results

are favoring grid A for the next grid testing.

In Figure 8, Simulated results are compared with the computational results of Niels

(Niels.N.Srensen[1] 1995), the two results are having absolute agreement, showing

similar trend and are forwarding in same passion towards the altitude.

Figure 4-6 are representing the Y plus values at the surface for three test grids, these

figures are having three lines common namely, yellow, red and black. These lines

are the representatives of Vertical line at Ht, line A along HT and line AA along CP

respectively. Y plus values for A are quite big ranging from 158 to 233, this ensure

that the first node of the grid is not in the buffer zone/ log law region (Figure 9) but

in the fully turbulent region. Y plus results does not favor 0049 grid to be selected

15

for the next testing. Therefore grid B, second coarse grid after A is selected for next

session.

Mesh B is a coarse grid and is producing results well in agreement with

experimental ones except the lee side at 400m.Next this grid will be tested by

changing the expansion factor which in turn make the grid coarser.

16

Figure 6: Y plus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.0003m.

1

0049

0.8 00049

0003

0.6 E XP

Niels

0.4

0.2

SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Dist along line A (m)

Figure 7: Speed-Up along Line A with varying first prism layer height.

17

Speed-Up along Vertical line at HT.

1200

Height [m] 1000 Grid A

800

Grid B

600

400 Grid C

200 Niels

0

0 0.5 1

Speed-Up

flat plate. (source: Hoffmann & Chiang[8] 1998)

18

3.1.2 Expansion factor

This section is dealing with the grid having first prism at 0.00049m from the

surface. It is tested at the following expansion factors.

A 0.00049 1.2

B 0.00049 1.3

C 0.00049 1.4

D 0.00049 1.5

Table 3: Different Test grids varying with expansion factors.

Figure 10-13 are showing the Y plus values for the test grids at different expansion

factors. All the results are below 30 which are quite satisfied and as expected these

are varying the results by changing their expansion factors (making grids coarser).

Figure 10: Yplus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049 with expansion factor 1.2.

19

Figure 11: Y plus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049 with expansion factor 1.3.

Figure 12: Yplus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049 with expansion factor 1.4.

20

Figure 13: Yplus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049 with expansion factor 1.5.

1

1.2

0.8 1.3

1.4

0.6 1.5

EXP

0.4 Niels

0.2

SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Dist along line A (m)

Figure 14: Speed-Up along Line A with different expansion factors having first prism layer at

0.00049m height.

21

Speed-Up along The vertical line at

HT.

1500

Height [m]

1000 1.2

1.3

500

1.4

0 1.5

0 0.5 1 NIELS

Speed-Up

Once again all the simulated results are in good agreement with experimental

results. Results are not varying much at the upstream side of the hill but they vary at

the lee side of the hill at 400m down to the lee side (Figure 14). Grid D having

expansion factor 0f 1.5 is producing close results to the experimental data and Niels

computations (Niels.N.Srensen[1] 1995). Again the coarsest grid among all tested

grids is producing good results. Current testing is giving support to the thought that

thin prism layers near surface are not effective enough to predict at required

precision level.

Speed-up results along the vertical line at Ht (Figure 15) are same for all the test

grids and are well in agreement with Niels computational results. Niels

computations are read digitally by using Golden software Didger2 from his work

(Niels.N. Srensen[1]1995).

After observing all the grids it has become obvious to select Grid D, having first

prism layer at 0.00049m with expansion factor of 1.5, for testing the flow over

Askervein at different turbulence models.

Here it should be noted that this expansion factor is only for the inflation layers.

This section discusses and compares results for flow over Askervein Hill at different

Turbulence models with field data and numerical computations by Niels.

N.Srensen and Karl J.Eidsvik. Looking at the speed-up along line A at 10m above

the terrain (Figure 16) it is said that the result at the hill summit is under predicted,

22

the simulated result is 12% too low to the experimental and 6% too low to Niels.

N.Srensen[1] computations.

1

ke

0.8 kw

SST

0.6 Niels

EXP

0.4

0.2

SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Dist along line A (m)

both on upwind and downwind of the hill. K-Omega model is predicting bad results

at the lee side, which proves the theory that specification of omega value outside the

boundary layer, would result in the poor estimation therefore it is not ideal for

predicting in the wake regions of boundary layer. SST model is predicting

reasonable results both upwind and lee side. The agreement is well until 300m down

the hill then a sudden jump in results appear due to the re-circulation of flow at

300m (Figure 24), which made changes in to stresses and that in turn changed the

resultant stress. This flow divergence could be a cause of the above-mentioned

reason.

According to F.A Castro[4](2003) there is a shallow re-circulating zone downstream

of ht, which makes the flow grid more sensitive. It is observed that with the

decrease in first node position there is an increase in the minimum value of speed-

up down the hill and the grid refinement in horizontal tends to do opposite.

According to the study by Taylor (1977) for two-dimensional topography the

formation of re-circulation region is possible when h0/Lh (height/ width) ratio is

higher than 0.52. In the present case, the topography is nearly two-dimensional with

h0/Lh0.50 along line A, and the flow is on the verge of forming a re-circulation

zone, see (Figure 24) to observe the re-circulation zone.

For the line AA (Figure 17) results (K-epsilon and SST) are in good agreement with

field measurements on up-stream side of the hill. Larger differences between the

numerical and the experimental speed-up occurred downstream of the hill at a

distance of 400m, where the simulations are showing big scatter from experimental

results. This could be a cause of the finer grid in horizontal direction as it is

23

observed refinement in horizontal directions tends to decrease the speed-up values

downstream of the hill and this is observed in Figure 17.The grid used for

simulation was quite fine in nature having 213693 nodes and 523950 elements.

1

ke

0.8 kw

SST

0.6 EXP

0.4

0.2

SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Dist along line AA (m)

The fractional speed-up values along the vertical line at HT (Figure 18) are in good

agreement with the computational results by Niels.N.Srensen[1] (1995).

Figure 19-24 are showing the vector plot along line A and Y- plus values at the

surface of the terrain.

24

1200

1000

800

K-Epsilon

Height [m]

K-Omega

600 SST

Niels

EXP.

400

200

0

0 0.5 1 1.5

Speed-UP

Figure 18: Speed-up values along the vertical line at HT for different turbulence models

compared with computational and experimental values.

Figure 19: Velocity vectors for flow over line A for K-epsilon Turbulence Model without

having re-circulation.

25

Figure 20: Y-plus value at surface using K-epsilon model.

26

Figure 22: Velocity vectors for flow over line A for K-Omega Turbulence Model.

27

Figure 24: Velocity vectors for flow over line A for Shear Stress Turbulence Model, re-

circulation zone is visible in downstream.

Figures 25 -28 are the comparison of the simulated results with Karl J. Eidsviks[18]

computations. These results are obtained from the research article, by Karl J.

Eidsvik in 2004, using golden software digger2.

Speed-up values along line-A (Figure 26) are in good agreement with karls

findings except HT. The simulated results of all our turbulence models are

predicting 10% low speed-up value than karls computation at HT.

Figure 25 shows stream lines along the Askervein at a height of 10m from the

terrain. At the lee side of the hill we can see the recirculation region at a distance

between 200m to 800m.

28

Figure 25 : Stream lines plot showing the recirculation zone at the lee side of the hill.

1

K-E

0.8 K-W

SST

0.6 Karl

EXP

0.4

0.2

SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Dist along line A (m)

Figure 26: Comparing results with the computations by Karl J. Eidsvik along line A at 10m.

Where as along line AA at 10m (Figure 27)the speed-up at Cp is 6 % too low than

Karls computational value at CP. Karl J. Eidsvik[18] is computing values which are

very close to the experimental results even in the lee side of the hill. Our turbulence

29

models are under predicting the speed up values at the lee side especially at 400m;

this may be a reason of having finer grid in horizontal direction. Except this point

the simulated results are lying under the uncertainty of 6% (max. at CP) to

computational results by Karl J. Eidsvik and the Experimental results.

In (Figure 28) simulated results are compared with Experimental findings [3] and

computations by Niels. N.Srensen[1] and Karl J.Eidsvik[18] along line A at a height

of 10 m from surface.

1

ke

0.8 kw

SST

0.6 Karl

EXP

0.4

0.2

SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Dist along line AA (m)

Figure 27: Comparison of speedup values along AA at 10m with Karl results

1

K-E

0.8 SST

Niels

0.6 Karl

EXP

0.4

0.2

SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Dist along line A (m)

Figure 28: Comparison of Speedup values from the CFD simulations with Experimental results

30

4. Conclusion

The results are generated from the CFX 5.7.1 code by using three different two-

equation turbulence models. Following conclusions are made in the light of above

findings.

We have observed that the refinement of the grid is having a great influence over

the production of results; the refinement in the horizontal plane would lead to the

inaccuracy of the results at the lee side of the hill, which is observed in the case of

line AA. It is still a point of discussion in this study that what mesh would predict

accurate results; we are unable to predict a mesh that may compute accurate results

for both the lines A and AA.

Position of the first node/ prism layer has a great importance in computing the

nature of the flow. Too high refinement in the z-direction would cause the

generation of thin long prism layers, which requires a better convergence than other

elements of same mesh.

The mean flow upstream of the Askervein was well predicted even on the coarser

grid. The main deficiency is found in predictions of the flow in the lee side of the

hill and over point ht, for instance the value of the speed-up at the hill top at 10m

from the ground was observed 12% too low of the experimental values and 20%

high value of the speed-up recorded at the point 400m in the lee-side of the hill.

Speed-up values are found in good agreement with the Niels[1] simulations along the

vertical line at HT. The field measured speed-up values increased at short distance

from HT where as the simulated results produce almost constant values for this

distance, which is lower than experimental findings.

In general it is said that the simulated results are in good agreement with the

experimental findings and the uncertainty of this level can be accepted. We on the

behalf of our findings feel both k-epsilon and SST model suitable for computing

flow over complex terrains. SST model has ability to predict the re-circulation

phenomenon in the lee side of the hill, which may contribute to get the closer results

with experimental ones. In Figure 17 SST is predicting absolutely accurate value at

600m down the hill where as K-epsilon is quite away to the experimental value and

over predicting the speed up at this point. In the context of results and above

discussion we come to conclusion that both K- and SST models are predicting

good results and are suitable of predicting wind potential in any complex terrain.

K- model is lacking in prediction of good results in the terrain where hills are

having steep slopes (h0/L > 0.5) but SST model is coming with better results in such

cases for instance in Figure 17 at 600m SST is very close to the experimental result

where as K- was quite far from the experimental result so on behalf of above

findings we conclude that SST model is predicting better results than K- in the

complex terrains where is a doubt of having re-circulation zone.

31

Part-2

Working with CFX

5. Model Setup

CFX is superior CFD technology and is a part of ANSYS Inc, which is

integrated into the ANSYS workbench engineering simulation environment. We

have used this to study the wind flow over the Askervein hill. This part explains

how this technology can be used to study the effect of wind flow over complex

terrain like Askervein. Figure 29 explains the work flow in CFX from Design to

post processor.

Geometry Meshing

Ansys Design Ansys CFX Pre- Post-

Modeler Mesh Processor Solver Processor

other Sources other Sources

Mesh Control

Geometry Parameters

Ansys Workbench

(*.wbdb file)

DesignModeller

(*.agdb file)

CFX-Mesh

(*.cmdb

file)

(*.gtm file)

32

DesignModeler is specifically designed for the creation and modification of

analysis geometry. Using an advanced system of interfaces, it can be used as a

direct link to geometry models created in a variety of existing CAD packages.

The Askervein hill is designed from the surface data obtained from Risoe[1],

the data obtained from Risoe is used to convert into XYZ coordinate file by using

Matlab[23] programming. As it is time consuming to create a surfaces from the

clouds of points what we got from xyz file in Ansys Designmodeler. We have gone

through some of the CAD packages and decided to use the third party CAD package

called Rhinoceros[24]. Where we have used the XYZ coordinates points to create a

surface. This is then exported as IGES file with file type as Pro Engineer Surface.

As Designmodeler can import IGES file. This IGES file is then imported to

Ansys Designmodeler to create geometry of Askervein hill. This surface is then

converted into solid body, which is then exported to CFX-mesh.

Geometry Regions attributes

Creating Creating

volume mesh surface mesh

and can create quality meshes on complex geometries quickly. This technology has

been integrated into the ANSYS Workbench platform as a module. The Advancing

Front with Inflation produces meshes that accurately capture important boundary

layer details.

create the CFX-mesh by the steps in Figure 31. To set up CFD simulation for the

model the first step is to define the boundary conditions on the geometry, where we

have defined the regions with the flow as inlet and outlet. Although it is possible to

select the faces (regions) with corresponding boundary condition in CFX-Pre, it will

be much better to select the location of the boundaries before the mesh for accurate

CFD solutions.

33

To ensure that the chosen length scales have desired effects, surface mesh is

created before the volume meshing to check and view the meshing. Delaunay

surface meshing is used to create surface mesh due to its ability to mesh the closed

faces. Advancing front volume mesh is used to create volume mesh, as it can

generate mesh consisting of tetrahedral, prisms and pyramids with low memory

usage. The volume mesh will generate a *.gtm file (CFX-Pre mesh file) which is

ready for import into CFX-Pre.

control

CFX-Pre

Boundary

Session file (*.ses) holds Conditions

record of commands entered

during session

Fluid

Definition Properties

file (*.def)

CFX-Pre is used to define the physics of the model by importing the meshes

produced in mesh generation softwares like CFX-Mesh. The mesh (*.gtm file)

produced in CFX-mesh is imported to general mode of the CFX-Pre, as general

mode in CFX-Pre can be used for all the cases. Out of the different physical models

available in CFX-Pre, we used turbulence and near-wall modelling as it can be used

to predict the effects of turbulence in fluid flow on the complex terrain of Askervein

hill. Turbulence consists of small eddies which are continuously forming and

dissipating, and in which the Reynolds stresses are assumed to be proportional to

mean velocity gradients.

Two-equation turbulence models are widely used eddy viscosity models for

calculating eddy viscosity, as they can compromise between numerical effort and

computational accuracy. Both the velocity and length scale are solved using

separate transport equations.

34

A number of models have been developed in CFX[25] that can be used to

approximate turbulence based on the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)

equations. The following three turbulence models based on the RANS equations

which are available in CFX-5 are used for the flow over Askervein hill and are

described on the following pages

The k- model

The k- model is the most general purpose CFD codes and is considered the

industry standard model. Where, k is the turbulence kinetic energy and is defined as

the variance of the fluctuations in velocity. is the turbulence eddy dissipation (the

rate at which the velocity fluctuations dissipate). In CFX-5, the k- turbulence

model uses the scalable wall-function approach to improve accuracy when the near-

wall mesh is very fine. The scalable wall function allows results to be very fine near

wall grids, which is a significant improvement over standard wall functions.

The k- Model

amount of flow separation under adverse pressure gradient conditions. This is an

important phenomenon in many technical applications, turbulence models based on

the -equation predict the onset of separation too late and under-predict the amount

of separation later on. Separation prediction is important in complex terrains like

Askervein hill. The most prominent two-equation models in this area are the k-

based models of Menter[21].

The advantage of the k- model is the near wall treatment. The model does

not involve the complex non-linear damping functions required for the k- model

and is therefore more accurate. Near wall treatment was developed for the k-

models which allows smooth shift from a low-Reynolds number form to a wall

function formulation. The k- models assumes that the turbulence viscosity is

linked to the turbulence kinetic energy and turbulent frequency via the relation

t = (25)

frequency.

CFX-5 uses the k- model developed by Wilcox[26]. It solves two transport

equations, one for the turbulent kinetic energy, k, and one for the turbulent

frequency, .

highly accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of flow separation under

adverse pressure gradients by the inclusion of transport effects into the formulation

of the eddy-viscosity. This results in a major improvement in terms of flow

separation predictions. The SST model can be used for high accuracy boundary

layer simulations. To benefit from this model, a resolution of the boundary layer of

more than 10 points is required.

35

5.4 CFX Solver

CFX solver is the CFD solver, it achieves fast convergence by solving the

equations well. The solver is fully scalable by achieving linear increase in CPU time

with problem size, it is easy to set up this CFD solver in both serial and parallel run-

modes. The Solver Manager provides feedback on convergence progress and when

necessary, parameters can be adjusted without stopping the solver so convergence

can be accelerated.

Definition

File (*.def)

Solver

Results Output

file (*.res) file (*.out)

(numerical data

in text file)

include the scalable wall function model to ensure solution accuracy is improved

with mesh refinement. The *.def file which is generated in the CFX-Pre is used by

the solver to estimate the flow predictions. The solver loads the *.def file from

CFX-Pre and runs to achecive the convergence by solveing the equations and

generates two output files, result file(*.res) and numerical data text file(*.out).

36

5.5 CFX Post

Post uses a user interface to represent both graphical and quantitative results. The

flow visualization capabilities can quickly provide flow field behavior on the

complex terrain of Askervein with features such as surfaces, slices, vectors, surface

plots and streamlines. This capability allows to easily extract important results that

can be used to increase performance and obtain a better understanding of the flow

on the terrain.

Results

file (*.res)

CFX-Post

Velocities

Pressures

Streamlines Turbulence

The data generated by the result file (*.res) from the solver can be clearly

presented here to analyze the results obtained from the solver file.

37

References

[1] Niels.N. Srensen (1995) General purpose Flow solver Applied to Flow

Over Hills. Ris National Lab, Roskilde, Denmark. Ris-R-827(EN), pp

112-128.

[2] P.A. Taylor and H.W. Teunissen. ASKERVEIN 82: Report on the

September/ October 1982 Experiments to Study Boundary Layer Flow over

Askervein, South Uist. Technical report MSRB-83-8, Atmos. Environ.

Service, Downsview, Ontario, 1983.

[3] P.A. Taylor and H.W. Teunissen. The Askervein Hill project: Report on

the Sep./ Oct. 1983, Main Field Experiment. Technical Report MSRB-84-6,

Atmos. Environ. Service, Downsview, Ontario, 1984.

Reynolds Averaged Navier-Strokes Equation (k- Turbulence Model).

Boundary Layer Meteorology 107: 510-530, 2003.

Technical Report. pp 6-11.

[6] H.G. Kim and V.C. Patel (2000). Test of Turbulence Models for Wind Flow

over Terrain with separation and Re-circulation. Boundary- Layer

Meteorology. 94, 5-21.

[7] Peter Bradshaw and George P. Huang . The Law of The wall in Turbulent

Flow. Mathematical and Physical sciences, Vol.451, No.1941,Osborne

Reynolds Centenary volume (Oct. 9,1995),165-188.

Dynamics. Engineering education SystemTM , Wichita, Kansaa,67208-

1078,USA,Volume II, Third Edition, 17.

[9] H.W. Detering and D. Etling (1985). Application of E-epsillon Model to the

Atmospheric Boundary Layer. Institute fr Meterologie and Kilmatalogie,

Universitt Hannover, Germany.

[10] P.J.Mason and J.C.King. 1985, Measurements and predictions of flow and

Turbulence over isolated hill of moderate slope,

J.Roy.Quart.Meterol.soc.111,617-640.

[11] A.C.M. Beljaars, J.L. walmsley, and P.A.Taylor. A Mixed Spectral Finite

Diffrence Model for Neutrally Stratified Boundary-Layer Flow over

roughness Changes and Topography. Boundary-layer Meteorol.,38.273-303,

1987.

[12] A.J. Bowen and H.W. Teunissen. Wind-Tunnel Simulation at Length Scale

1:2500 part 1: Test at the Atmosperic Environment Service Volume I+II.

38

Research Report 86-7, Atmos. Environ.Service, Downsview, Ontario, 1986.

[13] G.D. Raithby, G.D.Stubley, and P.A.Taylor. The Askervein Hill Project: A

Finite Control Volume Prediction of Three-Dimensional Flows Over the

Hill.Boundary-layer Meteorol.,39:247-267,1987.

[14] H.W. Teunissen and M.E.Shokr. The Askervein Hill Project: Wind-Tunnel

Simulation (Smooth Model) at Length Scale 1:1200 Volume I+ II. Research

Report MSRB-85-1, Atmos.Environ.Service, Downsview, Ontario, 1985.

Lab.,Roskilde,Denmark,1989.

over Hills: Comparison of Model Results with Askervein 1983 Data. In

Europen wind Energy conference, Hamburg, Germany,1984.

Flow over Hills. Quart.J.R.Met.Soc.,113:55-80,1987.

Terrain. Prediction of Askervein Hill Data. Wind Energy 2005;8:237-249.

http://www-waterloo.ansys.com/cfxcommunity/CFX-5/technotes/default.asp

Phenomena with the Two-Equation Model of Turbulence. International

Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol 16, 1973, pp1119-1130.

engineering applications.AIAA-Journal., 32(8), 1994.

[22] http://www-waterloo.ansys.com/cfxcommunity/CFX-

5/techtips/Creating_Surface_from_Points_and_Curves.htm

[23] http://www.mathworks.com/

[24] http://download.mcneel.com/rhino/3.0/eval/

[25] http://www-waterloo.ansys.com/cfxcommunity/default.asp

On line Help CFX-5 Solver Modeling Turbulence and Near Wall

Modeling

Multiscale model for turbulent flows.

In AIAA 24th Aerospace Sciences Meeting. American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1986.

39

Appendix

Creating Geometry:

DesignModeler and Rhinoceros are two types of softwares used to create

the geometry of the Askervein hill from the data obtained from Niels[1]. The data

files consists of the terrain height in Z-coordinates, These Z coordinates are then

used to obtain the XY coordinates by using Matlab program. These XYZ

coordinates are then used to create the terrain surface of the Askervein.

At the first attempt we created the *.dxf file from the xyz coordinates in Matlab and

tried to import into DesignModeler which has the option to import *.dxf files

created in other CAD softwares. We couldnt succeed, as the Ansys Workbench

software we are using dont have the license for importing *.dxf files. We then tried

in creating other files like *.sat, which can be imported in DesignModeler to create

the terrain of Askervein and couldnt succeed. Finally we came across the

Rhinoceros software which has the ability to create surface from the cloud of

points[22].

The *.txt file which consists of the xyz coordinates of the Askervein hill are

imported in Rhinoceros as shown in Figure 35.

After these points are imported into Rhino, we have selected all the points of

xyz in the window panel and created the surface by using the patch option which is

available in Rhino. The final surface of Askervein as shown in Figure 36 is then

exported as *.IGES file which can be readable in DesignModeler.

40

Figure 36 : The Surface of Askervein

The geometry created in Rhino is imported to DesignModeler and extruded

to create a solid body (CFX mesh cant generate mesh from surface bodies) of

Askervein hill. To study the flow pattern of the wind along the terrain of Askervein,

Domain covering the entire terrain with a height of 1km from the plane of the

surface is drawn as shown in Figure 37.

41

Generating Mesh in CFX-mesh:

The geometry created in DesignModeler is then opened in Ansys

CFX-Mesh to generate the mesh file. To set up CFD simulation for the model the

first step is to define the boundary conditions on the geometry, where we have

defined the regions with the flow as inlet and outlet. Although it is possible to select

the faces (regions) with corresponding boundary condition in CFX-Pre, it will be

much better to select the location of the boundaries before the mesh for accurate

CFD solutions.

To capture the flow effects near the wall boundary of the terrain,

computationally efficient meshes are required in these areas with high aspect ratio.

Inflation is used near the wall by creating mesh with prisms. The inflated boundary

on the terrain is determined with prism height, expansion factor and with inflated

layers. Figure 38 shows the inflated region from the terrain.

42

To accurately predict the flow over the complex terrain, a great deal will

depend on the proper meshing. By keeping in mind the memory and time, we have

gone through different grid testing by changing the expansion factor for constant

inflation layers for different first prism height.

1 35 1.2 716744

2 35 1.3 649744

3 35 1.4 566227

4 35 1.5 523950

Table 4: change in Expansion Factor for Constant Inflation Layer

2 1.5 0.0003 721357

3 1.5 0.00049 716744

4 1.5 0.0049 601123

Table 5: change in First Prism Height for Constant Expansion Factor

The results obtained from the combination of different grid are compared and the

one with expansion factor of 1.5, first prism height at 0.00049 is chosen by

considering the time and accuracy of the grid. The volume mesh of the grid No-3

from Table 5 is shown in Figure 39, with the first prism height at 0.00049 for

inflation layers of 35 and expansion factor of 1.5. The volume mesh produced in

CFX-Mesh is saved as *.gtm file.

43

Figure 39 : Domain after Volume Mesh

Ansys CFX-Pre:

The CFX-Pre mesh file (*.gtm) which was created in the CFX-Mesh is

imported to CFX-Pre and the domain for the Askervein is defined in the physics

selector, where it is used to define the physics for the simulation of the model. CFX

uses the domain concept to define the type, properties and region of fluid, its the

region where we used the fluid flow equations. For the Askervein the domain type

as shown in Figure 40 is the fluid with fluid as Air, the type of turbulence model

and the properties associated with the turbulence model are introduced here in the

fluid model.

44

Figure 40: Domain of Askervein showing Variables and coefficients of Turbulence model

After domain is created, boundary conditions are created for Askervein to fully

define the flow on the surface of the complex terrain of Askervein. As the reference

velocity is at an angel of 2100 with respect to of the Askervein, The velocity vectors

in X and Y directions with respect to the reference velocity are resolved using the

equations below

North

Y

Line A

A

=11.30 Us

X 2100 X -Vsy

A

South

Y

Vsx

Figure 41: Diagram Representing Velocity vectors

V SX = U S * cos ( ) (26)

V SY = U S * sin ( ) (27)

45

.

Figure 42: Inlet velocity vecotrs in X(VSX) and Y(VSY) directions of the domain

expressions like velocity vectors as in Equation-26 using the CFX Expression

Language (CEL), the equations that are required for the simulation are generated in

the CEL with help of built in variables and constants that are available in CEL. The

expressions which are created in CEL are then used to specify the boundary

conditions of the Askervein hill. The model of the Askervein is show in Figure 43

after defining the boundary conditions.

46

Figure 43: Model of Askervein with velocity vectors

Boundary conditions are applied to all the regions at the outer extremities of

domain to define the values for inlet, outlet, wall and symmetry planes. Finally the

initial values for the boundary conditions are defined in the global initialization of

the domain. The CFX file is then saved as *.cfx file, which is ready to run

simulation in CFX Solver. Before running the simulation in CFX solver, the solver

control parameters like time scale control and maximum number of iterations with

required convergence criteria are defined in the solver control of CFX-Pre. The

CFX file will be now ready to write as solver file (*.def), which is called as

definition file.

47

CFX-SOLVER

CFX solver is the CFD solver with graphical user interface for CFD

calculations, the *.def file which is created in the CFX-Pre contains the complete

specification of the simulation, including the mesh is passed to solver manager and

run is performed. The Figure 45 shows the solver manager which provides feedback

on convergence progress through run definition and control. The main area of the

graphics window shows the value of each plotted variable i.e. the RMS residual at

each time step and the text window displays the simulation information and how the

solution is proceeding.

We used serial run mode for running the simulation. The Solver Manager

can also be used for dynamic display and also when necessary, parameters can be

adjusted without stopping the solver there by accelerating the convergence. The

CFX-Solver generates two files, results file (*.res) and output file (*.out) for CFD

calculations.

48

CFX-POST

is a graphical and quantitative post-processing tool that allows us to quickly extract

useful information from ANSYS CFX. The data generated by the result file (*.res)

from the solver is clearly presented here to analyze the results obtained from the

solver. The flow visualization of Askervein hill from the result file (*.res) is

examined in the post processor.

To analyze and compare the results from different turbulence models along

the lines A and AA, the result file (*.res) from the solver is loaded into Pre-

processor. Planes are drawn along the lines A and AA to study the flow effects for

different turbulence models. As shown in Figure 47 the velocity of the wind along

the Lines A and AA can be seen by using the vector plots with respect to the planes

drawn earlier.

A Plane

AA Plane

49

A Plane

AA Plane

In order to capture the velocity and to study the speed-up along the profile A

at a distance 10m above the terrain, first a polyline(green) is drawn at the

intersection of the terrain and the plane drawn earlier, we then exported the

coordinates of this polyline to a file and then added 10m to the Z-coordinates of the

polyline. The new file with increase in Z-coordinates is then used in CFX-Post to

drawn a polyline(red) at a distance above 10m from the terrain of the hill as shown

in Figure 48. By using this polyline at 10m the velocity along the line A is drawn by

using the chart option, the values of the velocity which are obtained along the line

are then exported to text file for further analyses.

Figure 48: Poly-lines along the Line A at 10m and along the ground of Askervein Hill

50

To study the velocity profile at the HT of the Askervein hill, a straight line

from the HT to the domain height is drawn as shown in Figure 49, this line is then

used to get the velocitys along the line. The values obtained from this line are

exported for further analysis to drawn the velocity profile from the HT to the

domain height.

51

- Fluent TutorialTransféré parluis900000
- Best Practice Guidelines for Turbo MachineryTransféré paraerokiruba
- CFD Drag Prediction Training WorkshopTransféré parPayam Dehpanah
- @@@@X- Study on Hydrodynamic Slug Flow Mitigation With Wavy Pipe Using a 3D–1D Coupling ApproachTransféré parramihey
- Computation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients of Portable AutonomousTransféré parali_naghedifar
- Fluent-Intro 14.5 WS03 Multi Species PostprocessingTransféré parOmar Alzuabi
- Analysis of Unsteady Propeller Blade Forces by RANTransféré parPavan Kishore
- Multiphase CFD Modeling of TBRTransféré parchikukotwal
- 114HaiTransféré parengg_sak
- Mixing and Deposition of Sediment-laden Buoyant JetsTransféré parcffyau
- J030101053059.pdfTransféré parmaak369
- 3445603526352Transféré parSata Ajjam
- Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Flow Analysis of the Water Saving Safety ValveTransféré parIJSTR Research Publication
- TribIntTransféré parmgualdi
- CFD Techniques - An Overview (G.S.v.L. Narasimham) - ReportTransféré parHitesh Priyani
- 4.2 Drill Bit Hydraulics (ADS)Transféré parDE-PAT
- OMAE2006-92334.pdfTransféré pargenmik
- Similarity-Solution-Of-Plane-Turbulent-Mixing-Layer.pdfTransféré parIJSTR Research Publication
- 155992.pdfTransféré parmegamech23
- Numerical Simulation of Minimum Distance Jet Impingement Heat TransferTransféré parPrashant
- Computational Fluid Dynamics.Transféré parRohit Singh
- Numerical Simulation Wind Analysis for Plate-coneTransféré parQuoc Tri Phung
- Cfd Analysis of Efficiency and Pressure Drop in a Gas-solid SquareTransféré parYunardi Yusuf
- New 2012 04 Rabibrata Bio TransportTransféré parhimanshu_agra
- Moo Young Eqation KlTransféré parBryan Antonio Maza Cordova
- C092Ad01Transféré parvakamalla
- So 1989 International Journal of Heat and Fluid FlowTransféré paralexandreburan
- J.M. Redondo et al- Laboratory and Numerical Models of Richtmeyer-Meshkov and Rayleigh-Taylor InstabilitiesTransféré parMallamax
- 12 Laminar Flow Slot FlowTransféré partotos20
- PS7(2)Transféré paracz1234

- Introduction to CFD BasicsTransféré parVijay Krishnan
- [11]General Purpose Flow Solver Applied to Flow Over HillsTransféré parVictor Hugo Vieira
- [36]Simulation of the ASKERVEIN flow Part1 RANS.pdfTransféré parVictor Hugo Vieira
- [39]Numerical Simulation of Wind Flow Over Hilly TerrainTransféré parVictor Hugo Vieira
- MilimetradoTransféré parVictor Hugo Vieira

- Wind Tunnel Test for Binh Bridge in Vietnam_IHI Egnineering Review(2006)Transféré parmonolith80
- Wind Turbine Response to Variation of Analytic Inflow VorticesTransféré parGonzalo Rojas Lopez
- A Coupled Fluid-Structure Analysis for 3D Flutter in TurbomachinesTransféré parAmbrish Singh
- BernoulliTransféré parSharoni Pavadhay
- Hazen Willam'sTransféré parvijayunity
- Stem Aero DesignTransféré parFeynmanFan
- Yuan 1Transféré parDhanusha Rathnayake
- IIT Madras NotesTransféré parSanthosh Mamidala
- Turbulent boundary layer lab reportTransféré parNidhin K
- CE2134 (Ppt) 0. IntroductionTransféré parhout_ang
- Hydraulic Jump Length Calculator 111205Transféré parabhishek5810
- 1.pdfTransféré parmistrycs
- Chapter 4 FluidsTransféré parshahrul
- Pipe FrictionTransféré parShubham Chauhan
- 1969-PaintalTransféré parConk
- SwingTransféré parThamaraikannan Seshachalam
- ReferenceTransféré paraustin00012
- Fluid Dynamics - Coanda EffectsTransféré parpitcab
- Tam 335 Fall 2016 Homework 7Transféré parSaif Khan Alen
- Aerodynamic Evaluation of the Djebel Laassa UAVTransféré parDr Pascual Marques
- Hydrodynamics of Marine Current TurbinesTransféré parVatze
- 20100001729_2010001521Transféré parnileshrane
- Chapter 3 - Flow Through TubingTransféré parKesev Keshav
- Unit 4 notesTransféré parhbaakza
- Finite Wing Theory.docTransféré parreza rohani
- THE EFFECT OF VARIOUS GURNEY FLAP SHAPES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF WIND TURBINE AIRFOILSTransféré paradt1989
- 2.1-linearmotion.pdfTransféré parJerome Arzadon
- Phy2053 Chap4 Quiz SolutionsTransféré parhome44366
- Ch 6 Differential Analysis of Fluid Flow part I.pptTransféré parMujtaba Rizvi
- Chapter 3 2 2 Sprinkler Design Lecture AAU 2014Transféré parBeza Getachew