Calculating Loss Coefficient in 4-way Junctions

sasanghomi · May 15, 2019, 07:04

Dear friends,

One of the projects that I am dealing with is about the calculation of loss coefficients (DP/(0.5*rho*V^2)) in a 4-way junction. (three inlets and one outlet)
Also, I have tried to compare my results with those mentioned in the following book;
"Internal Flow Systems" , "Ds Miller"
Unfortunately, there is a discrepancy in the results. (40% almost). In detail, in my simulation the magnitude of Yplus is under 100 and the drop pressure is calculated in the regions that the flow is developed totally. Moreover, the drop pressure that comes from friction is calculated according to Moody diagram and it is subtracted from the drop pressure in the junction.
By the way, SST turbulence model is used and Reynolds number is around 1e5.
Does anybody have any idea about this problem or know other references for the validation?

Any hint is appreciated,
Best Regards
Sasan Ghomi

ghorrocks · May 15, 2019, 08:39

There are lots of studies of the pressure losses of pipework and fittings. Google is your friend.

Don't forget that simple empirical models like the Moody diagram often have massive errors. So you can't validate a CFD model against a Moody diagram style model, you need something more accurate than that.

But before you do external validation to sources experimental and empirical results, you should make sure you have done a thorough internal validation and made sure your mesh, time step and convergence criteria sensitivities are acceptable.

evcelica · May 15, 2019, 17:44

I have always found it very difficult to compare pressure drop to empirical stuff because of static pressure differences due to it being converted to/from dynamic pressure. The empirical stuff ignores dynamic/static pressure conversion I believe.

Gert-Jan · May 16, 2019, 03:56

I agree with Evelica, that using Total Pressure gives a better agreement. Mostly...... ;-)

evcelica · May 16, 2019, 09:29

This seems like a good time to explain a similar situation:

TASK: Calculate Pressure Drop through a junction box. Flow comes in one size duct (odd shape) into a largish volume (junction box), turns around, and exits through a different sized (smaller) cross section duct.

Since the outlet was smaller, there was a static pressure loss as it was converted to dynamic pressure. For my answer though, I don't want to include this loss, and the designer should account for it elsewhere.

You know that K loss value for an exit = 1 that you learned in school? That isn't real. Nope, it's not. What that really is, is an accelerational loss at the beginning of the pipe, K=1 exactly matches the dynamic head: DP = ((K*rho)/2)*(V^2). Each time the pipe changes cross sectional area or flow is added, subtracted, this dynamic head will change, and in turn the static pressure. But we don't consider it in the beginning. Just to make the math easier, instead of starting at the beginning, and keeping track of all the changes in dynamic/static head, we just tack it on at the end once we have the final pipe size and velocity. So even though in my situation, that static pressure loss was real, I didn't want to include it because it would be accounted for in the exit loss equation, which isn't really an exit loss as I just explained.
So Total Pressure difference from a CFD should more closely agree with a simplified empirical correlation. But this gets more confusing as well, as the total pressure needs time (distance) from the junction to develop/stabilize, and it depends on where you make this measurement spatially in the pipe.

So I think the most proper answer I could give for "Junction box Pressure Drop" would be to include extra length on the inlet/outlet in my simulation so I had fully developed flow at my result planes away from the junction box. Use the areaAve total pressure difference between the two planes in order to neglect the dynamic loss. Then also subtract the empirical straight line pressure drops for the extra length I included on the inlet and outlet lines. Goofy as heck, but this would be needed to match the empirical calcs, or for someone top throw into their spreadsheet of pressure drops.
Converting CFD results to be used in Empirical situations can be tricky, including DP, HTC and other results as well.

May 15, 2019, 07:04	Calculating Loss Coefficient in 4-way Junctions	#1
sasanghomi Senior Member Sasan Ghomi Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Denmark Posts: 292 Rep Power: 15	Dear friends, One of the projects that I am dealing with is about the calculation of loss coefficients (DP/(0.5rhoV^2)) in a 4-way junction. (three inlets and one outlet) Also, I have tried to compare my results with those mentioned in the following book; "Internal Flow Systems" , "Ds Miller" Unfortunately, there is a discrepancy in the results. (40% almost). In detail, in my simulation the magnitude of Yplus is under 100 and the drop pressure is calculated in the regions that the flow is developed totally. Moreover, the drop pressure that comes from friction is calculated according to Moody diagram and it is subtracted from the drop pressure in the junction. By the way, SST turbulence model is used and Reynolds number is around 1e5. Does anybody have any idea about this problem or know other references for the validation? Any hint is appreciated, Best Regards Sasan Ghomi

May 15, 2019, 08:39		#2
ghorrocks Super Moderator Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,854 Rep Power: 144	There are lots of studies of the pressure losses of pipework and fittings. Google is your friend. Don't forget that simple empirical models like the Moody diagram often have massive errors. So you can't validate a CFD model against a Moody diagram style model, you need something more accurate than that. But before you do external validation to sources experimental and empirical results, you should make sure you have done a thorough internal validation and made sure your mesh, time step and convergence criteria sensitivities are acceptable. __________________ Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CFD by anderson, chp 10.... supersonic flow over flat plate	varunjain89	Main CFD Forum	18	May 11, 2018 08:31
Loss Coefficient for Opening Boundary Condition	Liliane Maciel	CFX	1	February 18, 2018 03:05
Calculating Loss Coefficients for a porous media	CFX_Beginner	CFX	2	October 24, 2015 21:16
Question about heat transfer coefficient setting for CFX	Anna Tian	CFX	1	June 16, 2013 07:28
Automotive test case	vinz	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	98	October 27, 2008 09:43

May 15, 2019, 17:44		#3
evcelica Senior Member Erik Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Earth (Land portion) Posts: 1,188 Rep Power: 23	I have always found it very difficult to compare pressure drop to empirical stuff because of static pressure differences due to it being converted to/from dynamic pressure. The empirical stuff ignores dynamic/static pressure conversion I believe.

May 16, 2019, 03:56		#4
Gert-Jan Senior Member Gert-Jan Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Europe Posts: 1,913 Rep Power: 28	I agree with Evelica, that using Total Pressure gives a better agreement. Mostly...... ;-)

May 16, 2019, 09:29		#5
evcelica Senior Member Erik Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Earth (Land portion) Posts: 1,188 Rep Power: 23	This seems like a good time to explain a similar situation: TASK: Calculate Pressure Drop through a junction box. Flow comes in one size duct (odd shape) into a largish volume (junction box), turns around, and exits through a different sized (smaller) cross section duct. Since the outlet was smaller, there was a static pressure loss as it was converted to dynamic pressure. For my answer though, I don't want to include this loss, and the designer should account for it elsewhere. You know that K loss value for an exit = 1 that you learned in school? That isn't real. Nope, it's not. What that really is, is an accelerational loss at the beginning of the pipe, K=1 exactly matches the dynamic head: DP = ((Krho)/2)(V^2). Each time the pipe changes cross sectional area or flow is added, subtracted, this dynamic head will change, and in turn the static pressure. But we don't consider it in the beginning. Just to make the math easier, instead of starting at the beginning, and keeping track of all the changes in dynamic/static head, we just tack it on at the end once we have the final pipe size and velocity. So even though in my situation, that static pressure loss was real, I didn't want to include it because it would be accounted for in the exit loss equation, which isn't really an exit loss as I just explained. So Total Pressure difference from a CFD should more closely agree with a simplified empirical correlation. But this gets more confusing as well, as the total pressure needs time (distance) from the junction to develop/stabilize, and it depends on where you make this measurement spatially in the pipe. So I think the most proper answer I could give for "Junction box Pressure Drop" would be to include extra length on the inlet/outlet in my simulation so I had fully developed flow at my result planes away from the junction box. Use the areaAve total pressure difference between the two planes in order to neglect the dynamic loss. Then also subtract the empirical straight line pressure drops for the extra length I included on the inlet and outlet lines. Goofy as heck, but this would be needed to match the empirical calcs, or for someone top throw into their spreadsheet of pressure drops. Converting CFD results to be used in Empirical situations can be tricky, including DP, HTC and other results as well.