Numerical and Experimental Studies On Room Air Flow: Report 132

Helsinki University of Technology. Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics.
Teknillinen korkeakoulu. Sovelletun termodynamiikan laboratorio. Espoo 2001, FINLAND
NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON ROOM AIR FLOW

Report 132
Juhaveikko Ala-Juusela
VTT Building Technology
Jorma Heikkinen
Kim Hagstrom
Halton Group Ltd.
Helsinki University of Technology. Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics.

Teknillinen korkeakoulu. Sovelletun termodynamiikan laboratorio. Espoo 2001, FINLAND
NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON ROOM AIR FLOW

Report 132
Juhaveikko Ala-Juusela
VTT Building Technology
Jorma Heikkinen
Kim Hagstrom
Halton Group Ltd.
Helsinki University of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics
Teknillinen korkeakoulu Konetekniikan osasto Sovelletun termodynamiikan laboratorio
Distribution: Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics FIN-002015 HUT Tel. +358-9-451 3581 Fax. +358-9-455 3724
ABSTRACT
In this study the air ow in a small scale industrial hall is simulated numerically using two different computing codes, the commercial ow solver with a high-Reynolds number turbulence model and a university code with a low-Reynolds number turbulence model. The results are compared with measurements. Two different air supply arrangements with grille or nozzle types of air terminal devices are studied, both with isothermal and nonisothermal boundary conditions. The air ow patterns are very complicated since heat and momentum sources are distributed. The supply air devices cannot be described in detail without the computational grid becoming impractically large. Therefore, an integral part of a CFD simulation is to simplify the actual ow situation without losing essential features of the ow. The air velocities with the high-Reynolds number code were consistently higher than the measured ones, and, therefore, one could say that these results were on the safe side considering the draught risk. The low-Reynolds number simulations predicted too low velocities in some cases. In some parts of the room even the qualitative air ow pattern was different in the two simulations, most notably in the regions where the buoyancy forces and the inertia forces of the supply air jet are of the same magnitude and the supply air jet is deecting near the solid boundaries. It turned out to be difcult to make accurate comparisons with the measurements because the comfort oriented, omnidirectional air speed measurements were not directly comparable with the air velocity computed with the turbulence models. One possibility is to use an articial, modied velocity for comparison instead of the actual velocity. This method has been used in this study and it seems that especially in low speed areas the correspondence between the measured and calculated speeds is improved by using the modied velocity for comparison.
CONTENTS
Nomenclature 1 Introduction 2 Numerical Method 2.1 FINFLO . . . . . . . . . . . . Flow Equations . . . . . . . . . Turbulence Modelling . . . . . 2.2 Pseudo-compressibility Method 2.3 FLUENT . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 4 5 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 13 13 13 15 15 16
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Investigated cases 3.1 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Room Ventilation Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental Room Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measurement and Control Systems and Equipment Omnidirectional Thermistor Anemometer . . . . . . 3.2 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Supply Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Change Rate and Cooling Load . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Characterisation of the Air Supply Devices . . . . . Velocity Decay and Temperature Coefcients . . . . 4 Boundary Conditions for CFD Simulations 4.1 Air Supply Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inlet Boundary Conditions of the Grille Case . Inlet Boundary Conditions of the Nozzle Case 4.2 Thermal Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Wall Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Computational Grid 17 5.1 FINFLO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2 FLUENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6 FINFLO Results 6.1 Isothermal Room with Grille Type of Air Supply Devices . . . . Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Flow Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison with the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Non-isothermal Room with Grille Type of Air Supply Devices . Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Flow Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison with the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Isothermal Room with Nozzle Type of Air Supply Devices . . . Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Flow Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison with the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Non-isothermal Room with Nozzle Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Flow Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison with the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 20 21 22 22 22 24 28 28 28 29 31 32 32 33 34
7 Fluent Results 35 7.1 Isothermal Room with Grille Type of Air Supply Devices . . . . . . . . . . 35 Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Description of the Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1
7.2
7.3
7.4
Comparison with the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-isothermal Room with Grille Type of Air Supply Devices . Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison with the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isothermal Room with Nozzle Type of Air Supply Devices . . . Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison with the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-isothermal Room with Nozzle Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison with the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 38 38 38 38 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 48 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 51 52 53 60 66
8 Comparison of Global Results Average Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modied Average Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corrected Average Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turbulence Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temperature Deviation and Maximum Temperature Difference Heat Removal Efciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Conclusions Bibliography A The Velocity Graphs, FINFLO Results B The Velocity Graphs, Fluent Results C Modied Air Speed
NOMENCLATURE
Jacobian matrix
constant Courant number pressure coefcient total internal energy ux vectors in the -, - and -directions Prandtl number source term vector Reynolds number vector of conservative variables speed of sound specic heat at a constant pressure specic heat at a constant volume specic internal energy gravitational acceleration enthalpy turbulent kinetic energy mass ow pressure heat ux time velocity components in the -, - and -directions friction velocity velocity vector dimensionless distance from the wall articial sound speed coefcient Kroneckers delta dissipation of the kinetic energy of the turbulence dynamic viscosity kinematic viscosity scalar density shear stress
in the -direction; cell face area
Superscripts
Subscripts
transposition left side right side uctuating component
turbulent -component normal component
INTRODUCTION
One of the main purposes of room ventilation is to maintain an acceptable thermal comfort, which means that the local values of temperature, air speed, turbulence and heat radiation must be governed. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a promising method to quantitatively predict the room air motion and temperature distribution but it has not been widely used by ventilation engineers because special expertise, hardware and software are required. The accuracy of simulations is generally found to be sufcient for ventilation design purposes. The experience from past international comparisons [1, 2] suggests that the measured and computed results obtained by different research groups are fairly similar if the ow problem, including the boundary conditions, is well dened. There are still modelling difculties because the air ow pattern is usually very complicated since heat and momentum sources are distributed and usually time dependent. The supply air devices cannot be described in detail and, therefore, an integral part of a CFD simulation is to simplify the actual ow situation without losing essential features of the ow. This problem is also present in this study, where the supply air grille is a complicated device and needs to be simplied. Another ow detail treated in the present study is the wall boundary layer, which is often simplied by using the so-called wall functions even if they are known to be decient in describing the real ow and especially the heat transfer on the walls. In this report the simulations using the commercial Fluent code [3] and wall functions represent the usual practice in ventilation design, whereas the simulations with the university code FINFLO [4] represent a more scientic approach without using the wall functions. To be able to abandon the wall functions one must use a low-Reynolds number turbulence model which in this case was the Chiens -model [5]. One must note that it would also be possible to perform low-Reynolds number simulations down to the wall using the Fluent program, but this option was not used in the present study. There is a lack of reliable room air ow measurement results, especially concerning industrial halls. The small scale (3:10) measurements performed in connection with this study made it possible to compare the simulations with a realistic ow in an industrial hall. However, it turned out to be difcult to make accurate comparisons because the comfort oriented, omnidirectional air speed measurements are not directly comparable with the air velocity computed with the turbulence models. One possibility is not to compare the actual velocities but to use articial, modied velocities for comparison. This method has been used in this study to show that especially in low speed areas the direct comparison of measured and calculated speeds is not appropriate. Every time the modication is used on velocity, it is clearly stated in a text.
NUMERICAL METHOD
2.1 FINFLO The next subsections describing the physical equations and their numerical solution method are a modied version of documentation by Siikonen [6] and [4]. Flow Equations The Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, and the equations for the kinetic energy and dissipation of turbulence, and the scalar transport equation can be written in the following form
(2.1)
where the unknows are
. The inviscid uxes are

(2.2)
where is the density, the velocity vector by using cartesian components is , is the pressure, is the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation, is any scalar,
and the total internal energy is dened as

where is the internal energy. The viscous uxes are
(2.3)
(2.4)
Here the stress tensor, , includes laminar and turbulent components. The uid is assumed to be Newtonian and therefore, the laminar stresses are modeled by using Stokes hypothesis. The Reynolds stresses are included in the stress tensor .
(2.5)
5
For the Reynolds stresses Boussinesqs approximation
(2.6)
is utilised, where is a turbulent viscosity coefcient, which is calculated by using a turbulence model, and is Kroneckers delta. In the momentum and energy equations, has been connected with pressure and appears the kinetic energy contribution in the convective uxes, whereas the diffusive part is connected with the viscous uxes. Thus the viscous stresses contain laminar and turbulent parts. Respectively, the heat ux can be written
(2.7)
where is a molecular and a turbulent thermal conductivity coefcient and is a laminar and a turbulent Prandtl number, respectively, and is a specic heat at constant pressure. The diffusion of turbulence variables is modelled as
(2.8)
(2.9)
and are turbulent Schmidts numbers of and , respectively. The pressure where , which, for a perfect gas, is written is calculated from an equation of state
(2.10)
where is the ratio of specic heats . The components of the source term are non-zero in buoyance terms and in turbulence model equations. The buoyance terms are
(2.11)
where is the reference density and is gravitational acceleration. In this study the third order upwind biased difference scheme was used to approximate convective uxes. Turbulence Modelling As mentioned, the turbulent stresses stemming from the Reynolds averaging of the momentum equation are modelled by using Boussinesqs approximation (2.6). The turbulent viscosity coefcient is determined by using Chiens [5] low-Reynolds number model from the formula
(2.12)
where
is an empirical coefcient. The source term of Chiens model is
(2.13)
where is the normal distance from the wall, and the dimensionless distance is dened by
(2.14)
Here is friction velocity and is friction on the wall, and the connection between them is . The unknown production of turbulent kinetic energy is modelled using Boussinesqs approximation (2.6)
(2.15)
The turbulence model presented above contains empirical coefcients. They are given by [4]
(2.16)
where the turbulence Reynoldss number is dened as
(2.17)
2.2 Pseudo-compressibility Method In FINFLO the pseudo-compressibility method has been used for incompressible and nearly incompressible ows. Then the compressible code can be used. The pseudocompressibility method was presented in 1967 by Chorin and it is presented in reference [7]. The mass continuity equation is used with compressible ows:
(2.18)
Density is solved from equation (2.18) and the pressure from the equation of the state . If the changes in density are small, the pressure is determined for an ideal gas with a poor accuracy. The idea of the pseudo-compressibility method is to change the equation of continuity so that instead of density the pressure is solved and the density is determined by the pressure. In the original pseudo-compressibility method the time derivative is added to the equation of continuity.
where is the coefcent from which the virtual speed of sound is determined. The virtual speed of sound is thus smaller than the actual speed of sound. Then the pressure can be integrated with the velocities of the momentum equation. This can be done to steady state ow, because in that case the time derivate is dropped out and the incompressible ow equations becomes the solution. A time-accurate case is solved by adding the time derivate as a source term and pseudointegrating inside the time step [8]. Then the virtual speed of sound does not depend on local ow velocity. By using a smaller speed of sound than actual, the articial compression is caused to the ow to achieve a convergated result. In FINFLO there are differences from Chorins method; the density is still a variable. The solution method of FINFLO is described in more detail in reference [9].
(2.19)
2.3 FLUENT The incompressible form of the commercial Fluent 4.47 computer code was used. The ow equations themselves are very similar to the FINFLO equations presented above. Therefore only the differences are mentioned in this chapter. The source terms for the formal unknowns where is enthalpy, are
(2.20)
where the buoyancy production term is
(2.21)
Boussinesqs model for the density is used, which treats density as a constant value in all the equations, except for the buoyancy source terms in the momentum and turbulence equations, where it is calculated as
(2.22)
is temperature in Kelvins and the constant density is = 1.2 kg/m . The high-Reynolds number model is used with standard coefcients recommen-
ded by Launder and Spalding [10] that were also used in FINFLO simulations as the high Reynolds number limit, see equation 2.16. On the walls, logarithmic wall functions [10] were applied. A second-order upwind difference scheme was used to approximate all the convective uxes, including the turbulence variables.
INVESTIGATED CASES
3.1 Equipment Room Ventilation Simulator The experiments were conducted in the room ventilation simulator at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [11]. The room ventilation simulator consists of an adjustable inner test room and an outer room for controlling the ambient environmental conditions of the inner test room. During the experiments the inner test room was set at 7.2 m 3.6 m 2.4 m to model a ventilated full scale room and the structures at 3:10 scale. An independent HVAC system provides a constantly conditioned supply air for the inner test room. Experimental Room Layout The experiments were made in an empty and obstructed room. In the obstructed room the tests were made with and without a cooling load. The obstruction ratios were 30% of the room area and 30% of the room height. The obstructed room layout is shown in Figure 3.1.
Fig. 3.1: Experimental room layout.
The walls of the experimental room were insulated. The inner surface was made of plywood that was painted black. Sheet metal boxes were used as obstructions in the experiments. Light bulbs inside the obstructions were used to create the cooling load. The accuracy of power supply was 2%, depending on the network voltage. The actual power usage and obstruction surface temperature was monitored during each experiment. Measurement and Control Systems and Equipment Supply and exhaust volume ow rates were controlled using transformers connected to each fan. The volume ow rates of individual supply openings were adjusted using factorymade measurement and adjustment units (accuracy 5%) connected to the ductwork. Exhaust air ow was adjusted to keep the pressure difference zero between the inner and outer rooms. A temperature controller was utilized to keep the supply temperature at the set point during the test. A data acquisition system with T-type thermocouples was used to monitor air temperatures in supply, exhaust, test room (10 points) and outer room. Omnidirectional Thermistor Anemometer The instrumentation for measuring air temperature and velocity was developed at the Helsinki University of Technology. It consists of an anemometer, omnidirectional thermistor
9
probes, four rods and a measurement card in a PC-computer. The system is described in detail by Kovanen [12]. The anemometer is of a constant temperature type. The inaccuracy of it is estimated to be (0.03 + 0.03v) m/s, when the air velocity, v, is between 0.05 m/s and 1.0 m/s. The temperature of the probe during the velocity measurement is 55 C. The time constant of the system depends on the velocity region. With the step change 0.0 - 0.1 m/s the time constant is 0.82 s, whereas with the step change 0.1 - 0.2 m/s the time constant is 0.37 s. The probe (thermistor YSI 44002A) is designed so that the output voltage is almost independent of the direction of air movement: the inaccuracy is about 3 %. Altogether 30 thermistor probes were positioned in the occupied zone. The set up was created in such a way that it was possible to change thermistor height from outside the test room without interfering with the measurements. During each test altogether 90 measurements were made in thirty locations and at three different heights, 45 mm, 330 mm and 520mm. The locations of the measurement points are shown in Figure 3.1. Sampling interval 0.2 s and integration time 60 s were used in these measurements. The integration time was chosen to minimise the duration of the test period. In this way the duration of one measuring cycle was two hours. The inuence of the integration time was studied prior to actual measurements and no inuence on the measurement results was found when the integration time was reduced from 180 s to 60 s. 3.2 Experimental Procedure The occupied zone velocity and temperature conditions were studied in the room with obstructions in isothermal and nonisothermal conditions. The occupied zone in the experiments reached up to 540 mm from the oor. The experiments were done in steady state conditions. Air Supply Methods Two different air supply methods were studied in both physical and computational experiments : 1. Horizontal, concentrated, air supply with the occupied zone ventilated by reverse ow (from now on referred to as NOZZLE). The air was supplied from 2 nozzles horizontally from the left wall to the upper room level at 2.1 m height. The outlet diameter of the nozzles was 78 mm and the initial air velocity 10.7 m/s. 2. Horizontal air supply with the occupied zone ventilated directly by the jet (from now on referred to as GRILLE). The air was supplied from 3 grilles horizontally from the front wall at 1.2 m height. The outlet size of the grille was 102 mm 114 mm and the initial air velocity was 2.3m/s. The vertical vanes of the grille were adjusted at a 90 angle in order to create greater expansion of the jet in the horizontal direction. Positioning of air supply inlets in the experimental room is shown in Figure 3.2. Air Change Rate and Cooling Load Used air ow rates, electric power supply to the heat source and measured temperature difference between supply and exhaust air are presented in Table 3.1 (Corresponding values for full-scale room are 2 1/h and 50 W/m2).
Table 3.1: Used air ow rates, electric power supply of the heat source and measured temperature difference between supply and exhaust air.
SUPPLY METHOD NOZZLE GRILLE
CASE Isothermal Nonisothermal Isothermal Nonisothermal
[m /s] 0.102 0.102 0.081 0.081
[kW] 0 3 0 1.5
[ C] 0.1 20.1 0.2 12.3
[ C] 4.5 11
where = air ow rate, = electric power supply to the heat source, = measured temperature difference between supply and exhaust air and = supply air temperature.
10
Fig. 3.2: Positioning of air supply inlets and outlets in the experimental room
3.3 Characterisation of the Air Supply Devices The air supply devices were characterised by measuring velocity and temperature decay along the jet axis and velocity proles at one meter distance from the outlet. Jet measurements were made in the experimental room. Each diffuser was located in the middle of the short west wall at 0.3 m distance from the wall in the same way they were used during experiments. A Tri-Sense Model #37000-00 instrument was used in the measurements . The air velocity probe 37000-60 had an accuracy of 3% of the reading or 0.1m/s. The two temperature sensors were J-type thermocouples with an accuracy of 0.4C. Checked consistency between temperature sensors was 0.1 C.
Velocity Decay and Temperature Coefcients Measured velocity decay ( ) and temperature ( coefcients for both supply air devices are presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Velocity decay ( ) and temperature ( ) coefcients of the supply air devices.
Supply Device Nozzle Grille
6.3 2.1
6.0 2.0
Velocity proles for nozzle and grille were measured using 10 m/s and 9 m/s initial velocities, respectively. Proles were measured at 1 m distance from the diffuser. Jet proles of nozzle followed exactly the theoretical Gauss error function curve. The grille type used created a highly diverging jet with a 90 degree horizontal expansion angle. The jet was expanded also in the vertical direction, but much less than horizontally. Jet proles for the grille are presented in Figure 3.3.
11
Fig. 3.3: Measured horizontal and vertical velocity proles for the jet at 1 meter distance from the grille. The lines are data tted polynomes.
12
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR CFD SIMULATIONS
4.1 Air Supply Device Inlet Boundary Conditions of the Grille Case Inlet boundary conditions were generated by calculating an empty room with a single supply air device. The results were compared with measured proles at 1 m in front of the grille and with the velocity decay coefcient . The grille was modelled in CFD with control volumes. In the vertical direction the uniform velocity distribution was used. The kinetic energy of turbulence and turbulent kinematic viscosity were adjusted in order to get the correct prole and maximum velocities of the jet. The air velocities near the grille were measured with a Laser-Doppler-Anemometer (LDA) in order to set the boundary conditions at the inlet. Figure 4.1 describes the measurement setup. The air ow through the grille was set to 27 l/s, which was also the ow rate in the experimental room. The angular speed of the fan was adjusted to maintain correct volume ow. The grille was installed at the end of the rectangular duct, which was 2 m long. Velocity components were measured about 20 mm in front of the grille from 66 points over the center line and 15, 30 and 40 mm from the center line in both directions, respectively. The ow was marked with vegetable oil. Small oil drops generated with compressed air were injected into the inlet of the fan.
AC drive
30 Hz
Particle generator
Fan
Electric motor Grill
Ventilation outlet
Compressed air
Fig. 4.1: Measurement setup for the grille boundary conditions.
Aerometrics two-dimensional LDA was used in the measurements. Altogether 1000 samples were taken at each measurement point. This is a sufcient amount for velocity measurement. Figure 4.2 shows the air supply device, measured velocity vectors and velocity vectors used as a boundary condition. The velocities measured with the LDA were averaged in order to get a uniform distribution in the vertical direction. From Figure 4.2 it can be seen that there are three separated jets coming out of the grille. The jet in the middle is very strong but narrow. In a FINFLO test calculation the jet in the middle caused two other jets to unite into a middle jet. The measured prole (Fig. 3.3), however, shows that the real jet prole has two local maximums. In order to get a similar ow pattern in the calculation the average value of the velocities was taken over the area of four rows of inlet cells in the middle. In isothermal CFD simulation the ow rate was 23.8 l/s, which was less than in the measurements (27 l/s). The intensity of turbulence was 10 %, and the ratio between turbulent and physical viscosity was 100. In non-isothermal simulation the ow rate was 27 l/s, which was also used in the measurements. The intensity of the turbulence was 20
13
Fig. 4.2: Velocity vectors used as a boundary condition (top), velocity vectors measured with LDA (middle) and the air supply device (bottom).
14
% in the middle of the grille and 10 % in the two rows on both sides. The ratio between turbulent and physical viscosity was 100 in the middle and 10 000 on the sides. It was found that these two boundary conditions produced almost similar jet proles, see Figure 4.3. Therefore both boundary conditions were regarded as acceptable in the simulations. The proles of the jet 1 m after the supply device are shown in Figure 4.3. The velocity prole computed with the Fluent code in Figure 4.3 was obtained by ne tuning the velocity and turbulence boundary conditions in order to get the correct velocity prole. These boundary conditions were also tested in FINFLO but they did not lead to similar results. Finally it was agreed to use the boundary conditions described above in both FINFLO and Fluent room air ow simulations. The same boundary conditions were used in order to make the results comparable.
Fig. 4.3: Half of the velocity proles of the calculated jet and measured prole.
Inlet Boundary Conditions of the Nozzle Case The velocity prole in the round nozzle was modelled as a simple plug ow. The intensity of turbulence was 4 % and the ratio of turbulent and molecular viscosity was 100. 4.2 Thermal Boundary Conditions The experimental room was thermally isolated from its surroundings to keep the conduction heat ow from the room low. In addition the room was located inside another room which was held at the same temperature as the test room. The room heat balance reveals that some conduction or inltration heat transfer has still taken place. The measured cooling effect of the ventilation air ow was in the nozzle case 85 % of the total electric power supply input and in the grille case 86 %. The total heat ow from the rectangular obstructions on the oor was known from the experiments, see Table 3.1. But what was not known was the distribution between the radiation and convection heat uxes. Initial simulations using the discrete transfer radiation model available in Fluent showed that the radiation part constitutes about 28% of the total heat ux from the obstacles. In these simulations the surface temperature of the obstacles was set to 30.2 C according to the measurements. The emissivity of the obstacles was 0.3 (galvanised steel sheet) and of the room walls 0.87 (plywood). In the nal simulations the constant heat ux boundary condition was used because this option was available in both computing codes. The radiation part was computed with a simple spreadsheet model where the radiation heat ux from the obstacles was assumed to be 28 % of the total heat ux, based on earlier Fluent simulations. This radiation heat ux was distributed over the constant convective heat ux patches on the room walls using the view factor method and assuming no reection. The heat uxes on the patches are shown in Figures 4.4 and 4.5.
15
1.96
2.26
1.85
2.20
1.53
0.84 m
3.61
4.18
3.49
2.35
3.34
0.84 m
4.83
5.12
4.66
3.47
3.47
3.47
0.72 m
3.98
7.38
7.38
3.98
Fig. 4.4: Heat uxes (W/m ) on the boundary condition patches in the grille case. The heat ux on the ceiling was 3.00 W/m and on the obstacles 64.86 W/m2.
2.64 3.05 2.50 2.97 2.07
0.84 m
4.88
5.65
4.72
3.18
4.51
0.84 m
6.52
6.92
6.30
4.69
4.69
4.69
0.72 m
5.38
9.97
9.97
5.38
Fig. 4.5: Heat uxes (W/m ) on the boundary condition patches in the nozzle case. The heat ux on the ceiling was 4.05 W/m and on the obstacles 95.12 W/m .
4.3 Wall Boundary Conditions The basic difference between the two simulations was that in the Fluent simulations the conventional wall functions were used to describe the ow near the walls, whereas in the FINFLO simulations the computations were performed down to the wall. To be able to abandon the wall functions one must use a very dense grid near the surfaces. This means that one must concentrate a large part of the computational cells near the boundaries. This procedure has so far been regarded as too heavy for most practical ventilation simulations. Because the geometry was symmetrical in all cases the symmetry boundary condition was utilised to reduce the number of computational cells.
16
COMPUTATIONAL GRID
5.1 FINFLO Both grids are build with several blocks in order to reduce the number of the grid cells. The space near the walls was covered with 200 mm thick blocks which are connected to others with block faces at a angle to the wall. In that way the dense grid distribution needed near the walls will not affect distribution along the walls. In both cases the cell next to the wall was 0.5 mm. The dimensionless distance dened in equation (2.14) was around 1 in all the walls. The number of grid points was 1 394 112 in the grille case and 1 370 496 in the nozzle case. Figure 5.1 shows the computational grid of the grilles case and Figure 5.2 the nozzle case.
25 22 20 21 23
17 18 16 24 15 9 8 2 12 4 13 11
y
10
x z
Fig. 5.1: Computational grid and the calculation blocks of the room with grilles . Plane plane. Part of the blocks are removed to help visualisation.
is the symmetry
17
27 28
29 26 16
24 11 10 9 8 13 15
17 14
6 5 1
y x z
2 3
18
Fig. 5.2: Computational grid and the calculation blocks of the room with nozzles. Plane plane. Part of the blocks are removed to help visualisation.
is the symmetry
5.2 FLUENT A simple Cartesian grid was a natural choice because the computational domain is simple, see Figures 5.3 and 5.4. The disadvantage of the Cartesian grid is that the concentrations of grid points near the supply air devices and near the walls create unnecessarily small grid spacing in other parts of the domain. The number of grid points was 585 200 in the grille case and 575 824 in the nozzle case. The simulations were done rst for coarser grids of 78 624 and 77 700 points to get an initial guess for the nal doubled grid. To be able to use the logarithmic wall functions correctly the nondimensional distance values near the walls should be more than about 30. This principle leads to very thick near wall cells at low room air velocities. At a typical velocity of 0.1 m/s the cell thickness needs to be more than 120 mm [13]. This would mean poor resolution near the walls for other type of ows except fully developed boundary layers. Therefore the rst cell distance , which is preferred for room heat transfer was chosen to be 20 mm leading to the computations in [14]. This arbitrary choice inherently includes an assumption that the accurate wall friction computation is not crucial for the room air ow.
18
Fig. 5.3: The Cartesian grid of the grille case used in Fluent. Only half of the room is shown because of symmetry.
Fig. 5.4: The Cartesian grid of the nozzle case used in Fluent. Only half of the room is shown because of symmetry.
19
FINFLO RESULTS
6.1 Isothermal Room with Grille Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence The calculation converged within 12 000 calculation cycles. The calculation took 8 days with a Silicon Graphics Origin 2000 computer using two processors. The -norm of the momentum and mass residuals (Fig. 6.1 and 6.2) was already converged within 2 000 cycles. The kinetic energy of turbulence (Fig. 6.3) was not fully converged within 12 000 cycles and from the curve it can be seen that it would take nearly 30 000 cycles before it would be fully converged.
Fig. 6.1: L -norm of the mass residual.
Fig. 6.2: L -norm of the momentum residual in -direction.
20
Fig. 6.3: Convergence of the turbulent kinetic energy.
Description of the Flow Field The supply air devices are located in the front wall at the half room height. The two outlets are on the roof above the obstructions (Fig. 3.2). The supply air spreads strongly near the grille. That is obvious considering the setting of the grille blades. The supply air ow has two local maximum velocities until the ow impinges on the back wall an about the height of the grilles. The ow returns above and below the original jet back to the front wall. The places where the jets impinges on area where the jet from the grille is mixing with the return ow.
Fig. 6.4: Momentum on the symmetry plane and 5 cm from the oor and the back wall, isothermal.
21
Fig. 6.5: Momentum magnitude at 1.2 m from the oor.
Comparison with the Measurements The results are compared with the measurements in Appendix A, Figs. A.1-A.5. The measured velocities on both sides of the symmetry plane are shown in the gures. In the rst three gures the measurements and computations are compared in the direction of the jet in the return ow. In the two other graphs (Figs. A.4 and A.5) the results are plotted normal to the jets. Calculation underpredicts the velocity near the front and back wall and over-predicts in the middle of the room. The velocities in the room are extremely low, which means that the accuracy of the velocity measurement is low. Therefore the results are considered to be acceptable. 6.2 Non-isothermal Room with Grille Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence The convergence of the simulation is very slow. The number of iteration cycles needed was 38 000. The average temperature in the room rose slowly due to the slow air speed. On the second grid level 100 000 cycles were needed before the heat balance was found. The L -norm of the mass residual (Fig. 6.6) and the L -norm of -direction momentum (Fig. 6.7) still oscillate with a quite big amplitude. The average temperature (Fig. 6.8) and the total mass (Fig. 6.9) converge well. Change is just decreasing oscillations at the end. The difference between the in- and outcoming mass uxes is 1.1 %. The kinetic energy of turbulence (Fig. 6.10) converged faster than the other monitored quantities and was fully converged after about 30 000 cycles.
22
Fig. 6.6: L -norm of mass residual .
Fig. 6.7: L -norm of the -wise momentum residual
Fig. 6.8: Convergence of the spatial average temperature.
23
Fig. 6.9: Convergence of the total mass.
Fig. 6.10: Convergence of the total turbulent kinetic energy.
Description of the Flow Field This case is the same as the previous one except that there is heat ux from surfaces. The supply air is colder and thus denser than air in the room. The gravity bends the ow towards the oor so that the jet impinges on the oor instead of the back wall. The area where the ow hits the oor is about 1.5 m from the front wall. The jet is landing partly on the obstructions. The bending of the jets and spreading into two maximum values can are shown. be seen in Figure 6.11, where the momentum isosurfaces Velocity vectors in the symmetry plane and planes 5 cm from the back wall and the oor are shown in Figure 6.12. The corresponding momentum distribution is shown in Figure 6.13. After inpinging on the oor, part of the jet ows to the back wall and part of it returns to the front wall. The ow that returns to the front wall ows, in the case of the middle jet, between the wall and obstruction and engages with the ow caused by the other inlet. In the case of the other jet the ow goes up from the corner of the room. Figure 6.14 shows the temperature distribution in the room. The temperature level is 1 K lower than in the measurements but otherwise quite similar. The turbulent kinetic energy (Fig. 6.15) is largest in the upper parts of the room. From Figure 6.16 the deection and spreading of the jet as well as ows driven by the heat sources can be seen.
24
Fig. 6.11: The momentum isosurface
of the grilles case.
Fig. 6.12: Velocity vectors at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane.
25
Fig. 6.13: Momentum at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane.
Fig. 6.14: Temperature at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane.
26
Fig. 6.15: Ratio of turbulent and molecular viscocity at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane.
Fig. 6.16: Momentum on the plane 1 m from the oor
27
Comparison with the Measurements A comparison with the measured velocities is shown in Appendix A (Figs. A.6-A.10). In the rst three gures the measurements and computations are compared along the returning jet stream and in the last two normal to the jet. Calculation predicts the ow eld better than in the isothermal case. At some points calculation predicts ow eld well. As a whole the calculations predict the oweld quite well. The agreement is good near the front and back wall. 6.3 Isothermal Room with Nozzle Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence The L -norm of the mass residual (Fig. 6.17) is well converged in 8000 cycles and the L -norm of the -wise momentum residual (Fig. 6.18) is still going slightly down. The total mass (Fig. 6.19) seems to be climbing but the real change is small. The kinetic energy of turbulence (Fig. 6.20) is fully converged. The changes in convergence histories are so small that if time had been allowed for convergence of all the values the benet would probably have been small compared with the time used. A Silicon Graphics Origin 2000 computer was used in the calculation. The calculation time using two processors was about the same as in the isothermal grille case.
Fig. 6.17: L -norm of density residual.
Fig. 6.18: L -norm of the -wise momentum residual.
28
Fig. 6.19: Convergence of the total mass.
Description of the Flow Field The supply air nozzles are on the left wall (see Fig. 3.2) and the outlets are located on the ceiling above the obstruction in the middle of the room. The air ows from the nozzle to the opposite wall and then turns down and returns along space between wall and the obstructions. The stagnation point can be seen from velocity vectors in Figure 6.21. The momentum distribution is shown in Figure 6.22. The jet is attached slightly to the ceiling. Between the obstructions the ow velocity is slow, mostly turbulent uctuation. A whole room circulation is formed over the obstructions. The maximum velocity of 0.445 m/s in the occupied zone is about 0.2 m from the oor and about 1.8 m from the left wall and 0.07 m from the front wall. The location is slightly away from the measurement points, so the calculated maximum velocity in chapter 8 is signicantly lower. Turbulent viscosity values (Fig. 6.23) are largest inside the circulation mentioned above.
29
Fig. 6.21: Velocity vectors at a distance of 5 cm from surfaces and on the symmetry plane, isothermal case.
Fig. 6.22: Momentun isosurfaces in planes at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane and planes between the obstructions, isothermal case.
30
Fig. 6.23: Ratio of turbulent viscosity and viscosity isosurface, isothermal case.
Comparison with the Measurements The results are compared with the measurements in Appendix A (Figs. A.11-A.16). In the rst three gures the measurements and computations are compared in lines from the left to the right wall. In the rst gure the velocity is well predicted. The velocities are slightly higher near the front wall and lower near the back wall. Between the obstructions (Figs. A.12 and A.13) the prediction of the velocity is poor. In the last three gures the measured and computed velocities are modied to correspond to each other, as explained in Appendix C. The turbulent intensity is high between the obstructions and the modied velocities predict velocities more accurately (Figs. A.15 and A.16).
31
6.4 Non-isothermal Room with Nozzle Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence The L -norm of the mass residual is well converged after 10 000 cycles and the L -norm of the -wise momentum residual is converged after 15 000 cycles. The kinetic energy of turbulence is fully converged. The Cray T3E supercomputer at the Center for Scientic Computing (CSC) was used in this calculation. Using 32 processors the total time used for the calculation was about 5 days.
Fig. 6.24: L -norm of mass residual.
Fig. 6.25: L -norm of the -wise momentum residual.
32
Description of the Flow Field Velocity vectors on a symmetry plane and on the planes at a distance of 5 cm from the back wall and the oor are shown in Figure 6.27. The momentum distribution is shown in Figure 6.28. The air from the nozzle ows almost directly to the opposite wall. Near the right wall the ow bends slightly downwards and towards the front wall. Then the air ows both along the corridor formed by the front wall and obstructions and between the last two obstructions. The ow velocities between the obstructions are slightly higher than in the isothermal case. The maximum velocity in the occupied zone is 0.514 m/s. It is located 3 m from the left wall, 0.1 m from the front wall and 5 cm from the wall. As in the isothermal case the maximum velocity is signicantly higher than the one taken from the measurement point in Chapter 8. The temperature (Fig. 6.29) is lowest in the jet and near the right wall.
Fig. 6.28: Momentun isosurfaces in planes at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane and planes between the obstructions.
33
Fig. 6.29: Temperature planes.
Comparison with the Measurements The results are compared to the measurements in Appendix A (Figs. A.17-A.19). In this case all the gures are along the jet direction. The rst gure (Fig. A.17) is from the corridor between the front wall and obstructions. The velocity is well predicted. The velocities are slightly higher near the front wall and lower near the back wall than the measurements. Between the obstructions the agreement with the measured velocities is poor (Figs. A.18 and A.19).
34
FLUENT RESULTS
7.1 Isothermal Room with Grille Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence The Fluent manual states that a solution is generally well converged when the normalised residuals are of the order of . The residuals for the last 1000 iterations are shown in Figure 7.1. In addition to the residual check the ow eld was also examined during the iteration to make sure that it remained constant.
- Pressure - U Velocity - V Velocity - W Velocity - Turb Energy - Dissipation
1.000E+00
1.000E-01
1.000E-02
1.000E-03
1.000E-04 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Iterations
Fig. 7.1: Normalized residuals showing the convergence history during the last 1000 iterations.
Description of the Flow The qualitative ow eld is quite similar to the ow eld obtained by the FINFLO code but there are small differences. The vector plot in Figure 7.2 shows that the supply air jets create two stagnation regions on the opposite wall, whereas in the FINFLO simulations three stagnation regions can be discerned (Fig. ??). It seems like the two jets combine into a bigger jet (see also Figure 7.4). This may cause small differences in the return ow near the oor where the maximum velocities are found to be closer to the obstacles (Figure 7.3) than in the FINFLO simulations (Figure 6.4). Comparison with the Measurements The comparison with the measurements is shown in Appendix B. The rst three gures show the velocities in the return ow between the obstacles and the last two gures near the front and back walls. The computed velocities are generally higher than the measured ones. The velocities in the plane at 0.9 m from to the side wall (Figure B.3) are smaller than in the other two planes. This has apparently something to do with the way the jets combine before they hit the back wall, because in the FINFLO simulations the results (Figures A.1- A.3) in the three measuring planes seem to be similar and, therefore, the ows of the three branches of the supply air jets are independent of each other. The measurements seem to support slightly smaller velocities in the back ow near the side wall.
35
6.12E-03 5.91E-03 5.70E-03 5.49E-03 5.28E-03 5.07E-03 4.86E-03 4.65E-03 4.44E-03 4.23E-03 4.02E-03 3.81E-03 3.60E-03 3.39E-03 3.18E-03 2.97E-03 2.76E-03 2.55E-03 2.34E-03 2.13E-03 1.92E-03 1.71E-03 1.50E-03 1.29E-03 1.08E-03 8.73E-04 6.63E-04 4.53E-04 2.43E-04 3.37E-05
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
8.00E-01
7.00E-01
6.00E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
Fig. 7.3: Velocity magnitude at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane. The velocity range is from 0.1 m/s to 1.0 m/s with an interval of 0.1 m/s.
36
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
8.00E-01
7.00E-01
6.00E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
Fig. 7.4: Velocity magnitude at a distance of 1.2 m from the oor.
600
400
200
100
50
10
Fig. 7.5: Effective viscosity divided by molecular viscosity at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane. The range is from 1 to 600 with variable intervals.
37
7.2 Non-isothermal Room with Grille Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence The residuals for the last 1000 iterations are shown in Figure 7.6. The ow eld was also checked during the iteration. Also the extract air temperature was monitored to make sure that the heat balance was achieved.
Pressure U Velocity V Velocity W Velocity Turb Energy Dissipation Enthalpy
1.000E+00
1.000E-01
1.000E-02
1.000E-03
1.000E-04
1.000E-05
1.000E-06 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Iterations
Description of the Flow The cold supply air jet deects downwards because of buoyancy and hits the oor near the middle of the room (see Figure 7.7), further away than in the FINFLO simulations. A large part of the supply air jet seems to drop between the obstacles and only a minor part on the upper surface of the obstacles. This makes the ow quite different from the ow eld obtained in the FINFLO simulations. Comparison with the Measurements The comparison with the measured velocities is shown in Appendix B, Figures B6-B10. The simulated velocities in the rst three Figures B.6- B.8 look very much the same. All these three planes are in the same position relative to the supply air jet. It seems that the ow of the different branches of the jet behave quite independently. This does not happen in the FINFLO simulations, where all three planes have different results. It is interesting to note that the same phenomenon was found also in the isothermal simulations, but now the computing codes have changed places with each other in this respect.
38
2.99E+02 2.98E+02 2.97E+02 2.97E+02 2.96E+02 2.96E+02 2.95E+02 2.95E+02 2.94E+02 2.93E+02 2.93E+02 2.92E+02 2.92E+02 2.91E+02 2.90E+02 2.90E+02 2.89E+02 2.89E+02 2.88E+02 2.87E+02 2.87E+02 2.86E+02 2.86E+02 2.85E+02 2.84E+02 2.84E+02 2.83E+02 2.83E+02 2.82E+02 2.82E+02
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
8.00E-01
7.00E-01
6.00E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
39
2.97E+02
2.96E+02
2.95E+02
2.94E+02
2.93E+02
2.92E+02
Fig. 7.9: Temperature at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane. The temperature range is from 292 to 297 K with an interval of 11 K.
600
400
200
100
50
10
Fig. 7.10: Effective viscosity divided by molecular viscosity at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane. The range is from 1 to 600 with variable intervals.
40
7.3 Isothermal Room with Nozzle Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence The residuals for the last 1000 iterations are shown in Figure 7.11. The pressure residual settles nally to at higher level of than desirable, but the ow pattern did not show any sign of changes.
Pressure U Velocity V Velocity W Velocity Turb Energy Dissipation
1.000E+00
1.000E-01
1.000E-02
1.000E-03
1.000E-04
1.000E-05 0
500
1000
1500
2000
Iterations
Description of the Flow The qualitative ow eld (Figure 7.12) is quite similar to that in the FINFLO simulations (Figure 6.21). The supply air jet hits the right wall and deects from the stagnation point to the rest of the room. The main stream of the back ow can be found near the front wall just above the oor. The ow between the obstacles remains slow. Comparison with the Measurements The comparison with the measured velocities is shown in appendix B, Figures B11-B13. The velocity in the main ow near the front wall is slightly overpredicted except near the right wall, where the measured velocities are higher than the simulated ones.
41
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
8.00E-01
7.00E-01
6.00E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
42
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
8.00E-01
7.00E-01
6.00E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
Fig. 7.14: Velocity magnitude on planes between the obstructions. The velocity range is from 0.1 m/s to 1.0 m/s with an interval of 0.1 m/s.
3.60E-02
3.15E-02
2.70E-02
2.25E-02
1.80E-02
1.35E-02
9.01E-03
4.52E-03
1.80E-05
Fig. 7.15: Effective viscosity divided by molecular viscosity on planes between the obstructions. The range is from 1 to 600 with variable intervals.
43
7.4 Non-isothermal Room with Nozzle Type of Air Supply Devices Convergence The residuals for the last 1000 iterations are shown in Figure 7.16. The ow eld was also checked during the iteration. Also the extract air temperature was monitored to make sure that the heat balance was achieved.
Pressure U Velocity V Velocity W Velocity Turb Energy Dissipation Enthalpy
1.000E+00
1.000E-01
1.000E-02
1.000E-03
1.000E-04
1.000E-05
1.000E-06 0
2000
4000
6000
Iterations
Description of the Flow The main difference compared with the isothermal case is that the jet is not hitting the right wall but is deected towards the symmetry plane between the last two obstacles (Fig. 7.17). It seems like the warm convective air ow from the rightmost obstacle hits the ceiling and it is strong enough to turn the supply air jet leftwards. The behaviour of the tail of the jet is very different from the FINFLO simulations, where the jet hits the back wall in the right corner (Figure 6.27). The difference between the two simulations can be understood by the sensitive and unstable nature of the ow in the later stages of the jet, where buoyancy forces and inertia forces are of the same magnitude. Comparison with the Measurements The measured velocities in Appendix B, Figures B14-B16, do not differ much from the velocities of the isothermal case. The simulated velocities are again in the same range but the simulated velocities have their maximum in the left part of the room whereas the measured velocities are highest in the right part of the room.
44
Fig. 7.17: Velocity vectors at 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane.
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
8.00E-01
7.00E-01
6.00E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
Fig. 7.18: Velocity magnitude at 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane. The velocity range is from 0.1 m/, to 1.0 m/s, with an interval of 0.1 m/s.
45
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
8.00E-01
7.00E-01
6.00E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E-01
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
Fig. 7.19: Velocity magnitude on planes between the obstructions. The velocity range is from 0.1 m/s to 1.0 m/s, with an interval of 0.1 m/s.
3.02E+02
3.01E+02
3.00E+02
2.99E+02
2.98E+02
2.97E+02
Fig. 7.20: Temperature at a distance of 5 cm from the walls and on the symmetry plane. The temperature range is from 297 to 302 K, with an interval of 1 K.
46
3.02E+02
3.01E+02
3.00E+02
2.99E+02
2.98E+02
2.97E+02
Fig. 7.21: Temperature on planes between the obstructions. The temperature range is from 297 to 302 K, with an interval of 1 K.
2000
1000
5000
200
100
50
Fig. 7.22: Effective viscosity divided by molecular viscosity on planes between the obstructions. The range is from 1 to 600 with variable intervals.
47
COMPARISON OF GLOBAL RESULTS
In this section the comparison between measurements and different computational methods is made based on global parameters within the occupied zone. The computational results are taken only from the measurement locations. The parameters used are the average, maximum and minimum velocities, the turbulence intensity, the spatial temperature standard deviation, the maximum temperature difference and the heat removal efciency dened as (8.1) where , and are the air average temperatures at the exhaust, supply and occupied zone. An additional comparison is made using modied average velocities. The modied velocity is an attempt to make measurement and numerical results comparable by compensating for the different treatment of the turbulence in the methods. This problem is addressed by Koskela et al. [15] and the equations of the approach used here are explained in Appendix C. In a recent paper [16] they suggested a correction for the computed velocities to make them comparable with the omnidirectional results. Average Velocity Grilles: The results from the different simulations were close to each other in an isothermal situation. The FINFLO results were equal to the measured results also in a nonisothermal situation, but Fluent gave twice the measured velocity level. Nozzles: The Fluent results were close to the measured results, but now FINFLO gave much lower velocities both in isothermal and non-isothermal situations.
Table 8.1: Comparison of global results, occupied zone average velocity, [m/s]
Method Measured FINFLO FLUENT
Grille Empty 0.042 0.059
Isothermal 0.032 0.053 0.046
Nonisoth. 0.070 0.076 0.137
Nozzle Isothermal 0.242 0.101 0.276
Nonisoth. 0.282 0.141 0.274
Modied Average Velocity The modication according to Appendix C increased the computational values more than the measured values. However, an important feature was that it increased the FINFLO results for the nozzles, which were out of the class, close to the level of the other methods. Thus it seems that, at least for computational results, the modied velocity gives a more realistic picture of the total kinetic energy level within the room.
Table 8.2: Comparison of global results, modied occupied zone average velocity, [m/s]
Isothermal 0.046 0.071 0.078
Nonisoth. 0.079 0.130 0.190
Nonisoth. 0.301 0.262 0.355
48
Corrected Average Velocity The empirical corrected velocities suggested by Koskela et al. [16] for the numerical results were 4 to 6 percent lower than the theoretical modied velocities. As the measured omnidirectional velocities are not modied in this method the relationship between the measured and the calculated average velocities is the same as with modied velocities. Also the conclusions are the same.
Table 8.3: Comparison of global results, corrected occupied zone average velocity, [m/s]
Isothermal 0.032 0.068 0.073
Nonisoth. 0.070 0.121 0.180
Nonisoth. 0.282 0.246 0.339
Maximum Velocity The maximum velocities followed the same trend as the average velocities. Fluent overestimated velocities, while FINFLO gave lower velocities than the measured ones. Grilles: In the isothermal situation the FINFLO results agreed with the measurements in an empty room, but in the obstructed room both computational methods gave slightly higher maximum velocities than were measured. In the nonisothermal situation the FINFLO maximum velocity was smaller than measured, but Fluent gave a higher maximum velocity. Nozzles: The Fluent results were close, within 10-18 %, to the measurement results, but FINFLO gave much lower velocities especially in isothermal but also in nonisothermal situations.
Table 8.4: Comparison of global results, occupied zone maximum velocity, [m/s]
Isothermal 0.076 0.111 0.112
Nonisoth. 0.223 0.185 0.291
Nonisoth. 0.491 0.464 0.580
Turbulence Intensity The comparison of turbulence intensities from different methods is shown in Table 8.6. However, one must keep in mind that the comparison of the turbulence intensities from the measurements and computations is articial, because their physical meaning is different [15]. Thus, the numerical turbulence values cannot be used for example for the calculation of comfort conditions. The extremely high turbulence values in the FINFLO results shows that most of the total kinetic energy in the computation was generated through the turbulence and not the mean ow.
49
Table 8.5: Comparison of global results, occupied zone average turbulence intensity, [%]
Grille Empty 96 99
Isothermal 82 61 106
Nonisoth. 74 136 73
Nozzle Isothermal 35 914 81
Nonisoth. 38 539 68
Temperature Deviation and Maximum Temperature Difference The results of spatial temperature standard deviations from different methods are shown in Table 8.6. With grilles all the methods gave almost similar values, while with the nozzles the computational methods gave higher temperature nonuniformity than the measurements.
Table 8.6: Comparison of global results, an occupied zone spatial temperature standard deviation, [ ]
Grille Empty 0.253
Isothermal 0.245
Nonisoth. 0.376 0.521 0.455
Nozzle Isothermal 0.195
Nonisoth. 0.439 0.964 0.735
The maximum temperature differences from different methods were closer to each other than one could have expected from the standard deviations. Only the FINFLO results for the nozzles differ clearly from the others. The maximum temperature difference values are presented in Table 8.7.
Table 8.7: Comparison of global results, occupied zone maximum temperature difference, [ ]
Grille Empty 1.160
Isothermal 0.940
Nonisoth. 1.580 1.650 1.590
Nozzle Isothermal 0.860
Nonisoth. 2.250 3.446 2.510
Heat Removal Efciency The efciency values from different methods were close to each other. However, the numerical methods gave lower efciencies with both air distribution methods than those measured.
Table 8.8: Comparison of global results, heat removal efciency
Grille Nonisoth. 1.170 1.133 1.077
Nozzle Nonisoth. 1.020 0.944 0.925
50
CONCLUSIONS
Air velocity and temperature measurements in a small scale industrial hall were compared with the simulations that were performed using two different computing codes. The simulations using the commercial Fluent code with a high-Reynolds number model and wall functions represent the usual practise among ventilation design, whereas the simulations with the university code FINFLO represent a more scientic approach without using the wall functions. The latter practise necessitates a low-Reynolds number turbulence model as well as a much ner computing mesh near the walls to capture the actual wall boundary layers. In the high-Reynolds number model simulations the rst cell height was selected to be out of the actual operating range of the turbulence model in order to get better resolution near the heating elements. Two different air supply arrangements with grille or nozzle types of air terminal devices were studied, both with isothermal and nonisothermal boundary conditions. The ow boundary conditions were difcult to set accurately at the supply air grille because it was not possible to describe the small details of the grille in the computational geometry. Therefore, the ow in front of the grille was separately measured using LaserDoppler anemometry. Still it was necessary to simplify the measured ow eld to be able to use it as a boundary condition in the simulations. The turbulence quantities were manipulated in order to adjust the jet prole similar to the measurements. The supply air terminal boundary conditions remain one of the main difculties in the room air ow simulations. Local grid renement near the supply air device is perhaps necessary. The measured thermal boundary conditions were much better known than in typical design simulations. Still there was about 15 % uncertainty of the total room heat balance because of leakage or heat conduction in the test room. The radiation heat transfer was evaluated before the simulations by using a simple spreadsheet calculation procedure and equivalent convection heat ux was set as a boundary condition. Symmetry was utilised in the simulations but the measurements showed that ow was not fully symmetric in reality. The measured temperature distribution was generally well predicted but there were bigger differences in the air velocity. The two simulation methods gave different quantitative results. Better results were achieved either with the low-Reynolds number code or with the high Reynolds number code, depending on the case. The air velocities with the high Reynolds number code were consistently higher than the measured ones and therefore these results were on the safe side considering the draught risk. The low-Reynolds number simulations predicted too low velocities in some of the cases. In some parts of the room even the qualitative air ow pattern was different in the two simulations, most notably in the regions where the buoyancy forces and the inertia forces of the supply air jet are of the same magnitude and the supply air jet is deecting near the solid boundaries. In those parts of the ow the low-Reynolds number model seems to perform better, probably because the natural convection boundary layer ow is better resolved. It turned out to be difcult to make accurate comparisons with the measurements because the comfort oriented, omnidirectional air speed measurements were not directly comparable with the air velocity computed with the turbulence models. One possibility is to use an articial, modied velocity for comparison instead of the actual velocity. This method has been used in this study and it seems that especially in low speed areas the correspondence between the measured and calculated speeds becomes better by using modied velocity for comparison.
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Lemaire, A. D. (Ed.), Room Air and Contaminant Flow, Evaluation of Computational Methods. Subtask-1 Summary Report of the IEA Annex 20: AirFlow Patterns within Buildings., TNO, Delft, 1993. ISBN 9067432989. [2] Heiselberg, P., Murakami, S., and Roulet, C.-A., IEA Annex 26: Energy efcient ventilation of large enclosures, Ventilation of large spaces in buildings, analysis and prediction techniques, Aalborg University, Aalborg, 1998. ISSN 13957953 R9803. [3] Fluent Incorporated, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA, FLUENT 4.4 Users Guide, 1997. [4] FINFLO User Manual version 2.2, 1997. [5] Chien, K.-Y., Predictions of Channel and Boundary-Layer Flows with a LowReynolds-Number Turbulence Model, AIAA Journal, Vol. 20, Jan 1982, pp. 3338. [6] Siikonen, T., An Application of Roes Flux-Difference Splitting for the Turbulence Model, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 21, No. 11, 1995, pp. 10171039. [7] Hirsch, C., Computational Methods for Inviscid and Viscous Flows, Vol. 2 of Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1990. ISBN 0471923516. [8] Siikonen, T., Laskennallisen virtausmekaniikan ja l mmonsiirron jatkoa opintojakso, Teknillinen korkeakoulu, Sovelletun termodynamiikan laboratorio, Espoo, 1998. [9] Rahman, M. and Rautaheimo, P., A Modication for an Explicit Algebraic Stress Model, Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, 1998. ISBN 9512240211. [10] Launder, B. E. and Spalding, B., The numerical computation of turbulent ows, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, Vol. 3, 1974, pp. 269289. [11] Wu, G., Christianson, L., Zhang, J., and Riskowski, G., Adjustable Dimension Room Ventilation Simulator for Room Air and Air Contaminant Distribution Modeling, in Proceedings of Indoor Air 90 Conference, 1990. [12] Kovanen, K., Suuntariippumaton termistorianemometri, Masters thesis, Helsingin yliopisto, 1986. [13] Heikkinen, J., Numerical prediction of room air ows (In Finnish). VTT Research Reports 705., Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, 1990. [14] Chen, Q., Comparison of different k-e models for indoor air computations, Numerical heat transfer, Vol. Part B, No. 28, 1995, pp. 728734. [15] Koskela, H., Niemel , R., Hautalampi, T., Heikkinen, J., and Collineau, S., Use a of ultrasonic anemometer for characterising room air ows, in Proceedings of the Indoor Air Conference, (Nagoya, Japan), pp. 845850, July 1996. [16] Koskela, H., Heikkinen, J., Niemel , R., and Hautalampi, T., Turbulence correca tion for thermal comfort calculation, Building and Environment, Vol 36, 2001, pp. 247-255.
52
THE VELOCITY GRAPHS, FINFLO RESULTS
Fig. A.1: Velocity in a plane 3.3 m from the right wall of the isothermal room with the grilles.
53
Fig. A.4: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the isothermal room with the grilles.
Fig. A.5: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the back wall of the isothermal room with the grilles.
54
Fig. A.6: Velocity in a plane 3.3 m from the right wall of the room with the grilles.
55
Fig. A.9: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the room with the grilles.
Fig. A.10: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the back wall of the room with the grilles.
56
0,45 0,40 0,35

air speed, m/s
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
0,30 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 distance from the left wall, m
Fig. A.11: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the isothermal room with the nozzles.
0,35 0,30 h = 0.05 m

air speed, m/s
0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 distance from the left wall, m
h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
0,40 0,35 0,30 h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 distance from the left wall, m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
air speed, m/s
57
0,45 0,40
modified air speed, m/s
0,35 0,30 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 distance from the left wall, m
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
Fig. A.14: Modied velocity plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the isothermal room with the nozzles.
0,35
0,30 h = 0.05 m 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 distance from the left wall, m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
Fig. A.15: Modied velocity in a plane 1.05 m from the front wall of the isothermal room with the nozzles.
0,40 0,35
0,30 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 distance from the left wall, m
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
Fig. A.16: Modied velocity in a plane 1.8 m from the front wall of the isothermal room with the nozzles.
58
Fig. A.17: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the room with the nozzles.
59
THE VELOCITY GRAPHS, FLUENT RESULTS
0,12 0,10
air speed, m/s
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
0,08 0,06 0,04 0,02 0,00 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 distance from the front wall, m
Fig. B.1: Velocity in a plane 3.3 m from the right wall of the isothermal room with the grilles.
0,12 0,10
air speed, m/s
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
0,12 0,10
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
air speed, m/s
60
0,10 0,09 0,08

air speed, m/s
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
0,07 0,06 0,05 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 distance from the left wall, m
Fig. B.4: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the isothermal room with the grilles.
0,08 0,07 0,06 h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m 0,05 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 distance from the left wall, m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
air speed, m/s
Fig. B.5: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the back wall of the isothermal room with the grilles.
61
0,35 0,30 h = 0.05 m

air speed, m/s
0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 distance from the front wall, m
h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
Fig. B.6: Velocity in a plane 3.3 m from the right wall of the non-isothermal room with the grilles.
0,30 0,25
air speed, m/s
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
0,30 0,25
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
air speed, m/s
62
0,35 0,30 h = 0.05 m

air speed, m/s
h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
Fig. B.9: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the non-isothermal room with the grilles.
0,30 0,25
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
air speed, m/s
0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 distance from the left wall, m
Fig. B.10: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the back wall of the non-isothermal room with the grilles.
63
0,70 0,60 h = 0.05 m

air speed, m/s
0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 y, m 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0
h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
Fig. B.11: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the isothermal room with the nozzles.
0,60 0,50
air speed, m/s
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 y, m 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0
0,60 0,50
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
air speed, m/s
0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 y, m 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0
64
0,70 0,60 h = 0.05 m

air speed, m/s
h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
Fig. B.14: Velocity in a plane 0.3 m from the front wall of the non-isothermal room with the nozzles.
0,60 0,50
air speed, m/s
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
0,60 0,50
h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m h = 0.05 m h = 0.33 m h = 0.51 m
air speed, m/s
65
MODIFIED AIR SPEED
A common method to measure air velocities in ventilated rooms is to use an omnidirectional hot sphere anemometer. This method was originally designed for thermal comfort analysis and therefore the sensor is insensitive for the direction of the air ow. At each time instant the instrument is measuring the length of the instantaneous velocity vector. Using Reynolds averaging for the turbulent ow this instantaneous air speed can be written as
(C.1)
The measuring time is typically 1 - 3 minutes to obtain the average speed of sampled air speeds
(C.2)
where the subscript od refers to the omnidirectional sensor. Due to turbulence uctuations this mean air speed is apparently larger than the mean velocity magnitude
(C.3)
which is obtained by numerical simulations or by measuring the individual velocity components separately. Therefore we must seek methods to compare the measured mean air speed and the computed mean velocity magnitude . One possibility is to compute an articial, modied speed from both the measurements and the simulations. In IEA Annex 20 project [1] the mean value of the square of the instantaneous air speed was selected for such an articial quantity. From the simulations it can be calculated directly from equation C.1
(C.4)
where is the kinetic energy of turbulence and the overbar denotes time averaging. In the measurements the root mean square of the instantaneous air speed serves as an indicator of turbulence. Its square can be written as
(C.5)
Now we are able to write the equation for the modied air speed from the measurements
and from the simulations
(C.6)
(C.7)
These are the modied velocities that are comparable between the omnidirectional measurements and the CFD-simulations. One would be tempted to construct a turbulence correction for the omnidirectional air speeds to make them comparable with the simulated velocity magnitudes. But it turns out to be inaccurate because the only available turbulence quantity, the root mean square of velocity, is not enough to make general corrections. Correction curves using certain assumptions and supporting experimental data on this subject are provided by Koskela et al. [15]. However, the simulated velocities can be quite well corrected to correspond the omnidirectional measurements [16].
66

Numerical and Experimental Studies On Room Air Flow: Report 132

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Numerical and Experimental Studies On Room Air Flow: Report 132

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Helsinki University of Technology. Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics.

Teknillinen korkeakoulu. Sovelletun termodynamiikan laboratorio. Espoo 2001, FINLAND

NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON ROOM AIR FLOW

Halton Group Ltd.

Helsinki University of Technology. Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics.

NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON ROOM AIR FLOW

Halton Group Ltd.

Helsinki University of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics

Teknillinen korkeakoulu Konetekniikan osasto Sovelletun termodynamiikan laboratorio

in the -direction; cell face area

transposition left side right side uctuating component

turbulent -component normal component

where the unknows are

. The inviscid uxes are

For the Reynolds stresses Boussinesqs approximation

is an empirical coefcient. The source term of Chiens model is

where the turbulence Reynoldss number is dened as

where the buoyancy production term is

Fig. 3.1: Experimental room layout.

SUPPLY METHOD NOZZLE GRILLE

CASE Isothermal Nonisothermal Isothermal Nonisothermal

[m /s] 0.102 0.102 0.081 0.081

[ C] 0.1 20.1 0.2 12.3

Supply Device Nozzle Grille

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR CFD SIMULATIONS

Electric motor Grill

Fig. 4.1: Measurement setup for the grille boundary conditions.

Fig. 6.1: L -norm of the mass residual.

Fig. 6.2: L -norm of the momentum residual in -direction.

Fig. 6.3: Convergence of the turbulent kinetic energy.

Fig. 6.5: Momentum magnitude at 1.2 m from the oor.

Fig. 6.6: L -norm of mass residual .

Fig. 6.7: L -norm of the -wise momentum residual

Fig. 6.8: Convergence of the spatial average temperature.

Fig. 6.9: Convergence of the total mass.

Fig. 6.10: Convergence of the total turbulent kinetic energy.

Fig. 6.11: The momentum isosurface

of the grilles case.

Fig. 6.16: Momentum on the plane 1 m from the oor

Fig. 6.17: L -norm of density residual.

Fig. 6.18: L -norm of the -wise momentum residual.

Fig. 6.19: Convergence of the total mass.

Fig. 6.20: Convergence of the turbulent kinetic energy.

Fig. 6.24: L -norm of mass residual.

Fig. 6.25: L -norm of the -wise momentum residual.

Fig. 6.26: Convergence of the turbulent kinetic energy.

Fig. 6.29: Temperature planes.

- Pressure - U Velocity - V Velocity - W Velocity - Turb Energy - Dissipation

Fig. 7.4: Velocity magnitude at a distance of 1.2 m from the oor.

Pressure U Velocity V Velocity W Velocity Turb Energy Dissipation

COMPARISON OF GLOBAL RESULTS

Method Measured FINFLO FLUENT

Grille Empty 0.042 0.059

Isothermal 0.032 0.053 0.046

Nonisoth. 0.070 0.076 0.137

Nozzle Isothermal 0.242 0.101 0.276

Nonisoth. 0.282 0.141 0.274

Method Measured FINFLO FLUENT

Grille Empty 0.066 0.112

Isothermal 0.046 0.071 0.078

Nonisoth. 0.079 0.130 0.190

Nozzle Isothermal 0.255 0.200 0.342

Nonisoth. 0.301 0.262 0.355