MEC330 Experiments and modelling (Fluids)

Fluids assignment
Experimental measurement and CFD report Words limit: 1050 (excluding tables, figures and equations) Marks: 60/200 Deadline: Fri 29th Nov 2013 - Week 9 (one hard copy to the General Office by 4 pm and PDF copy on MOLE by 23:59). You will submit a short report on the conical diffuser exercise that will include the lab analysis work and CFD analysis. The suggested structure of the report is given below. Make your report as clear and concise as possible, and with no more than 1050 words in the main text. The full report should not exceed 8 pages of one side A4, including all tables, figures and equations. Report layout: - Background information on the application: the diffuser - Experimental method - Numerical method - Results - Discussion and conclusions 1. Background information on the application: the diffuser (< 150 words) Briefly explain the physical problem being investigated with examples of application areas and the diffuser role in these applications 2. Experimental method (< 200 words) Briefly explain the experimental set-up and procedure making good use of pictures, sketches and lists/bullet points 4. Numerical method (< 200 words) As part of the numerical method answer the following questions: (a) What are the mathematical model and intrinsic fundamental physical principles upon which the description of your problem (diffuser simulation) is based? (b) Describe how the partial differential equations are solved numerically in the diffuser model? 5. Results (< 250 words) As part of your CFD results, describe and show relevant results and figures for those factors affecting solution accuracy, including: (a) Residual history, fluid variable history and convergence criteria

(b) How mesh quality may affect solution accuracy, including mesh quality near the wall boundary, mesh aspect ratio, mesh density and role of y+ Upon collecting and sharing experimental and computational data from all the groups for different cone angles and Reynolds numbers: (a) Compare in a graph PRCs obtained from theory, experiment and modelling against the diffuser angles and Reynolds numbers (b) Describe your results, bringing out the main features Note on experimental data/graphs: any experimentally derived result should always be quoted with an accuracy e.g. 10 +/-1 mm. This provides the reader with essential information in interpreting the results. People often mistake the use of accuracy as an indication of the quality of the data. For example they feel that presenting the result 10 +/- 5 mm indicates that the data is of inferior quality. This is wrong, it is much better by far, to report 10 +/- 5 mm as opposed to 10 mm. A modeller is certainly more comfortable when he sees an experimental result quoted with an accuracy, otherwise the data would have unknown uncertainties which makes the comparison meaningless. During your experiment make a critical appraisal of the apparatus, looking for sources of error, and make a note of them. Then examine this list and attempt to quantify the errors. Take the significant errors and determine the accuracy of your readings. 6. Discussion and conclusions (< 250 words) As part of the discussion of the results answer the following question. 1) Does the Reynolds number have any influence on the experimental and theoretical PRC? 2) List and briefly explain the main sources of error in your experimental measurements. Your description should indicate their magnitude 3) Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the three approaches explained in the course for the diffuser problem. Assessment criteria - Quality of writing; e.g. clarity, conciseness /10 marks; - Engineering science understanding and analysis /20 marks; - Significance of discussion/conclusions /20 marks; - Presentation style; e.g. presentation of figures and graphs /10 marks. Total marks: 60 marks