VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec.

14-15

APPLICATION OF CFD FOR DETERMINATION OF PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

USING ANSYS FLOTRAN - A PARAMETRIC STUDY
+ ++ +++
Satyen Ramani , P.N.Godbole , L.M.Gupta
Department of Applied Mechanics,
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, South Ambazari Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra.
Pin 440010 (India).
satyen.civilengg@gmail.com;pngodbole123@ymail.com;
lmgupta_vrce@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT
Extension of the effort to demonstrate application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) technique to
obtain Pressure Coefficients on a single roof gabled like closed structure using ANSYS-Flotran module,
proves a necessity to understand influence of various associated parameters. In pre-study kind of it,
graphically obtained results are compared with data obtained from full-scale study as well with
computational results published in literature to validate modeling methods and components. Collectively,
computational results are absolutely sensitive to various parameters like meshing size & patterns,
application of boundary conditions, turbulence models, domain size used to model flow environment like
height of domain, upstream length L 1(distance between inlet plane to windward face),downstream length
L2(distance between leeward face to outlet plane). Using validated procedures and input parameters
conducted before, parametric study is carried out to present the influence of geometrical parameters like
fluid domain sizes on pressure coefficient prediction. At the end, concluding remarks derived, provide the
important guidelines for fixing up the fluid domain size for 2-D simulation in ANSYS FLOTRAN.

Keywords: CFD, 2-D Simulation, ANSYS Flotran, Gabbled roof building,

1 INTRODUCTION

It has been widely accepted that Computational Fluid Dynamics is the great tool to understand and unveil
the various complex phenomena associated with different scientific & engineering problems. Extreme
advantages from CFD with the advancement in computing science after discovery of large data handling
& processing facilities have proven great treasures to various engineers & scientists. From its early
development in 1980-1990, it was cleared that the technique used to solve aerodynamics problem can be
applied to bluff bodies as well [1]. Many researchers worked and proved the applicability to 2-D and 3-D
simulation bluff body aerodynamic problems [2-5].
Full scale studies required to understand more complex problems along with the need of validation
requirements of numerically obtained data has its own role in engineering problems. Various full scale
studies were also conducted with a view to produce standard documents and guidelines by Hoxey et al.
and others[6-11].This paper demonstrates the application of powerful CFD to a simplest 2-D problem for
calculation of pressure co-efficient on external surfaces subjected to wind flow. Widely speaking,
Numerical modeling for CFD study using FEM/CVM/CV-FEM/ FDM based software/code has numerous
parameters associated with it and these are complexly integrated and interdependent - which mainly
governs the quality of output from it. One must have an idea about their influences on quality of result. In
preliminary studies, results obtained for numerical modeling of 2-D single roof gabled building are
compared with literature published by P.J.Oliveira & B.A.Younis[4] which also includes full-scale study
results from Hoxey and Moran [7], in a view to validate the procedures followed while modeling in ANSYS
FLOTRAN. During this process, proper care has been taken to minimize the parametric influences due to
meshing pattern, turbulence model, and boundary conditions by various studies and by following some of
known guidelines from literature. In this extension, parametric study is carried out to understand the
influence of domain sizes on pressure coefficient results from ANSYS FLOTRAN. At the end, important
observations are derived which could prove as guideline to fix the fluid domain sizes for alike problems
when modelled in ANSYS FLOTRAN.

181
 VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

2 OVERVIEW TO PRELIMINARY STUDY

2.1 Problem Statement

Figure 1: Schematic Representation of Numerical Model Geometry

A schematic representation of a glasshouse tested on full-scale by Hoxey & Moran [7] and studied
numerically by Oliveira & Younis [4] is given in Figure 1 which also shows the coordination system used
and defines the principal dimensions. The glasshouse (referred to a G08 in the original study [7]) is 22.6
m long (L) and has a span (S) of 7.0 m. The eaves are at a height (H) of 4.15 m and the ridge height (H')
0
is 5.86 m with roof pitch of 27 .

2.2 Numerical study by Oliveira et al.[4] and Experimental Study[7]

Figure 2 shows the comparison of experimental data obtained for full scale study and result obtained from
2-D study by Oliveira et al. From set of repetitive studies, author has demonstrated the parametric
influences of meshing pattern, turbulence model, height of fluid domain and fluid domain upstream length
L1. With meshing pattern having minimum mesh dimensions - x & y as 0.07885 & 0.0664 (total
number of control volume = 18980), two sets of study has been done to understand influence of L1 on H
and vice versa. In first study, L1 kept constant as 5.06H and PCOE (Pressure Coefficient) values are
compared against Y= 5.0H, Y=9.6H & Y=14.3H, while in second study PCOE values are compared
against L1=5.1H, L1= 14.7H & L1= 25.1H with Y=10H as constant. For these two studies, mainly a code
written based on CVM which contains second order Reynolds's Stress Transport (RST) model is used.
They suggested L1=15H and Y=15H as the sufficient to get the PCOE prediction independent to fluid
domain.

2.3 ANSYS Flotran Simulation

2-D steady state, incompressible & turbulent analysis with SIMPLEN algorithm is used to simulate
problem with Finite Element Method based ANSYS module named Flotran. [12, 13] Only fluid containing
domain subtracting rigid body is modeled with FLUID 141 type elements. Further to this, van driest model
is used to consider near wall effect near rigid boundaries. Meshing optimization and influence is required
a study against Oliveira et al.'s result as the basic code for simulation is different. ANSYS Flotran has
limited sets of turbulence models which are of a first order only.[13,14] These also necessitate for study of
turbulence model influence as well the validity of boundary conditions & the overall procedure as a whole.
Atmospheric boundary layer profile of steady wind with log law which gives Vx = 9.02m/s at ridge height is
used in overall study. Boundary conditions at inlet plane is Vy=0 and Vx is given as log profile, at outlet
plan only P=0 is given and all the rigid boundaries at bottom are kept with Vx & Vy =0. In Case A type
study structural boundary assignment with only Vx =0 was compared against Vx=Vy=0. For preliminary
starting, for fixing up dimensions, some of guidelines presented by Oliveira [4] are followed.

Two study cases (case-A & case-B) were taken to understand the influence of meshing patterns and to
check the suitability of guidelines given by Oliveira et al. when modeling in ANSYS FLOTRAN. Further
repetitive studies to understand the influences of various other parameters like choice of turbulence
model and the boundary condition application were studied. General observations on these was derived

182
 VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

and decided to use for the parametric study which will draw light on the effects of fluid domain dimensions
on PCOE distribution on WW, LW and roof for selected gabbled roof type low rise structure with almost
no permeability.

Details of study type case A & case B used in Preliminary study [12]:

Case-A Y= 10H, L1=16.265 H & L2= 16.265H

Case-B Y= 10H, L1=5.06 H & L2= 16.265H

3 PARAMETRIC STUDY

After the validation of the ANSYS simulation carried out in preliminary study, the further extension of work
is in a view to assess the effects of L1, L2 and Y on the final PCOE results and its quality. For this
purpose, the general settings and applied B.C. in FLOTRAN are similar to those explained in Sec. 1.3.
Simulation is carried out with standard k- models only as it was proven sufficient from preliminary study.
Mesh-2 type medium fine mesh pattern is used as it has been derived in preliminary study. Observations
regarding boundary condition from preliminary study [12] are also applied while conducting the parametric
study in this paper. Convergence is considered to be sufficient when the PCOE max. value gets the
-4 -3
accuracy of order 10 and min. value gets the accuracy of order 10 .This simulation has sub studies as
mentioned below:

SimulationS1 (Y=10H constant.L1=L2=5.06H, 14.7H, 16.265H)

SimulationS2 (L1=14.7H & Y=10H constant. L2=8H, 12H, 14.7H, 20H)

SimulationS3 (L1=5.06H&Y=10H constant. L2=5H,7H,8H,10H,12H,16.265H,20H)

SimulationS4 (L1=14.7H, L2=14.7H constant. Y= 7H, 10H, 15H)

SimulationS5 (L1=5.06H, L2=12H constant. Y=7H, 10H, 12H)

3.1 Simulation Type S-1 (Y=10H & L1=L2 varies)

The overall effects of the size of fluid domain on solution quality and PCOE results have been studied.
Three different models having L1=L2 and Y=10H are studied as tabulated in Table 1.The results are
compared with Oliveira et al.'s data & experimental data by taking assumption that the Oliveira et al.
might have used L1=L2 philosophy for his modeling. Figure 3 shows this comparison of PCOE values for
WW (Windward Wall), LW (Leeward Wall) & roof. Details of model geometry, meshing and other typical
remarks are noted in Table 1 & Table 2.

3.2 Simulation Type S-2 (L1=14.7H & Y=10H constant while L2 varies)

In this sub-study, no of different models having different downstream length L 2 for constant L1=14.7H and
Y=10H have been simulated in ANSYS FLOTRAN to understand the effect of downstream dimension on
results of PCOE. Geometric and Meshing details of all the test models are given in Table 1. The minimum
Lengths x on WW is same for all models i.e. 0.04699 m. Table 2 represents the typical remarks about
the models. The velocity vector plots and the PCOE results are studied. Results of PCOE results are
plotted in Figure 4.

3.3 Simulation Type S-3 (L1=5.06H & Y=10H constant while L2 varies)

Similar to simulation-2 in this sub-study, no of different models having different downstream length L 2 for
constant L1 & Y value, only difference is that the upstream dimension is taken almost 1/3 of that is taken
in S-2. Models having L1=5.06H and Y=10H have been simulated in ANSYS FLOTRAN to understand the
effect of downstream dimension on results of PCOE when upstream length is small. Geometric and

183
 VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

Meshing details of all the models are given in Table 1. The minimum Lengths x on WW is same for all
models i.e. 0.04556 m. Table 2 represents the typical remarks about the models. The velocity vector plots
and the PCOE results are studied. Results of PCOE distribution are plotted in Figure 5.

3.4 Simulation Type S-4 (L1= L2=14.7H and Y varies)

The main purpose of this sub-study is to understand the influence of domain height on the PCOE results.
For this different models having L1=L2= 14.7H and different domain height Y= 7H, 10H and 15H are
analyzed in ANSYS to study the variation in WW,LL and roof PCOE. Table 1 gives the geometric and
meshing details of various models. Table 2 shows the typical remarks about the models. Figure 6 is the
representation of PCOE distribution for each model.

3.5 Simulation Type S-5 (L1= 5H, L2=12H and Y varies)

To understand the influence of domain height on the PCOE results, different models having L 1=5.06H,L2=
12H and different domain height Y= 7H, 10H and 12H are analyzed in ANSYS to capture the variation in
WW,LL and roof PCOE. Table 1 gives the geometric and meshing details of various models considered
with Table 2 highlights the special remarks about them. The minimum Lengths x on WW is same for all
models i.e. 0.04556 m. Variation of PCOE results with different Y for L1=5.06H is presented in Figure 7.

4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this study, PCOE variations on WW, LW & roof due to changes in domain dimensions like L 1, L2 and Y
is studied. The quality of the result is measured against the requirement of any relaxation used in ANSYS
FLOTRAN simulation analysis. It is been considered of lower quality if the analysis of numerical
simulation requires any relaxation value while solving the problem, even though the PCOE value may be
found closer to the exp. data or so. Important observations from study of Figures 3-7 are as follows:-

a. L1=L2=14.7H & L1=L2=16.265H are giving almost same distribution for Y=10H hence L 1=14.7H can be
used for parametric study.
b. Downstream dimension mainly have tendency to influence the roof PCOE distribution mildly whereas
critically influence the LW PCOE values for constant L1 & Y.

c. M14H12H10H with L1=14H, L2=12H & Y=10H is suggested as a good option for modeling the domain
with different L1 & L2.

d. As the height of domain (Y) increases for L1=L2, the distribution on WW, roof & LW decreases. It is
suggested 12m-13m height for L1= L2 = 14.7H for better results.

e. In Figure 7, unlike the Figure 6, increment of Y increases the pressure values on WW side while
decreases the results on LW & ROOF. M5H12H12H is found best.
In general, for ANSYS FLOTRAN simulation with standard k- model L2=12H and Y=12H is suggested for
better prediction of PCOE. Meshing refinement study must be done in a view to obtain almost mesh
independent results before actual starting the analysis.

ABBREVIATION

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

PCOE Pressure coefficient

FEM Finite Element Method

CVM Control Volume Method

184
 VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

FDM Finite Difference Method

LW Leeward Wall

WW Windward Wall

CV-FEM Control Volume based Finite Element Method

SKE Standard K- model

SST Shear Stress Transport model

REFERENCES

[1] Anderson J. D.(1995).Computational Fluid Dynamics; the basics with Applications , McGraw-HILL International
Editions, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Singapore.

[2] Mathews E.H. (1987). "Prediction of the wind generated pressure distribution around buildings." Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 25, pp. 219-228.

[3] Mathews E.H., Crosby C.P. et al.(1988), "Numerical Prediction of wind loads on buildings." Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 31, pp.241-250.

[4] Oliveira P.J, Younis B.A.(2000),"On the prediction of turbulent flows around full-scale buildings". Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 86, pp.203-220.

[5] S.Murakami, A. Mochida (1989)," Three Dimensional Numerical simulation of Turbulent flow around buildings
using k- turbulence model". Buildings & Environments, 24, pp 51-64.

[6] D.Surry (1991), Pressure measurements on the Texas Tech Building: Wind tunnel measurements and
comparisons with full scale. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 38, pp. 235-247.

[7] Hoxey R.P., P.Moran, Full scale wind pressure and load experiments- single span 7.0 x 22.6 m glasshouse,
Division Note DN,1605, AFRC Engineering Research,Silsoe,Feb.91.

[8] Hoxey R.P. & Moran P.(1983)." A Full-scale study of geometric parameters that influence wind loads on Low-
Rise buildings". Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 13, 277-288.

[9] Hoxey R.P., Richards P.J.(1993)." Flow patterns and pressure field around a full-scale building". Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 50, 203-212.

[10] Hoxey R.P., Robertson A.P., Basara B., Younis B.A. (1993)." Geometric Parameters that affect wind loads on
Low-rise buildings: full-scale and CFD experiments". Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 50, 243-252.

[11] Hoxey R.P., Robertson A.P.(1994). "Pressure coefficients for low-rise building envelopes derived from full-
scale experiments". Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic, 53, 283-297.

[12] Ramani S.D.,Godbole P.N., Gupta L.M.(2012). Application of CFD for determination of Pressure Coefficients
th
using ANSYS-Flotran, Proceedings of 8 Structural Engineering Convention, SVNIT, Surat.

[13] ANSYS 11.0, 12.0 &13.0 Reference Manuals, ANSYS 11.0 release. ANSYS Inc.

[14] ANSYS 12.0, Theory Reference Manual, ANSYS 12.0.1 release, ANSYS Inc.

185
VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

Figure 2: PCOE Charts for simulation done by Olivera et al. & Original Experimental study by
Hoxey et al.

186
VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

Figure 3: PCOE Charts for Simulation Type S-1 (Different Domain Sizes)

187
VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

Figure 4: PCOE Charts for Simulation Type S-2 (Different L2 While L1=14.7H & Y =10H)
188
VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

Figure 5: PCOE Charts for Simulation Type S-3 (Different L2 While L1=5.06H & Y=10H)
189
VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

Figure 6: PCOE Charts for Simulation Type S-4 (Different Y, While L1=14.7H & L2=14.7H)

190
VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

Figure 7: PCOE Charts for Simulation Type S-5 (Different Y, While L1=5.06H & L2=12H)

191
VI National Conference on Wind Engineering 2012, Dec. 14-15

TABLE 1 GEOMETRY & MASHING DETAILS FOR SIMULATION TYPE S1 TO S5

Minimum Elemental Length

Element
Model Name L1/H L2/H Y/H WW & LW walls Roof Nodes
s
x y s
M14H14H10H 14.7 14.7 10 0.04699 0.07184 0.02593 14599 14240
S1 M16H16H10H 16.265 16.265 10 0.04730 0.07184 0.02593 15571 15200
M5H5H10H 5.06 5.06 10 0.04353 0.003757 0.02593 8792 8490
M14H8H10H 14.7 8 10 0.04623 0.07184 0.02593 12412 12080
M14H12H10H 14.7 12 10 0.04597 0.07184 0.02593 13789 13440
S2
M14H14H10H 14.7 14.7 10 0.04699 0.07184 0.02593 14599 14240
M14H20H10H 14.7 20 10 0.04745 0.07184 0.02593 16300 15920
M5H5H10H 5.06 5 10 0.04353 0.003757 0.02593 8792 8490
M5H7H10H 5.06 7 10 0.04594 0.003757 0.02593 9429 9120
M5H8H10H 5.06 8 10 0.04623 0.003757 0.02593 9793 9480
S3 M5H10H10H 5.06 10 10 0.04663 0.003757 0.02593 10521 10200
M5H12H10H 5.06 12 10 0.04691 0.003757 0.02593 11249 10920
M5H16H10H 5.06 16.265 10 0.04555 0.003757 0.02593 12796 12450
M5H20H10H 5.06 20 10 0.04745 0.003757 0.02593 14161 13800
M14H14H7H 14.7 14.7 7 0.04699 0.07184 0.02593 11492 11146
M14H14H10H 14.7 14.7 10 0.04699 0.07184 0.02593 14599 14240
S4
M14H14H15H 14.7 14.7 15 0.04699 0.07184 0.02593 27505 27092
M5H12H7H 5.06 12 7 0.04691 0.003757 0.02593 8792 8476
M5H12H10H 5.06 12 10 0.04691 0.003757 0.02593 11249 10920
S5
M5H12H12H 5.06 12 12 0.04691 0.003757 0.02593 12950 12612

TABLE 2 TYPICAL REMARKS FOR SIMULATION TYPE S1 TO S5

No. of
Model name Other Remarks
iterations
M14H14H10H 2200 Mesh-2 type mesh of model A3, no relaxation
S1 M16H16H10H 2000 Mesh-2 type mesh of model A3, no relaxation
M5H5H10H 6600 Mesh-2 type mesh of model B3, 0.05 relaxations for first 400 iterations
M14H8H10H 2200 Mesh-2 similar to caseA3.0.03 relaxation is used for first 200 iterations.
M14H12H10H 2000 Mesh-2 similar to caseA3.No relaxation used.
S2
M14H14H10H 2200 Mesh-2 similar to caseA3.No relaxation used.
M14H20H10H 2200 Mesh-2 similar to caseA3.No relaxation used.
M5H5H10H 6200-6600 Mesh-2 type mesh of model B3, 0.05 relaxations for first 400 iterations
Mesh-2 type mesh of model B3, 0.05 relaxation is used for first 100 and
M5H7H10H 4800-5200
0.08 for next 200 iterations
Mesh-2 type mesh of model B3, Relaxation used:- 0.05 for first 200
M5H8H10H 4600-4800
iteration and 0.03 for 200-400 iteration
S3
Mesh-2 type mesh of model B3,
M5H10H10H 3600-4000
0.03 relaxation for first 200 iteration
M5H12H10H 2600-2800 Mesh-2 type mesh of model B3,No relaxations
M5H16H10H 2000-2200 Mesh-2 type mesh of model B3,No relaxations
M5H20H10H 1600-1800 Mesh-2 type mesh of model B3,No relaxations
M14H14H7H 2000-2200 Mesh-2 similar to caseA3.No relaxations used.
M14H14H10H 2200 Mesh-2 similar to caseA3.No relaxations used.
S4
Mesh-2 similar to caseA3.No relaxation used. Taking almost double time
M14H14H15H 1400-1600
than other models having same mesh pattern
M5H12H7H 2200 Denser mesh towards the eaves, No relaxation is required
S5 M5H12H10H 2600 Denser mesh towards the eaves, No relaxation is required
M5H12H12H 2200 Denser mesh towards the eaves, No relaxation is required

192