Ashrae D RP 1682 20170103

ASHRAE Research Project Report
1682-RP
STUDY TO IDENTIFY CFD MODELS FOR
USE INDETERMINING HVAC DUCT FITTING
LOSS COEFFICIENTS: CFD PROGRAM
Approval: December 2016
Contractor: Qatar University
Principal Investigator: Ahmad Sleiti

Authors: Stephen Idem
Author Affiliations, Tennessee Technological University
Sponsoring Committee: TC 5.2, Duct Design
Co-Sponsoring Committee: N/A
Co-Sponsoring Organizations: N/A
Shaping Tomorrow’s
Built Environment Today
©2012 ASHRAE www.ashrae.org. This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without
ASHRAE’s permission. Requests for this report should be directed to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical
Services.
This file is licensd to Tsz Hung Law (simoncarte31@gl.) This downla was made avilbe with suport from Rital. Copyright ASHRE 20.
STUDY TO IDENTIFY CFD MODELS FOR USE IN DETERMINING
HVAC DUCT FITTING LOSS COEFFICIENTS:
CFD PROGRAM
ASHRAE RP-1682
Final Report: CFD Work
Submitted by
Dr. Ahmad K. Sleiti, Ph.D., P.E., CEM

Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering Department
College of Engineering, Qatar University
to
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers
TC 5.2 - Duct Design
1791 Tullie Circle, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30329
Project Principle Investigator

Dr. Ahmad Sleiti, Ph.D., P.E
Qatar University
Project Co-Principle Investigator:

Dr. Stephen Idem
Tennessee Technological University
March 2016
ABSTRACT
This report presents results from a systematic study to establish whether CFD
techniques are capable of predicting pressure drop in duct fittings including single elbow,
close-coupled five-gore elbows having nominal diameters of 203 mm (8 in.) and 304.8
mm (12 in.) and turning radii r/D = 1.5. The close-coupled elbow combinations
comprised either a Z-shape or a U-shape. In every instance the duct length separating the
center points of the elbows was systematically varied. An experimental program was
likewise conducted to verify the CFD predictions, and data from the measurements are
included. Zero-length pressure loss coefficients were predicted using the k- and k-
models, as well as the Reynolds Stress Model (RSM), and compared to experimental
data. Two-equation turbulence models except the k-model predicted incorrect trends
when applied to flow in U- and Z-configuration ducts. However, the k- and the
Reynolds Stress Models (RSM) with enhanced wall treatment were generally able to
correctly predict elbow loss coefficients with an error of less than 15%. None of the two-
equation and RSM models could predict the experimental velocity profiles of Z- and U-
configurations accurately.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v
NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................................................ viii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
TEST PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 3
CFD MODELING .............................................................................................................. 6
EXPERIMENTAL DATA REDUCTION ........................................................................ 14
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.......................................................................................... 18
CFD RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 26
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 47
SUMMARY OF CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF TURBULENCE MODELS
........................................................................................................................................... 50
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATIONAL EFFORT AND SOLUTION BEHAVIOR ........ 53
SUMMARY OF GRID CONSIDERATIONS FOR TURBULENT FLOW
SIMULATION .................................................................................................................. 54
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 56
SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 58
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DUCT FITTINGS ............................... 59
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 60
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................... 69
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Straight Duct Tare Pressure Loss Testing
Table 2. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Single Elbow Pressure Loss Testing
Table 3. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Pressure Loss Testing: Z-
Configuration
Table 4. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Pressure Loss Testing: U-
Configuration
Table 5. Straight Duct CFD Grid Refinement Study Observations
Table 6. Error for 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Loss Coefficient: U-
Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
Table 7. Error for 308.4 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Loss Coefficient: U-
Table 9. Error of loss coefficient for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Z-
Configuration (LoD=10)
Table 10. Maximum % Error - Experimental Data vs. Different CFD Models
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Secondary Flows at the Center (Left) and Exit (Right) of Square Cross Section
U-bend, Re=25,000, Density Ratio = 0.13, RSM Predictions.
Figure 2. Numerical grid for straight duct geometry.
Figure 3: Numerical grid for single elbow.
Figure 4. Numerical grid for Z-configuration duct geometry.
Figure 5. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Straight Duct Moody Diagram - Comparison of
CFD k- turbulence model to experimental results.
CFD k-realizable k- and RNG k- turbulence models with wall roughness to
experimental results.
CFD standard k-and SSTk- turbulence models with wall roughness to experimental
results.
CFD RSM turbulence model with wall roughness to experimental results.
Figure 9. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Single Elbow Loss Coefficient - Comparison of
CFD RSM, k- and k- turbulence models to experimental results.
Figure 10. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Loss Coefficient: Z-Configuration
Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft) - Comparison of CFD RSM, k- and k- turbulence models to
experimental results
Figure 11. U-configuration duct fitting considered in this study is shown by Figure 11
based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 120-2008: Figure 17.
Figure 12. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Loss Coefficient: U-Configuration
Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
Figure 13. Numerical grid for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-
Figure 14. Scaled residuals for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-
Figure 15. Contours of static pressure (in Pa) for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double
Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
Figure 16. Contours of dynamic pressure (in Pa) for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter
Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
Figure 17. Comparison of total pressure loss vs velocity pressure for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.)
Diameter Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
Figure 18. CFD velocity vectors for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-
Figure 19. CFD velocity profile for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-
Figure 20. Comparison of experimental and CFD velocity profile at x/d = 1 for 304.8 mm
(12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
vi
Figure 23. Comparison of total pressure loss vs velocity pressure for 203 mm (8.0 in.)
Diameter Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 1.304 m (4.28 ft)
Figure 24. Comparison of loss coefficient for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double
Figure 25. Comparison of total pressure loss vs velocity pressure for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.)
Diameter Double Elbow Z-Configuration (LoD=10)
Figure 26. CFD velocity vectors for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Z-
Figure 27. CFD velocity profile for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Z-
vii
NOMENCLATURE
A = cross-sectional area of duct, m2 (ft 2 )
An = nozzle area, m2 (ft 2 )
Cn = nozzle discharge coefficient, dimensionless
C = elbow pressure loss coefficient, dimensionless
Cf = friction coefficient, dimensionless
D = duct diameter, m (ft)
De = Dean number, dimensionless
f = friction factor, dimensionless
ks = equivalent sand roughness height m (ft)
k+ = k s u   , dimensionless
L = length of ductwork between specified planes, m (ft)
Lint = intermediate duct length from elbow centerpoint to centerpoint, m (ft)
pv = velocity pressure, Pa (in. wg)
pt = total pressure, Pa (in. wg)
ps = static pressure, Pa (in. wg)
∆pf = duct pressure loss, Pa (in. wg)
∆ps = static pressure loss, Pa (in. wg)
∆pt = total pressure loss, Pa (in. wg)
L
Q = volumetric flow rate, s (cfm)
r = elbow turning radius, m (ft)
Re = Reynolds number, dimensionless
viii
u = friction velocity, m/s (ft/min)
u = dimensionless velocity
m ft
V = velocity, (s)
s
y = distance from duct wall, m (ft)
Yn = nozzle expansion factor, dimensionless
GREEK SYMBOLS
ε = relative surface roughness, m (ft)
kg lbm
ρ = density, m3 ( ft3 )
Ns lbm
μ = dynamic viscosity, m2 ( s ft )
 = kinematic viscosity, m2/s (ft2/s)
 ij = Reynolds stresses, N/m2 (lbf/ft2)
SUBSCRIPTS
e = exit plane
x = plane 1, 2, - - -, n, as applicable
z = upstream plane
ix
INTRODUCTION
This report presents a systematic study to establish whether CFD techniques are
capable of obtaining pressure drop predictions in elbows that are accurate to within 15%
of experimental loss coefficients. A test program was initiated to measure the friction
factor in a straight duct, and the loss coefficient of both a single five-gore elbow and two
close-coupled five-gore elbows. Therein results from tests conducted on ducts/fittings
having a nominal diameter of 203 mm (8 in.) are reported. Likewise a comparison of
CFD turbulence models in predicting pressure drop for each of the configurations was
performed. This was achieved by conducting a critical comparison between turbulence
models, including k-ε, k-ω and the Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) to establish their
capabilities and limitations in predicting such flows.
Since 1988 there have been several experimental research projects sponsored by
ASHRAE, e.g., RP-551 (1991), RP-690 (1994), RP-1319 (2008), RP-1488 (2011), and
RP-1606 (2014), designed to populate the Duct Fitting Database (DFDB, 2014). The
results from these studies have been published in the open literature. The pressure loss for
flat oval straight ducts has been reported in Townsend et al. (1994). For flat oval tee and
lateral fittings, it has been found that branch loss coefficients were power law functions
of branch-to-common flow rate ratio, and the main loss coefficients were power law
functions of the main-to-common flow rate ratio, and generally less than 0.02 at high
flow rate ratios; refer to Townsend et al. (1996a), Idem and Khodabakhsh (1999), Idem
(2003), Kulkarni et al. (2011), and Gibbs and Idem (2012). Loss coefficient data for flat
oval elbows have been expressed as power law functions of aspect ratio and hydraulic
diameter; refer to Townsend et al. (1996b) and Kulkarni et al. (2009). The goal of RP-
1606 (2014) was to evaluate loss coefficients of flat oval to flat oval transitions where the
major and minor axes were either concentric or eccentric. Recently RP-1493 (2011) was
completed. The primary objective of that project was to ascertain whether Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) could be used to determine loss coefficients for divided flow duct
fittings, in the absence of empirical input. The ultimate goal of that effort was to reduce
the number of expensive and time-consuming laboratory tests required to enhance the
DFDB. The main findings of the project were that the trends of the pressure loss
coefficients were predicted correctly, while a CFD prediction accuracy within 15% of
experimental data was not achieved. The results of that study are summarized in Sleiti et
al. (2013), Liu et al. (2012), Manning et al. (2013), and Gutovic et al. (2013). An
extensive body of literature exists pertaining to either CFD or experimental modeling of
pressure loss in single or close-coupled fittings; these references include Gan and Riffat
(1995), Mahank and Mumma (1997), Mumma et al. (1997, 1998), Rahmeyer (2002),
Sami and Cui (2003), and Mylaram and Idem (2005).
TEST PROGRAM
The experimental work is described in details in separate report submitted to
ASHRAE under the same RP-1682. Here, a brief description of the experimental work is
provided for the convenience of the reader. An experimental apparatus was constructed to
measure the friction factor in a straight duct, and the loss coefficient of both a single five-
gore elbow and two close-coupled five-gore elbows. The measurements of pressure drop
and volumetric flow rate through the ductwork and fittings were performed in accordance
with ASHRAE Standard 120-2008. The elbow pressure loss experiments were preceded
by a series of tests designed to evaluate the friction factor of straight ducts. A bellmouth
was mounted at the entrance of the ductwork to ensure uniform inlet flow. Pressure taps
soldered to the ducts were employed to measure the pressure drop at specific distances
prescribed in Standard 120-2008. In order to establish the baseline loss coefficient for a
single elbow, the straight duct setup was modified by inserting an elbow and measuring
the pressure drop across the single fitting. The setup shown in Figure 16 of Standard 120
was used to measure the friction factor and relative roughness of the duct connected to
the elbows. Similarly Figure 17 of Standard 120 depicts the setup that was employed to
determine loss coefficient for a single elbow. Two close-coupling configurations were
studied in the present experiments. Per the terminology employed by Sami and Cui
(2004), in one instance the close-coupled test apparatus constituted a Z-shape, whereas in
other instances the experiments conformed to a U-shape. In each case the straight duct
length inserted between the upstream elbow and the downstream elbow was
systematically varied; refer to RP-1682 (2015) for further details.
In every instance the turning radii of the elbows was fixed at r/D = 1.5. The
elbows and ductwork were constructed from 26-gauge galvanized steel. The ducts
upstream and downstream of the test section were each 1.20 m (4 ft) in length, and were
connected by slip couplings. For close coupled elbows the intermediate length x,
measured from the exit plane of the upstream elbow to the entrance plane of the
downstream elbow, was varied from 0 m (0 ft) to 3.05 m (10 ft) in increments of 0.60 m
(2 ft). For an intermediate length of 0 m (0 ft), the two elbows were butted together, and
the joint wrapped tightly by a rubber sheet for mechanical integrity. There were no joints
in the intermediate duct mounted between the close-coupled elbows. All joints and fitting
connections were thoroughly sealed using cloth-backed tape.
A 30 hp centrifugal fan provided air flow through the test apparatus in the forced
draft mode. A multiple-nozzle chamber in compliance with the requirements of Standard
120-2008 was used to measure the volume flow rate through the test setup. Pressure drop
measurements over the test section were performed using a liquid-filled micromanometer
having a measurement accuracy of 0.025 mm (0.001 in). Likewise, the static gage
pressure upstream and downstream of the test section was measured with electronic
manometers having a readability of 0.25 mm (0.01 in). The nozzle pressure loss was
measured using a micromanometer having a scale readability of 0.025 mm (0.001 in.).
Static pressure was measured in the chamber (to assess air density) using an electronic
manometer having the scale readability of 0.25 mm (0.01 in.). A VFD was used to
control the flow rate through the test section. Various combinations of flow nozzles were
employed, depending on the desired flow rate, and unused nozzles were plugged with
smooth vinyl balls. The air temperature in the nozzle chamber was measured using a
4
mercury thermometer having a scale readability of 0.6C (1F). The dry-bulb
temperature and wet-bulb temperature of the ambient air were measured using an
aspirated psychrometer, with an accuracy of 0.6C (1F). Ambient pressure was
measured with a Fortin-type barometer, with an accuracy of 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) of
mercury. At least eight test points, evenly spaced over the range of test velocities, were
obtained for each test apparatus.
CFD MODELING
Computational fluid dynamics was employed to predict the pressure loss in a
straight duct, and in both single and close-coupled five gore elbows (Z-configuration and
U-configuration). The finite volume method was the numerical solution approach used to
solve Navier-Stokes equations. A control volume-based technique was used to convert
the governing equations to algebraic equations that were solved numerically. This control
volume technique consisted of integrating the governing equations about each control
volume, yielding discrete equations that conserved each quantity on a control-volume
basis.
The Navier-Stokes equations are non-linear partial differential equations that
cannot be solved analytically, except for a few special cases. Consequently for most
cases, numerical solution is generally needed to solve the NS-equations. Direct
Numerical Simulations (DNS) and Large Eddy Simulations (LES) are the most accurate
but they require large computational resources. Although Reynolds Averaged Navier
Stokes (RANS) turbulence models are affected by numerical and physical
approximations, they still perform reasonably accurately, require less computational
resources, and are widely used for industrial applications. Thus, in this report RANS
turbulence models were used.
In RANS, the quantities in the NS-equation could be divided into mean and
fluctuating components, i.e.,      , where the mean component is the time-average
of a parameter over time. Applying the Reynolds averaging to the NS-equations results in
the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations. This procedure produces the Reynolds
stresses, i.e.,  ij  u i u j , which are unknown and need to be evaluated using turbulence
modeling. This is referred to as the closure problem with Reynolds averaging. To model
the Reynolds stresses there are two approaches, the eddy-viscosity models (EVM), and
the Reynolds stress models (RSM). Details on EVM and RSM turbulence modeling are
provided in Appendix A. In RSM the actual stresses are solved, while in the EVM the
Boussinesq hypothesis is employed to estimate τij. In EVM the directional properties are
not considered, and the turbulence is assumed to be isotropic. While this is true for
smaller eddies at high Reynolds numbers, the large eddies are anisotropic due to the
strain rate of the mean flow. The local equilibrium assumption in EVM is another
problem where the production is assumed to be equal locally to the dissipation term. For
uni-directional flow and for flow where turbulence is evolving at a sufficiently rapid rate,
such that the effects of past events do not dominate the dynamics, the estimates based on
local scales can give relatively accurate results. Typical flows where two-equation
models have been shown to fail are flows with sudden changes in mean strain rate,
curved surfaces, secondary motions, rotating and stratified fluids, flows with separation,
and three-dimensional flows.
A number of two-equation EVMs exist in literature, in this report the following
EVMs were used to perform the CFD simulations: (i) the standard k-ε model, (ii) the
renormalization group k-ε model, (iii) the realizable k-ε model, (iv) the standard k-ω
model, and (v) the Shear-Stress Transport (SST) k-ω model. The Reynolds Stress Model
(RSM) solves for the Reynolds Stresses using individual transport equations. RSM is also
used in this report and its predictions are compared to EVM predictions.
The complex geometry, imposed centrifugal forces, and the boundary conditions
within the ducts complicate the flow fields. In this section these factors and how they
influence the flow are discussed. Duct walls have several effects on flow and turbulence.
These effects include: (i) the no-slip condition, because of viscous effects, (ii) the
blocking effect that makes the turbulence anisotropic by suppressing the fluctuations in
the wall normal direction, (iii) the shearing mechanism in the flow increases the turbulent
production, (iv) the wall reflection effect through reduction of stress components
redistribution, and (v) the effect of surface roughness.
Modeling surface roughness effects
The surface roughness effects are of considerable importance. When the walls are
smooth, the shear stress at the surface is transmitted to the flow via a viscous sublayer,
where the velocity in this sublayer varies linearly, as in laminar Couette flow, such that
U  u 2 y  . This implies that the thickness of the sublayer is on the order of
lam  (const)u 2 . The constant is the value of the velocity where it ceases to behave
ln y    B , where B is a constant that

1
linearly. This implies a law given by U  

accounts for conditions at the boundary, and the dimensionless distance from the wall
y   u  y /  . It adds a uniform velocity to the entire flow with no change in its internal
structure. For a rough surface with roughness height larger than  lam , the stress is
transmitted by pressure forces in the wakes of the roughness elements, rather than by
1  y
viscosity. The form of the profile given in the log layer is then U   ln    8.5 ,
  k s 
8
where ks is Nikuradse’s equivalent roughness height, and is related to the roughness
geometry at the boundary. For boundary layers that are considered fully rough,
k   k s u  /   15 . In that instance an estimate for the friction coefficient for zero
2.5
  x 
pressure boundary layers is C f  2.87  1.58 log  . Numerically, the wall node
  k s 
must be placed at some distance above the equivalent roughness. This follows from the
physical argument that the flow cannot exist inside the wall, whose edges effectively
protrude a distance into the flow.
Near wall treatment
In this study both wall functions and enhanced near wall treatment approaches
were used and compared for near wall treatment. Details of both wall functions and
enhanced near wall treatment approaches are provided in APPENDIX B. The standard
wall functions are semi-empirical formulas used to bridge the viscous sublayer and buffer
layer near the wall, while in the enhanced wall treatment approach the viscosity-affected
region is resolved all the way to the wall, including the viscous sublayer.
Secondary flow effects
There are two types of secondary flows: (i) secondary flows generated by inviscid
effects (first kind secondary flows) and (ii) secondary flows generated by Reynolds
stresses (second kind secondary flows). Secondary flows of the first kind are generated
when span wise pressure gradients occur in the mean flow. Secondary flows of the
second type are generated by Reynolds stresses (turbulence induced) which develop in
9
the corners of the duct. There the cross-stream gradients of the Reynolds stresses generate
weak streamwise vorticity. Because these secondary flows are driven by gradients of
Reynolds stresses they cannot be captured using isotropic eddy-viscosity models.
Effects of curvature
Duct systems usually have curved ducts in the form of one or more elbows. As the
fluid reaches the curvature in a U-configuration for example, a centripetal acceleration is
generated, which is balanced by an opposing pressure gradient. For U-configuration ducts
with a large turning radius, the pressure gradient varies almost linearly from the inner to
the outer radii. The high momentum fluid in the duct center tends to drift outwards.
Continuity requires that the outward motion in the center of the duct be balanced by a
reverse flow along the walls, where the centrifugal force is less because the streamwise
velocity is lower. This flow behavior generates a circular motion in the cross-stream
plane. At the exit of the bend two opposing rotating cells with vorticity in the streamwise
direction will appear, see Figure 1. The Dean number, De, is the parameter that measures
the curvature effect relative to viscous effect, where De  ReD h R  2 . In this instance
1
Re is the Reynolds number and R is the radius of the curvature. The Dean number gives a
measure of the degree of stability. The flow is considered unstable when exceeding the
critical Dean number according to Rayleigh’s criteria. For the flow in a bend the convex
side (inner) is stable, while the concave side (outer) is unstable. The fluid viscosity
affects the stability of the flow through bend and hence it is important for turbulence
modeling.
10
Figure 1. Secondary Flows at the Center (Left) and Exit (Right) of Square Cross
Section U-bend, Re=25,000, Density Ratio = 0.13, RSM Predictions.
Modeling details
In this report the CFD code FLUENT was employed to perform the simulations.
The numerical solution method used to solve N-S equations was the finite volume
method. A control-volume-based technique was used to convert the governing equations
to algebraic equations that could be solved numerically. This control volume technique
consisted of integrating the governing equations about each control volume, yielding
discrete equations that conserve each quantity on a control-volume basis. The
performance of turbulence models was evaluated by comparing the CFD predictions of
each model to experimental measurements in a straight duct, a single elbow, and close-
coupled Z-configuration and U-configuration elbows. The numerical grid for the studied
duct geometries is shown by Figure 2, 3, and 4.
Figure 2. Numerical grid for straight duct geometry.
11
Figure 3. Numerical grid for single elbow.
12
Figure 4. Numerical grid for Z-configuration duct geometry.
For enhanced wall treatment, y  for the first cell next to a wall must be of order
unity. To resolve the near wall viscous region 10 grid points were placed in the boundary
layer near all walls. The minimum convergence criterion for all velocity components and
turbulence quantities error was 10-6. A grid refinement study was conducted to determine
the optimum grid distribution for all studied geometries. The results of the grid
refinement study will be discussed in the results section.
13
EXPERIMENTAL DATA REDUCTION
In order to accurately calculate the total pressure loss across the test elbow(s) it
was first necessary to determine the Darcy friction factor, which is defined as follows
p12 / L12
f  (1 SI)
1
2 1V12 /( D / 1000)
p12 / L12
f (1 I-P)
1 V1 / 1097  / D / 12
2
The plane locations are provided in Figure 17 of Standard 120-2008. The volumetric flow
rate through a nozzle bank can be expressed by Equation 2
2 p5-6
Q  1000 Yn
ρ5
 (C n A n ) (2 SI)
p5-6
Q  1098 Yn
ρ5
 (C n A n ) (2 I-P)
where 5 denotes the section upstream of the nozzle, and 6 indicates the nozzle throat.
Additional equations necessary to support the flow calculation per Equation 2 can be
found in ASHRAE Standard 120. Determination of the flow rate required the
measurement of the pressure drop across the nozzle board, the static pressure of the
plenum chamber, and the temperature inside the plenum chamber. The density of air
in the test section was calculated by means of the correlations presented in ASHRAE
Standard 120 based on measurements of the ambient dry and wet bulb temperature
and barometric pressure, and the test section temperature and average static pressure.
The Reynolds number in the test section is defined as follows
14
1 V1 D1 / 1000
Re1  (3 SI)
1
1 ( V1 / 60) D1 / 12

Re1  (3 I-P)
1
where V is average air velocity and D is the measured duct diameter. The average duct
velocity is the ratio of the measured volumetric flow rate to the cross-sectional area of the
test section
 Q / 1000 
V1   1  (4 SI)
 A 
Q 
V1   1  (4 I-P)
A
The Moody diagram was plotted using the Colebrook formula. The plots are curves of
constant relative roughness /D as function of friction factor f and the Reynolds number
1  ε/D 2.51 
  2 log  1   (5 SI)
f  3.7 Re1 f 
1 12 ε/D 1 2.51 

  2 log    (5 I-P)
f  3.7 Re1 f 
The appropriate value of relative roughness of the duct was determined by fitting the
friction factor to Equation 5 using the least squares method.
The elbow pressure loss coefficient is defined as the ratio of the total pressure loss
through the elbow to that of velocity pressure, and is given by
15
Δpt,12
C (6)
pv7
The velocity pressure depends on the measured average velocity in the duct
1
pv7  ρ V2 (7)
2
Referring to Standard 120, the total pressure loss across an equal area elbow can be
determined as
  p 
p t ,12  ps,78  L 71  L 28  f   (8)
 L 
The subscripts in the above equation refer to the planes indicated in Figure 17 of
Standard 120. The terms L7-1 and L2-8 represent the separation distance between the
upstream taps and the center point of the elbow, and center point of the elbow to the
downstream pressure taps, respectively. The pressure friction loss per unit length p f is
L
the duct tare pressure loss per unit length, as calculated by Equation 9
p f p v1  f
 (9)
L D1
In the case of experiments that were performed on two close-coupled elbows, the
loss coefficient was again calculated using Equation 7. However, the total pressure loss
through two elbows was determined by
  p 
p t ,12  ps,78  L 71  L 28  L int  f  .  (10)
 L 
In this instance the quantity Lint refers to the measured distance from center point to
center point of the two close-coupled elbows. The friction pressure loss p f was
L
16
p f
calculated from Equation 9. The factor Lint accounts for the additional loss due to
L
the intermediate length.
The total pressure losses were measured experimentally at each flow rate for all
setups, and the least squares method was employed in order to obtain an overall loss
coefficient. The Darcy equation can be written as
p t ,12  C  p v 7 . (11)
In the above equation the tare friction pressure loss has been subtracted from the overall
pressure drop across the fitting thus yielding a zero-length loss coefficient; refer to
Equation 10 for example. The slope of the curve Δp t,12 plotted against p v 7 is interpreted
as the elbow loss coefficient.
17
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Pressure drop measurements were performed on the 203 mm. (8 in.) diameter
straight duct in order to evaluate the tare pressure loss The Darcy friction factor was
calculated for each flow rate by Equation 1 and plotted against the Reynolds number on a
Moody diagram. This is shown in Figures 5 through 8, which likewise include
predictions obtained using CFD modeling; this is discussed further subsequently.
CFD k- turbulence model to experimental results.
18
CFD k-realizable k- and RNG k- turbulence models with wall roughness to
19
CFD standard k-and SSTk- turbulence models with wall roughness to
20
CFD RSM turbulence model with wall roughness to experimental results.
The Colebrook equation was used to determine the relative roughness values by the
least squares method. To a close approximation, the friction factor data followed a single
relative roughness curve /D = 0.0009. The tare pressure loss was calculated using
Equation 5, in conjunction with Equation 9. Therein the total pressure loss across the
elbow(s) was calculated using Equation 8 for a single elbow, or Equation 10 for two
close-coupled elbows, and plotted as a function of the velocity pressure through the
elbow(s), thereby obtaining the zero-length loss coefficient for each elbow combination.
Figure 9 illustrates the pressure loss coefficient data obtained for a single 203 mm. (8 in.)
diameter 5-gore 90º elbow with a dimensionless turning radius R/D = 1.5.
21
70
CFD RSM
60
CFD k-
50
Total Pressure Loss (Pa)
Experimental CFD k-

40 Data
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Velocity Pressure (Pa)
Figure 9. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Single Elbow Loss Coefficient - Comparison of
CFD RSM, k- and k- turbulence models to experimental results.
Figure 10 depicts the measured pressure loss coefficient data for two close-coupled
elbows arranged in a Z-configuration at a separation distance between the center points
Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft). In every instance the experimental loss coefficient data are
compared to predictions obtained from CFD models; as discussed further below.
22
180
160 CFD RSM
140
120
Experimental
100 Data
CFD k-
80 CFD k-
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 10. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Loss Coefficient: Z-
Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft) - Comparison of CFD RSM, k- and k-
turbulence models to experimental results
The experimental results are summarized in Tables 1 through 4, which also provide
test setup dimensions, per Standard 120. The single elbow loss coefficient for a 203 mm
(8 in.) diameter five-gore elbow with a dimensionless turning radius R/D = 1.5 was
determined to equal C = 0.19. By comparison, for that single elbow geometry the
ASHRAE Duct Fitting Database (2015) indicates a value C = 0.23. Uncertainty estimates
as calculated using ASHRAE Guideline 2 (2005) for the experimental determination of
elbow loss coefficients, i.e., either C or 2C, are likewise tabulated. The case where Lint
= 0.48 m (1.57 ft) corresponds to cases where the two elbows were butted together to
form a close-coupled pair with no straight duct present between the elbows.
23
Table 1. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Straight Duct Tare Pressure Loss Testing
Lz-1 L1-2 L2-e D /D

m (ft) m (ft) m (ft) mm (in.)
5.88 6.85 0.81 203 0.0009
(19.29) (22.48) (2.67) (8.0)
Table 2. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Single Elbow Pressure Loss Testing
Lz-7 L7-1 L2-8 L8-e

C C
m (ft) m (ft) m (ft) m (ft)
5.88 0.52 3.11 0.81
0.191 .018
(19.29) (1.70) (10.20) (2.67)
Table 3. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Pressure Loss Testing: Z-
Configuration
Lz-7 L7-1 L2-8 L8-e Lint

Lint/D 2C 2C
m (ft) m (ft) m (ft) m (ft) m (ft)
0.48
2.36 0.441 .018
(1.57)
0.90
4.42 0.410 .012
(2.95)
1.30
6.42 0.385 .015
5.88 0.52 3.11 0.81 (4.28)
(19.29) (1.70) (10.20) (2.67) 1.70
8.36 0.375 .016
(5.57)
2.10
10.36 0.370 .018
(6.90)
2.52
12.42 0.361 .016
(8.28)
24
Table 4. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Pressure Loss Testing: U-
Configuration
Lz-7 L7-1 L2-8 L8-e Lint

Lint/D 2C 2C
m (ft) m (ft) m (ft) m (ft) m (ft)
0.48
2.36 0.311 .010
(1.57)
0.90
4.42 0.323 .012
(2.95)
1.30
6.42 0.336 .013
5.88 0.52 3.11 0.81 (4.28)
(19.29) (1.70) (10.20) (2.67) 1.70
8.36 0.349 .018
(5.57)
2.10
10.36 0.352 .018
(6.90)
2.52
12.42 0.353 .019
(8.28)
25
CFD RESULTS
Straight Duct CFD Predictions
Figure 5 shows a comparison between friction factors for a smooth straight duct
calculated using the Colebrook equation, and CFD k- turbulence model predictions. A
standard k- turbulence model was used with a 60  200 grid and enhanced near wall
treatment. The results are summarized as follows. The CFD predictions were accurate to
within 5% for Re less than 250,000. For higher Re the error increased to more than 10%.
The reason for the increased error is that y  increases for high Re numbers, which makes
the solution less accurate. For the present study let the error be defined as: (CFD Friction
factor-Experimental friction factor)/Experimental friction factor. Therein a grid
refinement study was conducted to determine the optimum grid distribution for cases
with Re less than 250,000. The results of the grid refinement study are summarized in
Table 5.
Table 5. Straight Duct CFD Grid Refinement Study Observations
Grid Maximum
Remarks
Distribution Error
30  200 8% Needs refinement in radial direction
60  200 5% Acceptable
90  200 4.7% Refinement in radial direction is not justified
90  100 7% Needs refinement in axial direction
90  400 4.8% Refinement in axial direction is not justified
In addition, Figure 5 also compares friction factors for a smooth straight duct
determined using the Colebrook equation, to those calculated by means of a modified y 
26
CFD k- model. In this case, the numerical grid points were increased near the wall to
maintain y  less than 25 for cases where Re is more than 250,000. The error in this case
became less than 3% compared to values obtained from the Colebrook equation for a
smooth duct. Likewise a standard k- turbulence model was used with a 60  200 size
and standard wall functions to predict the friction factor of a straight rough duct with /D
= 0.0009, and to compare to experimental data from this study, as well as friction factors
determined using the Colebrook equation. These results show that the CFD predictions
are accurate within 7% error for high Re (more than 250,000) and within 12% for low Re
(less than 250,000).
Figure 6 shows a comparison between experimentally determined friction factors
and three CFD k- turbulence models, assuming a duct with a roughness /D = 0.0009. In
every instance a 60  200 grid and standard wall functions were employed by the models.
Results determined using the k- turbulence model indicate that the error in friction factor
predictions ranged from 2% (for high Re) to more than 13% (for low Re). Predictions
obtained using the RNG k- turbulence model revealed that errors in the friction factor
predictions ranged from 6% to more than 17%. Likewise calculations of the friction
factor achieved using the realizable k- turbulence model yielded errors in friction factor
predictions that ranged from 10% to more than 21%.
Figure 7 depicts a comparison between experimentally determined friction factors
and two CFD k- turbulence models, with a prescribed duct wall roughness /D =
0.0009. In each case a 60  200 grid and standard wall functions were employed by the
CFD models. The friction factor predictions obtained using the standard k- model show
27
that the errors ranges from 2% (for high Re) to more than 13% (for low Re). Similarly
friction factor predictions achieved by means of the SST k-model ranged from 6% for
high Re to more than 18% for low Re. Figure 8 illustrates a comparison between
experimental friction factors and RSM turbulence model predictions with a wall
roughness /D = 0.0009. The results indicate that errors in friction factor predictions
using the RSM CFD model ranged from 13% to more than 22%.
Single Elbow CFD Predictions
Figure 9 provides a comparison between experimental loss coefficients and CFD
turbulence model predictions of total pressure loss versus velocity pressure for a single
elbow. The turbulence models were used with a grid size of 60  200 in the entrance
region, 60  22 in the elbow curve region and 60  160 in the exit region. Standard wall
functions were employed, and a wall roughness /D = 0.0009 was assumed. The results
show that errors in CFD predictions of the elbow loss coefficient based on the Standard
k-model ranged from 5% to more than 14%. Likewise prediction errors obtained by
means of the standard k- model ranged from 9% to more than 19%. Moreover CFD
predictions resulting from use of the RSM turbulence model ranged from 4% to 11%.
This approach was more accurate than either the k- or k- turbulence models.
Double Elbow CFD Predictions (Z-configuration)
Figure 10 shows a comparison between experimental loss coefficients and CFD
turbulence model predictions for the Z-configuration with Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft). For
28
every case considered in this study the turbulence models employed a grid size of 60 
200 in the entrance region, 60  22 in the curved regions, and 60  160 in the exit region.
Likewise standard wall functions were used, and a duct roughness of /D = 0.0009 was
employed. The error in CFD predictions resulting from the standard k- model ranged
from 0.1% to more than 14%. In addition the error in CFD predictions derived from the
standard k- model ranged from 7% to more than 24%. By comparison the error from
CFD predictions obtained using RSM ranged from 0.4% to more than 12%. Once again
RSM loss coefficient predictions were more accurate than k- and k- turbulence models.
Double Elbow CFD Predictions (U-configuration)
The U-configuration duct fitting considered in this study is shown by Figure 11
based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 120-2008: Figure 17. Comparison between
experimental and CFD (using k- model) loss coefficient is provided by Figure 12 for U-
Configuration for 8 in diameter with separation distance LoD = 10. The error is defined
as follows: Error = (Experimental – CFD) / Experimental. This error is provided in Table
6 where it was found that the maximum error is about 7%.
29
Figure 11. U-configuration duct fitting considered in this study is shown by Figure
11 based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 120-2008: Figure 17.
30
180
160 Experimental
CFD
140 Linear (Experimental) y = 0.352x
R² = 0.994
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Figure 12. 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Loss Coefficient: U-
Table 6. Error for 203 mm (8.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Loss Coefficient:
U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
pv8 Re8 pf,7-8 pt,1-2 Error
C
Pa Pa/m Pa %
159.5 222237 15.9 58.0 0.363 2.39
219.7 259702 21.5 77.7 0.354 3.88
289.5 299337 28.4 99.2 0.343 1.88
365.8 335362 35.6 122.5 0.335 5.20
454.4 373857 44.1 149.1 0.328 5.87
129.5 199503 13.0 48.1 0.371 -1.67
233.9 267881 23.1 81.8 0.350 1.53
368.8 336590 36.0 123.4 0.335 2.52
35.1 104739 3.8 16.0 0.455 6.66
64.4 141000 6.7 27.6 0.428 6.73
31
CFD - U-Configuration for 12 in diameter duct
In this section, a detailed CFD modeling and results are provided for the 12 in
diameter duct as the experimental results showed different trend of the loss coefficient
from the 8 in duct.
The numerical grid for the 12 in duct U-Configuration with separation distance.
LoD = 10 is shown in Figure 13. A structured grid is used considering the finer mesh
near walls and with aspect ratio of not more than 10.
Figure 13. Numerical grid for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-
32
The numerical convergence of the solution is shown by Figure 14 in terms of
scaled residuals. The average number of iterations for such cases is about 1300 iterations.
Figure 14. Scaled residuals for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-
Contours of static pressure (in Pa) are shown by Figure 15. The effect of the two
elbows on the static pressure is clearly shown, where the static pressure is increasing at
the outer radii and decreasing at the inner radii. The opposite is predicted for the dynamic
pressure (Figure 16), where the dynamic pressure is decreasing at the outer radii and
increasing at the inner radii.
33
Figure 15. Contours of static pressure (in Pa) for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter
Figure 16. Contours of dynamic pressure (in Pa) for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter
The CFD total pressure loss vs velocity pressure is compared to experimental
results as shown in Figure 17.
34
Figure 17. Comparison of total pressure loss vs velocity pressure for 304.8 mm (12.0
in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
The error in the loss coefficient (c) is defined as follows: Error = (Experimental –
CFD) / Experimental. This error is provided in Table 7 for this case where it was found
that the maximum error is about 10%.
35
Table 7. Error for 308.4 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Loss Coefficient: U-
pv8 Re8 pf,7-8 pt,1-2 Error
C
Pa Pa/m Pa %
146.9 304346 8.6 38.0 0.259 -8.88
265.5 411320 15.4 64.0 0.241 -9.42
428.0 516918 24.1 96.0 0.224 -9.76
197.0 347458 11.2 51.0 0.259 -8.21
376.0 481710 21.1 90.0 0.239 -9.89
64.3 197017 3.8 18.8 0.292 0.73
115.0 264535 6.6 31.7 0.276 0.04
180.6 332431 10.3 47.7 0.264 -0.30
217.7 365916 12.4 56.4 0.259 -0.72
36.2 149418 2.1 11.4 0.315 3.06
99.9 250579 6.0 28.5 0.285 -3.44
Velocity vectors and velocity profile for 12 in diameter U-Configuration
The k- CFD velocity vectors near the two elbows of the U-Configuration 12 in
duct fitting are shown by Figure 18. Flow separation can be seen clearly in the vicinity of
the elbows. However, whether this prediction of the flow separation is sufficient to be
compared to the experimental velocity profiles is another question. The velocity profile is
shown by Figure 19 as a function of the separation distance location. It is noted that close
to the elbows, there is a y velocity component, which means there is a flow separation.
The experimental velocity profiles were compared to CFD velocity profiles for
x/d values of 1, 7 and 9 as shown in Figures 20, 21 and 22, respectively. It is found that
CFD k-model is not capable of predicting the velocity profiles accurately, especially in
the vicinity of the elbows. This is because of the assumptions involved in the turbulence
model, which don’t account for curvature and flow separation accurately.
36
Figure 18. CFD velocity vectors for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-
37
Figure 19. CFD velocity profile for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-
LoD=10 Position 1 Velocity Profile

1.00
East West
0.80
North South
0.60 CFD-East West
0.40
0.20
r/R
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
V/Vr=0
Figure 20. Comparison of experimental and CFD velocity profile at x/d = 1 for 304.8
mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)
38
1.00
East West
0.80
North South
0.60
CFD-East West
0.40
0.20
0.00
r/R
-0.20 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
V/Vr=0

1.00
East West
0.80
North South
0.60 CFD-East West
0.40
0.20
r/R
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
V/Vr=0
39
CFD predictions for U-Configuration for 8 in diameter with short separation
distance of LoD = 4
Figure 23 shows comparison between experimental and k- CFD total pressure loss vs
velocity pressure. The maximum error for this case is about 9% as shown in Table 8.
180
160
Experimental
140 CFD
Linear (Experimental)
120 Linear (CFD)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 23. Comparison of total pressure loss vs velocity pressure for 203 mm (8.0
in.) Diameter Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 1.304 m (4.28 ft)
40
Re8 Pv8 Pt,1-2 Error
C
Pa Pa %
225883 165.89 53.14 0.32 -6.65
263625 227.60 72.01 0.32 -7.04
301890 296.10 91.70 0.31 -7.42
338994 374.54 116.16 0.31 -8.38
376285 479.00 145.60 0.30 -8.75
200805 135.40 43.78 0.32 -6.43
269187 240.60 75.70 0.31 -7.14
337239 379.00 115.40 0.30 -7.53
104309 36.09 14.68 0.41 -5.56
140529 65.50 25.30 0.39 -6.97
CFD predictions for U-Configuration for 12 in diameter with short separation

distance of LoD = 4
Figure 24 shows comparison between experimental and k- loss coefficient as a
function of Re. The maximum error for this case is about 11%.
Re8 C Error
%
301004 0.21 6.81
404439 0.20 3.27
507307 0.19 -4.76
341181 0.21 1.46
471027 0.19 0.42
193871 0.24 2.95
259835 0.22 7.30
324139 0.21 10.99
356805 0.20 9.18
145584 0.26 11.70
243354 0.23 10.12
Figure 24. Comparison of loss coefficient for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double
41
CFD predictions for Z-Configuration for 12 in diameter with long separation
distance of LoD = 10
Figure 25 shows comparison between experimental and k- CFD total pressure
loss vs velocity pressure. The maximum error for this case is 7% as shown in Table 9.
Figure 25. Comparison of total pressure loss vs velocity pressure for 304.8 mm (12.0
in.) Diameter Double Elbow Z-Configuration (LoD=10)
42
Table 9. Error of loss coefficient for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Z-
Configuration (LoD=10)
V8 pv8 Re8 pf,7-8 pt,1-2 Error
C
m/s Pa Pa/m Pa %
15.9 151.7 330599 9.0 37.0 0.244 -3.12
21.5 274.9 442178 16.0 63.0 0.229 -5.91
27.0 433.4 553526 25.0 94.0 0.217 -6.54
18.2 197.7 374064 11.6 47.0 0.238 -5.89
25.3 378.8 515830 21.9 84.0 0.222 -3.71
10.3 63.5 212150 3.9 17.5 0.275 1.89
13.9 114.8 284791 6.9 29.0 0.253 6.76
17.5 181.0 356390 10.7 43.5 0.240 6.57
19.3 219.0 390952 12.9 52.0 0.237 7.65
7.9 36.6 160217 2.1 10.8 0.294 8.22
13.2 103.1 270303 6.2 26.5 0.257 4.31
Velocity vectors and velocity profile for 12 in diameter Z-Configuration
The k- CFD velocity vectors near the two elbows of the Z-Configuration 12 in
duct fitting are shown by Figure 26. Flow separation can be seen more clearly than in the
U-configuration in the vicinity of the elbows. The velocity profile is shown by Figure 27
as a function of the separation distance location. As with the U-Configuration, it is noted
that close to the elbows, there is a y velocity component, which means there is a flow
separation.
43
Figure 26. CFD velocity vectors for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Z-
44
Figure 27. CFD velocity profile for 304.8 mm (12.0 in.) Diameter Double Elbow Z-
Comparison between CFD and experimental results: Maximum Error for all cases
of Z- and U-Configurations
Comparison of CFD RSM, k- and k- turbulence model predictions to
experimental results for several Lint lengths are provided in Table 10 in terms of the
maximum percent error. These results demonstrate that the RSM turbulence model
yielded more accurate predictions than k- or k- turbulence models, and that the k-
model outperformed the k- model in most cases. Therefore it is recommended to use the
RSM turbulence model for Z- and U-configurations of close-coupled elbows. However
the k- model can be used for Z- and U- configurations in cases where slightly higher
error is acceptable.
45
Table 10. Maximum % Error - Experimental Data vs. Different CFD Models
46
DISCUSSION
The results of the present study showed the advantages of RSM relative to the
two-equation models. This is mainly due to the assumptions involved in closing the two-
equation models. While the two-equation models are complete in that no new information
is needed, they are to some degree limited to flows that do not depart significantly from
their fundamental assumptions. Two-equation models assume local equilibrium, where
turbulent production and dissipation given by the k-ε equation are equal, which implies
that the scales of turbulence are locally proportional to the scales of the mean flow.
Therefore the two-equation models predicted incorrect trends when applied to non-
equilibrium flow studied in this report. The local equilibrium assumption follows from
the fact that the Reynolds stresses must be estimated at every point in the flow field.
Hence, the eddy viscosity is defined to be the proportional constant between the Reynolds
stresses and the mean strain rate. This is the essence of the Boussinesq hypothesis. Since
the turbulence and mean scales are proportional, the eddy viscosity can be estimated
based on dimensional reasoning by using either the turbulent or mean scales. Thus, for
the k-ε model  t  k 2  and for the k-ω model  t  k  . When production does not
balance dissipation, as in the cases studied in this report, then the ratio of Reynolds
stresses to the mean strain rate is not a local constant and should be a function of both
turbulent and mean scales. Based on local equilibrium assumption, while the transport
effects are included for turbulent scales they are neglected for turbulent Reynolds
stresses. In fact Reynolds stresses depend on the local conditions with some history
effects. RSM accounts for these history effects, while two-equation models do not. The
flow inside the elbow(s) cannot be assumed in local equilibrium because the flow is three
47
dimensional, with sudden changes in mean strain rate, as well as the presence of
secondary flows, separation, and fluid rotation. Hence the two-equation models failed in
this study.
The second assumption made by two-equation models is that the turbulent
fluctuations, u, v, w are locally isotropic or equal. This is true of the smallest eddies at
high Re, but the large eddies are in a state of steady anisotropy due to the strain rate of
the mean flow. This assumption results in equal normal stresses at a point in the flow
field. For the cases studied in this report, RSM predictions showed that this is not true,
hence the two-equation models again failed.
The k-ε equation is based on the ε equation, which actually represents the
mechanism of the smallest eddies that physically accomplishes the dissipation. What is
actually needed in the model is a length or time scale relevant to the large, energy-
containing eddies that are responsible for most of the turbulent stresses and fluxes. This
leads to questions about how relevant the exact dissipation equation is, when the desired
quantity is a length scale, characteristic of the large eddies. The k-ω model solves for
only the rate at which the dissipation occurs. The equation governing ω has traditionally
been formulated based on physical reasoning in light of the processes normally governing
the transport of a scalar in a fluid. Usually the coefficients required for CFD model
closure are determined by setting their values such that the model obtains reasonable
agreement with experiments. This approach is questionable, as the constants determined
for one application are not necessarily suitable for dissimilar cases.
RSM with enhanced wall treatment that resolves the sublayer region attempts to
account for history effects, as the Reynolds stress equation includes convection and
48
diffusion terms for the stresses and eliminates the need for equilibrium assumption and
local isotropy. Also, the Reynolds stress equations include production and body force
terms that can respond to the effects of the streamline curvature, rotation, and buoyancy.
The two-equation models need corrections for streamline curvature, buoyancy and
rotation. Thus RSM predictions are generally superior to two-equation models
predictions.
49
SUMMARY OF CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF TURBULENCE
MODELS
The performance of each turbulence model in predicting pressure loss coefficients
in duct fittings is limited by the assumptions and the class of flow configuration, besides
other factors that these models were developed for. In this section, suggestions and a
summary of the capabilities and limitations of turbulence models are provided.
 Choosing a Turbulence Model

 No single turbulence model is universally accepted as superior.
 The choice of turbulence model depends on flow physics, accuracy required,
the available computational resources, and simulation time.
 For duct flow problems, k- is recommended (practical)
 Reynolds-Averaged Approach vs. LES

 Both methods introduce additional terms in the governing equations that
need to be modeled in order to achieve “closure".
 The Reynolds-averaged approach is generally adopted for practical
engineering calculations, and uses models such as, k-, k- and the RSM.
 LES provides an alternative approach in which the large eddies are
computed in a time-dependent simulation that uses a set of “filtered"
equations.
 LES is not practical for duct fittings
 The Standard k- Model

 Two-equation model in which the solution of two separate transport
equations allows the turbulent velocity and length scales to be
independently determined.
 Robust, economic, and reasonable accuracy for a range of turbulent flows
50
 High Re model
 The RNG k- Model

 Derived using a rigorous statistical technique (renormalization group
theory).
 Has an additional term in its e equation that improves the accuracy for
rapidly strained flows.
 The effect of swirl on turbulence is included.
 Accounts for low Re effects.
 The Realizable k- Model

 Contains a new formulation for the turbulent viscosity.
 A new transport equation for the dissipation rate, e.
 Accurately predicts the spreading rate of both planar and round jets.
 Flows involving rotation, boundary layers under strong adverse pressure
gradients, separation, and recirculation.
 The Standard k- Model

 Incorporates modifications for low Re effects, compressibility, and shear
flow spreading.
 Predicts free shear flow spreading rates for far wakes, mixing layers, and
plane, round, and radial jets.
 The Shear-Stress Transport (SST) k- Model

 Developed to effectively blend the robust and accurate formulation of the
k-w model in the near-wall region with the free-stream
 accurate and reliable for a wider class of flows (e.g., adverse pressure
gradient flows, airfoils, transonic shock waves)
 The Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)

51
 4 additional transport equations are required in 2D flows and 7 in 3D.
 Accounts for the effects of streamline curvature, swirl, rotation, and rapid
changes in strain rate
 limited by the closure assumptions employed to model various terms in
the exact transport equations for the Reynolds stresses.
52
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATIONAL EFFORT AND SOLUTION BEHAVIOR
The computational efforts and solution behavior of the two-equation turbulence
models and RSM are summarized in this section.
o The realizable k- model requires slightly more computational effort than the
standard k- model.
o RNG k- model takes 10 to 15% more CPU time than with the standard k-
o The k- models require about the same computational effort.
o RSM requires about 50 to 60% more CPU time per iteration compared to the k-
and k- models. 15 to 20% more memory is needed.
o RSM takes more iterations to converge
53
SUMMARY OF GRID CONSIDERATIONS FOR TURBULENT FLOW
SIMULATION
In this section, some useful grid considerations for CFD flow simulations in duct
fittings are summarized.
 It is recommended to use fine meshes for the regions where the mean flow
changes rapidly and there are shear layers with a large mean rate of strain.
 We can check the near-wall mesh by plotting the values of y+, and Rey.
 y+ and Rey are not fixed geometrical quantities. They are solution-dependent. For
example, when doubling the mesh, the new y+ does not necessarily become half
of the y+ for the original mesh.
Near-Wall Mesh Guidelines for Wall Functions

The distance from the wall at the wall-adjacent cells must be determined by
considering the range over which the log-law is valid. The distance is usually measured
in the wall unit, y+, or y*.
 The log-law is valid for y+ > 30 to 60. y+ =  u y / 

 Using an excessively fine mesh near the walls should be avoided, because the
wall functions cease to be valid in the viscous sublayer.
 The upper bound of the log-layer depends on pressure gradients and Re. As the
Re increases, the upper bound tends to also increase. y+ values that are too large
are not desirable, because the wake component becomes substantially large above
the log-layer.
 A y+ value close to the lower bound (y+ = 30) is most desirable.
 Avoid using excessive stretching in the direction normal to the wall
Near-Wall Mesh Guidelines for the Enhanced Wall Treatment

 y+ at the wall-adjacent cell should be y+ = 1. However, a higher y+ is acceptable
as long as it is well inside the viscous sublayer (y+ < 4 to 5).
54
 At least 10 cells needed within the viscosity-affected near wall region (Rey <
200) to be able to resolve the mean velocity and turbulent quantities in that
region. (Rey =  y k1/2 / )
55
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the CFD results obtained using different turbulence models provided in
the sections above, the following is recommended:
 For smooth duct walls, use the k- turbulence model for high Re (Re above
100,000) flow in straight ducts with enhanced wall treatment grid requirements
(y+ = 3 to 4).
 For rough duct walls, use the k- turbulence model for high Re (Re above
100,000) flow in straight ducts with wall functions grid requirements (y+ = 25 to
30)
 For rough duct walls of all geometries, always use wall functions grid
requirements (y+ = 25 to 30). Enhanced near wall treatment can’t be used for
rough walls.
 For single elbow and double elbow ducts, use the RSM turbulence model
Comparing two-equation turbulence models and RSM predictions, the following
is concluded:
The two-equation turbulence models predicted incorrect trends when applied to
non-equilibrium, anisotropic flow in U- and Z-configuration ducts. The two-equation
models need a length scale correction and corrections to account for streamline curvature.
The standard wall functions do not yield accurate results when applied under conditions
different from those under which the law of the wall is derived. The velocity profile near
the wall is altered by the pressure gradients and non-equilibrium flow. RSM (with
56
enhanced wall treatment that resolves the sublayer region) accounts for history effects, as
the Reynolds stress equation includes convection and diffusion terms for the stresses and
eliminate the need for equilibrium assumption and local isotropy. Also, the Reynolds
stress equations include production and body force terms that can respond to the effects
of the streamline curvature. Hence, RSM predictions were superior to the two-equation
models predictions in the present study.
57
SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
 The Reynolds-averaged approach is generally adopted for practical engineering
calculations including duct flow
 It is not recommended to use realizable k- model for duct flow simulation
because it produces non-physical turbulent viscosities due to the fact that the
model includes the effects of mean rotation in the definition of the turbulent
viscosity.
 It is not recommended to use k- turbulence models for duct flow simulations
because these models incorporates modifications for low-Reynolds-number
effects, compressibility, and shear flow spreading, which makes them more
appropriate for far wakes, mixing layers, and plane, round, and radial jets.
 The RSM might not always yield results that are clearly superior to the simpler
models in all classes of flows to justify the additional computational expense.
However, use of the RSM is a must when the flow features of interest are the
result of anisotropy in the Reynolds stresses such as the stress-induced secondary
flows in ducts.
58
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DUCT FITTINGS
 Use k- model with wall function wall treatment to predict pressure loss within
15% error
 Numerical grid: structured with at least 31 grid points in radial direction and
Aspect Ratio of not more than 6 in longitudinal direction. Finer mesh is needed
for high Re
 Use double precision calculations
 For small values of Lint, use fine numerical grid
 In case velocity profiles need to be predicted, use RSM with enhanced near-wall
treatment grid
 Wall roughness is a required input to turbulence models to be predicted
accurately.
59
REFERENCES
1. ASHRAE. 2005. ASHRAE Guideline 2-2005, Engineering Analysis of Experimental
Data. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.
2. ASHRAE. 2015. ASHRAE Standard 120-2015. Method of Testing to Determine
Flow Resistance of HVAC Ducts and Fittings. Atlanta: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
3. ASHRAE. 2015. Duct Fitting Database Version 6.00.04. Atlanta: American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
4. Gan, G. and S.B. Riffat. 1995. K-Factors for HVAC Ducts: Numerical and
Experimental Determination. Building Service Engineering Research and
Technology, 16(3):133-139.
5. Gibbs, D.C. and S. Idem. 2012. Measurements of Flat Oval Diverging-Flow Fitting
Loss Coefficients. ASHRAE Transactions 118(1):1146-1153.
6. Gutovic, M., H. Lulic, and E. Sirbubalo. 2013. CFD Analysis of Pressure Losses in
Flat-Oval Duct Fittings. ASHRAE Transactions 119(2):330-340.
7. Idem, S. and F. Khodabakhsh. 1999. Influence of Area Ratio on Flat Oval Divided
Flow Fitting Loss Coefficients. HVAC&R Research 5(1):19-33.
8. Idem, S. 2003. Main Loss Coefficients for Flat Oval Tees and Laterals. ASHRAE
Transactions 109(1):456-461.
60
9. Kulkarni, D., J. Cui and S. Idem. 2011. Laboratory Testing of Converging Flow Flat
Oval Tees and Laterals to Determine Loss Coefficients. HVAC&R Research
17(5):710-725.
10. Kulkarni, D., S. Khaire and S. Idem. 2009. Measurements of Flat Oval Elbow Loss
Coefficients. ASHRAE Transactions 115(1):35-47.
11. Liu, W., Z. Long and Q. Chen. 2012. A Procedure for Predicting Pressure Loss
Coefficients of Duct Fittings Using Computational Fluid Dynamics, HVAC&R
Research, 18(6):1168-1181.
12. Mahank, T.A. and S.A. Mumma. 1997. Flow Modeling of Flat Oval Ductwork
Elbows Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. ASHRAE Transactions, 103(1):172-
177.
13. Manning, A., J. Wilson, N. Hanlon, and T. Mikjaniec. 2013. Prediction of Duct
Fitting Losses Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. HVAC&R Research 19(4):400-
411.
14. Mumma, S.A., T.A. Mahank, and Y. P. Ke. 1997. Close Coupled Ductwork Fitting
Pressure Drop. HVAC&R Research, 3(2):158-177
15. Mumma, S.A., T.A. Mahank, and Y. P. Ke. 1998. Analytical Determination of Duct
Fitting Loss-Coefficients. Applied Energy, 61:229-247.
16. Mylaram, N.K. and S. Idem. 2005. Pressure Loss Coefficient Measurements of Two
Close-Coupled HVAC Elbows. HVAC&R Research 11(1):133-146.
17. Rahmeyer, J. 2002. Pressure Loss Coefficients for Close-Coupled Pipe Ells.
ASHRAE Transactions, 108(1):390-406.
61
18. RP-551. 1991. Laboratory Study to Determine Flow Resistance of HVAC Duct
Fittings. Final Report.
19. RP-690. 1994. Laboratory Study to Determine Flow Resistance of Oval Ducts and
Fittings Final Report.
20. RP-1319. 2008. Laboratory Testing of Duct Fittings (Flat Oval Elbows) to Determine
Loss Coefficients.
21. RP-1488. 2011. Laboratory Testing of Flat Oval Fittings to Determine Loss
Coefficients. Final Report.
22. RP-1493. 2011. CFD Shootout Contest – Prediction of Duct Fitting Losses. Final
Report.
23. RP-1606. 2014. Laboratory Testing of Flat Oval Transitions to Determine Loss
Coefficients. Final Report.
24. RP-1682. 2015. Study to Identify CFD Models for Use in Determining HVAC Duct
Fitting Loss Coefficients. Final Report.
25. Sami, S. and J. Cui. 2003. Numerical Study of Pressure Losses in Close-Coupled
Fittings. HVAC&R Research, 10(9):539-552.
26. Sleiti, A., J. Zhai, and S. Idem.2013. Computational Fluid Dynamics to Predict Duct
Fitting Losses: Challenges and Opportunities. HVAC&R Research 19(1):2-9.
27. Townsend, B, F. Khodabakhsh and S. Idem. 1994. Equivalent Round Diameter of
Spiral Flat Oval Ducts. ASHRAE Transactions 100(2):389-395.
28. Townsend, B, F. Khodabakhsh, and S. Idem. 1996a. Loss Coefficient Measurements
in Divided-Flow Flat Oval Fittings. ASHRAE Transactions 102(2):151-158.
62
29. Townsend, B., F. Khodabakhsh, and S. Idem.1996b. Loss Coefficient Measurements
for Flat Oval Elbows and Transitions. ASHRAE Transactions 102(2):159-169.
63
APPENDIX A
Turbulence Models
 Governing Equations
 Computational approach
The following EVMs are considered:
 How different terms are modeled for k- models

Details on how different terms are modeled for k-e models are provided in Table A1
64
 k- models
65
 How different terms are modeled for k- models
Details on how different terms are modeled for k- models are provided in Table A2
66
 Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)
67
68
APPENDIX B
Near wall treatment

 The k- models, the RSM, and the LES model are primarily valid for turbulent
core flows (i.e., far from walls).
 The k- models were designed to be applied throughout the boundary layer,
provided that the near-wall mesh resolution is sufficient, see Figure B.1.
Figure B.1 (Sources: Fluent documentation)
69
 Wall Functions vs. Near-Wall Model
Comparison between wall functions and enhanced near wall treatment approaches is
shown by Figure B.2
Figure B.2 (Sources: Fluent documentation)
70

Ashrae D RP 1682 20170103

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ashrae D RP 1682 20170103

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ASHRAE Research Project Report

Contractor: Qatar University

Principal Investigator: Ahmad Sleiti

Author Affiliations, Tennessee Technological University

Sponsoring Committee: TC 5.2, Duct Design

Co-Sponsoring Committee: N/A

Co-Sponsoring Organizations: N/A

Final Report: CFD Work

Dr. Ahmad K. Sleiti, Ph.D., P.E., CEM

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Project Principle Investigator

Project Co-Principle Investigator:

Table 5. Straight Duct CFD Grid Refinement Study Observations

Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Configuration Lint = 1.304 m (4.28 ft)

U-bend, Re=25,000, Density Ratio = 0.13, RSM Predictions.

Figure 2. Numerical grid for straight duct geometry.

Figure 3: Numerical grid for single elbow.

Figure 4. Numerical grid for Z-configuration duct geometry.

CFD k- turbulence model to experimental results.

CFD RSM turbulence model with wall roughness to experimental results.

CFD RSM, k- and k- turbulence models to experimental results.

based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 120-2008: Figure 17.

Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Diameter Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Diameter Double Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 1.304 m (4.28 ft)

Elbow U-Configuration Lint = 1.304 m (4.28 ft)

Diameter Double Elbow Z-Configuration (LoD=10)

Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

Configuration Lint = 2.52 m (8.28 ft)

A = cross-sectional area of duct, m2 (ft 2 )

An = nozzle area, m2 (ft 2 )

Cn = nozzle discharge coefficient, dimensionless

C = elbow pressure loss coefficient, dimensionless

Cf = friction coefficient, dimensionless

D = duct diameter, m (ft)

De = Dean number, dimensionless

f = friction factor, dimensionless

ks = equivalent sand roughness height m (ft)

L = length of ductwork between specified planes, m (ft)

Lint = intermediate duct length from elbow centerpoint to centerpoint, m (ft)

pv = velocity pressure, Pa (in. wg)

pt = total pressure, Pa (in. wg)

ps = static pressure, Pa (in. wg)

∆pf = duct pressure loss, Pa (in. wg)

∆ps = static pressure loss, Pa (in. wg)

∆pt = total pressure loss, Pa (in. wg)

r = elbow turning radius, m (ft)

Re = Reynolds number, dimensionless

y = distance from duct wall, m (ft)

Yn = nozzle expansion factor, dimensionless

ε = relative surface roughness, m (ft)

 = kinematic viscosity, m2/s (ft2/s)

 ij = Reynolds stresses, N/m2 (lbf/ft2)

close-coupled five-gore elbows. Therein results from tests conducted on ducts/fittings

having a nominal diameter of 203 mm (8 in.) are reported. Likewise a comparison of