Experimental verification of boundary conditions for numerical simulation of airflow in a benchmark ventilation channel

Abstract

Correct definition of boundary conditions is crucial for the appropriate simulation of a flow. It is a common practice that simulation of sufficiently long upstream entrance section is performed instead of experimental investigation of the actual conditions at the boundary of the examined area, in the case that the measurement is either impossible or extremely demanding. We focused on the case of a benchmark channel with ventilation outlet, which models a regular automotive ventilation system. At first, measurements of air velocity and turbulence intensity were performed at the boundary of the examined area, i.e. in the rectangular channel 272.5 mm upstream the ventilation outlet. Then, the experimentally acquired results were compared with results obtained by numerical simulation of further upstream entrance section defined according to generally approved theoretical suggestions. The comparison showed that despite the simple geometry and general agreement of average axial velocity, certain difference was found in the shape of the velocity profile. The difference was attributed to the simplifications of the numerical model and the isotropic turbulence assumption of the used turbulence model. The appropriate recommendations were stated for the future work.Correct definition of boundary conditions is crucial for the appropriate simulation of a flow. It is a common practice that simulation of sufficiently long upstream entrance section is performed instead of experimental investigation of the actual conditions at the boundary of the examined area, in the case that the measurement is either impossible or extremely demanding. We focused on the case of a benchmark channel with ventilation outlet, which models a regular automotive ventilation system. At first, measurements of air velocity and turbulence intensity were performed at the boundary of the examined area, i.e. in the rectangular channel 272.5 mm upstream the ventilation outlet. Then, the experimentally acquired results were compared with results obtained by numerical simulation of further upstream entrance section defined according to generally approved theoretical suggestions. The comparison showed that despite the simple geometry and general agreement of average axial velocity, certain difference was found in the shape of the velocity profile. The difference was attributed to the simplifications of the numerical model and the isotropic turbulence assumption of the used turbulence model. The appropriate recommendations were stated for the future work.