Research Papers

Experimental Validation Benchmark Data for Computational Fluid Dynamics of Transient Convection From Forced to Natural With Flow Reversal on a Vertical Flat Plate

[+] Author and Article Information
Blake W. Lance

Advanced Nuclear Concepts,
Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM 87185
e-mail: blance@sandia.gov

Barton L. Smith

Fellow ASME
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84322
e-mail: barton.smith@usu.edu

Manuscript received November 4, 2015; final manuscript received June 4, 2016; published online July 26, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Christopher J. Roy.The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States government purposes.

J. Verif. Valid. Uncert 1(3), 031005 (Jul 26, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: VVUQ-15-1049; doi: 10.1115/1.4033963 History: Received November 04, 2015; Revised June 04, 2016

Transient convection has been investigated experimentally for the purpose of providing computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation benchmark data. A specialized facility for validation benchmark experiments called the rotatable buoyancy tunnel (RoBuT) was used to acquire thermal and velocity measurements of flow over a smooth, vertical heated plate in air. The initial condition was forced convection downward with subsequent transition to mixed convection, ending with natural convection upward after a flow reversal. Data acquisition through the transient was repeated for ensemble-averaged results. With simple flow geometry, validation data were acquired at the benchmark level. All boundary conditions (BCs) were measured and their uncertainties quantified. Temperature profiles on all the four walls and the inlet were measured, as well as as-built test section geometry. Inlet velocity profiles and turbulence levels were quantified using particle image velocimetry (PIV). System response quantities (SRQs) were measured for comparison with CFD outputs and include velocity profiles, wall heat flux, and wall shear stress. Extra effort was invested in documenting and preserving the validation data. Details about the experimental facility, instrumentation, experimental procedure, materials, BCs, and SRQs are made available through this paper. The latter two are available for download while other details are included in this work.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Oberkampf, W. L. , and Smith, B. L. , 2014, “ Assessment Criteria for Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Benchmark Experiments,” AIAA Paper No. 2014-0205.
Harris, J. R. , Lance, B. W. , and Smith, B. L. , 2016, “ Experimental Validation Data for CFD of Forced Convection on a Vertical Flat Plate,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 138(1), p. 011401. [CrossRef]
Lance, B. W. , Harris, J. R. , and Smith, B. L. , 2016, “ Experimental Validation Benchmark Data for CFD of Mixed Convection on a Vertical Flat Plate,” ASME J. Verif., Valid. Uncert. Quantif., 1(2), p. 021005. [CrossRef]
Oberkampf, W. L. , and Roy, C. J. , 2010, Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, New York.
ASME, 2009, “ Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. ASME V&V 20-2009.
AIAA, 1998, “ Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations,” American Institute or Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, Report No. AIAA G-077-1998.
He, S. , and Jackson, J. D. , 2000, “ A Study of Turbulence Under Conditions of Transient Flow in a Pipe,” J. Fluid Mech., 408, pp. 1–38. [CrossRef]
Hino, M. , Kashiwayanagi, M. , Nakayama, A. , and Hara, T. , 1983, “ Experiments on the Turbulence Statistics and the Structure of a Reciprocating Oscillatory Flow,” J. Fluid Mech., 131, pp. 363–400. [CrossRef]
Koshkin, V. , Kalinin, E. , Dreitser, G. , Galitseisky, B. , and Izosimov, V. , 1970, “ Experimental Study of Nonsteady Convective Heat Transfer in Tubes,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 13(8), pp. 1271–1281. [CrossRef]
Kataoka, K. , Kawabata, T. , and Miki, K. , 1975, “ The Start-Up Response of Pipe Flow to a Step Change in Flow Rate,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 8(4), pp. 266–271. [CrossRef]
Maruyama, T. , Kuribayashi, T. , and Mizushina, T. , 1976, “ The Structure of the Turbulence in Transient Pipe Flows,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 9(6), pp. 431–439. [CrossRef]
Rouai, N. M. , 1987, “ Influence of Buoyancy and Flow Transients on Turbulent Convective Heat Transfer in a Tube,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
Jackson, J. D. , Büyükalaca, O. , and He, S. , 1999, “ Heat Transfer in a Pipe Under Conditions of Transient Turbulent Flow,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 20(2), pp. 115–127. [CrossRef]
Barker, A. R. , and Williams, J. E. F. , 2000, “ Transient Measurements of the Heat Transfer Coefficient in Unsteady, Turbulent Pipe Flow,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 43(17), pp. 3197–3207. [CrossRef]
Kays, W. M. , Crawford, M. E. , and Weigand, B. , 2012, Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kähler, C. J. , Sammler, B. , and Kompenhans, J. , 2002, “ Generation and Control of Tracer Particles for Optical Flow Investigations in Air,” Exp. Fluids, 33(6), pp. 736–742. [CrossRef]
Touloukian, Y. S. , and Ho, C. Y. , 1977, “ Thermophysical Properties of Selected Aerospace Materials Part II: Thermophysical Properties of Seven Materials,” Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Warner, S. O. , and Smith, B. L. , 2014, “ Autocorrelation-Based Estimate of Particle Image Density for Diffraction Limited Particle Images,” Meas. Sci. Technol., 25(6), p. 065201. [CrossRef]
Coleman, H. W. , and Steele, W. G. , 2009, Experimentation, Validation, and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, Wiley, New York.
Timmins, B. H. , Wilson, B. W. , Smith, B. L. , and Vlachos, P. P. , 2012, “ A Method for Automatic Estimation of Instantaneous Local Uncertainty in Particle Image Velocimetry Measurements,” Exp. Fluids, 53(4), pp. 1133–1147. [CrossRef]
Wilson, B. M. , and Smith, B. L. , 2013, “ Taylor-Series and Monte Carlo-Method Uncertainty Estimation of the Width of a Probability Distribution Based on Varying Bias and Random Error,” Meas. Sci. Technol., 24(3), p. 035301. [CrossRef]
Wilson, B. M. , and Smith, B. L. , 2013, “ Uncertainty on PIV Mean and Fluctuating Velocity Due to Bias and Random Errors,” Meas. Sci. Technol., 24(3), p. 035302. [CrossRef]
Kendall, A. , and Koochesfahani, M. , 2007, “ A Method for Estimating Wall Friction in Turbulent Wall-bounded Flows,” Exp Fluids, 44(5), pp. 773–780. [CrossRef]
Bevington, P. R. , and Robinson, D. K. , 2003, Data Reduction and Error Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

SRQ difficulty spectrum for arbitrary variables x and y, after Ref. [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The validation hierarchy, after Ref. [6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Bulk velocity across the inlet at the spanwise center (z = 0) through time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

RoBuT flow components as configured in this study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Heated wall cross section with component names as in Table 3. The relative thicknesses are to scale.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Measured temperatures on the test section boundaries

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Measured streamwise velocity u¯ at the inlet and the initial condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Dewarped SRQ particle images at x2 with mean background removed. Note the image scales are about a factor of nine different. Also, the particles to the extreme right are reflections off the heated wall: (a) SRQ-small FOV with heated wall at right and (b) SRQ-large FOV with heated wall at right and top wall at left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Streamwise velocity u¯ comparison between a steady case and the phase at t = 3.6 s with matched inlet bulk velocity at all three locations in x

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The streamwise velocity u¯ at three locations in x and five phases of the transient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Reynolds normal stress u′u′¯ at three locations in x and five phases of the transient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

High-resolution PIV data near the heated wall with linear fit that extends from the wall to the last data point with y+≤5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Streamwise Reynolds stress u′u′¯ comparison between a steady case and the phase at t = 3.6 s with matched inlet bulk velocity at all three locations in x

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The heated wall heat flux plotted through time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The heated wall shear stress plotted through time



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In