For me the simulation setup looks ok, so it seems to be a matter of interpretation. If the flow at the inlet is predominantly laminar (as the image above shows), there may not be significant generation of Turbulent Kinetic Energy.
Please let me also tag @DaleKramer here who might have some valuable insights to point out.
It may well be my expectation is not correct or I am not doing the right type of sim, allow me to explain what I wanted to do in more detail.
The reason I wanted to do this is because I was talking to someone about making a Helmholtz resonator. I wished to illustrate that adding a flare and rounded end to the tube can reduce unwanted noises caused by turbulence. However I seem to be disproving myself as a straight tube sim shows lower max TKE!
While I am aware a resonator is far more complex than air flowing from one volume to the other through a tube, I assumed perhaps wrongly, this would be enough to illustrate how a flare can reduce turbulence and thus noise.
I think we all know from experience that sharp edges produce more unpleasant noise than rounded ones when air flows over them, but perhaps max TKE is not a representative metric alone? I suppose area of turbulent flow could affect total SPL and in a real situation the pitch of the undesirable noises will also contribute. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks for the suggestion of using ParaView,. Truthfully as a hobbyist I don’t think I have enough invested in learning what looks like a pretty complex program, at least for now.
The logic in my brain says that there would exist a pressure differential , lets call it X mbar (you now have a differential of 5 mbar) where the flared/rounded tube would maintain laminar flow throughout the whole volume but with squared tube at that X mbar you would likely see separated flow at the square outlet of the small squared tube, and also some just after the inlet of the small squared tube.
Above X mbar, both would have separation in the volume as you have now.
I have a quick look at you sim setup and it appears on the surface to have the possibility of some reasonable results but I would likely extend the inlet and outlet faces another 5 big diameters away from the small flared tube.
You might be completely right. I remember reading an experimental paper that said at the highest pressure levels a straight tube actually beat the flared one in the metric of ‘undesirable noises’, but at lower pressure levels the flared one was better. Perhaps 5 mbar is too high.
To do this with ‘better practices’, you would need add some boundary layers and start trying to that verifiably achieve acceptable surface yPlus values (30-300 for turbulent flow), at the differential pressure you choose, and also use ‘wall function’ (log-log region) for the no-slip walls.
I learned a lot about CFD and FEA and then was offered the status of a PowerUser to help others in the forum etc. I am not sure if they are looking for any more at this time. It looks like since they have limited the free usage to 10 simulation runs that there are lots less hobbyists in the forum nowadays. But still lots of students with free educational licences without the 10 limit.
To do this with ‘better practices’, you would need add some boundary layers and start trying to get the surface yPlus values acceptable (30-300 for turbulent flow), at the differential pressure you choose, and also use ‘wall function’ (log-log region) for the no-slip walls.
Hi Dale, I wonder if you are able to link some videos or tutorials that explain the details of what you mention here? Much of it goes over my head such as wall function and no-slip! Boundary layers are automatically created in the mesh, how does one know what a ‘suitable’ size or settings are for an application?