TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING

PULCHOWK CAMPUS

A LAB REPORT ON
SIMULATING DEVELOPING CHANNEL FLOW AND
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS USING ANSYS FLUENT

Submitted By:

Yashaswi Shrestha (078BAS045)

Submitted To:

Professor Kamal Darlami

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

LALITPUR, NEPAL

JULY, 2025
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives .........................................................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER TWO: PROBLEM–1 ...............................................................................................................4

2.1 Geometry ..........................................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Meshing............................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Setup ..................................................................................................................................................................6
2.4 Solution .............................................................................................................................................................7
2.5 Results ...............................................................................................................................................................8
2.5.1 Velocity Plot ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5.2 Pressure Plot ................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5.3 Streamlines ................................................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER THREE: PROBLEM–2 ........................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Fluid – Air ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Fluid – Glycerin ........................................................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER FOUR: PROBLEM–3 ........................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Geometry ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Meshing.......................................................................................................................................................... 14
4.3 Setup ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.4 Solution .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
4.5 Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
4.5.1 Velocity Magnitude .................................................................................................................................... 16
4.5.2 Static Pressure............................................................................................................................................. 17
4.5.3 Streamfunction............................................................................................................................................ 17
4.5.4 U-Velocity Profile Along Centerline ..................................................................................................... 18
4.5.5 Pressure Along Centre Line.................................................................................................................... 19
4.5.6 U-Velocity Profile at Outlet ..................................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 2o

5.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................... 20
 SIMULATING DEVELOPING CHANNEL FLOW AND
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS USING ANSYS FLUENT

1.1 BACKGROUND
Understanding the behavior of fluid flow within confined geometries is central to many engineering
applications. With the advancement of computational tools, engineers now use software like ANSYS
Fluent to analyze and predict such flows accurately. This exercise explores the fundamentals of two-
dimensional incompressible laminar channel flow using CFD. The primary focus lies in understanding
the development of velocity profiles, pressure variations, and how simulation tools can validate fluid
mechanics principles like dimensional analysis and similitude. By solving basic channel flow problems,
we also reinforce core concepts like the Reynolds number and non-dimensionalization, which are
pivotal in interpreting fluid flow across varying conditions.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

In this simulation-based study, we investigate the flow of an incompressible fluid through a 2D
channel geometry under laminar conditions. Three variations of the problem are considered:

Problem 1: A basic single-inlet laminar flow using a fictitious fluid.

Problem 2: The same setup is tested using real fluids (air and glycerin) while maintaining a constant
Reynolds number.

Problem 3: The geometry is modified to include a second inlet, introducing asymmetric flow and
interaction of differing inlet velocities.

For each case, pressure drops, velocity distributions, and streamline behaviors are to be evaluated. Non-
dimensional analysis, particularly using pressure drop normalization, is key to validating the concept of
dynamic similarity.

1.3 Objectives
• To gain hands-on experience in using ANSYS Fluent for modeling incompressible 2D channel
flows.
• To understand the concept of flow development and pressure drop in laminar regimes.
• To validate the use of Reynolds number as a governing similarity parameter in different flow
scenarios.

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 1

• To observe the impact of geometric modifications and fluid properties on the overall flow
behavior.
• To learn the application of non-dimensional parameters in comparing flow fields under
dynamically similar conditions.

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 2

2 PROBLEM-1
2.1 GEOMETRY

Figure 1: Geometry Development

The geometry was created using ANSYS DesignModeler 2024 R1. A 2D rectangular domain with
dimensions 1 m × 0.1 m was drawn in the XY plane. The rectangle was defined using sketching tools,
after which it was converted into a surface body. Appropriate named selections were assigned to the
edges of the domain to define the inlet, outlet, and walls for further use in the simulation setup.

2.2 Meshing

Figure 2: Mesh of the single-inlet channel

Once the geometry was finalized, mesh generation was carried out. Initially, adaptive meshing was
applied with a resolution level of 4 using quadrilateral elements. However, to achieve a more
structured and accurate mesh, the configuration was updated to resolution 5 with triangular
elements.
To capture the flow development near the inlet, local mesh refinement was applied — the element
size was reduced to 0.002 m at the inlet, and gradually increased to 0.01 m at the outlet. Along the
walls, a non-uniform element sizing strategy was employed with 150 divisions.

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 3

 A biasing scheme was introduced:
• The top wall was biased in the pattern (----- ---- --- -- -)
• The bottom wall used the reverse bias (- -- --- ---- -----)
Both used a bias factor of 4 to control element distribution.
The final mesh consisted of 3,517 elements and 1,939 nodes, ensuring sufficient resolution for
accurate flow analysis.

The skewness of the 2D channel is presented below:

Figure 3: Mesh Skewness of single inlet Channel

2.3 Solver and Boundary Setup

Figure 4: Residual graph

After meshing was completed, the simulation setup phase was carried out, including the selection of

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 4

 physical models, material properties, and boundary conditions.
A pressure-based solver was chosen, as the problem involves a 2D planar, incompressible, steady-
state, and low-velocity flow, with gravity effects neglected.
Under the Models section:
• All models were disabled, except for the Viscous model, which was set to Laminar, reflecting the
nature of the flow.
In the Materials section:
• A custom fluid was defined with the following properties:
o Density: 1 kg/m³
o Viscosity: 0.0001 kg/m·s
Boundary Conditions were set according to the problem specifications:
• Inlet: Defined as a velocity inlet with a flow velocity of 0.025 m/s.
• Outlet: Assigned as a pressure outlet with a gauge pressure of 0 Pa.
• Walls: Treated as stationary with a no-slip condition applied.

2.4 Solution

Figure 5: Plot of Average X-Velocity

For the solution setup, the Pressure-Velocity Coupling scheme was selected, while all other solver
settings were kept at their default values, including the relaxation factors.
To monitor flow development, the X-velocity component at the point (1, 0.05)—the centerline of the
outlet—was tracked throughout the simulation.
The residual convergence criteria were set to 0.001, and the solution was initialized using hybrid
initialization. Finally, the solver was executed for 1000 iterations to complete the simulation.
2.5 Results
CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 5
2.5.1 Velocity Plot

Figure 6: Contour of Velocity Magnitude in the 2D Channel

The velocity magnitude contour illustrates both the developing flow near the inlet and the fully
developed flow further downstream. According to the color legend, the highest velocity occurs at the
center of the channel, shown in red and orange, where the fluid accelerates to conserve mass flow
between the inlet and outlet.
In contrast, the velocity near the walls is lower—indicated by blue and green shades—due to the no-slip
boundary condition, which causes fluid in contact with the walls to slow down significantly.

Figure 7: X-Velocity Plot Along the Centerline of the Channel

The velocity distribution along the channel’s centerline reveals a sharp increase from the inlet value of
0.025 m/s to approximately 0.037 m/s around x = 0.2 m, marking the point where the flow becomes
fully developed.
Beyond this point, the velocity plot shows minor oscillations, which are non-physical and likely result
CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 6
 from an insufficient mesh resolution. A finer mesh would be needed to capture the velocity distribution
more accurately and eliminate these numerical irregularities.

Figure 8: Velocity Profile at the Outlet

The velocity profile across the channel outlet exhibits a parabolic shape, with the maximum velocity
occurring at the centerline, which is consistent with fully developed laminar flow behavior.
The peak velocity of around 0.0375 m/s aligns closely with the analytical solution, validating the
simulation setup and confirming that the flow has fully developed by the time it reaches the outlet.

2.5.2 Pressure Plots

Figure 9: Pressure Contour Along the Channel

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 7

The pressure contours show that in the developing flow region, the pressure lines are curved, while in
the fully developed region, they become straight and evenly spaced. The maximum pressure occurs near
the inlet, as indicated in red, and gradually decreases along the channel length toward the outlet, where
it reaches zero, indicated in blue.

Figure 10: Static Pressure Distribution Along the Channel

The plot shows a linear decrease in pressure from inlet to outlet. The inlet static pressure is
approximately 0.0031 Pa, and the outlet pressure is set to 0 Pa, in accordance with the boundary
conditions.
To analyze this pressure change in non-dimensional form, the pressure drop (Δ*) is calculated using
the inlet dynamic pressure:
This non-dimensional number provides a meaningful basis for comparing similar flows under
different conditions.

2.5.4 Streamlines

Figure 8: Stream Function Along the Channel

The streamline pattern illustrates the flow development inside the channel. Near the corners, due to
the no-slip condition, the fluid velocity is reduced (indicated in blue), resulting in slower flow near the

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 8

 walls. Meanwhile, the fluid toward the center of the channel accelerates, shown in red, reflecting the
increased centerline velocity.
This behavior reinforces the parabolic flow profile observed earlier and confirms the characteristics
of laminar, fully developed channel flow.

QUESTION 2 RESPONSE:
Everything was clear and I did not notice any mistakes.

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 9

Chapter Three: Problem 2
The second problem, as defined in the problem statement, was solved using the same geometry and
setup parameters as the first case. The only key difference was the use of different fluids—air and
glycerin—for the simulation.

3.1 Fluid: Air

To maintain the same Reynolds number, Re=25\text{Re} = 25Re=25, the inlet velocity must be
recalculated using the properties of air.
Given:
• Density of air, ρ=1.225 kg/m3
• Dynamic viscosity of air, μ=1.7894×10−5 Pa
• Hydraulic diameter H=0.1
Using the formula:

Thus, the calculated inlet velocity is 0.00365 m/s.

Using this inlet velocity, the static pressure along the centerline of the channel is plotted below:

Figure 9: Static Pressure Along the Channel Using Air as Fluid

From the graph, the observed static pressure drop ΔP along the centerline is:
ΔP=8.1×10−5 Pa

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 10

 To find the non-dimensional pressure drop:

3.2 Fluid: Glycerin

Now, repeating the same steps using glycerin as the working fluid, keeping Reynolds number Re=25
constant:
Given:
• Density of glycerin, ρ=1259.9 kg/m3
• Dynamic viscosity, μ=0.799 Pa
• Height H=0.1 mH

Thus, the calculated inlet velocity is 0.158544 m/s.

Using this velocity, the static pressure along the centerline is plotted as shown

Figure 10: Static Pressure Along the Channel Using Glycerin as Fluid
From the plot, the pressure drop is:
ΔP=157 Pa

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 11

Non-dimensionalizing this:

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 12

CHAPTER FOUR
PROBLEM 3: Double Inlet Channel Flow

4.1 Geometry

Figure 11: Geometry Development for Double Inlet Channel

The geometry for the double inlet channel was created using ANSYS 2024 R1 DesignModeler. The
channel was modeled in the XY-plane, as described in the problem statement, with a slight modification:
an additional inlet was added. The domain was then converted into a 2D surface using the "Face Curve"
command. Named selections were assigned to the boundaries—left inlet, bottom inlet, outlet, and walls.

4.2 Meshing

Figure 12: Mesh of Double Inlet Channel

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 13

After finalizing the geometry, meshing was performed using adaptive mesh refinement with a
resolution of 6 and quadrilateral elements. No sizing or bias was applied. The mesh consisted of 7,058
elements and 6,744 nodes.

Figure 13: Skewness of the Double Inlet Channel Mesh

4.3 Setup

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 14

 Figure 13: Residual Plot of Double Inlet Channel
The setup followed the same procedure as previous problems. A pressure-based solver was used,
suitable for steady, incompressible, 2D planar laminar flow. A fluid with density = 1 kg/m³ and
viscosity = 0.0001 kg/m.s was defined.
Boundary Conditions:
• Left Inlet: Velocity-inlet, magnitude = 0.025 m/s
• Bottom Inlet: Velocity-inlet, magnitude = 0.1 m/s
• Outlet: Pressure outlet with gauge pressure = 0 Pa
• Walls: Stationary, with a no-slip condition

4.4 Solution

A Pressure-Velocity Coupling scheme was used with default relaxation factors. The X-velocity
component at the point (1, 0.05) on the outlet centerline was monitored. The residual tolerance was set
to 0.001, and the solution was initialized using hybrid initialization. The simulation was run for 1,000
iterations

Figure 14: Average X-Velocity at the Outlet for Double Inlet Channel

4.5 Results

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 15

4.5.1 Velocity Magnitude

Figure 15: Velocity Magnitude Plot of Double Inlet Channel

From the contour, it is observed that the fluid entering through the left inlet has a lower velocity
(indicated in blue), while the bottom inlet introduces higher velocity fluid (indicated in red). The
collision of these flows creates a surge in velocity at their intersection (seen as dark red). Near the walls,
velocity is reduced due to the no-slip condition. As the flow develops, it becomes symmetrical and the
centerline velocity stabilizes (seen in yellow and orange).
4.5.2 Static Pressure

Figure 16: Pressure Contour of Double Inlet Channel

Pressure is highest at the bottom inlet (around 0.0229 Pa, shown in red) and gradually decreases
toward the outlet. This drop is due to frictional resistance and momentum changes along the flow
direction. The pressure contours also illustrate the mixing region of the two flows.
CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 16
4.5.3 Stream Function

Figure 17: Streamline Plot of Double Inlet Channel

The stream function indicates the flow path of fluid particles. Streamlines are denser in regions of
higher mass flow rate, especially at the junction of the two inlets. The centerline shows the highest
velocity (in red), while the wall regions show significantly lower velocities due to the no-slip condition.

4.5.4 U-Velocity Profile Along Centerline

Figure 18: X-Component Velocity Along the Centerline

The velocity along the centerline initially increases up to x = 0.2 m, then spikes to a maximum of about
0.145 m/s due to the bottom inlet. After stabilization, the velocity remains relatively constant along the
second half of the channel. Due to the no-slip boundary condition at the walls, a slight decay in velocity

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 17

is observed near the boundaries.
4.5.5 Static Pressure Along Centerline

Figure 19: Static Pressure Drop Along the Centerline

The pressure decreases along the centerline from the inlet to around x = 0.2 m as velocity increases.
After the bottom inlet, a sharp drop in pressure occurs, followed by a gradual decline to zero at the
outlet.

4.5.7 U-Velocity Profile at Outlet

Figure 2o: Velocity Profile Along the Outlet

The velocity profile at the outlet is parabolic and symmetrical, with the maximum velocity (~0.15 m/s)
occurring at the centerline. Velocity decreases toward zero as it approaches the channel walls,
consistent with laminar flow behavior.

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 18

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

5.1 Discussion
Throughout the tutorial, I encountered no mistakes, and the instructions were straightforward and easy
to follow. Most of the graphs have been discussed already, but to summarize, the velocity contours and
pressure plots from figures clearly show that the highest velocity occurs along the centerline, while the
velocity near the walls is minimal, which aligns with the no-slip boundary condition. Likewise, the
pressure is highest at the inlet due to the abrupt flow initiation and gradually diminishes moving
towards the outlet.
In the first problem, the fluid properties were defined by the user, whereas in the second problem, air
and glycerin were used as fluids. The pressure differences for all three fluid scenarios were calculated
and then expressed in terms of a non-dimensional pressure difference (ΔP*), resulting in values of 9.92
for the user-defined fluid, 9.926 for air, and 9.915 for glycerin. These similar values suggest that as long
as the Reynolds number remains fixed at 25, the problem parameters have little to no effect on the non-
dimensional results. Non-dimensional parameters are highly beneficial in both experimental and
numerical studies because they reduce the number of variables, simplify scaling, ensure consistency
across unit systems, and lower experimental costs.
By relating the CFD simulation results with dimensional analysis and similitude concepts, experimental
investigations can gain significant advantages. This approach reduces the complexity and number of
variables affecting physical phenomena. While CFD breaks down the problem using numerical methods,
similitude offers crucial experimental data that can complement these findings. Therefore, for
experimental research, the principles of similitude and dimensional analysis hold great importance
alongside CFD simulations.
Additionally, when a second inlet is added to the original geometry, an increase in flow velocity and a
corresponding pressure drop are noticeable. For the analytical case, the velocity at the center reaches
1.5 times the inlet velocity (1.5 Uin) in a fully developed flow.

5.2 Conclusion
This simulation successfully modeled and analyzed the behavior of laminar flow through a 2D double
inlet channel. The velocity and pressure contours, streamlines, and centerline plots provided clear
evidence of mixing, pressure drop, and flow stabilization. The analysis confirms that even with varying
inlet velocities, the flow evolves into a predictable, fully developed laminar profile downstream. These
results are consistent with theoretical expectations and reinforce the importance of CFD in predicting
complex flow behavior in engineered systems.

CFD Assignment – 2D Channel Flow | Pulchowk Campus | 19