SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of viscosity regularization models employed by computational fluid dynamics codes

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work evaluated the accuracy of viscosity regularization models employed by different computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes in the modeling of viscoplastic flows. Extensive numerical simulations of viscoplastic Hagen–Poiseuille pipe flows were carried out in ANSYS Fluent 20.0, employing both the Herschel–Bulkley–Papanastasiou model and the bi-viscosity model. Three slightly different implementations of the bi-viscosity model were taken into account in the analyses. The numerical results were then compared to the analytical solution of the velocity profile regarding the studied case. While the Herschel–Bulkley–Papanastasiou and the bi-viscosity regularizations employed by OpenFOAM (Tanner and O’Donovan model) and ANSYS Fluent (releases 19.2 onwards) provide satisfactory results, it was observed that the bi-viscosity model employed by previous ANSYS Fluent releases (12.0–19.2) was not adequate to simulate viscoplastic Hagen–Poiseuille flows, indicating that solving more complex flows using such model could yield incorrect results. Although the viscosity regularization model employed by ANSYS Fluent on releases 19.2 onwards has been already corrected, this work recommends CFD users and researchers to be cautious while using outdated releases of the software and consulting scientific works that employed these releases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coussot P (2014) Yield stress fluid flows: a review of experimental data. J Non-Newton Fluid 211:31–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2014.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balmforth NJ, Frigaard IA, Ovarlez G (2014) Yielding to stress: recent developments in viscoplastic fluid mechanics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 46:121–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-010313-141424

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnes HA, Walters K (1985) The yield stress myth? Rheol acta 24(4):323–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01333960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Astarita G (1990) Letter to the Editor: the engineering reality of the yield stress. J Rheol 34(2):275–277. https://doi.org/10.1122/1.550142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sun A, Gunasekaran S (2009) Yield stress in foods: measurements and applications. Int J Food Prop 12(1):70–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942910802308502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. De Larrard F, Ferraris CF, Sedran T (1998) Fresh concrete: a Herschel–Bulkley material. Mater Struct 31(7):494–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02480474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Frigaard IA, Nouar C (2005) On the usage of viscosity regularization methods for visco-plastic fluid flow computation. J Non-Newton Fluid 127:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2005.01.003

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Papanastasiou TC (1987) Flows of materials with yield. J Rheol 31(5):385–404. https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549926

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Donovan EJ, Tanner RI (1984) Numerical study of the Bingham squeeze film problem. J Non-Newton Fluid 15(1):75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0257(84)80029-4

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Bercovier M, Engelman M (1980) A finite-element method for incompressible non-Newtonian flows. J Comput Phys 36(3):313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(80)90163-1

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Pereira JB, Sáo YT, Maciel GF (2022) Numerical and experimental application of the automated slump test for yield stress evaluation of mineralogical and polymeric materials. Rheol Acta 61(2):163–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00397-021-01321-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Han Z, Su B, Li Y, Wang W, Wang W, Huang J, Chen G (2019) Numerical simulation of debris-flow behavior based on the SPH method incorporating the Herschel–Bulkley–Papanastasiou rheology model. Eng Geol 255:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. De Schryver R, El Cheikh K, Lesage K, Yardimci MY, De Schutter G (2021) Numerical reliability study based on rheological input for Bingham paste pum** using a finite volume approach in OpenFOAM. Materials 14(17):5011. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Franci A, Zhang X (2018) 3D numerical simulation of free-surface Bingham fluids interacting with structures using the PFEM. J Non-Newton Fluid 259:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2018.05.001

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. ANSYS Inc. (2012) ANSYS FLUENT 14.5 user’s guide. ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg

    Google Scholar 

  16. The OpenFOAM Foundation (2021) OpenFOAM, user’s guide version 9.0. The OpenFOAM Foundation, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ansys Fluent v.12.0 theory guide, Fluent Inc. (2009), 816 p

  18. ANSYS Inc. (2018) ANSYS FLUENT 19.2 user’s guide. ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg

    Google Scholar 

  19. ANSYS Inc. (2020) ANSYS FLUENT 20.1 user’s guide. ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg

    Google Scholar 

  20. Güzel B, Burghelea T, Frigaard IA, Martinez DM (2009) Observation of laminar–turbulent transition of a yield stress fluid in Hagen–Poiseuille flow. J Fluid Mech 627:97–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112009005813

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Bentrad H, Esmael A, Nouar C, Lefevre A, Ait-Messaoudene N (2017) Energy growth in Hagen–Poiseuille flow of Herschel–Bulkley fluid. J Non-Newton Fluid 241:43–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2017.01.007

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu R, Ding Z, Hu KX (2018) Stabilities in plane Poiseuille flow of Herschel–Bulkley fluid. J Non-Newton Fluid 251:132–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2017.11.007

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Usha R, Sahu KC (2019) Interfacial instability in pressure-driven core-annular pipe flow of a Newtonian and a Herschel-Bulkley fluid. J Non-Newton Fluid 271:104144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2019.104144

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Bicalho IC, Dos Santos DBL, Ataíde CH, Duarte CR (2016) Fluid-dynamic behavior of flow in partially obstructed concentric and eccentric annuli with orbital motion. J Petrol Sci Eng 137:202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.11.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gharib N, Bharathan B, Amiri L, McGuinness M, Hassani FP, Sasmito AP (2017) Flow characteristics and wear prediction of Herschel–Bulkley non-Newtonian paste backfill in pipe elbows. Can J Chem Eng 95(6):1181–1191. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.22749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kazemzadeh A, Ein-Mozaffari F, Lohi A, Pakzad L (2016) Effect of the rheological properties on the mixing of Herschel–Bulkley fluids with coaxial mixers: applications of tomography, CFD, and response surface methodology. Can J Chem Eng 94(12):2394–2406. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.22601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Manjeet K, Sujatha C (2019) Magnetorheological valves based on Herschel–Bulkley fluid model: modelling, magnetostatic analysis and geometric optimization. Smart Mater Struct 28(11):115008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/ab421a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pang B, Wang S, Liu G, Jiang X, Lu H, Li Z (2018) Numerical prediction of flow behavior of cuttings carried by Herschel–Bulkley fluids in horizontal well using kinetic theory of granular flow. Powder Technol 329:386–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2018.01.065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mehta D, Thota Radhakrishnan AK, Van Lier J, Clemens F (2018) Sensitivity analysis of a wall boundary condition for the turbulent pipe flow of Herschel–Bulkley fluids. Water 11(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Coussot P (1994) Steady, laminar, flow of concentrated mud suspensions in open channel. J Hydraul Res 32(4):535–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.1994.9728354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peixinho J, Desaubry C, Lebouche M (2008) Heat transfer of a non-Newtonian fluid (Carbopol aqueous solution) in transitional pipe flow. Int J Heat Mass Transf 51:198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.04.012

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Bird RB, Dai GC, Yarusso BJ (1983) The rheology and flow of viscoplastic materials. Rev Chem Eng 1(1):1–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/revce-1983-0102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Burger J, Haldenwang R, Alderman N (2010) Friction factor-Reynolds number relationship for laminar flow of non-Newtonian fluids in open channels of different cross-sectional shapes. Chem Eng Sci 65(11):3549–3556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2010.02.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Celik IB, Ghia U, Roache PJ, Freitas CJ (2008) Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. J Fluid Eng Trans ASME 130(7):8001

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gao J, Fourie A (2015) Spread is better: an investigation of the mini-slump test. Miner Eng 71:120–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and their suggestions. The authors would also like to thank FAPESP – Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2020/07822-0 and 2022/05184-1) and CAPES – Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (88882.433524/2019-01 and 88887.640433/2021-00) for providing the financial support for this research and scholarship for the first author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering of Ilha Solteira, São Paulo State University “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Avenida Brasil, 56, Ilha Solteira, SP, Brazil

    Yuri Taglieri Sáo

  2. Department of Civil Engineering of Ilha Solteira, São Paulo State University “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Alameda Bahia, 550, Ilha Solteira, SP, Brazil

    Geraldo de Freitas Maciel

Authors
  1. Yuri Taglieri Sáo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geraldo de Freitas Maciel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuri Taglieri Sáo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Roney Leon Thompson.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taglieri Sáo, Y., de Freitas Maciel, G. Accuracy of viscosity regularization models employed by computational fluid dynamics codes. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 45, 527 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-023-04431-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-023-04431-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation