Inter-comparison and validation of computational fluid dynamics codes in two-stage meandering channel flows

This paper presents a study in the inter-comparison and validation of three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics codes which are currently used in river engineering. Finite volume codes PHOENICS, FLUENT and SSIIM; and finite element code TELEMAC3D are considered in this study. The work has been carried out by competent hydraulic modellers who are users of the codes and not involved in their development. This paper is therefore written from the perspective of independent practitioners of the techniques. In all codes, the flow calculations are performed by solving the three-dimensional continuity and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations with the k–e turbulence model. The application of each code was carried out independently and this led to slightly different, but nonetheless valid, models. This is particularly seen in the different boundary conditions which have been applied and which arise in part from differences in the modelling approaches and methodology adopted by the different research groups and in part from the different assumptions and formulations implemented in the different codes. Similar finite volume meshes are used in the simulations with PHOENICS, FLUENT and SSIIM while in TELEMAC3D, a triangular finite element mesh is used. The ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering editorial policy is taken as a minimum framework for the control of numerical accuracy. In all cases, grid convergence is demonstrated and conventional criteria, such as Y+, are satisfied. A rigorous inter-comparison of the codes is performed using large-scale experimental data from the UK Flood Channel Facility for a two-stage meandering channel. This example data set shows complex hydraulic behaviour without the additional complications found in natural rivers. Standardised methods are used to compare each model with the available experimental data. Results are shown for the streamwise and transverse velocities, secondary flow, turbulent kinetic energy, bed shear stress and free surface elevation. They demonstrate that the models produce similar results overall, although there are some differences in the predicted flow field and greater differences in turbulent kinetic energy and bed shear stress. This study is seen as an essential first step in the inter-comparison of some of the computational fluid dynamics codes used in the field of river engineering.