CFD group report

Simulate laminar and turbulent pipe flow and a laminar flat-plate boundary layer in ANSYS Fluent, validate against theory and correlations, and write one group report.

Due Wed, 2 Dec 2026, 12:00.

From the ENGR5002 module handbook, section 7. If Moodle says something different, Moodle wins.

Key facts

Weight	30% of the module
Due	12:00 (midday), Wednesday 2 December 2026, on Moodle
Group	3 to 4 students, one report per group
Length	Main body at most 5 pages; references, appendices, AI declaration and contribution statement are extra
Labs	Lab 1: laminar and turbulent pipe flow. Lab 2: laminar flat-plate boundary layer. Attendance is mandatory and monitored.
Peer assessment	Only if a member formally requests it; then up to 20% of the mark can be redistributed

Structure

Section	Pages	What goes in it
1. Pipe flow (laminar and turbulent)	about 2.5	Set-up (geometry, mesh, solver, turbulence models), mesh refinement and convergence, validation against theory and correlations, discussion of discrepancies.
2. Flat plate boundary layer (laminar)	about 2.5	Set-up, velocity profiles against the Blasius solution, drag against the laminar flat-plate correlation, discussion.
References	-	Textbooks, journal articles, public-domain codes, the correlations you used. Not counted in the 5 pages.
Appendices	-	Anything relevant that does not fit the main body (extra mesh studies, raw data).
AI usage declaration	max 1	Purpose, process, verification and reflection if you used AI; reason, strategy and reflection if you did not. Vague statements are not accepted.
Contribution statement	max 1	The contribution table plus team strategy, learning and challenges. "We all contributed equally" is not accepted.

What to validate against

Standard results to compare your CFD with. Use the forms in your own lecture notes where they differ.

Laminar pipe flow

Velocity profile $u/u_{max} = 1 - (r/R)^2$ , with $u_{max} = 2\bar u$ . Friction factor $f = 64/Re$ , pressure drop $\Delta p = f \dfrac{L}{D} \dfrac{\rho \bar u^2}{2}$ . Entrance length $L_e/D \approx 0.05\,Re$ [EXTERNAL].

Turbulent pipe flow

Colebrook: $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt f} = -2\log_{10}\!\left(\dfrac{\varepsilon/D}{3.7} + \dfrac{2.51}{Re\sqrt f}\right)$ (use the Moody tool). Smooth pipe, $Re < 10^5$ : Blasius $f = 0.316\,Re^{-1/4}$ . Power-law profile $u/u_{max} = (1 - r/R)^{1/7}$ . Entrance length $L_e/D \approx 4.4\,Re^{1/6}$ [EXTERNAL].

Laminar flat plate (Blasius)

Thickness $\delta_{99} \approx 5.0\,x/\sqrt{Re_x}$ ; local skin friction $C_{f,x} = 0.664/\sqrt{Re_x}$ ; average drag coefficient $C_D = 1.328/\sqrt{Re_L}$ ; profiles collapse onto one curve in $\eta = y\sqrt{U_\infty/(\nu x)}$ [EXTERNAL]. Laminar up to about $Re_x = 5\times10^5$ .

Marking rubric

Criterion	Weight	Excellent (68-100%)	Satisfactory (48-59%)
Application of theory (M1)	20%	Fluid mechanics applied accurately and explained precisely; theory integrated with the simulations; strong awareness of assumptions.	Core principles understood, some correct application, gaps in linking theory to results.
Problem formulation and analysis (M2)	20%	Results analysed rigorously; model limitations discussed in depth; critical comparisons with analytical and empirical solutions; assumptions justified and evaluated.	Partial analysis; comparisons present but weak; limited awareness of limitations.
Computational and analytical techniques (M3)	20%	CFD set up correctly and validated; mesh and model choices critically discussed; strengths and limitations evaluated.	Techniques applied with some errors; validation limited; little critical evaluation.
Communication and presentation, incl. AI and contribution statements (C17)	20%	Exceptionally clear, logical and professional; figures, tables and equations integrated and referenced; complete, accurate referencing.	Functional structure; figures sometimes unclear; referencing inconsistent.
Laboratory skills and data use, incl. AI usage (M12)	20%	Figures, tables and data integrated; correct units; thorough analysis; data convincingly supports arguments.	Results presented but uneven; some errors in units or analysis; limited interpretation.

Templates

AI usage declaration (if you used AI)

Purpose: We used [tool] to [e.g. check the structure of section 2 and explain the Blasius similarity variable]. It was not used for [simulations, results, analysis].
Process: [Describe prompts and how outputs were integrated or rejected.]
Verification: [How each output was checked, e.g. against lecture slides, textbook equations, our own results.]
Reflection: [How it affected understanding and writing; what you would do differently.]

AI usage declaration (if you did not)

Reason: [Why the group chose not to use AI.]
Strategy: [What you relied on instead: lecture notes, textbook chapters, peer discussion, office hours.]
Reflection: [How this supported understanding and report writing.]

Contribution statement table

| Group member | CFD / simulation tasks | Validation and analysis | Report writing and editing | Other contributions |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Student 1 | | | | |
| Student 2 | | | | |
| Student 3 | | | | |
| Student 4 | | | | |

Team strategy: ...
Learning: ...
Challenges: ...