Nozzle CFD

TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178-R01
Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation

DOCUMENT SUBMISSION REPORT (DSR) - COMMENT SHEET
Contract No: MM3-CBS-TVE (P2L2) DEFINITIONS

Reference of Letter/Transmittal: TVEP2L2-GCC-DES-000178-R00 • Area of Deficiency (1)
Reception date of Transmittal: 1-Sep-21 1: Design not complying with functions; 2: Detail incomplete; 3: Detail not submitted;
DSR Code: GCC-TVEP2L2-DES-000178-R00 4: Undesirable design feature; 5: Conflicting data; 6: Other (Specify)
Discipline: GC- Tunnel Ventilation & Environmental Control System (TVE) • Status of Comments (2)
Assessor: Nai Chin / Rohit Kumar A. Resubmission with complete revised documents. (NS); B. Partial resubmission (PR);
Discipline Co-Ordinator: Rohit Kumar C. Notice of No Objection
Discipline Team Leader: Nai Chin P = Pending H = On Hold C = Closed
Subject: Reply to " CFD Nozzle Simulation for CSTM Station "
Note to Table users: Cells to be filled by Engineer in
C/S Document References Issue Area of Comment Status

Status Closure
No. Engineers Comments Deficiency Contractors/Suppliers Answers
Ref./Code Rev. Page No. Format Fundamental (2) Contractor Engineer Date
(1)
TVE
1 TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178 R00 Add section lines to indicate where the contours have been taken on plan drawing of tunnel level. ✓ 2 B C
Noted and Incorporated, please refer to fig 7.0
2 TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178 Noted and Incorporated, please refer to figure 7.1F(1) and C
R00 Add Velocity X Plane contour at 10m from Nozzle Discharge ✓ 3 B
figure 7.2H(1).
3 TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178
Contractor to coordinate with UGC the design of Concrete Nozzle as required. Any modification
R00 ✓ 1 B Noted and Complied C
required during execution will be done by TVEP2L2 contractor, respecting other services in the tunnel.
4 TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178 C
R00 Please check and confirm the reference and compliance to the finalized IDA report. ✓ 1 B Yes, we confirm
DSR Code No.:GCC-TVEP2L2-DES-000178-R00 Page 1 of 1
TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178-R01 Page 1 of 41
CONTRACT MM3-CBS-TVE (P2L2)
Station/Document Name: CFD Nozzle Report for CSTM Station_R01
Annexure A
This checklist is to be completed and certified by engineers responsible for verifying and for approving design tasks
Project Identification
Project no. Contract: - Project Name: - MM3-CBS- Progressive

TVE (Phase2
or Identification VL/MML3-CBS- Lot2) Final
TVE(P2-L2)
√
Design Stage
Client Voltas Design Discipline TVE Definitive Design
Verification Checklist
ASPECT TO BE CHECKED REFERENCE
AND VERIFIED REQUIRED COMPLETED SIGNATURE DOCUMENT
Detail design requirements in YES V YES V Attached copy of

accordance with technical discipline
specification NO NO checklist √
Key design assumptions and
standard appropriate for YES
MANDATORY V
specification requirement intended
use NO
Independent design checks √

YES NO YES
completed and report available √
MANDATORY NO
YES
Hazard and risk analysis
completed and results available MANDATORY NO
√
Interface requirements verified
system (AFC, STPT, LIF EST, YES √
PSS, OCS, TVE etc) Note: - SYSTEM √
Boxes are to be completed for all NO
applicable interface
YES YES
Statutory approvals and licenses
obtained NO NO
√ √
YES YES
Design documents for stage √ √
completed and ready for release NO NO
YES YES
Operating and manuals updated NO √ NO

√
Independent Design Checker Certification and Design Approval
Signature: Printed Name Date
I certify that all required actions Faheem Ali 18.10.2021

have been completed or are
planned and that the design is Dr. Zhang
ready for release to constructions
and/or use
Page 1|1
Ref. No: VL-DD Document-178-R01 Date: 18 October 2020
This Design Certificate refers to:

Submission No. TVEP2L2-GCC-DES-000178-R01 which comprises:
Technical Submission no. TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178-R01 for CFD Nozzle Simulation for CSTM Station
In respect of:
Contract No: MM3-CBS-TVE -P2L2 Design, Manufacturing, Supply, Installation, Testing and
commissioning of Tunnel ventilation system and Environment control system between
Mumbai central (excluding) to Cuffe Parade (Including) stations for Mumbai metro line 3
The contents of this submission are scheduled in Section A below.
The documents scheduled in Section B below, for which a Notice of No Objection has been issued, are
of relevance to this submission.
LEAD DESIGNER'S STATEMENT
We certify that:
a. The design of the Permanent Works, as illustrated and described in the documents scheduled in
Section A below, complies with the Employer's Requirements, Outline Design Specifications,
Outline Construction Specifications & other Contract provisions, local regulations and standards and
Voltas technical proposal
b. A detailed review and design check have been undertaken and completed to confirm the
completeness, adequacy and validity of the design of the Permanent Works as Illustrated and
described in the documents scheduled in Section A below;
c. All necessary and required approvals relating to the design of the Permanent Works, as Illustrated
and described in the documents scheduled in Section A below, have been obtained and copies of
such approvals are annexed in Section C Below-Not Applicable
d. All effects of the design comprising the submission on the design of adjacent or other parts of the
Works have been fully considered in the design of those parts.
Signed by 'Authorised Representative' (for Designer)
Ir Henry Lau Chi Hung (TVS Design Manager)
LEAD DESIGN CHECKER'S CERTIFICATION
We certify that the Work described In Section A of this certificate has been checked by us, and meets
all the requirements of the Contract.
Signed by 'Authorised Representative' (for Design Checker (IDA)
Dr. Qihui Zhang (Independent Design Assessor - TVS)
CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION:
This Certifies that all design has been performed utilising the skill and care to be expected of a
professionally qualified and competent designer, experienced in work of similar nature and scope. This
further certifies that all works relating to the preparation, review, checking and certification of design
has been verified by us and that the design meets all the requirements of the Contract and has been
accepted by us vide Clause 20 of GCC
Signed by 'Authorised Representative

(For VOLTAS Ltd)
Narendra K Viswanathan (Project Manager)
Section A
Submission No. TVEP2L2-GCC-DES-000178-R01 which comprises:
Technical Submission no. TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178-R01 for CFD Nozzle Simulation for CSTM Station
Section B
NA
Mumbai Metro Rail Project Contract BSL/MML3 -CBS-TVE(P2-l1)/SYSTRA/LET/001
CRS (COMMENT RESOLUTION SHEET)

Date: 08.04.2021 Comment Open
Contract Number : MM3-CBS-TVE-(P2L2) Comment Closed
Document No:TVEP2L2 -GCC-DOC-0176 Noted for Next submission

Design Checker: ---------
COMMENTS ON NOZZLE CFD SIMULATION - CSTM STATUS

Subject :- IDA COMMENTS DDC RESPONSE
STATION (OPEN/CLOSED)
Design
S.N. Section No/Page No Rev. No. DATE COMMENTS DATE RESPONSE
Status
Comments on report "Nozzle CFD Simulation - CSTM Station"

1. This is the thrid nozzle CFD report submitted. The previous report did not have a list of tables and figures.
To maintain the consistency of the reports, list of tables and figures are not provided in this report.
1. Please update list of figures & tables in table of contents 2. Incorporated.
General, Quality and formatting of
1 DD R00 08.04.2021 2. Report page numbers missing. 24.08.2021 3. Incorporated. CLOSED
report
3. Update caption table 1.1
1. Please add table station wise summary i.e. Net Thrust, Nozzle angle, Nozzle Outlet Area, Incorporated in Appendix-C
2 DD Section 1 - Introduction R00 08.04.2022 Distance from Tunnel Eye, Gap from Kinematic envelope, Infringement with tunnel face & Max 24.08.2021 CLOSED
width or not.
Section 2 - Objective and Coverage of 1. The objective should also include the installation efficiency achieved using CFD simulation and 1. Incorporated.
3 DD R00 08.04.2023 24.08.2021 CLOSED
this Study compliance to critical velocity/required.
1. As per section 3.5, out of two simulation scenarios figure 266 (Ida Tunnel Simulation report) 1. Train stops at cross over will block the nozzle discharge and therefore, figure 269 is not considered. The
has been considered as worst case. What is the basis of worst case scienario. It is evident from nozzle discharge location shall be considered as non-stopping zone.
4 DD Section 3 - Analyses Approach R00 08.04.2024 24.08.2021 CLOSED
figure 269 (IDA tunnel simulation report), the air flow before train is lower than compared to figure
266 (IDA tunnel simulation report).
1. Please ensure the boundary conditions in the CFD simulation report are corresponding to
the latest IDA simulation report.
2. For case 1, 75 CMS air flow discharge from nozzle is leading to 65.3 CMS, air flow upstream
of fire. How was 65.3 CMS achieved without doing any 1-D simulation for 75 CMS fan airflow. 1. Confirmed.
3. Its is eveident from IDA tunnel simulation reult that 65.3 CMS airflow was achieved using 2. 1D simulation is not under our scope. Case 1 objective to verify the air velocity at the evacluation path.
nozzle discharge velocity of 30 m/s and airflow of 50 CMS. It is expected that using a different 3. 1D simulation is not under our scope.
Section 4 - Simulation Approach and 4. The boundary conditions used are illustrated in Figure 4.1A and Figure 4.1B and they are clear enough to
5 DD R00 08.04.2025 discharge velocity and airflow will lead to different airflow in tunnel (Other than 65.3 CMS). 24.08.2021 CLOSED
Boundary Conditions illustrate what boundary conditions adopted in the models. In CFD analysis, the laws of fluid dynamics have
Please justify the revised nozzle airflow paramters with 1-D simulation. been followed, i.e. no slip boundary for walls. As such, it is not necessary to state such a trivial information. A
4. Please add figure clearly showing boundary conditions (such as inlet bc, pressure outlet, wall wall roughness of 3mm for all surfaces was adopted.
bc-slip or no slip, roughness, areas etc.) used for simulations. 5. Nozzle loss is not objective of this study.
5. One of the major loss associated with nozzle is it's installation efficiency that greatly depends
on wall friction. Please make sure that enough number of cells are present to resolve boundary
layer near wall.
Page 1 of 2
Mumbai Metro Rail Project Contract BSL/MML3 -CBS-TVE(P2-l1)/SYSTRA/LET/001
Date: 08.04.2021 Comment Open
Contract Number : MM3-CBS-TVE-(P2L2) Comment Closed
Document No:TVEP2L2 -GCC-DOC-0176 Noted for Next submission

Design Checker: ---------
COMMENTS ON NOZZLE CFD SIMULATION - CSTM STATUS

Subject :- IDA COMMENTS DDC RESPONSE
STATION (OPEN/CLOSED)
Design
S.N. Section No/Page No Rev. No. DATE COMMENTS DATE RESPONSE
Status
Please include following minimum information in the report: 1. The boundary condition settings were included based on IDA results (Figure 266 of the IDA Tunnel
1. All relevant dimensions of the computational domain with explanation/justification about the Simulation Report) as indicated on Section 4.1.
region not included in the domain. 2. Figure 6.3E to Figure 6.3G are the surface mesh of the CFD model. You may refer to them to cross check
2. Is mesh size of 0.15m uniform throughout the model or is it near nozzle only? Please clarify the mesh size 0.15m as stated on the Report. 0.15m was adopted in the whole model.
more in the report. 3. Incorporated in Appendix-C
3. Please provide an architectural plan or BIM bird eye view for the station end which you are 4. Minor Losses of services are not included in the simulation model.
modelling. Please put that plan before your model geometry so the reader can see the 5. It is confirmed that mesh sensitivity (0.25m, 0.2m) had been conducted and 0.15m adopted in the report is
Section 6 - Description of Simulation – differences between the actual layout and your model. sufficient for the current analysis.
6 DD R00 08.04.2026 24.08.2021 CLOSED
Nozzle Performance 4. Please attach detailed nozzle drawing (plan, section with other services) in the report. Based 6. Ditto.
on this only, it can be concluded if modelling account all the losses or not. 7. Such services are considered small in length scale and the blockage is negligible for engineering analysis
5. Please ensure that results are grid-insensitive. and thus had been ignored similar as many other projects worldwide.
6. Please justify that thr mesh soze of 0.15 is sufficient to solve air flow dynamic inside the tunnel,
using mesh sensitivity.
7. As the nozzle is discharging from top of cut & cover section, it is not clear how the impact of
OHE, cables & other services is considered in CFD model.
1. Cross section velocity profile shall have the scale higher than 11m/s for easy identification of 1. 11m/s is taken for easy refence as it will clearly indicate whether the air velocity if it exceeds the criteria.
the area higher than 11m/s. 2. The objective of the analysis is to verify the velocity magnitude on the evacuation walkway as stated on
2. Cross section velocity profile shall be provided at the nozzle discharge. Section 2.1a with the current nozzle design. As such, the detailed flow pattern inside the nozzle is not part of
3. In the velocity contour, such as Figure 7.1G, indicate the platform side. the objective.
4. Provide Tunnel airflow curve vs simulation time before the tunnel exit. 3. It is not the objective of this report.
5. Please provide the velocity contour at nozzle discharge illustrating that nozzle discharge 4. It is steady state simulation.
velocity of 25 m/s achieved in simulation. Figure 7.1 F indicates maximum discarge velocity of 5. Figure 7.1K is added.
11m/s aolong X direction. 6. Evacuation will be at trackbed.
6. Please confirm, evacuation has been considered from trackbed or walkway near the station. 7. Yes, it had been incorporated in the model.
7. Please ensure from tunnel CSD, location of evacuation walkway. 8. 2m above trackbed was indicated in the figures it indicated air velocity at evacuation path will not exceed
7 DD Section 7 - Simulation Results R00 08.04.2029 24.08.2021 CLOSED
8. Show detailed 2D Cross sections of tunnel with evacuation envelope marked and show velocity 11m/s.
contour exceeding 11 m/s. 9. what it means by in front of nozzle? we have provided section of velocity at 0m, 20m, 30m, 40m after
9. Please provide Cross section air velocity profile at 10m, 20m &30m in front of the nozzle. If the nozzle. 2m from trackbed had incidated on the figure which shows the air velocity will not exceed 11m/s.
nozzle is far away from the tunnel, additional slice is required at the beginning of the tunnel. 10. The same calculation approach had been adopted in two nozzle CFD reports submitted previously.
Please provide the time taken for those slices too. Please mark the evacuation zone on the
slices.
10. Please provide the reference for calculation of Efficiency of Nozzle Discharge used in CFD
simulation report (Standard/Journal).
1. Please update the objective in section 8.2 as per comment number 3. 1. Incorporated.
8 DD Section 8 - Conclusions R00 08.04.2031 2. Please provide the target level pressure loss as indicated in section 8.4. 24.08.2021 2. Incorporated. CLOSED
3. Please provide results summary table (thrust, nozzle parameters, air flow, velocites etc.) 3. Section 8.6 is updated with better summary of detailed nozzle design parameters.
Page 2 of 2
MUMBAI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
CONTRACT MM3-CBS-TVE(P2L2)
PACKAGE No.15
MUMBAI METRO LINE-03
(COLABA-BANDRA-SEEPZ)
(CONTRACT NO: MM3-CBS-TVE-(P2L2)
PACKAGE No.15
CFD Nozzle Simulation for CSTM Station
ISSUING DISCIPLINE DOCUMENT NUMBER REV.

MM3-CBS- INTITY INDEX
TVE (P2L2) VOLTAS TVE TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178 R01
LTD.
Document Signoff
PREPARED BY CHECKED BY REVIEWED BY
Designation TVS Design Engineer TVS Design Manager Project Manager
Mr. Narendra K
Mr. Naushad Ahmad Mr. Ir Henry Lau Chi
Name Viswanathan
Date 18.10.2021 18.10.2021 18.10.2021
Signature
MUMBAI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
CONTRACT MM3-CBS-TVE(P2L2) &
PACKAGE No.15
Revision History
Rev. Reviewed by
Date Changes/Comments Prepared by Checked by
No.
Mr. Naushad Mr. Ir Henry Lau Mr. Narendra K V
R01 18.10.2021 For Submission and Approval
Ahmad Chi
Mr. Naushad Mr. Ir Henry Lau Mr. Narendra K V
R00 01.09.2021 For Submission and Approval
Ahmad Chi
VOLTAS Ltd. Mumbai Metro P2L2
Report on Nozzle CFD Simulation
for CSTM Station
TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0176 R1
Table of Content
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................10
2. OBJECTIVE AND COVERAGE OF THIS STUDY........................................................................12
3. ANALYSES APPROACH...................................................................................................................12
4. SIMULATION APPROACH AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS....................................................15
5. SOFTWARE METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................17
6. DESCRIPTION OF SIMULATION – NOZZLE PERFORMANCE............................................. 18
7. SIMULATION RESULTS................................................................................................................. 23
8. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................ 35
APPENDIX A – PRELIMINARY NOZZLE DESIGN SKETCHES (FOR VIDB).................................... 36
APPENDIX B – ESTIMATION ON RESISTANCE AS BOUNDARY CONDITION.............................. 37
APPENDIX C –SUMMARY & SECTION OF CONCRETE NOZZLE FOR CSTM..............................38
for CSTM Station
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Brief
The Mumbai Metro Line 3 P2L2 consists 8 underground stations, from Mumbai
Central (excluding) to Cuffe Parade (including) stations.
Table 1.1 – Project Background
PROJECT Mumbai Metro Line 3 (Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ)
EMPLOYER Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRC)
GCC MAPLE Consortium
CONTRACTOR VOLTAS LTD
MM3-CBS-TVE: Phase 2 Lot 2 (P2L2)-MUMBAI CENTRAL

CONTRACT PHASE
(excluding) to Cuffe-Parade (Including) Stations
BORROWER Government of India
CONTRACT
MM3-CBS-TVE(P2L2)
IDENTIFICATION
Design, Manufacturer, Supply, Installation, Testing and
Commissioning of Tunnel Ventilation System & Environmental

SCOPE
Control system between Mumbai Central (excluding) to
Cuffe-Parade (including) stations. (Phase 2: Lot 2) Package 15
EFFECTIVE DATE
OF CONTRACT 20th September 2019
SIGNATURE
PROJECT END
18th February 2022
DATE
for CSTM Station
1.2 Description of Stations
There are 8 stations covered under P2L2 Contract. Out of these 8 stations, 4 stations
are constructed by NATM approach and 4 stations are constructed by traditional
approach. All stations are equipped with nozzles to meet ventilation requirement
during different modes of operation as stipulated in the IDA Tunnel Simulation
Report (Document No. TVEP1-GCC-DOC-0097 Rev R01) which was prepared by
TVEP1. The report had been taken for reference and the analyses in this report
demonstrate the nozzle design meet the design requirement recommended in the
report. Below table summarizes the type of stations under P2L2 Contract.
Table 1.2 – Summary of Stations Under P2L2 Contract Scope
Station Name Construction Method Construction Method
Cuffe Parade Station South End – without Nozzle C&C
(CUP) North End – with Nozzle
Vidhan Bhavan South End – with Nozzle C&C
Station (VIDB) North End – with Nozzle
Churchgate Station South End – with Nozzle C&C
(CHGM) North End – with Nozzle
Hutatma Chowk South End – with Nozzle NATM
Station (HUC) North End – with Nozzle
CST Station (CSTM) South End – with Nozzle C&C
North End – with Nozzle (Concrete)
Kalbadevi Station South End – with Nozzle NATM
(KLBD) North End – with Nozzle
Girgaon Station South End – with Nozzle NATM
(GIRG) North End – with Nozzle
Grant Road Station South End – with Nozzle NATM
(GTRM) North End – with Nozzle
for CSTM Station
2. Objective and Coverage of this Study

2.1 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analyses was conducted to verify the
performance of the nozzles. The objectives of the CFD are to:
a. verify the design of nozzle such that the airflow discharged from the nozzle will
not hinder passenger evacuation during emergency operation.
b. verify the design of nozzle such that the nozzle would deliver the required thrust
and to evaluate the nozzle discharge efficiency in term of thrust transfer to tunnel
air.
2.2 CFD analyses conducted in this study cover the nozzle design for the concrete
nozzle at CSTM Stations north end only. CFD analyses for typical C&C stations
nozzles and NATM stations nozzles had been submitted under separate cover.
3. Analyses Approach
3.1 Worst case analysis approach is adopted. The afore-mentioned IDA Tunnel
Simulation Report prepared by TVEP1 was taken as reference.
3.2 Nozzle thrust requirement for congestion operation are 1613N and 1034N for single
congestion and double congested operation respectively.
3.3 Refer table 3.4 below. The maximum thrust requirement for the nozzle is 1704N. To
achieve the required thrust, the aforementioned IDA Tunnel Simulation Report took a
design value of 50m3/s from TVF and with nozzle discharge velocity of approximately
30m/s. As the concrete nozzle has a top discharge arrange right above the
evacuation path, it is suggested to take larger flow rate from fan and at the same
time, increase the discharge area of the nozzle. CFD simulations conducted under
this report had taken 75m3/s from TVF while nozzle discharge area had been taken
as 3m2. It aims to reduce the discharge velocity above the evacuation path and at the
same time, it lowers the fan total pressure requirement and thus, fan power rating.
for CSTM Station
3.4 The following table summarizes the maximum thrust requirement of TVS nozzles for
emergency operation.
Table 3.4 – Summary of Maximum Thrust Requirement extracted from IDA Tunnel Simulation
Report
Station Ends Flowrate Max. Thrust Remarks
(m3/s) Req’t (N)
GTRM North 40 1092
South 45 1358
GIRG North 45 1358
South 40 1033
KLBD North 40 1033
South 50 1704
CSTM North 50 1704 Concrete Nozzle
South 45 1349
HUC North 45 1349
South 40 1033
CHGM North 40 1033
South 40 1080
VIDB North 40 1080
South 50 1683
CUP North 50 1683
South NA NA No Nozzle at CUP South
3.5 Two simulation scenarios were reported in IDA Tunnel Simulation Report. Figures
266 and 269 are referred. With the two simulation scenarios reported, Figure 266 is
considered the worst scenario. It has been adopted as the basis of the CFD analyses
and boundary conditions of the CFD analyses had been taken from this simulation
scenario.
for CSTM Station
Figure 3.4 – Simulation Scenarios extracted from IDA Tunnel Simulation Report
IDA Tunnel Simulation Report Figure 266
IDA Tunnel Simulation Report Figure 269
for CSTM Station
4. Simulation Approach and Boundary Conditions

4.1 To meet the objectives of this study as mentioned in Section 2.1 above, two
simulations were performed. Simulation approach and boundary conditions for the
two simulations are described as follows:
a. Case 1
Objective To verify the design of nozzle such that the airflow
discharged from the nozzle will not hinder passenger
evacuation during emergency operation.
Boundary Airflow boundaries are adopted in this simulation.
Conditions According to Figure 266 of the IDA Tunnel Simulation
Report. With 75m3/s airflow is discharged from the nozzle
and airflow rate upstream of the fire will be 65.3m3/s. These
airflows will be taken as boundary conditions for this
simulation and the boundary condition at trackway side will
be taken as “open boundary” to allow for flow continuity.
Simulation With the boundary conditions stated above, simulation is
approach conducted. Resultant air velocity profile will be visualized as
velocity contours at different location downstream of the
nozzle and to demonstrate the air velocity along evacuation
path will not exceed 11m/s.
Figure 4.1A – Setup of Boundary Conditions for Case 1
for CSTM Station
b. Case 2
Objective To verify the design of nozzle such that the nozzle would
deliver the required thrust.
Boundary Pressure (resistance) boundaries are adopted in this
Conditions simulation. According to Figure 266 of the IDA Tunnel
Simulation Report, 65.3m3/s airflow is generated to the
tunnel side. Consider friction loss along tunnel is small and
negligible, velocity pressure of the airflow refers to the
overall resistance downstream of the tunnel and it is taken
as boundary condition at tunnel side (i.e. K factor = 16.4).
Estimation on K-factor as boundary condition is given in
Appendix B.
Simulation With the boundary conditions obtained, 75m3/s airflow is
approach injected through the proposed nozzle. Simulation is
conducted to verify the steady state resultant airflow rate
towards tunnel side. It is considered the proposed nozzle
will be able to deliver the required thrust of 1704N if the
steady state airflow is higher than 65.3m3/s (Target
pressure level higher than 69.4Pa).
Figure 4.1B – Setup of Boundary Conditions for Case 2
for CSTM Station
5. Software Methodology
5.1 CFD is an advanced numerical simulation technique utilizing high performance
computer for analyzing physical systems involving fluid flow, heat transfer and
associated phenomena. Moreover, CFD simulation technique is so powerful and
versatile that it has be used for a wide range of engineering applications.
5.2 General CFD Approach
CFD codes are structured around the numerical algorithms that are developed for
modelling the fluid flow phenomena. The fundamental governing equations, the
well-known Navier-Stokes Equations, of fluid dynamics are summarized as follows:

��
The continuity equation: ��
+ � ⋅ �� = 0
The momentum equations:
� ��

x-component: ��
+ � ⋅ �� =−
��
+
��
+
��
+
��
+ ��
� ��

y-component: ��
+ � ⋅ �� =−
��
+
��
+
��
+
��
+ ��
� ��

z-component: ��
+ � ⋅ �� =−
��
+
��
+
��
+
��
+ ��
5.3 The energy equation:
� �2 �2
� �+ +�⋅ � �+ � =
�� 2 2
� ��
�� + � + � + � − − − + +
��
� ��

+ + + + + + + + �� ⋅ �
��
Analytical solutions for this set of governing equations are only available for simple
fluid flow conditions and geometry, e.g. fully developed laminar pipe flow with
constant circular-section. The general solution of Navier-Stokes Equations in fact is
still a challenging issue in both the fields of mathematics and engineering.
for CSTM Station
5.4 CFD employs a numerical solution scheme called Finite Volume Method (FVM). The
computation domain is discretized into numbers of small, non-overlapping
sub-domains called cells. FVM is then applied on the Navier-Stokes Equations of
each cell to approximate the unknown flow variables, such as velocity, pressure, and
temperature, within the cells. By subsequent mathematical manipulations and with
the consideration of boundary conditions, the computation domain can be modelled
as a set of algebraic equations. The solution of the algebraic equations is the
numerical values of the flow variables. Further numerical methods are employed to
obtain the details of flow field of interest.
5.5 Computer Software and Hardware
ANSYS-FLUENT is the most widely used general-purpose CFD package since 1983.
ANSYS-FLUENT Version 2020 has been adopted for the nozzle design. Please refer
to official website https://www.ansys.com/products/fluids/ansys-fluent for a general
description of ANSYS-FLUENT. It has all the required capabilities for the detailed
analysis of fluid flow for the nozzle design. The un-structural grid modeling technique
will also be used to capture the essential geometrical details of the nozzle and
tunnel.
6. Description of Simulation – Nozzle Performance

6.1 Detailed Description on the Objectives
According to the findings the IDA Tunnel Simulation Report, nozzle will be required
to develop sufficient longitudinal velocity along the tunnel. By using nozzle in subway
tunnel, two issues would need to be analyzed in detail, namely air velocity along the
evacuation walkway, and the momentum transfer effectiveness in the system. To
assess the above two issues, three dimensional (3D) CFD analysis has been
adopted in this Project. The objectives are outlined as follows:
a. The CFD analysis is to verify the airflow speed along the evacuation walkway
under the nozzle operation in an emergency operation based on the latest
available design information. The air velocity along the evacuation walkway,
which is on the track level, shall not be higher than 11m/s as per NFPA 130,
for CSTM Station
where the air velocities in enclosed trainways that are being used for emergency
evacuation should not be greater than 11m/s.
b. The principle of nozzle is to discharge air into the tunnel at a high velocity. The
momentum (mass flow rate x velocity) of the air will induce a longitudinal tunnel
air flow by entrainment. The 3D CFD analysis is to study the effectiveness of the
momentum transfer by the nozzle.
6.2 Nozzle Geometrical Arrangements
The proposed nozzle will be installed in a cut & cover station end and discharge
directly into the tunnel. Figure 6.2A to Figure 6.2C illustrate the geometrical
arrangement of the nozzle in station end. Preliminary sketches on nozzle
construction are included in Appendix A.
Nozzle
Tunnel
Station
Cross-over Section
Figure 6.2A - General Arrangement of Nozzle in CSTM Station
Nozzle
Station
Tunnel
Cross-over Section
Figure 6.2B - General Arrangement of Nozzle in CSTM Station
for CSTM Station
Nozzle
Tunnel
Station
Cross-over Station
Figure 6.2C - General Arrangement of Nozzle in CSTM Station
6.3 3D CFD Model
Based on the preliminary sketches on nozzle construction and the suggested
modifications on the nozzle direction, a 3D CFD model has been constructed for the
nozzle and tunnel. Figure 6.3A to Figure 6.3D illustrate the complete 3D CFD model.
Tunnel
Nozzle
Station
Cross-over Station
Figure 6.3A - Isometric Views for 3D CFD Nozzle Model
Nozzle
Cross-over Section
Figure 6.3B – Isometric View for 3D CFD near Nozzle Section
for CSTM Station
Figure 6.3C - View for 3D CFD – View from Station towards Tunnel Side
Nozzle
Figure 6.3D - View for 3D CFD – View from Tunnel towards Station Side
Figure 6.3E – Surface Mesh Configuration near Nozzles
for CSTM Station
Figure 6.3F – Surface Mesh Configuration near Transition Section
Figure 6.3G – Surface Mesh Configuration near Tunnels
6.4 Design Parameters for 3D CFD Simulations
Apart from the 3D geometrical arrangement stated on Section 6.3, the following
outline the design parameters for the 3D CFD simulations.
a. Mesh size: 0.15m fully unstructured polyhedral mesh
b. Discharge velocity: 25m/s
c. Air density: 1.2kg/m3
d. Turbulence Model: RNG k-ε
for CSTM Station
7. Simulation Results
The CFD simulation results for both Case 1 and Case 2 are outlined in the following
sections. Figure 7.0 below illustrate the sections of air velocity contours along tunnel.
Figure 7.0 – Locations of Velocity Contours
7.1 Case 1 – Velocity Magnitude along Evacuation Walkway
The velocity magnitude contours on various sections along and across the tunnel are
illustrated in the following figures. The plot range of velocity magnitude is from 0m/s
to 10m/s (the limit as per NFPA 130 for safe passenger evacuation is 11m/s). Within
the evacuation zone, the velocity magnitude would be lower than 11m/s.
Nozzle Discharge Direction
Station Cross-over Station Tunnel
Figure 7.1A - Velocity Contours at 0.5m above Trackbed Level
for CSTM Station
Figure 7.1B - Velocity Contours at 1.0m above Trackbed Level
Figure 7.1C - Velocity Contours at 1.5m above Trackbed Level
Figure 7.1D - Velocity Contours at 2.0m above Trackbed Level
for CSTM Station
Figure 7.1E - Velocity Contours at 2.5m above Trackbed Level
2.5m
2.0m
1.5m
1.0m
0.5m
Figure 7.1F – X-Velocity Contours across Nozzle Discharge
for CSTM Station
2.0m
Figure 7.1F(1) – X-Velocity Contours at 10m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
2.0m
Figure 7.1G – X-Velocity Contours at 20m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
for CSTM Station
2.0m
Figure 7.1H – X-Velocity Contours at 30m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
2.0m
Figure 7.1I – X-Velocity Contours at 40m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
for CSTM Station
Figure 7.1J - Velocity Vector at 70m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
Figure 7.1K – Close Up Velocity Contour at Nozzle Discharge
for CSTM Station
7.2 Case 2 – Effectiveness of Momentum Transfer of Nozzle
a. Target resultant flowrate
With the boundary conditions as outlined above, the airflow rates extracted from the
CFD simulation results are illustrated in Figure 7.2A.
Figure 7.2A - CFD Results of Case 2
The resultant airflow rate from CFD is 69.8m3/s which is higher than the target
resultant flowrate as reported in Table 4.2B.
Figure 7.2B - Velocity Vector at 70m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
The following figures summarize the resulting velocity magnitude contours on
various sections along and across the tunnel. The same plot range of velocity
magnitude 0m/s to 11m/s has been adopted for easy comparison. Within the
evacuation zone, same as in Case 1, the velocity would be lower than 11m/s. This
also indicates that the proposed nozzle design would not affect evacuation during
emergency operation.
for CSTM Station
Nozzle Discharge Direction
Station Cross-over Station Tunnel
Figure 7.2C - Velocity Contours at 0.5m above Trackbed Level
Evacuation Zone on Trackbed Level
Figure 7.2D - Velocity Contours at 1.0m above Trackbed Level
Figure 7.2E - Velocity Contours at 1.5m above Trackbed Level
for CSTM Station
Figure 7.2F - Velocity Contours at 2.0m above Trackbed Level
Figure 7.2G - Velocity Contours at 2.5m above Trackbed Level
2.5m
2.0m
1.5m
1.0m
0.5m
Figure 7.2H – X-Velocity Contours across Nozzle Discharge
for CSTM Station
2.0m
Figure 7.2H(1) – X-Velocity Contours at 10m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
2.0m
Figure 7.2I – X-Velocity Contours at 20m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
for CSTM Station
2.0m
Figure 7.2J – X-Velocity Contours at 30m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
2.0m
Figure 7.2K – X-Velocity Contours at 40m downstream of Nozzle Discharge
for CSTM Station
b. Efficiency of Nozzle Discharge
Resultant airflow reported in Section 7.2a above confirmed the nozzle is capable to
deliver the required thrust. Total pressure developed at the resistance boundary had
been checked and confirmed with comparable level with the target pressure level.
The nozzle discharge efficiency in term of thrust delivered is evaluated as follow:
T��−�ℎ�� = � × �
��
T��−�ℎ�� = � × � ×
��
75
T��−�ℎ�� = 1.2 × 75 ×
3.0
T��−�ℎ�� = 2250N
Effective thrust transfer to tunnel air by the nozzle is calculated as follows:

2
T��−�� 1 ��
= × � × �� ×
�� 2 ��
2
T��−�� 1 69.8�3 /�
= × 1.2��/�3 × 16.4 ×
24.59�2 2 24.59�2
T��−�� = 1950N
Where:
TNozzle-Theo – Theoretical Nozzle Thrust (N)
TNozzle-Eff – Effective Nozzle Thrust (N)
ATUN – Tunnel Area, 24.59m2
ANozzle – Nozzle discharge area, 3.0m2
� – Air Density, 1.2kg/m3
QTunnel – Resultant tunnel flowrate, 69.83/s
QNozzle – Nozzle discharge flowrate, 75m3/s
The above results indicate the nozzle discharge efficiency in term of thrust transfer to
tunnel air is 86.7%. This efficiency had taken into consideration the nozzle geometry
and discharge arrangement adopted in this study.
for CSTM Station
8. Conclusions
8.1 This report covers analyses on nozzle performance for CSTM Station north end with
concrete nozzle.
8.2 Two objectives of the CFD analyses had been established. They are to:
a. verify the design of nozzle such that the airflow discharged from the nozzle will
not hinder passenger evacuation during emergency operation.
b. verify the design of nozzle such that the nozzle would deliver the required thrust
and to evaluate the nozzle discharge efficiency in term of thrust transfer to
tunnel.
8.3 Simulation results of Case 1 demonstrated with the airflow boundary obtained from
the IDA tunnel simulation report, the airflow velocity along the evacuation path will
not exceed 11m/s. Therefore, passengers can evacuate through the evacuation
walkway under a tenable environment.
8.4 Simulation results of Case 2 demonstrated with the pressure (resistance) boundary
obtained from the IDA tunnel simulation report, nozzle will generate 69.8m3/s airflow
which is equivalent to 1950N trust being transferred to the airstream. It achieves the
thrust requirement set-out in the IDA Tunnel Simulation Report. Total pressure
developed by the nozzle before the resistance boundary is 79.3Pa which is higher
than the target level, i.e. 69.4Pa.
8.5 Case 2 simulation results indicate the nozzle discharge efficiency in term of thrust
transfer to tunnel air is 86.7%. This efficiency had taken into consideration the nozzle
geometry and discharge arrangement adopted in this study.
8.6 Based on the results of the analyses, it is recommended the follow essential
elements shall be incorporated in the nozzle construction.
a. Discharge flow rate at nozzle shall be 75m3/s.
b. Discharge flow velocity at nozzle shall be 30m/s.
c. Theoretical thrust from nozzle shall be 2250N.
d. Minimum effective thrust delivered by nozzle is 1704N as given in IDA Tunnel
Simulation Report.
e. Nozzle discharge area shall be 3.0m2 (2000mm wide x 1500mm high)
f. Nozzle shall be discharged at 10 degree downwards against tunnel horizontal axis.
for CSTM Station
Appendix A – Preliminary Nozzle Design

(Concrete nozzles at CSTM North end are designed and constructed by UGC. This study
evaluates the nozzle performance with respect to the requirement given in the IDA Tunnel
Simulation Report and recommends adjustment on the size of nozzle discharge. Below part
drawing is extracted from Drawing No. UGC02-ARP-SCS-08001-005-D.)
Figure A1 – Recommended Adjustment on Nozzle Construction
for CSTM Station
Appendix B – Estimation on Resistance as Boundary Condition

Pressure (resistance) boundaries are adopted in this simulation. According to Figure 266 of
the IDA Tunnel Simulation Report,
Figure B1 – Simulation Scenario extracted from IDA Tunnel Simulation Report
From the result of given in IDA Tunnel Simulation Report, 65.3m3/s airflow is generated to the
tunnel side. Consider friction loss along tunnel is small and negligible, pressure generated by
nozzle will overcome the resistance in tunnel. An equivalent resistance factor (K) is estimated
as follow.
2
1 �
Airflow Velocity Pressure = × � × �� ×
2 ��
T��
Pressure Generated by Nozzle =
��
2
T�� 1 �
= × � × �� ×
�� 2 ��
Whereas:
ATUN – Tunnel Area, 24.59m2 (From IDA Tunnel Simulation Report)
Keq – Equivalent Resistance Factor
� – Air Density, 1.2kg/m3
TNozzle – Nozzle Thrust, 1704N (From IDA Tunnel Simulation Report)
Q – Resultant airflow rate, 65.3m3/s (From IDA Tunnel Simulation Report)
Solving the above formulas gives Keq = 16.4 and it had been adopted as the resistance
boundary for Case 2 simulation.
for CSTM Station
Appendix C – Summary & Section of Concrete Nozzle for CSTM Station.
for CSTM Station
SUMMARY TABLE
CONCRETE NOZZLE SECTION
Figure 1: CFD Model_North End Concrete Nozzle (Plan View)
Figure 2: CFD Model_North End Concrete Nozzle (Section View)
for CSTM Station
Figure 3.3: CFD Model_North End Concrete Nozzle Section (3D View)
for CSTM Station

Nozzle CFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nozzle CFD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nozzle CFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TVEP2L2-GCC-DOC-0178-R01

Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation

Contract No: MM3-CBS-TVE (P2L2) DEFINITIONS

Note to Table users: Cells to be filled by Engineer in

C/S Document References Issue Area of Comment Status

DSR Code No.:GCC-TVEP2L2-DES-000178-R00 Page 1 of 1

Project no. Contract: - Project Name: - MM3-CBS- Progressive

Client Voltas Design Discipline TVE Definitive Design

Detail design requirements in YES V YES V Attached copy of

Independent design checks √

Operating and manuals updated NO √ NO

Signature: Printed Name Date

I certify that all required actions Faheem Ali 18.10.2021

This Design Certificate refers to:

Signed by 'Authorised Representative' (for Designer)

Ir Henry Lau Chi Hung (TVS Design Manager)

Signed by 'Authorised Representative' (for Design Checker (IDA)

Dr. Qihui Zhang (Independent Design Assessor - TVS)

Signed by 'Authorised Representative

Narendra K Viswanathan (Project Manager)

CRS (COMMENT RESOLUTION SHEET)

Contract Number : MM3-CBS-TVE-(P2L2) Comment Closed

Document No:TVEP2L2 -GCC-DOC-0176 Noted for Next submission

COMMENTS ON NOZZLE CFD SIMULATION - CSTM STATUS

Comments on report "Nozzle CFD Simulation - CSTM Station"

Date: 08.04.2021 Comment Open

Contract Number : MM3-CBS-TVE-(P2L2) Comment Closed

Document No:TVEP2L2 -GCC-DOC-0176 Noted for Next submission

COMMENTS ON NOZZLE CFD SIMULATION - CSTM STATUS

MUMBAI METRO LINE-03

CFD Nozzle Simulation for CSTM Station

ISSUING DISCIPLINE DOCUMENT NUMBER REV.

Designation TVS Design Engineer TVS Design Manager Project Manager

Date 18.10.2021 18.10.2021 18.10.2021

2. OBJECTIVE AND COVERAGE OF THIS STUDY........................................................................12

4. SIMULATION APPROACH AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS....................................................15

6. DESCRIPTION OF SIMULATION – NOZZLE PERFORMANCE............................................. 18

APPENDIX A – PRELIMINARY NOZZLE DESIGN SKETCHES (FOR VIDB).................................... 36

APPENDIX B – ESTIMATION ON RESISTANCE AS BOUNDARY CONDITION.............................. 37

APPENDIX C –SUMMARY & SECTION OF CONCRETE NOZZLE FOR CSTM..............................38

Central (excluding) to Cuffe Parade (including) stations.

Table 1.1 – Project Background

PROJECT Mumbai Metro Line 3 (Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ)

EMPLOYER Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRC)

GCC MAPLE Consortium

CONTRACTOR VOLTAS LTD

MM3-CBS-TVE: Phase 2 Lot 2 (P2L2)-MUMBAI CENTRAL

BORROWER Government of India

Design, Manufacturer, Supply, Installation, Testing and

Commissioning of Tunnel Ventilation System & Environmental

Cuffe-Parade (including) stations. (Phase 2: Lot 2) Package 15

OF CONTRACT 20th September 2019

1.2 Description of Stations

are constructed by NATM approach and 4 stations are constructed by traditional

during different modes of operation as stipulated in the IDA Tunnel Simulation

Report (Document No. TVEP1-GCC-DOC-0097 Rev R01) which was prepared by

Table 1.2 – Summary of Stations Under P2L2 Contract Scope

Station Name Construction Method Construction Method

Cuffe Parade Station South End – without Nozzle C&C

(CUP) North End – with Nozzle