
[Sponsors] 
April 25, 2012, 13:17 
How to set the wall condition with shadow?

#1 
New Member
Moser
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 6 
I am dealing with a solid liquid coupled model, like AB, where A represents Solid while B represents liquid. There's a constant heat flux(e.g. 1000w/m2) from A conducting to B.  represents the interface between solid and liquid.
I don't know how to define the wall condition of the interface. If both surfaces set with constant heat flux, actually only interface adjacent to B conducts heat. If the interfaces are set as coupled, I tried with heat generation rate or energy source term of cell zone of B to induce the constant heat flux from B. However, no temperature changes in A are observed. Could anyone heartful teach me how to deal with such a interface problem? 

April 25, 2012, 13:34 

#2  
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 606
Rep Power: 12 
Quote:
Can you make a sketch of your setup? I am not sure you are doing this coupled problem correctly. If you are trying to simulate a constant heat flux to the fluid, then you do not need a coupled solidfluid interface, you only need to be working with a fluid in that case. 

April 25, 2012, 16:27 

#3  
New Member
Moser
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 6 
Quote:
My setup, as shown before, like AB, where in A, 25W is constantly generated. the heat released from A conducts through the interface , to B. I have tried imposing a heat source in A, but it seems that B is not affected by the heat source since no temperature changes are observed. Regarding the transient problem, someone suggest that not enough computation time may lead to this problem. 

April 25, 2012, 16:53 

#4  
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 606
Rep Power: 12 
Quote:
If you want to treat the interface as a boundary then you are equivalently solving A by itself with b.c.'s or b.c.'s with B by itself You cannot solve AB and apply conditions to  as the interface is no longer a boundary. 

April 25, 2012, 17:16 

#5  
New Member
Moser
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 6 
Quote:
Sorry not to make it clear. I actually treat the  as wall and need the wall boundary setting 

April 25, 2012, 17:35 

#6 
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 606
Rep Power: 12 

April 25, 2012, 21:44 

#7  
New Member
Moser
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 6 
Quote:
If I'm tying to simulate a constant heat flux to the fluid, only the b.c conatacting the fluid needs to be defined? 

April 25, 2012, 22:08 

#8 
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 606
Rep Power: 12 
Yes, you even stated it exactly. The fluid has a constant heat flux applied to it. Notice that there is no notion of a wall or solid in that sentence, merely a boundary where the heat flux is applied.


April 25, 2012, 22:54 

#9  
New Member
Moser
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 6 
Quote:
I have tried, but a new problem comes out. The thermal conductivity of fluid is very low causing big energy convergence difficulty. To eliminate the influence of flow, I let the fluid be solid temporarily to compute pure thermal conduct problem. With low thermal conductivity, only 1e01 of energy residuals can be reached, which leads to a bad temperature fied. If thermal conductivity is increased to more than 70, this model can be easily converged. How can I improve convergence performance at this stage? 

April 25, 2012, 23:22 

#10  
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 606
Rep Power: 12 
Quote:
You don't need to turn the fluid into a solid, you can simply disable solving the equations for fluid flow off temporarily. Also, the energy equations are by far the easiest to solve. You should have no trouble getting a converged solution. It also makes absolutely no sense to change your thermal conductivity. If you already understand that with poor convergence leads to a bad temperature field, how is changing the thermal conductivity going to help!? It can only make it worse! Next, your energy equation solution will not make any sense until there is a well converged flow solution. If anything you need to solve the flow well enough before trying energy and not the other way around. You cannot eliminate the influence of flow as you say, if you could, why are you doing CFD in the first place? The whole point is to be able to capture the flow influence. It doesn't matter how well converged your temperature distribution is, it is meaningless and outright incorrect until the flow is correct. I would not say that a new problem came out, just that you really have no clue what is going on. You need to correct this first and not just turn random knobs. You are shooting a bullet through a car engine in hopes of making it run better! 

April 25, 2012, 23:54 

#11  
New Member
Moser
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 6 
Quote:


Tags 
constant heat flux, fluent, interface 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
wall boundary condition  safa_c  Main CFD Forum  1  August 9, 2010 12:55 
[Other] Shadow wall region problem  amoolraina  ANSYS Meshing & Geometry  0  July 25, 2010 21:17 
isothermal wall boundary condition  Neil  Main CFD Forum  2  December 18, 2004 13:15 
Wall Boundary Condition in k  epsilon model  abhijeet vaidya  Main CFD Forum  0  July 14, 2002 03:18 
applying boundary condition on rotating wall  Haris Maharana  CDadapco  2  January 16, 2001 13:03 