CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > FLUENT

2D vs 3D species transport?

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 5, 2005, 23:08
Default 2D vs 3D species transport?
  #1
jdb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I'm relatively new to Fluent. I've been modeling simple diffusion from a liquid droplet in water. For zero flow rate (or low, 1e-9m/s), I expect the species transport equation to yield similar diffusion to known theory.

What I've found is that my 2D model works fairly well (within a factor of 2), but the 3D model does not work well. 3D shows much less diffusion than theory, possibly by a factor of 10 or 100. These observations are based on an axial plot of species mass fraction as a function of distance from the droplet.

I started off with similar models for 2D and 3D. Same droplet size, similar meshing. But then I cut down the size of my control volume for 3D so it would run faster. Any reason the 2D & 3D species diffusion would differ so much?
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 6, 2005, 19:56
Default Re: 2D vs 3D species transport?
  #2
peter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Remember that an axi-symewric model has essentially an infinitely small mesh in the axial direction- so using the "same" mesh size when going to 3-D will drastically reduce accuracy. Fluent is not that good at diffusion (it's made for inclusion of convection, and that's where it is optimized, especially for higher Reynolds and Peclet numbers). Try to keep refining your grid and things usually will get better for 3-D diffusion.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 6, 2005, 23:05
Default Re: 2D vs 3D species transport?
  #3
jdb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the tip Peter. I see your point about refining the 3D mesh in order to more closely approximate the "infinitely small" mesh of the 2D-axisymmetric model (normal to that axis).

I've already "adapted" my 3D mesh once. Perhaps I'll try that procedure again to further refine it near the droplet where the majority of mass fraction drops off.

When you speak of "higher" Reynolds and Peclet numbers, what order of magnitude does that imply? My early models are running near zero velocity. The plan is to raise the velocity in small steps until Pe=100 is attained. Is that still fairly low from your point of view?
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2005, 07:26
Default Re: 2D vs 3D species transport?
  #4
peter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In terms of the Pe, as long as the velocity and length scales are correct then a Pe of 100 is sufficiently large that it should result in considerable convection effects.
  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Modelling Biomass Combustion via Species Transport Racheal FLUENT 29 June 4, 2015 19:48
Please help!! Patch and Species transport Julie FLUENT 4 September 25, 2012 10:55
Questions for a species transport problems (snapshots attached) aleisia FLUENT 2 October 9, 2011 04:40
Fixed Bed Gasifier, Species Transport Problem therandomestname FLUENT 11 May 8, 2011 09:20
species transport in water lyn FLUENT 1 December 12, 2007 19:15


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:31.