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

Natural horizontal convection

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   October 23, 2009, 05:23
Default Natural horizontal convection
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Naples, Italy
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 7
aneres85 is on a distinguished road
Hello everyone. I'm trying to model a 2D case of natural convection in a rectangular box, where the bottom side is divided into two part, on the left side the heat flux is imposed while the right side is at a certain temperature. I use the boussinesq model and the fluid is liquid-water. I use the k-epsilon model for turbulence, but this one doesn't ensure convergence. Can you help me?

Thank you!
aneres85 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 28, 2009, 09:41
Default re:natural convection
  #2
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 7
avuttide is on a distinguished road
hi,

First of all try to think if the problem is laminar or turbulent, that means try to calculate the Grashof Number of the flat plate and check if the value is in the turbulent or laminar range.

If it is turbulent, I suggest that "RNG K-E" is much more helpful than "standard K-E", due to the possibility of mark the full buoyancy effect, that normally appears when you switch on the boussinesq model.

hope it helps
avuttide is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 29, 2009, 09:48
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Naples, Italy
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 7
aneres85 is on a distinguished road
Thank you for your answer. My problem is turbulent: this is one of the first thing that I have verified.

I'using a fine mesh in the boundary layer and a coarse one in the central zone of the box.
My problem, now, is to understand what is the best way to consider turbulence in this case of natural convection. I'm using the "RNG k-epsilon" ma results are not of physical interest. I think that the problem is in the setting of some variables. Can you help me about this problem?
Thank you!
aneres85 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 30, 2009, 08:41
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Ashu
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8
ashishmgad is on a distinguished road
Run simulation for sometime to get an approximate value for turbulence parameters.
Initialize the parameters accordingly which will ensure convergence in my opinion.
PLS Report about result if it works (for me it worked some time back)
ashishmgad is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 2, 2009, 13:02
Default re
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 7
avuttide is on a distinguished road
hi

can I have some further information??
first of all are you simulating transient or steady state??
If it is a transient, is the time step size short enough??
have you check the report fluxes at the end of your simulation to see if
the balance of mass and energy ar ok??
what is really going wrong in your simulation??
avuttide is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 5, 2009, 06:37
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Naples, Italy
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 7
aneres85 is on a distinguished road
It's a steady-state turbulent analysis. The balance of mass is ok because the the box is closed, while the balance of flux is not ok.
The residual for the continuity equation has a strange trend, because firstly it decreases, then it increases to a big value, although the mesh grid is very fine. This fact can't ensure the convergence of the problem.
I think that this problem is due to the under-relaxation factors. At this moment, I'm trying to find the better factor in order to have a good convergence in the residuals and the balance of the fluxes. Can you suggest me a solution for this problem?

Thank u at all!
aneres85 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 5, 2009, 09:42
Default re
  #7
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 7
avuttide is on a distinguished road
Hi

I have had problem too with the steady state....
so I have simulated first an Un-steady state, this is also suggest by the manual, then I have used the steady-state as a benchmark.
I have follow what is written in the manual about the under relax factor,
for the discretization of the eqq. I have used both Presto! and BFW for the pressure, and all the as 2nd order.

What you have to check is the energy equation, the buoyancy takes a long long time to develop in the steady state, probably because the terms of the velocity are much more stronger then term of the buoyancy, so u have to let the natural convection develop. But this is a personal idea, not a scientific suggest!!
I think that the correct solution is the unsteady simulation, so try to
see first the results of a transient simulation

hope it helps
avuttide is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 28, 2011, 08:17
Default
  #8
New Member
 
lyes
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 6
lyes43 is on a distinguished road
how can i set grshof number in Fluent ? what should I do to have a Gr+ 2.5 E+7 if I have ro =1 viscosity =1/Re velocity inlet =1 d=1 Re=5000 ??
lyes43 is offline   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
Natural Convection with heat generation krishnachandranr Main CFD Forum 0 July 28, 2009 04:22
Coupled vs Seg - Natural vs. Forced Convection Alex CD-adapco 5 December 12, 2007 05:58
natural convection at high Rayleigh mauricio FLUENT 2 February 23, 2005 20:43
Mixing By Natural Convection Processes Greg Perkins FLUENT 0 February 12, 2003 19:40
Instability at the onset of natural convection Magherbi Main CFD Forum 0 October 23, 2002 09:53


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:47.