Which method is better to post-process for mass and energy flows?

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 December 12, 2011, 16:21 Which method is better to post-process for mass and energy flows? #1 Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Zurich Posts: 176 Rep Power: 8 If one wants to calculate mass and energy flows at various planes in a domain, which one of the following methods is more accurate? 1. Calculate these inside CFX-Post using functions like massFlowInt, massflowave etc. on variables like velocity u, velocity v, velocity w, area, static enthalpy etc. 2. Export these values on the required planes to text files and then use these text files to calculate the relevant quantities through say MATLAB. Thanks for your inputs

 December 12, 2011, 18:13 #2 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 13,881 Rep Power: 107 Option 1 is most accurate. This will use the integration points used by the solver so will maintain the solver accuracy. Option 2 only uses the nodal values and so will introduce a difference to approach used int he solver.

 December 13, 2011, 06:21 #3 Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Zurich Posts: 176 Rep Power: 8 Thanks Glen for your reply. I agree completely. However, in one of my simulations, I had to calculate the heat transfer coefficient (HTC) for heat transfer from wall to fluid in channel flow at various axial locations along the channel. I defined HTC at any axial location x as per the traditional definition as Average heat flux at x = HTC (x)*(Average Twall(x) - Tbulk(x)) Since Average heat flux at x, Average Twall(x) at any axial location x and Tbulk(x) at the corresponding axial location were not available from CFX-Post, I had to export the nodal heat flux, Twall and Tfluid values along several axial planes and then use this info available in exported text files to calculate HTC(x) in MATLAB. I understand that using nodal values would not have given me accurate values of HTC(x), but could I have done anything better?

December 13, 2011, 17:08
#4
Super Moderator

Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 13,881
Rep Power: 107
Quote:
 I understand that using nodal values would not have given me accurate values of HTC(x)
No, I never said it was not accurate. I said using the full integration in CFX was more accurate. The approach you describe might well have been accurate enough for what you are doing.

This could also be done with a script in CFD-Post which takes strips of your geometry and does integrations on the strip. It would have required a little programming of session files to work I suspect.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post neilduffy1024 ANSYS 4 July 16, 2013 23:50 megacrout OpenFOAM 3 October 20, 2011 09:09 Joseph CFX 14 April 20, 2010 15:45 gxue Main CFD Forum 0 October 14, 2009 14:57 CFDtoy Main CFD Forum 0 July 3, 2008 16:14

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:46.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Privacy Statement - Top