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

Problem of boundary condition setting for natural convection in a water tank

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   June 25, 2020, 03:26
Default Problem of boundary condition setting for natural convection in a water tank
  #1
New Member
 
Henry
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 6
haiteng is on a distinguished road
I am using ANSYS Fluent to simulate the experiment for natural convection of a single heated cylinder in a large water tank made of Plexiglas (approximated as thermal-insulating material), which is 1200 mm wide with a water depth of 1600 mm. Computational domain is a rectangular with the same width and depth as the experiment. The thrid dimension is neglected because it is assumed that spanwise flow field is uniform, which is reasonable. I use steady, pressure-based solver and Boussinesq approximation for buoyancy. Turbulence is modelled by transition SST.

The major problem I have is how to set the boundary condition correctly on the four sides of the rectangular domain. I have tried two options.

Option 1: No-slip, adiabatic wall on left, right & bottom boundary. Zero-shear, isothermal (Tw=293 K) wall on top boundary, to simulate the free water surface. This boundary condition setting is most representative of real scenario in experiment. However, the result is non-sensible. Contour of velocity magnitude suggests buoyant plume is completely disrupted, as attached in "Option 1".

Option 2: No-slip, adiabatic wall on left & right boundary. Pressure inlet at bottom boudanry. Pressure outlet at top boundary. This setting, although not representative of experimental scenario, produces sensible result. Buoyant plume show reasonable profile and velocity magnitude, as attached in "Option 2".

Could anyone tell me, why Option 1 generates the non-sensible result, although it is exactly the same as experiment? Why Option 2 seems so good, although the boundary condition does not reflect the real scenario?...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Option1.jpg (105.0 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg Option2.jpg (105.2 KB, 3 views)
haiteng is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 25, 2020, 03:38
Default Conditions
  #2
Senior Member
 
vinerm's Avatar
 
Vinerm
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Nederland
Posts: 2,946
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 35
vinerm will become famous soon enough
It's not the boundary conditions, but the operating conditions that appear to be set incorrect. You need to check three settings

1. Gravity value and direction
2. Operating density should be same as Boussinesq density used in material panel
3. Boussinesq temperature; should be corresponding to the operating density

Second option, thought giving right results, is incorrect.
__________________
Regards,
Vinerm

PM to be used if and only if you do not want something to be shared publicly. PM is considered to be of the least priority.
vinerm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 25, 2020, 04:04
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Henry
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 6
haiteng is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinerm View Post
It's not the boundary conditions, but the operating conditions that appear to be set incorrect. You need to check three settings

1. Gravity value and direction
2. Operating density should be same as Boussinesq density used in material panel
3. Boussinesq temperature; should be corresponding to the operating density

Second option, thought giving right results, is incorrect.
Thanks, Vinerm. But I don't think they could solve the problem.

I have checked the three settings and have not found anything dubious.

1. Gravity acceleration is -9.8 m/s2 on Y axis, i.e. vertically downward.
2. Operating density is not specified because it is not necessary when the Boussinesq model is used.
3. Boussinesq temperature is the ambient temperature, under which the Boussinesq density in material panel is evaluated.

Why the second option is incorrect?
haiteng is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Basic Nozzle-Expander Design karmavatar CFX 20 March 20, 2016 08:44
Radiation interface hinca CFX 15 January 26, 2014 17:11
Error finding variable "THERMX" sunilpatil CFX 8 April 26, 2013 07:00
Water subcooled boiling Attesz CFX 7 January 5, 2013 03:32
Problem setting boundary condition from file Antonis CFX 1 September 11, 2006 16:53


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17.