CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > FLUENT

Natural convection in a space-dependent gravity field

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   April 14, 2022, 04:14
Post Natural convection in a space-dependent gravity field
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: Fr
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
hzgr is on a distinguished road
I am modelling a natural convection problem in a cylindrical cavity heated from below. The primary objective is to study the influence of a variable gravitational field on the flow patterns and temperature distribution (Fig.1). A steady State (Pseudo transient) K-omega SST model is used.


First simulations were ran considering a uniform gravity field by defining the gravity components in the “Gravity” box in “General” (-9.81 m/s² in x component); satisfying convergence and physical results were obtained. The next step is to assign a variable gravitational field (g*=f(x,y)) for gravity, to that end, I defined gravity components as profiles and assigned them to axial and radial momentum source terms. These accelerations are actually are calculated with a Matlab code and would be complicated to implement on Fluent (Complex Integrals).
In order to check how these source terms are implemented in the equations, I ran a first simulation, using a constant x-component gravity profile (9.81 m/s² in all cells), defined a Named Expression (Density*(‘gravity_profile’) and assigned it to the x-momentum source term. The aim is to compare it to the case where gravity is assigned through the “Gravity” box. Unfortunately, the solutions were different. After investigation, I found out that the problem comes from the buoyancy effects on turbulence production. When gravity is enabled through the gravity box, the option “Buoyancy effects” appears in the k-omega SST box and disappears if not. The figures below illustrate the difference between the solutions:


Noticing that the buoyancy effects are probably behind this difference, I tried calculating the source terms due to buoyancy in the kinetic energy and dissipation rate equations as suggested in the Fluent Theory Guide (Gb and Gbw) and assigned them to a case where gravity is enabled and the buoyancy effects are switched off. Unfortunately, I do not get the same result as the case where the buoyancy effects are enabled.
My questions are:
-Is it possible to assign the gravity field as a profile in the “Gravity” box?
-If not, and if I have to define gravity as a source term, in that case how can I consider buoyancy effects on turbulence to include it in the k-W equations?

Thank you,
hzgr is offline   Reply With Quote


gravity, natural convection, profiles, source terms, turbulence generation

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Entrainment boundary conditions in a natural convection model emat OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 March 28, 2017 08:37
Run OpenFoam in 2 nodes of a cluster WhiteW OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 16 December 20, 2016 00:51
natural convection in attic space using ansys fluent rohan1255 FLUENT 3 April 5, 2016 18:56
Natural Convection Problem - Helium marzoa STAR-CCM+ 0 April 18, 2011 14:12
Natural convection - Inlet boundary condition max91 CFX 1 July 29, 2008 20:28

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:09.