|
[Sponsors] |
December 14, 2021, 11:18 |
StarCCM+ Turbulent and laminar model issue
|
#1 |
Member
fa
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 12 |
I am using a simple example to see the temperature behaviour in starccm+
my geometry is pipe 1m longe with a a diameter on 0.016 m the boundary conditions are **velocity inlet ; velocity is about 0.039 m/s (calculated using field function 0.008 mass flow) and temperature 298.15 K. **pressure outlet; pressure is 101325.0 Pa (atmosphere pressure) and temperature is also 298.15 K. In physics I use single phase liquid water with IAPWS-IF97 I use segregated flow solver and segregated Fluid temperature gravity is in the flow direction (outlet) implicit unsteady run time is for 50 s with a time step of 0.1 40 Iterations Temperature values are not as expected using both laminar model and turbulent realizable k-e two-lay (all y+ wall treatment) based on a simple analytical solution the outlet surface average temperature should be 39.9 C the analytical solution is (Tout-Tin = (q*L)/(cp*m)) Tin is 25 C, q is 500 w, cp is 4180, m is 0.008, and l is 1m Re starts at 715 at inlet and ends at around 980 at outlet This is Laminar case but with laminer as you can see in the attached file the temperature value at outlet increases to about 38.5 C and then falls to 36.4 C with a jump at the temperature values in the first part of the pipe. the temperature jump is then decrease and becomes linear as it should from the start (the jump is unknown to me) using turbulent realizable k-e two-lay (all y+ wall treatment) I get better temperature values at outlet but still not the hoped ones (I get 40.7 C). I also get a jump at the temperature values in the first part of the pipe. the temperature jump is then decrease and becomes linear as it should from the start (the jump is unknown to me) I have tried decreasing the time step to 0.01 and 0.001 but no change and also have tried different mesh but still nothing. Can you please help me with this? |
|
December 14, 2021, 11:26 |
|
#2 |
Super Moderator
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,400
Rep Power: 47 |
2 questions come to mind;
1) are you aiming for a stationary solution, i.e. is your analytical solution for a stationary case? If so, running a transient simulation is just an unnecessary error source. 2) is your numerical setup consistent with the analytical solution? Which other assumptions went into the analytical solution, like fully developed flow etc. |
|
December 14, 2021, 11:51 |
|
#3 | |
Member
fa
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 12 |
Quote:
2) as I stated in my description I used the equation and values stated and the flow was assumed to be fully developed and has reached steady state. |
||
December 14, 2021, 12:13 |
|
#4 | ||
Super Moderator
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,400
Rep Power: 47 |
Quote:
First of all, how did you estimate that 50s is enough time to reach steady state? But more importantly: if your solutions differ between transient and steady-state, the transient solution clearly has not reached steady state yet. Quote:
There may be more discrepancies between your numerical setup and the analytical setup though, hard to tell with the limited information at hand. |
|||
December 14, 2021, 12:30 |
|
#5 | |
Member
fa
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 12 |
Quote:
|
||
December 14, 2021, 12:33 |
|
#6 |
Member
fa
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 12 |
The easier fix here is this: your analytical solution for the temperature difference is the mass-flow averaged temperature. Not just a plain surface average.
There may be more discrepancies between your numerical setup and the analytical setup though, hard to tell with the limited information at hand.[/QUOTE] The issue is not with the analytical solution but rather with starccm+. The setup is very simple and should not have this big of an issue and even with a temperature being high or low I can use smaller time step or mesh refinement to improve it. I odd this is that the values did not change with both. |
|
December 14, 2021, 12:40 |
|
#7 |
Super Moderator
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,400
Rep Power: 47 |
I did not mean to imply that there was anything wrong with your analytical solution. I very much agree that the issue lies with the numerical setup. It does not capture all the assumptions that went into the analytical solution.
It may seem like a "very simple" setup, but getting everything right requires some thought to be put into the setup. And into post-processing. Try to forget how easy this should be, and re-evaluate what the simulation should look like in order to match the setup. |
|
December 14, 2021, 12:56 |
|
#8 | |
Member
fa
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 12 |
Quote:
I noticed that with the same setup using laminar I get reverse flow that might effect the results but I checked the velocities and pressure on both inlet and outlet and in the inlet the velocity is less than outlet and that was normal. The inlet pressure was higher than that of the outlet and that was also normal. The reverse flow goes up to middle or the pipe so that is the issue with this case. I have no idea why there is reverse flow and checked my boundaries (velocity inlet, pressure outlet, wall) and everything seems fine to me and there should not be any reverse flow. for the turbulent there was no reverse flow but the issue seem to lay in the same area first half of the pipe where there is a temperature jump instead of having a liner temperature profile |
||
December 14, 2021, 12:59 |
|
#9 | |
Member
fa
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 12 |
Quote:
|
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drag Force Ratio for Flat Plate | Rob Wilk | Main CFD Forum | 40 | May 10, 2020 04:47 |
Use of laminar model for a turbulent flow | jcamilleri | Main CFD Forum | 1 | July 6, 2014 06:54 |
Question about grids for laminar model and turbulent model | Anna Tian | Main CFD Forum | 0 | March 3, 2013 19:44 |
difference of the laminar and turbulent model | duaiduaihu | FLUENT | 0 | August 13, 2010 23:40 |
Half laminar and turbulent model trying to solve | Andrew Clarke | FLUENT | 5 | May 19, 2008 13:40 |