[volker1]

Hi all,

The feature I am concerned about is the option to insert additional thermal layers at a boundary. It is implemented in the turbulentTemperatureCoupledBaffleMixed BC which may be applied for heat transfer between different regions e.g. when the solver chtMultiRegionFoam is used.
I have some doubts on the calculation of the overall (series) heat transfer coefficient (contactRes_) in version 2.3.1.


I cite the corresponding lines in the file:


turbulentTemperatureCoupledBaffleMixedFvPatchScala rField.C

  113  if (dict.found("thicknessLayers"))
  114     {
  115     dict.lookup("thicknessLayers") >> thicknessLayers_;
  116     dict.lookup("kappaLayers") >> kappaLayers_;
  117 
  118      if (thicknessLayers_.size() > 0)
  119       {
  120      forAll (thicknessLayers_, iLayer)
  121        {
  122      const scalar l = thicknessLayers_[iLayer];
  123     if (l > 0.0)
  124          {
  125      contactRes_ += kappaLayers_[iLayer]/l;
  126           }
  127        }
  128       }
  129    }

This calculation sums up thermal conductivities of the layers in the following way


contactRes_ = kappa1/Layer1 + kappa2/Layer2 + ….


This would mean something like additional, parallel heat paths.
However from my understanding the layers were intended as series heat transfer and consequently the inverse values should be summed up:


1/contactRes_ = Layer1/kappa1 + Layer2/kappa2 + …


Interestingly the second formulation may be found in the very similar BC file

turbulentTemperatureRadCoupledMixedFvPatchScalarFi eld.C

  119  if (dict.found("thicknessLayers"))
  120     {
  121      dict.lookup("thicknessLayers") >> thicknessLayers_;
  122      dict.lookup("kappaLayers") >> kappaLayers_;
  123 
  124       if (thicknessLayers_.size() > 0)
  125       {
  126  // total thermal transmittance by harmonic averaging
  127        forAll (thicknessLayers_, iLayer)
  128        {
  129        const scalar l = thicknessLayers_[iLayer];
  130        if (l > 0.0)
  131         {
  132         contactRes_ += l/kappaLayers_[iLayer]; // inverse sum
  133         }
  134        }
  135      contactRes_ = 1.0/contactRes_; // new total inverse
  136      }
  137     }

In case you make use of thermal layers in the turbulentTemperatureCoupledBaffleMixed BC, better have a look.
I certainly would prefer the second version for a layered problem.


Regards, Volker

[Rotidpor]

I'm bumping this old thread just to share my experiments with kappaLayers and coupled Bcs in multiregion solvers.


I have strange issues that look a lot like what is described above.


So I set up a test case where I have an interface solid/fluid where the solid heats the fluid. I have found that if you put kappaLayers only on the fluif side, instead of reducing the heat flux passing through the interface, you increase it !


So my guess is that it is a parallel flux kind of thing implementation that adds a thermal path if you put kappalayers only on one side of the interface... Or the sign of the heat flux matters...


If you put kappalayers on both sides or on solid side (where the flux come from), the heat flux is effectively reduced.


So my question is, do you need to put h/2 on both sides to have a thermal insulation layer of effective height h or just put h on both sides ? I think you should put the same height h on both sides and it will result in an effective height of h.

[Nealcaffrey]

Originally Posted by Rotidpor

I'm bumping this old thread just to share my experiments with kappaLayers and coupled Bcs in multiregion solvers.


I have strange issues that look a lot like what is described above.


So I set up a test case where I have an interface solid/fluid where the solid heats the fluid. I have found that if you put kappaLayers only on the fluif side, instead of reducing the heat flux passing through the interface, you increase it !


So my guess is that it is a parallel flux kind of thing implementation that adds a thermal path if you put kappalayers only on one side of the interface... Or the sign of the heat flux matters...


If you put kappalayers on both sides or on solid side (where the flux come from), the heat flux is effectively reduced.


So my question is, do you need to put h/2 on both sides to have a thermal insulation layer of effective height h or just put h on both sides ? I think you should put the same height h on both sides and it will result in an effective height of h.

Hi,

Did you find the solution to this problem?

Does it adds up in parallel or in series, the efective thermal conductivites?

For example

// windshield 2 1 & 2 mm
thicknessLayers (0.002 0.001 0.002);
kappaLayers (0.8 0.2 0.8);
}

I have a windshield of three layers with 2, 1 and 2 mm respectively, i would like to use the effective thermal conductivities of 0.8, 0.2, 0.8 so that the heat transfer is reduced progressively.

Is the turbulentTemperatureRadCoupledMixedFvPatchScalarFi eld.C file replaced with proper calculation?

Any update would be helpful.

Thanks

[Rotidpor]

Well, I must admit that I've been super lazy recently and my solution to this problem is to just create and mesh the layers.
It is as bad as it sounds but at least it works without any trouble