
[Sponsors] 
August 16, 2013, 09:36 
Simple radiation validation problem

#1 
Member
Logan Page
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 15 
Hi All
I am trying to solve a very simple radiation case in order to validate OpenFoam's radiation model/s, so far with little success. The case I'm trying to solve is a 2D square enclosure (1m x 1m):
I have attached the following:
Qr on the leftWall should be uniform across the whole surface equal to 5.67, which I am able to get with the custom solver, but not with the buoyantSimpleFoam solver (for some reason the thermal conductivity in the energy equation has an effect on Qr). Qr on the rightWall should give a areaweighted sum of 2.3474, in paraFoam I get an areaweighted sum of 0.6103. I am unable to get the correct Qr for the right, top and bottom surfaces. I hoping that this is the case of me missing something fundamental so any comments / advice would be useful 

August 19, 2013, 07:59 

#2 
Member
Logan Page
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 15 
Can someone please explain to me how and where these coefficients (in the radiationProperties file) play a role in the radiation models:
Code:
absorptionEmissionModel constantAbsorptionEmission; constantAbsorptionEmissionCoeffs { absorptivity absorptivity [ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ] 0; emissivity emissivity [ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ] 0; E E [ 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 ] 0; } 

September 7, 2013, 14:23 

#3 
Senior Member
Sergei
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 260
Rep Power: 21 

September 30, 2013, 03:31 

#4 
Member
Artem Shaklein
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Russia, Izhevsk
Posts: 43
Rep Power: 16 
Hello, Logan Page.
The spherical harmonic approx. method (P1) gives me 8.47 [W/m2] and 2.79 [W/m2] for q_left and q_right correspondingly. The discrete ordinates method gives me 5.67 [W/m2] and 2.31 [W/m2] for q_left and q_right correspondingly. This result is very close to theoretical one. I haven't used viewFactors model yet. If you're still interesting in this stuff, I can share test case here. 

September 30, 2013, 04:52 

#5 
Senior Member
Olivier
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France, grenoble
Posts: 272
Rep Power: 17 
hello,
You can not use P1 model with an empty cavity, since P1 model is for optical thick media (a*l >1), with a= absorptivity and l = carac. length DO and viewfactor method should work however. regards, olivier 

September 30, 2013, 07:33 

#6 
Member
Logan Page
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 15 
Hi
Thanks for the feedback. I was able to get the theoretical results using the DO method by setting "absorptionEmissionModel" to "none" in the "radiationProperties" file. I was also able to figure out the theory and 90% of the implementation thereof in OpenFOAM for the DO method through the use of the book by M. Modest (Radiative Heat Transfer, 3rd Edition) However for the life of me I cannot figure out why there is an additional source radiation term implemented for the DO method in OpenFoam. For a participating, nonscattering, medium the governing RTE is given by: However in OpenFOAM there is an additional source term that has been added: Code:
IiEq = ( fvm::div(Ji, ILambda_[lambdaI], "div(Ji,Ii_h)") //< first term + fvm::Sp(k*omega_, ILambda_[lambdaI]) //< second term == 1.0/constant::mathematical::pi*omega_ * ( k*blackBody_.bLambda(lambdaI) //< third term + absorptionEmission_.ECont(lambdaI)/4 //< additional source ?? ) ); For a "constantAbsorptionEmission" model "ECont(lambdaI)" is simply the "E" value specified by the user in the "radiationProperties" file. For a "greyMeanAbsorptionEmission" model "ECont(lambdaI)" is "EhrrCoeff * dQ" where again "EhrrCoeff" is specified by the user in the "radiationProperties" file. 

February 18, 2014, 14:13 

#7  
Senior Member
Yuehan
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 142
Rep Power: 13 
Quote:
could you kindly share your test case ? I am facing the same problem and I want to learn a little about how to set up radiation from your case. thank you very much. 

March 10, 2014, 19:05 

#8  
New Member
Dan
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0 
Quote:
I was a bit confused by this when I first saw it too  as you correctly say, only the first three terms appear in the theoretical RTE. However this is a numerical implementation and I believe the reason for the E parameter in the absorptionEmissionModel is to allow the user the choice of defining the emissive power of the gas directly (W/m3), rather than via the gray gas relation (emissivity * planck function). This would be useful if one wanted to apply a radiative source term that does not vary in proportion to the Planck function. S 

March 10, 2014, 21:32 
I Need Help

#9 
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 11 
Hello all,
I am new to this forum. I really need your help to solve my problems in running openfoam. attached is my geometry. There are 5 rows of vanes in front of an intake channel. I have produced my geometry, but I think it is not correct. Does any body know, how I can define the water surface in my geometry? I want to consider it as rigid lid. Then my flow in the channel in turbulent, and I want to use kepsilon turbulent model for the simulations. Any help is really appreciated. 

October 11, 2014, 17:28 

#10 
Member
JuNNioR
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 44
Rep Power: 12 
Dear Friends,
In the example of validation discussed, as you would to include the ViewFactor model? What files should include? I appreciate everyone's attention. 

October 13, 2014, 05:49 

#11 
Senior Member
Yuehan
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 142
Rep Power: 13 

March 2, 2015, 06:37 

#12 
New Member
Amit Dhage
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: India
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 12 
Dear Logan page,
I am new to the OpenFOAM and hence may sound stupid! Could you pls tell me how did you manage to set up your problem with no convection and conduction ( Conduction i can understand as no solid body present). and if I want to consider convection with radiation what necessary changes i have to make?? Thanks in advance! Regards, Amit Dhage 

May 22, 2015, 09:03 

#13  
Member
Timm Severin
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 63
Rep Power: 11 
Quote:
However, I'm not sure conduction really is deactivated, since the thermophysicalProperties values give mu and Pr, which I assume are used für thermal conductivity. Anyway, this should be quite small and probably has little influence on the solution (maybe the reason vor ARTems deviation from the exact soluton). Quote:


May 26, 2015, 11:39 

#14  
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 397
Rep Power: 18 
Quote:


August 4, 2016, 05:48 

#15 
New Member
Joris C.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 13 
I've also used simple case above to start with radiation and am able to get the analytically expected results with fvDoM (see first post). However, I run into problems when changing the boundary conditions over time.
Any change in BC temperature (which is a fixedValue) is not fully reflected in the radiation model. This concerns me because any transient evolution in boundary temperature will not give correct radiation results. I have tested this with the square enclosure case, no conduction and no convection. Also, the bottom and top walls are not taking part in the radiation procedure (0 emissivity and absorption), but this should not matter. The left wall starts at 100 K and the right wall at 200 K. After advancing 250s with chtMultiRegionFoam, I get correct results. When I write out these results and change the BC at the right wall to 0K (practically, 0.001 K), the right wall is still radiating to the left wall at 500s. I have tried various settings of the fvDom solver, but no results. Any thoughts? Note: The case can be found at https://www.dropbox.com/s/1esjyufcrd...nTest.zip?dl=0, for OF 3. The left and right walls are called Inlet and Outlet in this case. Running sh postProcess.sh shows the radiation balance and input for the relevant surfaces. See the first post for the expected results. 

August 11, 2016, 04:21 

#16 
New Member
Joris C.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 13 
FYI, I posted the problem above, in a slight modified form, on the OF bug tracker:
http://bugs.openfoam.org/view.php?id=2185 I have also found another fundamental issue with fvDoM when cacheDiv = false: http://bugs.openfoam.org/view.php?id=2182 

January 25, 2017, 04:02 
Could you make the case available again?

#17  
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0 
Quote:
Turo 

April 16, 2017, 17:26 

#18  
Senior Member
Yuehan
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 142
Rep Power: 13 
Quote:
Hi, I think these properties are the properties of air. So if you set all of them zero, then they don't play a role in the radiation and therefore it works like a vacuum and therefore you get exact analytical solutions. Or you can also do it like this Code:
absorptionEmissionModel none; 

March 13, 2018, 01:24 

#19 
Member
Jung da yoon
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 53
Rep Power: 8 
It was a old thread.
But I want to ask something. why the term(1.0/constant::mathematical:i*omega_) is added??? 

April 27, 2018, 08:19 

#20 
New Member
ANKUR GARG
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 8 
[It was a old thread.
But I want to ask something. why the term(1.0/constant::mathematical:i*omega_) is added??? ] If you remember the radiative transfer equation, on the right hand side, we have (kappa*sigma*pow(T,4)/pi), out of which (sigma*pow(T,4)) is calculated using the following part: blackBody_.bLambda(lambdaI) Now, kappa (Absorption coefficient) is multiplied using the following part: (k  absorptionEmission_.aDisp(lambdaI)) where absorptionEmission_.aDisp(lambdaI) remains mostly zero. The only term left is pi which needs to be divided in the right hand side, that's the reason, it is added. Let me know if you have any other doubt. Thank you very much. Regards,
__________________
Ankur Garg 

Tags 
fvdom, openfoam, radiation, vacuum, validation 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Simple mathematical problem?  Frank Wedburn  Main CFD Forum  8  March 23, 2012 18:26 
Radiation problem for car model  aero  FLUENT  1  February 4, 2007 00:30 
radiation/ conduction problem  brian jackson  FLUENT  1  December 4, 2006 06:23 
radiation problem for square cavity using fluent  john  Main CFD Forum  0  September 30, 2005 08:40 
? Simple CFD problem  Davy  Main CFD Forum  0  August 21, 1998 07:19 