CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Difference between IDefault and G (radiation)

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

Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By FlyingCat

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   October 4, 2016, 12:22
Default Difference between IDefault and G (radiation)
  #1
Member
 
Jean bon
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 5
FlyingCat is on a distinguished road
Hi,

Sorry but I am a new OpenFOAM user so maybe it is an easy question.

When the radiation is activated, we must have two files of boundary condition: G and IDefault. I understand that G gives the Marshak boundary condition to the walls (usually). Then, IDefault gives greydiffusivewalls (in tutorials). I do not understand that. It appears to be redundant to me, we already give a radiation boundary condition.

So I just would like to know the meaning of this two files. I think there is something that I do not understand.

Thanks.
FlyingCat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 10, 2016, 04:56
Default
  #2
Member
 
Jean bon
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 5
FlyingCat is on a distinguished road
Nobody knows ?
FlyingCat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 10, 2016, 08:55
Default
  #3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 88
Rep Power: 7
TobM is on a distinguished road
G is used for P1 model, IDefault for fvDOM model and Qr for viewFactor model.
TobM is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 10, 2016, 09:07
Default
  #4
Member
 
Jean bon
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 5
FlyingCat is on a distinguished road
Thank you for the response.
FlyingCat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 17, 2017, 13:30
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
nasir musa yakubu
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Rep Power: 7
esujby is on a distinguished road
Hi, from my understanding, G is incident radiation and iDefault is radiation intensity ray which calculates radiation intensity.

G= Qin + Qem

so if you think about it this way, G is the total heat that's been absorbed and emitted within a media and IDefault which i believe is used for calculating Qin, which stands for incident radiation heat flux. not too sure but you can easily find out using the search box here, its pretty effective.

http://www.openfoam.com/documentatio...b34c63f9ffab05

That's IDefault

https://github.com/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM...IntensityRay.C
esujby is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 7, 2017, 12:40
Default
  #6
Member
 
Jean bon
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 5
FlyingCat is on a distinguished road
Hello,

Actually, Qr=Qin-Qem where Qem is emissivity*Sigma*T⁴

I have checked it with an easy case. Qin is the total incident radiative heat flux field.

G is used with the P1 model. But, even if I use the fvDOM method, OpenFoam calculates G. G is incident radiation.

Actually, we have Qr=-1/(3a)*grad(G) (if we do not have scattering).

So I do not understand one thing. Why do we call G the incident radiation ? Qin and G are different but their name seem to be the same for me. Both are in W/mē and it is what the wall receives. If someone can explain what is the physical difference between G and Qin, I would be grateful.
FlyingCat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 7, 2017, 14:32
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
nasir musa yakubu
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Rep Power: 7
esujby is on a distinguished road
Hello Fabien,

hmm interesting: well looking at the source code, it shows that Qr, Qin and Qem are independently calculated:

Quote:
void Foam::radiation::fvDOM::updateG()
{
G_ = dimensionedScalar("zero",dimMass/pow3(dimTime), 0.0);
Qr_ = dimensionedScalar("zero",dimMass/pow3(dimTime), 0.0);
Qem_ = dimensionedScalar("zero", dimMass/pow3(dimTime), 0.0);
Qin_ = dimensionedScalar("zero", dimMass/pow3(dimTime), 0.0);

forAll(IRay_, rayI)
{
IRay_[rayI].addIntensity();
G_ += IRay_[rayI].I()*IRay_[rayI].omega();
Qr_.boundaryFieldRef() += IRay_[rayI].Qr().boundaryField();
Qem_.boundaryFieldRef() += IRay_[rayI].Qem().boundaryField();
Qin_.boundaryFieldRef() += IRay_[rayI].Qin().boundaryField();
}
}
in my case, for example, Qr=Qin, however......

to answer your question specifically

G accounts for the black body radiation and is the summation of all radiation contribution from all rays and can be calculated my multiplying the intensity of the ray by its solid angle.

so once G is updated, Qr, is calculated from G. and I as you clearly stated in your last reply, the Qem and Qin are then calculated.

However, i would reconfirm this with an expert like Bruno santos if i were you

Last edited by esujby; March 7, 2017 at 16:22.
esujby is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 13, 2017, 06:12
Default
  #8
Member
 
Jean bon
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 5
FlyingCat is on a distinguished road
Well I think you are right concerning the calculations of each parameter.

But my last question is what is the difference between Qin and G ? They have similar names but it is not the same thing. What is the power received by the wall for example, Qin or G ?

Thank you for your responses.
FlyingCat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 13, 2017, 15:18
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
nasir musa yakubu
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Rep Power: 7
esujby is on a distinguished road
they are completely different!!!!


if you try to run a simple case, you will realize that Qin is only calculated at the boundary and G is calculated on the boundaries and throughout the region itself.

Qin is the energy generated at the surface. for example, if you have a black body under the sun, Qin will be the heat flux on the intercepting surface, which will be conducted by the regions bellow the surface.

in practical terms, Qin is calculated based on absorptivity value.

G, like I said earlier, is:

Quote:
G accounts for the black body radiation and is the summation of all radiation contribution from all rays and can be calculated my multiplying the intensity of the ray by its solid angle.
G is the radiation contribution of all rays, sort of like the average distribution of heats flux throughout the region.

I will confirm all these details with an expert like Bruno Santos and a few others.
esujby is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 9, 2017, 22:09
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
nasir musa yakubu
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Rep Power: 7
esujby is on a distinguished road
Hi,

i am wondering where you got this from? is it based on your results?

Quote:
Actually, we have Qr=-1/(3a)*grad(G) (if we do not have scattering).
esujby is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2017, 04:07
Default
  #11
Member
 
Jean bon
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 5
FlyingCat is on a distinguished road
Hello,

here:
https://www.sharcnet.ca/Software/Flu...ug/node577.htm

It is the user guide of fluent. We use the same boundary condition (Marshak) in OpenFOAM so I guess G is the same for both softwares.
FlyingCat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 24, 2017, 10:30
Default
  #12
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 7
HannesJo is on a distinguished road
In my opinion the calculation of G in the fvDOM model is wrong. At our institute we developed our own and improved view factor model and work with it quite a lot. We also calculate and write the G-field there and so I compared both models in a test case. I found out that the G-field differs exactly by a factor of 4. I digged in the source code and found the calculation of G:
Code:
G_ += IRay_[rayI].I()*IRay_[rayI].omega();
However, according to theory (for example "Incropera: Introduction to Heat transfer") G equals Pi*I over the whole hemisphere. With the above sum one obtains G equal Pi*4*I, so that G is wrong by a factor of 4. As G is not used to calculate wall temperatures but just the absorbtion inside the fluid, probably nobody noticed so far.

Do you agree with me and should I write a bug report? I never did this so far
Attached Images
File Type: png fvDOM_screenshot.PNG (3.5 KB, 30 views)
HannesJo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 24, 2017, 11:02
Default
  #13
Member
 
Jean bon
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 5
FlyingCat is on a distinguished road
Hello,

It is not wrong neither in OpenFOAM nor in your book. The difference simply comes from the definition of G.

I had a look into your book and the parameter G is calculated only on one hemisphere so
\int d\Omega=\pi
But on the whole space, the solid angle is worth 4\pi.

The factor 4 comes from this.
FlyingCat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 24, 2017, 11:39
Default
  #14
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 7
HannesJo is on a distinguished road
Hi,

thanks for your quick reply. So far, I just have seen G with the definition in the book, I have never seen G defined by I*4*Pi.

When I look at the source term for the fluid, you seem to be right as the emission term is 4 \sigma T^4 and not \sigma T^4.

This probably also confuses some other people, thanks for pointing out the difference.
HannesJo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 24, 2017, 11:51
Default
  #15
Member
 
Jean bon
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 5
FlyingCat is on a distinguished road
Yes, it confused me at the beginning

Actually, G is not directly the incident radiation even if we call it like that so we have not got:

q_r=G-\sigma T^4

but \nabla . q_r=a(G-4\sigma T^4)

with a the absorption coefficient in m^{-1}

To have the incident radiation, you need the direction because

q_{in}=\int_{one~hemisphere} I(r,s)sd\Omega

And then you have q_r=q_{in}-\sigma T^4
HannesJo and Shub like this.
FlyingCat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 24, 2017, 11:56
Default
  #16
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 7
HannesJo is on a distinguished road
Exactly. It is due to the fact that G is used for the energy balance of a single ray and not of a physical surface. The programmer redefined it a little, but for me knowing G from my lectures and books, it was really confusing.
HannesJo is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

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
Radiation boundary condition for fireFoam Marcus Runefors OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 September 10, 2015 06:16
simulation radiation and convection taban OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 September 6, 2015 04:41


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24.