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

solarLoad - results not coherent with analytical

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   March 3, 2022, 06:30
Default solarLoad - results not coherent with analytical
  #1
New Member
 
Matteo Quirino
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 7
MatteoQ is on a distinguished road
The case I use to test solarLoad is an aluminium cube with size 1 m within a cubic dummy fluid region with size 1.5 m (used to introduce solarLoad) representing deep space (i.e. T = 0K and vacuum).

The solarLoad is set to be fixed in direction (x axis) and fixed with a value of 1400 W/m2 with no reflected rays and only one band in the spectrum (i.e. nBands 1) If the value of absorptivity and emissivity are equal the analytical solution is 253 K. The results given by the simulation are between 242 K and 245 K, quite far from the analytical solution. Furthermore, if the values of absorptivity and emissivity are changed but kept equal the solution changes. This should not be happening, if the ratio absorptivity/emissivity is one the solution should be still 253 K.

The analytical solution is verified by using a workaround that does not use solarLoad: the dummy fluid region is split so that there is a region in front of the cube thus it is possible to simply set qro to 1400 in 0//qr file. In this case, changing the values of absorptivity and emissivity but keeping the ratio equal to 1 the solution does not change, that is coherent with analytical results.

The values of the view factors for the geometry in exam are checked and coherent with analytical.
The workaround of course cannot be applied to curved surfaces as the input flux has to be scaled according to the angle between the sun direction and the cell face normal. That is the reason why I want to use solarLoad

Analytical solution: T = (q_sun/sigma * abosrptivity/emisivity * A_in_sun/A_tot) ^ (1/4) for a cube with equal values of absorptivity and emissivity the solution is T = (q_sun/sigma * 1/6) ^ (1/4)

Can anyone explain this behaviour? I leave attached the files "boundaryRadiationProperties" and "radiationProperties" for the dummy fluid region called "space"


"boundaryRadiationProperties"
Code:
/*--------------------------------*- C++ -*----------------------------------*\
| =========                 |                                                 |
| \\      /  F ield         | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox           |
|  \\    /   O peration     | Version:  v2106                                 |
|   \\  /    A nd           | Website:  www.openfoam.com                      |
|    \\/     M anipulation  |                                                 |
\*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
FoamFile
{
    version     2.0;
    format      ascii;
    class       dictionary;
    object      boundaryRadiationProperties;
}
// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //

".*"
{
    type            transparent;
    wallAbsorptionEmissionModel
    {
        type            multiBandAbsorption;
        emissivity      (1);
        absorptivity    (0);
    };
}

space_to_cube
{
    type    opaqueDiffusive;
    wallAbsorptionEmissionModel
    {
        type            multiBandAbsorption;
        emissivity      (0.86);
        absorptivity    (0.86);
    };
}

// ************************************************************************* //
"radiationProperties"
Code:
/*--------------------------------*- C++ -*----------------------------------*\
| =========                 |                                                 |
| \\      /  F ield         | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox           |
|  \\    /   O peration     | Version:  v2106                                 |
|   \\  /    A nd           | Website:  www.openfoam.com                      |
|    \\/     M anipulation  |                                                 |
\*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
FoamFile
{
    version     2.0;
    format      ascii;
    class       dictionary;
    object      radiationProperties;
}
// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //

radiation       on;

radiationModel  viewFactor;

solarLoadCoeffs
{
    sunDirectionModel       constant;
    sunDirection            (1 0 0);

    sunLoadModel            constant;
    directSolarRad          1400;
    diffuseSolarRad         0;

    // see solarCalculator.H for other model examples and details

    // Energy spectrum
    spectralDistribution    (1);

    // Radiative flux coupling flags
    solidCoupled    true; // Couple through Qr the solid regions (default true)
    wallCoupled     true;  // Couple through Qr wall patches (default false)

    // Reflecting rays
    useReflectedRays false;

    absorptionEmissionModel none;
    scatterModel            none;
    sootModel               none;
}


viewFactorCoeffs
{
    smoothing true; //Smooth view factor matrix (use when in a close surface
                    //to force Sum(Fij = 1)
    constantEmissivity true; //constant emissivity on surfaces.

    nBands    1;

    useSolarLoad       true;
}

// Number of flow iterations per radiation iteration
solverFreq 1;

absorptionEmissionModel none;

scatterModel    none;

sootModel       none;


// ************************************************************************* //

Last edited by MatteoQ; March 4, 2022 at 05:45.
MatteoQ is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 16, 2022, 06:23
Default
  #2
HPE
Senior Member
 
HPE's Avatar
 
Herpes Free Engineer
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: The Home Under The Ground with the Lost Boys
Posts: 932
Rep Power: 12
HPE is on a distinguished road
Hello,


Would you mind to share the entire case?


Thanks.
HPE is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
chtmultiregionsimpefoam, solar load, solar radiation, view factors

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
Save Results automatically by APDL Command ansyxyz ANSYS 1 June 5, 2018 08:16
OpenFOAM stress analysis results are showing 8-10% error with analytical solution. Sargam05 OpenFOAM 3 May 5, 2017 11:39
Transient Run - Output "Time" in partial results? evcelica CFX 2 May 16, 2012 21:36
Comparison between turbulent parameters with analytical or experimental results fareedmangi FLUENT 0 June 2, 2009 10:41
comparison with analytical results (1D)and(3D) CFX Rogerio Fernandes Brito CFX 2 October 28, 2008 20:26


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:49.