CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > FLUENT

Activating gas radiation leads to energy imbalance

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   July 8, 2019, 12:34
Default Activating gas radiation leads to energy imbalance
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 9
seph is on a distinguished road
Hi folks!

I am currently doing the official ANSYS tutorial with the can combustor (see picture, I think it's available in Fluent 2019 R1 only, Chapter 14), however with radiation included. I am using the k-epsilon standard, eddy dissipation for species transport and P1 model for radiation. When I keep the Absorption Coefficient of the mixture (methane-air) at 0 and check the Flux Reports of the (converged) solution, there is almost no energy imbalance in all three heat flux reports (Net result = 0-1 W).

However, when I change the Absorption Coefficient of the mixture to a non-zero value (either putting a constant or using the WSGGM), there is always an energy imbalance for the Radiation Heat Transfer Rate Flux Report, the other flux reports, however, are again 0-1 W (Mass Flow Rate is also at -1e-9). The residuals look pretty good and converged (Continuity at 1e-4, Energy at 1e-6, P1 below 1e-08, Species between 1e-4 and 1e-6, staying at constant level). I decided to observe the net radiation heat transfer rate during simulation and it also seems to converge but it stays at level that is way too high with a few thousands Watt (see pictures)). The mass-averaged temperature of the domain is also stable and does not change anymore. Same goes for the incident radiation for the walls.

The under-relaxation factors are all set to default. I am using the coupled scheme with pretty much everything second order (except Gradient). Steady. No pseudo transient. I've tried other cases including a simple cylinder and seeing always the same phenomenon: Absorption Coefficient set to zero works fine, but non-zero cases always lead to an energy imbalance for the Radiation Heat Transfer Rate.

You can find the boundary conditions below. Everything's the same as in the tutorial except for the wall whose temperature is set to 1300K (max material temperature, may not be a proper BC in this case but that's a different story) and the inner emissivity factor to 0.85. The walls of the swirl vanes are assumed to be adiabatic but they're rather small compared to the rest. The temperature contour (see picture) looks fine and pretty much the same as in the case of no radiation at all.

Hence the question is: why is there an energy imbalance in the Radiation Heat Transfer Rate flux report?

Quote:
Boundary Conditions
-------------------

Zones

name id type
---------------------------------------
outlet 10 pressure-outlet
inletair2 9 velocity-inlet
inletair1 8 velocity-inlet
fuelinlet 7 velocity-inlet
wallvanes 3 wall
wall-part-fluid 1 wall
wallvanes-shadow 6 wall

Setup Conditions

outlet

Condition Value
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backflow (((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )))
Average Pressure Specification? yes

inletair2

Condition Value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Magnitude (m/s) 6
(((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0.23) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )))

inletair1

Condition Value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Magnitude (m/s) 10
(((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0.23) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )))

fuelinlet

Condition Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Magnitude (m/s) 40
(((constant . 1) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )) ((constant . 0) (profile )))

wallvanes

Condition Value
---------------------------------------
Thermal BC Type 1
Wall Motion 0
Shear Boundary Condition 0
Species Boundary Conditions (0 0 0 0)

wall-part-fluid

Condition Value
---------------------------------------
Wall Thickness (m) 0.005
Thermal BC Type 0
Temperature (k) 1300
Wall Motion 0
Shear Boundary Condition 0
Internal Emissivity 0.85
Species Boundary Conditions (0 0 0 0)

wallvanes-shadow

Condition Value
---------------------------------------
Thermal BC Type 1
Wall Motion 0
Shear Boundary Condition 0
Species Boundary Conditions (0 0 0 0)
Attached Images
File Type: png Capture1.PNG (52.9 KB, 12 views)
File Type: png Capture2.PNG (20.3 KB, 9 views)
File Type: png Capture3.PNG (12.2 KB, 7 views)
File Type: png Capture4.PNG (34.8 KB, 11 views)
seph is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 2, 2022, 13:33
Default
  #2
New Member
 
E Vega
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
e_vega is on a distinguished road
Hi Seph


is maybe a while, but did you get any information on that?

I am having a similar problem when using a DO model in a mesh that uses symmetry and has steam as participating media. The energy balance is totally wrong when using radiation..
e_vega is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


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
Energy imbalance seojaho CFX 6 June 21, 2016 21:35
terrible imbalance of energy equation for a rotating periodic domain liz CFX 6 December 1, 2014 23:09
Heat energy imbalance Coriolius CFX 4 November 5, 2004 23:29
Gas pressure question Dan Moskal Main CFD Forum 0 October 24, 2002 23:02
Why FVM for high-Re flows? Zhong Lei Main CFD Forum 23 May 14, 1999 14:22


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:30.