|
[Sponsors] |
September 8, 2017, 08:43 |
Wall Heat Flux utulity
|
#1 |
Member
Atul Kumar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: National Centre for Combustion Research and Development
Posts: 48
Rep Power: 10 |
Hi,
The Vertical wall fire case where WallHeatFlux has been calculated on Vertical Isothermal Wall at 300k 722 mm high , Radiation model used is fvDOM. The flow is natural convective and buoyancy driven mostly similar to buoyant hot plume after 200 mm. Meshing is simply block Mesh. I have use two versions of OpenFoam , OpenFOAM-4.x and OpenFOAM-plus utility for post Processing wallHeatFlux. OpenFOAM-4.x gives convective Wall Heat Flux and Total Wall Heat Flux, while OpenFOAM-plus give only wallHeatFlux using fireFoam -postProcess -func wallHeatFlux. There is significant difference between this two during summation of Qr and Convective HeatFlux and any one can be right. Which version calculation is right Last edited by atulkjoy; September 10, 2017 at 08:34. Reason: none |
|
September 9, 2017, 22:28 |
|
#2 | |
Senior Member
|
Hi,
it's hard to say what is the problem as anybody can't understand what you're doing. What are you simulating? What solver? Mesh? etc... You should give more details in order to get help. Quote:
I suggest to stop and use a simple case taken from your text book where you can be confident of the results and use it as an OF case to get same results. You should take one where you can test:
Regards |
||
September 10, 2017, 08:28 |
reply with images
|
#3 |
Member
Atul Kumar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: National Centre for Combustion Research and Development
Posts: 48
Rep Power: 10 |
Hi,
Thanks For quick reply it is Vertical fire case where WallHeatFlux has been calculated on Vertical Isothermal Wall at 300k 722 mm high , Radiation model used is fvDOM. The flow is natural convective and buoyancy driven mostly similar to buoyant hot plume after 200 mm. Last edited by atulkjoy; September 10, 2017 at 08:38. Reason: None |
|
September 10, 2017, 20:10 |
|
#4 | |
Retired Super Moderator
Bruno Santos
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 10,982
Blog Entries: 45
Rep Power: 128 |
Greetings to all!
Quote:
Code:
convective_term - radiative_term Code:
convective_term + radiative_term The only way to verify this is to do as student666 indicated: it is necessary to isolate and conquer. In other words, it is necessary to create small+simple test cases that allow us to check how the signs work for each term. The problem is I don't have the time necessary right now to check this myself. So I will have to leave this to someone else here on the forum. Best regards, Bruno
__________________
|
||
September 30, 2017, 15:40 |
|
#5 |
Member
Atul Kumar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: National Centre for Combustion Research and Development
Posts: 48
Rep Power: 10 |
Hi bruno
Thanks for your blogs I have corrected it. Now solver is validated. Thanks and Regards. Atul K Joshi |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Radiation interface | hinca | CFX | 15 | January 26, 2014 18:11 |
An error has occurred in cfx5solve: | volo87 | CFX | 5 | June 14, 2013 18:44 |
Heat transfer BC at wall- why need wall thickness? | Julie | FLUENT | 7 | February 3, 2012 22:41 |
how to export "wall heat flux" to tecplot? | victor | CFX | 3 | November 27, 2008 10:45 |
CFX - wall heat flux | divarano | CFX | 2 | December 4, 2006 17:14 |