Ivar KJELBERG
COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
May 22, 2012, 2:45 a.m. EDT
Hi
but one should dissociate periodic heat and flow conditions. For me if you set up periodic heat equations you are transaforming your 2D problem into a 1D problem, in stationary you will en up with straight T contours, no ?
One can use symmetric heat conditions but this does neihter allow a heat flow perpendicular to the plane, so not valid for the fluid flowing
--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi
but one should dissociate periodic heat and flow conditions. For me if you set up periodic heat equations you are transaforming your 2D problem into a 1D problem, in stationary you will en up with straight T contours, no ?
One can use symmetric heat conditions but this does neihter allow a heat flow perpendicular to the plane, so not valid for the fluid flowing
--
Good luck
Ivar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
May 22, 2012, 4:45 a.m. EDT
Actually yes this exactly means that the problem is now 1D. I have seen the manual describing the use of periodic boundary conditions in 3.5(a) but they have used a Dirichilet boundary condition on temperature at the inlet while a convective flux at the exit the b.c for k,e and v are set to periodic however. If I use the same conditions for heat transfer in my problem which is simply a turbulent pipe flow with constant heat flux acting at the wall I am not getting accurate results for the Nusselt number however I am getting good result for the friction factor. I am confused regarding what boundary conditions I can use to model the heat transfer in the liquid??? Moreover I cannot find how to implement the periodic boundary conditions in comsol 4.2 as there is no page available for source vertices and destination vertices also how to add a variable in the solver groups if the variable is defined as an ODE in comsol 4.2?
Thanks for your suggestions
Actually yes this exactly means that the problem is now 1D. I have seen the manual describing the use of periodic boundary conditions in 3.5(a) but they have used a Dirichilet boundary condition on temperature at the inlet while a convective flux at the exit the b.c for k,e and v are set to periodic however. If I use the same conditions for heat transfer in my problem which is simply a turbulent pipe flow with constant heat flux acting at the wall I am not getting accurate results for the Nusselt number however I am getting good result for the friction factor. I am confused regarding what boundary conditions I can use to model the heat transfer in the liquid??? Moreover I cannot find how to implement the periodic boundary conditions in comsol 4.2 as there is no page available for source vertices and destination vertices also how to add a variable in the solver groups if the variable is defined as an ODE in comsol 4.2?
Thanks for your suggestions
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
May 22, 2012, 4:48 a.m. EDT
I am sorry but what do u mean by disassociate the periodic heat and flow conditions how can one achieve this?
I am sorry but what do u mean by disassociate the periodic heat and flow conditions how can one achieve this?
Ivar KJELBERG
COMSOL Multiphysics(r) fan, retired, former "Senior Expert" at CSEM SA (CH)
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
May 22, 2012, 5:26 a.m. EDT
Hi
I cannot remeber how it was back in 3.5, but in v4 you have 2 periodic boundary conditions for conjugated heat transfer (NITF) one per physics, you do not need to set a heat periodic boundary condition, even if you use flow periodic boundary conditions. But perhaps 3.5 did not distinguish ?
--
Good luck
Ivar
Hi
I cannot remeber how it was back in 3.5, but in v4 you have 2 periodic boundary conditions for conjugated heat transfer (NITF) one per physics, you do not need to set a heat periodic boundary condition, even if you use flow periodic boundary conditions. But perhaps 3.5 did not distinguish ?
--
Good luck
Ivar