Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Kieran Yeow
11360006
Table of Contents
Analysis based on empirical correlations............................................................... 3
Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis................................................................ 5
Figure 1: initial conditions................................................................................... 7
Figure2: convergence occurring......................................................................... 7
Figure 3: convergence shown at 3 separate time steps ...................................... 8
Figure 4: Heat transfer coefficient for the whole plate........................................ 8
Figure 5: skin friction coefficient for the whole plate .......................................... 9
Figure 6: Values obtained from computational results for skin friction coefficient
........................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 7: values obtained from computational results for heat transfer
coefficient........................................................................................................... 9
Air at = 1
= ( T + T s )/ 2 = 360
= 0.0308 /,
= 0.698,
u =100m/s
= 0.995/3 ,
R e cr =5 10 5
= 1.009 / ,
T s =150C=423.15K
Material = 5.2 / ,
T =25C=298.15K
= 320 /
area700=0.7m
= 2300/3
area750=0.75m
mm using R el = v
R e700 =
100 0.7
6
.00002202 =3.18 10
R e750 =
100 0.75
10 6
.00002202 =3.4
The next step is to calculate where the flow changes from laminar to
turbulent using
v
xcr = u R e cr
xcr =
. 00002202
( 5 10 5 ) =.01101 m
100
N u L = 0.037
R e4
P r1
871
5
3
6 4
N u700 = 0.037
N u750 = 0.037
1
(( 3.18 10 )
.698
)871
5
3
1
(( 3.4 106 )4
. 698
)871
5
3
=4451.07
=4747.5
The next step is to calculate the coefficient of heat transfer for both
700mm and 750mm using h L=
Next
the
heat
N uL k
L
h700 =
4451.07 0.0308
=195.85 W/m2K
0.7
h750 =
4747.5 0.0308
=194.96 W/m2K
0.75
rate
and
750mm
using
q a v e =18277.86-17136.63=1141.230746W
Finally the last step to find the average coefficient of heat transfer for the
q
l
module is to rearrange q L =h L A l ( T sT ) to get h on one side leaving ( A ( T T ) )
l
s
where this time h L is the average heat coefficient of heat transfer for the
To get the average coefficient for the whole plate the same procedure is followed
2
except using L as 1m instead of 700mm or 750mm and also the area is also 1 m .
The calculations are easier as its over the whole plate not just a section,
therefore not needing to find the average of each part. The following values were
calculated like above to get the average coefficient of heat transfer for the whole
plate.
R e 1000 =4.54 10 6 ,
N u1000 =6176.011
h1000 =190.2211
W/m2K
q 1000 =23777.64W
b. The first step to calculating power generation per unit volume of
the element, [/ m ] is to find the volume( lwh ) where
3
the volume
Power=
1141.230746
=2282461.493 / m3
0.0005
u L
v
,Reynolds
R e725 =
100 0.725
10 6
. 00002202 =3.29
Now the average coefficient of skin friction for the module can be found using
C f ,l =0.0592 R e
1
5
1
5
) =.002943185
To calculate the average coefficient of skin friction for the whole plate so l=1m
use mixed average as its both laminar and turbulent.
C f , L =0.074 R e 1742 R e L
1
L5
1
5
C f ,1 =0.074( ( 4.54 10 )
=0.37 x R e
x5
where
xcr =
. 00002202
5
( 5 10 ) =.01101 m
100
Richardsons number is R i= U
0
T f=
T s +T
where = T and T f = 2
f
423.15+ 298.15
=360.5 K
2
1
Tf
=0.00277
R i=
=.00034
The initial conditions are shown above in figure 1 the temperature affects the
convergence along with the turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation
rate which must be either both 1 or 0. The reason why the x velocity is 0 is
because when the empirical value is calculated you assume it starts at 0 and not
100.if you used 100 it will not converge as it should. However any value from 098 it will converge
2.
From the picture above the convergence can clearly be seen. The straight line
shows convergence and this occurs roughly after 1400 when zoomed in on the
graph. An initial 100 was used then 1000 and for both a straight line could not be
seen so a higher time step of 2000 was used to clearly display the convergence
(straight line).
Taking time step of 1800, 1900 and 2000 as shown below they all converge
3.
3.
10
a. The average coefficient for skin friction for the whole plate from
fluent is .0037006643 and the theoretical average coefficient for
skin friction worked out in q3 turned out to be .003066222,
working out the % difference it turns out to be 10.9%.
b. The average coefficient for skin friction for x=l+b/2 which is
0.725m from fluent is .0034007877 and the theoretical average
coefficient for skin friction worked out in q3 turned out to be .
002943185, working out the % difference it turns out to be
15.5%.
(taken from question 1a) is laminar. This is why the empirical value
calculated is a better accuracy than the computational.
From the computational results for surface heat transfer coefficient at 0.725m
the answer was 184.92014 and the answer from the correlations was
182.5969194 this shows a % difference of 1.27% which is very small. This was
11
used at .725m (average of the module) because it was a more accurate result
than over the whole plate.
For the skin friction coefficient for the whole plate the answer from the
computational results is 0.0037006643 and the results from the correlations
were 0.003066222 which gives a % difference of 10.9%. This was for the whole
plate because it was a more accurate result than over the average module for
skin friction.
12