Solving internal flow exiting temp w/ conjugate HT BCs.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around modeling the temperature of heated air exiting a duct using energy balance equations. The user is facing unrealistic results, particularly a drastic temperature drop in the first meter of a long duct, and seeks feedback on their approach. They utilize a method involving thin slices of the duct and energy balances for both the air and duct wall, but acknowledge that their model abstracts the air temperature, potentially leading to inaccuracies. Key concerns include the assumption of uniform temperature within the air and the impact of convection and radiation on the wall temperature. The conversation highlights the need for a more detailed approach to account for temperature variations and refine the modeling process.
pm272
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi. There is a problem that I have been working on and I seem to be getting somewhat unrealistic results. Can anyone critique my modeling method?

Problem: Heated air enters a duct of length L at temp T_h. The outside of the thin walled duct will have convection and radiation both being important. I am assuming duct wall thickness is infinitely conductive. Find the exiting air temp.

My logic is as follows: Model this in "n" thin slices, dx, along the duct. Where n = L/dx. For the first slice simply use T_entering = T_h and set up two energy balances: First at the air: m_dot*c*(T_ent-T_exit) = h_in*A_in*(T_fluid-T_wall) and second at the wall: h_in*A_in*(T_fluid-T_wall) + q_solar*A_out = h_out*A_out*(T_wall-T_amb) + sigma*epsilon*(T_wall^4-T_amb^4).

T_fluid = (T_ent + T_exit)/2

q_solar is only applicable for outdoor conditions. I have assumed T_amb = T_surr for thermal radiation.

With these equations I should be able to begin at n = 1 by guessing a T_exit, then solving for T_wall. Then using the sum of the two energy balance equations above as follows, just for simplicity: m_dot*c*(T_ent-T_exit) + q_solar*A_out = h_out*A_out*(T_wall-T_amb) + sigma*epsilon*(T_wall^4-T_amb^4).

and rearranging to:
m_dot*c*(T_ent-T_exit) + q_solar*A_out - h_out*A_out*(T_wall-T_amb) - sigma*epsilon*(T_wall^4-T_amb^4) = 0

finding the residual: r = m_dot*c*(T_ent-T_exit) + q_solar*A_out - h_out*A_out*(T_wall-T_amb) - sigma*epsilon*(T_wall^4-T_amb^4)

Then guessing a new T_exit and repeat again to get a new r. Use the T_exit value that gives r closest to 0.

Then , n = n + 1 and the new T_ent = the previous T_exit.

When I set all this up in a script, my result seems to indicate that the fluid temp drops extreme amounts in the first meter (When L = 200m for instance and entering temp of 600 K). I have compared this to a quick and dirty autodesk CFD model that leads me to believe that my script does indeed appear unrealistic. On a side note, the autodesk CFD doesn't allow me to include a solar heat flux value in addition to the convection and thermal radiation - which is a bit limiting.

Does this set-up appear complete? Am I omitting anything here?

Thank you for your time.

-D
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
What does the differential equation for this system look like, in terms of ##mC\frac{dT}{dx}##? Please use LaTex to make your equations more readable.

Do you think that the temperature profile will be uniform within the air in the duct? Is this accounted for in you equation?
 
Chestermiller said:
What does the differential equation for this system look like, in terms of ##mC\frac{dT}{dx}##? Please use LaTex to make your equations more readable.

Do you think that the temperature profile will be uniform within the air in the duct? Is this accounted for in you equation?

The temperature of the air will vary axially (let's say z-coordinate) and radially (r-component). No, I am not considering this. I simply am saying that the air flow is abstracted with an average temperature which is passing energy to the duct wall via convection (again using an abstracted convection coefficient h, which I am drawing from the equation Nusselt correlation for internal, turbulent flow and depends on Re and Pr). Perhaps in this case, the devil is in the details and it is exactly this abstraction that is giving me unrealistic results.
 
pm272 said:
The temperature of the air will vary axially (let's say z-coordinate) and radially (r-component). No, I am not considering this. I simply am saying that the air flow is abstracted with an average temperature which is passing energy to the duct wall via convection (again using an abstracted convection coefficient h, which I am drawing from the equation Nusselt correlation for internal, turbulent flow and depends on Re and Pr). Perhaps in this case, the devil is in the details and it is exactly this abstraction that is giving me unrealistic results.
So you have something like $$mC\frac{dT}{dx}=-h_{in}A(T-T_W)$$with ##T_W## determined from $$h_{in}(T-T_W)=h_{out}(T_W-T_{amb})+\sigma \epsilon(T_W^4-T_{amb}^4)$$
 
Chestermiller said:
So you have something like $$mC\frac{dT}{dx}=-h_{in}A(T-T_W)$$with ##T_W## determined from $$h_{in}(T-T_W)=h_{out}(T_W-T_{amb})+\sigma \epsilon(T_W^4-T_{amb}^4)$$

So continuing along this path leads us to separating and integrating the first equation which leaves us with: $$T_W = (T_{i+1} - T_ie^N)/(1 - e^N)$$ where $$N = -\frac{h_{in}D\pi}{mC}\Delta x$$

So, now at each iteration, I should know my ##T_i## but I will be guessing ##T_{i+1}## Then I have wall temp. Arranging that second equation you have listed: $$-h_{in}(T-T_W)+h_{out}(T_W-T_{amb})+\sigma \epsilon(T_W^4-T_{amb}^4)=r$$ Should indicate how close my initial guess is depending on how close r is to zero. but what about ##T## in that equation? I take that to be an average between ##T_{i+1}## and ##T_i## which could be reasonable for small values of ##\Delta x##, I think. These results seem to indicate an under-prediction of temperature for the first few iterations while the remaining temperature is almost unchanging through the majority of the remaining duct.

Does there seem to be anything incorrect about my analysis here?

Thank you again
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
TL;DR Summary: Heard in the news about using sonar to locate the sub Hello : After the sinking of the ship near the Greek shores , carrying of alot of people , there was another accident that include 5 tourists and a submarine visiting the titanic , which went missing Some technical notes captured my attention, that there us few sonar devices are hearing sounds repeated every 30 seconds , but they are not able to locate the source Is it possible that the sound waves are reflecting from...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...

Similar threads

Back
Top