Surface-to-surface radiation with PIMPLE + Linear FV + CHT #32718
Replies: 3 comments 5 replies
-
|
Hi @PengWei97 S2S for linearFV is under development and currently in this branch Feel free to rebase it on devel, to try it out though no guarantees on its performance or results for now |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @GiudGiud, I encountered a related issue when extending my CHT case. I have two input files:
BehaviorFor s4a_xx:
For s4b_xx:
(full log omitted for brevity, but it is a typical What I changed in s4bCompared to s4a:
Important notes
QuestionIs this kind of instability expected when using:
Specifically:
Additional contextIf I instead apply CHT directly to the fine-grained interfaces: the simulation appears more stable. However, I would prefer to use the merged Any suggestions on the correct workflow for:
would be greatly appreciated. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for the clarification. I tried enabling radiation on top of my existing Linear FV CHT setup, but when I apply both the radiation BC and the CHT BC on the same interface, I get the following error: If I remove the radiation BC, the case runs normally. My understanding from GPT's suggestion was:
But this seems to conflict with the earlier point that, for Linear FV, having two boundary names on the same physical interface can also lead to problems. So I am a bit confused about the correct way to combine:
in the same case. Should radiation and CHT be applied on the same physical surface in some special way, or is there a recommended workaround for this in the current Linear FV/PIMPLE framework? I am also attaching my current input file (s5a_xxx.i) for reference. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Check these boxes if you have followed the posting rules.
Question
Hi all,
I have a working conjugate heat transfer case based on:
The main input file is: phase2_single_wafer_cht_heatflux.i
All fluid variables (
u,v,p,T_fluid) and also the solid temperature are currently defined as:MooseLinearVariableFVReal.Goal
I want to extend this setup to include surface-to-surface radiation inside the cavity (view factor / radiosity approach).
Issue
From the documentation, the standard S2S radiation workflow is:
GrayLambertNeumannBCConstantViewFactorSurfaceRadiation(orViewFactorObjectSurfaceRadiation)UnobstructedPlanarViewFactorHowever:
GrayLambertNeumannBCbelongs to the standardBCssystemAlso, the available Linear FV radiation BC:
LinearFVFunctorRadiativeBConly supports boundary-to-ambient radiation $ \sigma \epsilon (T^4 - T_\infty^4) $, not surface-to-surface radiation.
Question
What is the recommended way to include view-factor-based S2S radiation in a:
Possible approaches I’m considering
Option 1: Mixed approach
Concern:
Option 2: Extend Linear FV radiation support
Implement something like:
LinearFVGrayLambertNeumannBCIdea: keep existing view-factor / radiosity infrastructure and only add a Linear FV boundary condition to apply radiative heat flux
Questions:
Is this the right missing piece?
Would this be a relatively small extension, or does it require deeper changes?
Would existing objects like:
ConstantViewFactorSurfaceRadiationandUnobstructedPlanarViewFactor, work directly with such a BC?Key clarification
My use case is strictly: surface-to-surface radiation inside a pipe (not radiation to ambient)
Any guidance on the recommended direction would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions