International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 2303–2309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

Cooling of a sphere by natural convection – The applicability of the lumped

capacitance method
Zdravko Virag a,⇑, Marija Živić b, Severino Krizmanić a
a
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, I.Lučića 5, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
b
J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijek, Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Trg I. B. Mažuranić 2, 35000 Slavonski Brod, Croatia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two approaches to predicting the sphere cooling process by laminar natural convection were compared
Received 9 November 2010 in terms of the accuracy of the volume averaged sphere temperature and the heat transfer rate between
Accepted 4 February 2011 the sphere and the surrounding fluid. The first approach is based on the formulation of conjugate heat
Available online 4 March 2011
transfer (heat conduction in the sphere and laminar natural convection in the fluid). The second approach
includes the lumped capacity method based on the assumption that the temperature in the sphere is spa-
Keywords: tially uniform and on the Churchill correlation function. The solution to the problem depends on the Ray-
Sphere cooling
leigh number (Ra), the Biot number (Bi), the Prandtl number (Pr), and the sphere-to-fluid thermal
Natural convection
Lumped capacitance method
diffusivity ratio (A). The lumped capacitance method gives fairly accurate results with respect to the con-
jugate heat transfer method (discrepancy in the volume averaged sphere temperature less than 5%) when
A  Bi/Ra0.452 < 0.05, for Bi < 0.15 and Pr > 1.
Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction convection. A sphere is chosen because of its geometrical simplic-

The cooling of a hot body immersed in a fluid is a technically
relevant problem. The cooling process can be mainly driven either
by natural or forced convection. The natural convection may be
laminar or turbulent, while the forced convection is usually turbu-
lent. This is a typical unsteady conjugate heat transfer problem
governed by a set of partial differential equations in fluid and body
domains that has to be solved numerically by a method of compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD). In terms of computer time, the appli-
cation of the CFD method to solve this conjugate heat transfer
problem is still expensive, especially in the case of high values of
the Rayleigh number and a turbulent flow. An alternative approach
is based on the lumped capacitance model in which the body tem-
perature during the whole cooling process is assumed to be spa-
tially uniform, and which requires a suitable correlation function
for the heat transfer coefficient defining the heat flux from the
body to the surrounding fluid. The lumped capacitance method
(LCM) is very attractive for engineers because the set of partial dif-
ferential governing equations from the conjugate formulation is re-
duced to an ordinary differential equation that may be easily
solved by the Runge–Kutta method [7].
The goal of this paper is to investigate the applicability of the
LCM for predicting the sphere cooling driven by laminar natural
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +385 1 6168137; fax: +385 1 6156940.
E-mail addresses: zdravko.virag@fsb.hr (Z. Virag), marija.zivic@sfsb.hr (M. Živić),
severino.krizmanic@fsb.hr (S. Krizmanić).
ity and because the heat transfer between a sphere and the sur-
rounding fluid was well investigated in previous investigations
and a well-established correlation function for the heat transfer
coefficient exists [2]. Early experimental, analytical, and numerical
work related to the heat transfer from a sphere immersed in fluid
can be found in [1,3,4]. Geoola and Cornish [4] were the first to
solve numerically the natural convection heat transfer over a
sphere employing the full steady Navier–Stokes equations, but
their investigation was limited to small values of the Grashof num-
ber (Gr < 50). In more recent studies [5,6], a numerical approach
based on solving the Navier–Stokes and energy equations for a
wide range of the Grashof number (101 < Gr < 108) can be found.
Using the finite volume formulation and the SIMPLEC method,
the authors in [6] obtained both transient and steady state results
for laminar natural convection heat transfer over an isothermal
sphere for a wide range of Gr and Pr numbers. The experience
regarding the grid and time step integration from these papers will
be used in this study.
The results of sphere cooling by laminar natural convection
obtained by the commercial code FLUENT (using conjugate heat
transfer formulation) and the LCM will be compared in terms of
the sphere volume averaged temperature and the heat transfer
rate between the sphere and the surrounding fluid. Based on
this comparison, conditions under which the accuracy of the
LCM is fairly good will be defined. The same procedure can
be applied to other body shapes and in the case of a turbulent
flow.

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.02.034
2304 Z. Virag et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 2303–2309

Nomenclature
Pr ¼ lkc Prandtl number
q0 c ks
A¼ k qs cs sphere-to-fluid thermal diffusivity ratio
0 2
D2
~ ¼ p q0 c2
p dimensionless pressure
c specific heat capacity k
q2 cbðT s;0T 0 ÞgD3
D sphere diameter Ra ¼ 0 Rayleigh number
kl
g gravitational acceleration ~t ¼ tk 2 dimensionless time
k thermal conductivity of the fluid q cD0

~
n outward normal to the sphere surface V ¼ v qk0 cD dimensionless fluid velocity
~ ~

p pressure
p0 pressure without hydrostatic pressure, see Eq. (3)
q~ ¼ qq0 dimensionless density
Q_ heat transfer rate H ¼ TTT 0
s;0 T 0
dimensionless temperature
t time
T temperature ~ ¼ Dr non-dimensional del operator
r
v
~ fluid velocity
a heat transfer coefficient Subscripts
b coefficient of thermal expansion s sphere
l viscosity 0 initial condition
q density sa surface averaged
r del operator va volume averaged
eNu ¼ 100 NuChNuNu FL
relative difference of Nusselt numbers Ch from lumped model and Churchill’s correlation function
FL
T va;FL T sa;Ch FL from FLUENT solution
eT ¼ 100 T s;0 T 0 relative temperature difference
_ _
eQ ¼ 100 Q ChQ_Q FL relative heat transfer rate difference Superscript
FL
T transpose
Bi ¼ aD=ks Biot number
Nu = aD/k Nusselt number

2. Mathematical models @ðq

~ HÞ ~
~~
þ r  ðq ~  ðr
V HÞ ¼ r ~ HÞ ð6Þ
@~t
2.1. Conjugate heat transfer formulation and the energy equation for the sphere is

The cooling of a sphere immersed in an unbounded fluid by @ðHs Þ ~ Hs Þ

~  ðr
¼ Ar ð7Þ
laminar natural convection is governed by fundamental physical @~t
laws of conservation of mass, momentum and energy. Boundary Non-dimensional form of the boundary condition at the sphere
conditions are set at infinity (sufficiently far from the sphere) surface is
where the velocity of the liquid is equal to zero, and the tempera-
 
ture is equal to the constant far field temperature. The fluid veloc- ks ~ ~H ~
rHs  r n¼0 ð8Þ
ity along the sphere surface is zero and conductive heat fluxes in k
the sphere and the fluid are equal. Heat radiation is neglected. In
an axially symmetric case of laminar natural convection it is neces- where ~n denotes the outward normal to the sphere surface. Non-
sary to solve four equations simultaneously: the continuity equa- dimensional quantities are defined in nomenclature.
tion, two components of momentum equation, the energy For the purpose of this paper, the described set of equations
equation in the fluid; and the energy equation in the sphere. Using with the prescribed boundary conditions was solved by means of
the Boussinesq approximation, the density variation with temper- the CFD code FLUENT. The obtained non-dimensional fields of
ature can be written in the form: pressure, velocity and temperature in the fluid and the tempera-
ture field in the sphere are functions of the non-dimensional space
q ¼ q0  q0 bðT  T 0 Þ ð1Þ
and time coordinate and of four non-dimensional parameters: Pr,
where b is the coefficient of thermal expansion defined as Ra, A and ks/k. As a result, the time varying sphere surface, the vol-
  ume averaged temperature, and the heat transfer rate between the
1 @q
b¼ ð2Þ sphere and the fluid were calculated.
q @T p
here taken as a constant; q0 is the fluid density at a referent temper- 2.2. Lumped capacitance model
ature T0. The gradient of pressure field can be represent in the form
The same problem is solved by using the lumped capacitance
rp ¼ rp0 þ q0~
g ð3Þ method which is based on the problem decoupling. In such an
where ~g is the gravity vector (g = 9.80665 m/s2). The non- approach, only the energy equation for the sphere is considered,
dimensional equations for the fluid are: and the heat transfer rate between the sphere and the fluid is
modeled by the heat transfer coefficient. After the volume integra-
~ ~  ~
@q tion of dimensional form of Eq. (7), over the sphere domain Vs
þr q
~V ¼ 0 ð4Þ
@~t which is bounded by the sphere surface Ss it follows that
Z Z
~~
@ðqVÞ ~ ~
g @T
~~
þ r  ðq V~ ~  ½ðr
VÞ ¼ Prr ~~ VÞT Þ  r
~~
V þ ðr ~p~  Ra PrH ð5Þ qs c s dV ¼ ks rT  ~
n dS ð9Þ
~
@t g Vs @t Ss
 Z. Virag et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 2303–2309 2305

The integral on the right hand side of Eq. (9) denotes the heat trans-
fer rate (Q_ Þ from the surrounding fluid to the sphere defined by
Q_ ¼ aSs ðT 0  T sa Þ
where a is the heat transfer coefficient, Ss is the area of the sphere
surface, and Tsa is the averaged temperature along the sphere sur-
face. In the sphere, this heat transfer rate can be defined as
in which the fluid temperature changes from the sphere surface
temperature Ts to the far field fluid temperature T0. The initial heat
transfer rate (Q_ ) between the sphere and the fluid is defined by the
ð10Þ steady state natural convection. Physical properties of the sphere
and the fluid are assumed to be constant.
The following two approaches have been used to solve the
problem of sphere cooling:

DT
Q_ ¼ ks Ss ð11Þ (1) Conjugate heat transfer formulation (conduction in the
D sphere and laminar natural convection in the fluid) solved
where DT denotes the temperature difference within the sphere by the CFD code FLUENT. The FLUENT solution is obtained
needed to drive Q_ . The definition of the Biot number follows from in a spherical calculation domain with the size of 45D. The
Eqs. (10) and (11): problem is considered as an axially symmetric with respect
to the vertical midline. At the outer boundary, the slip iso-
aD DT
Bi ¼ ¼ ð12Þ thermal wall was prescribed. The computational grid is
ks T 0  T sa
refined near the sphere according to the expected solution
representing the ratio of the temperature difference within the for the greatest value of the Grashof number as described
sphere to the temperature difference between the sphere and the in [5]. Such a grid ensures a grid-independent solution. The
surrounding fluid. If the Biot number is small (i.e. the heat transfer total number of grid cells was 67,273. The segregated SIM-
resistance within the sphere is small compared to the resistance to PLE algorithm and the second order implicit time integration
the heat transfer between the sphere and its surroundings), the were used, together with a variable integration time step.
temperature difference within the sphere will be small. Thus, for The minimum non-dimensional time step was 106 (at the
small Bi numbers it is appropriate to neglect the temperature vari- beginning of the cooling process) and the maximum was
ation within the sphere (on the assumption that the uniform tem- 103 (at the last stage of the process).
perature field is Ts = Tsa), and, consequently, Eq. (9) takes the form of (2) Lumped capacitance method. It was assumed that the tem-
perature inside the sphere was uniform and the heat transfer
dT sa
qs V s cs ¼ aAs ðT 0  T sa Þ ð13Þ between the sphere and the fluid was defined by the Chur-
dt
chill correlation function with a time-varying Rayleigh num-
or, in a non-dimensional form, of ber defined according to Eq. (16).
1 dHsa
¼ Hsa ð14Þ
6A  Bi d~t
Generally speaking, a is a time-varying quantity that depends on Table 1
the strength of natural convection in the fluid; therefore, the Biot Relative difference of the Nusselt numbers obtained by the FLUENT and from the
Churchill correlation function in steady state conditions for an isothermal sphere.
number changes during the cooling process. In the case of heat
transfer between an isothermal sphere and a fluid in the steady Ra Pr NuFL NuCh eNu =%
state natural convection, the Churchill correlation function [2] is 1  104 5 7.03 7.31 3.98
recommended for Pr P 0:7 and Ra 6 1011 : 1  105 5 11.08 11.44 3.25
1  106 1 16.50 16.90 2.42
0:589Ra1=4 1  106 5 18.44 18.78 1.84
Nu ¼ 2 þ ð15Þ 1  106 25 19.44 19.80 1.85
½1 þ ð0:469=PrÞ9=16 4=9 1  107 5 31.42 31.85 1.37
where the Nusselt number is defined as Nu = aD/k. The use of this
steady state correlation function for predicting the unsteady cooling
process, assuming that the time varying Rayleigh number is defined
as Table 2
2 3
Maximal relative temperature difference eT , %.
qðtÞ cb½T sa ðtÞ  T 0 gD
RaðtÞ ¼ ð16Þ Bi A Ra = 10 4
Ra = 105 Ra = 106 Ra = 107
kl
0.05 5 0.92 0.51 0.53 0.39
implies that the temperature field changes so slowly that the natu- 50 3.87 1.87 1.03 0.41
500 25.8 11.7 4.99 1.88
ral convection is fully developed all the time (quasi-steady
conditions). 0.15 5 1.48 1.25 0.83 0.47
50 11.7 4.15 2.26 1.02
Eqs. (13) and (15) were solved with an initial condition of
500 43.2 26.3 12.4 4.84
Tsa(0) = Ts,0 employing the fourth order Runge–Kutta method [7].
It is clear that both the non-dimensional sphere temperature (here,
the surface averaged temperature corresponds to the volume
averaged one), and the heat transfer rate are functions of non-
dimensional time and four non-dimensional parameters Pr, Ra, A, Table 3
and Bi. Maximal heat transfer rate difference eQ =%.
4
Bi A Ra = 10 Ra = 105 Ra = 106 Ra = 107
3. Results and discussion 0.05 5 5.5 2.8 2.3 1.6
50 12.5 6.8 3.4 1.8
500 42.5 25.8 12.2 5.8
The cooling process of a resting sphere immersed in an un-
bounded fluid was considered. Initially, the sphere is at a uniform 0.15 5 9.3 4.9 3.3 2.6
50 25 14.5 7.1 3.8
temperature Ts,0 and the fluid is in steady state motion due to nat-
500 76 49 27 14.6
ural convection. Close to the sphere there is a thin boundary layer
2306 Z. Virag et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 2303–2309

The results from the two approaches will be compared in terms parameters: Pr, Ra, A, and ks/k, while in the LCM, the Biot number
of the volume averaged sphere temperature and the heat transfer appears instead of the parameter ks/k. Since the Nusselt number
rate between the sphere and the fluid. In the first approach these can be calculated from the heat transfer rate and the parameter
two parameters are functions of non-dimensional time and four ks/k can be defined as ks/k = Nu/Bi, it is possible to choose the Biot

4 4
Ra=10 , Bi=0.05 Ra=10 , Bi=0.15
10 10
A=5 A=5
5 A=50 5 A=50
A=500 A=500
100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %

100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %
0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20

-251 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -25 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Θva,FL Θva,FL

Ra=105, Bi=0.05 Ra=105, Bi=0.15

10 10
A=5 A=5
5 A=50 5 A=50
A=500 A=500
100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %

100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20

-251 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -25 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Θ va,FL Θ va,FL

6 6
Ra=10 , Bi=0.05 Ra=10 , Bi=0.15
10 10
A=5 A=5
5 A=50 5 A=50
A=500 A=500
100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %

100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20

-251 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -25 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Θva,FL Θva,FL

7 7
Ra=10 , Bi=0.05 Ra=10 , Bi=0.15
10 10
A=5 A=5
5 A=50 5 A=50
A=500 A=500
100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %

100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20

-251 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -25 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Θ va,FL Θ va,FL

Fig. 1. Relative differences of the sphere temperature obtained rom the lumped capacitance method (Hsa;Ch ) with respect to the volume averaged temperature from the
FLUENT solution (Hva;FL ), for different values of the Rayleigh number.
 Z. Virag et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 2303–2309 2307

Bi=0.05, A=5, Pr=5 Bi=0.15, A=5, Pr=5

10 10

Ra=104 Ra=104
Ra=105 Ra=105
Ra=106 Ra=106

100(QCh - QFL)/QFL, %

100(QCh - QFL)/QFL, %
5 Ra=107 5 Ra=107

0 0

-5 -5
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Θva,FL Θva,FL

Fig. 2. Relative differences of the heat transfer rate obtained from the lumped model with respect to the FLUENT solution for selected values of the Rayleigh number.

6 6
2
Ra=10 , Bi=0.05 2
Ra=10 , Bi=0.15
A=5 A=5
A=50 A=50
A=500 A=500
1.5 1.5
100(Θva,FL - Θsa,FL), %

100(Θva.FL - Θsa,FL), %

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Θva,FL Θva,FL

Fig. 3. Difference of the surface and the volume averaged sphere temperature for Ra = 106 and for two values of the initial Biot number.

number instead of ks/k for the independent variable. The difference (b) Variation of Pr = 1, 5, and 15 and A = 5, 50, and 500 at initial
between the two solutions will be analyzed for different values of Bi = 0.05 and Ra = 106. These calculations should prove the
four parameters: Pr, Ra, A, and the initial value of Bi. In natural assumption that the Prandtl number is not relevant for the
convection with Pr > 1, the buoyancy and viscous forces are in difference between the two solutions.
balance, while the inertial forces in Eq. (5) can be neglected. If so,
the Prandtl number can be eliminated from the equation, and it The results from the two approaches will differ at least for the
can be expected that the Prandtl number has not a great influence following two reasons:
on the difference between the two solutions. Because of that, the
analysis was performed in two steps: (I) In the first approach the temperature field in the sphere is not
uniform, and the sphere surface temperature (which is
(a) Variation of three parameters: Ra = 104, 105, 106, and 107, responsible for the heat transfer rate from the sphere to the
A = 5, 50, and 500 and initial Bi = 0.05 and 0.15, while Prandtl fluid) is different from the volume averaged temperature.
number is kept constant Pr = 5.

6
Ra=10 , Bi=0.05, A=5
6 10
1
Ra=10
8
A*Bi=0.25 Pr=1
A*Bi=2.5 6 Pr=5
100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %

A*Bi=25 Pr=25
0.8 4
A*Bi=0.75
A*Bi=7.5 2
A*Bi=75
0.6 0
Θva,FL

-2
0.4 -4
-6
0.2 -8
-10
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Θva,FL
∼
t
Fig. 5. Influence of the Prandtl number on the relative temperature difference
Fig. 4. The time-varying volume averaged sphere temperature for Ra = 106. obtained from the two solutions at Ra = 106, Bi = 0.05, and A = 5.
2308 Z. Virag et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 2303–2309
6 6
Ra=10 , Bi=0.05, A=50
10
8 8
Pr=1
6 Pr=5
100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %
Pr=25
4 4
2 2
0 0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
Θva,FL
Fig. 6. Influence of the Prandtl number on the relative temperature difference obtained from the two solutions at Ra = 106, Bi = 0.05 and A = 50, and 500.
(II) In the lumped capacitance method the quasi-steadiness is
assumed (i.e. the correlation function for a steady state iso-
thermal sphere is used in the calculation of unsteady cool-
ing). This introduces some discrepancies into the solution,
especially if the cooling process is fast.
3.1. Comparison of Nusselt numbers from the steady FLUENT solution
and the correlation function
Before a comparison of results for the unsteady sphere cooling
was made, the Nusselt numbers in steady state conditions (ob-
tained by the FLUENT and those obtained by the lumped capaci-
tance method and the Churchill correlation function) for a
selected Rayleigh number range had been compared. The FLUENT
steady state solutions were used as initial conditions for unsteady
calculations. Table 1 shows the relative difference eNu = 100 
(NuCh  NuFL)/NuFL between the Nusselt numbers obtained numer-
ically by the FLUENT and the values defined by the Churchill corre-
lation function. The maximal relative difference is 3.98% at the
lowest value of the Rayleigh number. This is also the difference be-
tween the initial heat transfer rates in the two approaches. Thus,
the acceptable difference between the LCM solution and the FLU-
ENT solution is chosen to be 5%.
3.2. Comparison of unsteady solutions
The unsteady calculations were performed for different values
of Bi and A using the steady state solutions obtained for the
constant temperature of the sphere (for the chosen Ra) as initial
conditions. Results of each FLUENT calculation are compared with
the results of the lumped capacitance method in terms of maximal
relative temperature difference of the sphere and the relative
difference of heat fluxes from the two models eQ ¼ 100  ðQ_ Ch 
Q_ FL Þ=Q_ FL . The relative temperature difference is defined as
eT = 100  (Tva,FL  Tsa,Ch)/(Ts,0  T0), where Tva,FL is the volume aver-
aged sphere temperature obtained from the FLUENT solution and
Tsa,Ch is the sphere temperature obtained from the LCM (using
Churchill’s correlation function). Table 2 summarizes the maximal
relative temperature difference and Table 3 the maximal relative
difference of heat transfer rate. In all calculations the Prandtl num-
ber was constant (Pr = 5).
Fig. 1 depicts the relative temperature differences versus the
non-dimensional volume averaged sphere temperature for four se-
lected values of the Rayleigh number, with the initial Bi and A as
parameters. The maximal difference occurs almost in the middle
of the temperature interval and increases with increasing initial
Bi and A, and decreases with an increasing Ra.
Ra=10 , Bi=0.05, A=500
10
Pr=1
6 Pr=5
100(Θsa,Ch - Θva,FL), %
Pr=25
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
0 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Θva,FL
Fig. 2 shows the relative difference of heat transfer rates as a
function of non-dimensional volume averaged sphere temperature.
The maximal value of this difference occurs at the beginning of the
cooling process when the sphere surface temperature Hs decreases
rapidly, while the volume averaged temperature Hva at the very
beginning of the cooling process changes similarly to the tempera-
ture from the lumped capacitance method. In all the cases at the
beginning of the cooling process, the heat transfer rate from the
FLUENT solution is slower than the heat transfer rate from the
lumped capacitance method, while, after a short time, the opposite
is true – the heat transfer rate obtained from FLUENT is slightly fas-
ter than the one obtained from the lumped capacitance method.
The influence of Bi is shown in Fig. 3. As the values of Bi
increase, the difference between the volume and the surface
averaged sphere temperature becomes greater. For three times
higher values of Bi, the maximal difference between the tempera-
tures is increased about three times. In the lumped capacitance
method it is assumed that these two temperatures are the same,
so it is clear that the accuracy of the LCM will decrease with an in-
crease in the value of the Biot number.
It is clear from Eq. (14) that the time constant for the sphere
cooling is 1/(6A  Bi), so the process is faster for a greater product
A  Bi. This can be noted in Fig. 4 which shows the change in the
volume averaged sphere temperature from the FLUENT solution
versus non-dimensional time. In the fast cooling process, the
assumption introduced into the LCM that the process is quasi-
steady is no more valid, and the difference between the FLUENT
and the LCM solution becomes greater.
Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate the influence of the Prandtl number on
the relative temperature difference obtained from the two
Fig. 7. Relative temperature difference between the two solutions, %.
 Z. Virag et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 2303–2309
Fig. 8. Relative temperature difference as a function of the composite variable
A  Bi=Ra0:452 .
approaches. As assumed, this influence is small, so the Prandtl
number can be excluded from the set of parameters defining the
applicability of the LCM.
Fig. 7 shows the isolines of relative temperature difference ob-
tained from the Fluent and the LCM (data from Table 1). For the
combination of Ra, Bi, and A parameters represented by a point that
lies below the 5% line in Fig. 7, the relative temperature difference
will be below 5%. This line can be approximated by the equation
A  Bi = 0.05Ra0.452, so the criterion for good agreement between
the LCM and the FLUENT solution (relative difference is less than
5%) is
A  Bi
< 0:05: ð17Þ
Ra0:452
Fig. 8 shows the relative temperature difference as a function of a
composite variable n ¼ A  Bi=Ra0:452 . Each circle mark represents
one calculation from Table 1. It can be noted that all calculations fall
pretty well on the curve. The polynomial fit through the points gives
a relationship
2309
eT ¼ 0:472 þ 9:79n  102:1n2 þ 42:44n3 ð18Þ
This relationship can be used for the estimation of an expected tem-
perature difference between the LCM and the FLUENT solution.
4. Conclusion
The application of the lumped capacitance method to predicting
the sphere cooling by natural convection results in a simple and
fast method compared to the time-consuming method based on
the conjugate heat transfer formulation. The application of the
lumped capacitance method is limited to the cases with suffi-
ciently small values (of approx. less than 0.15) of the Biot number.
Here, an additional simple criterion is defined. This criterion, de-
fined as the inequality n ¼ A  Bi=Ra0:452 < 0:05, guaranties the
accuracy of the results of the lumped capacitance method. If this
criterion is satisfied, the lumped capacitance method represents
a good alternative to the FLUENT. Fortunately, the lumped capaci-
tance method is accurate at high values of the Rayleigh number
when the FLUENT solution becomes expensive.
References
[1] W.S. Amato, C. Tien, Free convection heat transfer from isothermal spheres in
water, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 15 (1972) 327–339.
[2] S.W. Churchill, Free convection around immersed bodies, in: E.U. Schlunder
(Ed.-in-Chief), Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Hemisphere Publishing, New
York, 1983 (Section 2.5.7).
[3] K. Jafarpur, M.M. Yovanovich, Laminar free convective heat transfer from
isothermal spheres: a new analytical method, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 35
(1992) 2195–2201.
[4] F. Geoola, A.R.H. Cornish, Numerical solution of steady-state free convective
heat transfer from a solid sphere, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 24 (1981) 1369–
1379.
[5] H. Jia, G. Gogos, Laminar natural convection heat transfer from isothermal
spheres, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 39 (1996) 1603–1615.
[6] S. Yang, V. Raghavan, G. Gogos, Numerical study of transient laminar natural
convection over an isothermal sphere, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 28 (2007) 821–837.
[7] W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in
FORTRAN, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1994.