Lecture 3 – Forced Convection

16.0 Release

Heat Transfer Modeling using

ANSYS Fluent
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 1
 Outline

• Introduction – Heat Transfer Coefficient

• Laminar and Turbulent Boundary Layers

• Modelling Heat Transfer – The Reynolds Analogy

• Turbulence Modelling and Dynamic and Thermal Wall Functions

• Case Study - Modelling Heat Transfer for Non-Equilibrium and

Complex Flows

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 2

 Heat Transfer Coefficient
Mechanism Fluid h (W/m2·K)

• Influence of: Natural Gases 5 – 30

Convection Water 100 – 1000
• Geometry, fluid properties, etc. Gas 10 – 300

• Importance of the boundary layer Forced

Water 300 – 12,000

Convection Oil 50 – 1,700

T0
Liquid metal 6,000 – 110,000

Ts Boiling 3,000 – 60,000

Phase Change
Condensation 5,000 – 110,000

T
• Local heat flux  y 0  x   k f  hx Ts  T0 
y y 0

 ( x)   h( x) Tp  T0  dx  h Tp  T0  Tp ...constant

L
1
• Mean heat flux y 0 L0

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 3

 Boundary Layers

• Important parameters are bulk velocity, bulk temperature, and

pressure gradient

U 0 , T0
Laminar Transition Turbulent

 laminar
 turbulent

~ u ~ T  Ts
• Dimensionless variables: u  T 
U0 T0  Ts

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 4

 Boundary Layers

• Laminar boundary layer

• Mixing is characterized by the ratio of viscous boundary layer thickness to
thermal boundary layer thickness.

• Turbulent boundary layer

• Mixing is primarily governed by turbulence.

• Heat transfer coefficient – use an available correlation for the friction

coefficient, Cf (valid for a flat plate only)
• Laminar Boundary Layers (exact)
0.664
C f ,x  Nu x  0.332 Re1x/ 2 Pr1/ 3
Re1x/ 2
• Turbulent Boundary Layers (empirical correlations)
0.0592
C f ,x  Nu x  0.0296 Re 4x / 5 Pr1/ 3
Re1x/ 5
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 5
 Modeling Turbulent Heat Transfer

• RANS equations
u  u  u T  T T

 u u  P   u 
 u v         uv 
 x y  x y  y 

 T T    T 
 C p  u v    k   C p vT  
 x y  y  y 
• Boussinesq approximation for Reynolds stresses
• Turbulent viscosity, μT, is calculated from some turbulence model:
u
  uv  T
y
• By analogy, PrT = 0.85 (from experimental data)
T T
  vT   DT DT 
y PrT
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 6
 Turbulent Boundary Layer Structure

• Velocity profile exhibits layered

structure identified from Inner layer

dimensional analysis U
U
 yU 
 2.5 ln 
  
  5.45

U
• Viscous sublayer – Viscous forces U
dominate, velocity depends on ρ, τw, Outer
layer
μ, y. Fully turbulent
Buffer layer or
• Outer layer – Depends on mean flow Viscous
or
Blending
Log-law region Upper limit
Depends on
Reynolds number
characteristics sublayer region
5 60 yU
• Overlap layer – Log law applies Fully-Developed Pipe Flow 

• TKE production and dissipation are

Loss
Dissipation of k
nearly equal in the overlap layer 0
(turbulent equilibrium) Diffusion of k
Gain

Production of k

• Dissipation dominates production yU

in the viscous sublayer region. 10 30 

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 7

 Effects of Transition

• Spurious jump of Cf and h at transition from

laminar to turbulent flows (Rex > 5e5)
h(x)
• Natural transition is a complex phenomenon (x)
(for RANS)
U  , T Tw
• RANS: k-kL-w , intermittency transition, and
Transition SST models can be used for
xc
natural transition, bypass transition,
separation induced transition
• Use if extent of laminar flow region is
significant U  , T Laminar Transition Turbulent
k
laminar
 turbulent

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 8

 Boundary Layer Heat Transfer

• Impact on numerical modeling

• Use of wall functions for y+ >> 1 (when hypothesis are fulfilled)
• Sensitivity of the results to y+ (transition, low-Re effect) and Pr

• When hypothesis fails (Non-equilibrium boundary layers, recirculation,

stagnation, transition), we need to correctly resolve both the momentum
AND thermal viscous sub-layer (y+ < 1)
• This is straightforward for Pr ~ 1 or Pr < 1.
• When Pr is greater than 1, the thermal sublayer is much thinner than the
viscous sublayer.
• Small sensitivity to grid resolution (provided that the momentum boundary
layer is correctly predicted
• y+ ≤ 1 and ~10 cells for 1 < y+ < 30

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 9

 BL Heat Transfer Example – Abrupt
Pipe Expansion
• Abrupt pipe expansion (non-equilibrium boundary layer, recirculation,
wall heat transfer)

Flow
d D Re D  40,750

• Mesh: y+ ~ 1, 50
• Inlet: Fully-developed turbulent pipe flow.
• Models: RKE with EWT, SST k–ω
• Enhanced wall treatment (for y+ ~ 1 mesh)
• Standard wall functions (for y+ ~ 50 mesh)
• Both equilibrium and non-equilibrium wall functions were studied.
J. Baughn, M. Hoffman, R. Takahashi, and B. Launder (1984), “Local Heat Transfer Downstream of an Abrupt Expansion
in a Circular Channel with Constant Wall Heat Flux,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 106, No. 4, pp. 789–796.
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 10
 BL Heat Transfer Example –Pipe
Expansion
• Local Nusselt number compared to the Dittus-Boelter correlation (valid
for pipe flows).

Nu DB  0.023 Re0.8 Pr 0.4

Nu Nu
Nu DB Nu DB

x/ H x/ H

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 11

 Turbine Blade Heat Transfer with
Transition Models
• VPI Turbine
• Hybrid Mesh: 24,386 cells
• Re = 23,000, Uin = 5.85 m/s, Tin = 20 ºC, Chord = 59.4 cm
• Air with constant properties
• Inlet turbulent intensity = 10%

• Both models do a good job of predicting transition point and heat transfer
coefficient

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 12

 Example – Impinging Jet

• Relevant dimensionless parameters

• Height-to-diameter ratio, H/D
• Reynolds number, Re
• Prandtl number, Pr T0
D

• Quantities analyzed
• Surface heat transfer coefficient H

h( x )  Tp or 
Tp  T0

• Nusselt number
h( x ) L
Nu x 
kf

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 13

 Characteristics of Impinging Jet Flow

• Modeling challenge – complex flow

• Free jet turbulence
• Stagnation point
• Boundary layer
• Strong streamline curvature
• Transition (?) Free jet

Wall jet ? Stagnation zone

Boundary layer
and transition

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 14

 TKE Production at Stagnation Point

• Physically, decreased production of turbulence is observed at the

stagnation point.

• Two-equation models tend to overestimate TKE production at the

stagnation point

Standard k–ε Realizable k–ε RNG k–ε

Can the production of turbulent kinetic energy be reduced?

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 15

 Impinging Jet Example

• Turbulent kinetic energy transport equation:

Dk    T  k  ui  ui u j 
            
Dt x j   x  x j  x 
 j xi 
T
 k  j 

Diffusion Production Dissipation

• Modification of production term (Menter, 1992):

Pk  T 2

• Text user interface command is

define/models/viscous/turbulent-expert/

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 16

 Effect of Modified Production Term

Default Production Ω-Based Production

k–ω Model

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 17

 Flow Calculations (y+ = 1)

• The following RANS models were evaluated:

• Standard k–ε (SKE)
• RNG k–ε (RKE) – Minimizes TKE at stagnation point.
• Standard k–ω (KW) – Laminar/turbulent transition in boundary layer.
• Modified k–ω (KWW) – Production of TKE based on rotation rate, Ω.
• V2F model – Accounts for near-wall anisotropy by solving a transport equation
for (v')2

• Flow characteristics
• Prandtl number: Pr = 0.7
• Reynolds number: Re = 23,000
• Height-to-diameter ratio: H/D = 2.0 and 6.0

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 18

 Impinging Jet: Velocity Profiles
Experiment

• Results: H/D = 2, Re = 23,000

D
r/D = 1
KW

r/D = 2
H
Mean velocity V2F
profiles

RNG

• Experiment

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 19

 Results from Two-Equation Models

• Results: H/D = 2, Re = 23,000

Nu* TKE*
• Experiment
RNG RNG
SKE SKE
KWW KWW

Nusselt Number Turbulent Kinetic Energy

Re = 23,000 Re = 23,000

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 20

 Comparison of k–ω and V2F models

• Results: H/D = 2, Re = 23,000

Nu* TKE*
• Experiment
V2F V2F
KWW KWW

Nusselt Number Turbulent Kinetic Energy

Re = 23,000 Re = 23,000

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 21

 Results from Two-Equation Models

• Results: H/D = 6, Re = 23.000

Nu* Nu*
• Experiment • Experiment
RNG V2F
SKE KWW
KWW

Nusselt Number Nusselt Number

Re = 23,000 Re = 23,000

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 22

 Mixed Convection around a Wall-Mounted
Cylinder
• Re = 40,000 (subcritical flow)
• Laminar BL with turbulent wake
0.642 m
• Bluff Body
ReD = 40,000 g
• Massive separation, vortex shedding
2m
• Turbulence model 600 W
• SST k–ω with y+ = 1
• LES with dynamic Smagorinsky subgrid 12 m
model
• 3 million cell mesh 2.13 m Courtesy CEA/EDF
• Mixed convection (buoyancy is important)
• Boussinesq approximation
• Cylinder covered by a 5 mm thick steel layer
• Fluid/Solid coupled thermal simulation
• D >> d so use of shell conduction is appropriate

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 23

 Flow Regimes for Flow Past Cylinders

• Re < 50
• Laminar wake
No separation Steady separation bubble

• 50 < Re < 5000 :

• Von-Karman street (laminar BL)
Oscillating Kàrman vortex wake

• 5,000 < Re < 200,000:

• Laminar BL prior to separation (α =
80°). Sub-critical regime
• Re > 200,000 “Drag Crisis” Laminar boundary layer
with wide turbulent wake
Turbulent boundary
layer with narrow

• Turbulent boundary layer prior to turbulent wake

separation (α = 120°).

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 24

 Subgrid Scale Viscosity Models

• FLUENT offers the following Viscous Model

subgrid scale models to be used

with LES:
• Smagorinsky model
• WALE model
• Wall Modeled LES (WMLES)
• Wall Modeled LES S-Omega
• Dynamic subgrid kinetic energy
transport model

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 25

 Results – Surface Temperature

Exp. From CEA/EDF

160

140

120

Tem pérature (°C)

100

80

SST450 SST1250 SST 1750

60

Exp 450 Exp 1250 Exp 1750

40

LES 450 LES1250 LES 1750

20
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
Angle (°)
Angle (°C)

450, 1250, 1750 … constant z-Planes

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 26
 Visualisation d
l'échauffement de
G=40cm 2500

Results – Wake (x = 0.4 m) 2250

Normalized temperature contours

2000

SST LES Exp.

1750 2750
12,0-14,0
Visualisation de
l'échauffement de
G=40cm 2500 10,0-12,0
1500 Hauteur (mm)

2250
8,0-10,0

1250 6,0-8,0
2000
4,0-6,0
1000 1750
12,0-14,0
2,0-4,0
10,0-12,0
0,0-2,0
1500 Hauteur (mm)
750 8,0-10,0

1250 6,0-8,0
H (mm) 4,0-6,0
500
1000
2,0-4,0

0,0-2,0
750
250
-800 -500 -321 0 321 500 800
Largeur (mm) 500

250
-800 -500 -321 0 321 500 800
W
Largeur (mm)

(mm)

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 27

 Results – Wake (x = 0.5 m) 2750
Visualisation

Normalized temperature contours

G=50cm
2500
l'échauffement

SST LES Exp. 2250

2750
2000
Visual
l'échauffe
8,0-10,0
1750 2500
G=50cm
6,0-8,0
1500 Haute ur 2250
(mm)
4,0-6,0

1250
2000 2,0-4,0

1000 0,0-2,0
8,0-10
1750

750 6,0-8,0
1500 Hauteur (mm)
H (mm) 4,0-6,0
500
1250
2,0-4,0
250
-800 -500 -321 0 321 500 800
Large ur (mm)
1000 0,0-2,0

750

500

250
-800 -500 -321 0 321 500 800
Largeur (mm)
W (mm)

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 28

 G=75cm 2500 Visual
l'échauffe

Results – Wake (x = 0.75 m) 2250

Normalized temperature contours 2000

SST LES Exp.
1750 2750

2500
G=75cm 6,0-8,0Visualisati
l'échauffemen
1500 Hauteur (mm) 4,0-6,0
2250

2,0-4,0
2000
1250 0,0-2,0
1750

6,0-8,0
1000 1500 Hauteur (mm) 4,0-6,0

2,0-4,0
1250 0,0-2,0
750
H (mm)
1000

500 750

500

250
250
-800 -500 -321 0 321 -800 500
-500 -321 800
0 321 500 800
Largeur (mm) Largeur (mm)

W (mm)
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 29
 Results – Wake (x = 1.5 m)
Normalized temperature contours
SST LES Exp.
2750

V
2500
l'éc
G=1m50

2250

2000

1750

3,0-4
1500 Hauteur (mm) 2,0-3
1,0-2
H (mm) 0,0-1
1250

1000

750

500

250
-800 -500 -321 0 321 500 800
Largeur (mm)
W (mm)
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 30
 Results – Conclusions

• Wall temperature comparable between RANS/LES

• More accurate wake prediction with LES

• CPU time required

• RANS – Days
• LES – Weeks
• In this case fluid/solid thermal coupling and large difference between
characteristic time scales induce expensive unsteady calculations

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 31

 Large Eddy Simulation – Applications
• Compute unsteady temperature
field
• Explicit representation of mixing
• Accurate min/max fluctuations
• Application examples
• Thermal fatigue
• Fluid-structure interaction (FSI)

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 32

 Appendix: Lecture 3
Forced Convection
16.0 Release

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 33

 Reynolds Analogy
U 0 , T0
• Boundary Layer Equations: Laminar

laminar
Transition Turbulent

 turbulent

~ ~u ~u 
~
P 1  2~
u u ~
~ x ,0  ~
v ~
x ,0  0
u ~ v ~  ~ 
x y x Re ~ y2 u ~
~ x,   u / U  0

~ ~ 2~
T T 1  T
T ~
x ,0  0 T ~
x,   1
~ ~ ~
u ~ v ~ 
x y Re Pr ~y2

• Wall Fluxes:
~
2 u~ T
Cf  Nu  ~
Re L ~y ~
y 0
y ~
y 0

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 34

 Boundary Layers

• Reynolds analogy
• If dP/dx ~ 0, Pr ~ 1 (constant properties)

~ ~
u ~ ~
u 1  2~
u u ~
~ x , 0  ~
v ~
x , 0  0
u ~v ~ 
x y Re ~
y2 u ~
~ x,   1

T ~
x , 0  0
~ ~ 2~ ~
~ T T 1  T
u ~ ~v ~
T ~
x,   1
x y Re Pr ~y2 ~

• In dimensionless form, equations are of the same form. Thus, the

solutions for dimensionless velocity and dimensionless temperature
should be equivalent.
Re L Cf Nu
Cf  Nu  St St 
2 2 Re Pr
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 35
 Some Definitions

u w
w   U 
y y 0 

T qw
qw  k T 
y y 0
Cp U

u
T  lmix
2
lmix   y
y
This definition is valid for the mixing length model

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 36

 Wall Functions

• BL Momentum RANS equations

u 0 u 0 P 0   u 
u v       uv 
x y x y  y 
u
   uv  constant
y
 total
u
• BC at the wall (y = 0):  total   U 2
y 0
y y 0

2
u u
• Mixing length model   uv   T  κ y2
y y

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 37

 Boundary Layers
U y
• Normalization: y 

u
u 
U

T 

T w  Tp c pU
q

0
u
• Viscous sublayer    uv  U 2 u  y
y
 total
0
u
• Turbulent region 
y
  uv  U 2 u 
1

 
ln y   C

 total
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 38
 Boundary Layers
• Boundary layer energy equation

0 0
 T T    T 
 C p  u v    k  
  C p v T 
 x y  y  y 
T
k   C p v T   constant
y
qtotal

T
• BC at the wall (y = 0): qtotal k   C p T U 
y 0
y y 0

 T T κ y 2 u T
• Reynolds analogy:   v T   
PrT y PrT y y
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 39
 Boundary Layers

• Viscous sublayer

0
T
k   C p v T    C p T U 
y T   Pr y 
qtotal

• Turbulent region
0
T
k   C p v T    C p T U  T 
PrT
 
ln y   f Pr 
y 

qtotal

For a derivation please refer to “Turbulent heat-

transfer” by Scott Stolpa, pp 26-30
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 40
 Turbulent Thermal Boundary Layers

• The wall laws are also functions of Prandtl number.

• Viscous sublayer thickness defined as the intersection between viscous
and logarithmic law.

y+ ~ 10 for Momentum and for Pr = 1 y   yT  f (Pr, PrT )

20 60
Pr = 1 Pr = 7
16
40
12
T*

T*
8
20
4

0 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000
y* y*
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 41
 Velocity Wall Functions in FLUENT

• Non-equilibrium effect and pressure gradient effect

T    C1/ 4 k 1/ 2 y

• Use Prandtl-Komolgorov eddy-viscosity model


 C1/ 4 k P1/ 2 yP
y 

U 
1


ln E y   
U P C1/ 4 k P1/ 2
U 
w / 

• Keep pressure gradient in boundary layer equations (partially cancel the

inertial terms)
~
U C1/ 4 k 1/ 2 1   C k y
1/ 4 1/ 2
  yv
 ln  E  yv 
U 2      C1/ 4 k P1/ 2

~ 1 dP  yv  y  y  yv yv2 
U U   ln     
2 dx    k  yv    k  
© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 42
 Temperature Wall Functions in FLUENT

• Jayatilleke: Wide range of Prandtl number

T 
T w  Tp  C P C1/ 4 k P1/ 2
q
 
 Pr U 2
C 
1/ 4 1/ 2
kP
Pr y  for y   yT
p

 2 q


   
1/ 4 1/ 2

Pr ln E y   P   C kP
 t
1
 Prt U 2
P  Pr  Prt U 2
c for y   yT
 k 2 q

 Pr 3 / 4    Pr 
P  9.24    1 1  0.28 exp   0.007 
 Prt     Prt 

© 2015 ANSYS, Inc. April 24, 2015 43