3/25/2015

COMPARISION OF ANSYS SIMULATION

RESULT AND ANALYTICAL SOLUTION OF
A GIVEN 2D STEADY CONDUCTION
PROBLEM

Guided By: Dr. D. Jayakrishna

Submitted By: Abhishek Yamini (143701)

2.1 Introduction
It is very important to compare results obtained by use of softwares with standard results. In last
report we had taken problem and solved it by using analytical solution and by using finite
difference method (i.e computationally). In this report same problem is taken and modelled in
Ansys. All the boundary conditions are kept same. The results obtained by this analysis are
compared with previous analytically and computationally obtained results.

2.2 Problem Definition

The same problem of two dimensional steady heat conduction is need to be modelled in Ansys.
The aim of this analysis is to compare the results obtained so all the parameters to be taken same.

2.3 Solution Methodology

A rectangular sheet is designed in Ansys and than it was meshed having 20*20 grid size. Tags
were assigned to the boundaries so that identification and assigning value became easier. This
geometry and mesh were imported to Ansys Fluent environment. Since this problem consists of
solid conduction all the flow related equations were turned off. Only energy equation module was
turned on and following boundry conditions were given

T2

1000 (degree C)

T1

200 (degree C)

[Figure 1]
Steady state two dimensional heat conduction does not depends on matrial selection so it is
unimportant to set material for this analysis.
Mesh genration on the above domain needed to be verified on five aspects, these are as follows:
1. Aspect Ratio : Aspect ratio is used to maximum ratio of height and width of a cell for a
given mesh. A mesh consisting most of the cell of aspect ratio near 1 is considered good.
2. Skewness : Skewness refers to angle between to adjecent sides of a cell of given mesh. A
mesh is considered good if it have minimum skewness or orthogonal cell bounderies.
3. Jacobian Ratio, cell volume check also need to be done.
Finally the analysis was done after checking all these parameters. In order to terminate the
iteration tolerance was set to 10^-6.

2.4 Results
The comparision of temperatures obtain from different methodologies is in figure

[Figure 2]

[ Figure 3]

[Figure 4]

[Figure 5]

[Figure 6]

2.5 Discussions
As shown in the figure all the three methodologies are giving nearly same resullts. If number of
nodes were taken less than 20*20 than there was significant deviation of results obtained by
these methdologies whereas increasing number of nodes more than 20*20 resulted very less
significant deviation in these graphs.
Matlab code is mensioned in Appendix. It was used to generate analytical and numerical data
whereas Ansys data was generated by avilable option Write to file in Ansys Fluent
environment.

2.6 References
A. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer by THEODORE L. BERGMAN
B. Anderson J D Computational-Fluid-Dynamics-the-Basics-With-Applications

Appendix
clc
clear
%%%

INPUTS OF THE PROBLEM

L=5;
W=5;
n_of_interval_x=20;% intervals
n_of_interval_y=20;
nx=n_of_interval_x +1;% Nodes in x
ny=n_of_interval_y +1;% Nodes in y
T1=200;
T2=1000;
INFINITE_approximation=220;
format short

elseif r==2 && c~=2 && c~=nx-1

% Top Intermediate BC
K(m,m)=4;
K(m,m+1)=-1;
K(m,m-1)=-1;
K(m,m+(nx-2))=-1;
B(m)=T(1,c);
m=m+1;
elseif r==ny-1 && c~=2 && c~=nx-1
% Bottom Intermediate BC
K(m,m)=4;
K(m,m+1)=-1;
K(m,m-1)=-1;
K(m,m-(nx-2))=-1;
B(m)=T(end,c);
m=m+1;

%
%
Boundary Conditions
T=zeros(ny,nx);
T(1:end,1)=T1;
T(1:end,end)=T1;
T(1,2:end-1)=T2;
T(end,2:end-1)=T1;
T_true=T;

elseif r==2 && c==2

Top Left corner
K(m,m)=4;
K(m,m+1)=-1;
K(m,m+(nx-2))=-1;
B(m)=T(1,2)+ T(2,1);
m=m+1;

elseif r==ny-1 && c==2

Bottom Left Corner
K(m,m)=4;
K(m,m+1)=-1;
K(m,m-(nx-2))=-1;
B(m)=T(ny,2)+ T(ny1,1);
m=m+1;
%

%
PRE PROCESSING
dx=L/n_of_interval_x;
dy=W/n_of_interval_y;
N=(nx-2)*(ny-2);% Total unknowns
K=zeros(N,N);
B=zeros(N,1);
m=1;
for r=2:ny-1
for c=2:nx-1
if c==nx-1 && r~=2 && r~=ny-1
% Right Intermediate BC
K(m,m)=4;
K(m,m-1)=-1;
K(m,m+(nx-2))=-1;
K(m,m-(nx-2))=-1;
B(m)=T(r,end);
m=m+1;
elseif c==2 && r~=2 && r~=ny-1
% Left Intermediate BC
K(m,m)=4;
K(m,m-1)=-1;
K(m,m+(nx-2))=-1;
K(m,m-(nx-2))=-1;
B(m)=T(r,1);
m=m+1;

elseif r==2 && c==nx-1

Top Right corner
K(m,m)=4;
K(m,m-1)=-1;
K(m,m+(nx-2))=-1;
B(m)=T(2,nx)+ T(1,nx1);
m=m+1;
%

elseif r==ny-1 && c==nx-1

Bottom right corner
K(m,m)=4;
K(m,m-1)=-1;
K(m,m-(nx-2))=-1;
B(m)=T(ny-1,nx)+
T(ny,nx-1);
m=m+1;
%

else
%Central nodes
K(m,m)=4;
%centre
K(m,m+1)=-1;

% CODE FOR GENRATION OF GRAPHS

theta_analytical=zeros(ny,nx);
m=1;
for r=1:ny
for c=1:nx

%right
K(m,m-1)=-1;
%left
K(m,m+(nx-2))=-1;
%bottom
K(m,m-(nx-2))=-1;

theta_analytical(r,c)=theta_true(m)
;
m=m+1;
end
end

%top
B(m)=0;
%source
m=m+1;
end
end
end
%
SOLVER
%
[LL,UU] = ILU_2(K);
temp=LL\K;
M=temp/UU;
NN=LL\B;
[T_temp] = conjgrad(M,NN);
T_final=UU\T_temp;
% POST PROCESSING %
m=1;
for r=2:ny-1
for c=2:nx-1
T(r,c)=T_final(m);
m=m+1;
end
end
theta=(T-T1)/(T2-T1);
% CODE FOR Analytical Solution %
theta_true=zeros(nx*ny,1);
s=1;
for y=W:-dy:0
for x=L:-dx:0
sum=0;
for
n=1:INFINITE_approximation
% defined earlier
hop=(((1)^(n+1)+1)/n)*(sin(n*pi*x/L))*((si
nh(n*pi*y/L))/(sinh(n*pi*W/L)));
sum=sum+hop;
end
theta_true(s)=(2/pi)*sum;
s=s+1;
end
end

%CODE FOR Generating Output Sheet

output=zeros(nx*ny,4);
%%%
Variable Which is used to store
output
m=1;
for r=1:ny
for c=1:nx
output(m,1)=0+(c-1)*dx;
% X values Storage
output(m,2)=0+(r-1)*dy;
% Y values Storage
output(m,3)=(T1+(T2T1)*theta_analytical(ny-r+1,nxc+1));
% Analytical
temperature values Storage
output(m,4)=(T1+(T2T1)*theta(ny-r+1,nx-c+1));
m=m+1;
end
end
xlswrite('OUTPUT_of_conduction_prob
lem.xlsx',output)
% CODE FOR GENRATION OF GRAPHS
xlswrite('OUTPUT_of_conduction_prob
lem.xlsx',output)
error=max(max(abs(thetatheta_analytical)));
[X,Y] = meshgrid(L:-dx:0,W:-dy:0);
surf(X,Y,theta_analytical)
figure,
contour(X,Y,theta_analytical)
figure, surf(X,Y,theta)
Ta=T(:,10);
figure,plot(W:dy:0,Ta,'r','Linewidth',2.5)
hold on
Tb=T1+(T2T1)*theta_analytical(:,10);
plot(W:-dy:0,Tb,'-b','Linewidth',2.5)