MC4239/ME5144, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, Mechanical Engineering Department

MC 4239 / ME 5168
Convective heat transfer
Homework G1: To be graded,
Solution Manual
Topics: Convective heat transfer of internal flow
Concentric annuli
Turbulent flow
Theoretical prediction by 1D approach
Computation prediction by 2D and 3D approaches
Due date: November 27th 2024 (by 6 pm submit to RM 310)
 Prediction by theoretical method: 1D approach

Problem Definition
In this assignment, turbulent flow characteristics within horizontal annuli with inner heating
cylinder at the center of concentric annulus (Fig. 1) will be examined under varying operating
conditions. The annuli has a length, Lch, of 29 cm, an inner diameter, Di, of 10 mm, and an outer
diameter, Do, of 22 mm. Using the provided supplementary materials, a MATLAB code must be
developed to predict thermal and hydrodynamic characteristics within the annulus. Predicted
results will be compared with experimental data, addressing specific questions outlined in the
assignment.
1. Analysis of the Effect of Heat Flux (q"s)
Heat transfer coefficients along the upper wall in the axial direction have been obtained under
three different heat flux (q"s) conditions, as shown in Fig. 2. Under the same operating conditions,
compute the local variation of the axial heat transfer coefficient that can predict the experimental
heat transfer coefficient. When performing calculations, the fluid (HFE-7100) properties should
be calculated based on the local fluid temperature. Plot these values on the same figure below and
address the following questions.

q″s = 26343 [W/m2] q″s = 52576 [W/m2] q″s = 78809 [W/m2]

x* = x/Dh [-] h [W/m2K] h [W/m2K] h [W/m2K]
2.08 1358.92 1398.651 1441.983
7.29 1101.809 1110.485 1125.419
12.50 1112.322 1128.383 1126.639
17.71 1164.783 1183.854 1198.801
22.92 1207.182 1225.812 1231.413
Answer:
A MATLAB prediction code was developed based on the equations presented in the
supplementary material, and the developed code is attached. The surface temperature along the
heated length was predicted under three different heat flux q′′s conditions, as shown in the figure
below.

(a) Present the calculated surface temperature, fluid temperature, and heat transfer coefficient at
two locations, x* = x/Dh = 2.1 and x* = 7.3, for the three different heat flux conditions. Estimate
the thermal entrance length for three different heat fluxes.

q″s = 26,343 W/m2 x* = 2.1 x* = 7.3

Tw [℃]
Tf [℃]
h [W/m.K]
Lth [m]

q″s = 52,576 W/m2 x* = 2.1 x* = 7.3

Tw [℃]
Tf [℃]
h [W/m.K]
Lth [m]
 q″s = 78,809 W/m2 x* = 2.1 x* = 7.3
Tw [℃]
Tf [℃]
h [W/m.K]
Lth [m]

Explain the decrease in the heat transfer coefficient as the flow moves from the inlet (x* = 2.1) to
downstream (x* = 7.3) in relation to the development of the thermal boundary layer and the
associated entrance effects.

Answer:

q″s = 26,343 W/m2 x* = 2.1 x* = 7.3

Tw [℃] 25.1 34.1
Tf [℃] 10.1 10.2
h [W/m.K] 1753.7 1103.9
Lth [m] 0.0323(4Dl)

q″s = 52,576 W/m2 x* = 2.1 x* = 7.3

Tw [℃] 40.1 58.0
Tf [℃] 10.1 10.4
h [W/m.K] 1754.1 1105.2
Lth [m] 0.0323(4Dl)

q″s = 78,809 W/m2 x* = 2.1 x* = 7.3

Tw [℃] 55.1 81.8
Tf [℃] 10.2 10.6
h [W/m.K] 1754.5 1106.5
Lth [m] 0.0323(4Dl)

At the inlet, the thermal boundary layer is very thin, creating a sharp temperature gradient in
vertical direction from the surface, which increases the heat transfer coefficient. As the flow moves
downstream due to thermal diffusion within the fluid, the boundary layer thickens, and the
temperature gradient between the surface and fluid decreases, leading to a reduction in the heat
transfer coefficient. After a certain distance, the boundary is fully developed and the heat transfer
coefficient maintains constant as the temperature profile does not change along in an axial direction.

(b) Provide a physical explanation for why the heat transfer coefficient (h) remains nearly constant
despite changes in heat flux (q"s).

Answer:

From the dimensionless form of thermal boundary layer equation

T * T * 1  2T *
u* * + v* * =
x y Re L Pr y*2
of which T* is the only function of dimensionless spatial variables x*, Reynolds number (Re), and
Prandtl number (Pr). The Nusselt number has functional form of x*, Re, and Pr, as well. Even if
the heat flux changes, the heat transfer coefficient will remain the same as long as there are no
significant changes in these factors. When predicting based on fluid temperature, an increase in
heat flux may cause a slight increase in the heat transfer coefficient due to a decrease in viscosity
(which affects both Re and Pr) as the fluid temperature rises downstream, as shown in the figure.
However, this change is generally small.

(c) Explain the slight increase in the experimental heat transfer coefficient observed downstream
(x* > 12.5) in relation to secondary flow effects caused by buoyancy forces. Additionally, indicate
whether this effect was accounted for in the one-dimensional predictive calculations performed in
this study.

Ref. Mohammed, H.A., Campo, A., Saidur, R., Experimental study of forced and free convective
heat transfer in the thermal entry region of horizontal concentric annuli, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf., 37 (2010) 739-747.

Answer:

The fluid’s density changes with temperature, and the fluid near the center axis becomes hotter,
reducing its density and rising due to buoyancy. This creates natural convection, meaning the fluid
does not flow solely in the axial direction but develops secondary flows within the cross-section,
rising in the center and descending along the outer wall. As the flow moves into downstream, the
asymmetrical temperature distribution within the fluid induces the natural circulation driven by
density difference of fluid. The swirl, sweeping surface, motion of secondary flow enhances the
heat transfer, yielding higher heat transfer coefficient in the downstream region. In one-
dimensional simulations, natural convection caused by gravity effects is not reflected, leading to
the heat transfer coefficient being predicted as nearly constant.

(d) Under the condition q″s=52,576 W/m2, predict the heat transfer coefficient using three different
fluid property calculation methods: (1) inlet fluid temperature, (2) average of the inlet-outlet
temperature, and (3) local fluid temperature. For the local fluid temperature, refer to the mean
temperature Tm in Incropera's heat transfer book to explain which of the three methods is the most
appropriate for calculating properties.
Ref. T.L. Bergman, F.P. Incropera, A.S. Lavine, D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of heat and mass
transfer, 7th Ed., Wiley and Sons, New York, 2011.

Answer: The local temperature (same as the mean temperature in the textbook) approach is
suitable for fluid property calculations because it effectively reflects the temperature variations
occurring in turbulent flow. This local temperature is a cross-sectional average at each point along
the flow path, accounting for the real temperature distribution as the fluid moves. In turbulent
conditions, where the fluid temperature continuously changes from inlet to outlet, mean
temperature provides a more accurate representation of the heat transfer characteristics. In contrast,
using only the inlet temperature or a simple average of inlet and outlet temperatures may not fully
capture the temperature distribution in turbulent flow. By averaging the fluid properties across the
actual temperature profile, local temperature serves as a more accurate and appropriate basis for
predicting the heat transfer coefficient.
2. Analysis of the Effect of Mass Flux (G) Variations
Based on the experimental data for heat transfer coefficient changes with varying mass flux (G) as
shown in Fig. 3, use the developed code to calculate the local heat transfer coefficient for three
different mass flux conditions. When performing calculations, the fluid properties should be
calculated based on the local fluid temperature. Plot these values on the same figure and answer
the following questions.

G = 748.7 [kg/m2s] G = 910.5 [kg/m2s] G = 1092.5 [kg/m2s]

Re [-]
x* = x/Dh [-] h [W/m2K] h [W/m2K] h [W/m2K]
2.08 1035.008 1207.476 1398.651
7.29 818.6713 952.6763 1110.485
12.50 840.5235 972.0918 1128.383
17.71 880.0821 1018.118 1183.854
22.92 904.7009 1051.62 1225.812
Answer:
The change in the heat transfer coefficient at three different mass flow rates (G) was predicted as
shown in the figure below.

(a) Explain, from a physical perspective, why the heat transfer coefficient increases as the mass
flux (G) increases in single-phase flow.
Answer:
The increase in heat transfer coefficient can be explained by the following three reasons:
1. Increased flow velocity and turbulent mixing
As the mass flux G increases, the flow velocity also rises, leading to more intense turbulence in
the fluid. In turbulent flow, inertial forces become dominant over viscous forces, causing the fluid
to mix vigorously. This enhanced mixing effect enables higher-energy fluid from the bulk flow to
interact with the wall surface, facilitating more rapid heat transfer.
2. Boundary layer thinning
Higher flow velocity sharpens the velocity gradient near the wall, reducing the thickness of the
thermal boundary layer. A thinner boundary layer means there is less thermal resistance between
the wall and the fluid, allowing faster heat transfer from the wall to the turbulent fluid. The reduced
boundary layer thickness also results in a steeper temperature gradient near the wall, which further
increases heat conduction across the boundary.
3. Turbulent eddies and enhanced thermal exchange
In turbulent flow, eddies form continuously, breaking up the thermal boundary layer and bringing
cooler fluid from the core to the wall and warmer fluid from the wall back to the bulk flow. This
eddy-driven mixing increases the exchange of thermal energy near the wall, intensifying the heat
transfer process. As a result, with increased mass flux, the combination of boundary layer thinning
and enhanced turbulent mixing leads to a higher heat transfer coefficient.

(b) Calculate the hydrodynamic entry length using two different methods:
 x fd , h 
1. Use the method provided in Incropera’s heat transfer book ( 10     60 ), calculating with
 D turb
the hydraulic diameter Dh = Do – Di for the annular tube.
2. Using the equations provided in the supplementary material, calculate the hydrodynamic entry
length under the flow conditions listed in the table. Determine fluid viscosity and density based on
an inlet temperature of 10°C, and use the laminar equivalent diameter instead of the hydraulic
diameter in the Reynolds number calculation.
With reference to the entry length approximation in Incropera’s book, assess whether the Prandtl
number (thermal and momentum diffusivity) affects the hydrodynamic entry length and explain
the reasoning from a physical perspective.

Hydrodynamic entry length Hydrodynamic entry length

Flow rate [gal/min]
(Incropera), Lhy [m] (Zhi-qing), Lhy [m]
2.37
2.88
3.46

Answer: Unlike in laminar flow, in turbulent flow, the hydrodynamic entrance length can be
x 
approximated as 10   fd , h   60 independent of the Prandtl number due to the mixing effect. For
 D turb
the current annular tube.

Hydrodynamic entry length Hydrodynamic entry length

Flow rate [gal/min]
(Incropera), Lhy [m] (Zhi-qing), Lhy [m]
2.37 0.107
2.88 0.120< Lhy<0.720 0.112
3.46 0.117

(c) Determine the thermal entrance length by referring to section "8.2 Thermal Considerations" in
Incropera's book. Discuss the influence of Prandtl number on the thermal entrance length.

Answer:
Unlike in laminar flow, in turbulent flow, the thermal entrance length can be approximated as
 x fd ,t 
  = 10 independent of the Prandtl number due to the mixing effect. For the current annular
 D turb
tube, it is estimated to be approximately 0.120 m.

3. Analysis of Inlet Fluid Temperature (Tin) Variations

Predict and analyze the experimental data under three different inlet fluid temperature conditions.

Tin = 10 [°C] Tin = 20 [°C] Tin = 30 [°C]

x* = x/Dh [-] h [W/m2K] h [W/m2K] h [W/m2K]
2.08 1398.651 1465.509 1506.687
7.29 1110.485 1154.813 1181.876
12.50 1128.383 1171.145 1204.177
17.71 1183.854 1228.505 1259.879
22.92 1225.812 1278.996 1320.421
Answer:
The change in the heat transfer coefficients at three different inlet fluid temperatures (Tin) were
predicted as shown in the figure below.

(a) At x* = 12.50, present the predicted Reynolds number and dynamic viscosity for both Tin =
10°C and Tin = 30°C. Explain why the heat transfer coefficient is slightly higher for and Tin = 30°C
compared to Tin = 10°C, referring to the changes in Reynolds number due to the variation in
viscosity.

Answer: The Nusselt number (Nu) is a function of the Reynolds number (Re). As the inlet fluid
temperature rises, the fluid viscosity decreases, which in turn increases the Reynolds number (Re)
since Re is inversely proportional to viscosity. A higher Reynolds number indicates a higher
intensity turbulent flow, leading to enhanced mixing and heat transfer. The overall effect is
stronger turbulence, which enhances convective heat transfer and results in a higher heat transfer
coefficient.

Tin [℃] Dynamic viscosity, μ [N.s/m2] Reynolds number, Re [-]

10 6.755Ⅹ10 -4
19,366
30 5.059Ⅹ10 -4
24,916

(b) Discuss the changes in the strength of natural convection induced by secondary flow occurring
downstream when the inlet fluid temperature increases.

Answer:
The strength of secondary flow downstream is predicted to remain almost unchanged, even if the
inlet fluid temperature increases. Secondary flow forms due to density differences caused by the
temperature gradient in the fluid. In single-phase convective cooling, when the fluid temperature
rises, the wall temperature increases proportionally. This prevents any significant changes in the
temperature gradient between the wall and the fluid, which minimizes the impact on secondary
flow strength.

4. Prediction under Various Operating Conditions

For the 67 operating conditions listed in the table, calculate the mean absolute error (MAE)(%) for
h1 through h5. MAE is defined as follows,
1  hpred − hexp 
MAE () =
N
 
 hexp
100  .

Present a plot with hexp on the x-axis and hpred on the y-axis. On the plot, indicate the MAE value
and the percentage of data with MAE < 30%, denoted as θ.

Qv h1 h2 h3 h4 h5
No q"s Tin
[gal/min] (x*=2.08) (x*=7.29) (x*=12.50) (x*=17.71) (x*=22.92m)

1 26342.89 19.94 1.23 622.70 514.76 516.84 544.47 545.63

2 26342.89 19.92 1.78 812.06 656.37 662.58 696.67 707.57
3 26342.89 19.81 2.37 1047.96 850.40 858.86 898.11 928.23
4 26342.89 9.95 1.23 605.18 494.35 500.32 518.86 516.67
5 26342.89 9.73 1.78 788.02 635.69 645.42 678.48 684.97
6 26342.89 9.82 2.36 1013.39 822.65 832.21 870.82 885.67
7 52576.01 9.97 2.36 1035.00 824.38 824.24 876.32 898.89
8 26342.89 30.12 1.22 654.01 528.81 531.88 560.23 566.53
9 26342.89 30.25 1.77 869.76 698.97 705.95 737.56 751.77
10 26342.89 30.37 2.34 1094.94 882.45 888.29 925.96 950.30
11 26342.89 19.92 1.22 627.27 511.31 519.57 539.93 545.83
12 26342.89 19.90 1.77 813.92 655.51 666.75 696.82 707.64
13 26342.89 19.99 2.37 1049.08 844.29 851.58 890.60 907.09
14 52576.01 20.11 2.37 1102.29 880.42 878.63 935.86 959.47
15 26342.89 20.15 2.89 1230.57 991.85 996.02 1040.72 1066.86
16 52576.01 20.19 2.89 1276.52 1014.56 1015.90 1066.92 1104.83
17 26342.89 20.16 3.43 1423.78 1149.16 1149.96 1203.57 1244.50
18 52576.01 20.27 3.43 1490.38 1170.23 1188.40 1240.64 1293.05
19 78809.14 20.38 3.43 1498.30 1174.53 1172.13 1244.69 1343.86
20 26342.89 10.00 1.23 606.38 493.47 501.40 520.86 516.97
21 26342.89 9.97 1.79 795.24 638.89 648.56 682.29 687.42
22 52576.01 10.05 1.78 842.85 669.25 675.96 713.32 725.60
23 26342.89 9.98 2.36 988.69 796.31 806.45 844.95 857.41
24 52576.01 10.09 2.36 1048.08 833.57 836.68 894.91 900.96
25 26342.89 9.85 2.89 1174.54 947.53 956.02 998.24 1019.59
26 52576.01 10.12 2.89 1218.17 955.60 974.26 1016.87 1044.08
27 26342.89 30.34 1.79 868.90 696.64 702.26 736.05 745.63
28 26342.89 9.97 3.44 1358.27 1096.84 1101.46 1152.44 1183.26
29 52576.01 10.12 3.44 1389.19 1094.63 1110.90 1161.94 1195.71
30 78809.14 10.25 3.44 1438.80 1125.20 1122.26 1194.00 1246.70
31 26342.89 30.17 1.23 648.54 526.27 534.43 559.31 563.49
32 26342.89 30.29 2.37 1105.97 889.15 896.93 935.22 962.88
33 26342.89 30.42 2.93 1304.63 1049.78 1051.47 1098.01 1126.46
34 52576.01 30.52 2.93 1354.16 1068.35 1058.23 1126.46 1152.10
35 26342.89 30.51 3.45 1487.50 1194.37 1190.82 1247.70 1285.17
36 52576.01 30.63 3.45 1524.12 1220.11 1208.58 1301.50 1329.89
37 26342.89 19.80 1.23 632.19 506.93 507.01 535.87 540.93
38 26342.89 30.14 1.23 676.26 587.79 605.16 630.72 615.57
39 26342.89 10.13 1.23 602.96 489.31 496.66 516.31 514.86
40 26342.89 19.89 1.22 628.78 510.39 517.19 540.72 544.30
41 26342.89 20.04 1.77 820.28 654.86 660.78 696.27 707.48
42 26342.89 20.15 2.38 1106.44 889.54 892.28 933.17 962.86
43 52576.01 20.25 2.38 1110.65 884.93 890.60 957.29 970.22
44 26342.89 20.12 2.89 1228.97 984.23 984.12 1032.85 1071.73
45 52576.01 20.22 2.89 1263.25 995.27 1016.53 1063.07 1104.59
46 26342.89 20.19 3.45 1453.67 1161.03 1154.59 1224.22 1271.72
47 52576.01 20.32 3.45 1465.51 1154.81 1171.15 1228.51 1279.00
48 78809.14 20.42 3.45 1528.02 1186.19 1178.71 1261.94 1330.70
49 26342.89 10.40 1.23 601.10 486.31 492.11 514.38 517.62
50 52576.01 10.43 1.23 694.26 610.93 627.97 638.02 628.32
51 26342.89 10.21 2.88 1156.58 943.01 957.33 1001.64 1032.17
52 52576.01 10.29 2.88 1207.48 952.68 972.09 1018.12 1051.62
53 26342.89 10.22 1.78 804.39 643.40 655.23 689.03 697.07
54 52576.01 10.34 1.78 837.75 668.72 677.64 717.83 724.01
55 26342.89 10.05 2.37 981.13 799.30 814.66 854.13 874.13
56 52576.01 10.14 2.37 1035.01 818.67 840.52 880.08 904.70
57 26342.89 30.34 1.24 652.31 528.63 542.16 566.66 573.66
58 26342.89 10.22 3.46 1358.92 1101.81 1112.32 1164.78 1207.18
59 52576.01 10.31 3.46 1398.65 1110.49 1128.38 1183.85 1225.81
60 78809.14 10.40 3.46 1441.98 1125.42 1126.64 1198.80 1231.41
61 26342.89 30.46 1.80 885.23 718.99 730.18 764.51 779.11
62 26342.89 30.60 2.37 1086.10 875.29 882.54 925.19 957.08
63 52576.01 30.71 2.37 1145.97 902.42 900.85 960.13 990.22
64 26342.89 30.62 2.92 1302.20 1050.99 1053.04 1104.56 1144.89
65 52576.01 30.69 2.92 1307.66 1053.69 1050.70 1123.28 1158.63
66 26342.89 30.51 3.44 1490.45 1205.40 1207.74 1267.64 1317.59
67 52576.01 30.57 3.43 1506.69 1181.88 1204.18 1259.88 1320.42
Answer:

The mean absolute error (MAE) of the heat transfer coefficient under 67 operating conditions is
confirmed to be 0.00%, and the plot is shown below. (Need to be calculated)
 Analysis by computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

Problem Definition
A predictive ANSYS FLUENT CFD simulation is to be done by consulting the provided
supplementary materials. The predicted results will then be compared with experimental data, and
the following questions will be addressed.
Note:
• When viewing the horizontal annular tube from the side, the upper region along the central
axis can be simplified into a two-dimensional cross-section, as shown in Fig. 1.
• Be aware that, it is impossible to define heat flux at the central axis. Therefore, the solid
domain is offset from the central axis by a distance of th, as depicted in Fig. 3 of the
supplementary materials. (This offset matches the actual experimental conditions, where a
cartridge heater with an inner radius of rh = 3.175 mm is encased in a copper block with a
radius of ri = rh + rs = 5 mm.)
• The ANSYS Fluent solver can only solve 2D problems in the x-y plane, take this into
account when creating the domain.
• The 3D simulation can be modeled as a half-domain, as shown in Fig. 3, to achieve realistic
simulation results while limiting computational costs. A hollow cylinder can be used to
model the central heating axis, allowing for the application of heat flux conditions.
1. Analysis of the Effect of Heat Flux (q")

Under the same conditions (G = 1092.5 kg/m2s, and Tin = 10°C) as those presented in the
1D prediction problem, predict the heat transfer coefficient in the flow direction using 2D CFD for
three different heat flux experimental conditions, and answer the following questions.

(a) To verify the grid independence of the analysis results, create five meshes with different grid
numbers and fill in the table below. Apply refinement (referred to as bias in ANSYS mesh
terminology) at the heated wall, the outer wall, and inlet using the mesh tool to accurately capture
the boundary layers. Then, calculate the y + values for each mesh level. The y + is defined as the
non-dimensional wall distance according to equation (5) in the Supplementary material. The
friction velocity should be calculated using the following equation. For information regarding the
x and y directions in the table, refer to Fig. 3 in the Supplementary material.

 wall C U 2
0.026
u = , wall = f f in , C f =
 2 Re1 7

For the finest mesh, ensure that the condition y + < 5, as recommended for the SST k-ω turbulence
model, is satisfied. Calculate the average wall temperature at the axial x* = 2.1, 7.3, 12.5, 17.7,
and 22.9. For the intermediate heat rate case ( Q = 479W), assess whether there are significant
variations based on the mesh level and determine whether grid independence is achieved. The solid
wall temperature should be taken from the edge of solid domain where the wall meets the fluid. If
the wall temperature in the simulation, where grid independence has been confirmed, differs from
the experimental temperature, consult the flat plate correlation in the textbook to explain the
limitations arising from the 2D assumption.

Type of grid G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Type of Fluid (x  y)
regions Solid (x  y)
First cell height from the wall, ymin
[m]
y+
Tw,avg(x* = 2.1, 7.3, 12.5, 17.7, and 22.9) [°C]
Tw,exp,avg = 53.39°C

Tips:
- In ANSYS CFD-Post, the point temperature values can be obtained using the Ave Function.

- In the current problem, the continuity residual may not decrease, which could be due to the mesh
near the wall being insufficiently fine, preventing the SST k-ω model from being solved properly.
In this case, decreasing the mesh height will help achieve convergence.

Answer: Five meshes with different sizes were generated as shown in the table, and the non-
dimensional wall distance y + and the average wall temperature at the five locations were
calculated. Based on the wall temperature, it was confirmed that grid independence was
sufficiently achieved at the G3 level. (y+ = 1.5)

Type of grid G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
400 
Type of Fluid (x  y) 400  20 400  40 400  60 400  80
100
regions
Solid (x  y) 400  30
First cell height from the wall, ymin
60 30 17 15 13
[m]
y+ 5.4 2.7 1.5 1.4 1.2
Tw,avg(x* = 2.1, 7.3, 12.5, 17.7, and 22.9) [°C]
59.48 62.40 63.05 63.02 62.91
Tw,exp,avg = 53.39°C

The higher wall temperature observed in the converged 2D simulation compared to experimental
results can be attributed to limitations inherent in the 2D model assumption. In this model, the
section before the boundary layer is fully developed is approximated as a flat plate with constant
heat flux. According to the equation provided in the Incropera textbook, this setup tends to predict
higher wall temperatures than those observed in concentric annuli.

A key factor here is the difference in heat transfer paths. For a flat plate, heat is primarily
transferred vertically, from the bottom to the top, which restricts the pathways for heat dispersion.
This limitation leads to greater heat accumulation on the wall, resulting in higher wall temperatures.
In contrast, concentric annuli allow heat to be dispersed radially into the surrounding fluid, creating
a more uniform thermal distribution.
Flat plates with constant heat flux for turbulent flow (eq. 7.46 in the textbook):
Ux
Nux = 0.0308Re4/5
x Pr ;Re x =
1/3


(b) Based on the grid-independent mesh, plot the axial profiles of fluid velocity at the center of the
fluid domain (ucenter). Assess whether the boundary layer has developed using axial velocity
component at the center (ucenter/dx) = 0. Set the x-axis of the plot to the non-dimensional axial
distance x* of the analysis domain, and the y-axis to represent the flow velocity at the center of
the fluid domain. Indicate the 1D entrance length x∗=10 and the approximate experimental
entrance length x∗=7 on the plot and compare them with predictions from the 2D analysis.

Answer: Using the G3-level mesh, the axial velocity profiles at the center of the fluid domain are
presented in plots. In the fully developed region, the axial velocity gradient du/dx should be zero,
and velocity should depend only on u = u(y), according to Incropera’s textbook. From the velocity
profile, full development has not been achieved even by the end of the computed domain, which
extends up to x* ≈ 24.2. The required entrance length appears to be greater than the commonly
used x* = 10 for 1D predictions and experimental results. The entrance length may be extended
due to the limitations of the 2D prediction, as it assumes an infinite parallel plate rather than
concentric annuli.
(c) Based on the grid-independent mesh, plot the axial profiles of the temperature difference
Ts ( x ) − T ( x, r )
. Calculate local fluid temperature at the center of the fluid domain. The solid wall
Ts ( x ) − Tm ( x )
temperature should be taken from the edge of solid domain where the wall meets the fluid. Assess
whether the boundary layer has developed using the following definition
  Ts ( x ) − T ( x, r ) 
  = 0 . Indicate the 1D entrance length x∗=10 and the approximate
x  Ts ( x ) − Tm ( x )  fd ,t
experimental entrance length x∗=7 on the plot and include a comparison between them.
Note: At least 10-line integrals should be calculated along the axial direction in the 2D domain to
obtain the smooth variations in the mean temperature Tm along the axial directions.
Answer: The results were calculated and presented in plots, and since the temperature gradient
persists, it is concluded that full development has not been reached by the end of the fluid domain.
Compared to approximate 1D analysis, the required thermal entrance length is expected to be
longer. (x* ≥ 24). The entrance length may be extended due to the limitations of the 2D prediction,
as it assumes an infinite parallel plate rather than concentric annuli.

(d) Based on the grid independent mesh, calculate the heat transfer coefficient under three different
heat flux conditions and fill in the table below. Identify and describe any significant changes in
the heat transfer coefficient due to variations in heat flux. When calculating the heat transfer
coefficient, the solid wall temperature should be from the edge of solid domain where the wall
meets the fluid. inside the solid region at the location where the wall meets the fluid, and the fluid
temperature should be calculated along the line at the corresponding axial location. (In ANSYS
CFD-Post, the point value can be calculated using the ‘ave’ function, and the length-averaged
temperature using the ‘lengthAve’ Function.) When calculating the heat transfer coefficient, the
heat flux should be based on the experimental heat flux.
 hexp − hCFD
Error(%) = 100
hexp

Q = 240W Q = 479W Q = 718W

x* [-] hexp hCFD Errors hexp hCFD Errors hexp hCFD Errors

2.1 1358.9 1398.7 1442.0

7.3 1101.8 1110.5 1125.4
12.5 1112.3 1128.4 1126.6
17.7 1164.8 1183.9 1198.8
22.9 1207.2 1225.8 1231.4

Answer:

Q = 240W Q = 479W Q = 718W

x* [-] hexp hCFD Errors hexp hCFD Errors hexp hCFD Errors

11.39 13.58 16.17

2.1 1358.9 1204.1 1398.7 1208.8 1442.0 1208.8
% % %
7.3 1101.8 1079.8 2.00% 1110.5 1085.2 2.28% 1125.4 1084.8 3.61%
12.5 1112.3 1113.5 0.11% 1128.4 1120.8 0.67% 1126.6 1121.3 0.47%
17.7 1164.8 1107.1 4.95% 1183.9 1110.5 6.20% 1198.8 1108.0 7.57%
22.9 1207.2 1115.6 7.59% 1225.8 1116.7 8.90% 1231.4 1114.3 9.51%

In single-phase convective heat transfer, the heat transfer coefficient is influenced only by the
Reynolds number, Prandtl number, and related fluid properties, so there is no significant difference
in the heat transfer coefficient across the three different heat flux conditions.
2. Analysis of the Effect of Mass Flux (G) Variations

Problem Definition

Refer to the figure below and perform a 3D CFD analysis. To reduce the computational cost of the
three-dimensional analysis, model only half of the geometry as shown in the figure. Please note
that the x-axis in the 2D analysis corresponds to the x-axis in the 3D analysis.

1. Analysis of the Effect of Heat Flux (q")

Under the same conditions (G = 1092.5 kg/m2s, and Tin = 10°C) as those presented in the
1D prediction problem, predict the heat transfer coefficient in the flow direction using 2D CFD for
three different heat flux experimental conditions, and answer the following questions.

(a) The experimental heat flux is calculated based on the surface area of a cylinder with a radius
of 5mm. However, to set the heat flux on the surface of a cylinder with a radius of 3.175mm in the
CFD, you need to recalculate the heat flux by considering the reduced heat-generating area. Using
the definition of heat flux, calculate the heat flux to be applied as a CFD boundary condition and
fill in the table below.

Q [W] qri = 5mm [W/m2] qrh = 3.175mm [W/m2]

240 26342.9
479 52576.0
718 78809.1

Answer:

The definition of heat flux is as follows, and the heat flux to be applied as a boundary condition in
the CFD has been calculated by considering the reduced heat-generating area and entered into the
table.
Q Q
q  = =
Ah  ( 2r ) L

Q [W] qr= 5mm [W/m2] qr= 3.175mm [W/m2]

240 26342.9 41484.9
479 52576.0 82796.9
718 78809.1 124108.9

2. Grid Independence

Generate five different mesh sizes, following the same approach as the 2D model, and verify grid
independence for the intermediate heat rate case ( Q = 479W). Please confirm the grid
independence based on the upper average wall temperature at the five axial locations.

Tips

In Ansys mesh, by increasing the bias factor, smaller cells can be generated near the wall, allowing
for a reduction in y + without significantly increasing the total mesh count. Since the Ansys Student
version limits Fluid physics to 1 million cells/nodes, generate the mesh using this approach within
the given limit. The y+ value confirmed for grid independence in the 2D simulation can be applied
to the 3D simulation, allowing the verification process to be skipped.
 Type of grid 3D grid with y+ tested in 2D
Type of Fluid (r  θ  x)
regions Solid (r  θ  x)
First cell height from the wall, ymin
[m]
y+
Tw,avg(x* = 2.1, 7.3, 12.5, 17.7, and 22.9) [°C]
Tw,exp,avg = 53.39°C

Answer:

Type of grid 3D grid with y+ tested in 2D

Type of Fluid (r  θ  x) 22  50  300
regions Solid (r  θ  x) 9  50  300
First cell height from the wall, ymin
13.5
[m]
y+ 1.3
Tw,avg(x* = 2.1, 7.3, 12.5, 17.7, and 22.9) [°C]
60.91
Tw,exp,avg = 53.39°C

3. Analysis of the Effect of Heat Flux (q")

Using the grid-independent mesh (or the finest mesh), perform simulations under three different
heat flux conditions. Compare the results with the experimental heat transfer coefficient and
calculate the error. The wall temperature should be obtained in the same manner as in the 2D
simulation, while the fluid temperature should be calculated as the cross-sectional area-averaged
temperature at each x-location. In CFD-Post, this can be done using the areaAve function.
Q = 240W Q = 479W Q = 718W

x* [-] hexp hCFD Errors hexp hCFD Errors hexp hCFD Errors

2.1 1358.9 1398.7 1442.0

 7.3 1101.8 1110.5 1125.4
12.5 1112.3 1128.4 1126.6
17.7 1164.8 1183.9 1198.8
22.9 1207.2 1225.8 1231.4

Answer:

Q = 240W Q = 479W Q = 718W

x* [-] hexp hCFD Errors hexp hCFD Errors hexp hCFD Errors

2.1 1358.9 1074.3 20.9% 1398.7 1061.1 24.1% 1442.0 1278.2 11.4%

7.3 1101.8 1143.7 3.8% 1110.5 1035.8 6.7% 1125.4 1200.6 6.7%

12.5 1112.3 983.8 11.6% 1128.4 1036.7 8.1% 1126.6 1204.4 6.9%

17.7 1164.8 999.1 14.2% 1183.9 1051.5 11.2% 1198.8 1220.8 1.8%

22.9 1207.2 1014.4 16.0% 1225.8 1067.4 12.9% 1231.4 1236.6 0.4%

(C) Plot the velocity and temperature profiles along the flow direction at the radial center position
of the fluid domain. Compare the hydrodynamic and thermal entry lengths for experimental, 1D,
2D, and 3D predictions. Express the temperature profile as a temperature difference using the
equation below. Line and surface integrals may be necessary. Indicate the 1D entrance length
x∗=10 and the approximate experimental entrance length x∗=7 on the plot.
Ts ( x ) − T ( x, r )
Temperature difference:
Ts ( x ) − Tm ( x )

Answer:

The velocity profile at the center was analyzed to confirm hydrodynamic development. In the cases
of 1D and 3D, development was observed at x∗=10, indicating a faster velocity development than
in the 2D case, which remained undeveloped until x∗=24. Excluding 1D, as it was not calculated
directly, the shorter entry length in the 3D flow can be attributed to secondary flow induced by
buoyancy and the resulting strong mixing effect. The 3D center velocity was obtained by line
integration at r = 0.008 m, while the 2D value corresponds to the point at the same radial position.
Similarly, the temperature profile showed that both 1D and 3D cases developed around x∗=10,
with the 3D case developing faster than 2D due to the enhanced mixing effect.
4. Effect of secondary flows

Note: To check the secondary flow, set the HFE-7100 density as a function of temperature
(not constant) and apply gravity in ANSYS Fluent.

Using the grid-independent mesh (or the finest mesh), check the cross-sectional velocity profile at
five x locations (x* = 2.1, 7.3, 12.5, 17.7, and 22.9). Explain how this helps the wall temperature
better match the actual experimental temperature.

Answer: The 2D and 3D velocity profiles are presented below. In the 2D case, the flow primarily
follows the axial direction, which limits radial fluid mixing. This results in slower flow
development and may not adequately represent the convective heat transfer observed in actual
experiments. In contrast, the 3D case shows a distinct rotational flow induced by buoyancy in the
cross-sectional velocity profile, although its intensity is relatively low.

In a 3D simulation, it is possible to accurately represent cross-sectional rotational flow, which

cannot be captured in a 2D flow, allowing for a simulation that more closely resembles the
experimental conditions. The secondary flow allows the wall temperature to better match the
experimental temperature, and as shown in the turbulence kinetic energy contour below, it
strengthens around the wall as it progresses downstream. This enhances heat transfer through
increased mixing.