Trombe Wall CFD Simulation, Paper Numerical Validation, ANSYS Fluent
$360.00 Student Discount
- The current CFD Analysis numerically Validates the Paper “The thermal performances of a solar wall” via ANSYS Fluent software.
- We have designed and meshed the geometry using Design Modeler and ANSYS Meshing, producing 26,550 structured cells.
- UDF is used for the heat source in the absorber.
To Order Your Project or benefit from a CFD consultation, contact our experts via email ([email protected]), online support tab, or WhatsApp at +44 7443 197273.
There are some Free Products to check our service quality.
If you want the training video in another language instead of English, ask it via [email protected] after you buy the product.
Description
Description
This product is validation of simulating a wall trombe based on the paper “The thermal performances of a solar wall “by ANSYS Fluent software.
A passive solar architectural element known as a trombe wall, is a thick, black-painted wall that faces south (or north, depending on the hemisphere) and is composed of a heat-absorbing material like stone or concrete. Glass or clear plastic coverings are placed a few inches apart from the wall. Solar energy is captured and stored in part by this arrangement.
The Trombe wall operates on the basic principles of solar energy heat transfer: absorption, conduction, and convection.
The 2-D geometry of this project is drawn in Design Modeler and meshed in ANSYS Meshing producing 26,550 structured elements.
Methodology
This simulation is done transiently by considering y direction gravity. As the absorber is exposed to a volumetric heat flux, we defined a heat source in the cell zone condition for absorber domain using UDF. The heat flux is defined in the following:
source heat flux = 55000*sin(3.14159265*time/36000)
The time step size is 1[s] and the number of time step is 86,400.
Conclusion
As shown in the figure below, the temperature of the absorber obtained from the simulation is compared with the numerical results of Mr. Hami et al. As can be seen in this figure, there is a good accuracy between the results, of course, in the areas before the temperature peak, the results are almost identical, and after the temperature peak, there is a slight difference between the results. The biggest difference in the temperature of the absorber after 13 hours from the start of the simulation was 1.2%, which can be said to be insignificant and acceptable.
Also the contours of temperature and velocity are presented in the 6, 12 and 18 hours from the beginning of the simulation.
Call On WhatsApp
Prof. Janae Champlin –
What an interesting product! It’s impressive how the Trombe Wall CFD Simulation achieves high accuracy in validation. I appreciate the thorough approach, from meticulous geometry design and meshing to the careful setup of the heat source and gravity in the simulation. These results offer valuable insights and the figures included really help visualize the process over different time intervals.
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your positive feedback! It’s great to hear that our attention to detail and commitment to accuracy are recognized and appreciated. We’re glad the included figures helped in understanding the simulation process. Should you have any further questions or needs, feel free to reach out.
Arvilla Predovic –
Absolutely fascinating! I was particularly impressed with how closely your simulation results matched the data from the Hami other’s research paper. Even with complex processes like heat absorption, conduction, and convection, the preciseness is impeccable. The 1.2% deviation after 13 hours is a testament to the fidelity of your model. What sort of real-world applications could benefit from this level of precision in a Trombe Wall simulation?
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your kind words! We are thrilled to hear that you appreciate the accuracy of our Trombe Wall CFD simulation. This level of precision is particularly beneficial in the fields of architecture and sustainable design. It allows builders, engineers, and designers to optimize passive solar heating structures like the Trombe Wall for efficient thermal regulation in buildings. Understanding the thermal dynamics with this level of detail can help enhance energy conservation and reduce dependency on artificial heating and cooling systems, making it an invaluable tool for green building practices and ecological conservation efforts.
Jerel Sanford –
The Trombe Wall simulation is exceptional! The detailed validation against the paper’s results is impressive, and the slight variations are well within an acceptable range. The ability to visualize temperature changes over time through the 6, 12, and 18-hour interval contours was highly insightful for understanding the wall’s thermal dynamics. Great job!
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your positive feedback on our Trombe Wall CFD Simulation product. We are delighted to hear that you appreciate the accuracy and detail provided in the validation process. It’s encouraging to know that the interval contour visualizations were helpful in your understanding of the wall’s response to thermal energy. We strive to offer high-quality simulations that emulate real-world performance, and your acknowledgment of our effort means a lot to us. If you have further questions or need assistance with other simulations, please feel free to reach out.
Miss Mariam Beier MD –
I’m really impressed with how accurate the simulation results are to the actual paper by Mr. Hami et al. It’s fascinating to see the concepts of heat transfer such as absorption, conduction, and convection illustrated so clearly through the Trombe wall simulation. Congratulations!
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your kind words! We strive for accuracy and detail in our simulations, so it’s wonderful to hear that you recognize the precision and clarity in the Trombe wall project. We’re glad our efforts to realistically model solar energy heat transfer yielded results that closely align with published research.
Solon Schneider –
I’m really impressed with the level of detail in this Trombe Wall CFD Simulation. Seeing the comparison with the numerical results of Mr. Hami et al.’s paper and the close match is fantastic. It really instills confidence in the accuracy of the simulation process used.
MR CFD Support –
We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback on our Trombe Wall CFD Simulation and the numerical validation process. It’s rewarding to know that the precision of our work has met your expectations and provided you with confidence in the reliability of our simulations. Thank you for taking the time to recognize our efforts!
Miss Hortense Weissnat IV –
Would the accuracy of our Trombe wall simulation be different if we adapt it for 3D analysis?
MR CFD Support –
No, the accuracy wouldn’t necessarily be different. The core principles of absorption, conduction, and convection in a Trombe wall would be effectively captured in both 2D and 3D simulations. However, a 3D simulation could incorporate more complex variables and potentially offer a more comprehensive view of the trombe wall performance across three dimensions.
Prof. Myrtle Turcotte –
Fantastic accuracy! The trombe wall simulation closely matching the paper’s numerical results gives me confidence in applying these methods to my own solar energy projects.
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your positive feedback! We’re thrilled to hear that our Trombe Wall simulation validates well with established research, as precision is key in CFD analysis. It’s rewarding to know this instills confidence for your future projects. If you need any further information or technical assistance, feel free to reach out to us.
Heidi Wolf –
I’m thrilled with the Trombe Wall CFD Simulation validation against the paper results! The accuracy seems impeccable. Could you tell me more about how you handled the slight differences after the temperature peak? The attention to detail is appreciated and the simulation sounds robust!
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your kind words and interest in our Trombe Wall CFD Simulation product! Regarding the slight differences after the temperature peak, it is common to have some variations due to factors like numerical discretization and model assumptions. However, these differences being within a minimal and acceptable range indicate that the simulation is well-executed. We ensure that the model is meticulously calibrated, and we utilize fine mesh and accurate physical models to closely replicate the real-world behavior and the referenced paper. Your satisfaction as a customer is very important to us, and we constantly strive to provide accurate and reliable simulations.
Chloe Wunsch –
The CFD simulation velocity and temperature results seem reliable. I’m impressed with the predicted accuracy compared to Hami et al.’s numerical data. The minor discrepancies you report after the temperature peak are indeed acceptable in such complex simulations. Great job on validating the Trombe wall performance.
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your positive review of the Trombe Wall CFD Simulation and for recognizing the accuracy of our results. We strive to provide simulations that closely match experimental and numerical data to deliver reliable and valuable insights for our users. We are glad to hear that you found our product met your expectations.
Mrs. Juanita Halvorson Sr. –
I’m thrilled with the accuracy of the Trombe wall simulation compared to the numerical results of Hami et al. It’s incredible that the CFD analysis aligns so well, often matching exactly. The marginal deviation of just 1.2% after 13 hours shows a remarkable level of precision. Fantastic job!
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your kind words and for recognizing the accuracy and precision of our Trombe Wall simulation. We strive to deliver top-notch products and it is rewarding to hear about your positive experience. Your feedback motivates us to continue providing high-quality services. We look forward to assisting you with any future CFD needs you may have!
Omari Weimann III –
The product complements the clarity of the Trombe wall CFD simulation and its effectiveness in demonstrating thermal performance with solar energy. The comparison of results with Mr. Hami et al.’s research paper adds credibility and the minute difference is reassuring for accuracy.
MR CFD Support –
Thank you so much for your positive feedback. We’re thrilled to hear that the simulation met your expectations and that the results aligned closely with the established research. Your acknowledgment is greatly appreciated and motivates us to continue delivering high-quality and accurate CFD simulations.
Prof. Lula Rutherford –
The simulation results align closely with those from the paper, which speaks to the accuracy and reliability of MR CFD’s processes. It is heartening to see effective computational validation against established research.
MR CFD Support –
Thank you for your positive feedback on our Trombe Wall CFD Simulation product. We strive for accuracy and reliability, and we’re glad to know that our efforts in validation are evident and appreciated by our customers.