Numerical and Analytical Solutions to Two Dimensional Transient Heat Conduction Problem

By Maathangi Sankar Sankar.9atbuckeyemail.osu.edu

Abstract

The aim of this work was to find the spatial and temporal variations in temperature of a steel ingot kept at an initial high temperature as it is quenched by a cold fluid flowing around it. The solution for this problem was obtained by solving the 2D transient heat conduction equation by both analytical and numerical means. The numerical solution was obtained by discretizing the governing partial differential equation and using forward differencing explicit scheme and the time taken to reach steady state condition was calculated. It was found that the analytical solution compared well with the numerical solutions, as the number of nodes in the spatial domain was increased and as the time step was reduced. The temperature distribution over the domain was obtained and plotted.

Objectives
The objective of this work is to find the temperature distribution of a steel ingot, initially at a high temperature being quenched by a cold liquid. It is necessary to find the time required for the ingot to reach the ambient temperature, that is, to reach steady state conditions. It is also desired to get a comparison between the closed form analytical solution and the numerical solution obtained by solving the finite difference equations for the given problem.

Problem Statement
A long rectangular steel ingot is placed in a reservoir of liquid at a constant Temperature T. The ingot is kept at an initial temperature of 1000K. It is our aim to find the transient temperature distribution in the ingot and compare the analytical and numerical solutions and find the time taken to reach steady state conditions. A top view of the ingot and the reservoir is shown in the figure below.

Assumptions
The steel ingot is assumed to be very long and the edge effects are neglected for the purpose of this analysis. The reservoir is assumed to be large enough that the temperature of the quenching liquid remains unchanged at T =300K and the external convective heat transfer coefficient is assumed to have a constant value of 100 W/m2 K on all the four surfaces. The steel ingot is assumed to have constant

thermo physical properties, and no internal heat generation. The initial temperature of the steel ingot for t<0, is Ti =1000K. The thermophysical properties of steel used in the calculations are as follows: K=59W/mK Density = 7832 kg/m3 Cp=434J/KgK Thermal Diffusivity = k/Cp These values were obtained from http://engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm

Solution Methodology
The steel ingot in the given problem here is cooled by convection on all the four sides. We see that the geometry is symmetric about the X and Y axes, and hence, by symmetry of the system, we can say that Dt/Dx=0 at x=0 and Dt/Dy=0 at y=0. This reduces the given problem to a simpler one with the domain being one quarter of the original ingot. The upper quarter of the original geometry is now considered for analysis henceforth. The origin of the slab is taken to be at the center of the ingot, which reduces the geometry of the problem to

The 2d transient conduction problem is solved for the quarter geometry.

The boundary conditions and initial conditions for the problem are as follows. BCs

Initial Condition T(x, y, 0) = Ti = 1000K

Analytical Solution
The governing 2d transient conduction equation is a homogeneous second order differential equation with homogeneous boundary conditions and one inhomogeneous initial condition in the time domain, and hence the equation can be solved analytically by separation of variables. The length scales, time scale and temperature are homogenized and made non dimensional as follows: = x/ (L/2) = y/ (L/2) t*= (4*/L2)*t = (T- T)/ (Ti- T) The governing equation now reduces to

The boundary conditions and initial conditions for the reduced geometry for the non dimensional and homogenized governing differential equation become Boundary Conditions:

Initial condition:

A solution of the form ( , , t *) = X( , t*) * Y( , t*) is assumed, with the governing equation reducing to two 1D transient heat conduction problems in the X and Y directions.

The two 1d transient heat conduction governing equations along with their boundary conditions and initial conditions are as given below:

Solving the above DEs, we get the final solution as the summation of an infinite series in the following form X ( , t*) =

Y ( , t* ) =

And ( , , t*) = Where n, is found by solving the transcendental equation n * tan (n) = h L/2 k = Bi

The transcendental equation above is solved by the Newton Raphson method. It was found that the series solution converges with an error of the order of 10 -6 times the series sum when 50 roots were taken for summation in the series, and hence, the series sum was calculated over 50 values of n. The temperature distribution in the ingot is shown by means of contour plots at different times and it was found that the temperature distribution reaches steady state at around ~ 6500 seconds. The temperature distribution was assumed to reach steady state when the temperature difference with the ambient conditions was found to be less than 0.2%. The contour plots are attached at the end of the report.

Numerical Solution
The physical system is represented by a nodal network, with an (m, n) notation used to designate the location of the discrete points in the network and the problem is discretized in time by designating a time interval (t) and expressing the time as

t = p (t) where p takes integer values (p=0,1,2) The finite difference equation is obtained by writing the Taylor Series expansion of the temperature field at each nodal point.

The domain in partitioned in space using a mesh (x 1,x2,xn) , (y1,y2,yn) in the X and Y directions and (t 1,t2,tp) in the time domain. We assume a uniform partition both in the spatial directions X & Y, and in time, so that the difference between two consecutive spatial locations will be (x) and (y) and in time will be (t). Thus, Tpm,n represents the numerical approximation of T(m,n,t p). The two commonly used schemes for discretizing the governing equation are the implicit and explicit schemes. Implicit Method A backward differencing scheme at time t p+1 and a second order central difference for the spatial derivatives at the location (m,n) is used to derive the recurrence relations. This gives a set of linear equations which have to be solved at each time step, for solving for the state variables at any time t p. The scheme is unconditionally stable and convergent but usually more numerically intensive then the explicit method as it requires solving a system of numerical equations on each time step. The errors are linear over the time step and quadratic over the space step. The discretized finite difference equation for the implicit scheme for an interior node is as given below

Explicit Method Using a forward differencing scheme at time t p and a second order central difference for the spatial derivatives at the point (m,n), we are able to derive the recurrence relations at all the nodes in the domain. The explicit scheme allows you to solve for the state variable at time t p as a function of the state variables at earlier times and other positions. This allows it to be implemented as a time recursion which computes a solution at time p from solution samples at earlier times (and other spatial locations).

The explicit method is used for solving the transient 2d conduction problem here. For all the interior nodes, the discretized finite difference equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo)* Tm,np + Fo* (Tm+1,np + Tm-1,np + Tm,n-1p + Tm,n+1p )

For the nodes in the right boundary at x=L/2 with convection boundary condition (excluding the corner nodes), the equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo-2*Bi*Fo)* Tm,np + Fo* (2Tm-1,np + Tm,n+1p + Tm,np 1 )+2*Bi*Fo* T

For the nodes in the left boundary at x=0 with insulated boundary condition (excluding the corner nodes), the equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo)* Tm,np + Fo* (2Tm+1,np + Tm,n+1p + Tm,n-1p)

For the nodes in the bottom boundary at y=0 with insulated boundary condition (excluding the corner nodes), the equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo)* Tm,np + Fo* (2Tm,n+1p + Tm-1,np + Tm+1,np)

For the nodes in the top boundary at y=L/2 with convection boundary condition (excluding the corner nodes), the equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo-2*Bi*Fo)* Tm,np + Fo* (Tm+1,np + Tm-1,np + 2Tm,np 1 )+2*Bi*Fo* T

For the top right corner node, at x=L/2, y=L/2, with convection boundary conditions on the two adjoining surfaces, the equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo-4*Bi*Fo)* Tm,np +2*Fo* (Tm,n-1p + Tm-1,np) +4*Bi*Fo* T

For the top left corner node, at x=0, y=L/2, with insulated and convection boundary conditions on the two adjoining surfaces, the equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo-2*Bi*Fo)* Tm,np +2*Fo* (Tm+1,np + Tm,n-1p) +2*Bi*Fo* T

For the bottom right corner node, at x=L/2, y=0, with insulated and convection boundary conditions on the two adjoining surfaces, the equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo-2*Bi*Fo)* Tm,np +2*Fo* (Tm,n+1p + Tm-1,np) +2*Bi*Fo* T

For the bottom left corner node, at x=0, y=0, with insulated boundary conditions on the two adjoining surfaces, the equation becomes

Tm,np+1 = (1-4*Fo)* Tm,np +2*Fo* (Tm,n+1p + Tm+1,np)

In the above equations, two variables, the local Fourier number (Fo) and local Biot number (Bi) appear in the recurrence relations. They are defined as follows Fo= (t)/ (x)2 Bi=h (x)/k where x and t are defined as the nodal spacing and time steps respectively. Here, the spacing of the nodes in the X and Y direction are uniform and due to symmetry of the problem where an equal number of nodes is used in both the directions.

Stability Criteria Since the explicit scheme does not guarantee stability for all values of time steps, it has to be ensured that the Fo be chosen accordingly to make the scheme numerically stable. From the above recurrence equations, it was found that Fo has to be less than 0.23 for stable numerical convergence. Hence, the values of x and t were chosen accordingly to satisfy the required criterion. The Fo was chosen to be 0.1736 to ensure numerical convergence. The spacing between nodes was 0.001m and the time step was 0.01secs. The initial condition for temperature was imposed for all the nodes at time t=0 and the equations were marched in time, using a fixed time step till steady state conditions were attained. The temperature distribution in the ingot has been plotted for different times, and the plots are attached at the end of the report.

Results and Discussion

From the temperature contours, it can be observed that the temperature is minimum at the upper right corner of the ingot, that is, at x=L/2, y=L/2, since it is exposed to convection on both the adjoining surfaces. It can be also be noted that there is a diagonal symmetry in the contour plots, arising because of the symmetry of the boundary conditions of the problem.

We see that the cooling initiates at the top right corner, at x=L/2, y=L/2 and the isotherms quickly become circular and travel towards the bottom left corner at x=0, y=0. The maximum temperature difference exists between the top right corner and the bottom left corner in the ingot. This maximum temperature difference decreases with time, and is along expected lines. As time progresses, the heat flux lost at the surfaces by convection is transferred inside and the inner parts of the block starts cooling down, and hence the maximum temperature difference that is between the upper right corner and lower bottom corner of the ingot also goes down with time. This is shown in Plot #8 attached at the end of the report. It should be noted that the differential rates of cooling at different points in the ingot, can cause changes in the microstructure, and hence mechanical properties, and can induce thermal stresses. It can also be seen from the temperature contours that the isotherms become perpendicular to the X and Y axis, thus satisfying the insulated boundary conditions and hence the zero temperature gradient at those locations. It can also be seen from the error distribution plots that the maximum error between the numerical and analytical solution exists near the origin, which is the bottom left corner. The error gradually decreases as we move outward away from the origin toward the surfaces that are exposed to convection. However, at smaller times, at ~ 10-75 seconds, the errors are more concentrated in the upper region of the block. This shows the propagation of heat flux from the boundaries to the inner zones as time progresses, and the block subsequently starts cooling down. At larger times, we see that there is a greater agreement between the analytical and numerical solutions near the walls with convective boundaries than near the origin with surfaces being insulated.

A grid independence study was done, by varying the nodal spacing and time steps. It was found that the error between the numerical and analytical solutions decreased as the number of nodes increased, and as the time step was decreased. As depicted in the error plots in Fig. 11 and 12, the maximum error in the solution occurs in the first 100 200 seconds, and hence, the grid independence study was carried out for those times. The error in the numerical solution decreases as time progresses to the order of 10-3 K at around 250 seconds, and further decreases to the order of 10-5K at around 6500 seconds, at steady state conditions. The contour plots attached in the report show the temperature distribution for one quarter of the original problem. By symmetry, the temperature field in the other three quadrants will be exactly similar to the ones obtained for the 1 st quadrant case here.

Conclusions:
The 2D transient heat conduction problem was solved both analytically and numerically and the solutions were compared for different times. The numerical scheme showed excellent agreement with the analytical solution with an error of ~10-5K at steady state conditions, which was reached at around ~ 6500 seconds. Increasing the external heat transfer coefficient can hasten the quenching process, and the system can reach steady state earlier.

Appendix Matlab code used for calculations

% NUMERICAL SOLUTION %Problem data T_inf=300; h=100; k=59; rho=7832; Cp=434; alpha=k/(rho*Cp); Lx=0.05; Ly=0.05; nx=51; ny=51; dt=0.001; dx=Lx/(nx-1); dy=Ly/(ny-1); Bi=h*dx/k; Fo=alpha*dt/dx^2 nodes=nx*ny; T=zeros(nodes,1);

x=linspace(0,Lx,nx); y=linspace(0,Ly,ny); T_initial=1000; time=dt; for i=1:nodes T(i)=T_initial; end T_new=zeros(nodes,1); time=dt; while(time<6500) %Interior Nodes for i=2:nx-1 for j=2:ny-1 k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo)+Fo*(T(k+1)+T(k-1)+T(k+nx)+T(k-nx)); end end % Left boundary i=1; for j=2:ny-1 k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo)+Fo*(2*T(k+1)+T(k+nx)+T(k-nx)); end % Top Boundary j=ny; for i=2:nx-1 k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo-2*Bi*Fo)+Fo*(T(k+1)+T(k-1)+2*T(k-nx))+2*Bi*Fo*T_inf; end % Right Boundary i=nx; for j=2:ny-1 k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo-2*Bi*Fo)+Fo*(2*T(k-1)+T(k+nx)+T(k-nx)) +2*Bi*Fo*T_inf; end %Bottom Boundary j=1; for i=2:nx-1 k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo)+Fo*(2*T(k+nx)+T(k-1)+T(k+1)); end % Top right corner i=nx; j=ny; k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo-4*Bi*Fo)+2*Fo*(T(k-nx)+T(k-1))+4*Bi*Fo*T_inf;

%Top left corner i=1; j=ny; k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo-2*Bi*Fo)+2*Fo*(T(k+1)+T(k-nx))+2*Bi*Fo*T_inf; %Bottom right corner i=nx; j=1; k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo-2*Bi*Fo)+2*Fo*(T(k+nx)+T(k-1))+2*Bi*Fo*T_inf; %Bottom left corner i=1; j=1; k=(j-1)*nx+i; T_new(k)=T(k)*(1-4*Fo)+2*Fo*(T(k+1)+T(k+nx)); time=time+dt; for i=1:nx for j=1:ny k=(j-1)*nx+i; T(k)=T_new(k); end end end Temp=zeros(nx,ny); for i=1:nx for j=1:ny k=(j-1)*nx+i; Temp(i,j)=T(k); end end % ANALYTICAL SOLUTION itermax=1000; iter=0; Lx=0.05; Ly=0.05; x=linspace(0,Lx,nx); y=linspace(0,Lx,ny); eta=x/Lx; zeta=y/Ly; nroots=50; A=zeros(nroots); l=Lx; bi=h*l/k;

%Tolerance for NR Method convergence tolerance=0.000001; lambda=zeros(nroots); % Defining Xsoln and Ysoln matrices Xsoln=zeros(nx); Ysoln=zeros(ny); % Finding roots of transcendental equation for i=1:nroots z=(i-1)*pi+0.1*pi; while iter<itermax func=z*sin(z)-bi*cos(z); deriv=(1+bi)*sin(z)+z*cos(z); dz=-func/deriv; z=z+dz; if abs(func)<tolerance break end iter=iter+1; end lambda(i)=z; end for i=1:nroots A(i)=2*sin(lambda(i))/(lambda(i)+sin(lambda(i))*cos(lambda(i))); end % Calculating the Analytical Solution at a given time t t=6500; tstar=alpha*t/(0.05^2); for j=1:nx %for all nodes for i=1:nroots %for summation expterm=-tstar*lambda(i)*lambda(i); Xsoln(j)=Xsoln(j)+A(i)*exp(expterm)*cos(lambda(i)*eta(j)); Ysoln(j)=Ysoln(j)+A(i)*exp(expterm)*cos(lambda(i)*zeta(j)); end end Totalsoln=zeros(nx,ny); for i=1:nx for j=1:ny Totalsoln(i,j)=(Xsoln(i)*Ysoln(j)*700+300); end end % Defining the error matrix error=zeros(nx,ny); for i=1:nx for j=1:ny error(i,j)=Temp(i,j)-Totalsoln(i,j); end end

% Generating plots subplot(2,2,1) contourf(x,y,Totalsoln) subplot(2,2,2) contourf(x,y,Temp) subplot(2,2,3) contourf(x,y,error) subplot(2,2,4) surf(x,y,Temp)