Mass Flow at the Mid-Plane in a closed container

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on analyzing fluid movement within a cylindrical can subjected to a temperature gradient. The initial simulation results indicated zero mass flow at the mid-plane due to the absence of mass sinks or sources. To better understand liquid movement, a new surface integral was proposed to account for fluid directionality, suggesting that negative flow could be considered positive. A participant confirmed that this method is reasonable and recommended dividing the results by two to account for both upward and downward flow. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurately capturing fluid dynamics in thermal convection scenarios.
c.teixeira
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Hi there.

I am designing a type cilindrical can full of a fluid, with a temperature difference between the top and bottom. Now, after the simulation of the free convection phenomenom in COMSOL, I wanted to understand the effect of varying the temperatures, to the "fluid movement" (fluid flow/convection) that occurs within the can. To do so, I calculated the mass flow in the transverse plane ( the mid-plane[at the same distance from the top and bottom]): \dot{m} = \int\int\rho*w*dA.

The results I got for the mass flow were = 0. As there is no mass sink or source within the can, the mass flow had indeed to be zero unless it was compressing part of the liquid, and "creating" vacuum in another part of the can. So basically, the amount of mass that flows trough the mid-plane to the top is equal to the mass that flows trough the mid-plane to the bottom. However, what is relevant for my work, is to understand "how much liquid movement" occurs in the can. In order to do so, what do you think would be the most suitable surface integration I could use?
I tough about evaluating the following surface integral: \dot{m} = \int\int\rho*\sqrt{w^{2}}*dA.
In this case, the fluid crossing the plane of integration in direction to the bottom( with negative w) would count as positive mass flow. do you think this is a reasonable solution? do you have any sugestions?

Here is a sketch to make it more clear:
PF_sketch.png




c.teixeira
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Your method should work just fine. Just divide by 2 to get the up flow and the down flow.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top