Abstract

The ability to model fluid flow and heat transfer in process equipment (e.g., shell-and-tube heat exchangers) is often critical. What is more, many different geometric variants may need to be evaluated during the design process. Although this can be done using detailed computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models, the time needed to evaluate a single variant can easily reach tens of hours on powerful computing hardware. Simplified CFD models providing solutions in much shorter time frames may, therefore, be employed instead. Still, even these models can prove to be too slow or not robust enough when used in optimization algorithms. Effort is thus devoted to further improving their performance by applying the symmetric successive overrelaxation (SSOR) preconditioning technique in which, in contrast to, e.g., incomplete lower–upper factorization (ILU), the respective preconditioning matrix can always be constructed. Because the efficacy of SSOR is influenced by the selection of forward and backward relaxation factors, whose direct calculation is prohibitively expensive, their combinations are experimentally investigated using several representative meshes. Performance is then compared in terms of the single-core computational time needed to reach a converged steady-state solution, and recommendations are made regarding relaxation factor combinations generally suitable for the discussed purpose. It is shown that SSOR can be used as a suitable fallback preconditioner for the fast-performing, but numerically sensitive, incomplete lower–upper factorization.

Highlights

  • IntroductionIt is often the case that process equipment is designed according to various rules of thumb

  • In engineering practice, it is often the case that process equipment is designed according to various rules of thumb

  • No optimization is generally done and, at best, a single computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation is carried out to verify that the design meets the key requirements of the future operator of the apparatus

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is often the case that process equipment is designed according to various rules of thumb. No optimization is generally done and, at best, a single computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation is carried out to verify that the design meets the key requirements of the future operator of the apparatus. This means that suboptimal designs or solutions, potentially leading to operating problems, are not uncommon. In spite of them not being as accurate as the standard CFD models, it has been shown [1] that they can provide useful quantitative information What is more, these models feature significantly shorter computational times and their application in optimization algorithms is much less cumbersome. This means that instead of solving the original linear system

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.