Face numbering for Shell elements and CAX elements

disladisla
Hi Victor,

I’m finding an unexpected result, and I think I found the source of the discrepancy.
I’m validating an axisymmetric model in which there is a flow Network model thermally interacting with the CAX elements.

Something like this but way simpler so I can build an analytical solution to compare:

https://www.calculix.de/fw05.html

As the thermal analysis in Mecway do not consider Axisymmetric elements I had to set them with custom cards.
The face numbering for Shell elements and CAX elements is not the same and Mecway is assuming the Shell numbering convention for the CAX.

I guess that makes the forced convection to be assigned to the wrong faces.
¿Is it possible to fix this is the next version?. If Mecway finds a Custom element definition the face numbering should be adjusted to the custom element.


Comments

  • disladisla
    edited April 16
    I have written the surfaces by hand and the result now matches very well with the theoretical expected result. The small deviation is due to the idealization of zero tube wall thickness used by the formulas. I have had to use a minimum thickness to be able to build a convective support surface. All the actual elements work perfectly but I decided using CAX4. I think it could be interesting to implement it in MECWAY and could be used as reference.



    Example based on:
    Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer - Incropera - 6th Edition
    Example 11.1





Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register