Johannes and Leen, thanks for pointing out
the confusion about the active layer boundary conditions due to mistakes in the
manual documentation. I checked the equations
with the original literature and the code. The base equation is for
all three systems is Eq. 5.4.4.-15: For the following
boundary conditions the summation can be
neglected and yield to Eq. 5.4.4. -16 (which is wrong in the manual!) For the capillary tube
system the “ln” can be replaced by 1/3 if is less than
1.85718. Thus, for both capillary tube
system and ordinary TAB the above mentioned conditions have to be valid! For the floor heating the
conditions are the same for layer 1 with d1, For layer 2 with d2
different condition apply. (On page 5-187 of the
manual there is a mistake: the “lower then” has to be “greater
then” for the condition of d1!) The conditions are
checked by entering the layers in TRNbuild. Further details about the
model can be found in the following book (it is written in German): „Thermoaktive Systeme tabs“
von Markus Koschenz und Beat Lehmann, 2000 If you are interessted I
can double check if you can buy the book at Transsolar. Best regards, P.S.: We will upate the documentation
for the next release. Dipl.-Ing.
Geschäftsführer:
Dipl.Ing. Matthias Schuler, Dipl.Ing. Von: leen peeters [mailto:l.f.r.peeters@gmail.com]
Johannes, I know they violate one another. As I cannot access
the code of type 56, I cannot check the implementation. We are currently
working on finding out where the limits of the model are ... The model is based on an EMPA model, but there are no
international publications I found that really discuss the implementation of
the active layer model. It is a numerical derivation, so emperics are not the
cause. I will get back to you once I figured out more. Leen On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Schrade, Johannes
<Johannes.Schrade@ibp.fraunhofer.de> wrote: Dear Leen, dear TRNSYS users, Thanks for your quick reply. However, I’m not really satisfied with
your suggestion, as I want to understand the reason behind it. If you are right, I violated the requirement
“outside diameter over pipe distance < 0.2”. But, this
requirement is completely independent from the layer thickness of the adjacent
layer, isn’t it? On the other side, if both adjacent layers
must be conform to the minimum thickness of 0.3 times pipe spacing, I would
have caused a violation of this requirement by setting the pipe spacing to 24
cm and the layer thickness to 8mm. But for this, I didn’t receive any
warning. Last but not least, there are oppositional
specifications for the required ratio between thickness of adjacent layer(s)
and pipe spacing in the TRNBLD user manual. On page 5-186 the ratio should be
greater than 0.3, on page 5-187 the ratio should be equal or smaller than 0.3
and on page 5-59 the ratio should be equal or greater than 0.3. So, nearly all
possibilities are mentioned. I’m a bit confused. Looking forward to some light into the dark, Kind regards, Johannes Schrade
Von: leen peeters [mailto:l.f.r.peeters@gmail.com]
Johannes, as soon
as you decrease the distance between the pipes, you come closer to the limits
set regarding the modeling of the heat transfer in the direction of the water
flow (direction z in the mathematical model). The stability of that model
requires that you achieve a certain boundary condition, which is a.o. function
of the thermal resistance of the water-pipe-inter pipe distance. In order to
ensure these boundary conditions are satisfied the ratio of pipe outside
diameter over pipe distance < 0.2 AND the ratios of layer thickness over
pipe distance > 0.3. The 0.024-value you received for the minimum layer
thickness comes from this limitation. I assume the extra measure is invoked
once you come close to the 0.2-limit. As soon
as you take 0.1 for the pipe distance, you can again select 0.008 m for layer
thickness ... Playing
around with conductivity or capacity does not help, as the measure seems to be
implemented through the above limits only .... Leen On Mon,
Dec 12, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Schrade, Johannes <Johannes.Schrade@ibp.fraunhofer.de>
wrote: Dear
TRNSYS users, I have
some problems with the active layer module of TRNBLD, which I used for modeling
a floor heating system. The
active layers, which should be displayed in the model, are defined as
following: Layer
1: · Pipe spacing: 24 cm · Pipe outside diameter: 16 mm · Pipe wall thickness: 2 mm Layer
2: · Pipe spacing: 8 cm · Pipe outside diameter: 16 mm · Pipe wall thickness: 2 mm By
specifying the thicknesses of the layers adjacent to the active layers, the
following curiosity appeared. For
case 1, I set the thickness of the layer above the active layer to 73 mm, which
is greater than 0.3 times the pipe spacing, and I set the layer below to 0.5
times the pipe outside diameter (requirements taken from manual TRNSYS 17,
5-187, table). This step had worked pretty good and the simulation was running
without any problems. In a
second step, I revised the model and included the second active layer into the
TRNBLD model. As the floor screed should be identical for both cases, I tried
to define the thicknesses of the adjacent layers the same way as I did it in
case 1. But when I tried to reduce the thickness of the adjacent layer below,
the following warning appeared: “thickness must be in the range of 0.024
to 1.0”. In
order to understand this warning I had a closer look to the manual of TRNBLD.
On page 5-58 (TRNSYS 17) I found a remark that both layers adjacent to the
active layer must be greater than 0.3 times pipe spacing. This would explain,
why the warning appears, but I do not understand, why the first case should be
unproblematic, as the required minimum thickness in this case should be 72mm
and why this is not mentioned in the mathematical description. Does
anyone has an idea, what could be the reason behind that, or might this be a
known or unknown bug? If this requirement dependent on the pipe spacing should
be really used for both layers, this would mean that extremely thick floor
screeds of +15cm are necessary to model a floor heating system with a pipe
spacing of 24 cm. This sounds absolutely unrealistic. Hoping
for some help, Kind
regards, Johannes
Schrade
|