A two-dimensional transient thermal conduction problem is examined and numerical solutions to the problem generated by ANSYS and Matlab, employing the finite element method, are compared against an analytical solution. Various different grid densities and time-step combinations are used in the numerical solutions, including some as recommended by default in the ANSYS software, including coarse, medium and fine spatial grids. The transient temperature solutions from the analytical and numerical schemes are compared at four specific locations on the body and time-dependent error curves are generated for each point. Additionally, tabular values of each solution are presented for a more detailed comparison. The errors found in the numerical solutions by comparing them directly with the analytical solution vary depending primarily on the time step size used. The errors are much larger if calculated using the analytical solution at a given time as a basis of the comparison between the two solutions as opposed to using the steady-state temperature as a basis. The largest errors appear in the early time steps of the problem, which is typically the regime wherein the largest errors occur in mathematical solutions to transient conduction problems. Conversely, errors at larger values of dimensionless time are extremely small and the numerical solutions agree within one tenth of one percent of the analytical solutions at even the worst locations. In addition to difficulties during the early time values of the problem, temperatures calculated on convective boundaries or prescribed-heat-flux boundaries are locations generating larger-magnitude errors. Corners are particularly difficult locations and require finer gridding and finer time steps in order to generate a very precise solution from a numerical code. These regions are compared, using several grid densities, against the analytical solutions. The analytical solutions are, in turn, intrinsically verified to eight significant digits by comparing similar analytical solutions against one another at very small values of dimensionless time. The solution developed using the Matlab differential equation solver was found to have errors of a similar magnitude to those generated using ANSYS. Two different test cases are examined for the various numerical solutions using the selected grid densities. The first case involves steady heating on a portion of one surface for a long duration, up to a dimensionless time of 30. The second test case involves constant heating for a dimensionless time of one, immediately followed by an insulated condition on that same surface for another duration of one dimensionless time unit. Although the errors at large times were extremely small, the errors found within the short duration test were more significant.

### Verification of ANSYS and Matlab Conduction Results Using Analytical Solutions

#####
*Filippo de Monte*^{Membro del Collaboration Group};Giampaolo D’Alessandro^{Membro del Collaboration Group};

^{Membro del Collaboration Group};Giampaolo D’Alessandro

^{Membro del Collaboration Group};

##### 2020-01-01

#### Abstract

A two-dimensional transient thermal conduction problem is examined and numerical solutions to the problem generated by ANSYS and Matlab, employing the finite element method, are compared against an analytical solution. Various different grid densities and time-step combinations are used in the numerical solutions, including some as recommended by default in the ANSYS software, including coarse, medium and fine spatial grids. The transient temperature solutions from the analytical and numerical schemes are compared at four specific locations on the body and time-dependent error curves are generated for each point. Additionally, tabular values of each solution are presented for a more detailed comparison. The errors found in the numerical solutions by comparing them directly with the analytical solution vary depending primarily on the time step size used. The errors are much larger if calculated using the analytical solution at a given time as a basis of the comparison between the two solutions as opposed to using the steady-state temperature as a basis. The largest errors appear in the early time steps of the problem, which is typically the regime wherein the largest errors occur in mathematical solutions to transient conduction problems. Conversely, errors at larger values of dimensionless time are extremely small and the numerical solutions agree within one tenth of one percent of the analytical solutions at even the worst locations. In addition to difficulties during the early time values of the problem, temperatures calculated on convective boundaries or prescribed-heat-flux boundaries are locations generating larger-magnitude errors. Corners are particularly difficult locations and require finer gridding and finer time steps in order to generate a very precise solution from a numerical code. These regions are compared, using several grid densities, against the analytical solutions. The analytical solutions are, in turn, intrinsically verified to eight significant digits by comparing similar analytical solutions against one another at very small values of dimensionless time. The solution developed using the Matlab differential equation solver was found to have errors of a similar magnitude to those generated using ANSYS. Two different test cases are examined for the various numerical solutions using the selected grid densities. The first case involves steady heating on a portion of one surface for a long duration, up to a dimensionless time of 30. The second test case involves constant heating for a dimensionless time of one, immediately followed by an insulated condition on that same surface for another duration of one dimensionless time unit. Although the errors at large times were extremely small, the errors found within the short duration test were more significant.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.