Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dhar
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/thermal-system-design-and-simulation-dhar/
THERMAL SYSTEM
DESIGN AND
SIMULATION
This page intentionally left blank
THERMAL SYSTEM
DESIGN AND
SIMULATION
P.L. DHAR
Preface vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Outline of the Book 4
Reference 6
2. Mathematical Background 7
2.1 Linear Algebraic Equations 8
2.2 Nonlinear Algebraic Equations 13
2.3 Equation Fitting 32
2.4 Differential Equations 39
2.5 Laplace Transformation 52
2.6 Analysis of Uncertainty 62
2.7 Engineering Economics 64
References 71
3. Review of Fundamentals 73
3.1 Thermodynamics 73
3.2 Fluid Flow 99
3.3 Heat Transfer 115
3.4 Mass Transfer 140
References 146
v
vi Contents
Index 601
PREFACE
The methodology of design of engineering systems has, over the last three decades,
undergone a major shift—from an art, where the experience of the designer was of
paramount importance, to a science with rigorous optimization procedures choosing
the best possible design from among a wide variety of designs generated by a software.
Thermal systems, because of their complexity, badly needed such a tool to help the
designers. This book documents the procedures that have been developed over these
years to bring about this transition.
I had the privilege of introducing a new course “Thermal System Simulation and
Design” for postgraduate students of Thermal Engineering at IIT Delhi about 25 years
ago. It was primarily a sharing of my own research work, and of my other research
students at IIT Delhi. Gradually as the course took shape, its scope was widened based
on the feedback from the students. At that time there was just one book available on
this topic, namely “Design of Thermal Systems” by Prof. W.F. Stoecker. This excellent
book was the recommended text book for the course. As the course developed it was
noticed that many of the concepts that we had developed, like use of information flow
diagrams to simplify the simulation procedures, novel optimization methods suitable
for thermal system simulation, etc., were not adequately covered in this or even the
other text “Design and Optimization of Thermal Systems” by Prof. Y. Jaluria, which
was published in 1998. During the course of our research work we had developed the
detailed simulation procedures for various equipment used in refrigeration systems, in
thermal power plants, and novel desiccant-based cooling systems. The only references
available with the students for studying these were the original research papers or the
PhD theses and the research monograph on “Computer Simulation and Optimization
of Refrigeration Systems” written by me and my former research student Dr G.R. Saraf.
As similar courses were introduced at many other institutes, the need arose for an up-
to-date text which incorporated all the topics discussed in these courses. This book is
written in response to that need.
I had got the feedback that my earlier monograph on refrigeration systems design
was being referred by the designers in the industry, and so the present book has been
written keeping their needs also in view.
The book has been enriched by the feedback of hundreds of students—many of them
professional engineers from the industry—who took this course. My former colleagues
Prof. M.R. Ravi and Prof. Sangeeta Kohli, who have also taught the course many times
over these years, gave many valuable suggestions. Many thanks to all of them! Thanks
vii
viii Preface
are also due to Mr. Harsh Sharma who painstakingly typed the first draft of the book in
LaTeX software.
I hope the book will be useful to both the students and the practicing engineers
interested in this exciting field of great practical importance. Any suggestions for its
improvement would be gratefully acknowledged.
P.L. Dhar
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The design of thermal systems—be these power producing systems, like a thermal
power plant, or power absorbing systems, like a central air-conditioning plant—has
traditionally been carried out using thumb rules based largely on experience. Over the
years, consortiums of experienced engineers have been formed by reputed publishers,
as well as well-established professional societies like ASME and ASHRAE, to produce
authoritative handbooks to help design safe and functional systems. These handbooks
give valuable information on the likely range of values of important design parameters,
but the final choice of the values of various design parameters for a typical application
still rests with the design engineer. Any engineer would naturally wish that his choice of
design parameters should result in an “optimum design”—that which best satisfies the
requirement of his clients—be it minimization of the cost, weight, or floor area, or the
maximization of the efficiency, coefficient of performance, etc. This demands that a large
number of alternative designs be obtained and evaluated with respect to the optimization
criterion. Traditionally even to arrive at a workable design of a thermal system, with its
numerous interconnected components, has been such a laborious task that rarely any
attempt was made to arrive at the “optimum design.” Many companies did modify their
equipment designs progressively, on the basis of the performance of earlier models, and
thus slowly the designs were improved over many generations of “models.” However,
over the last three decades, the possibility of doing high speed computation through
desktop computers has made computer-aided design commercially viable. The designers
can thus aim at obtaining optimum designs of thermal systems. Increasing competition
and rapidly increasing costs of energy have, in fact, made this task imperative.
To appreciate the difference between a “feasible design” and the “optimal design”
let us consider a simple, commonly encountered problem: design of a heat exchanger,
say, for recovering waste heat from the flue gases leaving a diesel generator (DG) set to
produce steam for use in a laboratory. The first step in the design process would be to
specify the amount, the temperature, and pressure of the steam required in the laboratory.
Let us assume, for the sake of illustration, that the laboratory requires 5 kg/min of dry
saturated steam at a pressure of 2 bar. Knowing the minimum temperature of water in
winter, say 10◦ C, we can calculate the amount of heat transfer that should occur in the
heat exchanger. The mass flow rate and the temperature of the hot gases exiting from
ST
SL
Fig. 1.1 Fin tube heat exchanger for recovering heat from DG set exhaust.
the DG set at the design conditions would be known from its performance data. Now,
using this data we need to design a suitable heat exchanger for this application.
The first step in design would be to choose the type of heat exchanger, from among
various possibilities [1]. This is usually done by the design engineer on the basis of
his experience, keeping in view various systemic constraints, like the type of fluids,
their fouling potential and cleanability, the permissible pressure drops, consequences of
leakage, etc. In this case, say, we choose tube fin heat exchanger to minimize the pressure
drop on the gas side. Next we have to choose the tube diameter and the fin height. This
is usually done on the basis of prevalent “good industrial practices.” Suppose we choose
tubes of base diameter 16 mm, ID of 14 mm, with integral fins on the outside of
2 mm height spaced on the tube with a pitch of 4 mm. We then have to decide on the
configuration of the tube bank, the longitudinal and lateral pitches, ST and SL , and the
size of the duct through which the hot gases would flow, as shown in Fig. 1.1.
These are again chosen based on the past experience with this type of heat recovery
units. Thus the two pitches ST and SL , could be chosen, typically as 32 and 30 mm,
respectively. The sizing of the duct will have to be done to ensure that the gas side
velocity is within acceptable limits1 and all the tubes can be accommodated within a
reasonable length. We could choose a gas velocity over the tube bundle, say of 10 m/s,
and design the exhaust gas duct accordingly. We then choose a “reasonable” value of
velocity of water in the tubes, say 1.5 m/s (usually water velocity is limited to 3 m/s to
minimize erosion), and decide on the number of the tubes needed in a single pass of the
heat exchanger to achieve the required mass flow rate of water.
Having fixed the basic configurations and the crucial design variables, the heat
transfer calculations can be done. We estimate the heat transfer coefficient of the gas
1 If it is too low, the gas side heat transfer coefficient would be very small, and if it is too high, the gas side
pressure drop would be high and that would influence the performance of the IC engine of the DG set
through increase in its exhaust pressure.
Introduction 3
side and the water side by using appropriate correlations from the literature; find the
overall heat transfer coefficient and the effective mean temperature difference between
the two streams, and then estimate the heat transfer area needed. The length of the
heat exchanger tubes can then be calculated. We thus have a feasible design of the heat
exchanger which will deliver the required amount of steam.
It is obvious from the above description of the design process that we could have
obtained many other “feasible” designs by changing the values of the variables like tube
diameter, fin pitch, fin height, velocity of water, velocity of hot gases, longitudinal and
lateral pitches of the tube bundle, etc., assumed above on the basis of “good industrial
practices.” For each change in the value of a design variable, a different design of the heat
exchanger would be obtained. We could then choose between them based on a suitable
optimization criterion. The optimization criterion could, for example, be minimization
of the initial cost, or of the pressure drop on the gas side (since that would influence the
performance of the IC engine of the DG set) or a suitable combination of the two. Thus
we could, for example, apportion a cost to the steam produced and to the reduction in
DG set output caused by gas side pressure drop in the heat exchanger, and combine
these suitably with the initial cost of the heat exchanger to evolve a composite function
which gives the net increase in profit during the entire projected life of the DG set,
due to incorporation of the heat recovery system. The heat exchanger design which
maximizes this profit could be chosen as the “optimum design.” Another approach
could be to constrain the pressure drop on the gas side to be less than a specified value
and then minimize the initial cost of the heat exchanger; yet another approach being to
maximize the second law efficiency of the heat exchanger.
Now, since the number of possible feasible designs is extremely large, we need to
devise suitable strategy to narrow down the search domain in consonance with the
chosen objective to arrive at the “optimum design” with minimum computational
effort. This necessitates use of mathematical/numerical optimization techniques to
generate alternative designs which are likely to be “better” than the initial design.
Further, to assess whether the designs so “generated” are feasible, we need a procedure
to determine the performance of the system based on such a design. This requires
computer-based system simulation procedures. System simulation, in turn, needs com-
prehensive procedures to predict the performance of each component of the system and
a methodology to integrate these procedures in tune with their actual interconnection
in the system. Thus a comprehensive computer program to obtain optimal design of a
thermal system would essentially be an optimization algorithm to maximize/minimize
the objective function subject to the constraints that it provides the required thermal
performance2 without compromising on other nonthermal performance measures like
long life, safety, permissible wear and tear, noise, etc.3 More often than not, the
optimization algorithm is a search procedure to generate progressively “better” designs,
which need to be checked for feasibility by using the system simulation procedure.
The system simulation procedures are also quite useful in their own right. They
enable us to assess the influence of various operating parameters on the performance
of the system or its components without actually conducting laboratory tests which
are often very expensive and time consuming. We can thus do a sensitivity analysis to
identify the relative influence of various components and/or the operating conditions
on the overall system performance. Most thermal systems rarely operate on the design
conditions, and the system simulation procedures can help us predict their “off-design”
performance. This is often of great help in designing suitable control strategies to ensure
safe and “optimal” operation even under off-design operating conditions.
3 These nonthermal considerations are often incorporated through constraints on variables, see also
Chapter 11.
Introduction 5
4 Like minimization of the total cost of a plant taking into account both the initial capital cost and the
running cost spread over its entire life time.
6 Thermal System Design and Simulation
minimizing the initial investment, or life cycle cost; or thermodynamic, like maximizing
some index of system performance (like the thermal efficiency or the coefficient of
performance, COP), or minimizing the exergy loss. While ideally all the components
of a system should be designed together, a situation on the ground may not permit
change in the design of some of the components, and so the design variables would have
to be appropriately constrained. The different approaches of formulating the optimal
design problems and identifying the design variables and the constraints are discussed in
Chapter 7.
The techniques of optimization can be broadly divided into two categories, namely
analytical techniques and numerical (or search) techniques. There exists a whole range
of analytical and numerical techniques for optimization of various types of functions.
A brief discussion of a few of these, which are suitable for nonlinear objective functions
commonly encountered while optimizing thermal systems, is presented in Chapter 8. In
Chapter 9 firstly a few simple examples of thermodynamic optimization and optimum
design of some typical equipment used in thermal systems are presented. These are
followed by three comprehensive case studies of the optimum design of the waste heat
recovery boiler of a combined cycle power plant, the optimum design of a refrigeration
system, and a liquid desiccant-based air-conditioning system.
Design of thermal systems is conventionally done on the basis of their desired steady-
state performance. However, in actual operation these systems rarely operate on steady
state since the “load” on the system and the environmental conditions are changing
continuously. The behavior of a system under transient conditions is therefore of great
importance, especially to ensure that performance is not impaired greatly and the system
safety is not threatened. A simplified approach at analyzing the dynamic performance of
typical thermal systems, and the control systems for these is presented in Chapter 10.
Besides the thermal design, there are many other considerations like material
selection, mechanical strength, erosion, noise, etc., which play a crucial role in deciding
the final design of most equipment. These are often incorporated as constraints in the
optimization of the thermal design and therefore a thermal engineer should have a
working knowledge about these factors. A brief discussion on these issues is presented
in Chapter 11. With increasing awareness about need to conserve energy, stochastic
considerations are also becoming important. Thus while usually a thermal power plant
design is optimized for a fixed power output, stochastic approach would require taking
into account a probabilistic description of the power demand. A brief presentation on
these, as also on some other emerging trends in thermal system design, like use of
proprietary softwares, is also included in this last chapter of the book.
REFERENCE
[1] R.K. Shah, D.P. Sekulic, Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken,
NJ, 2003.
CHAPTER 2
Mathematical Background
The core objective of simulating a thermal system is to develop its mathematical model
using which it should be possible to predict its performance at different operating
conditions. As we shall see in the next chapter, this mathematical model could be
in the form of linear/nonlinear algebraic or differential equations. Often, we also
need to develop algebraic equations to represent the experimental data on component
performance and also various thermodynamic properties of the working substance.
Thus knowledge of techniques to solve these equations is a prerequisite for system
simulation. In this chapter we shall present a brief overview of the mathematical
techniques for fitting equations into data, as also the methods commonly used to solve
simultaneous linear and nonlinear algebraic and differential equations. Since in most
practical situations we need to take recourse to computers, focus will be only on the
methods which are suitable for computerization.
Dynamic simulation of each component invariably involves differential equations and
when we have a number of these components interacting with each other, the analysis is
greatly facilitated by the use of Laplace transformation. Accordingly a brief presentation
on its basic concepts and its utility in solving differential equations is included in this
chapter.
For simulating the performance of various thermal equipment, we have to use
empirical correlations for predicting heat-transfer coefficients and friction factors. These
correlations based on experimental data have inherent uncertainty which, in complex
flow situations like boiling, can be as high as 10% to 20%. This can significantly influence
the results of simulation. Therefore a brief discussion on analysis of uncertainty and its
propagation is also included in this chapter.
Economics is often the key factor in optimal design. Both the initial capital cost,
and the cost of “running” and “maintaining” the system over its life time need to be
considered. Further the “worth” of money keeps on falling with passage of time due
to inflation, interest rates, etc. Thus evolving a suitable economic objective function
for optimal design is a complex task. This is briefly outlined in the last section of this
chapter.
Equations
Step 1: Eliminate coefficient of x1 , from Eqs. (2.7), (2.8) by using Eq. (2.6). For this
we first multiply Eq. (2.6) by 5 (on both sides) and subtract Eq. (2.7) from it.
Similarly we multiply Eq. (2.6) by 3.5 and add Eq. (2.8) to it. This gives
2x1 + 3x2 − x3 = 39 (2.9)
17x2 − 10x3 = 220 (2.10)
15.5x2 + 3.5x3 = 137.5 (2.11)
Step 2: Eliminate coefficient of x2 from Eq. (2.11) by using Eq. (2.10). For this, we
multiply this equation by ( 15.5
17 ) and subtract Eq. (2.11) from it. This gives
2x1 + 3x2 − x3 = 39 (2.12)
17x2 − 10x3 = 220 (2.13)
−12.6176x3 = 63.088 (2.14)
Eq. (2.14) gives x3 = −5.
Substituting it in Eq. (2.13) we get
x2 = 10
Substituting values of x2 and x3 in Eq. (2.12), we get
x1 = 2.0
Thus the solution to the three equations is x1 = 2, x2 = 10, and x3 = −5.
This method can be easily computerized by combining the [A] and [B] matrices
into an augmented matrix [A|B] and performing elementary row transformations to
convert it into upper triangular form. Thus augmented matrix for these equations
would be
⎡ ⎤
2 3 −1 | 39
⎣ 10 −2 5 | −25⎦
−7 5 7 | 1
Then row transformations could be done sequentially as done above. Thus in the first
attempt we use the transformation rule [Row A × coeff. of x1 in Row 1 − Row 1 ×
coeff. of x1 in Row A] to bring zero’s in the first column in all the rows except the first
row. This transforms the matrix to
⎡ ⎤
2 3 −1 39
⎣0 −34 20 −440⎦
0 31 7 275
Similarly to transform the third row, we use the rule: [Row 3 × coeff. of x2 in Row
2 − Row 2 × coeff. of x2 in Row 1] to get
10 Thermal System Design and Simulation
⎡ ⎤
2 3 −1 39
⎣0 −34 20 −440⎦
0 0 −858 4290
Thus from the last row we get
4290
x3 = = −5
−858
Substituting in the second row, we get
−440 + 100
x2 = = 10
−34
Substituting these values in the first row we get as before
x1 = 2.0
Example 2.1
Solve the following set of equations both without and with pivoting, taking four
significant digits during the calculations.
0.0001x1 + 3x2 − x3 = −2.995
x1 + 9x2 − 7x3 = 25
0.2x1 − 15x2 + x3 = 9
Solution
Without Pivoting
Carrying out the triangularization, as before, we get the equations:
0.0001x1 + 3x2 − x3 = −2.995
−2.9991x2 − 0.9993x3 = −2.9975
−0.0010x3 = −0.0038
which give the solution as:
x3 = 3.8, x2 = 0.2667, and x1 = 49
With Pivoting
The equations are rearranged as
x1 + 9x2 − 7x3 = 25
0.0001x1 + 3x2 − x3 = −2.995
0.2x1 − 15x2 + x3 = 9
On triangularization, we get
x1 + 9x2 − 7x3 = 25
−2.9991x2 + 0.9993x3 = 2.9975
9.5904x3 = 38.3616
which give the solution as
x3 = 4, x2 = 0.3333, and x1 = 50.0003
which is quite near the exact solution of
x3 = 4, x2 = 1/3, and x1 = 50
The students are encouraged to solve these equations retaining only three significant
digits during the calculations and verify that without pivoting the solution obtained is
x3 = 6, x2 = 1, and x1 = 50; while with pivoting the solution is x3 = 4.002, x2 = 0.334,
and x1 = 50.008.
12 Thermal System Design and Simulation
Example 2.2
Solve the following set of simultaneous equations using simple Gaussian elimination.
3.1x1 + 225x2 + 100x3 = 475.5
210x1 − 85x2 + x3 = 880.1
2x1 − 5x2 + 4x3 = 0.4
Solve these again after scaling and compare the results with those obtained earlier.
Solution
The augmented matrix for the problem is
⎡ ⎤
3.1 225 100 475.5
⎣210 −85 1 880.1⎦
2 −5 4 0.4
To bring out the advantage of scaling, we first solve these equations carrying only four
significant digits.
Triangularization of the above matrix by Gaussian elimination gives
⎡ ⎤
3.1 225 100 475.5
⎣ 0 47,510 20,100 97,120⎦
0 0 444,000 80,000
The solution as obtained by back substitution is
80,000
x3 = = 0.1802
444,000
97,120 − 20,100 × 0.1802
x2 = = 1.968
47,510
475.5 − 100 × 0.1802 − 225 × 1.968
x1 =
3.1
= 4.742
which is quite different from the exact solution of x3 = 0.1, x2 = 2.0, and x1 = 5.0.
If we scale the first two equations by dividing each by 100 on both sides,
we get
0.031x1 + 2.25x2 + x3 = 4.755
2.1x1 − 0.85x2 + 0.01x3 = 8.801
2x1 − 5x2 + 4x3 = 0.4
Now all the coefficients are of similar order of magnitude, and we can solve the equations
by Gaussian elimination. However, before doing so we interchange the first two equations
Mathematical Background 13
so that the diagonal element has the largest value in that column. The new augmented
matrix is
⎡ ⎤
2.1 −0.85 0.01 8.801
⎣0.031 2.25 1 4.755⎦
2 −5 4 0.4
After triangularization we get (retaining only four significant digits during calculations)
⎡ ⎤
2.1 −0.85 0.01 8.801
⎣ 0 −4.751 −2.1 −9.713⎦
0 0 −58.29 −5.83
which gives
−5.83
x3 = = 0.1000
−58.29
−9.713 + 2.1 × 0.1
x2 = = 2.000
−4.751
8.801 − 0.01 × 0.1 + 0.85 × 2
x1 = = 5.00
2.1
Thus we get the exact solution after scaling and pivoting even when the calculations are
done retaining only four significant digits.
f(x)
f(xi)
xi+2 xi+1 xi x
f(x) f(x)
x2 x
x3
x1
x4 x2 x3 x1
(A) (B)
f(x)
x3 x x
4
x2 x1
(C)
Fig. 2.2 A few cases illustrating poor convergence of Newton-Raphson iterations.
to the solution. It has been found that if the solution is first bracketed to lie within
two limiting values corresponding to which the function values are of opposite signs,
most iterative methods would then converge to the correct solution. In case of equations
encountered in thermal system simulation and design, usually it is possible to identify
such limiting values of the variable on the basis of physical considerations. Otherwise, we
could arbitrarily take a “very small” and a “very large” value of the variable and increase
the gap between them till the values of f (x) at the two ends are of opposite sign. Once
the solution is bracketed, its correct value can be found by using any iterative procedure.
Mathematical Background 15
YH
F(x)
YM1
XL XM2 XH
XM1 x
YM2
YL
A simple, and yet effective procedure is the bisection technique. If xL and xH denote the
two limiting values of x for which the function values f (xL ) and f (xH ) are of opposite
sign, then the value of the function is evaluated at xm1 = (xL + xH )/2 and f (xM1 )
compared with f (xL ) and f (xH ). Keeping xM1 as one of the new limiting values, the
other limiting value is chosen as xL or xH whichever has the function value of sign
opposite to that of f (xm ) (see Fig. 2.3).
Thus in the case illustrated in Fig. 2.3, the initial set of limiting values is xL , xH , and
after first bisection, the next set is (xL , xM1 ). In the next iteration the bisection point is
xM2 , and on the basis of the values of f (xL ) and f (xM1 ), the next interval bracketing the
solution is (xM2 , xM1 ). It should be clear from Fig. 2.3 that algorithm would converge
to the correct solution within a few iterations.
An algorithm, which converges faster than the successive bisection procedure
outlined above, is the method of false position, or the regula-falsi method. It makes
use of the values of the function at the two limiting values to estimate the value of the
root of the equation. This is done by replacing the actual curve by a straight line as
shown graphically in Fig. 2.4. Since this replacement gives a false position of the root
the method is known as regula-falsi or the method of false position.
Mathematically it involves locating an estimate of the root by linear interpolation
between the two points already known, namely xL and xH (Fig. 2.4). Thus the new
value (“false position”) of the root is
xH f (xL ) − xL f (xH )
xFP1 = (2.16)
f (xL ) − f (xH )
As before, for the next iteration we choose the limiting values as xFP1 and xH since
the values of the function for these two points are of opposite sign, and find the new
estimate as:
16 Thermal System Design and Simulation
YH
F(x)
XL XFP1 XH
XFP2
x
YL
Example 2.3
The effectiveness of a cross-flow heat exchanger is given by the equation
1
= 1 − exp (N)0.22 {exp[−Cr (N)0.78 ] − 1}
Cr
where N, called the number of transfer units, is a factor dependent on heat exchanger
size and heat-transfer coefficients, and Cr is the ratio of heat capacities of the two fluids.
Determine the value of N of the heat exchanger which has an effectiveness of 0.7
with Cr = 0.8.
Solution
Substituting the given values of Cr and in the above equation we get the nonlinear
equation for N whose solution could be found by any of the methods mentioned above.
We firstly write the equation:
f (N) = 0.3 − exp[1.25N 0.22 {exp[−0.8N 0.78 ] − 1}] = 0
Let us first try using NRM. Differentiating the equation we get
f (N) = −(1.25 × 0.22N −0.78 {exp[−0.8N 0.78 ] − 1} + 1.25N 0.22
· {−0.8 × 0.78N −0.22 exp[−0.8N 0.78 ]})
· exp[1.25N 0.22 {exp[−0.8N 0.78 ] − 1}]
Mathematical Background 17
Taking the value of N = 0.5, as the initial assumption we calculate newer estimates using
Eq. (2.15). The results are given in following table:
xi f (xi ) xi f (xi )
0.5 −0.37053 5.0 +0.112422
2.75 +0.025607
1.625 −0.08347
2.1875 −0.01836
2.46875 0.005615
2.328125 −0.00582
2.398437 2.48E−05
2.363281 −0.00286
2.381359 −0.00137
2.389898 −0.00067
2.3941675 −0.00032
2.396302 −0.00015
2.397365 −6.2E−05
2.397901 −1.9E−05 2.398169 3.08E−06
2.398035 −7.8E−06
2.398102 −2.4E−06 2.398135 3.15 E−07
2.398119 −9.8E−07
2.398127 −3.3E−07
Once again we obtain the correct solution but in a larger number of steps than in the
NRM. We will also find the solution by the regula-falsi approach, using Eq. (2.16) to
advance the iterations. The details of the iterations are given in following table:
18 Thermal System Design and Simulation
xi f (xi ) xi f (xi )
0.5 −0.37053 5.0 +0.112422
3.952 +0.082989
3.320 +0.057306
2.9422 +0.037451
2.718 +0.023502
2.5857 +0.014348
2.5079 +0.008604
2.4623 +0.005104
2.4356 +0.003006
2.4200 +0.001763
2.4109 +0.001033
2.40558 +0.000603
2.40248 +0.000353
2.40067 +0.000206
2.39961 +0.00012
2.39899 6.7E−05
2.39864 4.13E−05
2.39843 2.43E−05
2.39830 1.37E−05
2.39823 8.03E−06
2.398188 4.62E−06
2.398164 2.67E−06
2.398150 1.53E−06
2.398142 8.83E−07
2.398137 4.77E−07
2.398135 3.15E−07
2.398133 1.52E−07
2.398132 7.13E−08
Here too, we do reach the exact solution, but in much larger number of iterations.a
A comparison of the iterations involved in each method indicates that NRM
converges most rapidly, arriving at the correct solution in just six iterations while other
methods need 18–26 iterations. This is generally true for most functions, if the initial
value is near the correct solution. However, if the initial guess is far from the correct
solution, difficulties can arise. In the present problem too, the students are advised to
verify that for a stating value of N = 6.0, the NRM would predict the next estimate
of N as −2.137, which is an infeasible value and further calculations can not be done
in view of exponents of N involved in the function. The method thus stops after one
iteration without reaching the solution. We also note that in both the bisection and the
regula-falsi methods, as the estimate approaches the correct solution, the “rate of
convergence” shows down considerably. In order to illustrate this, we kept our “accuracy”
requirements high, demanding that the function value should be of very low, of the
Mathematical Background 19
order of 10−8 . In case function values of the order of 10−5 are acceptable, the number
of iterations is reduced considerably. It is therefore of great importance to select the
requirement of “accuracy” of final result properly especially in practical situations
involving solution of many simultaneous nonlinear equations.
a This difference in the number of iterations does not translate into similar difference in the computational time
since in every iterations of the NRM an additional computation of the gradient of the function is needed.
This may even offset the advantage accruing from smaller number of iterations, especially in cases, like the
present example, where the gradient function is more complex involving many mathematical operations.
1 = (x1 + Δx1 ),
xi+1 2 = x2 + Δx2 ,
xi+1
i i i i