j o ^ m H E M

iraimsfer

This section consists of contributions of 750 words or less (about 2 Vi double-spaced typewritten pages, Including figures). Technical Briefs will be reviewed and approved by the specific division's reviewing committee prior to publication. After approval such contributions will be published as soon as possible, normally in the next issue of the Journal.

A Note on the "Implicit" Method for Finite-Difference

Heat-Transfer Calculations
G. M. DUSINBERRE 1
THE APPARENT advantage of the implicit method lies in the
possibility of using relatively large time intervals. But this may
be accompanied by (1) considerable sacrifice in accuracy and (2)
no corresponding saving in digital computer time.

Nomenclature
C
K
t
t'
AT

=
=
=
=
=

heat capacity of a node

conductance of a heat-flow path
temperature at beginning of a time interval
temperature at end of a time interval
finite time interval

In the "explicit" application of finite differences to heattransfer problems, one uses the typical equations
KiMi - t) + Kind, - ln)

C(<'

<)/At

(1)

Thus one calculates each future temperature explicitly as a

function of a number of present temperatures. The calculation
is stable if, for each node, n:
AT g C / 2 t f

(2)

In the implicit application one writes:

KUW

TN')

KJJFJ'

I.,')

<?(<'

LN)/AT

(3)

Thus each future temperature is a function of one present

temperature and a number of future temperatures. All equations
must be solved simultaneous^, but the calculations are stable
for all values of AT.
This method was advocated by Liebmann* and apparently
has attained some popularity.3 In a practical case, the temperature history may often be adequately described in terms of a
AT larger than that imposed by equation (2). And, other things
equal, the number of calculations for a given period of time will
be inversely as AT.
The important question is whether the "other things" are really
equal, first in respect to accuracy and second in respect to total
operating time required on a digital computer.
As an example, let us consider the case of a long cylinder
initially at 1000 deg with the surface suddenly cooled to 0 deg.
This is a one-dimensional case for which there is an analytical
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pa. Fellow ASME.
1 G. Liebmann, "A New Electrical Analog Method for the Solution
of Transient Heat-Conduction Problems," TRANS. ASME, vol. 78,
1956, p . 655.
3 D. J. Campbell and D. B. Vollenweider, "Unusual Techniques
Employed in Heat Transfer Programs," 1959 Proceedings of the
Eastern Joint Computer Conference.
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of T H E A M E R I C A N
SOCIETY OF M E C H A N I C A L E N G I N E E R S .
Manuscript received at
ASME Headquarters, July 26, 1960.

94

FEBRUARY

solution. Using four subdivisions of the radius the author4

obtained a numerical solution with AT equal to 4 /s of the maximum value allowed by equation (2). The results, for the centerline temperature, are compared with the analytical solution in
Table 1. Thus if we are concerned only about errors much over
one per cent, this solution may be taken as a standard.
Table I

t/AT
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Explicit
1000
1000
1000
1000
993
977
944
904
857
808
760
712
665
621

Analytical
1000
1000
1000
997
987
965
933
893
848
801
754
707
662
618

Per cent
error
0
0
0
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3

Let us note that an explicit solution of a one-dimensional

problem with m nodes requires about 3m multiplications and m
additions per time step. A three-dimensional problem would
require about 7m multiplications. Thus the number of operations
runs as the first power of the number of nodes.
For an implicit solution, in order to make a significant difference in the size of AT, this was chosen as four times the limiting
value from equation (2), or five times the value used in the explicit
solution. It may be noted that Liebmann, when he wished to
demonstrate accuracy for the implicit method, used a AT less
than the limiting value for an explicit solution.
The general disadvantage of the implicit method is that the
equations must be solved simultaneously. But in the present
one-dimensional ease, successive elimination gives a remarkably
simple set of equations:
W = 0.450 W + 0.004 U + 0.036 k + 0.125 k + 0.385 t,

(4)

h' = 0.487 W + 0.011 t0 + 0.112 U + 0.390 t

(5)

ti' = 0.577 W + 0.038 to + 0.385 k

(6)

to' = 0.800 k' + 0.200 t0

(7)

(The subscript 0 refers to the axis, 4 to the outer surface, etc.)

Thus, only a few more calculations are required to compute
five time steps than were required to compute a single time step
explicitly!
But is to be noted that the number of calculations now runs as
the second power of the number of nodes, so that this advantage
will be lost as the number of nodes increases. This number is
imposed by other aspects of the problem (for example, by the need
to make stress calculations) and will not depend on the method of
solution used.
4 G. M.
Dusinberre, "Numerical Analysis of Heat Flow,"
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, N. Y., 1949.

Transactions of the AS M E

196 1

Copyright 1961 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 2

Point
0
= 5
1
2
3
= 10
0
1
2
3
0
= 15
1
2
3

Explicit
977
963
779
442
760
700
527
273
539
494
364
185

Implicit
899
874
781
550
743
704
579
345
586
546
428
236

Per cent
discrepancy
- 7.8
- 8.9
+ 0.2
+ 10.8
- 1.7
+ 0.4
+ 5.2
+ 7.2
+ 4.7
+ 5.2
+ 6.4
+ 5.1

It is also to be noted that if an iterative method is chosen for

the solution of the simultaneous equations, the number of
calculations must be multiplied by an uncertain number of iterations (on the order of m), not to mention the computer instructions required for cycling and testing.
It remains to examine the accuracy of the results in our example problem. In Table 2 the two solutions are compared at
corresponding times. It is seen that the discrepancies are far
from negligible.
Thus the purported advantages of the implicit method may be
illusory in respect to computation time and, what is worse, in
respect to accuracy.

Introduction
THE heat-transfer performance of a disk rotating in a quiescent
fluid of large extent has been treated in two recent technical
notes [1, 2]. 3 In reference [1] laminar heat-transfer results are
reported for an isothermal disk rotating in a fluid of any Prandtl
number, thereby lifting the restriction imposed on the earlier
work of Millsaps and Pohlhausen [3] who treated only a limited
range of the Prandtl modulus. In reference [2], the heat-transfer
performance of a nonisothermal disk rotating in a fluid with a
Prandtl number of 0.72 was given for the case where the disk surface varied as a power function of the radius [i.e., (T T)
= Arm\ for values of in from 0 to 10.
More recently, Tien [4] pointed out that these solutions are immediately applicable to the rotating cone. To obtain the heattransfer coefficient for the cone it is only necessary to read off the
values for the rotating disks from references [1 to 3] and multiply
by (sin a) 1 /' where a is the half angle of the cone, Fig. 1.
In the present note, additional solutions of the energy equation
are reported for the rotating nonisothermal disk or cone with
power function surface temperature distribution covering a range
of Prandtl number from 0.1 to 100, and values of the exponent m
from 0 to 10.

Analysis
The energy equation for the rotating cone or disk takes the
following form when the usual boundary-layer approximations
are used:
dT

The Influence of Prandtl Number on the Heat Transfer

From Rotating Nonisothermal Disks and Cones
J. P. HARTNETT 1 AND E. C. D E L A N D 2

bT
b*T
= k
dz2

Pcpu+Pcpw

(1)

This partial differential equation can be simplified into an ordinary differential equation if the following substitutions are introduced:
ij z ( sin a/vY^

Nomenclature

(2)

constant defined in equation (5)

u = (car sin a)F(t]); w = (vol sin
(3)
specific heat at constant pressure
3 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
dimensionless radial velocity defined, equation (3)
F
dimensionless axial velocity defined, equation (3)
H
local heat-transfer coefficient for rotating disk or cone,
K
qr/(Tw Ta)
k
thermal conductivity of the fluid
m
exponent in the assumed power function wall temperature distribution, equation (5)
Nu r = local Nussclt number for rotating disk or cone, (hr/k)(v/c>3
sin a) 1 / 1
Prandtl number of the fluid, ncp/k
Pr
local heat transfer from rotating disk or cone per unit
ffr
area per unit time
O
05
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0 1
distance from center of disk or cone, Fig. 1
r
D I M E N S I O N L E S S D I S T A N C E F R O M SURFACE
i, = z U sin < . / ) *
temperature
T
Fig. 1 Boundary-layer lemperalure profiles on a rotating disk or cone
velocity parallel to the surface of the disk or cone
u
velocity normal to the surface of the disk or cone
w
distance normal to surface of the disk or cone
z
rotational speed of disk or cone
CO
dynamic viscosity of the fluid
M
kinematic viscosity of the fluid
V
p
fluid density
e
dimensionless temperature, equation (4)
V = dimensionless distance from disk or cone, equation (2)
A

a)l^H(r})

CP

1 Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis, Minn.; Consultant to The RAND Corporation. Mem.
ASME.
The RAND Corporation, 1700 Main Street, Santa Monica, Calif.
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of T H E A M E R I C A N
S O C I E T Y OF M E C H A N I C A L E N G I N E E R S . Manuscript received at ASME
Headquarters, July 24, 1960.

Journal of Heat Transfer

DIMENSIONLESS
Fig. 2

10

15

DISTANCE

20
FROM

25
SURFACE

30

35

40

r/ = z(ai sin a / y ) i

Boundary-layer temperature profiles on a rotating disk or cone

FEBRUARY

1961

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

/ 9 5