Sorry, none of this is validation! During the validation process, you need to check, whether your CFD model is actually predicting the physical world. You absolutely need to compare with experimental results or DNS data. What you show here are some sanity checks, but not validation.
Regardless of having experimental data, you need to always perform such checks and many others in your simulations. We had a master student, who was telling a bigger mesh size was better for his case because it was matching experimental data better, while he had no idea of mesh independency requirement. Students need to first learn and understand the meaning of each option in such software and then try to compare things with reality. Otherwise, it is just blindly matching results to the experiment.
i want you show the meshing you have done in this simulation.. your different video on structured mesh gives very inaccurate results. pls. help me for the full analysis. "meshing to validation" you've different video for the structured meshing and different example and video for the validation. pls. help me with making video on meshing+simulation+Validation for the same airfoil with its given experimental data.
Hi, how would you compare the accuracy of Autodesk CFD and ANSYS Fluent? I'm mainly interested in simulating compressible internal and external flow. I see that the turbulent models are different.
I cannot comment on Autodesk CFD since I have not used it before, ANSYS Fluent is used as an industry standard tool. For compressible flows, this is a good link: confluence.cornell.edu/display/SIMULATION/Compressible+Flow+in+a+Nozzle+-+Geometry
Thank you for the tips! Still a beginner with ANSYS and Fluent here (about a month) but watching your videos helps me out little by little.
Sorry, none of this is validation! During the validation process, you need to check, whether your CFD model is actually predicting the physical world. You absolutely need to compare with experimental results or DNS data. What you show here are some sanity checks, but not validation.
I should have said 'Verification' instead, thanks for the note!
Regardless of having experimental data, you need to always perform such checks and many others in your simulations. We had a master student, who was telling a bigger mesh size was better for his case because it was matching experimental data better, while he had no idea of mesh independency requirement. Students need to first learn and understand the meaning of each option in such software and then try to compare things with reality. Otherwise, it is just blindly matching results to the experiment.
great job buddy
Thank you 🙂
Thank you for the help!
Thanks Sir
or you can compare it with experiments. this video is valid I guess when you don't have experimental data.
Thank you very much
i want you show the meshing you have done in this simulation.. your different video on structured mesh gives very inaccurate results. pls. help me for the full analysis. "meshing to validation" you've different video for the structured meshing and different example and video for the validation. pls. help me with making video on meshing+simulation+Validation for the same airfoil with its given experimental data.
For analysis of spoiler which one is better 2d or 3d model ,sir ?
Hi,
how would you compare the accuracy of Autodesk CFD and ANSYS Fluent? I'm mainly interested in simulating compressible internal and external flow. I see that the turbulent models are different.
I cannot comment on Autodesk CFD since I have not used it before, ANSYS Fluent is used as an industry standard tool.
For compressible flows, this is a good link:
confluence.cornell.edu/display/SIMULATION/Compressible+Flow+in+a+Nozzle+-+Geometry
i am having problem getting lift for a wing using fluent ,can you help me?
You are a god
Difficult to understand concepts explained in a easy manner.
e
Bro , learning is good , but healths too, you look different now