CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > FLUENT

Reason for different results

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 31, 2015, 07:20
Default Reason for different results
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 2
geod is on a distinguished road
Hi all,

I'm doing a report on pipe in pipe heat exchangers and I'm comparing the results I have to a previous student's results. We draw the same conclusions however the results and calculation we obtained are slightly different and I would like to talk about why this is.

I was wondering if anyone could give a brief explanation to the reasons that could affect this?

I believe it is something along the lines of different meshs resulting in different mesh quality. Also to do with the convergence of the residuals as my residuals were kinda all over the place but my supervisor recommended this is ok and it is occurring because the physics are still working (didn't really understand)

Help would be appreciated

geod is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 31, 2015, 17:03
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 31
Rep Power: 4
rrr311 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to rrr311 Send a message via Skype™ to rrr311
When you use a different mesh, you don't expect the same results. You must perform a mesh convergence study to see how the results are affected by the mesh. And regarding convergence, a lot depends on the geometry/mesh/flow physics. What was your convergence criteria? Provide some info about your simulation and post pictures of the residuals, mesh and geo.

A very good thread for convergence:


rrr311 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 31, 2015, 23:53
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 758
Rep Power: 13
LuckyTran will become famous soon enough
I always doubt the quality of CFD done by others unless its someone I am really familiar with and can trust.

For example, one thing I always look out for is how the other person defined "convergence". Many will define convergence as residuals below a certain threshold, which is a terrible definition and can lead to wildly different results (especially if you are comparing local results).

Mesh quality is also very important, a few skewed cells being in the wrong place is all that it takes to skew the result one way or the other.

Of course, if they choose to model the problem differently (i.e ideal gas instead of constant density) then you should expect results. But even when all options are the same, it's interesting to note the difference in what should be the same result.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discrepancy between sectional Cp and experimental results on tip (ONERA M6) SU2 2 March 9, 2015 21:26
Oscillating Airfoil Poor Results at High k (reduced frequency) dancfd OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 November 4, 2013 09:32
Creating a tool to interpolate results Luis Batista OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 April 11, 2013 08:15
OpenFOAM - Validation of Results Ahmed OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 9 June 22, 2011 18:59
wind tunnel results vs fluent pixie Main CFD Forum 1 August 20, 2009 08:02

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48.