CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > FLUENT

Different flow patterns in CFX and Fluent

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 6, 2012, 14:16
Default Different flow patterns in CFX and Fluent
  #1
New Member
 
Sharma Abhishek
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 5
avi@lpsc is on a distinguished road
Hi Guys
I have some issues interpreting my results from two similar analysis, one in Fluent and other in CFX. Its a general compressible flow case of CD nozzle with supersonic diffuser attached to the exit of nozzle.
I will highlight the settings here:
Fluent: 2D axi case with density modeled as Ideal gas, Density based solver, 4 species properties given as polynomials, Pressure Inlet at Nozzle 33.5bar- Mass flow rate boundary imposed :8.65kg.s-Subsonic, Pressure outlet at Diffuser section attached to Nozzle exit 180millibar. Case Initialized with Pressure Inlet with lower value of axial velocity, Boundary layer in nozzle with Y plus approximately 10.Turbulence:SST K-omega, For this condition a converged solution shows the Nozzle mach Contour as - Full flow i.e no separation inside nozzle,No shock inside. (Maximum Mach Nbr: 8),

2. A similar case was ran in CFX with similar settings, Density: Ideal gas, Solver details : Default settings,Species Properties similar to Fluent,SST K-omega, Mass flow rate bc. A converged solution shows separated flow in nozzle and no full flow similar to Fluent results.

Grid Independent and Turbulence model study has already been conducted and all resulted in same flow pattern in Fluent i.e Nozzle full flow.

Similar GI study has also been done in CFX for with adapted grid in nozzle which shows separated flow with in nozzle.

So In a sense I am getting different results from two with similar simulations.I only uses density based solver of fluent for compressible flow problems. whether CFX solver is capable for this type of high speed flows. If it is,then what could be the possible reason for this differing results.

1D cal. shows flow will separate inside the nozzle, but point here is that even I performed both simulations in 3D, same grid, property settings same. I am getting full flow in Fluent and separated flow in CFX. What would be the possible reason for it , whether PBCS solvers are able to handle shock formation and separation better than density based solver of Fluent. Major facility change will be done based on this analysis, so I need a solution for this different results.
avi@lpsc is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 6, 2012, 15:25
Default
  #2
Member
 
banty
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 52
Rep Power: 5
banty is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I would use pressure inlet boundary condition in place of mass flow rate BC and impose target mass flow rate with pressure outlet BC. and when u are using density based solver then in place of weak enforcement of pressure specification method (default with density based solver), specify direct pressure specification method.
banty is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 7, 2012, 10:39
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Sharma Abhishek
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 5
avi@lpsc is on a distinguished road
whether this will change the flow pattern? I have cases where I have used PressIn BC instead of mass flow and similar results for both. So what would be the reason for different results from CFX and Fluent?
avi@lpsc is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 7, 2012, 16:14
Default
  #4
Member
 
banty
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 52
Rep Power: 5
banty is on a distinguished road
mass flow rate boundary condition would not cause much difference but pressure outlet with default setting (weak enforcement of pressure specification method in which fluent interpolate the pressure at boundary) does not enforce the exact pressure (180 millibar in your case). This become more important when u have subsonic flow at diffuser outlet because in case of supersonic exit values are interpolated from interior.
banty is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 8, 2012, 06:12
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Sharma Abhishek
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 5
avi@lpsc is on a distinguished road
Thanks banty ..I will try this out also.

Abhishek
avi@lpsc is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

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
Different flow patterns in CFX and Fluent avi@lpsc CFX 6 April 17, 2012 01:22
Multiphase flow modeling: CFX or FLUENT? Paul Main CFD Forum 8 January 24, 2012 10:25
Which software is better for channel flow with sedimentation effects. CFX or Fluent? mechovator FLUENT 3 August 30, 2009 09:41
Which software is better for channel flow with sedimentation effects. CFX or Fluent? mechovator CFX 1 August 30, 2009 07:21
multiphase flow, CFX or FLUENT? luis Main CFD Forum 6 October 5, 2006 13:24


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:13.