Fluent validation

BlackHeartInertia · June 7, 2017, 02:15

Hi everybody,

1. I'm simulating a machine say for example a heat exhanger new design with ansys fluent. Do I need to validate my results? if yes then how

2. Is Fluent a code that is already validated?. If yes, is that enough to justify that my results are good ?

Thanks

BlackHeartInertia · June 16, 2017, 17:48

Hi?

Sent from my SM-G570M using CFD Online Forum mobile app

divergence · June 19, 2017, 08:03

CFD is a powerful tool for testing new ideas and getting an overal impression of the effect of small changes. However, the results can be misleading. I like to say that every CFD modeler gets their own results depending on the case, mesh, boundary conditions, used models and URFs etc.. Hence, it would be great to get good validation data for comparison but unfortunately that is not always the case. Usually the person conducting the calculation should have a "feeling" of the case being solved as well as the used models in order to really trust the data CFD provides. This however requires experience and certain wisdom. It is deceivingly easy to make false assumptions from results. One should be vary of estimating results without proper test data. Having said that, validation is not 100% necessary if you know what you are doing and have a nice touch to the used models.

The used models in Fluent have been used and tested for years and yes - they are (mostly) validated for some cases. It is however important to understand that different models give slightly different results and one doesn't choose hammer when a saw is needed. A text book example of varying results is study of flow field over a wing. The choice of turbulence matters strongly as many results will point out, making it important to understand the scale of results available with CFD.

June 7, 2017, 02:15	Fluent validation	#1
BlackHeartInertia New Member yardena jodeck Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 9	Hi everybody, 1. I'm simulating a machine say for example a heat exhanger new design with ansys fluent. Do I need to validate my results? if yes then how 2. Is Fluent a code that is already validated?. If yes, is that enough to justify that my results are good ? Thanks

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Problem in particle track using DDPM validation, Fluent	smak.quadri	FLUENT	0	February 8, 2017 22:13
Interesting problem: Parallel Processor VOF Fluent + Dynamic Mesh + System Coupling	spaceprop	FLUENT	5	September 2, 2014 09:43
The fluent stopped and errors with "Emergency: received SIGHUP signal"	yuyuxuan	FLUENT	0	December 3, 2013 22:56
What the differences flow equation of Fluent 6.3 and Fluent 12.1	opehterinar81	FLUENT	0	August 19, 2011 11:55
Fluent validation	Yakov Afanasyev	FLUENT	0	July 26, 2006 15:13

June 16, 2017, 17:48		#2
BlackHeartInertia New Member yardena jodeck Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 9	Hi? Sent from my SM-G570M using CFD Online Forum mobile app

June 19, 2017, 08:03		#3
divergence Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 56 Rep Power: 12	CFD is a powerful tool for testing new ideas and getting an overal impression of the effect of small changes. However, the results can be misleading. I like to say that every CFD modeler gets their own results depending on the case, mesh, boundary conditions, used models and URFs etc.. Hence, it would be great to get good validation data for comparison but unfortunately that is not always the case. Usually the person conducting the calculation should have a "feeling" of the case being solved as well as the used models in order to really trust the data CFD provides. This however requires experience and certain wisdom. It is deceivingly easy to make false assumptions from results. One should be vary of estimating results without proper test data. Having said that, validation is not 100% necessary if you know what you are doing and have a nice touch to the used models. The used models in Fluent have been used and tested for years and yes - they are (mostly) validated for some cases. It is however important to understand that different models give slightly different results and one doesn't choose hammer when a saw is needed. A text book example of varying results is study of flow field over a wing. The choice of turbulence matters strongly as many results will point out, making it important to understand the scale of results available with CFD.