|
[Sponsors] |
November 24, 2017, 03:32 |
Way to evaluate results
|
#1 |
Senior Member
Daniel
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 147
Rep Power: 9 |
Hello,
I have a quick question about evaluating my results of a 4 stage axial compressor. I'm interested in the contours of the first stage. For example, I want to export pictures of the Mach Contour or the Velocity, I can choose between "Mach-Number" and "Mach-Number in Stn Frame" and between Local and global. I thought that I should use the Stationary Frame value, but maybe I'm wrong. Which way is the best/most appropriate way for exporting results for a thesis? Thank you very much Daniel |
|
November 24, 2017, 04:06 |
|
#2 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,696
Rep Power: 143 |
They both show different things, so the variables are important for different uses.
|
|
November 24, 2017, 04:11 |
|
#3 |
Senior Member
Daniel
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 147
Rep Power: 9 |
Yes, that's what I thought is important. So there is no perfect choice ?
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OpenFOAM - Validation of Results | Ahmed | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 10 | May 13, 2018 18:28 |
lid driven cavity varying results | yasmil | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 2 | October 6, 2016 21:42 |
interFoam simulation yields inconsistent results for alpha1 surface | Ralinus | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 8 | January 13, 2014 08:54 |
'sample' utility for 'U' yields different results for simple-scotch-etc. | HakikiCanakkaleli | OpenFOAM Post-Processing | 3 | January 5, 2014 12:08 |
CFD results not close to experimental results | cider | STAR-CCM+ | 0 | July 8, 2013 07:53 |