CFD Online Discussion Forums

CFD Online Discussion Forums (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/)
-   FloEFD, FloWorks & FloTHERM (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/floefd-floworks-flotherm/)
-   -   SolidWorks Flow Simulation for turbulent wall bounded flow (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/floefd-floworks-flotherm/152676-solidworks-flow-simulation-turbulent-wall-bounded-flow.html)

Dominique May 6, 2015 08:15

SolidWorks Flow Simulation for turbulent wall bounded flow
 
Hello,
I am trying to determine if SolidWorks Flow Simulation would be adequate to model a turbulent wall bounded flow. I want to study various shapes of sound attenuation baffles and the effect on the pressure drop through the baffles.

I've worked with Fluent before (but don't have access to it now). I'm concerned about SWFS because the only RANS turbulence model available is k-epsilon, known to be optimal in fully turbulent flow, but not ideal for wall bounded flows or separating flows.

My experience with Fluent turbulence models is that k-omega SST performs better with separating flows, recirculation, and near-wall treatment. I know k-omega SST has its weaknesses as well. I’m mostly concerned that if SWFS doesn’t model small vortices or recirculating flows, how that will affect the final pressure drop through the baffles?

Can someone with experience with SWFS give me their opinion on this? I'm looking at fairly large models (5 feet x 6 feet) and substantial airflow (11,500 CFM or 420 fpm). Baffles will be located and designed to allow 25 to 30% free area, starting at 12” on center.

Thank you kindly. :o

Chris_321 May 7, 2015 04:46

I think for the pressure drop it will be fine. I worked with efd in external aerodynamics. The immersed boundary approach workes well if your partial cells are small enough and you dont have high seperation.
If you have high seperation then your results will get worse.

But to be sure, why dont you just simulate an simplified model?
Floefd is really fast in setting up a simulation.

Regards

Dominique May 7, 2015 06:39

Thanks Chris. I am working on learning how to use the software (I agree that it's easy to use) and will try a simplified model as you suggested.
My concern is on validating what the software gives me as setting up an experimental test for baffles is obviously costly...

Chris_321 May 7, 2015 06:42

Dont you have some fluent exampels to compare with?

Dominique May 7, 2015 06:48

No. :(
My work with Fluent was academic. I studied turbulent flow crossing a shallow cavity and the effect on an inclined panel to direct the flow. Validating flow over a cavity is fairly easy as there are many studies to refer to, plus I have access to experimental data as well.

I've started with modelling that case with SWFS to see how it performs.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58.