CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > FloEFD, FloWorks & FloTHERM

Myths of CFD

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   September 30, 2008, 11:00
Default Re: Myths of CFD
Bill McEachern
Posts: n/a
I couldn't agree more. You need to know the physics and if you don't you can use the code to learn some physics but you need to rely on test for validation. Nobody should toss appropriate risk management out the window just because somebody produces some ananlysis that says hey my pretty picture says it should work so lets commit big resources and maybe risk some life and limb on it. That is just nuts and in my view doesn't happen with prudent management.

On the flip side and assuming prudent managment exists I would argue almost any analysis is better than no analysis it just needs to occur in the context of prudent risk managmenent.
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 29, 2009, 07:36
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 10
Kwagga is on a distinguished road
Totally agreed with Bill,

I've been designing mechanical equipment for just about 15 years now. From materials handling equipment, special vehicles, then moved to plastic industrial products and mold design, and now I just started in mobile industrial refrigeration.

I learned how to use Solidworks simply by following the tutorial almost 10 years ago. I've used it's FEA module with great results. I'm now using Floworks to model airflow through the cargo compartment of a refrigerated trailer.

Sure, my results might not be 100% accurate, but then, neither is my manufacturing process, nor is the packing of cargo into the trailer. Unless you're building equipment in a lab instead of a production line, the results will invariably vary. Ditto for our customer that actually packs the cargo and type of cargo. But it gives me an idea of what I'm looking at, and what happens when I change the design.

And I think that's what most engineers use this type of software for. It's an addition to our experience, not a replacement.

And the bit that's most powerful, is that you can change 1 component in the design, but leave the simulation parameters untouched, and compare the results. You immediately get feedback on your initial thoughts. Did the change make things better or worse? Was the results as you expected, or did you overlook something that's now highlighted by the software? What the software is telling you, does it make sense?

Last edited by Kwagga; April 30, 2009 at 06:53.
Kwagga 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
Where do we go from here? CFD in 2001 John C. Chien Main CFD Forum 36 January 24, 2001 22:10
ASME CFD Symposium, Atlanta, July 2001 Chris R. Kleijn Main CFD Forum 0 August 21, 2000 04:49
Since Last June John C. Chien Main CFD Forum 3 July 12, 1999 09:38
Which is better to develop in-house CFD code or to buy a available CFD package. Tareq Al-shaalan Main CFD Forum 10 June 12, 1999 23:27
CFD Symposium (Call for Papers) Chris R. Kleijn Main CFD Forum 0 October 5, 1998 10:25

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:59.