# Coulde the Fluent software be used to get the accurate resistance of the Pipeline??

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

 February 6, 2010, 10:01 Coulde the Fluent software be used to get the accurate resistance of the Pipeline?? #1 New Member   吴锋 Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 2 Rep Power: 0 I want to used the Flunt software to simulate the flow in the tube(such as Pipelines and Elbows ). Is it possible to get the accurate resistance of the tube?

 February 6, 2010, 10:09 #2 Administrator     Peter Jones Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 685 Rep Power: 10 What is it that you want to use CFD to do? You don't need Fluent to estimate the resistance in a long tube or in a tube elbow. Simple analytical formulas does that just as well and with much less risk of errors. If you want to do a detailed aerodynamic design of, for example, a tube elbow in order to minimize resistance you might want to use CFD to compare different designs.

February 6, 2010, 10:39
#3
New Member

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
Quote:
 Originally Posted by pete What is it that you want to use CFD to do? You don't need Fluent to estimate the resistance in a long tube or in a tube elbow. Simple analytical formulas does that just as well and with much less risk of errors. If you want to do a detailed aerodynamic design of, for example, a tube elbow in order to minimize resistance you might want to use CFD to compare different designs.
I want to get the accuarate resistance of the tube, however, when I used fluent to compute the resistance of the tube, I foud that the result I obtained is far less than the value obtained by the empirical formula，especially for the local resistance of the Elbow. If I changed the "Roughness height" and "Roughness constant" in boundary condition, the situation ameliorates, But I don't know what is the exact value for "Roughness height" and "Roughness constant" . For example, if the resistance coefficient is 0.015, what are the "Roughness height" and "Roughness constant" value?
Thanks

 February 8, 2010, 06:30 #4 Administrator     Peter Jones Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 685 Rep Power: 10 I'd trust an empirical correlation much more than CFD in his case.

 February 11, 2010, 11:50 you can do it #5 Member   Marco Evangelos Biancolini Join Date: May 2009 Location: Rome - Italy Posts: 79 Rep Power: 10 CFD is a powerful tool. If wisely used allows to predict pressure drop within an error less than 5%. We have found excellent correlations for pressure drop in reed valves; I have also simulated an air-air exchanger, also in this case a very good correlation between experiments and CFD has been observed. As noticed, for standard components it is better to use literature data, CFD helps for design of new components because allows to understand how performances can be improved; this means that you can go well beyond the pressure drop observed experimentally: you can see how (and where) the losses are generated.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Prateek kumar Jain Main CFD Forum 2 January 18, 2008 01:55 Mahmoud Alidadi Main CFD Forum 1 August 12, 2005 09:12 sijal Main CFD Forum 13 October 6, 2004 09:54 Julytli FLUENT 3 March 30, 2004 20:35 dimitris FLUENT 1 July 1, 2002 09:35

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:45.