How accurate is FLUENT simulation exactly?
Thread Content
Recently, I simulated a case of two gases mixing in a mixer, but it wasn’t accepted; the manager said the software isn’t reliable because reactions might occur. I didn’t include those reactions since I’m not very good at it. However, based on the conditions at the experiment site, there was very little reaction in the mixer, so its impact on the convective field was not significant. The results of the self-perception simulation still appear credible.
FLUENT is primarily used to simulate the internal flow fields of fluid machinery; it cannot be used for simulations involving chemical reactions. Its main purpose is to model the flow fields inside pumps, and it is generally used for qualitative analysis only, such as determining the pressure distribution, velocity distribution, and temperature distribution within these flow fields. However, precise numerical values cannot usually be obtained.
It’s simple: use your model to verify the actual flow parameters and compare them with real data, then show it to your supervisor. If the data matches well, they will naturally support you in making further improvement plans.
Even when simulating the flow field and temperature field, there should still be a 20% error
FLUENT does have a decent level of computational accuracy; it is also one of the most widely used CFD software programs in China. If its calculation results were poor, it wouldn’t be available on the market today. I suggest you take a close look at your model and parameter settings, as certain parameters and the way the grid is structured have a significant impact on the simulation results.
Then ask your supervisor to recommend a more accurate software! ! Or ask him to recommend a better method!
If software could match reality so well, then what’s the need for testing? We could just all use a computer to carry out simulations. In fact, many assumptions have been made before conducting the simulation; therefore, it is best to analyze the target function we intend to simulate beforehand and simplify those conditions that have little impact on the target function. Once again, the results of simulations can only serve as a guide and prediction for actual operations; to achieve 100% accuracy in matching reality, it is necessary to combine them with experiments.
The results of flow field simulation can only serve as a reference and can only provide a qualitative explanation for certain issues.
As long as the model is used appropriately and the boundary conditions are correct, it will be fairly accurate
Accuracy, Fluent is sufficient; what matters most are your modeling methods, your engineering experience, and your ability to assess the results. Relying solely on analog methods that do not provide visual representations is not sufficient; the real approach is to establish appropriate mathematical models through experiments, and then use UDFs in combination with Fluent’s built-in models to carry out the calculations.
The friends upstairs have all made very valid points. Overall, FLUENT is still extremely useful, and it’s necessary to master it well