What is the difference between HTRI verification and design?
Thread Content
What is the difference between HTRI when verifying a heat exchanger and when designing one? For example, when estimating the area of a heat exchanger using the design mode, HTRI calculates a result on its own – does this result take into account the type of heat exchanger? With the same input + heat exchanger size, and when the verification mode is selected in HTRI, why is there such a large difference in the results? Question: When should HTRI use the design mode and when should it use the verification mode when calculating heat exchangers?
Design and verification complement each other; design comes first, followed by verification. Verification calculation is the validation of the design calculation. Specifically, the convergence of verification-type calculations is higher than that of design-type calculations.
Verification involves using the approximate dimensions of the heat exchanger to determine, through software calculations, the specific internal structure such as the piping layout and the number of pipes.
The design approach involves having no idea about the dimensions of the heat exchanger, and using software to calculate its approximate size
Thank you to everyone upstairs for their replies. What I want to know is that with the verification mode, the software converges more easily; whereas with the design mode, the calculation results from HTRI can be very unstable, and there are significant differences in the heat transfer area. In this context, my question is: if the design mode is so unstable, why use it for calculations? It’s better to use the verification mode; anyway, convergence is achieved, and data input isn’t very time-consuming. Or are there other advantages of design patterns that I haven’t realized? Looking forward to everyone’s responses.
Issues such as process parameter input and equipment size selection have design calculations that define the range of options available. . If you have a lot of experience, you can use the direct verification mode as well, but when there are many conceptual designs and preliminary designs with incomplete conditions. .
When using 5# Bingman for direct input verification, the designer needs to have considerable experience in design; the design pattern software will automatically assist in making optimized choices, resulting in better simulation accuracy and convergence – they complement each other
After all, computer simulations are not omnipotent; it’s already quite useful for helping everyone narrow down the possibilities. On that basis, further verification using experience is sufficient