The influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation results

Numerical simulations are currently used for different applications in a various fields of science. Certain solutions are not as obvious as the others while the results can give very valuable conclusions. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is one of the tools that can be used to solve different prob...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Młynarczyk Przemysław
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: EDP Sciences 2018-01-01
Series:MATEC Web of Conferences
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201824003008
id doaj-2a35ec4d52294d3ba509ab8ed8f3855f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2a35ec4d52294d3ba509ab8ed8f3855f2021-02-02T05:39:13ZengEDP SciencesMATEC Web of Conferences2261-236X2018-01-012400300810.1051/matecconf/201824003008matecconf_icchmt2018_03008The influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation resultsMłynarczyk Przemysław0Cracow University of Technology, Institute of Power and Process Engineering, Mechanical FacultyNumerical simulations are currently used for different applications in a various fields of science. Certain solutions are not as obvious as the others while the results can give very valuable conclusions. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is one of the tools that can be used to solve different problems related with the mass and heat transfer. Nowadays it is already known that the impulse flow simulation allows to determine pressure pulsation attenuation parameters by a given geometry. However, the nozzle shape optimization method strongly depends on the numerical results obtained from the impulse flow simulation. In commercial CFD software Ansys-Fluent the obtained results depends strongly on the chosen numerical methods, especially the spatial discretization method. This is the reason to use other software as a benchmark. Alternative software FlowVision was used to perform the impulse flow simulation for the same geometries to compare the results. As there is a different problem definition in both systems the calculations, accuracy and results differ from each other. The paper describes the numerical differences between solvers. Article contains discussion about obtained results and includes hints how to avoid mistakes when user change software, especially in solving unusual CFD problems.https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201824003008
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Młynarczyk Przemysław
spellingShingle Młynarczyk Przemysław
The influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation results
MATEC Web of Conferences
author_facet Młynarczyk Przemysław
author_sort Młynarczyk Przemysław
title The influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation results
title_short The influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation results
title_full The influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation results
title_fullStr The influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation results
title_full_unstemmed The influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation results
title_sort influence of the numerical solver selection on the nozzle impulse flow simulation results
publisher EDP Sciences
series MATEC Web of Conferences
issn 2261-236X
publishDate 2018-01-01
description Numerical simulations are currently used for different applications in a various fields of science. Certain solutions are not as obvious as the others while the results can give very valuable conclusions. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is one of the tools that can be used to solve different problems related with the mass and heat transfer. Nowadays it is already known that the impulse flow simulation allows to determine pressure pulsation attenuation parameters by a given geometry. However, the nozzle shape optimization method strongly depends on the numerical results obtained from the impulse flow simulation. In commercial CFD software Ansys-Fluent the obtained results depends strongly on the chosen numerical methods, especially the spatial discretization method. This is the reason to use other software as a benchmark. Alternative software FlowVision was used to perform the impulse flow simulation for the same geometries to compare the results. As there is a different problem definition in both systems the calculations, accuracy and results differ from each other. The paper describes the numerical differences between solvers. Article contains discussion about obtained results and includes hints how to avoid mistakes when user change software, especially in solving unusual CFD problems.
url https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201824003008
work_keys_str_mv AT młynarczykprzemysław theinfluenceofthenumericalsolverselectiononthenozzleimpulseflowsimulationresults
AT młynarczykprzemysław influenceofthenumericalsolverselectiononthenozzleimpulseflowsimulationresults
_version_ 1724303134155603968