CFD Algorithms: ANSYS Fluent Different Capabilities
Free
- Comprehensive analysis of different CFD algorithms using a variable-width channel case study (5cm inlet, 10cm outlet, 20cm length).
- Pressure-based solvers (SIMPLE, SIMPLEC, PISO, Coupled) compared with density-based solvers (Roe, AUSM) for various flow conditions.
- SIMPLE algorithm excels in low-speed flows, while Coupled solver shows superior performance across all speed regimes.
- Density-based solvers (Roe, AUSM) perform best in high-speed and supersonic flows but struggle with low Mach numbers.
- Under-relaxation factors significantly impact convergence stability and simulation accuracy.
- Optimal solver selection depends on flow regime: low subsonic (SIMPLE/SIMPLEC), transonic/supersonic (Coupled/AUSM), hypersonic (Roe/AUSM).
To Order Your Project or benefit from a CFD consultation, contact our experts via email ([email protected]), online support tab, or WhatsApp at +44 7443 197273.
There are some Free Products to check our service quality.
If you want the training video in another language instead of English, ask it via [email protected] after you buy the product.
Description
Understanding CFD Algorithms: A Comprehensive Guide to ANSYS Fluent Capabilities
Introduction
A detailed analysis of different algorithms and discretization schemes in ANSYS Fluent, using a variable-width channel case study (5cm inlet to 10cm outlet, 20cm length).
Solver Types and Their Applications
Pressure-Based Solvers
1. SIMPLE Algorithm – Best for steady-state, incompressible flows – Memory efficient but slower convergence – Suitable for low-speed subsonic flows
- SIMPLEC Algorithm
- Better convergence than SIMPLE
- Higher under-relaxation factors possible
- Ideal for steady-state incompressible flows
- PISO Algorithm
- Excellent for transient problems
- Good with skewed meshes
- Requires more computational resources
- Coupled Solver
- Fastest convergence rate
- Suitable for all speed regimes
- Higher memory requirements
Density-Based Solvers
1. Roe Scheme – Excellent for high-speed compressible flows – Good shock capturing capabilities – Not suitable for low-speed flows
- AUSM Method
- Superior shock capturing
- Ideal for supersonic flows
- Computationally expensive
Flow Regime Recommendations
Based on Mach Number
– Low Subsonic (M<0.3): SIMPLE, SIMPLEC, PISO
– High Subsonic (0.3<m<0.8): AUSM, Roe, Coupled solver
Practical Implementation Tips
– Consider memory requirements and computational resources – Start with default under-relaxation factors – Ensure proper initialization – Monitor convergence carefully – Choose appropriate mesh quality for specific solvers
This guide helps CFD engineers select the most suitable algorithm for their specific simulation needs, ensuring optimal results and computational efficiency.
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.