Abstract
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.
Highlights
Numerical calculations used to simulate reality in the modern world are a typical engineering tool used to improve design process
Numerical problems are related with the solution methods such as a spatial discretization schemes, time integration schemes etc
In the paper [1] the differences between implicit and explicit time integration schemes are described for the turbulent incompressible flows
Summary
Numerical calculations used to simulate reality in the modern world are a typical engineering tool used to improve design process. Using CFD software numerical calculations can give, for the same problem, different results which depends strongly on the solver algorithms. Most common problems described in the literature are related with the appropriate selection of the closing models. This is a matter related with the simulated phenomena physics and is not related to the calculation method. Modelling the impulse flow, damping is the effect of calculated physical phenomena but is a numerical dissipation result. This paper presents impulse flow damping comparison for different shapes using two solvers with the same flow parameters, boundary conditions and additional models (turbulence, wall functions etc.)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
