![solidworks flow simulation vs star ccm solidworks flow simulation vs star ccm](https://d2t1xqejof9utc.cloudfront.net/screenshots/pics/2bb94b32777af7710bc2048ab8c84206/large.png)
![solidworks flow simulation vs star ccm solidworks flow simulation vs star ccm](https://www.digitalengineering247.com/article/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MentorGraphicsHeadlight-simulation-with-FloEFD.jpg)
I hope you found this SOLIDWORKS Simulation guide helpful.
![solidworks flow simulation vs star ccm solidworks flow simulation vs star ccm](https://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworksblog/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/11/heat20exchanger20model20in20porous20media-1-615x384.png)
![solidworks flow simulation vs star ccm solidworks flow simulation vs star ccm](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UdPA1DCz-Mc/maxresdefault.jpg)
Bonded contact between mixed mesh elements (2011 and below).Number of contact elements (generated during the solve) based on all contact definitions.During convergence for No Penetration contacts.If solver goes out of core before calculation completes.Amount of RAM available before solver is launched.SOLIDWORKS provides the following list for the current reasons Simulation switches from FFEPlus to Direct Sparse: The automatic option uses FFEPlus until certain conditions are seen in the study. It may sound like it should replace Direct Sparse, but that is not the case. Thus, use the LPDS solver if the Direct Sparse solver is required and there is not enough RAM. The LPDS Solver is the Direct Sparse solver with the ability to calculate using multiple cores. Use the Direct Sparse solver in small and medium-sized problems, if FFEPlus will produce less accurate results, and if doing a Nonlinear analysis. It is faster when more memory is available, however, memory requirements will increase faster than the size of the part increases. In general, it has a higher level of accuracy in small to medium sized problems. “Sparse” refers to the sparsity (zeroes) in the matrices that it uses to find a solution. Produces a direct solution using exact numerical techniques. Mixed meshing between beams and solids (if running SOLIDWORKS 2011 and below).No Penetration contact, especially with friction effects.Less efficient than Direct Sparse if using: Circular/cyclic symmetry boundary conditions.Ive noticed that my laptop had difficulty running the model, and. Im working out of SolidWorks, and have tried a few applications to run this simulation (SolidWorks Flow Simulator, and AutoDesk CFD Flex). Hi everyone, Currently I am trying to validate a prototype model using thermal fluid analysis. Imported pressure or temperature results from other studies Build a Workstation, or run CFD in the Cloud.A large difference in moduli of elasticity between parts.Base excitation in a linear dynamic study.Gravity or external forces in a frequency analysis.Incompatible mesh and any local bonded contact sets not automatically covered by global bonded contact.Will fail or be less accurate if there is: Thus, in general, if the study contains more than 100,000 DOF, it is more efficient and more accurate to use FFEPlus. Iteration continues until errors are small enough. Each iteration the solution is assumed and errors are evaluated. FFEPlusįFEPlus is an iterative solver that uses implicit integration methods. The rest of this document will contain specifics on when the solvers will be less efficient and less accurate. SOLIDWORKS will pick the most efficient and most accurate solver for the particular study automatically. If you are new to Simulation, always use Auto. Furthermore, characteristic values from the real model could be ascertained.SOLIDWORKS Simulation has four options for solvers: Auto, FFEPlus, Direct Sparse, and Large Problem Direct Sparse. In summary, the results obtained by COMSOL Multiphysics® are in good agreement with the results obtained by Star CCM+® as well as the experimentally determined measurements. The governing equations are the Navier-Stokes equations using the k-epsilon or the SST turbulence model. In addition the numerical models could be validated by real measurements of differential pressure along the Venturi tube.įor various inlet flow velocities the velocity and pressure profiles in the tube were determined in 2D axisymmetric CFD models. By using similar meshes and model settings in both tools a comparison between the numerical results was possible. The examination of the turbulent flow in a Venturi tube was performed using CFD models created with COMSOL Multiphysics® and Star-CCM+®. A possible approach for validating simulation models by easy measurable data and gaining the needed values is described in this study of a Venturi tube. Numerical simulation tools offer the opportunity to ascertain characteristic values, which are difficult to measure.