Did you learn CFD in college/university?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Q_Goest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cfd
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the prevalence and experiences of learning computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in college or university settings. Participants share their educational backgrounds, the courses they took, the software they used, and the types of projects they worked on, including comparisons with experimental results.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reflect on their educational experiences from the late 1980s, noting a lack of CFD courses at that time.
  • Others describe their experiences with CFD courses, mentioning specific software like Fluent and Comsol Multiphysics, and the types of models they created, such as pipe flow and fluid-structure interaction problems.
  • One participant mentions that their course was primarily focused on the basics of finite element methods (FEM) and CFD at a postgraduate level.
  • Several participants express concerns about the reliance on commercial software and the potential loss of understanding of the underlying numerical methods.
  • Some participants discuss the importance of comparing CFD predictions with experimental data, highlighting the evolution of the field and the shift towards commercial tools.
  • A participant shares their experience of modeling a human artery with a stent, emphasizing the complexity of the fluid-structure interaction involved.
  • Another participant recalls working on an airfoil project during their studies, indicating a lack of understanding of the software among peers despite having formal CFD experience.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of experiences regarding the availability and depth of CFD education, with some indicating that it has become more common in recent years, while others note a lack of foundational understanding among students today. There is no consensus on the effectiveness of current CFD education or the implications of relying on commercial software.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention limitations in their understanding of CFD due to the focus on software use rather than the underlying principles, raising concerns about the reliability of results obtained from such tools.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to current students in engineering or related fields, educators considering curriculum development, and professionals in the industry reflecting on the evolution of CFD education and practice.

  • #31
thanks you vadar, I didnt get correctly what masters thesis means,BTW i want to do a full time course in cfd and am confused to select the branch in it...
can you help me in figuring out the best modules or the best future scope of the branches etc.,
and in aus what will be the time period for completing the M.Sc.

Regds.
Hari
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
If you want to find CFD/experiment comparisons and your library does not have a subscription to sciencedirect or springer (most university libraries do however), go to the website of a university library that puts all their phd theses online and search for Rayleigh benard. It is one of the most studied fluid flow phenomena around, so I am surprised that you have a hard time finding something useful. Try it for instance here, I know it was studied in the lab where I worked:
http://repository.tudelft.nl/
 
  • #33
Hi bigfooted. I'm not in college. I graduated in 1988. I've looked around for papers through Google Scholar but haven't found anything compared a CFD analysis with experimentation. If you know of any good papers that provide that comparison, I'd really appreciate a lead. I can get papers but I haven't found anything, even on the website you provided.
 
  • #34
What do you have access to? If you got access to AIAA and the likes, maybe I can just give you some titles instead of spending ages uploading them.
 
  • #35
Vadar2012 said:
What do you have access to? If you got access to AIAA and the likes, maybe I can just give you some titles instead of spending ages uploading them.
If you have titles (and author/s), that would be terrific. Some of the journals I can get and my daughter is just starting college so she might also have access. At any rate, I should be able to find them if I have a name.
 
  • #36
I found a couple decent ones I somehow have with me at work:

ShockWave/Transitional Boundary-Layer Interactions in Hypersonic Flow
R. Benay, B. Chanetz, B. Mangin, and L. Vandomme
AIAA JOURNAL
Vol. 44, No. 6, June 2006

Separation length in high-enthalpy shock boundary-layer interaction
Jean-Paul Davisa and Bradford Sturtevant
Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125

The first one is especially good. I spent a year replicating its experiment and CFD results using a new NASA program. I was able to get much better CFD results, which allowed me to explain the weird stuff they were seeing in the experiment. It's also good for comparing newly compiled CFd program results to for verification.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
sareyes91 said:
Hi Astronuc,

What you said in regards to students nowadays not developing the numerical methods from scratch, is not entirely true. I am currently taking an introduction FEA course where the professor teaches us all the theory and background that programs like ANSYS and pro/e use. All of this while introducing us to ANSYS. In fact, one of our homeworks is to write a program that solves one and two dimensional structural mechanics problems. I'm still in the process of writing it.

Although it might just be our professor, he is very old fashioned.

I just wanted to add some stuff to this. You learn pretty much nothing in these classes. I've done a class at uni (multiple) that say they teach you the background and how they work, but if you do any research in this field. You'll see they don't teach you anything in comparison.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Addressing the idea of validating computations with experiments, this is a practice that is done constantly in the scientific community. In fact, in general a CFD solution can never be truly validated without either a direct comparison with either an analytical solution (very, very rare) or experiments. Naturally, experiments are the typical route here when possible.

Lately, Physics of Fluids has had a lot of work on Rayleigh-Bénard convection. Just browse through recent issues of that and you ought to find a pretty nice chunk of work which will, of course, reference other, more canonical works in the field.
http://pof.aip.org/search?key=PHFLE6&societykey=AIP&coden=PHFLE6&q=Rayleigh-B%C3%A9nard&displayid=AIP&sortby=newestdate&faceted=faceted&sortby=newestdate&CP_Style=false&alias=&searchzone=2

The thing about that particular phenomenon is that, at least today, there is not going to be a lot of experimental data on simple Rayleigh-Bénard convection because it is already a well-studied problem and in many cases it has an analytical solution for the interesting bits of the phenomenon such as the hydrodynamic stability. You may have better luck finding data for variations of the traditional Rayleigh-Bénard problem.

The other thing to keep in mind is that quite often, you will see a numerical work in a separate paper from its experimental counterpart, especially because oftentimes one inspires the other.

I will also add that during my undergrad, FEA and CFD courses were offered by my university as electives that attempted to do a mix of the background theory (e.g. Galerkin methods) while also providing familiarity with various software (generally ANSYS and Fluent). Of course it is a class so, as Vadar2012 pointed out, it will still never quite be the same as what you learn from reading a couple papers and then doing it. Then again, most undergraduates don't have that opportunity so the class is at least a good start.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
8K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K