We will add it to our topics list, thanks!

We'd be happy to advise if you want to offer details of the problem you're looking to analyze

The rotating region direction refers to the rotation direction of any solid bodies contained within As far as the sign on torque, that follows right-hand rule for the coordinate system specified. Generally we recommend to align the rotating region axis with the global origin / coordinate system so the reported torque values are correct.

It's possible to include the headspace if the "free surface" option is enabled. This lets you load both air and your liquid in as fluids. Then you would need to set an initial condition to set the waterline to the correct height. This can be done by using some dependency / height function or modeling a solid body to represent the liquid region, and specifying an initial condition on it. Unfortunately though you can only have two liquids using the free surface approach, so you wouldn't be able to actually simulate the mixing of a secondary liquid with the headspace. You could infer the mixing performance from the velocities. To simulate the mixing of multiple liquids and also represent the headspace simultaneously, we can do that in SIMULIA XFlow, and have an additional tutorial here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hpiSdtaHq9LUiIU.html

The solver in SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation is compressible and will support the proper thermodynamics of gas expansion and compression (either with ideal gas or "real gas" model) However there is no way to support the translating wall of a reciprocating piston in SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation. The only geometry motion that can be defined is via the rotating regions. Combustion is also not supported directly Something like simulating the mixture of exhaust through a turbocharger turbine should be possible, or simulating intake or exhaust flow with valves in fixed position. Translational body motion is possible in SIMULIA XFlow and it can be used for applications such as piston cooling

This is a type of analysis we could run in either SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation or SIMULIA XFlow depending on the complexity. You can e-mail info@hawkridgesys.com to get a discussion started if you want a quotation on having this performed as a service As far as the inlets and outlets, there's no reason there couldn't be flow in and out during the simulation presented here. The "open top" can be evaluated using the Free Surface functionality. What is the makeup of the solids? Are they in powder/granule form?

There's a couple possibilities: -Be sure to clear / uncheck "Exclude cavities without Flow Conditions" during the Project Wizard (this is the most likely cause) -When defining the "Initial Condition" for the second substance concentration, check the checkbox for "Disable Solid Component" -Ensure the "Computational Domain" is properly size. Edit it and click "Reset" after performing the above steps and it should snap to roughly the size of the entire tank.

@@hawkridgesystems Thank you for answering! As you might have guessed, "Exclude cavities without Flow Conditions" was still checked. After changing it, I got the desired result. thank you! ! !

It should be supported for rotating motion, linear or other body motion is not really possible in SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation There are some limitations around conduction between rotating and non-rotating parts when using the Sliding Mesh approach, but they shouldn't effect something like a heated mixer significantly.

@@hawkridgesystems Thank you very much for your reply. I tried adding a radiant heat source to the rotating body, but the rotation function was ignored in the heat-related results.

@@6023 What was the exact heat source definition? If you use something like a "volume source" to heat the mixer/agitator itself it should work. This also requires conduction enabled in the project settings and an appropriate conducting solid material applied to the agitator/mixer.

@@hawkridgesystems It was Radiation source with directional type.

Generally our recommendation would be to step up to a dedicated standalone analysis tool only when it's required for the physics of the application or when solve time or performance becomes a limiting factor. CAD-embedded analysis tools are developed to be very good at solving the most common classes of problems- such as linear static stress analysis, internal/external fluid flow, and thermal problems. This enables designers and engineers to make quick design-time decisions without having to invest significant effort into setup for the vast majority of their applications. The same CAD-embedded analysis tools may not have specialized boundary conditions, solvers, and post-processing options that could be relevant for certain industries. They also tend to have more limited scalability in terms of solving on HPC cluster or GPU. In this particular case, we have an example of running the same simulation in SIMULIA XFlow which enables handling of additional physics for mixing tanks. For instance, a reciprocating style mixer would not be possible to simulate in SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation as it does not support translational mesh motion, only rotational. XFlow supports generalized movement, as well as more robust "free surface" interactions which also allows including the headspace at the top of the mixing tanks. Mixing Tank analysis in XFlow: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hpiSdtaHq9LUiIU.html Solution accuracy (when the physics and boundary conditions are supported) is generally not an issue compared between CAD-embedded analysis packages and standalone packages. You can find validation examples for SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation here: www.solidworks.com/sw/docs/Flow_Validation_Methodology-Whitepaper.pdf And similar examples for SOLIDWORKS Simulation are embedded within the software. It's always a good idea to check that the software package is well validated for a problem with similar physics to yours. Lastly regarding performance, the SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation and SOLIDWORKS Simulation tools have a somewhat noticeable dropoff past ~16 cores though there is no hard limit to problem scaling. This is generally sufficient for tackling wide ranges of problems. Dedicated analysis software may be able to scale to hundreds or thousands of cores, but also requires increased cost of consumable credits or other per-core licensing scheme.

There would be quite a few things to check - I know you mentioned the input data is the same but verifying the liquid viscosity is equivalent, and that mesh refinement has been performed in both software to achieve mesh convergence (or "lattice refinement" in the case of XFlow) would probably be the most important things to verify. These tutorials feature very coarse mesh for the purpose of demonstration. Were you using the "Free surface" functionality in both packages? In the tutorials we created, we used free surface for XFlow (which represents a tank with headspace / airspace at the top) whereas SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation version tutorial featured a completely filled tank. These will of course produce different torque results, with the simulation representing the headspace expected to be more accurate if that is the physical condition.

@@hawkridgesystems Thank's a lot for your answer. I redid the simulation and got more similar values between Solidworks and Xflow.

Yes, the vessel is available for download (linked in the description) You can insert Flow Trajectories or Particle Study into this type of study. You could create a sketch with some lines to serve as the "injection point" for the trajectories.

@@hawkridgesystems thank you sir

Oh and other times the dyed water just seems to disappear from the tank altogether, even though there are no holes in my tank

@@christosfrantsis7599 Did you check to ensure on the "Initial Conditions" screen that the substance concentrations are initialized correctly? The first issue (settling on a 0.5 value) sounds like maybe it was set to a 50/50 concentration instead of 100/0

@@hawkridgesystems Thank you so much for your answer. It turns out that my mesh resolution was too low. It all works great now ☺️.

SOLIDWORKS Premium 2023 and SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation 2023 were used in this video . You should be able to follow along with the same procedure back through the 2018 version, possibly even older versions

Be sure to clear / uncheck "Exclude cavities without Flow Conditions" during the Project Wizard (this is the most likely cause)

@@hawkridgesystems hello, it give me volume fraction wter copie) 0 (all in blue and didn't show me the picture )

also in the case of exclude cavities without flow conditions i don't heve the case of "find the flow)

The solid materials have a melting temperature parameter but this will simply provide a warning when it is exceeded, there are no capabilities to represent solid to liquid phase transition in SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation

@hawkridgesystems could you please advise where I can read mor3 detail about that?