Is it your intention to achieve balance via your calculations? Or are you just trying to blow air and pressure through existing geometry, and spit out the numbers?
Our sizing utility is “equal friction method” to attempt to balance flow.
So... if existing geometry (think exaggerated) were to be loaded into the Duct Sizing Utility, AND... All the ducts were then locked in Sizes to the existing geometry... You would get calculated losses per component...BUT… you are making all the assumptions of actual flow at the ends, when in fact, all the air could be blowing out of the nearest hole, if that is true, So the answer is “no”. A sizing utility attempts to achieve desired flow at the outlets. Only then, can pressure losses be predicted.
This is an applied science called Computational Fluid Dynamics, which attempts to predict flow and pressure losses on existing geometry. So the short answers is, if you are not “balancing” to predict flow, your pressure losses are not accurate. That’s not a limitation of the software, it’s a scientific statement of the method employed.
Our sizing utility is “equal friction method” to attempt to balance flow.
So... if existing geometry (think exaggerated) were to be loaded into the Duct Sizing Utility, AND... All the ducts were then locked in Sizes to the existing geometry... You would get calculated losses per component...BUT… you are making all the assumptions of actual flow at the ends, when in fact, all the air could be blowing out of the nearest hole, if that is true, So the answer is “no”. A sizing utility attempts to achieve desired flow at the outlets. Only then, can pressure losses be predicted.
This is an applied science called Computational Fluid Dynamics, which attempts to predict flow and pressure losses on existing geometry. So the short answers is, if you are not “balancing” to predict flow, your pressure losses are not accurate. That’s not a limitation of the software, it’s a scientific statement of the method employed.
