Home NewsletterContact ServicePortal
ENDE

Validated Simulation Workflow for Metal Wire Mesh

Validierung: WeaveGeo & FlowDict

GeoDict’s woven structure generator WeaveGeo has been validated by direct comparison with high-resolution CT scans of real metal wire meshes. The results show an excellent match between virtual and real geometries, confirming the accuracy of the digital mesh models.

Based on these validated structures, FlowDict simulations were benchmarked against laboratory measurements. The predicted pressure drop agrees closely with experimental data, demonstrating reliable flow and filtration performance prediction. 

Together, WeaveGeo and FlowDict provide a powerful, proven simulation workflow for realistic woven media design and optimization.

Structure and pressure drop of real and virtual metal wire meshes

In the project µCT-scans were taken of typical metal wire meshes and directly compared with geometry models created with WeaveGeo (see Fig. 1 and 2). 

Afterwards the flow simulation through this model geometries was validated by comparison with corresponding measurement (see Fig. 3).

References

Structure and pressure drop of real and virtual metal wire meshes (2010), E. Glatt, S. Rief,  A. Wiegmann, M. Knefel, E. Wegenke, Berichte des Fraunhofer ITWM, Nr. 157 (2009), https://publica.fraunhofer.de/handle/publica/223913

CT-scan of a metal wire plain weave and comparison with a virtually generated structure.
Fig. 1 CT-scan of a metal wire plain weave and comparison with a virtually generated structure. (a), (b): Tomography, where (b) shows one repetitive unit. (c): Virtually generated structure. (d), (e): Comparison between tomography and generated structure.
CT-scan of a metal Dutch twill weave and comparison with a virtually generated structure.
Fig. 2 CT-scan of a metal Dutch twill weave and comparison with a virtually generated structure. (a): Tomography. (b): Virtually generated structure. (c), (d): Comparison between the tomography and the generated structure.
Validation of the velocity-dependent pressure drop for three weave types computed with FlowDict by comparison with corresponding measurements on the real materials.
Fig. 3 Validation of the velocity-dependent pressure drop for three weave types computed with FlowDict by comparison with corresponding measurements on the real materials.
Contact Support

Do you need further support?

Our technical support team will be available to answer all your questions about GeoDict!

Contact us