CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > ANSYS

Does CFX is better than fluent on solving heat-transfer problems generally

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   November 16, 2012, 22:00
Smile Does CFX is better than fluent on solving heat-transfer problems generally
  #1
New Member
 
Jiweiqi
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 4
williamchina is on a distinguished road
i want to solve some problems about heat-transfer but i don't know which on i should choose bettwen CFX and Fluent.The people around me are good at Fluid dynamics but not in heat-transfer.
Anyone can tell me which one should i choose firstly.
Thanks.
williamchina is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 16, 2012, 23:52
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 605
Rep Power: 12
LuckyTran is on a distinguished road
there's really not much difference. But Fluent is better, has more modelling options.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 22, 2012, 02:22
Default
  #3
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,914
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 38
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
For heat transfer I usually go with Fluent just because I think it is easy to set-up and usually performs better. But as LuckyTran has mentioned there is really not much difference in available modules.

Just think why both codes are still available in the ANSYS CFD suit, because they have some advantage with respect to each other in different industries. For example CFX is more powerful in turbo-machinery and support GGI in better way than the Fluent and therefore you can can see more improvement in CFX for the turbo-machinery.

In latest release of Fluent solver technology is greatly enhanced and many options were developed specifically for Fluent to make it compatible to CFX in terms of convergence and some technology was also adopted from CFX.

Turbulence models were also exchanged between CFX and Fluent. For example SA model, DES and LES option were strong point of Fluent and on the other hand SST model and transition models were the strong point of CFX.

So finally they are converging on the solver technology but still differs in GUI, ease of use, and their impact in different industries.
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 24, 2012, 17:51
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Chris DeGroot
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 387
Rep Power: 6
cdegroot is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
But Fluent is better, has more modelling options.
I really can't stand it when people make blanket statements like that. "Fluent is better". Really? Or do you just have more experience with it?

Both codes have their own strengths and since they both became ANSYS products a lot of the features have been shared. CFX does seem to be better for general grid interfaces and turbomachinery applications. I am sure there are also cases where Fluent is better as well.
cdegroot is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 25, 2012, 02:32
Default
  #5
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,914
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 38
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdegroot View Post
I really can't stand it when people make blanket statements like that. "Fluent is better". Really? Or do you just have more experience with it?

Both codes have their own strengths and since they both became ANSYS products a lot of the features have been shared. CFX does seem to be better for general grid interfaces and turbomachinery applications. I am sure there are also cases where Fluent is better as well.

Fluent's interface is much easier to use. Every thing is there from pre to post.


Experience counts a lot. Because there is learning curve for each code. So if you are good at Fluent does not make you good at CFX automatically. You have to spend some time.

Moreover every code behave differently and experienced person knows what does it mean. Whether he is making mistake or not. Take an example: In Fluent, residual level of 1e-3 is considered good convergence, but in CFX even 1e-4 is not considered good convergence.

Fluent is less sensitive to user input such as mesh and boundary conditions. But CFX will either work or not. But Fluent will never blow-up the simulation and it keeps on trying.
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 25, 2012, 10:27
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Chris DeGroot
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 387
Rep Power: 6
cdegroot is on a distinguished road
Hi Far,

I do appreciate your opinion but I respectfully disagree with some of it. For me I find CFX more user friendly actually. I also find CFD post a much more powerful post processor than what Fluent offers. I also find CFX less sensitive to bad mesh quality (this makes sense especially for tet meshes which are much better represented by the control volume finite element discretization). I do find Fluent blows up often and the user has to restart with different relaxation factors and hope it works better. CFX has a convenient auto timestepping procedure that seems to work for the majority of problems.

I do really agree with your comment that experience is what counts though. An experienced user of either software can usually get a difficult problem to work because they know all of the tricks of that program. For me I am an expert user of CFX and an occasional user of Fluent so obviously I will choose CFX because I know it better and it is easier for me. It seems the opposite for you.
cdegroot is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 2, 2012, 01:26
Default
  #7
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,914
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 38
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
Can we check the quality of mesh in CFX pre or can we check the Y+ in CFX Pre
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
cfx heat-trans

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moving mesh Niklas Wikstrom (Wikstrom) OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 122 June 15, 2014 06:20
problem with Min/max rho tH3f0rC3 OpenFOAM 7 February 23, 2013 06:37
High Courant Number @ icoFoam Artex85 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 9 January 3, 2012 09:06
Conjugate heat transfer FLUENT vs CFX pstreufert ANSYS 0 October 5, 2011 15:47
Could anybody help me see this error and give help liugx212 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 January 4, 2006 19:07


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42.