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

CFX vs FLUENT

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 17, 2001, 09:23
Default CFX vs FLUENT
  #1
R.K. Bansal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I am new to this discussion group. I know very little about CFX. However, I have used FLUENT for multiphase flow simulation quite some time ago. My company is considering obtaining a seat of either FLUENT or CFX. Can anyone give me a comparison of the two. The application is in drilling for oil and gas.

Thanks.
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 19, 2001, 22:06
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #2
Greg Perkins
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
One important aspect is technical support. I'm using Fluent and to be honest I'm not real happy about their level of technical support. These experiences though do depend on the types of problems and your questions.

For complex multiphase and user code questions I've found answers from Fluent hard to come by.

I'm not sure if CFX/AEAT is any better but its worth looking into...

Greg
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 22, 2001, 04:21
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #3
Li Xinfeng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In fact, I think the CFX's technical support is the best in the CFD software. But I think it depend on who u ask for.
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 24, 2001, 15:13
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #4
G.A.L
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Do not go with CFX!!! Our company got it 2 years ago and it has been a dissaster.

- Technical support is bad

- The code has lots of bugs

- The post-processing is the worst I have ever seen.

It is very difficult to perform calculations such as integrating fluxes over surfaces, etc.

I have experience with Fluent packages and they are MUCH better. Excellent post-processing and fairly good technical support,
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 24, 2001, 17:43
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #5
John C. Chien
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
(1). I am happy that currently I am not using any of the commercial cfd codes. I think, the support service is very critical to the day-to-day operation of the commercial cfd codes. (2). There are two parts of the problem, one is the operation of the code, and the other is the solution of your technical project. (3). The former, you can get the names of the support engineers or the technical service and call them or e-mail them on the day-to-day basis.(try this out and know your support engineer, do not wait until you are in big trouble.) (4). The latter, you will have to explore your problem and their experience first, to see which vendor, consulting firm, or the code can better serve your need. Based on my experience, in this area, I had to do a lot of home work exercise and work out the details. This is because in most cases, the support engineers know only the operation of the code but not the technical part of your problem. (5). If you are interested in solving your problem, make sure that you do the search first to see which group can better serve you. (I mean, the group which has the experience in your technical problems.) It does not make sense to use your time and problem to train your code support engineers.
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 25, 2001, 00:13
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #6
Li Xinfeng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I doní«t think so. In fact, the cfx4's new post-process is very good.
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 25, 2001, 01:09
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #7
Dan Williams
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hmm, pretty scathing remarks. I'm sure many would completely disagree with you. Which CFX package are you using? Integrating boundary fluxes is easy in CFX-TASCflow. I'm not sure about CFX-4.

Why is technical support bad? Unresponsive, non-existent, not useful, etc..... Do you care to elaborate rather than making an arbitrary statement.

What bugs have you run across, specifically?

I agree Fluent can be very nice. But if it doesn't blow up (read the user forum), you'll usually wait until the cows come home for the thing to converge (also read the user forum), and also read the user formum to find out about some of the crazy things you have to write user source code for. (eg, a transient boundary condition, or initialising velocity with cylindrical components). Come on.

Dan.

  Reply With Quote

Old   April 26, 2001, 01:54
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #8
Greg Perkins
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I suppose the best is to get both and evaluate them both for your problem.....

anyone done this???

Greg
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 8, 2001, 05:33
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #9
joseph
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
hi,

If it is multi phase then it is got to be CFX.

sure fluent looks good and easy,not technically,

it will be long before you get a result.

I will agree with Greg and Dan ,as far as technical

support is concerned these (CFX guys) guys are really

clear and with quick responce, believe me coz I was in AEA india,and I have seen

their dedication to the costumers.

All the best any way in you selection.

Regards, joseph
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 8, 2001, 10:27
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #10
pop
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi Joseph

Did you try to benchmark the results of CFX 5.4.1 (the latest from AEA). The package is failed to model as simple as the inlet region of a circular duct. In cases with laminar flow the pressure drop and Q are not bad but at the point you hit turbulence or transient it is missy. In a contact with AEA they have no explanation. Do you?
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 8, 2001, 21:49
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #11
Dan Williams
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I've done this with 5.4.1 and it predicts pressure drops perfectly, both turbulent and laminar.

In fact, I believe the documentation includes an example which compares friction factors to those obtained from the the Moody digram and the accuracy is excellent.

What sort of problems have you had exactly? There are a number of things that you could be doing wrong with trying to solve this problem. How did you set the problem up for example? Did you use periodic boundary conditions and a momentum source to set the pressure drop (which will always give a good answer), or did you just grid up a pipe of length L and let it rip. If so, then did you make sure that L was alot longer than the entry length needed to develop a fully turbulent profile? If so, did you only compare the pressure drop in the fully developed region? What boundary conditions did you use to ensure that a fully developed profile would occur? etc... Hopefully you get my point, i.e., that solving these problems properly is not as trivial as it might seem at first.

Dan.

  Reply With Quote

Old   July 3, 2001, 08:54
Default Re: CFX vs FLUENT
  #12
lightwind
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I agree with you!!
  Reply With Quote

Reply

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
Mesh and Solve Times for CFX, Fluent, CD-adapco Jade M Main CFD Forum 4 August 28, 2012 02:54
Import CFX def into Fluent eric_wang FLUENT 0 April 18, 2011 13:14
OpenFOAM vs. Fluent & CFX marco Main CFD Forum 81 March 31, 2009 14:22
Fluent Vs CFX, density and pressure Omer CFX 9 June 28, 2007 04:13
Jobs in cfd - fluent or cfx? jobman Main CFD Forum 6 July 5, 2006 15:02


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:11.