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

CFX or FLuent?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 10, 2007, 03:09
Default CFX or FLuent?
  #1
michelle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
hi,

Is CFX good enough for LES? or is fluent better in terms of memory capability and speed?

i heard passing remarks from collegues that fluent was better but nobody was able to substantiate..!!

can any one tell me whether or not CFX is good enough??
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 11, 2007, 19:25
Default Re: CFX or FLuent?
  #2
Glenn Horrocks
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi,

Neither codes are ideal for LES as, in general, dedicated LES codes are explicit solvers whereas CFX and Fluent are both implicit. As LES uses very small timesteps then you are usually in the region of stability for explicit solvers and they are much faster and lower memory than implicit solvers.

CFX has the SAS turbulence model which can be very useful in some types of the LES simulations, eg bluff bodies. Check it out and see if it is useful for your case.

CFX is likely to use more memory than fluent as it is a coupled solver versus a segregated solver. Whether CFX or fluent is faster for your simulation is hard to say - the only thing for sure is neither codes are ideal.

Glenn Horrocks
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 16, 2007, 16:23
Default Re: CFX or FLuent?
  #3
hayate
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
hello

glenn ... one sales man from ansys tell me that cfx and fluent are both explicit codes..... and also star cd ...

are you sure about that?

best regards hayate
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 18, 2007, 13:57
Default Re: CFX or FLuent?
  #4
Omer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, Glenn is correct.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 30, 2007, 17:05
Default Re: CFX or FLuent?
  #5
HekLer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hmm,

Glenn, usually your answers are so well thought out....

Stability for explicit solvers with advection terms only is one thing. Stable courant number scales with 1/dx, where dx is the smallest mesh length scale.

The problem is that stability when including diffusion terms, which is most LES calculations, is much more restrictive than advection. The stable courant # scales with 1/dx^2.

Implicit solvers are insensitive, or possibly far less sensitive to this numerical fact.

So, explicit is not necessarily the best solution. It's probably fine if you run a uniform mesh.

Explicit will kill you thought when:

- you refine the mesh. The required timestep goes down as well 1/dx^2. So, if you make the mesh a factor of 2 finer you need a timestep a factor of 4 smaller, making your calculation a factor of 4 more costly.

- real industrial case meshes are almost never nice and uniform. Mesh spacing varies all over the place so the smallest cell sets the time step requirements.

So, for all intensive purposes implicit solvers are the only solution for practial LES calculations. For academic cases like flow around a cylinder or other simple geometries you can probably get away with an explicit solver.

  Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2014, 10:48
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Derwin Parkin
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 6
derz is on a distinguished road
Don't forget, there is also implicit LES and explicit LES, which is different from implicit and explicit solving.

Implicit LES, like that used in CFX, implicitly filters the field via a simple spatial average which occurs during the discretization (which I believe ends up as a top-hat filter), while normal explicit LES applies actual filter functions to remove errors at higher wavenumbers...

Explicit filtering opens a can of worms, as the more things you bring into the solution, the more interplay there is between everything, and more likely things can go wrong (despite having the potential to be more accurate). Thus, thankfully, CFX and most commercial solvers stick with ILES, which is more robust.
derz is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2014, 11:55
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Erik
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Earth (Land portion)
Posts: 454
Rep Power: 8
evcelica is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omer
;82705
Yes, Glenn is correct.
Yes, Glenn is ALWAYS correct.
evcelica is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 10, 2014, 08:38
Default
  #8
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9,734
Rep Power: 77
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
I tell my wife that and she does not believe me. I don't understand why.....

I guess it is because a good LES model does not get the dishes washed any faster (or more accurately).
ghorrocks is offline   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 03:54
Import CFX def into Fluent eric_wang FLUENT 0 April 18, 2011 14:14
OpenFOAM vs. Fluent & CFX marco Main CFD Forum 81 March 31, 2009 15:22
Fluent Vs CFX, density and pressure Omer CFX 9 June 28, 2007 05:13
Jobs in cfd - fluent or cfx? jobman Main CFD Forum 6 July 5, 2006 16:02


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25.