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

CFX vs Flow-3D Benchmark

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 22, 2009, 23:57
Default CFX vs Flow-3D Benchmark
  #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 8
ck5285 is on a distinguished road
Hi All Users
Would like to understand if anyone has performance benchmark studied between CFX vs Flow-3D? especially focus on VOF and moving meshing options. Thanks in advance
ck5285 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 23, 2009, 18:35
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,825
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Hi,

I have done a simple comparison so have some comments. Flow3D can't do moving mesh per-se, it does it by having a fixed background mesh and sweeps the bodies over it. This approach is much simpler than the moving mesh approach of CFX, but the full moving mesh approach means you can have a more tailored grid with wall refinement and other refinements. If accurate boundary layer resolution is important that will be tricky in Flow3D.

Flow3D has many VOF technologies CFX does not have. The single fluid VOF model in Flow3D is fantastic if it is appropriate to your model. It will run much faster than CFX's multiphase VOF model (like 100 times faster in some applications) but I had problems getting it to give me sensible droplet shapes when surface tension was activated.

If you are doing lots of VOF then I definitely recommend you look at Flow3D. But on the other hand I found Flow3D's interface to be poor compared to CFX, and CFX has many features Flow3D does not have (CEL, extensive scripting, advanced multiphase/chemistry).

Which is best depends on what you want to do. They both have strengths and weaknesses.

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 23, 2009, 20:15
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 8
ck5285 is on a distinguished road
Hi Glenn Horrocks
Thanks for your details reply, but which Flow-3D & CFX version that you did benchmark last time? and under which application? Thanks
ck5285 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 23, 2009, 20:19
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 8
ck5285 is on a distinguished road
Hi Glenn Horrokcs
Btw can you share the comparison results with me? any web link available?
ck5285 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 23, 2009, 20:28
Default
  #5
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,825
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Hi,

I have used CFX from version 3 (!) up to the beta version of V12 and everything in between. I have used it for over 10 years. The Flow3D version was 9.3, we trialled it a few months back. I have not used Flow3D before except during this trial.

The application is commercial and I am not at liberty to disclose details. So no, you can't see the results and definitely no web pages. I will say it is simulating inkjet printers but I cannot give any more detail than that.

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 24, 2009, 02:01
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 8
ck5285 is on a distinguished road
Hi
I believe you are the expert in CFX. So for inkjet droplets simulation which CFD program predicted most accurate result compared to actual data? Thanks again.
ck5285 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 24, 2009, 07:48
Default
  #7
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,825
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Which was more accurate? Neither. We currently use Fluent! Don't forget accuracy is only one consideration... cost, ease of use, software stability, physics relevant to your intended model, quality of support, ability to scale to large simulations etc etc also are important.

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 26, 2009, 20:42
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 8
ck5285 is on a distinguished road
So is that means Fluent are the best among CFX & Flow-3D in this droplet VOF simulation?
ck5285 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 26, 2009, 20:50
Default
  #9
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,825
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Hi,

What is your application?

Glenn
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 27, 2009, 01:11
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 8
ck5285 is on a distinguished road
similar to Inkjet simulation, where the droplets is generated through VOF and need to travel/move along a path during the droplets generation. so what is your comments?
ck5285 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 27, 2009, 01:33
Default
  #11
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,825
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Hi,

You already have my comments - I recommend you try Fluent and/or Flow3D.

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 27, 2009, 03:53
Default
  #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 8
ck5285 is on a distinguished road
I may not have luxury to try both, so based on your experience which one (Fluent vs Flow-3D) provided better accuracy and shorter simulation time? Thanks again.
ck5285 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 27, 2009, 21:31
Default
  #13
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,825
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Hi,

I would have to know more about what you are trying to do to give a recommendation!

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 28, 2009, 00:09
Default
  #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 8
ck5285 is on a distinguished road
Hi
pls advice what additional information is needed? Thanks
ck5285 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 13, 2009, 22:23
Default
  #15
New Member
 
YongDazztech
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
yong is on a distinguished road
Hi,
I have been using ansys cfd and flow3d. For comparisons, I would give higher grade for Ansys in graphical presentation. However, I would still prefer flow3d for its multi-physics capability to simulate great models.
yong is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 14, 2009, 07:47
Default
  #16
Senior Member
 
ckleanth's Avatar
 
George
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 257
Rep Power: 9
ckleanth is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ck5285 View Post
Hi
pls advice what additional information is needed? Thanks
ring Ansys and Flow3D sales team, give them a problem description and request them to benchmark their software against your problem. If you are to buy a license from either of them it shouldn't be a problem.

__________________
Top 4 tips
1. Knowledge is everything and Ignorance is dangerous.
2. Understand your limitations and try to eliminate them.
3. Get yerself a bike and hoon the chuffer. You will soon learn why dogs like to hang their heads out the car window.
4. Please before asking any questions on how to run simulations in CFX, go though all the tutorials
ckleanth is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 1, 2010, 17:33
Exclamation
  #17
Senior Member
 
feizaghaee's Avatar
 
moein
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 132
Rep Power: 7
feizaghaee is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to feizaghaee
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
Hi,

I have done a simple comparison so have some comments. Flow3D can't do moving mesh per-se, it does it by having a fixed background mesh and sweeps the bodies over it. This approach is much simpler than the moving mesh approach of CFX, but the full moving mesh approach means you can have a more tailored grid with wall refinement and other refinements. If accurate boundary layer resolution is important that will be tricky in Flow3D.

Flow3D has many VOF technologies CFX does not have. The single fluid VOF model in Flow3D is fantastic if it is appropriate to your model. It will run much faster than CFX's multiphase VOF model (like 100 times faster in some applications) but I had problems getting it to give me sensible droplet shapes when surface tension was activated.

If you are doing lots of VOF then I definitely recommend you look at Flow3D. But on the other hand I found Flow3D's interface to be poor compared to CFX, and CFX has many features Flow3D does not have (CEL, extensive scripting, advanced multiphase/chemistry).

Which is best depends on what you want to do. They both have strengths and weaknesses.

Glenn Horrocks
i'm modeling an open channel flow by CFX. but after 5 months i haven't had any sensible result yet. CFX cann't simulate secondary currents correctly and consequently max velocity location. i need to use Reynolds stress models to simulate those currents. you said that Flow-3D is more powerful than CFX in free sufrace but flow-3D dosen't have Reynodls stress model. which software is more powerful in simulating Reynolds stress?
feizaghaee is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 1, 2010, 18:34
Default
  #18
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,825
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Your question states the answer - if you need RSM models then you need a solver which supports RSM models and that counts Flow3D out and leaves you with CFX.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 2, 2010, 02:19
Default
  #19
Senior Member
 
zandi's Avatar
 
Fatema Zandi Goharrizi
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 131
Rep Power: 8
zandi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
Flow3D has many VOF technologies CFX does not have. The single fluid VOF model in Flow3D is fantastic if it is appropriate to your model. It will run much faster than CFX's multiphase VOF model (like 100 times faster in some applications) but I had problems getting it to give me sensible droplet shapes when surface tension was activated.

If you are doing lots of VOF then I definitely recommend you look at Flow3D. But on the other hand I found Flow3D's interface to be poor compared to CFX, and CFX has many features Flow3D does not have (CEL, extensive scripting, advanced multiphase/chemistry).
Hi
thanks for your advices
in another post about VOF in CFX you have mentioned that:

"There is nothing "wrong" with the free surface modelling in CFX, it is just that it does not capture the interface as sharply as some other approaches. Whether this is a problem or not depends on the application. CFX has been successfully used on many free surface applications"

is it right to say that CFX is weak in specifying the free surface place?
I have to read the documentations but would yu help me with the method that CFX use for free surface?
be cause the Eulerian Eulerian method in multiphase modeling is not recomended for multiphase systems that researches would be done about finding the interface of two phases
thank you
zandi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 2, 2010, 08:42
Default
  #20
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,825
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
is it right to say that CFX is weak in specifying the free surface place?
CFX is used by many people to do very demanding free surface simulations. So no, it is not weak.

Quote:
help me with the method that CFX use for free surface?
Do the tutorials, listen to your fluid mechanics lecturer, go to CFX training and read the literature. That's what I did and it will work for you.
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
Flow meter Design CD adapco Group Marketing CD-adapco 3 June 21, 2011 08:33
Urgent: How to model a stationary sphere in a pressure driven flow using Ansys CFX? farhan OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 April 14, 2009 14:34
CFX mass flow boundary condition Michele Cagna CFX 3 February 22, 2007 16:52
Calculation of ratational flow in CFX Yves CFX 1 January 27, 2004 17:48
fluid flow fundas ram Main CFD Forum 5 June 17, 2000 21:31


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:41.