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

CFX vs. Fluent Results

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   October 31, 2010, 08:31
Default CFX vs. Fluent Results
  #1
New Member
 
Navid Sharifi
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iran, Tehran
Posts: 10
Rep Power: 6
n.sharifi is on a distinguished road
hello everybody.
i have a problem with CFX results compared with the same model Fluent results.
this case is a mixed regime of supersonic and subsonic compressible flow, but the mass flux of each flow doesn't equal to the same flux of alternative solver
it may be useful to know the main model solved by Density-Based Fluent Solver, the maximum mach number is about 4.5 and the mesh size is equal for both solvers.
is this problem because of pressure-based CFX Solver?
n.sharifi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 31, 2010, 18:11
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,809
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Both CFX and Fluent should be able to do Mach 4.5 flows accurately. There is no inherent accuracy problem with the pressure based CFX solver.
ghorrocks is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   November 1, 2010, 06:03
Arrow
  #3
New Member
 
Navid Sharifi
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iran, Tehran
Posts: 10
Rep Power: 6
n.sharifi is on a distinguished road
1) please clarify for me is CFX a pressure based solver or not?
2) if your answer is true then the difference is acceptable or not?
3) i check all of my problem setup in both solver and i have still non-similar results, what is your recommandation?
n.sharifi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 1, 2010, 06:17
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,809
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
1) CFX is pressure based - read the documentation.
2) That is up to you. How accurate do you want your results? If the level of accuracy you already have is OK then why worry? If you need better accuracy then you had better do something about it.
3) There is no inherent problem with modelling this sort of flow in CFX and I dare say Fluent either. The difference is caused by your models. This FAQ may be of assistance http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys..._inaccurate.3F
ghorrocks is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   November 1, 2010, 10:31
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Michael P. Owen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 195
Rep Power: 8
michael_owen is on a distinguished road
How different are the results?
michael_owen is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2010, 02:04
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Navid Sharifi
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iran, Tehran
Posts: 10
Rep Power: 6
n.sharifi is on a distinguished road
Hi, I appreciate You for your attention. The results are in the attachment. It maybe useful to declare that the suction flow is subsonic and has a great importance in my study. this difference of suction mass flux is not acceptable at all (Fluent is about 4.7 kg/s but CFX is about 5.6 kg/s for models: 2,3,4). if you want ican tell you the other properties of flow field such as: Mach, Pr, T, Gamma and so on in both solver results. Thanks
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Fluent vs CFX.pdf (37.5 KB, 66 views)
n.sharifi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2010, 05:35
Default
  #7
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,809
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
The results don't look mesh independant to me yet. Have a look here: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys..._inaccurate.3F and here: http//:journaltool.asme.org/Templates/JFENumAccuracy.pdf for some ideas about mesh refinement and other accuracy issues.

CFX can do 2D models. That might run a bit quicker for you.

Look in the documentation of Fluent and CFX about how they implement the boundary conditions. Especially for high speed compressible flows like this some subtle differences in approach can lead to significant differences.
ghorrocks is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2010, 07:45
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Navid Sharifi
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iran, Tehran
Posts: 10
Rep Power: 6
n.sharifi is on a distinguished road
thanks again for your quick and persuasive answers. I'd investigated my models again and here is some points: 1) I have adapted the 2D-Mesh two and three times, but the results didn't change significantly. so it must be enough to deduce that this model is mesh independent in the first level of adaption. (for 2D-Axisymmetric FLUENT) OK? 2) if I adapt the 3D meshes again, the problem would be very hard to solve by my system configuration. so i thought the first level of adaption is enough. but I agree with you that this matter doesn't guarantee the mesh in-dependency of my problem in this level. 3)please clarify "the implementation of the boundary conditions".Do You mean Turbulence Model,Pressure,Temperature and Type of inlet or opening boundaries or the other word that i didn't concern.
n.sharifi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2010, 17:40
Default
  #9
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,809
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Mesh sensitivity - your 2D models will be good for this. If you have run Fluent to what looks like mesh independance then I would just use these settings in 3D. Likewise I would check that CFX is mesh independant on a 2D model (or at least a thin slice/wedge) and just use that result in 3D. But based on your comments it looks like mesh sensitivity should be OK.

BC implementation - read the theory documentation about inlets, outlets and pressure boundaries. You will find there is assumptions about variable gradients, initial values etc etc which will probably be different. You will have to look up the exact BC you are using to find out how it is implemented. If you want the two of them to be the same you will probably have to choose some non-default boundary options.
ghorrocks is online now   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
CFX vs. FLUENT in multiphase models Hossam CFX 1 November 3, 2010 07:57
Gradient Discretization CFX vs Fluent Scott Nordsen CFX 1 December 2, 2009 17:46
Reading CFX-CFD results without Ansys CFX JAY ANSYS 2 July 7, 2009 16:48
Import results to CFX post MatjazR CFX 1 October 17, 2005 09:07
Switching from Fluent to CFX Terri Novotny CFX 1 December 7, 2004 22:59


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:16.