|
[Sponsors] |
May 16, 2007, 03:21 |
any comments about EFD v5?
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
has somebody already compared EFDv5 with other cfd codes like StarCD or Fluent? What are the results of the comparison?
|
|
May 28, 2007, 16:16 |
Re: any comments about EFD v5?
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
We have done some testing (v4.3..... something) in the past and compared it with Fluent and CFX. It is plug and play and you can get results but but but but
- numerical scheme? It is almost the same as upwind. No secon order scheme which is required for every swirling flow. And which flow is not swirling...... - Turbulence models? Only k-e. Not sufficient. - geometrical models with a lot of detail? Impossible - multiphase? not available - radiation? not available A lot of drawbacks. I was not positive. Haven't continued the trial.... Astrid |
|
May 31, 2007, 22:35 |
Re: any comments about EFD v5?
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
OK,I am regret to hear that Astrid get such conclusion Actually in EFD.V5,the second-order upwind approximations of fluxes are based on the implicitly treated modified Leonard's QUICK approximations and the Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) method. EFD V5 is suitable for engineering,so I think k-e is ok. And because EFD.V5 is fully embended in Catia V5,so there is no a problem with any detail geometry if you know how to use Catia V5. And Astrid is right that EFD can not handle multiphase. Radiation is ok and it adapts Monte-Caro method which is accurate enough
I like EFD. |
|
June 3, 2007, 07:02 |
Re: any comments about EFD v5?
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi Jieremy,
It is good to hear that EFD has improved. We did some testing and it was not in favour of EFD. I would like to see some comparison with experiments of swirling flow. Is that possible? k-e is ok for a lot of applications but not for heating of water which actually is a very common application. In water Pr=7 which implies that your thermal boundary is much thinner. To solve this correctly at a heated wall you need a very fine grid at the wall. And then k-e is not vallid anymore, and you will be pretty weird results. Your heat transfercoeficient can be a factor of 4 off. Your apparatus can become a factor of 4 times too small. Other packages have suitable models to solve this complex problem. Does EFD have implemented sophisticated things to overcome this? I agree that engineers won't mind and that they use the results as they come, but I think they need to know these kind of pitfalls. They should not take the results as they come. Astrid |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Meshing related issue in Flow EFD | appu | FloEFD, FloWorks & FloTHERM | 1 | May 22, 2011 08:27 |
EFD vs Flotherm | Jitender | FloEFD, FloWorks & FloTHERM | 15 | January 29, 2009 19:34 |
Running Job in Batch mode (EFD) | Nick Sessions | FloEFD, FloWorks & FloTHERM | 0 | April 16, 2008 16:44 |
New dedicated forum for EFD and FloWorks users | Forum Administrator | Main CFD Forum | 6 | April 15, 2008 11:56 |
comments on FDM, FEM, FVM, SM, SEM, DSEM, BEM | kenn | Main CFD Forum | 2 | July 18, 2004 18:28 |