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

Relative strengths of different CFD packages

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 30, 2003, 00:53
Default Relative strengths of different CFD packages
  #1
Kerrin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi,

I'm trying to get a feel for which CFD package might be best for my needs while not starting off another one of those pointless 'Which is the best CFD package?' type threads. Rather, I though I would try and take a more specific approach to the question.

Q: Out of the big four (I am guessing Fluent, Star-CD, CFX5 and CFD-RC), what would you say are the relative strengths and weaknesses of each be in the following areas:

* General preprocessing/meshing: * Ease of meshing complex geometries: * Convergence speed: * Solver stability: * Postprocessing: * Turbulence modelling: * Combustion: * Range of physical models: * Other:

eg package A might be quite good at meshing but might not be as good as package B when it comes to combustion etc.

That way I (and anyone else reading this), can maybe get an indication of the best package depending on their intended uses for it.

Thanks for your help folks.

Kerrin
  Reply With Quote

Old   January 30, 2003, 06:37
Default Re: Relative strengths of different CFD packages
  #2
Dimitri
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I dont think this that there is an answer to your question. Most of the features you mention are generic and it is obvious that all packages will a have fairly similar overall value. Otherwise, some of them would soon run out of business...

The value of a solution IMHO will come from a mix of the time you will invest in learning the code and the relationship you will succeed in establishing with the support whenever you need it.

Cheers,

Dimitri.
  Reply With Quote

Old   January 30, 2003, 12:28
Default Re: Relative strengths of different CFD packages
  #3
Pao
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There are problems in solution accuracy, that also depend on the mesh, turbulent model, execution time.
  Reply With Quote

Old   February 12, 2003, 20:10
Default Re: Relative strengths of different CFD packages
  #4
ed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Before buying our CFD code we did a quite thorough search of the market, and tested STAR, Fluent and CFD-ACE in detail.

Between STAR and Fluent, I think it depends on what sort of business you're in.

Fluent is great for consultancy work or when you have to do lots of different, one-off models. Its pre/postprocessing is simple and quick, and it has more physical modelling capability than star. Although I'm not sure of the current state of Combustion modelling, my feeling is that Fluent is probably better. Fluent also has both coupled and segregated solvers, which should be a benefit regarding solver stability in certain cases, but I think that STAR will get a coupled solver "soon".

STAR is much harder to get in to, and supplies less physical modelling options built-in than Fluent. But it is very powerful in terms of it's pre/postprocessing Macro language (some people have even written automatic meshing routines in this language!) and it seems to be easier to create User-Defined subroutines which run consistently and converge than with Fluent. STAR is good if you want to model a few types of flow in as efficient and automated a way as possible.

In terms of turbulence modelling, Fluent and CFX have more options than STAR, but STAR is catching up.

The major drawback of CFX that we saw was that it has a structured code (TASCFlow) which has all the physics but not the complex geometry ability, and an unstructured code (CFX 5) which can do complex meshes but not all of the physics. This was last year, so it is sure to have progressed.....

CFD-ACE is a bit like Fluent in terms of point and click ease of use, and is the strongest code out there in terms of radiation, if that's your thing. But it seems to lack flexibility.

In the end we went for STAR, but as you said, it depends what business you're in. As for meshing, that's another story. You can buy meshers as part of the package, or separately, like ICEM.

OK, so I can now expect flak in response from all the code vendors.....
  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
Any CFD commercial packages leo Main CFD Forum 5 May 14, 2003 11:42
ASME CFD Symposium, Atlanta, July 2001 Chris R. Kleijn Main CFD Forum 0 September 13, 2000 04:48
CFD for fans & blower housings David Carroll Main CFD Forum 8 August 24, 2000 17:25
ASME CFD Symposium, Atlanta, July 2001 Chris R. Kleijn Main CFD Forum 0 August 21, 2000 04:49
public CFD Code development Heinz Wilkening Main CFD Forum 38 March 5, 1999 12:44


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05.