|
[Sponsors] |
February 23, 2010, 18:51 |
Fluent or CFX
|
#1 |
New Member
Mehdi
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0 |
Dear friends
In your opinion which one is better to solve problem of fluid mechanics CFX Fluent Tnx |
|
February 23, 2010, 19:04 |
|
#2 |
Member
Skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 67
Rep Power: 17 |
||
February 24, 2010, 06:31 |
|
#3 |
Member
james britton
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 16 |
well that was a useful comment!
CFX and Fluent are both pretty similar now they are under the ANSYS umbrella and both can now operate out of work bench. I personally find CFX easier to use but solver wise they are pretty similar now in most instances. It depends if you have a specific problem in mind I might be able to help further. But most of the time it can come down to a matter of which one you find easiest to use or are most familiar with. |
|
February 25, 2010, 01:54 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
|
dear friends:
Do you mean you are a new to the computational fluid? I think fluet is a more general software, CFX has some speciall capbility for the turbin .Both of them are well documented and can be grasped easily. thank you |
|
February 26, 2010, 05:43 |
|
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 16 |
I know that quite a number of Formula 1 teams use Fluent (or did recently).
|
|
February 26, 2010, 06:23 |
|
#6 |
Member
james britton
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 16 |
Yes they still do, but highly customised codes of FLUENT, but it is excellent to look at turbulence and seperation. FLUENT for years has been the CFD code of choice for the f1 industry before it was bought by ANSYS.
But as I said before CFX now has incorporated much of the FLUENT code as they are both now owned by ANSYS so it pretty much up to personal preference which platform you would prefer to use. Gambit which is used in conjunction with FLUENT is a bit of a pain mind you. |
|
March 1, 2010, 07:19 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 17 |
I thought CFX is a pressure based code, whereas FLUENT is density based. For super/hypersonics, this is of importance since the density jump across a shock is limited (Hugoniot, 6 for gamma=1.4), whereas the pressure jump can be any value. Solver stability is therefore increased when using a density based code in such circumstances.
If this is not how it works, please let me know, I'm not a CFD guru yet ! |
|
March 3, 2010, 04:31 |
|
#8 |
New Member
Jon Wilde
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 17 |
I am surprised at some of these answers, surely it depends on the application? What is the indended use?
Of the two, I have only used Fluent in the past so don't feel qualified to make a judgement either way. |
|
March 9, 2010, 13:58 |
|
#9 |
New Member
Stephen
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 16 |
Here is a link showing a comparison of all ANSYS products for version 12.1. Fluent is both a pressure and density solver. You just need to select which one you want based on your model. While CFX is purely a pressure based solver. Which to me would be a limitation if you wanted to run high speed compressible flows. I know Fluent is the best choice with respect to combustion. But eventually it won't matter since they will eventually be merged in ANSYS CFD.
http://www.ansys.com/assets/brochure...ities-12.1.pdf |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFX or FLuent? | michelle | CFX | 7 | June 10, 2014 08:38 |
Fluent or CFX - strenghts, weaknesses? | Riaan | Main CFD Forum | 8 | March 15, 2010 06:32 |
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 |