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

Which Package to Use?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   June 22, 2004, 18:21
Default Which Package to Use?
  #1
EdUCSD
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello All, I'm relatively new to the field of CFD and I'm starting working on Masters/PhD research at UCSD. I'll be working on the aerodynamic design of a UAV that we're building here. I'm wondering what commercially available CFD codes are the most appropriate to this sort of analysis. Initially I'll only be concerned with the static structural case of airflow over the design, which will be a blended wing design (so the easy to use airfoil design software can't be used). I'll then move on to aeroelastic interaction, which I'm sure will be much harder and possibly require some original thought and code.

I've been looking hard at STAR-Works because it seems as though it integrates nicely with SolidWorks - the CAD package we've used to model the design. STAR-CCM+ is also an option, if the SolidWorks interaction isn't as nice as it sounds.

I've also looked at CFX and FLUENT and they look to be about the same (as far as I can tell).

Since our design is modeled in SolidWorks, I think I'll be forced to run Windows, but I'd rather run Linux.

Any input is appreciated. Thanks!
  Reply With Quote

Old   June 23, 2004, 13:13
Default Re: Which Package to Use?
  #2
Jarmo Monttinen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Considering what you are trying to do, I would use either Gridgen or GridTool/VGRID for gridding. The latter can be obtained for free. Both take IGES-input, although some entities may not be read in properly.

For solver, take a look at Cobalt. I've been happy with its performance for MAVs and other aero-problems as well. All these have been for a fixed geometry.

Just my two cents, not advertisement....

-- Jarmo
  Reply With Quote

Old   June 23, 2004, 22:27
Default Re: Which Package to Use?
  #3
Mike Harrison
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I guess the first thing I would look at is FloWorks PE since it is sold by SolidWorks and integrates directly into SolidWorks. It does not run on Linux but has the advantage of working directly with the SW geometry making iterative analysis much easier. Your University probably already has an agreement in place for you to check FloWorks out.

Best regards, Mike
  Reply With Quote

Old   June 25, 2004, 03:36
Default Re: Which Package to Use?
  #4
Robin Langtry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CFX is the only commercial code with a laminar-turbulent transition model and your blended wing body case would a very interesting test case for transtition (smooth geometry, low Reynolds number). Also CFX had very good predictions of lift, drag and pitching moments at the last AIAA drag prediction workshop. If anyone is interested, email me (robin.langtry@ansys.com) and I can forward some papers on these two topics.

Robin Langtry
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 5, 2004, 22:21
Default Re: Which Package to Use?
  #5
Mike Harrison
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi Robin,

Just a minor correction to your post..."CFX is the only commercial code with a laminar-turbulent transition model". EFD.V5 (for Catia V5), EFD.Lab and FloWorks have a laminar-turbulent transition model.

Thanks, Mike
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 6, 2004, 03:33
Default Re: Which Package to Use?
  #6
Robin Langtry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Has there been a paper written on the model and has it been validated for more than just one test case (i.e. predicting the drag crisis of a cylinder)? My feeling is that you can't really claim you have a transition model unless you can show that it can predict the combined effect of freestream turbulence intensity, pressure gradient and separation on transition for a variety of different test cases/flow conditions.

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 6, 2004, 10:03
Default Re: Which Package to Use?
  #7
Mike Harrison
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, there are academic and commercial validations. Perhaps you should take some time to learn a bit more about the codes you slight when you claim CFX has the only laminar turbulent transition model.

Sorry to everyone else, I didn't mean to hijack this thread but Robin's statements couldn't go unchallenged, imho.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 6, 2004, 10:43
Default Re: Which Package to Use?
  #8
Robin Langtry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wasn't meant as a slight, I've just never seen any papers published on this transition model before, as a result I've never heard of it. My only point is that transition modelling is a tough field and to convince people you have something viable you have to demonstrate in an open forum it works. This is why we published two papers on our transition model at the IGTI 2004 in Vienna (papers GT2004-53452 and 53454). All I was asking is if there has been a similar validation performed on your model and are the results being openly disseminated. If so, fine what are the references.
  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
Extend Project 1.6-ext Binary Release for Mac OS X hjasak OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 26 November 5, 2013 17:50
OpenFoam 1.6-ext - RPM build errors preibie OpenFOAM 12 September 8, 2011 03:12
OpenFOAM 1.6 package - CentOS 5.3 x86_64 linnemann OpenFOAM Installation 36 September 2, 2009 12:46
OpenFOAM 1.5.x package - CentOS 5.3 x86_64 linnemann OpenFOAM Installation 7 July 30, 2009 03:14
Errors running allwmake in OpenFOAM141dev with WM_COMPILE_OPTION%3ddebug unoder OpenFOAM Installation 11 January 30, 2008 21:30


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:22.