[oell]

Hi,

my Professor asked me to take a look at OpenFOAM to see if it could be an alternative to CFX. Therefore I installed it and set up some testcases. I compared a simple cavitation testcase with about 154998 elements on both programs and got almost the same calculation times, but on different pc's with almost comparable hardware. As far as I could see, OF is able to produce equivalent results to commercial programms. Now I would like to know if somebody else compared calculation times between OpenFOAM and CFX or Fluent.

Thanks in advance,

Olli

[cedric_duprat]

Hi Oliver,

I think, if I remember well, that you can find thread on what you are looking for here (OF vs Fluent).
but, If you want, I know an other comparaison between OF and CFX of turbulent flow in water turbines.
Hakan NILSSON 23rd IAHR Symposium - Yokohama October 2006 "Evaluation of OpenFOAM for CFD of turbulent flow in water turbines"

Hope it will help you.
Regard,

Cedric

[oell]

Hi Cedric,
thanks for your help. I took a look at the threads you have mentioned and they are quite interesting altough they are not touching any calcultion times.

Thanks

Olli

[jens_klostermann]

Hi Olli,

It seems that OF is slower compared to Fluent but this depends a lot on the solver parameters (AMG parameters differ little in both codes), also the residual definition is quite different in both codes. So that the number of iterations (to get "convergence") can be quite different although the same residuals are set.

Jens

PS Es ist schwer nicht Äpfel mit Birnen zu vergleichen.