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

2D for FLuent vs CFX

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

Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By aero_head
  • 2 Post By flotus1
  • 1 Post By LuckyTran
  • 1 Post By arjun
  • 1 Post By naffrancois

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   April 12, 2021, 09:43
Default 2D for FLuent vs CFX
  #1
Senior Member
 
Brett
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 197
Rep Power: 11
Bdew8556 is on a distinguished road
Hi guys,

Just a general question. I've heard CFX can't handle a true 2D mesh. Anyone know the technical reason?

Brett
Bdew8556 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 12, 2021, 15:31
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Kira
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 436
Rep Power: 6
aero_head is on a distinguished road
I believe it is just because of the coding of the solver; it is not coded to handle a 2D mesh, it is naturally a 3D solver. The fact that Fluent can do it might be why they have not implemented it.
arjun likes this.
aero_head is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 12, 2021, 15:33
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Brett
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 197
Rep Power: 11
Bdew8556 is on a distinguished road
I know that FLuent is a centred based code, whereas CFX is node based. Could that have something to do with it?
Bdew8556 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 12, 2021, 15:40
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
flotus1's Avatar
 
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,067
Rep Power: 43
flotus1 has a spectacular aura aboutflotus1 has a spectacular aura about
I don't think it's a technical reason. Developing a true 2D solver that 99% of your paying customers don't need -alongside the 3D solver- just isn't worth it. Especially when you have a similar solver that can handle true 2D.
arjun and aero_head like this.
flotus1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 12, 2021, 17:23
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,006
Rep Power: 60
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
CFX (Flow3D in the UK) has been 3D only since the 1980s. Hardly any of the commercial CFD software developed since has supported a truly 2D environment (Star-CCM doesn't, OpenFOAM doesn't). These software straight cannot import a 2D mesh. And they have no reason to.

Fluent was 2D and then added 3D whereas most of thee other software skipped that development phase entirely. Fluent continues to support the 2D environment, I don't really see why. It's really hard to even find a 2D mesher nowadays. Gambit is defunct. GridPro is honestly the only 2D mesher I use.

It's like asking why you cannot put a 12VDC lead-acid battery in a Tesla or a Boeing 787, they were never designed for it.
aero_head likes this.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 13, 2021, 05:14
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Rep Power: 29
arjun will become famous soon enougharjun will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
CFX (Flow3D in the UK) has been 3D only since the 1980s. Hardly any of the commercial CFD software developed since has supported a truly 2D environment (Star-CCM doesn't, OpenFOAM doesn't). These software straight cannot import a 2D mesh. And they have no reason to.

Fluent was 2D and then added 3D whereas most of thee other software skipped that development phase entirely. Fluent continues to support the 2D environment, I don't really see why. It's really hard to even find a 2D mesher nowadays. Gambit is defunct. GridPro is honestly the only 2D mesher I use.

It's like asking why you cannot put a 12VDC lead-acid battery in a Tesla or a Boeing 787, they were never designed for it.


Very much true. Its not worth the efforts.

Wildkatze like fluent also support true 2d (that is only x y mesh and not cell cell width mesh) but we did not put efforts to support unmatched interface with it because usage is so low.

(Can add but effort is not worth) .


Not many solvers support true 2d nowadays.
aero_head likes this.
arjun is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 13, 2021, 11:26
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 184
Rep Power: 12
naffrancois is on a distinguished road
On a user standpoint, most of our customers (but not all of them) are indeed in the end solely interested in fully 3D simulations.

On our side however, in the early stages of development of a new model equation or new Riemann solver starting directly on 3D grids is simply not an option. This is why, while our code was still in the range of 30k lines we decided to make it truly multi-D (1D/2D/2.5D/3D) in an almost fully transparent way. After all a base solver mainly sees vertex-face-cell connectivities. Our code has since grown a lot and this just makes things way much easier having it all in the same environment.
aero_head likes this.
naffrancois is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
cfx & fluent, mathematics

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CFX Treatment of Laminar and Turbulent Flows Jade M CFX 18 September 15, 2022 07:08
High Resolution (CFX) vs 2nd Order Upwind (Fluent) gravis ANSYS 3 March 24, 2011 02:43
CFX pressure in Simulations problem nasdak CFX 1 April 14, 2010 13:22
PhD using CFX Rui CFX 9 May 28, 2007 05:59
FSI using CFX and ANSYS Bi Chang CFX 2 May 10, 2005 04:47


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30.