|
[Sponsors] |
July 4, 2002, 05:56 |
CFDRC & CFD++
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Anybody would like to comment on CFDRC & CFD++ compared with the big three (Fluent, Star-CD & CFX) ?
|
|
July 4, 2002, 08:02 |
Re: CFDRC & CFD++
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi Add something about PHOENICS also. Rgds
|
|
July 5, 2002, 13:59 |
Re: CFDRC & CFD++
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
CFD-ACE+ from CFDRC provides excellent capabilities for multi-physics simulation that the other packages do not contain. As such, CFD-ACE+ maximizes user efficiency for performing simulation that require coupled physics in order to get meaningful results. Some examples are: plasma reactor, fuel cell, lab-on-a-chip system simulations. These types of devices require simulation of not just flow and heat transfer, but electro-physics, ion transport, surface chemistry, bio-chemistry (and other) physics.
CFD-ACE+ has many physical models built-in so that extensive (and time consuming) wrtiting of user subroutines is not required. Regards, Alton Reich Sr. Engineer - CFD Research Corp. |
|
July 5, 2002, 18:04 |
Re: CFDRC & CFD++
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
That's one side of the story... the flowsolver of CFX (that uses segeregated algorithm) is probably un-beatable. I have experimented with this. Each software has it's own weakness & strengths...u gotta choose depending on ur needs.
regards Abhijit |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFD Wiki - We Need More Help! | Jonas Larsson | Main CFD Forum | 0 | September 26, 2005 08:11 |
Where do we go from here? CFD in 2001 | John C. Chien | Main CFD Forum | 36 | January 24, 2001 21:10 |
ASME CFD Symposium, Atlanta, July 2001 | Chris R. Kleijn | Main CFD Forum | 0 | August 21, 2000 04:49 |
Since Last June | John C. Chien | Main CFD Forum | 3 | July 12, 1999 09:38 |
Which is better to develop in-house CFD code or to buy a available CFD package. | Tareq Al-shaalan | Main CFD Forum | 10 | June 12, 1999 23:27 |