Hi to everyone, could someone plz tell me that which CFD package is power among FLUENT, StarCD or CFX. Thanks

may be each of them is only powerful in a particular region.

Hi to everyone, could someone plz tell me that which car is power among Peugeot, Renault or VW. Thanks

It has been my experience that for transonic and supersonic flow StarCD is totally useless, since it cannot properly capture shocks. I thought perhaps that I was not using it right, since there are so many 'switches' and I never found the one for proper upwinding (which would allow for shocks). So I decided to visit their website and downloaded the following brochure,

http://www.cd-adapco.com/products/brochures/aerouk.pdf

On page 2 of this PDF is an article, "Sub- to Hypersonic", which supposedly shows shockwaves over the space shuttle. These are exactly the kind of 'shocks' that me and my colleagues got when using StarCD, except we don't consider these rather gradual changes in flow properties 'shocks'.

Did you get better results using a different code but the same mesh? What about the coupled solver in CCM+? Have you tried it?

Jokes apart,

Has there been any comparison of commercial CFD codes published in the literature?

I think Tariq is a student and we should not confuse him among the softwares.See every software had got its own advantages and disadvantges.

As i Know CFX tool is good for Turbomachinery that is internal flow with rotary motion(Like Gas turbines,Hydraulic Turbines) which captures all the necessary parameter.

Fluent tool is good for general Purpose CFD application like Arodynamic Analysis,HAVC, heat transfer, atmospheric science, food processing industry etc..... But recently they have released a module which can be applied to Turbomachinery(but I dont knowhow good it is)

About StarCD tool it can be used specifically in Aeronautical Industry (very specific to this field).This software is used for designing of AC Ducts, distribution of Air inside closed chamber(ofcourse inside aircraft)basically HVAC.And it can also be used to predict shock waves as told by other person......

I have little Knowlegde about this as a student, any more information is invited.

Regarads'

RAJURAMAIAH

But funny enough I did my first full transient 3d turbomachinery calculation with sliding mesh (rotating frames for getting the initial solution) using StarCD in 1996. At this time I had just given up trying Fluent and TASCflow (now part of CFX) was also not able to do it.

It is true that all the packages have some areas where they have advantages but your examples are just a myth.

For students I would recommend a look at OpenFOAM.

This is no joke. In fact it is all that can be said about this question. Things are different if one asks about what code is best suited to a particular flow problem. Like what car is the best for my particular needs.

Sometime in the mid-90's, an AIAA meeting was held at Incline Village. Nevada. This is a 'resort' on the Eastern shore of Lake Tahoe. A series of sessions was devoted to a 'shoot-out' between commercial CFD codes marketed at the time. The problems were set up and run, and the results presented, by reps from each participating company.

Several difficult problems were available. Not every company tried every problem, and the results were NOT uniform at all. Some companies didn't exist then, and others chose to skip the competition.

A good technical librarian should be able to identify this meeting and obtain the proceedings of the comparison sessions.

How relevant the results will be today (perhaps 10-15 years later) is less certain.

Regarding fluid flow simulation, does anybody know the differences among them, in terms of precision and convergence time (including FEMLAB in the list)?