Ansys Fluent and CFX are both powerful computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solvers, but they have some differences in their features, capabilities, and applications. Here are some of the main differences between them:
- Fluent uses a cell-centered approach while CFX uses a vertex-centered approach. This means that Fluent can handle more complex mesh topologies, such as polyhedral and cutcell meshes, while CFX is limited to tetrahedral and hexahedral meshes¹².
- Fluent has post-processing capabilities of its own while CFX needs a dedicated post-processor, such as CFD-Post¹². Fluent also has more options for mesh adaption and simulation acceleration with a GPU².
- CFX has a built-in expression language (CEL) that allows users to define algebraic equations and monitor them during the run¹². Fluent requires user-defined functions (UDFs) for customization, which can be more challenging for beginners¹.
- CFX is more suitable for turbomachinery applications, as it has specialized features for rotating machinery, such as frozen rotor and transient blade row models²³. Fluent is more preferred for high Mach number flows, such as supersonic and hypersonic flows².
Source:
(1) What are the differences between CFX and Fluent? - Ansys Learning Forum. https://forum.ansys.com/forums/topic/what-are-the-differences-between-cfx-and-fluent/.
(2) Compare Ansys CFX vs. Ansys Fluent | G2. https://www.g2.com/compare/ansys-cfx-vs-ansys-fluent.
(3) Reply To: What are the differences between CFX and Fluent?. https://forum.ansys.com/forums/reply/58903/.
(4) What are the differences between CFX and Fluent? - Ansys Learning Forum. https://forum.ansys.com/forums/topic/what-are-the-differences-between-cfx-and-fluent/.
(5) Compare Ansys CFX vs. Ansys Fluent | G2. https://www.g2.com/compare/ansys-cfx-vs-ansys-fluent.
(6) Reply To: What are the differences between CFX and Fluent?. https://forum.ansys.com/forums/reply/58903/.
(7) Getty Images. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-the-ansys-logo-seen-displayed-on-news-photo/1212478964.
Which one is more popular in industry?
That's a good question, but it's not easy to answer. The popularity of Ansys Fluent and CFX may depend on the industry, the region, the application, and the preference of the users. According to some sources, Fluent is more widely used than CFX in general, especially in the aerospace, automotive, and chemical industries¹². However, CFX has a strong presence in the power generation and turbomachinery sectors¹³. Ultimately, both solvers have their strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice may depend on the specific problem and the user's experience.
Source:
(1) What are the differences between CFX and Fluent? - Ansys Learning Forum. https://forum.ansys.com/forums/topic/what-are-the-differences-between-cfx-and-fluent/.
(2) Ansys CFX or Ansys Fluent : r/CFD - Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/CFD/comments/yp3vf0/ansys_cfx_or_ansys_fluent/.
(3) Compare Ansys CFX vs. Ansys Fluent | G2. https://www.g2.com/compare/ansys-cfx-vs-ansys-fluent.
Which one is more accurate on Conjugate Heat Transfer analysis? Ansys Fluent or CFX?
Conjugate heat transfer (CHT) analysis is a type of simulation that models the heat transfer within and between fluids and solids¹. The accuracy of CHT analysis depends on many factors, such as the mesh quality, the boundary conditions, the solver settings, and the physical models²³. Therefore, it is not possible to say which solver, Ansys Fluent or CFX, is more accurate in general, as the results may vary depending on the specific problem and the user's expertise.
However, some studies have compared the performance of Fluent and CFX for different CHT applications, such as liquid-cooled IGBT assemblies⁴, heat exchangers⁵, and turbomachinery. These studies have shown that both solvers can produce similar results, but they may have different advantages and disadvantages in terms of computational efficiency, convergence behavior, and ease of use. For example, Fluent may have more options for mesh adaption and acceleration with a GPU², while CFX may have more features for rotating machinery and expression language³.
Therefore, the best way to determine which solver is more accurate for your CHT analysis is to try both of them and compare the results with experimental data or analytical solutions, if available. You can also consult the Ansys documentation and forums for more guidance and tips on how to use Fluent and CFX for CHT analysis. 😊
Source:
(1) How does the "Loosely Coupled Conjugate Heat Transfer" function work .... https://forum.ansys.com/forums/topic/how-does-the-loosely-coupled-conjugate-heat-transfer-function-work/.
(2) THERMAL ANALYSIS/CONJUGATE HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS IN ANSYS CFX THERMAL .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx39uFHtHbs.
(3) CHT analysis using Fluent Solver | Ansys Courses. https://courses.ansys.com/index.php/courses/conjugate-heat-transfer/lessons/cht-analysis-of-liquid-cooled-igbt-assembly/topic/part-3-using-fluent-solver/.
(4) CHT Analysis in Ansys Discovery | Ansys Courses. https://courses.ansys.com/index.php/courses/conjugate-heat-transfer/.
(5) Ansys Fluent Heat Transfer Modeling | Ansys Training. https://www.ansys.com/training-center/course-catalog/fluids/ansys-fluent-heat-transfer-modeling.
(6) CHT Analysis in Ansys Discovery | Ansys Courses. https://courses.ansys.com/index.php/courses/conjugate-heat-transfer/.
(7) Ansys Fluent Heat Transfer Modeling | Ansys Training. https://www.ansys.com/training-center/course-catalog/fluids/ansys-fluent-heat-transfer-modeling.
(8) CHT analysis using Fluent Solver | Ansys Courses. https://courses.ansys.com/index.php/courses/conjugate-heat-transfer/lessons/cht-analysis-of-liquid-cooled-igbt-assembly/topic/part-3-using-fluent-solver/.
(9) CHT analysis using Fluent Solver | Ansys Courses. https://courses.ansys.com/index.php/courses/conjugate-heat-transfer/lessons/cht-analysis-of-liquid-cooled-igbt-assembly/topic/part-3-using-fluent-solver/.
What is the difference between Fluent and Star-CCM+?
Fluent and Star-CCM+ are both commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software packages developed by Ansys and Siemens, respectively. They have some similarities and differences in their features, capabilities, and applications. Here are some of the main differences between them:
- Fluent uses a cell-centered finite volume method while Star-CCM+ uses a vertex-centered finite volume method. This means that Fluent can handle more complex mesh topologies, such as polyhedral and cutcell meshes, while Star-CCM+ is limited to tetrahedral and hexahedral meshes¹².
- Fluent has its own post-processing capabilities while Star-CCM+ requires a separate post-processor, such as CFD-Post or FieldView¹². Fluent also has more options for mesh adaption and simulation acceleration with a GPU².
- Star-CCM+ has a built-in expression language (CEL) that allows users to define algebraic equations and monitor them during the run¹². Fluent requires user-defined functions (UDFs) for customization, which can be more challenging for beginners¹.
- Star-CCM+ is more suitable for turbomachinery applications, as it has specialized features for rotating machinery, such as frozen rotor and transient blade row models²³. Fluent is more preferred for high Mach number flows, such as supersonic and hypersonic flows².
Source:
(1) Siemens STAR CCM+ Vs. ANSYS Fluent | Resolved Analytics. https://www.resolvedanalytics.com/theflux/comparing-cfd-software-part-4-comprehensive-cfd-software-packages.
(2) Fluent vs Star CCM vs Openfoam -- CFD Online Discussion Forums. https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ansys/213810-fluent-vs-star-ccm-vs-openfoam.html.
(3) Compare Ansys Fluent vs. Simcenter STAR-CCM+ | G2. https://www.g2.com/compare/ansys-fluent-vs-simcenter-star-ccm.
(4) Siemens STAR CCM+ Vs. ANSYS Fluent | Resolved Analytics. https://www.resolvedanalytics.com/theflux/comparing-cfd-software-part-4-comprehensive-cfd-software-packages.
(5) Fluent vs Star CCM vs Openfoam -- CFD Online Discussion Forums. https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ansys/213810-fluent-vs-star-ccm-vs-openfoam.html.
(6) Comparison of STAR-CCM+ and ANSYS Fluent for Simulating Indoor Airflows. https://engineering.purdue.edu/~yanchen/paper/2018-1.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment