|
[Sponsors] |
January 6, 2006, 02:29 |
Gambit or ICEM CFD
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Dear CFD users,
Just needed your opinion on which one you would prefer to use for meshing purposes and why? Gambit or ICEM CFD. Thanks in advance. Alan |
|
January 6, 2006, 04:24 |
Re: Gambit or ICEM CFD
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
i, for my purposes chose gambit, simply because its easy to work with, and with gambit i can finish my work in almost no time. it depends from person to person i guess.
|
|
January 6, 2006, 04:49 |
Re: Gambit or ICEM CFD
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
ICEM supports many file formats
|
|
January 8, 2006, 04:09 |
Re: Gambit or ICEM CFD
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
It kind of depends on what you are aiming to do. If you are after "structured" style hex meshes, which most people prefer for aerodynamic type flows, Icem is a better option, but it is a big additional expense. Gambit is generally included with Fluent, so it doesn't cost extra. Gambit has one outstanding trick, which is the Cooper mesh. Both programs will make you tear your hair out, unless you are doing something simple. Icem has the great advantage of exporting to virtually every imagineable solver. If money is no problem, get Icem. Failing that, Gambit can certainly do the job, but you will probably have to look closely at block decomposition and either mapped or Cooper meshes.
|
|
January 8, 2006, 06:17 |
Re: Gambit or ICEM CFD
|
#5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
yes cooper is great thing, it once happened that my boss boasted they can create the 'same' mesh in 1 hour with hypermesh, well they started 10 am in morning, and evening 5pm they were grapling with the software and no success. Gambit has its good features and others also have theirs, it all depends upon what you want to do and with what you feel about the software.
|
|
January 9, 2006, 15:00 |
Re: Gambit or ICEM CFD
|
#6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
If I could recommend something, that would be Gridgen. I find it great, especially when it comes to complex geometries. I meshed some geometries I would not even attempt to with Gambit.
|
|
January 10, 2006, 08:22 |
Re: Gambit or ICEM CFD
|
#7 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
If you plan to mesh from dirty or complicated cad geometry my experience is that Icem is superior. Remember that gambit will look a Fluent license, so if you want to be able to mesh while running simulations, you'll need a extra Fluent-license, and then Icem is not more expensive.
|
|
January 10, 2006, 10:03 |
Re: Gambit or ICEM CFD
|
#8 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I have worked with both ICEM and GAMBIT and I find ICEM the superior of the two. It as faster and a lot more stable when considering tet-meshes. For instance in ICEM, you don't need to have a volume, it can just be a collection of surfaces and as long the gaps between the surfaces are smaller than the cell sizes, a mesh is easily created. For GAMBIT to come up with a mesh you have to created one (or several) volumes. And the volumes are not created unles you have removed all the cracks. This could be a quite time consuming proces. Gambit comes together with the Fluent package, and Icem comes together with the CFX package.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Need help icem cfd | kakhtar | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 25 | January 31, 2017 02:09 |
Learn ANSYS ICEM CFD | easy_astronaut | ANSYS | 2 | December 15, 2013 16:34 |
icem cfd ai environment 11.0, laptop keyboard problem, linux | pertupd | Hardware | 3 | October 3, 2011 09:27 |
[ICEM] Export unstructured periodic mesh from ICEM CFD to Fluent | ivanddd | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 1 | February 3, 2011 01:51 |
Which is better to develop in-house CFD code or to buy a available CFD package. | Tareq Al-shaalan | Main CFD Forum | 10 | June 13, 1999 00:27 |