hi can anyone tell me whats the difference between CFX and fluent...which is more advanced which is more user friendly....which is better to use.....how can one comment one the results obtained from CFX and fluent....

thanks Rashmi

Search the archives, this has been discussed ad nauseam before. The summary is that it is horses for courses, each product has its strengths and weaknesses. I like both.

this pretty much falls into the, how big should my cell size be, which turbulence model is best, how long is a piece of string....idiot question category

Rashmi asked:
: hi can anyone tell me whats the difference between CFX and fluent...

About $570M

in some applications like supersonic/hypersonic flows....fluent is having advantage over cfx..because of its coupled solver (where energy-flow coupling is done directly); i dont think cfx is having this capability. Personally i felt fluent gives faster convergence for the same setup conditions for a problem....if u dig up...many are there.... finally...i can conclude that fluent is better than cfx.

thanks for ur replies i want difference betwenn CFX and fluent for solving multiphase flows........

thanks

Fluent have the upper hand in multiphase flow especially when it involving PBM. CFX has it PBM too but not as advance as Fluent.

[Akshat jain]

ANSYS FLUENTand ANSYS CFX two solvers were developed independently and have a number of things in common, but they also have some significant differences. Both are control-volume based for high accuracy and rely heavily on a pressure-based solution technique for broad applicability. They differ mainly in the way they integrate the fluid flow equations and in their equation solution strategies.The ANSYS CFX solver uses finite elements (cell vertex numerics), similar to those used in mechanical analysis, to discretize the domain. In contrast, the ANSYS FLUENT solver uses finite volumes (cell centered numerics).ANSYS CFX software focuses on one approach to solve the governing equations of motion (coupled algebraic multigrid), while the ANSYS FLUENT product offers several solution approaches (density-, segregated- and coupled-pressure-based methods)

[whuup]

edit: deleted and opened a new threat, since it is a different question I have

[pmechz]

I am simulating mixing of two fluids ( both of them are water with identical physical properties) in a 3D T-shaped micromixer. which software do you recommend for this simulation (CFX or Fluent)?

Best regard

[ganeshhr555]

Dear Member,

As your Flow problem of multi phase with simple geometry and static condition to get faster convergence and user friendly for beginner of CFD CFX is best for you.

Note : If you particularly looking into pressure as output monitor plot then going for fluent with PISO and pressure based solver with second order upwind will have higher accuracy in your solution compare to CFX.

Regards,
Ganesh.T, CFD Eng,
TVS SFL.

[yosefBO]

I am going to simulate fire in compartment. Which one should I use, ANSYS FLEUENT or CFX, in terms of the effect of fire on building X?

[vinerm]

It depends upon the effects you are looking for. If objective is to study the damage to the building due to explosion and not fire, then neither Fluent nor CFX is useful. You have to use Explicit Modeling tools like Autodyn. If you are only interested in heating up and burning of building, then you can use either CFX or Fluent. Both are equally capable; the only thing of higher importance is your comfort with the tools.

[yosefBO]

Dear Vinerm

THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLY
YES I AM INTERESTED IN HEATING UP AND BURNING OF TUNNEL.

THE WORK WILL BE A FIRE IN TUNNEL AND MONITORING THE FIRE OUTPUT
IT JUST TO PREDICT TEMPERATURE AND HOT AIR INSIDE THE TUNNEL
I hope can use the right one

MANY THANKS

[vinerm]

Then, you can use either Fluent or CFX. If you have some experience, then use the one with which you have worked before. If you are beginning to learn the tool, I'd suggest Fluent for combustion.

[yosefBO]

you have said I'd suggest Fluent for combustion.
I can understand CFX has weakness in combustion
so could you kindly explain it a bit more based on what ?
is it regarding complexity or accuracy or what ?

thank you very much

[vinerm]

I am assuming if you are beginning to learn, you will not stop doing it within a few years, until you are doing it for fun. And as far as I know, primary focus of the CFX development is turbomachines and for every other phenomena, Fluent is recommended choice. As far as your current work is concerned, it has got nothing to do with whether you use CFX or Fluent. You will achieve similar results.

[yosefBO]

thankful and grateful for you Vinerm