Comparison between ANSYS CFX and ANSYS FLUENT:
I have worked with two commercial packages Fluent and CFX. I have some experience with Star-CCM+, I can see that it is developing with time. I like CFX because it is a new solver with a better graphical user interface than Fluent. It has the option of using the expression language which is very powerful especially when you want to apply changing surrounding parameters in relation to time. Another important advantage is that instead of you writing a whole new code from scratch ANSYS has made It possible to create your own models with user defined functions written in FORTRAN. The negative drawback of FLUENT that ANSYS has not provided it with an expression language however ANSYS has provided the user with the option of adding user defined functions written in C Language. Therefore ANSYS CFX is much flexible to use than ANSYS FLUENT.
Talking from the perspective of used numerical method of the main difference between Fluent and CFX is in the terms of numerical diffusion, this is discussed in-depth in the book called the Finite Volume Method by H. Versteeg , W. Malalasekera. The user has to know that ANSYS CFX uses a node centered solver while ANSYS FLUENT uses a cell centered solver. This results in that a tetrahedral grid for ANSYS CFX has many more faces than that for a grid used in ANSYS FLUENT. This is advantageous where more captured information is available for in ANSYS CFX which contributes to the reduction of numerical diffusion. It is advisable based on the mentioned point to use a very fine tetrahedral mesh for a complex geometry or use a fine hexahedral mesh for a uniform mesh.
Talking from the perspective of used numerical method of the main difference between Fluent and CFX is in the terms of numerical diffusion, this is discussed in-depth in the book called the Finite Volume Method by H. Versteeg , W. Malalasekera. The user has to know that ANSYS CFX uses a node centered solver while ANSYS FLUENT uses a cell centered solver. This results in that a tetrahedral grid for ANSYS CFX has many more faces than that for a grid used in ANSYS FLUENT. This is advantageous where more captured information is available for in ANSYS CFX which contributes to the reduction of numerical diffusion. It is advisable based on the mentioned point to use a very fine tetrahedral mesh for a complex geometry or use a fine hexahedral mesh for a uniform mesh.
Ease of use and flexibility of the Graphical User Interface:
For both CFX and Fluent the mesh generation package is a powerful one talking about the latest version of ANSYS 14 or ANSYS 14.5. For beginners the user can get started quickly in the meshing process by using the automatic mesh generation option. This will be obvious to the user when complex geometries are involved in the study process. I have noticed through experience that It is generally harder to produce a good hexahedral mesh in complex geometries in comparison with the tetrahedral mesh option.
Quality of the Available Technical Support:
Regarding user support both CFX and Fluent are sold by ANSYS which has a good user support setup. I have contacted ANSYS Customer support several times and they were very efficient in their rate if response, quality of advice and customer follow up.
Price for Both a Standalone License and How it Scales in HPC:
The user has to keep in mind when he plans for a project is how many license are required for use and how many times with the license's be required.
Unless otherwise noted, all content on this site is @Copyright by Ahmed Al Makky 2012-2023 - http://cfd2012.com