Hi,

There is lot of difference in Star CCM+ simulations and Ansys Fluent simulations. But sometimes there is no difference at all! It depends upon how meshing is done and what sorts of boundary conditions are provided while solving.

But still if I want to differentiate between 2 giants in CFD industry, then fluent has more user friendliness while modeling the problem whereas star CCM+ do not provide that much readiness as the media spoke person of CD-Adapco say that ‘user need to know an exact problem so we just provide open environment to the user so he/she can model whichever the way user want’ most of the time Star CCM+ works with Simpson’s 1/3rd rule or 3/8th rule while solving the calculus part of model so the computational cost is more(sometimes you need supercomputer or core cluster computer is must) and solving time is more but results are more accurate without making assumptions. But Ansys uses statistical iterative methods (like Newton-Raphson Iterative method, or In-Situ Adaptive integral Tabulations (ISAT)) which takes less computing cost (you can use laptop or personal computer also) and also less time but results are less accurate and sometimes assumptions.

Star CCM+ uses polyhedral mesh with problem adaptive hybrid cell convergence so that you don’t need to waste time on meshing, but in Ansys meshing is more of kind of open environment so you need to define all sorts of meshing functions like problem and specific cell inflation, cell size etc. otherwise the final solutions may get wrong results.

In the end the user needs to decide what sort of problem he or she needs to model.

I have attached small comparison based article which is not regarding to your research but it may give some directions to your research.

I would suggest you to use Star-CCM+ for pump simulations as the Voith Hydro in Pennsylvania uses Star CCM+ for there Turbomachinery related problems   

Hi,

There is lot of difference in Star CCM+ simulations and Ansys Fluent simulations. But sometimes there is no difference at all! It depends upon how meshing is done and what sorts of boundary conditions are provided while solving.

But still if I want to differentiate between 2 giants in CFD industry, then fluent has more user friendliness while modeling the problem whereas star CCM+ do not provide that much readiness as the media spoke person of CD-Adapco say that ‘user need to know an exact problem so we just provide open environment to the user so he/she can model whichever the way user want’ most of the time Star CCM+ works with Simpson’s 1/3rd rule or 3/8th rule while solving the calculus part of model so the computational cost is more(sometimes you need supercomputer or core cluster computer is must) and solving time is more but results are more accurate without making assumptions. But Ansys uses statistical iterative methods (like Newton-Raphson Iterative method, or In-Situ Adaptive integral Tabulations (ISAT)) which takes less computing cost (you can use laptop or personal computer also) and also less time but results are less accurate and sometimes assumptions.

Star CCM+ uses polyhedral mesh with problem adaptive hybrid cell convergence so that you don’t need to waste time on meshing, but in Ansys meshing is more of kind of open environment so you need to define all sorts of meshing functions like problem and specific cell inflation, cell size etc. otherwise the final solutions may get wrong results.

In the end the user needs to decide what sort of problem he or she needs to model.

I have attached small comparison based article which is not regarding to your research but it may give some directions to your research.

I would suggest you to use Star-CCM+ for pump simulations as the Voith Hydro in Pennsylvania uses Star CCM+ for there Turbomachinery related problems   

i think that fluent is more user friendly compare to CCM+

Dear Ahmad,

To be honest, I have not used any of these two software packages since 3 years ago, but traditionally Fluent (now belonging to ANSYS) has been the leader CFD in aeronautics applications and for computing the aerodynamic performances of racing cars (e.g., Formula-1) and even wind turbine rotors because of its superior performance and functionalities. So, if you can choose, I would also recommend you to use Fluent.

Under particular circumstances (like short student projects), I have recommended to my students to use Star CCM+ because it had an automatic mesher, while it was much more time consuming to master Gambit (the mesher with which Fluent used to work). Maybe ANSYS now offers a powerful automatic mesher for using with Fluent and thus I wouldn't be able to think of any other reason for not choosing Fluent.

The accuracy is depend on type of mesher in ANSYS & CCM+. I would say finite volume mesh is best for predicting fluid properties and finite element mesh are best for structural mechanics.

Hi

that's an old post but I think people are still looking at it, so here is a bit of information:

Ashish: STAR-CCM+ has In-Situ Adaptive integral Tabulations and a number of other methods to speed up computation. High quality CFD will require a lot of compute power both with Fluent and STAR-CCM+. I'd argue that, in many cases, compute costs is more dependent on the ability of the CFD engineer than on the software. If the engineer knows well his application, he'll be able to use the simplest model and smallest mesh that will give him adequate results.

Jose: I don't think Fluent is the technology leader. See attached slide from Joe Kayser, CEO of Siemens when Siemens announced the acquisition of CD-adapco last year. 43 out of 45 largest commercial CFD users in the world used STAR-CCM+in Q1 2016.

Mostafa: What do you find more user friendly in Fluent than in STAR-CCM+? Certainly not optimisation, meshing, post-processing and automation. I think STAR-CCM+ is the clear leader there, by a long shot.

I personally use STAR-CCM+ for a number of reasons. The main one is: it's the easiest premium CFD software to entirely automate. The whole CFD workflow: CAD, meshing, solving, optimisation and post-processing can be automated in one macro. Automation and optimisation should be the ultimate goal of any CFD engineer: it multiplies your output by orders of magnitude on certain jobs. With the rise of AI, I am sure automation that will make a big difference...

Will CCM+ solution is more dependent to mesh quality when compare to FLUENT solution. Which means if my mesh quality is poor else I have less time for pre processing which one I would prefer to get more accurate result?

Hi Mahendravarman,

Meshing is integrated and automated in STAR-CCM+. It's easy to modify the CAD or increase mesh refinement anywhere in your model, as required.

So you should have plenty of time for post-processing with STAR-CCM+.

I can't comment on how mesh quality dependence compares with fluent.

My experience is that automation of pre-processing (setting the sections, reports, plots, threshold etc...) saves a huge amount of time on repetitive work. You can literally click a button and get all your pre-processing done in a few sec.

useful info that Star-CCM more realistic than Fluent..... Thanks