Learning Forum

[Abhishek Shingala]

[NickFL]

Do you mean a .msh file?

On the project page add a Component System -> CFX to your project. Double-click Setup to open CFX-Pre. From the file menu, select File -> import -> Mesh. Navigate to the directory where your mesh file is. Typically in Workbench it would be created to ProjectName\dp#\SYS\MECH or something similar. Select the file and make sure you set it to the right units (although scaling in CFX later is easy too, just don't forget).

Personally I would avoid Workbench most cases. Just run CFX in stand-alone mode unless you have a reason not to.

 

[Abhishek Shingala]

Actually I mean, in the workbench I am generating meshing in fluent meshing mode now I have to save this mesh.h5 seperetly and then import it into CFX the way you mentioned, but I want to use connection between 'Fluent (with Fluent Meshing)' and 'CFX' in Workbench.

[NickFL]

I don't think there is a way to create a visual connection link on the project page. Is there a reason why you need it? One thing to keep in mind, the mesh created in Fluent meshing has settings that are optimized for Fluent. While the mesh can be used in CFX, it is less optimal. That is why there is the option to switch between CFX and Fluent when working with ANSYS Meshing.

[Rob]

To add, many mesh features in Fluent Meshing won't work in CFX. 

[Abhishek Shingala]

Okay, thanks. can you please elaborate 'meshing features wont work in CFX' I mean, I am creating tetrahedral or Hybrid Hexcore mesh in Fluent, which I am importing in CFX for solving.

Actually I want to leverage easy way to mesh in Fluent and greater convergence and accuracy of CFX solver (vertex based approach).

[Rob]

CFX doesn't understand Fluent poly cells, some of the hanging node options etc. So using any of those is going to cause a problem. Quality reporting may not be ideal either as it's designed for cell based metrics. I'd also question why you think node based is more accurate; convergence looks different but that's down to the way the residuals are reported. 

[Abhishek Shingala]

Yes true, I don't know the very exact reason, but in the market they says, for turbomachinery one should use CFX, as many have experience better results and easy post processing.

I believe, with poly cells and cell centered approach of fluent can also give comparatively better results infact, as the cells are othogonal to each other in polycells. Is'nt it?

 

[Rob]

That's a long and complex topic, and one I'm not going to go into! 

I'll refer you to the documentation, including references and Ansys Blogs for the benefits and background to poly meshes. 

[NickFL]

So we do not want to get into the discussion about how a CFX tetrahedral mesh is basically just a Fluent polyhedral mesh? Cool, I haven't had to worry about such things in a long time.

But back to the original post, both CFX and Fluent are capable solvers. CFX had traditionally been the "leader" in turbomachinery because it has tools like TurboGrid that simplifies grid creation for such problems. To me, creating a good quality CFX mesh in Fluent meshing seems like adding complexity where it is not needed.