A recent effort to compare the performance of four commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software packages for microfluidic applications (T. Glatzel, 2008) was recently brought to the attention of the staff at Flow Science, Inc. The paper reported simulation results from the four CFD packages for a set of flow problems typically encountered in microfluidics. The intent of the paper was to compare the quality of the solvers by removing differentiating features (meshing, special numerical algorithms, etc.) from the analysis. While we acknowledge the worthiness and difficulty of the task, we believe there are some significant limitations to the usefulness of the comparisons made in the paper.
To begin, the modeling restrictions employed prevented the individual software programs from making use of particular options they might have for obtaining better simulations of particular flow problems. A second point, at least in connection with our software product, FLOW-3D®, we have noted numerous inaccuracies in the software’s description, an incorrect use of boundary conditions and several other failures to operate the software properly. This note is intended to correct these deficiencies and omissions as well as to present a repetition of the computational examples, as near as possible, from data given in the original paper. It will be shown that FLOW-3D® performs all the comparison problems as well or better than other software tools included in the original study.