Currently, if you want to change your units, when you already have results, you need to use a support share file.
It would be a better workflow if you could change your units in your active design study even if this had to delete the current mesh and results.
It would be nice to have the ability to specify a spatially varying heat flux boundary condition, or in other words a heat flux profile or distribution. This could be done by defining a function of heat flux as a function of position on a surface with appropriate limits. As of right now, the only way to accomplish this is to break the surface into descrete surfaces and apply average heat fluxes to each region. This can be especially painful when you have a steep slope in the distribution of heat flux vs. position function.
This would be useful for applications where the heat flux applied to a surface is non-uniform, such as concentrated solar power applications where you might have a hot spot in the center and a profile much like a gaussian distribution.
There needs to be some consideration taken to allow for reorganizing/regrouping analyses between different Design Studies.
I currently have a Design Study that has 4 analyses in it. I coned one of the analyses and ran it. When the results were complete, I tried to open it but the system crashed. I was unable to ever get the results to load. I could delete the folder with this analysis and get the Design Study to open, but then I didn't have my results. Since it took quite a while to set up the analysis, I used the support file to run the analysis. I was then able to see the results in this new Design Study.
So here's what I'm left with... 2 Design studies on the same project, all caused by your system not being able to see result your system generated. Apparently at this point there is no way to move the analysis that worked and was viewable into the old Design study. Thus, I cannot use any of the Summary features or any comparative analysis tools you provide and I have to manage 2 files instead of one.
As a side, there is also, no easy way to get my 15 cloud credits back when I'm not able to open the analysis files....
There are times when a part is used many times at the assembly level that selecting all the surface cad entity groups is not feasible or would take too much time.
What the user would like to do is be able to assign the CAD entity group at the part level and have those entity groups be available at the assembly level for each instance of that part. This way the assignment only needs to be done once.
On the top menu bar under SETUP - SELECTION a Hide and Show feature should be added. It should work by allowing a user to hide or show the geometry that has been selected on the selection window. It should not matter if its a Material or Boundary Conditions, all objects that shows up on the list can be hidden or if hidden be shown again.
I am working with BIG models ( BIG Buildings )
Starting the model in Revit and launcing the CFD directly.
I happend many times that I am not able to close the internal volums and afer many many hours I found few gaps of about 1 mm ,
In the construction arena with 100 m long building and wall width of 20 cm I do not care about 1 mm gape.
I am looking for a flag that I will be able to indicate the minimal gap to close the internal volume to be 1 cm.
I would like to be able to simulate a nozzle that sprays water into an air stream. Ideally I would be able to view evaporation of the water into the air stream (evaporative cooling) and condensation of moisture from warm air onto the cold droplets of the spray (dehumidification).
Would be helpful if a lost settings dialog would pop up in case of e.g. a different volume. With this pop up we could define the new volume and place all settings on it (or delete all settings of the old volume).
P.S. in this case mesh refinement settings or volume temp settings should also work and not only the drag&drop of lost BCs onto new surfaces or materials.
We deal with conical filters made of perforated sheet a lot and currently, the only way to model them is to use surface resistances. Now, often this can be a significant simplification since:
- the velocities are averaged before the strainer to be applied in the Darcy's equation (instead of choosing only normal components)
- all the streamlines are made perpendicular to the strainer surface as the fluid leaves it, which can be unphysical since there is no expense of pressure/energy in doing so
I would like to use a porous volume of conical strainer, with finite constant flow through coefficient in "Flow direction" and very large (1e8) coefficient in "Flow directions (1 and 2)". And I want to specify the conical surface of the cone to specify the cone direction, which is not exactly radial!
I tried using radial option in this but surprisingly, the fluid doesn't "see" the strainer nad behaves like it's fluid region!
Hope I see some improvement here.