My use of SimCFD is limited to fluids in closed volumes and I am always concerned about results accuracy. Mesh design is a key to good accuracy. I recently learned that the mass flow rate for the input and output is actually logged in one of the multitude of files the program generates. Since mass should to be conserved, the values should be very close.
I'd like to see this information as an output in the message window when the run of a study finishes so that a user doesn't need to go looking for it. It could be reported as a ratio to imply model accuracy and printed in a red font if outside of parameters (preferably user selectable). I can see the message suggesting that a study is really not complete, even if the study fully converged. It could direct the user to further iterations, tightening of convergence parameters or the addition of mesh. I could also see it being used to suggest that the user incorporate the adaptation features (perhaps to avoid starting the study from 0 with an all new mesh).
I find it frustrating to have to need reset the units all the time when selecting bulk results for planes. If I am looking for liters/minute or cubic feet/minute at the start of the study, the chances are very good that this is the unit I want to see in all designs and all scenarios for that study.
Can the program retain these selections within any study?
This error is happened during importing of a model to SIMCFD. SIMCFD just says there is topological error somewhere in model, it doen't point out to the problematic part.
I suggest to dveloper team simply report the problematic part to use when this error is occured. It helps user to fix the issue quicker.
Could this flag be included in the interface rather than hidden as a flag?
It is already a huge time saver for anyone running transient analyses but not many users are aware of it.
It will only run the number of inner iterations required (based on a user prescribed percentage change between each inner iteration) rather than the same fixed that was set value for each time step.
There are times where someone may want to visually look at flow traces through a model and then decide that based on the data (and coloring of the traces) they'd like to get quantitative data out. To do so manual entry of XYZ points would be required to follow along a specific streamline.
It would be useful if we could select a single trace and state the number of subdivisions to then get an XY plot through the domain
At times it might be important to know how well your mesh enhancement captures the flow boundary layer and part of the judgement is to know the Y+ value for each layer in the enhancement of each node in the mesh.
When it comes to SST model it is proving that there is a balance betwen getting a low Y+ for the first node (0.3) as well as achieve a lot of layers through Y+ values into the 20-50s for drag sensitive models. It is fairly straight forward to determine the minimum portion, but understanding where the rest of the mesh in respect boundary layer is difficult.
We would like to have a true and consistant plotting of models during post processing with free surface
In the majority of the cases, when activinf free surface in the plot parameters (i am not talking about VOF value) a big part of the model is completely hidden, but it should since this part is filled with the fluid...
Also, if you want to go back to the stadnard (not free surface) vizualisation mode, you can not and have to switch off study environment to be able to plot any value.
Currently one is basically limited to the global visualization tools whilst reviewing results in 2D-simulations. the reason is that it is not possible to align a cut-plane with the 2D-surface. This makes it hard to view flow behaviour with vectors in very fine meshes and impossible to add traces.
The ability to align a cut-plane with the 2D-surface or enable the corresponding tools from plane visualization (vetcor grids, traces etc.) would be deeply appreciated.
When looking at results I often look at different scenarios and designs within the same simulation file and I will be using the same zoom-command in every view. Every time I go to a new scenario the zoom button has gone back to it's original state (Zoom) in stead of what I just used i.e (Zoom Displayed). That extra mouse click every time I look into another scenario is a little annouying :-)
I would like to be able to adjust the number of iterations during solving so I can cause the simulation to terminate earlier or later than originally intended, but not necessarily right now.
So if I originally asked it to run 1000 iterations, but based on how I see the solution evolving now I want it to stop at 500, I would like to be able to enter that during solving.
This could be useful during automatic mesh adapatation cycles where the convergence is happening sooner or later than expected. I may want the current cycle to terminate soon so it can go to the next mesh level.
Alternatively if I underestimated the number of iterations then I would like to be able to extend the run time without starting and stopping the simulatin - this is especially important for large files/remote solves.
Being able to adjust other termination parameters while solving would also be useful (i.e. stop time in a transient, as opposed to iteration number; adjust the intelligent solution parameters to looser or tighter criteria; etc.)
Please build in the capability of changing font size for the numbers in the legend. When we paste images into a word document, the numbers are often too small to read. This is not necessarily a resolution issue since the legend maintains proportionality with the image. Therefore, what looks good on the Sim CFD screen does not look good in a report with the image scaled to 50%.
Autodesk Sim Mech does a brilliant job with this functionality and also allows the ability of writing in additional text with the legend such as identifying scenario name and any other user specific comments.
Dear Autodesk Sim CFD, It will be nice to be able to map results from a previous case to a new case as the initial condition. The geometry could be somewhat different between the old case and the new case. I believe that this feature is available in ANSYS Fluent/CFX and OpenFOAM. Pei-Ying
User would like to be able to import work points from Inventor and define them as monitor points in Simulation CFD. This would prevent the user from having to type in coordinates for each monitor point.
Create a phase change combustion module to show proper heat release and flame impingements. Having the ability to see post combustion chemical breakdown such as NOx or CO would be great but to be able to predict temperatures around combustion equipment is the primary desire.
It would be nice (and a small time saver) to be able to add specific BC-types as favorites in the same manner as favorite materials. Either with predescribed units and values or left empty waiting to be defined.
Also maybe the ability to customize default boundary condition settings?
After solving for Transient analysis, i need to see the effect on flow (flow vs time plot). But currently such plot is not available as a direct output unlike velocity, press, temp. Same is the case for plots available at monitoring points. So for this I need to extract flow values for every iterations / time steps from either summery file or from bulk results by creating a plane. This is very tideous procedure!
NEED "FLOW VS TIME" AS A DIRECT OUTPUT.
The majority of our CFD simulations are axisymmetric. The advantages of being able to analyze in 2D versus 3D are tremendous for us. Many of our parts are long tubes (40" to 100" long) with wall thicknesses from .031" to .062" and diameters from 1" to 4". Some tubes have a .0004" silver or copper plate on the OD or ID along its entire length. The plating has a significant impact on heat flow but the plating is impractical to model. This is because the plating is so thin compared to the tube wall thickness (77 to 155 times thinner) and because the plating is so long compared to its thickness (100,000 to 250,000 times longer), meshing causes the plating and the tube to have a godzillion elements.
The ability to select an edge and define it as a "surface part" and then to specify its thickness (example: .0004" thick) like we can do in 3D would be a great asset.