Submitted by Richard Smith on September 11, 2014 - 07:39
Extremely thin, high-aspect-ratio geometry faces (also known as slivers) can cause problems for meshing and adversely affect Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation stability. Learn some strategies to identify and deal with slivers to maximize your CFD productivity.
Sliver SurfaceProduces poor surface mesh elements (blue)
Submitted by Richard Smith on August 28, 2014 - 08:38
Small acute angles in your geometry, such as those found where a tangential surface meets a cylindrical surface, can lead to poor results from your Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation. Keep reading to learn how to identify and remedy acute angles.
Small Acute Angled Geometry FeatureProduces poor mesh elements
Submitted by Richard Smith on August 19, 2014 - 10:24
In preparing geometry for a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation you will sometimes find small geometry features (edges and faces) that are irrelevant for your simulation. To resolve a small irrelevant feature would require a large number of small mesh cells that would be a waste of precious computing resources. Keep reading to find out how to detect and remove such features.
Submitted by Richard Smith on August 4, 2014 - 14:07
Rare is the occasion when you can design a new widget without constraints, in fact I'd argue that it's not only rare but it's never. Engineering design is all about compromise. Take a Formula 1 car as an example, its success on the race track is overwhelmingly governed by the efficiency of its aerodynamics - yet even though it's so important the external aerodynamics for F1 cars is an exercise in compromise. Compromise to satisfy regulations, which are in place to actually slow cars down for safety's sake. Compromise to ensure that the wheels are supported correctly relative to the road. Compromise to ensure that the engine gets enough inlet air, cooling air, and a path to eject exhaust. Compromise in terms of the driver's safety structure. Compromise after compromise. No one element of a design can be optimized without considering the effect on the overall design.
Submitted by Richard Smith on July 31, 2014 - 13:23
Although most Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software vendors would have you believe otherwise, a CFD tool alone does not a successful product make. Consider that Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) tools, such as CFD, are widely available yet some engineering organizations succeed and others fail. An excellent example is Formula 1, where all the teams use the latest state-of-the-art CFD tools, but some teams routinely win while others struggle. Clearly the governing factor is not the CFD tool they are using. The difference is the overall design and development process that encompasses CFD and, in no small part, the ingenuity of the engineers driving the process.
Submitted by Richard Smith on July 25, 2014 - 09:39
There is a category of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) called Upfront CFD. It typically refers to CFD software embedded in and launched from within CAD systems. Upfront, the term, also implies that it is something that happens before something else, maybe prior to detailed design in the design process - even during the concept design phase. I think the use of the term Upfront CFD is great marketing, but a poor differentiator of the actual CFD software.
Concept Design Phase CFDParametric study of pipe diameter
Submitted by Richard Smith on July 11, 2014 - 08:19
Symmetry (or planar symmetry) and cyclic (or rotational symmetry) boundary conditions for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) can often save you 50% or more in simulation turnaround time. Alternatively you can use the freed up memory to run more accurate simulations with more mesh cells clustered in areas of interest. Clearly these simulations are worth considering if your model satisfies the symmetry or cyclic criteria.
Symmetric Flow Volume for the External Aerodynamic CFD Analysis of a CarSingle symmetry plane