But how to define a high-quality, or more preciously good, mesh? Reading the output of mesh quality report in your meshing software is only the first step; you need to make judgements whether the mesh is good enough for your physical problem.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misunderstanding of good mesh. Nowadays, it is hard to find meshing course in engineering departments. The numerical algorithm in most engineering schools is optional. So, it is not surprising, the new generation CAE users lack some fundamental knowledge on how meshing works in a CAE system.

Here are the top 5 misunderstandings on a good mesh.

#1. Good mesh must follow CAD model well.

More and more CAE users are designers, as explained in the previous post. They are generally well trained in CAD, and they tend to bring all details to analysis. They believe more details means more close to the reality.

This is not true, most of the time. Good mesh need resolve physics, … Read the rest “Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh”

The post Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh appeared first on CAE Watch.

One of the alternatives for CFD simulation is the lattice Boltzmann equation (LBE), where the fluid is treated as fictitious mesoscopic particles (not molecules). If you need something to make you sleepy, please read the short (and concise, and free) book:  A Practical Introduction to the Lattice Boltzmann Method.

But for commercial CFD code, most are based on Navier-Stokes equations, and differ in the numerical method: finite volume, or finite element, or a hybrid of both. Finite difference based CFD is hard to find in commercial codes.

When Exa hit the market with the first commercial LBE based CFD code, PowerFlow, about 15 years ago, not so much buzz was created in CFD market. Actually, the first a few releases got not-so-good reviews, partially due to the marketing and sales issues (over-promising). Of course, apparently, in recent years,  they got a lot of improvements in both solver and marketing. They also got a few big customers in the automotive industry.  But it is still not considered as the mainstream CFD software among CFD practitioners. In the academic circle, there have … Read the rest “Navier-Stokes vs lattice Boltzmann: will it change the landscape of CFD?”

The post Navier-Stokes vs lattice Boltzmann: will it change the landscape of CFD? appeared first on CAE Watch.

1.  Open source CFD solution is cheap because nothing can be cheaper than free.

2.  Open source CFD solution is inferior, otherwise, why is it free?

Both of them are wrong.

Open source CFD solution is not cheap, although licensing is free

Most open source CFD packages are licensed under GNU General Public License (GPL) or BSD license or MIT license.  Under such licenses, anyone can use the software (including source code) for free. There is no limitation on the usage (it means it can be used in commercial project). The only restriction is on the re-distribution of the software or its derivatives: you must release the source code if you want to sell or re-distribute it.

So, licensing the software has no cost. You can get it from the internet. Of course, you can pay nominal fees to get it on a DVD delivered to your doorstep.

But software is only part of a CFD solution.  Human resources and hardware are also in the equation of cost. In most organizations, these two usually cost more, especially the staff cost.

The argument some may have is … Read the rest “Why isn’t open source CFD solution for everyone?”

The post Why isn’t open source CFD solution for everyone? appeared first on CAE Watch.

They are Dassault Systèmes, Autodesk, PTC, Siemens (UGS),  Mentor Graphics and ANSYS.

Dassault and Siemens have the complete ecosystem: CAD-CAM-CAE-PLM.  Autodesk and PTC reply more on CAD. Mentor Graphics has a limited presence beyond in the electronics industry. ANSYS is an interesting company focusing only CAE.

Compared with the rank of the previous year (2010), all these 6 companies climbed some potions varying from 1 to 4.  This indicates the demands for CAD/CAE/PLM are getting stronger.  The following table illustrates the ranking of these 6 companies in the last three years.

We will analyze these companies, as well as other CAD/CAE/PLM software companies in other articles.… Read the rest “The Big 6 in CAD/CAE/PLM software industry (2011)”

The post The Big 6 in CAD/CAE/PLM software industry (2011) appeared first on CAE Watch.

We are frustrated with the numerous CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM/PDM magazines, which have articles similar to marketing materials: lack of depth. Such articles may mislead the CAE professionals, although they provide the updates on the industry.

We are also frustrated with the market research reports produced by some research firms. Unfortunately, a lot of these researchers even  cannot ask a proper question, and therefore cannot present a clear picture of the industry, because they do not have any knowledge on CAE.

So, here comes CAE Watch.

We will give you in-depth analysis on the CAE  industry and share with you the advanced techniques in both FEA and CFD. In addition, you can ask any CAE related questions: FEA, CFD, PLM, HPC, preprocessing, post-processing, meshing, CAD import…, and our experts will try to give you the most relevant and accurate answer.

Not enough?

 … Read the rest “CAEWatch, WTF?”

The post CAEWatch, WTF? appeared first on CAE Watch.

Actually, cloud computing is not new for CAE industry, especially for CFD users. 15 or 20 years ago, when you accessed supercomputers in the computing centre from home or office through dial-up modems (do you know what it is?), or ISDN if you are lucky, you were already using “cloud computing”. Now this cloud computing is so popular that every computing event must have a dedicated session for it. If you are not sure, check the coming Supercomputing Carnival 2011 (SC2011) in Seattle in this November or the more geeky one: HPC 2011 in Boston in last April.

Fluent announced the Remote Simulation Facility (RSF) in 2002. This probably is the first commercial CFD cloud computing offer. They upgraded the cluster several times later. The response is, based on community feedback,  very good. This e-business model combining software and computing resources is very attractive for small consulting firms, and moderate users. The $3-$20 (depending on the volume of commitment) per CPU hour is quite reasonable, although not so cheap.

It seems ANSYS is quietly retiring … Read the rest “CAE in the Cloud, Is It Just Hot Air?”

The post CAE in the Cloud, Is It Just Hot Air? appeared first on CAE Watch.