Comments for CAE Watch

Comment on Why isn’t open source CFD solution for everyone? by amolrajan

amolrajan — Sat, 21 Apr 2018 06:34:13 +0000

Thank you for sharing such a Informative article.

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by Ashish Gupta

Ashish Gupta — Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:39:45 +0000

However I am new in abaqus but some of the thing that I got from my simulation is that meshing with tet element creates a large number of element as compared to hex or hex-dominated element. And tet element takes more computational time as compared to hex. So, I want to know, Is there any way to reduce the number of element in tet meshing. The second thing is that which is better, to spend time in partition to generate hex or hex-dominated type meshing or simply go for tet meshing.

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by Yosu

Yosu — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:19:51 +0000

I’m not 100% agree, but 95% instead. In these days, not always a tethraedral mesh can be better than hexaedral mesh, and in that few cases you MUST be capable of discern if your solution is ok. (sorry for my english errors). Try to simulate hertz contact between 2 cylinders (do it in 3D) with tethraedral mesh, and you will know to which I refer.

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by Nienaltowska

Nienaltowska — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:53:31 +0000

Agree. As far as some modeling is not compare with experimental datas even the mesh size may be badly estimated.

Comment on CAE in the Cloud, Is It Just Hot Air? by Agata

Agata — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:00:41 +0000

Very interesting article. I think it’s great to see that since 2011, when the article was written, a lot has changed. Many new players started offering a cloud-based CAE now.

I think that overall there is definitely a visible movement of CAD and CAE towards cloud, which is opening the door to a better product design to more users. One of the main reasons why we at SimScale (https://www.simscale.com/) decided to build a cloud-based simulation platform were the barriers we saw, that were preventing simulation from becoming a standard tool in product design:

• Access: Both the hardware requirements as well as the licensing policies of traditional on-premise simulation software create a lot of overhead related to installation, maintenance, and update management. This additional IT administration overhead added by dedicated high-performance (HPC) hardware and complex license restrictions of the actual end-user software kept a lot of companies from using simulation.
• Cost: Dedicated hardware, software, as well as training for simulation can generate upfront costs of tens of thousand euros per simulation seat, sometimes even 6-digit investments before the first simulation can be started and its added-value proven.
• Know-how: Due to the large investment required to deploy traditional simulation tools, companies typically made sure to have a team of specialized experts to utilize these tools to their full potential. For this reason, simulation software vendors have continued to develop their tools specifically for experts. These tools are very powerful and complex, requiring physics, domain, and tool specific know-how from the user. As a result, a user who is starting with a traditional tool might need months of training before he or she is able to us the tool effectively.

Our goal at SimScale is to incorporate simulation into the standard engineering software stack by making it more accessible, cost-efficient (you pay only for the simulation capacity you need and can also use a fully free version for publi projects) and for everyone (no need to be a simulation expert).

-Agata

Comment on Ease of use, why is it important for CAE software? by stefan

stefan — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:32:59 +0000

as a CFD specialist, I found this trend to be commom in almost every field, thee customer nost only require easy to use, but also ask foe total solution. the clients are independent, and rely answers from CAE vendors when they don’t know how.
which maybe a little sad~~~~

Comment on CFD in 2014 by carlos

carlos — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:14:45 +0000

Really interesting this post about CFD in 2014 being both an academic and an industrial user of CFD codes. I am curious to see the 2015 version.

Comment on Why isn’t open source CFD solution for everyone? by kadir

kadir — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:47:42 +0000

But OpeSource will be cheap everyone. Nowadays users can do simulations on windows enviroment. You can find different integrated softares like SimFlow etc.

Comment on The Big 6 in CAD/CAE/PLM software industry (2011) by Gunawant Mahajan

Gunawant Mahajan — Mon, 11 May 2015 11:59:18 +0000

In reply to Timothy Suhr. PTC .. no numbers

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by Hussein Fadalalla

Hussein Fadalalla — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:01:51 +0000

very useful post
could you please provide us some references regarding the point No.#3

Thnx

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by Harish Venkata

Harish Venkata — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:15:44 +0000

Completely agree.

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by Rajiv

Rajiv — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 06:28:30 +0000

Hello shengwei sir,

I am going to start my career in the CAE field with the software ANSYS. But the problem i am facing is how to decide the mesh element size for a particular geometry.
Sir, can you please suggest me about how to decide mesh element size (max face size of element, mini element size and max element size.)
Thank You

Comment on Why isn’t open source CFD solution for everyone? by High Performance Scientific Computing on the Cloud? | Krishna's Blog

High Performance Scientific Computing on the Cloud? | Krishna's Blog — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:50:18 +0000

[…] are lot of open source solvers, there is a good discussion on, Why isn’t open source CFD solution for everyone?. One of the leading one is Stanford University Unstructured (SU2) solver. SU2 is back bone of some […]

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by Swapnil Gaul

Swapnil Gaul — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:08:03 +0000

Very useful and meaningful ! 🙂

Comment on CFD in 2013: what will change? what will not by Swapnil Gaul

Swapnil Gaul — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:06:50 +0000

nice!

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by James Feng

James Feng — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:49:29 +0000

I find this post as well as the follow-up discussion-comments very helpful and valuable. I highly appreciate the author’s knowledge and participants’ contributions.

I wonder if anybody has done detailed comparison between finite volume method and finite element method with the same mesh containing non-orthogonality, skewness, non-uniformity. To my understanding (with some level of experience with the finite element method on hex-quad meshes), the finite element method is quite robust (or insensitive) with high aspect ratio meshes and large element-to-element size ratios (nonuniformity). But finite volume method, based on central difference or so, will theoretically lose accuracy on nonuniform meshes. Am I correct?

Comment on The Big 6 in CAD/CAE/PLM software industry (2011) by Timothy Suhr

Timothy Suhr — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:43:27 +0000

The following table illustrates the ranking of these 6 companies in last three years.
Company 2011 Position 2010 Position 2009 Position
Dassault Systems 19 22 17
Autodesk 22 25 16
Siemens 49 50 40
Mentor Graphics 77 80 66
ANSYS 92 96 75

What is the sixth company and what are its numbers?

Comment on CFD in 2014 by John Vanworkum

John Vanworkum — Wed, 14 May 2014 19:09:49 +0000

I like your point about slow adoption of CFD (or CAE in general) in the Cloud. From my experience there are several obstacles that have contributed to the slowness. A couple that I’d like to mention here. The lack of cloud licensing models from the major commercial vendors is probably the main one. Only one vendor, that I know of, has a true cloud license. As a Cloud platform provider and integrator, we have to wrestle with all the “non-friendly” licenses models out there and it often just leaves the end-user frustrated. Another obstacle is lack of effective 3-D visualization from the Cloud. Visualization is critical to the work-flow and time can be saved by pre/post processing in the cloud where the data resides. Without good 3D (or even 2-D) capable visualization from the cloud, adoption will continue to be slow. We’ve overcome the 3-D visualization barrier but the licensing barrier is one that we can’t control and it will take a lot of time to change.

Comment on CFD in 2014 by Conal Duffy

Conal Duffy — Tue, 13 May 2014 10:55:09 +0000

Well said about webinar Shengwei, Most cases it was used for Branding. We can belive only the top software that in market and their webniars…

Comment on Top 5 misunderstandings on (good) mesh by bmikuz

bmikuz — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:31:18 +0000

In reply to shengwei.

Hi,

I’m interested in benchmark studies comparing hexa with tetra meshes… What would you recommend for reading (articles, books,…)?