Comments on: From post-processing and visualization to simulation result exploration

By: Leigh

Leigh — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:44:58 +0000

I actually blog likewise and I am crafting a thing similar to this excellent post, “From post-processing and visualization to simulation result exploration | CAE industry analysis
and technical resources”. Will you mind in the event
that Iutilise a little of your personal suggestions? Thanks for your effort -Roy

By: shengwei

shengwei — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:46:22 +0000

In reply to Mollie Player. Sure, if you want.

By: Mollie Player

Mollie Player — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:27:20 +0000

Informative article. May I blog about this with a link back to you?

By: shengwei

shengwei — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:28:49 +0000

In reply to Jeff Waters.

Hi Jeff, thanks for your comment.

no, the meshing problem has not been solved. It is still one of the biggest obstacles for simulations with complex geometry.

For designers, there are quite a few CAD-embedded simulation tools (not only FEA, even CFD) that hide the meshing options. Of course, for any serious analysis, this is surely not sufficient.

But the trend is the meshing tools should be able to “understand” the geometry, and try to give sensible initial settings (to make it automated). The advancement in this aspect is impressive in last a few years. But the bigger challenger for meshing tools is how to understand the physics. It seems no meshing tools in the market can read the problem setup in downstream. Even experienced engineers often need trial-and-error.

So, we still have a long journey to get fully automated meshing.

By: Jeff Waters

Jeff Waters — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:15:45 +0000

Great stuff! I’m not sure I agree with the statement that the problem of meshing nasty geometry has been solved- but definitely agree that as we all move along the maturity curve with CAE, results exploration will be huge!