Re: better for Fluent users if in own forum
 

I have not used ICEM, Gridgen or CFX-Build. My colleagues have however used ICEM (atleast) and it seems to be a popular code in the automotive industry. Many of them still do. Some of them have switched to ANSA. And some use ANSA for clean up before going to ICEM for meshing (bypassing TGrid). What I have learnt from discussions (hence it is a second hand information is that ICEM uses STL which is a faceted representation of the surface. Some people don't like it. ANSA uses NURBS surfaces instead and allows the user to control deviation from the surface or an edge and it's discretization.

Also ANSA has a direct translator for CATIA surfaces.

If using facetization instead of NURBS for representing a surface is of concern, please confirm it with the ICEM people if the statement I made is factual or not.

Re: better for Fluent users if in own forum
 

Dear John,

You should never complain about question, which should not been posted in this forum, while posting articles about male/female (which has little to do with CFD I guess).

Regards Christian

Incredible answer
 

John,

I can not understand how you can complain on Altheas first posting, which actually had something to do with CFD, and then write a message about male and females! Will you now write an additional message, complaining on your own message, for the lack of general CFD interest?

Anders

Re: Incredible answer
 

(1). There was no particular reason behind. (2). If you read the title of the message and the message before this, you can easily see that 3 fifth of the words in the message are related Fluent and GAMBIT. (Pre-processing for Fluent, GAMBIT, GAMBIT) (3). Now, I'd like to hear how this ANZA is capable of producing better geometry and mesh for hybrid solver. Otherwise, I will have to assume that with ANZA, all goemetry and mesh problem are now solved! In that case, the question is answered and closed.

red card
 

I think somebody got a red card in this message line.

Re: better for Fluent users if in own forum
 

ICEM CFD does have the capability to read a CATIA file directly, along with multiple other formats. You can export to ICEM CFD from within CATIA, or import a CATIA file from within ICEM CFD (the direct import inside ICEM CFD is a newer feature, so many customers may not be aware of this).

The advantage of the direct import is to allow the user the freedom of not knowing CATIA. The advantage of the definition inside of CATIA is that model setup is stored to the CATIA part file. This allows for great time-savings in design studies, and parametric modeling since setup is only done once.

ICEMCFD for Fluent
 

ICEMCFD is intended as a generic pre-processor for any meshing environment. As such it supports both STL and NURBS surface representations (or a combination of both). NURBS surface can be imported from IGES or via direct CAD interfaces to Pro/E, CATIA, UG, I-DEAS, SolidWorks and soon, CADDS5.

It is true that some users of ICEM CFD have, in the past, used ANSA for geometry clean-up before meshing in ICEM CFD. With ICEM CFD V4.1, many new CAD and STL repair functions have been added so that these tasks can now be performed within ICEM CFD.

Re: ICEMCFD for Fluent
 

thanks for the information (so I stand corrected on what data formats ICEM-CFD can read). In my company however, people are still using ANSA for CAD clean up. Many stick with ANSA for surface meshing and use TGrid for volume meshing. Some use ICEM for surface meshing (after CAD clean up in ANSA) and then take it to TGrid for volume meshing.

In summary a large majority is using ANSA for CAD clean up. Those who don't are using a tool called CFD-VisCART by CFD Research Corp. which is able to work with fairly dirty geometry in STL format. For such complicated geometries such as underhood, CFD-VisCART seems to be the most convenient. However, CFD-VisCART is not a general purpose pre-processor and only supports CFD-ACE+.

Re: better for Fluent users if in own forum
 

John, I like your responses to postings on the discussions on CFD-Online - However I do not know you and therefore neither like nor dislike you. However, your comments on the differences between men and women are unlikely to endear you to many people.

By the way, you should note that the research shows that most women and most men use their brains differently to each other. Most women also do not study / work in engineering. When the human race has unified some more you can try applying your generalisations again. Until then I will continue to use my brain in a way which fits neither a male nor female categorisation. I have found that people who behave in a similar way often seem to think in a similar way and that the challenges in engineering require a variety of thinking approaches.

Good luck with finding and enjoying the variety and interest in this varied world in which we live.

Althea

Gender has no effect on study of engineering
 

(1). I have a friend in CFD field ( female, PhD, full Professor, has studied under Professor Launder), so I think, the gender has no effect on the study of engineering, specifically, in CFD. (2). It doesn't matter which part of the brain is used in CFD, as long as you are using it correctly. (using a black box is a completely different story, but luckly, you are not a medical doctor.)

Re: Gender has no effect on study of engineering
 

Sorry John, you missed the point.

What I had intended to convey is that not all women (or men for that matter) think in the same way and the research into how men and women use their brains differently generally shows that women who work in fields generally dominated by men (esp. engineering) use the same side of their brain as most men (and vice versa).

I'm afraid I don't fully understand the medical doctor reference, although MDs quite happily use black boxes all the time (MRI scanners, X-ray machines, and to an extent the human body, etc.).

Anyway, this has got somewhat silly now so I think it should stop. Good luck with your learning about other people studies ;-)

All the best Althea

Re: Gender has no effect on study of engineering
 

(1). I understand your comment. It's quite interesting. (2). I just want you to know that the original issue was related to the difficulties in using the black box (specific commercial codes), it definitely has nothing to do with the gender. (3). You are free to use any part of your brain to study CFD. I think, the brain is adaptive. (4). Based on my experience, the study of art and photography will greatly improve the 3-D modeling in CFD. And 3-D modeling is by far the most time consuming part of CFD. Any new idea to improve 3-D modelig should be explored, including the brain activities I hope. I would say that 3-D modeling is still an art, not a science. That's why people always will have problems with 3-D codes.

Re: Gridgen for Fluent
 

You might wish to consider Gridgen, a solver independent CFD pre-processor that supports both FLUENT v4 and FLUENT v5, among others.

We do have a UK rep.

Please email me at jrc@flash.net for the details.

-- John Chawner / http://www.Pointwise.com / Gridgen: Reliable CFD Meshing

SPC collecction
 

How can I collect SPC from my input list.
which command will be used?