https://www.cfdsupport.com/cae-open-source-software.html

Each piece of software has its pros and cons. Usage of any of them depends on the particular project needs and many other circumstances (Physics, resources, skills, experience, …).

Please contact us if you find new open-source software to complete this list or broken link or any inaccuracy. We’ll be happy to fix it.

May you have any questions, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us.

Best Regards,

Team CFD SUPPORT

Hi! I'm a beginner CFD user, and I've encountered a strange bug with my mesh. When I reduce the firstLayerThickness to a smaller value, the mesh stops working. The layer doesn't generate properly, and I get an error saying my refineBox isn't inside my blockMesh, which is incorrect.

Hi everyone,

I woud like to export the relative velocity URel magnitude, instead of the absolute velocity U magnitude, in the interfaces files created by TCAE in ../stationnary/postProcessing/interfaceName/0/interfaces.csv. I tried to change the file ./stationnary/system/interfaces. fun by replacing magU by magURel in the list of fields per interface but it did'nt work... How can I do it ?

Thanks in advance !

Zacharie Prigent

TCAE-Lite is designed for those with limited budgets.

Over 50 man-years of consistent development on top of open-source condensed in unlimited software at the cost of a daily cup of coffee. 

https://www.cfdsupport.com/tcae-lite.html

hashtag#CFD hashtag#Simulation hashtag#FluidDynamics hashtag#FlowVisualization

I am looking to simulate the power output of an in pipe axial turbine, I don't have any experience in CFD simulations and I've decided to brake down the project into 3 parts, first I am going to simulate just the pipe in which the turbine is going to be housed, then a static state with the turbine in the pipe, and finally setup the rotation of the turbine.

I've made a quick 3D model of the pipe and I tried copying the setup from the pipe example, I ran into a problem where the mesher consumes all the available RAM on the computer and locks it up, I assume the STL mesh has a hole somewhere but I couldn't find it, I've had issues before with glitches in STL meshes made in Rhinoceros 3D, the modeling program I used, so I decided to recreate the pipe example with the STLs from the example, and that meshed successfully, but I got an error in the TCFD part "TCFD calculation failed. Please consult the chapter 'Rescue list' in the TCAE Manual for possible reasons of the failure.", I couldn't find the Rescue list chapter in the manual online.

Also the TCAE Output gives this error:
"Application decomposePar failed.
For detailed information check error log at: "C:\Users\Name\Desktop\CFD Test\CFD_test\simulationRun1\TCFD\logRun\solve-err-decomposePar-stationary-1.log"".

And in that log file is:
"--> FOAM FATAL IO ERROR:
Cannot find patchField entry for Co1_pipe-wall_wall

file: C:/Users/Name/Desktop/CFD Test/CFD_test/simulationRun1/TCFD/stationary/0/nut/boundaryField from line 32 to line 54.

    From function void Foam::GeometricField<Type, PatchField, GeoMesh>::Boundary::readField(const Foam::DimensionedField<TypeR, GeoMesh>&, const Foam::dictionary&) [with Type = double; PatchField = Foam::fvPatchField; GeoMesh = Foam::volMesh]
    in file /opt/OpenFOAM-dev/src/OpenFOAM/lnInclude/GeometricBoundaryField.C at line 184.

FOAM exiting"

Attached is a rough diagram of how will the setup work.

I don't have an idea what to try next, and would be thankful for any assistance.

I have just installed v24.10 of TCAE-Lite. Initially I installed under Linux, sicne that is where I would really like to use the software. Having downloaded the pipe tutorial I load the case and get this message "Project configuration not fully valid according to TCAE-Lite 24.10 and may have been auto-corrected." When I try to run, I get a message that the caluclation cannot be started, and that the project contains some problems. Upon using the check option, it says that there is no geometry loaded for solid component 1. The stl file does exist in commonData\TMESH\imported and I can load it into ParaView with no issues.

So I then tried installing under Windows. In this case it does not complain about the geometry. However, when I try to run I still get a failure, which is "Failed to execute "netgenSTLMesh" (error 2)." It asks me to check an error log (mesh-err-07-netgenMesh-component1.log), but this file does not exist (there is no netgenmesh log file, and the mesh-err-07 file is called mesh-err-07-mergeMultiMeshes.log.

Can anyone provide details as to why the FEA meshing fails under Windows, and why the geometry does not work under Linux?

Hi Foamers, 

Based on the given instructions underneath, I have been able to come up with this design. Could you help confirm if the attached image to this topic looks promising or requires some modifications? Thanks 😊 

“Introduction

Finishing a small meshing task is the first possibility multi-block mesh using the blockMesh utility or Salome,

e. The task, creation of a small

Geometry

wall

outlet

cut

inlet

Z

Parameters d=50.8 mm

I=508 mm a=12.7 mm

= a/2

Description

The geometry represents half of the 2" pipe inner volume. It is composed of four building blocks. The first block (No. 1) represents the core of the pipe. The other blocks (No. 2, 3, and 4) fill the outside pipe volume.

The mesh blocks must be split by more than one cell in every direction. You can select how many cells you want to use. Apply the mesh grading, if possible.

The outside volume surfaces are called inlet, outlet, wall, and cut. Select an appropriate patch type for each surface.

The blockMesh utility writes out a log. Ensure no errors are reported.

Hint: The local coordinate system in each block should be aligned with the global coordinate system!”

I ma trying to create a thin boundary layer, to achieve a yplus <1 and I need the first cell to be positioned at 10^-5 from the wall of my 3D airfoil. I created the mesh using blockmesh and now I want to use snappyhexmesh only the add layer function.However when I do this snappyhexmesh does not generate the boundary layer. Thank you

Nicolas

I’m familiar with the experimental methods to determine the damping ratio of a material, but I’m wondering if there’s an alternative way to calculate it using mechanical properties alone.

For example, stiffness (K) can be derived using the formula K= (A*E)/L, where A is the area, E is the modulus of elasticity, and L is the length. I’m curious if there’s a similar approach for damping ratio? Assume we don't know the Damping Co-efficient or factor.

And,if you don't have the resources to conduct experiments to determine damping, are there any sources like MatWeb where we can find the damping ratios for materials?

I would like to report an issues with SnappyHexMesh when running with OpenFoam v2306. I'm currently try to run SnappyHexMesh with high mesh number structure in HPC cloud environment. Unfortunately, the process of "snappyhexmesh -overwrite" stuck and hanging at refinement phase with message "Found point (-0.001 0.0015 0.0015) in cell 40402 on processor 0". I did run this on serial processing method with VM specification 44vCPU and 315GiB of memory. I already try to run over parallels processing but it's same. Below are sequences of steps I did run and produce the message. Mesh number are define by "blockMeshDict". From my observation, this happens when I'm running with higher mesh number but if I'm lowering the number the process works fine. 

Running steps:

foamCleanPolyMesh

blockMesh

topoSet

createPatch -overwrite

surfaceFeatureExtract

# Run snappyHexMesh before decomposition

snappyHexMesh -overwrite << this steps produce the hanging process.

Hey everyone,

I’m working on a harmonic analysis simulation and have a question about splitting the frequency range.

Let’s say the frequency range I’m analyzing is from 10 Hz to 100 Hz. Instead of running the harmonic simulation for the entire range in one go, is it feasible to split the range into smaller intervals, for example:

• One simulation for 10-50 Hz, and

• Another for 50-100 Hz?

I’m trying to understand if this approach would still provide accurate results or if there are any drawbacks, particularly at the boundaries where the ranges are split. Has anyone used this method in their analysis, and if so, were there any issues with accuracy or continuity?

From my understanding, harmonic analysis calculates the steady-state response at a specific frequency. For example, consider the system at 10 Hz, assuming no damping. We know the equation is:

M(x′′)+k(x)=Fsin⁡(ωt)M(x'') + k(x) = F \sin(\omega t)M(x′′)+k(x)=Fsin(ωt)

Since 10 Hz is the starting frequency, the initial displacement at all nodes would be zero, x(t)=0x(t) = 0x(t)=0. By solving this, we get the response for this frequency.

Now, when the solver moves to 11 Hz, will it assume the initial displacement is zero again, or will it consider the solution from the previous frequency?

I’d appreciate any insights or suggestions regarding the feasibility of splitting the frequency range and how solvers handle initial conditions between different frequencies.

This is more like an open question than a fully formed topic with both question and answer.

I am running an incompressible laminar flow simulation with the pimpleFoam solver. It has two openings on one side (n1 and n2) and one on the other (n3). I have set up the pressure boundary conditions so that the flow is driven primarily by the pressure applied at n3. The flow should be changing direction halfway. Realistically, the total volume passing through an opening should be the same for the two flow direction. Yet, when I sum over the patch flow rates (postProcessing function) of the two flow directions and compare them, they are different. What could be the potential reason(s) for this phenomenon?

Following is the pressure boundary condition I set up:

/*--------------------------------*- C++ -*----------------------------------*\
  =========                 |
  \\      /  F ield         | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox
   \\    /   O peration     | Website:  https://openfoam.org
    \\  /    A nd           | Version:  10
     \\/     M anipulation  |
\*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

FoamFile
{
    version     2.0;
    format      ascii;
    class       volScalarField;
    object      p;
}
// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //

dimensions      [0 2 -2 0 0 0 0];

internalField   uniform 0;

boundaryField
{
    n1
	{
		type            totalPressure;
		p0              uniform 0;  // Reference total pressure (e.g., atmospheric pressure in Pascals)
		U               U;               // Velocity field name
		phi             phi;             // Flux field name
		rho             none;            // Density, use 'none' for incompressible flow
		psi             none;            // Compressibility, use 'none' for incompressible flow
		gamma           1;               // For incompressible flow, use 1
	}

	n2
	{
		type            totalPressure;
		p0              uniform 0;  // Reference total pressure
		U               U;
		phi             phi;
		rho             none;
		psi             none;
		gamma           1;
	}


    n3
    {
		type		uniformTotalPressure;
	p0
	{
		type		sine;
		frequency	0.3333333333333333;
		amplitude	-50.0;
		level		0;
	}


    }
    walls
    {
        type            zeroGradient;
    }

    defaultFaces
    {
        type            empty;
    }

}

// ************************************************************************* //