I am running the Ahmed benchmark case downloaded from cfdsupport, and I get a different drag coefficient compared to what is in the report on the website (experimental value: 0.2850, website value 0.2848, my value 0.305). This is a fairly significant difference. I am using the files exactly as downloaded, in TCAE-Lite version 25.10. What would be the reason for this difference in drag prediction?

Hello,

I am interested in the Axial Fan TCAD geometry builder mentioned in this example:
https://www.cfdsupport.com/axial-fan-design-and-simulation/

Can someone in the forum clarify whether the TCAE-Lite version provides access to this geometry builder, or if the full TCAE package is required?

Thank you for your help!

Daniel Garcia

Hi everybody, 

I ran a steady state + transient CFD simulation on a centrifugal compressor (with a k-omega SST model) and when post-processing the results and comparing the stationary part to the unsteady part of the calculation I have significantly different results. Indeed, the unsteady part shows a higher mass flow rate. This seems to be due to a higher flow speed and a different flow angle, noticeable directly at the inlet of the rotor. On the picture attached you see these differences (on the left: unsteady part; on the right: steady state part). Is it possible that this difference in flow rate could be explained by the fact that the dynamic mesh in the unsteady part could aspire the flow in the rotor and thus change the angle and speed of this one? And maybe this effect could have been lower if I would have set a lower CFL (kept for now to 20 in my case)? 

If you have any ideas about this phenomenon that would be very helpful. 

Thanks and have a great day,

Alex 

Hello everybody, 

I am setting my first CFD transient simulation on a centrifugal compressor and I would like to know if you have any recommendations on the values of parameters like CFL number or PIMPLE algorithm settings. I assume that the default value of CFL number is relatively large (=20 hence >>1) because the PIMPLE algorithm is flexible and that's common to use higher values for turbomachinery applications?

Also, how is the monitoring and post-processing of the results different from the ones of steady state simulations? 

Any clarifications and recommendations would be very helpful. 

Thank you and have a nice day ! 

Alex

CAE simulations. The art of the possible.

What factors contribute to making CAE projects successful? In the company I work for, in 15 years, we have delivered hundreds of CAE projects to industrial companies (most of them in the turbomachinery field). Some projects were highly successful, while others were not. In this article, I would like to share a few thoughts and lessons learned about project-success patterns and engineering productivity in general.

The Game

In engineering, we don’t simulate reality. We merely simulate our understanding of reality with currently available resources. In other words, the game we play here is about turning our knowledge and effort (and talent) into the best possible results. CAE projects, like software, are never really finished. They only have their versions. At any point, you can make them better. When chasing accuracy, the effort grows exponentially, so it’s smart to recognize the point when the results are good enough. Having clear, measurable goals is critical to prevent infinite drift, resource waste, and disappointment. Well-defined goals help to navigate, focus, and prioritize. The game we play is all about goals and their feasibility with the available knowledge and effort.

Continue reading on CFD SUPPORT website >>> https://www.cfdsupport.com/cae-simulations-the-art-of-the-possible/

Hello everyone,

We are a team of university students currently working on a project to replicate the CFD simulation of the DJI 9450 propeller. First of all, we would like to thank the content creators for the excellent "Acoustic Benchmark Propeller DJI 9450" study. It has been an invaluable resource for our work.

As we try to reproduce the simulation results, we've encountered some confusion regarding the benchmark target values and would be very grateful for any clarification from the community or the official team.

Issue 1: Discrepancy Between Two Reported Results

We have been referencing two main documents:

 [1] The formal PDF research report (Acoustic Benchmark of DJI 9450.pdf).

 [2] The web page report, available at: https://www.cfdsupport.com/download/report/DJI-9450-Propeller-Benchmark/tcfd/TCFDReport.html

We noticed a significant difference in the thrust and torque values at 6000 RPM between these two sources. Specifically:

 * The PDF Research Report [1] lists a target Thrust of 4.256 N and a target Torque of 0.066 N·m.

 * The Web Page Report [2]shows a computed Thrust of 3.438 N and a computed Torque of 0.058 N·m.

Furthermore, the simulation result graph in the PDF report (approx. 4.2 N) also differs from the web page report's result (3.44 N).[1] We suspect this might be due to differences in mesh density. Could anyone confirm if this understanding is correct, and which set of values should we consider the definitive target for our validation?

Issue 2: Question About the Source of the Benchmark Target Value

To delve deeper, we located the original experimental paper cited in the PDF report (Intaratep, N., et al., AIAA 2016-2873).[1, 1] However, upon reviewing this paper, we found that the measured experimental thrust for a single rotor at 6000 RPM is approximately 6.1 N (as read from Fig. 6).[1,1]

This experimental value is considerably different from the benchmark target of 4.256 N listed in the PDF report, which has caused us significant confusion.

Our specific questions are:

 * Could anyone clarify the source of the benchmark target values (Thrust = 4.256 N, Torque = 0.066 N·m) used in the PDF report? Why does this target differ from the ~6.1 N we found in the original experimental paper (AIAA 2016-2873)?

 * To help us perform a more accurate validation and learn from this work, would it be possible to get access to the mesh file (e.g., in OpenFOAM or MSH format) or the complete geometry file (STL/STEP) used for the high-fidelity simulation presented in the PDF report?

Any clarification would be immensely helpful for our academic research.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards

I queried the CFDSUPPORT ChatBot on this question and it's suggestion didn't work, I saw no option to delete a patch.

So, how does one delete a patch from a component? I've tried deleting the .stl from the component directory, then reimporting the geometry, but that had no effect. It's still there.

Hi contributors,

I sincerely appreciate your team's efforts in making your work publicly available online—it has been immensely helpful for OpenFOAM users and developers alike. After reading your article (Node266 - CFD SUPPORT), I followed the provided instructions to configure OpenFOAM to generate a cellZone using snappyHexMesh.

Unfortunately, the attempt was unsuccessful. The number of cells in both the cellZone and faceZones files turned out to be zero, and checkMesh.log confirms this issue. When I check the result via paraFoam, I also find that net0 ~ net4 contain no mesh—they are empty. This is not only contrary to my expectations, but also differs from the result described in the article.

I am using OpenFOAM v2012, and the net0 section in my snappyHexMeshDict was set up following the example from your webpage.

I’ve uploaded the relevant case below. I would greatly appreciate any guidance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

snappyhexmeshdict:

/*--------------------------------*- C++ -*----------------------------------*\
| =========                 |                                                 |
| \\      /  F ield         | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox           |
|  \\    /   O peration     | Version:  v2012                                 |
|   \\  /    A nd           | Website:  www.openfoam.com                      |
|    \\/     M anipulation  |                                                 |
\*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
FoamFile
{
    version     2.0;
    format      ascii;
    class       dictionary;
    object      snappyHexMeshDict;
}
// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //
#include "../varsSettings" //Include global variables
castellatedMesh true;
snap            true;
addLayers       false;//true;
geometry
{
    floater
    {
        type 	triSurfaceMesh;
        file 	"DeepCwindPlatform_heave.stl";
    }
    
    net1
    {
        type 	triSurfaceMesh;
        file 	"Net1_improved_heave.stl";
    }
    
    net2
    {
        type 	triSurfaceMesh;
        file 	"Net2_improved_heave.stl";
    }
    
    net3
    {
        type 	triSurfaceMesh;
        file 	"Net3_improved_heave.stl";
    }
    
    net4
    {
        type 	triSurfaceMesh;
        file 	"Net4_improved_heave.stl";
    }
    
    net0
    {
    	type	searchableBox;
    	min		(-100	-50	-120);
    	max		(100	50	-80);
    }
    
    refineFreeSurface_L1
    {
        type searchableBox;
        min ($minX  $minY -10);
        max ($maxX  $maxY  10); 
    }
    
    refineFreeSurface_L2
    {
        type searchableBox;
        min (#calc "$minX+$inLen+20"  -70 -8);
        max (#calc "$maxX-$outLen-20"  70  8); 
    }
    
    refineFloater_L1
    {
        type searchableBox;
        min (-51  -49	#calc "-30 + $decay_z + $offset_z");
        max ( 37   49 	#calc "22 + $decay_z + $offset_z"); 
    }
};
castellatedMeshControls
{
    maxLocalCells 100000;
    maxGlobalCells 2000000;
    minRefinementCells 0;
    maxLoadUnbalance 0.10;
    nCellsBetweenLevels 1;
    features
    (
        {
        	file    "DeepCwindPlatform_heave.eMesh";
            level   4;
        }
        
		{
        	file	"Net1_improved_heave.eMesh";
        	level	4;
		}
		
		{
        	file	"Net2_improved_heave.eMesh";
        	level	4;
		}
		
		{
        	file	"Net3_improved_heave.eMesh";
        	level	4;
		}
		
		{
        	file	"Net4_improved_heave.eMesh";
        	level	4;
		}
    );
    refinementSurfaces
    {
		floater
		{
			level (4 4);//(5 5);
			patchInfo
        	{
          		type wall;
 
          		// Optional group
          		// inGroups (meshedWalls);
        	}
		}
          
		net1
    	{
			level (4 4);
			cellZone net1Zone;
/*			cellZoneInside inside;*/
			faceZones net1fZone;
    	}
    	net2
    	{
        	level (4 4);
			cellZone net2Zone;
/*			cellZoneInside inside;*/
			faceZones net2fZone;
    	}
    	net3
    	{
        	level (4 4);
			cellZone net3Zone;
/*			cellZoneInside inside;*/
			faceZones net3fZone;
		}
    	net4
    	{
        	level (4 4);
			cellZone net4Zone;
/*			cellZoneInside inside;*/
			faceZones net4fZone;
    	}
    	
    	net0
    	{
        	level (4 4);
			cellZone net0Zone;
/*			cellZoneInside inside;*/
			faceZones net0fZone;
    	}
    }
    resolveFeatureAngle 45;//30;
    planarAngle 30;
    refinementRegions
    {
        refineFreeSurface_L1
        {
            mode inside;
            levels ((1e-5 1)); //First entry here is distance, which will be ignored unless mode = distance
        }
        
        refineFreeSurface_L2
        {
            mode inside;
            levels ((1e-5 2)); //First entry here is distance, which will be ignored unless mode = distance
        }
        
        refineFloater_L1
        {
            mode inside;
            levels ((1e-5 2)); //First entry here is distance, which will be ignored unless mode = distance
        }
        
/*        net1*/
/*        {*/
/*            mode inside;*/
/*            levels ((1e-5 3));  // STL 内部 refinement 到 level 4*/
/*        }*/
/*        net2*/
/*        {*/
/*            mode inside;*/
/*            levels ((1e-5 3));*/
/*        }*/
/*        net3*/
/*        {*/
/*            mode inside;*/
/*            levels ((1e-5 3));*/
/*        }*/
/*        net4*/
/*        {*/
/*            mode inside;*/
/*            levels ((1e-5 3));*/
/*        }*/
    }
    limitRegions
    {
    }
        locationInMesh (-150 0 0);
        allowFreeStandingZoneFaces true;//false;
        faceZoneControls
        {
        }
    locationsOutsideMesh ((100 100 100));
}
snapControls
{
    nSmoothPatch 5;//3
    tolerance 2.0;
    nSolveIter 50;//30;
    nRelaxIter 10;//5;
        nFeatureSnapIter 20;//10;
        implicitFeatureSnap false;//true;
        explicitFeatureSnap true;//false;
        multiRegionFeatureSnap false;
}
addLayersControls
{
    relativeSizes true;
        expansionRatio 1.25;
        finalLayerThickness 0.64;
    	minThickness 0.1;
    layers
    {
		floater
		{
			nSurfaceLayers    2;//3;
		}
    }
    nGrow 0;
        featureAngle 180;//180;
        maxFaceThicknessRatio 0.5;//0.5;
        nSmoothSurfaceNormals 1;
        nSmoothThickness 10;
        minMedialAxisAngle 90;
        maxThicknessToMedialRatio 0.3;
        nSmoothNormals 3;
        slipFeatureAngle 30;
        nRelaxIter 5;
        nBufferCellsNoExtrude 0;
        nLayerIter 50;
        nRelaxedIter 20;
}
meshQualityControls
{
    #include "meshQualityDict"
    relaxed
    {
        maxNonOrtho 75;
    }
        nSmoothScale 4;
        errorReduction 0.75;
}
mergeTolerance 1e-6;
// ************************************************************************* //

Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards,

Liu Jiaming

The instructions are as follows:

To create two meridional slices, one for each fan in TCAE, follow these step-by-step instructions:

1. Load the Simulation Results: Open your TCAE project and load the results of your simulation for the fans.

2. Select the First Fan:

   • In the Pipeline Browser, select the mesh or results corresponding to the first fan.

3. Add a Meridional Average Filter:

   • Go to the Filters menu.
   • Select "Turbomachinery" and then choose "Meridional Average."

I am not presently seeing any geometry in the Pipeline Browser, so, I tried double-clicking the individual STLs making up the component in CFD Mesh, (later realizing selecting multiple elements is not supported) then going to the Filters menu, selecting Turbomachinery,  the option "Meridional Average."  is greyed out, please see image.

I'm still at the beginning setup phase; loading geometry and tweaking types and interfaces. I have no results of any simulation to load. I have not tried to create a mesh yet. Is that (or something else) I need to do first besides read the manual?

Thanks in advance

David

Mesh for component 1 was created incorrectly.

The patch(es) "1:Part_Studio_1_-_Outlet" has/have not been found in just created mesh.

There might be two reasons for that:

- Either the patch is so small, so the it was not possible to properly mesh it.

Check the patch visually, and also its meshing parameters.

- Second reason might be, that this patch is located outside the meshed geometry, and therefore cannot be meshed.

Again check the patch visually.

CFD meshing failed

I originally had this error on the Inlet patch, I don't know what I changed to correct that (nothing I believe)

The patch is not small, it appears water tight. It comes from a watertight model.

The patch is within the meshed geometry.

I've not had this error before, I've not struggled with meshing previously.

Hi,

I have a problem with report at the end?

Program made all 3000 iteration ( about 1.200.000 pcs), but at the end is allways problem with the report: (see picture below).

Thanks.

Hi,

I have a problem with report at the end?

Program made all 3000 iteration ( about 1.200.000 pcs), but at the end is allways problem with the report: (see picture below).

Thanks.

Hardware for CFD reviewed for 2025!

🚀 Since 2009, we've been on a mission to deliver countless successful CFD projects. Over the years, we've become your trusted go-to source for hardware recommendations that can supercharge your CFD (and FEA) simulations. 🖥️🔥

Our commitment? We keep publishing state-of-the-art hardware configurations on the renowned "Hardware for CFD" platform. To make the cut, two factors are non-negotiable: a) our own rave reviews, and b) an unbeatable performance-to-cost ratio. 💪💰

Ready to turbocharge your simulations? Dive into our latest hardware recommendations at the link below:

🔗 Particular Hardware Recommendations:

https://www.cfdsupport.com/hardware-for-cfd.html 

But wait, there's more! We've got practical insights and comments straight from the experts on LinkedIn. Discover the hardware gems that can take your CFD game to the next level:

💼 Practical Comments

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hardware-cfd-lubos-pirkl

Don't miss out on this opportunity to optimize your CFD setup for success in 2024 and beyond! 🌐💡

#CFDHardware #Simulation #CFDPerformance #HardwareForCFD

Hello,

I found you have changed the Spitfire TCFD example few versions ago so as it applies 1.5AoA - or -1.5 It does not matter actually in this scope - by rotating velocity vector and aiming to get it rotated as expected by setting forces axes rotated in Runtime evaluated quantities, so this should apply to the final report. I've simplified the example - to get faster results - and found that in the report forces are never rotated as expected despite that Coefficients are rotated, you can test this by changing the Forces in Runtime evaluated quantities to 0,0,1,1,0,0 in the example and see that only Coefficients are changed in the report.

Tested on TCAE 25.03v1