Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


acupro last won the day on October 3

acupro had the most liked content!


About acupro

  • Rank
    Super User

Profile Information

  • Country
    United States
  • Are you University user?

Recent Profile Visitors

1988 profile views
  1. You may be able to accomplish this using FVX scripting. You can get FVX information in the /fv/help/FV_ReferenceManual.pdf included in the installation. The attachment has an example from which to start, then maybe use the 'modify' command within a loop to change locations and perform the queries. (You may want to consult with your local Support team as well...) test.fvx
  2. I just ran through this tutorial, and it seems to work correctly as written. (I did notice that you had left Simple BC active for the Beam surface, where it should be inactive/off since it's handled by the External Code Surface command. In any case, it still ran when I did leave it active as you had it.) Is it possible you assigned the BCs to the wrong surface sets? Can you attach the slab_dcfsi.out and cci.txt files from your run? Which versions of AcuSolve/OptiStruct are you using? (I have HyperWorks CFD Solvers 2019.1 and HyperWorks Solver 2019.2.)
  3. Which physics phenomena are you trying to capture with the simulation? Can you add the .inp file and .Log file?
  4. You should probably post that question to the OptiStruct forum - rather than this AcuSolve forum.
  5. AcuConsole doesn't support the mixed-element topology the same way that HyperMesh does. If you build the mesh as all-tets in HyperMesh (boundary layers, everything all tets) then you'll see the same groupings in AcuConsole.
  6. Most likely there is some problem with the problem setup, with the Assertion at the start, plus the BC Warnings in the Log file. Best to contact your local support office.
  7. I'm wondering if there's some difference in the keyboard/language of your OS. The original error is: Invalid command line option <ûto> where if it was related to the problem name not being specified, it would be something like: "Undefined problem". Is it possible you have two different characters that look like the - on your keyboard?
  8. When you launch the AcuSolve simulation from AcuConsole a file called Acusim.cnf will be written. This contains at least the problem name, along with other settings. Provided you keep working in that same directory where the Acusim.cnf file is written, you won't need to specify the problem name on the command line. If you move things around to other directories, etc, then you either need to have a local Acusim.cnf file with the problem name in it, or include the problem name on the command line.
  9. What kind of simulation are you running? What are the physics you are trying to solve? What is the maximum expected Mach number? Are you running this transient or steady-state? (If transient, you may want to try increasing the max-stagger-iterations and/or decrease the time increment.) Have you looked at the effect of refining the mesh? Have you looked at the effect of different turbulence models? These are the kinds of questions to be studied when determining if the approach to a simulation is adequate/correct - to qualify the simulation. Though it does appear the quantities you show have basically stabilized, they could also stabilize to an incorrect value if the modeling approach is not correct/adequate. This may be a good case for working directly with your Altair support team.
  10. I would point you to the AcuSolve Training Manual that is included as part of the Help documentation for AcuSolve. AcuSolve Training Manual > Theoretical Background > Turbulence > Modelling of Turbulence > Near-Wall Modelling. This has a good discussion of the turbulent boundary layer, including Y+. Note that in AcuSolve, the 'y' value used in the Y+ computation is the location of the first mesh node away from the wall, not the center of the first cell.
  11. 1. That warning indicates there are fluid volume elements on both sides of the indicated surface. You should not have volume mesh inside the wheel itself. 2. I also see this in the Log file: acuSolve: *** y+ is negative number You may have other issues with the setup as well. Can you post the .inp file generated for the run? (Not the mesh itself, just the .inp.) You may also be better off contacting the Altair support team in India.
  12. If I understand correctly, you want to show streamlines on a plane, where the streamlines neglect the out-of-plane velocity component. Is that correct? If that is not correct - what do you mean by '2D Streamlines'? Can you share an image comparing 2D and 3D streamlines for the same case? If my assumption is correct - that you want to neglect the out-of-plane velocity component, try the following. This assumes you want a Z-normal plane, and the Z-velocity component is neglected. 1. You need to create a vector using only the X- and Y-velocity components. In the Function Specification, use this: UnitX*"x-velocity" + UnitY*"y-velocity" then give it the name you desire. 2. When you create your streamlines on a Z-normal plane (Z - Coordinate Surface), use that vector function just created for 'Vector Function' instead of the default 'Velocity'. I'm not 100% positive on this - but does that accomplish what you want?
  13. My guess would be that static pressure would be typical, as that is simpler to measure, and doesn't obstruct the flow. Simply drill a hole in the side of the inlet and outlet pipes and put a tube there - flush to the inner/wetted surface. A total pressure measurement requires a pitot probe - where you install a device that protrudes into the flow and bends such that it points directly into the oncoming flow. I assume there's no harm in reporting both, but I would guess static pressure rise is typically reported.
  14. The pre-built mapping/transfer tools are only available for shell and/or solid elements. You may try contacting your local Altair support team to see if there are scripts that might work with beams.
  15. The equation given in the tutorial compares static pressure. If you want to compare total pressure, then your expression would be correct. It depends on what you want to compare - static or total.
  • Create New...