These are my conclusions but if someone would add or correct something, please feel free to do that. Furthermore, shells cannot be used to simulate solid displacements.Īnyway, its settings are simpler due to the fact all the simulation is set in the same software. you can use a time-step size for fluid dynamics and another one for solid mechanics.ģ) Simulation entirely run in STAR-CCM+ is good but its capabilities are lower than Abaqus' when it comes to FEM. On the other hand, it requires an additional license and additional setup for the Abaqus settings.Ģ) Co-simulation with STAR-CCM+ has the only (I guess) advantage of splitting the time-scales, i.e. I have been reading about this topic and I found the following conclusions:ġ) Co-simulation with external code (Abaqus) has the advantage of using a high level FEM code to solve solid mechanics, thus it is recommended whenever the mechanical analysis is complex. So when you want to design something, you need to know how the structure will deform and how that deformation affects the flow.
Is there a particular approach you suggest? I think the co-simulation with Abaqus could be the best choice since its FEM capabilities are better than STAR's. Since I am dealing with a FSI simulation, I am trying to understand which approach is the best one to study a dynamic analysis (something similar to this one: Tutorials > Coupling with CAE Codes > Abaqus Co-Simulation: Mechanical Coupling).ġ) Co-simulation with external code (in my case, Abaqus). Moreover, sorry, I should have looked at that tutorial better.
FSI with Morphing - CFD Online Discussion Forums
0 kommentar(er)
