|
[Sponsors] |
January 16, 2007, 17:58 |
AutoCAD Inventor vs. CFX (ICEMCFD)
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I'm having issues with putting standard .step files into the ICEMCFD mesher (ver 5.7.1 and 10.0).
Basically, I have an assembly with which I derive the "fluid" part from. That is saved to .stp format and I then import it into the ICEMCFD enviroment. What was a nice fluid block turns out to be just a circle, or a similar geometry minus a few surfaces. I feel that there is something I'm not checking, or some arbitrary value in the tolerance that is causing this. Of note, I can import created parts (parts I sketch/extrude) without much fuss, hence I feel the problem may be with how Inventor turns a derived part into a .stp. Any help would be appreciated. |
|
January 16, 2007, 18:23 |
Re: AutoCAD Inventor vs. CFX (ICEMCFD)
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Try importing the AutoCAD .dwg file.
|
|
January 16, 2007, 18:33 |
Re: AutoCAD Inventor vs. CFX (ICEMCFD)
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I gave it a running try but no luck. .dwg's are 2-D or have they gotten fancy enough to go 3-D? I'm trying to import the 3-D structure and Inventor won't allow it (IGES,STEP,DEF, etc.)
I'll see if I can throw it into AutoCAD 2006 (not inventor) to see if I can catch the problem (didn't think of it before). Thanks! |
|
January 16, 2007, 20:37 |
Re: AutoCAD Inventor vs. CFX (ICEMCFD)
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Thanks for the help. I was able to finally get the geometry to work with a little tweaking of the tolerances and file manipulation.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pros and Cons for CFX, CFdesign, COMSOL | Val | Main CFD Forum | 3 | June 10, 2011 03:20 |
exporting geometry in ICEMCFD which is created in AUTOCAD | arif.iut.09 | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 1 | June 1, 2010 10:52 |
ICEMCFD 5.1 -> CFX 5.7.1 | Arkadij Gajdar | CFX | 6 | December 25, 2004 05:01 |
run Build Topology in IcemCFD 4 CFX | Ahmed | CFX | 3 | March 19, 2004 17:59 |
IcemCFD 4CFX-How to fix domain | Ahmed | CFX | 6 | March 9, 2004 19:38 |