XANSYS Forum Index
    Register    

FAQ    Search    Memberlist    Usergroups    SmartFeedSmartFeed    Profile    Log in
[Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    XANSYS Forum Index -> XANSYS
Author Message
edmund.singer
User


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 1:21 pm  Reply with quote

This topic has gotten me interested to look into Space Claim. But I was waiting for a counter side like this since it seemed all the other posts were drinking the Space Claim KOOLAID. We have had great success using the face delete feature to defeature models in DM and till this point I thought DM did a great job at defeaturing. Andrew has hit my experience with DM as we use it as he says for CFD.

on the FEA side, another thing I like in DM is that you can automatically imprint faces by placing items in a single part. We use this a lot, to generate nice contact regions, that can be called out in MAPL (sorry no WB ANSYS FEA here). Does space claim allow this sort of thing?

Edmund Singer P.E.
BAE SYSTEMS
Applied Mechanics Group
Fluid and Thermal Sciences


-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Kokemoor
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:03 PM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I guess I'll provide my lone dissent :p

I do CFD primarily, so things are different, but having a feature history is extremely useful for me. It lets me have template projects with an existing feature tree that I can bring solid assemblies into and just go down the list, attaching the features to the new geometry. Applying parametric operations to solid bodies before fill operations lets me do things that would be a lot trickier in SpaceClaim. (At least, they look tricky. I haven't spent a ton of time with it, so maybe it's amazing for my workflow too, and I just haven't figured it out yet, but it doesn't look to me like the easy way to do things.)

Also, if anybody is comparing defeaturing between SC and DM that doesn't know about the Face Delete feature in DM, there's no way that'll be anywhere near a fair fight. Face Delete is a pretty impressive tool, and is responsible for at least 90% of my defeaturing.

Andrew Kokemoor
HydraForce Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of aaron.caba
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:37 PM
To: xansys@xansys.org
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Thanks all. The responses seem pretty unanimous that SC is better than DM. I'll see if I can give it a try.

Aaron

------------------------
Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Member Technical Staff
Nuvotronics, LLC
7586 Old Peppers Ferry Loop
Radford, VA 24141
http://nuvotronics.com/






+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
saroj.kumar.jha
User


Joined: 03 Jun 2015
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:25 am  Reply with quote

Dear James,


I have used DM for midsurface generation and its working good. Manual option is most appropriate but if you have many surfaces, You can use automatic option too by playing with parameters. To avoid complicity, you can generate part by part in case of automatic option. But in case of automatic generation its better to cross check the generated surfaces once.


Regards
Saroj
----- Original Message -----

From: "James Patterson" <jpatterson@hendrickson-intl.com>
To: "ANSYS User Discussion List" <xansys@xansys.org>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 4:39:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Good info here.

Is anybody using DM or SpaceClaim for midsurfacing? Any comments on capability?

Thanks,

Jim


James J. Patterson, PhD.
Principal Vehicle Systems Engineer
Trailer Commercial Vehicle Systems
2070 Industrial Place S.E. Canton, OH 44707
ph. 330 489 0095 | fax 330 489 1961
jpatterson@hendrickson-intl.com
www.hendrickson-intl.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - The contents of this message and the attachments are confidential and are for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please immediately delete it without reading it and without further distribution or disclosure. Any further distribution of this message to others is subject to this Confidentiality Notice and/or any confidentiality agreement or non-disclosure agreement in effect that covers the information contained in the message and any attachments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Johannes, Rolf
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 2:43 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

We do use DM to create geometry input for MAPDL mainly for the reason that CAD geometry fails frequently to import properly to MAPDL directly. Form our experience, in a process chain of generating geometry in DM, transferring it to CAD and then to MAPDL I would suspect the source of problems to be the CAD system.
We have been trying out 4 different CAD systems and IGES transfer had a success rate of 25%, STEP being a little bit better at 50%, DM to MAPDL imports correctly close to 100%, at least in our cases. This is all with default settings. Tweaking the settings changes the numbers a bit but the general picture doesn't change.

Kind regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Rolf Johannes
Berechnung / Forschung & Entwicklung
Calculation / Research & Development

EagleBurgmann Germany GmbH & Co. KG
Äußere Sauerlacher Str. 6-10, 82515 Wolfratshausen / Germany Tel. +49 8171 23 1829, Fax +49 8171 23 1130 Rolf.Johannes@de.eagleburgmann.com
www.eagleburgmann.com

Registergericht: München HRA 83942. Komplementär-GmbH: EagleBurgmann Germany Verwaltungs-GmbH, Registergericht München HRB 151901.
Geschäftsführer der Komplementär-GmbH: Dr. Stefan Sacré (CEO), Michael Stomberg (COO), Jochen Strasser (CFO), Ust.-Ident-Nr. DE 230276848

Please consider the environment before printing this email

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Im Auftrag von jajohnson@parker.com
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Juni 2015 14:39
An: ANSYS User Discussion List
Betreff: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Email secured by Check Point



--

Thanx & Regards

Saroj Kumar Jha
Engineer - SC
CRVV,ITER-India
M- 09726653042

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martin.liddle
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 152

PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:34 am  Reply with quote

On 08/06/2015 12:25, Saroj Jha wrote:
Quote:
I have used DM for midsurface generation and its working good. Manual option is most appropriate but if you have many surfaces, You can use automatic option too by playing with parameters. To avoid complicity, you can generate part by part in case of automatic option. But in case of automatic generation its better to cross check the generated surfaces once.


Regards
Saroj
Thank you for a helpful reply but please remember to conform to the
XANSYS rules by adding a signature showing your full name and the name
of the organisation that employs you.

--
Martin Liddle, Tynemouth Computer Services,
Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK.
www.tynecomp.co.uk

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
_________________
Martin Liddle
Tynemouth Computer Services
Chesterfield, UK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    XANSYS Forum Index -> XANSYS
All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

sleek template created by Andrew Charron