Mr. Heinrich von Zadow

Hi Alexandros, I'm happy to show you the process, it is pretty straight forward. However, as will any partially parametric modelling, you will need a good baseline geometry if you want to achieve a nice shape variation. In your case, I recommend you to remodel the skeg first. Cheers, Heinrich

Dear Yukai, no worries, just had to make sure I understand the problem. If you want to trigger a CFD through CAESES you can either manually run the software connector or perform an optimization which will automatically trigger a CFD evaluation for every design variant. If you want to change the configuration you can change the templates in the software connector (as you described) or modify an input file on your computer to which the software connector refers. Generally speaking you want to use the template approach if you want to modify the input file for each design individually. If the input file is the same for all design variants, it is enough to supply that file to CAESES as a reference. Any changes you make in a CAESES project will be saved (temporarily in a recovery file and permanently once you manually save the project). What I could imagine is, that you changed a parameter for a particular design (i.e. after a design engine run, you can switch into any of the evaluated designs, unlock them and do modifications) -- these changes will not be reflected in the baseline design. Maybe this is what got you puzzled? If you can reproduce the described behavior, I'll gladly take a look to find out whats going wrong. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi YuKai, where exactly do you "modify any parameter in Openfoam"? Do you refer to changes in the template files of the software connector? Any changes in a project that you saved should never change back after re-opening the project. If you arrive at a different state the only reaso I could imagine is that you shoose to recover a crashed file upon opening. In this case, the recovery file and not the project file will be opened which could bring you to a different project status. Best regards, Heinrich

Hi Gian, can you manually run the Allrun script in the design directory? Cheers, Heinrich

Hi YuKai, indeed, this might be a problem with your graphics card. Can you run getGLinfo() in the CAESES console an post the output here? Cheers, Heinrich

Hi there, do you have any specific reason for still using the 4.4.2? I highly recommend updating to the latest release, this alone should give you a significant increase in speed! Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Jan, I don't think there is an option in CAESES to adjust the sensitivity of the zoom. Maybe you can look into the driver/settings of your mouse? Anything else in your setup that might cause the problem (particularly high resolution display, remote desktop, etc)? How does it feel if you hold down ctrl and use the right mouse button while moving the mouse up and down? Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Yukai, it looks like you are trying to optimize multiple objective functions simultaneously? You can either use a suitable optimization algorithm NSGA2, MOSA, RSM-based or introduce a single objective (e.g. as a weighted sum). Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Tom, technically for B-Spline and NURBS curves the degree can be up to number of points minus 1 (in CAESES it is indeed currently limited to 9 though). For G2 a degree of 3 is all that is needed. With 4 you can already get continuity in the change in curvature... Personally, I rarely go higher than 4 or 5. Maybe the question is what you intend to do (you wrote that you want to get close to a given curve. However by increasing the degree you get the opposite: a degree of 1 still interpolates the control points. When increasing it, you get further and further away from it (and, as Andreas pointed out, trade local control for global a one). If you want a good approximation you can try some of the following options: 1. A C-Spline (this is an approximation of a point cloud and you are free to choose the number of points and degree (still 9 is the limit)). Prone to oszillations. 2. A generic curve that reproduces another curve but has a limited number of control points. That is a nice trick but no tangent information at the ends are taken into account. But that can be fixed. 3. An approximation curve (there is an operation called approximate by tolerance). Relatively new type, I like it a lot because it let's you choose tangents and degree. Results in very accurate approximations with only a few control points. Only downside: it will not give you a distinct number of points. 4. An interpolation through a number of points on the original curve (operation called approximate by point interpolation). Depending on the number of points and chosen interpolation method the results may differ. 5. Depending on the actual problem you are facing, typically you can get the best results if you re-model curves (potentially piece-wise) and capture the design intent. An F-Spline often times works wonders here (i.e. keep the original tangents, maybe even curvature at the ends and same area under the curve --> this will typically leave you with a very similar shape but perfect smoothness since the F-Spline is fairness-optimized) If you post your project or a sreenshot of the curve you want to approximate I may be able to give a more targeted advise. If you really just need a degree higher than 9 I can touch base with the dev team and see if they can make it happen. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Yukai, you can set up an inequality constraint and use it in your Software Connector under Execution Settings for that. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Yasi, in your screenshots I can see the 3DView and 3DWindow: If you select them and don't see what you are looking for, check that the objects are visible in the object tree, as well as the filters of the individual views. I recommend to familiarize with the GUI by going through some of the basic tutorials. There is one specifically about object visibility as well in the GUI section... Cheers, Heinrich

Hi there, you can reset the GUI layout to default here: also, if you right-click the dark ribbon on the left you can find windows that are currently not shown: Cheers, Heinrich

Hi CJ, you can set constraints to your computation. If violated, the computation will not be executed. Of course, this only works if the constraint can actually be evaluated before the CFD ran. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi CJ, this question is a bit unusual. Maybe if you explain why you want only specific variants out of a Sobol I can try and come up with a better way to approach your problem. Technically though: you can select specific variants, export them as csv from the table and then use a Design Assembler (which allows to import said csv again). Cheers, Heinrich

Hi CJ, if you check the documentation for "units" you should find this: Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Furkan, if you have set the constraints in the Design Engine, the algorithm predicts an optimum within the feasible domain. However, predicting constraints (which is technically the same as predicting objectives) comees with uncertainty and hence, sometimes none of the predicted optimal designs is actually feasible. What might help is, to set a narrower margin in the Design Engine and try again. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Furkan, If you set up a "Response Surface Optimization" and choose to "use result pool", a surroate will be created (if your pool is large enough, otherwise samples will be added first). An optimization on that surrogate is performed automatically in the background (a Genetic Algorithm is used here) and the optimal candidate (or multiple if you choose so for a multi-objective problem) is returned. The design you see created in CAESES is therefore either an additional sample or already the potential optimum. Check the dakota.out file in your design directory to see the details. Also, the finaldata file will show you the predicted performance of the optimum... If you keep this Algorithm running, the actual (CFD) result(s) of the optimum-candidate(s) will be added to the pool for the next iteration and the process repeats. Cheers, Heinrich

You can simply drag&drop it from the file explorer.

Hi Yukai, yes, both will start a new run counting the designs from desing0000 and onwards. It's just that in case 1: the designs (in terms of values of the design variables) that are created are the exact same you would have seen if your initial Sobol ran through. In case 2 things will start from the beginning again, but the designs you have already run a CFD for will be linked instead of re-run. You can just grab an easy and fast example (e.g. the Jumper Sample) and play around a little to get familiar. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Sisi, just a quick comment on that: the propeller object (type FPropeller in CAESES) does not support an actual tip. It is a type ment specifically to work with the PFF format (and be exported as such). If you want a closed, solid geometry including a tip checking out the sample mentioned by Andreas is the right way. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Yukai, There are 2 options in your case: 1. Set the Sequence Start Index of the Sobol to 10 (or wherever it stopped the first time) so that it does not start from the beginning when you run it the second time. 2. Select the result pool from the first run when starting the second one. This way, the results will be linked and the CFD is not re-run. Cheers, Heinrich

Please see my two posts above...

Hi Ramond, the project shown in the first post cannot be shared publicly, unfortunately. I am happy to provide some guidance and assistance if one of you wants to take on a similar task. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Joshua, if you want to change the positioning, number, shape and size of the holes shown in your screenshot I would indeed recommend, to re-model this part from scratch instead of morphing/deforming/shifting it... I guess I'd start with a bare tube (i.e. a circle which you use in a BRep and extrude it) and then a parametric (in number, positioning, shape, size etc.) description for the holes (which I would create via a boolean operation). I just created a very simple example for you to explain the basic process, hope this helps to get you started. Cheers, Heinrich demoTubeWithHoles.cdb

Hi there, unfortunately the project you are referring to cannot be shared publicly. However, if you have a fixed blade geometry and want to investigate a variation of the cooling channels, a model can probably be set up quite easily. If you have something to work with, feel free to share it here and I'll take a look. Cheers, Heinrich