Array ( [topic_list] => Array ( [status] => 1 [topics] => Array ( [1] => Array ( [topic_id] => 434173 [topic_title] => How to identify and split the faces of imported STL models in Spaceclaim？ [topic_content] => <p>Hi！How can I identify and split different faces when the imported STL model is treated as a whole? I am currently unable to select and define inlet、outlet and wall. I know that the 'Repair Geometry' command of ICEM can automatically recognize different faces of STL models. Does Spaceclaim have a similar command? As I need to perform fluid structure coupling, I must obtain the internal fluid domain using ‘Volume Extract’ command based on the inlet and outlet of the STL model in SC. Is there any method to identify these different faces? Also, since I use meshing for mesh partition, is there a similar command that can achieve this function after importing the STL model directly into meshing? Thanks！</p><p></p> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/how-to-identify-and-split-the-faces-of-imported-stl-models-in-spaceclaim/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => June 16, 2025 [author] => dhy19944@gmail.com [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 1 [view_count] => 15 ) [2] => Array ( [topic_id] => 433925 [topic_title] => Inconsistent Shared Topology in SpaceClaim 2025R1 – Using Internal [topic_content] => <p data-start="214" data-end="226"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Hi everyone,</span></p><p data-start="228" data-end="336"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I'm working on a water cooling simulation in a complex geometry using ANSYS (SpaceClaim > Meshing > Fluent).</span></p><p data-start="338" data-end="527"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">To define the fluid domain, I used the “Internal Volume” tool in SpaceClaim. So in theory, the geometry should be perfectly clean and aligned with the solid part — no gaps, no overlaps.</span></p><p data-start="529" data-end="590"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">However, I’m facing a strange issue with Shared Topology:</span></p><ul data-start="591" data-end="774"><li style="font-size: 12pt;" data-start="591" data-end="652"><p data-start="593" data-end="652"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It works correctly on some surfaces (edges turn green),</span></p><li style="font-size: 12pt;" data-start="653" data-end="774"><p data-start="655" data-end="774"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">But on other surfaces, which are supposed to be identical and in contact, it doesn’t share the topology at all.</span></p><p data-start="776" data-end="796"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I’ve made sure that:</span></p><ul data-start="797" data-end="1005"><li style="font-size: 12pt;" data-start="797" data-end="837"><p data-start="799" data-end="837"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The bodies are in separate components,</span></p><li style="font-size: 12pt;" data-start="838" data-end="888"><p data-start="840" data-end="888"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">“Share Topology” is set to Yes in Workbench,</span></p><li style="font-size: 12pt;" data-start="889" data-end="1005"><p data-start="891" data-end="1005"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I’ve tried changing tolerances, using Imprint, Stitch, and Repair functions — but the problem remains.</span></p><p data-start="1007" data-end="1144"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This causes problems later in ANSYS Meshing (contacts not detected), and even errors in Fluent.</span></p><p data-start="1146" data-end="1328"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Has anyone experienced inconsistent shared topology behavior, even when using “Internal Volume”?</span><br data-start="1242" data-end="1245"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Is there a reliable method to fully share topology between two matching bodies?</span></p><p data-start="1330" data-end="1363"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Thanks in advance for any advice!</span></p> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/inconsistent-shared-topology-in-spaceclaim-2025r1-using-internal/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => June 12, 2025 [author] => remi5.volley@gmail.com [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 4 [view_count] => 42 ) [3] => Array ( [topic_id] => 433535 [topic_title] => Slow view change behavior in SpaceClaim [topic_content] => <p>Hi all,</p><p>I have used SC for a long time but recently I found something wrong with SC navigation. </p><p>When I use mouse wheel to zoom in and out, the model visualization panel acting like frame by frame. And I found the zoom in/out behavior is recorded in history by CTRL + Z as shown below.</p><p>It's quite puzzled. Any suggestions would be highly appreciated!!</p><p>Best regards</p><p></p> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/slow-view-change-behavior-in-spaceclaim/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => June 8, 2025 [author] => Dato [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 4 [view_count] => 68 ) [4] => Array ( [topic_id] => 433359 [topic_title] => HFSS generated Touchtone file format: [topic_content] => <p>I have a touchtone file from HFSS with following format:</p><p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"># GHZ S MA R 50</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I want below format:</span></p><h1># HZ S MA R 50</h1><h1><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I have HFSS design  available. The touchtone file generated is very big from HFSS. I can manually scale the frequency but that might not still 1-to-1 compatible between 2 formats. </span> <span style="font-size: 12pt;">How can we get this format from HFSS results- solution data? Is there any intermediate tool like ADS can convert? This 2 formats are  significantly different for TDR plots  in another tool. </span></h1> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/hfss-generated-touchtone-file-format/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => June 5, 2025 [author] => ASISH BHATTACHARJEE [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 1 [view_count] => 48 ) [5] => Array ( [topic_id] => 433349 [topic_title] => Mesh Quality Problem After Importing Geometry in ANSYS [topic_content] =>

<p data-start="886" data-end="1127">Hello everyone,<br data-start="918" data-end="921">I'm currently working on a dental framework simulation in ANSYS. I imported my geometry but the mesh quality is very poor, with many distorted elements and warnings about mesh skewness.</p><p data-start="1133" data-end="1347">I tried fixing it by using a better CAD file with improved design, but I still get the same meshing issues. I also attempted to clean the geometry in SpaceClaim and adjust mesh settings, but the problem persists.</p><ul data-start="1443" data-end="1634"><li data-start="1443" data-end="1502"><p data-start="1445" data-end="1502">What file format do you recommend (.step, .x_t, .iges)?</p><li data-start="1505" data-end="1575"><p data-start="1507" data-end="1575">Are there any geometry repair steps I should apply before meshing?</p><li data-start="1578" data-end="1631"><p data-start="1580" data-end="1631">Should I use Virtual Topology or Simplify geometry?</p><p data-start="1637" data-end="1675">Any help would be greatly appreciated!</p>

[topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/mesh-quality-problem-after-importing-geometry-in-ansys/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => June 4, 2025 [author] => fatimazahra_hassine@um5.ac.ma [like_count] => 1 [reply_count] => 7 [view_count] => 129 ) [6] => Array ( [topic_id] => 433025 [topic_title] => Not getting ignition in Ansys Forte when fuel injection mass is split into two. [topic_content] => <p>Two solid cones were used in sector mesh diesel injection at different angles as shown in image below but worked with one solid cone with one mass flow injection. Didnt work when used two Nozzles under one soild cone. Only worked with complete mass injection under one solid cone, one nozzle and one injection. Any help form anyone, thanks in advance, as you can see in image beow spray is split into two cones at two different viertical angles. </p><p> </p><p></p> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/not-getting-ignition-in-ansys-forte-when-fuel-injection-mass-is-split-into-two/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => May 31, 2025 [author] => Hasan [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 8 [view_count] => 141 ) [7] => Array ( [topic_id] => 432817 [topic_title] => unable to save the project files [topic_content] => <p>excuse me, may i know why my ansys is always crash whenever i tried to save my project ? and also the saving progress is always stuck at 29%</p> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/unable-to-save-the-project-files/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => May 29, 2025 [author] => nandaputra@student.ppns.ac.id [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 1 [view_count] => 117 ) [8] => Array ( [topic_id] => 432645 [topic_title] => import 24r2 into 25r1 changes centroid [topic_content] => <p>Hi<br><br>append is a part of injector-sample coming from spaceClaim24r2 (symmetric)<br>into sc25r1 (same with discovery25r1)<br>here is the same (2% difference)<br><br>Which %-difference should be okay?</p> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/import-24r2-into-25r1-changes-centroid/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => May 27, 2025 [author] => DM Mathis [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 4 [view_count] => 117 ) [9] => Array ( [topic_id] => 432488 [topic_title] => Refine mode, Force location in external flow [topic_content] => <p>Ansys Discovery, 2023R2, Refine Mode, External Flow. I define the enclosure using Prepare-Enclosure Tool. I'm trying to monitor force exerted on s simple solid body (a simple cylinder) at X direction (donwstream). Either I inculde the solid body in simulation and define it as a Stationary Wall, in which case i get the error message: "Default interface found on the same surface as Stationary Wall is applied. You may resolve this by removing the overlapping condition or apply another condition of the interface or use the imprint tool to split surfaces." When solid is included in simulation, I tried to remove the overlapping condition (defined as stationary Wall), but then the results on Force monitoring graph simply do not exist (no points on the graph) , obviously since there is not any boundary condition.   OR I do not include the solid body at all, in the simulation , and thus Discovery defines it as a No-Slip Wall (default) , in which case i receive another error message: "The location for X force is completely suppressed. No results available". I tried many different combinations of Force-Monitor locations and varius forms of the setup. Unfortunately i cannot get force monitoring results. Thanks.</p> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/refine-mode-force-location-in-external-flow/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => May 24, 2025 [author] => atol@central.ntua.gr [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 10 [view_count] => 130 ) [10] => Array ( [topic_id] => 432158 [topic_title] => I missed 1 of 5 Structural Analysis classes. Is there any way to complete the se [topic_content] => <p>I missed 1 of 5 Structural Analysis classes. Is there any way to complete the session?</p> [topic_link] => https://innovationspace.ansys.com/forum/forums/topic/i-missed-1-of-5-structural-analysis-classes-is-there-any-way-to-complete-the-se/ [topic_status] => publish [topic_published_date] => May 21, 2025 [author] => Young.hwangbo@honeywell.com [like_count] => 0 [reply_count] => 1 [view_count] => 93 ) ) ) )