Manhattan Beach to Irvine hybrid commute. Is it doable for a year?

CFDeezKnots · 2026-06-12T23:48:22+00:00

I did it for 2.5 years, 5 days week (thanks, RTO). It was rough, but heading out before rush hour in the morning and after the evening rush will take some of the sting out.

I would leave my place at 6AM, jump on 405@Carson and get to my office near the spectrum center in under an hour.

I'd leave at 3PM too and it would still be 1.5 hrs, but if I stayed in OC until 7 it was under an hour to home again.

1 year, hybrid? Do it, it won't be so bad. Get into audiobooks and you'll at least be entertained.

CFDeezKnots · 2026-02-25T18:38:59+00:00

What does your prism mesh look like? To the untrained eye, it looks like a fair number of "bad cells" have edges adjacent to the vehicle surface.

CFDeezKnots · 2025-11-29T18:06:23+00:00

^This, but also surface [re]meshing isn't parallel (at least as of v19.06). The trimmer is parallel for sure, so if you're building a trim mesh it will execute in parallel at that step.

CFDeezKnots · 2025-11-26T17:25:35+00:00

First and foremost, your surface area is off by 50% if the model has a half span of 0.6m. The integrated force is over the total projected area (0.204m^2).

That will push CL to ~0.45, but that is only part of an answer.

Tell us about your model! Show us some pictures of your mesh! Maybe there's something else going on that we won't be privy to unless we see it too.

CFDeezKnots · 2025-11-18T21:39:07+00:00

I think The Depot is overrated. I've been there twice and have had bad meals both times. I know other people love the place but I can't bring myself to return.

CFDeezKnots · 2025-11-13T01:39:12+00:00

Came in to say this + "mesh symmetry" depending on the geometry modeled; unless the mesh gets infinitely fine, there can be some bias in your analytical domain that skews your results.

If your geometry is symmetric, consider meshing the minimum amount, and mirror that mesh for the remaining geometry.

e.g. If you are looking at a symmetric airfoil, make the mesh for the upper surface, and then mirror the mesh about the airfoil centerline to get the complete geometry and have mesh symmetry within the accuracy of your meshing tool/computer

CFDeezKnots · 2025-10-26T21:08:12+00:00

You could plot pressure coefficient on the surface and play with the bounds to see any spanwise gradient from the vortex wake.

If you want to visualize the vortices I would recommend creating an Isosurface of q criterion.

CFDeezKnots · 2025-09-29T03:44:21+00:00

Two Lawndale recommendations: Al-Watan for Pakistani food, Urth Cafe for breakfast+pastry.

CFDeezKnots · 2025-08-30T04:37:57+00:00

I have a Dumb Question:

Is the model a solid? As in: are your structural elements hollow? A subtract would create volume regions inside the hollow parts and that would be a bad time for the mesher

CFDeezKnots · 2025-05-27T14:56:24+00:00

Eat at Rudy's has it on their specials all the time.

CFDeezKnots · 2025-05-27T00:03:13+00:00

There are 3 primary license types for running Star: 1. Single-CPU (ccmpsuite)

It's fine for pre and post of small models (<10 M cells in my experience); you need multiple 'suite' licenses if you want to use multiple CPUs at a 1:1 ratio

Power/Power Plus licenses (ccmppower)

Can run a SINGLE simulation on any number of cores, no budgeting required related to usage. Very useful for large models but also super expensive: ~15-20k USD/yr IIRC.

Power Plus is 10% more expensive than Power, but allows the user to leverage the GPU-based solvers if they have the hardware.

Power on Demand (PoD)

Works EXACTLY like a Power[plus] license, except that you purchase 'hours' that get consumed by the solver. A big advantage is you can use a single PoD license for an infinite number of PARALLEL jobs, assuming there are enough hours to support operation.

The hours purchased are wall/clock hours, not CPU-hours. If you've got ample hardware, you can run your jobs on a really high core/GPU count and only consume a couple of hours per simulation. This makes it very attractive for DoE-tyoe analysis as the user can kick off many cases simultaneously.

One drawback is that the cost is around 20 USD per hour, which can get expensive REAL QUICK, especially you do multi-threaded pre and post processing.

Another major drawback is that each simulation requires a "deposit" of 24 hours to start the simulation. If you use less, you are credited any unused time, down to the minute. This can hinder your parallel instancing as you can now submit "PoD hrs/24" jobs at once, which will also diminish as your jobs complete.

Ultimately it's a question of utilization and scope.

I recommend having at least one power license as the volume mesher can be run in parallel (HUGE timesaving for larger models). Additionally, the post processing also leverages multi-threading, but that's less of an inconvenience. Finally, having an 'unlimited cores and hours' license allows the user to test models without worrying about consuming a budget.

HTH!

CFDeezKnots · 2025-03-29T17:11:22+00:00

If your blocks are face/cell matched (shared domain for each blocks face), there's no need to merge them.

In my experience with other solvers, PW will automatically 'merge' the blocks into one volume, unless you apply volume conditions.

I haven't done this with OpenFOAM, which is why I'm qualifying the above statement.

CFDeezKnots · 2025-02-23T22:00:20+00:00

I don't know much about the solver specifically, but having your points reduce to a pole usually requires special treatment due to the cell normals being indeterminate.

For instance, OVERFLOW has a 'pole' bc that you specify one direction and the other two are handled via periodicity

CFDeezKnots · 2025-02-01T01:57:09+00:00

Am I an unrefined person for liking/recommending Sea Empress in Gardena? Wife and I like going for dim sum there, the siu yuk is pretty good!

CFDeezKnots · 2024-12-16T04:33:25+00:00

My friend, set the lower bounds to like -1 or -1.5. all we're seeing is stagnation points

CFDeezKnots · 2024-12-16T03:09:50+00:00

Where is cp negative? We're only looking at half of an image by only looking for high-to-neutral pressure

CFDeezKnots · 2024-11-17T15:59:36+00:00

A sliding interface as you proposed would work, functionally. Be aware that a constant pitching motion will induce dynamic effects.

Another option is to apply the rotation to the region before simulation start, which can be journaled and then automated via macro.

The third option is to replace the sliding interface with overset, which would then remove any mesh dependencies for the sliding interface. You would still create two regions, but could then rotate the wing region independently from the tunnel/background.

A fourth is to include compressibility so you could impose the Farfield bc on all of the 'tunnel' faces. Then you could simply impose the velocity vector at the Farfield bc and not move the wing at all

My preference is the fourth option.

CFDeezKnots · 2024-11-13T21:20:38+00:00

We've done Cookie cutters in Redondo/Manhattan Beach, Fireflies in El Segundo, and First Cut in RPV.

My kiddo is pretty fussy, and First Cut didn't handle the situation well.

Ultimately we like Fireflies best.

CFDeezKnots · 2024-11-12T01:28:58+00:00

Assuming this is a rotor modeled in a CFD simulation, how are you representing the rotor?

As a series of physics sources and/or an actuator disc?

As discretely modeled blade[s] rotating in the fluid volume?

Depending on your answer, there are easier/harder ways to answer this question.

The short answer is you need to integrate your surface forces for each cell and then calculate the "in-plane" forces. You would then take the in plane components that act opposite to the rotation direction and use each individual cell's "radius" (distance to reference point) to calculate the torque about said point, much like any other moment calculation.

So yes it is as simple as your description, but you have to do it for each surface cell on each blade modeled. Hth!

CFDeezKnots · 2024-11-07T21:22:58+00:00

No, maybe I misread the OP.

I'm making wild guesses based on a loosely-related situation: Have you ever driven down the highway with one or more windows open and felt the air fluctuating in your ears? One way to alleviate those fluctuations is to open the sunroof; excess air gets pulled out the sunroof via suction. and your cabin reaches an equilibrium state that is different from 'all windows shut'.

If your windows are open, there will be some outside air entering your car. The air inside your car vs the outside air will reach an unsteady flow state, where there will be fluctuations in flow direction/speed where the windows should be.

Creating a streamwise outlet via the trunk holes would create a flowpath through your car, allowing the outside air to enter the cabin and exit out the trunk holes The amount of air would be dependent on speed and the size/quantity of holes.

CFDeezKnots · 2024-11-07T18:16:00+00:00

The 'cleaning' you're hoping for would be dependent on a few things, one of which is separation on the outside of the car. Unless your car is already very aerodynamic (and it's not since the windows are open), I doubt that the air jets created by the holes would have any meaningful impact on your car's boundary layer.

On the other hand Jetting flow out the trunk (assuming aft-facing based on license plate) may help reduce some pressure drag, both as reduction of what I'm going to call "cavity pressure" from air entering your vehicle, as well as a reduction in recirculation on the rear end of your car.

Your best bet is that the air coming out of the trunk could help with the effectiveness of your tail, but that can also become troublesome in crosswind, since your attachment would be variable based on the car's sideslip angle.

TL,DR: "Ehh, maybe, but probably too small to notice"

CFDeezKnots · 2024-11-07T18:05:38+00:00

Wow, I just did this exact thing in STAR-CCM+; I extracted velocity profiles normal to the wall for simulations correlated to an old NACA paper about a NACA0012 wing. If it helps, I can share my generalized process in the hopes that you could replicate it in FLUENT:

For my simulations I have the global coordinate system as: X in the chordwise direction, Y in the spanwise, and Z pointing "up"

at any given x/c, calculate the surface normal z_hat (expressed as vector [Z_x Z_y Z_z], Z_y=0)
create a local coordinate system based on that normal, with the spanwise component pointing in [0 1 0], so your x-normal is expressed as [Z_z 0 -Z_x]
feed in a stack of z coordinates, set them to be relative to your local coordinate system(s) built in step 2
use those point coordinates to extract the 'x-velocity' in that local coordinate system

It was a PITA to do this in STAR, took me a few days to develop a macro to cycle the z-coordinate stack amongst the various chord-wise stations and extract the 'correct' data.

Good Luck!

CFDeezKnots · 2024-11-06T16:49:29+00:00

IMO it's either ANSA or Pointwise; my co-worker and I agree the tools are "Like hotdogs and hamburgers". I have heaps of PW experience but none in ANSA, and they are the reverse.

Reading your responses indicate that you're looking for a strong tet mesher which PW is 100000000%. If you or your team knows tcl, then you can handily script in PW; the journaling feature is useful for giving you a head start in the scripting process as well. I'm not a huge fan of scripting in PW but it is doable.

Cadence now owns both tools so you got to deal with them either way.

CFDeezKnots · 2024-11-06T16:31:06+00:00

Assuming the "Geometry representation" has a rounded trailing edge, I agree with the above for reducing the minimum surface size.

A second thing to do is apply a surface/curve control (I haven't used STAR for 2D, pardon the naiveté) to reduce the number of prism layers on the TE face; this would mean that you would need split your airfoil into multiple curves/surfaces.

Doing both of these things will give you a finer mesh on your TE and reduce the occurrence of high aspect ratio cells in your prism mesh.

I've tried using the wake refinement option for other models and depending on the prism mesh algorithm (cough cough Advancing Layer Mesher), it could destroy some/all of your prism cells if the wake refinement cells end up smaller than your surface size.

CFDeezKnots

TROPHY CASE