SHD Sim Multiphysics
Two physics, one answer
A coupled case is its own case type, not a checkbox on an existing one. The cheap half answers most of the question and needs no coupling library at all.
This module is available.
What it runs on
Established open-source solvers, bundled or provisioned — the same approach as the CFD module, where the case for paying is the hours the interface saves rather than a solver nobody else has.
MEDCoupling
Field mapping between non-matching meshes — all the one-way chain needs
preCICE
True two-way coupling, once one-way is proven
OpenFOAM + code_aster
The first realistic pairing — the two solvers the other modules already carry
Analysis types
6 of them, in 3 groups, each with the backend that serves it. Naming the backend per row is deliberate: it is what tells you whether a capability is a setting away or a different solver entirely.
One-way chains
The cheap win, and deliberately first. A CFD run produces surface pressure or wall heat flux, that maps onto an FE mesh, and a structural or thermal-stress case answers "will this survive the flow loads?" — which is most of what anyone actually asks.
| Analysis type | Backend | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pressure loads to structure | MEDCoupling | Surface pressure mapped onto an FE mesh, then stress and deflection |
| Wall heat flux to thermal | MEDCoupling | Flux mapped to a solid, then thermal stress and fatigue |
Two-way coupling
Where the structure moves enough to change the flow that is loading it. Genuinely harder, and only worth it when the one-way answer is not enough.
| Analysis type | Backend | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Fluid-structure interaction | preCICE — OpenFOAM + code_aster | Flexible foils, risers, membranes |
| Conjugate heat transfer (partitioned) | preCICE | Only when the solid needs a real structural solver; chtMultiRegionFoam otherwise |
| Electro-thermal-mechanical | Elmer + code_aster | Joule heating driving thermal stress |
Without a coupling library
Some coupled problems are already solved inside one solver, and reaching for preCICE would be the wrong answer.
| Analysis type | Backend | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Fluid + rigid body | OpenFOAM sixDoFRigidBodyMotion | No coupling library needed — available today |
What you would use it for
Written as questions because that is how the work arrives. Nobody sets out to run a modal analysis; they set out to find whether the thing will resonate.
Will this survive the flow loads?
A CFD run produces surface pressure, that maps onto an FE mesh, and a structural case answers it. One-way, no coupling library, and it is most of what anyone asks.
Does the heat from the flow crack the solid?
Wall heat flux mapped to a solid, then thermal stress and fatigue on the same result.
Does the structure move enough to change the flow?
Two-way FSI through preCICE, for flexible foils, risers and membranes — where one-way stops being honest.
How does the buoy actually behave in waves?
Fluid plus rigid body, solved inside OpenFOAM with sixDoFRigidBodyMotion. No coupling library, and available today.
Who asks these questions
- Marine and offshore
- Aerospace
- Energy and power
- Turbomachinery
- Medical devices
- Civil and structural
Sectors where this analysis is routine — not a claim that we have customers in them.
How to get it
Add Multiphysics on the pricing page, choose named or floating seats, and the same licence unlocks local solving, paid-tier scale and eligible SHD Cloud workflows for this module.