Considerations When Building Thermal Models that Require Conversion Between Formats

At times, it is inevitable to require conversion of thermal models from one software format to another. This most often occurs for missions with international partners where not all parties utilize the same software packages for thermal analysis. Mandating a single tool for all parties is one possible solution, but this approach can introduce problems if significant effort is required to overcome inexperience with the designated tool and may result in difficulty meeting analysis schedule requirements. Alternatively, allowing all parties to use their own familiar tools minimizes the impact to analysis schedules but does introduce the need to convert the models later to a common format for analysis at a higher level of assembly. External conversion tools and formats have been developed through the years to aid in this process, but have had limited success in fully converting models seamlessly. Having a basic familiarity with tool capabilities on both sides of the conversion process allows for models to be built in a manner to better facilitate conversion by avoiding features and capabilities which are unsupported by the destination tool or for which no workarounds exist. Also, the effort to convert a model is often neglected when developing the schedules for analysis at the higher assembly levels; delivery of models preconditioned for convertibility minimizes the schedule risk. This paper seeks to provide some guidance on modeling techniques to avoid when developing Geometrical Math Models (GMM) and Thermal Math Models (TMM) when conversion is required. The recommendations are based on GMM conversion experiences between TSS/ThermalDesktop/ESARAD and TMM conversions between SINDA-FLUINT/ESATAN.