# Question regarding geometric parameterization / re-running simulations with existing boundary conditions **URL:** \ **Category:** General Questions\ **Created:** [June 15, 2026, 1:18pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533 "2026-06-15T13:18:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gjv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@gjv](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/gjv)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2026, 1:18pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/1 "2026-06-15T13:18:05Z")
Hi everyone, I’m posting to the forum for the first time. I’ve been using the software recently and have been thoroughly impressed with its capabilities. I am currently working on an optimization problem where I need to evaluate the impact of changing a specific dimensional parameter (specifically, a fillet radius) across multiple design iterations. My goal is to run the simulation repeatedly with different values for this parameter. Is there a way to parameterize this dimension or swap the geometry so that I can re-run the FEA simulation without having to manually reapply the boundary conditions and loads each time? Any advice on a streamlined workflow or automation features for this within the software would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and help! ---
**Author:** ![FEAnalyst](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/feanalyst/32/688_2.png) [@FEAnalyst](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/FEAnalyst)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2026, 1:20pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/2 "2026-06-15T13:20:52Z")
> [@gjv](#): > > swap the geometry You can use the _Regenerate Using Other Files_ option for that. Also check the manual for `PrePoMax.com` command line options. They support regenerating the model with other files or with modified parameters. Parameters are already implemented, but support for parametric studies from GUI is not yet available. ---
**Author:** ![gjv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@gjv](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/gjv)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2026, 1:33pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/3 "2026-06-15T13:33:52Z")
Thank you for your reply! I looked through the manual to try to find where regenerate using other files option is but I couldn’t find it. Where is that button? Also, would this method work if the part I’m trying to regenerate is within a compound part? ---
**Author:** ![FEAnalyst](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/feanalyst/32/688_2.png) [@FEAnalyst](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/FEAnalyst)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2026, 1:37pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/4 "2026-06-15T13:37:37Z")
It’s in the Edit menu. Actually, it’s “Regenerate History Using Other Files”. It tries to regenerate everything (you can also decide whether to regenerate postprocessing operations as well), but of course, it may fail if the differences are too large. ---
**Author:** ![gjv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@gjv](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/gjv)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2026, 5:25pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/5 "2026-06-15T17:25:54Z")
Thank you for your help! Unfortunately, when I attempt to regenerate history using other files, the loading seems to be taking an especially long time. I had to stop each of my two attempts to make it work after 2 hrs. I’m surprised by this length because it is a relatively simple keyway design that just needs a fillet change with less than 200,000 nodes. Any ideas on how to fix this? ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/prepomax/original/2X/2/2aabd8192d426df65334bcb9bdfb91b2c6f06fb9.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![FEAnalyst](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/feanalyst/32/688_2.png) [@FEAnalyst](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/FEAnalyst)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2026, 5:30pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/6 "2026-06-15T17:30:29Z")
Maybe you’ve made a lot of changes that got saved in the model’s history. You can modify it (Edit → Edit History) and even remove redundant entries. It would be good to identify which operations take so long, though. Usually, it’s meshing and analysis submission, but it might be something different too. ---
**Author:** ![Matej](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@Matej](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/Matej)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 7:25am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/7 "2026-06-16T07:25:51Z")
In the Command history, each command has a time it needed to evaluate. There, you can see which commands take the longest time to complete (usually meshing and analysis). You can try using the Reorganize button in the Edit commands window to remove duplicate commands. But usually, it is better to prepare a new file for the optimization/parameter study with a limited number of commands. If you need to do only a couple of analyses, you can import new geometry and select the old and new geometry at the same time, right click, select Swap part geometry (delete old geometry), and mesh the new geometry. ---
**Author:** ![gjv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@gjv](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/gjv)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 2:48pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/8 "2026-06-16T14:48:43Z")
Thank you both for your help with my troubles. It seems I’m having trouble with specifically the problem of having to use a compound part with my mesh. Both when I try swapping part geometry or when I try regenerating histories, it is throwing me errors due to the compound part nature (shaft and coupling are part of a compound part so the nodes can line up for easier contact evaluation) of the parts im trying to evaluate. Is there any way to solve this that is compatible with compound parts? ![Screenshot 2026-06-16 104558](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/prepomax/original/2X/8/8e2091357d36d5c78a3b1c2a42ccf361ebddd52a.png) ---
**Author:** ![FEAnalyst](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/feanalyst/32/688_2.png) [@FEAnalyst](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/FEAnalyst)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 3:52pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/9 "2026-06-16T15:52:50Z")
> [@gjv](#): > > it is throwing me errors due to the compound part nature Exactly what are the error messages ? Did you try with a simple test model ? ---
**Author:** ![gjv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@gjv](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/gjv)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 4:12pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/10 "2026-06-16T16:12:53Z")
Sorry, I wanted to show you a screenshot, but for some reason I was having trouble displaying it earlier today. Here is a relatively simple model that shows the problem. The first image shows the error displayed after selecting swap part geometries on these two parts which are almost exactly the same. The second image shows what happens when I try regenerating history using other files (used a very similar file, but not exactly the same as the fillet radius was slightly different) . As you can see in the monitor it seems not to be able to find the individual components of the compound part to regenerate despite me never changing the names of the parts to keep it as simple as possible. That’s why I think in the second image only the key is shown because it is the only part not a component of the compound part. Let me know if I’m missing something or if there is some other test I can run to help diagnose the issue I would be happy to help! ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/prepomax/original/2X/b/b6a7171479c6a5de2a923c53ef192cf18d8d6d1d.png) ---
**Author:** ![gjv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@gjv](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/gjv)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 4:13pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/11 "2026-06-16T16:13:27Z")
![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/prepomax/original/2X/f/fec41309a00730046f706e7749acbd5b32f2f4a5.png) ---
**Author:** ![FEAnalyst](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/feanalyst/32/688_2.png) [@FEAnalyst](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/FEAnalyst)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 4:34pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/12 "2026-06-16T16:34:58Z")
As a workaround, would it make sense in your case to simply merge the parts using boolean operations in CAD software before importing them to PrePoMax ? ---
**Author:** ![gjv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@gjv](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/gjv)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 5:03pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/13 "2026-06-16T17:03:56Z")
Would I still be able to model contact between the shaft and coupling if they were merged in CAD (Solidworks)? ---
**Author:** ![FEAnalyst](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/feanalyst/32/688_2.png) [@FEAnalyst](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/FEAnalyst)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2026, 5:06pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/14 "2026-06-16T17:06:18Z")
I assumed you wanted the meshes to be continuous (default behavior of compound part meshing), but if you want to use contact anyway, then it’s not necessary to work with compounds. ---
**Author:** ![Matej](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@Matej](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/Matej)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2026, 6:56am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/question-regarding-geometric-parameterization-re-running-simulations-with-existing-boundary-conditions/3533/15 "2026-06-17T06:56:21Z")
The compounds are different from parts in terms of swap geometries. What you can do with compound parts is the following. First, swap the geometries of the part that was used to create the compound in the first place with the part with the new geometry, and then use Geometry → Regenerate Compound Part. This will recreate the compound from the same parts as when it was created, but if you switched their geometries in between, that will be taken into account.