[TurboGrid] Turbogrid matching rotor stator interface mesh

Jack001 · July 30, 2016, 13:31

Hello all,

I want to mesh a rotor and a stator passage so that there are no uncovered faces at the rotor outlet - stator inlet interface. My normal procedure is to mesh the stator and rotor separately in turbogrid, then combine them in post, however turbogrid will naturally choose a geometry that optimises each part, and hence the shape of the inlet/outlet for the two parts will not be the same even though the total area is (by specifying the same number of blades for rotor and the stator full 360 machine)

Hence I am wondering, is there a way to make the faces of the rotor and stator interface a 1:1 match (i.e. they fully cover eachother)!?

Far · July 31, 2016, 17:26

that is the main aspect of using the multple reference frame. It is used when ever we have unmatching mesh or two fluid zones.

Jack001 · July 31, 2016, 17:32

Hi Far,

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I am a bit confused then. I am using OpenFoam and I have a rotor and stator that cover the same area in terms of their GGI connection interface. However the areas don't completely cover each other due to geometrical differences in how the blades are meshed. The GGi interface in openFoam has a bridgeOverlap option that you can set to true, but then slip walls are created on the parts that are not covered. This is obviously not what I want. Hence I thought that maybe I could make both rotor outlet and stator inlet to match to cover each other fully in order to use GGI without any weird slips walls.
I am using multiple rotating frames as you say, but the problem above still applies right?

July 30, 2016, 13:31	Turbogrid matching rotor stator interface mesh	#1
Jack001 Member Jack Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 98 Rep Power: 10	Hello all, I want to mesh a rotor and a stator passage so that there are no uncovered faces at the rotor outlet - stator inlet interface. My normal procedure is to mesh the stator and rotor separately in turbogrid, then combine them in post, however turbogrid will naturally choose a geometry that optimises each part, and hence the shape of the inlet/outlet for the two parts will not be the same even though the total area is (by specifying the same number of blades for rotor and the stator full 360 machine) Hence I am wondering, is there a way to make the faces of the rotor and stator interface a 1:1 match (i.e. they fully cover eachother)!?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[snappyHexMesh] Add Mesh Layers doesnt work on the whole surface	Kryo	OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion	13	February 17, 2022 07:34
[mesh manipulation] Importing Multiple Meshes	thomasnwalshiii	OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion	18	December 19, 2015 18:57
Convergence moving mesh	lr103476	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	30	November 19, 2007 14:09
Icemcfd 11: Loss of mesh from surface mesh option?	Joe	CFX	2	March 26, 2007 18:10
How to control Minximum mesh space?	hung	FLUENT	7	April 18, 2005 09:38

July 31, 2016, 17:26		#2
Far Super Moderator Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,553 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 54	that is the main aspect of using the multple reference frame. It is used when ever we have unmatching mesh or two fluid zones.

July 31, 2016, 17:32		#3
Jack001 Member Jack Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 98 Rep Power: 10	Hi Far, Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I am a bit confused then. I am using OpenFoam and I have a rotor and stator that cover the same area in terms of their GGI connection interface. However the areas don't completely cover each other due to geometrical differences in how the blades are meshed. The GGi interface in openFoam has a bridgeOverlap option that you can set to true, but then slip walls are created on the parts that are not covered. This is obviously not what I want. Hence I thought that maybe I could make both rotor outlet and stator inlet to match to cover each other fully in order to use GGI without any weird slips walls. I am using multiple rotating frames as you say, but the problem above still applies right?