CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > ANSYS Meshing & Geometry

[ICEM] Quality reduced when smoothing

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By stuart23
  • 1 Post By BrolY

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   February 19, 2013, 08:17
Default Quality reduced when smoothing
  #1
Senior Member
 
Francisco
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 270
Rep Power: 6
Bollonga is on a distinguished road
Hi you all guys,

I've done a 2D hexa mesh with quality over 0.85 (see picture 1). Then I've converted it into unstructured, I've checked quality and it is obviously the same. But when I smooth it, dor 60 iterations forcing ortogonality in wall surfaces I get a way worse quality histogram (see picture 2).

The question is: Is it better to work with the non-smoothed mesh or does it worth it to use the smoothed with reduced quality?

Thanks!
Attached Images
File Type: png Quality_before_smoothing.png (5.6 KB, 27 views)
File Type: png Quality_after_smoothing.png (6.5 KB, 30 views)
Bollonga is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 19, 2013, 09:25
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Stuart Buckingham
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 267
Rep Power: 16
stuart23 will become famous soon enough
Hi Francisco,

I would go with the smoothed mesh. Even though the quality metric is lower, the mesh will probably have lower volume changes between adjacent cells. Rather than judging your mesh on the single quality metric, try plotting other metrics and seeing which ones increase and which ones decrease. You should consult the ICEM help file for definitions and details of each of the different metrics. I would recommend looking at aspect ratio and skewness and determinant for hexas plus Max angle and volume change.

Instead of using the unstructured smoother, try the Elliptical and Laplacian Premesh Smoothers, I find they work much better. These smoothers are both found under the orthogonality option of the Premesh Smoother and are applied before converting to unstructured mesh.

Good luck

Stu
Bollonga likes this.
__________________
http://bc247.wordpress.com
stuart23 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 19, 2013, 14:07
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Christoph
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 182
Rep Power: 9
energy382 is on a distinguished road
I would suggest, NOT to use any of these smoother, as they all corrupt the mesh. They look pretty much better, but produce worse results from my experience. Better use the time to adjust the edges manually. For Cfx, aspect ratio doesn't matter, even 1000 is ok within boundary layer. But volume change is very important and max. dihedral angle as well (regarding hex mesh).
energy382 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 19, 2013, 18:43
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Stuart Buckingham
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 267
Rep Power: 16
stuart23 will become famous soon enough
Christoph, what version of ICEM are you using? In terms of "corrupt", do you mean negative volume elements?

I disagree that the Laplace and Elliptical Smoothers corrupt the mesh. Unfortunatly the smoothers are not perfect mesh fixing tools, and will create strange results if not given a good input. If there are already huge changes in volumes between neighboring cells, the Laplacian smoother will skew the mesh towards the larger cells. If some of the adjacent nodes are locked (for instance, a surface BC), the cells will distort and create lower quality or invalid mesh. The only way to get an orthogonal and conformal smooth mesh is to start with a good input mesh.

I think the *best* case to see the effect of smoothing is in the 3-edge intersection at the corner of an O-Grid. I would not solve on an O-Grid mesh without first smoothing it.

Having said that, sometimes the smoother will change mesh that you don't want changed. Where you have a large growth rate on cells near a boundary in order to capture the BL, but not waste too much mesh, the smoother will try to smooth the transition to be uniform.

All in all, I think most structured meshes should still be smoothed before solving.


Stu
__________________
http://bc247.wordpress.com
stuart23 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 20, 2013, 04:02
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
AB
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
Posts: 323
Rep Power: 12
BrolY will become famous soon enough
I use smoother only with tetra mesh.

But the mesh is made from a blocking, I only move vertices, but never smooth the mesh.
BrolY is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 20, 2013, 04:32
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Francisco
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 270
Rep Power: 6
Bollonga is on a distinguished road
Isn't it important to have ortogonal edges coming out from surfaces with wall boundary condition to catch the boundary layer?
Hoy could I move all that amount of points/ edges without smoothing the mesh?
I attach pictures of my smooth and non-smooth meshes. It's a 2D hexa-mesh with an o-grid around wall surfaces.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Non_smooth_mesh.jpg (85.5 KB, 48 views)
File Type: jpg Smooth_mesh.jpg (90.4 KB, 47 views)
Bollonga is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 20, 2013, 04:36
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
AB
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
Posts: 323
Rep Power: 12
BrolY will become famous soon enough
When I wrote move nodes, I was talking of the vertices of the blocking, not the nodes of the mesh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Most of the times, If you increase the orthogonality, or another quality criteria, it would decrease another quality criteria. So I focuse on determinant, min angle and volume mesh.
Bollonga likes this.
BrolY is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 20, 2013, 05:36
Default
  #8
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,910
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 38
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
I find the smoother quit unfriendly for blocking, the reason may less knowledge in this area. However if you compare the smoother of ICEM to gridpro you will notice the significant difference in quality of mesh.

In my point of view smoother should make the mesh smoother, orthogonal with less volume change and at the same time does not the change the other metrics.

I usually concentrate on min angle and quality in first try and I achieve this through blocking fine tuning through vertex movement.

PS : Simon told me that they are working on smoother actively and hired one developer from turbogrid team.
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 20, 2013, 05:38
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Christoph
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 182
Rep Power: 9
energy382 is on a distinguished road
wrong thread

Last edited by energy382; February 20, 2013 at 06:06.
energy382 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 20, 2013, 06:06
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Christoph
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 182
Rep Power: 9
energy382 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart23 View Post
Christoph, what version of ICEM are you using?
v 14.5

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart23 View Post
In terms of "corrupt", do you mean negative volume elements?
yes, but also distored elements, displaced boundary layer....Even if I freeze parts, boundary layers, keep periodic parts, the smoother often doesn't follow these criterias

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart23 View Post
The only way to get an orthogonal and conformal smooth mesh is to start with a good input mesh.
Exactely that's the point! smoother makes a good mesh even better, but can't handle "acceptable" meshes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart23 View Post
All in all, I think most structured meshes should still be smoothed before solving.
I was talking about unstructed meshes, as I always convert my blocking into unstructured mesh. Having said that, I have to admit, that I've never tried the structured smoother. But I think they're a new feature in v 14.5?!
energy382 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
hexa, histogram, quality, smooth

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[ICEM] Low quality mesh Memme ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 1 May 25, 2012 02:02
[ANSYS Meshing] Smoothing options siw ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 1 May 3, 2012 09:13
Getting prism to inflate into mixed tet-hex meshes Joe CFX 16 October 10, 2011 07:06
[ICEM] Hex refinement negative quality afterwards Anorky ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 8 March 22, 2010 04:25
Hexa smoothing (ICEM CFD 10.0) CFDworker CFX 3 November 2, 2005 11:23


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56.