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

[ANSYS Meshing] Migrating from GAMBIT to ANSYS Meshing

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 31, 2011, 23:21
Default Migrating from GAMBIT to ANSYS Meshing
  #1
New Member
 
David L.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
David-CFD is on a distinguished road
I used to mesh in GAMBIT and I had already gotten acquaintance, but now it seems GAMBIT will be replaced with the pair DesignModeler and ANSYS Meshing and so I have started to mesh in these applications.
The problem is I realized a very different meshing process with these softwares, and also some limitations there are not present in GAMBIT. For instance, the following are some of the problems I have found:
1. There is not possible to mesh section by section, thus the user cannot mesh the parts in a preferred order according to his own criterion. Moreover, big meshes (too many cells) need to be meshed in robust computers since the mesh need to be completely generated in just one step.
2. Only one source/one target parts can be meshed with hexahedrons using the Sweep method. Neither Thin Sweep nor Multizone methods sufficiently help to mesh parts with more than one source (or target, or both) which easily can be meshed using GAMBIT. (A body located between two sweepable bodies cannot be meshed with Thin Sweep method because of the predefined meshing order of the software.)
3. The Mapped Face method is not as user controlled as the methods which are available in GAMBIT, if not it works like if the software decides whether using quadrilaterals or right triangles.
4. Once a geometry have been repaired and cleaned up in DesignModeler, ANSYS Meshing does not read this geometry exactly in some cases, thus forcing the user to review the geometry and use virtual topologies. (In GAMBIT there is not that problem because the both geometry repair and meshing are made therein.)
5. The fact of connecting the bodies by forming a part does not allow seeing exactly in DesignModeler if there exist connection problems and sometimes they have to be noticed through errors when meshing. Furthermore, this issue can alter significantly the geometry and thus the numerical results of the simulation.
6. Perhaps of less importance, I have not found the way to visualize the vertices in DesignModeler and so there is a bit difficult to quickly find details like edges which need to be merged, for instance.
As I am new in DesignModeler and ANSYS Meshing, I do not know if the aforementioned issues are actually problems in these softwares or if they have simple solutions. Therefore, I would thank to everybody who comments about these issues, as well as different issues in these Workbench applications.
David-CFD is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2011, 05:22
Default
  #2
sac
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 44
Rep Power: 7
sac is on a distinguished road
1. There is not possible to mesh section by section, thus the user cannot mesh the parts in a preferred order according to his own criterion. Moreover, big meshes (too many cells) need to be meshed in robust computers since the mesh need to be completely generated in just one step.

You can do this in v13.0.

2. Only one source/one target parts can be meshed with hexahedrons using the Sweep method. Neither Thin Sweep nor Multizone methods sufficiently help to mesh parts with more than one source (or target, or both) which easily can be meshed using GAMBIT. (A body located between two sweepable bodies cannot be meshed with Thin Sweep method because of the predefined meshing order of the software.)

Multizone can have multiple sources (targets are also sources in the MZ method).

3. The Mapped Face method is not as user controlled as the methods which are available in GAMBIT, if not it works like if the software decides whether using quadrilaterals or right triangles.

Don't have the manual in front of me but I'm pretty sure you can.


4. Once a geometry have been repaired and cleaned up in DesignModeler, ANSYS Meshing does not read this geometry exactly in some cases, thus forcing the user to review the geometry and use virtual topologies. (In GAMBIT there is not that problem because the both geometry repair and meshing are made therein.)

Never seen this.

The only occasion that I can think you are refering to is that you are subtracting volumes and they don't come through exactly as you expect they would if you did the same operations in gambit.

EIther way you can check how the model will be displayed in meshing using the shared topology control in DM.


6. Perhaps of less importance, I have not found the way to visualize the vertices in DesignModeler and so there is a bit difficult to quickly find details like edges which need to be merged, for instance.

Use the automatic repair tools (under tools) to pick up short edges, slithers, voids etc...


sac is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
geometry repair, hexaedral meshes, meshing issues

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
[Other] Ansys meshing airfoil and / or compressor blades baw192 ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 8 September 23, 2011 00:43
Problematic geometry in Ansys Meshing ATOTA ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 1 October 9, 2010 11:51
meshing a fan using gambit tony FLUENT 1 February 15, 2008 00:28
Gambit: too long meshing time! delsolman FLUENT 1 January 29, 2008 19:06
GAMBIT meshing problem Gauthier Lambert Main CFD Forum 1 August 3, 2000 09:22


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:01.