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

[ICEM] Difference between ICEM and Gridgen

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

Like Tree4Likes
  • 2 Post By Far
  • 1 Post By Hybrid
  • 1 Post By PSYMN

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   February 25, 2012, 10:03
Default Difference between ICEM and Gridgen
  #1
Senior Member
 
---------
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 302
Rep Power: 8
saisanthoshm88 is on a distinguished road
Could some one please tell me the differences between the way ICEM handles the bottom up approach of meshing and the way Gridgen does it.

I mean I see that even ICEM can support a bottom up approach like you create some initial blocking , then delete it but after such initiation of the block, ICEM makes it possible to build blocks from the vertices by using the option - " From Vertices/Faces " in the Create Block options also it is possible to extrude faces of a block in ICEM so how does this differ from the bottom up approach used by gridgen.
__________________
Best regards,
Santhosh.
saisanthoshm88 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 26, 2012, 21:10
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
PSYMN's Avatar
 
Simon Pereira
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 2,662
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 35
PSYMN has a spectacular aura aboutPSYMN has a spectacular aura about
Yes, you can do bottom up in ICEM CFD, but it is still quite different from Gridgen. Gridgen (it has been a few years for me and I have not tried point-wise) has you build the edges and faces and then smooth them. From what I recal, you can actually build all the separate faces and then turn it into a block, There is also the extrude option, etc.

Maybe John C. or some other Gambit user can chime in with the basic process and comment more on the differences...

ICEM CFD Hexa can create "blocks" from corners or from faces, but those are meant to fill in gaps between other blocks. This is usually done as part of some elaborate blocking strategy that involves deleting blocks or to join two previously separate blockings... You can also start with 2D blocking and extrude or rotate it into 3D blocking, or you can take a 3D blocking and extrude a face to create an extra block... One of the support guys in our office has done some impressive bottom up blocking with the ICEM CFD "create elements" option and then converted those elements into blocks.

But 9 times out of 10, the top down process is faster and more stable (at least with ICEM CFD Hexa) than the bottom up process...
__________________
-----------------------------------------
Please help guide development at ANSYS by filling in these surveys

Public ANSYS ICEM CFD Users Survey

This second one is more general (Gambit, TGrid and ANSYS Meshing users welcome)...

CFD Online Users Survey
PSYMN is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 2, 2012, 15:50
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
John Chawner
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Posts: 219
Rep Power: 9
jchawner is on a distinguished road
Never having used ICEM Hexa, I'm not in a position to compare and contrast the two methods.

However, I will respectfully disagree with Simon's assertion that the top down process is faster and more stable than bottom up in the majority of cases.
__________________
John Chawner / jrc@pointwise.com / www.pointwise.com
Blog: http://blog.pointwise.com/
on Twitter: @jchawner
jchawner is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 3, 2012, 05:42
Default
  #4
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,905
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 38
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
Well, both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. In top-down approach you can make the good topology and mesh at very fast pace. However for very complex geometries it is tedious to find the suitable topology in top-down approach for newbie.
In bottom up approach, you have the visual feeling while building the topology from connectors, domain and then blocks. So some times it is very much easy to work on the bottom up approach for new comers.
Another advantage of bottom-up approach is that, you can make the hybrid mesh very easily and with higher degree of control. So whenever you find it difficult to mesh the particular portion of geometry with hexa, you can use the tetra meshing with no special treatment.
ICEM bottom-top approach is not meant for the complete solution, it just complement the top-down approach. When used in standalone mode it may be proves to be difficult and poor approach when compared to gridgen's bottom-up (or gambit or ANSYS meshing) approach.
I agree with the Simon's comments that the top-down approach is very fast 9 out 10 times than bottom-up approach. Keep in mind this is only possible if you are expert enough in the top-down approach other wise it may be disastrous. On the other hand in bottom-top approach you will always reach the destination, no matter how much time it takes (maintaining the quality is difficult in bottom-up approach).
Suppose if there are two experts in bottom up approach (say Gridgen) and top-down approach (say ICEM CFD) and if we compare the speed (and quality obviously) then we term this racing as "racing of rabbit and turtle". So if rabbit keep on working then it will win the race otherwise he may not even be able to finish the race.
Hybrid and Anna Tian like this.

Last edited by Far; March 3, 2012 at 07:59.
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 3, 2012, 07:07
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Ali
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 100
Rep Power: 7
Hybrid is on a distinguished road
Comparison is possible when the things are same. Very difficult to compare to different approaches and software. If you are new, never use any software before, you must go to ICEM (hard to learn and time expensive) but high quality of meshing within few hours or even in minutes if you train yourself as an expert.

Gridgen and ICEM have different approaches. One may convenient with bottom-up approach and the other with top-down.

User has full control of meshing in Gridgen, can decide topology, know what is going-on, where is the problem, easily find the issues in the mesh and can easily solve that. Pointwise is more powerful than Gridgen except anisotropic meshing as it is not available in the current release, will be in Pointwise 17.

User is fully dependent on what is available in ICEM. Its automatic process, if anything goes wrong during blocking you have to delete everything and start from the scratch.

I am new to ICEM, may be I'm wrong, It's my experience, so don't mind.
Personally, I like ICEM. I have been working in Gridgen/Pointwise for last 7 years.

Best Regards

Ali
Far likes this.
Hybrid is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 3, 2012, 12:18
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
PSYMN's Avatar
 
Simon Pereira
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 2,662
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 35
PSYMN has a spectacular aura aboutPSYMN has a spectacular aura about
Just to be clear... When I said...

Quote:
But 9 times out of 10, the top down process is faster and more stable (at least with ICEM CFD Hexa) than the bottom up process...
I was comparing ICEM CFD top down and ICEM CFD Bottom up...

I personally think the same point compares more generally, but I do not have sufficient expertise in actually using the other codes to state that outright

When I did more customer demos years ago, we converted many users from "bottom up" methods based on our speed. Once you know some key tricks, like how to use Ogrids, top down is very powerful. The ability to move the blocking verts around and to apply a blocking topology to a variety of models is also a powerful speed advantage... But as FAR said, our bottom up has mostly been to "compliment" our top down...

The exception is the newer "MultiZone" technology. It is somewhat like bottom up, but since it is so automated, it doesn't feel that way. I heard that Pointwise has (or is developing) something similar based on their own technology...

In the end, having a few strong competitors in the market keeps us all working and is better for the end users.
Far likes this.
__________________
-----------------------------------------
Please help guide development at ANSYS by filling in these surveys

Public ANSYS ICEM CFD Users Survey

This second one is more general (Gambit, TGrid and ANSYS Meshing users welcome)...

CFD Online Users Survey

Last edited by PSYMN; March 3, 2012 at 13:38.
PSYMN is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2014, 06:22
Question
  #7
Senior Member
 
Anna Tian's Avatar
 
Meimei Wang
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Rep Power: 6
Anna Tian is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Far View Post
Well, both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. In top-down approach you can make the good topology and mesh at very fast pace. However for very complex geometries it is tedious to find the suitable topology in top-down approach for newbie.
In bottom up approach, you have the visual feeling while building the topology from connectors, domain and then blocks. So some times it is very much easy to work on the bottom up approach for new comers.
Another advantage of bottom-up approach is that, you can make the hybrid mesh very easily and with higher degree of control. So whenever you find it difficult to mesh the particular portion of geometry with hexa, you can use the tetra meshing with no special treatment.
ICEM bottom-top approach is not meant for the complete solution, it just complement the top-down approach. When used in standalone mode it may be proves to be difficult and poor approach when compared to gridgen's bottom-up (or gambit or ANSYS meshing) approach.
I agree with the Simon's comments that the top-down approach is very fast 9 out 10 times than bottom-up approach. Keep in mind this is only possible if you are expert enough in the top-down approach other wise it may be disastrous. On the other hand in bottom-top approach you will always reach the destination, no matter how much time it takes (maintaining the quality is difficult in bottom-up approach).
Suppose if there are two experts in bottom up approach (say Gridgen) and top-down approach (say ICEM CFD) and if we compare the speed (and quality obviously) then we term this racing as "racing of rabbit and turtle". So if rabbit keep on working then it will win the race otherwise he may not even be able to finish the race.
Thank you for your answer, Far. This answer is very helpful information for me. I learnt ICEM and will need to usually generate complex geometry grids for aircraft design. Now I have both ICEM and Gridgen available to use. I recently heard about that Gridgen is better for complex geometry design. But according to your answer, shall I conclude that, even for very complex geometry structured grids generation, if I become an expert in ICEM, there won't be any need for me to learn Gridgen? Since you provide a lot very helpful comments on this forum, I trust the information from you very much.

And btw, what do see in the future of ICEM and Gridgen?

And I see that Gridgen has a lot of shortcuts which are really helpful on accelerating the grids generation operation speed. But i didn't find out shortcuts available in ICEM. So I regard this as a (small?) disadvantage of ICEM compared with Gridgen. Correct me if I'm wrong at this point of view.
__________________
Best regards,
Meimei

Last edited by Anna Tian; May 1, 2014 at 11:23.
Anna Tian is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

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
Gridgen files to ICEM CFD hsadek ANSYS 6 July 26, 2012 05:19
[ICEM] Gambit to ICEM, any advices ? Santos-Dumont ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 16 February 28, 2012 20:07
[ICEM] Export mesh to Gridgen ali987 ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 2 January 2, 2010 13:20
Gambit, Gridgen or ICEM CFD sam Main CFD Forum 5 October 7, 2006 02:20
Import Gridgen Mesh V15 to CFX 10 Christina CFX 3 August 1, 2006 09:06


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28.