# Difference in results using different Mesh?

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

 June 27, 2002, 05:36 Difference in results using different Mesh? #1 Julie Guest   Posts: n/a Dear All, I wonder if there will be a difference in results using hex-submap, hex-map, hex-cooper mesh? The structure I created in gambit could not be meshed using hex-map or hex-cooper, errors like "there is no logical cube to be meshed" when using hex-map and "source faces are hard-linked" when using the hex-cooper. I do not understand what they mean, hence I did nothing to change my structure. I realise I could only mesh my structure using tri-pave or hex-submap. Can anyone tell me the difference in results between the difference type of mesh method used, and what mesh is better prefered if I am doing a DPM in a rectangular room? Also, if anyone could tell me what the error message means. Thank you.

 June 27, 2002, 15:44 Re: Difference in results using different Mesh? #2 Mustafa Gelisli Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Julie, If your geometry is a rectangle you should be able to create a hex-map mesh. Hex-map mesher algorithm consider your geometry as a logical cube. it meshes the mutual faces using same interval size and than meshes the volume. When your geometry differs from a logical rectangle (for example, when you cut off o corner of the rectangle or you substract another volume from yor geometry etc...) Gambit gives "there is no logical cube to be meshed" error. That means you cannot mesh the geometry using hex-map scheme unless you divide your geometry into smaller- mappable volumes. Secondly, cooper scheme consider your geometry as a logical barrel. When you first mesh one circular face of the barrel and then use cooper scheme, cooper imprint your existing mesh on the other circular face , meshes other faces(side faces) using map or sub map scheme and then meshes the volume. In your example you probably make hardlinks beetween your source faces(circular faces o logical barrel), so you have to unlink these face meshes before using cooper scheme. You can do that using mesh-face mesh-unlink face mesh command. Finally, hexa map mesh is always gives more accurate results as long as you take care of mesh sizing. If you use adequate mesh in the high gradient regions, you will the most accurate results using hex-map scheme Good Luck

 June 27, 2002, 23:31 Re: Difference in results using different Mesh? #3 Julie Guest   Posts: n/a Hey Mustafa, Thanks for responding, actually my model is not really just a rectangular block. It is a rectangular room with openings/vents at the ceiling. I created the vents using create volume->split volume->unite volume->delete volume but retain lower geometry->split volume with face to create openings at the ceiling of the rectangular volume Also in this room, there is to be a partition wall.At first I create this wall by creating a face then split the volume of the room with this face. However when using cooper mesh I get error like source faces are hard-linked. The only mesh I could use was tri/pave Then I modify the model by creating the partition wall using creating a thin volume and then subtract it from the room volume. And the only hex mesh I could use without getting any error message is submap I have never use submap before, and I was skeptical about it. I was afraid that if I use this mesh I may run into problems later if I proceed on to DPM in fluent. Is submap reliable, as in if I ever run into any problems in solving in fluent, will it due to the fact that I have used a secondary mesh (submap) or as long as I could export the mesh successfully into fluent, no matter what kinda of mesh I should not have errors during solving ?

 June 28, 2002, 03:36 Re: Difference in results using different Mesh? #4 Mustafa Gelisli Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Julie, It is very difficult to say how to mesh your geometry unless I have it, but I can say that Submap is a very reliable meshing scheme. It is actually a different kind of hex-map scheme. You can obtain very accurate results using these scheme as long as you create adequately fine mesh in possible high gradient regions. Of course, I assume that your boundary conditions are ok.If you have a little bit more time to mesh your geometry, you can send me dbs file(only geometry please, not mesh) and I may be able to make another suggestions(But probably in 3 days maybe more- I am very busy nowadays).

 June 29, 2002, 03:57 Re: Difference in results using different Mesh? #5 Julie Guest   Posts: n/a Hey thanks! I will send u my dbs file using the email next to your name.

 July 1, 2002, 08:13 Re: Difference in results using different Mesh? #6 Martin Shanel Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Julie, if you want hex-map mesh so badly, why don't you split your volume into several smaller ones that can be meshed with hex-map? It's simple as that ... Good luck. Martin.

 July 2, 2002, 09:49 Re: Difference in results using different Mesh? #7 Mustafa Gelisli Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Julie, I have recieved your mails containing Gambit files but I could not open the files in Gambit. I don't know what the problem is (It may be the operating system. I use Win2000). Could you please send them to me again.(please first delete your mesh and then zip your dbs file to decrease the size of the files) Regards, Mustafa

 July 2, 2002, 10:28 Re: Difference in results using different Mesh? #8 Julie Guest   Posts: n/a yah, perhaps its the operating system. I am using Unix station in school. Anyways I will send u them to u again tomorrow. But if you can't open them, then guess there is no other way then.Thanks.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post vishwa OpenFOAM Native Meshers: snappyHexMesh and Others 23 August 6, 2014 03:50 Niklas Wikstrom (Wikstrom) OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 122 June 15, 2014 06:20 tommymoose ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 48 April 15, 2013 04:24 kawamatt2 ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 17 December 20, 2011 12:45 mateus FLUENT 0 May 21, 2008 00:50

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:59.