|March 28, 2012, 08:12||
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Novara, Italy
Posts: 142Rep Power: 7
That's all ? So simple ? I thought the common surfaces between two regions need to be meshed exactly the same way (same points)... actually I thought they were the same mesh named in two different ways.
I think you can try lower your refinement level requirement.
In the sHMDict I posted yesterday the setup is quite coarse...
|March 28, 2012, 08:30||
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 152Rep Power: 6
In "wonderfull land", you should use only structured mesh (the exact same surface mesh for both fluid region and solid region) to get the best results.
But in real life since I was not able to deal with SHM, an unstructured mesh is a first solution. If you use the same cell size for both regions, you will be able to limit the error from the meshes differences.
I have already checked OpenFOAM can deal with it on a simple test case. With SHM, The only problem that could appear is from the feature edge option. Sometimes SHM is a bit crafty. But with an other mesh tool, it would be easy.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Multi Region Meshing||bruce||OpenFOAM Native Meshers: snappyHexMesh and Others||12||July 31, 2013 11:09|
|Multi region meshing & recovering the original patch names||fluidpath||OpenFOAM Native Meshers: snappyHexMesh and Others||4||May 19, 2013 20:13|
|Using starToFoam||clo||OpenFOAM Other Meshers: ICEM, Star, Ansys, Pointwise, GridPro, Ansa, ...||33||September 26, 2012 05:04|
|StarToFoam error||Kart||OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion||1||February 4, 2010 05:38|
|Import gmsh msh to Foam||adorean||Open Source Meshers: Gmsh, Netgen, CGNS, ...||24||April 27, 2005 09:19|