CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Wing Aerodynamics Fluent OF 15 comparison

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

Like Tree1Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   June 11, 2009, 02:19
Default Multielement airfoil analysis
  #61
Senior Member
 
NAVEEN.K.M
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bangalore, Karnataka, india
Posts: 114
Rep Power: 8
naveen is on a distinguished road
hi maruthamuthu_venkatraman

my self NAVEEN from INDIA...i hav completed my naca 0012 airfoil analysis case in openfoa 1.4.1 and 1.5....i got good results in both the versions...thanks for your suggestions....now i am doing MTech project on multielement airfoil analysis with double slotted flaps and i hav completed my grid in gambit(c-grid) and now i need to solve in openfoam...i am getting some errors like this during solving in openfoam 1.4.1

#0 Foam::error:rintStack(Foam::Ostream&) in "/home/openfoam14/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.4.1/lib/linux64GccDPOpt/libOpenFOAM.so"
#1 Foam::sigFpe::sigFpeHandler(int) in "/home/openfoam14/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.4.1/lib/linux64GccDPOpt/libOpenFOAM.so"
#2 ?? in "/lib64/libc.so.6"
#3 Foam::PCG::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/home/openfoam14/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.4.1/lib/linux64GccDPOpt/libOpenFOAM.so"
#4 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve(Foam::Istream&) in "/home/openfoam14/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.4.1/lib/linux64GccDPOpt/libfiniteVolume.so"
#5 main in "/home/openfoam14/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.4.1/applications/bin/linux64GccDPOpt/simpleFoam"
#6 __libc_start_main in "/lib64/libc.so.6"
#7 Foam::regIOobject::readIfModified() in "/home/openfoam14/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.4.1/applications/bin/linux64GccDPOpt/simpleFoam"

can u give me some suggestions whare i am going wrong and also suggest how to set boundary conditions.....
naveen is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 30, 2010, 12:29
Default
  #62
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddalena View Post

[...]
Number of cells of each type: [...]
tetrahedra: 445207 [...]
Checking geometry...
Overall domain bounding box (-1.865 -4.09798 -4.09726) (6.335 9.22699e-09 4.09726)
Mesh (non-empty) directions (1 1 1)
Mesh (non-empty, non-wedge) dimensions 3
Boundary openness (1.52724e-19 7.40957e-19 2.03325e-19) OK.
Max cell openness = 1.63569e-16 OK.
Max aspect ratio = 9.33635 OK.
Minumum face area = 5.21732e-07. Maximum face area = 0.156288. Face area magnitudes OK.
Min volume = 3.97085e-10. Max volume = 0.0188268. Total volume = 144.059. Cell volumes OK.
Mesh non-orthogonality Max: 65.4365 average: 20.2284
Non-orthogonality check OK.
Face pyramids OK.
Max skewness = 0.899635 OK.
Hi Maddalena,
I was just having a look around for useful/interesting discussions about external aerodynamics on unstructured grids, and I found this old but quite interesting tread...So, my question is: how did you obtain a so low max-skewness value on a 3D tetrahedral mesh? I think that my case is pretty different (bluff-body instead of streamlined-body, much larger mesh, etc.) but, however, using ANSA and/or Tgrid till now I was not able to reach max-skewness values lower than 1.8/2 ...
Thank you in advance

Best Regards

V.
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 03:18
Default
  #63
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
My doubt is: did you try to use

leastSquares

or

cellMDLimited leastSquares 1

for gradients?
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 03:37
Default
  #64
Senior Member
 
maddalena's Avatar
 
maddalena
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 436
Rep Power: 12
maddalena is on a distinguished road
Hi V,
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrastev View Post
how did you obtain a so low max-skewness value on a 3D tetrahedral mesh?
well, I guess it is a sort of learning how to proper grading cells on basic connectors. As I learnt from Alberto, a good distribution on the 1D and 2D mesh will lead to a nice 3D mesh...
As an example... The mesh you commented on was generated in Gambit, at the moment I am using Pointwise and I get a max skew of 0.75-0.8...

Hi Alberto,
Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
My doubt is: did you try to use
leastSquares
or
cellMDLimited leastSquares 1
for gradients?
is this answer for me or is it a suggestion for V? What are the main advantages of least square in comparison of Gauss linear? Are they better suited for grid with high skew? Thank you, as usual!

maddalena
maddalena is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 06:52
Default
  #65
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Thanks Maddalena...What you're saying is a big truth (I mean the need for a big amount of patience in building good quality meshes). Anyway, I've never heard about this Pointwise mesher: is it for free? Is it (in your opinion) better or simpler to use compared to the most famous commercial alternatives (Gambit, ANSA, Tgrid)? Thank you once Again


Alberto, if this is a suggestion for me, thank you too, but the leastSquares option (whether limited or not) does not seem to give any benefits in my case (I don't know if it's something about the OF version: you and another guy of the forum started a little discussion about it in the tread concerning the second order schemes, but I didn't understand if the leastSquares option is well implemented in all the newest OF versions, namely from the 1.6 till now, or not). Till today the best combination I've found for the fvSchemes is:


// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //

ddtSchemes
{
default steadyState;
}

gradSchemes
{
default Gauss linear;
grad(p) Gauss linear;
grad(U) cellMDLimited Gauss linear 1;
}

divSchemes
{
default none;
div(phi,U) Gauss linearUpwindV cellMDLimited Gauss linear 1;
div(phi,k) Gauss upwind;
div(phi,epsilon) Gauss upwind;
div(R) Gauss linear;
div((nuEff*dev(grad(U).T()))) Gauss linear;
}

laplacianSchemes
{
default Gauss linear limited 0.5;
// laplacian(nuEff,U) Gauss linear corrected;
// laplacian((1|A(U)),p) Gauss linear corrected;
// laplacian(DkEff,k) Gauss linear corrected;
// laplacian(DepsilonEff,epsilon) Gauss linear corrected;
}

interpolationSchemes
{
default linear;
interpolate(U) linear;
}

snGradSchemes
{
default limited 0.5;
}

fluxRequired
{
default no;
p ;
}


// ************************************************** *********************** //

Curiously, this leads to good convegrence (and, indeed, to quite nice flow features description) only for the 35 slant case of the Ahmed body...The 25 slant case reaches only partial convergence (the residuals first fall down, than grow up and start to oscillate around quite high values, from 10^-03 to 10^-02), but interestingly the results in terms of flow visualization and aerodynamic force coefficients seem to be not so far fom the experimental ones (and also from other RANS steady-state studies I've found in the literature). Finally, the above mentioned settings lead (for both slant configurations) to a significant underprediction of the pressure-drag coefficient in the nose region of the body (about 0.0045 vs. 0.02 from the experiments), whether the drag contribution from the other body-components (lateral skin friction, slant and base pressure drag contribution) are much more coherent both with the experimental data and with previous numerical studies.

Best Regards

Vesselin (V sounds too much lke "V for Vendetta" )
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 08:32
Default
  #66
Senior Member
 
maddalena's Avatar
 
maddalena
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 436
Rep Power: 12
maddalena is on a distinguished road
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrastev View Post
I've never heard about this Pointwise mesher: is it for free? Is it (in your opinion) better or simpler to use compared to the most famous commercial alternatives (Gambit, ANSA, Tgrid)?
No, Pointwise is not for free. I have chosen it for three main reasons:
1. It is the software I knew better when I started to look for a new mesher;
2. It has a direct Pointwise -> OpenFOAM export
3. It has a good way to handle with cyclic patches, that is an important feature for me.
That's it. However, I have not too much experience with other commercial grid mesher: only a couple of meshes with Gambit and with GridPro. And some (bad) experience with salome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrastev View Post
Vesselin (V sounds too much lke "V for Vendetta" )
Thus are you not him???

Cheers

mad
maddalena is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 09:15
Default
  #67
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddalena View Post
Hi,

No, Pointwise is not for free. I have chosen it for three main reasons:
1. It is the software I knew better when I started to look for a new mesher;
2. It has a direct Pointwise -> OpenFOAM export
3. It has a good way to handle with cyclic patches, that is an important feature for me.
That's it. However, I have not too much experience with other commercial grid mesher: only a couple of meshes with Gambit and with GridPro. And some (bad) experience with salome.
Ok, thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddalena View Post
Thus are you not him???
Sorry, hope this doesn't disappoint you too much!

Best Regards

Vesselin
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 11:56
Default
  #68
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrastev View Post
Alberto, if this is a suggestion for me, thank you too, but the leastSquares option (whether limited or not) does not seem to give any benefits in my case (I don't know if it's something about the OF version: you and another guy of the forum started a little discussion about it in the tread concerning the second order schemes, but I didn't understand if the leastSquares option is well implemented in all the newest OF versions, namely from the 1.6 till now, or not). Till today the best combination I've found for the fvSchemes is:
The answer was for both of you. The leastSquares scheme for gradients ensures second order accuracy on arbitrary grids.

The implementation is different in OF from OpenCFD and in -dev/-extend, since the weights are "area based" in the OpenCFD version, and distance based (which is standard) in -dev/-extend.

Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 12:15
Default
  #69
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
The leastSquares scheme for gradients ensures second order accuracy on arbitrary grids.
But does it assure also stability? For my case (you could see tons of details about it here second order schemes ), and with the OpenCFD implementation, it doesn't seem so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
The implementation is different in OF from OpenCFD and in -dev/-extend, since the weights are "area based" in the OpenCFD version, and distance based (which is standard) in -dev/-extend.
What do you mean with "standard"? Better accuracy or stability? Or simply more common implementation form?

Thanks

Vesselin
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 13:17
Default
  #70
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrastev View Post
But does it assure also stability? For my case (you could see tons of details about it here second order schemes ), and with the OpenCFD implementation, it doesn't seem so...
The problem discussed in this thread is related to accuracy, since you cannot match results.

Usually Gauss linear is more stable than leastSquares. If you want to have a distance-based leastSquares in OpenCFD implementation, you can use extendedLeastSquares.

Quote:
What do you mean with "standard"? Better accuracy or stability? Or simply more common implementation form?
Standard = "as per textbook"

Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 13:47
Default
  #71
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
The problem discussed in this thread is related to accuracy, since you cannot match results.
Yes, but more accuracy=using second order convection schemes=problems (lot of problems) with stability on tetrahedral meshes

Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
Usually Gauss linear is more stable than leastSquares.
That is exactly what I have noticed in my runs

Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
If you want to have a distance-based leastSquares in OpenCFD implementation, you can use extendedLeastSquares.
Ok, thanks. But if also this implementation has stability problems compared with Gauss linear, I would still prefer the Gauss linear (maybe limited) itself: better some not-so-accurate results than no results at all...

Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
Standard = "as per textbook"
Got it

Thanks for all the comments

Vesselin
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 13:52
Default
  #72
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
I asked already elsewhere, but is the mesh quality low (what does checkMesh say?).

Hint: hex-dominant meshes are so nice ;-)
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 14:16
Default
  #73
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
I asked already elsewhere, but is the mesh quality low (what does checkMesh say?).
Mesh stats
points: 357845
faces: 3218365
internal faces: 3105296
cells: 1527609
boundary patches: 10
point zones: 0
face zones: 0
cell zones: 0

Overall number of cells of each type:
hexahedra: 0
prisms: 213225
wedges: 0
pyramids: 0
tet wedges: 0
tetrahedra: 1314384
polyhedra: 0

Checking topology...
Boundary definition OK.
Point usage OK.
Upper triangular ordering OK.
Face vertices OK.
Number of regions: 1 (OK).

Checking patch topology for multiply connected surfaces ...
Patch Faces Points Surface topology
symmetry 22600 12584 ok (non-closed singly connected)
floor 14660 7609 ok (non-closed singly connected)
inlet 426 242 ok (non-closed singly connected)
outlet 432 245 ok (non-closed singly connected)
side 2228 1204 ok (non-closed singly connected)
top 1648 910 ok (non-closed singly connected)
body 54899 27768 ok (non-closed singly connected)
nose 8704 4461 ok (non-closed singly connected)
slant 3948 2058 ok (non-closed singly connected)
back 3524 1841 ok (non-closed singly connected)

Checking geometry...
Overall domain bounding box (-1.26 0 0.1945) (6.27 1.44 1.1945)
Mesh (non-empty, non-wedge) directions (1 1 1)
Mesh (non-empty) directions (1 1 1)
Boundary openness (1.709e-17 -1.03646e-15 -2.57399e-16) OK.
Max cell openness = 3.24287e-16 OK.
Max aspect ratio = 5.97752 OK.
Minumum face area = 1.71072e-06. Maximum face area = 0.0159908. Face area magnitudes OK.
Min volume = 1.10751e-09. Max volume = 0.000575106. Total volume = 10.7878. Cell volumes OK.
Mesh non-orthogonality Max: 54.8744 average: 14.5203
Non-orthogonality check OK.
Face pyramids OK.
Max skewness = 1.98187 OK.

Mesh OK.

End

Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
Hint: hex-dominant meshes are so nice ;-)
I agree , but: 1) OpenFOAM is explicitly designed to handle arbitrarly shaped cells, so I would expect to reach at least decent results with a prisms-tetraherdons mesh; 2) To my knowledge and skills, unstructured tetra-dominant meshes are much easier and faster to generate around complex geometries and those features make them more "industrial-user" friendly...Out of curiosity, can you suggest me a fast way to generate (good) hexa-dominant meshes?

Thanks

Vesselin
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 1, 2010, 18:03
Default
  #74
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Hi,

the mesh is OK.

Quote:
I agree , but: 1) OpenFOAM is explicitly designed to handle arbitrarly shaped cells, so I would expect to reach at least decent results with a prisms-tetraherdons mesh;
That should be possible.
The -extend 1.6 release has the reconCentral scheme, which should improve this. Some time ago I took the freedom of compiling it for 1.7.x (see attachment). You can use it as interpolation scheme (add the library to controlDict) with the cellLimited option for gradients.

Quote:
2) To my knowledge and skills, unstructured tetra-dominant meshes are much easier and faster to generate around complex geometries and those features make them more "industrial-user" friendly...Out of curiosity, can you suggest me a fast way to generate (good) hexa-dominant meshes?
It depends on the meshing tools you have. ICEM can do that, Harpoon does that, CD-Adapco has a tool to do that too. OpenFOAM has snappyHexMesh, which is a bit painful to use, if your geometry has a lot of borders that have to be well defined.

Best,
Attached Files
File Type: gz reconCentral_1.7.x.tar.gz (2.8 KB, 35 views)
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 2, 2010, 05:42
Default
  #75
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
Hi,

the mesh is OK.



That should be possible.
The -extend 1.6 release has the reconCentral scheme, which should improve this. Some time ago I took the freedom of compiling it for 1.7.x (see attachment). You can use it as interpolation scheme (add the library to controlDict) with the cellLimited option for gradients.



It depends on the meshing tools you have. ICEM can do that, Harpoon does that, CD-Adapco has a tool to do that too. OpenFOAM has snappyHexMesh, which is a bit painful to use, if your geometry has a lot of borders that have to be well defined.

Best,
Thanks a lot, I'll try to compile this reconCentral scheme and than see what happens! By the way, nowadays I use ANSA (for surface meshing and for constructing the prism-layer) and Tgrid (for the rest of the volumetric mesh) as primary meshing tools...Some time ago I was obliged to use ICEM for my master's thesis, and indeed I found it a very powerful (but also not-so-user-friendly) tool...

Thank you once again

Best Regards

Vesselin
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 3, 2010, 18:18
Default
  #76
Senior Member
 
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 471
Rep Power: 11
bastil is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrastev View Post
By the way, nowadays I use ANSA (for surface meshing and for constructing the prism-layer) and Tgrid (for the rest of the volumetric mesh) as primary meshing tools...
Interesting combination. Why are you doing it this way?
bastil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 5, 2010, 10:10
Default
  #77
Senior Member
 
aerothermal's Avatar
 
Guilherme da Silva
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
Posts: 105
Rep Power: 6
aerothermal is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitja_morgut View Post
Hi Maddalena,

from your profile I have noticed that you are working in Trieste.

I am also from Trieste.

Recently I have compared CFX-11 and OF-1.5 for prediction of the flow around NACA0012.

If you are interested to contact me, (to arrange a meeting in TS) you can find my e-mail address in the profile.

Have a nice day

Mitja
Hello Mitja,

Could you post your fvSolution and fvSchemes as well as your control dict for the case of NACA0012 aifoil? Do you have any picture showing the convergence history?

Regards,

Guilherme
aerothermal is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 5, 2010, 13:08
Default
  #78
Senior Member
 
aerothermal's Avatar
 
Guilherme da Silva
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
Posts: 105
Rep Power: 6
aerothermal is on a distinguished road
Dear Maddalena,

Have you managed to solve your convergence issues?
Could you post your fvSolution, fvSchemes, controlDict?
I am trying to simulate a cylinder M=0.07 and Re=2.2E5 with heat transfer over a fully rough wall with rhoSimpleFoam.

Regards,

Guilherme
aerothermal is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 6, 2010, 03:35
Default
  #79
Senior Member
 
maddalena's Avatar
 
maddalena
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 436
Rep Power: 12
maddalena is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerothermal View Post
Dear Maddalena,

Have you managed to solve your convergence issues?
Could you post your fvSolution, fvSchemes, controlDict?
I am trying to simulate a cylinder M=0.07 and Re=2.2E5 with heat transfer over a fully rough wall with rhoSimpleFoam.

Regards,

Guilherme
Well,
I solved the problem posted above, and was not (only) a problem of fvSchemes and fvSolution. In any case, the right setup is not unique and must be refined for your case, that is indeed really different from what I have. A suggestion: if your solution does not converge, it is probably a matter of BC that are not correctly tuned.
Enjoy

mad
maddalena is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 6, 2010, 06:27
Default
  #80
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by bastil View Post
Interesting combination. Why are you doing it this way?
Hi Bastil,
my main problem is that I use an old version of ANSA which has some difficulties to manage volumetric meshes above 3-3.5 milions of cells (this is, I guess, a kind of "communication bug" between the software and the RAM memory of the PC...I know that the latest 64-bit versions of ANSA do not have such a trouble)...So, if my problem grows up above this limit, I just have to switch to another meshing software In any case, I do prefer to manage wiith the surface mesh and the prisms b.l. with ANSA, and then fill the remaining volume with tetras using Tgrid: it's a matter of personal taste, simply I don't like how Tgrid deals with surface meshing and b. l. building...

Best Regards

Vesselin
vkrastev 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
Comparison between Fluent and COMSOL Solarfinder Main CFD Forum 5 November 12, 2014 14:23
External Aerodynamics - Moving Wing Mick FLUENT 0 October 3, 2005 08:13
Comparison among CFX, STARCD, FLUENT, etc ? Jihwan Main CFD Forum 13 October 12, 2004 12:02
comparison Of CFX with FLUENT rou CFX 3 April 26, 2003 01:10
comparison Of CFX with FLUENT rou FLUENT 1 April 1, 2003 19:18


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:47.