[aero_head]

Hello All,

I am currently creating a structured mesh for my geometry in ICEM.

From trying and as stated in the ICEM Tutorial Manual, when the number of nodes is changed on one edge, all parallel edges will automatically have the same number of nodes.

Is there a way to disable this from occurring for a structured mesh?

The the ICEM Help Manual, p.272 (the attached image), depicts what I want, but this mentions it has to do with patch dependent options (?), and I believe merging two different meshes, so I do not think it applies for my case.

Thanks in advance.

[bluebase]

Hi Kira,

for a fully structured(mapped) mesh it is not possible to have different element counts on parallel edges.

However, you can integrate (partly-) unstructured blocks within a blocking topology.

In the following menu you can switch block types from mapped to free: Blocking tab > Edit Block > Convert Block Type.
Such a free block uses the unstructured-mesh settings to fill it with elements. You could use for example a hexa/quad-dominant mesh to fill the block.
In 3D you also have the option of a so-called swept block. It is a prismatic-elements block where only top and bottom faces are free/unstructured meshes.

If hybrid meshes (structured + unstructured) are not an option, you would have to deal with more complex strategies In order to replace the impossible block with a blocking structure which matches your given edge counts.
You can find the so-called nesting strategy.

As far as i know, ICEM does not have a feature to create it automatically on the blocking level.

However, if you use different refinement levels on adjacent blocks, you can choose to resolve the difference in edge count. This only works if the edge counts differs by a factor of three. In other cases you end up having so-called hanging nodes - practically an internal interface.

Many solvers nowadays can deal with hanging nodes, though.


Best,
Sebastian

[aero_head]

Hello Sebastian,

Thank you so much for your very detailed reply.

You have confirmed my suspicion that it is not possible the way I have been trying it. The geometry is 3D, so I would have to look into using these swept blocks, or use nesting as you have mentioned.

[aero_head]

Originally Posted by bluebase

Hi Kira,

If hybrid meshes (structured + unstructured) are not an option, you would have to deal with more complex strategies In order to replace the impossible block with a blocking structure which matches your given edge counts.
You can find the so-called nesting strategy.

As far as i know, ICEM does not have a feature to create it automatically on the blocking level.

However, if you use different refinement levels on adjacent blocks, you can choose to resolve the difference in edge count. This only works if the edge counts differs by a factor of three. In other cases you end up having so-called hanging nodes - practically an internal interface.

Many solvers nowadays can deal with hanging nodes, though.


Best,
Sebastian

Hello Sebastian,

Do you have any tutorials/examples of the nesting strategy you were talking about, as well as refinement levels on adjacent blocks?

Thanks in advance

[AtoHM]

Kira, have a look around page 177 of this slide show: https://manualzz.com/doc/7414055/ice...r-cfd-analysis

[aero_head]

Originally Posted by AtoHM

Kira, have a look around page 177 of this slide show: https://manualzz.com/doc/7414055/ice...r-cfd-analysis

Thanks AtoHM,

It states that this is used for unstructured mesh only? So there would be no way to do this for my structured mesh?

[bluebase]

Resolving a refinement is indeed an operation which can only be run on an unstructured mesh.
However, this might be misleading a little bit since every premesh is converted to unstructured before exporting.
Hence, you can consider this feature a post processing step of your premesh.
Although it's possible to use this feature on any other unstructured mesh as well.

You just cannot run it in the premeshing phase.

[aero_head]

Thank you again Sebastian and AtoHM,

I am hoping I could get some last points of clarification;

If I were to implement this separate refinement in my mesh, it would introduce some skew to my cells, right? Right now, I have a perfectly orthogonal mesh (100% quality and min. angle of 90 degrees), and I wish to keep this.

EDIT: I did the block refinement and it tells me there is no skew, even when I use the 'resolve refinements' option. Interesting!

Along that line of thinking, if I were to have one mesh that was orthogonal and another that wasn't, I would need more nodes for the orthogonal case to 'make up' for the orthogonality, right?

Hope what I am asking is clear.

[aero_head]

Sebastian and AtoHM,

Thank you so much for your replies. The block refinement was exactly what I was looking for!

I'll be sure to make the transition from the other blocks that I did not refine as smooth as I can.