# Deciding the mesh element size in CFD

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 August 2, 2012, 18:24 Deciding the mesh element size in CFD #1 Senior Member   --------- Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 303 Rep Power: 11 Could some one please let me know how to choose / decide on the element size for meshing in a CFD analysis. __________________ Best regards, Santhosh.

 August 3, 2012, 03:10 #2 Senior Member   cfdnewbie Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 557 Rep Power: 13 Depends on your method (FV, FD, FE...), your flow situation, boundary conditions, time step considerations, RAM size, CPU time available, governing equations.... impossible to give a general answer here...

 August 3, 2012, 05:44 #3 Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 271 Rep Power: 9 There is at least one global rule. If you perform 3D DNS, then the whole number of grid points should be N=Re(power 9/4) where Re is the Reynolds number. So if for instance you have Re=1000 then it would require 178 grid points in each direction NX=178, NY=178, NZ=178. If you are below this grid resolution it does not mean thecomputation will faill.It is just the requirement to capture the smallest eddies at the Kolmogorov scale. So the grid size is first a question of the level of accuracy you expect. Apart of this accuracy requirement,you have some requirements due to the stability of your temporal scheme. It links the grid size and the time step. for explicit schemes the CFL condition is the rule. roughly speaking it indicates that between a time step period, the information which travels at velocity U, must not cover a distance greater that a grid size. so start to decide what should be the grid size following your accuracy requirement.Then you apply the CFL condition and it will give you the time step. Implicit time schemes are theoretically unconditionnaly stable. which means that whatever the grid size, any time step will work. In practice it is not completely true. And even if the constraint is less than for explicit schemes you can choose greater time step than those for explicit schemes. For the same accuracy, high order spatial schemes will require less grid points than low order schemes. It means that with a low order scheme (upwind scheme) you can obtain the same accuracy with a high order scheme,but it would cost much more towards grid points and thus computational time. To verifiy that you have used the correct grid size, and to validate your results you should perform griz size independancy tests. You compute your solution with a given grid size. Then you refine the grid and compute again. You do this several time with finer and finer grids. Then your monitored solution at one given location and at the same time step of course, should tend assymptotically to one value. The grid size for which the monitored solution does not evolve anymore, will be the right size.

August 3, 2012, 09:14
#4
Senior Member

cfdnewbie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 557
Rep Power: 13
Quote:
 Originally Posted by leflix There is at least one global rule. If you perform 3D DNS, then the whole number of grid points should be N=Re(power 9/4) where Re is the Reynolds number. So if for instance you have Re=1000 then it would require 178 grid points in each direction NX=178, NY=178, NZ=178. If you are below this grid resolution it does not mean thecomputation will faill.It is just the requirement to capture the smallest eddies at the Kolmogorov scale.
Am I mistaken, or is the Kolmogorov scale estimate just a measure of proportionality? I.e the relationship I remember goes like nu = K * Re(power 9/4), where K is the unknown proportionality constant..... that would mean that you cannot fix your minimum N the way you described, the only thing you could do is to do a full DNS of a flow at a given Reynolds number, ensure you do indeed have a DNS and then use this relationship to compute N for a different Re....

Are you sure that's an exact equation, not a proportionality relation?

 August 3, 2012, 09:27 #5 Senior Member     Alex Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 1,620 Rep Power: 26 You are right, it is actually just a proportionality relation.

August 3, 2012, 10:48
#6
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 271
Rep Power: 9
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cfdnewbie Are you sure that's an exact equation, not a proportionality relation?
yes indeed you are right cfdnewbie and Flotus1, N has to be proportional to Re(power 9/4).

 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 bobburnquist OpenFOAM Native Meshers: snappyHexMesh and Others 6 August 26, 2015 09:38 sc298 OpenFOAM Native Meshers: snappyHexMesh and Others 2 March 27, 2011 21:11 lr103476 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 30 November 19, 2007 15:09 Joe CFX 2 March 26, 2007 18:10

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:50.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Privacy Statement - Top