Creating waterproof STL using snappyHexMesh or salome
2 Attachment(s)
Dear all,
the last few years I experienced the necessity of a good surface triangulation while using snappyHexMesh. Most people are using common CAD software packages and export single surfaces as STL files. These STL files have two big problems, if they represent a closed volume:
Both (and especially the second one) influences the mesh generation in a very bad way. The good thing is that in some case it does not matter ;). The bad thing is, that you could really get unexpected results (I made a lot of tests with my collegue Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev). Some unexpected results were:
Not water proofed STL have a further bad behavior in the point of feature edges. STL's (or region STL) that share share a curvatured edge will end up with two feature edges due to the fact that the STL's share not the same points (and therefore not the same edge). After creating the feature edges, you will extract both feature edges. Now ask yourself, which line should be used? (Here one comment, please check your featureEdge mesh using paraview and correct it if its wrong with blender).
Code:
surfaceMeshTriangulate myNewSurface.stl Attachment 47016 The procedure is as follow (short form summarized and clear):
My personal suggestions are:
If you have to mesh a lot of different designs, I would prefer the generation of the STL using snappyHexMesh. You also can implement this way into a optimization loop. So good luck and keep foaming, hope this will help somebody. |
So far freecad 0.16 seems to generate "waterproof " stl
|
Non -closed
1 Attachment(s)
Hi Tobi,
Can you tell me how to create a closed stl file when we combine individual surfaces (stl file) manually after labeling them ? I always get "surface is not closed" when i do a surface check for the combined stl file but it does not happen for the stl file of the part. Can you tell me what i am doing wrong ?? I have attached the files PS: I used salome for creating the solid which i exploded into individual surfaces. |
Dear Vignesh,
if you have several surfaces in Salome you are not allowed to export these surfaces in the geometry module. You have to mesh the surfaces in the mesh module to make a homogeneous discretization on the lines. If you export these STL files then you end up with a waterproofed STL. That is the way I prefer for all STL's. To check it, just load your exported STL into paraview. You will see that the contact lines will not share the same triangle points. |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Thanks for the quick reply. I tried as you suggested, still i get "surfaces is not closed" :confused:. By the way when i view the combined stl file in paraview the contact lines share same triangle points !! |
1 Attachment(s)
Hi,
if you check our STL it is not closed. Each surface has different points on the interface. The interface does not share the points of both surfaces. See the picture (for you it should be obvious). Check out my STL's in my tutorials and you see that the interface (the line that is shared by both) has the same points on both surfaces. |
Hi Tobi,
I understood the mistake that i made during meshing in salome. Thanks for pointing it out. Now its working :D |
Hey Tobias,
I tried to reproduce your workflow: -stl generation in salome -created groups -created edges of the groups -change to mesh mode -triangulated the geometry by meshing -made mesh groups of the patches BUT... when I combine the patches in in big file, I still get unconnected surfaces... What point do I miss? I want the stl file as input for cfMesh! Thanks a lot for your advice! Best regards, Sebastian At this point, I |
Hi Sebastian,
Did you keep the edge length same for all faces (groups) while meshing ? |
Hey Vignesh,
Jap, I did not change any settings for the meshing! How is your workflo9w? Which geometry parts do you use? I am not sure if I have to use the whole geometry to mesh (how do i capture feature edges) or if a mesh the grouped geometry parts on their own with the same settings? Just from viewing the stl in paraview, it was fine. The triangles in the areas where the patches touch each looked quite nice... Thanks again... Best regards, Sebastian |
Hi Sebastian,
My workflow in salome is
Hope this helps you Quote:
|
Thanks a lot for your fast replay!
I will give it a try on my geometry and report the result... |
All good (for the moment :D )
Thank you so much! |
1 Attachment(s)
Hi vigneshTG,
I'm using meshLab to convert text file to stl format. After that, I've used surfaceCheck to check my geometry. End of surfaceCheck, surface is not closed errors are shown no matter how I try to fix with admesh or meshLab. How should I fix that problem? Please advice me!! thanks |
Then use salome to create your STL.
If you have single STL's it will not work. |
Dear Tobi,
Thanks for your reply and suggest. Can I use salome even my terrain is topography? |
Dear Tobi,
I was having problems for days and now that actually hits the spot. I will try Salome right quick, thanks. Utkan |
The salome user interface is a little clunky, and for anything complex or repetitive you will need the script interface. This script interface can also help in understanding the work flow needed. In the attached salome python script I have created the stl files and UNV file for the snappyhexmesh tutorial for Chtmultiregion.
In this script you can see:
Code:
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- |
I do not agree with your statement. I am using Salomes GUI for really high complex geometries and till now I could do anything without the python interface. Of course you can get a lot of information out of the python script and it allows to use it for optimization but the necessity of python for complex geometry - no, I cannot agree.
Sent from my HTC One mini using CFD Online Forum mobile app |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:46. |