Possible bug or limitation in stl-generated surface for sampling analysis
2 Attachment(s)
Hi,
In sampling results over surfaces, openfoam allows for using an stl-generated surface. For example in line 312 of $FOAM_UTILITIS/postProcessing/sampling/sample/sampleDict Code:
triSurfaceSampling Code:
surfaceSampling As it can be seen the stl approach completely fails. For some reason it doesn't really cut through the cells, rather keeps the original triangles form the stl. In the sampleDict, it's mentioned that the first approach using plane or cutting plane always generates a triangulated surface as well. So now I'm a bit confused as how to deal with this. Is this a bug in the type sampledTriSurfaceMesh which doesn't perform a topoSet analysis automatically? Like creating cellSet from the stl surface? or limitation of the approach or I missed something out? Thanks Ali |
This behaviour is intended. You'll need to generate a nicer sampling surface. The resolution of the sampling surface should be higher than your mesh resolution.
Also: http://www.openfoam.org/mantisbt/view.php?id=1235 |
Thanks Anton for the reply.
A few questions: 1) As the figure for the sampled surface using type cuttingPlane shows, the surface is also triangulated which is inline with the description in the sampleDict (line 157th "planes are always triangulated"). But the triangulation seems so follow after selecting cells that are cut through by the plane, and triangulation is performed on the selected cells. So initially some sort of topoSet-like utility is used. this is just a guess though. 2) if that is the case, then the approach to sampling seems to be quite different from that of the TriSurfaceMesh type. For this type, it seems that it will just directly use the triangles of the stl surface. Is that correct? Regarding the increase in resolution of the triangulated surface, the way stl triangulates isn't like a finite-element based triangulation. I tried to increase the resolution of the stl generated disk using Salome, and of course it increases the number of the triangles, but then makes the aspect ratio even worse, since all generated triangles share a point as visible in previous attached image. And naturally the resulting surface representation of U looks just the same as the lower resolution one. To me there seems to be a missing step in the TriSurfaceMesh type. I mean some sort of mapping just like the cuttingPlane type. 3) Having checked the link you included, makes it more puzzling for me as how TriSurfaceMesh type works. Based on your figures it seems that more that the resolution of stl-surface, is the interpolation procedure which matters the most. But I couldn't directly link the methods bellow the images to the interpolation schemes in sampleDict (cell,cellPoint, cellPointFace, pointMVC). So could you please tell me if I'm correct about the following: Interpolation scheme corresponding to the image sampledTriSurfaceCells.png: cell Interpolation scheme corresponding to the image sampledTriSurfacePoints.png: pointMVC Interpolation scheme corresponding to the image sampledTriSurfaceCellsInterpolatedToPointValues.pn g cellPoint Best Ali |
An STL meshing algorithm will try to describe the surface with the least amount of triangles possible, absolutely disregarding the quality. You want to use advancing front or something that makes a high quality shell mesh. You can put the resulting mesh in an STL file without any issues.
Your understanding of how the sampling works is correct. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54. |