|
[Sponsors] |
September 5, 2012, 11:06 |
checkMesh errors
|
#1 |
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51 |
Hi all,
i normally check my mesh with checkMesh. In my present mesh there are no errors by using the standard version. But if i add some arguments like -allGeometry, -allTopologys I ll get errors. So the question is. Are these errors critical? - allGeometry Code:
*There are 350 faces with concave angles between consecutive edges. Max concave angle = 68.2256 degrees. <<Writing 350 faces with concave angles to set concaveFaces Face flatness (1 = flat, 0 = butterfly) : average = 0.997966 min = 0.458419 *There are 19 faces with ratio between projected and actual area < 0.8 Minimum ratio (minimum flatness, maximum warpage) = 0.458419 <<Writing 19 warped faces to set warpedFaces Cell determinant (wellposedness) : minimum: 0.035225 average: 13.0762 Cell determinant check OK. ***Concave cells (using face planes) found, number of cells: 8259 <<Writing 8259 concave cells to set concaveCells Code:
Checking topology... Boundary definition OK. Cell to face addressing OK. Point usage OK. Upper triangular ordering OK. Face vertices OK. Topological cell zip-up check OK. <<Number of duplicate (not baffle) faces found: 1. This might indicate a problem. <<Number of faces with non-consecutive shared points: 1. This might indicate a problem. <<Writing 3 faces with non-standard edge connectivity to set edgeFaces Number of regions: 1 (OK). the concave cells are good cells ?!? I am a bit confused with that output. For answers and solutions I ll be very thankful couse in my solver one scalar is running away all the time :/ Tobi |
|
September 8, 2012, 15:01 |
|
#2 |
Retired Super Moderator
Bruno Santos
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 10,975
Blog Entries: 45
Rep Power: 128 |
Hi Tobi,
I personally always have trouble memorizing what concave means But that's what wikipedia is for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concave Therefore, concave cells are baaaaad. If you converted the cellSet using foamToVTK, you should have used the option "-poly", so it will export using polyhedral meshes, instead of decomposing those cells into tetrahedral cells. As for fixing these cells... refining only them might fix the problem... either that, or create the mesh again, with better quality parameters Best regards, Bruno
__________________
|
|
September 10, 2012, 06:57 |
|
#3 | |
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51 |
Quote:
thanks for your replay. With setSet I filtered the concave cells to a VTK format and had a look at those cells. These cells are on the curvature of my sphere and they seem like to be good. Hmmm ... well I ll try your suggestions. The quality parameters are the standard settings in snappyHexMesh and I think that these parameters standing for high resolution, arent they? Thanks tobi |
||
September 10, 2012, 07:25 |
|
#4 |
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51 |
Hi Bruno
I had a look to that cells again (screenshot). There you can see my concave cells - but they are just normal hexaedral cells ? ? ? Not like the one in your link. I am confused? Any suggestions? |
|
September 10, 2012, 08:43 |
|
#5 |
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51 |
Hi Bruno,
Additionally I wrote that thread http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-meshing-utilities/61501-about-openfoam-concave-faces-cells.html#post191366 Eugene mentioned that concave cells are not a big problem Tobi Last edited by Tobi; September 10, 2012 at 09:36. |
|
January 24, 2014, 11:18 |
hi
|
#6 |
Senior Member
Baris (Heewa)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 130
Rep Power: 13 |
Hi Tobi,
I have same error as same as you as follows. Could you tell me what is your observation about concave error? Can it to be corrected? or what i should do to solve this problem. bcs it gives also error during running of calculation. Code:
Mesh stats points: 654382 faces: 1596014 internal faces: 1412748 cells: 471322 boundary patches: 3 point zones: 0 face zones: 0 cell zones: 0 Overall number of cells of each type: hexahedra: 410213 prisms: 0 wedges: 0 pyramids: 0 tet wedges: 0 tetrahedra: 0 polyhedra: 61109 Checking topology... Boundary definition OK. Cell to face addressing OK. Point usage OK. Upper triangular ordering OK. Face vertices OK. Topological cell zip-up check OK. Face-face connectivity OK. Number of regions: 1 (OK). Checking patch topology for multiply connected surfaces ... Patch Faces Points Surface topology Bounding box wall 182766 183793 ok (non-closed singly connected) (-0.006 -0.008 -2.71051e-20) (0.00194 0.007 0.00194) outlet 100 121 ok (non-closed singly connected) (0 -0.008 0) (0.00194 -0.008 0.00194) inlet 400 451 ok (non-closed singly connected) (-0.006 0.007 0) (0.00194 0.007 0.00194) Checking geometry... Overall domain bounding box (-0.006 -0.008 -2.71051e-20) (0.00194 0.007 0.00194) Mesh (non-empty, non-wedge) directions (1 1 1) Mesh (non-empty) directions (1 1 1) Boundary openness (2.22526e-14 -1.42534e-17 -2.50737e-15) OK. Max cell openness = 2.06795e-16 OK. Max aspect ratio = 2.5 OK. Minumum face area = 3.75e-11. Maximum face area = 1.6e-07. Face area magnitudes OK. Min volume = 7.03125e-16. Max volume = 6.4e-11. Total volume = 1.37934e-07. Cell volumes OK. Mesh non-orthogonality Max: 29.0546 average: 10.3431 Non-orthogonality check OK. Face pyramids OK. Max skewness = 1.6129 OK. Coupled point location match (average 0) OK. Face tets OK. Min/max edge length = 5e-06 0.0004 OK. All angles in faces OK. Face flatness (1 = flat, 0 = butterfly) : average = 1 min = 1 All face flatness OK. Cell determinant (wellposedness) : minimum: 0.821136 average: 13.565 Cell determinant check OK. ***Concave cells (using face planes) found, number of cells: 58628 <<Writing 58628 concave cells to set concaveCells Failed 1 mesh checks. |
|
January 24, 2014, 18:03 |
|
#7 |
Retired Super Moderator
Bruno Santos
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 10,975
Blog Entries: 45
Rep Power: 128 |
Greetings to all!
@George: I'll try to answer you on this topic at your other thread: http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...oam-error.html Best regards, Bruno
__________________
|
|
August 31, 2020, 06:19 |
|
#8 |
Member
K
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 97
Rep Power: 8 |
Dear Tobias and Bruno,
I have similar errors for concave cells. The checkMesh runs fine but checkMesh -allGeometry indicates that it fails (Failed 1 mesh checks). The cases were running fine and I did not realize there was a problem. However, when I wanted to use refineMesh to create a new test case in order to check the sensitivity of my mesh, it failed due to the concave cells. In another test case, I wanted to mapFields the results of a coarser mesh to a refined one and it failed for the same reason. Is there any mean to circumvent this issue ? like merging or refining them ? Do you have any successful experience about these kind of meshes without redoing the mesh and simulations ? Regards, Mary |
|
September 23, 2020, 21:37 |
|
#9 | |
Member
Petros Ampatzidis
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 64
Rep Power: 7 |
Hi Mary,
Quote:
In general, if you have a relatively good mesh and the only warning from checkMesh is for concave cells, which you have visualised and confirmed that are proper hex cells, you shouldn't have any problem. |
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Building OpenFOAM1.7.0 from source | ata | OpenFOAM Installation | 46 | March 6, 2022 13:21 |
How to write k and epsilon before the abnormal end | xiuying | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 8 | August 27, 2013 15:33 |
Upgraded from Karmic Koala 9.10 to Lucid Lynx10.04.3 | bookie56 | OpenFOAM Installation | 8 | August 13, 2011 04:03 |
IcoFoam parallel woes | msrinath80 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 9 | July 22, 2007 02:58 |
Could anybody help me see this error and give help | liugx212 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 3 | January 4, 2006 18:07 |