Non-shared connectors
 

Hi,

I'm still fairly new to Pointwise. I'm currently trying to generate a structured mesh for a UAV that has some high curvature in several areas. I know some people might suggest to go the unstructured route, but this something I'm experimenting with in driving down cell count. I had a question in regards to 2 or more domains not sharing a common connector, so I think it's kind of like overset, but not quite. I attached an example to this post. Is this still acceptable for generating a structured mesh? It would be more connectors than I would like, but it's one of the only solutions I see for some of the areas for the geometry that I'm working with.

Thanks in advance!

Can't be sure what is wrong here from the image. Can you zip and attach the actual PW file?

In general, connectors will only be merged is they have the same nodes, same point count, and similar spacings.

The attached image shows connectors not merging due to spacing differences.

You can also use Grid, Merge... to force the connectors to merge.

Thanks for response David! I pm'd you a link to download the pw file. It's over the limit to be uploaded here. My original post is more of a question in regards to whether it's bad practice to have 2 domains (structured) next to each other, not share a node, so I guess kind of like laying tiles on a geometry if that makes sense. I've attached some images here showing one of the connectors as an example. It's hard to see, but hopefully you can make it out.

I am not sure of your downstream solver and post processing needs or capabilities.

However, typically you DO want all domains to be point matched at their boundaries. That is what makes using structured domains and blocks so difficult. Getting everything dimensionally consistent is a pain.

If cell count is your only concern, then you really should look at using the T-Rex functionality in Pointwise. You get the "ease" of unstructured meshing with lower cell counts after the extruded T-Rex tet cells are combined into prisms and hexes. And, since the PW file you provided has an aircraft in it, I assume you want boundary layer resolution too. T-Rex is perfect for that.

My T-Rex knowledge is limited. Take a look at the Youtube T-Rex videos for a start. And maybe others can chime in here.

One thing I am aware of is that a high-quality surface mesh is a MUST to get the best T-Rex results.

Good luck.

I 100% agree that generating a structured mesh can be a painstaking process, especially for complex geometries that have a lot high curvature surfaces. I'm using STAR-CCM+ for the solver. Speaking about T-Rex, I did use it for a wing, where the surface mesh was structured and I generated an unstructured mesh on the tip and then applied 2D T-Rex to it as well as on the symmetry plane. I will give unstructured a go for this geometry, but I was wondering though, would a hybrid surface mesh + T-Rex work better or would it be just as good compared to a HIGH quality unstructured mesh + T-Rex?

Others will need to chime in here. I have reached the limit of my expertise.