CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Mesh Generation & Pre-Processing Software > Pointwise & Gridgen

Non-shared connectors

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   March 10, 2018, 18:58
Default Non-shared connectors
  #1
New Member
 
jared
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 17
Rep Power: 11
jsagaga is on a distinguished road
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!
Attached Images
File Type: png Example.png (9.1 KB, 14 views)
jsagaga is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 12, 2018, 10:31
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
David Garlisch
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Fidelity Pointwise, Cadence Design Systems (Fort Worth, Texas Office)
Posts: 307
Rep Power: 14
dgarlisch is on a distinguished road
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.
Attached Images
File Type: png NoAutoMerge.png (22.7 KB, 9 views)
dgarlisch is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 12, 2018, 18:37
Default
  #3
New Member
 
jared
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 17
Rep Power: 11
jsagaga is on a distinguished road
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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Connectors_1.jpg (28.8 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg Connectors_2.jpg (22.2 KB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg Connectors_3.jpg (35.9 KB, 4 views)
jsagaga is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 13, 2018, 11:12
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
David Garlisch
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Fidelity Pointwise, Cadence Design Systems (Fort Worth, Texas Office)
Posts: 307
Rep Power: 14
dgarlisch is on a distinguished road
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.
dgarlisch is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 14, 2018, 16:35
Default
  #5
New Member
 
jared
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 17
Rep Power: 11
jsagaga is on a distinguished road
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?
jsagaga is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 15, 2018, 09:43
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
David Garlisch
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Fidelity Pointwise, Cadence Design Systems (Fort Worth, Texas Office)
Posts: 307
Rep Power: 14
dgarlisch is on a distinguished road
Others will need to chime in here. I have reached the limit of my expertise.
dgarlisch is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
connector, domain, mesh, shared, structured

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Decomposing meshes Tobi OpenFOAM Pre-Processing 22 February 24, 2023 09:23
Foam::error::PrintStack almir OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 91 December 21, 2022 04:50
decomposePar problem: Cell 0contains face labels out of range vaina74 OpenFOAM Pre-Processing 37 July 20, 2020 05:38
[mesh manipulation] Importing Multiple Meshes thomasnwalshiii OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 18 December 19, 2015 18:57
SigFpe when running ANY application in parallel Pj. OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 April 23, 2015 14:53


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:26.