
[Sponsors] 
March 6, 2016, 10:47 
Pseudo 2D mesh

#1 
New Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 10 
Hi there! It's been a long time since my last post... I was then using fluent, and now I'm working as an intern and I have to fast learn Starccm+ to help my coworkers to do simulations ... They're pretty ambitius!
This time I want to do something that was easy in fluent & CFX. We want to make a 3D mesh, but use it for a 2D simulation. I mean, considering 3axis, and the "depth" in the xdirection, the ZY plane should be refined, and have some nice inflation layers, but in the xdirection I want to have only one element (see screenshot mesh 3D & mesh ZY). In fact, the problem I see here is that having only 2 or 4 elements in that direction doesn't allow me to have good results. If you see the residuals plot, you can check that xmomentum never is below 0.1, I've set as a stopping criteria 1e4 for every equation (should be OK for our purpose, but next step is to calculate Y+ to check accuracy). And it's kind of nonsense to have more than 1 element, it multiplies the total amount of elements and gives no information, as the boundaries in the xdirection are set to symmetry walls. I've also tried with slipwalls, but I have the same problem, residuals don't go lower than 1e3 (screenshot residuals). The funny thing is only with 100 iterations (approx.) it gaves a good result (see screenshot velocity_106), and then at the 400th iteration weird things happens (screenshot velocity_1500)... So people, what am I doing wrong? Is it possible to have only one element in that direction? I've tried a volumetric control (with all the geometry inside it), and applied a trimmer, anisotropic meshing (taking care in the xdirection), but the minimum number of elements I get is 2. Some extra info: This is a simple simulation involving a flat plate located vertically. The size is (x,y,z)=1, 0.1, 1 (meters). The "wind tunnel" is about (1, 20.1, 11). The CD coefficient I want to get is about 1.9 (Frank White as reference). Simulations are carried in starccm+ 9.02. Local parallel (4 processors). Thanks in advance! Sandra. 

March 8, 2016, 18:48 

#2 
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,141
Rep Power: 61 
Are you trying to do a pseudo 2D simulation or are you trying to do a normal 2D simulation?
For an normal 2D simulation: Go to Mesh => Convert to 2D this will chop up your 3D mesh and extract a single layer of cells and use 2D governing equations. Otherwise I am not sure whether there is any utility to trying to work in the most inefficient way. 

March 10, 2016, 14:50 

#3 
New Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 10 
Thanks LuckyTran.
I want to make a "pseudo" 2D sim as I said before. The concept is more or less the same as the way the program generates the 2D simulation data. The reason I want to do it this way is I've tried long time ago a 2D simulation and a 3D simulation with 1 element in the "depth" direction (same geometry and then extruded), and the results were not the same. So from that point in my life, I don't trust 2D sim results... 

March 10, 2016, 18:26 

#4  
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,232
Rep Power: 23 
Quote:
The best way to convert to 2D is to use the mesh operation "badge for 2D meshing" to convert your domain. That way you can change the mesh later and the new 2D mesh will reflect it. 

March 10, 2016, 18:55 

#5  
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,141
Rep Power: 61 
Quote:
Even if your mesh contains only 1 cell in the 3rd dimension, the linear system you are solving is still a 3D one and the solution of the sparse matrix (which is becoming more singular, more stiff) is more prone to numerical inaccuracies. A 2D solver is free from these issues and is more efficient (faster to solve). I would always prefer and choose the results of a 2D sim over a pseudo 2D sim. The only time I would trust the results of a pseudo 2D sim is if the fluxes are forcibly fixed to 0. Sorry but I don't support the usage of pseudo 2D simulations if that is your logic. 

May 19, 2016, 16:30 

#6  
New Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 10 
Quote:
I forgot to answer both of you. Thanks for your advice! 

May 19, 2016, 16:30 

#7  
New Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 10 
Quote:


October 19, 2017, 13:54 
mesh refinement

#8 
New Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0 
hello,
Dear Sandri_92 could you please tell m how you did your mesh in different refinements ( i mean the boxes that you created with different mesh setting ) I am doing simulation 2d and I used automated mesh 2d as opération to create these boxes and using the volumetric control for defining them is not working, that will be great if you you know what i mean i helping me in this way, thanks in advance best ps: as you see in mesh.jpg the orange part is what i want to increase the mesh number 

Tags 
2d simulation, mesh, residuals, starccm+ 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
sliding mesh problem in CFX  Saima  CFX  46  September 11, 2021 08:38 
Star CCM Overset Mesh Error (Rotating Turbine)  thezack  Siemens  7  October 12, 2016 12:14 
[ICEM] surface mesh merging problem  everest  ANSYS Meshing & Geometry  44  April 14, 2016 07:41 
[ICEM] Problem making structural mesh on a surface  froztbear  ANSYS Meshing & Geometry  1  November 10, 2011 09:52 
[snappyHexMesh] snappyHexMesh won't work  zeros everywhere!  sc298  OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion  2  March 27, 2011 22:11 