|
[Sponsors] |
Why does CCM+ need a better mesh than PowerFlow? |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
July 13, 2017, 10:02 |
Why does CCM+ need a better mesh than PowerFlow?
|
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 90
Rep Power: 10 |
Hello,
I was told that CCM+ needs a finer/better mesh than PowerFlow? Is this right? If yes, why? And: Does this assumption concern only the surface mesh (made for example in ANSA) or also the volume mesh? Thank you! CellZone |
|
July 13, 2017, 10:51 |
|
#2 | |
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,272
Rep Power: 34 |
Quote:
Last time i checked PowerFlow worked only with cartesian type meshes and not with general polyhedrals. That means PowerFlow is the one that needs better and fixed type of meshes. Also needs finer mesh due to stability reasons. You have it upside down. |
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
sliding mesh problem in CFX | Saima | CFX | 46 | September 11, 2021 07:38 |
decomposePar problem: Cell 0contains face labels out of range | vaina74 | OpenFOAM Pre-Processing | 37 | July 20, 2020 05:38 |
[ANSYS Meshing] Combine solid mesh generated in workbench mesh and fluid mesh in fluent meshing ? | RPjack | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 2 | August 27, 2015 09:33 |
[ICEM] Problem making structural mesh on a surface | froztbear | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 1 | November 10, 2011 08:52 |
engrid -> save as .stl with boundarie codes | Zymon | enGrid | 31 | August 29, 2011 13:40 |