Scribd
Upload
33 views

Mesh Generation With Gambit

1. Generating a good quality mesh is important for CFD simulations but can be difficult. 2D grids assume no velocity gradients normal to the plane while 3D grids model the full 3D flowfield. 2. Structured grids are more efficient but less flexible, while unstructured grids can model complex geometries but are less efficient. The t-grid algorithm easily generates tetrahedral meshes but they may be numerically diffusive. 3. When possible, use a mapped or Cooper mesh which projects face meshes to improve accuracy over pure tetrahedral meshes. Assess mesh quality using metrics like maximum skewness less than 0.8 for tetrahedra.

Uploaded by

djdjini46
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views

Mesh Generation With Gambit

1. Generating a good quality mesh is important for CFD simulations but can be difficult. 2D grids assume no velocity gradients normal to the plane while 3D grids model the full 3D flowfield. 2. Structured grids are more efficient but less flexible, while unstructured grids can model complex geometries but are less efficient. The t-grid algorithm easily generates tetrahedral meshes but they may be numerically diffusive. 3. When possible, use a mapped or Cooper mesh which projects face meshes to improve accuracy over pure tetrahedral meshes. Assess mesh quality using metrics like maximum skewness less than 0.8 for tetrahedra.

Uploaded by

djdjini46
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

Mesh Generation with Gambit

Read the documentation!


Fluent has very good on-line documentation Gambit is not as good Dont just read the documentation but go to library and get hold of some of the journal references

Mesh generation
Generating a good mesh is a large part of the CFD problem Generating a good quality mesh can be hard work What is a satisfactory mesh for a problem will not automatically be so when another model option is enabled

Grid Types
Fluent can solve flow problems in 2d or 3d The cyclone simulation discussed in the introductory lecture is a typical 3d problem The 2d channel is a typical 2d problem

2d Grids

consume much less memory and take much less time to solve a 2d grid intrinsically assumes that there are no velocity gradients in the direction normal to the grid This assumption is really only valid is the channel is extremely wide in z

u/z =0

z y x

2d Grids

Can also be used with an axisymmetric flow such as swirling flow in a centrifuge again the assumption of zero velocity gradient normal to grid applies, but this is in the direction

z y x

2d grids - types

mapped (preferred if it possible to do so)


paved with triangles or quads (unstructured solver only)

2d quad mapped

2d tri paved

2d quad paved

2d grids
2d grids are drawn on faces in Gambit 2d face grids are used as a precursor to creating 3d grids

3d grids
The grid you will generate for a full 3d simulation of the flow obviously consumes more memory and takes longer to solve generated for a volume in Gambit mapped preferred. complex 3d grids such as Cooper and tgrid are unstructured grids

Structured and Unstructured Solvers

Structured Solver (Fluent 4.5)


uses i,j,k indexing to locate neighboring cells grid must be structured and based on a topologically rectangular block in computational space but this doesnt mean the grid cant be curved all grid lines continue from one boundary to its opposite

Unstructured Solver (Fluent 5.0)


uses an internal data structure to link cells and faces doesnt force an overall topology on the grid so mesh volumes can be any shape doesnt use indexing to locate neighboring cells can read a structured grid

Structured and Unstructured solvers

Structured solvers were written first because they were easy to write unstructured solves are more modern however Fluent 4.5 (structured) and Fluent 5.0 (unstructured) had different sets of models eg Fluent 5.0 doesnt have the Eulerian granular flow model (4.5 does) but it is much easier to set up 5.0 for moving mesh problems. 5.0 has Large Eddy Simulation Fluent 6 is supposed to merge the two approaches together

Structured Grids

Topologically rectangular This means that the mesh volume is a quadrilateral in 2d or a hexahedron in 3d Each mesh volume is linked only to its immediate neighbors But the edges can be mapped around curves and mesh volumes dont have to be the same size Reduces storage and CPU requirements Solid regions like tank baffles can be generated by blanking those mesh points which overlap the solid region and making them dead zones. Fiddly but still generates a good grid dead zones waste storage.

Unstructured Grids

Mesh volumes can be linked to any other volume in the domain And can be any shape less computationally efficient than a structured grid but can still read a structured grid topology (often still the best) can use non-conformal grids introduces flexbility but this flexbility creates problems

Unstructured Grid Topologies


3d hexahedron

2d Prism

2d Triangle

Tetrahedron

Pyramid

Prism

Unstructured grids - Mapped

If you can generate a mapped mesh for the domain then do so

Unstructured grids - Tgrid


Uses a 3d paving algorithm uses the tetrahedron and pyramids very easy to generate a grid for complex geometry but is inefficient and has problems of numerical diffusion and skewness

Unstructured grids - Cooper mesh

This grid projects a set of face meshes from one side of the domain to another the face meshes that are projected may be mapped or paved but the faces surrounding the ray of projection must be mapped and must have the same number of grid points along the ray can lead to very small mesh volumes at flow constrictions but a better alternative to the tgrid if you can work out how to generate it.

Pros and Cons

You will be using an unstructured solver (and grid) anyway The unstructured tetrahedral mesh (tgrid) is the easiest mesh to generate for a complex geometry But it is inefficient in that more mesh points are often generated compared to a hex mesh it can also cause numerical problems because of skewness and because the faces are not automatically aligned with the flow you can get false diffusion. This can reduce the accuracy of the problem Even if it requires more work to generate a quadrilateral or hexahedral (and cooper) mesh may give better results in the final simulation

What is a good grid?

A high quality mesh


smooth variations in grid spacing minimal grid skewness (cell interior angles equal graded towards boundaries and other areas where rapid variations in parameters occur sometimes all this is hard to achieve particularly with a tetrahedral mesh

Avoid: Skew

Large Volume changes

High aspect ratio

And try to align the grid with flow streamlines

Assessing grid quality

Default measure of quality is EquiAngle Skew This should be minimised Definition depends on cell geometry
Hex and quad < 0.7 Tets < 0.8 Tri < 0.7

Hex or quads amin

amax

skew = max[ (amax 90)/90, (90 amin)/90] Tris or tets Skew = Optimal face/cell size face/cell size Optimal face/cell size Optimal face

The tetrahedral mesh will sometimes not meet this criteria in all parts of the domain

Actual face

Gambit - bottom up approach


create vertexs link vertexs to make edges create faces from edges create volumes from faces (3d) mesh edges mesh faces mesh volumes (3d)

Gambit - top down approach


create volumes or faces directly generate complex 3d volumes by uniting and splitting volumes mesh volumes or faces directly this can be a good shortcut way to create the geometry and/ora grid but Gambit may default to the t-grid option when the grid is generated

You might also like