[RodriguezFatz]

Hey cad,
I thought about your post but still don't get your point.
I made a small sketch and I can't see here how the quality suffers from refining.
sketch_cells.png
The original (coarse) cell is the blue one, the green line shows on of the refined cells. For me, it looks like all angles keep constant.

[RodriguezFatz]

Ok guys, they changed the algorithm for orthogonal quality in ICEM so it matches with the value in Fluent now. That's why we see different values in 14.5 and 15.0.
The new calculation depends strongly on how good the cell center coordinates can be calculated. This calculation however depends on the aspect ratio. So for really large aspect ratios, cell center is inaccurate thus orthogonal quality can be bad.
The question is, if "just" the orthogonal quality is bad, or if this inaccurate cell center calculation also influences the algorithm.

So I started some tests with a short periodic pipe (L=0.5D)
screen.jpg

I keep x- and z- direction grid constant, also the total number of gridpoints, just change the y value from 5e-6, 2e-6, 1e-6, 5e-7.
Orthogonal quality decreases from >0.75 to >0.45 to >0.25 to >0.1 from large to small y-cell-sizes. k-Omega-SST with low-Re corrections, Fluent 15.0.

I made pictures for U, k and omega and plot all four grids in one picture.
U looks like this:
v_total.jpg

A closer look to the wall looks like this:
v_wall.jpg
and for k:
k_wall.jpg
and for omega:
omega_wall.jpg
Omega of course changes at the very first gridpoint, since the boundary condition depends on the y+ value.

Maybe this is different for not attached flow, but for the pipe I think it's pretty safe to just not care about these "close to the wall" bad orthogonality.

[kad]

Originally Posted by RodriguezFatz

Hey cad,
I thought about your post but still don't get your point.
I made a small sketch and I can't see here how the quality suffers from refining.
Attachment 33560
The original (coarse) cell is the blue one, the green line shows on of the refined cells. For me, it looks like all angles keep constant.

Okay, I did not made that very clear. I did not mean coarsening in the radial ogrid direction but in the tangential direction. This means you have less nodes on the circumference of the pipe and bad aspect ratio cells on the wall.

[Far]

why they consider aspect for orthogonal quality? Since it is mentioned in help you can go up to AR=1000 for single precision and 10,000 for double precision.

It means this value has no significance in reality?

It also implies that CFX wont care either...

[RodriguezFatz]

Originally Posted by Far

why they consider aspect for orthogonal quality? Since it is mentioned in help you can go up to AR=1000 for single precision and 10,000 for double precision.

As far as I understood, it is not considered directly, but really large aspect ratios deplete the correctness of the calculation of orthogonal quality (OQ) in Fluent. The question is, if just the OQ is affected, or actually the solver / any other algorithm as well.

The funny thing is, they told me that Fluent reliably supports only aspect rations up to 100 to 250. So basicallly for y+=1 you had z and y+=250.
I asked him why I would use a low-Re RANS model, if my wall grid needs to be good enough for wall modeled LES anyway. Or if that means, that Hexa meshes are not usable for low-Re Fluent RANS.

[Far]

Originally Posted by RodriguezFatz

As far as I understood, it is not considered directly, but really large aspect ratios deplete the correctness of the calculation of orthogonal quality (OQ) in Fluent. The question is, if just the OQ is affected, or actually the solver / any other algorithm as well.

The funny thing is, they told me that Fluent reliably supports only aspect rations up to 100 to 250. So basicallly for y+=1 you had z and y+=250.
I asked him why I would use a low-Re RANS model, if my wall grid needs to be good enough for wall modeled LES anyway. Or if that means, that Hexa meshes are not usable for low-Re Fluent RANS.

I was told that AR = 1000 is ok with single precision and 10000 with double precision.

Today I just made a mesh around a square and these are the statistics from fluent

Mesh Quality:
Orthogonal Quality ranges from 0 to 1, where values close to 0 correspond to low quality.
Minimum Orthogonal Quality = 7.07104e-01
Maximum Aspect Ratio = 1.01719e+04

ortho quality = 0.7 and aspect ratio = 10171.9 and results are good

Although i have refined the mesh in the vicinity of wall, but without using ogrid. I guess Ogrid would deteriorate the orthogonal quality.

But what is the orthogonal quality. Is it mix of min angle, determinant 2*2*2 and quality ? If these metrics are good enough, then ortho quality should also be good....

[RodriguezFatz]

I waver between trying to get a reliable answer from Ansys or just not watching this value ever again...