|
[Sponsors] |
[ICEM] Meshing sinusoidal leading edge wing in ICEM |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
April 8, 2013, 05:45 |
|
#21 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
Last pic is attached
|
|
April 8, 2013, 05:46 |
|
#22 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
Showpony I have tried that method before but didn't work out for me.
|
|
April 8, 2013, 06:10 |
|
#23 | |
Member
Stuart
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 14 |
Quote:
I started of doing it the same way you did but found it too tedious and not worth it as I could get the same (or better) results doing it without splitting the block in the spanwise direction. I will have another look in a moment, but I have a feeling that FAR will be much more help to you than I will be. But I will Try |
||
April 8, 2013, 06:29 |
|
#24 |
Member
Stuart
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 14 |
One thing I have notices is that you do not have many elements in the spanwise direction. You are barely going to capture the geometry with 8 elements across let alone get any decent resolution of your flow. It will up your element count A LOT but really is probably necessary. If you want to reduce node count you might have to consider a hybrid mesh.
I know in my simulations there is definite 3D flow effects, so if you want to capture them you are definitely going to have to increase the element count in the spanwise direction. I increased the node count to 12 across each block in the spanwise direction and then projected to edges as mention earlier and I had no problems with volume errors. https://www.dropbox.com/s/00ft3ejsjz...%20%282%29.zip Also, if you separate the walls you called symmetry into symmetry1 and symmetry2, you can turn of one of the walls and get a much clearer idea of what is happening with the mesh (because you dont get all that extra interference). Make sure you renumber the nodes and reduce the bandwidth too if you are struggling to deal with teh extra amount of nodes. Should help a bit. |
|
April 8, 2013, 16:11 |
|
#25 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
Sorry the files that I uploaded and the one the pics have a mismatch. The pic has 40 elements along the span, where as the files have less. I still get the same error whenever I try to improve.
|
|
April 9, 2013, 00:44 |
|
#26 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
Does the way your geometry was drawn and imported to ICEM matters? The initial one and the ones i uploaded were drawn and imported a different way.
|
|
April 9, 2013, 03:38 |
|
#27 |
Member
Stuart
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 14 |
Not sure what you are talking about man. Did you even look at either of the files I sent you? 40 elements across is not enough. I ended up doing 12 element on each of the blocks. ie. 12x8=96nodes on the spanwise direction.
I got that rar file you uploaded working fine by doing what I said. the "tubercle_0.5cwave" The "tubercle_0.2cwave" hasnt been blocked or anything so Im not sure what was going on there. All I did was increase the amount of spanwise nodes significantly and change the premesh from "project to face" to "project to edge". Literally all I did. Ran the check and there were no errors. |
|
April 9, 2013, 06:56 |
|
#28 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
So you just increased the elements in my files as well as projecting edges thats it?
|
|
April 9, 2013, 07:15 |
|
#29 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
You didnt change my blocking method?
|
|
April 9, 2013, 07:16 |
|
#30 |
Member
Stuart
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 14 |
Didnt change blocking, just increased the elements in my files as well as projecting edges and it seemed to work nicely for me.
|
|
April 9, 2013, 07:20 |
|
#31 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
Would you mind uploading the file please? I am doing the same thing as you and yet having errors again
|
|
April 9, 2013, 07:20 |
|
#32 |
Member
Stuart
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 14 |
That said, I still wouldnt bother splitting your blocks like that. It is pretty much a waste of time. can get the same results without splitting it in the spanwise direction
|
|
April 9, 2013, 07:21 |
|
#33 |
Member
Stuart
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 14 |
I already did it earlier
but here it is again https://www.dropbox.com/s/00ft3ejsjz...%20%282%29.zip EDIT: You mean the same thing with the increasing spanwise nodes and projecting to edge? |
|
April 9, 2013, 07:24 |
|
#34 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
Yes increasing spanwise nodes and projecting edges. The link to the file doesnt work.
|
|
April 9, 2013, 08:04 |
|
#35 |
Member
Stuart
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 14 |
||
April 9, 2013, 12:55 |
|
#37 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
Thanks for the upload, but i still see some negative determinants elements although they are very small. Are you using Fluent to run your cases?
|
|
April 9, 2013, 16:11 |
|
#38 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 13 |
Far is there a way I can look for geometry errors in ICEM?
|
|
April 10, 2013, 01:07 |
|
#39 |
Member
Stuart
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 14 |
I was running the check in ICEM. I found that if I have no problems in icem then I will have no problems in CFX.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ICEM Hexa meshing tutorial - Wing with sharp trailing edge | Far | ANSYS | 1 | May 18, 2012 15:19 |
[ANSYS Meshing] Hybrid meshing ICEM | djoul | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 2 | January 17, 2012 19:18 |
[snappyHexMesh] Meshing 3D wing (hydrofoil) fails | klausb | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 0 | December 28, 2011 15:26 |
Meshing for 3D wing with tubercle on the leading edge in GAMBIT | nvtrieu | FLUENT | 0 | August 14, 2010 11:13 |
Poor Residuals at Intersection Between Symmetry Plane and Airfoil Leading Edge | TWaung | CFX | 2 | February 16, 2010 09:11 |