[Persil]

Hello,

I intend to mesh a turbine blade with hex cooper. But problems with skewed an even inverted elements arise on the leading edge

I meshed the tip seperately, linked it to the hub face... due to the different geometry there it gets skewed already... when meshing the volume it takes quite a while to generate the mesh and then produces skewed and inverted cells

Is there a way to for example spilt the faces in a way so that hex cooper is possible? I have not dealt with inverted elements and am not sure how to approach here

[-mAx-]

Where do inverted (skewed) elements come from?
from your BL or from your core-mesh?

[Persil]

I did a BL around the airfoil at hub and tip, there the elements look fine. So it must be the core mesh. Which is the face meshed with quad pave on the attached picture....

...but I am not entirely sure about the inverted elements. It kind of looks like those are in the BL and the skewed elements are caused by the meshed face at the leading edge

[-mAx-]

before you try some splits, you may try to increase the BL height

[Persil]

ok thank you, I tried that which still causes the linked face to end up skewed. See the picture: the face in front is ok, but the other one is skewed and will produce even more skewed elements when meshing the volume...

is it possible to do hex cooper without face linking the source faces? or do you have an idea to improve the quality of the linked face

[-mAx-]

you can also mesh your face with tri. The volume will still be meshed with cooper (wedge)
When I see your picture, it seems you mesh the first surface (in front of you ) first. And Gambit try to project your source-surface on the other (back surface),
Try to mesh the back surface first.
If it won't fix your problem, then you will have to split both source surfaces and you will try to mesh one source with quad (no pave)

[Persil]

what do you mean with your last sentence? I cannot imagine meshing one face in quad (why no pave?) and the other differently.... those faces need to be linked to my understanding

[-mAx-]

pave is unstructured. Map is structured, and you have more control on your mesh.
You have to understand of course that both surfaces are map (or pave). But you only have to mesh one before you go and mesh the volume. In your case both surfaces don't have to be linked.

[Persil]

when I only mesh 1 of the faces and then mesh the volume, the remaining face will be automatically meshed by gambit, so I achieve nothing... gambit crashed :/

why do you think, that there is no face linking needed in my case?

[-mAx-]

Link faces only if you need periodicity.
In your case, Gambit meshes the other face because of the link.

[Persil]

ah well, then I have not given you enough information: I definitly need the periodicity because this mesh will be extended circumferentially

[-mAx-]

But according to your pictures I cannot imagine your source faces are periodic

[Persil]

yes, those faces itself are not periodic.... but the faces connecting those 2 are.

maybe the picture will help explain this, you see 1 blade, where the tip and hub are meshed via linking so that the outer faces (red and opposite) are periodic

[-mAx-]

yes, now it is clear.
What is the quality if you mesh this volume with tetra? (just to be sure that your BL is clean)
If you want you can also provide me the dbs file or at least only the volume which causes skewed elements