Easy to implement meshing format

herisalmas · April 11, 2014, 06:29

Hello,
I am developing a CFD code for my PhD thesis and I am trying to find a mesh format that is easy to implement. Bare in mind that I have to write the mesh translation for my code.
Any recommendations??
Thanks!

sbaffini · April 11, 2014, 10:47

As there might be some obvious answers to your question, i think you have not been clear enough. So let us elaborate a little more:

1) Are you talking about developing a structured vs. unstructured code, looking for which route to choose? In this case the answer is that it depends from the application you have in mind and you cannot avoid any difficulty if it is required.

2) If you already have a choosen approach, you should mention it. Is your code structured or not? Is it parallel or not?

3) As i know of very few structured formats which, by the way, are easy to implement, i consider that what were you actually asking is what unstructured format should you use.

Having said so, my opinion is that most unstructured formats imply an equivalent difficulty which, nonetheless, is quite low afterall (there are manuals and examples). So you are asking the wrong question. What you should consider is:

Do you already have meshes or mesh generators with some restrictions on the format? If yes, then "comply with their formats" is the most obvious answer.

If not, the next thing to consider is how usable you want your code to be. You could, for example, use the OpenFOAM format as it already has good mesh generators and conversion tools from nearly all the formats. All of this being free and open-source with a large support community. You would also benefit of several tools already implemented in OpenFOAM.

A de facto very popular format is the one for Fluent (.msh produced by gambit) which, in practice, is produced by nearly all the mesh generators (i don't know the OS ones but, still, you have OpenFOAM for conversions).

You could also think to work with vtk, which is popular as well, has a legacy format which is very simple to understand and, obviously, you have all the advantages of vtk if you have a sufficiently flexible framework to implement it in your code.

This is just the opinion of a non expert. When i needed to work with unstructured meshes my choice was gambit-Fluent for input and legacy vtk for output, both being very easy to understand and flexible enough for my needs. Still, i would now suggest the combination OpenFOAM-vtk for flexibility.

April 11, 2014, 06:29	Easy to implement meshing format	#1
herisalmas New Member Heriberto Saldívar Massimi Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6 Rep Power: 14	Hello, I am developing a CFD code for my PhD thesis and I am trying to find a mesh format that is easy to implement. Bare in mind that I have to write the mesh translation for my code. Any recommendations?? Thanks!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help me to choose between Ansys Meshing, Fluent Meshing or ICEM ?	pipolaki	ANSYS	0	December 6, 2013 09:12
Which Meshing software can I use?	shsreekanth	SU2	14	July 27, 2013 13:06
Best format for simulation data?	cbisw	Main CFD Forum	9	May 30, 2011 03:38
Star Cd format output for 3D meshing using gridgen	sayeem	Main CFD Forum	4	March 30, 2011 00:24
Volume Meshing & Face Meshing? singularity of grid	ken	FLUENT	0	September 4, 2003 12:08

April 11, 2014, 10:47		#2
sbaffini Senior Member Paolo Lampitella Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Italy Posts: 2,195 Blog Entries: 29 Rep Power: 39	As there might be some obvious answers to your question, i think you have not been clear enough. So let us elaborate a little more: 1) Are you talking about developing a structured vs. unstructured code, looking for which route to choose? In this case the answer is that it depends from the application you have in mind and you cannot avoid any difficulty if it is required. 2) If you already have a choosen approach, you should mention it. Is your code structured or not? Is it parallel or not? 3) As i know of very few structured formats which, by the way, are easy to implement, i consider that what were you actually asking is what unstructured format should you use. Having said so, my opinion is that most unstructured formats imply an equivalent difficulty which, nonetheless, is quite low afterall (there are manuals and examples). So you are asking the wrong question. What you should consider is: Do you already have meshes or mesh generators with some restrictions on the format? If yes, then "comply with their formats" is the most obvious answer. If not, the next thing to consider is how usable you want your code to be. You could, for example, use the OpenFOAM format as it already has good mesh generators and conversion tools from nearly all the formats. All of this being free and open-source with a large support community. You would also benefit of several tools already implemented in OpenFOAM. A de facto very popular format is the one for Fluent (.msh produced by gambit) which, in practice, is produced by nearly all the mesh generators (i don't know the OS ones but, still, you have OpenFOAM for conversions). You could also think to work with vtk, which is popular as well, has a legacy format which is very simple to understand and, obviously, you have all the advantages of vtk if you have a sufficiently flexible framework to implement it in your code. This is just the opinion of a non expert. When i needed to work with unstructured meshes my choice was gambit-Fluent for input and legacy vtk for output, both being very easy to understand and flexible enough for my needs. Still, i would now suggest the combination OpenFOAM-vtk for flexibility.