|
[Sponsors] |
August 17, 2003, 07:53 |
Meshless CFD
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi all,
I saw a web-site that specialises in 'Meshless CFD'. Is anyone able to update me on what this is? Thanks for your assistance. Sincere regards, Des Aubery... (adTherm Technology - web: www.adtherm.com) |
|
August 17, 2003, 09:42 |
Re: Meshless CFD
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
There are two different approaches which are called meshless. One contains methods like surface panel methods, boundary element methods, etc. which do not contain a volume grid. The other type of methods which are called meshless are those which use an arbitrary distribution of points in the computational domain. Particle methods also belong to this category where the particles themselves act as discretization points. The method is called meshless because the points need not form any grid; they do not have to be arranged in any particular manner. The main motivation of meshless methods is that generating a mesh for a complex 3-d configuration is very time-consuming while it is much easier to generate a point mesh. In fact Rainald Lohner says that it is an order of magnitude faster to generate a point distribution than a mesh and he has developed an advancing front point generation technique. The accuracy of grid-based methods depends on the quality of the grid and so you have to ensure orthogonality, or make sure that elements are not highly skewed, while meshless methods are not very much affected by how the points are distributed. There are many practical applications of meshless methods:
You can see some links at the bottom of <a href=http://aero.iisc.ernet.in/~praveen/gmm/>this page</a>. For an overview of many meshless methods see the review paper by Ted Belytschko. |
|
July 28, 2019, 10:19 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Chigurupati Ramsai Chowdary
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 8 |
then we can say meshing is an optional for running CFD problems
|
|
August 6, 2019, 10:00 |
|
#4 |
New Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 8 |
I do not think you can say meshing is optional for CFD problems. Particle Methods are good at solving some problems, such as those that have moving parts because they take advantage of GPU for the high amount of computations so they solve faster. But fluid through fixed parts is still better with traditional mesh solutions.
Particle methods analyze the motion of fluids by dividing them into sets of discrete elements or particles, which are allowed to move freely. This approach lets you simulate large deformation, coalescence and segmentation of fluid, and rapid change of flow ‒ without requiring any complicated preparation or meshing in advance. This page talks about the particle method used in the software ParticleWorks: https://enginsoftusa.com/Particlewor...-Software.html |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFD Wiki - We Need More Help | Jonas Larsson | Main CFD Forum | 13 | September 13, 2005 18:36 |
Where do we go from here? CFD in 2001 | John C. Chien | Main CFD Forum | 36 | January 24, 2001 22:10 |
ASME CFD Symposium, Atlanta, July 2001 | Chris R. Kleijn | Main CFD Forum | 0 | August 21, 2000 05:49 |
Since Last June | John C. Chien | Main CFD Forum | 3 | July 12, 1999 10:38 |
Which is better to develop in-house CFD code or to buy a available CFD package. | Tareq Al-shaalan | Main CFD Forum | 10 | June 13, 1999 00:27 |