[siefer92]

Howdy Yall:

I'm having an issue with blockMesh. I am meshing a circular cylinder, like the potential foam example, and I've created my blocks and preliminary mesh.

(I've attached a labeling blocking diagram)

While going to refine I stumbled on to the stupid: Inconsistent number of faces between block pair Error.

I know the error results from improper cellular consistency between blocks, but what makes this error strange for me is that I am certain I am refining the mesh correctly.

Don't take my word for it though, attached is my default block Mesh file. With a dimensionaly consistent distribution of cells between each block.
(10 10 1). The resulting mesh is attached as a picture.

When I refine the back 4 blocks, 14 13 12 & 11, to say (200 10 1) the resulting mesh is refined without error and is attached below.

When I go to refine blocks 4 3 2 & 1 in a near similar manner, (40 10 1). I get the error: Inconsistent number of faces between block pair 0 and 1

The problem is that the error complains about block pair 0-1, despite me not touching the cell count in Y or Z direction and the interface between these cells lays in the Y-Z plane. If the axis of refinement is perpendicular to shared face, then the refinement shouldn't alter its nFaces count correct?

So, I'm sure I am making an incredibly stupid mistake, but I am not quite certain where it exists.

Thanks for yalls assistance!


block_deffs_default.png

block_deffs_ERROR.png

block_deffs_Refined.png

BlockLayout.jpg

Mesh.jpg

[siefer92]

here is my blockMesh file and a picture of the mesh with a refined tail section


blckMesh.txt

tail end refinement.jpg


EDIT***********
After disappearing for the weekend, my brain did some unconscious work... BlockMesh axes are defined x0-> x1 =(x) x1->x2 = (y) and Z is normal to the plane formed by x0 x1 x2 x3. My Assumption was that when block 0 was created this defined the axes and all subsequent blocks would just fall into that scheme. I was incorrect. The use of isotropic grading and cells per-dimension made it more difficult to spot my error. I will go redefine all block according to the block0 scheme and return with an update.