[skapetan]

Hey,

I have a pump which I want to mesh. The pump consists of some inner bodies and a Rotor inside the outer body. My idea was to work with parts-based meshing.

I got that STEP-file as one part. So firstly I used surface repair to remove free edges from the geometry. After that I generated via "split by patch" in the Regions tree several surfaces from my geometry and exported that surfaces as one part to the Geometry<Parts node.
Afterwards I created from that surfaces new parts in the Geometry>Parts Node.

The problem that I face now are new gaps (free edges) exacatly between my new defined parts.

Do you know why they appear and how I can fix them? Surface repair doesnt lead to a solution.

Thank you.

[skapetan]

The picture shows the result after generating a Surface Mesh. Problem zone : Gap between Stator and main body.

Btw I'm new in Starccm + and not really sure about the procedure in working with parts-bashed meshing. I think that my procedure is wrong or one ore more steps are missing.

Lets say I have 3 different parts which represent one geometry and I want to generate at each part a different mesh. So how would the general workflow be?

To my knowledge this are the steps for generating different meshes on parts:

1. combine the parts to a Composite
2. create weak in-place contact between parts for achieving a conformal mesh between parts.
3. generate surface Mesh : Geometry<Operations<Automated Mesh select Surface Remesher and just select one specific part to generate mesh . In that fact generate another Automated Mesh node to create another mesh for a specific part.
4.Assign parts to one region.
5. Generate Surface Mesh.

Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Thank you.

[me3840]

No, I don't think you're using PBM correctly.

To STAR-CCM+, a "part" should represent either a solid or fluid volume. It looks to me that you've taken different surfaces and are using them as parts. Combine your separate surfaces into one part.

Now you say there's a stator, so I'm assuming something is rotating. If that's the case, you need to create a rotating part, and a non-rotating part. Use some of the general parts available in the parts tree to create a cylinder and subtract that from your original part to get a rotating domain.

[skapetan]

Thank you for your reply. You a right there is an Impeller which is rotating.
I want to point out the my Geometry was imported as a STEP-File.

However my current state is that the surfaces (Impeller,Stator,Main body, Inlet,Outlet) are combined in one part now. Also free edges disappeared.

Do I really need a subtract of a Cylinder and my Part? That case is used to create an exterior domain right?
I think I should set up a rotating domain with subtracting a cylinder and impeller. which will fit in the main body of the pump.

[me3840]

Correct, you need to subtract the cylinder from your part to create a rotating domain.

[skapetan]

Hey thank you. I face a lot of problems in setting up rotation. Do you know any Tutorial which could help me to understand how to set up rotation (rotation domains etc.) ?

[me3840]

There's an entire set of tutorials on motion available in the user guide.

[skapetan]

Thanks., Have already worked with them.

The part which I m not really sure about is how to set up my rotating domain. Should it be for example a cylinder where exactly the volume of the Impeller (rotating part) is subtracted. It seems like that in the tutorial it is just a cylindrical concave boundary around the rotating part.


Here some examples of rotating domains which seem to be defined with just a cylindrical concave boundary around the rotating part.

[me3840]

You can do it either way. Which one you choose depends on how you want to treat the shroud, if any.

[dharsan57]

What is part based meshing? How should it be applied to the model?

[LuckyTran]

Region-based meshing has been deprecated in newer versions of Star. It is retained only for reverse compatibility. Basically, only parts-based meshing is now relevant.


In the Star-CCM tree, there are parts which are mapped to regions. It used to be that you could generate a computational grid on the parts or the regions. On parts, it was parts-based meshing. On regions, it was region-based meshing. For the most part, they were identical. There were a few low-level meshing features that were allowed for the region-based mesher and not the parts-based mesher. These features are deprecated with the move towards parts-based meshing.