Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Grid generation is often considered as the most important and most time consuming part of CFD simulation. The quality of the grid plays a direct role on the quality of the analysis, regardless of the flow solver used. Additionally, the solver will be more robust and efficient when using a well constructed mesh. It is important for the CFD analyst to know and understand all of the various grid generation methods. Only by knowing all the methods can he or she select the right tool to solve the problem at hand. In this paper, the current state of the art in CFD grid generation will be addressed. The discussion will be restricted to methods which are currently available in production software and in widespread use and the strengths and weaknesses of each method will also be discussed.
Additionally, the various degrees of block connectivity freedom come at the expense of solution accuracy and solver robustness. There is another structured grid method which seeks to avoid the problems associated with block connections. Chimera or overset grid methods allow the individual blocks to conform to the physical boundaries, but be free form and overlapping at the block connections. Sophisticated post processing programs are run on the overlapping mesh to determine "hole cutting" locations and interpolation factors around block boundaries. What these methods gain in user convenience, they usually give up in solution accuracy. However, these methods can be enablers for geometries which would be too daunting a task with conventional methods (modeling helicopters with moving rotor blades and aircraft store separation are cases in point). Structured grids enjoy a considerable advantage over other grid methods in that they allow the user a high degree of control. Because the user places control points and edges interactively, he has total freedom when positioning the mesh. In addition, hexahedral and quadrilateral elements, which are very efficient at filling space, support a high amount of skewness and stretching before the solution will be significantly effected. This allows the user to naturally condense points in regions of high gradients in the flowfield and expand out to a less dense packing away from these areas. Also, because the user interactively lays out the elements, the grid is most often flow-aligned, thereby yielding greater accuracy within the solver. Structured block flow solvers typically require the lowest amount of memory for a given mesh size and execute faster because they are optimized for the structured layout of the grid. Lastly, post processing of the results on a structured block grid is typically a much easier task because the logical grid planes make excellent reference points for examining the flow field and plotting the results. The major drawback of structured block grids is the time and expertise required to lay out an optimal block structure for an entire model. Often this comes down to past user experience and brute force placement of control points and edges. Some geometries, e.g. shallow cones and wedges, do not lend themselves to structured block topologies. In these areas, the user is forced to stretch or twist the elements to a degree which drastically affects solver accuracy and performance. Grid generation times are usually measured in days if not weeks.
mesh. Post processing the solution on an unstructured mesh requires powerful tools for interpolating the results onto planes and surfaces of rotation for easier viewing.
generation of the structured portions of the mesh will often fail due to complex geometry or user input errors. While the flow solver will use more resources than a structured block code, it should be very similar to an unstructured code. Post processing the flow field solution on a hybrid grid suffers from the same disadvantages as an unstructured grid. The time required for grid generation is usually measured in hours or days.