Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

A subforum specific to the development of the OpenFoam-based workbenches ( Cfd https://github.com/qingfengxia/Cfd and CfdOF https://github.com/jaheyns/CfdOF )

Moderator: oliveroxtoby

Post Reply
techGuy
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:48 am

Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

Post by techGuy »

See here: https://github.com/jaheyns/CfdOF/issues/78

Thoughts, advice ?
User avatar
NewJoker
Veteran
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:49 pm

Re: Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

Post by NewJoker »

That would be very useful. Especially if Gmsh can create good-quality boundary layer mesh in 3D (I haven't seen such an example yet). And maybe the code from the CFD workbench (discussed in that referenced thread) could help.
thschrader
Veteran
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

Post by thschrader »

techGuy wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:03 pm See here: https://github.com/jaheyns/CfdOF/issues/78

Thoughts, advice ?
A thought...

With cfmesh you can produce a tetrahedral mesh too, with boundary elements.
After writing the meshCase, use Edit, open the Allmesh-script and change
"runCommand cartesianMesh" to "runCommand tetMesh".
Save file, Run Mesher.

Works even for polyhedral meshes with "runCommand pMesh".

See also cfmesh user-guide.
techGuy
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:48 am

Re: Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

Post by techGuy »

thschrader wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:46 pm See also cfmesh user-guide.
Where is the latest cfmesh user guide ? The one I am using is circa 2015.
techGuy
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:48 am

Re: Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

Post by techGuy »

thschrader wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:46 pm A thought...

With cfmesh you can produce a tetrahedral mesh too, with boundary elements.
After writing the meshCase, use Edit, open the Allmesh-script and change
"runCommand cartesianMesh" to "runCommand tetMesh".
Save file, Run Mesher.

Works even for polyhedral meshes with "runCommand pMesh".
If it is literally that simple, it would be very easy to add this as an option in the mesh control panel and to the mesh object and processes.
User avatar
oliveroxtoby
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:43 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

Post by oliveroxtoby »

techGuy wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:24 pm
thschrader wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:46 pm A thought...

With cfmesh you can produce a tetrahedral mesh too, with boundary elements.
After writing the meshCase, use Edit, open the Allmesh-script and change
"runCommand cartesianMesh" to "runCommand tetMesh".
Save file, Run Mesher.

Works even for polyhedral meshes with "runCommand pMesh".
If it is literally that simple, it would be very easy to add this as an option in the mesh control panel and to the mesh object and processes.
I think it is that simple, but I have found the tet mesher a bit wanting in terms of robustness (in my admittedly limited experience) so have avoided adding it as an official option.
User avatar
oliveroxtoby
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:43 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

Post by oliveroxtoby »

techGuy wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 5:54 pm
thschrader wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:46 pm See also cfmesh user-guide.
Where is the latest cfmesh user guide ? The one I am using is circa 2015.
I think that is the only one. The free version of the official code (https://sourceforge.net/p/cfmesh/code/c ... ment/tree/) was abandoned a while ago.
techGuy
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:48 am

Re: Proposal: add gmsh boundary layer meshing to CfdOF.

Post by techGuy »

oliveroxtoby wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:06 pm
techGuy wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:24 pm
If it is literally that simple, it would be very easy to add this as an option in the mesh control panel and to the mesh object and processes.
I think it is that simple, but I have found the tet mesher a bit wanting in terms of robustness (in my admittedly limited experience) so have avoided adding it as an official option.
Good to know ! I lack the historical knowledge on these issues. Comments like this are very helpful.
Post Reply