View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0002678OpenFOAMContributionpublic2017-10-20 11:39
ReporterShorty Assigned Tohenry  
PrioritylowSeverityfeatureReproducibilityhave not tried
Status closedResolutionsuspended 
PlatformGNU/LinuxOSUbuntuOS Version16.04
Product Versiondev 
Summary0002678: New features | developments on 'openComfort' and 'flattenPatch'
DescriptionHi all, the last weeks I developed a few new things for OpenFOAM. However, I am not sure if this would be interesting for you or not.

a) openComfort
--------------

It is a library that allows a thermal comfort analyzes based on EN ISO 7730. It could be included to the postProcess application. But I think this is a too special library to add to the source code.


b) flattenPatch
---------------

After meshing with sHM I have e.g. symmetryPlanes, inlets etc. not aligned in one plane. For a flowRateInletVelocity or a surfaceNormal... inlet this is really a very bad thing (although for symmetryPlanes).

Right now the patches only can be flatten orthogonal to the x-, y- and z-plane while setting the corresponding coordinate. However, for random patches, I was thinking to generate the average normal vector and flatten the patch based on that (as second option).

If this would be interesting, I can extend it, or if you have other suggestions. If both are not of interest, I let them as they are and go on in the 2D refinement library.


Tobi
TagsflattenPatch

Activities

henry

2017-08-25 10:03

manager   ~0008632

a) openComfort

Have you already released this for people to test and provide feedback?

b) flattenPatch

If you flatten patches generated by snappyHexMesh do you find that corner cells which do not match the patch plane and/or corners become very poor quality or even negative volume? Do you include a constraint to ensure that the snappyHexMesh cell quality specifications are maintained?

Given the possibility that this flattening might distort cells to the point that the simulation fails wouldn't it be better to use "symmetry" rather than "symmetryPlane" at least if the resulting mesh is very poor quality?

> I was thinking to generate the average normal vector

Given that the average normal would not be correct in the cases you want to fix it would be better if the correct patch orientation is specified either as a command line option or a dictionary entry.

Shorty

2017-08-25 10:25

reporter   ~0008634

a) OpenComfort
I released it today in the night. It is new and people can test it now (waiting for feedback)

b) flattenPatch

Till now I did never get a negative or poor quality cell for snappyHexMesh meshes. Maybe you are right if the corners cannot be mapped by snappyHexMesh. I will check it, I have some cases at home in which I can check it but for my geometries I used right now, I did not have any problems. A mesh check can be included. The first shot could be like as follows: undo all changes if mesh quality is worse than before.

> Specify normal vector

That is not a big deal and can be add to the tool.

Shorty

2017-08-25 10:28

reporter   ~0008635

> wouldn't it be better to use "symmetry" rather than "symmetryPlane" at least if the resulting mesh is very poor quality?

Yes, I agree. However, for solid mechanics (solidDisplacementFoam + extention) I realized that the symmetry is worse than symmetryPlane. Thats why I made that utility.

henry

2017-10-20 11:39

manager   ~0008901

Waiting for updated patch.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2017-08-25 09:03 Shorty New Issue
2017-08-25 09:03 Shorty Tag Attached: flattenPatch
2017-08-25 10:03 henry Note Added: 0008632
2017-08-25 10:25 Shorty Note Added: 0008634
2017-08-25 10:28 Shorty Note Added: 0008635
2017-09-02 10:09 wyldckat Summary New features | developments => New features | developments on 'openComfort' and 'flattenPatch'
2017-10-20 11:39 henry Assigned To => henry
2017-10-20 11:39 henry Status new => closed
2017-10-20 11:39 henry Resolution open => suspended
2017-10-20 11:39 henry Note Added: 0008901