...
- Tetrahedal fewer faces:
- Fewer problems with oscillatory results.
- Growth rate is easily controlled.
- Larger truncation errors at the wall.
- Can easily adapt to a structure.
- Needs more computing resources but less mesh time.
- Small changes in flow -> larger mesh cells can be used.
...
Comparison CfMesh and SnappyHexMesh
A comparison between CfMesh and SnappyHexMesh in performance is shown in Table 1. The results are to the advantage of CfMesh. The SnappyHexMesh includes snapping and layering and is run parallel on 2 cores. CfMesh is performed without external parallelization. Note that the statistics are given as examples but also depend on the amount of optimization iterations and thresholds.
...
Examples of a mesh generated by CfMesh and SnappyHexMesh including boundary layers are illustrated in Figure 01 (sense hub gap between rotated floating solar panels) and Figure 02 (from literature).
Figure 01: BL In gap between four solar panels when 22.5 [deg] rotated with CfMesh (lefttop) while SnappyHexMesh cannot produce it after a couple of tries tweaking the many options (rightbottom).
Figure 02: CfMesh (left) vs SnappyHexMesh (right) from literature.
...