You need to participate in an interesting discussion on LinkedIn’s CFD Group. Raj asked “Will Meshing for CFD become a history in coming days with CFD software’s capability to simulate CFD straight away with the geometrical models …????”
You’ll need to login to your LinkedIn account to participate in the poll and cast a vote so I won’t give too much away. But as I write this 51% of participants say either “Yes, completely” or “For simple problems, completely.” That’s a lot of optimism.
At first I had to think about exactly what the question was asking. Will meshing become history because of the rise of meshless methods? Or does the phrase “…straight away with the geometrical models” allude to isogeometric analysis? Or will meshing just appear to be history when it becomes even more automated and lurks in the background?
I’m both an optimist and a pessimist. Yes, meshing will be history because the techniques, regardless of their type, will become more automated and almost automatic. No, meshing will never be history because someone will always want to generate a mesh for something more complex and get a solution more accurate than ever before. That’s how things have gone for the past 30 years so there’s no reason to believe it’s going to change.
Participate in this poll about the future of meshing on LinkedIn.
RSS - Posts
“…the rise of meshless methods…”
Yet so-called meshless methods still require:
Surface mesh – in the form of facets (cells) to define the surfaces for the fluid interaction
Volume mesh – in the form of points in the vicinity of surfaces and flow features
How best to define those surface meshes and capture those high curvature regions? Meshing algorithms.
How best to position those volume points at just the right location and density for accurate simulations? Meshing algorithms again.
Pointwise has a bright future!
Rich, you really think like a mesh guy. Whatever you call it and whenever you do it you need nodal locations somewhere and somehow.