Methods in development
CFD Geometry & Meshing.
Preparing a model that can be inspected before a result is interpreted.
- Engineering question
- What geometry, near-wall mesh and numerical checks are needed before interpreting a two-phase simulation?
- My contribution
- Pipe geometry preparation and inflation-layer refinement under Huigang Wang’s guidance.
- Current evidence
- Geometry and mesh methods in development; no converged, mesh-independent solution is claimed.
- Next step
- Recover consistent comparison outputs and check the solution before interpreting it.
- 01Geometry
- 02Mesh
- 03Physics + boundaries
- 04Numerical checks
- 05Interpret
Conceptual methods diagram · no experimental or simulation result shown.
My role
I have prepared pipe geometry and refined inflation-layer meshes in ANSYS Fluent. Huigang Wang guides the two-phase modeling and mesh-comparison work; I am developing my understanding of the modeling choices and checks.
Engineering problem
A computational image can look plausible without resolving the flow features of interest. Geometry, near-wall spacing, boundary conditions, and numerical behavior need to be examined before a simulation is used to support an engineering claim.
Model and methods
The research workflow uses a Volume of Fluid approach for phase interfaces and the SST k–omega turbulence model. My experience centers on geometry and mesh preparation, with developing practice in solver setup, post-processing, and HPC job workflows.
Checks that matter
I am learning to separate a saved mesh or plotted field from numerical convergence and mesh independence. A resolution comparison requires recovered outputs, consistent definitions, and checks of the underlying solution.
Evidence and limitations
This page presents methods experience. It does not report a completed bubble-length comparison, improved numerical accuracy, or a validated solution. Research meshes, case details, and Fluent figures remain private while publication permission is pending.
Current status and next step
Geometry and meshing work are documented, while the comparison and interpretation workflow remains in development. The next public evidence should be an approved mesh view with a clear explanation of what was personally prepared and what was checked.