technical PA P E R

ADVANCED BOUNDARY CARTESIAN

MESHING TECHNOLOGY IN
SOLIDWORKS FLOW SIMULATION

Overview
SolidWorks® Flow Simulation is an intelligent, easy-to-use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) program that facilitates the
work of design engineers who use SolidWorks 3D CAD software for design creation. This paper details the approach and theory
behind the Cartesian mesh generation used in SolidWorks Flow Simulation. Detailed explanation and examples will support how
this choice of mesh generation algorithm enables SolidWorks Flow Simulation to offer a best-in-class CFD solution centered
upon simplicity, speed, and robustness.
ABSTRACT
For the numerical simulation of Navier-Stokes equations, the choice of the
mesh type plays a significant role. Comparative calculations on different mesh
types illustrates that the best simulation precision, characterized by minimum
Local Truncation Error (LTE), is obtained on Cartesian meshes. For the boundary
representation, the Immersed Boundary (IB) approach, which does not require
a boundary-conforming mesh, is used. Use of Cartesian meshes together with
the Immersed Boundary approach makes it possible to efficiently minimize
approximation errors, build operators with good spectral properties so that
robustness of method is guaranteed, speed up the process of grid generation, and
make grid generation robust and flexible. Many other CFD methods require a mesh
that fits the boundaries of the computational domain and often complex internal
geometries. The body-fitted grid generation used is time-consuming, often requiring
manual intervention to modify and clean-up of the CAD geometry as a prerequisite.

Implementing the IB approach efficiently in SolidWorks Flow Simulation requires

resolving a number of issues: approximation of the governing equations in cut-cells
that contain the solid-fluid interface, capture of boundary layers effects irrespective
of boundary layer thickness using a Two-Scale Wall Functions (2SWF) approach
automatic mesh generation with automatic detection of initial mesh settings
(octree-based mesh structure), and Solution Adaptive Refinement (SAR).

Test cases given in this paper represent a small selection of our validation examples
that illustrate the precision of the IB approach and the flexibility of SolidWorks
Flow Simulation meshing technology in the wide range of industrial examples of
geometry and physical formulations.

NOMENCLATURE Subscript:
BREP Boundary Representation q Heating power a Ambient (pressure)
Cd Drag coefficient RRL Result Resolution Level c Chamber (pressure)
Cmerge Unrefinement indicator value in SAR Solution-Adaptive Refinement gap Across the gap
Refinement Criterion t Time i, i-1 Cell indices
Csplit Refinement indicator value in δ Distance between the SSF Small Solid Features
Refinement Criterion interpolated surface and Refinement Criterion
dgap Minimal gap size (MGS) the most distant point Tol Tolerance Refinement Criterion
dwall Minimal wall thickness (MWT) of the surface
x, y, z x, y, and z directions
h Mesh step size, i.e., cell size δtolerance Threshold value of δ in respectively
Tolerance Refinement Criterion
l Refinement level
εmerge Unrefinement threshold value in
L Mesh refinement level Refinement Criterion
M Mach number εsplit Refinement threshold value in
LTE Local Truncation Error Refinement Criterion
n Mesh convergence coefficient γ Ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv)
N Number of cells φ Value of an angle
NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline φcurvature Threshold value of φ in
p Static pressure Curvature Refinement Criterion

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 2

1. Introduction
SolidWorks Flow Simulation’s meshing technology has been in use for about
20 years, since the end of the 1980s. The task of developing a numerical flow
simulation solution brought us to a decision point. The Navier-Stokes equations
need to be discretized before they can be solved. However, before diving into
the software development it was necessary to answer some important questions.
Firstly, what mesh is the best for simulation precision? And secondly, what mesh
is the best to use for practical applications?

When the conservation laws for fluid flow are discretized on a spatial finite-volume
mesh, the error in approximating these governing integral equations, together with
the error in approximating the wall boundary conditions and flow boundaries, and
therefore the simulation accuracy, is defined to a great degree by the choice of
mesh geometry.

The detailed reviews of basic types of mesh geometries are presented in several
publications (see Weatherill & Hassan 1994, Filipiak 1996, and Parry & Tatchell
2008). These works show the wide use of body-fitted meshes for solving today’s
industrial problems. As a rule, for more complicated geometries unstructured
meshes are generated (Figure 1). In some cases the geometry allows the use
of meshes with a regular structure. Such meshes are called structured meshes
(Figure 2). In addition mixed-mesh topologies, structured in some subregions of
computational domain and unstructured in other ones (Figure 3), are also used. Such
meshes may be called partially structured or partially unstructured.

Figure 1 Unstructured body-fitted mesh Figure 2 Structured body-fitted rectangular mesh

Figure 3 Combination of structured Cartesian mesh Figure 4 Structured Cartesian immersed-body mesh
and hybrid unstructured body-fitted mesh near
the wall

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 3

The approach that uses the immersed-body mesh (Figure 4) is the alternative to
the body-fitted approaches shown in Figures 1 to 3. Deliberately not conforming
the mesh to the solid surface makes it possible to use a Cartesian mesh, which in
general can be not body-fitted. Such mesh can be defined as the set of cuboidal
rectilinear cells, which are adjacent to each other and the external boundary of the
computational domain and orientated along the Cartesian coordinates. Cuboidal
cells intersected by the surface (“cut-cells”) are treated according to the boundary
conditions defined on the surface.

The advantages of body-fitted meshes are as follows:

• It is possible to place the mesh nodes optimally to resolve the geometrical

features of the problem. This feature of body-fitted approach is exhibited most
clearly in the case of unstructured meshes, which are the most “flexible” in terms
of arbitrary placement of nodes during mesh generation.

• It is possible to increase the mesh density towards the wall to ensure satisfactory
resolution of the near-wall viscous layer.

At the same time the body-fitted meshes are characterized by serious

disadvantages caused by the following:

• Approximation errors (Local Truncation Errors) caused by the spread of inter-

nodal distances (mesh irregularity) that is greatest for the unstructured meshes
(see below in Table 1)

• Loss of computational robustness, caused by the secondary fluxes at skewed

faces, which increase the degree of schemes explicitness and, as a result, a
decrease in the diagonal dominance of the difference operators

• Serious difficulties in automating the process of mesh generation caused by the

geometric complexity of the industrial problems; surface defects within the CAD
representation; and the need to control the cell size and topology in the near-wall
mesh to capture boundary layer development

The examples of two structured quadrilateral and of one unstructured triangular

meshes used to simulate the inviscid, isentropic, supersonic flow of ideal gas in a
plane circular channel are presented below (see Aftosmis & Berger, 2002). Figure
5 displays the most typical variants of these meshes. Figure 5 (a) displays the
“qualitative” unstructured near-equilateral triangular mesh, with angles that are not
less than 29 degrees. Figure 5 (c) displays the structured quadrilateral curvilinear
mesh, which is generated by the intersection of concentric circles with radial rays.
Figure 5 (b) displays the structured mesh obtained from the curvilinear mesh Figure
5 (c) by the division of each quadrilateral cell into two triangular ones.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 4

 Figure 5 Body-fitted meshes:
(a) Unstructured triangular mesh;
(b) Structured triangular mesh;
(c) Structured curvilinear quadrilateral mesh

Figure 6 displays the sequence of successively refined IB Cartesian meshes.

Figure 6 Sequence of Cartesian meshes with

increased mesh density

(a) Ncells = 138 (b) Ncells = 507

(c) Ncells = 1928 (d) Ncells = 7549

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 5

For all mesh sequences presented above, Table 1 displays the values of Local
Truncation Error (LTE) defined in the integral norm ||LTE||L , which are obtained by
1
applying the finite-difference operator that approximates the mass conservation law
in the supersonic flow using the scheme of the formally second order of accuracy
with respect to the accurate solution (Aftosmis & Berger, 2002). Here Cells is the
number of mesh cells; n is the coefficient of mesh convergence.

Table 1

Mesh Unstructured Structured triangular Structured Cartesian [Aftosmis] Cartesian

triangular curvilinear [SolidWorks Flow
Simulation]

Figure 5 (a) Figure 5 (b) Figure 5 (c) Figure 6 Figure 6

Cells ||LTE||L Cells ||LTE||L Cells ||LTE||L Cells ||LTE||L Cells ||LTE||L
1 1 1 1 1

Results 128 0.52552 144 0.37926 144 0.30998 138 0.03065 140 0.03014

505 0.22529 525 0.07571 525 0.09223 507 0.00930 516 0.00916

1918 0.11936 2001 0.01565 2001 0.02422 1928 0.00246 1944 0.00235

7490 0.05940 7809 0.00347 7809 0.00629 7549 0.00059 7526 0.00058
n 1.02 2.28 1.94 2.11 2.06

The presented results show clearly that the quality of approximation of the mass
conservation law is significantly worse on non-Cartesian meshes:

• The level of ||LTE||L is approximately 10 times higher on structured curvilinear

1
meshes than on a Cartesian mesh, and higher again on structured triangular
meshes. The rate at which the errors reduce with increasing mesh count,
characterized by the mesh convergence coefficient, n, is of the order of 2 for
Cartesian and structured curvilinear and structured triangular meshes.

• Compared against the Cartesian mesh, we see the level of ||LTE||L for the
1
unstructured triangular mesh is approximately 17 times higher on a coarse mesh,
rising to 100 times higher on a fine mesh. The difference in the rate at which
||LTE||L reduces with reducing cell size is due to the difference in the mesh
1
convergence coefficient, n, between structured and unstructured meshes. As n is
higher for the Cartesian mesh, ||LTE||L reduces faster as the Cartesian mesh is
1
refined (also see Figure 7).

The difference between Cartesian and unstructured meshes will be even more
pronounced in 3D, where tetrahedral cells are used for the unstructured mesh. To put
this into context, based on this illustrative example, a typical industrial application
in SolidWorks Flow Simulation using on the order of one million cells would require
100+ million cells in a tool that uses an unstructured tetrahedral mesh to achieve the
same level of accuracy in representing the underlying conservation equations.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 6

Figure 7 L1 norm of local truncation error in density for sequence of refined meshes (see Table 1,
Aftosmis & Berger, 2002)

If the mesh contains skewed cells, in which the cell face is not normal to the line
between the cell centers on each side of the cell face, then ||LTE||L is higher than
1
for a Cartesian mesh. This includes both structured and unstructured meshes. If the
mesh topology is unstructured, with an irregular distribution of mesh nodes, then
the mesh convergence coefficient, n, is reduced from around two to around one, so
that the error reduces more slowly as the mesh size is increased. A Cartesian mesh
is free from both of these disadvantages and can be regarded as the ideal mesh,
producing the minimum ||LTE||L .
1

In conclusion, Cartesian meshes are characterized by their high approximation

accuracy of the conservation laws. Let us examine the advantages and
disadvantages of Cartesian meshes in general.

2. Advantages of the Cartesian Mesh

2.1 LTE Minimization

Integral minimum of LTE follows from the fact that the structure of Cartesian mesh
is maximally regular in the main area of the flow.

Irregularity in the mesh is introduced at solid-fluid interfaces, which cause the

regular cells to be split into a number of control volumes. The proportion of these
cells reduces as the base mesh is refined. Another source of irregularity in the
mesh is cells adjacent to a change in refinement level in the mesh. However, the
proportion of these cells also reduces as the base mesh is refined.

If N is the number of cells in a particular coordinate direction, then the model will
typically contain of the order of N3 cells. The number of cut-cells is proportional
to the surface area within the model, which is typically proportional to N2. The
proportion of cut-cells is therefore proportional to N2/N3 = 1/N. A similar argument
applies to the number of cells that are adjacent to a change in the mesh refinement
level. Overall, irregularity is minimized the closer the mesh is to being fully
Cartesian. It is then generally better from an accuracy perspective to use a finer
base mesh with fewer refinement levels than vice versa; however, this will lead to a
finer mesh overall.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 7

2.2 Robustness of Differencing Scheme

Robustness of the differencing scheme is ensured by the absence of secondary

fluxes at skewed faces, since the Cartesian-based system ensures there are no
skewed faces in the model. This in turn ensures maximum implicitness and diagonal
dominance of difference operators in the matrices being solved.

2.3 Simplicity, Speed, and Robustness of Mesh Generation Algorithm

Relative simplicity and a speed of automatic generation of Cartesian mesh are made
possible by the application of the immersed-boundary mesh technique.

CAD systems were originally developed for design process, not for numerical
simulation needs. Consequently defects in CAD geometry (so-called “Dirty CAD”) are
the common problem when using industrial CAD models for simulation (Figure 8).

Many CAD systems use Boundary Representation (BREP) geometries to define

3D objects. A BREP surface is composed of a number of patches which can be
quite complex, like in the case of a Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline (NURBS). This
complexity is a source of nonwatertight joints resulting from imperfect edge-
edge contact between adjacent surface patches. This may not be a problem when
producing drawings or even rapid prototypes, but having a watertight (i.e., manifold)
geometry is essential when creating a mesh for a flow simulation, especially in the
case of body-fitted meshes which first require a surface mesh. Due to this, special
efforts are necessary to repair or clean this kind of defect (Wang & Srinivasan, 2002
and Thompson et al., 1985) before meshing.

Figure 8 Typical defects view on CAD geometry

Body-fitted meshes are characterized by their high sensitivity to the quality of CAD
geometry. Commonly, defects in the surface representation require user intervention
to resolve the ambiguities and heal the defects of CAD geometry. Once this is done, a
surface mesh is generated, usually beginning with nodes created on the solid surface.
Then the surface triangulation is generated, most often by using a Delaunay algorithm,
with point insertion as required. In addition, in some situations overrefinement of
the surface can result in an excessive number of small triangles. This often happens
in areas that are not important for flow simulation (for example, geometry features
having a small radius, small spikes, joints and material interfaces, etc.). After that,

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 8

based on the surface triangulation, the volume mesh is generated. Often it is a mesh
with tetrahedral elements that meet Delaunay criteria (see Delaunay 1934, Lawson
1977, Watson 1981, Baker 1989, and Weatherill & Hassan 1994).

In the octree approach, when the initial mesh is generated, the geometry is always
captured beginning with the large cells used for the background Cartesian mesh,
and then with increasing precision as these are refined in accordance with criteria
set. This approach makes it possible to stop the mesh refinement process once the
mesh is locally fine enough to capture the physics of the problem.

Unresolved geometry within a cut-cell can be completed by geometry interpolation

inside the cell. Since the smallest cells needed to capture the physical detail present
in the CAD model are relatively large compared to the size of any defects in the
geometry, the sensitivity to CAD-geometry defects is much less. Cracks, overlaps,
small components (for example, small spikes), and small defects in geometry
definition can be ignored by using sufficiently large cells (Figure 9).

Figure 9 Defects are “healed“ by geometry interpolation inside the cell.

If there are narrow channels within the geometry that are important to the flow
simulations, the required cell size can be achieved by mesh refinement up to the
level corresponding to the prescribed characteristic width of the channel. Even in
such cases it is typically the case that the dimensions of any CAD geometry defects
are significantly less than the characteristic width of the channel.

It is necessary to point out that the immersed body mesh approach could be
implemented with tetrahedral and other types of elements (see Löhner et al.,
2004), but in terms of approximation accuracy and ease of implementation, use of a
Cartesian mesh is much better.

2.4 Simplicity of Navigation on Mesh

In discussing the advantages of a Cartesian mesh we should also point out that the
structured nature of the mesh results in much faster calculation of mesh-based
information required by the solver, as well as speeding up the search for data
associated with neighbor cells. Examples of such computations include the construction
of cell geometry from the coordinates of its vertices, determining the solid volume and
surface intersection with cell elements and faces, computation of spatial steps, and the
location of cell centers. Searching for neighbor cell data is facilitated by the structured
nature of the base mesh and the relationship between refined cells and their parents.
Together these serve to speed up the computational efficiency.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 9

2.5 Isotropic versus Anisotropic Refinement

Mesh refinement can be implemented in a number of ways. Usually a tree structure

is used, in which the larger cells are refined into smaller daughter cells. The most
common approaches are binary tree refinement (Figure 10), where the parent cell is
refined to two daughter cells, or octree refinement (Figure 11), where the parent cell
is refined to eight equal daughter cells. There are other variants.

On the one hand, the binary tree refinement is more universal and flexible, making
it possible to generate the meshes better adapted to the solid geometry by using
fewer cells.

Figure 10 Binary-tree refinement Figure 11 Octree refinement

But practical attempts to implement such an approach (Berger & Aftosmis, 1998)
show that the anisotropic refinement causes significantly irregular meshes, often
with aspect ratios that decrease the solver accuracy.

For 2D problems there is a benefit in terms of number of cells. But usually the
typical number of cells for 2D problems is not too high; therefore, even if a 3D
definition is used for solving a 2D problem, the computation time is not too high.
In the case of arbitrary 3D geometry, such meshes are not sufficient to guarantee
the proper resolution of the boundary layer due to the irregularity in the cell size.
Additional issues with binary refinement include how to choose the refinement
criterion and how to interface between regions with cells that have been refined in
different orientations.

Usually, the refinement criterion is calculated as the variation of the vector normal
to the surface within the cell. If the variation in a specific direction is sufficiently
high, the criterion is true and refinement takes place, splitting the parent cell
into two new ones orthogonal to this direction. The refinement across the normal
to the surface can cause extremely high step irregularity. Due to this, a more
cautious refinement strategy would be needed, both initially and for solution
adaptive refinement.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 10

In terms of mesh topology there are some additional problems at the boundaries of
“badly joined” refined cells. For example, if we refine two neighbor cells (Figure 12),
in the way that one is split in the y direction and the other in the z direction, at the
boundary we have face pairs which are not conformal.

Figure 12 Faces from the left and from the right side on x-face are different.

This topological situation requires additional efforts for interfacing, either by further
refinement (thereby reducing the benefit of binary refinement on cell count), or by
accepting a more complicated mesh structure that requires additional software
logic (increasing the computation time per cell). If additional refinement is chosen,
the mesh refinement process converges sufficiently quickly, but the enforced
refinement of the neighbor cells causes the cell count to increase significantly,
greatly reducing the benefit of this approach.

3. Cartesian Mesh Generation in SolidWorks Flow Simulation

The technique used for mesh generation itself is strongly dependent on the
properties and possibilities of the available solver and vice versa. The key
challenges that arise if the Cartesian meshes are used are presented here along
with their solution in SolidWorks Flow Simulation:

1) Treatment of sub grid-scale viscous near-wall layers, i.e., where the thickness
of the boundary layer is less than or approximately equal to the characteristic
size of mesh cell normal to the wall. This is solved through the use of a novel
Two-Scale Wall Functions (2SWF) technique, where the subscale boundary layer
is modeled using a special integral procedure. Otherwise, to solve the Navier-
Stokes equations with two-equation k-ε turbulence would require a very fine
computational mesh. Figure 13 displays the flow that includes the “thin,” “thick,”
and “intermediate” layers, which are resolved universally by the 2SWF.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 11

Figure 13 Velocity flow field with “ “thin,” “thick,” and “intermediate viscous boundary layer

2) Resolution of the wall, if the wall thickness is less than the characteristic size of
mesh cell (i.e., “thin” walls) is achieved through the implementation of an original
technique, in which the mesh cell can contain any number of “fluid” or “solid”
control volumes, breaking the normal paradigm of a 1:1 correspondence between
cells in the mesh and solver control volumes.

3) Figure 14 displays the velocity field around a solid, which includes segments of
both “thick” and “thin” walls.

Figure 14 Velocity field near the solid, if there is a transition from “thick” to “thin” wall

In addition, there are several factors that result in irregular mesh step (and
therefore a drop in the accuracy of the approximation):

• Limited computational resources make it necessary to find the right balance

between the total number of cells, the maximum permitted level of cell
refinement (that allows to resolve the geometrical features), and the regularity of
the mesh. In the case of arbitrary geometry the best choice is not evident.

• An irregular base mesh. For maximum accuracy, the cell-cell contraction or

expansion of the base mesh should not be very sharp. Usually the cell-cell size
ratio should not exceed 1.2:1.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 12

• A large difference in refinement level between adjacent cells. To avoid this issue,
SolidWorks Flow Simulation restricts the difference in refinement level between
a cell and its neighbor to be no more than one, forcing the refinement of neighbor
cells where necessary.

There are also some specific situations that arise which will influence the process
of mesh generation, for example, in the case of narrow channels, sharp edges, solid-
solid interfaces. We will discuss the most important aspects of this technique in the
next section.

3.1 Initial Mesh Generation

As was mentioned above, the Cartesian mesh based on octree technology is used in
SolidWorks Flow Simulation.

The mesh generation process begins with the definition of the rectangular
computational domain. Three sets of planes orthogonal to the Cartesian coordinate
system are then defined inside it. The intersection of these planes defines the set of
rectangular cells (cuboids) that form the base mesh (Figure 15). The gaps between basic
mesh planes can be varied. In addition, it is possible to specify the set of key planes,
which are used to prescribe the position of some planes in the base mesh. Since it is
necessary not to use a significantly irregular mesh, the restriction on the change in the
spacing of the planes, h, is set to hi/hi-1<1.15 in SolidWorks Flow Simulation.

Figure 15 Base mesh

At the next stage of the process the geometry of the objects inside the
computational domain is captured. The program traverses the mesh cells
sequentially and for each cell it parses the geometrical configuration inside the cell.
In addition, several refinement criteria are checked. If one of the respective criteria
is true, the cell is tagged for further refinement.

The difference in refinement levels of neighbor cells should not be higher than one
as this is necessary to minimize the approximation error. Accordingly, when the
refinement criteria have been checked, additional iterations are carried out to tag
cells that should be refined to ensure this condition is met.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 13

The refinement level of the cell is the number of times it has been refined relative
to the initial cell in the base mesh. In SolidWorks Flow Simulation the maximum
number of refinement levels is limited to seven, so that the smallest cell size is
1/128 of the original cell in the base mesh (level 0), although most refinements will
stop far short of this.

Figure 16 Initial mesh showing refinement around CAD geometry

The mesh, generated as the output of the mesh generator, is called an initial mesh
(Figure 16). It is the set of rectangular cells with computational cells each containing
one or more control volumes (Figure 17).

Figure 17 Cell and control volumes inside

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 14

If a solid boundary intersects the cell, the software defines the points of intersection
of cell edges with the surface. On the basis of this information, the cell is refined into
the set of control volumes. A single cell can contain an arbitrary number of control
volumes, with cases where this number can significantly exceed two. Solid and fluid
control volumes can be alternated several times inside the cell (Figure 18).

Figure 18 Multiple control volumes may reside within one cell.

For each of these control volumes all necessary geometrical parameters, such as
volume and the coordinates of cell center, are calculated. The areas and normal
vector direction are calculated for the cell faces that bound the control volume.
The treatment aims to achieve the correct overall pressure drop and heat exchange
rather than resolve the detail of what’s happening within the individual flow
channels. It can be viewed as a set of interconnected 1D CFD solutions implicitly
coupled with the surrounding 3D CFD.

During the calculation, the initial mesh can be subjected to additional solution
adaptive refinement (see Section 3.4), and the octree technique is used to further
refine cells or merge refined cells.

3.2 Mesh Refinement Criteria

The initial mesh generation process anticipates where it will be necessary to have
a refined mesh during computation in order to correctly capture the flow physics.
Usually it is assumed that regions in the vicinity of sharp edges, narrow channels,
and any other areas related to specific features of the physical problem definition
(such as heat sources), have to be refined. However, it should be noted that these
assumptions cannot anticipate, and so do not take into account, other regions
that also need a fine mesh to resolve the flow physics, such as cavitation, flow
separation, and shock capture.

Geometric detail is captured by means of cell refinement. The process is controlled

with the help of several criteria, with limitations set on the number of refinement
levels for each criterion.

The refinement criterion is an expression that looks like: Csplit > εsplit. If it is true, the
cell has to be subdivided. The value of indicator Csplit is calculated individually for
each cell according to an algorithm that controls that type of refinement. The value
of εsplit is a constant defined automatically, but available to the user to change if
desired. Setting refinement levels individually for each criterion makes it possible to
influence the total number of cells that will be generated.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 15

CAD, as a source of geometric information, provides a parametric definition of the solid
surfaces. In SolidWorks Flow Simulation, the parametric definition is used to form the
surface representation. Use of the CAD kernel’s parametric definition ensures that the
approximated surface approaches the real surface as the mesh is refined.

This approach has a further advantage over using a triangulated representation

of the surface, being that it is possible to obtain the correct surface area and
volume of the solid present in a cell, irrespective of how fine the mesh is. As such,
this is also an advantage over body-fitted meshes, which require a fine surface
mesh in order to correctly capture surface area and solid volume in regions of high
geometric curvature.

Refinement criteria can be categorized into the following groups:

1. Initial Geometry. Criteria that are used for initial capture of geometry: Tolerance,
Curvature, and Small Solid Features.

2. Problem-specific. Criteria that deal with limitations and requirements caused by

problem definition in local subareas: Cell Type, Solid Boundary, Selected Volume,
Surface, and Edge refinements.

3. Narrow Channels. To increase the mesh quality in narrow channels, the special
technique Narrow Channel Refinement has been developed. It ensures that an
adequate number of cells are included to resolve the flow in the channel.

Each refinement criterion is applied independently, although in some situations

different criteria can result in the same refinement. If one or more refinement
criteria are satisfied for a given cell, the cell is refined provided that the maximum
number of refinement levels has not been exceeded. Surface triangulation,
performed by the CAD system, is used to provide the information used in the
refinement process.

3.2.1 Curvature Refinement Criterion

The purpose of the curvature refinement criterion is to resolve geometrical details

like corners and edges. According to this criterion, cells that contain geometry
having a high degree of curvature within the cell are refined (Figure 19). The cell is
tagged for refinement when the maximum variation of the angle between vectors
normal to the surface triangles is greater than some critical value, and the limit level
of curvature refinement has not been reached.

Figure 19 Curvature criterion: refinement is necessary, if normal vector variation within the cell φ>φcurvature
(here: Csplit= φ and εsplit= φcurvature).

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 16

It is often convenient to use curvature refinement in cases where the mesh
refinement needs fine-tuning. For example, if it is necessary to generate a more
detailed mesh near a blunt angle which has not been refined sufficiently during the
initial capture of geometry.

3.2.2 Tolerance Refinement Criterion

The tolerance refinement criterion aims to improve the resolution of geometrical

details like corners and edges within a single cell. This criterion identifies where the
interpolated surface, formed from the intersection of the geometry with the faces
of the cell, deviates too much from the actual geometry (Figure 20). This is done
by testing whether the maximum distance between the interpolated surface and
the most distant vertex of the surface triangles is greater than some critical value.
Provided the limit on the number of levels of refinement for this criterion has not
been reached, the cell is tagged for refinement.

Figure 20 Tolerance criterion: refinement is necessary if δ >tolerance (here: Csplit= δ and εsplit= δtolerance).

Note there is a difference between the curvature and tolerance refinement criteria.
The curvature criterion will force refinement in regions of high curvature, associated
with both blunt and sharp geometry. The tolerance refinement criterion allows the
surface resolution to be improved if the interpolated surface does not go “deep
enough” into the cell.

Usually, the tolerance criterion value δ can be estimated approximately as

1/4min(dgap, dwall), where dgap and dwall are some values that characterize the minimal
gap size and wall thickness available in the model.

3.2.3 Small Solid Features

There are several geometrical situations when the criteria described above are
insufficient to adequately resolve the geometry. One such example is when a
relatively small solid, such as a cylinder or a sphere, is fully contained within one
of the coarse mesh cells in the base mesh. Note that the tolerance criterion does
not apply. Since the geometry does not intersect with the mesh, it is impossible to
generate the interpolated surface to test against.

The small solid features criterion is used for the initial surface capture before other
refinement criteria are applied. The small solid features criterion is the same as the
curvature criterion, but with threshold value of φcurvature=120° fixed in advance. The
angle of 120° is chosen due to the fact that after triangulation of arbitrary 3D solids,

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 17

the maximum angle between the surface normals for the set of triangles always
exceeds this value. In the extreme case of a sphere, where the triangulation creates
a regular tetrahedron, the condition φcurvature=120° is true. As a result, the mesh
sensitivity to small geometrical details is controlled just by this criterion alone.

To illustrate how this criterion works it is helpful to consider an example. If, for
the case presented in Figure 21, we deactivate all criteria, the small solid shown
becomes invisible to the mesh. If we activate the tolerance criterion, it does not
help the situation, since its operation requires an interpolated surface. If the small
solid features criterion is activated and we impose the restrictions for refinement
level LSSF = 2, the solid will be captured as shown in Figure 22. The size of the cell
with refinement level 2 is of the same order as the solid characteristic dimension d
which is enough for SolidWorks Flow Simulation to capture the geometry.

Figure 21 Body with the typical size d is invisible Figure 22 LevelSSF=2 cells are the same order of magnitude as the body
for the mesh level=0. size, d, small enough to capture the body.

In theory the same result could be obtained using the curvature criterion with the
criterion value φcurvature set explicitly to 120°. However, using the small solid features
criterion makes it possible to distinguish the primary process of coarse mesh
capture of small solid features from the finer operations of the curvature and
tolerance criteria, which are activated once the small solid geometry has already
been captured. This allows these latter criteria to be adapted in accordance with the
physical formulation of the specific problem.

The operation of this criterion also helps in other situations (Figure 23) that are
important for proper capture of the important details of the surface.

Figure 23 Small solid feature refinement works in the cells with φ≥120°.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 18

The most important property of this criterion is that it generates refined cells only
in the case where something exists inside the cell that is otherwise invisible to the
mesh, or if there is some topologically important feature present on the surface. By
using this criterion it is possible to generate a topologically correct mesh with the
minimum number of cells.

3.2.4 Refinement in Local Regions

The local mesh settings option is one more tool that helps to create an optimal
mesh. The application of local mesh settings is especially beneficial if you are
interested in resolving a particular region within a complex model.

The local mesh settings can be applied to a component, whether it is an assembly,

part, face, edge, or vertex. To apply the local mesh settings to some region, it
is necessary to specify this region as a “virtual” solid part or subassembly (CAD
systems allow the creation of “disabled” parts for this purpose) or to select an
existing part or sub-assembly in the model. The local mesh settings are applied to
cells intersected by the selected component, be it an assembly, part, face, edge, or
just the single cell enclosing the selected vertex.

3.2.5 Narrow Channel Refinement

The term “narrow channels” is conventionally used to describe a flow passage where
the opposite walls are relatively close to each other (Figure 24).

Figure 24 Mesh refinement in narrow channel

The basic concept of the narrow channel refinement is to resolve the narrow
channels with a sufficient number of cells to provide a reasonable level of solution
accuracy. It is especially important to resolve the narrow channels in analysis of low
Reynolds number flows and analyses involving long channels, where the boundary
layer thickness becomes comparable with the size of the cut-cells.

The mesh generator attempts to set the effective number of cells across the narrow
channel as close as possible to the predefined target value of the approximate
number of cells criterion (Ngap). Both the approximate number of cells criterion and
the narrow channels refinement level (L) influence the mesh in narrow channels. The
base mesh in the narrow channels will be split to have Ngap cells per channel width,
provided that the refinement level of the cells generated in the narrow channel does
not exceed L. The limit on the number of refinement levels is necessary to avoid
the undesirable mesh splitting in very fine channels that may cause an unreasonably
large number of cells.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 19

This refinement criterion stands apart from the other criteria as it is not based on
the local properties of cells intersected by solid geometry. Rather, it uses a ray-
tracing method to detect the number of cells between solid surfaces that form a
narrow channel and then tags these cells for refinement where necessary.

Other control parameters used with this refinement criterion are the minimum
and maximum heights of the narrow channels. These define the range of channels
to which this criterion is applied. Outside this range the flow passage will not be
considered as narrow and so will not be refined according to this criterion.

3.3 Automatic Mesh Settings

As noted above, SolidWorks Flow Simulation’s octree mesh generator uses a

system of refinement criteria, each with their own values and refinement levels.
This is relatively straightforward compared to body-fitted mesh generators.
However, in order to further simplify the process of defining the mesh, a method
to automatically define the refinement criteria, values, and levels for a case
Automatic Parameters Definition (APD) technology has been developed. There have
been a number of improvements since the initial deployment of SolidWorks Flow
Simulation’s APD technology from 1998 to 2000, most notably thin wall resolution.
Consequently, the evolution of this approach requires a more lengthy description.

The main idea of the APD technology is to define both the base mesh and refinement
settings from the physical definition of the model’s boundary conditions and other
elements, together with the most general information about the geometry.

APD uses the following input parameters:

1. Problem type (Internal\External, Compressible\Incompressible, 3D\2D)

2. Minimum gap size (MGS) dgap
3. Minimum wall thickness (MWT) dwall
4. Level of initial mesh or Result Resolution Level (RRL)
5. Computational model bounding box
6. Fluid region bounding box
7. Symmetry settings applied to the computational domain boundaries
8. Middle size of the computational model
9. Wind direction for external flows

APD output:

1. Base mesh
a. Computational domain box BCD
b. Key planes sets for x, y, z direction and cells ratios at these planes
c. Number of cells for x, y, z direction Nx, Ny, Nz
2. Refinement settings
a. Small solid feature refinement level LSSF
b. Tolerance refinement level Ltol and tolerance dtol
c. Narrow channels refinement level LNCR and the number of cells per channel
width Ngap

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 20

The default value of MGS is the smallest size of all flow openings or faces where
solution goals have been specified to control convergence of the solver.

If set manually, MGS should be set to the smaller of the size of smallest flow
passage to be resolved by the mesh, or the size of smallest geometric object in the
flow that needs to be resolved. SolidWorks Flow Simulation is then able to calculate
the refinement level needed to resolve this geometrical feature.

Figure 25(a) Minimum gap size Figure 25(b) Minimum wall thickness

Figure 25 Automatic initial mesh definition by

using minimum gap size, minimum wall thickness,
and level of initial mesh in order to calculate the
needed levels of mesh refinement

Figure 25(c) Mesh setting window Figure 25(d) Mesh view

The apd technology captures experience gained from manual mesh creation to
provide values for all the necessary mesh refinement parameters for each result
resolution level. In the case of the initial mesh, the result resolution level is the
level of initial mesh shown in Figure 25(c) above. The result resolution level may
change during the solution process due to the use of solution adaptive refinement in
solidworks flow simulation.

3.4 Solution Adaptive Refinement

The fundamental goal of Solution Adaptive Refinement (SAR) is to optimize

the mesh distribution in order to minimize the spatial error arising from the
discretization of the governing differential equations. In SolidWorks Flow Simulation
this optimization process is implemented as part of the global iteration process.

For a steady-state calculation, SAR cycles are implemented at a certain iteration

frequency. Iterations are chosen on the basis of the estimated residual decrease
at current iteration in comparison with residuals calculated after the previous SAR
cycle. For transient cases, SAR cycles are implemented at certain moments in time.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 21

The time approximation of conservation laws and difference scheme conservatism
are ensured. In addition, history-dependent refinement is applied for such problems:
once any cell has been subdivided, the generated subcells cannot be remerged. This
approach makes it possible to refine the whole solution domain, where potentially
any significant disturbances of the flow can appear.

At each SAR cycle, the refinement level l is increased by one unless the certain
predetermined maximum value is achieved. Cells that have been previously refined
can be merged thus, reducing the refinement level by one. Two parameters,
calculated from the local flow conditions, control the action of the SAR at a
particular grid cell: a refinement indicator Csplit and an unrefinement indicator Cmerge.

The Csplit and Cmerge parameters are calculated from the gradients present in the cell
and in its immediate neighbors, so that Csplit takes into account not only the local
gradient but also the number of neighbor cells and their size. To damp out numerical
oscillations in the variable fields as the solution progresses, data used to calculate
Csplit and Cmerge is collected over a number of iterations, and the collection does not
start until the case has partially converged.

If Csplit exceeds a certain predetermined value esplit then the LTE is expected to be
high for the considered cell, and the cell is refined. For the set of eight daughter
cells the unrefinement indicator Cmerge is introduced and its value calculated at the
next SAR cycle. If Cmerge is then calculated to be less than a certain predetermined
value emerge the LTE is expected to be low for the octet of cells and so they are
merged. This approach was initially developed with first order indicators and
applied to propulsion systems (see Gavriliouk et al. 1993, 1994a-1994c, Krulle et al.
1994 Barbashov et al. 1995, Hagemann et al. 1996, and Fey 2001), before being and
extended to other applications.

Just as with the initial mesh, to exclude the significant mesh irregularity in the
regions of refinement the difference between the refinement levels of neighbor
cells is limited to one.

An example that demonstrates the efficiency of SAR in SolidWorks Flow Simulation

is the stationary solution of the problem of supersonic ideal inviscid gas flow around
the sphere with radius of one (M = 2 and γ = 1.4). Only one quarter of the sphere, cut
by two planes of symmetry, is considered. Figure 26 displays the mesh and pressure
distribution in the plane of symmetry. Refinement levels are l = 0, 1, 2, 3. It is seen that
if l is increased, the resolution of the shock wave and the expansion fan are improved
significantly and the lines of constant pressure correctly approximate circles. The
information presented in Table 2 quantifies the efficiency of the technique.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 22

Figure 26 Mesh and poressure distribution calculated for supersonic flow of ideal inviscid gas around a
quarter of the sphere. A solution adaptive refinement was applied with the refinement levels of 0, 1, 2, 3.
The images show the flow at symmetry plane.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 23

Table 2

Refinement Total number Number of cells between Cd Error %

level, l of cells shock and spread point

0 2250 1.5 0.80374 1.86

1 7269 3 0.76207 -3.41

2 33316 6 0.78164 -0.93

3 143069 12 0.78672 -0.28

High-accuracy solution result (Lubimov & Rusanov, 1970): 0.7890

In Table 2 for each refinement level l the drag coefficient Cd for the front half
(up to the angle of 90° relatively longitudinal axis) of the sphere is presented. Cd,
calculated by SolidWorks Flow Simulation, is compared with an accurate solution
obtained according to Lyubimov and Rusanov’s precise method [23]. It is seen that
as l is increased from 0 to 3, the solution accuracy rises and by refinement level l
=3, it is below one percent To obtain the same accuracy without SAR, i.e., using a
uniform mesh, it would be necessary to use 1,152,000 cells—eight times higher than
used above.

These results show that the efficiency of SAR for external problems in SolidWorks
Flow Simulation is very high.

4. INDUSTRIAL EXAMPLES
4.1 Pin-Fin Heat Sink

Free convection cooling performance of a pin-fin heat sink has been studied
experimentally (Yu & Joshi, 2002). The case of a 9x9 square pin-fin array presented
in this paper has been investigated via SolidWorks Flow Simulation (Balakin &
Churbanov, 2004) and compared with the above measurements. The model exactly
reproduces the experimental conditions. It consists of two rectangular Plexiglas®
enclosures, one inside another. The internal enclosure contains an aluminum pin-fin
heat sink mounted on a heated component (Figure 27).

Figure 27 A close-up of the model: the internal enclosure with 9x9 pin-fin array over the heating
component flush-mounted on the bottom

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 24

Two configurations are simulated; one with the heat sink mounted with the base
horizontal, fins upward, and the other with the base vertical. Thermal conduction
within the solid regions is modeled together with convection and radiative
heat transfer.

Figure 28 shows a comparison of experimental visualization (image on right) with

predicted flow pattern for heat generation rate Q = 1 W (central image) on a vertical
plane through the center of the heat sink for the model with the base mounted
vertically. The mesh, shown in the image on the left, is obtained by SAR, and
consists of about 145,000 cells. The images show a high level of agreement between
simulation and experiment.

Figure 28 Mesh view (a), predicted flow trajectories colored by velocity magnitude (b) experimental
visualization (c), Q = 1 W, vertical case, z = 0

The next set of images show the comparison of the predicted flow pattern with an
experiment for the heat sink mounted horizontally. Figure 29 features a comparison
of the experimental visualization (bottom image) with the predicted flow patterns
for heat generation rate Q = 0.5 W (center image) on a vertical plane through the
center of the heat sink. The mesh, obtained using SAR, is shown in the top image
and consists of about 142,000 cells.

A comparison of predicted and measured thermal resistance for considered cases

shows that numerical results are within five percent of experimental data—an
excellent correlation between computations and measurements. Note that the
experimental results for the horizontal case are slightly nonsymmetrical. This
is due to the difficulty in maintaining uniform boundary conditions on the outer
Plexiglas enclosure.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 25

Figure 29 Visualization from [24], Q = 0.5 W, horizontal case, z = 0 m

4.2 Arian Vulcain Engine Flow Simulation

The nozzle jet of Arian rocket Vulcain is considered. The pressure ratio is pc / pa =
100 . Figure 30 shows the Mach number field (Fey, 2001) computed by SolidWorks
Flow Simulation and an appropriately adapted Cartesian mesh, which consists of
about 156,000 cells.

Figure 30 Mach number field in Vulcain nozzle and appropriate adapted Cartesian mesh computed by
SolidWorks Flow Simulation technique (Fey, 2001). Pressure ratio is pc / pa = 100.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 26

A very high level of accuracy is observed for SolidWorks Flow Simulation:

• The high resolution of the shock generated by discontinuity of the second

derivative of the profile of the nozzle wall on the line of interface of its mouth
and extending part, which is a prerequisite for

• Accurate computation of Mach disc size and position, being at the exit plane of
the extending part, and

• Accurate calculation of integral parameters: specific mass flow and specific

impulse with relative error lying within 0.1 percent .

4.3 Flow around Spacecraft Progress-M Nose

Numerical simulation of the supersonic flow around the nose part of the spacecraft
Progress refers to the full model of the vehicle geometry, which includes
superstructures (Figure 31), under external pressure of about 1 Pa. It is provided by
SolidWorks Flow Simulation (Krylov et al., 2002) and the direct simulation with the
Monte Carlo (DSMC) method (lvanov et al., 1998).

Figure 32 displays the final SolidWorks Flow Simulation adapted mesh, which
consists of about 1,000,000 cells, and Figure 33 shows the pressure fields computed
by SolidWorks Flow Simulation (left) and the DSMC method (right).

Figure 31 Spacecraft geometry with

superstructures. Pressure gauges P1 and P2 are
located and seen on the right side of the surface. Figure 32 The final SolidWorks Flow Simulation adapted mesh

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 27


Figure 33 Pressure fields computed by SolidWorks Flow Simulation (Krylov et al., 2002 [left]) and by
direct simulation with the Monte Carlo (DSMC) method (Ivanov, et al. 1998 [right])

Comparison of these fields shown in Figure 33 shows they correspond very closely.

Table 3 presents the relative pressures in gauges P1 and P2 at the moments t =

166.5s and t = 171.5s computed by SolidWorks Flow Simulation (Krylov et al., 2002)
and by direct simulation with the Monte Carlo (DSMC) method (Ivanov et al., 1998).

Table 3

Time P1 P2

t = 166.5s 23.5 (DSMC) 42.5 (DSMC)

23.6 (SolidWorks Flow Simulation) 47.2 (SolidWorks Flow Simulation)

t = 171.5s 11.5 (DSMC) 25.5 (DSMC)

12.7 (SolidWorks Flow Simulation) 28.5 (SolidWorks Flow Simulation)

It can be seen that the SolidWorks Flow Simulation data and DSMC data are in very
good agreement: their difference is less than 10 percent.

5. Conclusions
The general purpose CAD-embedded CFD solver in the SolidWorks Flow Simulation
software package from SolidWorks uses an octree-based mesh technology,
combined with a unique immersed boundary approach for wall friction and heat
transfer. Totally free from mesh distortion, this Cartesian-based approach has been
shown to deliver the lowest error when the Navier-Stokes equations are discretized
onto the mesh. SolidWorks Flow Simulation’s octree refinement allows far more
rapid changes in mesh density than can be achieved with tetrahedral meshes,
reducing computation time. Octree is particularly suited to solution adaptive

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 28

refinement, for example, to capture shocks in high-speed flows. Excellent agreement
has been shown for several industrial examples that have included buoyancy-driven
flow, conjugate heat transfer (convection, conduction, and radiation), and hypersonic
flow with shock capture.

REFERENCES
Aftosmis, M.J. and Berger, M.J., 2002. Multilevel Error Estimation and Adaptive
h-Refinement for Cartesian Meshes with Embedded Boundaries. AIAA 2002-0863.
40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. January 14-17, Reno, NV

Baker, T.J., 1989. Automatic Mesh Generation for Complex Three-Dimensional

Regions Using a Constrained Delaunay Triangulation, Engineering with Computers,
Vol. 5, pp.161-175

Balakin, V., Churbanov, A., Gavriliouk, V., Makarov, M., and Pavlov, A., 2004.
Verification and Validation of EFD.Lab Code for Predicting Heat and Fluid
Flow, Proceedings of CHT-04 ICHMT International Symposium on Advances in
Computational Heat Transfer, April 19-24, Norway, CHT-04-179

Barbashov, E., Gavriliouk, V., Guriev, V., Isaev, V., Losenkov, A., Odintsov, E.V.,
Sergienko, A.A., Sobachkin, A.A., 1995. Mathematical Modeling of Propulsion
Systems, IAF 95-S.1.05, 46th International Astronautical Congress, October 2-6,
Oslo, Norway

Berger, M.J., Aftosmis, M.J., 1998. Aspects (and Aspect Ratios) of Cartesian Mesh
Methods, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Numerical Methods
in Fluid Dynamics, to appear in “Lecture Notes in Physics,” Springer−Verlag,
Heidelberg, Germany, July 6−10, Arcachon, France

Delaunay, B.N., 1934. Sur la Sphere Vide, Izvestia Akademia Nauk SSSR, VII Seria,
Otdelenie Matematicheskii i Estestvennyka Nauk, Vol. 7, pp. 793-800

Filipiak, M., 1996. Mesh Generation, Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre, University
of Edinburgh, Version 1.0, November 1996

Fre, M. 2001. Behandlung von Strömungsproblemen in Raketendüsen bei

Überexpansion, Institut für Aerodynamik und Gasdynamik, Universität Stuttgart,
Germany, 2001

Gavriliouk, V.N., Denisov, O.P., Nakonechny, V.P., Odintsov, E.V., Sergienko, A.A.,
Sobachkin, A.A., 1993. Numerical Simulation of Working Processes in Rocket Engine
Combustion Chamber, 44th Congress of the International Astronautical Federation,
IAF-93-S.2.463, October 16-22, Graz, Austria

Gavriliouk, V.N., Krulle, G., Schley, C.-A., and others, 1994b. Numerical simulation of
combustion process in rocket combustion chambers with coaxial injection, AIAA
Paper 94-3329.

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 29

Gavriliouk, V.N., Krulle, G., Odintsov, E., Schley, C.-A., Sergienko, A., Sobatchkine,
A., 1994c. Numerical Simulation of Combustion Process in Rocket Combustion
Chambers with Coaxial Injectors, AIAA 94-3329, 30th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference, June 27-29, Indianapolis, IN

Gavriliouk, V.N., Lipatnikov, A.V., Kozlyaev, A.N., Odintsov, E.V., Sergienko, A.A.,
Sobachkin, A.A., 1994a. Computation Modeling of the Combustion Problems with the
use of “AeroShape-3D,” Numerical Technique-ISTS 04-d-27

Hagemann, G., Schley, C.-A., Odintsov, E., Sobatchkine, A., 1996. Nozzle flowfield
analysis with particular regard to 3D-plug cluster configurations, 32nd AIAA/ASME/
SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibition, July 1-3, Lake Buena Vista, FL

Ivanov M.S., Markelov G.N., Gimelshein S.F., 1998. Statistical simulation of reactive
rarefied flows: numerical approach and applications, AIAA Paper 98-2669

Krulle, G., Gavriliouk, V., Schley, C.-A., Sobachkin, A., 1994. Numerical simulation
of Aerodynamic Processes and its Applications in Rocket Engine Problems, 45th
Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, IAF 94-S2.414, October
9-14, Jerusalem, Israel

Krylov, A.N., Kotov, V.M., Tokarev, V.A., Shcherbakov, N.A., Khokhlov, A.V., Ivanov,
M.S., Vaschenkov, P.V., Kashkovsky, A.V., and Markelov, G.N., 2002. Numerical
Modeling and Experimental Data Analysis of the Flow Near Spacecraft Progress-M
Nose after the Head Fairings Jettisoning, ESA SP Vol. 487 pp. 307-314

Lawson, C.L., 1977. Software for C1 Surface Interpolation, Mathematical Software III,
pp. 161-194

Löhner, R., Cebral, J., Castro, M., Baum, J.D., Luo, H., Mestreau, E., and Soto, O.,
2004. Adaptive Embedded Unstructured Grid Methods, Mecánica Computacional,
Vol. XXIII, pp. 29-42, G. Buscaglia, E. Dari, O. Zamonsky (Eds.), Bariloche, Argentina,
November

Lubimov, A.N., Rusanov, V.V., 1970. Techenija gasa okolo tupykh tel. Gas flows
around blunt bodies, Vol. I, Nauka Press, Moscow (in Russian)

Mentor Graphics Corp., 2011. Enhanced Turbulence Modelling in SolidWorks Flow

Simulation

Parry, J. and Tatchell, D., 2008. Flomerics’ EFD Meshing Technology: A White Paper

Thompson, J.F, Warsi, Z.U.A, Martin, C.W., 1985. Numerical Grid Generation:
Foundations and Applications. North-Holland: New York, NY

Watson, D.F., 1981. Computing the Delaunay Tesselation with Application to Voronoi
Polytopes. The Computer Journal, Vol. 24(2) pp. 167-172

Advanced Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in SolidWorks Flow Simulation 30

Weatherill, N.P. and Hassan, O., 1994. Efficient Three-Dimensional Delaunay
Triangulation with Automatic Point Creation and Imposed Boundary Constraints,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 37, pp. 2005-2039

Wang Z.J. and Srinivasan, K., 2002. An adaptive Cartesian grid generation method for
“Dirty” geometry, International Journal for Numerical Methods In Fluids

Yu, E. and Joshi, Y., 2002. Heat Transfer Enhancement from Enclosed Discrete
Components Using Pin-Fin Heat Sinks, International Journal of Heat and Mass, Vol.
45, No. 25, pp. 4957-4966

To learn more about how SolidWorks Flow Simulation solutions can

help you develop better products, please contact your local SolidWorks
reseller or visit www.solidworks.com.

Dassault Systèmes
SolidWorks Corporation
175 Wyman Street
Waltham, MA 02451 USA
Phone: 1 800 693 9000
Outside the US: +1 781 810 5011
Email: generalinfo@solidworks.com
www.solidworks.com

SolidWorks is a registered trademark of Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation in the US and other countries. Other brand and product names
are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. ©2013 Dassault Systèmes. All rights reserved. MKBCMeshwpENG0213