Support for region IDs #15
Comments
|
Just double checking whether I understand what this issue is for. Say that I have one joint_mesh which is made of two nested meshes, mesh1 and mesh2 and that I have element IDs that tell me which element of the joint_mesh belong to mesh1 and which to mesh2. Say that I feed joint_mesh into pragmatic together with the element IDs. Would pragmatic preserve the nestedness of mesh1 and mesh2 while refining or coarsening joint_mesh if this issue was fixed? |
|
I am not sure what you "nestedness" means, but it would make sense to generate an internal boundary mesh (between the two meshes). |
|
Sorry, maybe nested was a confusing term. By nested I meant that one portion of the boundary mesh of mesh1 is also a portion of the boundary mesh of mesh2. For example, take mesh1 to be a spherical mesh and take mesh2 to be a cube mesh with an inner spherical cavity of the same size of mesh1. If the inner boundary mesh of mesh2 is the same as the outer boundary mesh of mesh1, then mesh1 and mesh2 can be joined. Call the shared portion of the boundary mesh shared_bndry_mesh. If you join mesh1 and mesh2 into a joint_mesh and you feed joint_mesh into pragmatic for, say, coarsening, then I would like the output to be a coarsened_joint_mesh, that is made up of two meshes, coarsened_mesh1 and coarsened_mesh2, that still share a coarsened_shared_bndry_mesh. My questions are: 1- is this what this issue is about? 2- Is this doable or too complicated? Again, me and @taupalosaurus had a chat about this in Oxford. I hope what I mean is clearer now. I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean by cavity. |
|
By cavity I mean the polygon/polyhedron that has to be filled with simplices in the coarsening code, but one can also consider 3D edge swapping as the triangulation of a polygon. 1: Yes this is what the issue is about. |
|
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Kristian Ejlebjærg Jensen < ***@***.***> wrote:
By cavity I mean the polygon/polyhedron that has to be filled with
simplices in the coarsening code, but one can also consider 3D edge
swapping as the triangulation of a polygon.
1: Yes this is what the issue is about.
2: Nothing is too difficult or complicated, if you carry the will of God
in your heart. That being said, it should be simple in 2D and in 3D it is
also very doable, if you detect and ban the users who want internal edges.
It is mostly just about allowing for an internal boundary mesh and applying
the same rules to this as the external boundary mesh, but in 3D you will
have to do some coding, because the swap is only accepted, if neither
region introduces worse quality elements.
I also need this since I want to produce adapted meshes which incorporate
a fault (the kind that makes earthquakes).
Thanks,
Matt
… —
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAjoiQxptf2AA7bJFG1_3bG44tg4oPYwks5szxlsgaJpZM4CxsLA>
.
--
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
|
|
@croci yes, what we discussed in Oxford was that. I can make it work easily, (put tags on the elements, reject optimizations that would go across regions), that would freeze these internal boundaries. it is probably not optimal when coarsening, and in the longer term I think it needs to be integrated to the surface description/remeshing plans. (That is also what I understand from Matt's reply, you want to be able to remesh these surfaces, not only freeze them - but then you need a good description of them, or good geometric approximation) @knepley Do you need tags on tets or on inner facets ? and do you need just the tags, or the inner boundary remeshing ? (I'm afraid I guess the answer to the second question) |
|
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Nicolas Barral ***@***.***> wrote:
@croci <https://github.com/croci> yes, what we discussed in Oxford was
that. I can make it work easily, (put tags on the elements, reject
optimizations that would go across regions), that would freeze these
internal boundaries. it is probably not optimal when coarsening, and in the
longer term I think it needs to be integrated to the surface
description/remeshing plans. (That is also what I understand from Matt's
reply, you want to be able to remesh these surfaces, not only freeze them -
but then you need a good description of them, or good geometric
approximation)
<https://github.com/knepley>
Yes, you have it exactly Nicolas. However, I would accept a compromise
which might make it attainable in the short term. I am willing
to accept only regular refinement and no coarsening of the separating
internal interface. I think this should make it easier to deal with.
Matt
… @knepley <https://github.com/knepley> Do you need tags on tets or on
inner facets ? and do you need just the tags, or the inner boundary
remeshing ? (I'm afraid I guess the answer to the second question)
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAjoiUWXMhSX4b_CuFDBY5Dmj7nWvnsQks5sz1ekgaJpZM4CxsLA>
.
--
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
|
|
Your faults are planar, right ? |
|
No, non-planar.
Matt
…On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Nicolas Barral ***@***.***> wrote:
Your faults are planar, right ?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAjoiZR9jxnG4xh2zNJcVHC0agSBVjILks5sz1rvgaJpZM4CxsLA>
.
--
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
|
|
Argh. Can "straight" refinement do the job for now (1 triangle is split into two coplanar triangles) ? -- |
|
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Nicolas Barral ***@***.***> wrote:
Argh. Can "straight" refinement do the job for now (1 triangle is split
into two coplanar triangles) ?
Definitely. That is what we do right now.
Matt
… --
Nicolas
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAjoiWYpRKIYj3GNAaQaucjU07psvl6mks5sz19AgaJpZM4CxsLA>
.
--
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
|
|
Ok, then that's doable - I think. |
Input should consist of a surface mesh and a list of region IDs for the elements.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: