> Multi-physics problems usually have physics with different length > scales and different time scales. It is necessary to use appropriate > meshes depending on the physics to resolve the evolution of solution > and using a single mesh (union of all physics meshes) will lead to a > very high DoF than needed and I'll literally be overkilling the > problem.
I don't disagree that the optimal mesh for each component would be great to have, but I just hope you aren't underestimating the overhead involved in seeking that composite mesh. This is *especially* true in the transient case. When you add it all together the transient+adaptive+nonlinear+linear nested looping really can get out of control. My experience with a number of transient multiphysics problems has shown this repeatedly. The "optimal" mesh in a transient reactive problem is elusive -- it will be different at each timestep! Sure, the DOF count may be lower, but when you roll it all together my tried and true approach is to throw more mesh than you need at the current timestep but then go a while before refining (and reallocating (and repartitioning (and projecting ...))). I can almost guarantee much faster walltime with this approach. If the implicit system gets big you can run on a bigger machine, right? ;-) -Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users
