Here is the test case that will show the BC constrain is broken after the refinement.
Thanks, / Ming
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Roy Stogner wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Minq Q wrote: > >> I am having a problem when using the periodic BC together with the mesh >> refinement. When one BC is set to refine, the other paired BC is not >> allocated the new nodes as it should. > > That's actually correct - the new node is a hanging node on one side > of the boundary, and shouldn't exist on the other until the element on > the other side is refined. > >> The strange thing is: The first time of the refinement is OK. But >> from the second time the two paired BCs are become different. > > There are currently two issues with combining the periodic BC and the > AMR feature: > > The "level 1 conformity" constraint is not supported across the > boundary. I.e. if you set enforce_level_one to true it will only be > enforced on the mesh interior, not from one side of a periodic > boundary to another. > > The mix of AMR and periodic constraint equations may not be working > correctly. The two features are supposed to be compatible, but when I > wrote the latter I was mostly using one or the other, or at best > running periodic problems where the non-uniform refinement occurred > away from the periodic BC, so I haven't tested it thoroughly. If you > can set up a test case (as simple as possible, please) where the > constraints are coming out wrong, please post the code to the list, > and we can at least see if it's a simple bug/fix. > --- > Roy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ Libmesh-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users
