> On May 8, 2017, at 5:22 PM, Roy Stogner <royst...@ices.utexas.edu> wrote: > > > On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Rossi, Simone wrote: > >> If I understand you correctly, performing more than one AMR step at >> every timestep is “inefficient”. The strategy should be to run with >> a fixed locally refined mesh for N timestep, before running a new >> adaptive step. > > Yes, although N=1 is often reasonable IMHO, if you're time stepping > aggressively enough. > >> Alternatively, could a possible strategy be to estimate the error at >> every time step, and take the adaptive step only if the error is >> larger than a given tolerance? > > Hmm... I've never tried that, but it does sound like a good idea. > > Another strategy I've seen in a paper was to use the same grid for > every time step of a transient calculation, but to determine *that* > grid adaptively, in a loop outside the transient loop. You then don't > need to compute the error indicator on your finest grind and you don't > need to compute projections ever. That was for a turbulent flow > problem, though; IIRC Boyce told me you had moving fronts, for which > that hack would be very suboptimal.
Indeed --- it would tell you just to use a uniform grid. :-) > --- > Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Libmesh-users mailing list Libmesh-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users
