On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 9:48 PM Adrian Croucher <a.crouc...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> hi Matt, > On 4/03/24 3:25 pm, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > So here I am guessing that the interior cells (rock matrix) mess with the > stratum consistency > (ordering of dimension by stratum in the DAG). So some questions: > > 1) Are rock matrix cells always associated with only one regular cell? > > Yes. In the simplest case, each regular cell with dual porosity has one > interior cell nested inside it. There is an interior "face" between the > regular cell and the interior one. (I also add an interior "edge" and > "vertex" so that the DAG has the same depth everywhere.) As well as > computing flows between regular cells I compute flows between regular cells > and their interior cells. > > > 2) Do the rock matrix cells hold values that need to be communicated? > > Yes. To begin with I add interior cells on the same process as their > parent regular cells. But if dual porosity is only in certain parts of the > mesh, this can lead to poor load balancing. So I redistribute, but that can > mean interior cells may no longer be on the same process as their parent > regular cells, in which case communication is needed. > > > 3) Do you use the topological operations for them, or might we reproduce > this effect by just > marking the cells with rock matrix cells in them using a DMLabel? > > Once the dual-porosity mesh is set up, the interior cells and faces are > treated the same as the regular ones, so I use e.g. DMPlexGetSupport() to > get the cells on either side of an interior face when computing flow across > it. (Not sure if that is the kind of topological operation you meant.) > > It has all been working fine with PETSc 3.15 since 2020! But because of > the low-level surgery I guess it is vulnerable to changes. > Okay, that sounds like it should still work. I think we can just debug it. I did not change anything that should affect this process. Let's start with the distribution. I think the problem may be here. Even with dual porosity cells, I don't think we should have cells in the pointSF, just the internal face between cells. Do you agree? Thanks, Matt > - Adrian > > -- > Dr Adrian Croucher > Senior Research Fellow > Department of Engineering Science > Waipapa Taumata Rau / University of Auckland, New Zealand > email: a.crouc...@auckland.ac.nz > tel: +64 (0)9 923 4611 > > -- 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://urldefense.us/v3/__https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/*knepley/__;fg!!G_uCfscf7eWS!fRMXeHmMnS3UGrlOt-4O4SzAdAFjr8mN01vEo_NufOII-Ki1EfEE_xvPiTBYvLmY6vxUcR97u725Xg3erlnO$ <https://urldefense.us/v3/__http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/*knepley/__;fg!!G_uCfscf7eWS!fRMXeHmMnS3UGrlOt-4O4SzAdAFjr8mN01vEo_NufOII-Ki1EfEE_xvPiTBYvLmY6vxUcR97u725XoUGcVt7$ >