See also: https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://www.mmgtools.org/mmg-remesher-try-mmg/mmg-remesher-tutorials/mmg-remesher-mmg3d/open-boundary-remeshing__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!bcNML6GoIvxF1ls5Qjid9GCrVeElFxFvhC-q4zu7XWf7ignDFL7YMID3e6hIAs2PsbqDNNvfg_dsLyo1-LX91Q$ .
Thanks, Pierre > On 5 Feb 2025, at 4:39 PM, neil liu <liufi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems the figures were broken. Please see the following attached. > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:36 AM neil liu <liufi...@gmail.com > <mailto:liufi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi, Mark, >> For example, in the left figure, the yellow rectangular face needs to be >> preserved during mesh refinement. However, without specifying its four >> corner points, the rectangle cannot be maintained, as shown in the right >> figure. Additionally, the four edges of this face must be recorded and >> retrieved for post-processing. >> >> This yellow face is an open boundary, meaning it is not an interface between >> different materials. To ensure its preservation during mesh refinement, MMG >> must be run in opnbdy (open boundary) mode. >> >> >> Thanks a lot, >> >> Xiaodong >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:05 AM Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com >> <mailto:knep...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 9:52 AM neil liu <liufi...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:liufi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> Dear developers, >>>> I am currently working with MMG in the context of PETSc and have >>>> identified a need to modify the existing MMG interface, >>>> DMAdaptMetric_Mmg_Plex(), for our use case. Given these requirements, I >>>> would like to explore the feasibility of contributing to PETSc to enhance >>>> this interface, which has been verified and validated in our research >>>> code. >>>> >>>> Proposed Modifications: >>>> >>>> Additional Labels for Physical Entities: >>>> >>>> In addition to the existing bdLabel and rgLabel, our case requires two >>>> additional labels to represent physical vertices and edges within the >>>> computational domain (3D). >>> I am open to this. Can you be more specific about what it means? >>>> One approach is to introduce two new parameters in the subroutine’s input >>>> list. However, this may require modifications across related components, >>>> such as Pragmatic. >>> This is not a problem. I can modify those. >>>> Support for Open Boundaries: >>>> >>>> The current interface does not support open boundaries, a feature >>>> available in MMG. >>>> As a result, several MMG benchmark cases involving open boundary remeshing >>>> cannot be executed within PETSc. >>> Can you explain what this means? What is an open boundary exactly? >>> >>>> Would this be a viable contribution to PETSc? If so, I would appreciate >>>> any guidance on the best approach to implementing these changes while >>>> maintaining compatibility with existing features. >>>> >>> Yes. Please make a fork of the petsc repo, make a branch with the proposed >>> changes, make an MR for that branch, and add me to your fork (I am knepley >>> on GitLab). I can help you get it going. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Matt >>> >>>> Looking forward to your thoughts. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Xiaodong >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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!bcNML6GoIvxF1ls5Qjid9GCrVeElFxFvhC-q4zu7XWf7ignDFL7YMID3e6hIAs2PsbqDNNvfg_dsLyp8pbNfQw$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.us/v3/__http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/*knepley/__;fg!!G_uCfscf7eWS!anvbtQDqn57whvgg2qc1Dix0Izm9kxNlvUkeyYkcfknnt6VmqbCE0mlGSj6O1DLJx6qR7-7UsHv48zbaqVDECw$> > <The right figure.png><The left figure.png>
