branching grid

2013-03-25 Thread Kristopher Kuhlman
Hello FiPy list,

I am interested in solving a problem that involves two or more
overlapping/connected domains.  The same governing equations apply to each
domain, but the properties are different and I am not sure the best way to
include geometrical effects.

In the simplest case, the primary domain is 1D, with one or more secondary
1D domains extending out from each node, like branches on a tree.  When
there is one secondary domain, this is almost a 2D grid, except the
branches are not connected to one another, except through the trunk.

Is there a way to generate a 2D mesh and change the connectivity of the
nodes?  Is this something I would have to do with gmsh? Is this even
something that can be done with gmsh?

Kris
___
fipy mailing list
fipy@nist.gov
http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy
  [ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/fipy ]


Re: Slope limiter methods in FiPy VanLeerConvectionTerm

2013-03-25 Thread Daniel Wheeler
Jason,

FYI, the changes have been committed back to the develop branch. See
http://matforge.org/fipy/ticket/564 and
http://matforge.org/fipy/changeset/5b1957aad/fipy.




On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jason Furtney jfurt...@itascacg.comwrote:

 Daniel,

 Thanks for the reply and go ahead and make the changes. Also the lines,

 self.CFL = interiorCFL / vol1
 self.CFL = numerix.maximum(interiorCFL / vol2, self.CFL)

 in VanLeerConvectionTerm._getOldAdjacentValues() do not seem to do
 anything.

 I will have a look at the Riemann branch as I work through the
 CLAWPACK book, thanks for the info.

 Jason

 On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Daniel Wheeler
 daniel.wheel...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
  On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Jonathan Guyer gu...@nist.gov wrote:
 
 
 
  File a ticket at http://matforge.org/fipy/newticket. If you're fixing a
  bug, then file a defect ticket about the bug; if you're adding a new
  feature, then an enhancement ticket; etc. Then paste the result of
 `git
  request-pull develop origin` (or whatever is appropriate for your
 branch and
  clone) into a comment on the ticket. You can send a message to the
 mailing
  list about it if you like, but I at least should see your pull request
 on my
  RSS feed.
 
 
 
  FYI, I filed a ticket, see http://matforge.org/fipy/ticket/564.
 
  --
  Daniel Wheeler
 
  ___
  fipy mailing list
  fipy@nist.gov
  http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy
[ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/fipy ]
 



 --
 --
   Jason K. Furtney, PhD
   Itasca Consulting Group
   111 3rd Ave. South, Suite 450
   Minneapolis, MN 55401 USA
 (612) 371-4711

   www.itascacg.com
 ___
 fipy mailing list
 fipy@nist.gov
 http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy
   [ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/fipy ]




-- 
Daniel Wheeler
___
fipy mailing list
fipy@nist.gov
http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy
  [ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/fipy ]


Re: branching grid

2013-03-25 Thread Benny Malengier
2013/3/25 Kristopher Kuhlman kristopher.kuhl...@gmail.com

 Hello FiPy list,

 I am interested in solving a problem that involves two or more
 overlapping/connected domains.  The same governing equations apply to each
 domain, but the properties are different and I am not sure the best way to
 include geometrical effects.

 In the simplest case, the primary domain is 1D, with one or more secondary
 1D domains extending out from each node, like branches on a tree.  When
 there is one secondary domain, this is almost a 2D grid, except the
 branches are not connected to one another, except through the trunk.

 Is there a way to generate a 2D mesh and change the connectivity of the
 nodes?  Is this something I would have to do with gmsh? Is this even
 something that can be done with gmsh?


You should read up on domain decomposition methods (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_decomposition_methods ).
Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz_alternating_method

So creating two models, each with their own mesh, and an overlap domain,
and apply upscaling/downscaling between the solution is the simplest start.
As FiPy is FVM, basing your scaling on a conserved quantity is the way to
go in my opinion.

Benny


 Kris

 ___
 fipy mailing list
 fipy@nist.gov
 http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy
   [ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/fipy ]


___
fipy mailing list
fipy@nist.gov
http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy
  [ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/fipy ]