Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add complex geometry fenics-fenics tutorial #147

Closed
BenjaminRodenberg opened this issue Jan 20, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #148
Closed

Add complex geometry fenics-fenics tutorial #147

BenjaminRodenberg opened this issue Jan 20, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #148

Comments

@BenjaminRodenberg
Copy link
Member

BenjaminRodenberg commented Jan 20, 2021

In #137 we decided to temporarily remove the complex geometry case. As soon as #125 is merged, we want to add it again. Here some todos/reminders:

@uekerman
Copy link
Member

partitioned-heat-conduction-complex

sounds good to me. The "complex" not only means the geometry, but also different data mapping, time-dependent BCs etc.

@BenjaminRodenberg
Copy link
Member Author

I'll add a short specification similar to the one in #148 here, as well:

  • Uses complex geometry (Circle + Plate with hole)
  • Allows to swap Dirichlet and Neumann participants
  • Uses Nearest Projection
  • Allows to create non-matching meshes (with nearest neighbor this should still give us the exact solution, but I am not 100% sure)
  • No subcycling (since this currently breaks the exact solution)
  • Supports parallel runs.
  • Supports time dependent flux & rhs (via parameter gamma)

Am I forgetting something here?

@BenjaminRodenberg
Copy link
Member Author

BenjaminRodenberg commented Feb 3, 2021

I decided to put the complex geometry case directly into #148, since it was simple enough to do everything in one single iteration. This allows us to close this issue as soon as #148 (and #125) is merged.

@IshaanDesai
Copy link
Member

I decided to put the complex geometry case directly into #148, since it was simple enough to do everything in one single iteration. This allows us to close this issue as soon as #148 (and #125) is merged.

As per this comment all relevant PRs are merged and this issue is now resolved

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants