-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
Problem with very narrow inside boundary #24
Comments
Hey Daniel, thanks for your interest! Are you trying to mimic the line constraint in order to locally refine the mesh along that line - or do you also need that line in order to access these vertices later on - similarly to vertices at boundary segments?
Greetings |
Hi @FloSewn, thanks for your quick response. I am trying to mimic the line constraint in order to locally refine the mesh along that line. This line will be used as a fracture in the simulation domain. My objective is to generate anisotropic quadrilateral mesh along the fracture. The fracture is usually 10 to 100 meters in length but only 1cm in aperture. This is something like adding quad layers to the internal boundary as shown in 02_square_in_channel.para except the internal boundary is very narrow. Though the number of cells will be big, it is still way less compared to isotropic triangle mesh with a similar resolution. Thanks. |
Ahh I see - so you actually do need some kind of a hole to model the fracture? In that case, the element quality in your example could probably be enhanced by adjusting the mesh scale at some vertices, as for example here:
I adjusted the size of your domain a little to speedup the meshing process. Regards, |
Hi @FloSewn, Your suggestion works. Is it possible to make the refinement at the vertices more aggressive? Though the specified local area is 0.1, the results shows the refined zone is much larger than this value. It would be great if the blue area at both ends of the fracture can be much smaller to reduce the number of cells. Thanks. Daniel |
Hi Daniel, yes that's possible by simply reducing the range parameters a little. However, to get a better mesh quality, you should also slightly decrease the global element size. Otherwise the disparity between the element size will get too large near the small edge of the fracture and the meshing attempt might fail. Here's an example with a much larger growth rate of elements:
That's actually a very nice example - if you don't mind, I would add it to the other ones. Greetings |
Hi @FloSewn, Thanks for you update. This looks nice and exactly what I would like to have. However, when I increase the domain to 100x200, there is something unexpected (shown below). The only thing I changed is the coordinates of outside boundary. Do you have any idea how to avoid this?
Thanks and regards, Daniel |
Hey Daniel, that's unfortunate. It seems that the meshing approach fails, which might stem from the large gradients of the size function for this case.
That's probably something that should be improved for a future release. Regards, |
Thanks, Flo. It works after adjusting the parameter a bit. |
Hi Flo,
Thanks for the nice tool. I got some problem when there is very narrow inside boundary included. My intension is to include a line constraint. Since the tool does not support it yet, I would like to add a thin inside boundary instead and then mesh the inside mesh and merge these two together. However, I got some weird result at the first step. Attached is the script I have modified from an example and the result is also attached.
frac2d-quad.para.txt
Thanks,
Daniel
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: