You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Does the non-conformal boundary treatment in the code assume that the two boundaries should always be overlapping? What if I have one large boundary interfacing with another smaller one? How is the non overlapping boundary treated here?
Regards and Many Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The non-conformal algorithm (see the JCP manuscript, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.01.007 ) assumes that 1) the two surfaces are close, i.e., no gaps, and 2)the surfaces are of similar geometric fidelity, i.e,, consider a curved section with faceting from low-order meshes.
We have not formalized the behavior when there are disparate mesh resolutions on either boundary. In our paper above, we ran mesh disparities of roughly a factor of two. Ideally, those are close as well.
Hi,
Does the non-conformal boundary treatment in the code assume that the two boundaries should always be overlapping? What if I have one large boundary interfacing with another smaller one? How is the non overlapping boundary treated here?
Regards and Many Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: