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 PUMLcube #49

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add PUMLcube #49

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

davschneller
Copy link
Contributor

This PR adds PUMLcube, a replica of cube_c for the PUML format, as used by PUML2. With maybe a slightly different tetrahedron decomposition for the cubes.

And no, it does not make PUML2 support periodic boundary conditions automatically. :)
It only adds an identify dataset to the HDF5 file. That is, periodic boundary conditions are implemented by identifying vertices with each other, i.e. we group the connectivity of the vertices, but they still have different coordinates. The identify array then lets all grouped vertices point to one head vertex by ID (and the head vertex points to itself). Of course, each unique (non-grouped) vertex is its own head vertex.
Coincidentally, that's sort of the same idea like the gmsh format also supports (in the $Periodic section).

However, for all of this to work, we'll need to extend PUML2 still. Somehow. We'll see.

Copy link
Contributor

@sebwolf-de sebwolf-de left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi,
good work! From a user perspective: I don't understand how the bmin/bmax and the bper interact: Why can't I just provide bmaxx = bminx = periodic? And throw an error if bmaxx=periodic bminx != periodic?
Also an xdmf file would be nice to visualize the mesh with paraview.

* add a slim Xdmf and XML writer
* add HDF5 error checking functions
* update boundary format info
@davschneller
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry for the very late update; I've finally gotten to addressing the review.

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 this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants