> On 5 Apr 2020, at 11:25, Sabrina Zacarias <szacar...@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de> > wrote: > > You’re absolutely right, thank you. I’d like to make a follow up question, if > I may (hopefully not as stupid as the previous one): > > In my model I merge several volumes using BooleanUnion. The difficulty is > that after this command, the tags of the surfaces are lost. (And I need them > to define physical surfaces). Is there a workaround or a way of forcing the > tags to not change?
Unfortunately no. The best solution for now is to use a combination of 'Boundary', 'CombinedBoundary' and the 'In BoundingBox' command to retrieve the surfaces. Christophe > > What I would like in the end is to have a physical surface which is the group > of all surfaces in the same plane. Is there maybe a smarter way or a built-in > command in which I can achieve this without needing to make a list the list > of all the surfaces by hand? > > Thank you so much for your support, > > Sabrina > -- > Sabrina Zacarias > Institut für Kernphysik > Technische Universität Darmstadt > S2|14 / office 319 > Schlossgartenstr. 9 > > 64289 Darmstadt > > Office: +49 6151 16 23589 > >> On 29. Mar 2020, at 22:28, Christophe Geuzaine <cgeuza...@uliege.be> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 29 Mar 2020, at 12:24, Sabrina Zacarias <szacar...@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I am a bit confused with the output of the meshing of my model and would >>> really appreciate a piece of advise: >>> >>> My geometry consists of an axial section of a cylinder (which plays the >>> role of the air surrounding my model ) containing several (sections of) >>> rings, which are electrodes, plus two (sections of ) disks, which are the >>> cathode and anode. The fact that these are sections and not complete >>> cylindrical pieces is to make the meshing faster. And the post processing >>> software can handle it. >>> >>> Anyway, In the real model I need to use ~200 electrodes. So far I have >>> not been able to achieve a mesh without errors. I get ‘Unable to recover >>> the edge XX on curve XX (on surface XX )’, and also ’No elements in >>> volume XX’. >>> >> >> With Nel = 200 your geometry is invalid (it auto-intersects), whereas with >> Nel = 20 it is correct. >> >> Christophe >> <intersect.png> >> >>> What I find confusing is that when I reduce the number of electrodes x10 >>> lower, without changing anything else, the meshing is correct. >>> >>> I am obviously missing something or not approaching the problem the right >>> way. I attach the .geo files if someone could please take a look. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Sabrina >>> >>> <3d_main.geo> >>> <f_box.geo> >>> <f_electrode.geo> >>> <f_plates.geo> >>> >>> — >>> Sabrina Zacarias >>> Institut für Kernphysik >>> Technische Universität Darmstadt >>> S2|14 / office 319 >>> Schlossgartenstr. 9 >>> >>> 64289 Darmstadt >>> >>> Office: +49 6151 16 23589 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gmsh mailing list >>> gmsh@onelab.info >>> http://onelab.info/mailman/listinfo/gmsh >> >> — >> Prof. Christophe Geuzaine >> University of Liege, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science >> http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~geuzaine > — Prof. Christophe Geuzaine University of Liege, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~geuzaine _______________________________________________ gmsh mailing list gmsh@onelab.info http://onelab.info/mailman/listinfo/gmsh
