Hi Matthew, Le ven. 7 janv. 2022 à 14:44, Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 5:46 AM Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu < > thibault.bridelberto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> First of, happy new year everyone !! All the best ! >> > > Happy New Year! > > >> I am starting to draft a new project that will be about fluid-structure >> interaction: in particular, the idea is to compute the Navier-Stokes (or >> Euler nevermind) flow around an object and _at the same time_ compute the >> heat equation inside the object. >> So basically, I am thinking a mesh of the fluid and a mesh of the object, >> both meshes being linked at the fluid - solid interface. >> > > First question: Are these meshes intended to match on the interface? If > not, this sounds like overset grids or immersed boundary/interface methods. > In this case, more than one mesh makes sense to me. If they are intended to > match, then I would advocate a single mesh with multiple problems defined > on it. I have experimented with this, for example see SNES ex23 where I > have a field in only part of the domain. I have a large project to do > exactly this in a rocket engine now. > Yes the way I see it is more of a single mesh with two distinct regions to distinguish between the fluid and the solid. I was talking about two meshes to try and explain my vision but it seems like it was unclear. Imagine if you wish a rectangular box with a sphere inclusion: the sphere would be tagged as a solid and the rest of the domain as fluid. Using Gmsh volumes for instance. Ill check out the SNES example ! Thanks ! > >> First (Matthew maybe ?) do you think it is something that could be done >> using two DMPlex's that would somehow be spawned from reading a Gmsh mesh >> with two volumes ? >> > > You can take a mesh and filter out part of it with DMPlexFilter(). That is > not used much so I may have to fix it to do what you want, but that should > be easy. > > >> And on one DMPlex we would have finite volume for the fluid, on the other >> finite elements for the heat eqn ? >> > > I have done this exact thing on a single mesh. It should be no harder on > two meshes if you go that route. > > >> Second, is it something that anyone in the community has ever imagined >> doing with PETSc DMPlex's ? >> > > Yes, I had a combined FV+FEM simulation of magma dynamics (I should make > it an example), and currently we are doing FVM+FEM for simulation of a > rocket engine. > Wow so it seems like it’s the exact same thing I would like to achieve as the rocket engine example. So you have a single mesh and two regions tagged differently, and you use the DmPlexFilter to solve FVM and FEM separately ? Thanks ! Thibault > Thanks, > > Matt > > >> As I said it is very prospective, I just wanted to have your opinion !! >> >> Thanks very much in advance everyone !! >> >> Cheers, >> Thibault >> >> > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their > experiments lead. > -- Norbert Wiener > > https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ > <http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/> > -- Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu — Eng, MSc, PhD Research Engineer CEA/CESTA 33114 LE BARP Tel.: (+33)557046924 Mob.: (+33)611025322 Mail: thibault.bridelberto...@gmail.com
