I agree that the choice is ambiguous on the faces. However a practical problem remains, let's assume that a user wants to import a very big geometry with a lot of internal faces. Right now he would need to specify all the possible faces in the input file (with an increasing possibility of confusing the manifold ids). I agree he should (otherwise is a criminal) specify what happens when two different manifolds meet but if we have a face neighbouring two cells with the same manifold_id couldn't (or shouldn't) we assume the manifold of the face to be the same? Alternatively we could write a utility to transfer the manifold information to the faces, it should be "morally" the same of calling set_all_manifold_ids.
Il giorno mercoledì 13 marzo 2019 08:32:31 UTC+1, Luca Heltai ha scritto: > > I believe the first point is a bug of the read_ucd function. > > I opened an issue for this (https://github.com/dealii/dealii/issues/7802) > > The second point, however, is a feature. What should you do when two > material ids meet? I think it is the responsability of the user to make > sure that the correct manifold id is associated to the correct face. > > Currently our read/write vtk functions (in the GridIn class) are the only > ones allowing full treatment material ids, boundary ids, and manifold ids. > > I’m not sure UCD format allows you to specify both material and manifold > ids for cells, and boundary and manifold is for faces. Maybe Andrea knows > better? > > L. > > > On 8 Mar 2019, at 15:15, Nicola Giuliani <limme...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > PR 7775 has revealed some critical issues in the handling of manifold_id > in codim-1 domain. > > > > -) I believe that GridIn.read_ucd appears to ignore manifold ids > associated to the cells, it seems to me that the flag > apply_all_indicators_to_manifold_ids does not affect the manifold id for > the cell. This issue has never been seen because internally the material_id > was used. > > > > -) As far as I understand the default behaviour is to consider only user > specified manifold ids for the lines of a cell otherwise flat_manifold_id. > Would it make sense to use the cell->manifold_id instead of > flat_manifold_id? > > > > -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dealii+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
