Overlapping Boundary Conditions
Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 15:15
Hello,
I'm thinking about boundary condition definitions and actually this applies for geometry groups in general:
Let us assume I have a model boundary
Now, normally we'd prefere
And this is how in Elmer it usually is (if not always), but now we assume to have
If one now defines
would he do something that is currently legal in Elmer? If yes, what would happen (in general, not only in case of Dirichlet condition or Temperature). I would assume that we would have, for this definition, the following
Now to make it more interesting. Should there be a functionality to do this:
which would make it possible to define groups that are not defined when the geometry is defined. For example here the boundary condition 1 would apply to the intersection of Omega_1 and Omega_2.
The ofcourse it would make sense to enable this feature for Bodies as well.
What do you think about this? And please advise me in case I have missed some feature that already does this.
Cheers,
Eelis
I'm thinking about boundary condition definitions and actually this applies for geometry groups in general:
Let us assume I have a model boundary
Code: Select all
Omega = Union(Omega_1, Omega_2),
Code: Select all
Intersection(Omega_1, Omega_2) = Emptyset,
Code: Select all
Omega_common = Intersection(Omega_1, Omega_2) != Emptyset.
Code: Select all
Boundary Condition 1
Target boundaries(1) = $ Omega_1
Temperature = 1
End
Boundary Condition 2
Target Boundaries(2) = $ Omega_2
Temperature = 2
End
Code: Select all
Temperature(Cut(Omega_1, Omega_2))=1
Temperature(Omega_2)=2
Code: Select all
$ Omega_3 = HighestBoundaryID + 1
Construct Group 1
Group Type = Boundary
Group Id = $ Omega_3
Union = $ Omega_1
Intersection = $ Omega_2
End
Boundary Condition 1
Target boundaries(1) = $ Omega_3
Temperature = 1
End
The ofcourse it would make sense to enable this feature for Bodies as well.
What do you think about this? And please advise me in case I have missed some feature that already does this.
Cheers,
Eelis