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

Second-order Quadrilaterals (2D) meshes in standard Abaqus .inp format #2217

Open
wants to merge 34 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

DanielDoehring
Copy link
Contributor

This implements second-order 2D quadrilateral p4est meshes constructed from a standard-format Abaqus .inp files.
See #1847 for this feature request.

Essentially, this PR is a bunch of tedious mesh file parsing to extract the relevant information. As in the existing implementation, we focus on meshes constructed e.g. from gmsh which are exported to .inp format.

For validation, I ran the simulation of a laminar, low Machnumber (essentially incompressible) simulation over the SD7003 airfoil.

The averaged drag & lift coefficient are

Average drag coefficient: 0.049819536195680685
Average lift coefficient: 0.3817639249290595

which are in excellent agreement with reference data (See this preprint)

Screenshot from 2024-12-20 14-06-44

Copy link
Contributor

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

  • The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
  • All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
  • No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

  • The code can be understood easily.
  • Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
  • There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
  • There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
  • The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

  • New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
  • Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
  • Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
  • Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
  • If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md with its PR number.

Testing

  • The PR passes all tests.
  • New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
  • New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

  • There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
  • If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

  • The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
  • If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
    are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.11823% with 16 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.05%. Comparing base (f09a707) to head (35100a4).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/meshes/p4est_mesh.jl 91.49% 16 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (f09a707) and HEAD (35100a4). Click for more details.

HEAD has 2 uploads less than BASE
Flag BASE (f09a707) HEAD (35100a4)
unittests 26 24
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2217      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.37%   90.05%   -6.32%     
==========================================
  Files         486      487       +1     
  Lines       39186    39356     +170     
==========================================
- Hits        37764    35442    -2322     
- Misses       1422     3914    +2492     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 90.05% <92.12%> (-6.32%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@sloede
Copy link
Member

sloede commented Dec 20, 2024

This implements second-order 2D quadrilateral p4est meshes constructed from a standard-format Abaqus .inp files.

This is so awesome! Thanks a lot for this very cool feature 💪♥️

Copy link
Member

@andrewwinters5000 andrewwinters5000 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding this feature! Overall the new file reading and constructors look good. I just left some questions about naming and future functionality.

NEWS.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ transfinite map of the straight sided hexahedral element to find

Also for a mesh in standard Abaqus format there are no qualitative changes when going from 2D to 3D.
The most notable difference is that boundaries are formed in 3D by faces defined by four nodes while in 2D boundaries are edges consisting of two elements.
Note that standard Abaqus also defines quadratic element types. In Trixi.jl, these higher-order elements are currently only supported in 2D, i.e., 8-node quadrilaterals.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are only 8-node quads available? Or does this PR implement the infrastructure such that higher order with more nodes per element are (in theory) supported?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So at the moment yes, see lines 1931 to 1933 in p4est_mesh.jl. This should be easily generalizable, but I am actually not sure if there are elements with order higher than quadratic defined, see e.g. http://130.149.89.49:2080/v2016/books/usb/default.htm?startat=pt06ch28s01ael02.html


- `p4est_mesh_from_hohqmesh_abaqus`: High-order, curved boundary information created by
- `p4est_mesh_from_hohqmesh_abaqus`: High-order, polygonial boundary information created by
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would prefer to say curved here. My main reason is that this is the word used in the HOHQMesh and other software (like NekMesh) documentation to discuss the high-order boundary information. I have never encountered anyone referring to it as polygonal. Also, "polygonal" here makes it sound like you are representing the boundary information with polygons, which is not what is happening.

src/meshes/p4est_mesh.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
if occursin(quadratic_quads, current_element_type)
# Print the first (element), second to fifth (vertices 1-4) indices to file.
# For node order of quadratic (second-order) quads, see
# http://130.149.89.49:2080/v2016/books/usb/default.htm?startat=pt06ch28s01ael02.html
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this the ABAQUS user guide?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, user guide/documentation. Unfortunately, I could not find the docs of more recent versions open accessible.

Comment on lines +769 to +773
if mesh_polydeg == 2
mesh_nnodes = mesh_polydeg + 1 # = 3
# Note: We ASSUME that the additional node between the end-vertices lies
# on the center on that line, such that we can use Chebyshev-Gauss-Lobatto nodes!
# For polydeg = 2, we have the 3 nodes [-1, 0, 1] (within the reference element).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Interesting...so in the future for element boundaries higher than quadratic would this become mesh_polydeg >= 2?

This comment is also hyper-specific for the polydeg=2 case. In general the CGL nodes are nonuniform in [-1,1], include the endpoints, and will only include the point x=0 for even polydeg (i.e. an odd number of points).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah so this comment is heavily tailored towards the quadratic case, which is as far as I now the highest degree supported by standard Abaqus (see also my answer above).

if mesh_polydeg == 1
calc_tree_node_coordinates!(tree_node_coordinates, nodes, mapping,
vertices, tree_to_vertex)
else # mesh_polydeg = 2 => Nonlinearity in supplied mesh
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

okay, so this logic could readily handle higher order element orders (at least in 2D), right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, so more nodes here should be readily possible. I am not sure, however, if such elements are defined by the Abaqus standard.

n_trees = last(size(node_coordinates))
nnodes = length(nodes)

# Setup the starting file index to read in element indices and the additional
# curved boundary information provided by HOHQMesh.
# higher-order, polygonial boundary information provided by HOHQMesh.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Again, I would prefer to call the boundaries curved rather than polygonal. I already mentioned two reasons above. Another is that it over complicates the nomenclature. I think you want to use "polygonal" to clarify that the boundary is a closed, simply connected region with some number of sides (that are possibly individually curved). That is, some segments of the polygon can be straight-sided, attached to a spline and then attached to circular arc. This is why I think the catch all term of "curved" is better because it encompassed all these cases (as well as dimensions).

After all, one could say that a simple straight sided box domain has "polygonal boundary information" for the same reasons, but people would think I am weird to refer to a Carteisan box in this way :)

Comment on lines +1938 to +1940

# The nodes for an Abaqus element are labeled following a closed path
# around the element:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, I imagine that figuring out this variable flipping will be significantly more cumbersome in 3D and for higher node orders.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, that is also why the 3D version is not shipped in this PR. I think one needs in that case to flip the faces also in some way which I have not yet figured out.

NEWS.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
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.

3 participants