I see, I think I can manage with that. Thank you very much!
-- 
Sabrina Zacarias
Institut für Kernphysik
Technische Universität Darmstadt
S2|14 / office 319
Schlossgartenstr. 9

64289 Darmstadt

Office: +49 6151 16 23589

> On 5. Apr 2020, at 12:04, Christophe Geuzaine <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 5 Apr 2020, at 11:25, Sabrina Zacarias <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 29 Mar 2020, at 12:24, Sabrina Zacarias <[email protected]> 
>>>> 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
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> 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 
> <http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~geuzaine>
_______________________________________________
gmsh mailing list
[email protected]
http://onelab.info/mailman/listinfo/gmsh

Reply via email to