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

Generalize hack in SpatialTools for the SWFlow reflecting boundary conditions #1224

Open
ejtovar opened this issue Aug 27, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@ejtovar
Copy link
Collaborator

ejtovar commented Aug 27, 2020

We should generalize the hack introduced in #1223 for the SWFlow reflecting boundary conditions. Currently, to use partial reflecting boundary conditions, the user sets the boundary flag to 99 and this requires a hack in proteus/SpatialTools.py.

@ejtovar
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ejtovar commented Aug 27, 2020

@zhang-alvin @cekees

@zhang-alvin
Copy link
Contributor

An example of how large boundary tags might affect memory usage in RANS2P:

https://github.com/erdc/proteus/blob/master/proteus/mprans/RANS2P.py#L663-L667

@ejtovar
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ejtovar commented Aug 31, 2020

Oops! I will try to fix this ASAP.

@zhang-alvin
Copy link
Contributor

@ejtovar, you should check if something similar is being done with SWFlow, but I don't think you need to rush to fix this as this is likely a very involved fix. But this is something that we have to keep in mind in terms of system design.

One way to resolve this would be to use a dictionary of numpy arrays with the key as the boundary tag and the value as the corresponding numpy array. @cekees mentioned that there used to be a difficulty in passing such a structure to the C++ backend, but it might be easier now since @JohanMabille's argdict-based refactoring for the backend function calls.

@cekees
Copy link
Member

cekees commented Jun 29, 2022

@ejtovar do you recall if this was ever addressed? Might be something one of my students could work on.

@ejtovar
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ejtovar commented Jun 30, 2022

@cekees No, I believe this hack is still there.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants