PatchToPatchInterpolation parameters

cliffoi · March 7, 2011, 12:43

Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone knew exactly what the difference was between the different parameters to patchToPatchInterpolation, i.e. the enumerated types intersection::algorithm and intersection::direction.
I am trying to interpolate from a parallel cyclicPolyPatch to a polyPatch while ensuring that the face normals are pointing in opposite directions (since there are two possible matching faces on the cyclic patch). intersection::VISIBLE seems to work for my simple test case but I need to make sure that this is going to give me consistent results.

Thanks in advance
Ivor

deepsterblue · March 7, 2011, 13:43

I think I can take a guess: The type of algorithm basically gives you a trade-off between robustness and efficiency - a choice that is left to you. Naturally, a VISIBLE option would be more efficient, since only the face-normal direction is considered during intersection calculations in triangle.H. The visible approach would probably be most appropriate for patch-type calculations, but if you have weird geometry situations, you might have to reconsider.

The same applies to the VECTOR / CONTACT_SPHERE options in face.H

cliffoi · March 9, 2011, 09:52

Thanks Sandeep,
I'll have a closer look at triangle and see what I can find out.

March 7, 2011, 12:43	PatchToPatchInterpolation parameters	#1
cliffoi Member Ivor Clifford Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 94 Rep Power: 17	Hi all, I was wondering if anyone knew exactly what the difference was between the different parameters to patchToPatchInterpolation, i.e. the enumerated types intersection::algorithm and intersection::direction. I am trying to interpolate from a parallel cyclicPolyPatch to a polyPatch while ensuring that the face normals are pointing in opposite directions (since there are two possible matching faces on the cyclic patch). intersection::VISIBLE seems to work for my simple test case but I need to make sure that this is going to give me consistent results. Thanks in advance Ivor

March 7, 2011, 13:43		#2
deepsterblue Senior Member Sandeep Menon Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Amherst, MA Posts: 403 Rep Power: 25	I think I can take a guess: The type of algorithm basically gives you a trade-off between robustness and efficiency - a choice that is left to you. Naturally, a VISIBLE option would be more efficient, since only the face-normal direction is considered during intersection calculations in triangle.H. The visible approach would probably be most appropriate for patch-type calculations, but if you have weird geometry situations, you might have to reconsider. The same applies to the VECTOR / CONTACT_SPHERE options in face.H __________________ Sandeep Menon University of Massachusetts Amherst https://github.com/smenon

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
units of geometrical parameters lost	SoobY	ANSYS Meshing & Geometry	2	January 10, 2011 03:58
Validity EWBM parameters	luuk.thielen	Main CFD Forum	0	July 13, 2010 03:09
Coal Particle Tracking Parameters	Michael	FLUENT	1	December 1, 2007 14:51
New to CFX-need explanations about mesh parameters	Cyril	CFX	3	November 24, 2006 06:33
expert parameters of SST model?	David	CFX	1	December 2, 2005 06:36

March 9, 2011, 09:52		#3
cliffoi Member Ivor Clifford Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 94 Rep Power: 17	Thanks Sandeep, I'll have a closer look at triangle and see what I can find out.