Interactions between adaptive time-integrators and adaptive meshing in a monolithic FEM solver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to focus on characterization of interactions between hp-adaptive time-integrators based on backward differentiation formulas (BDF) and adaptive meshing based on Zhu and Zienkiewicz error estimation approach. If mesh adaptation only occurs at user-supplied times and results in a completely new mesh, it is necessary to stop the time-integration at these same times. In these conditions, one challenge is to find an efficient and reliable way to restart the time-integration. The authors investigate what impact grid-to-grid interpolation errors have on the relaunch of the computation. Design/methodology/approach Two restart strategies of the time-integrator were used: one based on resetting the time-step size h and time-integrator order p to default values (used in the initial startup phase), and another designed to restart with the time-step size h and order p used by the solver prior to remeshing. The authors also investigate the benefits of quadratically interpolate the solution on the new mesh. Both restart strategies were used to solve laminar incompressible Navier–Stokes and the Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Naviers-Stokes (URANS) equations. Findings The adaptive features of our time-integrators are excellent tools to quantify errors arising from the data transfer between two grids. The second restart strategy proved to be advantageous only if a quadratic grid-to-grid interpolation is used. Results for turbulent flows also proved that some precautions must be taken to ensure grid convergence at any time of the simulation. Mesh adaptation, if poorly performed, can indeed lead to losing grid convergence in critical regions of the flow. Originality/value This study exhibits the benefits and difficulty of assessing both spatial error estimates and local error estimates to enhance the efficiency of unsteady computations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".