2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.finel.2016.04.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semi-implicit representation of sharp features with level sets

Abstract: The present contribution enriches the nowadays "classical" level set implicit representation of geometries with topological information in order to correctly represent sharp features. For this, sharp features are classified according to their positions within elements of the level set support. Based on this additional information, sub-elements and interface-mesh used in a finite element context for integration and application of boundary conditions are modified to match exactly to the sharp features. In order … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To circumvent or simplify the mesh generation issue, implicit/immersed boundary approaches have been proposed, where the mesh does not conform to the geometry, which is treated by implicit functions such as level sets and enriched finite element methods. This idea was proposed in [81] and later generalized in [84,85], [58,27], [75,66] and [109,126,46], in combination with (goal-oriented) error estimates. Although promising, applications of such approaches to patient-specific geometries remain in their infancy, see a review of related methods in [19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To circumvent or simplify the mesh generation issue, implicit/immersed boundary approaches have been proposed, where the mesh does not conform to the geometry, which is treated by implicit functions such as level sets and enriched finite element methods. This idea was proposed in [81] and later generalized in [84,85], [58,27], [75,66] and [109,126,46], in combination with (goal-oriented) error estimates. Although promising, applications of such approaches to patient-specific geometries remain in their infancy, see a review of related methods in [19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the topological complexity of classical CAD based shape optimization is reduced since geometric entities, such as holes, can be merged or removed without degenerating the model, but unfortunately cannot be created, except if the method is combined with a topological derivative (see for instance [15,16,17,18,19] or [20] for more theoretical aspects). However, the use of a level set representation of the geometry makes it difficult to take into account geometries with sharp angles (see for instance [21] or [22]). It limits hence the range of systems that can be optimized.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%