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

Does binary output need to call bound for ghost cells? #277

Open
rjleveque opened this issue Jun 3, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Does binary output need to call bound for ghost cells? #277

rjleveque opened this issue Jun 3, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@rjleveque
Copy link
Member

@mjberger: When working on #275 I noticed that when doing binary output we output ghost cell values along with interior grid values, as we do in GeoClaw. But in the GeoClaw version of valout.f90 we first call bound (line 199) whereas in the amrclaw versions we do not. Should we be calling this?

@mjberger
Copy link
Contributor

mjberger commented Jun 3, 2022 via email

@rjleveque
Copy link
Member Author

You are right that in general the ghost cell values are never used in plotting or other postprocessing, and in fact they are stripped off when using the standard pyclaw routines to read binary (in pyclaw/src/pyclaw/fileio/binary.py). So it probably doesn't matter in general whether they are correct.

However, for some purposes having the ghost cells could be useful, e.g. I have used them in computing vorticity in a postprocessing step, in which case the velocities have to be differentiated, and so having values in ghost cells on each patch allows using centered differences everywhere.

The amrclaw code is identical to geoclaw in how binary files are written, but for some reason doesn't call bound. I will go ahead and add this.

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

2 participants