Unstructured mesh refinement regions #2306
Conversation
Ref: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/d741eb282dd15acc1f49fa660519c99680435e75/numpy/_core/numeric.py#L1664 For some reason, the warning is not shown in normal tidy3d runs, but if we enable it around the function call with: ```python import warnings warnings.simplefilter("error") ``` it will show as an error. This affects PhotonForge because we don't differentiate warnings from errors through the python C API, so having this warning is preventing us from supporting numpy >= 2. Signed-off-by: Lucas Heitzmann Gabrielli <lucas@flexcompute.com>
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
| @@ -22,6 +24,7 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0 | |||
| - Validation step that raises a `ValueError` when no frequency-domain monitors are present, preventing invalid adjoint runs. | |||
| - Metal surface roughness models: modified Hammerstad, Huray Snowball, and Cannonball-Huray. | |||
| - Support for Fermi-Dirac statistics in Charge solver. This option can be activated when defining the analysis type `IsothermalSteadyChargeDCAnalysis` with `fermi_dirac=True`. This option will provide more accurate results in simulations where very high doping may lead the pseudo-Fermi energy levels to approach either the conduction or the valence energy levels. | |||
| - Add refinement regions and refinement lines for the mesh generation for teh CHARGE solver. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can also be used to Heat simulations so I would change the sentence to this:
Unstructured grids now support refinement regions (including 1D refinement lines in arbitrary directions)
tidy3d/components/tcad/grid.py
Outdated
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| r2: Coordinate = pd.Field( | ||
| (0.0, 0.0, 0.0), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should make this a required input and not provide a default.
tidy3d/components/tcad/grid.py
Outdated
| refinement_regions: Tuple[GridRefinementRegion, ...] = pd.Field( | ||
| (), | ||
| title="Refinement regions", | ||
| description="List of regions for which the mesh refinement will be applied", | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| refinement_lines: Tuple[GridRefinementLine, ...] = pd.Field( | ||
| (), | ||
| title="Refinement lines", | ||
| description="List of lines for which the mesh refinement will be applied", | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that I see this I'm thinking that maybe refinement_regions could accept both GridRefinementRegion and GridRefinementLine. Conceptually they're both refinement regions in a way.
Of course this implies updating the back-end.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense, could be a single argument refinements even.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there is also the option to reuse name override_structures from fdtd grid spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that makes a lot of sense
|
There is a new branch for this PR: vasily/refinement_region_update It should be merged into this PR |
… Nedeljkovic Soref Mashanovich
…nt postprocessing
|
I have created a new clean PR with the mesh refinement structures: |
|
closing in favor of #2398 |
No description provided.