An algebraicelliptic algorithm

for boundary orthogonal grid generation

Costanza Conti
a
, Rossana Morandi
a
,
Rosa Maria Spitaleri
b,
*
a
Dipartimento di Energetica, University of Florence, Via C. Lombroso 6/17, Florence 50133, Italy
b
Istituto per le Applicazioni del Calcolo-CNR, Viale del Policlinico 137, Rome 00161, Italy
Abstract
To produce grids conforming to the boundary of a physical domain with boundary
orthogonality features, algebraic methods like transnite interpolating schemes can be
protably used. Moreover, the coupling of Hermite-type (also interpolating prescribed
boundary direction) schemes with elliptic methods turns out to be eective to overcome
the drawback of both algebraic and elliptic strategies. Thus, in this paper, we present an
algorithm for the generation of boundary orthogonal grids which couples a mixed
Hermite algebraic method with a boundary orthogonal elliptic scheme. Numerical tests
on domains with classical geometries show satisfactory performances of the algorithm
and coupling eectiveness in achieving grid boundary orthogonality and smoothness.
2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
It is well known that partial dierential equation (PDE) systems are more
and more often able to describe complex physical phenomena. On the other
hand, computational processes for numerical system solution require powerful
discretization methods based on the use of appropriate grids, that is a discrete
set of points well representing the geometry of the denition domain. It has
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: c.conti@de.uni.it (C. Conti), morandi@de.uni.it (R. Morandi), spita-
leri@iac.rm.cnr.it (R. Maria Spitaleri).
0096-3003/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.amc.2003.12.065
Applied Mathematics and Computation 162 (2005) 1527
www.elsevier.com/locate/amc
been proved that grid generation strategies can strongly aect the eciency of
the whole numerical solution method of PDE systems (see for example [8,9,14]
and reference quoted therein).
Generally speaking, the grids are required to satisfy some good properties
like smoothness and boundary orthogonality which aect the solution accuracy
[7]. In particular, orthogonality near the boundary is often necessary to achieve
proper results, for example in simulation of boundary layer phenomena.
One possible approach for such a numerical grid generation is given by
algebraic schemes which are the simplest methods to obtain interior grid points
from boundary information via powerful interpolation methods based on
transnite interpolation [6]. More in detail, Lagrange transnite interpolation
methods provide conformity to the boundary of the physical domain and
Hermite transnite interpolation methods also provide grid lines orthogonal to
the boundary both with a low computational cost. Unfortunately, these
methods do not get much degrees of freedom to obtain workable meshes. Thus,
they are protably combined with tensor product techniques which, involving
control points, allow us a control of the grid in the interior of the physical
domain. However, algebraic grids can have some problems with smoothness,
boundary overlapping and grid-line folding [14] while dierential approaches
avoid overlapping of coordinate lines and have a good control of the interior of
the domain. Nevertheless, in case of complex geometries, the most used elliptic
grid methods can be expensive with respect to human and computer time
demanding. Since they usually involve iterative methods, a suitable algebraic
grid as starting point for the elliptic generator can be useful to save eorts.
Thus, an algebraicelliptic coupling seems to be eective thinking of either the
algebraic providing a good starting grid for the elliptic generator or the elliptic
acting as smoother of the algebraic algorithm. This is the reason why in this
paper we present an algebraicelliptic algorithm which combines a mixed
Hermite algebraic method with a boundary orthogonal elliptic grid generator.
This way smoothness and boundary orthogonality are achieved. It should be
noted that, basic ideas and preliminary results of the coupling are in [3]. Here,
we highlight all the strategy steps by a detailed algorithm and we set the
computational parameters.
The other four sections of the paper are organized as follows. In Section 2
we introduce the elliptic generation. In Section 3 we describe the mixed alge-
braic generation method that is the transnite interpolation component and the
tensor product component. Next, in Section 4 we specify the computational
parameters and we present the detailed algorithm for algebraicelliptic cou-
pling. Finally, in Section 5 we illustrate numerical tests on four domains with
classical geometries and we discuss the performances of the algorithm. The
gures show grids with boundary orthogonality and smoothness in appropriate
balance, computed by a reduced iteration number in the elliptic generation
phase.
16 C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527
2. Boundary orthogonal elliptic generation
The most simple elliptic partial dierential system on a given two dimen-
sional physical domain X, with boundary oX is the Laplace system with
Dirichlet boundary conditions i.e.
Dn 0; Dg 0; x; y 2 X;
nx; y f x; y; gx; y gx; y; x; y 2 oX:
Nevertheless, a better control of the coordinate line distribution in X can be
exercised by using the elliptic generating system
Dn Pn; g; Dg Qn; g; x; y 2 X;
nx; y f x; y; gx; y gx; y; x; y 2 oX;
where the so called control functions P and Q can be chosen, for example, to
control the grid spacing and the orientation of the coordinate lines (see [14] for
details). It is not dicult to see that, by interchanging variables, the previous
system of equations in the computational domain 0; 1
2
reads as
ax
nn
2bx
ng
cx
gg
J
2
Px
n
Qx
g
0 1
ay
nn
2by
ng
cy
gg
J
2
Py
n
Qy
g
0; 2
where
a x
2
g
y
2
g
; b x
n
x
g
y
n
y
g
; 3
c x
2
n
y
2
n
; J x
n
y
g
x
g
y
n
: 4
In order to guarantee the boundary orthogonality of the grid, we keep
boundary points xed and we adjust control functions, that is we deal with the
so called Dirichlet orthogonality [7] approach. We choose the control functions
at the boundary being as
Pj
o0;1
2
a
cJ
2
X
nn
X
n

1
J
2
X
gg
X
n
;
Qj
o0;1
2
c
aJ
2
X
gg
X
g

1
J
2
X
nn
X
g
;
5
where we used the notations Xn; g xn; g; yn; g and o0; 1
2
for the
boundary of the computational domain.
As we will see in Section 4, these orthogonal control functions are evaluated
at the boundary by the help of ghost points and dened all over 0; 1
2
via
transnite interpolation [14].
With an obvious meaning of the symbols, the dierential system (1) and (2),
along with the associated boundary conditions can be written in a more
compact form as
C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527 17
LX 0 on 0; 1
2
KX U on o0; 1
2
so that its discrete version becomes
L
h
X
h
0 on G
h
; K
h
X
h
U
h
on C
h
; 6
where h h
n
; h
g
is the meshsize of the chosen discretization. Now, let X
h
0
be
an initial approximation of the solution X
h
of the problem (6) on the grid G
h
.
In order to obtain the required approximated solution, say X
h

, we can use a
one grid algorithm, even as a base for future extension to multigrid compu-
tation [12], which applies an appropriate number m of sweeps of a relaxation
procedure R suitable for nonlinear problems [11,13], that is
X
h

R
m
X
h
0
; L
h
; K
h
; U
h

: 7
Obviously, the goodness of the solution of the elliptic grid generator (6)
depends on the required grid neness and on the domain geometry.
3. Transnite orthogonal algebraic generator
Let X R
2
be such that oX [
4
i1
oX
i
, with oX
1
\ oX
3
; oX
2
\ oX
4
;
where oX
1
, oX
2
, oX
3
, oX
4
are the supports of four regular curves
c
i
: 0; 1 ! oX
i
, i 1; . . . ; 4, taken counterclockwise. Furthermore, we assume
that the curve intersections occur only at the end points of the boundary curves
c
i
, i 1; . . . ; 4 i.e.
c
1
0 c
4
1; c
1
1 c
2
0; c
2
1 c
3
0; c
4
0 c
3
1:
We dene /
1
n : c
1
n, /
2
n : c
3
1 n, n 2 0; 1 and w
1
g :
c
4
1 g, w
2
g : c
2
g, g 2 0; 1 and four additional curves by computing
the derivatives of the / and w-curves, i.e.
/
i2
n
K
n
i2
k/
0
i
k
2
/
y
i
n
0
; /
x
i
n
0
; i 1; 2;
w
j2
g
K
g
j2
kw
0
j
k
2
w
y
j
g
0
; w
x
j
g
0
; j 1; 2;
8
denoting by /
x
, /
y
and w
x
, w
y
the components of the /-curves and w-curves,
respectively. The symbol k k
2
stands for the Euclidean norm and K
n
l
, K
g
l
,
l 3; 4 are suitable constant values (see Section 4 for a specic denition). As
we are going to deal with orthogonal lines emanating from the boundary of the
domain, we assume the following conditions on the boundary curves
18 C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527
/
i2
0 w
0
1
u
i
; /
i2
1 w
0
2
u
i
;
w
i2
0 /
0
1
u
i
; w
i2
1 /
0
2
u
i
; i 1; 2;
/
00
i
0 w
00
1
u
i
; /
00
i
1 w
00
2
u
i
;
9
where u
1
0, u
2
1.
Then, we introduce the linear operators
P
1
/n; g :
X
4
i1
a
i
g/
i
n; P
2
wn; g :
X
4
j1
a
j
nw
j
g;
P
1
P
2
/; wn; g :
X
2
i1
a
i
gP
2
wn; u
i

a
i2
g
oP
2
wn; u
i

og

:
10
The functions a
j
n, j 1; . . . ; 4 and a
i
g, i 1; . . . ; 4, in (10) are the so
called blending functions satisfying cardinal interpolation
a
j1
l d
jl
; a
0
j1
l 0; j 0; 1; l 0; 1;
a
j3
l 0; a
0
j1
l d
jl
; j 0; 1; l 0; 1:
Thus, the Hermite blending function surface is
P
1
P
2
/; wn; g P
1
/n; g P
2
wn; g P
1
P
2
/; wn; g; 11
where P
1
P
2
is the so called Boolean sum operator. As well known, because
of the blending function properties, it holds
P
1
P
2
u
j
; g w
j
g; j 1; 2; P
1
P
2
n; u
i
/
i
n; i 1; 2;
oP
1
P
2
u
j2
; g
on
w
j
g; j 3; 4;
oP
1
P
2
n; u
i2

og
/
i
n; i 3; 4:
12
3.1. Mixed orthogonal algebraic method
As already noticed, transnite method do not get much degrees of freedom
to obtain workable meshes. Thus, as suggested in [4] and further investigated in
[5,10], they can be protably combined with tensor product techniques which,
involving control points, allow us a control of the grid on the interior of the
domain X. Thus, the idea is to work with blending functions a
i
n, i 1; . . . ; 4,
a
j
g, j 1; . . . ; 4, with local support on 0; 1. Here, they are dened as the
dilated versions of the classical Hermite bases with support on I
n
0
: 0; u
n
and
on I
n
1
: 1 ~u
n
; 1 being 0 < u
n
< 1 and 0 < ~u
n
< 1, i.e.
C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527 19
a
1
n : 1

2
n
u
n
!
1

n
u
n
!
2
; a
3
n : n 1

n
u
n
!
2
; n 2 I
n
0
;
a
2
n : 3

2
n ~u
n
1
~u
n
!
n ~u
n
1
~u
n
!
2
;
a
4
n : n 1
n ~u
n
1
~u
n
!
2
; n 2 I
n
1
:
13
The blending functions a
j
g, j 1; . . . ; 4 are analogously dened with
support on I
g
0
: 0; u
g
and on I
g
1
: 1 ~u
g
; 1. Next, we dene the linear
transformation X : 0; 1
2
!R
2
, Xn; g xn; g; yn; g as
Xn; g : T
P
n; g P
1
P
2
/; w T
P
n; g; 14
where
T
P
n; g :
X
m
p
i1
X
n
p
j1
Q
ij
B
i;3
nB
j;3
g 15
with B
i;3
n and B
j;3
g denoting the usual cubic B-splines with knots
fn
i2
; n
i1
; n
i
; n
i1
; n
i2
g, fg
j2
; g
j1
; g
j
; g
j1
; g
j2
g, respectively. The set
Q fQ
ij
g
m
p
;n
p
i;j1
is the set of control points. For the B-spline knot choice and the
control point choice the reader can refer to [1,2].
The Boolean sum operator P
1
P
2
in (14) is also acting on the surface
T
P
n; g taking into account the eight boundary curves T
P
0; g, T
P
1; g,
T
P
n; 0, T
P
n; 1,
oT
P
0;g
on
,
oT
P
1;g
on
,
oT
P
n;0
og
,
oT
P
n;1
og
.
As discussed in [2], X satises
Xu
j
; g w
j
g; j 1; 2; Xn; u
i
/
i
n; i 1; 2;
oXu
j
; g
on
w
j
g; j 3; 4;
oXn; u
i

og
/
i
n; i 3; 4:
16
Moreover, setting u
n
n
3
n
2
, u
g
g
3
g
2
, ~u
n
n
m
p
1
n
m
p
2
,
~u
g
g
n
p
1
g
n
p
2
, because of the blending function locality, it holds
Xn; g T
P
n; g for all n; g 2 n
3
; n
m
p
2
g
3
; g
n
p
2
.
The grid X
h
0
is then obtained by sampling X at a given set of parameter
values fn
i
; g
j
g
m
g
;n
g
i;j1
i.e.
X
h
0
: Xn
i
; g
j

xn
i
; g
j
; yn
i
; g
j

m
g
;n
g
i;j1
:
20 C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527
4. Numerical algorithm and computational parameters
Before to present the algorithm for constructing the algebraicelliptic grid
with orthogonal feature to the boundary, we need to make clearer how to set
some of the parameters introduced in the previous sections.
4.1. Choice of B-splines knots
Concerning the knots of the B-splines involved in (15), that is fn
i
g
m
p
2
i1
and
fg
l
g
n
p
2
l1
, they are set with the property
0 n
1
n
0
n
1
n
2
< < n
m
p
1
n
m
p
n
m
p
1
n
m
p
2
1;
with n
i1
n
i

1
m
p
3
; i 2; . . . ; m
p
2: 17
Similarly,
0 g
1
g
0
g
1
< g
2
< < g
n
p
1
g
n
p
g
n
p
1
g
n
p
2
1;
with g
l1
g
l

1
n
p
3
; l 2; . . . ; n
p
2: 18
4.2. Choice of the modulus of the boundary normal derivatives
Now, we discuss about the constants K
n
i
, K
g
i
, i 1; 2 to be used in (8). By
using the so called uniformity property (see [2] for a detailed discussion about
this property) we arrive at the following choice
K
n
i

P
m
p
2
r3
/
x
2
n
r
/
x
1
n
r
k/
0
i
k
2

P
m
p
2
r3
/
y
i
n
r

0
; i 3; 4 19
and
K
g
j

P
n
p
2
l3
w
y
2
g
l
w
y
1
g
l
kw
0
j
k
2
P
n
p
2
l3
w
x
j
g
l

0
; j 3; 4: 20
4.3. Choice of the control points
Let us consider the bilinear blending surface interpolating the four boundary
curves
Ls; t 1 t/
1
s t/
2
s 1 sw
1
t sw
2
t 1 t1 sw
1
0
sw
2
0 t1 sw
1
1 sw
2
1 21
C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527 21
and the parameter values, in 0; 1 fr
i
g
m
p
i1
and fs
j
g
n
p
j1
dened as
r
1
: 0; r
2
: r
1

2
3m
p
2
; r
3
: r
2

3
3m
p
2
;
r
i1
: r
i

3
3m
p
2
; i 3; . . . ; m
p
3;
r
m
p
1
: r
m
p
2

2
3m
p
2
; r
m
p
: r
m
p
1

1
3m
p
2
1;
s
1
: 0; s
2
: s
1

2
3n
p
2
; s
3
: s
2

3
3n
p
2
;
s
j1
: s
j

3
3n
p
2
; j 3; . . . ; n
p
3;
s
n
p
1
: s
n
p
2

2
3n
p
2
; s
n
p
: s
n
p
1

1
3n
p
2
1:
22
The control points are obtained by sampling Ls; t, at the previous
parameter values that is
Q
ij
Lr
i
; s
j
; i 1; . . . ; m
p
; j 1; . . . ; n
p
: 23
4.4. Choice of the ghost points
In order to impose boundary orthogonality to the elliptic generator of the
algorithm, we exploit the boundary orthogonal grid constructed by the dened
mixed Hermite method in step 2 to
(i) set the boundary grid point distribution as Dirichlet conditions for the
problem (6) in step 3.1 (even taking into account physical boundary condi-
tions from step 1 on),
(ii) compute the orthogonal control functions (5) in step 3.3.
The algebraic grid is assumed to have the rst interior coordinate lines
correctly positioned so that appropriate exterior curves of ghost points can be
derived by orthogonal symmetry (algorithmstep 3.2). Leaving the ghost
points unchanged allows us to use the information on boundary orthogonality
in (5) and save it during the iterations. Permitting free positions to all the
interior points allows us to achieve smoothness. Orthogonality at corner points
is not imposed.
Algorithm
1. Input the boundary curves /
1
, /
2
, w
1
, w
2
, the grid size m
g
; n
g
, the number of
control points m
p
; n
p
, the tolerances s
d
, s
r
and s
o
and the max iteration num-
ber n
max
22 C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527
2. Construct the algebraic grid through the following steps:
2.1. compute the orthogonal directions /
3
, /
4
, w
3
, w
4
by means of (8) and
(19), (20)
2.2. compute the control points fQ
ij
g
m
p
;n
p
i;j1
with the strategy in
(23)
2.3. compute the knots of the B-splines as in (17) and (18)
2.4. use (14) to generate the mixed algebraic surface Xn; g
2.5. compute the discrete grid X
h
: fXn
i
; g
j
g
m
g
;n
g
i;j1
with neness
h h
n
; h
g
, where h
n
:
1
m
g
1
, h
g
:
1
n
g
1
and n
i
: ih
n
, g
j
: jh
g
for
i; j 1; . . . ; m
g
; n
g
2.6. set the initial grid X
h
0
: X
h
3. compute a smoother grid by the elliptic procedure:
3.1. set prescribed boundary grid points as Dirichlet boundary condi-
tions for the problem (6), that is U
h
: fX
h
0
1; j; X
h
0
m
g
; j; X
h
0
i; 1;
X
h
0
i; n
g
g
m
g
;n
g
i;j1
3.2. construct an exterior curve of points by orthogonal symmetry from
fX
h
0
2; j; X
h
0
m
g
1; j; X
h
0
i; 2; X
h
0
i; n
g
1g
m
g
1;n
g
1
i;j2
3.3. compute Pj
o0;1
2 and Qj
o0;1
2 using (5)
3.4. extend P and Q on 0; 1
2
by bilinear transnite interpolation
3.5. Solve the system (6) by GaussSeidel relaxation procedure:
3.5.1. for k 1; . . . ; n
max
solve X
h
k
R
k
X
h
k1
; L
h
; K
h
; U
h
where R
k
is the kth iteration of the GS-
relaxation procedure
compute d
k
: kX
h
k
X
h
k1
k
2
and the residual r
k
: kL
h
X
h
k
k
2
compute the vector Ort
k
containing the scalar product of the discrete
boundary curves and the grid lines at the boundary
compute o
k
: kOrt
k
k
2
if d
k
6s
d
& r
k
6s
r
& o
k
6s
o
go to 4
4. Set m : k and X
h

: X
h
k
5. Print the nal grid X
h

and the iteration number m.

5. Numerical results
In this section we present some numerical results to put in evidence the
performance of coupling algebraic and elliptic generators. In particular, we
compare the results obtained by using either the quite commonly used bilinear
transnite method (BTM) or the mixed Hermite method (MHM) to provide
the starting grid X
h
0
for the elliptic generator with the orthogonal control
functions (5). In order to generate BTM-elliptic grids, steps 1, 35 of the
algorithm dened in the previous section are unchanged, while step 2 is
substituted by
C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527 23
2. Construct the algebraic grid by the step:
2.1. compute the discrete grid X
h
: fLn
i
; g
j
g
m
g
;n
g
i;j1
, with neness
h h
n
; h
g
, where h
n
:
1
m
g
1
; h
g
:
1
n
g
1
and n
i
: ih
n
, g
j
: jh
g
for
i; j 1; . . . ; m
g
; n
g
by means of (21)
2.2. set the initial grid X
h
0
: X
h
.
It is worthwhile to notice that in this case the algebraic grid gives no
information on boundary orthogonality since the points of the rst interior line
are not correctly located, however step 3.2 is still carried out by recovering
orthogonal directions to the boundary and computing ghost points again by
orthogonal symmetry [7].
Commonly used geometries have been selected as test problems [7,14]. For
the four displayed domains, we show the initial grid X
h
0
(on the left) and the
nal grid X
h

(on the right). As specied in the algorithm steps we assume three

stop criteria. The control over the residual, the relative dierence of two
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Fig. 1. BTM-elliptic grids, m 37, s
d
10
3
, s
r
10
3
, s
o
10
4
.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Fig. 2. MHM-elliptic grids, m 11, s
d
10
3
, s
r
10
3
, s
o
10
4
.
24 C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527
consecutive iterations and the control of the orthogonality at the boundary
have been used to evaluate the results. The specic values of the used tolerance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 3. BTM-elliptic grids, m 8, s
d
10
3
, s
r
10
3
, s
o
10
2
.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 4. MHM-elliptic grids, m 5, s
d
10
3
, s
r
10
3
, s
o
10
2
.
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Fig. 5. BTM-elliptic grids, m 31, s
d
10
3
, s
r
10
4
, s
o
10
3
.
C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527 25
(s
d
, s
r
, s
o
respectively) and the iteration numbers m, spent to reach all the three
assigned tolerance values balancing smoothness and orthogonality requests,
are given in the captions of Figs. 18.
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Fig. 6. MHM-elliptic grids, m 10, s
d
10
3
, s
r
10
4
, s
o
10
3
.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 7. BTM-elliptic grids, m 20, s
d
10
3
, s
r
10
3
, s
o
0:83 10
3
.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fig. 8. MHM-elliptic grids, m 14, s
d
10
3
, s
r
10
3
, s
o
0:83 10
3
.
26 C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527
6. Conclusions
Grid generation is a fundamental step in the numerical solution of PDEs.
We believe that coupling advanced algebraic methods with elliptic generation
leads to advantages in achieving grid properties. The algebraicelliptic algo-
rithm presented in this paper provides grids with balanced boundary orthog-
onality and smoothness by a reduced number of smoothing iterations.
Algorithm performances, since promising, suggest several development direc-
tions. Open investigations deal with both geometric extensions to volume or
surface generation and enlarging computational capabilities to multiblock or
multigrid computation.
References
[1] C. Conti, R. Morandi, D. Scaramelli, Using discrete uniformity property in a mixed algebraic
method, Mathematics and Computer in Simulation, in press.
[2] C. Conti, R. Morandi, D. Scaramelli, An automatic control point choice in algebraic
numerical grid generation, in: J. Levesly, I.J. Anderson, J.C. Mason, (Eds.), Algorithms for
Approximation IV, 2002, pp. 28.
[3] C. Conti, R. Morandi, D. Scaramelli, R.M. Spitaleri, Algebraicelliptic grid generation
achieving boundary orthogonality, in: B.K. Soni, J. Chawner, P.R. Eisemamn, J. Haeuser, K.
Nakahashi, F.J. Thompson, N.P. Weatherill (Eds.), Numerical Grid Generation in Compu-
tational Field Simulations, ISGG, MS, USA, 2002, pp. 425433.
[4] P.R. Eiseman, High level continuity for coordinate generation with precise controls, J.
Comput. Phys. 47 (1982) 352374.
[5] P.R. Eiseman, Control point grid generation, Comput. Math. Appl. 5/6 (24) (1992) 5767.
[6] W.J. Gordon, L.C. Thiel, Transnite mappings and their application to grid generation, in:
J.F. Thompson (Ed.), Numerical Grid Generation, 1982, pp. 171192.
[7] A. Khamayseh, A. Kuprat, C.W. Mastin, Boundary orthogonality in elliptic grid generation,
in: J.F. Thompson, B.K. Soni, N.P. Weatherill (Eds.), Handbook of Grid Generation, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1999.
[8] P. Knupp, S. Steinberg, Fundamentals of Grid Generation, CRC Press, 1994.
[9] V.D. Liseikin, Grid Generation Methods, Springer, 1999.
[10] R. Morandi, A. Sestini, Precise controls in numerical grid generation, in: F. Fontanella, K.
Jetter, P.J. Laurent (Eds.), Advanced Topics in Multivariate Approximation, 1996, pp. 243
258.
[11] R.M. Spitaleri, Computational and visual advances in multigrid grid generation, Appl. Numer.
Math. 30 (1999) 141152.
[12] R.M. Spitaleri, Full-FAS multigrid grid generation algorithms, Appl. Numer. Math. 32 (2000)
483494.
[13] R.M. Spitaleri, A scientic computing environment for dierential eld simulation, Math.
Comput. Simul. 2 (63) (2003) 7991.
[14] J.F. Thompson, B.K. Soni, N.P. Weatherill (Eds.), Handbook of Grid Generation, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida, 1999.
C. Conti et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 162 (2005) 1527 27