Hello Martin, On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Martin Kronbichler < kronbichler.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Praveen, > > > > The documentation says that GaussLobatto node-based FE_TraceQ will be > > implemented in future. Is there any estimate on when this will be > > available ? > The documentation is outdated. Indeed, FE_TraceQ is based on the nodes > of the Gauss-Lobatto quadrature formula. See the code in > source/fe/fe_trace.cc, constructor call. We somehow forgot to update the > documentation. I will open a pull request. > > This great to know. I will test this in my navier-stokes solver soon. > > In Interior Embedded DG (IEDG) scheme, you need trace spaces which are > > continuous on interior faces but discontinuous on boundary faces. Is > > there a plan to implement such a space in deal.II ? > Please help me understand your question: You want to have the behavior > of FE_TraceQ on interior faces and FE_FaceQ at the boundary? Having this > Yes. In IEDG, functions are continuous on the union of interior faces and discontinuous on the union of boundary faces. Here is a reference on IEDG methods 10.1016/j.jcp.2015.09.024 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.09.024> kind of distinction is not easily possible because of the way elements > are organized in deal.II. We logically assign degrees of freedom to the > vertices, edges, quads and hexes of the elements. In the case of > FE_TraceQ in 3D, linear functions live on vertices only, whereas for > quadratics and higher you also put nodes on the midpoints of edges and > the quads. For FE_FaceQ, we put all degrees of freedom on the quads, > even though the support points of linears is still at the vertex > location. This way, we get duplicated degrees of freedom. > > If you want to construct such a space, you will need to do some manual > labor: My suggestion would be that you build FE_FaceQ and then manually > find constraints that put the vertices (and edges in 3D) that sit on the > same physical position to the same degree of freedom. It should be > pretty straight-forward to do so. > That is a nice idea and it will achieve what I want. I have to completely eliminate the constrained dofs so that the global matrix size is reduced, which is the main reason for using EDG/IEDG instead of HDG. Thanks praveen -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dealii+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
