I hope you could explain me what could cause such a behavior in your
implementation that deal.II gives different values for duh although
the same postprocessor implementation is being used.
Is it because of the coupled formulation?
I really would think so. What you could do is to disable the phase-field
variable
such that you have in both codes really only elasticity and have a fair
comparison.
How do you do this?
You could erase in our code (Heister/Wick) all the phase-field (pf)
appearances in the solid
mechanics equations. Then the phase-field values do not enter any more
and led to wrong results with the fracture.
Best Thomas
Thank you for your help so far.
Kind regards,
Seyed Ali
--
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
<mailto:dealii+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
++--------------------------------------------++
Dr. Thomas Wick
Maitre de conferences / Assistant Professor
Centre de Mathematiques Appliquees (CMAP)
Ecole Polytechnique
91128 Palaiseau cedex, France
Email: thomas.w...@cmap.polytechnique.fr
Phone: 0033 1 69 33 4579
www: http://www.cmap.polytechnique.fr/~wick/
++--------------------------------------------++
--
--
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.
