[deal.II] Re: constraining solution in a part of the domain

Dear Anup, You'll probably just have to manually add entries to your ConstraintMatrix using add_line and set_inhomogeneity

Re: [deal.II] Re: mesh quality during deformations using MappingQEulerian

Hi Tom, Its great that you're getting somewhere with this! I have taken some good advice from Oded (it turns out we work one building > over from each other!), > What a happy coincidence :-) > I'm trying hard to maintain the MappingQEulerian approach in my current > model setup, and I want

Re: [deal.II] Accesing cell from cell index

Dear Pelteret, I'm sorry to have bothered you... I should have been more considerate before asking something. Thank you. Kyusik. -- 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 t

[deal.II] constraining solution in a part of the domain

Hello all, I am solving a heat equation and want to constrain solution to its initial values only in a *part of the domain*, and in rest of the part want to solve the equation. I would be thankful if someone could suggest a way to do this in dealii. Thanks and regards, Anup. -- The deal.II

Re: [deal.II] what to do with Neumann term in week formulation when applying Periodic Boundary Condition

Dear Prof. Bangerth, Thank you very much for your reply. I got your points. Regards, Anup. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 11/30/2016 03:26 PM, Anup Basak wrote: > >> >> Let us consider an 1D domain with periodic BC applied on both ends. Then >> it is clear f

Re: [deal.II] what to do with Neumann term in week formulation when applying Periodic Boundary Condition

On 11/30/2016 03:26 PM, Anup Basak wrote: Let us consider an 1D domain with periodic BC applied on both ends. Then it is clear from your reply that the gradient terms have equal and opposite contribution in the weak form and they just vanish. In homogeneous Neumann BC also these terms do not par

Re: [deal.II] what to do with Neumann term in week formulation when applying Periodic Boundary Condition

Dear Prof. Bangerth, I am also solving a similar problem. But I have a query from your last reply. Let us consider an 1D domain with periodic BC applied on both ends. Then it is clear from your reply that the gradient terms have equal and opposite contribution in the weak form and they just vanis

[deal.II] Re: deal.ii from candi

2nd answer to Dirk as reference: Hej Dirk, I see now your real problem, you should not force to download parmetis within petsc - this is not supported in the way you do this by candi - (it may pick another mpi-compiler and forces your problem) Please change your petsc options in the file ./can

Re: [deal.II] what to do with Neumann term in week formulation when applying Periodic Boundary Condition

On 11/30/2016 10:38 AM, Hamed Babaei wrote: I am considering Periodic Boundary Condition for a problem which is very simillar to step-25. Before applying periodic condition, I considered homogeneous Newmann Boundary condition in external surfaces by simply omitting Neumann term in week formulati

[deal.II] Re: deal.ii from candi

Just an idea: parmetis is disabled for some reason by default in candi, this can be changed by enabling: PACKAGES="${PACKAGES} once:parmetis" (no # in front) in the file candi.cfg Maybe this helps. On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 8:02:59 PM UTC+1, Luca Heltai wrote: > > Ciao Dirk, > > unfort

Re: [deal.II] Accesing cell from cell index

Dear Kyusik, Two points: 1. Please create a new thread for a new question. Even though yours might be related to this one, this question has been asked and answered and its definitely tangential to the discussion here. 2. You have asked a question wanting general commentary on code that you hav

[deal.II] Re: deal.ii from candi

Ciao Dirk, unfortunately not. I’m forwarding your mail to the mailing list. Maybe someone there has a better idea… L. > On 29 Nov 2016, at 19:19, Dirk Peschka wrote: > > > Hey Luca, > > duing the petsc compilation, when making mumps, I get some strange > errors and the installation fails.

[deal.II] Re: what to do with Neumann term in week formulation when applying Periodic Boundary Condition

Another Point I would like to mention is that I checked constant values for neumann_value( for example, 0.7) and the solver converges. So I think problem comes from the way I compute neumann_value from old_solution. I has followed step-7, in which non-homogeneous Neumann boundary values are app

[deal.II] what to do with Neumann term in week formulation when applying Periodic Boundary Condition

Hi all, I am considering Periodic Boundary Condition for a problem which is very simillar to step-25. Before applying periodic condition, I considered homogeneous Newmann Boundary condition in external surfaces by simply omitting Neumann term in week formulation (v , n.grad(u) )=0. However, si

Re: [deal.II] Re: mesh quality during deformations using MappingQEulerian

J-P, I have taken some good advice from Oded (it turns out we work one building over from each other!), and I started using Cubit to smooth my meshes. Cubit requires a license but it does seem to have some usage within the dealii community, so I hope whatever comes out of this is useful for somebo

[deal.II] Re: MPI problem with petsc-3.7.4

I'm now using MPICH and Intel compiler 2017. Everything works perfectly fine. Thanks to everyone ;) Best regards, S. A. Mohseni -- 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

Re: [deal.II] Compilation error

I installed gcc 4.8 (which has c++11) and recompiled everything using it, so I shouldn't have to bug you with the compilation errors anymore =) On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 13:18:17 UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > > Lev, > > > when trying to compile the newest version of dealII, I get a bunc

Re: [deal.II] Re: MPI problem with petsc-3.7.4

2016-11-30 2:40 GMT-05:00 seyedali88 via deal.II User Group : > Can you tell me which one is faster, MPICH or OpenMPI? I choose Intel MPI, > because I assumed it is the fastest available. Googled about it, but the > opinions about it are random. There are no difference. That's not where your code s