Re: [deal.II] Doubt with set_boundary_id()

I am posting the error here. An error occurred in line <5594> of file in function void dealii::VectorTools::compute_nonzero_normal_flux_constraints(const DH&, unsigned int, const std::set&, typename dealii::FunctionMap::type&, dealii:

[deal.II] Neumann boundary condition for the curved domain

Dear All, I still have problem with implying boundary condition on the curved domain. consider we produce quarter of a ring in 2D with the function "quarter_hyper_shell" and want to impose Neumann boundary condition on the outer surface. In fact we have a force normal to this surface. The other

[deal.II] Re: Periodic boundary conditions seem to be not applied

Hamed, It's difficult to judge these kinds of problems just looking at the graphical output after solving. I would suggest you to look at the constraints in the ConstraintMatrix using ConstraintMatrix::print[1] for a mesh consisting of has few cells as possible. Using DoFTools::map_dofs_to_supp

[deal.II] Re: Periodic boundary conditions seem to be not applied

I just realized that the problem comes from that part of the code that applies relative displacement between bottom and top faces, since there is not corner element distortion when having u_x (0,y)=u_x(L,y)+delta_x and I uncomment the second part of the code namely, { IndexSet

[deal.II] Re: Periodic boundary conditions seem to be not applied

Dear Daniel, I have applied periodic boundary condition on displacement field for a square 2D domain and in order to apply boundary displacement I want to consider relative displacement between pair faces, namely, u_x (0,y)=u_x(L,y)+delta_x and u_y (x,0)=u_y(x,L)+delta_y , using "cons

Re: [deal.II] fe_function_values

Thanks Timo, I have managed to somehow make my code working, I now want to check whether the results make some sense. On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 5:57:23 PM UTC, Timo Heister wrote: > > Benard, > > the get_function_values is made to evaluate a finite element solution > at quadrature points

Re: [deal.II] fe_function_values

Thanks Thomas, I have managed to somehow make my code working, I now want to check whether the results make some sense. On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 3:06:01 PM UTC, thomas stephens wrote: > > Benard, (sorry for misspelling your name earlier) > > It's not clear to me whether or not you've solve

Re: [deal.II] fe_function_values

Thanks Bangerth, I have managed to somehow make my code working, I now want to check whether the results make some sense. On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 8:56:04 PM UTC, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > On 12/06/2016 12:02 PM, BENARD KIPCHUMBA wrote: > > > > My systems (matrices and vectors ) are

Re: [deal.II] Re: Problem with installation

Everything is fine now. I could compile netcdf in different directory and I pass this to cmake when I configure dealii. Now everything work fine. Thanks a lot. On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Turcksin wrote: > 2016-12-08 8:57 GMT-05:00 sudarshan kumar : > > I have complied netcdf in

Re: [deal.II] Re: Problem with installation

2016-12-08 8:57 GMT-05:00 sudarshan kumar : > I have complied netcdf in different directory and i pass the command > -DNETCDF_DIR=/path/to/netcdf to cmake when I configure dealii, but still > it search for the old directory and end up in error, Did you configure deal.II in a new directory

Re: [deal.II] Doubt with set_boundary_id()

On 12/07/2016 10:50 PM, RAJAT ARORA wrote: I am using deal.ii to solve a 3D solid mechanics problem which uses Parallel::Distributed::Triangulation. I have a question related to setting the boundary indicators on the triangulation when no automatic partitioning is allowed. To set the boundary

Re: [deal.II] Re: Problem with installation

I have complied netcdf in different directory and i pass the command -DNETCDF_DIR=/path/to/netcdf to cmake when I configure dealii, but still it search for the old directory and end up in error, Could you please resolve this? Thanks a lot On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Timo Heister

[deal.II] Re: general question

> > For 2D (plane strain, plane stress and axisymmetric) and 3D the 1.0/3.0 > should be used (not 1/dim). > Good point! Special consideration definitely must be made for the axisymmetric / plane stress / plane strain cases. Cheers, J-P -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.deali

[deal.II] Re: general question

Hi For 2D (plane strain, plane stress and axisymmetric) and 3D the 1.0/3.0 should be used (not 1/dim). Because for example for a 2D plane stress problem, strain_33 is not zero or for a 2D plane strain problem, stress_33 is not zero. Check the book by Neto and own: computational methods for pl

Re: [deal.II] deal.ii workflow?

Dear Michael, It could definitely be overwhelming if you dive straight into an advanced application using deal.II, and is certainly not advised! Your options for information resources are listed in this post . A general recommendatio