[deal.II] Re: Trouble with VisIt 2.11

Praveen, It's hard to tell from your description what is causing the error. At least, Visit has some internal problems and if you can open with a previous version, chances are high that this is a Visit issue. Can you open the file with Paraview or any other suitable program? Can you provide us

[deal.II] Re: boundary conditions

Retired Replicant, What are you trying to model? What should H represent? In general it should not be a problem to mix Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions, but this depends on what are you trying to do. Best, Daniel -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing

[deal.II] Re: How to apply boundary values for a particular point on the boundary instead of the whole boundary surface

Tulio, If you want to prescribe Dirichlet boundary conditions on a part of the boundary of your domain, you can just set some boundary_id to the respective cell boundary faces[1] and call VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values[2]. The boundary_ids are inherited when you refine the mesh. If h

[deal.II] Re: boundary conditions

Retired Replicant, H can be hydraulic head and K is the hydraulic conductivity. > Or H can be temperature with k being diffusion coefficient. > Have a look at step-7, if you just consider a diffusion problem. There Neumann boundary conditions are used on part of the boundary which is also mathe

[deal.II] Re: boundary conditions

OK. So do I understand you correctly, that you are imposing Neumann boundary conditions on all *four* boundaries? In that case the solution is only unique up to a constant. It seems to my that in the problem I posed, the boundary condition is not > correct. > Can you be a bit more specific? How

[deal.II] Re: Error with the content "dealii::numbers::is_finite(sum)"

Benhour, are you running in serial or with more than one process? In the first case, I would suspect that your matrix is singular. Best, Daniel -- 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 --- Y

Re: [deal.II] Re: boundary conditions

> > so the uniform flux from left and right of the rectangle implies periodic > boundary condition. But the K ( hydraulic conductivity) is a function of > (x,y). > If we want to enforce the periodic boundary condition, should we expect to > have a condition on K ? should K be periodic as well f

[deal.II] Re: computing some other output quantity after solution is calculated.

Kyusik, //by Han(To get psi0) > Vector::iterator max; > max=std::max_element(solution.begin(),solution.end()); > This can only work if you know that the maximum is attained at one of the support_points of your FiniteElement. In general, you can use VectorTools::integrate_difference to find

[deal.II] Re: computing some other output quantity after solution is calculated.

Kyusik, > I defined Function for right_hand_side. > > template > double RightHandSide::value (const Point &p, > const double psi, > const double psi_max, > const unsigned int /*component*/) const > { > double rhs; > rhs = p(0)*psi+psi_max/p(1); >

Re: [deal.II] computing some other output quantity after solution is calculated.

Kyusik, [...] > 3. I calculated l2 norm > Difference = solution; > Difference -= exact_solution; > norm = Difference.l2norm(); > > But, according to what you mentioned, I calculated l2norm of U_i-U_i_exact > not l2norm of u_h(x)-u_h_exact(x) > Yes, this gives you the l2-norm of U_i-U_i_exact

[deal.II] Re: Extra layer around mesh

Joel, I have code that runs fine with periodic boundary condition for > a GridGenerator::parallelepiped. Also when I change the mesh to > a GridGenerator::subdivided_parallelepiped and has only 1 as > n_subdivisions, it also works. But when I change it to 2, I get the > following error: > [...

[deal.II] Re: Extra layer around mesh

Joel, I don't get any errors running a recent developer version. Try to replace the deprecated version of DoFTools::make_periodicity_constraints! Exemplarily, this would be std::vector::cell_iterator > > periodic_faces; GridTools::collect_periodic_faces(dof_handler,0,1,0,periodic_faces,off

[deal.II] Re: hp convergence for non-linear solver.

Jaekwang, [...] > > VectorTools::integrate_difference > (dof_handler,solution,Solution(), > >difference_per_cell > *,QGauss(degree+**2**)*,VectorTools::L2_norm); > somegthing that immediately comes to mind is that you don't use a non-default Mapping i

[deal.II] Re: Extra layer around mesh

Joel, Same error with your changes. I searched for subdivided in > http://www.dealii.org/developer/doxygen/deal.II/changes_between_8_3_and_8_4.html > > and found under specific improvements, that subdivided_parallelepiped > produced the wrong boundary indicators. Could this be the reason, why

[deal.II] Re: Visit error...?

Kyusik, Am Donnerstag, 3. November 2016 10:51:20 UTC+1 schrieb hank...@gmail.com: > > Hi all, > > I'm trying to calculate absolute values of (exact_solution - > numeric_solution) and visualize it using Visit. > > So, I added the following in my code. > > error = solution; > error -= exact_solut

[deal.II] Re: Function to output stress and strain

Lisa, I solved a problem using deal ii and now in the out put step I have problem > exporting nodal stress and strain values. > in each cell I can calculate stress and strains at Gauss points but I > don't know how to calculate the stress and strains at nodes because they > are not continues. >

Re: [deal.II] Re: Convergence problem arising for large number of DoFs

Hamed, I have a quick question for you. I was wondering if the system_matrix of > the sequential code should be exactly the same as parallel on for the same > problem condition. > I mean if my sequential code is solved by SolverCG and SSOR > preconditioner, the parallel one should necessarily b

Re: [deal.II] Meshworker

Sudarshan, > In the following function I need to get the cell iterator of the > corresponding cell. > > void Step12::integrate_face_term (DoFInfo& dinfo1, DoFInfo& dinfo2, > { CellInfo& > info1, CellInfo& info2) > > typename DoFHandler::ce

Re: [deal.II] Meshworker

Sudarshan, there is a Triangulation::cell_iterator and a DoFHandler::cell_iterator and dinfo1.cell returns the first one while you are asking for the first one. Maybe have a look at [1] for the difference between the two. What exactly do you need the cell_iterator for? Best, Daniel [1] https:/

Re: [deal.II] Re: Convergence problem arising for large number of DoFs

Hamed, Thanks for your help. I can reduce my problem to four 2D elements. I would > like to plot the system_matrix of sequential and parallel codes to compare > them but I am not sure how to do so. > Can I loop over the elements of system_matrix and simply plot them? > All of the matrix classes

Re: [deal.II] Re: Convergence problem arising for large number of DoFs

Hamed, Using the print function of Sparsematrix class (Thanks to Daniel for > letting me know that) I printed the elements of system_matrix for both > sequential and parallel codes. > I reduced the problem to only 54 DoFs. It seems that both system_matrices > are symmetric and Identical except

[deal.II] Question on Vectortools::integrate_difference.

Jarkwang, Quadrature points and support points only coincide in special cases. In particular, this not true for Gauss quadrature of order fe_degree+1 and FE_Q elements. When computing errors, you often want to avoid superconvergence effects and hence use a quadrature rule different from the on

[deal.II] Re: storing sparse matrix in .txt and scan in Matlab

Anup, > >> 1. if the way of writing the sparse matrix on a .txt file is appropriate >> for post-processing in matlab, if not, please suggest >> a way; >> > > There are three print functions in the deal.II SparseMatrix. As explained > in the documentation >

[deal.II] Re: Very basic question on setting boundary id

Jaekwang, It seems that you are missing constraints.distribute(solution); after solving the linear system. The constrained dofs are set to zero during assembly and this call is necessary to get the correct values for these in the solution as well. You might want to have a look at https://www.de

[deal.II] Re: Periodic Boundary Condition

Hamed, Am Dienstag, 15. November 2016 19:09:18 UTC+1 schrieb Hamed Babaei: > > Hi all, > > Following step-45, I am going to implement periodic boundary condition on > my code for a Thermo-elastic problem, in which the thermal and elastic > parts are solved separately (I have two different dof_ha

[deal.II] Re: hp HDG in deal.II

Samuel, I am attempting to implement a hp hybridized dg-method for solving > ellipctic problems in deal.II. I am relying on steps 27 and 51 of the > deal.II tutorial programs. However, when I try to group some FE_FaceQ > elements in an hp::FeCollection and distribute the degrees of freedom, I

[deal.II] Re: meshworker getting gradient values

Sudarshan, template > void Step12::integrate_cell_term (DoFInfo& dinfo, CellInfo& info) > { >const FEValuesBase& fe_v = info.fe_values(); >const std::vector>& grad = info.gradients[0][0]; > } > > When I call grad[0][0] it gives segmentation fault. > It seems that you didn't tell yo

[deal.II] Re: Periodic Boundary Condition

Hamed, Let me ask a more specific question. I was wondering how to apply any sort > of constraints ( that may be periodic BC or so) in an assembly function > like mine in which some manipulations is done on mass_matrix and > laplase_matrix. > Following some posts in forum I found I can use void

[deal.II] Re: Periodic boundary condition in Meshworker.

Sudarshan, J-P is right. You can use constraints within the MeshWorker framework and hence also periodic boundary conditions. In more detail, you have to provide the assembler with the ConstraintMatrix. In addition to step-45 for periodic boundary conditions, you should also have a look to step-

[deal.II] Re: Periodic Boundary Condition

Hamed, As you can see my assembly in the first post, my system_matrix and > system_rhs are not made directly from cell_system_matrix or > cell_system_rhs, but they are the result of some manipulations on > mass_matrix, laplase_matrix and nl_matrix (the same approach as step_25) > that have alr

[deal.II] Re: Move vertices in P::D::Triangulation

Rajat, 1. After the p:d:triangulation is created and > triangulation.global_refine(2) is used, the locally owned cells on each > mesh will divide in 2^dim elements each but does that also mean that the > ghost cells or artificial cells on each processor also gets refined ? > All ghost cells lo

[deal.II] Re: Meshworker

Sudarshan, template > void Step12::integrate_face_term (DoFInfo& dinfo1, DoFInfo& dinfo2, >CellInfo& info1, CellInfo& > info2) > { >const FEValuesBase& fe_v = info1.fe_values(); >const FEValuesBase& fe_v_neighbor = info2.fe_values(); >

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

Hamed, [...] > I am going to do the same as Bastian, namely periodic boundary condition > for displacement such that u( 0, y ) = u( 1, y ) + *lambda ,* > * so I used the recommended above code by Bastian for applying > inhomogenity to predefined periodicity, in order to have reletive > dispac

[deal.II] Re: Meshworker

Sudarshan, When I am at the face I need the solution at the interior quadrature > points as well. However from dinfo1.indices we could get the the dof > indices for the cell1. But is it possible to get the shape value at the > interior quadrature points ? > You can of course work aro

[deal.II] Re: Problems with hanging nodes and "distribute_local_to_global"

Heinrich, The way constraints are resolved in deal.II is as follows (related to *M. S. Shephard: Linear multipoint constraints applied via transformation as part of a direct stiffness assembly process. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engrg., vol. 20 (1984), pp. 2107-2112.*): You have a linear system Ax=b

[deal.II] Re: problem in periodic boundary condition

Anup, I am trying to implement the periodic boundary condition for a nonlinear > parabolic equation (scalar). > I have considered a *parallelepiped *as shown in the attached pdf. I want > to impose periodic > BC at x=0 and x=w surfaces. I have used an offset vector as appearing in > the piece o

[deal.II] Re: problem in periodic boundary condition

s from a .prm file. > > Thanks, > Anup. > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 9:52:40 AM UTC-6, Anup Basak wrote: >> >> Hello Daniel, >> >> Thanks for your reply and help. I am attaching a part of the code >> herewith. >> >> Thanks and regards, >

[deal.II] Re: problem in periodic boundary condition

Anup, Looking at the resulting mesh after using grid_y_transform, the mesh is still rectangular. Therefore, it is not surprising that make_periodicity_constraints works without offset, but not with: Tensor<1, dim> offset; offset[dim-1] = width*tan_theta*scale; GridTools::collect_periodic_faces(

[deal.II] Re: Distorted cell when it is crated by gmsh

Kyusik, [...] > Additional Information: > The input data for creating a triangulation contained information about a > line with indices 272 and 100that is supposed to have boundary indicator . > However, this is an internal line not located on the boundary. You cannot > assign a boundary indica

[deal.II] Re: How to apply non-homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions when we do not have exact solution

Hamed, What you are doing in your code resembles something similar to a Picard iteration step for the term (v,(n\cdot\nabla u)u) Neumann boundary values mean that you want to enforce n\cdot\nabla u=g on the boundary where g is known. Typically, you do this in a finite element approach in a wea

[deal.II] Re: How to apply non-homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions when we do not have exact solution

Hamed, What you are doing in your code resembles something similar to a Picard iteration step for the term (v, n\cdot\nabla u) Neumann boundary values mean that you want to enforce n\cdot\nabla u=g on the boundary where g is known. Typically, you do this in a finite element approach in a weak

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

Hamed, Let consider a situation when we don't want to apply Neumann BC at all, > namely, we do not want to eliminate the Neumann term, (v, n.grad(u)), > considering zero value for that or we do not have a known g function to > consider (v, n.grad(u))=g. In this case, how we can include the Neum

[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: Tensor output via ConditionalOStream pcout

Dear S. A. Mohseni, I found these definitions within symmetric_tensor.h. How can I access them? > They seem to allow output for my case. > [...] > You would just use the << operator, i.e. pcout << tensor Best, Daniel -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list

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

Hamed, [...] > >4,5___6,7 > | | > | | > | | > |

[deal.II] Re: Tensor output via ConditionalOStream pcout

Dear S.A. Mohseni, There is no need to duplicate code. ;-) FullMatrix also has a print function[1] and its implementation[2] is more or less identical to what you are doing. Best, Daniel [1] https://www.dealii.org/8.4.1/doxygen/deal.II/classFullMatrix.html#a6427bd9b23b03c590b9881c7dc551552 [2

[deal.II] Re: deal.II FE structure

> > For a rectangular bilinear lagrange element we define two parameters "a" > and "b". They define the width b and height a of the rectangle within > physical coordinates. The Jacobian matrix, B-operator, stiffness matrix > etc. can all be computed then using this special case formulas. 1 and

[deal.II] Re: Workstream, number threads

Praveen, unsigned int n_threads = 1; > > Utilities::MPI::MPI_InitFinalize mpi_initialization (argc, argv, > n_threads); > > > But when I run this code, each process is using 1700% of CPU. The code > does not progress in its iterations also. What am I doing wrong ? > This looks correct. Can you v

[deal.II] Re: How to shift a ConstraintMatrix that initialized with IndexSet?

Ce Qin, Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2016 02:46:05 UTC+1 schrieb Ce Qin: > > Dear all, > > I want to build a 2x2 block matrix, while all blocks are built from a > smaller DoFHandler. I need to generate 2 ConstraintMatrix and shift one > of them, then merge them together. In the source code, Timo Hei

Re: [deal.II] Re: How to shift a ConstraintMatrix that initialized with IndexSet?

Ce Qin, I don't immediately see a reason why shifting local_lines in ConstraintMatrix::shift should cause problems as long as the IndexSet you initialize the ConstraintMatrix objects with accounts for all DoFs. What happens if you just remove that assertion? Best, Daniel -- The deal.II projec

Re: [deal.II] Re: How to shift a ConstraintMatrix that initialized with IndexSet?

Ce Qin, Removing the assertion works, but it will cause a problem. Since the > ConstraintMatrix internally uses local_lines to determine the position of > a ConstraintLine, we can not insert new line or query an existing line > anymore. > The attached examples works for me as far as I can tell.

Re: [deal.II] Re: How to shift a ConstraintMatrix that initialized with IndexSet?

Thank you for pointing out this problem. I'll create a PR. Best, Daniel Am Dienstag, 3. Januar 2017 04:07:44 UTC+1 schrieb Ce Qin: > > Dear Daniel, > > It works now. I made a mistake before. Thank you for your help. > > Best, > Ce Qin > > 2017-01-02 23:35 GMT+08

[deal.II] Re: p::d::SolutionTransfer::interpolate fails with LA::distributed::Vector's in the specific case

Denis, Do you have a minimal working example that shows this problem? Some ideas: Can you confirm that the output vector you are using is "clean" in the sense that there are no spurious ghost values before handing it to interpolate? In other words: Does output.zero_out_ghosts() or output=0. hel

[deal.II] Re: Periodic Boundary Condition

Hamed, [...] > However, to be able to use ConstraintMatrix::distribute_local_to_global, I > can assemble system_matrix in local level instead of global level. Having > that said, I can not do so for the system_rhs because solution and > old_solution vectors are global vectors. > You can obtai

[deal.II] Re: Periodic Boundary Condition

Hamed, [...] > Considering for example the term [*M*+k*theta**A*]**U* in my right-hand > side, since the mass matrix(M) and laplace matrix(A) in the local level > have the size of *dofs_per_cell * dofs_per_cell* I need to have a local > solution vector to multiply with them. However, > FEVal

Re: [deal.II] Boundary ID in a parallel distributed triangulation & Neumann boundary conditions

Seyed, *Hidden question: Why can you respond to my recent post, although I deleted > it a while ago since I solved my problem already shortly afterwards?* > If you are subscribed to this group, you get an email for each post and you can just answer that mail. Since you deleted the topic a new to

[deal.II] Re: Tensor Output

Ehsan, 1- As far as I tested and understood, when we write data_out.add_data_vector > (solver.solution, Ur); we pass a solution vector which has > dof_handler.n_dofs() members to add_data_vector and then inside > compute_derived_quantities_vector method when I print uh the values > relate to t

[deal.II] Re: Tensor Output

Ehsan, In my code first I calculate displacements (uh) then in each cell at the > q_points I calculate S_xx, S_xy, S_yy stress components and project them to > the nodes and with a averaging method calculate stress nodal values. > > Now I want to calculate stress components in polar coordinates.

[deal.II] Re: Strain tensor and displacement gradients

> > Using the postprocessor approach according to step-33 I have computed the > strain tensor successfully by means of the > Postprocessor::compute_derived_quantities_vector function and its > displacement gradient duh. > > Unfortunately, within an arbitrary function called right after I solve

[deal.II] Re: Strain tensor and displacement gradients

> > [...] > This means everything we do in DataPostprocessor is evaluated directly in > the mapped Gauss points which is actually the reason why we use this > postprocessor approach. We want to map the solution of quantities stored on > the Gauss points to the physical nodes, so we can visualiz

[deal.II] Re: How to use Triangulation::communicate_locally_moved_vertices() to get a consistent mesh

Pasha, [...] > It works fine when using one CPU, however, the mesh is not consistent for > a parallel run with more CPUs. How and where I can use > Triangulation::communicate_locally_moved_vertices() to solve this issue? > You would use Triangulation::communicate_locally_moved_vertices [1] dire

[deal.II] Re: Postprocessing using the same variable twice

> > Is it possible to output the magnitude of displacements and its components > all together? > > std::vector > data_component_interpretation(dim, DataComponentInterpretation:: > component_is_part_of_vector); > > The above allows me to output the displacements as a vector field and > shows one

[deal.II] Re: Assemble system with variational right hand side

Jaekwang, > [...] > My governing equation is same with that of step-22, stokes flow > -nabla^2 u + grad p = f > -grad u = 0 > but I want to impose 'f', > To do this, I made function that gives me f value on each point. > For example, if I want function of f thats looks like f=(x^2,y^2); >

[deal.II] Re: Assembly of material forces

Seyed, What exactly are you trying to do? Which equations are you considering? How would what you want to do look in formulas? The information you provide are much too high-level to expect a useful answer. [...] > Conclusion: It would be great, if you can at least guide me to the correct > dir

[deal.II] Re: Assembly of material forces

Seyed, There is a vector called cell_cf for instance. It contains all integrated > material forces (summed up material forces from integration points) for > each cell. Each cell has 4 vertices and 8 DoFs in 2D. Hence, it has to be a > 8x1 vector. > [...] > Now imagine you have this vector which

[deal.II] Re: Source of a constant residual error when a triangulation has hanging nodes

Pasha, I have a code that works fine. Now, I am working to change the code > structure to use “workstream”. The new code works fine without adaptive > refinement. However, when the mesh is refined and the triangulation has > hanging node, a constant residual error remains during Newton iteratio

[deal.II] Re: Source of a constant residual error when a triangulation has hanging nodes

Pasha, > I checked the the system residual assembly process. For a triangulation > with 28 cells, the dof index 17 is belong to cells 2, 5, 8 and 27. The > corresponding cell_rhs values for this index are, > > > cellcell_rhs value > > 22.88462e+00 > > 52.88462e+

[deal.II] Re: neighboring faces on the boundary

Erik, you might want to have a look at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/dealii/wG6aJdXHweA/IcsUjxj5dFsJ Basically, I would loop through all the neighbors recursively only considering cells that have a vertex with the face you are looking for in common. You can access the DoFs on faces just as fo

Re: [deal.II] Re: How to shift a ConstraintMatrix that initialized with IndexSet?

Ce Qin, This finally made its way into the developer version via PR #3722 . The approach we finally came up with is to also shift the local indices when shifting the ConstraintMatrix objects.[1] Merging two ConstraintMatrix objects also merges the lo

[deal.II] Re: Synchronization issue for parallel computation of material forces

Seyed, your results look like the ghost values are wrong. My first guess would be that you are still using a completely distributed vector (one initialized with locally_owned_dofs only) instead of a ghosted one (initialized with locally_owned_dofs and locally_relevant_dofs). Can you confirm tha

[deal.II] Re: neighboring faces on the boundary

> > We actually already have a function that can do 1/2 the job for you, > namely GridTools:: compute_active_cell_halo_layer > . > > In this instance your predicate would be whether the inpu

[deal.II] Re: Exec format error when using mpirun -n 2 ./parameters_sneddon_2d.prm

Qing, > I am a new deal.ii user. I am trying to follow the "readme.md" to run the > example by command line /$ mpirun -n 2 ./parameters_sneddon_2d.prm > This looks like you try to execute a parameter file instead of passing a parameter file to an executable that is launched via mpirun, i.e. yo

[deal.II] Re: Matrix tools in MatrixCreator namespace

Sumedh, I want to use the *create_mass_matrix* and *create_laplace_matrix* > functionality of MatrixCreator namespace. The function prototype here > requires to pass a pointer (which is by default 0 meaning that there is no > variable coefficient associated with variable or laplace of variable)

[deal.II] Re: installation problem

Dip, i don't know how to change the default installation directoryit always > uses the /usr/local/ path...any easy tutorial will be of great help.. > from the deal.II README[1] in section 2.2: [...] cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/path/to/install/dir ../deal.II [...] Best, Daniel [1] http://

[deal.II] Re: Access specific element within a distributed triangulation

Seyed, What I understood so far is, that the Utilities::MPI::max() function > computes the maximum between all processors for each row of my vector. This > means if I have a vector of 20 entries, each entry has 8 values distributed > on 8 cores for instance. As a result, I get 20 maximum values

[deal.II] Re: Access specific element within a distributed triangulation

Seyed, Thank you. Does your approach also apply to MPICH? Since I am using MPICH, > I wonder, if this command can be used there also. > This struct variable, is there an example within deal.II steps? Or do you > have an example in C++ I can learn from. > Since MPICH is (at least) MPI-1.1 confor

[deal.II] Re: Access specific element within a distributed triangulation

Seyed, > But is it necessary to #include ? > Since deal.II won't recognize functions such as MPI_Comm_rank > (MPI_COMM_WORLD, > &myrank) for instance or MPI_Reduce. > Is it implemented in Utilities::MPI::something ? > If you are usi

[deal.II] Re: Question regarding P:D:Tria

Rajat, I am using the GridGenerator::hyper_rectangle function to create a > rectangular grid with 1000 X 500 X 1 (0.5 million) elements. > > My question is: - since the coarsest mesh contains 0.5 million elements, > does that mean all the processors have 0.5 million elements? > (I think the ans

[deal.II] Re: MeshWorker clarifications

Franco, First of all, I have read this question > , > > and I read that MeshWorker is sort of abandoned: > > the issue with MeshWorker is that when it was implemented, we didn't write

[deal.II] Re: Access specific element within a distributed triangulation

Seyed, after having just a quick glance over your approach there seem to be some more issues you can easily stumble upon: - n_vertices() only gives you the number of vertices for one process, not the global one. In particular, you can't rely on the fact that this is the same for all processes.

[deal.II] Re: MeshWorker clarifications

Franco, on the first glance your code looks good. Can you reduce the size of your problem to a single cell? Is there still a difference then? Best, Daniel Am Mittwoch, 8. März 2017 13:04:01 UTC+1 schrieb Franco Milicchio: > > I have made available the snippet for this example here >

[deal.II] Re: How to compute Nédélec gradient

I'm solving a 2D problem on quadrilateral cartesian mesh using FE_Q(1) > elements. > I would like to compute the gradient of the bilinear solution, known to > belong to the FE_Nedelec(0) space: how can I manage to do it? > For visualizing the gradient of discrete solution, you have multiple o

[deal.II] Re: How to compute Nédélec gradient

> Unfortunately, visualizing is not enough to my purposes. I need the > tangential component of the gradient at the mesh faces to perform a > post-processing phase where I compute some relevant quantities to be used > later in solving a different problem. > In general, you can create a quadrat

[deal.II] Re: New: step-57

Jack, Is it possible to extend your code to time dependent Navier-Stokes >> equations? >> >> I want to solve the unsteady Navier-Stokes equations using the >> *Vector-Valued* method, but I did not get any good idea from the >> tutorial examples (step-22, step-32, etc.) for Stokes flow. >> > The

[deal.II] Re: Avoid holding matrices in vector for MeshWorker

Franco, You are right that there is no matrix assembler class that accepts an AnyData object. I have seen that MeshWorker with the MatrixSimple assembler has an > initialize member that needs a vector of matrices. However that isn't > really good for my case, as I'd like to assign ownership of

[deal.II] Re: fe_enriched and step-47

David, > Hopefully someone get to finish step-47 with XFEM. I am really interested > in digging there and I put it on my own TODO list. > I don't know if Wolfgang, the author of the tutorial, plan to finish it. > Maybe we can team up here. > step-47 seems to be completed in the paper On the im

[deal.II] Re: Inhomogeneous Dirichlet bounday conditions with Raviart-Thomas (RT) elements

Sumedh, I intend to use RT elements for my fluid flow problem and the test case > (2D) is shear flow. Consequently the I need to apply constant shear/sliding > velocity (u_x = shear_velocity, u_y = 0) at top and bottom boundaries and > velocities of form u_y = 0, u_x = y*shear_velocity for the

[deal.II] Re: Finite Element Method for Two Phase Flow

Sumedh, In my project I am modeling two-phase flow using phase-field model (an > interface capturing method). Now I am done with first draft of my code and > I am facing the well-known issue of 'spurious currents in two-phase flow > using FEM' (paper 1 >

[deal.II] Re: Unable to download dealii-8.4.1 for Mac

Ana, I can't confirm your problem. Downloading works without issues. What browser are you using? Do you get any warnings? Best, Daniel Am Samstag, 8. April 2017 16:39:34 UTC+2 schrieb Ana Marija: > > Hi, > > For a few days I am unable to download installation for MAC, it always > fails around

Re: [deal.II] Re: Meshworker in dim=2, spacedim = 3

Andrea, This should be fixed upstream now. Have a look at PR #4265 [1]. Best, Daniel [1] https://github.com/dealii/dealii/pull/4265 -- 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

Re: [deal.II] Bug? - FETools::extrapolate changes behavior in 8.5

Winni, This should be fixed upstream now. Have a look at PR #4256 [1]. Best, Daniel [1] https://github.com/dealii/dealii/pull/4256 -- 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

[deal.II] Re: QProjector::project_to_face and Gauss Lobatto

vganpat, I am trying to solve a problem that has both the volume integral and a > surface integral. > You would normally just create a quadrature rule for the volume and the surface integral separately. > If I am using a higher order polynomial approximation and use Gauss > Lobatto quadratu

Re: [deal.II] Re: imposing boundary conditions for a three-fields formulation

Alberto, Now I understand your concern. The boolean flag that is passed as the final > parameter to MatrixTools::apply_boundary_values > > > determines whether column elimination is perfo

Re: [deal.II] fixing one component of solution to the same value

Rajat, What is happening here is that you try to create constraints that include DoFs that are not element of the IndexSet you provided to the DynamicSparsityPattern object. Therefore, all the entries for your "fixed" DoF are ignored if it is not already part of the locally relevant DoFs. Have

Re: [deal.II] fixing one component of solution to the same value

Rajat, It seems that I confused lines and did not express in the code what I wrote above: You have to add that additional index also when initializing the sparsity pattern, i.e. std::cout << " constraints printed "

[deal.II] Re: Compilation fail with dealii 8.5.0 from Docker

Ashkan, I tried to compile my application with the new dealii 8.5.0 but it fails. > > In my program I user distributed triangulation and I get the error > > error: no matching function for call to > ‘dealii::parallel::distributed::Triangulation<2>::Triangulation(ompi_communicator_t*&, > > deali

[deal.II] Re: method/function from Triangulation class that returns a vertex

Bhanu, Am Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2017 12:08:52 UTC+2 schrieb Bhanu Teja: > > Dear dealii developers/users > > is there a method/function from Triangulation class that returns the > vertex given its global_index? > There is "Triangulation::get_vertices"[1] which returns a std::vector to all vertice

Re: [deal.II] AssertDimension (partition_blocks[partition], task_info.n_blocks) when calling MatrixFree::reinit() for finest level in GMG

Denis, this is solved by https://github.com/dealii/dealii/pull/4376, isn't it? -- 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 G

[deal.II] Re: Crack propagation

Jack, have a look at https://github.com/tjhei/cracks Best, Daniel Am Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 07:57:06 UTC+2 schrieb Jack: > > Hi S. A. Mohseni, > > I'm also interested on the cracking mechanics, where is such an example > for crack propagation ? > > Thanks ! > > 在 2017年3月30日星期四 UTC+8下午9:13:16，Se

[deal.II] Re: Step-42

Ben, I really appreciate it if you let me know how I can run step 42 because > whenever I ran it, I got two error without any information about that. This > is exactly the same with "goal oriented mesh adaptivity in elastoplasticity > proiblems" example which is written by Shahram. Looking forw

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >