Hello Thomas,
somehow this construction does look really strange for me. I would
declare the interface as a boundary. Then you also have double degrees
of freedom at the interface/"boundary", but you have to use only one FE
on the whole grid.
Best Regards,
Markus
Am 03.02.11 19:49, schrieb thomas carraro:
Hi all,
I'm trying to use a hp_collector with two FESystems to solve a
multiphysics problem.
The idea was discussed during the workshop in Heidelberg in August 2010.
I have two domains (Omega_1 and Omega_2), in both of them I have only
one variable (u_1 resp. u_2), that has a discontinuity on the
interface between the two domains, i.e.
in "Omega_1" we have
"u_1 != 0" and "u_2 = 0"
in "Omega_2" we have
"u_1 = 0" and "u_2 != 0"
so I actually need double degrees of freedom at the interface.
The idea was to use a hp_collector like
fe_1 ( FE_Q<dim>(1), 1, FE_Nothing<dim>(), 1 ),
fe_2 ( FE_Nothing<dim>(), 1, FE_Q<dim>(1), 1 ),
fe_collection.push_back (fe_1);
fe_collection.push_back (fe_2);
in this way we would have double degrees of freedom only on the
interface, BUT we have the following problem:
The violated condition was:
domination != FiniteElementDomination::neither_element_dominates
that makes sense in general, but not in my case, as I will never try
to restrict my FE_Q to FE_Nothing.
Do you think the idea of a hp_collector is wrong? Any other idea (that
is not to do everything manually)?
Do you think that it makes sense to skip the function
"compare_for_face_domination" setting a flag in "distribute_dofs"?
Is it better to implement a special fe_collector for multiphysics
problem?
Any idea is welcome!
Kind regards
Thomas
_______________________________________________
dealii mailing list http://poisson.dealii.org/mailman/listinfo/dealii
_______________________________________________
dealii mailing list http://poisson.dealii.org/mailman/listinfo/dealii
