On 01/28/2017 04:56 AM, 'Seyed Ali Mohseni' via deal.II User Group wrote:
I somehow figured the assembly out by listening to Prof. Bangerth's advice
that I should try to solve it the deal.II way. And after Jean-Paul told me to
take a look at step-42 I realized how things are working in deal.II.
Unfortunately, I have still some issues with the values. They are not the
same. I believe this is dependent on the B-operator, namely the jacobians.
They differ by factor 2 probably since our unit cell in deal.II is within
[0,1]^dim and the C++ code uses [-1,1]^dim.
But shouldn't the assembled configurational forces still be the same
independent from the mapping?
Here is what I got so far :)
I really have no idea what the pictures show, nor which ones correspond to the
deal.II solution and your own code, respectively.
But I do see that one seems to be computed on a finer mesh -- maybe a
triangular mesh, whereas the other one is computed on a quadrilateral mesh.
Best
W.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bange...@colostate.edu
www: http://www.math.colostate.edu/~bangerth/
--
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.
