On 3/18/19 12:37 PM, jane....@jandj-ltd.com wrote:
>
> For the u_t=0 condition, I had been imposing weak. So basically, I have
> separated a Neumann boundary condition into:
> n.[pI-2e] = (n.[pI-2e]n)n + (n.[pI-2e]t)t
> and saying that the second term on the rhs is 0 so disappears, and the first
> term is known weakly imposed into
> topstress_values[q_point]*fe_face_values.normal_vector[q_point] etc.
> Is this not a valid way?
I don't know. I don't, because I don't know how you impose the u.t=0 boundary
condition weakly. The way this is typically done is via the Nitsche method
(which is essentially what DG approaches use for all interior faces as well).
But I'd have to spend substantially more time than I have thinking through the
implications for the case you pose here...
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.
