Thanks Abbas, I considered about DG method, because DG allows discontinuity and implements boundary condition easier than FE_Q. However DG requires more DoF than continuous finite element, especially in frequency-domain.
Best, Wayne 在2022年12月5日星期一 UTC+8 22:35:12<Abbas> 写道： > Maybe you can look into using DG for discritizing the problem? You're > already using penalty terms so might as well. > One thing I am afraid of is that Nedelec elements inherently satisfy the > div free condition, while DG might need careful treatment or your > preconditioner would fail at high frequency. > Just my 2 cents. Maybe you know someone else who can help you with this. > > > On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:29:35 PM UTC+2 yy.wayne wrote: > >> Hi deal.II community, >> >> I'm working on MatrixFree electromagnetic problems with deal.II. For 2d >> TE waves FE_Q element works good, but for cases like in step-81 and in 3d, >> Nedelec element in the appropriate one for EM. >> >> I posted a discussion about this 3 months ago. May I ask what's the >> current state for MatriFree support of Nedelec elements in deal.II? >> Implementing MatrixFree Nedelec is quite difficult for me. Currently I plan >> to solve 3d EM problem with FE_Q elements with some penalty terms, but of >> course that's not a nice policy because of spurious solution and >> singularity when solving EM numerically with nodal elements. >> > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dealii/e8f7393c-6440-47c9-9942-6d440949a6b0n%40googlegroups.com.
