Tom:
To answer your question about why I'm considering this path: a key part of my
research involves a direct numerical comparison between the classical C1
conforming approach (like HCT element) and other alternative C0 methods (e.g.
step-47). The goal is to analyze and contrast their performance on the
specific type of plate problems I am studying.
You might be better served with other software if all you want to do is
compare different formulations. Rob Kirby (with colleagues) has written a
paper implementing various C1 elements, and you might want to take a look at
what they have and see whether you can adapt that for your purpose. FEniCS
(the software they use) has all of these elements already, and you can
probably save yourself a lot of time by using their work.
If you figure out that you really do want to use C1 elements for production
computations, that's the point where you can then think about implementing
them in deal.II.
Thank you again for your generous offer to help with questions. It means a lot
to know that support is available from the development team. Should the HCT
implementation prove to be a necessary step later in my research, I will be
sure to reach out.
Please do!
Best
W.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: [email protected]
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dealii/0a11c194-0102-4c25-bfa7-8253da79aa83%40colostate.edu.
