Dear Jaekwang,
> *FESystemfe; *
>
>
> and constructor mentions taylor hood space as follow
>
>
> StokesProblem::StokesProblem (constunsignedintdegree)
>
> :
>
> degree (degree),
>
>*fe (FE_Q(degree+**1), dim,*
>
> *FE_Q(degree), 1),*
>
You would write fe
I want to use Gauss-Lobatto node on my fesystem for vector valued problems.
While seeing step-48, I see that how Gauss-Lobatto node is used but I
couldn't figure out how I should use it for vector value problems.
To be specific,
In step 48, fe is declared in main class as follow
Hi
Is deal.ii website down? I am trying to search some commands but it seems
not responding.
Is there any update on this?
Thanks.
-Xiaohan
--
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
---
Joel,
Its been a week since my latest post, I was just wondering if you could
> help me.
>
Did you try what I suggested? What were the problems?
Looking at the latest files you sent, local_velocity_values has still not
the type std::vector
and you are still using
for (unsigned int
On 09/27/2016 11:18 AM, Timo Heister wrote:
That raises the question if there is ever a valid reason to call
set_boundary_indicator on an interior face
No.
or if we should put an
Assert() into place.
That's difficult because a face itself doesn't know whether it's at the
boundary or not.
Thanks Wolfgang,
I did as suggested and figured out the error. Although, I have also solved
it, I would like to know why this was a problem. For the same, I have
attached the new simple version. In that code, there is a piece of sub code
added which is actually the content of boundary_info()
On 09/27/2016 10:05 AM, Deepak Gupta wrote:
If I remove the else part of the if-condition, it works, else the constraints
become zero. This implies, I should not try to set boundary indicator for
anything which is not at the boundary,
Correct.
which is obvious. I know it was a
mistake from
On 09/27/2016 08:52 AM, Deepak Gupta wrote:
I created a simple example but it worked correctly and is attached (I modified
a test code given earlier my Jean-Paul). The difference between this simple
code and my code stated earlier is that between the two checks of hanging
nodes, the
On 09/27/2016 06:44 AM, Deepak Gupta wrote:
Dear All,
Below is a simple piece of code where one finite element has a different
p-order compared to the rest. Thus, I expect certain hanging_node_constraints
(which is 4) in the output. What I cannot figure out is why I get *zero
*constraints when
Dear All,
Below is a simple piece of code where one finite element has a different
p-order compared to the rest. Thus, I expect certain
hanging_node_constraints (which is 4) in the output. What I cannot figure
out is why I get *zero *constraints when I check the hanging constraints a
second time?
Yes it is to be expected. See email below:
Dear all,
We are expecting more power outages on September 26 to 28. They are trying
to fix the emergency supply such that the recent failures don't repeat.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
The dealii web site will be down during these outages, which
11 matches
Mail list logo
