Re: [deal.II] Overlapping decomposition using p4est and deal.ii

2018-04-11 Thread Wolfgang Bangerth
1. I tried out the p4est_ghost_expand as Wolfgang suggested, but it gives me an error because for some reason I get if(cell->is_ghost){cell->user_flag_set()==true} after the calls communicate_dof_indices_on_marked_cells() in dof_handler_policy.cc line 3875. I believe the function

[deal.II] Re: Constraints on support points on Q2 elements and output

2018-04-11 Thread Jie Cheng
Hi Daniel Thank you for your help! The code below suggests that you want to constraint all degrees of freedom. > Is this really what you intend? If so, it might be better to just > interpolate the values using VectorTools::interpolate >

[deal.II] Re: multiply constrained dofs (hanging nodes+periodic) fails a simple test case

2018-04-11 Thread Sambit Das
I understand my mistake now: there are extra hanging nodes constraints in the constraint matrix with (hanging nod constraints + PBC) compared to the constraint matrix with only hanging node constraints. That is why the minimal example fails. Sambit On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 1:00:25 PM

[deal.II] Re: Problem with parallelization when using hyper_cube_slit

2018-04-11 Thread Roberto Porcù
Dear all, in the reply to my first post I forgot the code. I attach it to this reply. Best Roberto P. On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:27:37 PM UTC-5, Roberto Porcù wrote: > > Dear all, > > I'm solving a linear elasticity problem on a cracked domain created by > means > of the

[deal.II] Re: Problem with parallelization when using hyper_cube_slit

2018-04-11 Thread Roberto Porcù
Dear all, since I am still experiencing the same issue, I tried to solve a very simple and basic problem on a domain created with the GridGenerator::hyper_cube_slit and then rotated of -90 degrees. As you can see in the attached figures I am experiencing the same issue: when I run the

[deal.II] Re: multiply constrained dofs (hanging nodes+periodic) fails a simple test case

2018-04-11 Thread Denis Davydov
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:00:18 PM UTC+2, Sambit Das wrote: > > Hi Denis, > > >> I don't think that's the case. The domain is indeed periodic, but this is >> completely detached from location of support/nodal points. >> Same applies to geometry, you will have different coordinates of

[deal.II] Re: multiply constrained dofs (hanging nodes+periodic) fails a simple test case

2018-04-11 Thread Sambit Das
Hi Denis, > I don't think that's the case. The domain is indeed periodic, but this is > completely detached from location of support/nodal points. > Same applies to geometry, you will have different coordinates of vertices > across the PBC so > > I agree, the location of nodal points is

[deal.II] Re: Use of 'VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values' using numerical solution.

2018-04-11 Thread Jaekwang Kim
Thanks for giving me an idea for this! I will take a look approaches you just mentioned. Jaekwang On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 12:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jie Cheng wrote: > > Hi Jaekwang > > One way I can think of is to construct your ConstraintMatrix for Part B > manually. Iterate over your

Re: [deal.II] Overlapping decomposition using p4est and deal.ii

2018-04-11 Thread Pratik
Hello, I had a few more questions and was some grateful for some clarification: 1. I tried out the p4est_ghost_expand as Wolfgang suggested, but it gives me an error because for some reason I get if(cell->is_ghost){cell->user_flag_set()==true} after the calls