Re: [deal.II] Step-3 Tutorials : Trying to use bessel function as a boundary dirichlet value

Well I did resolved the above issue by changing the center to a point that lies on the boundary. On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM pushkar...@gmail.com < pushkarpandi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear deal.II Community, > > In my attempt to learn this library I was working with step-3 tutorials > where

[deal.II] Step-3 Tutorials : Trying to use bessel function as a boundary dirichlet value

Dear deal.II Community, In my attempt to learn this library I was working with step-3 tutorials where I wish to change my dirichlet boundary function to a bessel function instead of zero function but I ended up with a issue in visualization where I am not able to see any variation on the

Re: [deal.II] Re: Parallel distributed hp solution transfer with FE_nothing

Kaushik, in addition to what I just wrote, your example from above has revealed a bug in the `p::d::SolutionTransfer` class that Wolfgang and I were discussing in the course of this chatlog. Thank you very much for this! We are working on a solution for this issue. I would encourage you to

Re: [deal.II] Re: Parallel distributed hp solution transfer with FE_nothing

Hi Kaushik, Yes, this is possible by changing a cell from FE_Nothing to FE_Q using p-refinement. You can do this with the method described in #11132 : Imitate what p::d::SolutionTransfer is doing with the more versatile tool

[deal.II] deal.II Newsletter #147

Hello everyone! This is deal.II newsletter #147. It automatically reports recently merged features and discussions about the deal.II finite element library. ## Below you find a list of recently proposed or merged features: #11449: Convert step-2 to a simplex test (proposed by peterrum)

Re: [deal.II] Re: Modifying shape function data in MatrixFree

Hi David, One last point I don't understand right now is the magnitude of the machine precision you talk about: > You'll see that they all exhibit quadratic convergence, with only a slight difference in the convergence history that can probably be attributed to accumulated round-off errors.

Re: [deal.II] Modifying shape function data in MatrixFree

> On 31 Dec 2020, at 12:09, 'David' via deal.II User Group > wrote: > > > The absolute errors at the end of each iteration are of the order > \mathcal{O}(10^{-10}). Also, if I compare my two-point residual assembly > using matrix-free with the 'usual' spatial residual assembly and compute

Re: [deal.II] Re: Modifying shape function data in MatrixFree

Hi Jean-Paul, > The indexing is correct - I've taken that part of the code from some other codes that I've fully verified. But I thought it would still be a useful exercise to re-implement the assembly routine for the other two parameterisations. Maybe this would further convince you of its