Jane,
I believe the formula is correct. the cubic term comes from p=z^3 being the
pressure manufactured solution. so in (pI-2e) you get a z^3 term and indeed a
linear term in the 2e portion.
I see. I missed that there is of course also a pressure.
This is how I have come to conclude that i
Following this, note that using the stress as a tensor function produced
the same results/problems (same errors too as doing it with component_i)
but wouldn't have thought that would have made a difference anyway...
On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:59:43 PM UTC, Jane Lee wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
>
Hi Wolfgang,
I believe the formula is correct. the cubic term comes from p=z^3 being the
pressure manufactured solution. so in (pI-2e) you get a z^3 term and indeed
a linear term in the 2e portion.
The code commpiles and the error analysis is correct with Dirichlet
conditions on the top and bo
Jane,
1. I was wondering re dimensions because I could find a component mask
function or something similar to fe_values[velocities], eg, when using
fe_face_values which you need to apply the neumann conditions.
I see. Yes, if you apply a (vector) component mask to the FEFaceValues object,
t
Hi Wolfgang, thanks so much for getting back to me
1. I was wondering re dimensions because I could find a component mask
function or something similar to fe_values[velocities], eg, when using
fe_face_values which you need to apply the neumann conditions.
2. This is my fault. I meant working i
Jane,
Firstly, I decided not to use the normal vector for now. Since the
normal vector is 2D, i wasn't sure how to implement the rest so that it
is a 'double' since my g (neumann condition vector) has 3 components
when the normal vector will only have 2?
I'm not sure I understand this -- in
HI, I'm still looking for help with this problem. it would be much
appreciated. thanks
On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 11:39:16 PM UTC, Jane Lee wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfgang, happy new year and hope you had a good break.
>
> I'm back working on this and I just don't understand what I am doing
> wrong
