>> true, but I don't see why you would have the same norms if you distribute 
> with constraints from hanging nodes only or constraints from hanging nodes+ 
> PBC.
> I think we can agree that the two ConstraintMatrix objects should be 
> different as in the case of PBC you additionally need to make sure that FE 
> space on the refined boundary matches that on the opposite, non-refined 
> side. 

Yes I agree the ConstraintMatrix objects are different but the coefficients 
(a_{ij}) of the hanging node constraint equations 

x_{i} = a_{ij} x_{j}

 would be the same in both cases, only x_{j}'s would be different in both 
cases. Now x_{j}'s are nodes without any constraints which are set to the 
correct values explicitly in both cases:



So the hanging nodes in both cases should have the same value after calling 

> If you suspect that there is a bug in constraints, you could check this by 
> simply choosing some more-or-less random vector, distribute and 
> plot-over-line in Paraview / Visit. 
> More cumbersome comparison would be to evaluate random field at the 
> opposite points.
> You can use FEField function and then choose   L/2-\delta  and -L/2+\delta 
>   with \delta = 1e-8 or so for X coordinate and then 
> whatever you want to Y/Z. This should give you the same value anywhere on 
> the two periodically matching points for a random input vector after 
> constraints are distributed.
>  I will try doing this. 


The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/
For mailing list/forum options, see 
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 dealii+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to