Hello Timo, thanks for your answer.
Since, I'm working with Dumux 2.12 I cannot say anything about 1) or 2).So, for the moment, I attach al the material necessary to replicate the behaviour that I get on Dumux 2.12, at least to understand if it is a bug, my implementation mistake or should be like this, if case you would have time to take a look at it.
In the meanwhile, I'll try to port such testcase in Dumux 3.0 and try to run the box scheme and the cell-centered to see if it goes better.
Best regards, Lorenzo On 15.07.2019 15:31, Timo Koch wrote:
Hi Lorenzo, I think the status is as follows (Dumux 3.0):1) For the box scheme Dirichlet boundaries are always strongly enforced so nothing special to do here.2) For cell-centered schemes there is a new feature called "internal Dirichlet constraints" that allows you to enforce Dirichlet constraints in any cell. See https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/blob/master/test/porousmediumflow/1p/implicit/internaldirichlet/problem.hh for an example (only available on the master branch).3) For the old sequential schemes there is _no_ such feature as far as I know (unfortunately noone had the time to implement sequential schemes in terms of the Dumux 3.0 style solvers yet, so actually there is no "new" sequential schemes yet, but I call it "old" because it uses Dumux 2.0 style paradigms that have been deprecated). You'd have to implement it yourself (adapt the matrix assembly, in the simplest case just manipulate the rows of Dirichlet dofs after everything has been assembled, replace row with zeros set one on the diagonal and the adapt the rhs).That being said,I'm not sure why you need this feature in your case. If the boundary condition is satisfied in the first cell or on the boundary shouldn't really matter. It's just that in the latter case you don't see the actual boundary value in your vtk output.It might be that there is actually something wrong with the boundaries in the old sequential schemes. I personally don't know of any bug (and there is no open issue on that topic), but there is always the possibility. In that case, I would need a minimal working example how to reproduce an actual erroneous solution (in the best case open a merge request with the minimal working example). I'm afraid the old sequential schemes don't get very much attention right now from the core developers.Sorry I couldn't help more, open-source research software is always a work in progress,Timo On 15.07.19 13:15, lc wrote:Hello,can you explain how can I strongly impose the Dirichet condition in the first cell (or the closest one) on the inlet (left ) boundary in order to achieve what you said, please?I need to use 2p, sequential algorithm. Kind regards, Lorenzo On 29.03.2019 16:31, Timo Koch wrote:I mean you can also just enforce the Dirichlet value strongly in the first cell. Then, of course it will be satisfied "cleanly". It all depends on your discretization scheme too. For example for FEM or Box you might have degrees of freedom directly on the boundary. Then you can also strongly enforce them an they will always be "cleanly" satisfied.
-- ___________________________________________ *Il tuo 5 diventa 1000*Fai crescere la tua università
Dona il 5 per mille alla SapienzaCodice fiscale: *80209930587*
https://www.uniroma1.it/it/pagina/fai-crescere-la-tua-universita-con-il-cinque-mille <https://www.uniroma1.it/it/pagina/fai-crescere-la-tua-universita-con-il-cinque-mille>
kernA1.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip
_______________________________________________ Dumux mailing list Dumux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux
