Dear David,
I do not see any mistake. You can of course simplify the expression in
"T_a*((Id(3)+Grad_u)*(f@f)):Grad_Test_u"
which should be faster.
Yves.
Le 04/10/2017 à 18:04, David Danan a écrit :
Dear Getfem users,
i would like to take into account the fiber direction in my model;
to do so i computed the vector associated to each point of the mesh in
the order given by mf.point_of_basic_dof, stored it in a vector, used
an initialized fem data
model.add_initialized_fem_data("fibre",mf_u,Param_fibre);
and included it in the model (basically, add the component
T_a*fibre*fibre^T to the second Piola-Kirchhoff tensor in the
reference configuration)
getfem::add_nonlinear_generic_assembly_brick(model,
mim,"T_a*(Id(3)+Grad_u)*[fibre(1)*fibre(1),fibre(1)*fibre(2),fibre(1)*fibre(3);fibre(2)*fibre(1),fibre(2)*fibre(2),fibre(2)*fibre(3);fibre(3)*fibre(1),fibre(3)*fibre(2),fibre(3)*fibre(3)]:Grad_Test_u");
(this is where i have some doubts)
The results i obtained are qualitatively correct but a visible
difference still remains between the reference solution and my own
solution.
It corresponds to the last problem described in this article
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/471/2184/20150641#sec-15
<http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/471/2184/20150641#sec-15>
the first two were already validated, so such a difference should (a
priori) come from the fiber i guess.
I have tried naively to interpolate the fiber data computed on a P3
mesh on the original P2 mesh but it didn't change anything.
Some help will be really appreciated, i may have overlooked something.
Thanks in advance,
David.
PS: Please, find enclosed the reference solution (deformed.vtk) and
the solution obtained (Fibre.vtk)
--
Yves Renard ([email protected]) tel : (33) 04.72.43.87.08
Pole de Mathematiques, INSA-Lyon fax : (33) 04.72.43.85.29
20, rue Albert Einstein
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, FRANCE
http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~renard
---------
