For now... I would vote for "do nothing"... maybe print a warning in debug
mode. Having the library try to interpret what you "really" want might be
trouble.
Derek
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM, John Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:18 AM, John Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> John Peterson wrote:
> >>> Anyone know anything about the
> >>> accuracy of quadrature for functions which are ratios of polynomials?
> >>
> >> We can derive custom quadrature rules which would integrate a mass
> matrix
> >> exactly... but would they then also integrate, say, a Laplacian matrix
> >> exactly? The answer is an obvious "yes" for polynomial bases but I'd
> expect
> >> a "no" for pyramids. That could be bad.
> >>
> >> What are we doing for them now?
> >
> > The current quadrature rules have accuracies like you would expect for
> > 1D elements, since they are conical products of Gauss-like rules. So,
> > for example, a 2x2x2 rule will integrate exactly all monomials of the
> > form x^a y^b z^c, a+b+c <= 3. I have no idea what will happen when we
> > try to integrate the rational basis functions...
>
> Just a quick update on the quadrature over pyramids stuff.
>
> After checking it with Maple, it appears that the "standard"
> 2nd/3rd-order quadrature rule can exactly integrate the Pyramid5 mass
> matrix. The laplace matrix, however, is a different story. I needed
> to go up to 6/7th-order quadrature before I could get 9-10 digits of
> precision from LibMesh.
>
> At first, this seems a little paradoxical since the Laplace matrix is
> usually the easier of the two, but with rational basis functions, the
> more derivatives you take the more poles you get in the denominator,
> and the harder it is to integrate the functions. Since the default
> quadrature rule is currently selected by the FEType without regard to
> the geometric element type, it's not immediately obvious how we should
> ensure the user gets accurate quadrature on pyramids. A couple
> options...
>
> 1.) Just remember that higher-than-normal order quadrature on pyramids
> is required and your answer may be inaccurate. AKA "do nothing" :-)
> 2.) Redefine, within the pyramid quadrature rules, the meaning of
> order. I.e. return a rule several orders higher than what the user
> requests.
> 3.) Research quadrature rules for rational functions. I have a few
> papers on this but haven't looked into it too much yet. Phillipe
> Devloo may be doing something special in his library, so I will check
> there as well...
>
> --
> John
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
> prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Libmesh-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
