Re: [deal.II] Re: Set up boundary id in gmsh

Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:33 PM Bruno Blais > wrote: > >> The best way to proceed is to set the boundary conditions using Physical >> Entities in GMSH. >> An example is always better. For example, the following GMSH code : >> >> lc = 2.0e-1; >> lf =

[deal.II] Re: Set up boundary id in gmsh

The best way to proceed is to set the boundary conditions using Physical Entities in GMSH. An example is always better. For example, the following GMSH code : lc = 2.0e-1; lf = 2.0e-1; RO=1; RI=0.25; Point(0) = {0, 0, 0, lc}; Point(1) = {RO, 0, 0, lc}; Point(2) = {0, -RO , 0, lc};

[deal.II] Re: Getting started and posting guidelines for new users

Dear Kaleem, It would be good to open your own topic with your question so that you may get help. Best Bruno On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 05:30:44 UTC-4, kaleem iqbal wrote: > > The following error shown in step-49 during make run. > Exception on processing: > >

[deal.II] Re: New docker image for deal.II 9.2.0

Awesome! Thank you so much for taking the time to prepare these images Luca. They are amazingly helpful for those using Travis_CI for their deal.II derived codes :). On Wednesday, 15 July 2020 05:04:31 UTC-4, luca.heltai wrote: > > Dear all, > > I’d like to inform you that we now have also

Re: [deal.II] Interest in a step-12-like DG tutorial but for the advection-diffusion equation?

and Stokes examples (see my todo list here > https://github.com/dealii/dealii/issues/8884 ) that I haven't gotten > back to yet. > > Let me know if you want to work together on something or if you have > any ideas or suggestions. > > Best, > Timo > > > On Thu,

[deal.II] Interest in a step-12-like DG tutorial but for the advection-diffusion equation?

Dear all, I hope you are well. I have been playing with the DG methods within deal.II lately (which has been lots of fun). I really enjoy the way step-12 is written, especially because of the use of the FEInterfaceValue class. In my opinion it makes low level stuff very easily accessible, yet

[deal.II] Re: particle parallelization

Dear Shahab, No, if you change a property of a particle on proc 0 and this particle is a ghost cell on proc 0, this property will not change on proc 1 (which would be its owner). You would need to change the property on proc 1 and then I think the update on proc 0 will only be done when you

[deal.II] Re: Xcode as an IDE for deal.II

Dear Siva, I am unsure if I understand your question correctly. When you run deal.II from within Xcode, the output of std::cout is printed to the console or it is not printed? On Thursday, 11 June 2020 15:29:06 UTC-4, Siva Nadarajah wrote: > > Dear All, > My group has been using deal.ii for

Re: [deal.II] Particle Class Implementation

Dear Victoria, In additional to what Jean-Paul suggested, you can look at the preliminary version of step-68 which does exactly what you would like to achieve with particles. The code is available on the following pull request. Rene and I have put some work into it and it works quite well in

[deal.II] Strategy to snap the boundary of a triangulation to a manifold

Dear all, I hope you are doing well. In my endless quest for robust mesh generation of hex meshes using GMSH, I have managed to come up with a very robust strategy to generate hex-only meshes My only issue (which is a major one) is that this implies that my decomposition from tet to hex adds

Re: [deal.II] Re: Almost installed Deal II, but there is a fly in the ointment!

r/dealii-9.1.1/cmake/macros/macro_add_flags.cmake >>>> -- Include >>>> /home/wilmar/dealii-9.1.1/cmake/macros/macro_check_compiler_setup.cmake >>>> -- Include >>>> /home/wilmar/dealii-9.1.1/cmake/macros/macro_check_cxx_compiler_bug.cmake >>>&g

Re: [deal.II] Re: Almost installed Deal II, but there is a fly in the ointment!

ro_check_cxx_compiler_bug.cmake > -- Include > /home/wilmar/dealii-9.1.1/cmake/macros/macro_check_mpi_interface.cmake > . . . > > At the end, nothing was on */home/wilmar/dealii_library. *Maybe it is > on dealii-9.1.1 but I didn't localize. > > In the last step I did

Re: [deal.II] Re: Almost installed Deal II, but there is a fly in the ointment!

irectory "/home/wilmar/build" does not appear to > contain CMakeLists.txt* > > Yes, CMakeLists.txt isn't on /home/wilmar/build. I don't know where the > CMakeLists.txt for this compilation is. > > Thank you in advance for orientation! > > Wilmar (Brazil) - Running

[deal.II] Re: Almost installed Deal II, but there is a fly in the ointment!

Hello, You are getting this error because the installation path that you specified is not valid. When you did you cmake command, you specific the installation path to : */path/to/install/dir/share/deal.II/scripts* This path on your linux machine is not a valid path, and consequently, this

[deal.II] Re: About metallic ductile damage

Dear Itachi, Deal.II is significantly different than abaqus in the fact that you easily write you own equation and solve from it using whatever mean you find necessary. However, it does not come readily built with a library of physical solvers or constitutive laws. Consequently, you will have

Re: [deal.II] Re: Finding vertices on boundaries

e Point *> objects if you want to manipulate > the points once you have all of them. > > Does this answer your question? Please post again if you still need help > figuring this out! > > Best, > David > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:28 PM Bruno Blais > wrote:

[deal.II] Re: Finding vertices on boundaries

Dear Shahab, I think the best solution (I might be wrong) is to loop through the boundary faces and acquire the DOF indices that lie on a boundary face. You could then store them in an std::map or a similar structure that prevents data duplication. You can create a vector and store the dof

[deal.II] Adding the manifold ID to a DataOutFaces

Dear all, I hope you are well. I am currently working extensively with adaptive mesh refinement and I feel the need to output the 2D boundary surface of my 3D mesh (thus a dim=2, spacedim=3 type of problem) I have realized there is an amazing Data out object that exists DataOutFaces which

Re: [deal.II] Difficulty setting manifold with Opencascade using gmsh mesh + salome STEP (or IGES) - Step-54

o edit it as you see fit. Never having used this > functionality in the library before, I hope that I have correctly > interpreted and massages what Luca had detailed. > > Best, > Jean-Paul > > On 03 Apr 2020, at 15:55, Bruno Blais > > wrote: > > Dear Jean

Re: [deal.II] Difficulty setting manifold with Opencascade using gmsh mesh + salome STEP (or IGES) - Step-54

ean-Paul > > On 03 Apr 2020, at 06:03, Bruno Blais > > wrote: > > Ciao Luca, > It works perfectly now even with regular GMSH triangulation (see movie). > Now I understand the difference and how to set it correctly. > Thank you very much for the help :)! > > &

[deal.II] Re: Difficulty setting manifold with Opencascade using gmsh mesh + salome STEP (or IGES) - Step-54

Seems the image did not work, On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 9:34:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Blais wrote: > > So it seems part of my problem relate to the topology I was trying to > adapt OR to the staring complex mesh I was using. > I have managed to make it work starting with a trivial me

[deal.II] Re: Difficulty setting manifold with Opencascade using gmsh mesh + salome STEP (or IGES) - Step-54

here as it seems that feature has not been used extensively :)!. What I have working now is this simple gif. [image: myimage.gif] On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Blais wrote: > > Dear all, > I hope you are well in these uncertain times. > > I have bee

[deal.II] Difficulty setting manifold with Opencascade using gmsh mesh + salome STEP (or IGES) - Step-54

Dear all, I hope you are well in these uncertain times. I have been trying to use the OpenCASCADE library to set-up my manifolds. The goal of this is to be able to do CFD simulations in complex geometry, but use an initial very coarse mesh made with GMSH and use the dynamics mesh adaptation to

Re: [deal.II] How to visualise the simulation output in vtk format on a one dimensional mesh?

I concur with Wolfgang. The same can be done with Paraview also. I have found that using the plot over line tool of paraview in 1D allows to obtain animation of 1D results in a very beautiful and user friendly fashion. There is a Python VTK library by the way which allows easy (relatively)

Re: [deal.II] Re: solving stabilized Stokes

, 11 March 2020 12:43:18 UTC-4, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > On 3/11/20 8:54 AM, Bruno Blais wrote: > > Q1-Q1 using the GLS (SUPG +PSPG) stabilized solver of Lethe using a > > monolithic iterative solver and Q2-Q1 using the Grad-Div solver with a > > Schur completement so

[deal.II] Re: solving stabilized Stokes

3.0792e-05 3.00 16384 3.8480e-06 3.00 Pressure cells error 64 0.0796909 2.03 256 0.0192026 2.01 1024 0.00476045 2.00 4096 0.00118731 2.00 16384 0.000296642 2.00 On Wednesday, 11 March 2020 10:54:21 UTC-4, Bruno Blais wrote: > > Dear Richard, > Thanks for your message! I

[deal.II] Re: solving stabilized Stokes

Dear Richard, Thanks for your message! It is very interesting. Your results made me doubt our own results, so I re-ran Error convergence analysis on a manufactured solution ( an infinitely continuous one) where the domain is bounded by purely Dirichlet boundary condition. I did the simulations

[deal.II] Re: solving stabilized Stokes

nt! > > Kind regards, > Richard > > Am Mittwoch, 19. Februar 2020 02:49:26 UTC+1 schrieb Bruno Blais: >> >> Dear Richard, >> We implement a quasi identical scheme in lethe (PSPG for continuity and >> SUPG for momentum). You can find the code on the github, it might

[deal.II] Re: solving stabilized Stokes

Dear Richard, We implement a quasi identical scheme in lethe (PSPG for continuity and SUPG for momentum). You can find the code on the github, it might help you : https://github.com/lethe-cfd/lethe/blob/master/source/solvers/gls_navier_stokes.cc I can confirm that you should be getting order p+1

Re: [deal.II] discontinous contour over elements

Do you use Tecplot to calculate vorticity from the velocity field or do you calculate the vorticity from your code, and then visualize it from tecplot? The way deal.II visualizes gradients (or vorticity in this case) is the correct way it should be done, because it is visualized on an "element

Re: [deal.II] discontinous contour over elements

An easy way to carry the projection that Wolfgang suggested is to use an L2 projection. The L2 projection matrix is only a mass matrix and your right hand side is constructed by the integral of multiplication of the variable you want to project with the test function. Generally, this matrix is

Re: [deal.II] discontinous contour over elements

Dear David, How are you calculating the vorticity? As Wolfgang and Praveen have mentioned, if you are using the DataPostProcessor, then this will use your shape functions to calculate the vorticity. However, your P2-P1 elements are only C0 continuous. Consequently, your vorticity can possibly

[deal.II] Re: PhD Position (deal.II related) in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada

ncy is still there..!? > > > On Saturday, 17 August 2019 00:58:58 UTC+5:30, Bruno Blais wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> We currently have an open position in my research group regarding the >> computational modeling of microwave depolymerization reactors using >> deal.II. These

Re: [deal.II] Getting the normal vector of a cell in where dim

Wolfgang, Thanks, this is exactly what I needed at exactly the right place... I feel slightly dumb right now not having found it :( Thanks for the quick answer. Bruno On Monday, 18 November 2019 12:27:44 UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > > Bruno, > > > I am currently working with

[deal.II] Getting the normal vector of a cell in where dim

Hello, I am currently working with triangulations that do not have matching dim-spacedim. For instance a Triangulation<2,3>. For a specific calculation, I would need the normal vector of the cell of the triangulation (so the vector perpendicular to the current cell at the gauss points). Is

[deal.II] Re: Convergence rate

A quick question, since you are working on a sphere, are you specifying a mapping of the same order as your phi? On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 08:57:45 UTC-4, Félix Bunel wrote: > > Hello everyone. > > I'm having some trouble to understand the convergence rate i'm observing > in my code. > >

[deal.II] Re: About Darcy-Brinkman-Forchheimer equation discretization

Hello, It depends of the value of the Reynolds number and the gradients of K with respect to x or t, but generally the last two terms do not generally pose problems. The first additional term to the right leads to a mass matrix, which is well conditioned. The second term itself is trickier.

[deal.II] Re: Cmake-GUI error

Dear Gary, I use the cmake curse gui a lot (which I guess is what you mean by cmake gui). I have never had any problem installing dealii using it. It should work. On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 17:26:12 UTC-4, Gary Roach wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:13:54 PM UTC-7, GaryR

Re: [deal.II] Stabilization for Q1Q0 Stokes by Bochev [2006]

I second Wolfgang comment on the fact that Q1Q1 is not difficult to implement. You can also scale it to arbitrary Qn-Qn elements if you are interested in higher order. We have implemented such an approach in our code based on dealii ( https://github.com/lethe-cfd/lethe) Q1Q1 is already very

Re: [deal.II] Difference between BlockDynamicSparsityPattern and TrilinosWrappers::BlockSparsityPattern

Dear Wolfgang, Thank you, everything is clear now and i managed to accomplish what I wanted. Thanks! Bruno On Tuesday, 3 September 2019 19:09:00 UTC-4, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > > Bruno, > > > Is there a different between how DynamicSparsityPatterns and > > BlockDynamicSparsityPatterns

Re: [deal.II] Difference between BlockDynamicSparsityPattern and TrilinosWrappers::BlockSparsityPattern

Dear Wolfgang, Thank you very much for your message. Is there a different between how DynamicSparsityPatterns and BlockDynamicSparsityPatterns behave? When you look at step-40, which is the first "MPI" step, the way the sparsity pattern is made is (

[deal.II] Difference between BlockDynamicSparsityPattern and TrilinosWrappers::BlockSparsityPattern

Hello, I am currently working on a parallel implementation of step-57, thus I am learning to live with BlockVectors, BlockMatrices and BlockSparsityPatterns in parallel. Originally, I thought that I could make my sparsity pattern the following way (i.e as in step-57, but distributing it

[deal.II] Solving a TrilinosWrappers::BlockSparseMatrix using Trilinos iterative solver (step-57)

Hello, I am currently trying to work on a "HPC-ready with Trilinos" version of step-57 for steady-state solution of the Navier-Stokes equation since I am curious about compairing it to our stabilized solver. I think that it could give much better results for steady-state. The approach detailed

[deal.II] Re: PhD Position (deal.II related) in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada

As always, it seems I have posted the wrong link. The link to the PhD related project is : https://www.polymtl.ca/expertises/sites/expertises.amigow.polymtl.ca/files/2019_polymtl_blais_pyrowave_num_eng_1.pdf Best! Bruno On Friday, 16 August 2019 15:28:58 UTC-4, Bruno Blais wrote: > > De

[deal.II] PhD Position (deal.II related) in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada

Dear All, We currently have an open position in my research group regarding the computational modeling of microwave depolymerization reactors using deal.II. These reactors are part of a key technology that enables the generation of virgin styrene monomers from contaminated polystyrene using

Re: [deal.II] Testing with CTest : Testing the same executable with more than one ".prm" and ".output" combination

Dear Matthias, I follow your repository and it works perfectly. Thanks, I managed to go down from 11 executables to 3... :)! Best Bruno On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 20:04:03 UTC-4, Matthias Maier wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, at 18:58 CDT, Bruno Blais > wrote: > &g

Re: [deal.II] Testing with CTest : Testing the same executable with more than one ".prm" and ".output" combination

Hahaha, that is amazing! So much documentation that sometimes documentation becomes its own enemy :P Thanks for everything! That will definitely be incredibly helpful (not only to me, but to others)! On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 20:00:00 UTC-4, Matthias Maier wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019,

Re: [deal.II] Testing with CTest : Testing the same executable with more than one ".prm" and ".output" combination

, it is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! Best Bruno On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 19:55:06 UTC-4, Matthias Maier wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, at 13:38 CDT, Bruno Blais > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > I am re-implementing some tests on our solvers (following &g

[deal.II] Re: Paraview's TemporalInterpolator with adaptive mesh

Francis (^^) If you look at the documentation of the temporal interpolator of paraview ( https://www.paraview.org/Wiki/Advanced_Animations) you will see that it enforces that the support for your data (the mesh) remains constant throughout the time series. Consequently, you cannot use it with

[deal.II] Testing with CTest : Testing the same executable with more than one ".prm" and ".output" combination

Hello all, I am re-implementing some tests on our solvers (following https://www.dealii.org/developer/developers/testsuite.html#layoutaddtests) Right now, it is really easy to test individual applications with a combination of executable + output + prm file. We also test with various number of

[deal.II] Error estimation using a function of your solution vector

Hello everyone, I was wondering what was the simplest way to carry out error estimation using a function of your solution vector. For example, to carry out mesh adaptation using a Kelly Error estimator but using the vorticity as the input variable instead of the velocity vector. Is there a

[deal.II] Re: Storing additional information at the DOF unrelated to the system you are solving

Dear Daniel, I understand, it perfectly makes sense. I had not thought about using two different FEValues when looping over the cells. Thank you very much! Best Bruno On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 8:52:46 AM UTC-4, Daniel Arndt wrote: > > Bruno. > > Let's say I solve a first equation for Velocity,

[deal.II] Re: Storing additional information at the DOF unrelated to the system you are solving

Dear Daniel, I am sorry, my question truly was unclear. Let's say I solve a first equation for Velocity, and I would like to use this velocity in another equation for advection-diffusion of say Temperature. I would first set-up my DOF and FE system for my velocity equation and solve it and

[deal.II] Storing additional information at the DOF unrelated to the system you are solving

Hello everyone, I hope you are well. I have a quick question which I cannot seem to wrap my hear around. I think it will sound confused, but anyway. Let's say I am solving for a scalar equation. I would have a triangulation, then a DoFHandler and a FESystem with a multiplicity of one. I can loop

Re: [deal.II] Sliding mesh-like approach using dealii

Dear Earl and Wolfgang, Thanks for the very thorough answer. I will definitely look into it this year and try to come up with a solution. I think there are many ways to tackle this type of approach using the existing tools :) I'll keep you informed should I find a way to make a decent

[deal.II] Sliding mesh-like approach using dealii

Hello everyone, As some of you might know, sliding mesh approaches are generally used in CFD simulation of rotating geometries without axial symmetry (for instance, an impeller with baffles). This is generally achieved by having two triangulation, one that is rotating and one that is static. At

Re: [deal.II] Periodic boundary conditions and the AffineConstraints class

Indeed it was my mistake, sorry :) On Monday, 6 May 2019 01:48:23 UTC-4, Matthias Maier wrote: > > > On Sun, May 5, 2019, at 22:47 CDT, Bruno Blais > wrote: > > > I am trying to implement periodic boundary conditions in my CFD solver. > > When l

[deal.II] Periodic boundary conditions and the AffineConstraints class

Hello everyone, I am trying to implement periodic boundary conditions in my CFD solver. When looking at the documentation for the make_periodicity_constraints I see that the contraints have to be of type ConstraintsMatrix instead of type AffineConstraints (or another type) Is this a current

Re: [deal.II] Setting an initial condition by fixing the DOF values themselves

, newton_update, fe.component_mask(velocities)); Thanks again! On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:32:09 UTC-4, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > On 4/25/19 6:58 AM, Bruno Blais wrote: > > I would like to be able to set-up an initial conditi

Re: [deal.II] Setting an initial condition by fixing the DOF values themselves

, initialConditionParameters.uvw, newton_update, fe.component_mask(velocities)); Thank you very much for the help! On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:32:09 UTC-4, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > On 4/25/19 6:58 AM, Bruno Blais wrote: > >

[deal.II] Setting an initial condition by fixing the DOF values themselves

Hello everyone, I believe this is a relatively dumb question, but I seem to struggle with this basic concept. I would like to be able to set-up an initial condition by fixing the value of the DOF themselves by using their x,y(,z) position with a ParsedFuction. Generally, I set the initial

Re: [deal.II] Controllins fill-in, abs. tol and rel. tol or smoother and coarse solver of TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionAMG

if > not all of the possible settings: > > *TechReport (Gee2006a)* > Gee, M. W.; Siefert, C. M.; Hu, J. J.; Tuminaro, R. S. & Sala, M. G. > ML 5.0 Smoothed Aggregation User's Guide > *Sandia National Laboratories, * *Sandia National Laboratories, * *2006* > > Best, >

Re: [deal.II] Controllins fill-in, abs. tol and rel. tol or smoother and coarse solver of TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionAMG

gt; not all of the possible settings: > > *TechReport (Gee2006a)* > Gee, M. W.; Siefert, C. M.; Hu, J. J.; Tuminaro, R. S. & Sala, M. G. > ML 5.0 Smoothed Aggregation User's Guide > *Sandia National Laboratories, * *Sandia National Laboratories, * *2006* > > Best, > Jean

Re: [deal.II] Controllins fill-in, abs. tol and rel. tol or smoother and coarse solver of TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionAMG

ecifics there. > > Best, > Jean-Paul > > On 11 Mar 2019, at 14:25, Bruno Blais > > wrote: > > Dear Jean-Paul and Wolfgang, > Is it better if I try to go with the Teuchos way or should I wait until > Jean-Paul finishes the merge on his branch ? I think the latter m

Re: [deal.II] Controllins fill-in, abs. tol and rel. tol or smoother and coarse solver of TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionAMG

e on the GitHub repository and we > could all discuss the specifics there. > > Best, > Jean-Paul > > On 11 Mar 2019, at 14:25, Bruno Blais > > wrote: > > Dear Jean-Paul and Wolfgang, > Is it better if I try to go with the Teuchos way or should I wait until >

Re: [deal.II] Controllins fill-in, abs. tol and rel. tol or smoother and coarse solver of TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionAMG

Dear Jean-Paul and Wolfgang, Is it better if I try to go with the Teuchos way or should I wait until Jean-Paul finishes the merge on his branch ? I think the latter might be a good option. In all cases, I would be more than glad to share my experience in parameters tuning for the AMG solver

[deal.II] Controllins fill-in, abs. tol and rel. tol or smoother and coarse solver of TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionAMG

Hello everyone, Just a small question. Looking at the documentation and at the .h of the TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionAMG I have not found a way to access the smoother and coarse solver to play with their parameters. Say if you use an ILU or ILUT smoother. When you use the verbose output of

Re: [deal.II] Solving a system defined up to a constant (stabilized Navier-Stokes pressure definition)

On Thursday, 7 March 2019 23:35:15 UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > On 3/7/19 7:45 AM, Bruno Blais wrote: > > > > However, my GMRES stops very quickly after a certain number of newton > > iteration with the following : AztecOO::Iterate error code -4: G

Re: [deal.II] Solving a system defined up to a constant (stabilized Navier-Stokes pressure definition)

Dear Wolfgang, Sorry for an additional question. I have tried to implement by myself something similar to what is done in ASPECT (I guess?, it is a bit harder for me to grasp ASPECT concepts because of the introspection and etc.). However, I seem to have failed miserably at one point. My

Re: [deal.II] Solving a system defined up to a constant (stabilized Navier-Stokes pressure definition)

Dear Wolfgang, A quick question. I think I understand what is done in https://github.com/geodynamics/aspect/blob/master/source/simulator/helper_functions.cc#L1041 Weirdfully, I found the "pickaxe" version easier to understand (Love the comments by the way, this is awesome) A question I have is

Re: [deal.II] Solving a system defined up to a constant (stabilized Navier-Stokes pressure definition)

Dear Bruno and Wolfgang, Thank you for your answers. I believe Wolfgang's answer is exactly what i had in mind (but said in clear words...). I will look at the Aspect code and try to port that to mine. Thank you for the very detailed answer. Best Bruno On Tuesday, 5 March 2019 10:08:29

[deal.II] Solving a system defined up to a constant (stabilized Navier-Stokes pressure definition)

Hello everyone, I am currently solving a GLS stabilized form of the Navier-Stokes equation using DEALII. The residual of the system looks similar to the regular Incompressible Navier-Stokes, except that a stiffness matrix that is dependent on the element size is added to the P-P block. I have a

Re: [deal.II] Shared memory parallelism of Trilinos

wrote: > > Le lun. 4 mars 2019 à 08:44, Bruno Blais > > a écrit : > > I'm using the wrapper, so I guess by default that means it is using the > AztecOO stack of solvers? > > Yes, that's right. You won't get any speedup using OpenMP with > AztecOO, you need

Re: [deal.II] Shared memory parallelism of Trilinos

Bruno On Monday, 4 March 2019 08:28:18 UTC-5, Bruno Turcksin wrote: > Bruno, > > On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 7:41:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Blais wrote: >> >> 2. Furthermore, when you compile Trilinos with OpenMP and you try to >> compile the latest version of DEAL.II,

[deal.II] Shared memory parallelism of Trilinos

Hello everyone, I have a quick question for which I have not found documentation. The suggested compilation options for Trilinos do not suggest the use of OpenMP and the flag is not enabled by default. DEALII by default also compiles using TBB for shared memory parallelism. Does this mean that

[deal.II] Setting constant modes in Trillinos AMG preconditiner for (u,v,w,p) type of problems

Hello everyone, I am currently solving a stabilized form of the Navier-Stokes equations. Due to the stabilization terms, I can easily lump everything in a single matrix. Everything is done via the Trillinos Wrappers. I get relatively nice scaling up to a certain number of cells (say 1e6 or

[deal.II] Choosing the appropriate parameters for TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionILU for GLS stabilized Navier-Stokes

Hello everyone, I am currently solving a stabilized version of the Navier-Stokes equation using dealii and everything is working well when I use a direct solver. I would like (obviously?) to extend it to use a FGMRES iterative solver to be able to tackle very large systems. I have ported those

Re: [deal.II] Change in the behavior of Boundary Id interpretation from GMSH 2 to GMSH 4?

Dear Daniel, Sorry I dropped the ball on this one. I checked out the patch and tested it on two of my full cases and everything works well. No differences between a GMSH ASCII 2 and GMSH ASCII 4, whereas before I had the previous issue. >From my point of view this fixes everything. Thank you

Re: [deal.II] Re: the viscous term in SUPG stabilization terms

I might be late to the party, But I believe what Wolfgang is trying to say is that Q1-Q1 elements are bi-linear. Consequently, except if you mesh is perfectly alligned with the x and y axis, you will have a non-zero second derivative of the shape function. Your shape function are of the form :

Re: [deal.II] Change in the behavior of Boundary Id interpretation from GMSH 2 to GMSH 4?

Daniel, Thank you very much. I real the issue and saw that you guys found a smaller mesh to break the example. I'll try to look further into it in the following weeks and see if I can come up with a nice solution. Best Bruno On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:04:13 AM UTC-5, Daniel Arndt wrote:

Re: [deal.II] Change in the behavior of Boundary Id interpretation from GMSH 2 to GMSH 4?

Dear Wolfgang, Thanks for looking into it. I can't guarantee a timeline, but I'll try to take a look at it this weekend / early next week. I'll use your code to debug, it is indeed significantly smaller!. I'll try to see if I can come up with a very small mesh that breaks it down (like 10cells

[deal.II] Change in the behavior of Boundary Id interpretation from GMSH 2 to GMSH 4?

Hello, I have been having some issues when trying to run a "toy" code (a simple Steady Navier-Stokes solver) on a case I used to run. The boundary group Id 0, which is manually set in my GMSH script (vonKarman.geo), is detected perfectly as both a BC and a manifold when I export to GMSH 2 and I

Re: [deal.II] Issue with convergence of iterative linear solver for system matrix in modified step-57 with no-normal flux constraints

I have found my problem. A boundary condition in my mesh was ill-defined and this lead to my error. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks On Monday, 19 February 2018 13:41:35 UTC-5, Bruno Blais wrote: > > Hello, > Sorry I feel I have not explained myself correctly. Here is a drawing of &

Re: [deal.II] Issue with convergence of iterative linear solver for system matrix in modified step-57 with no-normal flux constraints

Hello, Sorry I feel I have not explained myself correctly. Here is a drawing of the case: With Ux may be a profile or a constant. Initially I had set-up that

Re: [deal.II] Issue with convergence of iterative linear solver for system matrix in modified step-57 with no-normal flux constraints

rectly for the zero_constraints and > the nonzero_constraints and are you sure you are not applying other > boundary conditions on that wall (for example with > interpolate_boundary_values())? > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Bruno Blais <blais...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >