Re: [deal.II] Overlapping decomposition using p4est and deal.ii

1. I tried out the p4est_ghost_expand as Wolfgang suggested, but it gives me an error because for some reason I get if(cell->is_ghost){cell->user_flag_set()==true} after the calls communicate_dof_indices_on_marked_cells() in dof_handler_policy.cc line 3875. I believe the function communicate_

[deal.II] Re: Constraints on support points on Q2 elements and output

Hi Daniel Thank you for your help! The code below suggests that you want to constraint all degrees of freedom. > Is this really what you intend? If so, it might be better to just > interpolate the values using VectorTools::interpolate >

[deal.II] Re: multiply constrained dofs (hanging nodes+periodic) fails a simple test case

I understand my mistake now: there are extra hanging nodes constraints in the constraint matrix with (hanging nod constraints + PBC) compared to the constraint matrix with only hanging node constraints. That is why the minimal example fails. Sambit On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 1:00:25 PM UTC

[deal.II] Re: Problem with parallelization when using hyper_cube_slit

Dear all, in the reply to my first post I forgot the code. I attach it to this reply. Best Roberto P. On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:27:37 PM UTC-5, Roberto Porcù wrote: > > Dear all, > > I'm solving a linear elasticity problem on a cracked domain created by > means > of the GridGenera

[deal.II] Re: Problem with parallelization when using hyper_cube_slit

Dear all, since I am still experiencing the same issue, I tried to solve a very simple and basic problem on a domain created with the GridGenerator::hyper_cube_slit and then rotated of -90 degrees. As you can see in the attached figures I am experiencing the same issue: when I run the prog

[deal.II] Re: multiply constrained dofs (hanging nodes+periodic) fails a simple test case

> > >> 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

[deal.II] Re: multiply constrained dofs (hanging nodes+periodic) fails a simple test case

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:00:18 PM UTC+2, Sambit Das wrote: > > Hi Denis, > > >> I don't think that's the case. The domain is indeed periodic, but this is >> completely detached from location of support/nodal points. >> Same applies to geometry, you will have different coordinates of ve

[deal.II] Re: multiply constrained dofs (hanging nodes+periodic) fails a simple test case

Hi Denis, > I don't think that's the case. The domain is indeed periodic, but this is > completely detached from location of support/nodal points. > Same applies to geometry, you will have different coordinates of vertices > across the PBC so > > I agree, the location of nodal points is detach

[deal.II] Re: Use of 'VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values' using numerical solution.

Thanks for giving me an idea for this! I will take a look approaches you just mentioned. Jaekwang On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 12:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jie Cheng wrote: > > Hi Jaekwang > > One way I can think of is to construct your ConstraintMatrix for Part B > manually. Iterate over your triangu

[deal.II] Re: Constraints on support points on Q2 elements and output

Jie, > I need to constrain all the support points on a Q2 element instead of only vertices. The constrained values (inhomogeneity) are obtained from (conceptually) a function, say f(\bold{x}). The code below suggests that you want to constraint all degrees of freedom. Is this really what you i

Re: [deal.II] Overlapping decomposition using p4est and deal.ii

Hello, I had a few more questions and was some grateful for some clarification: 1. I tried out the p4est_ghost_expand as Wolfgang suggested, but it gives me an error because for some reason I get if(cell->is_ghost){cell->user_flag_set()==true} after the calls communicate_dof_indices_on_marked_

Re: [deal.II] Error in writing and reading cell based data for restart

Prof. Bangerth, Thank you for your reply and creating the issue. > > I imagine you can work around this is you simply call > `register_data_attach()` > again before calling `load()`. > I checked that calling `register_data_attach()`again before calling `load()` still triggers the same asser