Wow that's wonderful.
Thank you Peter. You save me all the time.
在2022年12月21日星期三 UTC+8 15:37:12 写道：
> Hi Wayne,
>
> you can attache your own constraints as shown here:
> https://github.com/dealii/dealii/blob/2376c62a4b89953b74801852983eb8556930d54d/tests/numerics/no_flux_18.cc#L1136-L1146
>
>
Hi Wayne,
you can attache your own constraints as shown here:
https://github.com/dealii/dealii/blob/2376c62a4b89953b74801852983eb8556930d54d/tests/numerics/no_flux_18.cc#L1136-L1146
Hope this helps!
Peter
On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 02:44:42 UTC+1 yy.wayne wrote:
> Hi guys, I have a
An alternative choice is applying the boundary conditions weakly(during
assemble). Will weakly implemented boundary condition behaves worse than
explicitly through AffineConstraint class, when it's not Dirichlet BC?
在2022年12月21日星期三 UTC+8 09:44:42 写道：
> Hi guys, I have a question on setting the
Hi Dhananjay,
Thanks for your message. I removed the dof_handler by mistake when I did
the copy/paste.
I still get the error when I run the following code:
constraints.clear();
Hello Daniel,
I think you are missing first argument for the function "
VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values" I guess it requires dofhandler
object . Have a look at step 6 (
https://www.dealii.org/current/doxygen/deal.II/step_6.html#Step6setup_system
)
Cheers
Dhananjay
On Friday,
Many thanks Wolfgang and Daneil.
I think Wolfgang's answer is illuminating.
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 3:13:56 PM UTC+2, Daniel Arndt wrote:
>
> so the uniform flux from left and right of the rectangle implies periodic
>> boundary condition. But the K ( hydraulic conductivity) is a
>
> so the uniform flux from left and right of the rectangle implies periodic
> boundary condition. But the K ( hydraulic conductivity) is a function of
> (x,y).
> If we want to enforce the periodic boundary condition, should we expect to
> have a condition on K ? should K be periodic as well
I am sorry I can not formulate my problem more clearly. This is another try.
so the uniform flux from left and right of the rectangle implies periodic
boundary condition. But the K ( hydraulic conductivity) is a function of
(x,y).
If we want to enforce the periodic boundary condition, should
On 10/25/2016 01:36 PM, Retired Replicant. wrote:
It seems to me that the specification of the flux out is not correct. In
principle, instead of the Qout, one should specifiy a fixed head or
temperature and the flux should adjust itself acoordingly.
You are asking a modeling question: how do I
It seems to me that the specification of the flux out is not correct. In
principle, instead of the Qout, one should specifiy a fixed head or
temperature and the flux should adjust itself acoordingly.
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 9:14:08 PM UTC+2, Daniel Arndt wrote:
>
> OK. So do I
OK. So do I understand you correctly, that you are imposing Neumann
boundary conditions on all *four* boundaries?
In that case the solution is only unique up to a constant.
It seems to my that in the problem I posed, the boundary condition is not
> correct.
>
Can you be a bit more specific? How
Retired Replicant,
H can be hydraulic head and K is the hydraulic conductivity.
> Or H can be temperature with k being diffusion coefficient.
>
Have a look at step-7, if you just consider a diffusion problem. There
Neumann boundary conditions are used on part of the boundary which is also
H can be hydraulic head and K is the hydraulic conductivity.
Or H can be temperature with k being diffusion coefficient.
The boundary here consists of only flux in and flux out condition. So only
neumann boundary condition is given here.
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 11:32:35 PM UTC+2,
13 matches
Mail list logo
