Thank you, Denis.
Best,
Sambit
On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 1:36:44 AM UTC-5, Denis Davydov wrote:
>
> Thanks for the MWE, Sambit.
>
> I created a Github issue to track this further
> https://github.com/dealii/dealii/issues/7053
>
> Denis.
>
> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:01:07 AM UTC+2,
Thanks for the MWE, Sambit.
I created a Github issue to track this
further https://github.com/dealii/dealii/issues/7053
Denis.
On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:01:07 AM UTC+2, Sambit Das wrote:
>
> Dear Prof. Bangerth,
>
> I have now reproduced the above issue in the attached minimal example.
Dear Prof. Bangerth,
I have now reproduced the above issue in the attached minimal example.
Below is the algorithm of the minimal example
1) Create a hypercube (-20,20) with origin at the center
2) Set periodic boundary conditions on all faces of the hypercube
3) Refine mesh by first doing
Dear Prof. Bangerth,
Yes, they should really be the same. Or, more correctly, if two processors
> both store the constraints for a node, they better be the same. On the
> other
> hand, of course not every processor will know every constraint.
>
Thanks you for clarifying this.
Can you try
I created a ConstraintMatrix with both periodic and hanging node constraints,
and called close().
Then I pickeda constrained degree of freedom, lets say with global dof id =
“i” and printed the constraint equation pairs (j,a_ij) corresponding to “i” on
the processor for which “i” is