On 16.07.19 12:13, lc wrote:
Hello,
Maybe this helps to understand what I’m talking about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_working_example
In particular, “The important feature of a minimal working example is
that it is as small and as simple as possible, such that it is just
Am 16.07.2019 um 10:24 schrieb lc
mailto:lorenzo.camp...@uniroma1.it>>:
Hello
On 16.07.2019 10:22, Timo Koch wrote:
please post a minimal working example to reproduce the behaviour. Also, we need
to know what you are computing, what is the outcome, what is the expected
outcome and why you
> Am 16.07.2019 um 08:55 schrieb lc :
>
> Hello Timo,
>
> thanks for your answer.
>
> Since, I'm working with Dumux 2.12 I cannot say anything about 1) or 2).
>
> So, for the moment, I attach al the material necessary to replicate the
> behaviour that I get on Dumux 2.12, at least to
Hello Timo,
thanks for your answer.
Since, I'm working with Dumux 2.12 I cannot say anything about 1) or 2).
So, for the moment, I attach al the material necessary to replicate the
behaviour that I get on Dumux 2.12, at least to understand if it is a
bug, my implementation mistake or should
Hi Lorenzo,
I think the status is as follows (Dumux 3.0):
1) For the box scheme Dirichlet boundaries are always strongly enforced
so nothing special to do here.
2) For cell-centered schemes there is a new feature called "internal
Dirichlet constraints" that allows you to enforce Dirichlet
Hello,
can you explain how can I strongly impose the Dirichet condition in the
first cell (or the closest one) on the inlet (left ) boundary in order
to achieve what you said, please?
I need to use 2p, sequential algorithm.
Kind regards,
Lorenzo
On 29.03.2019 16:31, Timo Koch wrote:
I
On 29.03.19 13:46, lc wrote:
Hello Timo,
Does it also occur when your grid is fine from the beginning and you
don't have hanging nodes?
Yes, I tried different variants, strctured, adapted, unstructured and
the behaviour is the same.
What are your criterions for Newton convergence?
Hello Timo,
Does it also occur when your grid is fine from the beginning and you
don't have hanging nodes?
Yes, I tried different variants, strctured, adapted, unstructured and
the behaviour is the same.
What are your criterions for Newton convergence?
At the beginning, I just copied
Hello Timo,
Does it also occur when your grid is fine from the beginning and you
don't have hanging nodes?
Yes, I tried different variants, strctured, adapted, unstructured and
the behaviour is the same.
What are your criterions for Newton convergence?
At the beginning, I just copied
Good afternoon Beatrix,
I tried to apply your suggestion, imposing setAllDirichlet at the inlet
(left) and everywhere else setAllNeumann, as was also done in the
tutorial handbook.
Unfortunately, the behaviour at the inlet regarding the "degradation" of
the BC is still present even if I
Dear Lorenzo,
in my opinion it makes no sense to set a Dirichlet and a Neumann
condition at the same time. Either you know the flux over your boundary
or you know the values of your primary variables on the boundary. If you
change your code to setAllNeumann on the left boundary of your
Hi Lorenzo,
you still have large capillary pressure gradients at the left boundary
at t=600 thus the saturation changes.
You also have them in the initial conditions, so they probably never go
away. Why this is so, depends on your setup. Does it also occur when
your grid is fine from the
Dear Lorenzo,
generally for cell-centered discretizations in Dumux, Dirichlet boundary
conditions are weakly enforced on the boundary. Your first degree of
freedom is half a cell away from the boundary, so it doesn't necessarily
have to be the same as the Dirichlet value.
In order to see if
Hello Dumux team,
We are, finally, in the post-processing phase, aiming at publishing soon
... but we observed a scaring issue concerning the verification of the
BC at the inlet.
I'm using Dumux 2.12 with the 2p sequential model for a rectangular
domain discretized with a cartesian
14 matches
Mail list logo
