On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Vijay S. Mahadevan wrote:
> I'm terribly sorry for not keeping you updated on this effort. I got
> side tracked with other things and haven't been able to get back to it
> until now. I will focus on getting the embedding matrices written out
> so that the patch will be almost
All,
I'm terribly sorry for not keeping you updated on this effort. I got
side tracked with other things and haven't been able to get back to it
until now. I will focus on getting the embedding matrices written out
so that the patch will be almost complete. Hopefully, these higher
order elements w
Roy I am almost done testing both 1 and 2 dimensional elements (only
edges and quads for now). I have the placeholders for Hexes but need
to decide a suitable numbering before I can do anything there.
I am not entirely sure about the way to go for the higher-order
output. Writing out multiple line
I'm jumping into this very late; a couple comments:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Vijay S. Mahadevan wrote:
>> For higher-order elements the embedding matrices will be enormous, not
>> sure we want to mess with these if we don't have to...
> Are you saying that higher order elements dont need the embeddin
Yes. I agree that the numbering change for EDGE5 would be logical to
be nested with EDGE3. All my nodes are equi-spaced as of now and I
don't have any requirements to have a non-standard element definition
for any of my problems.
> Are you planning to use isoparametric elements (element map has sa
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Vijay S. Mahadevan wrote:
> John,
>
> If I understand the implementation for edges correctly, for all the
> higher order edges, you split the element in half and create 2
> children of same order with h/2. If this is true, I dont see a problem
> with my numbering s
John,
If I understand the implementation for edges correctly, for all the
higher order edges, you split the element in half and create 2
children of same order with h/2. If this is true, I dont see a problem
with my numbering scheme or the implementation of the embedding
matrix. Btw, here's the nu
Apparently I bcc'd the list my previous mail. John, sorry if you get
this twice (or thrice ?!).. Guess only some sleep and coffee can cure
my stupidities ..
Derek,
Absolutely. I have been asked to use higher order lagrange basis
before but have always tried to convince people to instead live wit
Vijay,
I just wanted to let you know that this work is greatly appreciated!
I know we could certainly do some things with higher order Lagrange
shape functions!
That said... I know next to nothing about that piece of the code...
and unfortunately the guys who do know something are EXTREMELY tied
I sent this email couple days back but have not received any reply
yet. I know you guys are busy but it would help me quite a bit in
completing the implementation if one of the developers can explain the
purpose of the embedding matrix.
I have implemented higher order lagrange basis for 1-d elemen
Hi all,
I am working on system that requires me to start with a 4th order
element since the mesh for the domain is prescribed from an external
source. Now, since libMesh does not have 4th order lagrangian elements
and since I'm lazy to learn a new package (and since I'm constrained
in time), I dec
11 matches
Mail list logo
