With r6440, the unit tests now have been copied into ./tests, and get built
whenever cppunit is available. They are run (serial only ATM) when 'make
check' is run.
This effectively deprecates the
^/libmesh/trunk/{libmesh,libmesh_tests}
dichotomy. I'd like to move everything in to trunk, bu
> Do any of you have access to "The finite element method" vol. 1 by
> Zienkiewicz & Taylor? Pg. 222 is referenced as the source for orders 1-5,
> and I want to make sure that the 5th-order rule has only 15 points...
>
The report by Walkington, "Quadrature on Simplices of Arbitrary
Dimension
Hi all,
In my continuing quadrature rule "audit", I came across another
interesting one.
The current second-order (exact for quadratics) Gauss rule for
triangles has points on the *boundaries* of the reference element.
Roy pointed out to me a couple days ago that these types of rules are
obviousl
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Ahmed H. ELSheikh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I came across the course notes by Flaherty at RPI.
> www.cs.rpi.edu/~flaherje/FEM/fem6.ps (page 12)
> It does contain a table listing the intergaration rules for tetrahedral
> elements as well as some references.
> I ho
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Paulo Vieira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are the pages you need:
> http://www.zshare.net/download/1395064531078147/
Thanks Paulo!
It looks like the tet rules only go up to third-order, so we're still
looking for an independent verification of the fifth-orde
>On a totally related issue, I was just expanding the quadrature unit tests
>and found a bug in QGauss for Tets at 5th-order. The issue is that the
>points/weights vector is resized to hold 17 entries, but only 15 entries are
>initialized. This led to weirdness which can allow the last two entrie
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM, John Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM, David Knezevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> hehe, well the way the paper is written doesn't inspire me with confidence
>> in their results, so I'd be very interested to hear the results
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM, John Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM, David Knezevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> hehe, well the way the paper is written doesn't inspire me with confidence
>> in their results, so I'd be very interested to hear the results
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM, David Knezevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hehe, well the way the paper is written doesn't inspire me with confidence
> in their results, so I'd be very interested to hear the results of the
> comparisons.
So far, so good. This 14-point rule described by Walkin
Hi John,
> I think this is actually a 14-point rule in Table 2.1. I didn't see
> it explicitly stated anywhere that it was a 15-point rule, and it
> turns out that
>
> 4*w_1 + 4*w_2 + 6*w_3 = 1/6
>
> where 4 and 6 are the cardinality of the \Xi_1 and \Xi_{11} sets,
> respectively. (Awful notation
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:50 AM, David Knezevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Did you see where w_0 is given for this degree 5 tet rule? I suppose
>> I can figure it out by summing the other 14 and subtracting from the
>> volume...
>>
>
> Good question, I'm not sure. Is it intended to
> Did you see where w_0 is given for this degree 5 tet rule? I suppose
> I can figure it out by summing the other 14 and subtracting from the
> volume...
>
Good question, I'm not sure. Is it intended to imply that w_0 is the
same in for both rows of Table 2.1? If so, it's not very clearly wr
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:27 AM, David Knezevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The report by Walkington, "Quadrature on Simplices of Arbitrary
> Dimension" has a quadrature rule on tets that is exact for polynomials
> of degree 5, and has 15 points (i.e., see Table 2.1, but note that the
> Do any of you have access to "The finite element method" vol. 1 by
> Zienkiewicz & Taylor? Pg. 222 is referenced as the source for orders
> 1-5,
> and I want to make sure that the 5th-order rule has only 15 points...
>
The report by Walkington, "Quadrature on Simplices of Arbitrary
Dimens
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM, John Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, John Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
Do any of
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, John Peterson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do any of you have access to "The finite element method" vol. 1 by
>>> Zienkiewicz & Taylor?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, John Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Do any of you have access to "The finite element method" vol. 1 by
>> Zienkiewicz & Taylor? Pg. 222 is referenced as the source for orders 1-5,
>> and I want to make sure th
> I do like CPPUNIT. It has it's drawbacks... but there's not really
> any reason to use anything else. In particular Boost.Test has _many_
> drawbacks (as Boost stuff often does)... mainly that it's just tough
> to work with. CPPUNIT is straightforward and does it's job well.
OK, the libme
I do like CPPUNIT. It has it's drawbacks... but there's not really
any reason to use anything else. In particular Boost.Test has _many_
drawbacks (as Boost stuff often does)... mainly that it's just tough
to work with. CPPUNIT is straightforward and does it's job well.
Here at INL I'm
> That's a nasty one. I would never have seen that -- I'd be to focused
> on making sure the weights and points were correct to worry if the
> vector was too long!
Yeah, if you ran on pure tets you likely were OK as the extra entries were
default constructed to 0 weight. When I ran a hex or pris
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Benjamin Kirk wrote:
> Have we settled in on CPPUNIT as our unit-testing framework? I'm ready to
> reorganize the unit test directory if so.
Sounds good to me. It looks like Boost.Test and something called
CxxTest have a few advantages, but nothing worth switching for.
---
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have we settled in on CPPUNIT as our unit-testing framework? I'm ready to
> reorganize the unit test directory if so.
>
> On a totally related issue, I was just expanding the quadrature unit tests
> and found a bug in QGau
Have we settled in on CPPUNIT as our unit-testing framework? I'm ready to
reorganize the unit test directory if so.
On a totally related issue, I was just expanding the quadrature unit tests
and found a bug in QGauss for Tets at 5th-order. The issue is that the
points/weights vector is resized t
23 matches
Mail list logo
