I'm trying to extend the linear combination example to 3D. During the debugging, I noticed that I couldn't solve a simple displacement problem in 3D with "order=3" or "order=2" integrals. The gist contains the code I'm trying to run
https://gist.github.com/wd15/8274429e3b4179c3d74f
The gist only has displacements with no linear combination or periodic boundary conditions. The image produced seems to be badly distorted without the expected symmetry.
Should this work with an "order=3" integral or does it need to be "order=1"? Does this require changing the solver parameters in some way?
Thanks.
On 09/04/2014 11:20 PM, Daniel Wheeler wrote:
I'm trying to extend the linear combination example to 3D. During the debugging, I noticed that I couldn't solve a simple displacement problem in 3D with "order=3" or "order=2" integrals. The gist contains the code I'm trying to run
https://gist.github.com/wd15/8274429e3b4179c3d74f
The gist only has displacements with no linear combination or periodic boundary conditions. The image produced seems to be badly distorted without the expected symmetry.
Should this work with an "order=3" integral or does it need to be "order=1"? Does this require changing the solver parameters in some way?
The integral order (line 42) should be 2 * field approximation order. Then the gist works for me.
Cheers, r.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Robert Cimrman cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz wrote:
The integral order (line 42) should be 2 * field approximation order. Then the gist works for me.
Thanks! Is that the same in both 2D and 3D? Should I be using "order=4" in the integral in both 2D and 3D?
On 09/05/2014 12:14 AM, Daniel Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Robert Cimrman cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz wrote:
The integral order (line 42) should be 2 * field approximation order. Then the gist works for me.
Thanks! Is that the same in both 2D and 3D? Should I be using "order=4" in the integral in both 2D and 3D?
Yes, 2 * approx_order in both 2D and 3D is "safe".
r.
participants (2)

Daniel Wheeler

Robert Cimrman