dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <g.n.wells@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anders Logg wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:50:17PM +0200, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Quoting Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:04:16PM +0200, DOLFIN wrote:
> > > > One or more new changesets pushed to the primary DOLFIN repository.
> > > > A short summary of the last three changesets is included below.
> > > >
> > > > changeset:   2900:cc8dbffbcc9cebe6761eceb5b91d324e0ec2caf0
> > > > tag:         tip
> > > > user:        "Garth N. Wells <g.n.wells@xxxxxxxxxx>"
> > > > date:        Mon Apr 23 19:04:03 2007 +0200
> > > > files:       src/kernel/io/VTKFile.cpp
> > > > description:
> > > > Fix VTK outout. Results look ok now.
> > > Very nice. Maybe we should put back the same boundary condition as we
> > > had before and compare the results (the solution vector number by
> > > number) with the old demo. That would be a very good indicator that
> > > we are on the right track.
> > Do we still need to do some work on applying Dirichlet boundary conditions to
> > particular components of a vector only, or is this already implemented?
> >
> > Garth
>
> I think this is not needed for the elasticity demo since we set the
> values for all the vector components. The displacement is u = [0, 0, 0]
> at one end and u = [ux, uy, uz] at the other end.

Looks like the boundary condition at one end is u = [-, uy, uz].

I've applied the same boundary conditions for the new and the old code, 
and the results are close, but not the same. One issue is that FFC is 
producing code with fewer significant digits than previously.

Garth

> This problem does not show up until we get to the Stokes demo.
>
> /Anders
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev