Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Multi-field in mixed-dimensional FE spaces #483

Closed
oriolcg opened this issue Nov 27, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Multi-field in mixed-dimensional FE spaces #483

oriolcg opened this issue Nov 27, 2020 · 2 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@oriolcg
Copy link
Member

oriolcg commented Nov 27, 2020

Gridap cannot handle a MultiFieldFESpace with single field FE spaces defined in different dimensions, e.g. a field defined in a domain Ω and another field defined on (part of) its boundary Γ⊆∂Ω. As @fverdugo pointed out:

Wait ⚠️, perhaps it is not as easy as that with the MultiFieldFESpace. I see a conceptual problem. when evaluating the shapefuns at some gps you now get a block matrix representing the different fields (which is what one would expect). This intrinsically assumes that all the fields can be evaluated at the same points... which is not true in your case

The error that I get when executing this case is:

ERROR: AssertionError: Incorrect number of point components
Stacktrace:
 [1] field_cache(::Gridap.Polynomials.MonomialBasis{1,Float64}, ::Array{VectorValue{2,Float64},1}) at C:\Users\ocolomesgene\.julia\packages\Gridap\0VcDN\src\Polynomials\MonomialBases.jl:117
@oriolcg oriolcg self-assigned this Nov 27, 2020
@oriolcg
Copy link
Member Author

oriolcg commented Nov 29, 2020

In the latest version the error appears in another place, when defining the MultiFEFunction. In particular, there is a check in MultiFieldCellFields that fails when the fields are defined in different triangulations. This goes in line with the comments in previous post.

If I'm not wrong, having a MultiField defined in different triangulations (even if one is a subset of the other) would require a rethinking / deep refactoring of the MultiField data structure, right @fverdugo? Is there a "simple" alternative to that? Maybe use the union triangulation and "fix" the DOFs that don't belong to each triangulation? (not sure if this would work in general and for sure it isn't the most efficient/clean way)

@fverdugo fverdugo mentioned this issue Feb 1, 2021
5 tasks
@fverdugo fverdugo added this to the v0.16.0 milestone Feb 1, 2021
@fverdugo
Copy link
Member

I think this has already been fixed in #567

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants