-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 108
Minor changes in transient_heat_equation.jl and change in notation of test functions #1305
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 1 commit
915b7c9
1c6a807
7d8a2a7
7776fb9
6bfee05
8ddb33a
5dde3f1
83e3602
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -47,16 +47,16 @@ simplicity we will consider only constant conductivity $k$. | |
| ## Weak form | ||
|
|
||
| The solution to the equation above is usually calculated from the corresponding weak | ||
| form. By multiplying the equation with an arbitrary *test function* $\delta u$, integrating | ||
| form. By multiplying the equation with an arbitrary *test function* $\varphi$, integrating | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I definitely see the point made by the contributor here @KnutAM . Since we explain it here from the Bubnov-Galerkin perspective I see that the notation I am just not sure about the choice of
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but I also think that for most users it will make things easier if we are always consistent that test function for Specifically using In the code, we are currently mixing using the notation for the test function and function itself with the test shape function and shape function. (I'm no fan of that but others are :D) My preferred notationFor a field
Of course, we can exchange
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. And noting @fredrikekre's comment here: #1304 (comment) - I guess that would be ok if we note that we (ab)use the notation And regarding the transient heat problem specifically, I think this can be derived from a potential so it can actually be considered a variation, but this would fail for other cases such as partially saturated porous media. I guess we could introduce a different notation instead of |
||
| over the domain and using partial integration we obtain the *weak form*. Now our problem | ||
| can be stated as: | ||
|
|
||
| Find $u \in \mathbb{U}$ s.t. | ||
|
|
||
| ```math | ||
| \int_\Omega \nabla \delta u \cdot (k \nabla u) \, \mathrm{d}\Omega = | ||
| \int_{\Gamma_\mathrm{N}} \delta u \, q^\mathrm{p} \, \mathrm{d}\Gamma + | ||
| \int_\Omega \delta u \, f \, \mathrm{d}\Omega \quad \forall \, \delta u \in \mathbb{T} | ||
| \int_\Omega \nabla \varphi \cdot (k \nabla u) \, \mathrm{d}\Omega = | ||
| \int_{\Gamma_\mathrm{N}} \varphi \, q^\mathrm{p} \, \mathrm{d}\Gamma + | ||
| \int_\Omega \varphi \, f \, \mathrm{d}\Omega \quad \forall \, \varphi \in \mathbb{T} | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| where $\mathbb{U}, \mathbb{T}$ are suitable function spaces with sufficiently regular | ||
|
|
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ in our domain $\Omega$ as: | |
|
|
||
| ```math | ||
| u_\mathrm{h}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^{\mathrm{N}} \phi_i(\mathbf{x}) \, \hat{u}_i,\qquad | ||
| \delta u_\mathrm{h}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^{\mathrm{N}} \phi_i(\mathbf{x}) \, \delta \hat{u}_i \, . | ||
| \varphi_\mathrm{h}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^{\mathrm{N}} \phi_i(\mathbf{x}) \, \delta \hat{u}_i \, . | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Since test and trial functions are usually chosen in such a way, that they build the basis of | ||
|
|
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ We may now insert these approximations in the weak form, which results in | |
| \int_{\Omega_\mathrm{h}} \phi_i \, f \, \mathrm{d}\Omega \right) \, . | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Since this equation must hold for arbitrary $\delta u_\mathrm{h}$, the equation must especially | ||
| Since this equation must hold for arbitrary $\varphi_\mathrm{h}$, the equation must especially | ||
| hold for the specific choice that only one of the nodal values $\delta \hat{u}_i$ is fixed to 1 while | ||
| an all other coefficients are fixed to 0. Repeating this argument for all $i$ from 1 to N we obtain | ||
| N linear equations. This way the discrete problem can be written as a system of linear equations | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but didn't you wanted to change these to be consistent with the heat example? Before changing these, let us wait for a quick feedback on https://github.com/Ferrite-FEM/Ferrite.jl/pull/1305/changes#r2934003577 .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
😅right. I must have missed that part. Once we get feedback on which symbol would be better, I'll update the lot and fix the two broken reference links.