- Nov 09, 2021
-
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
- Oct 28, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Fix minor issues See merge request !89
-
Sander, Oliver authored
-
Sander, Oliver authored
-
- Oct 20, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Correct the sign of the Neumann and volume forces to make it consistent... See merge request !84
-
- Sep 23, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Change nonplanarcosseratenergytest to make adaptions easier See merge request !82
-
- Sep 17, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Remove commented out code in the surfacecosseratstressassembler See merge request !85
-
- Aug 21, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Introduce python function for adaptive refinement See merge request !86
-
- Aug 19, 2021
-
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
With this, the preparatory stretching experiment for film-on-substrate can be done using dune-gfe. The vertices for adaptive refinement can now be selected without specifying a shell area.
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
Correct the sign of the Neumann and volume forces to make it consistent throughout dune-gfe and dune-elasticity In the energy file, the energies are *added*. The Neumann and volume forces get the correct sign in the actual program file by mulitplying with (-homotopyParameter).
-
- Jul 26, 2021
-
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
- Jul 20, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Fix error in surfacecosseratenergy See merge request !81
-
- Jul 09, 2021
-
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
The contravariant base vectors were not calculated correctly. The contravariant base vectors are the *columns* of the inverse of the covariant matrix, not the rows. To fix this, take the rows of the transpose of inverse of the covariant matrix.
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
WHITESAPCES for previous commit: Add the option to use the Riemannian Proximal Newton solver also for problems with dim = dimwold
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
Use cholmod if the dune-solvers version >= 2.8, use umfpack for older versions
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Sander, Oliver authored
added ProductManifold<...> See merge request !70
-
- Jul 02, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Fix error in nonplanarcosseratshellenergy See merge request !80
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
The contravariant base vectors were not calculated correctly. The contravariant base vectors are the *columns* of the inverse of the covariant matrix, not the rows. To fix this, take the rows of the transpose of inverse of the covariant matrix.
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
Add a simple test with a grid containing one element testing if the energy is invariant of the number of grid refinements.
-
- Jun 10, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Fix/rotational dirichlet values See merge request !79
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Fix the use of projection-based finite elements in cosserat-continuum See merge request !78
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
Add multiplication of a ScaledIdentityMatrix with another FieldMatrix to the collection in linearalgebra.hh
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
- May 11, 2021
-
-
Müller, Alexander authored
-
Müller, Alexander authored
The tests failed since the construction of values of ProductManifold<> in ValueFactory uses random entries between [0.9..1.1]. These are then used for the tests and are projected onto the manifold. To pass this tests it is needed to adjust several Taylor expansions and thresholds. For example this commit increases the threshold from `1e-4` to `1e-2` and adds more terms to the Taylor expansion. The reason for this change is explained in the following. The problem is, even if the tolerance `1e-4` is sufficient to have a correct function value within machine precision, it is not always sufficient to get correct derivatives since here we lose orders of correctness. For example of for sinc(x) we need to put the threshold at `1e-4` to get the correct function value if we use `1.0-x*x/6.0` as approximation formula. If we then use this formula within automatic differentiation or finite differences, e.g. the derivative algorithms "sees" only the following formulas of the first and second derivative: - Function value: `1.0-x*x/6.0` This function is implemented - First deriv: `-x/3.0` This sees the derivative algorithms as first derivative - Second: `-1.0/3.0` This sees the derivative algorithms as second derivative Obviously, this is the case if the function value is inside the region where the Taylor expansion is used. If we use these functions to test the exactness of the derivatives we need to set the threshold to `x<1e-6` to get exact second order derivatives where the error is within machine precision. Therefore, for larger values `x>1e-6` the exact formula has to be used to get correct results. Unfortunately, in this range the exact derivative are already unstable. E.g. the first derivative formula behaves already strange near `x=1e-4`. Therefore, to get a correct derivative value we need to switch to the Taylor expansion earlier (`1e-4`) to prevent using the unstable exact formula. But in this range the Taylor expansion is unable to reproduce an approximation error within machine precision. I think the only way to fix this problem is to add more terms to the Taylor expansions. Since even if they seem to be sufficient in terms of function value, usually they are not sufficient in terms of derivatives. For `sin(x)/x` a test ist at https://godbolt.org/z/T995hGec3 and for `acos(x)^2` https://godbolt.org/z/TG9E15jjf.
-
- May 07, 2021
-
-
Sander, Oliver authored
Cosserat-Continuum-Nonplanar See merge request !72
-
- May 05, 2021
-
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
Change the keywords for switching between the solvers to trustRegion and proximalNewton also in film-on-substrate
-
Lisa Julia Nebel authored
-
- May 04, 2021
-
-
AlexanderMüller authored
-
AlexanderMüller authored
-