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

Primal HHO remarks, issues found, to-discuss, etc. #18

Open
amartinhuertas opened this issue Apr 3, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Primal HHO remarks, issues found, to-discuss, etc. #18

amartinhuertas opened this issue Apr 3, 2022 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@amartinhuertas
Copy link
Member

amartinhuertas commented Apr 3, 2022

  • We need div(M grad(u)) with M being a polytopal-wise constant tensor, and u being a FEBasis. At present, we can "only" compute laplacian(u), i.e., M=I. See here and here. [NOTE] This need can be actually by-passed using integration by parts, at the expense of having two terms instead of one.
  • I have the feeling that LocalFEOperator is becoming a monster struct with many responsibilities (reconstruction operator, reduction operator, L2-projection cell-wise and facet-wise operator, etc.) Perhaps we may consider splitting it into several structs. Just an idea. This requires some thinking.
  • Question: The gradient reconstruction space is a higher order space than the one where we seek the solution in. Exact integration of these higher order polynomials requires a higher order quadrature, right? Should we use mixed quadratures for integration? (solution space versus reconstruction space?)
  • At present, we are writing the reconstructed gradient bi-linear form term by blocks as:
  function r(u,v)
    uK,u∂K=R(u)
    vK,v∂K=R(v)
    ((vK)(uK))dΩ + ((vK)(u∂K))dΩ + ((v∂K)(uK))dΩ + ((v∂K)(u∂K))dΩ
  end

where P is the reconstruction operator. This is justified, among others, because we want to do static condensation, but also because in the stabilization bi-linear form term we need the result of the reconstruction operator with a block layout. Is this reasonable or should we think how to do it scalar-wise and then re-block after that?

  • Discuss the current design of LocalFEOperator based on the field_type_at_common_faces trait. This is currently being used to accommodate in the same type the reduction operator and the difference operator (the latter required for the stabilization).
  • These terms ∫(δv∂K_K*δu∂K_K)d∂K+∫(δv∂K_K*δu∂K_∂K)d∂K+∫(δv∂K_∂K*δu∂K_K)d∂K in the bilinear form stabilization are zero numerically. Are they mathematically zero?
  • Discuss the need for the keyword argument vector_type in
    VKR_C = TestFESpace(Ω, reffe_c ; conformity=:L2, vector_type=Vector{Float64})
@amartinhuertas amartinhuertas self-assigned this Apr 3, 2022
@amartinhuertas amartinhuertas changed the title HHO requirements (WIP) HHO requirements Apr 16, 2022
@amartinhuertas amartinhuertas changed the title HHO requirements Primal HHO remarks, issues found, to-discuss, etc. Apr 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant