-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 93
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
Periodic Dirichlet boundary conditions #418
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #418 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.32% 87.53% -3.79%
==========================================
Files 22 22
Lines 3043 3177 +134
==========================================
+ Hits 2779 2781 +2
- Misses 264 396 +132
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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.
I added some short comment. I did not really check the _add!
- function :P
It would also be nice if you can inhomogeneities to the PeriodicConstraint
via a function (similarly to how Dirichlet
does it). I think you are enforcing [|um|] = 0, but I am enforcing [|u|] = [|uM|]
Done. |
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.
As much as I had time for now, will continue tomorrow!
# ``\boldsymbol{u}^\mu`` to be periodic, and ``\boldsymbol{t}`` anti-periodic across the | ||
# RVE. Similarly as for Dirichlet boundary conditions, Eq. ``(1\mathrm{b})`` is directly |
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.
"and \boldsymbol{t}
anti-periodic across the RVE"
Is this really true that we enforce, doesn't this just happen to be the case if the structure is periodic?
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.
Good question. I believe it is actually just an assumption, but never enforced, which is used to get rid of the second equation.
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.
I suppose it must hold true for the integral equation due to equilibrium, but I'm not sure about the point-wise anti-periodicity...
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.
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.
It looks like we assume anti-periodicity, and by inserting that assumption in equation 9 it is effectively enforced. Without this assumption, the problem doesn't have sufficient bc because the traction would be unknown for both boundaries. At least that is how it all makes more sense to me now...
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.
Nice example!
4773aa8
to
2b531a5
Compare
No description provided.