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

Flexibility for parametric dimension of loads (Closes Issue #20) #21

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hverhelst
Copy link
Member

(See Issue #20)

…n assembler, and a switch to decide which one to use
@hverhelst hverhelst linked an issue Feb 29, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@hverhelst hverhelst removed a link to an issue Feb 29, 2024
@hverhelst hverhelst linked an issue Feb 29, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@hverhelst hverhelst added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 29, 2024
@hverhelst
Copy link
Member Author

hverhelst commented Feb 29, 2024

A nicer fix would be when we have a gsCompositeFunction that takes a gsFunction and performs the composite map via the geometry map automatically.

In that case, we can make gsFunctionSet<T> * m_surfForce; a class member, and assign it in the constructor of the gsThinShellAssembler like (DRAFT):

if (par) // function is defined in parametric domain
    m_surfForce = new gsFunctionSet<T>(surface_force);
else
    m_surfForce = new gsCompositeFunction<T>(surface_force,m_patches);

@hverhelst hverhelst added this to the Version v24.03 milestone Mar 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Force dimensions
2 participants