-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 158
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
BUG: Greater error than expected in quadrilateral GLL elements #3649
Comments
@pbrubeck do you have any ideas? |
The CG dofs are not in lexicographic ordering anymore, but we still generate quadrature rules in lexicographic ordering. In 1D we order first the vertex dofs and then the interior ones. |
There is definitely an inconsistency with the DOF and quadrature orderings, I'll assign this bug to myself. |
A temporary fix is to reorder the GLL quadrature rule to match the new order the GLL DOFs.
We wanted to make this quadrature rule more user-friendly, by supporting strings as the |
Describe the bug
We were modifying our code to work with the latest Firedrake version, and every test with SEM quads now shows greater error.
Steps to Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
The error initially showed in an acoustic wave propagation. Below I have a reduced version with an analytical solution:
In order to debug, I have also done a simple
u * v * dx
assemble:Expected behavior
For the first code, I expected an
errornorm
close to 5e^-8, which was achieved in older versions of Firedrake. For the second code, I have used only a degree=2 element, because it is easier. According tox_func
andy_func
, the node 0 has position (0.5, 0.5) and the assembled diagonal matrix has Mdiag[0] value 0.02777. Solving for the matrix gave me 0.4444.I have made a table below of x and y values,
Mdiag
values, and values I expected to see:Environment:
firedrake-status
:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: