Yes. Then, if your embedding dimension is three, and the topological dimension is two, Hdiv could return vectors normal to the mesh... On 15 Jun 2015 18:12, "David Ham" <David.Ham@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
Actually, now I think about it a bit more, it's clear we need to extend the HDiv operator to take an embedding dimension argument. On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 at 12:08 Cotter, Colin J <colin.cotter@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
I'm not quite sure what I need to try, exactly?
--cjc ------------------------------ *From:* firedrake-bounces@imperial.ac.uk [ firedrake-bounces@imperial.ac.uk] on behalf of David Ham [ David.Ham@imperial.ac.uk] *Sent:* 15 June 2015 18:04 *To:* firedrake *Subject:* Re: [firedrake] building a function space for slice vector fields
Have you tried it? I think it might Just Work. The first thing which might break is the HDiv operator, but you never know.... On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 at 11:58 Cotter, Colin J <colin.cotter@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all, A lot of what we do in the vertical slice model would be a lot easier if we could combine together our u-w components of our velocity field (stored as an RT field in the slice) with our v component (stored as a DG field in the slice) so that the basis functions are 3D vectors on a 2D x-z plane. In particular, then I could assemble the inverse of the combined u-w-v velocity mass matrix combined with Coriolis, and make things a lot more implicit in the Coriolis term, leading to bigger timesteps when we sent the Coriolis parameter to infinity (something we have to do in our test case unfortunately).
Is this supported by current code, if not, how much work would it take for us to have this?
all the best --cjc
_______________________________________________ firedrake mailing list firedrake@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/firedrake