Alvaro Fernandez wrote:
> I am interested in your mapping, although it may not be feasible in my case.
> So your domains of integration were constant in the transformed space of
> your mapping? But see my response to Ben Blackwell below.
Yes. Exactly. In my case the mapping was a 2d quadratic mapping. It
happened to be an isoparametric one, details of which can be found in
standard finite element texts. Something like
@Book{Cuvelier&al1988,
author = {C. Cuvelier and A. Segal and A. A. van Steenhoven},
title = {Finite Element Methods and Navier-Stokes Equations},
publisher = {D. Reidel Publishing Company},
year = 1988,
address = {P. O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, Holland}
}.
I think you should be able to directly interchange the nodal positions
in the mapping with the elements of you p_i vector... but you'll have to
check it out.
The reason for not using the Leibnitz (or Liebnitz - I don't know which
one is correct) rule directly in my case, is that it becomes more messy
when you have a double or triple integral over a nasty shaped domain to
deal with. The result of course is identical, it's just that when you
finally come down to doing the numerical integration it's easier if you
have a nice shaped domain to do it over.
Paul
--
===============================================
Dr. Paul Suckling
Researcher
Materia Nova / University of Mons
Parc Initialis - Avenue Copernic
Bat. Materia Nova - 7000
MONS - Belgium
+32(0)65 37.38.84
===============================================
|