Finite Element Method

 

[100 points] The two-dimensional Laplace equation around a cylinder with a domain [0, 2π]×[1, 5] is given
by.


∂x2
+


∂y2
= 0 (1)
The analytical solution is given by
ψ(r, θ) = U∞

r −
R2
r

sin(θ) (2)
(3)
In here R = 1 and U∞ = 1. The Drichlet boundary conditions:
ψ(1, θ) = 0 (4)
ψ(5, θ) = 
5 −
1
5

sin(θ) (5)
(6)
Use the second-order accurate finite element discretization with uniform 80 × 40, 160 × 80 and 320 × 160
quadrilateral elements to solve the above Laplace equation. For this purpose
1. Implement the fully implicit finite element solution algorithm and use a direct solver (LU factorization) to solve.
2. Plot Error function versus ∆r and ∆θ in a log-log scale. Compute the spatial convergence rate.
3. Compare the error with the solutions of finite difference method.
The error function is given by
Error = kψi,j − ψanalytick2

imaxjmax
(7)
[20 points] Solve the same problem with an unstructured quadrilateral/triangular elements.
Several useful MATLAB commands:
Crate a sparse matrix
i=[];
j=[];
s=[];
m=100;
n=100;
A=sparse(i, j, s, m, n);
To solve a sparse linear system
x = A\b ;

Sample Solution

Another policy effort that has resulted from labeling theory is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2012 change to United States federal guidelines, which now require employers to make individual assessments to consider the type of crime and the age of the criminal record, the relevance of the offense to the job, and evidence of good conduct and rehabilitation when reviewing applications (Denver et al., 2017). This is meant to give offenders a better chance with re-entry, helping both offenders and those they encounter to recognize that people are more than their labels. Finally, in 2016, the United States Department of Justice implemented a policy change that requires person-first language when describing offenders: instead of “convicted felon,” one would say “person with a felony conviction” (Denver et al., 2017). This change in language is meant to reduce the chance of a label sticking to an individual. As history has shown, labels often do not stick to powerful offenders (Gottschalk, 2016). This is where theories regarding crimes of the powerful come into play.

Crimes of the Powerful

​Background

Crimes of the powerful are ill-defined, as the powerful are the ones who define crimes and decide punishments, and they are not likely to punish themselves or their cohorts. Theorists have tried to conceptualize crimes of the powerful through anomie (normless corporations) and control (general theory of crime) (Ruggiero, 2015). Sutherland has been frequently cited for his definition of crimes of the powerful that considers crime as a norm infraction:

The essential characteristic of crime is that it is a behavior which is prohibited by the state as an injury to the state…The two abstract criteria… as necessary elements in a definition of crime are legal descriptions of an act as socially harmful, and legal provision of a penalty for the act (Sutherland, 1949, p. 9).

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.