On Jun 17, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Sang pham van <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks Barry,
> 
> To refine the grid, I just put more points in the direction. For both fine 
> and coarse meshes, I used simple initial guess (say constant values in whole 
> domain for all variables). 
> 
> By using grid sequencing, is the finest mesh is the one I first input the 
> solver?

  No, you pass in the coarse one.
> 
> Can you let me know what options should I use to have pure Newton method?

   Not sure what you mean by pure Newton method, maybe without grid sequencing? 
It simply may not be possible to get convergence from a “poor” initial guess. 
One should always use grid sequencing if possible.

   Barry

> 
> S.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 17, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Sang pham van <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using DM structure and SNES to solve a 3D problem. In the problem I 
> > have 3 variables.
> >
> > I got SNES converged with a grid. Obtain result are physically right. 
> > However when I refine the grid, SNES does not always converge,
> 
>    With the refined grid how are you starting the solution? Do you use the 
> interpolated solution from the coarser grid (called grid sequencing) or just 
> some “not good” initial guess?
> 
> > the reason of divergence is line search fail or linear solver failed. (I 
> > also tried other type of SNES, line search seems to be the one best fits my 
> > problem)
> >
> > Can you please give me a suggestion to figure out the problem with my 
> > solver? What options should I use to have pure Newton method in SNES? Is 
> > there any advance option I can use with line search to improve SNES 
> > convergence.
> >
> 
>    You should use grid sequencing, not only does it get convergence when you 
> may not otherwise get it but it will also solve the problem faster. With 
> PETSc DM you can use -snes_grid_sequence n  or SNESSetGridSequence() in the 
> code to do n levels of grid sequencing.
> 
>    Barry
> 
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> > Minh.
> >
> 
> 

Reply via email to