> change the linear system or preconditioner or just continue the solve
> as is.
>
Yeah, I guess what I was thinking is that you examine the last few
iterations... and maybe you were pretty close to your convergence tolerance
but didn't quite make it (but still far enough away that you can't acce
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Derek Gaston wrote:
> I might mention that this same thing happens with the NonlinearSystem class
> and Petsc SNES. If it hits max linear its on any of the linear solves
> during a non-linear solve... the whole code just silently quits.
Seriously? Is this default PETSc beh
I might mention that this same thing happens with the NonlinearSystem class
and Petsc SNES. If it hits max linear its on any of the linear solves
during a non-linear solve... the whole code just silently quits. Usually
this happens during the first linear solve... so when it quits it writes out
t
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Maxime Debon wrote:
> Back to Lagrange, the new file uses the penalty method.
This one gives me a perfect straight line answer, with the SVN libMesh
and my default options, in parallel or serial... with the exception
that the lower boundary is at a value of 1e-10 instead of
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Maxime Debon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Using the example 0 was the good trick, I finally found that even with
> a simple ODE problem, the maximum number of solver iterations was
> important ...
One should generally continue iterating until a suitable rel
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Maxime Debon wrote:
> Using the example 0 was the good trick, I finally found that even with a
> simple ODE problem, the maximum number of solver iterations was important ...
>
>
> // ---
> equation_systems.
Hi,
Using the example 0 was the good trick, I finally found that even with
a simple ODE problem, the maximum number of solver iterations was
important ...
// ---
equation_systems.parameters.set
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Maxime Debon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NB: To implement the Neumann condition in a transient case, I finally
> used, on the boundary, a finite difference approximation.
This seems like it could be a problem if not done correctly at higher orders.
What norm are
Debon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Thu Jul 10 08:07:40 2008
Subject: Re: [Libmesh-users] Lagrange Convergence
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Maxime Debon wrote:
> Using a 1000 elements mesh, I made the computation with :
> - HIERARCHIC Order 1 - Edge2 :: Succ
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Maxime Debon wrote:
> Using a 1000 elements mesh, I made the computation with :
> - HIERARCHIC Order 1 - Edge2 :: Success
> - HIERARCHIC Order 2 - Edge3 :: Success
> - HIERARCHIC Order 3 - Edge3 :: Success
> - HIERARCHIC Order 4 - Edge3 :: Success
> - BERNSTEIN Order 2 - Edg
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Maxime Debon wrote:
> However, this only occurs when quadratic (Edge3) and cubic (Edge4)
> shape functions are used. Using linear Lagrange (Edge2) or cubic
> Hermite (Edge3) verify the stability of the error when incrementing
> the number of elements (To one thousand or more)
Hi,
Experimenting FE convergence abilities when solving ODEs, I am facing
an interesting case with Lagrange elements. The error computed with
the analytical solution is growing up when the number of elements
exceed approximatively 80. Then, the node values are dramatically
falling.
Howev
12 matches
Mail list logo
