p, as each
linear solve is quite expensive for large problems.
Regards,
Francesc.
From: Jed Brown
Sent: 08 November 2022 17:09
To: Francesc Levrero-Florencio ;
petsc-users@mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [petsc-users] TSBEULER vs TSPSEUDO
[External Sender]
First, I b
Hi PETSc people,
We are running highly nonlinear quasi-static (steady-state) mechanical finite
element problems with PETSc, currently using TSBEULER and the basic time adapt
scheme.
What we do in order to tackle these nonlinear problems is to parametrize the
applied loads with the time in the
the
Newton solver.
Regards,
Francesc.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 5:49 PM Jed Brown wrote:
> Francesc Levrero-Florencio writes:
>
> > Hi Barry,
> >
> > I believe that what you are referring to is what Jed is referring to in
> > this thread, am I right?
> >
> htt
obian entry will be order dx = (dx)^3 * (1/dx)^2. Thus
> you should scale the Dirichlet boundary condition residuals by dx to get
> the same scaling.
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2021, at 1:37 PM, Francesc Levrero-Florencio <
> f.levrero-floren...@onscale.com> wrote:
>
&
sue in how various
> terms affect the residual? In particular perhaps the terms for enforcing
> boundary conditions are scaled differently than terms for the PDE
> enforcement?
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 2021, at 11:19 AM, Francesc Levrero-Florencio <
> f.levrero-floren...@o
Dear PETSc team and users,
We are running a simple cantilever beam bending, where the profile of the
beam is I-shaped, where we apply a bending force on one end and fully
constrained displacements on the other end. The formulation is a large
strain formulation in Total Lagrangian form, where the
Dear PETSc team and users,
I am trying to implement a “non-consistent arc-length method” (i.e.
non-consistent as in the Jacobian from a traditional load-controlled method
is used instead of the “augmented one”, the latter would need an extra/row
column for the constraint terms; the non-consistent
