Vaibhav,
2016-11-10 5:21 GMT-05:00 Vaibhav Palkar :
> Looking at the error message I get, the non convergence is probably not due
> to the Newton iterations. I am using an iterative solver(Iterative Inverse
> class of dealii) for computing the ((M-tau*J)^-1)*M*y term (the term dealii
> probably re
Hello Bruno,
Apologies for the delayed response.
On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 6:06:16 PM UTC+5:30, Bruno Turcksin wrote:
> Have you tried to increase the number of Newton iterations? The Newton
> solver is pretty basic (it doesn't do any line search) so it might be
> the reason it doesn't
Vaibhav,
2016-11-01 4:24 GMT-04:00 Vaibhav Palkar :
> To quickly restate, I'm solving a reaction-diffusion problem using a
> framework much like Step-52. My equations are stiff and hence I'm using
> implicit methods for solving the resulting ODEs. Unfortunately, it seems
> that even implicit metho
Hello All,
Reviving an old thread as I wasn't able able to resolve my problem.
To quickly restate, I'm solving a reaction-diffusion problem using a
framework much like Step-52. My equations are stiff and hence I'm using
implicit methods for solving the resulting ODEs. Unfortunately, it seems
I have created a pull request here: https://github.com/dealii/dealii/pull/3123
Thanks again
Bruno
2016-09-16 10:01 GMT-04:00 Bruno Turcksin :
> 2016-09-16 9:22 GMT-04:00 Vaibhav Palkar :
>>
>> The error being exactly zero is indeed intriguing. I'm still looking out for
>> the reason why that is
2016-09-16 9:22 GMT-04:00 Vaibhav Palkar :
>
> The error being exactly zero is indeed intriguing. I'm still looking out for
> the reason why that is happening. I didn't understand what you meant by a
> "ramp in time". Could you please elaborate?
Since you are using a low order method in time, I am
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 1:38:57 AM UTC+5:30, Bruno Turcksin wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong. The output says that your error is zero,
> are you doing a simple ramp in time? It's very strange that the error
> is exactly zero. What happens if you just use the default parameters?
> D
2016-09-15 15:38 GMT-04:00 Vaibhav Palkar :
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Bruno Turcksin
> wrote:
>>
>> I would need to see your code to understand why this happens. That
>> part of the library is pretty simple, we just check that the error is
>> less than coarsen_tol and if it is, delta_t_g
Dear Bruno,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Bruno Turcksin
wrote:
>
> I would need to see your code to understand why this happens. That
> part of the library is pretty simple, we just check that the error is
> less than coarsen_tol and if it is, delta_t_guess is multiplied by
> coarsen_param.
Vaibhav,
2016-09-15 12:29 GMT-04:00 Vaibhav Palkar :
> I'm indeed resetting my time step using get_status().delta_t_guess for the
> next step. The step has not reached max_delta, coarsen_param is set to 1.2.
> Any other reasons this can happen?
I would need to see your code to understand why this
Dear Bruno,
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:37:28 PM UTC+5:30, Bruno Turcksin
wrote::
>
> 1. What is wrong with the embedded method? Does the problem lie in my
>> understanding?
>>
> It's hard to say what is wrong from here. Is coarsen_param greater than
> one? Have you reached max_delta?
Vaibhav
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:52:41 AM UTC-4, Vaibhav Palkar wrote:
> 1. What is wrong with the embedded method? Does the problem lie in my
> understanding?
>
It's hard to say what is wrong from here. Is coarsen_param greater than
one? Have you reached max_delta? Finally, just t
12 matches
Mail list logo
