On 10/21/2016 04:01 PM, Hamed Babaei wrote:
Please look at the pdf file attached. Thanks
I'm not overly familiar with the nomenclature of large-displacement
elasticity. But the matrix you compute does at least not look *obviously*
symmetric to me.
If I see this right, you compute the integ
Dear Daniel,
Please look at the pdf file attached. Thanks
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 4:51:22 PM UTC-5, Daniel Arndt wrote:
>
> Hamed,
>
> At least I can't open your file in a way to clearly see what your
> bilinearform is, but could just guess from the implementation. Can you
> either write
Hamed,
At least I can't open your file in a way to clearly see what your
bilinearform is, but could just guess from the implementation. Can you
either write it here (using LaTeX or similar) or upload the file as pdf
again?
Best,
Daniel
--
The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.o
Dear Wolfgang,
In attach you shall find the bilinear form and the assemble part of the
code as well.
Thanks,
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
>
> > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 9:48:55 PM UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth
> wrote:
> >
> > What is th
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 9:48:55 PM UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
What is the norm of the first right hand side? You now set the tolerance in
the first iteration to a fixed value of 1e-16, but how does this compare to
the previous value of 1e-12*system_rhs.l2_norm()?
Th
Dear Wolfgang,
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 9:48:55 PM UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
> What is the norm of the first right hand side? You now set the tolerance
> in
>
the first iteration to a fixed value of 1e-16, but how does this compare to
> the previous value of 1e-12*system_rhs.l2_
On 10/19/2016 05:55 PM, Hamed Babaei wrote:
Although the problem has been resolved by this trick but I don't know why I
need to consider different convergence criteria for CG solver in the first
newton iteration.
What is the norm of the first right hand side? You now set the tolerance in
the f
Hi all,
I just made some changes in the second parameter of SolverControl in the
following way which apparently resolved the problem:
my problem is nonlinear so I solve it by newton method. It seems that in
the first Newton-Rophson iteration the CG solver can not converge if the
tolerance for
2016-10-19 11:51 GMT-04:00 Hamed Babaei :
> I need to compute the determinant of system_matrix to check if its positive
> or negative so that I know my system_matrix is positive definite or not.
That's what I thought. You don't need to know the determinant to do
that, you can check the sign of the
I need to compute the determinant of system_matrix to check if its positive
or negative so that I know my system_matrix is positive definite or not.
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 10:38:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Turcksin wrote:
>
> Hamed,
>
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 10:25:37 AM UTC-4, Hamed
Hamed,
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 10:25:37 AM UTC-4, Hamed Babaei wrote:It
seems that I've been choosing wrong solver for my problem. Since my problem
has some sort of instability in its nature,
>
> although my system_matrix is symmetric, it is not necessarily positive
> definite. So I
Hi everyone,
Thank you all for your incredible guides.
It seems that I've been choosing wrong solver for my problem. Since my
problem has some sort of instability in its nature,
although my system_matrix is symmetric, it is not necessarily positive
definite. So I have two questions:
First, Is
which solvers do you think I can examin and see if they can be used
instead of SolverCG?
That's the wrong question. If you know that the matrix you have *should be*
symmetric and positive definite, but the CG solver does not converge, then you
need to debug why the matrix *is not* s.p.
Hamed,
which solvers do you think I can examin and see if they can be used instead
> of SolverCG?
>
Running with the deal.II CG solver gives me
An error occurred in line <424> of file
in function
void
PhaseField::Material_Compressi
Daniel,
Thank you for your help. what is strange to me is that the assembly part
has not changed for parallelization except an "if
(cell->is_locally_owned())" command at the beginning of the loop over
cells. So since the non-parallel code with the same assembly is solved with
SolverCG, the par
Hamed,
running your code with a Trilinos installation alone fails for me in line
1617 with
An error occurred in line <279> of file
in function
void dealii::TrilinosWrappers::SolverBase::do_solve(const
dealii::TrilinosWrappers::PreconditionBase&)
The violated condition was:
false
Addit
On 10/16/2016 03:46 PM, Hamed Babaei wrote:
Another point I need to mention is that I had the same problem when as my
first try of parallelization, I paralleled a much simpler code, the step-25,
based on the step-40 .
I received the same Segmentation Violation error from Petsc. At that time, I
re
Another point I need to mention is that I had the same problem when as my
first try of parallelization, I paralleled a much simpler code, the
step-25, based on the step-40 .
I received the same Segmentation Violation error from Petsc. At that time,
I replaced PreconditionerAMG with Precondition
Even if I implement Trilinos It terminates with the following Petsc error:
"PETSC ERROR: Caught signal number 11 SEGV: Segmentation Violation,
probably memory access out of range"
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:39:49 AM UTC-5, Daniel Arndt wrote:
>
> In case there is an error with Trilinos,
Daniel,
Let me explain the problem more. I heve parallelized a code based on
step-40. The non-parallel code works for all the initial values and
boundary conditions But the parallel one fails at the first call to
solverCG with this error: "[0]PETSC ERROR: Caught signal number 11 SEGV:
Segment
In case there is an error with Trilinos, what is it?
Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 17:27:26 UTC+2 schrieb Daniel Arndt:
>
> Hamed,
>
>
It still works with Petsc and Trilinos is not implemented at all. I
appreciate it if you could let me know what changes should be made in
step-40 t
Hamed,
>>> It still works with Petsc and Trilinos is not implemented at all. I
>>> appreciate it if you could let me know what changes should be made in
>>> step-40 to make it work with Trilinos.
>>>
>> What exactly, do you mean by that? So you have both PETSc and Trilinos
installed and step-4
Hi Jean-Paul,
I have installed latest version of Dealii (8.4.1) and all of its library
dependencies (Petsc, P4est, Trilinos,...) all together via Candi ( the bash
script installer tool) https://github.com/koecher/candi.
Thanks
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 12:25:44 AM UTC-5, Jean-Paul Pelt
Hi Hamad,
Can you please tell us which version of deal.II you are using, and provide
us with the installation logs?
Regards,
J-P
On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:51:09 PM UTC+2, Hamed Babaei wrote:
>
> Hi friends,
>
> I want to use Trilinos instead of Petsc in my parallel code which is based
24 matches
Mail list logo
