TS
Manav Bhatia
manav at u.washington.edu
Wed Feb 21 00:28:48 CST 2007
On Feb 20, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Hong Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Manav Bhatia wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> So, if I have a problem with a LHS matrix, and I want to use an
>> explicit method, then do I have to invert the matrix before asking
>> the solver to run? i.e. the solver will not do that for me?
>
> The LHS matrix formulation is not implemented for the explicit method.
> Do you have such application?
Well, I am working with a conduction heat transfer finite element
model, which has the following equation set:
[C(t,{T})] d{T}/dt = {F(t,{T})} - [K(t,{T})] {T}
with initial conditions
{T(0)} = {T0}
So, I have a problem which has a LHS matrix, which is also dependent
on the primary variable (which is temperature {T}).
In the simple case, ofcourse, we can neglect this dependence on
temperature (for [C]), but that has limited applicability for my
problem, since the [C] matrix has non-negligible nonlinearities.
So, I am looking for ways to formulate my problem to use the Petsc
solvers. The best option that I can think of is to restate the
problem as:
d{T}/dt = [C(t,{T})]^(-1) ({F(t,{T})} - [K(t,{T})] {T})
where I can now specify the RHS function and its jacobian (I will
provide the jacobian, so no need to use finite differencing), and use
an explicit / implicit solver.
However, if I assume a linear problem, then I am left with a case of
[C] d{T}/dt = {F(t)} - [K]{T}
Here, I could either restate the problem in the same way as I did
above, or I could specify a LHS matrix (in this case [C]), and ask
the solver to handle it. But, from our previous email exchanges, it
seems like I will have to use an implicit solver for the same, since
an explicit solver will not handle a LHS matrix.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks,
Manav
More information about the petsc-users
mailing list