[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
How is the sys of linear eqns solved using PETSc in this application?
- To: petsc-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: How is the sys of linear eqns solved using PETSc in this application?
- From: "Ben Tay" <zonexo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:48:44 +0800
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=a5Q+X6n7ECE8RL2bxW7balyCuP0wl17HJ40+/gVsD9Iw9jSStrWt28Pu6VP7+rsJkCi7QYJQgSJ4wEt50EQvRQPR42NT6CyPWybXchXD4oa92uljZ49g0JRi9KE++n82Dax6OklWi7LFsn9bjRqNUGkYlhkyRkFnhgnNJLkLdos=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=kWm+Wly/bYWjs1pJbhHmyCMWXxFev0HkOQ9DcFQYrJH6SYLtKwvq6WOhWB62lFU6tA5m/+6rmBGVI2iD6ynARDxLg+3g6ynTRMus1EiZJXBNXOCv3wwf+gTtLR3tN6KKlHu2nOqJqs6HcmKe7jVKWVzZ5A7Oqb/C8MPCEwk6q3k=
- Reply-to: petsc-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-petsc-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
I'm formulating a NS solver which computes the flow past an airfoil. The airfoil has a c-grid and it overlaps with the background cartesian grid. In other words, it is a chimera or overset grid application.
The boundary cells of the c-grid are connected to the cartesian grid thru interpolation stencil. One way to solve the problem is to solved implicitly ie for each cell phi(c-grid)=a1*phi(cart,1)+a2*phi(cart,2)+a3*phi(cart,3)+a4*phi(cart,4) and vice versa for the phi(cart). This is entered into the sys of linear eqns comprising of c-grid and cartesian and solved all at once.
Another way is to solve the cartesian grid eqns fully 1st, compute phi(c-grid) using the known phi(cart,*) and solve the c-grid fully ie explicit solving.
Is it possible to do this in PETSc:
1. Do 1 iteration of cartesian grid eqns
2. compute phi(c-grid) using the newly iterated phi(cart,*) values
3. Do 1 iteration of c-grid eqns
4. compute phi(cart) using the newly iterated phi(c-grid,*) values
5. go back to 1.
Or is this mtd the same as solving the whole sys implicitly (ie 1st case)?
Thanks