Dear Poulios and Yves,
thank you very much for your kind and prompt replies.
Little by little I'm getting familiar with the logics of this FEM library that I found very interesting and I'd like to go in depth more in the near future, learning also the C++ features, but it will take a good amount of time that in this moment I don't have, do for now I will continue mastering the Python interface.
I believe that you should emphasize in the manuals and push the usage of the GWFL in place of all the other model bricks, since for the beginners it is not obvious and indeed it makes life easier using "add_linear_term" and "add_nonlinear_term" for everything. Thank you for this enlightening clarification.
I've some additional questions that rose up today:
A) If I initialize a theta-method with theta=0 (explicit forward euler) I get the following error
RuntimeError: (Getfem::InterfaceError) -- Error in getfem_models.cc, line 1281 :
Invalid value of theta parameter for the theta-method
but the manual doesn't exclude this option (even though the manual is not complete at the bottom of page The model tools for the integration of transient problems — GetFEM)
B) Let's imagine that our model is perfectly linear and I assemble it with "model.assembly()". What happens if I run "model.solve()" ? Are the equations assembled again or the software somehow understand that the assembly has already been done and skips to the proper solver?
C) Linked to the previous question. If I need to change only the RHS by "model.assembly(option='build_rhs')" and after that I run "model.solve()", does this method assembly again the whole model including the tangent matrix or on the contrary it is smart and skips to the solver?
I ask these things because I'm trying to generate a 3D thermal-electric fully coupled model that I found quite slow in solving the equations since the model is strongly non-linear everywhere. To date, it is still not fully featured.
In the near future I'll probably make some sensitivity analysis so as to try to linearize the model where possible, and for this reason I'm trying to understand possible performance improvements using the built-in standard solver.
Thank you in advance for your kind feedback.
...and compliments for the nice FEM library you're developing.
HAve a nice week-end
Il giorno ven 22 ott 2021 alle ore 10:43 Konstantinos Poulios <logari81@googlemail.com> ha scritto:
Dear Lorenzo,Thanks for your interest. Below some answers to your questionsBRKostasOn Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:47 AM Lorenzo Ferro <lorenzo.iron@gmail.com> wrote:Dear All,I've started testing the GeFEM library and I've some questions, with particular reference to the Python interface (the only one I can use so far):1) the "add_lumped_mass_for_first_order_brick" method is not available even though it is mentioned in the Python-Model guide for GetFEM 5.4. I've installed the precompiled 5.4 version for Windows with getfem5.4win-amd64-py3.7.exe. How can I get the Lumped_Mass feature for the Python interface?The scripting language interface for this function has been added after the last release:so you will have to wait for the next release or compile GetFEM yourself.2) The documentation of bricks like "Generic Elliptic Brick", "Fourier_Robin Brick" and "Source Term Brick" states that the coefficients could be arbitrary GWFL expressions. What happens if I'd input non-linear coefficients? How the software manages the assembly in this case? Or, it would be better to use the Model method "add_non_linear_term"?Just use the add_linear_term or add_nonlinear_term for this. E.g. The add_fourier_robin_brick is just a convenience function calling add_(non)linear_term for youSuch bricks made sense before the introduction of GWFL, nowadays you should just use add_linear_term or add_nonlinear_term for everything.3) If I'd like to implement a radiation non-linear boundary condition, what would be the more advisable way? Is in this case the "add_non_linear_term" method the correct way?Yes. If you have a specific equation you want to implement, we can help with writing it in GWFL.4) I've not understood what is the difference between "add_source_term" and "add_source_term_brick". Can you advise when I should use one or the other (with a practical example).If I see correctly, providing an _expression_ "expr" and a variable name "var" to the second one is equivalent to providing "expr*Test_var" in the first one. In general you should not use these bricks because they add a contribution to the rhs that is not accounted for in the stiffness matrix computation. Rarely do you need something like this. You can just use "add_linear_term" and "add_nonlinear_term" for everything.5) Is there a way to visualize mesh regions for doublecheck purposes? Maybe, is there a way to export such regions by means of the Python interface?Good question. There are different ways, maybe the most simple is something likemf.export_to_vtk("meshregions.vtk", mf, md.interpolation("1",mf,1), 'region1', mf, md.interpolation("1",mf,2), 'region2', mf, md.interpolation("1",mf,4), 'region4')where mf is a (preferably discontinuous) mesh_fem and md is just a model (it can be an empty one).Thank you in advance for your kind support.Regards,Lorenzo
