It's said that pdppe and pde1dm are both based on finite elements. But sometimes when the spatial discretization is too coarse, both will have difficulty converging and thus report errors. This doesn't seem to me to me a feature of finite elements because even if the mesh is very coarse in finite elements there is no nothing to stop the program from running and cause reporting errors. Could anyone help thank you!
pde1dm compared to pdepe
17 次查看(过去 30 天)
显示 更早的评论
pde1dm is an extended version of pdepe and it can solve equations pdepe can't solve. I wonder about the differences between these two algorithms in the spatial discretization?
5 个评论
Torsten
2024-2-8
编辑:Torsten
2024-2-8
How should the finite element method produce a result converging to a senseful solution if you use e.g. (exaggerated, I admit), three mesh points for a distance of 100 km ? I can imagine that such a problem could produce Inf or an oscillating solution in the center point during time integration.
And there is no result I remember that says "the finite element method is stable per se". This can't be true because there is no such thing as "the" finite element method.
采纳的回答
Bill Greene
2024-2-2
编辑:Bill Greene
2024-2-2
There are several differences in the pde1dm spatial discretization compared with pdepe.
For the m=0 case (Cartesian), both pde1dm and pdepe use the standard, linear shape functions. But, by default, pde1dm evaluates the residual using a two-point Gaussian integration rule while pdepe evaluates only at the center of the element. Often this doesn't significantly affect the solution but, for some problems, this allows pde1dm to obtain a converged solution when pdepe cannot.
Of course, by default, this makes pde1dm somewhat slower than pdepe but use of the "Vectorized" option with pde1dm dramatically reduces the computational time.
In evaluating the so-called mass terms (those arising from the c-coefficients), pdepe essentially uses what is often referred to as a "lumped" approach that results in a diagonal mass matrix. pde1dm evaluates these terms using exactly the same approach as the f and s terms ("consistent" approach).
For cylindrical (m=1) and spherical (m=2) geometries, pdepe uses special shape functions, as described in the Skeel and Berzins paper referenced in the pdepe documentation. According to the paper, this improves the convergence near the singular point (x=0). pde1dm does not use these special shape functions.
The above describes the current implementation of pde1dm but may change in the future. Also, pde1dm has some undocumented options that cause pde1dm to produce a discretization essentially the same as pdepe for the m=0 case. But these options may change or be eliminated in future versions; hence they are undocumented for now.
17 个评论
Torsten
2024-3-4
ode15i is an implicit ODE integrator and has a substantially different interface compared to the other solvers. It cannot be replaced by another integrator from the ode suite.
更多回答(1 个)
Torsten
2024-2-2
移动:Torsten
2024-2-2
I wonder about the differences between these two algorithms in the spatial discretization?
No difference. pde1dm has the option to add ordinary differential equations to the system of partial differential equations and in the boundary condition part, but this doesn't change the numerical kernel.
2 个评论
另请参阅
类别
在 Help Center 和 File Exchange 中查找有关 Eigenvalue Problems 的更多信息
Community Treasure Hunt
Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!
Start Hunting!