Below you will find pages that utilize the taxonomy term “Single Physics”
Elmer vs FEniCS - Part 3
In the Elmer vs FEniCS - Part 2 episode we studied the effect of mesh size on accuracy. We largely found the same results observed in the Mesh Order and Accuracy episode. We also confirmed that the agreement between FEniCS
and Elmer
is very good. However, we noticed that FEniCS
was significantly slower than Elmer
. This because we used a MUMPS
direct method on FEniCS
and a BiCGStabl
iterative method on Elmer
. In this episode we will explore the iterative solver options for FEniCS
and attempt to optimize execution time for our simulation.
Elmer vs FEniCS - Part 2
In the Elmer vs FEniCS - Part 1 episode we solved the Pulsating Sphere problem over a fairly coarse mesh. We solved the problem both with Elmer
and acoupy_helmholtz
, our FEniCS
based Helmholtz solver. We found that Elmer
and FEniCS
produce the same solution. This solution compares well to the exact solution, but has some appreciable magnitude error. In this episode we will study how this error changes with mesh size, and whether Elmer
and FEniCS
keep on providing the same solution.
Elmer vs FEniCS - Part 1
In the Writing Your Packages - Part 1 and Writing Your Packages - Part 2 episodes we introduced the most important concepts in writing your own simulation packages. We chosen Python
as a language and implemented two simple packages, acoupy_meshutil
and acoupy_helmholtz
. In this episode we will use the Pulsating Sphere benchmark problem to compare acoupy_helmholtz
to our old trustworthy Elmer
. Since our software is little more than syntactic sugar around FEniCS
this will allow us to compare with FEniCS
directly.
Tuning Fork - Part 2
In the Tuning Fork - Part 1 episode we setup a new study for the determination of the elastic modes of vibration of a tuning fork. Our study made use a few meshing and solver setting ideas we learned along the way, including the use of $p$-elements. In this episode we will examine the results from the Elmer simulation.