
[Sponsors] 
Matrix storage and diagonal coeffients calculation 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
February 5, 2010, 13:40 
Matrix storage and diagonal coeffients calculation

#1 
Senior Member
Santiago Marquez Damian
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Santa Fe, Santa Fe, Argentina
Posts: 452
Rep Power: 21 
Hi all, here we're dealing with lduMatrix coefficients storage and calculation. In classical books for FVM like the one written by Patankar the diagonal coefficient arises as the summation of all the neighbour's coefficients, i.e. the coefficients in the same row, talking about matrices. But looking inside in the implementation of laplacian and full upwind schemes, both uses the negSumDiag method, that sums by column not by row to obtain the diagonal coefficient. Might be the matrices transposed for storage?
Regards.
__________________
Santiago MÁRQUEZ DAMIÁN, Ph.D. Research Scientist Research Center for Computational Methods (CIMEC)  CONICET/UNL Tel: 543424511594 Int. 7032 Colectora Ruta Nac. 168 / Paraje El Pozo (3000) Santa Fe  Argentina. http://www.cimec.org.ar 

February 6, 2010, 07:31 

#2 
Senior Member
Hrvoje Jasak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,872
Rep Power: 30 
Nope: the negSumDiag() will sum up on rows. What may be confusing you is the names of the addressing arrays, but the operation is correct:
void Foam::lduMatrix::negSumDiag() { const scalarField& Lower = const_cast<const lduMatrix&>(*this).lower(); const scalarField& Upper = const_cast<const lduMatrix&>(*this).upper(); scalarField& Diag = diag(); const unallocLabelList& l = lduAddr().lowerAddr(); const unallocLabelList& u = lduAddr().upperAddr(); for (register label face=0; face<l.size(); face++) { Diag[l[face]] = Lower[face]; Diag[u[face]] = Upper[face]; } } Lower stand for "lower addressing index"; since the addressing is done through the upper triangle, the lower index is the index for a row. Enjoy, Hrv
__________________
Hrvoje Jasak Providing commercial FOAM/OpenFOAM and CFD Consulting: http://wikki.co.uk 

February 8, 2010, 10:15 

#3 
Senior Member
Santiago Marquez Damian
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Santa Fe, Santa Fe, Argentina
Posts: 452
Rep Power: 21 
I know I'm wrong, but I can't figure where is my error, I can't completely understand the phrase "Lower stand for "lower addressing index"; since the addressing is done through the upper triangle, the lower index is the index for a row." Lower is Upper Triangular? Maybe an example can help my point of view and my error. Suppose we have a mesh with two layers of four hexahedron, representing a 2D mesh.
*****  0  1  2  3  *****  4  5  6  7  ***** the sides of this hexahedron have unitary areas. When the mesh is obtained we have the following arrays: Owner={0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...} Neigbour={1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6, 7, 5, 6, 7} Using an advective velocity of 1 in horizontal direction (to the right) and applying the FVM method we can assemble for cell 1 (equation #1, starting in 0) the following equation: phi_0 + phi_1=0 due the direction of the velocity, the negative coefficient (1) will be ever in the lower triangular. Running the example with scalarTransportFoam and debugging (in my case with gdb) we can can stop the program when negSumDiag is called within the advective term calculation. At this point we have the following advective matrix (M): 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 l array has: {0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}, so l (from lowerAddr method) has the same data of Owner (at least the first 10 terms), u array has: {1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6, 7, 5, 6, 7}, so u (from upperAddr method) has the same data of Neighbour. On the other hand, we have for Lower: {1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1} (from the lower attribute of the class), it says that Lower is the Lower Triangular, and for Upper: {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0} (from the upper attribute of the class), the Upper Triangular. Finally for Diag: {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}. Looking at the Lower Triangular l array give us the columns of elements, and u the rows. So for element number 0, i.e. 1, we have row: 1, column: 0, like in the matrix. Running the loop in negSumDiag, for example for the equation presented before (equation #1), calculation of diagonal coefficient is given in loops 0, 2 and 3 (i.e. face index in loop takes values 0, 2 and 3), in loop 0 we have: Diag[l[0]] = Lower[0]; Diag[u[0]] = Upper[0]; Second line operates on Diag[1] M[1][1] subtracting the first element of Upper, i.e M[0][1] (row is given by l and column by u). In loop 2: Diag[l[2]] = Lower[2]; Diag[u[2]] = Upper[2]; First line operates on M[1][1] subtracting M[2][1] (the third element of Lower whose row is given by u and column by l). Finally in loop 3 we have M[1][1]=M[1][1]M[5][1]. Finally the diagonal coefficient 1 was calculated from elements in the same column but in different rows when I had expected that this calculation would be made from elements in the same row. i.e. M[1][1]=M[1][1]M[1][0]. Regards.
__________________
Santiago MÁRQUEZ DAMIÁN, Ph.D. Research Scientist Research Center for Computational Methods (CIMEC)  CONICET/UNL Tel: 543424511594 Int. 7032 Colectora Ruta Nac. 168 / Paraje El Pozo (3000) Santa Fe  Argentina. http://www.cimec.org.ar 

February 11, 2010, 13:00 

#4 
Senior Member
Santiago Marquez Damian
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Santa Fe, Santa Fe, Argentina
Posts: 452
Rep Power: 21 
Any clues...? Regards.
__________________
Santiago MÁRQUEZ DAMIÁN, Ph.D. Research Scientist Research Center for Computational Methods (CIMEC)  CONICET/UNL Tel: 543424511594 Int. 7032 Colectora Ruta Nac. 168 / Paraje El Pozo (3000) Santa Fe  Argentina. http://www.cimec.org.ar 

March 26, 2010, 07:28 

#5 
Senior Member
Santiago Marquez Damian
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Santa Fe, Santa Fe, Argentina
Posts: 452
Rep Power: 21 
We've studying the matter for an extra while and found that row summation is not done in the same way that in Patankar's book, but the results are correct. Column summation that I explained in past posts is only an algorithmic implementation for the sake of simplification in machine use. Explanation is large, if somebody needs more details, contact me or contact nisi as well. Regards.
__________________
Santiago MÁRQUEZ DAMIÁN, Ph.D. Research Scientist Research Center for Computational Methods (CIMEC)  CONICET/UNL Tel: 543424511594 Int. 7032 Colectora Ruta Nac. 168 / Paraje El Pozo (3000) Santa Fe  Argentina. http://www.cimec.org.ar 

November 3, 2014, 14:07 
Could you please post the explanation

#6 
Member
Ganesh Vijayakumar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 44
Rep Power: 13 
Hi!
I'm so thankful for finding this post. I've been wondering about this for a while. I see that this implementation is ok for symmetric matrices. But I still don't see it for asymmetric matrices. Could you please post the explanation for all of us. I also have a follow up question. Even if this implementation works for symmetric matrices... why would it help so much to implement it this way? What do we save by introducing this (for lack of a better word) "confusion" ? ganesh 

March 23, 2020, 19:17 

#7 
Senior Member
Dongyue Li
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 783
Rep Power: 14 
This topic was discussed at length in this link: http://www.cfdchina.com/topic/547
in Chinese though...
__________________
My OpenFOAM algorithm website: http://dyfluid.com By far the largest Chinese CFDbased forum: http://www.cfdchina.com/category/6/openfoam By far the largest WECHAT CFD media ID: cfdresearch 

May 23, 2020, 06:09 

#8 
Member
Rahul Vadrabade
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 36
Rep Power: 5 
Few comments.
As everyone is aware of equation after discretization . For for 2d: For linear (w=0.5) and upwind (w=1) {w=weight} So, yes it seems that OF does sum by column but it is not. Reference: Section 5.7.2 Hybrid differencing scheme for multidimensional convectiondiffusion; An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method, Book by H K Versteeg and W Malalasekera Note that: Coefficient in the book are calculated assuming equation so they have opposite sign but taken care at matrix construction. 

May 23, 2020, 12:22 

#9 
Senior Member
Hrvoje Jasak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,872
Rep Power: 30 
First, you’re wrong because FOAM does this in face addressing so you don’t have w and (1w)
Second, this has worked for 27 years without a change, producing perfect results. Did you actually produce the test case that reproduces the error?
__________________
Hrvoje Jasak Providing commercial FOAM/OpenFOAM and CFD Consulting: http://wikki.co.uk 

May 24, 2020, 01:30 

#10 
Member
Rahul Vadrabade
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 36
Rep Power: 5 
Hi Prof. Hrvoje Jasak
I agree with you and OF implementation is absolutely correct, i don't have any objections. I would like to convey is that, the diagonal coefficient is not just addition of off diagonal coeffs but totalFlux term should be considered. for 2D: With the face addressing it is taken care however with cell addressing (as per books ) the extra term totalFlux needs attention. Also, regarding use of 'w and (1w)' probably one can refer here https://www.openfoam.com/documentati...ndetails.html Thank you 

December 23, 2020, 06:25 

#11  
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 350
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:


January 5, 2021, 04:49 

#12 
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 350
Rep Power: 9 
Okay, I have finally puzzled this out  the coding in negSumDiag is in effect a piece of "sleight of hand" that makes for efficient coding.
Here is the key: when you write out the matrix coefficients for the divergence term, employing interpolation of the variable to the face and the face flux with the relevant sign, you get a set of offdiagonal and diagonal coefficients for the master and slave cell (owner and neighbour in OF terminology, although the term neighbour is a bit ambiguous) of each face. The trick is to realise that the diagonal coeffs are equal to the negative of the offdiagonal coeffs of the neighbouring cell, and not their own cell. This is why negSumDiag appears to "sum the columns in the matrix" ... it actually is! I was confused for a while since I had written down the divergence in nonconservative form for some crazy reason, in which case the diagonal coeffs are then the negatives of their own cell's offdiagonal coefficients, and negSumDiag would then have had to sum the rows. Last edited by Tobermory; January 5, 2021 at 11:49. 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Diagonal storage for cgrid airfoil possible?  zonexo  Main CFD Forum  1  May 10, 2006 13:43 