Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

can we operator split within VODE? #1314

Open
zingale opened this issue Aug 19, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

can we operator split within VODE? #1314

zingale opened this issue Aug 19, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@zingale
Copy link
Member

zingale commented Aug 19, 2023

Right now we solve the system:

$X^{n+1}_k = \dot{\omega}_k (\rho, T^{n+1}, X_k^{n+1})$
$e^{n+1} = \dot{S} (\rho, T^{n+1}, X_k^{n+1})$

but what if we treated the energy/temperature update explicitly. We are substepping in VODE, so we could still be accurate / stable (?) if we did:

$X^{n+1}_k = \dot{\omega}_k (\rho, T^{n}, X_k^{n+1})$
$e^{n+1} = \dot{S} (\rho, T^{n}, X_k^{n+1})$

the advantage of this is that the Jacobian then does not need any temperature derivatives, significantly simplifying it and making issues like #729 a non-issue.

@zingale
Copy link
Member Author

zingale commented Aug 20, 2023

we could even do a second order update for e -- in some sense, this becomes an IMEX scheme?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant