×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Implicit versus Explicit FEA in parallel computing

Implicit versus Explicit FEA in parallel computing

Implicit versus Explicit FEA in parallel computing

(OP)
Hello,

I was wondering if anyone here could explain to me in a simple manner why implicit fea benefits less from parallel computing than explicit fea?

Hopefully awaiting intelligently elaborated replies easily understandable by a person whos mothertongue is not english.

-Andreas-

RE: Implicit versus Explicit FEA in parallel computing

In both cases you have a stiffness matrix BUT for the explicit solution there are only diagonal terms in the matrix. So no traditional solution is required. You can solve each row in the system independant of all the others. Or, all of them at once if you have enough processors.

I think that is a short and a bit simplified explanation. Hopefully not to simplified.

Thomas

RE: Implicit versus Explicit FEA in parallel computing

just want to correct one point from Thomas's post.

In an explicit solution we initially solve for accelerations and only need to invert the mass matrix [M] as opposed to the stiffness matrix [K].

For lower order elements [M] is diagonal.

RE: Implicit versus Explicit FEA in parallel computing

(OP)
So if I understand correctly:

1.) Implicit requires inversion of the stiffness matrix [K]. Implicit requires solving system of variables with more than two unknowns. Which is why the task cannot easily be split up and sent to different nodes/cpu cores.

2.) Explicit requires inversion of the mass matrix [M]. Mass matrix only has diagonal terms, which results in multiple equations each with only one unknown. These equations can easily be solved on different nodes/cpu cores.

Would you agree to above statements?

-Andreas-

RE: Implicit versus Explicit FEA in parallel computing

I don't know if those are the specific issues. In general, matrix equations can be run in parallel, but stiffness matrix inversion cannot, and if the inversions are both complex and frequent, the overall calculation will be dominated by the stiffness matrix inversions.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Implicit versus Explicit FEA in parallel computing

I think that matrix inversion in general can be run in parallel. But the complexity of a stiffness matrix inversion for the implicit solution does not scale (speed vs cpu cores) as well as the mass matrix inversion in the explicit solution. Especially if the mass matrix is diagonal.

But it gets better as the algorithms improve since the cpu's don't get faster to the same extent as they "grow" more cores smile.

Also, as Dave442, already mentioned. My description was based om lower order elements with diagonal mass matrix. My experience is based on that type of elements.

Thomas

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources