solving a 200 by 200 by 200 array ode

1 view (last 30 days)
Huijian Huang
Huijian Huang on 16 Aug 2018
Commented: Walter Roberson on 17 Aug 2018
Hi
I am trying to model the heat transfer of a 3D object obtained by ct scan, which is a 200 by 200 by 200 array. when I use ode solver to solve that, I am out of memory. is there any way I can bypass this issues ?
thank you very much for your help
  2 Comments
Walter Roberson
Walter Roberson on 16 Aug 2018
What is your code? What is the sizes of the matrices involved (factoring the array sizes from the image suggests that the array is not 200 x 200 x 200.)
Huijian Huang
Huijian Huang on 16 Aug 2018
Hi Walter you are right, it does seen to be something wrong. here is my codes
the array is 112 x 127 x 226 in precise
regards

Sign in to comment.

Answers (1)

Walter Roberson
Walter Roberson on 17 Aug 2018
You should firmly avoid using global in the ode function. See http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/math/parameterizing-functions.html
You should vectorize your code. Your code can be theoretically broken into two parts:
  1. fully vectorizable case for everything that is completely "inside" the cube
  2. 8 boundary cases
As I look at your boundary cases, it looks to me as if you would probably be able to fully vectorize all of your code, if you were to take the original cube of data, and pad it on all sides with a copy of the edge data.. like
A A B C D D
A B C D A A B C D D
E * * F -> E E * * F F
G H I J G G H I J J
G G H I J J
If you do that then you can fully vectorize over the entire inside of the augmented volume. This is because the contribution of each term depends upon the difference between adjacent locations, and if you duplicate data like this, the difference between adjacent locations would be 0 at the boundary, leading to the boundary terms contributing 0 to the sums, same as if you had not included them in the calculations.
That said:
The reason that the memory requirements are so high are that gradient estimation must calculate the effect of each variable upon each other variable. With 112 x 127 x 226 locations, that requires calculating (112 x 127 x 226) * (112 x 127 x 226) values. At least two matrices these size are required, so that finite differencing can be performed in order to determine how to change the variables relative to each other.
In your case, only the adjacent variables can affect each other, leading to something that could be represented as a sparse multiband matrix. (Unfortunately because of the 3-space nature of the calculations, you cannot use a simple tridiagonal matrix.)
You might therefore be able to take advantage of one of the methods of specifying sparse jacobian calculations. See https://www.mathworks.com/help/optim/ug/nonlinear-equations-with-jacobian-sparsity-pattern.html that talks about one of the possibilities briefly and goes into more depth on another possibility.
  2 Comments
Huijian Huang
Huijian Huang on 17 Aug 2018
Thanks Walter
your suggestion and information is very useful. however, I am still an intermediate matlab user, would you be able to kindly show me some example of how to apply your theory. a simple example will be truly appropriated.
best regards
Walter Roberson
Walter Roberson on 17 Aug 2018
Unfortunately I have never implemented sparse jacobian or hessian calculation myself.

Sign in to comment.

Tags

Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!