On the condition number of high order finite element methods: Influence of p-refinement and mesh distortion

Abstract In this article, the condition number of the stiffness matrix κ ( K ) is compared for three high order finite element methods (FEMs), i.e., the p-version of the FEM, the spectral element method (SEM), and the NURBS-based isogeometric analysis (IGA). Note that only problems in linear elasticity are considered in the analysis. It is well-known that the condition number is one factor strongly influencing the number of significant digits for direct solvers or the required iteration count for iterative solution schemes. Therefore, it is important to investigate the effect of the choice of the shape functions and the element distortion on κ ( K ) . Based on numerous one- and two-, and three-dimensional examples, these influences are comprehensively studied, and the numerical results are compared with condition number estimates extracted from the literature. Overall, a good agreement is observed for p-FEM, SEM and two-dimensional IGA, while discrepancies are noted for three-dimensional isogeometric elements. These are important findings as theoretical results may be only available for very restricted scenarios, where one-element geometries, constant Jacobi matrices of the element maps, etc. are considered.

[1]  F. de Prenter,et al.  Condition number analysis and preconditioning of the finite cell method , 2016, 1601.05129.

[2]  Jan S. Kirschke,et al.  Robust and parallel scalable iterative solutions for large-scale finite cell analyses , 2018, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design.

[3]  I. Doležel,et al.  Higher-Order Finite Element Methods , 2003 .

[4]  Sascha Duczek,et al.  Higher order finite elements and the fictitious domain concept for wave propagation analysis , 2014 .

[5]  T. Hughes,et al.  Isogeometric analysis : CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement , 2005 .

[6]  L. Trefethen,et al.  Numerical linear algebra , 1997 .

[7]  K. Bathe.  Finite Element Procedures , 1995 .

[8]  Ernst Rank,et al.  The p-Version of the Finite Element and Finite Cell Methods , 2017 .

[9]  Thomas J. R. Hughes,et al.  NURBS as a Pre‐Analysis Tool: Geometric Design and Mesh Generation , 2009 .

[10]  J. Maître,et al.  Condition number and diagonal preconditioning: comparison of the $p$-version and the spectral element methods , 1996 .

[11]  Isaac Fried.  Bounds on the extremal eigenvalues of the finite element stiffness and mass matrices and their spectral condition number , 1972 .

[12]  I. Babuska,et al.  Finite Element Analysis , 2021 .

[13]  Nicholas J. Higham,et al.  Detecting the causes of ill-conditioning in structural finite element models , 2014 .

[14]  Timon Rabczuk,et al.  Isogeometric analysis with strong multipatch C1-coupling , 2018, Comput. Aided Geom. Des..

[15]  Hauke Gravenkamp,et al.  Critical assessment of different mass lumping schemes for higher order serendipity finite elements , 2019, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.

[16]  K. Bathe,et al.  Effects of element distortions on the performance of isoparametric elements , 1993 .

[17]  Les A. Piegl,et al.  The NURBS Book , 1995, Monographs in Visual Communication.

[18]  Jörg Liesen,et al.  Convergence analysis of Krylov subspace methods , 2004 .

[19]  Ivo Babuška,et al.  Approximate optimal points for polynomial interpolation of real functions in an interval and in a triangle , 1995 .

[20]  C. Douglas,et al.  Condition number estimates for matrices arising in NURBS based isogeometric discretizations of elliptic partial differential equations , 2014, 1406.6808.

[21]  Hauke Gravenkamp,et al.  Mass lumping techniques in the spectral element method: On the equivalence of the row-sum, nodal quadrature, and diagonal scaling methods , 2019, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.

[22]  Elena Atroshchenko,et al.  Weakening the tight coupling between geometry and simulation in isogeometric analysis: From sub‐ and super‐geometric analysis to Geometry‐Independent Field approximaTion (GIFT) , 2016, 1706.06371.

[23]  Ivo Babuška,et al.  The optimal symmetrical points for polynomial interpolation of real functions in the tetrahedron , 1995 .

[24]  A. Patera.  A spectral element method for fluid dynamics: Laminar flow in a channel expansion , 1984 .

[25]  Jens Markus Melenk,et al.  On condition numbers in hp -FEM with Gauss-Lobatto-based shape functions , 2002 .

[26]  Ning Hu,et al.  Bounds for eigenvalues and condition numbers in the p-version of the finite element method , 1998, Math. Comput..

[27]  Elwood T. Olsen,et al.  Bounds on spectral condition numbers of matrices arising in the $p$-version of the finite element method , 1995 .

[28]  L. Demkowicz.  One and two dimensional elliptic and Maxwell problems , 2006 .

[29]  Josef Stoer,et al.  Numerische Mathematik 1 , 1989 .

[30]  Ivo Babuška,et al.  The Problem of Selecting the Shape Functions for a p-Type Finite Element , 1989 .

[31]  G. Karniadakis,et al.  Spectral/hp Element Methods for Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2005 .

[32]  Mark Ainsworth,et al.  Optimally Blended Spectral-Finite Element Scheme for Wave Propagation and NonStandard Reduced Integration , 2010, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[33]  C. Pozrikidis,et al.  Introduction to finite and spectral element methods using MATLAB , 2014 .