Preconditioned Krylov solvers for BEA

The performance of a number of preconditioned Krylov methods is analysed for a large variety of boundary element formulations. Low- and high-order element, two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional 3-D, regular, singular and hypersingular, collocation and symmetric Galerkin, single- and multi-zone, thermal and elastic, continuous and discontinuous boundary formulations with and without condensation are considered. Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (CG) solvers in standard form and a form effectively operating on the normal equations (CGN), Generalized Minimal Residual (GMRES), Conjugate Gradient Squared (CGS) and Stabilized Bi-conjugate Gradient (Bi-CGSTAB) Krylov solvers are employed in this study. Both the primitive and preconditioned matrix operators are depicted graphically to illustrate the relative amenability of the alternative formulations to solution via Kryiov methods, and to contrast and explain their computational performances. A notable difference between 2-D and 3-D BEA operators is readily visualized in this manner. Numerical examples are presented and the relative conditioning of the various discrete BEA operators is reflected in the performance of the Krylov equation solvers. A preconditioning scheme which was found to be uncompetitive in the collocation BEA context is shown to make iterative solution of symmetric Galerkin BEA problems more economical than employing direct solution techniques. We conclude that the preconditioned Krylov techniques are competitive with or superior to direct methods in a wide range of boundary formulated problems, and that their performance can be partially correlated with certain problem characteristics.

[1]  Henk A. van der Vorst,et al.  Bi-CGSTAB: A Fast and Smoothly Converging Variant of Bi-CG for the Solution of Nonsymmetric Linear Systems , 1992, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[2]  Y. Saad Krylov subspace methods for solving large unsymmetric linear systems , 1981 .

[3]  K. A. Gallivan,et al.  Parallel Algorithms for Dense Linear Algebra Computations , 1990, SIAM Rev..

[5]  J. Ortega Introduction to Parallel and Vector Solution of Linear Systems , 1988, Frontiers of Computer Science.

[6]  Klaus-Jürgen Bathe,et al.  Studies of finite element proceduresan evaluation of preconditioned iterative solvers , 1989 .

[7]  Thomas C. Oppe,et al.  An introduction to the NSPCG software package , 1989 .

[8]  R. Freund,et al.  QMR: a quasi-minimal residual method for non-Hermitian linear systems , 1991 .

[9]  J. H. Kane,et al.  Iterative solution techniques in boundary element analysis , 1991 .

[10]  J. H. Kane,et al.  Symmetric Galerkin boundary formulations employing curved elements , 1993 .

[11]  Michel O. Deville,et al.  Fourier Analysis of Finite Element Preconditioned Collocation Schemes , 1992, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[12]  Vijay Sonnad,et al.  A comparison of direct and preconditioned iterative techniques for sparse, unsymmetric systems of linear equations , 1989 .

[13]  Y. Saad,et al.  GMRES: a generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems , 1986 .

[14]  P. Sonneveld CGS, A Fast Lanczos-Type Solver for Nonsymmetric Linear systems , 1989 .

[15]  Z. Zlatev,et al.  SOLVING LARGE AND SPARSE LINEAR LEAST-SQUARES PROBLEMS BY CONJUGATE GRADIENT ALGORITHMS , 1988 .

[16]  R. Fletcher Conjugate gradient methods for indefinite systems , 1976 .

[17]  Yi Yan,et al.  Sparse Preconditioned Iterative Methods for Dense Linear Systems , 1994, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..