The Cost of Continuity: Performance of Iterative Solvers on Isogeometric Finite Elements

In this paper we study how the use of a more continuous set of basis functions affects the cost of solving systems of linear equations resulting from a discretized Galerkin weak form. Specifically, we compare performance of linear solvers when discretizing using $C^0$ B-splines, which span traditional finite element spaces, and $C^{p-1}$ B-splines, which represent maximum continuity. We provide theoretical estimates for the increase in cost of the matrix-vector product as well as for the construction and application of black-box preconditioners. We accompany these estimates with numerical results and study their sensitivity to various grid parameters such as element size $h$ and polynomial order of approximation $p$. Finally, we present timing results for a range of preconditioning options for the Laplace problem. We conclude that the matrix-vector product operation is at most $\slfrac{33p^2}{8}$ times more expensive for the more continuous space, although for moderately low $p$, this number is significantly reduced. Moreover, if static condensation is not employed, this number further reduces to at most a value of 8, even for high $p$. Preconditioning options can be up to $p^3$ times more expensive to setup, although this difference significantly decreases for some popular preconditioners such as Incomplete LU factorization.

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

[2]  Lloyd N. Trefethen,et al.  How Fast are Nonsymmetric Matrix Iterations? , 1992, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl..

[3]  T. Hughes,et al.  Isogeometric analysis of the Cahn–Hilliard phase-field model , 2008 .

[4]  Douglas N. Arnold,et al.  Multigrid in H (div) and H (curl) , 2000, Numerische Mathematik.

[5]  John K. Reid,et al.  The Multifrontal Solution of Indefinite Sparse Symmetric Linear , 1983, TOMS.

[6]  John D. Hunter,et al.  Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment , 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[7]  Hong Zhang,et al.  Sparse triangular solves for ILU revisited: data layout crucial to better performance , 2011, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[8]  Lisandro Dalcin,et al.  Parallel distributed computing using Python , 2011 .

[9]  Owe Axelsson,et al.  Iteration number for the conjugate gradient method , 2003, Math. Comput. Simul..

[10]  Travis E. Oliphant,et al.  Guide to NumPy , 2015 .

[11]  T. Hughes,et al.  Isogeometric analysis of the isothermal Navier-Stokes-Korteweg equations , 2010 .

[12]  Iain S. Duff,et al.  The Multifrontal Solution of Unsymmetric Sets of Linear Equations , 1984 .

[13]  Yousef Saad,et al.  Iterative methods for sparse linear systems , 2003 .

[14]  David Pardo Integration of hp-adaptivity with a two grid solver: applications to electromagnetics , 2004 .

[15]  J. Shewchuk An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain , 1994 .

[16]  Luca F. Pavarino,et al.  Overlapping Schwarz Methods for Isogeometric Analysis , 2012, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[17]  Mark Ainsworth A Hierarchical Domain Decomposition Preconditioner for h-P Finite Element Approximation on Locally Refined Meshes , 1996, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[18]  E. Wilson The static condensation algorithm , 1974 .

[19]  Victor M. Calo,et al.  The cost of continuity: A study of the performance of isogeometric finite elements using direct solvers , 2012 .