A comparison of projective and direct solvers for finite elements in elastostatics

The Finite Element Method (FEM) is widely used in civil and mechanical engineering to simulate the behavior of complex structures and, more specifically, to predict stress and deformation fields of structural parts or mechanical bodies. In the former case, the coupling between different types of ele...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Advances in engineering software (1992) 2009-08, Vol.40 (8), p.675-685
Hauptverfasser: Janna, Carlo, Comerlati, Andrea, Gambolati, Giuseppe
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 685
container_issue 8
container_start_page 675
container_title Advances in engineering software (1992)
container_volume 40
creator Janna, Carlo
Comerlati, Andrea
Gambolati, Giuseppe
description The Finite Element Method (FEM) is widely used in civil and mechanical engineering to simulate the behavior of complex structures and, more specifically, to predict stress and deformation fields of structural parts or mechanical bodies. In the former case, the coupling between different types of elements, such as beams, trusses, and shells, is often required, while in the latter fully 3D discretizations are typically used. For both, FEM leads to symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrices that, depending on the type of discretization and especially on the topology of the nodal connections, may be efficiently solved by either the Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) or a direct solver such as the routine MA57 of the Harwell Software Library. Numerical experiments are shown and discussed where the effect of spatial discretization, different solution techniques, and a possible nodal reordering, is explored. The PCG preconditioner used is a variant of the incomplete Cholesky factorization with variable fill-in. It is shown that for structures with 1D or 2D connections, such as for example a bridge, MA57 performs usually better than PCG. In this case it is noted that some reorderings specifically designed and implemented for direct elimination methods can be very helpful for PCG as well as they yield a cheaper preconditioner and lead to a much faster PCG convergence. The main disadvantage is the need for an appropriate degree of fill-in for the preconditioner which turns out to be problem dependent and must be found empirically. However, in fully 3D problems, arising for example from the FE discretization of structural components or geomechanical structures, PCG outperforms MA57 while also requiring much less memory, and thus allowing for the use of much refined grids, if needed. With the aid of a large geomechanical problem it is shown that direct solvers may not be (even) used on serial computers due to their prohibitive computational cost with PCG the only viable alternative solver.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.11.010
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_903627673</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0965997808001968</els_id><sourcerecordid>34373759</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-ab7dd81e0e0cdb1dc6e742062451dc6e566859994b89c9ba8f5473dadd7e91b23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1LxDAQxXtQcF39H3LSU2vSryTHdfELFgTRc0iTqaS0zZrJFvzv7VrBm55mHrz3mPklCWE0Y5TVN12m7QTjO_o2ZjmlImMso4yeJCsq6yqVkouz5Byxo5SVNGer5GVDjB_2Ojj0I_Et2QffgYluAqJHS6wLsyLo-wkCktYH0rrRRSDQwwBjROLGedcYPUYdncGL5LTVPcLlz1wnb_d3r9vHdPf88LTd7FJTCBZT3XBrBQMK1NiGWVMDL3Na52X1Laq6FpWUsmyENLLRoq1KXlhtLQfJmrxYJ9dL73zyxwEwqsGhgb7XI_gDKkmLOuc1L2bn1Z_Ooix4wSs5G8ViNMEjBmjVPrhBh0_FqDoiVp36RayOiBVjakY8R2-XKMwvTw6CQuNgNLAQVNa7_0u-AKiQjbk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>34373759</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of projective and direct solvers for finite elements in elastostatics</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection (Elsevier)</source><creator>Janna, Carlo ; Comerlati, Andrea ; Gambolati, Giuseppe</creator><creatorcontrib>Janna, Carlo ; Comerlati, Andrea ; Gambolati, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><description>The Finite Element Method (FEM) is widely used in civil and mechanical engineering to simulate the behavior of complex structures and, more specifically, to predict stress and deformation fields of structural parts or mechanical bodies. In the former case, the coupling between different types of elements, such as beams, trusses, and shells, is often required, while in the latter fully 3D discretizations are typically used. For both, FEM leads to symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrices that, depending on the type of discretization and especially on the topology of the nodal connections, may be efficiently solved by either the Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) or a direct solver such as the routine MA57 of the Harwell Software Library. Numerical experiments are shown and discussed where the effect of spatial discretization, different solution techniques, and a possible nodal reordering, is explored. The PCG preconditioner used is a variant of the incomplete Cholesky factorization with variable fill-in. It is shown that for structures with 1D or 2D connections, such as for example a bridge, MA57 performs usually better than PCG. In this case it is noted that some reorderings specifically designed and implemented for direct elimination methods can be very helpful for PCG as well as they yield a cheaper preconditioner and lead to a much faster PCG convergence. The main disadvantage is the need for an appropriate degree of fill-in for the preconditioner which turns out to be problem dependent and must be found empirically. However, in fully 3D problems, arising for example from the FE discretization of structural components or geomechanical structures, PCG outperforms MA57 while also requiring much less memory, and thus allowing for the use of much refined grids, if needed. With the aid of a large geomechanical problem it is shown that direct solvers may not be (even) used on serial computers due to their prohibitive computational cost with PCG the only viable alternative solver.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0965-9978</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.11.010</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Conjugate gradient ; Krylov ; Preconditioning ; Reorderings</subject><ispartof>Advances in engineering software (1992), 2009-08, Vol.40 (8), p.675-685</ispartof><rights>2008 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-ab7dd81e0e0cdb1dc6e742062451dc6e566859994b89c9ba8f5473dadd7e91b23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-ab7dd81e0e0cdb1dc6e742062451dc6e566859994b89c9ba8f5473dadd7e91b23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965997808001968$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Janna, Carlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Comerlati, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gambolati, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of projective and direct solvers for finite elements in elastostatics</title><title>Advances in engineering software (1992)</title><description>The Finite Element Method (FEM) is widely used in civil and mechanical engineering to simulate the behavior of complex structures and, more specifically, to predict stress and deformation fields of structural parts or mechanical bodies. In the former case, the coupling between different types of elements, such as beams, trusses, and shells, is often required, while in the latter fully 3D discretizations are typically used. For both, FEM leads to symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrices that, depending on the type of discretization and especially on the topology of the nodal connections, may be efficiently solved by either the Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) or a direct solver such as the routine MA57 of the Harwell Software Library. Numerical experiments are shown and discussed where the effect of spatial discretization, different solution techniques, and a possible nodal reordering, is explored. The PCG preconditioner used is a variant of the incomplete Cholesky factorization with variable fill-in. It is shown that for structures with 1D or 2D connections, such as for example a bridge, MA57 performs usually better than PCG. In this case it is noted that some reorderings specifically designed and implemented for direct elimination methods can be very helpful for PCG as well as they yield a cheaper preconditioner and lead to a much faster PCG convergence. The main disadvantage is the need for an appropriate degree of fill-in for the preconditioner which turns out to be problem dependent and must be found empirically. However, in fully 3D problems, arising for example from the FE discretization of structural components or geomechanical structures, PCG outperforms MA57 while also requiring much less memory, and thus allowing for the use of much refined grids, if needed. With the aid of a large geomechanical problem it is shown that direct solvers may not be (even) used on serial computers due to their prohibitive computational cost with PCG the only viable alternative solver.</description><subject>Conjugate gradient</subject><subject>Krylov</subject><subject>Preconditioning</subject><subject>Reorderings</subject><issn>0965-9978</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkM1LxDAQxXtQcF39H3LSU2vSryTHdfELFgTRc0iTqaS0zZrJFvzv7VrBm55mHrz3mPklCWE0Y5TVN12m7QTjO_o2ZjmlImMso4yeJCsq6yqVkouz5Byxo5SVNGer5GVDjB_2Ojj0I_Et2QffgYluAqJHS6wLsyLo-wkCktYH0rrRRSDQwwBjROLGedcYPUYdncGL5LTVPcLlz1wnb_d3r9vHdPf88LTd7FJTCBZT3XBrBQMK1NiGWVMDL3Na52X1Laq6FpWUsmyENLLRoq1KXlhtLQfJmrxYJ9dL73zyxwEwqsGhgb7XI_gDKkmLOuc1L2bn1Z_Ooix4wSs5G8ViNMEjBmjVPrhBh0_FqDoiVp36RayOiBVjakY8R2-XKMwvTw6CQuNgNLAQVNa7_0u-AKiQjbk</recordid><startdate>20090801</startdate><enddate>20090801</enddate><creator>Janna, Carlo</creator><creator>Comerlati, Andrea</creator><creator>Gambolati, Giuseppe</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090801</creationdate><title>A comparison of projective and direct solvers for finite elements in elastostatics</title><author>Janna, Carlo ; Comerlati, Andrea ; Gambolati, Giuseppe</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-ab7dd81e0e0cdb1dc6e742062451dc6e566859994b89c9ba8f5473dadd7e91b23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Conjugate gradient</topic><topic>Krylov</topic><topic>Preconditioning</topic><topic>Reorderings</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Janna, Carlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Comerlati, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gambolati, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Advances in engineering software (1992)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Janna, Carlo</au><au>Comerlati, Andrea</au><au>Gambolati, Giuseppe</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of projective and direct solvers for finite elements in elastostatics</atitle><jtitle>Advances in engineering software (1992)</jtitle><date>2009-08-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>675</spage><epage>685</epage><pages>675-685</pages><issn>0965-9978</issn><abstract>The Finite Element Method (FEM) is widely used in civil and mechanical engineering to simulate the behavior of complex structures and, more specifically, to predict stress and deformation fields of structural parts or mechanical bodies. In the former case, the coupling between different types of elements, such as beams, trusses, and shells, is often required, while in the latter fully 3D discretizations are typically used. For both, FEM leads to symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrices that, depending on the type of discretization and especially on the topology of the nodal connections, may be efficiently solved by either the Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) or a direct solver such as the routine MA57 of the Harwell Software Library. Numerical experiments are shown and discussed where the effect of spatial discretization, different solution techniques, and a possible nodal reordering, is explored. The PCG preconditioner used is a variant of the incomplete Cholesky factorization with variable fill-in. It is shown that for structures with 1D or 2D connections, such as for example a bridge, MA57 performs usually better than PCG. In this case it is noted that some reorderings specifically designed and implemented for direct elimination methods can be very helpful for PCG as well as they yield a cheaper preconditioner and lead to a much faster PCG convergence. The main disadvantage is the need for an appropriate degree of fill-in for the preconditioner which turns out to be problem dependent and must be found empirically. However, in fully 3D problems, arising for example from the FE discretization of structural components or geomechanical structures, PCG outperforms MA57 while also requiring much less memory, and thus allowing for the use of much refined grids, if needed. With the aid of a large geomechanical problem it is shown that direct solvers may not be (even) used on serial computers due to their prohibitive computational cost with PCG the only viable alternative solver.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.11.010</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0965-9978
ispartof Advances in engineering software (1992), 2009-08, Vol.40 (8), p.675-685
issn 0965-9978
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_903627673
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection (Elsevier)
subjects Conjugate gradient
Krylov
Preconditioning
Reorderings
title A comparison of projective and direct solvers for finite elements in elastostatics
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T16%3A40%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20projective%20and%20direct%20solvers%20for%20finite%20elements%20in%20elastostatics&rft.jtitle=Advances%20in%20engineering%20software%20(1992)&rft.au=Janna,%20Carlo&rft.date=2009-08-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=675&rft.epage=685&rft.pages=675-685&rft.issn=0965-9978&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.11.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E34373759%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=34373759&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0965997808001968&rfr_iscdi=true