黑箱求解器耦合不同拟牛顿技术的比较

N. Delaissé, Toon Demeester, D. Fauconnier, J. Degroote
{"title":"黑箱求解器耦合不同拟牛顿技术的比较","authors":"N. Delaissé, Toon Demeester, D. Fauconnier, J. Degroote","doi":"10.23967/WCCM-ECCOMAS.2020.088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problems are frequently solved using partitioned simulation techniques with black-box solvers, reusing reliable and optimized codes. These problems can principally be reduced to solving a root-finding problem. In case of strong coupling, pure Gauss-Seidel iterations between the structure and flow solvers are unstable for lower modes. In these cases, quasi-Newton techniques are used, which construct an approximation of the Jacobian or its inverse by reusing information from previous iterations and time steps. Four different quasi-Newton techniques are compared: the interface quasi-Newton algorithm with an approximation for the inverse of the Jacobian from a least-squares model (IQN-ILS), the interface block quasi-Newton algorithm with approximate Jacobians from least-squares models (IBQN-LS), the interface quasi-Newton technique with multiple vector Jacobian (IQN-MVJ) and the multi-vector update quasi-Newton technique (MVQN). These coupling algorithms are differentiated based on whether the approximation of the Jacobian is performed for the entire black-box system (IQN-ILS and IQN-MVJ) or for both individual solvers (IBQN-LS and MVQN). Moreover, a distinction is made between methods which perform the approximation with either least-squares models (IQN-ILS and IBQN-LS) or multi-vector techniques (IQN-MVJ and MVQN). Their performance is compared by solving a 1D flexible tube case, using the in-house coupling software CoCoNuT. Both the memory usage and number of iterations between structure and flow solvers in each time step are examined. The techniques using a multi-vector approach require explicit matrix construction, so that memory requirements scale quadratically, whereas the least-squares techniques have a matrix-free implementation, resulting in linear scaling. In terms of convergence they are comparable.","PeriodicalId":148883,"journal":{"name":"14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress","volume":"64 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Different Quasi-Newton Techniques for Coupling of Black Box Solvers\",\"authors\":\"N. Delaissé, Toon Demeester, D. Fauconnier, J. Degroote\",\"doi\":\"10.23967/WCCM-ECCOMAS.2020.088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\". Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problems are frequently solved using partitioned simulation techniques with black-box solvers, reusing reliable and optimized codes. These problems can principally be reduced to solving a root-finding problem. In case of strong coupling, pure Gauss-Seidel iterations between the structure and flow solvers are unstable for lower modes. In these cases, quasi-Newton techniques are used, which construct an approximation of the Jacobian or its inverse by reusing information from previous iterations and time steps. Four different quasi-Newton techniques are compared: the interface quasi-Newton algorithm with an approximation for the inverse of the Jacobian from a least-squares model (IQN-ILS), the interface block quasi-Newton algorithm with approximate Jacobians from least-squares models (IBQN-LS), the interface quasi-Newton technique with multiple vector Jacobian (IQN-MVJ) and the multi-vector update quasi-Newton technique (MVQN). These coupling algorithms are differentiated based on whether the approximation of the Jacobian is performed for the entire black-box system (IQN-ILS and IQN-MVJ) or for both individual solvers (IBQN-LS and MVQN). Moreover, a distinction is made between methods which perform the approximation with either least-squares models (IQN-ILS and IBQN-LS) or multi-vector techniques (IQN-MVJ and MVQN). Their performance is compared by solving a 1D flexible tube case, using the in-house coupling software CoCoNuT. Both the memory usage and number of iterations between structure and flow solvers in each time step are examined. The techniques using a multi-vector approach require explicit matrix construction, so that memory requirements scale quadratically, whereas the least-squares techniques have a matrix-free implementation, resulting in linear scaling. In terms of convergence they are comparable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":148883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress\",\"volume\":\"64 5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23967/WCCM-ECCOMAS.2020.088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23967/WCCM-ECCOMAS.2020.088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

. 流固耦合(FSI)问题经常使用带有黑盒求解器的分区模拟技术来求解,重用可靠的优化代码。这些问题基本上可以简化为解决寻根问题。在强耦合的情况下,结构求解器和流动求解器之间的纯高斯-赛德尔迭代对于低模态是不稳定的。在这些情况下,使用准牛顿技术,它通过重用以前迭代和时间步长的信息来构造雅可比矩阵或其逆的近似值。比较了四种不同的拟牛顿技术:基于最小二乘模型近似雅可比矩阵逆的界面拟牛顿算法(IQN-ILS)、基于最小二乘模型近似雅可比矩阵的界面块拟牛顿算法(IBQN-LS)、基于多向量雅可比矩阵的界面拟牛顿技术(IQN-MVJ)和基于多向量更新的拟牛顿技术(MVQN)。这些耦合算法是根据是对整个黑盒系统(IQN-ILS和IQN-MVJ)执行雅可比矩阵近似还是对单个求解器(IBQN-LS和MVQN)执行雅可比矩阵近似来区分的。此外,还对使用最小二乘模型(IQN-ILS和IBQN-LS)或多向量技术(IQN-MVJ和MVQN)进行近似的方法进行了区分。通过使用内部耦合软件CoCoNuT求解一维柔性管案例,比较了它们的性能。研究了每个时间步的内存使用情况和结构求解器与流求解器之间的迭代次数。使用多向量方法的技术需要明确的矩阵构造,因此内存需求以二次方式缩放,而最小二乘技术具有无矩阵的实现,导致线性缩放。就收敛性而言,它们是可比较的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Different Quasi-Newton Techniques for Coupling of Black Box Solvers
. Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problems are frequently solved using partitioned simulation techniques with black-box solvers, reusing reliable and optimized codes. These problems can principally be reduced to solving a root-finding problem. In case of strong coupling, pure Gauss-Seidel iterations between the structure and flow solvers are unstable for lower modes. In these cases, quasi-Newton techniques are used, which construct an approximation of the Jacobian or its inverse by reusing information from previous iterations and time steps. Four different quasi-Newton techniques are compared: the interface quasi-Newton algorithm with an approximation for the inverse of the Jacobian from a least-squares model (IQN-ILS), the interface block quasi-Newton algorithm with approximate Jacobians from least-squares models (IBQN-LS), the interface quasi-Newton technique with multiple vector Jacobian (IQN-MVJ) and the multi-vector update quasi-Newton technique (MVQN). These coupling algorithms are differentiated based on whether the approximation of the Jacobian is performed for the entire black-box system (IQN-ILS and IQN-MVJ) or for both individual solvers (IBQN-LS and MVQN). Moreover, a distinction is made between methods which perform the approximation with either least-squares models (IQN-ILS and IBQN-LS) or multi-vector techniques (IQN-MVJ and MVQN). Their performance is compared by solving a 1D flexible tube case, using the in-house coupling software CoCoNuT. Both the memory usage and number of iterations between structure and flow solvers in each time step are examined. The techniques using a multi-vector approach require explicit matrix construction, so that memory requirements scale quadratically, whereas the least-squares techniques have a matrix-free implementation, resulting in linear scaling. In terms of convergence they are comparable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信