DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Comparison of multigrid algorithms for high‐order continuous finite element discretizations

Abstract

Summary We present a comparison of different multigrid approaches for the solution of systems arising from high‐order continuous finite element discretizations of elliptic partial differential equations on complex geometries. We consider the pointwise Jacobi, the Chebyshev‐accelerated Jacobi, and the symmetric successive over‐relaxation smoothers, as well as elementwise block Jacobi smoothing. Three approaches for the multigrid hierarchy are compared: (1) high‐order h ‐multigrid, which uses high‐order interpolation and restriction between geometrically coarsened meshes; (2) p ‐multigrid, in which the polynomial order is reduced while the mesh remains unchanged, and the interpolation and restriction incorporate the different‐order basis functions; and (3) a first‐order approximation multigrid preconditioner constructed using the nodes of the high‐order discretization. This latter approach is often combined with algebraic multigrid for the low‐order operator and is attractive for high‐order discretizations on unstructured meshes, where geometric coarsening is difficult. Based on a simple performance model, we compare the computational cost of the different approaches. Using scalar test problems in two and three dimensions with constant and varying coefficients, we compare the performance of the different multigrid approaches for polynomial orders up to 16. Overall, both h ‐multigrid and p ‐multigrid work well; the first‐order approximation is less efficient. For constantmore » coefficients, all smoothers work well. For variable coefficients, Chebyshev and symmetric successive over‐relaxation smoothing outperform Jacobi smoothing. While all of the tested methods converge in a mesh‐independent number of iterations, none of them behaves completely independent of the polynomial order. When multigrid is used as a preconditioner in a Krylov method, the iteration number decreases significantly compared with using multigrid as a solver. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. School of Computing University of Utah Salt Lake City UT USA, Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences The University of Texas Austin TX USA
  2. Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences New York University New York NY USA, Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences The University of Texas Austin TX USA
  3. Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences The University of Texas Austin TX USA, Department of Mechanical Engineering The University of Texas Austin TX USA
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1401838
Resource Type:
Publisher's Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Name: Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications Journal Volume: 22 Journal Issue: 4; Journal ID: ISSN 1070-5325
Publisher:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Country of Publication:
United Kingdom
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Sundar, Hari, Stadler, Georg, and Biros, George. Comparison of multigrid algorithms for high‐order continuous finite element discretizations. United Kingdom: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1002/nla.1979.
Sundar, Hari, Stadler, Georg, & Biros, George. Comparison of multigrid algorithms for high‐order continuous finite element discretizations. United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1002/nla.1979
Sundar, Hari, Stadler, Georg, and Biros, George. Thu . "Comparison of multigrid algorithms for high‐order continuous finite element discretizations". United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1002/nla.1979.
@article{osti_1401838,
title = {Comparison of multigrid algorithms for high‐order continuous finite element discretizations},
author = {Sundar, Hari and Stadler, Georg and Biros, George},
abstractNote = {Summary We present a comparison of different multigrid approaches for the solution of systems arising from high‐order continuous finite element discretizations of elliptic partial differential equations on complex geometries. We consider the pointwise Jacobi, the Chebyshev‐accelerated Jacobi, and the symmetric successive over‐relaxation smoothers, as well as elementwise block Jacobi smoothing. Three approaches for the multigrid hierarchy are compared: (1) high‐order h ‐multigrid, which uses high‐order interpolation and restriction between geometrically coarsened meshes; (2) p ‐multigrid, in which the polynomial order is reduced while the mesh remains unchanged, and the interpolation and restriction incorporate the different‐order basis functions; and (3) a first‐order approximation multigrid preconditioner constructed using the nodes of the high‐order discretization. This latter approach is often combined with algebraic multigrid for the low‐order operator and is attractive for high‐order discretizations on unstructured meshes, where geometric coarsening is difficult. Based on a simple performance model, we compare the computational cost of the different approaches. Using scalar test problems in two and three dimensions with constant and varying coefficients, we compare the performance of the different multigrid approaches for polynomial orders up to 16. Overall, both h ‐multigrid and p ‐multigrid work well; the first‐order approximation is less efficient. For constant coefficients, all smoothers work well. For variable coefficients, Chebyshev and symmetric successive over‐relaxation smoothing outperform Jacobi smoothing. While all of the tested methods converge in a mesh‐independent number of iterations, none of them behaves completely independent of the polynomial order. When multigrid is used as a preconditioner in a Krylov method, the iteration number decreases significantly compared with using multigrid as a solver. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.},
doi = {10.1002/nla.1979},
journal = {Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications},
number = 4,
volume = 22,
place = {United Kingdom},
year = {Thu Apr 02 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Thu Apr 02 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1002/nla.1979

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 29 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Spectral methods for problems in complex geometries
journal, August 1980


Spectral element multigrid. II. Theoretical justification
journal, December 1988

  • Maday, Yvon; Munoz, Rafael
  • Journal of Scientific Computing, Vol. 3, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1007/BF01065177

Efficient Nonlinear Solvers for Nodal High-Order Finite Elements in 3D
journal, July 2010


Algebraic multigrid for higher-order finite elements
journal, April 2005

  • Heys, J. J.; Manteuffel, T. A.; McCormick, S. F.
  • Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 204, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2004.10.021

Hybrid Schwarz-Multigrid Methods for the Spectral Element Method: Extensions to Navier-Stokes
book, January 2005

  • Fischer, Paul F.; Lottes, James W.
  • Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering
  • DOI: 10.1007/3-540-26825-1_3

Algebraic Multigrid Preconditioning of High-Order Spectral Elements for Elliptic Problems on a Simplicial Mesh
journal, January 2007

  • Olson, Luke
  • SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 29, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1137/060663465

High-Order Methods for Incompressible Fluid Flow
book, January 2009


p-Multigrid solution of high-order discontinuous Galerkin discretizations of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations
journal, July 2005

  • Fidkowski, Krzysztof J.; Oliver, Todd A.; Lu, James
  • Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 207, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2005.01.005

Analysis of ``p''-Multigrid for Continuous and Discontinuous Finite Element Discretizations
conference, June 2003

  • Helenbrook, Brian; Mavriplis, Dimitri; Atkins, Harold
  • 16th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference
  • DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-3989

Finite-Element Preconditioning for Pseudospectral Solutions of Elliptic Problems
journal, March 1990

  • Deville, M. O.; Mund, E. H.
  • SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, Vol. 11, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1137/0911019

Parallel geometric-algebraic multigrid on unstructured forests of octrees
conference, November 2012

  • Sundar, Hari; Biros, George; Burstedde, Carsten
  • 2012 SC - International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 2012 International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis
  • DOI: 10.1109/SC.2012.91

Hybrid Multigrid/Schwarz Algorithms for the Spectral Element Method
journal, July 2005


Multi-level adaptive solutions to boundary-value problems
journal, May 1977


Multigrid Smoothers for Ultraparallel Computing
journal, January 2011

  • Baker, Allison H.; Falgout, Robert D.; Kolev, Tzanio V.
  • SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 33, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1137/100798806

Spectral element multigrid. I. Formulation and numerical results
journal, December 1987

  • R�nquist, Einar M.; Patera, Anthony T.
  • Journal of Scientific Computing, Vol. 2, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1007/BF01061297

Application of p-Multigrid to Discontinuous Galerkin Formulations of the Poisson Equation
journal, March 2006

  • Helenbrook, Brian T.; Atkins, H. L.
  • AIAA Journal, Vol. 44, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.2514/1.15497

Finite-Element Preconditioning of G-NI Spectral Methods
journal, January 2010

  • Canuto, Claudio; Gervasio, Paola; Quarteroni, Alfio
  • SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 31, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1137/090746367

A Parallel Geometric Multigrid Method for Finite Elements on Octree Meshes
journal, January 2010

  • Sampath, Rahul S.; Biros, George
  • SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 32, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1137/090747774

pTatin3D: High-Performance Methods for Long-Term Lithospheric Dynamics
conference, November 2014

  • May, Dave A.; Brown, Jed; Pourhiet, Laetitia Le
  • SC14: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis
  • DOI: 10.1109/SC.2014.28

Parallel multigrid smoothing: polynomial versus Gauss–Seidel
journal, July 2003