Advertisement

Restrictions on the Use of Sweeping Type Preconditioners for Helmholtz Problems

  • Martin J. Gander
  • Hui Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering book series (LNCSE, volume 125)

Abstract

Sweeping type preconditioners have become a focus of attention for solving high frequency time harmonic wave propagation problems. These methods can be found under various names in the literature: in addition to sweeping, one finds the older approach of the Analytic Incomplete LU (AILU), optimized Schwarz methods, and more recently also source transfer domain decomposition, method based on single layer potentials, and method of polarized traces. An important innovation in sweeping methods is to use perfectly matched layer (PML) transmission conditions. In the constant wavenumber case, one can approximate the optimal transmission conditions represented by the Dirichlet to Neumann operator (DtN) arbitrarily well using large enough PMLs. We give in this short manuscript a simple, compact representation of these methods which allows us to explain exactly how they work, and test what happens in the case of non-constant wave number, in particular layered media in the difficult case where the layers are aligned against the sweeping direction. We find that iteration numbers of all these methods remain robust for very small contrast variations, in the order of a few percent, but then deteriorate, with linear growth both in the wave number as well as in the number of subdomains, as soon as the contrast variations reach order one.

References

  1. 1.
    I.M. Babuska, S.A. Sauter, Is the pollution effect of the FEM avoidable for the Helmholtz equation considering high wave numbers? SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 34(6), 2392–2423 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Boubendir, X. Antoine, C. Geuzaine, A quasi-optimal non-overlapping domain decomposition algorithm for the Helmholtz equation. J. Comput. Phys. 231(2), 262–280 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Z. Chen, X. Xiang, A source transfer domain decomposition method for Helmholtz equations in unbounded domain. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 51, 2331–2356 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Z. Chen, X. Xiang, A source transfer domain decomposition method for Helmholtz equations in unbounded domain Part II: extensions. Numer. Math. Theor. Meth. Appl. 6, 538–555 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.-H. Cocquet, M.J. Gander, On the minimal shift in the shifted Laplacian preconditioner for multigrid to work, in Domain Decomposition Methods in Science and Engineering XXII (Springer, Berlin, 2016), pp. 137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P.-H. Cocquet, M.J. Gander, How large a shift is needed in the shifted Helmholtz preconditioner for its effective inversion by multigrid? SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 39(2), A438–A478 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Engquist, L. Ying, Sweeping preconditioner for the Helmholtz equation: hierarchical matrix representation. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. LXIV, 0697–0735 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Engquist, L. Ying, Sweeping preconditioner for the Helmholtz equation: moving perfectly matched layers. Multiscale Model. Simul. 9, 686–710 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y.A. Erlangga, C. Vuik, C.W. Oosterlee, On a class of preconditioners for solving the Helmholtz equation. Appl. Numer. Math. 50(3–4), 409–425 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O.G. Ernst, M.J. Gander, Why it is difficult to solve Helmholtz problems with classical iterative methods, in Numerical Analysis of Multiscale Problems (Springer, Berlin, 2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M.J. Gander, Optimized Schwarz methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 44, 699–731 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.J. Gander, F. Nataf, AILU: a preconditioner based on the analytic factorization of the elliptic operator. Numer. Linear Algebra Appl. 7, 505–526 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.J. Gander, F. Nataf, An incomplete LU preconditioner for problems in acoustics. J. Comput. Acoust. 13, 455–476 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.J. Gander, A. Schädle, The pole condition: a Padé approximation of the Dirichlet to Neumann operator, in Domain Decomposition Methods in Science and Engineering XIX (Springer, Berlin, 2011), pp. 125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.J. Gander, A. Schädle, On the relationship between the pole condition, absorbing boundary conditions and perfectly matched layers (2018, in preparation)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M.J. Gander, H. Zhang, A class of iterative solvers for the Helmholtz equation: factorizations, sweeping preconditioners, source transfer, single layer potentials, polarized traces, and optimized Schwarz methods. SIAM Rev. (2018, in print)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M.J. Gander, F. Magoules, F. Nataf, Optimized Schwarz methods without overlap for the Helmholtz equation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 24, 38–60 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.J. Gander, L. Halpern, F. Magoules, An optimized Schwarz method with two-sided Robin transmission conditions for the Helmholtz equation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 55, 163–175 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.J. Gander, I.G. Graham, E.A. Spence, Applying GMRES to the Helmholtz equation with shifted Laplacian preconditioning: what is the largest shift for which wavenumber-independent convergence is guaranteed? Numer. Math. 131, 567–614 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    I.G. Graham, E.A. Spence, E. Vainikko, Domain decomposition preconditioning for high-frequency Helmholtz problems using absorption. ArXiv e-prints (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Schädle, L. Zschiedrich, Additive Schwarz method for scattering problems using the PML method at interfaces, in Domain Decomposition Methods in Science and Engineering XVI (Springer, Berlin, 2007), pp. 205–212Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Toselli, Some results on overlapping Schwarz methods for the Helmholtz equation employing perfectly matched layers, in Domain Decomposition Methods in Sciences and Engineering: Eleventh International Conference, London (1998), pp. 539–545Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. Zepeda-Núñez, L. Demanet, The method of polarized traces for the 2D Helmholtz equation. J. Comput. Phys. 308, 347–388 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Zepeda-Núñez, R.J. Hewett, L. Demanet, Preconditioning the 2D Helmholtz equation with polarized traces, in SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2014 (SEG, 2014), pp. 3465–3470Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GenevaSection of MathematicsGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Zhejiang Ocean UniversityKey Laboratory of Oceanographic Big Data Mining & Application of Zhejiang ProvinceZhoushanChina

Personalised recommendations