The performance of a number of preconditioned Krylov methods is analysed for a large variety of boundary element formulations. Low‐ and high‐order element, two‐dimensional (2‐D) and three‐dimensional 3‐D, regular, singular and hypersingular, collocation and symmetric Galerkin, single‐ and multi‐zone, thermal and elastic, continuous and discontinuous boundary formulations with and without condensation are considered. Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (CG) solvers in standard form and a form effectively operating on the normal equations (CGN), Generalized Minimal Residual (GMRES), Conjugate Gradient Squared (CGS) and Stabilized Bi‐conjugate Gradient (Bi‐CGSTAB) Krylov solvers are employed in this study. Both the primitive and preconditioned matrix operators are depicted graphically to illustrate the relative amenability of the alternative formulations to solution via Kryiov methods, and to contrast and explain their computational performances. A notable difference between 2‐D and 3‐D BEA operators is readily visualized in this manner. Numerical examples are presented and the relative conditioning of the various discrete BEA operators is reflected in the performance of the Krylov equation solvers. A preconditioning scheme which was found to be uncompetitive in the collocation BEA context is shown to make iterative solution of symmetric Galerkin BEA problems more economical than employing direct solution techniques. We conclude that the preconditioned Krylov techniques are competitive with or superior to direct methods in a wide range of boundary formulated problems, and that their performance can be partially correlated with certain problem characteristics.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||22|
|Journal||International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering|
|State||Published - Jan 1 1994|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Numerical Analysis
- Applied Mathematics