2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.apnum.2003.11.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A parallel solver for PDE systems and application to the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We note that while there is a rich literature on domain decomposition methods for symmetric saddle point problems and in particular for mixed discretizations of the Stokes equations, there seems to be very few papers concerned with coupled domain decomposition methods for nonsymmetric saddle point systems and in particular for the Oseen equations. One such paper is Vainikko and Graham (2004), where domain decomposition methods are implemented and experimentally compared with (and found to be superior to) block triangular preconditioners for the Oseen problem. Theoretical understanding, however, is still largely lacking.…”
Section: Domain Decomposition Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We note that while there is a rich literature on domain decomposition methods for symmetric saddle point problems and in particular for mixed discretizations of the Stokes equations, there seems to be very few papers concerned with coupled domain decomposition methods for nonsymmetric saddle point systems and in particular for the Oseen equations. One such paper is Vainikko and Graham (2004), where domain decomposition methods are implemented and experimentally compared with (and found to be superior to) block triangular preconditioners for the Oseen problem. Theoretical understanding, however, is still largely lacking.…”
Section: Domain Decomposition Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerical experiments for simple model problems indicate that the performance of this preconditioner depends only mildly on the mesh size and viscosity coefficient; see Elman (1999). However, it was found to perform poorly (occasionally failing to converge) on some difficult problems; see Vainikko and Graham (2004). As noted in Elman, Howle, Shadid, Shuttleworth and Tuminaro (2005a), for finite element problems the performance of this preconditioner can be greatly improved by the use of appropriate scalings.…”
Section: Approximating a And Smentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In [16] and [17] Elman observed some h-dependence in the convergence rate of the GMRES method using the BFBt preconditioner for the finite difference (MAC) and finite element Q 2 -Q 1 discretizations. Some h-dependence was also observed by Vainikko and Graham in [39] with Q 2 -P −1 elements and by Hemmingsson and Wathen in [26] with a finite difference method. In all these papers the variant of the preconditioner with identity matrices instead ofM u in (2.9) was used.…”
Section: Bfbtmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…We anticipate that this strategy will succeed for eigenvalue problems where the desired eigenvalues are not clustered. In addition to the example discussed here, this strategy has been used successfully to compute eigenvalues for flow in an expanding pipe [24].…”
Section: Computation Of Eigenvalues Parpack and Inexact Inverse Iteramentioning
confidence: 97%