Post on 24-Jul-2020
Stokes preconditioning for
Channelflow and Openpipeflow
Laurette TuckermanJake LanghamAshley Willis
Computation of steady state in plane Couette flow using Channelflow (Gibson)
Fourier in x,z / Chebyshev in y
Computation of traveling waves in pipe flow using Openpipeflow (Willis)
Fourier in θ, z / finite differences in r
Methods used in hydrodynamics for computing steady states and traveling waves
Newton with full direct Jacobian inversion: from 1980s: Keller, Busse & Clever, Nagata, Generalis, Kerswell, Eckhardt scales like M3, so limited to small resolutions
non-Newton or variants of Newton: Newton-Picard with subspace iteration: Lust & Roose Selective frequency damping: Akervik Recursive projection method: Keller & Shroff
Newton with matrix-free Jacobian inversion via Stokes preconditioning: from 1989: Tuckerman, Henry/Bergeon/Beaume, Mercader, Mellibovsky
Newton with matrix-free Jacobian inversion via integration: from 2004: Sanchez-Umbria, Viswanath, Duguet, Gibson, Willis
Other computations using Stokes preconditioning
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
4634
Mercedes
5000 7000 10 000 20 000 30 000
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
18 762
Cloverleaf
5000 7000 10 000
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
...
...
..
..
..
..
..
..
.........................................................
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
...
..
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
....
....
....
....
..................................................................................
Mitsubishi
4650 5000 7000 10 000
Marigold
2100 4650 5000 7000 10 000 20 0004103
Conductive|1985
|4103
|4634
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5503
|18 762
Rayleigh-Bénard convection in a cylinder of aspect ratio with radius / height =2 Pseudospectral computation with (Mr,Mθ,Mz)=(60,130,30), leading to 500 000 degrees of freedom. From Boronska & Tuckerman Phys Rev E (2010).
3D binary fluid convection in a porous medium in cavity of size 6 x 6 x 1. Spectral element computation with 6 elements per quarter each with (23,23,17) points. From LoJacono, Bergeon & Knobloch FDR (2017).
Other computations using Stokes preconditioning
1800 1900 2000 21000
0.02
0.04
0.06
Rayleigh number
Nu −
1
SOC15
2PH15
2PC15
θ
R=2111 (2PH15)
Cθ
R=1955 (2PH15)
Cθ
R=1938 (2PC15)
C
Nuss
elt -
1
Other computations using Stokes preconditioning
Binary fluid convection in a domain with aspect ratio width / height = 14. Spectral computation. From Mercader, Batiste, Alonso & Knobloch JFM (2011).
Other computations using Stokes preconditioning
Steady states of a streamwise-independent reduced model for plane Couette flow.at Re ≈ 1000. Spectral element computation. From Beaume, Chini, Julien & Knobloch PRE (2015).
Ulam= y ex Ulam= (1-y2) exUlam= (1-r2) ez
For a long time, the only regular solutions known were the analytic laminar ones. First new solution found numerically for plane Couette flow by Nagata (1990). Then many many many many other solutions were found. Is turbulence a chaotic attractor with these solutions forming a skeleton?
Gibson, Halcrow, Cvitanovic, J. Fluid Mech. (2008)
Experimental Observation of Nonlinear Traveling Waves in Turbulent Pipe FlowHof, van Doorne, Westerweel, Nieuwstadt, Faisst, Eckhardt, Wedin, Kerswell, WaleffeScience (2004)
Experiment: instantaneous snapshots
Numerics: computed traveling wave solutions
∂U∂t
= LU + N(U)
0 = LU + N(U)
Navier-Stokes
Steady states
Steady states OR T-periodic orbits0 = U(T ) − U(0) ≡ (ΦT − I)U(0)
ΦT ≈ (BΔt)T/Δt
In theory ΦT : U(0) → U(T )
In practice
BΔt ≡ (I − ΔtL)−1(I + ΔtN)
where a single small timestep is, for example:
≈ Δt(L + N)≈ − L−1(L + N) for Δt large
for Δt small{
BΔt − I = (I − ΔtL)−1(I + ΔtN) − I= (I − ΔtL)−1[(I + ΔtN) − (I − ΔtL)]= (I − ΔtL)−1Δt(L + N) has same roots as L+N
Hence Δt interpolates between no preconditioner and preconditioning by L-1
Find roots via Newton’s method Solve linear systems of Newton’s method via BiCGSTAB
GUu = G(U)U ← U − u
G(U), GU G(U), G2U G(U), … Gk
U G(U), … GK−1U G(U)
Solve linear systems of Newton’s method via BiCGSTAB or GMRES or IDR or … Construct estimate of solution u within Krylov space:
Find roots via Newton’s method
Cost of making K-space should be product of: —number K of Krylov vectors constructed = actions of GU —cost of single action of GU
GStokesT ≡ BT − I
finds roots of
L + N =∂U∂t
GintT ≡ (BΔt)T/Δt − I
ΦT − I = U(T) − U(0)
finds roots of
many timesteps (T/Δt) per action of G
single timestep per action of G
(Gibson) in plane Couette flow Computation of steady state using Channelflow
NCBW: Nagata Clever Busse Waleffe solution
GStokes Gint
factor of 11
Computation of steady state using Channelflow
Total number of timesteps is product of K and (T/Δt) Integration method has lower K and higher (T/Δt) Stokes method has higher K and (T/Δt) = 1
Computation of steady state using Channelflow
Computation of traveling waves in pipe flow using Openpipeflow (Willis)
Fourier in θ, z / finite differences in r
∂U∂t
= − C∂U∂x
0 = LU + N(U) + C∂U∂x
Traveling waves
Additional unknown C Additional phase condition
factor of 35
Computation of traveling waves using Openpipeflow
As Re increases, the performance ratio measured by timesteps remains nearly constant. But the performance ratio measured by CPU time decreases drastically.
Why?
GMRES:
G(U), GU G(U), G2U G(U), … Gk
U G(U), … GK−1U G(U)
Construct estimate of solution u within Krylov space:
Each Krylov vector must be orthogonalized to every other. For K small, this cost is negligible. But not for K large.
where M is the number of gridpoints and 1 < α < 2
As Re increases, K increases. Why?
CPU ≈ cactionTΔt
KM1+α + corthK2M
Operator spectra for Re = 500
λmodelk = − k2/Re ± ikU
λStokesk ≈
λmodelk
k2/Re= − 1 ± iURe/k
( 1Re
∇2 + U∂x) u
Quantitative predictions for the spectra1) Most negative real value of λmodel is proportional to 1/Re
λmodelmost negative(Re = 500)
λmodelmost negative(Re = 1750)
=−360−105
= 3.5 ≈1750500
λmodelk = − k2/Re ± ikU
λStokesk ≈
λmodelk
k2/Re= − 1 ± iURe/k
2) Largest imaginary value of λStokes is proportional to Re
λStokeslargest imaginary(Re = 500)
λmodellargest imaginary(Re = 1750)
=35100
=1
2.9≈
5001750
Operator spectra for Re = 1750
3) Radius r of circle surrounding (-1,0) containing 95% of eigenvalues of Gint
r = e−Tk2* /Re ⟹ ln(1/r) = Tk2
* /Re
ln(1/r1)ln(1/r2)
=7.081.877
= 3.77 ≈1750500
=Re2
Re1
Conditioning of Gint depends on T/Re: can compensate for increasing Re by increasing T
Seek to reduce large imaginary eigenvalues of GStokes
k > k*These eigenvalues correspond to
NUu = − [U ⋅ ∇)u + (u ⋅ ∇)U − Ulam ∂xu + 2vU′�lamex]
U = Ulam(y) ex + U
Lu = ( 1Re
∇2 − Ulam∂x) u
∇ ⋅ (Lu) =1
Re∇2(∇ ⋅ u) − Ulam(y) ∂x(∇ ⋅ u) − U′�lam(y) ∂xv
Lu =1
Re∇2u − Ulam ∂xu + vU′�lamex
Seek to reduce large imaginary eigenvalues of GStokes
λStokesk ≈
λmodelk
k2/Re= − 1 ± iURe/k
Lu =1
Re∇2uimplicit NUu = − [U ⋅ ∇)u + (u ⋅ ∇)U]explicit
NUu = − [Ulam(y)∂xu + vU′�lam(y) ex + (U ⋅ ∇)u + (u ⋅ ∇)U]probably most responsible for bad conditioning AND easiest to make implicit!
BUT
SO ∇ ⋅ u = 0⟹∇ ⋅ Lu = 0
redefine
Bad for pressure projection step
redefine
so
WILL IT WORK????? WE HOPE SO!
Summary
Stokes preconditioning method (Tuckerman, 1989)
Computes steady states or traveling waves
Finds roots of L+N via preconditioned L-1(L+N)
Very easily implemented in time-stepping code with implicit viscous step
Can be up to 50 times faster than integration method
But conditioning worsens with increasing Reynolds number (trying to fix with implicit advective)