arxiv: v1 [math.na] 3 Nov 2011

Transcription

1 arxiv:.983v [mat.na] 3 Nov 2 A Finite Difference Gost-cell Multigrid approac for Poisson Equation wit mixed Boundary Conditions in Arbitrary Domain Armando Coco, Giovanni Russo November 7, 2 Abstract In tis paper we present a multigrid approac to accelerate te convergence of te iterative metod proposed in [3] to solve te Poisson equation in arbitrary domain Ω, identified by a level set function ϕ, Ω = { x R d : ϕ(x) < }, and mixed boundary conditions. Te discretization is based on finite difference sceme and gost-cell metod. Tis multigrid strategy can be applied also to more general problems were a non-eliminated boundary condition approac is used. Arbitrary domain make te definition of te restriction operator for boundary conditions ard to find. A suitable restriction operator is provided in tis work, togeter wit a proper treatment of te boundary smooting, in order to avoid degradation of te convergence factor of te multigrid due to boundary effects. Several numerical tests confirm te good convergence property of te new metod. Introduction Multigrid tecnique is one of te most efficient strategy to solve a class of partial differential equations, using a ierarcy of discretizations. It accelerates te convergence of an existing iterative metod, wic oterwise slowly converges toward te solution of te discrete problem, due to te bad convergence rate for te low frequency components of te error. Te idea of multigrid metod is to solve suc low frequency component in a coarser grid. An introduction to multigrid can be found, for example, in [4], wile more advanced textbook on te subject are, for example, [4, 2]. Most iterative scemes to solve Elliptic equations can be speeded up by a multigrid tecnique. Elliptic equation in arbitrary domain (possibly wit moving boundary) is central to many applications, suc as diffusion penomena, fluid dynamics, carge transport in semiconductors, crystal growt, electromagnetism and many oters. Te wide range of applications may require different kind of boundary conditions. Let us look for instance at te temperature distribution in a medium of arbitrary sape satisfying stationary eat equation: we may ave Diriclet (te temperature is fixed at te boundary), Neumann (eat flux is prescribed), or mixed boundary conditions (namely different boundary conditions on different Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Catania, Catania Italy

2 part of te boundary). More general Robin boundary conditions may also be prescribed, as in Stefan-type problem, in wic a combination of temperature and eat flux is prescribed at te boundary (e.g. see [2, 5]). An application we ave in mind is to fluid dynamics: te aim is to model te motion of an incompressible fluid contained in a tank of arbitrary sape. Te problem is modeled by incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, wic are solved by projection metod of Corin [, ]. Tis leads to an elliptic equation for te pressure, obtained enforcing te incompressibility condition. Tis pressure equation requires Diriclet condition on te free surface of te fluid and Neumann condition on te rigid walls. Te pressure equation is te bottleneck of te wole metod and terefore requires an efficient solver. Several tecniques ave been developed to solve Elliptic equation on an arbitrary domain. Finite Element Metods use a mes triangulation to capture te boundary, suc as in [34, 35, 3, 37]. However, in presence of moving boundary, a grid re-mesing is needed at eac time step, wic makes te metod expensive. Furtermore, for a complex geometry, generation of a good mes is a non trivial task tat may require a considerable amount of work [28]. For tis reason a Cartesian grid metod is preferred togeter wit a level-set approac to keep track of te boundary at eac time step. Level-set metods ave been introduced to implicitly define a domain and its boundary, in order to simple andle complex topological canges of moving boundary suc as merging and breaking up. Several papers and books exist in te literature about level-set metod: [4, 3, 36, 7, 25] are just some examples. Since te boundary may be not aligned wit te grid, a special treatment is needed. Te simplest metod makes use of te Sortley-Weller discretization [38], tat discretizes te Laplacian operator wit usual central difference away from te boundary and makes use of a non symmetric stencil in te interior points of te domain close to te boundary. Wile tis discretization provides a simple second order metod for Diriclet conditions, it cannot be immediately applied in presence of Neumann conditions. In fact, Sortley-Weller discretization [38] for Neumann conditions requires tat te value of te numerical solution is suitably reconstructed at te intersection between te grid and te boundary by applying te boundary condition. Tis approac is adopted, for example, by Hackbusc in [22] to first order accuracy, and by oter autors (see [2] and te references terein) to second order accuracy. However, te metod proposed by Bramble in [2] for second order accuracy is quite involved and not recommendable for practical purposes. Anoter class of metods is based on cut-cell metods, obtained by a Finite Volume discretization wic embeds te domain in a regular Cartesian grid [24]. Cells tat are cut by te boundary requires a special treatment, suc as cell-merging and rotated-cell, in order to avoid a too strict restriction of te time step dictated by te CFL condition (e.g. see [23, 9, 2]). Oter metods for Diriclet condition are te Immersed Boundary Metod, first proposed by Peskin in [33], and later developed by several oter autors [27, 42], wit a proper multigrid approac [], and penalization metods [7]. In our metod we will use a rater simple finite-difference gost-cell tecnique, tat adds extra grid points (gost points) outside te domain in order to keep uncanged te symmetry of te stencil even for inside points close to te boundary. A detailed description of te metod can be found in [3]. In gost points te boundary conditions are enforced in order to close te discrete system. Te gostcell metod was first developed by Fedkiw in [8], were a two-pase contact discontinuity was discretized 2

3 (Gost Fluid Metod). A second-order accurate metod for Diriclet conditions on regular Cartesian grid is proposed by Gibou et al. in [9]. Te value at te gost nodes is assigned by linear extrapolation, and te wole discretization leads to a symmetric linear system, easily solved by a preconditioned conjugate gradient metod. A fourt order accurate metod is also proposed in [2]. Oter metods use a non-regular Cartesian grid, suc as in [8], were Gibou et al. present finite difference scemes for solving te variable coefficient Poisson equation and eat equation on irregular domains wit Diriclet boundary conditions, using adaptive Cartesian grids. One efficient discretization based on cut-cell metod to solve more general Robin conditions is proposed by Gibou et al. in [32], wic provides second order accuracy for te Poisson and eat equation and first order accuracy for Stefan-type problems. Most of te tecniques listed above cannot be straigtforwardly applied in te special case of mixed boundary conditions. For cut-cell based metods [24, 32], different boundary conditions cannot to be imposed on te same boundary edge of a cut cell. Simple efficient metods based on symmetric image of gost points to solve mixed boundary condition problems provided wit a multigrid algoritm ave been recently developed in [6] and by Ma et al. in [29]. In our metod [3], boundary conditions are neiter eliminated from te discrete system (tey are strongly coupled and teir elimination is too ard to perform in more tan one dimension) nor directly enforced (wic leads to a non-convergent iterative metod): tey are relaxed togeter wit te interior equations. Tis leads us to an iterative sceme for te set of all unknowns (internal points and gost points), wic is proved to converge, at least for first order accurate discretization. In tis paper we provide a general multigrid tecnique to solve te discrete system coming from a continuous elliptic problem in case of non-eliminated boundary conditions. Te smooting procedure of te multigrid approac in te interior is Gauss-Seidel-like, wile te iterations on te boundary are performed in order to provide smoot errors. Multigrid tecniques for non-eliminated boundary conditions are well-studied in literature in te case of rectangular domain (as we can see in [2, 4]), were a restriction operator is defined separately for te interior of te domain and for te boundary, and te restriction of te boundary is performed using a restriction operator of codimension, since gost points are aligned wit te Cartesian axis. In te case of arbitrary domain, gost points ave an irregular structure and we provide a reasonable definition of te restriction operator for te boundary conditions. Te metod proposed in tis paper can be extended to te case of discontinuous coefficient: a preliminary result in one dimension can be found in [4], wile te two-dimensional case is in preparation. In tis paper we also sow tat a proper treatment of te boundary iterations can improve te rate of convergence of te multigrid, making it closer to te convergence rate predicted by te Local Fourier Analysis for inside equations, as suggested by Brandt in [3]. Te cost of tis extra computational work is negligible, i.e. tends to zero as te dimension of te problem increases. A comparison wit oter kinds of treatment of te boundary condition smooting procedure is carried out. Te paper is divided in tree sections. We start wit te multigrid approac in te one dimensional case, described in Section, wit a special treatment of te transfer operators. Most of tis metod can be extended to ig dimension, treated in Section 2, but a special care as to be taken for transferring te defect of boundary conditions. In tis section a level-set approac is also introduced. Section 3 provides a strategy 3

4 to improve te convergence factor making it closer to te one predicted by te Local Fourier Analysis for interior relaxations. Numerical evidence of suc improvement is provided, togeter wit a comparison wit oter boundary condition smooters (Kaczmarz and Block relaxation). In all te paper, we mainly use te notation of [4]. One-dimensional case In tis section we will follow te description of te metod proposed in [3], wic is second order accurate, and provides a multigrid approac to speed up te convergence of te iterative sceme. For one-dimensional case, te multigrid approac in arbitrary domain is a natural extension of te basic multigrid strategy tat can be found in any good basic text about multigrid, suc as [4, 4, 2]. Altoug if we can eliminate te boundary conditions from te linear system obtained by discretizing te problem, we always want to treat te case of non-eliminated boundary conditions in order to straigtforwardly extend te metod to more tan one dimension, were te elimination of te boundary conditions from te system is ard to perform.. Model problem and relaxation sceme Let D = [, ] be te computational domain, a and b constants suc tat < a < b <, and Ω = [a, b]. Let N be a fixed integer and = 2/N te spatial step, let D = { = x < x <... < x N = } be te set of equally spaced grid points, and Ω = D Ω te set of inside grid points. Consider te model problem u = f in Ω u(a) = g a () u (b) = g b. Let l and r be suc tat x l a < x l+, x r < b x r (see Figure ). We use a gost-cell metod to discretize te problem. In order to obtain an iterative metod, we solve te associate time-dependent problem u = 2 u + f in Ω (2) t x2 u(t, a) = µ D (g a u(t, a)) (3) t ( ) u(t, b) u(t, b) = µ N g b (4) t x u(, x) = u (x) in Ω (5) and we look for a second order accurate steady state solution, wic is te solution of te original problem. Let us begin to discretize (2) in Ω {x l+,..., x r }. We use central difference in space and forward Euler in time for (2) obtaining: u (m+) i = u (m) i + t ( 2 u (m) i 2u(m) i ) + u (m) i+ + tf i, i = l +,..., r. (6) 4

5 Taking te maximum time step consented by CFL condition [5], i.e. t = 2 /2, we obtain: u (m+) i = ( ) u (m) i 2 + u(m) i+ + 2 f i, i = l +,..., r. (7) Note tat if we discretize directly te first equation () using central difference for te Laplacian operator, and use Jacobi iterative sceme for suc discretization, we obtain exactly (7). ϑ l ϑ r x l - x l+ x x x x a l+2 r-2 r- b r Fig. : Discretization of te domain in D To obtain second order accuracy, we ave to discretize te spatial terms in (3), (4) to second order, wile first order time discretization can be used, because we are just interested at te accuracy as t +. We ten can use linear interpolation for u(t, a) in (3). Since in some application it is required second order accuracy of te gradient of te solution, we use quadratic interpolation instead linear interpolation, obtaining: u (m+) l = u (m) l ( µ D t ( + ϑ l ) ϑ l 2 u(m) l + ( + ϑ l )( ϑ l )u (m) l+ ( ϑ l) ϑ ) l 2 u(m) l+2 g a, (8) were ϑ l = (x l+ a)/, and quadratic interpolation of u in nodes x r, x r, x r 2 for te u(t, b)/ x in (4), obtaining: u r (m+) = u (m) r µ ( N t ( ) ( )) u (m) r u(m) r 2 + u (m) r 2 2u(m) r + u(m) r 2 + ϑ r + µ N t g b. (9) Te constants µ D and µ N are cosen in order to satisfy te CFL conditions, i.e. µ D t < and µ N t/ < 2/3 (see [3]). In numerical tests of Section 3, we coose µ D t =.9 and µ N t =.9 2/(3). Since t = 2 /2, ten µ D =.8/ 2 and µ N = 3.6/(3). In summary, our second order accurate iterative metod is described by Eqs. (7), (8) and (9), wit te coice of constants t = 2 /2, µ D =.8/ 2, µ N =.2/. ().2 Multigrid approac We call Γ te set of gost points, i.e. Γ = {x l, x r }. Let I be a general subset of D. We introduce te linear space of grid functions over I and we denote it S(I ) = {w : I R}. For any w S(I ), we 5

6 pose wi = w (x i ). Let f S(Ω ) suc tat fi exact solution of te discretized system = f(x i ). Te iterative sceme (7), (8), (9) converges to te u = f () gd(u ) = g a (2) gn(u ) = g b, (3) were : S(Ω Γ ) S(Ω ) is defined by: u (x i ) = u i 2u i + u i+ 2, x i Ω, wile g D, g N : S(Ω Γ ) R are te discrete versions of te boundary conditions: g D(u ) = ( + ϑ l ) ϑ l 2 u l + ( + ϑ l )( ϑ l )u l+ ( ϑ l) ϑ l 2 u l+2, g N(u ) = u r u r 2 + u r 2 2u r + u r ( ) 2 + ϑ r. System ()-(3) can be interpreted in general as a discrete system of a Poisson equation wit non-eliminated boundary conditions. Let us consider an arbitrary grid function ũ S(Ω Γ ) and let r = f + ũ g a = g a g D(ũ ) g b = g b g N(ũ ) be te defects of (), (2), (3) respectively. Because of te linearity of, gd, g N, if we solve exactly te so-called residual problem e = r (4) g D(e ) = g a (5) g N(e ) = g b (6) in te unknown e S(Ω Γ ), ten u = ũ + e is te exact solution of te system (), (2), (3). In te basic idea of multigrid one needs to solve te residual problem in a grid coarser tan te original one. We can summarize te iterative sceme (7), (8), (9) as follows: ( ) u (m+) = R u (m), f, g a, g b (7) R : S(Ω Γ ) S(Ω ) R 2 S(Ω Γ ). (8) 6

7 Note tat te iterative sceme (7), (8), (9) is of a Jacobi kind. In order to provide a multigrid strategy, we just require tat te iteration operator (8) as te smooting property, i.e. after few iteration steps (7), te error becomes smoot (not necessarily small). Rougly speaking, te ig-frequency components of te error reduce quickly. We call smooters any operator (8) wit tis property. Many iterators ave tis property, suc as Gauss-Seidel or weigted Jacobi (wit weigt ω = 2/3 in D or ω = 4/5 in 2D), but not Jacobi (see [4, pag. 3 32] for more details). From now on, by (7) we sall intend te Gauss-Seidel version of (7), (8), (9), i.e.: u (m+) l = u (m) l u (m+) i = 2 u (m+) r = u (m) r µ N t ( ) µ D t ϑ l u (m) l + ( ϑ l )u (m) l+ g a ( ) u (m+) i + u (m) i+ + 2 f i, i = l +,..., r + µ N t g b ( u (m+) r u (m+) r 2 + ( u (m+) r 2 2u (m+) r ) ( )) + u (m+) r 2 + ϑ r. In order to explain te multigrid approac, we just describe te two-grid correction sceme (TGCS), because all te oter scemes, suc as V -cycle, W -cycle, F -cycle or Full multigrid cycle, can be easily derived from it (see [4, Sections 2.4, 2.6] for more details). Te TGCS consists into te following algoritm:. Set initial guess u = 2. Relax ν times on te finest grid: for k from to ν do 3. Compute te defects u : = R (u, f, g a, g b ) r = f + u g a = g a gd(ũ ) g b = g b g N(ũ ) 4. Transfer te defect r to a coarser grid wit spatial step 2 by a suitable restriction operator r 2 = I 2 (r ) 5. Solve exactly te residual problem on te coarser grid in te unknown e 2 S(Ω 2 Γ 2 ) 2 e 2 = r 2 (9) gd 2 (e 2 ) = g a (2) gn 2 (e 2 ) = g b (2) 7

8 6. Transfer te error to te finest grid by a suitable interpolation operator e = I 2 (e 2) 7. Correct te fine-grid approximation u : = u + e 8. Relax ν 2 times on te finest grid: for k from to ν 2 do u : = R (u, f, g a, g b ) We ave just to explain te steps concerning grid migration (steps 4 and 6)..3 Transfer grid operators In tis section, we describe te transfer grid operators for vertex-centered grid. We observe tat our approac is based on te discretization of te equations on te various grids (bot for inner and gost points). Tis approac is very different from algebraic multigrid. As a consequence, te interpolation and te restriction operators are not te transpose of eac oter..3. Restriction operator Since suc operator will act on te defect r S(Ω ) (step 4), we must determine I 2 r (x) for any x Ω 2 using only values inside Ω. Tis is justified by te fact tat te defect of te inside grid points (referred to te Poisson equation) may be very different (after few relaxations) from te defects g a, g b (referred to te boundary conditions and stored computationally in te gost points), because te operators (for inner equations and for boundary conditions) scale wit different powers of. Ten, let x Ω 2 and refer to Fig. 2 (upper part). If x is not near an outside grid point, i.e. min{ x a, x b }, ten we will use te standard full-weigting restriction operator (FW): wile if x < a or x + > b we set respectively I 2 r (x) = 4 (r (x ) + 2 r (x) + r (x + )), (22) I 2 r (x) = 2 (r (x) + r (x + )) (23) or I 2 r (x) = 2 (r (x ) + r (x)). (24) 8

9 Restriction operator Ω Ω 2 - a b Interpolation operator Ω Ω 2 - a b Fig. 2: Vertex-centered discretization in D. Inner grid nodes (red circles) and gost points (empty circles) on te fine and coarse mes. Te dased lines represent te action of te restriction (up) and te interpolation (down) operators..3.2 Interpolation operator Since te interpolation operator acts on te error (step 6), wic is continuous across te boundary, we do not need to separate te interpolation for inner equations from te interpolation of gost points, and ten we just use te standard linear interpolation operator (see te lower part of Fig. 2): I 2 e 2(x j ) = e 2 (x j ) if j is even I 2 e 2(x j ) = 2 (e 2(x j ) + e 2 (x j+ )) if j is odd. Remark. (V -cycle) Te V -cycle algoritm is easily obtained from te TGCS recursively, namely applying te same algoritm to solve te residual equation in step 5. To terminate te recursion, an exact solver is used to solve te residual problem wen te grid becomes too coarse. Remark. 2 (W -cycle) Te W -cycle is similar to te V -cycle, wit te only difference tat te residual problem is solved recursively two times instead of one (in general scemes, γ times, but γ > 2 is considered useless for practical purpose). Remark. 3 (Coarser operator) We observe tat te discrete operator 2 in step 5 is just te operator obtained discretizing directly te continuous operator in te coarser grid, and not te operator obtained by te Galerkin condition 2 = I2 I 2. Te latter approac, typical of algebraic multigrid, makes te algebraic problem more expensive from a computational point of view and does not take advantage of te fact tat te discrete problem comes from a continuous problem. 9

10 2 Hig-dimensional case In tis case te defect of te boundary conditions as to be transferred in a suitable way to a coarser grid. Te restriction as to be performed separately from te restriction of te interior equations, since tese defects may sow a sarp gradient crossing te boundary, because te discrete operators scale wit different powers of. In case of arbitrary domain, gost points may ave a complex structure and te restriction cannot be defined straigtforwardly as in te rectangular case, were gost points are aligned wit te grid and te restriction can be performed by a one dimensional operator. For arbitrary domain we first need to extend te defect in a narrow band outside te domain constant along normal direction, and ten we can operate te restriction as in te interior of te domain. For te sake of clarity, we describe te multigrid strategy in te two-dimensional case, but te procedure can be extended straigtforwardly in more dimensions. We always refer to te second order metod proposed in [3], wic is briefly recalled ere. 2. Model problem and relaxation sceme Let D = [, ] 2 be te computational domain, Ω D be a domain suc tat Ω D =. Let Γ D, Γ N be a partition of Ω (i.e. Γ D Γ N = Ω, ΓD ΓN=, were te interior points are computed in te d dimensional topological space). Consider te model problem u = f in Ω u = g D on Γ D u n = g N on Γ N, (25) were n is te outward unit normal, = 2 x y 2 is te Laplacian operator, f : Ω R, g D : Γ D R, g N : Γ N R are assigned functions. In order to solve te elliptic problem (25), we can transform it in an evolutive problem (wit a fictitious time) tat we call te associate time-dependent problem: ũ t = ũ + f in Ω (26) ũ t = µ D(g D ũ) on Γ D (27) ( g N ũ ) on Γ N (28) n ũ = ũ in Ω, wen t =, (29) ũ t = µ N were µ D and µ N are two positive constants. Ten we look for te steady state solution. An iterative sceme can terefore be obtained by discretizing te associate time-dependent problem and considering te time just as an iterative parameter.

11 2.2 Level-set function In order to keep track of te boundary Γ, we introduce te level set function ϕ : D R, in suc a way: Te outward unit normal to te boundary is (x, y) Ω ϕ (x, y) <, (x, y) Ω ϕ (x, y) =. n = ϕ ϕ. General references on te level set metod for tracking interfaces are, for examples, [3] or [25]. From te level set function, we can obtain te signed distance function ϕ by fast marcing metods [25] or by te reinitialization procedure based on te numerical solution of te following PDE ϕ t = sgn(ϕ ) ( ϕ ), (3) as we can see, for instance, in [4, 36, 7]. A signed distance function is preferred to a simple level-set function because sarp gradients are avoided and it is simpler to compute te boundary closest point to a given gost point. Now we assume tat ϕ = and suppose we know te signed distance function just at te grid nodes. In practice, Eq. (3) as to be solved for a few time steps, in order to compute te distance function a few grid points away from te boundary. z 2.3 Relaxation operator Let us introduce some notation. Let d N be te dimension of te problem, N be an integer and = 2/N te spatial step. Let D = j, j = (j,..., j d ) { N, N} d and Ω = Ω D be te discrete versions of D and Ω respectively. D is te set of grid points. Two points x, x in D are called neigbor if d j= x j x j =. We call gost point any grid point tat is bot outside Ω and neigbor to a grid point inside Ω. We call Γ te set of all gost points. Let I be a general subset of D. We introduce te linear space of grid functions over I and we denote it S(I ) = {w : I R}. From now on, we sall consider d = 2, but te results are valid also for d > 2. Ten, we write te basic iterative sceme (relaxation sceme) discretizing te time-dependent problem (26)-(29). For any grid point (j, i) of Ω, we write an equation obtained from te discretization of (26) in suc point, using forward Euler in time and central difference in space and taking te maximum time step consented by te CFL condition, i.e. t = 2 /4 (in general it is t = 2 /(2d)): u (m+) i,j = /4 ( 2 f i,j + u (m) i,j + u(m) i+,j + u(m) i,j + u(m) i,j+ ). (3) Eq. (3) is equivalent to discretize directly te first equation of (25) using central difference in space and applying Jacobi iteration sceme.

12 Since we ave used te standard 5-point stencil even for grid point close to te boundary, we ave added new unknowns to te linear system (gost points). To close te system of equations (3), we must write one equation for eac gost point. Tis can be done in tree simple steps. Let G (x G, y G ) be a gost point.. Making use of te signed distance function ϕ, we can compute te closest boundary point to G, tat we call B (see Figure 3), by: ( G B (x B, y B ) = G n G ϕ(g) = G ϕ(g), (32) ϕ ) using a second order accurate discretization for ϕ, suc as central difference in G. 2. Compute te nine-point stencil (depicted in Fig. 3) in Upwind direction, i.e.: { St G = (x G + s x k, y G + s y k 2 ): (k, k 2 ) {,, 2} 2}, (33) were s x = sgn(x B x G ) and s y = sgn(y B y G ). 3. Let L StG [u] be te biquadratic interpolant of te numerical solution u in te stencil St G. If B Γ D, te iteration for te gost point G will be obtained from te discretization of (27): ( ) u (m+) G = u (m) G + µ D t g D (B) L StG [u (m) ](B) (34) wile if B Γ N, te iteration for te gost point G will be obtained from te discretization of (28): ( ( ) u (m+) G = u (m) G + µ N t g N (B) L StG [u (m) L StG B ]. (35) L StG [ϕ] ) Te constants µ D and µ N are cosen in order to satisfy a CFL condition, i.e. µ D t < and µ N t < 2/(3 2) [3]. In numerical tests of Section 3, we coose µ D t =.9 and µ N t =.9 2/(3 2). Since t = 2 /4, ten µ D = 3.6/ 2 and µ N = 7.2/(3 2). Remark (Accuracy of (32)). Te accuracy of te evolution of point B in (32) depends on te accuracy at wic ϕ is computed. If ϕ is known to order p, p {2, 3}, ten B will be computed to te same order of accuracy, provided we are far from singularities in ϕ. In Eq. (32) one could omit te term ϕ in te denominator, because ϕ = if ϕ is a signed distance function. However, it is better to keep suc term, in case ϕ is only approximately a signed distance function. Remark 2 (Upwind stencil). Te reason for wic we use an Upwind stencil St G is simple. Let us rewrite te Neumann boundary condition (28) as: u t + µ Nn u = µ N g N, (36) 2

13 θ y G B θ x Ω Fig. 3: B is te boundary closest point to G, wile te red points are te nine-point stencil in Upwind direction referred to te gost point G. in suc a way it appears to be an yperbolic equation wic propagates te solution u along te caracteristic (normal direction to te boundary) wit speed µ N n. Ten, it is preferred to use an Upwind stencil in direction n to discretize te spatial term, in order to guarantee convergence (see [39] for more detail about Upwind scemes in Conservation laws). Remark 3 (Reduced stencil). If St G is not fully contained in Ω Γ, terefore we reduce te nine-point stencil to a smaller stencil, suc as a 2 2 stencil or a (less accurate, more robust) tree-point stencil. Suc a reduction occurs rarely, and does not degrade te wole accuracy of te metod (see [3]). Using te simplified notation, te iterative sceme converges to te solution of te problem: { u = f (37) L u = g were: u S(Ω Γ ) is te unknown; : S(Ω Γ ) S(Ω ) is te standard discrete version of te Laplacian operator, namely: w (x, y) = 2 (w (x +, y) + w (x, y) 4w (x, y) + w (x, y + ) + w (x, y )) for any w S(Ω Γ ) and (x, y) Ω ; f S(Ω ) is defined by f (P ) = f(p ) for any grid point P Ω ; 3

14 L : S(Ω Γ) S(Γ ) is te discrete version of boundary conditions, namely: ( L StG [u](b) if B Γ D L w (G) = L [u] L StG (38) StG L StG [ϕ] ) if B Γ N for any w S(Ω Γ ) and G Γ ; B g S(Γ ) is defined by: for any gost point G Γ. { gd (B) if B Γ g (G) = D g N (B) if B Γ N 2.4 Multigrid approac in 2D Consider te Poisson problem (25) and suppose we ave a discrete approximation of te form (37). Terefore, we are dealing wit non-eliminated boundary conditions. Let us introduce, for any spatial step, an exact solver u = S (f, g ) (39) of te system (37), and denote by R : S(Ω Γ ) S(Ω ) S(Γ ) S(Ω Γ ) (4) te relaxation operator, namely te iterative sceme u (m+) = R ( u (m), f, g ) (4) converges to te solution of (37) as n +. In details, te iteration (4) summarize te iterative sceme (3), (34), (35). As in one dimensional case, we will intend by (4) te Gauss-Seidel version of (3), (34), (35), in order to deal wit a proper smooter, and we ave to order all points of Ω Γ in some way. Let us coose te lexicograpic ordering (GS-LEX): (x, y ) (x, y ) x < x or x = x, y < y. Te relaxation sceme can be easily extended to more efficient kinds of smooters, suc as Red-Black Gauss-Seidel (see [4]): owever, we limit ourselves to study of te GS-LEX smooter. In order to explain te multigrid approac, we just describe te two-grid correction sceme (TGCS), because all te oters scemes, suc as V -cycle, W -cycle or Full multigrid, can be easily derived from it (see [4, Sections 2.4, 2.6] for more details). Te TGCS consists into te following algoritm: 4

15 . Set initial guess u = 2. Relax ν times on te finest grid: for k from to ν do u : = R (u, f, g ) 3. Compute te defect r S(Ω Γ ) suc as: { f + r = u in Ω g L u on Γ 4. Transfer te defect to a coarser grid wit spatial step 2 by a suitable restriction operator r 2 = I 2 (r ) 5. Solve exactly te residual problem in te coarser grid ( e 2 = S 2 r I 2, r G ) 2 were r I 2 = r 2 Ω2 and r G 2 = r 2 Γ2 ; 6. Transfer te error to te finest grid by a suitable interpolation operator e = I 2 (e 2) 7. Correct te fine-grid approximation u : = u + e 8. Relax ν 2 times on te finest grid: for k from to ν 2 do u : = R (u, f, g ) We ave just to explain te steps concerning grid migration (steps 4 and 6). All te oter steps are clear. 2.5 Transfer grid operators If (4) as te smooting property, after ν relaxations (step 2 of te algoritm) we ave a smoot defect r. Terefore, we can ope to transfer tis defect to a coarser grid witout losing muc information. Te defect r defined in te step 3 belongs to S(Ω Γ ). In order to transfer it to a coarser grid, it is convenient to extend in some way tis defect in te wole computational domain D (i.e. r S(D )), in suc a way 5

16 we can use te standard full-weigting stencil for te restriction operator I2 : S(D ) S(D 2 ), tat is (see [4, pag. 42]) I2 = (42) 6 2 In general, by te stencil notation I2 = 2... t, t, t, t, t, t, t, t, t, we will intend te restriction operator I2 defined by: I2 w (x, y) = t i,j w (x + j, y + i), (i,j) R k. were only a finite number of coefficients t i,j is different from zero, and R k { k,..., k} 2 for some positive integer k. In practice k = allows second order restriction operator. Let us suppose we ave extended te defect to te wole computational domain D (as it is carefully described in Sec. 2.6). Anyow, since we ave different operators for inner equations and for boundary conditions, te defect is smoot separately inside Ω and along te gost point Γ (or D Ω, because of te extension), but it is not smoot in all Ω Γ (it sows a sarp gradient crossing te boundary, as we can see in Fig. 4). For tis reason, it is convenient to transfer separately on te coarse grid te defect in Ω and in D Ω. To do tat, we introduce a partial grid transfer.. Ĩ 2 : S(D ) P(D ) S(D 2 ) S(D 2 ), were P(D ) is te family of all subset of D. Rougly speaking, w 2 = Ĩ 2 (w, I, w 2 ) means tat we transfer w to a coarser grid w 2 using only te points of I, leaving unaltered te value in te points out of I and already stored in w 2 (to better understand, we can tink I = Ω ). In details, let (x, y) D 2 I. We focus our attention to te neigborood of (x, y), tat is N (x, y) = {(x + j, y + i): j, i =,, }. Now consider te maximum full rectangle T wit vertices belonging to N (x, y) and suc tat T D N (x, y) I (see Fig. 5). Terefore, te stencil we use in (x, y) to transfer w to a coarse grid depends on 2 6

17 Fig. 4: After few relaxations, te defect sow a sarp gradient crossing te boundary (te defect is not yet extended outside), especially for te Neumann boundary. Here te domain is a circle. te size of T. In fact, let T D be a 3 3 points (i.e. N (x, y) I ). In tis case we can use te standard full-weigting stencil (42). Now let T D be a 3 2 points. Witout loss of generality, we can suppose te vertices of T are (x + j, y + i), wit j {, }, i {, }. In tis case, te stencil we will use is: ) (Ĩ 2 w (x, y) = (x, y), (43) wile, if T is a 2 2 points, wit vertex (x + j, y + i), j, i {, }, te stencil will be: ) (Ĩ 2 w (x, y) = Tis tree case are summarized in Fig. 5 (were I = Ω ). Finally, for all points (x, y) D 2 I, we set w 2 (x, y) = w 2 (x, y). 2 (x, y), (44) 7

18 Ω Ω Ω Fig. 5: Upper, te nine points of N (x, y) and te green boundary of te rectangle T. Te bold red point is on te coarser and finer grids, wile te little red points are on te finer grid. Te arrows represent te action of te restriction operators. Below, te respective stencil to be used. In suc a way, we can easily define te restriction operator I2 : S(D ) S(D 2 ) as follows: ( ) I2 w = Ĩ 2 w, D Ω, Ĩ 2 (w, Ω, ). Note tat te stencils (42), (44), (43) can be derived as tensor products of te one-dimensional restriction (22), (23), (24). 2.6 Extension of te defect In every gost point we store te defect of te boundary condition concerning tat gost point. In formulas, we ave seen in step 3 of te TGCS algoritm tat r (G) = (g L u ) (G), for any gost point G. But g (G) = g(b) and L u (G) is te reconstructed boundary condition in B of te boundary operator L (see (38)), were B is te closest boundary point to G (i.e. te ortogonal projection on te boundary). In summary, te defect is stored in a gost point G, but it is geometrically referred to a boundary point B placed along te normal direction. Wen we switc to a coarse grid, some gost point G may not be gost point in te fine grid, i.e. Γ 2 Γ is not true (see Fig. 6). Ten, no acceptable value of te defect is stored in G. Indeed, we expect tat r 2 as in te gost point G te defect of te boundary conditions referred to B. Hence, if we extend te defect r outside Ω constant along te normal lines to te boundary, we will find r (G ) as an approximation of te defect of te boundary conditions in B. After coarsening (performed using only points outside Ω, as described before), te gost points of te coarser grid will contain te expected values of te defect. 8

19 Q x G Ω B B G Q y Fig. 6: Red bold and small points are grid points of Ω, wile red bold points are grid points of Ω 2. G is a gost point on te coarser grid, but not on te finer grid, ten no value of te defect is stored in it. Q x and Q y are te two upwind near points to G. Te extension of te defect r is performed by solving te transport equation r τ + r n = in a few steps of a fictitious time τ, were n (n x, n y ) = ϕ/ ϕ is te unit normal vector to te level-set, wile r(x, y) is a continuous version of r (i.e. r(x, y) is a continuous function defined in D Ω and suc tat r(g) = r (G) for any gost point G). In details, we compute few steps of te following iteration sceme: r (m+) (P ) = r (m) τ (( (P ) + r (m) ) (P ) r(m) (Q x) ( n x + r (m) ) (P ) r(m) (Q y) for all P D (Ω Γ ), were Q x and Q y are te two upwind near points to P, i.e. Q x = P sgn(n x ) i, Q y = P sgn(n y ) j. ) n y However, it is sufficient to perform te iteration (45) only in a narrow band wit widt 3. In order to speed up te extension, we can perform (45) in a Gauss-Seidel fasion, sorting points in D (Ω Γ ) by te distance from te boundary (it can be done using te distance function ϕ), and starting te computation r (m+) (P ) in (45) from te closest gost point P to Γ. (45) 9

20 2.6. Interpolation Since te interpolation operator acts on te error, wic is continuous across te boundary, we just use te standard bilinear interpolation operator: 3 Numerical tests I 2 = In all te following numerical tests we always coose te Diriclet and Neumann parts of Γ = Ω as: Γ D = {(x, y) Γ: x }, Γ N = {(x, y) Γ: x > }. Te Local Fourier Analysis (LFA) is a powerful tool to obtain te teoretically convergence factor by analyzing separately te action of different parts of te multigrid algoritm to ig and low frequency components of te error. For a detailed explanation of te LFA, we refer to [4, C. 4]. Before to apply te LFA, one as to be sure tat te relaxation operator (4) as te smooting property. Rougly speaking, te smooting property is te property to dump ig frequency components of te error, in order to make it smoot after few relaxation sweeps. Wen te multigrid algoritm applies to a regular rectangular domain, te LFA and smooting analysis are well studied. In te case of arbitrary domain, as Aci Brandt points out in [4, pag. 587], tere are some boundary related difficulties about te discretization and relaxation near te boundary: Tere is no a general smooting analysis wen te boundary is not aligned wit te grid; Te residuals sould be reduced near boundaries more tan in te interior; Te coarsest grid as not to be too coarse, because it sould catc te curvature of te boundary in order to guarantee te convergence. Now, we perform a numerical test in order to ceck if te convergence factor is close to te predicted one by LFA, wic is obtained for rectangular domain wit periodic boundary conditions, i.e. witout taking into account boundary effects. Note tat te multigrid algoritm described before may be seen as an iterative sceme: u (m+) = M u (m) + b for some matrix M and vector b. We call ρ te convergence factor, wic is te spectral radius of te matrix M. For rectangular domain wit periodic boundary conditions and constant coefficients, te convergence factor is said to be local and it is denoted by ρ loc. Te convergence factors predicted by LFA for Gauss-Seidel LEX relaxation and FW restriction operator are listed in Table (see [4, pag. 7]). 2. 2

21 Table : Predicted convergence factor ρ loc by LFA for GS-LEX and FW restriction operator. ν = ν + ν ρ loc In all te numerical tests we perform, te convergence factor is estimated as te ratio of consecutive defects, i.e.: ρ = ρ (m) = r (m) r (m ) for m very large. In order to avoid difficulties related to numerical instability related to te macine precision, we will always use te omogeneous model problem as a test, namely (25) wit f = g D = g N =, and perform te multigrid algoritm starting from an initial guess different from zero. Since we are just interested at te convergence factor and not at te numerical solution itself (wic approaces zero indefinitely for omogeneous problem), a reasonable stopping criterion will be ρ (m) ρ (m ) ρ (m) < 3. Note tat, since we want to study te efficiency of te multigrid components proposed in tis paper (smooter, restriction,...), it is sufficient to study basic kind of multigrid suc as V-cycle and W-cycle, wile a more efficient algoritm (suc as FMG) can be easily derived. 3. D numerical test Referring to Sec., let us coose [a, b] = [.743,.843] [, ]. Te finest grid is obtained dividing te wole computational domain [, ] into N = 64 subintervals, wile te coarsest grid is obtained dividing [, ] into N c = 8 subintervals. Te computed convergence factors are very close to tose ones predicted by LFA (Table ), namely ρ =.85 for ν = 2 and ρ =.22 for ν = An initial test in 2D We start testing te multigrid algoritm on a circular domain Ω wit center ( 2/2, 3/3) and radius r =.563 (Fig. 7). Te measured convergence factors for TGCS, V -cycle and W -cycle are listed in Table 2. As we can see, te measured convergence factor is far from te predicted one by LFA (Table ). Ten, some boundary effect degrades te convergence factor. Note tat in D suc boundary effects do not degrade te convergence factor (Ex. 3.), because we ave only two boundary points, and te degradation is due to te oscillating beavior of te residual on te tangential direction to te boundary, tat does not exist in D. Ten, in 2D we must smoot te error also along te tangential direction to te boundary. To overcome 2

22 Fig. 7: Circular domain and te coarsest grid used to capture te curvature. Blue gost points refer to Diriclet condition, wile green gost points refer to Neumann condition. Red lines are normal to te boundary. Table 2: te rigt. Measured convergence factor ρ wit ν = ν 2 = on te left and wit ν = 2, ν 2 = on N TGCS V -cycle W -cycle N TGCS V -cycle W -cycle tis difficulty, we apply, after a single relaxation and at eac grid level, λ extra relaxation sweeps on all gost points Γ and on all inside grid points of Ω witin δ > distance from te boundary (te extra computational work is O(N), ten negligible as N ). It can be proved numerically tat a good coice of tese parameters will be: λ = 5, δ = 3. Te explanation of te optimal value λ = 5 is te following: te degradation observed in Table 2 is an indication tat te error decays muc slower at te boundary. Assuming tat te convergence factor in Table 2 is essentially te convergence factor at te boundary, ρ B, we want to matc it wit te convergence factor at te bulk, terefore λ opt is te smallest value of λ for wic ρ λ+ B ρ I. Te value ρ I, in turn, can 22

23 be computed as te convergence factor for large value of λ. Investigating te smooting property, we observe tat coosing te initial error as an ig frequency component, te error is not smooted after few relaxation sweeps. Wile, if we add te extra-relaxations, te error become sufficiently smoot (Figs. 8-9). 3.3 Some numerical results In tis section we confirm numerically te improvement of te convergence factor if we apply extrarelaxations, and we compare te relaxations wit oter well-knowns alternative suc as te Kaczmarz and te block relaxations. In all numerical tests, we coose an arbitrary domain Ω assigning a level-set function ϕ. Ten we reinitialize it by te procedure described in Section 2.2, obtaining te signed distance function ϕ. Afterwards, we perform te multigrid tecnique applying te W -cycle algoritm instead of te V -cycle, to ensure te independence of te convergence factor ρ from te step size (as explained for example in [4, pag. 78]). Several tests are performed for eac domain, based on te different size of te finest and coarsest grids. Te finest grid is obtained dividing te wole computational domain D into N subintervals in eac Cartesian direction, wile te coarsest grid is obtained replacing N wit N c. Te solution on te coarsest grid is obtained by a direct solver Circular domain In tis case we can coose as a level-set function directly te signed distance function, wic is known analytically: ϕ(x, y) = (x 2/2) 2 + (y 3/3) Te zero level-set is represented in Fig (top-left). Different value of te convergence factor are listed in Table 3 (for ν = ν + ν 2 = 2 and ν = 3). Tey are really improved wit respect to tose obtained witout extra-relaxations (Table 2) for te same test. Table 3: Convergence factor of te numerical test of Section We use N N number of grid points in te finest grid; N c N c number of grid points in te coarsest grid. Left table: ν = ν +ν 2 = 2, rigt table ν = ν + ν 2 = 3. N N c N N c

24 Fig. 8: Hig frequency initial error after (up-left), 3 (up-rigt), 5 (down-left), (down-rigt) relaxation sweeps and λ = extra-relaxations Fig. 9: Hig frequency initial error after (up-left), 3 (up-rigt), 5 (down-left), (down-rigt) relaxation sweeps and λ = 5 extra-relaxations. 24

25 Fig. : Different domains used in te numerical tests: Example 3.3. (top-left), (top-rigt), (bottom-left), (bottom-rigt) Comparison wit te Kaczmarz and te block relaxations Note tat te relaxation sceme (7), (8), (9) is composed by a Gauss-Seidel iteration over inner grid points and a suitable relaxation over gost points (boundary conditions). As an alternative to te relaxation of te boundary condition, we can use te Kaczmarz relaxation [26] near te boundary, wic is known to be unconditionally convergent. Let us recall te Kaczmarz iteration sceme for a subset of equations 25

26 J {..., N i + N g } of a linear system Lu = f: u T EMP = u (m), for j J do: u T EMP : = u T EMP + f j < l j, u T EMP > l j 2 lj T, 2 u (m+) = u T EMP. Te symbol <, > denotes te inner product operator and l j is te j-t row of te matrix L. If we coose J = {..., N i + N g } ten we obtain te classical Kaczmarz relaxation sceme for te solution of te linear system Lu = f, and te iteration sceme is equivalent to a Gauss-Seidel relaxation for te system L T Lu = L T f. In our case, one iteration of te alternative relaxation we want to study is composed as follows: we perform a Gauss-Seidel sweep in te interior of te domain, followed by λ Kaczmarz iterations over gost points and inner points close to te boundary (say witin δ distance from te boundary). Anoter alternative is represented by te block relaxation [6]. As we point out in [3], te elimination of te boundary conditions is ard to perform in ig dimensions, wile in one dimension it is a trivial task and leads to a diagonally dominant linear system. A middle ground between te elimination of te boundary conditions and te relaxation operator we use in tis paper is te block relaxation. Let us describe it in details. For eac grid point P Ω Γ we coose a stencil St P Ω Γ. For instance, if P Ω we coose St P = St P 9 (Ω Γ ), were St P 9 is te 3 3 stencil centered at P, else if P Γ we coose te stencil St P defined in (33). One iteration of te alternative relaxation is composed as follows. We perform a Gauss-Seidel sweep in te interior of te domain except in grid points witin δ distance from te boundary. For eac grid point P Ω Γ witin δ distance from te boundary we rewrite te linear system Lu = f as follows (by a permutation of rows): ( ) ( ) ( ) A, A Lu = f,2 u f = A 2, A 2,2 u 2 f 2 were u is referred to tose grid points belonging to St P. Terefore, we update te values of u as: u = A, (f A,2 u 2 ). We perform a comparison between te relaxation proposed in tis paper (tat we call new iteration in te following plots) and te two alternative relaxation described above. Suc a comparison is carried out in terms of smooting factor and convergence factor. We perform te comparison using te TGCS for te test case of te circular domain 3.3. wit N = 64. In Fig. we plot te smooting factor µ for te tree iteration scemes, wic is estimated by te ratio of subsequent defects after eac iteration, i.e. µ (m) = r (m) r (m ) 26.

27 In practice, we perform only te iteration scemes, witout taking into account te effects of te multigrid procedure. In order to better capture te beavior of te smooting factor, we coose an initial guess being igly oscillant, for example u = sin(4πx) sin(5πy). In Fig. 2 we depict te convergence factor ρ for te Kaczmarz and te new iteration against te number of extra-relaxations λ (for comparison, we also plot te convergence factor of te block relaxation as an orizontal line, since it does not depend on λ). After five extra-relaxations, te new iteration reaces a plate configuration, since it acieves te convergence factor of te Gauss-Seidel smooter for inner equations, i.e. te convergence factor predicted by te LFA (see Table ). Te Kaczmarz iteration falls down slower, wile te block iteration already provides te optimal convergence factor. Te computational cost of five point-iterations of te new metod is considerably lower tan te cost of one block-iteration..9.8 Kaczmarz Box relaxation new iteration.9.8 Kaczmarz Box relaxation new iteration.7.7 µ.6.5 ρ m-t iteration Fig. : Smooting factor µ against te number of iterations for te tree iterative scemes: Kaczmarz relaxation, Block relaxation, new iteration. 5 5 Fig. 2: Convergence factor ρ of te entire multigrid against te number of extra-relaxations λ for te tree iterative scemes: Kaczmarz relaxation, Block relaxation, new iteration. λ Ellipsoidal domain Te level-set function is: ϕ(x, y) = (X(x, y) 2/2) (Y (x, y) 3/3)

28 were X(x, y) = cos(π/6) x sin(π/6) y, X(x, y) = sin(π/6) x + cos(π/6) y, and te zero level-set is represented in Fig. (top-rigt). Te convergence factor obtained are listed in Table 4 (for ν = ν + ν 2 = 2 and ν = 3). We observe as te convergence factor degrade coosing a coarsest grid too muc coarse, but starting from a certain level of coarsest grid it is relatively close to te predicted convergence factor by LFA (Table ). Table 4: Convergence factor of te numerical test of Section We use N N number of grid points in te finest grid; N c N c number of grid points in te coarsest grid. Left table: ν = ν +ν 2 = 2, rigt table ν = ν + ν 2 = 3. N N c N N c Saddle-saped domain Te level-set function is: ϕ(x, y) = 9 ( ) 2 ( 3 2 x 2 y 3 ) 2 ( x y 3 ) 3 sin 2 x y and te zero level-set is represented in Fig. (bottom-left). Te convergence factor obtained for ν = ν + ν 2 = 3 are listed in Table 5 (left). Also in tis case, only if we coose N = 6 and N c = 8 (wic actually is TGCS) te convergence factor is degraded Flower-saped domain Te level-set function is: ϕ = r.5 y5 + 5x 4 y x 2 y 3 5r 5, r = x 2 + y 2 and te zero level-set is represented in Fig. (bottom-rigt). Te convergence factor obtained for ν = ν + ν 2 = 3 are listed in Table 5 (rigt). Tis is te ardest numerical test, because of te indentation of te boundary. We need to start from a coarsest level N c = 32 to correctly capture te boundary profile and to make te discretization accurate. 28