1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. ECMOR XVI - 16th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

Algebraic Multiscale (AMS) is a recent development for the construction of efficient linear solvers in certain reservoir simulations. It employs analytical upscaling ideas to coarsen the respective linear system and provides a high amount of inherent parallelism.

However, it has the drawback that it can currently only be applied to problems for a single scalar physical unknown, e.g., a pressure sub-problem. Moreover, typical AMS exploits a structured grid and results in a two-level scheme only. Generalizing the AMS approach to overcome these limitations requires substantial efforts and is not straightforward.

To exploit the benefits of AMS, however, we integrate its core ideas in an Algebraic Multigrid (AMG) method. Thus, all results and techniques from the well-established AMG are directly available in conjunction with (core ingredients of) AMS. This holds regarding multilevel usage and applicability for unstructured problems. But it also holds for the System-AMG approach that allows to consider additional thermal and mechanical unknowns. In this paper, we identify the algorithmic similarities between both approaches, AMS and AMG. In fact, the basic coarsening idea of AMS corresponds to the so-called aggregative AMG approach. However, plain aggregative AMG suffers from the drawback of simplified transfer operation, or interpolation, within the hierarchy. By the integration of the AMS transfer we overcome this limitation and significantly improve the robustness of the aggregative AMG; especially in cases with inhomogeneous material coefficients. Yet, the method is not as robust as classical AMG, though. However, the setup phase is significantly simplified.

Moreover, we adjust the AMS-like interpolation to work purely algebraically, independent of any grid structure. This involves certain compromises to the original AMS idea. However, it can now be used as an interpolation in any aggregative AMG approach.

An additional advantage of our approach is the improved controllability of the hierarchy’s operator complexity, i.e., its memory consumption. This is especially important with increasing density of the matrix stencils, e.g., in (geo)mechanics or data science.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802124
2018-09-03
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802124
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. A.Brandt
    , “Multi-Level Adaptive Solutions to Boundary-Value Problems”, Mathematics of Computation, 31, pp. 333–390, 1977
     [Google Scholar]
  2. A.J.Cleary, R.D.Falgout, V.E.Henson, J E.Jones, T.A.Manteuffel, S.McCormick, G.N.Miranda and J.W.Ruge
    : “Robustness and Scalability of Algebraic Multigrid“, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 21, pp. 1886–1908, 1998.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. T.Clees
    , “AMG Strategies for PDE Systems with Applications in Industrial Semiconductor Simulation”, Dissertation at the University of Cologne, 2005
     [Google Scholar]
  4. M.A.Christie, M.J.Blunt
    , “Tenth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison of Upscaling Techniques”, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 2001
     [Google Scholar]
  5. R. W.Floyd
    , “Algorithm 97: Shortest Path”, Communications of the ACM, 5 (6), 1962
     [Google Scholar]
  6. S.Gries
    , “On the Convergence of System-AMG in Reservoir Simulation”, SPE Journal, 2018
     [Google Scholar]
  7. , “System-AMG Approaches for Industrial Fully and Adaptive Implicit Oil Reservoir Simulations”, Dissertation at the University of Cologne, 2016
     [Google Scholar]
  8. C.Janna, M.Ferronato and G.Gambolati
    , “Parallel Inexact Constraint Preconditioning for Ill-Conditioned Consolidation Problems”, Compositional Geosciences, 16 (3), pp. 661–675, 2012
     [Google Scholar]
  9. J.Leskovec and A.Krevl
    , “SNAP Datasets: Stanford Large Network Dataset Collection”, http://snap.stanford.edu/data, 2014
  10. O.Møyner and K.-A.Lie
    , “A Multiscale Restriction-Smoothed Basis Method for High Contrast Porous Media Represented on Unstructered Grids”, Journal of Computational Physics, 304, pp.46–71, 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Y.Notay
    , “An Aggregation-Based Algebraic Multilevel Preconditioning”, SIAM Journal of Matrix Analysis Applications, 27 (4), pp. 998–1018, 2006
     [Google Scholar]
  12. J.Ruge and K.Stüben
    , “Algebraic Multigrid (AMG),“ in „Multigrid Methods”, SIAM, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics, 5, 1986.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. K.Stüben
    , “An Introduction to Algebraic Multigrid“ in “Multigrid”, Academic Press, 2001, pp. 413–532.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. , “A Review of Algebraic Multigrid”, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 128, pp. 281–309, 2001.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. P.Vanek, J.Mandel and M.Brezina
    , “Algebraic Multigrid by Smoothed Aggregation for Second and Fourth Order Elliptic Problems”, Computing, 56, pp. 179–196, 1996
     [Google Scholar]
  16. H.Zhou
    , “Algebraic Multiscale Finite-Volume Methods for Reservoir Simulation”, Dissertation at Stanford University, 2010
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802124
Loading
Transition Of Algebraic Multiscale To Algebraic Multigrid
Conference Proceedings 2018, 1 (2018); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802124
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802124
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802124
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error