Special Section: Computational Fluid Mechanics and Fluid–Structure Interaction

A Monolithic Approach Based on the Balancing Domain Decomposition Method for Acoustic Fluid-Structure Interaction

[+] Author and Article Information
S. Minami, H. Kawai, S. Yoshimura

Department of Quantum Engineering and Systems Science,  The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, JapanDepartment of Systems Innovation,  The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan

J. Appl. Mech 79(1), 010906 (Dec 13, 2011) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005092 History: Received January 19, 2011; Accepted September 12, 2011; Published December 13, 2011; Online December 13, 2011

A scalable and efficient monolithic approach based on the Balancing Domain Decomposition (BDD) method for acoustic fluid-structure interaction problems is developed. The BDD method is a well-known domain decomposition method for non-overlapping sub-domains, which consists of Neumann-Neumann (NN) preconditioning and coarse grid correction. In this study, we derive four types of BDD method, considering two options for NN preconditioning (NN-I and NN-C) and two options for coarse grid correction (CGC-FULL and CGC-DIAG). From the results of numerical experiments, the combination of NN-I and CGC-FULL turns out to be the most efficient scheme, showing fast convergence property irrespective of the number of sub-domains, DOFs of fluid and solid domains, and the added-mass effect of fluid. The combination of NN-I and CGC-DIAG is also expected to be an efficient scheme in some situations in a parallel environment.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Image of domain decomposition

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Example of the analysis domain and image of domain unit in NN-I preconditioning

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Image of domain unit in NN-C preconditioning

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Image of 2D simple wall model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Average iteration counts of BDD-type methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Average computational time of BDD-type methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Average iteration counts versus the number of sub-domains

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Deformation of rod bundles at t = 0.86 (s) (left) and pressure contour of fluid domain at t = 0.35 (s) (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Mesh and domain decomposition for solid (left) and fluid (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Convergence history at the first time step



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In