Table of Contents
Fetching ...

AMG with Filtering: An Efficient Preconditioner for Interior Point Methods in Large-Scale Contact Mechanics Optimization

Socratis Petrides, Tucker Hartland, Tzanio Kolev, Chak Shing Lee, Michael Puso, Jerome Solberg, Eric B. Chin, Jingyi Wang, Cosmin Petra

TL;DR

AMGF introduces a scalable preconditioner that augments algebraic multigrid with a filtering subspace correction to address ill-conditioning in Newton-based interior-point methods for large-scale contact mechanics. By focusing the correction on the small contact-subspace associated with the contact interface and reducing the rest of the system with AMG, AMGF achieves bounded, mesh-insensitive performance and robust convergence in both linear and nonlinear, large-scale problems. Theoretical analysis shows a near-constant bound on the preconditioned system's condition number, and numerical experiments on two-block, ironing, and beam-sphere benchmarks confirm that AMGF outperforms standard AMG in the IP setting, especially under mesh refinement and tightening contact constraints. The approach is presented as broadly applicable to problems where solver performance deteriorates due to a low-dimensional subspace, making Newton-based IP methods more tractable in challenging engineering simulations.

Abstract

Large-scale contact mechanics simulations are crucial in many engineering fields such as structural design and manufacturing. In the frictionless case, contact can be modeled by minimizing an energy functional; however, these problems are often nonlinear, non-convex, and increasingly difficult to solve as mesh resolution increases. In this work, we employ a Newton-based interior-point (IP) filter line-search method; an effective approach for large-scale constrained optimization. While this method converges rapidly, each iteration requires solving a large saddle-point linear system that becomes ill-conditioned as the optimization process converges, largely due to IP treatment of the contact constraints. Such ill-conditioning can hinder solver scalability and increase iteration counts with mesh refinement. To address this, we introduce a novel preconditioner, AMG with Filtering (AMGF), tailored to the Schur complement of the saddle-point system. Building on the classical algebraic multigrid (AMG) solver, commonly used for elasticity, we augment it with a specialized subspace correction that filters near null space components introduced by contact interface constraints. Through theoretical analysis and numerical experiments on a range of linear and nonlinear contact problems, we demonstrate that the proposed solver achieves mesh independent convergence and maintains robustness against the ill-conditioning that notoriously plagues IP methods. These results indicate that AMGF makes contact mechanics simulations more tractable and broadens the applicability of Newton-based IP methods in challenging engineering scenarios. More broadly, AMGF is well suited for problems, optimization or otherwise, where solver performance is limited by a problematic low-dimensional subspace. This makes the method widely applicable beyond contact mechanics and constrained optimization.

AMG with Filtering: An Efficient Preconditioner for Interior Point Methods in Large-Scale Contact Mechanics Optimization

TL;DR

AMGF introduces a scalable preconditioner that augments algebraic multigrid with a filtering subspace correction to address ill-conditioning in Newton-based interior-point methods for large-scale contact mechanics. By focusing the correction on the small contact-subspace associated with the contact interface and reducing the rest of the system with AMG, AMGF achieves bounded, mesh-insensitive performance and robust convergence in both linear and nonlinear, large-scale problems. Theoretical analysis shows a near-constant bound on the preconditioned system's condition number, and numerical experiments on two-block, ironing, and beam-sphere benchmarks confirm that AMGF outperforms standard AMG in the IP setting, especially under mesh refinement and tightening contact constraints. The approach is presented as broadly applicable to problems where solver performance deteriorates due to a low-dimensional subspace, making Newton-based IP methods more tractable in challenging engineering simulations.

Abstract

Large-scale contact mechanics simulations are crucial in many engineering fields such as structural design and manufacturing. In the frictionless case, contact can be modeled by minimizing an energy functional; however, these problems are often nonlinear, non-convex, and increasingly difficult to solve as mesh resolution increases. In this work, we employ a Newton-based interior-point (IP) filter line-search method; an effective approach for large-scale constrained optimization. While this method converges rapidly, each iteration requires solving a large saddle-point linear system that becomes ill-conditioned as the optimization process converges, largely due to IP treatment of the contact constraints. Such ill-conditioning can hinder solver scalability and increase iteration counts with mesh refinement. To address this, we introduce a novel preconditioner, AMG with Filtering (AMGF), tailored to the Schur complement of the saddle-point system. Building on the classical algebraic multigrid (AMG) solver, commonly used for elasticity, we augment it with a specialized subspace correction that filters near null space components introduced by contact interface constraints. Through theoretical analysis and numerical experiments on a range of linear and nonlinear contact problems, we demonstrate that the proposed solver achieves mesh independent convergence and maintains robustness against the ill-conditioning that notoriously plagues IP methods. These results indicate that AMGF makes contact mechanics simulations more tractable and broadens the applicability of Newton-based IP methods in challenging engineering scenarios. More broadly, AMGF is well suited for problems, optimization or otherwise, where solver performance is limited by a problematic low-dimensional subspace. This makes the method widely applicable beyond contact mechanics and constrained optimization.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 13 sections, 4 theorems, 48 equations, 14 figures, 4 tables.

Key Result

Lemma 5.6

Suppose assumption1assumption2 hold. Then $\mathsf{M}$, given in def:AMGF, is spectrally equivalent to $\mathsf{A}^{-1}$ and the condition number of the preconditioned system $\mathsf{M}\mathsf{A}$ satisfies

Figures (14)

  • Figure 1: Two-body contact problem. Deformation mappings $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ take undeformed states to contacting states with contact surface $\Gamma^c := \phi_1(\partial \Omega_1) \cap \phi_2(\partial\Omega_2)$.
  • Figure 1: Different gap definitions
  • Figure 1: Two-block problem: a small cubic block (top body) is in contact with a larger rectangular block (bottom body). The simulation is driven by a non-homogeneous Dirichlet BC $u = (0,0,-\frac{5}{7})$ enforced on the top face of the cubic block. The bottom face of the rectangular block is fixed at $u=0$ and the rest of the boundary is traction free.
  • Figure 1: Comparison of AMGF--PCG and AMG-PCG solvers with respect to iteration count for the two-block problem. Each curve represents the PCG iteration count through the IP optimization method for a fixed time step. The horizontal line indicates an estimate of an upper bound computed derived from the theoretical condition number estimate given by \ref{['eq:practical_bound']} in \ref{['remark:upper_bound_estimate']}, i.e., the number of iterations of a AMGF--PCG solver when applied to the contact problem bounded by approximately $\sqrt{2}$ times the AMG--PCG solver count when applied to the contact-free problem.
  • Figure 2: Deformed configurations and displacement magnitude at times steps $1,2$.
  • ...and 9 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (13)

  • Remark 3.1
  • Definition 5.1: Discrete Operators
  • Definition 5.2: A-Orthogonal Complement
  • Definition 5.5: AMGF
  • Lemma 5.6: Main result - condition number estimate
  • Lemma 5.7: Lower bound
  • Proof 1
  • Lemma 5.8: Stability estimate
  • Proof 2
  • Lemma 5.9
  • ...and 3 more