A Comparison of Conic Programming Software for Finite Element Limit Analysis

Abstract:

Some common criteria for predicting the plastic failure of geomaterials, including the Mohr-Coulomb model, can be represented as conic constraints. Thus, by formulating finite element limit analysis (FELA) problems with such materials as second-order cone programs (SOCPs), solutions to small-and medium-scale problems are readily obtained using current state-of-the-art optimisation software that are based on polynomially-bounded interior-point methods (IPMs). Unfortunately, when progressing to large-scale 2D and 3D problems, these schemes often struggle with the increased computational burden of obtaining a search direction at each iteration of the IPM using conventional direct solvers that implement some form of Gaussian elimination. In this paper, current conic optimisation software is compared for some medium and large-sized FELA problems. Additionally, a scheme which avoids the factorisation of large linear systems, through the use of a Krylov subspace solver, is developed and compared to existing software.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 553)
• Pages: 439-444
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.553.439
• Online since: May 2014
• Authors: Nathan Carl Podlich*, Andrei V. Lyamin, Scott William Sloan
• Keywords: Finite Element Limit Analysis, Interior-Point Methods, Iterative Linear Solvers

References

[1] S.W. Sloan, Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear programming, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Engineering 13 (1989) 263-282.

DOI: 10.1002/nag.1610130304

[2] A.V. Lyamin, S.W. Sloan, Upper bound limit analysis using linear finite elements and non-linear programming, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Engineering 26 (2002) 181-216.

DOI: 10.1002/nag.198

[3] A. Makrodimopoulos, C.M. Martin, Lower bound limit analysis of cohesive-frictional materials using second-order cone programming, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 66 (2006) 604-634.

DOI: 10.1002/nme.1567

[4] A. Makrodimopoulos, C.M. Martin, Upper bound limit analysis using simplex strain elements and second-order cone programming, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Engineering 31 (2007) 835-865.

DOI: 10.1002/nag.567

[5] K. Krabbenhøft, A.V. Lyamin, S.W. Sloan, Formulation and solution of some plasticity problems as conic programs, International Journal of Solids and Structures 44 (2007) 1533-1549.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.06.036

[6] E.D. Andersen, C. Roos, T. Terlaky, On implementing a primal-dual interior-point method for conic quadratic optimization, Mathematical Programming (Series B) 95 (2003) 249-277.

DOI: 10.1007/s10107-002-0349-3

[7] R.H. Tutuncu, K.C. Toh, M.J. Todd, Solving semidefinite-quadratic-linear programs using SDPT3, Mathematical Programming, Series B 95 (2003) 189-217.

DOI: 10.1007/s10107-002-0347-5

[8] R. Freund, N. Nachtigal, A new Krylov-subspace method for symmetric indefinite linear systems, Proceedings of the 14th IMACS World Congress (1994).

DOI: 10.2172/10190810

[9] J.F. Sturm, Using SeDuMi 1. 02, a Matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones (updated for version 1. 05), Optimization Methods and Software 11-12 (1999) 625-653.

DOI: 10.1080/10556789908805766

[10] M. Hestenes, E. Stiefel, Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 49 (1952) 409-436.

DOI: 10.6028/jres.049.044

[11] I. Duff, MA57 - A code for the solution of sparse symmetric and indefinite systems, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 30 (2004) 118-144.

DOI: 10.1145/992200.992202

[12] K.C. Toh, Solving large scale semidefinite programs via an iterative solver on the augmented systems, SIAM Journal on Optimization 14 (2003) 670-698.

DOI: 10.1137/s1052623402419819