9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea

Parallel AGE solver of multidimensional PDE modeling for Thermal Control of Laser Beam on Cylindrical Glass
Norma Alias1, Md. Rajibul Islam2,*
1 2

Ibnu Sina Institute, University Technology Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University Technology Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia

Abstract: The commands of this up-to-date century customer products denote that the glass plates used in their exhibits can no longer be cut by old conventional techniques. Luckily, laser based cutting evades the vital restrictions of those methods. It can be developed without excessively rising product expenses, because this simulation will use to remove the past problems. This paper presents a novel mathematical modeling based on multidimensional parabolic equations for cylindrical coordinate of glass that will be used for simulating the thermal control of the laser glass interaction. Three methods have been used for the simulation purposes in the Alternating Group Explicit (AGE) method class which compromises two variances that are Brian and Douglas variants, and Red Black Gauss Seidel method is chosen as a benchmark. This model simulates a large scope of laser beam propagation by implementing these three methods in a parallel computing platform. So the high computational cost of that complete electromagnetic nature of a laser beam is simulated accurately and produced convergence results. Precise computation of laser beam passage ensures pragmatic heat generation pattern in the target material. The comparison of numerical simulation will be analyzed by conducting numerical analysis and parallel performance measurement, in terms of speedup, execution time, effectiveness, efficiency, temporal performance and granularity. Keywords: Alternating Group Explicit Method (AGE); Gauss Seidel Red Black; Partial Differential Equation (PDE); Parallel Computing; Glass Cutting; Laser. 1. Introduction
Various forms of the conventional method for cutting glass has been used, such as a mechanical snapping force to disseminate the crack completely through the glass by scribing the surface of the glass with a sharp, hard tool (usually a diamond [1] or carbide wheel). A chopper bar, has been implementing in the automated systems to perform such parting, which moves down on the glass [2]. Unfortunately, this automated system has certain weaknesses for very thin substrates. Specifically, the mechanical force of the cutting tool produces microcracks in the material. The following breaking step defers small chips and debris, along with an edge that is not necessarily perpendicular to the glass surface. Moreover, mechanical cutting leaves momentous mechanical stress in the finished edge. In fact, it becomes complicated to utilize mechanical cutting at all with substrates that are below 1mm in thickness because the glass is so easily broken. Therefore, it may be required to grind or polish the cut surface of the glass after the original cut, to avoid further cracking or breaking. Furthermore, a postprocess cleaning step may be essential to eliminate debris that could obstruct with successive methods, such as circuit formation [2]. Researchers have developed some glass cutting methods such as abrasive waterjet and laser. Laser cutting of glass has many advantages, it is a noncontact process acquiescent to computer control and is able to construct composite shapes. Two laser shaping methods, termed controlled fracture and scribing are used on a variety of ceramic substrates in the electronic industry [3]. Channels of microcracks are formed using a Nd: YAG laser in a different method of laser cutting of plate glass. The channel of microcracks is then developed from pulse to pulse in the direction inside and ended on the face side. As a result the discharge of this stress becomes the formation of big regular crack along the set of channels [4]. Our proposed method of laser glass cutting simulation addresses quite a lot of these limitations. First of all, it is a non-contact procedure that absolutely removes the difficulty of chipping and microcracking. Also, this cutting method produces will improve the laser glass interaction with more accurate and smooth because of the use of parallel computing strategy. When force is concerned to the center of a glass panel, any crack generally begins at the edge, which is in fact a significant difficulty. Therefore, proposed method of glass cutting through laser can resist two to three times as much force as conventional technique such as mechanically cut glass that will be shown in numerical analysis by the COMSOL multiphysics visualization as a proof. _______________________________ * Corresponding author: E-mail: md.rajibul.islam@gmail.com; Tel: +6-016-6458243.

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea The key purpose of this study is to develop a new variance algorithm in the class of the AGE method in order to solve the thermal control process in multidimensional laser glass model problem and to compare the numerical results and parallel performance evaluations of the Alternating Group Explicit Method (AGE) with Douglas-Rachford variant (DOUGLAS) [5-6] and AGE method with Brian variant (BRIAN). Red Black Gauss Seidel is chosen as the standard method for the comparison. We have presented the three dimensional cylinder coordinate system of parabolic equation to determine the temperature distribution of the laser glass interaction problem. In this model, we have described parallel AGE algorithms implementation on the high performance computing platform.

2. Problem Statement of Laser beam on cylindrical glass

Temperature prediction is a wide variety of science and engineering problems, which are governed by partial different equations of the parabolic type. Instead of testing them each time in order to determine whether the equation is parabolic or not, it is convenient to introduce a sufficiently general parabolic differential equation from which numerous other parabolic equation of transport phenomena can be obtained as special cases. In the special case of temperature propagation in an isotropic and homogeneous medium in the three dimensional space of cylindrical coordinate of parabolic type, the equation is given as, 1 U 2U 1 2U 1 2U 2U q (1) = + + + +
a t r 2 r r r 2 2 z 2 k

T(r,,z,t)| r =0 =T 0 (2) With T 0 is initial temperature where temperature of glass cylinder before laser process and boundary condition T(r,,z,t)| s1=0 = T 1 T(r,,z,t)| s2=0 = T 2 With T 1 and T 2 are temperature of inner-surface and outer-surface of glass cylinder. S 1 and S 2 are representing area of inner-surface and outer-surface of glass cylinder. q is rate of heat flow, a is a material-specific quantity depending on the thermal conductivity, the density and the heat capacity. The heating due to laser is treated as body heat source. We investigated the moving laser with constant power. Some of the assumptions have been taken into considerations are, (i) material properties are assumed to be constant, (ii) the electromagnetic of the laser beam is not simulated, (iii) the effect of electromagnetic wavelength is not explicitly modeled, (iv) the effect of complex refractive index of glass is modeled using an absorption and reflection coefficient, (v) the simulation does not involve modeling phase change. The modeling geometry only includes the glass slab. Laser beam nozzle Direction of glass motion Heated area Cooled area (Heat flux=h (Text-T) Glass slab Figure 1: Schematic illustration of laser scribing (a) (b)

With the initial condition

Figure 2: Temperature distribution after laser heating on the glass slab. a) 2D slice plot, b) 3D slice plot

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea

Figure 3: Cylinder with prescribed angle and radius. Except the top surface all the other boundaries are assumed to be thermally insulated. The heat flux on the top surface simulates convective cooling. Figure 1, presents schematic design of laser scribing and figure 2 shows temperature distribution after laser heating on a cylindrical glass slab (2D and 3D). Here, figure 3 clearly shows a hot spot where the laser beam is located at a specific time. The reflection and absorption coefficients are assumed to be constants. The planar surface of the glass slab incident to the laser beam is assumed to be aligned with the xy-plane of the global coordinate system. The top planar surface is aligned with z=0. Hence the effect of absorption (Ac) can be simulated by the term exp (-Ac*abs(z)). The center of the beam can be easily shifted by changing x 0 and y 0 . The beam width and astigmatism can be easily controlled by the standard deviation parameters; x and y . This model investigates the transient heating of a glass slab when an ancient laser beam shines upon it for a given time. Table 1: Changing parameters of laser beam simulations
Parameter Size of Grid Interval increase (mm) Internal/external cylinder residual (mm) Density (kg/m3) Hc (W/m2 K) Heat conductivity (J/kg.K) Heat capacity Initial temperature Environmental temperature Power of laser Radial of laser Speed of laser (rev/sec) Lambda of laser Time increase t (sec) End time (sec) Variable , r, z , r, z r1, r2 H K at 300K C at 300K T0 T1 0 w t T Measurement 100, 50, 50 3.6, 0.2, 0.1 48/53 2440 0 0.88 840 650 50 100 0.1 1 0.1 0.001 1

The laser glass cylindrical coordinate of heat equation has used for this experiment. An isotropic of thermal conductivity, k x = 163 W/(moC), k y =163 W/(moC), and k z = 16 W/(moC), density, p = 2330 kg/m3, temperature distribution, a= 0 W/m3, radius of trajectory circle = 2 cm, angular velocity, = 10 rad/s and prescribed heat capacity, C p = 703 J/kg.k have used in the equation (8) that is the laser glass cylindrical coordinate of heat equation for this experiment. The value of laser beam power of the cylinder is taken 50[W]. COMSOL 4.2 Multiphysics software [19] has been used for the visualization of 3D simulation results and the simulation results are shown in figure 3.

In equation (1), specifically, a=k/C p where k is the thermal conductivity, C p is the capacity, and the density. Value of k depends on material used in experiment. Formulas of resistance-capacitance used as an exact solution on parabolic equation coordinate cylinder system. Thermal capacitance C m = p m c m V m And thermal resistance R mn . The energy ratio of V m toward time interval t is given in equation (3),
+1

3. Discretization of cylindrical coordinate system and sphere

With time step l and equation shows temperatures change Tm , capacitance cm, resistance R mn and Q v source have to estimate every each time step increase. Solution of equation at Tm
l +1

+
l +1

(3)

is given

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea
+1 = (1

Stability condition of equation solution is coefficient where is cannot have a negative value that

) + ( +

(4)

Therefore, stability of criterium appraised for each node and time-step and follow inequality is

1

(5)

The finite difference of second order of partial differential can be obtained by Taylor [7-8] series expansions and second order 3 points differential approximation at the time (p+1). The discretization are given as the following,
2U u i 1, j ,k 2 u i , j ,k + u i +1, j .k = + O(r ) 2 r 2 r 2 ( p +1) ( p +1) ( p +1) 2U u i 1, j ,k 2 u i , j ,k + u i +1, j +.k = + O(r ) 2 2 2
2U u i 1, j ,k 2 u i , j ,k + u i +1, j .k = + O(r ) 2 z 2 z 2
( p +1) ( p +1) ( p +1)

(6)

( p +1)

( p +1)

( p +1)

(7)

Obtained a equation (1) to partial differential with weighted parameter, the following,

at the time (p+1) and (p) as (8)

1 1 1 1 2U 1 2U 1 2U 2U ( p) ( p +1) = ( r2 + r + 2 2 + z2 ) u i , j , k + (1 )( ( r2 + r + 2 2 + z2 ) u i , j , k + + 2 + r r r r r 2 z 2 r 2 r r

Equation (8) is dealing with the real physical problems on three dimensional cylindrical coordinate of parabolic type to predict the temperature distribution on the laser glass interaction model. Finite difference approximation for parabolic equations with cylindrical and spherical coordinates can be expressed as follows,
,

the spherical coordinates. Form a standard three-point formula for parabolic equation; we get onedimensional polar coordinates as follows, 1,+1 + (1 + 2),+1 +1,+1 (1 = )1, + [(1 2(1 )] ,+1 (1 )+1, i=1, 2, 3, .m

= 1 and .+1 = 0 for the equation of cylindrical coordinates and = 2 and .+1 0 for
2 2

( )2

2 +

,+1 + (1 ) (

)2

2 +

. + .+1 , i=1, 2, 3, ., m
2

4. Numerical methods
4.1 AGE with DOUGLAS method AGE class with Douglas Rachford variation (DOUGLAS) has been published by Evans & Sahimi [5-6] to solve parabolic problem of three dimensional. The domain decomposition technique (mmm) can be distributed to processor P directly at every time step [9]. The parallelization of DOUGLAS method is using domain decomposition technique or non-overlap subdomain in block system (22) for every time step. Matrix A is been split into consistent symmetric and positive definite matrices G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6 and the calculation of these matrices will be simplified into four equations as follows,
) ( p) [N ] [N ] u1[ xy ]6 = C11 D1u1([p xy ] + E1u 2[ xy ] + F 1u1[ xy ] + F2 u 2[ xy ] + 2 g1[ xy ] 1 ( p+ )

(9)

1 ( p+ ) 6 k [ xy ]

( p) ( p) ( p) [N] [N ] (N ) = C11 E1 (u k 1[ xy ] + u k +1[ xy ] ) + D2 u k [ xy ] + F2 (u k 1[ xy ] + u k +1[ xy ] ) + F 1u k [ xy ] + 2 g k [ xy ]

) (10) ) (11)
(12)

(N ) [N ] [N ] ( p) ( p) ( p) 1 u k [ xy6 E1 (u k 1u k [ xy ] + 2 g k [ xy ] ] = C1 1[ xy ] + u k +1[ xy ] ) + D1u k [ xy ] + F2 (u k 1[ xy ] + u k +1[ xy ] ) + F

( p) (N ) (N ) ( p) u m[ xy6] = C11 E1 (u m 1u m[ xy ] + F2 u m 1[ xy ] + 2 g m[ xy ] 1[ xy ] + D1u m[ xy ] ) + F 1 ( p+ )

1 ( p+ )

Thus, based on (9) to (12), we can derive the calculation using AGE Douglas as (13),
1) 1 ( p) 6 u[(xp,+ z ] = (G1 + rI ) [G1u[ xz ] + ru[ xz ] ] 5 ( p+ )

(13)

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea 4.2 AGE with BRIAN method BRIAN method is exploited the concepts of fractional strategy [10], linear interpolation on Brian variant and the acceleration parameter, r. Experiments are implemented in both sequential and parallel iterative methods. The formula of BRIAN method for three-dimensional problem leads the method as the following, (rI + G 1 ) u[ xy ]
( n +1 / 7 )

= (rI (G 1 +G 2 +G 3 +G 4 +G 5 +G 6 )) u[ xy ] + f = ((rI +G 1 ) A) u[ xy ] + f
(n)

(n)

,
(n)

(rI +G 2 ) u[ xy ] (rI +G 3 ) u[ xy ] (rI +G 4 ) u[ xy ] (rI +G 5 ) (rI +G 6 )

n +1) u[(xy ]

( n+2 / 7)

= r u[ xy ] = r u[ xy ] = r u[ xy ]

( n +1 / 7 )

+ G 2 u[ xy ] + G 3 u[ xy ] + G 4 u[ xy ] + G 5 u[ xy ] + G 6 u[ xy ]
n) u[(xy ])
(n) (n)

( n +3 / 7 )
( n+4 / 7)

( n+2 / 7)
( n +3 / 7 )

(n)

n +5 / 7 ) ( n+4 / 7) u[(xy = r u[ xy ] ]
n+6 / 7 ) ( n +5 / 7 ) u[(xy = r u[ xy ] ]

(n)

n) u[(xy ]

+ 2( u[ xy ]

( n+6 / 7 )

(14)

It has been simplified into (22) matrix block form and the calculation of matrix by AGE Brian method for cylindrical coordinate system as follows,

u
u
1 ( n+ ) 7 k [ xy ]

1 ( n+ ) 7 1[ xy ]

(n) (n) [N ] [N ] 1 = C1 ,i D1,i u1[ xy ] + E1,i u 2[ xy ] + F1,i u1[ xy ] + H 1,i u 2[ xy ] + g 1[ xy ]

)
)
)

(n) [N ] [N ] [N ] (n) (n) = C 2,i1 E1,i u k 1[ xy ] + E1,i u k +1[ xy ] + D2 ,i u k [ xy ] + H 1,i u k 1[ xy ] + H 1,i u k +1[ xy ] + F1,i u k [ xy ] + g k [ xy ]
1 ( n) ( n) ( n) [N] [N] [N] = C1 ,i E1,i u k 1[ xy ] + E1,i u k +1[ xy ] + D1,i u k [ xy ] + H 1,i (u k 1[ xy ] + H 1,i u k +1[ xy ] ) + F1,i u k [ xy ] + g k [ xy ]

1 ( n+ ) 7 k [ xy ]

1 ( n+ ) 7 m[ xy ]

(n) (n) [N ] [N ] = C11 E1,i u m 1[ xy ] + D1,i u m[ xy ] + H 1,i u m 1[ xy ] + F1,i u m[ xy ] + g m[ xy ]

4.3 Gauss-Seidel Red Black (GSRB) Parallel algorithm for GSRB method is based on domain decomposition for each odd subdomain decomposition, R and even subdomain decomposition, H. Local convergence is tested by slave processors before global convergence tested. After that is followed by communication between R and H for update the convergence on the latest grid generation, Grid calculation at R
( p) ( p) ( p) ( p) p) u i , j , k ( p +1) = a i u i( 1, j , k hi u i , j 1, k du i , j , k 1 bi u i +1, j , k gu i , j , k +1

] [N ] [N ] [N ] [N ] [N ] + d i u i[,N j , k + bu i 1, j , k + h i u i , j 1, k + du i , j , k 1 + eu i +1, j , k + f u i , j +1, k ] + gu i[,N j , k +1 +

ci

i, j , k = 1,2,3,..., m

where i, j , k = odd number Grid calculation at H

p) ( p) ( p) ( p) ( p) u i , j ,k ( p +1) = a i u i( 1, j , k hi u i , j 1, k du i , j , k 1 bi u i +1, j , k gu i , j , k +1 ] [N ] [N ] [N ] [N ] [N ] + d i u i[,N j , k + bu i 1, j , k + h i u i , j 1, k + du i , j , k 1 + eu i +1, j , k + f u i , j +1, k ] + gu i[,N j , k +1 +

ci

i, j , k = 1,2,3,..., m

where i, j , k = even number

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea

5. Experiment Results and Discussion

5.1 Numerical Analysis Table 2 shows a comparison of the performance of one dimensional AGE and GSRB sequential class in solving cylindrical model and spherical coordinate system. The numerical results based on sequential algorithms of BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB are displayed in Table 3. These tables provide the absolute errors of the discretization of one dimensional AGE cylindrical coordinates with GSRB and 3-dimensional BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods using (70 70 70) and (100100100) sizes of matrices. We presented our 3D comparison results of BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods in our previous [16-18] articles. But in this article, we compared one dimensional sequential and parallel results. Moreover, we presented the COMSOL [19] visualization of the simulation results so that researchers can understand the implementation and contribution of this study. Our analysis shows that the rate of convergence of sequential 1D AGE is better than GSRB. That mean one dimensional AGE works more better than GSRB in solving problem of cylindrical model and 3D BRIAN is even better than DOUGLAS and GSRB methods. That denotes 3D BRIAN method will be efficient for solving laser glass interaction problem. The degree of accuracy of BRIAN method is higher than DOUGLAS and GSRB methods. This proved by root means square error (rmse) and maximum error (r.maks) generated by BRIAN method have a lowest value for the both sizes of matrixes. Table 2: Sequential performance comparison of the one dimensional AGE cylindrical coordinates t= 4.8225E-11, x=1.3889E-6, t=9.6450E-13, =0.5, =1.0E-15, and 1 =1 rmse=root mean square error, |r|=absolute error, r.maks=maximum error, ave_rmse=average of rmse, and , r =size of grid,
m AGE Iters rmse |r| Ave_rmse r_maks r AGE 3 69 4.1596E-7 1.1031E-8 5.7715E-4 9.5689E-4 0.7 2 70 4.1595E-7 6.7501E-13 5.7715E-4 9.5689E-4 0.5 1 157 3.0538E-2 3.4051E-5 1.5986E-1 2.4043E-1 0.7 3 470 4.1596E-7 4.1373E-13 5.7715E-4 9.5689E-4 GSRB 2 501 4.1595E-7 1.6855E-13 5.7715E-4 9.5686E-4 1 951 3.0536E-2 1.3877E-5 1.5987E-1 2.4043E-1 -

Table 3: Numerical results of the sequential three dimensional BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods for two difference sizes of matrixes. rmse=root mean square error, |r|=absolute error, r.maks=maximum error, ave_rmse=average of rmse, r =size of grid, t = time increase t (sec) and , r, z = interval increase (mm)
m AGE t lari(s) Iters rmse |r| Ave_rmse r_maks r t r z er Q q Level BRIAN 38.9550 10 7.533E-4 3.592E-6 1.075E-5 2.451E-2 5.000E-1 1.449E-6 9.106E-2 1.449E-4 1.449E-5 7.000E-1 1.000E-1 1.000E-1 1 10 1.000E-5 707070 DOUGL AS 41.4770 20 7.536E-4 1.796E-6 1.076E-5 2.451E-2 5.000E-1 1.449E-6 9.106E-2 1.449E-4 1.449E-5 7.000E-1 1.000E-1 1.000E-1 1 10 1.000E-5 100100100 GSRB 45.7150 70 6.087E-3 4.568E-6 1.198E-5 3.614E-1 5.000E-1 1.449E-6 9.106E-2 1.449E-4 1.449E-5 7.000E-1 1.000E-1 1.000E-1 1 10 1.000E-5 BRIAN 116.4450 10 8.689E-4 1.785E-6 1.438E-5 2.913E-2 5.000E-1 1.010E-6 6.347E-2 1.010E-4 1.010E-5 7.000E-1 1.000E-1 1.000E-1 1 10 1.000E-5 DOUGLAS 122.8850 20 8.690E-4 8.924E-7 1.439E-5 2.913E-2 5.000E-1 1.010E-6 6.347E-2 1.010E-4 1.010E-5 7.000E-1 1.000E-1 1.000E-1 1 10 1.000E-5 GSRB 154.6420 70 3.919E-3 4.688E-6 1.739E-5 3.495E-1 5.000E-1 1.010E-6 6.347E-2 1.010E-4 1.010E-5 7.000E-1 1.000E-1 1.000E-1 1 10 1.000E-5

5.2 Computational and Communicational Cost

Table 4: Communication cost for parallel strategies of BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods
m method Coefficients BRIAN DOUGLAS GSRB Communication cost 0 12L( m m )t data + 6L(t stratup + t idle ) 12L( m m )t data + 6L(t stratup + t idle ) 12L(

Table 5: Computational Complexity for parallel strategies of BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods
m method Coefficients Level time Multiplications 7 Additions 10

30m 2 30m 2 p

15m 2 20m 2 p
13(m 1) 2 + 10m 2 p
13(m 1) 2 + 10m 2 p 13(m 1) 2 + 12m 2 p

m m )t data + 6L(t stratup + t idle ) 2

BRIAN

8(m 1) 2 + 4m 2 p

DOUGLAS

L = number of iterations
GSRB

12(m 1) 2 + 8m 2 p
15(m 1) 2 + 14m 2 p

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea Table 4 is presented the communication cost for parallel strategies of BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods. Here also its shown that communication costs of BRIAN are lower than DOUGLAS and GRSB methods. Table 5 shows the parallel computational complexity for BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GRSB methods and here its shown that computational complexity of BRIAN are lower than DOUGLAS and GRSB methods. Parallel performance for speedup, efficiency, temporal performance and effectiveness versus number of the processors were plotted in Figure 4-13. The parallel execution time and computation time are decreasing with the increasing processor, p. The GSRB has the lowest rate of convergence and BRIAN method has highest rate of convergence and adaptable for implementing on three-dimensional coordinate cylinder system. Table 6 shows Analysis on computational and communication cost of one-dimensional parallel BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods and table 7 shows the comparison on computational and communication cost for different 3-dimensional method and size of matrices. For (100100100) sizes of matrices, BRIAN has better computation to communication ratio compared to DOUGLAS and GSRB. Increasing number of processors significantly reduces the ratio but all the methods that experimentally performed, represent the ability in maintaining the condition where time for computation is always more than time consumed for communication. This reflects the beneficial ability of the blends of methods used with parallel algorithm that had been developed [12-13]. The computation to communication ratio became higher for larger size of matrices (140140140) especially when BRIAN method was being used. As more problems need to be solved, each method results in higher time consumed for computation rather than communication. The ratio between computation and communication is known as granularity. High granularity reflects that computational cost dominating the overall execution time. However, too high granularity will lead to loss parallelism characteristics where the algorithm developed involved large size of data passing between processors. Thus, best combination of parallel algorithm and method being used will lead to better parallel performance evaluation where there is balance between computation and communication cost. t para is the parallel execution time and its divided into two parts, computational time that is, t comp and communication time that is, t comm . In the parallel algorithm, t comp is the time to compute the arithmetic operations such as addition operations and multiplications. As all the processors doing the operation at the similar speed, calculation for the t comm is depending upon the size of the message. The cost of communication comes from the two major phases in sending a message: the start-up phase and the data transmission phase [10]. The total time to send K units of data for a given system can be written as, (15) t comm = t startup + Kt data + t idle Table 6: Analysis on computational and communication cost of one-dimensional parallel BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods
M p 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 % 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 % parallel 11.00 5.848 4.347 3.617 comp 9.600 87.3 4.724 80.8 3.183 73.2 2.387 66.0 30.99 70.3 16.04 64.5 10.33 60.1 7.822 56.3 ratio comm BRIAN 6.9 1.400 12.7 4.2 1.124 19.2 2.7 1.164 26.8 1.9 1.230 34.0 GSRB 2.4 13.11 29.7 1.8 8.831 35.5 1.5 6.856 39.9 1.3 6.078 43.7 comm1 0.885 8.1 0.885 15.1 0.885 20.4 0.885 24.5 2.12 4.8 2.124 8.5 2.124 12.4 2.124 15.3 idle 0.515 4.7 0.239 4.1 0.279 6.4 0.345 9.5 10.99 24.9 6.707 27.0 4.732 27.5 3.954 28.4 parallel 11.57 6.243 4.708 3.982 comp 10.06 87.0 5.006 80.2 3.338 70.9 2.503 62.9 30.99 70.3 16.04 64.5 10.33 60.1 7.822 56.3 ratio comm DOUGLAS 6.7 1.506 13.0 4.1 1.237 19.8 2.4 1.371 29.1 1.7 1.479 37.1 GSRB 2.4 13.11 29.7 1.8 8.831 35.5 1.5 6.856 39.9 1.3 6.078 43.7 Comm1 0.885 7.7 0.885 14.2 0.885 18.8 0.885 22.2 2.12 4.8 2.124 8.5 2.124 12.4 2.124 15.3 idle 0.621 5.4 0.352 5.6 0.486 10.3 0.594 14.9 10.99 24.9 6.707 27.0 4.732 27.5 3.954 28.4

44.10 24.88 17.19 13.90

44.10 24.88 17.19 13.90

Where t comm is time needed to communicate a message of K bytes, t startup is sometimes referred as the network latency time. t startup is also referred to time to send a message with no data. It includes time to pack the message at source and unpack the message at the destination and to start a point-to-point communication. The t data is time to transmit units of information. It is also the transmission time to send one bytes of data. The t startup and t data are assumed as constants and measured in bits/ sec. t idle is the time for message latency and time to wait for all the processors to complete the works. The evaluation of these communication costs via simple codes that time the send/recv messages. The research focus on, t para = time for parallel execution and t comm1 = t data + t startup . where, and dependents on m and L.

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea Here t comm1 is the Communication time 1 which is obtained from the subtraction of idle time from communication time. Communication cost for parallel processing is, (16) Lmt data + L(t startup + t idle ) where, m= units of data that sending across processor L= number of step overall the execution. Table 7: Analysis on computational and communication cost of parallel BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB methods for two difference sizes of matrixes
M p 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 % 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 % 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 % parallel 68.04 39.16 27.16 22.3 comp 43.27 63.6 22.13 56.5 14.92 54.9 11.67 52.3 44.21 58.9 23.61 54.5 15.24 52.4 12.15 50.5 58.59 58.7 29.29 40.1 19.73 28.6 15.15 23.7 100100100 ratio comm BRIAN 1.75 24.77 36.4 1.3 17.03 43.5 1.22 12.24 45.1 1.1 10.63 47.7 DOUGLAS 1.43 30.89 41.1 1.2 19.68 45.5 1.1 13.86 47.6 1.02 11.94 49.6 GSRB 1.42 41.31 41.4 0.67 43.71 59.9 0.4 49.27 71.4 0.31 48.85 76.3 comm1 8.84 13.0 8.843 22.6 8.843 32.6 8.843 39.7 9.612 12.8 9.612 22.2 9.612 33.0 9.612 39.9 29.43 29.5 29.43 40.3 29.43 42.7 29.43 46.0 idle 15.93 23.4 8.182 20.9 3.394 12.5 1.79 8.0 21.28 28.3 10.07 23.3 4.25 14.6 2.325 9.7 11.87 11.9 14.27 19.6 19.84 28.8 19.42 30.3 parallel 174.5 97.54 73.16 59.83 comp 130.2 74.6 65.08 66.7 43.39 59.3 32.34 54.1 142.1 72.2 71.04 63.5 47.36 56.6 35.52 52.0 118.8 57.9 55.89 41.0 36.66 30.3 27.15 24.5 140140140 ratio comm BRIAN 2.94 44.34 25.4 2 32.46 33.3 1.46 29.77 40.7 1.18 27.49 46.0 DOUGLAS 2.6 54.7 27.8 1.74 40.91 36.5 1.3 36.34 43.4 1.08 32.86 48.1 GSRB 1.38 81.25 42.1 0.7 80.34 59.0 0.43 84.29 69.7 0.32 83.55 75.5 Comm1 16.57 9.5 16.57 17.0 16.57 22.7 16.57 27.7 18.07 9.2 18.07 16.2 18.07 21.6 18.07 26.4 49.14 25.5 49.14 36.1 49.14 40.6 49.14 44.4 idle 27.77 15.9 15.89 16.3 13.2 18.1 10.92 18.3 36.63 18.6 22.83 20.4 18.26 21.8 14.78 21.6 32.11 16.6 31.21 22.9 35.15 29.1 34.41 31.1

75.1 43.29 29.1 24.09

196.8 111.9 83.7 68.38

99.9 73.01 69.11 63.99

193 136.2 121 110.7

5.3 Parallel Performance Evaluation In order to present the effectiveness of the parallel strategies of DOUGLAS and BRIAN methods, we have implemented the methods on grid computing platform based on the development of a number of homogenous PC cluster systems at difference locations, which contains of 38 Intel Pentium IV CPUs, each with a storage of 20GB, 512 RAM and speed of 1.6MHz, supported by PVM software and C Programme. This software supports sending and receiving data activities between processors [14]. Speed up, effectiveness, efficiency, and temporal performance are used to measure the performances of parallel strategies. Here, the execution time is T 1 on one processor, the execution time is T p on p processors and L p is the unit of work done per micro second. (17) Speed-up ratio, S p = T 1 /T p (18) Efficiency, E p = S p /p (19) Effectiveness, F p = S p /C p (20) Temporal performance, L p = T p -1

Execution Time

Speed up

Efficiency

Numb. Of Processor Temporal Performance Figure 4: The execution time versus number of processors using (70X70X70) sizes of matrices

Numb. Of Processor Figure 5: The Speed up versus number of processors using (70X70X70) sizes of matrices Execution Time

Numb. Of Processor Figure 6: The efficiency versus number of processors using (70X70X70) sizes of matrices

Effectiveness

Numb. Of Processor Figure 7: The effectiveness versus number of processors using (70X70X70) sizes of matrices

Numb. Of Processor Figure 8: The temporal performance versus number of processors using (70X70X70) sizes of matrices

Numb. Of Processor Figure 9: The execution time versus number of processors for 1 dimensional problem

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea

Speed up

Numb. Of Processor Figure 10: The Speed up versus number of processors for 1 dimensional problem

Numb. Of Processor Numb. Of Processor Figure 11: The efficiency versus number of processors Figure 12: The effectiveness versus number of for 1 dimensional problem processors for 1 dimensional problem

Temporal Performance

Numb. Of Processor Figure 13: The temporal performance versus number of processors for 1 dimensional problem

Based on Figure 4, execution time for BRIAN method has lowest value than DOUGLAS and GSRB. Execution time is decreasing with the increasing p processors. Figure 5 shows the highest speedup for BRIAN method. Efficiency for BRIAN, DOUGLAS and GSRB are decreasing with the increasing p based on Figure 6. BRIAN method has the higher efficiency than DOUGLAS and GSRB methods. Based on Figure 7, effectiveness for GSRB method are increasing very slowly than BRIAN and DOUGLAS methods where data decomposition is run asynchronously and concurrently at every time level with limited communication cost and allows inconsistencies to load balancing. This shows that GSRB methods are not effective in solving parabolic 3 dimension model problem than BRIAN and DOUGLAS methods. Figure 8 shows that temporal performance for BRIAN method is better than DOUGLAS and GSRB. Figure 9-13 show comparison for performance analysis one dimensional AGE BRIAN and AGE DOUGLAS. Parallel performances of 1D AGE BRIAN are better than others for speedup and efficiency versus number of processors. 1D AGE BRIAN has better temporary performance and effectiveness as well than AGE DOUGLAS and GSRB because execution time for small size of matrices is smaller than large size of matrices.

6. Conclusion
The stable and highly accurate BRIAN algorithm is found to be well suited in parallel implementation in this study where the data decomposition runs asynchronously and concurrently at every time level. The BRIAN sweeps involve tri-diagonal systems, which require the solution of (22) block systems. Existing parallel strategies could not be fully exploited to solve such systems. The comparison results of AGE class of methods presented the best way to choose parallel algorithm for the thermal profile of multidimensional cylindrical laser glass interaction that can solve precisely the computation of laser beam passage ensuring pragmatic heat generation pattern in the target material. BRIAN method on the cylindrical coordinate model of laser glass interaction proved that this method has a convergence value better than DOUGLAS and GSRB. Comparative results of numerical analysis and parallel performance evaluations that came out through this study showed that when the size of dimension is increase, speed-up and efficiency of AGE Brian and AGE Douglas variants also increase. The factors are when communication cost between processors and idle time increase, the level equilibrium of data storage decrease. BRIAN method, that is alternative method for AGE is proved in theoretically and experimentally in this study for multidimensional problems. Hence, we can declare that our proposed method will able to produce the best solutions for laser glass interaction problem and the thermal profile had been successfully visualized by COMSOL multiphysics simulation in section two (see Figure 1 - 3). The communication frequency, the size of messages and the cluster platforms influences the communication time. Consequently, it can be accomplished that the efficiency, speedup ratio, and effectiveness of the parallel algorithm can be affected by computational complexity and

Effectiveness

Efficiency

9th International Conference on Fracture & Strength of Solids June 9-13, 2013, Jeju, Korea communication cost. The fully multidimensional primal-mixed finite element approach in steady-state and thermal control analysis of the solid body is examined. Acknowledgement The authors wish to express their gratitude and indebtedness to the Technology University of Malaysia and the Malaysian government for providing the moral and financial support under the e-Science Research grants (Grant No. 72919) forth-successful completion of this project. References [1]. Hurle, D.T.J. Surface aspects of crystal growth from melt. Adv. In Colloid Interface Sci. 1981; 15:101-130. [2]. Frank Gaebler. Laser glass cutting in flat panel display production. Coherent Inc. Bloomfield, CT, available [online], [3]. http://www.industrial-lasers.com/display_article/330518/39/none/none/Feat/Laser-glass-cuttingin-flat-panel-display-production. Online [17/05/09]. [4]. Prakash, E.S., Sadashivappa, K., Vince Joseph, Singaperumal, M. Nonconventional cutting of plate glass using hot air jet: experimental studies. Mechatronics. 2001; 11:595-615. [5]. Strigin MB, Chudinov AN. Cutting of glass by picosecond laser radiation. Optics Communication. 1994; 106:223-226. [6]. Evans, D.J., Sahimi, M.S. The Alternating Group Explicit (AGE) Iterative Method for Solving Parabolic Equations I. Intern. J. Computer Math. 1988; 24:127-145. [7]. Evans, D.J., Sahimi, M.S. The Alternating Group Explicit (AGE) Iterative Method for Solving Parabolic Equations II: 3 Space Dimensional Problems. Intern. J. Computer Math. 1989; 26:117142. [8]. Mijuca, D. iberna, A. Medjo, B. A novel primal-mixed finite element approach for heat transfer in solids. Computational Mechanics, Springer-Verlag. 2007; 367-379. [9]. Al Geist, Adam Beguelin, Jack Dongarra, Weicheng Jiang, Robert Manchek, Vaidy Sunderam. PVM: A Users Guide and Tutorial for Networked Parallel Computing. Cambridge MIT Press. 1994. [10]. Necati M. Ozisik. Finite Difference Methods in Heat Transfer, CRC Press. 1994. [11]. Becker, Roland; Hansbo, Peter; Stenberg, Rolf. A finite element method for domain decomposition with non-matching grids. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis - Modlisation Mathmatique et Analyse Numrique. 2003; 37(2):209-225. [12]. Yanenko, N.N. The Method of Fractional Steps, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York. 1971. [13]. Mohd Salleh Sahimi, Norma Alias, Elankovan Sundararajan. The AGEB Algorithm for Solving the Heat Equation in Three Space Dimensions and Its Parallelization Using PVM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg. 2001. [14]. Foster, I. Designing and Building Parallel Programs: Concepts and Tools for Parallel Software Engineering, Inc. Addison- Weslley Publishing Company. 1996. [15]. Zamoya, A. Y. Parallel and Distribution Computing Handbook, McGraw Hill. 1996. [16]. Alias, N., Sahimi, M.S. Abdullah, A.R. The AGEB Algorithm for Solving the Heat Equation in Two Space Dimensions and Its Parallelization on a Distributed Memory Machine, Recent Advances in Parallel Virtual Machine and Message Passing Interface, Jack Donggarra, Domenico Laforenza, Salvatore Orlando (Eds.) Lecturer Notes In Computer Sciences, SpringerVerlag. Berlin. 2003; 214-221. [17]. Lizawati Mi Yusuf, Norma Alias, Mohammed Shariff Bashir Ghouse, Siti Mariyam Shamsuddin Mohd Shahizan Othman. The Parallel AGE Variances Method for Temperature Prediction on Laser Glass Interaction. 2011 IEEE Symposium on Computer & Informatics. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 20-22 Mar 2011; 279-283. [18]. Lizawati Mi Yusuf, Mohammed Shariff Bashir Ghouse, Mohd Shahizan Othman, Siti Mariyam Shamsuddin, Norma Alias. Parallel Numerical Solution for Temperature Prediction on Laser Glass Cutting using AGE Variances Method. 2011 IEEE Conference on Sustainable Utilization and Development in Engineering and Technology (STUDENT) The University of Nottingham. Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia. 20-21 October 2011; 79-84. [19]. Comsol. AB: COMSOL Multiphysics Modeling Guide, version 3.4 COMSOL AB; 2007.