Difference between revisions of "Convection Diffusion equation"
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
[[File:mikimouse_heat.png|400px]] [[File:poisson_weird1.png|400px]][[File:poisson_weird2.png|200px1]] | [[File:mikimouse_heat.png|400px]] [[File:poisson_weird1.png|400px]][[File:poisson_weird2.png|200px1]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | == References == | ||
+ | * Trobec R., Kosec G., Šterk M., Šarler B., Comparison of local weak and strong form meshless methods for 2-D diffusion equation. Engineering analysis with boundary elements. 2012;36:310-321; [http://comms.ijs.si/~gkosec/data/papers/EABE2499.pdf manuscript] | ||
+ | * robec R., Kosec G., Parallel Scientific Computing, ISBN: 978-3-319-17072-5 (Print) 978-3-319-17073-2. | ||
+ | * Slak, J., Kosec, G.. Detection of heart rate variability from a wearable differential ECG device., MIPRO 2016, 39th International Convention, 2016, Opatija, Croatia, ISSN 1847-3938, pp 450-455. |
Revision as of 11:57, 24 February 2018
Before moving to more complex numerical examples, preliminary tests are done on a case with a known closed form solution. As in all the previous examples, we use the diffusion equation for a test case. The main purpose of this section is basic evaluation of mesh based against meshless methods, as well as strong form against weak form methods.
A 2D diffusion equation in its dimensionless form is considered: \begin{align} %??? brezdimenzijska oblika nima c \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} - \nabla^2u = q, & \qquad (x, y)\in \Omega, \label{eq.diffu}\\ % \frac{\partial u(x,y,t)}{\partial t} = \nabla^2 u(x,y,t), & \qquad (x, y)\in \Omega, \label{eq.diffusion}\\ u(x,y,t) = \overline{u}(x,y,t), & \qquad (x,y) \in \Gamma_D,\label{eq.bc_diffu}\\ u(x,y,t),_n = \overline{g}(x,y,t), & \qquad (x,y) \in \Gamma_N, \label{eq.mixed.bc_diffu}\\ u(x,y,t) = u_0, & \qquad t=0,\label{eq.ic_diffu} \end{align} where $(x,y)$ are spatial coordinates, $t$ is time, $u(x, y, t)$ is the unknown solution, $ \Omega$, and $ \Gamma_D$ and $ \Gamma_N$ are the global domain with Dirichlet boundary and Neumann boundary, $\overline{u}$ and $\overline{g}$ are the prescribed Dirichlet and Neumann boundary values and $u(x,y,0)=u_0$ is the known initial condition.
In following discussion we present some solutions and test we did while coding our library. Please refer to our repository for full set of latest examples and tests
Steady state 1D case
First, a simple one dimensional case is tackled to assess basic properties of presented solution method. Consider the problem \begin{align} u''(x) &= \sin(x), \quad x \in (0, 1) \nonumber \\ u(0) &= 0 \label{eq:neu1d} \\ u'(1) &= 0 \nonumber \end{align} with analytical solution \begin{equation} u(x) = x \cos 1 - \sin x. \end{equation} We solve the problem with MLSM using 3 support nodes and 3 monomials $\{1, x, x^2\}$ as basis functions on a regularly distributed nodes. This setup of MLSM is theoretically equivalent to the Finite Difference Method (FDM) and therefore it is worth implementing also standard FDM to compare results and execution times. The error between the actual solution $u$ and the approximate solution $\hat{u}$ is measured in $\ell_\infty$ norm, \begin{equation} \|u - \hat{u}\|_{\ell_\infty} = \max_{x\in X} | u(x) - \hat{u}(x)|, \label{eq:linf-err} \end{equation} where $X$ is the set of all points in the domain. The problem can be solved with below code. Note, that the code is the same for 1,2 and 3D cases
1 for (int i : domain.internal()) {
2 op.lap(M, i, 1.0); // Equation.
3 rhs(i) = std::sin(domain.positions[i][0]);
4 }
5 op.value(M, left, 1.0); // Left BC.
6 op.neumann(M, right, {1}, 1.0); // Right BC.
7 VectorXd solution = M.lu().solve(rhs);
As expected, MLSM is slower due to computation of shape functions, which are known in advance in FDM. However, counting that as part of the preprocessing and measuring only the part equivalent to FDM, it can be seen that the execution times for FDM and MLSM are the same for all practical purposes.
Time dependent 2D case
We solved the equation on a square $\Omega = [0, a] \times [0, a]$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions $ \left. u\right|_{\partial \Omega} = 0 $ and initial state $ u(t = 0) = 1$. An analytical solution for this domain is known \begin{equation} u(\vec{p}, t) = \sum_{\substack{n=1 \\ n \text{ odd}}}^\infty\sum_{\substack{m=1 \\ m \text{ odd}}}^\infty \frac{1}{\pi^2} \frac{16 a^2}{nm} \sin\left(\frac{\pi n}{a}p_x\right) \sin\left(\frac{\pi m}{a}p_y\right) e^{-\frac{\pi^2 (n^2+m^2)}{a^2}t} \end{equation}
Temperature contour polot after $t = 0.05$ and convergence regarding the number of nodes
We tested the method with a fixed time step of $ \Delta t = 1\cdot 10^{-5}$ on a unit square ($a = 1$). Monomial basis of $6$ monomials was used and $12$ closest nodes counted as support for each node in one setup and in another 5 Guassians on 5 suport nodes. After more than $250$ nodes of discretization in each dimension the method diverges, which is expected. The stability criterion for diffusion equation in two dimensions is $\Delta t \leq \frac{1}{4} \Delta x^2$, where $\Delta x$ is the spatial discretization step in one dimension. In our case, at $250$ nodes per side, the right hand side yields $\frac{1}{4}\cdot\frac{1}{250}\cdot\frac{1}{250} = 4\times 10^{-6}$, so our method is stable within the expected region.
Convergence with respect to number of time steps and comaprios between implicit and explicit solution
And some more weird domains, just to have some fun ...
References
- Trobec R., Kosec G., Šterk M., Šarler B., Comparison of local weak and strong form meshless methods for 2-D diffusion equation. Engineering analysis with boundary elements. 2012;36:310-321; manuscript
- robec R., Kosec G., Parallel Scientific Computing, ISBN: 978-3-319-17072-5 (Print) 978-3-319-17073-2.
- Slak, J., Kosec, G.. Detection of heart rate variability from a wearable differential ECG device., MIPRO 2016, 39th International Convention, 2016, Opatija, Croatia, ISSN 1847-3938, pp 450-455.