Skip to main content

finite element method - How to solve a nonlinear coupled PDE with initial and some boundary values


I would like to solve the following nonlinear coupled PDE with a mix of initial conditions and boundary values:


rMax = 0.01;
sol = First@NDSolve[{
Derivative[2, 0][g][r, z] + Derivative[0, 2][g][r, z] == u[r, z]^2,
Derivative[2, 0][u][r, z] + Derivative[0, 1][u][r, z] == -g[r, z],
Derivative[1, 0][u][0, z] == 0.0,
Derivative[1, 0][u][rMax, z] == 0.0,
u[rMax, z] == 0.0,
u[r, 0] == g[r, 0] == Sin[\[Pi] r/rMax],

Derivative[1, 0][g][0, z] == g[rMax, z] == 0.0},
{u, g}, {r, 0, rMax}, {z, 0, 0.01}]

but I receive the following error message (in version 10.0.1.0):


NDSolve::femnonlinear: Nonlinear coefficients are not supported in this version of NDSolve.


The offender is the square term u[r, z]^2 in the first equation; without the square NSolve[] executes without errors. NDSolve seems to apply the FEM method by default to such problems. I'm wondering why NDSolve[] doesn't switch back to another (propagation-type) algorithm? When I add the option Method -> "MethodOfLines", the error message changes to


NDSolve::ivone: Boundary values may only be specified for one independent variable. Initial values may only be specified at one value of the other independent variable.


and I don't quite understand why this is because my time-like variable is z and I'm setting initial conditions only for z=0 and then boundary conditions at r=0 and r=rMax which should be OK?


Any ideas how to solve my problem? Another post suggested calling low-level FEM routines directly, is this a solution? What's the advantage of using FEM on an initial condition/boundary value problem over other methods: speed, accuracy, robustness?




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more