Skip to main content

differential equations - Poisson PDE over a irregular region with FDM


The problem modeled by the Poisson PDE is related to the torsion of prismatic beams and I use the Finite Differences Method (FDM). I've managed to solve the equation over a rectangle region with quadratic mesh, here's my code (the dimensions are 0.2 m × 0.2 m):


a = 0.2;
b = 0.2;
n = 4;
m = 4;

deltax = a/n;
deltay = b/m;
G = 10^6;
theta = 0.01745;
phi[0, j_] = 0;
phi[n, j_] = 0;
phi[i_, 0] = 0;
phi[i_, m] = 0;
fi[i_, j_] = -2 G theta;
vars = Flatten[Table[phi[i, j], {i, 1, n - 1}, {j, 1, m - 1}]];

eqns = Flatten[
Table[(phi[i + 1, j] - 2 phi[i, j] + phi[i - 1, j])/
deltax^2 + (phi[i, j + 1] - 2 phi[i, j] + phi[i, j - 1])/
deltay^2 == fi[i, j], {i, 1, n - 1}, {j, 1, m - 1}]];
sol = Solve[eqns, vars][[1]]

But I also need to solve for a circular region with radius 0.1m, and I frankly don't have an idea what to do:


enter image description here


The corresponding difference equation is:


$\frac{2}{\Delta x^{2}}\left(\frac{1}{a(1+a)}\phi_{i-1,j}+\frac{1}{1+a}\phi_{i+1,j}-\frac{1}{a}\phi_{i,j}\right)+\frac{2}{\Delta y^{2}}\left(\frac{1}{b(1+b)}\phi_{i,j-1}+\frac{1}{1+b}\phi_{i,j+1}-\frac{1}{b}\phi_{i,j}\right)=-2G\theta$



I know how to solve it with NDSolve:


R = 0.1;
G = 1000000;
θ = 0.01745329252;
Ω = Disk[{0, 0}, {R, R}];
op = Laplacian[u[x, y], {x, y}] +2 G θ;
Subscript[Γ,D] = {DirichletCondition[u[x, y] == 0, True]};
Φ =
NDSolveValue[{op == 0, Subscript[Γ, D]}, u, {x, y} ∈ Ω];


Plot3D[Φ[x, y], {x, y} ∈ Ω]

enter image description here


I just want to solve the problem with FDM using Cartesian coordinates.



Answer



As mentioned in the comment above, handling irregular region with FDM is cumbersome and frustrating in my view, actually that's where I stopped my self-learning of FDM and turned to finite element method (FEM), which is more suitable for this task, and finally write this. (Have a look at this post for more information. ) Nevertheless, there seems to be no implementation of FDM on irregular region with Mathematica hitherto, so I'd like to have a try.


Well, I believe that as a centuried technique, there must be some legacy code (probably in other programming language) implementing FDM on irregular region, but strangely I never found a piece. (My skill of googling is too bad?) So the following code is completely self-made and quite Mathematica-style (I think).


The method I chose to treat the irregular boundary is the one OP mentioned in his question: extrapolation. Yeah, that graph and the difference equation illustrates extrapolation. If you're unfamiliar with it, a relatively good learning material is Section 3.4 from p71 and Section 6.4 from p199 of Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations - An Introduction (Morton K., Mayers D)… OK, let me explain it briefly.


Graph 1


enter image description here



Red points for the unknowns, gray points for those outside the domain, values on green curve is known.


FDM is a technique solving unknown grids with known grids, but as shown in Graph 1, when implementing FDM on an irregular region, grid points are usually not exactly on the boundary where the function value is known, so what to do? The simplest solution is to treat the grids near the boundary as grids on the boundary, which is called zero-order interpolation and discouraged. (Those material I found doesn't mention the reason, I guess it's probably because the error caused by zero-order interpolation is large and not quantitatively controllable.) To achieve the quantitative control on the error caused by FDM, extrapolation is needed. For example, as illustrated in Graph 2 below, we can use the values on B, C, D to fit a parabola to estimate the value on A:


Graph 2


enter image description here


An equivalent explanation for the extrapolation is weighted difference formula, which is also covered in the book linked above. In the rest part of this answer I'll concentrate on programming. Here's the code:


G = 1000000;
θ = Rationalize[0.01745329252, 0];
m = n = 24;
R = 1/10;
dx = 2 R/m; dy = 2 R/n;


r1 = Solve[(x + R)/dx == i, x][[1]];
r2 = Solve[(y + R)/dy == j, y][[1]];
ruleInner = (x^2 + y^2 < R^2 /. r1 /. r2);
ruleOuter = (x^2 + y^2 > R^2 /. r1 /. r2);
areaInner = Table[ruleInner, {i, 0, m}, {j, 0, n}];
areaOuter = Table[ruleOuter, {i, 0, m}, {j, 0, n}];

ArrayPlot /@ Boole[{areaInner, areaOuter}]


enter image description here


I rationalized all the parameters for convenience. areaInner and areaOuter are masks for extracting the desired grid points:


{var, varNot} = 
Flatten@Pick[Table[f[i, j], {i, 0, m}, {j, 0, n}], #] & /@ {areaInner, areaOuter};

var are grid points inside the circle i.e. the red points in Graph 1, varNot are the grays.


df[dx_, pos_] := (MapAt[# - 1 &, #, pos] - 2 # + MapAt[# + 1 &, #, pos])/dx^2 &
{d2fx, d2fy} = {df[dx, 1] /@ var, df[dy, 2] /@ var};

d2fx and d2fy are $\frac{\partial ^2\phi }{\partial x^2}$ and $\frac{\partial ^2\phi }{\partial y^2}$.



{d2fxOuter, d2fyOuter} = 
Intersection[varNot, Cases[#, f[__], Infinity]] & /@ {d2fx, d2fy};
{d2fxBorder, d2fyBorder} =
Thread[Complement[Cases[#, f[__], Infinity], var, varNot] -> 0] & /@ {d2fx, d2fy};

d2fxOuter and d2fyOuter are grids outside the region but appearing in the equations i.e. As in Graph 2, d2fxBorder and d2fyBorder are those exactly on the boundaries, where As and Bs superpose. (It is relatively rare, actually there're only 4 in this case). Then we use extrapolation to approximate those outside the region:


{pointBorderd2fx, pointBorderd2fy} = 
With[{ex = #[[1]], pos = #[[2]]},
With[{pos2 = 2 - pos + 1}, {#, 0} & /@
Flatten[Nearest[{i, j}[[pos]] /.

Solve[x^2 + y^2 == R^2 /. r1 /. r2, {i, j}[[pos]]] /. {i,
j}[[pos2]] -> #[[pos2]], #[[pos]]] & /@ ex]]] & /@
{{d2fxOuter, 1}, {d2fyOuter, 2}};

pointBorderd2fx and pointBorderd2fy are points on the boundary that will be used in extrapolation i.e. Bs in Graph 2.


{pointInnerd2fx, pointInnerd2fy} = 
With[{ex = #[[1]], pos = #[[2]]},
Map[{#[[pos]], #} &,
Intersection[#, var] & /@
Thread /@

MapAt[{-2, -1, 1, 2} + # &, ex, {All, pos}], {2}]] & /@
{{d2fxOuter, 1}, {d2fyOuter, 2}};

pointInnerd2fx and pointInnerd2fy are points inside the domain that will be used in extrapolation i.e. Cs and Ds in Graph 2.


extra[{x4_, y4_}, {x1_, y1_}, {{x2_, y2_}, {x3_, y3_}}] = 
y4 -> InterpolatingPolynomial[{{x1, y1}, {x2, y2}, {x3, y3}}, x4];

extra provides the extrapolating formula. The last step is to form the equation set with difference equations, eliminating As with Bs, Cs and Ds and then solve it:


sol = First@
NSolve[(d2fx /. d2fxBorder /. MapThread[extra, {{#[[1]], #} & /@ d2fxOuter,

pointBorderd2fx,
pointInnerd2fx}]) +
(d2fy /. d2fyBorder /. MapThread[extra, {{#[[2]], #} & /@ d2fyOuter,
pointBorderd2fy,
pointInnerd2fy}]) ==
-2 G θ // Thread, var]; // AbsoluteTiming

Finally let's draw a picture for the solution. Notice that we need to add points on the boundary because they are almost not included in sol:


bound = Flatten /@ Transpose@{#, ConstantArray[0., Length@#]} &@
Cases[Normal@

ContourPlot[
x^2 + y^2 == R^2 /. r1 /. r2 // Evaluate, {i, 0, m}, {j, 0, n}],
Line[a__] -> a, ∞][[1]];

ListPlot3D[Join[bound, sol /. (f[a_, b_] -> c_) :> {a, b, c}]]

enter image description here


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...