Skip to main content

differential equations - Position of discontinuous coefficient influences the solution of PDE


This issue is raised in the discussion under this post about heat flux continuity and I think it's better to start a new question to state it in a clearer way. Just consider the following example:


Lmid = 1; L = 2; tend = 1;
m[x_] = If[x < Lmid, 1, 2];
eq1 = m[x] D[u[x, t], t] == D[u[x, t], x, x];
eq2 = D[u[x, t], t] == D[u[x, t], x, x]/m[x];


Clearly, eq1 and eq2 is mathematically the same, the only difference between them is the position of the discontinuous coefficient m[x]. Nevertheless, the solution of NDSolve will be influenced by this trivial difference, if "FiniteElement" is chosen as the method for "SpatialDiscretization":


opts = Method -> {"MethodOfLines", 
"SpatialDiscretization" -> {"FiniteElement",
"MeshOptions" -> {"MaxCellMeasure" -> 0.01}}};

ndsolve[eq_] := NDSolveValue[{eq, u[x, 0] == Exp[x]}, u, {x, 0, L}, {t, 0, tend}, opts];

{sol1, sol2} = ndsolve /@ {eq1, eq2};
Plot[{sol1[x, tend], sol2[x, tend]}, {x, 0, L}]


enter image description here


Apparently sol2 is a weak solution that's just 0th order continuous in x direction.


Further check shows that, sol1 is 1st order continuous in x direction, while D[sol2[x, tend]/m[x], x] is continous:


Plot[D[{sol1[x, tend], sol2[x, tend]/m[x]}, x] // Evaluate, {x, 0, L}]

enter image description here


To make this post a question, I'd like to ask:




  1. Is this behavior of NDSolve intended, or kind of a mistake?





  2. Is this behavior controlable? I mean, can we predict what's continuous in the solution, just from the form of the equation?





Answer



Here is an explanation of what happens. Let's setup the problem once more.


Lmid = 1; L = 2; tend = 1;
m[x_] = If[x < Lmid, 1, 2];
(*m[x_]=2;*)

eq1 = m[x] D[u[x, t], t] == D[u[x, t], x, x];
eq2 = D[u[x, t], t] == D[u[x, t], x, x]/m[x];
opts = Method -> {"MethodOfLines",
"SpatialDiscretization" -> {"FiniteElement",
"MeshOptions" -> {"MaxCellMeasure" -> 0.01}}};
ndsolve[eq_] :=
NDSolveValue[{eq, u[x, 0] == Exp[x]}, u, {x, 0, L}, {t, 0, tend},
opts];

Equation 1 and 2 are mathematically the same, however, when we evaluate them we get different results as shown here:



sol1 = ndsolve[eq1];
Plot[sol1[x, tend], {x, 0, L}]

enter image description here


sol2 = ndsolve[eq2];
Plot[sol2[x, tend], {x, 0, L}]

enter image description here


What happens? Let's look at how the PDE gets parsed.


ClearAll[getEquations]

getEquations[eq_] := Block[{temp},
temp = NDSolve`ProcessEquations[{eq, u[x, 0] == Exp[x]},
u, {x, 0, L}, {t, 0, tend}, opts][[1]];
temp = temp["FiniteElementData"];
temp = temp["PDECoefficientData"];
(# -> temp[#]) & /@ {"DampingCoefficients", "DiffusionCoefficients",
"ConvectionCoefficients"}
]

getEquations[eq1]

{"DampingCoefficients" -> {{If[x < 1, 1, 2]}},
"DiffusionCoefficients" -> {{{{-1}}}},
"ConvectionCoefficients" -> {{{{0}}}}}

This looks good.


getEquations[eq2]
{"DampingCoefficients" -> {{1}},
"DiffusionCoefficients" -> {{{{-(1/If[x < 1, 1, 2])}}}},
"ConvectionCoefficients" -> {{{{-(If[x < 1, 0, 0]/
If[x < 1, 1, 2]^2)}}}}}


For the second eqn. we get a convection coefficient term. Why is that? The key is to understand that the FEM can only solve this type equation:


$d\frac{\partial }{\partial t}u+\nabla \cdot (-c \nabla u-\alpha u+\gamma ) +\beta \cdot \nabla u+ a u -f=0$


Note, that there is no coefficient in front of the $\nabla \cdot (-c \nabla u-\alpha u+\gamma)$ term. To get things like $h(x) \nabla \cdot (-c \nabla u-\alpha u+\gamma)$ to work, $c$ is set to $h$ and $\beta$ is adjusted to get rid of the derivative caused by $\nabla \cdot (-c \nabla u)$


Here is an example:


c = h[x];
β = -Div[{{h[x]}}, {x}];
Div[{{c}}.Grad[u[x], {x}], {x}] + β.Grad[u[x], {x}]
(* h[x]*Derivative[2][u][x] *)


In the case at hand that leads to:


Div[{{1/m[x]}}.Grad[u[x], {x}], {x}] - 
Div[{{1/m[x]}}, {x}] // Simplify

(* {Piecewise[{{Derivative[2][u][x]/2, x >= 1}}, Derivative[2][u][x]]} *)

But that is the same as specifying:


 eq3 = D[u[x, t], t] == 
Inactive[
Div][{{1/If[x < 1, 1, 2]}}.Inactive[Grad][u[x, t], {x}], {x}];


sol3 = ndsolve[eq3];
(* Plot[sol2[x, tend] - sol3[x, tend], {x, 0, L}] *)

I have checked that flexPDE (another FEM tool) gives exactly the same solutions in all three cases. So this issue is not uncommon. In principal a message could be generated but how would one detect when to trigger that message? If you have suggestions about this, let me know in the comments. I think it were also good to add this example to the documentation - if there are no objections. I hope this clarifies the unexpected behavior a bit.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.