Skip to main content

numerics - Fourier Collocation For Heat Equation



In fact My problem is this $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+\ sin(y)\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}=\nu(\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} +\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2})$$ But I wanted to test the method first to the heat equation and check if the L^2 norm of the solution behaves like this $$|u|_{L^2} =(\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} u^2 dx dy)^{1/2} \leq e^{-\nu t}$$ Given that $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=\nu\Bigl(\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial y^2}\Bigr)$$ With the following periodic boundary conditions: $$u(-\pi,y,t)=u(\pi,y,t) \\ u(x,-\pi,t)=u(x,\pi,t) \\u_x(-\pi,y,t)=u_x(\pi,y,t)\\ u_y(x,-\pi,t)=u_y(x,\pi,t)\\ u(x,y,0)=\sin(x)$$



I have tried to solve this using fourier collocation method in mathematica And then using NDSolve to solve the system of ODe.


n = 11;
ν = 1;
T = 100;
u[x_, y_, t_] := \!\(
\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(∑\), \(k = 0\), \(n - 1\)]\(
\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(∑\), \(l = 0\), \(n - 1\)]\(a[k, l]\)[t]*
     EXP[I*k*x]*EXP[I*l*y]\)\);
R[x_, y_, t] = 
  D[u[x, y, t], t] - ν*(D[u[x, y, t], x, x] + D[u[x, y, t], y, y]);

{S1} = Table[
   R[(2 πk)/n, (2 πl)/n, mT/n] == 0, {k, 1, n - 2}, {l, 1, 
    n - 2}, {m, 1, n - 1}];
S2 = Table[
   u[(2 πk)/n, -π, t] == u[(2 πk)/n, π, t], {k, 1, 
    n - 2}];

S3 = Table[
     D[u[(2 πk)/n, -π, t], y] == 
      D[u[(2 πk)/n, π, t], y], {k, 1, n - 1}];[] ( {

   {\[Placeholder], \[Placeholder]}
  } )
S4 = Table[
   u[-π, (2 πl)/n, t] == u[π, (2 πl)/n, t], {l, 1, 
    n - 2}];

S5 = Table[
   D[u[-π, (2 πl)/n, t], x] == 
    D[u[π, (2 πl)/n, t], x], {l, 1, n - 1}];
S6 = Table[u[(2 πk)/n, y, 0] == Sin[(2 πk)/n], {k, 1, n - 2}];

Sys = Join[S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6];
Dimensions[Sys];

I have a problem plotting the solution using NDSovle . And How to plot the L^2 norm of the solution ?


Edited


n = 11;
ν = 1;
T = 100;
u[x_, y_, t_] := \!\(
\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(∑\), \(k = 0\), \(n - 1\)]\(

\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(∑\), \(l = 0\), \(n - 1\)]\(a[k, l]\)[t]*
     Exp[I*k*x]*Exp[I*l*y]\)\);
R[x_, y_, t] = 
  D[u[x, y, t], t] + 
   Sin[y]*D[u[x, , y, t], 
     x] - ν*(D[u[x, y, t], x, x] + D[u[x, y, t], y, y]);
S1 = Table[
   R[(2 πk)/n, (2 πl)/n, t] == 0, {k, 1, n - 2}, {l, 1, 
    n - 2}];
S2 = Table[

   u[(2 πk)/n, -π, t] == u[(2 πk)/n, π, t], {k, 1, 
    n - 2}];

S3 = Table[
   D[u[(2 πk)/n, -π, t], y] == 
    D[u[(2 πk)/n, π, t], y], {k, 1, n - 1}];
S4 = Table[
   u[-π, (2 πl)/n, t] == u[π, (2 πl)/n, t], {l, 1, 
    n - 2}];


S5 = Table[
   D[u[-π, (2 πl)/n, t], x] == 
    D[u[π, (2 πl)/n, t], x], {l, 1, n - 1}];
S6 = Table[u[(2 πk)/n, y, 0] == Sin[(2 πk)/n], {k, 1, n - 2}];
Sys = Join[S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6];
Dimensions[Sys]

Answer



First, we do not need periodic boundary conditions when implementing the Fourier method, since the functions used are periodic by definition. Secondly, we cannot use two sets of boundary conditions for the heat equation. Thus, the implementation of the Fourier method is such


n = 11;
\[Nu] = 1;

T = 100;
u[x_, y_, t_] := \!\(
\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(\[Sum]\), \(k = \(-n\)\), \(n\)]\(
\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(\[Sum]\), \(l = \(-n\)\), \(n\)]\(a[k, l]\)[t]*
     Exp[I*k*x]*Exp[I*l*y]\)\);
eq = Flatten[
   Table[a[k, l]'[t] + \[Nu] a[k, l][t] (k^2 + l^2) == 0, {k, -n, 
     n}, {l, -n, n}]];
ic = Flatten[
   Table[a[k, l][0] == 

     1/(2 I) (KroneckerDelta[k, 1] - 
        KroneckerDelta[k, -1]) KroneckerDelta[l, 0], {k, -n, 
     n}, {l, -n, n}]];
var = Flatten[Table[a[k, l], {k, -n, n}, {l, -n, n}]];

sol = NDSolve[{eq, ic}, var, {t, 0, 100}];

The solution for t = 0, 5, 10 has the form of a sinusoid damping in amplitude


Table[Plot3D[
  Evaluate[Re[u[x, y, t] /. sol]], {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi}, 

  Mesh -> None, ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"], {t, 0, 10, 5}]

Figure 1


The solution of the same problem obtained by the automatic method NDSolve


sol1 = NDSolveValue[{D[u1[x, y, t], 
      t] - \[Nu] Laplacian[u1[x, y, t], {x, y}] == 0, 
   u1[-Pi, y, t] == u1[Pi, y, t], u1[x, -Pi, t] == u1[x, Pi, t], 
   u1[x, y, 0] == Sin[x]}, u1, {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi}, {t, 0, 100}]

Table[Plot3D[sol1[x, y, t], {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi}, Mesh -> None, 

  ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"], {t, 0, 10, 5}]

Figure 2


Compare two solutions at one point x=Pi/2, y=0. We see that the solutions diverge at t> 5. Increasing the number of modes to n=22 does not change this picture.


LogLogPlot[{Evaluate[Abs[u[Pi/2, 0, t] /. sol]], 
  Abs[sol1[Pi/2, 0, t]]}, {t, 0, 100}, AxesLabel -> Automatic, 
 PlotLegends -> {"Fourier", "Automatic"}]

Figure 3


Consider the solution of the modified equation taking into account the term $\sin (y) u_x$. Fourier method



n = 22;
\[Nu] = 1;
T = 100;
u[x_, y_, t_] := \!\(
\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(\[Sum]\), \(k = \(-n\)\), \(n\)]\(
\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(\[Sum]\), \(l = \(-n\)\), \(n\)]\(a[k, l]\)[t]*
     Exp[I*k*x]*Exp[I*l*y]\)\);
Table[{a[k, n + 1][t_] := 0, a[k, -n - 1][t_] := 0}, {k, -n, n}];
eq = Flatten[
   Table[a[k, l]'[t] + 

      k (a[k, l + 1][t] - a[k, l - 1][t])/2 + \[Nu] a[k, l][
        t] (k^2 + l^2) == 0, {k, -n, n}, {l, -n, n}]];
ic = Flatten[
   Table[a[k, l][0] == 
     1/(2 I) (KroneckerDelta[k, 1] - 
        KroneckerDelta[k, -1]) KroneckerDelta[l, 0], {k, -n, 
     n}, {l, -n, n}]];
var = Flatten[Table[a[k, l], {k, -n, n}, {l, -n, n}]];

sol = NDSolve[{eq, ic}, var, {t, 0, 10}];


Table[Plot3D[
  Evaluate[Re[u[x, y, t] /. sol]], {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi}, 
  Mesh -> None, ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"], {t, 0, 10, 5}]

Figure 4


The automatic method NDSolve


sol1 = NDSolveValue[{D[u1[x, y, t], t] + 
      Sin[y] D[u1[x, y, t], x] - \[Nu] Laplacian[
        u1[x, y, t], {x, y}] == 0, u1[-Pi, y, t] == u1[Pi, y, t], 

    u1[x, -Pi, t] == u1[x, Pi, t], u1[x, y, 0] == Sin[x]}, 
   u1, {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi}, {t, 0, 10}];

Table[Plot3D[sol1[x, y, t], {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi}, Mesh -> None, 
  ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"], {t, 0, 3, 1}]

Figure 5


The solutions are quite different in appearance due to the uncertainty of periodic boundary conditions (solutions differ in phase). Although at a point x=Pi/2, y=0 the difference appears only when t>5 Figure 6


The calculation of the L2 norm and comparison with c Exp[-t]


f = Re[u[x, y, t] /. sol];

L2norm = Table[{t, 
   First[Sqrt[NIntegrate[f^2, {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi}]]]}, {t, 0, 
   5, .2}];

c = Sqrt[NIntegrate[Sin[x]^2, {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi}]];
Show[Plot[c Exp[-t], {t, 0, 5}, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> {-1, 4.5},
   Axes -> False], ListPlot[L2norm, PlotStyle -> Red, Axes -> False]]

Figure 7


Comments

Post a Comment

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[ ...
Post a Comment
Read more

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - How to draw some 2D curves in a 3D plot?

I want to plot several 2D curves ( Sin[x] at y=0 , Cos[x] at y=1 ) in a 3D plot, what function should i use? f[x_, y_] := Piecewise[{{0, y 0}, {Sin[x], y == 0}}] g[x_, y_] := Piecewise[{{0, y 1}, {Cos[x], y == 1}}] Plot3D[{f[x, y], g[x, y]}, {x, 0, 10}, {y, 0, 10}] doesn't work. Any ideas? Answer ParametricPlot3D[{{Sin[u], 0, u}, {Cos[u], 1, u}}, {u, 0, 20}, BoxRatios -> 1, PlotRange -> {{-2, 2}, {-.5, 2}, {0, 20}}] === update - general thoughts === I've seen the comments to this question and a few other approaches to the waterfall (or wire) plot are given in this question: Plotting several functions . Also I cannot not mention one of my favorite Mathematica blogs - Archery with this post on the story of discovery of 1st pulsar and an its infamous graphics - code is given in the post:
Post a Comment
Read more