Skip to main content

numerics - 2D Heat equation: inconsistent boundary and initial conditions


I'm attempting to use NDSolve on a 2D boundary value problem with initial conditions. Upon running my code, I get the following message:


"NDSolve::ibcinc: Warning: Boundary and initial conditions are inconsistent."


After much head-scratching, I can't seem to find my mistake. It seems to me that my initial condition is consistent with my boundary conditions:


k = 1 / (5*(Pi^2));
soln = NDSolve[
{
(* PDE *)

D[u[x, y, t], t] == k*(D[u[x, y, t], x, x] + D[u[x, y, t], y, y]),

(* initial condition *)
u[x, y, 0] == y + Cos[Pi*x] Sin[2*Pi*y],

(* boundary conditions *)
u[x, 0, t] == 0,
u[x, 1, t] == 1,
(D[u[x, y, t], x] /. x -> 0) == 0,
(D[u[x, y, t], x] /. x -> 1) == 0

},
u,
{x, 0, 1},
{y, 0, 1},
{t, 0, 1}
]

Any advice is greatly appreciated,


Rick



Answer




The documentation has a full section dedicated to inconsistent boundary conditions in PDEs.


Quoting it,



Occasionally, NDSolve will issue the NDSolve::ibcinc message warning about inconsistent boundary conditions when they are actually consistent. This happens due to discretization error in approximating Neumann boundary conditions or any boundary condition that involves a spatial derivative. The reason this happens is that spatial error estimates (see "Spatial Error Estimates") used to determine how many points to discretize with are based on the PDE and the initial condition, but not the boundary conditions. The one-sided finite difference formulas that are used to approximate the boundary conditions also have larger error than a centered formula of the same order, leading to additional discretization error at the boundary. Typically this is not a problem, but it is possible to construct examples where it does occur.



Then an example follows, and a possible solution using the Method option's "TensorProductGrid" suboption, which we can also apply to your problem.



When the boundary conditions are consistent, a way to correct this error is to specify that NDSolve use a finer spatial discretization.



k = 1/(5*(Pi^2));

soln = NDSolve[{
D[u[x, y, t], t] == k*(D[u[x, y, t], x, x] + D[u[x, y, t], y, y]),
u[x, y, 0] == y + Cos[Pi*x] Sin[2*Pi*y],
u[x, 0, t] == 0,
u[x, 1, t] == 1,
(D[u[x, y, t], x] /. x -> 0) == 0,
(D[u[x, y, t], x] /. x -> 1) == 0},

u, {x, 0, 1}, {y, 0, 1}, {t, 0, 1},


Method -> {"MethodOfLines",
"SpatialDiscretization" -> {"TensorProductGrid", "MinPoints" -> 20}}]

In this instance "MinPoints" -> 20 was sufficient to make the problem go away.




The same problem was discussed here. I vaguely remembered it, but it took me a while to find it again ...


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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....