Skip to main content

plotting - Solving Cahn-Hilliard equation: LinearSolve: Linear equation encountered that has no solution


I have built the Cahn-Hilliard Eqs. in MMA (Mixed Formulation, second order), However, it doesnot work in MMA using Finite Element.


LinearSolve: Linear equation encountered that has no solution.


And "... are not the same shape".


Theory & numerical formulation based on this FEniCS Benchmark Test enter link description here


My code:



(*Initial Parameters*)Needs["NDSolve`FEM`"];
Mobi = 1.0; lame = 0.01; noise = 0.02; conu0 = 0.63;
xmax = 1.0;
ymax = 1.0;
tmax = 1.0;

Ω = Rectangle[{0, 0}, {a, b}] /. {a -> 1, b -> 1};
RegionPlot[Ω, AspectRatio -> Automatic]
mesh = ToElementMesh[Ω, "MaxCellMeasure" -> 1/1000, "MeshElementType" -> QuadElement];
mesh["Wireframe"]

n = Length[mesh["Coordinates"]]
u0 = ElementMeshInterpolation[{mesh}, conu0 + noise*(0.5 - RandomReal[{0, 1}, n])];
Plot3D[u0[x, y], {x, y} ∈ mesh]

op1 = D[u[t, x, y], t] - Laplacian[v[t, x, y], {x, y}] Mobi

op2 = v[t, x, y] - 200 u[t, x, y] (1 - 3 u[t, x, y] + 2 u[t, x, y]^2) + 
      lame Laplacian[u[t, x, y], {x, y}]

{unn, vnn} = 

  NDSolve[{op1 == 0, op2 == 0, u[0, x, y] == u0[x, y], 
    v[0, x, y] == 0}, {u, v}, {t, 0, tmax}, {x, y} ∈ mesh];

Answer



I can offer an easy-to-implement explicit method of Euler using FEM and NDSolve. Here we used a test example like on Python from https://fenicsproject.org/olddocs/dolfin/1.3.0/python/demo/documented/cahn-hilliard/python/documentation.html#. The output picture is about the same. These are the initial data, equations, and parameters.


<< NDSolve`FEM`
Lx = 1; Ly = 1; nn = 50; t0 = 5*10^-6;
reg = Rectangle[{0, 0}, {1, 1}];

f[x_] := 100 x^2 (1 - x)^2
lambd = 1/100; noise = 0.02; conu0 = 0.63;

M = 1;
thet = 1/2;
eq1 = D[c[t, x, y], t] - Div[M Grad[u[t, x, y], {x, y}], {x, y}] == 0;
eq2 = u[t, x, y] - D[f[c[t, x, y]], c[t, x, y]] + 
    lambd Laplacian[c[t, x, y], {x, y}] == 0;
mesh = ToElementMesh[reg, "MaxCellMeasure" -> 1/1000, 
      "MeshElementType" -> QuadElement];
mesh["Wireframe"]
n = Length[mesh["Coordinates"]];
u0 = ElementMeshInterpolation[{mesh}, 

      conu0 + noise*(0.5 - RandomReal[{0, 1}, n])];
uf[0][x_, y_] := 0
cf[0][x_, y_] := u0[x, y]
Plot3D[u0[x, y], {x, y} \[Element] mesh]

This is the implementation of the explicit Euler.


eq = {-Laplacian[u[x, y], {x, y}] + (c[x, y] - cf[i - 1][x, y])/t0 == 
   NeumannValue[0, True], -200 (1 - cf[i - 1][x, y])^2 c[x, y] + 
    200 (1 - c[x, y]) cf[i - 1][x, y]^2 + u[x, y] + 
    1/100 Laplacian[c[x, y], {x, y}] == 

   NeumannValue[0, True]}; Do[{cf[i], uf[i]} = 
   NDSolveValue[eq, {c, u}, {x, y} \[Element] mesh] // Quiet;, {i, 1, 
  nn}]

This is an animation and 3D image.


frame = Table[
   DensityPlot[cf[i][x, y], {x, y} \[Element] mesh, 
    ColorFunction -> "Rainbow", Frame -> False, 
    PlotLabel -> Row[{"t = ", i t0 1.}]], {i, 0, nn, 2}];


ListAnimate[frame]
Plot3D[cf[50][x, y], {x, y} \[Element] mesh, PlotRange -> All, 
 Mesh -> None, ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"]

Figure 1


I managed to debug code @Henrik Schumacher, so that with equal parameters and the same input data, similar results are obtained with code above and with code @Henrik Schumacher. Thus, code @Henrik Schumacher passed the test for Python.


Henrik Schumacher debugged code:


Needs["NDSolve`FEM`"];
Mobi = 1.0; lame = 0.01; noise = 0.02; conu0 = 0.63;
xmax = 1.0;

ymax = 1.0;
tmax = 1.0;
a = 1.;
b = 1.;

\[CapitalOmega] = Rectangle[{0, 0}, {a, b}];
mesh = ToElementMesh[\[CapitalOmega], "MaxCellMeasure" -> 1/5000, 
  "MeshElementType" -> QuadElement, "MeshOrder" -> 1]

ClearAll[x, y, u];

vd = NDSolve`VariableData[{"DependentVariables", 
     "Space"} -> {{u}, {x, y}}];
sd = NDSolve`SolutionData[{"Space"} -> {mesh}];
cdata = InitializePDECoefficients[vd, sd, 
   "DiffusionCoefficients" -> {{-IdentityMatrix[2]}}, 
   "MassCoefficients" -> {{1}}];
bcdata = InitializeBoundaryConditions[vd, 
   sd, {{DirichletCondition[u[x, y] == 0., True]}}];
mdata = InitializePDEMethodData[vd, sd];


(*Discretization*)
dpde = DiscretizePDE[cdata, mdata, sd];
dbc = DiscretizeBoundaryConditions[bcdata, mdata, sd];
{load, A, damping, M} = dpde["All"];
(*DeployBoundaryConditions[{load,A},dbc];*)
(*DeployBoundaryConditions[{load,M},dbc];*)
\[Theta] = 1;
\[Tau] = 0.000005;
\[Mu] = Mobi;
\[Lambda] = lame;

L = ArrayFlatten[{{M, \[Tau] \[Mu] \[Theta] A}, {-\[Lambda] A, M}}];
n = Length[mesh["Coordinates"]];
m = 50;
f = x \[Function] 100. x^2 (1. - x^2);
Df = x \[Function] Evaluate[f'[x]];
rhs[u_, v_] := 
  Join[M.u - (\[Mu] \[Tau] (1. - \[Theta])) A.v, 
   M.(200 (1 - u)^2 u - 200 (1 - u) u^2)];
S = LinearSolve[L, Method -> "Pardiso"];


u0 = conu0 + noise*(0.5 - RandomReal[{0, 1}, n]);
ulist = ConstantArray[0., {m, n}];
ulist[[1]] = u = u0;

v0 = 0. rhs[u0, 0. u0][[n + 1 ;; 2 n]];
v = v0;
Do[sol = S[rhs[u, v]];
  ulist[[k]] = u = sol[[1 ;; n]];
  v = sol[[n + 1 ;; 2 n]];, {k, 2, m}];
frames = Table[

   Image[Map[ColorData["Rainbow"], 
     Partition[ulist[[k]], Sqrt[n]], {2}], Magnification -> 3], {k, 1,
     m, 1}];
Manipulate[frames[[k]], {k, 1, Length[frames], 1}, 
 TrackedSymbols :> {k}]

My code (for comparison):


u0i = ElementMeshInterpolation[{mesh}, 
      u0];
uf[0][x_, y_] := 0

cf[0][x_, y_] := u0i[x, y]
DensityPlot[u0i[x, y], {x, y} \[Element] mesh, 
 ColorFunction -> "Rainbow", PlotLegends -> Automatic]
nn = 50; t0 = 
 5*10^-6; eq = {-Laplacian[
      u1[x, y], {x, y}] + (c[x, y] - cf[i - 1][x, y])/t0 == 
   NeumannValue[0, True], -200 (1 - cf[i - 1][x, y])^2 c[x, y] + 
    200 (1 - c[x, y]) cf[i - 1][x, y]^2 + u1[x, y] + 
    1/100 Laplacian[c[x, y], {x, y}] == 
   NeumannValue[0, True]}; Do[{cf[i], uf[i]} = 

   NDSolveValue[eq, {c, u1}, {x, y} \[Element] mesh] // Quiet;, {i, 1,
   nn}]

frame = Table[
   DensityPlot[cf[i][x, y], {x, y} \[Element] mesh, 
    ColorFunction -> "Rainbow", Frame -> False, 
    PlotLabel -> Row[{"t = ", i t0 1.}]], {i, 0, nn, 1}];

ListAnimate[frame]


Comparison of two results


ul = ElementMeshInterpolation[{mesh}, 
     ulist[[nn]]]; {Plot3D[ul[x, y], {x, y} \[Element] mesh, 
  ColorFunction -> "Rainbow", Mesh -> None, 
  PlotLabel -> Row[{"\[Theta] = ", \[Theta]}]], 
 Plot3D[cf[nn][x, y], {x, y} \[Element] mesh, 
  ColorFunction -> "Rainbow", Mesh -> None]}

Figure 2 For $\theta=\frac {1}{2}$ matching is better Figure 3


Another method using NDSolveValue and "MethodOfLines". The code is very slow and with a warning NDSolveValue::ibcinc: Warning: boundary and initial conditions are inconsistent. The result does not match Python and FEM.



<< NDSolve`FEM`
Lx = 1; Ly = 1; nn = 50; t0 = 5*10^-6; tmax = t0 nn;
reg = Rectangle[{0, 0}, {1, 1}];

f[x_] := 100 x^2 (1 - x)^2
lambd = 1/100; noise = 0.02; conu0 = 0.63;
M = 1;
thet = 1/2;
eq1 = D[c[t, x, y], t] - Div[M Grad[u[t, x, y], {x, y}], {x, y}] == 0;
eq2 = u[t, x, y] - D[f[c[t, x, y]], c[t, x, y]] + 

    lambd Laplacian[c[t, x, y], {x, y}] == 0;

mesh = ToElementMesh[reg, "MaxCellMeasure" -> 1/1000, 
      "MeshElementType" -> QuadElement];
mesh["Wireframe"]
n = Length[mesh["Coordinates"]];
u0 = ElementMeshInterpolation[{mesh}, 
      conu0 + noise*(0.5 - RandomReal[{0, 1}, n])];
ic = {c[0, x, y] == u0[x, y], u[0, x, y] == 0};
bc = {Derivative[0, 1, 0][c][t, 0, y] == 0, 

   Derivative[0, 1, 0][c][t, 1, y] == 0, 
   Derivative[0, 1, 0][u][t, 0, y] == 0, 
   Derivative[0, 1, 0][u][t, 1, y] == 0, 
   Derivative[0, 0, 1][c][t, x, 0] == 0, 
   Derivative[0, 0, 1][c][t, x, 1] == 0, 
   Derivative[0, 0, 1][u][t, x, 0] == 0, 
   Derivative[0, 0, 1][u][t, x, 1] == 0};

Monitor[{csol, usol} = 
  NDSolveValue[{eq1, eq2, ic, bc}, {c, u}, {x, 0, 1}, {y, 0, 1}, {t, 

    0, tmax}, 
   Method -> {"IndexReduction" -> Automatic, 
     "EquationSimplification" -> "Residual", 
     "PDEDiscretization" -> {"MethodOfLines", 
       "SpatialDiscretization" -> {"TensorProductGrid", 
         "MinPoints" -> 41, "MaxPoints" -> 81, 
         "DifferenceOrder" -> "Pseudospectral"}}}, 
   EvaluationMonitor :> (monitor = 
      Row[{"t=", CForm[t], " csol=", CForm[c[t, .5, .5]]}])], monitor]


Compare the result with FEM (my code)


uf[0][x_, y_] := 0
cf[0][x_, y_] := u0[x, y]

eq = {-Laplacian[u[x, y], {x, y}] + (c[x, y] - cf[i - 1][x, y])/t0 == 
   NeumannValue[0, True], -200 (1 - cf[i - 1][x, y])^2 c[x, y] + 
    200 (1 - c[x, y]) cf[i - 1][x, y]^2 + u[x, y] + 
    1/100 Laplacian[c[x, y], {x, y}] == 
   NeumannValue[0, True]}; Do[{cf[i], uf[i]} = 
   NDSolveValue[eq, {c, u}, {x, y} \[Element] mesh] // Quiet;, {i, 1, 

  nn}]
{Plot3D[csol[tmax, x, y], {x, 0, 1}, {y, 0, 1}, Mesh -> None, 
  ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"], 
 Plot3D[cf[50][x, y], {x, y} \[Element] mesh, PlotRange -> All, 
  Mesh -> None, ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"]}

On the left fig. 4 the "MethodOfLines", on the right FEM. It can be seen that in the `"MethodOfLines" high-frequency harmonics are added. Figure 4


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

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?
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more