Skip to main content

differential equations - Accuracy of Grad-Shafranov PDE's NDSolveValue over implicit region


Context




I need to solve for the toroidal flux of the magnetic field above an accretion disc.



For this purpose, I define the region over which the flux is non zero,


a= 2;
f[R_] = a (1 - R^2)^(1/2 + 1/100);
Ω = ImplicitRegion[z <= f[R], {{R, 0, 1}, {z, 0, f[0]}}];

Mathematica graphics


Then I solve for the force-free Grad-Shafranov equation:



eqn0 =R D[P[R, z], {R, 2}] + R D[P[R, z], {z, 2}] - D[P[R, z], R] == -R/2;

as follows


P0 = NDSolveValue[{eqn0, DirichletCondition[P[R, z] == 0, R == 0], 
    DirichletCondition[P[R, z] == 0, z == f[R]]},  P, {R, z} ∈ Ω];

I then plot the resulting (normalized) flux map:


np = NMaximize[P0[R, z], {R, z} ∈ Ω][[1]];
ContourPlot[ P0[R, z]/np, {R, z} ∈ Ω,PlotPoints -> 50, 
ImageSize -> Small, AspectRatio -> Sqrt[f[0]]]


Mathematica graphics


and look at the value of the flux on the boundary


Plot[P0[R, z]/np /. z -> f[R], {R, 0, 1}, PlotRange -> All]

Mathematica graphics


it seems to satisfy the boundary condition.


If I now look at the pressure above the cap:


grad2 = Grad[P0[R, z]/np, {R, z}] // (#.#/R^2 &);
Plot[grad2 /. z -> f[R], {R, 0, 1}]


Mathematica graphics


It is not smooth enough…


On top of that


If I decide to extend the height of the column over which the flux is defined, to say


 a=15;

Then the accuracy of he map deteriorates considerably for the map


Mathematica graphics


and even more for the pressure:



Mathematica graphics


QUESTION(S)



How can improve the accuracy of the solution found by NDSolveValue?



I understand that there are options such as PrecisionGoal or Method, but I guess I am trying to ask a more general question:



More generally, what is the best learning strategy within mathematica to be able to find such improvement? (a.k.a how not to get lost in the documentation?). The idea being, next time I can figure this myself :-)



Mathematica gives the following warning, which is undoubtedly a hint



NDSolveValue::femcscd: The PDE is convection dominated and the result may not be stable. Adding artificial diffusion may help.


but I do not know how to follow it up.


PS: If, instead of


 f[R_] = a (1 - R^2)^(1/2 + 1/100);

I have


f[R_] = a (1 - R^2)^(1/2);

the integrator also fails miserably, which is rather odd.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to remap graph properties?

Graph objects support both custom properties, which do not have special meanings, and standard properties, which may be used by some functions. When importing from formats such as GraphML, we usually get a result with custom properties. What is the simplest way to remap one property to another, e.g. to remap a custom property to a standard one so it can be used with various functions? Example: Let's get Zachary's karate club network with edge weights and vertex names from here: http://nexus.igraph.org/api/dataset_info?id=1&format=html g = Import[ "http://nexus.igraph.org/api/dataset?id=1&format=GraphML", {"ZIP", "karate.GraphML"}] I can remap "name" to VertexLabels and "weights" to EdgeWeight like this: sp[prop_][g_] := SetProperty[g, prop] g2 = g // sp[EdgeWeight -> (PropertyValue[{g, #}, "weight"] & /@ EdgeList[g])] // sp[VertexLabels -> (# -> PropertyValue[{g, #}, "name"]...
Post a Comment
Read more