Skip to main content

finite element method - Interface points of NDEigensystem


When solving an eigenvalue problem with "NDEigensystem", e.g. a 1D Eigenvalue problem with the interval composed of different materials, which should be solved by the pure numerical method such as FEM, is it necessary to assign the locations of the interface points? In fact, for FEM we know that the interface points should be the element boundary nodes. For example, the code assigning the interface positions is


(*This seems to be incorrect.*)    
Needs["NDSolve`FEM`"]

a1 = 0.1; a2 = 0.2; a3 = 0.3; a4 = 0.4; b = 0.7; sigma0 = 37*10^6;  
omega = 2*10^3*Pi; mu0 = 4*10^-7*Pi;
sigma = If[a1 <= r <= a2 || a3 <= r <= a4, sigma0, 0];
bm = ToBoundaryMesh[
   "Coordinates" -> {{0}, {a1}, {a2}, {a3}, {a4}, {b}}, 
   "BoundaryElements" -> {PointElement[{{1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, {5}, {6}}]}];
bm["Wireframe"]
rm = ToElementMesh[bm, "MeshOrder" -> 2, MaxCellMeasure -> 0.0001];
L = psi''[r] + psi'[r]/r - (1/r^2 + I*omega*sigma*mu0)*psi[r];
B = DirichletCondition[psi[r] == 0, True];

{vals, funs} = NDEigensystem[{L,B}, psi[r], {r} \[Element] rm, 10];
lambda = b*Sqrt[-vals];
Sort[lambda, Re@#1 < Re@#2 &] // Chop

The result is


{7.41524625842434, 14.704889375535174, 22.0208051310379, 22.126560466486964, 26.8219477734735, 29.343851509902485, 36.669818648850374, 43.99726563353401, 44.051491607409865, 49.10916810233282}.


I think this is a wrong result, since the eigenvalues should be complex numbers. Another code coping with the same problem is


(*This seems to be resonable.*)
a1 = 0.1; a2 = 0.2; a3 = 0.3; a4 = 0.4; b = 0.7; sigma0 =37*10^6;  
omega = 2*10^3*Pi; mu0 = 4*10^-7*Pi;

sigma = If[a1 <= r <= a2 || a3 <= r <= a4, sigma0, 0];
L = psi''[r] + psi'[r]/r - (1/r^2 + I*omega*sigma*mu0)*psi[r];
B = DirichletCondition[psi[r] == 0, True];
{vals, funs} = NDEigensystem[{L,B}, psi[r], {r, 0, b}, 10, Method ->
{"PDEDiscretization"-> {"FiniteElement", "MeshOptions"-> 
{"MaxCellMeasure"-> 0.0001,"MeshOrder"-> 2}}}];
lambda = b*Sqrt[-vals];
Sort[lambda, Re@#1 < Re@#2 &] // Chop

This code gives the reasonable result in my opinion:



{7.383877183370188 + 0.031093165122796473 I, 
 14.641300240427059 + 0.0630628542925003 I, 
 21.5557952622858 + 0.5427490911070447 I, 
 21.92517611601835 + 0.09489510794076031 I, 
 26.471413185406863 + 0.34211325835858836 I, 
 29.216261799663346 + 0.1267126418808621 I, 
 36.510328314631025 + 0.15855627905576822 I, 
 42.90614817349877 + 1.09274892501598 I, 
 43.80593433114688 + 0.19044807206663805 I, 
 48.46846289924706 + 0.6276371418796622 I}


If this is correct, that should imply the method "PDEDiscretization" can handle the interface automatically. So could anybody give some comments?




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

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more