Skip to main content

numerical integration - Meniscus outside of a cylinder - axisymmetric Young-Laplace equation in semi-infinite domain


How to solve the axisymmetric Young-Laplace equation


z(r)rz(r)2+1+z(r)(z(r)2+1)3/2=z(r)


with b.c.s


z(1)=2z()=0


where z=Z/lc and r=R/lc are dimensionless height and radius, Z, R are the corresponding real height and radius, lc=γgρ is capillary length, γ is surface tension, g is the acceleration of gravity and ρ is the density difference between phases. The solution of the problem describes the shape of meniscus outside of a cylinder, how can I obtain it with NDSolve?



Answer






Because of an arguable backslide around v11, the code pieces for sol1 and sol3 are broken since then. I haven't yet found a easy workaround.


Luckily, core parts of this answer i.e. those about solnew are not influenced.



The most direct solution for the problem seems to be approximating the b.c. at infinity with a b.c. that's just far enough e.g.


z(10)z()=0


and it's indeed applicable:


eq = z''[r]/(1 + z'[r]^2)^(3/2) + z'[r]/(r (Sqrt[1 + z'[r]^2])) == z[r];

{lb, rb} = {1, 10};

bcl = z'[lb] == -2;
bcr := z'[rb] == 0;

sol1 = NDSolveValue[{eq, bcl, bcr}, z, {r, lb, rb}];

Plot[sol1[r], {r, lb, rb}, PlotRange -> All]

enter image description here


However, this approach isn't that stable. Though the value of rb is an approximation of infinity, it turns out that the solution will go wild if we set rb a little larger:


rb = 20;

sol2 = NDSolveValue[{eq, bcl, bcr}, z, {r, lb, rb}];
Plot[sol2[r], {r, lb, rb}, PlotRange -> All]

enter image description here


One can relieve the problem by manually setting a better initial guess and sub-method (by trial and error) to "Shooting" method:


sol3 = NDSolveValue[{eq, bcl, bcr}, z, {r, lb, rb}, 
Method -> {"Shooting", "StartingInitialConditions" -> {bcr, z[rb] == 0},
Method -> "StiffnessSwitching"}]
Plot[sol3[r], {r, lb, rb}, PlotRange -> All]


enter image description here


But is there a better approach?


The answer is yes.


The key point is to use the asymptotic solution at far field (not sure if I've used the correct terminology) as the b.c. instead of that at infinity. (I found this technique in Huh, Chun, and L. E. Scriven. "Shapes of axisymmetric fluid interfaces of unbounded extent." Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 30.3 (1969): 323-337. but it's probably not the only place the technique is mentioned.)


Since z(r)0 when r is large enough, we have


Series[1/Sqrt[1 + z'[r]^2]^3, {z'[r], 0, 5}]
Series[1/Sqrt[1 + z'[r]^2], {z'[r], 0, 5}]

1(z(r)2+1)3=132z(r)2+158z(r)4+O(z(r)6) 1z(r)2+1=112z(r)2+38z(r)4+O(z(r)6)


Neglecting high order terms, we deduce the asymptotic equation in the outer zone:



eqOuter = z''[r] + z'[r]/r - z[r] == 0;

Solve eqOuter with b.c. at infinity:


generalOuter[c_, r_] = 
FullSimplify[
Limit[DSolve[{eqOuter, z'[rInf] == 0}, z, r][[1, 1, -1]][r], rInf -> ∞],
r > 0] /. C[1] -> -c Pi/2 I

particularOuter[r_, rMiddle_, tanMiddle_] =
generalOuter[c, r] /.

Solve[Derivative[0, 1][generalOuter][c, rMiddle] == tanMiddle, c][[1]]

Now we get the new right boundary:


newbcr := z[rb] == particularOuter[rb, rb, z'[rb]];

Notice though particularOuter is a asymptotic solution, as r increases, it becomes prominent very fast i.e. we can obtain a good enough solution without a very large rb:


rb = 2;
solnew = NDSolveValue[{eq, bcl, newbcr}, z, {r, lb, rb}]

Show[Plot[particularOuter[r, rb, solnew'[rb]], {r, rb, 10}, PlotRange -> All],

Plot[solnew[r], {r, lb, rb}], AxesOrigin -> {1, 0}]

enter image description here


Can you tell the value of rb only by checking the graph :D?


Comments

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...

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...

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...